Today in a seminar we were discussing the Brazillian travesti, transexual prostitutes, and their attitude towards sex. Many of them have contracted AIDS and therefore insist upon their clients using condoms, but when they sleep with their partners condoms are rarely, or never, used. Our lecturer asked the group to give an explanation for this, people were mainly answering along the lines of the symbolism of ownership, lack of boundaries in love and the closness of sharing scared fluids. Then somebody said ‘Would it not just be down to the fact that both the travesti and their partner had both already contracted the virus and they then don’t need precautionary measures?’.
Our lecturer replied ‘Oh we don’t want pragmatics here, we want symbolism!’
Pardon? I was under the assumption that anthropology was intent on situating itself with the sciences, surely disregarding pragmatics is an insane thing to be promoting. I really do love symbolic interpretations, and they often ring true, but they hardly need to be at the cost of less tantalising and more realistic viewings.
Looks like me and anthropology need a serious talk, the honeymoon period is well and truly over.
