The latest issue of Anthropology Today is out, it looks mainly at race, human rights and enslavement. All of which are fascinating when looked at anthropologically, I was also interested to see the journal using a similar format to Anthropology News, looking at a single issue rather than many. I thought that for this post I would look at the guest editorial by Sophie Day, entitled 'Renewing the War on Prostitution: The Spectres of Traffiking and Slavery'.
The editorial looks at a new government proposal relating to changes in the law concerning pimps, traffiking and emslavement. Day considers the individual changes that each part of the reform will have on the sex industry and the women who work in it. she also tracks a part of the recent history of the sex industry in the UK and how it relates to global economic shifts. The analyis she presents leaves the reader in no doubt that the legislation seriously misinterprets the relationship between prostitution, 'pimps' and migration and the effects that she describes are ominous. Her conclusion is that these legal changes will result in prostitution being pushed underground, resulting in more danger to the women and clients.
This is one of the more political articles that I have seen in this journal (a trend which continues throughout this issue) and I love it! I haven't previously seen anthropology applied to prostitution and this editorial provided a great insight.
Friday, 29 May 2009
Wednesday, 27 May 2009
The Great Debate
Hello, sorry fo the short break. I'm going to look at debates this week, starting with an article in 'Social Anthropologist':
What Shapiro and McKinnon are all about, and why kinship still needs anthropologists, by Robert Parkin.
The article summerises a running debate (2005 - present) between McKinnon (a social anthropologist) and Shapiro (an evolutionary psychologist) in to the best way to look at kinship - either biologically or socially. Although Parkin is slightly more sympathetic towards McKinnon's argument - as he admits - overall the article is pretty well balanced. He concludes that anthropologists from both sides have good and bad points and that they need to work better together! McKinnon's argument is basically common to all anthropologists against evolutionists, that it is positivist, reductionist but more specifically, that Shapiro just ignores cultural involvement. Shapiro's retaliation is that such an argument is meaningless and that McKinnon prioritises that west over the rest.
Now, don't get me wrong, I love a good debate but this one really tried my patience. Most of the debate focusses on how the other determines kinship terminology - I know that its important, of course how one classifies kin is integral to ones behaviour but there was just so much of it and for the most part the differences are so small. Shapiro and McKinnon are looking at the same thing, they have the same aims! Yet they have both taken up such unmovable and quite extreme opposing positions. Biology and culture are not mutually exclusive, of course our evolution has played a role in our behaviour, but so does our culture. If these two forgot their differences and worked together, they could accomplish so so much.
*and relax..* God that got me quite worked up actually - its a pet peeve of mine that anthropologists are obsessed with seeing their discipline as being in a crisis, yet if they just took a step back for a second and surveyed anthropology as a whole rather than their own little sub section, they would see that there are so many paths choose from.
What Shapiro and McKinnon are all about, and why kinship still needs anthropologists, by Robert Parkin.
The article summerises a running debate (2005 - present) between McKinnon (a social anthropologist) and Shapiro (an evolutionary psychologist) in to the best way to look at kinship - either biologically or socially. Although Parkin is slightly more sympathetic towards McKinnon's argument - as he admits - overall the article is pretty well balanced. He concludes that anthropologists from both sides have good and bad points and that they need to work better together! McKinnon's argument is basically common to all anthropologists against evolutionists, that it is positivist, reductionist but more specifically, that Shapiro just ignores cultural involvement. Shapiro's retaliation is that such an argument is meaningless and that McKinnon prioritises that west over the rest.
Now, don't get me wrong, I love a good debate but this one really tried my patience. Most of the debate focusses on how the other determines kinship terminology - I know that its important, of course how one classifies kin is integral to ones behaviour but there was just so much of it and for the most part the differences are so small. Shapiro and McKinnon are looking at the same thing, they have the same aims! Yet they have both taken up such unmovable and quite extreme opposing positions. Biology and culture are not mutually exclusive, of course our evolution has played a role in our behaviour, but so does our culture. If these two forgot their differences and worked together, they could accomplish so so much.
