Porous social orders
ABSTRACT Many cultural anthropologists today share a common theoretical commitment: to view the people they encounter during fieldwork as living among multiple social orders that are interconnected and contingent. When social orders are multiple, ethnographers are quickly faced with the question of...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | American ethnologist 2019-11, Vol.46 (4), p.404-416 |
---|---|
1. Verfasser: | |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 416 |
---|---|
container_issue | 4 |
container_start_page | 404 |
container_title | American ethnologist |
container_volume | 46 |
creator | GERSHON, ILANA |
description | ABSTRACT
Many cultural anthropologists today share a common theoretical commitment: to view the people they encounter during fieldwork as living among multiple social orders that are interconnected and contingent. When social orders are multiple, ethnographers are quickly faced with the question of how people construct the boundaries between these social orders to be both durable (enough) to keep social orders distinct and porous (enough) to allow people, objects, forms, and ideas to circulate across them in appropriate ways. What counts as appropriate is, not surprisingly, often hotly contested. Despite contemporary ethnographers’ varied intellectual trajectories, a crosscutting set of theoretical assumptions unites their work and shapes how they approach familiar anthropological foci, such as circulation, ritual, scale, and power. [porous boundaries, social orders, circulation, ritual, scale, power, fieldwork, ethnography, theory] |
doi_str_mv | 10.1111/amet.12829 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2316375602</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2316375602</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3379-7714cb89d071137163b7bc6fab6f5e7de20980e512acab4000976ab111c6bcda3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9j8FKAzEQhoMouFYv4gMUvAlbZ5JssjmW0qpQ0UM9hySbhS1bU5Mu0rc3dT07l7l888__EXKLMMM8j2bnDzOkNVVnpMCK1yVyWp2TAkDxErgSl-QqpS0AouKyIHfvIYYhTVNwnemnITY-pmty0Zo--Zu_PSEfq-Vm8Vyu355eFvN16RiTqpQSubO1akAiMomCWWmdaI0VbeVl4ymoGnyF1DhjOeQOUhibezphXWPYhNyPufsYvgafDnobhviZX2rKcpysBNBMPYyUiyGl6Fu9j93OxKNG0CdrfbLWv9YZxhH-7np__IfU89flZrz5ATMKV40</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2316375602</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Porous social orders</title><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><source>Sociological Abstracts</source><creator>GERSHON, ILANA</creator><creatorcontrib>GERSHON, ILANA</creatorcontrib><description>ABSTRACT
Many cultural anthropologists today share a common theoretical commitment: to view the people they encounter during fieldwork as living among multiple social orders that are interconnected and contingent. When social orders are multiple, ethnographers are quickly faced with the question of how people construct the boundaries between these social orders to be both durable (enough) to keep social orders distinct and porous (enough) to allow people, objects, forms, and ideas to circulate across them in appropriate ways. What counts as appropriate is, not surprisingly, often hotly contested. Despite contemporary ethnographers’ varied intellectual trajectories, a crosscutting set of theoretical assumptions unites their work and shapes how they approach familiar anthropological foci, such as circulation, ritual, scale, and power. [porous boundaries, social orders, circulation, ritual, scale, power, fieldwork, ethnography, theory]</description><identifier>ISSN: 0094-0496</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1548-1425</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/amet.12829</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Arlington: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</publisher><subject>Anthropologists ; Ethnography ; Field study ; Fieldwork ; Power ; Rituals ; Social power</subject><ispartof>American ethnologist, 2019-11, Vol.46 (4), p.404-416</ispartof><rights>2019 by the American Anthropological Association</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3379-7714cb89d071137163b7bc6fab6f5e7de20980e512acab4000976ab111c6bcda3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3379-7714cb89d071137163b7bc6fab6f5e7de20980e512acab4000976ab111c6bcda3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Famet.12829$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Famet.12829$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,27901,27902,33751,45550,45551</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>GERSHON, ILANA</creatorcontrib><title>Porous social orders</title><title>American ethnologist</title><description>ABSTRACT
