The 'Social Construction' of David Schneider as 'A Giant of Anthropology'.
David Schneider is widely regarded as one of the great anthropologists of our times. This article questions this opinion. First it shows that his fieldwork on the Micronesian island of Yap evidences ethnographic insensitivity, particularly on the matter of an alleged ignorance of physiological pater...
| Publicado en: | Oceania Vol. 90; no. 1; pp. 70 - 87 |
|---|---|
| Autor principal: | |
| Formato: | Artículo |
| Publicado: |
Wiley-Blackwell
Mar2020
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ssf&AN=142138911&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: ssf uiTerm: 142138911 longDbName: Social Sciences Full Text (H.W. Wilson) uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: jinfo: jid: 00298077 OCA jtl: Oceania issn: 00298077 maglogo: Y pubinfo: dt: Mar2020 vid: 90 iid: 1 pid: 480 pub: Wiley-Blackwell artinfo: ui: 142138911 10.1002/ocea.5235 ppf: 70 ppct: 17 formats: fmt: – @attributes: type: T – @attributes: type: P size: 150KB tig: atl: The 'Social Construction' of David Schneider as 'A Giant of Anthropology'. aug: au: Shapiro, Warren affil: Rutgers University su: Anthropology Paternity Anthropologists Construction American studies sug: subj: Anthropology Paternity Anthropologists Construction American studies keyword: culture theory ethnographic sensitivity ignorance of physiological paternity kinship culture theory ethnographic sensitivity ignorance of physiological paternity kinship ab: David Schneider is widely regarded as one of the great anthropologists of our times. This article questions this opinion. First it shows that his fieldwork on the Micronesian island of Yap evidences ethnographic insensitivity, particularly on the matter of an alleged ignorance of physiological paternity, thus calling into question his supposed concern with getting at native understandings. The alleged ignorance forms the ethnographic basis for his later critique of established kinship studies. This, plus his ignorance of lexical marking, invalidates the critique. Even worse is his study of American kinship and its related theory of culture, both consisting mostly of top‐of‐the‐head impressions unrelated to specific operations. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: Article src: R language: English refInfo: copyright: @attributes: flag: N holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|