The Revolution in Anthropology Ils 69 by I.C. Jarvie

Author:I.C. Jarvie [Jarvie, I.C.]
Language: eng
Format: epub
ISBN: 9780415175791
Goodreads: 843931
Publisher: Routledge
Published: 1964-01-01T00:00:00+00:00

1 A somewhat rearranged and cut quotation from Stanner, 1958, pp. 14–15.

1 Robert Brown (1963) argues a related point in his chapter on functionalism. He shows how social anthropologists sometimes explain by reference to an effect something has, and how they neglect to argue the essential corollary that this effect can only be gained by this one means. The neglect means that the explanation is no explanation at all (since the conclusion does not follow from the premiss), but a mere conjunction.

1 I have been greatly assisted in working out this discussion by Dr. Agassi; indeed, this, and the next paragraph, is almost a joint effort.

1 One of the ways of characterising the difference between natural science and social science is to note that the former deals far more with the problems of nature, while the latter’s typical problems are conventional (except where there is interaction of the natural and the conventional). Most of the problems of social science are connected with social conventions. A natural scientist might be said to try to explain the known and observable in terms of the unknown and possibly unobservable—a very daring procedure. The social scientist, on the other hand, largely concerns himself with explaining the puzzling in terms of the not so puzzling. This may be why I agree with Frazer in regarding magic and religion as being very close to science—because they are both theories about the unknown which try to explain the known. It may also explain why many scholars reject Frazer’s view, namely because they still hold an unmysterious (i.e. inductivist) view of science, as opposed to their view of the ‘mysteries’ of religion. Such prejudices should quickly break down in face of the mysterious worlds of the atomic, quantum and relativity theories.

1 It is not ‘closed’ in the ordinary sense of that word, like China or Japan were, since white men have irrupted into it.

1 Here again they show their precritical attitude; to attribute the failure of a theory to its evil or conspiring inventor is naïve. This is not to say that it has been anything like superseded even today. Cf. my various remarks and references re inductivism.

2 To quote Attenborough (see p. 123, n. 3): ‘It’s nineteen years now since John Frum first promised that he would bring the cargo,’ I said. ‘He hasn’t brought it yet. Aren’t you getting a little worried?’ Sam looked at me for several seconds before replying. ‘If you can wait two thousand years for Jesus Christ to come,’ he said, ‘I can wait more than nineteen years for John Frum.’

3 Cp. Burridge, 1960, pp. 30–1: ‘Others … have seen that if mystical techniques cannot obtain the cargo then other means may have to be used.’ He relates how in Bogia prudent cult organisers stole goods and cash and laid them up in a secret cache for use when the time came. This time the cargo was to materialise.

1 In the face of refutations there is always a tendency to tinker with

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.