Anthropology Put to Work (Wenner-Gren International Symposium Series) 1845206002, 9781845206000, 9781847883339
How do anthropologists work today and how will they work in future? While some anthropologists have recently called for
160 92 1MB
English Pages 256 [270] Year 2007
Recommend Papers
File loading please wait...
Citation preview
Anthropology Put to Work
WENNER-GREN INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM SERIES ......................................................... SeriesEditor:LeslieC.Aiello,President,Wenner-GrenFoundationfor AnthropologicalResearch,NewYork. ISSN:1475-536X Previoustitlesinthisseries: AnthropologyBeyondCulture EditedbyRichardG.Fox&BarbaraJ.King,2002 PropertyinQuestion:ValueTransformationintheGlobalEconomy EditedbyKatherineVerdery&CarolineHumphrey,2004 HearingCultures:EssaysonSound,ListeningandModernity EditedbyVeitErlmann,2004 EmbeddingEthics EditedbyLynnMeskell&PeterPels,2005 World Anthropologies: Disciplinary Transformations within Systems of Power EditedbyGustavoLinsRibeiroandArturoEscobar,2006 SensibleObjects:Colonialisms,MuseumsandMaterialCulture EditedbyElizabethEdwards,ChrisGosdenandRuthB.Phillips,2006 RootsofHumanSociality:Culture,CognitionandInteraction EditedbyN.J.EnfieldandStephenC.Levinson,2006 WheretheWildThingsAreNow:DomesticationReconsidered EditedbyRebeccaCassidyandMollyMullin,2007 Sinceitsinceptionin1941,theWenner-GrenFoundationhasconvenedmore than125internationalsymposiaonpressingissuesinanthropology.These symposiaaffirmtheworthofanthropologyanditscapacitytoaddressthe natureofhumankindfromawidevarietyofperspectives.Eachsymposium bringstogetherparticipantsfromaroundtheworld,representingdifferent theoretical disciplines and traditions, for a week-long engagement on a specific issue. The Wenner-Gren International Symposium Series was initiatedin2000toensurethepublicationanddistributionoftheresults ofthefoundation’sInternationalSymposiumProgram. Priortothisseries,somelandmarkWenner-Grenvolumesinclude:Man’s RoleinChangingtheFaceoftheEarth(1956),ed.WilliamL.Thomas;Manthe Hunter(1968),edsIrvDeVoreandRichardB.Lee;ClothandHumanExperience (1989),edsJaneSchneiderandAnnetteWeiner;andTools,Languageand CognitioninHumanEvolution(1993),edsKathleenGibsonandTimIngold. Reportsonrecentsymposiaandfurtherinformationcanbefoundonthe foundation’swebsiteatwww.wennergren.org.
Anthropology Put to Work Edited by LES W. FIELD AND RICHARD G. FOX
Oxford • New York
Firstpublishedin2007by Berg Editorialoffices: 1stFloor,AngelCourt,81StClementsStreet,Oxford,OX41AW,UK 175FifthAvenue,NewYork,NY10010,USA
©Wenner-GrenFoundationforAnthropologicalResearch2007
Allrightsreserved. Nopartofthispublicationmaybereproducedinanyformorbyanymeans withoutthewrittenpermissionofBerg.
BergistheimprintofOxfordInternationalPublishersLtd.
LibraryofCongressCataloguing-in-PublicationData Anthropologyputtowork/editedbyLesW.FieldandRichardG.Fox. p.cm.—(Wenner-Greninternationalsymposiumseries) Includesbibliographicalreferencesandindex. ISBN-13:978-1-84520-600-0(cloth) ISBN-10:1-84520-600-2(cloth) ISBN-13:978-1-84520-601-7(pbk.) ISBN-10:1-84520-601-0(pbk.) 1.Appliedanthropology. I.Field,LesW. II.Fox,RichardGabriel,1939 GN397.5.A6532007 301—dc22 2007006651
BritishLibraryCataloguing-in-PublicationData AcataloguerecordforthisbookisavailablefromtheBritishLibrary. ISBN 9781845206000(Cloth) ISBN 9781845206017(Paper) TypesetbyJSTypesetting,Porthcawl,MidGlamorgan PrintedintheUnitedKingdombyBiddlesLtd,King’sLynn
www.bergpublishers.com
InmemoryofJohnW.Bennettandhisdelightin breakingthroughacademicorthodoxy.
This page intentionally left blank
Contents
Acknowledgments
ix
ParticipantsintheWenner-GrenSymposium
xi
Introduction:HowDoesAnthropologyWorkToday? LesW.FieldandRichardG.Fox
1
1
AnthropologicalCollaborationsinColombia JoanneRappaport
21
2
GraySpacesandEndlessNegotiations:Forensic AnthropologyandHumanRights MercedesDorettiandJenniferBurrell
45
3
CollaboratingtoMeettheGoalsofaNativeSovereign Nation:TheTuleRiverTribalHistoryProject GelyaFrank
65
4
DoingCulturalAnthropologyandDisabilityStudiesin RehabilitationTrainingandResearchContexts PamelaBlock
85
5
InPraiseof“RecklessMinds”:MakingaCaseforActivist Anthropology CharlesR.Hale
103
6
WhatDoIndicatorsIndicate?ReflectionsontheTrials andTribulationsofUsingFoodAidtoPromote DevelopmentinHaiti DrexelG.Woodson
129
vii
viii
Contents
7 WorkingAnthropology:AViewfromtheWomen’s ResearchArena LindaBasch
149
8 PotentialCollaborationsandDisjuncturesinAustralian WorkSites:AnExperientialRendering SandyToussaint
161
9 TheDilemmasof“Working”Anthropologyin Twenty-first-CenturyIndia NandiniSundar
181
10 EthnographicAlchemy:PerspectivesonAnthropological WorkfromNorthernMadagascar AndrewWalsh
201
11 ReflectionsontheSymposium DouglasE.Foley
217
References
225
Index
253
Acknowledgments
T
heWenner-GrenInternationalSymposium“AnthropologyPutto Work/AnthropologyThatWorks?”washeldatthefoundation’soffice inNewYorkCityon19–22May2005.Thesymposiumwasthe136th supportedbythefoundation,butitwasthefirstheldinWenner-Gren’s newofficespaceonParkAvenueSouth.Forthefirsttimeinoverthirty years,thefoundationwasabletohostaninternationalsymposium“at home.”Wewereverygladoursymposiumledoffinthenewspace,and itserveduswell—betterthananycastleinAustriawouldhave! WearemuchindebttoLaurieObbink,whohasdirectedtheinternationalsymposiumprogramformanyyears—andalwayswithverve, savvy,andloyaltytothefoundation’sgoals.Notonlythefoundation butalsoanthropologyhasprofitedgreatlyfromLaurie’slong-standing dedication. Maugha Kenny, the foundation’s director of finance, is someoneelsewhoaidedus—behindthescenes—bymakingsurethenew spacehadequipment,furnishings,andageneralambienceconducive to making our symposium a “go.” Victoria Malkin at Wenner-Gren helpedusthroughoutthepre-publicationprocesstomakethisvolume thebestwecould.HannahShakespeareatBergPressprovedtobea capableandconsiderateacquisitionseditor,andJaneKeppcopyedited withtheprecisionandpinpointaccuracyofasharpshooter.Wewould alsoliketoacknowledgetheimportantcontributionCraigHowemade duringtheWenner-Grensymposium. Fox came up with the idea for this symposium when he was still presidentofthefoundation,whichmeansthatthecurrentpresident, LeslieAiello,isnottobetaxedforanymisconceptionsorfailingsit mighthavehad.WesincerelythankLeslieforhergoodwillandgenerositytowardthis“inherited”undertaking.
ix
This page intentionally left blank
Participants in the Wenner-Gren Symposium
LindaBasch,NationalCouncilforResearchonWomen PamelaBlock,StateUniversityofNewYorkatStonyBrook JenniferBurrell,StateUniversityofNewYorkatAlbany MercedesDoretti,ArgentineForensicAnthropologyTeam(EAAF) DouglasE.Foley,UniversityofTexasatAustin GelyaFrank,UniversityofSouthernCalifornia CharlesR.Hale,UniversityofTexasatAustin CraigHowe,independentscholar JoanneRappaport,GeorgetownUniversity NandiniSundar,DelhiSchoolofEconomics SandyToussaint,UniversityofWesternAustralia AndrewWalsh,WilfredLaurierUniversityandUniversityof WesternOntario DrexelG.Woodson,UniversityofArizona
xi
This page intentionally left blank
Introduction How Does Anthropology Work Today?
Les W. Field and Richard G. Fox
Wehadmilitarygovernmentsmanytimes[inArgentina]butthisone was particularly bloody and thousands of people disappeared. And so, whendemocracyreturned—thatwas’84—therewastheneedtorecover theremainsofthepeoplethathaddisappeared...ThefirsttimeIwent intoagrave,IbasicallywasveryconcentratedonwhatIwasdoing... I was able to work ... and I realized that I felt [good] about doing somethingconcrete...,meetingwiththefamiliesofvictimsandfeeling thattherewassomeconcretethingthatwecouldcontribute...totryto dosomethingaboutwhathappenedinthepast. —MercedesDoretti,onbecomingaforensicanthropologist
F
romitsbeginnings,culturalanthropologyclaimedtowork.By“working”wemeanthatanthropologistsclaimedtheyhadthetrainingand skillstogainknowledgenecessaryandusefultosociety.Thisknowledge couldbetheoreticalorpracticalorsomemixofthetwo,butitwas, earlyanthropologistsinsisted,ofbenefittosocietythatpeopleknow it.Therationaleforwhysuchknowledgebenefitedsocietymighteven shift.Inanthropology’searlydays,forexample,researchingprimitive societieswassaidtomatterbecausetheircustomsreflectedprevious evolutionarystages.Later,itwasbecauseprimitivesocietiesshowedthe rangeofhumanculturalpossibility.Whethersuchknowledgeclaims “work,”thatis,whethertheyareacceptedandrewarded,isamatter ofconventionalunderstandinginthewidersociety—aprojectionof education,media,themarket,andtheotherinstitutionsthatcreate judgmentsofvaluetosociety.Whetheranthropologyworks,therefore, 1
2 LesW.FieldandRichardG.Fox
issomethinganthropologistscannotproclaimorlegislateontheirown, althoughtheycantrytoconvincesocietythatwhattheyknowhashigh value.Knowledgeclaimsthatasocietyrewardsatonetime,furthermore, maynotbewellregardedatanother,asphrenology,parapsychology, eugenics,andaheapofotherdiscardedsciencesattest. Our first proposition—the one that motivated us to organize the symposiumonwhichthisbookisbased—grewoutofourperspectiveon theseknowledgeclaimsandhowtheyhavebeenandwillbeputtowork. Foranthropologytoworkinthefuture,wesuggest,anthropologists mayneedtochangetheirorientations,methodologies,andpedagogy— or,betterput,theymayneedtoacceptthechangesnowimpinging on them. Our proposition about the future depends, however, on a particularviewofanthropology’spast. Isanthropology’shistoryasuccessionofgrandtheories,competing schools,andgreatmenandwomenthinkers?Nodoubtitisinpart,but wealsoneedtorecognizethatanthropology’shistoryhastodowith thepursuitofwork—jobs,income,financialsecurity,andthelegitimacyinsocietythatunderliesalltheforegoing.Onesignificantmeasureofwhetherpastanthropology“worked”—andonenotnecessarily dependent on some abstract measure of anthropology’s worth—is whetheranthropologistsfoundjobstodoandwhatthosejobswere. For anthropologists to find work, anthropology had to “work”; that is,itsknowledgeclaimshadtobeacceptedasvaluableinthewider society.Wethereforeusethewordworkintwosenses:itreferstothejobs anthropologistsdidorhopedtodo,anditalsoreferstoanthropology’s legitimacyinsociety,whichmadethosejobsavailable. Atthebeginning,whenlittlewassettled,anthropologyclaimedto workinmultipleways:totrainandadvisecolonialadministrators,to collect information useful for governing internal minorities such as AmericanIndians,tocollectartifactsformuseumsandsetupdisplaysof them,andtoundertakeuniversityresearchandteachingasoneofthe liberalartsorsciences.Bythe1920s,manyoftheseknowledgeclaims hadprovednottowork.Colonialadministratorsjudgedanthropology’s knowledgeofkinshipandritualesoteric,andtheAmericangovernment turnedawayfromethnographicresearchandsurvey.Fromthistime onward, anthropologyin the United States came to work mainly as amuseumanduniversitysubject,althoughitneverentirelygaveup claimsthatitworked—thatis,couldbeapplied—inthewidersociety.In theUnitedKingdomandFrance,anthropology’sknowledgeclaimswere evenmorerestricted,becausemuseumsplayedasmallerroleinthose countries,andrecognitionofanthropologyasalegitimatescholarly
Introduction 3
discipline,atleastintermsofuniversityappointments,camelaterand onasmallerscale. TheGreatDepressionand,evenmore,WorldWarIIanditsaftermath momentarilybroughtanthropologybackintoworkingdirectlywiththe stateanditspracticalobjectives.Anthropologistsjoinedmultidisciplinary projectsduringthedepressionandthewar,bywhichsocialsciencewas putintheserviceoftheburgeoningAmericanwelfarestate.Afterthe war,anthropologiststookpartininternationaldevelopmentandlabor management projects, which had similar managerial objectives (see Bennett1996:S26).1 Inthe1950s,academicanthropologistsmostlywithdrewfromthis kind of work. The reason, according to John Bennett (1996), was a resurgentinterestamongtheminbuildinggrandtheory.Shortlythereafter,proponentsoftheradicalcritiqueofanthropology,focusedon the need for “relevant” research, distanced themselves further from whathadcometobecommonlylabeled“appliedanthropology.”In theradicalview,appliedanthropologywasinherentlycompromisedby associationwithcolonialadministrationsandstatemanagerialpolicies (seeBennett1996:S24).Theboundarybetweenanthropologistswhose workwasappliedandthosewhoseworkwasbasicorpure—aboundary, weargue,thatisincreasinglyfuzzynowadays—wasstrengthenedduring the1960sand1970s.The“crisisofrepresentation”inthe1980sand 1990sfurtherfortifiedthisboundary,asanall-pervadingrelativismcast doubtontheveryknowledgeclaimsthatallowedanthropologiststo workinpublic. Anthropology’shistoryforusthereforeconsistsofwhen,where,and howitwasputtowork.Amongthemanyclaimsanthropologistsmade, someworkedatonetimeandnotanother,othersneverworkedornot forlong,andinanycase,whatworkedandwhatdidnotwerehardly atthedispositionoftheanthropologists.Aswebegantoorganizea Wenner-Gren International Symposium on how anthropology was beingputtoworkatthebeginningofthetwenty-firstcenturyandhow itmightbeinthefuture,thisviewofanthropology’shistoryprovided uswiththreepremises: 1. Thejobssenioranthropologistsdoorhavedonerecentlymaynot bethosethatyoungscholarscanorwilldoinfuture. 2. The current sense of crisis that many academic anthropologists (mostlyintheUnitedStates)haveabouttheirmissionmissesthe factthatimportantchangesinanthropology’sworkhavealready occurred. In particular, there has been a steady erosion of the
4 LesW.FieldandRichardG.Fox
boundarybetweenappliedandbasicresearchintermsofwhereand withwhomanthropologistsworkandwhatkindofanthropology theyproduce. 3. Most importantly, applied and basic research do not represent separatescholarlypositionsordivergentintellectualstances;they reflectdifferentjobsdonebyanthropologists.Thatis,theyhave frequently reflected the degree to which anthropologists have obtainedprotectedandwell-rewardedjobsinacademe,wherethey canundertakewhatiscalled“basicresearch”—andthenwhatever elsetheseanthropologistsorothersdogetslabeled“applied.”As access by anthropologists to such highly privileged academic jobs decreases, the boundary becomes increasingly fuzzy. The factisthatmostanthropologyhasbeen“engaged”and“public” inintention—andthus,inageneralsense,applied—whetheror not that intended public saw it as legitimate and authoritative andwhetherornottheanthropologist’sjobdescriptioncalledfor application. Some personal experiences can clarify this last point. Fox’s work (1985)ontheinterplaybetweenBritishcolonialismandSikhidentity innorthernIndiawasnotappliedinanarrowsense,butwhenhewas calledupontoaddressmilitantSikhcongregationsintheUnitedStates during the Khalistan agitation in the 1980s, it became so. Militant Sikhsscrutinizedhisresearchforwhatitmightsayaboutthedegree ofseparationbetweenHindusandSikhs,inaidofthemovementto carveaseparateSikhstateoutofIndia.Foxalsofoundhimself,onthe basisofhishistoricalresearch,defendingSikhsagainstaccusationsof terrorismaftertheassassinationofIndiraGandhiin1984.Onedean at Duke University even asked him to warrant that a Sikh who had recentlymovedintothedean’sneighborhoodwouldnotbemaking bombsinhisbasement. Field, by contrast, began research with California Indians in the employofoneunrecognizedtribe,theMuwekmaOhloneoftheSan Francisco Bay Area. His research agenda, interview and life-history formats and scheduling, and access to archival materials were all arrangedandplannedwithandthroughthetribe.Onlyafterworkingon avarietyofprojectsconnectedwiththeirfederalrecognitionpetitionfor almostadecadeanddoingsimilarworkwithotherunrecognizedcoastal groupsdidFieldbegintoexploreprojectsthatdepartedfromspecific “applications”ofanthropologicalresearchrelevanttothetorturedrelationsbetweenthefederalIndianbureaucracyandtheunrecognized
Introduction 5
tribes.Butthismovealsotookplace,inlargepart,attheinstigationof membersofIndiancommunities. Thebestwaytoseethatourfutureworkmaynotbewhatwedoor claimtodotodayistoviewourpastfromthevantageofthepresent.How passionatelywedisownmuchofthatpastandthewayanthropology was put to work then! We are dismayed that Franz Boas, American anthropology’sfoundingfatherintheearlytwentiethcentury,robbed Indiangravesforskeletonsandconcoctedafalseburialtofoolayoung Inuitintolettingsciencehavehisfather’scorpse.Weareashamedthat AlfredKroeber,Boas’searlystudent,betrayedIshi,hisIndianfriend(or captive,dependingonyourview),andsenthisbrainforscientistsat theSmithsoniantostudyandpreserve.Andwhatsortoffollywasit thatmighthaveledMargaretMead,alaterBoasstudent,tobehoaxed inthe1920sbySamoanyoungwomenwhomadeSamoaouttobejust whatMeadwanted?Accusationsmadeinthe1970sofanthropology’s complicity with colonialism and its fellow-traveling with American imperialismsimilarlyimpugnedanthropology’shistoryonthejob(see Freeman1983;Hymes1972;Starn2004;Thomas2000). Weanthropologistshaveoftenbeenquicktodisownthispast,asif wecouldpurifyourselvesbyvilifyingourancestors.Thereisnoneed toworshiptheseancestors,butthereisanotherlessonweneedtotake fromthepast—inrespectofourfuture.Thesepast“failures”shouldtell usthatanthropologyworkeddifferentlyinthepast.BoasandKroeber, forexample,believedinasalvageanthropologythatcouldtakeliberties inthenameofscienceinordertorescueAmericanIndiancustomsand languagesbeforethenativesocietiesdisintegrated.IfMeadwastruly hoaxed,itcameaboutbecauseofanaivefaithinethnographicrapport, longbeforeanthropologistsbegantoworkwithpopulationsandina worldwheretheboundarybetweengoodguysandbadbecamefuzzy.All threeworkedatatimewhenanthropologistsneededtogainlegitimacy withinuniversities,andnodoubtthethencurrentimageofthesober andunbiasedscholar,forwhomsciencecamefirst,conditionedwhat theydidandthewaytheypresentedthemselves. Tobesure,wemustuncoverpastinstancesofnaiveté,complicity,and duplicityinanthropologyifwearetoimproveourunderstandingand betterourknowledge—ofourselvesandtherebyoftheworldwestudy. Atthesametime,wehadbettertakethelessonthatanthropologycan beputtoworkindifferentwaysandthatanthropologistshavehadto respondtothejobopportunitiesavailabletothematanyonetime. Inplanningoursymposium,therefore,weconceivedofanthropology’s futureinawayfundamentallydifferentfromthatofanthropologists
6 LesW.FieldandRichardG.Fox
whohaverecentlycalledfora“public”or“engaged”anthropologyrefocusedoncriticalsocialissues(seeBaschetal.1999;Lamphere2003; Scheper-Hughes1995).Nodoubttheseexhortationsarewellintended, andtheanthropologistsexpressingthemareinearnest.Forus,however, thisimageofanthropologists“reachingout”fromprotectedacademic positionstoavaguelydefined“public”iselitistandoutoftouchwith theworkingconditionsofmanyanthropologists,especiallythosejunior anduntenured.Wealsohavestrongdoubtsthatanthropologistscan bewhatevertheywanttobe;the“justdoit”sentimentbehindthese fervidappealsseemsmoreinlinewithbothnationalistandindividualist Americanideologiesthanwiththecurrentrealitiesofscholarshipinthe UnitedStates.Furthermore,theexhortationsbysenioranthropologists foranengaged,publicanthropologyassumeacrisissituationthatwe thinkisneithernewnorsudden.Inourexperience,youngeranthropologistshavehadtorespondtothis“crisis”foratleasttwodecades. Webasedoursymposium,therefore,onthepremisethatprofound changeshavealreadyoccurredinanthropology,leadingtonewkinds of work for a large number of anthropologists. We decided to focus oursymposiumonthisworkasawayofmakingitbetterknownand more instructive to young anthropologists. We did not assume that thereisanessentialanthropology,basedintheacademy,thatneedsto becomebetteratmanagingpublicrelationsand“reachingout”orthat needstoreassumetheauthoritytonametheimportantsocialissues oftheday.Rather,wepresumedthatnewanthropologicalworkhas respondedtochangingsocialandculturaldemands,andwedoubted thatanthropologycoulddetermineonitsownwhichissuestohighlight. Forus,themeaningandsignificanceofan“anthropologyinpublic” isneitherobviousnorsimple,becausethereisnosingular,dominant anthropologythatallowsustodeterminewhenandhowto“engage” with“thepublic.” Wehopedtobringtogetheratthesymposiumasampleofthemany new forms of work in which anthropologists engage, but we know thatthisvolumerepresentsonlyahandfulofexamples.Intheevent, we had fewer participants from outside the United States than we expected, and certain workplaces, such as the corporate world and privatephilanthropies,neededgreaterrepresentation.Webelieve,however, that the contributors do show that anthropologists are put to work in diverse ways today and that anthropology has changed profoundlybecauseofit. Althoughthisvolumecannotcoverallthenewcareerscenarios,we thinkitdoesidentifythedegreetowhichtheworkofanthropologists
Introduction 7
has changed. We hope it will aid graduate students and early-career scholars to accept these changes, without feeling that something essentialtoanthropologyhasbeenlost,andtoadapttothem,because therereallyisnootherchoiceformostyounganthropologists.Others havedocumentedthecurrentdearthofacademicjobsandtheincreased vulnerabilityofuntenured—inmanycases,never-to-betenured—junior faculty, and we see little point in reiterating these projections here. Wewanttofocusinsteadonwhatthesechangedconditionsofwork, thesenewcareerscenarios,meanforthewayanthropologygetsdone differentlyandtheway,intheprocess,ourbasicoperatingconcepts getmodified. Thecontributorstothevolumeindicatethatthenewconditions ofanthropologicalworkrequiresignificantdeparturesfromstandard and widely accepted principles of cultural anthropology. In whatfollows,wediscussthechaptersinrelationtothesesignificant departures.
FromRapporttoCollaboration Themostsignificantdepartureconcernstheconceptofethnographic rapport and reflexivity in fieldwork. Ethnographic rapport in its canonical version—this is, the image of the anthropologist among the “natives,” building up trust and friendship with them in return for information—has come under attack for being disingenuous in severalways.PeterPels(1999:107)findsafundamental“duplexity”in ethnographicfieldwork,inthat“theanthropologistposesassomeone wantingtobeconvertedtoa‘native’audienceduringfieldworkand as someone who has been converted (but, perhaps, has returned to ‘normal’ways)whenreportingonthisfieldwork...backhome.”Pels also reminds us that “rapport” helps the anthropologist overcome nativereservationsabouttheanthropologist’sulteriormotives,when infacttheacademiccareerunderwrittenbythefieldworkisprecisely anulteriormotive. Anothercontradictionisthatethnographicrapportinvokesasamenessbetweenanthropologistand“native,”atleastenoughtofacilitate communication, whereas ethnographic texts construct difference or “otherness” (see Argyrou 1999). “Rapport” also suggests an equality intherelationshipbetweenanthropologistsandtheirsubjects,when thenormisforthepoorandvulnerabletobeourtargetpopulations. Finally,theconceptofrapportassumesthattheanthropologistgets along well with members of the society or population under study,
8 LesW.FieldandRichardG.Fox
even to the point of wanting to minimize the group’s dysfunctions orinternalconflicts.RobertEdgerton(1992)calledthisthe“mythof primitiveharmony.” Such a “goodthink” concept works poorly in a world in which anthropologists study drug dealers, ethnic militants, religious fundamentalists, and others who, although caught up in circumstances, neverthelessarenotunderclassheroesoroppressed“goodguys.”Even whenanthropologistsdoworkwithpeoplewhoarethe“goodguys”— such as members of indigenous peoples and other oppressed ethnic minorities—political and ideological factionalism, religious diversity, sexism,unethicalbehavior,andthepowerofindividualpersonalities cannolongerbeglossedoversothatanthropologistscanrepresenta unidimensional “indigenous voice.” Although most anthropologists recognizehowpoorlytheconceptofrapportfitsethnographicreality today,weoftenclingtothisconceptasanessentialonetotransmitin graduatetrainingandtouseinevaluatingtheworthoffieldresearch byyoungscholars.Thechaptersinthisvolumeprovideanalternative totheconceptofrapport,aswediscussshortly. Theconceptof“reflexivity”isarecentadditiontoorelaborationof “ethnographicrapport”thatonlymakesformoredifficulty.“Reflexivity,” whenitfocusesonthemutualchangesinanthropologistsandtheir interlocutorscreatedbyethnographicinteraction,isinsightfulbuthardly novelorrevolutionary:itseemsobviousthatsuccessfulfieldresearch hasalwaysdependeduponsomesuchmutuality.When“reflexivity” goesfartherandfocusestheethnographictextontheanthropologist’s psychological response and self-realization through fieldwork, it is possible that such reflection only exacerbates the inequalities in ethnographybyunderliningtheprivilegeofexploringandpublishing theanthropologist’sself-actualization.Ostensiblystudyingothers,the anthropologist,ineffect,chronicleshimselforherself.Theexcessesof thatroute,epitomizedbythepostmodernismofthe1980sandearly 1990s,appeartohavepassed,yetanthropologistsstillcommonlyuse the term reflexivity in an unexamined way that could connote selfindulgence. As with “rapport,” the work to which anthropology is puttodaysupersedesaself-indulgentreflexivityanddemandsanew ethnographic relationship based on collaboration. Although it is possible,asLukeLassiterrecentlywrote(2005),toseemuchcontinuity intheways“rapport,”“reflexivity,”andnow“collaboration”havebeen usedinthehistoryofethnographicresearch,weseerealdifferencesin thedeploymentoftheseconceptsand,consequently,realadvancesin ethnographicmethods.
Introduction 9
Thisconceptofcollaboration—asamethodofethnographicresearch, asanepistemologicalprinciple,andasameansofputtingknowledge towork—developedintothemostsignificantcommonalityamongthe contributorstothisvolume.Lassiter(2005:84)definedcollaborative ethnographyas“thecollaborationofresearchersandsubjectsinthe production of ethnographic texts, both fieldwork and writing.” He underscoredthatquitedifferentgoalsandimperativescouldemerge withineachcollaborativeproject.Hisownwork,whichspansresearch amongtheKiowasandamongurbanAfricanAmericans,exemplifiesthe waysinwhichdifferentkindsofcollaborativefieldworkrelationships nourishverydifferentresults.Lassiter’sworkemphasizesthatnotions ofcollaborationmustnotbecomevaguegeneralprinciplesthatdonot movemuchbeyond“rapport”and“reflexivity.” The contributors to this volume work collaboratively for specific reasons.Someofthemembracecollaborationinresponsetopredicaments andopportunitiesencounteredintheirresearch.Inmanycommunities, anthropologicalresearchmethodsandgoalsmustbereconciledwith criteriaandagendasdevelopedbyleadersandotherintellectualsfrom thosecommunities.Oftenourcontributorsactuallyworkintheemploy of the community, thereby reversing the conventional power relationsthatoftentypifiedfieldworkinthepast.Insomeinstances theyhavedevelopedcollaborativerelationshipswithacademicsfrom otherdisciplinesorhavecombinedanthropologicalresearchwithgoals andorientationsderivedfromotherdisciplines.Stillothercontributors endorse collaborative efforts as a solution to their broad critique of anthropologicaltheoryandpractice. JoanneRappaport’sworkinColombia,forexample,hasdemanded political and social collaboration with indigenous intellectuals and social movements, without which ethnography would have proved impossible. That collaboration, in turn, transformed her theory and methods,leadingtowhatshecalls“co-theorizing.”Rappaportfound thathercollaborativeworkcomplexlyresonatedwiththehistoryof politicallycommittedsocialsciencedonebyColombianscholars. Inaparallelfashion,MercedesDoretti’sArgentineForensicAnthropologyTeam(EEAF)developedbecausethepoliticsofhumanrights, marriedtothemethodsofforensicanthropology,producednewmethodsandformsofknowledgethatrequiredever-evolvingnegotiations betweenanthropological,political,andlocalpracticesandgoals.The resulting collaboration comprised a complex ensemble of expertise, ethics, and desires produced as all the interested parties—anthropologists, governments, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and
10
Les W. Field and Richard G. Fox
familiesofvictims—cametogether.Doretti’suseofthetermnegotiation evokesthemannerinwhichanthropologicalwork,asinRappaport’s research, becomes so embedded in complex relationships that the anthropologistcannolongerimposeherresearchpriorities.Forboth RappaportandDoretti,collaborativerelationshipsshapingtheresearch they did obviated any consideration of the people with whom they workedas“informants.”Thoserelationshipsunderscorethedegreeto whichboththeanthropologistandthepeoplewithwhomsheworked became“interlocutors.” GelyaFrankalsorecountsthetransformationbroughtaboutinher anthropologythroughcollaboration,inthiscasewithresidentsofthe TuleRiverIndianReservationincentralCalifornia.Thiscollaboration developedbecausetheYokutsbandsatTuleRiverhadbeenworking uptheirownprojectsandhistoricalagenda.Frankturnedtoanother discipline,occupationaltherapy,tofurtherherownandthecommunity’s goals. By bringing occupational therapy and anthropology into the collaboration,Frankfoundherabilitytomakespaceforchangesinthe conceptionofherresearchsteeplyaugmented,andsheadvancedthe effortsoftheTuleRivercommunityinrelativelyrapidorder. PamBlock’schapter,too,isconcernedwiththeteamingofoccupational therapywithanthropology,butsheoffersaverydifferentstory,focused onthemakingofanewcareer—herown—andthenewdisciplinaryand professionalcollaborationssheforged.Inhercase,collaborationstook placewithinthecontextofauniversitydeeplyenmeshedincorporate America,oneinwhich“for-profit”calculationstookprecedenceover canonicalnotionsofbasicresearch.Blockshowsthenewpersonaland disciplinarycollaborationsthissortofuniversityrequired,andhersis acautionarytaleindeed.Apartfromtheinevitableproblemsanyone wouldencounterinforginganewkindofcross-disciplinarycareer,she detailshowdifficultitistodescribeherworktobothanthropologists and occupational therapists. The collaborations that Rappaport and Dorettimustachieve“inthefield”havetheircounterpartinthecareer collaborationthatBlockmustcreateathomeintheuniversity. CharlesHaleandDrexelWoodsoneachdiscusscollaborationinmore general ways and within the context of anthropology’s history and future.Halewishestoerasethedistinctionbetweenbasicandapplied researchinfavorofwhathelabels“activistanthropology,”whichisboth collaborativeandpoliticallyengaged.Herecognizesthatcollaborative approaches, operationalized as activist anthropology rather than as culturalcritique,havenotbeenbroadlyacceptedinAmericanscholarship, despitetheirethicalvirtuesandtheirproductionofresultsvaluedby
Introduction 11
the communities involved. He warns us that activist anthropology will never survive in the new corporate American university unless ithighlightsitssuperiorityinproducingtheoryandanalysis,andhis chaptershowcasesthemethodologicalandepistemologicaladvantages ofcollaborativeandactivistresearchovercanonicalpureresearchin anthropology.AlthoughHalerecognizesthecontradictionsthatactivistresearchcangenerate,bothwithintheanthropologist’sepistemologyandmethodsandbetweentheanthropologistandthecommunitiesinwhichsheorheworks,hearguesthatactivistanthropology isstillcharacterizedbyethicalsuperiorityandbetterpayoffsforthe anthropologist’s collaborators relative to those achieved through an instrumentalappliedanthropology. Woodson offers the work experience of an anthropologist firmly committedpersonallytomaintainingadistinctionbetweenpureand appliedresearch.Hiscommitmentgrowsoutofthemultidisciplinary developmentworkhehasbeendoingforovertwodecadesinHaiti. Heusestheoryandepistemologyelaboratedinbasicanthropological research to assemble field methods he and the larger research team deployintheapplied,“policy-relevant”worktheydoinHaiti.Their goal is to develop “social indicators” of Haitian domestic economy anddevelopmentthatNGOswillregardasvalidandreliable.These indicators,whicharequalitativeandquantitativebenchmarksofsocial, political,andeconomicconditionsinHaiti,dependuponfine-tuned collaborationsbetweenWoodsonandHaitianinterlocutors,aswellas betweenWoodsonandteammembersfromotherdisciplines.Adifferent andperhapsmoretryingcollaborationtakesplacewithinternational NGOs, who have the ultimate say about the worth of these social indicatorsintermsofelicitingfundsforHaitiandevelopment. These multiple collaborations, Woodson relates, require a process of“bracketing,compressing,andsimplifying”informationandthen “probingandunpacking”it—aprocessthatisprofoundlyreflexiveas anoutcomeoftheworkitself,ratherthanaself-absorbedreflexivity. Woodson says his work is energized by the interplay between pure and basic research, which we take to mean that his ethnography followsbasicresearchmethods,whereashisdataaredirectedtoward appliedpurposes.HiscollaborativeworkwithNGOshassubstantially transformed the ethnographic data he collects and presents and, in turn,themethodsbywhichhecollectsthem. Thistransformationsignifiestousthatthedistinctionbetweenpure andappliedresearchisnolongersalient,asRappaportarguesinthe case of Colombian anthropology, just as the work-based reflexivity
12
Les W. Field and Richard G. Fox
Woodsonhighlightsdisavowstheself-interestedvarietythathasbeen associated with basic research in the past two decades. Linda Basch explores another angle on these topics. Like Frank and Block, she has found a disciplinary home outside anthropology, as director of anetworkofwomen’sresearchandpolicyNGOs.Abjuringthepureapplieddualismaswell,Baschinsteadnamesacreativeandexplicitly reflexivetensionbetweentheinstrumentalismthatcharacterizesher daily work life and the descriptive empiricism of anthropological inquiry.Withoutdoubt,Baschvalueshertrainingandherprofessional identityasananthropologistforwhattheycontributetothegoalsand agendasoftheprojectssheworksonwithfeministNGOs.Butshealso considerstheinsightsshehasgainedconcerningtheinternaldynamics ofinterdisciplinaryandacademic-nonacademiccollaborationsinthe makingofthoseprojectsanessentialpartofherroleasananthropologist inthiswork.Shesuggeststhatanthropologistshaveastrong,multisided roletoplaywhentheyworkwithotherkindsofprofessionals,andthat theirattentiontoworkprocessaswellasfinalproductisoneoftheir specificcontributions.
ANewReflexivity ThereclamationofreflexivityisfurtherdetailedinthechaptersbySandy Toussaint,NandiniSundar,andAndrewWalsh.Toussaintdescribesher workcareerinAustraliaasadifferentkindofcollaborationfromtheone Dorettidetailed:itisbasedondoingbothteachingandresearchand onmovingbetweenthelivesandlocationsofherinterlocutorsandthe university.LikeHale,Toussaintisconcernedwiththeeffectsofcorporate control on the university, and like Woodson, she has worked with scholarsfromotherdisciplines.Butinherchapterthereisnoclosure onthesedisjunctures;sherelatesthepotentialofsuchcollaborations, including the potential for failure. One non-anthropologist scholar withwhomshecollaborateddidnotfolloweventhebasiccontoursof collaboration with Aboriginal communities. Competition over productivityintheuniversityhasledtocompetitionforscarceresources suchthatsomeotherwisevaluableresearchprojectsareneverfunded. Inanyindividualcaseofcollaboration,bridgingthevastdifferences between the quotidian harshness of marginalized Aboriginal people andtheprivilegedworldoftheuniversitymaynotsucceed. Toussaintmakesitclearthatsuchfailedcollaborationshavemultiple losers,notonlycolleaguesfromotherdisciplinesbutalso,andmostsadly, theAboriginalcommunities,whoselandclaimsandotherstrugglesfor
Introduction 13
socialjusticedonotnecessarilyendwell.Theanthropologistcancome tobeperceivedbythepeoplethemselvesashavingletthemdown,no matterhowhardsheworkedtohelpthem.Inturn,shefeelsdreadful fortheirplight,inareflexivitythatcomes“onthejob”ratherthanin themind.Toussaint’schapterbalancesthemorepositivepresentations ofcollaborationbyRappaport,Frank,andHale,butsheremainsfully committedtosuchcollaborationsbecausetheyareanthropology’swork today. InSundar’schapter,collaborationalsocharacterizesanthropologists’ relationsandnegotiationswithpublicinterlocutorsandwithscholars from other disciplines with whom she has worked on development projectsamongtribalcommunitiesinIndia.Callingattentiontodistinctive conditions shaping the development of anthropology and other social sciences in India, Sundar, like Toussaint, recognizes the difficultiesand,intheIndiancontext,thedangersofcollaboration.The historyofanthropologyinIndia,asitdevelopedamongindigenous scholarsinacolonizedsociety,givesheraspecialviewpointonthe natureofanthropologicalcollaboration.Sheisuncertainthatasingle anthropology exists that can be cross-fertilized by other disciplines, uncertain about what constitutes the anthropological canon when whatiswritteninsomanyIndianlanguagesisconsideredineligible forinclusion,andhumblyuncertainaboutapplyinganthropological knowledgeinthefaceofthefrequentlydireeconomicandpolitical problemsfacingcommunitieswhereshehasworked. ShealsohonorsthehardworkoftheearlyIndiananthropologists in legitimating anthropology as a basic research discipline in India andthemselvesasworthyresearchersinthefaceofcolonialprejudice againstindigenousscholars.Thesehard-wonpastvictoriesforIndian anthropologyandforIndianuniversitiesmean,especiallygiventhe sectarian violence that now afflicts India, that the risks of a collaborativeandactivistanthropologyaremuchhigher.Hale,too,affirms thetensionsbetweenthescholarshipheadvocatesandtheindigenous movementswithwhichheworks.ButSundar,fromherSouthAsian vantage, is far less sanguine about the outcomes of collaborative enterprisesforanthropology’sinterlocutorsandaboutthesecurityof theanthropologicaldisciplinewithintheboundariesoftheuniversity whereitishoused. WithWalsh’schapter,thekindofreflexivitycharacterizingToussaint’s andSundar’scontributionsreachesahigherpitch.Hisanalysisintroduces an alchemical allegory, offering the idea that anthropologists spin goldenpublicationsoutoffieldworkstraw,atleastinparttoexplain
14
Les W. Field and Richard G. Fox
both to Walsh himself and his Malagasy interlocutors exactly what he is doing in Madagascar and how he makes a living doing it. By emphasizinganthropologynotonlyasworkbutasajob,Walshexplores theobsessionwithproductinacademicwork,recallingHale’ssuggestion thatthehyperproductivityrequiredbycorporateuniversitiesjustmight beturnedtotheadvantageofcollaborativeactivistanthropologists.If Baschimpliedanemphasisonprocessasmuchasonproduct,Walsh explicitlyarguesforanewvaluationregimeinanthropology,onethat allowsforfailuretoproduce—publications,forexample—andthatturns ourreflexiveattentiontotheprocessesofdoingfieldwork,teaching,and writingandtowhatisgainedfromthembyallinterlocutors.Afterall, Walshpointsout,alchemistslearnedtoworkwithelementsinways thatfuturegenerationsofscientistshavetakentremendousadvantage of,notwithstandingtheirfailuretoproducegold.NodoubtWalsh’s radical view ultimately envisages whole new meanings not only for anthropology,collaborativeorotherwise,butforallkindsofwork.
FromFieldworkEpiphanytoFieldworkRealism Inthisvolumewecontestanotherpartoftheanthropologicalcanon, thehoarynotionthatsuccessfulfieldworkcanbemeasuredbywhether the anthropologist comes back a “different person,” altered forever and immeasurably by the ethnographic encounter. Ethnography as “vision quest” is one of the oldest and most destructive parts of the anthropologicalcanon.Itdisplacestraininginanalyticmethodology andfieldmethodswithanunmeasurablepsychologicalchange—why doweneedfieldmethodswhenthetruetestofgoodethnographyis whethertheanthropologisthasapersonallytransformativeexperience in the field? It also supports, unfortunately, anthropologists’ claims thattheyaredifferentfromordinaryscholars—politicalscientistsand sociologists, after all, don’t have epiphanies during fieldwork. This claim to being chosen not only often gets anthropology dismissed butalsointerfereswiththecollaborationsacrossdisciplinesonwhich wenowdependforwork.Worse,itputsaburdenonfledginganthropologists,whomustauthenticatetheirprofessionalstandingbynarrating ethnographic epiphanies and who often wonder how much transformationisenoughtoqualify. Thestereotypeofanthropologicalfieldworkascomprisingpersonal epiphanies has vanished from the chapters in this volume. Significantlifechangesmighthaveoccurredduringeachcontributor’sfieldwork,butforthesewriterssuchchangesappeartobeneitherimplicit
Introduction 15
andoff-stagenor,inaMalinowskiansense,eroticallycharged(aswas presumably the case for many anthropologists during most of the twentieth century). Nor are these life changes explicit, overbearing, andthefocusofinterest,astheyhavebeenintherecentpostmodernist turn. The profoundly relational nature of fieldwork, in terms of the intertwiningofanthropologists’andtheirinterlocutors’livesandminds, isperhapsbestexpressedbyRappaport’sterm,co-theorizing.Thisterm neithersidelinestheactiveinvolvementoftheanthropologistandher profoundinvestmentintheethnographicexperiencenorfetishizesthat experiencetothedetrimentoftheotherinterlocutorsandtheirprofound investmentsintheprocess.Walsh’semphasisonprocessoverproductin thejobofdoinganthropologyalsohelpstounderminethemystiqueof fieldworkwithoutdetractingfromitsimportance.Othercontributors’ skepticism and caution about collaborative ethnography, elaborated particularlybySundarandToussaint,provideanothervantagefrom which to more realistically value the process of ethnography. In an extraordinaryinstanceofthiskindofrealism,Dorettihasmanagedto engageinethnographicworkthatsurelyhasprofoundlychangedher, withoutrelyingonthetropeoftheethnographicepiphany. Block,Frank,and,byimplication,Baschremindusthatanthropologists can undergo profound personal changes outside of fieldwork, even thoughtheselocalesarenotpartofthecanoninanthropology.Block andFrankbothdescribetheprofoundalterationsthattheirself-concepts andcareerscenariosunderwentastheyadoptedknowledgefromother disciplinesandfoundworkinnon-anthropologyuniversitydepartments. Wecanperceiveasimilarsubstantialself-awarenessarisinginSundaras sherecoversthebattlesforanthropologyandindigenousscholarship fought by her predecessors in India and balances them against the claimsonhergenerationofresearchersforactivism.
FromHolismtoSituationalComparison Anotherpartoftheanthropologicalcanondisputedinthisvolumeis thenotionofholism—thatis,theideathattheanthropologiststudies everythinginasocietyor,inamorerecentform,thattheanthropologist develops an overarching view of a society from small-scale research. Toussaintexplicitlyattackstheiconofholismfromtwoperspectives, presenting the work world of the anthropologist as composed of fragments that cannot be seamlessly reassembled and the world of the Aboriginal communities in which she works as characterized by incongruence, disruption, and suffering that is irreconcilable with a
16
Les W. Field and Richard G. Fox
holisticworldview.Fromanotherangle,Woodsonpresentsindicators asco-theorizedtoolsofevaluationthatdonotpretendtoreflectthe entiretyofHaitianrurallife.Themirageofholismisclearlytangential totheworkWoodsondoes,bothmethodologicallyandintermsofits expectedoutcomes. Rappaport,Frank,andHaleworklocallyandspecifically,theiranthropologicalpurviewdefinedbythegoalsandagendasofthepeoplethey workwithandstudy.Basch’sworkisinasensedivorcedfromlocality, becauseitbringspeopletogetherfrommanydivergentlocations.Finally, in a location where anthropologists historically have deployed the mirageofholisminanalmostderigeurfashion—theIndianreservation—Frankputanthropologytoworkforacommunitythathadno suchexpectation.Thisisanotheroutcomeofthekindsofcollaborative workpursuedbythevolume’scontributors—someofanthropology’s burdenscanbeliftedbecausetheframeworksfordoinganthropology arenotdeterminedbyanthropologicallegacies. Althoughnotholistic,thesechaptersdoallowforbroadcomparative perspectivesinwaysthatdifferfromthecomparisonsofwholesocieties thathavecharacterizedmuchofanthropology’shistory—untilrecently, whentheproblemswithsuchholisticcomparisonsledtothedemise ofmostcomparativeanthropology(seeFoxandGingrich2002).The oldnotionofholisticcomparisondisdainedrippingpartsoraspects ofasocietyoutoftheentiresocialcomplex,indismissalofthetrait comparisonsfoundinearlyevolutionistanthropology.Thatkindof anthropologybeinglongdead,itistimeanthropologistsreturnedtoa comparativeperspective,basedonsocialpracticesandbeliefs,where context is acknowledged but not taken to the point of invalidating comparison. Rappaport,Hale,Frank,Toussaint,andDorettiallgiveusinstances ofcollaborationwithlocal peopleinwhichthe variablesthatmake eachinstancesomewhatdifferent—indigenouspolitics,nationalhistory,imperialistrelations,andlocalbeliefs—affordor,better,promote insightful comparisons of the anthropological collaboration and indigenousactivismpossibleindifferentcircumstances.Inthechapters byBlock,Frank,Woodson,Toussaint,Doretti,andBasch,wecantakea comparativeperspectiveonhowanthropology—andindividualanthropologists—canadapttothenewcorporateuniversityandglobalized worldofNGOsornot-for-profitsandstillretainastrongidentityas professionalanthropologists.Thecontributorshereandintheirother writings allow for comparisons on many specific topics: indigenous socialmovementsandcommunityprojects(Rappaport,Frank,Sundar,
Introduction 17
Toussaint),theuseofanthropologicalfieldworktechniquesinoccupational therapy (Block, Frank), the alleviation of poverty and other kindsofsocialsuffering(Woodson,Sundar,Doretti,Toussaint),andthe difficultyofreconcilinguniversitylifewithfieldwork(Walsh,Toussaint, Hale). They do not represent the work at their field sites or in their researchprojectsasprovidinginsightsintowholeculturalsystems,as, forexample,inCliffordGeertz’sattempttotaketheBalinesecockfight asexemplaryofthesocietyorhisbeliefthathecouldlearnaboutallof Indonesiabystudyingsociallifeinonesmalltown.Theconditionsour contributorsencounterintheirfieldworkmaketheseholisticclaims unfeasible,implausible,andindeedimpossible. Thisrichandalternativediversityoffersreadersperspectivesthatare groundedinwhatisgoingoninthedisciplinerightnow,ratherthan inrecommendationsforanticipatedchanges.Thisisnotunintentional andispartofthisvolume’sorientationtowardtheteachingandtraining ofgraduatestudents.
PuttingAnthropologytoWork:APedagogy Theimportanceofteachingandtrainingnewanthropologistsnever left central stage as we wrote this introduction, not to mention as weplannedandorganizedthissymposium.Manyofourcontributors cameoutofgraduateprogramsinanthropologythateitherpartlyorin somecasescompletelyneglectedtoteachfieldworkmethodologyorto instructgraduatestudentsatallabouthowonebecomesaprofessional anthropologistorpreparestofindworkinourfield.Asrecentlyasthe 1990s,discussionsoffieldworkandmethodsingraduateclasseswere characteristicallygossipyintone,treatingthereleaseofMalinowski’s diaries,forexample,asatitillatingexposératherthanasanopportunity to understand the relationships—collaborative and quite possibly combative—bywhichMalinowskiobtainedethnographicinformation. Doubtless,manyprogramsstillneglecttheseessentialaspectsoftraining newanthropologistsorrelegatethemtothemarginsofmorehighly valued theoretical discussions. Yet graduate students increasingly demand exactly such classes, as well as advisement that focuses on preparingforcollaborativefieldmethods,writingforanthropological journals,assemblingprofessionalcredentials,andpreparingtoapplyfor andworkinnon-academicjobs.Weenvisionthisvolumeasdirected towardgraduatestudents’demandsforinformationabouttheseissues, notinadidacticordirectivewayinwhichweopinewhatshouldbe done,butbywayofrealexamples.
18
Les W. Field and Richard G. Fox
Itmaybeusefulforstudentstoconsiderthemultiplekindsofcareers describedinthisvolume,aswellasthewaysinwhichdifferentkinds ofcollaborativemethodsandepistemologiesdevelopedunderdistinct circumstances.Inthatlight,thebookcouldbeputtoproductiveusein classesfocusingspecificallyonfieldworkmethods,aswellasinfirst-year graduatetheoryclasses.Amoreprofoundsignificanceforthevolume couldbetosupporttheresurrectionofanotherkindofcollaborative fieldwork—thatbetweenstudentsandmentors.Bythe1980s,graduate studentswerealreadybeingtoldthatthedaysinwhichtheycouldexpect toworkwiththeirprofessorsatthelatter’sresearchsiteswerelongover. As Lassiter and his students showed in The Other Side of Middletown: ExploringMuncie’sAfrican-AmericanCommunity(2004),studentsnotonly areaskingtolearncollaborativeresearchmethodsbutfrequentlyare interestedincreatingsuchprojectswiththeirprofessors.Revivingthis kindofcollaborationinethnographicresearchcouldhaveprofound consequences for the way anthropology’s interlocutors understand our research methods and the way individuals, both students and interlocutors,becometrainedinthedoingofethnography. The most important way this book could be taught is as part of a wholesale shift in the orientation of graduate training toward the kindsofcircumstancesinwhichmostanthropologistsnowwork.This wouldmeanincludingtheworkofnon-academicanthropologistsin thelistsofrequiredreadingonwhichgraduatestudentsaretestedand understandingthatworkaspartofagreater,moreinclusivecanon.In short,thetrainingofgraduatestudentsmustincreasinglymatchthe jobsandworkthosestudentswillendupdoing,anditistowardthat goalthatthisbookisdesignedtocontribute.
Note 1. The Western Electric Hawthorne project is the best-known instance of anthropology’s involvement in industrial labor management before World WarII.SeeMayo1933,WarnerandLow1947,andChapple1943and1946 forcontemporarystatementsaboutthisresearch;seeLandsberger1958and Schwartzman1992forretrospectivecritiques.Instancesofmultidisciplinary projectsthatincorporatedanthropologyarethecross-culturalstudiesofbasic personalitysponsoredbyAbramKardinerinthe1930sand1940s(Kardiner
Introduction 19
1945;KardinerandLinton1939)and,somewhatlater,thestudyofpremodern and modern economies headed by Karl Polanyi (Polanyi 1944; Polanyi, Arensburg, and Pearson 1957). The major example of the use of anthropological research during the Second World War is Ruth Benedict’s study of Japaneseculture“atadistance,”TheChrysanthemumandtheSword(1946),but anthropologistsparticipatedinmoredirectwaysthat,inretrospect,oftenseem unfortunate(seeMead1979;Starn1986).AfterWorldWarII,anthropologists rushedtojointheothersocialsciencesinthestudyofdevelopmentandthe “newnations”(seeKluckhohn1949;Linton1945;Steward1950,1956)atthe outsetoftheatomiceraandtheColdWar.
This page intentionally left blank
o n e
Anthropological Collaborations in Colombia Joanne Rappaport
C
olombianethnographershavefordecadesengagedinacommitted anthropologymarkedbypoliticalandsocialcollaboration,blurring thelinesthatseparatewhattheirNorthAmericancolleaguescallapplied anthropology,advocacy,andpureresearch(Jimeno1999;Rappaport 1990).Inthepastfewdecades,thecommunitiesthatColombiananthropologists traditionally studied have begun to do their own research, forcingashiftinthetermsofdialoguebetweenexternalscholarsand communities,aswellasintheexpectationsthatcommunitieshaveof researchers.InthischapterIexaminethewayanengagedColombian ethnographyemergedovertimeandteaseoutofitshistoryasenseof whatcollaborationhasmeanttoColombianresearchers. Ifocusonsocialscientistswhoseworkwithpopularmovementshas revolvedaroundtheconstructionofaresearchagenda,asopposedto thosewhoserelationshipswithsocialmovementshavebeenconfined toadvocacy.Ilookespeciallyatthedevelopmentofparticipatoryaction researchinthelate1960sandthe1970sbyOrlandoFalsBordaand La Rosca de Investigación y Acción Social (Circle of Social Research andAction)incollaborationwithColombianindigenousandpeasant organizations,andattheworkoftheanthropologistLuisGuillermo Vasco in the 1980s with the history committee of the indigenous communityofGuambía.Vasco’sapproach,unlikeLaRosca’s,privileged thefieldasasiteofco-theorizingbetweenacademicsandgrassroots researchers.Inconsideringhowthesescholarssawtheresearchprocess transformedbycollaboration,Ihomeinonthelocusoftheorizing,the natureofagendabuilding,andthecreationofhorizontalrelationships betweenresearchersandcommunity. 21
22
Joanne Rappaport
ThekindofcollaborativeresearchconductedbyColombianacademics contrastswithmanyexamplesofcollaborativeethnographyinNorth America.ContemporaryNorthAmericananthropologistshavewritten extensivelyaboutthesignificanceofcollaborativewriting(Hinson2000; Lassiter2005;Lawless1993;RidingtonandHastings1997),butsuch writingdoesnotpurporttotransgresstheboundariesbetweenapplied and“pure”research.Rather,itsfundamentalgoalistheproductionofa newkindofethnographygearedlargelytoascholarlyreadership—that is,anewkindofpureresearch. In contrast, Colombian anthropologists’ attempts at collaborative researchbreakdowntheseboundariesincrucialways.Theircommitment to collaboration is tempered by an equally significant engagement with activism. Thus their research is simultaneously pure and applied,thoughperhapssuchdistinctionsdonotcuttothecoreof whatthisresearchisabout.Unlikethecollaborationsofmostapplied researchers,thesescholars’collaborationswithpopularorganizations areessentiallypolitical,gearedtowardpromotingsocialjusticefrom thegrassroots,whichmakestheirresearchmoreactivistthanapplied. At the same time, their commitment to community-based research agendasresultsinworkthatisnotpureinanacademicsense,becauseit isnotdrivenbyacademictheory(Strandetal.2003:chap.4)—although, asIdemonstrate,theyalsoproduceinnovativescholarlypublications. Finally,whatmostsignificantlydistinguishestheseColombianactivistscholarsfromtheirNorthAmericancolleaguesistheirfocusonfield practice as a space in which social analysis and political action can begenerated,asopposedtoanemphasisonwritingasavehiclefor scholarlycollaboration.1 ThisColombiancollaborativeheritagebearsimplicationsforresearch conductedbyforeignersinLatinAmerica,aswellasfortheworkof nationals.Indeed,itprovidesuswithanalternativeintellectuallineage thatwecanengageinbuildinganewanthropologicalagendaforthe twenty-first century. In the second half of the chapter, I bring this lineage to bear on my own collaborative relationship over the past decadewiththeRegionalIndigenousCouncilofCauca(CRIC),amajor Colombianindigenousorganization. Initially,CRICmemberssoughtmeoutafterhavingreadmypublished andunpublishedworkonthecolonialhistoryoftheNasaethnicgroup (Rappaport1998).Iwasfirstaskedtocoordinatehistoryworkshopsin localcommunitieswiththeobjectiveoffacilitatingthecollectivestudy ofcolonialreservationtitleswhosecontentshadpassedintotheoral domain and had become a kind of mythic charter for communities
AnthropologicalCollaborationsinColombia 23
andforCRIC.Later,Iwasinvitedtoparticipateasateammemberina studyofthehistoryofCRIC’sBilingualInterculturalEducationProgram (PEBI). In the process, I discovered that collaborative research does notrevolveexclusivelyaroundtheproductionofawrittentextbya researchteam.Instead,itrequiresextendedexchangewithabroader rangeofactivists,transcendingtheprojectitself.Atthesametime,it constitutesakeyspaceforgeneratinganewkindofanthropological theorizingthatspansthedividesbetweenpureandappliedresearch, betweentheacademyandthoseundertakingresearchwithinpopular organizations. MyapproachtoethnographyisheavilyindebtedtotheseColombian researchers. Although it has resulted in scholarly writing, I have attemptedtofollowtheColombianexamplebyshiftingmyemphasis fromwritingtoanalyticaldialogueinthefield.Thishasledtoproducts thatareofutilitytotheorganizationswithwhichIhaveworkedand hascontributedevenmoretothedevelopmentofadistinctgrassroots researchmethodology.Inthissense,mynotionofwhatethnography isandthewaysinwhichitcanbeharnessedinanactivistcontexthas beenpermanentlyaltered.Thelinkbetweentheoryandethnographic interpretation has moved, for me, away from being forged through solitary academic pursuit and toward fostering an appreciation of thewaycollaborativeresearchcanpromoteco-theorizationwiththe communities we study. Reflexivity has come to be redefined, in my experience, as a process of contemplating the epistemology of our theoreticaldialogue.Thishasreshapedmymethods,myinterpretive strategies,andthecontentsofmyresearch,redefiningethnographyfor meinsignificantways.
TheMilitantResearchofLaRosca In1972,abooktitledCausapopular,cienciapopular(Popularcause, popular science) appeared in Colombia, published by La Rosca de Investigación y Acción Social, a network of Colombian social scientists and journalists advocating militant research alongside popularmovements(Bonillaetal.1972).LaRoscamembersproposed abandoning the university—or at least rejecting the traditional researchmethodologiesoftheacademy—toemploytheirscholarly skills in the service of popular sectors by inserting themselves as researcher-activists into local and regional struggles. They argued infavorofestablishingresearchprioritiesinconjunctionwithlocal militants,studyingthehistoryofthemilitants’organizations,and
24
Joanne Rappaport
then returning the results of their research to them (Bonilla et al. 1972:44–46). Participatoryactionresearch,asthisapproachcametobecalled,presupposed “that the researcher himself is an object of investigation: hisideology,knowledge,andpracticearejudgedinlightofpopular experience.Theexploitationthatoccurswhenpeoplearestudiedas ‘researchobjects’(averitablesackingoftheirculturalvaluesandofthe treasure-houseoftheirexperience)isabandoned,leadingtoarespect forthem,theircontributions,theircritiques,theirintelligence”(Bonilla etal.1972:46,mytranslation).Finalauthoritywouldrestwiththe popularsectorsandnottheresearchers(1972:47).LaRoscaproposed, in essence, that popular sectors “expropriate” scientific knowledge, techniques,andmethodologies(1972:48).2 LaRosca’staskdidnotconcludeonceitsresearchwascompleted.Its membersadvocatedamethodologythattheycalled“criticalrecuperation,”whichturnedresearchresultstowardactivistends: Criticalrecuperationisachievedwhen,onthebasisofhistoricalinformation and an adequate understanding of current conditions, militant researchersarriveincommunitiestocriticallystudyandlearnaboutthe traditionalculturalbase,payingspecialattentiontothoseelementsor institutionsthathavebeenusefulinthepasttoconfronttheenemies oftheexploitedclasses.Oncethoseelementsaredetermined,theyare reactivatedwiththeaimofusingtheminasimilarmannerincurrent classstruggles.(Bonillaetal.1972:51–52)
Localpeasantpracticesoflaborexchangeandinstitutionssuchasthe resguardo (or reservation, an institution that ensures collective land rightsfornativepeoples)andthecabildo(theresguardocouncil,which operatesasasemi-autonomousentity)werethesortsofpracticesLa Roscahopedtostudyandsubsequentlyreintroduceintocommunities (1972:52). Thebest-knownofLaRosca’seffortsisthepublicationofatreatise byManuelQuintínLame(1971[1939]),aNasaleaderwhoforgeda land-claimsmovementintheColombiansouthwestduringthefirst half of the twentieth century (Castillo-Cárdenas 1987; Rappaport 1998).TheposthumousappearanceofLame’swritingsreactivated hismemoryamongtheNasaofCaucaandthePijaooftheneighboringdepartmentofTolima,helpingtospurtheRegionalIndigenous Council of Cauca (CRIC), founded in 1971, to include in its organizationalobjectivesLame’sdemandsforreclaiminglandwithin
AnthropologicalCollaborationsinColombia 25
theresguardostructureandforstrengtheningcabildos(Aviramaand Márquez 1995). La Rosca members produced historical pamphlets revivingthememoryofeighteenth-centuryhereditarychiefswho createdresguardosintheregion(Bonilla1977),andtheyintroduced a series of picture maps through which local history could be collectivelyrecaptured(Bonilla1982).3TheproductsofLaRosca’s research, although not academic, would not have appeared if not for the intervention of these activist-scholars. The continued significanceofthesepublicationsinindigenousorganizations—where theyarestillstudiedandusedbypeopleatthegrassroots—pointsto thepossibilitiesofacollaborativemodelthattranscendsacademic writing. LaRoscaalsoproducedsomeacademicdocuments,suchasOrlando FalsBorda’sHistoriadobledelacosta(Doublehistoryofthecoast),afourvolumeexperimentinnarratingthehistoryoftheagrarianstruggles ofpeoplelivingalongColombia’sAtlanticcoast(FalsBorda1980–86). Historiadobleisorganizedintwochannels,onenarrativeandtheother theoreticalandmethodological.Falsintendedthenarrativechannelto beconsultedbyleadersofagrarianorganizationsandthetheoretical channeltobereadbypoliticallycommittedintellectualsandacademics. A series of comics, pamphlets, and audiovisual materials was to be producedfortherankandfileofthesocialmovementsintheregion (Bergquist1990:160). TheethnographerLuisGuillermoVascomadeaninsightfulcritiqueof LaRosca’smethodswiththehindsightthatcamefromhiscollaborative experience in the indigenous community of Guambía in the 1980s. Hearguedthatthepoliticallycommittedscholarsofthe1970smade thepositivisterrorofseparatingfieldpracticefromthetheoretically informedinterpretationofdata—theerror,precisely,oftheorganization ofFalsBorda’shistoryoftheAtlanticcoast(VascoUribe2002:454–57). Asaresult,hesaid,LaRosca’sattemptto“return”itsresearchtothe communitiesinwhichithadworkedwasnotentirelysuccessful;La Roscamembersdidnotrecognizethepositionofpowertheyoccupied as scholars or that they, like other researchers, had constituted the groupstheystudiedasobjectsofanalysis(2002:457–58).Ultimately, manyaspectsofLaRosca’sprojectwereacademicintheirintentand unassimilable(atthetime)bythesocialmovementswithwhichthey were concerned (Bergquist 1990; cf. Fox 2005).4 In short, La Rosca’s political commitment did not preclude its adherence to traditional ethnographicproceduresoritsinsistenceonemployingtheoryoriginatingintheacademy.
26
Joanne Rappaport
TheorizingandCo-theorizing TheAfricanAmericansociologistW.E.B.DuBoisarguedinTheSoulsof BlackFolk(1989[1903]:2–3)thatracialminoritiesintheUnitedStates keenlyperceivedthattheyatoncestoodwithintheNorthAmerican socialsystemandweremarginalizedbyit.Thisproducedwhathecalled a “double consciousness,” a dual identity that carried the potential of granting a privileged perspective on social life, which he termed “second-sight.”FollowingDuBois’slead,AfricanAmericanscholarshave takenupthechallengeofproducingtheory,somethingthatasearly as1970DelmosJones(1970:251)arguedwouldbecrucialincreating a“nativeanthropology.”ThescholarsIhaveinmind,particularlythe anthropologistJohnLangstonGwaltney(1981,1993)andthefeminist Patricia Hill Collins (1991), proposed that such a body of theory couldariseonlyoutofcollectivereflectionswithcommonfolkwho, drawingontheirlifeexperiences,couldtheorizeincollaborationwith academics. LaRosca’sprojectinvolvedworkshopsofthesortusedbyGwaltney andCollins,butLaRosca’scommunitymeetingsweredirectedprimarily towardestablishingresearchprioritiesandcollectinginformation,not towardgeneratingtheoryoutoflocalculturalforms.Indeed,workshops areaprimevehicleforsocialresearchinColombia(Riaño-Alcalá2006), constitutingapracticethatpermitsinformationgathering,collaborative strategizing,andpoliticalactionsimultaneously.Thisformatcontrasts withthetendencyamongNorthAmericanethnographerstoprivilege one-on-oneinterviews,whichcontroltheinterviewsituationtoagreater degreethanispossibleinthecommunalsettingofaworkshop. Workshops,however,areanecessarybutnotsufficienttoolforpromotingtheorizingamongethnicminoritiesandotherpopulargroups. ThegenerationoftheoryfrombelowbecamepossibleinColombiaonly inthe1990s,afteralayerofindigenousactivistswastrainedinstructural linguisticsatColombianuniversitiesandbegantoexperimentwiththe useoflinguisticformsasconceptualguidesinculturalresearch.5Itwas necessaryforthemtolearnwhattheorywasandwhyitwasneeded beforetheycouldsubvertthetheorylearnedintheacademy. OneoftheexplicitareasofactivityofthemembersofCRIC’sBilingual InterculturalEducationProgram(PEBI)istheoreticalproduction.The theorists in CRIC’s ranks are indigenous linguists and students of cosmovision—a kind of a politicized take on cosmology—because it is from indigenous languages and shamanic knowledge that these activistsderivetheirtheoreticalbuildingblocks.Bytheory,theymean
AnthropologicalCollaborationsinColombia 27
the conceptual vehicles that guide the analysis and interpretation of cultural forms and the construction of strategies for revitalizing cultural practices and reintroducing them into social life. Although suchconceptualframeworksmayoriginateinindigenouscultures,they arealso,asIillustratelater,appropriatedfromthetheoreticaltraditions ofthedominantcultureandrecastaccordingtonativepriorities. Theorymaybeemployedtoguidetheproductionofnarrative,as I describe shortly for the Guambiano History Committee (which is affiliatednotwithCRICbutwiththeIndigenousAuthoritiesofColombia[AICO],anotherindigenousorganization)andforthehistoryof PEBI.Buttheorizingalsotakesplacewhenactivistsuselanguageand cosmovisiontocoinnewdefinitionsofcitizenshipthatareincorporated intotheirpoliticalstrategies,aprocessreflectedinthetranslationofthe 1991Colombianconstitutionintoindigenouslanguages(Ramosand CabildoIndígenadeMosoco1993;Rappaport2005).Thegeneration of theory is therefore both an intellectual exercise and an activist objective.Theorizingisameansofimbuingpoliticalorganizingwith culturalsignificance,aprocessnecessarilypunctuatedbymomentsof research and reflection. The ultimate objective, however, is political, notintellectual.Inotherwords,thisisakindof“situatedtheorizing” (Haraway1991)inwhichnotonlydoesintellectualpracticeemerge outofthetheorists’ethnicpositioningbut,moreimportantly,political activityisguidedbytheirresearch. In instances in which external scholars collaborate with members ofindigenousorganizationsonresearchprojects,wemightalsospeak of“co-theorizing,”orthemergingofdifferentlysituatedtheories.As Idescribeinthefollowingsection,co-theorizinginvolvestheforging ofconnectionsbetweenindigenous-createdconceptsandthetheories andmethodologiesthatpoliticallycommittedacademicsdrawonfrom theirowntraditions.Indigenoustheoreticalframeworksareprivileged inthisprocess,buttheyareexpandedthroughthecontributionsof external theory and method, so that the conceptual frameworks of both the indigenous researcher and the professional anthropologist aretransformed.
TheorizinginGuambía TheGuambianalinguistBárbaraMuelasHurtadohasarguedthatthe rolling and unrolling of geographic and social space governs the relationshipsthatGuambianofamiliesestablishwiththeirsurroundings: “Whenoneormorepeoplewholiveinahouseareinvitedtoleavefor
28
Joanne Rappaport
othersites,theyareinvitedwiththeexpressionpichipmentøkun,which literallymeans‘letusunroll.’Theoppositesituation,whentheyare invited to return home, is kitrøp mentøkun, which means ‘let us roll up’or‘letuscollectourselves’”(MuelasHurtado1995:32).6Similarly, thisactionofrollingandunrollingdefinesGuambianos’relationship withtime: As the years unfold, in lived time, in the voyage of life and through the world, the ancestors have marked a path, they have opened a trail on which those who come behind, their descendants of today, must advance to make history. The past goes in front, and the future comes behind. It is as though our ancestors had returned to look for theirdescendantsorasthoughthosewhohavealreadyleft(died)had returnedto“judge”whattheirdescendantshaveaccomplishedintheir absence.Itisasthoughaturnweremadeinthevastcircularspace,a newmeetingwiththeancestor,[of]pastandfuture,anillusion,ahope, inGuambianothought. The space before us and lived time (conserved in tradition) orient humanlife.Theygoahead[ofus]inlife,and[continue]afterlife.The spacethatisleftbehindandtimenotyetlivedareaspaceandatime thatmuststillunroll.(MuelasHurtado1995:35–36).
Muelas’slinguisticanthropologywouldformthebasisforthecreation ofaGuambianoconceptualspaceinwhichtimeisconceivedasaspiral andhistoryisnarratedinanonlinear,spiralfashion(VascoUribe,Dagua Hurtado,andAranda1993;seealsoRappaport2005:chap.5). ItwasinacollaborativeprojectorganizedbytheGuambianoHistory Committee, in which Bogotá anthropologists Luis Guillermo Vasco and Marta Urdaneta participated, that Guambiano theorizing came tofruition.ThehistoryprojectwasconceivedaftertheGuambianos reclaimedalargeexpanseoflandin1980thathadearlierbeenusurped from them, which they ultimately incorporated into their resguardo territory.Theresearchwasaimedatestablishingtheprimordialclaim of the Guambianos to that territory. Although title to the land is vestedinthecabildoandisinnodangerofbeingrevoked,localnonindigenoushistorianshadfordecadesargued,withoutanyevidence, thattheGuambianosoriginatedinPeruandwererelativenewcomers toGuambía.Thecabildohopedtodeployhistoricalresearchtodebunk thesetheoriesandestablishtheGuambianos’centuries-oldattachment totheirterritory.Rigorwasthusatapremium.VascoandUrdaneta wereinsertedintoresearchteamscomposedofeldersknowledgeable
AnthropologicalCollaborationsinColombia 29
inoralhistoryandyoungGuambianoseagertolearntodoresearch. Theexternalscholarsconcentrated,respectively,onoralhistoryand archaeology,topicsofstudydictatedbytheindigenousauthorities.7 Themethodsespousedbytheseinterethnicteamswerecollaborativein boththecollectionofmaterialsandtheiranalysis.Urdaneta,forexample, workedwithherGuambianocolleaguestodevelopclassificationsin Guambianoofhistoricaltimeandtopographicspace,whichwerethen employedasguidesforestablishinganarchaeologicalchronologyand, ultimately,forgeneratinganinterpretationofGuambianoprehistory thatexplainedthenatureofGuambianoterritoriality(TróchezTunubalá, Camayo,andUrdanetaFranco1992;UrdanetaFranco1988).Vascoand his Guambiano co-researchers developed theorizations of the shape of time modeled on Guambiano material culture, which provided a theoreticalfoundationforanarrativeoflandloss,formsofcapitulation andresistance,andterritorialclaimsinGuambía(VascoUribe2002: 466–73). UnlikestandardanthropologicalresearchorevenLaRosca’sapproach, the work in Guambía subordinated the professional ethnographer’s methodsandepistemologytothoseoftheindigenouscollectivity(Vasco Uribe2002:449).ThissubordinationisoneofthehallmarksofwhatIcall “co-theorizing.”Theoralhistoryprojectencompassedlargegroupsof peoplewhoreflectedinpublicassembliesonthehistoricalnarrativesof elders.Vascowrotethathewasinitiallyconfusedbytheproceduresused atthesemeetings,wherebreakoutgroupsseemedtomullinterminably overdiscussionpointswithoutreachingfirmconclusions,aprocessthat wasrepeatedinplenarysessions.Ultimately,heconcludedthatwhat appearedtobeaimlessdiscussionwas,infact,purposeful: The work in breakout groups organized by indigenous people in their meetingswas,inreality,aresearchmeeting,inwhichknowledgeofa problemwasintensifiedthroughdiscussion,inwhichtheyconfronted theknowledgeofeveryparticipantwiththatoftherestinordertofinally arrive at group knowledge... My idea that there were no conclusions at the meetings was wrong; there were conclusions, but they did not takethesameformasthosewithwhichIwasfamiliar,norwerethey written.Later,itbecamecleartomethatafterthebreakoutgroupsand the multiple discussions that ensued in them, in the mind of every participantlaycertainconclusions:abroaderknowledgeoftheproblem than there had been before the meeting, now that it was no longer personal knowledge but knowledge held by the entire group. (Vasco Uribe2002:461)
30
Joanne Rappaport
Vascohadtolearnto“rollandunroll”attheseassemblies,because this was what the Guambiano researchers saw themselves as doing. Thismeantalsowalkingtheterritorywiththeelders(VascoUribe2002: 303),usingtoponymyasaguidetolearningthepast(2002:295–96), and conceiving of history and territory as unrolling from a central topographic point (2002: 293). The result was a historical narrative basedinthetopographyofGuambíaandorganizedasaspiralthatcontinuallysightedandresightedonprimordialevents.Thespiralformat, atopographicmanifestationofBárbaraMuelas’snotionof“rollingand unrolling,” provided the theoretical framework through which this historywasorganized. It would be too simplistic to suppose that Urdaneta’s and Vasco’s onlycontributionstotheprojectweretechnical.True,theGuambianos minedthetwoscholarsfortheirscientificknowledgeandmethods,as LaRoscahadproposedtwodecadesearlier.8Buttheanthropologistsalso functionedasinterlocutors,co-investigators,andco-theorizers.Vasco emphasizedthatthetextstheywroteweredialogic:“Ourobjectivewas tobuilddualtexts,atonceoralandwritten,atonceindigenousand Spanish,wherethevariousauthoritieseachhadtheirplaceandfulfilled theirroleswithintheneedsofthemoment”(VascoUribe2002:318). Althoughforthemostpartthedistinctivevoicesoftheoutsidersare mutedintheseamlesspamphletspublishedbythecabildo,inatleast onepiece—whichappearedinanacademicanthology—thelanguageof theanthropologistwasinterjectedintothehistoricalnarrative(Vasco Uribe, Dagua Hurtado, and Aranda 1993), laying bare the moments at which Vasco’s contributions became critical. This text has abrupt transitionsbetweenoralnarrativeandethnographicexplanation,the latterdrawingouttheimplicationsofwhatisexpressedinthenarration. ThisethnographicvoiceappearstobeVasco’sandprovidesimportant clues to the way co-theorization took place: the ethnographer’s eye helpedtoalertGuambianotheoriststotheimplicationsoftheconceptual frameworks they had derived from linguistics, thus deepening their interpretations. It would be a grave error to focus exclusively on the exceptional textsthatthecollaborativeteamsproduced.Mostpublicationsofthe GuambianoHistoryCommitteearelesselegantlywrittenandtheorized thanthearticlejustcited(seealsoDaguaHurtado,Aranda,andVasco 1998).Thevastmajorityarelesslayered,lessexplicitlytheoretical,and composedinmoreaccessiblelanguage.Theywereself-publishedbythe cabildoforuseinschools,wherethemajorconceptsarerecastinthe Guambianolanguage,returningthemtotheoraldomain.Moreover,
AnthropologicalCollaborationsinColombia 31
themostimportantcontributionsoftheprojectwereneverwrittenat all.AsVasco(2002:462;seealsoRiaño-Alcalá2006)contended,the team’smajorobjectiveswereachievedthroughthedevelopmentofa collectiveethnographicresearchmethodology,notthroughthecreation ofethnographictexts.Inthelongrun,thepurposeofthismethodology was to infuse Guambiano social life, especially in the political and educationalspheres,withaself-consciousnotionofcultureinthehope ofrevitalizingnativelifeways. Inthissense,Vasco’s(andtheGuambianos’)understandingofethnographyaspracticecontrastswiththeNorthAmericanemphasisonethnographyastext,thelatterapproachsuitedtotheacademicobjectives ofourcraftbutnottothecollaborativeenterprise.ButIcantakethis comparisonevenfurther.Vascodidnotreducepracticetothecollection ofresearchdata(asLaRoscadid)butfocusedinsteadongenerating theory and applying it to the analysis of materials collected during theresearch.Healsofocusedonhowthisknowledgewasbroughtto bear in resolving the social problems the community faced. That is, ethnographybecameanexerciseinpoliticalaction.
