anthropology in the news | antropologi.info

"There’s no AIDS here because men and women are equal"

Published on August 13, 2006 by lorenz Posted in Africa, anthropology (general), anthropology in the news, indigenous people / minorities, medical anthropology / ethnobothany, San-bushmen

Along the northern border between Botswana and Namibia, in a region of Africa that is raging with AIDS, a small society of some 3,000 souls, the Ju/’hoansi (or !Kung) is living virtually free of HIV infection. According to research by anthropologist Richard Lee, the reason is gender equality, the Toronto Star reports.

Lee is going to present his findings tomorrow, Monday, at the International AIDS Conference AIDS 2006 in Toronto. He says the high status of women in the Ju/’hoansi society gives them significant autonomy in choosing their sexual and marriage partners:

In the other societies around the region, the young men will say, `Oh no, a girl has to obey me if I want to have sex with her, and if I don’t want to use a condom, that’s it,’. With the Ju/’hoansi, their high status in the community gives women plenty of leverage in sexual negotiations.

Before the age of AIDS the Ju/’hoansi were famous in anthropology for being among the last hunting and gathering people in the world. Hunter-gatherers typically granted women significant respect and status, he says.

>> read the whole story in the Toronto Star
(link updated with copy)

Cultural values and the spreading of AIDS in Africa

Along the northern border between Botswana and Namibia, in a region of Africa that is raging with AIDS, a small society of some 3,000 souls, the Ju/'hoansi (or !Kung) is living virtually free of HIV infection. According to research by…

Bush, “war of terror” and the erosion of free academic speech: Challenges for anthropology

Published on August 10, 2006 by lorenz Posted in anthropology (general), anthropology in the news, journal articles / papers, Northern America, politics, University / Academia

Dean Saitta (University of Denver) is one of the four anthropologists in David Horowitz’s book The Professors: The 101 most dangerous academics in America. The reason? His involvement in a debate on the erosion of free public and academic speech in the US.

In his guest editorial in the August edition of Anthropology Today, he describes the consequences of Bush’s “war on terror” for academics and calls for action: Anthropologists, he writes, “need to step up and engage in more and better conversations about the university’s status as a site of critical, creative and civically engaged inquiry”:

The subsequent declaration of a ‘war on terror’ and the passage of the Patriot Act have threatened the civil liberties of many citizens, and brought new fears of government intrusion into our lecture halls and seminar rooms. (…)

As US troops settled into Afghanistan and Iraq the campaign against the academy intensified. Aided and abetted by a resurgent conservative student activism on campus, this campaign accuses the American professoriate of harbouring a pervasive and long-standing liberal bias – with ‘liberal’ variously understood as leftist, Marxist and anti-American.

The campaign’s single most militant crusader, Saitta writes, is David Horowitz. He is a source of advice on political strategy for the Bush administration. Since 2003, Horowitz’ organization Students for Academic Freedom (SAF) has mobilized conservative students and politicians in 20 states to propose an ‘Academic Bill of Rights’ (ABOR) for state-supported institutions. This bill is according to Saitta “clearly aimed at critics of President Bush and the war in Iraq”.

In his book The professors:The 101 most dangerous academics in America (published in february 2006), Horowitz reveals the pervasive ‘intellectual corruption’ of the American university by providing an alphabetized list of “some of the worst violators of professional obligations and standards”.

Four anthropologists are included. As Savage Minds already has noted, Diane Nelson of Duke University is another “dangerous” anthropology professor.

Many more anthropologists could have been included, Saitta stresses:

Horowitz has indicated in several of his writings and interviews that anthropology is one of the more intellectually corrupt disciplines within the social sciences (…), fraught with political correctness and partisanship.

All academics should be concerned about Horowitz’ crusade, he argues. It seems that a large part of the American public agrees with Horowitz in some way. The American public has – as a recent survey reveals – very strange understandings of what the university is and does:

Nearly 70% believe the university should, as its primary function, provide job training rather than cultivate critical thinking. Over 60% believe that professors should be fired for associating with ‘radical’ political organizations. Over 50% think that too much scholarly research today is irrelevant to the needs of society. Finally, nearly 40% believe that the political bias of professors is a serious problem on campus.

Therefore, American anthropologists are faced with at least three major challenges in Saittas opinion:

First, we need to demonstrate that (…) our obligation as university faculty is to teach a breadth of ideas, critically examine their social causes and consequences, boldly experiment with new ones and, from time to time, actively champion particular ideas that can advance what we know and change for the better (whatever we take ‘better’ to mean) how we live. If we make some of our publics uncomfortable in the process, then we’re probably doing something right.

