Journals / Kebikeç İnsan Bilimleri İçin Kaynak Araştırmaları Dergisi / 2021 / Cilt: 52 - Sayı: 52

Politics of Ethnographic Narration: Anthropology and the Creation of Disciplinary Allure

Etnografik Yazının Siyaseti: Antropoloji ve Disiplinel Bir Cazibe Yaratımı

Pages
7–30
Publication Date
2022-10-18
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Moreover, I suggest that anthropology might have been operating on a different allegorical content than claimed, namely ‘the creation of disciplinary allure’, by tightening up the bizarre, unlike, and authentic anthropological community formulation.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The argument on social representation made in the period of classical ethnography, properly placed to the beginning of 20th century as the emergence of modern anthropology, has recently been criticised by the counter argument that a number of narrative forms and strategies used in ethnographies indeed reproduced the current disadvantageousness of reported communities.
📊
Key Findings & Data:On the other hand, focusing on the highly esteemed disciplinary discussion on magic, science, and religion, I argue in this article that anthropological sets of concepts and approaches have provided some channels for challenging Western ways of knowing, that the aforementioned challenge, based on some specific strategies, has narrowed the distance between the Western reader and anthropological communities, yet on occasions opened it up in favour of the latter, and eventually that the textual critique on the reproduction of “primitive” community disadvantageousness may not be the only working scenario for the period of classical ethnographies.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Moreover, I suggest that anthropology might have been operating on a different allegorical content than claimed, namely ‘the creation of disciplinary allure’, by tightening up the bizarre, unlike, and authentic anthropological community formulation.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

The argument on social representation made in the period of classical ethnography, properly placed to the beginning of 20th century as the emergence of modern anthropology, has recently been criticised by the counter argument that a number of narrative forms and strategies used in ethnographies indeed reproduced the current disadvantageousness of reported communities. Based on textual conventions, this critique has also led the scholars to think on new relationships between anthropological textuality and allegory. On the other hand, focusing on the highly esteemed disciplinary discussion on magic, science, and religion, I argue in this article that anthropological sets of concepts and approaches have provided some channels for challenging Western ways of knowing, that the aforementioned challenge, based on some specific strategies, has narrowed the distance between the Western reader and anthropological communities, yet on occasions opened it up in favour of the latter, and eventually that the textual critique on the reproduction of “primitive” community disadvantageousness may not be the only working scenario for the period of classical ethnographies. Moreover, I suggest that anthropology might have been operating on a different allegorical content than claimed, namely ‘the creation of disciplinary allure’, by tightening up the bizarre, unlike, and authentic anthropological community formulation.

Özet

Modern antropolojinin kuruluşuna karşılık gelen 20. yüzyıl başı klasik etnografi döneminin topluluk temsili iddiası, kullanılan kimi etnografik anlatı biçim ve stratejilerinin esasen ilgili toplulukların dezavantajlılıklarını yeniden ürettiği karşı iddiası üzerinden son yıllarda eleştirilmektedir. Metinsel konvansiyonlara odaklanan bu eleştiri, antropolojik yazın ile alegori arasında yeni bağlantılar üzerinde düşünülmesini sağlamıştır. Öte yandan bu makalede disipline mal olmuş büyü, bilim ve din tartışmasına vurguyla antropolojik kavram setlerinin ve yaklaşım biçimlerinin Batılı bilme biçimlerine meydan okuma kanalları açtığını, belirli stratejilerin kullanımına dayanan bu meydan okumanın Batılı okuyucu ile antropolojik topluluk arasındaki mesafeyi daralttığını ve hatta kimi zaman ikinci lehine yeniden kurduğunu, hülasa metinsel eleştirinin “ilkel” topluluk dezavantajlılığının yeniden üretimi tezinin işleyen tek senaryo olmayabileceğini iddia ettim. İlaveten antropolojinin, durmaksızın koyulttuğu tuhaf, farklı ve otantik antropolojik topluluk formülü ileişaret edilenden farklı alegorik bir muhteva, ‘disiplinel cazibe yaratımı’,üzerinde çalıştığını öne sürdüm.

🔖

Cite This Article

ENNELİ, Ç. (2022). Politics of Ethnographic Narration: Anthropology and the Creation of Disciplinary Allure. Kebikeç İnsan Bilimleri İçin Kaynak Araştırmaları Dergisi, Cilt: 52 - Sayı: 52, 7–30. https://ajindex.com/articles/573137

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (17)

  1. Abu-Lughod, Lila. “Writing against Culture.”Recapturing Anthropology: Working in the Present. Ed. Richard G. Fox. Santa Fe: The School of American Research Press, 1991. 137-162.
  2. Ayata, Sencer. “Yeni Orta Sınıf ve Uydu Kent Yaşamı.” Kültür Fragmanları: Türkiye’de Gündelik Hayat. Ed. Deniz Kandiyoti ve Ayşe Saktanber. İstanbul: Metis Yayınları, 2003. 37- 56. Barba, Eugeniove Nicola Savarese. Oyuncunun Gizli Sanatı. İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları, 2002.
  3. Berger, John. Görme Biçimleri. İstanbul: Metis Yayınları, 2003.
  4. Boody, Janice. Wombsand Alien Spirits: Women, Men and the Zar Cult in Northern Sudan. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1989.
  5. Bourdieu, Pierre. The Logic of Practice. California: Stanford University Press, 1990.
  6. Clifford, James ve George E. Marcus,ed. Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography. London: University of California Press, 1986.
  7. Clifford, James. “On Ethnographic Allegory.”Writing Culture: The Poeticsand Politics of Ethnography. Ed. James Clifford ve George E. Marcus. London: University of California Press, 1986. 98-121.
  8. Crapanzano, Vincent (1986). “Hermes’ Dilemma: TheMasking of Subversion in Ethnographic Description.” Writing Culture: Th ePoetics and Politics of Ethnography. Ed. JamesClifford ve George E. Marcus.London: University of California Press, 1986. 51-76. deCerteau, Michel. Gündelik Hayatın Keşfi I: Eylem, Uygulama, Üretim Sanatları. Ankara: Dost Kitabevi Yayınları, 2009.
  9. Durakbaşa, Ayşe ve Dilek Cindoğlu. “Tezgâh üstü Karşılaşmalar.” Kültür Fragmanları: Türkiye’de Gündelik Hayat. Ed. Deniz Kandiyoti ve Ayşe Saktanber. İstanbul: Metis Yayınları, 2003.85-99.
  10. Durkheim, Emile. Dinsel Yaşamın İlk Biçimleri. İzmir: Cem Yayınevi, 2010.
  11. Durkheim, Emile. Sosyolojik Yöntemin Kuralları. Ankara: Dost Kitabevi Yayınları, 2012.
  12. Evans-Pritchard, E.E. Witchcraft, Oracles, and Magic among the Azande. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976.
  13. Featherstone, Mike. Postmodernizm ve Tüketim Kültürü. İstanbul: Ayrıntı Yayınları, 2005.
  14. Gluckman, Max. Politics, Law, and Ritual in Tribal Society. New York: Routledge, 2012.
  15. Hastrup, Kirsten. “Out of Anthropology: The Anthropologist as an Object of Dramatic- Representation.”Cultural Anthropology, 7.3 (1992):327-345.
  16. Hefner, Robert W. “Comment on the Article Allegories of Sacred Imperfection: Magic, Hermeneutics, and Passion in the Satanic Verses, by P. Werbner.”Current Anthropology 37. Supplement (1996):73-74.
  17. Holy, Ladislav. Antropolojinin Akrabalık Yaklaşımları. Ankara: Heretik Yayınları, 201