{"id":470,"date":"2008-11-30T20:52:27","date_gmt":"2008-11-30T19:52:27","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/cognitionandculture.local\/?p=470"},"modified":"2023-08-07T11:32:14","modified_gmt":"2023-08-07T09:32:14","slug":"times-higher-ed-stop-muddying-the-waters","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/cognitionandculture.local\/blogs\/michaels-blog\/times-higher-ed-stop-muddying-the-waters\/","title":{"rendered":"“Times Higher Ed”, stop muddying the waters"},"content":{"rendered":"
I don\u2019t want to turn myself into a blogger obsessed with sloppy scientific coverage in the media, but I feel someone ought to note, if only for the record, the absurd and misleading comments by Hannah Fearn in the British Times Higher Education Supplement \u2013 the trade journal of UK academics. In one of the lead articles in the 20th November issue she claims that \u2018anthropology is at war with itself\u2019 having \u201csplit firmly into two factions \u2013 social anthropologists and evolutionary anthropologists.\u201d (See here<\/a>).<\/p>\n Compared to the 1970\u2019s when the AAA infamously debated (and defeated) a resolution denouncing EO Wilson\u2019 s 1975 \u2018Sociobiology\u2019 textbook as “an attempt to justify genetically the sexist, racist and elitist status quo in human society,\u201d signs of brutal conflict today are, in reality, conspicuous by their absence…<\/p>\n Two or three field departments chug along smoothly enough \u2013 at least on this side of the pond – and few of my colleagues have serious difficulties today with accepting that genetic studies are part of our discipline.<\/p>\n What is more interesting, and relevant to our concerns here, is that of the authorities quoted by Fearn (Mace, Ingold and a few others) only Harvey Whitehouse identifies the \u2018mindlblindness\u2019 of late 20th Century anthropology, both social and evolutionary as one of the sources of mutual misunderstanding and confusion.<\/p>\n Curiously, in the very week that that THES published its claims, together with two colleagues at UCL, a material culture specialist (Susanne Kuechler) and a biological\/primatologist (Volker Sommer), I was putting the finishing touches to a new, \u2018three field\u2019 course on The Anthropology of Mind. From next September, finalist undergraduates in our department \u2013 where all students follow a three field program –\u00a0 will discuss a number of issues where our divergent approaches will, hopefully produce some interesting refractions on old debates.<\/p>\n Meanwhile the THES article is another sign of just how feeble British journalism has become, and, by implication, how terrible is the intellectual training provided by the universities that turn out people like Ms Fearn, who appears to believe that medical anthropology is a\u00a0 \u2018new research subject\u2026\u2019 (sic!). Comically, the only reason I have a copy of the newly revamped Supplement is that the publishers are sending out freebie copies in an effort to make us all see the value of a subscription. Well, that is forty five pounds that will now easily find a better home.<\/p>\n Michael Stewart teaches Anthropology at UCL.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" I don\u2019t want to turn myself into a blogger obsessed with sloppy scientific coverage in the media, but I feel someone ought to note, if only for the record, the absurd and misleading comments by Hannah Fearn in the British Times Higher Education Supplement \u2013 the trade journal of UK academics. In one of the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":801,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[55],"tags":[],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n