UC Davis: Dissent and pepper spray

The police show the world how NOT to handle dissent and protests at UC Davis.  From the Huffington Post:

On Friday, a group of University of California, Davis students, part of the Occupy Wall Street movement on campus, became the latest victims of alleged police brutality to be captured on video. The videos show the students seated on the ground as a UC Davis police officer brandishes a red canister of pepper spray, showing it off for the crowd before dousing the seated students in a heavy, thick mist.

 And here's more from CNN:

The chancellor of the University of California, Davis, under calls to resign, Saturday called police use of pepper spray on seated Occupy protesters "chilling" and established a task force to look into the incident.

The video broadcast by CNN Sacramento affiliate KOVR showed an officer, in a sweeping motion, spraying protesters point blank on Friday before other officers moved in. Eleven people were treated on site for effects of the yellow spray. Two of them were sent to the hospital, university officials said.

Here's one of the videos of this incident:

Assistant professor of English Nathan Brown wrote an open letter to the UC Davis Chancellor.  Here's a selection:

I am a junior faculty member at UC Davis. I am an Assistant Professor in the Department of English, and I teach in the Program in Critical Theory and in Science & Technology Studies. I have a strong record of research, teaching, and service. I am currently a Board Member of the Davis Faculty Association. I have also taken an active role in supporting the student movement to defend public education on our campus and throughout the UC system. In a word: I am the sort of young faculty member, like many of my colleagues, this campus needs. I am an asset to the University of California at Davis.

Read the rest.  Here's my question: Now what?  I find it pretty shocking and disturbing that the police reacted to this protest in this way.  Yes, I can understand the fact that the police had a job to do, and I can understand the fact that UC Davis felt it needed to "do something" about the protests.  Fine.  But this?  Since when is it necessary to resort to these kinds of actions when dealing with non-violent protesters?  Why are these student encampments so threatening that they necessitate pepper spray and violence?  What were these police thinking?  What do they really think they accomplished with this?  Do we really want to sit back and watch as the government (and university officials) respond to dissent and protests like this?  At what point is enough enough?

Sociological Images: Playboy centerfold composites, 1960s-1990s

Lisa Wade over at Sociological Images (a fantastic site, by the way) posted this composite image of all the Playboy centerfolds from the 1960s to the 1990s. So what do you see in these images? Join the conversation in the comments here. 

Hat Tip to Matt Thompson at Savage Minds.

OAC e-seminar in progress (SEP 26--OCT 7)!

I am taking part in an e-seminar this week and next week over at the OAC.  The seminar is based upon a working paper (here's the link) that I wrote about about my research on the politics of tourism and development in Baja California Sur.  It's a piece that combines a historical approach with anthropological discussions of value.  It is basically a background and foundation for how I am going to approach my upcoming fieldwork (I am working to get into the field asap).  And, since all of this is very much a work in progress, I am hoping to hear what some of you out there in the internets have to say.  So, stop by and check it out if you have time.  Even better, leave a comment or two.  Don't be shy!  The discussion lasts for a while, so there's time to peruse the paper then post a question, comment, etc.  It's all pretty wide open.  If you haven't joined the OAC, now is as good a time as any!

PS: Thanks to Keith Hart, Justin Shaffner, and everyone else at OAC for this opportunity! 

Barbara Fister on Tending the "Walled Gardens"

Here's the conclusion of Barbara Fister's recent piece "Where There is no Vision, We Publish and Perish."  The last three paragraphs are so good I had to include them all:

An old King James Bible line just came to me, which happens if you're old enough and were taught by nuns: “Where there is no vision, the people perish.” Turns out there’s another piece to that proverb that complicates the meaning a bit: “but he that keepeth the law, happy is he.” (Proverbs, 29:18) It doesn’t sound as classy in the NRSV: “Where there is no prophecy, the people cast off restraint, but happy are those who keep the law.” 

It seems to me the law we should follow is that old fashioned notion that the truth will set us free, and our job as scholars is to seek the truth and share it as widely as we can. We’re letting self-interest - in furthering our careers, boosting our institutional reputations, and protecting our disciplinary territory – divert us from that fundamental law. And I, for one, am not happy. 

It’ll cost money. It’ll take some serious work to hammer out the agreements, just as it took a lot of work for JSTOR to get publishers on board in the first place. But we need to do more for the world than tend our little walled gardens. We can do better. Where's that visionary thinking that started the whole thing? 

Take the time to read the rest, here.

Matt Thompson: "Let public anthropology be fast, cheap, and out of control."

Matt Thompson just wrote a fantastic post over at SM.  Here's the end of it:

What I’m trying to say is don’t sit around waiting for the next Margaret Mead. And anthropology doesn’t become more relevant to Jose Six-pack once we cross Marshall Sahlins with Marshall Mathers. We can all be public intellectuals of a local, non-celebrity sort. Find something where you are, some way to play a role however small and do it. It doesn’t have to be hard. You don’t have to write a grant. Just share what you know and what you do with the people around you. Let public anthropology be fast, cheap, and out of control.

 Now, go read the beginning and middle, here.

the search for anthropology in public, part II

Whenever I go into a bookstore, I always check out the anthropology section (see part I here).  A curious habit, or custom, or something like that.  What can I say?  I have my routines.  I like to see what happens to be on the shelves and compare that to my own understandings of what contemporary anthropology is all about.  I imagine that this is some sort of litmus test that tells us something about the state of anthropology in the public sphere.  Maybe, maybe not.  More about that shortly.  So, the last time I did this informal empirical investigation, the results were similar to past experiences: not phenomenal.  The most "anthropological" books included:

1. Composing a Life by Mary Catherine Bateson

2. The Third Chimpanzee by Jared Diamond

3. 1491 by Charles Mann

4. Food of the Gods by Terence McKenna

Bateson's was the only book I saw that was written by an actual anthropologist.  How it is that only one anthropologist happens to be in the anthropology section is beyond me.  This was a particularly skewed sample, I'll admit--usually there's at least a Wade Davis, Margaret Mead, or even Sir James Frazier in the mix.  Not this time.  The rest of the section was incredibly eclectic, and included everything from books by Drew Pinsky to one by Maira Kalman (which does look pretty cool, though not what I would define as anthropology).  Some of this eclectic-ness had to be due to some restocking malfunctions, undoubtedly, but overall the section on anthropology was, as is often the case, a strange and somewhat askew reflection of the discipline.  Yes, that is an opinion.  And now, it's time for some questions...

Read the rest on Savage Minds, here.

Blogging archaeology: Photographs, locations, politics

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

So here's the question for this week:

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

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

Monte Alban, Oaxaca, 2008

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

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

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

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

Sara Perry on blogging, media, archeaology, and communication

Sara Perry has a great new post about blogging, media, and communication on her site, which is part of the "Blogging Archaeology" discussion that is going on at Middle Savagery.  Here's my favorite part:

In the interests of brevity, I won’t add to these comments beyond saying that I think we have a responsibility to remember that blogging is simply one form of media, and whilst people (especially academics) like to pick on it as an especially dangerous and uncontrollable communicative device, I think this is misconstrued and blinding.  Blogs and social media have advantages and disadvantages—like every other type of communicative tool.  By focusing on them alone (as is common in academia), I’m concerned that we are all-too-conveniently avoiding discussion of the limitations and, indeed, prejudices of other modes of publication (e.g., the academic journal or text or edited volume).  These modes are often exclusive, insular, and inaccessible (both physically, linguistically and intellectually).  They offer limited opportunities to respond.  They can become canonised and cemented as truth and, in so doing, serve to perpetuate the status quo.

Read the rest here.

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!!!

Victor Davis Hanson puts "multiculturalism" through the partisan blender

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

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

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

Here's more from Hanson:

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

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

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

Media/Anthropology: Selected bookmarks (Egypt & Tunisia)

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

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

– Adam Shatz, London Review of Books Blog

Read the rest of John's post, here.

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.

Spoof on US State Department's Position on Egyptian Protests

Peaking over the walls of knowledge

More reactions and thoughts about this post over at the Open Anthropology Cooperative (OAC). I have asked similar questions in the past--why hasn't anyone ever heard of anthropology? Why do people always ask if we study dinosaurs? Or rocks? Or ants? What's with the terrible lack of public knowledge about anthropology? Is it because anthropologists' work is completely irrelevant? Is it because the general public just doesn't GET IT? Is it because there is a lack of interest in what anthropologists do?

