|
|
I'm a bit troubled too (but not about AA)John Stevens (8859jstev@UMBSKY.CC.UMB.EDU)Sat, 8 Oct 1994 11:43:18 EDT
Mike Lieber gets my nomination for "voice o' reason" about the Tedlocks and the new AA. "I see no need to provoke a battle until (1)it is clear that there really is a concerted effort to do the things the Tedlocks are being accused of and (2) before engaging in a reasoned discussion with the Tedlocks about the issues that a re apparently being raised and dealt with. These folks just took on this nasty, time-consuming job. Don't they deserve the common decency of being informed of people' concerns before being backed into a corner? Does it have to be a war before one knows whether one is facing an enemy?" Thank you, Mike. And I might add that it is only the *first* issue, and as I said in an earlier communique, it is also not surprising to see new editors (esp. ones as flamboyant as the Tedlocks) put their mark on a journal right off. Give'em time, and certainly give'em your opinions, but don't give'em hell. . . yet. I thought that it was a pretty good issue overall; a bit too much "reflexivity" even for my tastes, but still, a lot of good work was there. The challenge will be to see if the Tedlocks can attract and present good stuff from all the subfields and subinterests and subgenres. Probably not, however; anthropology is too big. But if they make the attempt, and sometimes pull it off, I'd be satisfied. That's all you can ask of a journal that purports to cover possibly the most diverse and holistic academic discipline! And as Paul Blonsky said, "just looking at the structure of the AAA" gives you another clue as to why this happened. The Tedlocks are not only\ culturals themselves, but obviously believe that field to be the central one (although Dennis does take his stabs at linguistics). It seems to me that I read a debate about culture as the heart of anthropology recently, and it makes sense; despite the increasing dissatisifaction and reformulations of the idea of culture, it seems to me that it is an important part of the study of MAN, which is what anthropology is all about. But it's easy to lose sight of the many different ways to study MAN, and as Paul also said, if you think there are too many cultural subgroups out there, start an arch or bio or linguistic group. I'd love to see a newsletters devoted to Critical Arch or Biocultural or whatever. But this of course leads to the question of specialization so nicely brought forth by Trish Clay. I think what we're talking about here is not necessarily topic specialization, but proficiency specialization. What I mean is, there are a lot of American Studies and Hispanic Studies and Lesbian Studies people who don't have a disciplinary approach, and that's a problem. As far as anthro- pology goes, you need to know where you're coming from as far as your method and theory are concerned. I think the concern is not what you study, but how you study it. Too many people think that by studying something they will learn a somehow, but that only works if you already have an idea of where you're coming from, both in a cultural/positional way and in a methodological way. I study history, literature, the rhetoric of human rights, epistomology, and North American cultures and society, but I call myself a (budding) anthropologist. That centers me in the knowledge whorl; it gives me an orientation, so that whether I take a cultural-historical, postmodern, anti- positivist, or whatever stance, I still know that in the end I default to the assumptions, or describe behavior under that aegis, and that's fine and dandy with me; that's why I'm an anthropologist; I know what I want to get out of the world. Comments? Best regards, \ John H. Stevens, Jr. University of Massachusetts at Boston 8859JSTEV@UMBSKY.cc.umb.edu *************************************************************************
|