Printable View
Great way to derail the thread, Steve. :mad:Quote:
I did what I could: I bought a BMW motorcycle today
Now, all you academics who rate a little respect out of us neandrethals, get back to abusing your collegues who are in desperate need of a clue.
Jeesh. Just when it was getting good.
Oh yeah, "testosterone-laden" as a perjorative? I can't even address this without a reciprocal ad homonim attack.
Selil wrote;
While I endorse Sam's argument, I think the problem with academics like McKenna is that they like to borrow the prestige accrued from their disciplinary "silo" and apply it unearned to their political opinions, which may or may not be any better informed than those that can be heard in any local bar, circa 3 am.Quote:
"Dr. Mckenna in his own way is helping prove my thesis that academia has moved to far into specialization and there are issues with the silos of disciplines in the University"
They skip over the hard thinking part in order to get to the intended result they "know" is right. A bad methodology. If you are "right" then your reasoning will withstand fair scrutiny. Or even a lot of unfair scrutiny.
I also agree with Sam on the culture that has developed over the years regarding academia and it's (for lack of a better term) presentation to those outside of it's esteemed halls.Quote:
Originally Posted by zenpundit
I was asking someone the other day about tthis sort of thing and truthfully I find it curious how the concept of self preservation may dwell at the base if the issues much as with any other group in society.
How often is it that the relevance of one's particular studies or acollades actually coincides with a been there done that in order to truly validate their knowledge base.
Example : (among the hallowed halls how many of those whose expertise or specialty truly comes with as much experience as it does education) There must be balance but if one where to look at war for instance, there are relatively few opportunities to be both a battle hardened and PHD educated individual when you look at it in the grander scheme of things.
I say all this to say, does it really seem all so unlikely that there might be somewhat of a discomfort between those who are the educated SME of what military's do and those who actually have done it and are also coming into their academic silos?
Thank you for continued coaching, CavGuy. You are a gentlemen and scholar.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavguy
Unfortunately, my preacher told me a long time ago that I can not take away the "spoken word, spent arrow, or missed opportunity." This thread has turned course and actually brought up some great issues. (I even got Rob Thorton to participate!)
Therefore, thank you for welcoming me aboard in your CavGuy way...let me know what else I need to do to get my spurs... ;)
Sincerely,
MSL--my 3rd or 4th post! I lose count it's getting so high!:D
Ron wrote:
Agreed. When individuals who are highly competent in one field, have success in a second, it discomforts everyone in the second field who were resting on their laurels. And it's a good thing that they are shaken up. When you stop growing intellectually and exploring, it's easy to stagnate, ruminating on the same comfortable assumptions and familiar concepts. You end up becoming a defeneder of the orthodoxy or status quo.Quote:
"I say all this to say, does it really seem all so unlikely that there might be somewhat of a discomfort between those who are the educated SME of what military's do and those who actually have done it and are also coming into their academic silos?"
Hi Sam,
It's a very interesting piece. I was going to post a reply here, but I needed a blog topic, so I put it up here instead :D.Quote:
Originally Posted by selil
I want to register a complaint--you guys have taken my emotional and adolescent rant and hijacked it into something important and even profound. I guess I'm going to have to work even harder to make sure the threads I start stay in the gutter.
Nice bike, Steve....
keep it out of the gutter...
Gutter threads are safer...
Enjoy and play with the ABS, it's awesome.
Hey Steve,
Isn't that what academia is all about :eek::p!?!Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveMetz
Young Dr. Metz finally gets a real bike... Mine though is red http://selil.com/slideshow/bmwr1200c/ .
The other BMW I had until recently was this one http://selil.com/slideshow/bmwk1200ltc/ .
The lengthy posts have to go on my BLOG, I um.. well ... err.. run out of space on the forum and then Stan calls me names.
I know, it's just terrible :eek:!! Stan keeps calling ME a romantic (okay, it's true but still :D!).Quote:
Originally Posted by selil
Sorry, guys, but I just can't see what all the fuss is about. I'd take McKenna's offer more seriously if it brought actual anthropology into the discussion. Politics and anthropology are interrelated, but they are still different topics.
