learning and teaching anthropology
Introduction by Anna Grigoryeva
A (non-anthropologist) friend recently
said to me, “I think everyone should study
anthropology for a year at least. But I also
think no one should, because it would stop
them from ever doing anything.”
We learn to challenge, deconstruct, contradict – but are we perhaps engaging
in (as phrased by David Mosse), “anti-social anthropology”? This section aims
to push forth debate on ways of making
anthropology relevant, ethical and politically engaged – in the contexts of climate
change, international development, and
human rights. What can we do, and how
do we think, about creating a positive contribution, a precedent, a debate, a public
stance? Must we – can we – work “within
the system,” be political radicals, or skeptics?
Marjolijn Vreeken’s article can be considered an example of more “traditional”
applied anthropology, starting to unpack
complications of social life in a development context and for better-planned development initiatives. The social life of such
analyses, as narrated by David Sneath
and Nick Long in interviews, is in itself fascinating if at times disillusioning.
More radical activist thinking leads contributors to take politics where biology reigns
(Angelo Brieussel’s article, putting species
distinctions next to racial ones), and to
view activism itself ethnographically (Clare
Whitney’s notes on Climate Camp).
Inevitably, making research ‘active’ and
action ethical is a personal journey (Mischa Foxell's and Christine Stevralia's contributions are perhaps best examples of that). Each
article is a negotiation of institutions (academic, government, development), politics
and ethical choices. Read them as that
but do not forget to ask yourselves these
same questions – and come, hopefully, to
practical answers.
