By: Moss Reumann

Moss Reumann — Wed, 17 Jan 2018 14:33:28 +0000

Perhaps this is not a problem unique to anthropology. Shlomo Sand, in his recently translated Twilight of History writes, “Few ‘pure’ historians have taken the trouble to formulate theories on the historiographical discipline itself…This should hardly be surprising: very few great writers have been at the same time good literary critics. In both cases, in literature as well as in history, the writing…seems to require far more in the way of creative imagination, rhetorical talent and ability to memorize, than it does in the way of systemic reflection.” This is of course no excuse for the professional historians, but maybe a reason to let the anthros themselves off the hook.

By the way: “The big problem with disciplinary history is that it might not actually be true. It is impressionistic and reflects personal experience.” Is history true? Or is it always a story we tell ourselves, no matter impressionistic of personal experience or dusty archival materials that we interpret according to our own sense of narrative possibility? Recommend Sand’s book for a thoughtful exploration of this topic.

By: Leif Jonsson

Leif Jonsson — Wed, 10 Jan 2018 02:51:50 +0000

It seems to me that the best histories are plural and diverse. Kuklick (ed. 2008) A New History of Anthropology is really interesting, as is Barth, Gingrich, Parkin, and Silverman (2005) One Discipline, Four Ways: British, German, French, and American Anthropology. In a number of ways they offer histories quite different from those you mention (Kuper, Harris, Stocking). The books seem to do okay for undergrads, too.

Comments on: Three Styles in the History of Anthropology

By: Moss Reumann

By: Leif Jonsson