Workshop 31
Most anthropological codes of ethics demand in one way or another that anthropologists have to safeguard the interests of the subjects of their research. While this demand is self-suggesting at a superficial level, it bears many difficulties at closer scrutiny. In consequence of a thorough critique of essentializing notions of people, community or culture, we have become acutely aware that among the people we study interests may differ to a great extent. Protecting the interest of one person or section of a community can put the interests of others at risk. In some instances, the interests of our research subjects clearly limit the scope of our analyses or publications. While this is a clear ethical necessity when the material well-being of subaltern or marginalized populations is at jeopardy, in other instances the self-limitation of (published) analysis for the sake of safeguarding the (political) interests of the people we study is perhaps more questionable.
This applies especially to the analysis of all kinds of identity politics. The anthropologist's analysis of representations of identity and of political claims based on such identities necessarily exposes their constructedness and thereby subverts the intended claims and politics. In doing so we become part of the game and, without intention, perhaps even deliver support to the strategies of our subjects' antagonists. Two decades ago Richard Handler explicitly demanded the "destructive analysis" of identities in order to save anthropology from becoming accomplice to identity politics. Yet more recently Cynthia Mahmood pointed out that such a destructive or deconstructive approach is by no means non-political or "progressive", as Handler seemed to imply. In particular, Mahmood rejected the deconstruction of "resistive" identities. However, in many instances it is difficult to tell "resistive" from "oppressive" identities. Identities that are "resistive" in one set of relations may be "oppressive" in others. While in the past anthropologists could hope that their writings would go unnoticed in the political contexts they analyse, this hope is at best naïve in the present as our discursive worlds almost certainly intersect: "They read what we write" (Caroline Brettell).
Because identity movements and identity politics become more and more significant all over the world, more and more fieldworkers face such ethical and political dilemmas. Are we increasingly required to opt for either "power" or "truth"? The workshop invites contributions that address this dilemma from epistemological and empirical perspectives.
Organisation
Martin Sökefeld; Institut für Sozialanthropologie, Universität BernDatum, Uhrzeit
Donnerstag, 04.10.2007, 14:00-18:00 Uhr
Ort
Melanchthonianum, Hörsaal Z
Vorträge & Abstracts
Chris Hann: Identity Quandaries in Qumul (Xinjiang, China)
In China anthropology (ethnology) is widely perceived as a discipline which specializes in the study of ethnic minorities (minzu). The general dilemmas of identity politics are therefore fundamental to disciplinary practice. Many have noted the problems which arise when groups which vary greatly in size and key distinguishing features have to be squeezed into […]
Stefanie Steinebach: Researching politics of identity: anthropological representation as resource of power?
The anthropologists representation of the people they ‘study’ as well as the theoretical deconstruction of essentialised identities, whether “resistive” or “oppressive”, will affect their research subjects access to economic, political and symbolical resources in positive or negative ways.
In my paper I will approach the anthropologists ethical and political dilemma if and how to reveal […]
Ronald Stade: The politics of perspectives: some notes on methodological cosmopolitanism in anthropology
Whose perspectives are represented in ethnographic writing? What are the political consequences of including certain perspectives and not others? Which perspectives do anthropologists themselves employ in trying to make sense of something and to someone? These (and related) questions connect the issues of politics and methodology with one another. They also point toward problems […]
Ronald Stade: The politics of perspectives: some notes on methodological cosmopolitanism in anthropology
Whose perspectives are represented in ethnographic writing? What are the political consequences of including certain perspectives and not others? Which perspectives do anthropologists themselves employ in trying to make sense of something and to someone? These (and related) questions connect the issues of politics and methodology with one another. […]