Difference between revisions of "Zeitlyn2009"

From emcawiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=David Zeitlyn |Title=Understanding Anthropological Understanding: For a Merological Anthropology |Tag(s)=empirical responsibility; merol...")
 
 
Line 2: Line 2:
 
|BibType=ARTICLE
 
|BibType=ARTICLE
 
|Author(s)=David Zeitlyn
 
|Author(s)=David Zeitlyn
|Title=Understanding Anthropological Understanding: For a Merological Anthropology
+
|Title=Understanding anthropological understanding: for a merological anthropology
 
|Tag(s)=empirical responsibility; merology; partiality; postmodernism; practical adequacy; realism; relativism;
 
|Tag(s)=empirical responsibility; merology; partiality; postmodernism; practical adequacy; realism; relativism;
 
|Key=Zeitlyn2009
 
|Key=Zeitlyn2009
Line 10: Line 10:
 
|Number=2
 
|Number=2
 
|Pages=209–231
 
|Pages=209–231
|URL=http://ant.sagepub.com/content/9/2/209
+
|URL=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1463499609103550
 
|DOI=10.1177/1463499609103550
 
|DOI=10.1177/1463499609103550
|Abstract=In this article I argue for a merological anthropology in which ideas of `partiality' and `practical adequacy' provide a way out of the impasse of relativism which is implied by postmodernism and the related abandonment of a concern with `truth'. Ideas such as `aptness' and `faithfulness' enable us to re-establish empirical foundations without having to espouse a simple realism which has been rightly criticized. Ideas taken from ethnomethodology, particularly the way we bootstrap from `practical adequacy' to `warrants for confidence', point to a merological anthropology in which we recognize that we do not and cannot know everything, but that we can have reasons for being confident in the little we know.
+
|Abstract=In this article I argue for a merological anthropology in which ideas of 'partiality' and 'practical adequacy' provide a way out of the impasse of relativism which is implied by postmodernism and the related abandonment of a concern with 'truth'. Ideas such as 'aptness' and 'faithfulness' enable us to re-establish empirical foundations without having to espouse a simple realism which has been rightly criticized. Ideas taken from ethnomethodology, particularly the way we bootstrap from 'practical adequacy' to 'warrants for confidence', point to a merological anthropology in which we recognize that we do not and cannot know everything, but that we can have reasons for being confident in the little we know.
 
}}
 
}}

Latest revision as of 03:05, 23 November 2019

Zeitlyn2009
BibType ARTICLE
Key Zeitlyn2009
Author(s) David Zeitlyn
Title Understanding anthropological understanding: for a merological anthropology
Editor(s)
Tag(s) empirical responsibility, merology, partiality, postmodernism, practical adequacy, realism, relativism
Publisher
Year 2009
Language
City
Month
Journal Anthropological Theory
Volume 9
Number 2
Pages 209–231
URL Link
DOI 10.1177/1463499609103550
ISBN
Organization
Institution
School
Type
Edition
Series
Howpublished
Book title
Chapter

Download BibTex

Abstract

In this article I argue for a merological anthropology in which ideas of 'partiality' and 'practical adequacy' provide a way out of the impasse of relativism which is implied by postmodernism and the related abandonment of a concern with 'truth'. Ideas such as 'aptness' and 'faithfulness' enable us to re-establish empirical foundations without having to espouse a simple realism which has been rightly criticized. Ideas taken from ethnomethodology, particularly the way we bootstrap from 'practical adequacy' to 'warrants for confidence', point to a merological anthropology in which we recognize that we do not and cannot know everything, but that we can have reasons for being confident in the little we know.

Notes