The Politics of Knowledge and the Elite-ing of the Entrepreneur

My first day at the American Anthropological Association has been a complete blur.  The behemoth that they call a program guide, and the mass of anthropologists convening in the hotel lobby have left me at once breathless, amazed and, as one professor put it "bright-eyed and bushy tailed!"  So much to learn, so many people to meet, so many opportunities to expand my mind.

However, some of my earliest sessions quickly put a damper, or rather lifted the veil of ignorance/naivete that  I had on prior to attending the conference.  I went to one session early yesterday morning, with two very distinguished professors, Dr. George Mentore (UVA) and Dr. Michael Harking (U of Wyoming), both of whom are or have been editors of major Anthropological journals.  They were giving a workshop on how to get published in a peer reviewed anthropological journal.  I found what tidbits they gave to be quite interesting, and not too surprising.  For example, don't just write something because you think you ought to - write something because you believe in it.  Write something you can defend, that you have done your research on, etc.  They explained that often young writers are 'run through the gauntlet' of professional academics who will challenge their ideas and assumptions, purely because they can.  However, if you fully agree with and stand by your statement, that it is not worth sacrificing the integrity of your views, just to have a gold star of a "published author" next to your name.  

Then Dr. Mentore said a phrase that caught my attention.  He called it the "Politics of Knowledge," that is knowing who you are writing for, his or her views, and how you can state your own views to advance your own career, without pissing off the 'academic elite' (my words).  The phrase Politics of Knowledge really struck a chord with me, as a knowledge worker.  Much of what I do, or rather the consulting industry, the political industry, the media and much of what we consider white collar workers do is distribute knowledge.  Professors, too, and the education industry fall in this category as well.  As the economic trends of the 21st century have emerged and legitimized themselves, we begin to see that the economy of the future is one of knowledge (re) distribution.  The old moniker "Knowledge is Power" comes to mind.  And yet, the advent of the online medium for sharing knowledge has cast a light on the power structures within the knowledge economy.  

Bill Eggers writes in a recent article that in the new economy, workers will have to redefine themselves (and their skill sets) approximately every five years to remain relevant.  And that the knowledge one learns in college is no longer useful about five years into the professional workplace.  So then, if knowledge is power and there is a politics to knowledge, are the new social castes of the future going to be played out in who owns the knowledge, and who is seen as "gatekeepers" of the legitimacy of your knowledge?  Who will be the tenured professors of the future who, with the stroke of a pen (or a keypad) can legitimize or forever destroy ones' career?  

My theory is one that came from another talk at the AAA conference.  One by a graduate student, Leslie Mitts of University of Pennsylvania who argues that the new elite class is that of the entrepreneur - specifically those entrepreneurs who are employed within accelerator organizations.  She argues that these accelerators recruit like minded people, often from the same institutions of legitimacy as the Ivy League schools - perpetuating a an intense cycle of elitist knowledge holding and idea generation that is becoming harder and harder for the true average-joe entrepreneurs to crack.  And there is a new form of a co-presence of space in these accelerators, creating a whole new community, to which many want to belong (even if for a few months).  It is become another stamp or seal of approval to prove ones worth as an "independent and innovative thinker."  

I see it here in San Francisco  where you can't throw a stone without hitting  a so-called entrepreneur.  But yet, the very definition of an entrepreneur, as someone who "one who organizes, manages, and assumes the risks of a business or enterprise," with its root in the word 'enterprise' meaning "a project or undertaking that is especially difficult, complicated, or risky" is by its definition very vague and non-descript (definitions courtesy of Merriam Webster's Dictionary).  There is no limitation, nor should there be, to who can be an entrepreneur.  So then why in this new world of increasing focus on innovation and becoming the next Steve Jobs has it become something only the elite classes can accomplish to be taken legitimate?  

