|
|
Re: Harris
John W. Arnn (jarnn@lonestar.jpl.utsa.edu)
Thu, 11 May 1995 21:19:56 -0500
On Wed, 10 May 1995, llacta-shungu wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 9 May 1995, John W. Arnn wrote:
> > On 8 May 1995, Bruce D. Scott wrote:
> >
> > > [Posting only to sci.anthropology -- this has nothing to do with cosmology]
> > >
> > > Gil Hardwick (gil@landmark.iinet.net.au) wrote:
> > >
> > > : In article <3od1e8$12om@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de>, Bruce D. Scott (bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de) writes:
> > >
> > > : >Ob this thread: I would be quite interested, actually, to see some serious
> > > : >anthropologists give comment. So far it has just been the jealous ranting
> > > : >club of what Marvin Harris calls the "obscurantists" (although I do confess
> > > : >I got into it initially to bask in the afterglow of Gil's enlighted
> > > : >offerings).
> > >
> > > : Marvin Harris? Do you actually mean the paperback writer after the
> > > : fashion of Von Daniken and Wilson? Please any "serious anthropologist"
> > > : do give comment. Welcome indeed.
> > >
> > > Please give the series of arguments by which you denigrate Wilson and
> > > Harris in this fashion. I hope you don't make the mistake of claiming
> > > Harris defends the status quo. He most certainly does not, as several
> > > passages in _Cultural Materialism_ and _America Now_ make clear. As a
> > > non-anthropologist, _I_ know Harris mainly through his books, but are you
> > > as an anthropologist actually claiming he hasn't written several texts and
> > > a large number of articles in peer-reviewed journals?
> > >
> > > What is your critique of the emics/etics distinction raised by Harris?
> > >
> > > Do you think environmental constraints are important in limiting the
> > > freedom of action of a culture deciding, consciously or otherwise, what its
> > > power structure is going to be?
> > >
> > > This is enough for a start.
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Gruss,
> > > Dr Bruce Scott The deadliest bullshit is
> > > Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik odorless and transparent
> > > bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de -- W Gibson
> > >
> > >Dear Doctor,
> >
> > I'd like to address your question concerning the limiting factors
> > of environmental constraints on a society's power structure. Since you
> > seem to be familiar with Harris's writing, I believe you're also aware of
> > his affinity with Marx (Karl). Now, before all the Marxists get bent
> > out of shape, let me say that Marxist anthropology and Marxist
> > archaeology have both made valuable contributions to the field. The
> > fundamental problem with applying Marxist theory to anthropology is
> > that everything centers on economy first and conflict second. While
> > these are certainly key elements in the composition of society they
> > are not the only ones and perhaps not even the most significant ones.
> > However, let me clarify some rather legitimate complaints within the
> > anthrpological community concerning Harris.
> > First and perhaps foremost is the complaint that he has reduced
> > everything to K calories. Essentially, if you follow the line of
> > reasoning that the environment is the primary factor in determining
> > culture, you are left with nothing except extracting resources from the
> > environment and to people in general this translates to food (calories).
> > No environment, no culture. Another way of looking at it is by looking at
> > different cultures with the same basic environments (i.e. desert, jungle,
> > savannah, etc.). They should all have basically the same culture if
> > environmental factors are dominant. They do not all have the same culture.
> > The problem with Harris's approach was that some in the
> > anthropological community followed the line of reasoning that I outlined
> > above. The conclusion they arrived at was that all this studying of
> > culture was ridiculous. All we really had to do was study the environment
> > peoples lived in. "To hell with culture, we can make anthropology a "hard
> > science"." Most anthropologist would agree that no decent anthropologist
> > should ignore the environment of a people. Most anthropologist would
> > also agree that no decent anthropologist should ignore culture.
> > Some of Harris's students reduced anthropology to nothing more than
> > human behavioralism. You are a scientist yourself, I think you can
> > easily imagine what sort of innane work came out of all of this.
> > Again not all of it was bad, most was good. In fact, as you might also
> > imagine, there was a great deal of empirical data that was added to the
> > data base. The problem was that it set a very big precedent.
> > Hundreds if not thousands abandoned the study of people and became
> > environmentalologists. If you couldn't quantify it-then it was
> > worthless. Some things are simply not "measurable" in the
> > scientific sense and people are often one of those things. One of the
> > founders of American anthropology, Franz Boas, was a physicist.
> > He recognized that people must be studied from a holistic
> > perspective to be fully understood. One could make the same
> > argument in virtually any "science."
> > At anyrate, this is just one side of the "Harris controversy"
> > and there are many more. He has also been criticized for his
> > rabid attacks on other anthropologists. Young students looked on with
> > glee as the "old masters" were "dragged through the mud." This behavior
> > has been viewed by some as unprofessional and others as just plain mean
> > spirited. He has also been accused of using this tactic to draw
> > more attention to himself and thereby further his career (possibly a
> > Marxist interpretation).
> > Again, I am merely pointing out just some of the criticisms that
> > have been made of Harris and his actions. Since you labeled
> > yourself as a non-anthropologist and I judged that you were a
> > scientist from your e-mail address, I thought you might be
> > interested in an anthropological counterpoint. I realize of
> > course that if you ignore this message it might be due to a
> > lack of relevant environmental information on my part. On the
> > other hand if you reply this might signal your interest in
> > conflict. Well, there we are! Environment and conflict is really
> > all there is to it. Circular reasoning was another criticism, I
> > think.
> >
> > Regards and en guarde!
> > John W. Arnn
> >
> >
> John I think that you have made a good case, however, I think that you do
> not make justice to Harris work sying that his explanation of
> environmenta constartins imposes on culture are measure in Kcalories.
> You obviously reduce the whole content to many of his writings to
> indicate that because Harris has been associated with Marxism his
> explanations are reduced to economic determinism and the idea of
> conflict. Well if you state the whole marxist theory in those terms, of
> course you have a case. I think that your oversimplification of the
> Marxists theory and your obvious anti-marxist sentiment- i suppose that
> you have read extensively marxism as to be opossed to it-has made you
> make the same cirticism to Harris as you accuse him of doing to the old
> anthropologists. I am not myself complete in agreement with many of the
> Harris ideas, but I think that in general terms he has offered an
> approach to explain key issues in athropology. That is why after more
> than 30 years his books are still the most readedeven in very
> conservative circles of the American academia. I only hope that the anti
> Harris can produce a new approach that can take anthropology out o fthe
> caos in which is inmersed.
> Best regards John
> Florencio
>
>
Flo,
What a challenge lies before us. So many opportunities to excel,
so little time. Who knows perhaps out of chaos will come order. Ojala!
But I doubt it. It ought to be a good show though. I'm glad your in the
audience and look forward to seeing you on the stage.
Best Regards,
John
|