C L O S E R

Chart Wars: The Political Power of Data Visualization

Posted on January 6th, 2010 by martijn.
Categories: Method.

Via Huub Bellemakers: What everybody needs to know about data, pictures and their political influence.
Chart Wars: The Political Power of Data Visualization – information aesthetics

A great, short talk by TargetPoint’s VP and Director of Research, Alex Lundry, at DC Ignite. He addresses the issues of subjective messaging through visualization, the emergence of open data, some ideal data visualization tools, a set of quick lessons in graphic literacy, and a short list of recommended visualization books, all within the time span of 5 minutes.

Watch the movie below.

See also Political Chart Wars for more information about the subject. Via Sunlight Foundation Blog.

We could probably apply the same approach to Geert Wilders’ short film Fitna (Dutch) and of course Muslim Demographics. Political leaders, social movements and opinion leaders use visual rhetoric for the public representation and manipulation of their ideological messages by means of culturally recognizable symbols but (and this is the interesting part of chart wars) also by more abstract images conveying the message of chaos or order.

[flashvideo filename=http://blip.tv/file/get/Ignitedc-AlexLundryChartWarsThePoliticalPowerOfDataVisualization438.flv /]

0 comments.

Contested 'Dutch' Space – Place, space and field

Posted on December 18th, 2009 by martijn.
Categories: anthropology, Multiculti Issues, Some personal considerations.

Much of the debate about the establishment of mosques, women with niqab, processes of alienation among native Dutch in migrant areas, christmas decoration and so on, pertain to the issue of ‘place’ as in physical areas that are related to humans and their practices in particular ways. Henri Lefebvre in his The Production of Space, calles for bringing together  physical space, mental space and social space. Instead of artificially separating these spaces we should acknowledge that there cannot be a way to talk about and experience of space without a process meaning-making and, therefore, there can never be just a psysical (neutral) place. Social relations and mental space are reflected in the materiality of space by ways of communicating and other practices. These forms of communicating in/over physical space and forms of practices within these space influence in turn the social relations and mental space. The mosque, or the street where it is built, the HHS school, the streets are the outcome of negotation processes involving distinct meanings, places, experiences and practices. A particular place can become imbued with a variety of local and global meanings reflected in physical, social and psychological ways that effect the every day practices, relationships, self-identifications and categorizations within and outside these places. Sometimes conflicts and inconsistencies can turn particular places into sites for an exchange of new ideas, alternatives that may be subversive (although not necessarily) and new spaces can come about or they, as Lefebvre states, they can be re-appropriated for new uses.

Let’s take street Y in city X as an example. This street and the houses were constructed in the 19th century when a lot migrants from Flanders came to city to work in one of its industries. The streetnames and nicknames for this area still reflect this ‘Flemish experience’. Nowadays however the canals in this area have been closed in the name of progress (making them into parking spaces) and the Flemish migrants are replaced by the gues workers of the 1960s and beyond and their families and descendants. Garages have been turned into a mosque and local shops of native citizens have been turned in to ‘Moroccan grocery shops’ ‘Moroccan butchers’ (later on ‘halal butchers’). Many of these shops disappear after a while, the most succesful ones attract not only Moroccan-Dutch customers but also native Dutch customers and have toned down their ‘Moroccan’ outlook (flags, products from Morocco, Moroccan/Turkish bread) and in particular on Friday afternoons one can witness a flow of ‘Moroccan men’ in djellabaa’s and women with headscarves going to the mosque. In order to go from one part of this area to another one has to cross a bridge, the most important bridge being in the street that connects this part of the city with the city’s centre. This bridge is often ‘occupied’ by Moroccan-Dutch youth who ‘just hang about’ as they say. Other people however seem to experience it as real occupation by strange, threatening forces. Moroccan-Dutch people sometimes refer to this area as ‘little Rabat’ or ‘little Morocco’ a term also used by native Dutch people but then in a derogatory manner. Another way of referring to this area, prevalent among native Dutch but also middle class Moroccan-Dutch, is saying it is a bad area. This usually refers to bad housing conditions (this area may well be the most densily populated area in the Netherlands without any large appartment buildings) and the many Moroccan-Dutch who live their. But also other moral evaluations are made: it is a dirty, messy place with rubbish (and dog poop!) everywhere, noisy young people (‘Morroccan scum’, ‘streetterrorists’) with abusive language who leave their mess everywhere, dangerous, ugly houses, men with long beards (‘hatebeards’) and robes, oppressed women with headscarves, lack of safety and what have you more. As such this area is an important part of moral geographies of people: it is out of place, out of the moral order and an area that is in need of being transformed from ‘bad’ to ‘good’.

A few years ago there was a rumour a new mosque would be built in this area. This rumour proved to be false but generated much debate. One of the participants told me that he thought building mosques, threatens his culture and identity. According to him ‘we live in the Netherlands, we are Dutch and now a strange element from outside comes in and I have to make room for that’. It is easy to criticize such an essentialist notion of culture as a homogeneous bloc (and one should) but it is important to take into account because it shows something of the process of meaning making among native Dutch citizens. And changes therein because in the 1990s a newly built mosque was often seen as a sign of integration, a willingness among Muslims to participate in this society and an expression of the change Dutch society has experienced from a relatively homogeneous society to a pluralist society (I know this is easily to criticize too). When the building of a new mosque would be done now, it would probably be seen as a sign of Islamization of society. The various meanings of any given place change over time and are influenced by global and local discourses but also by changes in the physical places that again reflect changes in wider society or even on a global scale. This may lead to conflicts, newly drawn boundaries and new fault lines of meaning and politics. But they may also lead to new initiatives in this local area. For example mosques often work on a small local scale; they are involved not so much in city activities (let alone national activities) but more often in neighbourhood activities. Other institutions in these neighbourhoods may try to accommodate to the changes in population and phsyical places by setting up dialogue activities and trying to involve newcoomers in their activities.

All these histories, practices, meanings and experiences turn this area into much more than just an area. It is an imaginary landscape imbued with all kinds of meanings and contestations of those meanings changing over time. The dynamics of space and place constitute an important research field for anthropologists as they try go grasp the significance of the connections between people’s everyday lives, materiality and place in particular contexts.

0 comments.

Contested ‘Dutch’ Space – Place, space and field

Posted on December 18th, 2009 by martijn.
Categories: anthropology, Multiculti Issues, Some personal considerations.

Much of the debate about the establishment of mosques, women with niqab, processes of alienation among native Dutch in migrant areas, christmas decoration and so on, pertain to the issue of ‘place’ as in physical areas that are related to humans and their practices in particular ways. Henri Lefebvre in his The Production of Space, calles for bringing together  physical space, mental space and social space. Instead of artificially separating these spaces we should acknowledge that there cannot be a way to talk about and experience of space without a process meaning-making and, therefore, there can never be just a psysical (neutral) place. Social relations and mental space are reflected in the materiality of space by ways of communicating and other practices. These forms of communicating in/over physical space and forms of practices within these space influence in turn the social relations and mental space. The mosque, or the street where it is built, the HHS school, the streets are the outcome of negotation processes involving distinct meanings, places, experiences and practices. A particular place can become imbued with a variety of local and global meanings reflected in physical, social and psychological ways that effect the every day practices, relationships, self-identifications and categorizations within and outside these places. Sometimes conflicts and inconsistencies can turn particular places into sites for an exchange of new ideas, alternatives that may be subversive (although not necessarily) and new spaces can come about or they, as Lefebvre states, they can be re-appropriated for new uses.

Let’s take street Y in city X as an example. This street and the houses were constructed in the 19th century when a lot migrants from Flanders came to city to work in one of its industries. The streetnames and nicknames for this area still reflect this ‘Flemish experience’. Nowadays however the canals in this area have been closed in the name of progress (making them into parking spaces) and the Flemish migrants are replaced by the gues workers of the 1960s and beyond and their families and descendants. Garages have been turned into a mosque and local shops of native citizens have been turned in to ‘Moroccan grocery shops’ ‘Moroccan butchers’ (later on ‘halal butchers’). Many of these shops disappear after a while, the most succesful ones attract not only Moroccan-Dutch customers but also native Dutch customers and have toned down their ‘Moroccan’ outlook (flags, products from Morocco, Moroccan/Turkish bread) and in particular on Friday afternoons one can witness a flow of ‘Moroccan men’ in djellabaa’s and women with headscarves going to the mosque. In order to go from one part of this area to another one has to cross a bridge, the most important bridge being in the street that connects this part of the city with the city’s centre. This bridge is often ‘occupied’ by Moroccan-Dutch youth who ‘just hang about’ as they say. Other people however seem to experience it as real occupation by strange, threatening forces. Moroccan-Dutch people sometimes refer to this area as ‘little Rabat’ or ‘little Morocco’ a term also used by native Dutch people but then in a derogatory manner. Another way of referring to this area, prevalent among native Dutch but also middle class Moroccan-Dutch, is saying it is a bad area. This usually refers to bad housing conditions (this area may well be the most densily populated area in the Netherlands without any large appartment buildings) and the many Moroccan-Dutch who live their. But also other moral evaluations are made: it is a dirty, messy place with rubbish (and dog poop!) everywhere, noisy young people (‘Morroccan scum’, ‘streetterrorists’) with abusive language who leave their mess everywhere, dangerous, ugly houses, men with long beards (‘hatebeards’) and robes, oppressed women with headscarves, lack of safety and what have you more. As such this area is an important part of moral geographies of people: it is out of place, out of the moral order and an area that is in need of being transformed from ‘bad’ to ‘good’.

