Us and Them | antropologi.info

Conflict Resolution and Anthropology: Why more scholarship on violence than on peace?

Published on September 30, 2007 by lorenz Posted in anthropology (general), anthropology in the news, applied anthropology, journal articles / papers, politics, Us and Them

Is it because the academe rewards critique rather than advocacy? Conflict resolution studies, Mark Davidheiser and Inga E Treitler write in Anthropology News September, are “not widely acknowledged within our discipline” and are “rarely published in mainstream anthropological journals”.

Is it because these studies are often written to be intelligible to a broad audience, they wonder:

Addressing an interdisciplinary readership makes it impractical to philosophize on the finer points of specialized topics like agency and employ the latest anthropological jargon. A prominent case in point is the bestselling Getting to Yes, coauthored by anthropologist William Ury. Getting To Yes did not foreground anthropological themes, and while it has been read by many public health practitioners and management professionals, it has received scant attention within anthropology.

One may justifiably wonder why anthropology has not engaged conflict resolution in a more sustained manner. As Leslie Sponsel and Thomas Gregor emphasize in The Anthropology of Peace and Nonviolence, there has been much more scholarship on violence than on peace. The fact that their book has long been out of print only underlines their point.

>> read the whole article “Conflict Resolution and Anthropology: An Analytic Introduction and a Call for Interdisciplinary Engagement” (link updated)

In his historical overview of anthropology and Conflict Resolution, Kevin Avruch writes that most of anthropologists’s early involvement was dedicated to the problem of getting the field to take the idea of culture seriously. They faced two main hurdles. First, the political scientists and international relations folk took power to be the only “variable” that counted. Second, the psychologists assumed that given the biogenetic unity of the human brain, we must all think and reason in the same way, and so, say, decision-making (as in negotiation) must look the same everywhere.

>> read the whole article: A Historical Overview of Anthropology and Conflict Resolution (link updated)

Günther Schlee stresses that an important finding of anthropological research is related to causes of conflicts:

Ethnicity is not the cause of so-called ethnic conflicts. The corresponding thesis about religion is that religion is not the cause of religious conflicts. We continue to talk about ethnic or religious conflicts, because there is much about such conflicts that is indeed ethnic or religious—just not their causes. Frequently, ethnic or religious polarization only starts to emerge in the course of a conflict, and that is certainly the wrong time to be looking for a cause.

>> read the whole article “The Halle Approach to Integration and Conflict” (link updated)

As Mark Davidheiser and Inga E Treitler writes, there are anthropologists who argue that conflict resolution can be seen as an ideology that subverts access to “justice”. One of them is Laura Nader.

In her article in Anthropology News, she writes:

Conflict, adversarialness, dissent, confrontativeness are tools used in asymmetrical situations to right a real or perceived wrong—the collision of force with opposing force. In the absence of such opposing force there is acquiescence, subordination, passivity, apathy—features associated with Brave New World or 1984 societies.
(…)
Looking back on our study of consumer justice makes me realize that conflict, confrontativeness, adversarial law would have produced much more benefit for our society than the harmony and reconciliation industry, in terms of improved products, citizen participation (rather than apathy), and an investment in our judicial system appropriate to a country that espouses democratic rule.
(…)
The search for justice is both fundamental and universal in human culture and society. Thus, as long as there is power asymmetry one can expect conflict.

>> read the whole text “What’s Good About Conflict?” (link updated)

Leslie E. Sponsel is one of several anthropologists who contribute to the website Peaceful Societies. Alternatives to Violence and War

Book review: An Anthropological Challenge to Assumptions about War and Violence

Mahmood Mamdani: “Peace cannot be built on humanitarian intervention”

Challenges of Providing Anthropological Expertise: On the conflict in Sudan

Anthropologists on the Israel-Lebanon conflict

Anthropology in a Time of Crisis. A Note from Nepal

Cameroon: “Ethnic conflicts are social conflicts”

Do anthropologists have anything relevant to say about human rights?

Is it because the academe rewards critique rather than advocacy? Conflict resolution studies, Mark Davidheiser and Inga E Treitler write in Anthropology News September, are "not widely acknowledged within our discipline" and are "rarely published in mainstream anthropological journals".

Is…

Peru: Another “uncontacted tribe”?

Published on September 30, 2007 by lorenz Posted in anthropology in the news, indigenous people / minorities, Latin- and Central America, Native American, Us and Them

“Ecologists have photographed a little-known nomadic tribe deep in Peru’s Amazon, a sighting that could intensify debate about the presence of isolated Indians as oil firms line up to explore the jungle”, the Vancouver Sun writes. But Suzanne Oakdale, an anthropology professor at the University of New Mexico, does what an anthropologists should do and corrects popular assumptions about “the others”.

She said:

“Often, ‘uncontacted tribes’ means uncontacted by a government institution, but the groups have long and complicated histories with other people.”

Oakdale is (among others) the author of I Foresee My Life: The Ritual Performance of Autobiography in an Amazonian Community.

