Talk:Cyborg anthropology

Amendments

Changed Networked based analysis to Actor-Network Theory since this section only discusses this, and it is also ungrammatical. Changed subjectivies and agencies to subjectivity and agency. Qualified anthropology to social and cultural anthropology. Applied NPOV to rather laudatory and undemonstrated account of ANT value in analysis of material in Cyborg Anthropology.

History -- added 1985 as modifier for Haraway's Cyborg Manifesto to situate with 1993 event

Edited slightly the Cybernetics section to reflect cybernetics focus on all organisms not just 'man'

Methodology -- Qualified STS into the two areas that share the acronym (rather confusingly). The section seems to conflate the two, as the Systems Theory STS tends to be Science and Technology Studies, but the Science, Technology and Society version is more the focus of the section. It could be unqualified but neither should be excluded.

Broadened digital anthropology section as the definition was far too narrow. These remain well differentiated.

Changed in the comparison between sociology and anthropology the mention of literary theory ... this is a relatively small and declining approach, substituting participation which is a hallmark of ethnography. Will check and evaluate the later assertion that most of the Central Thinkers of Cyborg Anthropology utilise literary theory. This is probable given their dependence on Haraway and to an extent Latour.

Diachronic analysis -- qualified anthropology to social and cultural given the focus on ethnographies. Don't like the synchronic sense communicated, but will consider before changing. THere are many layers of ethnography at a regional level for most areas of the world, and temporal comparators are core to how ethnographies are used in the analytic literature. Indeed Evans Pritchard warned that anthropology would have to choose between being history or being nothing. Ethnographies are the units of analysis, not the analysis and though these often contain implict and explicit analytic accounts, their utility is in how well others can utilised them as data in a comparative sense.

Will try to come back to putting in more verification.

~~Michael Fischer~~ (talk) 08:29, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

New ref

For anyone that wants it, or for me when I come back when I have more time: [1].--v/r - TP 20:42, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Anthropology in industry vs. academia

This section seems both like original research and an individual's pronouncement on the issue. Barring relevant quotes from experts on the issue, it should probably be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.27.47.251 (talk) 02:58, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

reorganizing

I tried to reorganize the article to have more general headings, edited language to be more accessible, added information from a few more sources. I wasn't sure what to do with the diachronic analysis section - it definitely seems like a worthwhile point to make, but I haven't found any solid sources that back up that section's claims about diachronic analysis in relation to cyborg anthro. Rmhargrove (talk) 18:51, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Potential Small Expansion

Would it perhaps be a bit better to add a one line explanation of the basis on anthropology in general in the introduction, so readers don't need to immediately use the link if they need a refresher on what anthropology is specifically? Sazfar21 (talk) 07:36, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Digital History Methods

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 August 2024 and 5 December 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Restj (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Restj (talk) 21:46, 3 October 2024 (UTC)