Cultural anthropology up

The number of research proposals submitted by cultural anthropologists to the U.S. National Science Foundation has risen dramatically in the past few years according to Deborah Winslow in American Anthropological Association’s Anthropology News (Winslow is the cultural anthropology program officer at the NSF).

Encouraged by the rising number of applications, Winslow comments, “I believe that anthropologists are needed to solve the world’s most urgent problems, but we must do basic, gritty and time-consuming research to get the recognition that will accord us voice.”

I agree with Winslow that cultural anthropology has relevance to solving the world’s problems, and I am happy that the number of cultural anthropology proposals is rising. But I don’t see a direct relationship between more research by cultural anthropologists and more recognition and voice.

That won’t happen until more cultural anthropologists want to, and learn to, present their findings outside the academic box.  As in the mainstream media.

Since this blog began in late August 2009, I have been scanning media coverage of anthropology (all four fields) for my weekly blog feature, “Anthro in the News.” You don’t have to be a mathematician to see that biological anthropology and archaeology have much more visibility than cultural or linguistic anthropology. In fact, a single finding in biological anthropology or archaeology may be picked up by several outlets.  Last year, the only cultural anthropology news hitting multiples media buttons  was the death of Claude Lévi-Strauss.

Several reasons account for the media bias toward biological anthropology and archaeology. Here are four that I think are important (if you think of more, please share them in the comment section):

1. Research by biological anthropologists and archaeologists is considered “scientific,” and the media  more actively pursue science news than non-science news from academia [related to #4].

2. Biological anthropologists and archaeologist make “discoveries” which constitute “breaking news” and create buzz. Compare the following: “Chimpanzees understand wildfire and dance to it” and “Oregonians avoid accepting food stamps due to pride” and consider which one was a media hit.

3. Biological anthropologists and archaeologists are more likely to be able to publish their results quickly, in short articles, and with snappy, media-friendly summaries.

4. The public is more interested in findings in biological anthropology and archaeology (“the missing link,” buried gold treasure, and endangered species).

In a nutshell, cultural anthropology is neglected by the media because it’s less scientific, sexy, and snappy. And therefore cultural anthropology loses traction in educating the public via the media.

Relatedly, cultural anthropologists lose ground in influencing policy. So-called “public anthropologists” are no strangers to this discussion: they have been working hard, and uphill, for several years to raise the visibility of culture anthropology outside academia. This post applauds their efforts and seeks to add muscle to it.

In that direction, I highly recommend Cornelia Dean’s brief book, Am I Making Myself Clear? A Scientist’s Guide to Talking to the Public. Whether or not you consider yourself a “scientist,” you will find many helpful insights on topics such as the journalism landscape, being prepared as a source of knowledge, establishing credibility, writing op-eds, doing radio/tv interviews, writing books, being an expert witness, and influencing or making policy.

Beyond Cornelia Dean’s suggestions, other increasingly available and powerful avenues for getting your message out exist: video — documentaries, YouTube. Social media. Blogging. Even tweeting:  develop a following of your friends, family, students, and others, and tweet about something relevant in the news, or offer an interpretive comment or quick critique.

Image from Harvard University Press.