Description, difference and history, in Melanesia, for example.

This article is about the relationship between common history and specific cultures. Specifically, it seeks a resolution to the ongoing problem of which of these should be given logical priority in anthropology— that is, which should be given the status of first cause. This problem is exemplified in...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Published in:Australian Journal of Anthropology Vol. 36; no. 1; pp. 123 - 141
Main Authors: Hirsch, Eric, Rollason, Will
Format: Article
Published: Wiley-Blackwell Apr2025
Subjects:
Online Access:View this record in EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ssf&AN=185399630&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: ssf
    uiTerm: 185399630
    longDbName: Social Sciences Full Text (H.W. Wilson)
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        10358811
        AUJ
      jtl: Australian Journal of Anthropology
      issn: 10358811
      maglogo: Y
    pubinfo:
      dt: Apr2025
      vid: 36
      iid: 1
      pid: 480
      pub: Wiley-Blackwell
    artinfo:
      ui:
        185399630
        10.1111/taja.12537
      ppf: 123
      ppct: 18
      formats:
        fmt:
          – @attributes:
              type: T
          – @attributes:
              type: P
              size: 287KB
      tig:
        atl: Description, difference and history, in Melanesia, for example.
      aug:
        au:
          Hirsch, Eric
          Rollason, Will
        affil: Brunel University of London, Uxbridge, UK
      su:
        Melanesia
        Papua New Guinea
        Anscombe, G. E. M. (Gertrude Elizabeth Margaret), 1919-2001
        Anthropology
        Institutional theory (Sociology)
        Verstehen
        Cultural history
      sug:
        subj:
          Anthropology
          Institutional theory (Sociology)
          Verstehen
          Cultural history
          Melanesia
          Papua New Guinea
          Anscombe, G. E. M. (Gertrude Elizabeth Margaret), 1919-2001
      keyword:
        Dipesh Chakrabarty
        ethnography
        Marilyn Strathern
        Dipesh Chakrabarty
        ethnography
        Marilyn Strathern
      ab: This article is about the relationship between common history and specific cultures. Specifically, it seeks a resolution to the ongoing problem of which of these should be given logical priority in anthropology— that is, which should be given the status of first cause. This problem is exemplified in the 1990s debate between proponents of the so‐called 'New Melanesian Ethnography' and those of the 'New Melanesian History'. Thinking through the Parliament House sculptures controversy that erupted in Papua New Guinea in 2013, we draw an analogy between the work of Marilyn Strathern and Dipesh Chakrabarty to argue that difference can be located in practices of description. Drawing on the ideas of Elizabeth Anscombe and Ian Hacking, we suggest that descriptive practices are inextricably linked with intentional actions—that is, intentional actions exist 'under a description'. On this basis, we argue that neither culture nor history can be a first cause, since both are created by specific descriptive practices—history and ethnography as accounts of the world, for example, but also indigenous accounts embodied in state‐building, Pentecostal Christianity, or gift exchange. We close by suggesting how anthropologists might allow the times and differences of others to flourish in their own descriptive practices and avoid the kind of metaphysical impasse that marked Melanesian studies in the 1990s.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype: Article
      src: R
    language: English
    refInfo:
    copyright:
      @attributes:
        flag: N
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N