66 WOMAN, NATIVE, OTHER existence], ice. We must be sure of we have that possi- never be man but only men, men are interchangeable, the uses of man an ‘more consistency? Why hold on to its ambiguity and grammatical rectness? et one defined as.@ human and the stronger the feeling of gu the two “man” ways supported and acted i aword as “human” mea kind has become obvious? What can “ ce" imply in a “Men Only” context n? Listen, for example, to a doctor-man say how for yea ‘man’s ideas express Wl hhuman in his nature.” "His," as some may cor dishonesty, is here supposed to cover “her” too. At qualified generic pronoun, can be used correct or ste does as much to combat sexism as a si would do to combat racisin. should logically lead t es, the duping wi 1" and as a Chinese remarks, “in America, Everyman—the us re." O1 ‘Ro revolutionist says “white” intending it always been used to me hrough every language sign that tends, by its e Ise incorporation can be detected in ‘ver-widening scope of encampass- the case of “nature, ment, to be taken for granted, Such ‘goes hand in hand dependency growing. thought and, apparently, yong and ymig instead of Principle)—a concept which Imagine a world of and yang to grasp the v this closed universe is potential a herwise than as bei come to fear eat end of allits existence, Thus, being and non-being have come t other and act in mutual exclusiveness instead of mutual generation and support. Gossip and science: a conversation on what I love according to truth rember, hence the dependency of anners for the membership stand "however, proves both uy reduction of fed in an urn upon tl ittance of tion that leaves “them” barer than ever, he bait of Lies. The68 WOMAN, NATIVE, OTHER erposes one system of signs over another, Anthropology is finally better defined as “gossi speak together about others) back to Aristotle."* This profuse, between kinsmen (from the Old English godsild) comes into being through boredom and the need to chat. An African man has perhaps best depicted a pretentious discourse ized man... Colori ie because the colonized however very pet ‘The kind of truth it claims to disclose is a confiden ‘quires commitment from an ear to gossip a ccomplice of the gossiper. Scie 1s none other than a form of onalized Indiscretion. To g3 f Nativist discourse is to perc it develops in its defense and ion 1 desperate task of Knowledge. On tof study, a stranger, (we iN as “conversation” (we discuss a ques- ive love-making,” careful work. In the treatment of su (oa large extent to depend on a and Japan the kiss as a in the art of love is unknowa. A European shudders atthe idea of deficiency. For his com ‘be seid at once that things fare not so black as they look. te his description of istress’s eyelashes, wl betray a belief that confuses the knowledge of an act is what an interpretivefist) anthropologist calls “the cogLy age of Nati 70 WOMAN, NATIVE, OTHER of his analysis by insisting on his will to confirm space creatures not only x men’s image-repertoire, tion “from a number of concrete instances,” His serted, “were constantly checked of tribal life. In fact, he modern technologies displayed suffice to overcome its creative “det ” The ambiguity of fence more uncertain as to bot ed to see sphere of 10 moment during 1 savages’ sextal life about other people’s business, =.” was likewise gossiping ple's reconstra 1 possible connotations of such a out an avows 's “higher” sel), and the di observed. The search for mea the irreduci ing its presence, ‘The dilemma izer's most adaptive is deny the referent ion of language but to expli Proper referent of any acco! of signs, a pos fiction always co acknowledge72 WOMAN, NATIVE, OTHER /e anthropology venue as long as negative knowled, lingui “science” as objective Of systematized knowledge, How do anthropological interpretations differ from. tion? An intecpretive anthropologist deter thropological—that is part of a developing sis... becaus subjectivity invalved here anthropologist species. He work and defines himsel simply reply that “interpret 8y is a science whose progress is marked less by a perf than by an nt of debate. What gets be ‘we vex each other.”® Haver matter of paying off old scores among a certa milieu that clings to science ly suspicion, refini ist lineage to interpretive profoundly a te goal of every ethnogra nay."* (Remember, anthropologists al- the natives live or carry on in their I “practical means to overcome the dif a knowledge of the native language. Language as a “system of social ideas" lows he who knows how nself as “an instr inquiry” to render “the verbal contour of native thought as pr74 WOMAN, NATIVE, OTHER possible.” The anthropologi Je recognition as it now sw: recording and transta id more voices to n a thoughi cratic” mean duced and spread under the protection of power),2" not so 'ssystematization and argumentation as “stickiness,” In order to judge (by his own standards) how ‘Great Master was in his realization of the. vision of their world and his pretension, as “true interpreter ring, not the sense they hac of themoives, would poin he politica! nature of anthropology biased picture those who zeae id the falsely radical diary confirms one’s sens ics) that pierces through t ere of the word “native,” of fierce Hoody negroes” whose life is “utterly devoid of interest or impor76 WOMAN, NATIVE, OTHER tercourse, who used his ethnographic work native life." patient reading of any of to reveal it riddied with prejudices as well as scientific ly-careerist hypocrisy. No anthropological under the other. Never the marrow. All he can do is wear object and define his other an the grounds of his *t man. How can he, indeed, read int social exisience a synthesis exactly superimposable on that which we have worked o never to be known unless one arrives ata suspension of la having taken a single the Mind Seal or the themes or by expla er Zen says, like beating the moon with a pol from the outside of a shoe. There is no su ‘once and forall with objects”; the real rem: iP that defines both the sul written and the writing subject, undoing want wanting to know you or me?