LA Times: "Kumeyaay living in Baja offer glimpse into the past"

Check out this great LA Times video about the Kumeyaay in northern Baja California.  It features Mike Wilken, on of my former colleagues from San Diego State, who does some great work on the histories of the Kumeyaay.  The photographer/videographer is Don Bartletti, a photographer I have admired for a long time.  Check it out!

Anthropology: Open Access & Academic Publishing Reading List

There have been a lot of recent posts and discussions about the state of affairs in academic publishing, and other important issues such as open access.  Here's a compilation of a few of the more recent posts:

Jason Baird Jackson:

The AAA/Wiley is already a Green OA Publisher

How Enclosed by Large For-Profit Publishers is the Anthropology Journal Literature?

On “Academic Publishers Make Murdoch Look like a Socialist”

Page Proofs ≠ Post-Prints; Websites ≠ Repositories

Christopher Kelty:

Where your money and your articles meet 

How Not to Run a University Press (or How Sausage is Made)

Alex Golub:

Big Content runs 66% of our journals, but the Open Access shortfall is our fault

Open access anthropology needs a civil service

Peter Suber:

Open Access Overview

George Monbiot:

Academic publishers make Murdoch look like a socialist

Barbara Fister:

Where There Is No Vision, We Publish and Perish 

Lorenz:

"Academic publishers make Murdoch look like a socialist": A call for action

Mintz: A sense of purpose

"Studies of the everyday in modern life, of the changing character of mundane matters like food, viewed from the joined perspective of production and consumption, use and function, and concerned with the differential emergence and variation of meaning, may be one way to inspirit a discipline now dangerously close to losing its sense of purpose."

--Sidney Mintz, Sweetness and Power 1985: 213.

Anthros & Econs: Crossing the chasm

The more I read about political economy and economic anthropology, the more I have wondered about the discipline of economics. What, exactly, are those economists up to, how do they approach their field of study, and why? I have read a good amount about modern economics, and how it differs from anthropology, but I haven't really read all that much from economists themselves (especially about method and theory). Sure, I read Krugman's blog, and I follow sites like Calculated Risk, Economist's View (Mark Thoma), and Economics and Ethics. One of my favorite econ blogs was written by the late Alison Snow Jones (aka "Maxine Udall"). She had a real talent for writing about and exploring the implications of economics in a very personal and fascinating way.* Still, I wonder why there isn't more of a conversation between anthropologists and economists. Especially considering our overlapping interests.  So why is there such a chasm between the two disciplines?  Is it because our ways of thinking about and analyzing human nature are soooooo different that there is no room for dialog, or what?

Making the (Funding) Cut: The NSF, Anthropology, and the value of social science

Social science research isn't on the firmest ground in these days of economic malaise, but it's not like this news is exactly exploding into the headlines across the nation.  Funding cuts, like the recent "trimming" of the Fulbright program,* seem to take place somewhat under the radar.   The same can be said of the recent debates about the value of social, behavioral, and economic (SBE) sciences that took place about a month ago in a congressional hearing on June 2, 2011 (this link has PDFs of the introductory statements and the testimony of all the witnesses).  The social sciences face an uphill battle, in part, because some folks see them as mere "soft sciences" that do not merit public support.  The House panel subcommittee meeting was about assessing the relative merit of the social sciences and how federal funding should or should not be allocated to researchers.  Did you hear about this?  Well, I didn't--at least not until just a few days ago.  Funny what can happen in the middle of the summer, isn't it?  Anyway, here's a recap of what went down according to a summary from the Consortium of Social Science Associations (COSSA):

Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL) chaired the panel, which included the testimony of four witnesses:  Myron Gutman (Assistant Director for NSF's SBE directorate), Hillary Anger Elfenbein (Olin School of Business at Washington University, St. Louis), Peter Wood (President of the National Association of Scholars), and finally Diana Furchtgott-Roth (Senior fellow at the Hudson Institute).  Here's how Brooks described the basic purpose of the hearing:

The goal of this hearing is not to question whether the social, behavioral, and economic sciences produce interesting and sound research, as I believe we all can agree that they do. I come from a social science background. I have a degree in political science and economics. Rather, the goal of our hearing is to look at the need for federal investments in these disciplines, how we determine what those needs are in the context of national priorities, and how we prioritize funding for those needs, not only within the social science disciplines, but also within all science disciplines, particularly when federal research dollars are scarce.

Brooks' language sounds cool, rational, and impartial.  However, according to journalist Jeffrey Mervis:

Brooks may have been pulling his punches. In comments to ScienceInsider after the hearing, Brooks expressed serious doubts about the value of the social sciences. The freshman legislator said he "understands the value of basic research" because his constituents in and around Huntsville, Alabama, make up "one of, if not the most, highly educated districts in the sciences." Brooks did say that "my priorities would be to protect basic research in the sciences as much as possible, even to the extent of cutting entitlements, in order to generate enough funding for basic research." But his definition of the term "basic research" turns out to be synonymous with the so-called hard sciences, and to exclude the social sciences.

Anthropology and high school?

Teaching intro to anthropology classes has been really fascinating over the last couple of years.  It's also been pretty fun too.  What I have always enjoyed is the fact that many students react pretty positively to anthropology, even if they thought it was about bugs or dinosaurs when they first enrolled in class.  This happens pretty often--lots of students tell me they had no idea what anthropology was all about when they signed up for class.  This happens, I think, because anthro classes often satisfy certain requirements, so students take the courses without knowing for sure what they are all about.  Now, I can't say that ALL of the students who have taken my classes ended up liking anthropology, but at the end of the semester, many of them admitted that the course was a pleasant surprise. 

So this makes me wonder about the reasons why students have not heard much about anthropology (this has more to do with the PR issues of the discipline itself), and how it might be possible to anthropologize--so to speak--high school a bit.  How many high schools even offer anthropology courses?  What would it take to add a more anthropological perspective to high school history, social studies, and even biology/science courses?  Would this be possible, or is anthropology just too much for high school?  Based upon the interest of students that I have taught, and my own memories of high school, I really don't think it's too crazy to think about teaching anthropology at that level.  Anyway, this is just something I'm thinking about at present, and if any of you out there in internetland have any thoughts, I'd love to hear them.

