Antropologia e filosofia: estética e experiência em Clifford Geertz e Walter Benjamin

Abstract

Este artigo estuda as concepções de estética e experiência de Clifford Geertz e Walter Benjamin como possibilidades argumentativas e metodológicas para pensar a realidade e suas formas estéticas. Utiliza-se para isso as discussões metodológicas de Geertz, especialmente a respeito do lugar da estética e de sua relação com os demais âmbitos do humano, que encetaram uma nova forma de concebê-los para a etnografia e antropologia de modo geral, e os estudos de Benjamin a respeito da estética como expressão fisionômica de uma época, de determinada realidade, especialmente os que se referem sobre a modernidade. Constata-se essa possibilidade a partir da observação de que a estética e a experiência, nos autores, são tomadas como dimensões da realidade que se relacionam, não de modo mecânico, e sim como âmbitos que atravessam a realidade, os artefatos estéticos, os discursos, e esses assim devem ser observados.<br>This article study the conceptions of aesthetics and experience of Clifford Geertz and Walter Benjamin as argumentative and methodological possibilities for thinking reality and its aesthetic forms. Uses for this Geertz's methodological discussions, especially regarding the place of aesthetics and its relation to other spheres of the human, which has embarked on a new way of conceiving them to ethnography and anthropology in general, and studies Benjamin about the aesthetics and physiognomical expression of an era, a certain reality, especially those concerning about modernity. There is that possibility from the observation that the aesthetics and experience, in the authors, are taken as the dimensions of reality are related, not mechanically, but as areas that cross the reality, the aesthetic artifacts, the speeches, and so these must be observed

The volitional nature of motivation and cultural creativity: an anthropological investigation

“…Proceeding as suggested by Geertz (1989), looking for the web of meanings and searching inside of it for the keys to motivation and its reasons, when we remembered the dissatisfaction of Turner (1985), with the idea of culture as a merely derivative of social structure, recognizing rites and symbols as factors in social action, "a positive force in an activity field", that does not exclude psychology and religion (p. 3). To then recall that Geertz himself never lost contact with the dynamic aspect of culture, which led him to define culture as a "web of meanings in flow" (GEERTZ, 1989;OLIVEIRA, 2012).…”