Archive for December, 2011

Letters to My Tutor…

My dearest Simone,

I imagine that it’s common with Anthropology and others areas of social research that when one studies at a certain level it may give rise to sensations of out-of-body experience. Concentrated study of how we live and think and interact can create such a disconnect with the sense of self. In this way I think study in areas such as math and physics may be easier… at least for me. At the moment, working math problems is calming for me in a way that reading anthropology is not, but I could see this changing. I enjoy the anthropological perspective, the vast scope of the field, the natural appeal to interdisciplinary approaches… but I fear serious study might be a quick road to insanity.

I think that press coverage of anthropology adds to my anxiety when thinking about further study in the field. I believe anthropology (along with sociology and psychology) suffers a lot more from poor coverage in the popular press. Unfortunately, a lot of culture commentators with no background in social fields get billed as culture experts and a lot of “experts,” people from top schools, put out crap research (for financial gain?) that gets top coverage because of the hotness of the topic. Sometimes it’s hard to keep even the obviously bad stuff separate when thinking about the field generally. At times it’s hard to distinguish whether seemingly reputable people are being deliberately deceitful or whether the methodologies are just that faulty. I wish there were more rigorous methodology classes earlier in social study. This past year of reading in anthropology has been helpful in pointing me toward where to look for “real” anthropological research.

I haven’t come up with a plan for reading anthropology in the new year. I will likely take a few weeks off as I am cramming to hopefully take a chemistry placement test so that I don’t have to take Intro to Chemistry. It may turn out that I will want to read some anthropology to break up the chemistry study such that I will post like normal until I come up with a plan.

See you in the new year,

S.

 

Functional Theories of Grammar
Annual Review of Anthropology
Vol. 13: 97-117 (Volume publication date October 1984)
J Nichols
In lieu of an abstract, the publisher reproduces the first page of the article. (Link)

Letters to My Tutor…

My dearest Simone,

This article is for functional theories of grammar what I would like to have for anthropology generally. It lays outs the basics and then goes through a list of all the players, their perspectives, and their works. I enjoyed Nichols’ careful use of words, the pain she takes to explain exactly her use of the word “functional” in the text of this article and how the use of that word might differ across texts and perspectives. I’ve found it difficult lately to tear myself away from my math and science, physics, and chemistry review. I did not give this article the attention I would have liked given how nicely comprehensive it was even though under 20 pages. The use of jargon was not too heavy, but it was present beyond my immediate abilities.

Still I felt a kinship reading it as the approach seems of the type I took toward conversation as a child. About functional grammar Nichols writes: “It analyzes grammatical structure, as do formal and structural grammar; but it also analyzes the entire communicative situation: the purpose of the speech event, its participants, its discourse context.” I used to spend a lot of time observing how people used words in different situations, how context and mood and participants affected word choices. I would take these observations into account when formulating verbal responses. I especially took note of the extra communicative elements that were indicated by the choice of words, but didn’t necessarily follow from the dictionary definitions of the words. As a result, I tended to have a longer than usual pause before responding, and I tended to speak slowly even by Southern standards.

Starting some time in college, I made efforts to be more natural in conversational pace and style. In the process I lost a lot of the observation skills I had gained. Unfortunately, I don’t think any of the gains toward being more natural were worth the loss of those skills. I wish I had kept more written notes as a child.

Over the past year or so, there have been several review articles that I tagged to revisit. This one will join that list. Perhaps for the coming year I will pick 6-12 articles to revisit and make a bigger effort to explore some of the resources mentioned.

With sweetness,
S.

THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF SYMBOLS
Annual Review of Anthropology
Vol. 27: 329-346 (Volume publication date October 1998)
John E. Robb
The publishers share an abstract here.

My dearest Simone,

In a previous post, I implied that study for a job or as part of a dispassionate continuation of a previous path of study might be wrong reasons to study. At the moment, these are not the main reasons that drive me, but I don’t think that they are wrong reasons.

I had hoped reading this article that I might find a point of view on the archaeology of symbols with which I identified. I did not. I felt an upsurge of some of my general uncomfortableness with anthropology/archaeology. There often seems to be a disingenuous relationship between theory and data; there’s this sense that if a certain theoretical perspective only has round holes, then only round pegs matter and all other shapes of pegs are ignored. The starting/middle point doesn’t seem to be which theory can explain the most data, but rather which theory and data go together to make the tidiest package. Let the cherry picking begin. These issues exists in every discipline, but my impression is that they are a more pernicious problem in anthropology.

