Research that matters

So far, this reading has been my favorite of the three books. I was immediately drawn in by the introduction with the author explaining how she reached the “mushroom world” and essentially the backstory for the book. I am already getting an idea of what the mushroom will be used as a symbol for. I noted the part of the reading where the author describes the ideological battle between the loggers and others who need careers from the exploitation of natural resources versus the environmentalists. I thought it was interesting how the people that collect mushrooms fit into an entirely different category. The mushroom collectors are able to exploit natural resources (mushrooms) in order to find valuables and potentially make money, without the environmentalists intervening or paying much attention. It could be possible that the author wants us to all behave like the mushroom collectors and believes this may be the only balance that can allow for exploitation of natural resources without gravely damaging the environment. I believe she may apply this idea to a larger scale.

I also loved the last paragraph of chapter one. The author demonstrates how the idea of progress is subjective and while progress was seen as beneficial and powerful in the past, sometimes the word has implications that no longer make sense. I believe that this idea can apply to progress in the form of new technology and industry as well as socially. While I will never be opposed to social progress, there are some powerful people who can twist the idea of progress to fulfill their negative agenda. We have also progressed technologically in ways that may not even make sense, in ways that are hurting humans as a species rather than benefitting us. While I did enjoy reading that last paragraph, I honestly do not understand what the author meant by “more and more of us looked up one day and realized that the emperor had no clothes.” I am assuming it refers to the idea that we have progressed past a point that is sensical.

Okay, so hear me out. Anna Tsing has somehow created a beautifully anthropological piece that could easily be mistaken for a novel filled with articulate, heartfelt, philosophical soliloquies. From the very beginning, she presents a lens of the world both romantic and tragic while shifting between her individual perspective and the wider world context within which she finds herself. The very basis of her imaginative piece is founded upon the relentless juxtapositions found within the human experience: nature and man, construction and destruction, stability and precarity. Focusing on the foraging and distribution of mushrooms, Tsing introduced themes of interconnectedness, transformation, and unpredictability–traits shared by the experiences of both humans and our fungi friends.

Much to the chagrin of my family and close friends, I know a lot about fungi, mushrooms in particular. Aside from some psychoactive properties, nutritional/health value, and their ability to foster a connection to humans that led to the development of (several!) documentaries, mushrooms are known for their unpredictability. They seem to defy many of the rules of nature as if they have a mind of their own. This unpredictability marries well with the precarity that Tsing describes as “the condition of our time.” (20) At the root of precarity, though, is a lack of control. In fact, control assumes a largely antithetical nature beside precarity. However, traces of it can be found in our socially-constructed ideals of progress. Our industrialized world has a preoccupation with convenience and reliability through subjugation, which is why our agricultural practices have transformed our crops from wild stallions to something far less recognizable, domestic in nature. It is for this reason that I do not believe Tsing’s seeming abhorrence of progress to be an encouragement of stagnation or regression but rather a call for the reimagination of the destination towards which we progress. The way I see it, she instead encourages keen, attentive exploration; to build outwards then strategically upwards–kinda like mushrooms (technically mycelium) do.

With the introduction and first chapter swarming with abundant metaphors and passionate sentiments, I had to ask myself, how does this relate to ethnography? Well, first Tsing introduces and explores the cultural significance of her topic, incorporating both literary and historical evidence to support and inform her research. One of the strengths of anthropological inquiry is in its emphasis on the contemporaneous and competing systems and forces that impact the subject of your study. Tsing does this well by including information on the origins and significance of the matsutake in Japan and the historical context of its appearance and importance in Oregon in the late 1980s. She initially focuses on human’s impact on the environment then, on the environment’s impact on humans spanning from social to economic implications, ultimately blurring the lines between humanity and otherness. Applying this reading to the scope of the class, the greatest ethnographic research (in my opinion) involves temporarily relinquishing your personal assumptions to “open our imaginations” (19) to other’s experiential realities while considering the external forces that press upon them.

So, my question is how can we use the metaphor of the mushroom to improve our ethnographies and our articulation of our subject matter?

