Science and Technology news... :: View topic

Melisande from CA · Guest

[quote]columbia was the first anthropology program in the US. boas is credited with
being the 'father of US anthropology' because of this and for the
infrastructure
he created, not for methods (which came from the british) or the innovations
(which also came from the british and a few "blacklisted" anthropologists
like
wissler, morgan, and a host of others he blackballed because they didnt agree
with him). if you truly agree with boas then i suppose we should bring back
the
concept of psychic unity and culture personality studies.

Ah, progress! I>m understanding you better, Joseph.[/quote]

I>m having a hard time thinking of any anthropologist whose theoretical
perspective "I agree with." There are folks I like better than others, I
guess. That was my point. Anthropology hasn>t generated very many theoretical
perspectives that have gotten universal (or even marginal) approval outside the
discipline.

Who do you agree with, by the way?

In the meantime, I>m quite certain that description of culture is itself a good
thing. I find that most people are not particularly good at noticing stuff and
then writing it up.

In fact, help me out here. Which anthropologists who have studied American
cultures/subcultures have written works that stand out in your memory? (I>m
not going to count deTocqueville as an anthropologist). I like some
contemporary work on Native Americans, but I>m thinking of other folks, like
Southern Californians. Any anthropologists spring to mind?

And again, I>m very curious which anthropologists any of you regard as
theoretically sound...

Anyone?

MR

Melisande from CA · Guest

[quote]I don>t want to get into the middle of this argument, but to get back
to Representative Trantis' question about the relationship between
psychology and anthropology, could you tell me your views (both Tedd
and Melisande) about what each field has to contribute to the other,
and how well they>ve been integrated over recent years?
[/quote]
Ah, it wasn>t really a full-fledged argument.

Some parts of psych and anthro have integrated very well, some people have had
training in both fields. On the other hand, to be considered a "true"
anthropologist by one of the major Ph.D. granting programs, you have to do some
sort of fieldwork, usually participant observation. Similarly, psych programs
still emphasize experimental methods of various kinds.

I see the two fields as using very different methods to study similar things.
It used to be that unit of analysis (mind vs. community for example) accounted
for a lot of the differences between the two disciplines, but these days,
psych, soc and anthro all accept varying units as proper.

Psychologists still tend to do work within their own cultures (whether they
state so or not), or apply psychometric and experimental methods to subcultures
they think are already well-defined (such as Hispanics in Southern California).

Anthropologists still tend to go stand someplace (like a street corner or
inside a crack house) and observe, hoping to get invited inside.

Both methods are extremely valuable and more people should familiarize
themselves with both.

As for me, it depends on the kind of question I>m interested in (and why) which
discipline I>ll turn to first. Highly controlled psych experiments have
grabbed my interest lately (for idiosyncratic reasons) whereas a lot of
contemporary anthropology has left me cold.

I do, however, really like some anthropologists. On the other hand, history
will do me just fine in many instances...

[quote]
I myself have been interested in the area of the study of subjectivity
in general, and how people>s subjective beliefs affect their behavior
and the social and cultural institutions, norms, etc. that arise and
evolve.
[/quote]
Here, linguistics and philosophy have a lot to say, as well.

[quote]
DV

Regards,[/quote]

MR
[quote]

[/quote]

Melisande from CA · Guest

[quote]Subject: Re: What Else Does Anthropology Cover
Path:
lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!newsfeed1!bredband!snoopy
..risq.qc.ca!msc1.onvoy!ply1.onvoy!onvoy.com!feed.news.qwest.net!news.uswes[/quote]
t.net.POSTED!not-for-mail
[quote]From: "Tedd" Jacobs@mail.boisestate.edu
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology
References: <ZBJ8b.862$Ab1.32177@news.uswest.net
20030914135758.08275.00000843@mb-m14.aol.com
Lines: 25
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165
Message-ID: <yda9b.62$QG5.58141@news.uswest.net
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2003 21:23:12 -0600
NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.1.23.130
X-Trace: news.uswest.net 1063595998 67.1.23.130 (Sun, 14 Sep 2003 22:19:58
CDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2003 22:19:58 CDT

"Melisande from CA" <melisande55@aol.comnokooks> wrote in message
news:20030914135758.08275.00000843@mb-m14.aol.com...

