Anthropology, journalism, and relevance

Over at Savage Minds there is a recent post about "anthropological journalism". This is an issue that has been on my mind a lot lately. Why don't we hear more from anthropologists? And why is anthropological writing so damn boring (not ALL, just a LOT)? What can anthropology learn or borrow or steal from journalism?

Some of these issues came up while I was reading a couple of books for class: Renato Rosaldo's Culture & Truth and Catherine Lutz and Donald Nonini's "The Economies of Violence" (in Anthropological Theory Today). Rosaldo's book is all about pushing the boundaries of anthropological writing. There is no reason why we have to be limited to a formulaic (and often excruciatingly tedious) form of communication. Lutz and Nonini argue that anthropologists might be wise to take some cues from investigative journalism (they are talking specifically to anthropologists who deal with the relationship(s) between violence and economics, but I think it applies elsewhere).

Why not push the boundaries? Why not find different ways to write? Why do economists have so much weight in public opinion? Don't anthropologists have something to say about the VAST MYRIAD of issues they study, investigate, and turn into textbooks? I think so.

Anyway, here is my comment that I posted over at Savage Minds:

For me, it comes down to this: why are we producing all of this information? What purpose is there to anthropology? What are the end goals? Teaching? Publication of textbooks? Journal articles and tenure? Why are we sending people all around the world to collect information about different people, situations, and issues?

I can understand the aversion to mass media, and to journalism. I understand the fact that anthropologists are concerned about getting it right, and about making sure that the correct interpretation comes across--and they are worried about the ways in which their ideas/information will be incorporated into larger media circles.

The only problem: there really is no way to perfectly control meaning. So that means anthropologists can either remain silent and keep things under control, or they can start to participate more frequently in these discussions. The only way to influence meaning is to actually take part in the continuous discussion.

I hear plenty of views about international development and politics from the likes of political scientists and economists...but not too much from anthropologists--who often have a pretty different perspective to offer.

The site "Contexts" was already mentioned above. I think that is one possible model that we anthros could look into for some ideas and inspiration.

Also, in my opinion, since we ARE media producers, I think that a part of our methods training SHOULD be media production. This means classes in film, classes, in photography, classes in web design, and yes, classes in writing as a part of the standard canon of teaching. Why not?

Writing especially. A lot of anthropological writing is pretty damn opaque and boring--and this isn't something new. Renato Rosaldo spent a lot of time talking about that in his 1989 book "Culture & Truth". Anthropologists have to write all the time--why isn't there more of a methodological focus on the craft of writing. It's not as if good writing just happens automatically. I think that one or two creative writing classes might do wonders. Open up the possibilities.

ckelty wrote [in the comments section]:

I don’t think current anthropology is so resistant to being “news-ified” or that the resistance to simplification is the problem or that the public understands anthropological theories less than it does quantum mechanics (!). I think the problem lies in the failure to clearly an carefully outline the “intellectual merit” and “broader impacts” (to use the NSF’s language) of any given piece of work.

I agree with you that the problem is not whether or not the public can "understand" anthropological theories. In my opinion, anything can be explained...as long as you don't write in jargon ridden nonsense. Anthropology is certainly NOT quantum mechanics.

I am not sure if the problem has to do with a lack of intellectual merit. I think that those journal articles are published for a specific audience, and in many cases are not applicable or relevant to wider audiences. But that does not mean that anthropologists have NOTHING to contribute--there are anthropologists working all over the world, on all kinds of issues. There is no lack of relevance, but there is a lack of Op-eds and articles that speak to different audiences. This is a matter of finding various ways to communicate information to diverse audiences.

Why do economists and political scientists have so much pull when it comes to international politics etc? Because they're out there saying something? Because they're publishing magazines that people actually read. Because they publish books that larger audiences actually find interesting and accessible.

In order to take part in these discussions we have to be willing to actually make some mistakes. Maybe that's the roadblock.

Paul Farmer testimony at Senate Foreign Relations Committee

A short excerpt from Farmer's testimony:

Let me offer, as one example of the difficult relations between Haiti and the international community (and an echo of the nineteenth-century machinations I discussed in my last testimony before this committee), the donor conference I attended here in Washington last April. It was one of only two donor conferences I have ever attended, the second being in Montreal earlier this week. The results of the first are noteworthy and worrisome: despite $402 million pledged to support the Haitian government’s Economic Recovery Program, when the country was trying to recover from a series of natural disasters resulting in a 15% reduction of GDP, it is estimated that a mere $61 million have been disbursed.5 In the Office of the Special Envoy, we have been tracking the disbursement of pledges, and as of yesterday we estimate that 85% of the pledges made last year remain undisbursed.

