Re: Emphasis in Anthro?
Eric Brunner (email@example.com)
9 Aug 1996 04:08:36 GMT
Shannon Adams (firstname.lastname@example.org) wrote:
: I was just curious whether most people of this newsgroup have a
: *favorite* emphasis in anthropology? My emphasis (formally with my
: degree) is in cultural/social anthropology. Are most people here:
: A. Archaeologists
: B. Linguists
: C. Biological/Physical Anthropologists
: D. Social/Cultural Anthropologists (ethnographers)
: Just want to know where everyone is coming from.
Heavens Ms. Adams, very few sci.arch subscribers are even avocationals,
and I think I know almost all of them by name. How many sci.anth subs
are Americanists (as archys), hence in sci.anth rather than sci.arch, is
(based upon content) an even smaller subset than of all forms of archys,
Egyptologists to Mayanist, who suscribe to sci.arch.
Now how many are culturals? Enrollment patterns in the US (1,300 of the
1,500 or so membership of ARCH-L are US-based) Anthro departments (where
arch is subdiscipline of anth) have a cultural to arch+fizzy ratio on
the order of 9-1. Clearly, by volume metrics, judging on the density of
cites and the language used, even the 20-year-past BA crowd is a small
minority, with the "interested readers" forming the bulk.
The only real ethnos cited have been shaw-critter hunting in Amazonia who
simply show up to defend Academic shaw-critter-collecting as a pastime,
and the linguists are in sci.lang.
Pre.S. Missing from your menue of choices was E, for informant, and F for
jrandom (sociobiologist predominantly) political (scientific illiterate)
netters, and G for "gee, what an odd newsgroup general learners".