摘要
历史人类学被实践为人类学的历史人类学和历史学的历史人类学两种路径,两者都面临着在田野中思考"历史"问题。个人认为,人类学的历史人类学主张是回不去的,只能看到历史来到现在,并与现在共处于现在之中。即便如此,由于前见或参考理论框架等的制约,即使人类学的田野也是有限进入,甚至有错入。历史学家认为,自己能够走向或走进历史的现场。本文认为,历史学家的历史人类学研究即使能回去,也只是在精神意义上,而肉体仍撇在了当下。历史学的历史人类学高度依赖文字并相信文字,而人类学的历史人类学对文字保持了适度警惕。在田野中,人类学的历史人类学擅长关注背景信息,并认为主体信息和背景信息共同构成了一个可以彼此表述的语言结构,而历史学的历史人类学则认为文字可以独立生产意义。但无论存在怎样分歧,田野是个语义场,这一点可为两者所接受。
Historical anthropology is practiced as the historical anthropology of anthropology and the historical anthropology of history,both face the problem of returning to the historical field.The historical anthropology of anthropology holds that there is no going back,we can only see the history coming to the present and being in the present structure with the present.Even so,because of the limitations of prejudice or frame of reference,even anthropological field access is limited,sometimes even strayed into another scene.But historians believe they can enter into the historical scene.This article thinks that the historical anthropology research of the historian can not return to the historical spot.Even if you can go back,it is only in the spiritual sense,and the body is still left in the present.The historical anthropology of history is highly dependent on and believes in words,while the historical anthropology of anthropology keeps a moderate vigilance against words.In the field,the historical anthropology of anthropology is good at looking at background information,and it is believed that the subject information and the background information together constitute a language structure that can be expressed or interpret by each other,but the historical anthropology of history holds that words can independently produce meaning.However divergent,the field is a semantic field,and both are acceptable.
出处
《青海民族研究》
CSSCI
北大核心
2020年第1期44-51,共8页
Qinghai Journal of Ethnology
关键词
历史人类学
田野调查
语义场
认识论
Historical Anthropology
Field Investigation
Semantic Field
Epistemology
