Los límites del concepto de frontera en distintas teorías antropológicas posmodernas.

  1. Isabel G. Gamero Cabrera 1
  1. 1 Universidad Complutense de Madrid (Madrid, España)
Journal:
Cinta de Moebio: Revista Electrónica de Epistemología de Ciencias Sociales

ISSN: 0717-554X

Year of publication: 2015

Issue: 52

Type: Article

DOI: 10.4067/S0717-554X2015000100007 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

More publications in: Cinta de Moebio: Revista Electrónica de Epistemología de Ciencias Sociales

Sustainable development goals

Abstract

The main interest of this paper is to understand how different theories have influence in the anthropological study of boundaries spaces. First, I will refer to Wolf’s and Barth’s critique against the particularism of the first ethnographies (namely, Boas’ or Evans-Pritchard’s theories). These first anthropologists maintained an isolated and separated conception of culture and consequently, they were unable to apprehend links between different human groups. In contrast, I will mention new approaches (transnationalism and the anthropology of the boundaries), more sensible to the differential situations in borders and the existence of transnational nets among regions. Lastly, I will allude to the difficulties that three contemporary anthropologists (Appadurai, García Canclini and Kearney) must face, when they link these new approaches with some postmodern concepts (such as “rhizome”, “porous border” or “hybridity”) and therefore, they cannot apprehend either the complexity of the boundaries.