Science in Anthropology at AAA: an "open" discussion?

The Society for Anthropological Sciences proposed a session to discuss Science in Anthropology in the wake of what became known as #aaafail: the omission of the word "science" from the Long Range Plan. There will be a roundtable of various folks, various perspectives, including members of the Executive Board. Awesome! Well, sort of. The session is scheduled for the morning of Thursday, November 17. Which happens to conflict with not one but two sessions of the Biological Anthropology Section, three sessions of the Archaeological Division,  and one session of the Evolutionary Anthropology Society. These are some of the most affected and vocal stakeholders in the discussion, but those voices won't be able to participate in this discussion. Indeed, one of the speakers is Dr. Alice Dreger, who wrote what could be considered the opening salvo in the #aaafail reporting. It was entertaining and clever, and it was also one of the most polarizing perspectives. Importantly, Dr. Dreger isn't an anthropologist. She's a historian/philosopher of science. That's great and interesting and relevent to an extent, but why go outside the discipline to have a discussion about science IN anthropology? Where are the anthro bloggers who contributed so much passion to the issue? Well, I would be there but I'm presenting a paper in one of the BAS sessions so I'm out.


In the wake of all that's happened in the last year (#aaafail, Florida governor Rick Scott), and the EB's embracing of the Science discussion (President Dominguez is a discussant) it is disappointing that there was no outreach to all of the scientifically-rooted AAA sections to consider how this would affect opposing sessions. There is concern that the discussion will draw away the audience for the BAS sessions, which are already competing directly against each other.


To be clear, this is not an oversight by the Biological Anthropology Section. Since the session did not originate with BAS it had no jurisdiction over scheduling nor did it even know about the session until the schedule was made. I really do understand that scheduling a meeting of this scale is a gargantuan task and some double-bookings are unavoidable. We just need to get each other's back a little more. In recent weeks, the AAA has done an admirable job of claiming science and scientists as part of anthropology. I want us to grow that inclusivity! That's something I hope to explore at this meeting as a 2011 AAA Leadership Fellow. I'll be meeting with members of the EB to learn about AAA governance and I'll be asking questions about what we can do to navigate and ultimately break down these disciplinary partitions.


But I'm not just kvetching, as fun as that is. I want us all to be able to at least hear the discussion even if we can't be there. To that end, I requested that AAA record the discussion to produce as a podcast but there is no recording equipment available at that time. So, BANDITs, are you going to be in Montreal? Do you have some kind of recording device? Are you willing to attend and record the session and send the files to AAA so they can produce a podcast? Please let me know tout de suite, d'accord?

American Anthropologist: 2010 in Review (aka Libby Cowgill is awesome!)

American Anthropologist produces an annual Year in Review issue, with essays contributed by representatives of multiple subdisciplines. The 2010 review of biological anthropology was written by Libby Cowgill of the University of Missouri, and she has put forth a stellar contribution:

One Year in Biological Anthropology: Species, Integration, and Boundaries in 2010
ABSTRACT  The year 2010 in biological anthropology has been marked by continuing questions regarding temporal and geographical species boundaries and by queries into what it means to be human. The lines of evidence we use to reconstruct our biosocial past often exist in a state of dynamic tension; however, opportunities for integration do occur, and these collaborative endeavors were notable in 2010. Here I focus on boundaries and integration in four separate areas. First, I discuss recent genetic advances in our understanding of human evolution. Second, I review a virtual issue of the American Journal of Physical Anthropology that emphasized bioarchaeology in Asia. Third, I highlight several articles in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that focus on speciation, human genetics, and the evolution of unique human characteristics. Last, I address the recent controversy over the language used in the American Anthropological Association's Long-Range Plan.

It is wonderful to see our discipline so ably represented by a rising scholar in the field. Speaking from experience, these AA reviews are a challenge to compose and Dr. Cowgill has done an outstanding job. Libby, you are truly awesome!

