Deset antiteza jednom postizmu u antropologiji
Ten Antitheses to a Post-ism in Anthropology
Abstract
This paper challenges the conception that postmodernism can only
be described in postmodernist terms. I claim that theory of ethnography
was never part of general anthropological methodology. Furthermore -
despite numerous efforts - it never was nor will be a theory at all, but
only a discussion of techniques of data collection. Once we formulate
the problem, find a location in time and space in which it can best betested, and confront our hypotheses with either corroborating or
falsifying facts, we will be able to abandon the idea - that was being
grounded both in American anthropology and Serbian ethnology for
centuries - that science begins with collecting facts.
Gathering around the already weakened anthropological center
would enable us to comprehend the disciplinary damage from wasting
very limited human resources. Therefore, I plead for the concentration
around the core of anthropology, which is already so vast that it barely
allows our discipline.
Teza da se o postmodernizmu može pisati samo
postmoder-nističkim jezikom je netačna.'Teorija'' etnografije nije
nikada ni spadala u opštu antropološku metodologiju, i, što je manje važno, nikada nije bila teorija, a neće ni biti ma koliko se mnogi trudili, već samo rasprava o tehnikama prikupljanja podataka. Kada se formuliše problem i potraži lokacija u vremenu i prostoru na kojoj se on najbolje očitava i hipoteze suoče sa činjenicama koje je potvrđuju ili obaraju, napušta se u američkoj antropologiji i srpskoj etnologiji vekovima uvreženo shvatanje da nauka počinje sakupljanjem činjenica.Zbijanje redova oko ionako veoma raznovrsnog antropološkog jezgra ukazuje na disciplinarnu štetu od rasipanje veoma ograničenih ljudskih resursa i pledira za koncentrisanje oko
antropološkog jezgra, koje je toliko da jedva omogućava disciplinarnu prepoznatljivost.
Keywords:
savremenost / postmodernizam / antropologija / teorija / etnografija / modernity / postmodernism / anthropology / theory / ethnographySource:
Antropologija savremenosti, 2007, 23, 24-35Publisher:
- Српски генеалошки центар, Београд
- Одељење за етнологију и антропологију, Филозофског факултета у Београду
Funding / projects:
Collections
Institution/Community
Etnologija i antropologija / Ethnology and AnthropologyTY - CHAP AU - Kovačević, Ivan PY - 2007 UR - http://reff.f.bg.ac.rs/handle/123456789/3904 AB - This paper challenges the conception that postmodernism can only be described in postmodernist terms. I claim that theory of ethnography was never part of general anthropological methodology. Furthermore - despite numerous efforts - it never was nor will be a theory at all, but only a discussion of techniques of data collection. Once we formulate the problem, find a location in time and space in which it can best betested, and confront our hypotheses with either corroborating or falsifying facts, we will be able to abandon the idea - that was being grounded both in American anthropology and Serbian ethnology for centuries - that science begins with collecting facts. Gathering around the already weakened anthropological center would enable us to comprehend the disciplinary damage from wasting very limited human resources. Therefore, I plead for the concentration around the core of anthropology, which is already so vast that it barely allows our discipline. AB - Teza da se o postmodernizmu može pisati samo postmoder-nističkim jezikom je netačna.'Teorija'' etnografije nije nikada ni spadala u opštu antropološku metodologiju, i, što je manje važno, nikada nije bila teorija, a neće ni biti ma koliko se mnogi trudili, već samo rasprava o tehnikama prikupljanja podataka. Kada se formuliše problem i potraži lokacija u vremenu i prostoru na kojoj se on najbolje očitava i hipoteze suoče sa činjenicama koje je potvrđuju ili obaraju, napušta se u američkoj antropologiji i srpskoj etnologiji vekovima uvreženo shvatanje da nauka počinje sakupljanjem činjenica.Zbijanje redova oko ionako veoma raznovrsnog antropološkog jezgra ukazuje na disciplinarnu štetu od rasipanje veoma ograničenih ljudskih resursa i pledira za koncentrisanje oko antropološkog jezgra, koje je toliko da jedva omogućava disciplinarnu prepoznatljivost. PB - Српски генеалошки центар, Београд PB - Одељење за етнологију и антропологију, Филозофског факултета у Београду T2 - Antropologija savremenosti T1 - Deset antiteza jednom postizmu u antropologiji T1 - Ten Antitheses to a Post-ism in Anthropology EP - 35 SP - 24 VL - 23 UR - https://hdl.handle.net/21.15107/rcub_reff_3904 ER -
@inbook{ author = "Kovačević, Ivan", year = "2007", abstract = "This paper challenges the conception that postmodernism can only be described in postmodernist terms. I claim that theory of ethnography was never part of general anthropological methodology. Furthermore - despite numerous efforts - it never was nor will be a theory at all, but only a discussion of techniques of data collection. Once we formulate the problem, find a location in time and space in which it can best betested, and confront our hypotheses with either corroborating or falsifying facts, we will be able to abandon the idea - that was being grounded both in American anthropology and Serbian ethnology for centuries - that science begins with collecting facts. Gathering around the already weakened anthropological center would enable us to comprehend the disciplinary damage from wasting very limited human resources. Therefore, I plead for the concentration around the core of anthropology, which is already so vast that it barely allows our discipline., Teza da se o postmodernizmu može pisati samo postmoder-nističkim jezikom je netačna.'Teorija'' etnografije nije nikada ni spadala u opštu antropološku metodologiju, i, što je manje važno, nikada nije bila teorija, a neće ni biti ma koliko se mnogi trudili, već samo rasprava o tehnikama prikupljanja podataka. Kada se formuliše problem i potraži lokacija u vremenu i prostoru na kojoj se on najbolje očitava i hipoteze suoče sa činjenicama koje je potvrđuju ili obaraju, napušta se u američkoj antropologiji i srpskoj etnologiji vekovima uvreženo shvatanje da nauka počinje sakupljanjem činjenica.Zbijanje redova oko ionako veoma raznovrsnog antropološkog jezgra ukazuje na disciplinarnu štetu od rasipanje veoma ograničenih ljudskih resursa i pledira za koncentrisanje oko antropološkog jezgra, koje je toliko da jedva omogućava disciplinarnu prepoznatljivost.", publisher = "Српски генеалошки центар, Београд, Одељење за етнологију и антропологију, Филозофског факултета у Београду", journal = "Antropologija savremenosti", booktitle = "Deset antiteza jednom postizmu u antropologiji, Ten Antitheses to a Post-ism in Anthropology", pages = "35-24", volume = "23", url = "https://hdl.handle.net/21.15107/rcub_reff_3904" }
Kovačević, I.. (2007). Deset antiteza jednom postizmu u antropologiji. in Antropologija savremenosti Српски генеалошки центар, Београд., 23, 24-35. https://hdl.handle.net/21.15107/rcub_reff_3904
Kovačević I. Deset antiteza jednom postizmu u antropologiji. in Antropologija savremenosti. 2007;23:24-35. https://hdl.handle.net/21.15107/rcub_reff_3904 .
Kovačević, Ivan, "Deset antiteza jednom postizmu u antropologiji" in Antropologija savremenosti, 23 (2007):24-35, https://hdl.handle.net/21.15107/rcub_reff_3904 .