[Xmca-l] Re: kinship

[Greg Thompson]

Well, the first response to functionalism was a pre-eminent concern with
the symbolic dimension and the matter of "meaning" (e.g., Geertz) and the
cheaper form of phenomenology of the sort that Bourdieu describes in
Outline of a Theory of Practice (and which he seeks to transcend with his
theory of practice - although most like to say that he ended up too far on
the side of structure). And, of course, "agency", which now needs to be
specified as "human agency", was a central concern of the response to
functionalism.

The ontological turn seems to be a response to this overemphasis on
meaning/interpretation/ideas (the epistemological) to the neglect of
materiality/constitution/embodiment (the ontological - as in "the grounds
(pluralized!) of being").

-greg

On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 8:19 AM, Martin Packer <mpacker@cantab.net> wrote:

> What has come in, to replace functionalism? The ‘ontological turn’?  (I
> doubt it!)
>
> Martin
>
> "I may say that whenever I meet Mrs. Seligman or Dr. Lowie or discuss
> matters with Radcliffe-Brown or Kroeber, I become at once aware that my
> partner does not understand anything in the matter, and I end usually with
> the feeling that this also applies to myself” (Malinowski, 1930)
>
>
>
> > On Jan 9, 2018, at 10:12 AM, greg.a.thompson@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > Martin,
> > Depends on who I’m talking to.
> >
> > I say yes to functionalism but no to “just” functionalism.
> >
> > As Henry and others on the list have pointed out, one of the great
> troubles in academia is the way that intellectual fashions come and go. And
> they are either in or out. For most Anthropologists today, functionalism is
> out, way out (so far out it is almost in — just a matter of time...). So
> with anthropologists, I generally argue for the utility of a functionalist
> viewpoint.
> >
> > But in other fields such as evolutionary psychology and evolutionary
> sociology, the functionalist perspective rules (and rules out everything
> else). So when I am talking with those folks, I argue against the
> functionalist perspective.
> >
> > That’s just how I approach this. I’d be curious to hear your approach.
> >
> > Greg
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> >> On Jan 9, 2018, at 7:56 AM, Martin Packer <mpacker@cantab.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Jan 8, 2018, at 12:15 AM, Greg Thompson <greg.a.thompson@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> And just to give a little sense for the intellectual terrain that I'm
> in,
> >>> I'm arguing against what in anthropology is called a "functionalist"
> >>> approach - one in which everything (including all forms of semiosis)
> could
> >>> be explained in terms of how it is adaptive for the long-term survival
> of a
> >>> group of people. And actually I'm normally arguing for the usefulness
> of a
> >>> functional approach b.c. I find anthropologists these days to be far
> too
> >>> dismissive of what is a very useful approach.
> >>
> >> Hi Greg,
> >>
> >> An alternative to trying to define ‘family’ (not just the word, but the
> entity that it is supposed to refer to) in terms of its constituents (X
> generations, Y persons with ‘blood’ connections, etc.) is to try to define
> it in terms of its functions. The function typically attributed to the
> family is called ‘socialization,’  which is a term I greatly dislike, so
> lets call it ‘child care’ instead. I think this functional approach is not
> without its problems: for example, today there are other institutions that
> also function to care for children, and increasingly younger ones, though
> we wouldn’t want to call them ‘family'; and equally, at the other end of
> human history, in the hunter-gatherer past that Michael was referring to
> the ‘family group’ had many others functions in addition to child care. But
> it seems worthwhile to try a functional approach. For example, the “two
> mothers” in a lovely fieldnotes you shared are, presumably, both ‘mothers’
> because
> > they are each caring for the infant, even though only one was involved
> in procreation.
> >>
> >> Which side of the fence regarding functional explanations - pro or con
> - do you come down on?
> >>
> >> Martin
> >>
> >> "I may say that whenever I meet Mrs. Seligman or Dr. Lowie or discuss
> matters with Radcliffe-Brown or Kroeber, I become at once aware that my
> partner does not understand anything in the matter, and I end usually with
> the feeling that this also applies to myself” (Malinowski, 1930)
> >>
> >
>
>


-- 
Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Department of Anthropology
880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu
http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson