#9 in Social sciences methodology books
Use arrows to jump to the previous/next product
Reddit mentions of Reclaiming a Scientific Anthropology
Sentiment score: 1
Reddit mentions: 1
We found 1 Reddit mentions of Reclaiming a Scientific Anthropology. Here are the top ones.
or
- Used Book in Good Condition
Features:
Specs:
| Height | 9.05 Inches |
| Length | 6.06 Inches |
| Number of items | 1 |
| Release date | September 2008 |
| Weight | 0.89948602896 Pounds |
| Width | 0.79 Inches |
> I get that you are using free market theory for the basis of your argument (like a Christian citing the bible), and that Graeber and anthropology disagrees with those free market theorists. I find that amusing but hardly challenging or even anything to be taken seriously.
So, back at ya I guess? You are citing a singular anarchist anthropologist, like a Christian citing the bible.
>the state already exists. Thus markets. That example doesn't refute Graeber at all. It proves him. Lol.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc. That argument does not follow.
>And anyhow, I've read the Hummel piece before, he clearly had an ideological blockage that prevented him from understanding what Graeber was saying.
I would argue that Graeber has an ideological blockage that prevents him from understanding economics and economic history. I like Graeber's analysis sometimes -- he's a good writer and has some things to contribute -- but he's a quintessential ideologue that works backwards from his established political conclusions. There are certainly instances where markets and money preceded barter, but the historical record does not reveal that this is always true or even that it was common.
>You need to understand the conditions prevailing then -- no one was buying or bartering anything and debt money was used to account for social ineaqualities and social relations (marriages, etc). And you didn't trade for equivalents. Thus, not barter and not markets. Sorry bro.
Going by Graeber's redefinition of barter, and the marxist definition of markets, correct. However using the consensus definition of both muddies the water a lot more. Graeber (saying again that I ike some of his work) unfortunately continues the recent trend (the last 30 years or so) of social anthropology that is deeply anti-science and draws dubious conclusions with a high level of confirmation bias. Dr. Lawrence Kuznar as well as Dr.Edward Dutton have both written great critiques of modern anthropologists and their dubious postulating.