ENDURING PEOPLES -- an anthropological concept

In 1980, Edward H. Spicer published The Yaquis: A Cultural History. It demonstrated his scholarship of four centuries of Yaquis Indians society and culture history; and his theoretical perspective of the broader implication and importance of the anthropological perspective in understanding socio-cultural dynamics.  In his last chapter he attempted to define the Yaquis as an '"enduring people" similar to many other "enduring peoples" one finds in the world today.

An "enduring people", in Spicer's sense, is a human social type consisting of an ethnic minority who retain their separate identities in the face of overwhelming and long term political and cultural domination by an "outsider" ("the Other","the Deep State", etc.) majorities.

The following article about Niki Haley's remarks is about the Confederate Stars and Bars. It conveys a story that illustrates how the concept might be employed to understand the divisions that exist within our own sociocultural system. Regarding the Stars and Bars, we could accept that the black community might have a different interpretation of the symbol than the white community. We usually think of the Confederate flag as symbolizing a unifying meme in southern white American communities. But, this article stands out because it focuses on the differential responses to a common shared symbol.

The article presents a case that illustrates how the Confederate flag has multiple and significant meanings for those who claimed it as the symbol of their community. It shows how these differences produce different attitudes among the members. These attitudes in turn lead to different actions by the members. Yet, from the outside, this a composite of enduring sub-cultural systems associated with a common symbol, would appear to be a homogeneous socio-cultural system.

Dylann Roof and Nikki Haley would appear to hold similar meanings for the display of the Confederate Bars and Stars Yet Roof used the symbol to motivate and justify his anger toward outsiders. Haley's response to Roof's a sacreligious use the symbol of local pride and heritage, justified her ordering the flag removal from State buildings. These different responses to the symbol's use in a shared context, point to the existence of  two very different cultural meanings to the Stars and Bars.   ·

If Spicer's concept of "enduring peoples" is applied in the broad global context, the differences, outlined above, can also to be found in the many religions, ethnic and political sects found throughout human society.

The difference in meaning that a people apply to shared symbols often produce the most intense psychological reactions. The reactions are found in the differences that individuals find in the cultural priorities, meanings and expressions of what are assumed to be shared or common set of symbols. This "assumption" often is the source for partisan conflicts and divisions.

Why Academic Anthro turned me off!

What are the odds that you can "win" a job by responding to this type of an ad, and recover the time and expense that is required to apply in the first 5 years while still uncertain about that there might be a tenure offer at the end. Is this a good investment given today the many options that are open in the applied or entrepreneurial fields for a trained anthropologist?

This is similar to applying for admissions. And another hurdle on top of the Student Loans and deferred income from pursing an MA or PhD.


An example of the effort that is required to apply for an academic job in anthropology. 

Candidates should create a profile in XXXXXXXXX's online application portal at https://xxxxxxx.referrals.selectminds.com/ and submit the following:

1. Application form (https://xxxx.xxxxxxxx.edu/sites/xxxx.xxxxxx.edu/files/FacApp.pdf)  
2. Cover letter explaining and describing interest in the position and why the applicant is a suitable candidate
3a. Statement on Mission outlining how the candidate will contribute to the University's (https://xxxxxxxxxxxxx.edu/about/mission),
3b. the department's (http://www.xxxxxxxxx.edu/ccas/culturalandsocialstudies/), and 
3c. the cultural anthropology program's mission (http://www.xxxxxxxxx.edu/ccas/culturalandsocialstudies/programs/culturalanthropology/)

4. Curriculum Vitae
5. Academic Transcripts from all institutions of higher education attended (photocopies of transcripts are acceptable during the initial application process)
6. Teaching Dossier that includes: a) a statement on the candidate's philosophy of teaching and learning, and b) evidence of teaching effectiveness (course evaluations, syllabi, etc.)

