Talk:Symbolic anthropology
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Anthropology.
This project provides a central approach to Anthropology-related subjects on Wikipedia. |
| Stub | This article has been rated as stub-Class on the quality scale. |
| High | This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale. |
Um, the link to the page at Minnesota gets 'symbolic anthropology' exactly WRONG. Symbolic anthropology does not see culture as an individual, cognitive affair but rather as a public, social creation. The link should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.114.220.56 (talk) 08:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
We should have an article on this topic. But the original stub:
- Symbolic anthropology is a field of cultural anthropology which explores non-verbal and verbal symbols (e.g. narratives, dreams, myth, ritual, icons). Symbolic anthropologists examine the link between symbols and a society's cognitive structure, rules of moral conduct and patterns of social interactions. By studying the meaning and the structure (the interrelationship of symbols), the anthropologist attempts to generalize the culture of global societies.
[edit] See also
Is wrong. Symbolic anthropology is not just the study of symbols, including myths and rituals, because many other anthropologists study myths and rituals. SA is a particular approach to anthropology, that defines the object and objectives of anthropological research a particular way, exemplified by Clifford Geertz, Victor Turner, and David Schneider. It is not a field of cultural anthropology (cultural anthropology is a field) nor is it a sub-field, like political anthropology or the anthropology of religion (both of which look at symbols too); it really is more a theoretical approach, largely influenced by Weber (not Mead and Goffman!), that presented itself as an alternative to Cultural Materialism and Structuralism in the 1960s and 1970s. I hope someone who really knows this stuff can write a real article. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:59, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
i will add some good stuff to this page as soon as i finish my paper on symbolic anthro
This entire article is more about structural anthropology than Symbolic Anthropology. They're two completely different theoretical approaches and this entire article focuses on Levi-Strauss and Structuralism. The whole thing should probably just be scrapped and a new one made as there are so many glaring errors with it.
[edit] Structuralism versus symbolic anthropology
I don't have time to write out an entire article on the subject, but here is a reference along with my own musings that may help someone replace the current article.
There are really several very different anthropologists that can be called symbolic anthropologists. Geertz, Turner, and Schneider all fall within this label. For a discussion on all three, Sherry Ortner (2001) has a great article called "Theory in Anthropology since the Sixties" which has a section on symbolic anthropology published in Readings for A History of Anthropological Theory, edited by Erikson and Murphy.
According to Sherry Ortner, "[Victor Turner] was trained in the Max Gluckman variant of British structural-functionalism, which was influenced by Marxism, and which stressed that the normal state of society is not one of solidarity and harmonious integration of parts, but rather one of conflict and contradiction" (646). When thinking about his structural-functionalist background, it is important to note Durkheim's role in the formation of that school of thought, though he isn't the primary focus for Turner.
Geertz in turn was influenced primarely by Weber through the lens of Parsons. Schneider also was influenced by Parsons, but his theory was more akin to Levi-Strauss' structuralism.
[edit] Copyrighted material
There is a lot of copyrighted material in this article from [1], as well as what looks like original research. I won't bother taking it out - I don't want to be accused of "ganging up" on anyone - but another editor just might come in and leave nothing but a stub. The article definitely needs to be brought up to the standards of Wikipedia. ... discospinster talk 16:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
