Re: Naive question

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Gerold Firl: "Re: puzzle of the negrito: isolated archaic populations"
• Previous message: Paul C. Dickie: "Re: DARWIN'S DIARY FOUND (the truth finally emerges)"
• Maybe in reply to: Ted: "Naive question"
• Next in thread: Fcattus: "Re: Naive question"

Hey, all. Thanks for your input on the emic-etic distinction; I'm slowly
beginning to understand what it means. But I've got another naive
question on the topic...

Is there a particular reason that the distinction is made in the way that
it is? I understand that the emic is one particular approach to the
study of human culture; however, it seems to me that the 'etic' could be
further subdivided into several approaches. Just off the top of my head,
the etic seems to cover sociological, geopolitical, geophysical,
biological, climatological, and other different approaches.

So, I guess my question is, why the dichotomy? Why speak of an 'etic'
approach, when this seems to comprise several different approaches? On
the other side of the coin, has the 'emic' been subdivided in a similar
manner?

Once again, I apologize for my ignorance. I have not as yet studied
ethnography, and my interest in anthropology has so far been purely
amateur. I appreciate any and all input.

Thanks in advance,

Ted
edh@oitunix.oit.umass.edu

• Next message: Gerold Firl: "Re: puzzle of the negrito: isolated archaic populations"
• Previous message: Paul C. Dickie: "Re: DARWIN'S DIARY FOUND (the truth finally emerges)"
• Maybe in reply to: Ted: "Naive question"
• Next in thread: Fcattus: "Re: Naive question"