|
|
Re: Naive questionShannon Adams (shannon_adams@byu.edu)Mon, 09 Dec 1996 09:38:17 -0800
> > katherine petrie (kapetrie@indiana.edu) wrote: > : Ted (edh@emily.oit.umass.edu) wrote: > : ... > : > In cultural anthro, under what sort of circumstances would an 'emic' > : > description or analysis be preferable to an 'etic' description or > : > analysis, assuming both were available? > : > : What is this, take-home final exam time? ;^) > > Nope. Actually, I'm studying anthro entirely on my own, in my free time, > gearing up for a full-time program. Like I said, I have no background, > but I would like to get into the field. No take-home finals; personal > interest. I hope you don't mind. > > : One way to get started is to ask yourself: in what circumstances would > : *you* find an 'emic' or 'etic' analysis of your life preferable? > > Rrr... I was asking about cultural anthro, not about my personal life. > But, if you want me to answer, I've always been better served by analyses > which might be called 'etic'; i.e. analyses (made by myself or others) > which stress the actual situation I'm in rather than how I _feel_ about > the situation. The few times I've taken an 'emic' approach, whether > deliberately or unwittingly, I've generally 'frozen up', and found myself > unwilling or unable to act. > > So, in my personal life, an 'etic' analysis is preferable. So, in > cultural anthro (to restate the question), is there _any_ circumstance > under which an 'emic' approach is preferable to an 'etic' approach? > > BTW, I'm not trying to make a point. I'm asking. I'm honestly confused > about these terms. Any answers would be most appreciated. > > Ted
I was always taught that both should appear in the same work (with a
|