Interpretative Ethnology

The interpretative ethnology or symbolic anthropology describes a scientific theoretical doctrine of the ethnology (ethnology) and distinguishes itself from the analytical ethnology .

Space-time limitation

Decolonization confronted ethnologists early on with a more detailed questioning of the complex relationships between ethnologists on the one hand - and ethnic groups and indigenous peoples on the other. In particular, the problem of authority (e.g. links between the anthropologist and power structures) and the problem of authenticity (criticism of field research methods ) were discussed. The discussion about this so-called “ crisis of ethnology ” reached its peak in the 1960s after the posthumous publication of Bronislaw Malinowski's diary.

In the context of the publications of the American anthropologist Clifford Geertz (1926–2006) and the criticism made against him, a postmodern turn in the epistemological discussion of ethnology can be seen roughly around 1980. This turn was also influenced by timely discussions in philosophy and sociology .

Terminological diversity

The multitude of publications and discussions that sought to overcome the crisis in ethnology gave rise to several terms that could be summarized under the designation interpretative ethnology , as Marcus and Fischer indirectly suggested in 1986: hermeneutic ethnology, symbolic ethnology (especially in the 1970s ), Dialogic, Semantic, Critical, Reflexive, Humanistic, Deconstructivist, Radical or Experimental Ethnology or Ethnography.

Basic position

As opposed to analytical ethnology , interpretative ethnology doubts the existence of an objectively externally perceptible reality in the subject of its research. Objects, what is said and social acts only acquire meaning through interpretation by participants in a particular culture. The meanings of the objects only emerge in a context of action and communication. There cannot be phenomena that are far from observer.

The interpretative ethnologist or ethnographer accepts this world of meanings and tries to perceive it from the context of speech and behavior during field research. What is observed must be interpreted in order to be understood. This process is close to the observer and is carried out through communication between the ethnographer and self-interpreting cultural participants. As a result, no objective truths are recognized, but relevant perspectives are created in the understanding of the ethnographer. In a second step, these results of the field research are summarized as text, which represents a further level of interpretation.

Interpretative ethnology in field research

The fieldwork share both followers of interpretive and analytical anthropology. While ethnologists who proceed analytically tend to approach the research object with previously defined, systematic, generalized procedures, the interpretative ethnologist tends to change his methods (such as participatory observation , ethnographic interview , recording dialogues, description of everyday social behavior) around the respective position of the hermeneutic circle .

Quotes

• "Interpretative ethnology asks those questions that not to have asked is the condition for success of analytical ethnology, and vice versa."
• "While analytical cognition dissects and only finally puts the results together to form a whole, in the hermeneutic procedure supposedly understood whole meaning is introduced to the interpretation of the individual in anticipation of a holistic process of understanding."
• “This interdisciplinarity is fundamental for interpretative ethnology: as soon as interpretation is not limited by a dogmatically prescribed framework, it can reach beyond subject boundaries and incorporate knowledge of other human sciences. This is the only way to arrive at interpretations within interpretative ethnology that are appropriate to its complex subject of knowledge - culture. "
• "In finished anthropological writings, including those collected here, this fact - that what we call our data are really our own constructions of other people's constructions of what they and their compatriots are up to - is obscured because most of what we need to comprehend a particular event, ritual, custom, idea, or whatever is insinuated as background information before the thing itself is directly examined. "

See also

• Victor Turner (1920–1983, British ethnologist of symbolic anthropology)

literature

• Doris Bachmann-Medick : Interpretive Turn. In: Same: Cultural Turns. New orientations in cultural studies. 3rd, revised edition. Rowohlt, Reinbek 2009, pp. 58-103.
• James Clifford , George E. Marcus (Eds.): Writing Culture. The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography. University of California Press, Berkeley et al. a. 1986.
• Clifford Geertz : The Interpretation of Cultures. Fontana, New York 1993.
• Irmtraud Stellrecht : Interpretative Ethnology. An orientation. In: Thomas Schweizer u. a. (Ed.): Handbook of Ethnology. Reimer, Berlin 1993, ISBN 3-496-00446-0 , pp. 29-78.

Individual evidence

1. ↑ ^{a b c d} Irmtraud Stellrecht : Interpretative Ethnology. An orientation. In: Thomas Schweizer u. a. (Ed.): Handbook of Ethnology. Reimer, Berlin 1993, pp. 29-78.
2. ↑ Irmtraud Stellrecht: Interpretative Ethnology. An orientation. In: Thomas Schweizer u. a. (Ed.): Handbook of Ethnology. Reimer, Berlin 1993, pp. 29-78, here p. 64.
3. ↑ Irmtraud Stellrecht: Interpretative Ethnology. An orientation. In: Thomas Schweizer u. a. (Ed.): Handbook of Ethnology. Reimer, Berlin 1993, pp. 29-78, here p. 40.
4. ↑ Irmtraud Stellrecht: Interpretative Ethnology. An orientation. In: Thomas Schweizer u. a. (Ed.): Handbook of Ethnology. Reimer, Berlin 1993, pp. 29-78, here pp. 44-45.
5. ^ Clifford Geertz : The Interpretation of Cultures. Fontana, New York 1993, p. 9.