From: Keith Henson (hkhenson@rogers.com)
Date: Thu 05 Feb 2004 - 01:31:16 GMT
At 10:37 AM 04/02/04 +0000, you wrote:
>Keith Henson writes:
>>
>>>role of the biological. From my perspective of anthropology classing
>>>anthropology under the biological umbrella would mean biologists have to
>>>account for their individual selves in their work
>>Indeed. But let me warn you all about this. *Admitting* you are a
>>social primate with standard social primate drives--even if you are not
>>consciously aware of them--will get in big trouble. In my case, a
>>federal judge lambasted me in writing for admitting to having the very
>>same kinds of status seeking drives that *he* had clearly displayed when
>>he gave up a lot of income to become a (higher status) federal judge.
>
>This is a difficult question for sure. Not sure that "will" get you into
>big trouble might be better expressed as "will likely" or something similar.
I have been attacked in chat and on line for admitting that I am a social
primate of the human variety and a prime motivation for such primates is to
gain social status. Thus, even if I am not consciously aware of this
motivation, much of what I do is motivated by seeking higher status--from
the simple facts above.
>The unspoken conventions of formal legal discourse (and perhaps
>"professionalism" of any kind) require (often, 'as a rule' always?) hiding
>behind a mask of professionalism to conceal the personal which, rightly
>so - is considered irrelevant. In formal legal terms, however, when
>questions of bias (in its legal senses) arise, this mask is lowered. As
>it is at discipline hearings, where a solicitor's personal interests have
>comprised his duty to a client.
Classic example is where the lawyer is sleeping with his client's wife.
>The judge may have justly criticised you, but it would hard to come to an
>good opinion without more facts, e.g. whether it was expressed in oral
>argument, in an article....
Virtually all of it is on Google, both my dawning understanding of
evolutionary psychology and applying it to my own situation. This is one
place where honesty is *not* the best policy, or at least not good politics.
>In my own field, legal anthropology, (precisely, the anthropology of legal
>doctrine), the approaches I pursue probably prevent me from practising
>law. I suspect that if practitioners were to see and attempt to answer
>the kinds of questions that interest me, it would detract from their
>professional skills.
Good point. It is not perhaps in your best interest or that of your client
to have *too* much insight.
>In a client-solicitor relationship any 'confession' would have to promote
>the client's interest to be valid. Otherwise, accounting for oneself
>induces a kind of self-consciousness that may take a practitioner outside
>of the "zone" in which they function best.
Very possibly.
Keith Henson
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu 05 Feb 2004 - 01:37:01 GMT