bq. THE END/S OF ANTHROPOLOGY

bq. What is the relevance of anthropology in today’s world? Where does our
discipline stand in the age of hyper-science and the genome; during an era
in which ethnography – as a method and form of textured representation – is
being mobilized with vigor and confidence by those working in other
disciplinary formations; at a moment when the questions we’re asking are
also being answered by others in the humanities, social sciences, and media
(and often with much more popular recognition)? Does anthropology still
provide a unique contribution? What are its contemporary goals, and are
they different from those of previous intellectual generations?

I said, “About time.” He said, “I suppose you have an answer to this.” I replied,

bq. Heck, all you have to do is check the archives. I’ve been beating this drum for years.But no, I don’t have an (a.k.a. a single) answer. I don’t know that there is one.

bq. The point is that the issues raised are real ones. What do you call a field distinguished neither by particular methods (lots of other folks doing ethnography now) nor particular ideas (we’ve always been borrowers, but we used to be able to say, at least, “Not in the Trobriands or among the Nuer, etc.)?

bq. Once we were part of a conversation that made a lot of sense given a grand narrative in which the languages, customs and artifacts of “primitive” peoples were seen as relevant to the natural history of homo sapiens revealed by paleontology and archeology. But, without that big story line?

bq. We had something important to say when the academic world was divided along the lines described by Immanuel Wallerstein, with the other social sciences focused on modern, mainly Euro-American places, area studies folks concentrating on high culture (mainly art, philosophy, political history), and the primitives and peasants our bailiwick. But, hello? “When the questions we’re asking are also being answered by others in the humanities, social sciences, and media (and often with more popular recognition),” what, specifically, do we bring to the table?

bq. For the primatologists, the fossil hunters, and the prehistoric archeologists among us, the answers are pretty clear. As for the rest of us? Indiana Jones is a cultural icon. Cultural anthropologists appear as comic figures in Gary Larson cartoons and Altoids commercials.

bq. So, maybe it’s time to take a hint from the management gurus and ask ourselves seriously, “What is the business we’re in?” “What do we produce?” “Why should people want it and be willing to pay for it?”

bq. There are answers to these questions though we may not much like them. There are opportunities out there wherever cultural differences generate misunderstandings that get in the way of, for example, medical treatment, education, economic development programs, management, marketing, product design. Attend an SfAA meeting and you’ll meet all sorts of people doing all sorts of interesting things that non-anthropologists seem to find valuable. Check out my review of Sunderland and Denny (http://wings.buffalo.edu/ARD/cgi/showme.cgi?keycode=3208). That might be a good place to begin.

http://ctl.stanford.edu/Newsletter/index.html

that being said, I think you point to a very interesting problem with the study, which is that not all PhD programs are equal. But I think the imagined survey that you are referring to is hard to construct… what (besides the Research 1/2/3 tier rankings, whatever those are) would you use to capture this difference? How should we track the differential job prospects of people across different levels, without implying that there is some objective reason why one program is in a lower class than another?

First, according to the executive summary, the study had only a 45% response rate to its survey which yielded a sample of 3025 respondents. That means approximately 3697 did not respond to the survey. Additionally only 432 of the respondents in the original survey were anthropologists. For anthropologists, the nonresponse rate was 53.8%. Its entirely possible that those who did not respond are in jobs that nothing to do with anthropology and/or are in crappy minimum wage jobs. When you have non-response bias which is that high, I do not see how you can take the study seriously.

Second, there are a number of institutions missing such as the University of Arkansas, University of Wyoming, University of Arizona, University of Kentucky, University of Hawaii and Wayne State University which do grant PhDs . It is possible that these institutions did not meet the study’s criteria for granting doctorate degrees. However, it important to know how people are fairing from all graduate programs. When I look at the list of schools that were actually surveyed, I notice that it contains mostly schools that are considered to be prestigious and/or of high academic caliber. As a PhD. student at “lower tier” school which is not listed, I wonder what my actual job prospects are. Do individuals at the unlisted (and sometimes lest prestigious) colleges have an equal chance on the market for any “good” job (i.e. non-Wal-Mart, non-service industry, etc.)? How many of them actually get academic jobs? Is the percentage less, more?