Comments on: I’m not an anthropologist, but I play one on TV

By: Dr. Sanders

Dr. Sanders — Wed, 16 Nov 2005 15:33:57 +0000

The punchline: a richly overwrought reflexive ethnography of being filmed while playing an anthropologist–at last, a form of self-flagellation that expiates the collective guilt incurred by thousands of unproblematically unobserved ethnographic observers! As per Herzfeld, the show would of course have to be dubbed and syndicated for the natives. Disaster ensues as the natives do MST3K style voice-overs commenting mainly on the ethnographer’s appearance and taste in clothing…

By: inky circus

inky circus — Wed, 16 Nov 2005 09:59:51 +0000

i admit, the phrase “tv attractive” could be discussed to no end. the thing that got me was that they were looking for a “low maintenance” person. they could damn themselves here as well. i would assume they’re trying to screen out histrionic divas but they could also wind up with someone with low maintenance in the personal hygiene department. now THAT would be “tv attractive.”

By: oneman

oneman — Wed, 16 Nov 2005 07:15:00 +0000

For the record, the phrase used in last year’s Discovery call was “videogenic”, not “TV attractive”. In any case, I think Nancy has it backwards — one who is TV attractive would not be attracted to TVs but vice versa — TVs would be attractive to him/her.

On a more serious note, though, the question is (to paraphrase an old Jewish joke) “is this good for anthropology or bad for anthropology?” Is no publicity bad publicity when it comes to breaking into the public sphere in a more meaningful way, or do shows like this water down our credibility and/or build up a false image of anthropology as the Xtreme sport of the academic world? Given that your average anthropologist is a bearded man with a bad haircut or a hairy-legged woman with chunky jewelry (and a bad haircut), can we afford to accept that a hot bod and a hipster trim are prerequisites to a meaningful public anthropology?

By: Kerim

Kerim — Wed, 16 Nov 2005 01:59:48 +0000

The simple truth is that people switch channels if they see someone who looks “different.” Fareed Zakaria once said that whenever he appears on a talk show their ratings drop because people switch away, and he’s not ugly – just foreign.

By: Nancy

Nancy — Wed, 16 Nov 2005 01:51:31 +0000

See, “TV attractive” could be interpreted in so many ways. Someone who is attracted to the TV constantly?

By: oneman

oneman — Tue, 15 Nov 2005 22:14:14 +0000

This requirement of being “TV attractive” was what struck me about a previous Discovery Channel audition call, for a show about urban expolorers. While I understand the need for Discovery to get ratings, it seems to downplay the intellectual accomplishments of the presenter in favor of rather more superficial issues. I mean, the best anthropological minds are not necessarily housed in the most attractive bodies. More than that, though, I wonder how much actual input these anthro-hosts will have in the substance of the programming. I mean, in additition to the demands TV production places on the appearance of its stars, there are limits to how (let’s be blunt) smart programming intended to be popular can be. I can imagine an insightful meditation on the meaning of some ritual observed or even participated in winding up on the editing room floor to make room for the segment in which one of the hosts eats a bug…