|
|
Re: Is Levi-Strauss essential? was It still works? Avoid it anyway.
Dan Goodman (dsgood@visi.com)
15 Jan 1997 17:44:59 GMT
In article <rdiller-1501970642120001@ntcs-ip20.uchicago.edu>,
rmd <rdiller@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:
>In article <5bhhs8$qrk@darla.visi.com>, dsgood@visi.com (Dan Goodman) wrote:
>
>> In article <rdiller-1401971420320001@ntcs-ip40.uchicago.edu>,
>> rmd <rdiller@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:
>> >Can't speak for anthropology, but can for a related discipline:
>> >comparative religion. In these parts L-S is rather out-of-date, and has
>> >mostly been discarded in favor of more flexible (and less overtly
>> >dogmatic) theories of culture. There are still a few ardent
>> >structuralists out there, but they're increasingly isolated from the
>> >mainstream. Not that that is necessarily a bad thing, but there's an
>> >answer to your question.
>>
>> Can you give any pointers to the current mainstream?
>>
>> Most of what I've found easily available on comparative religion has been
>> of the "Isn't it wonderful that Shintoism and Confucianism have the same
>> ideals as Christianity?" sort. I suspect this is not the leading edge of
>> the discipline.
>
>No, you're right -- that's popular press stuff. What I would identify as
>the current mainstream includes symbolist work building on Clifford
>Geertz's work in anthropology, ritualism studies drawing on Catherine
>Bell, Pierre Bourdieu, and Victor Turner, and ideology studies best
>characterized by the work of Bruce Lincoln.
>
Thanks. And since I've read some stuff by Geertz, I'm a bit farther ahead
than I thought I was. (Probably only two or three decades behind the
leading edge....)
--
Dan Goodman
dsgood@visi.com
http://www.visi.com/~dsgood/index.html
Whatever you wish for me, may you have twice as much.
|