It’s finally time….
Many people I meet, even people I talk to on a regular basis, do not have background knowledge of anthropology, and I think that is fairly typical. Anthropology isn’t taught in the American public school system and most people have only had a limited introduction to one of Anthropology’s subfields. Archeology or Forensic Anthropology are commonly brought up as points of reference. Indiana Jones and the tv show Bones being the most famous, albeit fictional, anthropologists today. These are indeed crucial parts of the holistic endeavor to understand human beings, but the methodology employed is so drastically different that I think people are still left wonder what exactly it is that I do.
Anthropology is the study of what it means to be human, and the wealth of variation of culture and physiology that includes. Cultural anthropologists are primarily focused on cultural groups and cultural issues around the globe as they pertain to currently living people; as you might imagine this takes an incredibly wide range of forms. From studying HIV clinics in Bolivia to urban development in China to Forestry and Sustainability in the Philipines to grieving practices on Facebook, anthropologists do research anywhere humans are. This research is most commonly referred to as ethnographic fieldwork or sometimes ethnography for short, but an ethnography is really the written product produced documenting anthropologist’s cultural observations. The two most important methodological tools of ethnographic fieldwork are participant observation and ethnographic interviews.
The exact type of hard data each anthropologists documents during this ethnographic experience may vary, but one pattern repeats–tried and true. This method yields incredible, invaluable insight into the culture group being studied, allowing anthropologists to properly situate other more tangible data within its cultural context. Additionally, living with those we study and participating in their daily lives has offered anthropologists countless serendipitous opportunities for uncovering deeply insightful findings. These might come as a chance encounter, an illegal cock-fighting match, a midnight conversation, even in one case a late night police raid on the village an anthropologist was residing in (Greetz 1977; Bernard 2011). Such serendipitous events provide the researcher with an anecdotal stories that exemplify or illuminate key aspects of the human condition, which are frequently worth more than the several months of diligent pursuits of other methods. Other times such as serendipitous event is an experience that provides a unique perspective on the issue being studied, situating the researcher to have both the outsider objectivity and a momentary shared insider experience.
It is fair to say that participant-observation isn’t entirely well-defined even by and for anthropologists who employ it. How do you know when you are doing participant-observation? How do you know you are doing it correctly? These questions have probably haunted anthropology graduate students since the beginning of American Anthropology. Participant-Observation was invented when anthropology first shifted from an armchair discipline to one that required going to the “field.” Now part of the authority of the anthropologist claims comes from actually being there. This later came under critique, as did the anthropologist’s authority, in general, but the necessity of going to field to gain firsthand insight into a culture weathered the storm. In essence, participant-observation is about achieving the same type of organic first-hand exposure to a culture that language learners seek from language immersion programs.
Participant-observation might be defined as the process of living in a culture, alternately with the community of people you are studying, while keeping a detailed record of your observations of public events, daily life, and casual conversations. As anthropologists live in their field site, every communal activity, and human interaction offers the potential to yield insightful information. Anthropologists learn through immersion, living in the same cultural context as the people we are studying. We call it participant-observation occasionally even deep hanging out in an attempt to over emphasize the causal nature of one of our greatest tools. But the point remains the same; we need to absorb the social context while simultaneously analyzing the layers of that social reality and how they might affect the situation being studied.
However, the third vital gift of participant-observation is that it is the perfect set up for ethnographic interviews both formal and informal. Anthropological literature talks a lot about building rapport. What this really means is that you need to establish a relationship with your participants and your community. While informed consent in its strictest sense isn’t required, during the participant-observation stage of research, this is the ideal time to inform community members about your research. They need to know who you are, why you are there, and hopefully after you’ve shared some real genuine human interaction you can begin to build a relationship and trust. Being a part of the community, rather someone that just shows up one day out of the blue wanting to ask questions helps. Informal ethnographic interviews, in all honestly, are really just casual conversations. In participant-observation settings, think community social events, these can actually be allowed to start organically and on equal terms. Once the anthropologist has the lay of the land, after conducting participant-observation for a while (the length of time is always up to the researcher), then she can start looking for people who are willing to be interviewed in a more formal setting. But again, it helps here that the people already either know her or know people who know her. I still like to refer to these as ethnographic interviews albeit formal ethnographic interviews to emphasize that the interview is informed by participant-observation unlike for example interviews of randomly selected college students participating in a psychology survey or a sociological questionnaire.