None of the above.

Greg Downey over at Neuroanthropology PLoS brings up a good point in his most recent post. He talks about the most recent issue of American Anthropologist, which has a "Vital Topics Forum" that explores the always fascinating subject of human nature. A timely theme, if you ask me. The issue features prominent anthropologists parsing their way through a notoriously difficult question. But, of course, 99.9% of the general public will have no clue about any of this. Why? As Downey explains:

Unfortunately, given the illiberal policies on publication access practiced by the American Anthropological Association, the forum is behind a subscription wall, so you cannot access it without going through an academic library (unless you’re an AAA member). I’m still grousing about the complete absence of open-access journals in our field, as I think any discussion of ‘public outreach’ given the way we’ve locked up our publications is a bit hypocritical.

Greg is definitely right. And I like his idea about creating an open access online journal. Why not? Anthropologist work on all kinds of pretty interesting subjects...but the vast majority of their work ends up in either subscription-based journals or monographs that aren't exactly geared toward larger audiences (they are usually written for students and other academics, for the most part. There are, of course, exceptions). I definitely do not think that anyone needs to do away with journals and specialized anthro books--but a push toward different forms of media wouldn't be a bad idea.

More from the anthropological soapbox

This post has inspired another small rant about anthropology, communication, and media. Here goes:

Anthropologists have plenty to offer. They study all kinds of pretty relevant and interesting stuff. Look at the work of people like Setha Low, or Philippe Bourgois, or Karen Ho. More people should hear about Ho's book, especially considering the economic madness of the last few years.

The issue, as I see it, has less to do with actual relevance and more to do with communication of ideas and information. I don't really think it's a matter of covert infiltration or anything of the sort. I don't think this is a PR matter, or that what is needed is a large campaign to get the public informed about "what anthropology is all about" (as if there is some unified, singular "thing" that we call anthropology anyway). I use these analogies way too much, but here goes anyway: Good photographers make good photographs--all the time. Good writers write. It's a lot more interesting to look at the content of a photographer's work (ie the point of the work), than it is to hear them talk about cameras (at least for most people).*

In many cases, a lot of anthropologists end up doing the equivalent of talking about their cameras far too often, when they need to just go "make some photographs." The vast majority of the general public isn't going to care much about insular, jargon-laden, conversations that are really only meant for other anthropologists--just like most people who like good documentary photography don't necessarily want to hear about the inner workings of the newest $5000 digital camera.

Anthropologists just need to do what they do, do it well, and then communicate their ideas in various settings. More attention to the actual production of media (film, photography, online content, and writing) would probably be a good idea, especially since nobody outside of academia even thinks about reading American Anthropologist.

There is an old saying in writing: "show don't tell." I think this applies to anthropology. As I see it, anthropologists don't really need a bunch of PR pieces that advertise how great and useful anthropology is (stuff like this starts to sound like a recruiting commercial)--they just need to do good anthropology and get their ideas out to different audiences. Less pieces ABOUT anthropology and more pieces that ILLUSTRATE ideas, concepts, and analysis (hopefully in a somewhat interesting and readable manner).**

End of rant. You are now free to move about the Interwebs, folks.

*I believe that the shelf life of this particular analogy might be expiring soon. But that doesn't mean I am going to stop using it. And you can't do anything about it.

**Yes, I realize the irony of this post. I am advocating the idea that anthropologists should stop talking so much about anthropology and just go do some anthropology. And YET, here I am writing about anthropology. Fortunately I am immune to the terrible strains of cognitive dissonance.

Attacking Symbols: Westboro goes to Arizona

There are some things that never cease to provide that grating sense of irritation, and the Westboro Baptist Church is one of them. Who ARE those people, and what on earth are they doing? Why are they so angry, and why do they choose such seemingly random targets for their expressions of fear and hatred? Last time I checked, the WBC folks hate homosexuals, soldiers, and even Coretta Scott King. I don't know about YOU, but I don't really see a consistent theme in their hatred. It seems to me that they just randomly pick individuals or groups that "god" supposedly hates. Hard to tell. Supposedly, they ascribe to a certain "primitive" Calvinist or Baptist tradition--but I think pretty much every reputable church has forsworn any affiliation whatsoever with the Westboro Baptist fools.

