The discussion of resistance, representation, and voices echoed in my mind today as I began to read Donna Haraway (2008)'s When Species Meet and the articles included in the 2010 special issue in Cultural Anthropology (Volume 25, Issue 4) on multispecies ethnography. Both of these texts consider the implications of moving non-humans from the margins of inquiry (as landscape, food, symbols, etc.) to the foreground as agents that live (and not merely exist - pace Giorgio Agamben [1998]'s distinction between zoe or "bare life" [that which is killable] and bios or biographical and political life) alongside and "become with" (Haraway 2008:244) humans. Particularly relevant for our discussion is the article in the Cultural Anthropology collection by S. Eben Kirksey and Stefan Helmreich (2010:553) that grapples with the question, "How can or should or do anthropologists speak with and for nonhuman others?" They suggest that rather than simply ask, "Can the non-human speak?" (pace Spivak 1988), there needs to be a reflexive engagement with how boundaries between species are increasingly blurred and entangled (for example, in transgenic organisms such as OncoMouse, a mouse whose genome has been modified to include human breast cancer genes [Haraway 1997]) in a way that avoids the reification of human exceptionalism and anthropomorphism (554-556).
This question is also dealt with in debates in science studies about the agency (despite a lack of intentionality) of non-humans upon the practices of humans (particularly as developed in actor-network theory and its critiques - for example, Bruno Latour [1994]'s "On Technical Mediation," Michel Callon [1986]'s "Some Elements of a Sociology of Translation: Domestication of the Scallops and the Fishermen of St. Brieuc Bay," John Law [1986]'s "On the Methods of Long-Distance Control: Vessels, Navigation, and the Portuguese Route to India," and Andrew Pickering [1993]'s "The Mangle of Practice: Agency and Emergence in the Sociology of Science").
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Images of Imperialism
Our readings and discussion about Imperialism in the Philippines got me to go back into my files from 2004 and resurrect a paper I wrote about political cartoons during the Philippine-American War--in particular, how these images and political cartoons adapted as the war went on. I was able to find a few of the images, which come from the left-leaning Life and the right-leaning Judge, show that American attitudes towards colonialism were by no means uniform, even during this first surge of American imperialism. I reproduce here the first paragraph of my essay:
At the end of the 19th century, the U.S. made its bid to become one of the great powers of the world. Amid growing tensions between the pro- and anti-imperialist forces, cartoonists for weekly journals began to take sides, creating images designed to influence public opinion. Founded in 1881, The Judge had become an organ for Republican pro-imperialist propaganda under William Arkell’s leadership.[1] Anti-imperialists found support in Life, which, despite its more social focus, took a strong stand on the question of Philippine annexation and on the morality of the subsequent war.[2] Before the outbreak of the Philippine-American War, The Judge portrayed Filipinos as needing the benevolent protection of the U.S. and rejoicing in their new liberty. Meanwhile, Life printed cartoons emphasizing the hypocrisy of the supposedly humanitarian motives for invading Cuba and the Philippines. Despite their differing stances, however, they both portrayed the Philippines as an attractive feminine identity, and used similar visual progressions to predict the effect of U.S. expansion. However, in the months and years following the outbreak of hostilities, The Judge turned sharply away from any sympathetic conception of the natives, emphasizing instead their wild uncivilized nature and the stupidity of their resistance. Life followed an opposite path, more seriously criticizing the hypocrisy and atrocities of U.S. involvement in the Philippines. Nevertheless, the use of similar imagery remained constant, as evidenced by the magazines’ visualizations of the White Man’s Burden, and their portrayal of the Philippines and Filipinos as dogs and insects. While The Judge’s and Life’s differing messages polarized even further as U.S. involvement in the Philippines continued, their use of similar imagery stays constant throughout the war. This paper analyzes the methods that these periodicals used to convey their different messages and follows the theme of similar imagery through the course of the war.
Some political cartoons from Life:
This is the first image I mentioned in class, directly juxtaposing American revolutionaries with Philippine resistance fighters.
