BibTex RIS Cite

Sosyal Antropolojide Yöntem ve Etik Sorunu: "Klasik Etnografiden Diyalojik Etnografiye Doğru"

Year 2017, Volume: 4 Issue: 1 - Ethnography, 189 - 206, 15.06.2017

Abstract

Özellikle 20’nci yüzyılın ikinci yarısından itibaren on yıllar boyunca antropoloji disiplini içerisinde, yapılan işin doğası ve etiği üzerine ciddi tartışma ve öz-eleştiri süreçleri yaşanmış, antropolojinin bir krizde olduğu söylenmiş; sonuçta bu yaşananlar disiplin içerisinde mevcut kuramsal ve yöntemsel gelenekleri sarsarak, yeni yönelimlerin ortaya çıkmasına yol açmışlardır. Daha önceleri yalnızca “yansız bir bilim insanı” sayılan antropoloğun bilimsel nesnellik atfedilen ürünü olan metin üzerinde odaklaşan ve metnin konusunu oluşturan kültürlerde olup bitenlere dikkatini yönelten disiplin, artık bir kültür ya da topluluğu tanıtma işine soyunmuş olan antropolog, bunu yaparken neler olup bittiği üzerinde daha çok durmaya başlamıştır. Bu neden önem kazanmıştır? Neden, “farklı olan”a ilginin, farklı olanın bilgisini edinme isteğinin yerini, bu bilgiyi toplayan kişi olarak antropoloğa ve onun bilgiyi derleme ve yazma süreçlerine yönelik ilgi almıştır?...Yukarıdaki soruların yanıtını verme çabası, bu yazının konusunu oluşturmaktadır.

References

  • Arslan, H. (1992). Epistemik Cemaat: Bir bilim sosyolojisi denemesi. İstanbul: Paradigma.
  • Atay, T. (1994). Naqshbandi Sufis in a Western Setting. (Doktora Tezi, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London).
  • Clifford, J. (1986). Introduction: Partial Truths. James Clifford ve E. George Marcus, (Der.), Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography içinde. University of California Press.
  • Clifford, J. (1988). The Predicament of Culture: Twentieth-Century Ethnography, Literature, and Art. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
  • Clifford, J., & Marcus, G. E. (1986). Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography. University of California Press.
  • Crick, M. (1982). Anthropological Field Research. Meaning Creation and Knowledge Construction. David Parkin (Der.), Semantic Anthropology içinde (s.15-37). London: Academic Press.
  • Çakır, R. (1990). Ayet ve Slogan: Türkiye'de İslami Oluşumlar. İstanbul: Metis.
  • Çakır, R. (1994). Ne Şeriat Ne Demokrasi: Refah Partisini Anlamak. İstanbul: Metis.
  • Escobar, A. (1993). The Limits of Reflexivity: Politics in Anthropology's Post-Writing Culture Era. Journal of Anhtropological Research, 49, 377-391.
  • Geertz, C. (1990). Yerli Gözüyle: Antropolojik Anlamanın Doğası Üstüne. Paul Rabinow ve William Sulliran (Der.) Toplum Bilimlerinde Yorumcu Yaklaşım (s.45-57). İstanbul: Hürriyet Vakfı.
  • Gellner, E. (1992). Postmodernism, Reason and Religion. London: Routledge.
  • Güngören, A. (1986). Cadıların Günbatımı-Bir Antropoloji El Kitabı için Notlar. İstanbul: Yol.
  • Hart, K. (1990). Swimming into the human current. Cambridge Anthropology, 14, 3-10.
  • Hastrup, K., & Hervik, P. (2003). Introduction. K. Hastrup ve P. Hervik (Der.), Social experience and anthropological knowledge. London: Routledge.
  • Lee, R. L., & Ackerman, S. E. (1994). Farewell to ethnography? Global embourgeoisement and the disprivileging of the narrative. Critique of Anthropology, 14(4), 339-354.
  • Lewis, I. M. (1976). Social antropology in perspective: The relevance of social anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Lindisfarne, N. (1994). Through children's eyes: and alternative account of field work in Eğirdir. S. Altuntek, S. Aydın, İ. Demirdöğen. (Der.) Humana: Bozkurt Güvenç’e Armağan. Ankara: Kültür Bakanlığı.
  • Moore, D. C. (1994). Anthropology is Dead, Long Live Anthro(a)pology: Poststructuralism, Literary Studies, and Anthropology's Nervous Present. Journal of Anthropological Research, 50(4), 345-365.
  • Mutman, M., & Yeğenoğlu, M. (1992). Bilimlerde ve Toplumda Postmodernizm. Birikim, s.33, s 43-47.
  • Peace, A. (1990). Dropping out of side: social anthropology encounters postmodernism. The Australian Journal of Anthropology, 1(1), 18-31.
  • Rabinow, P. (1986). Representations are social facts: Modernity and post-modernity in anthropology. J. Clifford ve G. Marcus (Der.) Writing culture: The poetics and politics of ethnography içinde (s. 234, 261). University of California Press.
  • Rubel, P., & Rosman, A. (1994). The past and the future of anthropology. Journal of Anthropological Research, 50(4), 335-343.
  • Tedlock, D. (1987). Questions concerning dialogical anthropology. Journal of Anthropological Research, 43(4), 325-337.
  • Tedlock, B. (1991). From participant observation to the observation of participation: The emergence of narrative ethnography. Journal of anthropological research, 47(1), 69- 94.