I believe in the next few years we need to be very careful and purposeful about how we manage knowledge - and the attitudes we take when sharing.  The beauty of the internet is that it allows for sharing, whether its an online blog that supersedes the 'institution' of a peer-reviewed journal, or that of an average person being able to learn about a new skill set or a new trade without having to pay for an expensive education - the lines of legitmacy of knowledge are being drawn.  We need to make certain that it is inclusive, and really come to question what isthe politics of knowledge - and how is it that we play as actors within it.  

Wine, running, voting and the anthropologist

I lifted the glass to my nose, inhaling deeply as the smell of earth, trees, leaves, and fresh air wafted up to my nose.  The slight acidity of grapes punctuated the fragrance, tingling all the way down to my toes.  I lifted the glass up, the purple liquid translucent in the sun.  "Swish, swish, swish."  The trails of the liquid on the side of the glass ran like fingers slowly to the bottom of the cup - tracing patterns of an art project long forgotten in the realms of the mind.  Finally, I lifted the glass to my lips - the liquid strong and pungent - rolling over my lips and tongues like liquid velvet.  I hold the liquid in my mouth for a moment, breathing in air like a whistle over the top to properly allow the full flavor of the wine to examine my senses.

I smile, I write down my thoughts, "Tastes of pepper and blackberries," - and smile at the wine maker, "good wine!"

**********
I put on the requisite equipment, moisture wicking material combined with enough layers to provide warmth but not hold my sweat against my skin.  I tie my shoelaces once, twice.  I position my watch on my wrist so that I can examine the time minimally without breaking strides, adjust my hat and ponytail and venture outside.  The cold air hits me like a blast but off I go...  one, two (breathe in) three, four (breathe out)... my feet pound the pavement.  Past the cemetery, across the bridge, and onto the Mall I go.  I pass visitors along the way, trying my best not to photo bomb, all the while my eyes fixed on the Capital in the distance, looming nearer with each step.  Pausing only for cars, and the occasional massive tour group, my body gets in a groove, like a well oiled machine.  Five, six, seven eight miles go by as I pass monuments to the great purveyors of our nation - salutes to the fallen, till I finally arrive back home, my mind coming out of a fog that only a long distance runner understands.

***********
My hands are an icy mess - I cannot feel my fingers.  My stomach rumbles with hunger - I typically eat before leaving the house in a rush.   I stand in a line that weaves back and forth on itself, my neighbors engaged in hushed conversation (not wanting to break any rules).  I finally make it inside the school, only to find myself with another 100 people still waiting in line.  I finally arrive at the front, my ID checked, my ballot given, I go up to a machine to exercise a right for which so many valiantly fought.  For a moment I am reminded that I stand on sacred ground - a ground which so many helped pave, and many still crave to participate in.  Amid the tumult of the pre-election season, and the me versus the other mentality that pervades, I look around me, at the shared community of voters and citizens, I smile, push my buttons and move on in my day....


*******
All these reflections above represent sacred rituals (both formal, but mainly informal) in which I've participated in the past two weeks.  Going to a winery for a tasting, going for a long distance run, and voting are all parts of shared experiences that are, at one time, a reflection of my own experiences and yet something shared within communities both recognized (like that of a voting precinct) and those a little less understood (the long distance runners groupies).  Nevertheless, each group has within it certain sacred practices, and sacred spaces.  Be it a bar in a winery - where you are meant to learn, discern and ultimately buy,  or the sacred space of a running path - where there are rules of etiquette on passing fellow runners.  Or more formally in the voting booths, where numerous discussion have been had in recent weeks on who 'belongs' to the community or not.

These topics all reflect the broader theme of this year's American Anthropological Association meeting "Borders & Crossings."  I am already excited at the themes to discover in the next few days, and I look forward to meeting many of my peers.  Now the question is - any suggestions on sessions to attend?

Presenting at the NAPA Expo

Attention all Anthropologists!  For those of you attending the AAA meetings in two weeks, just wanted to let you know that I will be hosting a booth at the NAPA Careers Expo on Friday from 11am - 4pm.  Please feel free to stop by, and say hi.  I will also be tweeting at @beth_schill.

The liminal 'Death' of the Corporation - Does it exist?

