Quandaries (about quandaries)

Before returning to the academic world, I fancied myself a “writer” and/or “social critic” of sorts. Though, of course, this was more of a theoretical stance than a practical one. I loved to sit around write down little fragments that were maybe unique in some abstract, pathological sense. My A.D.D. looked alright on paper, in other words. I could even be convincing.

I had literally zero conception of “social science” at the time, nor did I care to learn about that or any other official discipline. It was not until I got iTunes University and downloaded a UC Berkeley lecture from the archeologist Rosemary Joyce called The History of Anthropological Thought that it really sunk in just how relevant the social sciences were to my interests. Joyce discusses the philosophies behind different anthropological theories and methods from the late 19th century to now, and absolutely kicked me into full academic rigor. Or so I thought.

This, my first introduction to anthropology, turned out to delude me further into strictly philosophical lines of thinking. I took the history of anthropological thought to be the history of anthropology, and even more problematically, as the way to be anthropologically engaged – to study the philosophies of anthropologists.

                                                  I WAS SO WRONG

As I further approached the end of my undergraduate career, I realized just how distorted I was – reading books that I hardly understood, disregarding the importance of actually ethnography, drawing loose connections to and conclusions about human behavior from discursive subject matter and generally putting the cart before the oxen (that is – waxing anthropological before knowing anthropology).

All this premature postulating hasn’t resulted in a terrible GPA or anything like that (it turns out that my bullshit is entirely worthy of a BA), but it has caused me to be hyper-cautious about what I call “legitimate social science” versus essentially playing “fantasy anthropology,” or  “reading the work of theorists and foregoing the real work involved in learning about .”

Social scientists obviously are aware of the dangers of their discipline – that people like me come along and learn a few things about Levi-Strauss or Bourdieu and think they know all there is to know about anthropology. This is presumably not as much of a problem in hard sciences where speculation is not so easy to give a persuasive sheen (though this still happens with surprising frequency). But social science is a different thing altogether – its subjective nature often means that speculation is a necessary stepping stone to more solid theoretical footing.

I first saw anthropology as a perfect mixture of theory and practice, at least that’s what I said (while ignoring praxis nearly entirely). My writing abilities arguably made the problem even worse, because I could articulate things just eloquently enough for those unfamiliar with the discipline to be convinced. It is now at this late hour of my evening-as-undergrad that I finally admit my complete dearth of knowledge about the underpinnings of anthropology, such as kinship structure, religious/ritual practice, gender conceptions and so on. I have knowledge of them, I can explain what they are, and even give a few examples. Maybe that’s all that is expected of an undergrad, but I doubt it.

In future posts, I hope to describe my journey into the practice social science (anthropology, sociology, and otherwise), not just memorizing statistics like a sports fanatic in the bleachers, but doing the work that goes into being social scientist.


Half Were Anarchists

Yesterday  I attended the final meeting of the rather enjoyable political philosophy class I signed up for this semester. Over a span of 15 weeks, we covered conservatism, classic liberalism, contemporary liberalism, feminism, anti-racism, socialism and anarchism. The classroom environment was ideal for intellectual growth – a small group seminar led by an enthusiastic, young professor. However, our group generally did not consist of outspoken or obviously passionate students. Many of them kept quite, uttering a sentence or two when prompted. There were a few of us who carried the dialogue the majority of the time.

Imagine my surprise, then, when on our last day the professor asked which ideology had resonated most with each of us (the topic of our last essay), half found anarchism to be the most closely attuned to their belief-system! Another significant portion had written about the anti-racist movement – which they were introduced to through the writings of Angela Davis and Charles Mills (an outstanding political theorist who is worth checking out).

I’d felt so energized and alive on the day we discussed Emma Goldman’s essays and the book by James Scott titled Two Cheers for Anarchism. I’ve always had an aversion to politics, because to me they’ve always represented the ugliest aspects of human relationships. At least, the connotation that “politics” has in American society evokes that feeling. The exception for me has been the empowering nature of anarchism. All misconceptions about what that word means absolutely disintegrated for my fellow students this semester. One student said he’d always thought of it as “destruction, violence and chaos.” When he learned, however, that it literally none of those things (potentially even the opposite) he embraced the ideology so much that it now made more sense to him than the liberal/democratic beliefs he’d held for the better part of his life!

