Mo 18.12.2006, 16-18 Uhr
Vortrag im Rahmen des Institutscolloquiums von Univ.-Doz. Dr. Wolfgang Bender (African Music Archive, Institute of Anthropology and African Studies, J. Gutenberg Universität Mainz)
HipHop in Kenia - eine neue nationale Musik? Ort: Institut für Ethnologie, Drosselweg 1-3, 14195 Berlin, Großer Seminarraum
As for many other plugins for WordPress the Installation Notes on the EventCalender Plugin are everything else than easy to comprehend. That´s why i shortly want to explain how I got version 3 of the plugin to work for WordPress version 2:
1. Unzip the eventcalender30.zip directly into your WordPress plugin directory, so that the eventcalender.php is in the root of /plugins directly.
2. Open the file classes.php contained in the wp-includes folder of WordPress with any editor and search for the line.
} else {
if (mysql2date('U', $this->posts[0]->post_date_gmt) > mysql2date('U', $now)) { //it's future dated
$this->is_preview = true;
Directly after that line you fill in the following without the + signs in front:
+ /* DIRTY FUTURE-POSTS HACK FOR EC3 */
+ if (function_exists('ec3_get_calendar')) {
+ global $ec3;
+ $ec3_post_0_is_event = intval($wpdb->get_var(
+ "SELECT COUNT(0) FROM $wpdb->post2cat WHERE post_id="
+ .$this->posts[0]->ID." AND category_id=$ec3->event_category"));
+ if ($ec3_post_0_is_event) {
+ $this->is_preview = false;
+ }
+ }
+ if ($this->is_preview)
+ /* DIRTY FUTURE-POSTS HACK FOR EC3 */
Save and upload the thing.
3. Open the php-file where you want your event calender to be shown in (sidebar etc.) and check the installation section of the source website to look for the code snippets for the different ways of displaying (full text, event name only etc.). Choose one, paste the code, save, upload. Voilà!
from http://www.anthropology.emory.edu/Linganth/history.html
Historically, the life history has been marginalized and excluded from the positivist hegemony in psychology and the social sciences (Mishler 1995:118; Crapanzano 1984). More recently, anthropologists have also voiced concern over the “compromised” scientific rigor that some researchers have exhibited in their work on the elicitation and documentation of life histories. Hence the call from anthropologists of life history for a more sensitive and respectful treatment of the life history (cf. Behar 1993; 1995; Linde 1993; Peacock and Holland 1993; Ochs and Capps 1996; Kratz 1999). What is the life history/story as it is understood in anthropology? Is it a distinct genre that is universal? Life history scholars such as Linde (1993) have observed that, as a genre, the life history/story is not universal, that is, it is not a genre that is found in all cultures. Indeed, the life history is the product of a particular culture. Furthermore, according to Linde (1993), there exists considerable evidence to suggest that in many cultures, members do not conceive of themselves as having a life story (p11).
Whether the life history is a distinct, identifiable genre or not, it has remained a nagging question for some scholars. In recent years, however, anthropologists have come to agree on the definitional aspects of a life history/story; what it constitutes; the purposes it fulfills; the functions it serves - for storytellers themselves, their audiences, their larger communities (Mishler 2995:101-108). In its most basic understanding, the life history/story addresses the question of the form “what events have made me what I am,” or more precisely, “what you must know about me to know me, ” (Linde 1993:20). A life history is the narrator’s account of his/her life. It is a means by which the narrator tells others his/her sense of self, explicating who he/she is and how he/she got that way. As Linde (1993) suggests, a life story is not just a simple collection of facts or incidents. There is a sequencing involved in storifying one’s experience, and it is from sequence that causality can be inferred (p.8).
Thus, when any new story is added to the repertoire of the life story, it must be related in some way to the themes of the other stories included in the life story, or at least it must not contradict them. This means that the stories included in the life story constantly undergo revision, considering our current understanding of what our lives mean (Linde 1993:25). Put simply, the life history/story is an open unit - one that is begun and continued without a clear notion at any given time of what its final shape will turn out to be (Linde 1993:27). The narratibility of a given sequence of events is not fixed; rather, it is crucially related to the potential speaker’s ability to perceive that a reportable event had happened and that it can be seen as having a particular moral relevance.
In explicating the distinguishing features of the life history/story scholars have recurrently emphasized one particular feature, and that is, life history as a text is not meaningful in itself: “it is constituted in its interpretation, its reading…of cultural themes [which] are creatively constructed by the actor within a particular configuration of social forces and gender and class contexts…” (Behar 1995:152). Importantly, life histories are jointly produced by the teller and the listener in an interlocutory mode. Life history accounts are produced in response to questions from an interviewers, usually an anthropologist, and this account is produced in an interactional framework. The interactional process in which life histories/stories are produced has important methodological implications for how we understand life histories/stories as “situated” and subject to constant revision.
