Anthropology mimetic and formalization of social science, to a rediscovery of the human dimension?
By
Nicolas Madelenat di Florio
From the Society of Literary History of France.
Research Associate at
Centre for Economic Research Ethics,
Université Paul Cézanne.
To Jean-Yves Naudet, because "even if one may say that the darkness is an absence of light, lack of consideration of human Perhaps fortunately did not kill-his humanity. "
To my friend Matthew Mainz.
(This text has been published in "The barrel oxygen , Number 7)
Every animal has ideas, since has meaning, it combines the same ideas to a certain point, and man is no different in this respect that the beast from most to least. Some philosophers have even argued that there is more difference to such a man as man to man like this beast, so it's not so much understanding among the animals which the specific distinction of man that his free agency.
Rousseau Discourse on the Origin and Foundations of Inequality Among Men .
Introductory remarks.
Rousseau has little to teach the anthropologist mimetic except the horrors in which a brilliant mind, moreover, can sink if he commits the original sin of thought, namely abandon man the benefit of an abstraction. No serious researcher can not yet dare to say it has never been attracted by the calls of formalization, namely the reduction of differences between individuals proposed for consideration in a simplified form for a generalization of the special process that govern them and which we propose the study. Yet, very quickly, mind clashes with the impoverishment of such an approach, the subject of study is emptied of its substance, namely its differences. For man should not be taken as a unit switchable, a kind of solid that could polish the edges to make it, apparently at the beginning, similar to others in order to study it. Doing so is in no way an anthropological healthy. Any approach to reduce the size and complexity, the individual must be rejected, being moreover no more credible than a round square (Heidegger, Introduction to metaphysics ). Being Man is not a final form of higher intelligence designed to continuously increase its condition after separation, voluntary, with the bass of materiality. Oh how many philosophers and thinkers have been misled by their own paths in life! The man, the person is nothing more than an individual, ie a cell with relative autonomy, but the construction variable from one situation to another. In sum, it would be difficult to want to think like one. The formalization seems doomed to extinction. This is not the case and the notion of scientific, ad litteram rate science as a means to discover the truth-in analysis, is gaining ground on the approaches to logic and consistency of the humanities. Indeed, the convenience offered by the intellectual dominance of the scientific, wanting more compelling, or at least as a higher state of real truth, proven by analysis and multiplied on the basis of errors of assumptions, is a substitute convenient to reason.
State Science.
And anthropologist to question the rise of the scientific, before turning on his multiple excesses as well as the consequences of such errors in our disciplines. For this, it would almost know the history of science and ideas. Initial beliefs, the first thinkers, to question not so much on the value of science but on their immediate environment. Then the spirit, though inspired, looks to heaven to beg him to improve living conditions remain difficult, the man is a creature that suffers from being so fragile knowing they are so strong. Then contemplation succeeds adoration and worship will understand and share. Theories arise and spread. The human mind is so made that the time is always linked; Bergson to recognize that the concept of time is essentially human, it is an evolution of consciousness over time, awareness of being, consciousness of desire as . A Girard added that the first is violence that can spring the intellectual structure, in short everything that supports the individual, his thought would be a formatting necessary for the channeling of natural violence, spontaneous . The man thinks, because he is violent, his conscience and his reason, rise up against this primarity. The machine is started and intellectual because he had one day the idea of lifting his eyes to heaven, his mind opens to the world and its mysteries. Curious humans will drink what he sees, and the first thoughts to understand natural phenomena are religious, mingled contemplation is the birth of Science.