Tsing’s argument that honing in on mushroom picking to expand our imagination and thought process on the rigid debate of jobs or the environment intrigued me. Usually, when I imagined the economic impact on ecological resources I think of forests and water supply. To appease the reader, Tsing nicely begins the chapter with a case study of lumber in Oregon. The industry’s decay usually demarks the end of the analysis yet Tsing argues the story only moves to the next chapter as the mushroom forging became an important economic and ecological mark. Two ideas, in particular, I found useful in exploring: precarity and assemblage.

“Precarity is the condition of being vulnerable to others (20).” This statement has ample support in a variety of fields. When one loses their employment, this represents a failure in the individual. When multiple loses employment, this represents a failure in the system. Why a failure? Employment is our status quo; our natural way of being is to work or at least that’s what our capitalistic society promotes. This is how we put our time to good use. A world without work is an “unplanned nature of time.” As Tsing acknowledges, this is freighting.

Assemblage, on the other hand, denotes a feeling of “togetherness.” Quite literally, in its definition and in its connotation. The word is a common phrase in the economy whether via assembly lines or assembly meetings. The creation of order out of disorder through community efforts is no doubt a staple in our society. Tsing acknowledges its usefulness in music and agriculture. Although I am curious how mushrooms fit into the overall picture, I am excited to continue Tsing’s work.

I find Tsing’s perspectives on the precarity of our modern ecological situation as a result of humanity’s desire for progress to be illuminating. I’m interested in the potential avenues for debate on the topic as the various visions of our future that are at the forefront of modern discourse either challenge or abide by the aims of capitalism. 

Tsing also forces me to reconsider my own futurist ideations: are our utopian dreams unreachable given our current modes of production and consumption? I think too that this idea of human conceit gels well with modern aspirations for success and the sort of indoctrination built into our American lifestyle; I find that the spoils of capitalism tend to supersede the will for meaningful change. 

The rising wealth gap and billionaires’ interplanetary joyrides are evidence enough of the dystopia we currently live in. Apart from how we are currently destroying everything, I believe that more evaluation of how we fit into this ecology as something other than the dominant species would be beneficial not only to the preservation of what we have left but potentially to spiritual/philosophical understandings of humanity. 

The sentiments presented by Tsing somewhat translate to the demands of ethnography. I mean to say that ethnographic work has been on a continuous course of progress, though is it the kind of progress that is actually benefitting those being studied rather than those conducting the research?

As someone who is very unfamiliar with ethnographies, the aspect of this reading that first struck me was the style and tone of writing. Rather than assuming the tone of a scientific research paper, this read much more like a novel and utilized a lot of visual storytelling. Specifically, the author’s descriptions of her experience in the forest on pages 13 and 14 paint a really interesting picture as the precursor to the first formal section of the book. As we continue to read more ethnographies throughout the semester, I am curious to compare the writing styles and levels of creativity each one exhibits.

In terms of content, I am very intrigued by the discussion of time and history as a function of progress. The author states: “The most convincing Anthropocene timeline begins not with our species but rather with the advent of modern capitalism…imagining the human since the rise of capitalism entangles us with ideas of progress and with the spread of techniques of alienation that turn both humans and other beings into resources.” (19) If we do not use technological progress as a reference point for time period differentiation, what else can we use? Is it possible to create a completely objective timeline of human history, or will all measures of time have some measurement error due to the way in which it is recorded?

Lastly, even though there is a general negative tone used to describe the idea of capitalism, the author seems optimistic that if we reframe our thoughts and slightly alter some of its rules, it can work quite well to progress a society forward. This is a much more positive view of capitalism than many other political scientists take, who sometimes suggest that capitalism from its inception was bound to fail and we must create an entirely different system from the ground up to truly institute meaningful change. As an economics major, I am curious to see if the author dives into the economic ramifications of a different form of capitalism and if this has been tested in other research/ethnographies.

