Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
22 ANTHROPOLOGY TODAY VOL 21 NO 5, OCTOBER 2005
2. See Seymour Melman, The permanent war economy: Capitalism in decline, New York, Touchstone Books, 1976.
3. Dana Milbank and Claudia Deane: ‘Poll finds dimmer view of Iraq war’. Washington Post, 8 June 2005, p.A1.
4. See, for example, David Price, ‘The CIA’s campus spies’, Counterpunch, 12/13 March 2005 http://www.counterpunch.org/price03122005.html, and Russell Cobb, ‘Unmasking Secret Agents in the Classroom’, Daily Texan, 20 April 2005. See also http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/uk_news/education/4603271.stm
5. David Glenn, ‘Cloak and classroom’. Chronicle of Higher Education, 25 March 2005.
6. Price, op.cit.
A response to the debate so far, AT21[3-4]
While the debate on ‘spying’ highlights a readily identified and easily condemned breach of anthropological ethics, far more lurks beneath the surface. The systematic col-lection and analysis of information about ‘the wretched of the earth’, however disseminated, tends to add more to the power of the poten-tial oppressors than to the ability of the weak to resist – regardless of the intentions of the
researchers and their occasional successes in advocacy roles.
The Kenyan politician who welcomed me to his home in 1961 was wise to tell the assem-bled guests, ‘This man has come to learn about us – but we won’t tell him all our secrets, will we?’ Quite rightly, he recognized that with the best will in the world (which his experience of the colonial authorities would have led him to doubt), once my data was in the public arena it would be more accessible to the colonial powers – who might not have been familiar with it – than to the subjects of the study, who knew it already.
Marginally less insidious than spying for governments is the research sponsored by private companies which expect to receive the findings in advance of, or worse, instead of, publication. Again it is the, possibly secret, knowledge of the generally weaker that is provided to the stronger party, who will not necessarily use it to the benefit of the subjects of the research.
Obviously some ethical problems relating to the sponsorship, collection, distribution and use of research material are more serious than others. But the blatant wrongs of spying should not blind us to the widespread and potentially more serious evils of collaboration with other forms of exploitation, notably those associated with big business. l
Michael Whisson Rhodes University
Note: The September 2005 issue of the AAA Newsletter includes comments by Hugh Gusterson, David Price and Felix Moos on the PRISP scheme. The head of the Oxford University Anthropology Department, in Cherwell Online (10.06.05), refers to the PRISP scheme as‘very harmful’ to anthropology. The issue has also been extensively reported in the Times Higher Education Supplement (03.06.05) and via BBC Online (02.06.05). The AAA has now estab-lished an ‘InFocus’ website: www.aaanet.org/press/an/infocus/prisp/other_news.htm.
conferencesSPrEADING THE NETWorkshop on the academic application of anthropology in multi-disciplinary departments, London Metropolitan University, 27 April 2005
This workshop, held at the Postgraduate Centre of London Metropolitan University, attracted around 40 participants from across the UK and from France. The wide range of interests represented provided a graphic illustration of the breadth of anthropology’s constituency within academia. Among those present were anthropologists working in departments of engineering, art and design, museology, legal studies, sociology, refugee studies, planning, business and tourism.
Thus the opening presentation by David Mills on C-SAP’s research project ‘Where do the anthropologists go?’ found an immediate resonance with the audience. The research followed up the employment destinations of doctoral students trained in UK anthropology departments, and this provoked a spirited discussion about the definition and self-identification of anthropologists. As Tom Selwyn pointed out, numerous good and highly ‘anthropological’ theses are being pro-duced outside anthropology departments, often under the supervision of conventionally trained anthropologists, with the result that many may now define themselves as ‘anthropologists’ without having studied in an anthropology department at all. The issues raised by this dis-cussion – the means by which anthropology/anthropologists are recognized and sustained, and the assumption versus the ascription of ‘anthropology’ as a form of identification – became central themes of the day.
Peter Burns’ account of teaching anthro-pology within a business and tourism department suggested that anthropologists
have a difficult task in balancing their own, sometimes shaky, self-perception as anthro-pologists with the views about anthropology held by colleagues from other disciplines. Anthropologists, he argued, find themselves pushed into a mediating role, ‘dressing up’ anthropology for managers and management academics, while the teaching of anthropology in such departments has a subversive function, trying to make students ‘unsteady’ and encour-aging them to question their preconceptions about culture and society. Burns also pointed to the gap between the cutting-edge scholarly work being done in the older (pre-1992 uni-versities) – where anthropology departments tend to be located – and the more vocational focus of the work done in modern universities and tourism departments. The suggestion that ‘the good anthropology’ is done in the older university departments compounds the ‘status anxiety’ of anthropologists working elsewhere.
