Symbolic anthropology

Interpretative Anthropology Symbolic Anthropology is a science or theoretical paradigm of anthropology or social anthropology and sets itself apart from the Analytical Ethnology.

Space - Time Restriction

The decolonization confronted anthropologists early with a closer scrutiny of the complex relationship between anthropologists on the one hand, and ethnic groups on the other side. It particularly the problem of authority ( for example, links the ethnologist with power structures ) and the problem of authenticity ( criticism of the field research methods) were discussed. Discussion of this "crisis of Ethnology " reached its peak in the 1940s and 1950s.

In the context of the publications of the anthropologist Clifford Geertz U.S. and meet him brought criticism can a postmodern turn in the epistemological discussion of Ethnology be roughly stated around 1980. This change was also influenced by timely discussions in philosophy and sociology. (Control law 93)

Terminological diversity

The number of publications and discussions which sought to overcome the "crisis of ethnology", brought forth several concepts which - by Marcus and Fischer 86 suggested indirectly - could be summarized under the concept of interpretative anthropology: Hermeneutical Anthropology, Symbolic Anthropology (especially in the 70s ), Dialogic, semantic, Critical, Reflexive, Humanist, deconstructivist, radicals or Experimental ethnology and ethnography. (Control law 93)

Basic position

In differentiation on Analytical Ethnology doubts the Interpretative Anthropology, the existence of an objectively observable from the outside reality in their research. Objects, the spoken and the social acts receive only through the interpretation by participants in a particular culture sense. The meanings of the objects only arise in an action and communication context. Observer distance phenomena in itself can not exist.

The interpretive anthropologist accepts this world of meanings and tries them out of the context of speeches and behavior during the fieldwork exercise. The observed must be interpreted to be understood in order. This process is beobachternah and is discharged through communication between the ethnographer and myself interpretive cultural participants. Thus, no objective truths are recognized, but created properly adequate perspectives in the understanding of the ethnographer. In a second step, this field research results will be enrolled as a text, which in turn represents a further stage of interpretation. (Control law 93)

Interpretative Anthropology in field research

The fieldwork share both supporters of the interpretative and Analytical Ethnology. While analytically foregoing ethnologists but rather defined with previously possible systematic, generalized method approach the object of research, the interpretive anthropologist changes rather his methods ( participant observation, (un - ) structured interviews, recording dialogues, description of social everyday behavior, and much more. ) to the respective position within the hermeneutic circle adapt. (Control law 93)

Quotes

" Interpretative Anthropology presents those questions is not asking the success condition of Analytical Ethnology, and the reverse is also true. " (Control law, I. 93, p 64)

"While analytical detection dissected and only finally the results composed to the whole, in the hermeneutical process supposedly -understood meaning a whole is brought to the interpretation of the individual, in anticipation of a holistic understanding of the process, from the beginning. " (Control law, I. 93, p 40)

"This interdisciplinary approach is fundamental to the Interpretative Anthropology. Soon interpretation is not confined by a dogmatic given frame, it can reach beyond disciplinary boundaries and include knowledge of other sciences of man, the only way to come within the interpretative anthropology to interpretations that its complex object of knowledge - Culture - are appropriate. " (Control law, I. 93, p 44f )

" In finished anthropological writings, including Those collected here, this fact - that what we call our data are really our own constructions of other people's constructions of whatthey and Their compatriots are up to - is obscured Because most of what we need to comprehend a Particular event, ritual, custom, idea, or whatever is insinuated as background information before the thing Itself is Directly Examined. " ( Geertz, C. 93, p 9)