A few years ago there was a rumour a new mosque would be built in this area. This rumour proved to be false but generated much debate. One of the participants told me that he thought building mosques, threatens his culture and identity. According to him ‘we live in the Netherlands, we are Dutch and now a strange element from outside comes in and I have to make room for that’. It is easy to criticize such an essentialist notion of culture as a homogeneous bloc (and one should) but it is important to take into account because it shows something of the process of meaning making among native Dutch citizens. And changes therein because in the 1990s a newly built mosque was often seen as a sign of integration, a willingness among Muslims to participate in this society and an expression of the change Dutch society has experienced from a relatively homogeneous society to a pluralist society (I know this is easily to criticize too). When the building of a new mosque would be done now, it would probably be seen as a sign of Islamization of society. The various meanings of any given place change over time and are influenced by global and local discourses but also by changes in the physical places that again reflect changes in wider society or even on a global scale. This may lead to conflicts, newly drawn boundaries and new fault lines of meaning and politics. But they may also lead to new initiatives in this local area. For example mosques often work on a small local scale; they are involved not so much in city activities (let alone national activities) but more often in neighbourhood activities. Other institutions in these neighbourhoods may try to accommodate to the changes in population and phsyical places by setting up dialogue activities and trying to involve newcoomers in their activities.

All these histories, practices, meanings and experiences turn this area into much more than just an area. It is an imaginary landscape imbued with all kinds of meanings and contestations of those meanings changing over time. The dynamics of space and place constitute an important research field for anthropologists as they try go grasp the significance of the connections between people’s everyday lives, materiality and place in particular contexts.

0 comments.

Debate: Research on Islam, Muslims and Radicalization

Posted on December 1st, 2009 by martijn.
Categories: anthropology.

Professor Thijl Sunier delivered his inaugural lecture last Friday at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. Before a very interesting seminar was organized with short contributions from Annelies Moors, Ruba Salih, Stefano Allievi, Nadia Fadil, Edien Bartels and others (including myself). Sunier published a short piece in the Dutch newspaper NRC Handelsblad in which he stated (my translation):

In the last ten years policies [on migrants] have focused on crime- and radicalization prevention, security and more control over Muslims. Radicalization among young Muslims, confrontations between inhabitants of particular areas and several other issues are primarily seen as problems of integration. European states aim to pacify Islam and adjust it to national circumstances. This ‘domestication of Islam’ has become a priority of policy in almost all European countries.

No matter how understandable this may be from a policy perspective, researchers should, according to Sunier, not join this caravan but develop their own research agenda. According to Sunier this does not happen often enough for several reasons and the result is that the criterium of societal and/or policy relevance has directed most research on Muslims. This produces a one-sided images of Muslims and reduces them to categories of policy neglecting religiosity and religious practices among Muslims. In particular research on religiostiy suffers from a narrow focus on radicalization and problems of adjustment, Sunier claims.

Jean Tillie, chair of Electoral Politics, at the University of Amsterdam has responded to Sunier’s article. Tillie has done research on radicalization among Muslim youth in Amsterdam. Tillie regrets that Sunier uses radicalization researchers in order to make his point and does not agree with Suniers claim that these researchers (my translation):

Follow the Dutch state and do not develop their own research agenda. They suffer from narrowmindedness because they completely rely on the policy agenda of local and national authorities.

According to Tillie Sunier’s criticism is a severe accusation because it implies that radicalism research is not independent; a very strong principle that needs to be uphold in all scientific research. Sunier does not substantiate his claim according to Tillie; the sole fact that those researchers do research for the local and national authorities is enough to question the independency of their research. Tillie states that research on political integration and the workings of a multicultural democracy is important. Radicalization research for him is part of that broader research agenda on migration and democracy driven by the scientific, in particular of political studies, community. Tillie also states that a lot has happened with regard to ‘Muslimradicalism and extremism’ and that a large part of the Dutch population is very worried about political integration, albeit unjustified. Radicalization research therefore has a major societal relevance. Moreover research on radicalism among Muslims is also research on ‘ordinary Muslims’. Tillie claims that also Sunier’s colleagues do research in close cooperation with local and national authorities which doesn’t say anything about the whether it is independent or not and that Sunier should not present his research agenda dependent on those of other Islam researchers.

In turn, Thijl Sunier has responded to Tillie’s criticism on the NRC Expert Debates pages. Sunier who states Tillie did not read his article very well explains that research on Islam in Europe is more and more focused on issues of integration and security. The question what are relevant research questions should not be determined only by the state but also by scientific debate; the latter however is not happening enough. Sunier states that integration research has become its own industry with it is own basis assumptions and their own pet subjects. An issue that, according to Sunier, has been raised before in particular by IMES, the institute of which Tillie is chair. Sunier’s point is not, he tries to explain, that such researchers are not independent, but that the close relationship between integration research and the state means that particular questions are not looked into. The second point Sunier makes in his response is that research on Islam in Europe is characterized by a remarkable paradox. While on the one hand in public debates Islam is used as an explanation for a wide array on social issues, research on the development of religious practices and shapes they take is lacking. He uses an example brought to the fore by Tillie to explain his point. Tillie does research on the voting behaviour of Muslims, the degree to which Muslims inscribe themselves into democratic values and norms and the degree to which political integration fails and radicalism and extremism lure. Those questions, no matter how important, have two questionable assumptions: first of all the idea that Muslims are migrants. These are however different categories, often mixed in public and political debates but we should get rid off these mix ups. Second, there appears to be something like voting behaviour of Muslims which links religiosity to voting. This, according to Sunier, has nothing to do with Islam but takes Islam for grented. Thirdly Sunier tries to refute the argument of Tillie that Sunier discards existing research. Sunier replies that integration research is too much about the question if Muslims fit in ‘our’ national society and that research needs to be done on other areas and themes as well.

Looking at media theory explaing how and why particular issues become important and salient I think makes clear what the themes are Sunier refers to:

Agenda-setting: Who decides the agenda of scientific research and what are the consequences?
Framing: How are Islam and Muslims framed and what is the role of researchers? What are the political and ethical assumptions?
Priming: How is attention drawn to particular issues and what is left out?
Salience transfer: Which particular issues are important for people and why?

I agree with Sunier’s plea for a new turn in research on Islam in Europe and Tillie’s response to Sunier is well taken but besides the point I think. Researchers have to be aware of societal problems and take them up in their programs. As such research on crime, radicalization, integration is not by definition a problem but it becomes a problem when most of that research is initiated by the state and because of problems the state perceives (no matter how important). Sunier is certainly not the first who takes up the issue. I did it before in my Radicalization Series, Part II, where I refer to publications by Gunning and others where I try to take up the theme of critical radicalization studies:C L O S E R » Blog Archive » Radicalization Series Part II – What is it? A plea for critical radicalization studies

We propose therefore a slightly changed and more precise definition of radicalization as

a change in one or more of the components of a group’s identity and/or ideology and/or a change in the strategies and tactics employed or advocated by the group such that the total of the change or changes brings the group into a condition of lesser congruence with the prevailing social arrangements, values and means which are presented as legitimate by the institutions and elites concerned with maintaining these social arrangements and values.De Koning & Meijer, forthcoming.

