‘Dark Anthropology’ and its complementary ‘Anthropology of the Good’ have become influential and debated notions in anthropology in recent years. I here parse distinctive features of these emphases, address their relation to theory and to ethnography, and consider the stakes involved in concretely applying their conceptual designations. I discuss the general shift in anthropology from grand theory to key concept, and the topical delimitation of theory that results. In larger purview, Dark Anthropology and the Anthropology of the Good both have long theoretical genealogies as well as practical contexts of political and social understanding, including visa-vis recent events in the U.S. and elsewhere. I suggest that considering the relationship between politico-economically structured inequality and attempts to assert positive meaning and purpose is the most productive way to ethnographically apply their alternative conceptualisations. This brings to greater focus the thorny question of whose understanding of inequality or suffering, or of moral value and positive wellbeing, is being articulated—the sentiments of the people studied, or the concepts of the analyst? It seems vital to examine both analytic and indigenous views of dark times, and of the good, to refine our understanding of both, that is, in order to consider our complementary conceptualisations in relation to both sides of the emic/etic coin. This refines our understanding of local sensibilities and also of the appropriate limit points of our own conceptual associations.

中文翻译：

---

黑暗时期的优秀人类学：批判性评价和人种学应用

近年来，“黑暗人类学”及其互补的“善人类学”已成为人类学中具有影响力和争论的概念。我在这里解析这些重点的显着特征，处理它们与理论和民族志的关系，并考虑具体应用它们的概念名称所涉及的利害关系。我讨论了人类学从宏大理论到关键概念的普遍转变，以及由此产生的理论的主题界定。在更大的范围内，黑暗人类学和善良人类学都具有悠久的理论谱系以及政治和社会理解的实际背景，包括最近在美国和其他地方发生的签证事件。我建议考虑政治经济结构的不平等与主张积极意义和目的之间的关系，是在人种学上应用其替代概念的最有效方式。这使一个棘手的问题更加突出，即谁对不平等或痛苦，或道德价值和积极幸福的理解正在被阐明——被研究的人的情绪，还是分析师的概念？审查黑暗时代和美好的分析性和本土观点似乎至关重要，以完善我们对两者的理解，也就是说，为了考虑我们与主位/主位硬币两面相关的互补概念。这改进了我们对局部敏感性以及我们自己的概念关联的适当限制点的理解。