scholarly journals The social construction of nature as the other and its human consequences

1999 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shannon Abernathy
2012 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 149-164
Author(s):  
Tess Moeke-Maxwell

In the bicultural context of Aotearoa New Zealand, Māori (people of the land) and Tauiwi (the other tribe, i.e. Pākehā and other non-indigenous New Zealanders), continue to be represented in binary opposition to each other. This has real consequences for the way in which health practitioners think about and respond to Māori. Reflecting on ideas explored in my PhD thesis, I suggest that Māori identity is much more complex than popular representations of Māori subjectivity allow. In this article I offer an alternative narrative on the social construction of Māori identity by contesting the idea of a singular, quintessential subjectivity by uncovering the other face/s subjugated beneath biculturalism’s preferred subjects. Waitara Mai i te horopaki iwirua o Aotearoa, arā te Māori (tangata whenua) me Tauiwi (iwi kē, arā Pākehā me ētahi atu iwi ehara nō Niu Tīreni), e mau tonu ana te here mauwehe rāua ki a rāua anō. Ko te mutunga mai o tēnei ko te momo whakaarohanga, momo titiro hoki a ngā kaimahi hauora ki te Māori. Kia hoki ake ki ngā ariā i whakaarahia ake i roto i taku tuhinga kairangi. E whakapae ana au he uaua ake te tuakiri Māori ki ngā horopaki tauirahia mai ai e te marautanga Māori. I konei ka whakatauhia he kōrero kē whakapā atu ki te waihangatanga o te tuakiri Māori, tuatahi; ko te whakahē i te ariā takitahi, marautanga pūmau mā te hurahanga ake i tērā āhua e pēhia nei ki raro iho i te whainga marau iwiruatanga. Tuarua, mai i tēnei o taku tuhinga rangahau e titiro nei ki ngā wawata ahurei a te Māori noho nei i raro i te māuiuitanga whakapoto koiora, ka tohu au ki te rerekētanga i waenga, i roto hoki o ngā Māori homai kōrero, ā, ka whakahāngaia te titiro ki te momo whakatau āwhina a te hauora ā-motu i te hunga whai oranga.


Author(s):  
Teresa Sofia Pereira Dias de Castro ◽  
António Osório ◽  
Emma Bond

Within the scope of how technology impacts on society three theoretical models: the social shaping of technology (SST), social construction of technology (SCOT) and the Actor-Network theory (ANT) are frameworks that help rethink the embeddedness of technology within society, once each is transformed and transformative of the other. More attention will be given to the ANT approach since it solves the technology/society dualisms unresolved by the previous proposals. This is a flexible epistemological possibility that can reach the ambiguity of contemporary life and the remarkable transformations brought by progress that have changed drastically childhood and children's contemporary lives.


2020 ◽  
Vol 62 (2) ◽  
pp. 313-324
Author(s):  
Noel Dyck

This revised address for the 2019 Weaver-Tremblay Award revisits some underlying questions about the practice of anthropology that have figured in my own work. First, why might one choose anthropology as a means of intellectual and practical inquiry into social and cultural phenomena? Second, what kinds of anthropological practice can be pursued? Finally, what types of knowledge can be acquired through anthropological approaches, and to what purposes might this knowledge be applied? These questions are considered within the context of two rather different fields of anthropological inquiry I have pursued: relations between Indigenous Peoples and state governments, on the one hand, and the social construction of sport, on the other. As well as sharing some unexpected analytical commonalities, these ostensibly disparate fields speak to the power that resides in illuminating details of the type that anthropologists are particularly adept in recognizing.


2010 ◽  
Vol 43 (01) ◽  
pp. 77-81
Author(s):  
Kristen Renwick Monroe ◽  
Rose McDermott

AbstractWhy are differences so political significant? Too often political science discussions of differences assume they are immutable. The attendant implication is that the political divisions attached to these variations—in religion, ethnicity, race, or any of the other dissimilarities that frequently enter political life—are considered rigid and inflexible. This commentary draws on recent work in moral and social psychology and evolutionary biology to suggest that the critical political factor surrounding differences is not their immutability but rather the moral and political salience we accord such differences. Simple experiments in social identity theory—and a conversation with an incensed 12-year old—demonstrate that the psychological process by which differences between people and groups become deemed ethically and politically relevant is totally socially constructed and hence can be restructured in a fashion that leads to more tolerant treatment of those judged different.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document