Turning now to some political cartoons from the Judge:
At the end of the 19th century, the U.S. made its bid to become one of the great powers of the world. Amid growing tensions between the pro- and anti-imperialist forces, cartoonists for weekly journals began to take sides, creating images designed to influence public opinion. Founded in 1881, The Judge had become an organ for Republican pro-imperialist propaganda under William Arkell’s leadership.[1] Anti-imperialists found support in Life, which, despite its more social focus, took a strong stand on the question of Philippine annexation and on the morality of the subsequent war.[2] Before the outbreak of the Philippine-American War, The Judge portrayed Filipinos as needing the benevolent protection of the U.S. and rejoicing in their new liberty. Meanwhile, Life printed cartoons emphasizing the hypocrisy of the supposedly humanitarian motives for invading Cuba and the Philippines. Despite their differing stances, however, they both portrayed the Philippines as an attractive feminine identity, and used similar visual progressions to predict the effect of U.S. expansion. However, in the months and years following the outbreak of hostilities, The Judge turned sharply away from any sympathetic conception of the natives, emphasizing instead their wild uncivilized nature and the stupidity of their resistance. Life followed an opposite path, more seriously criticizing the hypocrisy and atrocities of U.S. involvement in the Philippines. Nevertheless, the use of similar imagery remained constant, as evidenced by the magazines’ visualizations of the White Man’s Burden, and their portrayal of the Philippines and Filipinos as dogs and insects. While The Judge’s and Life’s differing messages polarized even further as U.S. involvement in the Philippines continued, their use of similar imagery stays constant throughout the war. This paper analyzes the methods that these periodicals used to convey their different messages and follows the theme of similar imagery through the course of the war.
[1] Paul Somers Jr., Editorial Cartooning and Caricature: A Reference Guide (Westport: Greenwood Press, 1998), 11.
[2] Stephen Hess and Milton Kaplan, The Ungentlemanly Art: A History of American Political Cartoons (New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1968), 112.
Some political cartoons from Life:
This is the first image I mentioned in class, directly juxtaposing American revolutionaries with Philippine resistance fighters.
Turning now to some political cartoons from the Judge:
Saturday, February 26, 2011
Post-secular Development in Indonesia
Yesterday The Immanent Frame posted an article that might be of interest to those of you who research the intersection of religion and economics as well as to those of you who liked Pemberton’s book and want to know more about what is happening in post-New Order Java. The article is called “Post-secular development” and it is written by Daromir Rudnyckyj, author of Spiritual Economies: Islam, Globalization, and the Afterlife of Development (2010). Throughout the article, Rudnyckyj highlightes the processes by which faith has recently become the goal of development in Indonesia, thanks largely to a business-training program called ESQ.
To sum up the article, Rudnyckyj first tells of how he conducted his fieldwork in Indonesia from 2003-2005, focusing on the business practices of Krakatau Steel, a state-owned company that was a focal point in the nationalist project of modernization during Soeharto’s (here Suharto’s) regime. But now, after the 1998 Asian financial crisis and Suharto’s fall, Krakatau Steel is no longer “a symbol of modernization, development, and industrialization,” says Rudnyckyj. What once constituted its social mission (misi sosial)—particularly the creation of jobs and the elevation of living standards—has taken a backseat to its business mission, i.e., the desire for profits.
Employees recognize this fact, and worker motivation was at an all-time low until Krakatau Steel contracted a Jakarta-based company, the ESQ Leadership Center, to implement Emotional and Spiritual Quotient training. This type of training, says Rudnyckyj, lifts strategies from life-coaching programs like “The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People,” but most centrally, it (re)imagines the five pillars of Islam as lessons for business success. It has been extremely popular and widespread throughout the country, and recently it officially became a national movement with offices in 30 out of 33 Indonesian provinces.
It is worth quoting part of Rudnyckyj’s conclusion, in which he says:
During the New Order, development was the raison d’être of government policy and practice. However, after Suharto’s spectacular collapse, the logic of enhancement and growth that underlay the project of modernization was applied to the religious practices of industrial employees who were supposed to be the purveyors of development. Islamic practice, previously relegated to the background in Indonesia, was seen both as a means to revive economic growth and as something to be developed and enhanced.
ESQ has, in other words, made workers rethink their personal stake in state development by having profits signal their own triumphs in developing faith. This tactic is not unique to businesses in Indonesia, to be sure, but KS does seem to be a really fascinating case and a sukses story in its own right.
Mostly I just wanted to share the article in light of our discussion of Marx last Tuesday, but I’m interested to hear what people think about Rudnyckyj’s findings (and the strategies of the ESQ in general) as they relate to issues that we have discussed in class, or in light of your own knowledge about religion, politics, and economics in contemporary Indonesia.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
two things
Hi all,
Two points of interest that might be relevant to today's class:
1) Alongside Pietz, another great source concerning "fetishism", its history, etymology, critique etc. from a non-anthropological perspective is F. Max Muller's 1878 lecture "Is Fetishism a Primitive Form of Religion?" which is available on Google Books here and in a newer version here.
