politics | antropologi.info

“The Maori ethnopolitical movement threatens democracy”

Published on November 5, 2006 by lorenz Posted in anthropology in the news, books, maori, Pacific Oceania, politics, Us and Them

“The ethnopolitical Maori-Pakeha movement in New Zealand is subverting democracy, erecting ethnic boundaries between Maori and non-Maori and promoting a cultural elite within Maoridom”, Elizabeth Rata claims. She has just published her second book, “Public Policy and Ethnicity, the Politics of Ethnic Boundary Making”. The book is written with 13 other academics, including anthropologists Jonathan Friedman and Alain Babadzan.

Her PhD was in the philosophy of education, her thesis was an investigation of Maori revival and retribalisation. In an interview with New Zealand Herald, she says:

My research threw up the opposite of what I thought I’d find – that retribalisation would serve the interests of social justice – so disproving my original argument.
(…)
Many New Zealanders originally supported Maori retribalism because they saw it as a means to much greater social justice – and my argument is that, in fact the opposite has happened – that group of poor marginalised Maori is in the same position now.

Rata discovered the emergence of “neotribal capitalism”: Once Maori people were given back assets, they behaved just like white New Zealanders. The aggressive and adventurous grabbed the spoils, she claims, while the rest remained as poor as ever. Although it might have been an unintended consequence, the Maori movement led according to her to an ethnification of politics and society. It led to the belief that ethnicity was our primary identity – more basic than any other identity we could choose. People were classified ethnically within mental health, education. Ethnicity was institutionalised at all levels.

But the biggest problem, says Rata, is that no one will talk about what is happening.

>> read the whole article in The New Zealand Herald

Rata has received lots of criticism for her views. In a Call for papers for the Journal of Indigenous Nations Studies we read:

Rata’s rhetoric bears a resemblance to global right wing conservative messages that promote the notion that when “traditional fundamentalists” succeed in intervening into western power structures they contaminate and weaken western democracy.
(…)
Through what amounts to unchecked media access, writers around the globe use their privileged positions to promote western bias and dogma, deepen colonial trauma, and undermine futures of Indigenous Peoples.

And the International Research Institute For Maori And Indigenous Education (Iri) And Te Aratiatia (Maori Education, The University Of Auckland states:

The recent attack by Elizabeth Rata on Kaupapa Maori developments highlights a disturbing trend of racism being disguised as public debate. Director of the International Research Institue for Maori and Indigenous Education, Dr Leonie Pihama, states that the comments by Elizabeth Rata where couched within an “almost unintelligible academic language” do in fact merely reflect the Don Brash position that Maori language and culture have little significance in this country.

I suppose one example of these racist attacks can be found in this article Gene linked to Maori violence

I’ve neglected Maori issues in this blog. For current news, see Waatea News Update by journalist Adam Gifford and for more links Wikipedia: Maori.

Stephen Webster: Maori hapuu and their history (Australian Journal of Anthropology, Dec 1997)

Judith Simon: Anthropology, ‘native schooling’ and Maori: The politics of ‘cultural adaptation’ policies (Oceania, Sep 1998)

Jeffrey Sissons: Anthropology, Maori tradition and colonial process
(Oceania Sep 1998)

"The ethnopolitical Maori-Pakeha movement in New Zealand is subverting democracy, erecting ethnic boundaries between Maori and non-Maori and promoting a cultural elite within Maoridom", Elizabeth Rata claims. She has just published her second book, "Public Policy and Ethnicity, the Politics…

How Islamic cassette sermons challenge the moral and political landscape of the Middle East

Published on October 4, 2006 by lorenz Posted in anthropology in the news, books, media, Middle East, politics, religion cosmology, technology

The New York Times called it “Bin Laden’s Low-Tech Weapon”: Islamic cassette sermons are often associated with terrorism. They are rather a medium for democratic activism and ethical selv-improvement, anthropologist Charles Hirschkind argues in his new book “The Ethical Soundscape. Cassette Sermons and Islamic Counterpublics”.

There is an book excerpt on the website of Columbia University Press. Hirschkind writes:

To read the cassette sermon primarily as a technology of fundamentalism and militancy reduces the enormous complexity of the lifeworld enabled by this medium, forcing it to fit into the narrow confines of a language of threat, fear, rejection, and irrationality.

On the contrary, cassette sermons frequently articulate a fierce critique of the nationalist project, with its attendant lack of democracy and accountability among the ruling elites of the Muslim world. The form of public discourse within which this critique takes place, however, is not oriented toward militant political action or the overthrow of the state. Rather, such political commentary gives direction to a normative ethical project centered upon questions of social responsibility, pious comportment, and devotional practice.

(…)

For those who participate in the movement, the moral and political direction of contemporary Muslim societies cannot be left to politicians, religious scholars, or militant activists but must be decided upon and enacted collectively by ordinary Muslims in the course of their normal daily activities.

These sermons are a key element in the technological scaffolding of what is called the Islamic Revival (al-Sahwa al-Islamiyya), he writes. The cassette sermon has become an omnipresent background of daily urban life in most Middle Eastern cities:

In Cairo, where I spent a year and a half exploring this common media practice, cassette-recorded sermons of popular Muslim preachers, or khutaba’ (sing. khatib), have become a ubiquitous part of the contemporary social landscape. The sermons of well-known orators spill into the street from loudspeakers in cafes, the shops of tailors and butchers, the workshops of mechanics and TV repairmen; they accompany passengers in taxis, mini-buses, and most forms of public transportation; they resonate from behind the walls of apartment complexes, where men and women listen alone in the privacy of their homes after returning home from the factory, while doing housework, or together with acquaintances from school or office, invited to hear the latest sermon from a favorite preacher.

