"The most important information, which we can get out of this study, is how and what kind of action one can take."
How much should anthropologists get involved in changing the lives of their informants? Johannes Wilm didn't limit his research to presenting his findings about the daily life in in Douglas, an US-mexican border town. In his conclusion of his book On the Margins: US Americans in a bordertown to Mexico, he considers several forms for action.
The challenge: More than half of the 14000 inhabitants in Douglas are unemployed, 53% of the under 18 years old are officially living under the poverty line. The main source of income for the town: Smuggling of people and drugs. He proposes among others:
Constantly high unemployment figures can tell us, that an organization of the lumpenproletariat is neccessary in the planning of a world revolution or some more localized struggle for a democratic and economically just society.
It becomes obvious that Wilm works within a Marxist framework. He is an peace and media activist and has been socialized through the globalisation from below movement.
People in bordertowns are especially skilled, he found:
Also, in a border town, knowledge is spread according to a much more heterogeneous pattern, and a group of people cooperating across the various barriers will therefore be likely to build up a great amount of knowledge of how to circumvent the power apparatus of either of the involved states. Just for this, in the planning of a cross-national or global change, towns like Douglas should not be ignored.
In bordertowns, we find more ethnic diversity than in other areas. This might be a hinder? Wilm denies:
While ethnic diversity often has been seen as a hinder to organisation, it seems that combined with unemployment, its force is not as negative. In cases where people are forced to live close together and each person only has access to a part of the things seen as desirable (...), it even integrates rather than segregates.
The inhabitants with Mexican background are often "the better Americans":
And while lots of Hispanics with strong personal ties to Mexico in Douglas seem to believe in the "American way of life", it is Anglos that are the first ones to actively break out of the hegemonic space once they have the chance. (...) It is Anglos that represent resistance and not Hispanics.
He quotes an Hispanic father who has returned from the war in Iraq:
"Seen to many dead children", he explains, while he almost seems to start to cry. However, he finds time commenting on the amount of Anglos in the military. "I guess white people don't like serving their country that much" as he puts it.
Generally, he found, that ethnicity / race or class don't play a role in the daily life in Douglas. That's due to the economic crisis in his view:
Even though Douglas has had a history of segregation based on ethnicity, the complete lack of any kind of job for vast proportions of the population, and consequently the prevalence of the lumpenproletariat, has also done away with the ethnic model of stratification. None of my Anglo informants are in any position of power due to their ethnic background.
Had I been in Douglas during the good days of American capitalism, while Phelps Dodge still was there, they would have been strictly segregated according to race in the earlier period, or according to income layer in the latter period. Keoki, Art and Tim, all with somewhat more of an intellectual background also find themselves in this classless society in which everyone is part of the lumpenproletariat.
While I agree that advocacy is one of anthropologists' jobs, we should, I think, be cautious about presenting final solutions as he does when he describes the problems connected with organizing people:
(...) A fourth problem (...), the amount of Marxist or anarchist literature read by the members of the lumpenproletariat seems quite low, and is often replaced by the Bible, Adam Smith or, in the case of the cultural elite, various critics who are looking at single issues. This means that agitation has to start from the very beginning.
(...) What has to be done, is to develop a generic psychologic strategy to win over people with background from "serving the nation".
1. Tell us your main points and findings before you start ("I will show that the Earth is flat" or so) and sum up your paper at the end.
2. Tell us why we should listen to you. Yes, it's interesting that you have studied childhood in India. But why can your research be interesting or relevant for us who are not specialists in your field? What new insights does your paper give regarding general theories in anthropology and being a human?
3. 20 minutes are 20 minutes. Stop talking when your time is over. Check the length of your presentation a few days before the conference, so that you avoid struggling with the introduction few minutes before your time is over.
4. Don't read from your paper. Talk to and with your audience! By reading from your paper you show disrespect to your audience. This is the most important point and can't be stressed enough. Many speakers at conferences and seminars don't bother presenting their papers in a way that is understandable for us who came to listen. We have discussed anthropological writing. Maybe we should also talk about anthropological talking. Anthropologists can't write. Maybe they can't talk either.
Steve Portigal, a customer research consultant using ethnography, has written a brilliant post about his experiences at academic conferences, among others about a conference with both anthropologists and designers.
Meanwhile, the theory presentations emerged. And here we saw the academic tradition, I believe, where instead of a presentation or a talk, a paper was delivered. Several people in a row stood in, some without any visual aids, and read. For forty-five minutes. They read. At least one person had the ability to jump in and out of his text, make eye contact, and spontaneously offer up a clarification or a hand gesture. But others simply read. It was horrifying. The density of prose was (as with the 7-minute DUX example above) way beyond my ability to parse and it was boring and not engaging.