7. Additionally, three Letters of Recommendation, at least two of which speak of the candidate's teaching ability, should be sent directly to Dr. Yyyyyyyyyyy  at  000000000000.

Review of completed applications will begin immediately.

zzzzzzzzzz University, a zzzzzzzzzz institution, offers a comprehensive education directed to the intellectual, social, spiritual, physical, and other aspects of students' lives and to the promotion of justice. zzzzzzzzzz encourages applications from qualified individuals of all backgrounds and faith traditions who believe they can contribute to its distinctive educational traditions. zzzzzzzzz is an EO/AA employer; M/F/Disabled/Vet and seeks a wide range of applicants for this position so that one of our core values-gender, ethnic, cultural, and other diversity-may be realized.

The Great Unifier in Anthropology

Anthropology, especially American, has been in intellectual crisis for more than a half century. Like the Cold War was during the latter half of the 20th Century, it is the "new" normal. Intellectual crisis is not necessarily bad, it can be healthy to challenge old ideas and stimulating new ones. It becomes "bad", however, when the pursuit of one's ego gratification over takes one's pursuit of "truth." And, over the past half century we have had our share of egoists and gurus.

We have seen a wave upon wave of fads and fashions sweep over the discipline as we have unconsciously attempted to adjust and adapt to the changes that have been taking place all around us. The demographic curve, the decolonizing and nation building of the third world, the cold war and its sudden end, the raise of global capitalism, the campaign for human rights, crime and terrorism on a global scale, environmental concerns including global warming, among others have set in motion forces that have threatened and challenge anthropology, its institutions and practitioners.

We have seen much soul searching and navel picking within the discipline and its many traditional and emerging specialties. This is especially true as new constituencies have emerged and the Other has become one of US. Anthropology today is not the white, male, Anglo-American or Eurocentric discipline that emerged in the 19th century to study the "illiterate" natives found in the imperial colonies. It is no longer the testing ground for the western idea of progress. It can no longer be justified on the basis of Judeo-Christian theological principles of creation and western superiority.

Anthropology is the apex of humanity’s study and understanding of what it means to  be human and what this tells us of our destiny. It is the study of the Good, Bad and Ugly of the human animal and our institutions.

If there is any overarching principle that anthropology offers humanity, it is the discovery that we are BOTH the observers and the participants of “our” actions. We are both the agents of socio-cultural change and as well as the victims of that change. For the Human animal, “Progress” is an illusion. It is a drug that confounds our cultural beliefs and values by confounding our social institutions. Culture worships the benefits of Progress and ignores the costs of our addiction to the Individual and Society. Society is the human organization which seeks to insure the survival and replication (continuity) of our species and our planet.

Nature has found a way to progress in face of the reality of change. It does so by the evolutionary principle of adaptation on the social level. It has done so for ions through the simple principles of mathematics – that is probability. An organizational model, a form of live, emerges and is subjected to the reality of environment from which it emerged. It survives or fails that’s it. That is the test. It is neither Good or Bad, it just "IS".
 

What is this “IS”? “IS” is survival. Survival is a life long enough to replicate fast enough, and in a quantity large enough, to insure the survival of the original model. Life survives by establishing a connection with its environment, taking from the environment what it needs and returning to it what others need. The values of life are determined by ecological balance that a species and a community develop and are capable of maintaining the balance. The belief in Progress arises when the observer assumes that they are not a “participant” in the process but its beneficiary. Not only is the observer the beneficiary, but also has the exclusive “right” to benefit from the “progress” that accrues to her/his own professional advancement.

For too long, anthropology and anthropologists have accepted this perspective. I remember as an undergraduate in the 1960’s asking the questions – “Do you have to pay your informants when you are interviewing them?” It was a simple, practical question. Would I need to budget funding to pay informants for the information I would be collecting to do my dissertation?

