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.

Photographic Delusions

Seriously, I miss having an M6. And I miss having my Wisner 4x5, and that really good Rodenstock 210 that I used for about 10 years. I also miss my Rolleiflex, which was in really good shape. I miss my SL66 too. How on earth did I get rid of all those great cameras? Oh, that's right, I went back to school and became a poor anthropology grad student. These days I used a Canon 30D, which is OK, but not my favorite of all time. Ya, I have some other cameras at the moment (like a solid old Nifformat just in case), but the 30D is the one I use most of the time. It works, for now. But at some point I want some NEW STUFF, if you know what I mean. Why does everything that I need/want cost at least $1000 more than I have?

Something to consider: the famous photographer Edward Weston made some pretty amazing photographs with some P.O.S. lens he bought in a thrift store. Lesson: it doesn't take a Leica to make good photographs. So there you have it. Onward.

Black Diamonds - Trailer for a film about MTR

Here's one more:

For more about this film, check this website. This is an issue that is incredibly controversial throughout Appalachia, and there aren't easy answers. But one of the first steps is taking a closer look at the effects of these extraction processes, and listening to the people whose livelihoods and ways of life are affected. Yes, coal mining is about jobs, but it's also about clean water, public health, and the clash between local communities and mining companies. A larger part of the issue is the fact that coal is used widely throughout the US, but the costs of coal production aren't always considered--or even imagined--but the people who use it to power their daily lives. Often, when we take "costs" into account, we are really only looking at a highly reductive version of reality. Costs are about more than just what shows up on ledgers.

James Danziger on what we get from artists

James Danziger's blog The Year in Pictures is always full of all kinds of good stuff. Here is a snippet from his latest post:

And as I thought about this, I realized that one of the things artists give us is a way of defining and ordering what we see. A sea horizon can be a Meyerowitz or a Sugimoto. A random gesture in a park can be a Winogrand. A tackily colored interior can be an Eggleston. And rather than taking away from the pleasure of seeing these things, for those of us who are not artists I think it actually adds pleasure. Recognizing the association is in itself a creative gesture. Thus the realization that the scene outside my window (below) was like a Leong was both a gift from the artist and a gift from and to myself.

Photo by James Danziger, 2011.

A few more MTR pics

Mountain Top Removal & KFTC

This past weekend was the Dimensions of Political Ecology conference at the University of Kentucky. One part of the conference was a field trip in conjunction with Kentuckians for the Commonwealth (KFTC) to see some of the effects of Mountain Top Removal (MTR) out in Eastern Kentucky. The photographs above are just a few of the images I took on that drizzly day. The national demand for "cheap" power (coal) results in these radically "transformed" landscapes--the worst part of all of this is how clear it is who is really paying the price for all of this: the small communities who live in the heart of coal country. Trucks rumble through communities throughout Eastern Kentucky (and elsewhere), hauling the raw materials that power so many daily lives. But how many of us actually think about--or can even imagine--the effects of this type of energy extraction? How "clean" is coal when we take the experiences of local communities into account? It's no accident that these sites remain out of public view.

Max Forte channels H.L. Mencken re: Libya

I'm not going to ruin it for all three of you who read this site. Just go check out this post by Max Forte over at the all-nuanced edition of Zero Anthropology. Here is a selection from one of the choice bits:

As observers of the complexities around the social negotiation of constructed meanings, it would do us well to remember that democracy is inscribed as a gesture of erasure, that human rights exist as an absence through an erasure that is the sign of their own creation. What we urgently need then are less of the over-determined portrayals of reality that lead to debased forms of point scoring– “dictator!” “murderer! “bastard!”–and more sophisticated treatments of the contingency of discourse, while tacking back to the free floating signifiers that constitute the flows of democracy instantiated in the reflexive negotiation of identity best understood as friction where the practice of inscription is embodied but ever perched on the border with the simulacra of memory qua narrative.

I think I am going to put "simulacra of memory qua narrative" on some academic t-shirts and see if I can cash in on this while the fire is still hot. Nuance, after all, is in.*

*If this post doesn't make sense, that's ok.

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."

Wash: Oceanside December 2010

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.

Conference at the University of Kentucky: Dimensions of Political Ecology

Well, it's getting pretty close to the conference that the Political Ecology Working Group is putting together at the University of Kentucky. In fact, I need to finish my paper SOON. The conference focuses on interdisciplinary research that explores the nexus between nature and society. To find out a bit more, check out the PEWG website at the U of Kentucky. Also, here is a copy of a preliminary flier, just to add some visual zest to this post:

*Photograph: Power lines running across the deserts in Imperial County, California, 2006. Taken by yours truly while I was burning up in the middle of the summer.

Reshaping the landscape: California 2006

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.

Democracy or Extremism? Political Ideals and Egypt

The US has a pretty confusing--if not outright contradictory--history of foreign policy. On the surface, we supposedly are the champions of democracy, human rights, and freedom. Right? Those are the ideals that the nation was founded upon, and they continue to play a primary role in the political rhetoric and overall idealism of its people.

