Plovers and ATVs in Hatteras

So, I just came across this post about the ongoing conflict over environmental conservation and off-road recreational vehicle use out on Hatteras Island. Since I grew up in a place where these kinds of issues are critical, and since my current research focuses on very similar issues, I am of course very interested in what is happening over in North Carolina. It's about a battle over endangered plovers, coastal resources, tourism, and local residents. It's also turned into an ideological battle between environmentalists, the National Park Service, and some of the local community members on Hatteras Island. Rick, the author of the post, recounts the fact that he recently visited the island and was confused about signs that declared areas closed for environmental reasons. But, he explains, once he saw this video, he understood the "driving forces" behind the issue and became enraged about what he calls "environmental tyranny." He encourages readers to watch the same video, get equally enraged, and make this issue "go viral".

Ya, that'll solve the problem.

First of all, I can understand why people are upset and angry about this issue. Clearly, people's livelihoods are being affected by this environmental conflict. And it is critical to seriously consider how conservation efforts affect local communities and economies. People matter. Blindly enclosing environmental spaces without taking account of the effects upon local communities is shortsighted and unjust. That's how I see it. I have had my fair share of experience with these sorts of issues, and it's definitely true that communities can be pushed aside when it comes to the management of cultural and natural resources. It definitely happens.

That said, I don't really think that getting "enraged" and passing around a 20 minute video about the issue is really the way to go. I'd rather see people get informed about this before they leap to any conclusions and start jumping on the nearest political bandwagon. I think there is more to the issue than this 20 minute video suggests.

I think it's time for the quote of the day. Michel Foucault once said this: "Never engage in polemics." I think that's good advice...in this case and in many others.

Anyway, back to the birds and off-road vehicles. The video definitely shows an important component of this issue, and illustrates the fact that some people are being severely affected by what is happening. I think a lot of the people make a good case, and that they have some solid points to consider. These are voices that should be heard. There are real, serious, long-term effects with these sorts of problems. But what else is going on in this case?

The most recent Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and ORV Management Plan, which is available online, clearly outlines the conflict and the fact that the National Park Service has to find a way to allow ORV use while still protecting/managing the coastal environment that draws the tourists in the first place. The EIS clearly illustrates the fact that NPS realizes that people need to use ORVs to get out to the beaches. The whole problem is that finding a way to allow access and still preserve the environment isn't exactly a quick, let alone easy, process. Add to that the fact that EIR processes can be slow-going, and it becomes even more clear why the situation can get more and more heated. While the process drags along, people's economic livelihoods hang in the balance.

See, that's the whole thing. When it comes to resource conservation/management, the difficulty lies in striking a reasonable balance between use and protection in order to avoid the absolute destruction of the place that everyone wants to see. If the place gets overrun with tourists and ORVs, the locals who make a living off those pretty beaches are out of luck on that count as well. And that's why situations like this aren't always as cut and dry as they might seem at first. The local people lose if there is TOO MUCH protection, yet they also lose if there isn't enough. Go look at places like Hawaii and see why it's important to balance tourism demands and environmental concerns.

So yes, people matter. But so does finding a way to avoid the absolute destruction of environmental resources--that's the whole reason why national parks were established in the first place. As I see it, more information and cooler heads can lead to better chances for conflict resolution. Especially in cases like this where there are multiple users and agendas involved.

Ultimately, it should come of no surprise that this issue has become incredibly political. Anybody who thinks that environmental issues can be apolitical haven't been paying attention for the last century. Read about the politics that surround Yosemite Valley. Or about environmental issues all through Mexico. In the case of Hatteras Island and the conservation of the National Seashore, the issues are politicized on various fronts. The issue of use vs. protection for this small strip of land has some serious economic implications for people who have deep historical and social roots in the area. At the same time, while it is imperative to deal with economic and social ramifications in a just manner, it is also critical to preserve the very things that we all want to enjoy--it's not just about today, but about having these kinds of places around for future generations.

Ya, I know. We've all heard that one before. But to me it makes perfect sense to weigh future costs with current needs. I'm certainly not someone who goes around pretending that there is such a thing as an ideal, pristine natural world that needs to be shielded from any and all human actions and behaviors. For me, it makes sense to avoid looking at this as simply another issue of humans versus nature. It might help to realize that humans are--and have been--a part of this environment for generations. Humanity isn't just some recent aberration; it have been around these kinds of places for thousands of years, shaping landscapes all the while. Now, by no means does that mean that NPS or anyone else should just allow the place to get trashed by ORV use. and tourism That's the last argument I am making.

