Le pouvoir explicatif du concept d’incarnation en anthropologie
DOI :
https://doi.org/10.21301/eap.v16i2.1Mots-clés :
incarnation, anthropologie, explicationRésumé
Dans le cadre des recherches cumulatives de l’auteur orientées vers les types d’explication, la structure d’explication et la capacité explicative des notions clés dans l’anthropologie socioculturelle, dans le présent travail a été analysé le concept de l’incarnation (angl. embodiment). La pertinence du réexamen du pouvoir explicatif de cette notion est multiple, avant tout sur les plans interprétatif, conceptuel et paradigmatique. La recherche démontre que la notion d’incarnation – bien que très populaire, est utilisée volontiers et souvent dans des monographies et des articles scientifiques très influents, et est même proposée comme la pierre angulaire « d’un nouveau paradigme pour l’anthropologie » – possède une capacité explicative très limitée. Il semble que son utilisation ne contribue en rien à l’argumentation anthropologique sur le plan de l’explication – ni au sens cumulatif, ni au sens de la recontextualisation. En effet, il s’avère que l’on ne perdrait rien si l’on effaçait le mot « embodiment » des arguments qui seraient soumis à l’analyse, et que l’appareil anthropologique explicatif développé dans le cadre de l’anthropologie du corps, l’anthropologie du genre et l’anthropologie de la parenté – et dont l’utilisation précède les emplois populaires contemporains de la notion d’incarnation – n’a pas une moindre portée lorsqu’il s’agit du pouvoir explicatif.
Téléchargements
Références
Abu-Lughod, Lila. 1991. „Writing against Culture”. In Recapturing Anthropology, edited by Richard G. Fox, 137–162. Santa Fe: School of American Research Press.
Bošković, Aleksandar. 2017. „Individualizam u antropologiji”. U Individualizam, uredili Suzana Ignjatović i Aleksandar Bošković, 4-25. Beograd: Institut društvenih nauka.
Brightman, Robert. 1995. „Forget Culture: Replacement, Transcendence, Relexification“. Cultural Anthropology 10(4): 509–546. https://doi.org/10.1525/can.1995.10.4.02a00030
Bruun, Henrik and Langlais, Richard. 2003. „On Embodied Nature of Action“. Acta Sociologica 46(1): 31-49.
Burling, Robbins. 1964. „Cognition and Componential Analysis: God’s Truth or Hocus Pocus?,“ American Anthropologist 66 (1): 20–28. https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1964.66.1.02a00020
Butler, Judith. 1986. „Sex and Gender in Simone de Beauvoir’s Second Sex“. Yale French Studies 72: 35-49. https://doi.org/10.2307/2930225
Butler, Judith. 1990. Gender Trouble. New York: Routledge.
Collier, Fishburne Jane and Junko Sylvia Yananagisako. Gender and Kinship: Essays Toward a Unified Analysis. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Csordas, Thomas J. 1990. „Embodiment as a Paradigm for Anthropology“. Ethos 18(1): 5-47. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-08286-2_3
Csordas, Thomas J. 1999a. „Embodied Reason“ In Perspectives on Embodiment: The Intersections of Nature and Culture, edited by Gail Weiss and Honi Fern Haber, 143-164. New York: Routledge.
Csordas, Thomas J, 1999b. „Body’s Career in Anthropology“. In Anthropological Theory Today, edited by Henrietta L. Moore, 172-205. Cambridge:
Csordas, Thomas J. 2011. „Cultural Phenomenology“. U Companion to the Anthropology of the Body and Embodiment, edited by Frances E. Mascia-Lees, 137-157. Wiley-Blackwell.
D’Andrade, Roy. 1995. The Development of Cognitive Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Desjarlais, Robert and C. Jason Throop. 2011. „Phenomenological Approaches in Anthropology“. Annual Review of Anthropology (40): 87-102.
Douglas, Mary. 1966. Purity and Danger. London: Routledge.
Douglas, Mary. 1970. Natural Symbols.New York: Vintage.
Foucault, Michel. 1978. The History of Sexuality: Vol. I, An Introduction, New York: Pantheon Books.
Frake, Chales. 1964. „Notes on Queries in Ethnography“. American Anthropologist 66(3): 132– 145. https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1964.66.3.02a00860
Geertz, Clifford. 1966. „Religion as a Cultural System“. In M. Banton (ed.), Anthropological Approaches to the Study of Religion, 1–46. New York: Praeger.
Godelije, Moris i Panof, Mišel. 2003. „Stvaranje tela“. Kultura 105/106: 27-43.
Geertz, Clifford. 1973. Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books.
Harris, Marvin. 1968. The Rise of Anthropological Theory. London: Routlegde.
Hol, Edvard. 1976. Nemi jezik. Beograd: XX vek.
