Theory in Anthropology since the Sixties
Abstrak
Every year, around the time of the meetings of the American Anthropological Association, the New York Times asks a Big Name anthropologist to contribute an op-ed piece on the state of the field. These pieces tend to take a rather gloomy view. A few years ago, for example, Marvin Harris suggested that anthropology was being taken over by mystics, religious fanatics, and California cultists; that the meetings were dominated by panels on shamanism, witchcraft, and “abnormal phenomena”; and that “scientific papers based on empirical studies” had been willfully excluded from the program (Harris 1978). More recently, in a more sober tone, Eric Wolf suggested that the field of anthropology is coming apart. The sub-fields (and sub-sub-fields) are increasingly pursuing their specialized interests, losing contact with each other and with the whole. There is no longer a shared discourse, a shared set of terms to which all practitioners address themselves, a shared language we all, however idiosyncratically, speak (Wolf 1980).
Topik & Kata Kunci
Penulis (1)
Sherry B. Ortner
Akses Cepat
- Tahun Terbit
- 1984
- Bahasa
- en
- Total Sitasi
- 2260×
- Sumber Database
- Semantic Scholar
- DOI
- 10.1017/S0010417500010811
- Akses
- Open Access ✓