CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 5Political theory and GramsciAnthropological Studies and InsightsMarxism and Critical Theory

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 31 of the 31 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Too much common sense, not enough critical thinking!

Patterson, Thomas C.·2016·Dialectical Anthropology
DOI 10.1007/s10624-016-9434-5
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This paper explores two different views about common sense—those of Clifford Geertz and Antonio Gramsci. It examines their presuppositions, assesses their utility for archaeologists, and considers the implications of current common-sense explanations of the past. It points out that common sense is both historical. Yesterday’s common sense sometimes morphs into today’s good sense or scientific truth. Today’s common sense or scientific truth often becomes tomorrow’s false consciousness or folklore. Common sense is also relational. Groups with different positionalities in hierarchically organized societies may have widely divergent views about what is common sense. Finally, it raises the question of why particular “common sense” explanations of the present—buttressed with claims that they are rooted historically in a fixed, unchanging human nature and morality—are repeatedly resurrected by fundamentalists and conservatives in both hemispheres to justify political arguments and to reassert or impose or particular power relations.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10624-016-9434-5

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 30 references

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Haraway, Donna. 1978/1991b. The past is the contested zone: Human nature and theories of reproduction in primate studies. In Simians, cyborgs, and women: The reinvention of nature, 21–42. New York: Routledge.
  2. Haraway, Donna. 1989. Remodeling the human way of life: Sherwood Washburn and the new physical anthropology, 1950–1980. In Primate visions: Gender, race, and nature in the world of modern sciences, 186–230. New York: Routledge.
  3. Locke, John. 1690/1960. Of paternal power. In Two treatises on government, ed. Peter Laslett. Chap 15. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 5

Related

Metadata

Authors
Patterson, T. C.
Affiliations
University of California, Riverside (US)
Corresponding author
Patterson, Thomas C.
Venue
Dialectical Anthropology
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2016-07-18
Volume
40
Issue
3
Pages
251-258
ISSN
  • 0304-4092 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-0786
DOI
10.1007/s10624-016-9434-5
OpenAlex
W2494405712
Cited by
4
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2022: 2
FWCI
0.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (unspecified)
Locations
Dialectical Anthropology (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Political theory and Gramsci
  • Social Sciences › Anthropology › Anthropological Studies and Insights
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Marxism and Critical Theory
Keywords
common sense, critical thinking, Clifford Geertz, Antonio Gramsci, historical change, false consciousness, folklore, social positionality, human nature, conservatism, fundamentalism, power relations

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review