Anthropological Favorites: Robert Sapolsky

Robert Sapolsky is one of my favorite anthropological types around. (technically, he is a neuroscientist and a primatologist).  Not only does he study some amazingly fascinating topics (ie the fact that humans and other primates are smart enough to basically "make ourselves sick" by stressing out), but he is also an excellent speaker, writer, and general communicator of anthropological ideas.  We need more and more Sapolsky's, that's for sure.  Here's a short clip that I often use in intro classes:

Another great video is Sapolsky's 2009 Class Day Lecture at Stanford on"The Uniqueness of Humans."

Anthropological Sundays #4: The Human Terrain System & Anthropology: Is "Culture" Really the Issue?

This past Friday I had the chance to see the film "Human Terrain," which critically explores the US military's implementation of the Human Terrain System program in Iraq and Afghanistan.  This is the the program in which "anthropology goes to war," meaning that social scientific concepts--and social scientists themselves--are being recruited to make war more "culturally-sensitive" and, supposedly, less lethal.  The thing is, there aren't too many anthropologists who are actually joining this program. 

While proponents of HTS often mention the desire to win the "hearts and minds" of Afghans and Iraqis and make the war effort more "efficient" through the use of socio-cultural knowledge, detractors (many of them anthropologists) argue that the program creates serious ethical issues and conveniently sidesteps many larger political issues in the process.  Numerous anthropologists have spoken out against HTS--including the American Anthropological Association, since it was implemented in 2007.  There have been some critiques leveled at academic anthropologists for expressing open resistance to HTS.  So what's the deal here?  Are the anthropologists who speak out against HTS simply cloistering themselves in the ivory tower, or is there legitimate reason to not only be suspect of this effort to "militarize anthropology"?

First off, the mission statement from the US Army's HTS Home page states that the program is designed to:

Recruit, train, deploy, and support an embedded operationally focused socio-cultural capability; conduct operationally relevant socio-cultural research and analysis; develop and maintain a socio-cultural knowledge base, in order to enable operational decision- making, enhance operational effectiveness, and preserve and share socio-cultural institutional knowledge. 

 Many people argue that HTS is NOT an intelligence gathering operation, and that it is not espionage.  The underlying idea is that gaining an improved understanding of culture will make things better on the ground, and while this sounds quite appealing on the surface, I think it makes sense to look further into what this means.  Just to add a little more background, here is a description of HTS from BAE systems (which looks like a study abroad program page if you ask me):

In addition to the most advanced weapons systems, intelligence and personnel, there is another valuable resource for America's military. It is the ability to understand the people, culture, traditions and social underpinnings that define an area of engagement. This is where BAE Systems’ Human Terrain System (HTS) program comes in. Because better understanding leads to more powerful and lasting solutions.

So, even though proponents proclaim that HTS is non-lethal (or non-kinetic as it is sometimes put), it is still part of a larger arsenal of "resources" that can be tapped in the theater of war.  Again, as with the mission statement on the US Army's page, the BAE description of the program emphasizes the importance of cultural understanding in an "area of engagement" in order to foment "more powerful and lasting solutions," whatever those "solutions may be.  As numerous anthropologists have pointed out, one of the fundamental issues with the military's use of HTS is that it has a particularly rigid, if not completely defunct, conception of the idea of "culture" that allows the justification of this program.  Now, this may sound like an academic point, but I assure you it is not.  As David Price argues in a 2009 piece in Counterpunch,

The notion of using anthropologists and other social scientists to gather information, probe and soothe the feelings of those living in these environments, increasingly monitored and controlled by machines, strikes me as an anthropological abomination. Given what we know anthropologically about the complexities of how culture works, it also seems doomed to failure.

Simple notions of mechanical, disarticulated representations of culture can be found in the Army’s new Counterinsurgency Field Manual, in which particular forms of anthropological theory were selected not because they “work” or are intellectually cohesive but because they offer the promise of “managing” the complexities of culture, as if increased sensitivities, greater knowledge, panoptical legibility could be used in a linear fashion to engineer domination. Such notions of culture fit the military’s structural view of the world. It is the false promise of “culture” as a controllable, linear product that drives the COIN Team’s particular construction of “culture.” Within the military, the COIN Team is not alone in this folly: I’ve just finished a critique of the recently leaked Special Forces Advisor Guide (TC-31-73), and found a widespread adoption of dated anthropological notions of culture and personality theories, being selected and used to produce essentialized reductions of entire continents as having a limited set of uniform cultural traits.

In short, HTS utilizes "culture" in a way that completely disregards histories and politics, and often frames conflicts in Afghanistan, for example, as if they are the result of mere cultural differences (their version of culture fits in with a very outdated notion that dates from around the 1940s, in which entire nations were understood to have singular, unified characters or personalities.  Despite the fact that such conceptions of culture have been thoroughly critiqued over the past 60-70 years, a popular notion of culture that stems from this time period is still quite pervasive.  In this sense, anthropologists are often fighting against some of the terms they helped to define, which is ironic).  This, the argument goes, just requires a deeper understanding of cultural knowledge in order to reduce casualties.  

But is "culture" really the problem?  I think there is good reason to question the claim that the violence and upheaval in places like Afghanistan are fundamentally rooted in cultural differences, since such thinking completely elides larger social and political realities.  First of all, it's pretty important to realize that there isn't just one "culture" or cultural pattern that can explain the behaviors and proclivities of all Afghans.  Anyone who claims that there is such a thing is hanging on to an understanding of culture that is seriously warped and lacking in empirical basis.  There are numerous groups in that country, each with their own histories and particularities.  Culture--whether in Afghanistan or the US--is not just some static object or state that people inherently possess.  Instead, it's a fluid, historical, constantly shifting process through which people learn and relearn social rules, norms, boundaries, and expectations.  

Much of the HTS rhetoric sounds as if there is a singular code or pattern that needs to be learned by soldiers so that they can then understand the minds of Afghans and somehow make everything better.  This kind of static, reified understanding of culture is also reflected in the thinking of folks like the late Samuel Huntington, Lawrence Harrison, and even people like David Brooks.  Each of these authors use(d) culture as a primary explanatory framework, even if their understanding of cultural processes themselves were by no means based in any sort of data-supported reality.  Huntington often argued that the ongoing conflicts between the "west" and the rest could be understood in purely cultural terms.  Harrison has basically rehashed the old "culture of poverty" argument to explain away global inequality as mere cultural traits and predispositions.  Brooks makes an argument that is closely aligned with Harrison, going so far as to say that poverty in Haiti is due to "a complex web of progress-resistant cultural influences."  