And the latest target of their attention is the funeral of nine year old Christina Green, who was killed during the atrocious shooting in Tucson, Arizona last Saturday. Considering the prior actions of the WBC, I suppose I should not be surprised, but this one makes even LESS sense than all of the rest. Or maybe it's all just equally senseless. Supposedly, they are protesting Green's funeral because she was a Catholic, and according to them, god apparently hates Catholics. But their motives seem a little suspect, if you ask me.

It's pretty clear that the WBC folks are basically clamoring for attention. They attach themselves to newsworthy events, and then seem to work backwards from there. If you have ever seen an interview from any of the Westboro crowd, it is pretty apparent that their "logic" is not all that well thought out. This recent focus on Green and her family is both stupid and pretty transparent--it's all about getting more air time, and it doesn't matter who pays for it. In an age where media and politics are so closely intertwined, the Westboro folks are like a radically stupid inversion of the Zapatistas (who used media to promote anti-globalization and pro-indigenous movements in Mexico). Media can be marshaled for all sorts of purposes, of course, and this includes hatred as much as democracy or human rights.

Cultural relativism is a key foundation of anthropology. Anyone who has taken an intro to anthropology class knows that. But there is a key difference between this concept and what might be called "extreme relativism." There are, in fact, boundaries--and where we draw the line depends on particular moral or political choices. Many people mistake "cultural relativism" for "extreme relativism" and assume that the former means that anything goes, or that any human behavior should be tolerated. The idea behind the relativistic approach to socio-cultural behavior is methodological--this means that in order to gain a better understanding of what people do, and why they do it, it is first necessary to attempt to analyze heir actions from THEIR perspective. The moral decision--about whether or not to accept, tolerate, or even stop such behaviors, is another matter entirely.

In this case, I do think it's important to look into why the Westboro Baptist Church, with Phelps at the helm, is doing what they do. Now, I have by no means conducted a thorough study of this group, let alone spent a year studying their behaviors. So I'm no expert on their motives or way of life. But I think I can make some preliminary conclusions based upon what I have seen and read about them. They are clearly attacking cultural and political symbols in an attempt to garner attention and some sort of notoriety. Admittedly, I am not quite sure what they think they are really gaining by this--but I am pretty sure that the media attention they receive is EXACTLY what they want. And yes, this very blog post adds to the detritus of digital information that feeds their collective egos. I know that. But this is why I like the solution that some people have proposed in the CNN link above (here it is again for those of you who don't want to go look above). Basically, one group is going to go to the funeral and shield the family from the idiocy of Phelps and company. Since the Westboro folks are seeking attention, the best thing to do, as I see it, is to deprive them of attention. Or, at least, the TYPE of attention they seek. They definitely crave drama and controversy...so that means they deserve exactly the opposite. Maybe this means that a good dose of silence is what they should get. Either that, or maybe another dose of THIS TREATMENT.

Anthropology, the AAA, and PR: Some thoughts and ideas from the trenches of grad school

Daniel Lende has yet another good overview of the whole AAA "science" fiasco, including some indications that things may be moving in a positive direction. And just today he posted a humorous reflection on the ISSUE, which has been getting its fair share of attention.

Three authors at good old Savage Minds have posted their latest views on the issue. Alex "Rex" Golub calls for a kind of participatory ethnographic self survey to figure out "what anthropology means":

What if, as an alternative, we started a grassroots movement to say, in a public and synthesizable way, what we thought anthropology was about? An anthropologist’s creed, as it were. They would have to be short, a paragraph each, and address (hopefully in the same order) a concrete number of issues: what the word ‘science’ means to them, what disciplines are adjacent to anthropology, what research methods are important, the role of the analyst, the appropriateness of politics involvement, and so forth.

I think this idea makes sense to a certain extent--but only for an internal conversation among anthropologists themselves. And maybe, all things considered, this is the kind of thing that anthropologists need in order to think about the field they are a part of. Maybe we shouldn't rely on some behemoth organization like the AAA to define the parameters of the field. Although, I don't really think that's the case anyway. So I like the general notion that Rex has here, but I think in this case the audience is just US, so to speak, and so this only addresses part of the PR problem that anthropology faces. I am pretty sure that the vast majority of non-anthropologists would find this sort of thing about as interesting as listening to a bunch of economists discuss their favorite statistical models. Not. Exciting.

