Introduction: Public Anthropology
Sam Beck Cornell University
What if we use theory and method to benefi t nomic and political issues; and confl ict and the people we study and with whom we part- misunderstanding between and among societ- ner to develop an increasingly just world in ies through mediation. The intent of this issue which inequities are reduced and all people is to provide a roadmap for anthropologists may believe in their ability to reach their po- seeking a larger role in society that we can tentials by having access to resources that are name ‘Public Anthropology’. Very much like more or less equally available, distributed and any concept, there is no one defi nition that lim- accessible? Each in her or his way, the contribu- its this idea’s meaning. Public anthropology is tors to this ‘Special Issue on Public Anthropol- fertile ground for anthropologists to explore ogy’ provide example trajectories which move opportunities for involvement and engage- anthropologists in this direction. ment inside and outside the discipline, and In responding to an article on public sociol- inside and outside their objects of research. ogy by Burawoy (2005), Aranowitz indicated What all share is the idea that local groups and the importance of public engagement and its communities should be able to control their origins based on a discourse of the ‘public’ in own well-being and quality of life with the participatory democracy. While we are far from sophistication of corporate or governmental reaching what appears to be a utopian dream, institutions. Central to this work is a method there are anthropologists who are working to- that takes us away from a solely enquiry-based wards such a goal. Li le disagreement appears methodology and towards one that is dialogic within the discipline about the aim of anthro- and change oriented.1 This is an anthropology pology as an intellectual discipline constructed that requires people at the local level to be to benefi t humankind, an issue most recently full participants in research and publications. broached by a number of people engaged in Cammarota put it this way: ‘the researcher is thinking about ‘public scholarship’ in general consistently changing his or her questions and (Mitchell 2008). perspectives via the collective input of com- Despite periodic deviations that move an- munity members, while the community learns thropology away from its tacit ethical centre, through the researcher’s involvement’ (2008: anthropology in the fi rst part of the twenty- 46). Knowledge, in this approach, becomes a fi rst century has returned to constructing an public good in its ‘orientation and application intellectual discipline that is not only con- that furthers the general vitality of the mar- cerned with historical processes, political eco- ginalized community’ (2008: 48). Moreover, nomic forces and conditions, or discourse ethics here, as Pels noted, is not something that analysis, but in addition involves itself in is tacked on, but is ‘internal to our research’ shaping the direction of present and future do- (2005: 96). mestic and international politics; activist agen- The thrust and movement towards con- das of local communities; the general public’s necting anthropology to real world contexts, deeper understanding of sociocultural, eco- conditions and processes occur episodically
Anthropology in Action, 16, 2 (2009): 1–13 © Berghahn Books and the Association for Anthropology in Action doi:10.3167/aia.2009.160201 AiA | Sam Beck
in the history of the discipline and though we discipline never existed and at present cannot can make linkages to produce a linear history exist without publics.5 Field and Fox asserted which demonstrates the formation of a ‘tradi- that ‘most anthropology has been “engaged” tion’ for and of a public anthropology, by do- and public in intention’ (2007: 4). This is par- ing only this we miss the very nature of what is ticularly true, at least since the Second World pressing anthropology into the public domain War, as the mission of the academy changed at this particular moment. Borofsky and oth- dramatically and as universities increasingly ers in academic circles have defi ned the public were penetrated by what Giroux called the anthropologist as one who ‘engages issues ‘military-industrial-academic complex (2007) and audiences beyond today’s self-imposed and pernicious ‘audit culture’ (Strathern 2000). disciplinary boundaries’ (2000; reproduced in This is not to assert that the academic and his Public Anthropology website) by writing, universities were ever independent of publics publishing or speaking in public media. Many (see Bender 1997, Boren 2001). However, it is other anthropologists use public anthropolo- with which publics, how and with what in- gy’s theories and methods in a broader sense tensity public engagement occurs that defi nes that reach beyond the academic form of public a public anthropology and diff erentiates it anthropology. Borofsky put the focus ‘on con- from other anthropological practices, theories versations with broad audiences about broad and methods. And this is something for which concerns’.2 Cox perceives public anthropol- anthropology must account. Moreover, the ogy ‘to be an anthropology of the public that discipline must recognize it as a central com- disrupts the traditional academy–community ponent of professional practice and not allow dichotomy by locating the intellectual and po- it to be marginalized as applied anthropology litical strategies necessary to eff ectively address had been, similarly locking out public anthro- social concerns with the dialogues that occur pologists as somehow less valued, and forcing in the public sphere as well as in