THE PROJECT
“Anthropology will survive in a changing world by allowing itself to perish in order to be born again under a new guise.”–Claude Lévi-Strauss, quoted in Lewis (1973: 586).
“[there are] the general questions of anthropology, which exist irrespective of anthropology departments. In fact, I would consider that all human beings are anthropologists….It’s very possible that anthropology departments will disappear, there’s no reason why they should continue existing.” – Maurice Bloch, 2008.
“It is not easy to escape mentally from a concrete situation, to refuse its ideology while continuing to live with its actual relationships.”–Albert Memmi (1967: 20).
Version 1.4
OPEN ANTHROPOLOGY in its most basic sense is a project of decolonization, growing out of a discipline with a long history and a deep epistemological connection to colonialism. The aim is to transform anthropology into something that is neither Eurocentric nor elitist. The inspiration behind this effort was the New World Movement (click this, that, and the other). It is an attempt to redefine the craft of anthropology into one guided and inspired by decolonization movements and by the struggles of indigenous peoples, Africans in the Americas, and various elements of anarchism. The preferred medium for this effort is the Internet and a mixture of media within the Internet.
OPEN ANTHROPOLOGY arises from a dissatisfaction with the state of knowledge in contemporary and classical anthropology, and is meant to significantly restructure and move anthropology beyond its current confines, beyond the constraints of professionalization and institutionalization, transcending the very “disciplinariness” of a discipline that has often foundered on its own shoals since its inception as “anthropology.” OPEN ANTHROPOLOGY does not merely speak of the demise of the Old Anthropology (that is, the classical and contemporary, professional and institutional), nor is it another attempt to “recapture” or “rethink” anthropology. Moreover, the consistent angst of the old discipline is not something to be inherited; where there was insecurity, defensiveness, and depression, we will instead opt for excitement, passion, and enthusiasm.
OPEN ANTHROPOLOGY is about unthinking anthropology altogether, while pursuing certain avenues of inquiry that resemble what has been developed in some quarters of the old discipline, freely combined with elements of history, philosophy, the fine arts, political economy, literature, sociology, cultural studies, media studies, communication studies, area studies, and ethnic studies. Ultimately, and in the long term, “anthropology” may no longer be a fitting label for such an endeavor, or, it could encompass and redefine all of the social sciences and humanities, in a post-disciplinary era to come, as anthropology.
OPEN ANTHROPOLOGY is also about opening up anthropology in two ways: by encouraging academic engagement in social transformation beyond the walls of the university while working on the transformation of university practices with respect the production of knowledge; and, by opening up the discipline to the broader, independent, non-institutional forms of anthropology that already exist in the world. The idea is neither to attempt to “go native,” nor to bring “the native” back home for inspection and familiarization, but to restructure the epistemologies and practices of institutional anthropology so that it can act as a conduit for ways of thinking, knowing, and being that have currently only been objects of study.
If anthropology claimed the world for study by Europeans and Americans, OPEN ANTHROPOLOGY is (also) about “the world” reclaiming anthropological knowledge for its own self-understanding, self-expression, and self-identification.
•••••••
OPEN ANTHROPOLOGY roots itself in the following principles:
-
OPEN BORDERS/NO BORDERS: an end to disciplinary confinement, and an openness to the other social sciences, humanities, and natural sciences, in a way that helps to erode the structures of knowledge instituted in 19th century Europe. Hence, it locates itself within the Open the Social Sciences “movement.”
-
OPEN MINDS: a critique of the hierarchy of knowledge expressed in the dichotomies of professional vs. lay, scientific vs. folk, emic vs. etic, and so forth. In other words, a new openness to otherness in its own terms.
-
OPEN ACCESS: free and full engagement with persons and groups constituting the wider world; an anthropology that is not just online, but primarily online; knowledge that is free, not property; a call for the democratization and de-commodification of knowledge.
-
OPEN SOURCE: knowledge production that is fully collaborative, integrative, that lays bare the bases of its own production, that is conscious of itself as knowledge, and that constantly incorporates thinking of its own knowledge production as part and parcel of the process of knowledge production; allowing partners and other “users” to freely appropriate and repackage one’s knowledge production, thereby drowning the private-property-approach to knowledge in the shallow and murky ideological pools from which it emerged.
