Results found: 1

Search results

Search:
in the keywords: INTERPRETATION & DIALOGUE IN ANTHROPOLOGY

Sort By:

Limit search:

DIALOGUE AND INTERPRETATION IN CONTEMPORARY ANTHROPOLOGY

100%

Kaniowska K.

Etnografia Polska

2006

vol. 50

issue 1-2

17-34

Interpretation can be seen as a method of anthropology based on the new paradigm. It is something more than the hermeneutic exegesis of texts. The main problem with anthropological interpretation arises from the fact that contemporary anthropology, which accepted the new paradigm, is still an empirical discipline. Because of the empirical dimension of anthropological knowledge, the category of experience should be the main one in the methodological discourse in our discipline. According to all the changes, which had rebuilt anthropological thinking, we can assume that dialogue is an experience and an interpretation at the same time. Anthropological dialogue, as well as anthropological experience, has always its specific context. Dialogue/experience becomes the object of interpretation. There are, in fact, two levels of anthropological dialogue . the first appears from contact and context of researcher-informant meeting; the second comes from an anthropological description and narration appearing after the first one and has also its own context. Anthropological knowledge is than the result of the processes of interpretation and dialogical contextualization appropriate to the level of the dialogue: the vivid one, connecting two interlocutors, and the second, shadow-dialogue, as Crapanzano called it. Anthropological dialogue therefore, is not simply Gadamer's model of dialogue. Dialogue in anthropology is rather a specific, double interpretation which links up experience with representation and reflection.

Refine search results

1 Etnografia Polska

1 Kaniowska K.

1 2006

Search results

DIALOGUE AND INTERPRETATION IN CONTEMPORARY ANTHROPOLOGY