In chapter 1, Tsing mentions the view of progress as inherent towards humanity and how this view makes it easy to miss other patterns of humanity. Humans have consistently caused change within the environment around them, but the changes are not a linear march forward and instead deliver both “promise and ruin.”

This paints a very uncertain picture of the future as opposed to the optimistic view of constant progress while also not being a message of despair that the world will collapse and nothing can be done to stop it. In my experience, the future seldom matches my expectations and it is not hard to find past predictions about today from the past that overestimated the progress of technology. Therefore I agree that it is most accurate to consider the future to be uncertain, which is dependent on both factors outside of human control and collective human agency.

Tsing mentions agency as a disguised word for progress, but I disagree. Agency is the ability to take actions to achieve a desired end, and the agency of people and how we interact with the changing world determines what the future will be. For an example of agency not leading to progress, when COVID-19 reached America many people, both in government and the general public, chose to not take action and as a direct result, the USA consistently got hit the hardest by COVID-19 and its variants. With an uncertain future, it is important societally to make conscious decisions to lead to a better, sustainable future and hold decision-makers moving the world to ruin accountable. Do you agree that the viewpoint of the future as uncertain most emphasizes the need for action to avoid ruin or is an optimistic or pessimistic lens needed? 

The tone of Tsing’s prologue and first chapter seemed particularly pessimistic yet accepting. While asking questions like, “how much chance do we have for passing a habitable environment to our multispecies descendants?” (3), Tsing implies the hopelessness of our situation as human beings yet seems to be fully accepting of the rather upsetting implied response. However, Tsing does utilize matsutake mushrooms as an interesting symbol of hope; this is especially evident when Tsing describes how these mushrooms have the wondrous ability to appear in the ashes of devastation such as that of Hiroshima or the widespread deforestation in Oregon in the 20th century. Not only do mushrooms grow in ruins, but they literally provide employment and opportunity. In this way, mushrooms serve as both a symbol and a literal example throughout the text.

However, as a generally positive person myself even in the face of our world’s particularly challenging issues, I felt that the text left little room for hope, despite the discussion of mushrooms. I also thought that perhaps Tsing should have stated (and this may be stated in another portion of the book) our role, both the author and the readers, in this progress and devastation. While I was not alive, nor the author, when the railroads were being laid in Oregon, we still today live in places that are the product of deforestation, buy household items or clothing to our environment’s detriment and overall participate in the ‘problem of progress.’ It seemed to me while reading these introductory chapters that there was a lack of responsibility taken and a lack of culpability thrust upon the reader. We are all guilty of taking part in this ruin, no matter how difficult it may be to admit.

Furthermore, I cannot seem to find an initial answer for Tsing’s overarching question: “How might capitalism look without assuming progress?” (5). I think this is a fascinating question, but I think it is first important to define what progress is and what it means in this context. Is progress not subjective in many ways? Although in the final paragraph in chapter one, Tsing made me think that progress may not be the true enemy, but instead, perhaps the enemy is aiming towards progress simply because that is what is what people do. (“It is in this dilemma that new tools for noticing seem so important,” 25). We should not blindly pursue progress, but we need to recognize the consequences of progress and whether chasing progress is, in fact, the right answer. I would be very interested to hear everyone else’s thoughts on this as well! How exactly can we define progress, and how do you interpret what Tsing means by her question of how “capitalism would look without assuming progress?”

Stylistically, the Introduction of the book provided a novel form of writing to me: the inclusion of poems within the discussion. I think this style is quite useful when dealing with phenomena or cultural practices that are formed and represented throughout history in order to illustrate the significance of such phenomenon or practice.

In Chapter 1, when the author discusses the “modern human conceit” (19), I raised a question. Although I agree with the author that the increase of technology development and rise of capitalism is harming the environment, is it too cynical and pessimistic to claim that “the modern human conceit won’t let a description be anything more than a decorative footnote”?

Her further discussion of “collaborative survival” and “anthropo-” (20) causes me to reconsider the essence of anthropology. I was taught that anthropology studies “anything and everything that makes us human.” However, as the author suggests, both human and nonhuman beings modify the ecosystem and accordingly, the environment alters the species. With that premise, should anthropology also include the ecological aspect, especially when we are seeking the holistic view?

