Department of Anthropology College of Arts and Sciences The University of Alabama
Social Anthropology Anthropology 536 Spring 1997
HISTORICISM
JONATHAN BERRY
jberry@woodsquad.as.ua.edu
INDEX
Identify and briefly characterize the defining positions of the approach in question.
Historicism, as a school of thought, focuses on the historical context of cultures. A culture does not exist outside of time, but rather rises up out of a historical drama or narrative that shapes and directs the culture. The radical historicist emphasizes the narrative of history (or an aspect of that narrative's culture) to such an extent that it becomes a self-defining, self-subsistent capsule which ultimately dismantles any larger historical context the culture may have.
Indicate, where possible, the theories, methodologies and scholars against which the approach in question may be considered a reaction. What problems are perceived to be better addressed by adopting this theoretical and/or methodological position?
Name and provide brief biographies of the principal scholars assoicated with the approach.
Franz Boaz
1858--1942:Alfred Louis Kroeber
1876--1960:Edward Sapir
1884--1939:Ruth Benedict
1887--1948:Paul Radin
1883--1959:Sir Edward Evan Evans-Pritchard
1902--1973:Identify and briefly characterize the seminal works of the approach (i.e., articles, books, monographs, serials, etc.)
Identify and define the principal concepts which constitute the intellectual building blocks of the approach. Discuss any ambiguities or competing definitions.
Describe the standards for research design adopted by the school under consideration. Discuss the methods, techniques,and models advanced.
Discuss how anthropological knowledge has been advanced by the work of this school.
Discuss the theoretical, methodolgoical and empirical problems and limitations of the approach identified by its critics. How have these criticisms been met?
The historical approach, while giving a ground to the study of culture_because of its reaction to the diffusionist/evolutionist paradigm_can become overly focused on the particulars of a given culture and its uniqueness to such an extent that it is blind to the relatively open stance of culture in the wake of the onslaught of contagious differences from the surrounding cultures. A culture is not immuned to change that occurs from something other than historical progression. The historicist can be criticised for busy him/herself with writing a cultural history by selecting the cultural particulars that best fit their historical model; an anthropologist, like anyone else, only sees what they expect to see. This criticism is perhaps the most worthy of concern; however, even this criticism can be taken and has been taken to the extent of denying totally the existence any valid historical reconstruction.
This is the place for any commentary that does not sit well in any of the previous categories.
.
List (with hyperlinks) and describe any web sites you have found that are relevant to this school of thought.
Return to Anthropology 536
Return to M.D. Murphy's Page
Return to Anthropology Department Web Page