01 diciembre 2010

recordar Bon Vinai (parte dos)

The Recycled Minds blog (linked in the IHE piece) reproduces the language of the change. After reading it, I think it is simple insecurity on the part of "scientific anthropologists" that is inspiring the hubub. The changes in no way denigrate scientific approaches, they simply don't mention them. To me this does not in any way de-legitimize scientific approaches, it simply provides a more inclusive framework for what anthropology can be.

As I've always said, the beauty of anthropology is you can do anything you want* and call it "anthropology" (*with proper theoretical and contextual backing).

I think the real issue is stemming from the fact that the "scientific" parts of the discipline are already marginalized to an extent. The change is serving to remove one small claim to centrality they had. So, I think its more of a political issue than ideological issue here. But then again...what isn't?

recordar Bon Vinai

There's been all sorts of hubub because the AAA's "future plan" (not its mission statement) has dropped the word "science." And thus, of course, this Inside Higher Ed article is being widely circulated.

Now, I haven't read the full text of the future plan, so I shall reserve official judgement on the change in the future plan (though my initial reaction is that--despite my usual proselytizing against "objectivity" and quantitative data--scientific components are important to anthropology, particularly in linguistic, bio/physical, and archaeological sub-disciplines and to remove the wording is only to further distance these important aspects of anthropology from the hegemonic cultural forms). However, the IHE article is annoying me because its reproducing something that I think is all too common both among academics, and the public at large: a false dichotomy between "science" and "local ways of knowing" or "humanities approaches" (I think 6th grade science teachers may be to blame). It seems to me that the strength of anthropology is the ability to incorporate different ways of knowing. To understand something scientifically while not foreclosing other ways of understanding the issue. So perhaps that means that "science" should remain in the future plan, but I'll reserve judgement until I actually read the thing.

In the article however, I particularly found the last statement interesting.

"Are we to accept the local explanation that children are dying ... because someone is breaking a taboo and the gods are angry," he said, "or do we look to see how fecal matter is being introduced to the water supply?"

I think the false dichotomy is most evident here. A good anthropologist knows that their own understanding of a situation may be different than the understanding of those around them, but simply jabbering on about microbes to people who haven't had advanced chemistry or biology training isn't going to get very far. Rather understanding danger, but communicating in a way that makes sense in the local lexicon and view are what make anthropology a valuable tool, at least in public health situations.

Anyway, this all reminded me of something written by one of my favorite past professors. Dwight Conquergood worked with Hmong refugees in Thailand, and helped design and direct "a health education campaign based on native beliefs and values and communicated in culturally appropriate forms." --using community theater.

Health Theatre in a Hmong Refugee Camp: Performance, Communication, and Culture

A few excerpts:

"Specifically, we started a refugee performance company that produced skits and scenarios drawing on Hmong folklore and traditional communicative forms, such as proverbs, storytelling, and folksinging, to develop critical awareness about the health problems in Ban Vinai."

"Any communication campaign that ignored the indigenous cultural strengths of performance would be doomed to failure."

"Simplistic health messages imported from Western middle-class notions of cleanliness simply would not work for Ban Vinai. What was needed was a health education and consciousness-raising program that was sensitive to the history and specific environmental problems and constraints of the camp."

Using the character of "Mother Clean" and Drawing on the poj ntxoog evil ogre character from Hmong folklore, they created an ugly Garbage Troll.

"Mother Clean would lovingly amplify the message of proverbs, explaining how a small village on a mountain slope with plenty of space for everyone could absorb organic refuse naturally through the elements of wind and rain. She pointed out that Ban Vinai is very different from the mountaintop villages in which the Hmong used to live. Consequently, customs and habits, particularly regarding garbage, needed to change accordingly. She exhorted a change in behavior without degrading the people whom she was trying to persuade, locating responsibility in the environmental circumstances."