A long time ago many of us, and with all the big changes that the globalization has made on the societies We began to see how tools and our view had to change too.
Out and inside the discipline this stressed, in one hand very useful and estimulated, but as well a distractive courtain of our aims even hour epistemology.
We maybe say "The tree that not let see the wood"
Nowdays we are in extraordinaries moments that haven´t arrived in a parachutte. Between the denay and the scary plus what I said before inside and outside the discipline. They overholmed not only to all with the new political policies in USA...
...in that, all we are include- in spite many seems to be in cluds according with the age--, we ought to find understunding, to simbolized all this mess...
my question is:::
Are we able in the state that we have arrived to this situation to do Anthropology?
I consider we should take other ways of debats, take time, to do the things no focusing in stressed and lost the aims of our job.
Anthropoloogy can´t give all the answers, in any case to arrive to formulate the good questions to follow a research.
Today we have to asume that we should create other sees if we dont want to collabortate with this dangerous historical moment.
We are having debats , at least on this page, in historical frame in which two weeks ago, more and less, we could cope with them, now the frame is very different.
I hope to open a positive way for the debat.
Thanks both ...." this morning this article brings authors, anlyses and perspectives, correlatives from Journalism, to value seriously https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/01/totalitarianism-in-...
At the same time I was thinking about meanisngs of "enough" in my initial question..an now I m more conscius about a problem of numbers that become quality ...but numbres of our anlyses of this "new?" moment for the world, I consider as well we are collapsed too, we are not out.
The concept of "repetition" ilustrates, and invites to me to do a list of them in the last two weeks closed three...could you help me?
I was thinking of the phenomena you label 2. But with one wrinkle. Only inert (dead) systems can be reversed. Organic systems are not reversible. This is a basic problem for all attempts at instituting the comparative method in the social sciences. Not to say that comparison is impossible, just that it comparison is more difficult than it appears at first blush. World-historic facts and personages may appear twice, but they aren't the same.
Another phrase for personal experience when employed by an expert is professional judgment. Becker is refreshing because he accepts that social science is an exercise in phronesis, like legal judgment or clinical judgment, and gets on with his work. Becker diagnoses. I think it is wrong to say that Becker is not systematic in his diagnosis. He clearly is systematic, but not in a narrow, technical sense.
Ragin is doing something else. He is working an angle that can be either logically determinative or probabilistic.