{"title":"定义“激进的土著主义”和创建美国印第安人奖学金","authors":"E. Garroutte","doi":"10.1163/9789047417088_009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In their influential book Writing Culture, James Clifford and George E. Marcus (1986) probed the challenges and limits of anthropological work. Rejecting the assumption that conventional research methods supplied tools for the neutral description, classification, and analysis of data drawn from the objective observation of other cultures, they argued instead that such methods often functioned as mechanisms of control and domination. The critique easily generalized to related disciplines, and the resulting loss of social scientific innocence helped create a space for members of subordinated and colonized groups, including indigenous peoples around the world, to call for new models of research that better reflected their interests, perspectives, goals, and voices (Rigney 2001). In the intervening decades, indigenous scholars have begun the important work of articulating the values that might motivate such research and the general goals it must reflect (e.g., Rigney 1997; Warrior 1995; Weaver 1997; Alfred 1999; Smith 1999). They commonly express interest in the community-based or “participatory” research models that are increasingly finding currency in the academy, but they also set their sights on a more distant horizon. They call, as well, for a “new intellectual","PeriodicalId":320153,"journal":{"name":"Culture, Power, and History","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2006-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Defining “Radical Indigenism” and Creating an American Indian Scholarship\",\"authors\":\"E. Garroutte\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/9789047417088_009\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In their influential book Writing Culture, James Clifford and George E. Marcus (1986) probed the challenges and limits of anthropological work. Rejecting the assumption that conventional research methods supplied tools for the neutral description, classification, and analysis of data drawn from the objective observation of other cultures, they argued instead that such methods often functioned as mechanisms of control and domination. The critique easily generalized to related disciplines, and the resulting loss of social scientific innocence helped create a space for members of subordinated and colonized groups, including indigenous peoples around the world, to call for new models of research that better reflected their interests, perspectives, goals, and voices (Rigney 2001). In the intervening decades, indigenous scholars have begun the important work of articulating the values that might motivate such research and the general goals it must reflect (e.g., Rigney 1997; Warrior 1995; Weaver 1997; Alfred 1999; Smith 1999). They commonly express interest in the community-based or “participatory” research models that are increasingly finding currency in the academy, but they also set their sights on a more distant horizon. They call, as well, for a “new intellectual\",\"PeriodicalId\":320153,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Culture, Power, and History\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2006-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"8\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Culture, Power, and History\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789047417088_009\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Culture, Power, and History","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789047417088_009","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8
摘要
克利福德(James Clifford)和马库斯(George E. Marcus)在其颇具影响力的著作《书写文化》(Writing Culture)中探讨了人类学工作的挑战和局限。他们不认为传统的研究方法为客观观察其他文化的数据提供了中立的描述、分类和分析工具,相反,他们认为这些方法通常起着控制和支配机制的作用。这种批评很容易被推广到相关学科,而由此导致的社会科学纯真的丧失,有助于为包括世界各地土著人民在内的从属和殖民群体成员创造一个空间,以呼吁更好地反映他们的兴趣、观点、目标和声音的新研究模式(Rigney 2001)。在此期间的几十年里,土著学者已经开始了阐明可能激励此类研究的价值观及其必须反映的总体目标的重要工作(例如,Rigney 1997;勇士1995;韦弗1997;阿尔弗雷德·1999;史密斯1999年)。他们通常对在学术界日益流行的以社区为基础或“参与式”研究模式表示兴趣,但他们也将目光投向了更遥远的地平线。他们也呼唤“新知识分子”
Defining “Radical Indigenism” and Creating an American Indian Scholarship
In their influential book Writing Culture, James Clifford and George E. Marcus (1986) probed the challenges and limits of anthropological work. Rejecting the assumption that conventional research methods supplied tools for the neutral description, classification, and analysis of data drawn from the objective observation of other cultures, they argued instead that such methods often functioned as mechanisms of control and domination. The critique easily generalized to related disciplines, and the resulting loss of social scientific innocence helped create a space for members of subordinated and colonized groups, including indigenous peoples around the world, to call for new models of research that better reflected their interests, perspectives, goals, and voices (Rigney 2001). In the intervening decades, indigenous scholars have begun the important work of articulating the values that might motivate such research and the general goals it must reflect (e.g., Rigney 1997; Warrior 1995; Weaver 1997; Alfred 1999; Smith 1999). They commonly express interest in the community-based or “participatory” research models that are increasingly finding currency in the academy, but they also set their sights on a more distant horizon. They call, as well, for a “new intellectual