By Leith Mullings, Monica Heller, Ed Liebow and Alan Goodman
Do you remember the arcade game ‘Whack-a-Mole’? Plastic animals pop up at random from their holes in a table’s surface. The player bashes them back into their holes with a rubber mallet. As the pace picks up, initial delight is replaced by a growing sense of futility. Every time a mole is whacked back into its hole, another pops up somewhere else. The debate about whether science and advocacy are inimical is starting to feel like this.
It has popped up again in this week’s New York Times Magazine in reference to our discipline, anthropology. Contrary to some loudly voiced claims, both advocacy and science are (and long have been) at the core of our discipline. At the same time, of course, both continually raise important ethical questions requiring continued conversation, examination and debate; indeed, the American Anthropological Association recently approved a new statement on professional responsibilities. They both also require a commitment to good scholarship, and to lively but civil scholarly debate, in which arguments are considered persuasive because of a consistent body of evidence whose reliability and validity inspire confidence, not because of exceptional circumstances presented in a made-for-the-movies sensational fashion. (see also Professor Elizabeth Povinelli’s review of Noble Savages).
Let us use the problem of ‘race’ to illustrate the complex relationship between what counts as good or bad science, and significance of advocacy in anthropology. Our modern discipline’s origins are derived directly from an uncritical acceptance of, as well as a critical response to overt 19th and early 20th century ‘scientific racism.’ ‘Science’ legitimated prejudice and bigotry, holding that races were genetically separate and hierarchically ranked, and thus rationalizing slavery, Jim Crow laws and even genocide. And lest we think that ‘scientific racism’ is some archaic relic that was driven out of the public conversation, one need only consult the more recent arguments of authors such as Herrnstein, Murray, Rushton, Jensen, and Lynn.
In an attempt to bring sounder evidence to the debate, our Association’s current Race Project draws from all fields of anthropology and provides a modern, and eminently scholarly, understanding of race, casting a critical eye on race and racism through the lenses of history, science, and lived experience. The project, and the book that accompanies it, RACE: Are We So Different?, is also a form of advocacy, raising public awareness about how human variation differs from the popular, and sometimes even academic, notions of race. It argues, specifically, that 1) race is a recent human invention, 2) popular ideas about race emerge from history and culture, not biology, and 3) race and racism are embedded in institutions and everyday life.
The more general point is that at the very core of our discipline are commitments to the best of science and the best of advocacy. Advocacy suggests at minimum an ethical position to try to protect and better the lives of the individuals we work with, in particular those who are without access to power. Science stands for prediction (based on current understanding), followed by systematic observation and analysis and then, usually, revised understanding. But there is something more: we recognize that science is a practice that is undertaken in a social context, and as such it can be limited by the social hierarchies of its time, creating burdens and benefits, winners and losers. To have this awareness is not ‘anti-science.’ Indeed, it offers the sort of tough love of science that all responsible scientists ought to share. And every time the debate about ‘science’ versus ‘advocacy’ re-emerges, we cannot but hope that our discipline’s lengthy track record of critically embracing science can show that the debate itself is based on false premises.
We’d love to put an end to the futility of the science versus advocacy version of “Whack a mole” so we can focus on quality anthropological work for the public good.
Leith Mullings is Distinguished Professor of Anthropology at the Graduate Center, City University of New York, and President of the AAA.
Monica Heller is Professor at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education and the Department of Anthropology at the University of Toronto and Vice President and President-Elect of the AAA.
Ed Liebow is the Executive Director of the AAA.
Alan Goodman is Professor of Biological Anthropology at Hampshire College, and a Past President of the AAA.
Filed under: Advocacy, Anthro in the Media, Public Affairs, RACE: Are We So Different? | Tagged: American Anthropological Association, Code of Ethics, ethics, RACE: Are We So Different? | 3 Comments »
800 Words on Idle No More
Today’s guest blog post is by AAA member Robert (Bob) Muckle. Robert (Bob) Muckle is based at Capilano University in British Columbia. His most recent book is Indigenous Peoples of North America: A Concise Anthropological Overview (University of Toronto Press, 2012). He also writes a column called ‘Archeology in North America’ for Anthropology News and is on Twitter @bobmuckle.
