Summary of June 2009 Discussion on Accessible Scholarship

Below is a summary of our previous discussion, "Accessible Scholarship: Popular vs. Academic Culture"

The accessibility of academic research to non-academic circles is a major focus of this consortium. As scholars concerned with the impact of our research on the societies we study, it is necessary for us to ask ourselves how exactly that impact is to be felt. Is anthropological research more valuable if it can be accessed, understood, and used by the community it holds as its “object”? And does anthropological research carry more weight if it can engage a popular audience or be mobilized for a popular political or social campaign? These questions reveal that in terms of the issue of accessibility, we will be concerned, on the one hand, with the society as an “object” (i.e., that which is studied), and on the other, with the society as a “subject” (i.e. that which experiences, feels, and learns the “object”). In both cases, the scholar seems to float atop the circulation of knowledge – to be an omniscient producer of it, yet to be detached from its manifestations. How the “subject” and “object” act upon this anthropological knowledge, and how they interact with each other, is thought to be the domain of political and
international policy, safely beyond the purview of academia. Yet do scholars not represent an unmistakable force in the circulation of knowledge – not only in its production, but also in its interpretation, mobilization, and eventually its enactment in policy? The scholar is ultimately responsible for how the “subject” and “object” interact, and must thus be sensitive to how her/his knowledge will be deployed. Furthermore, by ensuring that her/his research is accessible to the general public, the scholar enables a more “democratic” form of knowledge, i.e. one that cannot be monopolized by social and political elites.

Whether or not the impact of anthropological research will be felt in the society that is studied is a slight question when compared to the greater question of what the nature of that impact is. How might anthropologists expect to create accessible scholarship, and yet guard against the manipulation or exploitation of their research for the purposes of contemporary politics? This question is especially urgent for anthropologists who aim to study contemporary political and
populist movements, and who therefore cannot extricate their research from its probable manifestation in policy or propaganda. If the political, economic, or militaristic movement is a legitimate one in the mind of the general public (e.g. globalization, market capitalism, the Human Terrain System in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan), and yet adverse to the anthropologist’s intentions, how are scholars to detach their work from these popular goals, and yet maintain an objective
stance on the society being studied?

Since this consortium is primarily concerned with the arts and creative aspects of culture, it is necessary for us to explore how expressive culture might fit into the problem of accessibility. Many of us derive our research from non-academics; our studies are often based on extra-academic social spheres, such as popular culture and its reverberations in society. Moreover, “expressive culture” is an idea centered around the production and consumption of the expressive elements of culture, which is to say that it depends largely on popular culture. Scholarly analyses of expressive culture must therefore consider the intimacy between popular and academic cultures and the unavoidable intertwining of popular culture in academic work, in addition to the possibility for academic works, and indeed, academic culture, to intertwine itself in popular culture. What the nature of this intersection is, and how it is to be achieved, must be explored and experimented upon through this consortium.

As one contributor to our discussion noted, "accessibility must be concerned with not only expanding scholarship to connect with a wider audience, but also the process of scholarship and the relationship between the researcher and the people she/he is studying." Thus, we point to cultural narratives as an accessible form of anthropological writing and cultural representation. The very notion of academic work presented as a narrative conversation, as a performative process, is crucial to the question of accessibility in the scholarship of expressive culture. In order to engage the study of expressive culture with the general public, issues of expression in culture must be looked at across disciplinary boundaries, and must be connected with sociological, political, geographical, and economic issues, with particular foci on gender issues, class and ethnic inequalities, and nationalism. Thus, the engagement and participation of scholars and students in the creation of expressive cultural forms is needed in order to open up academic knowledge to the public, and provide new avenues for academics to present their research and knowledge (i.e. not just through scholarly papers). The key to creating accessible scholarship, and to ensuring its relevance to popular culture, is to expose academic knowledge to the general readership by submitting articles or editorials to mainstream media, as well as participating in governmental and non-governmental policy discussions. This would require a major institutional shift in focus - away from the work of the individual scholar, and toward a more public-centered form of scholarship.

