Monday, February 3, 2014

Redfield pg. 24 Response

This particular piece of writing is the introduction to a book, and therefore only outlines the general thesis of the book, which is that Anthropology, and social anthropology in particular, have had to adapt to an expanding, integrating global climate and thusly ditch their isolated holistic subjects of study in favor of more complex, but less holistic subjects. Essentially as the world gets more connected, they’ve had to include that in their studies, as isolated tribes gain more and more contact with “civilization.” The previous abstract model of tribes and civilization seems to be outdated, as it does not take into consideration groups that do not fit into the mold, eg: the peasant villages in Meso-America.

In this chapter the author almost exclusively used secondary research in showing the evolution of anthropology. To a certain extent, since the author was tracing the origins of this field of study, using research in the field as examples could be considered primary research. The point the author is trying to make is outside the realm of anthropological study, because the point encompasses the entire field. As for the quality of the research itself, the author makes good usage of the flow from the beginnings of this relatively new field of study to where we are currently, or rather when this book was published. It has a largely Eurocentric point of view on “civilized” versus “non-civilized” cultures, but more or less uses the research in a fair manner. I’m still uncertain, however, what precisely to call this for of research.  

No comments:

Post a Comment