I tried an open thread here on SM a while back, and it worked out pretty well. Time for another one? Let’s give it a go.
So…a couple of readers have posted new comments (here and here) about the content here on SM. They argue that there has been a bit too much coverage of issues relating to academia, and not enough anthropology. One reader asked us: “Where’s the beef?”
What say you readers? Too much about academia and not enough anthropology?
Feel free to share your thoughts, and also post comments and links about all things anthropology on your mind.
One issue which I have not seen discussed is Why do people become anthropologists. What is it about anthropology which makes people want to take up the discipline. Michael Jackson (not the singer) called his memoir “The Accidental Anthropologist”. Do people “fall” into anthropology, is it a conscious choice, or are there other reasons?
Of the nine Recent Posts (not including this one), two have been about social science (‘Junk to you’ and ‘Finding value’). The rest have been about issues related to being an academic anthropologist or the formalities of publicising research. ‘I don’t think I like my fieldwork site’ is in between the two.
11% – methods topics (related to being an anthropologist).
22% – social science.
66% – issues in publishing and the academy.
Also, a lot of publishing/academic stuff is US-specific, which makes it even less interesting (to me, at least). I like this site, and it’s full of interesting people, but a lot of the content is, honestly, dull. A lot of stuff about being an anthropologist or forging a career and not so much about investigating all of the cool things people do. That’s fine – it’s not my blog, and I wouldn’t have said anything if Victor Grauer hadn’t – but I personally find it a little dull.
A blog is what contributors and those who comment make it. IMHO Ryan has made the right move in the thread on values. Posing a puzzle that raises important issues that many—I hope not just me—have things to say about.
@Caroline
I fell into anthropology through a semi-conscious choice (didn’t realize all of the ramifications when I made that choice). I was finishing my junior year in the Honors College at Michigan State University. I had already accumulated enough credits for a major in Philosophy and had also taken a fair amount of math, languages and medieval history. My roommates were headed for graduate school, so I thought that is what I should be doing to. Someone suggested that, since I was hanging around for the summer, I take an anthropology course in the summer school. I did, and it seemed pretty cool, a space in which all of the various things I was interested in could be combined. I was seduced by “the most humanistic of the sciences and the most scientific of the humanities” proposition and, yes, by the chance to travel to exotic places. The fieldwork as vision quest meme really grabbed me. I had the grades, I was given a fellowship, the rest is history.
No, SM’s a great backspace for academic discussions, and 01anthropology is a great backspace for promoting digital anthropology. Both are well-designed for what they do, and we’ve got a decent representation of backstage discussions of fieldwork in progress, book reviews, etc.
I do think it would be wonderful to support and highlight joint blogs/webzines that are well-designed, professional, and striving to hit and interest a educated-reader audience. The sort of thing you’d hope HuffPo or SocImages or Salon would be reading and drawing off of regularly, even if they’d distort it sometimes. The sort of thing that would help to bring out the good writers in anthropology to a larger worldwide audience.
I’d love to point my friends to a sort of more sophisticated NatGeo or Time containing anthro, but there’s really nothing well-done out there. Anyone want to partner with me on this, let me know 🙂
Thanks for your comment John.
As an “older” graduate, I too sort of fell into anthropology and as I am past the age where “roughing it” is out of the question, my attention has turned to the anthropology of anthropology. Who are anthropologists, what motivates them, the anthropological community, its hierarchy – who determines waht theories are dominant – all those sorts of things.
I would be very interested in learning more.
Caroline, I am, alas, not the right sort of informant for your research. I fell out of academic anthropology by being young and tactless as the American Baby Boom was receding and, thus, demand for faculty was falling. Having been denied tenure, I thrashed around, followed my wife to Japan, found a new career in advertising, and returned to my academic interests in the 1990s as a self-supporting independent scholar, free of the teaching and other collegial duties that seem to occupy so much of my academic friends’ time and liberated from the rat race of publish, win grants,and make your students love you or perish that makes the academy resemble the description of matrimony in a joke I read in my childhood: “Confucius say, marriage is like a besieged city. All who are out want to get in and all who are in want to get out.”
My somewhat jaundiced view of the ivory tower is also shaped by memories of a Students for Democratic Society (SDS) meeting in the summer of 1967, when I was enrolled in the Summer Institute in Linguistics at the University of Michigan. The anti-Vietnam War movement was at its height. After one speaker after another rose to condemn “the system,” one of the leaders asked, “Just for information’s sake, how many of us would be here if we weren’t avoiding working in business or government?” He, one other person, and I raised our hands. We were the only three in a crowd of a hundred or so, all of whom were still in school.
I guess what’s really been bothering me is not so much the content of this blog generally or whether the posts are interesting or meaningful, but the current state of Anthropology itself. My guess is that, if bloggers felt that exciting things were happening in their field(s), we’d be reading about them here. Instead we’re reading about issues pertaining to professional academic and career oriented concerns.
When I go to Dienekes’ blog, however, I do get a sense of urgency and excitement — and why is that? My answer is that I think Anthropology is changing, and that Dienekes is tuned into these changes, while most posting here are not — yet.
When I started out, in the field of Ethnomusicology, my thinking and my enthusiasms were heavily influenced by the Anthropology of that time, which was, for the most part, heavily oriented toward basic issues pertaining to culture pattern, social structure, origins, sexuality, pre-history, child rearing, expressive behavior, communication, etc.
As time went on, I saw most of these concerns relegated to the back burner, or rejected outright in favor of what looked to me like what might be called “field work for field work’s sake.” In other words, a field that originally aspired to an understanding of some of the most basic human issues seemed to be degenerating into a field accommodating itself more and more to the requirements of the academic world, where finding an appropriate place to send one’s students off to do research became more important than the nature of the research they were expected to do. Many have seen this trend as a response to a “postmodern” zeitgeist, but to me it looks more like a capitulation to the academy. So it’s not surprising, actually, to see that so many posting here are so obsessed with typically academic issues.
But, as I said, I think the times they are a changin’. Here’s an excerpt from an article by anthropologist Doug Jones that I’ve found well worth quoting of late:
” . . . the situation has changed enormously in the last decade or two—so much that many researchers now argue that we are seeing the birth of an “emerging synthesis” in the study of prehistory. Rapidly accumulating information and new theoretical perspectives in population genetics, historical linguistics, and archeology seem to be coming together at last to tell a consistent story of the ancient human past, including the origin of modern humans, domestication and other innovations in subsistence, largescale demic expansions, genetic and cultural diffusion, and the origins and spread of major language families . . . based on significant correlations in the distributions of genetic, linguistic, and archeological variation. . . . [T]he emerging synthesis suggests parallel transmission has happened often enough to leave traces in current distributions of genes, language, and culture that point back to common causes in prehistory.”
I’m wondering how much of the above will have any relevance at all for most reading this blog, and why that might be. As far as I’m concerned, the synthesis Jones describes is, or ought to be, the new cutting edge of Anthropology. And if you want to learn more about it, Dienekes’ blog is the place to go. Significantly, almost all the articles he discusses have been published in journals devoted to biology or genetics, not anthropology.
Unlike many, I did not fall into anthropology. I knew what I wanted to investigate: the history and prehistory of maritime southeast Asia and the Pacific in particular, and pre-industrial human societies in general. It seemed to me that studying social anthropology would be the best way to go about this – possibly the only way. Certainly these things aren’t studied in history departments. I also wanted to use ethnographic fieldwork to make sense of prehistory; southeast Asia, especially eastern Indonesia, is one of the few places left in the world where this is a realistic possibility. Also, many societies in that part of the world are almost entirely undocumented and missing from the ethnographic record. So I had lots of reasons for wanting to study anthropology and made a choice to do it on the basis of subject matter rather than emotional commitment or something similar. I certainly didn’t decide to study anthropology first and subject matter second, something I’ve found to be strangely common.
Before I started my master’s course, I read a huge amount of material on all the methods open to me. I read three or four intros to historical linguistics (my favourite, in case you’re interested, is Terry Crowley’s); a bunch of archaeological works, both popular and academic; and I tried to read as many good ethnographies as I possibly could, especially on southeast Asia and the Pacific. On starting the course, I realised that I had studied a number of things that most anthropologists are completely ignorant of and have no interest in, and that only a few of the academics in the department (fortunately including my tutor) had any knowledge of.
Regardless, that’s what I wanted to study. I fell into anthropology in the sense of not being able to study what I wanted to study without it. I have no emotional attachment to the label of ‘anthropology’ and no particular desire to ‘be’ an anthropologist. I just want to be able to research the things I am interested in, and anthropology departments are the place to find the funding and resources to do that, it seems.
