Search

This essay aims at reconstructing - from an historical-critical point of view - the growing interest, in Bronislaw Malinowski's work, for practical anthropology, for the relations between politics and anthropological research, and finally for the relations of the discipline with colonialism. At the same time, the essay seeks to assess the critical literature of the last decades, frequently based on undocumented and superficial assumptions on the relations between anthropology and colonialism. These critiques are often excessively severe, quick and superficial, and hardly based on a careful analysis of the specific socio-cultural contexts of the different types of colonies. Those studies often had the tendency to "project" onto the past, ideas, sensibilities and political choices of the present. Then, we have appreciated and considered valuables some accurate and documented studies on Malinowski as those by E. Gellner, B. Berman, I. Niehaus, F. Focks, and then the general essays of H. Kuklick and G. Stocking. Finally, great importance is devoted to Malinowski's posthumous books The dynamics of culture change. An inquiry into race relations in Africa (1945), and Freedom and civilisation (1947). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Ethnological, anthropological, philosophical and philological studies, along with contributions of Religious Studies, have long ago identified a set of myths and rites which seem to defy history and cultural bars, that is, which go far beyond the time and space framework from which they came. This paper shows how some of these archetypes are present in African cultures, notwithstanding the hermeneutical prejudices some European scholars showed about them. A particular attention will be displayed on rites. Considering the vastness and richness of African cultures, the paper will focus on just some Northern Africa and Sub-Saharan cases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Sociologia & Antropologia is the property of Sociologia & Antropologia and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Through the reading of Sharon Hutchinson's monograph on the nuer, this article explores the misunderstandings between contemporary anthropology and the modern classics. it tries to identify invisible genealogies that go back to the British functionalists, particularly to Evans-Pritchard, and minimizes the explicit oppositions between the present and the past of anthropology . it reveals that some classical notions are detectable in non-explicit ways among those who claim to reject them and, at the same time, that contemporary concerns have their roots in modern ethnographies. The author shows that static approaches -- as the one by Evans-Pritchard on the nuer -- had a historical meaning and recalls that British social anthropology had its own theoretical and methodological answers to the transformations of African contexts under colonial rule. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]