For anthropologists,the major purpose in the emphasis on the individual and hence practice derives from our refusal to reduce individuals to puppets of their culture and,at the same time,to understand their power,or a lack thereof,over the course of history,since their impact almost never takes the form of a direct causal arrow but a complex and long-term process.
There are several theoretical issues involved. First,how is one to interpret an individual not as a quintessential Japanese,American,etc.,and consider her or his unique experience,thoughts,feelings,and personality for her or him to become a historical agent,rather than simply an actor?Consider martin luther king Jr. and Gandhi, on the good side of the spectrum, and Hitler and Mao, in his cultural revolution stage,on the other end. We must examine a complex dialectic between a subject and his or her experience as a member of a society,and historical,political contexts.
There are several theoretical issues involved. First,how is one to interpret an individual not as a quintessential Japanese,American,etc.,and consider her or his unique experience,thoughts,feelings,and personality for her or him to become a historical agent,rather than simply an actor?Consider martin luther king Jr. and Gandhi, on the good side of the spectrum, and Hitler and Mao, in his cultural revolution stage,on the other end. We must examine a complex dialectic between a subject and his or her experience as a member of a society,and historical,political contexts.
All Comments
這裡有幾個理論議題牽涉其中.首先, 如何解釋個人不是一位典型的日本人, 美國人等等而且認為他或她的獨特經驗, 想法, 感覺, 與 個性使他或她變成歷史的代理人勝於單純演員? 思考金恩及甘地成為正面的光芒. 反面的, 希特勒與毛澤東在他門文化革命階段. 我們必須證明複雜的辨證法在主題與他或她的經驗之間作為社會的成員與歷史,政治的背景.
有幾個理論的問題被包含。首先，怎樣在一解釋個人不作為典型日本，美國人，等等，考慮岩燕luther 國王季爾
我們必須檢查在一個主題和他或她的經驗之間的一個複雜的辯證法作為一個社會的成員，以及歷史，政治背景。