Hymes, Dell H. 1972. Reinventing Anthropology. New York: Pantheon Books.
Ignjatović, Suzana. 2017. „Povezanost metodološkog, kulturnog i političkom individualizma u društvenim naukama“. U Individualizam, uredili Suzana Ignjatović i Aleksandar Bošković, 26-47. Beograd: Institut društvenih nauka.
Ignjatović, Suzana i Aleksandar Bošković. 2018. „O mogućnostima naučnog objašnjenja zasnovanog na metodološkom individualizmu u antropologiji“. Etnoantropološki problemi. 13(1): 14-40. https://doi.org/10.21301/eap.v13i1.1
Ivanović, Zorica i Šarčević, Predrag. 2003. „O statusu tela u antropologiji“. Kultura 105-106: 9-24.
Ivanović, Zorica. 2003. „Pogovor u Antropologija žene i pitanje rodnih odnosa u izmenjenom diskursu antropologije“. U Antropologija žene uredile Žarana Papić i Lydia Sklevicky, 382-435. Beograd: XX vek.
Jackson, Michael. 1983. „Knowlede of the Body“. Man 18(2): 327-345.
Jackson, Michael. 2002. „Familiar and Foreign Bodies“. The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 8(2): 333-346. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9655.00006
Jarvie, I. C. 1964. „Explanation in Social Science“. The British Journal of the Philosophy of Science 15(57): 62–72.
Jarvie, I. C. 1976. „On the Limits of Symbolic Interpretation in Anthropology“. Current Anthropology 17(4): 687– 701.
Jarvie, I. C. 1983. „Rationality and Relativism“. The British Journal of Sociology 34(1): 44–60.
Johnson, Mark L. 1999. „Embodied Reason“, In Perspectives on Embodiment: The Intersections of Nature and Culture, edited by Gail Weiss and Honi Fern Haber, 81-102. New York: Routledge.
Kapferer, Bruce. 2007. „Anthropology and the Dialectic of Enlightenment: A Discourse on the Definition and Ideals of a Threatened Discipline“. The Australian Journal of Anthropology 18(1): 72-94. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1835-9310.2007.tb00078.x
Kovačević, Ivan. 2006. „Individualna antropologija ili antropolog kao lični guslar“. Etnoantropološki problemi 1(1): 18-34. https://doi.org/10.21301/eap.v1i1.1
Kovačević, Ivan. 2008. „Postkulturni udarac u Vernikeovu zonu“. Antropologija 5: 56-64.
Kulenović, Nina. 2014. „Metodološki individualizam nasuprot metodološkom holizmu. Istorijska pozadina, relevantnost i implikacije (nerešive?) rasprave u sporu oko eksplanatornog kapaciteta i naučnog statusa sociokulturne antropologije“. Etnoantropološki problemi 9(2): 310-333. https://doi.org/10.21301/eap.v9i2.3
Kulenović, Nina. 2015. „Da li je antropologija ʽnaučnaʼ ili ʽistorijska ʼdisciplina?: pouke iz povesti rane američke antropologije.“ Antropologija 15(2): 47-85.
Kulenović, Nina. 2016. Objašnjenje u antropologiji: istorijski kontekst, (Biblioteka Etnoantropološki problemi, Monografije, knj. 4). Beograd: Filozofski fakultet, Odeljenje za etnologiju i antropologiju, Centar za antropologiju javnih i praktičnih politika: Dosije studio.
Kulenović, Nina. 2017. Objašnjenje u antropologiji: polemike (Biblioteka Etnoantropološki problemi, Monografije, knj. 5). Beograd: Univerzitet, Filozofski fakultet, Odeljenje za etnologiju i antropologiju, Centar za antropologiju javnih i praktičnih politika: Dosije studio.
Kulenović, Nina. 2019. „Koncept kulture između prosvetiteljstva i kontraprosvetiteljstva.“ Etnoantropološki problemi 14(1): 137-167. https://doi.org/10.21301/eap.v14i1.6
Little, Daniel. 1991. Varieties of Social Explanation. San Francisco: Westview Press.
Lock, Margaret.1993. „Cultivating the Body“. Annual Review of Anthropology 22; 133-155. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.an.22.100193.001025
Mascia-Lees, Frances. 2016. „The Body and Embodiment in the History of Feminist Anthropology; An Idiosyncratic Excursion through Binaries“. In Mapping Feminist Anthropology In the Twenty-First Century, edited by Ellen Lewin and Leni M. Silverstein,146-167. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
Masquelier, Adeline. 1997. „Embodiment and Experience: The Existential Ground of Culture and Self“. Ethnologist 24(4): 940-941. https://doi.org/10.1525/ae.1997.24.4.940
Meynell, Letitia. 2009. „Introduction: Minding bodies“. In Embodiment and Agency, 1-25, edited by Sue Campbell, Letitia Meynell and Susan Sherwin. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
Milenković, Miloš. 2003. Problem etnografski stvarnog. Beograd: Srpski genealoški centar.
