Due to the vagaries of graduate school and life in general, it's been a little while since I have posted here. Earlier this year I started writing here about anthropology (see here, here, and here), and also cross-posting links to a collaborative online project that I am working on called "anthropologies." The only problem with a lot of current anthropology is that the really good stuff is locked up in journals or academic texts that nobody ever sees, let alone hears anything about. This needs to change, and one of my goals is to use anthropologies toward that end. Let me know what you think.
So...the latest issue just went online. Just in case some of you folks are hip to things anthropological, I thought I would share some of what's going on. The contributing authors cover a pretty wide range: from graduate students all the way the seasoned anthropologists. This helps to shake things up a bit. The goal of this issue was to spark a discussion about the overall goals of the discipline, whether or not anthropologists should engage with wider audiences, and ultimately what should be done with the insights and knowledge that anthropologists produce. Should they just talk among themselves, or should they (gasp!) extend their conversations? I lean toward the latter, for numerous reasons. The basic question of the issue is this: What's the point of it all? We got a variety of answers, and here's a few selections to give you an idea:
From the introduction to the issue, "A sense of purpose":
So what's the purpose of anthropology? In an attempt to answer this broad, imposing, and seemingly impossible question, here's a short story from my own experiences...
The year was 2005. I was a student at the University of California, Santa Cruz, working on my BA in anthropology. This was my second year, I think, and I was taking a class called "Latino Migration to the United States." One of the main texts assigned was by anthropologist Leo Chavez. The book is called "Shadowed Lives," and is about undocumented migrants in Southern California. I spent my entire life in this part of the state, so the book was immediately intriguing. What could this anthropologist really have to say about Southern California, of all places? What's anthropological about that?
Read the rest, here.
Daniel Lende is an anthropologist who blogs at a site called neuroanthropology:
I went yesterday to a lecture by Meredith Minkler, a national leader in community-based participatory research and public health. I also turned in a grant for new research on stress and resilience. And this morning I write this public piece.
Anthropology for me is applied, academic, and public. There is no necessary separation between the different strands; indeed, I only see the potential for synergy and for advances. I see an anthropology that makes a difference in ideas, in people’s lives, and in how we understand prominent issues and problems of our time.
The rest of Lende's post is here.
John Sherry is an anthropologist who works with Intel. His essay is called "Anthropology in High Tech":
Since about 1995 I have been lucky enough to conduct anthropological research in an industrial setting, specifically among firms in the computing industry. First at Microsoft, but through most of my career at Intel Corporation, I have led or been part of teams charged with understanding people in their natural environments of daily life, particularly in terms of the role and potential of new technologies in such environments. I consider myself fortunate not just because I am aware how competitive and challenging it is for anthropologists to find gainful employment at a sustainable wage, but also because it is very rewarding to do anthropology through the lens of technology...
Simone Abram's essay "Who is anthropology for?" takes the question about engagement with wider audiences and pushes it further:
I wish to start this short article with the assertion that the notion that anthropology should engage with wider audiences is uncontroversial. The case is made, not least by Thomas Hylland Eriksen (2006), and practiced all over the world by many people with education in Anthropology. My question, instead, is which audiences anthropology should be engaging with. A short typology of audiences for anthropology helps to shed some light on the idea that anthropology and its audiences are a movable feast.
Anthropologist and blogger Jason Antrosio discusses the relevance of anthropology and his reasons for getting anthropology online:
That is what I have been trying to do on my blog, an evolving project which attempts to take the fundamental lessons of Anthropology 101 online. I have a long way to go, and it is a lot of work, especially now that I am back to classroom teaching and faculty governance. Blogs may not be for everyone, but the hope is to in a small way move anthropology from a certain secrecy and “disciplinary shyness” toward a greater role in public discourse. As Michel-Rolph Trouillot writes, anthropology’s “relevance will likely depend on the extent to which the discipline rids itself of some of its shyness and spells out its stakes for a wider audience” (Global Transformations, 2003:137).
The rest of Antrosio's essay is here.
John Hawks answers the provocative question "What's wrong with anthropology?":
This field needs a kick in the pants.
How else can I explain what's going on in American anthropology? Just at the time the public and our institutions are crying out for more open publications, anthropology's largest professional association closed off its journals. Not that it matters much, nobody reads them anyway. The New York Times, on the other hand, many of my dear colleagues (and all our administrators) do read. There, they find articles about anthropology once every six months or so, which lately have featured a nightmare tale of foot-shooting and backpedaling. Not good.
From Sarah Williams' piece "A Whole New Anthropology":
The world is changing This fact is so obvious that it has become cliché, but regardless, most of us resist changing with it. In my experience, this is particularly true of many academics. Scientific disciplines are entrenched in years, sometimes centuries, of theoretical traditions and methods and can have a difficult time adapting to a world which no longer needs precisely the same science that it did 50 years ago. Additionally, due to the nature of scientific knowledge—layers built upon layers over many years and many researchers, by necessity our most contemporary research is very specific and entrenched within many levels of sub-disciplines. For most researchers in anthropology, it is no longer possible to set out with a moleskin journal, a tent, and some quinine tablets and discover an unstudied culture.
Jeremy Trombley argues that anthropologists don't just need to talk to wider audiences--they need to find ways to make a difference in the world around them:
Anthropologists are uniquely concerned about engaging a broader public. Some disciplines seem to naturally attract attention, while others seem oblivious to even the existence of a public, and could care less about being relevant as long as they get their funding. Anthropologists, on the other hand, tend to worry about it constantly – continually asking if we're doing enough or should be doing more or maybe should be trying a different approach. To be frank, whether or not anthropologists are engaging a wider audience is no longer my primary concern. This will sound like heresy to some, I'm sure, and it definitely marks a change in my own position, but I don't think we can move forward until we give up this preoccupation with engaging the public.
What does concern me is whether or not anthropologists are making a difference.
The issue also has an interview with anthropologist and filmmaker Adam Fish which explores some of his research on media, power, and technology, and also highlights some of his views about the discipline as a whole. Lastly, there is an open thread so that readers can add their views about the purpose(s) of anthropology.
So there are some highlights of this latest issue. Check out the rest. The project is ongoing, and I'd appreciate your thoughts, comments, and reactions. There are legions of anthropologists out there who are doing some great work--and more people need to hear about this work. It needs to be pushed outside of the halls of academia if you ask me. And that's part of what I am working on. Thanks for reading!
-Ryan (aka "ethnografix")
PS: See anthropologist David Graeber here and here for an example of an anthropologist who is indeed getting his arguments and ideas into the public sphere. Gillian Tett is another great example (check here and here).