The answers I received surprised me. As I reflect on it, the answers seem to have been generational. They ranged from “Of course not, you observe and collect data based on your observations.” “ You pay for your food and lodging but you don’t want to “influence” the informant’s answers by paying them for the answers.(this might bias their answers).” “You don’t pay the informant, but you “pay” the community by providing a service such a medical assistance, or help out in some way that community benefits, such as “cross-cultural” interpreter.” Or, even “Of course you pay them for their time and expertise by working out a “fair” hourly rate.”

 I was left feeling very confused. The moral seemed to be that I was entitled to the information. This was “rapport.” Become a “friend” and collect the secrets and share them with your own community when you get home. Or, become an employer and buy the rights to your observations and informant’s information that you could then sell when you get home.

It has only been in recent years that the idea of an auto-ethnography has entered the professional vocabulary. The auto-ethnography is an attempt to adapt to the fact that the field researcher is, as Boas so insight-fully noted, both observer and participant in the field situation. It is in the participant role that the field anthropologist introduces an automatic and random disruption in the “subject’s” environment. This is where the “science” of anthropology becomes the “humanity” of anthropology.

As I progressed in my chosen discipline, anthropology, I have pondered this question. My personal answer is to pursue a career as an applied anthropologist. This does not negate the importance of a science of anthropology, whether it be as an archaeologist, a linguist, a physical or biological anthropologist, or in my case as socio-cultural anthropologist. What it means is that there is no pure form of anthropology. The collection of data is not an end in itself. This is not natural. It is not evolutionary. Humans are not gods and that humanity is not GOD. We are part of a complex system. We are an experiment just like every other species is and has been.

Our knowledge, as anthropologist, is worthless to the species and the planet if it is not used to manage the planet and insure its survival. Our science enables our observation, but it is our humanity is measured by our participation. I have been studying the live and career of my mentor and teacher, Edward H. Spicer over the past decade. I found that in a quiet way he found a way to be both the participant and observer of our discipline. Even more important he was successful in replicating that role by training a number of us to be practitioners and/or to train students to take up careers outside of academic department. Replication is the other side of survival. Replication does not mean the mechanical cookie cutter copying. Life does not thrive on cookies; it survives and flourishes within a framework that offers both a basic structure and the variety that functions necessitates.

 

Rather than fighting over personalities and parochial theoretical purities, anthropologist and anthropology should, in my opinion, be serving the challenge posed by our position within the ecological system that we have inherited from Nature’s experiment. We should focus our individual and collective efforts on the salvage of the planet. For the vast majority of us and those species we have assumed responsibility for, this is the only place WE have evolved to survive in. It will be a sad day when the only record of life on this planet will be the evidence that some future extraterrestrial archaeologist discovers. Our discipline is or could be the Great Unifier of humanity and the planet. Ours is the only discipline that bridges the reality (or science) of human relations with the values of humanism.   

  

ART OF THE DEAL : Redux

I've been re-reading the Art of the Deal and find that Donald Trump has not really changed since Tony Schwarz wrote about him. The important lesson that comes from the book is that Trump is a loner when it comes to decision making. The test is always, "What is best for Trump?”  If cooperation is required, he makes a deal. If the deal is made, but he sees a better one, he will break the deal using all possible means.

To quote Trump, "I'm the first to admit that I am very competitive and that I will do ANYTHING within legal BOUNDS to win." (emphasis add: Art of the Deal (1987) p. 108). ANYTHING means any action to achieve the personal goal, ethically or unethically. BOUNDS means if I can't win I will sue you and we'll see what the legal bounds are. Oh! by the way I have more money than you and  law suits are expensive and time consuming -- so try me! Or, if I can't win, I'll walk away and claim victory.

These are good rational arguments for a business and a businessman responsible only for himself - take the risk and reap the rewards or pay the price. But, they are not the qualities one looks for in a leader of a Democracy who is elected to protect and balance the interests of the Nation and its people.

