I just spent the last few days driving across the massive territory that is the United States via the hot, humid route known as the I-40. (The heat index in Oklahoma City was 118, by the way.) I-40 happens to be strewn with that ever interesting media known as the billboard, which got me thinking about how and why we (anthropologists) use our particular forms of media to communicate information, ideas, and concepts to diverse audiences. Yes, this post has something to do with anthropology AND Kurt Vonnegut. Just wait.
So all of those billboards kept blazing past me. They had all sorts of messages on them, from the blandly utilitarian and boring (THIS SPACE AVAILABLE) to the humorous/weird (JEAN SHORTS ARE NEVER OK*) all the way to the erotic (XXX MEGA ADULT SUPERSTORE NEXT LEFT). There’s certainly no shortage of themes and styles. The billboard medium has certain constraints, of course (size, font, images, and the fact that drivers are gunning their engines anywhere between 60 and 100 miles per hour and only view those masterpieces of highway art for a few wondrous seconds). So billboard artists and advertisers have to make important decisions in order to broadcast their messages effectively and efficiently. They can go with humor, or shock, or offer alluring information that weary road warriors just can’t resist (HUGE, SPARKLING CLEAN RESTROOMS 25 MILES). Similar messages or information can be transmitted to viewers in radically different ways–there are numerous methods for telling drivers to pull over and buy some crap at the next exit.
This brings me to the Vonnegut factor: all things being equal, the same basic message can be presented in dramatically different ways and still drive home a point quite powerfully**. The book Slaughterhouse Five, which critically examines issues such as humanity, war, and violence, illustrates this quite well. While some artists or authors explore the complexities and paradoxes of war through documentaries, films, news reports, or photographs, Vonnegut addressed similar issues through a hyperbolic, sardonic, dark, and twisted little book that is ridiculous, shocking, riveting, and depressing all at once. He communicated his messages in a manner that might reach readers in a slightly different way than, say, All Quiet on the Western Front or Born on the Fourth of July.
So what’s the point here? Why am I rambling on about all of this? Well, because I am often preoccupied not only with reading anthropology, but also with writing anthropology–and how particular ideas/concepts (culture, identity, value, power) can be expressed or approached in a multiplicity of ways. When it comes to communication, style matters. Each medium, whether a book, film, massive billboard or ethnography, can be utilized in various ways to transport anthropological ideas and lessons from here to there. Why does this matter to me? Because lots of people ask me–once they hear that I am a graduate student in anthropology–exactly what it is that anthropologists do these days. What does it mean to me when people are so often dumbfounded about what my discipline is really all about? It means, to be overtly metaphorical about this, that on the highway of life, far too many members of the general public are speeding right past our anthropological billboards (ethnographies, monographs, press releases, etc)–so we need to either look at how we’re using those “billboards”, or stop placing them in deep, isolated gulches where passersby can’t possibly see them.
Yes, these are the kinds of things that cross my mind as I head on my way from Oklahoma City to Nashville at 70 mph on an August afternoon. If you can read this, you are at the end of my post.
UPDATE: I forgot to mention that David Graeber’s recent guest post here on Savage Minds was also partially responsible for getting me thinking about anthropology, writing, and the importance of reconsidering how we use media. If you haven’t read it, check it out. A good discussion, indeed.
*An actual billboard spotted somewhere between Oklahoma and Arkansas (I think) yesterday.
**Certain writers who adhere to incredibly complex or even wandering grammatical structures might disagree with me on this, and argue that there really is only one way to express particular ideas/thoughts. Well, I disagree with them, so there.
Some of the Chicago guys who hang around the site may be willing to discuss Vonnegut’s Master’s in anthropology. Some may not.
There are some nifty things going on on 75, too. Vonnegut
Ted Kooser perhaps has an apropos comment. In his poem, “Selecting a Reader,” he wrote,
“First, I would have her be beautiful,
and walking carefully up on my poetry
at the loneliest moment of an afternoon,
her hair still damp at the neck
from washing it. She should be wearing
a raincoat, an old one, dirty
from not having money enough for the cleaners.
She will take out her glasses, and there
in the bookstore, she will thumb
over my poems, then put the book back
up on its shelf. She will say to herself,
“For that kind of money, I can get
my raincoat cleaned.” And she will.”
For most people, HUGE, SPARKLING CLEAN RESTROOMS and raincoats are more relevant than ethnographies and monographs. When faced with the alternative of buying or even reading a monograph and taking clothes to the cleaners, the cleaners wins hands down. Now a graphic ethnography–that might get the attention of the “general public”.Ted Kooser perhaps has an apropos comment. In his poem, “Selecting a Reader,” he wrote,
“First, I would have her be beautiful,
and walking carefully up on my poetry
at the loneliest moment of an afternoon,
her hair still damp at the neck
from washing it. She should be wearing
a raincoat, an old one, dirty
from not having money enough for the cleaners.
She will take out her glasses, and there
in the bookstore, she will thumb
over my poems, then put the book back
up on its shelf. She will say to herself,
“For that kind of money, I can get
my raincoat cleaned.” And she will.”
For most people, HUGE, SPARKLING CLEAN RESTROOMS and raincoats are more relevant than ethnographies and monographs. When faced with the alternative of buying or even reading a monograph and taking clothes to the cleaners, the cleaners wins hands down. Now a graphic ethnography–that might get the attention of the “general public”.