ResearchintheInterculturalMilieuofthe IndigenousOrganization TheexperiencesofVascoandUrdanetainGuambíasuggestthatwhat isatstakeincollaborationisthebridgingofepistemologicalandmethodologicaldifferencesintheserviceofapoliticalagenda.Thecollaborativeresearchprocesshadtoadmitthepossibilityoftheorizingfrom aGuambianoculturalstandpointifitwastobesuccessful.Indeed,this is what makes the project so inspiring. But the bridging of cultural differencesisnotexclusivetotheGuambiano-academicdivide.Equally significant is the bridging of differences between the culture of the academyandthatofindigenousorganizationsthatserveasumbrella groupsfornativepeoplesofvariousethnicitieswhodonotnecessarily share epistemologies. As anthropologists, we have been trained to studythekindofepistemologicaldifferencethatVascoandUrdaneta encountered in Guambía, but we are less attuned to the far subtler cultural order of the multiethnic indigenous organization, whose contoursappearself-evidentbecauseitsorganizingstrategiesholdso muchincommonwiththoseofothersocialmovements. Inordertogetatthisorganizationalculture—whichiscrucialifwe aretocomprehendcollaborativeresearchwithintheindigenousmovement—wemustexaminethesocialdynamicsofresearchwithinsuch
32
Joanne Rappaport
organizations.Thistaskimpliesacomprehensionoftheinterculturality ofindigenouspolitics,includingthearticulationofnon-nativesupporters ofindigenousorganizations—inCRIC,theyarecalledcolaboradores— and their role in the research process.9 Colaboradores’ positioning as “researcherswithin”suggeststhatitisnotonlyindigenousculturethatis atstakeinthecollaborativeresearchenterprisebutalsotheintercultural milieuoftheorganization,inwhichpoliticalmethodologiesareadapted toresearchendsandresearchistransformedintopoliticalstrategy.The presenceofcolaboradoresintheresearchprocessproblematizeswhatcotheorizationmightmean,becausealthoughtheyarenotindigenous, theyarecentralactorsintheemergenceofindigenoustheoryandform anintegralpartoftheindigenousmovement,forcingustoreconsider whereactivisttheorizingoriginates.10IusemyexperienceinCRICas aguidetoexploringtheseissues. When CRIC militants speak of research, they do not refer to the long-term,argument-drivencollectionandanalysisofinformationin whichacademicsengage,thekindofworkthatultimatelycrystallizeson theprintedpage.Instead,theyrefertocommunalspacesofreflection, intuitiveprocesses,organization-buildingactivities,andtheproduction oftoolsforpoliticalaction.Althoughtheresultsofacademicresearch may resonate in many ways with this plan of action, and scholarly researchers may be enthusiastically engaged as interlocutors, the methodsandobjectivesofthetwogroupsarequitedistinct. Vasco’s reflection on his difficulty in interpreting the results of Guambiano assemblies points to the essentially communal nature of indigenous research in Cauca. The workshops in which research prioritiesaredeterminedaregenerallyquitelarge,sometimesinvolving uptoahundredpeople,andincludeparticipantswithvariedexperience intheorganizationwhobelongtodiversegenerationsofactivistsand exhibitanunevencommandofindigenouslanguages.Afterplenary sessionsinwhichtheleadershippresentsbackgroundinformationand proposals,assembliesgenerallydivideintobreakoutgroupstoconsider discussionquestionsprovidedbythecoordinators. Whentoomanybreakoutgroupmembersareyoungorinexperienced, or when the leader adheres too closely to the discussion questions, theresultisadisjointedseriesofone-sentenceresponseselicitedfrom thediscussantsonebyoneandthenreportedbacktotheplenaryby schooledparticipantsorbycolaboradoresinwhatcouldbeinterpreted as a translation into movement discourse. When there is some consistency in the membership of the breakout groups, however—for instance, when members share common organizational experience
AnthropologicalCollaborationsinColombia 33
andarenotafraidtospeakout,somethingIhaveseenhappenwhen participantsaremostlybilingualteachersorcatechists—livelydebate andstimulatingconclusionsarepresentedtotheplenary,leadingtoa spiritedreinterpretationofthesmallergroups’findings.Atitsbest,the workshopstrategyresultsinapowerfulblueprintforresearchandaction thatisharnessedinthepoliticalactivitiesfomentedbytheworkshop, aswellasinahostofmaterialsrangingfromcurriculatopamphlets informedbycollectivediscussion. Collaborativeresearch,then,notonlyinvolvesworkinginateam withactivistsbutalsopermittingthecommunalenvironmentofthe workshoptoguidetheresearch.Activist-researchersfrequentlypossess (orareopentolearning)theskillsneededtoframeresearchquestions and to gather and interpret information. But workshop participants arenotresearchersinanystandardsense.Notwithstandingthisfact, in organizations such as CRIC it is in large assemblies that research guidelines are frequently set and the results of research evaluated. Therefore, as academics involved in collaborative relationships with indigenous organizations, we cannot lose sight of the interpretive spacethatworkshopsafford,norcanweignorethesuggestionsmade by their participants. Collaboration thus begins to take on broader proportions.
GuidelinesforaHistoryofPEBI In order to work through this issue, I reflect on a project in which I participated, charged with preparing a history of CRIC’s Bilingual InterculturalEducationProgram(PEBI).AlthoughIwasinfluencedby theworkofLaRoscaandtheGuambianoHistoryCommittee—Iwas attunedtothenecessityofcollectivelyestablishingaresearchagenda andtothesignificanceofco-theorizing—CRIC’smethodsandconcerns played an important role in shifting my notion of the purpose and natureofethnographicresearch. When I embarked on the project, I naively assumed that our researchwouldbeconductedwithintheconfinesoftheresearchteam, supplemented by workshops at which communal interviews would beconductedandtheresultsofourresearchevaluated.Idiscovered, however, that a series of workshops held in 2000 and 2001—before and immediately after I joined the project—had already compiled theresearchguidelines.Intotal,approximatelyonehundredpeople attendedatleastoneofthesemeetings.Themajoritywereindigenous bilingual teachers or PEBI activists, but leaders in the communities
34
Joanne Rappaport
wheretheworkshopswereheldalsoattended,sincemostsuchmeetings arehostedbylocalities. Thegoaloftheearlierworkshopshadbeentodefinetheprojectand devisearesearchplan,includingthegenerationofresearchquestions. Initially,thegroupdecideditwouldconductasystematicsurveyofthe activitiesandaccomplishmentsoftheprogram’svariouscomponents, which included curriculum development and primary research in cosmovisionandlinguistics.Suchadetailedcriticalinspectioniscalled asistematización,agenrethatiswidespreadinpopulareducationand alternativedevelopmentplanninginLatinAmerica.Asistematización isacombinationofdescriptionsoftheorganization’sactivitiesandthe resultsofcollectiveevaluationofissuesfacingthegroup.AsIunderstood itonthebasisofpreviousexamplesofthisgenreproducedbyCRIC (2000),thesistematizaciónwasacompendiumofrawdataorganized intocategories,followedbyabriefevaluationoftheproject;itswritten resultswereconveyedinalargelyundigestedandsomewhatschematic format. WhenIbeganworkwiththeproject,Iquestionedtheutilityofthe sistematizaciónformatbecauseofitsunmanageablefinalproduct.Iwas alsoattentivetothecritiquesIhadheardfrommanyNasa-speaking activistswhopreferredembarkingonahistoryproject,largelywiththe aimoflearninganewsetofresearchmethodologies.Incontrast,most of the colaboradores, who had administrative experience in a variety of organizations, opted for sistematización, which was more familiar tothem. As I soon discovered in the first workshop I attended, the Nasa speakersintendedtowrestcontroloftheprojectfromthecolaboradores, underliningthefaultlineswithintheorganizationthatwouldimpinge onourresearch.Ultimately,thehistoryformatwonout,thankstothe criticalmassofNasaspeakersattheworkshop.Buteventhoughthe groupoptedforahistoricalapproach,theresearchquestionsthatwere to guide our work were essentially guidelines for a sistematización.11 Therewerefifty-onequestions,thevastmajorityofthempresentistin orientation,inlargepartevaluatingkeyPEBIpoliciesthathadmade educationafulcrumforcommunityorganizingandhadfosteredthe developmentofaself-consciousnotionofindigenousculture.Fewof thequestionswereretrospective.12
ReconcilingHistorywithSistematización The research team, made up of a Nasa linguist (Abelardo Ramos), a colaboradora(GracielaBolaños),andme,wasobligedtobuildabridge
AnthropologicalCollaborationsinColombia 35
betweenthesistematización-orientedquestionnairegiventousbythe workshop participants and the history we hoped to narrate. Three concepts emerged from the guiding questions to become pivots of thehistoricalnarrativeweeventuallypublished(Bolañosetal.2004). First,wefocusedonthedevelopmentoftheschoolasacommunity organizingtoolratheraninstitutiondevotedexclusivelytoeducation. This is what CRIC calls the concept of community control. Second, welookedatthewaycross-culturaldialogueandtheappropriationof ideas across cultures—which we called interculturalism—provided a philosophyforbuildingapluralistmovement.13Finally,westudiedthe waycosmovision—aconceptthatarticulatestheneedforabalanced universe with a return to indigenous ritual forms, which developed outofseminarsheldamongshamansinthe1990s—furnishedanew pivot for identity construction at a moment when the movement replaceditsclass-basedobjectiveswithapoliticsofpeoplehood.Inother words,ourconceptualframeworkoriginatedinnoneoftheindividual culturesofindigenousgroupsinCRICbutinthecultureofPEBIasan organization. Unlike the guiding questions, we did not situate PEBI policies in thepresentbutusedtheguidelinesasalensforinterpretingthepast. Thatis,whilerecognizingthatinterculturalismandcosmovisionwere approachesthathadgainedcurrencyinthepastdecade(community controlwasaguidingconceptfromthebeginningofPEBI),webelieved theycouldstillserveaspowerfulhingesformakingsenseoftheway earlyactivistsharnessedexternalideasandstruggledtorevitalizecultural forms.Byorganizingourhistoryaroundthesenotions,wewereableto situatehistoricalnarrationinthepresent,makingitmoremeaningful forcontemporaryindigenousreadersandprovidingathree-channeled readingofthehistoryofPEBI. Theparticipantsintheworkshopsthatproducedourresearchstrategy attendedjustafewoftheinterviewsweconductedwithkeyregional andlocalhistoricalactors.Theywerenotactiveinthewritingphase; Ramos,Bolaños,andIdidthewritingasateam,negotiatingthenarrativelinebyline.14Althoughthehistorywewrotewasofaneducation program,thetwoCRICteammembers,followingthedirectivesofthe workshops,insistedthatitbemorepoliticalthanpedagogicalinscope. ThistaughtmeanimportantlessonaboutCRIC’sresearchpriorities and the nature of CRIC’s educational programs. In the early stages, I had envisioned a spiral history, given that Nasa activists, like the GuambianohistoriansandVasco,hadembracedthismotifascentral to their cosmovision (Anonymous 2000). Nevertheless, Bolaños and
36
Joanne Rappaport
Ramosfeltthattheuseofaspiralorganizingmodelwouldreduceour narrativetoaNasa-centrichistory,ignoringtheinterculturalityofthe programandtheparticipationofactivistsfromotherethnicgroupsin theproject.Theirstronginterculturalstanceiswhatledustoadopta conceptualfocusbasedonorganizationalcultureasopposedtooneof thevariousindigenousculturesrepresentedinCRIC.
Socialización Althoughtheauthorsoftheresearchguidelinesdidnothelptowrite the history, their insights were again at a premium when the book wascompletedandwebeganwhatinCRICiscalledsocialización,or thecollectivegrassrootsevaluationofaproject.Thus,inasense,the book was but a pretext for two important arenas of organizing that took place immediately before and after its publication. At a 2004 meeting to plan the socialización workshops directed at bilingual teachersandcommunityleaders,whichbeganin2005,PEBIactivists probedtherelationshipbetweentheconceptualstructureofthebook andCRIC’spoliticalobjectives.Theywerelargelyconcernedwiththe tensionbetweenPEBIasaneducationprogramandPEBIasapolitical organization.15 On one hand, our interlocutors proposed to delve into what they sawasadialecticalrelationshipbetweenpedagogyandpolitics.They soughttocomprehendhowtheircreationofinterculturalpedagogical methodologiesconstitutedapoliticalact.Theywantedtoreflecton what tools PEBI history offered to stimulate the evaluation of the teaching methodologies and didactic materials they had generated overthecourseofmorethantwentyyears.Ontheotherhand,they were keen to interpret ways in which the three conceptual axes of thestudycouldbereconciledwithCRIC’sgeneralpoliticalprogram, whichpromotesthedefenseofthecommunallandbase,thedeepening of political autonomy, and the promotion of indigenous culture. In particular,theyquestionedhowtheyweretounderstandautonomyin lightofthestrategyofappropriationofexternalideasthatcharacterizes interculturalismandhowthismightimpingeonindigenousculture.In summary,whatPEBIactivistshopedtodowithourbookwastoturnit intoanorganizingtoolwherebylocalteachersandcommunityleaders reflectedontheprogram’sobjectivesatyetmoreworkshops.Thebook wasbynomeansaconclusivestudybutasmallstepinacommunal organizingprocess.
AnthropologicalCollaborationsinColombia 37
TheRoleoftheAnthropologistinCollaborative Research LikeUrdaneta’sandVasco’srolesintheGuambíahistoryproject,myrole inthePEBIprojectwasgroundedinthemethodologicalcontributionsI couldmaketotheteam:sharingmyskillsasaninterviewerandassisting inwritingacoherentandpersuasivenarrative.Butthesewerenotthe onlycontributionsImade,nordidthePEBIcollectiveconceiveofmy collaborationinsuchnarrowterms.Toconcludethischapter,Ioffer myreflectionsonwhatelseIcontributedtotheenterpriseandhowit transformedmynotionofethnographicpractice. Earlier I cited a La Rosca text asserting that collaborative research transforms“theresearcherhimself[into]...anobjectofinvestigation: hisideology,knowledge,andpracticearejudgedinlightofpopular experience” (Bonilla et al. 1972: 46). In other words, collaboration impliesakindof“being-looked-at-ness,”whichthefilmcriticReyChow (1995:180)arguedisattheheartoftheautoethnographicendeavor. For Chow, autoethnographers are simultaneously the subject and the object of their research; the fact that they have been examined ethnographicallybyothersinformsthewaytheylookatthemselves.I havereflectedinotherpublicationsonhow“being-looked-at-ness”is centraltotheethnographyproducedbyNasaintellectuals(Rappaport 2005:chap.3).WhatIexaminehereishowitisalsoafundamental element of collaboration, forcing the external ethnographer to look at herself, just as indigenous participants do—a brand of reflexivity thattranscendstheinward-lookingandindividualisticthrustofNorth Americanculturalcritique,whichCharlesHale(2006aandthisvolume) hascontrastedwithactivistanthropology. I went into the PEBI history project accepting that although historicalnarrationissituatedinthepresent,wewouldneedtoharness currentexperiencetoaretrospectiveinterpretationofthepast.Ramos andBolañosdidnotentirelyunderstandorsubscribetothispremise, becauseitmeantevaluatingthepastassomethingdifferentfromthe present—assomehow,fromtheirpointofview,politicallyimperfect. For instance, as we evaluated narratives of PEBI’s early attempts to lodgetheeducationalprojectinindigenouslifeways,weconfronted thefactthattheincipientunderstandingsofcultureasaconstellation of customs that characterized PEBI in the early 1980s clashed with currentnotionsofanintegratedcosmovisionthatpermeatesallaspects ofeverydaylifeandpoliticalpractice.Thelatterimpliedthattheearlier effortshadnotbeenentirelysuccessful,somethingRamosandBolaños werereluctanttoaccept.
38
Joanne Rappaport
Atthesametime,becausewewerechargedwithharnessingtheresearchguidelinessuppliedtousbytheworkshops,wehadtoemploy currentconcernswithcosmovision,community-basededucation,and interculturalismtointerpretthepast.Nowwearingthehatofthehistorian,Iwasinitiallyuncomfortabledoingso.Myself-appointedtask wastolaybarethewayIthoughtpastandpresentcouldbereconciled, forcingRamosandBolaños(andme)toevaluatetheresearchstrategies Iwasaccustomedtousingandtotrytoplacethemindialoguewith theideasarticulatedbyCRIC.Inthissense,Iwasbeinglookedatby them and, subsequently in the socialización planning, by the PEBI collective.16 The“being-looked-at-ness”ofmycollaborationwithCRICresidednot onlyinthewayitsmemberslookedatmebutalsoinhowIlookedat myselfasaresearcher—theextenttowhichIneededtotransformmy futureresearchpracticetoconformwiththeirmethodologies.Inasense, then,“being-looked-at-ness”onthepartoftheexternalcollaboratoris akindofreflexivity.Unlikethereflexiveturninanthropology,however, which focuses on the ethnographer herself, the kind of reflexivity I cametopracticehomesinontheprocessofco-theorizingthatIfirst learned of through the work of Vasco and the Guambiano History Committee.Co-theorizingturnedmyreflexivesensibilitiesnottoward myselfbuttowardthedynamicsofthegroupofwhichIwasamember. ThisreflexiveposturenotonlyinvolvedconfrontingthedifficultiesI had in subordinating my more solitary interpretive strategies to the collective approaches of CRIC; it also meant learning to adopt my colleagues’theorizationsinmyownresearch,sothatinterculturalism movedinbothdirections. Suchatransformationdidnottakeplaceexclusivelyinthescenarioof writingPEBI’shistory.ItalsohappenedwhenIsatdownatmycomputer and composed my own essays, which would be read by both CRIC activistsandmyacademicpeers.Inthissense,collaborationresulted inadialogueinwhichCRICwasnottheobjectofmyresearchormy assistance but another interlocutor, thus expanding the intellectual networksthroughwhichmyworktraveledandfromwhichIderived intellectualsustenance.Suchanapproachdivergesfromthepremises ofappliedanthropology,whichisaone-wayprocessemanatingfrom theanthropologistanddirectedtowardaclientpopulation.Toachieve mycollaborativegoal,Icouldnotentirelysubordinatemymethods to those of CRIC but had to confront the two in my research and writingpractice,usingwhatIlearnedfromRamosandBolañostoboth questionandexpandontheacademicpremisesuponwhichIworked.
AnthropologicalCollaborationsinColombia 39
Onlythencouldweengageinatruecollaborationinvolvingmutual respectanddialogue. Thethreeconceptsthatframedourprojectallcameoutoftheinterculturalmilieuoftheindigenousorganization.Acceptingthisframeworkwasformeasignificantstep,becauseitforcedmetodiscardthe essentialistbaggageIbroughttotheproject—notjustmynotionof whatconstituted“indigenous”or“Nasa”butalsomynotionofwhat an indigenous organizationwas all about and who belongedto it. I cametoseethatitwouldbeimpossibletostudyindigenousorganizing withouttakingaccountoftheplaceoftheindigenousmovementin the larger Colombian political universe and of the border-crossings of its diverse members. This led me to recast my understandings of identityformation,informedbytheanthropologyofthenorthtofocus exclusivelyonethnicsubjects.Icametounderstandthatthefluidityof ethnicityinColombiagoesbeyondsuchconcerns,takingonadistinctly politicaltingethatisdeeplyconstructivist,notessentialist.Evenwhen CRICactivistsspeakofsomethinglikeNasaculture,theyarepointing to political strategies, not existing states of being. I do not think I wouldhavecometounderstandthispointifnotforthecollaborative experiencesIhaveenjoyedoverthepastdecade. Collaborationisthusatransformativeexperience.Itnotonlyaffects theorganizationswithwhichexternalscholarswork,makingpossiblea deepercommitmenttopoliticallyinspiredresearch,butalsoleadsthose scholarstorethinktheirowncraft,toroambeyondtheacademyin searchoftheoryandmethod,toembraceanewlayerofinterlocutors, andtorethinkthewaysinwhichtheyreflectonthemselvesandothers. Inshort,collaborationcannotbeseenasapaternalistapplicationof anthropological skills in a practical context; it must be seen as an innovative vehicle for revitalizing anthropology in the twenty-first century.
Acknowledgments Theresearchonwhichthisarticleisbasedwasconductedbetween1996 and2003invariouslocationsinthedepartmentofCauca,Colombia.It wasfundedin1996–97byColciencias,theColombiannationalscience foundation, under a grant awarded to the Instituto Colombiano de Antropología;in1998and1999bysummeracademicgrantsfromthe GraduateSchoolofGeorgetownUniversity;andfrom1999to2002by anInternationalCollaborativeGrantfromtheWenner-GrenFoundation forAnthropologicalResearch,whichprovidedfundsforthecreationofa
40
Joanne Rappaport
collaborativeteamofindigenous,national,andinternationalresearchers. I thank the members of our team, which included Myriam Amparo Espinosa,DavidGow,SusanaPiñacuéAchicué,AdoníasPerdomoDizú, andTulioRojasCurieux.Ihavewrittenaboutmyexperiencesinthat teaminothervenues(Rappaport2005).Eachmembercollaboratedwith anindigenousorganizationorcommunity.IworkedwiththeBilingual Intercultural Education Program (PEBI) of the Regional Indigenous CouncilofCauca(CRIC).IthankGracielaBolaños,AbelardoRamos,and InocencioRamos,aswellastheentirePEBIteam,fortheirhospitality anddialogue.DeniseBrennan,LesField,RichardFox,andtheother participantsintheWenner-Grensymposiumprovidedmewithhelpful commentaryonanearlierdraftofthischapter.
Notes 1. I distinguish in this chapter between a North American insistence on theprimacyofethnographyasagenreofwritingandaColombianfocuson ethnographyasfieldpractice.Thisdistinctiondoesnotprecludethesignificant pointmadebyGelyaFrank(thisvolume)thatbothpureandappliedformsof anthropologicalresearchintheUnitedStatesareseenlargelyasexercisesin writing.MyargumentregardingthenatureofColombianparticipatoryaction researchalsocoincideswiththediscussionofactivistanthropologyadvanced byCharlesHale(thisvolume). 2. The participatory action research of La Rosca is not to be confused with theparticipatoryapproachcurrentlyinvogueinruraldevelopment(Chambers 1997;seealsoCookeandKothari2001).Althoughthelatteradvocatesgrassroots participation in development projects, it does not involve the sort of collaborationswithradicalorganizationsthatwerecentraltoLaRosca’sobjectives,nor doitsaimsrevolvearoundbolsteringthecapacityformilitancyofthegrassroots, asLaRoscaadvocated.Inaddition,buildingontheinfluenceofMarxisminthe Colombiansocialscienceofthe1960sandthewideparticipationofstudentsand scholarsinleftistpartiesandmovements,LaRoscasoughttoimbueitsresearch withaclass(andlateranethnic)consciousnessthatisgenerallymissingfromthe panoramaofruraldevelopmentpractitioners. 3. VíctorDanielBonilla,amemberofLaRosca,wasactiveinCRICatits founding. I was initiated into the Colombian indigenous movement (and introducedtoitsintensefactionalism)inthelate1970sbyVíctorDaniel,who
AnthropologicalCollaborationsinColombia 41
alsoencouragedmetobegintoanalyzethearchivalmaterialsIhadcollected byjuxtaposingthemwiththehistoriespreparedbyLaRosca.GonzaloCastillo, alsoofLaRosca,wasmadeawareofLame’sbookbytheindigenouscommunity ofOrtega,Tolima,wherethemanuscriptwascarefullystoredandconsulted bynativeauthorities(Castillo-Cárdenas1987).Lame’streatisehassincebeen reissued(Lame2004[1939]);thenewpublicationincludesanindigenoustake onLame’sbiography,renderedincomic-bookform(NeneandChocué2004: 103–10). 4. Inasense,Bergquist’scritiqueisunfair.AlthoughLaRosca’spamphlets, books,andpicturemapswereinaccessibletomanyindigenousactivistsinthe 1970s,theyhavebecomeaccessibletoday,whenthereisasignificantlayerof schoolednativemilitantswhoarenotonlyreadersbutalsoidentifythemselves asresearchers.InMarch2006,atameetingoftheCRICleadershiptodiscuss strategies for writing an organizational history, participants continually broughtupthesematerials. 5. AnMAprograminethnolinguisticswasdevelopedattheBogotá-based UniversidaddelosAndesinthe1980s,withtheparticipationofinternational scholars as instructors, through a combination of French and Colombian funding. Indigenous activists were provided with scholarships and studied alongside non-native, tuition-paying students. The program spawned other MAprogramsinprovincialuniversities,includingtheUniversidaddelCauca, and attracted indigenous linguists trained in more traditional linguistics programs. 6. TheøisusedintheGuambianoalphabetforvowelsoriginatingatthe centerofthetongue,liketheFrenchu. 7. Thehistorycommitteealsocollectedextensivearchivalmaterialsfroma numberofColombianandEcuadorianrepositories.However,itsmembersdid nothavetheskillstoreadandassimilatethesedocuments,andthehundreds ofpagesofcopiestheyamassedwentunconsulted. 8. TheGuambianoHistoryCommitteeexplicitlyrecognizedtherelationship betweenresearchskillsandpower,asitstatedinoneofitsnarratives:“When the Spaniards came, they arrived doing research. They grabbed those who livedinCajibío,whomtheycalledNovirao,andtheytaughtthemSpanish. Theyaskedthemabouteverything.Theycalledthosewhoknewthemostand theyaskedthem,soastolearnalltherewastoknowabouttheGuambianos. When they had found out everything, they began to dominate them, to exacttribute,toorganizethingsandpeopleintheirownway.Theysentthe hereditarychiefstocollecteverythingtheywanted,totakeittoPopayán[the colonialcapital]”(VascoUribe,DaguaHurtado,andAranda1993:9). 9. Colaboradores are for the most part former leftists who sought out the indigenous movement as a prime site for constructing a new proposal for
42
Joanne Rappaport
nationhoodinColombia.LikethemembersofLaRosca,theyhopedtopromotetheclassstruggleinthecountryside,althoughtoday’smovementhas cometoespouseadiscourseofethnicpeoplehoodthatcolaboradoreshavealso embraced.However,unlikeLaRoscamembers,colaboradores’primaryidentity isthatofactivistsandnotresearchers. 10. Thequandaryoverwheretoplacecolaboradores—whethertheybelong “inside” or “outside” the movement—hints at the essentialist lens through whichwehavebecomeaccustomedtoviewingindigenousorganizations. 11. CRIC is a multilingual environment in which members of various indigenousethnicgroupsandcolaboradorescommunicatelargelyinSpanish. Only half of the Nasa are fluent in the Nasa language. Many of the most radical proposals for cultural revitalization come from the Nasa speakers withinthePEBIcollective,whoarefrequentlyatoddswithNasaactivistswho aremonolingualinSpanishandwiththecolaboradores(seeRappaport2005). 12. Thefifty-onequestionsareanalyzedinRappaport2005:chap.5. 13. Interculturalism is a pedagogical movement that advocates the appropriationofexternaltheoriesandmethodsintoanindigenousculturalmatrix inordertostimulateresearchand,ultimately,fosterpoliticalpluralism(López 1996). An antidote to multiculturalism, it is meant to empower subaltern groups,asopposedtosimplytoleratingtheirpresence. 14. Oneoftheobviousskillsthatexternalresearchersbringtothetableis theabilitytowriteupresultsinacoherentandpersuasivefashion,something thattheactivists—whosewritingskillswereconfinedtocurriculaandpolitical documents—couldnotdo.VascoandUrdanetaalsofunctionedasscribesfor theirresearchteams. 15. Socializaciónactivitieshavebeenongoing,mainlyintheteachertrainingprogramscoordinatedbyPEBI.However,inAugust2005IattendedaworkshoporganizedtobegintoconceptualizeabroaderhistoryofCRIC,atwhich weengagedinasocializaciónofthePEBIbook.Participantsincludednotonly PEBIactivistsandbilingualteachersbutalsothefoundersofCRIC—menand womenintheirsixtiesandseventies—whohadbeenchargedwithwritinga historyoftheorganization.Giventheobjectivesoftheworkshop,thecontents of the book were not discussed in any detail; instead, participants used the PEBIhistorytoprojecttheirgoalofwritingahistoryofCRIC.Theyreflected on how the moments in PEBI’s history recorded in the book shed light on waystothinkaboutthehistoryofotherlocalities.Theywereconcerned,in particular, with methodological issues and with the possibilities of training elders to participate in historical research. Moreover, they emphasized the significance of interpreting history through vehicles other than published books,includingvisualimagesandvideo.Finally,theyspentagreatdealof timeelaboratingonthepurposeofaCRIChistory:toignitetheorganizing
AnthropologicalCollaborationsinColombia 43
flameunderanincreasinglyapatheticyouth—averydifferentobjectivefrom that of the PEBI history, which was to stimulate further research among bilingualteachers. 16. RamosandIarecurrentlyworkingonadialogicarticleaboutourexperiencesontheteam,tobepublishedbyHistoriaCríticainBogotá.Init,Ramos narrateshisownconfrontationswiththeteamandlaysoutwhathelearned intheprocess.
This page intentionally left blank
t w o
Gray Spaces and Endless Negotiations Forensic Anthropology and Human Rights
Mercedes Doretti and Jennifer Burrell
I
n the past two decades, human rights commissions, international tribunals,andlocaljudiciariesinvestigatingpasthumanrightsabuses haveincreasinglyturnedtoforensicarchaeologists,biologicalanthropologists, and, to a lesser extent, social anthropologists to provide crucialevidenceintheirproceedingsandtooverseetherecoveryof victims’ remains. As demand for these areas of expertise in human rightscasesgrows,largelyinresponsetotheinsistenceofhumanrights nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), the disciplines of forensic archaeologyandanthropologyhavebecomeincreasinglywellknown and even popularized. Indiana Jones movies and television shows suchasCSIandBonesnowdominatethepopularimaginationabout workinthisfield,attributingtotheforensicanthropologistanallure infused by classic anthropological exoticism, high technology, and humanitarianinterest.Asaresult,themarketforpopularandacademic forensicbookscontinuestoincrease.1Forensicanthropologyprograms proliferate,theirphonesringingoffthehookwithcallsfromprospective students. And forensic anthropologists increasingly find themselves navigatingbetweenavarietyofpoliticalpressures,fundingimperatives, andhumanrightsconcerns. This state of affairs, however, is recent. Applying traditional archaeological and biological anthropological techniques to the field of forensicsandtohumanrightscasesremainsproblematicandfraught withobstaclesinmanycountriesoftheworld.Inaddition,thiskind
45
46
Mercedes Doretti and Jennifer Burrell
offorensicworkwasinitiallyembracedandfosteredbyhumanrights organizationsandnotbyacademicdepartmentsanduniversities.For thesereasons,forensicanthropologyappliedintheserviceofhuman rights offers a unique perspective for examining what we call the “gray spaces,” that is, the way this anthropological work often falls inbetweenoroutsideoftraditionalanthropologicalsubjectmatters and academic concerns. It also takes place at the interstices of local politicalagendas,NGOs’wishes,nationalprograms,andtheworkof internationalorganizations.Thesegrayspacesaddanotherdimension to the role of forensic anthropologists: finding a middle ground on whichtocarryoutinvestigations,asearchthatincludesnegotiations ofroles,positions,politics,andfundingrequirements. Besidestheseconsiderations,forensicanthropologyappliedtohuman rightscasesraisesdifferentkindsofquestionsinrelationtohowanthropologistsmightengagesocialandpoliticalworldsandwhatkindsof “products”mightemergefromthisengagement.Thegoalsofourwork, andthemethods,techniques,andengagementsusedtoachievethem, areoftenquitedifferentfromtheconcernsofanthropologistsbased inacademicinstitutions.Weoftenspeaktodifferentaudiences,and distinctkindsofinquiriesinformwhatwesayandhowwepresentour findings.Asaconsequence,thekindsof“results”thatemergefromour investigationsarecategoricallydifferent.Thisconstellationofactions and considerations is also colored by the particular Latin American contextsofourwork. Inordertoillustratehowtheseissuesandconcernscometogether intheworkofourgroup,theArgentineForensicAnthropologyTeam (EquipoArgentinodeAntropologíaForense,orEAAF),andinforensic anthropology and human rights in general, we describe the Latin American political experience and the national contexts in which forensic anthropology applied to human rights cases incubated and grew.Weshowhowandwhynationalteamswereformedtocarryon investigationsoncethemandatesofcommissionsofinquiryhadexpired. WefollowthiswithanexplanationofthestructureofanEAAFforensic investigationinordertoillustratethewaysinwhichanthropological, political,andlocalknowledgeandconsiderationscomeintoplayand are negotiated. These examples clarify the interstitiality of forensic anthropologyappliedtohumanrightsinvestigationsandshowhow anthropologicalengagementinthisarenaistheresultofacarefully constructed and orchestrated and often delicate balance between professionalexpertise,ethicaldimensions,andpoliticalcontexts.
GraySpacesandEndlessNegotiations 47
TheLatinAmericanExperience Societiesemergingfromperiodsofpoliticalviolencecharacterizedby grossviolationsofhumanrightsandhumanitarianlawfacethedifficult taskofconfrontingtheirpastswhileworkingtopreventreoccurrencesof suchabuses.Duringthe1970sand1980s,thecountriesofLatinAmerica wereshakenbyperiodsofintenseviolenceandrepression.Severeand extensivehumanrightsviolationswerecommitted,primarilybystates underthecontrolofmilitarygovernments.(PeruandColombiaare exceptionstothisgeneralization.) Atthestartofthe1980sandintothe1990s,thesecountriesbegan tomovetowardreinstatingdemocraticgovernments.Withtheestablishment of democracy came the immediate need to investigate the humanrightsviolationsoftherecentpast.Theextremelylimitedrole ofjudiciarybodies,andoftenthecomplicityofforensicexpertswithin thosebodies,wasquestionedandinsomecasesredefined.Itbecame clearthatimprovementsintheadministrationofjusticewerecrucial toreinforcingthenewdemocracies.Duringthelasttwodecades,trials ofperpetratorshavebeenheldatthenationalandinternationallevels. Although these investigations led to the conviction of guilty parties in some countries, in others amnesty proclamations allowed those responsibletoavoidconviction,evenwheninvestigationswereand stillarebeingcarriedout. Sincethe1980sLatinAmericanarchaeologistsandanthropologists havebeencalledontoassistintherecoveryandanalysisofevidence related to large-scale human rights violations in their countries. In somecountries,violationscontinuetooccur.Responsestothischallenge have been the formation of forensic anthropology teams in Argentina (1984), Chile (1989), Guatemala (1992), Peru (1999), and, mostrecently,Colombia(2004).TheArgentineForensicAnthropology Team(EAAF),ofwhichDorettiwasco-founder,wasestablishedin1984 asanongovernmental,nonprofit,scientificorganizationthatapplies forensic sciences—mainly forensic anthropology and archaeology— to the investigation of human rights violations in Argentina and worldwide. In most cases, the initial request for the involvement of forensic anthropologistsandarchaeologistscomesfromhumanrightsNGOsand associationsoffamiliesofvictims,notfromthejudiciary,themedical examiners’offices,orthegovernment.Thisisconsistentwiththefact thatinmanycountries,themajorityofabuseswereorarecommitted bythestate,andnewdemocracieshavelimitedpoliticalpowerorwill
48
Mercedes Doretti and Jennifer Burrell
to investigate them. Even when the responsibility for human rights abusesisspreadmoreevenlyamongthepartiesinaconflict,inmost casesnonewantsafullinvestigationofthecrimesofwhichtheyhave beenaccused. Becauseofthesekindsofconsiderations,anthropologistsandarchaeologistsapplyingforensicanthropologytohumanrightscasesfind themselvesoutsidetheprecinctofacademicinstitutionsandindependent research,workingintheNGOworldandservingasconsultantsand expertwitnessesforgovernments,specialcommissionsofinquiry,and judiciaryinstitutions.Often,lawenforcementagenciesthemselvesare accusedofthecrimesunderinvestigation.Althoughourinvestigations take place specifically at the request of NGOs, grassroots initiatives, andinternationalcommissions,theseagenciesoftencarrytheirown institutionalhistoriesandlevelsofcredibilityintermsofwhatthey meanandrepresenttolocalpopulations.Whenweworkattheirbehest, we,too,areassociatedwiththeselocalmeanings. Nevertheless, these organizations are frequently less problematic locally than are national governments, particularly in transitional states.Ourconnectionwiththem,wehavefound,frequentlyhelps familiesandsometimescommunitiestosituatetheworkwedowithin alargerhumanitariancontext.Inotherwords,formanypeoplewe becomethefaceoflargerprojectsofdemocratizationandtransition, eventhoughourconnectionwiththeseprojectsmaybeindirector maybethroughorganizationsthatrepresentdifferentaspectsofthis relationship. The work performed by forensic anthropologists is technical and scientificbutoftenhasstrongpoliticalconsequences.Thisoftenimplies constraints and seemingly endless negotiations within the political frameworkinwhichwehavetowork.Unlikeinacademicresearch,in thiscontextweanthropologistsdonotdictatetherulesofengagement— althoughneitherdowepassivelyacceptthem,especiallywhenthey preventusfrombeingabletofullyinvestigateacrime.Inotherwords, werecognizethatdialogueandcollaborationwiththestatesectorare oftennecessaryinordertoaccomplishthegoalsofprovidingevidence, restoringbodiesofvictimstolovedones,andupholdingtherightto an investigation. At the same time, when negotiations compromise theintegrityofaninquiry,wecutthemoff,anactionwehavetaken whennootherethicalrecoursewasavailable.Forexample,inthecase oftheElMozotemassacreinElSalvador,amnestylawspassedin1993 ledtoacessationoftheinvestigation.Weresumedworkonitin1999 whennewpoliticalcontextspermittedustodoso.
GraySpacesandEndlessNegotiations 49
Ontheotherhand,thecommunityofforensicanthropologyand archaeology is currently well established in Latin America and has amassedasubstantialhistoryofinvestigatoryexperiencewiththeUN andinternationaltribunalsintheBalkans,Africa,andAsia.InFebruary 2003,theLatinAmericanForensicAnthropologyAssociation(ALAF)was created,inparttoprovideaforuminwhichtoutilizetheexperiences of forensic practitioners throughout the region for standardizing methodologies, implementing ethical and professional criteria, and developingmechanismstoensurethesafetyofforensicpractitioners andtheirfamilies.Additionalgoalsincludeadvocatingfortheuseof forensicevidenceinjudicialproceedings,defendingthescientificand technical integrity of the practice, and providing a mechanism for accreditation.Amongthenewchallengesistheneedtomovebeyond immediatecasestoproducescientificresearchbasedonourexperience. Thisinturnwillimprovethetoolsavailablefortheinvestigationof humanrightscases. TheformationofALAF,inshort,providesaspaceforengagement inacademicandotherkindsofdebatesthatpreviouslyhavebeen unavailabletousbecauseourresourceshavebeendirectedprimarily toward immediate human rights crises and inquiries around the world.Italsoconstitutes,asCardosodeOliveira(2000)notedfor Brazil,animportantmechanismformovingfromthe“periphery”— becauseofourappliedemphasisandourbaseinLatinAmerica—to newcentersoflegalandanthropologicalpracticeanddisciplinary debates.
TheArgentineCaseandtheFormationofEAAF Inthesummerof1984,democracyreturnedtoArgentinaaftereight long years of dictatorship. As many as nine thousand people were “disappeared”bythestateduringthattime,andnoseriousinvestigationhadbeenallowed.Itwasgenerallyknown(althoughnotofficially acknowledged until years later) that many had been thrown from airplanes into the Argentine Sea, and therefore their remains would probablybeirretrievable.Butmanyotherswereburiedinanonymous gravesinthe“JohnDoe”areasofcemeteriesalloverthecountry.At thefirstopportunity,judges,relativesofdisappearedpeople,forensic doctors,police,mediapersonnel,andthecuriousgatheredatcemeteries, franticallysearchingforremainsofthemissing.Thepressphotographed bulldozersdiggingupseveralindividualgravesatonce,skullsandother bonesflyingfromtheirshovels.
50
Mercedes Doretti and Jennifer Burrell
Untrained cemetery personnel tried their best to recover skeletal remainsbutleftbehindsmallbones,includingteeth,andotherevidence suchasbullets.Theboneswerebroken,lost,ormixedup.Skullswere piledinoneplaceandpostcranialbonesinanother,destroyingthe relationshipbetweentheskullandtherestoftheskeleton.Television screensshoweddoctorsholdingskullswithgunshotwounds.Though in all likelihood these were the remains of disappeared people, no oneknewtowhomamongthevictimstheymightbelong,towhat episodestheywerelinked,orwhospecificallywasresponsiblefortheir deaths.Furthermore,nooneknewwhattodowiththeremainsonce theyhadbeenrecovered.Theevidencenecessaryforidentification andforlegalcasesagainstthoseresponsibleforthecrimeswasbeing destroyed. There was no precedent in Argentina for dealing with massive exhumations. The forensic physicians in charge of recovery, whose familiaritywaswithcadavers,hadlittleexperiencewithexhumationsor analysisofskeletalremains.Inaddition,somedoctorshadthemselves beencomplicitinthecrimesofthepreviousregime,byeitheromission orcommission.InArgentina,asinmostoftherestofLatinAmerica andotherregionsaswell,forensicexpertsarepartofthepolice,the judiciarysystem,orboth,orareotherwiseaffiliatedwiththegovernment. Therefore,duringundemocraticperiods,theirindependenceisseverely limited. Afterseveralmassiveexhumations,theneedforascientificalternative totheseproceduresbecameobvious.TheNationalCommissiononthe DisappearanceofPeople(CONADEP),createdin1984bynewlyelected PresidentAlfonsín,andtheGrandmothersofPlazadeMayo,ahuman rightsorganization,askedtheHumanRightsandScienceprogramat theAmericanAssociationfortheAdvancementofScience(AAAS)for assistance.TheAAASsentadelegationofforensicscientiststoArgentina, includingClydeSnow,oneoftheworld’sforemostexpertsinforensic anthropology.Snowcalledforahalttoallunscientificexhumations andaskedarchaeologistsandanthropologiststogetinvolved. Onlyafewadvancedstudentsofarchaeologyandsocialanthropologyansweredhiscall,aphenomenonwediscusslater.UnderSnow’s direction, and using techniques from traditional archaeology and forensicanthropology,thissmallgroupparticipatedinexhumations in which data were properly collected, documented, and analyzed. Thecollectedevidenceservedtoconvictseveralhigh-rankingmilitary officialsandtoidentifydisappearedpeopleandrestoretheirremains totheirfamilies.
GraySpacesandEndlessNegotiations 51
ClydeSnowreturnedtoArgentinamanytimesoverthenextfiveyears. ThevolunteershetrainedformedtheArgentineForensicAnthropology Team,EAAF.After1986,EAAFexpandeditsactivitiesbeyondArgentina andhassinceworkedinmorethanthirtycountriesinLatinAmerica, Africa,Asia,andEurope. A significant percentage of this international work has been to assistinformingnationalteamsinGuatemala,Chile,andColombia, among other countries. In the United States, Physicians for Human RightsandtheScienceandHumanRightsprogramattheAAASpartially supportedtheseeffortsandconductedtrainingandforensicworkthemselves.Importantinternationalforensiceffortsweresetupbyspecial UNtribunalstoinvestigatewarcrimescommittedduringtheBalkan warsandtheRwandangenocide.ThenewlyestablishedInternational CriminalCourtalsohasaforensiccomponent.Snowhasbeenatthe centerofmostoftheseefforts,providingtrainingandadviceaswell asworkingoncases. EAAFappliesforensicsciencestotheinvestigationofhumanrights violationstoassistthefamiliesofvictims,trainlocalteams,andprovide evidencetocourts.Inthelongterm,EAAFaimstocontributetothe historicalreconstructionoftherecentpast,whichisoftendistorted orhiddenbypartiesorgovernmentinstitutionsthatarethemselves implicatedinthecrimesunderinvestigation.EAAFmembersfrequently actasexpertwitnessesandconsultantsforlocalandinternationalhuman rightsorganizations,nationaljudiciaries,internationaltribunals,and specialcommissionsofinquirysuchastruthcommissions.
DefiningEngagement:AnInterdisciplinaryApproach Whether focused on a human rights investigation or a “normal” criminalcase,forensicworkisdefinitivelyaninterdisciplinaryeffort. Forensicanthropologistsandarchaeologists,forensicpathologists,biologicalanthropologists,radiologists,ballisticsexperts,crimesceneinvestigators,andgeneticists—tonamethemaindisciplinesthatcanbe involved—pooltheirexpertisetomaximizetheinformationobtained from the evidence. In addition to this aspect of the work, forensic workersinhumanrightscasesaresensitivetothefactthatwhatthey doisoftenpartoftheprocessofrestoringdignity,trust,andrespect forpeoplewhohavesufferedsevereabuses.Inmanycasesthistrust mayinitiallybedifficulttoestablishandrequiresextensiveworkwith families of victims and with community leaders who support local investigationinitiatives.
52
Mercedes Doretti and Jennifer Burrell
Withinthecontextofahumanrightscase,theworkoftheforensic teamofteninvolvesthreesteps:thepreliminaryinvestigation,thearchaeologicalwork,andthelaboratoryanalysis.Thepreliminarystageof aninvestigationiswhatdistinguishesforensichumanrightscasesfrom others,andforthisreasonwediscussitingreaterdetail.Typically,it includestheexaminationofstate,judicial,police,andmilitaryfiles, cemetery and registration office records, and other kinds of documentationrelatedtothecaseunderexamination.Oftenthishistorical information has not been collected before, or the data collected by othersisinsufficientorneglectsquestionsrelatedtoforensicissues. EAAFmembersspendconsiderabletimeinterviewingwitnessesand survivors and collecting information about the case as well as antemortemorphysicalinformationaboutthevictimsforidentification purposes.Humanrightsorganizationsandsometimeslocaljudiciaries (iftheyhavenotbeeninvolvedintheconflict)playacrucialrolein findingeyewitnessesandputtingacasetogether.Becausethesecases frequently arise at moments of transition from civil conflicts, wars, orstateterrorism,nongovernmentalorganizationsoftenfillthegaps createdbycomplicitjudiciaries,policeforces,andotherinvestigators. Oftenatgreatrisktotheirmembers,theyformabridgebetweenan investigative body and witnesses, survivors, and relatives of victims. Evenindemocratictransitionalmoments,witnessesandrelativesof victims frequently feel more comfortable releasing information to a local NGO or giving testimony before a court of law or national or international commission of inquiry with the support or mediation ofanNGO.Truthcommissioninvestigatorsusuallyrelyonthework of NGOs as a starting point for their investigations. EAAF members alsoconductassessmenttripstotheareatobeexaminedorexcavated andevaluatetheavailableinformationaboutit.Forensicanthropology, archaeology,andsocialanthropologyareallhelpfulinthispreliminary investigation. Inordertocollaborateandbuildrelationshipswithlocalcommunities, EAAFchampionsdirectcontactbetweentheforensicteam,localNGOs, andthepresumedrelativesofvictimsbeforetheforensicworkbegins. This allows local people to understand the procedures that will be performedandtoaskquestions,anditgivesEAAFtheopportunityto considerlocalpeople’sexpectations,doubts,worries,andobjections.In mostcasesinvolvingpoliticaldisappearances,therelativesofvictims havebeenbadlytreatedbyofficials,whooftendenytheveryfactof the disappearance of their loved ones. It is important, we think, to reestablishalinkoftrustandrespect.
GraySpacesandEndlessNegotiations 53
Thecrucialimportanceofrestoringtheremainsoflovedonesand burying them according to local practices transcends culture and religion. The desire for justice and acknowledgment of past abuses is also a strong demand in many countries. EAAF’s experience with differentnationalcultures,religions,andpoliticalsituationshasshown that exhumations and reburial ceremonies related to human rights violations have a strong healing effect on families of victims and oncommunities.Insomesituations,however,exhumationsarenot supported,ortheyneedtobedonetakingreligiousissuesintoaccount. Therefore,aspartofthepreliminarystageofaninvestigation,wealso verifythatthefamiliesofthevictimswanttheworktobedone.Their culturalandreligiouspracticesregardingdeathandburialshouldbe respected as the investigation proceeds. In El Salvador, for example, familiesofvictimswhoareSeventh-DayAdventistsoftendonotwant exhumationsperformed.InArgentina,aminoritygroupofrelatives ofvictimsdoesnotwanttorecovertheremainsoftheirlovedones unlessthemilitarypubliclytakesresponsibilityfortheirdeaths;they seeexhumationsasatypeofblackmailtosilencethemoracompromise theyareunwillingtoaccept. InIndonesia,alargelyMuslimcountry,familiesofvictimsexpressed concernaboutautopsiesorexaminationofskeletalremains,because accordingtotheirreligionthebodyshouldnotbecutordisturbedafter death.However,theyaddedthatifthetruthaboutwhathadhappened orevenjusticecouldbeachievedbytheseprocedures,theywouldaccept theneedforexhumations.MuslimreligiousleadersinAcehexplained tousthatreligiousconcerncouldbeovercomeifaclearpurposewas achievedbydoingforensicwork,andtheywouldbewillingtoexplain thisinapubliccampaigninconjunctionwithotherreligiousleadersand Muslimsingeneral.Ifthesekindsofissuesarenottakenintoaccount beforedoingtheforensicwork,itmayfail,producingmorepainand sufferingtothosewhomwearetryingtohelp. There are often nonconflictive ways to respect victims’ families’ decisionsintheextremecaseoftheirtotaloppositiontoexhumation. EAAF does not intervene in cases where families do not support exhumations.Forexample,wecompletedafinalmissiontoElMozote, ElSalvador,leavingcertainmassgravesuntouchedduetothewishes offamilymembers.Fromalegalstandpoint,thiscanbedonewithout compromisinganinvestigationbecause,first,mosttribunalsandcommissionsorderforensicworkforaverylimitednumberofselectcases, andsecond,toprovelegallythatamassacreoccurred,notallbodiesneed tobediscoveredandexamined.Fromhistoricalanddocumentation
54
Mercedes Doretti and Jennifer Burrell
standpoints,wecanoftenstillprovideanestimateofthetotalnumber ofvictimsbyothermeans. Anewaccompanimenttoforensicinvestigationthatisemergingis psychosocialsupportforfamiliesexperiencingtheexhumationofthe remainsoftheirlovedones.Havingremainsreturnedprovidesclosure formanyfamilies;itofferstheirrefutableproofthattheirlovedoneis reallydead.Butmourningundersuchcircumstancesisacomplicated andunusualprocessattheindividual,family,community,andnational levels.Communityandindividualcounselinghasbeendevelopedby local NGOs in Guatemala and Zimbabwe and serves as a model for othercountriesundergoingsimilarprocesses.Ourexperiencehasshown thatlocalorregionalNGOsalreadyfamiliarwiththeculture,language, religion,andindividualsituationsofvictimsofferextremelyvaluable benefitstofamiliesinvolved.Theyhaveafirsthandunderstandingof thepoliticalclimateandmayalsobemoreeffectiveinthereparations stageoftheresolutionofaconflict. EAAF devotes considerable energy to training national forensic teams.Weseethisasessentialforcontinuingrecoveryandidentification beyond the mandates of commissions of inquiry or tribunals. Theperiodduringwhichsuchadjudicatorybodiesoperatetendstobe short,especiallyrelativetothetimenecessarytoexhumeandidentify victimsofaconflict.Morethantwenty-fiveyearsafterthepeakofthe repression in Argentina, EAAF is still searching for the disappeared. SimilarinvestigationsinChile,Peru,Guatemala,andmanyothercountrieswillcontinueforyears.Nationalforensicteamsareessentialto ensuringthattherightsoffamiliesaremet.
GrayZonesandNegotiations Astheforegoingexplanationofaforensicinvestigationofahuman rightscasedemonstrates,anthropologistsworkinginthisfieldbring to bear a wide variety of skills, training, technical expertise, and experiences. We combine elements from historical ethnology, social andculturalanthropology,politicalanthropology,activism,advocacy, and the more obvious technical practices of archaeology, biological anthropology,andforensicmedicine.Atthesametime,thenatureof the work places us outside of academe and often outside of judicial andlegalstructures. Althoughweareinterestedinacademicdebates,thepurposeofour workistoensurethatthebasicrighttotruthandtoafairinvestigation isupheld.Althoughweultimatelytrytoprovidepositiveidentifications
GraySpacesandEndlessNegotiations 55
andtorestoreremainstothefamiliesofvictims,wearealsosubject tonationalpoliticalcontextsandconstraints.Sometimeswehaveto wait years to obtain legal permits. Sometimes investigations are so circumscribedthatwecan,forexample,restoreremainstofamiliesor makepositiveidentificationsbutnotnamecausesofdeath.Sometimes wearepermittedtocollectballisticevidencebutnottoanalyzeit. Whyareforensicanthropologistsworkinginhumanrightssituated betweensomanydisciplinesandsubdisciplines,academictrajectories, andpoliticalrequirementsthattraditionalanthropologistsandarchaeologists are not subject to? First, the framework in which human rights work is conducted is not always friendly to the independent expert.Independentforensicexpertsareoftencallednotonlybecause a country lacks specialists but also because institutions that should haveconductedinvestigationsdidnotdotheirjoboraresuspectsin thesamecrimes.Andyetforlegalreasons,forensicteamsworkingon human rights cases may have to work with representatives of those veryinstitutions.Itcanbeuncomfortabletoworkoutsideofacademic institutions or in situations where tension with official institutions exists.Inthesecases,wemustweighourroleasengagedanthropologists andactivistsagainstthehumanrightsgoalsandprinciplesforwhich we work: upholding the right to truth and to an investigation, and identifyingandrestoringtheremainsofhumanrightsvictimstotheir families. Inmanyways,aforensicinvestigationisamorerestrictiveframework thananacademicone.Theworkisconductedwithintheframeworkofa judicialsystemorspecialbodywithamandatethatbasicallyestablishes whatwillbedoneandthequestionsorpointsofexpertisethatmust beaddressed.Wehavealimitedamountoftime,normallyafewweeks, todoourwork,andwehavetomaintainachainofcustodyforthe evidenceaswellasconfidentialityoffindingsanddiscussions.Weare nominatedasexpertwitnesses,andassuchwemaybecross-examined byotherexpertsordefenselawyers,whichimpliesthatwemustrefrain fromspeculationwheninterpretingtheevidence.Oftenitisdifficult tomakethejudicialcommunityunderstandthelimitsofcertaintyin our discipline.2 Standard deviations in methods for establishing age atdeathonthebasisofskeletalremains,forexample,mayoftenbea problem.Informationaboutcauseandmannerofdeathisnotalways clearorabsolutewhenoneworksonlywithskeletalremains. Workingonforensicandhumanrightscasesoftencomeswithcomplicatedemotionalbaggage.Unlessthereissomelegalconstraint,we believefamilieshavetherighttoobserveexhumations,andsotheyare
56
Mercedes Doretti and Jennifer Burrell
oftenpresentatourfieldsites.Thispointsometimesawakensresistance intheacademicandforensiccommunities,whosemembersaremore accustomedtoworkinginisolation.Also,aspartofourworkweoften shareextremelyintense,privatemomentswithpeoplewehardlyknow, andthenwerarelyseeeachotheragain.Aclearcurrentofaffection oftenexistsbetweenanthropologistsandrelativesofvictims—astrong and peculiar bond.3 But we know extremely little about each other. Frombothsides,thememorythatbindsusmaybetoopainfulforus tostayincontact. Human rights organizations are often seen as ideologically motivatedbydefinition.Manyanthropologistsandarchaeologistsaremore comfortableworkingfortheUnitedNationsthanforthelegalsystem of a given country at the request of a human rights organization. Forexample,manyassumethatworkingfortheUNismoreneutral thanworkingforAmnestyInternational.Inourexperienceitisoften the reverse. Despite the image of neutrality the UN attempts to put forth,asanintergovernmentalbodythatistheclosestthingtoastate institution in this globalized world, the UN is also one of the most political institutions around. In any case, we are acutely aware that becauseofthepoliticsoffundingandaccess,ourworkmay,inparticular contextsatparticulartimes,beunderstoodbyassociationtobeinspired inwaysthatwedonotnecessarilyintend. Resistance from parties involved with criminal investigations in human rights cases is frequent, and it may take months or years of negotiationtofinallybeabletoinvestigatethesetypesofcrimes.The partiesinvolved,orweaktransitionalgovernmentsfollowingdictatorshipsorcivilwars,oftenuseanypossibletooltodelayinvestigations. Onmorethanafewoccasions,whenfinalpermissionwasgrantedfor aforensicinvestigation,wemetwithresistancefromofficialsandthe judiciarywhotriedtolimitourroletothe“humanitarianidentification ofremains.”Inpracticalterms,thismaymeancollectingnoevidence atthecrimescenethatrelatestounderstandingwhathappenedthere orthatcanprovideinformationaboutcauseandmannerofdeathand possibleperpetrators.Forexample,fromtimetotimewehavebeen forbiddentocollectballisticevidence,whichaidsinre-creatingwhat happened.Ourresponsetothesekindsofsituationshasbeenthatas expertforensicwitnesses,wecannotdiscardthecollectionofrelevant evidenceduringacriminalinvestigationunlesswehaveawrittenorder fromtheprosecutororjudgeinchargenottocollectit.Notsurprisingly, thiskindofinstructionrarelyappearsinwriting,andsomostofthe timewehavebeenabletoproceed.
GraySpacesandEndlessNegotiations 57
Thus, discomfort and tension emanating from a number of areas areconstantrealitiesforarchaeologistsoranthropologistsinvolvedin thiskindofwork.Argentinaisagoodcaseforillustratingthekindsof obstructionsandtensionsthatarise.Onenotableobservationregarding theearliestforensicworkinhumanrightscasesinArgentina,inthe early1980s,wasthelackofinvolvementofacademicarchaeologists andanthropologistsinthisnewfieldatatimewhentheirexpertise wassorelyneededtorebuildthenation.Whythiswassoshedslight onthecomplicationsandcomplexitiesofpostwarsocieties. First,thebrutalityofthedictatorshipleftmanyscientistsfrightened tobecomeinvolvedinanyactivitywithpoliticalconnotations.Because militarycoupshadbeencyclicalinArgentina,manypeoplebelieved that sooner or later the military would return to power and punish thosewhohadhelpedgatherevidenceagainstit.Second,underthe militarygovernmentapositivist,apolitical,andrathernaiveconception ofsciencewaspromoted,andthesocialinvolvementofscientistswas stronglydiscouraged.Thisisolatedsocialscientistsfromcontemporary society and from other kinds of communities, such as those of the indigenous,mestizo,anddispossessedpeopleofthecountryside.Archaeology and bio-anthropology were confined to the ancient dead, devoidofanyconnectiontolivingpeople. Third,somearchaeologistsandanthropologistspreferredtodevote theireffortstoreconstructinginstitutionsdevastatedduringthewar, such as universities and the National Research Council. Fourth, for some,becausethiskindofforensicworkwasinherentlypolitical,itwas notscientificenoughanddidnotpromoteseriousscientificresearch. Yet another group of archaeologists and biological anthropologists recognized the urgent need for a scientific forensic archaeology in Argentinaandvaluedthepioneeringworkbeingdone,butforpersonal orprofessionalreasonscouldnotbecomeinvolvedthemselves.Finally, thesocialsciencecommunitywasaffectedbytherepression,andsome socialscientistsdisappearedorwereimprisoned.Partoftheacademic communitywentintoexileduringthedictatorshipandneverreturned orhadyettoreturnwhenthisworkcommenced. Asaresult,whenClydeSnowbeganhissearchforprofessionalsto beginthescientificinvestigationofarecentlydiscoveredmassgrave, onlyafewadvancedstudentsofarchaeologyandsocialanthropology wereinapositiontoanswerhiscall.Importantly,thisgroupofyoung volunteerswasindependentofscholarlyinstitutions,afactthat,on the one hand, gave them great autonomy. On the other hand, that sameautonomyandlackofconnectiondelayedtheentryofforensic
58
Mercedes Doretti and Jennifer Burrell
anthropologyintotheacademy,anassociationthatundoubtedlywould havehelpedtoconsolidateanddevelopthespecialty. In sum, most of the well-established archaeologists and biological anthropologists in Argentina at the time thought the forensic field wastoonew,toorisky,toopolitical,orinsufficientlyscientifictobe includedinthepracticeofthedisciplines.However,earlyforensicwork inArgentinaandtherestofLatinAmericaprovidedanewdimension toarchaeologicalpraxisandopenedthedoortotheinvolvementof archaeologistsinhumanrightsissues.Thougharchaeologyisnowmore widely used in human rights investigations worldwide, some of the samedisagreementsovertherelationshipbetweenscience,academe, andhumanrightsworkarealiveinmanycountries. Aspectsofthesetensionsarereflectedinthehistoricaltrajectoryof academicdebatesoverwhatiscommonlyreferredtoasthe“reburial issue.”Manygovernmentsandscholarsnowrecognizetherightsof indigenous people with regard to archaeological sites and, more significantly, to the human remains of their ancestors. Despite some initialfriction,forensicarchaeologistsandmoreacademicallyoriented archaeologistsarefindingcommongroundandrecognizingcommon goals. Both subdisciplines, they are coming to recognize, are in the businessofexhuminghistoricalremainsthatareeventuallyreturned tofamiliesorextendedkinshipgroups.Inpursuingthisgoal,andin standardizingrigorousscientificmethodologiesandethicalcodesand procedures, the techniques and practices of both are enriched and improved, whether one is excavating a ten-thousand-year-old tomb oramassgravefromthe1970s.Moreover,thesekindsofdebatespoint tohowanthropologistsshouldbeawareofthepoliticalimplicationsof theirresearch,whethertheyworkinforensicarchaeologyinArgentina orintheclassicarchaeologyofancientGreece,wheretheissuesare oftenlessdirectandvisible(DorettiandPolitis2003). Forensic findings in a human rights investigation may also have political consequences, because the crimes under investigation were politicallymotivated.Thepartiesinvolvedoftentendtopoliticizethem tojustifytheiractionsandtopreventinvestigationandprosecution. Withoutbeingdisingenuousaboutwhatisatstake,wecansaythat anthropologists and archaeologists involved in human rights investigations are, in a way, returning to the principle of investigating a crime,regardlessofmotive,onlywithyearsofdelay.Inthissense,they arepartofthedepoliticizationofsuchcrimesandpartoftheeffortto returntotheruleoflaw.
GraySpacesandEndlessNegotiations 59
ShapingEngagement Anthropologists,particularlyculturalanthropologists,havehistorically worked with “informants,” the subjects of their studies, and often produce“results”forotheranthropologists.Inthissense,too,forensic anthropologyutilizedforhumanrightsinvestigationsiscategorically different.Theresultsofourinvestigations—reports,executivesummaries, book chapters, press conferences, and popularly accessible formats suchascomicbooks—arespecificallytargetedtotheaudienceswho requestthem,usuallyNGOs,localcommunities,internationaltribunals, and peace commissions. This lends a substantially different quality andvoicetotheirpresentation.Forexample,commissionsofinquiry requiregeneralizedreportswithalimitednumberofcasestudiesthat demonstratearangeofabuses.Fundingagenciesmightrequireexecutive summariesofsuccessfulmissions,describingtheworktheypaidforand thekindsofresultstheworkproducedinlocalcommunities.Often,local NGOsandfamiliesrequestamorepopularformatforinformationthatis potentiallytraumaticforthemandsometimesdifficulttocomprehend. Inotherwords,ourgoalistopresenttheresultsofourinvestigations in the most accessible manner for the various audiences that have requestedthem.Indoingso,weseektolendwhatevertransparencywe cantoprocessesthathavebeenobscuredandhidden.Wedeliberately avoid narrative strategies that hide or complicate the meaning and resultsofinvestigations. Werecognizethatthese“results”areweighteddifferentlyinacademe, butwemeasureourproductivityinotherways:bycollectingevidence andtranslatingitintofinalproductstobeusedindifferentkindsof forumsorbythefamiliesofvictimstounderstandtheexperiencesof theirfamilymembersandthemselveswithinlargercontexts.Because oftheenormousundertakingofthesesteps,coupledwithnegotiation ofthegrayspacesandambiguouszones,wehavenot,forthemostpart, engagedintheorybuilding,althoughwehopetoaddresstheoretical projectsthroughthecreationofALAF. Finally,theidentityofour“informants”andthenatureofourwork withthemarecategoricallydifferentfromwhatisfoundinotherkinds ofanthropologicalinvestigations.Weworkwithboththelivingand the dead and hope that both will provide clues to and details of a biggerpicture.Thelivinghavearighttoknowwhathappened,and theyprovideuswiththekindsofdetailsthathelpusmakesenseof andinterpretthehistoriesmarkedontheremainsoftheirlovedones. But how and where the truth is delivered matters. As the Argentine
60
Mercedes Doretti and Jennifer Burrell
human rights activist Juan Méndez has argued, “knowledge that is officially sanctioned and thereby made ‘part of the public cognitive scene’acquiresamysteriousqualitythatisnottherewhenitismerely ‘truth.’Officialacknowledgementatlastbeginstohealthesewounds” (citedinHayner2002).FamiliesandlocalNGOs,then,relyonusto conveythehistoriesthattheyhaveentrustedtoustotheforumswhere their becoming public will set the wheels of justice and reparations intomotion.
Conclusion In Latin America, the origins and practice of forensic anthropology have been drastically different from those of developing countries. Forensic anthropologists in Latin America have pioneered several areas of forensic sciences and human rights investigations. At EAAF, when we initially started our work twenty years ago, we needed to distanceourselvesfromlegal-medicalsystemsandothergovernmental institutionsthathadreportedlycommittedcrimesorhadlostcredibility duringlengthyperiodsofhumanrightsviolations.Weworkedoutside theseorganizations,incorporatingnewscientifictoolsforhumanrights investigations.Inordertohavealong-termeffect,andtakingadvantage ofincreasedinterestininternationalcriminallawandthedomestic incorporationofit,wenowworktowardincorporatinginternational protocolsforhumanrightsworkintodomesticcriminalprocedures.In away,then,inthepasttwodecadeswehavecomefullcircle. Comingfullcircle,however,doesnotmeanthatthenegotiationsthat giveforensicanthropologyappliedtohumanrightscasesitsdistinctive formceaseorlessen.Thesenegotiationsandthegrayspacesandinterstices between subdisciplines and agendas are intrinsically linked to thegrowthofthefieldandthepoliticallychargedcontextsinwhich its work takes place. In this sense, the negotiations and gray spaces inherenttoourworkbothdefinethelimitsofforensicanthropology as an engaged practice in the field of human rights and push at its boundaries,openingnewarenasandnewpossibilities.
Appendix:EAAFRecommendations Onthebasisofourexperiencesworkingasforensicanthropologistsfor truthcommissions,specialcommissionsofinquiry,andnationaland internationaltribunals,theEAAFhasdevelopedanumberofrecommendations.Someofthemaretheresultsoftwoworkshopsorganized
GraySpacesandEndlessNegotiations 61
in2002and2003bytheInternationalCommitteeoftheRedCrossin Genevaatwhichforensicpathologists,anthropologists,archaeologists, lawyers, and human rights activists developed guidelines regarding people missing and disappeared during wars and internal conflicts. Severalofthesewerediscussedatlengthinthischapter,andweprovide nofurtherdetailsforthem. Theeffectivenessofinstitutionalbodiesthatareestablishedforfixed timeperiodswouldbestrengthenedbythefollowing: 1. Improvingtherelationshipbetweenfamiliesofvictimsandforensic teams. 1.1. Facilitatingtherighttotruthoffamiliesofvictims. 1.2. Seekingapprovalfromfamiliesforexhumationsandrespecting culturalandreligiousfuneralrites. 2. Creatingmechanismstocontinuetherecoveryandidentification processbeyondacommission’sortribunal’smandate. 3. Whenever possible, improving contacts between independent forensic experts and local judiciaries, prosecutors, judges, and lawyers. This recommendation includes giving presentations to local judiciaries and lawyers, with basic information about how the forensicsciences,mainlyforensicanthropologyandarchaeology, can contribute to judiciary investigations. This also provides a valuableopportunitytodiscussthewayevidenceishandledina particularcountry,todiscusscasesdoneinotherpartsoftheworld aswellasspecificlocalones,andtounderstandtheconcernsofthe legalcommunity. 4. Wheneverpossible,trainingandpromotinglocalteamsandlocal forensicexperts. 5. Wheneverpossible,maintainingcontactwithlocalhumanrights organizations. Attimesofmassivehumanrightsviolationsinacountry,the judiciarynormallylosesmuchofitscapacitytoimpartiallyinvestigatecrimescommittedbythestateorbyarmedpartiesinacivil conflict.Truthcommissionsareusuallycreatedduringtransitional momentsattheendsofcivilconflicts,wars,stateterrorism,and soforth.Thus,localnongovernmentalorganizations(NGOs)often fillpartofthegap.Attimes,atgreatrisktotheirmembers,they formabridgebetweentheinvestigativebodyandthewitnesses, survivors,andrelativesofvictims.Evenduringdemocratictransitional moments, witnesses and relatives of victims often feel
62
Mercedes Doretti and Jennifer Burrell
morecomfortablereleasinginformationtoalocalNGOorgiving testimony before a court of law or a national or international commissionofinquirywiththesupportormediationofanNGO. TruthcommissioninvestigatorsusuallyrelyontheworkofNGOs as a starting point for their investigations, and therefore these connections are essential to our work and to ongoing national investigativeprocesses. 6. ImprovingaccesstoDNA. Informingtherelativesofadisappearedpersonthattheremains beinganalyzeddonotcorrespondtotheirlovedoneisverydifficult. Butitisequallydifficulttotellthemthatweareunsurewhether ornotaparticularsetofremainsmatches,andbecausewehave no way to resolve this doubt, the remains must continue to be stored. Traditional forensic anthropology techniques are limited whensufficientantemortemevidencecannotbeobtained.Thiswas oftenthesituationuntiltheearly1990s,whenitbecamepossible torecoverDNAfromskeletalremains.Atthispoint,genetictesting quicklybecameatoolinhumanrightsinvestigations.Accesstoit, however,isstillveryexpensive. EAAFhasdependedonthegenerousprobonoworkoflaboratories intheUnitedStates,Canada,andtheUnitedKingdom,butthey canaccommodateonlyalimitednumberofcaseseveryyear.Asa partialremedytothisprobleminArgentina,EAAFhasestablished ageneticbloodbankcomposedofbloodsamplesfromrelativesof disappearedpeoplewhovisitedourBuenosAiresofficefrom1998 onward.Thisbankmakespossiblegeneticanalysesnecessaryfor identificationswhetherornotcloserelativesarepresentoralive. Thistechniquewillbecomeespeciallycrucialincountriessuchas Zimbabwe,whereHIVisaffectingatleast25percentoftheadult population. 7. Protectingpossiblekillingandburialsites. Whenever possible, it is important to protect possible killing and burial sites if they are not being investigated at the time of discovery.Inthiswaytheywillbeavailabletofamiliesofvictims andinvestigatorsworkinginthefuture. 8. Preservingcrucialevidenceandforensicreportsforpossibleongoing andfutureinvestigationsandprosecutions. Uncoveringevidenceofhumanrightscrimesdoesnotnecessarily mean that justice is immediately achieved. Many human rights violationsareinvestigatedbutnotprosecuted,mostlybecauseof
GraySpacesandEndlessNegotiations 63
amnestylaws,limitingtheroleforensicevidencecanplayinjudicial processes.However,asnewmechanismsaredevelopedinthefield ofinternationalcriminallawandasoldcasesarebroughtbackto trial(inArgentinaandChile,forexample),itisimportantthatvital evidence and reports be preserved in order to be used in future trials. 9. Creatingwitnessandinformerprotectionprograms. Ineachcommissionortribunalthereisusuallyacoregroupoften tofifteen—perhapsfewer—keywitnessestomajorincidents.Often thesepeopleneedprotection,including,insomecases,eventualsafe emigrationtoanothercountry.Usuallythistypeofcommissionhas nomechanismfordealingwithwitnesssafety.Anadhocmeasure may eventually be enacted, depending upon the commission’s specificmandate,thewayitisinterpreted,andtheflexibilityofthe international,national,andregionalbodiesthatmayassistinthe process.Thoughsettingupawitnessprotectionprogramisclearly acomplicatedissue,wethinkitisextremelyimportanttoinclude somesortofmechanismfromtheplanningphaseasamatterof course. 10. Providing counseling or psychological support for persons who testifyandforfamiliesandfriendsofvictimsbefore,during,and afterexhumations. 11. Providingcounselingorpsychologicalsupportforforensicpersonnel andforstaffmemberswhoreceivetestimoniesforcommissions. Sometimestheoverwhelmingweightofthetestimoniesofwitnesses, victims, and their families produces conflicting feelings of exhaustion, guilt, and depression in the researchers who are investigatingatrocitiesfortruthcommissions.Insomeinstances, internationalinvestigativemissionshaveprovidedpsychological support, but this is still the exception. Counseling may prove especiallyhelpfulwhenthesecommissionsextendtheirworktoa yearormore,astheyoftendo. 12. Promotingtheincorporationofinternationalforensicprotocolsfor humanrightsinvestigationsintodomesticcriminalprocedures. Incorporatinginternationalforensicprotocolsforhumanrights investigationsintodomesticcriminalproceduresisessential.Doing sowillensurethatscientifictoolsandmechanismsdevelopedfor humanrightsinvestigationswillhavealonger-termeffect.Along theselines,theUnitedNationshasproducedseveraldocuments relatingtoforensicscienceandhumanrights.