Who, in contemporary cultural anthropology, would you consider to be a
"great"
anthropologist and why?

MR

L. Binford, K. Hawks, K. Hill, K. Flannery, J. Zieker, M. Plew,...

because they are actually doing something about understanding behavior and
behavioral issues besides just building massive trait lists that look for
nothing and tell nothing.
[/quote]
Ah. I thought we were discussing cultural anthropology. But here, I agree.
The biologic paradigms often provide far more explanatory power than do the
cultural ones. Hmmm. On the other hand, Kim Hill>s work (for example) is
quite good in areas where one would EXPECT a biologic paradigm to exist and/or
at least play a role (hunter-gatherer life histories will follow different
patterns than those of farmers, etc. or the sustainability of farming in
tropical forests). Fill me in: do any of these people explanations for why
some folks prefer non-rational explanations (like religion) to rational ones?

I know Binford as an archaeologist, and when he steps outside that narrow realm
of data - into culture - I>m not familiar with any work that says "great" to
me. Examples?

boas believed all you had to do was list out
[quote]everything and the answer would just magically appear.
[/quote]
Who taught you that? Boas believed no such thing. Well, I never spoke to him.
But several of my professors were students of his, and they did NOT
characterize poor old Franz>s viewpoint in any such way.

To make it simple, Franz admitted early on that anthropology lacked theoretical
paradigms (in his day, it was functionalism, structural functionalism, maybe
structuralism) sufficient to encompass what he was finding in the field. His
motto: go forth and describe before it all disappears, anyway. Franz did NOT
believe magic answers would appear.

[quote]
boas himself eventually admitted that the program was theoretically bankrupt.
[/quote]
Another misstatement. Boas never used any such words. He simply said that
sheer collection of data will NEVER result in a theoretic paradigm. The way I
heard it rephrased, by Renato Rosaldo (Stanford) was this:

it could be that ultimately, human behavior makes no sense. It is a
possibility.

[quote]but then again... coming from someone who got his degree by looking at the
color
of seawater in the arctic...

the next twenty years after his death was filled with die hard former
students
who futily attempted to create a theoretical framework for a system that
didnt
work to begin with.

Well, that>s oh-so-human (to try and maintain a paradigm in honor of a dead[/quote]
ancestor).

[quote]

Regards,[/quote]

MR

Tedd · Guest

"Melisande from CA" <melisande55@aol.comnokooks> wrote in message
news:20030915204349.06073.00000887@mb-m07.aol.com...

<snip>

[quote]I know Binford as an archaeologist, and when he steps outside that narrow
realm
of data - into culture - I>m not familiar with any work that says "great" to
me. Examples?
[/quote]
"Willow Smoke and Dogs Tails"

Binford is first an anthropologist, second an archaeologists. i would choose to
believe both cultural and archaeology are ultimatly anthropology.

as for the rest of your opening paragraph... if you truely wish to bait the
question of religion, reread harris' accounting of the sacred hindu cow.
everything has a function. (and yes, hill & hawks address the question of
ideologies, shamanism, and taboo>s).

[quote]boas believed all you had to do was list out
everything and the answer would just magically appear.

Who taught you that? Boas believed no such thing. Well, I never spoke to
him.
But several of my professors were students of his, and they did NOT
characterize poor old Franz>s viewpoint in any such way.

To make it simple, Franz admitted early on that anthropology lacked
theoretical
paradigms (in his day, it was functionalism, structural functionalism, maybe
structuralism) sufficient to encompass what he was finding in the field. His
motto: go forth and describe before it all disappears, anyway. Franz did NOT
believe magic answers would appear.
[/quote]
boas' approach in anthropology lacked in theoretical foundations (not
anthropology itself). functionalism and british structual-functionalism were
european ideas. franz DID believe that all you had to do was have enough of the
pieces (hence the extensive trait lists) and the answer would reviel itself
(regardless of not ever even asking or let alone forming a question).