OPEN ANTHROPOLOGY is an epistemological and political project radiating from multiple and sometimes contradictory quarters and sources of encouragement. OPEN ANTHROPOLOGY will be developed along the following lines:
-
CYBERSPACE: new arenas, new methods, new phenomena, new conversations
-
OPEN ACCESS/OPEN SOURCE: “open access” in its diverse forms, related to making “published” knowledge as freely and widely available as possible.
-
DECOLONIZATION: critique of the fundamentally colonial structure of the anthropological discipline, taking us well beyond the discussion of easy and obvious targets of discussion such as ethics and whatever institutional relationships.
-
POST-COLONIALISM: critical perspectives on culture, colonialism, and knowledge, from disciplines beyond anthropology.
-
LIBERATION: a critique of ongoing imperialism and capitalism.
-
UTOPISTICS: to not shy away from openly engaging in discussion of possible, preferable, alternative futures.
-
TIME-SPACE: as two of the most fundamental parameters and vehicles for social action, and for social consciousness.
-
RESURGENCE: against the “salvage mode” of ethnography, against “evolutionisms,” against extinctionist ideologies of the (neo)liberal and Eurocentric kind. An openness to resurgent indigeneities and to ideologies against the state.
-
COLLABORATION, ADVOCACY, ACCOUNTABILITY, RECIPROCITY: making anthropology a public good, and not the preserve of professional cliques alone.
-
RESTRUCTURING KNOWLEDGE: beyond inter- or multi-disciplinariness.
-
RECONFIGURING SUBJECTHOOD: grappling with (not necessarily accepting nor rejecting) cosmopolitanism, creolization, locality, motion, and stillness.
[The actual range and scope of the "categories" of posts, as listed in the sidebar, will be either more or less numerous, with some categories embracing more than one aspect of the above principles, while others will selectively focus on one particular aspect of one of the above items.]
•••••••
OPEN ANTHROPOLOGY is not a project conceived by someone who wishes to be either a guardian or defender of the discipline, nor is it an attempt to demand, instruct, or admonish anthropologists into following a new agenda, or to pursue a new menu of topical inquiries. Indeed, these are some of the received traits of a discipline that this project abjures. Anthropology, as it currently persists, is indeed an exceptionally diverse, wonderfully self-critical (meta)discipline, one that already resists attempts to straitjacket its multiple agendas, to diminish its internal pluralism, or to place itself in the hands of a small group of quasi-proprietors, despite the attempts of “anonymous peer reviewers” of the “top journals” who staunchly defend the status quo.
OPEN ANTHROPOLOGY is a project in progress, developed by Maximilian Forte. At different times, and in different categories, the material presented will appear to be slim, underdeveloped, disjointed, and fragmented–which is not a problem since this blog is meant to present ideas as they are being developed, designed to elicit feedback from peers (fellow travelers and the wider public). This is a journal of ideas. In many ways, it resembles a scrapbook – perhaps more “scrap” than book at times, and that will be true for many years to come.
OPEN ANTHROPOLOGY is not here to “satisfy” diverse and competing interests. Some will be left unmoved, and some will become angry. There is room enough for all of us. This project is not one that is in search of converts and disciples. On the other hand, should you wish to collaborate in this project, or or on this blog, you are encouraged to do so by contacting Max Forte.
OPEN ANTHROPOLOGY, in blog form, is not a “news” or “commentary” blog like most other anthropology blogs (linked to from the sidebar). There will be some news, and some commentary on the news, but this is not a site whose contents are made for individual consumption and separable distribution. These are essentially personal musings and notes, but ones which all readers are very much welcome to comment on, criticize, or help improve.
OPEN ANTHROPOLOGY first arose as an idea from teaching a course at Concordia that is formally titled ANTH 601, Inter-Cultural Theories in Anthropology, and which I subtitled “Decolonizing Anthropological Epistemology, Theory, and Practice“. I thank my students for the many dense, skull-cracking, prolonged and intense discussions that we have had in class, and outside of class.
The obvious difficulty in producing this site is that it attempts to do what it attempts to research, simultaneously. It is the non-practical research of a practice, and the practice of research that is still being conceived.
Lastly, and at least for now, OPEN ANTHROPOLOGY will be only an illusion of a “one man show.” Behind and beneath this project is a wellspring of criticism, enthusiasm, and vision that is brought to bear here from numerous sources of encouragement.