64
Mercedes Doretti and Jennifer Burrell
Notes 1. Consider, for example, the huge popularity of two bestselling authors, KathyReichandPatriciaCornwall,whosemaincharactersareforensicspecialists.Bones,theFoxNetwork’srecentprogram,isbasedonReich’sforensic anthropologistprotagonist,TemperanceBrennan. 2. Thispredicament—thefixednessoflawversustheflexibilityofanthropological understandings—has perhaps most famously been addressed in culturalanthropologybyJamesClifford(1988)inrelationtotheMashpee. 3. Thisrelationshipisaddressedatgreaterlengthinthethirty-eight-minute filmFollowingAntigone:ForensicAnthropologyandHumanRights(EAAF/Witness 2002).
t h r e e
Collaborating to Meet the Goals of a Native Sovereign Nation The Tule River Tribal History Project
Gelya Frank
A
nthropology’s core jurisdiction is the production of knowledge about culture. Its hallmark is the writing of ethnographic texts. Yet in the United States, and perhaps elsewhere, anthropology has beenprofoundlyaffectedbyotherdisciplinesandforcedtoretrench (Peacock 1999; Turner 1993). For one example, practice professions dealing with human populations, such as education, nursing, law, medicine, and occupational therapy, have imported ethnographic approaches,recastas“qualitativemethods,”andnowclaimexpertise intheareaofculture.Foranother,culturalstudiesandethnicstudies programshaveinfluencedthewayanthropologiststhinkaboutculture and have made it more possible for them to engage with the political agendas of the constituencies they study. Interdisciplinary and collaborative approaches trouble the jurisdictional model based onexclusivecontrolofaconceptualandmethodologicaldomain,as describedbysociologistsoftheprofessions(e.g.,Abbott1988).Infact, borrowingacrossdisciplinaryboundariesisnotonlyusualbutcentral totherevitalizationofacademicprofessions. Thenexusbetweenanthropologyandoccupationaltherapyprovides acaseinpoint.EducationinoccupationaltherapywasinitiallyaProgressive Era innovation arising in the settlement movement, which tookplaceoutsidetheuniversity.Itwasfollowedbypracticaltraining courses sponsored by the United States surgeon general in World WarI,restrictedtowomenonly.Educationfortheprofession,whose practitionerswerefemale,haditsstrongestbaseinthemid-twentieth 65
66
Gelya Frank
centuryinstatecollegeswhosepurposewastoprovidepracticaltraining. Infiltrationintoprivate,eliteresearchuniversitiescameslowly.Thefirst master’s-levelprograminoccupationaltherapywasinstitutedin1947 attheUniversityofSouthernCalifornia,providinganewplatformfor theacademicizingofthismainlyfemaleprofession. The profession drew from anthropology and other mainstream disciplinesinthe1980sand1990stoestablishgreateracademiccredibilityandautonomywhiledevelopingitsnew,cutting-edgediscipline, occupationalscience.Thedevelopmentofelitescholarlytextualpracticesinoccupationaltherapywasneededtochallengelong-standing prejudices in Western culture and the academy that devalued the knowledgeandpracticesassociatedwithmanualactivityandfemalegenderedwork.Anthropologistsnowworkinginoccupationaltherapy, manyofwhomarealsooccupationaltherapypractitioners,aredeveloping concepts and methods that can potentially help to revitalize anthropologybycomplementingandinfusingitstextualemphasiswith performativeapproaches—thatis,approachesbasedondoing. TheTuleRiverTribalHistoryProject,pilotedontheTuleRiverIndian ReservationnearPorterville,California,tooksuchaperformativeapproach.TheTuleRiverTribeiscomposedofdescendantsofformerly independenttribesknowncollectivelyasYokuts.1Theprojectemployed commontoolsofanthropologicalfieldworksuchasrecordinginterviews withtribalelders.Butitseffectivenesswasamplifiedandtransformedby drawingontheconceptualbackgroundandpracticesofoccupational therapy.Thoseinvolvedintheprojectdidthisbyengagingtribalelders inhistory-makingactivitiessuchasconstructingtheirowngenealogies andfamilytreesusingcomputerprograms. Moreover,theprojectputcollaborationintheforegroundinseveral ways. It created an opportunity for conversation and exchange of practices between anthropology and occupational therapy in a field situation. It also created an intercultural space in which indigenous andnon-indigenouscollaboratorsworkedtogethertopromotetheTule River Tribe’s nation-building goals. Finally, in the service of constitutingatriballegacy,theproject’sactivitieswerestructuredtopromote cooperation and communication so that different generations and diversefamilieswithintheTuleRiverTribecouldcollaboratewithone another,aneffectthatthetribaleldersthemselvesnoticedbytheend ofthepilotproject(Frank2005). Thehistoryprojectachievedremarkablesuccessesduringtwelveweeks inthesummerof2004.Thepromisingtrajectoryoftheprojectwas interruptedforayearandahalf,however,byunfulfilledcommitments and administrative tangles in the intertribal agency that co-funded
CollaboratingtoMeettheGoalsofaNativeSovereignNation 67
thepilotusingStateofCaliforniaTribalTANFpreventionfunds.2This impassewasbrokenwhentheTuleRiverTribalCouncilvotedinFebruary 2006toestablishanofficial,standingTribalHistoryCommitteetobuild on the pilot project’s achievements and to develop tribal goals and budgetrecommendationsforthenextthreetofiveyears. Althoughtheinitialtwelve-weekphaseoftheprojectwascollaborativeinitsgoals,itinfacthadmanyfeaturesofaprofessionalconsulting relationship and a service-provider model. The project director (ananthropologistandoccupationalscientist)andstaff(occupational therapy graduate students) were seen by the tribal leadership and membershipassupplyingexpertisetofulfillgoalsthatthetribehadnot yetmanagedtofulfillonitsown.TheestablishmentoftheTribalHistory CommitteemeantthattheTribalCounciltookoverthedirectionand implementationofthehistoryproject,allowingtheacademicpartners totakeamorefullycollaborative,supportive,andfacilitatingrole. TheTuleRiverTribalCouncil’sdecisiontoinitiatethehistoryproject grew out a long-standing goal, “to preserve the Tribe’s history” (EnvironmentalConcern,Inc.1972).Ibecameassociatedwiththetribe asagraduatestudentinanthropologywhovolunteeredin1972–74to assisttheTribalCouncilinmeetingthisgoal.3Theideasof“occupation” and “engagement” in the Tule River Tribal History Project emerged from my teaching at the University of Southern California in the DepartmentofOccupationalTherapyduringthefoundingofanew discipline known as occupational science. Ideas about “engaging in occupations”tosupportsocialtransformations,however,reachback toBoasiananthropologyanditsinfluenceonPragmatistphilosophers and Progressive Era initiatives, including the settlement movement, laborreforms,andthefoundingofprogressiveeducationandoccupational therapy. The history project’s position at the intersection of anthropology,occupationaltherapy,andthenation-buildinggoalsof a California tribe went beyond anthropology’s traditional focus on textandrepresentation.Itwaspartofamovementtoincorporateoccupational,activist,andperformativeapproacheswhenworkingwith indigenouspeoplesandpostcolonialistagendas(Field2005;Glass2004; Hale, this volume; Hinton 1994, 2002; Rappaport 1994, 1998, 2005, thisvolume).4
UsingOccupationstoProduceIndigenousHistories ThoseinvolvedinthepilotphaseoftheTuleRiverTribalHistoryProject attemptedtoexpandontraditionaloccupationaltherapyapproaches. Occupational therapists use everyday activities to promote recovery,
68
Gelya Frank
adaptation,andindependenceinpersonswhosefunctionisimpairedby chronicillnessordisability.Increasingly,theprofessionisalsointerested ininterventionsusingactivitiesandroutinestopreventlifestylediseases associated with obesity, such as diabetes and coronary illness. The TribalHistoryProjectproposedthefollowingconceptualization:“Just asoccupationaltherapiststraditionallyuseactivitieswithindividuals to support their independence and well-being, the Tule River Tribal HistoryProjectusesactivitieswithatribetosupportitscollectivewellbeingandsovereignty.” TheTuleRiverTribalHistoryProjectresultedfromthewidespread satisfaction of tribal members with a twenty-page color news insert commemoratingthesurvivalofthetribethattheTribalCouncilcontractedwithmetoproducein2002.Itincludednumerouscontributions ofarticles,photographs,paintings,interviews,captions,andinformation byandabouttribalmembers(TuleRiverTribalCouncil2002).Thiseffort representedthefirsttimethetribehadpublishedanddisseminateda self-authorizedtribalhistoryformassdistribution.Thepublicationwas insertedintheSundayeditionsoflocalnewspapersandcirculatedto 37,000householdsinTulareCounty.TribalCouncilchairmanDuane M. Garfield Sr. inquired informally, through a staff member, about myavailabilitytowriteabooktopreservethehistoryofthetribe.In response,Iofferedtosubmitaproposalforaprojectthatwouldprovide activitiesbywhichtribalmemberscouldtelltheirownhistory. TheTribalCouncilreferredthehistoryprojectproposaltothetribal eldersforapproval.Thetribaleldersconsistedof118tribalmembers ages 55 and over—less than 10 percent of the population. Perhaps twentyorthirtymembersattendedtheregulartribaleldersmeetingat whichthehistoryproposalwaspresented.Manyelderswereinitially cautious,andsomewereoutspokenlyopposedtotheproposal.One person voiced fear of the tribe’s losing control over its intellectual property,objectingthattheelderswouldbe“givingaway”theirstories toanoutsiderwhowouldpublishandprofitfromthem.Anotherelder arguedthattheprojectcametoolatetobeofanyvalueandasserted, “Thisshouldhavebeendonethirtyyearsago.” Thesensethatitis“toolate”isacommonresponseofNativeAmerican tribalmemberstoculturalpreservationprojects,asCraigHowe(Oglala Sioux)commentedonthebasisofhisexperienceindevelopingand presentingtribalhistoriesusingmuseumexhibitsandhypermedia: Inmanyinstances,thepublicmeetingstowhichtheentirecommunity is invited are the first times that community members have gathered
CollaboratingtoMeettheGoalsofaNativeSovereignNation 69
togethertodiscusstribalhistory.Asidefromthepoliticalmachinations that often accompany such gatherings, deep-seated issues within the communities are brought to these discussions. Questions concerning authoritytospeak,personalcharacter,informationdissemination,and lossoftribalknowledgearenotuncommon.Arecurringthemeisthat knowledge of the “old ways” passed on with the last generation who wereeducatedbythecommunityinsteadofbyformalschools.(Howe 2002:175)
Nevertheless,asurveyoftheTuleRivertribaleldersunequivocally showed their strong desire to preserve their history.5 Once a public forumwasestablished,theinterestandparticipationofthetribalelders andtheirfamiliesgrewsteadilyinamannersimilartothatwhichHowe described: Withadeepsenseofloss,communitymembersrepeatedlysaythatthese projectsaretoolate,thattheoldmenandwomenwhoknewthestories haveallpassedon.Ironically,afterhavingsaidthis,tribalmembersare identifiedwhodoknowthestories.Andthisisoneofthebenefitsofthe processthataccruessolelytothecommunity:Thecollectiveknowledge of the community is recognized. In discussing their tribal histories in public formats, individuals share stories and opinions that other communitymembersarekeenlyinterestedinhearing.Oneoutcomeofthis isthatthecommunitiesthemselveswishtoretaincopiesofalltheinformationgatheredduringthedevelopmentalprocess,andtomakeit availabletocommunitymembers.(Howe2002:175)
Afull-timestaffoffivegraduatestudentfieldworkinternsfromthe UniversityofSouthernCaliforniaDepartmentofOccupationalScience andOccupationalTherapyquicklyandeffectivelydevelopedmethods and protocols for the tribal history-making activities (Kitching et al. 2004). The occupations chosen for the project were described in a brochuredistributedtoeachtribalelder: FamilyTrees Learntomakeyourfamilytree.Useourtribalrollsfrom1888.We’llhelp yougetstartedongenealogysoftwareevenifyouarenewtocomputers. DigitalPhotoArchive Bring your old-time photos for scanning on CD-ROM for the tribal archive.We’llhelpyouindexthemandmakeacopyforyourfamily.
70
Gelya Frank
EldersVideoInterviews Signupforavideointerview.Tellusaboutyourparents,grandparents, uncles, aunts, sisters, brothers, husbands or wives, children, grandchildren.Whatweretheoldpeoplelike?Whatdidtheydo?Howdid they—andyou—survive? EldersHeritageRoundtableTalks ReminiscewithotherEldersaboutRodeoDays,TripneLegends,Military Service,SchoolDays,LifeOn(andOff)theReservation.Foodprovided. TribalEldersHeritageWebsite Choosetohaveaportionofyourfamilyhistoryonthewebsite.
Livelydiscussionsamongtribaleldersandotheradulttribalmembers tookplaceattheroundtablediscussions,whichwerevideotaped,and also at public viewings of photographs from the tribal archive that weredigitallyprojectedonascreen.Theelderswerenotnecessarily accustomedtohavingtheirviewssoughtout.AsLutherGarfield,age eighty,oneoftheoldestandmostactiveparticipants,commentedto oneoftheoccupationaltherapyinterns:“Peopledon’tlikeoldpeople. They run away from them. I guess they think that they don’t have anythingtosay”(Kitchingetal.2004). Tribalmembersparticipatedinproposingtopicsandorganizingevents, particularly the roundtable discussions. For example, Tribal Council contractsandgrantsofficerNancyMcDarmentbroughttogetherwomen intheirtwentiesthroughtheirsixtiestotalkabouttheirexperiences onthetribe’swomen’ssoftballteam,theChallengers.Manyofthem paidtributetotheChallengers’coach,tribalelderEdnaWilliams,who waspresent.Anothertime,elderRayFloresSr.,aprofessionalguitarist, brought together tribal members to recall the place of music in the everyday life of a previous generation and the improvisational and uniqueharmonicskillsofearliertribalmusicians.Acateredlunchwas servedattheroundtableeventstodrawtribalmembers’participation and also to mark the roundtables as collective events through the sharingoffood.TribalelderMaggieValdez,seventy-eight,anotherof theoldestandmostactiveparticipants,insistedonpreparingameal. Sheprovidedafullturkeydinneraccompaniedbytherarelyprepared butsymbolicallyimportantformerstapleoftheYokutsdiet,cooked acorns. Many elders who participated in the project anxiously inquired aboutwhethertheprojectwouldcontinueonafull-time,year-round basis,ashadbeenannouncedtotheTribalCouncilbytheTribalTANF
CollaboratingtoMeettheGoalsofaNativeSovereignNation 71
administrator.Tribalmembersofallagesexpressedregretthattheyhad notyettakenadvantageoftheactivitiesthatwereoffered,particularly thechancetomakeafamilytree. Theaccomplishmentsoftheprojectwereimpressive.Familytrees werecreatedbyfortytribalmembersofallages,manyofthemworking inpairsacrossgenerations.FortheDigitalPhotoArchive,abouttwo thousandimagesdatingfromtheearlytwentiethcenturywerecompiled, contributedbytwenty-fivedifferenteldersandtheirfamilymembers. Videointerviewswithnineoftheoldesttribalmemberswererecorded andtranscribed,somewithfamilymembersactingasinterviewers.Nine roundtabletalkstookplaceandwerevideotaped.Atribalhistorywebsite waslaunched(www.tuleriver.org).Attheconclusionofthetwelve-week pilot,tribaleldersreporteddramaticgainsinconfidencethatthehistory projectcouldhelptopreservetribalhistoryandsupportnation-building goals(Frank2005).6
FromTextualRepresentationtoPerformance Anthropology’sareaoflegitimatepractice—its“doing”—istheproduction oftextsthroughfieldwork(elicitingandrecordinginformation)and publication(analyzing,interpreting,anddisseminatinginformation). ThefeministphilosopherKarenBarad(2003)hasarguedthatacademic practicesingeneralareovercommittedtorepresentationalism,which treatsentities(people,cultures,nonhumanentities,physicalphenomena) asiftheyexistinandofthemselves,apartfromourinteractionwith them:“Representationalismisthebeliefintheontologicaldistinction between representations and that which they purport to represent; in particular, that which is represented is held to be independent ofallpracticesofrepresenting”(2003:803).Baradcontrastsamove towardperformativityasawayofknowingthroughengagement,action, practice,or“doing”:“Themovetowardperformativealternativesto representationalismshiftsthefocusfromquestionsofcorrespondence betweendescriptionsandreality(e.g.,dotheymirrornatureorculture?) tomattersofpractices/doings/actions”(2003:801). Solidaritywithconstituenciesandcommitmentstoactionaffectthe productionandlegitimationofknowledge.Theanthropologist’sclassic stanceofparticipantobservation—beingthe“flyonthewall”—reinforces anontologicaldistinctionbetweenrepresentationsandentitiestobe represented. This kind of representationalism had its critics in the Americanacademyasearlyasthe1930sand1940s,whenKurtLewin, thesocialpsychologistandanearlyproponentofwhatisnowcalled
72
Gelya Frank
actionresearch,wrote,“Thebestwaytounderstandsomethingistotry tochangeit”(quotedinGreenwoodandLevin1998).A.L.Kroeber’s politically disengaged pronouncements of the Muwekma Ohlone as “extinct,”forexample,continuestoadverselyaffectthattribe’sstruggle togainfederalrecognition(Field1999,2003).LesField’sworkinsupport ofOhloneeffortstogainfederalrecognitionisnotonlyrepresentational butalsocollaborativeandperformative.7 IntheUnitedStates,appliedanthropologyisarecognizedsubfield thatincludesmanypeoplewhoworkoutsidetheacademy.TheSociety forAppliedAnthropology(SfAA)wasfoundedin1941“topromotethe investigationoftheprinciplesofhumanbehaviorandtheapplication oftheseprinciplestocontemporaryissuesandproblems.”8Although theworkdonebyappliedanthropologistsisoftenperformative,the legitimatingtasksofthesubfieldarebasicallytextual,asinthemainstreamoftheprofession:conductingresearchtoadvisegovernmentally supportedagencies,nongovernmentalorganizations,andprivatecorporations(theanthropologistasexpert)andusingresearchtopromote thegoalsoftheconstituenciesstudied(theanthropologistasadvocate) (Field2005).Arecentmovementknownaspublicanthropologyfocuses onwideningtheaudiencefortextsproducedbyanthropologists,but without necessarily changing anthropologists’ field practices (www. publicanthropology.org). Anthropologists’relationshipswithNativeAmericantribesarebecoming more collaborative and also more performative as tribal governments assert their sovereign power to grant or deny permission to scholarsseekingtoconductresearchinIndiancountry(Champagne andGoldberg2005;Field2005).Thisshifthasbeengainingmomentum sincethe1960sand1970sbuthasacceleratedasgamingindustrieson somereservationshaveproducednewwealthandpoliticalcloutfor manytribes,followingtheSupremeCourtrulinginCaliforniav.Cabazon Band of Mission Indians (1987). Tribes are requiring anthropologists to use their knowledge and skills to support the survival of Native American peoples facing poverty and political disenfranchisement, not to focus obsessively on collecting information about traditional cultures(BiolsiandZimmerman1997;Deloria1969;Stocking2000). SamDeloria(StandingRockSioux),directoroftheAmericanIndianLaw Center,commentedonthechallengetoadaptandcreateindigenous institutions: Ifwearegoingtotalkaboutourculturesandtheirsurvival,let’sreally mean it. Let’s put some practical importance into dealing with the
CollaboratingtoMeettheGoalsofaNativeSovereignNation 73
problemsthatwehavewithourfamiliesandcommunitiesandchildren. For we are creating institutions. Indian tribes are engaged in some of themostdelicateandcomplicatedworkthatisbeingdoneinthisworld rightnow—tryingtoadaptsocialandpoliticalinstitutionstotheneeds of their own communities, questioning what to change and what to preserve.Theonlythingthat’sgoingtohumanizethoseinstitutionsis us, ourselves, setting down our own standards and insisting on them. (QuotedinCoffeyandTsosie2001:209)
BecausethemoodinIndiancountryisfutureoriented,indigenousand non-indigenousintellectualsmaybeabletofindcommongroundmore thaneverbefore—particularlyinanti-essentialisttheoriesthatofferan alternativetotheviewthat“real”indigenousculturesarepast(Clifford 1997; Grossberg, Nelson, and Treichler 1992; Kirshenblatt-Gimblett 1998;Young2001).Anthropologistsmustnowdeveloptheoriesand methodsofcollaborationtoengagewithindigenousprojectswhilealso respectingindigenousculturalsovereignty(Champagne1998;Coffey and Tsosie 2001; Rappaport, this volume; Smith 1999; Tsosie 2002a, 2002b).Suchcollaborationsmaycertainlyinvolvetheproductionof textsasdocumentsandreportsofactivitiesandevents.Butthefocus andintentoftheactivitiesmaybeprimarilyperformativeratherthan textualintermsofhelpingtofacilitatetriballydrivengoalsandagendas relatedtoculturalplanningandinstitutionalchange.
TribalHistoriesatTuleRiver TheTuleRiverTribalHistoryProjecthasbeenacollaborativeeffortto promotetheproductionandrecordingofindigenoushistories.Ithas builtonawidearrayofhistory-makingpracticesandtheformationof collectivememoryfrompriortotheintroductionofthehistoryproject (Connerton1989;Halbwachs1980[1950];Nora1989;alsoseeBasso 1996).HistoriesareconstantlyspokenontheTuleRiverReservationin thecourseofeverydayconversations,inargumentssupportingproposals before the Tribal Council, at formal commemorative events such as theMemorialDayserviceobservedbytheTuleRiverAmVetsPost,at theAcornFeastheldrecentlyinautumn,and,ofcourse,atfunerals. Written histories produced by tribal members include transcripts of tape-recordedinterviews,vocabularylistsgainedfromtribaleldersin Yokutsdialects,andobituariesinlocalnewspaperswrittenbyorbased oninformationsuppliedbyfamilymembers.Manypeopleowncopies ofthehighlyinformativeapplicationformsthattheirancestorsfiled
74
Gelya Frank
togaininclusiononthe1928CaliforniaRoll.Theyalsoowncopiesof popularhistorianFrankLatta’sHandbookofYokutsIndians(1949),in whichappearaccountsbyandphotographsofancestorsofthepresent tribe.Manytribalmembershaveextensivephotographiccollectionsand maintainscrapbooks.Thetribe’scollectivememoriesarealso“inscribed” inthenaturallandscape,inthePaintedRocks,intheyearlyrepainting andrepairbythetribaleldersofthecrossesinthetwocemeterieson thereservation,ineventssuchastheoccasionalSpringFestivalatwhich traditionalstorytellersanddancersperform,inbodilyappearancesand behaviors,inrodeos,ingraffitiandbulletholes,insitesofcaraccidents, inswimmingholesintheriver,inacorngrindingholesusedbyagreatgrandmotheronafamily’slandassignment,inhatsandtackhanging insheds,andinothertoolsandimplements. AmoreformallayerofhistorymakinghasbeeninitiatedbytheTule RiverTribalCouncilinassertingitssovereigntythroughlegalbattles with federal and state governments. Toward this end, the tribe has engaged both indigenous and non-indigenous consultants to help constructalternativeindigenoushistories.Thesearewrittenhistories thatmeticulouslyciteprimaryarchivalandoralmaterials,placingthem criticallyinrelationtoexistingpublishedhistories.Theyfocusonthe tribeasacollectiveentity,anactiveprotagonistprotectingitslandbase and tribal membership. The tribe’s recovery of 1,250 acres of prime timberlandonthereservation’snortheastcornerin1980servesasan example(FrankandGoldbergn.d.;seealsoFrank1980).Collaborating withateamofindigenouslawyersandnon-indigenousscholars,the TribalCouncilauthorizedahistorybasedonsourcesfromtheNational Archivesthatshowedhowtribalmemberscametogetherovermany decades to protest the intrusion of non-Indian settlers and timber interestsonthereservationandtopetitionthefederalgovernmentto providearemedy.Suchformal,alternative,indigenoushistorieswill increasinglybewrittenbytribalmembersastheeducationleveland professionalizationofthetribe’smembershipcontinuestorise. A preference for focusing on family histories that I have observed among tribal members at Tule River appears to go deeper than the sentiment associated generally with a desire to know about one’s immediate forebears. It can also be traced to the experience of the California tribes, which underwent the most rapid and devastating colonizationinallofNorthAmerica(Hurtado1988;Rawls1984).9In the case of the Tule River Indians, the Southern Valley and Foothill Yokuts tribes initially were buffered by their inland location from seriousdisruptionundertheSpanishandMexicanregimes.Theywere
CollaboratingtoMeettheGoalsofaNativeSovereignNation 75
alsoprotectedfromthebruntoftheAmericaninvasioninCalifornia Territory after 1848 by their distance from the gold mines. But the influxofsettlersafterCaliforniastatehoodin1850andtheorganization ofTulareCountyin1852producedarupturesoseverethatitnearly annihilatedthesetribes(Phillips1975,1993,1997). Tribalsovereigntywasignoredasthefederalgovernmentredefined thelandbasebeginningin1853withtheremovalofvillagesunderlocal leaderstotheTejonReservationatthesouthernendoftheSanJoaquin Valley(Phillips2004).In1856,somesurvivorsofthesetribeswereplaced onareservationalongtheTuleRiverfollowingawarofexterminationthat wasinitiatedbysettlers(Stewart1884).Thereservationwasestablished onatraditionalvillagesitebelongingtotheKoyetitribe.Membersof theKoyeti,Chunut,Yaudanchi,Wikchumne,Yowlumne,Pankalachi, andotherlocaltribeswhomovedtheretobecomeagriculturalistsunder governmentsupervisionbecameknowncollectivelyastheTuleRiver Indians.ThepopulationofthetribesonthisfirstTuleRiverreservation peakedinthe1860sataboutfourhundredpersons.In1873theywere forced by executive order to move to the present reservation in the remoteandagriculturallylessdesirablefoothillsoftheSierraNevada. They were told by the government agent to build homes and fence their property, in anticipation that the land would be allotted (that is,deeded)toheadsofhouseholds.Thelandassignmentswerenever allottedandtechnicallybelongtothetribe,buttheyarenonetheless treatedasinheritablefamilyproperty. The reservation population from the late nineteenth through the earlytwentiethcenturydroppedtoabout150members.Thetribenow includesmorethan1,500members,whotracetheirmembershipto theoriginalfamiliesthatsettledandlivedonthepresentreservation. Constructingfamilyhistorieshasbeenpivotaltosurvivalbecauseitis tiedtotherighttoliveonthereservation,inherittheuseoftriballand, andenrollone’schildrenastribalmembers. BecauseTribalCouncilmembersareelectedfromarelativelysmall population,itismuchmorelikelythatatribalmemberwillservein tribalgovernmentthanthatanon-indigenouscitizenwillbecomea city,county,state,orfederalofficial.Whentribalmembersserveon theTribalCouncil,theyencounter,oftenforthefirsttime,themasses oflegalandadministrativedocumentsthatrelatetothetribe’ssurvival and functioning as a political entity. Their responsibilities as tribal leadersthenengagethemperformativelyinusingtextstoconstruct notonlyfamilyhistoriesbutalsomoreformaltribalhistories.TheTule RiverTribalHistoryProjectaddressesaneedfeltbythetribetocreatea
76
Gelya Frank
bridgebetweenthekindofnaturalistichistory-makingactivitiesalready engaged in by tribal members and the self-conscious production of historiesneededtosupportthetribe’ssovereigntyand,inaprofound sense,itssurvivalandwell-beingasacollectiveentity.
OccupationsandSocialTransformation Theconceptofoccupationswithwhichthetribalhistoryprojectworks is fundamentally anthropological and refers to human adaptation. Franz Boas (1960 [1888]) described the “domestic occupations and amusements”oftheCentralEskimoswhenhereturnedfromhisfirst fieldwork,inBaffinlandin1883–84.Cataloguingthearrayofmundane daily activities carried out by men and women during the winter, Boas emphasized the relationship between survival and the routine organizationofactivitiesdrivenbytheseasonalhuntofseamammals. Boas’scatalogueofdailyactivitiesinatraditionalindigenouslifestyle— preparingfood,makingclothing,carryingoutritualobligations,and caring for animals—importantly addressed the opportunities these occupationsaffordedforenjoyablefamilyandcommunityrelationships associatedwiththeregulardailycycleofworkandrest: Itiswinterandthenativesareestablishedintheirwarmsnowhouses.At thistimeoftheyearitisnecessarytomakeuseoftheshortdaylightand twilight for hunting. Long before the day begins to dawn the Eskimo prepares for hunting. He rouses his housemate; his wife supplies the lampwithanewwickandfreshblubberandthedimlightwhichhas beenkeptburningduringthenightquicklybrightensupandwarmsthe hut...Thesledgeisiced,theharnessesaretakenoutofthestoreroom... thehunterlashesthespear...andstartsforthehuntingground.Here he waits pleasantly for the blowing seal, sometimes until late in the evening... Meanwhilethewomen,whostayathome,areengagedintheirdomestic occupations, mending boots and making new clothing, or they visitoneanother,takingsomeworkwiththem,orpasstheirtimewith games or in playing with the children. While sitting at their sewing andatthesametimewatchingtheirlampsandcookingthemeat,they incessantlyhumtheirfavoritetunes.(Boas1960[1888]:247)
Later,intheevening,interfamilyandintergenerationalminglingand conversationtookplacewhilepeopleengagedinrecreationalactivities suchascarving.
CollaboratingtoMeettheGoalsofaNativeSovereignNation 77
ItisclearfromBoas’sdescriptionthatsociabilityandpositiveemotions wereinterwovenwithdailyoccupations.Similaraccountsofdailyand seasonal occupations fill the ethnographies of the California tribes, includingtheYokutsancestorsoftheTuleRiverTribe.Annualritual activityembracedthesolemnLonewisceremonyinthefall,aweeklonggatheringoftribesthatmarkedthedepartureofpeoplewhohad diedduringtheprecedingyear,andthemorelight-heartedRattlesnake ceremonyinspring,withitsthrillingshamans’contests(Gayton1948a, 1948b).Dailylifewasshapedbyoccupationsofhuntingandfishing, gatheringgrassesandseeds,collectingandpreparingacorns—laborthat wasmostlyperformedcommunallyandaccompaniedbyconversation. UndertheAmericanregime,theseroutinesandhabitswereadapted toincludeagricultureactivitiesonthereservationandseasonalwage laboronfarmsandranches. ThephilosopherJohnDewey,founderoftheprogressiveeducation movement, seized on this basically Boasian anthropological understandingoftherelationshipbetweenoccupationandtheadaptation and evolution of the human species.10 Writing at the turn of the twentiethcentury,Deweysawhumansasactivelystrivingtoexplore andmastertheirworld,ratherthanpassivelyreactingtooutsideforces. Heunderstoodthepoliticalimplicationsofempoweringchildrento usetheirimaginationsandtoexperiencetheiractionsascontributing tolargerpurposesandgoals,includingthesurvivalanddevelopment ofthehumanspecies,theirownancestralgroups,andtheAmerican democraticpolity.LikehiscontemporaryMariaMontessoriinItalyand hispredecessorFriedrichFroebelinGermany,Deweywasconcernedwith promotinglearningthroughexploring,handling,andactivelydoing things.LikeFroebel,Deweyaimedtoinstillmoralandcommunitarian values(Dewey1990).11 Characterizingthepreindustriallifestylesthatwerebecomingrapidly outmodedforurbanyouthsattheturnofthetwentiethcentury,Dewey wroteaboutthepowerofoccupationstoinstillhabitsoforder,industry, andresponsibilitytoproducesomethingintheworld:“Inallthisthere was continual training of observation, of ingenuity, of constructive imagination,oflogicalthought,andofthesenseofrealityacquired throughfirst-handcontactwithactualities...Notrainingofsense-organs inschool,introducedforthesakeoftraining,canbegintocompete withthealertnessandfullnessofsense-lifethatcomesthroughdaily intimacyandinterestinfamiliaroccupations”(Dewey1990:10–11). Dewey’s emphasis on self-discipline and regular habits recalls the rigorous standards often held in traditional Native societies for the
78
Gelya Frank
acquisition of wisdom and power (see Buckley 2002). Dewey was interestednotinenforcingauthoritariancontroloverthe“disciplined bodies”describedinFoucault’scritiqueofmodernitybutinfostering individualcreativityanditsrelationshiptothesurvivalofthegroup. Changingconditionsinthegroup’senvironmentcalledforthecapacity toadapt.TheProgressiveEra,forexample,wasaperiodofmassiveimmigrationandoppressionfortheurbanworkingclass.Deweyadvocated for new educational practices based on experience—on meaningful “doing”(occupation)—asameanstopromotedemocraticparticipation andempowerment.Inthisregard,hisworkwasaforerunnertoPaulo Freire’spedagogyoftheoppressed. ThesocialethicistJaneAddams,acolleagueofDewey,appliedoccupationalideastomeettheneedsofimpoverishedanddisenfranchised immigrants in Chicago. Relying on wealthy patrons to support her reformist agenda, Addams was unsympathetic to anarchist and revolutionary approaches to social transformation. Like Dewey, she aimed to promote empowerment through democratic participation in American society. She and her colleagues made the Hull House settlement in Chicago a place where women in the garment trades organized,aswellasthesiteofwellbabyclinics,childcareprograms, artsandcraftsprograms,ethnicclubs,politicaldebates,andantiwar activism.Withradicalcolleagues,thepersonnelofHullHouselaunched successfulbattlestoestablishchildlaborlaws,publicsanitation,and aspecialcourtsystemtodealwithjuvenileoffenders(Addams1999 [1910];seealsoSeigfried2002). ThefirstcourseinoccupationaltherapywastaughtatHullHouseby socialworkerEleanorClarkeSlagle(Loomis1992).Withcolleaguesin artsandcrafts,education,nursing,architecture,andmedicine,Slagle foundedtheNationalSocietyforthePromotionofOccupationalTherapy in1917.Theprofessionusedoccupationssuchasweaving,chaircaning, bookbinding,woodworking,andleatherworkingtorehabilitatepeople with psychiatric illnesses, physical disabilities, and chronic illnesses such as tuberculosis. The US surgeon general’s endorsement of this mission resulted in the training and deployment of occupational therapy“reconstructionaides”duringWorldWarIandoccupational therapistsduringWorldWarII,linkingtheprofession’sdevelopment tonationalagendas. Betweenthewars,SlagleworkedcloselywithAdolphMeyer,then America’s foremost psychiatrist, to develop her approach, known as “habit training” (Leys 1990; Lidz 1967; Lief 1948). A close personal associateofJohnDewey,MeyertookaPragmatistviewofmentalillness,
CollaboratingtoMeettheGoalsofaNativeSovereignNation 79
viewingitasa“problemofliving”thatcouldbeamelioratedbychanging thepatient’suseoftime.Hedescribedengagementinoccupationsas thewayinwhichanorganism“balancesitselfintheworldofreality andactuality”(Meyer1921:5).SlagleandMeyeraimedtoofferpatients notprescriptionsbut“opportunities”toengageinoccupationstofind theirownwaybacktoahealthylifestyle. Occupationaltherapistssoughttogenuinelyengagetheirpatients’ interestsothattheycouldexperienceenjoymentindoingmeaningful workwhileconvalescing.Culturalmeaningandrelevancewereinthe forefront.Tuberculosispatients,forexample,wererestrictedtomonths andevenyearsinbed.Theoccupationaltherapyhandicraftprogramat theCharlesCamsellHospitalinAlberta,Canada,establishedin1946, provided Inuit and other Native Canadian tuberculosis patients an expressiveoutletthroughtraditionalarts(StaplesandMcConnell1993). Notsurprisingly,theCamsellcollectionofgarments,soapstonecarvings, andotherhandicraftsisnowhousedatanethnologicalmuseumfor displayandstudyaspartoftheregion’sculturallegacy. Occupationaltherapy’sPragmatistimpulseshavebeenlargelysubordinatedtothebiomedicalmodelinhospitalsettings(GritzerandArluke 1989;seeBlock,thisvolume).Consequently,itspracticesandrationale wereincreasinglyreshapedbyscientificreductionism(Kielhofnerand Burke1977)anddeferencetotheconservativepoliticaltendenciesof theAmericanmedicalprofession(Starr1984).Amovementtorestore “occupation”asthecoreconceptoftheoccupationaltherapyprofession aroseinthe1960swiththeworkofMaryReillyandherstudentsatthe UniversityofSouthernCalifornia.Reilly’sworkledtothedevelopment in1989ofadoctoraldegreeprogramatUSCinanewdisciplinecalled occupationalscience. Anthropologyhelpedtoprovideanimportantnewconceptualization ofoccupationaltherapypracticeinthe1990s(Mattingly1998;Mattingly andGillette1991;Spencer,Krefting,andMattingly1993).Italsohelped togroundthenewdisciplineofoccupationalscience(ZemkeandClark, 1996).Occupationalsciencedefines“occupations”asculturallyrelevant, purposefulactivitiesandroutinesthatgiveshape,meaning,andvalue totheexperienceofindividualsandgroups(Clarketal.1991;Yerxaet al.1990).Significantly,thedisciplineofoccupationalsciencehashelped to support occupational therapy’s claim to a legitimate jurisdiction intheacademy,overcomingprejudiceagainstthekindofknowledge producedbyapredominantlyfemalepractice(Frank1992). Occupationaltherapyispresentlyexpandingitsjurisdictionfromthe treatmentofindividualstointerventionswithcommunities(Watson
80
Gelya Frank
andSwartz2004).AmovementoriginatinginCanadaandAustralia seeks“occupationaljustice,”definedasequityinaccesstomeaningful occupations for people who are incarcerated or who suffer from other forms of activity deprivation (Townsend and Wilcock 2004). Occupational therapists also now claim a radical political edge by workingwithpopulationsoppressedby“occupationalapartheid”in Europe,LatinAmerica,Asia,andsouthernAfrica(Kronenberg,Algado, andPollard2005).
Conclusion Collaborations between non-indigenous researchers and indigenous peoplesinNorthAmericacallforcommitment,trust,dialogue,and alignmentinthedynamicareaoftribalsovereigntyandnationbuilding. The indigenous scholar Craig Howe (2002) argued that an iterative processisneededtodevelopaccountabilityandtrustincollaborations toproducetribalhistories: Itisaverypotentexperienceforcommunitymemberstorevisitmany oftheimportanteventspresentedintheirtribalhistories.Insomeinstances,theyaresharingtheirexperienceandstorieswithoutsidersfor thefirsttime.Andtheirstoriesareproperlytheirintellectualproperty. Theydonotwanttoinvesttheirtime,effortsandemotioniftheprocess isnotgoingtobedonerightorifthefinalproductisnotgoingtobe goodintheireyes...Therefore,theprocessisnecessarilyiterative,takes placeoveraperiodoftime,andconsiderablydecentersthetraditional authorityofthemainstreaminstitution.(Howe2002:174–75)
Commitment is easy to invoke representationally as a belief or ideal. But active engagement—what Barad (2003) called “performativity”—isrequiredfortheiterativeprocessthatmakescollaborations trulywork.TheTuleRiverTribalHistoryProjectuseshistory-making occupations to shape new practices among its three constituencies: anthropologists, occupational therapists, and the Tule River Tribe. Thehistoryprojectdepartsfromthefamiliaranthropologicalmodel ofrecordinginformationfromindividualstoproducescholarlytexts forfuturereferenceoradvocacy.Itaimsrathertofacilitateandsupport the engagement of tribal members in creating a collective working legacytoadvanceculturalpreservation,tribalsovereignty,andother nation-buildinggoals.
CollaboratingtoMeettheGoalsofaNativeSovereignNation 81
Acknowledgments Thischapterisbasedonapaperpresentedattheconference“Working AnthropologyintheTwenty-firstCentury,”organizedbyLesW.Field and Richard G. Fox and held at the Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research, New York City, on 19–22 May 2005. My thankstotheconferenceorganizersandparticipantsfortheirhelpful commentsandtoWenner-GrenpresidentLeslieAielloandconference plannerLaurieObbink.IthanktheTuleRiverTribalCouncilandits staff,theTuleRiverTribalEldersProgram,membersoftheTuleRiver Tribe,andtheOwensValleyCareerDevelopmentCenterTribalTANF program. My thanks also to members of the University of Southern California Department of Occupational Science and Occupational TherapywhosupportedandparticipatedintheTuleRiverTribalHistory Project. Special thanks to Les Field and Joanne Rappaport for their helpfulcommentsthroughmanydraftsofthischapter.
Notes 1. AccordingtoA.L.Kroeber,aboutfiftyYokuts-speakingtribes,eachwithits ownterritoryandpoliticalorganization,occupiedtheGreatCentralValleyof California,ortheSanJoaquinValley,frompresent-dayBakersfieldtoStockton. TheYokutswerethelargestgroupinprecontactCalifornia,occupyingabout one-ninthoftheterritoryofthestateandcomprisingaboutone-ninthofthe aboriginalpopulation.Kroeber’spublicationsconcerningtheSouthernValley andFoothillYokutstribeswerebasedoninterviewswithmembersoftheTule RiverReservation(Kroeberms.,1906,1907a,1907b,1925,1963).Hisstudent AnnaHadwickGaytondidfieldworkthere(Gayton1930a,1930b,1946,1948a, 1948b;GaytonandNewman1940). 2. Theprojectwasco-fundedbytheTuleRiverTribalCouncilandOwens Valley Tribal TANF. Tribal TANF refers to tribally administered funds under the federal-state welfare program Temporary Assistance to Needy Families. AlthoughTANFfundsaretypicallyadministeredbystateandcountygovernments,TribalTANFprogramsallowNativesovereignnationstoexercisecontrol overthedeliveryofservicesinculturallyappropriateways.Theyalsosupport efforts to promote positive cultural identity under the rubric of prevention. TheTuleRiverTribalHistoryProjectwasfundedasapreventionprogram.
82
Gelya Frank
3. IbecameassociatedwiththeTuleRiverTribein1972,whentheTribal Councilaskedforavolunteertorecordoralhistorieswiththetribe’selders.I was completing my undergraduate degree and was about to begin graduate studies in anthropology at the University of California at Los Angeles; I respondedaffirmativelytotheanthropologydepartmentchair’ssolicitation ofmyinterestinthevolunteerposition.Inadditiontomeetingseveralofthe tribe’s elders and recording interviews with them, I showed up daily at the tribal office and, with Chairman Alec Garfield’s permission, made copies to familiarizemyselfwiththeTribalCouncilminutesdatingbacktothe1930s. Consequently, I became interested in compiling archival documents and initiatedatripatmyownexpensetotheNationalArchivesinWashington, DC. To my surprise, the Tribal Council offered to finance my air travel. I retained copies of numerous documents and was never asked to give them tothetribe,whichprovedagoodthing.Onthebasisofdocumentsbrought homefromtheNationalArchives,Iwaslaterabletoprovidetestimonyforthe tribe’slegalteamtopresentinaSenatehearingtorestorethenortheastcorner of the reservation (Frank 1980). Also, because a fire subsequently destroyed thetribalbuildingandmanyirreplaceabledocuments,asIlearnedin2002,I wasabletosupplytheTribalCouncilwithcopiesofitsminutesfrom1936to 1974. 4. “Postcolonialistthinking”isthinkingabouthowtoreconstructcultural identitiesinthepresenceofhistoricalruptures(Young2001).Itgives“equal weighttooutwardhistoricalcircumstancesandtothewaysinwhichthose circumstances are experienced by postcolonial subjects” (2001: 58). Postcolonialist thinkers consequently call for interventions that question and revisereceivedhistories(Smith1999). 5. Tribal elders in a pretest concerning the history project (n = 64) rated thefollowingitemsalmostatthetopofaten-pointscale:theimportanceof preservingtribalhistory(9.69),thecontributionthatknowingtribalhistory makestoprideinNativeidentity(9.70),andtheimportanceoftribalhistory in preparing youths to serve as future Tribal Council members (9.50). The ratingsremainedatthesamelevelinthepost-test(n=39)(Frank2005). 6. Comparison of pre- and post-test survey results were significant at the .05levelconcerningtribalelders’beliefinthehistoryproject’sabilitytohelp preserve tribal history (pre, 5.13, post, 8.46); to help tribal members pool information(pre,5.70,post,8.23);tohelptribalmembersidentifywhowas related to whom (pre, 6.92, post, 7.71); and to help others to know more aboutone’sfamily(pre,5.05,post,6.26)(Frank2005). 7. Field (n.d.) mentions his role in producing an event to partake of the one-timestaplefoodabalone,whicholdermembersofthetriberemembered nostalgically.Theeventhelpedtriggertheproductionandintergenerational
CollaboratingtoMeettheGoalsofaNativeSovereignNation 83
sharing of new narratives about Muwekma Ohlone history and identity as partofongoingrevitalizationeffortsbythetribe. 8. SfAAhasovertwothousandmembers(http://www.sfaa.net).TheAmericanAnthropologicalAssociation,thelargestanthropologyorganization,has abouttenthousandmembers(http://www.aaanet.org).Incontrast,thereare about37,000occupationaltherapistsintheUnitedStates,withonlyasmall eliteengagedasresearchersinuniversitysettings(http://www.aota.org). 9. Sherburne Cook (1976: 351) calculated conservatively that almost 20 percentoftheNativepopulationofCaliforniawaslostinjustthefirstfour yearsoftheAmericaninvasion,between1848and1852,plummetingfrom 71,050to60,450.By1880,theNativepopulationstoodat12,500,oramere 17percentofwhatitwasin1848,whenthegoldrushstarted. 10. On the relationships between occupational therapy, Pragmatism, and progressiveeducation,seeBreines1986;Schwartz1992. 11. AccordingtoAlexanderLesser(1981),Boasreceivedaneducationfocused on performativity and communitarian values. His mother, a political radical,foundedthefirstFroebelkindergarteninMinden,Germany.
This page intentionally left blank
f o u r
Doing Cultural Anthropology and Disability Studies in Rehabilitation Training and Research Contexts Pamela Block
M
ycareersofarhasbeenoneofusinganthropologyanddisability studiestodevelopinnovativeapproachestorehabilitationtraining and research. Because I have always worked outside of traditional academicanthropology,myexperiencesmaybeeye-openingtograduate studentswhowillsoonplungeintotheunknownworldofprofessional employment.Manyofthemwillfindthemselves,asIdid,workingin unusualandunexpectedcontexts. EducatedasaculturalanthropologistatthedoctorallevelatDuke University, I received postdoctoral training in two interdisciplinary academicresearchsettings:theDepartmentofDisabilityandHuman Development at the University of Illinois, Chicago, and the Center for Alcohol and Addiction Studies at Brown University. These two experiencesgroundedmeindisabilitystudies,rehabilitationresearch, and competition for large federal and foundation research grants. Though not a clinician, I am at this writing employed as a clinical associateprofessorintheOccupationalTherapyProgram,Divisionof RehabilitationScience,SchoolofHealthTechnologyandManagement at Stony Brook University, part of the State University of New York (SUNY)system. Usingexamplesfrommygraduate,postdoctoral,research,teaching, and scholarly experiences, I discuss both frustrations and rewards I havehadinnegotiatingmultipleidentitiesandloyalties.Idescribethe waysinwhichdisabilitystudiesresearchandactivismhaveinfluenced
85
86
Pamela Block
my professional practice, how my training in cultural anthropology provided theoretical and methodological support for my disability studiesresearch,andtherelevanceofmyexperiencestotheso-called boundary between applied and basic research. I also provide some practical“lifelessons”meanttoguideculturalanthropologygraduate studentsandthosewhomentortheminnavigatingthetreacherous watersfollowingasuccessfuldissertationdefense. Ingraduateschool,mydissertationchaironcereferredtoananthropologistofthe1970swhomIadmiredasbeing“losttoanthropology” becausehehadbeenunabletoacquiretraditionalacademicemployment andwasnolongerpublishing,oratleastnotinanthropologicalcontexts. I felt sorry for the man, never imagining that a dozen years later I wouldfindmyselfplacedinthesame“expatriate”category.Iamstill inacademe,butIdonotteachormentoranthropologystudents,nor doIusuallypublishinanthropologyvenues.DoesthismeanIam“lost toanthropology”too? Inhis2004MalinowskiAwardLecture,JohnW.Bennettsaidthat appliedanthropologyhadbeendefinedinthreedifferentways:as“(1) thestudyofmodernsocietybyanthropologists;(2)small-scaleassistance measurestobenefitlocalpeopleinvolvedinthestressofchange;[and](3) interdisciplinaryormultidisciplinarysocio-culturalresearch”(Bennett 2005).Bennettpreferredthethirddefinition,asdoI.Yetallthreecause me to wonder why stigma is attached to applied anthropology, for wouldnotmany,ifnotmost,anthropologistsfallunderoneormore ofthesedefinitions?InhisspeechBennettsuggestedthatperceptions of applied versus basic research had shifted to such an extent that manyculturalanthropologygraduatestudentswerechoosingtopics thatmighteasilyhavebeenconsideredappliedanthropologyinthe past.Itispossibletoresearchsocialmovementsasaparticipantobserver andtoconductparticipatoryactionresearchorcommunity-university collaborativeresearchyetnotbeconsideredanappliedanthropologist. Bennettsuggestedthatthetermappliedcouldandperhapsshouldbe exchangedfor“relevant”or“good”anthropology. Ifthedifferencebetween“applied”and“basic”or“pure”researchcan nolongerbegaugedbyresearchtopicorevenbymethodology,then howdosomeanthropologistscometobedesignated“applied”professionalsandothersnot?Perhapstheseparationbetweenappliedandbasic researchhasmoretodowithwhereyourofficeislocatedandwhoyour bossisthanwiththetypeofworkyouactuallyproduce.IfIweretogeta traditionaltenure-trackjobinananthropologydepartment,ratherthan mycurrentpositionintheOccupationalTherapyProgramintheSchool
CulturalAnthropologyandDisabilityStudies 87
ofHealthTechnologyandManagement,wouldIstillbeconsideredan appliedanthropologist?Wouldmyresearchbe“purer”comingoutof aculturalanthropologyprogramthanoutofanoccupationaltherapy program?WoulditbelesspureifIworkedingovernmentorindustry insteadofacademe?Doesthedistinctionhavelesstodowithresearch designthanwiththeultimatedestinationofthefinishedproduct? Inmycase,toaddtotheconfusion,disabilitystudiesiscommonly mistakenintheanthropologicalworldforacategoryinmedicalanthropology,amisunderstandingcompoundedbymylocationinarehabilitationsciencesdivisionofahealthsciencescenter.In2000Isought invaintogetadisabilitystudiespanelapprovedthroughthecultural anthropology strand of the American Anthropological Association (AAA)fortheorganization’sannualmeeting.Itseemedanappropriate venue,giventhatmyresearchfocusisthestudyofdisabilityrightssocial movements,thedisabilitycommunity,andwiderculturalperceptions ofdisability.TheSocietyforDisabilityStudies(SDS)definesthefield thisway:“DisabilityStudiesencouragesperspectivesthatplacedisability insocial,cultural,andpoliticalcontexts.Throughourworkweseek toaugmentunderstandingofdisabilityinallculturesandhistorical periods,topromotegreaterawarenessoftheexperiencesofdisabled people,andtocontributetosocialchange”(SocietyforDisabilityStudies 2004). Disabilitystudiesisaninterdisciplinaryfieldthatincludesscholars fromthehumanities,suchashistoryandliterature,thesocialsciences, including anthropology, sociology, education, and psychology, and evensomeoftherehabilitationsciences,suchasoccupational,physical, andspeechtherapy.Itgrewoutofthedisabilityrightsmovementand isformulatedindirectcontrasttomedicalandrehabilitationmodels ofdisability,whichfocusonthephysiologicalaspectsofdisability,the “fixing”ofatypical,“broken”physiology,andthenormalizingofphysical andcognitivecapacity.Withindisabilitystudies,disabilityisseenaspart ofthecontinuityofthehumancondition,aspartofanidentityreliant as much on socio-environmental factors as on physiological factors. This conceptualization is quite different from that of many doctors andrehabilitationprofessionals,whotendtoapproachdisabilityasa biomedicalprobleminneedofasolution(Gill1998,2001;Kasnitzand Shuttleworth2001;Kielhofner2004,2005;Linton1998). Thehumanandcivilrightsstatusofpersonswithdisabilitiesispoorly addressed at the national and international levels. Disabled people constitutethelargestminorityontheplanet,andtheonlyminority thatanyonemightjoinatanytime.Estimatessuggestthat19.7percent
88
Pamela Block
ofthegeneralUSpopulation,approximately52.6millionpeople,have some level of disability and that approximately 33.0 million people (12.3percentofthepopulation)haveaseveredisability(McNeil2001). YetinMarch2005,TerrySchiavo,awomanproclaimedbythemedical professiontobenolongerhumanduetolackofbrainfunction,was starvedtodeath(Johnson2005a).Inaddition,amoviewinningthe 2005AcademyAwardforbestpicturerepresentedsuicideasthebest courseofactionforayoungwomanwithaspinalcordinjury(Johnson 2005b).Discoursessurroundingthesetwoeventswereindicativeofthe waysinwhichdisabledpeopleareperceivedandvaluedintheUnited States.Withthisinmind,itissometimesathinlinebetweendisability scholarshipanddisabilityactivism. Despitetheclosersimilarityofdisabilitystudiestoculturalthanto medical anthropology, I have learned that if I want my papers and panelsacceptedinanthropologicalvenues,Imuststickwiththesmall groupofanthropologistswhohaveformedadisabilitystudiesghetto withinthemedicalanthropologystrandofAAA.Iseethissamegroupof anthropologistsonpanelsforAAA,theSocietyforAppliedAnthropology (SfAA),andSDS.
GraduateExperience IreceivedmydoctorateinculturalanthropologyfromDukeUniversity in1997.DuringgraduateschoolItooknocoursesinappliedormedical anthropology.Ireceivedthemessage,throughthedismissivecomments ofsomeofmyprofessors,thatappliedanthropologywasatheoretical andpotentiallyalignedwithcolonialist,imperialist,orothersocially regressiveimperatives.AmemorablecoursetaughtbyRichardG.Fox, however,titled“AnthropologyasDisciplineandProfession,”provided thecontextandgroundingformyunderstandingoftheintellectualand methodologicalrootsofmyeventualformofanthropology.Mypractice isbasedonasolidfoundationofthesociallyandpoliticallyrelevantrural, urban,andworldsystemsapproachestoanthropologyandsociology comingfromNewYorkandChicagooverthepastfiftyyears(Boas1962; Mintz1995;Redfield1947;Wolf1997).Fox’scourseprovidedacontext forunderstandingthehistoricalpowerstruggleswithintheacademy thatresultedintheestablishmentofanthropologyasadisciplineand profession.Thislaterenabledmetogainperspectiveonpowerstruggles goingonbothwithinthedisciplineandbetweenanthropologyand otherdisciplinesthathaveadoptedanthropologicaltheories(cultural studies)andmethodologies(ethnographyand“culturalcompetence”
CulturalAnthropologyandDisabilityStudies 89
training)whileeithercriticizingorsimplyexcludinganthropologyand anthropologists. GiventhestrengthoftheculturalstudiesprogramatDukeintheearly 1990s,IwaskeenlyawareofwhatIperceivedtobethemarginalized statusofculturalanthropologyontheDukecampus.Ilearnedtoexpect atleastonederogatoryremarkaboutculturalanthropology’scollusion withcolonialismandimperialismateveryeventsponsoredbyDuke’s culturalstudiesprogram.Oneofmyprofessorstoldmethataprominent Duke cultural studies professor referred to cultural anthropology as “sciencefiction.”Arumorcirculatedamongtheculturalanthropology graduatestudentsthatthispersonhadalsotoldthedeanthat,given thenewculturalstudiesprogram,therewasnolongeranyneedfora culturalanthropologydepartmentoncampus.Despitesuchsuggestions, theDukeculturalanthropologyprogramisstillgoingstrong.Iamnot surethesamecanbesaidfortheculturalstudiesprogram. Oneyear,theculturalanthropologistMichaelTaussigcametocampus, hostedjointlybytheDukeandUniversityofNorthCarolinacultural studiesprograms.Atthetime,Taussigwasinself-imposedexilefrom anthropology and was based in the performance studies program at New York University. His published exchanges with other cultural anthropologistsduringthelate1980sandearly1990srevealeddeeprifts betweenhimandtheprofession(Taussig1989;MintzandWolf1989). WhilevisitingDuke,hewasscheduledtogiveanintimatequestionand-answersessionforculturalstudiesgraduatestudents.Thecultural anthropologygraduatestudentslearnedofthissessiononlybecause one of us was doing an independent study with one of the cultural studiesprofessors.Shewasinvitedtothesessionbutwasdiscouraged from telling anyone in the cultural anthropology program about it. Fortunately,shedecidedtospreadthewordanyway.Asmallgroupof culturalanthropologygraduatestudentsarrivedlate,satattheperiphery of the room, and was silent for most of the session, listening while theculturalstudiesstudentsaskedquestions.Finally,attheveryend, we began asking anthropology-focused questions. Taussig expressed surpriseandpleasuretolearnthattherewereanthropologystudents presentatthesessionandinterestedinwhathehadtosay. Igatheredthecouragetoaskmyfinalquestionoutinthehallway asTaussigwasledawaytohisnextmeeting.Iaskedhimwhyhiswork trajectory (up to that point at least) had moved from documenting real political struggles to writing symbolic representations of struggle(Taussig1980;1987).Herespondedwithsomethingvagueabout separatinghisscholarlyworkfromhis(thencampus-centered)activist
90
Pamela Block
political practice. It never occurred to me that this question might havesomethingtodowithappliedversus“pure”scholarship.Ionly knewthatIlikedthespiritofTaussig’searlyresearchinLatinAmerica. I liked his theoretically complex later work as well but was curious aboutwhathadinspiredtheshift.WhenIwenttoBraziltocomplete my doctoral fieldwork, I observed that my Brazilian anthropologist colleaguescombinedapplied-activistandscholarlyendeavorsanddid notmakedistinctionsorvaluejudgmentsaboutdoingappliedversus pureresearch.Forexample,SergioCarrara,asocialanthropologistand directoroftheLatinAmericanCenteronSexualityandHumanRights, wrote about the history of public health campaigns against syphilis withacomparativeeyetowardmorerecentcampaignsagainstAIDS (Carrara1996). LifeLesson1:Donotbeconfinedbyexternallyappliedlabelsanddefinitions ofwhatisandisnotappropriateanthropology.
PostdoctoralExperience Formostofthetimesincereceivingmydoctorate,Ihavebeenmore concernedwithgettingandkeepingsomekindofprofessionalacademic jobthanwithhowImightbedefinedandlabeledwithinanthropology. Frankly,IfoundthatanewlymintedPhDinanthropologywasnot particularly helpful in putting food on my table. While writing my dissertation, a comparison of the development of disability services inBrazilandtheUnitedStates,Ilivedonaslittleas$500permonth, hopingmycarandcomputerwouldsurviveandwritingwhilelivingin mymother’ssummercabininthewoods.Defendingmydissertation andreceivingmyPhDinthespringof1997,Iturnedmyattentionto thejobmarket. Ihadnoideahowtonavigateinthatconfusingcattledrive.Ihad nonotionofhowthejobmarketworkedorhowtopositionmyself foremployment.IhadavaguenotionthatIwouldgetapostdoctoral fellowshiporajob(tenuretrackorvisiting)inananthropologyprogram. Eventhen,IhadthesensethatIwouldprefertoteachdisabilitystudies tostudentsinhealthandhumanservices,butIhadnoideahowto proceedinthisdirection.Imailedoutdozensofapplicationsforentrylevel tenure track or one-year positions in anthropology programs andreceiveddozensofrejectionletters.Thiswashardlyanatypical experience for a new PhD in cultural anthropology, where the job marketissocompetitivethatasingletenure-trackjobpostingmight generatetwohundredapplications.However,therewereseveralways inwhichImighthavestrengthenedmychancesatgettingajob.
CulturalAnthropologyandDisabilityStudies 91
Life Lesson 2: Graduate students should prepare themselves for the job marketandeducatethemselvesaboutallalternativesavailable.Programs shouldassisttheminlearninghowtoprepareacurriculumvitaeandcoverletter andhowtopresentthemselvesatjobinterviews.Theyshouldpracticetheirjob talksandgiveconferencepresentations.Mentorsshouldhelpstudentsmake realisticdecisions,onthebasisoftheirindividualinterestsandcapabilities, aboutwheretofocustheirattentioninjobseeking. Ispenttheyearafterreceivingmydoctorateworkinginvocationaland residentialdirect-careservicesforpeoplewithdevelopmentaldisabilities. Imadepresentationsatafewconferences,butthatwastheextentof myinvolvementinacademe.Iwasafinalistinafewinterdisciplinary fellowship competitions, but ultimately I was without academic job options,andevenmyattemptstosecureanadjunctteachingposition wereunsuccessful. Ihadworkedpart-timeindisabilityservicesthroughoutmygraduate career. Given my focus on disability studies, this was a means to supplementmyethnographicknowledgeofthedisabilityservicesystem in the United States. In the many jobs I undertook during graduate schoolandtheyearfollowing,Igainedvaluableunderstandingasa participant-observerofsystemicissuesfacedbypersonswithdisabilities receivingservicesfromnonprofitandfor-profitorganizations.Iobserved whatitwaslikeforpeoplewithdisabilitiestoexistinthesesystems. Mostimportantlyforthelocaldisabilitycommunity,mywillingness to engage in direct care meant that my theories and methodologies hadsubstance,becauseI“walkedthetalk.”Ialsoengagedinactivism bothasafamilymember(Ihaveadisabledsister)andbyadvisinga self-advocacygroupforadultswithdevelopmentaldisabilities.Allvery well,butnoneofthiswasgettingmeanywhereinacademe. Fortunately, I found a mentor, a cultural anthropologist who had receivedhisPhDsevenyearspriortomine.Hewasabouttocomplete aclinicalpostdoctoralfellowshipprogramatBrownUniversity.This mentortaughtmehowtowritejobletters,identifyappropriatepostdoctoral opportunities outside of traditional anthropology contexts, and write a convincing proposal that would attract the attention of programdirectorsandresearcherswithpostdoctoralpositionstofill. I learned that outside of traditional postdoctoral training programs, a multitude of independent researchers exists who see postdoctoral researchassociatesasacheapandeasywaytobypasscomplexuniversity employmentprocedures.Beingamemberofthe“invisibleacademic underclass”wasbetterthanunemployment. LifeLesson3:Postdoctoralresearchpositionsarenotdifficulttofindif the job seeker casts a wide net and is willing to move to where the work
92
Pamela Block
is.Postdoctoralemploymentisanexcellentwaytogetafootinthedoorof academe. EventuallyIacceptedapositionasapostdoctoralresearchassociateat theUniversityofIllinoisatChicago,intheDepartmentofDisabilityand HumanDevelopment.Idevotedfourdaysaweektothejobofproject directorforaresearchprojecttoincreaseAmericanswithDisabilities Act implementation in African American and Latino communities. Theprincipalinvestigatorswerecommunitypsychologistscombining ChicagoschooltheoryandLatinAmericanappliedpoliticalresearch (BalcazarandKeys1998;Balcazar,Keys,andSuarez-Balcazar2001;Keys 1987).Ifeltrightathomeideologicallyandwasprivilegedtobeapart ofthisvitalhubofdisabilitystudies.Withassistancefrommentorsand coauthors,Idevelopedmytheoreticalargumentsandbegantopublish mydissertationresearch(Block2000;Block,Balcazar,andKeys2001). Unfortunately,thejobwassooverwhelming,especiallyconsideringmy decisiontocommuteeveryweekbetweenRhodeIslandandChicago, thatIhadlittletimeorenergytopursuemyownresearchandscholarly interests during the one day per week officially designated for this purpose. LifeLesson4:Lookforprogramsandmentorswhofacilitateindependent professionaldevelopment.Whenworkingassomeoneelse’semployee,personal researchinterestsaresubordinatedtothoseoftheemployer.Iftheemployer is not committed to the postdoctoral associate’s professional development, thentheassociatewilleventuallyneedtochoosebetweenfindinganother job with greater opportunities for professional development and giving up his or her personal scholarly aspirations. This is particularly challenging foranthropologists,becausepostdoctoralemployersareusuallyfromother disciplines and may lack an understanding of career development needs specifictoanthropology. AfterayearinChicago,ImovedbacktoRhodeIsland,whereIwas acceptedintoaformalpostdoctoraltrainingprogramattheCenterfor AlcoholandAddictionStudies(CAAS)atBrownUniversity.Upuntil thatpointIhadhadlittleinterestinaddictionresearch,buttheCAAS facultyencouragedmetodevelopanindependentresearchprogramin theareaofaddictionanddisability.Theotherpostdoctoralfellowswere primarilyclinicalpsychologists,butthisprogramhadacceptedseveral anthropologistsinthepast,andmycohorthappenedtoincludenot onlyme,aculturalanthropologist,butalsotwoothers,amedicaland aphysicalanthropologist.ThismeantIhadbothpeersupportanda certainlevelofinstitutionaltoleranceforanthropologicalapproaches toscholarship.
CulturalAnthropologyandDisabilityStudies 93
Ibeganengaginginethnographicresearchwithlocaldisabilityrights organizationsandeventuallyfocusedonanorganizationthatprovided secondary rehabilitation to persons with recent spinal cord injuries (Blocketal.2001).Whiledevelopingthisareaofresearchexpertise,I receivedsystematictrainingingrantwriting.CAASwasessentiallya complexgrant-gettingmachine.Theentireinstitutewasstructuredto enableinvestigatorstofocusonresearchandgrantwriting.Mundane concernswerehandledbyateamofdedicatedandhelpfulsupportstaff, allwillingtoassistnerve-wrackedpostdoctoralfellowstryingtowrite theirfirstgrantproposals.Onepersonhelpedmecompletethecomplex paperworkinvolvedinafederalgrantsubmission,anotherhelpedme put together the budget for a multiyear, $450,000 grant proposal. I couldneverhaveproceededwithoutthissupport;thewholeprocess wassimplytoointimidating. YetIwasdeterminedtopersevere.Fundingwasmytickettoresearch autonomyandincreasedfinancialsecurity.Aftergettingasmall,internallyfundedresearchawardtocoverthecosts,Iengagedinprimarily ethnographicpilotresearch.Oneofthestipulationsoftheawardwas thatIincorporatequantitativecomponents,becausefederalfunding agenciesseldomfundpurelyqualitativeresearch.Igrumbledbutcomplied. Midway through the pilot research I received the good news thatmyfederalgrantproposal,writtenincollaborationwithlocaldisability rights organizations, had been funded after just a single submission.Thiswasunusuallygoodluck.Inmostcases,newandeven experiencedgrantwritersmustreviseandresubmitatleastonceortwice. Suddenly,Iwasnolongerapostdoctoralfellow.Iwasaresearchassistant professor,andhalfmysalarywascoveredbyathree-yeargrantfrom thefederalDepartmentofEducation,NationalInstituteonDisability andRehabilitationResearch,tostudyhealthpromotionandcapacity buildingforpeoplewithrecentspinalcordinjuriesandorganizations thatsupportthem(BlockandRimmer2000;Block,Skeels,andKeys 2006;Blocketal.2005).
JoiningtheFaculty AtthetimeIworkedatBrownUniversity,theCAAShadvirtuallyno tenured (“hard” money) faculty. All faculty supported themselves withresearch(“soft”)money,occasionallysupplementedbyfunding connectedwithadministrativeduties(both“soft”and“hard”).Itwas very stressful to depend on grant income to sustain one’s academic career.Postdoctoralfellowswhofailedtogetfunding,includingmy
94
Pamela Block
twoanthropologycolleagues,wereforcedtoleaveCAAS.Theyfound clinical,faculty,ornewpostdoctoralpositions,wenttoworkasprogram directors for other, more successful independent researchers, or left academetoworkfornonprofitorganizationsorinindustry.Asimilar fateawaitedfacultywhosefundinghaddriedupandwhohadnofurther grantsinsight.Ibegantosetmysightsonmoresecureemployment. AfterteachinganthropologyanddisabilitystudiesattheUniversityof RhodeIslandandatBrownasanadjunct,IfoundthatIenjoyedworking witholder,nontraditionalstudentsandpremedicalandalliedhealth students.Ifeltmoreusefulpositioningmyselftoinfluencefutureservice providersandhealthcareprofessionalsthanfutureanthropologists. OneofmymentorsatChicagosuggestedthatIapplyforaposition inanoccupationaltherapy(OT)program.TheAmericanOccupational Therapy Association defines OT as “skilled treatment that helps individualsachieveindependenceinallfacetsoftheirlives.Itgives peoplethe‘skillsforthejobofliving’necessaryforindependentand satisfying lives” (AOTA 2004). Though not congruent, occupational therapyobjectivesarenotnecessarilyinconsistentwiththoseofdisability studies.Additionally,fewoccupationaltherapistshavedoctorates,yet OT programs are being pressured by their national association, and eventuallywillberequired,tohireonlydoctoral-levelfaculty. Overthecourseofayear,Iappliedforpositionsattwouniversities, wasafinalistatthefirst,andin2002washiredatthesecond—asa clinical associate professor in the Occupational Therapy Program at StonyBrook’sSchoolofHealthTechnologyandManagement(SHTM). AlthoughIwasnothiredonatenuretrack,itispossibleforclinical facultytoseektenurereviewandbegrantedtenure.Thus,Ihopeto haveaccesstotenurereviewwithoutthestrainofatenureclockovermy head.Ihaverenewablethree-yearcontracts,andmysalaryiscoveredby “hard”moneyfromthestate.Manypeopleontheclinicaltrackhave taughtinSHTMfordecades.ForthefirsttimeinmyprofessionallifeI havejobsecurity,ortheclosestthingtoit,withouttenure. LifeLesson5:Whentraditionalemploymentavenuesseemclosed,bea pioneer.Lookacrossdisciplinestofindfrontierareaswherejobsareavailable. Eightyearsago,asIcompetedwithhundredsofotherapplicantsfortenuretrackanthropologyjobs,Iwasnevertoldthattherewereacademicfieldseager tohirePhDsinmyareaofexpertise.Isuspectthatoccupationaltherapyis nottheonlyfieldundergoingthissortoftransition. TheOccupationalTherapyProgramatStonyBrooktransitionedtoa master’slevelprograminthesummerof2001.Thoughnotamethodologistbyexperienceorinclination,myinitialfocusatStonyBrookwas
CulturalAnthropologyandDisabilityStudies 95
tohelpdesignaresearchsequencefortheprogram’sadvancedmaster’slevelstudents.Itaughtresearchdesignandgrantwriting.Whenteaching studentsresearchdesign,Icreativelymanagedtoincorporatelectureson qualitativeresearchandethnographyfromtheperspectiveofcultural anthropology, along with the history of eugenics and Boas’s role in fightingeugenicsideologies(Boas1912,1916).Imentoredfacultyand graduatestudentsintheresearch,humansubjectsapprovals,andgrantwritingprocesses.Fortunately,thesetaskswerenotall-encompassing. I also taught courses on disability studies to advanced OT students, medicalstudents,andundergraduates.
ANewWorld Asanonclinicalacademicianonaclinicalfacultyline,Iamaware,on manylevels,ofmy“outsider”statusinSHTMandtheHealthSciences Center.StonyBrookUniversityisdividedinhalfbyaheavilytrafficked road.Ononesideoftheroadsitthetraditionalacademicdisciplines intheSchoolofArtsandSciences,Engineering,andBusiness.Onthe othersidesitthehospitalandtheHealthScienceCenter,includingthe SchoolsofMedicine,SocialWelfare,Nursing,andHealth,Technology, andManagement.Theconditionoftheroadsandparkingissuchthat, despitetheshortdistancebetweenthetwosidesoftheuniversity,many studentstravelbybusfromonesidetotheother. Onedifferencebetweenthetwosidesisaesthetic.WestCampusis atypicalstateuniversitycampuswithbuildingsspreadacrossalarge woodedarea.Incontrast,theEastCampusHealthSciencesCenteris attached to a modernist, high-rise medical complex. There are also clear-cut economic and sociocultural differences in the way faculty membersfromeachsideexperiencetheiremploymentattheuniversity. Myhusbandisanassistantprofessorwithatypicalten-month,tenuretrackappointmentintheDepartmentofPoliticalScience.Heisnot requiredtobeoncampusduringmuchofDecemberandJanuaryor JunethroughAugust.Incontrast,likethevastmajorityofotherfaculty intheHealthSciencesCenter,Ihaveatwelve-monthrenewalcontract ontheclinicaltrack.Iamexpectedtoremainoncampusformuchof thesummerunlessIamusingvacationdays. Myhusband’sdepartmentissimilartotheenvironmentIexperienced ingraduateschool,withrelaxeddresscodesandattendancepolicies.A twelve-monthfacultyappointmentintheHealthSciencesCentermeans fillingouttimesheetsandtheexpectationofaneight-hourworkday. Thosenotpresentintheofficeduringaworkdayareexpectedtouse
96
Pamela Block
sick or vacation time to cover the lapse, though in reality a certain amountofflexibilityallowsforatypicalworkdaysandworkingfrom home.Incontrasttotherelativeinformalityofmygraduateschooland postdoctoralexperiences,Ifindmyselfworkingalongsidecolleaguesin labcoatsorformalbusinessattire. Iamexpectedtofilloutannual“behaviormonitorforms”formyOT studentadvisees.Theseforms,mandatedbytheAmericanOccupational TherapyAssociation,aremeanttoprovidestudentswithguidanceand preparationfortheworkplace.Alsocompletedbystudents’fieldwork supervisors,theformsrecordstudents’attendance,dress,andbehavior as appropriate to a professional context. If students score poorly on theforms,theywillnotgraduatefromtheprogram.Comingfromthe bohemiancontextofanontraditionalundergraduateprogramfollowedbyananthropologygraduateprogram,Ifoundtheideaofholding students to collectively determined but still essentially subjective standardsofdressandconductodd.WhenIdescribedtomyOTcolleaguesascholarlycontextinwhichamaleclassmatemightweara skirtandafemaleclassmatemightwearadogcollarandleash,they foundthisequallyodd. IworkwithallieswithinSHTMtoestablishwhatwecall“aculture ofresearch”inwhatwas,untilrecently,aprimarilyclinicalteaching school.Iamencouragedinthisendeavorbytheschool’sadministration. For both economic and professional reasons, administrative powers from the upper echelons of the Health Sciences Center and clinical professionalorganizationshavemandatedthatfacultywithmaster’s degrees must get their doctorates, and those with doctorates must publish in peer-reviewed journals and seek external funding. Until recently,facultyinSHTMconsistedalmostentirelyofclinicianswith master’sorbachelor’sdegrees.Thecentralfocusforfacultywasteaching, administration,andcommunityservice. Upper-level university officials have practical reasons for wanting a shift to a research focus. With federal research funding come not only “direct” costs, covering the expenses of research and faculty salaries,butalso“indirect”costs,anamountthatmightbemorethan 50percentofthedirectcosts,tocovertheuniversity’s“operational” researchexpenses.Universitieshavecometorelyonbothindirectand directresearchmoniestosubsidizeotherscholarlyandadministrative endeavors and for sheer fiscal survival. According to figures posted ontheStonyBrookUniversityResearchFoundationwebsite,research revenueforthisSUNYcampusincreasedfromlessthan$10millionin 1973toroughly$34millionin1983,$85millionin1993,morethan
CulturalAnthropologyandDisabilityStudies 97
$141 million in 2003, and over 162.5 million in 2005 (Stony Brook University2006).Thewebsitestates:“TotalfundsmanagedatStony Brooklastyearexceeded$159million,reflectingactivityinsome1,200 projects involving hundreds of investigators and providing jobs for 1,800individuals.” NotallSHTMfacultymembersarehappywiththeincreasingpressure todoresearch,andsomehaveleftratherthanadapttothechanges.YetI myselffeelempowered,supported,andappreciatedinthisenvironment. Mydean,divisionchair,andprogramchairhaveallencouragedmy effortstoincorporatedisabilitystudiesintoundergraduateandgraduate courses. They have also supported my efforts to establish a research programandtopublishandpresentatconferences.Importantforme isanacceptanceofmychildcareneeds.Ihavebeennotjustallowed butencouragedtobringmyyoungchildrentoworkoccasionally.It isnotunusual,especiallyduringsummersandschoolholidays,tosee childrenofallagesintheofficesandhallwaysoftheschool.Whilemy husband’sdepartmentwelcomesanoccasionalpeekatourchildren,it offersnothinglikethelevelofacceptanceorvisibilityofchildrenthat existsinmanySHTMprograms. Atthesametime,Iremainawareofmyneedtokeepupwithmy peersonmoretraditionalacademictracks,aswellasthoseworkingin morecompetitiveresearchcontexts.Inanefforttocrossthisdivide,I initiatedandfacilitatedaninterdisciplinarydisabilitystudiesfaculty discussiongroupfrombothsidesofcampus.Idevelopedcurriculumfor, recruitedadjunctfacultyfor,andtaughtwithinafive-course,fourteencreditdisabilitystudiesconcentrationasapartoftheSHTM’sBachelor ofScienceinHealthSciencesmajor(Block2004).Iforgedconnections withtheCenterforLatinAmericanandCaribbeanStudieswiththe goalofpursuinginternationalresearchandexchangeopportunitiesfor studentsandfacultyintheareaofdisabilitystudies.Inthefallof2004 webroughtaBraziliandisabilitystudiesscholartocampus. SincejoiningthefacultyatStonyBrook,Ihavenotonlyengagedin disabilitystudiesresearchandtaughtdisabilitystudiestoundergraduates, graduatestudents,andmedicalstudentsbuthavealsomentoredasmall group of adjunct disability studies faculty. Perhaps it is merely the freedomfromworryingaboutwheremynextpaycheckwillcomefrom, butIfindthebalanceoftheseactivitiesquitesatisfying.Duringmyfirst threeyearsatStonyBrookIcompletedmorethanadozenpublications, includingpeer-reviewedarticles,bookchapters,encyclopediaentries, andabookreview,andIeditedaspecialissueofthejournalSexuality andDisability.