Milenković, Miloš. 2006. „Šta je (bila) antropološka refleksivnost? Metodološka formalizacija“. Etnoantropološki problemi 1(2): 157-184. https://doi.org/10.21301/eap.v1i2.9
Milenković, Miloš. 2014. Antropologija multikulturalizma: Od politike identiteta ka očuvanju kulturnog nasleđa. Beograd: Odeljenje za etnologiju i antropologiju Filozofskog fakulteta i Srpski genealoški centar.
Mos, Marsel. [1934]1983. Sociologija i antropologija. Beograd: XX vek.
Obeyesekere, Gananath. 1990. The Work of Culture. Chicago: Chicago Univerity Press.
Ortner, Sherry B. 1984. „Theory in Anthropology since the Sixties“. Comparative Studies in Society and History 26(1): 126-166. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0010417500010811
Papić, Žarana i Sklevicky Lydia (ur.). 2003. Antropologija žene. Beograd: XX vek.
Reyna. S. P. 1994. „Literary Anthropology and the Case against Science“. Man 29(3): 555– 581.
Scheper-Hughes, Nancy and Lock, Margaret. 1987. „The Mindful Body: A Prolegomenon to Future Work In Medical Anthropology“. Medical Anthropology Quaterly 1(1): 6-41. https://doi.org/10.1525/maq.1987.1.1.02a00020
Shankman, Paul. 1984. „The Thick and the Thin: On the Interpretive Theorietical Program of Clifford Geertz“. Current Anthropology 25(3): 261–280.
Simonsen, Kirsten. 2005. „Bodies, Sensations, Space and Time: Contribution from Henri Lefebvre“. Geografiska Annaler 87(1): 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0435-3684.2005.00174.x
Sinđelić, Svetozar. 2010. „Kantovski obrt u savremenoj filozofoiji nauke“. Theoria 3: 5– 36.
Spasić, Ivana. 2005. „Prevoditi i pisati sociologiju“. Mostovi 131-132: 168-178.
Srdić, Anđa. 2008. „Telo i telesnost u antropološkoj perspektivi“. GEM 72: 93-105.
Strathern, Andrew J. and Pamela J. Stewart. 2011. „Personhood“. In Frances E. Mascia-Lees (ed.), A Companion to the Anthropology of the Body and Embodiment, 388-403. Willey-Blackwell.
Strauss, Claudia and Quinn, Naomi. 1997. A cognitive theory of cultural meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Turner, Terence. 1990. „On Structure and Entropy: Theoretical Pastiche and the Contradictions of Structuralism“. Current Anthropology 31(5): 563-568.
Turner, Terence. 1994. „Bodies and anti-bodies: flesh and fetish in contemporary social theory“. In T.J. Csordas (ed.), Embodiment and Experience, 27-47. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Turner, Terence. 1995. „Social Body and Embodied Subject“. Cultural Anthropology 10(2): 143-170. https://doi.org/10.1525/can.1995.10.2.02a00010
Turner, Terence. 2011. „Bodiliness“. In A Companion to the Anthropology of the Body and Embodiment, edited by Frances E. Mascia-Lees, 102-119. Willey-Blackwell.
Tyler, Stephen A. 1969. „Introduction“. In Cognitive Anthropology, edited by Stephen A. Tyler, 1–25. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Van Wolputte, Steven. 2004. „Hang on to Your Self: Of Bodies, Embodiment, and Selves“. Annaual Review of Anthropology 33: 251-269. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.33.070203.143749
Wallace, Anthony F. C.. and John Atkins. 1960. „The Meaning of Kinship Terms“. American Anthropologist. 62(1): 58– 80. https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1960.62.1.02a00040
Wallace, Anthony F. C. 1965. „The Problem of Psychological Validity of Componential Analysis“. American Anthropologist 67(5): 22– 248. https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1965.67.5.02a00800.
Žikić, Bojan. 2002. Antropologija gesta. Beograd: Srpski genealoški centar.
Žikić, Bojan. 2008. „Kako složiti babe, žabe i električne gitare: uvod u kognitivnu antropologiju“. Antropologija 6: 114-136.
Téléchargements
Publiée
Comment citer
Numéro
Rubrique
Licence
(c) Tous droits réservés Nina Kulenović 2021
Ce travail est disponible sous licence Creative Commons Attribution - Partage dans les Mêmes Conditions 4.0 International.
ERIH PLUS - European Reference Index for the Humanities
World Cat
AnthroSerbia