Instead of recognizing wider society and its institutions, radicalization involves a turn away from wider society into an exclusive in-group membership of a group with an anti-systemic ideology and/or tactics (see also Beach 1977: 313). This also means however that we should not only take into account the intra-movement developments but also wider society and ask ourselves why do particular institutions and elites consider and label particular individuals, social categories or social movements as ‘radical’, how does the process of labelling occur and what are the consequences? Neglecting the latter will, I think, inevitably mean that counter-radicalization policies, or even radicalization research, is state-centric and problem-oriented (with its focus on short-term imminent threats that take the state’s framing as self-evident – not very remarkable for policies of course) and moreover reducing issues of poverty, islamophobia, religionization and religion-based activism, lack of political influence into a matter of (the threat of) violence and/or a dangerous lack of cultural integration and social cohesion (or short; deviance). The fact that global inequalities and ucertainties, imperialism and (Western) interventionism in for example Iraq and Afghanistan (or the lack thereof in for example Chechnya) also play a role and provide fertile ground for militant oppositional ideologies and politics, is obscured in this way. In that sense labelling an individual, social category or movement as ‘radical’ is a political strategy that serves to protect particular interests.

I think with regard to radicalization research, Sunier’s call not only relevant but urgent. Looking into several studies no matter how important and well done, the overall result is poor because it hardly takes up the wider issues mentioned above nor does it link up to international research and debates. Taking into account right wing radicalism as well, the overall picture becomes even more bleak.
Radicalization studies can learn from critical terrorism studies:
C L O S E R » Blog Archive » Radicalization Series Part II – What is it? A plea for critical radicalization studies

an acute sensitivity to the politics of labelling and the acceptance of the fundamental ontological insecurity of the ‘terrorism’ label and thus extreme care in its use during research; a commitment to inter-disciplinarity and a willingness to engage with research from disciplines outside of international relations (there is some excellent terrorism research from anthropology, for example); a commitment to transparency regarding the values and political standpoints of researchers, particularly as they relate to the geo-political interests and values of the states they work in; a willingness by researchers to expand the focus of their research to include topics such as the use of terrorism by states, gender dimensions of terrorism, ethical-normative analysis of counter-terrorism, and the discursive foundations which make ‘terrorism studies’ possible in the first place; adherence to a set of responsible research ethics which take account of the various users of terrorism research, including the ‘suspect communities’ from which terrorists often emerge and the populations who bear the brunt of counter-terrorism policies; a commitment to taking the subjectivity of both the researcher and the researched seriously, particularly in terms of being willing to ‘talk to terrorists’; and a commitment to normative values and a broadly defined notion of emancipation. These commitments go beyond simply the call to engage in more rigorous and self-reflective research. In their normative dimensions in particular, these kinds of commitments amount to an orientation that shares many of the same attitudes and approaches as the Frankfurt School of Critical Theory and the Welsh School of Critical Security Studies.

The call for the establishment of a new, more reflexive ‘critical’ terrorism studies (CTS) is a self-conscious and deliberate attempt to try and overcome some of the problems that have been noted about the broader field of terrorism studies, and to attract scholars who study terrorism but are uncomfortable associating with a field that has historically been closely aligned with the state. The initial aim of CTS advocates has been to map out a new ‘critical’ set of approaches to the study of political terrorism, and to generate a new, broader research agenda.

In short, what I have stated at Sunier’s seminar: The state’s policies, the politics of labelling and the ‘extremism of the center’ should therefore be as much part of radicalization research. Lacking in much of the analyses is a critical reflection on the role of the state and its institutions, the ethical-normative aspects and discursive foundations of counter-radicalization policies, and not to forget what is the significance of mere existence of radicalization studies and (more in particular) its focus on Muslims. Why do states and their institutions label particular individuals, groups and movements as radical and what are the consequences in terms of rights, policies and the position and daily lives of the targeted groups? Several of the current studies (and the one by Tillie is an example) do touch upon these issues but we need a more thorough approach.

Related to that is a second point that Sunier refers to mostly. Why is it that a counter-radicalization policy and radicalization studies emerge after 9/11 and the murder of Theo van Gogh but not after the violent actions of Moluccans in the 1970s or right wing militants in the 1980s or 1990s or left wing militants? Or why is it that much studies into crime pertain to migrants and/or Moroccan-Dutch youth? These fields are important fields of research, but they are related to what the Dutch state perceives as societal problems. It can maintain such a stance because other groups (native youth and crime) remain neglected. As such these studies, no matter how well carried out, serve to put the blame for all kind of societal problems on migrant youth or Muslim youth and to uphold the image of Dutch native youth as not so problematic. Both are one sided, both are false. As Fadil stated during the seminar, we as researchers have to be very carefull not just to follow, re-produce and sustain hegemonic ideas about ‘the Other’ and as such contributing to the othering of Muslims as a dangerous homogeneous and easy recognizable category. Research (and that is also the reason for my plea for critical radicalization studies) needs to question those hegemonic ideas and seemingly self-evident facts. Research on integration of Muslims not only reinforces the idea that something is problematic with integration of Muslims but, as Sunier points out, takes religiosity of Muslims as self evident. Islam and Muslim identity do not explain anything, they have to be explained as I have stated in my PhD.

Basically what Sunier refers to and I have tried to explain as well, is that knowledge has a history and a societal context. Knowledge that is produced is not just there and free of political influence because scientific work is free, true, proven and so on. We should be critical on how choices are made, how particular knowledge becomes dominant and how scientific knowledge is embedded in power relations and moreover is itself a product of power as Maximilian Forte tells us in an essay on Zero Anthropology (quoting among others Bourdieu). There is no escaping here, I’m as much part of the game and I have and do submit to the rules of the game as much as any other. What we need is a critical and reflexive approach towards state, society and ourselves and as such Sunier’s article (and for that matter his entire inaugural lecture) serves as a relevant and important reminder.

0 comments.

Anthropology Day Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam: Religion = Conflict?

Posted on November 18th, 2009 by martijn.
Categories: (Upcoming) Events, anthropology.

“Anthropology, the study of human cultures and societies, is exceptionally relevant as a tool for understanding the contemporary world, yet it is absent from nearly every important public debate in the Anglophonic world. Its lack of visibility is an embarrassment and a challenge” (Thomas Hylland Eriksen 2006, ix).

Anthropologists from the VU took up this challenge three years ago with the organisation of a seminar entitled “beyond relativism”, with Thomas Eriksen himself as the chief guest and speaker. Since then we have made this into a yearly event. The main ambition of the yearly anthropology day is to use our anthropological knowledge to shed more light on topical issues or problems which are dominating public debates.

Anthropology Day 2009 – VU University Amsterdam, 26 November 2009

The Anthropology Day 2009 will address the complex relations between religion and conflict. In public debate, religion – especially Islam – is considered a prime source and trigger of contemporary conflict. Plenty of anthropological research shows that such ideas make a caricature of reality and lack context. Then what do we have to say about that complex connection? How can anthropologists contribute to this fascinating and important theme?

A kick-off by Martijn the Koning and Johan Roeland about Dutch youth in search of a pure religion will be followed by lively debate. Three exciting workshops on Muslims in Europe, fieldwork in conflict situations, and the role of religion in the Middle East conflict will give ammunition for further discussion. The day will be concluded with a screening of film material shot by three former master students on their experiences as anthropologists in the field.

Programme

Morning

Venue: Metropolitan, Z-007 / Z-009

09.45 – 10.00 Welcome by Kim Knibbe (chair)

10.00 – 10.10 Coffee

10.10 – 11.00 Lecture by Martijn de Koning and Johan Roeland:

“God is everywhere”: Religious vitality and conflicts in Dutch society

11.00 – 11.15 Coffee break

11.15 – 11.30 Reactions from Birgit Meyer and Daan Beekers

11.30 – 12.15 Plenary discussion

12.15 – 13.30 Lunch break

Afternoon

W&N Building: C-648 / C-629 / C-640

13.30 – 15.30 Workshops

15.45 – 16.45 Films and Drinks! (Metropolitan Z-007 / Z-009)

0 comments.

Seminar and inaugural lecture Thijl Sunier Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam: Islam in European Societies

Posted on November 18th, 2009 by martijn.
Categories: (Upcoming) Events, anthropology.

VISOR seminar on Islam in Europe

Date: 27th of November 2009

Place of venue

VU University, Metropolitan building, room Z?009.

Buitenveldertselaan 3, Amsterdam

Conv. Thijl Sunier (FSW?SCA / VISOR)

Research on Islam in Europe

In Europe there is a long tradition of research on Islam. The Netherlands that once ruled over the second most populous Muslim country of the world is renowned for its extensive archives and its world famous library of Islamic documents. Also in other European countries, particularly in France and the UK, there is an extensive academic infrastructure for the study of Islam in the world. The study of Islam in Europe has, not very surprisingly, long been a small and relatively marginal branch in this field. Indigenous Muslim populations in the Balkans and Spain, small numbers of Muslim colonial subjects prior to WW II, constituted a minor topic.