But back to the reading. What the hell? Is this standard? How is this a way to convey information or start a dialog? I got a lot of grumbling from my colleagues about this; some would have rather read the paper on their own time, rather than coming a great distance to watch someone else read it. Others just stopped coming into the sessions.
A common experience: The speakers go over time. Five minutes before their offical time is over, they still struggle with their introduction. I always wondered why they haven't checked the length of their presentations before.
Steve Portigal writes:
a read paper could not be modified when time ran out, and so facilitators inched closer to presenters in the hopes of having them wrap things up, but no, darn it, I’ve written these 20000 words and I’m going to spit them at you regardless of what time it is. The emphasis was not on making connections between people and other people and ideas. It was really a drag.
Denise Carter comments:
Reading How To Present A Paper - or Can Anthropologists Talk? had me nodding along in agreement at the wishlist.
I’ve had some experience of conference presentations in various parts of the world with poor presentations that had left me bored and fidgety. Hence I have already decided NOT to write a paper, but instead, to write a presentation around my topic ‘Order and Disorder in the Virtual City’. My intention is that a fruitful and enlightening dialogue will emerge that will clarify some of my ideas – resulting in a more rounded and polished paper that will address some important issues.
How to study children? "You can't just interview children because most children will find interviews boring and walk away. So we need to facilitate a way for children to explain their own lives with you. We want children to be their own ethnographers, so children can reflect on their own lives and examine them", anthropologist Pamela Reynolds and Veena Das explain in The Johns Hopkins Newsletter.
Pamela Reynolds studied children in a shantytown in South Africa. Veena Das did fieldwork among young girls infected with HIV. Together in 2003, Reynolds and Das created the Child On The Wing Fellowship. The message of Child On The Wing is that children are far from only victims; they have agency and ability to create change in their worlds.
"In some ways, when you're a child in these situations, you've got to invent your roots, your manner of coping, and often that invention is very creative, surprising and successful, given the circumstances."
So how can we grasp the childrens' point of view?
She [Das] gave an example of a participant who wanted to study the experience of children growing up as dalit, the untouchable caste in India, but from a new angle that hadn't been examined. He chose to study their paintings, bringing in aspects of psychoanalysis in his work. It was a perfect melding of anthropology and the field of psychology, which rarely interrelate. In Das' words, it "bridged the humanities and social sciences gap."
I remember from a conference on children research that several anthropologists used digital cameras in their studies: They let the children document their own daily life and explain it to the researchers by talking about the photos.
UPDATE: Charu at Mindspace points to more relevant links, among others The Conflict in Darfur Through Children's Eyes, using drawings and The Kalleda photoblog project by kids at Kalleda Rural School in Andhra Pradesh, India - "glimpses that would otherwise never be available to the outsider". >> read Charus post: Children as ethnographers
Child on the Wings: Two anthropologists are taking a child-centered approach. (Arts and Science Magazine, John Hopkins University)
Pamela Reynolds: Where Wings Take Dream: On Children in the Work of War and the War of Work (The Journal of the International Institute, Univ of Michigan)
Seeing Children and Hearing Them, Too: Anthropologists now realize that transmitting values is a two-way street (The Chronicle of Higher Education)
My so-called anthropology newspaper is getting more and more crowded. The most recent addition is Cultural commentary", a blog by anthropologist Marcel J. Harmon. He is partner and founding member of the consultancy Human Inquiry, that "applies anthropological/ethnographic methods within an evolutionary framework" to among others "improve human applications of technology, increase profits, and maximize productivity by analyzing how people use technology - from laptop computers to architectural spaces - thus enhancing the enjoyment, comfort, efficiency, satisfaction, and safety of both customers and employees".
Also added: The life of PhD with the subtitle "Writing a PhD can be fun, but it can also be torture. This is my space for coming to terms with writing my thesis". Many thoughts about the writing and working process!
When anthropologist Robert Leonard took a second job as a cab driver out of economic necessity, he found an "amazing other world." He learned about capitalism from drug dealers and prostitutes and hope from carnival workers; he learned about broken families from businessmen and thankfulness from broken vagabonds.
The cab as an ideal place to conduct fieldwork? Leonard says:
"People, in general, are unappreciated. No one says, 'Tell me about yourself.' We don't ask each other that. But people want to talk about themselves. They don't want to be in a cab, so they talk, knowing they are not likely to see you again."
"You develop a sixth sense about people just by how they look at you. I'm an observer. I'm used to looking at things closely. I could sense danger by the way they approached the cab. But it really reinforced my positive view of humanity. I met a lot of the smartest people I've met in my life."