disciplin- their sub-discipline like a minority position to ary based discussions – loosening the hinged reinvent itself, perhaps by creating a ‘Public border that artifi cially separate the two’ (2009: Anthropology Association’. Nor should an- 53). Her position radicalizes Borofsky’s under- thropology place public anthropology within a standing of public anthropology. Yet both per- stratifi ed, hierarchical division of labour in the spectives, for me, are not enough. I believe that discipline, a condition against which Singer public anthropology must include not only or warned us (2000). just conversations, dialogues or discussions.3 In her work as an employee of a Detroit The articles in this Special Issue are a start of homeless shelter for young women, with whom a larger project that seeks to demonstrate how she identifi es as being involved in the same far the reach of a broad Public Anthropology struggle and with whom she worked, Cox presently exists in the discipline. This is a sign indicates that the young women ‘have shown of vigour in anthropology because this kind me one way to explode public anthropology to of anthropology breaks down the barriers that accommodate co-theorising and co-authorship isolate anthropologists in a discourse limited through performance’ (2009: 60). Smith’s no- to themselves. tions complement those identifi ed by Cox. Her I follow Burawoy’s inclusive direction for approach moves research into the hands of ‘public sociology’ by advocating for a public an- those we normally research (2007). Her work thropology among other anthropologies.4 It is entailed working with her own people, the not as if anthropology, academic anthropology Maori of New Zealand. She critiques Western (‘professional’ in Burawoy’s terms) in particu- knowledge production and suggests research lar, has ever been independent of publics. The based on developing indigenous people’s re- 2 | Introduction: Public Anthropology | AiA search capacities, with outsiders invited to fare of all those aff ected by their work’ (see the participate in research that the people identify American Anthropology Association’s Code of and determine – a very diff erent sort of public Ethics). At present, we are confl icted because anthropology. This kind of research confi rms nationalism, expressed as patriotism, brought the capacity and power of local-level knowl- some anthropologists to position themselves edge production, legitimizing people’s own as participants in what they might consider a perceptions of their culture. ‘just war’, or understand the work in which The American Anthropology Association they are engaged as protecting vulnerable West- (AAA) did recognize public anthropology in ern, especially American, interests.7 a unique way in the November 1986 amended Anthropologists study processes and is- ‘Principles of Professional Responsibility’, fi rst sues aff ecting general human welfare and adapted by the Council of the American An- conditions. It is safe to say that not all anthro- thropological Association in May 1971 (see pologists do this, especially where contractual h p://www.aaanet.org/stmts/ethnstmnt.htm), arrangements may vitiate the ethical stance which claimed public engagement as a central quoted above. This is not to say that other tenet of what anthropologists were ethically practitioners of anthropology, who do not see obliged to do. themselves as applied anthropologists, are Public anthropology has implications for ‘pure’ in the work they do, especially when theory, method and methodologies. The con- carrying out fi eldwork, as they generate the troversy that brewed regarding the engage- data they use to increase their credibility in the ment of anthropology with military purposes discipline. I can safely say that many of us of- is an example (see Glenn 2007, Griffi n 2007, ten work in grey areas, even when we try hard Vine 2007), one that is, in many ways, not so to protect and safeguard ‘our people’. new (Wolf and Jorgensen 1970, Price 2005; also The AAA backed away from forms of ethi- see Wakin 1992). How anthropologists partici- cal engagements with ‘research populations’. pated in the Vietnam War anticipated what is In 1986 the AAA statement on ethics was now happening in the Middle East and Central an expression of what was deemed essen- Asia. This particular issue raises into relief a tial to the practice of anthropology that had set of values, professional practices and ethi- moral implications. ‘In research, anthropolo- cal principles that members of the American gists’ paramount responsibility is to those they Anthropology Association share. study. When there is a confl ict of interest, these The discipline is reawakening central issues individuals must come fi rst. Anthropologists regarding what anthropology and anthropolo- must do everything in their power to protect gists stand for. This is presently expressed the physical, social and psychological welfare through controversy and confl ict over the and to honor the dignity and privacy of those role of a few anthropologists involved in the studied’ (www.aaanet.org/stmts/ethstmnt.htm; wars associated with oil sources and delivery 1986). The fi rst section, ‘Relations with those routes (Gonzalez 2004, 2007; Price 2005, 2007). studied’, of the ‘Statement of Ethics; Principles Some might argue that this is a form of public of Professional Responsibility’ (AAA 1986) anthropology.6 states: ‘Every eff ort should be exerted to coop- Until recently, anthropologists accepted erate with members of the host society in the without question a shared ethical stance re- planning and execution of research projects’. garding the relationship between anthropolo- Moreover, section 2: ‘Responsibility to the gists and vulnerable populations. We accepted public’ is central to the importance of a public the idea that ‘Anthropologists must respect, anthropology. I quote it here in full because it protect and promote the rights and the wel- most likely eludes most anthropologists. I con-