Another striking feature of a life history is the temporal ordering or “sequencing” of events by the narrator in the telling of the story (Linde 1993:14). For scholars of life history, this particular feature has raised a number of epistemological and methodological problems. Coherence is one important issue in the analysis of the life history, and typically the analyst is faced with the problem of identifying the nature of “correspondence” that exists between a sequence of real events and their ordering in life history narrative accounts. In this regard, Riessman has reminded us that, “informant’s stories do not mirror a world “out there.” They are constructed, creatively authored, rhetorical, replete with assumptions, and interpretive.” (1993:4-5).
Despite the agreement among scholars over definitional aspects of the life history/story, they are still engaged in methodological debates surrounding the elicitation and analysis of the life history. For example, in emphasizing the “constructedness” of the life history/story, Behar (1993) has argued that, “in the final analysis, it is the analyst who creates a metastory about what happened…editing and reshaping what was told, and turning it into a hybrid story, a “false document”" (Behar 1993; see also Riessman 1993:13; Kratz 1996). In a similar vein Kratz (1996) has also argued that the life history/story is indeed an articifial or hybrid genre, an artifact produced through the interaction between researcher and interlocutors.
| “Life histories usually begin as conversational hybrids, genres-in-the-making at best. As they are entextualized, recontextualized, and retold, they are reshaped and re-presented in ways that other audiences will understand.” (Kratz 1996:41). |
Kratz has identified methodological problems with not paying sufficient attention to the “context” in which life histories/stories are produced. Neglecting or sidelining relevant “contextual” information “draws a life history/story away from its moment and context of production, where it begins as communicative exchange and situated interaction.” (1996:3). As Kratz points out, typically, life history texts are edited at various levels between the time (and in the communicative contexts in which they were produced) from the moment of production to moments of analysis, presentation, and publication (Kratz 1999:3). As Cicourel (1992) notes, the omission of apparent extratextual information can be problematic to the extent to which it obscures information that was at some point relevant to the researcher during the collection of analysis of the material under discussion (p.292). Thus, it is important that anthropologist doing life history work feel obliged to let the reader know,
| “just what the micropolitics of the situation was in which the life history was obtained and the ways in which the anthropologist was personally involved in, and even transformed by, the intense one-to-one relationship of telling and listening.” (Behar 1995:149). |
Concluding Remark
Giving important to the context in which life history accounts are produced is significant. However, in doing so, we may end up challenging “the value of claims about the “integrity” of life histories/stories and their status as representing “authentic voices”, but it does not challenge the value of exploring life experiences and narratives.” (Kratz 1999:39). In the final analysis, no matter the definitional and methodological problems commonly associated with the life history, for cultural and linguistic anthropologists, the life history remains one of the important methods of data collection and analysis.
References
Behar, Ruth (1993) Translated woman: crossing the border with Esperanza’s story. Boston. Beacon.
Behar, Ruth (1990) Rage and redemption: reading the life story of a Mexican marketing woman. Feminist Studies 16(2):223-258.
Crapanzano, Vincent (1984) Life histories: A review essay. American Anthropologist 86:953-960.
Kratz, Corrine. (1999?)A. Conversations and Lives. In. Cohen, David William and Miescher, S and White, L. (eds) Words and Lives. (ed).(Forthcoming). (Manuscript)
Labov, W. (1972) The transformation of experience in narrative syntax. In W. Labov (Ed), Language in the Inner City. pp.354-396. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Linde, C. (1993) Life stories: the creation of coherence. New York: Oxford University Press.
Ochs, Elinor and Lisa Capps (1996) Narrating the self. Annual Review of Anthropology 25:19-43.
Peacock, James and Dorothy Holland (1993) The narrated self: life stories in process. Ethos 21(4):367-383.
Urban, Greg (1989) The “I” of discourse. In Semiotics, Self and Society. Ed. by B. Lee and G. Urban. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Submitted on May 17, 1999 by
Vinay Kamat
Deparment of Anthropology
Emory University
from: http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/cultural/anthropology/Crapanzano.html
Vincent Crapanzano is one of the postmodern anthropologists who claim that objectivity does not exist in cultural analysis. In his work, Hermes’ Dilemma, Crapanzano demonstrates this principle by analyzing ethnographic writing of others. One of Crapanzano’s analyses is on Deep Play: Notes on a Balinese Cockfight by the symbolic anthropologist, Clifford Geertz. The cockfight is a traditional gambling for prestige in Bali. Geertz depicted symbolic meanings in the cockfight and explained how these meanings influenced the Balinese lives.
