3 ms·

It's a student guide written for other undergrad anthropology students, so we should read it in that light and make affordances for imprecise language and a lac

It's a student guide written for other undergrad anthropology students, so we should read it in that light and make affordances for imprecise language and a lack of generality. In that light, what is it describing postmodernism for? Simply put, it's a [set of] frameworks through which to analyze the kinds of things anthropologists work with. This an important because many of the issues you're seeing are the direct result of trying to extrapolate beyond this academic heritage. So from an academic anthropology standpoint: 1. Is definitely not flat earth silly. To give some context, prior to PM in the 70s, anthropologists were doing silly things like measuring the amount of food on the table every day and how many knives were in the cupboard. That's nice quantitative data, but it doesn't really tell you much about culture or human behavior. Thinking of language and text as fundamental aspects of culture and behavior is much better, though I personally have some quibbles with that focus. 2. Specific to anthropology and a bit of academic vogue here. 3. Remember that this is an academic framework for analyzing academic things. In anthropology, sometimes people all see the same physically impossible thing, or see different things despite observing bthe same physical events, etc. To deal with this, sometimes it's useful just to view things as if people are in different realities and observing different things. It's not a claim on the real underlying epistemology. 4. Virtually everything academic from the last 40-50 years has been influenced in some way by post modernism. Bit of a Seinfeld effect here. 5. They have a section later about methodologies of postmodernism. Yes, it's a bit ironic. 6. Same as 4, but you're right that it's not unique. Doesn't have to be. 7. This is specific to academia, which was (and largely still is) made up of very much Western derived institutions. Specifically, this is about things like "maybe the structure of our institutions leads us to certain types of research design and valuing certain types of information over others" and "maybe other ways of organizing academia / research / knowledge might also lead to useful results". It's not to suggest the only target for criticism should be Western institutions, merely that they're not the only way to do things and might be improved. As for whether the ideas of PM are being miscommunicated, sure, I'm open to the idea. But there are also millions of people in academia who do get it. Since we all know academics can be remarkably stupid, it's not an intelligence gap. Maybe it's just something that doesn't make sense without practical experience in the kinds of problems it's designed to help?

api 7y ago
Okay, yours is the first answer that made any sense. It's also the first time I've ever seen anyone claim that postmodernism is specifically speaking to anthropologists about how to approach anthropology. In that context it's at least not absurd, especially if counting cutlery was what it was addressing. All the statements I listed make quite a lot more sense if given that context. The reason I'm a bit peeved in these replies is that I do have a powerful sense that the humanities in academia have lost their relevance by going down a path that is increasingly insular, alienating, and unproductive, and that this has had a role in ceding the cultural ground to reactionaries, fascists, and other kinds of actively destructive irrationalists. That's why elsewhere I make the analogy to string theory, a fad that seems as if it's been fruitless and has derailed physics. In short I've blamed pomo for why there is a resurgence of racism, reactionary ideology, and stuff like the anti-vaxx movement. Not only does this stuff result in an intellectual class that speaks gibberish that nobody but them understands, it also at least superficially sounds as if it's legitimizing the idea that "all opinions are of equal merit." That means if I don't want to vaccinate my kids because Alex Jones said so, my opinion is equal to that of an epidemiologist because cultural relativism. Edit: I realized there's a more pointed way of saying what I said above: I am not sure you can try to argue that all cultures are equivalent and equal without implicitly asserting the same about all ideas within one's own culture. This is because cultures and boundaries between them are fluid. So if it isn't possible to criticize cultures, it's also not possible to say that Richard Spencer's ideas are worse than Martin Luther King's or that Alex Jones' opinion on vaccination should not be equal to that of an epidemiologist. Nothing is true and everything is permitted. My observation has been that the left prototypes nonsense and then the right deploys it at scale. So the left first pioneered relativism and critiques of reason and evidence, but it's the right that has run with these ideas and used them to re-legitimize racism and lead a renaissance of interest in traditionalist monarchy. Maybe the left should stop prototyping nonsense to begin with if for no other reason than to stop giving weapons to those who ought not have them. It's the same reason you don't give plutonium to ISIS. I truly do not believe that dullards like Richard Spencer or Pat Buchanan have the capacity to originate a cultural zeitgeist any more than ISIS can build an enrichment centrifuge, but they sure can use the final product if it's handed to them.
- 7y ago

api 7y ago

Okay, yours is the first answer that made any sense. It's also the first time I've ever seen anyone claim that postmodernism is specifically speaking to anthropologists about how to approach anthropology. In that context it's at least not absurd, especially if counting cutlery was what it was addressing. All the statements I listed make quite a lot more sense if given that context. The reason I'm a bit peeved in these replies is that I do have a powerful sense that the humanities in academia have lost their relevance by going down a path that is increasingly insular, alienating, and unproductive, and that this has had a role in ceding the cultural ground to reactionaries, fascists, and other kinds of actively destructive irrationalists. That's why elsewhere I make the analogy to string theory, a fad that seems as if it's been fruitless and has derailed physics. In short I've blamed pomo for why there is a resurgence of racism, reactionary ideology, and stuff like the anti-vaxx movement. Not only does this stuff result in an intellectual class that speaks gibberish that nobody but them understands, it also at least superficially sounds as if it's legitimizing the idea that "all opinions are of equal merit." That means if I don't want to vaccinate my kids because Alex Jones said so, my opinion is equal to that of an epidemiologist because cultural relativism. Edit: I realized there's a more pointed way of saying what I said above: I am not sure you can try to argue that all cultures are equivalent and equal without implicitly asserting the same about all ideas within one's own culture. This is because cultures and boundaries between them are fluid. So if it isn't possible to criticize cultures, it's also not possible to say that Richard Spencer's ideas are worse than Martin Luther King's or that Alex Jones' opinion on vaccination should not be equal to that of an epidemiologist. Nothing is true and everything is permitted. My observation has been that the left prototypes nonsense and then the right deploys it at scale. So the left first pioneered relativism and critiques of reason and evidence, but it's the right that has run with these ideas and used them to re-legitimize racism and lead a renaissance of interest in traditionalist monarchy. Maybe the left should stop prototyping nonsense to begin with if for no other reason than to stop giving weapons to those who ought not have them. It's the same reason you don't give plutonium to ISIS. I truly do not believe that dullards like Richard Spencer or Pat Buchanan have the capacity to originate a cultural zeitgeist any more than ISIS can build an enrichment centrifuge, but they sure can use the final product if it's handed to them.

7y ago