Why Nobody Gives a Damn About Anthropology

[A. Ashkuff]

Granted, the title’s controversial and overstated. But it got your attention, right? That’s called “contrarian marketing.” Humor me. You’ll see where I’m coming from. For full disclosure’s sake, you should know that I that started in religious anthropology, before moving into business anthropology, facilitating my own marketing committee, and approaching AAA with new marketing ideas.

 

So, how did I learn that “nobody gives a damn” about anthropology?

 

2009. Gainesville, FL. Dove World Outreach Ministries, an aggressive evangelical church, had gotten vandalized after causing larger-than-usual uproar in UF’s Turlington Plaza. Concerned about escalating violence, UF hosted a meeting to discuss countermeasures. As an anthropologist with years of experience among Turlington’s evangelicals, I came to speak as an expert opinion. I delivered a well-thought-out presentation, only to get dismissed as such: “You’re an anthropologist? Don’t you study bugs or something?” The following year, Dove World hosted International Burn a Koran Day, which incited deadly riots.

 

“Nobody gives a damn” about anthropology, because nobody knows what it is.

 

To varying degrees, other anthropologists understand this challenge. I’ve read similar woes in journals like American Anthropologist, and on blogs like Savage Minds. When Gov. Rick Scott criticized anthropology schools, USF responded with a presentation titled “This is Anthropology,” inescapably suggesting that people don’t already know what anthropology is. However, from a marketer’s perspective, a title like “This is Anthropology” only earns the attention of people who’re already interested in anthropology. Despite its thousands of views, Google reveals that “This is Anthropology’s” most relevant backlinks come from other anthropology websites. Essentially, it’s a presentation made by anthropologists, popular among other anthropologists.

 

So what can be done? Well, I'd like to discuss that here in the OAC forum. What do you think we can do?

 

For starters, I believe that anthropology needs mainstream interest, so we should market toward non-anthropologists. I’ve already conducted some market research, and deigned a tactic that motivates professors of *other subjects* to teach students about anthropology. Access my research, FOR ANYBODY TO CARE ABOUT ANTHROPOLOGY, THEY’LL NEED TO KNOW WHAT IT IS! for free via http://www.ashkuff.com/foranybodytocare More importantly, we should coordinate our efforts to bring anthropology mainstream, so email me at [e-mail] --- I get lots of email, so get my attention with the subject line “I GIVE A DAMN.”

 

--- regards, Ashkuff

[Keith Hart]

Congratulations on your initiative, Ashkuff. I agree that the public doesn't know what anthropology is and this is because anthropologists talk to each other, not to the public. Just as drug use varies by culture, so does anthropology itself.

If Mead and Benedict once addressed American prejudices with reference to cultural variation, confident in their society's global leadership, the anthropologies of the US, Britain and France are losing traction now along with their societies' world position. You might ask where anthropology is thriving today and which varieties of anthropologist succeed in reaching the public. I would suggest looking at Norway and Brazil for starters. In a recent Norwegian survey of public intellectuals, anthropologists filled three of the top ten slots, including the first, Thomas Hylland Eriksen. Brazilian anthropologists were once largely confined to studying Amazonia, but the archaic rigidity of neighbouring disciplines like sociology and political science opened up the study of contemporary urban societies to anthropologists and the public there wants to know. A Brazilian, Eduardo Viveiros de Castro, an Amazonianist, is possibly the most highly regarded anthropologist in the world. Brazil has the second largest national anthropology association, while the European Association for Social Anthropologists is growing fast and international collaboration is often a condition of research funding there. There are of course many different national traditions for defining anthropology and this is another aspect of the problem.

So one issue is the resolute insularity of American anthropologists who treat the world as their empire and deny all this variety within anthropology itself. The most popular anthropology blogs are American, especially Savage Minds where the OAC was described recently as being "European" (you are either with us or against us). If we wish to retain and develop our global reach (our membership includes 30% Americans), the OAC must insist on this inclusiveness and difference. There was a time when we hosted discussion groups in a dozen languages, but most of these have become dormant.

It doesn't help that none of the three words you use to define anthropology (humankind, sociocultural, biophysical) is in popular use. Try "everything" in unfamilar language and then wonder why no-one understands. Max Weber said that we study what we are or what we are not. Anthropologists study human beings. You work it out.

The world's anthropologists are still struggling to find a common purpose beyond the national divisions and empires of the 20th century. We now have universal means of communication with which to express universal ideas, but our ideas and societies are still trapped in their national bunkers. An "anthropology" is any systematic study of humanity as a whole, but that wholeness is beyond our reach. We end up celebrating local difference instead.  Ethnography was invented as a tool of the nationalist project, but anthropology was always much more than that. Unfortunately, universalism has become the exclusive property of economists, cognitive scientists, evolutionary psychologists and religious fundamentalists. Anthropologists will have a public when we succeed in taking them on.

