Comments on: Cultural studies as the new anthropology http://savageminds.org/2008/01/30/cultural-studies-as-the-new-anthropology/ Notes and Queries in Anthropology — A Group Blog Fri, 25 May 2012 11:29:38 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: John McCreery http://savageminds.org/2008/01/30/cultural-studies-as-the-new-anthropology/comment-page-1/#comment-201741 John McCreery Tue, 05 Feb 2008 03:56:59 +0000 http://savageminds.org/2008/01/30/cultural-studies-as-the-new-anthropology/#comment-201741 Well said, MT. Over on anthro-L, where I have mentioned our discussion here, a related thread has started. In my latest effusion I wrote, "In the intellectual framework with which I am comfortable, ethnography is not science. Ethnography is data gathering. Ethnology, the scientific part of cultural anthropology, produces testable generalizations about the human condition and tests them against the data that ethnography provides. Ethnography is scientific (not science per se) only when the data is collected in a way that makes it useful for ethnology. "Do note, however, that this is only a framework. I am well aware that, in practice, the actual results of ethnography may more closely resemble a midden than a spreadsheet. The ethnologist must then assemble and test her generalizations in the manner of an archeologist assembling fragments of evidence and doing the best she can with them. "If prevented by the nature of the evidence from conventional experimental or statistical hypothesis-testing, she can still (in the manner of Hercule Poirot or Columbo) attend to detail, position and sequence to refine her ideas and rule out invalid notions. To me, that's serious scholarship. "Some cultural studies do seem serious to me; much of cultural studies doesn't. The same is also true, of course, of a lot of anthropology. A genre I find particularly tedious is the cookie-cutter application of "theory" in a "Gee whiz, I saw it,too" mode supported by poorly told anecdote. "I'm forgiving if the tale is well told, for the pleasure of the reading and the suggestion of new insight. But will the insight stand up? Then, to me, it is time for that serious scholarship business, ideally science. A personal opinion, casually offered? The word for that is 'piffle.'" Then, this morning, replying to a comment that I seemed to be equating ethnography with journalism, I replied (here slightly amended), "Good questions, Ron. I observe that, as a linguistic anthropologist, you work in that part of the field where ethnography tends to be more scientific. "There are bits of social anthropology of which similar claims could be made. From the parts of the world in which I work, something similar occurred in studies of Chinese villages focused on topics including ancestor worship in relation to family and lineage organization. A line of research crystallized around the issues raised by Maurice Freedman in _Lineage Organization in Southeastern China_ led to a series of studies by people who pursued a similar style of community study and collected comparable data. The irony here is that the comparable data revealed so much variability that existing models proved demonstrably inadequate, and no consensus has emerged to replace them. The good news is that these studies have contributed to substantial work in Chinese history, when historians read the anthropologists and began to do research on what they could add from materials in the historical record. "One can, of course, argue that ethnography SHOULD BE more scientific. But this bears about as much relation to actual practice as prescriptive grammar to speech as she is spoken. Suggestions that ethnography should be more scientific have frequently been advanced, even that descriptive linguistics provides the appropriate model. These proposals enjoyed a brief fluorescence in the 60s (remember "ethnoscience"?). They have, however, largely faded into obscurity. Realistically speaking, ethnography is a liminal beast that embodies the tension between the scientific and humanistic aims of anthropology. It can be scientific. It can also be intensely personal, a vision quest or an occasion for humanistic reflection on moral and political issues. Works like Ruth Behar's _Translated Woman_, Robert DesJarlais' _Shelter Blues_, Aihwa Ong's _Flexible Citizenship_, or Anna Tsing's _Friction_ are deeply serious books and cannot be dismissed as mere journalism. They also are so idiosyncratic that ethnological comparison in pursuit of testable generalizations would be, if attempted, one hell of a coding problem." Well said, MT. Over on anthro-L, where I have mentioned our discussion here, a related thread has started. In my latest effusion I wrote,

“In the intellectual framework with which I am comfortable, ethnography is not science. Ethnography is data gathering. Ethnology, the scientific part of cultural anthropology, produces testable generalizations about the human condition and tests them against the data that ethnography provides. Ethnography is scientific (not science per se) only when the data is collected in a way that makes it useful for ethnology.

