Theory of Anthropology

RESUMEN
En contraposición a las lecturas canónicas que exploran la obra de Franz Boas a partir de su incursión en la antropología, esta investigación coloca su enfoque en las relaciones que el autor mantuvo previamente con la geografía. A partir del artículo The Study of Geography, publicado en 1887, destaco aquellas características de la teoría y el método que Boas le atribuye a esta y otras ciencias similares. Sostengo que algunas de estas características anticipan las posturas que Boas mantendrá durante su trabajo en la antropología. Complemento esta investigación con una traducción al español del artículo de Boas.
Palabras clave: Franz Boas; Geografía; Historia de la antropología; Teoría; Método.

ABSTRACT
In contrast to the canonical readings that explore the work of Franz Boas from his foray into anthropology, this research places his focus on the relationships that the author previously had with geography. From the article The Study of Geography, published in 1887, I highlight those characteristics of the theory and method that Boas attributes to this and other similar sciences. I sustain that some of these characteristics anticipate the positions that Boas will maintain during his work in anthropology. I complement this investigation with a Spanish translation of Boas' article.
Keywords: Franz Boas; Geography; History of anthropology; Theory; Method.


Cita en estilo Chicago (17° edición): Aguirre Godínez, Erick. «El cosmos en una cáscara de nuez: Teoría y método en ‘The Study of Geography’ de Franz Boas». Tesis de licenciatura en Etnología, Escuela Nacional de Antropología e Historia, 2020.

Cet article articule un ensemble de théories correspondant à l'exigence logique de notre analyse scientifique. Elle nous permet de penser, en quelque sorte, l'essentiel de notre réflexion au plan théorique. En fait, ces théories choisies, vu la complexité du phénomène, sont d'origine disciplinaire diverse, mais nous les articulons dans une logique intégrative, dont l'une est complémentaire par rapport à l'autre, en raison du fait que quand l'une ne permet pas de saisir un aspect important du phénomène, nous le prenons dans l'autre qui elle-même l'explique avec précision. Ainsi, avons-nous réuni deux disciplines, Anthropologie Juridique et la Psychologie Sociale, desquelles nous avons retenu la théorie de l'Acculturation juridique, la théorie de la double logique et la théorie des Représentations sociales.

Complexity is understood differently in anthropology and the complexity studies. I discuss the two principles of socio-political organization, particularly, the phenomenon of homoar-chy as a counterpart to that of heterarchy. Respectively to heterarchy – “… the relation of elements to one another when they are unranked or when they possess the potential for be-ing ranked in a number of different ways,” homoarchy is “the relation of elements to one another when they are rigidly ranked one way only, and thus possess no (or limited) poten-tial for being unranked or ranked in another or a number of different ways at least without cardinal reshaping of the whole socio-political order.” For anthropology, it is wrong to pos-tulate that either heterarchy or homoarchy presupposes a higher level of complexity, while for the complexity students the heterarchic model is more complex than homoarchic: It is not less sustained but has a higher degree of non-equilibrium.

Libro publicado en coedición entre el Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, en Sevilla, España y la Universidad Iberoamericana. La edición es de 2007.
Incluye cinco textos del antropólogo español Ángel Palerm, donde discute con Wittfogel sobre su propuesta sobre el modo asiático de producción (MAP) y las posibilidades de aplicar el modelo a otras sociedades no asiáticas, como la mesoamericana.
Incluye un estudio introductorio, donde Alba González da cuenta de como Palerm modificó y aplicó el modelo con algunos conceptos, a la comprensión de la evolución social de Mesoamérica y los elementos que para ello utilizó.

The volume is devoted to the intellectual history of sociocultural anthropology and ethnology in Europe. Eleven chapters represent eleven national or national-language traditions (the chapter on German language anthropology reflects on the discipline's development in Germany, Austria and German-speaking part of Switzerland). The case studies include the so-to-speak 'empire-building' anthropologies such as ones of Portugal, Italy, France and Russia, and 'nation-building' anthropologies: those of Finland, Lithuania, Slovakia, Poland, Croatia and Greece. The distinction borrowed by the editors from Stocking is of course rough, since in case of empire building traditions the discipline has been two-pronged and also entangled in nation-building projects (cf. chapters on Portugal and France, in particular). The volume provides valuable insights' in the disciplines' development in Europe, it also lookes into the present and future of the European anthropologies at the background of current situation of the academy and university, as well as the socio-political project of Europeanization.

In the most recent millennia of human history, individual freedom has increasingly become a precarious matter in the face of intergroup and intra-social predation, observably the more so the more institutionalised social hierarchies dominate the scene. González–Ruibal's "Archaeology of Resistance" reminds us – using the example of an intriguing contemporary cluster of "subaltern" ethnic communities in the Ethiopia-Sudan borderlands – that successful defense against predation has long been a collective affair of cultural and organizational choices, and that people and peoples often defend egalitarian and autonomist patterns to such ends as best they can. At a time when international coalitions of transformation profiteers mount unprecedented pressure on areas like the western and southern fringes of the Ethiopian highlands – where that defense had worked for millennia even in the violent proximity of powerful expansionist ethnic and state systems –, he also reminds us that resistance to change can be progressive and that fashionable academic obsessions with change can make for biases utterly opposed to emancipatory attitudes their faithful like to parade. This book by an archaeologist specialised in the deep history of violent power, its shapes and checks has two basic strengths at levels that might come as a surprise to anthropologists. First, it offers a thorough comparative ethnography of a regional cluster of cultures and societies with different levels of cultural autonomy, and second, it is a very important and topical contribution to anthropological discourse and theory. Anthropologists might have a hard time trying to give a more convincing account of a historically deep and phenomenologically rich landscape of cultural particularities, commonalities and interplay, of durable social strategies, material arrangements and developing power relations for a region like this. While historiography conspicuously privileges the expansionist hierarchical systems engaging societies at their ecologically and socially contrasting fringes for millennia in " resource wars, " the latter are the empirical focus of this remarkable study. Sandwiched between expansionist powers from the Ethiopian highlands to their east and from the plains of the Sudan in the west, they did not develop state structures but instead paradigmatic cultural sets of material and mental strategies to cope with the threat of submission and exploitation by those powerful neighbours and invaders.