What I am saying is that ALL of these issues have to be accounted for, and unfortunately there isn't just one big answer that can solve every case like this. Each one requires attention to local specifics and details. Maybe getting enraged will in fact garner some attention, who knows? But in this case my vote goes for more background, more information, and slightly cooler heads. From what I have seen, going the "enraged" route only leads to prolonged conflict, misunderstandings, high emotions, and endless political gridlock.

Water & Rights

Water is bottled and sold. Think about that. Should water--something that everyone's life depends on--be just another market commodity? Should we trust the supposed efficiency of the "invisible hand" to provide everyone around the world with clean water?

I never really had to think much about water when I was a kid. It was always there. I walked into the kitchen, turned a little handle, and there it was. I could turn on the hose whenever I wanted and flood the grass with all the water it needed. I never had to walk anywhere to get water, and I certainly never went without. Did you?

I grew up in southern California. We never really SAVED water. But we sure did a good job of using it. And I'm not talking just about household use, but how much water was used in the aggregate sense. Yes, I remember some instances in which people were gently asked to be careful about their water use. There were times during hot summers that we were all supposed to use less water. But it's not like this was ever a real severe issue. People were asked not to wash their cars in the middle of summer, or maybe not water their lawns too much. But there was never a shortage of water--there was always water coming from the tap (this was after the big drought of 1977).

"Water", California, 2009. Photo by R.A.

There certainly were few moves toward changing the ways in which we used water--there was no major structural overhaul or attempt to rethink how we used water. All of those lawns and swimming pools throughout suburban neighborhoods illustrate this fact quite clearly. Lawns? If you think about it, the cultural habit of surrounding each and every little tract home with a small green swath of grass makes absolutely no sense. But making sense isn't what's at issue here--it's power that we're talking about (and this applies all over the world, not just to California). Power, and some well entrenched habits. Yes, access to water = power, and many people get used that to power. But this is going to become a bigger issue that more people (especially those in places like southern California) are going to have to think about.

Of course, there is a long history of water politics and conflicts in southern California. The battle between Owens Valley and the city of Los Angeles is one of the most well known examples (Here's one more link about this well known political battle). It's the story of a growing urban community living in a semi-desert environment that had to basically steal water to survive. And there's no way that Los Angeles could have ever grown to its present day size without making a power grab for water. There simply wasn't enough to support such a massive population. And, looking at Los Angeles, Orange County, Riverside County, and San Diego County today, it seems pretty clear that there really isn't enough water to go around--especially considering the absolute waste of so much water.

Some people think that water is basically the next oil, meaning that the international political conflicts that we see over oil today are going to be over water in the future. In many ways, this is already coming to fruition. Many people all over the world do not have access to clean water--and often this boils down to pure politics. A few days ago I watched the film "FLOW," which got me thinking a lot about water again. If you haven't seen it, the film is available via YouTube. It takes a global look at the politics of control of and access to water. Here's the first part:

Water access and use are issues that resonate with my research on development in Baja California as well. Large scale tourism development projects clearly control and use massive amounts of water. Hotels and resorts could not function without the "convenience" of clean water in each and every room. But then, there are the golf courses. Los Cabos already has a number of golf courses, many new development projects include yet another "world class" course. I'm not sure how this happened, but golf courses are one of the signs of prestige these days, so everyone tries to include one in their project in order to appeal to that "luxury" or "high-end" tourism market. But what happens to surrounding populations when these massive resorts and golf courses are built? What happens to water rights? What happens to the cost of access to water?

Tourism is a product. Tourism is sold via various forms of media; idealistic images of landscapes and environments become primary sales tools. Tourism businesses sell relaxation, romance, and luxury. They sell peace and quiet, and they sell adventure. Everything from surfing to diving to walking on those sandy beaches becomes a product for sale. But what are the trade-offs? What are the actual social and political costs of some of these products? What happens when these places are built? Are there winners and losers? And what about environmental damage and degradation? Where are the warning labels for "products" like international tourism? This is one way that I think we all need to look at tourism. We don't really need to look at the "impacts" of tourism as much as we need to look at the histories, relationships, and politics that pervade tourism development. And the effects of tourism development on water access is just one factor to consider. But it's a critical factor, and not one that you can expect to read about while perusing an in-flight magazine on your way to Cancun. Does it matter if someone else can't get clean water just a few miles away from your five star hotel? Maybe questions like this should at least become a part of the equation when tourists look for places to visit.

***

A golf course built in the middle of the desert may be picturesque to some people. I suppose it all depends on your personal ideals about beauty. To me golf courses are blatant symbols of power. The ability (and desire) to control water and use it for purely recreational purposes is astounding, all things considered. And I'm not just talking about all of the existing and proposed golf courses in Baja California, I'm talking about the courses that exist all over places like Southern California. Nothing against the sport of golf, but sometimes the use of resources is just beyond the pale. One of the first that always comes to mind when I think about this is Palm Springs. But then, I think my own home town of Carlsbad, CA has about three golf courses now. I understand the fact that golf courses appeal to tourists, and that they seem to improve the image of a city. But at some point, things are going to have to change. As the populations keep growing, people are going to have to rethink how they use water. This applies to everything from golf courses to washing dishes. But it seems to me that lots of Americans, at least, are trying to avoid thinking about these issues for as long as possible.