“Do note, however, that this is only a framework. I am well aware that, in practice, the actual results of ethnography may more closely resemble a midden than a spreadsheet. The ethnologist must then assemble and test her generalizations in the manner of an archeologist assembling fragments of evidence and doing the best she can with them.

“If prevented by the nature of the evidence from conventional experimental or statistical hypothesis-testing, she can still (in the manner of Hercule Poirot or Columbo) attend to detail, position and sequence to refine her ideas and rule out invalid notions. To me, that’s serious scholarship.

“Some cultural studies do seem serious to me; much of cultural studies doesn’t. The same is also true, of course, of a lot of anthropology. A genre I find particularly tedious is the cookie-cutter application of “theory” in a “Gee whiz, I saw it,too” mode supported by poorly told anecdote.

“I’m forgiving if the tale is well told, for the pleasure of the reading and the suggestion of new insight. But will the insight stand up? Then, to me, it is time for that serious scholarship business, ideally science. A personal opinion, casually offered? The word for that is ‘piffle.’”

Then, this morning, replying to a comment that I seemed to be equating ethnography with journalism, I replied (here slightly amended),

“Good questions, Ron. I observe that, as a linguistic anthropologist, you work in that part of the field where ethnography tends to be more scientific.

“There are bits of social anthropology of which similar claims could be made. From the parts of the world in which I work, something similar occurred in studies of Chinese villages focused on topics including ancestor worship in relation to family and lineage organization. A line of research crystallized around the issues raised by Maurice Freedman in _Lineage Organization in Southeastern China_ led to a series of studies by people who pursued a similar style of community study and collected comparable data. The irony here is that the comparable data revealed so much variability that existing models proved demonstrably inadequate, and no consensus has emerged to replace them. The good news is that these studies have contributed to substantial work in Chinese history, when historians read the anthropologists and began to do research on what they could add from materials in the historical record.

“One can, of course, argue that ethnography SHOULD BE more scientific. But this bears about as much relation to actual practice as prescriptive grammar to speech as she is spoken. Suggestions that ethnography should be more scientific have frequently been advanced, even that descriptive linguistics provides the appropriate model. These proposals enjoyed a brief fluorescence in the 60s (remember “ethnoscience”?). They have, however, largely faded into obscurity. Realistically speaking, ethnography is a liminal beast that embodies the tension between the scientific and humanistic aims of anthropology. It can be scientific. It can also be intensely personal, a vision quest or an occasion for humanistic reflection on moral and political issues. Works like Ruth Behar’s _Translated Woman_, Robert DesJarlais’ _Shelter Blues_, Aihwa Ong’s _Flexible Citizenship_, or Anna Tsing’s _Friction_ are deeply serious books and cannot be dismissed as mere journalism. They also are so idiosyncratic that ethnological comparison in pursuit of testable generalizations would be, if attempted, one hell of a coding problem.”

Report this comment

]]> By: MTBradley http://savageminds.org/2008/01/30/cultural-studies-as-the-new-anthropology/comment-page-1/#comment-201456 MTBradley Mon, 04 Feb 2008 22:01:38 +0000 http://savageminds.org/2008/01/30/cultural-studies-as-the-new-anthropology/#comment-201456 My knee doesn’t jerk very much but the “handmaiden of colonialism” cliché can bring it out of me. It conjures up the notion that the earliest professional anthropologists were hell-bent on figuring out how to most efficiently steal native land and extinguish indigenous identity. Yes, early ethnographers did tend to pick up their pay checks from a government agency, but does that mean they were in collusion? By that logic any research funded by a Fulbright is suspect. Perhaps graduate study funded by federal student aid is done in the service of the US government, as well. The historical accuracy of the phrase is an annoyance, but even more frustrating are the implications it has for contemporary work. It creates an atmosphere in which it is apparently acceptable to trash any work that took place in the dark days of pre-reflexivity, so huge bodies of literature are ignored by graduate students as they prepare for the field and as they write up. On the positive side, it does provide a space for hand-wringing mea culpas on the part of anthropologists and a ready made attack upon the discipline by self-styled progressives working from within other programs. And don't those go a long way towards the advance of knowledge and understanding? All of this has been said much more eloquently by Sid Mintz in his “Sows’ Ears and Silver Linings” piece in the April 2000 issue of Current Anthropology. My knee doesn’t jerk very much but the “handmaiden of colonialism” cliché can bring it out of me. It conjures up the notion that the earliest professional anthropologists were hell-bent on figuring out how to most efficiently steal native land and extinguish indigenous identity. Yes, early ethnographers did tend to pick up their pay checks from a government agency, but does that mean they were in collusion? By that logic any research funded by a Fulbright is suspect. Perhaps graduate study funded by federal student aid is done in the service of the US government, as well.

