E. Evans-Pritchard, Colonialist, Imperialist, Spy? A Defence

John Evans-Pritchard
{"title":"E. Evans-Pritchard, Colonialist, Imperialist, Spy? A Defence","authors":"John Evans-Pritchard","doi":"10.62583/pmtf6693","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The reputation of the academic field of Anthropology has for some people been tarnished ever since Franz Boas’ letter to The Nation in 1919 in which he claimed that four anthropologists had acted as spies for the United States Government, using their field research as a camouflage for what they were really doing. From this specific accusation there has somehow developed an argument that all anthropologists carrying out fieldwork might actually be spies. This general misconception was not helped by the fact that in some cases that was essentially what they were doing, operating under the cover of their fieldwork as government agents. Unfortunately, many genuine researchers carrying out academic study have been tarred with the same brush. This article deals with one such anthropologist who researched during colonial rule and who, it is argued here, was most certainly not a spy. This should also be seen as a defence for the many others whose intentions were simply to carry out academic anthropological fieldwork.","PeriodicalId":517485,"journal":{"name":"Intercontinental Journal of Social Sciences","volume":"1 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Intercontinental Journal of Social Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.62583/pmtf6693","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 reputation of the academic field of Anthropology has for some people been tarnished ever since Franz Boas’ letter to The Nation in 1919 in which he claimed that four anthropologists had acted as spies for the United States Government, using their field research as a camouflage for what they were really doing. From this specific accusation there has somehow developed an argument that all anthropologists carrying out fieldwork might actually be spies. This general misconception was not helped by the fact that in some cases that was essentially what they were doing, operating under the cover of their fieldwork as government agents. Unfortunately, many genuine researchers carrying out academic study have been tarred with the same brush. This article deals with one such anthropologist who researched during colonial rule and who, it is argued here, was most certainly not a spy. This should also be seen as a defence for the many others whose intentions were simply to carry out academic anthropological fieldwork.
E.埃文斯-普里查德,《殖民主义者、帝国主义者、间谍?辩护
1919 年,弗朗茨-博厄斯(Franz Boas)在给《国家》(The Nation)的信中声称,有四名人类学家充当了美国政府的间谍,用他们的田野调查来掩盖他们的真实目的。从这一具体指控中,不知不觉地产生了一种论点,即所有从事田野工作的人类学家实际上都可能是间谍。在某些情况下,他们的所作所为本质上就是以田野工作为幌子,充当政府特工,这对这种普遍的误解毫无帮助。不幸的是,许多进行学术研究的真正研究人员也被蒙上了同样的污点。本文论述的就是这样一位在殖民统治时期从事研究的人类学家,本文认为他肯定不是间谍。这也应被视为为其他许多人辩护,因为他们的目的仅仅是开展学术性的人类学实地调查。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信