Community Voices: The Nauck Community Heritage project
Summary:
The Nauck Community Heritage project video clip discusses the history of the Nauck community. This ethnographic research (the study of a single culture) was gathered through participant observation (research/ field work done on site), using informal interviews (unstructured open ended conversations in everyday life), qualitative data (non statistical information such as personal stories and customary beliefs and practices), and information gathered from key consultants (members of the society being studied who provide information to help researchers get the meaning of what they are observing). The key consultants are people who were either born in the Nauck community area or lived in the community for an extended period. The majority of the people interviewed were born in the 1930s and 40s; right around the time when the community was established. The video discusses the history of how the Nauck community was created. During WWII the people living in the Arlington area where displaced in order to provide an area for the Pentagon and Arlington Cemetery to be built. They were relocated to the Dunbar area, originally in trailers, and later had the Dunbar apartments built in the Nauck Green Valley neighborhood. The Dunbar apartments have recently been demolished to provide room for the area’s expanding urbanization projects. Some of the people interviewed lamented about their loss of culture as a result of this urbanization which has caused a diasporic population (a consequence of urbanization were the dispersed people feel uprooted).
Is this film an example of applied anthropology? Explain.
Applied anthropology is the field of anthropology that deals with identifying a problem and seeking ways to solve it. This field of anthropology usually has a specific client. I don’t think that the Nauck Community Heritage Project is an applied anthropologic research project. While the researchers had a specific client and together with the key consultants identified the problem, there is no new solution put forward by the researchers. In the booklet, Harold Anderson says that he was approached by the Arlington County Cultural Affairs to do an oral history project of the area. He later states that “ultimately this material is to be used to represent, honor and preserve the community’s character in the design of the new Nauck Town Center”. The client, Arlington County Cultural Affairs, already had a solution to this problem; they just needed a way to implement it. This was done by Anderson who gathered and compiled the data. I think this project was an acculturation (disruptive process of culture change as a result of powerful state societies particularly industrialization) research project, with aspects of advocacy (community based research with politically involvement) and urgent anthropology (practice of documenting endangered cultures, sometimes known as salvage ethnography).
Is there a problem identified by the film? And does the film attempt to solve this problem? How?
The problem identified in the film/ booklet is the issue that the Nauck community is struggling to keep its identity with the immigration and gentrification taking place in the area. The community leaders and residents are worried that the Nauck community is going to go from a historical African American community to another “Washington D.C bedroom community”. While the contributors to the film suggested and agreed on the different elements that would go into the New Town Center, there were really no new solutions offered. I think this film focuses more on the implementation of the solution. The researchers knew that the historical information gathered was going to be inscribed in the architecture of the new town center, and now what they had to do was gather and organize the data.
How do ethnographic techniques used in the film make it more effective?
I think that the use of participant observation, visual/digital ethnography and qualitative data collection make this film more effective. I believe that aside from data collection for the use in the architecture of the new town center, this video is “spreading the message” about the Nauck Community. Personally, I find it easier to remember and learn something I see as opposed to something I read. Seeing this data in a visual mode (picture and film) has made it more memorable so if I find myself in the Arlington area and see a reference to the Nauck community, I will probably remember this information better. I think that performing the interviews in an informal way as opposed to a set of structured questions, gave the contributors more room to share their stories/ history about their lives in the Nauck community. Finally, participant observation unlike ethnography at a distance makes this film more real and makes it easier for me the watcher to relate to the community that was filmed.
Would this film be considered to be advocacy? If so how, if not, why not?
Advocacy anthropology is community based research and has political involvement. Based on this definition, the film can be considered advocacy. The research is community based; the community being the Nauck Community. I believe that this research was politically involved because of the local government bodies that approached and supported Anderson through the project. Anderson says that in 2006 he was approached by the Arlington County Cultural Affairs to do an oral history project on the Nauck Community. He later adds that the project was “conducted under the auspices of Arlington County and implemented as a collaboration between the Cultural Affairs Division and the Department of Community Planning, Housing and development” If I was to put this is in a simple statement, I would say the Arlington county government asked and supported Anderson in this project. When compared to the definition of advocacy anthropology one can clearly see that this is indeed an advocacy project.
Who are the people represented in the film? Are they a cultural group? Are they a sub culture? Explain.
The people represented in this film are the residents of the Nauck community. I believe that they are a sub culture and not a culture; I believe that the residents of the Nauck community are a sub-culture of the African American culture. The African American culture is a large and vast culture with many sub-sets. I believe that the Nauck community is just one of these. The booklet discussed the history of how the freed slaves bought land in this area that later came to be known as the Nauck community. While the members of the Nauck community have their own history, they share many if not most of the same cultural aspects as the African American culture at large. Based on this I would say that the Nauck Community is a sub culture and not a culture.
Note: I find it sad and at the same time ironic that the Nauck Community was created as a result of gentrification (displaced to that particular area to provide land for the building of the Pentagon and Arlington Cemetery) and now has been displaced as a result of gentrification.
Bibliography:
Anderson, Harold. Community Voices: The Nauck Community Heritage Project. Arlington: Arlington County, 2007. Mixed media.
“Speaking culture, Inscribing community: The Nauck Community Heritage Project.”