The Problem of Methodology and Ethics in Social Anthropology: "From Classical Ethnography Towards Dialogical Ethnography"

Year 2017, Volume: 4 Issue: 1 - Ethnography, 189 - 206, 15.06.2017

Abstract

Especially since the second half of 20th century onwards, there have been serious debates and self-criticism processes that took for decades on the nature and ethics of the studies in the discipline of anthropology: It was claimed that anthropology was in the midst of a crisis. As a result of all these debates, the existing theoretical and methodological traditions were shaken and this process gave way to the emergence of new tendencies. Previously, the anthropologist was merely deemed to be a scientist and scientific objectivity was attributed to the product of him/her: The attention of the discipline was solely directed on the anthropological texts and cultures as subjects. Later, the anthropologist whose main concern was to introduce a culture or community, was expected to dwell more upon what has happened during the process. Why this tendency gained such an importance then? Why did the attention on “the different”, on the urge to have the knowledge of the different, turned out to be a tendency of seeing the anthropologist as the gatherer of information and focusing on his/her practice of compiling and writing of these information?...The subject of this article is an attempt to give answer to abovementioned questions.

References

  • Arslan, H. (1992). Epistemik Cemaat: Bir bilim sosyolojisi denemesi. İstanbul: Paradigma.
  • Atay, T. (1994). Naqshbandi Sufis in a Western Setting. (Doktora Tezi, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London).
  • Clifford, J. (1986). Introduction: Partial Truths. James Clifford ve E. George Marcus, (Der.), Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography içinde. University of California Press.
  • Clifford, J. (1988). The Predicament of Culture: Twentieth-Century Ethnography, Literature, and Art. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
  • Clifford, J., & Marcus, G. E. (1986). Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography. University of California Press.
  • Crick, M. (1982). Anthropological Field Research. Meaning Creation and Knowledge Construction. David Parkin (Der.), Semantic Anthropology içinde (s.15-37). London: Academic Press.
  • Çakır, R. (1990). Ayet ve Slogan: Türkiye'de İslami Oluşumlar. İstanbul: Metis.
  • Çakır, R. (1994). Ne Şeriat Ne Demokrasi: Refah Partisini Anlamak. İstanbul: Metis.
  • Escobar, A. (1993). The Limits of Reflexivity: Politics in Anthropology's Post-Writing Culture Era. Journal of Anhtropological Research, 49, 377-391.
  • Geertz, C. (1990). Yerli Gözüyle: Antropolojik Anlamanın Doğası Üstüne. Paul Rabinow ve William Sulliran (Der.) Toplum Bilimlerinde Yorumcu Yaklaşım (s.45-57). İstanbul: Hürriyet Vakfı.
  • Gellner, E. (1992). Postmodernism, Reason and Religion. London: Routledge.
  • Güngören, A. (1986). Cadıların Günbatımı-Bir Antropoloji El Kitabı için Notlar. İstanbul: Yol.
  • Hart, K. (1990). Swimming into the human current. Cambridge Anthropology, 14, 3-10.
  • Hastrup, K., & Hervik, P. (2003). Introduction. K. Hastrup ve P. Hervik (Der.), Social experience and anthropological knowledge. London: Routledge.
  • Lee, R. L., & Ackerman, S. E. (1994). Farewell to ethnography? Global embourgeoisement and the disprivileging of the narrative. Critique of Anthropology, 14(4), 339-354.
  • Lewis, I. M. (1976). Social antropology in perspective: The relevance of social anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Lindisfarne, N. (1994). Through children's eyes: and alternative account of field work in Eğirdir. S. Altuntek, S. Aydın, İ. Demirdöğen. (Der.) Humana: Bozkurt Güvenç’e Armağan. Ankara: Kültür Bakanlığı.
  • Moore, D. C. (1994). Anthropology is Dead, Long Live Anthro(a)pology: Poststructuralism, Literary Studies, and Anthropology's Nervous Present. Journal of Anthropological Research, 50(4), 345-365.
  • Mutman, M., & Yeğenoğlu, M. (1992). Bilimlerde ve Toplumda Postmodernizm. Birikim, s.33, s 43-47.
  • Peace, A. (1990). Dropping out of side: social anthropology encounters postmodernism. The Australian Journal of Anthropology, 1(1), 18-31.
  • Rabinow, P. (1986). Representations are social facts: Modernity and post-modernity in anthropology. J. Clifford ve G. Marcus (Der.) Writing culture: The poetics and politics of ethnography içinde (s. 234, 261). University of California Press.
  • Rubel, P., & Rosman, A. (1994). The past and the future of anthropology. Journal of Anthropological Research, 50(4), 335-343.
  • Tedlock, D. (1987). Questions concerning dialogical anthropology. Journal of Anthropological Research, 43(4), 325-337.
  • Tedlock, B. (1991). From participant observation to the observation of participation: The emergence of narrative ethnography. Journal of anthropological research, 47(1), 69- 94.
There are 24 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Subjects Communication and Media Studies
Journal Section Essays
Authors

Tayfun Atay This is me

Publication Date June 15, 2017
Submission Date June 1, 2017
Acceptance Date June 1, 2017
Published in Issue Year 2017 Volume: 4 Issue: 1 - Ethnography

Cite

APA Atay, T. (2017). Sosyal Antropolojide Yöntem ve Etik Sorunu: "Klasik Etnografiden Diyalojik Etnografiye Doğru". Moment Dergi, 4(1), 189-206. https://doi.org/10.17572/moment.411585