Schneider's Symbolic Culture Theory: An Appraisal [and Comments and Reply]

Feinberg, Richard; Bock, Bernhard; Bolton, Ralph; Chambers, Keith S.; Claus, Peter J.; Deva, Indra; Gray, J. Patrick; Güvenç, Bozkurt; Hudson, Charles L.; Keesing, Roger M.; Lingenfelter, Sherwood G.; Mark, A. K.; Montague, Susan P.; Ravenhill, Philip L.; Sewell, Dorita; Watson‐Gegeo, Karen Ann

doi:10.1086/202324

Cited by 13 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Informative characterizations of both Schneider's critique and the new direction in kinship studies can be found in novel, integrative research on kinship (Carsten ; Faubion ; Viveiros de Castro ); in area reviews (Levine ; Peletz , ; Scheffler ); in explicit reflections on Schneider's influence (Feinberg , ; Feinberg and Ottenheimer ; Kuper : ch.4; Wallace ); in self‐conscious locational work from researchers at the forefront of the redirection of the study of kinship (Bamford and Leach ; Collier and Yanagisako ; Franklin and McKinnon ); in critiques of ethnographic research conducted in the new kinship studies (Shapiro , , ); and in critical discussions of books in the field (Barnes ; Dousset ; Faubion ; Goody ; Miller ; Shapiro ).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Kinship Past, Kinship Present: Bio-Essentialism in the Study of Kinship

Wilson

2016

American Anthropologist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article, I reconsider bio-essentialism in the study of kinship, centering on David Schneider's influential critique that concluded that kinship was "a non-subject" (1972:51). Schneider's critique is often taken to have shown the limitations of and problems with past views of kinship based on biology, genealogy, and reproduction, a critique that subsequently led those reworking kinship as relatedness in the new kinship studies to view their enterprise as divorced from such bio-essentialist studies. Beginning with an alternative narrative connecting kinship past and present and concluding by introducing a novel way of thinking about kinship, I have three constituent aims in this research article: (1) to reconceptualize the relationship between kinship past and kinship present; (2) to reevaluate Schneider's critique of bio-essentialism and what this implies for the contemporary study of kinship; and (3) subsequently to redirect theoretical discussion of what kinship is. This concluding discussion introduces a general view, the homeostatic property cluster (HPC) view of kinds, into anthropology, providing a theoretical framework that facilitates realization of the often-touted desideratum of the integration of biological and social features of kinship.[bio-essentialism, kinship studies, homeostatic property cluster kinds, Schneider, genealogy] ABSTRAIT Cet article reconsidère le bio-essentialisme dans l'étude de la parenté, en mettant l'accent sur la critique influente de David Schneider soutenant que la parenté est un «non-sujet» (1972:51). La critique de Schneider est souvent considérée comme ayant démontré les limites des conceptions de la parenté fondées sur la biologie, la généalogie et la reproduction. Dans les nouvellesétudes de la parenté, cette critique a conduit ceux qui travaillent sur la parenté conç ue comme apparentementà présenter leur entreprise commeétant opposée auxétudes bio-essentialistes. Commenç ant avec un récit reliant parenté passée et présente et offrant une nouvelle faç on de penser la parenté, cet article a trois objectifs cardinaux: (1) redéfinir la relation entre la parenté passée et la parenté présente, (2) réévaluer la critique par Schneider du bio-essentialisme et ce qu'il implique pour l'étude contemporaine de la parenté, et (3) enfin réorienter la discussion théorique de ce qu'est la parenté. Cette discussion se termine par l'introduction en anthropologie d'un schème conceptuel -le groupement de propriétés homéostatiques (GPH) vue de catégories naturelles -fournissant un cadre théorique pour l'intégration tant recherchée des car- RESUMEN Este artículo reconsidera el esencialismo biológico (bio-esencialismo) en el estudio del parentesco, centrándose en la influyente crítica de David Schneider. A menudo se considera que la crítica de Schneider ha demostrado los problemas y las limitaciones de teorías del parentesco anteriores, basadas en la biología, la genealogía y la reproducción. Su crítica contribuyó a que aquellos que trabajaban el parentesco como afinidad ("...

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Nor did he engage in ethnographic speculation about kinship elsewhere, beyond the statement that kinship in “primitive and peasant societies” was less “differentiated” (:vii). For important critiques of Schneider's analysis of U.S. kinship, see Feinberg , Fogelson , Kuper :134–143, Wallace , and Yanagisako .…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Kinship Past, Kinship Present: Bio-Essentialism in the Study of Kinship

Wilson

2016

American Anthropologist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Such a statement relies at best at what have been called ‘rules of thumb’ in ethnographic inquiry ( e.g . Keesing ; see also Feinberg :544; Wallace :105) – something an informant might tell an ethnographer to get the latter off his/her back, or to be polite. This is perhaps especially true when it comes to sexual matters.…”

Section: Schneider On American Kinship/‘theory Of Culture’mentioning

confidence: 99%

The ‘Social Construction’ of David Schneider as ‘A Giant of Anthropology’

Shapiro

2020

Oceania

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

David Schneider is widely regarded as one of the great anthropologists of our times. This article questions this opinion. First it shows that his fieldwork on the Micronesian island of Yap evidences ethnographic insensitivity, particularly on the matter of an alleged ignorance of physiological paternity, thus calling into question his supposed concern with getting at native understandings. The alleged ignorance forms the ethnographic basis for his later critique of established kinship studies. This, plus his ignorance of lexical marking, invalidates the critique. Even worse is his study of American kinship and its related theory of culture, both consisting mostly of top‐of‐the‐head impressions unrelated to specific operations.

show abstract

“…5 Fernandez (1990:146) makes a rather different but equally useful distinction between methodological, philosophical, and practical aspects of cultural relativism. 6 See particularly Schneider (1968;1969;1972;; also Schneider (1976;1995;Feinberg (1979;2003); and Feinberg and Ottenheimer (2001). 7 For a few examples of anthropological post-modernism, see Clifford (1988); Clifford and Marcus (1986); and Linnekin (1992.…”

Section: Endnotesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dialectics of Culture: Relativism in Popular and Anthropological Discourse

Feinberg¹

2007

anq

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Schneider's Symbolic Culture Theory: An Appraisal [and Comments and Reply]

Cited by 13 publications

References 9 publications

Kinship Past, Kinship Present: Bio-Essentialism in the Study of Kinship

Kinship Past, Kinship Present: Bio-Essentialism in the Study of Kinship

The ‘Social Construction’ of David Schneider as ‘A Giant of Anthropology’

Dialectics of Culture: Relativism in Popular and Anthropological Discourse

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About