|
|
"Folk anthropology" (was: Anthropology ?) [LONG]Cameron Laird (claird@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM)24 Jan 1995 10:51:58 -0600
Calvin Bruce Ostrum <cbo@cs.toronto.edu> challenged: >Presumbly the "number" you are talking about is not merely non-zero, >but perceived by you as rather large. Could you give some examples >chosen from the contributions of this number which lead to the suspicion >voiced in your final question, or is the suspicion just based on a general >view you have of "computer scientists", with no particular evidence >in this case? in response to article <Jonathan.marshall-2201951830140001@mac_7_net_78-133.atalk.arts.su.oz.au>, nominally written by jonM <Jonathan.marshall@anthropology.su.edu.au>. My advice to Mr. Cook, who actually authored it, is not to bother replying. Or do, if it interests you, Mr. Cook, enough, but I sure don't think folks should feel under any obligation to add to the evidence that the main business of Usenet is talking about Usenet. For myself, I find your questions more engaging. You asked >| Why is it that this group appears to be continually concerned with >| questions pertaining to sociobiology and genetic notions of race? There is Because A. it's partly true. B. you're an unsophisticated reader of Usenet newsgroups, and misjudge what's *really* going on. I grant that I am only speculating about your experience, but I know that others have missed in the early parts of their newsreading careers these subtleties: 1. The topics a newsgroup chooses to discuss (to anthropomorphize the process) are quite dynamic. sci.econ has in the past been obsessive about the finance of health care in the USA. With little apparent correlation to external events or non-events, it has recently gone weeks with- out a single appearance of the characters "medic". At times within memory, the hot action in sci.anthropology had to do with whether early Europeans were matriarchal, or the value of Foucault to working archaeologists. My bet is that those are also not topics high on your list or mine of active professional production, but they illustrate that sci.anthropology is not static. 2. There is, in fact, a lot of other action, that you probably don't notice. While that loud pair in the corner are coming to blows over whether dark-skinned women feel less pain dur- ing delivery, there are quieter discussants all around the room, passing notes and chat- ting briefly about more technically engaging matters. Many newsgroup readers regard news- groups as a way to meet minds with whom they prefer to converse through email, *not* the public forum of newsgroup postings. 3. Many readers ignore a great deal of what goes on in sci.anthropology, but still find the residuum valuable. Some benefit from automa- tion in this process of ignoring, using "kill files" or other means to filter noise out and signal in. As a student, you likely feel an obligation in your classes to give attention to all the work during the course of a semester. Do NOT read a Usenet newsgroup that way; look for points or threads that interest you, and don't let the rest slow you down. 4. As always with the Internet, be slow to gener- alize from your experience. You read newsgroups in a particular technical and social milieu, and I guarantee that other readers of the same newsgroups see them differently. One notorious problem (still true? Anyone? I don't much keep up with the weather reports) is that Australian readers don't receive some/many/most of the postings submitted to some newsgroups by European authors. >| nothing that this group discusses that I would seriously connect with >| anthropology as a professional discipline as it is today. I understand your frustration. A number of professional have "tuned in" briefly to sci.anthropology, only to leave in disgust and/or confusion. I think you're wrong, though. Of the two hundred messages easily accessible on my home system, I see quite a few that "*seriously* connect with anthropology ..."
I suggest you also consider the serious professional point that --
|