Crapanzano states that Geertz’ writing is far from objective descriptions of Bali culture because Geertz controlled the texts by using various rhetorical devices. Crapanzano first points out the non-existence of the author in the texts, or a lack of reflection. Geertz described Bali society as if his presence did not affect the people in the society. Since Geertz was not a member of Bali society, he must have influenced the Balinese behaviors and thoughts just by being there. Crapanzano argues that Geertz did not consider this impact. For example, Geertz stated that the Balinese did not pay attention to him, and therefore, they acted as if he “simply did not exist” (McGee and Warms 2004:602). Crapanzano argues that Geertz’ view is not necessarily accurate. Just because Geertz felt like a non-person does not mean the Balinese viewed Geertz that way.
Crapanzano argues that ethnographers tend to mix what they believe natives think with how natives actually feel. This mistake stems from authors’ attempts to establish their authority regarding the accuracy of their texts. When an author does not distinguish between his own view and native’s views, readers tend to forget that the author’s voice is the only one they hear in the writing. Therefore, readers feel as if the text is transmitting an objective reality without any bias or interpretation of the author.
Another point Crapanzano makes is that anthropologists generalize the whole population of a particular society. For example, based on his experience with a group of informants in his research, Geertz described Balinese character as follows: “the Balinese never do anything in a simple way when they can contrive to do it in a complicated way” (McGee and Warms 2004:603) and “the Balinese are shy to the point of obsessiveness of open conflict” (McGee and Warms 2004:603). Crapanzano argues that this kind of generalization reveals a conventional attitude of anthropologists in front of their research subjects. Anthropologists tend to separate themselves from a population they are studying and reject to see the people as equal individuals. Crapanzano claims that Geertz, as an anthropologist, separated the “anthropologist” and “his Balinese” (McGee and Warms 2004:603).
The underlying concept of Crapanzano’s work is that anthropologists construct meanings by writing ethnography. Although ethnographic data themselves are mute, the act of writing is a literary construction of the author. As previous analysis shows, Crapanzano takes apart and examines rhetorical devices in ethnographic writings. The method for this critical analysis is called deconstruction, which reveals interpretations and hidden biases that authors have for justifying their authority. Deconstruction does not resolve inconsistencies, but rather reveals underlying hierarchies involved in conveying information. With this knowledge, we can look at texts with a different, more critical perspective. Deconstruction forced anthropologists to become sensitive to their unconscious assumptions and authorities.
McGee, R. Jon and Richard L. Warms. 2004 Anthropological Theory: An Introductory History. New York: McGraw Hill.
This page was created by Kyoko Soga. Last updated 12/15/03
In the frameword on a seminar on spirit possession in africa i will hold an aural presentation about the zar-bori cult in africa.
Grosser Seminarraum
Institut für Ethnologie
Freie Universität Berlin
Drosselweg 1-3,
D-14195 Berlin
Germany
Short lecture by myself on the significance and place of life histories in the context of anthropological writing.
Grosser Seminarraum
Institut für Ethnologie
Freie Universität Berlin
Drosselweg 1-3,
D-14195 Berlin
Germany
Life-Histories
Vincent-Crapanzano – Lebenslauf
Life Histories in der Anthropologie
Kritik Crapanzanos am Genre der live history in der Anthropologie
1. ) Vincent-Crapanzano – Lebenslauf
Vincent Crapanzano, geboren 1939 in Glen Rich/New York, ist derzeit Professor für Anthropologie und Literaturwissenschaften am Graduiertenkolleg der New York City Univeristy. Seine Interessen konzentrieren sich auf die Epistemologie der Deutung und Artikulation von Erfahrung, symbolische und interpretative Anthropologie, Ethno-Psychologie, die Beziehung zwischen Anthropologie und Literatur, sowie Theorien der Interpretation. Er hat unter anderem bei den Navajo]-Indianern in Arizona, bei den Mitgliedern einer islamischen Bruderschaft, bei den Hamadsha in Marokko, bei weißen Südafrikanern während der Ära der Apartheid und vor kurzem auch bei christlichen Fundamentalisten und Konservativen in den Vereinigten Staaten geforscht.