To state your thesis and then gird your argument with a mixture of fictional narrative, opinion pages and a veneer of statistics does not discourse make.
I'd like to ask the following: does Dr. McKenna's body of work really even apply to our profession? Based on what is posted thus far, I'd argue that it does not. Let's say for argument's sake I'm mediocre at best (maybe this is more true than I let on!)as a tactical-level officer. I have x experience in y operational type. Does this make me qualified to then speak of microeconomics of Culture z? I don't think McKenna has to have served or anything, but I'd like to think that more relevant work than his would be needed. Does somewhere like the AWC grant him audience based on his desire for discourse rather than what he brings to the discourse? Hell, as a disgruntled Major, I'd love to teach at the AWC, but I hardly consider myself qualified to do so.
This is written by a non-academic Google searcher, with no credentials in anthropology or sociology - other than going out with a soc. grad student at the U of Mich (she was a nice girl).
1. The term "military anthropology", in current use, refers to the use of socio-cultural anthropologists in support of military operations. Some views as to that:
[American] Anthropology Association Formally Disapproves of Military Program
http://chronicle.com/news/article/33...litary-program
Kinship Studies - Military Anthropology
http://kinshipstudies.org/?page_id=109
2. USAian "Military Anthropology", as a socio-cultural study of the US military as a "tribe" (with a very extended family, indeed), seems absent as a sub-branch of socio-cultural anthropology.
3. Military sociology is an established sub-branch of sociology. E.g.,
Journal of Political and Military Sociology
http://www.jpms.niu.edu/
Guy Siebold, Core issues and theory in military sociology (2001)
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...07/ai_n8977420
4. Basic tenets of socio-cultural anthropology require field work; i.e., living near or with the tribe, eventual interaction with its members, their consent to tell their human story, etc. We might also note that the military "tribe" has its own language.
WSU Cultural Anthropology Program: "All graduate programs in cultural anthropology emphasize the importance of field work. All students are encouraged to conduct original field research as part of their graduate training. A foreign language is required at both the M.A. and Ph.D. levels. ... The [MA] thesis should be based on original fieldwork. ... Students whose fieldwork will be conducted among non-speakers of English will be expected to demonstrate competence in this language in a way that satisfies their committees before fieldwork begins."
http://libarts.wsu.edu/anthro/gradcult.html
5. Don't know if the US military would like to studied as a "tribe"; but it would seem to be an interesting subject for an open-minded anthropologist, even if not of the "tribe" or its extended family. Of course, he might find it a cannibal tribe (OP: "... our students would eat him alive and pick their teeth with his bones."). Sounds like Philip Caputo's novel "A Rumor of War" where his marines get super hungry on a search & destroy. ;)
But we have to recognize that there is ideological content in using tribes as a universal model for human society. It was a rejection of the idea that there are "advanced" and "less advanced" societies, or "civilized" and, at least, "less civilized." Of course, this idea has been common in Western culture since the ancient Greeks (and in other cultures like the Chinese).
Beginning in the 1960s (if not earlier) there was an intellectual movement, leftist in ideology, which rejected this idea, stressing that all cultures were more alike than different.
This debate has intensified again as people have sought to place the "war on terror" (and I personally hate that phrase an refuse to use it without quotation marks) in context. Once school of thought attributes it to shortcomings or flaws in Islamic culture. The other--popular within the ideology that dominates many academic disciplines--rejects this explanation and seeks others, most often the idea that violent extremism from the Islamic world is a defensive response. Downplaying the structural and functional differences between Islamic and Western cultures is an element of this explanation.
There, that's the only thing even vaguely thoughtful I plan to say today. I take delivery on my midlife crisis motorcycle (which I have labeled "Mein Schwein") in a couple of hours, so plan to spend the day attempting to not become a brain smear on the pavement.
