User talk:Alex Golub

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome to the Wikipedia

Here are some links I find useful:


Feel free to ask me anything the links and talk pages don't answer. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, likes this: ~~~~.

Cheers, Sam [Spade] 03:08, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Foucault

Hi Alex,

Althusser's position at the ENS was quite odd during the time in question. I suppose we could mention the whole story on the Foucault page, but it feels extraneous. In any case, Althusser was basically allowed to live in the medical unit at ENS and basically just hang around the place indefinitely, due to his mental illness and the time he'd spent in prisoner of war camps. I guess my interpretation of things would be that his position would be the equivalent to a PhD in an institution who hung around doing tutoring even though their candidture was suspended or completed and they did not have a formal position. (This info is mostly from memory of Althusser's autobiography by the way, and of the three Foucault bios). Anyway, i replaced the teacher/student thing with 'mentor', which I think is undoubtedly true, and merely implies that Althusser was more senior, not by how much. Hope this is ok. --XmarkX 00:52, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Mr Golub,

I noticed you removed an anonymous comment on globalization at Foucault's entry. I restored an edited version of the original anonymous post and placed it in the section -Influence of Foucault's work-, since I consider it to be acurate and something that needs to be mentioned.

Regards, cesarsorm 07:37, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Politics of Anthropology

Hi Alex, would like to put in the political aspect of US anthropolgy again . Think it's important for a neutral view.Does not take much space. Can I do ?

Hey 217.185.210.88 --

It is fine with me if you include more on the politics of anthropology -- in fact I think that would make a great contribution. But I think it needs to be better integrated into the article, instead of tacked onto the end. If you can find a way to do a substantive separate section that would be great, or else you could incorporate it into the main body of the article, as I did with your note on race.

Also, your contribution has to be factual and accurate. Anthropologists have certainly beein engaged with government and applied work in many ways (including intelligence functions) but more often than not, U.S. anthropology's leftist tendencies have led anthropologists to work counter to rather than with government intelligence agencies. Consider the new book by David Price which scrupulously examines the way anthropologists were targeted, or the exchange in the New York Times about anthropology in Vietnamn. It strikes me that maybe claimining without a citation that 50% of all anthropologists over a long period of time were working for the secret service is maybe not the most careful or detailed claim you could make.

So go for it, but please do try to write well and research carefully :!) Also, if you create a user name and login account, then it will be easier for us to talk and to keep track of your contributions.

Rex 18:50, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Max Weber

I will be putting ol' Max on Featured candidate soon, after 2 peer reviews I think he is ready for big time. Since you have helped before, I'd appreciate any last checks you could give the article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 00:58, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] culture

Would you please go over the article Culture? Some time ago I did a major rewrite, but kept it pretty basic. I'd especially appreciate it if you would look at Talk:Culture, especially the most recent discussion "general comment." Slrubenstein

[edit] Alain Badiou

Hi there, I was the user who dewikified Louis Althusser on the Alain Badiou page. The only reason was that I noticed that Althusser is already mentioned, and linked to, a few lines before. Obviously this is not very important, I just thought I'd explain. David Sneek 08:46, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ah ok -- I just missed it. Thanks! :) Rex 09:32, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Boas

I have done a major expansion of the Boas article. Could you go over it, make sure it is clear and smooth? Slrubenstein 21:48, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate your addition to the Boas article -- and I really want to thank you for your comment on the talk page. I am glad you think my contributions to the article stand up to scrutiny, and I appreciate your support in my conflicts with Jacquerie27 (which are tiring). By the way, only given what you wrote, you should know that I am an academic. But I have always tried, as you say, never "to suggest that we should listen to him 'because I'm an expert and you're not,'" although I honestly have told some people that they should listen to me because I have done research on the topic. I've always endeavored to handle conflicts over content on the basis of the quality of research, and never credentials. Anyway, I really appreciate your comments, Slrubenstein 18:53, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

By the way, I have also been working on Cultural relativism and hope you will have a chance to go over it and see if it needs more work, Slrubenstein 00:44, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to repeat myself -- I have done some rearranging and development but am now really done with Cultural relativism -- and would still value your comments/help, Slrubenstein 20:30, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] relativism

