tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2971081717687612908.post923653521086742741..comments2024-03-28T11:48:17.788-07:00Comments on Publishing Archaeology: Niall Ferguson: Drive-By HistoryMichael E. Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03942595266312225661noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2971081717687612908.post-40754006671423125142012-05-23T12:50:55.480-07:002012-05-23T12:50:55.480-07:00It's not so much drive-by history as sucking u...It's not so much drive-by history as sucking up to what his intended audience wants to hear. He did a major book on the British empire, which argued that it was a real force of good in the world. Just forget about the famines which happened on its watch (includimg in its own homeland!).<br /><br />He did one book on banking that was based on original research. Then he decided to become an ideological hack.Marcusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2971081717687612908.post-8893629021806840332012-05-23T09:54:37.446-07:002012-05-23T09:54:37.446-07:00We are definitely on the same page regarding cultu...We are definitely on the same page regarding cultural studies, but I think postmodernism entails "re-invention" generally as that promotes their seeming objective of obfuscation. But maybe I'm just cynical.dogscratcherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08604795007817060655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2971081717687612908.post-54600015114353922732012-05-23T09:44:18.705-07:002012-05-23T09:44:18.705-07:00While admitting that I know relatively little abou...While admitting that I know relatively little about cultural studies, here are a few things about that approach that turn me off:<br /><br />(1) It is heavily postmodern, meaning that it is anti-scientific.<br /><br />(2) It has re-invented concepts (e.g., "culture") that have a long history in anthropology, but without taking advantage of anthropological concepts and research.Michael E. Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03942595266312225661noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2971081717687612908.post-32436113916030868472012-05-23T09:06:14.762-07:002012-05-23T09:06:14.762-07:00Sorry to keep bothering (pestering?)you, but to wh...Sorry to keep bothering (pestering?)you, but to what unattractive aspect of cultural studies do you refer?dogscratcherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08604795007817060655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2971081717687612908.post-44241198678243416422012-05-23T09:01:43.050-07:002012-05-23T09:01:43.050-07:00Thank you for the further explanation.Thank you for the further explanation.dogscratcherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08604795007817060655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2971081717687612908.post-17858007912294224342012-05-23T08:59:33.942-07:002012-05-23T08:59:33.942-07:00And as for cultural materialism vs. cultural ecolo...And as for cultural materialism vs. cultural ecology, both labels have had a variety of meanings over the years, and neither is popular today as a label for current theoretical camps. So it depends on how one defines the terms. I am a materialist, but I generally avoid the phrase "cultural materialism," for two reasons: (1) Its most explicit form, the theoretical approach of Marvin Harris, seems narrow and limited today; and (2) I have seen "cultural materialism" used as a concept in the field of cultural studies to refer to something that doesn't seem attractive to me.Michael E. Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03942595266312225661noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2971081717687612908.post-82615363498269509872012-05-23T08:51:46.165-07:002012-05-23T08:51:46.165-07:00My reaction is based partly on my materialist outl...My reaction is based partly on my materialist outlook, but more relevant is the question of how historians and social scientists construct explanations of processes in the past. I think there are quite a few factors relevant to an explanation of how modern social and political institutions developed differently in North America vs. Latin America. A rigorous analysis should extend beyond these two cases. One could identify a number of cases around the world of how society developed after European colonization, looking at India, Africa, different parts of the New World (e.g., Argentina doesn't fit Ferguson's Latin American model very well) etc. Perhaps ten or fifteen examples could be identified. These settings can then be compared on a number of dimensions (colonizing country, date of colonization, # of immigrants, indigenous demography and political organization, resources, role in the world system, etc. etc.). The results will then illuminate which variables were most important in accounting for difference among cases.<br /><br />Contrast that procedure with the method of singling out two factors that are claimed to explain all the differences between Latin America and North America -- a greedy parasite class of landowners in one region vs. private property and small landholdings in the other. These are both relevant to a proper explanation, but I don't think any serious comparative historian would find Ferguson's explanation valid on its own.Michael E. Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03942595266312225661noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2971081717687612908.post-68096791428364177032012-05-23T07:26:36.206-07:002012-05-23T07:26:36.206-07:00"Thus Ferguson did identify a crucial distinc..."Thus Ferguson did identify a crucial distinction between two areas, but by completely ignoring the context, he fails to show how and why that distinction originated and developed."<br /><br />Is this context of which you speak an analysis through the lens of cultural materialism? I ask only because I am unclear as to how cultural materialism relates to cultural ecology.dogscratcherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08604795007817060655noreply@blogger.com