What is Open Anthropology?

[Steven Devijver]

I'm very excited to be part of this network dedicated to the future of anthropology. But what is open anthropology?

Or to put it in other words: what does/can the open anthropology community do for each of us? Or again in other words: which actions or behavior could be typical for the open anthropology community?

If anthropology itself is concerned with bringing about a more equal and democratic society than ever existed, then what is open anthropology? Is it simply a collaborative approach to this concern or is it more than that?

Can open anthropology give us access to outcomes that are otherwise not accessible? Is meaning of open not related to the concern of anthropology itself?

So many questions, what's your take?

Steven

[Steven Devijver]

Hey Jeremy,

Very well put!

Thanks

Steven

[Charles Kirke]

'Open' means, in my construction, not closed - at the very least. No limits, no secret handshakes, no language designed to exclude the non-professional. Anthropology used to be exciting and new a hundred years ago but since then the professionals have moved in and closed it down.

I am, in my way, a professional and I don't mind playing the game (though it would sometimes be nice to understand what peer reviewers are actually trying to say) but that game is only good for those who look inwards. Let's look outwards sometimes.

All the best,

Charles

[Steven Devijver]

Hey Charles,

I'm honestly moved by the fact that so many anthropologists have gathered here to at least check out what the opportunities are.

I'm not a professional but I love anthropology. I love the idea of anthropology, I love it's history and I love comtemplating with all of you about it's future. Getting this chance given by professionals like you is an very valuable gift indeed.

Thanks

Steven

[Steven Devijver]

Hey Stacie,

This is fact becoming one of the most exciting discussions I have ever had on any forum.

Thanks for quoting my own quote from the memory bank forum. I'm actually planning to upload my own story asap and I hope others will follow.

What strikes me is that anthropologists tend to remove themselves from our own societies and embed themselves in remote societies in order to study humanity. At this point here we stand, forming an online community we might some day deeply care about and we aren't even sure how to get started.

In other words, we seem to have lost touch with the community building skills humanity once depended up for it's survival. How could such a thing ever have happened, and what can we learn from this observation?

Anyways, I'm looking forward to being part of this experiment!

Steven

[Victoria Reed]

I think you nailed it, from a student's perspective. For myself, I do not wish to belong to another exclusively student oriented organization. I want to swim where the big fish swim. I want to observe the behavior, listen to the wisdom and learn from the silver-backs as John puts it. I need continuity in study effort, even if I have to find it myself. Otherwise as a student, I get distracted by all the shiny courses like Art for Elementary Education, for example. What a class that was!

Stacie Gilmore said:

I especially liked the following idea on The Memory Bank's forum:

"An open anthropology would be self-promoting, and do much more to get the word out about what anthropologists are doing than anything the AAA has ever done." - Kerim

As a student of anthropology still familiarizing myself with the field, I would like to have a central place online to learn about ongoing research and network with others interested in anthropology. [ snip ]

This is where storytelling comes in; that is telling our own stories to each other. If we're truly not an institution, and if we're really a community, we will first have to get to know each other and connect to each other emotionally. Anthropologists know this better than anybody else. The best way to do this of course is to meet each other in real life, spend some time together and get to know each other. The second best alternative is to share our stories with each other online, and circumstances will prove that this is probably something we have to specialize in. Apart from being an online community of anthropologists this is also a giant experiment in studying ourselves and each other in community building and growing." - devijers

Thoughts?

[Keith Hart]

Thanks for re-opening this thread, Victoria. It captures so vividly the freedom and optimism that marked the beginning of the OAC. Now there are several places in this network (including two discussion groups) for discussing the term "open anthropology" in ways that often reflect what Weber called "the routinization of charisma", the transformation of energizing spirit into a pattern of organization and the turf wars that inevitably arise from that. But this Forum is the best place to have that conversation and we rely on new members like you to inject once more the initial enthusiasm which inspired the ad hoc group that got the OAC going. Above all, we must ensure that newcomers are not intimidated by what seems like a settled exchange between a few regulars who are open only to each other.

I can't do better than endorse Jeremy's impassioned declaration of May 28th above. As so often here, I find myself mulling over some question and suddenly find that someone has already expressed it so much more efectively than I could. I look forward to meeting you here again and in other OAC locations.

[deniz batum]

I would like to ask what does open anthropology entail exactly? I am doing an ethnographic study and would be very careful about sharing my results "openly".

kind regards
deniz

[Keith Hart]

Deniz,

Open anthropology is a commitment to be inclusive, where possible, rather than unnecessarily exclusive or closed. The term has no 'exact' meaning, since its operationalization is always contingent and usually political. For example, when you write up fieldwork, you have to decide how much you can safely reveal about your informants. The principle should be that the ethnographer would not knowingly cause harm to anyone else as a result of what s/he publishes.

