Notices will be accepted if they are of interest to RAG members and students. This is not intended to be a sales or a general contact page, but if you know of something likely to interest us, send an email! 

From  Stuart Watkins (Radical Anthropology Group) - 16 March 2006

The importance of the footnote

What better way to spend a Thursday evening than in a lecture hall at the London School of Economics and Political Science? No? Just me then. Well, actually, not just me, because the ticket-only event I was at sold out within half an hour, and the number of enquiries crashed the LSE's computer and phone systems.

The lectures were in celebration of the 30th anniversary of the publication of one of the most important and influential texts of the 20th century, The Selfish Gene, by Richard Dawkins. The philosopher Daniel Dennett, science writer Matt Ridley, novelist Ian MacEwan, scientist John Krebs and Dawkins himself all gave charming, witty and fascinating talks. If you're familiar with the work of Dawkins and Dennett, you probably wouldn't have learnt that much that was new, but I did come away with a renewed respect and admiration for all those talking, but especially for the softly spoken yet brilliantly clever Dawkins.

If you've not actually read Dawkins yourself, you bloody well should. The ideas in The Selfish Gene have barely dated or lost their relevance in 30 years (no mean feat in itself, given the fast pace of change in the biological sciences), and they are conveyed to the reader with an economy and clarity -- not to say beauty -- of style that, to my mind, makes Dawkins the equal of any writer in any field. A quote on the cover of my edition of The Selfish Gene says that he writes "the sort of popular science... that makes the reader feel like a genius". True, but the genius is really all Dawkins'. As Ian MacEwan argued in his talk, there is (or should be) a canon of science writing that will endure, even if the science it describes is surpassed or proved wrong (that's the nature of science, and we should be grateful to those who went down the blind alleys for us), due to its literary and artistic merits. That canon will have Dawkins at its head.

In his talk, Dawkins said that a great deal of the criticism of the book was in fact a criticism of the title, written by people who had read the title, but not the large footnote that was the book itself. I remember reading once a question in a newspaper interview with Dawkins that said, If genes are selfish, how do you explain altruism? To which he replied, "The argument is too subtle to cram into a title, which is why I went to the trouble of writing the rest of the book."

Take home lesson: always read the footnote.

From Marcus Strom, 6 September 2005

Hi Chris

The summary of own-kill taboo is enlightening and made me think of a few things.

1) I think you are showing well how such 'taboos' are broken and atoned for. This makes them seem like 'living rules', rather than abstract superstitions. I'm wondering that in any popular account of your theories if 'taboo' acts as a linguistic barrier to popular understanding. I know it is the recognised term in academic anthropology. Just a thought.

2) I went hunting three times in central Australia. Twice with Arrente people, once with Pitjantjara mob. (Note the 'modern' spellings of the language groups). In retrospect, on each occasion a version of own-kill rule was observed. The first time was not really hunting. We were driving back to Alice Springs when we saw an injured emu by the road (hit by a truck probably). We stopped. Killed it. Then put it in the back of the truck. We then took it to a town camp on the outskirts of Alice Springs and dropped it off at a non-Arrente camp (I was with Arrente men). I remember the prestige accorded us by delivering such a prize (and from the back of a Central Land Council truck added to that prestige).

Second time was with Arrente men of the Tangentyre Council. We shot 'roos. All I remember is that we had to give them away.

Third time we shot some rabbits with Pitjantjara men and 'bagged them' and gave them away back at camp near Ayres Rock. (They were traditional owners of Uluru . . . we were out putting up 'you are on Aboriginal land' signs at the boundary between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal land.)

What I'd be interested to know is how this ancient rule/taboo is transmogrifying in modern Aboriginal life. The totemic aspect is interesting.... but how is this transferring to the killing of cattle and camel (now widely eaten in central Australia) and other non-indigenous life?

I remember one debate at a meeting of the Land Council (around 100 delegates elected from central Australian communities meet quarterly). We were discussing 'feral animals' on Aboriginal land (camels, donkeys mainly). The proposal was to cull them and sell them for pet meat or send them to Indonesia for food.

One old fella called Mick (from Hermannsburg, west of Alice) spoke. He was blind and had a white 'helper' (also, amusingly, called Mick). In debate Mick said "We can't kill that camel. We can't kill that donkey. Jesus, he come on that donkey. Those wise men come on those camels."

So... myth and myth changes.

By the way: my wife asks: in the dawn of humanity, is there any evidence that homo sapiens linked menstruation with reproduction?

Cheers

Marcus