Order Ativan Without Prescription - No Prescription DrugStore

Leave A Comment

6 responses so far ↓

• 1 Carlo Jul 1, 2009 at 1:39 pm

  I agree. The blogs are one form. I will try to organize a workshop early next year in Zurich. I think we probably need a variety of forms – some new, some old – to initiate such thinking.

• 2 mstalcup Jul 1, 2009 at 1:55 pm

  Some thoughts on future collaborative anthropology.

  Monica E. pointed out that security, when ARC started, was a no-brainer. Clearly, things related to 9/11 were going to filter into many different domains. That made it a good umbrella for diverse research. Global health (discussed as a new possibility) doesn’t meet that same criteria. It might be something under the umbrella we want to define, as climate change might be as well. is there something they share, conceptually, that would point us in a direction? On the other hand, we don’t necessarily want to meet the same criteria.

  And, I don’t think we need to think in terms of an event of the 9/11 type. One, it may not happen. Two, something like climate change is probably an “event” of greater magnitude, but qualitatively different. Three, I would guess that 9/11 affected but wasn’t definitive for, say, biocomplexity in the Bahamas or AIDS research in Mozambique. Which is to say, we were doing security genealogically and in the world as a contemporary problem, and we aren’t looking for something totalizing now.

  I think the point is, we want to be clear about our choices and why we are making them. Significance doesn’t exceed limits, it requires them.

• 3 Anthony Jul 1, 2009 at 1:56 pm

  Hello from Basel;

  - a bios philosophikos: thoughts on how to use diogenes lab?

  - Those foolish Children of Light (re: Niehbuhr): topics many of us are working on (ranging from the financial crisis, to internet hacking, to the bio world, to …. accidentally setting off earthquakes looking for clean energy, thanks Jerome) could be brought together initially in a topography and then perhaps something more.

• 4 Anthony Jul 1, 2009 at 1:57 pm

  On the second topic of a moral topography in the contemporary, apparently “Knowingly entering a Ponzi scheme, even at the last round of the scheme, can be rational in the economic sense if a government will probably bail out those participating in the Ponzi scheme” (wikipedia).

• 5 Jerome Jul 3, 2009 at 2:37 pm

  Hi from New York and now in Oakland for the summer: great to be back in conversation with ARC. Just to pick up on Meg’s point about climate change. Basically, it can’t be approached in any way resembling the usual methods of the lone anthropologist – it’s just too vast, and too interesting. The challenge is to define the scope of research projects in such a way that they cohere with related projects, can be diversified in light of changing situations, and can elaborate the most pressing issues while bracketing for future researchers the range of fascinating but less immediate issues that are emerging.

  The questions surrounding climate change are both amazingly diverse and remarkably complex. Pretty much every form of knowledge associated with CC has noted how much they’ve had to adapt to cope with the questions it poses. And a global carbon regulation accord is a novel political experiment: because carbon is tightly linked to energy use and agriculture, it ‘maps’ an incredible range of human practices; but also it attempts to build a practical mechanism linking the global as a political unit to the atmosphere as an ecological parameter. All of this is future-oriented and thus dependent on complexly-emerging forms of knowledge and political ethoi in hybrid venues. For instance, the technical feat of global carbon regulation makes it possible for people to articulate rights to a managed atmosphere. In this vein the government of Mauritius has appealed to Australia to allow a wholesale migration of that country.

  Right now I’m sketching an article titled The Anthropological Stakes of Climate Change, which will just lay out something like a research agenda. To do this I’m talking to as many people as possible. The issue is anthropology as the study of human practices, not as a method of ethnographic field research. Amelia Moore will probably be involved, and other collaborators are invited.

• 6 kevinkarpiak Jul 23, 2009 at 1:14 pm

  One of aspects I always liked about the original framing of the ARC’s interest in security was that it allowed the ARC to have a kind of adjacency to one of the central political issues of the day–to formulate and take seriously an approach to security beyond the false choices of “Dick Cheney” and “ignore it”.

  I think that, post-financial meltdown, a similar space of political possibility circles around “liberalism”…

  Not in the sense of the old debate that all of us are used to (and some of us worked on)–where the issue was choosing between “Markets solve all problems” and “Any use of the term ‘freedom’ is an obfuscation of power relations”–but in a more recent sense that acknowledges that capitalism may not work the way Alan Greenspan told us (of which, at least for moment, there seems a near unanimous consensus)… but then what?

  I think most of us at ARC are poised to contribute to that conversation… and to document the new practical assemblages of liberalism that are bound to emerge