| 3 AiA | Sam Beck
sider it to be central to professional practice: their qualifi cations and philosophical or po- research, teaching and, in university parlance, litical biases, and recognize and make clear outreach: the limits of anthropological expertise. At the same time, they must be alert to possible harm their information may cause people with Anthropologists are also responsible [my em- phasis] to the public – all presumed consumers whom they work or colleagues. 2. of their professional eff orts. To them they owe Anthropologists may choose to move beyond a commitment [my emphasis] to candor and disseminating research results to a position of to truth in the dissemination of their research advocacy. This is an individual decision, but results and in the statement of their opinions as not an ethical responsibility [my emphasis]. students of humanity. (http://www.aaanet.org/committees/ethics a. Anthropologists should not communicate /ethcode.htm) fi ndings secretly to some and withhold them from others. This shi indicates that professional ethics b. Anthropologists should not knowingly are a refl ection of their historical context, but falsify or color their fi ndings. also that the fi eld in the US moved to an indi- c. In providing professional opinions, anthro- vidualization of ethics. I fi nd the last statement pologists are responsible not only for their in the AAA ethics quoted above to be overly content but also for integrity in explaining cautious and a move away from the prescrip- both these opinions and their bases. tions that followed the Vietnam War and the d. As people who devote their professional lives to understanding people, anthropol- involvement of anthropologists. Many anthro- ogists bear a positive responsibility [my pologists refer to the centrality of advocacy in emphasis] to contribute to an ‘adequate their practice because advocacy supports the defi nition of reality’ upon which public idea of making the voices of the voiceless, vul- opinion and public policy may be based. nerable, socioculturally marginalized and e. In public discourse, anthropologists should politically and economically silenced heard. be honest about their qualifi cations and Scheper-Hughes took an even stronger posi- cognizant of the limitations of anthropo- logical expertise. tion in her article on a more militant anthro- pology. She asked, ‘What makes anthropology These statements of anthropological ethics and anthropologists exempts from the human obviously implicate public anthropology. How- responsibility to take an ethical (and even a ever, the 1998 approved Code of Ethics of the political) stand on the working out of historical AAA was much less prescriptive. It did ad- events as we are privileged to witness them?’ dress the issue in section C under Research, (1995: 411). Or, at least, anthropologists o en ‘Responsibility to the public’. I quote in full. see their work as mediating and making cul- tures understandable to each other. 1. Anthropological researchers should make the I have always thought of this as an anthro- results of their research appropriately avail- pological principle, an ethical stance. I also able to sponsors, students, decision makers, understand this to be a stance of advocacy, and other non anthropologists. In so doing, they must be truthful; they are not only an observation made by Harries-Jones (1985), responsible for the factual content of their perhaps even ‘activist’.8 He said, ‘the revela- statements but also must consider carefully tions of advocacy are usually those of making the social and political implications of the the socially invisible, observable; that is, by information they disseminate. They must do reframing the relation of the audience to their everything in their power to ensure that such social surroundings’ (1985: 227). In this sense, information is well understood, properly con- textualized, and responsibly utilized. They I suggest that advocacy is inherent in much should make clear the empirical bases upon of the anthropology that is carried out by aca- which their reports stand, be candid about demic anthropologists. And if this is so, the 4 | Introduction: Public Anthropology | AiA
AAA should develop an ethical stance for this in the public sphere as writers (Eriksen 2006). part of our practice and not leave it as ‘an in- This is what we do as academicians. We carry dividual decision’. Lamphere (2003) suggests out our research and hopefully we teach it, that graduate students, as they develop their write about it and publish it. The issue that Er- research proposals, should include statements iksen addresses in his book is anthropology’s about the implications their research will have invisibility in the public sphere. In the fi rst few for the population being studied. Her posi- pages of his well-conceived book he provides a tion articulates an idea that moves graduate short history of engagement and remarks that study and eventual professional work at least engagement took place as an aspect of the de- towards the consideration that research has an velopment of science for public consumption impact on the people studied. in the nineteenth century based in museums. The movement away from ethical prescrip- This was the period in which British imperial- tions for advocacy also distances the work that ism reigned and agrarian political economy anthropologists carry out as ‘activists’, some- gave way to industrialization and