<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Informative but unexciting survey
Review: I got this book at a time when I was thinking about going to graduate school in anthropology. I hadn't majored in that discipline so I thought I should bone up on the history and theory of the field. Garbarino's book serves as a pretty good introduction, covering the birth of anthropological studies and the subsequent trends, innovations and changes that have taken place. It makes for somewhat dry reading, but fortunately it seldom gets too technical, and there's a handy glossary of terms in the back which I frequently consulted. So the book seems intended for lay readers like me, or new students of the field.The major shortcoming of "Sociocultural Theory" is its somewhat dated aspect. It was originally published in the late 1970s and therefore misses out on some of the most exciting anthropological developments that occurred more recently. In general Garbarino glosses over everything after structuralism and the 1960s. There is some brief treatment of postmodern social theorists like Michel Foucault but not enough to get a clear picture of what they are on about. Nonetheless I benefited from this survey and would recommend it to those readers outside the discipline hoping to get an idea about its formation and past. Where it stands presently is another story, one this book doesn't tell.
Rating:
Summary: Informative but unexciting survey
Review: I got this book at a time when I was thinking about going to graduate school in anthropology. I hadn't majored in that discipline so I thought I should bone up on the history and theory of the field. Garbarino's book serves as a pretty good introduction, covering the birth of anthropological studies and the subsequent trends, innovations and changes that have taken place. It makes for somewhat dry reading, but fortunately it seldom gets too technical, and there's a handy glossary of terms in the back which I frequently consulted. So the book seems intended for lay readers like me, or new students of the field. The major shortcoming of "Sociocultural Theory" is its somewhat dated aspect. It was originally published in the late 1970s and therefore misses out on some of the most exciting anthropological developments that occurred more recently. In general Garbarino glosses over everything after structuralism and the 1960s. There is some brief treatment of postmodern social theorists like Michel Foucault but not enough to get a clear picture of what they are on about. Nonetheless I benefited from this survey and would recommend it to those readers outside the discipline hoping to get an idea about its formation and past. Where it stands presently is another story, one this book doesn't tell.
<< 1 >>
| 
