Comments on: Junking the Nature/Culture Divide http://savageminds.org/2006/08/13/junking-the-natureculture-divide/ Notes and Queries in Anthropology — A Group Blog Thu, 24 May 2012 01:47:51 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Savage Minds: Notes and Queries in Anthropology — A Group Blog » 2006 Highlights http://savageminds.org/2006/08/13/junking-the-natureculture-divide/comment-page-1/#comment-45220 Savage Minds: Notes and Queries in Anthropology — A Group Blog » 2006 Highlights Fri, 29 Dec 2006 23:12:16 +0000 http://savageminds.org/2006/08/13/junking-the-natureculture-divide/#comment-45220 [...] Anthropology of the Spirit: “everybody’s got a body, and it is surprising and interesting to learn about how the taken-for-grantedness of that body is historically/socially/culturally constructed. But not everybody has a spirit.” What is good anthropological writing?: “Which were the texts that made an indelible impression on you, and why? Any answer to this question has to be biographical.” The Invention of the World: Islam in the West: “the importance of Muslim scholarship to Columbus’ voyage cannot be overestimated” Found Mag meets Savage Minds: “Sometimes it’s better to have a hand-scratched, seat-of-the-pants expression of deep knowledge over a real-time, social software, scale-free, really simple, ajax-enhanced, web 2.0 instant access to scholarship.” World Simulation: Part One: Constructing the World: “In my last post, I described my ‘anti-teaching’ philosophy that led me to experiment with different ways of teaching cultural anthropology in very large introductory classes. So far, the most radical and intensive experiment I have tried is the ‘World Simulation.’” Technology in the Classroom: PowerPoint Alternatives: “Power corrupts: PowerPoint corrupts absolutely.” Reading circle: let’s do Friction: This page archives all of our posts from this summer’s discussion of Tsing’s popular experimental ethnography, Friction. The American Anthropological Association’s lobbying against open acess is so, so misguided: “In other words, in order for publishers to argue that it will become unprofitable for them to run a journal because of competition from open access repositories, they must argue that they provide very little value to a journal as a product.” 30 Days of Cinétrance: “Despite the fact that one of the prime motivations for producing reality TV is saving costs on writers and actors, it does seem to draw heavily from the social sciences.” In the Flesh in the Museum: “From the first European contact with the native peoples of the Western Hemisphere onward, Indians had been exhibited in royal courts, traveling shows, circuses, and world fairs and expositions.” Junking the Nature/Culture Divide: “Pharmaceutical projects and products redefine the horizons of possible human being.” Places and Frames: Reading Bruno Latour on Holiday: “Latour proposes that there is nothing intrinsically contextual about place, that place is simply a staging or framing for traces and associations, near and distant, past and present. Context as such does not exist as a factor which explains or accounts for a place.” Conspiracy Theory and Social Theory: “in many ways conspiracy theories are like social theory” Is motherhood natural?: “. Many introductory kinship texts begin by pointing out that while fatherhood is frequently non-obvious, motherhood never is.” Book Review: The Politics of the Governed, Part 1: “’Political society’ is the politics of subjects who wish to have the same rights as citizens, but are excluded (by dint of their very marginalization) from civil society.” You Only Link Twice: Spying 2.0: “an article about the US and defense intelligence agencies’ attempts to generate as much useful information as the blogosphere and wikipedia.” [...] [...] Anthropology of the Spirit: “everybody’s got a body, and it is surprising and interesting to learn about how the taken-for-grantedness of that body is historically/socially/culturally constructed. But not everybody has a spirit.” What is good anthropological writing?: “Which were the texts that made an indelible impression on you, and why? Any answer to this question has to be biographical.” The Invention of the World: Islam in the West: “the importance of Muslim scholarship to Columbus’ voyage cannot be overestimated” Found Mag meets Savage Minds: “Sometimes it’s better to have a hand-scratched, seat-of-the-pants expression of deep knowledge over a real-time, social software, scale-free, really simple, ajax-enhanced, web 2.0 instant access to scholarship.” World Simulation: Part One: Constructing the World: “In my last post, I described my ‘anti-teaching’ philosophy that led me to experiment with different ways of teaching cultural anthropology in very large introductory classes. So far, the most radical and intensive experiment I have tried is the ‘World Simulation.’” Technology in the Classroom: PowerPoint Alternatives: “Power corrupts: PowerPoint corrupts absolutely.” Reading circle: let’s do Friction: This page archives all of our posts from this summer’s discussion of Tsing’s popular experimental ethnography, Friction. The American Anthropological Association’s lobbying against open acess is so, so misguided: “In other words, in order for publishers to argue that it will become unprofitable for them to run a journal because of competition from open access repositories, they must argue that they provide very little value to a journal as a product.” 30 Days of Cinétrance: “Despite the fact that one of the prime motivations for producing reality TV is saving costs on writers and actors, it does seem to draw heavily from the social sciences.” In the Flesh in the Museum: “From the first European contact with the native peoples of the Western Hemisphere onward, Indians had been exhibited in royal courts, traveling shows, circuses, and world fairs and expositions.” Junking the Nature/Culture Divide: “Pharmaceutical projects and products redefine the horizons of possible human being.” Places and Frames: Reading Bruno Latour on Holiday: “Latour proposes that there is nothing intrinsically contextual about place, that place is simply a staging or framing for traces and associations, near and distant, past and present. Context as such does not exist as a factor which explains or accounts for a place.” Conspiracy Theory and Social Theory: “in many ways conspiracy theories are like social theory” Is motherhood natural?: “. Many introductory kinship texts begin by pointing out that while fatherhood is frequently non-obvious, motherhood never is.” Book Review: The Politics of the Governed, Part 1: “’Political society’ is the politics of subjects who wish to have the same rights as citizens, but are excluded (by dint of their very marginalization) from civil society.” You Only Link Twice: Spying 2.0: “an article about the US and defense intelligence agencies’ attempts to generate as much useful information as the blogosphere and wikipedia.” [...]