2) It occurred to me during class that today's article by Stanely Fish on Watson the computer could have come straight from Rousseau, p. 44: "In any animal I see nothing but an ingenious machine to which nature has given sense in order for it to renew its strength and to protect itself, to a certain point, from all that tends to destroy or disturb it. I am aware of precisely the same things in the human machine, with the difference that nature alone does everything in the operations of an animal, whereas man contributes, as a free agent, to his own operations. The former chooses or rejects by instinct and the later by an act of freedom. Hence an animal cannot deviate from the rule that is prescribed to it, even when it would be advantageous to do so, while man deviates from it, often to his own detriment."
Just an interesting parallel, thought I'd share.
Two points of interest that might be relevant to today's class:
1) Alongside Pietz, another great source concerning "fetishism", its history, etymology, critique etc. from a non-anthropological perspective is F. Max Muller's 1878 lecture "Is Fetishism a Primitive Form of Religion?" which is available on Google Books here and in a newer version here.
2) It occurred to me during class that today's article by Stanely Fish on Watson the computer could have come straight from Rousseau, p. 44: "In any animal I see nothing but an ingenious machine to which nature has given sense in order for it to renew its strength and to protect itself, to a certain point, from all that tends to destroy or disturb it. I am aware of precisely the same things in the human machine, with the difference that nature alone does everything in the operations of an animal, whereas man contributes, as a free agent, to his own operations. The former chooses or rejects by instinct and the later by an act of freedom. Hence an animal cannot deviate from the rule that is prescribed to it, even when it would be advantageous to do so, while man deviates from it, often to his own detriment."
Just an interesting parallel, thought I'd share.
Saturday, February 12, 2011
Class #2: Cultural Patterns [Mead and Benedict]
During class on Tuesday, we discussed the importance of Mead and Benedict and the "culture and personality school," wherein we can think of culture as the individual personality writ large. Both were students of Boas and Benedict's thinking was also highly influenced by Sapir. Can we see the roots of their thinking in Boas' work? As we read the week earlier, Boas was drawn to the emotional and mental life, to poetry, to the roots of what makes people individuals (and by extension, how they convey and express themselves). Yet he largely discredited the emerging school of psychoanalysis as an inherently ethnocentric phenomenon arising out of a specific class and psyche (that was not an appropriate framework or lens for the people he worked with).
Benedict was highly influenced by her communications with Edward Sapir, known for his desire for an epistemology for the human sciences that was not a search for "laws" and generalizations but was true to the individual, the concrete and the experiential aspects of peoples. Therefore, Benedict and also Mead were concerned with how the individual became a representative of the social whole... yet there was also an equally important focus on interiority that was emerging.
Yet it is important to remember that Mead and Benedict were a product of their time and their place--1920s New York City @ Columbia, largely influenced by Jews fleeing Germany who brought with them an interest and fashion for psychoanalysis.
We also differentiated the American school from the Durkheimian model of the individual/society. For the Durkheim school, the individual was what was left over that was not society (essentially a negation) vs. the American "rugged individualism" and difference via deviance. For Mead and Benedict, the individual must differ from the social group by rejecting it. Innate to Mead and Benedict is the idea of malleability/plasticity (or that human nature is infinitely moldable, that it can be changed).
Both Mead and Benedict sought to understand culture (as a whole) as parts of the "arc of all human potentialities. Benedict sought to find these cultural patterns in so-called "simple" societies... or those that were outside of "Western" influences (i.e. the Zuni and other Native Americans). When she talks about the primitive, therefore, she is referring to a particular "purity." Again, both her work and Mead's is based on an implicit comparison (that we can see in the discipline reaching far back, per the Margaret Hodgen). This emphasis on comparison makes reading Benedict and Mead seem a little dated for us.
Finally, we discussed how Benedict's notion of culture is very much an aesthetic one (culture is like a poem). She argues that some cultures are more coherent than others--i.e., that they are coherent in terms of individual's commitments to particular parts of an arc or particular themes).
Benedict was highly influenced by her communications with Edward Sapir, known for his desire for an epistemology for the human sciences that was not a search for "laws" and generalizations but was true to the individual, the concrete and the experiential aspects of peoples. Therefore, Benedict and also Mead were concerned with how the individual became a representative of the social whole... yet there was also an equally important focus on interiority that was emerging.
Yet it is important to remember that Mead and Benedict were a product of their time and their place--1920s New York City @ Columbia, largely influenced by Jews fleeing Germany who brought with them an interest and fashion for psychoanalysis.
