Tim Ingold

I have to admit that initially I had some problems with Ingold's approach: this is obviously not a history of "the line" (as the subtitle suggests). And his approach is so fragmentary and loose that I got lost a bit in his detailed analyses of musical notation, the technique of writing and printing, and the design of genealogical family trees, etc. What also always bothers me in the work of anthropologists is the contradiction they at all costs want to prove between Western modernity and show more traditional cultures, with usually a very negative undertone regarding modernity. Also Ingold follows that line a bit; at times I even had the impression that I was reading a downright anti-modernist manifesto. He often puts straight lines (connecting points, moving from one point to another, displaying evolutionary developments in line structures, etc.) on 1 line (pun intended) with rationalistic reductionism (read: straightness), and confronts them with the looser forms of gesture-singing-wandering in traditional societies. As befits an anthropologist, he obviously illustrates this with examples of traditional peoples, but he also cites evidence from Western antiquity and the Middle Ages. For example, handwriting is compared to printing and machine-/ computer writing as a completely different mental process.

Mind you: of course, it is a different mental process, but it seems to me that the historical reality is a lot more nuanced (in our modernist approach, many traditionalistic elements are included). Moreover, this modernist-straight-line rationalistic approach is not by definition negative: she made possible a scientific-technological vision that has made our world a whole lot more livable (with of course also important reverses).

Now don’t misunderstand me: this is a really interesting book. Ingold's musings about lines and their influence on the way we look at reality are indeed relevant. And he is honest enough to bring on some nuances. But he also refuses to draw conclusions, deliberately so : “Lines are open-ended, and it is this open-endedness – of lives, relationships, histories and processes of thought – that I have wanted to celebrate. I hope that, in doing so, I have left plentiful loose ends for others to follow and to take in any ways they wish. Far from seeking closure, my aim has been to prise an opening. We may have come to the end of this book, but that does not mean we have reached the end of the line. Indeed the line, like life, has no end. As in life, what matters is not the final destination, but all the interesting things that occur along the way. For wherever you are, there is somewhere further you can go.” This is an enticing invitation, but it left me a bit unsatisfied. Maybe I should also try his next works. show less

This is a very short book, and it is more about "What is Anthropology" than "Why it Matters". The answer being, there is no real agreement, but the author does tell you his view on it. Early on he comes dangerously close to treating anecdotes as empirical evidence, but he does successfully make the case for why Anthropology cannot follow the same form as natural sciences like Physics, Chemistry, or even Biology. This is a reasonable discussion, though a bit short, and so the amount of value show more one can get from it is a bit limited. show less

I expected this little book to tell me something about human history, and why the study matters. I was surprised to find it hardly addresses this at all.

The book is short, at only about 130 pages. Most of it is spent expounding upon and lamenting about the in-fighting between various branches of anthropological studies. The book is more of an admonishment toward scholars, and perhaps a plea for unity in this field. It's really not a book that offers much to those of us outside this branch of show more academia.

Still, there are a few interesting nuggets of information. And it does hold appeal for anyone who wants a brief history of this field of study.

*I received a review copy from the publisher, via Amazon Vine.* show less

Are human cultural differences superimposed upon a universal human nature? The appeal to an essentialist concept of human nature is a defensive reaction to the legacy of racist science left by Darwin's argument in 'The Descent of Man'. Humans are made to appear different in degree from their evolutionary antecedents by attributing the movement of history to a process of culture that differs in kind from the biological process of evolution. The specifications of evolved human nature are show more supposed to lie in the genes. However human capacities are not gengetically specified but emerge within processes of ontogenetic development. Moreover the circumstances of development are continually shaped through human activity. There is consequently no human nature that has escaped the current of history. show less