That is why I agree completely with this:
There are several books out there that attempt to outline this synthesis, including one I’ve mentioned before, The Human Past (2009, Chris Scarre [ed]). Everyone interested in human beings should read that book, I’d say. The fact that it exists is testament to the fact that this synthesis is the state of the art in anthropology. What I find particularly odd is that many people in anthropology departments are uninterested in such developments, as if actively studying the past and the historical factors that have led to the present and past diversity of human civilisation is not worthwhile, or is less worthwhile, and less ‘anthropological’, than reading Latour and studying skyscraper maintenance on Canary Wharf.
The area where I am weakest is in population genetics. This also seems to be the least known area generally, but a glance at Dienekes’ blog shows just how quickly it is advancing. And I’m really glad that the internet exists to fill in those blanks for me. I guess I’d like to see more posts about who the Tartessians were or what the Inka ayllu was all about, as opposed to posts about being an adjunct. But as I said, it’s not my blog, and some of the content here is good enough to lure me in anyway. If someone is willing to provide content for free, it doesn’t do to complain about the fact of its existence.
@Caroline:
I found my way to anthropology very deliberately, and for very specific reasons. My first career choice was photography, and I went full bore into that in my early 20s. For about eight years, that’s what I did–and I learned it inside and out. Early on I was mostly influenced by American landscape photography–Adams, Edward and Brett Weston, and so on. When I was 25 I had representation at a pretty decent gallery. But my interests shifted toward the work of more documentary photographers, from Walker Evans to Paul Strand to Dorthea Lange (and more contemporary folks like Sebastiao Salgado, Mary Ellen Mark, etc). I felt like I had certain skills I needed to do the kind of work I wanted, but was missing an underlying framework/foundation. I went BACK to school at 26 and started my studies in anthropology. It’s been a bit of a long road, but my ultimate goal has always been to combine my original interests in documentary photography with anthropology. I’ll admit that some of the inspiration and creativity can get a little lost in the whole process of academia, but I am looking forward to getting things back on track when I complete this PhD.
@Victor:
First of all, I need to make it clear that I am just on of the authors here at SM. So I speak for myself and not the site as a whole.
“I guess what’s really been bothering me is not so much the content of this blog generally or whether the posts are interesting or meaningful, but the current state of Anthropology itself.”
Well, it looks like we share a mutual concern for the state of anthropology.
“My guess is that, if bloggers felt that exciting things were happening in their field(s), we’d be reading about them here. Instead we’re reading about issues pertaining to professional academic and career oriented concerns.”
I don’t think that it’s an either/or case like this, Victor. Well, it’s not for me. Personally, I think there is a lot going on in anthropology (and not just in the US) that matters, and that is exciting and important. I think anthropology has tremendous potential and value. At the same time, I think that anthropology is caught within some larger issues in academia, and I think those issues matter–especially since they do end up affecting how anthropology is practiced, shared, taught, disseminated, and supported. I think it matters to pay attention to the “beef” of anthropology (research, ideas) and also the politics of anthropology, which happens be linked with certain problems and issues within various academies (and these issues are not limited to the US by any means).
“When I go to Dienekes’ blog…”
Dienekes runs a really good, very focused blog. I have always really appreciated his site. He posts tons of good content. I think other sites like Neuroanthropology put up a lot of good, rich anthropological content as well, and that we need more sites like these.
“…but to me it looks more like a capitulation to the academy. So it’s not surprising, actually, to see that so many posting here are so obsessed with typically academic issues.”
Well, part of my interest in discussing current issues with academia is that I would rather not see anthropology continue its capitulation to certain trends. Something needs to happen to get things back on track.
“As far as I’m concerned, the synthesis Jones describes is, or ought to be, the new cutting edge of Anthropology.”
I’ll have to read more about what Jones is arguing for. But his ‘synthesis’ sounds a lot like the kind of four field anthropology that I was trained in, which is geared toward incorporating biological, social/cultural, archaeological, and linguistic frameworks. I am all for such an approach to anthropology.
@Al:
“What I find particularly odd is that many people in anthropology departments are uninterested in such developments, as if actively studying the past and the historical factors that have led to the present and past diversity of human civilisation is not worthwhile, or is less worthwhile, and less ‘anthropological’, than reading Latour and studying skyscraper maintenance on Canary Wharf.”
Al, if we ever meet I am going to be sure to leave my “I love Bruno Latour” shirt at home. Hopefully my “Eric Wolf Rules” shirt will be ok though.* I think that historical, archaeological, and paleo-anthropological factors are absolutely relevant and worthwhile, and absolutely anthropological. I am a huge proponent of the importance of history in anthropology. But I also think there are other aspects to anthropology, and I am ok with that. In fact, that stuff is pretty fascinating as well.
“I guess I’d like to see more posts about who the Tartessians were or what the Inka ayllu was all about, as opposed to posts about being an adjunct.”
I think that’s a fair point. In fact, I think SM could use a good dose of more archaeology and history. Definitely.
Also, I am the one to blame for all the posts about the issues with adjuncts. What can I say? Sometimes I get into my streaks with certain issues (open access is another one of my favorite pet topics)! But I think those issues matter, especially since the future state of academia will certainly affect the practice and character of anthropology. On the other thread you asked:
“But if I was reading a blog about sports cars, I can’t say I’d appreciate it if the majority of the discussion came to be about employment prospects for young mechanics.”
I basically agree with you. The (anthropological) content has to be king. But let’s take your sports cars blog analogy further. What if the once robust sports car producing industry was getting taken over not by car designers or mechanics, but accountants and bureaucrats who are only concerned with the bottom line? I’d suggest that’s what we basically have going on in academia…and not just in the US. And these changes in anthropology have their effects on anthropology, IMO. So what should we do? Just stick to the new and cool stuff and avoid the not-so-pleasing issues?
My guess is that we need to strike a balance in coverage, basically.
*In all honesty, I am MUCH bigger fan of Eric Wolf than Latour. Just FYI, folks.
To those complaining about the focus on academia, all the articles have been focusing the state of anthropology within academia. There are a limited number of places where one can discuss the state of anthropology online and this site (as far as I can tell) is the most active of those sites. Most other anthropology blogs get at most one or two comments per blog post.
There is a certain segment of academic anthropologist who like to pretend that nothing is wrong with the current state of anthropology. We live in times in which politicians have specifically called out anthropology degrees as useless, in which social science research funding has been targeted for cuts and in which universities are eliminating departments to save money. If anthropologists just sit on their thumbs and do nothing, anthropology will be in a much weaker position in the next 10 to 20 years. I am sick of other anthropologists who want to sweep these problems under the rug and act like nothing is wrong. If we can’t discuss the specific ways in which these problems affect anthropology, where else can we?
Well said, former grad student.
I haven’t seen this position espoused anywhere, certainly not here. But on a public blog – something anyone could read to get a better idea of the subject matter of anthropology – it’s not exactly enticing to see that two-thirds of posts are devoted to issues in the academy. While these issues are obviously important to those involved (who says they’re not?), it is possible to have too much about them. Honestly, I tend to turn off and skip over them.
That would probably be a good idea. Again, it is not my blog, and you guys can and should write about whatever you like.
Ryan, I have to admit to finding it a little strange that you could like both Eric Wolf and Bruno Latour. I have no problem with having different levels of theory or different approaches to certain topics, but it seems to me that all of those theories have to be commensurate – that they have to slot together in some way that makes better sense of things – rather than being mere alternatives. I can’t see how these things would slot together, and so it seems like cognitive dissonance to value both of them, even if unequally.
“We live in times in which politicians have specifically called out anthropology degrees as useless, in which social science research funding has been targeted for cuts and in which universities are eliminating departments to save money.” Thank you, Former Grad Student, that takes us to the heart of the matter for sure.
But WHY are anthropology degrees so widely regarded as useless? and, dare I say it: irrelevant? Is it because anthropologists are politically unaware and unengaged? Hardly. We see many excellent examples of political awareness on this blog, and many anthropologists are certainly deeply engaged in political struggles in many parts of the world including involvement in organizations such as OWS. And as a result, many anthropologists are doing things that are, indeed, relevant.
But that doesn’t really address the problem, because the relevant political involvements of responsible individuals has all too often little relation to their work as anthropologists, and this is where the problem lies. And indeed, the research being done today by so many anthropologists (and ethnomusicologists as well, I must admit) is so narrowly focused, so highly specialized, and so deeply committed to themes stemming from a by now well worn, increasingly tiresome and (yes) irrelevant “postmodern” outlook, infused with exactly the sort of “political correctness” issues almost guaranteed to rub both politicians and the public at large the wrong way, that it’s not surprising the field is losing ground so precipitously.
