Treść książki
Przejdź do opcji czytnikaPrzejdź do nawigacjiPrzejdź do informacjiPrzejdź do stopki
Ethnographyofhistorical
thoughtandethnographicnotes.
Afewwordsofintroduction
Duringoneoftheconversationsaboutmyresearch,Iwasasked
whetheritbotheredmethatIwouldbeidentifiedasaresearch-
erdealingwithparticularhistorians.Idonotrememberexactlywhat
Ireplied.Iquotethissituationbecausethequestionresemblestheoc-
casionalaccusationsthattheethnographyofhistoricalthoughtfocuses
onresearching(treeswithoutseeingtheforest),orthatitselects(only
thefinestspecimens).Itistheresultofamisunderstanding.Theeth-
nographyofhistoricalthoughtisnotahistoriographic(biographism),it
doesnotcreatehistoriographicandmethodologicalportraitsandmuch
lessdoesitdothisinoppositiontoresearchinghistoricalenvironments.
Thisisaconsequenceofananthropologicalturninhistoriographicand
methodologicalresearch.Itisfoundedontheanthropologicalunder-
standingofcultureasproposedbyCliffordGeertz.Inhisownstyle
andinasyntheticform,Geertzwritesaboutresearchonculture,which
Ialsodonotappreciate:
…thedifferencesamongindividualsandamonggroupsofindividualsare
renderedsecondary.Individualitycomestobeseenaseccentricity,distinc-
tivenessasaccidentaldeviationfromtheonlylegitimateobjectofstudyfor
thetruescientist:theunderlying,unchanging,normativetype.Insuchan
approach,howeverelaboratelyformulatedandresourcefullydefended,liv-
ingdetailisdrownedindeadstereotype:weareinquestofametaphysical
