当前位置: X-MOL 学术Reviews in Anthropology › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
Editor’s introduction
Reviews in Anthropology Pub Date : 2017-10-02 , DOI: 10.1080/00938157.2018.1448243
Michael E. Harkin

Anthropology and philosophy intertwine like the strands of DNA, twisting and crossing paths with frequency over millennia. At the very dawn of what we consider to be Western philosophy, Socrates, as described by Plato, applies an evolutionary model to understanding political forms. In Book VIII of The Republic, Plato describes a succession of political formations that follow the overthrow of aristocracy leading, penultimately, to democracy and then finally descending into tyranny. I would remark that, from the perspective of 2018, this model seems superior to that developed by 19th-century anthropologists, although a certain resemblance to the brooding conclusion to Morgan’s Ancient Society can be seen. The first self-proclaimed academic anthropologist was the philosopher Immanuel Kant, who lectured on the topic for 25 years. Although he would have little direct influence on the subsequent professional development of the discipline, certainly his influence on later philosophers, such as Herder and Dilthey, who would in turn help shape anthropology, was great. For most of its history as a separate discipline, anthropology actively eschewed philosophy, even when working on similar problems. There were a few exceptions: Herbert Spencer, who synthesized a philosophy of evolution, influenced the first generation of anthropologists. However, Franz Boas, a colleague and friend of John Dewey, with whom he who co-taught a seminar on comparative ethics at Columbia University, never mentions that connection in his publications, even The Mind of Primitive Man, which covered much the same territory as the seminar presumably did (Harkin 2017). Ruth Benedict was perhaps the only prominent American anthropologist to explicitly draw on philosophical thought, most notably Nietzsche’s Dionysian-Apollonian duality, and gestalt theory. But for the most part anthropologists were eager to identify rather with social science and science writ large, than what was seen by many as a vestigial discipline. This mutual avoidance began to break down mid-century, in part by the post-war translation of French anthropology and philosophy into English. French anthropology has always been more aware of, and willing to engage with, philosophy. Most important, from the Anglophone perspective, was Claude Lévi-Strauss, a philosophy student as an undergraduate, who throughout his writings engages with the French philosophical tradition (Descartes, Rousseau, Bergson) and with the most prominent school of none defined

中文翻译:

编辑介绍

人类学和哲学交织在一起,就像DNA的链条一样,几千年来一直在扭曲和交叉。柏拉图所描述的苏格拉底,在我们认为是西方哲学的曙光中,将一种进化模型应用于理解政治形式。在《共和国八书》中,柏拉图描述了一系列政治形态,这些政治形态是在贵族被推翻之后,倒数第二次走向民主,最后沦为暴政。我要指出的是,从2018年的角度来看,该模型似乎优于19世纪人类学家开发的模型,尽管可以看到与摩根古代社会的沉思结论有些相似。哲学家伊曼纽尔·康德(Immanuel Kant)是第一位自称学术人类学家,他在该主题上讲了25年。尽管他对该学科随后的专业发展几乎没有直接影响,但是他对后来帮助塑造人类学的诸如Herder和Dilthey这样的哲学家的影响无疑是巨大的。在人类学作为一门独立学科的大部分历史中,即使在研究类似问题时,人类学也积极回避哲学。有几个例外:赫伯特·斯宾塞(Herbert Spencer)总结了进化哲学,影响了第一代人类学家。但是,约翰·杜威的同事和朋友弗朗兹·博阿斯(Franz Boas)与他一起在哥伦比亚大学(Columbia University)举办了一次比较伦理学研讨会,却从未在他的出版物中提及这种联系,甚至涵盖了几乎相同领域的《原始人的思想》(The Mind of Primitive Man)就像研讨会那样(Harkin 2017)。露丝·本尼迪克特(Ruth Benedict)也许是唯一一位明确引用哲学思想的美国人类学家,最著名的是尼采的狄俄尼二世-阿波罗尼二元性和格式塔论。但是在大多数情况下,人类学家渴望与社会科学和科学渊博相提并论,而不是被许多人视为残余学科。这种相互避免的行为在本世纪中叶就开始瓦解,部分原因是战后将法国人类学和哲学翻译为英语。法国人类学一直对哲学更加了解,并愿意与之交往。从英语国家的角度来看,最重要的是哲学专业的大学生克劳德·列维·斯特劳斯(ClaudeLévi-Strauss),他的著作始终致力于法国的哲学传统(Descartes,Rousseau,
更新日期:2017-10-02
down
wechat
bug