[quote]

boas himself eventually admitted that the program was theoretically bankrupt.
[/quote]
(those were my words and i didnt intend to mislead the statement though that is
how it turned out. i>ll correct below)

[quote]Another misstatement. Boas never used any such words. He simply said that
sheer collection of data will NEVER result in a theoretic paradigm. The way I
heard it rephrased, by Renato Rosaldo (Stanford) was this:

it could be that ultimately, human behavior makes no sense. It is a
possibility.
[/quote]
and a cop out, when the brits were kicking our butts with models and theoretical
frameworks that were providing explinations and asking questions. the system was
bankrupt (in my words) and boas admited his approach wouldnt work.

[quote]Well, that>s oh-so-human (to try and maintain a paradigm in honor of a dead
ancestor).
[/quote]
touché, and in retrospect could apply to several of your professors who were
former students of his.

Tom Recht · Guest

melisande55@aol.comnokooks (Melisande from CA) wrote in message news:<20030913123058.08275.00000773@mb-m14.aol.com>...
[quote]For
example, while it might seem obvious and common sensical to a Westerner to say
that women are often associated with domestic labor, anthropologists in the
20th century felt it was necessary to actually study as many cultures as
possible to establish the validity of this statement. After years of debate
over how to define (in etic and emic senses) what was domestic labor, it is
generally agreed that there are gender differences in contributions both to
public life and domestic life.
[/quote]
Interesting stuff... Could you explain (or point me to an explanation
of) the terms "etic" and "emic"?

Tom Recht

Melisande from CA · Guest

[quote]Could you explain (or point me to an explanation
of) the terms "etic" and "emic"?

[/quote]
Etic - is an outsider>s view of a culture.
Emic - is an insider>s view.

These sound like simple terms, but when applied to something like the "culture
of households" they become problems. Some anthropologists even argue that each
gender has its own culture - so the only one who has an "insider" view of
womanhood, is a female (etc.)

Figuring out one>s own relationship to a particular culture (am an outsider?
an insider? medium-sider?) is harder than ever. Once upon a time, it seemed
clear in anthropology when one was dealing with 'another culture.' That>s one
reason why groups like the Yanomami/o remain so popular: everyone pretty much
agrees that your average doctoral candidate from the U.S. isn>t a Yanomami
(with perhaps a couple of exceptions - there have been ethnographers who "gone
native.")

But I>d be interested in your views on whether you think men and women share
common cultural values about domestic work, or whether there are two cultures
involved.

I should have mentioned that the data anthropologists use in this arena come
from sociologists and economists as well, so it>s an interesting
interdisciplinary effort.

Melisande

Melisande from CA · Guest

[quote]Ah, progress! I>m understanding you better, Joseph.

"Joseph"??
[/quote]
I apologize for getting your name wrong! (Made my own point: good observation
is often lacking in things written today...)>> I>m having a hard time thinking
of any anthropologist whose theoretical
[quote]perspective "I agree with." There are folks I like better than others, I
guess. That was my point. Anthropology hasn>t generated very many
theoretical
perspectives that have gotten universal (or even marginal) approval outside
the
discipline.

hmm... quite true, got me there. there are those that i like more than
others,
and parts i like better.

when you say "anthropology hasnt generated very many theories..." do you mean
'cultural' anthropology, 'archaeology', 'physical' anthropology, or all of
anthropology as a whole?

[/quote]
I was speaking of cultural, and especially of its relationship to psychology.

[quote]Who do you agree with, by the way?

i will agree with with just about anyone to a degree, ;) most of it is based
upon the theory that supports the position, the utility of an aplication, the
probablity of the likelyhood, or in the case of my daughter-for the sake of
arguement.
[/quote]
I think that>s the most reasonable position, actually. I don>t really agree
with anyone...but there are lots of people whose work I like. I was really in
to ethnopoetics for awhile, so I like Dennis and Barbara Tedlock, and admired
some of Stanley Diamond>s work. I like work like Lila Abou-Lughod>s work on
poetry (hope I spelled that right)...detailed, capturing some cultural moment
never to be repeated...with only a minor amount of theory/explanation (although
if I had to be completely honest, I>d say her work runs along functional
lines).