Vincent Crapanzano ist einer der zeitgenössischen, postmodernen Anthropologen, die behaupten, daß es keine Objektivität in der kulturellen Analyse geben könne. Er argumentiert, dass Ethnographen dazu neigen würden, das, was sie glauben, dass die von ihnen untersuchten Menschen denken, mit dem zu vermischen, was diese Menschen tatsächtlich denken. Dieser Fehler resultiere aus dem Versuch des jeweiligen Autors, seine Autorität durch die Schlüssigkeit seines Textes auf Kosten der Genauigkeit aufrechtzuerhalten. Wenn ein Autor nicht zwischen seiner eigenen Ansicht und den Ansichten der Menschen unterscheide, die er beschreibt, würden Leser dazu neigen, zu vergessen, dass die Stimme des Autors die einzige ist, die sie vernehmen und dass der Text eine objektive Wirklichkeit ohne irgendeine Deutung des Autors übermittle.
Eine weitere Annahme Crapanzanos ist es, daß Anthropologen dazu tendieren, auf der Grundlage von Einzelfällen auf die Konstitution der gesamten Bevölkerung einer bestimmten Gesellschaft zu schliessen. Crapanzano befindet, dass diese Art der Verallgemeinerung eine konventionelle Haltung von Anthropologen im Bezug auf ihre Forschungssubjekte aufdecke. Sie würden dazu neigen, sich von der Bevölkerung abzugrenzen, die sie studieren und würden es zurückweisen, die Leute als gleichwertige bzw. gleichartige Individuen zu sehen.
Das zugrundeliegende Konzept der Arbeiten Crapanzanos ist, dass Anthropologen Bedeutungen konstruieren, indem sie ethnographisch schreiben. Obgleich ethnographische Daten selbst stumm sind, ist der Akt des Schreibens sowohl eine literarische Konstruktion des Autors, als auch eine Konstruktion seiner selbst als Autor.
Um diese Zusammenhänge aufzudecken, nimmt Crapanzano rhetorische Mittel in ethnographischen Texten auseinander und untersucht sie. Die Methode für diese Art von kritischer Analyse wird (literarische) Dekonstruktion genannt. Sie soll Auslegungen und versteckte Vorurteile (engl. bias) aufdecken, die Autoren im Zuge der Rechtfertigung ihrer Autorität an den Tag legen und soll die zugrundeliegende Hierarchien in der Informationsübermittlung ermitteln. Das Verfahren der literarischen Dekonstruktion, das in der postmoderne Antrhopologie eine grosse Rolle spielt, soll Anthropologen herausfordern, gegenüber ihren eigenen unbewußten Annahmen sensibler zu werden.
2. Was ist eine live history im Kontext the Anthropologie?
Eine einfache Definition könnte folgendermassen lauten:
Eine Lebengeschichte ist die Darstellung des Erzählers von seinem eigenen Leben.
Sie ist das Mittel, durch das der Erzähler anderen seine Wahrnehmung von sich Selbst schildert und erläutert, wer er oder sie ist und wie er oder sie zu dem geworden ist.
Grundlegend gibt die Lebengeschichte Antwort auf Fragen der Form ”Welche Ereignisse haben mich zu dem gemacht, was ich bin?“ oder auch “Was musst du über mich wissen, um mich zu kennen?“ (Linde 1993:20).
Autoren wie Linde (1993) haben beobachtet, daß die Lebengeschichte als Genre nicht universal ist, das heißt, dass sie kein Genre ist, das man in allen Kulturen finden kann. Scheinbar ist das Konzept der Lebengeschichte das Produkt bestimmter Kulturen. Ausserdem gibt es nach Linde Beweise dafür, daß die Mitglieder vieler Kulturen von sich selbst nicht annehmen, eine Lebensgeschichte zu haben. Ob die Lebengeschichte ein eindeutiges, identifizierbares Genre ist oder nicht, ist jedoch für viele eine Streitfrage geblieben. .
Historisch wurde die “life history”, während der positivistischen Hegemonie in der Psychologie und in den Sozialwissenschaften als literarische Form mit erkenntnistheoretischen Wert innerhalb ethnographischer Schriften marginalisiert bzw. völlig ausgeschlossen (Mishler 1995:118; Crapanzano 1984). Im Laufe der Geschichte der Anthropologie des 20. Jahrhunderts hat sich dieser Tatbestand aber grundlegend verändert, vorallem seitdem es mehr oder weniger zum common sense geworden ist, dass es keinen absoluten Objektivitätsanspruch in den Sozialwissenschaften geben kann. Inzwischen ist die Verwendung von life histories innerhalb anthropologischer Texte zu einer gängigen Praxis geworden. Crapanzano führt an, dass vorallem literarische Formate wie die Autobiographie, die Biographie, die Psychobiographie, die Fallgeschichte, die Lebensgeschichte, sowie das persönliche Zeugnis zu einem Trend innerhalb der Sozialwissenschaften, der Psychologie, der Geschichte, als auch in der Literatukritik geworden sind.
