Luhrmann T M
Department of Anthropology, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla 90293-0532, USA.
Psychoanal Q. 1998 Jul;67(3):449-73.
The paper identifies and tries to explain a style of argument that can be found in recent psychoanalytic writing and anthropological writing. In particular, it seeks to explain why similar styles of argument (which emphasize narration, interpretation, uncertainty, and the professional's incomplete knowledge of the patient or field subject) are presented in these different fields with such different effect. The paper suggests that these differences might arise from the different moral goals of the disciplines and, specifically, from the differences between a clinical and a non-clinical enterprise.
本文识别并试图解释一种可在近期精神分析著作和人类学著作中找到的论证风格。具体而言，它力图阐释为何类似的论证风格（强调叙事、阐释、不确定性以及专业人员对患者或研究对象的不完全了解）在这些不同领域呈现时会产生如此不同的效果。本文认为，这些差异可能源于各学科不同的道德目标，具体而言，源于临床工作与非临床工作之间的差异。
