Constructivismes en études ethniques au Québec

Abstract

Dans le domaine de la recherche sur l’ethnicité, la notoriété de Fredrik Barth n’est plus à faire. La reconnaissance qu’on lui témoigne à travers le monde depuis une cinquantaine d’années paraît inaltérable. Elle ne porte toutefois que sur quelques aspects très ciblés de son travail qui s’est finalement cristallisé autour de la notion de frontières (1969). Il est probable qu’une perspective aussi étroite ait contribué non seulement à une réduction de la pensée de Barth, mais aussi à la perte d’une certaine densité de la pensée constructiviste dans l’étude de l’ethnicité. Ma proposition consiste à montrer que la métaphore des frontières est un outil puissant indispensable à la modélisation des systèmes ouverts. Cette démonstration me permet deux choses : d’abord, de fournir quelques arguments à l’appui de mon hypothèse de l’engagement de Barth dans un constructivisme respectueux de tous les préceptes de la démarche systémique ; et de convaincre ensuite le lecteur de l’importance pour les études ethniques de fonder sur de meilleures assises la construction des connaissances qu’elles diffusent au sujet des différences humaines. La démarche dans son ensemble peut être considérée comme un plaidoyer pour une meilleure épistémologie des études ethniques, notamment dans le riche contexte des études ethniques à Montréal et au Québec.

Talking about Difference: Cross-Cultural Comparison and Prejudice in Anthropology and Beyond

“…Though this is something of a simplification [22], Malinowski is generally credited with developing the methodology of long-term intensive ethnographic fieldwork, disrupting the division between "armchair anthropologists" and those who conducted their own fieldwork [23] (pp. [15][16][17][18][19]. Malinowski emphasized the need to understand social and cultural dynamics from the point of view of insiders, at a time when many mainstream theorists were more interested in discovering general principles for understanding human social organization more generally [23] (pp.…”

“…Malinowski emphasized the need to understand social and cultural dynamics from the point of view of insiders, at a time when many mainstream theorists were more interested in discovering general principles for understanding human social organization more generally [23] (pp. [15][16][17][18][19]. Functionalist anthropology started with the premise that all cultures are fundamentally unique in their development.…”

“…[23] (pp. [15][16][17][18][19]. Some authors began to refer to this question as the "Malinovskian dilemma".…”

“…Generalization from a single field of research was not only difficult, but in many cases, it was frowned upon, and Malinowski's students are known to emphasize exceptions rather than categories or logical types [23] (pp. [15][16][17][18][19].…”

“…In his influential work on systemic theory and social organization, Gregory Bateson makes the observation that any theory of communication must begin with the articulation of difference [14]. Echoing Bateson's interest in communication, Fredrik Barth's early work on frontiers shows how the foundation of human social organization is structured around relations of difference, especially in settings where group-based difference is articulated through the construction of ethnic borders [15]. The overlapping of multiple identities in humans means that we cannot necessarily predict exactly which difference or differences are considered relevant in specific communicational settings: in Bateson's terms, what is the difference that makes (a) difference?…”