Thanks for the comments. I know we all have to choose our priorities, but I hope you will consider adding a section on either the Mauss/Levy-Bruhl tradition, or the Evans-Pritchard tradition. I think you are right, but it has been a long time since I have studied any of this stuff. Slrubenstein 00:46, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

One question I would ask of you, though, is whether Evans-Pritchard ever used the term "relativism?" I am not trying to be overly picky, but I do think differences in language signal other differences. I have no doubt that the sort of so-called "structural functionalism" emplyed by Evans Pritchard and others functioned very similarly to Cultural Relativism. But I wonder whether there may also be important differences -- in the epistemological basis, the claims about "culture" (or rather, what is at stake in talking about social structure rather than culture), and perhaps the political uses. These differences may not be great enough to justify excluding them from the article, but they ought to be explored ... Slrubenstein 19:33, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Er... well my copy of WOMA isn't at hand so I can't remember whether he did or not. I think that in fact structural functionalism (as a generalizing science of institutions) is quite different from cultural relativism (which is an argument about the calibration of different arbitrary and conventional world views to the physical world). However, it is important to note that in many ways Evans-Pritchard is not a paragon of structure-functionalism (Fortes would fit the bill here, though). After all, Evans-Pritchard is the one who suggested that anthropology is more like history and less like natural science. In addition, while The Nuer is the classic examplar of the segmentary lineage system, Witchraft Oracles and Magic Among The Azande is strikingly not in the structure-functional mold. While I'm not an E-P scholar, I think it's pretty clear that WOMA is related to E-P's early Cairo lectures on primitive religion and the influence of Seligman (who wrote on divine kingship and provided the introduction to WOMA) rather than to Radcliffe-Brown. I mean it was published in 1937 and the fieldwork/writing about it was even earlier -- back when R-B was still in Australia or something. I'll spare the you the details of the relationship of this work to Leinhardt's 'Divinity and Experience'. Suffice to say that the argument of WOMA proved very important in discussions of cultural relativism (in the Hollis and Lukes volume, in Gellner, etc.) and WOMA itself is not really a 'structure-functional' monograph. In fact, E-P was too protean and wide ranging to fit under this label.

I still agree with everythig you say. I think you should even consider writing an Evans Pritchard article -- we could use one that has the detail and depth of the Boas article (or at least, the detail and epth to which I aspired) and I still hope at some point you will consider adding an EP section to the relativism page. Slrubenstein 15:31, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hullo hullo testing testing ...

Dear Alex,

I sent you an email to your uchicago.edu address as posted on your blog -- haven't heard from you. It could be that you don't check it that often, that you're very busy, or it could be that I have cooties <g>. In case it's the former, this is just to let you know that I got your message on my talk page, and replied via a different channel. Zora 07:54, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] changes to Max Weber

Do you have a source to show that Weber was "highly critical" of Marx? Some sociologists see him as having built off of him, for example in his expansion of Marx's concept of stratification to a three-component concept and in his lament of workers being alienated through the process of rationalization, whereas Marx's criticism was that workers became alienated because of a changing mode of production. As capitalism itself is a perfect example of rationalization, Weber's theory was in a sense just a broader version or Marx's same criticism. Certainly there is no agreement among sociologists whether he was expanding off Marx or not, although it seems pretty apparent to me that unlike other early sociologists he wasn't arguing in any sort of direct opposition to him, and in several ways, directly or not, he patched flaws with and helped add to Marxist doctrine. Sarge Baldy 19:42, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

