[log in to unmask] wrote:
> Dan Mouer wrote:
>
> > A bit more seriously...I rarely find there to be much overlap between tne
> > interests of sociologists and the interests of archaeologists, and when it
> > comes down to it, we are members of different disciplinary cultures with
> > different circles of citation, different languages, different theoretical
> > constructs, etc. The anthropologist in me says that differences are
> > cultural.There are some overlaps, but they are few and far between. Even when I
> > cite a sociologist, such as Bordieau, it is likely to be with different nuance
> > and toward different ends than those of sociologists.
>
> Does the problem not arrise then, when archaeologists seem to forget
> that they are not sociologists?
> (I'm sure we can all think of examples) :)
>
> Julie
Julie, because we are speaking across the Atlantic, we are adding another layer of
cultural cross-communication, because in North America there are few archaeologists
who would be viewed as speaking as "sociologists," whereas there are a great many of
us who feel comfortable speaking as "anthropologists," because that is how we are
trained. My background prepared me to talk about social organization and symbolic
interaction much more than it trained me to deal with broken dishes...although I
think I do okay in that regard also. I can think of very few places in North America
(Calgary, Simon Fraser...a few others) where archaeologists aren't first trained as
socio-cultural anthropologists. In the military I was trained as a combat engineer,
which meant that first I was trained to work as an infantryman in a rifle
platoon...on top of which I also learned how to build bridges and construct
fortifications. But the army never let me forget that I was a rifleman first. Same
principal.
--
Dan Mouer
Dept. of Sociology and Anthropology
Virginia Commonwealth University
http://saturn.vcu.edu/~dmouer/homepage.htm
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|