|
|
epistemology
John Mcreery (jlm@TWICS.COM)
Wed, 26 Oct 1994 19:59:23 JST
I write in reply to John Stevens who discusses Bruce Kapferer's _A
Celebration of Demons_ as a case which raises epistemological issues. He
writes of Kapferer's work,
"What emerges from his work (the primary text is *A Celebration of Demons*,
which was revised in 1991; other articles and miscellaneous references
is a Meadean self engendered through a Langerian aesthetic, which seems pretty
far from how the Sinhalese think of and enact their ritual. He has exquisitely
detailed information on the ritual, plus lots of visuals, schematics, and tons
of theory, and he can tell a story, but is it the Sinhala story? This is I
think an epistemological problem; whose story are we trying to tell when we do
our anthropology? Positioning is an important part of an anthropologist's
work, and I found that lacking in Kapferer's work. That combined with an
extremely cerebral romanticization of the Sinhalese and a textual arrogance
bordering on overbearing made what could have been a thorough and powerful
investigation of cultural practice into a theoretical trifle, very well-laid
out but with little relevance for talking social life.
Key terms in this critique are "cerebral romanticization," "textual arrogance,"
and the turning of what could have been "a thorough and powerful investigation
of cultural prace" into a "theoretical trifle, very well-laid out but with
little relevance for talking social life."
I'd like to hear more about what John means by these terms. I'd also like to
have the references for the work of David Scott on which he draws.
John McCreery (JLM@TWICS.COM)
|