2700:2021:3
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision | ||
| 2700:2021:3 [2021/03/08 20:11] – [Do Durkheim and Saussure have a bias in favor of monoculturalism?] Ryan Schram (admin) | 2700:2021:3 [2021/03/09 16:10] (current) – [Anthropology loves Star Trek back] Ryan Schram (admin) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
| * “[Language] is something which is in each individual, but is none the less common to all. At the same time it is out of the reach of any deliberate interference by individuals” (Saussure 1986, 19). | * “[Language] is something which is in each individual, but is none the less common to all. At the same time it is out of the reach of any deliberate interference by individuals” (Saussure 1986, 19). | ||
| * The linguistic analogy for culture says that people’s shared worldview is a structure of symbolic categories. | * The linguistic analogy for culture says that people’s shared worldview is a structure of symbolic categories. | ||
| + | * The shared system of symbolic categories are not so much constraints on individual action but necessary conditions for action. This cultural schema of classification makes it possible for people to act as individuals, | ||
| ===== Do Durkheim and Saussure have a bias in favor of monoculturalism? | ===== Do Durkheim and Saussure have a bias in favor of monoculturalism? | ||
| Line 40: | Line 41: | ||
| - | ===== Collective representations are elements of closed systems ===== | ||
| - | Durkheim and Saussure **do not** agree on everything or say the same things; they **do** think alike in one important way. | ||
| - | |||
| - | * Durkheim: Society is like a machine, or like the body of a living organism. It is a whole, and all of the parts contribute to the whole. | ||
| - | * Saussure: The synchronic view of language reveals that a language is a total system in which each part (sign) has value (or signifies some idea) because it is different from all the other parts. | ||
| - | |||
| - | There is no outside of these systems. Everything one experiences is flitered through, or mediated, by these systems and is perceived in relation to one element or another. | ||
| - | |||
| - | ===== Running the maze ===== | ||
| - | |||
| - | {{: | ||
| ===== The split subject is a universal theory ===== | ===== The split subject is a universal theory ===== | ||
| Line 127: | Line 117: | ||
| ===== Anthropology loves Star Trek back ===== | ===== Anthropology loves Star Trek back ===== | ||
| - | Both anthropology and Star Trek share a similar kind of imagination of cultural difference. | + | Both anthropology and Star Trek share a similar kind of imagination of cultural difference. Anthropology and Star Trek both occupy a space in the imagination of the world found in European and Western societies. They provide an image which is the dichotomous opposite of Europeans and Westerners collective representation of themselves. |
| Eric Wolf has argued that anthropology has long assumed that each society it studies is a “static primitive isolate” that exists outside of historical time (Wolf 1984, 394). | Eric Wolf has argued that anthropology has long assumed that each society it studies is a “static primitive isolate” that exists outside of historical time (Wolf 1984, 394). | ||
2700/2021/3.1615263097.txt.gz · Last modified: 2021/03/08 20:11 by Ryan Schram (admin)