Drain, Southern California, 2008. Photo by R.A.

A lot of times when we think about water we think about where it ends up. We see water flowing along gutters or into drains and we wonder about waste. We wonder where it goes, how it will be treated, and then what will be done about it after that. But we should also think about things that happen long before we even reach for the tap. We should think about who has control of our water (and everyone else's water), and how some people can get it easily and others cannot. In the US, water is seemingly everywhere. Take a look at your local grocery store. Look at public parks, where drinking fountains are routine parts of the landscape. There surely doesn't seem to be any shortage, right? Distant histories, such as those of Owens Valley, speak otherwise. Water has been an issue in places like Southern California, and for a long time.

But California is just one aspect of the problem. It's a model, in many ways, of what NOT to do with water. Fortunately, there are some people who are thinking very seriously about water and making changes. But this is an issue that extends far beyond Los Angeles, Palm Springs, Owens Valley, and Baja California Sur. Yes, it matters how we use water. But we also have to think about water access and rights around the world, and specifically how some of our own politics and practices are connected to these issues. Water is a crucial resource that many people around the world simply cannot take for granted. Recently, the UN has declared access to clean water and sanitation a human right. Is that enough?

Foucault & Agency: Seek answers not you should

So, after dutifully performing my expected role as a responsible grad student and reading through a whole book about discipline and power (ironies noted), I went to seminar class to talk about Mr Foucault and his ideas in Discipline and Punish. One issue that came up (and which always seems to come up with Foucault) is agency. Does Foucault allow for agency? Is the guy too structural? Is he a determinist? Are we all doomed to live in a world in which the nebulous forces of power completely shape our minds, bodies, and futures through every imaginable means? I mean, they put CAMERAS in stop lights! We're being watched! The question comes up a lot with Foucault. I have read several pieces that tear Foucault to shreds in search of little scraps of resistance. The question also came up in seminar. So where's the resistance?

My answer: I don't really care if Foucault left room for agency, and if he didn't leave room for resistance I'm not going to lose any sleep. I'm not looking to join the Church of Foucault and using this as a chance to evaluate his program and ideas about life. Besides, I think Foucault makes it pretty clear that he's providing an analytical framework rather than a socio-political theory to live by (he pretty much spells this out in the History of Sexuality).

I'm not reading Discipline and Punish to find specific socio-political answers, but instead to look at how Foucault explores issues (and, of course, because certain agents of power have assigned this book). I mean, if there are answers or recipes for change in a book, great. But I don't really see the point in lamenting aspects of a book that don't exist. If it isn't about agency, then look elsewhere--or find ways to force it into the framework. To me, these aren't texts to be memorized and directly applied to daily life (at least not usually). Each text is a piece of a larger process of learning. It's not about being converted to one way of thought or another, but about taking a lot of ideas and information and evaluating them in conjunction--and then applying those ideas/info to specific questions.

But, that's pure opinion. As usual, I reserve the right to change my position on this matter if new evidence capsizes my whole perspective. Anyway, next week the Foucault train continues. Expect more thoughts about power as they relate to grad student life. If, of course, the deterministic and panoptic powers that be do not hinder my freedom and agency to express myself via the wonders of the internet.

You never know.

SM ---> Podcast

Just a short note. Alex Golub over at Savage Minds has announced that they are going to be doing a podcast series. The first one has already been posted. I vote yes for proposition "Anthropologists should start messing with media more and doing things like podcasting." What's your vote? The link to the SM podcast series is...

HERE.

Recent traces of occupation

Sometimes it's interesting to look at contemporary thing from an archaeological perspective. Check out this photo that I took while I was down in Baja California this past summer--it's of the imprint left by my tent. I took this photo just after rolling it up in the morning, as I was getting ready to head out. Notice the smoother depression left by the tent, all of my footprints around the edges, and the small lines that the tent poles left as they as they dragged across the sand while I folded them up. Notice also that the sand where my tent was is just a bit drier because it was covered from the salt air. These kinds of short term traces disappear pretty quickly...and it would be interesting to see exactly how quickly. Archaeologists are dealing with similar kinds of material traces, but these kinds of subtle remnants are often long lost. Just interesting to think about.

Writing Tips from Slavoj Zizek

You know the feeling. You have to write that thing. You need to get that outline done and write up that report so you can keep a bunch of people from thinking that you're lazy. You need to write that massive paper (or even that not so massive paper).

But for some reason you keep putting it off...so you can go check your email or make sure that the kitchen is REALLY clean this time. Ya, you really don't need to spend that much time looking up the detailed histories of some obscure political struggle in the 17th century, you need to WRITE YOUR PAPER!

It happens. Fortunately, I have come across a new method of writing that I am going to steal from Slavoj Zizek. This past weekend, because I had to find something to do while I was supposed to be reading Foucault, I watched a film about Zizek, which is well worth watching. Especially if you are coming up short on your films about Lacanian psychoanalysis. It happens to the best of us. My favorite part of the film is when he talks about writing. Why, because he hates it:

I hate writing. I so intensely hate writing — I cannot tell you how much. The moment I am at the end of one project I have the idea that I didn’t really succeed in telling what I wanted to tell, that I need a new project — it’s an absolute nightmare. But my whole economy of writing is in fact based on an obsessional ritual to avoid the actual act of writing.

So what does Zizek do? He says that he tricks himself into writing by first just sitting down and writing notes, all the while telling himself that he's not really writing yet. You see? It's all about lying to yourself. It's all about deception. You're not WRITING, you're just jotting notes. And, according to Zizek, before you know it you have a whole bunch of material and you just need to edit, and eventually you're done. Just the kind of advice I like to hear. Everyone has their methods. I have always held people like John Steinbeck in high regard. I mean, the guy wrote whole journals while he was writing entire novels. Steinbeck was so organized and structured. I wish I was like that. But maybe I have been ruined by postmodernism. I have no idea what happened. But I get distracted all the time. I procrastinate. I end up doing research online about subjects that have nothing to do with the measly little four page paper that I am SUPPOSED to be working on.

The solution? Self-deception. Try it out. Just tell yourself you're going to sit down and write some "notes". Put some quick points down on paper. Jot a few things down. And all you gotta do is let the lies keep on rolling.

Nature versus Culture

So I am getting back into the rhythm of being in seminar classes again, which means complete inundation in books, articles, films, and INFORMATION GALORE. That's life in graduate school. This semester already has a decidedly environmental focus, since I am taking a seminar about culture and environment, and am also a TA for a course that covers very similar ground. And the recurrent issue that has been cropping up all over the place: the whole idea of nature versus culture.

Should we continue to think of human culture and behavior as something that exists outside of the so-called natural order? The nature/culture binary is not only an old theme in anthropology, it's an old theme in western thought specifically. But, the more that I think about this division, the less it makes sense. Yes, of course, the ways in which people think about or even conceive of the environment in which they live is culturally and socially mediated. But here's my point: If culture (or socially learned behavior) is a defining aspect of what it means to be human, then how can it be something that is somehow "unnatural"? Add to this the fact that primatologists have been showing us for years that there is evidence of culture in many primates, and this notion of culture as something that we should contrast against nature breaks down.

So why the division? Why do we talk about this idea of "nature" as something that is separate from human behaviors and actions? What purpose does this serve? Is it a convenient way to label one as ideal and the other as undesired? What kinds of effects does this sort of discourse have on how we think about contemporary environmental and political issues? If we continually think of "development" as something that is "unnatural" how can this affect our inclination to do something about the ways in we think about development as a social and political process?

I think that we can become somewhat blinded when we only think about human activity as something that occurs unnaturally. This separation of what humans do from some sort of natural condition or state may create a division that only impedes how we think about human-environment relationships. As David Harvey writes, "Energy flows, shifts in material balances, environmental transformations (some of them irreversible) have to be brought thoroughly within the picture. But the social side cannot be evaded as somehow radically different from its ecological integument. There is, as I argued in Justice, Nature, and the Geography of Difference, nothing unnatural about New York City" (in Spaces of Global Capitalism, 88).

Many people (Harvey included), argue for the need to move beyond the nature/culture dichotomy and instead see nature and culture as co-created through a dialectical process. Recently, however, I am leaning more toward ditching the whole division altogether. What explanatory value is there in saying that the urban development of Los Angeles is unnatural? Clearly, humans have been modifying their environments from the get go, so I don't see how calling something unnatural actually explains anything. It is, in fact, quite natural for humans (and many other species) to shape the environments in which they live. Now, it's an entirely different matter as to how we should assess or evaluate those effects. What would be a lot more effective, at least in my view, would be sidestepping vague philosophical debates about what is natural vs what is cultural, and instead focusing on the particular characteristics (positive and negative) of specific environments--whether we're talking about the Kalahari desert or New York City.

National Geographic Traveler Rates 133 Places...

And the Cabo San Lucas region scores a 37. Here is what they had to say:

Mexico: Cabo San Lucas Region
Score: 37

Sleepy fishing villages have been transformed into places "where drinking tequila shots upside down is the number one tourist attraction and gated communities are the main economic activity."

Here is a representative sampling of additional anonymous comments from the panelists. They are not necessarily the views of the National Geographic Society:

"A tourism catastrophe. Total focus on money, lack of environmental attention, lack of local benefit except in menial jobs. Entire coast bought up by developers destroying turtle beaches and places that should remain natural and protected. Very little authentic local culture presented."

"Suffering under unregulated mega-development and all of the related environmental, cultural, and geographic impacts. This being said, the East Cape extending up to La Paz and the Pacific coastline up to Todos Santos are exceptional and relatively authentic and unspoiled. Due to the limited supply of water in these areas, it is likely to stay this way, although cheaper desalination could change this in the mid- to long-term."

"This can only really be seen as an extension of the United States, and not even its more admirable parts. Although not quite to the same level of Cancún, it's still terribly gringofied and bears little resemblance to the rest of the wonderful country."

"Cabo San Lucas and the Corridor are tourist playgrounds, but Cabo Pulmo around the bend on the Sea of Cortez is wonderful (if a little touristy)."

More about this soon. Here is the link to the whole article.

Jon Stewart + Fox News + Ground Zero

I have been a little buried this past week with starting school and getting ready for everything. You know how it goes. Something that I have been wanting to write about is all of the uproar over the so-called Ground Zero Mosque. The political discourse about this issue has reached an incredibly polemic level--not like that's really a surprise these days. And news media sources, among them Fox News, certainly play their part. On that note, have a look at this recent clip from the Daily Show with Jon Stewart.

Sometimes, when it comes to important social and political issues, the comedians just nail it.

Like a bunch of post-it notes

This post is more like a collage of information, along the lines of a Peter Beard diary or a book of stories by William T Vollmann. Sure, long, cohesive narrative posts are great. But this isn't one of them. There are just too many ideas floating around, and instead of forgetting them I am just going to jam a bunch all into one post. Why not?

Since I already mentioned Beard, here is a photograph of one of his diaries, which are jam-packed, nonlinear, and completely fascinating:

"Astrid Heeren and Veruschka, April 7-8" Peter Beard, 1988

Beard is a long way from the ordered world of Ansel Adams, that's for sure. I found the above image on this site (scroll down for the post on collages). I first encountered the work of Peter Beard at the Fahey Klein gallery in Los Angeles about 10 years ago, and he has been one of my favorite photographers ever since. There is something to be said for letting loose, and Beard is certainly bound by few conventions. Beard's website is here.

Glenn Beck and archaeology (or pseudoarchaeology to be more accurate). So, Beck went on his show and demonstrated his absolute lack of understanding when it comes to archaeology. I seem to be a couple of days behind the curve, but I first found out about this via Matt's post over at Savage Minds. Here's the video (be prepared for some really lame understandings of archaeology):

I was about to break out my history of archaeology books by Willey and Sabloff and Bruce Trigger and start writing my response to this, complete with a thorough discussion of 19th century archaeological hoaxes, but then I realized that A Hot Cup of Joe and Johan Normark over at Archaeological Haecceities already covered the issue quite well. A quote from A Hot Cup of Joe:

In the 19th century, there was a prevailing myth of a “Moundbuilder society” that somehow vanished. This often became twisted into the agendas of certain religious and political causes but the credit couldn’t possibly go to the Native Americans. To recognize these people as the rightful designers and builders of such magnificent and detailed constructions would mean admitting that the Native Americans were something more than the “savages” and “heathens” they were characterized and marginalized as. Such characterizations made it far easier to force them off their lands, displace them, and treat them as less than white.

Fortunately, such beliefs and agendas have been forced out of academia early on by the likes of Cyrus Thomas, who had a Federal Government budget to find out the truth of the Moundbuilder mystery. His work was empirical and it concluded that the mounds “were built by the Indians.” In addition, he had the occasion to debunk some of the “tablets” that were cropping up here and there, including the Davenport tablet to which he launched a full, empirical investigation that discovered that it had been planted recently (to 1894) in a mound in Davenport, Iowa.

Hmmm. Why do we need some sort of public outreach in anthropology and archaeology? Well, Glenn Beck and his myopic, nationalistic uses of archaeology are Exhibit A. This kind of reminds me of an article written by Bettina Arnold about the nationalistic and political misuses of archaeology during the 20th century. The main point here is that archaeology has been manipulated for political purposes many times in the past, so it's not like Beck is inventing a new genre here.

Elizabeth Edwards on photography and anthropology:

"An anthropological photograph is any photograph from which an anthropologist could gain useful, meaningful visual information"

-from the 1992 publication Anthropology and Photography

Skaters and anthropologists. Check out this clip from a 1980s Bones Brigade skate video. It's humorous and right on the mark at the same time:

The "anthropologist" in the video is great. His words definitely seem to have a strong resemblance to the writings of Craig Stecyk:

"Two hundred years of American technology has unwittingly created a massive cement playground of unlimited potential. But it was the minds of 11 year olds that could see that potential."

-CR Stecyk III, from his Facebook Page.

If you don't know about Stecyk or what he is known for, there is a fairly recent documentary called Dogtown and Z-Boys that will fill you in. The original Dogtown articles by Stecyk are archived here, and are well worth reading, especially for anyone interested in the history and culture of skateboarding and surfing in Southern California (and anywhere, really). Stecyk's writings, to me, are decidedly sociological and anthropological in some senses--and that's why the bookish anthropologist in the above video is both plausible and hilarious at the same time. It's strange when an "anti-establishement", counter-culture subgroup like skaters starts getting anthropologized. But that's exactly what's happening. Stecyk is a good writer, and his work is definitely an inspiring example for anyone who is interested in looking at current subcultures anthropologically. It's important to look at social groups like this, but it's also important to try to find ways of writing and talking about these groups in creative ways. Work like this gives me all kinds of ideas about how I want to approach ethnography.

Somewhat related, Emily Chivers Yochim has published new book out about Skateboarders. I haven't read it yet, so I can't really make any comments yet. I'm interested to see how she approaches the subject. But the coolest part is that the book is available online to read. Check it out here. Mimi Ito discusses this book and the larger project that it is part of, here.

Barbara Miller over at anthropologyworks has a great post about "Paul Farmer in the news." What I like about Miller's site is that she is always tracking when and where anthropology is mentioned in the media. This is a good antidote for some of my complaints about the relative obscurity of the discipline--I think it makes sense to go out and see who is talking about anthropology, what people are doing with anthropology, and how people are in fact engaging with the discipline. Related: check out this post from the AAA blog.

Since Walker Evans is probably my favorite photographer of all time, I decided that I should probably read the famous book that he made in collaboration with the writer James Agee, Let US Now Praise Famous Men. I have read parts, but never the whole book all the way through. Well, now that I am getting ready to start framing my own fieldwork (which will include a photographic component), it's time to read this classic text. It's another example of the kind of work that I find really appealing and inspiring. Just for fun, here's an Evans photo:

Garage, by Walker Evans. Atlanta, GA, 1936.

I also finally bought the book Camera Lucida by Roland Barthes, because I have seen it cited so many times that I decided I need to read it. It goes up on the shelf next to books by Susan Sontag, David Levi Strauss, Elizabeth Edwards, John Berger, and others.

I found out about the 17 Magazine project from this post on Sociological Images. Yet another fascinating (and entertaining) project. This was conceived by 18 year old high school senior Jamie Keiles. Keiles has a new project and blog called Teenagerie, which is witty and critical look at adolescent life.

Here is the last note. I am reading David H. Price's book "Anthropological Intelligence," which is yet another book that I have wanted to read so far. I am on the fourth chapter now, and this book is definitely a good read for anyone who is interested in looking further into the relationship between anthropology, nation-states, and war. Some folks dismiss the concerns of contemporary anthropologists who are critical and resistant to programs like the Human Terrain Systems project, and Price's book provides some reasons to at least think twice about these issues.

Thanks for putting up with this. I will attempt to return to more cohesive posting in the near future. No guarantees though...

Just Stay Home

Off exhibit, 2002. Photo by Ryan Anderson.

I have a subscription to The Sun, which is a great magazine that's published out of Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Sometimes, during the madness of trying to keep up with all of my reading in grad school, I forget to take the time to read this magazine. But every time I do, I'm glad I did.

I just read an article from the November 2007 issue by Derrick Jensen. It's about zoos and why people are compelled to visit them. It's also about conceptions of "nature", and how zoos represent a particular way of thinking about the world around us. This is a really important question to ask--what is nature and where can it be found? Is a city natural or unnatural? What do zoos have to do with "natural" animal habitats and behaviors? Is nature something that can be accessed on a daily basis, or it is a rare experience that requires the money and time to visit zoos--or better yet, the actual exotic locations around the world where NATURE still exists? Can nature be found in highly urban environments like Los Angeles and Detroit? Or is that a ridiculous idea?

How should people learn to explore the natural world around them? Should they rely on SeaWorld and Busch Gardens to provide unfettered, yet costly access to the rarities of nature? No. Jensen says people should just stay home:

IN MY WRITING, I don’t often present tangible solutions to the problems we face. This is because, for the most part, these problems are symptoms of and endemic to deeper psychological and perceptual faults, which means “solving” a problem technically without addressing these underlying faults will simply cause the pathology to present itself in a different way.