One anthropologist I am rethinking and rereading is Claude Levi-Strauss...seems
to read differently some 20 years out of grad school...

[quote]
In the meantime, I>m quite certain that description of culture is itself a
good
thing. I find that most people are not particularly good at noticing stuff
and
then writing it up.

In fact, help me out here. Which anthropologists who have studied American
cultures/subcultures have written works that stand out in your memory?
(I>m
not going to count deTocqueville as an anthropologist). I like some
contemporary work on Native Americans, but I>m thinking of other folks,
like
Southern Californians. Any anthropologists spring to mind?

got me on this one too, all of the ethnographies i am familure with are
non-domestic

And again, I>m very curious which anthropologists any of you regard as
theoretically sound...

wow, that sounds like someone is loading up the critical cannon. i>ll wave a
target... Julian Steward
[/quote]
I agree - he>s the one who came to my mind, too. Interesting.
[quote]
Anyone?

MR

[/quote]

darth_versive · Guest

melisande55@aol.comnokooks (Melisande from CA) wrote in message news:<20030916120433.22784.00000821@mb-m23.aol.com>...

<snip>

[quote]And again, I>m very curious which anthropologists any of you regard as
theoretically sound...

wow, that sounds like someone is loading up the critical cannon. i>ll wave a
target... Julian Steward

I agree - he>s the one who came to my mind, too. Interesting.
[/quote]
From what little I know about Julian Steward, he pioneered the field
of cultural ecology, integrating the concept of a "culture core" with
that of the physical, environmental factors confronting people in a
particular time and place.

My question would be: To what extent have modern researchers
following this path managed to integrate various theories and methods
for understanding subjective experience--such as Max Weber>s verstehen
method, Joseph Campbell>s studies of Myth, the work of various art
historians, and various histories and comparative studies of theology
and political ideology, etc.--into this general framework of cultural
ecology? And to what extent do they think that the attempt to
understand subjective experience in this way is relevant to questions
of cultural ecology?

It seems to me that these various lines of thought and research would
dovetail quite nicely with the concept of a "culture core," and would
be an important element in understanding the behavior of people
vis-a-vis their physical environment. But I>m not familiar with
current research in the area of cultural ecology in any great detail,
having spent my time and effort focused more on the history of ideas,
philosophy of mind, and on questions involving the nature of
subjectivity, etc.

DV

Melisande from CA · Guest

[quote]My question would be: To what extent have modern researchers
following this path managed to integrate various theories and methods
for understanding subjective experience--such as Max Weber>s verstehen
method, Joseph Campbell>s studies of Myth, the work of various art
historians, and various histories and comparative studies of theology
and political ideology, etc.--into this general framework of cultural
ecology? And to what extent do they think that the attempt to
understand subjective experience in this way is relevant to questions
of cultural ecology?
[/quote]
I would say...almost...not at all...especially if you>re speaking of
anthropologists/soc sci researcher...try novelists instead...
[quote]
It seems to me that these various lines of thought and research would
dovetail quite nicely with the concept of a "culture core," and would
be an important element in understanding the behavior of people
vis-a-vis their physical environment. But I>m not familiar with
current research in the area of cultural ecology in any great detail,
having spent my time and effort focused more on the history of ideas,
philosophy of mind, and on questions involving the nature of
subjectivity, etc.

DV

[/quote]
You are interested in good stuff, in my opinion. However, while ecological
anthropology is fascinating, its scope may not extend to include the kind of
stuff you>re interested in...the truly holistic view seems to elude social
science...except, perhaps, in a descriptive sense rather than an analytic one.

Melisande

Melisande from CA · Guest

[quote]Subject: Re: What Else Does Anthropology Cover
Path:
lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!newsfeed1!bredband!news-s
pur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!feed.news.qwest.net!news.uswest.[/quote]
net.POSTED!not-for-mail
[quote]From: "Tedd" Jacobs@mail.boisestate.edu
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology
References: <yda9b.62$QG5.58141@news.uswest.net
20030915204349.06073.00000887@mb-m07.aol.com
Lines: 71
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165
Message-ID: <zRv9b.640$ep1.61888@news.uswest.net
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 21:59:12 -0600
NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.1.23.33
X-Trace: news.uswest.net 1063684575 67.1.23.33 (Mon, 15 Sep 2003 22:56:15
CDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 22:56:15 CDT

"Melisande from CA" <melisande55@aol.comnokooks> wrote in message
news:20030915204349.06073.00000887@mb-m07.aol.com...

snip

I know Binford as an archaeologist, and when he steps outside that narrow
realm
of data - into culture - I>m not familiar with any work that says "great"
to
me. Examples?