The author’s claims regarding precarity and indeterminacy seems particularly relatable after the break out of COVID-19. Currently, the world is full of unknown and many aspects of the world have altered, including but not limited to: economy, occupation, lifestyle, education, etc. However, I couldn’t quite comprehend her explanation of “progress” and how that relates to everyday life.

Hello Class,

Welcome to our course blog! I have given you a list of questions that can frame your blog posts, but I really want you to experiment with what works for you. If you have questions about specific arguments or parts of a text feel free to include these here.

Please also read over your classmates’ posts and provide comments if you feel like it. Feel free to agree, disagree, point to similarities or differences, etc.

This is a place to be in conversation with the authors and each other. And remember, we have a wide range of levels of familiarity with anthropology, from first year undergraduates to PhD students. So, please recognize that everyone will be approaching this blog differently, based on their own knowledge and experiences.

The really fantastic thing about ethnography is that each of us is an expert in cultivating our own unique view of social reality, and my goal for this blog is that we can all engage it will an appreciation for each other and some experimental joy. There is no need to write these as polished essays, this should be a fun place to explore the complex worlds we live in and that the authors we read are engaging with.

Also, I will ask everyone to include at least one discussion question in your post. And feel free to include links to relevant stories or media.

Thanks for our first contributors this week in posting in this spirit!

See everyone on Tuesday,

Sophie

ps A reminder, feel free to give yourself a pseudonym on this blog. While I don’t think the blog can be found in a google search, it is visible online, so feel free to give yourself a new name for the blog if you want/prefer.

I read some selections from The Mushroom at the End of the World last semester, and it struck me as a story about damage, destruction, and human greed. I used it to argue that humans are more alienated from ourselves than ever before and invoked Tsing’s concept of “salvage accumulation” to talk about capitalism and racism. After all, “the concentration of wealth is possible because value produced in unplanned patches is appropriated for capital” (5). These unplanned patches, both human and nonhuman, become commodified, and I found that incredibly interesting but quite pessimistic.

When I read the section this time around, however, I found more nuggets of hope in it than I had before. Several phrases stuck out to me—“promise and ruin,” “precarity,” and “assemblages.” First, “promise and ruin” is interesting because Tsing uses it to remind us that this has happened before (18). Industrial transformation has promised salvation only to result in destruction. Tsing doesn’t try to imply that it will not happen again nor that there’s a silver bullet to save us. But she thinks that mushroom picking will at least “open our imaginations,” and that’s a first step (19). It’s more complicated than just a cyclical promise-ruin relationship, and it’s about more than just humans, she reminds us. Her description of “assemblages” as networks of species interacting in community, “open-ended gatherings” explains just how its complicated (23). I’m thinking about how at the beginning of the book, Tsing mentions that human deforestation is what allowed for the matsutake to flourish in Japan in the first place, making room for the red pines to act as host to the matsutake (6). In this way, humans and the matsutake exist in an assemblage with one another, an open-ended gathering that has produced both promise and ruin and will continue to do so in ways largely out of our control. This lack of control, this vulnerability, is what Tsing calls “precarity” (20). Accepting this precarity, recognizing ourselves as existing in a multiverse of assemblages, and avoiding the empty promise of “progress” because it will surely result in ruin, are three lessons that resonated with me throughout the prologue and first chapter.

I want to know more about how the mushrooms grow in different settings; Tsing mentions different farming styles, from the monocrop commercialized mushroom growers to the wild mushroom forest foragers, and I wonder what kinds of mushrooms each system produces. Do the commercialized mushrooms turn out differently? How have these pockets of foragers continued to exist in a global economic system demanding quantity? I also want to think more about this idea of people and things becoming “mobile assets” that she raises in the prologue on page 5. Is there hope for resisting alienation in a world that is and remains globalized? And, what does it mean that certain people and things are “mobile assets,” able to travel from place to place, while others are rooted in place by borders, poverty, or lack of demand?