The historical accuracy of the phrase is an annoyance, but even more frustrating are the implications it has for contemporary work. It creates an atmosphere in which it is apparently acceptable to trash any work that took place in the dark days of pre-reflexivity, so huge bodies of literature are ignored by graduate students as they prepare for the field and as they write up. On the positive side, it does provide a space for hand-wringing mea culpas on the part of anthropologists and a ready made attack upon the discipline by self-styled progressives working from within other programs. And don’t those go a long way towards the advance of knowledge and understanding?

All of this has been said much more eloquently by Sid Mintz in his “Sows’ Ears and Silver Linings” piece in the April 2000 issue of Current Anthropology.

Report this comment

]]> By: GC http://savageminds.org/2008/01/30/cultural-studies-as-the-new-anthropology/comment-page-1/#comment-201272 GC Mon, 04 Feb 2008 19:15:49 +0000 http://savageminds.org/2008/01/30/cultural-studies-as-the-new-anthropology/#comment-201272 As a former grad student in anthropology (Chicago) who agonized before switching to Cultural Studies, I have to point out that your genealogy is lacking. CS is a strange and undisciplined thing in the US because it was a British invention (if 2 full-time faculty can even be said to comprise a "School" of thought, i.e. Birmingham School, BCCC.) CS is less a discipline than an interdisciplinary grouping these days in the US, but some of the more appealing things about is that it is much better at adapting than anthropology and lacks the baggage anthro still carries from being the handmaiden of colonialism. Some of the folks doing CS lack method and rigor, but for anyone who bothered to attend a panel at AAA this year, certainly the same thing can be said of a large number of anthropologists as well. As a former grad student in anthropology (Chicago) who agonized before switching to Cultural Studies, I have to point out that your genealogy is lacking. CS is a strange and undisciplined thing in the US because it was a British invention (if 2 full-time faculty can even be said to comprise a “School” of thought, i.e. Birmingham School, BCCC.) CS is less a discipline than an interdisciplinary grouping these days in the US, but some of the more appealing things about is that it is much better at adapting than anthropology and lacks the baggage anthro still carries from being the handmaiden of colonialism. Some of the folks doing CS lack method and rigor, but for anyone who bothered to attend a panel at AAA this year, certainly the same thing can be said of a large number of anthropologists as well.

Report this comment

]]> By: Rex http://savageminds.org/2008/01/30/cultural-studies-as-the-new-anthropology/comment-page-1/#comment-200611 Rex Mon, 04 Feb 2008 08:38:34 +0000 http://savageminds.org/2008/01/30/cultural-studies-as-the-new-anthropology/#comment-200611 On reflection, my point in writing this article was two-fold: 1) to compare cultural studies today to anthropology in the late 60s and early 70s (this was the hidden agenda marked by the reference to the Peace Corp) 2) To point out that anthropology actually acts in bad faith a lot of the time, or that it wants to have it both ways when it comes to 'science' and 'rigor' -- a fact that cultural studies's radicalization of anthropology's anti-scientific (scientistic?) impulses brings to the fore. 3) One way out of this dilemma (as mentioned in the first post) would be to seize the example of rigorous humanism (to use a phrase loosely) as a way out of the connundrum, since such approaches decouple 'rigor' and 'seriousness' from 'science' and 'generalization' On reflection, my point in writing this article was two-fold:

1) to compare cultural studies today to anthropology in the late 60s and early 70s (this was the hidden agenda marked by the reference to the Peace Corp)

2) To point out that anthropology actually acts in bad faith a lot of the time, or that it wants to have it both ways when it comes to ‘science’ and ‘rigor’ — a fact that cultural studies’s radicalization of anthropology’s anti-scientific (scientistic?) impulses brings to the fore.