Die Verwendung von life histories innerhalb anthropologischer Texte befindet Crapanzano dennoch als eine konzeptuelle und emotionale Verlegenheit für die akademische Anthropologie. Diesen Umstand erklärt er damit, dass die Rezeption der Lebensgeschichte die uneindeutige Position der Anthropologie des 20. Jahrhunderts wiederspiegelt, da sie in gewisser weise mehr literarisch als wissenschaftlich, aber gleichzeitig mehr wissenschaftlich als literarisch ist und die Spannung zwischen der intimen Felderfahrung einerseits und dem gösstenteils unpersönlichen Prozess anthropologischer Analyse und ethnographischer Präsentation andererseits vermittelt. Innerhalb eines ethnographischen Textes kann der zur Lebensgeschichte gehörige Kommentar zuckersüss in seiner Sentimentalität und gleichzeitg übertrieben ehrgeizig in seiner Rechtfertigung sein.
Was bedeutet dieLebensgeschichte innerhalb der Anthropologie für Crapanzano?
Nach Crapanzano kann die live history in der Anthropologie folgende Merkmale aufweisen
Sie ist zum einen oft ein Andenken an den Informaten, der ein mehr oder minder entfernter Freund des Anthropologen geworden ist.
Zweitens ist sie eine Erinnerung oder das Andenken an eine Felderfahrung, die notwendigerweise mit einer gewissen Emotionalität verbunden ist (menschliche Erfahrung)
Und drittens kann sie eine Busse für die Abstraktion und Depersonalisation eines rücksichtslosen Ansatzes eines Anthropologen im Bezug auf seinen Informanten sein.
Obwohl, der Ansatz, Lebensgeschichten in die ethnographische Arbeit miteinzubeziehen in vielerlei Hinsicht rationalisiert wurde, bestehen nach Crapanzano hinsichtlich dessen immernoch vielerlei konzeptuelle Problem:
Er gibt er an, dass Sentimentalität gegenüber und emotionalen Verknüpfung zum Informanten die jeweilige Lebensgeschichte steuern. Dies kann auf zwei miteinander verschränkten Weisen vonstatten gehen:
Zum einen durch den Einfluss des Anthropologen auf den Informanten während der Befragung,
zum anderen rückwirkend durch den Einfluss des Informanten auf den Anthropologen.
Desweiteren stellt er die Annahme in Frage, dass eine Lebensgeschichte eine Kultur in irgendeiner Weise “portraitieren” oder “illustrieren” kann. Um das zu vollbringen, müsste sie erstens wahr und zweitens in irgendeiner Weise von einem “typischen” oder anderweitig sozial lokalisierbarem Individuum stammen. (S.954 u.) Aber gibt es so etwas wie ein typisches Individuum innerhalb einer Kultur? Ein Individuum ist nach Crapanzano immer beides, sowohl gleich als auch verschieden zu seinen Landsmännern und -frauen. Dies stellt für ihn aber eine triviale Aussage dar, da dieser Umstand für jeden Menschen zutrifft. Für ihn stellt die Annahme einer Typikalität eine homogene und gleichzeitig deformierte Sicht auf Kultur, Gesellschaft und das Individuum dar.
Auch zweifelt er an, dass Lebensgeschichen in irgendeiner Weise für gültig erklärt oder sonstwie bezeugt werden können; dies Art des Nachweises könnte nach Crapanzano nicht einmal von den meisten, lebenden Historikern erbracht werden.
Ebenfalls kritisiert er die Ansicht, dass eine lange und intime Auseinandersetzung mit dem Informanten in irgendeiner Weise die Verlässlichkeit und Validität der Informationen vergrössern könnte. Eine langanhaltender Verkehr mit einem Informanten könnte seiner Meinung nach ebenfalls den gegenteiligen Effekt haben. Ausserdem könnten InformantInnen ein Netz von Lügen auch über einen langen Zeitraum aufrechterhalten
Ihm scheint zudem, dass die Konsistenz einer Lebensgeschichte mehr über die kulturelle Orientierung und psychologische Disposition eines Informanten aussagt, als das tatsächliche Auftreten bestimmter Ereignisse innerhalb seines Lebens.
Was ist nach Crapanzano bei einer Interpretation von life histories zu beachten?
Die life history ist nach Crapanzano das Resultat einer komplexen, für den Anthropologen als auch für den Informanten selbst-konstituierenden Verhandlung. Sie ist vom Standpunkt des Informanten Produkt einer willkürlichen und eigentümlichen Aufforderung eines anderen Subjekts – nämlich des Anthropologen. ( In mancherlei Hinsicht ist die Forderung des Anthropologen auch eine Antwort auf den Informanten) (S.955/956) Das Wechselspiel von Forderung und Gefordert-Werden regiert einen Grossteil des Inhalts der life history und dieses Zusammenspiel, also die Dynamiken eines Interviews, müssen in der Evaluation der gesammelten Daten berücksichtigt werden. Sexton nennt die Position, in der sich der Anthropologe im Bezug auf seinen Informanten innerhalb eins Interviews befindet “agent of change”.