A new film by Inuit film maker Zacharias Kunuk (53) explores how missionaries force-fed Christianity to the Inuit in the 1920s. It's called The Journals of Knud Rasmussen. Before its official world premier at the Toronto International Film Festival, a preview was held for Kunuks home community Igloolik, a cultural hub of the Arctic, 2,800 kilometres north of Toronto. Gayle MacDonald from The Globe and Mail has been there and reports:
The frigid temperature (30 C below) does not faze these people, who came in droves -- some by prop plane from as far away as Qaanaaq, Greenland; and Nunavut's capital, Iqaluit -- to watch Kunuk's latest cinematic creation. (...) "One of my friends left the seal hunt early so that he could get here before the show starts," Kunuk, himself an avid hunter, adds proudly.
The shy filmmaker explains that his new film, shot in the relatively balmy months of April and May last year, is the story of explorer Knud Rasmussen, who travelled through this area in the 1920s, chronicling the conversion to Christianity of the great shaman Avva (played by local resident Pakak Innukshuk) and his willful daughter Apak (Leah Angutimarik).
The local Inuits appreciated that he took on taboo topics:
Some say they liked Atanarjuat, based on an Inuit legend, better. Others attest to being equally touched by this film, about the last great Inuit shaman, Avva. But all say they were glad Kunuk took on a taboo topic: shamanism, which the early missionaries dubbed devil worship, and which still sits uneasily with some of the town's most religious Anglican, Roman Catholic and evangelical residents.
Kunuk's production company, Igloolik Isuma Productions is according to the article one of the few success stories, periodically employing hundreds of local people as actors and film crew while injecting several million dollars into the economy. The people, by and large, are poor. Suicide (especially among those under 20), alcoholism, drug use and spousal abuse are rampant.
"The Journals of Knud Rasmussen" To Kick-Off Toronto's 2006 Festival (Indiewire, 8.3.06)
Rachel Qitsualik: Inuit shamanism and the code of silence (Indian Country, 23.6.05)
Indigenous Australians dug underground water reservoirs that helped them live on one of the world's driest continents for tens of thousands of years, new research by hydrogeologist Brad Moggridge shows, according to ABC News. The study indicates Aboriginal people had extensive knowledge of the groundwater system. European settlers owed their subsequent knowledge of groundwater to the indigenous Australians, and even much of Australia's modern road system is based on water sources identified by the original inhabitants.
Moggridge based his work on oral histories, Dreamtime stories, rock art, artefacts and ceremonial body painting as well as written accounts by white missionaries, surveyors, settlers, anthropologists and explorers.
In the article, there's an interestring link to the research network Desert Knowledge that is "linking Indigenous and local knowledge with science and education to improve desert livelihoods".
Jill Walker reports about censorship of research in the USA:
Recently, two articles by teams from the University of Bergen were accepted by prominent US journals and then turned down because, the publishers said, "we cannot publish your paper because the United States government restricts publishers from publishing papers that have an affiliation with the government of Iran." Some of the authors were Iranian citizens.
Isn’t that astounding, though? The results results are presumably important, since they were accepted in an internationally reknowned, peer reviewed journal. They have nothing to do with bombs or weapons of mass destruction or politics - this is geology and oil and such. And yet the US government refuses to allow US journals to publish this, just because some of the authors - scholars, not politicians - have Iranian passports? How peculiar that the country that (in theory) has the strongest tradition of freedom of speech and democracy stifles research and communication like this.
The rector of Bergen University said to the Norwegian media that this was "unacceptable political censorship", "previously known only from totalitarian regimes". Matthias Kaiser from the National Committees for Research Ethics in Norway says, the American science community can no longer be regarded as a part of the international science community.
There's no English language coverage available,
A few weeks ago, the American Academy of Religion (AAR), the world's largest association of scholars of religion, criticized a similar "ideological exclusion" of knowlewdge and scholars. They joined a lawsuit that challenges a key provision of the USA Patriot Act, according to the blog Mirror of Justice:
Citing the 2004 revocation of a travel visa for noted Swiss scholar of Islam Tariq Ramadan, the suit contends that an "ideological exclusion" provision of the Patriot Act is being used to impede the free circulation of scholars and scholarly debate that are integral to academic freedom.
Commenting on the suit, AAR Executive Director Barbara DeConcini stated that "preventing foreign scholars like Professor Ramadan from visiting the U.S. limits not only the ability of scholars here to enhance their own knowledge, but also their ability to inform students, journalists, public policy makers, and other members of the public who rely on scholars' work to acquire a better understanding of critical current issues involving religion.