Nastiness Diagnosis. Anthropology. Religion. Gender. Justice. A Personal Notepad For the General Public.
Excerpt from John Postill’s article What’s the point of media anthropology.
Jack Goody argues that ‘[a] wariness about re-presentation that, by definition, is not ‘the real thing’, is one element in the worldwidehistory of culture’ (1997: 152).
Mark A. Peterson (2003: 3) has suggested that media anthropology has three maincontributions to make:
First, in contrast to other media scholars, media anthropologists conduct relatively extended, open-ended fieldwork in which media artefacts and practices are but one partof the social worlds under study. Second, media anthropologists are as likely to work inremotecornersoftheglobalSouthastheyareinmetropolitanareasofEuropeorNorthAmerica. This wide geographical scope allows them to broaden the media researchagenda from its traditional North Atlantic heartland. Third, media anthropologists bring to the study of media a long disciplinary history of grappling with sociocultural complexity through theories of exchange, social formations and cultural forms. Thistheoretical expertise, argues Peterson, can help the field to finally leave behind thesimple models of communication that dominated its earlier history.
Ingold (2008: 74, 78) understands history as the continuous emergence of social-life processes,rejecting with Kroeber and Evans-Pritchard any notion of history as ‘abstract’ chronological time. (他有點誤解這裡的意思，因為對抗抽象時間，可以透過不同的時間感描述來完成，與所謂的編年史並不衝突)