<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Claude dit:</title>
	<atom:link href="http://savageminds.org/2008/11/03/claude-dit-4/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://savageminds.org/2008/11/03/claude-dit-4/</link>
	<description>Notes and Queries in Anthropology — A Group Blog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Mar 2010 21:58:55 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: ryan a</title>
		<link>http://savageminds.org/2008/11/03/claude-dit-4/comment-page-1/#comment-521818</link>
		<dc:creator>ryan a</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 08 Nov 2008 06:10:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://savageminds.org/?p=1376#comment-521818</guid>
		<description>Here&#039;s what I like about this quote: it strips away the mere distance of the field as a kind of measure of importance.  Forget it.  CLS is saying that what matters most is not the fact that an ethnographer had to travel to some distant place; what matters most is what is learned or discovered (those elusive &quot;truths&quot;).  Funny how he even calls the distance a &quot;negative&quot; aspect.  Very much against the tradition of anthropology that calls (or used to) for distant fieldwork as a kind of ritual ordeal for turning oneself into a &quot;real&quot; anthropologist.

Maybe this is an early argument for turning the anthropological lens inward?  Or maybe he was just feeling a little grumpy when he started that book...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Here&#8217;s what I like about this quote: it strips away the mere distance of the field as a kind of measure of importance.  Forget it.  CLS is saying that what matters most is not the fact that an ethnographer had to travel to some distant place; what matters most is what is learned or discovered (those elusive &#8220;truths&#8221;).  Funny how he even calls the distance a &#8220;negative&#8221; aspect.  Very much against the tradition of anthropology that calls (or used to) for distant fieldwork as a kind of ritual ordeal for turning oneself into a &#8220;real&#8221; anthropologist.</p>
<p>Maybe this is an early argument for turning the anthropological lens inward?  Or maybe he was just feeling a little grumpy when he started that book&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
