Re: 'deconstruction' of C. Geertz

Thu, 3 Aug 1995 10:38:25 EDT

On Thu, 3 Aug 1995 08:16:33 -0500, Geoffrey Habron
<ghabron@MERCURY.MCS.COM>, wrote:

> ---I certainly agree. I am disappointed with this list and will
> unsubscribe. Good luck and One Love.
> On Thu, 3 Aug 1995, Jenny Harris wrote:
> > In response to Robert Johnson concerning the above -
> > I thought most lists banned 'flame mail'...I don't
> > find this contribution interesting or stimulating and I
> > certainly did not subscribe to this list to read this
> > sort of mail - anyone feel like me?
> > Jenny Harris
> >
> >

Well folks, welcome to anthropology!!! It's a kooky little
discipline, ain't it??? ;-) Seriously, I'm a little disappointed in
the way some folks cut and run without even pausing to either address
the "issue" at hand or start a discussion of their own. As Polly
Strong said a short time ago, this needs to be more than the RJ
list!!! And for every little childish snot-toss that RJ hurls there
are two or three decent (at worst) discussions going on (witness the
recent thread on art and photography). Also, the list tends to be a
research tool as well (the emotions thread is the latest example).
It can be a contentious place to hang out in, but that's the price of
an unmoderated list, and to some degree certainly reflects the
atmosphere of the discipline that is the focus of our discussions. I subscribe
to both sorts of lists, and find the moderated ones informative and polite,
but get some real juice out of the unmods (and I make more friends there, too!!).

So, don't jump ship because there's one loudmouth. The only way to
keep lists like this going is to get involved, respond, and stay

BTW, RJ, I can list about a gazillion other anthros whose work falls
far below the mark of Geertz's for political relevance. Maybe you
should read more than the cockfight article.


John H. Stevens

(P.S. I'm offline for a month as of Saturday, so getcher goodbyes
and flaming knives in soon!!)