{"title":"Extended Sites of Action","authors":"Narmala Halstead","doi":"10.3167/JLA.2018.020201","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The forum in this issue, reflecting on the problematics of the relationship\nbetween anthropology and law, as a timely focus is also indicative\nof how these debates revolve around disciplinary and cross-disciplinary\nissues. That such co-presence of anthropology and law, incorporating\nresearch in informal and formal settings, various kinds of collaboration\nand, in some instances, sceptical views about its value, continues\nto merit close attention also signals how views of differences animate\na well-populated and extended field. The concerns are often articulated\naround an epistemic divide between anthropology and law, and\nallow for questioning both within and across disciplinary areas, even\nas much is made of the richness of an ethnographic approach to law\nalongside other methods and analyses, as indicated. Lawrence Rosen,\nin his response to the commentators in the forum, notes ‘our special\narea of interest is actually a great doorway into many key issues for\nboth disciplines’, as he identifies the spaces where it is incumbent for\nanthropologists to act to address these cross-disciplinary challenges.","PeriodicalId":34676,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Legal Anthropology","volume":"11 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Legal Anthropology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3167/JLA.2018.020201","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The forum in this issue, reflecting on the problematics of the relationship
between anthropology and law, as a timely focus is also indicative
of how these debates revolve around disciplinary and cross-disciplinary
issues. That such co-presence of anthropology and law, incorporating
research in informal and formal settings, various kinds of collaboration
and, in some instances, sceptical views about its value, continues
to merit close attention also signals how views of differences animate
a well-populated and extended field. The concerns are often articulated
around an epistemic divide between anthropology and law, and
allow for questioning both within and across disciplinary areas, even
as much is made of the richness of an ethnographic approach to law
alongside other methods and analyses, as indicated. Lawrence Rosen,
in his response to the commentators in the forum, notes ‘our special
area of interest is actually a great doorway into many key issues for
both disciplines’, as he identifies the spaces where it is incumbent for
anthropologists to act to address these cross-disciplinary challenges.