Yes, that does seem to be the default politics of many anthropologists…I caught myself doing that very same thing a few years back, getting on the case of so-called “Conservatives.” And then I realized that I was guilty of doing the very same thing that I was accusing them of: being close-minded, stereotyping, etc.

So that was the end of that for me.

Another thing that struck me about this kind of thing is this: I have had many classes, and read many books and papers, that pushed the idea of understanding other cultures, behaviors, and peoples ON THEIR OWN TERMS. YOu know the gig. Anthropologists are often very good at this, sometimes. And they often study some of the most conservative cultures on the face of the earth. The only way that some cultures have survived, of course, was because of their stubborn or conservative elements that fought change and conquest. Hmmm.

Here in the US though, many anthros are openly bashing the conservative aspects of American culture without viewing them in that same relativistic or open-minded light. I did this as much as anyone, but have since made a conscious effort to stick to the ideals of anthropology as much as possible and keep an open mind…even in the face of something or someone that I severely disagree with. In fact, I have learned a few things in the mean time.

So it goes.

Nice blog, glad I found it. I linked up with you.

With the India project we are actually trying to reach as broad an audience as possible, although we have already made some choices which are sure to limit that audience. For instance, it is fairly well understood that films about “brown” people don’t get wide US distribution unless there is a mediating white figure with whom the audience can identify – something we don’t feel would be appropriate as the group we are working with are eloquent enough at expressing their own situation without the need for an interlocutor. Still, we hope that we can still get wide release despite this.

Very astute, SLS. I like the Sartre quote because it can be assimilated into a sort of standard Weberian epistemology, which is more or less where I’m coming from (Weber was himself an existentialist in some vague sense).

Kerim, of course one needs to suss out the demographic of one’s audience before writing a popular book of anthropology for a ‘general audience’. But I think you’ve made my point for me — there is no point in talking past our anglo-protestant audience by frothing at the mouth about Discovery Channel specials that feature ‘cannibalism’ in order to show solidarity with the 2% of the population that, like us, has an ethical commitment to the idea that “talking about cannibals is bad”. And clearly the wasps are the people we need to reach — not only is there more of them than anyone else, but they are also in charge.

I think this is actually Weberian method (though definitely not the cold-war, modernization-theory version canonized by Parsons…but if one keeps reading the entries in Economy and Society, past the initial ‘ideal’ definitions into the heart of the articles, where he uses historical data to dismantle them, then dialectically reconstitute them in more complex, supple, and historically particular form, it comes through).

I am curious about the anthropological reception of Nadia Abu El-Haj’s Saidian crit of archaeological knowledge in Israel. Much of what I have seen has been refutations from Israeli archaeologists, who may know the material better but I assume share a diametrically opposed ‘subject position.’