search expand

The Five Major Challenges for Anthropology

Published on by lorenz Posted in anthropology (general), anthropology in the news, books, Europe, indigenous people / minorities, journal articles / papers, migration, persons and theories, Us and Them

17.12.2017: This is a very popular post. Therefore I have updated all links.

In her new book Plausible Prejudice: Everyday Experiences and Social Images of Nation, Culture and Race, Norwegian social anthropologist Marianne Gullestad identifies five major challenges for the discipline of anthropology. To understand the problems of the world today, we need to “decolonize anthropological knowledge”, she writes.

Anthropological knowledge is needed more than ever as steoreotypes and lack of knowledge flourish about people from other countries. But on the other hand, Gullestad stresses, anthropology is still influenced by its colonial past.

Here are the five major challenges for the discipline of anthropology according to Marianne Gullestad (page 346-347):

1st CHALLENGE: To regard understanding and confronting racism as worthwhile academic and political concerns, and not as a conflict that was resolved long ago.

2nd CHALLENGE: To look historically and ethnographically at race thinking in relation to colonialism and imperialism, political decolonization, economic globalization, the end of the Cold War, and the new role of the United States as successor to the European empires that were defeated in the 20th century.
Traditional nationally oriented historiography and locally oriented anthropology overlook many processes across continents which represent a store of unexpected connections and complex interpretative resources that will no doubt contribute substantially to the understanding of how the imperial and colonial past continues to shape present-day social categories, boundaries and practices.
This framing or research will often involve carrying out multi-sited and transcontinental fieldwork.

3rd CHALLENGE: To examine not only the ideas and practices of self-professed racists (…), but also the conventional wisdom sourrounding racial thinking and its various forms of institutionalization. Racial categories and negative stereotypes are often both intensely familiar and also vigorously denied and forgotten as expressions of racism. They exist as pernicious symbolic resources which in given situations might potentially be employed more or less by anyone, regardless of gender, age, class, and skin color. (…)

4th CHALLENGE: To take seriously the complexity and variability of race thinking, and how it feeds into and is nourished by everyday life. (…) In this respect, my research has shown that ancestry and descent are particularly central. In fact, I argue that the racial coding of the new focus on ‘culture’ is based on ideas about descent as a form of imagined kinship.

5th CHALLENGE: To do more ‘anthropology of anthropology’ by locating themes, peoples and perspectives that have largely been ignored as anthropologically uninteresting, such as the social life-worlds of majority populations in Europe and the United States, the experiences of formerly colonized peoples with Europeans (as colonizers, administrators, settlers, missionaries, developmental experts, tourists etc.), and the ideas and strategies of political and economic elites, regardless of their location in the world and their physical features.

UPDATE:

A very good comment by Bryan McKay (link updated). He writes, these five challenges should not be specific for anthropology:

“Substitute sexism, heterosexism, classism, et cetera for racism (and sex, sexuality/gender, class, et cetera for race) in the above challenges and you have a decent manifesto for any realm of critical cultural studies.”

Kambiz Kamrani at anthropology.net writes that he agrees with Gullestad, but:

Anthropology will never succeed until it clearly defines culture. That’s right, it hasn’t. Anthropology has completely failed the public in not being able to define culture.

>> read the whole post on anthropology.net (link updated, original post no longer available)

Erkan Saka disagrees:

This emphasis on definition is against all I know about social sciences. Not that I am for an all relativistic social science with no substance. But what I know is that an act of defining is part of a power struggle.

>> read his whole post (link updated)

Her book is a kind of “best-of”: It consists of a “remix” of ten previously published papers and three new texts, including the post-script that I’ve quoted from.

Some of these papers are available to download in full-text:

Marianne Gullestad: Blind Slaves of our Prejudices: Debating ‘Culture’ and ‘Race’ in Norway

Marianne Gullestad: Normalising racial boundaries. The Norwegian dispute about the term ‘neger’

Marianne Gullestad: Mohammed Atta and I. Identification, discrimination and the formation of sleepers

Marianne Gullestad: Invisible Fences: Egalitarianism, nationalism and racism

Links updated 2017-12-17

(I might come back with more posts on this book. I’ve just returned from the book launch)

17.12.2017: This is a very popular post. Therefore I have updated all links.

