Link to applied neuro-anthropology

Normally, I wouldn’t cross-post from the other anthropology site that I do, but my partner-in-blogging on Neuroanthropology, Daniel Lende, has been putting up some great posts that could just have easily been featured on Culture Matters because they’re about applying anthropology in all sorts of ways. I won’t reference them all, but I thought I’d flag a couple that might be of special interest to those involved with applied anthropology:

In Cellphones Save The World, Lende looks at an article in The New York Times on Jan Chipchase, a ‘human-behavior researcher’ and ‘user-anthropologist’ who works for Nokia. Daniel provides an extensive commentary on the original article in the NYT magazine, Can the Cellphone Help End Global Poverty?; both would likely be of interest to Culture Matters readers. Lende follows up his original commentary with more information on Jan Chipchase here.

Another post explores an ongoing project, Digital Ethnography, at Kansas State University, with a couple of good video clips including A Vision of Students Today.

Finally, and I’m just sampling from a few of his April posts, there’s a series on obesity that looks at the ‘obesity epidemic’ from a holistic, anthropological perspective. There’s several posts, but the last (which have links to the earlier ones) are On the Causes of Obesity: Common Sense or Interacting Systems and Human Biology and Models for Obesity.

Like I said, normally, I wouldn’t shamelessly cross-plug posts on the two blogs, but since I’m not the one doing the postings, and I really do think that they’re great examples of applying anthropology to pressing practical issues like poverty or public health, I’m breaking my usual rule for self-restraint.

Beeman on Anthropologists in Iraq

Brown University anthropologist, William O. Beeman, recently published Lethal Field Work: Anthropologists Cry Foul Over Colleagues’ Aid to Iraq Occupation in Le Monde diplomatique (the link is to an English version on Alternet). Beeman is probably one of the anthropologists who most successfully publishes in the popular press, drawing on his fieldwork in the Middle East to comment especially on US foreign policy in regular columns. In this article, he covers the basic outline (very basic) of the recent controversy over the Human Terrain Systems (HTS) in the US military.

One of the principal proponents of cooperation is Montgomery McFate, a Yale PhD anthropologist and senior fellow at the U.S. Institute for Peace. In a seminar on 10 May 2007, McFate presented a plan that was influential in establishing the HTS project. She pointed out that the U.S. military spends almost nothing on social science research that would be crucial to the success of operations, and recommended an approach to closing the cultural knowledge gap.

The article really does not add much to the anthropological discussion of anthropology’s potential role in Iraq, certainly nothing beyond what’s already been covered on this site and on others, like Savage Minds. In fact, the article is so general that the only reason I provide a link to it is to note that this mostly internal discussion in our field is only leaking out in very limited forms. I’m left perplexed by the article, frankly. Either Beeman does not know about, or chooses not to write with any recognition of much more extensive debate in our field, including some much stronger opinions than those he relays: basically, that there is a conflict, with some anthropologists doing HTS-related work, even when not experts in the regions involved, and other anthropologists criticizing them and pushing for a resolution to prohibit intelligence gathering for counter-insurgency by anthropologists.

I usually like Beeman’s columns, but this one left me flat. If this is how discussions within our field are being relayed to those outside it, then the effect of any critiques of these programs is liable to be negligible. The debate sounds polarized and, oddly, comes out muffled, balanced between those who want to use anthropology to reduce casualties and those who worry that anthropology will be used as a weapon. Do we use anthropology for good or for evil? Is that really all this debate is about, because if that’s it, then it’s a pretty easy debate to resolve: I’m for good and against evil. But I think that if the debate is reduced to this flat of a discussion, the general public isn’t going to really understand why its still going on. ‘What are you guys carrying on about? Just use anthropology to decrease casualties and don’t assassinate people. What’s your problem?’

In this case, I think a simple moral framing actually robs the public account of much that is engaging in this debate. The methodological, pragmatic, structural, and other difficulties of doing serious ethnography, and of using anthropological knowledge in these settings, the likelihood of becoming ethically compromised, of having data compromised by its use, and the epistemological challenges of anthropology in war are, in my opinion, also amenable to popular accounts. And these all make the simple, do-we-use-anthropology-as-a-weapon-or-to-save-lives framing, actually more interesting because it becomes clear the question is not so simple.

2008 Ethnographic Praxis in Industry Conference (EPIC)

The 2008 EPIC conference will be held in Copenhagen, Denmark, October 15–18. Theme: Being Seen: Paradoxes and Practices of (In)Visibility. For call for papers, submission deadlines and conference details see www.epic2008.com or contact Melissa Cefkin at mcefkin@yahoo.com. Deadlines: April 18 (extended paper abstracts), May 19 (workshop proposals), June 30 (artifact submissions).

corporate anthropology = anthropologists working for the military?