(…)

The second challenge is to better justify and develop the sort of engaged pedagogy and scholarship that landed many of us on the ‘dangerous 101’ list. Horowitz’ model of appropriate pedagogy is hierarchical and elitist. It evokes an image of tweedy professors filling up empty-headed and easily indoctrinable students with what is presumed to be disinterested, value-free knowledge. (…) Significant research in higher education over the past several decades has shown (…) the utility of more philosophically self-conscious and collaborative approaches for cultivating critical powers of mind.

(…)

The third challenge is to show how anthropology’s unique ‘deep time’, cross-cultural and bio-behavioural understanding of the human condition can enrich the entire academic curriculum and inform wider public discourse. (…) [B]ecause of the qualities identified above, anthropology should be the linchpin of a liberal arts education and any truly informed approach to policy-making in a globalizing world.(…)
Anthropology’s particularist conversation about human rights (…) provides a useful counterpoint to the universalist rights conversations of other disciplines.

>> read the whole text: Higher education and the dangerous professor: Challenges for anthropology (760kb, pdf – published on his homepage)

Saitta and many other ‘dangerous professors’ have stepped up to challenge the errors in Horowitz’ book, and to clarify what academia is about and set up two websites and blogs: www.teachersfordemocracy.org/ and www.freeexchangeoncampus.org .

Dean J. Saitta has by the way an excellent homepage with lots of articles.

Censorship of research in the USA: Iranians not allowed to publish papers

“Tribal Iraq Society” – Anthropologists engaged for US war in Iraq

“War on terror”: CIA sponsers anthropologists to gather sensitive information

Interview with Arjun Appadurai: "An increasing and irrational fear of the minorities"

Published on August 9, 2006 by lorenz Posted in anthropology in the news, Asia, books, cosmopolitanism, indigenous people / minorities, migration, persons and theories, Us and Them

Fear of Small Numbers, the new book by Mumbai-born anthropologist Arjun Appadurai has received attention across America. He discusses why, in the age of globalisation, opening of markets, free flow of capital and liberal ideas, minorities in many countriesare facing greater hostilities than ever before.

In an interview with Rediff, he argues for “moving away from national loyalties towards urban and metropolitan loyalties, which put a premium on active tolerance and deliberate cosmopolitanism”.

He explains:

One of the basic arguments of the book is that the idea of a majority can create uncertainty about the primary identity of a nation. In the book, I call this the anxiety of incompleteness.

What I mean is that in every nation State without exception, somewhere beneath the surface is the idea that a nation is composed of a single ethnic substance, some kind of ethnic purity — and the idea of ethnic purity leads to the feeling that only people belonging to that ethnicity should be full citizens in that State.

And in a society like India, this is a huge problem because a certain group, in this case the Hindus, can view themselves as almost completely defining India but not totally. The problem — the incompleteness — is due to the presence of other groups, whether you call them minorities or strangers or guests or visitors.

Every Hindu Indian recognises that the land is not completely Hindu. In the book, I argue that this sense of incomplete purity does not necessarily lead to an effort to obliterate the minorities. But in many circumstances, it can lead to that. And we have seen increasing efforts in some parts of India, Gujarat in particular, to obliterate the minorities.

Thinking in the categories minority and majority is something new according to the anthropologist:

I have been interested in census statistics, how populations are actually enumerated. Apart from the question of being weak or subordinate, official enumeration is one of the ways minorities are created in the modern world.

The point here is that the idea of minority and majority was not always a part of human society. Human societies always had different groups; some were larger and some smaller; but the twin categories of minority and majority are modern phenomena.

For him as an anthropologist, he says, it is “painfully obvious that it has become culturally respectable to run down and suspect the Muslim community.”

The fear of the minorities is in his opinion “irrational”:

I believe that the radical, terrorist voices one hears in the Muslim communities in India are few and small. The average Muslim in India today has this request to the majority community: Give us the room to survive. Muslims in rural and urban India are not thinking of taking over India, but are asking whether they can live there at all.

>> read part 1 of the interview with Arjun Appadurai: The average Indian Muslim wants room to survive

>> part 2 of the interview: Indian society is still interdependent

>> review by Jeremy Ballenger: “A considered, fascinating and somewhat disturbing look at the ‘other side’ of globalisation”

SEE ALSO:

For an Anthropology of Cosmopolitanism

Interview with Benedict Anderson: “I like nationalism’s utopian elements”

“Anthropologists Should Participate in the Current Immigration Debate”

Researches neo-paganism in an overwhelmingly Catholic society

Published on July 31, 2006 by lorenz Posted in anthropology in the news, books, Europe, religion cosmology

They believe in witches but are catholics at the same time. In a forthcoming book, anthropologist Kathryn Rountree describes surprising links between paganism and traditional Catholicism in Malta. It will be the first book to explore neo-paganism in an overwhelmingly Catholic society, Rountree tells Massey University News:

What fascinated Dr Rountree was the observation that although Maltese pagans and witches shared a kind of global pagan culture with feminist and New Age spiritual movements elsewhere through books and the internet, they did not share the same antipathy towards orthodox Christianity.