 There are times when you can't threaten to just walk away if you personal feelings are hurt. You have relationships that are long standing deals and practices that been made by your predecessors and that you are obligated to fulfill.

In Art of the Deal, one sees a young Donald Trump whose primary interest is money over tradition and who is pragmatic when it comes to his interests. See his attitude toward the customers for space in Trump Tower (p. 184 -185) and his attitude toward the New York establishment.

On p. 186 -7, he shows his personal need to glorify himself after seeing the apartment of a Saudi billionaire in a rival apartment building.

Loyalty is important to Trump, but it is a one way street. "You be loyal to me, if not "YOUR FIRED!"  How many has he fired? Can he change and be as loyal to America and the American people as he demands they be loyal to him?

 We have seen in the three years that the character in the book has found no redemption. Let us pray that The Art of the Leader is not the 2020 sequel. That is, it never is written.

A Meta- Archive: An honor role for anthropology

I have been ask “What approaches seem most promising for capturing our anthropological legacy ?  Aren't the many new special communities in the AAA a step in that direction?

I can see the particular value of a” closer-knit sphere” of like minded individuals might offer an opportunity for individuals to promote themselves within the group. But I feel this is short term thinking and only encourages further fragmentation in what is supposed to be the science of man. I am arguing for a meta-archive that aggregates the individual memories of a colleague and points to the sources that might reveal something significant about the individual’s career and/or validation it.

My focus is the establishment of a biographical, or obituary, site for the older generation to share the memories of their careers in anthropology and how they got there. But more than that, a place where others can also share their memories of the individual, and how they were influenced by or may have influenced the subject. This site would be used to comment on one’s personal thoughts about how one’s mentors, students, and personal experience have affected them and their careers. These  memories would not necessarily be part of a “official” record of the subject, rather provide context for the subject's life.

Such a Meta-Archive is where future generations could look for historical insight into a particular anthropologist’s development and his/her perspective. Studied collectively, these insights become the auto-ethnography of our discipline.

I am not calling for a central physical archive per se, instead I would like to see a centralized data base where one could go and begin their research into the life and contributions of individual anthropologists. It would be a database irrespective of the individual’s institutional affiliations or career orientation. It would incorporate the advantages of the internet and search engines. Such a database exists, albeit rather primitive. This is the Wikipedia List of Anthropologists.

One of the principle problems we face as a discipline is authenticity. Presently there is no authority nor requirement that determines who is and who is not an anthropologist. There are many who hold the degree but don’t identify with the profession. And there are many who identify with the profession but have little or no affiliation with any of the formal anthropological institutions. 

To use myself as an example, I have played in both roles at different times in my life. I hold the formal degrees in anthropology, BA, MA, and PhD. I have done research and taught at the University and cross-culturally. But much of that research has been proprietary as opposed to academic. Most of  of the academic teaching has been in business program as temporary or adjunct.  Yet, I feel that I am and have been applying the anthropological perspective throughout my adult life.

The reason I originally raised the question about archives was because I wondered what the profession was doing to preserve its member’s history. Since much of my professional life has been ‘applied anthropology” I wonder if there is any interest in that material. And in a selfish sense, I wondered, “should I plan on “archiving” my own professional and personal “anthropological” material, or just arrange to dispose of it.” I have material that I would like to share about the anthropologists, professors and colleagues, who have an influenced on my career. So often we rarely hear from such people -- in part because there are so few opportunities to share it.

At my age this has becomes a real concern. As a result, I found myself searching the internet for an answer. Scott Spicer’s posting and then finding the Spicer Archive at the U of Arizona led me to think about the question, specially in terms of “legacy”.

Searching through Wikipedia, I began thinking about a new way of creating an archive. This is a meta-archive. The meta-archive is a self-correcting catalog of individual biographies that identify where and who one might look for, or to the location of the physical evidence and the witnesses to a specific individual’s anthropological career. I am testing this out today by restructuring Edward Spicer’s page on Wikipedia.