Report this comment

]]> By: John Schaefer http://savageminds.org/2006/08/13/junking-the-natureculture-divide/comment-page-1/#comment-19242 John Schaefer Wed, 16 Aug 2006 15:45:37 +0000 http://savageminds.org/2006/08/13/junking-the-natureculture-divide/#comment-19242 Well, that shut things down... To get back to the point of "singular modernity" (Marxist argument) vs. "alternative modernities" (Nietzschean argument)... I haven't read the Global Shadows book yet. I'm sure I will like it. But I'm a little less eager to read it after seeing this, because I really hope it does more than just bang the drum of "modernity = global wealth appropriation" to beat down the other side who identify modernity with less tangibly "instrumental" attitudes, like contemporaneity or hipness. This impasse or antimony is far too interesting to me to waste more time reading rehashings of Dipesh Chakrabarty vs. Timothy Mitchell, which was a great match but ended in a 2-2 draw ages ago... Well, that shut things down…

To get back to the point of “singular modernity” (Marxist argument) vs. “alternative modernities” (Nietzschean argument)…

I haven’t read the Global Shadows book yet. I’m sure I will like it. But I’m a little less eager to read it after seeing this, because I really hope it does more than just bang the drum of “modernity = global wealth appropriation” to beat down the other side who identify modernity with less tangibly “instrumental” attitudes, like contemporaneity or hipness.