Maltese pagans maintain an affinity with Catholicism simply because they are so deeply imbued with it.

“There is little choice about being Catholic in Malta,” she says. “It is not so much a religion which an individual accepts (willingly or not) or rejects as it is the cultural ‘ground of being’ for all Maltese.” As one of the pagans she interviews says: “For me, trying not to be Catholic would be like trying not to be Maltese.”

By accepting an invitation to attend a Summer Solstice celebration, Dr Rountree met other pagans and witches in Malta who gathered to participate in these and other pagan rituals.

But because of Catholic disapproval of alternative religions, she has had to conceal the identities of those she interviewed to protect them. She believes the people she interviewed for a book could risk losing their jobs if they became known as practising pagans in the strongly Catholic country.

>> read the whole story in Massey News

BBC on Paganism and Neo-Paganism

Pagan Network – to promote the acceptance and tolerance of Paganism as a faith system within the UK

Participant rather than client – anthropologist studies new refugee integration programme

Published on July 24, 2006 by lorenz Posted in anthropology in the news, Europe, fieldwork / methods, journal articles / papers, migration, Us and Them

Refugees are no longer treated as clients but as ‘participants’. They no longer receive social benefits but a salary for learning Norwegian and jobtraining. All recognised refugees in Norway have ‘the right and duty’ to attend a two year full-day Introductory Programme. Anthropologist Oddveig Nygård did fieldwork in one of these introductury centers in a small town in Western Norway.

She found that the new program on the one hand had positive effects on the relationship between refugees and the caseworkers – partly because the introductory programme allows the caseworkers to focus on other things than merely payment of benefits:

The fairly cold and bureaucratic environment of the social security office, in which the caseworkers are placed behind their desks and the refugees come to receive their social benefits, now belongs to the past. Instead, the refugees daily attend a centre where they see the caseworkers on a frequent basis. (…) The new framework has created a better basis to see the individual behind the refugee label and to obtain a more contextual image of the client. (…) The frequent encounters in more than just one setting have led to a more subtle relation between the two parties.

But the closer relationship between caseworkers and refugees creates ambiguity. There is a short step to the caseworkers being conceived of as a helper or a provider. Careworkers have to balance between care and control:

My study demonstrates how the motivation/sanction intersection of the introductory programme involves an element of control. Yet, the authority role tends to be diverted by the ‘fellow-being’ as they seem to have some empathy for the participant and his personal situation.

A drawback of the program is its focus on future planning and job acquirement, she writes. The role refugees seem most familiar with and accustomed to is the student role:

The majority of the refugee informants said they found it somewhat difficult to plan their future. (…) The main reason seems to be an expressed scepticism towards what they regard as limited job opportunities. (…) Several referred to their poor chances of getting a desirable job because they were ‘foreigners’, and some pointed to how even Norwegians face difficulties on the current labour market. Other spoke with resignation of the long process it would take to complete possible re-training and higher education. (…) As a result, the vagueness of the future planner role is likely to curb the overall role as ‘the active participant’.

She also describes her research process. As often the case, the anthropologist’s role is unclear to people in the field:

My mingling with both the caseworkers and the refugees certainly involved some challenges, probably causing some confusion as to “where I actually belonged”. I attempted to balance my involvement with the two groups by spending most time with the caseworkers during the refugees’ daily classes, and socialising with the refugees before and after classes, and in their lunch breaks. As a result, I sometimes had an unusual feeling of being a ‘social butterfly’ trying to be everyone’s ‘friend’.

At the same time, I may have been perceived as a somewhat curious element, primarily among the refugees, in the sense that that I was a young woman apparently having lots of time, and being more than willing to talk to people. I believe my relatively young age and my perceived student role may have made me less “threatening” and arguably made it easier to get in contact with people.

>> read the whole paper by Oddveig Nygård: “Between care and control: Interaction between refugees and caseworkers within the Norwegian” (pdf) (Working paper 32, Sussex Centre for Migration Research)

Refugees are no longer treated as clients but as 'participants'. They no longer receive social benefits but a salary for learning Norwegian and jobtraining. All recognised refugees in Norway have 'the right and duty' to attend a two year full-day…