98
Pamela Block
ResearchActivities WhenImovedtoStonyBrookinthefallof2002,Idecidedtoleavethe administrationofmygrantatBrown.Ifeltthatacommunity-based project should stay in the local community where the research was beingundertaken.Ialsofeltmytimewouldbebetterspentcompleting theactualresearchanddevelopingnewprojectsthanbymygetting tangledinadministrativetransfersandbureaucraticnonsense.WhenI leftBrown,mytitleontheprojectchangednominallyfromprincipal investigator to co-principal investigator, but I retained control over theresearchproject,andthegrantcontinuedtocoverone-thirdofmy newStonyBrooksalary. DuringmyfirsttwoyearsatStonyBrook,Ispentsometimedeveloping relationshipswithlocaldisabilityrightsandserviceorganizationsand learningaboutthelocaldisabilitycommunity.Eventually,Ireceived fundingfortwonewgrants.Iwasprincipalinvestigator(PI)foraoneyearpilotinvestigationtostudybarrierstorecreationalandphysical activitiesforadultswithmultiplesclerosis.Iwasco-investigator(Co-I), chargedwithprovidingthe“qualitativecomponent,”forafive-year, twenty-sitestudyofthewayorganizationalfactorsinfluencedrugabuse treatmentoutcomes.Inaddition,Iwasco-principalinvestigator(Co-PI) foranunfundedpilotresearchprojecttostudytheinfluenceofpeer supportonqualityoflifeforchildrenandteenswithmultiplesclerosis. Thus,includingmyresearchbasedatBrown,bythefallof2005Ihada totaloffourresearchprojectsofvaryingsizesandatdifferentstages. These research endeavors involved developing new, communitybasedcollaborationsandworkingwithneurology,rehabilitation,and addictionprofessionalsanddisabilityrightsorganizations.Sometimes my contribution was methodological—for example, directing the “qualitativecomponent”ofthedatacollectionandanalysisforalarger, primarilyquantitativestudy.SometimesIdevelopedcommunity-based researchwithaqualitativefocusandthenfoundaquantitativeresearch partnerwhocreateda“quantitativecomponent”formystudy.When Iwasnotoneofthekeyinvestigators,negotiationskillswereneeded tokeepthe“quality”inqualitative.Formyownstudies,Ireliedonmy clinicalresearchpartnerstotranslatemymethodologyintolanguage that grant reviewers would find palatable. I have found that some federalandfoundationgrantreviewersandmembersofhumansubjects research institutional review boards (IRBs) are uncomfortable with “messy”qualitativeandcommunity-basedresearch.OneIRBmember wanted to deny approval for human subjects research to one of my
CulturalAnthropologyandDisabilityStudies 99
projectsbecauseanythingwithann(numberofparticipants)ofless thansixtydidnot,inhiseyes,constituteresearch. LifeLesson6:Wheneverpossible,trytopersonallyattendIRBmeetingsat whichyourprojectisbeingreviewed. Havingclinicalresearchpartnersisabenefitbutalsoalearningand negotiating process for all involved. In a draft of a recent National InstitutesofHealthgrantsubmission,theneuropsychologistPIreferred to children with multiple sclerosis as “patients.” He explained that althoughhehadbeentrainedtousetheword“participants,”hehad adopted the biomedical terminology used in the clinical context in whichheworked.Ipointedouttohimthattheproposalwasabout improving quality of life through community, that the focus of the grantwasnonclinical,andthat,moreover,Iwasnotaclinician.With hisapproval,Ichangedevery“patient”inthatproposalto“participant.” Inthenextdraft,however,ourmentor,theneurologistco-investigator, blithelychangedeverythingbackto“patient”again.Iimmediatelycalled thePIonhiscellphoneandstartedadialogueabouttheimportanceof notreferringtopeoplewithdisabilitiesas“patients,”asiftheyhadno othersignificantidentity.Itisjustthistypeofmedical-modelthinking thatdisabilitystudiesscholarsseektocritiqueandchange.Sopatients againbecameparticipantsandremainedsothroughouttherestofthe submissionprocess. AprogramofficerforafoundationtowhichIrecentlyappliedfor alargeresearchgrantdiscouragedmefromusingacommunity-based researchdesignforthisstageofmyresearch.Hecontendedthatmultiple sclerosis support groups were so different from one another that it wouldbeimpossibletomeasuretheefficacyoftheinterventionmodel insuchnon-uniform,community-basedcontexts.Itriedtoexplainthat interventionmodelsdevelopedandimplementedinthecommunity werefarmorelikelytobedisseminated,adopted,andsuccessfullyapplied thaninterventionsruninartificiallyuniformresearchsettings(which, of course, are not truly uniform anyway), but he was unconvinced. I decided that for this submission I would focus on the research innovationofincorporatingsocio-environmentalfactors.Isuspected this was about as far as grant reviewers for this foundation, which primarilyfundedmedical,psychological,andpharmaceuticalresearch, wouldbewillingtotravel,atleastforthetimebeing.Afuturegrant submission,perhapstoafundingagencymoreopentocommunitybasedresearch,wouldfocusonimplementingtheresearchdesignin community-basedsettings.
100
Pamela Block
LifeLesson7:Strategiestogetqualitativeresearchfundedbyfederaland otheragenciesthatfavorquantitativeandclinicalstudiesinclude(1)developing a“qualitativecomponent”toamoretraditionalquantitativeresearchdesign, (2)collaboratingwithaquantitativeresearcherwhocanserveastranslatoror mediatorforskepticalgrantreviewers,and(3)recognizingthelimitationsin vision,scope,andfinancialresourcesofdifferentfundingsourcesandlearning howtostructureandtimeproposalsubmissionsaccordingly.
Conclusion Disabilitystudiesresearchandactivisminfluencemyprofessionalpracticeonseverallevels.Inadditiontotypicalscholarlyactivities—research and publishing in my chosen area of expertise—I view my position, teachinginthehealthsciencecontext,asanopportunitytoeducate futurehealthcareprofessionalsanddisabilityserviceprovidersabout disabilitystudiesapproaches.Inthecontextofcurriculumdevelopment, researchactivities,andotherscholarlyinteractions,Iseektoeducate practicingcliniciansandmyfacultycolleagues. Itissometimeschallenging,however,toremaintruetomytheoretical andmethodologicalroots.Whenworkingalmostexclusivelywithnonanthropologists,itiseasytogetdivertedontoothertracks,especially whenitissomuchmoredifficulttodeveloplargeresearchstudiesand acquire significant funding when insisting on using qualitative and community-basedresearchdesigns.IdonotalwaysgetwhatIwant, atleastnotasquicklyasIwouldlike.YetIthinkthisisanotherlevel atwhicheducationisneeded.Biomedicallymindedfundingagencies are slowly becoming more open to “nontraditional” methodologies suchasqualitative,participatoryaction,andcommunity-basedresearch designs. As for the relevance of my experiences to the so-called boundary betweenappliedandbasicresearch,IhavetoagreewithBennett(2005) thatthisboundaryseemstoshiftconvenientlywheneverweneedit todoso.ThroughoutmyyearsofgraduateschoolIwasexplicitabout myintentiontocombineactivismwithscholarship.Istudiedsocial movementsandeventuallysettleduponthedisabilityrightsmovement and the study of cultural perceptions of disability as my primary focus. If it had been easier to get a traditional tenure-track position inadepartmentofanthropology,mysubsequentscholarshipwould undoubtedlyhavebeendifferent,butnotnecessarilybetterormore relevantthantheworkIdonow.Despitethestruggletoremainafloatin academewithoutmuchinthewayofsupportfrommyownprofession,
CulturalAnthropologyandDisabilityStudies 101
IhavebeenpushedtotestboundariesandovercomebarriersthatImight never have attempted if I had remained safe within anthropology’s cloister. Forme,itcomesdowntodecidingontheintendedaudiencesformy scholarship.Inaroomfullofanthropologists,eveniffewarefamiliar withdisabilitystudies,IfeelasifIampreachingtothechoir.Certainly, I would like to see disability research valued as a project integral to anthropology, in the same way gender, ethnicity, and sexuality are recognizedasareasofstudyinherentlylinkedtothediscipline.Yetif mygoalistopracticemyanthropologytoinfluencethewaypeople withdisabilitiesareperceivedandtreatednationallyandinternationally, thenitmakessensetopositionmyselfwithinahealthsciencesand healthpolicycontextsuchastheSchoolofHealth,Technology,and Management.Inaddition,Ilikethefeelingofbeingontheacademic frontier,ontheborderbetweenhealthcareservicesandscholarship. Does this mean I am lost to anthropology? Perhaps I am a prodigal daughterand,likeTaussig,willsomedayreturntothefold.Onlytime (andtenure)willtell.
Acknowledgments Valuablecommentsonearlierdraftsofthischapterwereprovidedby several colleagues, including Nina Slota, Lisa Benz-Scott, Elizabeth Vanner,WilliamMacAllister,ChristopherKeys,andFernLebo.
This page intentionally left blank
f i v e
In Praise of “Reckless Minds” Making a Case for Activist Anthropology
Charles R. Hale
I
nJanuary1971agroupofelevenintellectuals—mainlyLatinAmericans, andnoneindigenous—metinBarbadostodiscusstherelationship betweenanthropologyandatopicthathadjustbeguntoemergein national political debates, “indigenous liberation.” The declaration that resulted from that meeting, which would later become famous, included the following exhortation regarding “the responsibility of anthropology”:“TheanthropologynowrequiredinLatinAmericaisnot thatwhichrelatestoIndiansasobjectsofstudy,butratherthatwhich perceivesthecolonialsituationandcommitsitselftothestrugglefor liberation.Inthiscontextweseeanthropologyprovidingthecolonized peoplewiththedataandinterpretationsaboutboththemselvesand theircolonizersusefulfortheirownfightforfreedom”(Declarationof Barbados1971). Thissimplebutpotentstatementraisesaseriesofslightlyuncomfortable questionsforthedisciplinesomethirtyyearslater.1Especiallyafterthe thorough-goingcritiquesofthe1970sand1980s,whydoessupport for this type of politically engaged anthropology remain so anemic intheUnitedStates?Arethereforcesintrinsictothedisciplinethat systematicallyderailtransformationalongtheselines,evenamidnearunanimousexpressionsofsolidaritywiththe“subaltern”?Orshould theexplanationfocusontheoverheated,faintlypaternalisticimageryof “Indianliberation”thattheBarbadosanthropologistsdeployed?Under what conditions might a new anthropological practice, transformed inthespiritoftheBarbadosdeclaration,becomeinstitutionalizedand 103
104
Charles R. Hale
legitimatedinUSgraduatetrainingprograms,inmainstreamagendasfor researchfunding,andindominantunderstandingsofourdiscipline? Myanswerstothesequestionscomprisefourarguments.First,Icontendthatconditionshaveneverbeforebeensopropitiousfortheinstitutionalizedpracticeofcollaborativeandpoliticallyengagedscholarship, a method I refer to as activist anthropology. The demand is robust, bothfromstudentsatthestartoftheircareersandfromtheirfuture research subjects; critiques from within the discipline have opened amplesupportivespace;therearestrongcurrentsoffundingthatfavor activistresearch;andbroaderforcesofcultural-politicalchangeinthe UnitedStates,reactionaryastheymaybe,havegeneratedunintended opportunitiesforactivistanthropology.Second,Iexamineanimprobable obstacletoprogressalongtheselines:theriseofculturalcritique,aset oftheoreticalandmethodologicalcommitmentsinanthropologythat are generally (and correctly) associated with the conceptual groundclearing that strengthens the rationale for activist research. Third, I contendthatargumentsinsupportofactivistresearchhaveoftenbeen misplaced,restingonethicalimperatives(“Weshoulddothisbecause itisanethicallyhigh-mindedwaytopracticeanthropology”)andon the usefulness of the resulting knowledge (“The research outcomes haveproducedthisdesiredpracticalorpoliticaleffect”).Althoughboth rationalesareimportant,Ihavecometobelievethatinourdialogues withintheacademy,ourprimaryandmostconvincingargumentsfor activistanthropologyareitsbasicmethodologicalandepistemological advantages. I illustrate this point with brief reference to the activist researchprojectinwhichIamengagedatthetimeofwriting,which isfocusedonblackandindigenouslandrightsinCentralAmerica.2 In a final section of the essay I explore the possible epistemological advantagesofactivistanthropology,themostambitiousand,Ibelieve, mostcompellingargumentfordoingthiskindofresearch. Myprincipalconclusionisthattherelationshipbetweenwould-be activist anthropologists and indigenous movements is profoundly contradictoryandtension-ridden.Itislikelytoremainthatway.This doesnotmeanthattherelationshipisfruitless—muchtothecontrary. Itdoesmeanthattherewardsaccrueinthemidstofthesetensions. A relatively unexplored explanation for the halting progress toward theinstitutionalizationofactivistanthropologyintheUnitedStates isthatwehavesoughtandimaginedarelationshipofneatconvergence between anthropologists and our allies. When contradictions havearisen,theyhavebeencausefordisillusionment,frustration,and evenabandonmentoftheeffort.Alternatively,Icontendthatactivist
InPraiseof“RecklessMinds” 105
anthropology yields better research outcomes precisely because its practitioners are obliged to live and engage these contradictions to a greater extent than are those who practice conventional research methods.Farfrombeingdeterrents,thetensionsneedtobeunderstood askeysourcesofmethodologicalsophisticationandanalyticalinsight. Thechallenge,insum,istoportrayactivistanthropologywithagreater measureofself-reflectionandacknowledgedlimitsthantheBarbados anthropologistswereabletomuster,whileatthesametimeaffirming theirpoliticalvision,energy,andcommitment.
ActivistAnthropology:ABriefAccount Myintentioninthissectionisnottocreateadefinitionortosetlimits butrathertoframethediscussionthatfollows.3Inthephrase“activist anthropology,” activist is an adjective. To me, the word conveys an intention to modify anthropology, to transform the conventional practiceinmethodologicalterms.Thephrasedoesnotimplythatthe activist anthropologist becomes an activist—to the contrary, there remains a clear distinction between the two, which is the source of constant productive tension. By the same token, because activist is an adjective, the phrase should not be taken to delimit the subject ofresearch—thatis,itshouldnotraisethecommonmisconception that activist anthropology is focused exclusively on activists, social movements,peopleinpoliticalstruggle.Thetransformedmethodmust bebroadandflexibleenoughtoencompassresearchontheWorldBank ortheMexicanstate,aswellassocialmovementsthatcontestsuch powerfulinstitutions.Activistanthropologydrawsextensivelyonthe cumulativeconventionalwisdomofourdisciplinebutreorientsresearch practicearoundadifferentanswertothebasicquestion,“knowledge forwhom?” Specifically, the practice of activist anthropology involves a basic decisiontoalignoneselfwithanorganizedgroupinastruggleforrights, redress,andempowermentandacommitmenttoproduceknowledge incollaborationanddialoguewiththemembersofthatgroup.Insome cases,thisalignmentisrelativelystraightforwardandunambiguous— forexample,onemightconductresearchinconjunctionwithanindigenousorganizationinsupportofitsclaimsforrightstolandand resources.Inothercases,thealignmentislessdirect,moregeneral.For example,Ijustcompletedastudyofmiddle-classladinos,thedominant culturegroupinGuatemala,focusingontheiridentityandresponses to the ascendancy of the Maya indigenous rights movement (Hale
106
Charles R. Hale
2006b).ThestudywasconceivedthroughdialoguewithMayaactivistintellectuals—indeed,theysuggestedthetopic—butforobviousreasons Imaintainedacertaindistancefromthemintheeverydayconditions offieldwork.Thespecificconditionsunderwhichthealignmenttakes place will vary widely. But in all cases, this alignment constitutes a modest attempt to answer the “knowledge for whom?” question in waysthathonorandaffirmourbroaderethical-politicalcommitments intheworld. Atthesametime,thesecommitmentsgeneratefurthermethodological transformationsineachphaseoftheresearchprocess.Establishingan alignmentinthiswayisneverassimpleanactasitsounds.Anorganized groupinstruggle—beitacommunity,anorganization,amovement, or a people—never has the transparency that the phrase “organized group”implies.Therearealwaysfactions,powerdisputes,andinternal hierarchies,bothlong-term(e.g.,alonggenderlines)andconjunctural (e.g.,betweenonesubgroupthatfavorsmilitanttacticsandanotherthat ismoremoderate).Theserequireanalysis,understanding,andreasoned assessmentaspartoftheveryprocessofalignment. Oncethishasbeenachieved,theresearcherhasacollectiveinterlocutor (hisorher“allies”)andacontextfordialogueandcollaboration,from starttofinish.Thisdialogueyieldsarefinementoftheresearchtopic, aprocessthatisespeciallychallengingtoconventionalnotionsofthe wayresearchagendasemerge.Thepointisnottocompletelydisregard the voice of the “scientific community,” the cumulative wisdom of university-basedtheoryandmethods,butrathertobringthatwisdomto thetableindialoguewiththeparticularneedsandinterestsofone’sallies, subjectingthetwotomutualscrutiny.Thereisnorealisticexpectation thatthisdialoguewillyieldaperfectfit.Theallieswillhaveneedsand intereststhattheresearchcannotmeet,andtheresearcher—givenher trainingandtheparticularsofhersocialposition—willhaveobjectives thattheallieswillnotrecognizeastheirown.Insteadofaperfectfit, thedesiredoutcomeissubstantialoverlapandtheabsenceofoutright conflict.Specifically,theywillhaveworkedtogethertoconceiveatopic thatbothviewasimportant,oraresearchagendathatencompasses thistopicwhilegrantingacertainautonomousspacetotheresearch process. Transformations of the subsequent phases of research follow the same basic pattern. Activist research methods create conditions for theenthusiasticparticipationofthealliesindatacollection,giventhat theyhavealreadyacknowledgedthevalueoftheresearchtopicand, ideally,seetheresearchasbeingcarriedoutbyandforthem.Inmany
InPraiseof“RecklessMinds” 107
casesthisparticipationcanopenontoagreateremphasisontrainingin researchmethodsandsharedresponsibilityfordatacollection,which helpsmovetheresearchprocessawayfromthemysteriousrealmof expertknowledgeandtowardmorecollectiveanddemocraticprinciples. Thesamegoesfordataprocessingandpreliminaryanalysesofresults. Itisnotonlyanethicalresponsibilitytomakethisphaseparticipatory; italsobecomesamethodologicalmandate.Peoplewhohaveplayed key roles in formulating the topic and collecting the data typically have an enormous amount to contribute in thinking through what hasbeenlearned. Finally,activistresearchopensaseriesofbroadenedmandatesand creativepossibilitiesforthedesignanddisseminationofthefinished products.Itentailsanassumedresponsibilitytomakeatleastsomeof theseproductswidelyaccessibleandusefultotheallies,whichmeans adoptingformatsotherthanthestandardacademicmonograph.The veryprocessofaddressingthisneed,inturn,maywellinfluencethinking aboutthedesignoftheproductdestinedfortheacademicaudience. Thepointhereisnottosuppressonedesigninfavorofanotherbutto recognizetheirdistinctpurposes,toencourageboth(ormany),andto encouragemutualinfluencebetweenthem.
ActivistAnthropologyComesHome Sincetheearly1970s,thepoliticalsensibilitiesofthedisciplinehave moved steadily toward an alignment with the principles that the Barbadosanthropologistschampioned.Suchalignmentscanofcourse betracedbackfurther,totheantiracismofBoasandBenedictandto antecedentalignmentswithfeministstruggles,withpoor,marginalized, andworkingpeople,andwithpeopleofcolor.Still,itiscertainlysafe tocharacterizeNorthAmericananthropology,beforetheculturaland politicalupheavalofthe1960s,asabastionofintellectualelitismin whichalignmentwithsubalternpeopleswasconditionedbyamore orlessexplicitassertionofdistanceand,atbest,paternalistconcern. With regard to the study of indigenous Latin America, for example, anthropologiststypicallycombinedadistantlamentforthedestructionofindigenouscultureswithanodtotheinevitabilityofmestizo ascendancy,whichoftenledtoambivalentsupportforvariousforms of“salvage”anthropology. Withoutgoingintoadetailedanalysisofthewell-knownforcesof change,Icannotetheremarkablecontrastsomethirtyyearslater.At leastjudgingfromthegraduateschoolapplicationsIreadeveryyear,it
108
Charles R. Hale
isalmostinconceivablethatonewouldchoosetostudyanthropology todaywithoutanexplicit,ifdiffuse,senseofsolidaritywithsubaltern peoplesandacritiqueofthedominantforceswithwhichthesepeoples contend. Such solidarity, in turn, is an essential precursor to the alignmentthatactivistresearchentails. Not only have these particular political sensibilities gained prominence, but theoretical developments have reinforced and provided sophisticated rationales for these alignments. The theoretical move, oftenassociatedwiththepostmodernturnbutinfactmoregeneraland widelyaffirmed,istore-presentresearchasanintersubjectiveprocess, acomplexrelationshipamongdifferentlypositionedactors.Whether takeninthedirectionofcritiqueofethnographicauthority,offeminist standpointtheory,ofcriticalracetheory,ofradicaldeconstructionof signification,orevenofamoderateextensionofWeberianinterpretive analysis, this basic move produces a need for precisely the kind of scrutinythatactivistanthropologyprovides.4 Althoughexplicitpoliticalalignmentwithresearchsubjectsisnotthe onlywaytorespondtothischallenge,itfiguresprominentlyamong the alternatives. Feminist scholars such as Donna Haraway (1988) andlaterthe“post-positivistrealists”suchasPaulaMoya(Moyaand Hames-Garcia2000)havearguedthatsuchalignmentcanyieldspecial analyticalinsightsandevengreaterobjectivity(ofacertainsort),but thisstepisnotnecessaryforthebasicpointtoapply.Throughageneral convergenceofthesediversecurrents,ithasbecomestandard,indeed almostrequired,foranthropologiststoengageinsustainedreflection onthisproblem:howtoethicallyjustify,analyticallyrepresent,and logisticallymanagethestarkinequalitiesbetweenresearcherandsubject. Especiallywhenthesubjectsarealive(asopposedtohistorical),generally subordinated,andorganizedtocontestsubordination,atleastagesture towardactivistanthropology’sbasicprincipleofalignmentinevitably follows. Athirdfactorfavoringsomeformofactivistanthropologyinvolves institutional,career,andlifecycles.Iadmitthatmythinkingonthis pointisimpressionistic,basedlargelyonmyownexperiencesrather than on broader investigation. But it seems to me that two related processes are at play. First, scholars of my generation (dissertations completed between the late 1980s and the mid-1990s), who were trainedinthewakeofthesuccessivecallstotransformanthropology, arenowreachingmid-careerandbeginningtowieldmodestinfluence indecisionsregardingtraining,funding,andprogramdevelopment.At theUniversityofTexas,where,asIwrite,weareabouttoholdourthird
InPraiseof“RecklessMinds” 109
annual“ActivistScholarship”conference,thecoregroupoforganizers and supporters includes a number of faculty members at this career stage,withsmallbudgetstodrawonandanabilitytoplaceacertain institutionalauthoritybehindtheeffort.5Thesamegoes,onasmaller scale,forthe“activistanthropology”trackattheUniversityofTexas. Amidconsiderablediversityinpositionsonthespecifics—itsdefinition, practice,implicationsforthediscipline,andsoforth—itreceivesgeneral supportandlittlevoicedopposition(atleastonconceptualorpolitical grounds).Iknowofstrongclustersoffacultywithinterestsalongthese linesinothermajoruniversities,suchasCornellUniversityandthe UniversitiesofNorthCarolina,NewMexico,CaliforniaatBerkeley,and Toronto.6 Thesecondprocessisdemandfromstudents,surelyinresponse,at leastinpart,tothedireandincreasinglypolarizedpoliticalconditions oftheUnitedStatesatearlytwenty-firstcentury.Withlittlepublicity beyondawebsite,nospecialfunding,andastillincipientadministrative structure, the activist anthropology track at the University of Texas receivesaconstantflowofinquiries,somethirtyapplicationsayear,and stronginterestintheprogramfromstudents.Mysense,formedthrough fieldinginquiriesandreviewingapplications,isthatthetrack’scentral messagehasgreatresonance:youdonothavetochoosebetweenyour ethical-politicalcommitmentsandrigorous,high-levelanthropological training;thetwocancomplementeachother.Inshort,astrongdemand exists that “we” (a community in the early stages of imagining) are increasinglyinapositiontomeet. Thefourthandfinalfactoropeningupspaceforactivistanthropology iscounterintuitiveandriskybutforthatreasonallthemoreimportanttoanalyze.Especiallyinpubicuniversities,wefacearisingtideof whatMarilynStrathern(2000)called“auditcultures,”apoliticaland ideologicaltransformationassociatedwithneoliberalcapitalism.The pressures associated with audit cultures are in many ways decidedly pernicious:thecallforpracticalresultsateveryturn,theapplicationof cost-benefitanalysistodeterminetheallocationofscarceresources,the implementationofstringentmeasuresofaccountability—allofwhich smuggleinhighlypoliticized,market-orientedvaluesdisguisedinthe technocraticlanguageofefficiency,accountability,andhardchoices amid scarce resources. As the essays in the Strathern volume make clear,thistransformationinvolvesanoutwardextensionintohigher educationofthesamebasicprinciplesthathavebeenhonedinthe privatesectorandininstitutionssuchastheInternationalMonetary FundandtheWorldBank,thebastionsofneoliberalcapitalism.Yetas
110
Charles R. Hale
wearelearningaboutneoliberalismingeneral,auditculturesarenot seamless;theyhaveopeningsandcontradictionsthatmaybeusedin unexpectedways.7 Two brief examples of these openings, within the general rise of auditculturesintheuniversity,willhavetosuffice.First,nearlyevery university in the country has a “service learning” program of some type,oftenconceivedinkeepingwithneoliberalprecepts:recognition withoutresources,involvementwithadepoliticizedcivilsocietythat takesuptheslackleftbyadownsizedstate,andnodirectchallenge totheorderofthings.Yetrhetoricallyspeaking,servicelearninghas strikingsimilaritiestoactivistresearch.Itopenspossibilitiesfor,and hasnoeasymeanstoexclude,thealternativedefinitionthatactivist researchputsforth. Asecondexampleisauditculture’sdemandforpracticalresults.The standard response to this demand from progressive academics is to exposeitsconcealedpremisesofneoliberalgovernanceandtooppose it frontally. Activist anthropology suggests a different tack: diversify thestandardunderstandingofresults,askingsimplythatsocialjustice– orientedevaluativecriteriabeaffirmedalongsidemarket-orientedones. Thisapproachisfarfromriskfreeandcouldbeviewedascompromised. Butespeciallygiventhebroadercorrelationofforcesintoday’sworld, thereismuchtobesaidforacarefullyconceivedstrugglefromwithin—a Gramscianemphasisonpositionratherthanmaneuver,onnegotiation ratherthanfrontalattack.
InternallyGeneratedDifficulties Letmeconcedefromtheoutsetthatingeneralterms,themostdaunting barrierstotheadvancementofactivistanthropologycontinuetobe the gatekeepers within our profession and in the upper echelons of universityadministrations.Itremainsfairlyeasytodiscreditagiven scholar’sresearch,especiallyininterdisciplinaryuniversitycommittees, withtheobservationbyawell-placedcommitteememberthattheperson has become “politicized” and therefore lacks “objectivity.” Similarly, asarecentexchangeinAnthropologyNewslettermakesclear,thebasic activist anthropology principle of formulating the research topic in dialoguewiththeresearchsubjectscanbederidedbygatekeepersof an important funding source as dumbed-down “social work” rather thanrigorousscience.8Mysense,however,isthattheseobjectionsare fairlyeasilyneutralizedbytheassertion,invokingoneofanumberof well-establishedtheoreticalcurrentsmentionedearlier,thatresearch
InPraiseof“RecklessMinds” 111
canbebothsociallypositionedoralignedandunassailablyrigorous. Theobjectionstendtocarrythedaywhenscholarlyrigor(inthe“postpositivist” or “situated” sense of the phrase) cannot be adequately defendedorwhenthepoliticalforceslinedupagainstthescholarin questionaretoostrongtobecounteracted. The largely unexplored explanation for the anemic institutional advancementofactivistanthropologythatIposithereistheriseof culturalcritique.Onereasonthisexplanationhasremainedunexplored isthatinmanyways,proponentsofculturalcritiqueandofactivist research are closely aligned. My ultimate intention is to strengthen this alliance and to affirm the possibilities for creatively combining thetwo.Butthisisbestaccomplished,Iamnowconvinced,byfirst emphasizingourdifferences,whichattheendofthedayaremainly methodological. Culturalcriticsposenoobjectiontotheoptionforalignmentwithan organizedgroupinstruggle.Theydonotobjecttotheethical-political principles involved in this choice, nor do they question the goal of generatingknowledgeusefultothatstruggle.Allthisisaffirmed.Rather, theobjectiontoactivistanthropologyismorebasic.Culturalcritique clears ground for thinking about the world in more expansive and potentially emancipatory ways, the argument goes, whereas activist anthropology,constrainedbyspecificpoliticalalignments,undermines complexityandtruncatestheoreticalinnovation.Therelativeabsence ofcontradictioninourportrayalofactivistanthropology,ironically, becomesevidencethatpoliticalfervorhasgottenthebestofanalytical sophistication.9 Forthepurposesofthisessay,myportrayalofculturalcritiquewill havetoremaingeneralandunelaborated.10Fromthetimewhenthe phrasewascoinedinthemid-1980s,ithascometoserveasagradually expandingbigtent,encompassingawiderangeoftheoreticalaffinities and textual practices. There are variants of cultural critique aligned with materialist and political economic analysis and others focused specificallyondiscourse,texts,andformsofexpressiveculture.The variationisequallygreatinthewritingandexpositorystrategiesthat cultural critique has spawned, from highly experimental moves to decentertheresearcher’sauthorityandgivespaceforsubjects’voicesto moreconventionaleffortstocombineself-reflectivitywithanemphasis ontheethnographic.Inplaceswhereculturalcritiquehasarisenand developed in close interaction with cultural studies, the boundaries have become even looser and more porous, encompassing the early, politicizedinterventionsoftheBirminghamschool,initiativestosupport
112
Charles R. Hale
andlegitimatealternativeknowledges,andeffortstodecolonizethe academybycreatingbridgesbetweencommunity-anduniversity-based intellectuals.Indeed,inthismostcapaciousreading,thedistinctionI havedrawnbetweenactivistresearchandculturalcritiquefadesalmost completely. I defend the distinction nonetheless, on the grounds that the center of gravity of cultural critique still makes for an important contrast.Thatcenterhasfourkeyfeatures.Thefirstisastrongethicalpoliticalorientationtowardalignmentwithsubordinategroupsand an inclination to produce knowledge that embodies this alignment. Second, a signature analytical contribution of cultural critique is to deconstruct the institutions, knowledge systems, cultural premises, andsoforth,thatupholdtheserelationsofinequalityanddominance. Thethirdisanacuteawarenessofthepowerrelationsbuiltintothe research process and a commitment to confronting these inequities explicitly,ratherthanignoringorsuppressingthem.Thefourthfeature isthecontentionthatwecanbestconfronttheseinequitiesthrough transformationsinthetext,ratherthaninresearchmethods:writing reflexively,employingalternativetechniquesforrepresentingsubjects, and,ultimately,producingknowledgethatcriticallyprobesthecultural preceptsofallfacetsoftheprocessunderstudy. This fourth feature points to the crux of the divergence. Cultural criticsraisequestions,contestprematureclosures,opennewinterpretive terrain,andplumbcontradictions.Theseinterventionsatthelevelof knowledge categories and theoretical frames become cultural critics’ principalpoliticalcontributions;theysteerclearoffurtherinvolvement with research subjects that might transform the way knowledge is produced.Theyargue,implicitlyatleast,thatdirectpoliticalalignment yieldspreordainedstorylinesthatsupportone’salliesattheexpense ofcriticalengagement. Framedinthisway,thecontrastbetweenculturalcritiqueandactivist anthropologybringstheroleofcontradictionintheresearchprocess tothefore.Whenactivistanthropologistswritecontradictoryelements outoftheiraccounts,ineithermethodologicalorethnographicterms, theyinadvertentlysubstantiatetheideathatculturalcritiquegenerates political analysis of greater complexity, sensitivity, and insight. A persuasivecounterpointcanbefoundinthehandfulofportrayalsof activistresearch,especiallyinthegenreofreflectionsonpastexperiences, thatdoemphasizetensionsandcontradictions.11 Still,Ihavebeenstruckbyhowcommonitistofindportrayalsof activist research in line with the work of Orlando Fals Borda, Miles
InPraiseof“RecklessMinds” 113
Horton,andPaoloFreire,whohaveadvancedpath-breakingcritiques of elite-oriented knowledge production systems and inspired ample followingsbuthaveultimatelyconveyedaneatcorrespondencebetween researcherandsubject,oncethehegemonicblindershavebeencast aside.12MethodologicaltreatisessuchasthatbyDavyddGreenwood and Morten Levin (1998) avoid this “felicitous convergence” fallacy, introduce great methodological complexity, and generally deserve greater attention than they have received in anthropology. Both genres,however,tendtolackanappreciationforirony,unintended consequences, and ethnographic disruption of politically structured narratives,preciselytheelementsonwhichculturalcritiquetendsto thrive.UsingasanexampletheworkinwhichIaminvolvedinblack andindigenouslandrights,Ibrieflyexploreanapproachtoactivist researchthathighlightsthesecontradictions.
MappingBlackandIndigenousLandClaims: ContradictionsatEveryTurn Since1998Ihavebeeninvolvedinaseriesofactivistresearchprojects designed to document and analyze claims to land and resources advanced by indigenous and Afro-Latin communities of Central America’s Caribbean coastal region. The first two of these projects, althoughcarriedoutlargelyinkeepingwiththeprinciplesofactivist researchoutlinedhere,camewiththeburdenoffundingfromtheWorld Bank.ElsewhereIhavewrittenaboutthespecificcontradictionsand tensionsthatariseinsuchattemptstowage“strugglefromwithin.”13 Bycontrast,theparticipatorymappingprojectinwhichIamengaged at the time of writing has been supported by the Ford Foundation (MexicoOffice)underconditionsthathaveallowedmeandEdmund T. Gordon, the co-principal investigator for the project, a relatively freehandindesignandimplementation.Thefundswerereceivedby the Central American and Caribbean Research Council (CCARC), a nongovernmental organization founded by Gordon and me that is devotedtoactivistresearch,andareadministeredbyasteeringcommittee consisting of four activist intellectuals from Central America and four US-based scholars.14 The steering committee selected four sitesfortheproject’simplementation,andwearedispensingfundsfor researchinsupportofindigenousorblackcommunitystrugglesforland rightsineachsite.Duringthesummerandfallof2005,GordonandI directedtheresearchforoneofthesesites,whichinvolvedaterritorial claimadvancedbyfifteenGarífunacommunitiesandtheOrganización
114
Charles R. Hale
FraternaldeNegrosdeHonduras,orOFRANEH,theorganizationthat representsthem.Thestudy,carriedoutbyacollaborativeteamofUSbasedandGarífunaresearchers,hadaninterdisciplinaryscope,including computer-basedcartography,ethnography,andlegalhistory.15 Althoughthisprojecthadallthemakingsofanidealactivistresearch project,italsohaditsshareofproblems.Theadvantagesareeasyto enumerate.Astronggrassrootsorganizationrequestedandparticipated actively in the research conception and implementation, giving the projectastampoflegitimacyfromthestart.Communityleadershadtheir owndeepinvestmentsintheresearch,seeingitashavingthepotential tocontributedirectlytotheirhigh-stakesstruggleforcontrolovertheir resources.Participationintheresearchactivitiesbywell-knownGarífuna intellectualshelpedcreatebridgesoffluidcommunication(including useofthenativelanguage)andconfidencebetweentheresearchteam andthesubjects.Finally,becausetheyconceivedoftheresearchprocess aspartoftheirbroaderefforttoadvanceandsecureaterritorialclaim, communityleadersplayedanattentiveroleinvalidatingtheresearch results.Thesefourfeatures—organizedendorsement,communityparticipation, local collaboration, and collective validation—might be positedaspillarsofthissortofactivistresearch,togetheryieldingits principalmethodologicaladvantage. Atthesametime,theprocesswasrifewithtensionsandcontradictions. Leavingasidethemoremundanelogisticalandorganizationalproblems thatalwaysariseincollaborativeresearchendeavors,Ihaveidentified five contradictions, presented here as questions or quandaries, each deeplyembeddedintheactivistresearchmethoditself: 1. The research was predicated on a close alliance with OFRANEH, whichrepresentedtheGarífunacommunities.Howcomprehensive anduncontestedwasthatrepresentation? 2. Theresearchyieldedsensitivedata,whichifpubliclyairedatthe wrongmomentcouldhavedamagedtheembattledpoliticaleffort. Howshouldsuchdatabehandled? 3. Theresearchgenerallyvalidatedtheterritorialclaim,butcertain findingsstoodintensionwithOFRANEH’soverallpoliticalstrategy. Howshouldsuchtensionsbemediated? 4. Thispoliticalstrategyquitelikelywouldhavebeenbestservedby researchviewedashavingunimpeachablescientificrigor.Yetone pillarofactivistresearchisthedirectinvolvementoftheinterested parties.Canbothgoalsbeachieved?
InPraiseof“RecklessMinds” 115
5. Thestudyplacedtheresearchersinapositionofpowerinrelation totheorganizingeffort.Howcanthissortofunwelcomepowerbe reconciledwithactivistanthropology’segalitarianprinciples? Withalistofquandariesthisweighty,evenwhentheactivistresearch project was designed with careful methodological and theoretical forethought, one might well think twice before embarking on such anendeavor.Counterintuitively,Icontendthatthesearequandaries noscholarofCentralAmericanculturalpolitics,orofparalleltopics inotherplaces,shouldwanttobewithout.Tobesure,theparticular approachtoactivistresearchdescribedherewouldnotbeappropriatefor alltopicsatalltimes.Theremustberoomforapluralityofapproaches and for flexibility in their application, depending on circumstances. Moreover,notallthesequandarieshavesatisfyingresponsesthatare appropriatelyairedinacademicvenuessuchasthisbook,especially whentheresearchisstillunderway.Forexample,thisisnotthetime orplacetoscrutinizeOFRANEH’slegitimacywiththecommunity,and forthetimebeing,anydatathatcouldreasonablybethoughtdamaging totheorganizingeffortwillnotseethelightofday.Icanonlyaffirm thattheresearchteamdiscussedbothissuesextensivelyandthatthe studywasgenerallyinformedbythesediscussions,evenifthedetails areomittedinpublicwriting. Whereasconventionalresearchmethodsregularlygeneratesensitive dataandethicaldilemmasoverhowtohandleit,thesituationisdifferent inactivistresearchfortworeasons.First,becausetheresearchagendais collectivelyestablished,theresearcherwillgainamuchgreaterdegree ofaccessandinsightintotheinnerworkingsoftheorganization,and second,thedialoguepriortotheestablishmentofthisresearchagenda will,almostbynecessity,resultinsomegroundrulesforthehandlingof sensitivedata.Inshort,activistresearchmethodsobligeustoconfront thesedilemmasheadon,togetherwiththepeoplewithwhomweare incollaboration.Thesamegoesforthelastthreequandaries:activist researchbringsthesequestionstothefore,evenifreportageonthe deliberations that follow must at times be partial. The wager is that evenwiththeseconstraints,suchdeliberationswillenrichtheresearch immensely. Thethirdquandary,concerningtensionsbetweenthepoliticalprocessandtheresearchfindings,opensontoexamplesofthewayactivist researchmethodscanprovideanaddedmeasureofanalyticaldepth and sophistication. In our land rights mapping research, one such tension revolved around the political drive for collective solutions
116
Charles R. Hale
for land rights claims versus the established practices of individual andmarket-orientedresourceuse.Sincethemovementleaderswere deeplycommittedtomakingthecollectiveapproachviable,theywere especiallyinterestedindocumentingandunderstandingindividualist aberrations;wholemeetingsweredevotedtoexploringtherationale andmagnitudeofindividuallandtransactions,inordertopromotethe alternativemoreeffectively.AnothertensionwasfocusedonOFRANEH’s emphasisonGarífunaindigeneityasarationaleforterritorialclaims, juxtaposedwithanotherstrandofcultural-politicalsensibilityinthe sameGarífunacommunitiesassociatedwithwhatscholarshavecalled “blackmodernity.”16Themappingprojectbroughtthisjuxtaposition to the fore and subjected it to sustained analysis, because it was so crucialtotheoverallpoliticalstrategy.Bothissuesarecrucialtoany thoroughanalysisofGarífunalandrightsandidentitypolitics;both wouldsurelycomeupinastudyusingconventionalresearchmethods. Activist research methods assign them greater importance, which in turnoffersareasonableguaranteethattheresultinganalyticalinsight willbedeeperandmoresophisticated. Thefourthquandary,regardingtheroleofscientificrigorinanthropologicalresearch,alsoreceivesspecialattentioninactivistresearch methods.Thinkingthroughthisquandaryobligesustocarefullydisaggregatethedistinctmeaningsof“scientificrigor,”whichoftenare presentedasinextricablestrandsofasingleknot.Ontheonehandis theclaimtodisinterested,neutral,objectivesocialinquiry,whichhas beenthesubjectofsomuchcritiqueincontemporarysocialtheoryand whichtheideaofactivistresearchplainlyrejects.Ontheotherhandis whatmightbecalledmethodologicalpropriety:carefuladherenceto establishedrulesforcollectingandinterpretingresearchdata.Activist researchersmustbefirmlycommittedtothelatter—perhapsevenmore committedthanconventionalscholars,becausethedirectpoliticalstakes oftheirworktendtobehigher.Thiscommitmentinevitablyintroduces tensions, grounded in the different perspectives and positionings of researchersandactivist-intellectuals.Thewagerofactivistresearchis thatthesetensionsaremorelikelytobemediatedsuccessfully,precisely becausetheactivistscholarhasrejectedthefirststrandofestablished notionsofscientificrigor(distancedneutrality)andhasanestablished relationshipofmutualconfidencewiththeprotagonists. An example from our land rights mapping project again helps to makethispointmoreconcretely.Duringthemarathonmeetingwith community leaders held to scrutinize the preliminary results of our mappingresearch,oneprincipalOFRANEHleadermadeaforcefulinitial
InPraiseof“RecklessMinds” 117
intervention. She did not believe in objective research, she said; in thepast,sciencehadbeenusedmainlytothedetrimentofGarífuna people,indefenseofthepowerful.Anthropologistshadplayedtherole ofantropófagos(literally,cannibals,whosuckyoudryandgivenothing back).Althoughshedidseeourstudyasanexceptiontotheantropófago rule (indeed, she had participated fully in its design), this did not completelylaythesciencequestiontorest.Sheinsisted,withourhearty consent,thatGarífunaresearchersplayacentralroleinthestudyand thattheresearchmust,ateachjuncture,beorientedtowardthebroader needsoftheGarífunapeople.Yetduringthat“validation”meetingshe alsoacknowledgedthatthepowerfulinstitutionsOFRANEHconfronted dailyweredeeplyinvestedintheideaofscientificrigor,understood as both detached, objective inquiry and methodological propriety. Thatacknowledgmentledtoalongdiscussionabouthowtowriteup theresultsandtoaneventualdecisionthattheresearchwouldyield twocomplementarydocuments:onewithCCARCasprincipalauthor, emphasizingthedeploymentofexpertknowledgeinaccordancewith therulesofmethodologicalpropriety,andtheotherwithOFRANEHas principalauthor,highlightingthepoliticalobjectivesofthestudy. Thiswasfarfromanidealsolution:itcouldbeseenbysomeasa capitulationtooppressivedefinitionsofscienceandbyothersasacorruptionofscientificrigor.Yetithadastrongrationaleinthepolitical exigenciesoftheGarífunastruggle,anditoffersawindowontooneof themostchallengingepistemologicalquestionsofourtime.Howdowe disentangleourcritiqueofscienceasservingeliteandoppressiveinterests fromourdeep,ongoingresponsibilityformethodologicalpropriety? Howshouldprinciplesofmethodologicalproprietybeconceivedand practicedinthecontextof“situated”objectivity?Activistresearchoffers noeasyanswers,justaguaranteethatthequestionwillbeposed,under conditionspropitioustomovingthediscussionforward. This wager seems especially well founded in the case of the final quandary,regardingtheunwelcomepowerthatactivistresearchmethodscanbestow.Alotrodeontheresultsofourethno-mappingstudy, whichhadthepotentialtobecomeaprimarypointofreferenceinthe legal-politicalbattlesthatweresuretofollow.Thisimbuedtheresearch processandfindingswithhigh-stakespoliticalsignificance,something thatinturnriskedgivingtheresearchersunduepowerandinfluence. Butwhatdoconventionalresearchmethodsofferasremediesforthis problem? One response would be to sidestep it altogether, making suretheresearchtopicandwritingstyleareesotericenoughthatany resultswillbelargelyirrelevanttothepoliticalstakesathand.Asecond
118
Charles R. Hale
responsewouldbetotellall,acceptingtheroleofpowerfulinterlocutor, andavoidfuturecontactwiththoseinvolvedintheorganizingeffort, whomightdemandaccountability.Althoughbothpathsarerelatively commoninanthropologytoday,neitherissatisfying;bothdisengage througharetreatintoacademicparochialism. Activistresearch,bycontrast,withnopretenseofresolvingtheproblem,keepstheresearchsubjects’demandforaccountabilityatthecenter ofthescholarlyagendaandestablishesarelationshipwithareasonable chanceofsustainingthenegotiationsthatfollow.Howeveruncertain the outcome of such negotiations, it is clear that some effort along theselinesistheonlywaytoconfrontthisquandary.Indeed,oncethe conventionalresearcherrejectstheoppositeresponsesofesotericism andexposéandmovestowardamiddleground,theactivistresearch principle of negotiating accountability with the subjects of research becomestheonlycrediblewaytoproceed. Tosummarize,whenwedownplaydifficultiessuchasthefiveIhave listed and briefly analyzed, we inadvertently undermine one of the strongestargumentsforourdistinctiveresearchmethods.Thereasons thatonemightdownplaythetensionsareclear:thecaseforactivist researchappearsmorecompellingwhenweemphasizeitspositiveand synergisticadvantages.Thisreasoning,inturn,tendstoleadtoadefense ofactivistresearcharoundtheethical-politicalimperativeandaround thework’spractical-politicalcontributions.Idonotwishtodiscount eitherofthesefactorsintheleast.Theywerecentralmotivationsfor myowndecisiontoembraceactivistanthropologysometwodecades ago,andtheyhavekeptmecommittedtotheendeavor.Inaprevious moment they might have played a prominent role in my efforts to explainandjustifythesechoices:referencetothecriticalimportance andurgencyofblackandindigenousstrugglesforlandrightsinCentral America, for example, and to the key contribution that well-trained anthropologistscanmaketothesestruggles. Inowbelievethesearenottheappropriatearguments—oratleast lead arguments—to be made in dialogue with our university-based interlocutors. Ethical-political appeals (especially regarding faraway peoples) are not especially persuasive in this milieu. They also have thepotentialtoleavethelistenerfeelinguncomfortableorjudged,and theyinevitablyreinforcetheperceptionthatonehastradedscholarly objectivesforcommitmenttothecause.“Practicaleffects”arguments playdifferently,butwithequallyproblematicresults.Theymayhave a residual appeal to administrators’ cost-benefit sensibilities, and if theresultsaredramatictheywillbeimpressiveandinterestingtoall.
InPraiseof“RecklessMinds” 119
Butmorecommonly,thecomplexbalancesheetofadvances,setbacks, newproblems,andunintendedconsequenceswilldeadenthedialogue, convincingouruniversity-basedcolleaguesthatwehave“goneapplied.” Especiallyiftheultimategoalistochallengeanddislodgetheappliedtheoretical binary, the practical-effects argument falls short. It leads activist anthropologists to turn inward, defending what they do in termsthat—atleastfortheforeseeablefuture—willkeepthemfighting thegoodfightfromthemargins.
InPraiseofRecklessMinds This“fromthemargins”positionisnotinevitable.Especiallybydetailing contradictions to the full extent that political conditions allow, activist research methods can yield sophisticated understandings of social processes that conventional methods cannot provide. This is becausemostactivistanthropologyprojectsengendercollaborativeand confidence-ladenrelationshipsbetweenresearcherandsubject.Even morebasically,theyrequiretheresearchertobepresent,asanactive participant,incontextsfromwhichheorsheotherwisewouldlikely be barred. The more politicized the process in question, the greater the potential gap between activist and conventional anthropologist, inaccess,insight,andunderstanding. Yet this argument for the advantages of activist research needs to bepushedfurtherstill,toencompassuniqueopportunitiestorethink receivedtheoreticalunderstandingsandevenepistemology.Mycautious hypothesesalongtheselinesarealsoprovokedbythecounterarguments ofscholarssuchasMarkLilla(2001),whoaskedwhyintellectuals,when theymeddleinpolitics,sofrequentlyendupdefendingideologiesof absolutism,intolerance,andultimately“tyranny.”Theveryqualities thatfacilitatetheirbrillianceaspurveyorsofnewunderstandingsof theworld,heargued,makethemill-suitedforpoliticalengagement. Iftheyabandonthespaceofarm’s-lengthcontemplationforpolitical alignment,withoutfirsthavingmastered“thetyrantwithin”(2001: 226),Lillaconcluded,theirbrilliantmindsturnreckless. MypurposehereisnottoengageinadetailedrefutationofLilla’s argumentbutrathertouseitasafoilformyown.Lillawascertainly correcttoassertthatscholarlyworkandpoliticalengagementinvolve verydifferenttraining,disciplines,anddispositionsandthatcrossingover fromonetotheothercanbehazardous.17Butarethereconditionsunder whichtheinversepropositionmightprovevalid?Aretherecontexts inwhichpoliticalengagementhasbeencrucialtothedevelopmentof
120
Charles R. Hale
newtheoreticalideas,whichinturnhavesignificantlytransformedour understandingofthesocialworld?Inatrivialsense,theanswerisa tautological“yes.”Oncewehaveacknowledgedthatallintellectualsare positionedsocialactors,makingallknowledgeproduction,inthelast instance,political,thenweareall,always,already“politicallyengaged.” With a more focused framing, however, the question generates an intriguingproposition.Icontendthatkeyclustersofideasthattoday circulate in the academy as theory originated in “activist research” settings. Thispropositionbeginswiththeassertion,madebyRobinD.G. Kelley,DonnaHaraway,GeorgeLipsitz,S.P.Monhanty,andmany others, that subordinated social actors, especially when they are engaged in collective struggle to confront their subordination, developuniqueandacuteinsightsintotheworldaroundthem.18 Asecondassertionfollows.Oftensuchinsightsstandatoddswith existingrepresentationsoftheseverysocialconditions.Thepolitical struggleinquestioniswagedagainststructuresofinequalityandat thesametimeagainstreceivedunderstandingsthatmakethestruggle itselfappearuntenableormisconceived.Moreoftenthannot,the protagoniststhemselveshavepartlyinternalizedthesepremisesand understandings,making“decolonizationofthemind”thethirdtask inthislogicalchain. Effective political struggle under these conditions involves and requires theoretical innovation: forging alternative representations of theworldthatcanofferclarityandguidance,bothindepictingthe adversaryandinimaginingthesocialtransformationsforwhichthe struggleiswaged.Theactivistresearcherhasanespeciallyimportant roletoplayinthisprocess:engagingindialoguewiththeorganized groupinstruggle,offeringresearchskillsthatmighthelpadvancethe group’sefforts,andparticipatinginthe“roughcut”processoftheory building that is already under way. This proposition—involving the waysinwhichorganizedpeopleinstruggleproduceknowledgeandthe waysinwhichactivistresearchcanplayapartinthatprocess—adds uptoanexplicitcounterpointtotheLillathesis.Ratherthandecrying therecklessmindspositionedatthefertilemeetinggroundofpolitical struggleandintellectualproduction,weneedtopraiseandencourage them. With no pretense of complete substantiation, let me ground thispropositionwithtwoexamples—thoseofculturalMarxismand blackfeministnotionsof“intersectionality”—andthen,inamodest andpreliminaryway,offerathirdexamplefromourgroup’sworkin CentralAmerica.
InPraiseof“RecklessMinds” 121
Inanydiscussionoftherelationshipbetweentheoreticalinnovation andpoliticalstruggle,AntonioGramsci’sre-visioningofMarxisttheory comesimmediatelytomind.AsWalterAdamson’scarefulintellectual biography makes clear (Adamson 1980), Gramsci grew increasingly criticalofstandardinterpretationsofMarxismprofferedbyorthodox Communist party intellectuals, and his involvement with the Turin workers council, the Communist party newspaper, and other direct organizing efforts fed his critiques. By the time he was incarcerated, Gramsci had logged an intense two decades of frontline experience attemptingtoorganizeworkersforcollectiveaction,withnumerous frustrationsandoutrightfailures.Thisexperienceledhimtoshiftthe centerofgravityofMarxistanalysisawayfromstructuraldeterminism and toward a much more nuanced understanding of workers’ acute (theoretical)knowledge,gainedthroughpraxis.Italsoledtohiscentral preoccupationwiththepervasiveworkingsofhegemonyinrelationto theworkers’consciousness. ThismovingofMarxisttheoryintotherealmofsignification—the broadening of the notion of class conflict to encompass struggles overmeanings,symbols,andrepresentations—hasbeenenormously influentialinanthropology,literaryandculturalstudies,andrelated fields, to the point of becoming a well-established, completely legitimatedcomponentofthetheoreticalrepertoireofculturalcriticsand manyothers.Despitetheindisputable“activist”originsofGramsci’s theoreticalrevisionism,anacademictodaycanusehisideaswithno commitmentwhatsoevertoactivistresearchmethods.19Perhapsthis disarticulation,thiserasureofthesocialconditionsoftheemergence of theory, is one reason the position Lilla defends has gained such widespreadacceptancewithintheacademy.Otherwise,allthosewho work,broadlyspeaking,intheGramsciantraditionwouldbetainted bythe“reckless”genesisofthetheorytheydeploy. Scholars working in traditions of black and third world feminism, bycontrast,aremuchmorelikelytoaffirmtheactivistoriginsoftheir keytheoreticalideasandtoseekongoingconnectionswiththesesocial conditionsoftheorycreation.Blackfeministsinvariablyregisterthe deep formative influence of the “Combahee River Collective Statement,”whichispartpoliticalmanifestoandpartrevisionisttheoretical intervention.RobinKelley’s(2002:chap.4)reviewofthetwentiethcentury history of black women’s organizing in the United States givesfurthersubstancetothemessagethattheCombaheestatement itself clearly transmits: that existing (theoretical) representations of thesocialworld,andformsofpoliticalstruggleassociatedwiththese
122
Charles R. Hale
representations, have failed to capture the complex “intersectional” character of inequality that black women experience. The entwined andinextricableaxesofoppression—race,class,gender,andsexuality, for starters—must somehow be grasped simultaneously as mutually constitutivefeaturesofthesocialconditionsthatwewishtounderstand. Anythingshortofthisintersectionalapproachisboundtobeanalytically reductiveand,byextension,politicallyregressive. AudreLorde,anothervoicesituatedinspacesofintellectualproduction andpoliticalstruggleoutsidetheacademy,wasdeeplyinfluentialin giving substance to this theoretical-political intervention with her ground-clearingcallsfor“thirdwave”feminism,herearlyinsistenceon sexualorientationaspartoftheintersectionalanalysis,andhertracing of the implications of intersectional theory for a radical rethinking of the political.20 That adherents of intersectionality theory tend to acknowledgemuchmorereadilytheactivistoriginsoftheideasthey use is surely related to their daily struggles against marginalization withinacademicinstitutionsthatremainbastionsofwhiteandmale privilege.21Totheextentthatthesestrugglesagainstmarginalization meetwithsuccess,wecanexpecttheactivisttracksofintersectional theorygraduallytobeerasedaswell,justlikethoseofGramsci’scultural Marxism. Withregardtoourgroup’sactivistresearchonlandrights,Ihaveno desireorbasistoclaimanymajortheoreticalbreakthrough.Amodest research outcome in support of the basic proposition involves our effort to rethink demands for rights grounded in cultural difference, in conjunction with multiple claimants (distinct Afro-descendant and indigenous groups), such that the idiom of the claim does not undulyprivilegeonegrouporpitonegroupagainstanother.Thishas focusedourattentiononacomparativediscussionofthewaysinwhich cultureisdeployedinsuchstrugglesandonthepatterneddifferences intheplaceofculturein,forexample,blackandindigenousCentral Americans’notionsoftheirownidentities.Thiscomparativeinquiry, groundedinthepoliticallymotivatedneedtoestablishbridgesbetween black and indigenous struggles, also yields a critique of the existing literatureonindigenousidentitypoliticsonrelatedgrounds:theytend to downplay processes of racialization (common to both black and indigenouspeople)andworkwithnotionsofindigenouscultureand identitythatprivilegeroots(nationlikeauthenticity)overroutes(fluid boundariesandhorizontalconnections). Thishasgivenrisetoapreliminary,alternativetheoreticalformulation forclaimstoancestralortraditionaloccupancy,whicharecrucialtoany
InPraiseof“RecklessMinds” 123
landrightsstruggle.Ratherthanassertingtheisomorphismofculture, identity,andplace,wehavebeentryingtothinkintermsofa“social memoryofstruggle”thatlinksmembersofacollectiveinthepresent totheirantecedents—ahistoricalconsciousnessthatcreatesacommon political genealogy without asserting strict boundaries between “us” and others engaged in parallel struggles with convergent political ends(Gordon,Gurdian,andHale2003).Theproposaliscautiousfor anumberofreasons.Ithasbeenintroducedanddevelopedmainlyby thosedirectlyinvolvedintheresearch,withlessevidenceofbroader endorsement among the political movements in question. And it is unclear whether such an approach, theoretically resonant as it may be,wouldwinthedaypoliticallyinstrugglesandnegotiationswith dominantinstitutions(courtsoflaws,statebureaucracies,etc.).Butthe grainoftheoreticalinsight,emergingfromapoliticalprocessinwhich existingportrayalsfallshort,beckonsfurtherelaboration.
Conclusion Aninfluentialinterlocutorinarecentworkshopdevotedtothesetopics listenedquietlytotwodaysofpapersandcommentaryandthen,inthe wrap-upsession,putforthadisarminglymodestcritique:“Iworrythat thiskindofanthropologyisarrogant:whoarewetocomefromthe outsideandpresumethatwecanengagepoliticallyintheiraffairs?We aretheretolisten,tolearn,tobeinstructed,astheirrespectfulguests, rigorouslytrainedtohaveshedthearroganceofknowingaheadoftime whatistobedone.”Inoneconciseintervention,shebothcastserious doubtontheleadingrationaleforactivistresearchandreinstatedthe keypremisesonwhichconventionalanthropologyalwayshasrested. Ononehand,shewasofcourseright:thereisnothingmoreharmful toactivistresearchthantheimageofanthropologistasRambo,barging intoafraughtandcomplexpoliticalthicket,penandnotebookinhand, withshowyproclamationsabouthowhisanthropologywillliberatethe subaltern.Thiskindofrecklessmind(andIcanthinkofafew)needs neitherpraisenorencouragement. Ontheotherhand,behindher“arrogance”argumentliesanequally dangerousimage,thatofaserene“field”ofsubjectswhogladlywelcome theirnaivebutwell-trainedandquick-learningguest,askingonlythat heorsherepresentthemappropriatelytotheoutsideworld.Itisnotso muchthatanthropologistscannolongerpulloffthistrick,although Ibelievetheminimalfacilitatingconditionsarerapidlyfading;more importantly, the image expresses a nostalgia for macro relations of
124
Charles R. Hale
neocolonial compliance between anthropology and its subjects. It was precisely this illusion of anthropology’s powerlessness—of our informants really “running the show,” of fieldwork taking place in a Habermasian ideal speech community among equals, and of the anthropologistaswell-intentionedscribeandculturaltranslator—that theculturalcritiquesoeffectivelycalledintoquestionbeginningtwo decadesago.Thatthisarroganceargumentremainsstrong,andindeed mayevenbereturningtothefore,meansthatthedilemmasofethicalpoliticalengagementarestilllikelytobeframedasadebatebetween conventionalanthropologistsandrebelculturalcritics. Herein lies the predicament for activist research. Cultural critique hasbeenacentralforceinopeningthespaceforandbolsteringthe legitimacyofactivistanthropology,contestingthegatekeepersofthe time.Butultimatelyithasbecomeanimpedimenttofurtherdevelopmentandinstitutionalizationofactivistanthropology.Totheextent that proponents of cultural critique argue that the historic task of decolonizinganthropologycanbeachievedprincipallythroughanew politicsofrepresentation—arevisedtoolkitoftextualandnarrative strategies and theoretical positionings—the potential to undermine the impetus for activist research will remain strong. To make this a leadingpointinacaseforactivistresearch,however,seemsneedlessly divisiveand,ultimately,aseriousdiversionfromeffortstoovercome common threats that loom larger by the day. Moreover, given the correlationofforces,thestructureofrewardsandopportunitiesinthe academy,Isuspectthiswoulddoomeffortstoinstitutionalizeactivist anthropology. The alternative strategy proposed here is to abandon efforts to justify activist anthropology within the academy on the grounds of ethical-political principles or efficacy of research outcomes. Instead, I propose that we highlight the inherent contradictions of activist research methods, thereby deflecting concerns about the sacrifice of analyticalcomplexity,andjustifyactivistresearchmethodsinterms of the privileged knowledge gained—both empirical understandings andtheoreticalinsights.Thisstrategymakesculturalcriticsintoallies andkeyinterlocutorsintheacademicarena,evenifonmethodological grounds(andultimately,perhaps,onpoliticalpriorities)wecontinue todisagree. AlthoughIfavorthisapproachoverpreviouswaysofmakingacase foractivistanthropology,Iwouldberemisstoconcludewithoutnotingtheprincipaldrawback:itisexhausting.Thestrategyasksthatwe remain engaged on two fronts simultaneously: carrying out activist
InPraiseof“RecklessMinds” 125
research with our allies, attempting to produce the practical results requiredaccordingtotheethical-politicalguidelinesestablishedwith them, but also producing research results that fully circulate in the legitimatedrealmofacademicknowledge.Iamconvincedthatspecial insightsdoresultfromthesealternativemethods,butIammuchless sure that the conditions exist for activist scholars to carry out such commitments and produce legitimated intellectual products for the academy.Youngerscholars,eveniftheysharethisconvictionabout thefruitfulsynergiesofthetwoworlds,aregenerallyforcedtochoose the latter as a matter of career survival. Tenured faculty members whoendorseactivistresearcharealsoinclinedtobecomeinvolvedin collectiveeffortstotransformtheuniversity,whichrepresentathird pullonanalreadytautwire. Idonotwanttoreducetheentireflowofargumentsinthisessay tothemundanequestionoftime,energy,emotionaldisposition,and life cycle—there is plenty to discuss before getting there. But these issuescannotbeignored,especiallyinrelationtothequestionposed at the outset: Why has so little progress been made toward activist anthropology, especially when a preponderance of the discipline is politicallysympathetictotheendeavor?Thisfinalpoint,abouttime, energy, and life conditions, must figure prominently in the answer. TheonlywayIcanimaginetoovercometheseobstaclesissignificant progress toward the institutionalization of activist anthropology, so that the alternation between the two distinct worlds is more fully acknowledged,valued,andrewarded.This,inmyview,istheprincipal challengethatliesahead.
Notes 1. Traditions of politically engaged anthropology, following in the spirit oftheBarbadosdeclaration,havedevelopedwithvibrancyinvariousLatin Americancountriesandinotherworldregions.Acomprehensivetreatmentof thecentralquestiondrivingthischapterwouldrequirecomparativeanalysis of these traditions in relation to their respective mainstreams. Although I suspect that much of the analysis developed here would be applicable in thisbroaderframe,inordertoavoidunwarranted(andultimatelyUS-centric) generalizations,inthischapterIrefersolelytotheUnitedStates.
126
Charles R. Hale
2. Ialsodrawondiverseexperiencesoverthepasttwentyyearsthatinvolve some attempt to practice activist research: a role in two research projects involving indigenous and non-indigenous intellectuals, one with the “red indígena” of CLASPO, a University of Texas–based project that I coordinate, andtheothercalled“Gobernando(en)laDiversidad,”coordinatedbyXochitl Leyva, Araceli Burguete, and Shannon Speed, for which I serve as a senior consultant;aSocialScienceResearchCouncilprojecton“activistscholarship”; andefforts,alongwithcolleaguesattheUniversityofTexas,toinstitutionalize an “activist anthropology” track in our graduate training program and to widen the legitimated space for activist scholarship in the university. The websiteoftheactivistanthropologytrackcanbevisitedathttp://www.utexas. edu/cola/depts/anthropology/activist/. 3. This account has been worked out through extensive dialogue with colleaguesattheUniversityofTexas,especiallyEdmundT.Gordon,JoãoCosta Vargas,ShannonSpeed,andRichardFlores.Ihavealsorefinedmythinking throughengagementwithmanygraduatestudentswhoaredevelopingtheir own distinctive approaches to activist anthropology. I have published one briefsummaryoftheseideas(Hale2001)anddrawnonanumberofpublished works,includingBenmayor1991,FalsBordaandRahman1991,Field1999, Gordon1991,GreenwoodandLevin1998,Naples2003,andSmith1999. 4. Afullerdevelopmentofthispointwouldnotethat,ironically,thebasic principle is forcefully present in Weber’s classic essay on objectivity in the socialsciences(Weber1949),whichgenerallyhasbeenappropriatedtoargue againstactivistscholarship.Unfortunately,Idonothavethespacetodevelop thisargumenthere. 5. Theprogramforthe2007(fourthannual)ActivistScholarshipconference canbefoundathttp://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/caaas/. 6. The UNC program is called the Center for the Integration of Research andAction.Cornellhasan“actionresearch”program,andatTorontoitisthe SocialJusticeCluster,http://www.socialjustice.utoronto.ca. 7. Foranespeciallyinfluentialworkinthislineofanalysis,seeRose1999. 8. See Plattner and Gross 2002. But interestingly, the National Science Foundationhasalsobecomeincreasinglyinsistentthattheresearchitfunds havesomesortofpracticalorpolicyrelevancebeyondtherealmofacademe. Thisisaprimeexampleofthecontradictoryspacesof“auditcultures”alluded toearlier. 9. Mysubstantiationforthispointisprimarilyethnographic,nottextual. That is, it is based primarily on discussions I have had with proponents of culturalcritiqueandonageneralsenseforthefeeloftheirresponseinvarious discussionforums.Iknowofrelativelylittleliteratureinwhichculturalcritics directlyengagewithproposalsforactivistresearch;themuchmorecommon
InPraiseof“RecklessMinds” 127
tendency is for such proposals simply to be ignored. A partial exception might be Orin Starn’s smart and critical essay “Rethinking the Politics of Anthropology”(1994). 10. Iexploretherelationshipbetweenactivistresearchandculturalcritique ingreaterdetailinanarticleCulturalAnthropology(Hale2006a). 11. Foronecandidandprobingexample,seeFoley2000.AnotherisGordon 1998. 12. SeeFalsBordaandRahman1991;HortonandFreire1990. 13. See,forexample,Gordonetal.2004;Hale2006a. 14. Forfurtherinformation,seetheCCARCwebsite,http://ccarconline.org/. 15. CoremembersoftheresearchteamwereLuisVelásquez,JenniferGoett, ChristopherLoperena,HoracioMartínez,HeribertoArriola,RoxanaOrdóñez, Megan Chávez, Marlon Martínez, Selvin López, Peter Dana, and Gianluca Gaia. 16. With regard to the Garífuna, the key work is the research of Mark AndersonandSarahEngland(1998).Seealsothebroadercomparativeanalysis ofGordonandAnderson(n.d.). 17. Even if some of Lilla’s interpretations of specific cases—Foucault, Heidegger,Derrida,andothers—aredisputable,andevenifhischoiceofcases seems quirky and one-sided, it would be silly to contend that the kinds of disasterscenarioshesketchedneveroccur. 18. See, for example, Haraway 1988; Kelley 2002; Lipsitz 1998; Mohanty 2000. 19. Foroneespeciallystrikingexamplealongtheselines,seeLaitin1986. 20. See, for example, her essay “Uses of the Erotic: The Erotic as Power” (Lorde1984). 21. Foradetailedanalysisofthisproblem,seeHarrison1999.
This page intentionally left blank
s i x
What Do Indicators Indicate? Reflections on the Trials and Tribulations of Using Food Aid to Promote Development in Haiti
Drexel G. Woodson
W
hatdoesitmeanto“work”anthropologytounderstandthehuman spectacleandsupporteffortstochangethehumancondition? Cultural-socialanthropologistshavegoodreasonstoask.1Inmostnationstates,politicians,policymakers,and“influentials”(idea-mongersand intellectualtrend-setters),alongwithJohnQ.andJaneQ.Public,still turntoeconomists,historians,andpsychologistsforfact-basedanalysis of the world’s ways. Practitioners of “old” social science disciplines and“new”interdisciplinaryfieldsdoethnography,appropriatingthe cultural-socialanthropologist’straditionalturf.Fundingforlong-term, intensive,empiricallygroundedethnographicfieldworkinoneplace diminisheseachyear.Publisherssolicittheoretically“cutting-edge”but “readable”booksandarticles—shortworksminimallyconcernedwith thecomplexlineagesofideas(concepts,methods,orpreviously“worked up”facts)thatcanalizeknowledgeproductioninanydiscipline. Cultural-socialanthropologists,respondingtoambientconditions, question the epistemological moorings, conceptual and procedural guardrails,andpoliticalrelevanceoftheirpathwaystoandfromknowledge.Activist,engaged,andpublicanthropologiesindependentlycontest and intermittently illuminate terrain demarcated by labels that oncefitfullyidentifiedfieldsofinquiry:kinship,descent,andalliance; religion;law;development;culturalandpoliticalecology;economic, political,andsymbolicanthropology.Undernewlabels,cultural-social anthropologistsbusilypluralizesubjects,fragmentsubjectmatters,and multiplyfieldworksites.Borrowingtheoreticalgazesfromphilosophers 129
130
Drexel G. Woodson
andliterarycritics(preferablyContinentalones)ratherthandisciplinary ancestors’stances,they“acknowledge,”“address,”“engage,”“transcend,” and“critique”nearlyeverythingunderthesun. Suchdisciplinaryself-interrogationisnotnew.Overthirtyyearsago, CliffordGeertzheraldedtheinterpretiveanthropologyera,scrutinizing, criticizing, and seeking to improve (largely US American) studies of culture by working (fashioning) an empirically oriented rapprochementofMaxWeber’ssociology,KennethBurke’sliterarytheory,and, amongotherphilosophiesinnewkeys,AlfredSchutz’sphenomenology. Geertz’s“ThickDescription:TowardanInterpretiveTheoryofCulture” chided colleagues for allowing arguments about what anthropology is to deflect attention from what anthropologists do. “Interminable, becauseunterminable,debates,”henoted,and“mutualexchangesof intellectualinsults—‘idealist!—materialist!’;‘mentalist!’—‘behaviorist!’; ‘impressionist!—positivist’”—discouragedinvestigationsofcultureasa publiclyacteddocumentandofbehaviorassymbolicaction(Geertz 1973:10). In“TheyDivideandSubdivide,andCallItAnthropology,”EricWolf (1980) explained to general readers why and how anthropologists studyhumanaffairs.Intellectualsnipingbetween“materialists”and “mentalists,”heobserved,evadedcritical-constructiveexaminationsof anthropology’sconceptsandmethodsamidtherealworld’swarsand power differences. Wolf (2001 [1984]) subsequently argued (worked the insight) that Marxian tenets could be wedded to lessons from anthropologicalfieldworktoforgehistoricallygroundedunderstandings ofthewaysocioculturalmicrocosmsandpolitical-economicmacrocosms interacttoreproduceviolenceandinequality.2 AssociatingGeertzwithWolf—contemporariesonoppositesidesof intellectualandpoliticalbarricades—mayseemasoddascontrasting themwiththeirsuccessors.(Today’scultural-socialanthropologistsare suspiciousofbinaryoppositionsandinsultoneanotherindifferent terms.)YetGeertzandWolfcoucheddisciplinaryself-interrogationsin dialogueswithcommonframesofreference:oneananthropological canon(aflexiblebutrecognizableassemblageofscholars,texts,and positionsonintellectualproblems),theotheraconvictionaboutthe canon’sreach.Canonicalgroundingwasapurchaseforstudyingthe worldscientificallyand,withmandatoryawarenessofextradisciplinary factors(e.g.,otherpeople’snonscientificconcerns),foractinginit.That wayofworkinganthropologyhasgivenwaytoparallelmonologues aboutmultipurpose,directworldlyaction,inever-narrowerintellectual demimondeswithfewcommonframesofreference.
