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.

中文翻译：

---

大卫·施耐德（David Schneider）的“社会建构”作为“人类学的巨人”

大卫·施耐德（David Schneider）被广泛认为是当代最伟大的人类学家之一。本文对这一观点提出了质疑。首先，它表明他在密克罗尼西亚的雅浦岛进行的野外工作证明了人种学上的不敏感性，特别是在据称对生理亲权无知的问题上，因此使人们对他对获得本土理解的关注提出了质疑。所谓的无知构成了他后来对血缘关系研究的批判的人种学基础。这加上他对词汇标记的无知，使批评无效。更糟糕的是，他对美国亲属关系及其相关文化理论的研究都主要由与特定行动无关的头等印象组成。