Den ontologiske blænding: om den ontologiske vendings metodiske og politiske problemer

David Brehm Sausdal; Henrik Erdman Vigh

Den ontologiske blænding: om den ontologiske vendings metodiske og politiske problemer

1 Citationer (Scopus)

Abstract

This article takes a critical look at "the ontological turn". It argues that two key problems arise from the ontological turn: one methodical, the other political. First of all, the article points to the difficulties of studying the "radical Other" in ontological terms. If the supporters of the ontological turn are right in their claim that anthropology should not study multiple "world-views" but essentially different "worlds" altogether, then how, we ask, does one approach this methodologically? Put in other words; with what registers can we as anthropologists conceive and describe ontological others in ways that do them and not just the anthropologists/ anthropology justice? Secondly, the "construction" of difference, inherent in an anthropological endeavor that advocates radical difference as an analytical point of departure, is problematic in relation to the impact that anthropology has outside academia. As history so vividly has shown us, dividing the world into radically different Others offers itself to political constructions of not only equal Others but often inferior ones.

Originalsprog	Dansk
Tidsskrift	Tidsskriftet Antropologi
Udgave nummer	67
Sider (fra-til)	101-119
Antal sider	19
ISSN	0906-3021
Status	Udgivet - 2013

Citationsformater

@article{729a5b6ff6c94f689055c30fb9bb919d,

title = "Den ontologiske bl{\ae}nding: om den ontologiske vendings metodiske og politiske problemer",

abstract = "This article takes a critical look at {"}the ontological turn{"}. It argues that two key problems arise from the ontological turn: one methodical, the other political. First of all, the article points to the difficulties of studying the {"}radical Other{"} in ontological terms. If the supporters of the ontological turn are right in their claim that anthropology should not study multiple {"}world-views{"} but essentially different {"}worlds{"} altogether, then how, we ask, does one approach this methodologically? Put in other words; with what registers can we as anthropologists conceive and describe ontological others in ways that do them and not just the anthropologists/ anthropology justice? Secondly, the {"}construction{"} of difference, inherent in an anthropological endeavor that advocates radical difference as an analytical point of departure, is problematic in relation to the impact that anthropology has outside academia. As history so vividly has shown us, dividing the world into radically different Others offers itself to political constructions of not only equal Others but often inferior ones.",

author = "Sausdal, {David Brehm} and Vigh, {Henrik Erdman}",

year = "2013",

language = "Dansk",

pages = "101--119",

journal = "Tidsskriftet Antropologi",

issn = "0906-3021",

publisher = "Foreningen Stofskifte",

number = "67",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Den ontologiske blænding

T2 - om den ontologiske vendings metodiske og politiske problemer

AU - Sausdal, David Brehm

AU - Vigh, Henrik Erdman

PY - 2013

Y1 - 2013

N2 - This article takes a critical look at "the ontological turn". It argues that two key problems arise from the ontological turn: one methodical, the other political. First of all, the article points to the difficulties of studying the "radical Other" in ontological terms. If the supporters of the ontological turn are right in their claim that anthropology should not study multiple "world-views" but essentially different "worlds" altogether, then how, we ask, does one approach this methodologically? Put in other words; with what registers can we as anthropologists conceive and describe ontological others in ways that do them and not just the anthropologists/ anthropology justice? Secondly, the "construction" of difference, inherent in an anthropological endeavor that advocates radical difference as an analytical point of departure, is problematic in relation to the impact that anthropology has outside academia. As history so vividly has shown us, dividing the world into radically different Others offers itself to political constructions of not only equal Others but often inferior ones.

AB - This article takes a critical look at "the ontological turn". It argues that two key problems arise from the ontological turn: one methodical, the other political. First of all, the article points to the difficulties of studying the "radical Other" in ontological terms. If the supporters of the ontological turn are right in their claim that anthropology should not study multiple "world-views" but essentially different "worlds" altogether, then how, we ask, does one approach this methodologically? Put in other words; with what registers can we as anthropologists conceive and describe ontological others in ways that do them and not just the anthropologists/ anthropology justice? Secondly, the "construction" of difference, inherent in an anthropological endeavor that advocates radical difference as an analytical point of departure, is problematic in relation to the impact that anthropology has outside academia. As history so vividly has shown us, dividing the world into radically different Others offers itself to political constructions of not only equal Others but often inferior ones.

M3 - Tidsskriftartikel

SN - 0906-3021

SP - 101

EP - 119

JO - Tidsskriftet Antropologi

JF - Tidsskriftet Antropologi

IS - 67

ER -