*and relax..* God that got me quite worked up actually - its a pet peeve of mine that anthropologists are obsessed with seeing their discipline as being in a crisis, yet if they just took a step back for a second and surveyed anthropology as a whole rather than their own little sub section, they would see that there are so many paths choose from.
Friday, 22 May 2009
Money, Money, Money!
I'm going to continue today in a similar vein to yesterday; looking at how anthropologists are researching or commenting on current affairs. The latest issue of Anthropology Today finishes with a section running comment on the credit crunch; largely replies to an earlier article by Hart and Oriz entitled Anthropology in the Financial Crisis (AT: 24(6)). The responses do inevitably get bogged down in the little details - such as Muniesa's comments on the use of quotation marks in the article and their implication, they also get a little bitchy at some points. Yet collectively the article and its responses make a good point. With the current economic crisis, anthropologists should seize a golden opportunity to join forces with economics and look a contemporary, global issue. After all, anthropology has a long history of analysing economic transfer, even if we haven't quite realised it (ie, Malinowski's Kula Rings). The monetary current actions of ordinary people, such as hoarding, selling, buying etc play right in to the hands of anthropologists looking at agency and the power of money.
Much of this blog looks at the percieved crisis in anthropology - where are we going? How should we react to new technologies? What are our links with other disciplines? But the answers are written all around us, the current journal issues are full of really excellent suggestions, even ansewers to these questions. Why are we not listening?!
Much of this blog looks at the percieved crisis in anthropology - where are we going? How should we react to new technologies? What are our links with other disciplines? But the answers are written all around us, the current journal issues are full of really excellent suggestions, even ansewers to these questions. Why are we not listening?!
Thursday, 21 May 2009
Anthropologists.. Quick March..!
American foreign policy, whether friendly or not, dominates the international news on an almost daily basis. This is something that I have come to expect, though not necessarily look forwards to. The USA is a huge country with an even larger foreign presence and influence, so of course any policy changes or comments the government make will be reported.
However, it seems that lately American foreign policy has also come do dominate the American anthropological journals. The latest issues of American Anthropologist and Anthropology News contain between them 12 articles about war, veterans or American presence abroad. Anthropologists are generally seen as being politically left-wing and this is reflected in the arguments made in the articles themselves. The perspectives that they provide are really interesting, in particular Schwenkel's article on the US' historical unaccountability. Many of the articles in Anthropology News focus on the emotional or psychological problems faced by returning veterans. The number of these may relate to Memorial Day and Armed Forces Day both being celebrated in May (this journal issue).
Although military domination of the journals is not something that I relish (not having a particular interest in the armed forces), I welcome this movement towards a more current, more germane aspect to anthropological publishing. Now, I know that anthropology is becoming more current, particularly in respect to globalisation. However, compared to most other social sciences, such as sociology, politics and economics we are still paying very little attention to current affairs. There are very few anthropological publications or articles being written about the credit crunch or Iraq war, and these are generally only found in the more populist journals. Rather than academic anthropologists looking down on such a perspective shouldn't we be making the most of it? Anthropology can no longer operate in closed, far flung cultures (they simply don't exist any more), yet instead of lamenting this and accepting the end of 'true' anthropology we should be around us, at the new societies and cultures that are being constantly created as the world changes.
As a final note, I would definitely recommend 'From John McCain to Abu Ghraib: Tortured Bodies and Historical Unaccountability if the US Empire' by Christina Schwenkel. This looks at the American government's portrayal of their soldiers abroad as victims and the 'enemy' as torturers. Although this was written in response to the Vietnam War, with the claims of torture mounting against American troops in the Middle East and Guantanamo Bay, we could be seeing a very similar thing happening again.
