Anthropos: Anthropos, 96.2001

Anthropos, 96.2001

Bibliographic Data

Journal

Structure Type:: Journal

Works URN (URL):: https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:kobv:11-714820

URN:: urn:nbn:de:kobv:11-714820

Persistent identifier:: BV043334262

Title:: Anthropos

Place of Publication:: Fribourg

Publisher:: Ed. St. Paul

Year of Publication:: 1906

Collection:: Journals and Newspapers > Journals of Ethnology

Domain:: Social and cultural anthropology > General overview

Journal Volume

Structure Type:: Journal Volume

Works URN (URL):: https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:kobv:11-711750

URN:: urn:nbn:de:kobv:11-711750

Persistent identifier:: 1510221856924

Title:: Anthropos, 96.2001

Year of Publication:: 2001

Call Number:: LA 1118

Collection:: Journals and Newspapers > Journals of Ethnology

Journal Issue

Structure Type:: Journal Issue

Title:: Bd. 96, 2001, Heft 2

Collection:: Journals and Newspapers > Journals of Ethnology

Anthropos 96.2001: 359-378 Living on Ethnography and Comparison What Difference Do Hai||om “Bushmen” Make to Anthropology (and Vice Versa)? Thomas Widlok Abstract. - Anthropologists are concerned about the absence °f their discipline in Namibia and in the wider region. In this contribution I try to clarify what exactly is missing if anthropol- °gy is not institutionalised locally. I underline the importance °f ethnography and comparison which I fear is underestimated by some recent work. In my response to views about my own work aired in Anthropos (2001), I point out the useful Potentials of comparative ethnography with special reference to hunter-gatherer studies. I argue against attempts at redefining a ll anthropological work as contemporary history and extreme r eflexivity and at renouncing and denouncing all comparative a nthropology as anachronistic and politically irresponsible. I ■dentify three new debates dealing with cultural difference, case-based evidence, and political relevance, which I hope "'ill take over the space previously occupied by “the Kalahari debate.” [Namibia, Hai\\om, Mangetti, sociality, ethnography, Cot nparison, cultural difference, case-based evidence, political re levance, hunter-gatherer studies] Thomas Widlok, Ph.D. Social Anthropology (London 1994); Previously lecturer in anthropology at the Dept, of Anthro- P°l°gy, London School of Economics and Political Science, ar >d researcher at the Institute of Ethnology, University of Cologne, currently research staff member at the Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropology, Halle/Saale, Germany; field Search in Namibia (1990-92, 1993, 1994, 1996, 2000) and in Australia (1998) - Research interests include Khoisan studies, comparative hunter-gatherer studies, anthropological theory and methodology. - Publications include: Symbolic Categories a ud Ritual Practices (co-edited with K. Sugawara. Kyoto 2001); See also References Cited. Introduction Th nere is wide agreement that anthropology has een underrepresented in post-apartheid southern Africa, and in post-independence Namibia in par ticular (Widlok 1992a, 1992b; Gordon 2000; Sul livan 2001). A discussion of the role of anthro pology in this particular region sheds some light on the more general issue of why anthropology matters and what exactly we miss (apart from job opportunities) if there is no or very little anthro pology in a region. Does it matter for the region and does it matter for anthropology at large? I have given my own view on this, first in programmatic terms ( 1992a, 1992b) and later in substantial terms as I have reported on my field research with the Hai||om of Mangetti (1994a, 1994b, 1995b, 1996, 1999) and with the j=Aoni of the ¡Khuiseb (1998a, 1998b) without of course claiming that the work of an individual could or should cover everything that anthropologists can do. In fact, the number of non-Namibian anthropologists in the country has grown steadily since independence creating a plurality of approaches and fields under investigation. However, in reaction to this work, especially with regard to work related to so-called “Bushmen” or “San,” it has been advocated that anthropology should primarily be “contemporary history” (Suzman 2000), or “extreme reflexivity and deconstruction” (Sullivan 2001: 190) and it is these positions which I want to discuss in this contribution. It makes sense to carry out this discussion on the basis of my most comprehensive work (1999), an ethnographic monograph with a comparative perspective, and with regard to a counterposition that it has provoked in the previ

Access restriction

Copyright

fullscreen: Anthropos, 96.2001

Journal

Journal Volume

Journal Issue

Table of Contents

Cite and reuse

Journal Volume

Journal Issue

Image View

Image fragment

Citation links

Citation recommendation