Objectivity and Social Anthropology

1984 ◽  
Vol 17 ◽  
pp. 1-20 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. H. M. Beattie
Keyword(s):  
Social Interaction ◽  
Common Sense ◽  
The Other ◽  
Social Anthropology ◽  
Human Culture ◽  
Cognitive Component ◽  
Social Facts ◽  
The Social ◽  
The Common ◽  
Social Anthropologist

This lecture is divided, roughly, into three parts. First, there is a general and perhaps rather simple-minded discussion of what are the ‘facts’ that social anthropologists study; is there anything special about these ‘facts’ which makes them different from other kinds of facts? It will be useful to start with the common-sense distinction between two kinds or, better, aspects of social facts; first—though neither is analytically prior to the other—and putting it very crudely, ‘what people do’, the aspect of social interaction, and second, ‘what—and how—people think’, the conceptual, classifying, cognitive component of human culture. Now in reality, of course (and perhaps not so ‘of course’; people do tend to think of them as separate ‘things’), these two aspects are inextricably intertwined. But it is essential to distinguish them analytically, because each aspect gives rise to quite different kinds of problems of understanding for the social anthropologist. We shall see that the problem of how to be ‘objective’, and so to avoid ethnographic error, arises in both contexts, but in rather different forms in each.

Objectivity and Social Anthropology

1984 ◽  
Vol 17 ◽  
pp. 1-20
Author(s):  
J. H. M. Beattie
Keyword(s):  
Social Interaction ◽  
Common Sense ◽  
The Other ◽  
Social Anthropology ◽  
Human Culture ◽  
Cognitive Component ◽  
Social Facts ◽  
The Social ◽  
The Common ◽  
Social Anthropologist

This lecture is divided, roughly, into three parts. First, there is a general and perhaps rather simple-minded discussion of what are the ‘facts’ that social anthropologists study; is there anything special about these ‘facts’ which makes them different from other kinds of facts? It will be useful to start with the common-sense distinction between two kinds or, better, aspects of social facts; first—though neither is analytically prior to the other—and putting it very crudely, ‘what people do’, the aspect of social interaction, and second, ‘what—and how—people think’, the conceptual, classifying, cognitive component of human culture. Now in reality, of course (and perhaps not so ‘of course’; people do tend to think of them as separate ‘things’), these two aspects are inextricably intertwined. But it is essential to distinguish them analytically, because each aspect gives rise to quite different kinds of problems of understanding for the social anthropologist. We shall see that the problem of how to be ‘objective’, and so to avoid ethnographic error, arises in both contexts, but in rather different forms in each.

scholarly journals El sentido común en el horizonte del humanismo / Common Sense and the Humanistic Perspective

2016 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 131-140
Author(s):  
Ana Marcela Mungaray Lagarda ◽  
Herminio Núñez Villavicencio
Keyword(s):  
Common Sense ◽  
The Other ◽  
The Social ◽  
The Everyday ◽  
The World ◽  
The Common ◽  
Classical Traditions ◽  
The One ◽  
Interdisciplinary Integration ◽  
Great Call

ABSTRACTThis paper discusses the concept of common sense in the humanism. We´ll consider two proposals for the discussion on this concept: On the one hand, the classical conception of humanism considered in crisis associated with a lack of pluralism and inclusion from the ordinary to the contents and humanistic practice. On the other hand, the idea about that common sense in the context of the humanism is heterogeneous, so it recreates and includes in a new dialogue the everyday man by himself. The invitation from the United Nations about “Humanism, a new idea” (2011) is the context like a great call to refocus the discussion on practices derived from humanistic policy agreements in the world, integration projects between the classical traditions of the concept and dreams of interdisciplinary integration in the concert of nations. The path of analysis on the concept about the common sense in this proposal is a guide to review the rational framework as a concept in crisis. This is considering from several interpretations in a dialogic discussion, both the diversity debate about the nature of the concept as the depth of the social implications of the proposals.RESUMENSe presenta una discusión sobre el sentido común desde dos tesis, una es desde la concepción clásica del pensamiento humanista, al dar por hecho las implicaciones del sentido de lo común; por la otra parte bajo la idea de la necesidad de plantear un humanismo heterogéneo, incluyendo el reconocimiento del sentido propio de la comunidad del hombre cotidiano. La ruta de análisis se plantea desde la invitación de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Humanismo, una nueva idea (2011) como el contexto para replantear la tarea del humanismo actual, hacia las nuevas inclusiones necesarias en un mundo globalizado. Se discute una idea de crisis del concepto de lo humano, de las tareas del humanismo actual, desde las diversas interpretaciones elaboradas históricamente. Podemos decir que el humanismo actual es un recurso dialógico para entrar al debate acerca de la naturaleza del concept, la inclusión del hombre y del sentido común así como sus implicaciones y propuestas sociales.

Alcohol Problem Prevention: A “Common Sense” Approach

1987 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 369-393
Author(s):  
Selden D. Bacon
Keyword(s):  
Common Sense ◽  
Direct Methods ◽  
The United States ◽  
Alcohol Problems ◽  
The Social ◽  
The Common ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Alcohol Related Problems ◽  
Social Science Approach

In view of the low likelihood of the acceptance of the social science approach to alcohol problems proposed several years ago, a “common sense” approach is suggested as an alternative. Several assumptions guide this proposal, the principal one being the absence of any significant progress in the reduction of alcohol problems in the United States over the past 200 years. By the development of a common vocabulary and direct methods of observation and data collection, the “common sense” approach would provide for identifying the strengths of the multitude of past and current efforts in dealing with alcohol problems in terms of both intervention and prevention. The guiding criterion in such an approach would be the impact on alcoholism and alcohol-related problems, the definition of which would be a major task of the research.

Multilingualism in Metropolitan London

English Today ◽  
2002 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 17-24 ◽  
Author(s):  
Reinier Salverda
Keyword(s):  
Linguistic Diversity ◽  
The Other ◽  
Social Aspects ◽  
Common Language ◽  
Language Management ◽  
Tower Of Babel ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Social ◽  
University College London ◽  
The Common

A description and discussion of the vast linguistic diversity in the capital of the United Kingdom.LONDON today is an enormous Tower of Babel, where in addition to the common language, English, many other languages are spoken. On Tuesday 13 March 2001, as part of the Lunch Hour Lecture Series at University College London, Professor Reinier Salverda discussed the linguistic diversity of contemporary London, presenting recent data on the other languages spoken there, as well as focussing on the social aspects of this linguistic diversity, in particular issues of language policy and language management. The following is a slightly adapted version of that presentation.

Voices of Spectators and Audience Power

Pólemos ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Christian Biet
Keyword(s):  
Social Relationship ◽  
The Other ◽  
Long Period ◽  
The Social ◽  
The Common ◽  
Dramatic Action ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Voice ◽  
The Way

AbstractTheatre and law are not so different. Generally, researchers work on the art of theatre, the rhetoric of the actors, or the dramaturgy built from law cases or from the questions that the law does not completely resolve. Trials, tragedies, even comedies are close: everybody can see the interpenetration of them on stage and in the courts. We know that, and we know that the dramas are made with/from/of law, we know that the art the actors are developing is not so far from the art of the lawyers, and conversely. In this paper, I would like to have a look at the action of the audience, at the session itself and at the way the spectators are here to evaluate and judge not only the dramatic action, not only the art of the actors, not only the text of the author, but also the other spectators, and themselves too. In particular, I will focus on the “common judgment” of the audience and on its judicial, aesthetic and social relationship. The spectators have been undisciplined, noisy, unruled, during such a long period that theatre still retains some prints of this behaviour, even if nowadays, the social and aesthetic rule is to be silent. But uncertainty, inattention, distraction, contradiction, heterogeneity are the notions which characterise the session, and the judgments of the spectators still depend on them. So, what was and what is the voice of the audience? And with what sort of voice do spectators give their judgments?

scholarly journals The Emotional Lexicon Used by Male and Female Communication: Study of Balinese Language Used in South Kuta-Bali

2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 364-372
Author(s):  
I Gusti Ayu Vina Widiadnya Putri ◽  
I Dewa Ayu Devi Maharani Santika
Keyword(s):  
Social Interaction ◽  
Social Behavior ◽  
Social Interactions ◽  
Qualitative Method ◽  
The Other ◽  
Male And Female ◽  
The Social ◽  
Data Source ◽  
Emotional Lexicon ◽  
Communication Study

The aims of this research is to analyse about the differences of emotional lexicon used by male and female communication in South Kuta-Bali when they used Balinese language in their daily interaction.  The scope of male and female is closely related to the social behavior which includes the social identity of male and female in society and this becomes the basis of how the language is used in this context of social. This research is interested to uncover more how people use language in terms of expressing their emotional in social interaction. This study is a sociolinguistic approach used the theory from Hickey, Raymon (2010). The data source in this study is the south Kuta community who use Balinese language in social interactions. The Data collection is done by observation, interview, recording and note taking and descriptive qualitative method is applied to analyze the data. The result of the analysis found that the emotional lexical is used by the male and female in their social interaction, it could mention that both Augmentatives and Euphemisms is used by male and female in their social interaction however the augmentative is mostly used by female in informal occasion. Balinese female often used prohibition instead of imperative in expressing her idea about ordering someone to do something. In the other hand, the male directly used imperative sentence in ordering something. He usually does not use many awkwardness to say his point in a conversation. This may be considered that the male often go to the straight point when expressing his idea. Keywords: Emotional Lexicon, Male and Female

Who is my stranger?

