Le marxisme devant les sociétés « primitives » mais à la traîne de l’anthropologie ?
Emmanuel Terray, who passed away this year, was one of the pioneers of French Marxist anthropology. His book, Marxism and “Primitive” Societies: Two Studies (1972, trad. Mary Klopper) was published in French in 1969 as Le marxisme devant les sociétés « primitives » in the famous “Theory” series edi...
Bewaard in:
| Hoofdauteur: | |
|---|---|
| Formaat: | Article ou chapitre numérique |
| Taal: | Français |
| Gepubliceerd in: |
2024
|
| Onderwerpen: | |
| Online toegang: | Accès Université d'Orléans et IFPM Accès Université d'Orléans et IFPM |
| Samenvatting: | Emmanuel Terray, who passed away this year, was one of the pioneers of French Marxist anthropology. His book, Marxism and “Primitive” Societies: Two Studies (1972, trad. Mary Klopper) was published in French in 1969 as Le marxisme devant les sociétés « primitives » in the famous “Theory” series edited by Louis Althusser. In fact, it is a reflexive work which tries to demonstrate the accuracy of Marxist concepts applied to the analysis of precapitalist African social formations. This project is elaborated through a critical reading of the Gouro anthropology thesis published by Claude Meillassoux in 1964. The paper presents the content of the book then portrays the French post-Stalinist period of the 1960-1970’s which witnessed the reinvention of French social sciences. It then compares quickly the various Marxist approaches of C. Meillassoux, M. Godelier and P.-P. Rey (and of course Terray) and defines them as a strictly ethnico-social approach. Of course, Terray puts clearly on the forefront the political dimensions of Marxist analysis but he distinguishes quite strongly empirical fieldwork and practical activism. In conclusion, the author of this paper regrets that Terray progressively distanced himself from the discipline of anthropology by stating that anthropology is finally of no great help for the elaboration of his political commitment and his very strong activism for the defense of illegal immigrants. His very French centered view of anthropology and his little involvement in the debates of the 1990-2000’s confirm his purely philosophical rereading of Marxist theory and the symbolical and not at all epistemological conception of his initial analytical program — which contradicts the very spirit of Marxism. |
|---|