This impasse or antimony is far too interesting to me to waste more time reading rehashings of Dipesh Chakrabarty vs. Timothy Mitchell, which was a great match but ended in a 2-2 draw ages ago…

Report this comment

]]> By: John McCreery http://savageminds.org/2006/08/13/junking-the-natureculture-divide/comment-page-1/#comment-19018 John McCreery Mon, 14 Aug 2006 19:49:30 +0000 http://savageminds.org/2006/08/13/junking-the-natureculture-divide/#comment-19018 <blockquote>Doesn’t mean I’m not for ‘em; just means I don’t think god or reason or whatever is on my side.</blockquote> What, then, does it mean to say that you're for them? Just another sentimental consumer choice? Like the mythical philistine standing in front of the painting and saying, "I know what I like"? [OR] How, then, do you defend them? Without resort to force? Allow me to recommend the discussion of necessary frameworks in Charles Taylor's <i>Sources of the Self</i> and C.Wright Mills on the "Vocabulary of Motives." I recall an essay in which Mills argues that if two people cannot agree on the words they use to describe motivation, persuasion is reduced to coercion. Kind of like George Bush "spreading democracy."

Doesn’t mean I’m not for ‘em; just means I don’t think god or reason or whatever is on my side.

What, then, does it mean to say that you’re for them? Just another sentimental consumer choice? Like the mythical philistine standing in front of the painting and saying, “I know what I like”?

[OR]

How, then, do you defend them? Without resort to force?

Allow me to recommend the discussion of necessary frameworks in Charles Taylor’s Sources of the Self and C.Wright Mills on the “Vocabulary of Motives.” I recall an essay in which Mills argues that if two people cannot agree on the words they use to describe motivation, persuasion is reduced to coercion. Kind of like George Bush “spreading democracy.”

Report this comment

]]> By: Comet Jo http://savageminds.org/2006/08/13/junking-the-natureculture-divide/comment-page-1/#comment-18999 Comet Jo Mon, 14 Aug 2006 15:25:00 +0000 http://savageminds.org/2006/08/13/junking-the-natureculture-divide/#comment-18999 bq. Could it be possible that by fetishizing equality and asserting that “cultures” are equal, we find ourselves trapped in a fallacy of misplaced concreteness, ascribing to cultures rights that, properly speaking, belong only to human individuals? Who decides what is "proper" here? Don't all "rights" exist as soemthing we agree to recognize (or fight about)? (Doesn't mean I'm not for 'em; just means I don't think god or reason or whatever is on my side.) bq. Could it be possible that by fetishizing equality and asserting that “cultures” are equal, we find ourselves trapped in a fallacy of misplaced concreteness, ascribing to cultures rights that, properly speaking, belong only to human individuals?

Who decides what is “proper” here? Don’t all “rights” exist as soemthing we agree to recognize (or fight about)?

(Doesn’t mean I’m not for ‘em; just means I don’t think god or reason or whatever is on my side.)

Report this comment

]]> By: Kerim http://savageminds.org/2006/08/13/junking-the-natureculture-divide/comment-page-1/#comment-18944 Kerim Mon, 14 Aug 2006 06:44:56 +0000 http://savageminds.org/2006/08/13/junking-the-natureculture-divide/#comment-18944 I was not so much arguing that such binaries are "productive" as to say that we must understand why they are so damn hard to get rid of. They seem to stick with us despite our best interests. Moreover, which binaries are important varies a lot from country to country. Long since Gramsci died, Italians are still debating the "Southern Question" (where North/South maps on to urban/rural, traditional/cosmopolitain, etc.) while in the US we tend to see things as Black v. White even though rural whites are often worse off than many African Americans. The point being that we can't ignore the interests of the state in preserving certain dichotomies. One of the interesting things Tsing did in Friction was to look at how natural/non-natural had been shaped by the history of Indonesia. I wasn't particularly satisfied with her history, but it did at least demonstrate that the term had different resonances there than it does in the United States. It IS important to make it clear that their "nature" is shaped by global forces. Television still promotes the myth of the isolated savage untouched by civilization, and nuclear testing is a great example of how we can begin to tear apart such myths. But I worry about how much time Anthropologists spend "debunking" such assumptions to little avail. It seems to me that we need to spend more time analyzing why these myths are so powerful (and persistant) in the first place. I was not so much arguing that such binaries are “productive” as to say that we must understand why they are so damn hard to get rid of. They seem to stick with us despite our best interests. Moreover, which binaries are important varies a lot from country to country. Long since Gramsci died, Italians are still debating the “Southern Question” (where North/South maps on to urban/rural, traditional/cosmopolitain, etc.) while in the US we tend to see things as Black v. White even though rural whites are often worse off than many African Americans.