From Stone Age to 21st century – More “fun” with savages

Anthropologists condemn the use of terms of “stone age” and “primitive”

“Good story about cannibals. Pity it’s not even close to the truth”

"Ecologists have photographed a little-known nomadic tribe deep in Peru's Amazon, a sighting that could intensify debate about the presence of isolated Indians as oil firms line up to explore the jungle", the Vancouver Sun writes. But Suzanne Oakdale, an…

Why were they doing this work just to give it away for free? Thesis on Ubuntu Linux hackers

Published on September 7, 2007 by lorenz Posted in anthropology in the news, cosmopolitanism, cyberanthropology, gift economy gift giving, internet, journal articles / papers, technology, Us and Them

It all started when anthropologist Andreas Lloyd (University of Copenhagen) was browsing on the Internet looking for a new laptop computer and ended up installing the free Windows alternative Linux. Two years later, he finished his master thesis “A system that works for me” – an anthropological analysis of computer hackers’ shared use and development of the Ubuntu Linux system.

The thesis is a study of the Internet Gift Economy. Linux is developped by computer geeks saround the world, collaborating over the Internet, building a computer operating system in their spare time, which can be downloaded, installed, used and modified completely for free. It is among the biggest and most complex engineering projects ever conceived and built:

Based on more than 2 years of daily use of the Ubuntu Linux system and 6 months of online and in-person fieldwork among the developers working to develop and maintain it, this thesis examines the individual and collaborative day-to-day practices of these developers as they relate to the computer operating system that is the result of their labour.
(…)
A group of Spanish computer scientists measured the size of a Linux system similar to Ubuntu, and found that it contained around 230 million lines of source code. When they translated this into the effort spent on writing this code using a standard software industry cost estimate model, they found that it would correspond to almost 60.000 man-years of work (Amor-Iglesias et. al. 2005). By comparison, it took an estimated 3.500 man-years to build the Empire State Building in New York, and 10.000 man-years to build the Panama Canal. This immense effort makes modern operating systems such as Ubuntu among the biggest and most complex engineering projects ever conceived and built.

So the anthropologist was curious to learn more about how the hackers collaborate to build such an intricate system, and to learn why they were doing all of this work just to give it away for free.

How do you do fieldwork among hackers around the world? He explains:

I joined the Ubuntu on-line community on the same terms as the Ubuntu hackers, contributing to and using the same system, sharing their experiences with the system, and meeting them in-person on the same terms as they do at the conferences at which they gather, experiencing the same social and technical means and limitations through which they develop the system.
(…)
In order to do participant observation in this on-line space, I began contributing to the system by writing the system help and documentation, rather than the system itself due to my lack of technical understanding. In this way, I could take part in shaping Ubuntu alongside other community members while slowly developing a feel for the everyday exchanges and work in the community.

His thesis is by the way neither dedicated to any girl friend nor his parents:

In the true digital spirit of this work, I dedicate this thesis to Rosinante, the laptop on which I first experienced the Ubuntu system, and which was my faithful companion during my fieldwork and the writing of this thesis, only to bow out a week before tsafe for so long.

>> download the thesis

(Links updated 11.1.17)

SEE ALSO:

The Internet Gift Culture

Open source movement is like things anthropologists have studied for a long time

Open Source Fieldwork! Show how you work!

Gift economies and open source software: Anthropological reflections

Why you always get a present you don’t want – Social Sciences and Gift-Giving

Mobile phone company Vodafone gets inspired by traditional Kula exchange system

Open Source Anthropology : Are anthropologists serious about sharing knowledge?

2006 – The Year of Open Access Anthropology?

“Anthropology = Smarter Counterinsurgency”

Published on September 7, 2007 by lorenz Posted in anthropology in the news, applied anthropology, Asia, ethics, politics, Us and Them

Another article about military anthropologists: The Christian Science Monitor writes about anthropologist “Tracy” who helps the US Army in their war against Afghanistan. Tracy “can give only her first name” to the journalist:

Evidence of how far the US Army’s counterinsurgency strategy has evolved can be found in the work of a uniformed anthropologist toting a gun in the mountains of eastern Afghanistan. Part of a Human Terrain Team (HHT) – the first ever deployed – she speaks to hundreds of Afghan men and women to learn how they think and what they need.
(…)
Finding ways to challenge that fear – and learn what makes Afghans choose to support the government or its enemies – is the job of the HTT. The key ingredient is a “senior cultural analyst,” in this case, Tracy, the anthropologist in uniform.

She has interviewed hundreds of Afghan women and men, sometimes for hours on end, hearing how most are “so tired of war.” In nine months, Tracy has gained deep knowledge, she says, aimed at helping “fill the vacuum that the Taliban and other nefarious actors want to fill.”

Tracy tells Afghans that she wants to “enhance the military’s understanding of the culture so we don’t make mistakes like in Iraq.” But the bar is high, and this village with the medical clinic shows signs of militant influence, such as being “coached.”