"Willow Smoke and Dogs Tails"
[/quote]
Thanks for the "citation." It would help if you actually said where the text
could be acquired. And while of course cultural and archaeological
anthropology are both parts of one larger discipline, I thought the thread had
to do with cultural anthropology and its relationship to psychology.

[quote]
Binford is first an anthropologist, second an archaeologists. i would choose
to
believe both cultural and archaeology are ultimatly anthropology.

as for the rest of your opening paragraph... if you truely wish to bait the
question of religion, reread harris' accounting of the sacred hindu cow.
everything has a function. (and yes, hill & hawks address the question of
ideologies, shamanism, and taboo>s).

[/quote]
everything doesn>t have a function. What a quaint idea. And, well, are you
going to go on and talk about calories and Aztecs eating people>s hearts?
Because...Harris goes on to make THAT functional argument as well. And has
been soundly criticized, for good reason. One can usually (retrospectively)
FIND a function for everything. But that is hardly a scientific finding that
the thing has the specified function. More is needed.

[quote]boas believed all you had to do was list out
everything and the answer would just magically appear.

Who taught you that? Boas believed no such thing. Well, I never spoke to
him.
But several of my professors were students of his, and they did NOT
characterize poor old Franz>s viewpoint in any such way.

To make it simple, Franz admitted early on that anthropology lacked
theoretical
paradigms (in his day, it was functionalism, structural functionalism,
maybe
structuralism) sufficient to encompass what he was finding in the field.
His
motto: go forth and describe before it all disappears, anyway. Franz did
NOT
believe magic answers would appear.

boas' approach in anthropology lacked in theoretical foundations (not
anthropology itself). functionalism and british structual-functionalism were
european ideas. franz DID believe that all you had to do was have enough of
the
pieces (hence the extensive trait lists) and the answer would reviel itself
(regardless of not ever even asking or let alone forming a question).

[/quote]
In other words, Boas thought answers might be complex and consist of extensive
amounts of data. Hmmm.
[quote]

boas himself eventually admitted that the program was theoretically
bankrupt.

(those were my words and i didnt intend to mislead the statement though that
is
how it turned out. i>ll correct below)

Another misstatement. Boas never used any such words. He simply said that
sheer collection of data will NEVER result in a theoretic paradigm. The
way I
heard it rephrased, by Renato Rosaldo (Stanford) was this:

it could be that ultimately, human behavior makes no sense. It is a
possibility.

and a cop out, when the brits were kicking our butts with models and
theoretical
frameworks that were providing explinations and asking questions. the system
was
bankrupt (in my words) and boas admited his approach wouldnt work.

I don>t think the Brits even believe their own models, today. And if they[/quote]
"worked" how come they have failed as models with universal appeal today? Or
are you saying that everyone is a functionalist or a structural-functionalist?
(Structuralism, by its nature, admits to many of the same limitations as did
Boas>s work).
[quote]
Well, that>s oh-so-human (to try and maintain a paradigm in honor of a dead
ancestor).

touché, and in retrospect could apply to several of your professors who were
former students of his.

Absolutely. I>m not defending Boas. I am saying, however, that in my own[/quote]
travels I>ve found more non-anthropologists USING his work than that of, say,
Malinowski. Kwakiutl folks like Boas - and use his work to reconstruct their
culture. That>s more use than most anthropology ever gets.