The point being that we can’t ignore the interests of the state in preserving certain dichotomies. One of the interesting things Tsing did in Friction was to look at how natural/non-natural had been shaped by the history of Indonesia. I wasn’t particularly satisfied with her history, but it did at least demonstrate that the term had different resonances there than it does in the United States.

It IS important to make it clear that their “nature” is shaped by global forces. Television still promotes the myth of the isolated savage untouched by civilization, and nuclear testing is a great example of how we can begin to tear apart such myths. But I worry about how much time Anthropologists spend “debunking” such assumptions to little avail. It seems to me that we need to spend more time analyzing why these myths are so powerful (and persistant) in the first place.

Report this comment

]]> By: Strong http://savageminds.org/2006/08/13/junking-the-natureculture-divide/comment-page-1/#comment-18927 Strong Mon, 14 Aug 2006 05:25:17 +0000 http://savageminds.org/2006/08/13/junking-the-natureculture-divide/#comment-18927 Thank you everyone for your replies to my posts. It's either really cool or kinda scary -- or both -- to have people paying attention to one's sometimes random observations and thoughts. Kerim: I myself am not anti-binary per se. Pace the surrealists, I'm inclined to think preserving the distinction between ego and id might not be a bad idea. One set of distinctions that has been especially productive for anthropology revolves around 'modernity' and its 'others,' as mentioned by John and oneman. I hope we can have a future discussion about theorizing modernity, which, whether as a sort of strawman target for analytical criticism or as a tried-and-true workhorse of social theory, is always I think at the heart of anthropological questions. Thank you everyone for your replies to my posts. It’s either really cool or kinda scary — or both — to have people paying attention to one’s sometimes random observations and thoughts. Kerim: I myself am not anti-binary per se. Pace the surrealists, I’m inclined to think preserving the distinction between ego and id might not be a bad idea. One set of distinctions that has been especially productive for anthropology revolves around ‘modernity’ and its ‘others,’ as mentioned by John and oneman. I hope we can have a future discussion about theorizing modernity, which, whether as a sort of strawman target for analytical criticism or as a tried-and-true workhorse of social theory, is always I think at the heart of anthropological questions.

Report this comment

]]> By: oneman http://savageminds.org/2006/08/13/junking-the-natureculture-divide/comment-page-1/#comment-18917 oneman Mon, 14 Aug 2006 03:41:25 +0000 http://savageminds.org/2006/08/13/junking-the-natureculture-divide/#comment-18917 John, I find this view a little disingenuous, and am a little dismayed that it features in Ferguson's work, as he's someone I admire. First of all, it conflates the cultural evolutionist/"folk" view of modernity with the way social scientists talk about it, and second it pretends that social scientists see African or Chinese or whatever other modernity as *autonomous*, as if African modernity didn't suck so much preceisely because of the ways it interconnects with Western modernity. The "hard" form of "other modernities" theory would have to be Lisa Rofel's "Other Modernities" and Rofel isn't saying anything even remotely like what Ferguson is saying she must mean. Ferguson mentions <blockquote>the demands of those who instead see modernity as a privileged and desired socioeconomic condition that is actively contrasted with their own radically unequal way of life.</blockquote> as if that view were right, as if modernity were not <em>profoundly</em> unequal, and as if the "other modernities" folks simply couldn't see how unequal the situation is on the ground in Africa. Very disappointing. John, I find this view a little disingenuous, and am a little dismayed that it features in Ferguson’s work, as he’s someone I admire. First of all, it conflates the cultural evolutionist/”folk” view of modernity with the way social scientists talk about it, and second it pretends that social scientists see African or Chinese or whatever other modernity as *autonomous*, as if African modernity didn’t suck so much preceisely because of the ways it interconnects with Western modernity. The “hard” form of “other modernities” theory would have to be Lisa Rofel’s “Other Modernities” and Rofel isn’t saying anything even remotely like what Ferguson is saying she must mean. Ferguson mentions
the demands of those who instead see modernity as a privileged and desired socioeconomic condition that is actively contrasted with their own radically unequal way of life.

as if that view were right, as if modernity were not profoundly unequal, and as if the “other modernities” folks simply couldn’t see how unequal the situation is on the ground in Africa.

