健康观点:作为文化人类学家和生物考古学家与社区合作

Samantha Purhcase
{"title":"健康观点:作为文化人类学家和生物考古学家与社区合作","authors":"Samantha Purhcase","doi":"10.15402/esj.v6i1.70741","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"  \n The anthropological study of health has always been an integral part of the discipline. With the development of cultural anthropology and physical anthropology (specifically, bioarchaeology) in the nineteenth century came different theories and methodologies concerning the study and definition of communities. Still today, cultural anthropology and bioarchaeology share the same broad goals of exploring the evolving relationships between experiences of health and the community, culture, and environment (being natural, domestic, political, and social). That cultural anthropologists study extant cultures and bioarchaeologists do not has necessitated the evolution of different methodological practices. Here, I explore some of the differences between these two sub-disciplines: their differing notions of community, how they engage with communities, and the relevance of their work to the communities they study. I contextualize this analysis with a short discussion of the sub-disciplines’ co-evolution and ground it with examples from my research with middle Holocene Siberian, Russian Federation, and Anglo-Saxon to Post-Industrial British communities. ","PeriodicalId":202523,"journal":{"name":"Engaged Scholar Journal: Community-Engaged Research, Teaching, and Learning","volume":"39 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-11-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Perspectives on Health: Working with Communities as Cultural Anthropologists and Bioarchaeologists\",\"authors\":\"Samantha Purhcase\",\"doi\":\"10.15402/esj.v6i1.70741\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"  \\n The anthropological study of health has always been an integral part of the discipline. With the development of cultural anthropology and physical anthropology (specifically, bioarchaeology) in the nineteenth century came different theories and methodologies concerning the study and definition of communities. Still today, cultural anthropology and bioarchaeology share the same broad goals of exploring the evolving relationships between experiences of health and the community, culture, and environment (being natural, domestic, political, and social). That cultural anthropologists study extant cultures and bioarchaeologists do not has necessitated the evolution of different methodological practices. Here, I explore some of the differences between these two sub-disciplines: their differing notions of community, how they engage with communities, and the relevance of their work to the communities they study. I contextualize this analysis with a short discussion of the sub-disciplines’ co-evolution and ground it with examples from my research with middle Holocene Siberian, Russian Federation, and Anglo-Saxon to Post-Industrial British communities. \",\"PeriodicalId\":202523,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Engaged Scholar Journal: Community-Engaged Research, Teaching, and Learning\",\"volume\":\"39 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-11-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Engaged Scholar Journal: Community-Engaged Research, Teaching, and Learning\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.15402/esj.v6i1.70741\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Engaged Scholar Journal: Community-Engaged Research, Teaching, and Learning","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15402/esj.v6i1.70741","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

健康人类学研究一直是该学科的一个组成部分。随着19世纪文化人类学和体质人类学(特别是生物考古学)的发展,出现了关于社区研究和定义的不同理论和方法。直到今天,文化人类学和生物考古学仍然有着共同的广泛目标,即探索健康体验与社区、文化和环境(自然、家庭、政治和社会)之间不断发展的关系。文化人类学家研究现存文化,而生物考古学家研究现存文化,这使得不同方法实践的演变成为必要。在这里,我探讨了这两个子学科之间的一些差异:他们对社区的不同概念,他们如何与社区互动,以及他们的工作与他们所研究的社区的相关性。我将这一分析与子学科共同进化的简短讨论联系起来,并以我对全新世中期西伯利亚、俄罗斯联邦、盎格鲁-撒克逊到后工业英国社区的研究为例。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Perspectives on Health: Working with Communities as Cultural Anthropologists and Bioarchaeologists
   The anthropological study of health has always been an integral part of the discipline. With the development of cultural anthropology and physical anthropology (specifically, bioarchaeology) in the nineteenth century came different theories and methodologies concerning the study and definition of communities. Still today, cultural anthropology and bioarchaeology share the same broad goals of exploring the evolving relationships between experiences of health and the community, culture, and environment (being natural, domestic, political, and social). That cultural anthropologists study extant cultures and bioarchaeologists do not has necessitated the evolution of different methodological practices. Here, I explore some of the differences between these two sub-disciplines: their differing notions of community, how they engage with communities, and the relevance of their work to the communities they study. I contextualize this analysis with a short discussion of the sub-disciplines’ co-evolution and ground it with examples from my research with middle Holocene Siberian, Russian Federation, and Anglo-Saxon to Post-Industrial British communities. 
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Centering Reciprocity and Accountability in Community-Based Research: How Meaningful Relationships with a Community Advisory Group Impacted Survey Development Replanting Cultures: Community-Engaged Scholarship in Indian Country by Chief Benjamin J. Barnes, Stephen Warren (eds). United Kingdom: State University of New York Press, 2022. 376pp. ISBN 9781438489957. Filtering Co-authorship with Community Partners as Research Co-creation How can Community-Based Participatory Research Address Hate Crimes and Incidents?
×
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