Many cultural anthropologists today share a common theoretical commitment: to view the people they encounter during fieldwork as living among multiple social orders that are interconnected and contingent. When social orders are multiple, ethnographers are quickly faced with the question of how people construct the boundaries between these social orders to be both durable (enough) to keep social orders distinct and porous (enough) to allow people, objects, forms, and ideas to circulate across them in appropriate ways. What counts as appropriate is, not surprisingly, often hotly contested. Despite contemporary ethnographers’ varied intellectual trajectories, a crosscutting set of theoretical assumptions unites their work and shapes how they approach familiar anthropological foci, such as circulation, ritual, scale, and power. [porous boundaries, social orders, circulation, ritual, scale, power, fieldwork, ethnography, theory]</description><subject>Anthropologists</subject><subject>Ethnography</subject><subject>Field study</subject><subject>Fieldwork</subject><subject>Power</subject><subject>Rituals</subject><subject>Social power</subject><issn>0094-0496</issn><issn>1548-1425</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>BHHNA</sourceid><recordid>eNp9j8FKAzEQhoMouFYv4gMUvAlbZ5JssjmW0qpQ0UM9hySbhS1bU5Mu0rc3dT07l7l888__EXKLMMM8j2bnDzOkNVVnpMCK1yVyWp2TAkDxErgSl-QqpS0AouKyIHfvIYYhTVNwnemnITY-pmty0Zo--Zu_PSEfq-Vm8Vyu355eFvN16RiTqpQSubO1akAiMomCWWmdaI0VbeVl4ymoGnyF1DhjOeQOUhibezphXWPYhNyPufsYvgafDnobhviZX2rKcpysBNBMPYyUiyGl6Fu9j93OxKNG0CdrfbLWv9YZxhH-7np__IfU89flZrz5ATMKV40</recordid><startdate>201911</startdate><enddate>201911</enddate><creator>GERSHON, ILANA</creator><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7U4</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>BHHNA</scope><scope>DWI</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>WZK</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201911</creationdate><title>Porous social orders</title><author>GERSHON, ILANA</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3379-7714cb89d071137163b7bc6fab6f5e7de20980e512acab4000976ab111c6bcda3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>Anthropologists</topic><topic>Ethnography</topic><topic>Field study</topic><topic>Fieldwork</topic><topic>Power</topic><topic>Rituals</topic><topic>Social power</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>GERSHON, ILANA</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (pre-2017)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (Ovid)</collection><jtitle>American ethnologist</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>GERSHON, ILANA</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Porous social orders</atitle><jtitle>American ethnologist</jtitle><date>2019-11</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>46</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>404</spage><epage>416</epage><pages>404-416</pages><issn>0094-0496</issn><eissn>1548-1425</eissn><abstract>ABSTRACT
Many cultural anthropologists today share a common theoretical commitment: to view the people they encounter during fieldwork as living among multiple social orders that are interconnected and contingent. When social orders are multiple, ethnographers are quickly faced with the question of how people construct the boundaries between these social orders to be both durable (enough) to keep social orders distinct and porous (enough) to allow people, objects, forms, and ideas to circulate across them in appropriate ways. What counts as appropriate is, not surprisingly, often hotly contested. Despite contemporary ethnographers’ varied intellectual trajectories, a crosscutting set of theoretical assumptions unites their work and shapes how they approach familiar anthropological foci, such as circulation, ritual, scale, and power. [porous boundaries, social orders, circulation, ritual, scale, power, fieldwork, ethnography, theory]</abstract><cop>Arlington</cop><pub>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</pub><doi>10.1111/amet.12829</doi><tpages>13</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0094-0496 |
ispartof | American ethnologist, 2019-11, Vol.46 (4), p.404-416 |
issn | 0094-0496 1548-1425 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2316375602 |
source | Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete; Sociological Abstracts |
subjects | Anthropologists Ethnography Field study Fieldwork Power Rituals Social power |
title | Porous social orders |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-21T16%3A57%3A49IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Porous%20social%20orders&rft.jtitle=American%20ethnologist&rft.au=GERSHON,%20ILANA&rft.date=2019-11&rft.volume=46&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=404&rft.epage=416&rft.pages=404-416&rft.issn=0094-0496&rft.eissn=1548-1425&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/amet.12829&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2316375602%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2316375602&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |