Activism in anthropology: exploring the present through Eric R. Wolf’s Vietnam-era work

Abstract

Contemporary US anthropology manifests widespread and open politicization, mostly toward the left.1 Within this, there are two different tendencies. On the one hand, there are calls for involvement in political causes and struggles (e.g., Hale 2008). This is an affirmative instance of politicization: its mandate is "do become involved with the public political process." On the other hand, there has been a vigorous examination and critique of the use of anthropology as a tool of the US military (e.g., Commission on the Engagement of Anthropology with US Military and Intelligence Communities 2007; Gonzalez 2009; The Network of Concerned Anthropologists 2009). This is political, in that it is both critical of US interventionist wars and also that it is an act on a public arena, trying to influence decisions about whether to sell services and knowledge to the state. But it can be understood as a negative statement about involvement in political acts: there are some acts in which you should not engage. That the current moment contains two rather different tendencies in the guise of politicization is not widely understood but is worth emphasizing. They may not be strictly opposed choices-since they are not universal positions, but rather responses to particular situations-but it is incumbent on us to think clearly about how they contrast and interact. Unexamined feelings and heart-felt rhetoric are insufficient; we need to probe our political-ethical ideas and practices. I am thinking about this subject in the midst of my own extended and substantial engagement in politics, having to do with human rights, migration, and border policy (see Heyman et al. 2009). It is thus a report from the field, a moment of contemplation and clarification stimulated by direct political action, a neglected but