In her new book Plausible Prejudice: Everyday Experiences and Social Images of Nation, Culture and Race, Norwegian social anthropologist Marianne Gullestad identifies five major challenges for the discipline…

Read more

Å nå ut og engasjere seg: Ny utgave av Antropress

Published on by lorenz Posted in antropologi allment, bøker, formidling, portretter og intervjuer, sosialantropologi i Norge, Sverige og Danmark, tidsskrifter

Årets første utgave av Antropress – Norges eneste antropologimagasin som blir lagt av antropologistudenter – er ute. Flere saker tar opp temaet antropologi, engasjement og formidling:

Rahima Parvin har intervjuet Johannes Wilm som nettopp har gitt ut boka On the Margins: US Americans in a bordertown to Mexico. Den baserer seg på Wilms hovedoppgave. Spesielt interessant: Hvordan kom så Johannes på å utgi masteravhandlingen i bokform? Vi leser:

Ideen tok form under selve muntlig eksaminasjon og oppmuntring fra både veileder, Thomas Hylland Eriksen, og venner. (…) Bokideen og målet om å nå ut til flest mulige lesere, førte Johannes til Akademika. Han inngikk først en “print on demand” avtale med netttrykeriet Lulu.com. En slik avtale innebærer at boken ikke trykkes opp før kjøper melder seg. Det innebærer også å sløyfe “forlaget” som et mellomledd. Dette igjen tilsier at du, som skribent, må følge med på hvilke utsalgssteder som er interessert i din bok. (…) Da Johannes så gikk til Akademika for å gjøre dem oppmerksom på at boken fantes, kunne de finne seg frem til den ved hjelp av deres eget elektroniske katalog.

>> les hele saken i Antropress

>> les min omtale av Johannes Wilms bok: “Too engaged anthropology? The Lumpenproletariat on the US-Mexican Border”

Dessuten inneholder Antropress følgende tekster:

Anna Miczka: Det ypperst japanske – Geishaen

Rahima Parvin: Intervju med Christian A. Clementsen og hans engasjement i IWGIA Oslo

Kathrine Veland: Thomas Hylland Eriksen og “Engaging Anthropology”
(boka ble anmeldt her engang, se bl.a. More and more anthropologists, but they’re absent from public debates – “Engaging Anthropology” (1))

>> Antropress – Forside

Årets første utgave av Antropress - Norges eneste antropologimagasin som blir lagt av antropologistudenter - er ute. Flere saker tar opp temaet antropologi, engasjement og formidling:

Rahima Parvin har intervjuet Johannes Wilm som nettopp har gitt ut boka On the Margins:…

Read more

Lager film på et av de største samiske dramaer noensinne

Published on by lorenz Posted in film, Norge, samer, sosialantropologi i Norge, Sverige og Danmark

20 år etter suksessen “Veiviseren” har regissør Nils Gaup samlet det han kaller et nordisk “dream team” i storsatsingen “Kautokeino 1852”, skriver Aftenposten. Gaup – som er i slekt med flere av opprørerne – har siden guttedagene drømt om å lage film på et av de største samiske dramaer noensinne.

Aftenposten forklarer:

Høsten 1852 toppet lengre tids gnisninger seg med at handelsmannen og lensmannen i Kautokeino ble drept, og presten ble alvorlig skadet. Kramboden, selve syndens pøl, ble brent.

Samer reagerte sterkt på at handelsmannen utnyttet dem. Han solgte sprit og tok stadig flere rein i betaling. Lensmannen støttet handelsmannen, og presten forkynte ikke den lære som samene ønsket. Ingen av dem kom fra bygda. To av samene, Aslak Hætta og Mons Somby, ble utpekt som hovedmenn bak opprøret og ble halshugget to år etter. Flere andre som deltok i dramaet fikk lange fengselsstraffer.

– Myndighetenes brutale reaksjon i 1852 gjorde at det tok hundre år før samene igjen våget å stille krav til myndighetene, sier Gaup til Aftenposten.

>> les hele saken i Aftenposten

SE OGSÅ:

Strid rundt storfilmen om Kautokeino-opprøret (Dagbladet, 6.1.06)

Intervju med Nils Gaup om Kautokeino-filmen (sjaman.com, 9.3.06)

De helliges opprør: Den hollandske sosialantropologen Nellejet Zorgdrager har skrevet en skjellsettende avhandling om sameopprøret i Kautokeino i 1852 (Dagbladet, 1.7.97)

Kautokeinoopprøret og Læstadius – foredrag av antropologen Nelljet Zorgdrager

Reidar Hirsti: Det blodige sameopprøret (Aftenposten, 5.5.97)

Kautokeino-opprøret 1852. Av Roald E. Kristiansen, Universitetet i Tromsø

20 år etter suksessen "Veiviseren" har regissør Nils Gaup samlet det han kaller et nordisk "dream team" i storsatsingen "Kautokeino 1852", skriver Aftenposten. Gaup - som er i slekt med flere av opprørerne - har siden guttedagene drømt om å…

Read more

Busy week

Published on by cicilie Posted in Cicilie among the Parisians, Fieldwork, Peculiarities, Politics

It’s been a busy week. While the youth in this country have been blocking and occupying schools and universities – or protesting against those blocking their universities – or been out in the streets demonstrating, burning paper cars or real cars, tagging, breaking a few bus shelters and windows or robbing demonstrators for their mobiles, I’ve been indoors at various prestigious Parisian venues listening to people discussing discrimination.
[teaserbreak]
And my, oh my how the French excels when it comes to discussing! They’ve been criticising themselves lately, for not being able to come to agreement and solve their conflicts like they allegedly do in other European countries. “The Scandinavian model” is said to be such a good approach to compromise. “The Scandinavian model” means the Danish and Swedish economic way of mixing a strong social welfare state with entrepreneurial creativity and a flexible labour market. (I’m not sure why Norway isn’t included in this model; either – as often is the case – the non-European member is just forgotten, or the spectacular oil economy just makes it a case apart).