urbaniza- thing increasingly disciplined by university ad- tion particularly in the West. This was also ministrators. The disassociation of advocacy, the period of American imperialism, one that activist and even participatory anthropology continues to this day.10 has a silencing impact through which confor- It is no coincidence that the Royal Anthro- mity results, instead of innovation. Sansom pological Institute in London was founded added that: in 1871, nor that the U.S. Bureau of Ethnol- ogy was established in 1879.11 The academic in anthropology [canons of disciplinary prac- world at this time had not segmented itself as tice] is an empty category. What we have is no- it did in the twentieth century, with the spe- canonical practice: work conducted by indi- vidual practitioners each of whom works on his/ cializations of various sorts spli ing off and her own cognizance. At workshops in applied creating self-referential languages, jargons and anthropology we thus seem to be trying to alter discourses. Academicians and public scholars the situation and fi nd remedies for solitude and outside the academy mixed and mingled and the onus of personal rather than professional engaged in discourses that cut across disci- responsibility of anthropological endeavor, es- plinary boundaries. Of particular importance pecially in those instances where anthropologi- cal representations are not merely academic but is that academics, including explorers, found representations that are made to a purpose and access to a lay audience through public print so count as acts of advocacy. (1985: 4) media, presentations and debates. We should not be surprised that those at the margins of Wallman (1985) points to an inconsistency in the academic discipline could be responsible participant-observation. It contradicts any idea for greater experimentation and innovation. of anthropological neutrality and distance. This fi ts the ecological principles associated Anthropological practice is by its very nature with frontiers or margins. involved; the people being researched are also Eriksen notes that a ‘culture war’ was fought a ‘public’.9 In responding to Scheper-Hughes on two fronts between the two world wars. (1995), Harris remarked that Tylor identifi ed One was ‘against ethnocentric supremacism’. anthropology as ‘essentially a reformer’s sci- The other was ‘against biological determinism’ ence … active at once in aiding progress and (2006: 5). In the United States, Mead, Bene- in removing hindrance’ (Lowie 1938: 83, cited dict and Boas of course were iconic notables in Harris 1995: 424). in these wars, but also Montague (1951) and We should not be surprised that ‘engaged Benedict (1946) sought to make the cultures anthropologists’ are more apt to be involved of enemies available to the U.S. government
| 5 AiA | Sam Beck
as well as to the general public by founding education do not stand alone. Medical anthro- Columbia University’s Research in Contempo- pology, archaeology, and visual anthropology rary Cultures (Mead 2000; Mead and Metraux are strong candidates within the discipline 2000; Mead, Rickman and Gorer 2001). Each of that worked on a public anthropology agenda these issues has remained central to Western early on and became increasingly activist and discourses tied to colonial, neo-colonial, im- participatory. perial and neo-imperial forces. Clearly these A public anthropology has earlier anteced- wars are not over, either in physical confl icts or ents. Chambers mentions that in 1838 profes- in the arena of public discourse. Recently, the sional anthropologists were involved in the AAA stepped into the fray with its own public, Aboriginal Protection Society in London and award-winning project on ‘Race’. that the Women’s Anthropological Society, es- As far as writing is concerned, Eriksen be- tablished in 1885, supported housing improve- lieves that a er the Second World War anthro- ments for Washington, DC’s poor (1989: 20, see pology began to withdraw from the public. I also Schensul and Schensul 1978). Mediating am uncomfortable with this notion since there between clients (in an applied anthropology are too many notable exceptions, for example sense) and subjects has had an advocacy twist Claude Levi-Strauss, Marvin Harris, Edmund to it. On the extreme end of advocacy falls Leach, Colin Turnbull, David Maybury-Lewis, the Vicos Project, carried out by Holmberg Janet Siskind, Oscar Lewis, Elenore Smith and other Cornell University anthropologists Bowen, Marjorie Shostak, Cliff ord Geerz, Eric (Holmberg 1962 Ross 2005). The project be- Wolf, and many more who have wri en for came a landowner with the peasantry. Eventu- the public. Gonzalez asserted the following, ally the peasants took control over the land. ‘Today few anthropologists could be consid- Sol Tax engaged in ‘action anthropology’ in ered celebrities in the United States, but that the Fox Indian Project (1958), perhaps more does not mean that none speak to the public’ aptly referred to as ‘activist anthropology’ in (2004: 2). Furthermore, he said, ‘There is a as much as ‘the anthropologist must operate wide range of projects under way to dissemi- within the framework of goals and activities nate anthropology within the United States’ initiated by groups seeking to direct the course (ibid.). Beeman (1987) advocated for the role of of their own development’ (Chambers 1989: anthropology in the print media. He stressed: 22). The work at the Hispanic Health Council ‘Questions that anthropologists can address in Hartford, Connecticut, exemplifi es partici- with some eff ectiveness exist on three levels patory, action, advocacy and activist forms of of abstraction. The fi rst level addresses overt anthropology by