Re: Naive question

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: hjarvis@acsu.buffalo.edu: "In Memoriam - David Rindos"
• Previous message: gates: "Re: HOW THE PYRAMIDS WERE BUILT! (perplexing riddle finally explained)"
• Maybe in reply to: Ted: "Naive question"
• Next in thread: Shannon Adams: "Re: Naive question"

Shannon Adams (shannon_adams@byu.edu) wrote:
:
: I was always taught that both should appear in the same work (with a
: leaning toward the emic). Emic perspective does not automatically
: assume an emotional perspective. Instead it assumes that the author
: attempts to describe the culture, ideology, behavior from a native
: perspective (instead of social science).
: Shannon

So, in attempting to understand human behavior, the emic looks to, say,
the momentum of tradition, for example, rather than economic, ecological,
or functional reasons behind behavior...? Or are emic analyses more
concerned with description than explanation?

Again, forgive me for stumbling around these ideas. Can anyone recommend
any basic readings which describe the emic/etic distinction in more
detail? Thanks in advance.

Ted
edh@oitunix.oit.umass.edu

• Next message: hjarvis@acsu.buffalo.edu: "In Memoriam - David Rindos"
• Previous message: gates: "Re: HOW THE PYRAMIDS WERE BUILT! (perplexing riddle finally explained)"
• Maybe in reply to: Ted: "Naive question"
• Next in thread: Shannon Adams: "Re: Naive question"