Divinity Atlas

Sacred Correspondences
Sources

Ring of Liberation: Deceptive Discourse in Brazilian Capoeira

Citation Formats

General Reference

APA Style

BibTeX

J. Lowell Lewis's Ring of Liberation, Deceptive Discourse in Brazilian Capoeira, published by the University of Chicago Press in 1992, is an anthropological study of capoeira built on Lewis's own fieldwork training within the Brazilian martial art and game, examining how its combination of music, dance, ritual and combat produces a deliberately ambiguous, deceptive style of communication between players. Its strength is participant fieldwork of the demanding kind capoeira requires, Lewis trained inside the practice rather than only observing it, giving the analysis of its bodily and performative logic a grounding an outside observer's account would lack. Its limit is that it is one anthropologist's theoretical reading of capoeira through a specific period and set of teachers in the early 1990s, and capoeira's own practice, history and regional schools have continued to develop and be debated since, so a claim about capoeira's present day diversity or its African versus Brazilian origins needs sources engaging that ongoing scholarly discussion directly.

Facts
Assessment
Reliability Tier
1
J. Lowell Lewis's Ring of Liberation, Deceptive Discourse in Brazilian Capoeira, published by the University of Chicago Press in 1992, is a peer reviewed anthropological monograph grounded in fieldwork, treated at the top tier.
Notes
Scholarly ethnographic study of discourse and deception in Brazilian capoeira.
Citation
Author
J. Lowell Lewis
Publisher
University of Chicago Press
Publication Year
1992
Source Type
academic monograph
Cross-Tradition Connections

Associated With

Chicago, Cities

This source names Chicago directly: "published by the University of Chicago Press in 1992, is an anthropological study of capoeira built on Lewis's own fieldwork training within the Brazilian martial art and game, examining how its..."

Claims Backed By This Source (22 claims)

This source backs 22 claims across the atlas. As facts: 15 well-attested, 3 scholarly debate. As cited relationships: 2 holds, 1 connected. Plus 1 entities citing it as a general reference with no single fact or relationship attached.

Disposition By Topic

  • Practices, 12 claims: 6 well-attested, 3 scholarly debate, 1 holds, 1 connected, 1 general references.
  • Sources, 8 claims: 7 well-attested, 1 holds.
  • Articles, 2 claims: 2 well-attested.
Comments (0)
No comments yet. Be the first to share a thought.
Reader Challenges (0 open reader challenges)
No disputes yet. Spotted an error or a better source? Open the first one.

View At A Past Year

The atlas records no dated fact of its own for this entry, so there is no other year to choose.