Once upon a time, anthropologists like Emile Durkheim, Franz Boas, Alfred Kroeber, Edward Sapir, Ruth Benedict, Margaret Mead, Melville Herskovits, Colin Turnbull, Claude Levi-Strauss, etc., etc. were at the forefront of intellectual life. It would be interesting to see whether anyone here could name comparably influential contemporaries. Significantly, one of the most widely read authors isn’t an anthropologist at all, but a physiologist, ornithologist and geographer: Jared Diamond.
So maybe the reason I see so little “beef” on this blog is that there’s so little in the field generally. Or, to put it another way: prove me wrong by placing some beef on the table right here on this blog.
Victor:
“But WHY are anthropology degrees so widely regarded as useless? and, dare I say it: irrelevant? Is it because anthropologists are politically unaware and unengaged?”
I don’t think it’s because anthros are politically unaware, but I do think it’s because they are disengaged on some levels. Mostly because they tend to keep their work and ideas contained in little academia silos. Not everyone–but a lot of anthros (and other academics as well of course). I think that’s one of the major problems–there is a TON of good working going on, but that work isn’t not really getting outside of academia for the most part. Some anthropologists do engage with wider audiences, but in large part we are somewhat absent from the public stage and larger social and political debates. I think anthropology often gets written off as “useless” by folks who don’t really know what anthropology is all about. But whose fault is it that we are unknown, or that many people have *no idea* what anthropology is all about? Ours. Mostly because we spend the vast majority of our time buried in our own internal conversations, going to our closed off conferences, and writing books and articles for publications that only circulate amongst ourselves.
People have heard of folks like Charles Mann and Jared Diamond and Thomas Friedman and Paul Krugman because they work at communicating with wider audiences.
“And indeed, the research being done today by so many anthropologists … is so narrowly focused, so highly specialized, and so deeply committed to themes stemming from a by now well worn, increasingly tiresome and (yes) irrelevant “postmodern” outlook, infused with exactly the sort of “political correctness” issues almost guaranteed to rub both politicians and the public at large the wrong way, that it’s not surprising the field is losing ground so precipitously.”
Hmm. I don’t buy the “it’s all because of postmodernism or political correctness” argument at all. That’s a pretty tired line and to me it explains nothing. I really don’t think it makes any sense blame the current doldrums of anthropology on the “Writing Culture” moment (which was more than 20 years ago, btw) or an increased amount of reflexivity in ethnographic and archaeological writing/practice that took place in the 1980s and 1990s. I can understand if the whole postmodern thing isn’t your cup of tea or whatever, but that’s another conversation altogether, IMO.
I do think the problem we face stem from dramatic changes in the academy, including the fact that anthros have retreated from the public sphere over the last few decades. Maybe we should look at how and why this has happened. People like Boas and Mead actively took part in debates outside of the discipline, and that’s part of the reason they were known, respected, and valued. They went outside of the silos, as did some of the other folks you mention.
A lot of people I know and meet have no idea what anthropology is all about, but when I explain it and talk about some of the work going on, there is no lack of interest. The same goes for students: I have had lots of student who came to an intro to anthro class with no idea what anthropology was all about. But the interest was there–whether in bioanth, archaeology, linguistic anthro, or cultural. I really don’t think there’s any shortage of potential and value in anthropology, Victor-and I definitely do not think that wider audiences find our work boring or meaningless. The interest is there–we just have to work harder to take part in those wider conversations. It takes work to do that though. And it’s not going to happen if we all just cloister ourselves up in the academy and conferences.
“Or, to put it another way: prove me wrong by placing some beef on the table right here on this blog.”
Well, ok. What do you want? Names of people whose work I think is important and valuable?
Al,
“Ryan, I have to admit to finding it a little strange that you could like both Eric Wolf and Bruno Latour.”
That doesn’t surprise me. I have to admit that I find it humorous that you have responded to my joke about wearing a Bruno Latour t-shirt with such a grave line of questioning!
“I have no problem with having different levels of theory or different approaches to certain topics, but it seems to me that all of those theories have to be commensurate…”
Why on earth should everything we read and value have to be “commensurate”?
“…that they have to slot together in some way that makes better sense of things – rather than being mere alternatives.”
Things don’t line up together perfectly, Al. I don’t think that all ideas can or should be expected to add up into a big pile that makes better sense of the whole world. But maybe we have a very different approach to reading and finding value in anthropology and social theory. I can read and appreciate parts of Latour without having to adopt his entire belief system or worldview. I don’t really care if Latour’s underlying philosophical system aligns perfectly with that of Eric Wolf or my own. I’m not looking to join some theoretical church. When I say I “like” something or find it enjoyable or meaningful, it does not mean I have joined some intellectual cult and can never think or look outside of that framework.
“I can’t see how these things would slot together, and so it seems like cognitive dissonance to value both of them, even if unequally.”
When you read literature are you this rigid? Do you only read books that come from one philosophical lineage or line of thought?
Because otherwise we don’t have any sort of explanation of anything at all, only a mess of supposed ‘alternatives’. Explanation depends on finding out how things work and correlating that with our understanding of the rest of the world. If you have a bunch of alternatives which do not overlap, then you can’t explain anything. If you have a theory of the state which doesn’t relate in any way to your theories of ‘human nature’ or principles of human behaviour, then what have you explained? Very little. And if human science consists only of these little theories that don’t overlap, then we’ve got nothing of any great use.
I’m not that rigid in reading, no. I read a lot of different things, include crackpot theories. But I don’t value everything I read on an equal basis, or believe that all of it is valuable. Latour’s position consists of either things that are trivially true or things that are obviously false, and so what he is saying is utterly useless. I’ve read his books – I just don’t value them.
Why not? There is only one world, and it does appear to be largely explicable in terms of a relatively small number of mechanisms. Physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy – they all seem to be perfectly capable of making sense of the world in terms of the same things. Why shouldn’t we expect a similar set of interlocking theories to apply to human beings? Seems like a basic expectation to me.
Ryan: “there is a TON of good working going on, but that work isn’t not really getting outside of academia for the most part.”
I don’t doubt there are many good people doing good work, but I have to agree with Al — what does it all amount to in the end? Where is the grand synthesis? And if postmodernism forbids such a synthesis, then why bother in the first place?
“I don’t buy the “it’s all because of postmodernism or political correctness” argument at all. That’s a pretty tired line and to me it explains nothing.”
Just take a look at the recent issue of Current Anthropology, April 2012, devoted to the same topic that’s gotten so much of Dienekes’ attention: biological anthropology. This issue is free, so feel free to browse through it: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/662436 Or better yet, read the introductory essay, by Susan Lindee and Ricardo Ventura Santos.
As this essay makes clear, the whole issue is really about the association of biological anthropology with the disastrous histories of racism and colonialism over the last two centuries, and the complicity of anthropologists in both. Valid points? Yes, of course. New information? No, not at all, not remotely. So what’s the point? Well, the point seems to be the continual validation of “postmodern” anthropology as a form of (and yes I feel forced to use this term because I can’t think of anything better) political correctness. Finding so much of this sort of thing in the literature, one gets the impression that anthropology is now roughly 75% the establishment of p.m./p.c. credentials, 25% everything else.
Here we have, in the year 2012, an entire issue devoted to one of the most exciting and rapidly advancing areas of current anthropology, and the editors have seen fit to include only backward looking, “historical” materials, reminding us of how ethnocentric their predecessors were. Significantly, there are NO references to the work of leading figures in genetic anthropology, such as Mark Stoneking, Sarah Tishkoff, Yu-Sheng Chen, Etienne Patin, Alan Redd, Ornella Semino, nor any reference to the founding father of the new biological anthropology, Cavalli-Sforza.
“Well, ok. What do you want? Names of people whose work I think is important and valuable?”
That would help, yes. Also: ideas. New ideas. Fresh ideas. That too would help.
Dear Al,
“Because otherwise we don’t have any sort of explanation of anything at all, only a mess of supposed ‘alternatives’. Explanation depends on finding out how things work and correlating that with our understanding of the rest of the world. If you have a bunch of alternatives which do not overlap, then you can’t explain anything.”
Al, all I can say is that we obviously have a very different approach to reading and valuing theory or “the literature”. For me reading theory is not such an either/or kind of process. I read and and find value in a range of people…sometimes the lines of thought converge, sometimes they don’t. It’s interesting to consider different ways of approaching or thinking about the world in which we live. In the end, we all have to figure out what works and what doesn’t. I pick and choose.
“And if human science consists only of these little theories that don’t overlap, then we’ve got nothing of any great use.”
