A Revolutionary Discipline

Diamond, Stanley

doi:10.1086/200539

Cited by 14 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While the representational crisis of the 1980s is widely regarded as having had the most significant impact on anthropology, largely because of its emphasis on self-awareness, self-criticism, and the recognition of the researcher's role in knowledge production, it was the radical thinkers of the 1960s and 1970s who first drew attention to the biases and assumptions within the theoretical foundations of the discipline (Hymes 1972, Asad 1973, Huizer 1979. In their analysis, they used a Marxist conceptual framework to consider the status of indigenous communities and, subsequently, the position of anthropology itself as a Western institution created within specific circumstances (Gough 1968, Diamond 1964, Brreman 1968). Their significant contribution to the development of anthropological reflexivity involved a comprehensive examination of the discipline's situational context within a broader political and economic framework.…”

Section: Reflexivitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Revisiting Positionality in Critical Anthropology:

Songin-Mokrzan

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Within the field of critical anthropology, the scope of the reflection goes beyond one’s own society, encompassing a thorough exploration of anthropologists themselves as complex products of their socio-cultural environments. This aspect is becoming increasingly important in today’s critical analysis of the status of anthropology. Drawing on the insights of radical anthropologists, this article explores theeconomic and political context that shapes anthropological practice. While radical critics of the 1970s were confronted with well-defined sources of authority, the rise of neoliberalism disperses power and complicates the pursuit of critical anthropology. The question remains: Can critical anthropology maintain its potency amidst the influences it seeks to challenge? This question resonates as a central introspective point for contemporary critical anthropologists, inviting them to navigate the complex web of power, subjectivity, and socio-political context in their pursuit of transformative scholarship.

show abstract

Section: Reflexivitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Revisiting Positionality in Critical Anthropology:

Songin-Mokrzan

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…And it is easily shown and widely appreciated that anthropology as a discipline and as articulated by its most respected practitioners has always aligned itself with groups of people that we might unproblematically call powerless. Malinowski's famous calls to get off the mission veranda and attend to the native's point of view, Boas's unchaining of language, culture, and race, Mead's bold assertions that culture overrode biology, Benedict's gentle admonition that modern civilization hardly merited the label, and Leacock's and Wolf's insistent documentation of the havoc that European colonialism had wreaked on the people anthropologists studied all worked to establish anthropology as, if not the "revolutionary" discipline that Stanley Diamond (1964) once claimed it was, then at least the "unsettling" discipline that Clifford Geertz could assert it was in his "Anti anti-relativism" lecture (1984,275).…”

Section: By Don Kulickmentioning

confidence: 99%

Theory in Furs

Kulick¹

2006

Current Anthropology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…7 All those exotic and subalternized others needed to be seen as subjects of their own destiny. Critique of anthropology became a 'literature of anguish' (Ben-Ari, 1999), deepening one of anthropology's strongest ambivalent self-representations (Wolf and Jorgensen, 1975) according to which the discipline is either the child of Western imperialism (Gough, 1975), the child of violence, as Lévi-Strauss (1966) called it, or the revolutionary discipline questioning Western claims to superiority (Diamond, 1964). Ben-Ari (1999), who sees such an ambivalence as a dichotomy that has pervaded anthropology since the end of the 19th century, phrases it this way: anthropology is either co-responsible for the problems created by the expansion of the West or it is a tool for better human understanding.…”

Section: Transformations In Systems Of Powermentioning

confidence: 99%

World Anthropologies

Ribeiro

2006

Critique of Anthropology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

■ In this article, anthropology is seen as a Western cosmopolitics that consolidated itself as a formal academic discipline in the 20th century within a growing Western university system that expanded throughout the world. Like other cosmopolitics, anthropology reflects the historical dynamics of the world system, especially those related to the changing roles 'alterity' may play in international and national scenarios. Some of the most fundamental changes in anthropology in the last century were due to changes in the subject position of anthropology's 'object' par excellence, native peoples all over the planet. But, currently, there is another element which was never duly incorporated by previous critiques and is bound to impact anthropology: the increased importance of the non-hegemonic anthropologists in the production and reproduction of knowledge. Changes in the conditions of conversability among anthropologists located in different loci of the world system will impact the tension between metropolitan provincialism and provincial cosmopolitanism, increase horizontal communication and create more plural world anthropologies. Keywords ■ global diversity and anthropology ■ metropolitan provincialism ■ provincial cosmopolitanism ■ world system of anthropology À memória de Eduardo Archetti I view the issues that anthropologists address, their theoretical preoccupations, contributions to knowledge, dilemmas and mistakes, the heuristic and epistemological capabilities of the discipline, as embedded in certain social, cultural and political dynamics that unfold in contexts which are differently and historically structured by changing power relations. The main sociological and historical forces that traverse anthropology's political and epistemological fields are connected to the dynamics of the world system and to those of the nation-states, especially regarding the changing roles that 'otherness' or 'alterity' may play in such international and national scenarios.This article is heavily inspired by a collective movement called the World Anthropologies Network (WAN), of which I am a member (see www.ram-wan.org). The network aims at pluralizing the prevailing visions of anthropology in a juncture where the hegemony of Anglo-Saxon discourses on difference persists. It stems from the realization that, in an

show abstract

A Revolutionary Discipline

Cited by 14 publications

References 2 publications

Revisiting Positionality in Critical Anthropology:

Revisiting Positionality in Critical Anthropology:

Theory in Furs

World Anthropologies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About