In fact I think we agree -- 'highly critical' is perhaps too strong since in fact Marx simply wasn't that central to Weber's agenda. I think there was a tendency in the earlier anglophone reception of Weber -- i.e. Parson's appropriation of him -- to try to make Weber a synthetic thinker to 'round out' or 'built upon' Marx's work (presumably as a step on the way to Parson's synthesis of social theory). However, I think more recent scholarship has demonstrated that, to Weber, Marx was just another scholar (albeit a popular one) working in the tradition of political economy in which Weber was also located. I mean have you looked up Marx in the index of Economy and Society? There's not much there, mate! I think it's not very interesting to note that both were interested in diagnosing the pathologies of modernity -- that's what nineteenth century social theory was all about, especially that with (nominal) ties to (some version) of socialism. I mean, Durkheim was also interested in modernization and 'alienation', and was also interested in a kind of socialism, but who would claim that he was 'building off of Marx'? Just looking at the books on my shelf, discussions of Weber's critique of Marx (and his lack of interest in thoroughly engaging Marx) in Gerth and Mill's introduction to "From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology", Guenther Roth's introduction in the first volume of Economy and Society, and the entries on Marx in the index of Marianne Weber's biography of her husband (this is, of course, a document with complicated politics). One of my favorite secondary sources on Weber, Wolfgang Schlucter's "Rationalism, Religion, and Domination" has some pretty extensive discussions of Weber's theoretical and methodological critique of Marxism, as well as Weber's approach to bureaucratization and how it is in fact a critique of Marx's theory of alienation. So Weber was critical, but not engaged enough to take Marx super-seriously Rex 20:24, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't mean to claim Weber was influenced in any direct way, in fact I think a lot of Marx's works were not published until after Weber's death. But then also there's a difference between Marx's views as he lived and the expansion of Marxist doctrine after his death. While I agree he was critical of Marx, I'm afraid that the article will imply he was directly hostile to Marxist thought.
The secondary text I am consulting (George Ritzer's Sociological Theory) has noted various similarities in their thought. One offering: "Weber was no political radical; in fact, he was often called the "bourgeouis Marx" to reflect the similarities in the intellectual interests of Marx and Weber as well as their very different political orientations. Although Weber was almost as critical of modern capitalism as Marx was, he did not advocate revolution. He had little faith in the "masses" to create a better society" (Ritzer, 2004). Gerth and Mills wrote that "Weber's sociology is related to Marx's thought in the common attempt to grasp the interrelationship of institutional orders making up a social structure: In Weber's work, military and religious, political and juridicial institutional systems are functionally related to the economic order in a variety of ways." (Gerth and Mills, 1958:49)
Stephen Kalberg (a sociologist who has a long experience with Weber's works, including having retranslated The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism to English and who is working on completing Weber's Sociology of Civilizations), also notes that Weber in his later years had become less and less interested in ideas (such as his studies on religion) and much more interested in material things. To quote Weber, "Not ideas, but material and ideal interests, directly govern man's conduct. Yet very frequently the "world images" have have been created by 'ideas' have, like switchmen, determined the tracks along which action has been pushed by the dynamic of interest." Weber's concepts have contributed significantly to conflict theory, and although he differed in several major respects (particularly his idea that fact and value could be separated, which Marx deemed impossible), I certainly don't believe it's fair to say he was sharply at odds with Marx at a theoretical level; on the contrary, I think most sociologists would argue they had more in common with one another than in conflict. Sarge Baldy 05:10, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

Gerth and Mills are right: both Weber and Marx want to grasp the interrelations of institutional orders. So did Radcliffe-Brown, Toennies, Luhmann, and Durkheim. This proves only that they are all working in a Western academic tradition of social theory. I have never heard of Ritzer before, and the quotes you provide indicate to me that we'd be better off sticking to actual Weber scholars (and Weber's work itself) for an understanding of Weber rather than intro-level college textbooks. Kalberg's translation is well known although (polite cough) I prefer the Baer/Wells. Many contemporary debates in sociology and political science (for instance, those involving the nature of state-society relations) are in fact divided into separate 'Marxist' and 'Weberian' camps. I don't think it's worth getting into but if you think Weber and Marx are somehow fundamentally aligned, I can only suggest that you stop consulting secondary texts and read more deeply in the work of each scholar. I support a change on the page to "critical" instead of "highly critical". I don't support a change on the page claiming they agreed on most fundamental issues. Rex 08:56, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I have analyzed it myself, and this text actually comes from a 400 level theory class. That you've never even heard of Ritzer strikes me as a little odd, and as it happens he has published several works directly related to Weber, and the bulk of his own theoretical work builds off the concept of rationalization. As it happens, I've also read much of the primary text behind his most important works. Also, I could be mistaken but I'm pretty sure I never claimed anything near the point of a fundamental alignment between the two theorists, or argued for, as you say, a change marking their fundamental agreement on most issues, although I might be mistaken and if you'd like you can cite me saying otherwise. Rather I'm arguing that they're not at fundamental odds with one another. You appear also to be basing Weber's sociological concepts entirely off The Protestant Ethic, which as far as I can tell is the only one of Weber's works that Baehr and Wells actually examined. That work, from my perspective, was only a subtle introduction to his far more sociological works, namely his much more important Economy and Society. However, it's clear to me our views on the subject are irreconcilable and I don't really have the time nor see the point in extending this etherealized shit-flinging contest any longer. Sarge Baldy 00:59, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