That’s definitely not all that human science has. Now you’re taking things way too far. There are of course connections, overlaps, and relationships between different theorists and lines of thought. But that doesn’t mean that all theory is going to add up to one big unified mega theory that is completely commensurate. Some things line up, some don’t. There are different perspectives, trajectories, ways of thinking about the world, and they may not all agree with one big final answer. I don’t know what you’re looking for…maybe we have different expectations.
“I’m not that rigid in reading, no. I read a lot of different things, include crackpot theories.”
Funny.
“But I don’t value everything I read on an equal basis, or believe that all of it is valuable.”
Neither do I. So we agree on that.
“Latour’s position consists of either things that are trivially true or things that are obviously false, and so what he is saying is utterly useless. I’ve read his books – I just don’t value them.”
I can respect that. And I am not interested in trying to change your mind. I read his 2005 book about ANT and I found it interesting (and humorous). I have not joined the Latour cult by any means, but yes, I liked the book and find value in it. I draw a lot more from the Marx-Steward-Wolf-Roseberry line (and other political econ), but I also read outside of that as well. I find value in different strains of theoretical thought. So it goes. You can call the theory police and tell them I am mixing my epistemologies if you want.
“Why shouldn’t we expect a similar set of interlocking theories to apply to human beings? Seems like a basic expectation to me.”
Al, I didn’t say that there aren’t theories that interlock and apply to humanity–I think there are. What I said is that I don’t think ALL IDEAS or theories line up perfectly into one big pile that makes perfect sense of the world. If I say “not everything lines up perfectly” this does not mean that I think “nothing lines up, works together, or interlocks.” There’s a bit of a difference.
Victor,
“Where is the grand synthesis? And if postmodernism forbids such a synthesis, then why bother in the first place?”
Can you please explain to me exactly what you’re looking for with a “grand synthesis”? And how does postmodernism forbid this?
“As this essay makes clear, the whole issue is really about the association of biological anthropology with the disastrous histories of racism and colonialism over the last two centuries, and the complicity of anthropologists in both. Valid points? Yes, of course. New information? No, not at all, not remotely. So what’s the point?”
The point is to have an issue dedicated to exploring those histories of biological anthropology. So what? It’s not as if one issue of one publication completely defines the field or what is possible.
“Well, the point seems to be the continual validation of “postmodern” anthropology as a form of (and yes I feel forced to use this term because I can’t think of anything better) political correctness.”
That’s an interesting conclusion. So you think they went to all that trouble publishing those articles in order to validate anthropology as a form of political correctness? What does that even mean? How do you define “political correctness”???
“Finding so much of this sort of thing in the literature, one gets the impression that anthropology is now roughly 75% the establishment of p.m./p.c. credentials, 25% everything else.”
Hmm. So your claim is that 3/4 of all anthropology is geared toward “establishing pm/pc credentitals”? Ok. I’m not exactly sure what it means to establish one’s postmodern credentials, but I’ll take your word for it. Where did you get these numbers?
“Here we have, in the year 2012, an entire issue devoted to one of the most exciting and rapidly advancing areas of current anthropology, and the editors have seen fit to include only backward looking, “historical” materials, reminding us of how ethnocentric their predecessors were…”
Well, the subtitle of the issue IS “World Histories, National Styles, and International Networks,” so it’s really not all that shocking that they have included historical materials, Victor. It’s the theme of the issue. It’s right there in the intro. I think it sounds interesting (but in no way does that I mean I don’t value contemporary work in biological anthropology).
“Significantly, there are NO references to the work of leading figures in genetic anthropology…”
Why is that significant? This is an issue that is focused on the history and practices of the discipline, not the leading figures in genetic anthropology. I don’t think your complaint really makes any sense.
But let me ask you this: Are you saying that all of the biological/genetic anthropologists that you mention are not getting published, covered, and talked about? Are you saying that the wider field of anthropology is not paying attention to their work? Is that your point?
“That would help, yes”
Ok, here are a few good ones:
David Graeber
Keith Hart
Julia Elyachar
Setha Low
Stephen Gregory
Teresa Caldeira
There are lots more. The above list is of people whose work I have been drawing from of late.
“Can you please explain to me exactly what you’re looking for with a “grand synthesis”? And how does postmodernism forbid this?”
Well, postmodernism begins with the notion that “we” are all now “tired” of what Lyotard called “grand metanarratives.” Which sounds a lot like “grand synthesis” to me. The idea behind p.m. was the emphasis on the local, and the avoidance of ambitious over-reaching theories, or what he preferred to call “narratives.” Because according to p.m. dogma there aren’t really any theories, only stories we tell ourselves.
And at the time (back in the 70’s, as I recall), p.m. made sense. Because the structuralists had attempted grandious schemes, trying to tie everything together, and at some point it all fell apart. And yes, “we” were in fact “tired” of it. At least I was.
Unfortunately, Lyotard’s reasonable suggestion was turned into a rigid dogma, fundamentally an anti-scientific dogma, that prevailed for years and in many ways still dominates the social sciences. So nothing can be regarded as meaningful unless it is “situated,” and by situated is meant situated in some narrowly defined local context, regarded as unique and not comparable to anything else.
So now we have all these profs and grad students going off to all these different places and doing ethnographies without feeling the need to do the sort of large-scale comparative study that might lead to some sort of synthesis, grand or not so grand, but at least some sort of IDEA. I’m not saying there are no exceptions, there are many exceptions, but as I see it the field is still dominated by this prejudice against broad-based comparative research of the sort that might enable us to arrive at some sort of synthesis, giving shape, meaning and relevance to all the various specialized studies.
“Well, the subtitle of the issue IS “World Histories, National Styles, and International Networks,” so it’s really not all that shocking that they have included historical materials, Victor. It’s the theme of the issue. It’s right there in the intro.”
First of all the title says “World Histories,” not histories of anthropology. Secondly, if you read the editor’s introduction (http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/663328), you’ll find the following: “Papers in the current supplementary issue are written by anthropologists, historians of science, and scholars of science studies and address the international development of the discipline as well as its contemporary condition and potential future development.” So no, the issue is not intended to be purely historical, it was intended to cover all aspects of biological anthro. But if you look at the titles of the included papers, you’ll see that in fact it IS heavily historical, with hardly any reference anywhere to current developments.
And as far as I can tell, this tendency to hide one’s head in the sand when it comes to the new, and in fact revolutionary findings of genetic anthropology is typical for publications in anthro generally. For years papers in this area could be found almost exclusively in biology journals, and even today that’s still where the great majority can be found.
(Sorry, running out of time. I’ll continue with this response tomorrow.)
@Victor:
“Unfortunately, Lyotard’s reasonable suggestion was turned into a rigid dogma, fundamentally an anti-scientific dogma, that prevailed for years and in many ways still dominates the social sciences.”
Ya, dogma happens on many fronts. There are always folks who take things too far and get way too dogmatic. But that’s not limited to the “pm” crowd by any means…
“So now we have all these profs and grad students going off to all these different places and doing ethnographies without feeling the need to do the sort of large-scale comparative study that might lead to some sort of synthesis, grand or not so grand, but at least some sort of IDEA.”
Ya, but I think there is a bit of a shift that has been taking place…opening up to the idea of looking at wider frameworks again–including more comparative work. I appreciated a lot of the ideas that happened with the whole “pomo” thing, but some of it went too far and closed off important avenues. Some of it was really good, and some of it was kind of a dead end. The bad part about those kinds of broad shifts in theories is that they often swing way too far in one direction.
“Secondly, if you read the editor’s introduction (http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/663328), you’ll find the following…”
Ya, I saw that. The issue is definitely historically-oriented. I don’t really see this as a big problem. It looks like an interesting issue to me. But yes, the editors do talk about “future developments,” and it looks like there could be more on that front. Still, I don’t really see this as evidence that anthropology is somehow being strangled by postmodernism. Sounds to me like you disagree with their editorial choices here–why not write a letter to the eds and make your case?
“And as far as I can tell, this tendency to hide one’s head in the sand when it comes to the new, and in fact revolutionary findings of genetic anthropology is typical for publications in anthro generally.”
Ok, so is this because the anthro journals aren’t interested or accepting this kind of work, or because these genetic anthros aren’t trying to publish in certain anthro venues?
Strictly speaking, those are not epistemologies. But alright. 😛
What I’m interested in is understanding human beings, not getting to grips with a string of theorists, and my main theoretical reading has been outside of anthropology, narrowly-considered. My aim has been to understand humans, and I don’t think ‘theory’ in anthropology does that especially well. The problem isn’t necessarily having a diversity of theories – it’s that people think it’s okay to think different theories are correct, or that what matters is how you ‘use’ a particular ‘thinker’. ‘I’m using Marcus to unpack Malaysian politics.’ This is a very strange approach. The point should be making sense of humans and their works, not ‘using’ a canonical line of scholars. Right?
What I don’t understand is why it isn’t your aim to have a ‘big pile’ that makes sense of the world. If people are similar all over the world, then there should be some way in which they work that we can make sense of. There should be a way of naturalistically getting to grips with the Italian city-states or the Indonesian language or money, or an individual’s purchase of an emu farm. There should be a way to do this – to have a set of over-lapping models that allow us to go, in principle, from mental events and the ecological state of the planet to geo-politics. And it should be one way, not a dozen – because if it’s a dozen, then we don’t have an explanation at all, only a set of alternatives that may help solve small problems but will never link up to a wider and better understanding of Homo sapiens sapiens. We need different levels of theory, not wholly different perspectives.
In my ideal anthropology curriculum, texts like The Human Past would be part of the core. Linguistics, especially historical linguistics, as well as archaeology and population genetics, would be key parts as well. Ethnographic research, both for finding out about the deep past and for revealing conditions in the present, would of course be vital. A good dose of historical scholarship would also be appreciated. That would not only give a broad understanding of humankind, it would place ethnographic fieldwork in a known context – not just in history, but in prehistory, in geological time, in the context of known scholarship in all fields concerning humanity. I daresay that would improve the job prospects of anthropologists, as well, as they would be used to handling multiple strands of difficult and challenging data. I doubt this would ever happen – or at least, it won’t replace existing anthropology curriculums, focussed as they are on providing a broad understanding of different ‘theories’ – but it is what I, personally, would like to see.
Al,
“Strictly speaking, those are not epistemologies. But alright. :P”
Ya, I thought you would catch that. Busted. Oh well, it should be “theories” or bodies of lit or something. I guess you can also place a call to the linguistic cops too…
“The point should be making sense of humans and their works, not ‘using’ a canonical line of scholars. Right?”
Yes, the point is learning about and making sense of humanity, not just citing or quoting or using certain theorists who happen to be in vogue.
“What I don’t understand is why it isn’t your aim to have a ‘big pile’ that makes sense of the world.”
That’s not what I said, Al. I said that I don’t expect *everything* I read and value to add up to one big pile of coherent or commensurate knowledge. That’s just not what I expect from a mass of readings that ranges from Marx to Wolf to Foucault to Vine Deloria.
“There should be a way to do this – to have a set of over-lapping models that allow us to go, in principle, from mental events and the ecological state of the planet to geo-politics. And it should be one way, not a dozen…”
It sounds to me like you’re searching for one large meta- or grand theory that can explain everything. I’ll admit that my goals are quite a bit smaller in scope at this point.
“In my ideal anthropology curriculum, texts like The Human Past would be part of the core. Linguistics, especially historical linguistics, as well as archaeology and population genetics, would be key parts as well. Ethnographic research, both for finding out about the deep past and for revealing conditions in the present, would of course be vital. A good dose of historical scholarship would also be appreciated.”
That sounds pretty good to me. I am all for this kind of anthropology. And I am absolutely in agreement with the need to inject more history. So we agree here.
“That would not only give a broad understanding of humankind, it would place ethnographic fieldwork in a known context – not just in history, but in prehistory, in geological time, in the context of known scholarship in all fields concerning humanity.”
Yes, I agree that this sort of contextualization and grounding of ethnography is vital.
“I doubt this would ever happen – or at least, it won’t replace existing anthropology curriculums, focussed as they are on providing a broad understanding of different ‘theories’ – but it is what I, personally, would like to see.”
I don’t know about this last point…but maybe I am misreading what you’re saying here. The anthropology that you’re talking about above sounds a lot like the four-field Boasian kind of anthropology that appeals to me. Maybe that’s not what you mean though. But if archaeological, linguistic, and historical perspectives are going to be a part of the overall discipline, that”s still going to amount to reading across different “theories” or bodies of literature (although I do think the term ‘theory’ is often conflated with ‘bodies of lit’). In archaeology, for example, it’s important to have a decent grasp on some of the key theoretical and methodological strains of thought that have shaped the discipline. At least I think so. I think it’s pretty important to understand the development of thought over time.
Things are getting a bit complicated, and I’m starting to feel sorry for Ryan, who is now fighting a “battle” on two fronts, between Al and myself. Anyhow, I’ll now try to take up the argument from where I left off in my last comment.
Ryan: “That’s an interesting conclusion. So you think they went to all that trouble publishing those articles in order to validate anthropology as a form of political correctness? What does that even mean? How do you define “political correctness”???”
I think a great deal in anthro over the last several years has been focused on certain political or quasi political issues, yes. And much of that is perfectly valid as far as I’m concerned. But when it shades over into a kind of ritual genuflection wherein such content becomes principally a means of establishing proper academic credentials for oneself as someone holding the “correct” views on such matters, then I think it valid to use the term “political correctness.” And of course there is a whole vocabulary, which we all know very well, that goes along with this.
“Hmm. So your claim is that 3/4 of all anthropology is geared toward “establishing pm/pc credentitals”? Ok. I’m not exactly sure what it means to establish one’s postmodern credentials, but I’ll take your word for it. Where did you get these numbers?”
It’s a subjective impression. I won’t claim to have systematically evaluated all the literature, but whenever I have occasion to mull over the contents of an anthro journal to find something that might interest me, time after time I find p.c. rearing its ugly head. The title itself is often a dead giveaway. Words like “gender,” “identity,” “situating,” “negotiating,” “modernity,” and like that. To be avoided like the plague.
“But let me ask you this: Are you saying that all of the biological/genetic anthropologists that you mention are not getting published, covered, and talked about? Are you saying that the wider field of anthropology is not paying attention to their work? Is that your point?”
In a word, yes. There are exceptions, of course, and I do see signs of change, but for the most part: yes.
“David Graeber
Keith Hart
Julia Elyachar
Setha Low
Stephen Gregory
Teresa Caldeira
There are lots more. The above list is of people whose work I have been drawing from of late.”
It would help if you could be specific as to what it is about these author’s works that you find meaningful. And again it would be nice to see specific IDEAS.
Not necessarily – I’d just like the theory of city-states to be able to link up, potentially, to the theory of human cognition, or to evolutionary biology (in some sense). The meta-theory is already worked out, when you think about it: we live in a world consisting of elementary particles in fields of force, and we, and all living beings, are products of a process of evolution by natural selection. The question becomes: given that, how do humans actually work? How can we understand the things they do and the historical processes that lead to them in a naturalistic way? That’s the challenge. That involves a lot of little theories and abstractions that link together so that they are more than just little theories and abstractions. We need different levels of theory with linkages between them, not different theories.
And yep, I’d say the four-field tradition of Boas is pretty much up my street, although I’d want to expand it a lot (Boas didn’t include population genetics, for obvious reasons), and instead of simply studying the theory of these disciplines, it would be important to study the empirical data – the products of the synthesis.
Of course it would involve grappling with some of the history of these disciplines, but that’s a less arduous task than it seems. There are plenty of histories of archaeological theory, including one I believe I saw you yourself recommend – Bruce Trigger’s. (Good book, incidentally.) There are lots of intros to historical linguistics, to population genetics, you name it. I believe, by the way, that Cambridge is starting a programme for undergrads next year that looks a lot like this – not arch & anth anymore, just a degree in studying humans with a lot of content from a lot of different fields, from social anthropology to political science and linguistics. Sounds good to me.
The point of bringing them together would be, partly, to collapse these theoretical positions together – to be able to understand humans more clearly without these arbitrary disciplinary divisions. Social anthropologists seem particularly reluctant to do this, as if merging knowledge with others suddenly means that the social anthropological work is not valuable. That’s not true, though, and it seems to me that the main reason anthropology is undervalued is because of the dreck it has accumulated.
“Ya, but I think there is a bit of a shift that has been taking place…opening up to the idea of looking at wider frameworks again–including more comparative work. I appreciated a lot of the ideas that happened with the whole “pomo” thing, but some of it went too far and closed off important avenues. Some of it was really good, and some of it was kind of a dead end. The bad part about those kinds of broad shifts in theories is that they often swing way too far in one direction.”
I’m glad you agree. And yes, I too get the feeling that there is now more interest in comparative work, I think the ice is beginning to crack a bit.
“Secondly, if you read the editor’s introduction (http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/663328), you’ll find the following…”
“Ya, I saw that. The issue is definitely historically-oriented. I don’t really see this as a big problem.”