However, it seems that lately American foreign policy has also come do dominate the American anthropological journals. The latest issues of American Anthropologist and Anthropology News contain between them 12 articles about war, veterans or American presence abroad. Anthropologists are generally seen as being politically left-wing and this is reflected in the arguments made in the articles themselves. The perspectives that they provide are really interesting, in particular Schwenkel's article on the US' historical unaccountability. Many of the articles in Anthropology News focus on the emotional or psychological problems faced by returning veterans. The number of these may relate to Memorial Day and Armed Forces Day both being celebrated in May (this journal issue).
Although military domination of the journals is not something that I relish (not having a particular interest in the armed forces), I welcome this movement towards a more current, more germane aspect to anthropological publishing. Now, I know that anthropology is becoming more current, particularly in respect to globalisation. However, compared to most other social sciences, such as sociology, politics and economics we are still paying very little attention to current affairs. There are very few anthropological publications or articles being written about the credit crunch or Iraq war, and these are generally only found in the more populist journals. Rather than academic anthropologists looking down on such a perspective shouldn't we be making the most of it? Anthropology can no longer operate in closed, far flung cultures (they simply don't exist any more), yet instead of lamenting this and accepting the end of 'true' anthropology we should be around us, at the new societies and cultures that are being constantly created as the world changes.
As a final note, I would definitely recommend 'From John McCain to Abu Ghraib: Tortured Bodies and Historical Unaccountability if the US Empire' by Christina Schwenkel. This looks at the American government's portrayal of their soldiers abroad as victims and the 'enemy' as torturers. Although this was written in response to the Vietnam War, with the claims of torture mounting against American troops in the Middle East and Guantanamo Bay, we could be seeing a very similar thing happening again.
Wednesday, 20 May 2009
Kicking Off...
The Champions League Final next week between Manchester Utd and Barcelona in Rome has caused the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) to urge the football fans to stay away from the main tourist areas of the city. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/8058877.stmst Whilst this has become a standard warning before international matches, the article caught my eye, not for its message of social doom as many like to say, but for its anthropological possibilities.
The social makeup of hooligan groups is actually very interesting, in a review article by Feixa and Juris in a 2000 issue of 'Social Anthropology', they discuss how the territoriality of football groups is analogous to Evans-Pritchard's segmentary opposition. This relates to the centrality of place in both football and some traditional societies. Urban Space plays also plays a role, as it is in such environments that hooliganism is played out. Such landscapes are of course, socially defined as at other times these places have different meanings, whether historical, artistic or cultural. However, during the match these become imbued with the meaning of either team, city or nation. Although, having said this the sole objective of match day violence is to enhance the standing of the group in the eyes of others, rather than to enforce cultural superiority.
The changing meanings of place are mirrored in the changing cultural identities of the participants. On normal days, such people have one identity, created for them by the culture and society in which they live. However on match days they construct their own identity, which may reflect the ideals that they believe their specific club, territory or football itself, or even who they wish to be, for example the prominence of Maradona in Argentinian football.
The hooligan groups are in general not strictly organised, there is no 'leader' though certain members may hold more influence than others. Whilst they are traditionally organised around a central team or place, groups are becoming increasingly transnational. This is largely due to the Internet and mobile phones, which can create links with other groups who are seen to share similar ideals (such as Hearts and Rangers). Links between groups can also be mutually advantageous when hooligans are in a different city or even country.
So, do I think that the warning for fans to stay away from certain parts of Rome will help reduce violence? Well, no. It might help to reduce violence between opposing fans who are not themselves hooligans and have just had a bit too much to drink. However, for those who have travelled to Rome with the intention of fighting, the warnings and increased police presence will have little to no effect.
This has been a really brief look at the anthropology of hooliganism, but it is a fascinating subject. If you have an interest, then there is a great book by Armstrong and Giullianotti: Entering the Field: New Perspectives on World Football.