Very disappointing.

Report this comment

]]> By: John McCreery http://savageminds.org/2006/08/13/junking-the-natureculture-divide/comment-page-1/#comment-18900 John McCreery Mon, 14 Aug 2006 02:12:26 +0000 http://savageminds.org/2006/08/13/junking-the-natureculture-divide/#comment-18900 Kerim makes a good point here, one that resonates with me because, just yesterday, I started reading James Ferguson's <i>Global Shadows</i> and found the following discussion of the concept of "modernity." <blockquote>....anthropologists, having declared modernization theory defunct and development discourse passé, proudly announce that Africa, notwithstanding all its problems, is in fact just as modern as anyplace else. It just has its own, "alternative" version of modernity. ...Africans are often puzzled by such claims. Africa's <i>lack</i>of modernity seems, to many people there, all too palpable in the conditions that surround them--in the bad roads, poor health care, crumbling buildings, and preciously improvised livelihoods that one cannot avoid encountering in the continent's "less-developed" countries.... ....a well-meaning anthropological urge to treat modernity as a cultural formation whose different versions may be understood as both coeval and of equal value ends up looking like an evasion of the demands of those who instead see modernity as a privileged and desired socioeconomic condition that is actively contrasted with their own radically unqual way of life.</blockquote> Could it be possible that by fetishizing equality and asserting that "cultures" are equal, we find ourselves trapped in a fallacy of misplaced concreteness, ascribing to cultures rights that, properly speaking, belong only to human individuals? Kerim makes a good point here, one that resonates with me because, just yesterday, I started reading James Ferguson’s Global Shadows and found the following discussion of the concept of “modernity.”

….anthropologists, having declared modernization theory defunct and development discourse passé, proudly announce that Africa, notwithstanding all its problems, is in fact just as modern as anyplace else. It just has its own, “alternative” version of modernity.

…Africans are often puzzled by such claims. Africa’s lackof modernity seems, to many people there, all too palpable in the conditions that surround them–in the bad roads, poor health care, crumbling buildings, and preciously improvised livelihoods that one cannot avoid encountering in the continent’s “less-developed” countries….

….a well-meaning anthropological urge to treat modernity as a cultural formation whose different versions may be understood as both coeval and of equal value ends up looking like an evasion of the demands of those who instead see modernity as a privileged and desired socioeconomic condition that is actively contrasted with their own radically unqual way of life.

Could it be possible that by fetishizing equality and asserting that “cultures” are equal, we find ourselves trapped in a fallacy of misplaced concreteness, ascribing to cultures rights that, properly speaking, belong only to human individuals?

Report this comment

]]> By: Kerim http://savageminds.org/2006/08/13/junking-the-natureculture-divide/comment-page-1/#comment-18897 Kerim Mon, 14 Aug 2006 01:23:30 +0000 http://savageminds.org/2006/08/13/junking-the-natureculture-divide/#comment-18897 There is not only one nature/culture divide, but rather many: savage/civilized, id/ego, cultivated vs. uncultivated land, instinct vs. free will, etc. I'm not sure we can "junk" all of these in the same way - they each have their own genealogies and are supported by various institutions and interests. It is simply too easy to say that they should all be swept away without thinking about the reasons they continue to persist. There is not only one nature/culture divide, but rather many: savage/civilized, id/ego, cultivated vs. uncultivated land, instinct vs. free will, etc. I’m not sure we can “junk” all of these in the same way – they each have their own genealogies and are supported by various institutions and interests. It is simply too easy to say that they should all be swept away without thinking about the reasons they continue to persist.

Report this comment

]]>