Comments on: Islands of Friction Mashup http://savageminds.org/2009/01/14/islands-of-friction-mashup/ Notes and Queries in Anthropology — A Group Blog Sat, 26 May 2012 01:35:24 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: ponocrates http://savageminds.org/2009/01/14/islands-of-friction-mashup/comment-page-1/#comment-567698 ponocrates Mon, 02 Feb 2009 16:58:53 +0000 http://savageminds.org/?p=1488#comment-567698 I haven't read Friction yet, so my idea is based on the mashup. Is the metaphor "Friction" of Tsing standing for what Sahlins called : "the risk of categories in action" ? I haven’t read Friction yet, so my idea is based on the mashup. Is the metaphor “Friction” of Tsing standing for what Sahlins called : “the risk of categories in action” ?

Report this comment

]]> By: John McCreery http://savageminds.org/2009/01/14/islands-of-friction-mashup/comment-page-1/#comment-567526 John McCreery Mon, 02 Feb 2009 02:55:49 +0000 http://savageminds.org/?p=1488#comment-567526 For those who may not follow my closing allusions. http://www.edge.org/ http://www.ted.com/ For the record, both are the first items that pop up in a Google search for "Edge" and "TED" respectively. For those who may not follow my closing allusions.

http://www.edge.org/

http://www.ted.com/

For the record, both are the first items that pop up in a Google search for “Edge” and “TED” respectively.

Report this comment

]]> By: John McCreery http://savageminds.org/2009/01/14/islands-of-friction-mashup/comment-page-1/#comment-567524 John McCreery Mon, 02 Feb 2009 02:50:44 +0000 http://savageminds.org/?p=1488#comment-567524 To Richard, re "it is especially surprising that we have developed a vocabulary which is so radically disconnected from the understanding of most humans." Is it really so surprising? Consider a field that starts out defining itself as a science and the habits of its primary model, physics. The physics literature is filled with papers that only a physicist can begin to comprehend. Then have it pivot away from serious science to adopt the pseudo-science of literary theory as its model. Add the underlying consideration that most anthropological writing is career rather than knowledge-driven and that, yes, it takes less time to babble on about "theory" than it does to do the hard slog through significant amounts of fieldwork, literature and other data to produce solid scholarship. That a lot of what gets produced is pretentious, unintelligible crap isn't surprising at all. I recall, however, _Dragonsinger_ (one of the novels in the Harper trilogy that is part of Anne McCaffrey's long series of SF/Fantasy novels set in the dragonriders' planet Pern. In this one, the musically gifted heroine Menolly finds herself compelled to consider the difference between her gift, producing melodies and lyrics that become instantly popular and have people singing, whistling and tapping their toes all over the planet, and the talent of her composition teacher, who writes chamber music of a difficulty that only the musically gifted can either play or enjoy. In the case at hand, we have paragraphs from three eminent anthropologists. At first glance they may seem unintelligible; but these are authors writing for professional peers, like Menolly's composition teacher or the physicists who write for the _Physical Review_ . We anthropologist' problem at the moment is that we are stuck in a marginal space where serious thought, like that in the paragraphs Strong mashes together, is drowned in an ocean of real gibberish. We haven't had a Menolly on the team since Mead and Benedict, and the death of Clifford Geertz has left us bereft of anyone who could, at least, connect with the _New York Review_ crowd. We indulge ourselves in sullen fantasies of influence and resentment of those who have it, while Edge and TED leave us in the dust. To Richard, re “it is especially surprising that we have developed a vocabulary which is so radically disconnected from the understanding of most humans.” Is it really so surprising?

Consider a field that starts out defining itself as a science and the habits of its primary model, physics. The physics literature is filled with papers that only a physicist can begin to comprehend. Then have it pivot away from serious science to adopt the pseudo-science of literary theory as its model. Add the underlying consideration that most anthropological writing is career rather than knowledge-driven and that, yes, it takes less time to babble on about “theory” than it does to do the hard slog through significant amounts of fieldwork, literature and other data to produce solid scholarship. That a lot of what gets produced is pretentious, unintelligible crap isn’t surprising at all.

I recall, however, _Dragonsinger_ (one of the novels in the Harper trilogy that is part of Anne McCaffrey’s long series of SF/Fantasy novels set in the dragonriders’ planet Pern. In this one, the musically gifted heroine Menolly finds herself compelled to consider the difference between her gift, producing melodies and lyrics that become instantly popular and have people singing, whistling and tapping their toes all over the planet, and the talent of her composition teacher, who writes chamber music of a difficulty that only the musically gifted can either play or enjoy.

