The Last Moon Village: A Proposal for a Multimodal Anthropology

 

 

 

You’ll see them in film, k-dramas, music videos, webtoons and video games: narrow Seoul alleys (골목길), old restaurants with peeling wallpaper, protagonists drowning their sorrows in tent bars (포장마차). Sometimes these images are deployed for critical purpose: e.g., the 반지하 (semi-basement) that the Kim family lives in the 2019 film “Parasite.” And sometimes for nostalgia–with multiple documentaries and websites on the “last urban moon village” (마지막 달동네) of a Korean city. But this is not the Seoul–nor the Republic of Korea (hereafter Korea)--that most people inhabit. Over the last 50 years, urban life in South Korea has been transformed in many ways, with successive waves of state-sponsored gentrification that has culminated with “New Town” developments of block upon block of orderly apartment complexes with mall-like commercial strips between them (Chen et al 2019; Song et al 2019). Here, Korea parallels (and anticipates) urban development elsewhere.

However, this proposed project is not a critique of urban (re)development (재개발), but an inquiry about what remains. Here and there, amidst the gleaming office towers and high-rise apartments of Seoul and other Korean cities, there are older neighborhoods with housing stock from previous decades–small islands of the past. On the one hand, these represent surplus neighborhoods for later redevelopment schemes. On the other, older neighborhoods evoke nostalgia for the past and for what people frequently characterize as a less alienated time. “Moon neighborhoods,” so-called because many were constructed on squats in hills and mountains that were not thought suitable for apartment development, remind people of the struggle and determination of past generations. What happens to these places in the interstices of ubiquitous housing blocks?

If we were doing this research in the United States, the answer would be clear enough: gentrification, abandonment and displacement, the legacy of post-War urban development that may have moved into more hybrid strategies in a neoliberal age, but that still remains devastating to people in working-class communities (Logan and Molotch 1987; Durington and Collins 2019). In South Korean cities, however, “touristifcation” may instead be the result. Rather than move into neighborhoods of older homes without access to infrastructure and amenities, tourists visit instead to snap photos for Instagram posts and to explore (Kim and Holifield 2022). In some cases, the state has facilitated this process by painting colorful murals on neighborhood walls–literally enabling Instagram-able moments. The result is a digital gentrification without the physical displacement of people (Hartmann and Jansson 2024).

My proposed research project is on the way community identity is physically and digitally negotiated in older neighborhoods that have become sites of state intervention, touristifcation and nostalgia.  My earlier work in Seoul included places like Ihwa-dong and different neighborhoods along the old city walls (e.g., Bukjeong Maul). These have been the targets of urban regeneration, media representation and tourist development (Nam and Lee 2023; Yun and Kwon 2023). Older housing stock, narrow alleys and colorful murals attract location scouts for k-dramas and film, as well as busloads of domestic and international tourists. But people live in these places as well, people who have little to show for the mediatization and fetishization of their communities. Yet it would not be accurate to conclude that they are powerless against the onslaught of touristification and hallyu media. For one, residents have occasionally risen up against the commodification of their communities, as in the vandalism of artistic murals in Ihwadong in 2016 (Oh 2020). In addition, as one of the most wired nations on Earth, Koreans engage in social media productions across multiple platforms, and document their neighborhoods and their lives in ways that diverge significantly from the Instagram posts and hallyu tours. Finally, communities host events, gallery shows, media broadcasts and other projects that constitute genuine place-making, and stake a claim not only to their homes, but additionally establish what their communities mean (Kim and Son 2017; Kang 2023).