That said, I think I see a straightforward solution to the problem of children needing encounters with wild animals and zoos providing only parodies of these encounters. The solution is to let your child explore nature. I’m not talking about getting in the car to hang out with all the other tourists at Yosemite, effectively exchanging your city-based traffic jam for a nature-based one. To drive through nature is not all that different from being surrounded on four sides by movie screens as the visuals of a road rush up to greet you. Throw in the rocking of the car and some pine-scented freshener into the air vents, and the simulation will be more or less complete: you might even think you’re there.

Hiking is not all that much better. You’re still a tourist. No matter how spectacular Yosemite and Yellowstone and the Grand Canyon are, they’re still spectacles unless you live there. Unless you call it your home. Unless it says it’s your home.

I’m talking about staying home.

I have thought about this a lot, since I have spent my fair share of time wandering around zoos and thinking about what they mean (to me, or others). Why do we have these spaces? What function do they serve? I do think that there are plenty of positive possibilities with some of the ways in which zoos operate. So I'm not arguing that they should be dismissed entirely--but I do think we should take the time to look deeper into what they really tell us about ourselves, and our ideas of the world around us. Jensen's call to stay home makes a lot of sense. Sometimes people feel like their local wildlife or environment is "boring," and that there is really nothing to see. I mean, zoos have tigers and elephants! Who cares about some weird little crab on the beach or a mule deer? Right?

Absolutely wrong. This is the heart of the problem. A concern for the abstract "nature" that's presented in many zoo displays can create disinterest in local ecological and environmental issues. I grew up in San Diego County, and I'll be the first to admit that the San Diego Zoo looked a lot more exciting and exotic than the local lagoons and deserts--at least when I was a kid. I think when I was younger I also fell victim to the idea that the local landscapes and environments were somehow unnatural, corrupted, or less "natural" than the idealized images of nature presented at places like aquariums and zoos. The irony, of course, is that these kinds of places are completely constructed environments--and there is really nothing wrong with this as long as we don't confuse a zoo display with reality. I think zoos can be both productive and inspirational--as long as they balance their representations of "nature" to include the local environments and ecologies that zoo patrons drive past day by day. Otherwise, the "education" at zoos provides little more than an idealized fiction about the supposed natural world. Zoos have to about something more than just consumerism.

As Jensen argues, zoos (and other nature-based destinations) provide instant access. We can pay money and see everything we want, anytime we want. Kind of like TV or the internet. We can see snakes, bears, lions, elephants, giraffes, and Tasmanian devils within minutes. Outside of these kinds of regulated spaces, well, things take a little longer. Sometimes, this is a good thing. Yes, zoos can be educational and fun. Of course they can. But it might also be important to learn how to take the time to watch and learn about the biological world around us according to a schedule that isn't dictated by the limits of the standard business day.

A summer in Baja California Sur

I spent a good portion of this summer in Baja California Sur, doing some preliminary fieldwork in preparation for my upcoming dissertation fieldwork. This was the second summer in a row that I was able to travel to BCS to get a head start on my research, which is about some of the politics of tourism, land ownership, and development in the southern part of the peninsula. It's a place that has many of the elements that appeal to large scale tourism developments--Cabo San Lucas is a case in point.

Development of the region is rapidly expanding as hoteliers, tourism companies, and investors seek new places to create resorts, golf courses, and hotels to appeal to tourists from all over the world (although BCS is primarily visited by US citizens at this point). While many of these development projects certainly have their supporters (the Mexican government sees exclusive, high-end tourism zones like Cabo San Lucas as the perfect model for future development), there has also been plenty of social and political resistance. One recent example includes members of the small coastal community of Cabo Pulmo, which is caught up in a fight against a very large development project that many see as a threat to the local marine environment, as well as resources like water. Read more about some of the issues at Pulmo here, and check out a video posted by COSTASALVAjE, here .

During this trip I met three people who are involved in projects that take a close look at some of the politics and histories that Baja California Sur faces at present. One was the documentary filmmaker Carmina Valiente, who made the film "Baja All-Exclusive," which explores many of the conflicts and social inequalities that surround some of the development projects along the southern tip of the peninsula. Carmina's work treads some very similar ground to the research that I will be starting in the same region, and I was fortunate to meet her and get the chance to talk with her about some of her ideas and projects. Here's the trailer:

I also met the talented photographer Elizabeth Moreno while I was attending a conference on environmental history at the Universidad Autonoma de Baja California Sur (UABCS). Moreno's photography--which is really well conceived and executed--was displayed in one of the main conference rooms, and I was immediately impressed. The photographs on display were from a series about human imprints on environments, called "Traces: Landscape Transfiguration." A description of this series from her site:

This work is a visual compilation of traces that our civilization leaves in the continuous transformation of the world that surrounds us. It is an attempt to set aside the kind of landscape photography that is just a visual placebo for the eye and create a purposive work. Through this images that make obvious the contrast between what is a human trace and the natural landscape I invite you to thoroughly observe our environment, to reflect on how we are altering the planet we will inherit to future generations, and if you consider it valuable I also invite you to do something about its preservation.

