Like CKelty, I regularly read the NYRB. And while its placement next to the toilet might indicate otherwise, we value our subscription highly and pay a hefty sum to have it sent to us in Taiwan. (And when we are done they get sent along to my in-laws in India, who then donate them to the local library, ending the journey.) But as much as the NYRB does a great job with reporting about war, politics, poetry, biology, and the history of the founding fathers, it is sorely lacking in its coverage of the social sciences. (Perhaps related to Rex’s discussion about the lack of anthropology books in bookstores?)
So here is my question, in two parts: Is there anything remotely like the NYRB for the social sciences? (i.e. A journal aimed at an educated but non-specialist audience with essays riffing on rather than reviewing the latest books?) And, if not, why not? I’d be more than happy to pay double for my AAA membership if they could put out such a publication.
(New York Review of Looks found via Sociological Images.)
The general absence of anthropology in the NYRB seems especially odd if you follow the Times Literary Supplement, which reviews a good bit of anthropology by comparison. I wonder if part of the problem is that the NYRB has long been an outlet for ‘public intellectuals,’ and it’s been a long time since there has been an anthropologist with the broad middle-brow name recognition of most of the contributors to NYRB? Geertz might have met that standard — I seem to recall that he wrote a NYRB review of the book that prompted the Yanomamo controversy, or am I seriously confused? (Is someone going to tell me that it was Sahlins in the NY Times Book Review….???)
Well, Geertz did a review of Discipline and Punish, and there was the Cannibals and Kings exchange between Sahlins and Harris that went for a few rounds. This was a while back though, of course, before I was even born.
Geertz’ contributions… more than I thought!
http://www.nybooks.com/authors/116
So the problem is that they haven’t found a replacement for Geertz? I guess whomever it is has to be a well established public intellectual before they hire her, and already have tenure so that’s not an issue, any nominations?
I’ve always wondered why their there is a category for science writers but not a corresponding one for social science writers. Is there a journalism program that specializes in social science reporting?
Why should there be a journalism program that specializes in social science reporting?
Let me play the devil’s advocate. There was a time when social science was part of a big story–science as a way to understand everything, including us. For nearly a century, from Marx to Mao, half the world believed in scientific laws of history. We’ve seen how that turned out. Isaac Asimov could base the whole Foundation series around the idea that psychohistory would be a mathematical discipline that was right most of the time, which was what made the Mule, the mutant who upset the time table. such a big deal. End of the series it turns out that the whole thing only seemed to work because a literal deux ex machine, the robots, were taking care of it all the time. The whole postmodern and interpretive turn turns out to be a lot of fancy language used to say what is pretty obvious to anyone who stops to think about it–No grand narrative means no news value. The social “science” thing was a big idea, but it’s fizzled. A publisher would be out of his or her mind to try to sell this stuff.
Now obviously I still get a kick out of doing what I think of as anthropology, and I know there are some really smart people on this list who work really hard at what they do. If the world were fair we’d be famous. Who ever told you the world was fair?
Kerim asks, “I guess whomever it is has to be a well established public intellectual before they hire her, and already have tenure so that’s not an issue, any nominations?”
Strathern? Is the world ready?