人种志语境中客观性、准确性和“他者”概念的语境分析

Recai Bazanci̇r
{"title":"人种志语境中客观性、准确性和“他者”概念的语境分析","authors":"Recai Bazanci̇r","doi":"10.30568/tullis.1301738","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The doctrine of Johannes Fabian and Rigoberta Mençu, which is discussed and discussed in our study, includes a lot of variability in context. If these doctrines and the conceptual terminology, they contain are mentioned; the analysis of Menchú’s work has seems a bit more complex and ambiguous. These ambiguities lie in different aspects of the work: Here, there is a more complex knower-known relationship than the binary opposition between the subject which produces knowledge about the other and the passive object which expects the knowledge to be produced about itself. In relation to this, to employ a genre different from the dominant genres within humanities, particularly in anthropology, and its reliability are questionable according to the current science paradigms. Moreover, the emerging of such contradictory views about the production, reproduction, representation, and reception of Menchú's work -the attempt of producing and representing a different knowledge for and about her own community- brings about questioning of possibility of producing an absolute knowledge/abstract truth about the other communities independent from social, political and economic context. This again draws our attention to the power-knowledge relation, the partiality of knowledge and situated knowledge. Thus, establishing a relation with the other needs to study epistemology of contemporary ethnography willing to produce better understanding, and requires investigating this epistemology embedded within/along broader social relations that locate researcher and researched in different places. This attempt entails to deal with the positivist scientifism inherited by ethnography from modern anthropology that is to say with the dominant assumptions of western modernity project. In our study, these concepts were questioned, interpreted, and discussed.","PeriodicalId":117222,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of Turkic Language and Literature Surveys (TULLIS)","volume":"32 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"CONTEXT ANALYSIS OF THE CONCEPT OF OBJECTIVITY, ACCURACY AND “OTHER” IN ETNOGRAPHIC CONTEXT\",\"authors\":\"Recai Bazanci̇r\",\"doi\":\"10.30568/tullis.1301738\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The doctrine of Johannes Fabian and Rigoberta Mençu, which is discussed and discussed in our study, includes a lot of variability in context. If these doctrines and the conceptual terminology, they contain are mentioned; the analysis of Menchú’s work has seems a bit more complex and ambiguous. These ambiguities lie in different aspects of the work: Here, there is a more complex knower-known relationship than the binary opposition between the subject which produces knowledge about the other and the passive object which expects the knowledge to be produced about itself. In relation to this, to employ a genre different from the dominant genres within humanities, particularly in anthropology, and its reliability are questionable according to the current science paradigms. Moreover, the emerging of such contradictory views about the production, reproduction, representation, and reception of Menchú's work -the attempt of producing and representing a different knowledge for and about her own community- brings about questioning of possibility of producing an absolute knowledge/abstract truth about the other communities independent from social, political and economic context. This again draws our attention to the power-knowledge relation, the partiality of knowledge and situated knowledge. Thus, establishing a relation with the other needs to study epistemology of contemporary ethnography willing to produce better understanding, and requires investigating this epistemology embedded within/along broader social relations that locate researcher and researched in different places. This attempt entails to deal with the positivist scientifism inherited by ethnography from modern anthropology that is to say with the dominant assumptions of western modernity project. In our study, these concepts were questioned, interpreted, and discussed.\",\"PeriodicalId\":117222,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Journal of Turkic Language and Literature Surveys (TULLIS)\",\"volume\":\"32 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-08-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Journal of Turkic Language and Literature Surveys (TULLIS)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.30568/tullis.1301738\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of Turkic Language and Literature Surveys (TULLIS)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.30568/tullis.1301738","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

约翰内斯·费边和里戈贝塔·曼纳尔苏的学说,在我们的研究中被讨论和讨论过,在语境中包含了很多可变性。如果这些学说和概念术语,他们所包含的是提到;对Menchú工作的分析似乎有点复杂和模棱两可。这些歧义存在于作品的不同方面:在这里,有一种比二元对立更复杂的知者-已知关系:主体产生关于他者的知识,被动客体期望产生关于自身的知识。与此相关,在人文学科,特别是人类学中,采用不同于主流流派的流派,其可靠性根据当前的科学范式是值得怀疑的。此外,这种关于Menchú作品的生产、再生产、再现和接受的矛盾观点的出现——试图为她自己的社区生产和再现一种不同的知识——引发了对生产一种独立于社会、政治和经济背景的关于其他社区的绝对知识/抽象真理的可能性的质疑。这再次将我们的注意力吸引到权力-知识的关系,知识和情境知识的偏爱上。因此,建立与他人的关系需要研究当代民族志的认识论,愿意产生更好的理解,并且需要研究嵌入/沿着更广泛的社会关系的认识论,这些社会关系将研究者和研究人员定位在不同的地方。这一尝试需要处理从现代人类学中继承而来的实证主义科学主义,即西方现代性计划的主导假设。在我们的研究中,这些概念被质疑、解释和讨论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
CONTEXT ANALYSIS OF THE CONCEPT OF OBJECTIVITY, ACCURACY AND “OTHER” IN ETNOGRAPHIC CONTEXT
The doctrine of Johannes Fabian and Rigoberta Mençu, which is discussed and discussed in our study, includes a lot of variability in context. If these doctrines and the conceptual terminology, they contain are mentioned; the analysis of Menchú’s work has seems a bit more complex and ambiguous. These ambiguities lie in different aspects of the work: Here, there is a more complex knower-known relationship than the binary opposition between the subject which produces knowledge about the other and the passive object which expects the knowledge to be produced about itself. In relation to this, to employ a genre different from the dominant genres within humanities, particularly in anthropology, and its reliability are questionable according to the current science paradigms. Moreover, the emerging of such contradictory views about the production, reproduction, representation, and reception of Menchú's work -the attempt of producing and representing a different knowledge for and about her own community- brings about questioning of possibility of producing an absolute knowledge/abstract truth about the other communities independent from social, political and economic context. This again draws our attention to the power-knowledge relation, the partiality of knowledge and situated knowledge. Thus, establishing a relation with the other needs to study epistemology of contemporary ethnography willing to produce better understanding, and requires investigating this epistemology embedded within/along broader social relations that locate researcher and researched in different places. This attempt entails to deal with the positivist scientifism inherited by ethnography from modern anthropology that is to say with the dominant assumptions of western modernity project. In our study, these concepts were questioned, interpreted, and discussed.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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