Anthropological Antinomy
The Importance of an Empirical Basis for a Concept of Anthropological Fact
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 2581808 |
|---|---|
| Authors | N Ross Crumrine (corresponding author) |
| Year | 1968 |
| Volume | 41 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 34 |
| Publication date | 1968-01-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Anthropological Quarterly (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0003-5491 • E-ISSN: 1534-1518 |
| Publisher | JSTOR (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.2307/3316892 |
| OpenAlex | W2320504287 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 3 |
| References cited | 2 |
Among some anthopologists as well as some other scientists one often hears following sort of reply to questions of a theoretical or philosophical nature, all I want are facts, man, bare facts! This paper will focus upon question of meaning of statement, the hard, bare facts. Or in other words, what type of facts do anthropological facts seem to be? At first this appears to be a simple common sense matter which can be glossed over without further consideration. The examination of anthropological antinomies in form of apparently contradictory field studies suggests that common sense answer implies too great a simplification of problem. I have in mind studies such as those of Tepoztlan by Robert Redfield and Oscar Lewis or those of Kwakiutl by Helen Codere and Ruth Benedict, which literally thrust this problem upon us. For example, Redfield describes life in Tepoztlan, a small Mexican town, as characterized by highly organized and very satisfying life ways with deep interpersonal relations; whereas Lewis (1951:428-29) sees this same life as characterized by disorganization, interpersonal distrust, and fear of witchcraft. Differences of this magnitude also exist between Benedict and Codere studies of Kwakiutl. Quite obviously then question of nature of anthropological fact is more complex than it first appears. If we turn to anthropological field work or anthropological fact seeking, we gain some idea of complexity of a fact. Traditionally anthropologist keeps a daily log in which he enters happenings or perhaps data. These happenings (and this is of key import) are not facts; rather they in some sense represent raw material out of which facts may be inferred or constructed. This process of fact construction then involves more than simply recording happenings. For example, my wife and I spent a year living in southern Sonora, Mexico doing field research with Mayo Indians
Antinomy · Basis (linear algebra · Epistemology · Genealogy · Sociology · Anthropology · Anthropology: Ethics, History, Culture · History · Mathematics · Philosophy
| Unique citing works | 3 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,06 |
| Citation span | 1973 - 2020 (48) |
| Citation velocity | historical |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 3 |