Never, ever go into a corner too fast. (It's extremely difficult to slow down mid corner and I've read a couple of articles in the local paper about part time riders - enjoying the nice weather - who have gotten themselves killed just by going into a corner too fast.)Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveMetz
I'm all for amateurs jumping into the deep end - and mid life crises - but risk management is crucial. (I'm going to racing school, because there's about 200 yards of empty field around the track in case I screw up.) Stay safe and have fun.
When I got time to start a new thread, I was going to say - based on observation and not ideology - we seem to be having a lot more success working directly with tribes instead of nation building. It looks as though the "ungoverned territories are a breeding ground for terrorism" school of thought is in need of some revision.Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveMetz
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rank amateur
I've never subscribed to the "ungoverned territories are a breeding ground for terrorism" idea. To tell you the truth, I think that's more a justification for a large military than it is a description of reality. Even if it were true, more effective and efficient to launch spoiling attacks as needed than to try and turn ungoverned spaces into governed ones. There are good reasons that ungoverned spaces are ungoverned, and it isn't because it never occurred to the local regime to emulate Americans (which is what we tend to assume).
I think I'm going to be OK cornering, given my tens of thousands of miles on road bicycles. Only ever went down on it once, and that was when I was really new at it and a kid ran in front of me.
To both!Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveMetz
Have fun!
But none of those were when you were having a mid life crisis, and the guys I read about didn't lay it down, they went too fast, "pushed" wide and hit something. Pick your spots. Have fun.Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveMetz
Yup, and if anyone is feeling masochistic, I have a pretty decent lecture on that development. It's actually tied in with general conceptualizations of cosmic time and, specifically, with views on whether time is linear, circular or spiral. In the West, the formal expressions of it go back to Herodotus and the development of a form of social engineering (e.g. history as a mechanistic explanation).Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveMetz
Certainly earlier inside Anthropology (~1895+) - things like the psychic unity of mankind and other Boasian concepts tended to reject the earlier ideas of unilinear evolution and social Darwinism. World War I was pretty much the death blow to the old unilinear evolutionary models except in various leftist enclaves, which tended to have an early form of multi-linear evolution anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveMetz
Actually, the stress wasn't so much on the cultures being the same as it was on a) humans, as a species, being the same and b) socio-economic forces operating as "natural laws". Pretty much the only school of social theory that adopted both these points were the varieties of Marxism. At the same time, say the 1950's - 60's, they also had enough symbolic capital to act as a visible opponent to functionalism and they got taken up by many as the ideology of choice against the status quo.
From a scientific standpoint, I hold that they are extremely flawed in both their basic assumptions and in their adoption / co-optation of religous symbolism. First, most of the Maxian theories are based on two totally false premises: the labour theory of value and a general dismissal of individualistic motivations like greed, anger and stupidity. Second, part of the reason why they were adopted stems back to the old Cold War conflict with the Soviets and a sub-conscious symbolic binary opposition, something aong the lines of "functionalism supports capitalism and he US goivernment, only the Soviets (Marxists) oppose it, therefore if I oppose the actions of the US government I must be a Marxist." Or, to put it more formally,
Marxists oppose Capitalism
I oppose Capitalism,
Therefore I am a Marxist
Rule of the excluded third <sigh>; typical of magical thinking.
Steve, I totally agree with you on the ridiculousness of the term "War on Terror". It is a classic example of magical thinking and, in many cases, is analytically useless. I also agree with you on the binary split that has shown up; the Clash of Civilizations vs. the Victimization of Islam. Sometimes I am amazed (and PO'd) at how readily we dust off pseudo-scientific explanations from the dustbin of history. Huntington's Clash model is really only a slightly updated form of deGobineau's model from 1853 see here), while the Victimization advocates are implicitly, and sometimes explicitly, arguing that radical Islamist irhabi violence is merely an expression of emergent class consciousness.Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveMetz
Where, I keep asking myself, is the science in all of this? It certainly doesn't show up in most of the academic stuff I've read except in the works that are extremely situated ("tactical" one might say). Personally, I'm still waiting to find (or build ;)) a theoretical model that is more predictive than the two currently available.