My perspective on these negotiations is one of multimodality, a recent, anthropological turn I have explored through numerous articles and a recent, co-authored book (Collins and Durington 2024). In anthropology, multimodality recognizes the anthropological practice in non-anthropologists as they seek to document, represent their communities, and intervene in the futures of those places. People are ultimately anthropologists of their own lives, and I have helped to develop a methodology that integrates this insight into a more collaborative, and more de-centered work that considers multiple, community-produced media alongside more “official” anthropological analysis (Collins and Durington 2015; Collins and Durington 2024). Here, I propose looking to neighborhood identity as a collaborative, negotiated and occasionally fraught negotiation of meaning, place and identity. My insights have been very much informed by fieldwork - in South Korea and in Baltimore. And it’s these same insights that I propose to bring into the classroom in a series of methodologically focused, participatory courses that task students with documenting the anthropologies of their own communities. What I hope to accomplish through this research and teaching will ultimately work towards an understanding of global processes in an age where the physical and the digital occupy overlapping spheres in the lives of people and in the futures of communities.

 

Precursors

Years ago, I became interested in a general nostalgia for the narrow streets and claustrophobic spaces of older neighborhoods, including “taldongne” (달동네)—clusters of homes that originated as unofficial housing in the heavy urban migrations after the Korean War, and that are characterized by a lack of planning and infrastructure. Perhaps the most iconic moment for me was the huge popularity of the “Reply 1988” (응답하라 1988), a nostalgic, family drama/comedy that unfolds against the backdrop of the Seoul 1988 Olympics and takes place in a modest neighborhood of 1970s-era homes and narrow streets. The end of the series finds the old neighborhood abandoned and slated for re-development–and end to a more simple time. Indeed, by the 1970s, many of the residents of older neighborhoods were being forcibly (and even violently) evicted, and large-scale apartment developments put up in their place. This trend accelerated through the early 21^st century with the establishment of “new town” developments radically transforming the urban fabric of multiple South Korean cities. Predictably, perhaps, the disappearance of these older, largely working-class neighborhoods was accompanied by a longing for community and an appreciation for these organic, eclectic spaces, in dramatic contrast to the huge developments that now house the majority of people in Korea.          

That nostalgia extends across multiple media, from television and film to webtoons, games and apps—and, of course, social media, where the search for selfies and more aesthetic photography sends millions of domestic and international tourists to the few, extant working-class neighborhoods in search of the perfect pictures for their Instagram accounts. In my 2014-2015 fieldwork, I analyzed numerous “alleyway” social media accounts, and set off with local photography clubs (1 Korean, 1 Korean and non-Korean), taking pictures of narrow streets, rusted grates and broken latticework. Globally, the neighborhoods are iconic, connoting “Korea” even as their existence fades from Korea’s urban fabric; it would be difficult to find a k-drama that didn’t have some romantic moment set in one of these places. Yet the vast majority of Koreans have never lived in them.

Nevertheless some neighborhoods still remain. My previous work in Seoul coincided with a period of relative openness in the form of urban regeneration policies that were just beginning under the leadership of then-Mayor Park Won Soon (Nam and Lee 2023). Through government programs, non-profits and museum exhibitions, people in Seoul looked to these communities as something that deserved, at least, some measure of preservation–in sharp distinction to the policies of Park’s predecessors that had accelerated the frenetic pace of urban redevelopment. Along with this came calls for a more textured and genuine urban life where people might develop attachments to each other and to their neighborhoods (Lee 2011). Along the way, new public spaces, sidewalks, and parks were all constructed to make Seoul a more livable city.

Yet, people in older neighborhoods must still negotiate with the combination of touristification and gentrification that have encroached upon their lives. Touristification in the form of busloads of people coming to neighborhoods that were once avoided by non-residents, and gentrification in the form of up-scale teashops and bars that have grown up in “edgy” and “artistic” areas. There are a variety of means to resist these forces, but I became interested in the ways that residents have utilized diverse media in order to form counter-representations of life that contest the romantic commodification from tourism and, to some extent, from the state. YouTube, film and podcasts are generated alongside print magazines, gallery shows and other events in order to give voice to residents and to underline their placemaking. The irony here—and there are many ironies—is that, in their resistance, residents are instantiating the very community ethos over which people and media have waxed nostalgic.