Cultural anthropologists may also employ a host of other data collecting methods: household surveys, kinship charts, taxonomies, ethnographic decision models, photography, videography, cartography, online questionnaires, and even analysis of digital data like tweets. But participant-observation and ethnographic interviews are our bread and butter.
I have explained them thoroughly to give you my warning, or disclaimer if you will. Once you start conducting participant-observation and ethnographic interviews, you’ll never actually stop. Sure, an anthropologist isn’t always keeping detailed notes about all of life’s observations. But come to think of it, even when I’m not on field note taking duty I still make notes about all my “Fascinating!” observations as soon as I can get to my nearest notebook, cell phone or laptop. After I tell someone or write it down, it keeps the idea percolating in my head and it helps me remember. But that’s not the important part. The important part, it that once you learn how to do participant-observation and then follow it up with thoughtful ethnographically charged questions, well… you sort of can’t turn it off. These tools of inquiry become part of how you think and engage with the world. I was in the mountains on retreat with my friends last weekend and I caught myself doing it, but I didn’t realize what I was doing until I’d already asked the question. It wasn’t in any way related to my dissertation research or really any topic that I’ve directly studied, but I was curious. Then it happened again while I was in a fitness class on Monday. But that is the thing isn’t it, ALL of Human Diversity and what it means to be human, that is what I study. So if you are human and you are talking and doing your thing, whatever your thing is, I’m probably unintentionally studying you. Dear friends, family, communities in which I live, my apologies and warning in advance.
An anthropologist is always conducting research to some extent. Once you learn the tools of anthropology, you cannot simply turn them off because you are at the dinner table with your in-laws or in dance fitness class or listening to someone tell you about their yarn store. I can’t possibly wipe out informed consent forms every time I get inspired, plus I think it might start freaking out those close to me.
So for my friends and family, this is a friendly reminder, I’m an anthropologist and this is what I do. Before I actually publish any stories directly about you, I will always try to go back and ask your permission and give you a chance to preview it. Don’t worry I always change names to protect the not so innocent. Excepting some of the members of my family, of course, who chose to be identified in previous research as it pertained to family history.
For all my past, current and future research participants reading this, I hope this gives you some insight into what anthropology is and what I do with it. I always want you to feel like we are collaborators in the research projects you work with me on. I want you to feel proud reading what I write especially when it pertains to you. I plan to always publish a public audience version of all my material well in advance of any academic publications. If there is anything that concerns you, please feel free to contact me at email@example.com
The strength of anthropology is that we are always learning, gathering data isn’t something we do in a lab or even something we can easily shut off. We learn through immersion, living in the same cultural context as the people we are studying. We call it participant-observation occasionally even deep hanging out in an attempt to over emphasize the causal nature of one of our greatest tools. However, the point remains the same; we need to absorb the social context while simultaneously analyzing the layers of that reality and how they might affect the situation being studied. Then when the moment is right, we start asking thoughtful questions. Sometimes formally in a pre-planned interview setting and sometimes informally while sitting on a couch in someone’s living room or at a local fair in the park. One thoughtfully worded question, placed in the right setting and time, can reveal far more insightful information than a thousand questions asked without context. That is the argument of our discipline.
Check out the Soceity for the Anthropology of Consciousness’ Up Coming Panels and Meetings in Chicago this week at the AAA Conference. AAA 2013 SAC Events.
Mobile Health in Context: How Information is Woven Into Our Lives
Susannah Fox from Pew Review Research put together an excellent presentation of the latest health and digital technology related statistics. The slides are concise, accessible, and thought provoking. Can we put cell phones to use improve health and health information seeking strategies?