Many of us worry that, if what’s past is prologue, Haitians themselves will be blamed for this torpor. But as we have argued before, there are serious problems in the aid machinery, and these have contributed to the “delivery challenges” on the ground.6 The aid machinery currently at work in Haiti keeps too much overhead for its operations and still relies overmuch on NGOs or contractors who do not observe the ground rules we would need to follow to build Haiti back better. The fact that there are more NGOs per capita in Haiti than in any other country in the hemisphere is in part a reflection of need, but also in part a reflection of overreliance on NGOs divorced from the public health and education sectors.

Read the rest here.

Barbara Miller to David Brooks: It's time for Anthropology 101*

A little more than a week ago, New York Times columnist David Brooks wrote an op-ed about Haiti. In it, he explains why he thinks Haiti is so plagued by poverty and corruption:

As Lawrence E. Harrison explained in his book “The Central Liberal Truth,” Haiti, like most of the world’s poorest nations, suffers from a complex web of progress-resistant cultural influences. There is the influence of the voodoo religion, which spreads the message that life is capricious and planning futile. There are high levels of social mistrust. Responsibility is often not internalized. Child-rearing practices often involve neglect in the early years and harsh retribution when kids hit 9 or 10.

You see, it all comes down to culture (not really). Sure, there are some historical and political factors, but the real problem is the "culture" of the Haitian people--and of course voodoo (be sure not to miss my sarcasm here). One thing I love is when people start making claims about large groups of people like this. The fundamental issue is that culture is not something that is as bounded and static as Brooks seems to think. Characterizing all Haitians based upon overly simplistic and monolithic traits is, well, not conforming to reality--and definitely not conforming to the ways in which the concept of culture is understood by contemporary anthropologists. In short, Brooks is long on supposition and short on understanding. There is just a little more to the story than what Brooks is attempting to sell.

Of course, a lot of anthropologists reacted pretty quickly to what Mr. Brooks had to say. Savage Minds has one example, and here is another (at anthropologyworks). And today Barbara Miller, who runs the blog anthropologyworks, has issued a challenge to Mr. Brooks:

So here’s my challenge to David Brooks: take an introductory cultural anthropology course now. Open your eyes and your heart to “other” cultures that may look like losers according to H&H [this refers to Samuel Huntington and former USAID administrator Lawrence Harrison] but in fact hold the clues to a better future for all of us. If we would only give them a chance. I teach a six-week, distance ed version of my intro class every summer: Anth 002.10 at George Washington University. Mr. Brooks is most welcome to enroll.

I would like to see more of this kind of public debate. Either that or anthropologists continue to sit back and allow economists, political scientists, and journalists to define our public political discourse.

*Actually, the course at George Washington University is really called Anth 002.10. Just to keep things fair and balanced, etc.

Photojournalism & Haiti

What exactly is it that photojournalists do when they travel to a place like Haiti to "document" tragedies? Are they telling stories that need to be told? Are they providing a social and political service to the rest of the world? Are they helping the people of Haiti? Are they contributing to the solution, helping to assist? Are they turning human tragedy into little more than visual commodities (distributed by TIME, Newsweek, CNN, MSNBC, and so on)?

Photojournalist Michael David Murphy asks if there is a need for a new kind of photojournalism in a recently published post on the site Foto8. His contention is that there is an extreme amount of redundancy, since so many photographers end up trying to capture THE iconic image that will garner international recognition. Maybe that's the case, maybe not. Murphy writes:

Are conflict photographers, or the kinds of photographers who are on the first flights into situations like Haiti, more experienced in reacting to quickly evolving events, rather than telling a story that spans a sequence of pictures? It looks like everyone’s running around trying to photograph the next iconic image that will win a World Press Photo award, rather than trying to visually tell the stories of the Haitian people.

So what stories are being told by the news media, and what effects are created by the ways in which events such as this are depicted. I think it is important to consider HOW these events are portrayed, since that very coverage can shape the understandings of the rest of the world.

Murphy suggests that the photojournalistic efforts should somehow be coordinated so that different aspects of the story are covered (and not just aspects that focus on certain elements of the tragedy):

Why don’t media outlets join forces to divide and conquer the enormity of a situation like Haiti’s? Media outlets could assign individual photographers to follow one aspect of the Haiti story, and the story could be published by all participating outlets.

