Interpretive Frameworks

2015 ◽  
pp. 31-32
Keyword(s):  
Interpretive Frameworks

scholarly journals “Philosopher” and “Philosophy” in Kyivan Rus’ Written Sources: of the 11-14th centuries. The Need for a new Asking of the “Old” Question

Sententiae ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 40 (1) ◽  
pp. 6-27
Author(s):  
Oleksandr Kyrychok ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Divine Wisdom ◽  
Holistic Understanding ◽  
Written Sources ◽  
Interpretive Frameworks

The author justifies the need to return to an analysis of the meaning of such words as “philosophy” and “philosopher” in the Kyivan Rus’ written sources of the 11th–14th centuries. In the author’s view, this is explained not only by the inaccuracies the earlier research committed but also by the necessity to take contemporary achievements of Byzantine philosophical historiography into account. The author concludes that the preserved Kyivan Rus’ written sources reflect certain Byzantine interpretations of the words “philosopher” and “philosophy” as understood within particular interpretive frameworks: philosophy may refer to a specifically “Christian” or “external” philosophy, presuppose rational or mystical comprehension of divine wisdom, become verbalized or not. Some sources probably espouse an understanding of philosophy as a practice of true life. The word “philosopher” had different connotations, as well. It referred to advisers or officeholders at the court of the Byzantine emperor, wise princes, church intellectuals, connoisseurs of biblical books, etc. The author invalidates the idea that in Kyivan Rus’, there existed a holistic understanding of philosophy and philosophers. Instead, one should interpret these words as having a limited plurality of meanings.

Beyond existential and neoliberal explanations of consumers’ embodied risk-taking: CrossFit as an articulation of reflexive modernization

2021 ◽  
pp. 146954052110620
Author(s):  
Craig J Thompson ◽  
Anil Isisag
Keyword(s):  
Human Capital ◽  
Risk Taking ◽  
Reflexive Modernization ◽  
Systemic Risks ◽  
Consumption Practices ◽  
Risk Taking Behavior ◽  
Key Dimensions ◽  
Interpretive Frameworks

This study analyzes CrossFit as a marketplace culture that articulates several key dimensions of reflexive modernization. Through this analysis, we illuminate a different set of theoretical relationships than have been addressed by previous accounts of physically challenging, risk-taking consumption practices. To provide analytic clarity, we first delineate the key differences between reflexive modernization and the two interpretive frameworks—the existential and neoliberal models—that have framed prior explanations of consumers’ proactive risk-taking. We then explicate the ways in which CrossFit’s marketplace culture shapes consumers’ normative understandings of risk and their corresponding identity goals. Rather than combatting modernist disenchantment (i.e., the existential model) or building human capital for entrepreneurial competitions (i.e., the neoliberal model), CrossFit enthusiasts understand risk-taking as a means to build their preparatory fitness for unknown contingencies and imminent threats. Our analysis bridges a theoretical chasm between studies analyzing consumers’ proactive risk-taking behavior and those addressing the feelings of anxiety and uncertainty induced by the threat of uncontrollable systemic risks.

Introduction

2018 ◽  
pp. 1-11
Author(s):  
Joseph R. Fitzgerald
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Civil Rights ◽  
Social Economic ◽  
Gender Dynamics ◽  
Secular Humanism ◽  
Interpretive Frameworks

The introduction discusses Gloria Richardson’s social, economic, and political philosophies, particularly her secular humanism, on which her human rights activism was based. Attention is paid to how scholars have discussed and interpreted Richardson’s activism in the Cambridge movement and her philosophies, and why it is important to expand those interpretive frameworks, specifically with regard to gender dynamics as they pertain to her role as a civil rights leader of national stature.

Narrativity, Modernity, and Tragedy

1998 ◽  
pp. 87-92
Author(s):  
Sami Pihlström
Keyword(s):  
Philosophical Anthropology ◽  
Individual Life ◽  
Making Sense ◽  
The World ◽  
Need To Evaluate ◽  
Important Challenge ◽  
Interpretive Frameworks

I argue that the modernist notion of a human self (or subject) cannot easily be post-modernistically rejected because the need to view an individual life as a unified 'narrative' with a beginning and an end (death) is a condition for asking humanly important questions about its meaningfulness (or meaninglessness). Such questions are central to philosophical anthropology. However, not only modern ways of making sense of life, such as linear narration in literature, but also premodern ones such as tragedy, ought to be taken seriously in reflecting on these questions. The tradition of pragmatism has tolerated this plurality of the frameworks in terms of which we can interpret or 'structure' the world and our lives as parts of it. It is argued that pragmatism is potentially able to accommodate both the plurality of such interpretive frameworks-premodern, modern, postmodern — and the need to evaluate those frameworks normatively. We cannot allow any premodern source of human meaningfulness whatsoever (say, astrology) to be taken seriously. Avoiding relativism is, then, a most important challenge for the pragmatist.

THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF SERIOUS GAMES: PLAY AND PRAGMATISM IN VICTORIAN-ERA DINING

2018 ◽  
Vol 84 (1) ◽  
pp. 26-47
Author(s):  
Barbara L. Voss
Keyword(s):  
Nineteenth Century ◽  
Material Culture ◽  
Serious Games ◽  
Southern China ◽  
Related Material ◽  
Victorian Era ◽  
Integrated Methodology ◽  
Full Complement ◽  
The Continuum ◽  
Interpretive Frameworks

This study expands on Ortner's practice-based theory of “serious games” by interpreting artifacts through a continuum of intention: pragmatism and play. Decisions and actions are defined as pragmatic according to their desired outcome, while play, in contrast, is an attitude or disposition toward the action itself. Both pragmatism and play are examined in this study of dining-related material culture (ceramic tablewares) from a nineteenth-century Chinatown. The research reveals that Chinatown residents varied considerably in their approach to dining, some using the full complement of British- and American-produced earthenwares associated with Victorian-era genteel dining, whereas others primarily used porcelain vessels congruent with dining conventions in southern China. Other households blended the two types of ceramics, typically using Chinese porcelain vessels for individual table settings and British- and American-produced earthenwares for serving vessels. Chinese porcelains were typically purchased in matched sets; in contrast, British and American earthenwares were acquired piece by piece, contributing aesthetic variety to Chinatown table settings. Together, these findings indicate that most Chinatown households were establishing their own “house rules” that redefined dining through new practices. The continuum of intention represented by pragmatism and play affords an integrated methodology for bridging functional/economic and cultural/symbolic interpretive frameworks in archaeology.