In my second post relating the concept of liminality to that of the corporate culture - I will start at the beginning of the liminal process: understanding whether or not corporations are going through the metaphorical change, or death, that is necessary to jump-start a new period of redefinition.

I found myself thinking of this in the aftereffects of Hurricane Sandy - which for many people in NY and NJ especially will find them in a real state of liminality much more real and have more real-life impact than any discourse that may be posted on this blog or other sites.  But that very question of an event that launches a community into a state of liminality is exactly, in my observation, what is missing to truly support the foundation that corporations are in a state of liminality.

For example, one could point as the advent of the internet as one of the factors that led to the state of liminality in which corporations are attempting to redefine themselves.  However, the impact of the internet has been one of gradual accumulation - taking place over years (over twenty to be  more specific).  Or perhaps was it the invention of Facebook and Twitter that enabled this change?   Well, yes both of those social networking tools have changed how organizations respond to their stakeholders (shareholders, workers, the public writ large).

Liminality theorists also bring up the idea of a group being in a constant state of liminality, such as Karl Jaspers' theory of axial ages, or Turner's thought that liminality can become fixed.  Both of these theories suppose that the community still follows the normal stages of the liminal process - and ends with some type of 'new world order.'

My proposition is thus:  what if there is no new world order?  What if the constant state of change and adaptation to consistent forms of communication (and thus a response) is a neo-liminal state, constantly in a state of upheaval, jumping from one messianic figure to the next - with tricksters popping up and disappearing all over the place?  The 24-hour news-cycle promoted by the media (and its subsequent impact on our culture and how we process and exchange information) can be a ripe example for further study of liminality.  It seems that the media jumps from one real or imagined crisis to the next, trying to be the messianic figure (leading its audiences to the Truth), while there are tricksters in the form of bloggers, conspiracy theorists, or even talk radio hosts who try to lead people in a different direction.

Would this lack of a new world order be, in and of itself a new world order according to the theories of liminality?   If so, who would guide?  I find this all fascinating and wonder if the answer to this line of questioning would help us better understand the impact of media saturation in the modern American corporate life.  How would corporate organizations take advantage of, or attempt to control the discourse to make the most of short-term profits?  One can only see how this all starts to get the wheels turning...

Liminality: the state of corporate (in)decision

Last night I was walking home from Chinese class.  It had been an odd couple of hours.  An alleged bomb threat had shut down all the buildings near my school, including the school building itself.  Although the 'all clear' was called, the staff had, nonetheless, left for the evening with a note on the doors indicating all classes were cancelled.  Not to be dismayed, my class of eager students (all six of us that showed up) ended up having a shortened class in a lounge in one of the nearby buildings.  It was not a normal evening.

As I walked home - a thick fog had descended upon the city.  The buildings where I lived were shrouded in a soft blanket - the city's hard edges looking like they had been gently rubbed away.  The light the buildings gave off gave the area a warm glow - much like that which occurs in the middle of a snowstorm.  Near my house there was a construction site, eerily quiet- with the white coverings from the windows flapping in the slight breeze - casting a ghostly look upon what during the day is a bustling site of economic progress.  It all seemed so surreal...

And that had me reflecting that evening on the state at which I think we find the corporate world in general today.  There is such rapid change going on that the precepts which have heretofore guided the decision-making of your colleagues seems to not hold up to the scrutiny and pressure facing many CEOs today.  For one, new pressures from non-Western markets change the amount and type of skin the game.  It is no longer just a matter of profits, but also a sense in many organizations of social responsibility.  Corporations are entering into a territory of liminality - and one can already see it occurring.

It is no surprise that the advent of social media has literally changed the world - with everything from corporations bowing under consumer pressure, to entire governments collapsing due to pressure from the people.  But when you examine the world of corporations this holds even more sway.  The one benefit of the 2008 financial crisis was that it wakened the public up to an entire secondary means of governance - that of the impact of corporate money and support on the public affairs of our governments.  All of a sudden  people cared about how much a CEO made, all of a sudden they saw the inconsistencies in social welfare.  When even warren buffet proclaims that a system of payment and 'rewards' is out of whack - then you know that the times are changing.

