<?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/"
	xmlns:series="http://organizeseries.com/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Using The Force</title>
	<atom:link href="/2008/02/18/using-the-force/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>/2008/02/18/using-the-force/</link>
	<description>Notes and Queries in Anthropology</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 08 Dec 2017 18:00:10 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=4.9.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rex</title>
		<link>/2008/02/18/using-the-force/comment-page-1/#comment-219328</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Rex]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Feb 2008 19:57:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/2008/02/18/using-the-force/#comment-219328</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[John: Thanks!

Adam: I think you&#039;ve hit it right on the head. I wouldn&#039;t say &quot;using the force&quot; is a _bad_ book, but what I am describing here could be glossed as the difference between a good book and a great book, not between cultural studies and anthropology. I blogged about this in regards to PA some time ago....

I guess it brings up another issue, which I&#039;d call the &quot;Tolstoy Question&quot; perhaps each discipline has work that is bad in its disciplinarily-specific way, but all good work is similar, regardless of the discipline :?)]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>John: Thanks!</p>
<p>Adam: I think you&#8217;ve hit it right on the head. I wouldn&#8217;t say &#8220;using the force&#8221; is a _bad_ book, but what I am describing here could be glossed as the difference between a good book and a great book, not between cultural studies and anthropology. I blogged about this in regards to PA some time ago&#8230;.</p>
<p>I guess it brings up another issue, which I&#8217;d call the &#8220;Tolstoy Question&#8221; perhaps each discipline has work that is bad in its disciplinarily-specific way, but all good work is similar, regardless of the discipline :?)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Adam</title>
		<link>/2008/02/18/using-the-force/comment-page-1/#comment-219143</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Adam]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Feb 2008 16:20:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/2008/02/18/using-the-force/#comment-219143</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Certainly a good criticism, Rex. What I&#039;m not sure about is whether it serves to elaborate on the distinction between cultural studies and anthropology, and not just the distinction between a good book and a really good book. Do we as anthropologists do a better job of articulating the theoretical/generalizable than those in cultural studies? I&#039;m not saying we don&#039;t, of course, but we should note that many see an insistence on particularities to the neglect of generalizable theory as a hallmark of anthropology. 

Somebody who is not me should do a lit review here. In this cultstuds/anthro discussion, we need a comprehensive survey of contemporary works in both fields that can evaluate both on their empiricism and their &#039;working the seam.&#039;]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Certainly a good criticism, Rex. What I&#8217;m not sure about is whether it serves to elaborate on the distinction between cultural studies and anthropology, and not just the distinction between a good book and a really good book. Do we as anthropologists do a better job of articulating the theoretical/generalizable than those in cultural studies? I&#8217;m not saying we don&#8217;t, of course, but we should note that many see an insistence on particularities to the neglect of generalizable theory as a hallmark of anthropology. </p>
<p>Somebody who is not me should do a lit review here. In this cultstuds/anthro discussion, we need a comprehensive survey of contemporary works in both fields that can evaluate both on their empiricism and their &#8216;working the seam.&#8217;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John McCreery</title>
		<link>/2008/02/18/using-the-force/comment-page-1/#comment-218169</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[John McCreery]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Feb 2008 21:54:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/2008/02/18/using-the-force/#comment-218169</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[_I am, in fact, an anthropologist and what this meant was not necessarily demanding less theory and more fact, but trying to work the seam between them both._

Precise, elegant, almost beautiful. (Drop the &quot;both&quot; at the end, and this becomes a statement that sings.)]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>_I am, in fact, an anthropologist and what this meant was not necessarily demanding less theory and more fact, but trying to work the seam between them both._</p>
<p>Precise, elegant, almost beautiful. (Drop the &#8220;both&#8221; at the end, and this becomes a statement that sings.)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
