overemphasis on magic

[pf at cix.compulink.co.uk]

In-Reply-To: <960613133237_413486994 at emout09.mail.aol.com>
I am amazed which fascination the word 'magic' still holds over our 
imagination. In Anthropology 'magic' has unfortunately often been treated 
as a thing in itself. This has lead to rather muddled and, I think, 
unfruitful debates about the relationship between 'magic' and the various 
fields of expertise in our beloved universities. It seems more productive 
to investigate the pragmatics of language usage in context without 
prejudicing the results by way of labels like 'magic'.Tambiah is 
certainly right in stressing that this task 'has still to be completed'. 
In fact - it has hardly begun. Unfortunately Tambiah himself never really 
investigated speech acts but confined himself to a few programmatic 
statements along the lines of Wittgensteinian linguistic philosophy. 
Besides: As far as I know 'The' Frankfurt School never dispensed 
membership cards. Whether Habermas belongs to this tradition is at least 
an open question. Certainly he made a useful contribution to the question 
of the normative implications of speech acts. However, his Durkheimian 
reconstruction of the genesis of conventions and norms seems questionable.

Peter Fluegel