الأنثروبولوجيا القهرية : نقد فوكو لمنطق السلطة في العقل الغربي

الملخص EN

In every instance where the anthropological rhetoric tackles certain concepts in political philosophy, the aim is to scorn philosophical methodology and exclude it from the sphere of anthropological activity.

This is because it grants advantage to the high ideal at the expense of facts as Edward Evans Pritchard and Meyer Fortes state.

According to these two figures, the theories of political philosophy have not aided us in understanding the societies which have been studied.

Furthermore, these theories do not enjoy a scholarly value because rarely are the conclusions of philosophers formulated according to the observed conduct, and therefore it is not possible to verify them based on this standard.

It is true that philosophers have attempted to support their theories by using the available data on societies and primitive customs, but this occurred at a time when the data was still very weak.

Therefore, it is incumbent upon anthropologists to avoid making reference to the writings of political philosophers and to distance themselves from them.

In order to understand the relationship of the French philosopher Michel Foucault with “anthropology” -his acceptance or refusal, influence by or impact on this domain- it is first necessary to consider the complicated relationship and problem which has arisen between anthropology and philosophy.

Second, it is necessary to move the inquiry regarding this relationship away from the simplified viewpoint which establishes a contradiction between two epistemological fields, one of which is based on a type of theoretical inquiries and intellectual reflections concerning human nature and the meaning and purpose of human existence, and the other which is based on a type of field research which aims to understand human societies “scientifically” far from philosophical theories which have occupied intellectuals for a long period of time.

In this context, it is necessary to mention that anthropology has historically risen on a form of critical reading of philosophy, especially the concept of natural right and social contract.