Apart from defining what anthropology is, we should also ask what it's object might be. Anthropology was born in the 18th century enlightenment as the study of human nature, what all human beings have in common, then considered to be indsipensable for the democratic revolutions that would overturn the arbitrary inequality of existing society. In the 19th century it became the study of how the world was so easily unified by western imperialism, with race and culture as the central features of a global hierarchy. In the 20th century, the world itself dissolved into national differences and a series of brutal wars; the ethnographic revolution spoke to that insularity. If you ask me what anthropology's object might be in the 21st century, I would say the making of world society. For if we don't manage to establish effective stewardship of our planet soon, there will be no 22nd.

The OAC does have a self-definition. It is hidden away under the About tab here. Let me end by quoting the short paragraph on anthropology:

Anthropology has a distinguished past, but it has an even greater future. We hope that professionals and students who are already committed to the discipline will find here like-minded anthropologists, as well as new tools, resources and opportunities for collaboration. But we also welcome anyone for whom our conversations are interesting. An engaged anthropology for the 21st century should be open to interdisciplinary collaboration. This depends on making full use of the emerging social and technical synthesis entailed in the digital revolution.

Maybe we need to go further than this and make our statement more noticeable. But we do have 6,200+ members and as many of them are active as you will find in most associations of that size. Moreover, we are an open association: "By this we mean open access, open membership, open to sharing new ideas, open to whatever the organization might do or become; open to everyone, as in ‘open source’." This means allowing you to address a large audience of people who clearly do give a damn without considering who and what we are here. I applaud you, however, for making the best use of the resources of the digital revolution. We are on the same side after all.

[A. Ashkuff]

As always, Keith, that was very well-thought-out.

I'm a little strapped for time, so forgive me for cherry picking a couple points.

 

I'm glad to know that Norway has such good taste in scholars. Lol.

 

I've picked up on that "with us or against us" vibe on the OAC, but I think that just comes from our avidly "open" mindset, and automatic resistance to anything seeming less-than-open. For what it's worth, though, I feel you've been pretty accommodating in our exchanges. So thanks for that.

 

I expected some would disagree with my choice of words. That's a fine point. Yet, compared to the other options given, I still feel like this was the "best" option. Perhaps "study of humanity" would be better? I'm open to suggestions. Ideally, we should hold a focus group.

 

I think the "object" of anthropology is a great topic of discussion, but should ultimately remain fluid among practitioners. In much the same way industrial physicists and theoretical physicists pursue different objects.

 

I'm not sure if I picked up on a sense of defensiveness or not, so just to be sure, I'd like to say that OAC is a great step in the right direction. I hope my article didn't suggest otherwise.

 

"Anthropology has a distinguished past, but it has an even greater future."

Damn, I hope you're right.

 

--- Ashkuff | http://www.ashkuff.com | Bored with reading about others' adventures? Burning to venture out yourself? Let this applied anthropologist remind you how

[John McCreery]

Allow me to ask, playing the devil's advocate, why we should give a damn if most people don't give a damn about anthropology? Do ichthyologists give a damn if most people don't have a clue about what ichthyology is? What about mycologists? or haemotologists? Why shouldn't we decide that we enjoy an esoteric hobby, in which respect we are no different from stamp or art collectors?

For Ashkuff and others in his situation, the issue is urgent because they need something to say to prospective employers about what they studied in university.

For Keith, the issue is how to build a better world and wanting the career that he has pursued to have something to do with that.

Are these goals compatible? Will the same anthropological brand serve both equally well? Might people with similar ambitions be better served by biting the bullet and, realizing that brand wise anthropology is like OS2 in the age of OSX, Windows 8 and Linux, redefining their projects in other ways?

For Ashkuff, I note that one of my takeaways from the Business Anthropology conference in Guangzhou is that ethnography is in in business these days. Serendipitously, I was sitting in on an ad agency presentation and heard the client ask, What methods do you use? What about ethnography? What worries the business anthropologists though is that in business people's eyes, ethnography is simply qualitative research based on participant-observation and depth interviews, and lots of people who don't call themselves anthropologists offer it.

For Keith, I'd note that "Human Economy" as the makings of a great brand, associated in people's minds with being more sharing, caring and cooperative. Does knowing the intellectual history of the proposition make it more appealing or politically effective? My guess is that people who get excited about Kant, Mauss or Polanyi are a very small constituency. For most of the people you need to persuade, these names are a distraction.

In either case, the marketer in me wants to ask, Why stick with the old branding if its worn out?

