文章摘要
汪洪亮.李安宅未刊手稿《十年来美国的人类学》及其解读[J].民族学刊,2019,10(1):72-80, 121-122
李安宅未刊手稿《十年来美国的人类学》及其解读
Li Anzhai’s Unpublished Manuscript American Anthropology during the Past Ten Years and an Interpretation to It
  
DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1674-9391.2019.01.09
中文关键词: 李安宅  未刊手稿  《十年来美国的人类学》
英文关键词: Li Anzhai  unpublished manuscript  American Anthropology during the Past Ten Years
基金项目:
作者单位
汪洪亮 四川师范大学历史文化学院 
摘要点击次数: 470
全文下载次数: 464
中文摘要:
      李安宅撰写的《十年来美国的人类学》是其在美讲学期间应国内人类学家卫惠林、何联奎所约而作,论述了1938-1947年美国人类学的理论进展及其学科特性,梳理了美国人类学界相关人物的动态和主要的书刊。这一观察海外人类学进展的重要文献,具有重要的学术史料价值。文章首次披露李安宅手稿全文,并对其写作背景及该文所透露的有关问题略作讨论。
英文摘要:
      Li Anzhai (1900-1985) was a sociologist and anthropologist in modern China. For more than ten years, I have been paying attention to the life and learning of Li Anzhai, searching for published and unpublished works by him. I recently discovered Shinian lai meiguo de renleixue (American Anthropology during the Past Ten Years). It is one of Li’s manuscripts, but it is not found in any of Li’s publications. Moreover, it has not been included in the catalogue of Li’s works compiled by himself and others. As far as I can see, there is, as yet, no academic citation of this article. This important document relates to Chinese people’s observation of the progress of anthropology abroad during the late 1940s, and is an important academic historical document involving several Chinese anthropologists. It also has great value for our understanding of the development and trends of American anthropology during the 1930s and 1940s. I would like to make the full text of this manuscript public for the first time here, and provide a brief discussion on the background of writing this paper, and some related issues revealed in it. Li Anzhai went to the United States in 1947, and was a visiting professor at a Yale University research institute. This article was written by Li Anzhai at the request of two scholars. The first one is Wei Huilin who, before Li went abroad in the summer of 1947, asked him to write a report on recent trends in American anthropology after he arrived in the United States; the second one is He Liankui who wrote a letter asking for Li’s contribution to minzuxue nianbao (the Annual Ethnological Journal). It is an article that was written from References from the Yearbooks of the British Encyclopedia and the Encyclopedia Americana. Those materials found in the yearbooks should typically be more classical, and the compilers of the anthropology and sociology sections were also often leaders in academic circles. Therefore, the authority and academic nature of their contents should be guaranteed. Li Anzhai studied at both the University of California and Yale University from 1934 to 1936. More than ten years later, Li returned to the same institutions in order to recall the past in the light of the present. Moreover, he could also include Chinese anthropology and the experience of frontier research as a reference. Therefore, this manuscript provides a long-term perspective of a longitudinal comparison and cross-sectional comparison between Chinese anthropology and American anthropology. There are several core points in his article to which I would like to draw the readers’ attention. First, in Li’s view, American anthropology was quite developed, whereas sociology was relatively less so. I speculate that this might be due to the reason that the formation of the United States was a target of study of British anthropology; or, after the United States became strong, many countries and places became the study targets object of American anthropology. So, accordingly, anthropologists had more powerful academic voices. Li Anzhai did not clarify this point, and thus, leaves the issue open for discussion. Second, Li noted that one of the characteristics of American anthropology is that it underwent a process from “a focus on field study” to a “strong interest in theory”. He made a thorough analysis of the causes and manifestations of this. On the one hand, he said that it reflected the cumulative result of conducting a large number of field studies, and the contact between different disciplines, cultural areas and industries which promoted the emergence of issues and theories. On the other hand, it reflected that a large amount of theoretical thinking and field research will ultimately promote field work, which, in turn, further increases the necessity and importance of the discipline of anthropology and its social application in the United States. Li Anzhai even regarded anthropology as the “center of scientific development within the study of human relations”, and believed that it could promote harmony among individuals, countries and the international community. Li Anzhai’s anthropological practice in China seems have followed the path of (combining) theoretical research, field research and applied research. He translated and/or compiled a variety of anthropological theoretical works, published a series of papers on Tibetan religion centered on the investigation of the Labrang Temple, and also systematically reflected on Applied Anthropology within the process of participating in border education and service. He thought that at that time China’s applied anthropology was linked with “frontier social work”. For this reason, he wrote a book called bianjiang shehui gongzuo (Frontier Social Work) which elaborated his ideas and propositions on how to deal with frontier work using anthropological theories and methods. In order to enable readers to read Li Anzhai’s observations on American anthropology at that time, I have sorted out the full text of his manuscript and published it here. It should be noted that in order to respect the original text, the entire text, including the translation of the names, remains the same. It is hereby stated that there were some differences in the translation of some institutions and names at that time.
查看全文   查看/发表评论  下载PDF阅读器
关闭

手机扫一扫看
分享按钮