•••••••
About the OA logo: The font used for the logo is called “Vanish.” It is meant to convey simultaneous processes of diffusion, dissolution, openness, and inter-penetration. “New World Knowledge” is a fusion of [New World] and [World Knowledge].
Alternate logo: The 3-canal cutlass, as shown below.
OA Music: The chantwells infusing the spirit of this site are 3-Canal and Kobo•Town.
OA VIDEOS: A collection of videos has been and continues to be developed to accompany, support, and deepen this site. Videos include poetry readings, music, documentaries, movies, speeches, lectures, and animations. The site of that collection is http://openanthropology.vodpod.com/.
•••••••
DISCLAIMERS:
This is not a Concordia University website, and is not intended to represent anyone or any unit of the university.
The OPEN ANTHROPOLOGY PROJECT is in no way connected with “The Open Anthropology Journal,” whose name was only discovered after this project was established. The way to understand the difference is that this is the [OPEN ANTHROPOLOGY] site, and the journal is an [OPEN] access [ANTHROPOLOGY JOURNAL]. The Journal’s use of the word open is only meant to signify “open access” (free to readers, but not free to contributors). Another way to read “Open Anthropology” is as “Open!” (the) Anthropology — meaning to open it up, to absorb and to be divulged, to embrace and to be dispersed.
•••••••
THE FUTURE
This Project is currently in discussion with other interested parties concerning the possible creation of a NEW WORLD JOURNAL. If you might be interested in participating, please contact either myself or the Black Girl on Mars (blog), or the laughing gull known as Guanaguanare (by gullmail, blog). The NEW WORLD JOURNAL will be open to artists working in various media, poets, essayists, journalists, academics, and other writers and media creators.
Trackbacks & Pingbacks
- Open Anthropology « Neuroanthropology
- Turning the World Upside Down: The Monday Morning Madness of a Wall Street Bailout « OPEN ANTHROPOLOGY
- Happy Belated Birthday, Claude Lévi-Strauss « OPEN ANTHROPOLOGY
- Open Anthropology Cooperative « OPEN ANTHROPOLOGY
- Launch: The Open Anthropology Cooperative « Dan Cull Weblog
I really appreciate your OPEN blog and your OPEN mind and ideas.
And I thank you for the link to my blog. I’ll surely continue reading yours.
I wold like to follow on my collegue’s aknowledge as your linking onto our blogs is concerned. Thank tou. Our somewhat perpheric portuguese anthropology is aimed to reach the international plateau and this blogging experience surely gives a hand to it. In the future we’ll try to post also in english in order to allow the dialogue.
P.S. : please forgive my poor english
I have found today what I was searching for since 18 years of teaching Anthropology.
Thank you for visiting, Dr. Upala Barua, I would love to hear more from you.
I have been studying anthropology in the dark for 3 years…i think you just turned on the light.
Thanks very much Nicky, it will be a pleasure to hear more from you.
in particular, appreciate the attunement to human terrain and matters (or the matter) of military materialism.
look forward to more form you.
-n
Thanks very much Neil, it’s a pleasure to have you visit.
Firstly I would like to thank Maximilian for this inciative (Open Anthropology) which is very intelectuall stimulating for me, and I hope we can establish dialog besides difference.
It’s really interesting. I’m familiar with vision of anthropology which no doubt can agree with [3]OPEN ACESS and [4]OPEN SOURCES…
but not with [1] OPEN BORDERS and [2]OPEN MIND but only WHEN this both last are formulated in the way presented in this project.
Here, I present my arguments against [1]&[2] (as they are formulated in this blog) shortly.
ad 1. There is no open border without awareness of border. (in no formal words – what is “noise”, is this open border?)
ad2. There is no open mind without precision, because without precison we can’t understand, and when we can’t understand we perceive “folk”, “etic” or “native point of view” as something worse (as tradition of anthropology shows)
What I want to say en general is that, I can imagine anthropology which is criticising itself, which is precising itself, which is comprehensible and which is part of interdisciplinary scientific reflection about human. This anthropology have awarennes about europocentric strain of modern science and this anthropology is wonderfull in this sense that is gaining knowledge according to the rules of this science but this knowledge is crticising europocentric background of this science.
But criticising europocentric background of modern science dosn’t means at once that the methodology of science (the way of gaining konwledge which anthropology was created) is wrong! Science isn’t only the way of making war (in Foucault’s ideas sens) but firstly is a method of gaining kowledge. Science is a tool. Tools aren’t good or bad itself.
