Dustin Wax recently posted to Savage Minds musing ‘What do they want from us?’ They, of course, are the hoi polloi, and us are the anthropological cognoscenti. He lists a number of good points, and then ends in a joke: ‘They want to know about the d…

Its kind of ironic that the question has come up after recent posts about PRISP, and the employment of anthropologists by Microsoft, car companies, etc. I would say anthropological practices are actually on the rise – though not necessarily everywhere within academia.

This is true. In the UK anthropology is even being used to advertise banks (top left advert). I think only a fundamental lack of confidence in the knowledge anthropology provides could lead people to think that in an increasingly globalised world, anthropological knowledge won’t be important (even if having banks use it to advertise themselves makes you cringe).

Ozma wrote:

Like, I do think in an atmosphere/moment that says “if it ain’t useful it can eff off!” we shouldn’t just fall all over ourselves to prove we are useful. We should also be arguing that that is a pretty impoverished view of human potential and creative social existence.

This is what I was trying to get at above by asking, quite bluntly, who we are justifying our existence to. I think the larger point is: why do we let the argument be framed in that sort of way? Why should we agree to those sorts of precepts?

It is also important to distinguish Public from Popular. As if the success of the discipline should be measured by the abundance of TV programs we (indirectly) produce! (although we are infinitely more successful in the popular realm than most of the academy).

we need to qualify “public” with “that are actually aware of anthropology’s existence and have a somewhat accurate idea of what the discipline is about”.

Or, rather, how do we anthropologists make the public — whatever public — aware of anthropology’s existence and give them a somehwat accurate idea of what the discipline is about? One of the things that’s missing from “public anthropology” at the moment is an effort at PR. I don’t think you have to be entirely cynical about it — unlike many of the institutions that rely on PR to put a good spin on bad news, I think anthropology actually has something positive to offer the public. But we have to put it in front of them — the world isn’t going to beat a trail to our door unless they know there’s a door out there in the woods worth beating a trail to.

I think that it’s interesting that the comments so often come around to a “well, why do we need to prove that we deserve to exist” debate. While I am into public anthropology, advocacy, activism and so forth and this desire for social action is one of the reasons I got involved in anthro in the first place, I by no means think that there is no room for knowledge for it’s own sake. I fact, I think it’s very sad that North American society seems to be heading in the direction of “if it’s not finance, computers, technology (i.e. something concrete that provides immediate results in the market place) it’s fluffy stuff and unnecessary for survival.” It actually scares me; I worry about the fate not only of anthro, soci et al departments but of art, philosophy, theatre, music and so forth.

I think that one of the reasons there is much disagreement on the issue of the “uses” of anthro, though, is that many of us might disagree on what is “useful” or not to society. IMO, social usefulness is inherent in the discipline, especially if we manage to reach people (e.g. students) who will not actually become anthropologists but plumbers, lawyers, nurses, teachers, social workers and so forth.

For one who would see usefulness as being about possibly profit, well . . . I don’t really have anything to say to that. Well, I do, but it would be rude to say here.

Now, to address the actual question that is posed by Oneman’s post, what does the public want from anthropologists? Well, first of all . . . we need to qualify “public” with “that are actually aware of anthropology’s existence and have a somewhat accurate idea of what the discipline is about”.

Once we qualify that, then I think that the “demands” made upon our discipline might vary enormously according to an individual or group’ social/political/religious ideologies. Oneman’s suggestions are all quite likely, again, depending on who we’re talking about specifically.

So . . .here is an additional question that maybe Oneman or anyone else could respond to: is the onus on the public to demonstrate that it wants something from anthro or is the onus on us (those of us who wish to offer something) to show that we have something(s) to give?

I got into anthorpology because I think it does have something of value to ad to society. (Even if it is as simple as articulating that people in other countries might have different values than “Westerners” or “Americans”.)Even if you don’t think that anthropology has any larger society value, as an anthropologist, you still have to justify your existence to the sources of funding that ensure anthropologies existence. No funding=no more anthropology (or anthropology limited to the rich or a small handful of colleges).

Pre-WWII in the UK there was Royal Commission on university teaching, and prominent academics (Frazer, Rivers, Haddon, Duckworth etc) met to discuss practical measures for the organisation of teaching anthropology – with MPs and others noting its importance for the education of administrators and colonial officers. Maybe that is our most traditional public, though books like Holtorf’s show how much is/has changed.

There are internal debates — should I use the ethnographic present? — that however important they might be to the discipline probably don’t have much of an audience outside of other anthropologists. There are probably particular fields of study that will only ever interest a handful of people, though I can’t think of any particular characteristics that would necessarily confine a subject to “niche” status. Obscurity isn’t any guarantee — consider work on PNG male initiation rituals, which wouldn’t seem to have much bearing in most people’s lives, but which have become important in the debate over social acceptance of homosexuality (among other things). Plus, you never know when the US might invade New Guinea…

That said, I think there’s a reasonable anxiety among many anthropologists that we are becoming increasingly irrelevant to the societies in which we live. There’s something unsatisfying about pouring one’s time and effort into a project whose results will only ever be read by a handful of people that probably already agree with you in the first place. From a practical standpoint, more and more anthropology departments are facing reduction in size, conflation with sociology departments, or even elimination — for those of us who feel that anthropology makes an important contribution to humanity’s understanding of itself and the world, the increasing barriers between us and “the public” are discouraging.

I don’t think we all have to jump into public anthropology. I do think there’s lots of room in the discipline for some Benedict- or Harris-style popularizers — I’d love to see someone take on the role of a Steven Jay Gould for anthropology! I also think there’s room for a consideration of what our work offers to the rest of society, even where, in the particular instance, there might not be much immediate use.