Over at Savage Minds there is a small but fierce exchange of comments about the merits of corporate anthropology (two commentators divide over whether the appropriate analogy is corporate=military or corporate=academia).  Since we here at Macquarie like to think about applied anthropology, maybe some of our students and readers of Culture Matters would like to go over there and weigh in.  Preferably with something a little more thoughtful than name-calling (e.g. “reductive dumbass”).

Chicago anthropologist weighs in on “pimp-gate”

More on the U.S. presidential race and tenuous links with anthropology: Michael Silverstein, a professor of anthropology, linguistics and psychology at the University of Chicago, was asked to weigh in on “pimp-gate,” the scandal where MSNBC anchor David Shuster was suspended after suggesting on-air that the Hillary Clinton campaign was “pimping out” Clinton’s daughter, Chelsea.

Here’s the quote I loved:  “To say that someone is pimping is really an extraordinarily negative description,” said University of Chicago’s Silverstein. “It takes a lot of work to use it so ironically that it becomes positive.”

AAA annual meeting: Inclusion, Collaboration & Engagement

The AAA have announced the theme of their 2008 conference: Inclusion, Collaboration & Engagement. The call for papers covers a lot of the themes that have been very central to this blog, including the public role of anthropology as an engaged, as well as applied, discipline.One of the framing statements reflects a sentiment that has been expressed on this blog a several times: “Anthropologists, scholars in other disciplines, and the general public have begun to recognize that anthropology has a great deal to contribute in this era of globalization. Still, our discipline remains a mystery to many and we are often not approached when social science information is needed”. Indeed, this would appear to be a direct response to the main concerns raised by Hylland Eriksen in Engaging Anthropology when he asks why a discipline which should have so much of relevance to say to the wider public about the world we live in remains relatively obscure to most people. I think it’s heartening that the AAA is willing to put this sort of question at the centre of its next annual meeting. It will be interesting to see what comes from it.

Here is the full text of the call for papers:

Inclusion, Collaboration & Engagement

The theme for the 2008 AAA Annual Meeting in San Francisco is “Inclusion, Collaboration and Engagement.” This theme provides us the opportunity to critically examine anthropology’s relationships: across subfields, with other disciplines, with our many publics, and with contemporary social problems. The Executive Program Committee envisions healthy debate as we confront methodological, ethical, and epistemological concerns that unite and divide us; as well as discuss the challenges, risks, and opportunities for growth enabled by this dialog.

Inclusion, Collaboration, and Engagement are ideas that have been central to anthropology throughout the discipline’s history and they are particularly important today. Anthropologists, scholars in other disciplines, and the general public have begun to recognize that anthropology has a great deal to contribute in this era of globalization. Still, our discipline remains a mystery to many and we are often not approached when social science information is needed. Moreover, anthropologists are conflicted about whether and how to participate in important public debates. Although there are the myriad attempts to develop a public interest anthropology, we are also wary of activism and public engagement, particularly as we recall government influence on anthropology during times of war.

This theme deserves our scholarly exploration. Analysis of the processes that promote inclusion, collaboration and engagement for positive human outcomes is a common area of interest for both academic and applied/practicing anthropologists, as is clear communication of anthropological perspectives to the wider public.

Inclusion

Anthropology’s historic mission to study humanity through the natural sciences, social sciences, and humanities by definition requires the inclusion of multiple disciplines. For example, paleoanthropology and archaeology depend on chemistry, zoology, botany, geology and other disciplines to date sites and interpret data. Similarly, linguistic and sociocultural anthropology regularly include perspectives from other disciplines, including history, philosophy, psychology, and political science. Moreover, there is much merit in an enhanced inclusive dialogue between the branches of anthropology. Cultural and biological anthropology, for example, have opportunities to work together in examining themes such as race, disease, and the environment. Many applied and practicing anthropologists have joint roots in anthropology and other professions such as public health, urban planning, education, business, international development or social work. Their work relies on and contributes to these other disciplines as well as anthropology.

Inclusive anthropology implies more than a holistic or interdisciplinary approach. It suggests research problems and relationships that explicitly address the knowledges and concerns of those who have been relegated to peripheral zones of analysis and theory because of preconceptions about the seemingly static division of intellectual labor. Bringing diverse voices and epistemic perspectives onto the discipline’s center stage—and enlarging that space according to a less hierarchical logic—is consistent with anthropology’s historic principle of inclusion.

Collaboration

Working together toward a common goal is a central characteristic of anthropology, where collaboration may describe work done by teams of anthropologists from diverse subfields or research done by a single anthropologist working together with a subject. For example, heterogeneous research teams in physical anthropology and archeology assemble to address complex intellectual problems. Additionally, the relationship between anthropologists and many Native American tribes might now be best described as collaborative. Native American tribes often require that all anthropological work conducted on reservations directly and actively involve tribal members in the design, implementation, and dissemination of research that addresses problems with contemporary relevance to their tribes. This reconceptualization of the researcher-subject relationship both suggests new challenges and reveals exciting opportunities to improve research and ensure it engages community needs.

