Comment

Comment by Jacob Lee on September 18, 2012 at 5:17am

If I am right about OAC content, we have accumulated a midden of anthropological stuff in which cultural artifacts with long-term value lurk. But the barrier to exit from OAC is, alas, low. The ties that hold us together are (I borrow Max Gluckman's terminology) "thin."

Well that just about nails it on the head John.

On the other hand, there is no inherent reason that OAC can't continue on slowly accreting interesting content for folks to rummage through. As you see, I periodically come back, and as long as there is quality content other people will too.

Comment by Keith Hart on September 16, 2012 at 1:03pm

William Gibson has this to say in a recent Wired interview:

A friend recently tweeted something to the effect that he was once again trying to get into Facebook but he said, “It’s like Twitter but with mandatory homework.” That might be another good way to describe it. With Twitter you’re just there; everybody else is just there. And its appeal to me is the lack of structure and the lack of — there’s this kind of democratization that I think is absent with more structured forms of social media. But that’s actually way more abstract and theoretical than I usually get with these things. (Emphasis added).

It isn't easy to strike a balance between just being there and having to do homework. But maybe being democratically accessible and underused is not terrible. Circumstances change and sometimes people give a bit more of themselves to a common enterprise they believe in.

Comment by Keith Hart on September 16, 2012 at 12:52pm

There is always a lull in OAC activity in August/early September. This year I have been less omnipresent, you more so, John. It isn't really a question of deciding whether or not to contribute personally. Any organization needs creative input from people committed to the infrastructure and its purposes. This takes serious reflection on social media and constructive engagement with one of them over an extended period of time. Above all it takes enthusiasm and concentrated hard work.

The OAC is designed to allow small initiatives to flourish with minimal intervention. These tend not to last, but they do animate the network occasionally and provide variety. Moreover, they are never removed, so anyone can revive a thread when they feel like it. Lots more can passively explore the archive which is rich in images as well as discourse. Fran and I know that a lot more could be done to make navigation of the site easier, but it is unrewarding work and we lack helpers.

There are some recurrent highlights, of which the online seminar series is outstanding. Huon, Justin and I have lined up some fascinating papers and the first, by Ted Fischer on the good life, kicks off later this month. There are other experiments which wax and wane, just as the few active participants do.

I still think of this time in the OAC's history as a fallow period. There is enormous potential to do things here and remarkably little restriction on members' initiatives. Most of our membership appears to be dormant, but we can reach a large portion of them directly if we want to. There is no point in doing so unless a group of dedicated activists is ready to rethink priorities and sustain any momentum. All it takes is for a handful of friends to work together on a reasonably consistent basis. That is how the OAC was launched and there is plenty of room for interested newcomers.

In her reply to the OAC Facebook thread, Kate mentioned the history of Livejournal, a social site that lost members but reinvented itself. That sort of thing doesn't happen without a committed team of instigators. There is nothing to stop the OAC evolving through several lives.

Our strength at present may be perceived as a weakness. We lack a coherent message and committed central directorate. In their absence, small pockets of individuality and conversational exchange come and go. Well, they may not remain active, but they do stick around. We are genuinely open and we do provide a unique medium to express interest in anthropology, but we are not yet cooperative. These are early days. The OAC is not going away. Nor am I, but I may take more of a back seat.

Comment by John McCreery on September 16, 2012 at 1:28am

Kate, thanks so much. Do let us know what you come up with. The analysis sketched above is, at best, only a sketch. Lots of room for improvement, I'm sure.

Comment by Kate Wood on September 15, 2012 at 11:11pm

If nothing else, you've inspired me to write a blog post. I'm still thinking about this topic, a bit, though.