having communities partici- questions – questions that the public is asking pate as co-investigators of their own communi- openly. The second level deals with unspoken ties, advocating for change, and activist as the questions. The third, and most diffi cult, deals distinction between ‘researcher’ and ‘client’ is with anticipated questions’ (Beeman 2001: 2). radically blurred. In a recent issue, the Anthropology and Edu- Writing for or speaking to a broad, general cation Quarterly editorial team wrote in its public is not the only means for carrying out ‘Introductory Note’ that ‘the fi eld [Anthropol- public anthropology. Sanday coined ‘Public ogy and Education] is becoming more, not Interest Anthropology’ a decade ago (1998), to less activist in orientation and practice’ (2008: which she referred as a paradigm, in Thomas 1). This is an intriguing declaration that may Kuhn’s sense, that it is a perspective with its point us towards learning which aspects of own theory and method made up, according the anthropological discipline are more or less to Sanday, of two trends. The fi rst off ers theory activist. It seems to me that anthropology and and analysis in the service of problem solving 6 | Introduction: Public Anthropology | AiA to bring about change. The second is to make creates methodological questions, more o en anthropology available to the general public. than not, related to power. What is the work? In both instances central to Public Interest An- Who controls the work? Who makes deci- thropology (PIA) is a dedication to social jus- sions about what data to use? Who does the tice, human rights, in the broadest sense of the data analysis? What forms do the products of term, and democratic principles. While writing research take? Who presents the fi ndings and as an anthropological public practice is central to whom? The rationale for the project itself to Sanday’s expression of PIA, it is not the may be contested unless clear understanding only possibility of practice (see Sanday 2002). is reached among all participants, an under- Her suggestion to blur the distinction between standing that most likely must be renegotiated action (or practice) and theory leaves the door over time as things change. open for research-based action as another sort On a positive note, Hemment recently dis- of public anthropology, a praxis (see Keene cussed PAR as off ering ‘a framework through and Colligan 2004) that I understand as a dia- which we can bring critical anthropological lectic of theory and practice intentionally ori- insights to collaborative projects with research ented to bring about change. participants in the fi eld’ (2007). As Lyon-Callo This brings us to a relatively new invented and Hya suggest ‘Through long-term col- approach, really a re-invention, what is referred laborations with community-based activists, to as participatory and participatory action re- engaged ethnographers can contribute to cre- search (PAR) (see Greenwood and Levin 1998). ating a space for the realization of new poli- This is a research approach that integrates the cies, new subject positions, and the emergence expertise of the scholar/researcher with local of new political possibilities beyond what the level (indigenous) expertise for the purpose global economy and its neoliberal rationaliza- of sociocultural change, political engagement tions have set for us’ (2003: 136). and economic development. While on the face PAR practitioners do not evade the po- of it, PAR seems simple to apply, its implemen- litical side of fi eldwork practice or the politi- tation generates all sorts of contradictions that cal consequences of their work. In fact, social must be resolved in-context and in-process, as change is at least equal to the wri en product research and action is carried out (Hampshire, of their practice, usually the goal established Hills, and Iqbal 2005). This is not surprising by PAR partners (see Wali 2006 as a wonder- since this is what most of us do during fi eld- ful example). The tension that is o en raised work. This type of public anthropology, I dare in fi eldwork by focusing on the impact the say any type of public anthropology, must researcher may have on those being studied consider knowledge production, rather than is part of the methodology used in this kind knowledge transference, as a dialectical pro- of public anthropology. The work being car- cess which uses people’s own experiences as a ried out by the Chicago Field Museum stands starting point for learning – what Freire (1996, out as an example not only of anthropological 1997) referred to as an ‘open learning para- praxis, but also the transformation of museum digm’ (see also Giroux 1983, Schoen 1983, Shor work from a relatively passive approach to one and Freire 1986 Beck 2002 2005, 2006). that is activist in design and purpose, another Additional conceptual and methodological public anthropology eff ort. knowledge and skills are needed to imple- Complemented to PAR, mostly seen as a ped- ment PAR successfully. The very nature of the agogical device, is Community Service Learning relationship created in the mixing of exper- (see Hya 2000. Community Service Learning tise, variously called cooperation, partnership, (CSL) emerged as a pedagogy, research strat- collaboration, contractual and consultative, egy and community engagement vehicle (see
| 7 AiA | Sam Beck
Beck 2002, 2005, 2006, Keene and Colligan interests and necessities. The exceptions are 2004). While anthropologists were slow in us- when the instructor/researcher is a member of ing the term ‘community service learning’, the the community being engaged. result was that CSL advocates assumed that Keep in mind that the public anthropology anthropologists were not involved in this type movement is not a disciplinary isolate. Enor- of anthropological practice and knowledge mous pressures brought the academy to ex- production. Anthropology certainly was not press itself through universities and colleges represented in the CSL literature. This resulted that commit themselves, their faculties and stu- in the silencing of an important trend in our dents to community engagement. This is an discipline that we can trace back to the very expression of long-term trends that started in origins of anthropology in the United States the USA in the 1860s with the development of (see Hymes 1969). We must also be mindful the Land-Grant system of practical education, that this type of work, practice and knowledge research and extension. Pressure, inducement production has appeared in other parts of the and support continues to come from govern- world, if not by anthropologists by anthropol- ment, business and foundation sectors with ogy-like practitioners in earlier historic peri- the presence of middle-class families seeking ods (Cernea 1981, Beck 2002 and grew out of to provide their children the basis for secure nation-state creation and development whose futures. This movement towards ‘university– outcomes are a double-edged sword (see Erik- community’ engagement has support from sen in this issue). Take Romania’s ‘monograph government and corporations, but clearly for school’ developed by Gusti (Cernea 1981) in diff erent reasons than progressively minded the inter-war period, whose students repre- educators. Inasmuch as higher education pro- sented the political right (Traian Herseni) and duces li le of its own funding for research, a the political le (Henri Stahl). CSL today has dependency relationship exists between uni- similar features. versities, foundations and the government, CSL is a way of learning and teaching. The who are able to provide large sums of money normative approach focuses on service projects and in the process direct research and educa- that enhance and enrich classroom coursework. tion agendas. A case in point is the Human A more critical approach focuses on service as Terrain System in which anthropologists were the principle device for learning. One goal of used by the US military. The CSL movement CSL is to increase student awareness of civic was energized right at the moment neoliberal responsibilities while providing support for policies reduced social service expenditures. a community in need. Pedagogically, service Volunteerism was to take the place of govern- learning provides students with the context and ment support masked by the American ideol- conditions for critical thinking through refl ec- ogy of neighbours helping neighbours. tion and empowers students who learn that they too are knowledge producers (see Beck 2002, 2005, 2006). From the perspective of in- Some Conclusions stitutional higher learning, CSL is supposed to extend the university into the community Field and Fox insightfully acknowledge that in some sort of imagined partnership. In too anthropological work has changed and con- many cases the relationship is rarely mutually tinues to change, and that anthropology must benefi cial. Academic interests tend to prevail adjust to these changes with new or diff erent and community service remains a pedagogy research methods, innovate diff erent types of that supports student learning and faculty re- social relationships in research-practice, clarify search interests, rather than community-based ‘research for whom’ and even consider a set of 8 | Introduction: Public Anthropology | AiA diff erent ‘products’ as outcomes of anthropo- moved to ameliorate a public health problem. logical work that is acceptable and legitimate He also demonstrates how a public anthro- within and outside of the academy (2007). pology approach (actually public intellectual Change o en produces fear. Changes in the because the project was interdisciplinary) can discipline and within the academy carry with assist in community building. This project is them dangers and threats. Public anthropolo- an example of the use of a political, economic gy’s position within the discipline carries li le and ecological framework to understand the status. Field and Fox, rightfully point out that state of California and its relationship to Pa- at this time involvement in this kind of work coima, and as a basis of refl ecting on the re- among junior academics, who have not se- search process itself – an example of ‘refl ective cured long-term contractual employment with practice’. Here is an example of what can be their institutions, carries with it signifi cant done in public anthropology when the con- liabilities and may limit opportunities for pro- cern is less on textual results and more on the tected life-long employment. Moreover, when empowerment of local people to resolve local the discipline increases its permeability, it may issues, using their knowledge in partnership in be threatened by a loss of intellectual integrity an engaged consortium, with scientists, social and purpose as a separate fi eld of knowledge scientists and their students to bring about production. Be this as it may, I believe that change. The work accomplished in Pacoima public anthropology provides a critical edge underscores some of the essentials of this at a time when it is sorely needed. Within type of public anthropology. Some of these the academy and, as important, outside it, in are: developing trusting relationships; sharing what students refer to as the real world. Public information; implementing mutual learning anthropology enables more people to enter strategies through dialogue and by the par- the fi eld and