I was partly realized the impact of what this liminal state brings last night as I watched the "Half the Sky" documentary on PBS.  While I do read Nick Kristof, I do not always agree with his methods of raising awareness.  I think he pulls at the heartstrings of the 'other' and the 'foreign' and somehow latches onto that fascination that most Westerners have with the lifestyles long since forgotten in our world.  Nonetheless, what I appreciated about both his book and the documentary was the amount of attention int brought to serious issues around the world - and what a wide audience it has gathered.  I don't doubt that the organizations featured in the program will se ea wellspring of support from donors in the West - and no doubt an increase in awareness on the impact of our own actions, or rather inaction, on the lives of people thousands of miles away.

So why liminality and what do corporations have to do with this all?  There has been a trend recently, also with the advent of social media, to encourage the innovators of our world. Corporations are all seeking the next Steve Jobs, and are putting immense resources into encouraging innovative thinkers in their organizations - and the result is the very fabric of how corporations are structured is breaking down.  Take a simple example; the increase of Telework policies.  It is now a given fact that with the advent of mobile technology people do not have to be physically present in the same space every day to complete work (even education is feeling the brunt of this policy - but that is for another post).  The result is a workforce that now expects entirely different things from their employees - and it is changing the very dynamic of what it means to be a worker in a corporation.  A recent study by Deloitte actually examines this trend - and the greater impact it has on talent competitiveness in the overall American workforce.  And while I do not agree with all the conclusions of the authors as per the then relevant impact on higher education and vocational training - the very conclusion that the way the corporations do business is rapidly changing should raise eyebrows.

I was actually introduced to the concept of liminality in my first college lecture post 9/11.  I was a freshman, and my Anthropology 101 teacher, Dr. Andrew Shryock, explained the state we were all in in terms of liminality.  The new collective sense we had as Americans, the yearning for a leader figurehead - the presence of tricksters and those who want to take advantage of the situation for personal gain.  These are all present now.  Corporations as a whole are finding themselves in an unknown territory - and they are all equal in that grey fog.  While money continues to be the sacred object for which they all yearn, they recognize that the individual sacredness of profit is not dependent upon myriads of other factors that they really did not consider - for instance how instability in geographic locations can impact the supply line of goods that help to make a product.  And they yearn for leadership - a figure - the next Steve Jobs or Warren Buffet or any great leader to move them forward.

What this liminal state will look like is anyone's guess - but I think it is an incredibly exciting thing to watch.  In subsequent posts, I intend to look at the various aspects of liminality in more detail, so that we can better understand the changes in the world around us - and start, perhaps, to find our way out of the fog.

Movie Review of 和你在一起 (Together)

To those who read this blog, it may come as a surprise that I am presently enrolled in Chinese language classes.  Although I often write about Tibet, and experiences there, I believe that in order to understand a situation completely, one must be able to fully observe the opinions and lives of all those involved in any given situation.  Thus, in my scholastic examination of the impact of tourism in Tibet I should be able to examine and observe both the Tibetan and the Chinese points-of-view vis-a-vis the cultural implications of increasing tourism in the TAR.

Any scholar of Asian tourism can tell you one thing, and that is the opening up of travel restrictions in the Chinese mainland has opened the world to the largest population of tourists: the Chinese.  Even if China should, for some reason, close its borders, there can be a fully-functioning and supportive tourist culture within its own borders.  Thus, in order to best understand those population dynamics, and the implications, I have decided that it is imperative that I understand the Han dialect.  I also have been always intrigued and fascinated by the Chinese culture, and given its rise as an economic power, believe that there is no foolishness in better understanding the language.  I also intend to continue my studies of Tibetan, but with the little bit of language I took I found it infinitely more difficult than Mandarin!  So I am also starting with what I believe to be the simpler of the two just to get back in the practice of studying a language.  I digress...