When people realize that it might be possible to live life without bosses, landlords, presidents, CEOs, etc. they tend to become hopeful. They even tend to live out the principles necessary for that sort of society in their personal lives. It was really amazing to see that realization unfold in the classroom. I just hope that the spirit sticks with them and enriches their lives in new and profound ways.

Anyhow, I took the rest of the evening to write my most sincere review of anarchism, and submitted it for the professor’s approval. I will take the rest of this blog post to share it with . . . well, all the people who don’t read this I suppose.


Out of all isms studied throughout our time together, I believe anarchism best describes the role of politics in human life. There are a number of factors which have led me to this conclusion, but all of them are undergirded by one key characteristic– that anarchism is a holistic doctrine which includes non-exploitative elements of all of the other ideologies we examined.

To start with, consider the ideology that anarchism is most competitive with – Communism. Marx and Engels classic, The Communist Manifesto begins, “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles” (1848:14). To say that all of human society is a class dichotomy is absurdly reductionist. Emma Goldman knew this, and reframed this narrative elegantly her book Anarchism and Other Essays. She starts out, “The history of human growth and development is at the same time the history of the terrible struggle of every new idea heralding the approach of a brighter dawn” (1910:26). In other words, humans have always been locked in a cycle of “progress.” The underlying message in Goldman’s essay is that marxism, liberalism and other “progressive” ideologies undermine the quality of life in the present by plotting some distant, utopian existence. All the other ideologies we observed, besides conservatism, are utopian in some form or another. Conservatism seems instead to be driven by the past, and its present is only satisfactory if it maintains some continuity with “tradition,” however ugly or unfair.

While other ideologies assume that social stratification is natural, anarchism rejects formal hierarchy. This however is not in a utopian sense, not in the sense that if only we could usher in this or that revolution or economic system, we could live as complete equals without any conflict. Rather, the equality sought exists already in the lifestyle of those who identify as “anarchists.” Anarchism acknowledges that conflict is unavoidable, but proponents of anarchism can see that conflict is far worse in a community policed by authoritarian entities that exist over and against local interests. Goldman again: “So long as every institution of today, economic, political, social, and moral, conspires to misdirect human energy into wrong channels; so long as most people are out of place doing the things they hate to do, living a life they loathe to live, crime will be inevitable” (1910:32). Her choice of words – institutions “conspire” to “misdirect” human energy – may seem cynical, but whether it is a conspiracy is unimportant. The end result of hierarchy, intended or not, is population of disenfranchised human beings who are quite literally “out of control.”

This last point speaks to the key aspect of anarchism that undergirds my conviction – anarchism is holistic, inclusive of the non-exploitative aspects of our other examined beliefs. Consider that each of these doctrines targets some hegemony as their primary source of injustice or inequality. Anti-racism protests the marginalization of race as a result of racial hierarchy; feminism indicts patriarchy as the source of disenfranchisement for at least half of the population; socialism attributes unrest to class inequality; classical liberalism opposes arbitrary government overreach. Anarchism, by its very nature, does all of these things. Goldman writes that anarchism is “a living force in the affairs of our life, constantly creating new conditions . . . Methods must grow out of the economic needs of each place and clime, and of the intellectual and temperamental requirements of the individual” (1910:34). Because of this dynamism, anarchy cannot stagnate like other doctrines can and do. A conservative might oppose change whether or not it makes sense to do so; a feminist or anti-racist might overlook other forms of domination for having too narrow a focus; a socialist might miss an opportunity for social integration for having too much class loyalty. But an anarchist, in her/his rejection of dominance in any form, must recognize and adapt quickly to injustice.

