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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:American ethnologist 2019-11, Vol.46 (4), p.404-416
1. Verfasser: GERSHON, ILANA
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