The first series of debates fell short of the objective due to the fact that I didn’t clearly define procedures on how we should go about conducting it. I would like, therefore, to make another attempt at setting up this series. The process for selecting debaters is rather cumbersome, so I will ask for volunteers that are willing to take up or oppose a given issue. I would like to adopt the following:
1. Debate starts with the reading of the operative question and the selection of participants;
2. This will be followed by a brief period for points of clarification;
3. Debate is set to a minimum of 2 rounds but can be extended upward to four if requested by either participant;
4. Although there is no specific length to statements or rebuttal, we ask that debate be as concise and to the point as possible;
5. Following completion of the rounds, the operative question will be opened to discussion from the membership;
6. Participants may be asked if they are open to points of information following their respective rounds; and
7. Points of inquiry from the membership (to the participant) can only be made following the complete series of rounds.
8. After a period of one week, we will move to the next operative question.
We ask that all participants refrain from any sort of deliberately obstructive comments. Also, I would like to thank all the participants and those who thought this might be a worthwhile exercise.
A challenge that commonly appears in Western anthropological critique is the dichotomy that exists between the celebrated place of academic theory and the practical involvements and experience derived from fieldwork. QUES: Is this a major source of the problems and confusions in contemporary anthropology?
If you read the rubric for this thread, the first two points are that, after a time for us to read the question, "participants" will be selected, presumably someone to propose and another to oppose the motion, each with or without a second. Then these people and only them will have a time for "clarification". Then the debate proper begins before being open to general discussion. Neil does not say how he intends to select the participants. Perhaps he would like us to do that among ourselves.
We have gone straight into the clarification phase, but then the question was rather muddled. I suggest the following:
The practice of dividing themselves between the academy and the field is still a major source of contemporary anthropologists' problems. Discuss for and against.
I suggest that those who are interested to participate will be encouraged to post brief theoretical frameworks they will use for the debate. For example, if the "operative question" is about reflecting culture, one can say he will use theoretical foundations found in transcultural anthropology, ethnophilosophy, and ethnopsychology to expound or express his stand. OAC members then can choose debaters according to the posters' theoretical frameworks. In this way, the debate will not end up a discussion about postmodernism if both debaters use postmodernism.
''The practice of dividing themselves between the academy and the field is still a major source of contemporary anthropologists' problems. Discuss for and against.''
Maybe this division can be represented in the best of the ways by the famous Moebious band as it was also analysed in a previous discussion.
Where do I sign up?