I hope the BANDIT community will check out the other annual reviews:
Archaeology, Elizabeth Arkush
Explaining the Past in 2010

Linguistic Anthropology, Leila Monaghan
The Expanding Boundaries of Linguistic Anthropology: 2010 in Perspective

Practicing Anthropology, Paul R. Mullins
Practicing Anthropology and the Politics of Engagement: 2010 Year in Review

Sociocultural Anthropology, Jennifer A Hamilton and Aimee J. Placas
Anthropology Becoming … ? The 2010 Sociocultural Anthropology Year in Review

Anthro bloggers send letter to the AAA Executive Board

Several anthropologists who maintain an active online presence and following via blogs, Twitter, and other social media have joined together to send a letter to the AAA Executive Board (EB) regarding our role in growing the conversation about the recent removal of "science" from the LRP as well as the subsequent controversy and debate. I include the full text of the letter below, as well as a link to a pdf complete with hyperlinks to all websites and Twitter profiles; feel free to distribute and post the document.

To: Virginia Dominguez
Cc: Leith Mullings, Deb Martin, Nan Rothschild, George Armelagos, Florence Babb, Laura Graham, Ana Aparicio, Alisse Waterston, Jason Miller, Hugh Gusterson, Susan Gillespie, Lee Baker, Jean Schensul, Vilma Santiago-Irizarry, Gabriela Vargas-Cetina, Ida Susser, Ed Liebow, Kate Clancy, Daniel Lende

January 10, 2010

Dear President Dominguez, President-Elect Mullings, and the AAA Executive Board,

We are a group of anthropologists who maintain an online presence, through social media tools like blogs, Twitter, and Facebook. The focus and tone of our presence varies, from outreach to research, from teaching to career development, from the personal to the political. However, we are united in our passion for our discipline. We join with those who have applauded the wording of the “What is Anthropology?” statement which clearly outlines the interdisciplinary nature of anthropology and its methods, both scientific and humanistic. This statement achieves the inclusivity that the removal of “science” from the Long Range Plan threw into question.

However, we also want to express our concern over AAA’s public characterization that it was only the mainstream media and other outside coverage that engaged in active discussions of the actions of the Executive Board (EB), or that this media coverage didn't in some ways reflect real tensions and reactions within the anthropological community. As a group, we played key roles in the online discussion regarding the AAA EB recent omission of the word “science” from the Long Range Plan (LRP), as well as subsequent responses by the EB. By parameterizing the public discussion as only taking place in the media and among "outsider" bloggers attempting to construct an “us versus them” binary, the impression is given that there has been no internal dissent or dialogue.

In reality, there has been a vibrant conversation taking place on our blogs, on Facebook, on Twitter, and on other forms of social media, expressing myriad views regarding not only the LRP wording, the actions of the EB, and the role of science in anthropology, but also deeper questions of anthropological identity. Indeed, it was through blogs and Twitter feeds like ours that the media and outside bloggers first realized the depth of concern and confusion the EB’s actions elicited within the anthropological community. This concern and critique were more complicated, and frankly more interesting, than the dichotomous rift promulgated by the New York Times and other outlets, but it was real and it was taking place among anthropologists. We know the EB is aware of the vibrant online community of anthropologists that has been deeply engaged in this issue. We hope the EB will publicly recognize how anthropologists online helped advance debate over the controversy, playing a central role in creating a publicly available discussion that engaged the Executive Board, anthropologists of different persuasions, and the larger media.

Online communities represent a powerful tool for dissecting tensions and misunderstandings as well as for constructing a broad forum for interdisciplinary collaboration and identity-building. We believe this controversy could have been largely mitigated by more effective discussion of the Long Range Plan in public forums online, and more timely release of all documents related to the controversy. With respect to the association’s long-term planning, we also believe the EB will be well-served by developing a more explicit and robust approach to anthropology online, including issues around open-access scholarship, public dissemination of ideas, teaching, interdisciplinary collaboration, and connection with and support for anthropologists who work online. Our own experience during this controversy shows the potential and importance of online engagement. Many of us were operating in isolation before the news of the changes to the LRP allowed us to find each other, to coordinate postings and conversations both on- and off-line. We have been grateful for the online anthropology community that has come together because of our opinions on the AAA LRP. Some have described this conversation as a renaissance for the discipline, and others have committed to learning more about each other’s subfields because of the tension that we finally had to acknowledge, all because of the AAA’s removal of the word “science.” We encourage the EB to consider how to support anthropologists working online, and to encourage further online collaboration and dissemination among AAA members. This will strengthen the discipline, and also permit more timely discussion and engagement among AAA members as the AAA acts on its Long Range Plan.

