Edward F. (aka 'Ned') Heite wrote:

[snip]


> Every site is unique, and every unit is a test square that will guide us to
> the next unit. The adventure continues even after the last hole is
> backfilled and the last artifact is described. We should assume nothing,
> pre-suppose nothing, and most of all, ignore nothing.

In other words, we should be objective.  ;)  Or at the very least,
open-minded.  I think there was [and perhaps still is] some confusion about
terms when I posed my question about the apparent disdain for 'objectivity' in
current anthropology (or should I be addressing 'critical studies'?).  I was
thinking of the *ideal* (never a reality) that was promoted when I was in
school 20 years ago of seeking objectivity when observing, recording, and
documenting.  I know that it cannot be done (so don't tell me), but we continue
to try.  The notion of objectivity in interpretation or analysis is indeed an
animal that's been dead lo these many years.  (BTW, thanks to Philip Levy and
Kevin Bartoy for their previous comments on this topic.)

I find it interesting when a term begins to take on such negative connotations
although the idea behind the name continues to thrive.  Is the dichotomy
(given, a theorhetical construct itself) between subjective and objective
losing it's usefulness and/or is it being redefined?  I hate to use a political
analogy (*please* let's not discuss politics <g>), but I see a parallel with
the 'dichotomy' between "conservative" and "liberal."  (Please note, I'm only
talking about the dichotomies, not the actual terms themselves.  I'm not
asserting any relationship between, say, objective and conservative, or
liberal, etc.)   The term "liberal" has nearly become a pejorative in the past
couple of decades and you can see politicians struggling to define themselves
without using the label.  The differing factions and ideas still exist, but the
terms, and perhaps the dichotomy (?), seem to be in transition.  I would ask if
people are still using etic and emic, but I don't want to give the
structuralists the last laugh.   :)


> We will never achieve ego-free research design (not with this crowd, at
> least),

Amen, brother!


> but it should always be an objective.

There's that "O" word again.   ;)


> Nor should we ever attack any
> type of site without a thorough background knowledge of its technology and
> culture.
>
> But like I say, the ice beneath our feet becomes thinner and thinner as we
> theorize farther and farther from the factual content of the raw data.
> Maturity as a researcher is achieved when you know the boundary between a
> sound, evidence-derived, conclusion and a beer-hall hypothesis. It's a very
> vague boundary.

Agreed.  I can live with that.   :)  My apologies to everyone else for the
equine eulogy and post-mortem flagellation


Marty Perdue
[log in to unmask]