The social makeup of hooligan groups is actually very interesting, in a review article by Feixa and Juris in a 2000 issue of 'Social Anthropology', they discuss how the territoriality of football groups is analogous to Evans-Pritchard's segmentary opposition. This relates to the centrality of place in both football and some traditional societies. Urban Space plays also plays a role, as it is in such environments that hooliganism is played out. Such landscapes are of course, socially defined as at other times these places have different meanings, whether historical, artistic or cultural. However, during the match these become imbued with the meaning of either team, city or nation. Although, having said this the sole objective of match day violence is to enhance the standing of the group in the eyes of others, rather than to enforce cultural superiority.
The changing meanings of place are mirrored in the changing cultural identities of the participants. On normal days, such people have one identity, created for them by the culture and society in which they live. However on match days they construct their own identity, which may reflect the ideals that they believe their specific club, territory or football itself, or even who they wish to be, for example the prominence of Maradona in Argentinian football.
The hooligan groups are in general not strictly organised, there is no 'leader' though certain members may hold more influence than others. Whilst they are traditionally organised around a central team or place, groups are becoming increasingly transnational. This is largely due to the Internet and mobile phones, which can create links with other groups who are seen to share similar ideals (such as Hearts and Rangers). Links between groups can also be mutually advantageous when hooligans are in a different city or even country.
So, do I think that the warning for fans to stay away from certain parts of Rome will help reduce violence? Well, no. It might help to reduce violence between opposing fans who are not themselves hooligans and have just had a bit too much to drink. However, for those who have travelled to Rome with the intention of fighting, the warnings and increased police presence will have little to no effect.
This has been a really brief look at the anthropology of hooliganism, but it is a fascinating subject. If you have an interest, then there is a great book by Armstrong and Giullianotti: Entering the Field: New Perspectives on World Football.
Dissertation(s)
Hello there people!
My name is John and I am an undergraduate at the University of Bristol studying Archaeology and Anthropology. I am currently at the end of my 2nd year, and as my 3rd year approaches I, along with pretty much every other Arts student in the UK, have had to start thinking about my dissertation. 10,000 words on a topic of my choice. Hmmmmm.
I thought I would share my experiences of this project with you over the next year from start to finish. Please see this as a place to put comments, suggestions, your own ideas, or by all means talk about your own dissertations or research projects.
I have decided to do my dissertation on Bosnia, looking at shared religious sites (such as shrines, mosques etc) and relating it to peace or war, specifically the most recent conflict in the 1990s. As of 20th May my title stands as thus: "Peace, War and Faith in Bosnia; an analysis of shared religious sites in Sarajevo".
I will keep this blog going as I develop my ideas and find sources.
My name is John and I am an undergraduate at the University of Bristol studying Archaeology and Anthropology. I am currently at the end of my 2nd year, and as my 3rd year approaches I, along with pretty much every other Arts student in the UK, have had to start thinking about my dissertation. 10,000 words on a topic of my choice. Hmmmmm.
I thought I would share my experiences of this project with you over the next year from start to finish. Please see this as a place to put comments, suggestions, your own ideas, or by all means talk about your own dissertations or research projects.
I have decided to do my dissertation on Bosnia, looking at shared religious sites (such as shrines, mosques etc) and relating it to peace or war, specifically the most recent conflict in the 1990s. As of 20th May my title stands as thus: "Peace, War and Faith in Bosnia; an analysis of shared religious sites in Sarajevo".
I will keep this blog going as I develop my ideas and find sources.
Tuesday, 19 May 2009
Perspectives on Perspectivism
The latest issue of Anthropology Today features a guest editorial by Bruno Latour on the recent debate between Descola and Viveiros de Castro in Paris on their opposing ideas of perspectivism. My first question on reading this was: What the hell is perspectivism!?
Well, basically perspectivism is an idea existing predominantly in Amazonian or Amerindian anthropology. It comes from the Neitzschian philosophy that there are many ways of viewing the truth and so can be no one way of seeing the world or in other words ones way of viewing the world depends on ones position in it. This has had huge implications in the nature/culture debate amongst many others.