3) One way out of this dilemma (as mentioned in the first post) would be to seize the example of rigorous humanism (to use a phrase loosely) as a way out of the connundrum, since such approaches decouple ‘rigor’ and ‘seriousness’ from ‘science’ and ‘generalization’

Report this comment

]]> By: John McCreery http://savageminds.org/2008/01/30/cultural-studies-as-the-new-anthropology/comment-page-1/#comment-199203 John McCreery Sun, 03 Feb 2008 03:12:42 +0000 http://savageminds.org/2008/01/30/cultural-studies-as-the-new-anthropology/#comment-199203 Matthew, what you're missing is that debates over the nature of science and academic disciplines take place in an arena much larger and wider than either anthropology or cultural studies or even both taken together. Concerning science, there are now huge literatures in both philosophy and history of science and a growing body of work in Science and Technology Studies. Two of my favorites, though now much dated I'm sure, are Alfred North Whitehead,_Science and the Modern World_ and E.A. Burtt _The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science_. There is also a growing literature on academic disciplines. There is a good discussion and bibliography in Immanuel Wallerstein "The Heritage of Sociology, The Promise of Social Science" (http://www.binghamton.edu/fbc/iwpradfp.htm). Matthew, what you’re missing is that debates over the nature of science and academic disciplines take place in an arena much larger and wider than either anthropology or cultural studies or even both taken together. Concerning science, there are now huge literatures in both philosophy and history of science and a growing body of work in Science and Technology Studies. Two of my favorites, though now much dated I’m sure, are Alfred North Whitehead,_Science and the Modern World_ and E.A. Burtt _The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science_. There is also a growing literature on academic disciplines. There is a good discussion and bibliography in Immanuel Wallerstein “The Heritage of Sociology, The Promise of Social Science” (http://www.binghamton.edu/fbc/iwpradfp.htm).

Report this comment

]]> By: John McCreery http://savageminds.org/2008/01/30/cultural-studies-as-the-new-anthropology/comment-page-1/#comment-199160 John McCreery Sun, 03 Feb 2008 02:23:10 +0000 http://savageminds.org/2008/01/30/cultural-studies-as-the-new-anthropology/#comment-199160 Anyway, in the intellectual framework with which I am comfortable, ethnography is not science. Ethnography is data gathering. Ethnology, the scientific part of cultural anthropology, produces testable generalizations about the human condition and tests them against the data that ethnography provides. Ethnography is scientific (not science per se) only when the data is collected in a way that makes it useful for ethnology. Do note, however, that this is only a framework. I am well aware that, in practice, the actual results of ethnography may more closely resemble a midden than a spreadsheet. The ethnologist must then assemble and test her generalizations in the manner of an archeologist assembling fragments of evidence and doing the best she can with them. If prevented by the nature of the evidence from conventional experimental or statistical hypothesis-testing, she can still (in the manner of Hercule Poirot or Columbo) attend to detail, position and sequence to refine her ideas and rule out invalid notions. To me, that's serious scholarship. Some cultural studies do seem serious to me; much of cultural studies doesn't. The same is also true, of course, of a lot of anthropology. A genre I find particularly tedious is the cookie-cutter application of "theory" in a "Gee whiz, I saw it,too" mode supported by poorly told anecdote. I'm forgiving if the tale is well told, for the pleasure of the reading and the suggestion of new insight. But will the insight stand up? Then, to me, it is time for that serious scholarship business, ideally science. A personal opinion, casually offered? The word for that is "piffle." Anyway, in the intellectual framework with which I am comfortable, ethnography is not science. Ethnography is data gathering. Ethnology, the scientific part of cultural anthropology, produces testable generalizations about the human condition and tests them against the data that ethnography provides. Ethnography is scientific (not science per se) only when the data is collected in a way that makes it useful for ethnology.

Do note, however, that this is only a framework. I am well aware that, in practice, the actual results of ethnography may more closely resemble a midden than a spreadsheet. The ethnologist must then assemble and test her generalizations in the manner of an archeologist assembling fragments of evidence and doing the best she can with them.

