The ontological turn revisited: Theoretical decline. Why cannot ontologists fulfil their promise?

IF 1.5 2区 社会学 Q2 ANTHROPOLOGY Anthropological Theory Pub Date : 2021-11-01 DOI:10.1177/14634996211050610
Martin Palecek
{"title":"The ontological turn revisited: Theoretical decline. Why cannot ontologists fulfil their promise?","authors":"Martin Palecek","doi":"10.1177/14634996211050610","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Holbraad and Pedersen have revisited the ontological turn, suggesting that it is strictly concerned with methodology only. Holbraad goes even further, accepting an aesthetic criterion for ethnography only. This is a sign of theoretical decline. In my paper, I claim that ontologists’ tendency to overestimate the significance of ethnographic experience causes theoretical confusion. I claim that neo-pragmatic analysis can eliminate this confusion. I also argue that there is only one remaining issue from the ontological turn that is not entirely lost. A careful evaluation of all folk categories, with all its possible consequences, can boost the robustness of all competitive theories, Cognitive Evolutionary Science included.","PeriodicalId":51554,"journal":{"name":"Anthropological Theory","volume":"22 1","pages":"154 - 175"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anthropological Theory","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14634996211050610","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANTHROPOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Holbraad and Pedersen have revisited the ontological turn, suggesting that it is strictly concerned with methodology only. Holbraad goes even further, accepting an aesthetic criterion for ethnography only. This is a sign of theoretical decline. In my paper, I claim that ontologists’ tendency to overestimate the significance of ethnographic experience causes theoretical confusion. I claim that neo-pragmatic analysis can eliminate this confusion. I also argue that there is only one remaining issue from the ontological turn that is not entirely lost. A careful evaluation of all folk categories, with all its possible consequences, can boost the robustness of all competitive theories, Cognitive Evolutionary Science included.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
本体论的转向被重新审视:理论的衰落。为什么本体论不能实现他们的承诺?
Holbraad和Pedersen重新审视了本体论的转向,认为它只与方法论密切相关。Holbraad甚至更进一步,只接受人种学的审美标准。这是理论上衰落的迹象。在我的论文中,我声称本体论家倾向于高估民族志经验的重要性,这导致了理论混乱。我认为新实用主义分析可以消除这种困惑。我还认为,本体论转向只剩下一个没有完全消失的问题。对所有民间分类及其所有可能的结果进行仔细评估,可以增强所有竞争理论的稳健性,包括认知进化科学。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Anthropological Theory
Anthropological Theory ANTHROPOLOGY-
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
16
期刊介绍: Anthropological Theory is an international peer reviewed journal seeking to strengthen anthropological theorizing in different areas of the world. This is an exciting forum for new insights into theoretical issues in anthropology and more broadly, social theory. Anthropological Theory publishes articles engaging with a variety of theoretical debates in areas including: * marxism * feminism * political philosophy * historical sociology * hermeneutics * critical theory * philosophy of science * biological anthropology * archaeology
期刊最新文献
Improvisation, collective structure, and culture change: A theory of bricolage What kinship is and is not in the work of Marshall Sahlins … and beyond In search of decolonised political futures: Engaging Mahmood Mamdani's neither settler nor native Justice and reconciliation: Responses to critics in Anthropological Theory Surviving colonialism? A response to Neither Settler nor Native
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1