Since Barth was identified as an anthropologist and the example was Afghanistan, my guess is no. More than happy to be corrected.

Pakistan, actually. Though as the Swat Valley is located within Pashtunistan as divided by the Durand Line yours is an understandable error.

Interesting who gets to speak for anthropology, where, and why…

Have any of us here besides me heard of either Homans or Martin? If not, why would you expect that anyone outside of a few anthropologists would be seriously familiar with the works of Frederik [sic] Barth?

I should bloody well hope the anthropologists here have heard of George Homans! After all, he wrote a book on marriage alliance with David Schneider’s (probably entirely nominal) assistance. The work, and Needham’s Structure and Sentiment (his book-length response/smackdown to Homans), were set texts for me. So yes, I’m familiar with Homans, as I expect most anthropologists are. As for transactionalism, I’ve always understood it to have originated with Weber, at least in essence. The Atlantic article just came across as another one of those pieces using Marx and Weber to represent different sides of humanity, but replacing them with lesser-known scholars.

As for Martin, I had only ever heard his name, but The Explanation of Social Action is on my amazon wishlist. Good, is he?

Either way, it’s fine to gripe about these things. There are certainly more productive things to do, but complaining is a natural response. Reading through some of Scola’s other articles, by the way, it turns out that some of them are rather good. It seems like this one was duff – an attempt at a new angle on a topic saturated by media coverage that fell short. That’s all. Again, your mileage may vary.

I agree with Ryan’s conclusion and with Rex’s original critique. What I don’t understand, except that the blog is here and the audience is receptive, Rex’s critique is addressed to the choir at Savage Minds instead of the editors of The Atlantic or the comment threads on its blogs. Were I doing fieldwork, my notes on these events would be along the following lines.

Once again the natives are excited by a mention of their tribe. Once again they are beating their drums and complaining to each other how badly they are misunderstood. Some claim that what was said by the member of the tribe cited in the article was not only incorrectly interpreted but was also irrelevant to the argument the author advanced. Nods of pious satisfaction all around.

“So while it is nice to Fredrik Barth discussed in The Atlantic, it would be better if the reason were enthusiasm for the topics of his research rather than an attempt to come up with a new angle on Mitt Romney’s campaign.”

I agree 100 percent. It would be one thing if there was some sort of relevance with the whole transactionalism argument. But, there isn’t. In this case the “anthropology” angle is just an attempt to put a different spin on a rather bad argument.

I don’t think getting this kind of mention in the popular press is something to get excited about. I think the discipline has a lot more to contribute than the occasional not-so-great nod in our direction. Yet another reason why more anthros need to actually be the ones who write the anthropology for wider audiences.

George Homans
Thomas C. Schelling
John Levi Martin

Has anybody noticed? Are there any sociologists upset because they weren’t cited?
Since Barth was identified as an anthropologist and the example was Afghanistan, my guess is no. More than happy to be corrected.

How many of us are up to speed with the last half century of developments in ichthyology, organic chemistry, medieval history or Buddhist studies, for example?

I don’t know about you, but I know a bit about the state of these fields, certainly as they were back in the 1960s. I expect you do as well, and while modesty is always good, I’d like to hope that you know as much about each of those fields as Nancy Scola does about anthropology. Know a little about the DNA double-helix, Schroedinger’s What is Life?, and the attempted reduction of biology to chemistry and chemistry to physics? Know about the supposed dates of Gautama Buddha and the role of the Indo-Greek kingdoms and Kushan empire in spreading Buddhist doctrines along the Silk Road? Congratulations, you know as much about these topics as Scola appears to know about anthropology.

I think it’s fair to criticise coverage like this instead of simply being happy to see a name like Barth’s in the press. In fact, breaking down popular articles is a good way to educate people who might be interested in the topic. So while it is nice to Fredrik Barth discussed in The Atlantic, it would be better if the reason were enthusiasm for the topics of his research rather than an attempt to come up with a new angle on Mitt Romney’s campaign.

Just my view on it, of course. YMMV.

I have to agree with Ryan here – the article isn’t so great. Seems like Fredrik Barth has been shoehorned in to give a fresh edge to yet another article on Romney.