All three of these uses of culture are egregiously ahistorical and they ultimately allow for an understanding of complex problems that completely evades political factors.  The west and the east clash not because of geopolitical power struggles over resources and territories, but because of deep cultural differences--or so folks like Huntington would have us believe.  The nation of Haiti is plagued with poverty not because of hundreds of years of political conflict, corruption, interventions, and social turmoil, but because the people themselves are resistant to progress--that's the version of culture that Brooks and Harrison are peddling.

And this is exactly the way in which proponents of HTS are employing culture.  For them, culture is a problem that needs to be addressed, so naturally they need social scientists to help them with this particular puzzle.  But it's just not that simple--the real issues behind the conflict extend far beyond cultural differences, that's for sure.  While the HTS rhetoric may sound as if it's geared toward improving conditions on the ground, the real issues exist at a much higher level.  People in Afghanistan aren't resisting US troops or refusing to cooperate simply because they have a different way of perceiving the world--such explanations completely obfuscate the fact that the people of Afghanistan are actually political aware of the situations and realities they face.  They observe the world around them, and they deal with constantly changing situations and make decisions based upon experience and judgment.  They aren't simply robots who are acting out of some supposed collective cultural mindset that magically developed over the last 1000 years.  They're stuck in the middle of a ridiculously complex--and violent--situation, and many of them are probably more worried about survival than anything else.  

What matters is attention not only to history, but also to all of the complex power relationships and political situations that pervade the region at various scales.  Many of the people are caught somewhere between the US military, the Taliban, and a pretty unpredictable set of economic and political circumstances.  Despite the glossy claims of the US military and the folks behind HTS, the problem ain't culture.  More than anything, the problems are political and economic--and no amount of superficial cultural sensitivity is going to ameliorate that fact.  It's certainly not a cultural trait unique to the people of Afghanistan to be wary, if not downright terrified, in the face of violence and warfare.  And that's an understatement.  

*Is HTS a dead issue?  Some might argue that it is.  However, just as I was getting ready to submit this post, this article showed up on one of the anthropology listservs that I subscribe to.

Blogging archaeology: Photographs, locations, politics

Colleen Morgan over at Middle Savagery has a great new project going (already mentioned a few times here) called Blogging Archaeology, which is in anticipation of an upcoming session at this year's SAA meetings.  The link above highlights some of the responses to the first week's question: "Question 1: The emergence of the short form, or blog entry, is becoming a popular way to transmit a wide range of archaeological knowledge. What is the place of this conversation within academic, professional, and public discourse? Simply put, what can the short form do for archaeology?"   Definitely take the time to read through these posts, since there are some excellent, thoughtful responses.

So here's the question for this week:

"Blogging archaeology is often fraught with tensions that are sometimes not immediately apparent. Beyond the general problems that come with performing as a public intellectual, what risks do archaeologists take when they make themselves available to the public via blogging? What (if any) are the unexpected consequences of blogging? How do you choose what to share?"

For my answer I am going to focus on some of the dilemmas with posting photographs that can potentially reveal sensitive information.  I think Colleen's question for this week applies to both archaeology and anthropology in general, since choosing what to put online is always a critical issue (for academic, political, and even personal reasons).  It is definitely important to think about what's being posted, how it can be used, and what some of the potential impacts could be.

Monte Alban, Oaxaca, 2008

The photograph above was taken at a high profile site in Oaxaca, so it wasn't really an issue for me: people already know about this site.  But problems can come up when dealing with sites that are not publicly known (and protected).  While blogging is good for bringing about wider public understanding and knowledge about archaeology, there is good reason to think carefully about what we post.  I don't claim to have all of the answers, but I think about these questions all the time in the context of my own research and some of my past experiences.  Anthropology and archaeology can take us to some pretty amazing places, and it's a good thing to share these experiences with wider audiences.  At the same time, it's a good idea to at least think about what kinds of things should not be posted.  But it's not as if there is some clear cut line that makes everything simple.  Of course not.  Nothing is ever easy, is it?

When it comes to photographs (and naming specific locations), well, these issues always seem to be pretty difficult.  At some point we want to be able to talk about actual locations, rather than just vague regions.  Sometimes when everything is hidden there isn't much of the story left to tell.  So keeping everything anonymous certainly has its drawbacks, but there are also issues with letting people know where particular research sites exist (political reasons, etc).  As a general rule, I tend to be pretty conservative about the photographs that I post, especially those that relate to archaeological sites.  I worked on field projects while I was at SDSU and Palomar College in San Marcos, CA, and also worked on numerous CRM (cultural resource management) projects between 2004 and 2008.  Some of the projects were pretty amazing, and I always had my camera with me, but I didn't post all that much online, for some very specific reasons.  It's a fine line between bringing attention to an issue and making the location of a specific site known to broader audiences.  There were several sites that I worked on that either had sensitive material (burials, rock art, rock rings) or were in politically sensitive places (ie private property and so on).  Sometimes I will post photographs that show a general location, and provide a sense of the environment, but that don't really tell people where sites are specifically located, like this:

Anza-Borrego State Park, 2006.  This is where I spent most of the summer of 2006 working on a pretty massive CRM project.  Since we were out there in July and August, it was pretty hot (understatement).

Overall, though, I try to keep locations pretty vague when it comes to these kinds of archaeological sites.  But I would be interested to hear how some other folks deal with these kinds of issues.  How do you decide what to post, and what to leave out?  What kinds of issues (names, locations, politics, type of site, etc) do you take into consideration?  What kinds of methods do you use to give a sense of a site while still obscuring the location (I try to show landscapes that do not have specific landmarks that make the location easy to determine...sometimes you can show what a site looks like by providing a mid range shot that doesn't have a horizon).  In the end, these kinds of issues aren't exactly cut and dry, and there is never going to be one answer that works for all cases.  So it's a process that will always require thought and critical reflection.  When it comes to publishing and disseminating information, there are always going to be some risks.  It definitely helps to think through the issues at stake before posting online, rather than after.  Again, I'd be really interested to hear what others have to say about this.  I don't have all the answers, but considering my constant use of photography, I wish I did!

Brian McKenna on Gillian Tett

More people need to read the new article about Gillian Tett by Brian McKenna.  Just my opinion, but here's a selection to give you a taste:

Tett is absolutely correct that anthropologists (and indeed all academics) need to project themselves more forcefully into the culture. “Anthropologists are well trained to absorb information, not project it.”

They have to “emit."

Tett is doing very important work. She writes from a privileged place in a glamorous and competitive world. At the same time she tests the limits of what is possible. Whether or not she goes far enough is a question to ponder. But all of us must ask ourselves the same question, "How far do each of us go in a hierarchical environment?" As Bourdieu might say, we are all limited by the habitus and the dominant cultural discourse of our own contexts. Tett, like all of us, is shaped by her everyday environment and has constraints on what she is able to write, without censor or self-censor.

Check out the rest at Counterpunch, here.

Collaboration Abounds: Savage Minds - Neuroanthropology - Middle Savagery

There's a lot of good stuff to check out lately in anthro/archaeo blogging world, that's for sure. The first stems from the idea that Rex at Savage Minds came up with a few weeks back: love letters to anthropology. Various people responded to this collaborative call--including Rex himself--and Daniel Lende put several of these together at Neuroanthropology. Definitely worth taking some time to read through...and think about how and why we're all doing this anthropology thing.

Next, Colleen Morgan posted a roundup of her "Blogging Archaeology" carnival, which is in anticipation of a session on blogging and archaeology at the 2011 SAA meetings in Sacramento (some of my friends are going to the SAAs this year, and they better go to this panel and tell me how things went). There are all kinds of reactions and opinions about the potentialities and drawbacks of using blogs as a communicative tool--or even a research tool. Some folks are more optimistic than others...but that the whole point. It's about discussion, connections, chucking ideas out there and seeing what happens.

Anyway, what I like best about this is that there are groups of people putting ideas together and making projects like this. These discussions take a form that is quite different from the presentation style of the usual "debate" in an academic journal (or even conference), in that they are bit looser, more informal, maybe a little less refined. I like these open conversations, since they show some of the process at work. Sometimes, when we're looking at finished ethnographies or archaeological monographs, it's not easy to see how the project went from the madness of fieldwork and research to the final version (which is cleaned up, edited, and presented in a very neat manner). Grace Krause from the MSU Campus Archaeology Program sums this up pretty nicely:

Much of the information and opinion expressed on blogs is transient and will never be formally published, but this does not mean there is no value in fast-paced reporting. Rather, blogging represents a missing link in the academic thought process that was rarely seen before the rising popularity of digital media. This is what is happening, this is what we’re thinking about right now as opposed to waiting months or years for an official publication, if it ever comes. Blog entries are Polaroid pictures of archaeological ideas, instant and unpolished, but nevertheless the perfect way to watch those ideas germinate and develop over time.

Maybe, after all, some of these types of discussions will make us all start rethinking the FINAL PRODUCTS as well. Who knows? What I like best of all is that I can wake up on a Sunday morning and check out what all of these people are thinking, writing, and exploring about anthropology and archaeology while I'm eating my cereal. Super cool.

Notes about Grandin's "The Last Colonial Massacre"

There is one overarching theme that crops up in these readings that I can’t stop thinking about: democracy. I have read several histories and ethnographies that talk about US interventions and policies in Latin America, and the stories are usually pretty similar. This book by Greg Grandin provides more of the same: the US took a position on Guatemala that was completely anti-democratic, all in the name of democracy.

Grandin writes about this reinterpretation of democracy toward the end of his book: “the idea, widely held in different forms at the end of World War II, that freedom and equality are mutually fulfilling has been replaced by a more vigilant definition, one that stresses personal liberties and free markets and sees any attempt to achieve social equality as leading to at best declining productivity and at worst political turmoil” (197). This new definition of democracy obviously fits with certain political and economic needs, and defines freedom in terms of “efficient” or open markets. Actual social reform or democracy becomes problematic, because the right or will of particular populations may, in fact, be economically or politically inconvenient for certain government elites or interested outsiders.

My argument here isn’t meant to lionize the political left in Latin America, since the histories of Cuba (to name one) illustrate quite clearly that the socialists are by no means saints either. As Grandin shows throughout his book, the actual histories of violence in the communities of Guatemala are quite complex, contradictory, and difficult to assess. What I am talking about are the relationships between ideals (freedom, democracy, liberty), discourse, and actual political interventions. It’s ridiculously ironic how the US claims to be the global supporter of democracy and freedom, despite it’s less than stellar track record in Latin America, where supporting autocratic regimes was the norm for decades (this helps to explain why so many Latin American nations have a certain ambivalence toward the US).

In effect, US rhetoric about democracy has been incredibly hypocritical and self-serving. Basically, political freedom and prosperity in the US (and elsewhere in the west) has often hinged upon repression elsewhere (Latin America, the Middle East, etc). As Grandin writes, “The way the United States fought the Cold War on the ground was anything but liberal or democratic” (190). Even worse, these histories of intervention remain, in large part, out of public knowledge in the US. Every time I decide to talk about the histories of Guatemala in an intro course, it’s amazing how many students say they had absolutely no idea what happened. These histories are generally taught as being all about eliminating the anti-communist threat, and all of the details of the actual complexities of the events, the details of the real human lives that were lost, are completely obliterated. And today we have a population who thinks that US interventions in Latin America were all about justice, when they were more about serving particular economic and political interests. If that’s not an illustration of hegemonic ideological power, I don’t know what is.

To top all of this off, Grandin provides an example of how the US justified its actions in Guatemala. In a 1986 “retrospective survey” of the violence and war that plagued Guatemala for decades, the US State Department writes, “The explanation for Guatemala’s high level of violence probably is rooted in cultural and sociological factors unique to Guatemala … The use of violence to settle disputes of almost any nature is accepted in Guatemala’s indigenous culture” (100). Not only did the US make excuses for the Guatemalan government and provide material support, it also completely explained away all political factors by using a watered-down, twisted concept of culture to argue that all of the violence was ultimately part of the inherent nature of the Guatemalan people themselves.

This is Exhibit A for the ways in which the anthropological concept of “culture” can be used in incredibly insidious ways to justify pretty much anything. It’s also a good reason for anthropologists to remain actively engaged and vigilant in national and international debates about the histories of development and violence in Latin America to avoid the myopic, Ronald Reagan-esque black and white terms in which many pundits, politicians, and analysts still talk about these issues (Gunder Frank’s analytical arguments, while imperfect, were part of a strong reaction to depoliticized explanations about development and conflict in the “Third World”). Despite the best efforts of many US historians and politicians, Grandin illustrates the fact that democracy can take some very different forms, and while particular governments may not be convenient for the US and other western nations, actively allowing them to be crushed has only resulted in repeated histories of devastation. At some point, it seems the US would learn to actually side with popular democratic movements. But then, maybe the US has already decided which side it wants to take, and the idealists who actually hold onto particular notions about governance and freedom just haven’t figured that out yet.

References

Grandin, Greg. 2004. The Last Colonial Massacre. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Anthropological Sundays #2: From Pith Helmets to Blogs

For many people, the word "anthropologist" conjures up wonderfully arcane and colonialist images of some guy wandering around among "native" people, maybe wearing a pith helmet, and sipping some tea inside a canvas tent. Taking notes. Making deep observations about cultures, rituals, and other neat stuff. Something like that. Hey, I have no idea how anthropology became associated with the pith helmet wearing colonialist type (scroll down to the part on social and cultural anthropology). Anyway, what can you do? Some stereotypes have tremendous resiliency...I guess when some of the most famous 20th century practitioners actually did dress the part these images tend to stick. So it goes. These days, things are a bit different. You're just as likely to meet an anthropologist who works in Baluchistan as you are one who studies the social meanings and experiences of Second Life. Ya, times change.

The funny thing is that while anthropologists are famous for venturing into remote places to study supposedly distant and unknown people (even if that wasn't really always the case), and even though they like to tell stories about all of the strange foods and behaviors that have been privy to, they can be a pretty conservative bunch when to comes to exploring certain "new" horizons. So what am I talking about? I'm talking about that exotic territory known as the Internet. For some reason, anthropologists have been a bit slow to find their way into the vastness that is the internet. For the most part, as I talked about last week, anthropologists tend to stick to good old fashioned journal articles, books, and academic conferences when it comes to talking about what it is they actually do these days. No wonder so many people don't really know what they're up to. Fortunately, a good number of anthropologists are stepping outside of the usual boundaries, and I think this is a good move. This post is about some of my favorite anthropologists and anthropology-related online "places."

The first one, and probably one of the most well known (at least among other anthros) is Savage Minds. It's also one of the older and more established anthropological group blogs out there. The site is run by collection of anthro profs and some grad students, and it's been around for several years now. SM is a good combination of posts that are geared toward a wider audiences and others that speak to more academic concerns. There are posts that cover everything from the recent events in Wisconsin to the "intersection of anthropology and comic books, graphic novels, comic strips, animation, and other manner of popular drawn art."

Neuroanthropology, which is run by Daniel Lende and Greg Downey, is another favorite site. Here is the site's bio:

Neuroanthropology. Sometimes it’s straight-up neuroscience, sometimes it’s all anthropology, most of the time it’s somewhere in the middle. Greg is the cultural guy, now interested in bio stuff. Daniel is the bio guy, now interested in cultural stuff. Or, to say it differently, Greg does capoiera and mixed martial arts and other sports. Daniel does alcohol and drugs. Two very different styles of recreation.

What impresses me most about Neuroanthropology is the sheer amount of work these guys do--they are always posting all kinds of good stuff. They write about a fascinating part of anthropology, which explores the boundaries between culture and neurobiology. They also write a lot about public anthropology, publishing, and finding ways to rethink how anthropologists communicate with wider audiences. Another excellent part of this site is the weekly roundups that Lende puts together (every Wednesday--here's the latest).

Zero Anthropology, headed up by Max Forte, is where you can go for some politically-charged anthropology. The writers of this site, Forte included, aren't shy about expressing their take on numerous geopolitical events. This is not a version of anthropology that pretends to hide behind an illusion of "objectivity," that's for sure. For some, this might be a bit uncomfortable, while for others this is exactly what is in order. If anything, Zero Anthropology goes to show that there are certainly competing claims about what it is that anthropology is, and should be, all about. The last several years the site has focused heavily on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and, with the assistance of writers like John Stanton, the debates and politics of social scientists' involvement in the Human Terrain Systems project. If you were wondering where the political legacy of Eric Wolf landed, it might be here. For those of you who have never heard of this site, here is a nice little post that can catch you up on the entire year of 2010. That was easy.

Then there are my favorite archaeological blogs/sites. Colleen Morgan runs Middle Savagery, which is a fantastic site. She is always up to something fascinating, is a great photographer, and has a pretty unique way of presenting her work and ideas. Morgan's posts cover a lot of ground, that's for sure, and I never get tired of reading her work. In fact, every time I check out her site I get far too many inspirations and ideas...especially when I am supposed to be keeping myself focused on graduate school. If I had to pick one site that points the way for the ways in which blogs and other online media can be used to communicate and explore anthropology/archaeology, I think Colleen's site would be numero uno. Ya, that's how anthropology should look today. A long way from my intro to anthropology textbook, which cost me about 55 bucks and wasn't even in color. Another favorite archaeological blog is Johan Normark's Archaeological Haecceities, where you can get a good dose of theoretical archaeology AND 2012 debunking. Oh, and don't forget to check out the work of one of my all time favorite archaeologists, Michael Shanks. Take some time to look around his site...Shanks does some pretty cool work (not the standard archaeological fare by any means).

Ok, one last site before this post gets waaaaay too long: John Postill's media/anthropology. As someone who started as a photographer before going back to school to study anthropology, I have always been really interested in the borders between anthropology and media. There's certainly a lot of common ground between the two--and the histories go way back. As soon as cameras were invented, anthropologists and archaeologists were using them in fieldwork. Postill's site is one of my new favorites, precisely because of the ways in which he explores media through an anthropological lends. Check out his post "Why twitter is not to be ridiculed," or this one about social media and the uprisings in Egypt. This is just the kind of anthropology that I want to see more of.

Ok, I need to wrap this up, because I am still two chapters away from finishing a book that needs to be done ASAP (it's a good one though: Greg Grandin's The Last Colonial Massacre. Yet another book about Latin American history that makes it all too clear that the US never really learned too many lessons about supporting autocratic, repressive regimes...but that's for another time). If you've made it this far, you might be close to a codeine-esque stupor,* so I'll call it quits.

*Yes, I stole that from William T. Vollmann's intro to The Atlas. I steal all the time, and you can't stop me.

PS: A modified version of this post (with a poll) is cross-posted here.

Anthropological Sundays #1: Anthropology?

Ok, I'll go ahead and admit it: anthropologists aren't all that well known these days. Whenever I tell people that I am in grad school studying anthropology, I am often met by somewhat bewildered looks. Not all the time--sometimes people seem pretty interested and answer "cool," or something like that. But more people seem to be a little perplexed, and tend to respond with something like, "Anthropology? Is that the study of dinosaurs?" Or my favorite: "How are you going to make any money doing that?" And while those answers can be a bit disconcerting (to say the least), they are actually pretty telling. Anthropology, when it comes to larger public discussions and debates, tends lead a fairly invisible existence. Is this because the general public is simply too disinterested in what anthropologists do? Not really. Is it because the general public is just a lazy, uneducated bunch? No, I don't think that's it either. It's because anthropologists don't publish much of their work in accessible formats. Most of the really good contemporary anthropology--from cultural to physical--is bound up in academic journals that are by no means geared toward non-academic audiences. If you read this types of publications, you know what I mean.

When was the last time any anthropologist was well-known outside of academic circles? In the days of Margaret Mead? Mead was a pretty well-known public figure in her day and even wrote for Redbook magazine for a short period, which certainly expanded the boundaries a bit. The most frequent reference to Mead I see today is the famous quote: “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever does." Who hasn't heard that one? I see that quote all over the place--on posters, used as a tagline on blogs, in books, and even in political speeches. Hey, it is a good quote--no complaints here.

These days, I think that Jane Goodall is probably the most widely recognized anthropologist around, even though many people don't necessarily link primatology with anthropology per se. Goodall, in fact, was one of the first anthropologists that I found fascinating when I first started studying anthropology as an undergrad--along with Dian Fossey and Birute Galdikas . Early on I wanted to be a primatologist, then I headed into archaeology for several years before settling on cultural anthropology. But Goodall was definitely an early inspirational figure (if you get the chance to hear her speak, I highly recommend it).

Outside of Goodall, however, what anthropologists are well-known these days? That's actually a good question. My guess at this point would be that maybe a certain number of people have heard of Paul Farmer , especially after Tracy Kidder's book Mountains Beyond Mountains was published. Farmer is a pretty outstanding individual, and his work (in Haiti and elsewhere) is absolutely relevant and important. Overall, though, I'd be interested to know how many people have heard about the projects he's involved in.

The other possibility for a well-known anthropologist today is Robert Sapolsky, who is a neurobiologist and primatologist (if you haven't seen that 2009 presentation in the link, definitely watch it--good stuff). Sapolsky might not define himself as an anthropologist first and foremost--I'm not really sure about that. But a lot of his work is based in anthropology, and it's pretty fascinating. I am especially interested in his work on stress in humans and animals .

Who else? There are a few anthropologists who do get a certain amount of press, come to think of it. David Attenborough is one (maybe), and the more I think about it, he may be one of the most well known anthros out there. And I have always liked a lot of the programs he made, which covered a pretty broad range and often extended far beyond anthropology. Sure, I have my quibbles about some of the ways in which he explains human behavior, but overall I still like a lot of the work he has done. Like Goodall, Attenborough was a key early inspiration who made science and anthropology both interesting and fascinating to me. And he has a pretty cool delivery to boot.

Another anthropologist who gets a lot of media coverage and attention is the ubiquitous Zahi Zawass (you know, the archaeologist who is always on the History Channel). He certainly gets his name out there, although his methods are a bit, well, suspect. He's certainly a showman, and he definitely borrowed some of his schtick from a 1981 film by Stephen Speilberg . But he doesn't exactly have the best of reputations in the field, all things considered. There is always a delicate balance between ratings and accuracy, and Dr. Zawass has seemingly made his stance on that matter. Entertaining, yes, but he might not be the best representation of what anthropology is all about. Just sayin.

So it seems pretty true that anthropologists aren't exactly the most well-known folks out there. After thinking this through, my guess is that Goodall, Attenborough, and Hawass might be the most publicly known figures, and some people may have heard of Paul Farmer. Beyond that, I'm not sure who else people have heard much about. I think there might be some archaeologists who are fairly well known, such as Brian Fagan and maybe Michael Coe. Archaeologists do get a certain amount of press, especially when they work on high profile sites around the world, and National Geographic might be the most successful forum for making that work public. Paleoanthropologists also garner some attention, but I am not sure how many of them are actually all that well known by name. People like Tim White, Richard Leakey (and the rest of his family), Don Johanson certainly garner their fair share of attention when they discover very old human stuff, so to speak . I think these findings do generate a certain amount of public interest, and they are absolutely fascinating (for anyone who likes to read about the discover of early stone tools, evidence of bipedalism, and such), but I am not sure how much of this actually "sticks" in the larger public data bank.

Yes, I do have a point, and it's coming up soon.* Am I arguing that anthropologists need to go all "pop culture" and find any way to reach a wider audience? No, not at all. The irony here is that I actually think that a lot of contemporary anthropologists (physical/biological, cultural, linguistic, and archaeological) do some extremely fascinating and relevant work. In fact, every time I teach an intro course to anthropology, many students are genuinely engaged with the course. Many of them ask me why they have never heard about anthropology--and that's a pretty good question. Despite all of the great work, most people outside of the academy haven't heard much about what anthropologists are up to these days. And this is something that needs to change (there's my point).

The obligation to make some changes, as I see it, lies with the anthropologists themselves, who need to find ways to extend their findings and ideas to different audiences--in creative, interesting ways (this is the REAL point). Personally, I think that more people should know about the work of Philippe Bourgois , whose work on heroin addicts in the US pushes the boundaries of what anthropology is supposedly all about. I also think that more people should know about Karen Ho's work, especially her recent ethnographic study of the culture of Wall Street (a fascinating read for anyone interested in economics). One last favorite: Check out Setha Low's work on the anthropology of gated communities . Especially if you grew up in suburbia, like I did. There's some good work out there, that's for sure (and these are just a few examples from cultural anthropology).

Clearly, I think that anthropology has relevance. And yes, as a graduate student in cultural anthropology I am completely biased. But when I look around at all the work being done in the field, especially considering the world around me, I definitely think that anthropologists (and, in fact, many other social scientists) have quite a lot to add to public knowledge, discourse, and debate. This feeling is reinforced pretty much every time I turn on TV news, in fact. The relevance is definitely not an issue. Anthropologists just need to crawl out of their journals and jump into the broad, confusing, complex, and contentious brawl that is public discourse. The only way to ensure that they will actually be irrelevant is if they continue to stay out of the fray.

Ok, enough of the soapboxing. You all know where I stand. I need to go read an article called "Supply-side Sushi" (Bestor 2001) so I can write a little paper and keep the profs happy.

*Very soon, in fact.

PS: A slightly modified version of this is cross-posted here.

UPDATE: A new comment brings up a good question: Is Attenborough really an anthropologist? I have heard him called an anthropologist from time to time, but have always wondered about that. I know he studied anthropology for a certain amount of time, but I am not sure if he finished his degree or not. He might be more accurately called a naturalist, as the comment points out. I think he is sometimes understood as being an anthropologist in some spheres, but I have always wondered exactly what he should be called. A naturalist who treads some of the boundaries of anthropology? An anthropologically-leaning journalist? Who knows? Anyway, I included him on here because he is sometimes promulgated as an anthropologist, at least in some parts. It's actually an interesting question: how do we technically define who is and who is not an anthropologist? I think the same argument applies to Zahi Hawass, who is technically not an anthropologist per se, but more of an archaeologist/Egyptologist (slash TV personality, of course). See what happens when we start talking about the public sphere? Things start getting fuzzy.

Concepts = tools

Concepts are like tools, right? No...they ARE tools. I recently read a great chapter by the late Eric Wolf called "Contested Concepts," which provides an excellent discussion of some particularly critical tools in anthropology: culture, power, and ideology. A great read (but I have always been partial to Wolf)--and I think I need to reread it pretty soon, just for fun. Sometimes people talk about ditching one tool (culture) or another (ideology), but for me sometimes its more effective to trace the meanings of these concepts, understand how they have changed over time, and find ways of applying them in new, more refined ways. Rather than continually going to the hardware store (ie always creating neologisms for "new" concepts), sometimes it's not a bad idea if staple tools develop a well-worn patina from continual use and re-use. But then, I may be completely overdoing it with this analogy. This happens from time to time.

Speaking of tools, here's the documentary photographer's equivalent of a "critical tool":

Just when you thought I couldn't get Jim Marshall* and Eric Wolf into the same post, there it is. Take that, doubters! That's right, I just compared "culture" to a Leica. They each have their benefits and limits--and it's important to fully explore their possibilities before either jumping on the bandwagon or dismissing them outright. But that just my pure, unadulterated opinion right there.

Yes, I am supposed to be working right now...

*Image: That's Marshall's Leica M4, which certainly illustrates the fact that sometimes good tools can be used over and over again with consistent, yet innovative, results.

New project in the works: anthropologies

Ideas abound. I am completely fascinated with the possibilities of communicating and publishing anthropology in some different ways. In fact, that's pretty much all I have been thinking about for the last few days. What else can we do with anthropology? How can we find new, collaborative ways of not only making connections between anthropologists, but also encouraging debate and dialog with wider audiences (the "general" public, journalists, pundits, and maybe even macroeconomists)?

I have one idea in the works, and it's kind of a blend of some old school ideas (magazines) and newer school technologies (blogs). The plan is to have it be somewhere in between a blog, a magazine, a journal, and a thrashed old notebook. All that, but online. It's actually not all that novel, really, but I am pretty excited about the overall plan, regardless. I am putting together a site called "anthropologies" that will be published regularly (once a month for starters), and will be structured around key themes. Kind of like one of my favorite literary Magazines (The Sun), but from an anthropological perspective.

My plan is to include essays from people at various levels: grad students, new PhDs, established academics, and anthros working outside academia. It all depends on whose willing to take part! Some of the themes that I am thinking of covering: anthropology and economics (especially considering the madness of 2008), the politics of tourism, archaeologies of the past and present, the political economy of grad school...and so on. Again: ideas abound.

The other key focus is on working with the essay format. I am taking some inspiration from one of my favorite science writers of all time: Stephen Jay Gould. The goal is to present issues, provoke discussion, and generally encourage open and diverse communication through the creative and engaged exploration of some open-ended themes. For the first issue, which I want to put together for March 2011, the theme is extremely wide open: "What is Anthropology?" Hopefully that will generate a variety of answers. Now I just have to put this thing together. And I will probably need quite a bit of help. If you're interested and want to know more about this, email me here:

ethnografix at gmail dot com

The site is under construction, but here is how it's looking at present.

Comments? Thoughts? Ideas?

UPDATE: The first edition is POSTED!!!

Daniel Lende: "You can read this blog for free"

Daniel Lende over at Neuroanthropology has a new post about some of the possibilities for anthropology. He talks about some of the recent PR controversies that took place within the field, and how this is illustrative of some of the primary issues and challenges that anthropologists face these days. We are, it seems, at a bit of a crossroads. And it's probably about time to move away from some of the old models and explore new ways of not only doing anthropology, but also publishing and disseminating anthropology. My favorite part of the post is when Lende talks about the contrast between old school publishing models (which lock up information behind expensive subscriptions) and some of the new possibilities:

The Nature commentary by Adam Kuper and Jonathan Marks is behind a paywall. It costs $32 to buy, unless you have institutional access. Ulf Hannerz’s article in American Anthropologist, which Greg drew on extensively in writing about diversity as anthropology’s brand, is available either through institutional access or by joining the American Anthropological Association. The cheapest AAA membership costs $70. You can read this blog for free (my emphasis).

That last line is a beauty. The point, as I see it, isn't to do away with journals, but instead to realize that the publication models are severely limiting. If we are all about the dissemination of anthropological analysis, concepts, and ideas to wider audiences, how is that supposed to happen if all of the latest research sits behind a subscription wall? The irony of course is that there is still a fairly skeptical view among THE ACADEMY about online publishing. Many question whether or not REAL RESEARCH can be published online. I mean, is it possible? However, I have recently run a complex experiment and come to the conclusion that yes, all 26 letters of the English alphabet do show up on screen, so it is indeed possible to publish real, valuable, and important work online. The only thing stopping this is a lack of either interest or desire. So it goes. As Lende points out:

A negative view of writing online (i.e., blogging) and a closed view of knowledge production (i.e., through institutional access or society membership) is still predominant in anthropology.

It's funny, when you think about. Or, at least, when I think about it. Anthropologists are doing all sorts of cutting edge, timely, and fascinating research. So why is our publishing model and ideology so....well...stale? The good thing is that people like Lende, Greg Downey, the folks at the OAC (Open Anthropology Cooperative), Max Forte, the Savage Minds crew, John Hawks, John Postill, Colleen Morgan, and a slew of others are indeed messing with the boundaries. Who knows? Maybe, at some point, more people outside of the academic world will actually know what anthropologists are up to.

Here's another good section from Lende's post:

Online media, not just writing, is an incredible way to reach the public. Michael Wesch, a cultural anthropologist who became interested in new media and teaching after doing his doctoral work in Papua New Guinea, work with his students to create a video, A Vision of Students Today. It has been viewed 4,136,850 times. That is an incredible impact.

And open access? Take PLoS One. It was founded in 2006, and covers research in science and medicine. In five years, it became the world’s largest journal. That is incredible success. One of its more technical journals, PLoS Biology, was founded in 2003, the first of the PLoS journals. It has been the highest impact journal in biology, as ranked by the Institute for Scientific Information. Open access isn’t just viable – it is the way to reach the broadest possible audience and have the greatest scholarly impact.

On Amazon, which came to fame and financial success by selling books online, its #1 product is its Kindle e-reader. Books themselves are going digital. And not just books. Amazon recently launched Kindle Singles, which presents “a compelling idea–well researched, well argued, and well illustrated–expressed at its natural length.” Apple’s iPad offers ways to integrate multi-media features with traditional text. Digital innovation in how we present scholarly material is already happening, and will continue to grow extremely rapidly.

Anthropologists need to go digital – blogging, collaborating, creating, sharing, and disseminating the field online. Blogs, the integration of new media with text, e-publications, and open-access publishing need to be part of how we keep our borderlands discipline healthy and vibrant.

To do otherwise, is to make the field into a marginal borderland, rather than the key meeting place and vibrant area of production the anthropology is today and can be even more so in the future.

Agreed. No need to remain on the borderlands any longer. Time to go push the boundaries and go digital. What's stopping us?

UPDATE: Check out Michael E. Smith's response to this issue: "Anthropologists Urged to Unite Behind Archaic Policies and Technology."

Things vs People (Zero Anth on the AAA & Egypt)

Max Forte on the recent response of the AAA to events in Egypt:

In a first-rate public exercise of missing the point, the American Anthropological Association released a statement on 02 February, in conjunction with the Archaeological Institute of America, misleadingly titled “Statement of Support for Egypt.” After getting past the brief formality of noting that Egyptian lives and rights are being trampled upon, the statement goes on to focus on the fate of the artifacts housed at the Museum of Egyptian Antiquities–visited by countless tourists, and a specialized class of tourists known as archaeologists. Self-interest, anyone? Indeed, the statement is 190 words, of which at most 31 are devoted to Egyptian lives and rights, and 150 are devoted to the blessed artifacts.

Read the rest here, then sit back and ponder the meaning of anthropology.

Victor Davis Hanson puts "multiculturalism" through the partisan blender

This one's going to be short and sweet. I stumbled across Victor Davis Hanson's post earlier today, found his "discussion" about multiculturalism to be, well, interesting. Have a look:

Where did multiculturalism come from? It is a bastard child of Marxism, of course, inasmuch as it is anti-capitalist and judges left-wing or pseudo-left-wing totalitarians far less harshly than right-wing authoritarians...

I am still unclear why or how Hanson attaches multiculturalism specifically to Marxism, of all things. Does anyone remember when or where Marx put forth his support of this concept? Talk about being anachronistic. The other interesting thing here is that Hanson seems to assume that all purported multiculturalists act and think alike: they are all sympathetic to leftist dictators, and they are all anti-capitalist. He is actually conflating the broad concept of multiculturalism (which has a wide application in many contemporary nation states) with specific political views and positions. Interesting tactic. Last time I checked, multiculturalism basically refers to the idea that cultural diversity should be respected and accepted in contemporary nation states (as opposed to assimilationist models).

Here's more from Hanson:

Finally, multiculturalism is a form of political and historical ignorance. The multiculturalist is an ahistorical fool, who confuses the cultural periphery with the core. Thus the United States is enriched by “multicultural” music, food, fashion, art, and literature from a Mexico or Kenya or Egypt. Fine, wonderful, all the better. But one, in the spirit of “diversity,” does not wish to embrace the Mexican judiciary, the Kenyan economic system, or the Arab attitude to women.

How is it ahistorical to pay attention to the diverse peoples who actually took part in history? How is it in any way "ignorant" to realize that history is rarely as simple as grade school texts make it out to be? I don't see the logic in his point, at all. And, when Hanson argues that multiculturalists confuse the cultural periphery with the core, what exactly is he talking about? Is he saying that only powerful groups should be considered legitimate members of society? Are only some histories worth paying attention to? I'd be interested to see how Hanson defines the cultural core and periphery of the United States. Also, notice how he conflates policies of particular nation states with culture.

Hanson throws lots of words around. But I think he basically conflates many issues more than he actually explains anything. It's more of a partisan political piece than any sort of historical analysis--and the word on the (digital) street is that Hanson is a historian. Anyway, I need to get back to work.

Media/Anthropology: Selected bookmarks (Egypt & Tunisia)

John Postill over at media/anthropology has a great new post that lists some key articles, commentaries, and discussions that trace the development of the uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia over the last month or so. Many of them focus on the role that media has played in all of these events, which is an important issue to discuss (some people assume that technology is the driving force behind these social movements, but there is good reason to rethink that position a bit). Anyway, here is one of my favorite quotes listed:

“Egyptians aren’t demonstrating for an Islamic government any more than the Tunisians were; they’re demonstrating for an honest government – one that will improve education and infrastructure, reduce poverty and inflation, end the Emergency Law, stop torturing people in police stations, stop doing the bidding of the US and Israel in Palestine, stop rigging elections, and, above all, stop lying to them.”

– Adam Shatz, London Review of Books Blog

Read the rest of John's post, here.