Anthropologists who use participatory action methods engage in a knowledge production process that converts “informants” into research consultants and collaborators. These methods can empower local people to have a voice in government and corporate decision-making. Beyond invoking notions of partnership and the sharing of ethnographic authority rhetorically, many anthropologists work to build concrete collaborative relationships in community settings. The benefits, challenges, and contradictory outcomes of collaboration are worthy of examination and constructive self-criticism.

Engagement

Engaged anthropology has many dimensions. Engagement is becoming a key value in college and university settings where anthropologists recognize that relationships with local publics and community organizations are essential to higher education. From both within and outside of academia, engaged anthropologists have examined public policy issues related to welfare reform, immigration, and protection of indigenous knowledge and rights, and have joined with local participants to instigate and sustain government and community change.

In this area anthropology has much to offer, but the discipline has not yet decisively stepped forward. This year’s theme provides an opportunity for academic and applied/practicing anthropologists to engage in dialogue to set a new agenda for making anthropology increasingly relevant to key issues in the twenty-first century, including social identity, economic growth, cultural preservation, peace-making, and environmental and social justice.

UnAustralian Vegetarian?

I have started going to Yoga classes at my local Yoga center. In a recent class I was standing in the tree pose and staring fixedly ahead for balance. It so happened that the object of my gaze was one word on a nutrition chart; “MEAT”. The word stood out because it had been written above (and almost on top) of the word “TOFU” in black permanent marker. The nutrition chart was entirely vegetarian but for the minor addition.

The nutrition chart was not large enough for anybody but the person standing in front of it to see, so people would have to actually walk up and read the chart with some purpose if they did not happen to be standing in front of it during the class due to the room being slightly over crowded.

Somebody clearly felt that this piece of information should be communicated, “MEAT” was needed. Was this person concerned that people attending this yoga center might be confused with a nutrition chart that did not position “MEAT” under the protein section? Or perhaps that the chart was UnAustralian? The Australia day advertisements tell us that if we don’t BBQ lamb chops on Australia day we are UnAustralian… maybe this is something that should be added to the citizenship test? Who was Don Bradman? Which country “discovered” Australia? Do you eat lamb chops on Australia day?

What is a “practicing” anthropologist?

I just got an e-mail from COSWA, the Committee on the Status of Women in Anthropology, which is part of the American Anthropology Association. The e-mail invites “practicing anthropologists” to take a work climate survey. I didn’t read very carefully beyond that but went straight to click on the survey link, wanting to do my part. When I got there, I read this:

If you are a practicing anthropologist, we would greatly appreciate your completing this survey!

Hmm, I thought, that’s me. I teach anthropology, I do research (when I can), yep, I’m a practicing anthropologist. But then I read on:

If your main occupation is a full-time faculty member at an academic institution, please exit now.

Whoops. *That’s* me.

This often nags at me: between “applied” and “practicing” and “academic” and whatever other modifier for anthropologist you can think of, we don’t really have a suitable lexicon for distinguishing between anthropologists who teach at “an academic institution” and those who work for other institutions. I apply anthropology to most everything I do, and I expect that anthropologists who don’t teach at academic institutions but have PhDs from them are about as academic as I am.

Can anybody out there suggest literature that troubles the difference between “academic” and “applied” or “practicing” anthropologists?

A round-up of news coverage of the AAA meetings

Usually anthropology is only in the news when some new theory about Neanderthals is announced. But in the past week, anthropology has been all over the news, thanks to the American Anthropological Association meetings in Washington, D.C. which just ended a few days ago.

Before I left for the meetings, I fantasized that every night I would post some news from the day’s events on Culture Matters. I diligently took notes during the sessions on anthropology and the U.S. military, but between the intensity of the perpetual overlapping meetings (at one point I actually ran back and forth four times between two panels that I was trying to follow simultaneously) and the jet lag, I barely opened my computer. Now that I’m back, I see that journalists have covered the AAA meetings better than I possibly could have done, so instead I thought I’d just provide a round-up of the coverage and links to recently published stuff.

New book on anthropology in consumer research

Left Coast Press has just published Doing Anthropology in Consumer Research by Patricia L. Sunderland and Rita M. Denny. For more information:
http://www.lcoastpr ess.com/book. php?id=116

A blurb by George Marcus reads:

“This work succeeds brilliantly in blurring the increasingly unhelpful perception of a divide between ‘applied’ and ‘academic’ anthropology. Along several dimensions, it demonstrates how ‘cutting edge’ and indeed ‘theoretical’ post-1980s ethnographic research on consumers and marketing has been. Among the current literature in this field, this book has the comprehensiveness to serve as an ideal teaching tool.”