WhatDoIndicatorsIndicate? 131
Appliedanthropologists,havingworkedthedisciplineoutsidethe academylongbeforethediscipline’sinstitutionalizationwithinit,differ from activist, engaged, and public anthropologists (Chambers 1987; Ervin2000).“Policy-relevant”researchonpeoples,places,andpractical socialproblemsisthestockintradeofanthropology’s“fifthsubfield” or “crosscutting research focus.” Critics find applied anthropology theoreticallyunappealing(ifnotnull),thepracticeofresearchersfor hirebytherichandpowerful.Admirersemphasizethegenerationof theoryfrom“policy-relevant”researchandextolappliedanthropology as the entire discipline’s future, if it is to remain useful in a rapidly changingworld.3 Communication among the world’s development stakeholders increasinglycentersonindicators—symbolsofquantitativeorqualitative information that represent existing conditions and establish benchmarksforevaluating,evenmeasuring,change—eventhoughtheirmeaningsmaybeunclear.4Havingdefinedindicatorsforonecountry,programmersorresearchersroutinelyexportthemtoothercountries,where colleaguesusethemwithouttherequisiteground-truthing.Inprogram offices,staffmembersandconsultantsspeakof“collectingindicators” tomonitorprogresstowardachievementofprogramobjectivesrather thaninvestigatetheconditionsthatindicatorssymbolize. Thesecommunicativepracticesbegseveralquestions.Areindicators integratedwithinaninformationinfrastructureforresearchandpolicymaking,oraretheyseparatefromit?Whichaspectsofcultural,social, ecological,andpolitical-economicconditionsdoindicatorsrepresent(that is, depict and present a second time in different form)? Does a given indicatorpointtothesamestructuresandprocessesforalldevelopment stakeholders? Such questions force cultural-social anthropologists to inquire about connections between basic and applied research and to thinkcriticallyabouttheroleofsocialscienceinpublicpolicy. Since1990,bilateralormultilateralagencies,internationalnongovernmentalorganizations(NGOs),andtheGovernmentofHaiti(GOH)have soughttoreorientfoodaidprogrammingfromhumanitarianassistance todevelopmentintervention.Theirefforts,repletewithheadytalkabout indicators,promptedmyessay’stitleandmyattempttoanswerthequestion “Whatdoindicatorsindicate?”inwaysthatillustrateanthropologyat workandaswork.
BaselineStudiesofLivelihoodSecurityinRuralHaiti During1994–96,theBureauofAppliedResearchinAnthropology(BARA) attheUniversityofArizona,withwhichIamaffiliated,coordinated
132
Drexel G. Woodson
threediagnosticbaselinestudiesoflivelihoodsecurityinruralHaiti, working with some fifty Haitian field researchers trained in various disciplinestodesignappropriateresearchinstrumentsandgatherthe necessaryinformation(BARA1996a,1996b,1997).TheCooperating Sponsors of the US Public Law 480, Title II Food Program in Haiti— namely,USAID,alongwithCARE,CatholicReliefServices(CRS),and theAdventistDevelopmentandReliefAgency(ADRA)—initiatedthe baselineseries.5Theirimmediategoalwastoupgradetheinformation infrastructureforfoodaidprogrammingwhilelayingthefoundation foraneventualreorientationoffoodaidprogrammingfrom“relief”to “sustainabledevelopment.” Thispolicyagendum,includingplansfordiagnosticbaselinestudies, wasapprovedbeforetheHaitianArmy’scoupd’étaton29September 1991againstthedemocraticallyelectedgovernmentofPresidentJeanBertrand Aristide provoked Haiti’s most serious political crisis since the fall of the Duvalier dictatorship in 1986 (Trouillot 1990). The Cooperating Sponsors temporarily postponed the policy agendum’s implementation to manage international humanitarian assistance undercrisisconditions(Berggrenetal.1993).Theyresumedthework inOctober1994,whenPresidentAristidereturnedfromexile.Although theyhavecontinuedtherelief-to-developmenttransition,progresshas beenslowedbyHaiti’songoingcrisis,coupledwiththeemergenceof other world crises. Both circumstances have diminished interest in indicator development and complementary research that might be pursuedevenundercrisisconditions.6 BARA’smixedmethodsapproachtodiagnosticbaselineresearchin rural Haiti treated food security as a dynamic output of livelihood systemperformance,ratherthanaresultofthevolumeandtargeting offoreignfoodaidcommodities.Thebaselineresearchmethodology focused on the household as the pivotal component of rural livelihood systems, emphasizing the collection, description, and analysis ofhousehold-levelqualitativeandquantitativedata.BARAadapteda surveyresearchmethodologyoriginallydesignedforChad(westcentral Africa)todistinctivefeaturesoftheHaitiansetting:aspottyinformation infrastructure,difficultfieldworklogistics,andthetimeandbudgetary constraintsoftheCooperatingSponsors,whichhadresumedregular programmingactivitiesby1996. BARA tailored each baseline study to the physical, cultural, socioeconomic, and political characteristics of one international NGO’s primaryzoneofoperation,generatingaminimaldatasetforrandomly sampledrurallocalitiesandhouseholdsineachzoneforasinglereporting
WhatDoIndicatorsIndicate? 133
year.BARA’sanalysisofeachdatasetwasthesimplestyetmostthorough consistent with a general understanding of factors that promote or inhibit household food security. The series of studies produced the largestdatabankofitskindforHaiti’sninecontiguousadministrative departments,profilingconditionsexperiencedby23,365individuals, headsormembersof4,022householdsin119rurallocalities.7 Icanstartwithasimpleethnographicfact:stakeholders(organizations and individuals) working to create more abundant and accessible suppliesofhigh-qualityfoodinHaitispeakthreemutuallyunintelligible languages—HaitianCreole,French,andEnglish.Themainstakeholders are,lestweforget,Haitianmen,women,andchildren,especiallymoun andeyò(“countryfolk”)andabitan(“peasants”).8Nextcomelocalcivic andreligiousorganizations,aswellasgwoupman,development-oriented groupscomposedoffivetofifteenpersons(Mondé1980;Smuckerand Noriac 1996). Last but, given decision-making power, not least are comparativelywell-fedfolk:thepersonnelofdonoragencies,thestaffs oftheirinternationalNGOpartners,GOHofficials,andmembersof Haitiancivilsocietyorganizations(e.g.,professionalassociationsand churchgroups). Languagedifferencesamongthesestakeholdersprecipitatesemantic disparitiessuchastheonebetweentheHaitianCreoletermlamanjay— sundrythingshavingtodowithmanje(“food”or“victuals”),namely, production or trade, cooking, and eating—and food security or its French part-cognate, la sécurité alimentaire (Woodson 1997). Amid themountainsofproblemsthathamperHaiti’sfledglingdemocracybuilding(Fass1988;Fatton2002;Trouillot1997),miscommunication and noncommunication cast especially long shadows. With regard toideas,talk,andactionconcerningfood,theshadowsobscurethe necessarilysloworganizationalworkrequiredtoenhancefoodsecurity based on sustainable livelihood security (cf. Brinkerhoff and GarciaZamor1986;Maguire1984,1997). Adoptinganethnographicperspectiveonindicatordevelopment,I turntothecharacterofindividualbaselineindicatorsasasteptoward assessingtheintegrityandutilityofindexes(thatis,packagescomposed ofdifferenttypesofindicators).Myaimistoelucidateindicatordevelopmentasaprocess,aspectsofwhichwetoooftentakeforgranted orconsidersettled.Indicatordevelopmentwarrantscloserprocessual examinationbecauseitiscriticalforappliedanthropologicalresearch projectsinthewakeofadiagnosticbaselinestudy.Suchpost-baseline projectswouldutilizestratifiedsamplesofHaitianrurallocalitiesand householdstoanalyzethemostsignificantproductionandconsumption
134
Drexel G. Woodson
variables, including the resource management capacities of specific institutions.Anappliedresearchagendumthatbuildsondiagnostic baselinestudiesmightinducepowerholderstoimplementequitable andsustainablelivelihoodsecuritypoliciesthatassistruralHaitiansto meetfoodneeds.
Indicators:ARapidConceptualOverview Indicatorsaresupposedtofacilitatethecollection,analysis,anddisseminationofreliable,statisticallyrepresentativedataonagroecological, socioeconomic,andnutritionalconditionsinagivenarea(Maxwell and Frankenberger 1992). That area may be an entire country, one ofitspolitical-territorial-administrativesubdivisions,oraregionofa subdivision.Moreover,indicatorspresumablyoffercost-effectiveand scientificallyvalidmeanstoidentifyvulnerableareasandgroupsandto determinetheeffectsoffoodprogrammingordevelopmentintervention. Indicatorsthussymbolizeabroadrangeofdatapertinenttolivelihood securityandfoodsecurity,andtheybecomefociforprogramorproject targeting, monitoring, and impact evaluation. Applied researchers, especiallyappliedanthropologists,mustsubjectthissymbolicfunction tocriticalscrutiny. TheCARE,CRS,andADRAbaselinestudiesraisedquestionsabout howwellindicatorsusedinHaitiactuallyserveeitherfunction.BARA’s analysisofthebaselinedatasetssuggestedthattheindicatorsmightbe toogeneraltocapturecriticalformsandlevelsofvariationinfactors thatpromotedorinhibitedlivelihoodsecurityandfoodsecurityinrural Haiti.Theindicatorssimultaneouslyappearedtobetoocomplexfor policymakerstointegrateintoroutinedecision-makingprotocols.In otherwords,usinganybaselineindicatorentailscollectionorcollation, analysis,andsummaryofavastamountofinformation.Moreover,itis usuallynecessarytorepeatphasesofbaselineresearchtoexamineany indicator’sperformanceinanewsocial-spatialsetting. Haiti’snaturalresourcesand,someobserver-analystsargue,human productivityhavesteadilydeclinedforatleastsixtyyears(Lundahl1979, 1992).YetthereisremarkableregionalandlocaldiversityintheHaitian countryside,andpoorhouseholdsimprovisehighlycomplexlivelihood strategiestobalancesporadicincomesagainststeadyexpendituresto meetfoodneedsandfulfillsocialobligations.Diversityandcomplexity promptquestionsabouttheintegrityandrepresentativenessofindicators. Anespeciallysignificantbaselinefindingwasthattherangeofvariation inanysocioeconomicvariableincreasedasonedescendedtheladder
WhatDoIndicatorsIndicate? 135
of descriptive and analytic units toward the basic unit of study, the “household”(tilakou,or“individualizedhouse-yardcomplex”).Variation was greater among the thirty to thirty-eight households sampled in each locality than between two localities in an agroecological zone orbetweentwoagroecologicalzonesinadepartment.Consequently, BARA’sanalysisofthebaselinedatamadelessprogresstowardindicator developmentthananticipated. The Cooperating Sponsors and BARA expected the baseline series to identify distinct factors or conditions that determined locationspecific levels of food insecurity for discrete household types and reliablypredictedchangesininsecurity.Yetthebaselineindicators— agroecologicalzone,householdsocioeconomicstatus,andchildnutritionalstatus—wereneithersimplenordistinct.Moreover,todate,no Haitianist has attempted to verify their predictive value. The baseline indicators are static, or, more precisely, the currently available informationpertinenttotheirinterpretationisstatic.Minimally,one more round of data collection would be necessary to determine the reliabilityofindicatorsforprediction.Inthebest-caseresearchscenario, third-round data collection would permit analysis of three separate observations for each indicator. This complicates the construction ofreliablelivelihoodsecurityorfoodsecurityindexes,whichcollate subsetsofagroecological,socioeconomic,andchildnutritionalbaseline indicators.
APanoplyofBaselineIndicatorsPointingat DifferentThings State-of-the-art reviews in the early 1990s maintained that baseline indicatorsanchoredawide-rangingsetofconcepts,methods,andobjectivesinlivelihoodsecurityandfoodsecurityresearch(Frankenberger et al. 1994; Hutchinson and Hall 1993; Maxwell and Frankenberger 1992).Thoseindicators,stillusedinHaititoday,arediverse:direct(or “genuine”)indicatorsnestlealongsideproxies;someindicatorsconcern currentphenomena;othersdisclosepastconditionsorpredictfuture conditions. Themostsignificantpointisthatindicators,likesymbolsgenerally, standforotherthings.9Indicatorsrepresent—select,depict,condense, andsummarize—conditions,processes,relationships,structures,and otherphenomena.Yetindicatorsdifferfromothersymbolsinthattheir representationsareputativelymoreaccurateandefficacious.Deliberately constructed by experts (researchers in the best of circumstances),
136
Drexel G. Woodson
indicators incorporate and convey information about a limited set ofphenomenaconstruedasvariablesinadataset.Consequently,an indicatorbracketsaportionofphenomenalreality,onthepresumption thatcohesivenessmarkswhatisbracketed.Thisalsomeansthatany indicatorisonlyas“good”or“strong”(read:accurateandreliable)as theinformationitrepresents. Adirectindicatorrepresentsasinglephenomenonorpointstoasetof phenomenaeithercloselyrelatedintheoryorsorelatedbytheanalysis of empirical data. Thus, household income represents a productionconsumptionunit’searningsorrevenuesforthepreviousyear—incash andinkind,forallmembersandfromallsources.Incomebecomes a direct indicator of livelihood security and food security because it directly supports household expenditures for food, other necessities (includingreproductionofthemeansandrelationsofproduction),and perhapsafewluxuries. Proxyindicators,bycontrast,substituteforindicatorsthatdirectly representphenomena.Ahouseholdhead’sgender,forexample,represents that person’s sex (a biological phenomenon), his or her status andpowerpositions,andtherolesheorsheperformsinaproductionconsumption unit. Therefore, gender of household head is a proxy indicator of household resource endowments such as landholding size,livestockvalue,theavailabilityoflabor,and,ultimately,income level. Five broader types of indicators emerge from the foregoing discussion: 1. Currentindictorsrepresentsignificantrelationshipsamongvarious conditions,materialorsocial,atthetimethepertinentinformation iscollected.Iftheycouldspeak,theseindicatorswouldsay,“Hereare themajorvariablesrightnow,andthisishowtheyarepatterned.” 2. Outputindictorstallythequantitiesofresources,materialorhuman, thataprogramorprojectallocateswithinitszoneofoperationor thatatargetbeneficiaryutilizestoachieveabeneficialoutcome.For afoodaidprogram,examplesaretonsofcommoditiesdistributed, numberofdistributioncenters,andperson-daysdevotedbyfield staff to commodity distribution or to animation and training sessionswithbeneficiarygroups.Fortargetbeneficiaries,examples includeincreasesincultivatedland,agriculturallaborersemployed, andcropharvests. 3. Predictiveindicatorsembodyreasonablywell-foundedspeculations aboutfutureconditions.Theyprojectthelikelyoutcomesofevent
WhatDoIndicatorsIndicate? 137
sequencesthathavenotyetoccurred—say,thereproductionofa structure or the repetition of a process—on the basis of existing circumstances. 4. Retrospectiveindicatorsdisclosepastconditions.“Retrodictive”is perhapsamoreappropriateadjective,becausetheseindicatorsspecify onlythosepastconditionsthataccountforandpresumablycaused theintensityorarrayofphenomenaobservedwhenindicatorsare “read” (that is, when relevant information is collected, analyzed, andsummarized). 5. Impactindicators,thefociofprogramorprojectevaluations,capture changes in the behavior of target beneficiaries, which program or project resources—tangible or intangible—presumably bring about. Given space limitations, one illustration of problems with proxy indicators must suffice.10 The household head’s gender indicates (represents) a production-consumption unit’s typical characteristics, includingresourceendowments.Womentendtoheadsmallerhouseholds than do men, but their households often have higher dependency ratios(consumerstoproducers)andownlesslandorfewer(andless valuable)livestock.Usually,therefore,female-headedhouseholdsarein arelativelyweakerpositiontofarmthanaremale-headedones,andthey aremoresusceptibletorecurrentcrisesthathamperfarming.Notehere theconceptualtransformationoftheindicator“genderofhousehold head,”readasfemale.Insynchronicsurveyresearch,aproxyindicator ofcurrentconditionsisquicklytransformedintobothapredictiveand aretrodictiveindicator.
AgroecologicalZone Agroecological zones furnished the first level of livelihood security andfoodsecurityindicatorsinBARA’sbaselineresearch.Thephysical environmentinfluencessettlementpatterns,aswellastheeconomic organizationoffarmingandotherrevenue-generatingactivities.Asearch forenvironmentalindicatorsmighthavefocusedonecologicalzonesto capturetheenvironmentalcontextsofallrevenue-generatingactivities inruralHaiti—agricultural,semi-agricultural,andnonagricultural—and theirenvironmentaleffects(e.g.,soilerosion,deforestation,waterpollution).However,thetermagroecologicalunderscorestheimportanceof farmingasalivelihoodinBARA’sbaselineresearchmethodology.The differentialorganizationaldemandsofrainfedandirrigatedagriculture,
138
Drexel G. Woodson
along with their differential risks and rewards, were of particular interest. Definitionalcriteriaforagroecologicalzonesconventionallyinclude altitude,annualrainfall,soiltype,predominantmodeofintercropping (French,associationdecultures),andpresenceorabsenceofirrigation (Anglade1982:50–54;Moral1978[1961]:chap.2;SACADandFAMV 1993–94,3:chap.3).AsHaitianagronomistsandagriculturaleconomists emphasized,topography(especiallytheslopeofland),airtemperature, andseasonallyvariableexposuretosunlight(thatis,hoursofsunlight perday)aresupplementarydefinitionalcriteria.Unfortunately,formost ruralHaitianlocalities(asopposedtotheircommunesordepartments), littlereliableinformationexistsaboutthefourbasicdefinitionalcriteria, andnoneexistsforthesupplementarycriteria. Asaresult,BARAandHaitianbaselineresearchersreliedonapproximations—relativepositionswithinarange—toclassifyanentirelocality inasingleagroecologicalzone.Relativemoistnessordampnessversus drynesssubstitutedforrainfalldatameasuredinpreciseintervals.Relative elevation and distance from a seacoast substituted for altitude. Soil qualitybecamelandqualityassubjectivelyassessedbyhouseholdheads— namely, “good,” “passable” or “average,” and “bad” land. Likewise, typical crop associations sufficed to define modes of intercropping, ratherthanthespecificagronomicoreconomicinteractionsofcereals, legumes,rootcrops,andfruitsindiscreteinventories.Thus,theprocess ofclassifyinglocalitiesbyagroecologicalzonegeneratedincomplete replicasofproxyindicators. Evenpriceinformationdoesnotreducethehazardsofclassifyinga localityinoneagroecologicalzone,givenmicroenvironmentalvariation andthefactthatmosthouseholdsmanagesmalllandholdings,theirplots dispersedamongdifferentagroecologicalzonesandcultivatedunder differenttenurearrangements.ADRAbaselinedataonlandholdingsize anddispersalareinstructive(BARA1997:102–9).The1,166households held,onaverage,2.7plotstotaling1.4hectares.Houseswerea45-minute walkfromplots(some3.75km),withmeanwalkingtimesof15minutes toanhourfor36localitiesandamaximumof9hours.Walking3or4 kilometersinanydirectiontookapersonoutofthelocalitywherehe orshebeganandoftenintoanothercommunalsection.
Education Education, policymakers and program managers assume, expands a rural household’s general fund of knowledge, enabling farmers to
WhatDoIndicatorsIndicate? 139
cultivatelandmoreefficientlyandeffectivelyortotakeadvantageof nonagriculturalemploymentopportunities.Educationalsoputatively promotes enlightened use of household resources, because educated peoplepresumablydevotegreaterattentiontodietaryissuessuchas thenutritionalbalanceofmealsthanuneducatedpeopledo. Few researchers would question the general benefits of education (especially basic literacy and numeracy), and baseline household heads made considerable sacrifices for their children’s schooling. However,thereliabilityofeducationasanindicatorofaproductionconsumption unit’s relative livelihood or food security depends on analysis of exogenous factors (Locher 1991a, 1991b). Rural primary schools—national (that is, public), congregational, or private—omit lessonsaboutfoodacquisitionandpreparationornutrition.Moreover, labor-market conditions make connections between education and employmentproblematic,giventhespecificskillsetsandskilllevels thatavailablejobsrequire.Mostagriculturaltasksinvolvemanuallabor, whichneitherrequiresnorrewardshighlevelsofformalschooling,and nonagricultural employment opportunities are few in rural Haitian localitiesandsmalltowns.
ReligiousAffiliation Asaproxyindicator,religiousaffiliationrepresentsnotionsabouthow beliefs or moral-ethical tenets influence thrift and saving and how Christian congregations foster and reinforce social networks. BARA considered Sèvis Lwa (“Voodoo” ceremonies) performed in conjunctionwithfamilyancestorcultsortemple-centereddevotionfunctionallyanalogoustoCatholicandProtestantrituals.Consequently,this proxy indicator suggests, religiously based social networks channel resourcesinsofarasritualsponsorshiporparticipationaffectshousehold productionandconsumption. Although many policymakers and social scientists maintain that “traditional” religious rituals drain household resources, little ethnographicresearchsupportsthisproposition.GeraldMurray(1977:chap. 11;1980)demonstratedthatfulfillmentofritualobligationsinthefamily ancestorcultactedasa“motor”forlandtransactionsinKinanbwa,a lowlandlocalityinHaiti’sDepartmentoftheCenter.KarenRichman (1992: 11–18, 67–70, 109–12) explored ritual praxis associated with pwen(French,pointe),or“points”—ideas,words,acts,orimagesthat captureacomplexsituationandreformulateitforeasyremembrance. Pwen,sheshowed,punctuatedremittanceflowswithina“transnational
140
Drexel G. Woodson
Haitiancommunity”stretchingfromTiRivyè,acoastallocalityinthe DepartmentoftheWest,totheUnitedStates. TheCAREbaselinestudy’sHaitianfieldresearchersestimatedthecost ofafètgonbo(“okrathanksgivingfeast”)sponsoredbyonehousehold intheNorthwestbutinvolvingfourbranchesofanextendedfamily. Thenine-dayfeast,partofaseriesofdevotionalacts,costG107,000 (roughlyUS$7,000),excludingthesaleofsevenkawo(approximately ninehectares)oflandandnumerousanimalsoverseveralyears(BARA 1996a:116–17). Tantalizing evidence aside, no cultural-social anthropologist has systematicallystudiedthewayresourcesmobilizedandreallocatedby aruralhouseholdtoorganizeSèvisLwaflowtoandfromneighboring households,amongrurallocalities,betweenthecountrysideandtowns orcities,orfromHaititoforeigncountries(andback).Therequisite microlevelfieldworkandlibraryresearch,whichonlyethnographers would undertake, entails tracking funding sources for ritual and ceremonialexpendituresincashandinkind.
Migration Migrationservesasanindicatorbecauseitconstitutesamodeofaccess to off-farm income from agricultural day labor or nonagricultural employment. When adult household members emigrate to Haitian townsorcitiesortoforeigncountries,itispresumablyadvantageous, becausethehouseholdsimultaneouslylosesoneconsumerandgains access to remittances (Locher 1984; Stepick 1984, 1998). Two qualifications must be noted. First, someone must cover the emigrant’s transportationcostsortravelfees,andheorsheincurslivingexpenses before and after employment. Second, depending on the jobs that emigrants find, the income differential between agricultural and nonagriculturalemploymentmayneithercovernewlivingexpensesnor permitremittances.Iconsiderthisissueinthediscussionofhousehold incomelater.
ChildNutritionalStatus Intheearly1990s,expertsconsideredthenutritionalstatusofneonates and toddlers a strong indicator of household food security, because thesemostvulnerablehouseholdmembershavetime-sensitiveneeds fornutrientstosupportmentalandphysicaldevelopment(PAHO/WHO 1994).Anthropometricmeasurementsmatchchildrentointernational
WhatDoIndicatorsIndicate? 141
standards for physical growth: height for age (stunting), weight for age (wasting), and weight for height. Deviance from the standards establisheslevelsofmalnutrition. Thethreeanthropometricindicatorsmeasuretwodifferentthings, however,andneitherofthemispredictive.Heightforageandweightfor ageareretrospectiveindicators,revealingthechild’saccesstonutrients andtheincidenceofchildhooddiseasessincebirth.Weightforheight isacurrentindicator,suggestingaccesstonutrientsduringarelatively briefperiod,usuallythesixmonthspriortomeasurement. Foodaidprogrammersandsomeresearchersmaintainedthatthechild nutritionalstatusindicatorsdisclosedthequantityoffoodavailableto ruralHaitianhouseholds.Itwasmorelikely,BARAdiscovered,thatthe indicatorsrevealeddietarycomposition—proportionsofemptycalories (thatis,sugars),carbohydrates,proteins,andvitaminsources(BARA 1996a:chap.7;1996b:chap.7;1997:chap.7;cf.AlvarezandMurray 1981). Given that food quantity and quality differ, the relationship between child nutritional status and household food security status appearsmoretenuousthan“strongindicator”suggests.
HouseholdVulnerabilityStatus Householdvulnerabilitystatus,themostcomplexbaselineindicator, directlyincorporatedinformationabouthouseholdresourceendowments andindirectlyincorporatedinformationabouthouseholdcomposition. Although I must omit background discussion, the elicitation and analysis of this “incorporated information” illustrate how applied anthropologistsworktheirdiscipline.11 BARA utilized four vulnerability status categories—extreme, high, moderate, and low—thereby documenting food insecurity and, to a lesser extent, livelihood insecurity. The categories were derived analyticallyfromhouseholddataonownedassets,annualpercapita income,andincome-expenditurebalance.Todeterminethevalueof landasanasset,BARAcalculatedthelandareafromwhichhouseholds derivedcashorin-kindincomeduringthereportingperiod.Landprices wereunavailable,anditwasimpossibletoelicitreliablefiguresduring rapid fieldwork. Key informants reported asset values for livestock: cattle;donkeys,mules,andhorses;pigs;goats;sheep;andfowl(that is,chickens,guineafowl,turkeys,andducks).Althoughretailconsumer pricesdeterminedthemonetaryvalueoflivestockassetsinthefirstthree baselinestudies,BARAattemptedtocapturepotentiallysignificantvalue fluctuationsintheADRAstudy.12Haitianfieldresearcherselicitedfour
142
Drexel G. Woodson
priceobservationsforeachlocality—highandlowpricesduringthe reportingyear,thepriceatthetimeofthehouseholdsurvey,andthe pricebeforetheUS-UNembargoofSeptember–December1991. Thehouseholdsamplewasfirstsortedintoquartilesbasedonsample means to determine the range of asset values and incomes for each vulnerabilitystatuscategory.Then,householdswereassignedtoone ofthefourcategoriesbyapplyingan“orstatement”toasset-valueand incomedata.Householdswitharangeofverylowassetsorincomes entered the Extreme category, and households with increasingly higherrangesofeitherresourceenteredtheHigh,Moderate,andLow categories. BARAdidnotattempttoincludeseveraltypesofassetsinthevulnerabilitycategories.Forexample,inHaitianfarmingsystems,thereis goodreasontoconsiderperennialcrops—coffee,plantains,andcertain fruittreessuchasmango,grapefruit,orange,andsoursop—asassets. Thepointalsoholdsforrootcropssuchasyamsandsweetpotatoesthat havelonggrowingcycles,highprices,andstablemarketoutlets.BARA alsoignoredpersonalbelongingsandmovablepropertysuchasjewelry, furniture,cookingutensils,andtools.Duringrapidbaselinefieldwork featuringsingle-shotinterviewsandrelyingonrespondents’self-reports, therewasnotimetoassessthemonetaryvalueofsuchassetsortorefine understandingsofshort-termbenefitswhenhouseholdsliquidateor pawnthemasamaneuverinlivelihoodandsurvivalstrategies.Inpostbaselineappliedresearch,thisshortcutwouldbeunacceptable. Theincomedatacapturedirregularremittancesandgifts.However, BARAdidnottreatsocialnetworksashouseholdvulnerabilityindicators. Haitianresearchersconductedbaselinefieldworkonatightschedule, rangingfromtwoandahalfdaysperlocalityfortheCAREstudyto fourandahalfdaysfortheADRAstudy.Thisleftlittletimetopursue leadsaboutsocioeconomicandpoliticalrelationshipslinkingalocality’s thirtytothirty-eightsamplehouseholds.Suchrelationships,formed within and across class lines, make resources differentially available andaccessibletohouseholds. Membershipintraditionallaborassociationsaffectsinterhousehold resourceflows.Examplesincludesalariedsquads—knownregionallyas èskwad,mera,orranpanno—andinvitationworkparties(konbit),about whichanthropologistsandothersocialscientistshavewrittenextensively (Métraux et al. 1951: 68–86; Moral 1978 [1961]: 190–93; Woodson 1990:495,620–29).Membershipinchurchgroupsaffordshouseholds certainwelfareorinvestmentbenefits,whereasgwoupmanmembership providesboth.Sincethe1970s,residentsofmanyruralHaitianlocalities
WhatDoIndicatorsIndicate? 143
haveformedgwoupmaninexplicitoppositiontocommunitycouncils (konsèykominotè),whichareorganizationalnodesofstate-sponsored “communitydevelopment”methodologies.Gwoupmansupplycrediton reasonableconditionsandterms,tosubsidizeconsumption,finance investment, and promote civic education (Locher, Smucker, and Woodson1983;LowenthalandAttfield1979;Mondé1980;Smucker andNoriac1996). BARA’sanalysisofhouseholdvulnerabilitystatusrevealedapotential conflict between livelihood security and food security. Liquidating assetswhenacrisisoccursenablesahouseholdtomeetcurrentfood needs,butunlessthehouseholdcanreplacetheliquidatedassets,it willbeunabletoresumelivelihoodactivities.Ahouseholdthatsells agricultural land no longer owns land to farm and must resort to leasehold,sharecropping,orgifthold.Thesemodesofaccesstoland are,assumingequalityofallfactorsotherthantenure,morecostlyand lesssecurethanownership.
Conclusion Indicatorsmakesenseinandofaconfusedandconfusingworld.Yet ifindicatorsaresymbolsthatbracket,compress,andsimplifyselected segments of phenomenal reality, then applied anthropologists must probeandunpacktheorderlysensibilitythatindicatorscreate.These aretheonlywaystopreventrepeatederuptionsofmistakenidentity between indicators and the conditions they represent. Indicator development is an ongoing process in which the results of baseline surveys and other kinds of research—historical, political-economic, ecological, and ethnographic—continuously confront one another, andappliedanthropologistsmustcontinuouslysiftandevaluatethe outcomesofconfrontation. Haiti is exceptional among the world’s nation-states for historical, sociocultural, and political-economic reasons. The country exhibits a high degree of microenvironmental variation (physical and sociocultural), its livelihood systems are complex, and Haitians exploit thembycreativelypursuingintricatelivelihoodorsurvivalstrategies. Moreover,anyoneattunedtomediareportsknowssomethingofHaiti’s compound crisis—a seemingly intractable concatenation of social, economic,ecological,andpoliticalproblems. Acknowledging that Haiti is exceptional, however, does not mean embracing exceptionalism as a framework of anthropological understanding.TheHaitiansituationisinstructiveforworkonindicators
144
Drexel G. Woodson
elsewhere.Growingpopulations,risingstandardsofliving(however modest,uneven,orslow),andincreasingawarenessofinjuriescaused bylocallyinflectedglobalpathwaysofpowerintensifypressureson the natural as well as human resources of most nation-states. Development intervention contributes to those pressures. Hidden economies, black markets, and massive “informal” institutional sectors that swamp “formal” ones abound. And this merely hints at the rethinkingandrepositioningofconstraints,opportunities,identities, needs, wants, rights, entitlements, and duties that today’s culturalsocialanthropologistsassociatewithvarious“posts”—post–ColdWar, postmodernity,postcolonial,postfeminist,andpostsocialist,tonamea few,or,forHaitianists,post-Duvalierandpost-Aristide.Absentserious worktofortifyinformationinfrastructuresindevelopingcountriesand toresistthetemptationtomistakeindicatorsforthingstheyrepresent, thesymbolicefficacyofindicatorswilldiminish,alongwiththeirutility asguidestosounddevelopmentpolicy. Cultural-socialanthropologists,appliedandbasic,haveusefulintellectualtoolswithwhichtoinvestigatetheworld’sunsweptcornersat closerangewithoutlosingsightofthebuildingsthathavecornersorthe humansettlements—villages,towns,cities,andmegalopolises—where buildingsarelocated.Personalexperienceputsmeinanontranscendental mood,andanthropologicalworkdiscouragesmefromjettisoningthe applied-basic dichotomy in research. Instead, I insist that basic and appliedcultural-socialanthropologyaresidesofasinglepath,across whichsomeofuszigzagdependingonthecharacterofresearchprojects. Basic research addresses fundamental questions about the structure, organization,andeffectsofculture,history,society,economy,andpolity, takingintoaccountsimilaritiesanddifferencesamonghumanbeings acrossspaceandtime.Appliedresearchappropriatesbasicconceptsand methods,first,todefinepracticalhumanproblemsintemporallyand spatiallyrestrictedsettingsand,second,toproposeeffective,efficient, and equitable solutions for those problems. Productive feedback loopslinkbasicandappliedworkincultural-socialanthropology,or anthropologistscancreatethem. Whatdoindicatorsindicate?Whatgoodcultural-socialanthropologists haveknownsincetheybeganto“work”anthropology.First,contextualizationmakesallsymbolsmeaningful.Second,theoryisneitherthe solenoralwaystheprimaryobjectiveofanthropologicalwork.Method matters, as do training students in the crafts of anthropology and communicating anthropological knowledge to non-anthropologists. Third,ideashavelineages.Trackingconceptsandmethods,alongwith
WhatDoIndicatorsIndicate? 145
conclusionsandgeneralizations,isthebestwaytodeterminewhich aspectsofanthropologicalthinkingandpracticetoretain,transform, orjettison.Finally,understandingthehumanspectacleandsupporting effortstochangethehumanconditionrequirediscipline—indeed,a discipline—aswellasadivisionoflabor.Whobettertoseekanswers tomodestquestionsthatshedlightonbigissuesthancultural-social anthropologists?
Acknowledgments Wenner-GrenFoundationInternationalSymposiumnumber134was themostconstructiveconferenceIhaveattendedsinceescapingfrom graduate school. The point holds for the formal sessions, informal conversationsoverdeliciousfoodandamplelibations,andamemorable eveningofgreatjazz.Ithanktheco-organizers,LesW.FieldandRichard G.Fox,Wenner-GrenpresidentLeslieAiello,andconferenceprogram associate Laurie Obbink. Good company aside, I am grateful to the otherparticipantsfortheirstimulatinginterventions,especiallywhen wediscussedourdisagreements.Copingwithformidableconstraintson asocialscienceresearchorganizationatapublicuniversityinfinancial difficulty,theBureauofAppliedResearchinAnthropologyhascreated asupportiveintellectualenvironmentformyworkonthisessay’sideas. Haitians(intellectualsand“ordinary”folk)havesothoroughlyinformed thewayIworkanthropologythatnamingthemisimpossible.Richard G.Fox,RobertA.Hackenberg,andBracketteF.Williamsoffereduseful criticismsofanearlydraftofthischapter,someofwhichIheededin myownway.
Notes 1. Four-fieldanthropology—archaeology,biological-physical,linguistic,and cultural-social—thrivesatYaleUniversity,whereIwasanundergraduate,and attheUniversityofArizona,myemployersince1990.Mydoctorateisfrom TheUniversityofChicago,whichoffersbutdoesnotrequireallstudentsto masterfourfields.Iwriteonlyaboutcultural-socialanthropology,appliedand basic,resistingthemisleadingpracticeofallowingonesubfieldtometonymize anthropology.
146
Drexel G. Woodson
2. Wolf 2001 [1984] includes a description of the 1980 New York Times article. 3. The University of Arizona’s Bureau of Ethnic Research (BER), founded in 1952 by Emile Haury, Edward Spicer, and William Kelly, investigated the practical social problems of American Indians in the southwestern USA untilthe1970s.Duringthefollowingdecade,theorganization’sintellectual horizonsandcontractresearchportfolioexpandedanddiversifiedtoaddress problems of sociocultural, environmental, and political-economic change, includingtheirdifferentialoutcomesfordiversecollectivitiesintheSouthwest, alongtheUSA-Mexicoborder,andinMexico,CentralandSouthAmerica,the Caribbean,Europe,theMiddleEast,andAfrica.BERbecameBARA(Bureauof AppliedResearchinAnthropology)in1983.Thenamechangereflected“unity withindiversity”ofappliedanthropologicalinterestsandshiftingsourcesof researchfunding. 4. By“developmentstakeholders”Irefertodonoragencies(single-country, bilateral, or multilateral), governments (national, state or regional, and local), international or national nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), community-basedorganizations(CBOs),andtargetbeneficiariesinvolvedin processesofdirectedorguidedchange. 5. The Cooperating Sponsors also established two organizations, the Haiti Monitoring Unit and the Interim Food Security Information System (iFSIS).From1992to1996,USAID’sMonitoringUnitReportcompilednational information on food prices, child nutrition and health, and electric power fromobservationsinregionalmarketplacesandselectedhealthcarefacilities. During 1994–96, iFSIS reconstructed part of the Haiti Area Sampling Frame, created in the late 1980s under the auspices of the second phase of the USAIDAgriculturalDevelopmentSupportProject(ADSII),andhiredprivate consultants to conduct a two-season national crop and livestock survey. As aninformationconduitfortheCooperatingSponsors,iFSISmonitoredcrop and livestock prices in selected regional marketplaces and child nutrition andhealthindicatorsinselectedhealthcarecenters.ItalsofacilitatedBARA’s executionofthelasttwobaselinestudies(seeBARA1997:chaps.1–2foran overviewoftheseactivities). 6. Haiti’ssecondmostseriouspost-Duvaliercrisisistheonecurrentatthe timeofthiswriting.On28February2004,PresidentAristideresignedunder pressurefromtheUnitedStates,France,andCanada,afterasix-weekarmed rebellionbyformerAristidesupportersandformerHaitianArmysoldiersandin thewakeofwidespreadoppositiontoAristide’spoliciesandstyleofgovernance sincehisreelectionin2002.Haiti’sinterimgovernmentmanagedtoorganize presidentialelectionsinearly2006.“Crisis”remainstheappropriatetermfor thetransition,because,first,Haitiansstillfaceseriouseconomic,ecological,
WhatDoIndicatorsIndicate? 147
andsocialproblems.Second,Haiti’snationalleaders(backedbypowerholders in the international “community”) may use populism’s failures as a pretext to undermine the Haitian progressive movement’s constructive efforts to uproot dictatorship since 1986, once again ignoring or circumventing the multifacetedchallengesofdemocraticinstitution-building. 7. The CARE study investigated conditions in the Department of the Northwestduring1993–94(BARA1996a).TheCRSstudydidsofortheDepartmentsoftheSouth,Southeast,Grande-Anse,andthesouthernpartoftheWest during1994–95(BARA1996b),andtheADRAstudyfocusedontheArtibonite, Center, North, Northeast, and the northern part of the West, including La Gonâve, Haiti’s largest island (BARA 1997). BARA drew random samples of rurallocalities,eschewingthecommonpracticeofsamplingbyaccessibility to motor vehicles. Haitian baseline researchers often walked from a tertiary roadforfourandahalfhourstoreachalocality.SeeOriol1994onHaiti’s administrativeandpoliticalsubdivisionsandtheirinstitutionalweaknesses. 8. Gérald Barthélemy (1989) reminded Haitians and foreigners who ignored or dismissed cultural-social anthropological research of this simple fact. Haiti’s national majority—peasants, other rural dwellers, and workingclass or lower-class residents of cities and towns—are mostly monolingual Haitian Creole-speakers. Unless otherwise indicated, italicized terms and expressions are in the official Haitian Creole orthography (see Savain 1993; Valdman1988). 9. For simplicity, I use “symbols” rather than “signs.” Clifford Geertz (1973,especiallytheessaysonideologyandreligionfromhis“asacultural system” series), Edmund Leach (1976), Marshall Sahlins (1976), and Victor Turner(1975)discussedsignificationrigorouslybutaccessibly.Onmetaphor, seeLakoffandJohnson2003. 10. GlennSmuckerandNinaSchlossman(2001)analyzedimpactindicators and field data on education, health and nutrition, infrastructure projects, and social safety net institutions. Elsewhere (Woodson 2001), I grappled with defining appropriate impact indicators for food-for-work construction projects. 11. Chapters3,4,and6ofeachbaselinestudyreport(BARA1996a,1996b, 1997) discuss the elicitation and analytical procedures for household compositionandhouseholdresourceendowments. 12. JoAnnJaffe(1990)showedwhyfluctuatinglivestockassetswerecritical variablesintheperformanceofonerurallocality’slivelihoodsysteminthe DepartmentoftheSouth.
This page intentionally left blank
s e v e n
Working Anthropology A View from the Women’s Research Arena
Linda Basch
M
yvoicecomesfromtheborderlandsofmainstreamanthropology. IhaveworkedasaresearchdirectorattheUnitedNationsandas anacademicdeanandvicepresident,andatthetimeofthiswriting I direct a national nonprofit network of 110 women’s research and policycenters,two-thirdsofwhicharelocatedonuniversityandcollege campuses.Theseareallplacesoutsideofwhatistypicallythoughtof astheanthropologicalmainstream,andcertainlyoutsideofacademic anthropology.Nonetheless,inallthisworkIhaveidentifiedmyselfas ananthropologist,andthelensthroughwhichIviewmyworkhasbeen informedbyanthropologicaltheories,perspectives,andmethodologies. Ihavebeeninfluencedbyanthropologicalunderstandingsandanalytical framessuchaspower,bordercrossing,andcoalitionbuilding;thepolitics ofglobalization,neoliberalism,transnationalism,race,andclass;and thechallengesandcontradictionsofconnectingtheoryandactionand ofunderstandingthecontingentnatureofsubjectivities. ThegoalsofthenetworkIdirectaretoencourageandproduceresearch thatwillimprovethelivedexperiencesandstatusofwomenandgirls andadvanceequalityandsocialjustice;toraisepublicawarenessofthese issues;andtoensurethatpublicdebatesandpoliciesoncriticalissues areinformedbyagenderlens.InthisworkIinteractandcollaborate withavarietyofconstituentsorpartners—academicresearchersand facultyfromadiversityofdisciplinesincludinganthropology,activists and advocates, funders, policymakers, and corporate and academic leaders.
149
150
Linda Basch
Althoughonthefaceofitthisworkmightseemtobuildonanappliedandpracticinganthropology,Ithinkmyworkhasalsobenefited from a critical and empirical anthropology that is concerned with understandingtheworld“asitis”(Cowan2006)andwithunderstanding theintellectualhistoriesinwhichempiricalrealitiesaregrounded.In thischapter,throughtwocaseexamples,Iwanttoshowhowmywork oscillatesbetweenacriticalengagementwithissuesinwhichknowledge isusedinstrumentallytofurtheraspirationalgoalssuchaseconomic justiceandarecognitionofthevalueofamoredescriptivelyempirical understanding of the landscape in which I work. These two thrusts and the tensions between them have been seen in various contexts andatvariousmomentsinanthropologyasopposedoraspotentially complementary(Goodale2006).Theyhavealsoframedtheworkofa numberofanthropologistsconcernedwithanimatingsocialchange (see Basch et al. 1999), such as Arjun Appadurai (2002), Franz Boas (1945),JaneCowan(2006),LesField(1999),MarkGoodale(2006),Dell Hymes(1972),LouiseLamphere(2004),MargaretMead(1928),Sally EngleMerry(2003),JamesPeacock(1999),PeggyReevesSanday(2003), TerrenceTurner(1997),andEricWolf(1999).AsIshowinthischapter, bothapproachesinformandinfluencemywork,althoughattimesthe tensionsbetweenthemseemirreconcilable. InthefollowingpagesIfirstbrieflydescribetheperceivedroleand goalsoftheresearchnetworkIdirectandthenexaminetwoseemingly verydifferentprojectsasexamples.Oneisfocusedonissuesofhuman securityinaglobalizingworldandfollowsonearlierworkinwhich Iexploredthewaysinwhichglobalcapitalismcreates,shapes,andis furthershapedbyfieldsoftransnationalsocialandpoliticalrelations (Basch, Schiller, and Szanton 1994). The other addresses corporate womenandtheireffortstonavigatetheuncertaintiesandinsecurities ofa“neweconomy”(Fisher2004)shapedbythechangingconditions ofglobalcapitalism.Bothprojectsareinfluencedbymyanthropological grounding. Both are concerned with expanding understanding and knowledgeofcertainsocialphenomena,buttheyalsohave“political” agendasaimedateffectingchangethroughtheinstrumentaluseofthis knowledge.Inbothcasesmyanthropologicalperspectivehelpsmeto see, and weather, the contradictions inherent in trying to reconcile theseattimesseeminglyopposinggoals.Ultimatelythatperspective buttresses my view that an ecumenical approach (Goodale 2006) is possible. Bothprojectsareinterdisciplinaryandpremisedontheimportanceof collaborationinachievingtheprojects’goals.Here,myanthropological
WorkingAnthroplogy 151
lenshasenabledmetodealwiththeontologicalchallengesoftenposed byinterdisciplinarity(Tickner2004).Italsohelpsmetobeawareof andaddressthechallengesofcollaboration,includingthepitfallsof potentialcomplicity.
TheCouncil,anAnthropologicalLens,and HumanSecurity TheNationalCouncilforResearchonWomenwasfoundedin1981asa networkoftwenty-eightdiverseresearchandpolicycenters,differently structured,withthebroadgoalofproducingfeministresearchtoimprove thelivedexperiencesandstatusofwomenandgirlsandadvanceequality andsocialjustice.CreatedwithfundingfromtheFordFoundation,the networkwasbasedontheviewthatintheincreasinglyconservative politicalandeconomicclimatebeingshapedbytheadministrationof PresidentRonaldReagan,thefledglingwomen’sresearchcenterswould bebetterabletoflourishiftheywereconnectedthroughaknowledge- and resource-sharing network. This network continues to grow: we admitabout6centersayear,arenowat110,andhavealargepoolof centersinterestedinjoining. Thecentersshareprogressivemissionsandformsofanalysisandare variously concerned with issues such as economic security, violence againstwomen,reproductiverights,andgenderandracialinequalities withininstitutionsandcommunities.Somehaveaglobalthrusttotheir work.Groundedinabeliefthatacademicresearchersandadvocatescan productivelyworktogethertoshapeaninformedactivisminorderto influencesocialchange,Councilmembersconsistofbothacademicand policyresearchcenters,somewithexplicitadvocacyagendas.Inthefirst decadeofthetwenty-firstcentury,withgainsachievedbywomenand girlsunderbroadattackalmosteverywhereandwithseriousstructural discriminationagainstwomenandgirlscontinuingunchallengedin manypartsoftheworld,itisfeltthatthisresearchnetworkhasareal potentialtomakeadifference. TheCounciloftenplaysacatalyticroleinidentifyingnewareasfor researchandchangeeffortswhileprovidingchannelsthroughwhich centerscandevelopcollaborations.Itaimstoworkacrossdisciplinary boundariesanddivides,inthebeliefthatsuchhybriditycancreatefresh approachestounderstandingandaddressingtheworldinwhichwe live.Increasingly,theCouncilanditsmembershavebeenconcerned withincorporatingamoreglobalfocusintheirwork.Aprojectfocused onhumansecurityinthiseraofglobalizationseemedtoaddressmany ofthesegoalsandconcerns.
152
Linda Basch
Theimpetusfortheproject,whichwecalled“FacingGlobalCapitalism, FindingHumanSecurity:AGenderedCritique,”wastheemergenceofa newdiscourseintheinternationalcommunity—thatofhumansecurity. Thefocuson“humansecurity”representedashiftintheparadigmof globalsecurityheldbyinternationalorganizationsinthemid-1990s, awayfromasingularfocusontheprotectionofnationalsecurityand boundariesandtowardthesecurityofindividualsduringamoment ofintenseglobalization,privatization,politicalconflict,militarization, andgeopoliticalbordercrossingbyalmosthalftheworld’spopulation (Basch2004).Abroadconstruct,humansecurity,asdefinedbysome, was seen to encompass human rights, economic development, and socialactivism.WeappliedforandreceivedaRockefellerHumanities granttoundertakethiswork. I found that an anthropological lens helped not only in shaping the project and the questions we asked but also in analyzing and understandingthedynamicsatplayincarryingitout.Ourgoalsfor theprojectwereatbasetheproductionofknowledge,whichincludedan analysisofthevalueandmeaningofahumansecurityframeworkinthe earlytwenty-firstcentury,itscontradictions,andtheimplicationsofthis knowledgeforthekindsofactivismthatcouldenhancehumansecurity. Wealsowantedtoexaminehumansecurityasadiscourse,tounderstand whosesecurityandrightswerebeingservedinthediscourse,andto understandthelargerrelationsofpowerandknowledgewithinwhich thediscoursewasbeingframed.Andasinmuchoftheanthropological andfeministworkonhumanrights,whichhascritiquedthenormativity ofthewhite,heterosexual,Europeanmaleastheliberalsubject(Cowan 2006),wewantedtounderstandwhyarecognitionofthemultipleways inwhichgender,racial,andclassdiversityaffectsecuritywaslargely absentfromtheframework. Anotherimportantgoaloftheprojectwastocreateaspaceinwhich academicandpolicyresearchers,aswellasadvocatesinnongovernmental organizations(NGOs),couldtogetherproblematizethisconstructand produceknowledgetoenableactorstointerveneinshapingboththe discourseandactivismaroundhumansecurity.Wealsothoughtthis wasatopicthatwouldinterestseveralofourcentersandenablethem toengagewithglobalissues,andinfactwepartneredaspectsofthe projectwithsomeofthem. Acenterpieceoftheprojectwasabiweeklyinterdisciplinaryseminar heldoverathree-yearperiodattheCityUniversityofNewYork(CUNY) GraduateCenter,inpartnershipwithourmembercenteratCUNY.We worked hard to include policy researchers from the United Nations
WorkingAnthroplogy 153
and other international organizations and activists from NGOs and community-based organizations in our meetings, along with an interdisciplinarygroupofscholars,researchers,andgraduatestudents— allpeoplewewantedtoengageinthecritiqueprocess.Theseminar consistentlyattractedacoreofthirtytofortypeople,anditgarnereda cachetandreputationasaplacetodebatecriticalglobalissues.While theseminar,throughitsreadings,presentations,anddiscussions,was thesiteofmuchoftheknowledgeproductiongeneratedbytheproject, itwasalsothesiteofmultiplecontentionsanddifferences. Beyondgivingshapetotheoverallproject,ananthropologicallens helpedinfluencemanyoftheunderstandingsthatemerged.Because of the ontological and epistemological differences between political and feminist theorists and anthropologists and between academic researchersandactivists,atmanypointsintheseminarweseemedto bespeakingpasteachother.Co-theorizing,agoaloftheproject,was oftenchallenging.Forexample,thepoliticalandfeministtheoristsoften focusedattentionontheprinciples,norms,andproceduresassociated withjusticeandwithuniversalisticandethicalapproachestosecurity andrights.Thesocialanthropologists,incontrast,oftenanchoredthe discussionofsecurityandrightsinparticularistic,empiricalsituations. Drawingontheirempiricalanalyses,forinstance,theywereableto showthepotentialdangersofahegemonichumansecurityorrights regimeandpointtothewaysinwhichmanypeople,oftenthemost marginalized,areexcludedfromthisformulation.Ananthropological lensalsoenabledanthropologistsinthegrouptochallengeassertions bysomepolicyresearcherswholocatedtheproblemsofestablishing securityinculturalpracticesthatwereseenasfixedandstatic;weargued foracontingentunderstandingofculture. Thefirstyearoftheproject,duringwhichweaddressedsecurityissues intheimmediateaftermathoftheattacksofSeptember11,2001,was markedbyfrequentandheatedchallenges,debates,andexpressions ofmultipletensions.ItwasduringthisyearthattheoppositionMark Goodale(2006)describedforanthropology,betweenanemancipatory culturalpoliticsconcernedwithmakingknowledgeinstrumentaland effectingchangeandanempiricalanthropologyskepticalofnormative claims and concerned with unintended consequences of action, seemedtoerupt.Atmanypointsintheseminartheforceofcritique stymied discussion of potential activist strategies, in particular, and hadanimmobilizingeffect,leavingtheimpressionthatactioninany direction had too many pitfalls. Consequently, although academics, includinganthropologistswhodisagreedwithsomeofthesilencing
154
Linda Basch
that seemed to occur, continued to be regulars in the seminar, and althoughparticipationratesremainedhigh,theparticipationofmany activistsandpolicyresearchersfromtheUnitedNationsandNGOs— thosemostconcernedwitheffectingchange—felloff,diminishingthe co-theorizingandcollaborationswehadenvisioned.
TheChallengesofCollaboration Anthropological research and theorizing also influenced both my analysesofandmyeffortstoaddressthechallengesofcollaboration thataroseinthehumansecurityproject.Inapaperfocusedonlocating public anthropology within the larger field of anthropology, Louise Lamphere (2004) discussed the necessity for and the challenges of creating meaningful collaborations when doing anthropology and the issues of power among participants that need to be addressed andnegotiated.Issuesofcollaborationandpowerhaveinfactbeen addressedbymanyanthropologistsconcernedwithsocialchange,and theyhavehelpedmeunderstandsomeofthedynamicsinourhuman securityproject.Forexample,someanthropologistsattheUniversity ofNorthCarolina(UNC)havecreatedacontextinwhichdifferently positioned actors—activists and academics, public intellectuals and communityleaders—cometogetherinsymmetricalalliancestoreflect ontheirexperiencesandgeneratenewframeworksandstrategiesfor creatingandfosteringsocialchange(Fox,Powell,andHolland2004). TheUNCeffortsbuiltontheworkofArturoEscobar(1998),Gustavo LinsRibeiro(2004),andtheWorldAnthropologiesNetwork,whocallfor denaturalizingthedichotomiesbetweenacademicandnon-academic knowledgeandforasimultaneousvaluingofbothlocalknowledges, gained through life experiences, and university-based knowledge in ordertodosocialjusticework.Thisreadingofcollaborationarguesthat everyonehasvaluableandonly“partialperspectives”(Haraway1991: 196)tobringtothediscussion.Yetinitialreportsfromthisprojectcite thechallengesofengagementacrossthesedifferences. Collaborationacrossdisciplinesandnationalitiesandamongacademic andpolicyresearchersandorganizationalactivistswascentraltothe humansecurityproject.Yetastheprojectunfolded,wesawthatthere werechallengestocollaborationthatweneededtoproblematizeand address.Duringthefirstyearofourseminar,weweresurprisedatour inability to successfully engage the diverse participants in building new models of theory and action for addressing security issues. We hadpurposelyreachedouttoacademicscholarsandfeministactivists
WorkingAnthroplogy 155
workingwithNGOsandtheUNonglobalprojectslinkedtoissuesof humansecurity—allofwhomsharedsubstantiveinterestsandpolitical commitments. Thewayscholarsintheseminarrespondedtoaguestexpertwhocame todiscusstheInternationalCriminalCourtasapotentiallyimportant siteforaddressingthesecurityofwomenoffersinsightintothespecific challenges posed to our envisioned collaboration. In our discussion, academictheoristsputforthacritiquethatimplicatedhumanrights discourseinthepowerrelationsofglobalcapital,whichtheydepicted as inherently Western in genealogy. This analytical trajectory led to a questioning of the ethical morality of many NGOs as well as internationalorganizationssuchastheInternationalCriminalCourt, giventheirlocationsinpoliticalspacesdominatedbyhegemoniesof globalcapital. What was missing from the discussion, and what became increasinglydifficulttoinsertintotheseminar,wasadrawingofconnections between the knowledge and analyses produced in the seminar and activist strategies. We were unable to move from an analysis of the dangersofco-optationandcomplicitytooneinwhichwecouldsee institutions such as the International Criminal Court and NGOs as emergentsitesofinterventionandresistanceinwhichactivistscould anddidstruggletodisruptandrevisehumanrightsstrategies(seeCheah 1997).Itwasatthispointintheseminarthatmanyactivistsandpolicy researchersfromtheUNdroppedout. Howcanweunderstandthescholar-activistdisconnectthatseemed tofesterearlyoninourseminar?Thisisachallengethatothershave alsoexperiencedindifferentwaysandhaveaddressed.LesField(1999), writingaboutthecomplicitiesandcollaborationsofanthropologists workingamongtribesinCalifornia,alsodrewattentiontothedifficulties of trying to speak both to politically concerned groups engaged in struggleandtoone’smoreformallyacademicanthropologycolleagues. Heraisedquestionaboutthedifferentmethodologiesandcommitments thatguidesuchtheorizingandaction.Itseemsthatinordertogoforward withthiskindofwork,weneedtodevelopafirmerunderstandingof thesedifferences. Dorothy Holland (2003) has raised questions about the ways in which identity shapes participation in hybrid networks. Reflecting on the identity politics that often underpin collaborative efforts, it seemsthatourseminar,especiallyinitsearlyphases—giventheway itwasconstructed—wasperhapsdestinedtohavetheoutcomeitdid. In order to provide everyone with a common baseline, we assigned
156
Linda Basch
a series of critical feminist readings, without also explicitly creating spacefordiscussionofthediverseexperiencesactivistsbroughttothe group.Wehadexpectedthataccountsofpersonalexperienceswould flow from the discussion, but the frames provided by the readings gave the meetings a distinct academic cast, precluding the kind of cross-bordersharingofknowledgewehadanticipated.Rather,crossborderengagementseemedtobetrumpedbyidentityandexperiential factors,whichprecludedthedevelopmentofthetrustthatmighthave facilitatedsuchexchange. PeggySandayhasdiscussedhow,insomecases,theorists“construct aformaltheoreticallanguage,whichseemsprimarilydesignedtokeep theuninitiatedoutandproduceintellectualhierarchies”(Sanday2003: n.4).Thefetishizingofknowledgethatfirstemergedinourseminar, withitsprivilegingoftheoretical“thinking”overstrategicpolicyand activistwork,mightalsohavebeenanchoredpartlyinthedisciplinary structureoftheacademyanditsrewardsystem,whichbyandlarge neithervaluesnewformsofcollaborativeknowledgeproductionnor providesspacesforitsemergence. Attheendofthefirstyearoftheseminar,totrytoreflectonand understand what had happened to our interactive model, we held a series of discussions in which we confronted questions about the powerdynamicsintheseminarandaboutdifferencesinthestylesin whichacademicandnon-academicidentitieswereperformed.These discussionsledustorevisethestructureofthemeetingsduringthe secondandthirdyearsoftheseminartoencouragethepresentation ofactivistexperiences,whichbecameanincreasinglyimportantfocus ofourdiscussions.Theparticipationofactivistsandpolicyresearchers, however,remainedsporadicandlimited.Atthesametime,severalinthe seminarreportedmissingthesharpedgethathadcomefromthemore criticalreadingsandanalyses.Bringingtogetherthesharpcritiquesof academic research with analyses of activist efforts remained elusive, evenintheseminar’sthirdyear.
ACorporateCircle,Gender,andtheNewEconomyof Uncertainty The National Council for Research on Women has a diversity of projects in its repertoire, all aimed at understanding and addressing varioustypesofgenderdiscrimination.In2001theCouncilinitiated aCorporateCircle,anetworkofapproximatelytwentycompanies,the majorityofthemsituatedinthefinancialservices,pharmaceutical,and
WorkingAnthroplogy 157
cosmeticindustriesandinlaw.Thebasisoftherelationshipbetween the Council and these corporations is the research and information theCouncilprovidestothecompaniestoenablethemtocreategreater genderdiversityatseniorlevels,forwhichtheypayanannualfee.The Councilviewsthecorporatearenaasanewterrainforwomen’swork andactivism,oneinwhichwomen’sadvancementintokeydecisionmaking positions is severely limited. The participants in the circle’s activitiesareprimarilyseniorwomenandsomesupportivemen,who areintentonchangingtheserelationsofpower. Asinthehumansecurityproject,thevisionandshapeIhavebrought tothisprojectastheCouncil’sdirector,andtheresearchissuesitaddresses,drawheavilyonanthropologicalunderstandingsandanalyses. A major dynamic of the project is the knowledge and information providedtoseniorwomenthatenablesthemtoexamineboththeir circumstancesandstrategiesforchangeastheytrytonavigatethe“new economy”ofuncertaintyandinsecuritygeneratedbyfrequentmergers and acquisitions, downsizing, rapid changes in work structures and environments,andthechangingcompositionanddemographicsofthe workforce(Fisher2004).Towardthisend,theCorporateCircledraws onresearchexaminingthebrittlestructuresthatenvelopthesewomen andthatcannotaccommodatetheirlife-cycleexperiencesandneeds, aswellastheculturalattitudesthatsupportthesestructuresandmake negotiatingadvancementdifficult.Here,too,asinthehumansecurity project,thereisaconcernwithmakingknowledgeinstrumental.But there is also a concern to help these actors understand the ways in whichissuestheydealwithinthecorporatearenaarerelatedtolarger socialandculturalissues. Senior human resource professionals charged with recruiting and retainingadiverseandtalentedworkforcepredominateintheCorporateCircle.Alongwithresearcherswhoproducetheknowledgeand information, they shape the circle’s agenda. Programs have focused on work/life balance issues, strategies for working across racial and ethnicdifferences,thecomplexitiesofcraftingdiversityandgay-lesbianbisexual-transgenderedpracticesandpoliciesinglobalcompanies,and waystoaddressthornyissuessuchasreligiousandgenderexpression intheworkplacegivenlegalandculturalconstraints.Aparticularcontributionofanthropologyhasbeentheanalysisofhowpowerworks, sothattheresearchcanleadtostrategiesthatgobeyondmerewindow dressingtoidentifywaystochangestructuresandsupportingcultural assumptions,eventhoughthisisknowledgethatonlysomeactorscan use,andonlyinlimitedways.
158
Linda Basch
An anthropological lens also places in relief the contradictions that inhere in a collaboration between corporations and a network ofacademicandpolicyresearchcenters,giventhedifferentinterests, ideologies, and positionings of women in the two arenas and their potential to collide. Many researchers in our member academic centershaveexaminedandareconcernedaboutthenegativeeffects of expanding neoliberal economic practices and policies, unbridled capitalism, and privatization on social injustice, growing economic disparities, and continuing inequalities of race and class. To some researchersinournetwork,corporatewomeninhabitaspacethatis implicatedingeneratingtheseinequalities.Corporatewomen,fortheir part,“don’tget”therelevanceofmuchoftheCouncil’sresearchagenda outsidethecorporatearena—forexample,ourfocusonhumansecurity andaprojectthathasexaminedthewaystaxesnegativelyaffectwhole classes of women. One of the challenges for the Council is to find waysforthesedifferentlypositionedwomentobegintounderstand eachother’scircumstancesandchallengesandtoseetheconnections betweenthedifferentkindsofdiscriminationtheyconfront.
CollaborationorComplicity? InboththehumansecurityandCorporateCircleprojects,questions havebeenraisedaboutwherecollaborationveersintocomplicity.Inthe humansecurityproject,forexample,diasporicscholarsinourseminar withrootsintheglobalSouthexpressedconcernsabouttheircomplicity in maintaining the global hierarchies of power that constrain both theircountriesoforiginandthemselvesintheircurrentlocationsina raciallystructuredsociety.Similarly,collaborationsbetweenacademic researchersandcorporatewomenhavethepotentialforcomplicityin anumberofsituations,mostimminentlyinconstrainingresearchers’ abilitytospeakoutpubliclyabouthowtheirresearchshowsthattax cutsonwealthtranslateintoservicecutsthatnegativelyaffectmost middle- and low-income women. And along these lines, although corporatewomenwillcollaboratewithanthropologistsinunmasking asystemthatlimitstheiradvancement,thecollaborationthinswhen it comes to analyzing how that system intensifies wealth disparities betweenrichandpoor. Here, too, however, anthropology provides useful analytical tools. Inanalyzingcomplicitiesandcollaborationsamonganthropologists andthe“unacknowledgedtribes”ofCalifornia,Field(1999:193)drew onamaximdevelopedbyAudreLorde,that“themaster’stoolswill
WorkingAnthroplogy 159
neverdismantlethemaster’shouse,”insinuatingthatthesetoolsare complicitinsustainingentrenchedhierarchiesofpower.YetFieldalso raisedquestionsabouthowthesetoolsmightchange,dependingon whowieldsthemandforwhatpurpose,suggestingamorecontingent relationshipbetweenthetoolsandthehouse. Field’sobservationhasrelevanceforboththehumansecurityand Corporate Circle projects. A growing literature has begun to address thewaysNGOs,byvirtueoffundingbygovernmentsandfoundations, becomestakeholdersincurrentneoliberalpolicies(Charkiewicz2004; Yuval-Davis2004).Astheargumentgoes,NGOscanbecomesosubsumed withinframeworksofpowerthattheynolongerseetheinequitiesin thelargerinstitutionsinwhichtheyhavebecomeenmeshed—often theveryinstitutionsthatneedtobetransformed.ButasFieldaskedin hisanalysisofanthropology’stools,aretheymerelythetoolsofthe masterormightthey,inthehandsofothers,beabletoundermine themaster’shouse? AlthoughitistruethattheCouncilreceivesfundingfromfoundationsandcorporations,eachwithitsownagenda,theCouncilisalso potentiallyinapositiontowieldtools,withsomereflection,thatbear itsperspective.Indeed,aquestionforourorganizationiswhetherwe cancollectivelyengagewomenwhooccupymultiplepositionsandare atdifferenteconomiclevels—academics,activists,policymakers,and corporate leaders—who are represented in our broad network. Can we,forexample,helpthemtorecognizethestakesforallwomenin issuesofhumansecurity,taxpolicy,diversityinhighereducationand corporatearenas,andotherareasofsocialjusticethatweaddress?And howcanweavoidgettingdrawnintotheirinterpretationsoftheworld andtheirpriorities?
InSum Inaddressingthewaysanthropologyasafieldhasexpandedbeyond academeandothermore“traditional”settings,Ihavehighlighteda newsiteforanthropologicalwork—anetworkofwomen’sacademicand policyresearchcentersorganizedasanonprofitorganization.Onthe faceofitthisnetwork,initsconcernwithfosteringsocialchangeand justicethataddressesgenderdiscriminationandinitsworkwithdiverse partnerssuchasacademicresearchers,policyadvocates,funders,and corporateleaders,mightseemtospeakexclusivelytoanddrawupon methodsfromanappliedorpracticinganthropology.Ihavetriedto show,however,thatmanyoftheprojectsinthenetwork’srepertoire
160
Linda Basch
havebeenshapednotonlybyastrandofanthropologyconcernedwith developingknowledgethatcanbeusedinstrumentallytofosterchange butalsobyacriticalanthropologygroundedinempiricalinvestigation andundergirdedbyparticularintellectualandsocialhistories. Two examples illustrated the way these two anthropological approachescanbecomplementarydespitecontradictionsthatmustbe addressed.Thoseexampleswereaprojectfocusedonunderstanding themeaningandvalueofahumansecurityframeworkunderrecent conditions of globalization and a project concerned with shaping a circleofwomencorporateleaderswhocouldgobeyondaddressingtheir own particular circumstances to seeing interconnections with other kindsofdiscrimination.Thisanalysisandworkhavebenefitedfrom theworkofanthropologistsengagedinthehumanrightsarenaand ofthoseattemptingtospeakfromtheirlocationswithinmainstream anthropologytoandforgroupsengagedinpoliticalstruggle. Anorganizationlocatedatthenexusofanetworkofdiverseconstituentsbothenjoyspossibilitiesforandfaceschallengestocollaboration. Anthropologicalanalyseshaveexpandedmyunderstandingofwaysto negotiateandalsoforgecollaborativeconnectionsinaseaofcomplex differences,interests,andepistemologies.Anthropologicalanalysisadditionallyhashelpedmeunderstandthedangersposedbypotential complicitiesbutalsotoconsiderthewaysdifferentmethodologiesand approachescanaddressandmitigatethesecomplicities.Insum,Ihave described,atmid-course,anewtypeofworkdrawingonanthropological theoriesandmethodologies.Thechallengewillbetoseewhetherthese methods and approaches can continue to productively infuse the organization’sdiverseagendas.
e i g h t
Potential Collaborations and Disjunctures in Australian Work Sites An Experiential Rendering
Sandy Toussaint
I
travel4,300kilometersnorthofWesternAustralia’scapitalcity,Perth, toundertakefieldworkintheremoteKimberley,aregionrenownedfor itssparsepopulation.MostofthatpopulationismadeupofIndigenous women, men, and children who live in small, scattered towns and communitiesoronlargecattlestations.Thelandscapeischaracterized byredearth(or“pindan”),sandhills,anddenseclumpsoflow-lying eucalyptustrees.Intertwinedriversystemsthatrelyfortheirsurvival onannualrainsknownlocallyas“thewetseason,”alongwitharich spectrumofuniquenativefloraandfauna,addtothebiodiversityof theregion. ItcantakefourorfivedaystodrivefromPerthinthesouthofWestern AustraliatotheKimberleyinthenorth.ThistimeItakethreehourstofly byplanetoBroome,onthewestcoast,aseasidetownthatincreasingly attractsnationalandinternationaltourism.FromBroomeIhireafourwheel-drivevehicletocoveranotherfourhundredkilometersinlandto theFitzroyValleyintheKimberley’sheartland.Itis“hotweathertime,” several months before the anticipated rains. The daily temperature averages45degreesCelsius,resultinginadryenvironmentthatIam nowaccustomedtoworkingin,havingdonesoforseveraldecades. Likeotheranthropologistswhoretainlong-termrelationshipswith thepeoplewithwhomtheywork,Iamreturningtofamiliarplacesand
161
162
Sandy Toussaint
faces,soundsandsmells.Anaffectionate,interactiveprocessofnews exchangetakesplaceinsettingsthatincludepeople’shomes,riverbanks, dry creek beds, the roadhouse, or garage (where petrol, cool drinks, andfoodcanbepurchased),thelocalartcenter,bushcampssuchas MoorgoomoorgoowidiandJiliyarti,cattlestations,andshadyroadside byways.Conversationsfocusonnewborninfants,aninnovativepottery makingcenter,thediminishedstateofthelocalFitzroyRiver,theextent offishcatches,progressonthelatestnativetitlelandclaim,andthe content of a meeting on economic and environmental issues that I havecometoattend. Ourinteractionsalsofocusonsorrowfulandtragicnews:thesuicide byhangingofaneleven-year-oldboy,thedeathduetorenalfailure ofamiddle-agedman,andthesenselessbashingofawomanbyher inebriatedandviolenthusband.Severalcommunitieshavehousesin urgentneedofrepair,andabore-waterpumprequiringmaintenance floodsatleastonefamily’shome.Ilearn,too,thatwithoutadequate funding,anIndigenousorganizationhasrelocateditsofficetoBroome, leavinglocalgroupswithouttheirownresourcecentertofacilitate,on theirbehalf,matterssuchasresourceexplorationandnativetitleland claims. IremainintheKimberleyforfourweeks,participatinginmeetings andcarryingoutethnographicworkrelatedtoacollaborativeresearch projectabouttheuseandmanagementofwatersources.TheKimberleyis oneoffourAustralianlocationswherethisresearchisbeingundertaken. After a month, I return to another work site. This one is at a Perth universitywhereIhaveatenuredacademicposition.Ilecture,tutorand mentorstudents,carryoutreviewsofresearchgrantapplicationsand manuscripts,andattendtofartoomuchadministration.Icheckemails, correspondence, and phone calls, mark honors papers, and prepare anexamforasocialtheorycourse.Iconsultwithstudentsaspiringto becomeprofessionalanthropologistsanddealwithrequestsfromthe administrativeunitwithinwhichanthropologyissituatedtoquantify workloads.Iamadvisedthatfromnowon,researchforlecturecreation andpresentationistobecountedasequivalenttotwohoursonlyfor onelectureandasonehouronlyforatutorialorseminar. Iattendtoarangeofothermatters,includinginformationthatthe ethnographicmuseumforwhichIamaboardmemberistoextend itsmembershiptoincludebusinesspersonnel,sothatthemuseum’s financialpotentialcanbebetterrealized.Likeotheracademics,Iam encouragedtoapplyforresearchgrantstoenhanceschoolandfaculty budgetsandindividual“teachingbuyout”possibilities,soIperusethe
PotentialCollaborationsandDisjuncturesinAustralianWorkSites 163
literature directed to me. A journalist from a national radio station makescontacttoorganizeaninterviewaboutthewaterresearchproject, asdoesasenioradviserfromagovernmentdepartmentwhowishesto arrangeameetingtodiscusstheproject’sfindings. SeveraldaysafterbeingbackinPerth,Icontemplatethevastlydifferent worksitesinwhichIaminvolved,ponderingthegeographic,economic, andintellectualdistancesbetweenthem.Ialsoreceiveaphonecallone eveningfromaKimberleyfamilymemberwhotellsmethatanother death has occurred. I am at home at the time, still grading honors essays.Ireplacethereceiverandreflectonthedeceasedperson’slife anddeath,theenormouslosstolovedones,andherfamily’ssituation. Ialsofindmyselfreflectingonbeingaworkinganthropologistinthe twenty-firstcentury. At a time when interest in anthropology is growing in countries suchasAustralia,thevariegateddemandsthatshapeanthropology’s adaptive practices generate both promise and contention. Inspired bytheemergenceofarangeof“worldanthropologies”(Ribeiroand Escobar 2006; see also Toussaint 2006a; World Anthropologies Network 2003), in this chapter I explore, from an experiential vantage point,thewayanthropologistsbothwithinhegemonicanthropology andascriticsofitmightendeavortocommunicatemoreeffectively withpeoplewhoareunfamiliarwiththediscipline’sethos,etiquette, andexpertise.Itreat“work”primarilyasresearchbutalsoasarange ofotherlabor-orientedtasks.Iconsideranthropologyasaculturally convenientproductandlookatthemultiplesitesinwhichanthropology increasinglyisdone. FocusedonAustraliansettingsandofferedasamultilayeredandinterwovenrendering,myapproachtothistimelytopicislargelyreflexive anddescriptive.IconcentrateontwoexamplesfromAustralianwork sites:alegalcontroversysurroundingtheestateofanAboriginalman who died intestate, and a cross-disciplinary cultural tourism project. BothworksitesaresituatedintheremoteKimberleyregionofWestern Australia, Australia’s largest state.1 My concern is with what these examples, on their own and in conjunction with each other, reveal aboutanthropologybothatandaswork.2Iamespeciallyinterestedin exploringtherichness,thelimitations,andtheculturalconvenience ofworkinganthropology’sexpansion.Inalesspronouncedway,and consistentwiththeopeningparagraphsofthechapter,Icontrastthe twoexampleswithexperiencesattheuniversityworksite.Ibeginby outliningthescopeofAustraliananthropologyatthetimeofwriting andrecentchangesinitspractice.
