The others’ others: When taking our natives seriously is not enough

IF 1.5 3区社会学 Q2 ANTHROPOLOGY

Critique of Anthropology Pub Date : 2023-05-12 DOI:10.1177/0308275X231175982

Guilherme Fians

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Since Malinowski, taking the natives seriously has been a core issue for ethnographers, as this principle encloses two terms nurturing much theoretical debate in sociocultural anthropology: ‘native’ and ‘point of view’. Yet, this entails a parallel issue: aside from taking one’s natives seriously, have anthropologists been taking other anthropologists’ natives equally seriously? The discipline came to take for granted the legitimacy of Others constituted by discourses of race, sex, class, ethnicity and colonialism. However, anthropology seems to continuously marginalize groups – from children and speakers of ‘invented’ languages to UFO witnesses – whose practices are routinely mocked or dismissed as foolish. This article analyzes certain anthropologists and their ethnographies of unsanctioned interlocutors who were cast aside by scholarship. I argue that ‘taking seriously’ must be not only an experiment that builds rapport between individual anthropologists and natives, but also one that makes room for the natives’ viewpoints to flow within the discipline.

查看原文本刊更多论文

其他人的其他人：当认真对待我们的本地人是不够的时候

自马林诺夫斯基以来，认真对待原住民一直是民族志学家的核心问题，因为这一原则包含了两个术语，在社会文化人类学中引发了许多理论争论：“原住民”和“观点”。然而，这带来了一个平行的问题：除了认真对待自己的本土人之外，人类学家是否也同样认真对待其他人类学家的本土人？该学科认为由种族、性别、阶级、民族和殖民主义话语构成的“他人”的合法性是理所当然的。然而，人类学似乎不断地边缘化群体——从儿童和“发明”语言的使用者到不明飞行物目击者——他们的做法经常被嘲笑或认为是愚蠢的。本文分析了某些人类学家及其被学术抛弃的未经批准的对话者的民族志。我认为，“认真对待”必须不仅是一项在人类学家个人和原住民之间建立融洽关系的实验，而且是一项为原住民的观点在学科中流动腾出空间的实验。

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

Critique of Anthropology ANTHROPOLOGY-

CiteScore

3.50

自引率

8.30%

发文量

期刊介绍： Critique of Anthropology is dedicated to the development of anthropology as a discipline that subjects social reality to critical analysis. It publishes academic articles and other materials which contribute to an understanding of the determinants of the human condition, structures of social power, and the construction of ideologies in both contemporary and past human societies from a cross-cultural and socially critical standpoint. Non-sectarian, and embracing a diversity of theoretical and political viewpoints, COA is also committed to the principle that anthropologists cannot and should not seek to avoid taking positions on political and social questions.