Talk:Political economy in anthropology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Anthropology  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Article title[edit]

Should this article's title be "Political economy in anthropology" (i.e. sentence-cased, as is Wikipedia's norm) or is the capital-cased "Political Economy" an established proper / conceptual / etc noun that's correct..? CsDix (talk) 05:19, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

yes, PE should be capital cased.Schrauwers (talk) 12:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks – I wondered if that might be the case. Might be worth adding a comment to this effect after the first two words of the article..? CsDix (talk) 19:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Anthropologies and Histories[edit]

The work, AFAIS actually associates the introduction of PE to A to much earlier theorists, doesn't it not? (talk) 07:26, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I created this page by moving this material from the Economic Anthropology page which was getting too long. The lead is not yet complete (eg, no definition of PE has yet been added either). Soon to come.Schrauwers (talk) 12:14, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm unsure what AFAIS refers to, but in Anthropology, the PE approach is generally accepted as beginning with Steward's students. See also Roseberry's Annual Review in Anthropology article 1988. Perhaps you could elaborate who these earlier theorists are?Schrauwers (talk) 00:15, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
The first user probably didn't mean to differ with the idea that "in Anthropology, the PE approach is generally accepted as beginning with Steward's students" but rather had a problem with the statement not being given by "the work" mentioned in the Wikipedia article, i.e " Roseberry, William (1989). Anthropologies and Histories: essays in culture, history and political economy. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutcgers University Press. p. 146-7." However, in the current version the source has been changed by Schrauwers to: Roseberry, William (1988). "Political Economy". Annual Review of Anthropology 17: 161-85. in this edit: [1]. Ironically the edit summary says "verification did not fail", not what it should say: "I changed the source to another one as verification failed".... (talk) 07:22, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
to be clear, that edit didn't alter the paragraph or citation at all, did it?Schrauwers (talk) 03:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Actually, on second thought, perhaps the original point is still valid. (talk) 08:58, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
That's not what the anonymous IP address said (see above). The source is clear on the role of Julian Steward.Schrauwers (talk) 12:47, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
No, that is exactly what I said. Where is steward mentioned like this? "AFAIS" is an acronym for "as far as I (can) see". Sorry for the confusion. (talk) 11:34, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello Typlyyko (aka Steward supported, but was not, a Political Economist. It was his students who created PE in anthropology as a distinct theoretical orientation. The source listed, plus the 1988 Roseberry's article are clear on this.Schrauwers (talk) 13:43, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Page? (talk) 08:03, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Given in citation, pg 146-7, esp. last paragraph on 147.Schrauwers (talk) 23:37, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
That claim is not made in the place that you claim. The author does not use the term "political economy", does not say that Steward did anything first, does not use the word "anthropology". Rather it talks about so called "peasent studies". There it says that the some researchers (Kroeber) had thought of peasents as participating in large economic systems, like the global market, and goverment taxation, but yet living "outside" of "the official system". Then it says that Steward formulated this idea "in the clearest" manner, and later on page 148 opinions that Steward therefore laid the foundations for anthropology that was to take "proletarianization as a focal point". Are you claiming that his is the same as to say that Steward was the first to introduce "PE into antrhro"? Because that's really not doing justice to the source. Tpylkkö (talk) 09:59, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
The sentence said PE was introduced by his students, who he supported. Peasant studies is part of anthropology. "Steward laid the foundation". That fits the synopsis you've given.
But seriously, then the paragraph in this article talks about the GI act and many other people that are not mentioned even once in source number 2. How on earth does one extract all that information from the two pages in Rosemary? It's obviously not there, none of it. How about maybe using a source for these claims? Neither does this need to be in the lead to begin with. Tpylkkö (talk) 10:05, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I've added the more complete citation from the Annual Review, by Roseberry (not Rosemary), to cover all those names. Let me be clear, I didn't write that paragraph, but it is important that it be in the lead to explain that this North American school had its origin at a specific time and place, and that it is distinguished from Marxist anthropology (hence their self selection of a different name - Political Economists). It is also important to include to distinguish them from the 19th century Political Economists from whom they draw no inspiration.Schrauwers (talk) 13:05, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you. Earlier it read as thou political economy (which was has existed for more than a century) and anthropology (which has also existed for such a time) came together only in the 1970's. This could on many interpretation (esp. from readers that are not anhtropologists them selves) seem odd. But the current version makes the essential distinctions, that the article is about political economy in the "ethnography-producing social science anthropology" in North America. In this case it is true that mentioning Steward in the lead is OK. However, I'm now wondering whether the article should be renamed to something like "PE in Nor. Amer. Anth." or "Peasent studies in..." or something like that. Tpylkkö (talk) 06:28, 22 April 2013 (UTC)