anthropologies Issue 1: What is anthropology?

[ryan anderson]

The first issue of the new project "anthropologies" is up!  Thanks to Alyson O'Daniel, Megan Maurer, David Picard, Stacie Gilmore, and Keith Hart for helping me get this first issue up and running.  Check it out and (more importantly) comment and post your responses to the conversation.  This is definitely meant to be a project that invites collaboration, participation, and input--so fire away.  Things get most interesting when they turn into a conversation, and I look forward to seeing what develops.  For that reason, I have added an Open Thread for this issue where I hope some people will share their ideas of what anthropology is all about.  Check out the about page to see some of the ideas for upcoming issues.  This project is just starting to take shape, so who knows what shape it will take?  The next one is going to be about anthropology and tourism.  If you're interested in participating in a future issue, or have ideas about particular themes or issues that should be tackled, post a comment here, or send me an email (here at the OAC or at ethnografix at gmail dot com). 

 

Here's the contents of this issue:

 

Issue 1:

What is Anthropology?

March 2011

This Issue: Anthropology?

What is Anthropology? - David Picard

Should I Pursue Anthropology? - Stacie Gilmore

Kant, anthropology and the new human universal - Keith Hart

Anthropology as Collaboration - Alyson O'Daniel

Anthropology is not Geography - Megan Maurer

Anthropologies Exist in Everyday Details - Ryan Anderson

Visual Anthropology: At the Zoo (2001-2006) - Ryan Anderson

Open Thread: So what's anthropology all about anyway?

 

[Richard Baxstrom]

Nice lineup of pieces. Um...but there was already a publication called 'anthropologies' that came out in the US in 2008. Confusing, for sure...

 

http://www.amazon.com/anthropologies-Francois-Delaporte/dp/09770462...

[ryan anderson]

john,

 

thanks!  i'd be glad to have you take part - let me know if there's an issue that you find appealing, or if you have an idea for a specific theme we should tackle!

[ryan anderson]

heesun,

 

thanks for the comment and for checking out the site.  let me know if you're ever interested in taking part!

[ryan anderson]

I don't know...I think that an archaeology of things (which are made and circulated by humans) is pretty anthropoogical, just as I think that primatology certainly fits under the anthropological umbrella (although it certainly borders ethology).  i kind of like the wide net, and if anthro is about exploring what it means to be human there is a lot that we can look at to fill in the blanks - whether things or our closest genetic kin.  makes sense to me.

 

as for kinship, i think fran makes a solid point.  especially in saying they share "ways of thinking, not just doing."

 

overall, while i tend to like the idea of thinking of theories as tools, i think the analogy falls a little flat when we think of them like hammers that we can just go buy at the store and start swinging around immediately.  ya, they're tools (to me), but we have to learn how to put them to use, and that takes some time.  but i might have just butchered that analogy!

[Francine Barone]

I don't know. If there are courses on kinship which present it as "just a tool to study community demographics, migration, intermarriage, family wealth", then they're pretty poor courses. I learned a lot about human interaction and anthropology through the lens of kinship in a 12-week undergraduate class. I don't return to all of it, but the best bits still contribute to my work on technology. All of these things which cannot (always) be reduced to mere tools can be drawn on later, often unexpectedly. They share ways of thinking, not just doing.

[M Izabel]

Theories  in anthropology,  in my view, should be used  as anthropological  tools to locate ethnographic cases or  to have a research framework that limits and makes one's work  coherent.  In medicine,  they cite a  medical  researcher's name to  tackle the case  he writes and   talks about not to dwell on  a  grand theory that influences his work.  As John rightly asked, "Do physicists cite Newton or biologists cite Mendel—outside of introductory textbooks where they get passing mention before the serious work begins?"  Anthropologists waste so much  time on theories not on cases.  Let's take the Facebook  seminar as an example.  Would it be more interesting if self-masking  and public performances in Brazil and in other "carnival" societies were also tackled instead of dwelling on theoretical citations and  explanations from start to finish?

 

There should be a rethink  about the nature of  anthropology  and its divisions, tools  and methods.  I took archaeology that focused on things not on humans.    Such  archaeology is not anthropology.    It can only be anthropological if it  is used  as  a  tool to study people and culture in the past.  I also took  primatology classes that  I did not feel anthropological.   Is Goodall's chimpanzee study anthropology?  I  don't  think so.

 

Another thing is  anthropological linguistics, which is not extensively  taught  in  anthropology departments.  There must be a reason  why I seldom see anthropological  linguists here on OAC.   Although I  believe linguistic analyses  that include historical and sociological linguistics are important in cultural analyses, they should be  taught  in anthropology as  tools.  Anthropologists should not  have a pretension  that they can compare their  knowledge of linguistics to linguists.

 

We spend so much time teaching and studying areas in anthropology that should just have been anthropological tools.  There are departments that have a separate one-semester course on kinship.  Again, it's just a tool to study community demographics, migration, intermarriage, family wealth.  Why  waste a  semester  when a couple of weeks is  enough to learn it  as an anthropological tool?                          

[heesun hwang]

I've just read some articles and enjoyed them. What a dreaded question indeed - an irony for me is that when I was a biology student (I once was) I never got the question from anyone even though I myself was wondering what biology really is, but now, many people ask me what anthropology is when I don't think about the problem very seriously. : )  Thank you Ryan. I look forward to read the next issue and wish the best for the project.

[John McCreery]

Ryan, I'd be delighted. Let me know when you need something.

[ryan anderson]

Thanks John.  Let me know if you are ever interested in taking part in one of the upcoming issues - it'd be great to have you join in the fray...

[John McCreery]

Ryan, congratulations. Your first issue is terrific. Best wishes for equal success in many more to come.