Plato An eye on the Universe: The Cultural Anthropology Nico Carlucci
shape
The Anthropology originated in the late nineteenth century. Edward. B. Tylor, UK, in 1871 gives one of the first definitions of culture that is, first of all: "... complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society. " E ', that of Tylor, a definition that is not always on time, was perceived in his depth or in the revolution in science. Suffice it to say that Primitive cultures, by which it is taken from the above definition, has struggled to find a translation from English into Italian. As we saw in the previous article I wrote for this blog "indie", even James Frazer belongs to this pattern of positivist anthropological characteristic of late nineteenth century. But both he and Tylor were scientists who have used material gathered by others, usually missionaries, explorers, colonial officials, why were called "armchair anthropologists." These scholars were interested in understanding why the people who lived in different parts of the globe have similar cultural traits. Lewis. H. Morgan, meanwhile, like his colleagues speculated that the similarities of cultures, indicating that the different groups had passed through the same stages of development
A myth is not invented just At some anthropologists that had as their method of 'participant observation. " This is a study of cultures that makes the anthropologist who "participate" in the lives of the people when he speaks: Bronislaw Malinwoski plays well, his "field work" while Franz Boas in the Trobriand Islands in the Baffin Islands. In the late nineteenth century founded also spreads. It serves to explain the similarity between cultures through contacts between the geographic groups. I take the other one that is more difficult to invent their own: the myth, ritual, 's art, technique. Anthropologists who deal with it did, however, note that these similarities were often superficial: the cultural traits that were at a diffusion process often change their meaning and function in the transfer from one society to another. As a result, many were those who were concerned to understand the particular cultures. They promoted, then, the idea that beliefs and behaviors of a person could only be understood in the context of the culture in which he lived.
Chariots of Anthropology In the early decades of the twentieth century one of the greatest anthropologists.
A. Kroeber, a student of Boas, he recognized the autonomous nature of culture. It 's the reason why he drew up criteria for methodological study. It turns out, so the "Superorgarnico"
that highlights the best models or "configurations" or "pattern" of different cultures. Kroeber, unfortunately, has been so little mentioned by most of the Italian scholars who becomes now possible to speak of their "bad faith" in science. Boas was the teacher of many great anthropologists in the first half of the twentieth century contributed to the development of the discipline to mention a few of the most significant names: A. Kroeber, exactly, R. Lowie, E. Sapir, M. Herskovits, A. Goldenweiser, C. Wissler, R. Benedict, M. Mead, A. Montagu. E. Sapir, it should be stressed that contributed in 1921 to lay the foundations of linguistics and the relationship between personality, thought and culture. In 1957 Kluckhohn, however, is devoted to a first overview of the contributions that had occurred in the search for 'universal culture'. J. Stewart wrote that a plurality of lines of cultural change. We then other currents. The line Marxist (Z. Baumann, 1973) or paramarxista (M. Harris, 1968), the functionalist (functionalism), which gave rise to today's British Social Anthropology (B. Malinowski, AR Radcliffe-Brown, EE Evans-Pritchard ), the psychological, represented A. Kardiner, that psychoanalysis, with the Romanian G. Roheim. M. Harris and C. Geertz enjoy considerable prestige, but their proposals do not always correspond to theories formally processed. From these few threads we, first of all, recognize that the American cultural anthropology. It took a fragmentation in Europe with its different names: social anthropology, history, medical anthropology, complexity, modernity, religions, etc.. There has, thus, his dicing ending with the dissolution of the universities. And this, I think, because it had no systematic and rigorous than a science necessarily requires. But America 's Watch to 'Cultural Anthropology with an eye that does
prevail' "ethnography." In the past, this allows us to speak of cultures "local". In our day, U.S. anthropologists believe that it is not possible to understand the ways of life of human groups without integrating the local with the global political and economic relations. It may, in this regard, remember: James Clifford, Michael Taussing, Joan Vincent. The last two work at Columbia University in New York, University of anthropological glory, the Ivy League in the nineties, however, saw astonished the defection of the great thinkers. Why?
And in Italy? In recent decades, in the beautiful country, some anthropologists have "betrayed" paradoxically Anthropology. They stressed the abstract and "constructed" not only of ethnicity and the group, but also even the very concept of culture. The latter say it is "unfounded." Culture is accused of having contributed to the creation of identity "strong", used mainly in the context of political conflicts. In that regard, I refer to the books by Hugh Fabietti. Often, anthropologists of the "betrayal" belong to the Marxist who "colonized"
already colonized peoples in the past, with "values" Marx. And now relegates them and relegates us to the sea dell'indistinto and abstention from inhuman "assessment." We assist, dismayed, to a "moriendi libido" which leads, for example, the European Commission to omit from his schedule to be distributed in schools in the second degree, the most important holidays of the Christian tradition for the benefit of those who belong to other cultures. Were produced, in fact, more than three million copies of this diary which disappears in the Christmas festivities to include the Jewish, Hindu, Sikh and Muslim.
Ida Magli is an Italian anthropologist little loved by the academy, perhaps, because he released the science of culture from the provincialism the study of our national tradition and popular folklore. Although theorized, suffered from the findings that his studies brought to light, the mesh is left alone, but it stubbornly continues to write and publish on all that has to do with the obviousness of the cultural models. Last but not least, the falsity of the Maastricht Treaty, which tramples on the identities of the nations of the Old Continent.
the end of this brief overview of the history and anthropology of the problems, I wonder: "The world goes where? Perhaps the world is moving towards globalization "desired" that, consequently,
could not lead to "political correnct, the timetable from the Commission European mentioned earlier. The West, our culture will disappear? What is left?
remain the discoveries of anthropology, the wealth of knowledge that gave
biology, psychiatry, history. The hope is reflected and continues to stand with the research and science whose doors remain open desperately.