Well I am sorry if you consider this shit-flinging and apologize if you consider this thread etherealized. I also apologize for mistaking the level of course you took on this subject. A brief look back at this thread will indicate I am familiar with Economy and Society. As I said in my last post, and you now obviously agree with, it's not worth getting into. We are obviously (and unfortunately) not at all on the same page, that's for sure. I stand by what I said earlier: I support a change on the page to "critical" instead of "highly critical". I don't support a change on the page claiming they had more in common with one another than in conflict.

[edit] CIA

Thanks for adding the info back into Anthropology (as distasteful as it is). And good luck on your thesis defence... Rattus 22:45, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Social evolutionism

I moved most of my contributions to social darwinism to social evolutionism, as I think they belong in fact there. The SD article now reads closer to how it was before my rewrite, but you may want to read it again to see if I haven't messed up anything, and the thing I decided to leave are in fact relevant. Any comments on my rewrittion of se (in progress) would be also appreciated. In a day or two, barring comments against, I will do the merge (se with cultural evolutionism). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:52, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You may be interested in commenting at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Sociocultural_evolution, as you have discussed earlier version of this article on its talk page some time ago. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:11, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] strange request

Alex, is there any chance you have a copy of Murphy's "Anthropology at Columbia:A Reminiscence" (Dialectical Anthropology) scanned into your computer or as a PDF file? My library doesn't have it and I want to look at it ASAP. If -- by some slim chance -- you have it, could you e-mail it to me at rubenste -the at sign- ohiou dot edu? Slrubenstein | Talk 16:23, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Alas, you have uncovered my secret Robert Murphy fetish! (like my Bob Scholte fetish, but longer lived) I have a copy of the article but it's not scanned in. However if there is anything in particular you'd like to know about it I could tell you. Go to my webpage and find my email address if you'd like to continue this discussion more privately. Rex 19:21, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

It should not be a secret. Truth to tell, he was my advisor at graduate school, while he was writing his last book. "Zen Marxism" and "Social Distance and the Veil" are among my favorite articles in anthropology history, and Women of the Forest (to whom much credit goes to Yolanda) is still among my favorite ethnographies, and it isn't nearly as old-fashioned as some people think. And The Dialectics of Social Life... well, we could go on for quite a while. Anyway, I read it a long time ago, but my library just doesn't have it and if I ever had a copy I've misplaced it. I just ordered it from interlibrary loan, so don't worry about it, (and if you want to continue the discussion feel free to e-mail me)Slrubenstein | Talk 13:59, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Unicist anthropology

Dear Mr. Golub:

You have deleted a comment about the Unicist Anthropology. I apologyze for having no experience with the Wikipedia System. I supposed it appeared as a anonymous contribution.

If you visit our site www.unicistinstitute.org you will be able to find the scientific and academic background of our contributions. About the author, Peter Belohlavek, you can find the information in google.

I am in charge of communicating the Unicist Theory of Evolution and its application worldwide.