Hinsichtlich der Situation des Interviews sollte auch darauf geachtet werden, dass die beobachtete Abfolge im Verhalten des Informanten von der Abfolge der Geschichte selbst unterschieden werden muss; denn Kausalzusammenhänge sind möglicherweise nur ein Produkt der Erzählung selbst.
Desweiteren sollte man den Stellenwert von life histories sowohl in der betreffenden Kultur als auch im Leben des Informanten situieren und darstellen. Dabei sollte vorallem darauf geachtet werden, dass eine Befragung von Seiten des Informanten als Bedrohung aufgefasst werden kann, falls das Ansinnen des Anthropologen nicht verstanden wird oder kein equivalentes Modell zur life history in der bereffenden Kultur existiert.
Man sollte immer angeben, ob und wie ein Informant für seine Dienste bezahlt wird.
Man sollte über die Ansichten der InformantInnen über Autorenschaft, Rhetorik, Stil und narrative Techniken wie figurative Sprache, Metaphorik, Symbolik, Allegorie, Doppelbedeutungen, Humor, Ironie, “Anfang und Ende”, konventionelles Schweigen, Spannung und Denouement (Lösung) Bescheid wissen (S.957), ansonsten könne keine adäquate Interpretation weder auf der kulturellen noch psychologischen Ebene angestellt werden.
Dies gilt aber auch für den Anthropologen selbst. Nach Crapanzano sind Life histories eine Transformation der Lebensgeschichte eines Informanten in einen lebenshistorschen Text. Dieser Text ist notwendigerweise durch die literarischen Konventionen des Anthropologen bestimmt, die ihm oder ihr zur Verfügung stehen (S.957). Ausserdem weist er alle ontologischen und erkenntnistheoretischen Hindernisse eines jeden Textes auf.
Desweiteren werden Life histories innerhalb eines ethnographischen Text für gewöhnlich editiert, wohingegen sie druch die Tatsache, persönliches Zeugnis zu sein, eine vermeintlicheWortwörtlichkeit vorgeben. Um diesen Umstand aufzuzeigen und abzuschwächen, sollte man stets aufführen, inwieweit bei der Edition des lebenshistorischen Textes eingegriffen wurde - also ob Stellen ausgelassen, gekürzt und zu welchem Zweck sie verkürzt wurden (S.957 u.).
Zum Abschluss möchte ich auf Crapanazanos Meinung im Bezug auf die der Verwendung von life histories in der Anthropologie eingehen.
Crapanzano plädiert im Bezug auf die Validität und Verlässlichkeit von Lebensgeschichten innerhalb ethnographischer Texte für einen “erkenntnistheoretischen Relativismus” (einem Begriff von Runyan), denn ihm zufolge stammt das bedeutsamste ethnographische Material von mehreren Versionen desselben Ereignisses von einem oderer mehreren Informanten. Unterschiedliche Versionen könnten sowohl unterschiedliche soziale Positionen und Interessen, als auch die Beziehung des Ethnographen mit seinen InformantInnen anzeigen.
Dennoch bezweifelt er stark, dass der lebenshistorische Text alleine ausreicht, ein soziales Modell aufzustellen oder zu untermauern, denn der Text alleine stellt für ihn nur einen Abglanz der sozialen Realität dar und ist aus einer erkenntnistheoretischen Perspektive nicht überprüfbar.
Er glaubt eher daran, dass die Analyse der Dynamik eines Interviews, in dem die Lebensgeschichte erzählt wird, aufschlussreich im Bezug auf die Entwicklung solcher Modelle sein kann.
Seine Skepsis gegenüber der Verwendung von life histories in der Anthropologie ist aber nur ein Aspekt seiner generellen Skepsis zum einen gegenüber dem, was man wissen wissen kann, zum anderen gegenüber den kommunikativen Kapazitäten eines Menschen.
Literatur:
- Linde, C. (1993) Life stories: the creation of coherence. New York: Oxford University Press. Ab
- http://www.anthropology.emory.edu/Linganth/history.html
by sondenkind 2006
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3297193073974401876&q=david+gergen An interview with David Gergen
Bohemian Grove is an 11 km² (2700-acre) campground located at 20601 Bohemian Ave, in Monte Rio, California[1] belonging to a private San Francisco-based men’s fine arts club known as the Bohemian Club. In mid-July each year, Bohemian Grove hosts a two-week encampment of some of the most powerful men in the world.