During his stay in Egypt, he spent much of his time meeting both with the khutaba’ who produced sermon tapes and with young people who listened to them on a regular basis.

One of the central arguments of his book is, he writes, “that the affects and sensibilities honed through popular media practices such as listening to cassette sermons are as infrastructural to politics and public reason as are markets, associations, formal institutions, and information networks.”

>> read the whole book excerpt

Charles Hirschkind: What is Political Islam? (Middle East Report)

Charles Hirschkind: The Betrayal of Lebanon (tabsir, 1.8.06)

The New York Times called it "Bin Laden's Low-Tech Weapon": Islamic cassette sermons are often associated with terrorism. They are rather a medium for democratic activism and ethical selv-improvement, anthropologist Charles Hirschkind argues in his new book "The Ethical Soundscape.…

Blogging and Public Anthropology: When free speech costs a career

Published on September 25, 2006 by lorenz Posted in anthropology (general), anthropology in the news, ethics, politics, University / Academia

As many of us know, Yale anthropologist David Graeber has been fired for his anarchist activism. He’s not the only one who was punished for leaving the academic ivory tower. More and more academics have started blogging, exposing their personal opinions to the world. The Yale Herald has an interesting story about “how profs’ political advocacy outside academia can threaten their success within it”:

The recent explosion of professors using their academic bully pulpits to expound on everything from federal sentencing law to the need for a Palestinian state raises questions of responsibility and consequence. Every year, more professors join the blogosphere, expanding into a medium that lets them write anything about anything and makes them advocates as well as teachers.

Mazin Qumsiyeh for example was hired by the Yale School of Medicine:

He had advocated locally and nationally for Palestinian rights under his title as a Yale professor. Five years later, he was looking for a new job.

Qumsiyeh is the editor of Qumsiyeh: A Human Rights Web.

Last year, Yale decided to woo Professor Juan Cole away from Michigan. Then it changed its mind:

The provost’s office refused to comment on the reasons for his rejection; Dr. Cole refused to comment on this story. But many eyes turned toward Cole’s blog as a factor in the decision, one that may have raised his profile and polarized opinion on his candidacy. On his site, “Informed Comment,” Cole has provided commentary on the news coming out of the Middle East since 2001.

And the popular anarchist anthropologist David Graeber was invited to give this year’s Malinowski lecture, an honor given only to the world’s most promising young anthropologists. His contract went up for renewal last year:

He had been a controversial figure, but now finds sleeping on couches in his friends’ New Haven apartments after giving up his lease.
(…)
When Graeber returned from a one-year sabbatical in 2002—having joined forces in the interim with anti-war and anti-globalization groups such as the Direct Action Network and Ya Basta — he said he found his welcome back much colder than his farewell. “I thought a ‘hello’ would have been reasonable,” he said. “All of the sudden, no one was talking to me.” He continued to be a prolific writer and researcher, but his future no longer looked so rosy.

>> read the whole story in The Yale Herald (LINK UPDATED 3.7.2022)

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

Engaged anthropologists beaten by the Mexican police

As many of us know, Yale anthropologist David Graeber has been fired for his anarchist activism. He's not the only one who was punished for leaving the academic ivory tower. More and more academics have started blogging, exposing their personal…

Bolivia: More and more indigenous influence on politics

Published on August 27, 2006 by lorenz Posted in anthropology in the news, indigenous people / minorities, Latin- and Central America, Native American, politics

President Evo Morales, Bolivia’s first indigenous head of state, is holding up indigenous values of common ownership and consensus decision-making as a model for his country, the Miami Herald / Latin American Post reports. Morales frequently spells out what he sees as the differences between indigenous and traditional governments:

“For the leaders of the indigenous communities, their democracy is of consensus,” he said during a speech in Sucre, the country’s traditional capital. `”There are no majorities and minorities. Majorities and minorities are a democracy imposed on our country.”

(…)

His speeches are full of phrases from the Aymara and Quechua languages, which more than 34 percent of Bolivians speak. He’s refused to wear a suit and tie at official functions, opting for a casual brown jacket adorned with indigenous designs.

Even the playing of the national anthem at ceremonies has been revamped. At the opening of a constituent assembly earlier this month at which delegates are to rewrite the country’s constitution, thousands waited in the blazing sun while a choir sang the anthem in Spanish, Aymara, Quechua and Guaraní, another Indian language.

>> read the whole story in the Latin American Post

MORE ON EVO MORALES AND BOLIVIA:

Evo! (Savage Minds, 19.12.05)

Morales Predicts 500 Years of Indigenous Rule (IPS, 23.1.06)

BOLIVIA: Indigenous President Chalks Up Impressive Early Results (IPS, 31.7.06)

BOLIVIA: Indigenous woman to lead new assembly (Green Left Australia, 9.8.06)

Bolivia Begins to Rewrite Constitution (Washington Post, 6.8.06)

An indigenous revolution brings hope to Bolivia (rabble.ca)

Coca, Land and a Farmers’ Market Provide Hope, Not Long-Term Solutions in Chulumani, Bolivia (Upsidedownworld.org, 22.8.06)

Current news from Bolivia (Globalvoices)

President Evo Morales, Bolivia's first indigenous head of state, is holding up indigenous values of common ownership and consensus decision-making as a model for his country, the Miami Herald / Latin American Post reports. Morales frequently spells out what he…

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