 |
 |
****************************************************** * http://www.anthropologymatters.com * * A postgraduate project comprising online journal, * * online discussions, teaching and research resources * * and international contacts directory. * ****************************************************** What an interesting debate you just sparked, Aron Ymous! A much needed detour from the list's traditional newsboard use. Well, let me say at the outset that I am no Cambridge anthropologist. God forgive me: I did my D.Phil. in Oxford. I did not train in Cambridge and have never taught there. I do admit, however, to befriend some of the people you mention. Oh dear, poor me: caught up in the entrails of the Cambridge mafia. Next time I'll make sure to check the provenance of people's doctorates before I have a beer with them. (Mancunian beers, incidentally, for it was in Manchester that I befriended these unscrupulous Cantabrigians – I taught in Manchester for a number of years before moving to Spain.) I can most definitely understand your worries, though: having these Cambridge Mafiosi "take over our discipline, bit by bit, in this country". And JRAI. I-n t-h-i-s c-o-u-n-t-r-y. Never! God save the Queen! Now about GDAT. Soumhya Venkatesan resurrected GDAT in 2008, after a decade's silence. She went at great length to do this, with the support of her colleagues at the Social Anthropology department in Manchester. They found the financial resources to carry out the project, year after year, and Soumhya has put together an intellectual agenda that seems, to this day, to have successfully drawn the attention of students and academics alike, as well as publishers. Kudos to her. That GDAT does not quite measure up to your Elizabethan anthropology, dear Aron, seems to me a distortion proper of your ambitions. For GDAT is not The British Academy nor the Royal Anthropological Institute. I don't see why GDAT should, by imperial mandate, arrogate the function of representing anthropology "in this country". This said, you are most welcomed to implement the Elizabethan vision yourself. Best of luck! But what intrigues me most about your message, dear Aron, is what you identify as a "Cambridge factor". The C-factor must be quite extraordinary indeed, if its gravitational pull can outdo, say, years teaching in Manchester or Durham or Denmark; not to speak of people's own regional biases as ethnographers (Mongolia, India, Cuba, Siberia). With such force, I can certainly understand your concern about Cambridge's challenge to the imperial seat. Someone, please, call the Queen’s Guard! Not residing "in your country" I hope you do not mind my saying that from my own position in the periphery a project like GDAT glows like few others, and it is with great envy and curiosity that I look out to what every new GDAT debate spawns. All best Alberto Quoting Aron Ymous: > ****************************************************** > * http://www.anthropologymatters.com * > * A postgraduate project comprising online journal, * > * online discussions, teaching and research resources * > * and international contacts directory. * > ****************************************************** > > > GDAT 2012 is soon upon us. > > > > I have listed below the Cambridge > connection of the previous speakers involved in GDAT. Out of 21 speakers, 13 > have either gained their Ph.D. from Cambridge, are currently working > there, or > are part of the Camridge ‘ontology’ clique. Either everyone outside > of Cambridge > is utterly stupid with nothing interesting to contribute to such > extraordinary > questions as ‘is nose-picking another name for ontology?’, or the Cambridge > mafia have taken over these debates and are essentially running an ‘in-house’ > discussion which us privileged few are allowed to listen in to. > > > > There have always been cliques in > Anthropology. GDAT is not an extraordinary example of corruption or inward > looking. It is, however, time it stopped. The organiser of these > debates gained > her Ph.D. from Cambridge and is relating her relation only to Cambridge > relations – one must talk Cambridge-ese to be understood by them. There are > other, much worse, more pernicious examples of how this Cambridge ‘massive’ > goes out of its way to support all things Cambridge within the > discipline. This > email is the first to gently point out to this group that enough is enough. > > > > The relation of relations, is the > Cambridge relation to all things Cambridge > > > > We anthropologists have much to > answer for. We have stood back and let this clique and all the noise > they make > take over our discipline, bit by bit, in this country. It was not > too long ago > one could pick up a copy of JRAI and happily read most of the > articles in them. > It is unlikely one can find one article an issue which is readable nowadays. > The tide can be turned, and it will not take too much effort. We are > asking for > silliness to be stopped, nothing grander. > > > > > > GDAT – 2008 > > > > ‘Is fishing another name for > ontology’ > > > > Michael Carrithers (Durham > University – though close to the Cambridge ontology crowd) > > > > Matei Candea (Ph.D. from > University of Cambridge) > > > > Martin > Holbraad (Ph.D. from University of Cambridge) > > > > > > GDAT > – 2009 > > > > ‘The Cambridge anthropologists’ fixation with each other leaves no > place for love’ > > > > Rane Willerslev (Ph.D. > from University of Cambridge) > > > > Perveez Modi (Cambridge) > > > > > > GDAT – 2010 > > > > ‘The task of anthropology is to fabricate, make up, just conjure out of > thin air, relations’ > > > > Casper Bruun Jensen (IT UNiversity of Copenhagen – organised a > conference and edited a volume with Strathern, Eduardo Perspectivism > Vivieros de Castro, Martin Holbraad .... and so on) Morten Pedersen > (Ph.D. from University of Cambridge) James Leach (Cambridge mob > groupie) > > > > > > GDAT – 2011 > > > > ‘Non-dualism is philosophy, not ethnography’ – it’s so bad and > irrelevant question I do not have the heart to mock it. > > > > Michael Scott (LSE – though best friends with the Cambridge clique) > Nikolai Ssorin-Chaikov (Cambridge) Joanna Cook (Ph.D. from > University of Cambridge) Marilyn Strathern (Cambridge) > > > > GDAT – 2012 > > > ‘The concept of > neoliberalism (not ‘relations’, ‘ontology’, ‘perspectivism’) has become an > obstacle to the anthropological understanding of the twenty-first century’ > > > James Laidlaw (Cambridge) > > > Jonathan Mair (Cambridge) > > ************************************************************* > * Anthropology-Matters Mailing List * > * To join this list or to look at the archived previous * > * messages visit: * > * http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/Anthropology-Matters.HTML * > * If you have ALREADY subscribed: to send a message to all * > * those currently subscribed to the list,just send mail to: * > * [log in to unmask] * > * * > * Enjoyed the mailing list? Why not join the new * > * CONTACTS SECTION @ www.anthropologymatters.com * > * an international directory of anthropology researchers > * > * To unsubscribe: please log on to jiscmail.ac.uk, and * > * go to the 'Subscriber's corner' page. * > * > *************************************************************** > ************************************************************* * Anthropology-Matters Mailing List * * To join this list or to look at the archived previous * * messages visit: * * http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/Anthropology-Matters.HTML * * If you have ALREADY subscribed: to send a message to all * * those currently subscribed to the list,just send mail to: * * [log in to unmask] * * * * Enjoyed the mailing list? Why not join the new * * CONTACTS SECTION @ www.anthropologymatters.com * * an international directory of anthropology researchers * * To unsubscribe: please log on to jiscmail.ac.uk, and * * go to the 'Subscriber's corner' page. * * ***************************************************************