We view our online role as anthropologists as contributing a valuable service to the discipline we love. We are hopeful that this episode in our shared history will prove to catalyze important and inclusive dialogue regarding who we are as anthropologists as well as the channels we use to communicate with one another. We encourage the EB and the AAA membership as a whole to participate in this online community, to hear and join with the voices that are coming from within our discipline. This is an opportunity to move past marginalization and work together toward rebuilding a truly interdisciplinary anthropology based on mutual respect.

Sincerely,

Julienne Rutherford, Assistant Professor, University of Illinois at Chicago
Blog http://aapabandit.blogspot.com, Twitter @JNRutherford
Kate Clancy, Assistant Professor, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Blog http://professorkateclancy.blogspot.com, Twitter @KateClancy
Daniel Lende, Associate Professor, University of South Florida
Blog http://blogs.plos.org/neuroanthropology, Twitter @daniel_lende
Ryan Anderson, PhD candidate, University of Kentucky
Blog http://ethnografix.blogspot.com
Krystal D’Costa, Digital Analyst, New York City
Blog http://www.anthropologyinpractice.com, Twitter @anthinpractice
Francis Deblauwe, Program Developer, Alexandria Archive Institute
Blog http://www.alexandriaarchive.org/blog
Blog http://ux.opencontext.org/blog
Carlina de la Cova, Assistant Professor, University of North Carolina at Greensboro
Twitter @Bonesholmes
Eric Michael Johnson, PhD candidate, University of British Columbia
Blog http://primatediariesinexile.blogspot.com, Twitter @ericmjohnson
James Holland Jones, Associate Professor, Stanford University
Blog http://monkeysuncle.stanford.edu, Twitter @juemos
Rosemary A. Joyce, Professor, University of California, Berkeley
Blog http://ancientbodies.wordpress.com, Twitter @rajoyceUCB
Eric Kansa, Project Lead, Open Context
Blog http://www.alexandriaarchive.org/blog
http://opencontext.org
Erin Koch, Assistant Professor, University of Kentucky
Blog http://www.somatosphere.net
Kristi Lewton, Lecturer, Harvard University
Twitter @kristilewton
Carl Lipo, Associate Professor, California State University, Long Beach
Blog http://www.evobeach.com
Megan McCullen, Visiting Instructor, Alma College
Blog http://ethnohistorian.wordpress.com, Twitter@GLEthnohistory
Carole McGranahan, Associate Professor, University of Colorado
Twitter @CMcGranahan
Colleen Morgan, PhD candidate, University of California, Berkeley
Blog http://middlesavagery.wordpress.com
Eugene Raikhel, Assistant Professor, Unversity of Chicago
Blog http://www.somatosphere.net
Douglas Reeser, PhD candidate, University of South Florida
Blog http://recycledminds.blogspot.com
Michael E. Smith, Professor, Arizona State University
Blog http://publishingarchaeology.blogspot.com
Matt Tuttle, Journalist, Norfolk Anthropology Examiner
Twitter @Anthroprobably
Kyle W. West, Research Coordinator, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center
Blog http://kylewwest.blogspot.com, Twitter @kyle_west

Revisiting a controversy of debated etiology

It may be a new year, but the fascination with the #AAAfail story marches onward. Regarding the change of wording to the LRP, I had two central concerns: 1) the wording itself (and the constituency involved in making it and their rationale for doing so) and 2) the response by the AAA EB to criticism and concern from within its own anthropological community. Though related, these are separate entities in many ways. I think the What is Anthropology? statement is a wonderful antidote to the unfortunate damage done by the LRP changes, but I have also been concerned by the lack of public acknowledgment by AAA that debate took place “in house”, not only in the pages of the NY Times, as well as minimal disclosure of the process that preceeded these changes.

Recent blog posts by fellow anthropologists have raised more interesting questions about the nature of the reaction within the anthropological community. For example, I found it particularly interesting that UC Berkeley archaeologist Rosemary Joyce refers to the situation as a "manufactured controversy" based on Wade's reporting. As Dr. Joyce reminds us, Wade did indeed draw really unfortunate and inaccurate battle lines (e.g. anthropologists who study things like gender and race versus those who are scientists). Few anthropologists (any?) subscribed to this sensationalized version of events, and the AAA EB was right to smack Wade down on this front. However, as many of you know and have personally experienced, there has been genuine, non-manufactured controversy within our discipline. There have been active disagreements among anthropologists about how much value to ascribe to the wording itself and how to interpret the EB's actions that preceded and followed. Some of us have argued that it’s no big deal and have accepted the wording and EB response as appropriate and inclusive while others have engaged in serious critique of both. I have not performed statistics on this, but it is my (perhaps self-serving) impression that the latter view is largely held by biological anthropologists and some archaeologists.

