Anthropology with an Attitude by Johannes Fabian - Article Example

Anthropology as a field can be compared to an enormous costume party because of many objects of inquiry, specialties, and the fun and excitements that anthropologists have. Theoretical bickering and feuds among functionalists and structuralists, culturalist and Marxists, symbolists and materialists interpreters and explainers is a clear indication that anthropology has been and will continue to be of fun. Losing faith in culturalism was not the end of anthropology. The work of Fabian showed that what was lost in theoretical certainty was gained in renewed ethnographic fervor that made people study the boisterous, unruly, and apparently anarchic up till now inexhaustibly creative forms of modern survival.

It would be irrelevant to ask questions about knowledge without considering critical reflection on which kind of knowledge is being studied. As long as anthropology is incorporated in paradigms of a scientific model and natural history, it would necessary to study anthropology for knowledge. Embracing cultural diversity in developing anthropological knowledge could be condemned and regarded as unethical, but mostly critique was directed at uses and abuses and not at the likelihood that something may wrong with the epistemology.

Because anthropology and knowledge may be considered as floating signifiers, it is necessary to distinguish between knowledge as a state, possession, and an activity or practice (Fabian, J. 2001).