|
|
Doing the TaussigJohn Stevens (8859jstev@UMBSKY.CC.UMB.EDU)Fri, 7 Oct 1994 13:20:28 EDT
"mimesis" and "alterity" as well as other folks' assorted comments, and I've also been thinking about how shabby Taussig's anthropology is in some respects. When John M. mentioned his dismissal of Sherzer's work (who is an excellent anthropologist), it got me to thinking about several things. One is Roger Keesing's take on alterity, which he thinks we anthros tend to make too much of; he sees it as more of a device people use to fulfill their needs. I think this ignores the depth of some people's attachment to their culture, and the genuine differences that often exist between groups, but I think he has a point, and I think that Taussig is trying to tell us that we make alterity even as we encounter it, by the process of mimesis, but not by making an exact copy; rather, by retelling the story. And i think that alterity is indeed better then "otherness," less loaded in some ways. Otherness is more objectifying, wheras I think alterity describes a process and a condition. But as to Taussig's anthropology. . . I see him more an an anthropological philsopher than as "an anthropologist" which is why I excuse him for some of his questionable methods and applaud some of his experiments. But I also wouldn't quote data from him; I appreciate the spirit and inspiration in his work more than its evidence. Which is why I want to read more of it. But he does tend to break bad on good anthropology as well as shabby anthropology, and that's unfortunate; not because we should all continue on the mission to "understand the other," but because there are a lot of good lessons to be learned about the world and ourselves through anthropology. Note that I say "anthropology" rather than some speciality. I'll get to that later; gotta run to class. Best, John Stevens ******************************************************************************
|