Posturing, Flame-Wars, and Other Anthropological Sideshows

Russell Gould (rgould@SUN.CIS.SMU.EDU)
Fri, 8 Apr 1994 08:23:31 -0500

The reason that I read is to understand something which I
currently do not. If the language gets in the way, understanding becomes
difficult, if not impossible. If we can't read someone and come away with
the same basic notions as to what sort of ideas are being presented, is
this an argument, good scholarship, an idea with wide-reaching
implications, or just poor writing?

On this point, much posturing goes on. Derrida is a nitwit; Derrida is
the source of all anthropological knowledge, etc. How many ad hominem
attacks does it take to produce truth?

Why don't Anthro-Lers just present the ideas, rather than just choose up
sides? After all, we're supposed to be scholars; we can make up our own

Russell Gould