I was trained in the '50s as a New Critic. I remember what literature was like before the New Critics, when people stood up and talked about Shelley's soul and such things.

I don't write drafts. I write from the beginning to the end, and when it's finished, it's done.

People keep asking how anthropology is different from sociology, and everybody gets nervous.

I've written a lot of books which are written from the moon - the view from nowhere.

Anthropology never has had a distinct subject matter, and because it doesn't have a real method, there's a great deal of anxiety over what it is.

Younger anthropologists have the notion that anthropology is too diverse. The number of things done under the name of anthropology is just infinite; you can do anything and call it anthropology.

I never leave a sentence or a paragraph until I'm satisfied with it.

I don't think things are moving toward an omega point; I think they're moving toward more diversity.

Two people have been really liberating in my mind; one is Wittgenstein and the other is Burke. I read Burke before he was a secular saint, before everyone was reading him.

I don't have the notion that everybody has to write in some single academic style.

I don't feel that an atmosphere of debate and total disagreement and argument is such a bad thing. It makes for a vital and alive field.

Anthropology in general has always been fairly hospitable to female scholars, and even to feminist scholars.

Most anthropologists are doing straightforward ethnography, and should.

My instincts are always against people who want to fasten some sort of hegemony onto things.

Has feminism made us all more conscious? I think it has. Feminist critiques of anthropological masculine bias have been quite important, and they have increased my sensitivity to that kind of issue.

I've often been accused of making anthropology into literature, but anthropology is also field research. Writing is central to it.

I think feminism has had a major impact on anthropology.

I'm an inveterate fox and not a hedgehog, so I always think you should try everything.

If I remember correctly, a writer is someone who wants to convey information. Language or writing is a code.

Gender consciousness has become involved in almost every intellectual field: history, literature, science, anthropology. There's been an extraordinary advance.

Meaning is socially, historically, and rhetorically constructed.

We're getting closer to our nature.

It's always amusing to look at how something early in the 20th century was written in anthropology and how it's written now. There's been an enormous shift in how it's done, but yet you can't put your finger on someone who actually did it.

I was trained in the '50s as a New Critic. I remember what literature was like before the New Critics, when people stood up and talked about Shelley's soul and such things.

I think what's known about neurology is still scattered and uncertain.

I think the American university system still seems to be the best system in the world.

The North African mule talks always of his mother's brother, the horse, but never of his father, the donkey, in favor of others supposedly more reputable.

I think of myself as a writer who happens to be doing his writing as an anthropologist.

I agree with Chomsky in almost nothing. When it comes to innate structures and so on, I'm very skeptical.

If there's ever a place where you can't argue that you can put the facts over here and the text over there and see if they fit, it is surely in anthropology.

The way in which mathematicians and physicists and historians talk is quite different, and what a physicist means by physical intuition and what a mathematician means by beauty or elegance are things worth thinking about.

I'm writing a review of three books on feminism and science, and it's about social constructionism. So I would say I'm a social constructionist, whatever that means.

I do think the attempt to raise consciousness has succeeded. People are very aware of gender concerns now.

I had a hard time convincing students that they were going to North Africa to understand the North Africans, not to understand themselves.

We need to think more about the nature of rhetoric in anthropology. There isn't a body of knowledge and thought to fall back on in this regard.

I think the perception of there being a deep gulf between science and the humanities is false.

The point of literary criticism in anthropology is not to replace research, but to find out how it is that we are persuasive.

Gender consciousness has become involved in almost every intellectual field history literature science anthropology. Theres been an extraordinary advance.

Judaism has always been a strong interest of mine. My two sons speak Hebrew and are familiar with the scriptures and with rabbinic literature. This is the way we live.

Examples one finds in the philosophical literature are somebody who's seen the trial of a child of theirs, where they're being proved guilty of some crime that would drive the parent into a depression, maybe a suicidal depression.

During our stay in London for the first time I was able to establish personal contact with some of the organic chemists, whose work I knew and admired from the literature. I found them most gracious and helpful.

The decline of literature indicates the decline of a nation.

Jesus claimed He had the power to raise himself from the dead and His followers would be raised from the dead. That's a unique claim in the literature of religion.

The Arab world also won the Nobel with me. I believe that international doors have opened, and that from now on, literate people will consider Arab literature also. We deserve that recognition.

The difference between literature and journalism is that journalism is unreadable and literature is not read.

In science, read, by preference, the newest works; in literature, the oldest. The classic literature is always modern.

Acquiring a repertoire in these days, when the vocal literature is so immense, so overwhelming, that the student with sense will devote all his energies to work and not imagine himself a martyr to art.

I think Maus I is better than Maus II. The standard here is whether or not it's as good as a great book of prose literature and by that standard, no, it's not that great.

In the order of literature, as in others, there is no act that is not the coronation of an infinite series of causes and the source of an infinite series of effects.