Evon Zartman Vogt
Auteur de Reader in Comparative Religion: An Anthropological Approach
A propos de l'auteur
Œuvres de Evon Zartman Vogt
Reader in Comparative Religion: An Anthropological Approach (1958) — Directeur de publication — 211 exemplaires
Handbook of Middle American Indians. Volumes Seven & Eight: Ethnology, Parts one & two (v. 7 & 8) (1969) 5 exemplaires
Prehistoric settlement patterns : essays in honor of Gordon R. Willey ; edited by Evon Z. Vogt. and Richard M.… (1983) 5 exemplaires
Bibliography of the Harvard Chiapas Project: The First Twenty Years, 1957-1977 (Peabody Museum) (2004) 2 exemplaires
Ethnology, Part One — Directeur de publication — 1 exemplaire
Los zinacantecos : un grupo maya en el siglo XX 1 exemplaire
Oeuvres associées
The Ancient Americas: Art from Sacred Landscapes (Art & Design) (1992) — Contributeur — 70 exemplaires
Étiqueté
Partage des connaissances
Il n’existe pas encore de données Common Knowledge pour cet auteur. Vous pouvez aider.
Membres
Critiques
Vous aimerez peut-être aussi
Auteurs associés
Statistiques
- Œuvres
- 18
- Aussi par
- 1
- Membres
- 390
- Popularité
- #62,076
- Évaluation
- 3.3
- Critiques
- 1
- ISBN
- 26
- Langues
- 1
hot != cold
rising sun != setting sun
culture != nature
I think what Vogt's doing here is really cool- and therein lies the problem. Vogt is trying to roll the universe up in a ball, to have this perfect cohesion. In so many ways, it feels more like Vogt's play-pretty than a real report on a real people. There's this weird undercurrent in the book of Vogt's "got you now!" moments; he very clearly thinks he knows this stuff better than his informants do. It's not like he's just pulling it from nowhere- it's not uncommon for ritual actors to lose metapragmatic awareness of their own rituals- but he takes it to an extreme that I'm just not comfortable with.
I think what he's doing is ultimately dishonest. To his credit, he lays it right out in the subtitle: A Symbolic Analysis of Zinacanteco Rituals- compare that to A Maya Village. That notwithstanding, I think his writing style is intentionally misleading. He does break it down into his report of the ritual followed by his analysis, but his analysis creeps into the report constantly. I get the sense, from what I know of him and how he writes, that he doesn't know he's being misleading; he just thinks he's right. This is exactly why I liked June Nash- with Nash, you can keep the text and toss the theory, but with Vogt, you've got to take it or leave it.
I'm also having a hard time seeing the utility of this document in general; I understand it as a theoretical text and as a historical report, but I don't think it has a lot of explanatory power in a larger context. It just feels like a catalogue to me- I guess that's nice if you're really into ritual behavior, but the things that I did get out of it- hot vs. cold, spatial relationships- have been articulated better and faster by other authors.
Do I think this is ultimately an ethnography? No. Do I think it has much value out of context? Not as much as Vogt thinks, apparently. Do I want my afternoon back? Sort of.… (plus d'informations)