Advertisement

Models and Interpretation in Human Sciences: Anthropology and the Theoretical Notion of Field

  • Silvana Borutti
Chapter
  • 104 Downloads
Part of the Synthese Library book series (SYLI, volume 195)

Abstract

The present paper consists of three parts. In the introduction (I), I describe briefly the epistemological model which is the premise of my analysis. My argument is that knowledge in human sciences is essentially interpretive knowledge. In the central part of my paper (II), I deal with the problem of defining what interpretation is in a particular human science, that is anthropology. Once assumed, as I do, that an anthropological fact is only given in relation to a point of view, or to a pre-compre-hension of the fact, we must analyze the specific features of such a relation. The framework of the cognitive relation, in the ethnographic experience, is the field. Given that, the field is not to be taken as a background or a generic container of this relation. Rather, it determines its specific features. As we shall see, these features are basically dialogical. Finally, in the third part (III), I shall put forward some points in order to discuss the role of language and dialogic interaction in the cognitive strategies of anthropology.

Keywords

Communicative Context Human Science Interpretive Approach Interpretive Model Social Discourse 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bateson, G.: 1972, Steps to an Ecology of Mind ,Chandler Publishing Company, New York.Google Scholar
  2. Blumenberg, H.: 1960, ‘Paradigmen zu einer Metaphorologie’, Archiv für Begriffgeschiente ,Vol. VI, Bouvier und Co., Bonn.Google Scholar
  3. Cassirer, E.: 1923, Philosophie der Symbolischen Formen ,Copyright Bruno Cassirer, Oxford.Google Scholar
  4. Ducrot, O.: 1972, Dire et ne pas dire. Principes de sémantique linguistique ,Hermann, Paris.Google Scholar
  5. Ducrot, O.: 1973, La preuve et le dire. Langage et logique ,avec la collaboration de M.C. Barbault et J. Depresle, Mame, Paris.Google Scholar
  6. Dwyer, K.: 1982, Moroccan Dialogues. Anthropology in Question ,J. Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.Google Scholar
  7. Fabian, J.: 1971: ‘Language, History and Anthropology’, Philosophy of Social Sciences ,pp. 19–47.Google Scholar
  8. Favret-Saada, J.: 1977, Les mots, la mort, les sorts: la sorcel-lerie dans le Bocage ,Gallimard, Paris.Google Scholar
  9. Favret-Saada, J. and Contreras, J.: 1981, Corps pour corps, en-quête sur la sorcellerie dans le Bocage ,Paris.Google Scholar
  10. Freud, S.: 1925. Die Verneinung, Gesammelte Werke ,Vol. XIV, Frankfurt am Main, 1948, pp. 9–15.Google Scholar
  11. Gadamer, H.G.: 1965, Wahrheit und Methode ,Mohr, Tübingen.Google Scholar
  12. Geertz, C: 1973, The Interpretation of Cultures ,Basic Books, New York.Google Scholar
  13. Geertz, C: 1980, Negara: The Theatre State in Nineteenth-Century Bali ,Princeton University Press, Princeton.Google Scholar
  14. Geertz, C: 1983, Local Knowledge. Further Essays in Interpretive Anthropology ,Basic Books, New York.Google Scholar
  15. Guidieri, R.: 1980, La route des morts ,Seuil Paris.Google Scholar
  16. Hanson, N.R.: 1958, Patterns of Discovery. An Inquiry into the Conceptual Foundations of Science ,Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  17. Hesse, M.: 1966, 19702, Models and Analogies in Science ,University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame (Indiana).Google Scholar
  18. Holy, L. and Stuchlik, M. (eds.): 1981, The Structure of Folk Models ,Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
  19. Lévi-Strauss, C.: 1949, Les structures élémentaires de la paren-té ,Presses Universitaires de France, Paris.Google Scholar
  20. Lévi-Strauss, C.: 1962, La pensée sauvage ,Librairie Plon, Paris.Google Scholar
  21. Lowry, J.: 1981, ‘Theorizing “Observation”’, in Pinxten, R. and Karnoouh, C. (eds.), Observation in Anthropology, Studies in Knowledge ,Copyright Communication & Cognition, Ghent, pp. 7–23.Google Scholar
  22. Malinowski, B.: 1922, 19728, Argonauts of the Western Pacific, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London.Google Scholar
  23. Malinowski, B.: 1967, A Diary in the Strict Sense of the Term, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London.Google Scholar
  24. Meyer, M.: 1986, De la problématologie. Philosophie ,science et langage ,Mardaga, Bruxelles.Google Scholar
  25. Parret, H.: 1984, ‘Regularities, Rules and Strategies’, Journal of Pragmatics ,vol. 8, 4, pp. 569–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pinxten, R.: 1981, ‘Observation in Anthropology: Positivism and Subjectivism Combined’, in Pinxten, R. and Karnoouh, C. (eds.), Observation in Anthropology, Studies in Knowledge ,Copyright Communication & Cognition, Ghent, pp. 57–83.Google Scholar
  27. Ricoeur, P.: 1970, Freud and Philosophy ,Yale University Press, New Haven.Google Scholar
  28. Ricoeur, P.: 1975, La métaphore vive ,Seuil, Paris.Google Scholar
  29. Shankman, P.: 1984, ‘The Thick and the Thin: On the Interpretive Theoretical Program of Clifford Geertz’, Current Anthropology, Vol. 25, 3, pp. 261–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sperber, D.: 1982, Le savoir des anthropologues ,Hermann, Paris.Google Scholar
  31. Wagner, R.: 1975, 19812, The Invention of Culture ,University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  32. Wittgenstein, L.: 1953, 19582, Philosophical Investigations, Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
  33. Wittgenstein, L.: 1958, 19692, The Blue and the Brown Books, Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© D. Reidel Publishing Company 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • Silvana Borutti
    • 1
  1. 1.Dipartimento di FilosofiaUniversitä degli Studi di PaviaItaly

Personalised recommendations