大理大学学报
• 民族学-民族问题研究 • 上一篇 下一篇
雷宝
收稿日期:
修回日期:
出版日期:
发布日期:
作者简介:
基金资助:
Lei Bao
Received:
Revised:
Online:
Published:
摘要： 以克利福德·格尔茨为代表的解释人类学理论忽视了田野调查研究方法的实践性特征，无法积极回应人类学研究的 “客观性”问题，尽管包含了很多有价值的洞见，仍然难免陷入相对主义或虚无主义的窠臼。通过对马克思主义认识论的实践 观和解释人类学所依托的诠释学的理解观的解读分析，深入剖析人类学研究的“客观性”、理解的确定性等问题，以期为不同的 理论之间的对比分析提供一个坚实的平台，并且在人类学研究方法论的层面对詹姆士·克利福德式的质疑作出更加深刻的理 解和有力的回应。
关键词: 民族志, 田野调查方法, 诠释学, 实践论
Abstract: The interpretive anthropology theory represented by Clifford Geertz ignores the practical characteristics of fieldwork research methods, and therefore is unable to respond positively to the anthropological study of "objectivity". Although it contains a lot of valuable insights, still it will inevitably fall into the stereotype of relativism and nihilism. This article attempts to analyze the "objectivity" problem of anthropological research and the certainty of understanding through the interpretation of Marxist epistemology and the interpretation of the understanding of hermeneutics. The comparative analysis provides a solid platform and a deeper understanding and strong response to James Clifford's question at the level of anthropological research methodology.
Key words: ethnography, fieldwork research method, hermeneutics, practice theory
雷宝. 从诠释学到实践论——兼论克利福德质疑民族志“方法论”的问题[J]. 大理大学学报, DOI: 10. 3969 / j. issn. 2096-2266. 2019. 09. 003.
Lei Bao. From Hermeneutics to Practice Theory: A Philosophical Reflection on James Clifford's Question of#br# Ethnography Methodology[J]. Journal of Dali University, DOI: 10. 3969 / j. issn. 2096-2266. 2019. 09. 003.
0 / / 推荐
导出引用管理器 EndNote|Ris|BibTeX
链接本文: http://journal15.magtechjournal.com/Jwk_dlxyzk/CN/10. 3969 / j. issn. 2096-2266. 2019. 09. 003
http://journal15.magtechjournal.com/Jwk_dlxyzk/CN/Y2019/V4/I9/17
