ivory tower.

i told myself i would never take another anthropology course again, but alexis convinced me to sit-in on a grant-writing class in the department, which seemed rather innocuous and possibly helpful in at least teaching me some skills i could use in this current economic climate. it's not that i don't like anthropology, and its sub-field of archaeology has made many priceless contributions to the history of humanity and civilization. sitting around a rectangle of tables, conference-style, we introduce ourselves, including a short blurb about our research interests in addition to our obligatory name and department info. i have had two anthropology courses thus far, and hearing others' research interests is always an eyebrow-raising experience - a single eyebrow raising experience.

perhaps my background in sociology has jaded my view of anthropology. for years, i never knew the difference between the two, aside from the fact that it was anthro's archaeology that imparted us with indiana jones. a brief clarification once came from a sociology professor, who let me know that despite being essentially the same, anthropology studies the other, while sociology studies ourselves. nevertheless, the divide today is rooted more in dogma rather than actual methodological and theoretical difference. perhaps the technicality really is that simple, but i have refused to believe it - the cultures are different. listening to other students' research interests, i raise an eyebrow to obscure topics, which would seem to make little impact in today's changing world. perhaps my peer groups have also jaded my view in the sense that my friends and i have always looked for ways to enrich society, protect the environment, and improve our futures.

as what seems like the historian of the social sciences, anthropology often appears to solely study the past and the present, providing "thick descriptions" of tiny communities of native peoples in far-off places, rarely concerning itself with future change, problems, and solutions. treating foreign places, peoples, places, and cultures as exotic and in need of some type of "making-sense-of" by the civilized peoples of the new world, anthropology creates white-collar theories for discussion around the hearth in oak-paneled rooms over snifters of brandy, nay armagnac. newsflash: the nineteenth century is over. africa, once a hotbed for anthropologists, "is so nineties," i joke with peers. the processes, systems, and legacy of colonialization has lost its sex appeal, and the dark continent has become passé. indonesia has become the new africa, and anthropologists have relocated from arid savannas to tropical jungles in the search of the next frontier.

in one former anthropology class, heather and i sit back as students around us make ivory-tower chit-chat with the professor. what are we going to do [about it]? heather asks. i don't know, the professor replies dismissively, as if it was never his job to "do" but rather to "theorize." applied theories are too blue-collar for anthropology. "doing" is irrelevant, unimportant, and the fact that such a question was asked, merely revealed us as foreigners to the field. perhaps we should be the ones studied - for our exotic and savage desires to make a difference in the world.

i admit that taking anthropology courses have indeed left me with new perspectives from which to view and analyze my interests, but the field is elitist and unwelcoming. students who are non-anthropology are made aware of the fact, and after brief introductions in this simple grant-writing class, the four of us planning students are kicked out - kicked out without hostility, but excluded nonetheless. this is the first anthropology course from which i have been disbarred; for alexis, the second. i remind myself i said i would never take another anthropology course again.

our ambition should be to rule ourselves, the true kingdom for each one of us;
and true progress is to know more, and be more, and to do more.
: wilde.