As we discuss the nature of anthropology as a discipline, it is worth taking some time to see how our students perceive it. Browsing through my Technorati watchlist for “anthropology,” I was struck by these rather divergent reactions of undergraduate anthropology students. Some are bored, some hate the subject with a passion, others find themselves longing for a good book on anthropological theory, and others learned how to dress well (Is it only South Asian anthropologists who dress well?):
today during anthropology i was scanning the room, hoping that something would be more interesting than the slide i was supposed to be looking at.
That’s why I majored in Anthropology. To try and understand people, and why they hate, exclude, condemn, and judge the ways they do.
i checked out a book at the library today by sir edward evans-pritchard, the spearhead of social anthropological studies. the first phrase in the collection of essays called “a history of anthropological thought” had the word “savages” in it. i’m skeptical about this book…but being without any anthropology classes for about a year has made me really desperate to learn something that i have been spending money on to learn.
This was a good chapter because I had just taken an anthropology class last semester and I was able to read about a few of the people and events that we learned about in class. I cracked up when I read tha name the natives gave Jacques Lizot – “Bosinawarewa,” which translates politely as “Ass Handler” and not so politely as “anus devourer.” The chapter talked about the spin-doctoring of science and it’s effects.
no more Anthropology!
well…i just got back from my Anthro exam….it’s sooo nice to be finally done that course…never again will i ever take a anthro course….
xx Emma’s Ecstatic Enterprise xx
Social Anthropology is evil. I avoid it at all costs. I have managed to get out of yet another suprvision with the evil Soc Anth lady, who hates all of us from corpus, basically because I hate her subject, and she knows it, and then the other two get hated through association. I don’t like her! She is a witch and I can’t wait till no more Soc Anth!
as suspected, the instructor being obsessed with the mukhtar mai gangrape case…gave us a question on that…..”mukhtar mai, neomarxism and oppression of women” wierd no!! but it was more or less ALL i actually came to learn from the course, so its good:)
and oh i learned alot abt good clothes too!;) the instructor had a GREAT dressing sense!
This is interesting. Since I began teaching, I have gone through different phases of thinking about how students perceived anthro. My first phase was when I assumed that my students would feel liberated with regards to gender and sexuality, as I had when I began to study anthro. When this didn’t happen, and instead many were appalled by what I had to tell them, I worked my way into phase two. Phase two involved the assumption that my students would not like anthropology. Assuming this, I limited myself in the classroom, not showing that much enthusiasm for the subject out of fear that they would think I was silly. As a result of stifling my natural exhuberance, I came off as pretty stiff and boring, I think, although I’ve had students take my higher level courses who had me for intro during that phase and they likes it but . . . anyway . . .now I’m in phase three and loving it.
Phase three is where I let myself go and let all my enthusiasm and excitement show without expecting that it will rub off on all of them but expecting that some of them *will* love anthro, that others will be mildly interested and that others will hate it. And I’m OK with that.
I’m Emma who you have quoted…! I would just like to clarify a few points as my comment has been taken out of context!
I like Social Anthropology as a disciple, it is interesting and broadens typically narrow minded views to encompass the idea that all socities are eqaully valid but just different.
However, the faculty at my university is very political and feminist orientated, and this put s a MASSIVE slant on the teaching style where we are lectured as if indivdual doctors’ opinions are indeed the “facts.” It took me two terms just to relaise this and obviously had implications, which I have found to be detrimental, on my essay style. It has been a broad and ranging year with, for example, *all* of the theories being covered in a set of six lectures…
Add to this a supervisor who seems to intensely dislike me and is never encouraging when I face problems with the theory but just cuts me down every time. I was also, when I wrote that blog entry, in the middle of exam fever and hating all of my subjects just because they were causing me stress and sleep deprivation!
I would hate for anyone to read my comment and be put off studying anthropology as a result! It is a thought provoking and challenging subject and I encourage anyone to study it.
Hi Emma;
You wrote: “the faculty at my university is very political and feminist orientated, and this put s a MASSIVE slant on the teaching style where we are lectured as if indivdual doctors’ opinions are indeed the “facts.” ”
Not to be mean but teaching styles are slanted regardless of whether a prof is a feminist who is politically oriented or not. Non-feminist profs, as much as some of them would like to portray themselves as being objective, also make far-reaching claims often without questioning their own assumptions. Unfortunately, these assumptions are often androcentric in nature.
Anyway, thanks for clarifying your comment.
Nancy, politically oriented feminist anthropologist 😉
Some non-feminist profs make massive far-reaching claims, some don’t. Perhaps there are more feminist profs that makes far-reaching claims (such as that non-feminist profs make far-reaching claims often without questioning their own assumptions). Perhaps.
