“…Consider, for example, the interfaith groups in the United Kingdom discussed by Marcy Brink‐Danan (). Such groups have taken on Taylorist techniques and expert discourses for “managing” religious diversity but put to ends that run orthogonally to capitalist market logics of accumulation.…”
The thesis of this essay is that linguistic anthropology is not the study of language. Rather, "language" functions as a permanently problematic, if indispensable, object for linguistic anthropological analysis and thought. This is because, as I suggest, the critical intervention of linguistic anthropology over the last 40 years has been its ethnographic focus on indexicality, in particular, the ways that indexical processes undermine language as an autonomous object, entangling it with other semiotic modalities and thereby displacing it beyond its putative borders.Reviewing linguistic anthropological scholarship from 2015, I argue that it is the study of this displacement and its more general semiotic implications-and the entangled and mutually informing analytics that have been developed to theorize them, for example, language ideology, entextualization, interdiscursivity, chronotope-that centers the field. Focusing on a set of such analytics, I illustrate how recent linguistic anthropological scholarship has elaborated the reflexive, dialectical nature of social life, theorizing what I call total semiotic facts. I explore these dialectics by discussing three thematic clusters that occupied the attention of the field in 2015: diversity and authenticity, political economy, and mass mediation. [linguistic anthropology, indexicality, language ideology, chronotope, superdiversity, authenticity, political economy, mass mediation, year in review] RESUMEN La tesis de este ensayo es que la antropología lingüística no es el estudio del lenguaje. Más bien, el "lenguaje" funciona como un objeto para el análisis y la conceptualización antropológico lingüística, permanentemente problemático, si bien indispensable. Esto es debido, como lo sugiero, a que la intervención crítica de la antropología lingüística durante losúltimos cuarenta años ha sido su foco etnográfico en la indexicalidad, en particular, los modos que los procesos indéxicos socavan el lenguaje como un objeto autónomo, entrelazándolo con otras modalidades semióticas y por lo tanto desplazándolo más allá de sus bordes putativos. Revisando la investigación antropológica lingüística de 2015, argumento que es el estudio de este desplazamiento y sus implicaciones semióticas más generales-y la analítica entrelazada y mutuamente informativa que ha sido desarrollada para teorizarlos, por ejemplo, ideología del lenguaje, entextualización, interdiscursividad, cronotopo-lo que centra el campo. Enfocándome en una serie de tal analítica, ilustro cómo la investigación antropológica lingüística reciente ha elaborado la naturaleza reflexiva, dialéctica de la vida social, teorizando lo que llamo hechos totales semióticos.Exploro estas dialécticas discutiendo tres grupos temáticos que ocuparon la atención en el campo en 2015: diversidad y autenticidad, economía política, y meditación masiva. [antropología lingüística, indexicalidad, ideología del lenguaje, cronotopo, superdiversidad, autenticidad, economía política, meditación masiva, año en revisión]
“…Consider, for example, the interfaith groups in the United Kingdom discussed by Marcy Brink‐Danan (). Such groups have taken on Taylorist techniques and expert discourses for “managing” religious diversity but put to ends that run orthogonally to capitalist market logics of accumulation.…”
The thesis of this essay is that linguistic anthropology is not the study of language. Rather, "language" functions as a permanently problematic, if indispensable, object for linguistic anthropological analysis and thought. This is because, as I suggest, the critical intervention of linguistic anthropology over the last 40 years has been its ethnographic focus on indexicality, in particular, the ways that indexical processes undermine language as an autonomous object, entangling it with other semiotic modalities and thereby displacing it beyond its putative borders.Reviewing linguistic anthropological scholarship from 2015, I argue that it is the study of this displacement and its more general semiotic implications-and the entangled and mutually informing analytics that have been developed to theorize them, for example, language ideology, entextualization, interdiscursivity, chronotope-that centers the field. Focusing on a set of such analytics, I illustrate how recent linguistic anthropological scholarship has elaborated the reflexive, dialectical nature of social life, theorizing