 

Anthropology's Sad AI Archive

 

There are 3 approaches to generative AI in the classroom: 1) an outright ban on it; 2) a limited use policy that covers certain assignments or parts of assignments, and 3) an open approach that allows students to do what they would. None of these are fool-proof, whatever the intentions of the professor. Ultimately, generative AI are third-party, black-boxed products–more tempting to students, perhaps, than Wikipedia, but also more treacherous. I feel for my colleagues in the humanities attempting to wrest essays from students on Shakespeare or Aristotle: generative AI is all too good at producing a mediocre essay on these subjects. I also understand my colleagues in the computer and information sciences, who utilize these chatbots to help with their instruction.

 

But with anthropology, there are several caveats. 99.99% of writings on other peoples of the world are drenched in ethnocentrism, colonialism and racism. The internet is awash in complete nonsense about “tribes'' and their “traditional culture,” and, in generative AI, all of this is ground up and, like sausage, pumped into prompt-driven content. Yet typically, students don’t know enough to be able to distinguish a “good” and “bad” response from ChatGPT or Gemini. 

 

This is a somewhat longer way of saying that students often tried to utilize generative AI in my introductory assignments and take-home exams, and their grades suffered for it. Not because I was penalizing them for cheating; proving that they’ve used AI is almost impossible, and generative AI detectors are unreliable at best. Instead, the questions that I asked were all about the anthropology I’ve taught in classes, and generative AI is, unfortunately, only too willing to spit out all manner of palaver. Only someone who knows what to ask can minimize the racism and colonialism inherent in generative AI engines. The default is ideology. And hallucinations. 

 

One thing I want to include next year is some process of education. I really think that students don’t really know any better. The least I can do is show them that it’s not so easy and explain why that is–that generative AI is not giving them the “truth.” Or, rather, it is: the truth of colonialism and racism that underlies Western thinking about non-Western peoples. Anthropology’s sad archive. But to someone who’s never taken anthropology before, this stuff looks correct to them, and the temptation is too strong, especially in the panicked moments before a deadline.

Multimodal Methods in Anthropology

Today (April 26, 2024), our book, "Multimodal Methods in Anthropology" is released into the world. Here's a song I've created for the moment using Udio, a text-to-song Generative AI model: https://www.udio.com/songs/m5HMHSZ2exSgEWE7f8AaAr

And here's a code for a discount on this book from our publisher, Routledge Books:

Anthropology's Seen and Unseen

In 1866, Alfred Russel Wallace sent a breathless letter to his friend and colleague, Thomas Huxley, inviting Huxley to join him in exploring a “new branch of anthropology”: Spiritualism. Based on the explosive growth in seances in Europe and North America, Spiritualism conjured a world beyond the grave where the dead continued to learn and improve themselves while enjoying each’s ghostly society. When the dead deigned to visit the living, it was typically to help and to advise: “this haunting could teach the living how to build a more perfect society in the here-and-now” (Forbes 2016: 445). So, for Wallace, this really was a new direction for the field–an inquiry into the unseen and, simultaneously, into a future that awaited humanity, both in the afterlife and in the perfection of human life on this planet.

 

To give away the ending, Wallace was not successful in establishing his “new branch of anthropology.” Huxley wasn’t buying it, and other anthropological colleagues eventually turned against him as well. After wavering a bit through his own field investigations of London seances, E.B. Tylor weighed in against Wallace, relegating Spiritualism to a “survival” from more “primitive” times. But Spiritualism held some fascination for Tylor as well, even as he tried to distance anthropology from it. In the end, though, what would become “anthropology” as we know it would only engage with Spiritualism as a symptom of something else, in the same way that magic, religion, and ritual would yield to an understanding of deeper truths. Or is there something more? As Pels and others have argued, this episode reveals something more about the way anthropology regards its object.