I conclude with a comment on the notion that anarchism is nice, but just “not possible.” The idea that anarchism is not possible is preposterous. Anarchism is possible because it happening all around us. One of the biggest myths in politics, and one of the hardest parts for me to swallow, is the idea that we exist in this massive bubble within which the only political engagements and behaviors that make a difference are those that somehow mirror the dominant ideology. I concede that America could never be anarchist, but that is because America is an idea, and ideas cannot be anarchists. Within America, however, there are real people whose political beliefs vary and whose actions reflect those varied beliefs. Some of these people seek to end domination and inequality, some even call themselves anarchists. Some even behave in a ways that reflect anarchist principles! Therefore, anarchism is not just possible, it’s already here. Will it ever be hegemonic? Well, no, but that is the point!


Here is a list of authors we looked at that are worth checking out:

Charles Mills
John Dewey
Angela Davis
Bell Hooks
Phillip Pettit
Fredrich Engels
Emma Goldman


The Cross and the Cactus

Over spring break I visited my in-law’s home in Tucson, Arizona. One of the few planned events of my journey, besides to study by the pool, was an all-day dune buggy excursion to Montana Mountain with my father-in-law and his “Adventure Club” (actually, due to liability this was not an official Adventure Club event, rather a rogue pack of off-roading seniors with a penchant for danger). The mountain sits at the entrance to Tonto National Forest and, a bit further on, to the 700-mile Arizona Trail.

To be sure, my expectations of the journey included: a bumpy ride, a potential sunburn, a thick coating of dust and an awe-inspiring view. What I didn’t anticipate, however, was just how deeply affected I (a fully winterized, wholly urban Minnesotan) would be by the desert landscape and its inhabitants.

If you concentrate long enough, you can feel the dust
                        penetrate your soul 


Aside from the rugged brush, Saguaro and Prickly Pear, buzzards and birds, life is subtle in the desert. The animals are there, but they don’t necessarily want you to know about it. Fortunately, March tends to be the time when the more elusive inhabitants come up for air, so I was able to spot fauna here and there. Javelinas, coyotes, scorpions, Gila monsters and jack rabbits are among the many species that thrive this time of year. On top of that, much of the public ranch lands are home to wild cattle – cattle so hearty that thorny cacti often constitute their dinner.


Within a few minutes of the ride, we sped past a rattlesnake who was sunning itself in the middle of the trail. I wondered if it knew, or cared, that a cavalcade of “recreational vehicles” was hurdling towards it, whose beastly tires were poised to do real damage to any object in its way.

The sight of the snake soon led me to a deep admiration for my surroundings. There isn’t much to do as a passenger in a dune buggy, and in fact, right there on the dash an unsympathetic decal instructed me to:

Get In!

Sit Down!
                  Hold On!

And Shut Up!

I did so happily. I watched the arched rock formations, the bone-dry tributaries, and the slow change from desert shrub to greener vegetation as we climbed further up into the mountains. The perpetual roar of the engine precluded any hope of any conversation. I was stuck with my thoughts, and all I could think about was how brutal everything looked, how unconcerned with the “sanctity” of anything; but more importantly, how beautiful and deserving of my respect.


                             When Along Came a Symbol

It took a few hours, but we finally reached Montana Mountain, a single peak on a big range. Our leader Joe — a man well into his eighties, I might add — brought us to a steep incline, a degree I didn’t realize dune buggies could handle. The treacherous incline led to a widening in the trail on the side of the peak, and the whole procession managed not just to ascend, but to perfectly align their vehicles on that little widening so that we could get out and climb the rest of the way.

I admit the view was spectacular, I duly admit the view became secondary to a bit of an epiphany I had when I reached the top, with the help of this:

 What is it, really? 

Anthropology instructors will often draw a cross, swastika, or other highly charged symbol onto the whiteboard to demonstrate the power of symbolism in creating the human experience. It’s a profound moment because in the classroom, on that objective stage, the symbol evokes something unique yet definitive, the connotative and denotative, social and personal.