Robb presents three approaches to symbols in archaeology. They are symbols as tokens, symbols as girders, and symbols as tesserae. Looking at the first and taking note that the author says it remained unquestioned and unamended for a long time I see an example of my thinking that anthropologists often blur the line between “this is what we can say” and “this is all there is to say.” On symbols as totems, Robb writes, “According to many archaeologists symbols serve primarily as instruments of communication … As one recent discussion puts it, ‘Symbols including icons, rituals, monuments, and written test all convey and transmit information and meaning to their viewers…’ Thus a sumptuous headdress signals a special status, an exotic artifact boasts about long-range connections, a monument represents a capacity to command labor.” I find it easy to believe when Robb writes that “this approach has long since proved its value in archaeology.” I can almost hear the meeting discussing the fact that those who fund research like clear ideologies that render easily quantifiable findings. Though I found this view of symbols shallow and expedient, I don’t necessarily agree whole-heartedly with the reaction from “Marxists and interpretive archaeologists, who argued that symbols do not merely represent and disguise power relations but actually constitute them…”

About symbols as girders, Robb writes, “In contrast to the information transmission view, many archaeologists have explored how symbols constituted and structured the mental and social world of ancient people … humans orient themselves in the world, think and act through learned culturally specific structures that recur wherever they organize themselves and their material productions.” I do find this a better starting point than the former view of symbols as totems. It reads like a more genuine attempt at saying something more real though less tangible. Of course, I’ve always had rationalist leanings. Robb mentions that “without strong Durkheimian assumptions about elementary social structures, Levi-Straussian assumptions about elementary mental structures, or Marxist assumptions about hegemony, identifying cultural structures alone usually does not satisfy social-minded archaeologists.” He goes on to write that many have combined structuralists approaches with other approaches to form a more workable model.

On symbols as tesserae, Rob writes, “Meaning does not reside in artifacts or in people but in the moment of interaction between the two… symbols’ meanings do not exist outside of the moment in which people apprehend them and assemble them into meaningful formations … Because symbols’ meaning is not fixed but contestable, social life involves continual struggle over alternative interpretations of important symbols.” This view seems overly narrow to me in part the way Robb cites in that “all of symbolic life becomes superficial, without historical or psychological roots – a transitory juxtaposition of images on a screen.” Thoughts come to mind of how many advertising strategies rely on the fact that symbols’ meaning do exist outside of the moment in which people apprehend them.

Reading this article I feel that my need to read a book that has a comprehensive overview of anthropological theories and the views of the major players becomes more pressing. Here’s one person’s anthropological timeline that includes links to Wikipedia articles on people who shaped the development of anthropological thought: History of Anthropology Timeline.

Yours truly,
S

Letters to My Tutor…

My dearest Simone,

I’ve picked two articles to read before the end of the year along with finishing my review of America Day by Day. I continue to look for ways to integrate my study of anthropology with my study of physics.

The Archaeology of Symbols
Annual Review of Anthropology
Vol. 27: 329-346 (Volume publication date October 1998)
John E. Robb

Functional Theories of Grammar
Annual Review of Anthropology
Vol. 13: 97-117 (Volume publication date October 1984)
J Nichols

Until Monday,
S.

Letters to My Tutor…

My dearest Simone,

I am looking to find more clarity on what I want to do next in anthropology. I could probably continue grazing forever, but that’s a good way to eventually lose interest in an area of study. I haven’t come up with a firm plan. I’m thinking that I will pick three to five areas to study in greater detail. Areas to which I am immediately drawn include symbols in archaeology, linguistics and theory. I don’t think I’m suited to study linguistics, but I will still look a little closer. I know that there are additional review articles on the these topics – I may finish out the year reading in those areas and come up with a new plan for the new year.

I also continue to work on a plan for my physics study website/blog. I am starting to get ideas for some of the short tutorials that I plan to post. I am reading one of the more popular physics textbooks for science majors and I have been taken in by the sense that this book was written for how I learn and how I approach problems and study. I will likely write more on this text on my physics study site. I won’t be able to take a physics class until the fall. I want to take full advantage of the wait time to get a good head start.

I will be taking a math class during the coming spring semester and I’ve started review for that as well. I’m undecided as to whether I will take a chemistry class, so for the moment my chemistry review is on pause.

I’ll do a mid-week update with the articles I plan to read during the rest of the year.

Ever devoted,

S.