No comment

From the American Anthropological Association: "New RACE item" for sale:

Dear AAA: Sink or Swim?

This statement, written by Jason Antrosio, Eliza Jane Darling, Sarah Kendzior and myself, is a response to a post on the American Anthropological Association blog that discusses our recent writings about adjuncts, anthropology, and academia. Cross-posted on Savage Minds.

We are gratified that the American Anthropological Association has taken note of our critical commentary on the vagaries of the academic career, and we thank fellow blogger Joslyn O. for publicizing our work on the Association website. However, we would like to clear up a few misconceptions.

The AAA post suggests we represent two “camps,” but we share only one: a commitment to ending precarious intellectual labour. We protest the transformation of our profession into a swelling Hooverville congregated on the margins of universities whose dwindling tenured citizenry is bankrolled by our low-wage, low-benefit, low-security, low-respect work.

The bleak future of the aspiring anthropologist is not a concoction rooted in cynicism. It is an empirically demonstrable, material condition that speaks its truth in the language of debt, dependency, discouragement, and occasionally, the dole. We queue up for the work time and again because we deeply value anthropology. There is little other reason to plough the terrain of a field whose prospects for success resemble a lottery more than a competition. But as the national belt tightens in the face of prolonged economic crisis, contingent workers are increasingly unable to afford to subsidize the discipline financially, however highly we regard it intellectually. And the dignity deficit takes its toll on us all.

Anthropology is, and is not, “what we make it.” The most powerful producers of anthropological policy and practice seldom include the ranks of the precarious, yet even the privileged can lay no proprietary claim to a field whose fate, like that of its sister subjects in the social sciences, arts and humanities, rests at the mercy of profitability. Nonetheless, anthropology’s commitment to the science of social justice makes the studied ignorance of its own internal inequities insupportably ironic.

The resolution of these contradictions is served by neither silence nor sympathy, but solidarity. An academy structured upon the division of a two-tiered labor market discourages such an alliance. Yet we hope that anthropologists will join together to fight for the value of our work beyond the barometer of the bottom line. We must, for the same structural forces that divide tenured and contingent faculty threaten to subsume us all beneath a wave of public retrenchment, whose end game will inter us on the same sinking ship if we do not turn the tide. While the reserve army may constitute the foot soldiers in this battle for survival, the generals are hardly immune to the war on intellectual value.

The AAA can play a role in promoting solidarity. The first step is acknowledging that we are a house divided: not into camps which value, or do not value, the craft of anthropology, but into classes which are unevenly able to extract a living wage from that craft. The second step is to extend the professional respect and responsibility the Association demands for students, informants, the public and science itself to our fellow workers, within and without the academy. This solidarity is not only desirable but vital, for the future of anthropology is far more than academic.

Ryan Anderson
Jason Antrosio
Eliza Jane Darling
Sarah Kendzior

Speaking of open access...

[Cross-posted on Savage Minds]

This is a follow up to Chris’s post about the American Anthropological Association and Open Access.

The subject of open access publishing gets a fair amount of press around here at Savage Minds. For good reason, in my opinion, because the publishing regime that we currently have needs a little…rethinking.  Going “open access” is, of course, one possible option.  But what is this open access thing really all about?  If we’re going to consider OA, it’s probably a good idea to look deeper into the issues involved.  It’s definitely not some magical thing that will just happen overnight.  It will take work, planning, and cooperation among lots of people.  Anyway, here are some sources to look  into regarding anthropology and open access:*

First, check out Peter Suber’s overview of OA for starters.  Learn it.  Live it.  Know it.

Next, Wikipedia (fittingly) has a pretty nice overview of what OA is all about, including some of the debates about financing, etc.  The OA page is here.

Also, check out the three interviews I did with Jason Baird Jackson about Open Access and anthropology a while back.  Jason is a wealth of information when it comes to all things OA (have a look at his site too).  The first of the OA interviews with Jason is here.

Financing is one issue that comes up a lot, and rightfully so.  For a few ideas, have a look at Kim and Mike Fortun’s “thought experiment” about Liberating Cultural Anthropology.

More good stuff: the OA archives link here at Savage Minds.  You don’t have to go far to start reading about OA.

Finally, I’m adding this simply because I can’t help myself:

*If you have other OA sources and links, please feel free to post them in the comments section.

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.

It all depends on how you handle it

Daniel Lende wraps up the long and the short of the recent issue with AAA, science, and all of the reactions--from anthropologists to ill-informed journalists. Indeed, the way some folks reacted you would have thought it was the end of the world (0r that this was some new issue). It's not the end of the world, and the whole debate about the division about whether or not anthropology is or is not a "science" goes way back.

All said and done, I still think there is a lot to be learned from this--and one of the most interesting (to me) lessons has to do with communication and media. News about changes to the Long Range Plan got out, and then the "issue" turned into a "heated controversy" when rumor and exaggeration took over (the NY Times article and posts on gawker being prime examples). Not to say that there isn't something to be discussed about this--but it was never really the end of the world. In fact, the changes to the LRP never really made any sense to me. But then, I have been completely brainwashed into thinking that a four field approach makes perfect sense--and I have no problem with the fact that different perspectives or frameworks don't always add up to one easy answer. For me, this is not a problem.

Part of the problem was that the LRP document was publicized without associated documents that would have made the intentions of the AAA more coherent. There were other documents released at the same time by the AAA that clearly include references to the scientific side of anthropology--so the excision of that term from the LRP document was somewhat confusing and contradictory. And, since it was meant to be a "long range plan," I can see why some anthropologists felt it was the wrong way to go. So many of the reactions were understandable--especially since this isn't exactly a new conversation or issue. I think the LRP just acted as a kind of catalyst for discussion (which is a good thing, even if some folks don't feel it was a very interesting discussion!).

Some early clarification from the AAA--via various forms of media--would have gone a long way toward putting out the proverbial fires. So, overall, I think this is a good chance for the AAA to rethink and retool how they engage with some other forms of media. The AAA blog is great for announcements and a certain amount of content--but it's still very much a one-way interface, all said and done. So what IS anthropology? Is it defined by the official documents of the AAA? Not exactly. Anthropology includes a multiplicity of voices in a multiplicity of places--so it might make sense to find some different ways to explore some of those views through various forms of media. Journals are great. But, like the formal statements, they only reflect a fragment of "anthropology" as it is practiced and understood today. After all of this, one key question sticks out to me the most: who defines "anthropology"?