But to find this out in the “natural world” was unlike anything I’ve experienced in the classroom. Instead of an instructor’s whiteboard, it lay against a backdrop which wasn’t intended to demonstrate anything to anyone: an indifferent stage. And how much more striking the symbol was in an environment that is devoid of social constructs. This scene, to me, felt like the answer to the age-old anthropology inquiry  – what makes us human?

Our grandiosity, superimposed onto the top of a mountain that overlooks the dusty immediacy below.

I know, I know, there are some physical descriptors to set us apart from the animals . . . some, oh I don’t know, six or so distinct traits we have. Maybe our big brains. But to me, until a better one presents itself, my answer to the age-old inquiry can be found above.

                                                          For our Purposes

The day before my Montana Mountain excursion, I visited the Arizona State Museum, and spent the majority of my time there perusing the giant exhibit, “Paths of Life: American Indians of the Southwest.” The museum trip in itself could make for its own entry, but there is one reflection I have on that experience which can’t be ignored here.

The first section of  “Paths of Life” is a glimpse at the resilient Seri people of Tiburón Island in Sonora, Mexico. The Seri, prior to being fully assimilated (as so many were) into colonial society, had a vital relationship to the sea – many of the relics of their culture reflect this fact. For example, the seeds and fruit of Eelgrass (zostera marina L.) – an aquatic plant in great abundance – was not only a staple of the Seri diet, but the grass itself had certain medicinal qualities, was used to line baskets, sea-turtle shells and the roofs of houses.¹ To me, however, the most striking application of the plant was its use in children’s dolls. One was propped upright in a display case at the museum – a faceless little bundle of Eelgrass with a rounded limbs and head, draped in scraps of cloth. I was haunted.

As my material existence has always seemed to be extracted from obscure locales, produced in factories which span the globe and finally pieced together, it was poignant to see this simple doll whose constitution was local in the absolute sense, a shrine to a particular way of life that also linked its’ human owner to the natural world.

In effect, it linked this:

Saguaro-afternoon-light  AND THIS:  IMG_0282

      Obligatory Conclusion

There is catastrophic disconnect between the world built for-humans-by-humans and the static, unforgiving world – the world that will soon purge itself of us if we keep simultaneously exploiting/neglecting it to expand the former – and I don’t know if it’s a result of ignorance as much it is of hostility.

I think the real solution (if there is one) to the environmental problem is the reconciliation of these two worlds. There’s a palpable sense in “civilized” society that Earth has done wrong by us, that we seek to dominate it out of fear, if not disdain, and not just because it’s there for us to dominate.

This aggression toward the earth is, I think, often propagated by people who mistake either the subjugation, or the plain bad policies of-humans-by-humans  for natural phenomena. For instance, famine and disease are often blamed on the cruelty of  “mother nature”, when in fact, the recent scope and intensity of  these tragedies are often the result of human behavior. For example, compulsory monoculture led to, just to name one, the Irish potato famine. Likewise, domestication, urbanization and other human patterns of behavior are largely responsible for the magnitude of illness we face today.

As is the case with another prominent issue that I won’t mention, “blaming the victim” (in this case, the earth and its non-human inhabitants) for the violence done unto it is suggestive of an inherent, baseless hatred. I believe it’s time we realized nature is not the enemy. 

¹Richard Felger and Mary Beck Moser. Jul. 27, 1973. Eelgrass (Zostera marina L.) in the Gulf of California: Discovery of Its Nutritional Value by the Seri Indians. Science.  New Series, (181,4097) p. 355-356

Kurt Vonnegut on Anthropology in Slaughterhouse-Five

I read Slaughterhouse-Five over break, and this excellent quote made my night.

The Anthropology Cap

I think about my education sometimes. I went to the University of Chicago for awhile after the Second World War. I was a student in the Department of Anthropology. At that time they were teaching that there was absolutely no difference between anybody.

They may be teaching that still.

Another thing they taught was that no one was ridiculous or bad or disgusting. Shortly before my father died, he said to me, ‘You know – you never wrote a story with a villain in it.’

I told him that was one of the things I learned in college after the war.

View original post