I do. Because genetic anthro (aka population genetics) isn’t just another branch of anthropology, but a truly revolutionary development with huge ramifications for every other branch of the field. For the first time, we have scientific tools at our disposal to help us understand aspects of human history/evolution that were assumed to be forever closed to us. And not only in the biological realm, but the socio/cultural realm as well.
And it’s not just this issue of Current Anthropology, but their attitude in general, and that of many other publications as well, as reflected by the almost willful refusal to even discuss the matter as anything more than a peripheral development best left to biologists. The neglect can be seen in just about every journal devoted to either archaeology or ethnology.
“Still, I don’t really see this as evidence that anthropology is somehow being strangled by postmodernism.”
I see it that way because I suspect the real reason so many in anthro don’t want to deal with the genetic research is that it implies exactly what the postmodern ethos opposes: a “grand metanarrative” about human history. The famous “Out of Africa” southern route model is a good example. Precisely the sort of thing everyone was rebelling against 40 or 50 years ago. Shades of das kulturkreis.
Anthropologists of the older generation have devised all sorts of defenses against exactly that sort of thing — and the geneticists are just rolling over it, basically ignoring all those prohibitions and forging ahead with their own paradigms.
“Ok, so is this because the anthro journals aren’t interested or accepting this kind of work, or because these genetic anthros aren’t trying to publish in certain anthro venues?”
Good question. There is a practical problem, because much in the anthropological genetics literature is, after all, genetics. And the geneticists have been programmed by their own training to write in terms that biologists rather than anthropologists can understand. So they are naturally inclined to publish in biology journals — though occasionally also in journals such as Science or Nature. And most if not all their funding comes from the medical rather than the social sciences end.
So there is definitely a problem and it’s not only the fault of the anthropologists. However! I happen to be neither an anthropologist nor a biologist, yet I found a way to break that impasse (with a paper published in “Before Farming,” and also a book). So if I can do it, so can YOU. (Plural “you,” natch — or should I say “yins” — I’m from Pittsburgh.)
@Victor: re “Words like “gender,” “identity,” “situating,” “negotiating,” “modernity,” and like that. To be avoided like the plague.”
Well, these are two sentences that invite all sorts of analysis, and questions. In particular, I am wondering why the terms gender and identity have been lumped together with the terms situating, negotiating, and modernity. Isn’t all anthropological inquiry related, in some form, to ‘identity’: after all, isn’t choosing to *identify* homo sapiens/humans as a distinct category of great apes/animals also a de facto identitarian claim? Anthropologists, across all four fields, care greatly about our human identity: what makes us human, what makes us different from non-humans. And so do people more generally, including throughout recorded history (oral histories included).
It seems the terms gender and identity are being singled out because of some very troubling assumptions about these terms–about gender as ‘those things women do and care/talk about’, and identity as a certain kind of ‘identity politics’ (perhaps associated with ‘annoying’ claims for ‘rights’ and ‘equality’ by certain groups of people?). I am struggling to understand how one does ANY historical anthropology without engaging the concepts of gender (which is certainly not a category limited to women and their concerns/practices) or identity (since most all social interactions are predicated on some kind of self/other distinction).
I post as Discuss White Privilege as a way of calling attention to the normative assumptions and power asymmetries *constantly* informing anthropological theorizing/conceptualizing and practice. The ‘things to be avoided’ sentences above seem to fall under the rubric of such problematic normative assumptions. To what extent do you feel terms like gender and identity need to be “avoided” because it is easy for *you* not to have to think about these terms (in certain ways,in ways that may lead to using terms like negotiating, and situating, and modernity–or may not) because you (may) benefit from white privilege and male privilege? It is easy not to think about–or value–terms like gender and identity when one’s gender, or other identity markers, conform to the normative categories constructed as not just the statistical norm, but as ‘normal’, and are thus unmarked, like whiteness and maleness. Not an attack, just a sincerely asked question.
Also, for those on the receiving end of being constructed as less-than human(s), it is understandable to be worried about what dubious end genetic claims will be put–especially around race and intelligence/criminality–so it is unfairly dismissive to have a ‘we already know that’ response to raising the implication of anthropology in legacies of colonialism and scientific racism *which persist to this day* and effect the daily lives of others, even if not your own.
DWP, I sympathize completely with your defense of all these terms as perfectly legitimate aspects of a socially responsible anthropology. I wasn’t objecting to that aspect of their use at all. I was objecting to their role as a kind of academic jargon, a stereotyped language employed as a means of legitimizing oneself in the eyes of an academic orthodoxy.
These terms all have long histories of meaningful use in the social sciences for sure. But it’s only since the advent of postmodernism that we see them being used over and over again as buzzwords, i.e., elements in an all too familiar academic jargon. Maybe I’m being unfair, but it seems to me that in many cases these terms are being used more to propitiate the “Gods” of academe than anything else. And of course it’s not only the words, but the tendency to focus on certain well worn subjects over and over again, to the point that a term such as “political correctness” becomes all too sadly legitimate.
To clarify, I would characterize myself as pretty far to the left politically, so I’m not inclined to use a term like “political correctness” simply as a put down of people fighting for a more just and sensitive society. But I do bristle at any sign of regimented thinking, and this is unfortunately what I am all too often finding.
I realize that many who use such terms feel they are fighting the good fight against a bigotry that once pervaded the halls of academe for far too long. But as I see it, that battle was won long ago, and a whole new, equally narrow minded orthodoxy has emerged in its place.
@ Victor Grauer: “as I see it, that battle was won long ago, and a whole new, equally narrow minded orthodoxy has emerged in its place.”
Sadly, this battle has not been won. Hence the AAA publishing not only the 2010 report on minority anthropologists, but then following it up with “Anthropoloogy as White Public Space?” and Racism in the Academy. Racist and sexist microaggresions persist daily, as does structural and institutional racism and sexism. Have you read all three of these publications?
“Also, for those on the receiving end of being constructed as less-than human(s), it is understandable to be worried about what dubious end genetic claims will be put–especially around race and intelligence/criminality–so it is unfairly dismissive to have a ‘we already know that’ response to raising the implication of anthropology in legacies of colonialism and scientific racism *which persist to this day* and effect the daily lives of others, even if not your own.”
I understand your concern. The history of biological anthropology is not pretty and there is good reason to be suspicious of anything that looks like it might be a revival of the “racial science” of the past. Current population genetics is NOT racial science and in fact has nothing to do with race, a concept rejected by just about everyone in that field. But that hasn’t prevented some from seeing it in that light, and basing their own racial fantasies on certain of its findings. So there is always, I suppose, going to be cause for concern with this type of research.
And by the way, I happen to be of Jewish origin, so am particularly sensitive to the destructive potential of racial thinking.
“Sadly, this battle has not been won.”
Well, of course you are right. My fault, as I didn’t make my meaning sufficiently clear. What I meant was that the battle has been won as far as academic discourse is concerned. I.e., there is no longer much reason, as I see it, to fight this battle in the pages of academic journals. Which does NOT mean it should no longer be waged everywhere else, i.e., in the real world both in and out of academe.
Victor, I am glad you share a concern for the potential abuses of genetic anthropological research. But being an Ashkenazi Jew (apologies if I have misidentified you) does not also mean that you are not still positioned as white in the US and thus a beneficiary of white privilege. Have you read Karen Brodkin’s How the Jews Became White? This from the same Karen Brodkin who co-authored “Anthropology as White Public Space?”. I find myself constantly wondering why those not on the receiving end of white privilege/racism and sexism think they would be in the best position to speak to what daily barriers peoe encountering racism and sexism face. Sure, it may seem to you that the battle has been long won, but this is also because you don’t have to deal with these continuing barriers.
Victor, thanks for the clarification. I didn’t see it until after I posted my comment.
I want to add also that I see nothing progressive per se in the use of terms such as “gender” or “identity” or “modernity” or “colonialism,” etc., or phrases such as the “construction of identity,” the “negotiation of gender,” etc. in the titles of papers or book chapters, a practice that has expanded to epidemic proportions it would seem.
In fact, for me, such lip service can be counterproductive, as it desensitizes us to the real issues at hand and can make us feel that we are already doing our part simply by inscribing such “magical” formulas on pieces of paper.
I’m particularly sensitive to this issue as I was actively involved in university politics at both SUNY Buffalo and the University of Pittsburgh and know very well the difference between actually putting one’s career on the line and rendering lip service via this or that buzz word.
Victor, I agree with you. Many people writing about inequality feel that they have done their part simply by doing so in ways that are marked as ‘critical’ and ‘theoretically’ sophisticated, but they are not really going to ‘get down in the trenches’, as it were, and fight the messy battles. You’ve called it.