what I call total semiotic facts. I explore these dialectics by discussing three thematic clusters that occupied the attention of the field in 2015: diversity and authenticity, political economy, and mass mediation. [linguistic anthropology, indexicality, language ideology, chronotope, superdiversity, authenticity, political economy, mass mediation, year in review] RESUMEN La tesis de este ensayo es que la antropología lingüística no es el estudio del lenguaje. Más bien, el "lenguaje" funciona como un objeto para el análisis y la conceptualización antropológico lingüística, permanentemente problemático, si bien indispensable. Esto es debido, como lo sugiero, a que la intervención crítica de la antropología lingüística durante losúltimos cuarenta años ha sido su foco etnográfico en la indexicalidad, en particular, los modos que los procesos indéxicos socavan el lenguaje como un objeto autónomo, entrelazándolo con otras modalidades semióticas y por lo tanto desplazándolo más allá de sus bordes putativos. Revisando la investigación antropológica lingüística de 2015, argumento que es el estudio de este desplazamiento y sus implicaciones semióticas más generales-y la analítica entrelazada y mutuamente informativa que ha sido desarrollada para teorizarlos, por ejemplo, ideología del lenguaje, entextualización, interdiscursividad, cronotopo-lo que centra el campo. Enfocándome en una serie de tal analítica, ilustro cómo la investigación antropológica lingüística reciente ha elaborado la naturaleza reflexiva, dialéctica de la vida social, teorizando lo que llamo hechos totales semióticos.Exploro estas dialécticas discutiendo tres grupos temáticos que ocuparon la atención en el campo en 2015: diversidad y autenticidad, economía política, y meditación masiva. [antropología lingüística, indexicalidad, ideología del lenguaje, cronotopo, superdiversidad, autenticidad, economía política, meditación masiva, año en revisión]
“…Talk about faith has thus ceased to be a “conversation‐stopper”; knowing how to “do God” with diverse others is today imagined to be a valuable “skill” that British teachers, businesspeople and hospital staff must acquire (Brink‐Danan ; Duchêne and Heller ; Heller ; Urciuoli and LaDousa ). In 2000, there were only a dozen or so interfaith organizations in the UK; by 2007, 183 new interfaith groups had been established (Department for Communities and Local Government :9).…”
Section: Public Religion In Britainmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Finally, a British report on Hindu–Christian relations asserts:Inter‐religious dialogue should be about understanding and learning so that all parties can change the broader culture in which different faiths meet and therefore allow for easier communication between particular faith traditions as well as between religious communities and civic society. (Oxford Centre for Hindu Studies :8)Increasing “diversity talk” in the UK points not only to recent managerial approaches to difference, but also underscores religion as an important source of communication‐related anxiety (Brink‐Danan ). The recurring emphasis on “effective communication” across interfaith organizations suggests that the British way of “doing God” is deficient, but might be improved by adopting a new “translation proviso.” What happens when the translation proviso ventures outside of the ivory tower?…”
Section: Translation As Communication: the Dominant Trope In Debates mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A prime example of a program that nominally aims at effective communication but is regarded with suspicion is “Prevent,” a government‐sponsored security regime aimed to “root out” terrorism after the London attacks of July 7, 2005 (Richards ; Werbner ). These conditions of suspicion, combined with local perceptions of the UK as increasingly diverse, even superdiverse (Brink‐Danan ; Vertovec ), likewise demand that simplistic claims about “British” avoidance of God‐talk be re‐examined.…”
Section: Public Religion In Britainmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…and collected digitized materials made publicly available on organizations' websites. These collected documents allow me to supplement ethnographic field data with a corpus of related textual examples—magazine and newspaper articles (and talk‐backs), publicly documented speeches, press releases, parliamentary records and blog entries—from a broader discourse about public religion that moves across British institutions and across the globe (Brink‐Danan ). This article is not an “ethnography of Britain” (Rapport ); the “God Debate” did not begin or end there.…”
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