disperse among diverse profes- ticipation of non-experts in the research itself; sional fi elds beyond the academy, allowing developing local level leaders who represent growth of the discipline at a time of shrinkage, diff erent constituents; recognizing lay people’s while innovating theory and practice to cre- knowledge and their ability to contribute to ate change for social, economic and political the research as equals; including youth devel- justice in partnership with those who are most opment through community service learning vulnerable. and other means as an aspect of community involvement and leadership development; consistent and regular interaction among all The Contributions consortium members and community leaders; a long-term commitment to carry out the re- This issue on Public Anthropology is divided search; and support changes that need to take into two parts: the current, summer issue, and place to correct injustices as they appear. the autumn/winter issue that follows. In part Eriksen provides us with a fascinating and one, Maida refl ects an important approach in revealing account of the relationship between public anthropology that is advocacy, action, Scandinavian anthropology and the public. In activist and participatory in nature. His proj- some important ways, Scandinavian anthro- ect uses a dialogic approach to produce texts, pologists are public anthropologists by their generate mutual learning and, importantly, be- participation in public discourse. This resulted come instrumental in creating change. Maida’s from the integration of the discipline within analysis of Pacoima, California, provides an the functions of the state, a result of nation- example of how a consortium of groups, led state formation, development and identity by the community group Pacoima Beautiful, creation. According to Eriksen, Scandinavians
| 9 AiA | Sam Beck
have a reading culture in which what academ- whose insights continue to enrich me. He is a ics write infl uences the public, and public dis- gentle critic and a helpful editor. I look forward course in turn impacts on public politics and to a long partnership with him. I also want to government policies. In this sense the bound- thank the contributors to this Special Issue aries between research and politics are contin- for their involvement and stimulating further uously blurred. In his example of Norway, he work in Public Anthropology as we bring the demonstrates how anthropologists are actively discipline into the twenty-fi rst century. Chris sought out by political parties to inform them McCourt is the kind of editor and colleague on Sami and non-ethno-national (and non- that is sorely needed in our discipline. She is Sami) Norwegian integration policies. encouraging, supporting, motivating and de- McKenna uses his academic acumen to lightful throughout the process of producing make visible the disguised relationship be- the following insightful articles. Many thanks. tween Michigan State University (MSU) in the U.S. and the Dow Chemical Company. In the context of presently existing capitalism, Dow Sam Beck is the Director of the New York City not only successfully penetrated MSU but Urban Semester Program of the College of Human also the state of Michigan, infl uencing what is Ecology of Cornell University, an ethnographi- researched. McKenna asserts that as a result of cally informed experiential learning programme the political pressure Dow was able to unleash that facilitates the development and maturation MSU allowed itself to be used to become a of bright, highly goal oriented students. He has ‘knowledge factory’, rather than a place where carried out research in a variety of locations: Iran, critical perspectives may innovate. In addi- Yugoslavia, Romania, Germany, Austria, Utah, tion, he declared that education for the market Providence (Rhode Island) and in New York City. undermines education produced for critical He has worked with migrant workers, peasant citizenship. The present economic calamity workers, US workers, nomadic pastoralists, sed- confi rms McKenna’s position that ‘markets do enterizing pastoral nomads, higher education as not reward moral behaviour’. Too many con- an institution, artists and students. In his work temporary examples exist to contest this idea. among the Roma of Romania and then with Cape Using his own eff orts as an example, he advo- Verdeans in Providence, his interests moved to- cates for social science praxis that ‘demands wards understanding how a social justice agenda [an] unrelenting public voice about injustice’. may be used to move anthropology towards a more In his public work, he has used various forms enlightened form of research. At the same time he of media to make his point, including print, is interested in developing an anthropology that video and fi lm, and public programming. works with people and organizations who are seek- ing to bring about changes in their communities and neighbourhoods, and who work to enhance Acknowledgements the resources for their communities, especially children and youth, to fl ourish and reach for their I would like to thank Marianne A. Cocchini, potential. While such communities may be fi nan- my companion and colleague, for discussions cially poor and ill equipped to enter the highly about the ethics of community work and how competitive market economy, it is not enough to to create solidarity with underserved but em- refer to them as impoverished. Their wealth is situ- powered communities. I thank Carl Maida, a ated in their strong kin ties and social networks most generous friend and colleague, whose and the assets that are linked to well-integrated persistence motivated me to do the work and communities.