I can imagine anthropology which is OPEN BOARD, OPEN MIND OPEN ACESS and OPEN SOURCE but at once is still humanistic sicence ofering valuable interpretation about human. Valuable for me, means that this interpretation make that we don’t perceive “folk”, “etic”, “native poin’t of view” as something worse.
Pushing anthropology in “everything goes” way isn’t the only way of reactions on “dissatisfaction with the state of knowledge in contemporary and classical anthropology”, I believe.
I’m going develope this ideas, Thank you Maximilian!
Thank you! That was a very insightful message, and it also gave me a chance to learn about your own blog, so I benefited twice from your message. You make a number of excellent points here, and clearly I got myself stuck in between a number of contradictions that I wish to surpass. I agree with your views on science, I wish others would too, although I confess that I am not driven by any need to claim science as a defining label for my project, because “science” is usually deployed in negative relation to “folk”, “emic”, “native poin’t of view” (which I strongly agree with you, are not something worse). If everyone agreed that the opposite of science was ignorance, and not native points of view, the arts and humanities, then certainly I would feel happier about calling this a scientific project. Unfortunately, the idea of science has been imperialized, and we can either work to liberate it, which will consume fantastic energy, or just get on with what we really want to do.
Anyway, these are just my quick initial thoughts, you have given me a lot to think about so don’t be surprised if my thinking moves on from here.
Thanks again for that great input, much appreciated.
PS: Paweł , you are the only Polish anthropologist I have met in any sense, and only the second one I have ever heard about after Malinowski. Your English is very strong, and my Polish is nonexistent, which is very sad.
Dear Prof Maximilian!
Thank you for yours positive perception of my comment. It make me happy because beside ostensible differences, I think that ours visions of social sciences have a lots of common (this conviction was growing up as quickly as I was acquainting with your blog, whole afternoon :-).
My english is very WEAK (especially writing)… I know that polish anthropology doesn’t exist beyond Poland :-(…but I had pleasure run across great teachers of anthropology in my Institute. Despite that science in Poland have a lot of backlog (after communism) they give us posibility to great intellectual work!…but I need to confront all my thoughts with other ideas… that’s why I decided to overcome my afraids about my english and start to blogging…
What about Malinowski :-) Against most of polish anthropologist I’m not big fun of his work…I think that much more interesting persons was Layard or Deacon (whom I dedicated my blog). If anthropology has been developed theirs ideas of fieldwork (not Malinowski’s) our history of anthropology could to appear different, today!
Sorry for my english, but is very late hour in poland now :-)
Thanks again.
Thanks very much Paweł, it was a pleasure to have you visit again, and don’t apologize for your English, I can understand you very well I believe.
Dr. Forte,
I consider myself priviledged to have attended your talk today at CASCA, on the UBC campus. By way of introduction, I commented on your notions of ‘useless anthropology’ and how members of my family had similar views, albeit for enitirely different reasons. Open Anthroplogy is, and will continue to be, a strong and positive influence on the discipline, its adherents, the disaffected, the afflicted, and the unequal.
Thank you for unleashing this virtual juggernaut.
Thanks very much,
sorry that it took so long for your comment to appear, I only just got back and had no access to the blog while away. Your comments are very kind, much appreciated, and it was a pleasure to meet you.
Thanks for this wonderful blog! When I was in my masters program at UW-Milwaukee, I recall my advisor talking about “open anthropology” and was not entirely sure what he meant. But after reading your principles and reflecting on his work, I see that this was it. I am now in the midst of writing my dissertation on gender and “traditional” music on the Greek island of Skyros and I see that everything–in my own research and in the politics of the academy–turns on what counts as knowledge and who counts as a knower. I am very interested in thinking past the traditional boundaries of knowledge — academic, musical, and otherwise. Looking forward to learning more!
Thanks very much Angela, your visit and message are both much appreciated. Coincidentally, there is yet another take on “open anthropology” by a Japanese anarchist/artist/anthropologist who tells me that his course title translates as “Lectures in Open Anthropology,” and that shares some of the same interests and principles as this blog. You can see more at:
http://openanthropology.wordpress.com/2008/05/16/reclaim-the-anthropologix/
and
http://openanthropology.wordpress.com/2008/05/19/more-on-reclaim-the-anthropologix/
Very best wishes for your dissertation, I hope you will be in touch again.
