In this dissertation I attempt to explicate Jacques Derrida's strategy of deconstruction and, through a deconstructive reading of Clifford Geertz's interpretive anthropology and James Clifford's 'postmodern' anthropology respectively, to show its relevance to the discipline of anthropology in general. The following is a skeletal outline of how I set about this endeavour. In my Introductory chapter, I attempt to indicate the way in which the notion of logos or presence has dominated Western philosophy from its inception in ancient Greece up to and including the present day. As Derrlda utilizes it, the term •presence' has to do with the assumption of and desire for the existence of a self-certain and self-identical basis for all extant phenomena and is manifested in such notions as truth, meaning, God, self, concept and so on. Because it is always defined as self-sufficient and self-identical, wherever it operates, presence entails the suppression of difference and otherness. In Chapter Two, I offer an explication of Derrida's strategy for exposing and delimiting presence as it manifests itself through and throughout Western conceptuality, paying particular attention to his work on undecidability. Briefly, this has to do with arguing that concepts, as such, are always already originarlly doubled and hence, Aristotelian logic notwithstanding, are both possible (as effects of undecidabllity) and Impossible (as self-sufficient and self-identical ideas). This calls radically into question our assumptions about the nature of conceptuality and indicates the way in which these assumptions ensure the repression of difference and otherness. In Chapter Three, I look at the phenomenological (Husserl) and hermeneutic (esp. Heidegger, Gadamer, Ricoeur) background of contemporary interpretive and •postmodern' anthropology and, in so doing, attempt to show that it is premised upon an assumption of presence. In Chapter Four, I offer a deconstructive reading of certain works by Clifford Geertz and by James Clifford respectively, and attempt to show that their unrecognized dedication to an assumed notion of presence prevents them from seeing the repressive/oppressive nature of their chosen conceptuality. And, finally, in my concluding chapter, I argue that Geertzian interpretive anthropology and Cliffordian 'postmodern' anthropology are two sides of the same old coin and that, with respect to the latter's work, the term 'postmodern' is a misnomer. I further argue that Western conceptuality is, by definition and in principle, both repressive and oppressive and that, this being the case, anthropology must either reexamine and re-evaluate its most basic assumptions or, failing that, resign itself to perpetuating the inherited legacy of a ruthless metaphysics. / Arts, Faculty of / Anthropology, Department of / Graduate

Orientador : Roberto Cardoso de Oliveira / Dissertação (mestrado) - Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Instituto de Filosofia e Ciencias Humanas / Made available in DSpace on 2018-07-14T00:37:51Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 AzzanJunior_Celso_M.pdf: 5239426 bytes, checksum: 673391549de67dac1b12cbe41d923a1d (MD5) Previous issue date: 1991 / Resumo: Não informado / Abstract: Not informed / Mestrado / Mestre em Ciências Sociais

No description available.

Thesis (M.A.)--Miami University, Dept. of Comparative Religion, 2006. / Title from first page of PDF document. Includes bibliographical references (p. 90-93).

Made available in DSpace on 2014-06-11T19:23:37Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 Previous issue date: 2004-04-02Bitstream added on 2014-06-13T18:09:59Z : No. of bitstreams: 1 malheiros_ps_me_mar.pdf: 245224 bytes, checksum: fb97e8447039d008867b42c98ec72be7 (MD5) / A antropologia, enquanto ciência do homem, sempre se defrontou com o paradoxo da unidade biológica do homem frente à diversidade cultural. A dissertação aborda esta importante questão: como definir um objeto, o Homem, se em toda parte o que se encontram são homens? Qual a especificidade e a singularidade do homem como objeto de estudos frente à pluralidade cultural? Não é uma questão fácil, nem tão pouco resolvida pela antropologia, o dilema perpassa o pensamento de diversos autores, e não apenas em obras antropológica, mas também filosóficas e psicológicas. Especificamente a questão é tratada aqui a partir do pensamento de dois expressivos antropólogos, Malinowski, com formação inicial em ciências exatas, que produziu sua obra na primeira metade do século XX e Geertz, que se graduou em filosofia e inglês e produziu sua obra na segunda metade do século XX. São considerados alguns aspectos da vida e da obra de ambos os autores, procurando evidenciar a importância do momento histórico em que viveram e das influências teóricas que receberam. Percebe-se a partir daí que a problemática toma rumos diversos, pois enquanto Malinowski argumenta que a cultura surge para atender a necessidades biológicas e derivadas e nos fala em uma natureza humana entendida em termos biológicos, Geertz entende que o homem é um artefato cultural em um duplo sentido, a cultura interferiu no processo evolutivo da nossa espécie e ela se constitui de um conjunto de mecanismos de controle que governa o comportamento e dá sentido à existência humana. / The anthropology, as a manþs science, has always faced the paradox of biological unity of man in front of cultural diversity. The dissertation approaches this important question: how to define an object, the Man, if in everywhere what we find are men? Which is the specificity and singularity of man as object of studies in front of cultural plurality? It is not an easy question, neither solved by anthropology, the dilemma goes through several authorsþ thought, and not only in anthropological, but also philosophical and psychological works. The question here is specifically treated from the thought of two expressive anthropologists, Malinowski, with initial formation in exact science, producing his work in the first half of 20th century and Geertz, graduated in philosophy and english, producing his work in the second half of 20th century. Some aspects of life and work of both authors are considered, bringing to evidence the importance of historical moment in which they lived and theoretical influences received. It is perceived from this that the problem takes several ways, because as Malinowski argues that the culture arises to attend biological and derived needs and tells us about a human nature comprehended in biological terms, Geertz understands that the man is a cultural artefact in a double way: the culture has interfered in the evolutive process of our species and it is constituted of a group of control mechanisms that guides the behavior and gives sense to the human existence.