首页> 外文期刊>International journal of anthropology and ethnology. >Inheritance and reflection: “re-study” of three anthropology fieldwork sites in China’s Yunnan Province
【24h】

Inheritance and reflection: “re-study” of three anthropology fieldwork sites in China’s Yunnan Province

机译:中国云南三人类学野外职场“重新研究”的遗产与反思

获取原文
           

摘要

This article is a research report involving three anthropological studies conducted during the period of “Kuige” and their “re-studies.” By narrating the project, I set forth my views on the connections and differences between Chinese anthropological explorations from two historical periods. These anthropological explorations refer to the study of Lu Village conducted by Fei Xiaotong, that of “West Town” (Xizhou) by Francis L. K. Hsu, and that of “Pai-IPai” (Dai) villages by Tien Ju-Kang. They were all completed in the late 1930s and early 1940s. Each writer extracted a framework to analyze the land system, ancestor worship, and the relationship between humans and gods from the writer’s own field experience. Despite the difference in research methods, all three studies noticed the cultural differences between rural society and modernity. Since 2000, Peking University and Yunnan Minzu University have launched a “Province-university Cooperation Project.” During the project, a research team formed of several young scholars revisited Lu Village, “West Town” (Xizhou), and Namu Village. These writers’ works were based on the data acquired in their fieldwork and drew upon the opinions raised by global anthropologists on “re-study” in recent decades. Considering the dual effects of social change and shifts in academic concepts around “follow-up research,” the scholars put forward several points of view with their ethnographies, which all featured the characteristics of inheritance and reflection. Based on the results of the three “re-studies,” this article emphasizes the importance of the study of public rituals for the research of rural society. This article also attempts to re-examine the methodology of “human ecology,” which profoundly impacts Chinese anthropology and sociology.
机译:本文是涉及在“Kuige”期间进行的三项人类学研究的研究报告及其“重新研究”。通过叙述该项目,我对两个历史时期的人类学探索之间的联系和差异提出了我的观点。这些人类学探索是指FEI小通,“西镇”(西郊)由Francis L. K. Hsu的鲁村进行的研究,以及Tien Ju-kang的“Pai-ipai”(戴)村。他们全部在20世纪30年代末和20世纪40年代初完成。每个作家都提取了一个框架,分析了土地系统,祖先崇拜,以及来自作者自己的现场经验的人与神主的关系。尽管研究方法有所不同,但所有三项研究都注意到农村社会与现代性之间的文化差异。自2000年以来,北京大学和云南闽都大学推出了“省级 - 大学合作项目”。该项目期间,一支由几位年轻学者组成的研究团队重新审视鲁村,“西镇”(西郊)和南乌村。这些作家的作品基于其实地工作中获得的数据,并提及全球人类学家近几十年来“重新研究”提出的意见。考虑到社会变革的双重影响和在“后续研究中的学术概念中的转变”,学者提出了几个观点与他们的纪念碑,所有这些都是引入继承和反思的特征。基于三“重新研究的结果,本文强调了对农村社会研究的公共仪式研究的重要性。本文还试图重新研究“人类生态”的方法,这会影响中国人类学和社会学。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号