If prevented by the nature of the evidence from conventional experimental or statistical hypothesis-testing, she can still (in the manner of Hercule Poirot or Columbo) attend to detail, position and sequence to refine her ideas and rule out invalid notions. To me, that’s serious scholarship.

Some cultural studies do seem serious to me; much of cultural studies doesn’t. The same is also true, of course, of a lot of anthropology. A genre I find particularly tedious is the cookie-cutter application of “theory” in a “Gee whiz, I saw it,too” mode supported by poorly told anecdote.

I’m forgiving if the tale is well told, for the pleasure of the reading and the suggestion of new insight. But will the insight stand up? Then, to me, it is time for that serious scholarship business, ideally science. A personal opinion, casually offered? The word for that is “piffle.”

Report this comment

]]> By: Matthew http://savageminds.org/2008/01/30/cultural-studies-as-the-new-anthropology/comment-page-1/#comment-199154 Matthew Sun, 03 Feb 2008 02:07:35 +0000 http://savageminds.org/2008/01/30/cultural-studies-as-the-new-anthropology/#comment-199154 OK, what am I missing about the history of science, and why is what I am saying absurd? OK, what am I missing about the history of science, and why is what I am saying absurd?

Report this comment

]]> By: John McCreery http://savageminds.org/2008/01/30/cultural-studies-as-the-new-anthropology/comment-page-1/#comment-199148 John McCreery Sun, 03 Feb 2008 02:03:04 +0000 http://savageminds.org/2008/01/30/cultural-studies-as-the-new-anthropology/#comment-199148 No, you are not interpreting what I say correctly. My intention is to say that anyone who makes the statement you did has not taken the elementary scholarly precaution of studying up a bit on the history of science and scholarly disciplines and is, thus, prone to make absurd pronouncements. I did say that I was being deliberately provocative. No, you are not interpreting what I say correctly. My intention is to say that anyone who makes the statement you did has not taken the elementary scholarly precaution of studying up a bit on the history of science and scholarly disciplines and is, thus, prone to make absurd pronouncements. I did say that I was being deliberately provocative.

Report this comment

]]> By: Matthew http://savageminds.org/2008/01/30/cultural-studies-as-the-new-anthropology/comment-page-1/#comment-199132 Matthew Sun, 03 Feb 2008 01:49:28 +0000 http://savageminds.org/2008/01/30/cultural-studies-as-the-new-anthropology/#comment-199132 If I'm interpreting what you say correctly, you're saying that anthropology is not well positioned to offer definitions of science and discipline because it has not constituted itself as such in the eyes of others. That may well be true. But I meant "science and discipline as anthropology has constituted them" in a rather narrow sense, as strictly the form of authority which comes out of the fieldwork encounter. But the problem is that this kind of authority counts for less and less politically. For example, I really don't think it would matter to a cultural essentialist such as Samuel Huntington if you claimed that his concept of culture was empirically wrong or illegitimate, because in his discipline culture is really just a defined independent variable in a model. Its extensive definition is explicitly subordinate to its intensive definition. But say you tried to identify Samuel Huntington as a representative of a certain kind of class interest. That might be 'vulgar stereotyping,' but you could definitely do it plausibly. It would just depend on how robust your definition of social class was. If I’m interpreting what you say correctly, you’re saying that anthropology is not well positioned to offer definitions of science and discipline because it has not constituted itself as such in the eyes of others. That may well be true. But I meant “science and discipline as anthropology has constituted them” in a rather narrow sense, as strictly the form of authority which comes out of the fieldwork encounter.

But the problem is that this kind of authority counts for less and less politically. For example, I really don’t think it would matter to a cultural essentialist such as Samuel Huntington if you claimed that his concept of culture was empirically wrong or illegitimate, because in his discipline culture is really just a defined independent variable in a model. Its extensive definition is explicitly subordinate to its intensive definition.

But say you tried to identify Samuel Huntington as a representative of a certain kind of class interest. That might be ‘vulgar stereotyping,’ but you could definitely do it plausibly. It would just depend on how robust your definition of social class was.