Still, Tracy says that she sees real progress, “one Afghan at a time.” And the US military’s views are evolving accordingly, away from firepower to a smarter counterinsurgency.

“It may be one less trigger that has to be pulled here,” Tracy says of the result. “It’s how we gain ground, not tangible ground, but cognitive ground. Small things can have a big impact.

>> read the whole story in the Christian Science Monitor

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

Military – social science roundtable: Anthropologists help mold counterinsurgency policy

Protests against British research council: “Recruits anthropologists for spying on muslims”

More and more anthropologists are recruited to service military operations

Military anthropologist starts blogging about his experiences

San Jose: American Anthropologists Stand Up Against Torture and the Occupation of Iraq and AAA Press Release: Anthropologists weigh in on Iraq, torture at annual meeting

“War on terror”: CIA sponsers anthropologists to gather sensitive information / see also debate on this on Savage Minds

Another article about military anthropologists: The Christian Science Monitor writes about anthropologist "Tracy" who helps the US Army in their war against Afghanistan. Tracy "can give only her first name" to the journalist:

Evidence of how far the US Army's…

Keith Hart and Thomas Hylland Eriksen: This is 21st century anthropology

Published on September 3, 2007 by lorenz Posted in anthropology (general), anthropology in the news, applied anthropology, cosmopolitanism, journal articles / papers, University / Academia, Us and Them

(Links checked 8.9.2019) What holds humanity together? What are the hidden or unacknowledged features of mainstream society? These are the issues that 21st century anthropology should address, Thomas Hylland Eriksen writes in his paper The perilous identity politics of anthropology, Keynote lecture at the conference “21st century Anthropology” at the University of Oxford 28–29 June 2007.

“Obsessed with everything that divides humanity for a hundred years, anthropology could now be ready to return to the commonalities, that which holds humanity together”, the Norwegian anthropologist suggests.

And rather than studying down, we have to begin to study sideways and up. “The crowded field of minority studies”, he writes, “in no way matched by an equal interest in majority studies”:

A possible solution might consist in making a real effort to study the basic institutions of society – any society – essentially through ethnographic methods, in the same way as we should – again – begin to address the central intellectual questions of today, in the domains of development, democracy, rights, human nature and the environmental crisis. This is being done already, but in too modest a way to make an impact proper. (…) Anthropological studies of everyday life in a modern society, municipal politics, diplomacies, government corporations, schools, hospitals and even military academies exist, but most of them focus too much on culture and too little on the features of the social organisation, in its formal as well as informal aspects.
(…)
Anthropology should confidently locate its focus of enquiry to the centre of society, using ethnographic methods not so much to create wonderment and surprise, but to reveal hidden or unacknowledged features of mainstream society. In this way we would be able to generate knowledge which is not only truthful, but also relevant and – dare I say it – useful. (…) Just as our predecessors took on the central institutions in their small-scale societies, we should now do the same thing in large-scale societies.

>> read the whole paper “The perilous identity politics of anthropology” (Link updated)

Nearly at the same time, Keith Harth published his paper Toward a new human universal. Rethinking anthropology for the twenty-first century, a lecture he is going to hold at the Center for 21st century studies, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee on the September 7th.

Keith Hart argues in a similar way. In his opinion, “the task of building a global civil society for the twenty-first century, even a world state, is an urgent one and anthropological visions should play their part in that”:

The solution to anthropology’s problems cannot be found in increased specialization, in the discovery of new areas of social life to colonize with the aid of old professional paradigms or in a return to literary scholarship disguised as a new dialogical form. It requires new patterns of social engagement extending beyond the universities to the widest reaches of world society.

This in turn requires us first, to acknowledge how people everywhere are pushing back the boundaries of the old society and second, to be open to universality, most versions of which have been driven underground by national capitalism and would be buried forever if the present corporate privatization of intellectual life is allowed to succeed.

(…)

So, given the precariousness of contemporary anthropology as an academic institution, the issue of its future needs to be couched in broader terms than those defined by the profession itself. (…) Rather I have sought inspiration in Kant’s philosophy and in the critique of unequal society that originates with Rousseau. ‘Anthropology’ would then mean whatever we need to know about humanity as a whole if we want to build a more equal world fit for everyone.

>> read the whole paper “Toward a new human universal. Rethinking anthropology for the twenty-first century” (link updated 19.7.12)

Interview: “Anthropology Is Badly Needed In Eastern Europe”

Working towards a global community of anthropologists

For an Anthropology of Cosmopolitanism

“Discuss politics!” – How anthropologists in Indonesia engage with the public

Get Out of the Library and Into the Streets – new book by David Graeber

“Anthropology needs to engage in an activist way”

The dangerous militarisation of anthropology

Protests at Yale: When Walmart’s management principles run an anthropology department

(Links checked 8.9.2019) What holds humanity together? What are the hidden or unacknowledged features of mainstream society? These are the issues that 21st century anthropology should address, Thomas Hylland Eriksen writes in his paper The perilous identity politics of anthropology,…