In most of the studies on the immigration of people with an Islamic background that were published in the 1960s and 1970s, culture, let alone religion, was hardly an issue. When Islam was a topic for research, it was mainly conducted by philologists and students of Arabic and Islamic theology who were familiar with the Islamic sources. Many considered Islam in Europe a simple extension of their work in the Islamic world proper. Only in the late 1970s the religious background of immigrants began to attract social scientists and historians, but it was only after the so?called Rushdie affair in 1989 that the study of Islam in ‘the West’ began to gain momentum and that the field emerged. One of the reasons was that the governments in most countries in Western Europe thought it necessary to develop policies to deal with religious diversity and to adapt religious newcomers to society. In the course of the 1990s integration and the governance of Muslim minorities in Western European nation?states became a dominant topic.

Gradually the integration of Islam developed into a theoretical and methodological paradigm with its own assumptions, research question, research agenda and mode of knowledge production. Integration into nation?states became an almost self?evident feature of studies on Islam in the West. It not only became the dominant mode of research, research grants more and more converged around issues of accommodation and governance with all the epistemological implications it entails. As a consequence many recent developments such as globalization and transnationalism, the emergence of new media, the merging of Islam with all kinds of popular culture, but also the spread of radical forms of political Islam and the shifts in the modes and styles of religious leadership are molded according to the integration paradigm.

Given the fact that research on Islam in Europe is presently growing at a considerable pace, it is necessary to reflect on this vastly expanding field, to discuss the outlines and assumptions that determine research agendas. Although reflections on the research field takes place continuously, a thorough methodological and epistemological discussion has hardly been made explicit. By organizing this meeting, it is my aim to contribute to this academic reflection. This not only is a necessary activity, it is also highly relevant and urgent given the changes that take place both in the field and in the academic community that focuses on Islam in Europe.

Outline of the seminar

The seminar will be divided into three sessions. In each of the sessions a specific issue, that bears relevance to particular epistemological, methodological and thematic aspects of the study of Islam in Europe, will be addressed and discussed.

1. Islam in Europe or European Islam

The discussion about the future of Islam in Europe often centers on the question whether or not a ‘European Islam’ will develop. Yet, the quest for a ‘European Islam’, that is supposed to be an Islam that fits within a European enlightened self?identity is one of the most sensitive and topical issues of the public debate in the past decades. Many experts on Islam seriously criticize this notion of Islam because it is too much charged with implicit assumptions on the characteristics of Islam in Europe. Moreover, European Islam refers to doctrinal and normative aspects. Other modes of expression and production of religiosity are generally ignored. This session will deal with the question how this highly important issue can be addressed in a multidisciplinary research agenda.

2. Integration, politics and nation?states

The second session will deal with the question how research on Islam in Europe should relate to the political normative conditions of nation?states, particularly the integration policies. Should research agendas on Islam reflect important developments taking place with respect to these policies, or should research institutes develop their own agenda? What modes of knowledge do these different agendas produce? In other words, how can we transform the undeniably important question how Muslim communities relate to local, urban, national, European and global contexts and realms, without rendering one of these dimensions a more important or more natural status than the others?

3. The comparative dimension

For a long time the study of Islam was considered as a field in its own right, firmly in the hands of experts on Islamic theology, Arabic and adjacent disciplines. Also social scientists have long treated Islam as unique field of inquiry that could hardly be compared to other religious traditions and practices. This is gradually changing. The question addressed in this session is how a genuine comparative approach can be attained and how a comparative research agenda should look like. What can, for example, be learned from studies on other religions? What are the methodological implications?

In each of these sessions, short statements of 10 minutes will be presented, followed by a discussion with the participants and the audience.

Chairs

Birgit Meyer (Professor of Anthropology, VU University Amsterdam)

t.b.a

Schedule

9.00? 9.20 Welcome and coffee

9.20? 9.30 Opening speech by Martien Brinkman (Professor of Theology,

academic director of the VU Institute for the Study of Religion, Culture

and Society, VISOR)

9.30? 11.00 Session 1: Islam in Europe or European Islam

Statements by:

Ruud Peters (Endowed professor of Islamic law, University of

Amsterdam)

Annelies Moors (Professor of Anthropology, University of Amsterdam)

Nico Landman (Associate professor of Arabic and Islamic Studies,

University of Utrecht, Netherlands)

Edien Bartels (Assistant professor of Anthropology, VU University

Amsterdam)

Maurits Berger (Professor of Islam in the West, University of Leiden,

Netherlands)

Discussion

11.00? 11.15 break

11.15? 12.30 Session 2: Integration, politics and nation?states

Statements by:

Steve Vertovec (Director of the Max?Planck Institute for the Study of

Religious and Ethnic Diversity, Göttingen, Germany)

Stefano Allievi (Professor of Sociology at the University of Padua, Italy)

Ruba Salih (Senior lecturer in Social Anthropology at the University of

Exeter, UK)

Markha Valenta (Research fellow urban religion, University of

Amsterdam)

Discussion

12.30? 13.30 Lunch

13.30 – 14.45 session 3: The comparative dimension

Statements by:

Marjo Buitelaar (Associate professor of contemporary Islam,

University of Groningen, Netherlands)

Nadi Fadil (Research fellow, University of Leuven, Belgium)

John Eade (Professor of Sociology and Anthropology, Roehampton

University, London)

Additional participants:

Martijn de Koning (Research fellow, University of Nijmegen)

Loubna el?Morabet (Research fellow, University of Leiden)

Lenie Brouwer (Assistant professor of Anthropology, VU University

Amsterdam)

Stella van de Wetering (Assistant professor of Islamic theology,

VU/CIT Amsterdam)

Discussion with the participants and the audience.

Inaugural lecture Thijl Sunier (Professor of Islam in European Societies)

Beyond the domestication of Islam in Europe – A reflection on research on Islam in European Societies

Time: 15.45

Venue: Aula, main building VU University

Reception afterwards

1 comment.

Public Anthropology – 10 Years from Researchpages to Closer (1999/2000 – 2009/2010)

Posted on November 9th, 2009 by martijn.
Categories: anthropology, Blogosphere, Headline, ISIM/RU Research.

Introduction: a fantastic, time-consuming, idea
In 1999, when I just had started my Ph.D project in Gouda, I had a fantastic idea. An idea so fantastic that in the next 10 years I would dedicate a huge amount of time to sustaining and developing it. Too much time perhaps because sometimes it destroyed my time to sleep. The idea was that I would launch a website about and for my research and that also dealt with all kinds of issues related to it. Certainly not the first anthropology site (that is as far as I know CSAC Ethnographics Gallery) but I do think it was one of the first of an individual anthropologist and the first Dutch anthropologist website. It started out as a ‘normal’ website called Researchpages. It does not exist anymore and I lost a copy because of a recent computercrash. It took me until April 2001 to have a real website and although not updated anymore it is still working.

In the course of 2002 and 2003 I developed a weblog that initially was only one of the parts of the whole website. Since March 2004 the weblog is hosted at Religionresearch.org, an initiative set up with several colleagues from the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (note to myself…this also means that Religionresearch.org has a five year anniversary): Peter, Marten and Johan. After 2006 the weblog became the most important part of the site and i decided not to update the other parts anymore but to include more and more in the weblog. Furthermore the site had changed from a linkdump to a mix between linkdump, research reports and personal accounts and early attempts to analyze particular developments, themes and issues.

C L O S E R
Why the name Closer? One of my colleagues at ISIM said at one point that the name suggest (physical) intimicacy. And she was spot on. Because when you ethnographic research (and in particular in the way of my PhD research) you become quite intimate with people and you have a look in their daily private lives, thoughts and acts. It also suggests a closer look at issues and developments we do not immediately understand.

In the beginning Closer was somewhat out of mainstream blogosphere and also out of the anthropology blogosphere. From 2008 onwards but (after a break for which I’m still not going to tell you the reasons behind it) in particular from March 2009 I have tried to link up with the growing anthropology blogging community. In particular Open Anthropology, Media Anthropology and Antropologi.info provide interesting and thought-provoking entries I often link to.

What do I want with Closer? Closer can be seen as my contribution (with all the strong and weak points that come with it) to a public anthropology. Public anthropology is not easily to define but let me refer to Robert Borofsky, quoted on Zero Anthropology:
What is Public Anthropology? « ZERO ANTHROPOLOGY

Public anthropology engages issues and audiences beyond today’s self-imposed disciplinary boundaries. The focus is on conversations with broad audiences about broad concerns. Although some anthropologists already engage today’s big questions regarding rights, health, violence, governance and justice, many refine narrow (and narrower) problems that concern few (and fewer) people outside the discipline. Public anthropology seeks to address broad critical concerns in ways that others beyond the discipline are able to understand what anthropologists can offer to the re-framing and easing–if not necessarily always resolving–of present-day dilemmas. The hope is that by invigorating public conversations with anthropological insights, public anthropology can re-frame and reinvigorate the discipline.

