In Nature (Feb 10), Adam Kuper and Jonathan Marks published "Anthropologists Unite!" The tagline is: “Anthropology isn’t in the crisis that parts of the media would hav you believe, but it must do better, argue Adam Kuper and Jonathan Marks."
They talk about the AAA science flap and its fallout. Daniel Lende at Neuroanthropology has a very nice analysis of the piece. My only observation here is to point out two regressive aspects of Kuper and Marks's paper.
(1) They really have no clue about anthropological blogs and their actual and potential value to the discipline. They seem to think that bloggers mostly wait for the seeds of a controversy to appear, and then fan the fires and make a lot of noise to obscure the issues (this is what the AAA president also claimed). Many of us think that there is some real intellectual and professional work going on in the anthropological blogosphere. But when "mainstream" anthropologists take a look, they often seem dazed and confused. For another example, take a look at David Price's paper on anthropological blogs in American Anthropologist -- it is really clueless about what blogs are and what they do (Price, David H. 2010 Blogging Anthropology: Savage Minds, Zero Anthropology, and AAA Blogs. American Anthropologist 112:140-142_). Well, maybe you can access AA and maybe not. And this brings me to my second point.
(2) The Nature paper will cost readers $32.00 to purchase, unless one has an individual or institutional subscription. So not only do Kuper and Marks have some regressive ideas about anthropology, but their choice of outlet was regressive in terms of open access; they chose, instead, to publish in a closed, commercial venue.
It might be a good thing if anthropologists were to unite intellectually (I'm not going to hold my breath, though), but it would NOT be a good thing if they were to unite in support of commercial, limited publication and in support of clueless ideas about anthropology blogs.