Kerim Friedman, however, thinks the whole idea of coming up with some anthropological creed is next to impossible, considering the diversity of practices and ideas that encompass the field. Kerim takes a completely different route:

Instead of trying to define the discipline as a whole, we are better off thinking of ourselves as social scientists, writ large. To the extent that we function within anthropology departments, publish in anthropology journals, and hang out with 6,000 anthropologists at the annual meetings, we are anthropologists. But within that there are multiple “anthropologies” which function more-or-less independently of the whole. We can (and often do) choose to wear multiple hats, defined by our training (“Temple Anthropologist”), specialty (“Linguistic Anthropologist”), politics (“Marxist Anthropologist”) etc. Sometimes all three (or more!) at the same time – including all the contradictions which come with that.

And I think Kerim makes some good, tactical, and strategic points about some of the drawbacks of coming up with overly restrictive or narrowly defined boundaries about anthropology. Still, this is yet another conversation that has a lot of internal relevance and little to do with the wider PR problem that anthropology seems to face (for some reason or another). And that brings us to Strong's post, in which he brings Mary Douglas from the bullpen to give us some insight about "Science and the Sacred." The comments in this post are particularly interesting, including the very first one, by "Conan the Pseudonymous," who reminds us that public understanding is by no means the central aim of all anthropology--and I think this is important to keep in mind. While increasing public understanding is, in my view, definitely a critical objective, there is really no need to reduce the entire discipline to this goal. And then there is Strong's comment buried way down in there, which I like a lot:

Generally, I think the importance of anthropological work for the public is negligibly influenced by planning documents. What matters is the work that anthropologists are actually doing.

I agree with this point. And that's why I don't think what we need is an ethnographic study of ourselves in order to move forward. I am not sure what producing a bunch of internal definitions and statements about "what we do" is going to really change much in terms of public understanding of "what we do," even if it might be a fruitful exercise for some adherents (maybe). This kind of internal conversation is great and all, but where does it lead? To thousands of personal statements and definitions? As Kerim argues, can there even BE some uniform, all encompassing, detailed definition of what anthropology is really all about?

Besides, I feel pretty comfortable with some fairly basic definitions or starting points that can be filled in by the vast amount of (diverse) work that anthropologists do. Anthropology is the study of humanity in all times and all places, through a diverse yet interlinked set of holisitc subfields. (this definition basically comes from Haviland's intro to anthropology text that I use for 100 level classes--works for me). The details of anthropology, of course, can be explored and highlighted by individual work, whether by a cultural anthropologist, a primatologist, or a collaborative combination of perspectives. Nothing illustrates a definition better than case studies and real world examples of ideas put into practice.

Words, definitions, and internally-focused conversations are great...but they aren't ends in and of themselves. They should be a means to an end (ie actually doing anthropology). Ultimately, the search for the "perfect" definition of anthropology reminds me of photographers and other technophiles who end up talking endlessly about their lenses, cameras, film types, or software programs and rarely actually produce any photographic work to speak of. It also reminds me of a saying I heard somewhere: "Writers write." Plenty of people talk about their newest book, or talk about how they are GOING to write, but the real ones are out there actually producing something. The same goes for anthropology: anthropologists DO ANTHROPOLOGY, and the best way to illustrate what that means is to actually publish and disseminate well thought-out and executed anthropology through diverse forms of media. Don't read this as a "less theory more action" argument, because that's not what I am saying at all. What I AM saying is that all of these internal conversations have to lead somewhere--and that "somewhere" includes the dissemination of anthropological knowledge outside of the discipline itself. Because that's part of the point, right?

Public relations may not have been the primary issue here, but it has become part of the story. And there is definitely a bit of PR problem with anthropology. The ways that the AAA handled this particular "incident" is a case in point. So maybe this is a good time to for everyone involved to rethink how and why we engage with and utilize particular forms of media. Why is it that so many members of the general public don't have a solid understanding of what it is that anthropologists actually DO?