I was really glad to find this comment: “Moreover, the consistent angst of the old discipline is not something to be inherited; where there was insecurity, defensiveness, and depression, we will instead opt for excitement, passion, and enthusiasm.” I’d slowly been starting to think that anthropology had turned me into a more angry and cynical person (with an insurmountable angst when it came to doing field research), but I couldn’t put my finger on what the key problem was. I half-wondered if I was becoming bipolar in my “old age.”
Today was the first day of the annual writers workshop at our museum, and it helped me see anthropology in a new light. One of the guest leaders writes creative nonfiction, and I was struck by how different a piece of writing I would be producing, as an anthropologist, if I followed the path of creative nonfiction. I’d always been taught to write field notes that captured the scene rather….dispassionately… with a huge focus on noting every detail I could write down, to the very shoes people were wearing…. as if anything else would impose too much of my own perspective. I was never able to make much that I was proud of out of these field notes (even though others seemed to like them), so for my thesis I ended up analyzing a very eye-opening memoir about domestic violence. The new kind of “data” made a world of difference, although half my points still seemed too submerged in longstanding arguments in anthropological theory that, intellectually, may have gotten us somewhere (or maybe not) but, practically, wouldn’t have been of much use in countering domestic violence…. and I could continue arguing back and forth with myself about this and on goes the interminable angst….
I’m starting to like the fact that, when writers write, they don’t have to be in discourse with a “discipline.” Students of writing are still taught to critically analyze the works, but it’s a separate process. And the questions that we were encouraged to start with today in the creative nonfiction session were SO very different from the questions anthropologists often start with and so much more inspiring. (they were directed toward personal memoir, but I could see how they (or similar questions) might be adapted to writing about broader groups of people… and to some of the themes of anthropology).
So, for example, one handout says: “Look at your life in terms of: 1. personal relationships: who are/were significant in your life, 2. personal passions, 3. personal difficulties”, each with sub-categories. I love this one under personal relationships: “who continues to haunt you?”
As a direct example, I can tell you that our non-profit museum is haunted — haunted by a bank failure in the 1990s. They lost half their savings overnight. Now the organization is full of fear that the money will dry up. Not an ounce leaves for anything except basic operating fees, not even to marketing (after all, you never know if it’s going to work). They used to have a director to hold the place together but can no longer afford one. Visitor numbers decline, savings must be dipped into each year to pay the staff, and slowly the prophesy is fulfilled anyway. The #1 question is how to break out of this cycle. But, each person involved has a different opinion of what we should do and who’s to blame… and the 0riginal mission is forgotten, or put off for the future. I’m half-hopeful but also half-worried to see what happens in the next year.
I like your points, but I came to this very slowly myself. When an anonymous reviewer panned the dry writing style of my Ruins of Absence book and said I should have written it like a story, maybe following the form of a novel, I was almost scornful. Now, instead, I realize that creative nonfiction might have brought out a whole set of other realities, or better yet, other truths. I have reached the stage where writing practice has become one of the most fundamental pieces of the jigsaw involved in taking anthropology in new directions, and I am still experimenting (I have been working on one poem for a few months now, I don’t know if I will ever finish it or have the courage to post it online).
In a shift to that kind of writing, do you think there are ways to minimize ambiguity to make sure the points get conveyed? In English classes in college, 15 literature students usually had 15 different interpretations, especially w/poetry. I’m not sure I would’ve understood parts of Watchman’s calypso in your June 14th post without the commentary. But, it seems self-defeating to write your OWN poem and then explain it. . . . seems like any necessary translation should be “built-in” . . . but then you have to know what audience you’re writing for . . . which returns to the question of whether anthropologists should be writing for other anthropologists and/or broader audiences. . . after all, using disciplinary jargon and pointing to other famous anthropologists’ works only makes sense if you’re writing to anthropologists. . . or can you even gauge an audience on an online medium?
PS – I had a huge bias of my own against creative writing! Before the workshop, I thought, “I hope they don’t make us dream up some worthless fake story. I was imagining the worst: trashy romance novels.” Nothing came close until the end. We learned “How to Tell a Tall Tale” from Bil Lepp, West Virginia’s most famous liar, and even he spoke a lot about truth: how to build from real facts to make implausible situations remotely plausible and how to reel in (and/or not offend) your audience by knowing their backgrounds. I admit, it’s not the best model for anthropology, but there’re still some lessons in there!