For some reason though, I doubt that there will be any kind of coordination at this level, since this is still very much a business, and certain types of images have more "selling power" than others. Would news organizations be willing to share their portions of the story? Would photographers be willing to take on the assignments that might not garner as much widespead attention? In my opinion the news media imagery is often dictated by specific kinds of images that are both dramatic and compelling--so would more balanced and in-depth coverage actually be viable? Would people still buy magazines, or tune in to news reports? The question is really this: are these events documented according to what is "really happening" or are they presented in a way that appeals to the people who consume mass media? What influences the ways in which photographers (and editors) represent these kinds of events?

Cruise to Haiti?

In my opinion, now is not the time for tourists to be landing upon the sandy beaches of Haiti. That's just my opinion though.

Tell me what you think.

Thousands travel for shadows

Check this out:



Thousands of people flock to the archaeological site of Chichen Itza to witness the shadow play upon the Castillo each year. I have heard estimates that put the number of visitors around 40,000. My question: why? Quetzil Castaneda's 1996 book In the Museum of Maya Culture: Touring Chichen Itza explores that very question, and it details some of the issues that pervade tourism at this site. Definitely a recommended read for anyone who is interested in the culture and politics of tourism in Mexico and elsewhere.

Edward Burtynsky: Urban Renewal

Burtynsky is a phenomenal photographer. See more of his work here.

Paragraph of the month: Pamthropologist

What is anthropology all about? And what is teaching anthropology about? Read this little gem:

"I always tease my students. Anthropology asks all those questions you asked in grade school and were told to shut up for asking. And then they tried to stuff all that crap into you that really seemed to beggar the question: why don't I have sex with my mother if dogs do? Does Santa Claus do a fly-over on Africa because they were all bad? Does God not like poor people? Do humans taste like chicken? Do human societies piss down their own legs? Do my genitals look like everyone else's? Does everyone else have a bigger penis? Did the Twilight Bark really work; I mean when the dogs were all barking at each other did they really say "quick, hide the puppies because Cruella deVille is after then to turn them all into coats". Is "evil" always angular? What is the meaning of skinny bitch? Does she just need a sandwich? Are we Americans really better than everyone else? Can we save the whole world or just some bits? If we kill all the bad people and only the good ones are left standing do we win? What is going on behind that curtain? If I think bad thoughts about someone else can shit happen? Why does shit happen?"

-From Pamthropologist.

Haiti

Here are just a few sites/links to look into regarding Haiti.

First, a statement from the American Anthropological Association's president:

As we all know by now, Haiti has been hit by a natural disaster of horrible magnitude. For a country struggling for so long with inadequate infrastructure, widespread poverty, long-standing health problems, and frequent political instability, the earthquake on Tuesday and its many aftershocks are nothing less than a nightmare of unfathomable proportions.

And this is from the organization Partners in Health:

We are deeply grateful for the multitude of people who have contacted us wanting to provide medical assistance, medicine and supplies. While we wish we could use all of the support so generously offered, we urgently need the following:

• Orthopedic surgeons, trauma surgeons, anesthesiologists, nurse anesthetists, OR nurses, post-op nurses, and surgical technicians. Unfortunately, we are unable to accommodate any volunteers without significant surgical or trauma training and experience. If your qualifications match our needs, please fill out this form.
  
  
• Orthopedic supplies, surgical consumables (sutures, bandages, non-powdered sterile gloves, syringes, etc.), and large unopened boxes of medications. Unfortunately, we cannot accept small quantities or unused personal medications. We also need blankets, tents, and satellite phones with minutes. People with private planes willing to fly medical personnel and/or large quanities of supplies are also greatly needed. To donate any of the above goods, please fill out this form.

From BBC News via Material World:

Type "Haiti" into Twitter, Facebook or Youtube and you soon encounter a message from @redcross sent at 05:38 GMT on Jan 13.

In less than 48 hours, the American Red Cross had received more than $35m in donations - including $8m directly from texts.

"This breaks all world records for a mobile giving campaign," says their spokeswoman, Gloria Huang.

"It's been incredible. People have donated more to Haiti than to Hurricane Katrina or the tsunami in Asia.

"And Twitter has played an extremely significant part."

For some more sources about Haiti, go to Barbara Miller's post "Recent sources on Haitian culture and social change."

Also, check out "Three Presidents unite to aid Haiti," by SusanG over at DailyKos.

From the LA Times: "Aid pours into Haiti airport as relief workers struggle to distribute it."

The US military and priorities

This is little more than a simple question to get the new year rolling: Many people argue that the government cannot do anything without screwing it up. But we are clearly able to organize a large military force that can accomplish many diverse objectives, from invasion to foreign aid. And if the government can do that, I do not understand why it cannot find a way to provide basic health care for all of its citizenry. Is this a matter of ideology? Politics?

Maybe it's just a matter of priorities.