I came across this presentation of data at exactly the right time thanks to Carol Torgan. The information will be incredibly insightful to my future dissertation research and will go along way in demonstrating the significance of my proposed research.
Check out my post on the Digital Anthropology Interest Group’s website. Digital Research Hub.
The BRIDGING DIGITAL AND PHYSICAL PUBLICS: DIGITAL Anthropologists’ CURRENT ENGAGEMENTS WITH 21st CENTURY PUBLICS panel has been accepted!! It is being reviewed by the Society of Visual Anthropology. The panel with include the following papers:
Anastasiya Travina (Texas State University-San Marcos) 500,000 Tweets and Posts During The First Two Hours Of The London Olympics: Does IT Mean The Olympics Is A Universally Lauded Event?
Meghan M Ferriter (Smithsonian Institution Archives) “It Boils Down to Respect”: Defining the Values of a Fandom Through Conflict Online
Sarah Elaine Dillard Mitchell (Indiana University, Department of Anthropology) TIFF’s Immediate and Mediated Public: Social Media, Public Relations, and the Economies of Talk At the Toronto International Film Festival
Michael P. Oman-Reagan (Hunter College of the City University of New York) Occupying Cyberspace: Indonesian Cyberactivism and Occupy Wall Street
Laura C Jarvis (Southern Methodist University) Facebook Or Face-to-Face: Studying Youth In and Out of the Field
Sarah S Ono (Department of Veteran Affairs) By the Time We Get to the Station Will the Train Already Have Left?: Keeping Up With New Media in the Public Sector
Alissa Beth Kaplan Soto (Hunter College) Women’s Autonomy Through Self-Insemination and Cyberspace
Congratulations and Thank You to all the panel participants and DANG!
Check Us Out on the 112th Annual AAA Conference!
Check out the Digital Anthropology Call for Papers: Call for Papers: Digital Anthropologists’ Current Engagements with 21st Century Publics.
I think this is a very serious issue which is largely ignored because it gets the desired results and is socially linked to productivity and achievement. For my part, some might argue that I am part of the problem, as a graduate student and teaching assistant who was aware of these thinly veiled “confessions.” But I am 25 years old which makes me only a few years older than most of my students and this time four years ago I was the undergrad who had close friends doing the same thing. However, it also raises an important ethical issue. This was information I gained from a semester of building rapport with my students and a safe environment for discussion in my classroom. In that moment, I saw my responsibility in guiding my students to think critically about the social and structural pressures that make the need for academic performance drugs and in interrogating the problematic dichotomy between legal prescription drugs and illegal drugs. I pushed them to critically think about any substance they put in their body and I urged them to be accountable for researching these medicines, their purpose and their side effects. In that classroom, I felt that was the extent of my ability to influence the matter.
But as a medical anthropologist, I think this is definitely an issue which merits further investigation and careful attention to potential solutions that address this “inconvenient truth.” Karim’s narratives demonstrate the hidden reality on our campuses. I hope to see more work along these lines in the future.
The media storm follow the Newton school shooting has left our nation with heavy hearts and that unanswerable question “but why…?” The shooting occurred the day left Dallas heading home for Arkansas to spend my Christmas break with my family. These incidents which have become all too frequent always leave me initially dumbfounded, but as the social scientist in the family people expect me to have a more educated response than a look of horror on my face. Within hours of the shooting Facebook and Twitter was aflame with arguments for gun control and explanations of mental illness. I found myself driving home in the dark and trying to explain to my father on the cell phone that it was “more complicated than that”.
Do we blame guns? Do we blame mental illness? Do we blame the media or video games? Do we blame American culture itself?
Part of the reason it is “more complicated than that” for me to explain to my father or most of the people I grew up with for that matter, is that Living Anthropologically’s simple answer “measures to reduce and restrict the weaponry” would begin a debate met by deaf ears. Saying the word “gun control” to a hunter is the equivalent of saying “Internet censorship” to a member of anonymous. Certain topics trigger a panicked emotional response that jumps to the worst case scenario first. I know that restrictions on semi-automatics and hand guns is not the equivalent of a universal gun ban, but both the audience and the bigger picture need to be kept in mind. The weapon of choice is definitely one way to tackle the problem, especially if you see no use for the device, but it doesn’t fix the “why” which can always find a new outlet.
In his Neuroanthropology blog Daniel Lende reminds us that “Mentally ill patients are not more violent than anyone else.” and “Guns don’t shoot themselves.” in his response to the two easy answers which have been put forth by the media and the public following the Newton shootings.
Follow the Aurora shooting, David Dobbs argued that “Culture shapes the expression of behavioral traits. The traits don’t rise inherent as an urge to play basketball or a plan to shoot up a Batman movie. A long conversation between the trait and the surrounding culture shape those expressions. Culture gives the impulse form and direction.”
In talking to my father who is very anti-gun control, I realized that there is a very big difference between a hunter and a gunman. Friend and follow Arkansan, Justin Snook makes a similar connection in his blog post Guns and Games, when he says “I learned to treat a gun sensitively and reverently whether it was in my own hand or someone else’s.” Growing up in rural Arkansas my first experience with guns did not come from video games or even TV. I remember being between 2 and 3 years old and my dad letting me pull the trigger on his .22 while he held the gun. As I got older both of my parents always re-enforced strict rules and behaviors relating to guns. Guns were always present in my household, but they were also always serious. The first rule I remember my mother telling me was to never go near the place my dad kept his guns unless he was with me. The first rule I remember my father telling me about guns was to never point one at anything or anyone I didn’t want to kill, whether I thought the gun was loaded or not. Guns were to be respected and were only used to hunt. My brother, sister, and I were taught that what we did with a gun was our responsibility. But this is not part of how most Americans are raised. While hunters-ed is required for hunting licenses it is not required to own a gun. You have to take two exams to drive a car but all you need is a background check to own a gun. This means that unlike me, many Americans are taught about guns by TV, movies, and video games. These media are artistic expressions of our culture so it is hard to blame them in and of themselves. Films no longer warn that “you’ll shoot your eye out” and instead depict firearm novices becoming epic heroes by picking up a gun. People who have never witnessed anything larger than a spider die are allowed to own hand guns designed for shooting people and even semi-automatic weapons designed to shoot everything insight.
If the people using them and how they are used, not the guns themselves are at the center of the “but why …?” question, then we that we are to blame. A cultural dialogue which allows people to assign the blame to others instead of accepting responsibility makes it possible for the gunman suicide phenomenon to become an accepted cultural script.
A young man (statistically most are males) has bad relationships with his family. He becomes/feels disenfranchised. He is alienated from his community and he begins to blame all the people in his life for how terrible his life is. That blame turns to hate and when he cannot take it anymore and is ready to end it all by killing himself he turns to the pre-existing techniques his culture has provided. Going out in a blaze of glory, maximizing his ability to hurt those who he blames for his state, and regaining control of his life in a hyper-masculine villainous act. Gunman suicide becomes the last desperate attempt at significance.
Lende argues that “If we’re going to think of violence as a sickness, then it is its own type of sickness, different in kind and in expression from the mental and physical ailments that also possess us. Violence is red in tooth and claw, seemingly primordial, until we recognize how socially regulated it is.”
My best explanation is that the gunman suicide phenomenon is a social illness rather than a mental or physical one. These gunmen which have become all too common are suffering from a lack of the social components necessary to be healthy in body and mind. It is a social illness in that these gunmen are men who society has failed and in that the illness harms society itself. It takes the lives of the incident’s victims, it wrecks havoc on the lives of the victims families and the community, but it also traumatized us as a nation, as a globally connected world. The gunman is ground zone of the social illness, proving to us that in this hyper-connected and highly visible age a ticking time bomb can still remain in plain sight.