Anthropology Times

Psychoanalytic Anthropology
Annual Review of Anthropology
Vol. 18: 177-202 (Volume publication date October 1989)
Robert A Paul
In lieu of an abstract, the publisher reproduces the first page of the article. (Link)

Letters to My Tutor…

My dearest Simone,

Robert Paul’s descriptions of psychoanalytic anthropologists show them as people who understand that insights into another’s culture take time and may require a certain amount of unguided observation and immersion. And I appreciate the perspective some have as far as the information that results from cross-cultural (or even within culture) interactions/studies: “… Crapanzano argues, the ethnographic interview, like the psychoanalytic process, is an ongoing act of mutual creativity in which interviewer and interviewee dialectically constitute – rather than unearth and comment on – the reality being sought.” Sometimes it seems that social “scientists” get too caught up into thinking that they are unearthing real truths about the world and it peoples, and that armed with the right theory and specific toolkit they can clearly knock out all the broad strokes of a culture in no time or some such.

I was reminded of Roy Wagner’s comments from a 2008 interview. He says that the stuff that anthropologists talk about and study isn’t really the kind of stuff we can talk about and know, but because he and others have earned a certain qualification they are recognized as being able to talk about these things. I believed that he believed this and not that it was just something cute to say which made me all the more fascinated by his continued ability to talk about that stuff with passion and excitement and interest. And yes, I understand that this talk about stuff can have practical applications within whatever framework one chooses to help give shape to and make sense of the world, but still, it can be difficult to remain attached to such a framework and understanding with passion as opposed to apathy. I suppose we all cycle back and forth between those two.

This is one of the reviews that I would like to revisit; I find the type of thinking interesting. Paul writes that “those who practice psychoanalytic anthropology assume that human life is meaningfully influenced by unconscious thoughts, affects, and motives and that anthropological understanding is deepened by investigating them.” Here’s a link to the Wikipedia article on psychoanalytic anthropology and other areas of psychological anthropology.  Read here about Robert Paul’s participation in the Robert A. Paul Emory-Tibet Science Initiative, “A Landmark Undertaking for the Convergence of Science and Spirituality,” at Emory University.

Many warm thoughts,
S.

The Relation of Morphology to Syntax
Annual Review of Anthropology
Vol. 18: 157-175 (Volume publication date October 1989)
Susan Steele
In lieu of an abstract, the publisher reproduces the first page of the article. (Link)

Letters to My Tutor…

My dearest Simone,

I read the first few pages of this article and I was drawn in by the fact that Steele defines key, basic terminology and gives clear explanations and examples. However, the laymen-level clarity drops away after the first few pages in a way that left me wondering what the editing of this article had been like. Had an editor removed sentences and paragraphs thought to be redundant and/or unnecessary, I thought.  I also thought it might be that Steele defined the basic terms/concepts more to distinguish her membership in a specific linguistic camp rather than in an effort to make the article more generally accessible. It’s possible that my concentration fell away as the discussion became more esoteric. The Wikipedia article on syntax had definitions for and links to wider explanations of many of the relevant terms for this article – this wiki article has so many links that it seems a good jumping off point for garnering a basic familiarity.

I often wonder how linguists make it through a day of ordinary communication. Are they able to shut off the laboratory thinking once they leave the lab? Even with my limited knowledge, I have often felt overwhelmed by the amount of “stuff” people communicate about themselves in the course of every day speech. (A friend mentioned that this sense of being overwhelmed might be the explanation for why a the character of linguist Henry Higgins in “Pygmalion“/“My Fair Lady” was a confirmed bachelor who avoided the standard social obligations.) I’ve casually observed how people use language differently on social media sites being that they are preparing tidbits for a wider public consumption than in the average daily conversation. Even without benefit of tone of voice and body language, I’ve found that people seem to communicate a lot more about their private lives than they consciously intend… this despite generally taking more care in how they craft their words.  I wonder how much word choices and sentence structure vary with the emotional content of the communication… can we tell a happy story by the structure of the sentences and are we less able to manipulate these variables consciously when sharing stories with others?