Melisande
[quote]

[/quote]

darth_versive · Guest

melisande55@aol.comnokooks (Melisande from CA) wrote in message news:<20030917191554.18495.00001418@mb-m13.aol.com>...
[quote]My question would be: To what extent have modern researchers
following this path managed to integrate various theories and methods
for understanding subjective experience--such as Max Weber>s verstehen
method, Joseph Campbell>s studies of Myth, the work of various art
historians, and various histories and comparative studies of theology
and political ideology, etc.--into this general framework of cultural
ecology? And to what extent do they think that the attempt to
understand subjective experience in this way is relevant to questions
of cultural ecology?

I would say...almost...not at all...especially if you>re speaking of
anthropologists/soc sci researcher...try novelists instead...

It seems to me that these various lines of thought and research would
dovetail quite nicely with the concept of a "culture core," and would
be an important element in understanding the behavior of people
vis-a-vis their physical environment. But I>m not familiar with
current research in the area of cultural ecology in any great detail,
having spent my time and effort focused more on the history of ideas,
philosophy of mind, and on questions involving the nature of
subjectivity, etc.

DV

You are interested in good stuff, in my opinion. However, while ecological
anthropology is fascinating, its scope may not extend to include the kind of
stuff you>re interested in...the truly holistic view seems to elude social
science...except, perhaps, in a descriptive sense rather than an analytic one.

Melisande
[/quote]
Yes. This has been my general experience as well, from looking over
what>s been coming out of the social sciences over the last few
decades. I think that the development of the various specialized
social science disciplines over the last century or so has been a good
thing--don>t get me wrong. Such a thing was necessary in order to
make sense of particular phenomena, given that the previous "holistic"
views (like Scholasticism) didn>t correspond to reality very well.
But I also think that the social sciences as a whole are long overdue
for a general, interdisciplinary synthesis, given all the good work
that has been done over the last century or so, and the way that
further progress seems to be stalled in many areas by the lack of
interdisciplinary thinking. But I don>t really see much evidence that
it has started yet in a major way, or that it>s going to be starting
anytime soon.

Unfortunately, within the field of philosophy, where one might have
more reason to expect such a holistic, interdisciplinary synthesis to
be germinating, there also seems to be very little sign of this
happening. Instead, it seems to have caught the same tendency for
hyper-specialism that afflicts the social sciences.

There is plenty of discussion of the various ancient, medieval, and
early modern attempts at a general synthesis of knowledge (which were,
IMO, based on false and/or obsolete premises), but no serious attempt
at any modern synthesis of modern scientific knowledge. At least,
none that I can see. Perhaps the experiences of the last century have
made them gun-shy about trying this, and I can fully understand this
way of thinking, given the tragic results of such attempts as
communism, etc. In effect, the development of general syntheses, or
"grand narratives," has become a taboo subject within philosophy. But
still, modern scientific knowledge, unlike these destructive
ideologies, is always open to challenge by new facts and
interpretations, and the broader scientific community operates using a
totally different dynamic than that of insular political ideologies or
dogmatic theologies, and so there>s much less reason for concern on
this score. I think we have much more to fear from continued
ignorance than from increasing knowledge myself. Others, of course,
would disagree.

Anyway, in spite of its current difficulties, philosophy seems to be a
discipline from which surprising innovations can spring without much
warning. Perhaps someday soon we>ll see something useful arise from
this quarter.

DV

Ed Conrad · Guest

On 16 Sep 2003 15:51:51 GMT, melisande55@aol.comnokooks (Melisande
from CA) wrote to sci.anthropology:

[quote]Could you explain (or point me to an explanation
of) the terms "etic" and "emic"?

Etic - is an outsider>s view of a culture.
Emic - is an insider>s view.

These sound like simple terms, but when applied to something like the "culture
of households" they become problems. Some anthropologists even argue that each
gender has its own culture - so the only one who has an "insider" view of
womanhood, is a female (etc.)

Figuring out one>s own relationship to a particular culture (am an outsider?
an insider? medium-sider?) is harder than ever. Once upon a time, it seemed
clear in anthropology when one was dealing with 'another culture.' That>s one
reason why groups like the Yanomami/o remain so popular: everyone pretty much
agrees that your average doctoral candidate from the U.S. isn>t a Yanomami
(with perhaps a couple of exceptions - there have been ethnographers who "gone
native.")

