Banner
    Understanding Social Science Speak - A Tuesday Puzzle
    By Hank Campbell | March 20th 2012 10:28 AM | 8 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
    New York University cultural anthropologist and Associate Professor Allen Feldman is visiting the University of Sydney, notes the blog site of the School of Philosophical and Historical Inquiry (SOPHI) - they named the site SOPHIstry, which may be a little too clever, since sophists in ancient times were the people real philosophers made fun of because they were trying to be too clever and prove up is down and other nonsense.

    What exactly is a 'cultural anthropologist', since anthropology studies culture?  I have no idea, but then again my Ph.D. is in Theoretical Phys Ed so someone in anthropology, or perhaps Quantum Paleontology, may be more qualified to answer.

    What is a cultural anthropologist is not the puzzle - contextually anyone can put together the words and deduce/abduce/induce that he only focuses on politics or something - the puzzle is what the heck he is talking about.

    Tim Blair at The Daily Telegraph posts this synopsis:
    The violence that is poised between humanitas and inhumanitas speaks to the metaphysical ordering and phantasms of everyday political terror. Are practices of political aggression separable from the Western metaphysical divide between human and animal, and what are the ideological utilities of this divide? Are acts and discourses of inhumanization how philosophical anthropology (and all anthropologies are ultimately philosophical and political) confesses itself, not as theorem or disciplinary taxonomy, but as a political culture with the most severe material criteria and bodily consequences? Does political animality point to an anthropological sovereignty that only acquires positivity, tangibility, and figuration through its displacement onto, and passage into, the extimacy that is animality? And why does subjugated or expelled animality perennially threaten anthropological plenitude as an uncontainable negativity? These questions imply that the many thresholds of language, labor and finitude that have repeatedly delimited, governed and consigned the animal and human in metaphysical thought and practice can be remapped as a properly political dominion; a wildlife reserve in which philosophical, ethological, and anthropological declaratives and descriptions encrypt zoopolitical relations of power and force, and where the animal predicate circumscribes a concentrated time and space of subjugation, exposure, disappearance and abandonment.
    Can you turn that into human language? I mean, we all can figure out what the words mean and maybe even do logical backflips into human sentences, but does this not read like some machine-created parody of anthropological mumbo-jumbo? "Does political animality point to an anthropological sovereignty that only acquires positivity, tangibility, and figuration through its displacement onto, and passage into, the extimacy that is animality?"

    Ummm, let me guess, since Feldman got his PhD at the New School; yes?

    I'm not the only one baffled.  Even other anthropologists think this is made up.  Blair says he got an email from Ron Bruxton of the Institute of Public Affairs, who wrote, “Although I have been an anthropologist for over 40 years, I have no idea what this means. As I have often said, a really clever country would close most of its universities."

    PUT IT ON A BUMPER STICKER by Tim Blair, The Daily Telegraph
    H/T Five Feet of Fury

    Comments

    vongehr
    One one hand I agree with your ridiculing, on the other hand, if criticism is put any clearer than this, it is effectively censured. I mean look, if Noam Chomsky uses his words in order to translate and partially actually answer "Are practices of political aggression separable from the Western metaphysical divide between human and animal, and what are the ideological utilities of this divide?", the result is complete ignorance across the Western intellectual establishment. Like here in the Derrida style, at least one finds it on a blog or two.
    partially actually answer
    As opposed to actually actually answering. Anyway, the partial actual answer is obviously certainly probably "not much" so we needn't bother Chomsky on this occasion. Interesting piece by Tim Blair - not quite sure I understood Hank's point.
     


    vongehr
    as opposed to pseudo answering I meant
    Ah yes. That would be fully psuedo, of course :)
    Hank
    Tim Blair and his audience had fun with this in the comments. No one in the US even laughed at my degree in Theoretical Phys Ed as a prerequisite for understanding anthropology mumbo jumbo. Europeans may not be smarter than Americans but clearly Australians are.
    Want more no-nonsense, independent science? Buy Science Left Behind
    The School of Philosophical and Historical Inquiry are so ignorant of language they attach themselves to the Sophists with apparent pride. As you point out, the definition of a Sophist is "a paid teacher of philosophy and rhetoric in ancient Greece, associated in popular thought with moral skepticism and specious reasoning".

    Or are they? They may be ridiculing the rest of us for supporting the nonsense of the "social sciences". The attachment of the word "science" has only ever been an attempt by adherents of various social "science" schools to give their academic nonsense some credibility and protection. After all who wants to be accused of attacking "science". There is no true evidence of use of the scientific method, only conjecture, imputation, and abuse of language.

    Hank
    They may be ridiculing the rest of us for supporting the nonsense of the "social sciences".
    Wouldn't that be an awesome, Keyser Söze level of manipulation?  Greatest trick of the devil was convincing people he didn't exist and all that?  Philosophical postmodernists convincing the public to fund their intentional disdain and undermining of science and reason and the masses would be a great hook for a Dan Brown novel - if he weren't one of them.
    Want more no-nonsense, independent science? Buy Science Left Behind