Re: CFP: Postmod ling anth
John Cook (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Thu, 26 Jan 1995 05:50:33 GMT
In article <3g4grvINN336@hpsdlmf7.sdd.hp.com>, email@example.com (Gerold
> In article <3feko1$ahv@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM> claird@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM
(Cameron Laird) writes:
> >The proposal below, which I reproduce with the permission of its authors,
> >bears on a number of issues that have been raised in these newsgroups.
> It does indeed, and it is a most interesting document. I have some
> questions. I have never read any postmodern anthropology, so I am inferring
> wildly from my limited experience, but what I see here is a tendentious,
> pretentious, contradictory confabulation of self-absorbed ideology
> masquerading as some kind of science. Perhaps some kind soul could explain
> what is going on here?
> >"Postmodern" anthropology has been criticized however by
> >feminist and materialist scholars for over-emphasizing issues
> >of representation and aesthetics to the exclusion of embodied and
> >material aspects of anthropological practice.
> Note the use of the term "material". It almost seems like the postmodern
> anthropologist might have some inkling that material issues have some
> significance to human culture; trifling matters such as getting enough to
> eat, getting shelter from the elements, marriage customs, conflict
> management and war; but no. Get this:
Blah, Blah, Blah.
Your willfully, and self-admittedly, ignorant response to C. Lairds
posting is almost surreal. Laird's posting was interesting and perfectly
lucid to anyone who had even the vaguest grasp of the issues involved.
Many of your shitspears directed at Laird's "postmodernism" had already
been made in the text of Lairds posting itself, although in a more agile
I feel you need to question the breadth of you interests and intentions.
PS See Todd McCrumb's posting for a reasoned response.