Apologies for the odd double post. My fingers stutter.
I think you’re right that few people know what an anthropologist does, even within academe. What we need to do – IMHO – is get anthropology (or at least an anthropological perspective) into grade schools – many have classes in sociology or psychology, why not anthropology? (Not to mention, we’d have more job opportunities!)
And second, did Vonnegut pop into your mind because a school board in Missouri just banned Slaughterhouse Five (http://boingboing.net/2011/08/02/missouri-state-business-school-professor-leads-successful-campaign-to-ban-slaughterhouse-five-from-local-schools.html)? Frankly, I was shocked that any grade school would assign that book – I found Vonnegut on my own in high school, but there is no way my district would have let us read it as a class. I may just have to go back and re-read it after your post. It’s been too long. So it goes.
In my opinion – and I think you’re saying the same thing, Ryan, in different words – the point is not to draw attention to anthropology itself, but to draw attention to the things that we think are important. Billboards are not advertising’s way of making advertising seem “relevant,” they are the tools/media that advertisers use to convey what they think is important (or what their clients think is important – same difference). Similarly, ethnographies should not be about making anthropology relevant, but they should convey what we think is important and hope that others find those things important as well. Can we write ethnographies in such a way that they draw attention to the issues better? Certainly! Can we imagine new ways of presenting the issues so that people take notice more? Of course! And the more we do those things, the more aware of anthropology people will be, but that’s not the point. If we make people aware of the issues, and make a difference, but they still think I study dinosaurs – that wouldn’t bother me in the least.
@MT Bradley:
“Some of the Chicago guys who hang around the site may be willing to discuss Vonnegut’s Master’s in anthropology. Some may not.”
It would be interesting to hear more about that, wouldn’t it? I did a quick search and came up with this by by Rex here on SM a few years back:
/2007/04/14/kurt-vonnegut-passes-have-we-lost-an-anthropologist/
@Greg:
“For most people, HUGE, SPARKLING CLEAN RESTROOMS and raincoats are more relevant than ethnographies and monographs…”
I like what Kooser wrote–and I agree in many ways. At the same time, I do think that there is plenty of relevance in what anthropologists study. I don’t really think people are *only* concerned about restrooms and raincoats by any means. It’s a matter of how anthros go about discussing and disseminating their ideas that matters. Thanks for your comment.
@Kristina:
“What we need to do – IMHO – is get anthropology (or at least an anthropological perspective) into grade schools – many have classes in sociology or psychology, why not anthropology?”
Yep. I completely agree with this. After teaching some intro courses in anthro, I definitely think that an anthropological perspective would be valuable in high school, if not before. Such an education would have certainly been a good counter to the California Missions-focused history education that I received as a kid, that’s for sure.
Vonnegut came up because he’s one of my favorite writers who was never afraid to mess with style in order to get his point(s) across. He also came up because of his vague connection with anthropology (although the strength of that connection is, as Rex’s 2007 post highlights, debatable). But I have always felt that there are tons of authors out there who talk about humanity in fascinating ways (and through unique perspectives), and that anthros can take a lot from those folks. We don’t need to simply write utilitarian texts that serve the interests and politics of narrow academic audiences or–there’s a lot that can be done with all the anthro work/ideas out there. The goal is to write for other reasons than tenure and internal social capital, I hope! Nothing wrong with that type of writing, but there are other paths as well, I think. Thanks for the link about the recent banning of SH-5. I wish I was surprised, but I’m not. Now I need to go read up on that event…
@Jeremy:
“In my opinion – and I think you’re saying the same thing, Ryan, in different words – the point is not to draw attention to anthropology itself, but to draw attention to the things that we think are important.”
Exactly. You nailed it. It’s about the content of anthropological ideas and concepts, not a push to promote anthropology just for the sake of improving the disciplinary PR. In one sentence you said it way better though!
Anthropology isn’t the point–the ideas, lessons, studies, and knowledge are the point. And when I look around at all the issues and subjects that anthros study–from archaeologists and socio-culturals to linguists and bio-anths–there is absolutely no shortage of “relevance.” So what’s missing then? If our ideas have import and meaning, and yet are still unknown to larger publics, then maybe we need to rethink how we get ideas out and about through different forms and styles of media. Teaching, of course, is one important mode of dissemination that should get a renewed focus, if you ask me. That’s my opinion at least.
“After the war, I went to the University of Chicago, where I was pleased to study anthropology, a science that was mostly poetry, that involved almost no math at all. ”
“We [Vonnegut and Saul Bellow] were both products of the anthropology department of the University of Chicago. So far as I know, he never went on any anthropological expeditions, and neither did I. We invented preindustrial peoples instead—I in Cat’s Cradle and he in Henderson the Rain King.”
and more on him and anthropology in the Paris Review:
http://www.theparisreview.org/interviews/3605/the-art-of-fiction-no-64-kurt-vonnegut
@Kristina there is Vonnegut’s response to his book being banned by a different school board in 1973: http://www.worldswithoutend.com/blog.asp?view=plink&id=493
@Martin
Thanks for the link to the Paris Review interview. Enjoyed it very much. Left me wondering what would happen if, taking Vonnegut as a model, we regarded anthropology as a trade instead of a calling.
@john maybe less introspection and more big question books?