From: coonstot@quads.uchicago.edu (charles orville onstott)
Subject: Re: Women's Studies and Research "Focus"
Reply-To: coonstot@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 01:11:57 GMT

In article <-1367116154snx@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au> gil@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick) writes:
>
>In article <1992Oct8.221555.18643@midway.uchicago.edu> coonstot@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>
> > >>What we mean by the term "anthropological" is material not published
> > >>within the discourse of Anthropology as a study of society & culture.
> > >
> > >If a lot of so-called 'Women's' Studies is exactly about studying
> > >and analysing society and culture as a whole  - and therefore it is 
> > >exactly anthropological -
> > >is the difference drawn because traditional anthropology either is
> > >directly sexist in its analysis or indirectly by its lack of
> > >critique? 
>
>I do apologise that I missed this intermediate response. This site is
>Beta testing a news reader and the "updated" EXPIRE.EXE utility which
>came with it wiped out two entire news batches before I woke up to
>what it was doing.
>
>But yes, the problem has been lack of critique rather than deliberate
>bias. The earlier generation to ours appeared quite shocked by the
>idea that they had not been completely fair and impartial in their
>published works. It was generally only the revelation of Malinowski's
>private field diaries, for example, which raised eyebrows after his
>death. But he like the others was a man of his own time and culture,
>where we now live in a quite different world posterity will judge
>quite differently.
>
>Then as now, "differences" are drawn merely as threads of argument, as
>they are here on the net, although I appear to have something further
>to say about it below.
>
> > Here the demarcation would need to be drawn between old anthropology
> > and new anthropology.  The fact is that "old" anthropology was, 
> > in many instances, ethno-centric and sexist.  The "new" anthropology
> > is more concerned with this issue and works to prevent, as best
> > it can, issues of ethno-centricity.
>
>I do not feel comfortable with these types of "new/old" distinctions;
>the advice of Eleanor Leacock is appropriate in suggesting that most
>of the early work done was simply of poor quality, implying that it is
>incomplete rather than badly done. I have no problem with the discourse
>of Anthropology and I take no particular issue with its founders. A
>great deal of work we are doing today is to go over it again in the
>light of new evidence and improved field techniques. That's all.

  Which is precisely why I placed new and old in quotation marks--
"old" is a vague reference to methodologies that are being challenged
today.

>
>There is no conspiracy to "cover up" "old" anthropology, and there has
>been no colonisation of the discipline by "new" anthropologists, such
>that any "demarcation" between past and present "forms" can be discerned.

  No where have I implied there to be a conspiracy.  As a new student
of the field of anthroplogy, however, there exists rough demarcation
between "old" and "new" anthropology which is primarily revealed by
a critical study of methodologies.

>
> >                                     As a professor of mine, Wendy
> > Doniger O'Flaherty, put it: the new anthropology is "inter-subjective"
> > or "inter-objective."  
>
>Here I do not wish to be seen to be taking issue with your professor
>in her absence, and comment only on your choice of words. It is an
>arrogance to impose your own idea of what "anthropology is" as an
>absolute value. You might consider rather "anthropology may be viewed
>as" within the context of the thesis you wish to present, and supported
>by what evidence you have at your disposal.

  It is only an arrogance if you believe "anthropology" to be
a field without definition.  As for thesis and evidence, I 
don't find it my place to post this, even though technically
the burden of proof lies on me, because I was simply trying
to give a rough sketch of Anthropology as I see it today.  I
will save the thesis for other purposes.

> > Focci of fields(Abbreviated):
> >  
> >   Anthro - Human Being, Individual
> >   Socio  - Institution
> >   Psycho - Individual in a current context with the purpose of "optimum
> >   human functioning," or, for philosophic questions.
> >   Women  - Human Being, Woman, Individual +  Institutions of Women, etc.
>
>Here again, the distinctions are artificial in the extreme and ought
>to be challenged. What a priori distinctions one chooses to make can
>only be validated a posteriori; ie, within the context of a thesis one
>wishes to present and supported by its evidence. What thesis is being
>presented here? What do you want us to understand about your view of
>women, your insight on women's issues, to what purpose that you have
>listed them here in this way?

  The purpose was, as I have already stated, to provide what
I see to be the focci of these fields.  I am not, at this time,
interested in formulating a thesis but rather attempting to provide
a general demarcation which I do not believe is artificial.  Earlier
I was accused of placing square pegs into round holes; I would respond
by saying that some are trying to make round holes for my square pegs.
Either we say that these fields can not be demarcated, or we attempt
to come to some general understanding of their contents--to this
latter end I have posted some thoughts, that is all.

>
>May I suggest further reading to you;

If you only knew how much I already have to read....
However, some titles have been noted--two years from now I can
give you a book report. 

>"Culture" is precisely what the word implies. We do not take any old
>word and apply it to any jolly idea we make up as we go along. What
>"culture" is has long been understood. There is no question remaining
>about it. The ongoing task is merely (???) to take each year's batch
>of freshers through the basics . . .

  Funny, I have several articles that already disagree on culture.
Please, however, define the word--I would be more than happy to
hear your opinion.

>Gil Hardwick                                      gil@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au

BCnya,
  Charles O. Onstott, III

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles O. Onstott, III                    (coonstot@midway.uchicago.edu)
Graduate Student in Religion and Human Sciences
The University of Chicago Divinity School

"Les dieux existent : c'est le diable."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: sci.anthropology,soc.culture.netherlands