Although I am getting bored and frustrated every passing day, I will not quit.
I just wanted to start something, my "birthday gift", that could spark a discussion on what OAC should be in constructing knowledge legitimately, usefully, and meaningfully.
When I decided to become a member of OAC, I thought it will be a collective construction of knowledge-- like constructing a big puzzle with many hands.
Does everyone have to agree when it comes to collective knowledge production? Or is there room for different perspectives, methods, and approaches in your opinion?
Most of the comments I read are personally interpretive. Most commenters do not read existing body of knowledge to contribute something fresh and new. They comment according to their feeling or personal interpretation of the posts or discussions or they just cut and paste.
In my opinion, you are making a lot of assumptions and judgments about the commenters here.
I expect through OAC, I will be able to read and know data from the field not from someone's opinion.
How do you tell the difference between "data from the field" and "opinion"? Just wondering.
When I wrote about pragmata, I expected someone will mention proxemics, mobility, culture of space. What I got was an outright dismissal.
And what's wrong with that? The point is to learn how to interact, share, debate, communicate, and support ideas. I don't see a need for getting defensive if people disagree with you, especially since you freely admit that you are here to be provocative. I agree that you should learn to roll with the punches so to speak, and maybe also take the time to consider opposing perspectives and points of view. There are, after all, many ways of looking at things.
You can't really predict how a certain audience will respond to what you write. That's part of the deal; this isn't about a one-way transfer of information, after all. Authors always have hopes and expectations about how an audience will understand and receive what they write--but there is no real way to predict. Besides, if everyone reacted in a predictable manner I don't think any of this would be remotely interesting. The goal should be dialog and interaction, IMO.
A sort of experiment, my experience so far is very telling that some people here are so gung-ho on authority and authorship. One of these days I will include at least ten book titles in every post I will write.
Sure, some people take it too far with the whole name-dropping thing. But then some people refer to certain works to illustrate or back up their points--and there is nothing wrong with that. And just to let you know--I referred to Bourdieu in some of your older posts because you said you hate French theorists, not because I think he is the end-all social theorist. There is no end-all social theorist. Sure, Bourdieu had some good ideas, but so did a LOT of other people. Social Theory isn't a church, and there is no need to follow or believe in any one school of thought.
Some members wrote their generalizations that obviously need makeovers using new trends and perspectives.
What new trends and perspectives do you have in mind?
There are also people who limits themselves to one or two theories or theorists. What's the point of using Turner or Geertz all the time?
I don't know ANY anthropologists who limit themselves to one or two theorists (let alone just Turner or Geertz). Again, I think you are making some HUGE assumptions about people here, and I think that your assumptions are pretty unfounded. Why not avoid this kind of combative evaluation and instead work toward understanding different perspectives--isn't that one of the points of anthropology?
I think the problem lies in discriminatory indifference.
To what, specifically?
I will add, for my own part, that I rarely find it useful to continue conversations with those who adopt a pose of contempt for those with whom they are conversing. If the attitude is unshaken after two or three attempts to move the conversation in more productive directions, I move on.
Well said, John. I could not agree with you more.
Your duplicity is just funny. It was you who emailed me twice and requested me to write about poverty that would be posted on linkedin.com. I did not take you seriously since I found your ideas and appreciation of ideas flippant. I wonder why you cannot share your views or findings about poverty, if you are interested to know about it or if you are doing a fieldwork on it, using Foucault or postmodernism. I am interested if you can really postmodernize poverty. If you cannot, that is the crux of the matter-- all theory, no practice.
Neil Turner said:I, too, agree with you John. Very well said.
ryan anderson said:I will add, for my own part, that I rarely find it useful to continue conversations with those who adopt a pose of contempt for those with whom they are conversing. If the attitude is unshaken after two or three attempts to move the conversation in more productive directions, I move on.
Well said, John. I could not agree with you more.