There are two main principles of public anthropology (that also distinguishes it from applied anthropology):

1. Public accountability
2. Attempting to understand the structures that frame and restrict solutions to problems

Craig Calhoun in a recent essay poses two important questions for public social science (H/T ZeroAnthropology and Sexuality and Society):
Public Sphere Forum » Blog Archive » Calhoun

First, what is the relationship between effective participation in public discourse and the maintenance of more or less autonomous academic fields with their own standards of judgment and intellectual agendas? Second, what is the relationship between “public intellectual” work, informing broad discussions among citizens, and “policy intellectual” work informing business or government decision makers?

As Calhoun explains it is not only about reaching a broader public. It is not only about spreading your knowledge which would amount to ‘showing off’ with little bearing on public issues. It is about producing ‘better social science’ that addresses public issues, tests particular social science hypothesis and informs both scientific and public debates. Social scientists should therefore engage with issues that are part of the public debate at that moment (what Calhoun calls ‘real time social science’) based upon reseach already done in the past (even before it came to be a public issue) or by collecting new research material in which the public debate taking place is incorporated. This is important and researchers should not shy away from it (as happens now sometimes, also by me) but there is a risk of course that the public debate and policy concerns determine the research agenda. It would compromise the neutral position of researchers (certainly when dealing with Muslims and Islam which is a highly politicized topic) but it would also compromise one of the great advantages of doing scientific research: the ability to work on particular topics for a long time. Combining both, Calhoun explains:
Public Sphere Forum » Blog Archive » Calhoun

They may be studied in more immediate ways related to current policy dilemmas or in terms of larger and longer lasting patterns. Social science produces public knowledge when it provides historical or comparative context to grasping particular configurations of such issues as well as when it evaluates the results of particular policies.

Calhoun continues by stating that public science and addressing public issues is not just giving answers to questions the public has. It is as much, or even more, about questioning why particular issues are addressed in the way they are addressed by particular people and what the consequences of that are. How are particular issues and the way they are debated related to (changing) historical and cultural contexts, what is taken-for-granted and what does it mean? In my opinion this is (or at least should) should be the focus of this blog and has informed the change from my website Researchpages to Closer. In this sense public anthropology is not the same as applied anthropology.

Who is the public?
One important question to ask, is this blog anthropology in public or public anthropology? Both I hope. And judging by the list of my frequent readers the public of this blog is very mixed: anthropologists, policy-makers, journalists, students, fellow bloggers and (for me very important – see principle 1) my research subjects. This blog, as are other means of publication, provides a channel for dialogue with the social science community but also with other publics for social science knowledge consisting of journalists, policy-makers, politicians, researchgroups, students, movements’ activists, and others (cf. Calhoun).

It is in particular the input provided by research subjects that has proven to be valuable and opening up your research to the people you study, is an important part of doing research. Rex asks at Savage Minds:
Is it unethical to say something about someone that they cannot understand? | Savage Minds

Do anthropologists have a moral obligation to make their work accessible to the people they are writing about? The answer, to me, is an obvious ‘yes’.
[…]
So: is it ethical in principle to say things about people that they cannot understand (technical work) or that is written in a genre they don’t care for or ‘get’ (disciplinarily-defined beauty)?

I fully agree with him. If we do not make our work accessible to the people we write about, we might as well lock or ourselves in our ivory tower and throw away the key. This means that anthropoligists should write better: clear and accessibly. Furthermore, when you do research among a group in a society in which you live yourself and the topic most likely will lead to some headlines in the newspaper, it is foolish to think that you can avoid the group about who you write. If you do not engage with them, they will engage with you and your research in the comments sections of newspapers, blogs and online communities. Many people in my current research project have read my PhD thesis, there have been discussions about it in chatrooms in which I present for my current research and several people emailed me, contacted me in the chatrooms and on MSN wanting to discuss my book and the publicity about it. Opening up your research in fact already begins at the initial stage when you have to explain to your informants what you are doing and why you are there where they are. In my experience, the conversations that follow from this are not a good a way of improving your ‘translation’ skills but also provide relevant input for your research. The same can be said about the questions people asked after reading my book and articles.

As good public science indeed can produce better social science because the public is allowed to question and test the hypothesis of the researcher and even the significance of the whole research. For a very good example see Brigt Dale at the Occational Blog featuring the debates at other blogs based upon interviews with six anthropologists at antropologi.info. This is also the reason why I have chosen not to delete the sometimes very hostile, vile and rude comments on particular posts because I believe also those comments to represent an important take on the issues I address.

Most Commented

1. Politiek en Rap: Salah Edin en Appa
2. apas-stsbyhtbs & Geenstijl III – Gefeliciteerd u staat op Closer
3. Against pornofication and sexualization – scratching the surface because you have to start somewhere

Other noteworthy posts in this category include:

1. Islamizing Europe – Muslim Demographics (without a doubt the number one hit for this year, addressing one of the important anxieties many people share: the fear for an Islamic takeover)
2. Coming soon…Fitna V Analysing political propaganda

The last one is number five in a series about Fitna, the movie by Dutch politician Geert Wilders and serves as the basis for three articles I will write (two of them will be published in 2010 I hope). These two entries also score very well in the most viewed ranking:

Most Viewed

1. Against pornofication and sexualization – scratching the surface because you have to begin somewhere
2. Zoeken naar een ‘zuivere’ islam. Religieuze beleving en identiteitsvorming van Marokkaans-Nederlandse moslims
3. Islamizing Europe – Muslim Demographics
4. Coming soon…Fitna V Analysing political propaganda
5. Politiek en Rap: Salah Edin en Appa

As you can see in both lists Dutch and English language contributions are part of this blog. Public anthropology involves, as said, asking who is the public? For anthropologists outside the English speaking world, they also have to ask, is my public native (in my case Dutch) or international? I have chosen to combine both since some Dutch issues are relevant for a wider, international public and because writing in English would mean that my blog would be less accessible for Dutch speaking people. The current development in social sciences that only writing in Anglo-Saxon journals is valued above anything else (or better, the rest doesn’t matter) could lead I’m afraid to a situation in which social sciences are not relevant anymore for native, non-English publics and render the cause for a public anthropology futile or even ridiculous.

Closing statement
This blog is a (modest) attempt to make anthropology publicly relevant and to improve anthropological research. At the same time it is on ongoing experiment to find out what public anthropology actually is and to explore it. Why would I do this? As Maximilian Forte explains very well:
Not Radical Enough: Disengaged Anthropology (1.5) « ZERO ANTHROPOLOGY

Some might object that anthropology does not need to be publicly engaged, does not need mass audiences, and thus eschew the common goals of both Bunzl and Besteman-Gusterson. I disagree. Anthropology will not reside safely in peace, ensconced in the Ivory Tower, because there too it is suffering from increased marginalization, and that’s in the cases of universities that actually have an anthropology program of some sort. Moreover, any discipline whose purchase covers a wide range of publicly relevant, directly relevant, issues should say something in public. There is no point being a mute bystander as public debates rage about race, the family, violence, religion, and thus act like some dog in the manger

In that blog entry he refers to a discussion in American Anthropologist (2008, vol. 110, no. 1). In November 2009 these articles are open for the public:
The Quest for Anthropological Relevance: Borgesian Maps and Epistemological Pitfalls – Matti Bunzl

In this essay, I critique the currently dominant mode of American sociocultural anthropology. Through a historical reading of canonical texts from the 1970s to the 1990s, I trace some of contemporary anthropology’s limitations and probe their implications for the possibility of a publicly engaged discipline. I focus my critique on the demand for ever-increasing complexity, identifying it as an implicit form of positivism that renders the results of anthropological inquiries increasingly irrelevant to the big questions of the day. Epistemologically speaking, contemporary anthropology is thus not radical enough. In conclusion, I mobilize the Weberian–Boasian tradition as the most viable alternative to sociocultural anthropology’s status quo.

A Response to Matti Bunzl: Public Anthropology, Pragmatism, and Pundits

Discussing only two out of 11 chapters, Matti Bunzl argues that Why America’s Top Pundits Are Wrong (2005) embodies an excessively deconstructive approach that undermines public anthropology by opposing all generalization. In fact, the contributors to the Pundits volume come from a variety of intellectual positions, some unfriendly to deconstructionism. In a book that is deliberately jargon free, the contributors are unified not by postmodernism but by pragmatism. They oppose generalizations that are manifestly ideological and untrue, not all generalizations. The point of the book is not to nitpick generalizations but to unmask media apologetics for neoliberalism and neoconservatism that misuse core terms (e.g., culture, ethnicity, human nature, gender) from the anthropological lexicon. We advocate a revitalized public anthropology based on grounded research, translation of sophisticated anthropological knowledge into accessible English, and a passionate concern for the well-being of those at the sharp end of neoliberal globalization.

