Abstract
Anthropology is a realist discipline. In this article, I draw a sharp distinction between realism and scientism, or objectivism, arguing that realism requires the recognition of the contexts and contingency of all knowledge, including ethnography, whereas scientism – a rhetoric that invokes science as its source of authority – paradoxically occludes recognition of its own context of production. A realist position, anchored in social experience and aware of the limitations that such an entailment involves, is thus far better situated to explore the political implications of anthropological theory, especially in a world where market consumerism, neoliberalism and audit culture, as well as certain authoritarian regimes, have, to their political advantage, substituted quantitative rhetoric for critical thought.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