Take the time to look through Elizabeth's photography on her website, here. Here are a few of the photographs from the "Traces" series that I found particularly poignant, especially considering the current political and environmental climate in Baja California:

Finally, I was lucky to meet Sandino Gamez, the editor of a local magazine called Alternativa de BCS. These publications, which focus cultural, political, environmental, and social issues in Baja California, are available online here. Sandino is heavily involved in many local issues, and his active involvement and creativity definitely gave me some ideas about how I can write about some of my work in a public sphere. Communication of experiences, histories, and ideas is a main priority. That's what impressed me most about some of the people that I met over the summer--the fact that they are working hard to explore and investigate difficult issues...while also working just as hard on exposing those issues to wider audiences.

The issues that I am just starting to look at in BCS are certainly complex and difficult to understand in many regards. There are many different perspectives and understandings about the importance of development, and the very direction in which people want to see BCS head. Some people that I talk with are excited about the possibility of new jobs that tourism development promises. Others are weary--to say the least--about the long term effects and sustainability of some developments plans and goals. There is definitely money to be made in tourism development, but the real question is about benefts--and costs. Yes, tourism development generates revenue, but where do those gains go? And what kinds of communities are created in the long run? Who is really behind these development projects, and who is against them? More importantly, the question might be why?

Baja California Sur is often sold as a wild, pure, pristine place where tourists can travel to experience romantic, idealistic, and adventurous environmental landscapes. But, as the work of Carmina Valiente, Elizabeth Moreno, and Sandino Gamez shows, there is a lot more to the picture than the promotional videos that the Los Cabos Convention and Visitors Bureau promulgates. While many powerful institutions, such as the United Nations World Tourism Organization, see tourism development as a clear solution for socio-economic development, there are many reasons to remain cautiously skeptical. This doesn't mean that tourism development automatically results in social inequality, environmental degradation, and local political conflicts. It means that there is no reason to assume ANYTHING about this kind of development without taking a closer look at the specific historical, political, environmental, and social experiences of the people who deal with the results of tourism for a lot longer than the typical tourist vacation ever lasts. Tourists come and go, while the altered social and environmental landscapes that result from tourism development tend to become a reality for the individuals and communities who call places like Baja California Sur home. While the macroeconomic possibilities of tourism can be quite alluring, it is critical to pay close attention to the kinds of communities that result from large-scale tourism development projects.

Maxine Udall: Beach Houses and Health Care

I think that Maxine Udall is my favorite economics blogger. Every time I check her site there is another great post that gets me thinking about economics, and then how that relates to anthropology and all of the issues that I focus on. Here is a key quote from a new post about those wonderful folks who equate health care with every other good and service (like a nice beach house):

It's more likely that someone somewhere said that "free markets" make everyone better off, but didn't bother to explain that markets fail for a variety of reasons that are rampant in health care. Believers in beach house-health care equivalence are really just trying to make everyone better off. Someone somewhere said that people at the top are more productive and therefore deserve more. Believers in beach house-health care equivalence are often at the top, they know in their hearts that they are way more productive, so it's obvious that this is true and fair. Someone somewhere told them about moral hazard and unanticipated side-effects. As a result, believers in beach house-health care equivalence have developed a morbid terror that someone somewhere will free ride or, worse, distort resources away from the beach houses that would otherwise be built.

Read the rest here.

Primates on two sides of the glass

Here's a few photos from a series that I worked on between around 2002 and 2007. I first started studying anthropology when I was 26, after several years of focusing on photography. When I first took up photography I was heavily influenced by photographers such as Edward Weston, Brett Weston, Ansel Adams, and Minor White. Eventually, however, I gravitated to the work of people like Walker Evans, Dorthea Lange, and Sebastaio Salgado--I definitely became more interested in documentary work. This zoo project marks my transition to anthropology. I used to head to the zoo all the time, and I spent most of my time watching one class of primates--the zoo patrons who flooded past the enclosures day after day. To see some more of these photos, look here.

Negative correlations

There is definitely a negative correlation between A) having to move and B) finding the time to post on a blog. So goes grad student life. I think I have moved at LEAST once every year for the past five years. It just keeps getting more and more fun, especially as my collection of books keeps increasing. These are the times when a fully digital library sounds pretty damn good.