A Reply to Besteman and Gusterson: Swinging the Pendulum

In this rejoinder to Catherine Besteman and Hugh Gusterson, I clarify that my essay “The Quest for Anthropological Relevance: Borgesian Maps and Epistemological Pitfalls” is not primarily a critique of their volume Why America’s Top Pundits Are Wrong (2005). Instead, I maintain that it takes issue with the current state of sociocultural anthropology and its inability to communicate with a larger public sphere. In conclusion, I reflect on the historical location of my argument, likening my position to advocacy for a swing in the discipline’s epistemological pendulum and finding additional cause for such action in the realities of the current political moment.

The debate is relevant, as Forte shows, for addressing several features of anthropology (such as the critique on generalizations, the tendency to increase ‘complexity’ and sophistication, the problem of othering, the institutional structures, and so on) that influence public anthropology. An issue that I did see addressed anywhere yet, is what happens when you speak out as an anthropoligist on topics that are part of a fierce public and political debate. Two recent cases from the Netherlands are exemplary here. First of all the dismissal of Tariq Ramadan in Rotterdam and the subsequent statement of social scientists from the University of Amsterdam (later followed by the Free University of Amsterdam) stating that Tariq Ramadan should be offered a position in Amsterdam. The people who wrote a public letter about this, were accused in several ways of being a traiter, islamic co-conspirator, leftists and so on. Another, even more striking case, is the report of the Volkskrant newspaper about a report for the Ministry of Home Affairs, in which Geert Wilders appears as a far right extremist. Three researchers are named and after the publication of the newspaper a whole debate came about. Anti-Wilders groups and politicians applauding the conclusion, pro-Wilders groups launching a personal attack against the three researchers. Interesting thing is that the report is not published yet because it is not finished. Therefore, no report but debates about the researchers anyway (or because of it). That is striking in itself, but also tells us something about the climate in which researchers have to work and which I think pose a challenge to public anthropology and the attempt to make anthropology matter. The same happened to me when I blogged about someone in Amsterdam who scratched a commercial posters that depicted women in a abusive way (see the above list of most viewed posts, nummer 1). I don’t know how to deal with it, but I think it is an important issue to reflect about and I will try to publish a series of blog entries about it next year.

All these problems should not lead us to conclusion that it is better to refrain from making anthropology public and retreat in our academic ivory tower. I think I have made clear why. There are several ways in which anthropologists can make their knowledge easily available for a wider audience and receive feedbak about it. A blog is a very good, works for me. Another way is working with journalists as Nancy Scheper-Hughes (certainly an example for me) shows in an issue of Anthropology Today, quoted at Lorenzo’s Antropologi.info. In her view this can help not only responding to public issues, but also making issues public issues as she tried to do with the Organs Watch Project. All of this is a lot of work because it means to work double time; not only responding to teaching obligations and the academic ‘publish or perish’ structure but also for example as I did giving a lecture at one o’clock at night on some obscure chat room that people only care about if they call for jihad or to respond to all of the vile and sometimes threatening comments here in a personal manner trying to find out what the person wants to say.
Nancy Scheper-Hughes: Public anthropology through collaboration with journalists

Paraphrasing Hortense Powdermaker: you want to be a public anthropologist – then do it! I always did. But don’t expect to be rewarded for it. Instead, consider it a precious right and a privilege. Be grateful that, despite the tendency of bureaucratic intuitions toward social con servatism, we can still ‘do what we want and get away with it too!’

Together with my colleague Henk Driessen from Radboud University I’m planning to organizing an international workshop on anthropology and publicity in 2010, I will keep you updated on that. Let me finish by saying thank you to my readers, commenters, colleagues, my informants and all others who have helped me with my weblog and research. And beware: I’m planning to ‘get away with it’  for another 10 years.

If you want to stay updated and did not subscribe yet, you can do so HERE

7 comments.

Claude-Lévi Strauss overleden (100 jaar)

Posted on November 4th, 2009 by martijn.
Categories: anthropology.

De Franse antropoloog Lévi-Strauss is in de nacht van zaterdag op zondag overleden, één maand voor zijn 101e verjaardag. Lévi-Strauss gold als de grondlegger van het Franse structuralisme. Belangrijk in zijn werk was de opvatting dat woorden, tekens, signalen zelf geen betekenis genereren. Het netwerk, de onderlinge relaties waarin die woorden, tekens en signalen zijn opgenomen genereert de verschillen tussen de dingen en die verschillen hebben betekenis. waarin ze zijn opgenomen produceert die betekenis. Het is de sociale context van de mensen, de relaties die mensen onderhouden die bepalen wat een mens is en wat hij kan zijn. In een bespreking in NRC vorig jaar legt Lemaire dit heel helder uit aan de hand van Lévi-Strauss zelf:
Lang leve het wilde denken | NRC Boeken

In de laatste door hem gepubliceerde essaybundel doet de Franse antropoloog Claude Lévi-Strauss een kleine ontdekking. Hij leest het muziektheoretische werk van de volstrekt vergeten 18de-eeuwse violist en componist Michel Paul Guy de Chabanon, op zoek naar een antwoord op de vraag wat voor taal de muziek eigenlijk is. Een toon is niet meer dan geluid, zo schrijft Chabanon, en geluid betekent op zichzelf helemaal niks. De elementen waaruit de muziek is opgebouwd zijn niet op zichzelf van belang, maar alleen hun relaties. Pas door hun contrast krijgen ze zeggingskracht en kunnen ze oproepen wat de componist tot uitdrukking wil brengen.

Lévi Strauss is bij het grote publiek waarschijnlijk beter bekend door zijn reisverslag Tristes Tropiques (Het trieste der tropen) uit 1955. Behalve een mooi reisverslag (en lees het vooral ook als zodanig) is het (zoals Lemaire stelt) een prachtige levendige inleiding in de structurele antropologie.Lang leve het wilde denken | NRC Boeken

In Het trieste der tropen beschrijft Lévi- Strauss hoe hij aan het eind van de jaren dertig als universitair docent sociologie in Sao Paulo een aantal expedities onderneemt naar indiaanse stammen in de Braziliaanse binnenlanden. Volstrekt ongerept zijn de meeste al niet meer. Sommige verkeren al bijna in ontbinding tegenover de almaar oprukkende westerse beschaving. Maar toch komt hij onder de indruk van het vernuft waarmee deze culturen hun onderlinge relaties organiseren, hun clanverhoudingen inrichten en de patronen daarvan op symbolische wijze tot uitdrukking brengen in hun tatoeages, gelaatsbeschilderingen en mythen.

Lévi-Strauss paste de inzichten die hij opdeed ook toe op de Westerse samenleving en stelde bijvoorbeeld dat het idee van de Westerse superioriteit onhoudbaar was omdat elke samenleving (dus ook de Westerse) enkele basisregels kent bijvoorbeeld met betrekking tot leven en dood.

Op Youtube kunnen we een serie van zeven filmpjes vinden van een interview met Lévi-Strauss (Engelse ondertiteling):
Deel 1
[flashvideo filename=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u73chpnKKhQ /]
Deel 2
[flashvideo filename=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlXLSntKq3Q /]
Deel 3
[flashvideo filename=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNzPYvJ2BqM /]
Deel 4
[flashvideo filename=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fItjgGIrGBU /]
Deel 5
[flashvideo filename=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6fOch0tt3A /]
Deel 6
[flashvideo filename=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tp9wLrM3-VI /]
Deel 7
[flashvideo filename=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDFVEC2ourE /]

1 comment.

Dai Cooper: The Anthropology Song – A little bit anthropologist

Posted on October 28th, 2009 by martijn.
Categories: anthropology.

It’s a small hit on Youtube: more than 27,000 people already watched the video in which anthropology student Dai Cooper sings about her passion for anthropology. I can do and say many things about why anthropology is important, why it is fun and why it is relevant for society, but I don’t know anyone who has explained it so clearly. She is invited to sing the song at the upcoming AAA-meeting. Lorenzo (who else?) at antropologi.info did an interview with her:
Interview: Meet Dai Cooper from The Anthropology Song!

– Why do you address your parents in the song?

– I love my parents, and they’re definitely the people who have supported me the most through my education. They always pay really close attention to the things I’m passionate about, and I’m really grateful for that. At the same time, it’s challenged me to ask myself some of the same questions that they’ve had so what exactly is Anthropology, anyway? Why are you studying it again? and I think in many ways the song addresses some of those same questions. So the song is sincerely dedicated to them.

