Critical feminist and political economy theories were incorporated into the anthropological discipline in the 1960’s and 70’s as social and political climates were changing around the world. Academia was influencing and being influenced by new or progressive social agendas and this carryover was instrumental in the popularity, dissemination, and depth of critique for these concepts. Around this time scholars began what has now become a tradition in the discipline, which is that of introspection and reflection on anthropological methods and theory itself. A greater attention to the nature of anthropology and a critical eye towards its practices was being established at this time. This introspection led to a multitude of traditionally accepted
…show more content…
The assigned articles were written in the latter half of the 70’s and early 80’s and as such they were within a time period of reflection after some major world events. The theoretical perspective of political economy is unique in that it began in the 18th century as an investigation of the relationships between politics and the economy (as is somewhat self-evident in the name). Thus the political economy being discussed in the Wolf article (1982) is not the classical version of the 18th century, but rather the new version of it that has been re-examined in conjunction with post-colonialism.
Sally Slocum makes numerous arguments in this selection of her work, but the overarching question she asks, and tries to answer is, what were females doing when males were out hunting? This question is important for a few reasons. Slocum begins by arguing, in a reflexive manner that would have been new at the time, that the questions anthropologists ask are essential in …show more content…
He describes how the social sciences began, first as the answer to the question of how to maintain social order. Wolf maintains that the departure from political economy to separate fields of politics, economics, and sociology was the flawed turning point that has led to theoretical problems within these disciplines. He argues that the specialization has limited the scope of each discipline and that this has led to theories that are inaccurate in their estimation of the ‘real world’. One of the examples he uses is the modernization theory, which praises development and denies a history to societies that are ‘traditional’ or ‘stagnant’. He then goes on to look at the transformation of anthropology, and states that the study of supposedly bounded and autonomous cases is an assumption that is incorrect, simplistic, and has trapped anthropology in on itself. Wolf then contrasts these frameworks with Marx, who Wolf argues had a much more accurate framework. Marx’s framework recognized no universal history (unlike the Eurocentric version the social sciences had implied), but rather a specific combination of elements (society, market, process) in each time and place that created unique modes of production. Finally Wolf explains the harms of underdeveloped/developed dichotomies and how the lack of recognition that
The assigned articles were written in the latter half of the 70’s and early 80’s and as such they were within a time period of reflection after some major world events. The theoretical perspective of political economy is unique in that it began in the 18th century as an investigation of the relationships between politics and the economy (as is somewhat self-evident in the name). Thus the political economy being discussed in the Wolf article (1982) is not the classical version of the 18th century, but rather the new version of it that has been re-examined in conjunction with post-colonialism.
Sally Slocum makes numerous arguments in this selection of her work, but the overarching question she asks, and tries to answer is, what were females doing when males were out hunting? This question is important for a few reasons. Slocum begins by arguing, in a reflexive manner that would have been new at the time, that the questions anthropologists ask are essential in …show more content…
He describes how the social sciences began, first as the answer to the question of how to maintain social order. Wolf maintains that the departure from political economy to separate fields of politics, economics, and sociology was the flawed turning point that has led to theoretical problems within these disciplines. He argues that the specialization has limited the scope of each discipline and that this has led to theories that are inaccurate in their estimation of the ‘real world’. One of the examples he uses is the modernization theory, which praises development and denies a history to societies that are ‘traditional’ or ‘stagnant’. He then goes on to look at the transformation of anthropology, and states that the study of supposedly bounded and autonomous cases is an assumption that is incorrect, simplistic, and has trapped anthropology in on itself. Wolf then contrasts these frameworks with Marx, who Wolf argues had a much more accurate framework. Marx’s framework recognized no universal history (unlike the Eurocentric version the social sciences had implied), but rather a specific combination of elements (society, market, process) in each time and place that created unique modes of production. Finally Wolf explains the harms of underdeveloped/developed dichotomies and how the lack of recognition that