Does this necessarily signify the huge dichotomous rift portrayed by the NY Times, or that I advocate an “us vs. them” binary, a resurrection of the “science wars”? No, what’s going on is far more nuanced than that. But to deny that the media coverage did indeed capture some element of internal tensions doesn’t seem to me to be a productive means of moving forward. If you experience something and I tell you that *I* didn’t experience it that way so your experience is not of relevance to me, it’s difficult to work together toward a collaborative solution of better understanding. And to dismiss this issue as merely a rehashing of science wars by a hopelessly entrenched faction also fails to provide a pathway to greater inclusivity and a restoration of the holism American anthropology has always aspired to (and been frustrated by). I think it is unwise to disguise or minimize real disagreement and critique in the interest of debunking Wade's unfortunate coverage. It is very real that the AAA as an organization and conference have long been viewed as irrelevant to many of the very people it ostensibly wants to contain under its umbrella, and the "science" situation (not the one portrayed in the media, but the one that really happened) only served to further that impression. That's a problem for all of us, even those who found the whole thing rather yawn-inducing.

I’ve gained really interesting perspective from my colleagues who have viewed this situation very differently than I do, and in many ways I have tempered some of my original positions as a result. Greg Downey at Neuroanthroplogy recently made some excellent arguments against allowing ideological positioning to poison our common goals as researchers and teachers:
I sound like my mother, pleading with everyone for greater civility and politeness (‘Why can’t you STOP YELLING!?’ I yell.). But I think we’re getting played when we fall for the crowding cheering us on to ‘Fight! Fight!’ Do we really want to demolish our home discipline, one that offers us unique opportunities that we would not get were we to find other homes? Do we really look around and, aside from the truly pathological departments, and think we’d be better off in some other discipline? And even if you do want to move on to a difference discipline, can’t you leave anthropology here for those of us who love the joint?

I agree with Greg that allowing ourselves to be goaded into a fight is counterproductive. And I’ll admit that I’ve contributed my share of arm-waving and sarcasm in ways that perhaps some colleagues and commentators have found glib or unprofessional. Without apology, I am passionate about this discipline and what I do. As I posted earlier, my position in a non-anthropology department has engendered a surprising-to-me drive to engage in anthropology on a scale I had not considered before. I continue to advocate for greater communication across the span of anthropological endeavors while also pointing out where obstacles to this noble goal still exist.

I know (and frankly am envious) that many anthropologists have the good fortune of having been trained in or currently work in really cohesive collaborative programs in which all the fields equally respect one another (even when the numbers are skewed). I know there are programs in which all anthropology grad students are required to take a holistic course of study. That is commendable and may well be something to which the discipline as a whole should aspire, but the reality remains that many of us don't have that experience and that does have unfortunate and real consequences. As I posted earlier here ("it is like confessing a murder"), “my training in cultural anthropology at both the undergraduate and graduate levels is inadequate. That lack of training fostered a lack of interest, and a sense of distance and illiteracy (reading the titles of papers and symposia in the AAA program only heighten my sense of speaking a different language). I don't know what's going on in cultural anthropology today; I mostly just feel like it's water I'd rather not tread. I'm not taking pride in that assertion, I'm just sayin'. And I doubt I'm alone. I honestly don't know what it means to be an integrated anthropologist, but I'm trying to learn.”

The point I’m trying to make is that while I wholeheartedly agree that there is much to be lost by turning this into an internal fight, we need to embrace the reality that many of us did/do indeed feel threatened or at least dismissed by not only the wording but also the subsequent fallout if we want to better understand the state of contemporary American anthropology and shape its future.

Join the AAA Writers Circle

Recent controversies and concerns regarding the AAA LRP have brought to the fore the need for dissemination of our approaches and methods both within the anthropological community and out to the public. The AAA Writers Circle could be an excellent tool to promote that professional circulation and intellectual outreach.


What is the Writers Circle?

The AAA Writers Circle aims to engage the public on topics of central importance to anthropology through the publication of op-ed pieces, short magazine articles, and other short pieces in a variety of local, regional and national media outlets. The AAA Writers Circle aims to support professionals working on original, accessible writing by reading and giving feedback on this type of work.

