意义之省:根据美洲原住民坟墓保护和遣返法确定文化归属

Jerry L. Williams
{"title":"意义之省:根据美洲原住民坟墓保护和遣返法确定文化归属","authors":"Jerry L. Williams","doi":"10.1353/aiq.2021.0021","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:This essay utilizes Alfred Schutz's finite provinces of meaning to understand problems associated with the determination of cultural affiliation under the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA). Using their own ten-year experience with the NAGRPA consultation process, the author contends that by using multiple provinces of meaning to determine cultural affiliation, NAGPRA failed to adequately consider that by their distinctness, disputes between the oral tradition and science could not be easily resolved within the confines of either. Instead, a resolution would require a resort to yet a third province of meaning, that of the law, which by nature is more closely aligned with science than the oral tradition. As a result, NAGPRA claims made by native people based on the oral tradition found themselves at a distinct disadvantage.","PeriodicalId":22216,"journal":{"name":"The American Indian Quarterly","volume":"71 1","pages":"272 - 293"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Provinces of Meaning: Determining Cultural Affiliation under the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act\",\"authors\":\"Jerry L. Williams\",\"doi\":\"10.1353/aiq.2021.0021\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract:This essay utilizes Alfred Schutz's finite provinces of meaning to understand problems associated with the determination of cultural affiliation under the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA). Using their own ten-year experience with the NAGRPA consultation process, the author contends that by using multiple provinces of meaning to determine cultural affiliation, NAGPRA failed to adequately consider that by their distinctness, disputes between the oral tradition and science could not be easily resolved within the confines of either. Instead, a resolution would require a resort to yet a third province of meaning, that of the law, which by nature is more closely aligned with science than the oral tradition. As a result, NAGPRA claims made by native people based on the oral tradition found themselves at a distinct disadvantage.\",\"PeriodicalId\":22216,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The American Indian Quarterly\",\"volume\":\"71 1\",\"pages\":\"272 - 293\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-09-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The American Indian Quarterly\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1353/aiq.2021.0021\",\"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 American Indian Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/aiq.2021.0021","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

摘要:本文利用阿尔弗雷德·舒茨的有限意义域理论来理解《美洲原住民坟墓保护与遣返法案》(NAGPRA)下文化归属的确定问题。作者利用自己在NAGRPA协商过程中的十年经验,认为NAGPRA没有充分考虑到,由于其独特性,口头传统和科学之间的争端不可能在任何一方的范围内轻松解决,因此使用多个意义省份来确定文化归属。相反,一项决议将需要诉诸第三种意义领域,即法律,从本质上讲,它比口头传统更接近科学。因此,土著居民基于口头传统提出的NAGPRA主张发现自己处于明显的劣势。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Provinces of Meaning: Determining Cultural Affiliation under the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act
Abstract:This essay utilizes Alfred Schutz's finite provinces of meaning to understand problems associated with the determination of cultural affiliation under the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA). Using their own ten-year experience with the NAGRPA consultation process, the author contends that by using multiple provinces of meaning to determine cultural affiliation, NAGPRA failed to adequately consider that by their distinctness, disputes between the oral tradition and science could not be easily resolved within the confines of either. Instead, a resolution would require a resort to yet a third province of meaning, that of the law, which by nature is more closely aligned with science than the oral tradition. As a result, NAGPRA claims made by native people based on the oral tradition found themselves at a distinct disadvantage.
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