论坛:“乌托邦的汇合”

IF 1.4 3区社会学 Q2 ANTHROPOLOGY

Social Anthropology Pub Date : 2023-06-01 DOI:10.3167/saas.2023.310210

Eldar Bråten

{"title":"论坛:“乌托邦的汇合”","authors":"Eldar Bråten","doi":"10.3167/saas.2023.310210","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Many thanks to Ruy Blanes and Bjørn Enge Bertelsen for their response to my critique (Bråten 2022a) of their special section on ‘Utopian Confluences’ (especially, Blanes and Bertelsen 2021; Bertelsen 2021), and to Social Anthropology/Anthropologie Sociale for publishing the exchange. The theoretical questions that arise from our diverging stances are, hopefully, of general interest. While I take Blanes and Bertelsen (hereafter B&B) to argue an epistemologically all-inclusive irrealism, I favour an ontologically discerning realism. It is tempting to pursue the many theoretical entailments of this contrast further, but let me in this final reply comment on the character of the exchange itself: the kind of intellectual discourse that our diverging positions seem to foster. I believe B&B's response is illustrative of a ‘post-critical’ approach that recasts principles of scholarly debate in problematic ways. Addressing this issue allows me also to clarify a perplexity in their response: How could I possibly read their contributions as ‘irrealist’ and instances of a ‘migration out of academia’?","PeriodicalId":35019,"journal":{"name":"Social Anthropology","volume":"54 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Forum: ‘Utopian Confluences’\",\"authors\":\"Eldar Bråten\",\"doi\":\"10.3167/saas.2023.310210\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Many thanks to Ruy Blanes and Bjørn Enge Bertelsen for their response to my critique (Bråten 2022a) of their special section on ‘Utopian Confluences’ (especially, Blanes and Bertelsen 2021; Bertelsen 2021), and to Social Anthropology/Anthropologie Sociale for publishing the exchange. The theoretical questions that arise from our diverging stances are, hopefully, of general interest. While I take Blanes and Bertelsen (hereafter B&B) to argue an epistemologically all-inclusive irrealism, I favour an ontologically discerning realism. It is tempting to pursue the many theoretical entailments of this contrast further, but let me in this final reply comment on the character of the exchange itself: the kind of intellectual discourse that our diverging positions seem to foster. I believe B&B's response is illustrative of a ‘post-critical’ approach that recasts principles of scholarly debate in problematic ways. Addressing this issue allows me also to clarify a perplexity in their response: How could I possibly read their contributions as ‘irrealist’ and instances of a ‘migration out of academia’?\",\"PeriodicalId\":35019,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Social Anthropology\",\"volume\":\"54 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Social Anthropology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3167/saas.2023.310210\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ANTHROPOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Anthropology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3167/saas.2023.310210","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANTHROPOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

非常感谢Ruy Blanes和Bjørn Enge Bertelsen对我对他们关于“乌托邦的汇合”的特别部分的批评(br ten 2022a)的回应(特别是Blanes和Bertelsen 2021;Bertelsen 2021)，以及社会人类学/人类学协会出版的交流。从我们不同的立场中产生的理论问题，希望能引起普遍的兴趣。当我接受Blanes和Bertelsen(以下简称B&B)在认识论上论证包罗万象的非实在论时，我更倾向于本体论上的辨明实在论。我们很想进一步探讨这种对比的许多理论内涵，但让我在最后的回答中评论一下这种交流本身的特征:我们不同的立场似乎促进了一种知识话语。我相信B&B的回应说明了一种“后批判”方法，它以有问题的方式重塑了学术辩论的原则。解决这个问题也让我澄清了他们回答中的一个困惑:我怎么可能把他们的贡献解读为“不现实”和“从学术界迁移出去”的例子呢?

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Forum: ‘Utopian Confluences’

Many thanks to Ruy Blanes and Bjørn Enge Bertelsen for their response to my critique (Bråten 2022a) of their special section on ‘Utopian Confluences’ (especially, Blanes and Bertelsen 2021; Bertelsen 2021), and to Social Anthropology/Anthropologie Sociale for publishing the exchange. The theoretical questions that arise from our diverging stances are, hopefully, of general interest. While I take Blanes and Bertelsen (hereafter B&B) to argue an epistemologically all-inclusive irrealism, I favour an ontologically discerning realism. It is tempting to pursue the many theoretical entailments of this contrast further, but let me in this final reply comment on the character of the exchange itself: the kind of intellectual discourse that our diverging positions seem to foster. I believe B&B's response is illustrative of a ‘post-critical’ approach that recasts principles of scholarly debate in problematic ways. Addressing this issue allows me also to clarify a perplexity in their response: How could I possibly read their contributions as ‘irrealist’ and instances of a ‘migration out of academia’?

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

Social Anthropology Social Sciences-Anthropology

CiteScore

2.50

自引率

7.10%

发文量

期刊介绍： Social Anthropology/Anthropologie Sociale is the acclaimed Journal of the European Association of Social Anthropologists, the major professional organization for anthropologists in Europe. While European in profile, this leading Journal has a global scope. It publishes key contributions by both established and up-and-coming anthropologists. As part of the intellectual vitality of the Journal, it also features an exciting Debate in every issue, an important Review Essay which discusses outstanding books in adjoining disciplines or in public debate from an anthropological point of view, and a thriving Book Reviews Section.