But I>d be interested in your views on whether you think men and women share
common cultural values about domestic work, or whether there are two cultures
involved.

I should have mentioned that the data anthropologists use in this arena come
from sociologists and economists as well, so it>s an interesting
interdisciplinary effort.

Melisande

I stated thusly in a few other newsgroups -- but it didn>t[/quote]
make it here.
[quote]
The perfect, only honest answer to the question:

WHAT ELSE DO ANTHROPOLOGISTS COVER?

Why, their own rear end!

See, there are NO honest physical anthropologists[/quote]
alive today. Their discipline of science is a sham --
filled with deceit, deception, collusion and conspiracy.
[quote]
Nothin' personal, fellas (and gals). Bowing to vested[/quote]
interests has screwed your head on the wrong way.

You>re in it so deep (your bullshit), you actually think
you>re on top.

[quote]========================================
========================================

THE COVER-UP THAT CAN>T BE COVERED
(Petrified coal-age bones, teeth and soft organs)

http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Smith/z11calv.jpg
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Petrified/z8femur.jpg
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Petrified/z5gall.jpg
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Petrified/newtibia.jpg
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Petrified/skullb.jpg
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Petrified/z9lung.jpg
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/brain/MVC-001S.JPG
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Newpix5/MVC-002S.JPG
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Bones/MVC-006S.JPG
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Petrified/1tooth.jpg
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Newpix3/z3dino.jpg
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Petrified/MVC-013F.JPG
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Petrified/MVC-012F.JPG
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Day/MVC-005S.JPG
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Scorpion/MVC-001S.JPG
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Scorpion/MVC-010S.JPG
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Scorpion/MVC-020S.JPG
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/SCORPIONS/MVC-039S.JPG
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Tool/MVC-003S.JPG
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Tool/MVC-005S.JPG
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/FINGER/MVC-008S.JPG
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/FINGER/MVC-011S.JPG

Petrified human toe (with toenail):
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Au29/MVC-017S.JPG
Petrified human finger (with fingernail AND Petrified human
toe (with toenail){:
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Au29/MVC-016S.JPG

Ed Conrad
http://www.edconrad.com
[/quote]
Man as Old as Anthracite

Steve Hayes · Guest

On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 09:35:17 GMT, Ed Conrad <edconrad@verizon.net> wrote:

[quote]On 16 Sep 2003 15:51:51 GMT, melisande55@aol.comnokooks (Melisande
from CA) wrote to sci.anthropology:

Could you explain (or point me to an explanation
of) the terms "etic" and "emic"?

Etic - is an outsider>s view of a culture.
Emic - is an insider>s view.

These sound like simple terms, but when applied to something like the "culture
of households" they become problems. Some anthropologists even argue that each
gender has its own culture - so the only one who has an "insider" view of
womanhood, is a female (etc.)

Figuring out one>s own relationship to a particular culture (am an outsider?
an insider? medium-sider?) is harder than ever. Once upon a time, it seemed
clear in anthropology when one was dealing with 'another culture.' That>s one
reason why groups like the Yanomami/o remain so popular: everyone pretty much
agrees that your average doctoral candidate from the U.S. isn>t a Yanomami
(with perhaps a couple of exceptions - there have been ethnographers who "gone
native.")

But I>d be interested in your views on whether you think men and women share
common cultural values about domestic work, or whether there are two cultures
involved.

I should have mentioned that the data anthropologists use in this arena come
from sociologists and economists as well, so it>s an interesting
interdisciplinary effort.

Melisande

I stated thusly in a few other newsgroups -- but it didn>t
make it here.
[/quote]
What a pity you had to go and spoil it!

But O>ve noticed that some of your posts are now turning up in the proper
place.

Steve Hayes
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm


www.GetXFactor.com Leading Technology, Science, Agriculture News and information	Part of the Identityscape.com network... getxfactor.com jmoodmusic.com smartbusinesschoices.com mintdepot.com lowfaresalways.com evangelicalview.com shoppingpodder.com soproudlywehail.com webnews.ws currenthumor.com

Science and Technology news... Forum Index -> Anthropology Forum	Goto page Previous 1, 2
Page 2 of 2