ANT6006
Reading Response
Week 1
Sean Miller
Fabian’s Formulation of a “Theory of Coevalness” The assigned readings by Lutz, Fabian, Povinelli, and Trouillot all shine a light on prominent issues within anthropology; from processes of “Othering” to stark paradigmatic differences. Furthermore, each author discusses and criticizes this plethora of issues through strikingly different “objects”, be they time and coevalness, gender and theory, or difference through identity politics. For the purpose of this reading response, I aim to focus on the reading by Johannes Fabian, whose analysis of allochronic discourse in anthropology through the two explanatory strategies of cultural relativism and taxonomy. The overarching argument of the book (not solely the chapter) is that anthropology’s handling of “time” has traditionally been distorted, and this distortion has forcibly denied coevalness. In my reading of the article, I came to understand Fabian’s argument as a need for anthropologists and their interlocutors to exist in the same era of time, so as to circumvent the “Othering” of people of other cultures, both spatially and temporally. Specifically, Fabian criticizes the theoretical postulate …show more content…
However, to do so, Lévi-Strauss adopts a means of differentiating cultures through the use of “hot” versus “cold” identifiers – the latter of which becomes inherently problematic to the discussion of time, due to them being by definition in a less-developed state of human consciousness, according to structuralism. “Once again, Lévi-Strauss likes to confuse us.” (Fabian, 1983, 60) In doing so, Lévi-Strauss thus removes time from anthropological discussion and practice in its entirety. Does this not therefore also lead to an erasure of difference, albeit in a different
Reading Response
Week 1
Sean Miller
Fabian’s Formulation of a “Theory of Coevalness” The assigned readings by Lutz, Fabian, Povinelli, and Trouillot all shine a light on prominent issues within anthropology; from processes of “Othering” to stark paradigmatic differences. Furthermore, each author discusses and criticizes this plethora of issues through strikingly different “objects”, be they time and coevalness, gender and theory, or difference through identity politics. For the purpose of this reading response, I aim to focus on the reading by Johannes Fabian, whose analysis of allochronic discourse in anthropology through the two explanatory strategies of cultural relativism and taxonomy. The overarching argument of the book (not solely the chapter) is that anthropology’s handling of “time” has traditionally been distorted, and this distortion has forcibly denied coevalness. In my reading of the article, I came to understand Fabian’s argument as a need for anthropologists and their interlocutors to exist in the same era of time, so as to circumvent the “Othering” of people of other cultures, both spatially and temporally. Specifically, Fabian criticizes the theoretical postulate …show more content…
However, to do so, Lévi-Strauss adopts a means of differentiating cultures through the use of “hot” versus “cold” identifiers – the latter of which becomes inherently problematic to the discussion of time, due to them being by definition in a less-developed state of human consciousness, according to structuralism. “Once again, Lévi-Strauss likes to confuse us.” (Fabian, 1983, 60) In doing so, Lévi-Strauss thus removes time from anthropological discussion and practice in its entirety. Does this not therefore also lead to an erasure of difference, albeit in a different