Reality remodeled

IF 0.5 4区 社会学 Q3 ANTHROPOLOGY Hau-Journal of Ethnographic Theory Pub Date : 2022-03-01 DOI:10.1086/719660
Lars Rodseth
{"title":"Reality remodeled","authors":"Lars Rodseth","doi":"10.1086/719660","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Most ethnographers have little use for models and other formal abstractions, yet even a staunch empiricist such as Franz Boas could appreciate the “aesthetic” advantages of idealization and simplification. These advantages have been largely ignored in recent decades, as anthropologists have come to favor ever more intricate and encompassing accounts. The resulting “ethnographic involution,” I suggest, has steadily diminished anthropology as a source of usable, socially shared knowledge. Much the same problem, interestingly, was confronted long ago by Max Weber, who developed the method of “ideal types” precisely as a way to grasp, represent, and investigate the complexity of historical reality. Weber converged in this regard with his contemporary at Halle, the neo-Kantian philosopher Hans Vaihinger (1852–1933). Since the late twentieth century, Vaihinger’s “fictionalism” has attracted renewed interest within philosophy and beyond. Yet his notion of “as-if” reasoning—a via media, I would argue, between particularism and positivism—remains virtually unknown within anthropology.","PeriodicalId":51608,"journal":{"name":"Hau-Journal of Ethnographic Theory","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hau-Journal of Ethnographic Theory","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1086/719660","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ANTHROPOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Most ethnographers have little use for models and other formal abstractions, yet even a staunch empiricist such as Franz Boas could appreciate the “aesthetic” advantages of idealization and simplification. These advantages have been largely ignored in recent decades, as anthropologists have come to favor ever more intricate and encompassing accounts. The resulting “ethnographic involution,” I suggest, has steadily diminished anthropology as a source of usable, socially shared knowledge. Much the same problem, interestingly, was confronted long ago by Max Weber, who developed the method of “ideal types” precisely as a way to grasp, represent, and investigate the complexity of historical reality. Weber converged in this regard with his contemporary at Halle, the neo-Kantian philosopher Hans Vaihinger (1852–1933). Since the late twentieth century, Vaihinger’s “fictionalism” has attracted renewed interest within philosophy and beyond. Yet his notion of “as-if” reasoning—a via media, I would argue, between particularism and positivism—remains virtually unknown within anthropology.
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
现实的改造
大多数民族志学者很少使用模型和其他形式的抽象,然而,即使是坚定的经验主义者,如弗朗茨·博阿斯,也能欣赏理想化和简化的“美学”优势。近几十年来,这些优点在很大程度上被忽视了,因为人类学家开始倾向于更复杂、更全面的描述。我认为,由此产生的“人种学内化”逐渐削弱了人类学作为可用的、社会共享知识来源的地位。有趣的是,马克斯·韦伯(Max Weber)很久以前就遇到了大致相同的问题,他发展了“理想类型”的方法,正是作为一种把握、表现和研究历史现实复杂性的方法。韦伯在这方面与他在哈雷的同代人、新康德主义哲学家汉斯·维辛格(Hans Vaihinger, 1852-1933)汇合。自20世纪后期以来,维辛格的“虚构主义”在哲学内外重新引起了人们的兴趣。然而,他的“假设”推理概念——我认为是介于特殊主义和实证主义之间的一种媒介——在人类学中实际上仍然是未知的。
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
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
31
期刊最新文献
Economy, emulation, and equality: Sociogenesis in the postsocialist capitalocene Is subversion just another version of state aversion? Notes on Herzfeld’s Subversive archaism Home as a second skin On resistance and pluriversal voices of subversive archaism Migration, village sociality, and mistrust
×
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:481959085
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