Exotic Readings of Cultural Texts [and Comments and Reply]

It is suggested that cultural perspectives may lead anthropologists to misread cultural texts. Anthropologists' quest for cultural exotica predisposes them to read cultural texts selectively & mistake conventional metaphors for metaphysical accounts. Recent developments in cognitive & linguistic theory are examined to show why language creates traps for the unwary. It is proposed that interpretive caution & skepticism are needed & that advances in the study of metaphor, language, & categorization can provide new ways for thinking about & studying culturally constructed worlds. In Comments, Richard D. Davis (PO Box 4399, Agana, Guam) argues that Keesing fails to clearly prove the malign influence of what he cites as "postmodernist relativisms." Arie de Ruijter (U of Utrecht) elaborates two points in Keesing's article regarding perspectival interpretation & research strategies. J. W. Fernandez (U of Chicago) discusses the misreading of metaphor. Joshua A. Fishman (Yeshiva U) reviews Keesing's criticisms of anthropology & suggests means for maintaining the credibility of the field. Remo Guidieri (U of Paris X) discusses the necessity of language mastery to the analysis of its cultural texts. George Lakoff (U of California, Berkeley) advocates responsibility & use of linguistic evidence to avoid research mistakes. Norm Mundhenk (Box 723, Mount Hagen, Papua New Guinea) points out areas where Keesing may be misunderstood, particularly in his emphasis on language. Paul Newman (Indiana U) suggests that although the issues raised by Keesing are not original, they are timely. R. Daniel Shaw (Fuller Theological Seminary) discusses the issue of "cultural distance" between anthropologists & their subjects. In Reply, Keesing addresses some of the criticisms made. 88 References. Modified HA