2018 ◽  
pp. 176-201
Author(s):  
Richard M. Titmuss
Keyword(s):  
Social Groups ◽  
Gift Exchange ◽  
The Other ◽  
Economic Aspects ◽  
Social Facts ◽  
The Social ◽  
Material Gain ◽  
The Future ◽  
Traditional Societies

This chapter explores the social and economic aspects of gift-exchange as a universal phenomenon. Examples drawn from both complex and traditional societies indicate that the personal gift and counter-gift, in which givers and receivers are known to each other and personally communicate with each other, is characterised by a great variety of sentiments and purposes. At one end of the spectrum, economic purposes may be dominant as in some forms of first-gifts which aim to achieve a material gain or to enhance prestige or to bring about material gain in the future. At the other end are those gifts whose purposes are predominantly social and moral in that as ‘total social facts’ they aim to serve friendly relationships, affection, and harmony between known individuals and social groups. Meanwhile, social gifts and actions carrying no explicit or implicit individual right to a return gift or action are forms of ‘creative altruism’.

Religion's ‘Foundation in Reason’: The Common Sense of Hume's Natural History

1994 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 565-581
Author(s):  
M. Jamie Ferreira
Keyword(s):  
Common Sense ◽  
The Other ◽  
Rational Justification ◽  
Rational Argument ◽  
Regular Model ◽  
The Common ◽  
The One ◽  
The Right ◽  
Forceful Critique ◽  
Critique Of Religion

David Hume’s critique of religion reveals what seems to be a vacillation in his commitment to an argument-based paradigm of legitimate believing. On the one hand, Hume assumes such a traditional (argumentbased) model of rational justification of beliefs in order to point to the weakness of some classical arguments for religious belief (e.g., the design argument), to chastise the believer for extrapolating to a conclusion which outstrips its evidential warrant. On the other hand, Hume, ‘mitigated’ or naturalist skeptic that he is, at other times rejects an argumentbased paradigm of certainty and truth, and so sees as irrelevant the traditional or ‘regular’ model of rational justification; he places a premium on instinctive belief, as both unavoidable and (usually) more reliable than reasoning. On this view, a forceful critique of religion would have to fault it, not for failing to meet criteria of rational argument (failing to proportion belief to the evidence), but (as Hume sometimes seems to) for failing to be the right sort of instinct.

scholarly journals Welfare state: Convergence: Downward versus upward

2010 ◽  
pp. 21-42
Author(s):  
Kosta Josifidis ◽  
Novica Supic
Keyword(s):  
Social Justice ◽  
The Other ◽  
Social Model ◽  
Social Spending ◽  
Welfare Regimes ◽  
European Social Model ◽  
The Social ◽  
The Common ◽  
Beta Convergence ◽  
The Eu

The aim of this paper is to contribute, in the theoretical and empirical sense, to better understanding the challenges of the EU welfare regimes and how particular regimes react on them. Despite significant differences among the EU welfare regimes, it is real to expect that they will converge because of the common challenges confronting them. In this paper, using the model of sigma and beta convergence, we are trying to predict the possible direction of convergence in the sense that Europe will go toward to more or less generosity or in other words it will converge downward or upward. The downward convergence means the strengthen competition among existing welfare regimes, in order to maintain and/or attract capital, that could reduce the social spending generosity. On the other hand, the upward convergence above involves the strengthening of coordination among existing welfare regimes according to the values of solidarity and social justice, which characterise not only the most developed EU countries but also the supranational European social model. .

scholarly journals Zagadnienie światopoglądu w edukacji ekologicznej

2003 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 505-515
Author(s):  
Jacek W. Czartoszewski
Keyword(s):  
Common Sense ◽  
The Other ◽  
Natural Environments ◽  
The Social ◽  
The World ◽  
Ecological Values ◽  
Material Goods ◽  
High Level ◽  
Huge Challenge ◽  
Human Awareness

The XXI century for humanity is a challenge in awareness of failures in the condition of the social environment as well in huge contamination of nature. This problem can be resolved only on the way of grasping junctures man in the world toward Absolute and the other adventitious entities. There is a necessary general change of human awareness, which will strengthen love to the other people and amends an evil site between mankind. It should be joined with changing mentality reducing consumption material goods (savings in using up energies and industrial goods) and taking care of remaining for succeeding generations natural environments on better condition than that nowadays. It also needs to create a new high level of outlook upon ecology, which accepts ecological values. This outlook eschewing idealism and inaccuracies should be based on the real ground of Aristotelic and Thomistic orientation. Moreover, it must avoid hatchway in the knowledge, from here society aside from knowledge natures, technical, juridical and economical should own knowing humanistic, which regards anthropology, axioms, theology, and religion (get into completely mode with helping of recognition common sense, wisdom, scientific, philosophic and religionist). On the other way hatchways, inaccuracies, and even contrarieties into understanding the world will become dominant and lead to quarrels and antagonisms. From here floats a huge challenge for leaders, who should take on their own shoulder responsibility upon the future of our planet and humanity.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document