Page 120 - Prathima Volume 12

m%;sudk Ydia;%Sh ix.%yh
2018$2019 fodf<diajk fj¿u
pointed out that there are weaknesses found in comparative methods; for instance, the
ethnocentric idea is reflected in the process of conclusion, generalization, judgment,
presentation, universal judgment, but we obviously know it is not possible to make
judgments based on sentiments.

With regard to comparative method in anthropology, first, Boas (1896) emphasized on
the historical disparities between cultures, which people tried to study using a
comparative method. Theoretical importance is as compound as the choosing of
uniform laws, but analogous of a single trait of culture of distant people do not have the
same history. From this, what he has tried to argue is that there is cultural diversity with
different historical origins in the world. Comparative method is possible, but it should
be well defined and mostly applicable to limited or a small territory, while historical
method abandons the assumption or even similarities of culture because the history of
evolution of culture has no uniformity of systems. Thus, his problem with the
comparative method is that it decontextualizes and dehistoricizes what it tries to
compare.

These problems are found in existing ethnographic methods and some anthropologists
have made critiques on the ethnographic methods and theories on culture and society.
In particular, feminist anthropology and decolonizing anthropology have made a
substantial contribution to reinventing anthropology and revising ethnographic
research methods. For example, Fanon (2013) argues that decolonization is a claim of
change coming from the consciousness of the colonized. As Fanon (2013) showed, the
colonized has struggled to define their cultural orientation. He or she is divided
between the culture of the colonialists and that of his or her heritage. Finally, it is by
referring to the daily routine of the people of his or her country that the colonized
intellectual comes to define his or her cultural area. This shows how colonialism
continues to affect former colonies.

Likewise, Harrison (1991) has contributed several valid critiques for revising
anthropology to address the issues of the Third World people. Activist intellectuals
often discuss the issues from Marxist perspective, but Harrison (1991) has suggested
that they have to go beyond what Marxist theorists have contributed to and has further
argued that political economy framework is not adequate to study the anthropological
insights. Thus, anthropology should be reinvented (Hymes, 1974). For this purpose,
we must have to expunge colonial elements and reorder what remains. In doing so, she
has posed the questions “Can an authentic anthropology emerge from the critical
intellectual traditions and counter-hegemonic struggles of the Third World people?
Can a genuine study of humankind arise from dialogues, debates, and reconciliation
amongst various non-Western and Western intellectual both with formal credentials
and those with other socially meaningful and appreciated qualifications?” (1).

106