Calling online anthropologists!

If you are 1) an anthropologist, 2) a blogger or are on Twitter, and 3) have been actively involved in the online discussion of the AAA LRP issue (aka #aaafail), please send me a message on Twitter @JNRutherford or an email. I'd like to talk to you! We want the AAA Executive Board to know how much the online anthropological community participated in shaping the conversation.

#aaafail in cartoon form!

Thanks to Daniel Lende for bringing this sad cartoon to my attention.

Section Assembly issues recommendations to AAA EB

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."

"Long Range Plan, Short Range Controversy"

Another great post on #aaafail and now #wadefail (love!) from Daniel Lende over at Neuroanthropology...

Anthropology discussed on WNYC radio

Great podcast of the Brian Lehrer show regarding anthropology as humanity/science/what-have-you. Peter Peregrine, President of the Society of Anthropological Sciences, and Hugh Gusterson, member of the AAA Executive Board hash it out.

A light-hearted look at #aaafail from Daniel Lende

AAA Statement on Science Controversy – Holistic Hope Saves the Day?

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.

Daniel Lende posts insightful recap of AAA LRP "situation"

Head over to Daniel Lende's post on the Neuroanthropology blog. He does an excellent job of parsing yesterday's frankly subpar NY Times piece (consensus view about the changes has NOT been a rehashing of the El Dorado affair) as well as laying out a timeline of reactions to the changes. Great reading! And over on Twitter, Lance Gravlee shakes his head over Wade's characterization that anthropology is divided into two camps: those who are scientists and those who study race.

NY Times reports on the AAA LRP changes

Nicholas Wade reports in yesterday's NY Times on the still unresolved and still quite rancorous issues of the AAA Long Range Plan statement. The piece quotes AAA president Virginia Dominguez as saying "....the new statement could be modified if the board received any good suggestions for doing so." Apparently the statement the BAS sent to President Dominguez didn't contain any good suggestions.

Email from AAA President to membership

Revision to AAA Long Range PlanAAA [membernews@aaanet.org]
To: Rutherford, Julienne
Cc:

The following is a letter from AAA President Virginia R Dominguez regarding the association's long range plan.

Every so often an event or statement captures the attention of anthropologists on important issues for the profession, regardless of the intentions of those involved in sponsoring the event or formulating the statement. The past 10-12 days are an excellent example.

When such an issue presents itself, I hope we can use these moments of reflections and debate to strengthen our profession and our engagement with it. I have long been interested in who we are, what work we do, and how our commonalities and differences (past and present) are all still anchored in our shared interest in humanity in all of its aspects and diversity.

I urge you to read the statement issued by the four AAA officers yesterday and posted on the AAA Home Page along with a direct link to the document that sparked the recent discussion and public debate.

The document to which I refer is a revised AAA Long Range Plan. The plan, originally adopted and occasionally amended by the AAA Executive Board, is one element of the Board's process of planning for the future, our use of resources, and our stewardship of the association. The AAA Executive Board uses it as it fulfills its legal duty to the AAA membership to plan for a sustainable future.

Upon reading the revised Long Range Plan, if you have suggestions to strengthen and improve it, I urge you to forward them to me at aaapresident@aaanet.org or post them on the AAA Blog so that the AAA Executive Board can benefit from your wisdom and counsel.

The AAA responds

The AAA officers released a statement about the rewording of the mission.

Long-Range Plan


From the officers of the AAA to our membership:

Our AAA long-range plan needed updating in order to address the changing composition of the profession and the needs of the AAA membership. At its November 20 meeting in New Orleans, the Executive Board specified, concretized, and enlarged its operational roadmap for investing the Association’s resources towards a sustainable future. Section leadership was consulted prior to the New Orleans Annual Meeting, and the Executive Board acted. Then immediately after the highly attended 2010 AAA Meetings in New Orleans, some criticisms of the plan were circulated electronically that had not been sent our way prior to the Meetings. Among them were thoughtful responses from several quarters, many queries about hearsay, and some suggestions for improvement or change. These responses, however, were amped up by blog headline editors earlier this week: “Anthropology Without Science” and “No Science Please. We’re Anthropologists.” We believe that the source of the problem speaks to the power of symbols: we replaced the term “science” in the preface of this planning document by a more specific (and inclusive) list of research domains, while explicitly acknowledging that the Association’s central focus is to promote the production, circulation, and application of anthropological research findings. Each one of us (the four officers of the AAA) may add or comment on the issues separately, but collectively we care about letting the entire association see the document at hand. We know that comments will continue to come our way and we welcome them from our clearly engaged membership.

