By means of a tale of food poisoning as retribution, this article describes a kind of reasoning that consciously defies commonsense logic. The lived validity of this form of reasoning emphasizes the necessity of an epistemology for anthropology that puts the analysis of relations between people at the heart of our understanding of human reasoning and its ontogeny. An ethnographic analysis of how certain island Fijians give form to kinship relations through the production, exchange, circulation, giving, and consumption of food suggests that it is the very specificity of intersubjective relations between particular persons that make them a proper focus for the anthropologist's attention. It follows that intersubjectivity is central to anthropology as an epistemological project whose fugitive object of study can only be ourselves, even while its focus is bound to be on others.
, however such decolonisation cannot come from existing philosophies and analytic paradigms which have dominated the world thus far but from those epistemologies born out of the historical experiences of the struggle against domination. These are alternative
The Life and Legacy of Marcus M. Jastrow (1829–1903)
Amongst the people from Europe immigrating to North America in the nineteenth century many Jews from Germany came to the New World trying to begin a new life. Their religious experience in Europe and Germany, and ideas of organising (religious) education shaped to a large extent Jewish religious life and education in North America, especially in the emerging United States. Marcus M. Jastrow (1829-1903) was amongst these Jewish immigrants. He came to America in 1866, and only when he took over the rabbinate of the Rodeph Shalom congregation in Philadelphia (Pa.) did the external conditions of his life settle down. Yet two cities - Berlin and Warsaw - and the encounter with distinguished scholars of the Science of Judaism (Wissenschaft des Judentums) and their beliefs remained most formative in Jastrow's life and legacy in America. Through this article I aim to trace back the elements of Jastrow's education and experience in Germany and Poland and identify and measure the impact of it in his life and epistemology in America.
Hans Gross, Mobility, and Crime around 1900
Hans Gross (1847–1915), the founder of Austro-Hungarian criminology, developed an epistemology of suspicion that targeted and profiled individuals as well as social and ethnic groups based mainly on their uprootedness and displacement. The scientific practices of observation and analysis he implemented in criminal investigations were anchored in epistemological assumptions that redefined and questioned both the object of study (namely, the criminal) and the subject (the investigator). By transferring scientific ideas and methods from the natural and social science into police work and judicial processes, Gross’s study of crime merged biological and social perspectives. This meant the categories of deviancy were attached to foreignness and social difference, migration and effects of urban life. His epistemology was underlined by social Darwinism, and his forensics, far from being an objective study, advocated what is today known as racial profiling.
The Importance of Native American Philosophies of Naming for Environmental Justice
site at which issues with references between Western and Indigenous epistemologies unfold” ( Bang et al. 2014: 11 , emphasis added). Where I live as a settler and guest in Kalapuya territory, in central Oregon, the names of lands, places, rivers
Reflections on the Sustainability of the Field
form of conceptual translation within ‘our’ modern world, or between ‘our’ modern and ‘Other’ nonmodern social worlds and ontologies. The classic understanding of anthropological epistemology assumes that doing ‘anthropology abroad’ is epistemologically
An Accountability, Written in the Year 2108
This 'archaeology of the future' examines how we, as scholars and anthropologists, will be read—and judged—in the time to come. Twenty-second-century theoreticians may well ask (as we today ask of colonial-era scholarship): “Did the scholars in the early twenty-first century see in their analyses new kinds of warfare, unparalleled forms of violence, potentialities yet to be developed?“ Through an analysis of events likely to unfold over the course of the next 100 years (from changing power constellations to anthropology's attempt to commit disciplinary suicide), this article affirms an anthropology that takes ontological reflexivity seriously; that no longer accepts outdated heuristics dividing theory from theoretician from Being (production of the world); and that grounds this approach in an accountability recognizing epistemology as dynamic, honest, and emergent.
What Is Happening to Epistemology?
Christina Toren and João de Pina-Cabral
Anthropologists debate the primacy of epistemology over ontology, and vice versa, or whether the one is bound always to implicate the other. Our collective and personal history, however, makes the lived world what it is for us, and not all explicit knowledge is constituted in the same way, with the same purposes in mind and within the same sets of binding parameters. Thus, the task of ethnography is to inquire into the different nature of the different forms and modes of constituting knowledge, even while we strive to understand what our own histories make us take for granted as self-evident. This article argues that as a profoundly radical endeavor after knowledge, ethnography goes to the very roots of inquiry into what it is to be human and thus provides for anthropology as a continuing comparative project of fundamental importance to the human sciences.
Challenges and Sparks of Being a Dual-Citizen Woman Researcher in Iran
Another Epistemology Diane L. Wolf (1996) points out during the fieldwork, there are three contexts in which issues of power balance arise; one is that the researcher and the researched usually bring different amounts and kinds of social power (class
Reflections from Cambridge
Heidi Mogstad and Lee-Shan Tse
Privilege of Partial Perspective ’. Feminist Studies 14 ( 3 ): 575 – 599 . https://doi:10.2307/3178066 . 10.2307/3178066 Harding , S. 1992 . ‘ Rethinking Standpoint Epistemology: What Is “Strong Objectivity” ’. The Centennial Review 36 ( 3