We are at a stage where the internet (electronic) archives are being created, maintained, and lost daily. No single physical archive can be expected to define a profession’s legacy. But a Meta-archive can be assembled that will capture the range of experience that is our legacy. The internet is such a Meta-archive. Wikipedia is one such site, universally available in over 100 languages and open to both instant updating,  critical evaluation and editing. Most of all, it is a starting place for deeper and more detailed research. What is lacking is a standard format that acts as a guide, and the individual participation of students, colleagues, and other contributing their experiences in building the the individual legacy sites.

Edward H. Spicer --Thoughts on the Legacy

Edward H. Spicer (Ned) was invited to participate in a symposium, organized by Thomas Weaver of the University of Arizona, entitled  "Anthropology in the 1990's: Conditions, Needs, and Prospects." The symposium was held in conjunction with the American Association for the Advancement of Science meetings in San Francisco in the winter of 1974. The subheading of the symposium was, "Suppose They Began the Twenty-First Century and Forgot to Invite Anthropology!!!"

Ned presented his paper entitled, "Anthropology in the society of the 1990s", on February 28, 1974.

Twenty years later, in 1994, the paper was republished in Human Organization with a forward by his widow, Rosamond Spicer, under the title, "Reassessing Edward Spicer's Views on Anthropology in the Society of the 1990s: How and Why This Paper by Edward H. Spicer Was Written" (Spicer, Rosamond 1994 Human Organization, Vol. 53. No. 4, pp. 388 - 395). From her forward, we can gain an insight into Ned's thinking and approach to the future.

Rosamond observed that

"In preparing this paper on the future of cultural anthropology, Ned apparently gave it a great deal of thought. As was his habit, he wrote down voluminous notes and lists of ideas. He also made a number of starts, each different from the last.”

“At one point he wrote, 'I react strongly against nineteenth century economic-determinism, that technology and physical environmental conditions are the essential factors to consider in forecasting. I rather look to the future in terms of the adaptation of social structures and cultural orientations to one another in the context of the influence of firm cultural products. I shall therefore take off from consideration of the probable alternative trends which we may expect in the form and functions of societal structures and cultural value orientations.' "

“Such a point of view was always the basis of his thinking and writing." (p. 388)

In describing Ned, Rosamond says,

"His interests, reading, and studies ranged through drama, literature, economics, city planning, philosophy, history, poetry, the environment, and all the fields of anthropology. All of this vast array of information and understanding he brought to bear in some way or another on any project he undertook, on any subject on which he wrote.”

“Perhaps one of his outstanding characteristics was his ability to synthesize, as was so evident in his Cycles of Conquest. I have long thought that the practice of that art of synthesis was connected with another, the appreciation and writing of poetry. I mention all these aspects of Ned because they seem to be contained in the following paper." (p.388).

It was his global interests and ability to synthesize vast amounts of material that I remember from my first graduate classes with Ned.  I was drawn to his Community Development Seminar where  he challenged us to look at the problem at hand from multiple points of view. He asked us, “What are the “felt needs” of the various parties in this change situation?” 

He encouraged us to seek a synthesis of these views as a way toward understanding the issues and their complexities. As community developers, he taught us that our job was to help the parties to synthesize their shared interests. Our job was to facilitate, not impose, problem resolution.

Ned was a humanist who understood and taught the connection between a people’s past, present and how these shaped their future. In his paper on the February day in 1974, he outlined 5 trends in the social and cultural environment that he felt would shape the next 20 years for anthropology.

The five trends that Ned chose to characterize the society he envisioned for the 1990s were the following:

(1) increasing intercommunication among the peoples of the world;

(2) increasing occupational specialization with accompanying organic differentiation within societies;

(3) increasing failure of technological solutions for the resolution of human problems in acceptable ways;

(4) increasing assertion and self-expression of ethnic groups within nation-states; and

(5) increasing reaction against centralization in political and administrative structures.