January 11th, 2
013 is likely be the most important day in recent decades for the Indigenous Peoples of Canada, with potentially global implications. It has to do with the movement known as Idle No More.
Idle No More began in late 2012 as a grassroots movement among the more the one million people claiming Indigenous ancestry in Canada, culminating primarily from what is perceived to be an ongoing erosion of their rights, lands, and resources. The movement has largely been peaceful, including hundreds of events including flashmob roundances at shopping malls, rallies, media campaigns, and a handful of blockades. It has been a dominant story in Canadian media since mid-December and there have been dozens of events supporting the movement by Native Americans in the US.
January 11th is important because (i) members of the Assembly of First Nations (AFN), representing the interests of the more than 600 First Nations in Canada, and the organization the government prefers to work with, are meeting with the Prime Minister of Canada and the Governor General (the Queen’s representative) to discuss concerns of First Nations; and (ii) many of those participating in Idle No More movement are wary of representation by the AFN, and at least partially in response to the meetings have declared the day to be a ‘Day of Global Action’ with well over 100 events scheduled in support throughout the U.S. and elsewhere.
While Indigenous rights are front and center, there is much more of interest that is being underplayed by government and mainstream media. One thing that is rarely mentioned is that the movement is giving voice to a many thousands of Indigenous Peoples of Canada, especially those who have been frustrated with the actions of their own nation’s chiefs and councils or national representation (ie. AFN) at addressing the wrongs imposed upon them through hundred of years of oppression. Although Idle No More claims to have no official leadership, leaders are emerging and they tend to be young (ie. 20s and 30s), smart, articulate, and dynamic. And, not unimportantly, many of them are women.
Social media has been fundamentally important in the movement. Twitter has been used to quickly organize events and share media. One of many Facebook pages devoted to the movement has more than 65,000 likes. Organizers and supporters use social media for live townhall-type meetings.
There has been considerable emphasis in mainstream media about a hunger strike by one chief that began on December 11th. While for many she has come to symbolize the movement, she is not a founder or acknowledged spokesperson. The January 11th meeting with the Prime Minister and Governor General was one of her demands.
There is significant support for Idle No More among non-Indigenous peoples. In addition to recognizing the erosion of Indigenous rights and resources, many view the movement as perhaps the best way of protecting the environment. An immediate goal of the movement is to withdraw or amend legislation reducing the protection of the environment, which many Canadian would like to see. Other goals are for the government to uphold constitutional and other rights as they apply to Indigenous peoples, including meaningful consultation. An ultimate goal is to have truly nation-to-to nation relationships with the federal government.
Other things I have seen arise out of the movement is a strengthening of relationships between the First Nations in Canada, and through their support, with Native Americans of the US as well as Indigenous groups elsewhere. I see a strengthening of relationships between First Nations and non-First Nations people in many circumstances through their shared common purposes of protecting the environment and righting the wrongs of past governments.
I see First Nations taking the opportunity through media, flashmob dances, and rallies to educate others and assert control over vocabulary. Words such as decolonialization and settler (as opposed to non-Indigenous or Euro-Canadian) are increasing in usage.
Unfortunately, I also see much racism and ignorance, especially when reading the comments following media stories.
I’m not sure what is going to happen on January 11th. It is an important day for the AFN. For the past few years their relationship with the federal government has been viewed by many as being too cozy. If the AFN wants to retain relevance within First Nations communities, they will have to make some kind of significant stand in their meeting with the government that will be pleasing to those preferring the grassroots Idle No More movement. This will be hard.
I think the amount of support demonstrated by the Idle No More movements within Canada, the US, and elsewhere will be fundamentally important. If there is relatively little support, I think the movement will fizzle. If the support is significant, however, look for the movement to escalate further, into the United States and perhaps elsewhere.
Filed under: Advocacy, Anthro in the Media, Commentary, Events and Exhibits | Tagged: @bobmuckle, Archeology, Assembly of First Nations, Capilano University, grassroots movements, hunger strike, Idle No More, indigenous ancestry, indigenous issues, Indigenous People of Canada, Indigenous People of North America, indigenous rights, Robert Muckle | 5 Comments »