Descola focuses on animism and naturalism, basically the opposing ideas of whether all beings have the same nature and different cultures (western thought) or the same culture and different natures (Amerindian thought). For him this meant that rather than using nature as a base to detect cultural variation, the idea of nature itself has become part of the debate. The problem with this for Viveiros was not so much the idea of perspectivism itself but rather how it is being used. He argues that rather than Amerindian perspectives being used to blow our own way of thinking out of the water (as he would like) but that Descola is making the switch too easy, just fading it in and ultimately forgetting it. I don't want to go in to all of their differences here, because it is much better explained in the original article.
So whilst I now thought that I had (at least a tenuous) grasp on perspectivism, my second question was: Is this really an important enough idea to merit the attention it has been given in this journal issue?
Well, to be honest my mind still isn't made up. Whilst the general idea of perspectivism is essential to how we practice anthropology (ie, that until we accept that our way of seeing things may not be the only right way), its theoretical application is actually very small. Nonetheless as Latour suggests, eradicating the divide between nature and culture, makes anthropology open to a huge new area of research. Further than this it could also help to bridge the divide between social and biological anthropology. In fact once one starts to really consider it, the possibilities seem endless, perhaps perspectivism really could be the bomb that Viveiros wants.
A full report of the debate can be found in Anthropology Today, 25: page 1 and is definitely worth reading, even if you're not interested in perspectivism it provides a really interesting insight in to the disagreements between professional anthropologists.
Steph
Well, basically perspectivism is an idea existing predominantly in Amazonian or Amerindian anthropology. It comes from the Neitzschian philosophy that there are many ways of viewing the truth and so can be no one way of seeing the world or in other words ones way of viewing the world depends on ones position in it. This has had huge implications in the nature/culture debate amongst many others.
Descola focuses on animism and naturalism, basically the opposing ideas of whether all beings have the same nature and different cultures (western thought) or the same culture and different natures (Amerindian thought). For him this meant that rather than using nature as a base to detect cultural variation, the idea of nature itself has become part of the debate. The problem with this for Viveiros was not so much the idea of perspectivism itself but rather how it is being used. He argues that rather than Amerindian perspectives being used to blow our own way of thinking out of the water (as he would like) but that Descola is making the switch too easy, just fading it in and ultimately forgetting it. I don't want to go in to all of their differences here, because it is much better explained in the original article.
So whilst I now thought that I had (at least a tenuous) grasp on perspectivism, my second question was: Is this really an important enough idea to merit the attention it has been given in this journal issue?
Well, to be honest my mind still isn't made up. Whilst the general idea of perspectivism is essential to how we practice anthropology (ie, that until we accept that our way of seeing things may not be the only right way), its theoretical application is actually very small. Nonetheless as Latour suggests, eradicating the divide between nature and culture, makes anthropology open to a huge new area of research. Further than this it could also help to bridge the divide between social and biological anthropology. In fact once one starts to really consider it, the possibilities seem endless, perhaps perspectivism really could be the bomb that Viveiros wants.
A full report of the debate can be found in Anthropology Today, 25: page 1 and is definitely worth reading, even if you're not interested in perspectivism it provides a really interesting insight in to the disagreements between professional anthropologists.
Steph
Monday, 18 May 2009
Welcome!
I would like to open this blog by wishing you all welcome to The Student Anthropologist!
This is a social anthropology blog written for students by students (though at the moment just me). As an undergraduate myself I have found it really difficult to keep up with developments and debates in the discipline and I know that many other students are faced with this problem too. So the posts are going to consist principally of updates of current research, debates and news from conferences.
I am hoping that through this blog I can create a space where students can come to keep up to date and hopefully also get some discussions going...
Enjoy,
Steph.
This is a social anthropology blog written for students by students (though at the moment just me). As an undergraduate myself I have found it really difficult to keep up with developments and debates in the discipline and I know that many other students are faced with this problem too. So the posts are going to consist principally of updates of current research, debates and news from conferences.
I am hoping that through this blog I can create a space where students can come to keep up to date and hopefully also get some discussions going...
Enjoy,
Steph.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)