Ronald Reagan, Glenn T. Seaborg and Richard Nixon at the Bohemian Grove
Contents |
The Bohemian Club’s membership includes many artists, particularly musicians, as well as many high-ranking business leaders, government officials (including some US Presidents) and senior media executives. As a measure of the Club’s exclusivity, it is reported the waiting list for membership is from 15 to 20 years, though a fast track, three-year membership process is possible. Two current members must sponsor a prospective member. An initiation fee of $25,000 as of 2006 is required in addition to yearly membership dues. Elected members are also allowed to prorate the initiation fee into equal annual payments until they reach the age of 45.
After 40 years of membership the men earn “Old Guard” status, giving them reserved seating at the Grove’s daily talks, as well as other perquisites. Members may also invite guests to the Grove, who are subject to a rigorous screening procedure. These guests come from across America and overseas. Californian guests are generally limited to attendance at the “Spring Jinks“, in June, preceding the main July encampment.
The Grove motto is “Weaving Spiders Come Not Here“, which implies that outside concerns and business deals are to be left outside. However, there is demonstrable evidence of political and business deals having been developed at the Grove. The Grove is particularly famous for a Manhattan Project planning meeting that took place there in September of 1942, which subsequently led to the atomic bomb. Those attending, apart from Ernest Lawrence and military officials, included the president of Harvard and representatives of Standard Oil and General Electric. Grove members take particular pride in this event and often relate the story to new attendees.[2]
Bohemian Grove was established over time, shortly after the founding of the Bohemian Club in 1872. For several years, the members of the Club camped together at various locations, including the present Muir Woods, Samuel P. Taylor State Park, and a separate redwood grove near Duncan Mills, down river from the current location. Regular July encampments similar to those held today began in 1899.
The first parcel of the grove was purchased from Melvin Cyrus Meeker who developed a successful logging operation in the area. Gradually over the next decades, members of the Club purchased land surrounding the original location to the perimeter of the basin in which it resides. This was done to secure the rights to the water, so that its water supply would not be affected by uphill operations.
Not long after the Club’s establishment by newspaper journalists, it was commandeered by prominent San Francisco-based businessmen, who provided the financial resources necessary to acquire further acreage and facilities at the Grove. They still retained the “bohemians” however — the artists and musicians — who continued to entertain international members and guests.
The Grove itself consists of redwood trees over 1,500 years old. It is a spectacular nature preserve, untouched by logging, and containing many elevated walkways. The longevity of the redwoods stands as emblematic of an untouched natural setting, far removed from modern day vulgarity. This traditional “purity” underpins the Cremation of Care ceremony (see below).
The Bohemian Club is a private club; only active members of the Club (known as “Bohos”) and their guests may visit the Grove. These guests have been known to include politicians and notable figures from countries outside the US. Particularly during the midsummer encampment, the number of guests is strictly limited due to the small size of the facilities and membership in the Bohemian Club does not necessarily confer the right to attend the annual encampment. Nevertheless, up to 1,500 members and guests have been reported as attending some of the annual encampments.
Both the annual Club Membership and Grove Guest Lists are kept secret but a few dedicated researchers have gained access to some of them. [See Peter Martin Phillips’ Dissertation, Kerry Richardson and Joel van der Reijden’s comprehensive Membership List (refer External Links below) for references to these names.] From these varied sources, reportedly, notable past attendees have included:
The primary activities taking place at the Grove are varied and expensive entertainment, such as an elaborate Grove Play (known as “High Jinx“) and musical comedies (”Low Jinx“) — where female roles are played by men in drag — produced by the members and associate members of the Club. Thus, the majority of common facilities are entertainment venues, interspersed among the giant redwoods.
There are also sleeping quarters, or “camps” scattered throughout the grove, of which it is reported there were a total of 104 as of 2005. These camps, which are frequently patrilineal, are the principal means through which high-level business and political contacts and friendships are formed. For senior corporate executives, the camps are said to be the pinnacle of socio-political networking in the US.
According to Joel van der Reijden (see External Links below for a full list of camps and substantive details on the past affiliations of the camps’ members), the pre-eminent camps are:
Since the founding of the club, the Bohemian Grove’s symbol has been the owl, long held as a representative of wisdom. A forty-foot concrete owl stands at the head of the lake in the Grove and, since 1929, has served as the site of the yearly “Cremation of Care” ceremony (see below). The club’s motto, Weaving Spiders Come Not Here, is taken from the second scene of Act 2 from A Midsummer Night’s Dream; it signifies that the Grove is limited to exchanging friendship and the free sharing of common passion, summarized in the term, “the Bohemian Spirit.”