You have brought up a particularly sensitive matter, the relationship between an anthropologist and their fieldnotes. There is a tradition of secrecy here that is professionally dubious. Many people take their notes to the grave without ever making them public. This hardly meets modern standards of accountability. Elsewhere on the OAC you can read how Owen Wiltshire experimented with a blog as a means of engaging people in his field site more publicly and in less of a one-way relationship. So this too is a question of judgment. People vary in this respect, but an open anthropology would ask you to be explicit about your reasons for keeping things from the rest of your profession and the public. There is much room for debate here, but debate is one way of keeping the issue open.

deniz batum said:

I would like to ask what does open anthropology entail exactly? I am doing an ethnographic study and would be very careful about sharing my results "openly".
kind regards deniz

[deniz batum]

Dear Keith,

Thanks. I agree with you about the accountability. It is much needed! I think I misunderstood the "open" in this case. The ethical issues have been really hard to deal with. On the one hand, I have incredibly rich material, on the other hand, I have a responsibility for my respondents. Nothing that would really expose them, or put them in danger. But still, intimate sharings. Personally I find that I have a significant power, to talk about other's peoples lives critically, when they have opened up to me. I am a beginner in anthropology, and have been trying to reach a healthy balance about this.

[Philip Carl SALZMAN]

Keith said, "The principle should be that the ethnographer would not knowingly cause harm to anyone else as a result of what s/he publishes."

Of course, you are right, Keith; this is a standard ethical pronouncement for anthropologists. But many of us are "critical," "committed," or "engaged" anthropologists, speaking out on behalf of the oppressed and the "subalterns," whether of caste, class, gender, age, ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation. Thus there might be a "commitment" in favour of, as Steve (above) originally put it, "anthropology ... concerned with bringing about a more equal and democratic society than ever existed."

Part of such analyses are, of course, the villains: upper caste members who abuse "untouchables"; men who control and abuse women; employers of children; capitalists oppressing workers; Israelis oppressing Palestinians; heterocentrics engaging in homophobia; etc. etc. All of these are meant to be harmed by the anthropologists' analyses: the game is name and shame, discredit, and condemn. In short, do all harm possible to those of whom one does not approve.

So for many anthropologists, the principle is, "do no harm to those of whom one approves; do maximum harm to those of whom one disapproves."

[Paul Wren]

Defining "harm" in this context would be very helpful. Let me try to construct an example:

An anthropologist is studying a community of recent immigrants (both legal and otherwise) in a U.S. city. If study determines that the immigrant community is being treated unfairly by the local government and even determines that laws have been broken by the municipal officials, then certainly these "villains" may be called out by the critique, and an engaged anthropologist may hope that shining a light on the situation will spur change.

If I follow what I think Philip is saying, one could interpret that the local authorities (the "villains") are not only harmed by the anthropologist's publication, but in fact it is the anthropologist's explicit goal to "harm" them.

In my mind, the anthropologist's analysis is intended to bring about justice. Certainly this may undermine the behaviors and goals of the villains, but I do not believe that means they have been harmed.

Alternatively, if the anthropologist were to release personal information about specific individuals in the local government and attack them personally, then I could conclude that they were being harmed.

I just wanted to provide one person's perspective. It is issues like this that sure make it easier being an archaeologist!



Philip Carl SALZMAN said:

Keith said, "The principle should be that the ethnographer would not knowingly cause harm to anyone else as a result of what s/he publishes."

Of course, you are right, Keith; this is a standard ethical pronouncement for anthropologists. But many of us are "critical," "committed," or "engaged" anthropologists, speaking out on behalf of the oppressed and the "subalterns," whether of caste, class, gender, age, ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation. Thus there might be a "commitment" in favour of, as Steve (above) originally put it, "anthropology ... concerned with bringing about a more equal and democratic society than ever existed."

Part of such analyses are, of course, the villains: upper caste members who abuse "untouchables"; men who control and abuse women; employers of children; capitalists oppressing workers; Israelis oppressing Palestinians; heterocentrics engaging in homophobia; etc. etc. All of these are meant to be harmed by the anthropologists' analyses: the game is name and shame, discredit, and condemn. In short, do all harm possible to those of whom one does not approve.

So for many anthropologists, the principle is, "do no harm to those of whom one approves; do maximum harm to those of whom one disapproves."

[Philip Carl SALZMAN]

Paul says, "this may undermine the behaviors and goals of the [informants], but I do not believe that means they have been harmed." [term in brackets inserted by PCS]

Let's try some examples: "This may undermine the behaviors and goals of the Muslims, but I do not believe that means they have been harmed." "This may undermine the behaviors and goals of the workers, but I do not believe that means they have been harmed." "This may undermine the behaviors and goals of the women, but I do not believe that means they have been harmed." Can we really deny that "undermin[ing informants'] behaviors and goals" "harms them"? How can this not count as "harm"?

Are you suggesting that if we say the magic word, "justice," then the harm we do is not harm? Didn't someone say that you can't make an omelet without breaking eggs? And that change comes out the barrel of an anthropologist's printer? Really, what many anthropologists want is credit for harming the right people.

As you know, these days there are plenty of folks in Iran saying that "justice" is following God's way and crushing the enemies of God, i.e. voters, protesters, prisoners. Have these suffered "harm"? How about the kulaks who stood in the way of Soviet proletarian justice, and were slaughtered in the tens and hundreds of thousands. Were they "harmed"?

Folks who believe that anthropology is a form of social activism want credit for "justice," "equality," "progressive change," but do not wish to take responsibility for the human cost of that change or the various ways that such change can go wrong and result in untold damage and countless atrocities.