 

On one hand, the two couldn’t seem more different. On the other, anthropology and Spiritualism–both middle-class endeavors arising in the context of 19th century empire, suggest a variety of homologies. The most salient, perhaps, is the idea of culture itself. Yes, “culture” surrounds us in countless material forms–but at the same time, it does not. A behavior, an object–to be sure, these are “cultural,” but where is that “culture”? As Delaplace points out, “Describing “culture” should also include an actual account of its “wholeness”: the invisible thread, as it were, which bundles up these cultural components into a totality” (2019: 37). In other words, “culture” is the results of the anthropologist’s revelation, the end results of an analytical process that renders an unseen world of connections and isomorphisms visible to the anthropologist’s audience. Spiritualism would make the same claims–the technologies of the seance were precisely those revealing a concealed world: spirit rapping, table levitation, automatic writing, spirit photography.

 

And, like Spiritualism, anthropology also involves concealment. During the 19th century, the Spiritualist medium utilized a number of contrivances–dimly lit rooms, screens, capacious tablecloths. Whether or not you believed in Spiritualism, these were the preconditions for the spiritual knowledge. For anthropology, the trick of culture was the revelation of relevant behavior and the concealing of what was considered extraneous. In photography, for example, “the epistemic virtue of ethnographic photography entailed the ability to hide certain things” (Delaplace 2019: 39). Franz Boas and George Hunt would work to (playfully) conceal the evidence of settler colonials from their portraits of indigenous life. And Bronislaw Malinowski and Margaret Mead would both conceal the impact of evangelical Christianity on people at their fieldsites, all with the ultimate goal of representing “authenticity” in native life.

 

This kind of concealment, of course, is no longer part of anthropology. Or is it? When we look back at the prevalence of reflexivity in late twentieth century anthropology, we might be led to believe that anthropology had gone all-in on revelation. Anthropologists located themselves amidst intersectionality and intersubjectivity, lifting the curtain and turning on the lights, as it were. There were still concealments, however. Or, to be more exact, the revelations of reflexivity facilitated other dimensions of the unseen. Consider, for example, the dominance of a handful of elite departments in producing the vast majority of academic anthropologists, and the embeddedness of those universities in structures of US empire (Speakman et al 2018). Or, alternately, the similarities between anthropological work and extractivist industries commodifying indigenous knowledge and practices for a rapacious capitalism transforming all life into exchange value. These undercurrents are concealed, as the precondition, perhaps, for the revelation of other anthropological “truths”.

 

There is, therefore, a dynamic in anthropology that we can trace from the 19th century–one that extends between the seen, the unseen, revelation, concealment and, as Taussig had written, “the skilled revelation of skilled concealment” (Taussig 2003: 273). To be sure, this configuration changes over the course of anthropology's history. But it’s the imbrication of anthropology in this dynamic that betrays anthropology’s embeddedness in capitalism and western imperialism as a whole for, as an economic system, capitalism depends on concealment for its strength: the alienation of labor, the destruction of the global south and, ultimately, the untimely end of human life on this planet. All of these must be concealed for the revelation of value and the novelty of production.

 

Marx, of course, realized this at the fore, and his Capital contains references to the very same Spiritualist practices that perturbed Wallace and Tylor in the 1870s. A table is “just” some wood joined together, he explains:

But as soon as it emerges as a commodity, it changes into a thing which transcends sensuousness. It not only stands with its feet on the ground, but, in relation to all other commodities, it stands on its head, and evolves out of its wooden brain grotesque ideas, far more wonderful than if it were to begin dancing on its own free will. (Marx 1990: 163-164)

This was, of course, an allusion to the “table lifting” practices in seances. The commodity itself issues from the dialectic of revelation and concealment, and the 19th century’s human sciences soon craft their own “dancing tables” discerning culture, society and the psyche through the very same transformational calculus. Yet even in this critical revelation, we would be wise to think about the concealments that enable this insight.