| id |
eprints-22407
|
| recordtype |
eprints
|
| institution |
SOAS, University of London
|
| collection |
SOAS Research Online
|
| language |
English
|
| language_search |
English
|
| description |
Th is article is a contribution to the growing literature that suggests that the methodological and writing practices of anthropology are out of kilter with the times. The processual structures and regulative mechanisms that produce anthropological knowledge were formed when objection and engagement were not the almost-inevitable consequence of publication. Those who inform anthropological research now frequently object to the ways they are represented. My argument here focuses particularly on the relationship between the ethical structures of anthropology and the nature of objection. Thus far, the consistent response from anthropologists has been to explain away objections as differences in epistemology. In this light, I draw on an objection to my own research on postdisaster reconstruction in India to ask why there should not be disagreement between anthropologists and those who inform research. I also illustrate why the epistemological explanation is now insufficient and why new structures of research and writing might be required to make the leap from an age of objection.
|
| format |
Journal Article
|
| author |
Simpson, Edward
|
| author_facet |
Simpson, Edward
|
| authorStr |
Simpson, Edward
|
| author_letter |
Simpson, Edward
|
| title |
Is anthropology legal? Earthquake, blitzkrieg, and ethical futures
|
| publisher |
Berghahn
|
| publishDate |
2016
|
| url |
https://eprints.soas.ac.uk/22407/
|