Yes, I know that there are people with jobs that depend on their having degrees in anthropology and teaching and publishing anthropology. For them, this is a real problem. But why carry their baggage?

[John McCreery]

"But, why carry their baggage?"

The question is phrased harshly, employing the same sort of strategy as Ashkuff's title. For me, of course, the answer involves friendships and sentimentality as well as having spent a long time on the degree and rebuilding a reputation as an independent scholar. There is a web of personal symbols in which I remain entangled. 

The question is, however, a real one. My crude analysis of what I see on line indicates that there are at least three kinds of people with a stake in anthropology, those pursuing academic careers in anthropology, those with academic degrees in anthropology who are pursuing employment in other fields, and those, like Keith, with larger projects to which they hope anthropology can contribute. How can these various interests be reconciled in a single "anthropology" brand is a fascinating, but also likely to be a difficult, marketing challenge.

John McCreery said:

Allow me to ask, playing the devil's advocate, why we should give a damn if most people don't give a damn about anthropology? Do ichthyologists give a damn if most people don't have a clue about what ichthyology is? What about mycologists? or haemotologists? Why shouldn't we decide that we enjoy an esoteric hobby, in which respect we are no different from stamp or art collectors?

For Ashkuff and others in his situation, the issue is urgent because they need something to say to prospective employers about what they studied in university.

For Keith, the issue is how to build a better world and wanting the career that he has pursued to have something to do with that.

Are these goals compatible? Will the same anthropological brand serve both equally well? Might people with similar ambitions be better served by biting the bullet and, realizing that brand wise anthropology is like OS2 in the age of OSX, Windows 8 and Linux, redefining their projects in other ways?

For Ashkuff, I note that one of my takeaways from the Business Anthropology conference in Guangzhou is that ethnography is in in business these days. Serendipitously, I was sitting in on an ad agency presentation and heard the client ask, What methods do you use? What about ethnography? What worries the business anthropologists though is that in business people's eyes, ethnography is simply qualitative research based on participant-observation and depth interviews, and lots of people who don't call themselves anthropologists offer it.

For Keith, I'd note that "Human Economy" as the makings of a great brand, associated in people's minds with being more sharing, caring and cooperative. Does knowing the intellectual history of the proposition make it more appealing or politically effective? My guess is that people who get excited about Kant, Mauss or Polanyi are a very small constituency. For most of the people you need to persuade, these names are a distraction.

In either case, the marketer in me wants to ask, Why stick with the old branding if its worn out?

Yes, I know that there are people with jobs that depend on their having degrees in anthropology and teaching and publishing anthropology. For them, this is a real problem. But why carry their baggage?

[A. Ashkuff]

Such thorough responses!

It pains me to pick-and-choose what to respond to.

 

why we should give a damn if most people don't give a damn about anthropology? Do ichthyologists give a damn if most people don't have a clue about what ichthyology is? 

 

Unlike ichthyology, anthropology has so ####### many interdisciplinary applications. Like in my 2009 example, anthropology students can provide expert insights that you'd otherwise expect from theology students. Depending on specialization, anthropologists can also go toe-to-toe with physiologists, historians, translators (as you know, John), and many more. In short, because our research can prove especially useful to non-anthropologists, it'd be useful for non-anthropologists to know what we do.

 

"What worries the business anthropologists though is that in business people's eyes, ethnography is simply qualitative research based on participant-observation and depth interviews, and lots of people who don't call themselves anthropologists offer it."

 

From my perspective, this is pretty simple to address: anybody can say they conduct "ethnography," just as anybody can  "engineer" a flawed machine. Like engineering, it takes education and experience to make a good ethnographer. Furthermore, an anthropologist's ethnography is "better" than a non-anthropologists, because we're especially good at assuming "beginners mind," which wields more out-of-the-box insights and a higher potential for innovation. (Kelley, The Ten Faces of Innovation) Indeed, if my clients don't grasp that simple truth, then that's probably my fault for not pitching well enough.

 

(looks around OAC suspiciously)

Any other takers, besides good 'ole John and Keith?

 

--- Ashkuff | http://www.ashkuff.com | Bored with reading about others' adventures? Burning to venture out yourself? Let this applied anthropologist remind you how

[Huon Wardle]

Ashkuff, when Keith pointed to the significance of anthropology as part of public life in places outside the U.S. I don't think he intended to amuse you; my guess is that he was pointing to your unconsidered sense that the USofA is the centre of the universe and that problems there are problems for everyone in the world. So, you set up the issue as 'why don't evangelicals and right wing U.S. senators care what anthropology is?' and then you posed that as a general problem. But maybe it isn't.  

[A. Ashkuff]

Okay, I'm going to start by thanking you for taking the time to comment, Huon.