We could try this on empiricism, in which case this isn’t the first time I, personally, have heard this said about orientation of the aforementioned department.
My point was that everyone is biased, feminist or not, and that people often don’t even realise that they are. This was a direct reaction to the implication (possibly unintentional) that politicised feminists are more biased than others.
Saying that perhaps there are more of X that do Z than Y that do Z is pointless when Z is perceived in such a subjective way to start with. It is mere speculation that cannot be empirically verified and merely propagates the same stereotype that I dismissed in my first comment.
By the way, my comment was friendly, not antagonistic.
You can choose to read Emma’s account as suggesting that politicised feminists in general are more biased that others.
Yet Emma refers to her faculty in particular, rather than making a generalised judgement. Furthermore, is “Z” as you say, perceived by Emma in such a subjective way as you consider it to be? How do you know?
*g lopeta jo.
Empirism is good piece of advice. I go with Nancy.
It s 2:1. Simply solved. Evaluation closed.
Nice try, orange. I’m in the same Faculty as Emma.
“You can choose to read Emma’s account as suggesting that politicised feminists in general are more biased that others.
Yet Emma refers to her faculty in particular, rather than making a generalised judgement.”
Actually, Emma wrote “the faculty at my university is very political and feminist orientated, and this put s a MASSIVE slant on the teaching style” where “this” referred to the political and feminist nature of the faculty. The phrasing implies that it is political feminism that renders the faculty biased, which strikes me as a bit generalised.
As for subjectivism, I have nothing against it. My point with that was that, because of the stereotype of the bitchy and biased feminist, people *may* tend to perceive politicised statements by feminist profs to be more biased that those of “down-to-earth” and “objective” non-feminist profs. And if several students share that stereotype, it may simply get propagated. This is speculation on my part; I completely admit to that because I don’t even know which uni we are talking about and, quite frankly, I don’t care to.
Now, this is my final comment on this because it’s going nowhere but I’d like to reiterate that my previous comment was friendly and was not an attack on Emma or anyone. She was simply expressing her opinion and I commented with the goal of reminding her of an angle from which she may or may not have considered the issue.
She says the political feminism of the faculty renders the bias, not that political feminism does in general. She says nothing about political feminism in general.
I don’t get how you get from this personal account of a teaching experience to a speculation of a superimposition of a shared stereotype of generalised political feminism being imposed on the situation.
I don’t think its worth parsing her grammar. If she intended meanings that specific, she’d probably come back and correct everyone.
For what its worth, I don’t like the “everyone’s biased, so don’t pick on me” line. You know what it reminds me of? Rush Limbaugh explaining that sure, maybe he’s not exactly the most objective, accurate, unbiased source of news… but the mainstream media has a mote in its eye!
Speaking empirically — based upon the evidence provided on this blog — I’d say Tigerbear is not so fond of the ladies.
I’m not interested in psychology or psychoanalysis or anything like that at all, but I just have to say (after trying as hard as I could not to comment): doesn’t the idea of anthro blogging photoshopping _their own face_ on an Indiana Jones movie poster (as Emma’s done) a little… shall we say, overdetermined?
Actually I take that back and apologize if it seems too personal. It was out of bounds. Speaking of which, let’s all try to avoid personal comments (which we’ve managed to do so far). As David Weinberger puts it, “Criticize ideas? Yes. Criticize people for holding those ideas? No.”
No evidence, Kathleen. I remember defending a female anthropologist way back when I made my first post. My (female) supervisor might find it amusing also.
As usual, Rex is right. I’ve never attempted to critise you, only the ideas you hold.
First of all: Rex; my blog isn’t an academic account of my life. It is an ironic and very tongue in cheek blog. The Indiana Jones image is to do with my obsession with Harrison Ford, and nothing to do with the subject I am studying! It’s meant to be funny, and not an offensive, or as you say “overdetermined” reflection of my opinion of anthroplogy.
To Nancy: I’m sorry if my comment left you with the impression that I think *all* anthroplogy departments are feminist, or that I think that feminists are any more biased than any other anthroplogist. I was talking specifically about my faculty, which is notorious for it’s political leanings.
My lectures, for example, on gender, were given solely by women, which of course is going to give a biased view! I don’t see, or intend that to be a criticism or in any way a slur on feminists. I am simply pointing out that this affected my work. As a naive first year, I was unaware that personal bias would come into anthropology so much, and therefore in my first terms did not account for this when reading for, and writing essays.
I do not see having a slant as a bad thing BUT I do think it needs to be clarfied by the lecturer that this is what their stance is, before people that are new to the subject (such as I was) think this is the only approach, therefore leading to a limited and narrow-minded perspective.
Also, (again!) this is simply my personal opinion of the lecturers that I have come across in my faculty and in no way am I attempting to generalise all anthroplogists, or even claim that my *opinion* is the right one about my faculty, let alone any other.
