| Abstract: | One way of conceiving of the anthropological task is that of countering the degradations and “dehumanizations” of the “other” to which the species is prone by promoting “transcendent humanization.” However efficiently and professionally anthropologists gather their materials and form them into their ethnographic and ethnologic analyses, may not this “ethical impulse” be postulated as the “final cause” of our efforts? But what could such a sonorous phrase mean ? And what is its relationship to the systematic study of the “differences that make or do not make a difference” in culture to which anthropology has long been devoted? I will argue that it involves a dynamic of categories and that this dynamic is itself an object of systematic study. Recently, for example, some anthropologists have been writing “against culture,” seeing the culture concept and associated theory more as barriers than as benefits to pan‐human understanding. I will argue that this is an instance of “transcendent humanization.” One cannot but be sympathetic to the thrust and merits of this argument. But at the same time one wants to ask what implications it holds for the systematic study and understanding of the other. This article, then, examines some elementary vectors in the “dynamic of the categorical” involved in these and related recent debates which also may be seen in terms of transcendence and humanization: the debate over relativism and the recently emergent debate over “enlightenment mythmaking” in anthropology. |