The session on research saw two presenta-tions, one by Gerry Mars on the procurement of anthropological research to solve prob-lems in business and organizations, and the second by Nick Stanley focusing on what can be learnt from cross-disciplinary research. Returning to the theme of the split between the institutional frameworks in which multi-disciplinary/vocational and traditional/ academic anthropology are located, Mars suggested that, just as anthropologists in the business field have to find ways to present their anthropological insights in a way that is relevant to businesses, so they might have to find ways to represent what they do as anthropology to anthropologists. The Research Assessment Exercise (RAE), he argued, still shows that anthropologists do not pay enough attention to organizations, whereas this should be part of conventional anthropology training. Nick Stanley described what he had learnt
about the recognition of objects of material culture through working with art historians, but suggested that the contribution anthro-pology could make to the work of other disci-plines was not generally recognized. He gave the example of recent ‘public art’ interventions in the Netherlands which used an ‘ethnic art’ idiom, raising major ethical issues of repre-sentation and copyright in which anthropology should play a central role. The problem, as ever, lies in lack of recognition of what anthropology is and the type of contribution it can make outside the discipline – a point reinforced by the public response to the recent BBC series Tribe. One strength of multi-disciplinary research collaboration is that other disciplines can act as a sounding board for testing out anthropological theory and practice; however, when it comes to accessing research funding many participants believed that grant-making bodies operate with unexamined criteria of ‘quality’ and ‘standards’ which do not recognize the nature and dynamics of cross-disciplinary work and the variety of con-stituencies to which it is addressed. Some felt that this also applied to the RAE and the idi-osyncrasies of the various subject panels.
The third session, on institutional links, consisted of a panel discussion led by Hilary Callan of the RAI, Richard Fardon of the ASA and Tom Selwyn of London Metropolitan University. Callan set out her view of the role of the RAI in keeping anthro-pologists connected to their discipline and acting as a clearing house for ideas, discussion and debate through conferences, publications and research support. In this role, the RAI aims to encourage a two-way relationship, nourishing the connections forged between anthropology and other disciplines in both well-established and emerging fields (from medical anthropology to tourism and public
ANTHROPOLOGY TODAY VOL 21 NO 5, OCTOBER 2005 23
policy research). Research support so far has been earmarked for ‘traditional’ research projects, but this approach may need to be broadened. Richard Fardon recognized that the organizational and institutional landscape of anthropology is failing to keep pace with its evolving intellectual landscape, but argued that the ASA’s view of anthropology – as a form of training combined with ongoing pro-fessional practice – is not an exclusive one, and encouraged membership of the ASA as a way of registering the presence and inter-ests of anthropologists in their full range of institutional settings. Tom Selwyn reflected on his own and his colleagues’ experience of working on anthropological projects funded by the European Union. In response to earlier observations on the difficulty of establishing a public profile for anthropology, he argued that EU projects offer an important channel for anthropological intervention in the public sphere.
The final discussion revisited many of the themes which had surfaced during the day. While many areas of shared concern had been identified, debate revolved around the nature of the interests involved, and whether they actually constitute a basis for common action. Tom Selwyn suggested the establishment of research consortia across institutions as a means of overcoming institutional mismatch and the problems of fragmentation and isola-tion experienced by anthropologists in non-anthropology departments. Hilary Callan, like many others, was concerned that formal con-sortia may generate further bureaucratic struc-tures that add to the burden on academics, and therefore preferred the nurturing of informal networks focused around common research interests, or ad hoc groups based on projects directed at particular audiences and constitu-encies. Richard Fardon questioned whether ‘anthropologists in non-anthropology depart-ments’ constitute a ‘networkable’ category, suggesting that networks need shared intellec-tual interests rather than a ‘shared institutional predicament’.
The day ended with this question left hanging in the air, and no clear decision as to what, if any, might be suitable ‘next steps’ to take. The healthy attendance and lively debate at the workshop indicate the basis at least for a self-identifying sub-category among anthro-pologists. However, the workshop also high-lighted the problems that many academics and consultants face in defining both their profes-sional identities and the academic communi-ties that serve their interests. Many academics who actively engage with anthropological theories and methods find it difficult to iden-tify themselves as anthropologists. They do not necessarily see themselves as members of a narrowly defined community of anthropolo-gists, and their loyalties to the discipline are redefined in different professional contexts. As a result, those seeking to apply anthropology in multidisciplinary departments occupy a sometimes uncomfortable marginal position, constantly mediating between different disci-plinary discourses and interpreting different communities to one another. This undoubtedly
creates new sub-disciplinary interest groups, but the extent to which such fragmented networks of individuals can develop into con-sistent communities of practice will ultimately depend on: (a) the sense of shared intellectual interest, (b) an ideological commitment by individuals to build and maintain such net-works, (c) the ability of such interest groups to assert a sense of common identity, and (d) the ability of these interest groups to force funding organizations and academic host institutions to accommodate emerging definitions and appli-cations of anthropology.