[…]

– Really inspirational ones! I was just expressing happiness and inspiration through the song, and apparently that’s made a lot of other people happy and inspired too, which is wonderful. Anthropology to me is all about human connexions, and it’s been so amazing to feel like people from all over the world have been feeling those connexions with each other through the song.

I will use the song in some of the courses I teach. And now it is time for you to watch and listen of course:
[flashvideo filename=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHv6rw6wxJY /]
Also read the lyrics and the comments over at Youtube.

1 comment.

Anthrosource Free Access and Top 20

Posted on October 9th, 2009 by martijn.
Categories: anthropology, Important Publications.

As a preview to to FREE ACCESS to 10+ years of Anthrosource content in November and December, AAA and Wiley-Blackwell invite you to view the Top 25 Anthrosource Articles of 2009. Below you can see the complete list of these must reads!

0 comments.

Riotous Rotterdam – Ethnography in the Netherlands

Posted on September 21st, 2009 by martijn.
Categories: anthropology, Blogosphere, Multiculti Issues.

I don’t think there that many people from abroad who are doing ethnographic research in the Netherlands. Which is a pity. The country is small, travelling is easy and Dutch may seem a difficult language but many people also speak (some kind of) English. In particular with regard to integration, islam, radicalization, migrants, multiculturalism and so on, a lot is happening here and many of the transnational debates about these issues have a particular local flavor.

One of the exceptions doing research here is Ms. Long from Canada. Her Ph.D project on constructing national identity through space in the Netherlands aims at understanding the relationship between Dutch Muslims and Dutch natives by looking at how people interpret their belonging (and not belong) in relation to specific places and how this is influenced by national and Islamophobic sentiments.

Besides this very interesting topic she also holds a weblog: Riotous Rotterdam where she blogs about her experiences as a researcher, PhD student, migrant and so on. The next entry is exemplary in the sense that it not only combines all those aspects and also makes clear what good ethnographic research is about:

Riotous Rotterdam: Lost in Transit

I followed all the steps to buy a ticket at the machine (the station is under construction so there is no ticketbooth with an actual person) yet when I went to pay, none of my cards would work! Debit yes, but only for a Dutch bank, Chipcard yes (of which I own one) but it didn’t have the 24 Euros on it that I needed to get to Amsterdam Centraal. After fidgeting and becoming exasperated I noticed that a line had accumulated behind me and I tried to cancel out of my purchase so others could go ahead of me. Just when I thought all is lost, the man behind me asked if he could help. He ended up purchasing my ticket on his card to which I gave him money – Thank goodness. As it turns out this man was an audio technician who has travelled all over the world creating speaking podiums, concert halls, and the like. He had spent much time in Iran and had an opinion on the state of affairs in Rotterdam with regard to how Muslims living here choose their identity. He believed that religious identity had become a cultural identity for some, and that the distinction between these identities was lost to both those adopting the label ‘Muslim’ and those native Dutch who conflated the religious and cultural identities of individuals. Heavy talk for 10 in the morning but it works for me!

This man also informed me that my ticket to Amsterdam Centraal would not take me to the station that I was trying to go to, Amsterdam-Sloterdijk. The conductor on the train also surmised that I would have to get out and buy the extra ticket at the Central train station that would take me the one train stop further or I could take my chances with the next conductor who would switch over at the Centraal station. ‘It’s okay’, he said, ‘you have 5 minutes between when we arrive and when we leave again, so you can run to get your ticket’. Great.

So our train arrives and I’m waiting by the doors. I run downstairs to the ticket machines and search on the screen for Sloterdijk…Sloterdijk…Sloterdijk…but it’s nowhere. Arg! So I queue up with other passengers to ask at the information desk. The line-up took a while and when I finally told her my issue, she gave me a mothering look, “well that’s because you’re looking for Amsterdam-Sloterdijk, darling” Ah, yes, I should have known. So back to the machine, I go through all the steps (which station, first or second class, single or return, full price or discount) when I realise…this machine ALSO doesn’t take any of my cards and while it was only 2,20 Euros to the next stop…I was 30 cents short! So I walked into the nearest shop to purchase a small drink to get change meanwhile giving up on the idea that I would make the same train but that I would catch the next one. Wait in line, purchase a water, walk back to the ticket machine, purchase the ticket, walk slowly to the train listing on the wall when I realise…I still had one minute to make the train! So I’m running back through the station up platform 8a run up the flight of stairs just in time…to see the doors close and the train pull away.

I should also add that throughout the rest of the day I proceeded to lock myself out of my mobile (the mobile I have here has a pin code that I must be entered when it’s turned back on which I forgot in the safety of my room in Rotterdam), mix-up where I was suppose to check out of the metro thus docking my Chipcard to the point where I couldn’t afford another route (so I got off and tried to walk, got lost and fed up, got back on the tram and paid for another ticket) and then had to pay for both internet time and a pay phone card in order to meet with my colleague who is doing research in Amsterdam. Phew. If it feels like a wild ride just reading the blog I was very very very tired yesterday when I finally stepped back into the flat. Although I was lost in/through/around transit at points during my day, I did make some wonderful contacts and learn quite a lot. I look forward to the next time I visit Amsterdam…but maybe next time I’ll take a smoother ride.

Ok, forget what I wrote about ‘easy travelling’ but it is exactly these kind of experiences that makes ethnography difficult, exhausting and so rewarding.

Ms. Long also has a colleague who does ethnographic research in Poland and yes she is also blogging about it.
Notorious Nowa Huta

Using Nowa Huta as a case study, my research looks at the changes that have taken place in Poland over the past twenty years, the ways in which people of different generations remember the socialist past, and what their memories can tell us about people’s lives in contemporary Poland.

Both researches and blogs are very interesting to monitor which I certainly will do for the time to come. And if there are other researchers from abroad working in the Netherlands I would love to hear it!

0 comments.

Antropologie, financiële crisis en islamitisch bankieren

Posted on July 28th, 2009 by martijn.
Categories: anthropology, Multiculti Issues.

In Time Magazine een interessant interview met Karen Ho, een antropologe die gewerkt heeft bij een firma op Wall Street en recent gepromoveerd is op een onderzoek naar de cultuur van Wall Street, gepubliceerd als Liquidated: An Ethnograpy of Wall Street.
What’s Wrong with the Culture of Wall Street? – TIME

[She] was fascinated by how even in the midst of an economic boom, corporate downsizings were rampant — and how each time a company announced a major layoff, its stock rallied. What she found from her perch at Bankers Trust — and later in interviews with people at firms such as Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, Salomon Brothers, Kidder Peabody and Lazard — was that it wasn’t just an ideological commitment to boosting shareholder value that drove decisions to merge, break up and restructure companies, but also the work culture of Wall Street itself.

Belangrijk in haar verhaal en in de cultuur van Wall Street is dat alle zekerheden en stabiliteit weg lijkt te zijn.
What’s Wrong with the Culture of Wall Street? – TIME

What I found in my research was that in many ways investment bankers and how they approach work became a model for how work should be conducted. Wall Street shapes not just the stock market but also the very nature of employment and what kinds of workers are valued. These firms sit at the nexus — they are the financial advisers and sources of expertise to major U.S. corporations and institutional investors — and from this highly empowered middle-man role, what they say has a lot of influence. The model that came to be dominant in the 1980s was one of constant change. The idea is that there’s a lot of dead wood out there and people should be constantly moving, in lockstep with the market. If a company isn’t constantly restructuring and changing, then it’s stagnant and inefficient, a big lumbering brick.
[…]
Wall Street bankers understand that they are liquid people. It’s part of their culture. I had bankers telling me, “I might not be at my job next year so I’m going to make sure to get the biggest bonus possible.” I had bankers who advised the AOL–Time Warner merger saying, “Oh, gosh, this might not work out, but I probably won’t be here when it doesn’t work out.” I looked at them like, “What?” Their temporality is truncated.

Zij pleit dan ook veranderingen aangezien de recente crisis volgens haar nauwelijks heeft geleid tot veranderingen in de cultuur.
What’s Wrong with the Culture of Wall Street? – TIME

I would hope that folks in the Obama Administration would somehow link bonuses to long-term corporate productivity or long-term shareholder value — long-term meaning four to five years instead of five months or a year — and reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act [that separated investment and commercial banking]. These are big reforms, but they’d give you a more stable landscape to make even more changes. Part of what I learned is that the very kinds of daily practices that created the boom in the first place — wanting to book as many deals as possible for short-term bonuses, a workplace structured so that they’re knowingly not there for very long — paved the way for the bust. I talked to bankers who said, “When we do deals like this, we’re probably at the top of the market.” They knew. It’s not simply that busts always follow booms.

