elanya

Some lulz, from In Search of the Social: Steamboats, Square Wheels, Reindeer and Other Things, in Journal of Maritime Archaeology vol 3, p. 21:

For the purposes of this paper, I argue: it is not that objects and boat structures were nonsocial— i.e. it is not that we are fetishising boats and other objects in maritime archaeology. Rather, it is the various depictions of social in the rest of the social sciences, which exclude or omit boat structures and other objects that need changing. In addition to boats, we study a wide variety of people-and-things (for a discussion of topics and theory in maritime archaeology see McGrail 2001, pp. 1–13; Adams 2002, 2003, pp. 2–46; Flatman 2003). However, besides maritime/nautical archaeology, no other field of the social sciences is dedicated to the socio-cultural, technological and historical exploration of boats, ships and other forms of watercraft. Therefore, it is necessary to stress our importance in academia and argue that discussions of society, in many other areas of the social sciences (i.e. besides our own), need to start including boat structures, objects, things, materials, animals, landscapes and technologies, on a more equal footing with people, minds, agencies and social structures because objects are a part of the social. They help make the subject. They are part of what makes society possible.

...to quote Steve, "God-damn, why do people who are essentially right have to be so pretentious and dumb?" I'm sure other non-maritime archaeologists will be thrilled to know that they aren't paying enough attention to objects.

When did problematic become a noun? Who do I need to spank? Was it someone French? I bet it was someone French. >:|

Example: "Cultural Studies, as a distinct problematic, emerges from one such moment, in the mid-1950's."

or, if you prefer:

"Changes in a problematic do significantly transform the nature of the questions asked..."

Both from Stuart Hall, "Cultural Studies: Two Paradigms"

Ugh :p

This isn't the first time I've encountered it.

The other day I posted an incomplete version of my Cultural Anth paper in a f-locked post. I finished the beast on Sunday evening. We workshopped them in class today, but I haven't actually incorporated any changes in to the text. I'm going to post the whole beast here, because I'm curious what people think - I'm looking for more external input, basically. So if you're curious as to what it is that has been eating my time, if nothing else, you can have a look. First off, though, I'm going to post the general guidelines we were given. At the end of it, I'm going to abstract the comments I got from my workshop partner and people can tell me if they agree, or note of they can think of anything else I might want to change or that I could do to strengthen the paper generally. If anyone wants to read it in its entirety (I'm not posting figures or bibliography, for reasons of space and laziness), let me know and I can e-mail it to you instead :)

( Guidelines )

( Grounding Identity: Historical Ecology, Habitus, and Imagined Communities )

( Workshop comments )

Thanks to anyone who perseveres through all of that ;)

I have a presentation next week in my cultural anthropology theory class. It's a shared presentation, which is an odd and unfamiliar format, but I thik it can be good!

I'm presenting on Franz Boas, Ruth Benedict, and Zora Neale Hurston. The latter I know nothing about - yet! The others I'm much more familiar with. Boas did a lot of work with various Native groups along the north west coast of North America, and that was the focus of one of my most memorable (and formative) ethnography classes as an undergraduate. So i've got a lot of exposure to his ideas. benedict was one of his students, and I've got a fair amount of exposure to her as weel - again all at UNB. And people told me it was pointless to keep class notes. well who's laughing now? :V

Anyway the point is that I went back through a lot of old notes from my undergrad theory classes and now I'm feeling much less freaked out. In fact the Sherry Ortner article that we're using as a foundation to build the class discussions on now? I've already read it! I'm feeling a lot more psychologically prepared to deal with this class now, which is good, and I *was* feeling inexplicably scared by it.

Now it is still a ton of work. I still have a shitton of stuff to do between now and November, but I think I can handle it. Now I just need to figure out what exactly I want to write my paper on and I'll be feeling a lot more secure. I'm thinking I want to tackle the identity issue, but I need to frame it in terms of: agency, power, subject/the other, culture, symbolism, society, practice, history, idealismvs materialism. Those are our "keywords".... Identity, maginalization, relationship to the community... And then i have to couch my studies in X number of the theorists we are studying. *Runs away with Turner, Foucault and Bourdieu, at least.... Possibly some Boas/Benedict tossed in....*

Well I'm totally rambling now! But I'm verging on psyched for this now, as opposed to terrified!

Now if I could only get psyched about the funding apps... -_-

* Opens her third paragraph with a reference to Bourdieu.... and then wonders if her proff is too ignorant of theory in anthropology generally to understand what she is doping...

* Watches forthright cringe

* Steeples her fingers like Mr. Burns and returns to Zee Paper