164
Sandy Toussaint
TheWorkofAustralianAnthropologists Australiananthropology,likeanthropologieselsewhere,isanincreasingly diversefieldofinquiry.Althoughmyexperience,hardlyuniqueinthe historyofAustraliananthropology,hasbeenprimarilywithIndigenous groups(e.g.,Toussaint1999a,2001,2003),3academicinteresthasgrown toincludesettlersocietiesandnon-Indigenoustopicsbothinsideand outside Australia—and somewhere in between, as in the plight of Indonesian fishers caught fishing off Australia’s northwest coastline. ResearchandteachingarecarriedoutwithregardtoaspectrumofAsian contextssuchasBangladesh,thePhilippines,andIndonesia,European settingssuchasItalyandtheBalkans,andlocationsintheMiddleEast andNorthAfrica.Subjectmattervariesgreatlyandincludesrefugees andmigration,environmentalstudies,theanthropologyofdisability, musicology,genderandsexuality,governance,healingrituals,textile practice,globalization,andthepoliticsofhealth. Alongsidethisrichexpansionoftopicshascomeamarkedshiftinthe extenttowhichappliedorpracticalanthropologyisbeingdone.The mainreasonforthisdevelopmentisa1992decisionbytheAustralian HighCourtinthecaseMabov.Commonwealth(No.2),generallyknownas the“Mabodecision”orMabo.Thisrulingresultedinpassageofthe1993 NativeTitleActandtheestablishmentofaprocesswherebyIndigenous peoplecouldlodgeclaimsforlandinanationaltribunal.Thisprocess necessitatesanthropologicalinput,andMabohasgeneratedsubstantial employmentforanthropologistsasfull-timeorpart-timeresearchers forIndigenouslandcouncils,governmentagencies,nongovernmental organizations, and sectors of industry (see Toussaint 2006a). It has also facilitated the introduction of expensive, fee-paid courses in Australian universities in which students are specifically trained for workinmultidisciplinarynativetitleresearchprojects.Itislessclear thatIndigenousclaimantsandtheirfamilieshavebenefitedfromMabo inthewaytheoriginaldecisionforeshadowed.Fewclaimshavebeen wholly successful, and mediation to resolve claim disputes is often lengthyandcostly,tendingtoprivilegethelawsoftheAustralianstate overcustomarylandtenurelaws(RitterandFlanagan2004).4 Foranthropologists,nativetitleclaimsrepresentaworksitethatdraws onmanifoldaspectsofanthropologicalresearch—conductingfieldwork, analyzingethnographicdata,recordingoralhistories,preparingand reviewingclaimreports,researchingandproducinggenealogies,filtering archival material, and so on. These activities take place in different settings(on-siteatspecificlocations,inuniversity,government,and
PotentialCollaborationsandDisjuncturesinAustralianWorkSites 165
tribunaloffices,infederalorhighcourt,inmuseumsandlibraries)and withdifferentpersons(claimants,lawyers,administrators,archivists, geographers, and so on). Work on native title cases also requires anthropologistsincreasinglytoreflectonhowbesttoservearangeof clientsandtoexplainthebenefitsofanthropologicalinquirytononanthropologists. Althoughnativetitleworkregularlyhighlightsthetypeofcommunicationpossiblebetweenanthropologistsandlawyers(apointexpanded on in Trigger 2004), other aspects of Indigenous life, in addition to title recovery, are likely to benefit from anthropological knowledge and practice. These include health, healing, and mourning, where possibilitiesforenhancingknowledgeandensuringappropriatecare forillorbereavedpersonsarelikelytoariseifdiscursiveengagement betweenmedicalpractitioners(nurses,doctors,specialists,counselors, therapists)andculturalormedicalanthropologiststakesplace.Moreover,constructiverapprochementbetweenanthropologistsandenvironmentalscientistscanfacilitategreaterunderstandingofhuman-habitat relationships.5 The sort of multifaceted, multisited anthropology I have just outlinedencompasses,ofcourse,farmorethanjustnativetitle,health, andenvironmentalstudies.Theoutlinedoes,however,introducethe complexofissuesIpursueinthischapter.Toilluminatethoseissues,I examinetwoprojectsfocusedonIndigenousAustraliansettings,with theuniversityworksiteasbackdrop.Myaimistoshowhowthetwo kindsofsitescanbedistinguishedfromeachother,adistinctionthat bringsintosharpreliefworkinganthropology’srichpotential,aswell asitslimitations.Itisthese“twinpeaks”ofpotentialandlimitations thatensureanthropology’sworkingfuture:thereispromisetobebetter realized, obstacles that warrant further anthropological engagement, andpathwaysthatshouldbeapproachedwithcaution. Describingandanalyzinganthropologybothasandatworkembodies, notsurprisingly,arangeofinquiries,perspectives,andexperiences,some ofwhichIcannotexplorehere.Theexclusionof,forexample,settler andenvironmentalissuesinAustraliaandthecomplexrelationship betweenAustraliaanditsneighborsdoesnotminimizetheirimportance toworkinganthropologyinparticularandtoAustraliananthropology ingeneral.MyconcentrationonIndigenousAustraliansundoubtedly raisesconcernsthatanthropologistswhoworkwithothergroupsdo notregularlyhavetotakeintoaccount.Itisnosecret,forinstance,that AboriginalandIslanderwomen,men,andchildrencontinuetosuffer thehighestratesofmorbidityandmortalityinAustraliansociety.This
166
Sandy Toussaint
shockingsituationcomplicatesthewaysinwhichanthropologicalwork withIndigenousgroupstakesplace,arealityevidentintheopening paragraphsofthischapterandthreadedthroughouttherestofit.6
Kumunjayi’sEstate “Kalyeeda,”amemberoftheWalmajarrilanguagegroup,whosehomelandsareinthesouthwestKimberley,calledtosaythatoneofheruncles, amaninhissixtieswhomIrefertohereas“Kumunjayi”(anIndigenous termforarecentlydeceasedperson)haddied.Asayoungmaninthe 1970s, Kumunjayi had suffered a mental illness and been removed byhealthdepartmentauthoritiesfromhisfamilyandcommunityto an institution in Perth. He lived at the institution for almost three decades,unabletoreturntovisithisKimberleykin.Familymembers keptintouchwithhimbysendingcardsandparcelsofclothingand bymakingphonecalls.Theyalsovisitedhimwhenevertheytraveled thelongdistancetoPerth. In accordance with local custom and law, Kumunjayi’s body was returnedtotheKimberley.Extensivearrangementsfortheburialwere madebyclosefamilymembers.Afterthefuneral,mourningactivities, including ritual wailing or keening, a smoke ceremony, and the enactmentofdietaryrestrictionsforkin,especiallyrestrictionsonthe consumptionofbeef,tookplaceamonghisclosestrelatives. Several months after the funeral service, a social worker from the PerthinstitutionwhereKumunjayihadresidedforsolongcontacted thefamilytoadvisethatbecauseKumunjayihaddiedintestate,the staffwasunsurewhattodoaboutthefundsthatremainedinhisbank account.Kumunjayihadaccumulatedasizableamountofmoneyasa resultofsocialsecurity(or“governmentwelfare”)entitlementshehad received.Thecostofhisinstitutionalizationhadnotconsumedallof hisfortnightlydisbursement,norhadthesefundsbeenusedforother purposes,primarilybecauseKumunjayi’sabsencefromhiscommunity meantthathehadbeenuninvolvedintheusualcycleofeconomic exchangeandreciprocityintheKimberley.Withoutawill,thesocial worker advised Kalyeeda, the institution had to direct the matter of Kumunjayi’suntouchedfundstothestategovernment’sPublicTrustees Office.Oncethisoccurred,thelegalandadministrativearrangements couldbeworkedout. Upon contact with the Public Trustees Office, Kalyeeda called me again.Shesaidthattheofficeandagenealogicalservicesorganization hadbeenbriefedtoworkonKumunjayi’scase.Personnelfromthese
PotentialCollaborationsandDisjuncturesinAustralianWorkSites 167
offices had stressed to Kalyeeda, as the family’s representative, that variouspiecesoffamilyinformationweremissing.BecauseKumunjayi andhissiblingswereofthegenerationforwhichbeingbornin“the bush”andnotinalocalhospitalwascommon,certificatestoconfirm theirbirthsandbirthdatesdidnotexist.Oflessimportance,butalsoat issue,wasthatthestatehadneverissuedacertificateshowingthelegal marriageofKumunjayi’sparents,whohadbeenbetrothedandmarried undertheIndigenoussystemofreligionandcustomarylaw. Fromtheperspectiveofthestate,noofficialdocumentationexisted toshowthatKumunjayiwaswhohewassaidtohavebeen.7Theproblem that arose for the family, therefore, was that of demonstrating hisexistenceandtheirheritagetothePublicTrusteesOfficeandthe genealogicalservicesoffice.Howcouldthefamilyshowitsrelationship toKumunjayiinawaythatwouldbeacknowledgedoutsidetheirown systemofreligionandlaw?OnbehalfofKumunjayi’sfamily,Kalyeeda askedwhetherIcouldprovidesomeassistance.Inparticular,thefamily thoughtthatthefamilytreeonwhichIhadworkedwiththemformany years(andinwhichKumunjayihadautomaticallybeenincluded)might helptoexplaintheircircumstances.8 My initial response was that the state personnel involved should understand that Indigenous testimony was sufficient to support the family’sclaim,especiallybecausehistoricalproblemsassociatedwith customary-lawmarriagesandtheuse(ormisuse)ofcertificateshadbeen dealtwithinfindingsoftheAustralianLawReformCommission(1986) andtheRoyalCommissionintoAboriginalDeathsinCustody(1991). ButKalyeeda’sresponseand,toalesserextent,theresponsesofpeoplein thePublicTrusteesOfficeandthegenealogicalservicesorganizationwas thatthegenealogywascrucialtorevealinghowKumunjayihadbeen connected to past and present kin, especially grandparents, parents, siblings,andtheoffspringofsiblings.9 StaffatthePublicTrusteesOfficeandthegenealogicalservicesorganizationalsomadeitclearthatgenealogicaldatacouldassistthemin ‘‘filling in the historical gaps” where birth and marriage certificates should (from the vantage point of the state) have been.10 Similarly, Kumunjayi’sfamilymadethepointthatthegenealogycouldnowbe usedforapurposethathadnotoriginallybeenenvisioned,andalthough theyfeltsomereluctancetoprovideinformationtoanunknowngroup ofgovernmentofficers,thegenealogyhadthepotentialtoenhancetheir claimasbeneficiaries.Thefamilybelievedthatcommunicatingsuchdata couldalsohelptoeducatenon-Indigenouspeopleaboutthestructure andtheaffectivecontentofIndigenousfamilyrelationships.
168
Sandy Toussaint
Takingintoaccounttheconcernsofallparties,butstillambivalent abouttheuseofanthropologicalworkincircumstanceswhereIndigenous testimonyshouldhavebeenallthatwasneededtoprovethecase,I agreedtoextracttherelevantinformationfromthelargegenealogyon whichIhadbeenworking.Ialsopreparedaletterexplaininghowto interpretthematerialandsentbothdocumentstothestaffworkingon Kumunjayi’scase.Thisaction,unfortunately,didnotendthematter. Although Kumunjayi’s mother, father, siblings, and maternal and paternalgrandparentswerealllocatedinthegenealogyinaccordance withtheinformationIhadcollected,theextractseemedtocomplicate thingsinwayswehadnotanticipated. For one thing, officers at the genealogical services organization askedmetoclarifyKumunjayi’s“biological”and“blood”relationships, becausethesewerethemostimportanttieswithregardtocurrentpolicy andlegislativerequirements.11Mytaskthenbecameoneoftryingto explicatethewayinwhichIndigenousfamiliesareconstituted,which includesacomplexmixofsocialandbiologicalclassificationswherein “blood” ties are not necessarily privileged. In Kumunjayi’s case, his biologicalfatherwasnotthemanwholivedwithhismother.Norwas hethemanKumunjayicalledfather.ThemanKumunjayicalledfather, amanwidelyrecognizedbymembersofhisextendedfamilyandthe localcommunityasKumunjayi’s“properfather,”wasthemanwholived long-termwithhismotherandwithwhomshehadtwootherchildren. ThesechildrenwereregularlyreferredtoandtreatedasKumunjayi’s sister and brother, although within the government’s purview they wereregardedashalf-siblings.12 AlthoughIwasabletoexplaintoKumunjayi’sfamilytheneedto have“whitefella”documentationtoverifytothestatewhoheand his descendants were, I was less successful in persuading either the genealogicalservicesorganizationorthePublicTrusteesOfficeofthe importanceofunderstandingthesocialandculturalimplicationsof Kumunjayi’ssituation.Staffatthetwoofficeshadindicatedinourinitial discussionsthatKumunjayi’scasewouldbenefitfromculturalanalysis andanthropologicalinputonsomeofthekinshipissues,butasamore complexinterpretationemerged,thispositionshiftedtoonefocused on the reporting of biological ties in the terms required by relevant policiesandlegislation.AletterIreceivedfromthegenealogicalservices organization,dated7April2005,said,“Forthepurposesofinheritance underintestacylaws...weareonlyinterestedinbiologicalrelatives, notculturalones.” This statement stifled communication, revealing that although at onestageithadbeenculturallyconvenientandperhapsthoughtofas
PotentialCollaborationsandDisjuncturesinAustralianWorkSites 169
expedientforeachpartytodrawonanthropologicalwork,thiswasno longerthecase.Thefamily’smajorconcernsincludeditsdesiretohave itssocialandcultural(aswellasbiological)affiliationswithKumunjayi recognizedandtheambivalentstatusofKumunjayi’sfatherrectified. What constituted evidence to demonstrate kin-based relationships becameamajorissue.13 Atthetimeofwriting,Kumunjayi’scaseremainsunresolved,andit isunclearwhetherornothisdescendantswillbenefitfromhisestate. Thehopethatsomeofthemorecomplexissuesthatguideandmake meaningful contemporary Indigenous sociality and cultural life and theaspirationthatfutureclaimswillnotbedeniedinthesameway continuetobeunfulfilled.Theusefulnessofanthropologicalworkinthe casealsoremainsunclear,despitethatwork’sbeingbasedonlong-term engagementresultingin,amongotherthings,adetailedandpotentially usefulgenealogy,anddespitetheopportunityofculturaltranslationfor eachparty.Suchknowledgeandexpertisewereundoubtedlylimited bythelegal,historical,andstructuraldomainsinwhichattemptsto resolveKumunjayi’slegacyweremade. Iworkedonthecaseinmultiplewaysfamiliartomostanthropologists— asresearcher,interlocutor,expertwitness,advocate,andinterpreter— andatmanydifferentsites,includingKumunjayi’shomecommunity andgovernmentanduniversityoffices.Iwasalsorequiredtoexplain knowledge and information in different communicative formats— translated conversations, emails, faxes, phone calls, correspondence. I explained a complex system of kinship and customary law to one partyandanequallycomplexsystemofevidentiaryissuestoanother. Questionsofkinshipresultedinadistinction’sbeingmadewithrespect tofamilymembersrelatedthroughbiologicaldescent,or“bloodties,” and those related through “social kinship.” This distinction was a key issue, one likely to arise again in Australia, where Kumunjayi’s casehighlightsthedifficultyforIndigenouspersonsofdealingwith jurisdictionalintestacylaws. Severalsignificantissuesarisefromthisexample.Howcananthropologistsmoreeffectivelyputtoworktheknowledgethatemergesin verydifferentethnographicsitesandasaresultofculturaltranslation andinterpretation?Howcantheresultsofourpracticesbetranslated into structural change? In this case, how can the principles of Indigenouskinshipbeformallyencodedinrelevantpoliciesandlaws? Howusefulwastheanthropologicalworkwhen,withitsfocusonthe socialandculturalratherthanbiologicalrequirementsofkinship, it had the potential to work against the interests of Kumunjayi’s family?
170
Sandy Toussaint
Indigenous people are increasingly being advised by lawyers who workinorganizationssuchastheAboriginalLegalService(aservicenow availableineveryAustralianstateandterritory,althoughitsofficesare widespreadandnotalwaysfundedadequately)oftheirentitlementswith regardtothewritingofwillsandtheconsequencesofdyingintestate. Consequently,thesituationthataroseforKumunjayi’sfamilyislikely toberepeated.DemandsforthekindofanthropologicalworkIhave describedarelikelytoincrease,soitisanareathatrequiresattentionto ensureitseffectiveness.Butsucheffectivenesshastodonotonlywith anthropologists,whosepowerandauthoritywillalwaysbeconstrained byforcesoutsidetheirsphereofknowledgeandcontrol.Iwasunable toassistKumunjayi’sbeneficiaries,despitethefactthatthegenealogy andthetranslationofKumunjayi’sfamily’sinformationcontainedvital evidencetosupporttheircase.Thequestionthatarises,therefore,is howtheprocessandresultsofanthropologicalworkcanbetransformed frombeingconceptualizedasconvenientormutedtobeingseenasa vitalresource.14
ACross-DisciplinaryCulturalTourismProject Thisexample,too,involvesaKimberleyworksite,andthecommunity isagainonewithwhichIhaveworkedasananthropologistformany years.Weweretherefore“known”toeachthroughdecadesofworkand otherexperiences.Forexample,wesharedfamilyinterests,regularly stayedateachother’shomeswheneitherpartywasintheKimberley or in Perth, tutored each other about cultural beliefs and practices, andenjoyedfishingandcampingexcursionswhennorthernseasonal conditionsallowed. Severalcommunityfamilygroupswerecommittedtodevelopinga culturaltourismprojectontheirhomelands,alocationadjacenttoa uniqueseriesoflimestonecavesandriversystems.Aplaceofrefuge duringharrowingcolonialencounters,italsofiguredprominentlyasa significantsiteinlocaltradingroutesandsongcycles.Thetraditional owners,orseniorcustodians(thepersonswhoretainedculturaland religiousauthorityoverthesiteasordainedbycustomarylaw),asked whetherIcouldworkwiththemtorecordethnographicdatathat couldbewrittenupintoabooklettobesoldtotourists.Theaim wastomakeavailableunrestricted(publiclyavailable)information about their beliefs and practices as these related to the landscape andfrontierhistory,bushfoodandmedicine,mythologicalaccounts, andhistoricalevents.
PotentialCollaborationsandDisjuncturesinAustralianWorkSites 171
The land (also referred to by Indigenous groups as “country”) on whichthecommunityhadlivedandworkedforcountlessgenerations waspositionedbetweenanationalparkandacattlestation.Itwasthe typeoflocationthattouristsincreasinglywantedtovisit,partlybecause ofbroaderinterestinIndigenousculturesandreconciliationinapostMaboera.TheIndigenousownerswerehappytosharesomeoftheir knowledgeandwereenthusiasticaboutconstructinganenterprisethat might enable them to be economically independent. Without such opportunitiesthecommunity,likemanyothersinAustralia,remained dependent on government-issued social security entitlements. The venturewasthereforeconceptualizedasonethatcouldnotonlyprovide educationforpeoplevisitingthesitebutalsogenerateemploymentfor currentandfuturefamilymembers. Ireadilyagreedtoworkalongsidethecommunity,astrong,cohesive groupoffamilieswithadesiretomaintainaviablelivingandworking place on their own land. After some preliminary research, and mindfulofthesite’sgeological,geographic,environmental,andarchaeological qualities, I raised with the community the possibility of havingascientistworkontheproject.15Therewereseveralreasons forthissuggestion.First,suchinvolvementmightproduceresearch resultsthatIcouldnotprovide.Withthekindof“hard”scientificdata promisedbyanotherresearchercomplementingtheethnographicdata Iwouldproduce,theevidencemightappealtoanumberofaudiences in addition to tourists. These included scholars in Indigenous and environmentalstudies,colleaguesincognatedisciplines,andfuture fundingagencies.16 Thesecondreasonwasthatasafull-timeacademicwhoregularly undertakesappliedresearch,inparttoretainagroundedperspectiveand tosupportcommunityaspirations,Iwantedtofostercross-disciplinary work that might “add value” to future research grant applications. Another important dimension was that such collaborative research mighthelptogenerateanew,unique,substantivebodyofknowledge. My interests could therefore be described as encompassing a variety ofworksitesandacomplexmixofintellectual,practical,ethical,and economicmotives. Afterlengthycommunicationthatincludedconversationsatthesite, ameetingbetweenthescientistandthefamilygroupsinvolved,and follow-upphonecallsandfaxes,thecommunityindicatedawillingness tohaveanotherresearcherworkontheproject.Withsupportfromthe communityandinreceiptoftherequiredethicsapproval,mycolleague andIthenappliedforandreceivedagranttoundertaketheresearch.
172
Sandy Toussaint
Astheprojectproceeded,myworkextendedtokeepingthescientist andthecommunityinformedabouteachother’ssituation—forexample, bycontextualizingtheculturalenvironmentandlocalhistoryforthe scientistandexplainingtheactionsandprioritiesofthescientisttothe community.Itseemedlikelyintheearlystagesthattheprojectwouldbe arewardingonewiththepotentialtopromotepracticalideasforcrossdisciplinaryworkinsimilarsituations.Althoughtheprojectwasbuilton anIndigenousinitiative,anadditionalaimbecamethatofconstructing a“workingmodel”forcross-disciplinarycollaborativeprojectsinvolving diverseresearchersandcommunitygroupselsewhere. Overeighteenmonths,researchwascarriedoutintermittentlyfor severalweeksatatimebothatthefieldsiteandatourrespectiveworkplaces. Guided by members of the community, especially the senior custodians and a local liaison officer, the project team was able to produce extensive cultural and historical documentation about the place, including significant ethnographic, historical, environmental, andarchaeologicalsites,oneofwhichrevealedthousandsofyearsof humanoccupation.Theprojectalsoresultedincommunityagreement tonominatetheareaforinclusioninanationalheritageregisterand producedmaterialforthepreparationofaculturaltourismbooklet. At the outset, the aim was for the community to be involved in training and on-site research methods, such as recording interviews, culturalmapping,photographicwork,anddigging.Afurtheraim,as Imentioned,wastoidentifyamodelthatmightbeusefulforcrossdisciplinary work in similar projects and in the human and other sciencesmoregenerally.Butduringfieldworkitbecameapparentthat thescientistandIhadquitedifferentemphasesandworkedinvery differentways.Whatseemedtomattermostformycolleague,asfar asIcouldgauge,wasphysicalevaluationofthesiteandtherecording ofmaterialitems.Whatmatteredmosttomewasunderstandingthe community’s representations of its cultural attachments to persons andplace. Tensions between my co-researcher and me began to become apparentinthemornings,whenwevisitedthecommunityontheway to particular work sites or where we planned to work on a certain day. This kind of ritual visiting usually involved several hours of conversation and negotiation with the project collaborators, often whiledrinkingcupsofstrong“billytea,”eatinghome-bakedbread (knownas“damper”),andtalkingaboutmattersofrelevancetothe community.Asananthropologist,Iregardedthesetimesascrucial totheproject’ssuccess.Conversationsandspendingquietornoisy
PotentialCollaborationsandDisjuncturesinAustralianWorkSites 173
timetogethernotonlyeliciteddatabutalsogeneratedsubstantive debaterelatedtoculturalhistoryandmattersofinteresttothefamilies. Thesetimes,whichforanyanthropologistcouldbereferredtoonly as“work,”alsoinvolvedanassessmentbyseniorwomenandmen regarding who was best suited to work as paid assistants on the project that day—collecting species examples, explaining cultural data,taggingsamples,tracking,andsoforth.Suchtime,too,opened upvaluableopportunitiestodiscusspeople’squestionsorconcerns about a project going on at the community’s home, a place it had occupiedforthousandsofyears. Thescientist,however,becameincreasinglyagitatedandexpressed irritation about “too much time being wasted” at the community each morning before traveling to the actual work site, a distance of approximatelytenkilometersacrossdifficultterraininafour-wheeldrivevehicle.Anumberoffractiousmomentsarosethataffectedusin differentways.Thescientistexpressedurgencytocollectandbagas manysamples(charcoal,plantspecies,etc.)aspossible,whereasIwas keentobuildonandinterprettheethnographicandhistoricaldata.I wasalsoconcernedtomaintainthekindofsocialityIhadestablished withthecommunityoverseveraldecadesandwasmindfulofthesocial andeconomiccircumstancesinwhichtheylived.17 Things worsened after the field component of the research was completedandthescientistandIreturnedtoourrespectiveworksites. Difficulties arose when certain items were not returned to the communitywithinarequiredtimeframe,despiteanearlieragreementthat theitemswouldberemovedonlytemporarilyandhadtobereturned. Fromthescientist’sangle,theseitemscouldbeusefullyemployedin teaching students, a judgment I regarded as a divergence from our originalworkplanandonethatalawyerlateradvisedwasabreachof confidentiality.18 Anaddedconcernwasthatwhereaswehadbothagreednottowrite abouttheresearchprojectorourfindingsbeforeconferringwiththe community and each other, the scientist overlooked this and wrote abouttheprojectwithoutpriorconsultation.WhenIbecameaware thatanarticlehadbeensubmittedforpublication,itwastoolateforit tobewithdrawn.Theresponsefromcommunitymembersonhearing thisnewswasoneofanxiety,asexpressedbyoneofthecustodians:“But everyonewillknowaboutusnow...we’reworried...wedon’twant televisioncamerasouthere.”Inlightofthedifficultyofsecuringthe returnoftheitemstothecommunity,thepublicationofthearticle,and anumberofrelatedconcerns,supportforthescientistwaswithdrawn
174
Sandy Toussaint
in a letter sent by the traditional owners, a request with which the scientisteventuallycomplied. The community and I were both distressed by this unanticipated seriesofevents.Fordifferentreasons,itislikelythatthescientistfelt similarlydisaffected.Despitealloriginalintentionsandacontinuing interest in having a “different” kind of knowledge infused into the project,Isustainedaterribleuneaseandcametoregretfacilitatingthe involvementofsomeoneunknowntothecommunity.19Ilookedfor waystotrytoreconcilethesituationbutwasnotparticularlysuccessful, exceptthatthecommunityandIcontinuedtocollaborateonthecultural tourismbooklet.Ourjointendeavorsresultedinitsrealization. Thisexampleraisesanumberofissuesthatdemandanthropological contemplation.Althoughinavarietyofwaystheculturaltourismproject couldbeanalyzedasanendeavorinwhichethicalandpoliticalconflicts wereamplified,withsomedistancefromtheprojectitseemsclearthat certainproblemsarosebecauseeachresearcherapproachedthework situationfromaverydifferentexperientialdynamic.Wealsocamefrom verydifferenteducationalandsociallyattunedculturalbackgrounds.It wasnotthatwewereunabletounderstandthepossiblecontributions ofeachother’sdiscipline;beforethefieldwork,theemphasiswason collaboration.Inthefield,differentprioritiesemerged,andafterthe fieldwork, they intensified. The scientist, for instance, felt pressured to produce the kinds of results that are increasingly encouraged in Australian universities—grants, publications, prospects for further research.Anthropologistsaresimilarlyencouraged,butmostofthem, Isuggest,continuetoputthecommunitieswithwhichtheyworkfirst when a conflict of interest arises. It also appeared that the scientist, unfamiliarwithlocalfacesandplacesandthesoundsandsmellsof theworksite(andassomeonenot“known”bythelocalcommunity), hadtriedtooptimizeaculturallyopportunemeanstogainaccesstoa siteandcommunityotherwiseinaccessible.20 Cross-disciplinaryworkwasunsuccessfulforanyofthepartieson thisoccasion.AlthoughIbelieveanthropologistsneedtobecautious aboutcross-disciplinarywork,primarilybecausetheuniquenessand integrity of anthropological work may be diminished under such arrangements,thereisclearlyroomforsuchworktobeeffectiveinresearchandteaching.Aperennialepistemologicalandethicalproblem for all anthropologists, especially those in similar situations, is how toensurethatanthropologicalwork,experience,andknowledgeare fruitfullysoughtandacquired.Atpresent,astheexamplesdiscussed here represent, anthropology’s contribution remains contested or
PotentialCollaborationsandDisjuncturesinAustralianWorkSites 175
ambiguously understood. In Australian settings, circumstances for anthropologyandrelateddisciplinesareoftenaffectedbystructuraland economicchangesintheuniversitysectorandtheeffectsoftechnology inincreasinglyglobalcontexts.
Discussion The experiential character that forms the core of my two examples contrasts starkly with the character of a university work site. But althoughtheenvironment,aesthetic,methods,andpurposesofthe twositesdiffer—asintheuseofparticipant-observationfieldworkinone andthepreparationoflecturesintheother—theyparalleleachother inthateachisalocationinwhichdifferentkindsofanthropological worktakeplace. For a number of reasons, the distinction between work sites is widening, a phenomenon that necessitates an exploration not only of anthropological practice but also of the teaching, research, and ethical implications for anthropology’s working future. One reason underlyingthisphenomenonisthat,asaresultofgovernmentpolicies aimedatcommercializingthetertiaryoruniversitysector,academic anthropologistshavebeendrawnintoasituationinwhichcompetition forresearchgrantsandconsultanciesisregularlyencouraged.Insome projects,theinclusionofanthropologistsmightaddaconvenientedge intermsofexpertiseinsocialorculturalissues.Acorporate-likestructure is emerging in Australian universities, bringing with it a managerial stylesomeintellectualdistancefromacademicresearchandscholarly expertise (Strathern and Stewart 2001). A second reason is that the Australianfederalgovernmenthasintroducedindustrialreformsthat have the potential to further diminish the working entitlements of all academics, including anthropologists. New contracts referred to as“AustralianWorkplaceAgreements,”orAWAs,threatentoabolish protectionforunfairdismissal,changethewaysinwhichminimum wagesareset,diminishtheroleoftertiarysectorunions,andremove thepowersofanindependentindustrialrelationscommission(Allport 2005). The third reason is that the use of technology in global contexts hasaddedtothecomplexdemandsmadeonandbyuniversitystaff, including anthropologists. As I have discussed elsewhere (Toussaint 2006b),althoughtheInternetandcyberspacefacilitiescanproducethe conditions for productive engagement—such as for communication among members of the World Anthropologies Network—in local
176
Sandy Toussaint
circumstancessuchtechnologycanweakencollegiality.Forexample, expedientemailexchangesmayreplacemorediscursiveandinformative corridorconversations. The work sites discussed here provide, at one level, unique case studies,buttheyalsorevealstrikingresonancesandreflectchanging social,economic,andpoliticalcircumstances,includingthosewithin thedisciplineofanthropology.Whenthelayersofeachworksiteare unraveled, it is clear that a multitude of complex issues is in need of further inquiry, discussion, and debate. Anthropologists are best placednotonlytoundertakesuchdiscussionsbutalsotoeducatefuture generationsabouttheirepistemological,methodological,andethical importance.Arangeofworkingpathwaysisclearlyemerging,alongside questions surrounding how, what, where, and by whom such work willbedone. Anthropologistswhodonotworkwithcolonizedcommunities(sectors ofwhichremainseverelydisadvantaged)mighttelladifferentworking storyofAustraliananthropology.ButIbelievetheexperientialrendering Ihaveofferedreflectspractical,intellectual,andethicalconcernsthat will be recognized by, if not directly understood or experienced by, manykindsofanthropologists.Communicatingamongourselves,creatingroomformultipleanthropologiestoemerge,andinvestigatinga transparentmeanstoexplainthepotentialofanthropologyasworking “product”representmanifoldpossibilities.Butthesepossibilitieswill alwaysneedtobebalancedalongsidethesocialandculturalcomplexities thatfilterandsometimesstiflethelivesandaspirationsofthepeople amongwhomanthropologistswork.
Epilogue The Australian academic year is drawing to a close. University staff arenowheavilyinvolvedinmarkingexams,organizingandranking scholarships,thinkingaboutteachingrequirementsforthenextyear, andpreparingcourseworkoutlinesandreadinglists.Writingprojects remainhalf-finished,givingwaytomoreurgenttaskssuchasdealing withstudentswhofailedessayandtutorialpapers,finalexammeetings withcolleagues,administrativedemands,andthepreparationofreferee reports for students about to enter the “real” world of work. Email exchangesareatapremium,oftenreplacingwhatmighthavebeen more immediate and fruitful conversations but sometimes enabling aspiringinternationalstudentstomakeinquiriestheywouldhavebeen unabletomaketenyearsearlier.ArallytoprotesttheeffectsofAWAs
PotentialCollaborationsandDisjuncturesinAustralianWorkSites 177
onuniversitystaffiswidelyadvertised,andthereisageneralmood ofuneaseaboutfutureworkingconditions,especiallyforlesssenior contractstaff. IstarttoprepareforareturntriptotheKimberley,whereIwillattend thefuneralIhavebeentoldabout.“Wehavesomemorebadnews,” thecallerhadsaid.Althoughthenewswashardformetohear,forthe familiesitmeansatimeofprolongedanguish.Referredtolocallyas “sorrybusiness,”anexpressionthateloquentlyconveysthedistressof allconcernedwhenadeathoccurs,theprocesshasbecomeunrelenting, sothatnow“toomuchsorrybusiness”isregularlyexchanged. TravelingnorthtotheKimberley,againbyplane,Icontemplatethe different work sites in which I am involved, work sites that are not unusualforanthropologistswithknowledge,backgrounds,andhistories similartomine.Irealizethatthelivedexperience,thequestioning,and thecritiqueIhavelearnedbybeingananthropologistandworkingas oneembodyacertainpracticalandsymbolicinspiration.Thisrigorous practiceanduniqueethosnurtureabeliefinthepossibilityofchange and the uniqueness of cultural difference. A different vision—one withoutanthropology—isamuchdarkerandlessvitalvisionofworking anthropology’sfutureandofthehumansituation.
Notes 1. A brief selection of publications focused on Indigenous groups in the KimberleylocationdiscussedhereincludesBlundellandWooloogoodja2004, Crough and Christophersen 1993, Hawke and Gallagher 1989, Jebb 2002, LoweandPike1991andToussaint1999a,1999b. 2. This chapter builds on the paper I originally presented at the WennerGrensymposiumconvenedbyRichardFoxandLesField(NewYork,2005).I thanktheconveners,aswellaseachoftheothersymposiumparticipants,for creatingsuchadiscursive,collegial,andinspirationalenvironmentinwhich todiscussissuesofvitalimportancetopresent-dayworkinganthropologists. 3. ManyAustralian-basedanthropologistswhohaveworkedwithIndigenousgroupscouldbecitedhere;someofthemareIanKeen(2004),Francesca Merlan (1998), Howard Morphy (1998), Deborah Bird Rose (1992), Peter Sutton(2003),RobertTonkinson(1991),andDavidTrigger(1992). 4. The Australian High Court’s Mabo decision represented the first time a form of land title had been constructed around Indigenous meanings of
178
Sandy Toussaint
propertyownership.Indigenouspeoplesnowhavetoprove,withsupporting evidence from anthropological data, that they have a right to claim native title.Itisessentialtotherequirementsofnativetitlelawthatanindividualor groupshowacontinuingconnectionwiththelandconsistentwithtraditional Indigenoususe,showthatrightsinlandhavebeenconferredbycustomary law,orboth. 5. For more on native title claims, see, for example, Toussaint 2004. Although I have indicated caution about the value of cross-disciplinary work to anthropology, it is discussed in an increasing number of examples. See, for instance, Milton 1994 for a general discussion. For a collection focused onAustralia,seeMinnegal2005.TheURLforthecollaborativewaterproject I mentioned is http://www.anthropology.arts.uwa.edu.au/home/research/ under_water,whichprovidesanoutlineofathree-year,AustralianResearch Council–funded research project grant awarded to the environmental anthropologistVeronicaStrangandme.Titled“UnderWater:AComparative Ethnographic Analysis on Water and Resource Management in Queensland andWesternAustralia,”theresearchconcentratesonthesocialandcultural usesandmanagementofwaterinfourcontrastinglocations. 6. Australian Bureau of Statistics and Australian Indigenous Health and Welfare2001andAnderson2003areamongmanytextsthatprovidecritical andsubstantiveinsightsintothestateofIndigenoushealth. 7. Archivalmaterialin“NativeWelfare”governmentrecordsindicatedthat membersofthefamilywereknowntohavelivedduringthe1940s,1950s,and 1960soncertainreservesandpastoralstations,butthesedatawereregarded asinsufficientbecausetheyfailedtoclearlyindicatedescent.Itwasbirthand marriagecertificatesthatmatteredmosttothestateauthorities. 8. IworkedonKumunjayi’scasebecauseIhadknownthefamiliesinvolved forseveraldecadesandwantedtosupporttheiraspirations.Ididnotundertake theworkasaconsultancyorcontract,andIwaspaidbynoneoftheparties involved.Thistypeofsituationisnotunusualforanthropologistsinsimilar circumstancesandhelpstoillustratethediversewaysinwhichanthropological workisdone—inthiscaseasakindofvoluntarism,equivalenttotheprobono workundertakenbysomelawyers.ThatIhavechosentowriteanacademic paperaboutKumunjayi’sfamily’ssituationalsomakesplainanothercategory of“work.” 9. Afurtherissuethatarosewasthatsomefamilymembersdidnotknow thatthemanKumunjayihadcalledfatherwasnothisbiologicalfather.Itwas onlyduringdiscussionforthepurposesofthewillthataseniormanclarified thesituation.Familymembersacceptedthisclarificationasastatementoffact, butitinnowayaffectedthefather-sonrelationshipestablishedbyKumunjayi andhis“social”father.
PotentialCollaborationsandDisjuncturesinAustralianWorkSites 179
10. ThePublicTrusteesOfficeadvisedthatcasessuchasKumunjayi’swere ontheincrease.Beforethistime(amomentundoubtedlyinfluencedbythe Mabo decision and the subsequent Native Title Act, which had resulted in broadrecognitionofIndigenouslandtenurelawandoftennecessitatedthe productionofgenealogiestosupportclaimants’evidence),whenAboriginal andIslanderpeoplediedintestate,leftoverfundswereusuallydivertedback tothestate.LawyerswiththeAboriginalLegalServicewereensuringthatas manypeopleaspossiblewereinformedabouttheirrightsinthisregard. 11. Kumunjayihadnochildren,butwithintherequirementsofcustomary law,hedidhavefamilymemberswhoreferredtohimsociallyas“father”and “grandfather.” 12. Not all family members were interested in inheriting money through Kumunjayi’s estate. Of greater importance for some people was the failure ofthePublicTrusteesOfficetorecognizetheiridentitiesandrelationshipsto eachother.Fromtheirpointofview—onegivenauthoritybyadifferentlegal culture—it was incomprehensible that the absence of relevant certificates couldcausesuchproblems. 13. Keen1988providesadetailedoverviewofAustralianIndigenouskinship. 14. This example also reveals the importance of genealogical work in anthropology, perhaps indicating the need to reintroduce the teaching of genealogicalresearchinuniversities.InmostAustralianuniversities,thisfield ofteachingandlearninghasbecomealmostobsolete,althoughinresponseto Mabothesituationisbeginningtochange. 15. Idonotnamepersons,locations,ordisciplineshere.Myconcernis to canvass some of the vexed issues that this cross-disciplinary example prompts rather than apportion blame. The community wishes to remain anonymous. 16. Thatanthropologysitsmidwaybetweenthehumanitiesandthesciences isgenerallyacceptedamongmanyanthropologists,despitesomearguingfor oneemphasisoveranother.Myownpracticeissituatedinthearts-humanities spectrum. 17. Suchprofessionalemphasesarenotunusual,buttheoverridingcause of my concern was that we had originally agreed to work collaboratively and equally, with neither discipline dominating the other. The fieldwork experience,however,revealedearlyonthatthiswasunlikelytobethecase. Thepossibilityofdevelopingacross-disciplinarypracticemodelalsobecame elusive,althoughkeepingsuchavisioninmindhighlightedhowandwhen workingrelationsdiminished. 18. Theitemswereeventuallyreturnedtomeandtransportedbacktothe community. They are now held by the senior custodians in a “safekeeping place”on-site.
180
Sandy Toussaint
19. Idonotmeantosuggestthatallscientistsorresearchpartnerswould haveactedinthesamewayorthatthepersonconcernedwoulddosoagain. 20. ApprovaltoworkinIndigenouscommunitiesisnowformallyrequired bylocalIndigenousorganizationsandfundingbodies,suchastheAustralian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies, the Australian Research Council, and the National Health and Medical Research Council. Thecommunityconcernedmustprovideevidencethatithasbeenconsulted abouttheprojectandiswillingtogiveresearchersaccesstothecommunity. Researchpartnershipsaregenerallyencouraged,suchasbetweenIndigenous communitiesanduniversitiesandbetweengovernmentandnongovernment agencies. An indication of the likely benefits to Indigenous communities is highly regarded. Examples of such benefits include improvements in social conditions, innovative employment strategies, cultural storage (oral history records, artifact displays), and educational programs. Given my long-term involvement with the community, I was in a position to consult regularly withitsmembersandtoexplaintheroleofanotherresearcherontheproject. I was also able to achieve support from the community on the basis of its havingcometotrustmyjudgment.Suchcommunitysupportextendedtothe unknownresearcher.Thispermissionwouldnothavebeensoeasilygainedin othercircumstances,apointnotfullyunderstoodbyanypartyatthetime.
n i n e
The Dilemmas of “Working” Anthropology in Twenty-firstCentury India Nandini Sundar
P
eriodically in the last hundred years or so, anthropologists have soughtwaystorenewtheirdiscipline,tomakeitboththeoretically and practically more responsive to new working conditions. At the beginningofthetwenty-firstcentury,suchanexercisesuffersfromat leasttwoproblems.First,itpresupposesthatweknowwhatanthropology is,orthekindsofissueswithwhichitgenerallydeals:itlookstous morelikeafriedeggwithanidentifiablecoreandrunnymarginsthan likeanamoeba.Second,itimpliesthatweusethetermanthropologist torefertosomeonewhohasauniversitydegree(generallyaPhD)in anthropology, as opposed to an amateur interest, and who deploys thatprofessionalexpertisetodoresearch.Neitheroftheseassumptions maybeborneoutinpracticeasuniversitiessufferfromfundingcuts, asstudentsmoveawayfromgraduateprogramsintocorporatejobsor theNGOsectorbutstillidentifythemselvesasanthropologists,andas anthropologyisextendedintodiversefields.Diversenationalhistories andtraditionsofanthropologycomplicatethematterfurther. IntheIndiancontext,thechoiceofidentifyingwiththedisciplinary nomenclature“anthropology”—asagainst“sociology”—isbyitselfa researchproblem,aconditionofworkthataffectswhatwedoandhowwe mightdoit(seealsoBeteille1993,2000).Mosthistoriesofanthropology publishedinthe“West”(see,forexample,Freeman1999;Hays1992; Kuklick 1991; Stocking 1986, 1991, 1992; Van Bremen and Shimizu 1999;Vincent1990)haveemphasizedBritishandAmericanscholarship. Asia,Africa,andPolynesiafiguremerelyas“sites”forfieldworkrather 181
182
Nandini Sundar
than as places with their own traditions of scholarship. When the contributionofAsiaorAfricaisrecognized,itisusuallyintermsof thechallengesthatitsculturalpeculiaritiesposeforthedisciplines:for example,thechallengeposedbycastetostudiesofstratificationand socialinequalityworldwide(onAfricaandthedisciplines,seeBates, Mudimbe,andBarr1993). BecausemuchofthishistoryiswrittenintheUnitedStatesandthe UnitedKingdom,perhapsitisnaturalthatAmericanandBritishscholars figurelargeinit.Tosomeextent,moreover,thisimbalanceisbeing correctedbyothernationalhistoriesofanthropology(seeAhmad2003; Guldin1994;KloosandClaessen1991;Liu2002;Peirano1991).Yetwe arestillsomewayofffromseeinganthropologyasaglobalformationof knowledge,encompassingseveraldistinctsubformationsamongwhich USanthropologyissimplyone.Ofcoursetheverynotionofnational discursivetraditionsmaybeproblematic,givenknowledgeflows,but theeffectsonthedisciplineofdifferencesinemphasis,audiences,and soforthneedtobestudiedfurther. One standard history of Indian anthropology-sociology traces it toadministrativeproductionsofknowledgeintheformofcensuses, gazetteers,andthelike,whichreducedIndia,culturallyspeaking,to alandofcaste,kinship,family,andvillage(Cohn1990;Dirks2001). Yetthereismoretoitthanthat.Indiananthropologyandsociology were developing as professional disciplines and coming out of the shadowofgovernmentethnologyaroundthesametimeMalinowski was introducing his fieldwork revolution. The first departments of sociologyandanthropologywereestablishedinBombayandCalcuttaas earlyas1919and1921,respectively.Althoughtheanthropologytaught mightbesaidtohavebeenderivative—insofarasanthropologistswere trainedbytheBritishandreadBritishandAmericananthropological literature—theseearlyIndiananthropologistswerenotandcouldnot havebeenmereclones,consideringtheirpositionascolonizedIndians inanationstrugglingforindependence.Andinthe1950sitwould havebeenimpossibleforananthropologistteachinginIndiatoignore thebackgroundofnation-buildinginanydiscussionofcasteorfamily. Indiananthropologists-sociologistssuchasIrawatiKarve,N.K.Bose, andG.S.Ghuryetookupstudiesrangingfromtemplearchitectureto cityplanningandthedisplacementofpeoplebylargedams,fromthe workingconditionsofclerkstothesexualhabitsofthemiddleclass. Allthiswasdonelongbeforesuchtopicsbecamefashionableinthe anthropologyorsociologyofIndiaintheWest. LikeWesterners,whenIndiansstudiedthemselves,theycalledthe disciplinebywhichtheydidit“sociology,”eventhough,largelydue
TheDilemmasof“Working”AnthropologyinTwenty-first-CenturyIndia 183
to the anthropological training of the “founding fathers” in the UnitedKingdom,theirresearchwaslargelyanthropological—thatis, itdependedonethnographicobservationratherthanlarge-scalesurveys (seeDesai1996).Thebulkoftheworkwasonkinship,religion(mainly Hinduism), and caste, although, as the work of M. N. Srinivas and othersshows,itwasoftenconcernedwiththetransformationofthese institutionsbycolonialismandmodernization.1Incertainpartsofthe country,anthropologycontinuedtobethedisciplinaryname,witha four-fieldrepresentation.2Therelationshipisfartoocomplicatedto be explained in a few sentences. In the department of sociology in whichIwork,forexample,whatweteachhasmuchincommonwith the subject matter of sociology departments elsewhere in the world (e.g.,stratification,thesociologyofworkandleisure,industrialconflict, theoriesoforganization).Butwealsoteachtraditionalanthropological subjectssuchaskinship,andintermsofresearchmethod,themajority of faculty and PhD students do ethnography. My own training has beeninaUSdepartmentofanthropology.Inthischapter,therefore,I usethetermssociologyandanthropologyinterchangeablytoreflectthis mixedexperience. Havinglistedasetofcaveats,Iofferoneparticulartakeonanthropology’sfuturepreoccupations.Withintheinternationalpoliticalcontext of the beginning of the twenty-first century, I look at some of the differentarenasinwhichanthropologicaldilemmasof“engagement” areplayedout.Anthropologists,especiallyuniversity-basedacademics, facethesedilemmasbothasasocialclassandasaspecialcategoryof “intellectual.”AlthoughmyfocusisonIndia,Ibelievethesituationis sufficientlysimilarelsewhere(orthedissimilaritiessufficientlystriking toserveaspointsofreflection)tolendthischapterwiderrelevance.I arguethatanthropologistsconcernedwith“relevance”mustnecessarily perform a balancing act—for instance, while setting “standards” of anthropological excellence in a universe divided by language and experience,orwhencombiningacademicresearchandactivistwork atatimewhenactivismisnolongerconfinedtotheleft.Lookingback atthewaysinwhichearliergenerationsofanthropologistsdealtwith theproblemsoftheirtimes,problemsthatwerenolessurgentthan oursseemnow,oftenhelpsinlookingforward.
TheUniversityasaSiteofKnowledgeProduction: DebatesoverCredentialing Within anthropology, the distinction between applied and basic research has long been contested. However, the central problem in
184
Nandini Sundar
understanding,maintaining,ornegatingthebasic-versus-applieddistinctionisadilemmathatisnotpeculiartoanthropologybutrelatesto theuniversityasasiteofknowledgeproduction.AsBourdieushowedus, universitiesbytheirverynaturearepartofthewayinwhichthemodern state(andstatusquo)isconstructed.Exams,degrees,andcredentials areallwaysinwhichaclasssystemreproducesitself,undertheguise of“meritocracy.”Theemphasisontheimportanceofcertainkindsof knowledge,scholarship,and“academicmanners”—Bourdieu’sacademic habitus—enablestheremarkablefeatinwhichscholarsperformatively re-create structures of class even while, as individuals, they simply uphold“standards”inscholarship(Bourdieu1996). Severalstudiesofintellectualsasasocialclasshaveattributedtheir power to their position in the occupational structure. This power is thoughttohavegrownwiththeriseofa“knowledgeeconomy”(see Gagnon1987;Robbins1990).Itisclearthatgettinguniversitydegrees isanimportantpartoftheacquisitionofpower.Theroleplayedby “credentialing,”however,isnotstraightforward,intermsofthekind of capital represented by “cultural capital” (versus financial capital), the kinds of people who might have benefited from this strategy (women,someminorities),orwhoitexcludes(seeDupuy1991:77). Anthropological credentialing at the beginning of the twenty-first century is no longer what it was in the mid-1950s, the field having rapidlyexpandedtoincludefeministanthropology,queeranthropology, andsimilarsubdisciplines. Yetevenaspost-sixtiesscholarssoughttomaketheuniversitymore radicalthrough“actionresearch,”“engagedanthropology,”“concerned anthropology,”andsoforth(seeCurrentAnthropology1968;Huizerand Mannheim 1979; Hymes 1972), they had to struggle for acceptance ofthisscholarshipaslegitimate(seeGramsciinForgacs1988onthe needforknowledgetoappear“disinterested”).Thestruggle,thenas now,wastosimultaneouslychallengethestructureandrationaleof universitieswithinawiderschemeofclassreproductionandyetrely onuniversities’professionalpowertolegitimateone’sfindings.Today, giventhefracturednatureoftheacademiceliteandthefactthatpeople on both the right and the left deploy the power of professionalism, producinggood“basic”researchhasbecomeamorestrenuousexercise. Whateverone’sconcernswiththeelitismofscholarshiporanthropology, thereseemtobefewpracticalalternativestohavingone’sconclusions legitimatedthroughtheskeinofpeerreviewandotherformsofscholarly certification.Ontheotherhand,becauseofthemultiplicityofjournals andtheoreticalandpoliticalperspectives,peerreviewisaproblematic notion.
TheDilemmasof“Working”AnthropologyinTwenty-first-CenturyIndia 185
Scholarswhodowishtointerveneinthe“real”worldarewidelyseen tohavethreechoicesopentothem:detachedanalysisanditsattendant powerlessness,serviceforthestateorthoseinpower,oralignmentwith forcesseekingtochallengethestatusquo(seeFlacks1991:3;Gagnon 1987:3).YetasDickFlackspointedout,salvationishardtocomeby, whetherinthestate,inpoliticalparties,orinuniversityhalls: Intellectuals seeking connection to potentials for social change thus havefoundavailableavenuesforrelevancetobedeadends.Bothparty andstaterequireacceptanceofthelogicsofdomination,power,organisationalaggrandizement.Theacademyandtheprofessionsrequireacceptance of the logics of disciplinary specialisation, peer review, competitiveachievement.Thehopeforapublicasasustainingframework for politically engaged intellectual work seems implausible, indeed chimerical.(Flacks1991:13)
One arena in which the question of subaltern versus dominant formsof“knowledge”hasbeenposedsharplyisthedebateoverindigenous knowledge (see Agrawal 1995 and the September 2002 issue ofInternationalSocialScienceJournalonIndigenousKnowledge).Butthe problemsofhowandwhichkindsofindigenousknowledgeto“validate” areimmense(seeSundar2002).Forexample,in1992inIndia,“Hindu” karsevaks,or“volunteersforgod,”undertheleadershipoftheBharatiya JanataParty(BJP)andotherfrontsoftheHinduchauvinistorganization RashtriyaSwayamsevakSangh(RSS),demolishedtheBabriMasjid,a sixteenth-centurymosqueinAyodhya,sparkingaroundofviolence acrossthecountry.Theperpetratorsclaimedthemosquehadbeenbuilt over an earlier temple commemorating the birthplace of the Hindu god Ram. Arguably, the destruction of the mosque could have been treated simply as a question of vandalism of historical monuments. However,thecaserapidlybecameadebateoverhistorical“fact”and over the professionalism of university historians who dismissed the BJPclaimasamythversusthefaithandfolkknowledgeofthepublic (forahistoryofscholarlydebateoverthesite,seeLal2003:141–85). AlthoughheclearlydoesnotcomefromtheperspectiveoftheHindu right,thesubalternstudieshistorianDipeshChakrabartyarguedthat the attempt by historians at Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) to educatethepublicabout“truth”and“myth”inAyodhyaamounted to an attempt to civilize the natives. Even if one were to accept his patronizingargumentthat“youhavetobeacertainkindofliterate andeducatedpersoneventobeinterestedinanyabstractformulation
186
Nandini Sundar
ofthedistinctionbetweenmythandhistory”(Chakrabarty2003:136), theconsequencesofabandoningthatdistinctionandthenotionofthe universityasaplacethatenablesonetomakethisdistinctionwould beevendirer. Ironically,thedistinctionbetweenmythandhistorywasrecognised bytheBJPwhenitwasinpowerinthefederalgovernmentfrom1998to 2004.TheBJP,havingharnessed“faith,”soonmovedtowrestawaythe groundofprofessionalismaswell,bypositioningitsownideologuesin nationaleducationalbodiessuchastheNationalCouncilofEducational Research and Training (NCERT), the University Grants Commission (UGC),theIndianCouncilforSocialScienceResearch,andtheIndian CouncilforHistoricalResearch.InSeptember2003,thegovernmentrun Archaeological Survey of India issued a report suggesting that themosquehadindeedreplacedatemple.Universityarchaeologists describedthisreportasbiasedandunprofessional,pointingoutseveral flawsinmethodsandinterpretations(Sahmat2003).Withachangeof governmentin2004,theissuewasputonabackburner,butitisalways opentoresuscitationbytheRSS.Totakeaparallelexample,theriseof creationism,orintelligentdesign,intheUnitedStatesreflectsacertain kindofpublicskepticismaboutscholarlyprofessionalism.Yetthereare fewalternativeswithwhichtochallengecreationismotherthanthe internallyargumentativegroundsofprofessionalbiology. Thenotionofengagementwith“communities”asasignofanthropologists’politicalcommitmentisproblematic,consideringthediversity ofpublicsandcommunities.Theissuetakesonadifferenthueifone stopsassuming,first,thatthedefaultpoliticalpositionofuniversity scholars,especiallyanthropologists,isleftorliberal,andsecond,that thecommunitiestheyengagewitharealwayssubalterngroupsrather than right-wing, racist, or xenophobic organizations. The idea that “communities”shoulddecidewhatcountsasgoodorrelevantresearch needstotakeintoaccountthecampus“watchdog”roleplayedbyorganizationsliketheDavidProjectandAccuracyinAcademia.According tosomeofitswell-knownright-wingpromoters,thelatteris“shining alightonthecontinuingdepredationsofleftistthugsatouruniversities.”AccuracyinAcademiadoesmuchmorethancomplainaboutthe leftist,statist,andMarxistbiasesonAmericancampuses.Itpromotes “awarenessandunderstandingofourgenuinepoliticaltradition;itputs youngAmericansbackintouchwiththeirancestors.Thisnoblemission deservesthesupportofeveryonewhotreasuresliberty”(http://www. academia.org/about.html).
TheDilemmasof“Working”AnthropologyinTwenty-first-CenturyIndia 187
CampusWatch,accordingtoitswebsite,is“aprojectoftheMiddle EastForum[that]reviewsandcritiquesMiddleEaststudiesinNorth America,withanaimtoimprovingthem.”Problemsallegedlycallingfor improvementinclude“analyticalerrors”(havingdifferentviewsabout militantIslamfromthoseofCampusWatch),“extremism”(“ManyU.S. scholars of the Middle East lack any appreciation of their country’s nationalinterests”),“intolerance,”and“apologetics,”suchashavinga conferencewith550papersinwhichonlyonedealtwithAl-Qaeda.And foralloneknows,eventhatsolitarypaperwasanti-nationalenoughto notethatOsamaBinLadenwasfirstpromotedbytheUnitedStatesto battletheSovietsinAfghanistan(http://www.campus-watch.org/about. php). AreportbyThomasBartlettintheChronicleofHigherEducationof18 April2003describedColumbiaUniversityanthropologistNicholasDe Genovaasthe“mosthatedprofessorinAmerica.”DeGenova’sviews, expressedatateach-inatColumbiaUniversityagainsttheinvasionof Iraqin2003,resultedindeaththreatsagainsthim,denunciationsin newspapereditorialsandontelevisionprograms,alumnithreatening towithholddonationsuntilhewasfired,andColumbia’sphonelines beingjammedwithangrycallers.Morethanonehundredmembersof CongresspetitionedColumbia,demandingthathebefired.DeGenova wasforcedtoleavehishomeandemploysecurityguards(chronicle.com/ free/v49/i32/32/5601.htm). Another Columbia University professor, JosephMassad,hasbeentargetedbytheDavidProjectforhisviews onPalestine(www.columbia.edu/cu/mealac/faculty/massad). Haditbeenlefttosome“community”or“public,”boththesemen’s academiccareerswouldhaveended.However,itisstillpossibletoargue thatanthropologyhasanaturalandhistoricalaffinitywithgroupsthat havehistoricallybeendiscriminatedagainst,thoughwhatthecontours ofthisaffinityshouldbeisdifficulttodefine.3Attheveryleast,what anthropology offers, and which by itself is a stand, is a distinctive challengetothepositivistmeta-theorizingofotherdisciplines—acloser attentiontocontextsandpluralitiesofreasoning—evenasitengages incomparison(seeFoxandGingrich2002). InthefollowingsectionsIlookatthewaysinwhichgenerationsof anthropologistsinIndiahavedealtwiththeissueofsocialengagement, teetering between professionalism and practice. The first section is focused on the benefits and costs of professionalizing anthropology, and the second and third on problems in the practice of a socially engagedanthropology.
188
Nandini Sundar
IntheCauseofAnthropology? Iwillpaymydebttosocietythroughresearchinmysubject.Andbeyond this,Iowenootherdebttosociety. —IrawatiKarve,quotedinVidyadharPundalik,“IrawatiKarve” Itoldhim[MahatmaGandhi]howscientificresearchwasmytruevocation [swadharma],whileservinginthepoliticalcampaign,evenwhenitwas byintellect,wasnomorethananemergencyduty[apadharma]. —NirmalKumarBose,quotedinPradipK.Bose, “TheAnthropologistas‘Scientist’?”
In India, anthropology has long existed in arenas outside the university,particularlyingovernment,anditcontinuestodosointhe Anthropological Survey of India. Several early anthropologists, such asPatrickGeddes,S.C.Roy,andVerrierElwin,cametothediscipline throughtheirinvolvementinurgentsocialissues.Geddes,forinstance, whosetuptheBombayDepartmentofSociology,wasatownplanner (Munshi n.d.). Roy, who started the journal Man in India, became interested in adivasi (scheduled tribe or indigenous peoples) issues by fighting legal cases for them (Dasgupta n.d.), and Elwin, who wrotenumerousmonographsonadivasicommunities,startedoffasa missionary,Gandhian,andsocialworker(Guha1998).Thesewereselftrainedanthropologistswhobelievedthatanthropologycouldmake a difference in the way society, particularly a society struggling for independence,couldconstituteitself.Whatwasmissinginthisearly periodwasnotengagementwiththewiderworld(farbeyondanarrow, appliedsense)buttheprofessionalismofauniversitydiscipline. Itwasinthiscontextthatanthropologyasa“discipline”becameitself a“cause.”Forinstance,IrawatiKarve(1905–70),India’sfirstwoman anthropologist,decidedearlyonthatherbestcontributiontosociety couldbemadebypracticingandinstitutionalizingherdiscipline.4For someonemarriedtothesonofoneofIndia’smostfamoussocialreformers atatimewhenindependenceandsocialchangewereintheair,thiswas bynomeansaneasydecision.ForscholarslikeKarve—self-conscious pioneers in establishing the discipline in university departments in India—thequestionofwhata“workinganthropology”mightmean revolvedcentrallyaroundthecontributionsthat“science”couldmaketo IndiansocietyandtheemergentIndiannation.Thisdidnotnecessarily meanpromotingpolicy-relevantresearch,althoughtheydidsomeof that, but it meant promoting basic research in anthropology as an
TheDilemmasof“Working”AnthropologyinTwenty-first-CenturyIndia 189
activityofsocialvalue.Fromthe1920sthroughthe1940s,universities (atleastinthemodernsense)werenew,studentshadtobeattractedto afledglingdiscipline,andsociology-anthropologyhadtobepopularized asaprofessional“career.”Entrenchinganthropologyanddisseminating itsimportancetoawiderworldwasworkenough.Inaddition,there wassomuchtostudy,document,andresearch(albeitmuchofitin “salvage”mode)thataninquiringmindcouldnotbutfeelitselftobe doingsomethinguseful. The desire to secure a footing for anthropology in universities as wellasinthewiderpublicimagewasofcoursenotuniquetoIndia inthatperiod;virtuallyanybiographyofMalinowski,Mead,orBoas dealswithhisorherconceptionoftheusefulnessofanthropologyas an academic discipline or branch of knowledge. What was different aboutIndiansociologists-anthropologistswastheirconcernwiththe specifically Indian nature of Indian sociology and anthropology, an issue that continues to animate discussions in the discipline today (Uberoi,Sundar,andDeshpanden.d.). The first generation of scholars might have been less successful thantheywishedin“Indianizing”thediscipline,whetherintermsof conceptsoroftexts,butatleastthenumberofanthropology-sociology departmentshasgrowninIndia.Althougheconomicsandhistoryare still the most popular social sciences for undergraduate degrees (if lesspopularthanscienceandprofessionalsubjectssuchasmedicine, engineering, and accounting), sociology-anthropology is no longer seenasanunusualcareerchoiceforayoungperson.Norisitseenas requiringanygreat“commitment.” Theprofessionalizationofanthropologywithintheuniversityhas had its advantages and disadvantages, Much that is relevant and contemporaryinsocietyandthatshouldbeincorporatedbysociologyanthropologyiswritteninotherforms,notablyliterature.Forexample, theMarathiessayistAnilAwachat,writingaboutecologicalproblems inMarathi,Dalitwritersdescribingtheirexperiencesas“untouchables,” andMaoistguerrillasdebatingwiththegovernment(seeCommittee of Concerned Citizens 2002) often bring out contemporary social issues more sharply than do scholarly debates about caste, class, or ecology.Yetlittleeffortismadetoincorporatesuchwritingsintosyllabi or,evenmoreimportantly,toreviseournotionofwhatsociologyor anthropologyshouldbeaboutinIndia.Thatcertainanthropological debatesmaymakelittlesensetounderprivilegedstudentsmayhaveto dowiththepovertyoftheconceptsthemselvesratherthanthequality ofthestudents.“Neutrality”inthiscontextcanbeawayofsuppressing
190
Nandini Sundar
socialcontradictionsandinternalizing“disciplinaryconcerns”—away ofexcludinglivedexperience.Whenthosedisciplinaryconcernsare “international”(readWestern),thereisafurtherworryaboutintellectual colonialism(seeUberoi1968). Whatyoungpeoplewillgetoutoftheircareersalsovarieswidely, dependingonwhichdepartmenttheyarein,theirsocialandeconomic background,andtheirknowledgeofEnglish.Althoughafew“centers of excellence” produce scholars whose work has a global effect,5 in manypartsofthecountryteacherssufferfroma“viciouscircleofnonchallengingsyllabi,heavyteachingloads,absenceoforiginaltextbooks and dominance of guidebooks, lack of library resources, widespread resort to coaching classes and the politics of boards of studies and examinations”(Shah2000:48). Problemsofdifferentiationwithinauniversitysystemarecommon tomanycountries,thoughtheparticularformofthisdifferentiation varies(betweenthegrandesécolesanduniversitiesinFrance,betweenIvy LeagueandstateschoolsintheUnitedStates,andbetweenmetropolitan, centrallyfundedandmofussil,state-fundeduniversitiesinIndia),as doestherelativepositionofprofessional(medicalorlaw)versusgeneral degrees(seeWacquant1996:xiv).WhatmakestheIndiancondition particularly problematic is the colonial context in which university disciplines were instituted and in which they continue to function, with English the language of learning and knowledge and all other languagessecondary. ForthepioneersofIndiansociology-anthropology,manyofwhom wroteinbothEnglishandtheirownvernaculars,anthropologywas whattheydidinEnglishwith“scientifictools.”Infact,whattheywrote in their own languages, which they themselves regarded as popular literary writing, would be more readily accepted as ethnography by today’sstandards(Bosen.d.;Sundarn.d.).Today,teacherstalkinprivate abouttheproblemstheirstudentsfaceinunderstandingEnglishtexts, the students’ humbling diligence as they translate dense theoretical essayslinebyline,andtheirfrustrationatpitchingclassestostudents of widely different linguistic capabilities and social backgrounds. In discussingwaysforanthropologytoenternewarenas,itisessentialto addressthequestionoftranslation,bothintoandoutofnon-English languages.Writinginthevernacular,fornon-universityaudiences,and havingone’sbookstranslated(keepingasidemoneyinresearchbudgets specificallyforthis)wouldinevitablyinvitenewformsofintellectual collaboration,totheextentthatperceivedaudienceswoulddetermine muchofwhatwewriteandhowwewrite.
TheDilemmasof“Working”AnthropologyinTwenty-first-CenturyIndia 191
Indian anthropology, unlike “Western” anthropology, also faces a problem in reconciling “concerned” anthropology with disciplinary self-confidence. Unlike in the United States, where anthropological advocacy,oractivistanthropology,hasusuallymeantactingwithand forthirdworldcitizens,inIndiatherehasbeenfartoomuchconcern with the problems of Indian society. The paucity of Indian scholars studyingothercountries,especiallythoseofthe“West,”althougha markoftheirengagementwiththeirownsociety,isalsoasignifierof academic colonization (see Roy-Burman 2000; Sundar 2004; Sundar, Deshpande,andUberoi2000;Uberoi1968). Without addressing the material context—the funding, libraries, availabilityofliteratureinthevernacular,outdatedsyllabi,recruitment practices, historically inherited nomenclatures and disciplinary traditions—itishardtofashionawayforwardforIndiananthropology that simultaneously recognizes social contradictions and provides a disinterestedperspective.Theproblem,ofcourse,extendsbeyondanthropology. Yet anthropologists-sociologists seem to be more concerned abouttheseissuesthanprofessionalsinmanyotherdisciplines.The reasonsforthismayvary,frominformantswho“talkback”tothefeeling thatnothingisbeyondthepurviewofsociology.InIndia,everytenyears orso,sometimesinconjunctionwithandsometimesindependentof “international”angstfests,anthropologistsgettogethertodebatehow theirdisciplinemightbemademorerelevant,more“urgent,”better, brighter,andnewer(foradiscussionoffiftyyearsofanthropological worryinginIndia,seeUberoi2000).
ReconcilingAnthropologywithActivism? Madam, I was very happy to receive your mail. I plan to meet you very soon todiscusstheprogressofmyresearch.NowadaysIamreallyundertremendouspressureastheprogressonmyPhDfrontisnotsatisfactory.I donotunderstandhowtodojusticetomyacademicworkasinspiteof allmypromisesandcommitmentsIalwaysgetmotivatedbydifferent social issues. I sincerely hope you do not mind my telling all this to you. —emailtomefromaPhDstudent
Generationsofstudents(andsometeachers)inIndiahavefelttorn between lives of activism and lives of research. In 1921, during
192
Nandini Sundar
Gandhi’snoncooperationmovement,NirmalKumarBose,whowas latertobecomeoneofIndia’smostfamousanthropologists,wrote inhisdairy,“Inournationallifewefeelthearrivalofagreatperiod! ...Idonotknowwhetherwearegoingtoattainswaraj[independence]withinayearonlyonaccountofleavingschoolsandcolleges. Butitappearstomethatthesemovementsaregoingtoarouseour nationalconsciousnessandlife,andmanyofuswouldwakeupand startthinking”(quotedinBosen.d.).Hequitworkonhismaster’sof sciencedegreetosetupanightschoolandaspinners’co-operativein aslum.Inthelate1960s,manycollegestudentsbecame“Naxalites,” orMaoistguerrillas,goingundergroundandsufferinghugeprivations fortheirpolitics.Inthemid-1970s,othersjoinedJaiPrakashNarayan’s Sarvodaya movement for rural reconstruction work (though the numbersweregreaterinhis“TotalRevolution”movementagainst corruption). Studentidealismfadedwiththeyearsandtheabsenceofanystirring ideologicalpolitics.Now,withtheefflorescenceofnongovernmental organizations,studentswithaconscience(andmanywithout)aremore likelytojointhe“voluntarysector”andseeksatisfactioninworkthat addressessocialissuesthantojointhemainstreamcorporatesectoror choosewhattheyseeasasterileacademiclife.Yetformany,asforthe younglawyer-activistwhowrotemetheprecedingemail,thedilemma ofcombiningactivismandacademicliferemains. Peoplehavedealtwiththisdilemmaindifferentways.NirmalKumar Bosesawhispoliticalworkasdistinctfromhisanthropologicalwork—as an“emergencyduty”—andeachperiodofpoliticalinvolvementmeant acleanbreakfromtheuniversity.Hewasarrestedtwiceandthesecond timewasjailedforthreeyears.In1946heaccompaniedGandhion a tour of Noahkali, which had seen some of the worst pre-partition violence,onGandhi’sconditionthat“youseveryourconnectionwith theUniversityand...riskdeath,starvationetc.”(Bose1974:44,cited inBosen.d.).Inbetween,BosewroteonthestructureofHindusociety, therelationshipbetweenanthropologyandarchitecture,associational lifeincities,andavarietyofothersubjects. Ramachandra Guha (personal communication) has argued that combiningactivismwithacademiclifeandclaimingthelabel“activistacademic” constitute an insult to both professions, because both require full-time commitment (though he himself manages serious scholarshipandpublicwriting).HecitestheexamplesofN.K.Bose andE.P.Thompson,who,whilecombiningresearchandactivismover thecourseoftheirlives,didonlyoneortheotheratanyonetime.
TheDilemmasof“Working”AnthropologyinTwenty-first-CenturyIndia 193
Thereismuchtothispointofview,buttheproblemgoesbeyond themundanequestionofjugglingtimetablesandschedulestothinking oftimeandlocation.E.P.Thompson’s(1993)distinctionbetweenprecapitalistandindustrialtimeprovidesausefulpointofdeparture;one mightaskwhetherthereisasimilardisjunctionbetween“academic time”and“activisttime,”especiallywhenitcomestohumanrights work.Academictimeisintenselysubjectiveandpersonal(thetimeit takestowriteapaper,forexample)andinmanyofitsstretchesand cadencesisclosertoprecapitalisttime.Yetitsharesacertainrhythm withindustrialtime—thereareclassestobetaughtrelentlesslyweekafter weekduringtermtime,paperstobepublishedfortenure,conference deadlinestobemet. Activisttime,especiallyinhumanrightswork,isalsoslowonoccasion butdesperatelyfrenziedwhenpressreleaseshavetobewritten,authorities contacted,andstatementsmadeonthebasisoflimitedinformation. NicholasDeGenova(personalcommunication)hassuggestedthatthe paceofbothacademicandactivisttimeisspeededuppreciselywhen theycomeintocontactwithregimesofcapitalorpowerandlosetheir autonomyeithertothinkortoplanforanalternativeworld.Yetthere maybeseriousdifferencesbetweenthetwokindsoftimeandthekinds ofworktheyimply.Absorbingethnographicinformationtakestime, against the activist need to get information out fast. Audiences and stylesofwritingdiffer;forscholars,itisoftenasimportanttounderstandperpetratorsandthoseinpowerasitistotalktovictims.Often, moreover,scholarsfaceabasicethicaldilemma:takinganactiviststance mayjeopardizefutureresearchthatmayhavegreatervalueinthelong run,butthiscanoftenseem,tothescholarconcernedandtoothers,a feebleexcusefornottakingastand. Locationalsomatters,aswasparticularlyobviousindifferentresponsestothepogromagainstMuslimsinGujaratin2002,organized bytheBJP-ruledstateofGujarat(seeVaradarajan2002).Atthetime, somefortycitizens’reportsgivingvictims’testimonieswereproduced, inmanyofwhichuniversityteachersparticipated.Suchreportshave valueinmobilizingpublicopinionandservingasarecordofviolence. Butfromtheperspectiveofthevictimsthemselves,whatwasrequired wasadifferentsortofactivism,whichuniversityteacherswereunable toprovide,suchashelpingvictimsfilecompensationclaims,attending court hearingswiththem, andensuring witnessprotection.A small group of feminist activists took up the rape case of one victim and worked with her to collect evidence and sustain her morale. Others, lawyers and Gujarat-based activists, provided legal aid, monetary
194
Nandini Sundar
support, and moral assurance to victims. But by far the maximum workofrehabilitationwasdonebyMuslimorganizationsandother members of the community who survived. In other words, whereas anthropologistsandotherscanactinsupportroles,theyneedtoqualify theirclaimstobehumanrightsactivists(seeforexample,someofthe claims made in Sluka 2000: 12–13), given the scale of what human rightsactivismideallyinvolves. Thepointisnotthatanthropologycannotorshouldnotbetakento arenasoutsideuniversitiesorthatweshouldnotwritefornonspecialist audiences,butthatweshouldbemodestinourunderstandingofwhat wehaveachievedorcanachieve.Anthropologistsfaceanadditional problem that other, seemingly more useful disciplines do not face. EconomistsinIndia,forinstance,havealwaysworkedinpolicyarenas. ActivisteconomistssuchastheMarxistsofJNUandtheBelgian-turnedIndiancitizenJeanDrezehaveusedtheirskillstoputissuessuchas educationandemploymentinthepubliceye.Butanthropologicalresearchrarelyspeaksinthenumber-crunchingregisterrequiredbypolicy, and much applied anthropological research is often simply ignored. Toaccommodaterealsocialconcernsinauniversitysettingrequires morethanjusttheformalrecognitionofengagedresearch.TheInstitute ofEconomicGrowthinDelhi,forexample,setupinthe“socialistic” 1950s,statesinitsmemorandumofassociationthatoneoftheobjects oftheinstitutionisto“conductad-hocinvestigationattherequestof governments,organizationsofemployers,workersandpeasantsorof otherbodiesorpersonsinterestedinpromotingastudyofeconomic questions”(IEG1952).Fiftyyearson,nooneseemstorememberthis clause, and most research is done at the behest of the government, theWorldBank,orotherfundingorganizations.Whereasitwouldbe legitimate for an anthropologist to list a World Bank–funded report advocatinglargedamsorstructuraladjustmentaspartofhisorher work in an annual report, bringing out a research pamphlet for an anti-dampeasantgrouporforaworker’sunionshowingtheproblems ofretrenchmentwouldbedismissedas“mereactivism.”Inanycase, neither type of contracted research is a substitute for peer-reviewed academicresearch.
