Andere Kunden interessierten sich auch für
![She Would Not Be Moved]( "She Would Not Be Moved")
She Would Not Be Moved19,99 €![You Get What You Pay for]( "You Get What You Pay for")
You Get What You Pay for23,99 €![Are You Entertained?]( "Are You Entertained?")
Are You Entertained?116,99 €![We Are Dancing for You]( "We Are Dancing for You")
We Are Dancing for You116,99 €![You Don't Know Jack]( "You Don't Know Jack")
You Don't Know Jack120,99 €![To Address You as My Friend]( "To Address You as My Friend")
To Address You as My Friend32,99 €![Structuralism and Functionalism. The Difference between Lévi-Strauss, Malinowski and Evans-Pritchard in Reference to Kinship]( "Structuralism and Functionalism. The Difference between Lévi-Strauss, Malinowski and Evans-Pritchard in Reference to Kinship")
Structuralism and Functionalism. The Difference between Lévi-Strauss, Malinowski and Evans-Pritchard in Reference to Kinship15,95 €
Essay from the year 2013 in the subject Ethnology / Cultural Anthropology, grade: 69, University of Cambridge, language: English, abstract: Kuper's (1944) original account of the ritual of Incwala in the Swazi territoriy in Southern Africa has spurred an immense literature over the past seventy years. From sociological-functionalist accounts focusing on the Incwala as a ritual of 'internal rebellion' (Gluckman, 1953,1960) over a symbolist focus on the metaphorical power of the King's separation (Beidelman, 1966) to the historical embedding of different forms of the Incwala (Kuper, 1972; Lincoln 1987), no singular interpretation seems adequate on its own. Adding a further layer using a more 'practice oriented' and individual analysis of rituals (La Fontaine, 1985; Bloch, 1991), I try to accomplish an even more complicated and multi-faceted interpretation claiming that no single line of thought can represent the complexity of this ritual in its various historical forms.