In the case at hand, we have paragraphs from three eminent anthropologists. At first glance they may seem unintelligible; but these are authors writing for professional peers, like Menolly’s composition teacher or the physicists who write for the _Physical Review_ .

We anthropologist’ problem at the moment is that we are stuck in a marginal space where serious thought, like that in the paragraphs Strong mashes together, is drowned in an ocean of real gibberish. We haven’t had a Menolly on the team since Mead and Benedict, and the death of Clifford Geertz has left us bereft of anyone who could, at least, connect with the _New York Review_ crowd. We indulge ourselves in sullen fantasies of influence and resentment of those who have it, while Edge and TED leave us in the dust.

Report this comment

]]> By: Richard http://savageminds.org/2009/01/14/islands-of-friction-mashup/comment-page-1/#comment-567489 Richard Mon, 02 Feb 2009 01:58:04 +0000 http://savageminds.org/?p=1488#comment-567489 To John McCreery, re the issue of whether or not this is "gibberish": as you rightly point out, these concerns are not unique to anthropologists. They have motivated humans throughout time. Hence, it is especially surprising that we have developed a vocabulary which is so radically disconnected from the understanding of most other humans. To be honest, I would have thought that such concerns would be precisely those which could be communicated with a wider audience. I'm not talking about dumbing down here, I'm simply talking about the benefits of communication. And yet the need to cover what we say in jargonistic wrapping paper means that more and more, we are only communicating with ourselves. To John McCreery, re the issue of whether or not this is “gibberish”: as you rightly point out, these concerns are not unique to anthropologists. They have motivated humans throughout time. Hence, it is especially surprising that we have developed a vocabulary which is so radically disconnected from the understanding of most other humans. To be honest, I would have thought that such concerns would be precisely those which could be communicated with a wider audience. I’m not talking about dumbing down here, I’m simply talking about the benefits of communication. And yet the need to cover what we say in jargonistic wrapping paper means that more and more, we are only communicating with ourselves.

Report this comment

]]> By: Strong http://savageminds.org/2009/01/14/islands-of-friction-mashup/comment-page-1/#comment-567280 Strong Sun, 01 Feb 2009 14:22:44 +0000 http://savageminds.org/?p=1488#comment-567280 Hi... the quotes that I sampled are from M Strathern, M Marriott, and Comaroff(Jean)... all ostensibly writing about different places (Melanesia, S Asia, and Africa)... but ending up with not dissimilar conclusions about 'the person.' Hi… the quotes that I sampled are from M Strathern, M Marriott, and Comaroff(Jean)… all ostensibly writing about different places (Melanesia, S Asia, and Africa)… but ending up with not dissimilar conclusions about ‘the person.’

Report this comment

]]> By: John McCreery http://savageminds.org/2009/01/14/islands-of-friction-mashup/comment-page-1/#comment-566986 John McCreery Sun, 01 Feb 2009 01:28:01 +0000 http://savageminds.org/?p=1488#comment-566986 IMHO, neither quote is dumbed down to textbook level but neither is gibberish. They are both attempts to articulate a problem familiar since the dawn of anthropology: Human selves are constructed through interaction and are frequently perceived as extending beyond the physical body. Ethnography frequently reports the idea that individuals are perceived as having multiple selves (often conceived as multiple "souls"); the ancient Egyptians had nine, the Chinese traditionally see the individual as composed of three heavenly spirits and seven earthly demons, Freud posits an Ego, Superego, and Id. Things outside the body (land, clothing, ornaments, tools, etc) are seen as extensions of selves. Becoming a king requires a crown, the Pope may speak as a man, offering a personal opinion, or Ex Cathedra, speaking infallibly for the Church, the Porsche owner down the street may reach to a scratch on his car as if someone had stuck a knife in his gut; Gregory Bateson asks if a blind man's stick is less a part of the blind man than the eyes through which the sighted see the world. The paragraphs quoted here assume a professional audience familiar with at least some of these facts. They may be incomprehensible to those who lack the necessary knowledge; but gibberish they are definitely not. IMHO, neither quote is dumbed down to textbook level but neither is gibberish. They are both attempts to articulate a problem familiar since the dawn of anthropology: Human selves are constructed through interaction and are frequently perceived as extending beyond the physical body. Ethnography frequently reports the idea that individuals are perceived as having multiple selves (often conceived as multiple “souls”); the ancient Egyptians had nine, the Chinese traditionally see the individual as composed of three heavenly spirits and seven earthly demons, Freud posits an Ego, Superego, and Id. Things outside the body (land, clothing, ornaments, tools, etc) are seen as extensions of selves. Becoming a king requires a crown, the Pope may speak as a man, offering a personal opinion, or Ex Cathedra, speaking infallibly for the Church, the Porsche owner down the street may reach to a scratch on his car as if someone had stuck a knife in his gut; Gregory Bateson asks if a blind man’s stick is less a part of the blind man than the eyes through which the sighted see the world.

