SPECIAL SECTION: The Future of a Discipline: Considering the Ontological/Methodological Future of the Anthropology of Consciousness, Part II†
Anthropology of Consciousness September 1, 2010 DOI: 10.1111/j.1556-3537.2010.01025.x (opens in new tab)
Study at a glance
AI-extracted from the abstract| Characteristics | Theoretical or philosophical paper Peer reviewed |
|---|---|
| Key points | Argues that reviving the concept of ethnometaphysics could make the Society for the Anthropology of Consciousness's perspective appear less radical to mainstream colleagues and increase its influence. |
Abstract
ABSTRACTIn order for the valuable research published in the Anthropology of Consciousness (AoC) journal to have the impact it ought to have upon the anthropological mainstream, contributors must demonstrate that they appreciate the historical tradition of anthropology as an intellectual forebear. Although “ethnometaphysics” has been cited sporadically by anthropologists over the past half‐century, it never really caught on as an interdisciplinary speciality like ethnobotany, ethnomusicology, and ethnomathematics. Pointing to the example of discord in the West between viewing psychoactive substances as either “hallucinogens” or “entheogens,” I reassert ethnometaphysics in an aim to revamp the overlooked coining of this sub‐field by anthropologist A. Irving Hallowell. Such a position rebrands SAC's alternative outlook in a way that could be seen by mainstream colleagues as less radical, thus giving the Society a more realistic opportunity to provoke progressive changes in the mainstream of our discipline.