This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Zeitlyn, D. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Understanding anthropological understanding

For a merological anthropology

University of Kent, UK, D.Zeitlyn{at}kent.ac.uk

In this article I argue for a merological anthropology in which ideas of `partiality' and `practical adequacy' provide a way out of the impasse of relativism which is implied by postmodernism and the related abandonment of a concern with `truth'. Ideas such as `aptness' and `faithfulness' enable us to re-establish empirical foundations without having to espouse a simple realism which has been rightly criticized. Ideas taken from ethnomethodology, particularly the way we bootstrap from `practical adequacy' to `warrants for confidence', point to a merological anthropology in which we recognize that we do not and cannot know everything, but that we can have reasons for being confident in the little we know.

Key Words: empirical responsibility • ethnomethodology • merology • partiality • postmodernism • practical adequacy • realism • relativism

Anthropological Theory, Vol. 9, No. 2, 209-231 (2009)
DOI: 10.1177/1463499609103550


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?