As part of my language course, my professor has asked us to watch and also review the movie "和你在一起 (Together)."  It is, to begin, an incredibly heartwarming, coming of age story that details the relationship between a father, Liu Cheng, and his son, Liu Xiaochun.   Liu Xiaochun is a gifted violin prodigy, who is selected for a chance to win a scholarship to study his art in Beijing.  The two set out to the city, where Liu Xiaochun performs brilliantly.  However, due to his background (i.e. lack of bribe money) he is not offered the scholarship.  Nevertheless, Liu Cheng convinces a professor at the Conservatory, Jiang Laoshi, to accept his son as a student.   The remainder of the movie follows the father and son as they realize the reality of living in a large city where, despite the belief of the world that all have equal access to life's successes, being from the country proves a difficult obstacle to overcome.  Their relationship is what drives the movie, especially the increasing tension as Xiaochun's experiences increased disdain for his poor background, while his father does every job possible to ensure his son's success.

What struck me most about the movie was the fact that the director did not hide at all the realities of life in one of China's big cities, and the inherent class struggles that can ensue.  Liu Cheng and Liu Xiaochun live in an area of town that is poor, full of folks of working class - including a young escort, Lili, who befriends Liu Xiaochun.  The living conditions they endure are not glamorous, and depicted in a very real light.  What strikes me most is that at some point, Liu Xiaochun's talent catch the attention of *the* eminent professor of violin, Yu Laoshi, who later takes Xiaochun under his tutelage.  Yu Laoshi's house is modern and clean, spacious.  He takes in Liu Xiaochun who beings to see a different style of life - which is all possible given his talent.  He is finally faced with a choice: that to have the life he imagined for, if he gives up his family (who has worked so hard to get him to where he is) - but at the risk of losing the person who he is... or to go home.

My only dislike in the move was that the development of the characters seemed a bit chliched - Liu Cheng while from the country also has a very Confucian attitude, kotowing (literally) to persons who are esteemed above his station; Liu Xiaochun displays the traits of any young spoiled person, while Lili (the ONLY female character in the movie), definitely represents the dragon-lady characteristic quite common in movies.  She is not demure, intense, driven to anger - and rarely gentle or seeming very kind.  I honestly wish there were more female characters in the movie, but I suppose it was a young boy coming of age movie.  The professors are either drunk, or pompous (or both) - and seem to rest quite comfortably on the reputations they have earned in their previous lives.

However, despite any character development (or lack of) the movie was an enjoyable watch, and I think a little more realistic view of what it takes to become successful in any field in China.  It shows the wide range of affluence - and the privileges that affluence affords, and yet still illustrates that despite "having it all," there is still much in life to be desired.  A highly suggested watch - especially if you just want to be entertained.  Special bonus is the classical music soundtrack that weaves its way throughout the movie.  

Neat Article

Hey everyone!  My mother actually sent me this link about how monks in exile are being encouraged by the Dalai Lama to pursue science as a part of their studies.  A very interesting read!


Many thoughts regarding the themes of previous posts regarding how to maintain 'tradition' and still be of the world.  A lot of folks seem to think that science and faith are two mutually exclusive ideas that somehow set the stage for conflict if a person pursues both as a realm of study. 


Reading the article, I immediately thought of the tradition of Jesuits as some of the greatest thinkers, philosophers, mathemeticians and physicists.  The motto for many Jesuits is to "pursue God in all things" - meaning that the priests were and are not encouraged to live lives of cloister, but are meant to be of the world, while not for the world.  In particular, I had to do a recent mini-presentation on Monsignor Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître, a colleague of Einstein's, who is credited with some of the original thought behind the Big Bang Theory. 


Given the recent push by the HH the Dalai Lama, I wonder why then is there still this continuing dialectic that sets up "science" or "facts" on one side, and religion and reflection on the other.  What makes people think that 'culture' will be driven awry by science or facts; and how come so many people feel that science challenges or cheapens deeper truths that many people hold close?  


A short post for today, but interested to hear if anyone is familiar with the Emory program mentioned in the article, or any other neat programs that seek to combine the 'hard sciences' with more religious studies.