我对这种学术成功不感冒的原因很简单：距离太远了。隔了十几年换了个领域进学术圈，根本就没期望过在这个领域里会有什么竞争力，基本上是抱着大不了读完了去开卡车的。虽然还是会在这个领域里挣扎地考虑 career，但 career 本身并不是目的或者需要关注的重点，而是……好吧，那篇 《我为什么读人类学》的 blog 已经拖了一年多没写了。
总之对 a perfect academic 这种成功学，我目前还是抱着一种旁观者清的心态。而且，这些对失去稳定教职感到恐慌的人，当被什么东西，譬如香港的运动，影响到他们的稳定时，似乎也是那些会因此而愤怒，乃至因此来确定自己立场的人。
Schneider, L. T. (2020). Sexual violence during research: How the unpredictability of fieldwork and the right to risk collide with academic bureaucracy and expectations. Critique of Anthropology, 0308275X20917272.
The real damage to anthropology, however, is the paradoxical retreat into conservatism, from which the discipline’s founders painstakingly broke: the deployment of one’s own beliefs and values as heuristics for the study of all human life. The consequences of this retreat are many and I shall mention here only two. The first is the persistence of functionalism, or the reduction of social analysis to a set of ready-made beliefs, whether beliefs in the primacy of the physical world (materiality) or in the individual’s inner, psychological life (affect) or in the universal pursuit of autonomy (resistance). The second is anthropology’s ambient pietism, or the displacement of analysis with assertions of one’s own moral or political stance. It is all very well to believe in gender equality or the evils of colonialism, but when our own normative position is deployed as fundamental social theory—such as feminist or postcolonial theory—it does little more than reassert the already-held beliefs. The evaluative judgment built into it blocks social explanation and generates results that are complacent, conventional, and closed to the discovery of new things. The confusion of advocacy for analysis has made contemporary anthropology allergic to any kind of genuine moral or political difference. If earlier generations saw the comprehension of fundamental moral difference—head hunting, cannibalism, tribal warfare, and the like—as their duty, the new clings increasingly to the familiar close to home. Theoretically, what has displaced different people’s cosmologies are “common sense notions—of polity, self, and essential, shared humanity—that metropolitan actors and institutions foist upon the world” (Scheele and Shryock in press). The result is the growing poverty of anthropological theory, and the retreat of the discipline from the frontline of social theory.
Piliavsky, Anastasia. 2017. “Disciplinary Memory against Ambient Pietism.” HAU-JOURNAL OF ETHNOGRAPHIC THEORY 7(3):13–17.