Report this comment

]]> By: John McCreery http://savageminds.org/2008/01/30/cultural-studies-as-the-new-anthropology/comment-page-1/#comment-199021 John McCreery Sun, 03 Feb 2008 00:17:00 +0000 http://savageminds.org/2008/01/30/cultural-studies-as-the-new-anthropology/#comment-199021 Matthew, allow me to be deliberately provocative. Anyone who can write " 'science' and 'discipline' as anthropology has defined them" provides a vivid demonstration of what is the matter with too much of cultural studies, lack of basic historical street smarts. Debates over definitions of both science and discipline are far older and wider than anthropology--arenas in which anthropologists must confront and cope with what non-anthropologists have to say-- and continue to be so live within the field that the odds of finding any two anthropologists who agree on the definitions is slim. The implicit "cultural studies" analysis turns out to be nothing more than vulgar stereotyping, self-righteous but unenlightening. Matthew, allow me to be deliberately provocative. Anyone who can write ” ‘science’ and ‘discipline’ as anthropology has defined them” provides a vivid demonstration of what is the matter with too much of cultural studies, lack of basic historical street smarts. Debates over definitions of both science and discipline are far older and wider than anthropology–arenas in which anthropologists must confront and cope with what non-anthropologists have to say– and continue to be so live within the field that the odds of finding any two anthropologists who agree on the definitions is slim. The implicit “cultural studies” analysis turns out to be nothing more than vulgar stereotyping, self-righteous but unenlightening.

Report this comment

]]> By: Matthew http://savageminds.org/2008/01/30/cultural-studies-as-the-new-anthropology/comment-page-1/#comment-198906 Matthew Sat, 02 Feb 2008 22:41:07 +0000 http://savageminds.org/2008/01/30/cultural-studies-as-the-new-anthropology/#comment-198906 BTW, my claim was just this: that whatever is politically at stake in cultural studies actually doesn't have much to with 'science' and 'discipline' as anthropology has defined them. What sometimes isn't recognized in anthropology is that cultural studies has hit much more resistance when it has tried to deal with geopolitics and other forms of 'hard power.' I realize that this is not the common wisdom. I'll back the claim up if anybody cares to take me up on it. BTW, my claim was just this: that whatever is politically at stake in cultural studies actually doesn’t have much to with ‘science’ and ‘discipline’ as anthropology has defined them.

What sometimes isn’t recognized in anthropology is that cultural studies has hit much more resistance when it has tried to deal with geopolitics and other forms of ‘hard power.’

I realize that this is not the common wisdom. I’ll back the claim up if anybody cares to take me up on it.

Report this comment

]]> By: Rex http://savageminds.org/2008/01/30/cultural-studies-as-the-new-anthropology/comment-page-1/#comment-198042 Rex Sat, 02 Feb 2008 02:44:22 +0000 http://savageminds.org/2008/01/30/cultural-studies-as-the-new-anthropology/#comment-198042 Hmm... why would call yourself "Anti-Rex" when the entire substance of your comment is that you agree with me? Hmm… why would call yourself “Anti-Rex” when the entire substance of your comment is that you agree with me?

Report this comment

]]> By: Anti-Rex http://savageminds.org/2008/01/30/cultural-studies-as-the-new-anthropology/comment-page-1/#comment-197944 Anti-Rex Sat, 02 Feb 2008 00:39:24 +0000 http://savageminds.org/2008/01/30/cultural-studies-as-the-new-anthropology/#comment-197944 "I do not know, but I doubt that graduate programs in cultural studies worry that they are getting applicants who lack rigorous training in social science at the undergraduate level." - That's right. You do not know... “I do not know, but I doubt that graduate programs in cultural studies worry that they are getting applicants who lack rigorous training in social science at the undergraduate level.” – That’s right. You do not know…

Report this comment

]]> By: mpb http://savageminds.org/2008/01/30/cultural-studies-as-the-new-anthropology/comment-page-1/#comment-197515 mpb Fri, 01 Feb 2008 18:02:55 +0000 http://savageminds.org/2008/01/30/cultural-studies-as-the-new-anthropology/#comment-197515 I don't know about "cultural studies" but the profession has long ago ceded "culture" to an nth derivative of it. http://13c4.wordpress.com/2007/11/28/anthropology-climate-change-war-environment-1/ "In fact, there is no longer a need to go to anthropology. The new anthropology– in business, medicine, social services, and even academia– is now the derivative stakeholders and community-based participatory research (CBPR). Motorola, ATT, and IBM long-ago took over “culture change”. Even lawyers are recognized as better qualified than anthropologists–" I don’t know about “cultural studies” but the profession has long ago ceded “culture” to an nth derivative of it.

