Document Type

Article

Publication Date

Winter 2017

Publication Title

HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory

ISSN

2049-1115

Publisher

HAU Society for Ethnographic Theory

Volume

7

Issue

3

First Page

34

Last Page

38

Comments

This article was included as part of a new section of the journal called "Shortcuts," edited in this issue by Giovanni da Col and Claudio Sopranzetti. The abstract for this issue's "Shortcuts" section, entitled "Why do we read the classics?" is as follows:

Debates on the epistemological, ethical, and historical constitution of the anthropological corpus are one of the reasons why anthropology has always thrived. Whether in terms of the complex relation between the production of anthropological knowledge and the political systems in which it takes place, or the proliferation of the language of “mutual constitution” as a way to bypass questions of causality, the question of the “suffering” vs. the “good,” the attribution of “colonial” or “white male privilege” to ethnographic classics, or the hackneyed debates on the precariousness of academic life, contemporary anthropology is traversed by critical shortcuts, worn paths we often take, without reflecting on them. This first installment of a new journal section titled “Shortcuts” aims to investigate and question the analytical, historical, and interpretive arguments that have become common knowledge in anthropology, intuitively true and agreeable, yet rarely subject to rigorous scrutiny and discussion. The first “Shortcut” engages with the question “Why read the classics?” and offers six varied responses by scholars who deal with how the anthropological canon is produced and what is at stake in preserving it, going back to it, or getting away from it.

Download

Share

COinS