The title of this article rings like a child’s story or
artwork – “My First Bicycle,” or “My First Vacation.” Typically, these stories
are those of great anticipation for someone that may have not yet experienced
it in like, but more commonly they are stories that those experiential veterans
can read with appreciation, remembering to forgive the writer for naiveté;
after all, it is their “first.” I title it this way because that’s how I feel
here this week, at my first American Anthropological Association: a neophyte in
a sea of weathered professionals and their favored protégés.
This would have been my second, had our Student Government
come through on funding last year. Alas, we did not make a solid case to them,
and still more, were going for nothing more than personal enrichment. This year
is different; this year, our department sent four students to the AAA to
present posters. And here I am. So let’s start with what I expected:
I did get to meet a lot of people though, and I did dispense
with the cards. My friends and I, in Montreal by Tuesday, had discovered the
perfect bar, and proceeded to invite everyone we met to join us. Wednesday
night, we were with “representatives” from Texas A&M, Vancouver, and Rensselaer,
the second night, Purdue. Of the handful of professionals with whom I am
acquainted through social networking, the two I met were simply because I
caught them alone. (“Is that John Hawks, looking at his phone [probably trying
to figure out the troublesome WiFi]? I have to go introduce myself.” “Oh, is
that Katherine MacKinnon grabbing hors d’oeuvres? Perfect!”) The rest of them
seemed to be involved in more engaging topics than “Hi, I follow you on Twitter,”
a rather strange icebreaker for those that may not have experienced real life
encounters with those they might only know virtually. Besides, I hate
interrupting people.
2. I brought a video camera. I expected that I would be
filming everything I could in Montreal, from the drive there to the experience.
I expected that I might even get to film a session.
A couple months ago, fellow Google-Plusser, Bria Dunham, pointed
out that the panel, “Science in Anthropology: An Open Discussion” would
conflict with her poster presentation, one of the biological variety. I
supposed, jokingly, that the AAA was having the last laugh after the #AAAfail
debacle last year. Last week, Julienne Rutherford (another person I would have
met, but was rather busy) posted on BANDIT that the panel in question actually
conflicted with 2 biological sessions and 3 archaeological sessions, and
followed up with a call for recording equipment. I had already had the bright
idea to borrow a camera from our Visual Anthropology Center, as well as go to
that session, so why not combine the two? As far as I knew, no one had
permission to record, but I could still record for “personal use.” Ultimately, as
I had told John Hawks, I chickened out; who records for personal use with a
camera? I didn’t really want to be confronted about it. The kicker is, the
speakers granted permission just before the session began. I live-tweeted.
The AAA veterans that I know have told me, time and time
again: “Don’t expect to do anything but go to sessions, mingle, and drink like
a fish.” The homework that I should’ve kept up on all week – well, it
eventually got done. The blogging I wanted to do every night - never happened.
And the camera has never come out of its case. Shit, I haven’t even had time to
talk to my own girlfriend on the phone.
These are the highlights of the meeting thus far:
Wednesday, I attended a fantastic session by the Society for Anthropology in Community Colleges, titled “The Legacies of Teaching Evolutionary Ideas: Not Buckling in the Bible Belt.” While presentations were given, it resembled more of a laid back discussion of each professor’s experience broaching the subject of anthropology in their given regions of “The Belt,” and how they dealt with it.
Wednesday, I attended a fantastic session by the Society for Anthropology in Community Colleges, titled “The Legacies of Teaching Evolutionary Ideas: Not Buckling in the Bible Belt.” While presentations were given, it resembled more of a laid back discussion of each professor’s experience broaching the subject of anthropology in their given regions of “The Belt,” and how they dealt with it.
Wednesday evening, at their invitation, I was at Texas
A&M’s “Shared Visualizations of Imagined Spaces.” The papers were generally
themed around storytelling, with one on folklore, one on Southern hip-hop, one
on Ayhuasca tourism, and the one that got me there in the first place: Dungeons
& Dragons.
Thursday, of course, I was at “Science in Anthropology: An
Open Discussion.” Aside from actual content of the session (which I won’t go
into, as they are written about here,
here, and here), what I found interesting was that the chemistry between the
professional anthropologists that I know personally (in my own little
microcosm) translated here as well: those in defense of science had very good senses
of humor while those in favor of more interpretive methods were a little more…well,
irritated. That was very interesting, given that those in defense of science
were constantly being told that it was they, who were the reactionaries.