Yet it is not here in this speech of those metaphysical subtleties which have won all parts of literature, and whose programs are not Academy always free, but it's one of those truths that hold the happiness of mankind. I expect I will be forgiven the party that I hardly dared take. Colliding head on everything that is now the admiration of men, I can not expect that a universal censure, and not to have been honored by the endorsement of some wiser than I have to rely on the public: as my party is taken, I do worry of pleasing nor wits, or the people in fashion. There will in all ages of men made to be subjugated by the opinions of their century, their country, their society: such is now the freethinker and philosopher, that for the same reason had been a fanatic of the time of the League. You must not write for such readers, when we want to live beyond his age. (Rousseau, Preface to Discourse on the Sciences and Arts ) Cause do not forget to separate the wheat from the chaff, cutting the tradition that a constructivist sense exists, and beyond, the man to force him to develop in a direction pre-destiny. Abandon, good faith, this idea strangely modern thought would deprive the first of its base, freedom. For this is the fundamental flaw constructivism which, by denying the intellectual dimension of freedom intrinsic to the individual, cutting short any idea of changing company (since the groups can not develop otherwise than under a certain model, they are not free, their choices, which are not, being merely the means of control to ensure the sustainability of future construction. The man would then feel free, and this game dupe who allows his conscience not to revolt against slavery under its control and victim). Abandon also the contribution of psychoanalysis to the social sciences, in fact, a number of assumptions advanced by Freud have been corrupted by his followers and seem to tend to see evil everywhere, ostracized any conduct they deem contrary to their idea of man. In sum, in the psychoanalytic conception of the individual, the problem-leading researcher in modern social science to reject-not from both theories, ideas and values it conveys but by its willingness to impose a single model of the individual's terribly worthy of Rousseau and all deniers of freedom intrinsic part in the human mind. Moreover, applying psychoanalytic thinking to the construction of the person, and its relation to other (so as, in fact, society is a dynamic training between groups) to formalize individual returns, c is the price of this formalization, and only this formalization, the psychoanalyst can s prevail in the mind of his patient. The objectivity necessary for the exercise of this activity is largely false, the human person can not be fully ignored by itself ; be perfectly objective would be to become another self-willed, free spirit without conscience, without memory or feelings. In sum, an objective would not be human. About The third and final school of thought, what to say ... Or rather, what to expect? Marxist anthropology is a bad mixture of the other approaches outlined above, and it tends to impose a model, with its values and flaws. Add to this the desire to correct the man, as does psychoanalysis, not only that, she wants to compel the company, the group report them to embrace a certain way of (non) development.
differences and interests of anthropology mimetic.
It would be disappointing to abandon lines of research corrupted by pride to embrace others. Who could then continue to request the lights if these academics, recognizing past mistakes and their propensity to impose a certain image of man, dropped a straw idol for another, even harder? Person, and relapsed state of the error in the humanities, should enlighten the people they turn away. Who thinks even if he is interested in integration, politics, social differences, consult an anthropologist, a sociologist? Few citizens, if at all as the many schools have killed the interest in these disciplines. And recognize that the error is essentially human, as is the pride of owning believe the truth, control, and share. A classical anthropology, and its many excesses, it must then consider replacing the assumptions, pre-requisite artificial, and especially, especially, anthropomorphism ego, namely the personal values of the scientist-analyst melted in the model which he wants to screen the company or group. For if, again, tomorrow, an anthropologist gives way to see the target study through its own choices in life, or worldviews (imagine the case for the Marxist everything is class struggle and oppression by the minority owning) its results will have value in the eyes of those who share the framework first. To the necessary release of the spirit which alone can overcome all the partisan divide and thus highlight new features of human relations, anthropologists prefer classical equation data partisan, he will eventually recover, after its analysis, the evidence justifying their choices. In short, he did nothing to advance, if not his own pride and feel strange, being useful to man.
mimetic anthropology, meanwhile, has a fundamental quality which places it far above other approaches. In fact, she did not pretend to discover traits that do not exist or could exist without proof that no n'abonde this. It merely, and this is its strength, observation, and there is nothing good in this speculative approach to human relationships but simply a reading of a banal phenomena fantastic but oh so real . Not sensational, nor revolutionary! Simply the truth, that truth Pure and simple, which penetrates every man and every woman. As the basis for mimetic anthropology there is the phenomenon of mimesis , ie replicating the behavior of its neighbor is through imitation that from the first moments of his life, the child will be built. Everyone can notice the influence of this phenomenon by taking a few minutes to his own life, and his own person. He remembers how he could hate a family member who owned an object, and which made him something of the most precious and most coveted there is; of this struggle for the conquest must create a situation recurring in all human lives, mimetic rivalry. He added that the literature is full of those situations where a person falls madly in love with a person who becomes his entire life, and later collapsed into a passion now is the hyper Inflation-mimetic . Our own report to Art in all forms of representation of reality, is a form of mimetic identification and if I recognize myself in what I watch, so I can add my own person . That is the type magnitude of the Work. Everything is mimetic; mimetic anthropology is, permanently, a rediscovery of the human dimension of man. And hope, then it contributes to its expansion to bring light where there is more today obscurity.
0 comments:
Post a Comment