What am I looking at?
This question, posed time and again, grew more difficult to answer each passing hour. I was surprised that I did not become bored and that there was so much to see and think about in this site where humans were fleeting. Yet I struggled time and again to tighten my focus on each plant. My sketches piled up, certainly growing a bit more sure of hand and sharp of image. But did I get closer to knowing these plants? My thoughts flowed in ways I would not have imagined or could not have otherwise, which my field notes document. But in reading over three days’ worth, in writing this chapter, I realize there is little I scribbled down that will help me convey to you much about the vegetative forms I was seeing. But field notes are only the beginning of ethnographic description, the expectations of which are starting to shift.
Paradoxically, my confidence that this is indeed ethnography increases as my anxieties multiply. They are all ones I recognize as common to fieldwork. First, I worry, ‘What if my site is uninteresting?’ What if nothing happens here? What if no one will talk to me? I get that last one out of the way pretty quickly. The plants and I will not be “speaking” as I’m foregoing linguistic models of data and analysis as much as possible. Or at least, I certainly will not talk to them directly, though there are suggestions that this would have a favorable effect on the plants. Continue reading
Second Step: Find a location; identify subjects.
On my return to Spain in 2013, I start out in the botanical garden in Valencia. Where would be the best place to try this out? I have two requisites: sufficient shade and a spot to sit; ideally with little human traffic, so I can concentrate on the plants without distraction. Based on my previous visit, I vaguely sense these criteria can be met in the muntanyeta (“little mountain,”) section, the Valencian rockery, so I head there. Continue reading
This gallery contains 2 photos.
[comments for the 2015 AAA Roundtable: Force and Power in the Anthropocene: Muse Words, by John Hartigan] The Anthropocene posits a very powerful species, one whose presence has registered even on the densely slow scale of the Earth’s geology. But … Continue reading
Over the course of my fieldwork on botanical gardens in Spain, I began worrying I wasn’t paying enough attention to the plants and that I would only end up analyzing representations. Acting on this concern led me to seek out techniques and epistemological problems involving plants, which I could deploy and engage ethnographically. The results follow, in a nine-part serial installment.
First step: Read the Lit.
My first step in engaging plants directly was to contact Natasha Myers at York University, since she is a leading figure in critical plant studies. Her ethnographic research also focuses on plant scientists, but ones whose work is more keyed to issues of sentience or intelligence. She settled into a considered pause when I asked how I might go about interviewing a plant in my field site. Continue reading
In 1799, on a long march across Egypt, Napoleon’s army quenched its collective thirst with water that, soldiers later learned, was filled with little stowaways. En mass, soldiers’ throats and bellies swelled; few ate or slept; they vomited; several died. Water-borne eggs had hatched into microscopic worms that bit and hung onto the inside of soldiers’ mouths, noses, and throats, where they gorged on men’s blood and grew into full-sized leeches.
This is one among many stories that stick from a remarkable new book by Robert Kirk and Neil Pemberton. Readers here know the virtues of Hartigan’s Aesop’s Anthropology, and I want to add another winner to the list of multispecies must-reads: Kirk and Pemberton’s Leech. Continue reading
The Washington Post is reporting on recent research by entomologist Emily Hartop (Natural History Museum of Los Angeles), who just identified 30 new species of flies in a survey of backyards and gardens in LA. That’s a stunning quantity in such a densely occupied area, especially one whose pollution and industry can seem so hostile to life. But the news here is as much about the blind spots of natural science research. As Hartop relates, “cosmopolitan species are really understudied… Unfortunately, a lot of scientists haven’t actually studied the cities where they live.” Urban areas still are infrequent sites for wildlife research, but the NHM’s bioSCAN project is certainly a generative example of how that situation might change.
More than just revealing the everyday routine ignorance of or obliviousness to other species, a hurdle here is the scholarly division of labor for knowledge of species. Continue reading
Rooting around among accounts of nonhumans—as I regularly do in listening to my biological anthropology colleagues and, more widely, in the pursuit of multispecies ethnography—I was surprised to come across “life history” as an analytic. My associations with the term have always involved humans. Indeed, I availed myself of this standard ethnographic method during the course of my fieldwork in Detroit, when the “hillbillies” I was studying turned violent. I had to find more tranquil sources, so I began talking with older residents of the neighborhood, asking them to tell me their life histories so I could compile an “insiders” view of that part of Detroit. But ethnographers don’t have a monopoly on this method. Continue reading
In racial analysis, the focus is predominantly on dynamics of othering or dehumanization. This draws into view how police officer Darren Wilson clearly saw a monster—“like a demon” or “Hulk Hogan,” not speaking, just making “a grunting, like aggravated sound”—rather than a human when he fired at Michael Brown. But this is only part of how race works; these perceptions are buttressed and arguably preceded by recognitions of sameness. This is key to understanding the way whites are able to recognize and favor each other, socially, economically, and politically. But the operations of sameness extend across the line between human and nonhuman that seems so central to othering or dehumanization, and perhaps this is a deep source of its power. Consider the extensions of personhood and protection to pets. Continue reading
What just happened in Anthropology? In the 2013 annual meeting there were zero abstracts or paper or panel titles featuring the word “Anthropocene”; this year there were 64! Compare that with “multispecies,” which has held steady at between 16-23 invocations after it first made its appearance in the program in 2010.[i] Why the surge of interest? More importantly, given overlapping concerns highlighted by these two keywords, why the sudden prevalence of one over the other? Continue reading