From: coonstot@quads.uchicago.edu (charles orville onstott)
Subject: Re: What anthropologists study and how
Reply-To: coonstot@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 20:00:47 GMT

In article <Bw5Bpy.Mxn@rice.edu> pound@ruf.rice.edu (Christopher Brian Pound) writes:
>In article <-1366783758snx@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au> gil@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick) writes:
>>Which is the fundamental difference between your work and the other
>>fellow's; the difference between an Anthropologist and a Theologian,
>>or Humanitarian or whatever he is doing . . .
>
>I couldn't tell you.  Maybe this other guy (Charles Onstadt?) is just another
>missionary anthropologist, or maybe he's yet another misguided humanist,
>straight out of the seventies; but I would hesitate to judge just on the basis
>of his being in the Divinity School (is that right?).  Besides, I don't see
>anything inherent in being a "Theologian" that could prevent a person from
>grasping current anthropological theory.

  Just to set the record straight I am neither a missionary anthropologist
nor a humanist.  I find myself most sympathetic to the phenomenological
school of thinking which is not necessarily humanistitc.  However, whatever I am
has nothing to do with the discussion on methods that I brought up.
I am NOT a theologian as theology tends to deal with
philosophical issues of God.  If I wanted to be in theology, the
Divininty School offers a program in that.  I am in a branch of the
Divinity School which is called "Religion and Human Sciences" which
is an interdisciplinary field of studying religion using various
human sciences. Which means, in short, that not only do I need to
know what anthropology, psychology, and sociology  "are," but also 
how they are used and how to use them--this is why I see a
demarcation critical as each of these methods extract different
kinds of information. 

  In addition, I would also like to point out that the statement
made my Mr. Hardwick is more destructive than we had previously
thought--Mr. Hardwick did not intend _just_ to say that a Theologian
can not understand anthropology but that the difference between
a  theologian and an anthropologist was that the latter makes claims,
cites references, and gives forth evidence whereas the former, 
presumably, does not.  If Mr. Hardwick in fact
maintains that this is a valid distinction, then I hold him ignorant
to theology as a field. 

I reserve my
purely academic mode of discussion for papers that are due to
my professors--I did not feel it necessary to educate Mr. Hardwick
on literature from his own field.  I went ahead and did this to
silence his tirades.  However, I would remark that in normal
intellectual discussion, one that does not involve the formation
of thesis and defense, it is commonplace to take for granted
a vast understanding of literature.(And I will point out
that of the five people participating in this discussion, 
only one, Mr. Hardwick, did not know what I was talking about.)
I am sorry to see that this is not, evidently, Mr. Hardwick's
present mode of discourse.


>Christopher Pound	+	I am human by my hands and my feet, my guts,

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