xmca@weber.ucsd.edu writes:
>>
>> Mike posed the methodological question of how to take phylogeny into
>account
>> for chat studies.
>
>There is something to add to the first of the two items that followed, and
>which Ingold articulated as important for anthropological writing. I'd
>like to
>add this quote from him that i read this morning:
>
>"But there is more to an anthropological perspective than that. At the
>very
>least, it is grounded in the realities of everyday experience,
>intrinsically
>comparative (so that even when describing aspects of their own society,
>anthropologists are mindful of other ways of living), and suspicious of
>any a
>priori claim to the superiority of modern Western civilization. "
>
>Ingold, T. (1999) Book Review: Paths of Fire
>Technology and Culture 40.1 130-132
>
i must be missing something hugely significant, because it has never
occurred to me to dismiss, deny, judge, or ignore, the infinite
manifestations of difference that characterize cultural preference.
and so, what is the anthropological perspective, or the phylogenic
perspective, for that matter, that these would require such cautions and
directives?
isn't difference recognized by its being different-from the dominant
(institutional) model of the Western white-boy- .. and all that? i mean,
wasn't that agreed ?
or were feminism, post-colonialism, post-modernism, ... all fads?
have i missed some great leap?
diane
"I want you to put the crayon back in my brain."
Homer Simpson
diane celia hodges
university of british columbia, centre for the study of curriculum and
instruction
vancouver, bc
mailing address: 46 broadview avenue, montreal, qc, H9R 3Z2
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 01 2001 - 01:02:06 PDT