10 | Introduction: Public Anthropology | AiA
Notes of objectivity and value free neutrality are ar- gued. Here is where anthropologists also take 1. This was one of Freire’s ideas. The notion here a stance regarding how they understand their is that there is an inherent relationship between work as something also embedded in human- the teacher and student [researcher and the istic disciplines in addition to social science or people studied], based on dialogue that informs even science. both. It is egalitarian and democratizing in its 10. The United States incorporated Texas in 1845 very nature (1996). and California in 1850, taking it from Mexico, 2. Beeman took a slightly diff erent, alternative for example. In 1898, with the Spanish–Ameri- decision for media outreach. He addressed the can War, the United States took control over concern in anthropology that the discipline Puerto Rico and the Philippines. New Mexico is ‘not taken seriously by the world at large’ was added in 1912. In 1959, Alaska was pur- (1987: 2). chased and Hawaii was seized from the indig- 3. Cox does understand that ‘Public anthropol- enous inheritors of these islands. Imperialist ogy is, indeed, both intellectually curious and expansion, particularly as part of an economic action oriented and, as such erases the lines strategy for political domination, continues drawn between scholarship and activism, acad- unabated. emy and community’ (2009: 54). 11. In 1897, the name changed to the Bureau of 4. In multiple publications, Burawoy referred American Ethnology. to four aspects of sociology that ‘represent an organic division of labor of mutual enrichment’ (2004: 10). He said that sociology’s public face References ‘cannot be separated from its professional, policy and critical dimensions’ (ibid.). American Anthropology Association 1971, (1986), 5. Sansom recognized this. He wrote, ‘In the main ‘Statements on Ethics: Principles of Professional the discipline has also been self-sustaining, Responsibility’
| 11 AiA | Sam Beck
C. E. Schorske, American Academic Culture in American Power (Austin: University of Texas Transformation: FiĞ y Years, Four Disciplines (Prince- Press). ton, NJ: Princeton University Press), 17–54. Greenwood, D. and Levin, M. (1998), Introduction Benedict, R. (1946), The Chrysanthemum and the to Action Research (London: Sage). Sword: PaĴ erns of Japanese Culture (Cambridge: Griffi n, M. B. (2007), ‘Research to Reduce Blood- Houghton Miffl in). shed’, The Chronicle of Higher Education, 30 Boren, M. E. (2001), Student Resistance: A History of November. the Unruly Subject (New York: Routledge). Hale, C. R. (2007), ‘In Praise of “Reckless Minds”: Borofsky, R. (2000), ‘Public Anthropology. Making a Case for Activist Anthropology’, in Where To? What Next?’, Anthropology News 41, Anthropology Put to Work, (eds.) L. Field and no. 5: 9–10. Reproduced in
12 | Introduction: Public Anthropology | AiA
Mead, M. and Metraux, R. (2000), The Study of Sansom, B. (1985), ‘Canons of Anthropology’, in Culture at a Distance (New York: Berghahn Advocacy and Anthropology, (ed.) Paine, R. St. Books). John’s, (Newfoundland, Memorial University, Mead, M., Rickman, J. and Gorer, G. (2001), Rus- Canada: Institute of Social and Economic Re- sian Culture. New York: Berghahn Books. search), 3–15. Mitchell, K. (ed.) (2008), Practicing Public Scholar- Schensul, S. L. and Schensul, J. J. (1978), ‘Advocacy ship: Experiences and Possibilities Beyond the Acad- and Applied Anthropology’, in Social Scientists emy (West Sussex, U.K.: Wiley-Blackwell). as Advocates, (eds.) G. Weber and G. McCall Montague, A. (1951), Statement on Race: An Ex- (Beverly Hills: Sage Publications), 211–219. tended Discussion in Plain Language of the Unesco Scheper-Hughes, N. (1995), ‘The Primacy of the Statement (New York: Schuman)
| 13