Anthropology has studied attention mostly implicitly, not as an explicit topic

Evidence

While attention has rarely been an explicit focus of anthropological inquiry, it has still played an important if mostly tacit part in many anthropological debates and subfields. Focusing on anthropological scholarship on digital worlds and ritual forms, we review resources for colleagues interested in this burgeoning topic of research and identify potential avenues for an incipient anthropology of attention, which studies how attentional technologies and techniques mold human minds and bodies in more or less intentional ways. — Annual Review of Anthropology contributors (⚠ verify author line), The Political Economy of Attention, 10

Categorization

• DEFINE: Frames the emerging subfield ‘anthropology of attention’ — attentional technologies and techniques molding minds and bodies.
• XREF: connects to: Attention can be anthropologically theorized as either technologies or techniques — Annual Review of Anthropology contributors (⚠ verify author line), The Political Economy of Attention, 63; Attention ecology is a surprisingly underinvestigated field needing new vocabulary — Yves Citton, The Ecology of Attention, 19

Related

• Attention can be anthropologically theorized as either technologies or techniques (similarity 0.90)
• Attention is an activity that forms persons, not a resource that platforms act upon (similarity 0.88)
• Attention is socially and materially mediated, not just a scarce mental resource (similarity 0.87)
• Attention has long been treated as valuable and manipulable, not only digitally. (similarity 0.86)
• Anthropologists themselves operate within political economies of attention. (similarity 0.86)
• Attention’s slipperiness itself makes it a subject for ethnographic study. (similarity 0.85)
• Attention has emerged as a site of political, economic, and moral struggle (similarity 0.84)
• Attention-economy analysis must be reframed within a broader attention ecosophy (similarity 0.83)
• Attention functions as a political economy embedded in specific temporal contexts (similarity 0.83)
• Debates about attention are ultimately ontological, not political (similarity 0.82)
• Attention is an interactive relation to one’s life-sustaining environment, not a resource (similarity 0.82)
• Attention is a superimposition of entangled mechanisms rather than a single faculty (similarity 0.82)
• Attention is a socially produced and politically governed resource, not merely a scarce one. (similarity 0.82)
• The line between forced and free attention is itself a political question needing investigation (similarity 0.82)
• Annual Review of Anthropology contributors (⚠ verify author line) — The Political Economy of Attention (similarity 0.81)

Broader Connections

• Attention can be anthropologically theorized as either technologies or techniques #expands (0.80) — Annual Review of Anthropology contributors (⚠ verify author line), The Political Economy of Attention, 63
• Attention ecology is a surprisingly underinvestigated field needing new vocabulary #corroborates (0.75) — Yves Citton, The Ecology of Attention, 19