Part of the anthropological project of the discipline has been to deconstruct particular social constructions of sex, gender, race, religion, market, and many other things. In this sense, Anthropology has been a beacon of providing alternative accounts to preconceived notions of human nature and social organization. In doing so, much annthropological work takes a particular moral stance of creating further understanding about gender, race, and many issues on morality. And because many of these topics are so intricately intertwined, the topic of morality has been difficult to segment as its own sphere of investigation (although we are seeing some of this happening as prominent anthropologists like Joel Robbins and Jarett Zigon - both with different approaches but nonetheless attempt to investigate some thing similar).
With this view of human science and creaing further understanding, many anthropologists try to take a morally open stance and a non-judgmental perspective on the culture they are studying. And, consequently, there have been debates about the role of the anthropologist and what they should or ought to do in the face of morally controversial practices as well as debates about the effect anthropologists have on the community they are studying. But in the name of understanding, observation, and documenting/investigating the science of variable human expression in its myriad of ways, anthropologists (most, at least) have maintained their integrity and remained morally neutral by aiming to describe and understand the communities they are studying.
What has been a perennial issue for anthropologists is the politics of representation. Do they represent a culture appropriately and adequately? One classic series of debates aournd this has been with the Yanomami. This is in a way, a very important issue and has been textbook for quite some time (I think). The debates are well presented in the documentary: 'Secrets of the Tribe', if you can find the full documentary, I highly recommend it. The discussion revolves around how the Yanomami are represented - Chagnon, at one point, referred to them as "The Fierce People". This has also been an issue with Native Americans as well - and needless to say this politics runs throughout all ethnographies. The politics of representation has well been discussed in anthropological accounts trying to discuss 'belief' as well.
So with this background, anthropology has sought to dispell misconstrued notions about human nature - about gender, about race, and so on. And in turn, anthropologists will critique racist accounts or androcentric accounts of what it means to be human. In other words, a moral stance has been to create further understanding and combat certain stances of bigotry.
My question is simple, yet complex in its layers: What happens to the anthropologists who conducts fieldwork with the re-emerging KKK? or a Neo-Nazi group? or some kind of Neo-Fascist community? Can the anthropologist in these cases, maintain an open outlook on what these groups are about and observe? Does the anthropologist continue to take the insider's perspective? Indeed, some of the groups take the position that many anthropologists are trying to combat or clarify.
I know Scott Atran has done some work on Jihadi groups. And a very interesting, at times ugly, debate has stirred between Atran and Sam Harris. Here is Harris' position on Islam (which is well noted elsewhere). And here is Atran's response.
In this instance, Atran is clarifying/dispelling imbedded constructions of Jihadists and creating further understanding of their position while Harris (as he is infamously known for) considers Islam and religion in general as a "virus", a poison, or in Marxist terms an "opium of the masses". I've mentioned this before, if you asked me 10-15 years ago I would have agreed. But this is an antiquated view and one that I no longer think is correct.
But the question remains. If an anthropologist did research and fieldwork on a KKK group, how does the anthropologist frame the ethnography? On one hand the anthropologist should, as training dictates, clarify misconceptions and misconstructions of the group. In addition, such an investigation should also make comment on the investigation of human nature via ethnography. On the other hand, how does this fit into the moral landscape anthropology paints? One that is based on creating further understanding. Should we sympathize with racially motivated hate groups? How does the anthropologist approach or frame his writings? Is it framed as a problem? As a social phenomena without taking a moral position? It would seem there should be more discussion about the 'Ethics of Anthropology' - that is, to take the concerns and ethnographic accounts of anthropology in discussion with philosophers and ethicists. While I'm sure anthropology may be a bit reluctant because Ethics talks about the 'shoulds' and 'oughts' with a particular view of human nature and ontological status, but the discussion needs to happen to keep the dialogue going.
No comments:
Post a Comment