The Club’s patron saint is John of Nepomuk, who legend says suffered death at the hands of a Bohemian monarch rather than disclose the confessional secrets of the queen. A large wood carving of St. John in cleric robes with his index finger over his lips stands at the shore of the lake in the Grove, symbolising the secrecy kept by the Grove’s attendees throughout its long history.
The Cremation of Care was devised in 1893 by a member named Joseph D. Redding, a lawyer from New York. During the ceremony, which serves as the opening to the Grove encampment, a mock human sacrifice representing “dull care” is cremated to symbolize the liberation of the participants.
Today, the ritual consists of hooded members accepting the effigy representing “dull care” from a ferryman traveling across a creek. Music and fireworks accompany the ritual, for dramatic effect. The mock human sacrifice is placed on an altar and set on fire. The ritual represents the act of embracing the revelry of Bohemian Grove while setting aside the “dull cares” of the outside world.
The ceremony takes place next to a 45-foot (15 m) high concrete owl statue. During the ceremony, audio plays through nearby speakers providing the illusion of a speaking statue. The voice of the former-newsman Walter Cronkite, a member of the Bohemian Club, is used as the voice of The Owl during the ceremony.
The ceremony involves the poling of a small boat across a lake containing an effigy of Care. Contrary to rumor, Care is not a child. Although “dead”, Care has a speaking part and a deep voice. As suggested by the title, Care is eventually burned under the Owl statue towards the end of ceremony. This cremation symbolizes that within the Bohemian Grove members leave the care of the outside world. Contrary to rumor, no parts of the script contain reference to prisoners of the Druids representing enemy tribes such as the Gauls and Celts.
G.W. Domhoff, a sociologist, was able to obtain an unusual amount of access to the Bohemian Club’s records and membership and was able to thoroughly research the group because of this. He was able to detail the Cremation of Care ceremony, along with the High and Low Jinx and other ceremonies and plays of the Club.
The ceremony is meant to represent the destruction or burning of worldly concern. Alex Jones infiltrated the Bohemian Grove in 2000 and filmed the final portion of the ceremony for his film Dark Secrets: Inside Bohemian Grove. The grove and Jones’ investigation were also covered by Jon Ronson in Channel 4’s four-part documentary, Secret Rulers of the World.
With the combination of secrecy, power, and an elite bias, the Bohemian Grove has been targeted annually for years. Specifically, the Bohemian Grove Action Network organizes protests and has aided journalists who wish to penetrate the secrecy surrounding the encampment. Over the years, individuals have infiltrated the Grove then later published video and claimed accounts of the activities at Bohemian Grove.
On July 15, 2000, Austin, Texas-based journalist and filmmaker Alex Jones and his cameraman, Mike Hanson, became the first people to successfully infiltrate the Grove and make it out with documented evidence. With hidden cameras, Jones and Hanson were able to film the Cremation of Care ritual. The footage was the centerpiece of Jones’ documentary, Dark Secrets: Inside Bohemian Grove. Jones states that a large number of men were in attendance during an “ancient Canaanite, Luciferian, Babylon mystery religion ceremony” involving a 45-foot statue of an owl which he named Moloch.
A fellow British journalist, Jon Ronson of Channel 4, documented his view of the ritual in his book, Them: Adventures With Extremists. Ronson’s interpretation of the ritual was more sanguine; he felt it was a startlingly immature and weird way for world leaders to behave on their summer vacation, but did not see evidence of covert Satanism.
In the summer of 2005, a Grove employee named clandestinely shot more revealing footage and sent it to Alex Jones, who made it the centerpiece of a sequel, The Order of Death, which was released in 2005. This new footage reveals the Owl statue is hollow with a stone exterior. The Grove’s public address system is controlled from within the statue, which is also apparently used as a storage area. Various effigies of Care were also found here. was also able to obtain two brochures about the festivities and a membership list.
Actor/writer Harry Shearer (This is Spinal Tap, Saturday Night Live), who has attended at least one Bohemian Club event, wrote and directed The Teddy Bears’ Picnic, a parody of the Bohemian Grove conspiracy.
Other international gatherings of high-level business/political/media officials:
from: http://www.forbes.com/legacy/forbes/1999/1004/6408098tab1_table.shtml
“Some call Burning Man “the Bohemian Grove for the next generation.” The original is a northern California retreat founded in 1878 and still frequented each year by artists, musicians, heads of state and corporate titans. Its motto, “Weaving spiders come not here,” means “This isn’t a place to talk business.” But at both gatherings, webs are woven anyway.”
