Ryan Schram's Anthrocyclopaedia

Anthropology presentations and learning resources

User Tools

Site Tools

You are here: start » 2700 » 2021 » 5
2700:2021:5

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision
Next revision		Previous revision
2700:2021:5 [2021/03/26 00:54] – Ryan Schram (admin)2700:2021:5 [2021/03/28 17:00] (current) – Ryan Schram (admin)
Line 25: Line 25:
 ==== Two responses ==== ==== Two responses ====
  
-  - There is something that all people have in common. +<HTML> 
-  - People are different; there is nothing they have in common. +<table style="border:1px"> 
-  - There is a single French language as an abstract system +<tr> 
-  - There are many ways of speaking, and some of these are similar enough to be mutually intelligible. +<td> 
-  - A modern society is a society based on individualism, voluntary choice, and rational rules for cooperation. +</HTML> 
-  - There is no such thing as modernity because no two societies are alike or have the same history. +There is something that all people have in common. 
 +<HTML> 
 +</td> 
 +<td> 
 +</HTML> 
 +People are different; there is nothing they have in common. 
 +<HTML> 
 +</td> 
 +</tr> 
 +<tr> 
 +<td> 
 +</HTML> 
 +There is a single French language as an abstract system. 
 +<HTML> 
 +</td> 
 +<td> 
 +</HTML> 
 +There are many ways of speaking, and some of these are similar enough to be mutually intelligible. 
 +<HTML> 
 +</td> 
 +</tr> 
 +<tr> 
 +<td> 
 +</HTML> 
 +A modern society is a society based on individualism, voluntary choice, and rational rules for cooperation. 
 +<HTML> 
 +</td> 
 +<td> 
 +</HTML> 
 +There is no such thing as modernity because no two societies are alike or have the same history. 
 +<HTML> 
 +</td> 
 +</tr> 
 +</table> 
 +</HTML>
 Neither of these are good choices. What to do? Neither of these are good choices. What to do?
  
Line 52: Line 85:
 ===== State and process ===== ===== State and process =====
  
-Sahlins and Bashkow are examples of thinkers who seek to find the underlying unity and essence of the many examples of people’s lives within one community or situation.+Sahlins and Bashkow are examples of thinkers who seek to find the underlying unity and essence in the many examples of people’s lives within one community or situation.
  
   * The idea of Orokaiva is more real than the diverse manifestations of Orokaiva in the material world.   * The idea of Orokaiva is more real than the diverse manifestations of Orokaiva in the material world.
-  * Contemporary Orokaiva is different from the Orokaiva of the past, but we can still find a abstract system or logic at the level of ideas.+  * Contemporary Orokaiva is different from the Orokaiva of the past, but we can still find an abstract system or logic at the level of ideas which is constant over time. 
  
-Wolf can read as offering several alternatives.+Wolf can be read as offering several alternatives.
  
-  * One possibility is that Wolf seeks order as well, but not in the form of culture as abstract system of thought. He might instead argue for a fundamental unity of global capitalism that appears in different versions in different places and times. In this view global capitalism “grind[s] the human fabric into the featureless uniformity of selenic erosion” that might be good or bad (Polanyi 1947, 115). +  * One possibility is that Wolf seeks order as well, but not in the form of culture as abstract system of thought. He might instead argue for a fundamental unity of global capitalism that appears in different versions in different places and times. In this view global capitalism “grind[s] the human fabric into the featureless uniformity of selenic erosion” (Polanyi 1947, 115). 
-  * Another possibility is that Wolf has no view of an underlying order, and that he really thinks that history is random chance, chaos and disorder. (This seems unlikely though.)+  * Another possibility is that Wolf has no view of an underlying order, and that he really thinks that history is random chance, chaos, and disorder. (This seems unlikely though.)
  
 History can appear as though it has no direction, but I would argue that in historical processes we see **flux** and the **possibility** of new developments, not chaos History can appear as though it has no direction, but I would argue that in historical processes we see **flux** and the **possibility** of new developments, not chaos
Line 71: Line 104:
  
   * “The way up is the way back” (Heraclitus 2001, 45).   * “The way up is the way back” (Heraclitus 2001, 45).
-  * You can’t cross the same river twice. (see Heraclitus 2001, 27)+  * You can’t cross the same river twice (see Heraclitus 2001, 27).
  
 Or, what about clouds? Do clouds have a single essence, or are they just dense collections of drops of water? Or, what about clouds? Do clouds have a single essence, or are they just dense collections of drops of water?
Line 79: Line 112:
 ===== Contradictions lead to change ===== ===== Contradictions lead to change =====
  
-The law of the dialect is known even to people who know how to cook soup, or so says Marxist thinker Leon Trotsky (see Thatcher 1991, 134).+The law of the dialectic is known even to people who know how to cook soup, or so says Marxist thinker Leon Trotsky (see Thatcher 1991, 134).
  
   * Boil water. Add ingredients.   * Boil water. Add ingredients.
Line 100: Line 133:
 A dialectic is a back-and-forth process over time. It is not a synchronic snapshot or a straight linear narrative with a single end. A dialectic is a back-and-forth process over time. It is not a synchronic snapshot or a straight linear narrative with a single end.
  
-G. W. F. Hegel: Self-consciousness (an idea of one’s self) is a dialectic process+G. W. F. Hegel: Self-consciousness (an idea of one’s self) is a dialectic process.
  
 [Often this is described as a sequence of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis, but these are not Hegel’s words, and can be a distraction.] [Often this is described as a sequence of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis, but these are not Hegel’s words, and can be a distraction.]
Line 116: Line 149:
     * If the servant kills the lord, then their self-concept as a free person now depends on killing other people.     * If the servant kills the lord, then their self-concept as a free person now depends on killing other people.
   * The struggle for recognition between two people ultimately can and will resolve itself when the contadiction is **sublated**, or overcome, and both parties move to a new self-concept of themselves as equals.   * The struggle for recognition between two people ultimately can and will resolve itself when the contadiction is **sublated**, or overcome, and both parties move to a new self-concept of themselves as equals.
-  * A new kind of self-conscious emerges: I am a person who is like others. A person is both a self (for me) and an other (for other people).+  * A new kind of self-consciousness emerges: I am a person who is like others. A person is both a self (for me) and an other (for other people).
  
 ===== Colonialism as dialectic ===== ===== Colonialism as dialectic =====
2700/2021/5.1616745289.txt.gz · Last modified: 2021/03/26 00:54 by Ryan Schram (admin)