American Anthropologist is great and all--but that publication is geared towards anthropologists (ok, and other academics). It would be nice to see a well-designed anthropological publication that features articles and commentary from contemporary anthropologists. You know, something that can sit alongside--and provide a valid, strong counterpoint to--publications like The Economist, Foreign Policy, Time, and other media that has a pretty broad readership and distribution. Just an idea. You're never going to see American Anthropologist at Barnes & Noble, that's for sure. And this isn't to say that there is a need to put AA in such places--but maybe there IS a need to have a different type of publication that reaches other audiences while still providing critical commentary and an informative presentation of ideas (print, online, etc).

It would be nice to see the thoughts of, say, James Ferguson to challenge the ideas of Thomas Friedman, just to give one example. After all, anthropologists do some pretty fascinating and incredibly relevant work, if you ask me (bias alert). I still argue, however, that the ASA is far ahead of the AAA when it comes to rethinking the direction and style of communication and dissemination of ideas to wider audiences. So maybe that can be used as a source of inspiration, who knows? Fortunately, I think there are plenty of people out there who are already leading the charge in this direction for anthropology, and I'll be interested to see where things go.

A tourism imaginary

I never thought that I would end up studying TOURISM in any way. It certainly wasn't part of my overall plan when I went back to school. But, it just kind of happened. And I have to admit, it's a pretty fascinating topic, mostly because tourism is such a pervasive and strange process. There is never a shortage of, well, interesting stuff. Like this:

I just saw this ad today. It's for some game called Wewaii, in which players can build hotels and resorts to make virtual tourists happy--and get to enjoy "the vacation feeling." I'm not quite sure what that means. In fact, I have no idea what this is, why it exists, or whether it has some connection to real world tourism. I just think it's a strange idea--a video game about tourism? What purpose does that serve? Why would these be even remotely interesting--to anyone?

Tourists are somewhere between migrants and colonists. Or maybe they are somewhere between "locals" and foreigners? What ARE tourists? What are they doing, and how can their different experiences be understood within larger social, economic, and political frameworks? On the surface tourism might seem like a lighthearted subject of study--it's all about margaritas on the beach and the French Riviera. Right? But there's a lot more going on. As Dennison Nash once argued, sometimes tourism looks a lot like imperialism. There are certainly "power issues," in tourism--that's an understatement. Just read about the histories of the creation of Cancun to figure that out (I recommend Hiernaux's 1999 article "Cancun Bliss" for starters).

Look at the image above. What it is saying? What does it tell us about how people think about and interact with the idea of tourism? Does it mimic the decision-making processes of distant tourism planner who seek the next cutting edge destination where a new, exotic, desirable destination can be constructed to lure tourists? What about the actual histories of the places where these hotels are built? What about the nearby populations that deal with the rapid expansion of urban development? What about the people who are displaced? What about environmental damage? What happens when the destination is no longer popular? Then what?

Sure. It's just a game. But take the time to read a little more about tourism planning and implementation. Yes, many developers argue that their projects are eco-friendly or "sustainable," but what does that mean? Who measures what is and what is not sustainable? While places like Cabo San Lucas look quite vibrant and successful from some perspectives, the urban colonias that ring the tourism zone tell other stories.

This online game is pretty fascinating because it reflects how tourists think about places. Or maybe it reflects how particular societies view certain places as the potential sites for the production of tourism commodities. Places, just waiting to be developed into that "perfect" resort. And while it's just a silly little game, it bears a strange resemblance to real world tourism development processes that definitely are NOT mere games. And while tourists are able to easily fly in and out of places like Cancun without thinking much about the long-term social and economic consequences of tourism development, others aren't exactly in the same position. For some, a trip to Cancun is only a few clicks away. But for others the social, economic, and political barriers aren't quite so permeable.

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.

Publication models: Contexts by the ASA

I just got something in the mail from the American Sociological Association which features their publication Contexts. That is a nice looking magazine, and it makes me wonder why us anthropologically minded folks can't get together and do something along those lines. Combine solid anthropology with good design. Contexts has a nice look to it, and they also put photography to good use. Kind of reminds me of one of my favorite magazines of all time, Colors (is that even around anymore?). I think that it would definitely be possible to create something for anthropology that is of this caliber. Why not? Either in print or online or both. Then we could put that thing right next to The Economist, Foreign Affairs, and The National Review and hope for some debates to break out right in the middle of Barnes and Noble.

We can all dream, can't we?