BalancingAct:IsThereaRoleforAnthropologyin “Development”? Letuslookattheproblemfromanotherangle.Ifanthropologistswithin theuniversityareunabletodomorethandabbleinactivism,perhaps
TheDilemmasof“Working”AnthropologyinTwenty-first-CenturyIndia 195
weshouldencourageactivistresearchinotherspaces,particularlyin nongovernmentalorganizations(NGOs).Indeed,thiswastheinevitable direction in which the emphasis on action research, advocacy, and developmentanthropology,whichgainedcurrencyinthe1970s,was boundtolead. From the point of view of society and of funders, there are many advantagestoresearchbeingfundedoutsideuniversities.Forone,NGOs are often able to identify new issues when academics are bound by the conventions of their field or by whatever theory is fashionable at the moment. In India, ecological anthropology, feminist studies, philanthropy,urbanplanning,andlegalanthropologyareallfieldsin whichacademicresearchhaspiggybackedonactivistresearch.NGOs arealsooftenquickertoproduceresultsandtoproducetheminforms thatcanbeusedbypractitioners. Increasingly,however,therearedangersinlettingdonorsandNGOs definewhatproactiveresearchisandinrestrictingitmainlytoresearch that feeds directly into development projects. First, research done ostensiblyincollaborationwiththesubjectsinpursuitofaparticular agenda is glorified with the name “participatory research,” without questioning whether the agenda itself, such as participatory forest managementorfamilyplanning,issomethingthatwasdevelopedin participatoryfashion.Second,onceasubjectbecomesfashionable,there isatendencyforpeopletojumponthebandwagonandproduceendless casestudies,manyofwhichhavelimitedvalue.Often,littlejustifies the funding that goes into such case studies, for which consultants chargehugefees. Third, the money that goes into so-called research consultancies underminesresearchinthirdworlduniversities(althoughitmayhelp universities in the West, from which the consultants are drawn). In placeslikeIndia,itishardforuniversitieswithcomparativelylimited resourcestoretainpeople,andbesides,thepressureofhavingtocompete withNGOsforfundsmeansthatmuchresearchinuniversitiestends tobecomeprojectdriven,short-term,andpoweredsolelybywhether or not it has policy implications. Finally, what tends to result from suchdonor-drivenresearchisanexcessivefocusonthepoortothe exclusionoftherich,andonthepresenceorabsenceofsocialcapital amongthepoorinsteadofonhowthepracticeofcapitalismimpedes developmentinasystematicmanner. Evenwhereresearchdoneoutsidetheuniversitysuffersfromnone of these problems, there are ways in which a university-based researchercanaddressanissuedifferentlyfromthewayanNGO-based
196
Nandini Sundar
researcher might. For anthropologists, this necessarily involves new forms of collaboration. It requires them to sharpen their theoretical perspectives and information in conjunction with other people as againstsimplyonthem(seeField1999;Rappaport2005).Addressing thecontradictionsbetweentheconstructionismofsocialscienceand historyandsubjects’essentialistrepresentationsofthemselves,LesField laidoutarangeofpossibilitiesthatrequire“anovertcommitmenton thepartoftheanthropologisttotribalstrategiesratherthantocurrent academictheoriesandtrends”(Field1999:199).Ashehimselfpointed out,though,tribalstrategiesaredivided,creatingfurtherquestionsfor anthropologists. TheproblemofconflictingpositionshasgreatresonanceintheIndian context, particularly in light of recent controversies over legislation involvingscheduledtribes’rightstolandintheformoftheScheduled Tribes(RecognitionofForestRights)Billof2005.6Therootsofthebill lie in the colonial appropriation of forests from tribals (indigenous peoples).Intheabsenceofproperlandsurveys,manyfamilieswhohad beencultivatingforestlandforgenerationswerelegallyreclassifiedas “encroachers.”Alargenumberofothers—includingpeopledisplacedby “development”projectssuchasdamsandindustries—brokefreshground inforestland,becausetheyhadnoothermeansofsubsistence.Over theyears,thishascreatedhugetensionsbetweentheforestdepartment andtribals,withforestersresortingtoforcedevictions,theburningof crops,andtherazingofhouses. In 2003, several tribal organizations came together on a platform calledthe“CampaignforSurvivalandDignity.”Throughafortuitous combinationofhavingtherightofficersinthenewlycreatedMinistry of Tribal Affairs (MOTA) and a political party in government that was keen to regain the tribal vote, the campaign was successful in pushing a bill aimed at redressing the “historical injustice” done to adivasis by recognizing their existing cultivation. The bill soon ran intotroublefromconservationists,andthedebatecametobeposed asoneoftigersversustribals,ignoringthelossofforestlanddueto largeindustrialandhydroelectricprojectsandthemultiplereasonswhy tigerconservationwasnotworking.Boththeconservationistsandthe MinistryofEnvironmentandForests(MOEF),whichwaslosingsome controltotheMinistryofTribalAffairs,arguedthatifthebillwaspassed atall,thenbenefitsshouldbeextendedtonontribals.Althoughthis hadalwaysbeenademandoftheCampaignforSurvivalandDignity, identifying suitable nontribals who were genuinely eligible proved difficult.Openingupforestlandtonontribalcommunitiesasawhole
TheDilemmasof“Working”AnthropologyinTwenty-first-CenturyIndia 197
wouldhavemeantallowingarangeoflargebusinessandcommercial interestsontothatland. Intermsofcurrentunderstandingsinbothhistoryandanthropology, asharpdistinctionbetweentribalsandotherslivinginthesamearea isimpossible.Afocusontribalcommunitiesaswholesalsoignoresthe internaldifferentiationthathastakenplacewithintribalcommunities. Yet the category “tribe” is embedded in a range of official practices andlawsinIndia,andthepowerofstatecategoriesissuchthateven movements fighting for rights against the state are trapped in its discourse. Collaborations with anthropologists’ interlocutors and with social movements are not the only forms of collaboration anthropologists may be engaged in. Increasingly, as research tends to be conducted through large-scale projects, understanding intellectual negotiations withinsuchprojectsbecomescriticaltounderstandingtheiroutcomes. Inthe1990s,agreatdealofresearchtookplaceinIndia(andindeed worldwide)onnew,participatoryformsofforestmanagement.TheFord Foundationfundeda“supportnetwork”ofgroupsworkingonjoint forestmanagement(JFM)inIndia,whichincludedNGOs,donors,forest officials,consultants,andafewuniversity-orresearchinstitute–based economists. Many of the NGOs were doing their own research into whetherandhowJFMcouldbemadetoworktosatisfytheneedsof localcommunitiesandregeneratetheforests. Inlate1994,IbeganworkattheUniversityofEdinburghasaresearch fellow.MytaskwastomanagealargeresearchprojectonJFMinIndia.7 Theprojectinvolvedresearchinsixteenvillagesinfourstates,aswell asinthemultipleinstitutionallocationsinwhichJFMwasconstituted as an object of study, policy, and practice: the policymaking arenas of the four states, the Ministry of Environment and Forests, donors, forestbureaucracies,activists,NGOs,nationaladvocacynetworks,and academicresearchonforestsandecologicalhistory.Ourresearchfed intothesamedevelopmentprogramsasthoseoftheotheractors.We sharedquestionsofmethodsandobjectswiththemandsubjectedthem toourresearchgaze. Astheanthropologyofpolicy(seeShoreandWright1997),or,more specifically,ofashiftinpolicy,thisresearchwasconsciouslyaimedat developingnewmethodologicaltools:developingbothacomparative andageneralperspectiveonapolicyandyetretainingthespecificity concerning vision and implementation that comes with detailed ethnographic research. Our research emphasized the importance of recognizing variation (Sundar, Jeffery, and Thin 2001), but this was
198
Nandini Sundar
unsatisfactoryforpolicymakersandeconomists,whowantedtoknow inyes-or-notermswhetherthepolicywassucceedingornot. Althoughtheresearchwasdeeplyanthropologicalinmethod,itwas alsotheproductofaparticularorganizationalstyleofdoingfieldwork. Such large research projects are inevitably negotiated products— especiallywhencarriedoutbypeoplefromdifferentdisciplines,with differentobjectivesanddifferentpositionsintheresearchhierarchy.8 Forexample,theprincipleinvestigators’personalpreferencesandprevious research experience suggested certain field sites, whereas the logicoftheresearchquestiondemandedothers.Amongtheresearch assistants,thosewhowereforestrygraduatesclaimedacertainkindof expertisewhilethesociologygraduatesclaimedanother.AsJanNespor notedinherarticleonbureaucraticresearch,“insteadofsimplymaking researchmoredifficulttopractice,thesefactorsaltertheconstitutionof researchbycreatingasituationinwhichtheproductionofknowledge istightlyinterlacedwithstrugglesforautonomy,controlanddiscretion” (Nespor1989:326).
Conclusion Ihavetriedtograppleinthischapterwiththedifferentwaysinwhich anthropologistsmightrespondtocontemporaryworkingconditions. Someofthesesituationsarenotsonew,andacademics,likeothers,have oftenbeenovertaken,iftemporarily,bythedemandsofcitizenship. Yetitishardtodecidewhen“emergencyduty”isrequiredthatwould involvegivingupresearchandwhatasuitableresponseis,ascitizenand asanthropologist.Inothersenses,however,anthropology,especially whenitrelatestodevelopmentconcerns,hastodealwithnewwaysof doingresearch—inlargeteamsorinalliances,oftenshifting,contextual, andtensionridden,withdifferentsocialandpoliticalactors.Inboth cases, the hard task is to be true to one’s self-proclaimed profession asananthropologist,evenasoneseeswaysinwhichthedisciplineis beingandshouldbechallengedfromwithout.Thepracticalproblems inacountrylikeIndiaaretokeepinmindthatoursalariesarepaidby astatethatdrawsontheresourcesofthepoortosubsidizeamiddle classorelite;toengageinextendingthedemocracyandequalitythat we routinely learn and teach about; and yet to seize the time and spacerequiredforreflectionandproduceresearchthatisseentobe “disinterested”oratleastrigorousandhonestenoughtoberespected bythoseitdispleases.
TheDilemmasof“Working”AnthropologyinTwenty-first-CenturyIndia 199
Acknowledgments I am grateful to Dick Fox, Les Field, Ramachandra Guha, Nicholas DeGenova,andalltheparticipantsintheWenner-GrenFoundation “WorkingAnthropology”seminarfortheircommentsonthischapter.
Notes 1. Thisobservationissubstantiatedbyatabulationofarticlesupto2000 inthetwomainIndianjournalsofsociology,ContributionstoIndianSociology and Sociological Bulletin, made by Nandini Sundar and Aradhya Bharadwaj, respectively. 2. VinaySrivastava(2000)notedthattherewerethirty-threeanthropology departments in the country, of which four were composite departments of sociologyandsocialanthropology. 3. Foradiscussionofthedifferencesbetweenleft-andright-wingactivism withintheacademy,seeSundar2000. 4. Karve, who taught for thirty-one years at the University of Pune, publishedsomeonehundredpapersonavarietyoftopics,notablykinshipand thefamilybutalsocaste,urbanization,anddisplacement.Shealsowroteprolifically in her native Marathi. Her novel Yuganta, based on the Mahabharat, wontheSahityaAkademiAward,oneofIndia’smostprestigiousliteraryprizes (Sundarn.d.). 5. The“SubalternStudies”historiansspringeasilytomind,althoughthey reflect the long-term strength of Indian history instead of Indian sociologyanthropology. 6. The bill has now been enacted as the Scheduled Tribes and Other TraditionalForestDwellers(RecognitionofForestRights)Actof2006. 7. Icoordinatedeightresearchfellowsinthefield,inteamsofonemanand onewomanperstate,andliasedwithtwoforestofficersintheforestresearch institute,Dehradun,withwhichtheprojectwasaffiliated.Ialsocoordinated four senior academics in Edinburgh, three sociologists-anthropologists, and onehistorian—altogetherateamoffifteenpeople,includingme. 8. Asresearchcoordinator,Ifounditwasonethingtostudytheweaponsof theweakinexternalsettingsandquiteanothertohavethemdirectedagainst oneselfintheformofunsentfieldnotesandabsencesfromduty,andtohave toplaytheroleofoverseerinanacademicplantationeconomy.
This page intentionally left blank
t e n
Ethnographic Alchemy Perspectives on Anthropological Work from Northern Madagascar
Andrew Walsh
Alchemywasadeptatwhatseemtousunlikelycomparisons. —GarethRoberts,TheMirrorofAlchemy
T
hetermworkissovariouslyinvokedbyanthropologiststhesedays thatitcouldwellserveastheanswertoanalchemist’sriddle:What isitinanthropologythatismoststressfultothosewhodonothaveit, mostneglectedbythosemostburdenedwithit,andmostonerouswhen itisnotone’sown?AsIhavehearditusedovertheyears,“work”can covereverythingfromtheemploymentthatanthropologistsstruggle tofindtotheresearchtheyareforcedtoputonthebackburnerwhen jobscomeupandtheadministrativetasksthattakethemawayfrom thingstheywouldratherbedoing.Manyofusthinkofanddescribe ourselvesasworking“with”certaincommunities,“on”certainissues, and“toward”theachievementofcertaingoals,usinginsightsdrawn from our fieldwork to inform the various sorts of written work we hope will be effective. Meanwhile, coursework piles up, even as we jugglecommittee,collegial,editorial,andadvisingworkintheservice ofdisciplinaryandinstitutionalreproduction.Enoughgriping,though. Forthoseofusluckyenoughtohavefoundworkinanthropology,there isnodoubtingthatallthetaskslistedherecometogetherinatleastone sense.Attheendoftheday,oronthelastThursdayofeverymonth atmyinstitution,theproductofallofthisworkisasalary.Thisisthe workthatIandotherslikemegetpaidtodo.
201
202
Andrew Walsh
Ofallthethingsthatmightbesaidofanthropologicalwork,thefact thatitoftenpaysisunlikelytobeamongthefirsttospringtomost anthropologists’ minds. Indeed, some of us are inclined to dissuade others,studentsespecially,fromconsideringoureffortsinsuchcrude terms.“Anthropologyisavocation,notajob,”JamesFernandezwrote inanonlineeditorialintendedtoturnundergraduatestudentsonto ourdiscipline.“Itissomethingwearecalledtodo,notsomethingwe arehiredtodo”(Fernandez1987:1). InthispieceFernandezoffersanappealingvisionofanthropological work as something worth believing in. Being an anthropologist, he suggests,requirespassionandacommitmentto“listeningto[other people’s] voices.” Correspondingly, anthropology is characterized as a“calling”that“enable[s]ustobewithothers...tosharewiththem, bylisteningandnegotiating,theirpreoccupations...,totranscenda tooexclusivelyethnocentricinvolvement...andfinallybymeansof transcendencetoformulatethegeneralprinciplesthatarediscovered aswetranscendmanyparticularcases.”Andthroughallthis,inthe process,anthropology“permitsus[anthropologists]torealizeinsome small part our distinctively human potentialities.” Calling all this a jobsimplydoesnotdoitjustice.Andyetwhocandenythatanysort ofanthropologicalworkexistsatallthanksonlytoanthropological careersandtheinstitutionsthatsupportthem?Moresimplystill,who candenythatanthropologyis,amongotherthings,somethingthat peoplearehiredtodo? IfIambelaboringthislastpoint,itisprobablybecausesomeofthe peoplewithwhomIhavebeenworkingoflatewillnotletmeforgetit. Forthem—peopleinvolvedinthenorthernMalagasysapphiretrade— thematterofjusthowsomeonelikemecanearnalivingfromwhatIdo hasbecomeamatterofconsiderablespeculation.Inconversationsthey havehadwithmeovertheyears,andundoubtedlyinmanymorethey havehadwithoneanotherinmyabsence,theywonderhowIamableto transformtheseeminglymundanethingsIwritedowninmynotebooks intovaluable,marketablecommoditiesathome.Theywonder,inother words,aboutwhatIhavetakentocallingethnographicalchemy—the mysteriousmeansbywhichthelifeexperiencesofpeoplelikethem mightbetransformedintolivelihoodsforpeoplelikeme.Someassume that I write articles for sale to foreign magazines. Others are a little moreoptimistic,guessingthatIwritewildlypopularbooksaboutthem. Stillothersaresimplypuzzled,certainonlythatthetransformationin questionisactuallytakingplace.Itmustbe.Wereitnot,howwouldI beabletoaffordtoreturntotheircommunityyearafteryear?Having
EthnographicAlchemy 203
questionedmeextensivelyonthetopic,theyknowperfectlywellhow expensiveitistoflyfromCanadatoMadagascarandbackagain. Shortly,Idiscussthecomplicationsthatcanensuewhentryingto set the record straight about the connections among research work, written work, and the work for which academic anthropologists get paid.Forthetimebeing,sufficeittonotethatmanyofthepeoplewith whomIhaveworkedrecentlyassumethatthecentralpurposeofmy workmustbeproductionofonesortoranother.Andinthinkingthis, theyarecertainlynotalone.Productivityfetishismrunsrampantin theinstitutionsthatemployanthropologists,aswellasinthefunding agenciesthatsupportourresearch,requiringworkinganthropologists tofall,orstep,intolineiftheyareinterestedincontinuingtheirwork. Indeed, the push to get things done in and with anthropology has becomesoengrainedinourdisciplinethat,formany,productivitymight wellbefiguredamongourmostdeeplyfeltprofessionalresponsibilities. Considerhowitisthatbeingunproductivecanaffectnotjustthestatus butalsotheinternalstateofaworkinganthropologist—thatis,being unproductiveofteninvolvesfeelingunproductive,assureasignasany ofourcomplicityinthereproductionofwhatoneofthiscollection’s editorshascalledthe“productivityregimes”withinwhichwework. Itcouldbethatwhatismosttroublingaboutdoinganthropological workwithinproductivityregimesisthattheworkweendupdoingcan sooftendrawusawayfromwhatdrewmanyofusinatthestart.Forthe record,IshouldstatethatIagreewithmuchofwhatFernandezargued, intheeditorialjustquoted,aboutthevalueofanthropology.Notonly istheimageofthedisciplinehepromotedtheonethatattractedmeas astudent,butalso,Iadmit,Ioccasionallyfindmyselfasproneasmany ofmyownteacherswereto“playingtheenchanter”intheclassroom bypresentinganthropologyasaparticularlyengrossing“vocation”in which“workandlifeformaunifiedwhole”(Lambek2005:237).For me,asformanyothers,whatmostrecommendsanthropologicalwork istheprocessesitinvolves—the“listeningtovoices”thatFernandez emphasized,orMichaelCarrithers’s“engagedlearning”(1992),or,most generallyperhaps,the“takingpeopleseriously”encouragedbyJeremy MacClancyandothercontributorstotherecentvolumeExoticNoMore (MacClancy2002). Lessdistinctiveandengrossingaretheproductsmeanttocomeoutof theseprocesses,whetherbooks,articles,reports,orevencareers.Over thepasttenyearsIhavespentagreatdealoftimeonvarioussorts of anthropological production, all the while becoming increasingly awareofhowpoorlyanthropologicalproductstendtorepresentthe
204
Andrew Walsh
anthropologicalprocessesthatdrewmeinatthestart.Unfortunately, representinganthropologyispreciselywhatanthropologicalproducts do.Nowonderthat,asDonnaJ.YoungandAnneMeneley(2005:13) recently noted, there exists a significant “disjunction between what wethinkwedoandwhatothersthinkwedo.”Wemightthinkofthe “work”wedoasaverb,butothersthinkofitasanoun. The coexistence of these different ways of thinking about anthropologicalworkwouldnotbesuchaproblemwereitnotthatpeople in the second category play such an important role in setting and maintainingthe“benchmarks”(toborrowakeytermfromproductivityspeak)againstwhichthevalueoftheworkofpeopleinthefirstcategory ismeasured.Notonlymustanthropology“accomplishthings”ifitis to“gainrecognitionandavaluableidentity”(Peacock1997:12)inthe worldtoday,butalsoitmustdeliverbyaccomplishingthesortsofthings thatothersexpectofit.Ofcoursetheexpectationsofanthropology’s manyconstituenciesareneitherconstantnoruniform,soinevitably anthropologists sometimes succeed in the eyes some at the cost of failingintheeyesofothers. Anthropologistsarecertainlynotthefirstresearcherstostrugglewith thedisparateexpectationsandevaluationsofothers.Alchemistsofthe sortIdiscussinthefollowingpagesfacedsimilarproblems.Indeed,early modernEuropeanalchemywascomplexandinherentlyparadoxical inmanyofthewaysthatanthropologyistoday.Itcombinedisolating yet necessarily engaged pursuits, requiring not only reflexivity but alsopracticalengagementwithawiderangeofdifferingperspectives on reality’s nitty gritty. It was an ambitiously holistic discipline yet one that saw the route to generalizing in the careful consideration of complex particularities. It generated insights into the world that wentmisunderstoodinwaysthatfrustrateditsdefenders,yetitwas practiced and passed on in ways that confounded those who might haveuseditsfindings.Moststrikingly,alchemywas,asanthropology is,bestcharacterizedbycertainprocessesandyetmostoftenevaluated intermsofproduction. Thatalchemistsofthepastaretodaycommonlyregardedasquacks, charlatans,or,atbest,misguidedfailuresisundoubtedlydueinlarge parttotheirneverhavingbeenabletoproducewhattheiremerging understandingofnaturepromisedwaspossible—whethergold,anelixir foreverlastinglife,orthepracticalknowledgenecessaryforperfecting matter.ThegreatandlastingsignificanceofearlymodernEuropean alchemy lay not in what alchemists produced but in the processes bywhichtheywentabouttheirwork(Moran2005).Notthatthese
EthnographicAlchemy 205
processesalwaysdelivered,accomplishingthesortsofthingsthatothers expectedofthem.Inretrospect,itismoreimportantthattheseprocesses weresimplycarriedoutandthatthediversepeopleinvolvedintheir executionlearnedasmuchfromtheirfailuresasfromtheirsuccesses.As BruceMoranputit:“Evenwhen[alchemists’]proceduresandprojects lacked success, [their] involvement with alchemical and chemical processes...hadimplicationsforfurtherknowledgebecause...todo andtoknowwhattodowere,andstillare,connected”(2005:6). Although I cannot hope to do justice to the complexity of either alchemyoranthropologyinthischapter,letalonetoallthesimilarities anddifferencesbetweenthem,Ihopethatinundertakingthebeginnings of the unlikely comparison of these two fields, I might suggest an optimistic,ifsomewhatdisenchanting,visionofanthropology’svalue andfuture.JustasMoranpresentedaretrospectiveaccountofalchemy as“never...somethingthatpeoplebelievedin...butsomethingthat people did” (2005: 10), I suggest a more prosaic understanding of anthropologicalworkthanmanywillbeaccustomedto—avisionof anthropologynotassomethingtobelieveinbut,muchmoresimply, assomethingtobedone. The problem with seeking to inspire, attract, or inform others by promotinganthropologyasavocationisthatitcannothelpsetting bothusandthemupforthecripplingcrisesoffaiththatcansoeasily emergewheneveranthropologicalworkseemstofailtodeliverwhatis expectedofit.Notonlyisteachingpeopletodoanthropologyagreat dealeasierthantryingtogetthemtobelieveinit,butteachingthose whoareconsideringanthropologicalcareerstoacceptanthropologyas ajobthat,likeanyother,willinvolvesuccessesandfailuresalikemay encouragethemtochanneltheirintellectualandemotionalenergies intoprocessesmoreusefulthanself-doubt. In promoting a vision of anthropology as something that is and shouldbedone,innowaydoImeantosuggestthatweshouldstop thinkingortalkingaboutwhatwedoandjust“‘getonwithit.”Like anyotherendeavorinwhich“doingandknowingwhattodoare... connected”(Moran2005:6),anthropologicalwork,tobeeffective,must bedonereflexivelyandwithaneyetowhatweandothersmightlearn frombothoursuccessesandourfailures.Nor,inmakingthisargument, doImeantosuggestthatweshouldfocusonlyonourprocesseswithout concernforwhatcomesofthem.Likeitornot,doingandbeingable togoondoinganthropologicalworkinthecontextsthatenableus todoitrequirethatwecontinuetoproduce.Iseenoreason,however, nottotrytobeproductiveinwaysthatwillleadthosewhoevaluate
206
Andrew Walsh
ourworktobetterunderstandingsofwhatitisaboutthisworkthatis mostvaluable.Thischapterisamodestattempttodojustthat.Ibegin withreferencetothesortofworkthatisperhapsmostdistinctively anthropological.
Fieldwork TheendresultofadayoffieldworkinAmbondromifehy,thecenterof northernMadagascar’ssapphiretrade,isusuallyanumberofpagesfilled withwrittenentriesonawidevarietyoftopics.Duringmypastfewvisits, Ihavebeenespeciallyinterestedinrecordinglocalminers’andtraders’ thoughtsonthesignificanceoflocalresourcestoforeigners.Among otherthings,Ihaverecordedtheirspeculationsabouttheintricacies oftheglobalgemtrade,theusestowhichforeignersputlocallymined sapphires,andthemotivesofthemanyecotouristswhopassthrough theircommunityontheirwaytovisitalocalprotectedarea(Walsh 2004,2005). Ihavealsorecordedtheirthoughtsandspeculationsaboutmeand my interests. To give just one example, in an entry from my most recentvisitInotedaconversationIhadwithaminerwhomIhadnot metpreviously.CuriousaboutwhatIwasdoinginAmbondromifehy, heaskedmeaboutmywork.Inresponse,Ishowedhimmynotebook, runningthroughtheentriesfromthatdaytogivehimasenseofthe sorts of things I was writing down. Instead of clarifying the matter, however,thisexpositiononlyraisedmorequestions.Why,hewondered aloud,wouldIwanttorecordthelaundrylistofseeminglymeaningless detailsfoundintheseentries?Whoinmyworldwouldcareaboutthe musingsorexperiencesofpeoplelikehim? AtraderwithwhomIhadspokenfrequentlyoverpreviousdayswas listening to our conversation and chimed in with his own opinion. “Therearesomethingsthatmostpeopledon’tfindessential,”hesaid, “butthatareessentialtoyou.”Whoknowswhatgetsdonewiththe thingsIwritedown?heimplied.ThatIhadcometoAmbondromifehy andwasdoingwhatIdidwasinformationenoughfromwhichtodraw certainundeniableconclusionsaboutthesortofworkIdid. As this trader understood perfectly well, the work I do in Ambondromifehy is in many ways similar to the work of the many otherforeignerswhohavebeendrawntothisregionthroughouthistory. Particularly obvious to him and others with whom I have spoken over the years is that my efforts are both prospective and enabled by political and economic privilege, a combination of features that
EthnographicAlchemy 207
makesmyresearchanexampleofwhatIhaveelsewheretermed“deep play”—aninvestigativeendeavorenabledbyprivilege(Walsh2005).In acknowledgingthispointandacceptingthatanthropologicalworkhas moreincommonthansomemightliketoadmitwiththeworkofoil explorationorbioprospecting,itiseasytofallpreytocynicismand losesightofanotherpointthatmanypeopleinAmbondromifehyalso taketobeobvious:thatasexamplesofdeepplaygo,anthropological researchisaparticularsort. AtradernamedBeraoncetoldmethatwhatwasmostdistinctive about the work I did was that it required me to “talk to everybody ...whethertheyarecrazyornot.”Hecontinued:“Ihavemetmany vazaha[foreigners].Whatisdifferent[aboutyou]istheconversation. Those[otherforeigners],theydon’tevenopentheirmouths.Youdon’t chooseamongpeople[totalkwith].”Inresponsetothesecomments,I remindedBeraofwhathealreadyknewaboutmeandmywork—that these apparently admirable habits of mine were essential to what I did.I“talkedtoeverybody,”oratleasttoasmanypeopleaspossible, becausedoingsohelpedmedoabetterjob.Ialsoremindedhimthat inasmuch as this research was something my employer expected of me,“talkingtoeverybody”waspartofajobforwhichIgotpaid.He counteredbystressingthatthesepointsdidnotmatternearlyasmuch asthefactthatthetwoofuswereactuallyhavingtheconversationwe werehaving.Ashesawit,whateverelseitmightbeabout,mywork wasvaluableforrequiringmetoengagewithpeoplelikehiminthe waysIdid.Howelsewouldsomeonelikehimandsomeonelikeme findourselvesinaconversationliketheonewewerehaving,ifnotby virtueoftheveryworkwewerediscussing? Thesimplefactthatanthropologicalwork,andethnographicfieldwork in particular, necessitates conversations and enables collaborations amongpeoplewhowouldotherwisehavenoreasontoassociatewith one another must surely be one of its most valuable and attractive features. Like unlikely comparisons, unlikely conversations and collaborationscanbearunexpectedfruit.Consideragainthecaseof earlymodernEuropeanalchemy.AsMorandescribedit,alchemywas, asanthropologyis,afieldthatinvolved“numerousfiguresacrossthe socialspectrum”(2005:6): Some were enthusiastic about making gold and silver; some focused moreonmakingmedicines.Stillotherssoughtoutnewproceduresin developingavarietyofchemicaltechnologies.Somefoundroomtodo all these things at once. Some were physicians and philosophers who
208
Andrew Walsh
enjoyedtheprivilegesofuniversitydegrees.Otherswereartisanswho learnedtheirartclosetohome.Somewereitinerantandlivedonthe margins of society, while others enjoyed civic rights or held courtly appointments.SomewereMoslems,andotherswereJewsorChristians. Somewerewomen,othersmen;somesincere,othersfrauds.(2005:9)
Moran warned against giving too much credence to intellectual boundariesdrawnretrospectivelyineffortstomakethestoryofthe scientificrevolutionmorepalatableto“solidcitizensofmodernityon theenlightenmentsideoftown”(2005:9).Separatingthecontributions ofsomefiguresandperspectivesofthisperiodfromothersisnotnearly aseasyassomesuggest,noristhewallthatprotectstherevolution’s heroesfromthetaintofalchemyaswellfoundedassomemightlike. Indeed,Moranargued,what“wokethingsup”inthescientificrevolution wasthe“sometimesinharmoniousintellectualandsocialmixtureof learnedandartisan,ofoccult,spiritualandmechanical”(2005:187). ThecontextMorandescribedwasoneofunlikelycollaborationsand conversations,inwhich“thefuzzinessoflearnedfrontiersincreasedthe possibilityofsocialinteractionbetweenrepresentativesofostensibly differentintellectualpointsofview”(2005:157). Not that all these interactions ended in agreements or profound newdiscoveries,ofcourse.Whatisimportant,inretrospect,andwhat precipitatedthedevelopmentofthenew,even“revolutionary,”ways ofdoingandthinkingthatweassociatewiththisperiodofEuropean historyisquitesimplythattheseinteractionsoccurredatallandthat thoseinvolvedlearnedfromthem.Andsoithascontinuedtobeinthe centuriessincethatnewwaysofthinkinganddoinginsciencetend toemergefromthecombinedeffortsofunlikelybedfellows.Andrew Pickering(2001)reported,forexample,thatorganicchemistrywould not exist but for the interrelated work of tinkering dye-makers and academictheoristsinthemid-nineteenthcentury.Nor,arguedPeter Galison(2003),wouldthetheoryofrelativityhavetakenshapewithout the insights Einstein drew from the work of clock designers whose patentshereviewedwhilefamouslyunderemployed. Obviously,thereisonlysofaronecantakeeventheunlikeliestof comparisons.Inbringingupalchemyinthissection,Idonotmean tosuggestthattheactualprocessesthatwereessentialtoalchemical research(distillation,forexample)haveagreatdealincommonwith those of ethnographic research (but see Shaffer 1994). Rather, my intentionissimplytohighlighttwopointsaboutanystudy,however broadlyornarrowlyconceived,that(1)requiressocialinteractionsof
EthnographicAlchemy 209
thekindjustnotedand(2)ispremisedontheprospectiveassumption thatdoingandknowingwhattodoareconnected. Thefirstpointisthatsuchworkiscollaborativeinawaythatmakes itespeciallypronetochange.Notonlydoesresearchofthissortentail theparticipationofavarietyofplayers,butalso,thankstothediverse perspectivesinherentinthisvarietyandthecomplicationsthatcan comewithtryingtoaccommodateorincorporatetheseperspectives inthecourseofresearch,thoseinvolvedmightlearntodoorthink differentlythanistheirhabit. Thesecondpointissimplerstill.Ifthehistoryofscienceisanything togoby,researchofthesortdescribedhereiswellpoisedtocontribute significantlytonewandpotentiallyinfluentialwaysofthinkingand doing,whetherwithintheconfinesofparticulardisciplinesorbeyond them.Allthisputdifferently,andmoreinkeepingwiththecentralpush ofthisvolume,whatIamsuggestingisnotjustthatanthropological research is inherently collaborative but that it is this aspect of our researchthat,ifgivenitsdue,ismostlikelytoensuretheshort-term vitalityandlong-termlegacyofanthropologicalwork. Readersofthelastfewparagraphsmightreasonablywonderwhether Iamnotmisrepresentingalchemyforthesakeofmyargument.Was alchemyreallyallaboutunlikelycollaborations?Istherenothingtothe popularimageofthealchemistworkingaloneinthelaboratory,secretive inhismethodsandteachings?Havewereallybeensoeffectivelyduped byMoran’s“solidcitizensofmodernityontheenlightenmentsideof town”(2005:9)?Theanswertoallthesequestionsisno.Alchemistsdid, infact,spendagreatdealoftimeontheirown,workingthroughtheir ideas individually, subjectively, and experimentally. Many were also quitesecretive,cautiousinthewaytheypassedonwhattheylearned intheprocessoftheirwork,awareofthegreatvalueofthisknowledge butnotwantingittofallintothehandsofthosewhomightmisuse ormisinterpretit.Tosuggestotherwisewouldbemisleading.Butthen sowouldbesuggestingthattheseaspectsofalchemyarewithouttheir parallelsinanthropology.Inthefollowingsection,Idiscusssomeof themoreisolatingtasksinvolvedinanthropologicalwork.
WrittenWork Althoughethnographicfieldworkandtheunlikelyconversationsand collaborationsitentailsmightbethesortofworkforwhichanthropologistsarebestknown,theworkofethnographicandothersortsof writing—donemoreorlessbyoneselfandprivately—canactuallytake
210
Andrew Walsh
upmuchmoreofaworkinganthropologist’stime.Forme,certainly, themajorpartofanydayasanemployeeofaCanadianuniversityis spentinfrontofacomputermonitor,paperwriting,outlinewriting, proposalwriting,reviewwriting,reportwriting,lecturewriting,email writing,referencewriting,andsoon.Indeed,itbearsmentioningthat IamworkingrightnowasItypethesewordsandthat,withanyluck,I willbeworkingeverytimeIread,rewrite,speak,cite,assign,ordefend thesewordsinthefuture. Thatwritingisabigpartofmyjobiscertainlynotlostonpeople inAmbondromifehy.Indeed,ithasgottentothepointwheresome peopletherearemorelikelytoremarkonthefactthatIamnotwriting somethingdownthanthatIam.Thatnoted,theconnectionbetween thewritingIdowhileintheircompanyandthelivingImakeisunclear tothem.ManypeopleIhavespokenwithovertheyearsassumethat mynotesfindtheirwayintobooksorarticlesthatwillfindappreciative, andpaying,audiencesbackhome.WhenIreplythatthingsarenotquite assimpleasthisandexplainthat,infact,notonlyhaveIneverbeen paidtopublishwhatIwritebutsometimesIhavetopayafeeortake outapaidmembershipinanassociationinordertohaveamanuscript considered by a potential publisher, I am met with puzzled looks. ExplainingthatIamemployedbyauniversityandthatIsometimes usethethingsthatIandotherpeoplewritetohelpinmyteaching canhelptoclarifymatters,butonlyuntilIamforcedtocounterthe reasonableinferencethatCanadianstudentsgotouniversitysothat theycanstudythecomplexitiesoflifeinnorthernMadagascar.Ihaven’t thehearttotellthemthatmanyofmystudentswishIwouldstopgoing offontangentsinspiredbymyresearchanddevotemoreattentionto outliningwhatisgoingtobeontheexam. Anyacademicanthropologistwhohasfoundhimselforherselfina conversationabouttheroleofwritinginwhatheorshedoesforaliving knowshowquicklyaseeminglyreasonablecareerchoicecandissolve intoamessofdiscomfortingcontradictions.PeopleinAmbondromifehy arecertainlycorrectononefront:theendresultofallofmyscribbling intheircompanyismeanttobeproducts—tangible,quantifiable,vetted things(papers,books,reports,etc.)that,onbaddays,canseemtodo littlemorethanestablishthatIhavebeensuitablyproductive.Iwould liketothink,asmanyinAmbondromifehyassume,thatmystudents takegreatinterestinthelecturesandpapersIwriteandinthewritten workofothersthatIassign,butIamwellawarethatthisisnotalways thecase.Thesamecanbesaid,ofcourse,forcolleaguesatmyown andotherinstitutionswhoareastiedupwiththeirownworkasIam
EthnographicAlchemy 211
withmine.Withsomuchtimespentonvarioussortsofwriting,who hastimetoreadasmuchastheyshould?Thesepointsinmind,an obviousquestionpresentsitself:Whywrite?Somemightwellassume thatacademicanthropologistswriteinordertogetandkeepjobs,to ensuretenureorpromotion,tobuilduptrackrecordsthatwillenable themtogetfundinginthefuture,andsoforth.Therearefarbetter reasonsforwritingthanthese,however. WritingisessentialtotheprocessesIpreviouslyarguedarebasicto anthropological work. Indeed, writing is a central technique of the sortofresearchIhavelearnedtodo,propellingitfrombeginningto end. This, too, is a point that Bera and others in Ambondromifehy understand.Sometimesitistheywhoremindmeofit,tappingonmy notebookinthecourseofaconversation,suggestingthatItakecareful note of such-and-such a point so that I do not forget it. What they understand,ultimately,isthatwritingandotherwaysofdocumenting diverseviewpointsareessentialtothesortofdeepplayIdo. Writingfieldnotescanalsobe,oratleastseemtobe,secretiveat times.PeopleinAmbondromifehyoftenremarkonthefactthatIcarry my notebook everywhere with me, guarding it carefully in a pouch that almost never leaves my shoulder. Why? What have I written downthatIcannotbeartopartwith?Andthenthereisthefrequently notedfactthatIspeakMalagasywithpeopleandyetwriteaboutthese conversationsinEnglish.Oneminersuggestedthatthisstrategyensured thatthepeoplewithwhomIhadconversationscouldnotdecipherone another’swordsonthepagesinfrontofmeandthem.Ifanyonesaw whatsomeoneelsehadsaid,hesuggested,itmightleadthemtochange their answers to my questions. What is more, he added, writing in EnglishallowedmetoputwhateverIwantedtopaperwithoutworrying thatanyonewouldbeabletoreadit.Thereismuchtobesaidforthese observations.Forme,asformanyothers,Iamsure,writingfieldnotes isoftenthesolitary,selective,andevensecretiveprocessthatsomein Ambondromifehyimagineittobe.Ifonlytheseobserverswerealsoright aboutwhatbecomesofallthesenotesintheend;ifonlythewritten worksthatcomeoutofthenoteswereasprizedbyaudiencesoutside ofMadagascarassomethereassume. Deepplaybeingwhatitis,muchofwhatIwritedowninmynotebooks islostintheprocessofthewritingIdoathome.Butwhatbecomesofthe productsofthisprocess?Whoactuallyreadswhatiswrittenintheend? Moreimportantly,whoreadsitinanythingbutthe“leastcharitable way possible” (Graeber 2005: 191)? Thankfully, in my experience at least,theanswerstothesequestionsarenotasdishearteningassome
212
Andrew Walsh
might fear. Anyone who has engaged in and learned from reading anthropological work understands full well that reading is as much a way and part of doing anthropology as is ethnographic fieldwork andthatcreativereadingcanbeasinnovativeandinsightfulascan creativewriting. Thesepointsinmind,asignificantandfamiliarpossibilitysuggests itself.Ifanthropologyissomethingtobedone,andifreadinganthropologicalworkisagoodwayofdoingit,thenperhapsthebestwayto getmorepeopledoinganthropologyistogetmorepeoplereadingthe productsthatcomeoutofanthropologicalwork.Achievingsuchagoal wouldrequirewritingmorestrategically,withthediverseaudienceswe hopetoreachwithourworkinmind.Orperhapsourworkwouldbe moreaccessibletodifferentaudiencesifcommunicatedthroughmedia otherthanwriting.Inanycase,thetaskathandisnotsimplyamatterof rethinkinghowanthropologicalworkgetspresentedbutofreevaluating howweourselvesevaluatedifferentproductsofanthropologicalwork. Working anthropologists play no small part in reproducing existing institutional prejudices regarding what “counts” as anthropological production,andwewillhavetotaketheleadiftheseprejudicesare tochange. Argumentsforandagainstmoreaccessibleanthropologicalwriting havebeenmademanytimesbefore,somyconcernswillbefamiliar to most. At what point does accessibility preclude communicating the complexity that anthropologists try to study? How much is too much catering to the existing assumptions, interests, and tastes of potential audiences when the goal is to change those interests and tastes?Ultimately,whatbecomesofthethingswewritebutothersget wrong? Iamhardlythefirsttofretoverquestionsoftheclarityorobscurity ofabodyofwrittenwork.SherwoodTaylor,commentingonthe“maddeninglyanddeliberatelyobscure”rhetoricofalchemists(1952:13), notedtheirdeepconcernoverthewaysinwhichtheresultsoftheirwork mightbeusedandabusedbyunscrupulousanduntrainedothersinthe pursuitofimmoralends(1952:178–79).Writingobscurelyensuredthat onlyworthyadepts,peoplecommittedtothegoals,procedures,and underlyingphilosophyoftheauthorsofalchemicaltexts,couldbenefit fromtheinsightsthattheworkofalchemyproduced.Asdisturbingas suchthinkingmightseemtosomeworkinganthropologists,toothers whofindthemselvescomplainingfromtimetotimethattherelevance oftheirworkgoesunappreciatedorunderappreciatedbynonspecialists, theremayalsobesomethingdisturbinglyfamiliaraboutthislogic.
EthnographicAlchemy 213
OfallthefiguresinBruceMoran’srevisionistaccountofalchemy (2005),themostintriguingtomeisAndreasLibavius.Moranfirstrefers toLibavius’bookAlchemyinillustratingtheverypracticalnatureofearly modernEuropeanalchemy.Herewasapracticalandaccessibleguide, intendedforstudents,concerningalchemicalprocessesthatmightbe usedinthestudyofnature.ButLibaviuswasmorethanjustatextbook author.Inacollectionofletterswritteninthelastyearsofthesixteenth century,helashedoutatthestatusquoinhisfield,givingasenseofthe profoundlydifferentunderstandingsofwhatalchemywasandshould beabout.ThereisnodoubtingwhereLibaviusstoodandwhathemade ofthesecretive,purelycontemplative,andintentionallyobscuringways ofmanyofhiscontemporaries: [W]hataidishetohumanitywhoonlydelightshimselfbythinkingup imagesinhisheadandcontrivingthingswhichcannotbeputtouse?... Althoughwethinkthatthepleasureofchemicalcontemplationisspecial, ...thisartalsodemandsworking[withthehands],bothtostrengthen theory(sincetheorycanbedeceivedbythevanityofopinions)andalso thatsomethingbeneficialtoallmightresult.(Moran2005:106)
Libaviusmadeacaseforadisciplinethatwouldservemuchmorethan justthewhims,curiosity,andinterestsofindividualresearchersand theirsponsorsandinwhichsecrecywouldhavenoplace.Particularly concerningtohimwasthetendencyamongsomeofhiscontemporaries tocondemn“allthewritings,assertionsanddeedsofthepast”(Moran 2005:101),“thebooksofancientphilosophersand...theaccumulated experienceofartisansoverhundredsofyears,”inwhichtheirownwork wasrooted(2005:102).Dismissingthislineageofideasforthesakeof noveltywasnotonlydisingenuousbutmisguided,Libaviusbelieved, leadingtoanintellectualclimateinwhich“hardlyanyoneagreedwith anyoneelse,andeachpersonwantedtoseemtohavebroughtforth somethingnew,theknowledgeandartofwhichhelaidclaimtoonly forhimself”(Moran2005:101).For thesakeofthefuture,Libavius argued,suchthinkingandpracticewouldhavetostop. Andsoitdid,Morantellsus,asthesecretiveworkofcourt-sponsored alchemygraduallygavewaytotherelativelymoreopenandaccessible workofuniversity-basedchemistry.Notthatacademicchemistry,or “publicalchemy”(2005:111),asMoransuggestsLibaviusenvisionedit, waswithoutitscosts.WritingintheearlyyearsoftheColdWar,Taylor couldnothelpbutcommentonthedubioussuccessofLibavius’vision. The“transmutationofmetals,hasnowbeenrealizedbyscience,”he
214
Andrew Walsh
wrote,“andthealchemicalvesselistheuraniumpile.Itssuccesshas hadpreciselytheresultthatthealchemistsfearedandguardedagainst, theplacingofgiganticpowerinthehandsofthosewhohavenotbeen fittedbyspiritualtrainingtoreceiveit”(Taylor1952:179). What is an anthropologist in the twenty-first century to make of allthis?AmIsuggestingthatthequestionsfacingtheearlymodern Europeanprotagonistsdiscussedherearesimilartothequestionsfacing anthropologistswhowanttoreachwideranddifferentaudienceswith more strategic sorts of writing? Or am I perhaps suggesting that we shouldalldoasLibaviusdidandworktowardtheachievementofa common, single vision of what anthropology could and should be about—avisionthatallofuscanagreeonandbelievein?Ifthereare specificlessonstobelearnedfromthedebatesthatoccupiedpeople suchasLibavius,Iaminnopositiontoteachthem;Iamasuncertain asanyoneaboutthefutureofthedisciplinethatoccupiesandemploys me. Thatnoted,onegenerallessonmightindeedbetakenfromtheaccountjustgiven.Iftheworkoftoday’santhropologistsistohavea future,andifthewritingwedoistoplayaroleinbuildingthisfuture, thenvarietyisagoodthing.Moranarguedthatwhatmadethewritten workofalchemistssoinfluentialoverthelongtermwasjustthat—its variety.“Throughthemessymixtureofconflictanddiversity,”henoted, “alchemicalwritersextendedtherepertoireofimaginableopinion.Theirs wasaclamorous‘voice,’acommotionattheinterfacebetweenreason andpassion,theoryandpractice,beliefandexperience”(2005:187). Itstandstoreasonthatinourowneffortstoextendtherepertoireof imaginableopinion,wemightbebetterservedbysearchingoutmore clamorthanbypursuingconsensus. Clamorneednotonlyfeatureinourcollectivework,however.Clamor isalsosomethingforwhichindividualanthropologistshaveanaffinity, thankstotheprocessesthatareessentialtoourwork—thepartofwhat wedothatrequiresustakediverseperspectivesandopinionsseriously. Forthoseofuswhowanttodoit,makingthemostofthislattersort of clamor requires extending our existing collaborative tendencies, discussedintheprevioussection,intothepartsofwhatwedothatcan bemostisolating.“Collaborativeethnography”projects(Lassiter2005a) arecertainlyonewayofproceeding,butthereareotherpossibilities aswell.Assomeofthecasestudiescollectedinthisvolumesuggest, projectsconceivedoutoftheminglingofanthropologicalprocesses withexistingsocialandpoliticalprocessesinparticularcontextsstand toofferagreatdealtoallinvolved.
EthnographicAlchemy 215
Notthatsuchcollaborationswillorneedalwaysbedeemedsuccessful orworthyofimitation,norneedtheynecessarilyinvolvewriting.All thatisimportantisthatsucheffortsbeacknowledged,bothwithinthe disciplineandintheinstitutionsthathouseandsupportit,asvalid ways of doing anthropology. Without such acknowledgment, there willbeevenlessincentivethanalreadyexistsforbreakingdisciplinary habits.Giventhecurrentstateoftheproductivityregimesinwhich many of us work, the greatest deterrent to the development of new waysofdoinganthropologyisthepossibilitythatsomeeffortssimply willnotcountor,perhapsmoreinsidiously,thatsomewillnotcount asmuchasothers.Withoutnewwaysofdoinganthropology,howwill thosewhofollowuseverknowhowtodoanthropologyinanyways butthoseinwhichitisdonetoday?
AnthropologyfromtheFuture InthischapterIhavetriedtomakesomethingoutofmixinganunlikely comparisonwithinsightsdrawnfromsomeunlikelyconversationsI havehadinnorthernMadagascaroverthepastcoupleofyears.Whether ornottheendresulthasproveninsightful,Ihopeitisacknowledged asaproductoftheveryprocessesIhavearguedareessentialtothesort ofanthropologicalworkIdo.Regardlessofhowthisworkistakenby others,IdrawsomecomfortfromknowingthatatleastIhavelearned something from working through the material presented here, and thus,evenifIhavefailedtomaketheworkrelevanttoothers,Ihave failed productively, in a way that will affect my own future doings, conversations,andcollaborations. Thislastcommentshouldnotbetakenasasignofthetiredcynicism thatcancreepintoone’sworkintheweeksleadinguptoadeadline. Rather,itisasignofmyrenewedconfidenceinthepropositionwith whichIbeganthechapter—thatwhatismostvaluableaboutanthropologicalworkistheprocessesitinvolves.Notthatanthropological products,includingthisvolume,arenotimportant;withoutproducts, the potential value of our processes could be neither realized nor communicated.Still,mysenseisthatiftwenty-first-centuryanthropology istohavealegacy,itwillbealegacyowingmoretoourprocessesthan toanyparticularproductsthatcamefromthem.ToillustratewhatI meanbythis,letmeendwithaseriesofquestionsthatshouldput anthropologicalworkinthesortofperspectiveIhaveinmind. Howwillanthropologicalworklookfromthefuture?Notinthefuture, butfromthefuture,or,moreprecisely,fromfuturehindsight.Andnot
216
Andrew Walsh
fiveortenyearsfromnow,either,oreventhirtyyearsfromnow,when IwilllikelybeaskedtoleavewhateverjobImighthave.Howwillthe anthropologicalworkoftodaylookfourhundredyearsfromnow,when those who consider our efforts are as distant from us in time as we arefromtheearlymodernEuropeanalchemiststowhomIhavebeen referring? Will the boundaries that so many have fought to uphold beacknowledged,orwillwebegroupedwithotherswhoseworkours willbesaidtohaveresembled?Ifthelatter,whichothersmightthose be?Withregardtothebroaderhistoricalandintellectualnarrativesin whichwewillbecontextualized,willourworkbecelebratedasessential orderidedasoutoftouch?Willwebepraisedforbeingaheadofthe curveorfaultedforfailingtoseeitcoming,whatever“it”mightbe?Or willwebeaccusedofhavingseenitcomingbuthavingdonetoolittle tostop,stem,orsteerit?Worstofall,perhaps,mightourdescendants notrememberusmuchatall? Ofallthelessonsthatmightbegarneredfromthehistoryandlegacy ofalchemy,perhapsthebesttoendwithisthefollowing:Thepotential and value of a field of study cannot be determined solely by what or whether it is seen to deliver. Despite the failures for which they are so well known, early modern European alchemists contributed significantlytothedevelopmentofwaysofthinkinganddoingthat literallychangedtheworld.Andinretrospect,theydidsonotsomuch byvirtueoftheirfaithorproductivitybutbysimplydoingwhatthey didand,intheprocess,teachingothersasmuchthroughtheirfailures asthroughtheirsuccesses.Asimilarlegacyforanthropologymightwell besomethingworthworkingtoward.
e l e v e n
Reflections on the Symposium Douglas E. Foley
M
ostanthropologistsacknowledgethatinthewakeofpostcolonial, feminist,criticalrace,culturalMarxist,andpostmoderncritiques, anthropologyhas“reinvented”itself(Hymes1972).Intheintroduction tothisvolume,FieldandFox’sexcellentsynopsisofthe2005WennerGrensymposiumonwhichthebookisbaseddemonstrateshowthe fieldisevolving.Theconferenceparticipantsmadeitclearthatthey nolongertrytoproduceholisticportraitsofculturethatexistoutside worldhistory.Longgoneistheloftygoalofsalvageethnology,thatof discoveringculturalandlinguisticuniversalsbeforemodernitydestroys humandiversity. Asthefocusandpurposeofanthropologicalresearchhavechanged, sohavethefieldmethodsusedtostudynewtopics.LikeLukeLassiter (2005b),FieldandFoxemphasizetheriseofcollaborativefieldmethods.Theconferenceparticipantshadpracticedvaryingdegreesofcollaborationwiththeirsubjects.DorettiandBrunellassistedvictimsof Argentina’sdirtywarinidentifyingtheremainsoflovedones.Frank, Basch,andToussaintbecameresourcesfortribalelders,woman’sgroups, andAboriginalcommunities,respectively,inaddressingtheirvarious needs.RappaportandHaleworkedaspoliticalallieswithactivistgroups, co-theorizingandco-writingtheirethnographies.WalshandWoodson eachworkedcloselywithinformantstovalidateviewsandindicatorsof modernizationandpoverty.BlockandFrankhadassimilatedintothe cultureofoccupationaltherapytobetterservetheirrespectiveclients. SundarandCraigHowe,whosepaperdoesnotappearinthiscollection, wrote,respectively,culturalcritiquesofIndiananthropologyandofthe newUnitedStatesNationalMuseumoftheAmericanIndian. Alltheparticipantsstillsubscribedtotheclassicmethodologicalpracticesofextendedfieldwork,fieldnotes,directobservation,interviews, 217
218
Douglas E. Foley
andpersonalexperienceasthebasisofknowing.ButasFoxandField pointout,theconferenceparticipantsweremuchlessworriedabout “goingnative”and“over-identifying”withtheirsubjectsthanearlier anthropologistswere.Theyhaddroppedthepositivistpretensethatan ethnographercanbeaneutral,detached,objectiveobserver.Invarying degrees,alltheparticipantsembracedthenotionthatethnographiesare theproductsofcomplexencountersandthusaremoreintersubjective andinterpretivethanobjective.Consequently,allofthemweretryingto getclosertotheirsubjectsthroughvarioustypesofcollaboration.Their motivesweremany,butmostweredoingsoforethicalandpolitical reasons.Theiraimwastomakeanthropologyamoreuseful,publicly engagedsciencethataddressedpressingsocialandpoliticalproblems. Many traditional anthropologists will find these new collaborative practicesproblematic.Theyrepresentforthemabreakdownofatimehonoreddistinctionbetweenbasicandappliedresearchandtherise ofapoliticized,subjective,unscientificanthropology. Duringthediscussions,theparticipantstriedonmanyprofessional identity labels—applied, public policy, citizen, action, activist—but noconsensusemergedonhowtoconceptualizeandlabelthesenew practices.Halesettledonthelabel“activistanthropology,”whichhas someaffinitieswithSolTax’searliernotionof“actionanthropology” (Foley1999).Halearguedforahighdegreeofpoliticalandmethodological collaborationthatleadstoco-theorizedandco-writtenethnographies. The chapters by Rappaport, Doretti and Brunell, Frank, Basch, and Toussaintrepresent,tovaryingdegrees,excellentexamplesofHale’s activistanthropology.AccordingtobothTaxandHale,wrestlingwith the contradictions of political collaboration leads to more complex, accurate,ethical,andusefulethnographies. Toflourishinacademe,collaborativeoractivistanthropology—whicheverlabelyouprefer—mustbefoundedonmorethanhigh-minded ethics.Thisissobecausetraditionalanthropologistscaneasilytrivialize alliances with and heartfelt accounts of the downtrodden as “going native” and thus lacking scientific objectivity. One counter to such “objectivistbaiting”isstandpointepistemology,whichrestatesHegel’s oldmaster-slaveargumentthattheslavehasgreaterinsightintohis oppressedconditionthandoesthemaster.Becauseallinterpretation andknowledgeproductionissituatedinhistoryandpolitics,whynot interprettheworldfromtheperspectiveleastcorruptedbypowerand dominance?Moststandpointtheories,whetherornottheyacknowledge theirdebttoHegelianism,havethosephilosophicalroots.Traditional anthropologistswhoimaginethemselvesobjectivescientistsmayfind
ReflectionsontheSymposium 219
this new commitment to “partial” and “situated” knowledge claims troubling,butcollaborativeoractivistanthropologistsgenerallyprefer thismorelimited,lessgrandiosenotionofscience.Althoughfewof thecontributorstothisbookmaketheirepistemologicalassumptions explicit, feminist standpoint theorists provide collaborative-activist ethnographerswithadefensibleepistemologicalfoundationfortheir fieldpractices(Foley2002). ThechaptersbyBlock,Frank,andBaschcontaininterestingreflections on developing an interdisciplinary professional identity in thefaceofthestatuspoliticsofacademe.Butfewoftheconference paperspresentedwhattheauthorshadlearnedfromthepost-1960s anthropologicaldebates.Ihavechronicledmyunderstandingofthese debateselsewhere(Foley1999;FoleyandValenzuela2005),anddoing so helped me understand my own ethnographic practice. So in the remainderofthisessay,Icontrastcollaborative-activistethnographic approacheswithothermajorpostpositivistethnographicapproaches. Contrastingethnographicgenreshighlightswhatisdistinctiveabout collaborative-activistethnographicpractices. AfterreviewingmanyethnographiesofUnitedStatesAmericanculture, KirbyMossandI(FoleyandMoss2000)concludedthat“anthropologyas culturalcritique”(MarcusandFisher1986)hadbecomethemostpopular genreincontemporaryAmericananthropology.Theanthropologyof culturalcritiqueisacapaciousumbrellathatincorporatespostcolonial, feminist,criticalrace,culturalMarxist,poststructuralist,andpostmodern critiques.Perhapsitsmostseminalcharacteristicisthatitviewsthe culturalworldthroughamultipledominance/power(class,race,gender, sexual preference) perspective. This broad theoretical lens generates critiquesofinstitutions,popularculturalpractices,andpublicpolicies and uses interdisciplinary research techniques from anthropology, mediastudies,history,andliterarystudies. TheinfluenceoftheoreticaldebatesinBritain,France,andGermany andinContinentalphilosophyhasbeenespeciallyimportantinthe emergenceofanthropologyasculturalcritique.Thetheoreticalworks ofthebigthree—Bourdieu,Foucault,andGramsci—andofnumerous feministwritersdominatethisgenreofAmericanethnography(Foley andMoss2000;FoleyandValenzuela2005).Culturalcriticsworkfrom thesegrandtheoreticaltraditionsinawaythatchallegesnaturalized, taken-for-grantedculturalandinstitutionalpractices.Well-knownpractitionersofthisgenreare,amongmanyothers,NancyScheper-Hughes, MichaelTaussig,EmilyMartin,PhillipeBourgois,LouiseLamphere,and GeorgeMarcus.
220
Douglas E. Foley
Manyanthropologistswhohaveadoptedaculturalcritiquenotion ofethnographyimaginethemselvesdoingthepoliticalworkofraising ordinary people’s consciousness and transforming the conventional wisdoms and dated theoretical paradigms of the academy. Methodologically, most cultural critics are more collaborative than earlier scientificethnographerswere,butthemodernistidealsoftherational, intellectual,andautonomousauthorinterpretingeverydayrealityin adeeper,moretheoreticalmannerdoesnotlenditselftoco-theorized andcoauthoredethnographies.Mostculturalcriticsmaintainagreater degree of intellectual and political autonomy and distance than is advocatedincollaborative-activistethnography. Someanthropologistsassociatetheanthropologyofculturalcritique withpostmodernism,abroad,complexphilosophicalcritiqueofthe socialsciencesthathasfilteredintoanthropologyinfragmentedways.Put fartoosimply,postmodernism,withitsdeconstructionistmethodology, isradicallyskepticalandcriticaloftheeighteenth-centurymodernist, Enlightenmentdreamofprogressthroughrationalsocialandphysical science.Thereareactuallyfewpracticingpostmodernethnographers inAmericananthropology,butbecauseoftheirrelentlesscritiqueof positivism and ethnographic realism, several have had considerable influence. In varying degrees, ethnographers such as Stephen Tyler, MichaelTaussig,KathleenStewart,GuillermoGomez-Pena,andPatti Latherdistancethemselvesfrommodernistgrandtheory,authoritative knowledge claims, linear theories of historical progress, modernist reflexivepractices,andrealistrepresentationsoftheirsubjects.They generallystrivetodeconstructearlierethnographicmisrepresentationsof theirsubjectsandrepresentthemwithoutdeployinggrandtheories. Methodologically, postmodern ethnographers are not particularly collaborative in the sense of co-theorizing and co-writing their ethnographies, and they consider the various types of reflexivity that cultural critics valorize a modernist, rationalist conceit that will not produce greater objectivity and better representations. In theory, postmodern ethnographers strive to represent their subjects through“evocative”texts—thatis,textsthataremoreambiguousand poeticthanmodernist“realist”ethnographieswithgrandtheoryand strong knowledge claims (Foley 2002). At this writing, postmodern ethnographyhascomeandgone.Asuresignofitsdemiseisthenumber ofanthropologistsnowbashingpostmodernismwithoutacknowledging itsroleintransforminganthropologicalpractice. Anthropologists who practice some form of cultural critique have learned a few things from the postmodern critique. They are more
ReflectionsontheSymposium 221
skepticalaboutbeingscientistsinthegrand,positivistsense,andthey worry more about their authorial power and their representational andnarrativepractices.Butmostculturalcriticsinanthropologystill subscribetoamodernistprincipleofacademicknowledgeproduction thatpostmodernthinkersrenounced:theproductionofgrandtheory and generalizable knowledge. Such knowledge purports to explain how social and cultural institutions such as patriarchy, racial and classformations,themassmedia,andeventheprofessionswork.Like earlier modernist, Enlightenment thinkers, cultural critics generally advocateasciencerootedinegalitarian,democraticideals.Althoughnot framedintheallegedlyvalue-neutral,positivistlanguageof“XcausesY” explanations,culturalcritiquesdopurporttoproduceknowledgethat explainsourlivedrealityandhelpstoimproveoursocialandcultural institutionsandpractices. Thecollaborative-activistanthropologistsattheWenner-Grenconferenceexpressedmanyofthesesamemodernistnotionsofscienceand knowledge production. Politically engaged “collaborative anthropologists”producein-depth,theorizedethnographiesmuchlikethose ofculturalcritics,butwithonesignificantdifference.Thelocalpolitical allies of collaborative-activist anthropologists usually demand that theanthropologistsproduceanotherformofknowledgethatcultural critiques rarely produce. Activist anthropologists must also produce, forlackofabetterconstruct,agreatdealof“localknowledge”—thatis, ungeneralizableknowledgethatmighthelppeoplegettheirappropriated landbackorrecovertheremainsofalovedone.Theknowledgeneeded toaddressparticularlocalpoliticalinequitiesmaynotreadilytranslate intothe“generalizableknowledge”storiesthatacademicsadmireand reward. In addition, political activists may be more interested in glowing portraitsoftheircausethanincomplex,criticalportraits.Severalofthe contributorstothisvolumenotetheirstrugglestobridgetheenormous gapbetweenwhatacademeandlocalpoliticalgroupsdemandandto resist political-correctness pressures to censor their data. These were problemsmycolleaguesandIfoundespeciallydifficulttoovercome duringourstudyoftheChicanocivilrightsmovement(Foley2000). Theegalitarianidealofco-theorizedandco-writtenethnographies takesanthropologyinsomeexcitingnewdirections,butseveralofus wonderedwhetherprivilegeduniversityprofessorscouldreallyanswer MaorischolarLindaTuhiwaiSmith’s(1999)calltodecolonizeresearch. Canacademicsreallyletworking-classandtriballeadersdecidewho researcheswhat?Moreover,willthepoliticallegislaturesthatgovern
222
Douglas E. Foley
universities and the professional associations that govern academic disciplinesreallyacceptsuchademocratic,politicized,andcollaborative model of inquiry? It seems that collaborative-activist anthropology mustovercomesomepowerfulinstitutionalbarriersifitistoenterthe mainstreamofanthropologicalpractice. Ibelievewould-becollaborativeanthropologistsmustthinkoftheir laborthewayhomemakersdo.Forthetimebeing,theywillhaveto be content with doing unpaid labor that is grossly undervalued in academe. When they publish useful op-ed pieces in newspapers, or policybriefs,orvideosthathelplocalpeopleredressinjustices,they probablywillnotgetcreditforitasacademicproduction.Inaddition, they must learn how to produce much more accessible and varied accountsoftheircollaborativeresearch.Videos,policybriefs,popular ethnographies,andinvestigativenewspaperarticlesarenotacademic journalarticles,andfewanthropologistshavemuchtraining,ifany, inthesegenres.Finally,activistanthropologistsmustbecomeastrong enoughforceinprofessionalassociationsandintheiruniversitiesto broadenthedefinitionofwhatcountsasknowledgeproduction. Manypoliticallyprogressiveacademicanthropologistsdoingcultural critiques will not embrace the burden of double labor, undervalued production,lowersalaries,andpolitical-correctnesspressures.Inthe end,theywillchanneltheiractivistaspirationsthewayIdid,intothe safer,acceptablemodelofacademicproductioncalledtheanthropology ofculturalcritique.Andiftheywerepoliticalactivists,theywillfeel guiltyaboutthecompromisesmadetosurviveinacademe(Foleyand Valenzuela2005). Field and Fox may be correct in saying that collaborative-activist ethnographic practices are already widespread. What this optimistic viewdoesnotprovide,however,isanaccountofwherecollaborative, activistanthropologyisactuallytakingplace.FromwhatIhaveseen, the most politically active anthropologists are nomadic, untenured academicsinlessprestigiouscollegesorininterdisciplinaryprofessional schools,ortheyhavebeenpushedoutsidetheacademyentirely.And as Hale notes, there are a few clusters of activist anthropologists in big-name,publish-or-perishuniversitieswhoworkharderthantheir colleagues, tolerate political-correctness pressures, and publish both universalandlocalknowledge.Thehopefulsignisthatthenumber of“citizenanthropologists”whoaremorecollaborativeandservethe publicinterestisgrowing. Nevertheless, I must reiterate Lassiter’s view that “collaborative ethnography”isnottheonlywaytoproducesociallyandpolitically
ReflectionsontheSymposium 223
relevant studies. Following the sociologist Jack Douglas (1976), the less collaborative, more detached, covert approach of investigative reportingmay,insomecircumstances,beneeded.Thegenreofinsider, whistle-bloweraccountshasproducedrevealingethnographiesofthe tobacco industry and the CIA. There is nothing collaborative about thesecritiques,buttheydofulfillLauraNader’scallto“studyup,”and theydefinitelyservethepublicinterest. Inaddition,therearemanypoliticallyinvolved“applied”or“policyoriented” investigators who “work within the system,” like Basch, Woodson,andDorettiandassociates.MycolleagueAngelaValenzuela isnotcollaborativemethodologically,butsheishighlycollaborative politically. She is a trusted ally of Chicano legislators who want to reformneoconservativeschoolpolicies.Theyarenotinterestedincotheorizingorcoauthoringherresearch.Theyexpecthertobeanexpert witnessandwriterofauthoritativestudiesandpolicybriefs(Foleyand Valenzuela2005). Finally,IsecondFoxandField’scautionarynotethatthisvolume maymisrepresentcollaborative-activistanthropologyasanemerging worldanthropologicalpractice.DuringthediscussionofSundar’sand Toussaint’spapersatthesymposium,thegroupwasveryclearabout theneedformanyhistoriesofthefieldofanthropology.Concernwas expressedthatthisvolumemightproduceacolonizingdiscoursethat represented the United States experience as universal. The chapters situated in Latin America suggest that colleagues to the south may actually be more activist and collaborative than US anthropologists. Europe and Australia also have their fair share of experimentation with collaborative methods and politics. Sundar’s account of Indian anthropology, however, highlights the enduring hegemony of more traditional anthropological practices. Perhaps the Wenner-Gren Foundationneedstohostaninternationalconferenceonthistopic. Intheabsenceofmoreconferences,Ihopethisvolumeprovokesmore reflectiononwhyandhowanthropologyischangingyetinsomeways stayingthesame.
This page intentionally left blank
References
Abbott,Andrew.1988.TheSystemofProfessions:AnEssayontheDivision ofExpertLabor.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress. Adamson,WalterL.1980.HegemonyandRevolution:AStudyofAntonio Gramsci’s Political and Cultural Theory. Berkeley: University of CaliforniaPress. Addams, Jane. 1999 [1910]. Twenty Years at Hull-House. New York: Signet. Agrawal,Arun.1995.“DismantlingtheDividebetweenIndigenousand WesternKnowledge.”DevelopmentandChange26(3):413–39. Ahmad,AbdulGhaffarM.2003.AnthropologyintheSudan:Reflections by a Sudanese Anthropologist. Amsterdam: International Books and OSSREA. Allport,Carolyn.2005.“FightingforOurRights.”Frontline:National TertiaryEducationUnionWomen’sJournal12:2. Alvarez,MaríaD.,andGeraldF.Murray.1981.“SocializationforScarcity: Child Feeding Beliefs and Practices in a Haitian Village.” Report submittedtoUSAID/Haiti.August.Port-au-Prince:USAID/Haiti. Anderson,Ian.2003.“AboriginalAustralians,Governments,andParticipationinHealthSystems.”InHealth,SocialPolicyandCommunities, eds.P.LiamputtongRiceandH.Gardner,224–40.Oxford:Oxford UniversityPress. Anderson,Mark,andSarahEngland.1998.“AuthenticAfricanCulture in Honduras? Afro–Central Americans Challenge Honduran IndoHispanic Mestizaje.” Paper presented at the 21st Latin American StudiesAssociationInternationalCongress,Chicago. Anglade,Georges.1982.Atlascritiqued’Haïti.Grouped’ÉtudesdeRecherches Critiquesd’Espace(ERCE),DépartementdeGéographie,Universitéde QuébecàMontréaletCentredeRecherchesCaraïbesdel’Université deMontréal.
225
226
References
Anonymous. 2000. “Sxabwes/El ombligo”: El juego didáctico de las matemáticas.”C’ayu’ce4:42–43.Popayán. AOTA(AmericanOccupationalTherapyAssociation).2004.“Consumer Information:WhatIsOccupationalTherapy?”http://www.aota.org/ featured/area6/index.asp,accessedJuly28,2004. Appadurai, Arjun. 2002. “Deep Democracy: Urban Governmentality andtheHorizonofPolitics.”PublicCulture14(1):21–48. Argyrou,Vassos.1999.“SamenessandtheEthnologicalWilltoMeaning.” CurrentAnthropology40:S29–S40. AustralianBureauofStatisticsandAustralianIndigenousHealthand Welfare.2001.TheHealthandWelfareofAustralia”sAboriginalandTorres StraitIslanderPeoples.Canberra:AustralianBureauofStatistics. Australian Law Reform Commission. 1986. Final Report. Canberra: AustralianGovernmentPrinters. Avirama,Jesús,andRaydaMárquez.1995.“TheIndigenousMovement inColombia.”InIndigenousPeoplesandDemocracyinLatinAmerica, ed.D.L.VanCott,83–105.NewYork:St.Martin’s. Balcazar, Fabricio E., and Christopher B. Keys. 1998. “Developing theCapacityofMinorityCommunitiestoPromotetheAmericans withDisabilitiesAct.”GrantproposaltotheNationalInstituteon DisabilityandRehabilitationResearch. ———,ChristopherB.Keys,andYolandaSuarez-Balcazar.2001.“EmpoweringLatinoswithDisabilitiestoAddressIssuesofIndependent LivingandDisabilityRights:ACapacity-BuildingApproach.”Journal ofPreventionandInterventionintheCommunity21:53–70. BARA. 1996a. A Baseline Study of Livelihood Security in Northwest Haiti. PreparedbyM.Baro,C.Bart,andK.Coelho,withtheassistanceofM. LangworthyandD.G.Woodson.April.Tucson:BARA,Universityof Arizona,andPort-au-Prince:CARE/HaitiandiFSIS. ———.1996b.ABaselineStudyofLivelihoodSecurityintheSouthernPeninsula ofHaiti.PreparedbyD.G.WoodsonandM.Baro,withtheassistance ofT.J.Finanetal.April.Tucson:BARA,UniversityofArizona,and Port-au-Prince:CRS/HaitiandiFSIS. ———.1997.ABaselineStudyofLivelihoodSecurityintheDepartmentsofthe Artibonite,Center,North,Northeast,andWest,RepublicofHaiti.Prepared byD.G.WoodsonandM.Baro,withtheassistanceofT.J.Finanetal. May.Tucson:BARA,UniversityofArizona,andPort-au-Prince:ADRA/ HaitiandiFSIS. Barad,Karen.2003.“PosthumanistPerformativity:TowardanUnderstandingofHowMatterComestoMatter.”Signs:JournalofWomen inCultureandSociety28(3):801–31.
References 227
Barthélemy,Gérard.1989.Lepaysendehors:Essaisurl’universruralHaïtien. Montréal:CentreInternationaldeDocumentationetd’Information Haïtienne,andPort-au-Prince:HenriDeschamps. Basch, Linda. 2004. “Human Security, Globalization, and Feminist Visions.”PeaceReview,specialissue,16(1):5–12. ———,LucieWoodSaunders,JagnaWojcickaSharff,andJamesPeacock, eds. 1999. Transforming Academia: Challenges and Opportunities for anEngagedAnthropology.Arlington,VA:AmericanAnthropological Association. ———,NinaGlickSchiller,andChristinaBlancSzanton.1994.Nations Unbound.NewYork:GordonBreach. Basso, Keith. 1996. Wisdom Sits in Places: Landscape and Language amongtheWesternApache.Albuquerque:UniversityofNewMexico Press. Bates,RobertH.,V.Y.Mudimbe,andJeanO’Barr.1993.Africaandthe Disciplines.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress. Benedict, Ruth. 1946. The Chrysanthemum and the Sword: Patterns of JapaneseCulture.Boston:HoughtonMifflin. Benmayor,R.1991.“Testimony,ActionResearch,andEmpowerment: PuertoRicanWomenandPopularEducation.”InWomen’sWords,eds. D.PataiandS.B.Gluck,159–74.NewYork:Routledge. Bennett,JohnW.1996.“AppliedandActionAnthropology:Ideological andConceptualAspects.”CurrentAnthropology36,Supplement:S23– S53. ———.2005.“MalinowskiAwardLecture2004:AppliedAnthropology inTransition.”HumanOrganization64(1):1–3. Berggren, Gretchen, Sarah Castle, Lincoln Chen, Winifred Fitzgerald, Catherine Michaud, and Marko Simunovic. 1993. “Sanctions in Haiti:CrisisinHumanitarianAction.”Preliminaryreport,November. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies. Bergquist,Charles.1990.“IntheNameofHistory:ADisciplinaryCritiqueofOrlandoFalsBorda’sHistoriadobledelacosta.”LatinAmerican ResearchReview25(3):156–76. Beteille,Andre.1993.“SociologyandAnthropology:TheirRelationship inOnePerson’sCareer.”ContributionstoIndianSociology,n.s.27(2): 291–304. ———,2000.“TeachingandResearch.”InSituatingSociology:ASymposium on Knowledge, Institutions and Practices. Seminar, special issue, 495: 20–23.
