<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1"?>

<rdf:RDF
 xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
 xmlns="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/"
 xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/"
 xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
 xmlns:syn="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
 xmlns:prism="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/prism/"
 xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
>

<channel rdf:about="http://coa.sagepub.com">
<title>Critique of Anthropology current issue</title>
<link>http://coa.sagepub.com</link>
<description>Critique of Anthropology RSS feed -- current issue</description>
<prism:coverDisplayDate>September 2009</prism:coverDisplayDate>
<prism:publicationName>Critique of Anthropology</prism:publicationName>
<prism:issn>0308-275X</prism:issn>
<items>
 <rdf:Seq>
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://coa.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/29/3/255?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://coa.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/29/3/279?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://coa.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/29/3/300?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://coa.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/29/3/324?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://coa.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/29/3/345?rss=1" />
 </rdf:Seq>
</items>
<image rdf:resource="http://coa.sagepub.com:80/icons/banner/title.gif" />
</channel>

<image rdf:about="http://coa.sagepub.com:80/icons/banner/title.gif">
<title>Critique of Anthropology</title>
<url>http://coa.sagepub.com:80/icons/banner/title.gif</url>
<link>http://coa.sagepub.com</link>
</image>

<item rdf:about="http://coa.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/29/3/255?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA['Masculine Domination': Desire and Chinese Patriliny]]></title>
<link>http://coa.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/29/3/255?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>This article reprises 1970s discussions of gender inequality in feminist anthropology to critique contemporary assumptions regarding gender construction, advocating a psycho-cultural explanation for the ubiquity of masculine domination. The currency of what I term &lsquo;culturalist empiricism&rsquo;, in its emphasis on cultural difference, downplays inquiry into human commonalities with respect to gender and entails questionable assumptions regarding how culture operates to construct. Analysis of Chinese patriliny understood as a &lsquo;mode of production of desire&rsquo; provides a case in point toward rethinking how cultures can differ with respect to gender construction without abandoning anthropology&rsquo;s commitment to comprehending human commonalities. The approach is relevant beyond China&rsquo;s culturally particular context, and it suggests substantial revision of idealist assumptions regarding anthropology&rsquo;s object &mdash; culture.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Sangren, P. S.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2009-09-08</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1177/0308275X09104082</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA['Masculine Domination': Desire and Chinese Patriliny]]></dc:title>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:volume>29</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>278</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-09-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>255</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Article</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://coa.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/29/3/279?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[In the Shadow of the Gun: 'Not-War-Not-Peace' and the Future of Conflict in Northern Ireland]]></title>
<link>http://coa.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/29/3/279?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Despite over fifteen years of &lsquo;peace process,&rsquo; political violence in Northern Ireland has continued and a situation characterised as &lsquo;not-war-not peace&rsquo; has prevailed. In the euphoria surrounding the establishment of the &lsquo;power-sharing government&rsquo; in 2007, the media reported this event as representing the end of the &lsquo;troubles&rsquo; or conflict. However, significant political violence has continued throughout the peace process and the heavily armed Loyalist paramilitaries, unlike the IRA, have not begun to disarm and have no intention to do so, despite this being a fundamental requirement of the peace process. They are reserving the option and are fully prepared to return to violence in response to any movement towards a united Ireland, and this &lsquo;threat&rsquo; is growing because Catholic-nationalists will become a voting majority in the province over the next decade or so. This paper argues that there is no peace in Northern Ireland now, that the peace process has not been successfully completed, and that the prognosis for the future of the gun and political violence in Northern Ireland is not good. History and Protestant political culture strongly suggest that the most likely future scenario is a resurgence of Loyalist violence and a renewed paramilitary campaign, rather than a real and lasting peace.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Sluka, J. A.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2009-09-08</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1177/0308275X09104086</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[In the Shadow of the Gun: 'Not-War-Not-Peace' and the Future of Conflict in Northern Ireland]]></dc:title>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:volume>29</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>299</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-09-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>279</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Article</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://coa.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/29/3/300?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Monks, Monarchs and Mountain Folks: Domestic Tourism and Internal Colonialism in Northern Thailand]]></title>
<link>http://coa.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/29/3/300?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>The development of domestic (or national) tourism in Thailand in the second half of the 20th century relied on a new kind of relationship between the state and local cultures. Rural spaces have been reinvented and transformed into appealing visual and conceptual archetypes which sustain discourses on both local and national identity and history. Thai tourism allows a kind of pacification of the relations between the centre and the periphery, but it also perpetuates an internal colonialism, both towards Tai and non-Tai populations. This article investigates the social significance of domestic tourism in Chiang Mai and the links between non-Western representation of travel, nationalism and localized identity. It focuses on three attractions scattered along the road going up to the mountain of Suthep (Doi Suthep), one of the most famous tourist destinations in northern Thailand: a Buddhist temple, a royal palace and an ethnic village. These three attractions provide crucial insights into the history of domestic tourism in Thailand: its similarities to and differences from previous forms of travel, its relations to the idealization of the rural and its role in the pacification of the relations between the Thai state and its geographic and social margins.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Evrard, O., Leepreecha, P.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2009-09-08</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1177/0308275X09104657</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Monks, Monarchs and Mountain Folks: Domestic Tourism and Internal Colonialism in Northern Thailand]]></dc:title>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:volume>29</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>323</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-09-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>300</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Article</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://coa.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/29/3/324?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Notes on the (post)colonial in the Maghreb]]></title>
<link>http://coa.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/29/3/324?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p> This article examines the formation of French colonial culture in the Maghreb and the power relations it has generated. Through an analysis of colonial knowledge, the author shows the different and changing discursive strategies put in place to comprehend and control the local population. He also argues that the effects of this colonial knowledge continue in the present and, far from debunking it, national reactions by historians helped make colonial categories and understanding part of the present.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Hannoum, A.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2009-09-08</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1177/0308275X09336702</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Notes on the (post)colonial in the Maghreb]]></dc:title>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:volume>29</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>344</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-09-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>324</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Article</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://coa.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/29/3/345?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[The Ethics of Apology: A Set of Commentaries]]></title>
<link>http://coa.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/29/3/345?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p> On 13 February 2008, the Australian government apologized to the &lsquo;stolen generations&rsquo;: those children of Aboriginal descent who were removed from their parents (usually their Aboriginal mothers) to be raised in white foster-homes and institutions administered by government and Christian churches &mdash; a practice that lasted from before the First World War to the early 1970s. This apology was significant, in the words of Rudd, for the &lsquo;healing&rsquo; of the Australian nation. Apologizing for past injustices has become a significant speech act in current times. Why does saying sorry seem to be ubiquitous at the moment? What are the instances of not saying sorry? What are the ethical implications of this era of remembrance and apology? This set of commentaries seeks to explore some of the ethical, philosophical, social and political dimensions of this Age of Apology. The authors discuss whether apology is a responsibility which cannot &mdash; and should not &mdash; be avoided; the ethical pitfalls of seeking an apology, or not uttering it; the global and local understandings of apology and forgiveness; and the processes of ownership and appropriation in saying sorry.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mookherjee, N., Rapport, N., Josephides, L., Hage, G., Todd, L. R., Cowlishaw, G.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2009-09-08</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1177/0308275X09336703</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[The Ethics of Apology: A Set of Commentaries]]></dc:title>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:volume>29</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>366</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-09-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>345</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Article</prism:section>
</item>

</rdf:RDF>