He stated "In general, continuation of these trends will, I believe, result in a society more heterogeneous than it was in the 19th or any previous century, more aware of its heterogeneity, with stronger than ever tendencies to compartmentalization, with increased awareness of and interest in non-technological and non-economic factors affecting human life, and with a growing tendency to view the nation-state in a wholly new light, especially with reference to its ethnic components and its political and administrative units." (p. 389)

This raises the bigger question -- what is a legacy?

In Edward Spicer's case, it was a combination of students trained with his unique perspective of anthropology as both a science in the pursuit of knowledge about the human condition and a body of knowledge about that condition that could and should be used to bring about a better world.

Second is his body of work, the depth of which has just been scratched. That body of work is to be found first in Spicer's bibliography starting on p.342 and ending on p.350 of James Officer's Memoir of Edward E. Spicer published in the National Academy of Sciences  Biographical Memoirs V.68 (1995). The second is his papers located in the Edward H. and Rosamond B. Spicer Archive at the Arizona State Museum Library. It is from these resources that the legacy resides to be picked up and carried forward by all who hold these values.

Now nearly 40 years later, it might be worth considering just how prescient Ned’s predictions were for the 1990s and for the 21st Century. Was he right?  Partially right? Or, Did he miss the mark?

What are your thoughts? 

Originally published in the SfAA website  Barry R. Bainton on December 23, 2011 at 9:15pm

TOC and Applied Anthropology

The Applied Anthropologist is a role. Applied Anthropology is a perspective. Just as Academic Anthropologist is a role, while Academic anthropology is a perspective.

Applied anthropology is the application of an anthropological perspective to the solution of a human problem. As a perceptive, it is a holistic definition of a human problem (diagnosis), based on the history of human social and/or cultural solutions to such problems (evaluation), to arrive at a solution that addresses the socio-cultural needs defined by the client (prescription). TOC or the Theory of Constraints is a management tool for analyzing an organizational/business/manufacturing problem (diagnosis); analysis of the situation (evaluation); and identification and recommending altering the situation to meet the client's need (prescription). Implementation of a solution or recommendation is the Client's right and obligation to accept or reject.

Applied Anthropology is based on the vast library of  anthropological studies of social and cultural systems that have established an ethnographic library of cases of human experience. It is like a law library -- a collection of cases, rules, and theories to be used as a resource to research and prepare a case to defend or implement a case. TOC is a formal method for developing a case to overcome or adjust to a physical, social or ideological constraint.

The Applied Anthropologist is trained in the use of the Library and how to build a case based on the clients needs. He or she or they (because it can be a team sport) build a case by identifying first, the client's need, and then researching how that need has been met in the past, and then comparing the present situation with past solutions to devise an action plan that addresses the need. What the Applied Anthropologist does with the information depends upon the role she, they or he plays in reference to the client.

The Applied Anthropologist is basically a consultant to the client. As such they, he or she provide knowledge, advice, and recommendations based on THE CLIENT'S perceived need and not the Anthropologist's need. This does not mean that the Anthropologist validates the Client's desires or biases, rather it means providing the Client with the best available options to the situation that the anthropologist has identified. And making recommendations for addressing the problem.

TOC is a technique for identifying the problem and leads to a behavioral solution or option for the client or client's authorized manager to evaluate and manage. TOC is the theoretical bases for a PERT  analysis of the options identified by the Applied Anthropologist. The analysis enables the Applied Anthropologist to translate his/her/their recommendation.

Translation is often a major barrier between the academical inclined anthropologist and the professional applied anthropologist in their relation to the client. Ideally, the Applied Anthropologist can present a report in the language understandable and actionable by the Client. That is, in terms of the time and cost savings and expense that the client might expect by implementing the recommendations.

This last point is what distinguishes the Applied Anthropologist from the Academic anthropologist. TOC can be a valuable tool in making this distinction.