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.

"Long Range Plan, Short Range Controversy"

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

A light-hearted look at #aaafail from Daniel Lende

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

Links to more about the recent AAA wording changes

More essays and documentation:

Psychology Today: No Science Please, We're Anthropologists
Comments by Raymond Hames quoted therein in regard to the tilt toward "public advocacy":
"Advocacy is what we do as citizens in a democratic society. Even as
anthropologists we must advocate on the basis of fundamental science.
Science has a special currency in courts, public opinion, and in the
legislative process. If we purge science from our mission statement
we lose our credibility, the ability to advocate for effective change,
and hence our power to do good. We become just another special
interest group."
Hames brought up a useful example, namely the recent ruling in Florida
allowing gay and lesbian couples to adopt children. In that case, the
judge considered the scientific evidence showing that same-sex couples
can be just as good parents as opposite-sex couples. Wrote Hames to
me, "Evidence-based advocacy trumps special interest group advocacy."
So, even if most of what the AAA wants to do is advocacy rather than
data-driven scholarship, why ditch science in that pursuit?"

Society for Anthropological Sciences resolution against the new wording

Chronicle of Higher Education blog post by Peter Wood

The place of science in anthropology

By now the word has trickled out that at the recent American Anthropological Association meeting, the AAA executive board approved changes to the statement of purpose that omitted any mention of the word "science" or any description of the discipline of anthropology as a science.

As a news article in today's Inside Higher Ed reports,"a new long-range plan for the American Anthropological Association that omits the word “science” from the organization's vision for its future has exposed fissures in the discipline. The plan, adopted by the executive board of the association at its annual meeting two weeks ago, includes 'significant changes to the American Anthropological Association mission statement -- it removes all mention of science,' Peter N. Peregrine, president of the Society for Anthropological Sciences and professor at Lawrence University, wrote in a widely circulated e-mail to members. The changes to the plan, he continued, 'undermine American anthropology.'"

In the interest of full disclosure, I was not at the executive committee meeting, was not directly provided the changed wording, and have seen only second-hand accounts of the email circulated by Professor Peter Peregrine, President of the Society for Anthropological Sciences that raised an alarm about the changes, but I have received corroboration of the changes from trusted informants within AAA. The wording on the AAA website does not yet reflect these changes.

It remains to be seen whether there was a bioanthropological or archaeological presence when those decisions were made, and thus far the AAA has not provided a rationale for the changes. The Inside Higher Ed piece describes what frankly appears to me to be a bit of backpedaling on the part of the association: "The association said that the long-range plan's change in language reflected a simple wordsmithing choice more than a true shift in purpose. The removal of any mention of science from the plan's mission statement applies only to the long-range plan -- and not to the organization itself or its larger direction, said Damon Dozier, a spokesman for the association. 'We have no interest in taking science out of the discipline,' he said. 'It’s not as if the anthropology community is turning its back on science.' Dozier added that the alterations to the plan, though already adopted by the executive board of the association, are part of an ongoing dialogue and will be subject to revision. 'This isn’t something that’s written in stone,' he said. 'This long-range plan is something that will be tweaked over time.'"

Again, I am not privy to the inner workings of the AAA and don't know what happened or why, but it seems disingenuous to me to be surprised that these changes to the statement of purpose (which, remember, were approved by the AAA executive board) have been met with dismay and even a sense of betrayal by those of us who employ various aspects and tools of the scientific method in the pursuit of anthropological research. Obviously this move yet again tears the worn-out bandaid off the decades old debate regarding four fields anthropology and the divisive battles between departments over identity, many of which continue to lead to the splintering of sociocultural and biological factions into separate departments and in some cases, outright dissolution of anthropology departments.

I don't even know how to unpack the argument being made by at least one sociocultural blogger that the move to redefine anthropology as a non-science is to be applauded because science, as an emblem of Western privilege, obscures indigenous ways of knowing: "Historically not included under the rubric of "science", however, are the thousands of distinct indigenous knowledge systems that exist around the world. Indigenous knowledge is only recently being understood and accepted by those in the West (and in anthropology) as the equally complex (and equally valid) indigenous counterpart to Western science. For the AAA, maintaining the use of the term "science" in their mission statement serves to maintain the colonizing, privileging, superior positionality of anthropology that continues to plague the discipline.
The 'science-free' mission statement allows for the inclusion of a number of perspectives and approaches that have been and remain marginalized, not only in anthropology, but in much of their social and economic existence. In short, the old mission statement privileged "science" over and above the knowledge systems of the very people we have been studying and working with for generations. It is well past the time for this to change. Do anthropologists still use science? Of course, and science may well offer the most appropriate methodology for many. Still, we must also recognize that there are other means to knowing, exploring, and explaining."

I am not arguing that there are no other valid modes of sampling the universe besides science, but explicitly eliminating science as a way of knowing in order to highlight other ways of knowing is not a concept I can grasp. It may be because I didn't take a lot of coursework in sociocultural anthropology. Unfortunately, I think some of our sociocultural colleagues believe that we biological anthropologists view our study populations as Dawkinsesque genomic automatons and culture as either a precisely quantifiable logic problem or completely irrelevant, a variable to be "controlled" in regression models. It might have been eye-opening for members of the executive committee to attend the fascinating and very culturally-driven biocultural session I and other biological anthropologists (including a geneticist, human biologist, and primatologist) participated in at AAA.

For our biological colleagues who already feel the AAA and its journal, American Anthropologist, are irrelevant to them, this move and the perception of dismissal it engenders only further exacerbate those tensions. If it was merely an issue of "wordsmithing" then it demonstrates a remarkable tone deafness and insensitivity to the various stakeholders within anthropology who fully consider themselves scientists (me included). I hope we hear more from the Association and I hope that this stumble does indeed open the way to meaningful dialogue and better understanding within our discipline. Stay tuned.

One of the "20 best primatology blogs" advocates murder of animal researchers

It's come to my attention that Primate Freedom, one of the blogs on the list I posted yesterday, is a site that advocates extremist violence against animal researchers (or "vivisectionists"). I apologize for not catching this sooner and offering that disclosure with my original post. I have decided to NOT delete my original post, however. I think it's important we know about these sites and groups. Not notifying our community of their existence does not change the reality that they do in fact exist.

I encourage BANDIT readers to leave a comment on the 20 best blogs site to let them know the full nature of the blog they are promoting. This link is chilling, and you can follow a link therein to the original Primate Freedom blog post.

I have left two comments that are currently awaiting moderation. Stay tuned to see if they see the light of day...