Search Results

model based on a social ideology with a strong European heritage has, on the one hand, set Melanesian societies in comparative dialogue with social systems elsewhere. On the other hand, however, it has perhaps prevented explorations of possible

’s (1936) developments concerning ‘topological psychology’. Bourdieu’s (2005) idea of ‘social field’ is also fundamental to our conception of topologies of power as a qualitative characterization of the geometry of place, modeled by the power of its

this project therefore do not conform to the ‘economy of merit’ model of the Buddhist gift as reinforcing and reproducing the hierarchical distinction between laity and monastics, even if more general economic relations between the villagers and monks

Alevis to acquire the competence to exercise formerly esoteric practices as a marker of their public identity. Following Handelman (1998) , we conceive of the cem not only as a ‘model’ of a ritual practice that ‘mirrors’ the conditions of the Alevis in

, constructed account of the past. It was “history turned into nature” ( Bourdieu 1977: 78 ). Sahlins’s model suggested to John that change was confronted with an unproblematic cultural endowment and elided a crucial area of reflexivity ( Peel 1993: 172 ). He

model for the whole of a complex society, since societies must necessarily be concerned with their own reproduction, whether political, economic, or familial? Brac de la Perrière’s article shows how alternative paths can and do still exist within

sociality, that is, a dispositif , a technique that imposes a particular conduct, modeling truth and normality by defining power relations. Consequently, abstract money turns into a source of systemic violence that pushes everything into the icy waters of

has received some attention in recent years, as studies of the materiality of religion have become a prominent trend within social anthropology. This article demonstrates that beyond Tambiah’s model of the ‘sedimentation’ of charisma in holy objects as

the main theories that constitute part of the argument. From Durkheim to Whitehouse and from ritual theory to ontological and neuroanthropological approaches, Bull and Mitchell provide an eloquent explanatory model of the book’s theoretical basis