One advantage of being a partner in a translation business whose current client list includes a number of major museums in Japan is that my day job brings me into regular contact with writing by and about people who engage with cultural forms in ways that overlap with but do not always coincide with anthropological perspectives. Today, I was thinking about the perspectives that Ryan, Al and Victor have brought to this thread and continuing to reflect on the Japanese J-pop girl group AKB48 when my hand reached out to the bookcase beside me and came back with Deleize: The Fold. It is not, however, the eccentric French philosopher that I am referencing here. It is the translator’s foreword by Tom Conley. As you read the following paragraphs, look past the fact that he is writing about the relationship of Gothic and Baroque styes and ask yourself how what he writes might apply to any attempt to understand or interpret the evolution of culture.
Soon after finishing what would bear the title of _The Art of the West_, an aesthetic history of the High Middle Ages, Henri Focillon theorized the experience of his research in _Vie des formes_. Reflecting on the emergence of the Romanesque and Gothic styles, Focillon confronts dilemmas facing all historians of the Middle Ages and _ancien régime_. How do styles develop, and why do they differ so markedly? Do the succeed one another or share pertinent traits? Do aesthetic styles convey, in a broader sense, the notion of particular ‘manners of thinking’? Can styles be periodized and, if so, what are the ideological motivations betraying the historical schemes that also tend to produce them?
In the context of French literary and aesthetic history in the aftermath of the First World War, Focillon departs from traditions of aesthetic and literary botany that date to Sainte-Beuve and Auguste Comte. For them, tables, categories, genealogical trees, and lines of phyla could map out great mnemonic systems. They would soon program the ways the French nation would construct its patrimony. Students of these paradigms would forever recall the grids, fill them with appropriate facts and traits, and thus be ‘informed’ by schemes of knowledge. To the contrary, Focillon notes that the Romanesque and Gothic, two dominant and contrastive styles, often inflect each other. They crisscross and sometimes fold vastly different sensibilities into each other. The historian is obliged to investigate how the two worlds work through each other at different speeds and, in turn, how they chart various trajectories on the surface of the European continent.
Several years ago, it occurred to me that what we call “culture” might best be described in terms of a familiar (folk?) description of a wedding dress.
Something old
Something new
Something borrowed
Something blue
I used to observe to my students that in Japan they had only to look around them to see the old, the new, and the borrowed. The question about the new is always whether it represents a new twist on something old of enduring value or instead is only a momentary fad. And one must never forget the “blue,” by which I mean the blue in “feeling blue” or “singing the blues.” No set of human arrangements portrayed in ethnography or history has ever made everyone involved with them perfectly content and happy to leave things as they are. Understanding the discontents and nightmares that drive people to leave home, think new ideas, and embrace new possibilities is every bit as essential to understanding humanity as bland statements about functionality or support for ideological distinctions. The questions that Focillon raises must be confronted honestly, whether our subject is tourist development in Baja California, the evolution of musical styles, or the assessment of the current and possible future significance of AKB48. To understand the small and local, we need the big ideas.
Whoops! Deleuze, not Deleize.
John, what you’ve written reminds me of what in my book I refer to as a cultural “palimpsest.” That word works better for me than “fold,” though I have to admit I’ve never managed to fall under the spell of Deleuze (no matter how you spell him).
“What I see in each of these societies is a kind of palimpsest, i.e., an overlay, of sometimes very different and even contradictory cultural elements. . . As I see it, none of these layers has been entirely lost when “supplanted” by the next, which is one of the reasons such societies can seem so complex and contradictory to outsiders.”
I take as an example, the film Whale Rider, which “can be understood not so much as an opposition between generations, or a new or old way of seeing things, but as the opposition between certain relatively new traditions (new, that is, from the perspective of deep history), concerned primarily with social control, which have, indeed, become frozen in time; and older, more fundamental traditions stemming from a much deeper cultural layer, which promote social integration, fairness, equality — and adaptation to new and different conditions where appropriate. The elders are trapped in the former, while the girl is tuned in to the latter and behaves accordingly.”
@Victor
Very nice. My only quibble would be the “seem” in “seem so complex and contradictory.’ My working assumption, picked up from V. Turner, is that they are complex and contradictory, and the anthropologist’s job is to map the contradictions and understand their contribution to the dynamic structure of the processes he observes. There are also, of course, the contradictions introduced by the observer’s perspective, and sorting out the relation between those and the contradictions inherent in what is being observed is a critical issue for sound ethnography.
Sorry for dropping out of the race for a bit here…had a busy day yesterday trying to remember how to use GIS and all kinds of fun stuff.
@Victor:
“Things are getting a bit complicated, and I’m starting to feel sorry for Ryan, who is now fighting a “battle” on two fronts, between Al and myself.”
Ah, no worries. This is interesting. I don’t see it as a battle at all. It’s a good conversation–and that’s what this whole blogging thing is for, right?
“In a word, yes. There are exceptions, of course, and I do see signs of change, but for the most part: yes.”
That’s a fair point (about certain kinds of anthropological work being ignored). So the next question is what needs to be done. I agree that there needs to me more conversation and interaction across the different field in anthropology. I’m all for it.
“Words like “gender,” “identity,” “situating,” “negotiating,” “modernity,” and like that. To be avoided like the plague.”
I don’t have a problem with any of those words. Like pretty much any term or concept, it actually depends on how they are used, etc. When concepts are turned into dogma or jargon or just empty rhetoric, then it’s a problem.
“It would help if you could be specific as to what it is about these author’s works that you find meaningful. And again it would be nice to see specific IDEAS.”
Well, I don’t really have time to write mini essays about each of the anthros I mentioned. I have talked about Graeber, Hart, and Elyachar in some of my posts here about value, money, and economic anthropology (which is where I have been focusing the past year or so). Low does some good work about public space, place, etc. Stephen Gregory’s book “The Devil Behind the Mirror” has been really useful for me–he looks at tourism development in some really fascinating terms. Caldeira’s work covers some similar issues (private versus public space, walled cities, the role of fear in urban environments, etc). Lots of good stuff…I will be writing more about this stuff as I finish up fieldwork and start looking at what I have. SM is a good place to bounce ideas around.
“So if I can do it, so can YOU.”
Sounds good to me.
@Al:
“And yep, I’d say the four-field tradition of Boas is pretty much up my street, although I’d want to expand it a lot…”
Agreed. A 21st century update of the basic four field idea would be a good start. Also, I think you have a good point about looking at empirical results, not just collections of theories.
“Of course it would involve grappling with some of the history of these disciplines, but that’s a less arduous task than it seems.”
I actually like that sort of reading.
“Social anthropologists seem particularly reluctant to do this, as if merging knowledge with others suddenly means that the social anthropological work is not valuable. That’s not true, though, and it seems to me that the main reason anthropology is undervalued is because of the dreck it has accumulated.”
There are certain cultural/social folks who don’ seem all that interested in archaeology, bioanth, etc. But then the reverse is definitely true as well (plenty of folks write of cultural and social anthro as little more than storytelling). So not everyone is on board for a renewed four field synthesis. Maybe it’s because I actually started in archaeology, but I have never really felt that there needs to be some big chasm between cultural, archaeological, and bio-anthro perspectives. I think they all provide really important counterpoints to one another.
I still think that a big reason why anthropology is undervalued is because we mostly just talk to ourselves, don’t write for wider audiences, and so on. But I also think that we do need to try to address wider, bigger, more connected questions as well. Good points, Al.
@DWP:
“It seems the terms gender and identity are being singled out because of some very troubling assumptions about these terms–about gender as ‘those things women do and care/talk about’, and identity as a certain kind of ‘identity politics’ (perhaps associated with ‘annoying’ claims for ‘rights’ and ‘equality’ by certain groups of people?).”
Yep, good points about the importance of gender, identity, etc. Definitely not subjects to be dismissed, brushed aside, or ignored.
“Sadly, this battle has not been won. Hence the AAA publishing not only the 2010 report on minority anthropologists…”
I agree. The battle has certainly not been won, despite a lot of the rhetoric and talk inside and outside of the academy. Virginia Dominguez also talks about this in the latest issue of American Anthropologist. Still a ways to go.
@Victor again:
“In fact, for me, such lip service can be counterproductive, as it desensitizes us to the real issues at hand and can make us feel that we are already doing our part simply by inscribing such “magical” formulas on pieces of paper.”
I think this is a really, really important point. There is indeed a lot of lip service about all kinds of issues–politics, justice, inequality, poverty, and so on. Writing some paper about these issues is not the same thing as actually doing something about them–whether inside or outside of the halls of academia. Often those ‘magical formulas on pieces of paper’ serve as comfortable palliatives, and not much more.
