> > Call this an anthropologists' dream, but isn't this a pretty serious
> failure?
> > What's society without persons, subjectivities, psychologies, loves,
> little
> > neuroses and very direct experiences?
>
> No! Your objection is the same as if someone shouold object that quantum
> mechanics do not teach us how to plub in a lamp or that geology does not
> show us the route to Grandma's house. Social analysis can no more give
> us any direct informatin about personal relations than chemistry can
> give us direct information about the amount of sugar to add to a
> cornbread batter. Do you want one theory to explain everything?
Yes please. And, can it pack my library as well, or at least weed the garden?
But you're missing topp8564's point, I think. There is no way of studying/theorising society without considering subjectivities in some sense. Are there schools, or educational policy, without any subjectivities being involved, for example? Is there politics?
Catherine (should either be packing, or writing about Leavis, certainly not this)