http://13c4.wordpress.com/2007/11/28/anthropology-climate-change-war-environment-1/ “In fact, there is no longer a need to go to anthropology. The new anthropology– in business, medicine, social services, and even academia– is now the derivative stakeholders and community-based participatory research (CBPR). Motorola, ATT, and IBM long-ago took over “culture change”. Even lawyers are recognized as better qualified than anthropologists–”

Report this comment

]]> By: John McCreery http://savageminds.org/2008/01/30/cultural-studies-as-the-new-anthropology/comment-page-1/#comment-196136 John McCreery Thu, 31 Jan 2008 12:45:44 +0000 http://savageminds.org/2008/01/30/cultural-studies-as-the-new-anthropology/#comment-196136 The openness of anthropology is one of its most attractive features. But to limit that openness to the cultural domain in which cultural anthropologists encounter cultural studies isn't, to me, open enough. One of the virtues of the classic four-fields definition of the field was the way it positioned anthropology as a bridge discipline, linking the sciences and humanities, spanning both sides of Snow's two cultures. Now, moreover, anthropologists inhabit a world in which, as Marcus and Fischer put it, “We step into a stream of already existing representations produced by journalists, prior anthropologists, historians, creative writers, and of course the subjects of study themselves.”　And, as Clifford Geertz points out in the introduction to _Islam Observed_, it is in conversation with other disciplines that what we do discovers its value. In the case of my own current research, social network analysis provides the tools required to capture, dissect and visualize large masses of highly structured data--the credits that accompany each of the roughly 600 ads that make it into each addition of the Tokyo Copywriters Club annual. Algorithms incorporated in a program called Pajek (Slovenian for "spider") identify key figures in the networks of creatives who developed the winning ads. Google searches (and my own growing library) reveal that many are prolific authors, in effect colleagues, whose ideas about what they do shaped the winning teams and how they went about their work. Now I must turn historian and read what they have written, taking into account their interests and axes to grind. All this is preparation for ethnography, a series of depth interviews (possibly life histories) to probe more deeply into how they are thinking and feeling now. Science, history, ethnography, each could be done by itself and be the worse for it. Together they contribute to thick description and possibly more--some deeper understanding of the world in which this anthropologist is interested. The openness of anthropology is one of its most attractive features. But to limit that openness to the cultural domain in which cultural anthropologists encounter cultural studies isn’t, to me, open enough. One of the virtues of the classic four-fields definition of the field was the way it positioned anthropology as a bridge discipline, linking the sciences and humanities, spanning both sides of Snow’s two cultures.

Now, moreover, anthropologists inhabit a world in which, as Marcus and Fischer put it, “We step into a stream of already existing representations produced by journalists, prior anthropologists, historians, creative writers, and of course the subjects of study themselves.”　And, as Clifford Geertz points out in the introduction to _Islam Observed_, it is in conversation with other disciplines that what we do discovers its value.

In the case of my own current research, social network analysis provides the tools required to capture, dissect and visualize large masses of highly structured data–the credits that accompany each of the roughly 600 ads that make it into each addition of the Tokyo Copywriters Club annual. Algorithms incorporated in a program called Pajek (Slovenian for “spider”) identify key figures in the networks of creatives who developed the winning ads. Google searches (and my own growing library) reveal that many are prolific authors, in effect colleagues, whose ideas about what they do shaped the winning teams and how they went about their work. Now I must turn historian and read what they have written, taking into account their interests and axes to grind. All this is preparation for ethnography, a series of depth interviews (possibly life histories) to probe more deeply into how they are thinking and feeling now. Science, history, ethnography, each could be done by itself and be the worse for it. Together they contribute to thick description and possibly more–some deeper understanding of the world in which this anthropologist is interested.

Report this comment

]]>