Just a few thoughts and comments addressed to Theresa Kintz -- and by
extension to any lurkers out there intrigued by either the original call for
papers or Theresa's comments on that text. I very much appreciate Theresa
taking such a close read of the original post -- and it only goes to show
that authors can NEVER control how their words are read or understood by
others!
------------
>>FINAL CALL FOR SUBMISSIONS........
>>
>>We are organizing a symposium for the 2000 annual meetings of the American
>>Anthropological Association, to be held in San Francisco, 15-19 November,
>>entitled Consuming Anthropology: Pop Culture and Anthropology (a tempestuous
>>love affair). We invite members of this list interested in submitting a
>>paper to contact us.
>
> Please don't think I am having a go at the poster, but I find the language
> here really interesting and believe Marcia-Anne Dobres' raises issues here
> that are worth addressing in this forum:
>
>>The intent of the symposium is to explore how and why the public consumes
>>and exploits the sex appeal of exotic cultures and culture difference, the
>>machismo of archaeology, and the scientism, racism, and sexism underlying
>>misunderstandings of evolution and culture theory for their own
>>(non-academic) interests.
>
> Am I correct in assuming that the goal of the symposium is to essentially
> explore why "the public" is interested in archaeology, and then look at
> cases where archaeological theory has been appropriated in ways that the
> archaeologists didn't expect or like?
Not really. The questions will center more around OUR various
reactions to with this appropriation (which is a given) and to exploring how
we might "tap into" this appeal for various goals -- although some
contributors may argue that our use of the public's "problematic
fascination" only exacerbates it. That will likely become the hot and
contentious topic of discussion Personally, I don't see this appropriation
as either a problem or as something we (the elite) must ferret out and fix.
In fact, I want to make USE of it in my classroom! Nor do I see what I'm
doing as fueling the "problem"... But this is where some of my colleagues
do not agree!
>
> While this is certainly a relevant topic of discussion for archaeologists,
> phrasing it in this way seems to me to be loaded with contempt for the
> "non-academic" public whose interest in archaeology stems from somewhere
> other than how they earn their living. I think historically archaeologists
> have been just as guilty as "the public" when it comes to "exploit(ing) the
> sex appeal of exotic cultures and culture difference, the machismo of
> archaeology, and the scientism, racism, and sexism underlying
> misunderstandings of evolution and culture theory for their own"... remove
> the" non" here - " (academic) interests."
The main point to clarify here is that the "tone" of the original
posting was NOT intended to be either elitist or contemptuous of pop
culture's love affair with anthropology (although Theresa has shown that it
can be read that way). In fact, the intent was actually just the opposite!
-- to raise the issue of elitism WITHIN the discipline as to our attitudes
about how and by whom anthropological knowledge (not just archaeology) is
"borrowed" and adapted.
> I am especially curious about the use of the terms "exploit" and "consume"
> here, which have obvious derogatory connotations and very different
> meanings in the sense that consumption is passive and exploitation is
> active. What would a proper interest in archaeology on the part of "the
> public" look like in contrast? Perhaps you are more specifically referring
> to the media, or to advertising as exploitative?
We used the terms "consume" and "exploit" because (unfortunately)
these represent 2 of the more common negative reactions OF ANTHROPOLOGISTS
to the public's so-called misuse of their ideas. Please rest assured that
the session is NOT intended to present various case studies showing how
stupid or bad pop culture is -- in fact we are discouraging such one-sided
and heavy-handed papers.
>
>>The goal, however, is not simply to complain
>>about (or laugh at) this situation with concrete studies demonstrating the
>>extent of this misguided "love affair."
>
> I think I might know which folks you have in mind here, but it would be
> nice to have some clarification... could it be groups like the pagans, the
> mother goddess theorists and the like? And I am not sure what is meant by
> "popular culture" in this post - is it synonymous with "the public"?
Actually, I was thinking more about Hollywood! We are leaving it to
the individual participants to define as they choose what they mean by "pop
culture."
>
> >We especially want to address
>>issues of pedagogy, exploring how anthropologists and academics from related
>>disciplines explicitly and implicitly participate in and exploit this
>>fascination to further their own ("corrective") agendas.
>
> I take this statement to mean that there are archaeologists or
> anthropologists who can be accused of "exploiting" "the public's"
> fascination with archaeology... I am very curious as to what form this
> takes, or how one would recognize if this wasn't happening in the
> discipline? It would seem, for example, that all of US CRM archaeology then
> is based on this type of exploitation, how else is spending massive amounts
> of money on publicly funded archaeology justifiable?