In many ways this workshop captured the essential spirit and predicament of anthro-pology, while raising fundamental questions about the nature of the discipline today, and the significance of current institutional and funding regimes. Anthropology is increas-ingly being applied outside of its traditional academic settings, yet practitioners must continually redefine its relevance to teaching and research, and to non-academic contexts. Teachers, researchers and consultants are obliged to demonstrate the economic value of anthropology in today’s increasingly market-driven professional climate, while also trying to carve out intellectual space in a disciplinary area previously dominated by a relatively narrow set of institutions. l
Julie [email protected]
Peter [email protected]
For more information about the workshop, including a fuller report of the proceedings, visit http://www.londonmet.ac.uk/research-units/iictd/news/. Please email any reflec-tions or suggestions regarding a network for anthropologists in non-anthropology departments to Julie Scott or Peter Lugosi.
rHETOrIc IN POLITIcS AND EcONOMIcSFourth International Rhetoric Culture Conference, Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, 16-20 July 2005
This conference marked the final stage in the conferencing phase of the ambitious ‘Rhetoric Culture’ project, which will now be followed up by the publication of over a dozen books by Berghahn Books. The event itself was some-thing of a marathon, combining around 40 presentations (plus their discussants), delivered over five days in conditions that were often oppressively hot. The conference, which was supported by the Volkswagen Foundation and organized by a home team led by Ivo Strecker, was split into two parts: ‘Power, rhetoric and political culture’ and ‘Persuasion in economic life’. Some specialists confined their participa-tion to one half of the proceedings, but a good number stuck it out for both.
I came as a newcomer to ‘rhetoric culture’, but I enjoy public speaking and hoped to pick up some tips on the use of rhetoric for anthro-pological purposes. I suppose I retain from my training in social anthropology a distaste for
the word ‘culture’ which has been amplified by the liberal education I acquired afterwards. I can’t help associating the idea with early modern Europe’s courts and then with nation-alism. But we are living today in the biggest culture boom ever, with cultural services (entertainment, media and communications, education, religion, the arts, information serv-ices generally) rapidly becoming the dominant sector of the world market. So, as a would-be populist, I have begun to take the idea seri-ously. The future of the human economy is for people to trade at distance not just things, but what they do for each other. Maybe ‘culture’ expresses best the infinite variety of what that entails. I still prefer the tradition linking citi-zens to civilization, but we can’t always have what we want.
The final session, on publication strategy, proposed no less than four books coming out of this conference, with each theme split between a more theoretical interdiscipli-nary volume and one based on ethnographic case studies. Not for the first or last time, the standing of the term ‘rhetoric culture’ was raised. The anglophones, especially the British, were desperately keen to introduce a conjunctive or to make one term an adjec-tive. I suggested, only half-joking, the term ‘RhetoricKultur’ in support of the enterprise’s main poet. It is important to have a name that implies just one thing, not two in tentative jux-taposition. And if the expression strikes some people as odd now, they will think differently when all those books have hit the shelves. This conference gave me several glimpses of Ivo Strecker’s impassioned articulation of the idea. Who could forget him thrusting a long Hamar stick at the appropriate angle while expounding how culture is rhetoric and rhetoric culture?
The two halves of the conference differed in the prominence they gave to its ostensible rhetorical theme. The ‘politics’ section stayed closer to it, perhaps because the purpose of rhetoric is political. The other section, despite the lead given by its main organizer, Stephen Gudeman, quickly fell back into the long-standing argument about the relationship between anthropology and economics, where the idea of rhetoric was left largely implicit. In any case, the issue of where rhetoric cul-ture begins and ends was unresolved. Despite repeated calls from the floor to define its limits, it did seem in the end that almost any aspect of human behaviour could be embraced by the term. Maybe this is its strength. The academic division of labour renews itself peri-odically, as here, by finding catch-all catego-ries that allow conversation across disciplinary boundaries.
The organizers obviously had in mind that presentations might acknowledge the rhe-torical theme in their form. But the academic paper was not seriously challenged as the main vehicle for argument. Most people read out a summary of theirs and those who didn’t were often just poorly prepared (including your reporter). There is a contradiction between form and content here that will become even more manifest in a series of publications.
