Amused by this:
In short there has been too much appropriation of inappropriate stuff. When Foucault writes about discipline and capillary power in early modern Western history, anthropologists pick it up and use it to think the institutions of every and any society. In the event, this poststructuralism becomes a paranoid style neofunctionalism: everything-family, kinship, second-person Vietnamese pronouns, Brazilian workers’ housing, Korean shamanism-is reduced to a power function. For myself, I think that anthropologists who have had the experience of cultural-ontological differences should not give a Foucault.
Advertisements
Filed under: Uncategorized |
Nice quote. I’m off to read the rest of the article.
By the way, if you liked Sahlins on Foucault, you may enjoy Shalins’s Waiting for Foucault Still.