Re: Ad Man

Danny Yee (danny@STAFF.CS.SU.OZ.AU)
Sun, 6 Nov 1994 14:36:53 +1000

Someone who thinks highly enough of anthro-l to post to it but not
enough to read it writes:
> A flame, in the spirit of the new bourgeois public sphere (the info superhiway)

> The reason I don't subscribe to ANTHRO-L anymore is because it so often
> resembles a USENET newsgroup rather than the kind of thoughtful and

All I can say is that you obviosly haven't read many USENET newsgroups!
Apart from a few moderated groups, and the occasional group that is
so technical it attracts little attention (e.g. some of the bionet
groups), I don't think there are many newsgroups that come close to
anthro-l for intelligent, constructive debate.

> professional forum that disciplinary mailing lists usually provide (anybody
> out there get LINGUIST-L, for example?). A friend passed John Mcreery's
> message (Oct. 5) on to me today, and there couldn't be a better example of
> what I resent about the latest pop expansion of the bourgeois public sphere
> (can adver-tizing on the NET be far behind? Time to find a new secret
> hangout for those ofus who resist). JM's corporate newspeak would be much
> more appropriate on a USENET newsgroup, where people speak without any
> sense of obligation to a discipline or a profession or to an intellectual
> community or, it seems to me, to a better, more humane and diverse world.

John McCreery's viewpoint is certainly *different*, but some of us find
it interesting for that very reason; I think he's one of the more
valuable contributors to anthro-l. (Since you don't think highly enough
of the list to contribute to it yourself you are hardly in a position to
throw stones, anyway.)

> "As a biz-ness person," why don't you go join a USENET newsgroup (there
> must be a "sci.anthropology" group) where ignorance of (or at least lack of
> serious personal commitment to) the subject under discussion is a virtual
> pre-requisite for participation?

sci.anthropology does exist. I don't think it would appeal to you
somehow, but there are "real" anthropologists (even by your criteria)
participating.

So only "real anthropologists" making a living as professional
anthropologists have anything worthwhile to say about anthropology?
What about the people you study? Do they get to "participate" in
any way or do you do your best to keep them from contributing to
anthropology too?

Danny Yee.