★★★☆

文章分析：

①M(fèi)any cultural anthropologists?have come to reject the scientific framework of empiricism that dominated the field until the 1970s and now regard all scientific knowledge as socially constructed. ②They argue that information about cultures during the empiricist era typically came from anthropologists who brought with them a prepackaged set of conscious and unconscious biases. ③Cultural anthropology, according to the post-1970s critique, is unavoidably subjective, and the anthropologist should be explicit in acknowledging that fact. ④Anthropology should stop striving to build a better database about cultural behavior and should turn to developing a more humanistic interpretation of cultures. ⑤The new framework holds that it may be more enlightening to investigate the biases of earlier texts than to continue with empirical methodologies.

① v

↓

②?v

↓

③ 代表作者觀點(diǎn)

↓

④?v

↓

⑤?v

這里3??4??也可以認(rèn)為是轉(zhuǎn)折。

文章信息矩陣：

c. anthrop.? ? ? ? ?emp.

? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 1970s

socially cons.? ? ?emp.

? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?bias

? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?subjective

explicit? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? database

humanistic

new framwk

invstg. bias? ? ? ? emp.

1. The author?implies?which of the following about most cultural anthropologists working?prior to the 1970s? 細(xì)節(jié)推斷，until作為時(shí)間終點(diǎn)是常見(jiàn)考點(diǎn)

A. They argued that scientific knowledge was?socially constructed.?相反

B. They were?explicit?in acknowledging the biases inherent in scientific investigation.?無(wú)關(guān)/相反

C. They regarded scientific knowledgeas consisting of?empirical?truths.?符合

D. They shared the?same?conscious and unconscious biases.?沒(méi)有證據(jù)，他們有偏見(jiàn)是不錯(cuò)，但誰(shuí)知道他們的偏見(jiàn)一不一樣呢。特別注意這種非常雞賊的選項(xiàng)設(shè)置

E. They acknowledged the need for a?new scientific framework.?無(wú)關(guān)/相反

?

2. According to the passage, “many cultural anthropologists” today would agree that anthropologists should?細(xì)節(jié)+態(tài)度，只要找到主要觀點(diǎn)就好做

A. build a better, less subjective?database?about?cultural behavior?相反

B. strive to improve the?empirical?methodologies used until the 1970s?相反

C.?reject?the notion that scientific knowledge is?socially constructed?相反

D. turn to?examining?older anthropological texts for unacknowledged?biases?符合，應(yīng)該去調(diào)查一下之前干的事對(duì)不對(duì)，而不是繼續(xù)沿用之前的干，對(duì)應(yīng)最后一句

E.?integrate?humanistic interpretations with?empirical?methodologies?沒(méi)有證據(jù)/RE

文化人類(lèi)學(xué)（cultural anthropology）是人類(lèi)學(xué)的一個(gè)分支學(xué)科。它研究人類(lèi)各民族創(chuàng)造的文化，以揭示人類(lèi)文化的本質(zhì)。使用考古學(xué)、人種志、人種學(xué)、民俗學(xué)、語(yǔ)言學(xué)的方法、概念、資料，對(duì)全世界不同民族作出描述和分析。

這個(gè)學(xué)科分支將文化視為有意義的科學(xué)概念。它主要在研究比較人類(lèi)各個(gè)社會(huì)或部落的文化，借此找出人類(lèi)文化的特殊現(xiàn)象和通則性。不同于研究對(duì)象類(lèi)似的社會(huì)學(xué)，文化人類(lèi)學(xué)的研究對(duì)象大多是弱勢(shì)族群和少數(shù)團(tuán)體，以及較為蠻荒的部落。而研究方式大都注重“質(zhì)”而非“量”，現(xiàn)象的觀察多是“特例”而非“通識(shí)”。

‘Social’ and ‘cultural’ anthropology overlap to a considerable extent. There is no hard-and-fast distinction between them, although there are differences of emphasis. Very broadly, the term ‘cultural anthropology’ relates to an approach – particularly prominent in the US and associated with the work of pioneers such as Franz Boas and Ruth Benedict – which stresses the coherence of cultures, including their rules of behaviour, language, material creations and ideas about the world – and the need to understand each in its own terms. ‘Social anthropology’ on the other hand has mainly developed within Britain since the early years of the 20th century. Historically, it has been heavily influenced by intellectual traditions coming from continental Europe, especially from France. Its tendency is to emphasise social institutions and their interrelationships. It has gone through many theoretical shifts over the past hundred years, but its emphasis, like that of cultural anthropology, is still on what has been called the ‘deep structure’ of social relations in a particular society: the organising principles of social life that may govern individual behaviour but may also, under some circumstances, be challenged and break down. Here, we will refer to ‘social anthropology’ to include both.

Social anthropologists conduct their research in many ways, but the method most characteristic of the discipline is that of?fieldwork?based on ‘participant observation’. This usually means spending a long period (a year or more) living as closely as possible with the community being studied; learning the language if necessary; sharing the activities of daily life; observing and participating in the texture of social interactions; and identifying underlying patterns. Through analysing this experience and exchanging ideas with members of the community, the anthropologist aims to gain a deep understanding of how the society works, including its inherent tensions and contradictions. Social anthropologists usually report their research in the form of ‘ethnographies’, which are detailed descriptions of the society in question, shaped and informed by the research questions the anthropologist has posed. Frequently, these questions change in the course of?fieldwork, as growing knowledge reveals ever-deeper issues calling for investigation. With this deep knowledge of very local situations as their grounding, it is often possible for social anthropologists to make comparisons across societies, and draw out broader hypotheses about human life in society.

Many people think that social anthropologists exclusively study small-scale societies in ‘remote’ places. Many classic studies are indeed of this kind, and social anthropologists continue to carry out research in communities far from metropolitan centres. But it has been recognised for many years that the interactions between global patterns and local communities have complex effects that lend themselves to anthropological study; and also that the methods of anthropological enquiry are readily applied to sectors and components of industrial and post-industrial societies. Nowadays, social anthropologists are as likely to be found carrying out research in businesses, educational establishments, hospitals or public-sector bureaucracies, as in the more traditional ‘remote places’. The relationship between the social anthropologist and those he or she studies has also changed radically in recent years, moving from one of privileged observer to the ‘other’ being observed, towards something closer to a dialogue between equals.

Text written by: Hilary Callan

這篇文章就已經(jīng)不太好懂了。真的想要讀懂這篇文章，需要對(duì)文化人類(lèi)學(xué)的研究方法有個(gè)大概的認(rèn)知?？紙?chǎng)上是很難做到的，會(huì)做題更重要。

更多內(nèi)容可參考：

https://www.discoveranthropology.org.uk/