Was it just the outsiders who got it wrong? AAA Responds to Public Controversy Over Science in Anthropology

The AAA Executive Board has issued a press release regarding its position on science in anthropology as reflected in the new Long Range Plan and the ensuing controversy. They also link to the recently approved statement "What is Anthropology?" I just read the statement and while I am really liking the inclusivity (yes, science is mentioned!) and interdisciplinarity of what we do, I must confess to some ongoing annoyance with the tone coming from the EB. In particular (from the press release): "Some recent media coverage, including an article in the New York Times, has portrayed anthropology as divided between those who practice it as a science and those who do not, and has given the mistaken impression that the American Anthropological Association (AAA) Executive Board believes that science no longer has a place in anthropology."

And,
"Changes to the AAA's Long Range Plan have been taken out of context and blown out of proportion in recent media coverage. In approving the changes, it was never the Board’s intention to signal a break with the scientific foundations of anthropology – as the "What is Anthropology?" document approved at the same meeting demonstrates."


While I would agree that much of the media coverage has contributed to such an impression, it was the EB's initial action of changing the wording without sufficient explanation, followed by its delay in producing a compelling response (despite rather urgent demands on the part of AAA constituencies and sections to do so) that engendered the impression in the first place.

Apparently, there will be no acknowledgement of any self-reflection on the part of the current President, and perhaps it is not important. But as we map out a future anthropological endeavor and community, I think it is important to critique and dissect what many of us experienced as dismissal by the organization that is nominally the national catchall for all of us. I'm not waiting for an apology - clearly I would be waiting a loooong time - but considering we can play a role in vetting and voting for a leadership that represents our concerns, this issue and the clumsy and frankly insensitive way it was handled should be remembered.

Examples of what I've repeatedly called tone-deafness play out in the official statements; by parameterizing the public discussion as only taking place in the media and amongst "outsider" bloggers, the EB continues to promote the public impression that there has been no internal dissent or dialogue, which if you've been visiting this and other anthro blogs (um, EB? Familiar with the interwebs? It's a series of tubes...) you know there has been a vibrant internal dialogue expressing a panoply of views regarding not only the LRP wording, but the deeper questions of anthropological identity. It's been exciting and I think very valuable to the discipline, but completely overlooked, at least publicly, by the AAA leadership.

So, enough of the negative. There are enormous and numerous lessons to be learned, and as I've discussed with fellow anthro bloggers Daniel Lende and Kate Clancy, I'm hopeful that this debacle could lead to a renaissance for our broader discipline. Nothing like controversy to get people interested in anthropology, even cynical anthropologists.