2700:2025:3
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision | ||
2700:2025:3 [2025/03/08 16:40] – Ryan Schram (admin) | 2700:2025:3 [2025/03/09 20:03] (current) – [Anthropology should take place in the world(-system)] Ryan Schram (admin) | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
It leads them to a set of corollaries about social systems: | It leads them to a set of corollaries about social systems: | ||
- | * Societies, social systems, and the collective existence of people are examples of a total phenomenon. They are totalities or wholes which are more than the sum of the parts that make them up. | + | |
- | * Individual facts and social facts are fundamentally different. There’s a fundamental opposition between that which pertains to individual conscious experience on the one hand and social reality on the other. | + | |
- | * Collective things like the norms of a society have their own logic. It’s the logic of the mail sorting machine. Individual experiences and actions have a completely different logic. | + | * Collective things like **the norms of a society have their own logic**. It’s the logic of the mail sorting machine. Individual experiences and actions have a completely different logic. |
* The logic of collective facts is also a logic that we can only see in synchronic time, a freeze frame where everything exists simultaneously and we can see the connections among them. | * The logic of collective facts is also a logic that we can only see in synchronic time, a freeze frame where everything exists simultaneously and we can see the connections among them. | ||
* Individual behaviors come from wants, desires, choices, and preferences. This is intuitively real and pertains to diachronic time, the time of cause and effect. | * Individual behaviors come from wants, desires, choices, and preferences. This is intuitively real and pertains to diachronic time, the time of cause and effect. | ||
Line 44: | Line 44: | ||
Please go to Mentimeter: https:// | Please go to Mentimeter: https:// | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
===== The ethnographic present induces historical amnesia ===== | ===== The ethnographic present induces historical amnesia ===== | ||
Line 53: | Line 55: | ||
There are two different yet interconnected critiques of allochronism in anthropology: | There are two different yet interconnected critiques of allochronism in anthropology: | ||
- | * Anthropology is an unwitting product of a long tradition of European thought in which people define themselves in opposition to an other, i.e. East versus West; North versus South; modern versus primitive (see Said [1978] 2014; Trouillot [2003b] 2016). | + | * Anthropology is an unwitting product of a long **tradition of European thought** in which **people define themselves in opposition to an other**, i.e. East versus West; North versus South; modern versus primitive (see Said [1978] 2014; Trouillot [2003b] 2016). |
* Sometimes the stereotype of the other of the West is positive and sometimes it’s negative but the dichotomy is never questioned (Trouillot [2003b] 2016, 23) | * Sometimes the stereotype of the other of the West is positive and sometimes it’s negative but the dichotomy is never questioned (Trouillot [2003b] 2016, 23) | ||
* According to Rousseau, New World Indians are noble savages. They are closer to nature than Europeans, and live in just societies (Rousseau [1755] 1964, 132–33, 178–79). | * According to Rousseau, New World Indians are noble savages. They are closer to nature than Europeans, and live in just societies (Rousseau [1755] 1964, 132–33, 178–79). | ||
* According to Montesquieu, | * According to Montesquieu, | ||
* European thought has always had a “savage slot” where it puts images of the other to confirm its sense of a modern European self (Trouillot [2003b] 2016, 19). Anthropology creates knowledge that slots right in there. | * European thought has always had a “savage slot” where it puts images of the other to confirm its sense of a modern European self (Trouillot [2003b] 2016, 19). Anthropology creates knowledge that slots right in there. | ||
- | * The idea of a total social system has been interpreted too literally. We assume that we should look for actual groups living in actually closed, self-contained systems. Nobody society is actually isolated or closed in a literal sense. | + | |
* Functionalist explanations of social structure are based on an organic analogy and a machine metaphor. They deliberately ignore diachronic time to examine a synchronic structure (e.g. Radcliffe-Brown [1924] 1952). | * Functionalist explanations of social structure are based on an organic analogy and a machine metaphor. They deliberately ignore diachronic time to examine a synchronic structure (e.g. Radcliffe-Brown [1924] 1952). | ||
* Evans-Pritchard describes the Nuer of southern Sudan (today South Sudan) as an “acephalous” society that is “libertarian” (Evans-Pritchard 1940a, 296), “egalitarian, | * Evans-Pritchard describes the Nuer of southern Sudan (today South Sudan) as an “acephalous” society that is “libertarian” (Evans-Pritchard 1940a, 296), “egalitarian, | ||
* Radcliffe-Brown says societies based on kinship have a tendency toward stability and homeostasis (Radcliffe-Brown [1935] 1952). | * Radcliffe-Brown says societies based on kinship have a tendency toward stability and homeostasis (Radcliffe-Brown [1935] 1952). | ||
* Classical anthropology, | * Classical anthropology, | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
===== Anthropology should take place in the world(-system) ===== | ===== Anthropology should take place in the world(-system) ===== | ||
- | **Immanuel Wallerstein (1974) theorizes what he calls the capitalist world-system.** | + | ### Immanuel Wallerstein (1974) theorizes what he calls the capitalist world-system. |
* The global system of capitalism is based on a network of unequal exchanges between core and periphery. | * The global system of capitalism is based on a network of unequal exchanges between core and periphery. | ||
* The origins of the unequal exchange between core and periphery begin in the era of European expansion. | * The origins of the unequal exchange between core and periphery begin in the era of European expansion. | ||
- | **Wolf applies Wallerstein’s framework, concluding that:** | + | ### Wolf applies Wallerstein’s framework, concluding that: |
* all societies are products of historical changes. They are never static. | * all societies are products of historical changes. They are never static. | ||
Line 114: | Line 118: | ||
You may have heard about dialectic change as a three-step process. This is a simplification that can be a little misleading since it emphasizes distinct stages over flux itself (Mueller 1958). | You may have heard about dialectic change as a three-step process. This is a simplification that can be a little misleading since it emphasizes distinct stages over flux itself (Mueller 1958). | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
===== Dialectic processes in society at large ===== | ===== Dialectic processes in society at large ===== | ||
- | **Private property contains its own opposite.** | + | ### Private property contains its own opposite. |
* If I own something, it means you don’t. | * If I own something, it means you don’t. | ||
Line 123: | Line 129: | ||
* A society based on owners of capital and nonowners of that same capital is a society of two interdependent classes at war with each other. | * A society based on owners of capital and nonowners of that same capital is a society of two interdependent classes at war with each other. | ||
- | **Colonialism contains its own opposite** | + | ### Colonialism contains its own opposite. |
* Colonization is the process by which one society expands into a new territory by setting up a new settlement. | * Colonization is the process by which one society expands into a new territory by setting up a new settlement. | ||
Line 130: | Line 136: | ||
* Colonialism is, then, two contradictory realities at once, and it is neither of them. | * Colonialism is, then, two contradictory realities at once, and it is neither of them. | ||
* Colonialism is, as Ryan says, “a system of racial governance.” It creates a rigidly stratified society in which a colonizing stratum dominates a subordinate, | * Colonialism is, as Ryan says, “a system of racial governance.” It creates a rigidly stratified society in which a colonizing stratum dominates a subordinate, | ||
+ | |||
===== Encountering Fiji: History Etched in Everyday Life ===== | ===== Encountering Fiji: History Etched in Everyday Life ===== |
2700/2025/3.1741480848.txt.gz · Last modified: 2025/03/08 16:40 by Ryan Schram (admin)