Note: The Section Assembly of AAA is composed of all Section Chairs. The following statement of solidarity is a very welcome development.
"Dear all,
On behalf of the Section Assembly (SA), I’m pleased to submit the following resolution:
Because the SA represents all 38 sections of the AAA, it has a unique (and uniquely powerful) kind of voice. When we speak together, we have an authority that the Executive Board (EB) alone, or the Association as a whole, cannot match precisely because we represent the discipline in all its variety.
We have two issues which demand our attention, and together they clearly illustrate the challenges facing AAA. On the one hand is the revised wording of the Long Range Plan (LRP), which eliminates any reference to science. On the other we have the National Research Council (NRC) rankings, which—whatever their merits or flaws as rankings of individual programs—presume that Anthropology is a social science and hence only journal articles should be counted toward research productivity, with books and monographs not counted. One is perceived as turning its back on science, the other turns its back on anything except science narrowly defined.
Both are objectionable. Both humanistic and scientific approaches have characterized Anthropology from its inception, and this should be viewed as one of the discipline’s greatest scholarly strengths.
The Section Assembly unanimously rejects the NRC logic regarding publications as misguided and not reflective of any of the 38 sections comprising the AAA or the discipline as a whole. We take this as an opportunity to stand together and formally affirm that Anthropology includes and should include both scientific and humanistic modes of scholarship.
Second, and conversely, we unanimously ask the EB to revise the LRP to reflect the value of both scientific and humanistic approaches to the discipline. While doubtless the intention was to be inclusive, dropping science from the statement has the opposite effect. Few could credibly argue that scholars eschewing scientific approaches feel rejected, marginalized or unwelcomed by the Association. But it is true, for better or worse, that many scholars adopting such approaches do feel rejected, marginalized and unwelcome, and this demonstrably weakens the Association by minimizing the number of these anthropologists who maintain AAA membership.
These measures have been offered and approved by unanimous consent.
While the role of the Section Assembly is still evolving, its ability to express the will of the Association–across its diverse membership–is one of its most powerful attributes. We use that power here because, whatever our epistemological and methodological positions, we recognize and affirm that significant scholarship is performed by colleagues holding other positions, and this continues to be one of the greatest scholarly strengths of the discipline.
The SA presents its position to you in the most collegial spirit and as our contribution to the ongoing conversation regarding our discipline. We hope it duly informs the process of revising the LRP statement.
Thank you for your dynamic efforts addressing this matter and, on behalf of the SA, I wish you the best at this time of the year."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The Section Assembly statement isn't a huge improvement on the Executive Board statements.
ReplyDelete"Few could credibly argue that scholars eschewing scientific approaches feel rejected, marginalized or unwelcomed by the Association. But it is true, for better or worse, that many scholars adopting such approaches do feel rejected, marginalized and unwelcome ..."
I'd call that pretty condescending; although no one could credibly feel excluded from the AAA, many scientific anthropologists do feel excluded, therefore they must not be credible.
This needs careful reading. What it says (admittedly clumsily) is that while those using the humanistic approaches (i.e. "scholars eschewing scientific approaches") are unlikely to feel rejected, etc. by the AAA, those who do use/identify with science DO feel rejected.
ReplyDelete"Few could credibly argue that scholars (who don't use science) feel rejected by the Association. But it is true, for better of worse, that many scholars (who do use science) do feel rejected..."
Yeah, that was a very poorly worded passage; I'd flag it for rewrite on a student paper.
ReplyDelete