One other small quibble, this had stemmed from my personal blog being quoted, where I don’t attempt to be objective or reasonable, or to start academic arguments! I get enough of that from school thank you! But I do think this has sparked an interesting debate… !
well done, emma.
theres not only excellent teachers out there, aint this so unthinkable?
“My lectures, for example, on gender, were given solely by women, which of course is going to give a biased view!”
But had those lectures been given by men, then you would also have been given a biased view. I know that you’re not deliberately trying to obfuscate or something, but if there’s one thing that being an anthropology student has taught me, it’s to always cover my ass when making a statement of fact about people in general.
I use so many qualifiers and use the personal pronoun so much I sometimes sound like some wishy-washy self-centred dingbat: “Many Japanese people” do this, “I believe that this behaviour shows” that, “perhaps”, “possibly”, “very likely”. You get the idea.
Yes, if they had been given solely by men the perspective would also, clearly, have been biased. What I meant was, I would have liked it if they had been given by men AND women. Having gender lectures given by only one gender (be it male or female) AND having a female supervisor, AND no male in my supervision group, cuts out at least half of the perspective on the issue does it not?! I am happy to claim that as a fact without having to “cover my ass”!
I didn’t actually say, or mean, that I think that specifically because it was *women,* as opposed to men, that gave them, that they were biased.
Rex and Tigerbear,
Sorry, fellas — I stand by my earlier comment. It may be an incorrect evaluation, but I don’t agree it should be verboten to have made it. Such evaluations have a real place in this kind of collective conversation. If we are going to generate a vibrant public sphere in this forum, we can’t pretend it is disembodied brains here in cyberspace any more than it is disembodied brains anywhere else.
This is an anthrolog, right? No psycholog.
If you don t mind me articulating my opinion, I would prefer if people in here continue reflecting topics and arguments.
kudos to emma, a first year, who stood up to you guys and at least attempted to clarify her position. personally as first year myself, i would be intimidated as hell knowing that my word choice would be analyzed into oblivion by a bunch of professionals.
now, as for anthropology from another first year’s perspective. anthropology is really great and i’m disappointed that i won’t get to study more of it due to my planned focus in sociology and philosophy (both of which, i at least like to believe, aren’t that distantly related). I had a really engaging teacher and the course text was awesome (Philippe Bourgois’, “In search of Respect: Selling Crack in El-Barrio(sp?)”. the accompanying abbreviated Lavenda and Shultz textbook was a little more boring but also an asset).
nonetheless, since i’m not getting my fill of anthropology in the classroom, SM is a godsend. i really like your blog and follow it regularly.
I get the impression that if you can hold your own, and you know your stuff enough to have worthwhile points to make, you can participate around here.
I mean. I deliver pizza for a living.
chuk — I am also intimidated as hell knowing that my word choice is analyzed into oblivion by a bunch of professors too — and I am one! Thanks for reading.
OK; just to carlify my own position . . . my very first post was not an attempt to criticise Emma’s word choice. It was just a friendly reminder that bias comes from all sorts of directions. Any deconstruction of her comments that happened after was a response to other comments. As I pointed out at least twice, my initial comment was friendly, not antagonistic and not meant to scare Emma, or any other “first years” away.
In fact, as a former “first year” I’ve always felt that it was important for everyone to have a voice and this is reflected in my very PoMo influence.
So . . .no tearing apart of people’s words from me unless someone forces me to justify an impression that I may have had. I certainly encourage anyone with interesting points to make to go ahead and make them here; in a friendly and coureous way, of course. But we’re all grown-ups, right, so I don’t need to say that 🙂
Thanks Chuk!
It not an especial confidence in myself that motivated me to comment, but the desire not to be misrepresented!
As for challenging professors… I have spent the whole year having it drummed into me by my director of studies (who is also a professor) that the whole point of academia, is that the “new” challenge the norms set by more established academics in order to advance the topic. If there was no debate then where would be the fun in learning?!
Nancy, I know your comment was in no way a personal attack on me! I didn’t take it like that, even if others may have. Fair play to you, I didn’t extrapolate enough clarification from my comments to properly convey what I was trying to say. I’m happy that you picked me up on that, as it gave me a chance to explain further 😀
Again, in my attitude to learning, how can you unless people pick you up on what you say sometimes? I appreciate you even having the time to respond to the rants of a novice!
I find it sad when I see students complaining about anthro courses. I would absolutely love to major in anthro, but no school around here offers it, with the exception of William & Mary. Unfortunately, they are super expensive and only offer classes during the day (I work full-time).
The only thing my school offers is “Sociology with an Emphasis in Anthropology”, and they have a really sad selection of anthro classes.