The paragraphs quoted here assume a professional audience familiar with at least some of these facts. They may be incomprehensible to those who lack the necessary knowledge; but gibberish they are definitely not.

Report this comment

]]> By: Asher http://savageminds.org/2009/01/14/islands-of-friction-mashup/comment-page-1/#comment-566608 Asher Fri, 30 Jan 2009 15:05:12 +0000 http://savageminds.org/?p=1488#comment-566608 heh, what a pile of post-modern gibberish. was this some sort of joke? heh, what a pile of post-modern gibberish. was this some sort of joke?

Report this comment

]]> By: Rex http://savageminds.org/2009/01/14/islands-of-friction-mashup/comment-page-1/#comment-565683 Rex Wed, 28 Jan 2009 04:59:25 +0000 http://savageminds.org/?p=1488#comment-565683 uh... thanks? uh… thanks?

Report this comment

]]> By: Seth http://savageminds.org/2009/01/14/islands-of-friction-mashup/comment-page-1/#comment-565635 Seth Wed, 28 Jan 2009 00:11:20 +0000 http://savageminds.org/?p=1488#comment-565635 By contrast with your writing, Rex, and that of Sahlins, the mashup reads like hell. By contrast with your writing, Rex, and that of Sahlins, the mashup reads like hell.

Report this comment

]]> By: MTBradley http://savageminds.org/2009/01/14/islands-of-friction-mashup/comment-page-1/#comment-559707 MTBradley Thu, 15 Jan 2009 15:53:21 +0000 http://savageminds.org/?p=1488#comment-559707 Strathern and Lévi-Strauss? Strathern and Lévi-Strauss?

Report this comment

]]> By: Strong http://savageminds.org/2009/01/14/islands-of-friction-mashup/comment-page-1/#comment-559703 Strong Thu, 15 Jan 2009 13:29:03 +0000 http://savageminds.org/?p=1488#comment-559703 I did this once in a paper on 'personhood,' mashing up the following (you can probably guess the authors): By [these] modes of thought, what goes on between actors are the same connected processes of mixing and separation that go on within actors. Actors’ particular natures are thought to be results as well as causes of their particular actions. Indeed, persons are frequently constructed as the plural and composite site of the relationships that produced them... These... cases delineate the impact which interaction has on the inner person. The body’s features are a register, a site of that interaction. consequently, what is drawn out of the person are the social relationships of which it is composed: it is a microcosm of relations. And if the body is composed of relations, if it shows the imprint of past encounters, then the relations are not in a state of stasis. In these scheme, personhood [is] not confined in space and time to a corporeal cocoon: it permeate[s] the world through its material and spiritual extensions. An individual’s name, his personal effect, and his footprints in the sand [bear] his influence and [can] be used by sorcerers wishing to attack him... [The heart, the body] register[s] impressions that impinge on the person from outside and radiate influence beyond the self... This cultural order would seem to contrast sharply with a Western epistemology in which persons appear as self-contained, determining individuals, acting out of rational utility upon a compliant world... I did this once in a paper on ‘personhood,’ mashing up the following (you can probably guess the authors):

By [these] modes of thought, what goes on between actors are the same connected processes of mixing and separation that go on within actors. Actors’ particular natures are thought to be results as well as causes of their particular actions.

Indeed, persons are frequently constructed as the plural and composite site of the relationships that produced them… These… cases delineate the impact which interaction has on the inner person. The body’s features are a register, a site of that interaction. consequently, what is drawn out of the person are the social relationships of which it is composed: it is a microcosm of relations. And if the body is composed of relations, if it shows the imprint of past encounters, then the relations are not in a state of stasis.

In these scheme, personhood [is] not confined in space and time to a corporeal cocoon: it permeate[s] the world through its material and spiritual extensions. An individual’s name, his personal effect, and his footprints in the sand [bear] his influence and [can] be used by sorcerers wishing to attack him… [The heart, the body] register[s] impressions that impinge on the person from outside and radiate influence beyond the self… This cultural order would seem to contrast sharply with a Western epistemology in which persons appear as self-contained, determining individuals, acting out of rational utility upon a compliant world…

Report this comment

]]>