The unicist evolution theory has been used in the construction of 33 country scenarios, for the last 20 years:

Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, England, Finland, France, Germany, Holland, India, Israel, Korean Republic, Mexico, New Zealand, Italy, Japan, Norway, Peru, Poland, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Uruguay, USA, Venezuela

This approach was, or is used, in the following companies: ABB, A. G. Mc. Kee & Co., American Express, Apple Computers, Autolatina (Ford-Volkswagen), BankBoston, BASF, Bayer, Brahma, Ciba Geigy, Cigna, Citibank, Coca Cola, Colgate Palmolive, Deutsche Bank, Diners Club, Federación Patronal de Cafeteros de Colombia, Glasurit, Hewlett Packard, IBM, ING, Johnson & Son, Lloyd´s Bank, Massey Ferguson, Merck, Monsanto, Parexel, Pirelli, Renault, Sandoz, Shell, Sisa (Citicorp), Telefónica, TGS, Worthington, Xerox, YPF.

Please let me know how to procede.

Thank you Noemi I. Brown. nbrown@unicistinstitute.org


Noemi -- I removed your entry about Unicist anthropology for several reasons. First, it was incorrectly placed in the article (and there wasn't a clear place to put it). Second, no other encyclopedias or standard reference works that I know of contain entries on Unicist anthropology, so I didn't consider it relevant to the wikipedia. I was also guided by my intuition on this as someone who is very familiar with the discipline of anthropology -- and having viewed your website has not changed my mind much on this matter. Most obviously, however, your contribution violates the wikipedia guideline on Vanity edits. If you disagree with my choices in this matter we can continue to talk about this and, failing that, you can request arbitration. Rex 21:57, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ooooopsh: Marcel Griaule

Hi, I just noticed under Marcel Griaule that there is a typo there -somewhere- at the beginning it says he died in 1965, at the end it states he died in 1956! Oooopsh! Do you know what the correct date is? Also, I would be delighted if you took a look at the Dogon and possibly the Nommo articles -a lot of work remains, IMO. (Really, I think the Dogon deserves better..) Regards Huldra 00:14, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I believe the proper date is 1956 and although I am hardly an expert in this area and I've made the change accordingly. I'm hesitant to alter the Dogon or Nommo entries since they are really out of my area of expertise, and I have no desire to get into an edit war with the UFO people... Rex 02:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh dear, I had really hoped somebody could help us bring back the Dogon to mother earth.... Actually, I believe some of the more "spaced out" people have now been banned from wikipedia, so there is hope (?). Take a look at Talk:Dogon; a few references is needed. Anyway, thanks for fixing the date. Regards, Huldra 04:08, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "My vanity edit"

Dear Alex Golub,

Are you saying that there isn't new knowledge about Malinowski in the page I linked to? Even if it is my own? --Samivel 23:24, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes. I am also saying that the vast majority of the page has nothing to do with Maliowski, it information Malinowski is not easy to find. There are other ways to debate the merit of the page, but it seems to me to qualify as a vanity edit. Rex 18:40, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anthro wikiproject

I thought you might be interested in helping me set up a wikiproject for anthropology. If so, send me a message. Ungovernable ForceThe Wiki Kitchen! 11:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I just made a proposal on the "list of proposed wikiprojects" page. If you're interested, you can sign up at our entry and on the temporary project page. Thanks. Ungovernable ForceThe Wiki Kitchen! 21:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I have communicated with The Ungovernable Force regarding the proposed anthropology project which you indicated an interest in, and have gotten the OK from him to move the project into wiki-space and make it active. He indicated that he is busy in school right now, but will be as active as he can be given that. The project page as it now exists is only a minimum page, and could use the input of interested parties such as yourself. Personally, I did noticably poorly in the one cultural anthropology class I took in college, so I'm bowing out of this one, but wish you and the other members of the project the best of luck with it. Thank you. Badbilltucker 21:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Anthropology Collaboration of the month

Hello. I noticed that you signed up for WikiProject Anthropology and thought that you might be interested in participating in the Collaboration of the Month. This month's article is Marvin Harris. Thanks. Stilgar135 19:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Are you around?

If you are, have you read the lates AE issue with the forum on genomics and race? Slrubenstein | Talk 14:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Availability for Wikipedia:WikiProject_Anthropology/Collaboration_of_the_month

The probable sorry state of 'core anthropology' articles on Wikipedia has been recently identified here

As a self-nominated Wikipedia:WikiProject_Anthropology member, I thought I'd check on your interest and willingness to see anthropology better represented on Wikipedia? Bruceanthro (talk) 14:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)