Todays post continues from the Mark Dowie article in The Guardian, which I mentionned on monday. The latest issue (June 2009) of Current Anthropology also carries an article examining indigenity. Although the two articles do not look at precisely the same thing, I thought nonetheless that it would be interesting to compare the articles; one popular and one academic. Given the current crisis in our discipline and the drop in publishing and popularisation of anthropology, this could prove an illuminating insight in to how anthropology could popularise itself.
The Guardian article looks at the roles played by the different sides (indigenous people and conservationists / scientists) and then goes on to describe the attitudes of each party. This simplifies the complex background behind the various motives and actions and makes it easy for anyone to understand. The Current Anthropology article on the other hand begins with a complex analysis of the term indigenous, difficult for anyone to get their head round - I certainly didn't find it easy. Even in a more popular journal, there are the same problems. In an article from Anthropology Today, 2002, Indiginous Rights and the Collective Conscious, the opening paragraph looks at comparative world philosophies. The articles continue in similar veins, the Current Anthropology article just gets more and more complex, really not an easy read. Whereas the Guardian article looks at examples of clashes between conservationsits and indigenous people and even ventures to offer some solutions, the CA just looks at theoretical issues.
Is it any wonder people don't choose anthropology for a bit of light reading. I know that no one wants to see the discipline dumbed down just to make it a bit more popular, but I honestly don't see why popularity and integrity have to be mutually exclusive. Physicists, Chemists and even Evolutionary Anthropologists all manage to publish popular works and don't lose face. Maybe anthropologists are just stubborn and dont want to simplify their work for public consumption.
Looking at the Guardian article, we need to learn that its ok to simplify anthropology, it is so hard to read otherwise. That article is an excellent example of popular anthropology and I would urge anthropologists or ethnographers to try it!
Check out the articles at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jun/03/yosemite-conservation-indigenous-people
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdf/10.1086/597667
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/118915984/PDFSTART
The Guardian article looks at the roles played by the different sides (indigenous people and conservationists / scientists) and then goes on to describe the attitudes of each party. This simplifies the complex background behind the various motives and actions and makes it easy for anyone to understand. The Current Anthropology article on the other hand begins with a complex analysis of the term indigenous, difficult for anyone to get their head round - I certainly didn't find it easy. Even in a more popular journal, there are the same problems. In an article from Anthropology Today, 2002, Indiginous Rights and the Collective Conscious, the opening paragraph looks at comparative world philosophies. The articles continue in similar veins, the Current Anthropology article just gets more and more complex, really not an easy read. Whereas the Guardian article looks at examples of clashes between conservationsits and indigenous people and even ventures to offer some solutions, the CA just looks at theoretical issues.
Is it any wonder people don't choose anthropology for a bit of light reading. I know that no one wants to see the discipline dumbed down just to make it a bit more popular, but I honestly don't see why popularity and integrity have to be mutually exclusive. Physicists, Chemists and even Evolutionary Anthropologists all manage to publish popular works and don't lose face. Maybe anthropologists are just stubborn and dont want to simplify their work for public consumption.
Looking at the Guardian article, we need to learn that its ok to simplify anthropology, it is so hard to read otherwise. That article is an excellent example of popular anthropology and I would urge anthropologists or ethnographers to try it!
Check out the articles at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jun/03/yosemite-conservation-indigenous-people
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdf/10.1086/597667
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/118915984/PDFSTART
No comments:
Post a Comment