However, the US also has a history of making alliances with autocratic regimes and/or dictatorships that serve particular short-term interests (Somoza, Pinochet, the Shah of Iran, the Saudi regime, and of course Mubarak in Egypt). These alliances, while politically expedient, haven't exactly lead to the greatest results--and the histories of Latin America, to name one regional example, speak quite clearly to that. Such decisions also stand in pretty stark contrast to our supposed ideals about governance and freedom.

Anyway, what's somewhat disturbing and shocking is the sheer number of people calling for the continued support of the Mubarak regime, which is a continuation of the same kind of international policy that we have relied upon for far too long. What's this all about? Fear? A belief in the whole "clash of the civilizations" scheme that old Sam Huntington used to peddle? Why have so many politicians, pundits, and citizens of the US (and the west in general) been so hesitant, so wary about the events in Egypt? Are their worries grounded, or are these folks overreacting a bit? And what about all of those American ideals about democracy, human rights, and political freedom?

Enough questions, how about some more Zizek:

Vonnegut on ridiculously simplistic social divisions

"Thanks to TV and for the convenience of TV, you can only be one of two kinds of human beings, either a liberal or a conservative."

-Kurt Vonnegut, 2004.

Zizek on events in Egypt

Slavoj Zizek on revolution, the west, Egypt, and fear:

What cannot but strike the eye in the revolts in Tunisia and Egypt is the conspicuous absence of Muslim fundamentalism. In the best secular democratic tradition, people simply revolted against an oppressive regime, its corruption and poverty, and demanded freedom and economic hope. The cynical wisdom of western liberals, according to which, in Arab countries, genuine democratic sense is limited to narrow liberal elites while the vast majority can only be mobilised through religious fundamentalism or nationalism, has been proven wrong. The big question is what will happen next? Who will emerge as the political winner?

Read the rest here.

Power, realpolitik, and freedom: Egypt and US Ideals about Freedom

What absolutely blows me away is how quickly some folks drop their supposed ideals about freedom and democracy when the people under consideration are far away (like in Egypt, for example). It's shocking, actually, to hear some folks out there calling for the support of Mubarak as a close ally (check the comments section). I don't get it. Democracy, it seems, only applies here at home. When it comes to a distant population like the people of Egypt, it seems that many people are willing to sidestep all of the rhetoric about political freedom and openly advocate supporting a repressive policy state, all in the name of "our interests." Horribly ironic, no? Granted, the situation in Egypt is far from clear, but I definitely do not think that going back to the "support the nearest dictator who will toe the line" model is the way to go. Absolutely not. Anyway, here are some quotes that are apt for folks on all sides of the political spectrum here in the US:

Concentrated power has always been the enemy of liberty.

-Ronald Reagan

Democracy is worth dying for, because it's the most deeply honorable form of government ever devised by man.

-Ronald Reagan

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

-Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790), Letter to Josiah Quincy, Sept. 11, 1773.

A little rebellion now and then is a good thing.

-President Thomas Jefferson.

Those who expect to reap the blessing of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.

-Thomas Paine.

The search for anthropology in public, part I*

There has been a lot of discussion of late about the pubic recognition (or lack thereof) of anthropology. Daniel Lende has yet another post that has other links that you can follow to catch up if you haven't been keeping up with your anthro-blog quota over the last couple of weeks. The most recent discussion, which was started by Greg Downey at Neuroanthropology PLoS, traveled to Savage Minds, then to the Open Anthropology Cooperative, and now back to Neuroanthropology, is about "branding" anthropology. Why? Because, in general, the wider public has about as much exposure to anthropology as Latin grammar. That is to say, not much. Whose fault is this, you ask? It's all on the anthropologists, who, for some reason, don't seem to like putting their ideas out in public anymore. Remember when Margaret Mead was a well known public figure? Ya, that was several decades ago. Hence all the discussions about public exposure, branding, and such. Basically, anthropology has a PR problem--and it's not because their work is irrelevant. It's because their primary publication model is based upon the same philosophies that are behind Fort Knox.

Anyway, this post is supposed to be about finding anthropology in public, so I need to move forward. I have this habit. Every time I go to a bookstore, I make sure I check the "anthropology" section just to assess the state of affairs. Call it professional interest, or something. I made a few visits over the winter break, and I just happened to make another quick check just tonight. My overall assessment of the situation: not good. If you're lucky you might see a book by Wade Davis, maybe one by Clifford Geertz if you're really lucky (Interpretation of Cultures is fairly common), and maybe one by Margaret Mead. Jared Diamond is almost always there. Other than that, the anthro section tends to be a little dated, a little strange, a little eclectic, and quite often...pretty boring. It's true. When it comes to having a larger selection of interesting texts that might have a chance of appealing to a wider audience, the historians, political scientists, and the sociologists are winning hands down. Even the economists are winning--by far. It's true. People have heard of Paul Krugman, and they actually buy his book.s So what's the deal here? Why is anthropology so, well, absent? Is this how things are looking in YOUR local stores? Do I just have faulty data, or is the situation really this grim?**

*There may or may not be a Part II to this post.

**Yes, it's true. This conversation isn't all that interesting and is only going to appeal to anthropologists who are sitting around trying to figure out how to explain--again--what they spend all of their waking life doing.