228
References
Biolsi,Thomas,andLarryJ.Zimmerman,eds.1997.IndiansandAnthropologists: Vine Deloria, Jr. and the Critique of Anthropology. Tucson: UniversityofArizonaPress. Block, Pamela. 2000. “Sexuality, Fertility, and Danger: TwentiethCentury Images of Women with Cognitive Disabilities.” Sexuality andDisability18(4):239–54. ———.2004. “Disability Studies in the Belly of the Beast.” Disability StudiesQuarterly24(4):n.p.(onlinejournal).Specialissue,“Disability StudiesintheEducationofPublicHealthandHealthProfessionals: CanItWorkforAllInvolved?” ———,Fabricio E. Balcazar, and Christopher B. Keys. 2001. “From PathologytoPower:RethinkingRace,Poverty,andDisability.”Journal ofDisabilityPolicyStudies12(1):18–27. ———,BethBock,BruceBecker,andSarahEverhart.2001.“Alcoholand SubstanceUsebyAdolescentsandYoungAdultswithRecentSpinal Cord and Traumatic Brain Injuries.” Disability Studies Quarterly 21 (2):n.p.(onlinejournal). ———,and James H. Rimmer. 2000. “Shake It Up for Alcohol and SubstanceUseReduction:HealthPromotionandCapacityBuilding for Persons with Traumatic Spinal Cord Injuries.” Grant proposal totheNationalInstituteonDisabilityandRehabilitationResearch. CFDAProgram84.133,awardno.H133G010094. ———,Sarah Everhart Skeels, and Christopher B. Keys. 2006. “Participatory Intervention Research with a Disability Community: A PracticalGuidetoPractice.”InternationalJournalofDisability,Community,andRehabilitation5(1):n.p.(onlinejournal). ———,SarahEverhartSkeels,ChristopherB.Keys,andJamesH.Rimmer. 2005. “Shake-It-Up: Health Promotion and Capacity Building for PeoplewithSpinalCordInjuriesandRelatedNeurologicalDisabilities.” DisabilityandRehabilitation27(4):185–90. Blundell,Valda,andDonnyWooloogoodja.2004.KeepingtheWandjinas Fresh.Fremantle,Australia:FremantleArtsCenterPress. Boas, Franz. 1912. “Changes in the Bodily Form of Descendants of Immigrants.”AmericanAnthropologist14(3):530–62. ———,1916. “New Evidence in Regard to the Instability of Human Types.”ProceedingsoftheNationalAcademyofSciences2:713–71. ———,1945.RaceandDemocraticSociety.NewYork:J.J.Augustin. ———,1960 [1888]. “The Central Eskimo: Domestic Occupations andAmusements.”InTheGoldenAgeofAmericanAnthropology,eds. M.MeadandR.L.Bunzel,246–50.NewYork:GeorgeBraziller. ———,1962.AnthropologyandModernLife.NewYork:Norton.
References 229
Bolaños, Graciela, Abelardo Ramos, Joanne Rappaport, and Carlos Miñana.2004.¿Quépasaríasilaescuela...?Treintaañosdeconstrucción educativa.Popayán:ProgramadeEducaciónBilingüeeIntercultural, ConsejoRegionalIndígenadelCauca. Bonilla,VíctorDaniel.1977.Historiapolíticadelospaeces.Bogotá:Carta alCRIC,4. ———,1982.“Algunasexperienciasdelproyecto‘MapasParlantes.’”In Alfabetizaciónyeducacióndeadultosenlaregiónandina,ed.J.E.García Huidobro,145–61.Pátzcuaro,Mexico:UNESCO. ———,Gonzalo Castillo, Orlando Fals Borda, and Augusto Libreros. 1972.Causapopular,cienciapopular:Unametodologíadelconocimiento científicoatravésdelaacción.Bogotá:PublicacionesdeLaRosca. Bose,PradipK.n.d.“TheAnthropologistas‘Scientist’?:NirmalKumar Bose.”InAnthropologyintheEast:TheIndianFoundationsofaGlobal Discipline,eds.P.Uberoi,N.Sundar,andS.Deshpande.NewDelhi: PermanentBlack.Inpress. Bourdieu,Pierre.1996.TheStateNobility.Stanford,CA:StanfordUniversityPress. Breines,EstelleB.1986.OriginsandAdaptations:APhilosophyofPractice. NewYork:Geri-Rehab,Inc. Brinkerhoff,DerickW.,andJean-ClaudeGarcia-Zamor,eds.1986.Politics, Projects, and People: Institutional Development in Haiti. New York: Praeger. Buckley,Thomas.2002.StandingGround:YurokIndianSpirituality,1850– 1990.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress. CardosodeOliveira,Roberto.2000.“PeripheralAnthropologies‘versus’ Central Anthropologies.” Journal of Latin American Anthropology 4 (2)–5(1):10–30. Carrara,Sergio.1996.TributoaVênus:AlutacontraasífilisnoBrasilda passagemdoséculoaosanos1940.RiodeJaniero:EditoraFiocruz. Carrithers, Michael. 1992. Why Humans Have Cultures: Explaining AnthropologyandSocialDiversity.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress. Castillo-Cárdenas,Gonzalo.1987.LiberationTheologyfromBelow:The LifeandThoughtofManuelQuintínLame.Maryknoll,NY:Orbis. Chakrabarty,Dipesh.2003.“Globalisation,Democratisationandthe EvacuationofHistory?”InAtHomeinDiaspora,eds.J.Assayagand V.Beneit,127–47.Delhi:PermanentBlack. Chambers, Erve. 1987. “Applied Anthropology in the Post-Vietnam Era: Anticipations and Ironies.” Annual Review of Anthropology 16: 309–37. Chambers, Robert. 1997. Whose Reality Counts? Putting the Last First. London:IntermediateTechnologyPublications.
230
References
Champagne,Duane.1998.“AmericanIndianStudiesIsforEveryone.”In NativesandAcademics:ResearchingandWritingaboutAmericanIndians, ed.D.A.Mihesuah,181–89.Lincoln:UniversityofNebraskaPress. ———,andCaroleGoldberg.2005.“ChangingtheSubject:Individual versusCollectiveInterestsinIndianCountry.”WicazoSaReview20 (1):49–69.UniversityofMinnesotaPress. Chapple, Eliot D. 1943. “Anthropological Engineering: Its Use to Administrators.”AppliedAnthropology2:23–32. ———,1946.“TheNaturalGroupinIndustry.”JournalofEducational Sociology19:534–39. Charkiewicz,Ewa.2004.“GlobalBio-PoliticsandCorporationsasthe NewSubjectofHistory.”Unpublishedmanuscript. Cheah,Peng.1997.“Posit(ion)ingHumanRightsintheCurrentGlobal Conjecture.”PublicCulture9:233–66. Chow, Rey. 1995. Primitive Passions: Visuality, Sexuality, Ethnography, andContemporaryChineseCinema.NewYork:ColumbiaUniversity Press. Clark,F.A.,D.Parham,M.E.Carlson,G.Frank,J.Jackson,D.Pierce, R.J.Wolfe,andR.Zemke.1991.“OccupationalScience:Academic InnovationintheServiceofOccupationalTherapy’sFuture.”American JournalofOccupationalTherapy45:300–310. Clifford,James.1988.“IdentityinMashpee.”InThePredicamentofCulture,J.Clifford,277–346.Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress. ———,1997.Routes:TravelandTranslationintheLateTwentiethCentury. Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress. Coffey,Wallace,andRebeccaTsosie.2001.“RethinkingtheTribalSovereigntyDoctrine:CulturalSovereigntyandtheCollectiveFutureof IndianNations.”StanfordLawandPolicyReview(Spring):191–210. Cohn, Bernard. 1990. “Notes on the History of the Study of Indian SocietyandCulture.”InAnAnthropologistamongtheHistorians,B. Cohn,136–71.Delhi:OxfordUniversityPress. Collins, Patricia Hill. 1991. Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness,andthePoliticsofEmpowerment.NewYork:Routledge. CommitteeofConcernedCitizens.2002.ThirdReport:ADetailedAccount of the Efforts of the Committee during the Five Years to Intervene in the Climate of Social Turmoil and Violence in Rural Andhra Pradesh, SpeciallyinTelengana,intheInterestsoftheCommonPeopleoftheState. Hyderabad:CommitteeofConcernedCitizens. Connerton,Paul.1989.HowSocietiesRemember.Cambridge:Cambridge UniversityPress. Cook,SherburneF.1976.TheConflictbetweentheCaliforniaIndianand WhiteCivilization.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.
References 231
Cooke,Bill,andUmaKothari,eds.2001.Participation:TheNewTyranny? London:Zed. Cowan, Jane K. 2006. “Culture and Rights after Culture and Rights.” AmericanAnthropologist108(1):9–24. CRIC (Consejo Regional Indígena del Cauca). 2000. “Informe final: Profesionalización,ConsejoRegionalIndígenadelCauca.”Popayán: PEBI-CRIC.Manuscript. Crough,Greg,andChristineChristophersen.1993.AboriginalPeople intheEconomyoftheKimberley.Darwin:NorthAustralianResearch Unit,andCanberra:AustralianNationalUniversity. CurrentAnthropology.1968.“SocialResponsibilitySymposium.”Vol.9, no.5(December).ArticlesbyKathleenGough,GeraldBerreman,etal. Dagua Hurtado, Abelino, Misael Aranda, and Luis Guillermo Vasco. 1998. Guambianos: Hijos del aroiris y del agua. Bogotá: Los Cuatro Elementos. Dasgupta,Sangeeta.n.d.“RecastingtheOraonsandthe‘Tribe’:Sarat ChandraRoy’sAnthropology.”InAnthropologyintheEast:TheIndian FoundationsofaGlobalDiscipline,eds.P.Uberoi,N.Sundar,andS. Deshpande.NewDelhi:PermanentBlack.Inpress. DeclarationofBarbados.1971.InTheSituationoftheIndianinSouth America,ed.W.Dostal,376–81.Geneva:WCIP. Deloria, Vine Jr. 1969. Custer Died for Your Sins: An Indian Manifesto. NewYork:Macmillan. Desai, I. P. 1996. “Craft of Sociology in India: An Autobiographical Perspective.” In Theory and Ideology in Indian Sociology: Essays in HonourofProf.YogendraSingh,ed.N.K.Singhi,167–99.Jaipur:Rawat Publications. Dewey, John. 1990. The School and Society and The Child and the Curriculum.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress. Dirks, Nicholas. 2001. Castes of Mind: Colonialism and the Making of ModernIndia.Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress. Douglas, Jack. 1976. Investigative Social Research: Individual and Team Research.ThousandOaks,CA:Sage. DuBois,W.E.B.1989[1903].TheSoulsofBlackFolk.NewYork:Bantam. Dupuy, Alex. 1991. “Political Intellectuals in the Third World: The CaribbeanCase.”InIntellectualsandPolitics:SocialTheoryinaChanging World,ed.C.C.Lemert,74–92.London:Sage. EAAF/Witness. 2002. Following Antigone: Forensic Anthropology and HumanRights.Film. Edgerton,RobertB.1992.SickSocieties:ChallengingtheMythofPrimitive Harmony.NewYork:FreePress.
232
References
Environmental Concern, Inc. 1972. “Preliminary Report, Tule River IndianReservationComprehensivePlanningProgram.” Ervin,AlexanderM.2000.AppliedAnthropology:ToolsandPerspectives forContemporaryPractice.Boston:AllynandBacon. Escobar,Arturo.1998.“WhoseKnowledge,WhoseNature?Biodiversity, Conservation,andthePoliticalEcologyofSocialMovements.”Journal ofPoliticalEcology5:53–82. FalsBorda,Orlando.1980–86.Historiadobledelacosta.4vols.Bogotá: CarlosValenciaEditores. ———,andMohammadAnisurRahman.1991.ActionandKnowledge: Breaking the Monopoly with Participatory Action-Research. New York: ApexPress. Fass,Simon.1988.PoliticalEconomyinHaiti:TheDramaofSurvival.New Brunswick,NJ:Transaction. Fatton,RobertJr.2002.Haiti’sPredatoryRepublic:TheUnendingTransition toDemocracy.Boulder,CO:LynneRienner. Fernandez, James. 1987. “Anthropology as a Vocation: Listening to Voices.”OnlineguesteditorialforCulturalAnthropology:APerspective on the Human Condition, by Emily A. Shultz and Robert Lavenda. http://www.us.oup.com/us/pdf/cultant/fernandez.pdf. Field,Les.1999.“ComplicitiesandCollaborations:Anthropologistsand the‘UnacknowledgedTribes’ofCalifornia.”CurrentAnthropology40 (2):193–209. ———,2003. “Unacknowledged Tribes, Dangerous Knowledge: The MuwekmaOhloneandHowIndianIdentitiesAre‘Known.’”Wicazo SaReview(UniversityofMinnesotaPress)18(2):79–94. ———,2005.“BeyondAppliedAnthropology.”InACompaniontothe AnthropologyofNorthAmericanIndians,ed.T.Biolsi,472–89.Oxford: Blackwell. ———,n.d.“ExtinctionNarrativesandPristineMoments:Evaluating theDeclineofAbalone.”Manuscript. Fisher,Melissa.2004.“CorporateEthnographyintheNewEconomy.” AnthropologyNews45(4):15. Flacks,Dick.1991.“MakingHistoryandMakingTheory:NotesonHow IntellectualsSeekRelevance.”InIntellectualsandPolitics:SocialTheory inaChangingWorld,ed.C.C.Lemert,pp.3–18.London:Sage. Foley, Douglas. 1999. “The Fox Project: A Reappraisal.” Current Anthropology40(2):171–91. ———,2000.“StudyingthePoliticsofRazaUnidaPolitics:Reflections ofaWhiteAnthropologist.”Reflexiones:NewDirectionsinMexican AmericanStudies3(Spring):51–81.
References 233
———,2002.“CriticalEthnography:TheReflexiveTurn.”International JournalofQualitativeStudiesinEducation15(4):469–90. ———,andKirbyMoss.2000.“StudyingUSCulturalDiversity:Some Non-Essentializing Theories.” In Teaching Cultural Diversity, eds. I. SusserandT.Patterson,343–64.NewYork:Blackwell. ———,andAngelaValenzuela.2005.“CriticalEthnography:ThePolitics ofCollaboration.”InTheHandbookforEthnographicResearch,3rded., eds.N.DenzinandY.Lincoln,217–34.ThousandOaks,CA:Sage. Forgacs,D.,ed.1988.AnAntonioGramsciReader:SelectedWritings1916– 1935.NewYork:Schocken. Fox,Gretchen,DanaPowell,andDorothyHolland.2004.“Centerfor Integrating Research and Action: An Experimental Public Anthropology.”DepartmentofAnthropology,UniversityofNorthCarolina. Unpublishedmanuscript. Fox, Jonathan. 2005. “Lessons from Action-Research Partnerships.” LASAForum35(1):5–8. Fox,RichardG.1985.LionsofthePunjab:CultureintheMaking.Berkeley: UniversityofCaliforniaPress. ———,and Andre Gingrich. 2002. “Introduction.” In Anthropology, by Comparison, eds. A. Gingrich and R. G. Fox, 1–24. London: Routledge. Frank, Gelya. 1980. “Detailed History of the Tribe’s Land Tenure.” RestorationofTuleRiverIndianReservationLands.Hearingbeforethe United States Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs 96, 1 of S.1998,pp.74–141,February5.Washington,DC:USGovernment PrintingOffice. ———,1992. “Opening Feminist Histories of Occupational Therapy.” AmericanJournalofOccupationalTherapy46(11):989–99. ———,2005. “Final Report of the Tule River Tribal History Project, PhaseI,Summer2004.”PresentedtotheTuleRiverTribalCouncil, Porterville,CA,April8.37pp. ———,and Carole Goldberg. n.d. Defying the Odds: One California Tribe’sStruggleforSovereigntyinThreeCenturies.NewHaven,CT:Yale UniversityPress.Forthcoming. Frankenberger, Timothy R., Claude Bart, Jennifer J. Mamtjeo, and M. KatherineMcCaston.1994.ALivelihoodSystemsApproachtoTitleIIFood Aid:AMeanstoIncorporateFoodSecurityObjectivesintoFutureProgramming. PreparedforUSAID/Washington,BureauforHumanitarianResponse, Office of Program, Planning and Evaluation. Tucson: Office of Arid LandsStudies,UniversityofArizona.
234
References
Freeman,Derek.1983.MargaretMeadandSamoa:TheMakingandUnmakingofanAnthropologicalMyth.Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversity Press. ———,1999.TheFatefulHoaxingofMargaretMead:AHistoricalAnalysis ofHerSamoanResearch.Boulder,CO:WestviewPress. Gagnon,AlainC.1987.“TheRoleofIntellectualsinLiberalDemocracies: PoliticalInfluenceandSocialInvolvement.”InIntellectualsinLiberal Democracies,ed.A.Gagnon,3–16.London:Praeger. Galison,Peter.2003.Einstein’sClocks,Poincaré’sMaps:EmpiresofTime. NewYork:W.W.Norton. Gayton,A.H.1930a.“Yokuts-MonoChiefsandShamans.”University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 24 (8):361–420. ———,1930b.“TheGhostDanceof1870inSouth-CentralCalifornia.” University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology28(3):57–82. ———,1946.“Culture-EnvironmentIntegration:ExternalReferencesin YokutsLife.”SouthwesternJournalofAnthropology2(3):252–68. ———,1948a. Yokuts and Western Mono Ethnography, I: Tulare Lake, Southern Valley, and Central Foothill Yokuts. Berkeley: University of CaliforniaPress. ———,1948b.YokutsandWesternMonoEthnography,II:NorthernFoothill YokutsandWesternMono.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress. ———,andStanleyS.Newman.1940.YokutsandWesternMonoMyths. Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress. Geertz,Clifford.1973.TheInterpretationofCultures:SelectedEssays.New York:BasicBooks. Gill,CarolJ.1998.“DisabilityStudies:LookingattheFAQs.”Alert9(3): 1–5.DepartmentofDisabilityandHumanDevelopment,University ofIllinois,Chicago. ———,2001.“DividedUnderstandings:TheSocialExperienceofDisability.”InHandbookofDisabilitiesStudies,eds.G.L.Albrecht,K.D. Seelman,andM.Bury,351–72.ThousandOaks,CA:Sage. Glass,Aaron,director.2004.InSearchoftheHamat’sa:ATaleofHeadhunting. DVD, 33 minutes. Produced in the Program for Culture andMedia,NewYorkUniversity.DistributedbytheRoyalAnthropologicalInstitute,GreatBritain. Goodale, Mark. 2006. “Introduction to ‘Anthropology and Human RightsinaNewKey.’”AmericanAnthropologist108(1):1–8. Gordon,EdmundT.1991.“AnthropologyandLiberation.”InDecolonizing Anthropology:MovingFurtherTowardanAnthropologyofLiberation,ed.
References 235
F. Harrison, 149–67. Washington, DC: American Anthropological Association. ———,1998. Disparate Diasporas: Identity and Politics in an AfricanNicaraguanCommunity.Austin:UniversityofTexasPress. ———,andMarkAnderson.n.d.“ConceptualizingtheAfricanDiaspora.” Proceedings of the City University of New York Kenneth B. Clark ColloquiumSeries.IRADACII. ———,GalioC.Gurdian,andCharlesR.Hale.2003.“Rights,Resources, andtheSocialMemoryofStruggle:ReflectionsonaStudyofIndigenous andBlackCommunityLandRightsonNicaragua’sAtlanticCoast.” HumanOrganization62(4):369–81. Graeber,David.2005.“TheAuto-EthnographyThatCanNeverBeand theActivist’sEthnographyThatMightBe.”InAuto-Ethnographies:The AnthropologyofAcademicPractices,eds.A.MeneleyandD.J.Young, 189–202.Peterborough,ON:BroadviewPress. Greenwood, Davydd J., and Morten Levin. 1998. Introduction to ActionResearch:SocialResearchforSocialChange.ThousandOaks, CA:Sage. Gritzer,Glenn,andArnoldArluke.1989.TheMakingofRehabilitation: A Political Economy of Medical Specialization, 1890–1980. Berkeley: UniversityofCaliforniaPress. Grossberg, Lawrence, Cary Nelson, and Paula Treichler, eds. 1992. CulturalStudies.NewYork:Routledge. Guha,Ramachandra.1998.“BetweenAnthropologyandLiterature:The EthnographiesofVerrierElwin.”JournaloftheRoyalAnthropological Institute4(2):325–43. Guldin,GregoryEliyu.1994.TheSagaofAnthropologyinChina:From MalinowskitoMoscowtoMao.Armonk,NY:M.E.Sharpe. Gwaltney,JohnL.1981.“CommonSenseandScience:UrbanCoreBlack Observations.”InAnthropologistsatHomeinNorthAmerica:Methods andIssuesintheStudyofOne’sOwnSociety,ed.D.A.Messerschmidt, 46–61.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress. ———,1993.Drylongso:ASelf-PortraitofBlackAmerica.NewYork:New Press. Halbwachs, Maurice. 1980 [1950]. The Collective Memory. Trans. F. J. DitterJr.andV.Y.Ditter.NewYork:HarperandRow. Hale,CharlesR.2001.“WhatIsActivistResearch?”Items2(1–2):13–15. SocialScienceResearchCouncil. ———,2006a.“ActivistResearchv.CulturalCritique:IndigenousLand RightsandtheContradictionsofPoliticallyEngagedAnthropology.” CulturalAnthropology21(1):96–120.
236
References
———,2006b. “Más que un indio”: Racial Ambivalence and Neoliberal Multiculturalism in Guatemala. Santa Fe, NM: School of American ResearchPress. Haraway,Donna.1988.“SituatedKnowledges:TheScienceQuestionin FeminismandthePrivilegeofPartialPerspective.”FeministStudies 14(3):575–99. ———,1991. Simians,Cyborgs, and Women: The Reinvention of Nature. NewYork:Routledge. Harrison,Faye.1999.“NewVoicesofDiversity,AcademicRelationsof Production,andtheFreeMarket.”InTransformingAcademia:Challenges andOpportunitiesforanEngagedAnthropology,eds.L.G.Baschetal., 72–85.Arlington,VA:AmericanAnthropologicalAssociation. Hawke,Steve,andMichaelGallagher.1989.Noonkanbah:WhoseLand, WhoseLaw?Fremantle,Australia:FremantleArtsCenterPress. Hayner,Priscilla.2002.UnspeakableTruths:ConfrontingStateTerrorand Atrocity.NewYork:Routledge. Hays, Terence E., ed. 1992. Ethnographic Presents: Pioneering Anthropologists in the Papua New Guinea Highlands. Berkeley: University of CaliforniaPress. Hinson,Glenn.2000.FireinMyBones:TranscendenceandtheHolySpirit inAfricanAmericanGospel.Philadelphia:UniversityofPennsylvania Press. Hinton,Leanne.1994.FlutesofFire:EssaysonCaliforniaIndianLanguages. Berkeley,CA:HeydayBooks. ———,withMattVeraandNancySteele.2002.HowtoKeepYourLanguage Alive:ACommonsenseApproachtoOne-on-OneLearning.Berkeley,CA: HeydayBooks. Holland,Dorothy.2003.“SomeNotesonAnthropologicalKnowledge beyondtheDiscipline.”PaperpresentedattheSARworkshop“Public InterestAnthropology,”Chicago. Horton,Miles,andPaoloFreire.1990.WeMaketheRoadbyWalking: ConversationsonEducationandSocialChange.Philadelphia:Temple UniversityPress. Howe, Craig. 2002. “Keep Your Thoughts above the Trees: Ideas on Developing and Presenting Tribal Histories.” In Clearing a Path: TheorizingthePastinNativeAmericanStudies,ed.N.Shoemaker,161– 79.NewYork:Routledge. Huizer,Gerrit,andKarlMannheim,eds.1979.ThePoliticsofAnthropology: FromColonialismandSexismtowardsaViewfromBelow.TheHague: Mouton. Hurtado,AlbertL.1988.IndianSurvivalontheCaliforniaFrontier.New Haven,CT:YaleUniversityPress.
References 237
Hutchinson,CharlesF.,andRobertE.Hall.1993.FamineMitigationActivity Report:BaselineVulnerabilityAssessmentforHaiti.PreparedfortheOffice ofUSForeignDisasterAssistance.Washington,DC:USAIDBureaufor FoodandHumanitarianAssistance. Hymes,Dell,ed.1972.ReinventingAnthropology.NewYork:Pantheon. IEG (Institute of Economic Growth Society). 1952. Memorandum of Association.Delhi. Jaffe,JoAnnM.1990.“Labor,Land,Livestock,andMarkets:Persistence andAccumulationinthePeasantEconomyofHaiti.”Ph.Ddissertation, CornellUniversity. Jebb,MaryAnne.2002.Blood,SweatandWelfare:AHistoryofWhiteBosses and Aboriginal Pastoral Workers. Nedlands: University of Western AustraliaPress. Jimeno,Myriam.1999.“Desdeelpuntodevistadelaperiferia:Desarrollo profesionalyconcienciasocial.”AnuárioAntropológico97:59–72.Rio deJaneiro. Johnson,Mary.2005a.“AfterTerrySchiavo.”RaggedEdgeOnline.April2. http://www.raggededgemagazine.com/focus/postschiavo0405.html. ———,2005b.“WeNeedtoTalk!”RaggedEdgeOnline.January28.http:// www.raggededgemagazine.com/mediacircus/weneedtotalk.html. Jones, Delmos J. 1970. “Towards a Native Anthropology.” Human Organization29(4):251–59. Kardiner, Abram. 1945. Psychological Frontiers of Society. New York: ColumbiaUniversityPress. ———,andRalphLinton.1939.TheIndividualandHisSociety.NewYork: ColumbiaUniversityPress. KasnitzD.,andR.Shuttleworth.2001.“Introduction:EngagingAnthropologyinDisabilityStudies.”DisabilityStudiesQuarterly21(3):n.p. (onlinejournal). Keen,Ian.1988.“Twenty-fiveYearsofAboriginalKinshipStudies.”In SocialAnthropologyandAustralianAboriginalStudies:AContemporary Overview, eds. R. M. Berndt and R. Tonkinson, 79–123. Canberra: AboriginalStudiesPress. ———,2004.AboriginalEconomyandSociety.Oxford:OxfordUniversity Press. Kelley,RobinD.G.2002.FreedomDreams:TheBlackRadicalImagination. Boston:BeaconPress. Keys, Christopher B. 1987. “Synergy, Prevention, and the Chicago SchoolofSociology.”PreventioninHumanServices5(2):11–34. Kielhofner,Gary.2004.“DisabilityStudies.”InConceptualFoundations ofOccupationalTherapy,3rded.,238–53.Baltimore,MD:Williams andWilkins.
238
References
———,2005.“RethinkingDisabilityandWhatToDoAboutIt:Disability Studies and Its Implications for Occupational Therapy.” American JournalofOccupationalTherapy59(5):487–96. ———,andJaniceBurke.1977.“OccupationalTherapyafterSixtyYears: AnAccountofChangingIdentityandKnowledge.”AmericanJournal ofOccupationalTherapy31:657–89. Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, Barbara. 1998. Destination Culture: Tourism, Museums,andHeritage.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress. Kitching,HeatherJ.,GelyaFrank,RaniBechar,AmberBertram,Colleen Harvey,AllisonJoe,andJeanineBlanchard.2004.“DirectCultural Intervention:MeetingtheNeedsofCommunities.”Paperpresentedat the28thannualconferenceoftheOccupationalTherapyAssociation ofCalifornia,Pasadena,7November. Kloos,Peter,andHenriJ.M.Claessen,eds.1991.ContemporaryAnthropologyintheNetherlands:TheUseofAnthropologicalIdeas.Amsterdam: VUUniversityPress. Kluckhohn,Clyde1949.MirrorforMan:TheRelationofAnthropologyto ModernLife.NewYork:WhittleseyHouse. Kroeber,A.L.1900,1903.Unpublishedfieldnotebooks,Yokuts.Bancroft Library,UniversityofCalifornia,Berkeley.Microfilm. ———,1906.“YokutsNames.”JournalofAmericanFolklore19:142–43. ReprintedinRobertF.Heizer,ACollectionofEthnographicalArticleson theCaliforniaIndians,54–55.Ramona,CA:BallenaPress,1976. ———,1907a. “The Yokuts Language of South Central California.” UniversityofCaliforniaPublicationsinAmericanArcheologyandEthnology 2(5):169–377. ———,1907b. “Indian Myths of Central California.” University of California Publications in American Archeology and Ethnology 4 (4): 167–250. ———,1925. Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin no. 78. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution. ———,1963.“YokutsDialectSurvey.”AnthropologicalRecords11(3). Kronenberg, Frank, Salvador Simó Algado, and Nick Pollard. 2005. Occupational Therapy without Borders: Learning from the Spirit of Survivors.London:ElsevierPress. Kuklick,Henrika.1991.TheSavageWithin:TheSocialHistoryofBritish Anthropology,1885–1945.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress. Laitin,David.1986.HegemonyandCulture:PoliticsandReligiousChange amongtheYoruba.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress. Lakoff,George,andMarkJohnson.2003.MetaphorsWeLiveBy.2nded. Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.
References 239
Lal,Vinay.2003.TheHistoryofHistory.NewDelhi:OxfordUniversity Press. Lambek, Michael. 2005. “Our Subjects/Ourselves: A View from the Back Seat.” In Auto-Ethnographies: The Anthropology of Academic Practices, eds. A. Meneley and D. J. Young, 229–40. Peterborough, ON:BroadviewPress. Lame,ManuelQuintín.1971[1939].Endefensademiraza.Ed.Gonzalo CastilloCárdenas.Bogotá:ComitédeDefensadelIndio. ———,2004 [1939]. Los pensamientos del indio que se educó dentro de las selvas colombianas. Ed. Cristóbal Gnecco. Popayán: Editorial UniversidaddelCauca,andCali:EditorialUniversidaddelValle. Lamphere,Louise.2003.“PerilsandProspectsforanEngagedAnthropology:AViewfortheU.S.”SocialAnthropology11:13–28. ———,2004. “The Convergence of Applied, Practicing, and Public AnthropologyintheTwenty-FirstCentury.”Unpublishedms. Landsberger, Henry. 1958. Hawthorne Revisited. Ithaca, NY: Cornell UniversityPress. Lassiter, Luke Eric. 2005a. “Collaborative Ethnography and Public Anthropology.”CurrentAnthropology46(1):83–106. ———,2005b.TheChicagoGuidetoCollaborativeEthnography.Chicago: UniversityofChicagoPress. Latta, F. F. 1949. Handbook of Yokuts Indians. Oildale, CA: Bear State Press. Lawless,Elaine.1993.HolyWomen,WhollyWomen:SharingMinistriesof WholenessthroughLifeStoriesandReciprocalEthnography.Philadelphia: UniversityofPennsylvaniaPress. Leach,Edmund.1976.CultureandCommunication:TheLogicbywhich SymbolsAreConnected.AnIntroductiontotheUseofStructuralistAnalysis inSocialAnthropology.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress. Lesser,Alexander.1981.“FranzBoas.”InTotemsandTeachers:Perspectives on the History of Anthropology, ed. S. Silverman, 1–33. New York: ColumbiaUniversityPress. Leys, Ruth. 1990. “Adolph Meyer: A Biographical Note.” In Defining American Psychology: The Correspondence between Adolph Meyer and EdwardBradfordTichner,eds.R.LeysandR.Evans,39–57.Baltimore, MD:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress. Lidz,Theodore.1967.“AdolfMeyerandtheDevelopmentofAmerican Psychiatry.”AmericanJournalofPsychiatry123:320–32. Lief,Alfred,ed.1948.TheCommonsensePsychiatryofAdolfMeyer:Fiftytwo Selected Papers, Edited, with Biographical Narrative. New York: McGraw-Hill.
240
References
Lilla,Mark.2001.TheRecklessMind:IntellectualsinPolitics.NewYork: NewYorkReviewBooks. Linton,Ralph,ed.1945.TheScienceofManintheWorldCrisis.NewYork: ColumbiaUniversityPress. Linton, Simi. 1998. Claiming Disability: Knowledge and Identity. New York:NewYorkUniversityPress. Lipsitz,George.1998.ThePossessiveInvestmentinWhiteness.Philadelphia: TempleUniversityPress. Liu,Xin,ed.2002.NewReflectionsonAnthropologicalStudiesof(Greater) China.ChinaResearchMonograph,InstituteofEastAsianStudies, UniversityofCalifornia,Berkeley,andCentreforChineseStudies. Locher,Uli.1984.“MigrationinHaiti.”InHaiti,TodayandTomorrow:An InterdisciplinaryStudy,eds.C.R.FosterandA.Valdman,325–36.Lanham, MD:UniversityPressofAmerica. ———,1991a.“L’évolutionrécentedel’enseignementprimaire.”InHaïti etl’après-Duvalier:Continuitésetruptures,eds.C.HectorandH.Jadotte, 357–76. Montréal: CIDHICA, and Port-au-Prince: Éditions Henri Deschamps. ———,1991b. “Primary Education in Haiti.” In Forging Identities and PatternsofDevelopmentinLatinAmericaandtheCaribbean,eds.H.P. Diaz,J.W.A.Rummens,andP.D.M.Taylor,85–104.Toronto:Canadian Scholars’Press. ———,GlennR.Smucker,andDrexelG.Woodson.1983.Comparative Evaluation of Three Haitian Rural Development Projects. Prepared for USAID/Haiti.Washington,DC:CreativeAssociates,Inc. Loomis, Barbara. 1992. “The Henry B. Favill School of Occupations andEleanorClarkeSlagle.”AmericanJournalofOccupationalTherapy 46(1):34–37. López, Luis Enrique. 1996. “No más danzas de ratones grises: Sobre interculturalidad, democracia y educación.” In Educación e interculturalidadenlosAndesylaAmazonía,ed.J.GodenzziAlegre,23–80. Cuzco:CentrodeEstudiosRegionales“BartolomédeLasCasas.” Lorde,Audre.1984.“UsesoftheErotic:TheEroticasPower.”InSister Outsider,A.Lorde,53–59.NewYork:CrossingPress. Lowe, Pat, and Jimmy Pike. 1991. Jilji Country. Broome, Australia: MagabalaBooks. Lowenthal,IraP.,andHarlandH.D.Attfield.1979.IntegratedRuralDevelopmentinHaiti:Problems,Progress,andaProposal.Reportsubmittedto theAgriculturalDevelopmentOffice.Port-au-Prince:USAID/Haiti. Lundahl,Mats.1979.PeasantsandPoverty:AStudyofHaiti.London:Croom Helm.
References 241
———,1992. Politics or Markets?: Essays on Haitian Underdevelopment. London:Routledge. MacClancy,Jeremy,ed.2002.ExoticNoMore:AnthropologyontheFront Lines.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress. Maguire, Robert. 1984. “Strategies for Rural Development in Haiti: Formation, Organization, Implementation.” In Haiti, Today and Tomorrow:AnInterdisciplinaryStudy,eds.C.R.FosterandA.Valdman, 161–72.Lanham,MD:UniversityPressofAmerica. ———,1997.“FromOutsiderstoInsiders:GrassrootsLeadershipand PoliticalChange.”InHaitiRenewed:PoliticalandEconomicProspects, ed. R. I. Rotberg, 154–69. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. Marcus,George,andMichaelJ.Fischer.1986.TheAnthropologyofCultural Critique: An Experimental Moment in the Human Sciences. Chicago: UniversityofChicagoPress. Mattingly,Cheryl.1998.HealingDramasandClinicalPlots.Cambridge: CambridgeUniversityPress. ———,andNedraGillette.1991.“Anthropology,OccupationalTherapy, andActionResearch.”AmericanJournalofOccupationalTherapy45: 972–78. Maxwell,Simon,andTimothyR.Frankenberger.1992.HouseholdFood Security:Concepts,Indicators,Measurements.ATechnicalReview.NewYork: UNICEF,andRome:IFAD. Mayo,Elton.1933.TheHumanProblemsofanIndustrialCivilizaton.New York:Macmillan. McNeil,JohnM.2001.“AmericanswithDisabilities:HouseholdEconomicStudies.USBureauoftheCensus.”InCurrentPopulationReports, 70–73.Washington,DC:USGovernmentPrintingOffice. Mead,Margaret.1928.ComingofAgeinSamoa.NewYork:BlueRibbon Books. ———,1979.“AnthropologicalContributionstoNationalPoliciesduring andImmediatelyafterWorldWarII.”InTheUsesofAnthropology,ed. W.Goldschmidt,145–58.Washington,DC:AmericanAnthropological Association. Merlan,Francesca.1998.CagingtheRainbow:Places,Politics,andAborigines inaNorthAustralianTown.Honolulu:UniversityofHawaiiPress. Merry,SallyEngle.2003.HumanRightsandGenderViolence:Translating InternationalLawintoLocalJustice.Chicago:UniversityofChicago Press. Métraux,Alfred,withEdouardBerrouetandDr.andMrs.JeanComhaireSylvain.1951.MakingaLivingintheMarbialValley(Haiti).UNESCO OccasionalPapersinEducation10.Paris:UNESCO.
242
References
Meyer,Adolf.1921.“ThePhilosophyofOccupationTherapy.”Archives ofOccupationalTherapy1(1):1–10. Milton,Kay.1994.EnvironmentalismandCulturalTheory:Exploringthe RoleofAnthropologyinEnvironmentalDiscourse.London:Routledge. Minnegal,Monica,ed.2005.SustainableCommunities,SustainableEnvironments: Conference Proceedings. Melbourne: Melbourne University,SchoolofSocialAnthropology,GeographyandEnvironmental Sciences. Mintz,SidneyW.1995.SweetnessandPower:ThePlaceofSugarinModern History.NewYork:PenguinBooks. ———,andEricR.Wolf.1989.“ReplytoMichaelTaussig.”Critiqueof Anthropology9(1):28–31. Mohanty,SatyaP.2000.“TheEpistemicStatusofCulturalIdentity:On BelovedandthePostcolonialCondition.”InReclaimingIdentity:Realist TheoryandthePredicamentofPostmodernism,eds.P.MoyaandM.R. Hames-Garcia,29–66.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress. Mondé,Carl.1980.Organisationpaysanneetdéveloppementrural:L’exemple dePapaye.Petite-RivièredeBayonnais:ProjetPilotedeGroupman. Moral, Paul. 1978 [1961]. Le paysan Haïtien (étude sur la vie rurale en Haïti).Facsimilereproductionoftheoriginaledition.Port-au-Prince: ÉditionsFardin. Moran,BruceT.2005.DistillingKnowledge:Alchemy,Chemistry,andthe ScientificRevolution.Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress. Morphy,Howard.1998.AboriginalArt.London:Phaidon. Moya, Paula, and Michael R. Hames-Garcia. 2000. Reclaiming Identity: Realist Theory and the Predicament of Postmodernism. Berkeley: UniversityofCaliforniaPress. Muelas Hurtado, Bárbara. 1995. “Relación espacio-tiempo en el pensamiento guambiano.” Proyecciones Lingüísticas 1 (1): 31–40. Popayán. Munshi,Indra.n.d.“PatrickGeddes:Sociologist,Environmentalistand TownPlanner.”InAnthropologyintheEast:TheIndianFoundationsof aGlobalDiscipline,eds.P.Uberoi,N.Sundar,andS.Deshpande.New Delhi:PermanentBlack.Inpress. Murray, Gerald F. 1977. “Haitian Peasant Land Tenure: A Case Study in Agrarian Adaptation to Population Growth.” Ph.D dissertation, ColumbiaUniversity. ———,1980.“PopulationPressure,LandTenure,andVoodoo:TheEconomicsofHaitianRuralPeasantRitual.”InBeyondtheMythsofCulture: Essays in Cultural Materialism, ed. E. B. Ross, 295–321. New York: AcademicPress.
References 243
Naples, Nancy A. 2003. Feminism and Method: Ethnography, Discourse Analysis,andActivistResearch.NewYork:Routledge. Nene,Yamilé,andHenryChocué.2004.“LasluchasdeQuintínLame.” InLospensamientosdelindioqueseeducódentrodelasselvascolombianas, ManuelQuintínLame,103–10.Popayán:EditorialUniversidaddel CaucaandCali:EditorialUniversidaddelValle. Nespor,Jan.1989.“StrategiesofDiscourseandKnowledgeUseinthe PracticeofBureaucraticResearch.”HumanOrganisation48(4):325–32. Nora,Pierre.1989.BetweenMemoryandHistory:LesLieuxdeMemoire. Representations26(Spring):7–24. Oriol,Michèle.1994.Lescollectivitésterritorialesentre1991et1993:Essai d’analyse institutionnelle et de prospective. With the collaboration of P.-A.GuerrierandD.Saint-Lot.Port-au-Prince:ProjetIntégrépourle RenforcementdelaDémocratieenHaïti(PIRÈD). PAHO/WHO.1994.Food,HealthandCareinHaiti:ANutritionSituation Analysis.Port-au-Prince:Pan-AmericanHealthOrganizationandWorld HealthOrganization. Peacock,James.1997.“TheFutureofAnthropology.”AmericanAnthropologist99(1):9–29. ———,1999. “Toward a Proactive Anthropology.” In Transforming Academia: Challenges and Opportunities for an Engaged Anthropology, eds.L.Baschetal.,21–31.Arlington,VA:AmericanAnthropological Association. Peirano,MarizaG.S.1991.“TheAnthropologyofAnthropology:The BrazilianCase.”PhDdissertation,HarvardUniversity. Pels,Peter.1999.“ProfessionsofDuplexity:APrehistoryofEthicalCodes inAnthropology.”CurrentAnthropology40:101–36. Phillips,GeorgeHarwood.1975.ChiefsandChallengers:IndianResistance and Cooperation in Southern California. Berkeley: University of CaliforniaPress. ———,1993. Indians and Intruders in Central California, 1769–1849. Norman:UniversityofOklahomaPress. ———,1997. Indians and Indian Agents: The Origins of the Reservation SysteminCalifornia,1849–1852.Norman:UniversityofOklahoma Press. ———,2004.“BringingThemunderSubjection”:California’sTejónIndian ReservationandBeyond,1852–1864.Lincoln:UniversityofNebraska Press. Pickering,Andrew.2001.“ScienceasAlchemy.”InSchoolsofThought: Twenty-Five Years of Interpretive Social Science, eds. J. W. Scott and D.Keates,194–206.Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress.
244
References
Plattner,Stuart,andDanielGross.2002.“AnthropologyasSocialWork: Collaborative Models of Anthropological Research.” Anthropology News43(8). Polanyi, Karl. 1944. The Great Transformation. New York: Farrar and Rinehart. ———,ConradM.Arensberg,andHarryW.Pearson,eds.1957.Trade andMarketintheEarlyEmpires.Glencoe,IL:FreePress. Pundalik,Vidyadhar.1970.“IrawatiKarve:Chaitanya:EkGyot.”Manus, Diwalispecial,34–39.Pune. Ramos,Abelardo,andCabildoIndígenadeMosoco.1993.Ecne’hwe’s’: Constitución política de Colombia en nasa yuwe. Bogotá: CCELAUniAndes. Rappaport,Joanne.1990.“AnthropologyandViolenceinColombia:An InterviewwithHernánHenao.”LatinAmericanAnthropologyReview 2(2):56–60. ———,1994.CumbeReborn:AnAndeanEthnographyofHistory.Chicago: UniversityofChicagoPress. ———,1998.ThePoliticsofMemory:NativeHistoricalInterpretationinthe ColombianAndes.Durham,NC:DukeUniversityPress. ———,2005. Intercultural Utopias: Public Intellectuals, Cultural Experimentation, and Ethnic Dialogue in Colombia. Durham, NC: Duke UniversityPress. ———,andAbelardoRamosPacho.2005.“Unahistoriacolaborativa: Retosparaeldiálogoindígena-académico.”HistoriaCrítica29:39–62. Bogotá. Rawls,JamesJ.1984.IndiansofCalifornia:TheChangingImage.Norman: UniversityofOklahomaPress. Redfield,Robert.1947.“TheFolkSociety.”AmericanJournalofSociology 52:293–308. Riaño-Alcalá, Pilar. 2006. Dwellers of Memory: Youth and Violence in Medellín,Colombia.NewBrunswick,NJ:Transaction. Ribeiro, Gustavo Lins. 2004. “World Anthropologies: Cosmopolitics, PowerandTheoryinAnthropology.”Unpublishedmanuscript. ———,and Arturo Escobar. 2006. World Anthropologies: Disciplinary TransformationswithinSystemsofPower.Oxford:Berg. Richman,KarenE.1992.“‘TheyWillRememberMeintheHouse’:The PwenofHaitianTransnationalMigration.”PhDdissertation,University of Virginia. (Revised as Migration and Vodou in Haiti, Gainesville: UniversityPressofFlorida,2005.) Ridington,Robin,andDennisHastings.1997.BlessingforaLongTime: TheSacredPoleoftheOmahaTribe.Lincoln:UniversityofNebraska Press.
References 245
Ritter,David,andFrancesFlanagan.2004.“LawyersandRats:Critical LegalTheoryandNativeTitle.”InCrossingBoundaries:Cultural,Legal, HistoricalandPracticeIssuesinNativeTitle,ed.S.Toussaint,128–41. Carlton,Australia:MelbourneUniversityPress. Robbins,Bruce.1990.“Introduction:TheGroundingofIntellectuals.” InIntellectuals:Aesthetics,Politics,Academics,ed.B.Robbins,ix–xxvii. Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesotaPress. Roberts,Gareth.1994.TheMirrorofAlchemy:AlchemicalIdeasandImages inManuscriptsandBooks.London:BritishLibrary. Rose,DeborahBird.1992.DingoMakesUsHuman.Cambridge:Cambridge UniversityPress. Rose, Nikolas. 1999. Powers of Freedom: Reframing Political Thought. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress. RoyalCommissionintoAboriginalDeathsinCustody.1991.FinalReport. Canberra:AustralianGovernmentPrinters. Roy-Burman,B.K.2000.“FrozenIceandaSilentSpring.”InSituating Sociology:ASymposiumonKnowledge,InstitutionsandPractices,special issueofSeminar495:50–54. SACADandFAMV.1993–94.Paysans,systèmesetcrise:Travauxsurl’agraire Haïtien.3vols.D.Pillot,A.Bellande,andJ.-L.Paul,eds.Pointe-à-Pitre, Guadeloupe:GroupedeRecherche/FormationSACAD(SystèmesAgraires CaribéensetAlternativesdeDéveloppement),UniversitédesAntilles etdelaGuyane,andPort-au-Prince:FAMV(Facultéd’Agronomieet deMédecineVétérinaire),Universitéd’Étatd’Haïti. Sahlins,Marshall.1976.CultureandPracticalReason.Chicago:University ofChicagoPress. Sahmat.2003.AgainstCommunalisationofArchaeology:ACritiqueofthe ASIReport.NewDelhi:Sahmat. Sanday,PeggyReeves.2003.“PublicInterestAnthropology:AModel forEngagedSocialScience.”PaperpresentedattheSARworkshop “PublicInterestAnthropology,”Chicago. Savain,RogerE.1993.Haitian-KreolinTenSteps/DispananKreyòlAyisyenan.4thed.Rochester,VT:Schenkman. Scheper-Hughes,Nancy.1995.“ThePrimacyoftheEthical:Propositions foraMilitantAnthropology.”CurrentAnthropology36:409–40. Schwartz,KathleenBarker.1992.“OccupationalTherapyandEducation: ASharedVision.”AmericanJournalofOccupationalTherapy46(1):12–18. Schwartzman,HelenB.1992.EthnographyinOrganizations.NewYork: Sage. Seigfried,CharleneHaddock.2002.“Introduction.”InDemocracyand SocialEthics,JaneAddams,ix–xxxviii.Urbana:UniversityofIllinois Press.
246
References
Shaffer, Simon. 1994. From Physics to Anthropology and Back Again. Cambridge:PricklyPearPress. Shah, A. M. 2000. “Sociology in a Regional Context.” In Situating Sociology:ASymposiumonKnowledge,InstitutionsandPractices,special issueofSeminar495:45–49. Shore,Chris,andSusanWright,eds.1997.AnthropologyofPolicy:Critical PerspectivesonGovernanceandPower.London:Routledge. Sluka,JeffreyA.2000.“Introduction:StateTerrorandAnthropology.” In Death Squad: The Anthropology of State Terror, ed. J. Sluka, 1–45. Philadelphia:UniversityofPennsylvaniaPress. Smith,LindaTuhiwai.1999.DecolonizingMethodologies:Researchand IndigenousPeoples.NewYork:St.Martins. Smucker, Glenn R., and Dathis Noriac. 1996. Peasant Organizations in Haiti: Trends and Implications. Port-au-Prince: Comité Haïtien de Développement et L’Institut de Consultation, d’Évaluation et de Formation,andRosslyn,VA:Inter-AmericanFoundation. ———,and Nina P. Schlossman, eds. 2001. Evaluation Report of the Enhanced Food Security II Program, USAID Mission. 2 vols. Prepared forUSAIDHaitiMission,FoodforPeaceOffice.Arlington,VA:John Snow,Inc. Society for Disability Studies. 2004. “General Information: Mission Statement.”http://www.uic.edu/orgs/sds/generalinfo.html,accessed July28,2004. Spencer, Jean Cole, Laura Krefting, and Cheryl Mattingly. 1993. “Incorporation of Ethnographic Methods in Occupational Therapy Assessment.”AmericanJournalofOccupationalTherapy47:303–9. Srivastava,Vinay.2000.“TeachingAnthropology.InSituatingSociology: ASymposiumonKnowledge,InstitutionsandPractices,specialissueof Seminar495:33–39. Staples,AnnalisaR.,andRuthL.McConnell.1993.SoapstoneandSeed Beads:ArtsandCraftsattheCharlesCamsellHospital,aTuberculosis Sanatorium.Alberta:ProvincialMuseumofAlberta. Starn,Orin.1986.“EngineeringInternment:Anthropologistsandthe WarRelocationAuthority.”AmericanEthnologist13:700–720. ———,1994.“RethinkingthePoliticsofAnthropology.”CurrentAnthropology35(1):13–38. ———,2004.Ishi’sBrain:InSearchofAmerica’sLastWildIndian.New York:W.W.Norton. Starr,Paul.1984.TheSocialTransformationofAmericanMedicine.New York:BasicBooks.
References 247
Stepick,Alex.1984.TheRootsofHaitianMigration.InHaiti,Todayand Tomorrow:AnInterdisciplinaryStudy,eds.C.R.FosterandA.Valdman, 337–49.Lanham,MD:UniversityPressofAmerica. ———,1998.PrideagainstPrejudice:HaitiansintheUnitedStates.Boston: AllynandBacon. Steward,JulianH.1950.AreaResearch,Theory,andPractice.Bulletin63. NewYork:SocialScienceResearchCouncil. ———,1956. The People of Puerto Rico: A Study in Social Anthropology. Urbana:UniversityofIllinoisPress. Stewart, George W. 1884. “The Indian War on Tule River.” Overland Monthly(January).ReprintedinEarlyHistoryofTulareCounty,California, ed.K.E.Small,84–102,Exeter,CA:BearStateBooks,2001[1926]. Stocking,GeorgeW.1992.TheEthnographer’sMagicandOtherEssaysin theHistoryofAnthropology.Madison:UniversityofWisconsinPress. ———,ed.1986.HistoryofAnthropology,vol.4,Malinowski,Rivers,Benedict, andOthers:EssaysonCultureandPersonality.Madison:Universityof WisconsinPress. ———,ed. 1991. History of Anthropology, vol. 7, Colonial Situations: EssaysontheContextualizationofEthnographicKnowledge.Madison: UniversityofWisconsinPress. ———,2000.“‘DoGood,YoungMan’:SolTaxandtheWorldMission ofLiberalDemocraticAnthropology.”InExcludedAncestors,Inventible Traditions:EssaysTowardaMoreInclusiveHistoryofAnthropology,ed.R. Handler,171–264.Madison:UniversityofWisconsinPress. StonyBrookUniversity.2006.http://www.research.sunysb.edu/research/. Strand,Kerry,SamMarullo,NickCutforth,RandyStoecker,andPatrick Donohue. 2003. Community-Based Research and Higher Education: PrinciplesandPractices.SanFrancisco:Jossey-Bass. Strathern, Andrew, and Pamela Stewart. 2001. “Anthropology and Consultancy: Ethnographic Dilemmas and Opportunities.” Social Analysis45(2):3–21. Strathern,Marilyn,ed.2000.AuditCultures:AnthropologicalStudiesin Accountability,Ethics,andtheAcademy.NewYork:Routledge. Sundar, Nandini. 2000. “Comment: Activism and Academic Angst.” Seminar488:68–73. ———,2002.“Indigenise,NationaliseandSpiritualise:AnAgendafor Education?”InternationalSocialScienceJournal173:373–83. ———,2004. “Toward an Anthropology of Culpability.” American Ethnologist31(2):145–63. ———,n.d.“IntheCauseofAnthropology:TheLifeandWorkofIrawati Karve.”InAnthropologyintheEast:TheIndianFoundationsofaGlobal
248
References
Discipline,eds.P.Uberoi,N.Sundar,andS.Deshpande.NewDelhi: PermanentBlack.Inpress. ———,SatishDeshpande,andPatriciaUberoi.2000.“IndianAnthropology and Sociology: Towards a History (Report of a Seminar).” EconomicandPoliticalWeekly35(24):1998–2002. ———,RogerJeffery,andNeilThin.2001.BranchingOut:JFMinIndia. NewDelhi:OxfordUniversityPress. Sutton,Peter.2003.NativeTitleinAustralia:AnEthnographicPerspective. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress. Taussig,MichaelT.1980.TheDevilandCommodityFetishisminSouth America.ChapelHill:UniversityofNorthCarolinaPress. ———,1987.Shamanism,Colonialism,andtheWildMan:AStudyinTerror andHealing.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress. ———,1989.“HistoryasCommodityinSomeRecentAmerican(Anthropological)Literature.”CritiqueofAnthropology9(1):7–27. Taylor,F.Sherwood.1952.TheAlchemists.St.Albans:Paladin. Thomas,DavidHurst.2000.SkullWars:KennewickMan,Archaeology,and theBattleforNativeAmericanIdentity.NewYork:BasicBooks. Thompson,E.P.1993.“Time,WorkDiscipline,andIndustrialCapitalism.” InCustomsinCommon,ed.E.P.Thompson,352–403.NewYork:New Press. Tickner, J. Ann. 2004. “Feminist Responses to International Security Studies.”PeaceReview,specialissue,16(1):43–48. Tonkinson, Robert. 1991. The Mardu Aborigines: Living the Dream in the Australian Desert. 2nd ed. Fort Worth, TX: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Toussaint,Sandy.1999a.PhyllisKaberryandMe:Anthropology,Historyand AboriginalAustralia.Carlton,Australia:MelbourneUniversityPress. ———,1999b.“KimberleyAboriginalPeoples.”InForagingPeoples:An EncyclopediaofContemporaryHuntersandGatherers,eds.R.LeeandR. Daly,339–42.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress. ———,2001. “Don’t Forget to Ask: Working with Women and with MeninAboriginalAustralia.”PracticingAnthropology,specialedition, 23(1):29–32. ———,2003.“‘OurShame:BlacksLivePoor,DieYoung’:Indigenous HealthPracticeandEthicalPossibilitiesforReform.”InHealth,Social Policy and Communities, eds. P. Liamputtong Rice and H. Gardner, 241–56.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress. ———,ed. 2004. Crossing Boundaries: Cultural, Legal, Historical and PracticeIssuesinNativeTitle.Carlton,Australia:MelbourneUniversity Press.
References 249
———,2006a.“ATimeandPlacebeyondandoftheCenter:Australian AnthropologiesintheProcessofBecoming.”InWorldAnthropologies: DisciplinaryTransformationswithinSystemsofPower,eds.G.L.Ribeiro andA.Escobar,225–38.Oxford:Berg. ———,2006b. “Australian Anthropology: The ‘Best’ and ‘Worst’ of GlobalizedTimes.”AnthropologyNews,January2006,15,19. Townsend,E.,andA.Wilcock.2004.“OccupationalJusticeandClientCentred Practice: A Dialogue in Progress.” Canadian Journal of OccupationalTherapy71(2):75–87. Trigger,David.1992.WhitefellaComin’:AboriginalResponsestoColonialism inNorthernAustralia.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress. ———,2004.“AnthropologyinNativeTitleCourtCases:MerePleading, ExpertOpinion,orHearsay?”InCrossingBoundaries:Cultural,Legal, HistoricalandPracticeIssuesinNativeTitle,ed.S.Toussaint,24–33. Carlton,Australia:MelbourneUniversityPress. TróchezTunubalá,Cruz,MiguelFlorCamayo,andMarthaUrdaneta Franco. 1992. Mananasrik wan wetøtraik køn. Bogotá: Cabildo del PuebloGuambiano. Trouillot,Michel-Rolph.1990.Haiti,StateagainstNation:TheOriginsand Legacy of Duvalierism. New York: Monthly Review Press. (Originally publishedasLesracineshistoriquesdel’étatDuvaliérien,Port-au-Prince: HenriDeschamps,1986.) ———,1997.“ASocialContractforWhom?HaitianHistoryandHaiti’s Future.”In HaitiRenewed:PoliticalandEconomicProspects,ed.R.I. Rotberg,47–59.Washington,DC:BrookingsInstitutionPress. Tsosie, Rebecca. 2002a. “Introduction: Symposium on Cultural Sovereignty.”ArizonaStateLawJournal(Spring):1–14. ———,2002b. “Reclaiming Native Stories: An Essay on Cultural AppropriationandCulturalRights.”ArizonaStateLawJournal(Spring): 299–358. TuleRiverTribalCouncil.2002.“Survival,Renewal,Vision:TheTule River Tribal Council Commemorates 150 Years of Tulare County History.”Ed.GelyaFrank.SpecialinsertinVisaliaTimesDelta,Tulare AdvanceRegister,andPortervilleRecorder,September7.20pp. Turner, Terence. 1993. “Anthropology and Multiculturalism: What Is Anthropology that Multiculturalists Should Be Mindful of It?” CulturalAnthropology8:411–29. ———,1997. “Human Rights, Human Difference: Anthropology’s Contribution to an Emancipatory Cultural Politics.” Journal of AnthropologicalResearch53(3):273–91.
250
References
Turner,VictorW.1975.“SymbolicStudies.”AnnualReviewofAnthropology 4:145–61. Uberoi, J. P. S. 1968. “Science and Swaraj.” Contributions to Indian Sociology,n.s.2:119–23. Uberoi,Patricia.2000.“Déjàvu?”InSituatingSociology:ASymposiumon Knowledge,InstitutionsandPractices,specialissueofSeminar495:14–19. ———,NandiniSundar,andSatishDeshpande,eds.n.d.Anthropology intheEast:TheIndianFoundationsofaGlobalDiscipline.NewDelhi: PermanentBlack.Inpress. Urdaneta Franco, Martha. 1988. “Investigación arqueológica en el resguardoindígenadeGuambía.”BoletíndelMuseodelOro22:54–81. Bogotá. Valdman,Albert.1988.AnnAprannKreyòl:AnIntroductoryCourseinHaitian Creole.Bloomington:CreoleInstitute,IndianaUniversity. Van Bremen, Jan, and Akitoshi Shimizu. 1999. Anthropology and ColonialisminAsiaandOceania.Richmond,Surrey:Curzon. Varadarajan,Siddharth,ed.2002.Gujarat:TheMakingofaTragedy.New Delhi:PenguinBooks. VascoUribe,LuisGuillermo.2002.Entreselvaypáramo:Viviendoypensando laluchaindígena.Bogotá:InstitutoColombianodeAntropologíae Historia. ———,AbelinoDaguaHurtado,andMisaelAranda.1993.“Enelsegundo día,laGenteGrande(Numisak)sembrólaautoridadylasplantasy, consujugo,bebióelsentido.”InEncrucijadasdeColombiaamerindia, ed.F.Correa,9–48.Bogotá:InstitutoColombianodeAntropología. Vincent, Joan. 1990. Anthropology and Politics: Visions, Traditions and Trends.Tucson:UniversityofArizonaPress. Wacquant, Loic J. D. 1996. “Foreword.” In The State Nobility, Pierre Bourdieu,ix–xxii.Stanford,CA:StanfordUniversityPress. Walsh,Andrew.2004.“IntheWakeofThings:Speculatinginandabout SapphiresinNorthernMadagascar.”AmericanAnthropologist106(2): 225–37. ———,2005. “The Obvious Aspects of Ecological Underprivilege in Ankarana, Northern Madagascar.” American Anthropologist 107 (4): 654–65. Warner,W.Lloyd,andJ.O.Low.1947.SociologyoftheModernFactory: TheSocialSystem.NewHaven,CT:YaleUniversityPress. Watson, Ruth, and Leslie Swartz, eds. 2004. Transformation through Occupation.Hoboken,NJ:WhurrPublishers. Weber,M.1949.“ObjectivityinSocialScienceandSocialPolicy.”InThe MethodologyoftheSocialSciences,eds.E.ShilsandH.Finch,50–112. NewYork:FreePress.
References 251
Wolf,EricR.1980.“TheyDivideandSubdivide,andCallItAnthropology.” NewYorkTimes,30November,1980,E-9. ———,1997.EuropeandthePeoplewithoutHistory.Berkeley:University ofCaliforniaPress. ———,1999.“AnthropologyandtheAcademy:HistoricalReflections.” InTransformingAcademia:ChallengesandOpportunitiesforanEngaged Anthropology, eds. L. Basch et al., 32–39. Arlington, VA: American AnthropologicalAssociation. ———,2001 [1984]. “Culture: Panacea or Problem?” In Pathways of Power:BuildinganAnthropologyoftheModernWorld,E.R.Wolf,307–19. Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress. Woodson,DrexelG.1990.“Toutmounnsémounn,mentoutmounnpa menm:MicrolevelSocioculturalAspectsofLandTenureinaNorthern HaitianLocality.”Ph.Ddissertation,UniversityofChicago. ———,1997.“Lamanjay,FoodSecurity,SécuritéAlimentaire:ALessonin CommunicationfromBARA’sMixedMethodsApproachtoBaseline ResearchinHaiti,1994–1996.”CultureandAgriculture19(3):108– 22. ———,2001. “Food-for-Work.” In Evaluation Report of the Enhanced FoodSecurityIIProgram,USAIDMission,eds.G.R.SmuckerandN. P.Schlossman,vol.1(IV),1–35.PreparedforUSAIDHaitiMission, FoodforPeaceOffice.Arlington,VA:JohnSnow,Inc. WorldAnthropologiesNetwork.2003.“AConversationaboutWorld Anthropologies.”SocialAnthropology11(2):265–69. Yerxa,ElizabethJ.,FlorenceClark,GelyaFrank,JeanneJackson,Diane Parham, Doris Pierce, Carol Stein, and Ruth Zemke. 1990. “An IntroductiontoOccupationalScience:AFoundationforOccupational TherapyintheTwenty-FirstCentury.”OccupationalTherapyinHealth Care6(4):1–18. Young, Donna J., and Anne Meneley. 2005. “Auto-Ethnographies of Academic Practices.” In Auto-Ethnographies: The Anthropology of AcademicPractices,eds.A.MeneleyandD.J.Young,1–21.Peterborough, ON:BroadviewPress. Young, Robert J. C. 2001. Postcolonialism: An Historical Introduction. Malden,MA:Blackwell. Yuval-Davis, Nira. 2004. “Transversal Politics and the Situated Imagination.”Unpublishedms. Zemke,Ruth,andFlorenceClark,eds.1996.OccupationalScience:The EvolvingDiscipline.Philadelphia:F.A.Davis.
This page intentionally left blank
Index
AccuracyinAcademia186 actionresearch24,72 activistanthropology10–11,22,103–5, 119–25,218 briefaccountof105–7 India191–4 indigenouspeoplesinCentralAmerica and105–6,107,113–19,122–3 internallygenerateddifficulties 110–13 LaRoscadeInvestigaciónyAcción Social(Colombia)21,23–5,26,37 UnitedStatesofAmerica103–4, 107–10 Adamson,Walter121 Addams,Jane78 addiction92 administration2,3 alchemy202,204–5,207–9,212–14,216 AmnestyInternational56 appliedanthropology3,4,72,86,131 Argentina9,47 forensicanthropologyin46,47,49–51, 52,54,57,58 recommendations60–3 auditcultures109,110 Australia12,161–3 anthropologyin163,164–6,175–7 indigenouspeoples161,164 culturaltourismproject170–5 Kumunjayi’sestatestudy166–70 landissues164–5 occupationaljusticein80 Awachat,Anil189 Barad,Karen71,80 BarbadosDeclaration(1971)103 Bartlett,Thomas187 Basch,Linda12,15,16
basicresearch4 Bennett,John3,86,100 blackmodernity116 Block,Pam10,15,16,17,85,100–1 graduateexperience88–90 joiningfaculty93–5 postdoctoralexperience90–3 researchactivities98–100 atStonyBrook94–7,98 Boas,Franz5,76 Bolaños,Graciela34,35,38 Bose,NirmalKumar182,188,192 Bourdieu,Pierre184,219 Brazil90 Burke,Kenneth130 CampusWatch187 Canada79,80 Carrara,Sergio90 Carrithers,Michael203 CentralAmericanandCaribbean ResearchCouncil(CCARC)113,117 Chakrabarty,Dipesh185–6 childnutritionalstatus,Haiti140–1 Chile47 Chow,Rey37 collaboration8–12,18,195–6,214–15, 217,221–2 anthropologicalcollaborationsin Colombia21–3 guidelinesforhistoryofPEBI33–4 reconcilinghistorywith sistematización34–6 RegionalIndigenousCouncilof Cauca(CRIC)22–3,26–7,32,38 researchininterculturalmilieuof indigenousorganizations31–3 roleoftheanthropologistin collaborativeresearch37–9
253
254
Index
LaRoscadeInvestigaciónyAcción Social(Colombia)21,23–5,26,37 socialización36 theorizingandco-theorizing26–7 theorizinginGuambía27–31,38 challengesof154–6 complicityand158–9 Collins,PatriciaHill26 Colombia9,47 anthropologicalcollaborationsin21–3 guidelinesforhistoryofPEBI33–4 reconcilinghistorywith sistematización34–6 RegionalIndigenousCouncilof Cauca(CRIC)22–3,26–7,32,38 researchininterculturalmilieuof indigenousorganizations31–3 roleoftheanthropologistin collaborativeresearch37–9 LaRoscadeInvestigaciónyAcción Social(Colombia)21,23–5,26,37 socialización36 theorizingandco-theorizing26–7 theorizinginGuambía27–31,38 colonialism2,3,5,124 culturalanthropologyand88,89 CombaheeRiverCollectiveStatement 121–2 commitment80 community-basedresearch21,22 LaRoscadeInvestigaciónyAcción Social(Colombia)21,23–5,26,37 corporations,womenin150,156–8 collaborationandcomplicity158–9 co-theorizing15,26–7,153,221 creationism186 credentialing,debatesover183–7 crisisofrepresentation3 criticalrecuperation24 culturalanthropology1–7,87,129–30, 144 colonialismand88,89 culturalstudies88,89 culturaltourismprojectinAustralia 170–5 DavidProject186,187 DeGenova,Nicholas187,193 Deloria,Sam72–3 Dewey,John77–8 disability disabilitystudies85,87–8,90,91,97, 100 rehabilitation85 researchactivities98–100
Doretti,Mercedes1,9–10,16,17 Douglas,Jack223 Dreze,Jean194 DuBois,W.E.B.26 Edgerton,Robert8 education Haiti138–9 traininganthropologists17 ElSalvador48,53 Elwin,Verrier188 Escobar,Arturo154 ethnography2,14,88 ethnographicrapport7–8 FalsBorda,Orlando21,25,112 familyrelationships,Kumunjayi’sestate study166–70 Fernandez,James202,203 Field,Les4,72,155,158,159,217,222, 223 fieldwork14–15,18,206–9 Flacks,Dick185 Flores,Ray70 FordFoundation113,151 forensicanthropology45–6,47–9,60 Argentina46,47,49–51,52,54,57,58 recommendations60–3 grayzonesandnegotiations54–8 interdisciplinaryapproach51–4 shapingengagement59–60 Foucault,Michel78,219 Fox,RichardG.4,88,217,222,223 France,anthropologyin2 Frank,Geyla10,15,16,17 Freire,Paolo113 futureofanthropology5–6,215–16 Gandhi,M.K.192 Garífunapeople113–17 Geddes,Patrick188 Geertz,Clifford17,130 Ghurye,G.S.182 globalization,humansecurityand150, 151–4 challengesofcollaboration154–6 Goodale,Mark153 goodthink8 Gordon,EdmundT.113 Gramsci,Antonio121,122,219 Greenwood,Davydd113 GuambianoHistoryCommittee27–31, 38 Guatemala47,54 activistanthropologyin105–6
Index 255 Guha,Ramachandra192 Gwaltney,JohnLangston26 habittraining78 Haiti11 livelihoodsecuritystudy143–5 agroecologicalzone137–8 baselineindicatorspointingat differentthings135–43 baselinestudies131–4 childnutritionalstatus140–1 education138–9 householdvulnerabilitystatus141–3 indicators134–5 migration140 religiousaffiliation139–40 Hale,Charles10–11,16,37,218 Haraway,Donna108,120 harmony,primitive8 Hegel,Georg218 historyandmyth185–6 holism15–16,217 Holland,Dorothy155 Honduras114–17 Horton,Miles113 householdvulnerabilitystatus,Haiti 141–3 Howe,Craig68–9,80 humanrightsissues45–6,47–9,60 disabilityand87–8 grayzonesandnegotiations54–8 interdisciplinaryapproach51–4 shapingengagement59–60 humansecurity,globalizationand150, 151–4 challengesofcollaboration154–6 India4,13 anthropologyin181–3,188–91,198 activismand191–4 developmentand194–8 landissues196–7 mythandhistoryin185–6 indicators134–5 baselineindicatorspointingat differentthingsinHaitistudy 135–43 indigenouspeoples103,104 activistanthropologyandindigenous peoplesinCentralAmerica105–6, 107,113–19,122–3 Australia161,164 culturaltourismproject170–5 Kumunjayi’sestatestudy166–70 landissues164–5
India196–7 knowledgeof185 nativeAmericans4–5,10,72–3 seealsoTuleRiverIndian Reservation Indonesia,forensicanthropologyin53 informationtechnology175–6 inheritance,Kumunjayi’sestatestudy 166–70 InternationalCriminalCourt155 intersectionality120 Inuitpeople76 Jones,Delmos26 Karve,Irawati182,188 Kelley,RobinD.G.120,121 Kroeber,Alfred5,72 Lame,ManuelQuintín24 Lamphere,Louise154 landissues28 activistanthropologyand113–19, 122–3 Australia164–5 India196–7 Lassiter,Luke8,18,222 Latta,Frank74 Levin,Morten113 Lewin,Kurt71 Libavius,Andreas213 Lilla,Mark119,121 LinsRibeiro,Gustavo154 Lipsitz,George120 livelihoodsecuritystudyinHaiti143–5 baselineindicatorspointingat differentthings135–43 agroecologicalzone137–8 childnutritionalstatus140–1 education138–9 householdvulnerabilitystatus141–3 migration140 religiousaffiliation139–40 baselinestudies131–4 indicators134–5 Lorde,Audre122,158 MacClancy,Jeremy203 McDarment,Nancy70 Madagascar14,202–3 fieldwork206–9 writtenwork209–15 Malinowski,Bronislaw17,182 Marxism120,121,122 Massad,Joseph187
256
Index
Mead,Margaret5 medicalanthropology88 Méndez,Juan60 Meneley,Anne204 methodology217–18,220 Meyer,Adolph78–9 migration,Haiti140 modernity,black116 Monhanty,S.P.120 Moran,Bruce205,207–8,213 Moss,Kirby219 Moya,Paula108 MuelasHurtado,Bárbara27–8 multidisciplinaryprojects3 Murray,Gerald139 museums2 MuwekmaOhlonepeople4–5 mythandhistory185–6 NationalCouncilforResearchonWomen (US)151,156 negotiation10 non-governmentalorganizations(NGOs) 152,153,155,159,195 occupationaljustice80 occupationalscience79 occupationaltherapy10,65–6,78–80, 86–7,94 occupationsandsocialtransformation 76–80 usingoccupationstoproduce indigenoushistories67–71 OrganizaciónFraternaldeHonduras (OFRANEH)114–17 participatoryresearch195 Pels,Peter7 Peru47 Pickering,Andrew208 postmodernism220 preformativity80 primitiveharmony8 productivity203 Ramos,Abelardo34,35,36,38 Rappaport,Joanne9,10,15,16 rapport7–8 reflexivity8,12–14 RegionalIndigenousCouncilofCauca (CRIC)22–3,26–7,32,38 BilingualInterculturalEducation Program(PEBI)22–3,26–7,32,38 rehabilitation85 religion,Haiti139–40
representationalism71–2 Richman,Karen139 Roberts,Gareth201 LaRoscadeInvestigaciónyAcciónSocial (Colombia)21,23–5,26,37 Roy,S.C.188 salvageanthropology5,217 Samoa5 Schiavo,Terry88 Schutz,Alfred130 securityseehumansecurity;livelihood securitystudy Sikhidentity4 situationalcomparison16–17 Slagle,EleanorClarke78,79 Smith,LindaTuhiwai221 Snow,Clyde51,57 SocietyforAppliedAnthropology(SfAA) 72 SocietyforDisabilityStudies(SDS)87 sociology182–3 Srinivas,M.N.183 Strathern,Marilyn109 Sundar,Nandini12,13,16,17 Sunday,Peggy156 Taussig,Michael89–90 Tax,Sol218 Taylor,Sherwood212,213–14 technology175–6 theories2 co-theorizing15,26–7,153,221 Thompson,E.P.192,193 tourism,culturaltourismprojectin Australia170–5 Toussaint,Sandy12–13,16,17 traininganthropologists17 TuleRiverIndianReservation10 TribalHistoryProject66–7,73–6,80 occupationsandsocial transformation76–80 fromtextualrepresentationto performance71–3 usingoccupationstoproduce indigenoushistories67–71 UnitedKingdom,anthropologyin2, 182 UnitedNations56,149,155 UnitedStatesofAmerica anthropologyin2,3,65,72,182,219 activistanthropology103–4,107–10 CombaheeRiverCollectiveStatement 121–2
Index 257 creationismin186 disabilityin88 NationalCouncilforResearchon Women151,156 NativeAmericans4–5,10,72–3 seealsoTuleRiverIndian Reservation occupationaltherapyin65–6,78–80 usingoccupationstoproduce indigenoushistories67–71 racialminorities26 universities3,189,190 debatesovercredentialing183–7 Urdaneta,Marta28,29,30,31 Valanzuela,Angela223 Valdez,Maggie70 Vasco,LuisGuillermo21,25,28,29–30, 31,38
Walsh,Andrew12,13–14,15,17 Weber,Max130 Wenner-GrenInternationalSymposium 3,217–23 Williams,Edna70 Wolf,Eric130 women’sresearcharea149–51,159–60 NationalCouncilforResearchon Women151,156 seealsocorporations,womenin; humansecurity Woodson,Drexel10,11,12,16,17 work/employment2,91,92,201–6 WorldAnthropologiesNetwork154 writtenwork209–15 Young,Donna204 Zimbabwe54,62