Do we really have to revive the emic/etic thing? It died in the 1980s,
except for Marvin Harris's understandable stubbornness about his own
favorite term. If we must, let's at least use it properly, not to mean
inside view/outside view.
Chris Lehrich
Brian Morton wrote:
> Yeah!
>
> I think I agree with you that the emic approach seems more natural to
> many Pagans (and Buddhists, and some other groups), whereas the etic
> approach seems more natural to Abrahamic religions, (and for example,
> Vaishnavite Hinduism). I certainly prefer emit to etic, but I do think
> both are needed in academia.
>
> Notice also that intertranslating neighbors deities is not always an
> emic move. When the Vaishnavites say, oh yes Buddha is 8th incarnations
> of Vishnu; Jesus must be one of the incarnations of Vishnu too. This is
> an intertranslating move, but an etic one. They are not understanding
> Jesus the way Jesus's other followers understood him even though they
> are willing to give a certain amount of holiness and prestige. The
> Roman assimilation of Stonehenge to being "the great temple of Apollo"
> is an intertranslating move but fairly etic.
>
>
>
--
Christopher I. Lehrich
Assistant Professor of Religion
Associate Director, Division of Religious and Theological Studies
Boston University
|