[writing is rough. I'll fix it later]
Academics don't understand culture. Scholars want to be scientists and they aren't, so they pretend. Or they become scientists in which case they're no longer scholars.

When the productions of human beings become de-humanized in analysis then the human beings observed through their production become dehumanized. This is necessary for some purposes but it's generalized into a universal intellectual model. The easy way to try to resolve the moral problems that accrue to this, now that they're acknowledged to exist [cf. "the other"], is to dehumanize the observer as well. That's the moral defense of the fantasy of autism as mechanical, of the mechanical as neutral, and of neutral as objective. But even ignoring the problem of overcoming the ego and self-interest [also ignored: the conflict between objectivity and self-interest in those who seem to celebrate both], a machine only does what it's programmed to do, so in the end the dehumanized observer even if it were a possibility is not objective but only programmed [with a programmed perspective] and without affect, exhibiting moral neutrality or at least s sort of intellectual and moral numbness.

One of the commenters on the most recent post below linked to this. It surprised me, but it shouldn't have. The culture of the techno-sublime is just another aspect of a determinate process; and now it's reached divinity school by way of business school. As predictable as plant life. You'd think anthropologists would want to study it more than indulge.

"in a culture where people sign their names to their works, those works that are called 'scholarship' and those that are called 'craftsmanship' should be treated in ways that overlap, rather than as entirely separate mutually exclusive categories."

In reverse order:
Culture is what you can’t choose
Remix Culture
Simon Sinek