Fwd: Re: [URBANTH-L]Response to Ellman: theory, practice/ pragmatics

[Allen Feldman]

Sam

1. Your  last question or insinuation, I am not sure which, regarding
anthropologists funded by the Dept. of Homeland Security.

> especially
any
> information you
> have on anthropologists working with and for
Homeland Security, or
> did you
> make this up to make your point?


 impugns  my scholarly integrity, I do not fabricate
facts simply to score points and I resent your imputation here and what it
implies regarding the scholarly seriousness with which I treat the
discussions on this list and on the issue of Public Anthropology.

2. In
December 2004 the Humanities Institute at the University of Michigan
sponsored a 3 day conference at which I presented, entitled "Reframing
Infectious Diseases, at which two medical anthropologists presented  their
research funded by the Department of Homeland Security, on  first
responder planning and role play/virtual reality simulations regarding
bioterrorism scenarios. The presenters by and large were politically
agnostic about the implications of the department's work and their own
research. I felt that they framed their theoretical questions in such a
manner as not to transgress against the norms of the
institutions and agencies with whom they were working. However a former
head of Physicians for Social Responsibility  vehemently attacked the
bio-terrorism initiative as a unjustified  diversion of crucial medical
resources, personnel and funding from more immediate public health issues
in US society.  No such analysis/ critique was forthcoming from  the two
anthropologists.

The physician's critique approached what I term a political economy of
knowledge, where certain bio-medical risk related situations such as
HIV-AIDS, are logistically and fiscally downgraded in favor  of
quasi-mythical and apocalyptic scenarios of bioterrorism that implicitly
link up with religious orientation of the present administration. How is
that for a sociology of knowledge perspective? The relationship between
counter-terrorist planning and ideology and an eschatological Christian
fundamentalism.

3. I was not mounting a personalized attack on Ellman, he
expressed view- points that are quite common in the discipline and which.
in my view, fetishize a fictive dichotomy between theory and utility or
practice in order to score  points. That is why I enlarged my discussion
to address the current
version of Public Anthropology in order to point to the  complex
entanglements of theory/ practice and utility largely not recognized by
the AA newsletter's promotional campaign for public anthropology.
 
4. On the  political economy or critical sociology of knowledge, it
certainly implicates any institution that governs the admissibility of
knowledge and
regulates its circulation within authorized policy making channels. But,
it is certainly a  pressing concern for those who present ethnographic
based research to policy making and policy enforcing agencies who filter
admissible knowledge in very specific ways. Any ethnographer who has
worked in this field knows what it means to  fashion their reportage in
order to present  data that may severely question
entrenched policy orientations, is such a way that it will be given a
hearing and treated with due diligence and hopefully alter policy and
practice. And many ethnographers have encountered institutional deafness to
their research, which is a significant piece of ethnographic data as much
as the research that is not heard.

5. Sam you wrote  > I think the
remarks about the AAA leadership are unproductive.
> There is
> every
reason to expand the role of anthropology in the world of
> experts.
>Not everyone doing action type research is tied to funding source
>ideologies and commitments.  On the other hand, we all have
>specific ideological orientations that shape research.  Nothing new here,
right?

My issue here is not the presence or absence of ideological
orientations of the researcher-- another false dichotomy. Nor was I
proscribing action, applied research or public anthropology, which I
professionally practice.

I was addressing the  lack of theorization  of the normative frameworks
in which a contracting agency operates and how that normative framework
functions as a default mechanism in admitting/excluding/distorting
ethnographic data. How this may end up shaping the contracted
ethnographer's biases is another but a related question. But such a task
means that practice has to be theorized, and utility norms have to be
historicized.

Allen
 
----- Original Message -----
From: Sam Beck
<sbeck at med.cornell.edu>
Date: Tuesday, May 3, 2005 1:14 pm
Subject: Re: [URBANTH-L]Response to Ellman: theory, practice/ pragmatics

> Woa!
Allen:  I am not sure Ellman deserved that.  However,  I am
> very  >
interested in what you are thinking about, especially any
> information
you
> have on anthropologists working with and for Homeland Security, or
> did you
> make this up to make your point?
>
> The theory-practice point is central to the entire argument and is
> related
> more to the political economy of the Academy (Universities and
> Colleges)
> than is to the political economy of knowledge (or should we think
> about
> these as overlapping?).  The academy has lost its position as a
> critical,
> uncensored, "neutral" voice as much as the media has.  Academicians
> are
> tied to purse strings not under their control as institutions of
> higher
> learning have become business driven and corporate structured and
> as the
> faculties has lost their power.
>
> I think the remarks about the AAA leadership are unproductive.
> There is
> every reason to expand the role of anthropology in the world of
> experts.
> Not everyone doing action type research is tied to funding source
> ideologies and commitments.  On the other hand, we all have
> specific
> ideological orientations that shape research.  Nothing new here,
> right?!  All of us make choices about research agendas.  Louise
> Lamphere
> recently suggested that dissertation work should include an
> explicit action
> component.  This is an important direction to take that makes
> explicit the
> impact that research has on a given population and articulates the
> intent
> of the research, besides personal advancement and theoretical
> interests.
> Thanks for your thoughtful comments.  You broaden the area of debate.
>
> Sam