文化适应及其不满:将人类学带回对话的案例。

Peter J Guarnaccia, Carolina Hausmann-Stabile
{"title":"文化适应及其不满:将人类学带回对话的案例。","authors":"Peter J Guarnaccia,&nbsp;Carolina Hausmann-Stabile","doi":"10.13189/sa.2016.040209","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Anthropologists' contribution to the study of cultural change is urgent in light of the increasing number of people of different backgrounds who are migrating around the globe and settling in new communities, and the opportunities and challenges that come along with that process. By examining the anthropological literature on acculturation going back to the 1936 Memorandum by Redfield, Linton and Herskovits, this paper reviews and assesses the discipline's perspective on acculturation, and lays out the case for why it is critical for anthropologists to re-engage the concept. Although other disciplines, particularly psychology and sociology, have dominated the field of acculturation research more recently, they mostly have done so with a narrow focus. While it is important to acknowledge the pitfalls of anthropology's past study of acculturation, there are important features of the acculturation construct that continue to be relevant. Among these are the study of acculturation as a process that is multidimensional; the investigation of how different kinds of power affect the acculturation process; the impacts of attitudes, actions and policies of the receiving group on how acculturation proceeds; the role of \"real history\" in understanding processes of acculturation; and the global perspective on these processes. We suggest ways in which anthropologists can reignite the field of acculturation research by engaging with Redfield, Linton and Herskovits' framework and subsequent anthropological literature.</p>","PeriodicalId":91613,"journal":{"name":"Sociology and anthropology (Alhambra, Calif.)","volume":"4 2","pages":"114-124"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5008869/pdf/nihms808329.pdf","citationCount":"19","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Acculturation and Its Discontents: A Case for Bringing Anthropology Back into the Conversation.\",\"authors\":\"Peter J Guarnaccia,&nbsp;Carolina Hausmann-Stabile\",\"doi\":\"10.13189/sa.2016.040209\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Anthropologists' contribution to the study of cultural change is urgent in light of the increasing number of people of different backgrounds who are migrating around the globe and settling in new communities, and the opportunities and challenges that come along with that process. By examining the anthropological literature on acculturation going back to the 1936 Memorandum by Redfield, Linton and Herskovits, this paper reviews and assesses the discipline's perspective on acculturation, and lays out the case for why it is critical for anthropologists to re-engage the concept. Although other disciplines, particularly psychology and sociology, have dominated the field of acculturation research more recently, they mostly have done so with a narrow focus. While it is important to acknowledge the pitfalls of anthropology's past study of acculturation, there are important features of the acculturation construct that continue to be relevant. Among these are the study of acculturation as a process that is multidimensional; the investigation of how different kinds of power affect the acculturation process; the impacts of attitudes, actions and policies of the receiving group on how acculturation proceeds; the role of \\\"real history\\\" in understanding processes of acculturation; and the global perspective on these processes. We suggest ways in which anthropologists can reignite the field of acculturation research by engaging with Redfield, Linton and Herskovits' framework and subsequent anthropological literature.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":91613,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Sociology and anthropology (Alhambra, Calif.)\",\"volume\":\"4 2\",\"pages\":\"114-124\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5008869/pdf/nihms808329.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"19\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Sociology and anthropology (Alhambra, Calif.)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.13189/sa.2016.040209\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sociology and anthropology (Alhambra, Calif.)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.13189/sa.2016.040209","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 19

摘要

鉴于越来越多的不同背景的人在全球各地迁移并在新的社区定居,以及这一过程带来的机遇和挑战,人类学家对文化变迁研究的贡献是迫切的。通过研究自1936年雷德菲尔德、林顿和赫斯科维茨的备忘录(Memorandum of Redfield, Linton and Herskovits)以来关于文化适应的人类学文献,本文回顾和评估了该学科对文化适应的看法,并阐述了为什么人类学家重新参与这一概念至关重要。虽然其他学科,特别是心理学和社会学,最近在文化适应研究领域占据主导地位,但他们的研究大多是狭隘的。虽然认识到人类学过去对文化适应研究的缺陷是很重要的,但文化适应结构的一些重要特征仍然是相关的。其中包括将文化适应作为一个多维过程的研究;不同权力对文化适应过程的影响研究接受群体的态度、行动和政策对文化适应过程的影响;“真实历史”在理解文化适应过程中的作用以及对这些过程的全球视角。我们建议人类学家通过参与雷德菲尔德、林顿和赫斯科维茨的框架以及随后的人类学文献,重新点燃文化适应研究领域。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Acculturation and Its Discontents: A Case for Bringing Anthropology Back into the Conversation.

Anthropologists' contribution to the study of cultural change is urgent in light of the increasing number of people of different backgrounds who are migrating around the globe and settling in new communities, and the opportunities and challenges that come along with that process. By examining the anthropological literature on acculturation going back to the 1936 Memorandum by Redfield, Linton and Herskovits, this paper reviews and assesses the discipline's perspective on acculturation, and lays out the case for why it is critical for anthropologists to re-engage the concept. Although other disciplines, particularly psychology and sociology, have dominated the field of acculturation research more recently, they mostly have done so with a narrow focus. While it is important to acknowledge the pitfalls of anthropology's past study of acculturation, there are important features of the acculturation construct that continue to be relevant. Among these are the study of acculturation as a process that is multidimensional; the investigation of how different kinds of power affect the acculturation process; the impacts of attitudes, actions and policies of the receiving group on how acculturation proceeds; the role of "real history" in understanding processes of acculturation; and the global perspective on these processes. We suggest ways in which anthropologists can reignite the field of acculturation research by engaging with Redfield, Linton and Herskovits' framework and subsequent anthropological literature.

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