Read on Twitter
Agonizing read on the state of our professional organization. The authors raise an important question of who AAA serves. I've had a lot of thoughts on the AAA and how it functions, based on some years of serving on it in various capacities, and I want to share some of them here https://twitter.com/FootnotesAnthro/status/1356965793016254466
It's crucial to remember that AAA has two personnel aspects, organization staff and various term-limited elected or nominated leadership positions, which are filled by anthropologists who usually hold other jobs, and are doing unpaid service.
It can be a lot of work, depending on what's going on and what needs to be addressed. It's certainly a lot of emailing, meetings and writing of documents, ie a huge time commitment. Much if not all of this work is done by anthropologist colleagues, with advice from AAA staff
I became a member somewhere partly through grad school. I couldn't really afford it, and I think I maybe attending one meeting while in grad school. But not long after I got my PhD, I became a AAA leadership fellow, and started serving in the AAA after that.
I served in the committee for labor relations for a while, then I was the elected labor seat in the MPAAC. I think I served for a total of 6 years or so? I served because I wanted the AAA to be better, I thought I could make change from the inside. I was wrong.
So I want to draw on my experience serving in the AAA to talk about something the Footnotes authors say in the beginning of the post, that "members have an opportunity to reflect on, and potentially reshape, the institution" through serving on it. I want to encourage caution here
The people who work hard within institutions to make change often do so at great personal cost. It's an uphill battle, especially if one is a student, from a minoritized group, or has other major calls on their time. But people do it anyway
But along with the crucial question of who the AAA serves, we must ask how it does so. Anthropology is rooted in colonialism and white supremacy. US anthropology, in particular, is rooted in a sense of its own self-importance. It dominates. This is our ethos.
The AAA is, consequently, also rooted in that ethos. I'm not going to comment on diversity in AAA staff or leadership, bc I don't have that information, and besides, its possible for an institution to uphold a colonialist culture even when it has minoritized leadership. How? Well
Radical change dies in the labyrinth of bureaucracy. My experience serving in the AAA was that there were far too many (legal, bureaucratic, procedural) reasons for why we _couldn't_ say or do change-oriented things, and too few ways in which we could.
Institutions built on systems of privilege are built to uphold those systems of privilege. The AAA is no exception. In effect, regardless of the desires and efforts of the individuals who populate leadership positions, the parameters of possible action are constrained and slowed
to be clear, I want to support our colleagues who serve on AAA, many of whom I know, and I know how hard they work to effect change and respond to members' needs. This is expressly not an indictment of individuals.
I'm not even saying don't serve. Rather, this is mostly a note of caution for anyone who wants to serve, that change in the organization imo is inherently and intrinsically incremental, slow, and limited. The org itself must be structurally overhauled for real change to happen
That cannot happen unless US anthropology, all of us in US academia, esp tenured folks, and the AAA in particular reckon with the mess that is our discipline. The goals of our professional organization need to be realigned with the concerns and shape of our time
I resigned from AAA leadership for reasons not immediately related to my frustrations with working there, but it did take a toll on me. I felt like I struggled constantly against the impossibility of change and of care for all US anthros, not just members
Diversity in any org is also something to consider. Who serves, who is able to, who is represented, who has a platform, who has a voice, who has access to information and opportunity, how transparent is it, all these are inclusivity-related questions and the AAA fails at them
Do we need to make our prof org better? Undoubtedly, yes. Can we? I'm less sure. Not without a major, major overhaul. It's not geared to do the things we want it to do. If you want to serve, I just want to say to keep that in clear sight.
Ultimately, I think it's worth considering if we need a professional org. I realize this is a very provocative question, but it's worth thinking about in this new world we occupy. The AAA, as it is, serves the _discipline_, not anthropologists. We need something else for that.
One last quick note--I put the onus of responsibility for change on academic anthros not bc I'm not thinking of anthros outside academia, but bc institutional disciplinary power esp in AAA is situation in academia. That, too, needs to change.