Thursday afternoon, I got down to brass tacks and went to a
session that was less novel and more in line with my field of study: “HIV/AIDS
in Global Africa.” It was clear that they were not readers of the blog SavageMinds, but the presentations were fantastic, nonetheless. Specifically, one was
a narrative (sort of) about how anti-retroviral drugs have changed the HIV/AIDS
stigma, and thus the culture. In fact, I loved it so much, I went and bought a
book on it.
Friday! This has definitely been the best. “Scars of
Evolution” started at 8AM (fuck!) but I made it. This four hour session was
composed of the best papers I’ve seen…ever (I have been to other anthropology
conferences, after all). The papers ran the gamut: It felt like the semesters
of biological anthropology classes I’ve taken, crammed into one four hour slot.
It seemed like everyone knew each other – it took forever to get setup and
started because everyone was up and around and talking, and even once we got
started, presenters were heckled from time to time (in good fun, of course).
The PowerPoints were (rarely) dry, the presentations were executed brilliantly
(they must be Savage Minds readers), and it was a blast.
And this evening, I went to the Biological Anthropology
Section business meeting. Well this was a little weird, a little more
administrative, and it was clear that everyone knew each other. I sat in the
back, observing and thinking, “Hey, this kind of runs like my Student
Anthropology Association meetings back at school.” At times, I didn’t know if I
should be there…but I am a member. I suppose I just felt a little invisible
when they started to talk about how to get undergraduates involved in BAS. (It’s
not that I expected everyone to know that I am an undergraduate, because I’m
sure it’s not obvious [until I open my mouth], rather that it was very obvious
to me that I was more than likely the only undergraduate in that room of
fifty.) The meeting was followed up by an incredible keynote lecture by
Jonathan Marks on one of my favorite subjects: the history of biological
determinism in general (and the conflict between ethnology and evolution,
specifically). And that was followed by a reception, which I just came from.
Tomorrow is another day. Tomorrow, I present my poster at 8AM (fuck!) but I can make it. If you’re there before noon, come meet me (and take one of these ridiculous business cards off of me).
Tomorrow is another day. Tomorrow, I present my poster at 8AM (fuck!) but I can make it. If you’re there before noon, come meet me (and take one of these ridiculous business cards off of me).
How was the 'Shared Visualizations of Imagined Spaces' panel? Who presented, and what did you think of their papers?
ReplyDeleteShared Visualizations of Imagined Spaces was great! I don't have the itinerary with me, so I can't give you the names of the papers or their presenters.
ReplyDeleteThe paper on folklore, if I remember correctly, had some focus on the way certain words are used in stories. It left me, for the rest of the session, thinking of certain words that may or may not translate across cultures. I like papers that get me thinking.
The paper on Southern hip-hop, I loved, because I had written a paper just like it this past summer. It had a lot to do with how artists identify themselves, their lives, and their environments in their lyrics, and (again) if I remember: how those lyrics in turn influence the lifestyle.
The paper on Ayhuasca tourism was great. The author tried not to take a stance on it. The conflict is between those that are born into a culture with access to Ayhuasca (and the opportunity to practice shamanism) versus tourists that might like to seek out charlatan practitioners.
I do, actually, know the name of the D&D paper's author off the top of my head, because we actually talked on and off through the week. Nick Mizer hit a lot of points on D&D, and it's quite difficult for me to summarize into a concise thought (and some of his ideas were a little over my head). The part that really sticks out is how he conveyed that D&D maps have been reused through generations. It highlighted the fact (to me at least), that visualizations of imagined spaces aren't just shared through space, but time as well.
There actually was a paper that I didn't mention above on Jewish folklore. And I can't even comment on it, either because the author moved so fast or because it was completely over my head.
I should mention that these things usually aren't my bag, and that I think this was the only non-biological session that I went to. The papers were great, the people were great. Mr. Mizer and I got into some great discussions over beers, and the bastard even got me to completely restructure a paper I'd been working on for months.
Thanks for the mention, Dick! What paper did I get you to restructure? I'm not even aware I did that!
ReplyDeleteNick: My paper on the Founding Fathers (which I posted here a few days ago). You and Gareth completely opened my eyes to the fact that my conclusion was not as strong as I thought it was. Not sure if you remember, but at one point you accused me of chronological snobbery, so I had to take the emphasis off of trying to find a function for American ancestor worship, and just accept it in this weird Turner/Geertz kind of symbolism way. The paper is still not as strong as I'd like it to be, but I am much more comfortable with my conclusion.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the compliments!! :D
ReplyDeleteOh yeah, now I remember. Snob! *grin.*
ReplyDelete