Yet, you left me with two points of contention.

 

your unconsidered sense that the USofA is the centre of the universe and that problems there are problems for everyone in the world

 

First, I resent the way some people assume ethnocentrism among Americans. If you'd like to fund it, I'd be glad (even enthused) to conduct a global research study on anthropology's significance. In the meantime, just like anybody else, I'm forced to conduct research where I practice. That happens to be within the US.

 

Second, the world's largest anthropological organizations come from the US. So, if anthropology isn't understood here,  that's a problem that needs fixing. And certainly, if anthropologists from abroad are more successfully engaged with their public, I'd welcome their advice.

 

So, you set up the issue as 'why don't evangelicals and right wing U.S. senators care what anthropology is?' 

 

Simply untrue. I get the feeling that you never checked out the research study, which surveys otherwise well-educated university students --- not Evangelicals or senators. In fact, as my consenting research subjects, the Evangelicals were more familiar with anthropology that most!

 

--- Ashkuff | http://www.ashkuff.com | Bored with reading about others' adventures? Burning to venture out yourself? Let this applied anthropologist remind you how

[Huon Wardle]

Points taken - I misread a sentence of yours (partly I am not familiar with the shortening of University of Florida to UF, or its geography); good luck with your research, Ashkuff.

[A. Ashkuff]

Thanks! Glad to know we're cool.

Huon Wardle said:

Points taken - I misread a sentence of yours (partly I am not familiar with the shortening of University of Florida to UF, or its geography); good luck with your research, Ashkuff.

[NIKOS GOUSGOUNIS]

When anthropologists talk about anthropology in a site like OAC of 6200 lurking members and the viewers of this discussion are only 78 ( of which many are double or triple so that different people who read this are no more than 20-30 ) that meaning that only 0,5% of members are interested really, the conclusion might be that anthropology is a peculiar ''hobby'' even when under academic cover and as a  means  for a career creation. Maybe anthropology is too much a vast theme to be interesting by specialists so generalists like some few of the 6200 members here must be feeling too much isolated and lonely really. 

[M Izabel]

It seems only the anthropologists in the academe believe that there is nothing wrong with how anthropology is currently practiced, but the ironic thing is that they are the ones who complain when it comes to the scarcity of research funding.

I have been rereading my old posts in Savage Minds to reminisce the old days when I had a nonconformist, devil-may-care attitude when it came to sharing my views about anthropology.  One versus the rest did not faze me but give me an opportunity to critique the stifling voice of many, cliques, and group thinking.  

I still consider the comments I posted under Human Nature in Savage Minds valid.  I still stand by my old views about the current state of anthropology.  Although my argumentative enthusiasm is waning, there are still things in my head that are not docile and pliable, one of which is why anthropology is becoming irrelevant every passing day.

This was my initial comment:

"Whatever you do with anthropology, please don’t encourage your students or assistants to waste their time on anthropology of elevators and anthropology of candy wrappers. Elevator manufacturers and candy makers will not hire them to work even for a minimum wage.

It is irresponsible for a university to waste their students’ time, effort, and money without giving them an assurance that they can find jobs related to their degrees after they graduate. It’s okay if these students are all trust fund kids; the university doesn’t have to worry their employability.

Train your students and assistants to become skilled, useful, relevant, and employable. Also, if you want to call yourself a political anthropologist, make sure you can negotiate conflict, you can perform political management, and do public policy. You will not learn these things through reading Rosaldo, his headhunting Ilonggots, and his postmodern critique of self-contained cultural patterns.

If researching, writing, and reading are what anthropology is all about, it is no different to comparative literature. The only difference is that the latter has no pretense of studying humans. I think anthropology is a misnomer. What we really have is a comparative anthropological literature."

[A. Ashkuff]

Okay, great insights. I'm embarassed I forgot to crunch the numbers as you did. However, even if anthropology is just a "hobby" to most of us, I've seen better interaction on plenty of hobbyist forums. Nay, the problem must run deeper than that.

 

--- Ashkuff | http://www.ashkuff.com | Bored with reading about others' adventures? Burning to venture out yourself? Let this applied anthropologist remind you how

NIKOS GOUSGOUNIS said:

When anthropologists talk about anthropology in a site like OAC of 6200 lurking members and the viewers of this discussion are only 78 ( of which many are double or triple so that different people who read this are no more than 20-30 ) that meaning that only 0,5% of members are interested really, the conclusion might be that anthropology is a peculiar ''hobby'' even when under academic cover and as a  means  for a career creation. Maybe anthropology is too much a vast theme to be interesting by specialists so generalists like some few of the 6200 members here must be feeling too much isolated and lonely really.