Opvallend is dat zij in het interview (ik ken het boek niet) vooral lijkt te pleiten voor een structuur verandering bij het bankieren. Dat is iets waar het bij ook om lijkt te draaien. Mede door de financiële crisis lijkt het alsof islamitisch bankieren met een opmars bezig is of dat mogelijk zou kunnen doen.
islamitisch bankierenIslamic Banking: Steady in Shaky Times – washingtonpost.com

The theological underpinning of Islamic banking is scripture that declares that collection of interest is a form of usury, which is banned in Islam. In the modern world, that translates into an attitude toward money that is different from that found in the West: Money cannot just sit and generate more money. To grow, it must be invested in productive enterprises.

“In Islamic finance you cannot make money out of thin air,” said Amr al-Faisal, a board member of Dar al-Mal al-Islami, a holding company that owns several Islamic banks and financial institutions. “Our dealings have to be tied to actual economic activity, like an asset or a service. You cannot make money off of money. You have to have a building that was actually purchased, a service actually rendered, or a good that was actually sold.”

In the Western world, bankers designing investment instruments have to satisfy government regulators. In Islamic banking, there is another group to please — religious regulators called a sharia board. Finance lawyers work closely with Islamic finance scholars, who study and review a product before issuing a fatwa, or ruling, on its compliance with sharia law.

Nadat de crisis in volle omvang bekend werd, kreeg ik vanuit diverse (salafi en non-salafi) hoeken diverse stukken toegestuurd waarin de zegeningen van het islamitisch bankieren (boven dat van het ‘westerse’) werden beschreven.
Can Islam Save The Economy? | Economy | ReligionDispatches

In the midst of a global financial crisis one sector has yet to suffer the fate of the rest. Islamic finance, or Sharia-compliant banking, offers strict moral guidelines for dealing with money. Trading debt and risky speculation are off-limits, as is investment in immoral enterprises like gambling, prostitution, and war profiteering. It might be time to get the muftis on the phone.

Gezien de sterke groei die er al was, lijkt er misschien inderdaad een kans te liggen.
IslamiCity.com – Can Islam Save The Economy?

Islam, the theorists believe, offers a distinct alternative to the other big-picture political economic options, capitalism and communism. By incorporating both markets and redistribution, they see it as the best of both worlds. After the two mega-ideologies spent the Cold War fighting over the allegiances of Muslim countries, the Soviet Union collapsed and now global capitalism is grinding to a halt as well. Islamists suspect that the reason Muslim countries remain impoverished is a fundamental incompatibility between these Western economics systems and the values that Muslim cultures hold dear. Now, perhaps, is the time for a third option to have its chance.

At the very least, suggests Boston University anthropologist Robert Hefner in a recent essay, these theories “provide a fascinating point of entry into the thoughts of Muslim leaders on global capitalism.”

We moeten het specifieke van deze banken echter ook niet overdrijven, hetgeen wellicht wel gebeurt wanneer we puur naar de theoretische en theologische grondslagen kijken. IslamiCity.com – Can Islam Save The Economy?

In the process of becoming competitive, though, Islamic banks may have lost some of the values they claim to be founded on. The theorists’ original hopes for fostering more ethical consumer preferences hasn’t taken hold in the banking culture. Bill Maurer, who has studied Islamic banks in South Asia and the United States, says these institutions aren’t much different from other banks, despite some conspicuous signs of piety like prayer rooms and conservative clothing. Working at one doesn’t mean joining a monastery. “A lot of the time,” adds Maurer, “it’s the same kind of drudgery and tedium that any old bank employee is dealing with.”

Among those in the West who have been following the progress of Islamic finance, Turkish-born Timur Kuran is the most skeptical. “Endeavoring to implement Islamic economics,” he writes in his book Islam and Mammon, both bankers and governments inevitably “recognize its unrealism.” While the earliest experiments depended on genuine partnerships and risk-sharing, the bulk of today’s Islamic transactions use instruments that differ only in name from what a conventional bank offers. In one of the most popular and long-practiced of these, murabaha, the bank buys an item for the client, who then in turn buys it from the bank, along with a premium that cleaves suspiciously close to the conventional interest rate. Religious scholars agree that the transaction is acceptable, even if the bank owns the item for just a millisecond. Pure in God’s eyes, perhaps, but there is nearly no difference in economic terms. Kuran and others have also pointed out that during the medieval period, when the Sharia guidelines for commerce were developed, nothing resembling a modern bank existed. There was no legal provision for such an institution to outlive individual owners, as nowadays a bank of any scale must.

Islamitisch bankieren is, zoals de al eerder genoemde Hefner in zijn essay al laat zien, vooral een modern antwoord op het (westerse) kapitalisme en niet zozeer een complete verwerping ervan. De ogenschijnlijk toenemende belangstelling voor islamitisch bankieren heeft denk ik echter niet alleen betrekking op een gevoelde noodzaak voor structuurverandering in de bankiersector, maar ook op een hernieuwd etnisch appèl voor de sector. Karen Ho’s onderzoek, zo valt toch wel te lezen tussen de regels in Time Magazine door, is eigenlijk deels ook een pleidooi voor een ethische reflectie op eigen belang, voortdurende verandering en onzekerheid en de dreiging van ontslag, temeer omdat deze niet alleen betrekking heeft op de banksector, maar ook is doorgesijpeld naar andere sectoren in de VS omdat de Wallstreet-cultuur (ook al is wat essentialistisch benaderd) niet alleen de aandelensector vormt, maar ook van invloed is op ideeen over wat voor type arbeiders ‘we’ willen hebben. (Iets dat ook anderen al hebben laten zien.) Of dit nu daadwerkelijk betekent dat islamitisch bankieren een grote vlucht zal nemen is nog maar de vraag overigens. Ook andere alternatieve bankiers die claimen een groter ethisch besef te hebben, doen het redelijk goed, maar dat wil nog niet zeggen dat het systeem daadwerkelijk gaat veranderen.

6 comments.

Anthropology on the web – the culture of youtube

Posted on May 15th, 2009 by martijn.
Categories: anthropology, Blogosphere, Method, Research Tools.

Of course, anthropology is one of the most important and interesting studies one can imagine. I know, I’m an anthropologist. But what does an anthropologist actually do? And why should you study it? Well the next video on Youtube gives a nice impression

[flashvideo filename=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xErJAsZo2Pw /]

One of the things we do in anthropology is observe,  analyze the mediation of culture. We can show how cultures are mediated by posting videos on Youtube. At the same time however Youtube is also one of the mediums through which cultures are mediated, so also Youtube can be studied as an ethnographic field:

[flashvideo filename=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYcS_VpoWJk /]

And as an anthropologist posting your own videos on the web is actually a particular form of participant observation; one of the (if not the) most important characteristic of the ethnographic / anthropological method. Of course doing research on Youtube and, as a part of that, participate in it brings about a lot of issues pertaining to method, interpretation of the medium and the mediated messages that call for a reflection on the ethnographic studies of Youtube based upon anthropological methods:

[flashvideo filename=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPAO-lZ4_hU /]

For the most part the latter two videos have a clear celebratory message about the emancipatory possiblities and Youtube as a source of belonging and connecting to others. The latter video in the end also shows some attention of ‘drama’ on Youtube but there is a lack of attention (in many web studies I think) of the disciplining aspects of the medium. What does it mean for identities or religious messages to mediated through visual culture? How does the medium force people into displaying their messages and get their messages heard and seen on the web?

The first video appears on many anthropological websites such as Anthropologist about Town. The other two (Introducting Our Youtube Ethnography Project and An Anthropological Introduction to Youtube) are part of the Mediated Cultures website where you can find several more Youtube videos. Mediated Cultures is a group led by Dr. Michael Wesch dedicated to exploring and extending the possibilities of digital ethnography. The blog from this working group has many interesting posts ranging from ethnographic tools for the internet such as SmartPen, to impressions of the Youtube content.

Another example is AnthroVlog of Patricia G. Lange who uses her weblog as a site for participating in online video communities, experimenting with tools, too learn how a site/weblog actually ‘works’ and as a means for exchanging ideas. Besides the posts she also provides us with some of the papers she has written for example on social networking and the issue of private and public and on youth, identity and online community.

The Internet offers a range of possibilities for anthropologists and the work of Michael Wesh with Youtube and that of Patricia Lange is fascinating. Moreover, the participation of students in it, make it highly relevant for teaching as well. Perhaps we should do things in the Netherlands too?

2 comments.

« Previous Page « Newer