(However blissfully ignorant I am of all but a few political events up north there in Scandinavia at the moment, I have to say that I personally prefer the French model of vehement and violent discussion a thousand times to the Norwegian way of showing discontent(?) by silently turning towards the far right party… (which verges on being the largest party in Norway at the moment). Neither the economic liberalist and war mongering climate in Britain seems to be a good example to follow, as I see it, but I’m too tired to go into that now).

Anyway, back to the week for vivre ensemble and “fighting against discriminations”: It’s been an amazing affair with two to four panel discussions every day for five days, starting (15-30 minutes delayed – always, as always is the case here) at ten and ending at half past eight, with a long lunch break. And the listeners – or the participants, as they deserve to be called in this case – have been incredibly involved; in asking questions and in showing so much anger that I sense my utter Norwegianness from head to toe. But anger is just a part of it; to me it seems like the French engage with the surroundings more actively than I’m used to. This might seem strange, but I’ll try to explain: The French talk to strangers much more than Norwegians do. At this seminar I quickly noticed that the sideperson, whoever it was, usually sooner or later started mumbling to him- or herself. The right thing then, I found out after a short while, is of course to give some kind of sign of interaction. And people expressed themselves with engagement and intensity. As they do in the streets now.

My impression is that the political life in France is very much alive and vibrant – c’est-à-dire very different from what I’m used to. There were many other aspects of these seminars that caught my attention as well, as for instance various forms of lopsided-ness, which no one commented (despite commenting almost everything else…), for instance extreme gender bias and a tendency to theorise rather high above the people concerned instead of actually listening to what they are saying or letting them speak for themselves. (I’ll probably nuance this appreciation later)). But all together it’s been an amazing affair, to listen to more than 100 discussants and all the contributions from the audience.

(Finally it’s spring… It’s been so wonderfully hot and humid (19°C) that I’ve had the window open all day, and now there is thunder and lightening…).

In the evening, after coming home from all these mind-boggling discussions, I’ve tried to follow the debates on the demonstrators and casseurs (rioters at making trouble at demonstrations), and the students from the banlieues and the casseurs from the banlieues and who are the casseurs and so on… that are taking place in the media as well as on the discussion forums around.

In addition, I’ve tried to deal with the news that the person who should have given me back the huge deposit for a flat I rented months back, is bankrupt and depressed(!) – so he says… And I’ve become completely hooked on flickr, a very interesting site for photo sharing, indeed… So, yes, my last week has been rather busy.

It’s been a busy week. While the youth in this country have been blocking and occupying schools and universities – or protesting against those blocking their universities – or been out in the streets demonstrating, burning paper cars or real…

Read more

Intervju med Runar Døving: Hva er matens etiske budskap og innhold?

Published on by lorenz Posted in mat og drikkekultur, Norge, portretter og intervjuer, sosialantropologi i Norge, Sverige og Danmark, teorier

Bladet Forskningsetikk intervjuer antropologen Runar Døving som har forsket mye om mat. Her trekker Døving en parallel mellom mat og grammatik: Matvanene endrer seg ikke så mye som media gjerne ha det til. Grundstrukturen – grammatikken er den samme:

– Jeg har lyst til å trekke en parallell mellom mat og grammatikk: Selv om det er kommet nye ord inn i det norske språket, så er syntaksen den samme. Ditto for maten. Vi spiser to kalde måltider om dagen, og et varmt – frokost og formiddagsmat er kald mat, middagen er varm mat og består av protein, fisk, kjøtt eller fugl, karbohydrat, potet, pasta eller ris, samt en grønnsak av noe slag. Om grønnsaken er artisjokk eller gulrot spiller ingen rolle. Om det er ris, pasta eller potet som tar karbohydratplassen, spiller heller ingen rolle. Grammatikken er den samme! Det er det jeg mener: De nye diettene tilpasser seg den norske matgrammatikken på samme måte som nye ord må passe inn i norsk syntaks.

>> les hele intervjuet i bladet Forskningsetikk

Forskningsetikk intervjuer også Marianne Lien om temaet Trygg mat mer verdt enn sunn mat? – noe som hun snakket om på seminaret Trygghet i en transnasjonal tid

SE OGSÅ:

Runar Døving ønsker død over matpakka

Runar Døving forteller om “Den hellige matpakka”

Runar Døving om nordmenn på ferie og en debatt om matpakka (se også kommentarene)

Bladet Forskningsetikk intervjuer antropologen Runar Døving som har forsket mye om mat. Her trekker Døving en parallel mellom mat og grammatik: Matvanene endrer seg ikke så mye som media gjerne ha det til. Grundstrukturen - grammatikken er den samme:

– Jeg…

Read more