Again, by "exploiting the fascination" I was actually thinking about
how it might be used in the classroom! (as I've done this with great
success). Theresa's "take" (CRM arch) is yet another side of this
complicated issue and also needs to be considered. Obviously there are many
meanings and sides (both good and bad) to the term "exploit."
>
>>Of necessity, we
>>also hope to debate whether such pedagogical exploitations are simply
>>complicity fueling the consumption problem, and raise the question of
>>whether academics even have the right to "control" the knowledge they
>>produce when it is, by definition, intended for the public.
>
> The way this is written implies that the author laments the fact that
> archaeological research is being produced for "the public," rather than
> just for an academic elite who have the attained the level of education and
> intelligence necessary for understanding complex archaeological data and
> theory.
No no no! I don't "lament" any of this -- but the point is that
there are anthropologists who do. And we want to hear from them and
identify precisely what their real concerns are -- and debate if they are
justified. I worry alot about the question"whose knowledge" (after Sandra
Harding) and hope the session can raise this issue explicitly.
>
> If there is a "consumption problem" then would complete disinterest on the
> part of the public be the solution? Does a scholar ever have any" control"
> over the way that her ideas (knowledge), once presented in published form,
> are appropriated by a reader? Would that be a good thing? Are
> archaeologists right in seeking elite control over the cultural production
> of knowledge that archaeological research ultimately represents?
>
>>The relationship between popular culture and anthropology is at least as old
>>as the discipline itself. But it has been a tempestuous love affair to say
>>the least, waffling between our sometimes missionizing zeal to teach -- for
>>the "public's own good" -- the scientific principles of evolution and the
>>wonders of cultural diversity. On the flip side has been what some ridicule
>>as the wanton pilfering of culture theory, sensitive ethnography, and
>>important archaeological research to suit the public's incessant consumptive
>>whims, as witnessed by the remarkable success of Clan of the Cave Bear and
>>the peddling of everything from pancakes and luggage to beer and cigarettes
>>through appeal to exotic Others, past and present.
>
> Oh, I thought Clan of the Cave Bear was really interesting. I think works
> like that are important and encourage opening one's mind, imagining a stone
> age past that all of us, no matter where we live now, share in common can
> be enlightening. I don't view work like that as worthy of ridicule at all,
> and I don't agree that it would be a good idea for archaeologists to
> discourage "the public" from contemplating the wonders of cultural
> diversity or the uniqueness of Others past and present. Quite to the
> contrary, I think that sort of thing should be promoted. I think the tone
> of this session, perhaps unintentionally, sounds incredibly elitist.
Again, if the original text gave the impression of ridiculing works
like "Clan," the intent was the exact opposite! In point of fact, Jean
Auel has enthusiastically agreed to be our key discussant(!), representing a
well-intentioned, positive, informed (and highly influential) appropriation
of archaeological knowledge in a format attractive to mainstream culture.
She clearly has had more impact on what the public now understands about
Neandertals (trying valiantly to get their ideas out of the 19th century)
than most of us working in the classroom -- so what does that tell us about
how we might more successfully get our ideas across to those already
interested in such subject matter?
This is why pedagogy plays a central place in the proposed
symposium. We want to create a space within which we can discuss the many
sides of this complex "love affair" and not simply dichotomize between "us"
(good) and "them" (bad).
>
> It is true, and lamentable, that archaeological knowledge often becomes
> simply spectacle, thereby losing its potentially subversive and
> intellectualy challenging content once it is recuperated by those seeking
> power in society. I would suggest that the interesting issue here is how
> archaeology is exploited by groups and individuals in society who are
> seeking domination versus those who use it to inspire resistance, rather
> than just looking at the way archaeology is consumed and exploited by a
> mass, unvaried "public" - there are power relationships operating here that
> deserve to be unveiled.
>
> As an archaeologist who unashamedly engages in what you would probably
> refer to as " wanton pilfering of cultural theory" to support a
> contemporary (corrective) political agenda using archaeological research to
> construct a cogent critique of totalitarian forms of government and wanton
> ecological destruction, I really wish I could afford to attend the
> conference and this session in particular so I could hear how the
> discussion goes...
>
> Yours truly, for the de(con)struction of civilization, @
>
> Theresa Kintz
You can rest assured that as a result of Theresa's reactions to the
original text, my co-chair and I will reconsider the language we use in the
final (published) version of the abstract, so that inverted understandings
are avoided where possible!
Sincerely,
Marcia-Anne Dobres
Dept. of Anthropology
University of South Carolina
Columbia, SC 29208 USA
email: [log in to unmask] -or- [log in to unmask]
fax: (803)777-0259
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
