Study Day: What is a good anthropological proof? - Minutes
keeper of minutes: Lutz Greisiger
0. Introduction(s)
0.1 Welcoming by Prof. Paul and Katharina Schramm
0.2 Introductory remarks by Richard Rottenburg
- The tradition of self-criticism in anthropology
- The problem of "translation" in the business of reporting about "other worlds"
- Explanations of the choice of the four texts (mainly about Latour)
- Remarks on the question whether the topic: "What is a good [anthropological] proof" fits the discussions to be expected after having chosen these texts
- General Suggestion for the organization of study days of next semester: to take the question "what does proof mean in the different disciplines" as the main theme of the study days
0.3 Introductory remarks by Katharina Schramm
- Explanations of the choice of the four texts (mainly about Appadurai)
1. Sherry B. Ortner: Theory in Anthropology since the Sixties
1.1 Introduction by Felix Girke read contribution
- Content of the text
- Remarks on the ’pragmatical’ intention of the text: to encourage a certain trend (namely what the author calls practice theory) in anthropological theory
- The contribution of the text to the topic of the study day; "proof", is rather poor
- Further critical remarks on the text, concerning a certain neglect of field work, the reflexivity of texts, the impact of colonial and post-colonial history on anthropological theory
1.2 Discussion
- Contribution of the text to the "proof"-topic
- Relation between paradigm and methodology
- Practice theory and the practice of reading
- Structure and practice
- Change of paradigm from transformational grammar theory to pragmalinguistics as a parallel between linguistics and anthropology
1.3 Summary of the discussion by Katharina Schramm
2. James Clifford: On Ethnographic Allegory
2.1 Introduction by Christoph Langer read contribution
- Allegory as an unavoidable result of "translation"
- "How can we open ourselves to other histories?"
- Critique of the allegedly "uncontrollable interpretation [infinite number of possible interpretations] of texts" - we should be able to put a limit to the possible interpretations
2.2 Critique of the text by Ahmad Abd-el-Salam read contribution
- Critique of Clifford’s usage of the term "allegory" - allegory is a well-defined term in comparative literature; Clifford gives another definition according to which allegory is basically narrative; ethnographic writing is allegorical in the sense of a fable/parable.
2.3 Discussion conducted by Thomas Kirsch
- What is an allegory?
- Problem of "translation of terms" from one discipline to another - here: from comparative literature to anthropology
- Origin of the concept of allegory in (Jewish) Bible exegesis
- Despite the somewhat loose usage of the term: translation has to bridge a gap and this produces "allegory"
- General suggestion: to raise, in future meetings, the question: "What does a methodological text from one discipline help to solve problems in another?"
2.4 Summary of the discussion by Thomas Kirsch
3. Arjun Appadurai: Putting Hierarchy in its Place
3.1 Introduction read contribution
- To give a "non-anthropologist translation of Appadurai’s text"
3.2 Critique of the text by Steffen Johannessen read contribution
- Critique of the anthropological concept of "culture"
- Essentializing, exoticizing, totalizing as universal characteristic of thinking which is criticised by Appadurai as "typical western/anthropologist way of thinking"
3.3 Discussion
- Ethnomethodology (Garfinkel) not mentioned by Appadurai
- General suggestion [repeatedly made during the discussion but with no effect on it]: to discuss the concept of "genealogy of ideas" (Foucault) for other disciplines
- "Putting Adurai in his place": Critique of Dumont’s "Homo Hierarchicus" in the Chicago school of anthropology is based on a construction of Dumont as a "bogyman" or "whipping boy", designed to clear-cut its own profile at the expense of him and completely ignoring what Dumont is all about
- Appadurai himself is essentializing, exoticizing and totalizing in his way of describing anthropologist theory-making
- "Occidentalism" or "inversed orientalism" of Appadurai
- Accusation of "othering" - General suggestion: to use the question whether the other is "completely different from me" or "just the same like me" as a frame for the (interdisciplinary) discussion
- What is the problem about saying "India is all about hierarchy"?
- Essentialism which is criticized by Appadurai can be observed in his own text when he claims that there is a certain "Geist" in anthropology
- Appadurai’s criticism as an embodied attitude of all anthropologists (which stems from the criticism of the colonial past of the discipline)
- Misrepresentation of several methodological concepts in Appadurai (for instance the histoire totale of the Années-Sociologiques-school or of the works of Evens-Pritchard)
- Edward Said’s "Orientalism" has ever been (ab)used as a "clubbing argument" against "talking difference" - the same happens in Appadurai’s text.
3.4 Summary of the discussion omitted
4. Bruno Latour: The Politics of Explanation
4.1 Introductory discussion by Olaf Zenker and Kai Porwoll read contribution
- Relationship between "explanation" and "throw away-explanations"
- The value of "novelty", "originality" and "defamiliarizing representations"
- The question of a privileged perspective and the relevance of non-priveleged stories
- The relationship between "explanation" and "representations"
- Latour’s handling of "causality"
4.2 General discussion conducted by Richard Rottenburg
- Background of Latour: Malinowski observed that even in allegedly "irrational" cultures there is science which is rational - the consequence which was demanded by Leach was to study science ’at home’ - which does Latour
- Evens-Pritchard (1961) demands to do interpretation, not explanation, to study patterns, not laws, to abandon the science paradigm in anthropology
- Patterns of explanation change in history (like: climate, race, class struggles and the like) - which kind of explanation is valuable / do we accept?
- What is the exact relationship between reflexivity and style according to Latour?
- "Finitism" in explanation
- Latour’s text contains 2 parts, the first explaining how explanation works, the second dealing with the question: "How should we do it from now on?" - The introductory discussion sometimes confused the two
5. General discussion
5.1 Open questions
- The problem of reference
- Lack of knowledge of philosophical epistemology
- Frequent reaction of the non-anthropologists (during the break): "So, this is what you anthropologists do?!" - this is not an anthropology section; the texts are written mainly by non-anthropologists; don’t overlook the age of the texts (all from the 80s)
5.2. Organizational issues
- How to better organize discussions during the study days - feedback to this and any other issue most welcome
- How can be guaranteed that all participants find a ’common ground’ for discussion?
- How can be guaranteed that PhD-students are getting more involved in the discussion?
- Should we limit the number of texts to be prepared?
- (See also the general suggestions scattered over the discussions)