We also differentiated the American school from the Durkheimian model of the individual/society. For the Durkheim school, the individual was what was left over that was not society (essentially a negation) vs. the American "rugged individualism" and difference via deviance. For Mead and Benedict, the individual must differ from the social group by rejecting it. Innate to Mead and Benedict is the idea of malleability/plasticity (or that human nature is infinitely moldable, that it can be changed).
Both Mead and Benedict sought to understand culture (as a whole) as parts of the "arc of all human potentialities. Benedict sought to find these cultural patterns in so-called "simple" societies... or those that were outside of "Western" influences (i.e. the Zuni and other Native Americans). When she talks about the primitive, therefore, she is referring to a particular "purity." Again, both her work and Mead's is based on an implicit comparison (that we can see in the discipline reaching far back, per the Margaret Hodgen). This emphasis on comparison makes reading Benedict and Mead seem a little dated for us.
Finally, we discussed how Benedict's notion of culture is very much an aesthetic one (culture is like a poem). She argues that some cultures are more coherent than others--i.e., that they are coherent in terms of individual's commitments to particular parts of an arc or particular themes).
Friday, February 11, 2011
Anthropology and Science
Ever since we touched on issues of anthropological methodology one or two classes ago, I have been thinking about the relationship between anthropology and science, and the relationship between the two. I'm particularly interested in hearing other points of view on this one.
A good brief article which covers the decision of the American Anthropological Association to remove the word science from its long-range plan statement, as well as the reaction to it, can be found at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/10/science/10anthropology.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=%22anthropology%20a%20science%22&st=cse (I found the image of the cat going around clawing up all the furniture particularly amusing.)
To restate my position from class, while I think that anthropology is not as falsifiable in the Popperian sense as the physical sciences, anthropology does use many scientific epistemologies: observation, hypothesis testing, quatitative/statistical analyses, even (in archaeological anthropology at least) experimentation. The systematic removal of the word science from the AAA's long-range plans seems to be an attempt to distance itself from these methods which, as a whole, form a central piece of anthropological methodology. I prefer to think of anthropology not as a science but as a consumer of the scientific method.
What do you think?
--Nat
A good brief article which covers the decision of the American Anthropological Association to remove the word science from its long-range plan statement, as well as the reaction to it, can be found at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/10/science/10anthropology.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=%22anthropology%20a%20science%22&st=cse (I found the image of the cat going around clawing up all the furniture particularly amusing.)
To restate my position from class, while I think that anthropology is not as falsifiable in the Popperian sense as the physical sciences, anthropology does use many scientific epistemologies: observation, hypothesis testing, quatitative/statistical analyses, even (in archaeological anthropology at least) experimentation. The systematic removal of the word science from the AAA's long-range plans seems to be an attempt to distance itself from these methods which, as a whole, form a central piece of anthropological methodology. I prefer to think of anthropology not as a science but as a consumer of the scientific method.
What do you think?
--Nat
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Anthropology and "The Arab Mind"
Ian and Jasmine both touch on instances of a (many way) traffic in psychologizing (and pathologizing) cultural stereotypes of Arabs and of specific Arab national cultures. The impulses underlying the action of circulating such stereotypes can vary widely, from the cynical opportunism (Mubarak), to what our own Michael Herzfeld calls "cultural intimacy," namely in-group solidarity-making (Jasmine's relatives).
Certain anthropological "culture and personality" studies on the model established by Ruth Benedict have played their own role in consolidating and relaying such stereotypes. The case one particular book, Raphael Petit's The Arab Mind, comes to mind. The 1973 book was reprinted in 2002 and was widely and uncritically used as source material by counterinsurgency strategists with the U.S. army in Iraq. In a column printed some years ago in Anthropology News, Gregory Starrett assesses the book as well as the possibility that it contributed to the armed forces' mistreatment of Iraqis on an everyday level as well as in such sensational affairs as Abu Ghraib.
http://www.aaanet.org/press/an/infocus/viewsonhumans/starrett.htm
Certain anthropological "culture and personality" studies on the model established by Ruth Benedict have played their own role in consolidating and relaying such stereotypes. The case one particular book, Raphael Petit's The Arab Mind, comes to mind. The 1973 book was reprinted in 2002 and was widely and uncritically used as source material by counterinsurgency strategists with the U.S. army in Iraq. In a column printed some years ago in Anthropology News, Gregory Starrett assesses the book as well as the possibility that it contributed to the armed forces' mistreatment of Iraqis on an everyday level as well as in such sensational affairs as Abu Ghraib.
http://www.aaanet.org/press/an/infocus/viewsonhumans/starrett.htm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)