Religion in Childhood and Adolescence: How should it be studied? A Critical Review of Problems and Challenges in Methodology and Research

2014 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 17-35 ◽  
Author(s):  
Friedrich Schweitzer
Keyword(s):  
Empirical Research ◽  
Critical Review ◽  
Final Section ◽  
Main Topic ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Childhood And Adolescence ◽  
Methodological Problems ◽  
Interpretive Frameworks

This article discusses the question of how religion in childhood and adolescence should be studied. More exactly, the focus is on problems of methodology and research which are discussed in relationship to religion in childhood and adolescence. It does not present a handbook type of overview, however, but is focused on problems and challenges for future research. Four questions are addressed specifically: How can empirical research do justice to the special nature of religion in childhood and adolescence? What are the implications of viewing religion within non-religious interpretive frameworks? What methodological problems do we have to face concerning religion in childhood and adolescence? What interdisciplinary challenges can be identified in this context? The final section relates these questions to the main topic of the present publication by stating a number or criteria, i.e., criteria related to the concept of religion to be used in research across different approaches and disciplines.

Materialisms

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Wingrove
Keyword(s):  
The Other ◽  
Historical Materialist ◽  
Theoretical Inquiry ◽  
New Materialisms ◽  
The World ◽  
Feminist New Materialisms ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Interpretive Frameworks

This chapter explores the diverse, sometimes discordant ways in which commitments to materialism have shaped feminist theoretical inquiry. Focusing on two alternative interpretive frameworks—historical materialist feminisms (HMF) and feminist new materialisms (FNM)—the chapter considers how distinct understandings of “materiality” sustain alternative accounts of agency, power, and difference. The chapter aims to highlight how these appeals to markedly different notions of a material “real” lead to markedly different interpretive grammars: one (HMF) emphasizing systematicity and the durability of structured relations, the other (FNM) emphasizing indeterminacy, flux, and the “messiness” of the world. Among the stakes identified in these interpretive differences are how physical bodies, processes of embodiment, and nature figure in feminist analyses; how the relationship between matter and representational systems is conceptualized; and whether oppression should serve as a central or secondary locus of analytic concern.

The Work of Monuments: Reflections on Spatial, Temporal and Social Orientations in Mongolia and the Maya Lowlands

2014 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 117-140 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah E. Jackson ◽  
Joshua Wright
Keyword(s):  
Social Organization ◽  
Lived Experience ◽  
Bronze Age ◽  
Common Ground ◽  
Classic Period ◽  
Maya Lowlands ◽  
Cultural Contexts ◽  
Inner Asia ◽  
Ancient Landscapes ◽  
Interpretive Frameworks

In this article, we look at two very different contexts of monument use – Bronze Age Inner Asia and the Classic period Maya lowlands – in order to explore the function and meanings of monuments and the variety of ways in which they worked to mark and differentiate ancient landscapes. Our goal in uniting such disparate contexts is to examine how power and social organization in these settings were translated into monumental material forms, and how such materializations were experienced by those who viewed and re-interpreted the monuments. In particular, we explore how monuments acted as orientational markers within specific cultural contexts. Our discussion finds common ground between the disparate settings through several common interpretive frameworks focused on spatial, temporal and social orientational work accomplished by active, agentive monuments through their relationships with humans, which we frame as a ‘technology of the monument’. Monuments are instrumental in situating groups within these different layers, or landscapes, of lived experience, yet even while physically fixed, allow for movement through changing meanings and ideas.

scholarly journals The Indian behind the Artefact or Things behind the Process?: Humanism, Post-humanism and the Transition to the Neolithic

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 73-91
Author(s):  
Irene Garcia-Rovira
Keyword(s):  
Lived Experience ◽  
The Other ◽  
Archaeological Theory ◽  
Comprehensive Review ◽  
Neolithic Transition ◽  
Current State ◽  
Macro Scale ◽  
Material Turn ◽  
New Challenges ◽  
Interpretive Frameworks

In recent years, traditional models produced to ac- count for the transition to the Neolithic have been challenged with the creation of narratives that seek to portray the character of this change in specific socio- historical milieus. At the other end of the spectrum, approaches influenced by the material turn have read- dressed this context, defining the Neolithic as a spe- cific horizon within an ever-increasing entanglement. Whilst these interpretive frameworks have yet not been challenged, they might gradually give rise to a new polarization in the debate about the Mesolithic- Neolithic transition. These approaches differ not only in that they operate at different scales of analysis (lived experience, macro-scale). They ultimately echo the humanist/post-humanist debate currently held in theoretical archaeology. In this article, I argue that neither of these ap- proaches is successful in revealing the complex set of forces that triggered the transition to the Neolithic. Drawing from this discussion, I suggest that a more comprehensive review of this context of change re- quires the fusion of elements discussed by these mod- els. This situation hastens new challenges to archaeo- logical practice, and it raises a series of questions on the current state of archaeological theory.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document