Midnight approaches…

Warm regards,

S.

The Archeology of the Norse North Atlantic
Annual Review of Anthropology
Vol. 19: 331-351 (Volume publication date October 1990)
Thomas H. McGovern
In lieu of an abstract, the publisher reproduces the first page of the article. (Link)

Letters to My Tutor…

My dearest Simone,

Reading this review I thought it would be great to pal around the net looking for the latest info on the research discussed.  l wanted to read more on what McGovern referred to as the controversial claims regarding settlement of the Faroe Islands: “Pioneering palynological work by Johannes Johansen claimed to have identified evidence of early cereal cultivation by pre-Norse Celtic monks ca. AD 600.” So far, I’ve come across several non-academic sites that mention the possibility of Celtic monks in AD 600, so it would seem the notion is a popular one; but not much on the more official word. I imagine that no new evidence has been found and the claim remains controversial. Maybe one day the story of new evidence will break and it will be all excitement. McGovern also mentions the controversial claims of Margret Hermanns-Audardottir that there was a pre-Viking Scandinavian colony in Iceland. A stub Wikipedia page basically repeats this information with nothing new added.

I wonder what criteria go into determining whether controversial claims are worthy of mention in a scholarly work. How big a role does merit play as opposed to the reputation of the researcher or the sponsors of the research.

I’m certain I’ve watched a couple films on Viking archaeology and at least one on Vinland and the dig site at L’Anse aux Meadows. Reading McGovern left me wanting to re-watch films on this site. The Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History has a series of pages with information on Vinland archaeology with video clips, including one that takes you inside a Viking long house, and audio clips including an excerpt from the stories of Leif Eriksson. The “next” link in the bottom right corner is a bit discreet, but click it to page through the information at the site.

It’s super late, so I will leave you with that and my warmest regards,

S.

Mining: Anthropological Perspectives
Annual Review of Anthropology
Vol. 14: 199-217 (Volume publication date October 1985)
Ricardo Godoy
In lieu of an abstract, the publisher reproduces the first page of the article. (Link)

Letters to My Tutor…

My dearest Simone,

Ricardo Godoy seems a man after my first anthropology professor’s heart. The review reads like one would expect if a mining conglomerate had hired an anthropologist to write such a thing, which is just the type of work my first anthropology professor recommended (she discouraged academia and ethnography). That’s not to say that it reads as if from an industry mouthpiece; there’s objectivity still. Godoy does a good job of presenting a variety of viewpoints; it’s just that the emphasis and de-emphasis seems somewhat more favorable to mining companies as opposed to the people or the state.

Godoy divides the review into three sections: economics, sociopolitical considerations and ideological considerations.  He writes of the financial risks involved in locating mining resources.  The search can be expensive with no guarantee of a payoff.  He points to discussions of how the harsh working conditions, company-favorable legislation, and geographic isolation and so on that come with mining have encouraged worker solidarity and political organization.  He gives a firm nod to the work of Mircea Eliade (The Forge and the Crucible) for those wanting to read more about the  miners’ belief system.  He writes that Eliade “draws the analogy between obstetrics and mining, with ore equated to embryo, mine to uterus, shaft to vagina, and miner to obstetrician.”

Even with the brief overview of issues in anthropological studies of mining, I find myself wanting to rewatch movies with mining components.  Movies like Billy Elliot, in which mining isn’t the main focus, come to mind.  The movie is set during a miners’ strike, but the main story has to do with a boy’s love of dance.  Even without further reading, I might notice more the movies’ commentary on mining towns and mining families and the mining industry.  Is there any language equating the mine to a womb or to hell? Are there any references, no matter how brief or subtle, as to how mining has impacted the area, any hint of what the town was like before mining? In a movie in which mining isn’t the main focus, the commentary is more pointed and selective which is what appeals to me at the moment with this topic.  Billy Elliot is streaming on Netflix (seems I watched it November of last year), so maybe I will give it another watch soon.

With much sweetness,
S.