|
|
Re: Chomsky
Ruby Rohrlich (rohrlich@GWIS2.CIRC.GWU.EDU)
Sat, 2 Dec 1995 13:45:56 -0500
It seems to me, John, that one of the most important things to talk about
on this net, Anthro-L, that acknowledges linguistics as one of the four
fields, is the difficulty even anthropologists experience in discussing
changes in language that derive from socioeconomic and political
changes. Yes, the erector set analogy is good, and I suppose the people
who cannot bear to acknowledge and accept linguistic change are the same
ones who can't acknowledge and accept socioeconomic and political
change. The black movement -- let me pause here a moment, and point out
that Farakhan in his speechto the assembled black men, used the word
black almost exclusively, rather than African-American. Does that mean
that African-Americans are willing to be called "black" also. In general
however, what I wanted to say was that the changes deriving from the
black political movement as well as from ordinary black speech are much
more readily accepted than those deriving from the women's movement, I think.
Also, I ask you now directly, John: why were you unwilling to include in
your discussion of science, the role of gender in the culture of
science? This is very important, and affects hypotheses and
choice of problems to investigate. I'm sure we can discuss this amicably.
Regards. Ruby.
|