Virginia R. Dominguez, President
Leith Mullings, President-Elect
Debra L. Martin, Secretary
Edward Liebow, Treasurer

Interesting that they blame bloggers for "amping up" the response. Wonder if they noticed that a lot of the bloggers were some of their own? I think it's good that they are considering this as an example of the power of symbols, but wonder why this didn't occur to them sooner. Indeed, according to their own spokesperson a few days ago, the AAA wasn't prepared for the impact of that symbolism:
"Mr. Dozier, meanwhile, believes that this month's dispute has been rooted in miscommunication. "We wanted to choose language that described our purposes in more expansive ways," he says. No one realized, he says, how loaded the word "science" actually might be."

Biological Anthropology Section's statement to the AAA Executive Board

Many thanks to the executive board of the Biological Anthropology Section of the AAA for officially expressing the widely-shared concern about the new wording of the AAA Statement of Purpose.

Karen Strier, the new chair of the BAS, sent an email to the BAS membership to let us know of this statement and made some great, results-oriented suggestions to increase the profile of biological anthropology within AAA. With permission, I share the email here for BANDITs who do not belong to BAS:

Dear BAS Members,

I am writing as the new Chair of BAS, having just replaced Darna Dufour, who deserves recognition and appreciation for her service as BAS Chair these past two years. I had been expecting to slowly ease into the job at the close of the AAA meetings in New Orleans, but alas, the news about the AAA Executive Board's (EB) revisions to the Mission Statement hit my desk right after I returned from the meetings and, well, here we are.

Briefly, for those who haven't seen any of the emails or blogs, the concerns pertain to the revised rewording in the AAA's mission statement from the long range planning committee. The revision excludes the word "science," which we think sends the wrong message about anthropology in general and the place of biology in it, in particular. The revision also refocuses the emphasis from being about advancing "anthropology as the science that studies humankind..." to be about advancing "the public understanding of humankind.".

I am writing to assure you that the Executive Committee of the BAS is among the many representatives from many sections that are challenging these revisions. Our message to the President and EB of the AAA has been submitted, and a copy of it has been posted on the BAS website.

We are confident that the AAA statement will be re-evaluated and subsequently revised as a result of the objections it has generated. Therefore, I hope that you will all stand by BAS during this time. It is especially important that we have the strength of our membership numbers behind our voice right now.

This is also an opportune moment to encourage you to increase your participation in BAS and the overall presence of Biological Anthropologists in the AAA. Here are a few of the ways you can do this:

1. Nominate worthy books for the 2011 W.W. Howells Book Award.

Deadline is Feb 1, 2011; nominations should be sent to Sara Stinson: Sara.Stinson@qc.cuny.edu

2. Organize a session or volunteer a paper or poster presentation at the 2011 AAA meetings, which will be in Montreal. Deadlines for abstracts are in the early spring; watch for the call from AAA.

3. If you are a student or know an eligible student, consider entering in the 2011 BAS Student Prize competition when it is announced.

4. Vote in our upcoming BAS election. We are preparing a slate of amazing candidates for the 2011 elections.

5. Self-nominate, or tell someone else that you would like to be nominated, for future BAS positions and/or committees of the AAA. The more representation we have on the latter, the more we can shape the Association to represent ourselves.

6. Attend the 2011 AAA meetings. Our 2011 Distinguished Lecture will be given by Jonathan Marks.

7. Send any news you may have for publication in AnthroNews to the BAS Newsletter editor, Virginia Vitzthum: vitzthum@indiana.edu

8. Send any news or updates (e.g., field schools, summer programs, etc.) for the BAS website to our webmaster, Kate Pechenkina: pechenkina@yahoo.com

More information about BAS activities can be found at our website. We are in the process of updating the website, so please be patient. If you can't find what you're looking for, please let us know.

Thanks to all of you for your continuing support of BAS.

Best wishes,


Karen Strier

Chair, BAS

Anthropology Just Says No to Science?