Accessible Scholarship: Popular vs. Academic Culture

The Consortium on Human Rights and Expressive Culture will hold its next online discussion with the theme: "Accessible Scholarship: Popular vs. Academic Culture" from June 23rd to June 30th on its Google Groups discussion page. Participants will discuss the documents from the reading list below, and should prepare 3-5 in depth questions to raise during the discussion that relate to her/his work. Contributors are welcome to recommend supplements to the reading list until June 15th. In addition to posting one's own questions, each participant should expect to respond to at least one other contributer's post. Prior to the discussion, a list of questions and issues to think about will be circulated to all contributors. Please confirm your participation in this online discussion in order to receive further instructions and uploaded documents.

Reading List for Discussion 2

June 23rd to June 30th, 2009


1)*Taylor, Mark C. 2009.
“End the University As We Know It” The New York Times. April 26th, 2009.

Focus especially on his 1st and 4th steps in creating a more “agile, adaptive, and imaginative” academia. Taylor’s suggested steps have the potential to create a bridge between public and academic knowledge.

2) Benedict, Ruth. 1946.
The Chrysanthemum and the Sword: Patterns of Japanese Culture.

3) Mead, Margaret. 1935.
Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive Societies.

These are to be skimmed. Many of Mead’s writings were designed for popular consumption (The Nation, The New York Times, Redbook). As a result, much of American popular knowledge of culture and anthropology lives in the tradition of Mead’s culture and personality studies. On the other hand, Benedict’s national character studies, such as The Chrysanthemum and the Sword, have informed the ways that both popular knowledge and national intelligence operate with respect to culture. We are looking at both The Chrysanthemum and the Sword and Sex and Temperament in order to discuss how to create accessible scholarship while avoiding the manipulation or exploitation of one’s research for a political, economic, or militaristic campaign.

4)*Ngugi wa Thiongo. 1982.
Devil on the Cross. London: Heinemann Press.

To be skimmed alongside

5)*Ngugi wa Thiongo. 1986.
“The Language of African Literature” in Decolonizing the Mind: The Politics of Language in African Literature. Portsmouth: Heinemann Press pp. 4-33.

Ngugi brings into sharp relief issues of language and accessibility (of literature) in the postcolonial African context. Whether it is the politics of writing in Kikuyu vs. Swahili vs. English, or simply scholarly language vs. common language, the responsibility of the writer is made apparent.

6)*Thomas, Nicholas. 1991.
“Against Ethnography” Cultural Anthropology (6) 3: 306-322

Thomas argues that anthropology must find a different form of writing, and should not rely on ethnographies, which have a tendency to exoticism and universalism. In creating a different form of representation loosened from the constraints of ethnographic methods, anthropologists can potentially create a more accessible form of scholarship, one which does not overlook the multiple ways of understanding concepts.

7) Rosling, Hans. 2006.
Hans Rosling Shows The Best Stats You've Ever Seen Also, Gapminder.org

Rosling calls for more accessible knowledge, particularly of statistics and technology, in his presentation on health and development.

8)*Johnston, Joseé. 2008.
“Struggles for the Up and Coming: Challenges Facing New Food Scholars and Food Scholarship” Food, Culture & Society 11 (3): 269-274.

Johnston discusses the necessity of interdisciplinary research in food studies, but this argument may also be applied to studies of expressive culture in a broader sense, and could perhaps create greater accessibility in the scholarship of expressive culture.


9)*Gingras, Jacqui and Lara Tiro. 2008.
“Mandarin Peelings and Lola’s Tinola: Exploring Subjectivity and Belonging Through Cultural Food Narratives” Food, Culture & Society 11 (3): 375-399.

Raises the possibility of an alternative form of anthropological representation, i.e. cultural narratives, rather than traditional scholarly writings or ethnographies. This should be read alongside Thomas’s “Against Ethnography.”


* Reading will be forwarded to participants