[hnbad]

The article sets out to explain the use of the term to allow more objective introspection but then only gives satirical examples. That's a bit disappointing.

You'd think reframing your own country's/culture's actions, behavior, politics or religion in intentionally alienated language (i.e. renaming key figures and concepts) would have some more practical examples.

The idea reminds me of the solution to fair sharing of a cake: have the person selected to cut it up go last when taking slices so they're incentivized to make all slices the same size. By being unable to benefit from any bias in the result (and in effect, potentially only being harmed by it) the person is forced to distance their immediate desire to have more cake from the act of dividing up the cake. Masking the country or cultural identity likewise (ideally) allows analyzing aspects of it without introducing in-group bias.

Of course I'm not sure simply spelling everything backwards is sufficient, but the article doesn't elaborate beyond this rather obvious use in satire.

[SkeuomorphicBee]

I think the whole point of the original article is that those are not satirical examples, they are examples were the same anthropological practices used to describe "foreign" cultures were used to describe US American culture. The idea is that if you want to dismiss this examples as satirical, then you will also need to dismiss a huge chunk of all anthropological body of knowledge ever written as satirical. It is a tool for anthropologists to clearly visualize their bias, a more objective introspection, and hopefully start working to minimize the impact of said bias in their work.

[Karunamon]

They literally are described as satire, though? The problem with using satire in this way is that you need a solid understanding of something to satirize it effectively, but having that understanding in the first place causes the problem the satire pokes at!

As a result, it comes off as insincere and hard to take seriously, in a "It's obvious what has been done here, and it's really not that clever, and the author doggone well knows it" kind of way. Transparent lexical tricks are not sufficient to create the kind of mental distance or suspension of disbelief necessary.

[unfocussed_mike]

> The article sets out to explain the use of the term to allow more objective introspection but then only gives satirical examples. That's a bit disappointing.

The quotes in the article don't strike me as inherently satirical. They are an attempt to write in a completely distant fashion, applying the same anthropological rules to US culture from outside as they would any other strange culture.

It's just that modern media has so many examples of satirically exploring our own culture in this way that they inevitably read that way.

For example, in Bones, though Bones herself does not usually do it satirically, she does it earnestly; the satire emerges from the disconnect between her and her colleagues.

It may not be possible to do this sort of thing without evoking satire, but there are many attempts lately to encourage US readers to consider how, for example, the Trump era would have been described by US foreign correspondents if it was happening in another nation.

But then, almost anything reads like satire if you choose to read it as satire. Food packaging for example. "Serving suggestion"

[stevage]

Are you disappointed by the original paper, or the Wikipedia article about it?

[hnbad]

The Wikipedia indicates that the original paper is satirical.