Comments on: Anthropology 2.0: For Real? http://savageminds.org/2009/06/27/anthropology-20-for-real/ Notes and Queries in Anthropology — A Group Blog Thu, 18 Mar 2010 21:42:41 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Alexandre Enkerli http://savageminds.org/2009/06/27/anthropology-20-for-real/comment-page-1/#comment-612396 Alexandre Enkerli Sun, 28 Jun 2009 18:49:15 +0000 http://savageminds.org/?p=2475#comment-612396 The OAC's early success in getting membership is certainly something to think about. Not because of technology, but because of connections between anthropologists of fairly diverse horizons. (Still heavily biased toward English-speakers, but there's a decent diversity otherwise.) Chances are that the attitudes and identities of some of those involved early on has helped. As we know, these things tend to matter a lot in getting people together. But that there was also a need for some way to make connections among anthropologists. Daniel Lende's compendium, some Facebook groups and Twitter "twibes" are evidence of this need. Regardless of people's feelings about a given academic organization or about a specific issue. The OAC shows the gregarious impulse in anthropology. But there are deeper issues about the discipline. Especially about those parts of the discipline which are somehow connected with the AAA. Yet, things are going quite well for anthropological thinking. The Reilly-style "2.0" label would go well with a discipline which is open to collaboration outside of institutional and disciplinary boundaries. One reason, among many, I like the term "ethnography" so much is that it's easier to avoid those boundaries. The OAC’s early success in getting membership is certainly something to think about. Not because of technology, but because of connections between anthropologists of fairly diverse horizons. (Still heavily biased toward English-speakers, but there’s a decent diversity otherwise.)
Chances are that the attitudes and identities of some of those involved early on has helped. As we know, these things tend to matter a lot in getting people together. But that there was also a need for some way to make connections among anthropologists. Daniel Lende’s compendium, some Facebook groups and Twitter “twibes” are evidence of this need. Regardless of people’s feelings about a given academic organization or about a specific issue. The OAC shows the gregarious impulse in anthropology.
But there are deeper issues about the discipline. Especially about those parts of the discipline which are somehow connected with the AAA. Yet, things are going quite well for anthropological thinking.
The Reilly-style “2.0″ label would go well with a discipline which is open to collaboration outside of institutional and disciplinary boundaries. One reason, among many, I like the term “ethnography” so much is that it’s easier to avoid those boundaries.

]]> By: Dustin (Oneman) http://savageminds.org/2009/06/27/anthropology-20-for-real/comment-page-1/#comment-612395 Dustin (Oneman) Sun, 28 Jun 2009 18:02:58 +0000 http://savageminds.org/?p=2475#comment-612395 THanks for introducing me to the OAC -- it looks pretty neat, from my first once-over. As for "replacing" institutions like the AAA, I think there are several functions which need to be looked at separately, only some of which can be easily "digitized": 1) Exchange of information/perspectives: Online forums, whether on theWeb or email-based like listservs, excel at this in ways the AAA simply does not. It might be years before a "new" book si reviewed by an academic journal, which is useless to readers, educators, and of course authors -- while a post at SM, a forum discussion, or an email recommendation might bring a book to light within weeks or even days of publication. Likewise, your "latest work" might not see journal publication until years after it was written, while you're deeply involved in online discussions that may well result in significant changes to the central premises of the piece still working its way through the publication cycle. 2) Organizing conferences: A subset of the above, really, but there is something to be said for the social networking aspect of conferences. It remains to be seen whether online "social networks" can handle this function as effectively, or whether, as seems to be the case on MySpace and Facebook, we end up collecting a menagerie of non-friend "friends". But there's the question of whether institutions are needed to arrange conferences. If AAA Annual Meetings are the model, then yes -- but increasingly that is no longer the model. Online communities (there's that word!) have seemed to be pretty good at setting up a new breed of conference like BarCamps or unconferences, which from all reports I've seen produce much more intense camaraderie and more impressive results. Will such events work in an anthropological setting? 3) Mutual Aid: I think we often forget about the non-academic function of associations like the AAA, to provide mutual aid for members, whether that's legal defense of academic freedom, group response to situations that affect members en masses, or economic supports like insurance and retirement funds. Some aspects can be organized separately from institutional support, but in most cases, the weight of the institution provides leverage that online communities can't aspire to. Case in point: the Network of Concerned Anthropologists and its efforts to gain AAA resolutions in support of its positions. Can an online network take over the mutual aid and support aspects of institutions like the AAA? THanks for introducing me to the OAC — it looks pretty neat, from my first once-over.

As for “replacing” institutions like the AAA, I think there are several functions which need to be looked at separately, only some of which can be easily “digitized”:

1) Exchange of information/perspectives: Online forums, whether on theWeb or email-based like listservs, excel at this in ways the AAA simply does not. It might be years before a “new” book si reviewed by an academic journal, which is useless to readers, educators, and of course authors — while a post at SM, a forum discussion, or an email recommendation might bring a book to light within weeks or even days of publication. Likewise, your “latest work” might not see journal publication until years after it was written, while you’re deeply involved in online discussions that may well result in significant changes to the central premises of the piece still working its way through the publication cycle.

2) Organizing conferences: A subset of the above, really, but there is something to be said for the social networking aspect of conferences. It remains to be seen whether online “social networks” can handle this function as effectively, or whether, as seems to be the case on MySpace and Facebook, we end up collecting a menagerie of non-friend “friends”. But there’s the question of whether institutions are needed to arrange conferences. If AAA Annual Meetings are the model, then yes — but increasingly that is no longer the model. Online communities (there’s that word!) have seemed to be pretty good at setting up a new breed of conference like BarCamps or unconferences, which from all reports I’ve seen produce much more intense camaraderie and more impressive results. Will such events work in an anthropological setting?

3) Mutual Aid: I think we often forget about the non-academic function of associations like the AAA, to provide mutual aid for members, whether that’s legal defense of academic freedom, group response to situations that affect members en masses, or economic supports like insurance and retirement funds. Some aspects can be organized separately from institutional support, but in most cases, the weight of the institution provides leverage that online communities can’t aspire to. Case in point: the Network of Concerned Anthropologists and its efforts to gain AAA resolutions in support of its positions. Can an online network take over the mutual aid and support aspects of institutions like the AAA?

]]> By: chad calease http://savageminds.org/2009/06/27/anthropology-20-for-real/comment-page-1/#comment-612394 chad calease Sun, 28 Jun 2009 17:36:40 +0000 http://savageminds.org/?p=2475#comment-612394 Kerim, this is spot on. Outside of the concern you well illustrate here, "...as the transaction costs get close to zero, it becomes trivially easy to do things which used to require either a strong ideological commitment or an oversized organizational hierarchy. As a result, it becomes much harder to gauge commitment. Signing an online petition is not the same thing as marching on Washington", I have nothing but optimism for this future of anthropology, at least, from my own corner of the world. Cheers. You have found a new reader. = c Kerim, this is spot on. Outside of the concern you well illustrate here, “…as the transaction costs get close to zero, it becomes trivially easy to do things which used to require either a strong ideological commitment or an oversized organizational hierarchy. As a result, it becomes much harder to gauge commitment. Signing an online petition is not the same thing as marching on Washington”, I have nothing but optimism for this future of anthropology, at least, from my own corner of the world.
Cheers. You have found a new reader.
=
c

]]>