Šta je (bila) antropološka 'refleksivnost' - metodološka formalizacija

Abstract

Ovom monografskom studijom predlažem da refleksivnost posmatramo kao koordinativnu definiciju koja preživljava postmodernu antropologiju i njoj svojstven sistem tri krize - krize etnografske reprezentacije, krize naučnog realizma i krize autoriteta antropologa. Osim toga, u jednom od specifičnih značenja, antropološku refleksivnost predlažem da rekontekstualizujemo i kao zamenu za eksperiment, bolju od komparativnog metoda - kao konačno ispunjenje davnog sna o antropologiji kao nauci (koje nam, doduše, više nije potrebno osim zbog samoreprezentacije). Studija je jedna u seriji tekstova koji za cilj imaju da rekonstruišu i metodološki formalizuju tobože formalizaciji nepodložne koncepte postmoderne antropologije. Refleksivna antropologija postala je postmoderna nauka zato što je priznala da je eksperimentalna umetnost, samo, ko to razume i ko to želi da finansira i primenjuje? Antropologija je putem postepenog inkorporiranja refleksivnosti u neupitno disciplinarno jezgro konačno postala nauka, u najkonzervativnijem opštem metodološkom smislu, pa anti-postmoderna frustracija u debatama oko Milenijuma, obnovljenim i u ovom časopisu, nema ni metodološkog osnova, ni pragmatičko opravdanje. Refleksivnost nam koristi, a ne šteti, čak i iz tradicionalnog pogleda na teorije i problemski-aplikativnog pogleda na metod, samo je vreme da je konačno formulišemo tako da mogu da je primene i metodološki tradicionalisti. .

In this study, I suggest that reflexivity in anthropology can be viewed as a coordinative definition that helped anthropology survive its three crises - the crisis of ethnographic representation, the crisis of scientific realism, and the crisis of anthropological authority. In addition, reflexivity, in a specific sense, can be taken as a substitute for experiment, a substitute even better than comparative studies, and can thus help fulfill the long dream of consolidating anthropology on firm scientific grounds (a dream I believe is, though, no longer necessary). This text should be understood as a part of a series of studies that strive towards the methodological formalization of supposedly formalization-resistant concepts of postmodern anthropology. In reality, reflexive anthropology became postmodern science only by admitting to be experimental art, but the question is who would understand and, more importantly, finance and apply this concept? The incorporation of reflexivity into the core of anthropology enabled it to finally achieve the status of science, in the most conservative and general methodological sense. Therefore, the anti-postmodern frustration present in some relatively recent debates, examples of which we can see in this volume, is neither methodologically nor pragmatically founded. Reflexivity can only be useful, not harmful to the discipline, even from the standpoint of traditional, problem-applicative concepts of method. The only remaining assignment is to reformulate it so it could be applied by methodological traditionalists as well.