Cultural anthropologist Krystal D'Costa over at Anthropology in Practice links to the BANDIT blog in this thoughtful piece: Anthropology Just Says No to Science?

Whither Anthropology as a Science?

Professor Carl Lipo's take on the AAA Statement of Purpose at Evolution Beach.

I think he nicely frames one of the threads in the BANDIT comments yesterday:
"Of course, so much of what anthropology does do really isn't science, not even in its most empiricist and "systematic" form. Looking over the set of papers presented at the AAAs, one sees largely an ad hoc assortment of viewpoints, beliefs, assertions, claims, stories, tales, re-envisionings, interpretations, polemics, rallies, hubris, hue, and so on. Little of it is even empiricist in its crass form and even less is "systematic" in any recognizable way.

But on second thought,the idea that the people who believe that anthropology cannot or should not be a science can entirely co-opt the entire discipline is pretty outrageous. This kind of gerrymandering of the mission basically makes it necessary for those who believe that there are ways of generating theory-laden falsifiable accounts of the world in terms of culture (and other basic anthropological concepts) must work under a different banner than anthropology. But why should this be - we (science focused individuals) are anthropologists in the best sense of the discipline and its tradition. The anti-science theme is something early anthropologists fought against -- and is a relative late comer to the party."

Cross-field Anthropology: Opportunities & Obstacles

As evidence that there are at least pockets of cross-disciplinary collaboration and apprecation within AAA, the Society for Cultural Anthropology sponsored a Multispecies Salon at the recent meeting. Five essays published in the November 2010 issue of Cultural Anthropology formed the platform of the "innovent", and several additional papers were discussed. There were also exhibits of art informed by the concept of Multispecies Ethnography held in New Orleans galleries.

I think this is a great example of what IS happening NOW within anthropology and evidence that there is mutual respect amongst various practitioners, some of whom consider themselves scientists and some of whom do not. I heard it was all fascinating. Unfortunately, I didn't attend any of it because I couldn't find it. The innovent wasn't advertised by the Biological Anthropology Section. The online AAA program allows you to search by interest group (the program is a behemoth); my searches for "biology" and other related terms did not return any information on the Multispecies Salon. You'd have to know it was happening in advance to find it in the program. I learned that a couple of colleagues of mine were presenting in this forum but I couldn't remember the name of the session; searching the index of the printed program for their names yielded nothing. When I finally figured out what session it was, I rushed to the room to find it empty, the session over. In addition, Karen Strier, a highly respected primatologist, gave a distinguished lecture to the General Anthropology Division at AAA. However, Karen's name wasn't even in the program and the talk was very poorly attended. Ironically, the title of her talk was "Why Anthropology Needs Primatology."

Is this merely a rant? I don't think so. I think it's necessary to engage in the discussion, to engage both in critique AND in self-reflection. As I just remarked to a friend, my training in cultural anthropology at both the undergraduate and graduate levels is inadequate. That lack of training fostered a lack of interest, and a sense of distance and illiteracy (reading the titles of papers and symposia in the AAA program only heighten my sense of speaking a different language). I don't know what's going on in cultural anthropology today; I mostly just feel like it's water I'd rather not tread. I'm not taking pride in that assertion, I'm just sayin'. And I doubt I'm alone. I honestly don't know what it means to be an integrated anthropologist, but I'm trying to learn. That said, I've published one paper in American Anthropologist, with another in final revisions. The first was the year in review for biological anthropology (2009) and the other is an explicitly evolutionary paper, co-authored with a fellow biological anthropologist and written intentionally for Am Anth. We were delighted by the warm reception our paper received by the editors & reviewers and are enthusiastic about sharing it with a broadly sociocultural readership.

To wrap these musings up, I don't think the answer is to abandon AAA. To those biological anthropologists who are currently engaging in research and dialogue across the subdisciplines, hats off. Keep doing it. I'd recommend (beg?) going forward that you avail yourself of whatever status you have within AAA, as well as whatever modes of social media you can access, to spread the word about what you're doing and why. Let the rest of the biological anthropology community know when and where your sessions are so we can show up and learn from your approach. One of the reasons I started this blog is because I felt that we tend to get locked into the cramped rabbit warrens of our own work and suffer from a distaste for promoting ourselves and asking questions. I think this debate has opened up wonderful opportunities for our discipline as a whole to engage in some much-needed self-promotion.