@John:
“To understand the small and local, we need the big ideas.”
I like that line…
can be understood not so much as an opposition between generations, or a new or old way of seeing things, but as the opposition between certain relatively new traditions (new, that is, from the perspective of deep history), concerned primarily with social control, which have, indeed, become frozen in time; and older, more fundamental traditions stemming from a much deeper cultural layer, which promote social integration, fairness, equality
As I read this analysis, I find myself wondering about that “deeper cultural layer” which, it is said, promotes “social integration, fairness, and equality.” If this assumption that the deeper layer promotes social integration fairness, and equality is part of the culture being analyzed, that is an interesting fact. If it is an imported assumption, based on a romantic view of cultural evolution, I have some reservations.
First, pecking orders are, I believe, observable in all known primates, albeit more fiercely enforced in some species that others. This observation renders highly implausible the assumption of a primordial bias toward social integration, fairness and equality in H. Sapiens.
Second, as a student of China, I note that Confucian thought argues that it is social differentiation and inequality that are the primordial facts about human societies. All of the core relations, minister to lord, son to parent, older brother to younger brother, wife to husband are hierarchical in nature. Daoism rejects this proposition but does not, on that account, see the state of nature as one of fairness and equality. The Dao De Jing states explicitly that to the Dao, the Way of Nature, we are all “straw dogs,” of no more consequence than these artificial offerings burned at the end of rituals. To live in accord with the Way is to go with the flow, the endless recurring cycles of things, without attaching oneself to artificial distinctions—including those that define what is or is not fair.
Both Confucian and Daoist perspectives are, of course, the products of an advanced agricultural civilization, and neither can be counted as an accurate expression of what life may have been like in prehistoric times. What they do demonstrate, however, is the artificiality of assuming a romantic view of the prehistory as a time of innocent communism—itself also a product of advanced agricultural civilizations that has survived the industrial revolution.
Ryan:
Ryan:
“Well, I don’t really have time to write mini essays about each of the anthros I mentioned. I have talked about Graeber, Hart, and Elyachar in some of my posts here about value, money, and economic anthropology (which is where I have been focusing the past year or so). Low does some good work about public space, place, etc. Stephen Gregory’s book “The Devil Behind the Mirror” has been really useful for me–he looks at tourism development in some really fascinating terms. Caldeira’s work covers some similar issues (private versus public space, walled cities, the role of fear in urban environments, etc). Lots of good stuff…I will be writing more about this stuff as I finish up fieldwork and start looking at what I have. SM is a good place to bounce ideas around.”
I have no problem with what any of these people are doing, and find Graeber’s work on debt and anarchy, and also his involvement with OWS especially promising. But isn’t most of this really more on the socio-political side than the anthropological side? Once upon a time anthro was relatively simple, it was about non-Western societies and cultures and what we could learn from them about human origins and the meaning of “modern” society. Now it seems to have become about something else entirely. And I’m wondering why.
John: “As I read this analysis, I find myself wondering about that “deeper cultural layer” which, it is said, promotes “social integration, fairness, and equality.” If this assumption that the deeper layer promotes social integration fairness, and equality is part of the culture being analyzed, that is an interesting fact. If it is an imported assumption, based on a romantic view of cultural evolution, I have some reservations.”
OK, good, you didn’t let that get past you. And of course it can’t simply be taken for granted. That passage comes near the end of my book and encapsulates one of its most important hypotheses.
And no, it’s not based on a romantic view of cultural evolution. I have no such view, never had. It’s based strictly on the method I developed for reconstructing what I call HBC, the Hypothetical Baseline Culture of our MRCA, Most Recent Common Ancestors. And yes, it’s a hypothesis, not something I would defend as a proven fact, which is why I’ve written “can be understood” rather than “must be understood.”
Based mostly on my musical research, supplemented with the pop. genetics research, I’ve come up with a kind of rule of thumb for building hypotheses about certain aspects of the ancestral culture, and then used it as a tool for exploring certain aspects of today’s societies, both indigenous and “modern.” And as I wrote, what I see in literally all these societies is a kind of palimpsest, or if you prefer, folded overlays.
I’ve been accused of trying to reinstate an older, idealized or “romantic” view of human evolution but that’s not at all what my work is about. Nevertheless, my research does strongly suggest that HBC (the ancestral culture) did in fact promote “social integration, fairness, and equality” and that these values wherever we find them today can be understood as survivals from this ancestral heritage. Not on the basis of assumptions about the lifestyle of “stone age man,” but a systematic method based on verifiable evidence.
@Victor
Could you share a few more details of your analysis? For me the big question would be how the evidence for social integration, fairness and equality squares with other evidence for primate pecking orders. I am open to persuasion, partly because one of my favorite memories (that’s all it is) from physical anthropology is that sexual dimorphism is lower in H. sapiens than other primate species, suggesting a decline in the importance of aggressive displays. Also because I am open to the idea that music and dance evolved as mechanisms for social integration, a.k.a., building a feeling of community through shared participation.
Do tell us more.
“But isn’t most of this really more on the socio-political side than the anthropological side?”
Graeber’s book on debt definitely covers socio-political and economic issues–but it’s also sufficiently anthropological in my opinion. Besides, if we want anthropologists to start asking some bigger questions, I think that book is a good example doing just that. Everyone I mentioned is an anthropologist, and in my view there is no question that this is anthropology.
“Once upon a time anthro was relatively simple, it was about non-Western societies and cultures and what we could learn from them about human origins and the meaning of “modern” society.”
I don’t agree with the idea that anthropologists only study “non-western” people. I understand why this was the case in the early days of the discipline…but that kind of division is not only really arbitrary, it’s also riddled with strange assumptions. How, for instance, can we really define “non-western” people? It’s a really, really untenable division. If anthropology is about humanity, then it’s about humanity…past and present–not just one convenient group that was been selected out as a proper field of study back in 1910. To me, anthropological perspectives can be applied equally to 12,000 year old archaeological sites, contemporary pastoralist populations, and bankers on Wall Street.
“Now it seems to have become about something else entirely. And I’m wondering why.”
If anthropology is truly about humanity, then these kinds of changes to the original scope of the discipline not only make sense, but were necessary. It’s about humanity as a whole.
If anthropology is truly about humanity, then these kinds of changes to the original scope of the discipline not only make sense, but were necessary. It’s about humanity as a whole.
Yes, of course. But isn’t this an answer to why anthropology should include all varieties of humanity? The historical reasons for why and how its scope changed are an interesting question.
World system theorist Immanuel Wallerstein once observed that the development of disciplines in the social sciences and humanities had produced a peculiar mapping of the world. The science-wannabe social sciences (sociology, social psychology, political science, and economics) took the West (Western Europe and North America) as their province. The civilizations of Asia (Southwest, South, Southeast, and East) were handed to the humanists (historians, art historians, historians of religion, students of languages and literature) assembled in area studies programs. Anthropologists took the primitive, i.e., the rest of the world where the state apparatus that facilitates scientific social science by organizing populations in ways that facilitates collection of statistical data and the written documents and monuments on which humanistic scholarship depends were assumed to be missing. Colonial empires facilitated the travel and provided the political-economic and logistical infrastructure for the fieldwork on which all fields of anthropology depended. The world in which that traditional division of academic labor was created no longer exists.
Digging deeper reveals others, more particular, factors. For those of us who study East Asia, World War II, the Korean War and the War in Vietnam unleashed a flood of U.S. government funding. But anthropologists undertaking research in Japan, China, Taiwan, Korea or Southeast Asia could hardly pretend to be going to blank spaces on the map. Our funding and much of our training came through the area studies programs. We wound up members of the Association for Asian Studies as well as the American Anthropological Association.
Now, nearly a half century since this anthropologist first heard the word “anthropology,” other dramatic changes have occurred. With the rise of Japan, Taiwan, Korea and China as major economic powers in their own right, our “fields” are also studied by sociologists, social psychologists, political scientists. Much of the funding for researchers of every academic persuasion comes from the peoples we study. Colleagues who, back in the day, would have conducted their research and gone “home” to North America or Europe to write up, teach, and pursue tenured academic careers may now find academic employment, even tenured positions, in universities located in the countries where they do their fieldwork and find themselves minorities in faculties largely staffed by citizens of those countries.
These facts are not, of course, the whole story, which would take many volumes to recount were anyone able to do the research required. They should, however, at least give pause to those too inclined to see intellectual history as a history of ideas alone and overweight philosophical quarrels in the West, as opposed to the material realities of the world to which anthropologists must now adapt their questions and the methods by which we seek to answer them.