Is Cultural Anthropology Really Disembodied?

11 thoughts on “Is Cultural Anthropology Really Disembodied?”

  1. from nicholas wade (from here):

    “I think it would be only to the good if we understood what part of our behavior had a genetic component, ’cause then we could focus our efforts, to the extent it might be relevant, on the remedial efforts that would reduce inequities.”

  2. You wrote:
    “and that we need to redouble our efforts to show them up for what they are: attempts to justify inequality.”

    But here’s what Wade wrote:
    “I think it would be only to the good if we understood what part of our behavior had a genetic component, ’cause then we could focus our efforts, to the extent it might be relevant, on the remedial efforts that would reduce inequities.”

  3. This is the stupidest review I’ve read so far. Incredible achievement.

    “But what really concerns me, in the end, is the force of theories of race and cultural evolution. The fictive naturalization of what are fundamentally relations of power is, actually, terrifying”

    An attempt at objective history is the “fictive naturalization of relations of power” and an attempt to justify inequality. My god, this is so bad it sounds like it’s from a women’s studies class. Pseudoscientists gonna pseudoscience

  4. Interesting but a few thoughts:
    1. Which is the first world? White Caucasian world? Then, which is the first world? The living civilizations of over 5000 years or those with a recorded mixed history and antecedents of few hundred years”
    2. Does cultural anthropology means restricted spaces of Caucasians and thier shared spaces and narrations?
    3. Perhaps the narrative dominance and its established space both in print and electronic forms are racially biased if one may say so is discriminative? Can such narratives be relegated as subaltern?

  5. This is an excellent post, and yet it also makes me despair a little. The title seems designed to broadcast how badly anthropologists communicate with the public. Can you imagine anyone not already steeped in academic theory looking at that title and having the faintest clue what the article is going to be about? Is it a clear description? Wouldn’t “Does Anthropology Ignore Biology?” do the job much, much more clearly?

    I know this seems really petty, but I feel like its a classic and recurring symptom of a very serious problem…

Comments are closed.