US Anthropology Research Articles

Deep hanging out, mixed methods toolkit, or something else? Current ethnographic practices in US anthropology

AbstractWe use a mix of qualitative and quantitative analyses to examine 1354 survey responses from members of the American Anthropological Association about their practice and teaching of cultural anthropology research methods. Latent profile analysis and an examination of responses to open‐ended survey questions reveal distinctive methodological clustering among anthropologists. However, two historical approaches to ethnography remain prominent: deep hanging out and a mixed methods toolkit, with the former remaining central to the practice and teaching of all forms of contemporary cultural anthropology. Further, many anthropologists are committed to advancing research methods that account for power imbalances in fieldwork, such as through community‐based and participatory approaches. And a substantial number also teach a wider array of methods and techniques that open new career pathways for anthropologists. Overall, our study reveals a core set of ethnographic practices—loosely, participant‐observation, informal interviews, and the experiential immersion of the ethnographer—while also highlighting the great breadth of cultural anthropological research practice and pedagogy. The findings presented here can help inform how current and future anthropological practitioners and educators position themselves to meet the ever‐changing demands of community members, funders, clients, collaborators, and students.

Metaphors and practices of translation in anglophone anthropology

This article argues that while translation as a metaphor was prominent in anglophone anthropology for most of the second half of the 20th century, the practices of interlingual translation that are often central to the production and circulation of disciplinary knowledge have tended to attract much less attention. The first main section begins by briefly reviewing debates about the idea that anthropology crucially involves ‘the translation of culture’ or ‘cultural translation’. This use of translation as a metaphor to characterize the discipline emerged within both UK and US anthropology in the 1950s, but subsequently became subject to sustained criticism. The focus of the article then shifts in the second and third sections to practices of translation in, respectively, anthropological fieldwork and the international circulation of anthropological texts. More specifically, it examines the difficulties associated with interlingual translation in fieldwork and ethnographic writing; the hidden or invisible ‘translation work’ undertaken in the past by the assistants and spouses of ethnographers; and the translation of anthropological work into other languages. The article concludes by calling on more anthropologists to publish detailed accounts of their own translation practices, arguing that in so doing they will be able to draw on valuable historical antecedents from within the discipline, important collections of anthropological reflections on translation that have appeared over the past 30 years, as well as on relevant work by translation studies scholars and sociologists of translation.

An anti‐genealogical take on US anthropology and disciplinary reform

AbstractThe “decolonizing generation” is a critical new movement that has captured the imaginations of many younger scholars. While the author would like to consider herself an older member of this generation, she questions whether this moment needs periodization. Is today's moment really so different from the past, when we saw the rise of world anthropologies, postmodernism, the crisis in representation, neo‐Marxism, and anti‐racist movements? And what is meant by “decolonizing anthropology” when experiences with colonialism and decolonization differ around the world? While acknowledging the value of reforming the discipline, the author encourages her colleagues to separate the very important critique of anthropologists’ gatekeeping practices from idealized renderings of what anthropology should be. Rather than decolonization, the discipline ought to focus on establishing a continual decentering of hegemonic knowledge production.

What makes a “good” forensic anthropologist?

AbstractForensic anthropology has recently and publicly grappled with fundamental disciplinary issues—including estimating population affinity, the pursuit of objectivity, and the role of bias in medicolegal contexts—all of which has left the subdiscipline in a state of seeming fracture, with many practitioners worried about its future. Given these concerns, we wondered to what degree polarization exists, if at all, and along what lines. Using the method of cultural consensus analysis, we asked forensic anthropologists: What makes a “good” forensic anthropologist? Our findings suggest that contrary to widespread concern, broad agreement (consensus) exists over the training, experiences, perspectives, and practices forensic anthropologists (n = 103) identified as important for being “good” at what they do. A few points of disagreement emerged—particularly over the issue of neutrality—which dominated the narrative feedback we received. The fault lines of this debate primarily fell along generational lines, with those having earned their degrees earlier believing more strongly in neutrality. This pattern largely maps onto broader (and somewhat routine) disciplinary debates and trends away from positivism, with younger anthropologists more focused on the larger goal of “decolonizing US anthropology” and attending to the antiracist work that figures prominently in anthropology today.

Decolonizing US anthropology: A view from India

American AnthropologistVolume 125, Issue 1 p. 171-173 COMMENTARY Decolonizing US anthropology: A view from India Gitika De, Corresponding Author Gitika De [email protected] Delhi University CorrespondenceGitika De, Delhi University. Email: [email protected]Search for more papers by this author Gitika De, Corresponding Author Gitika De [email protected] Delhi University CorrespondenceGitika De, Delhi University. Email: [email protected]Search for more papers by this author First published: 09 February 2023 https://doi.org/10.1111/aman.13814Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume125, Issue1March 2023Pages 171-173 RelatedInformation

Decolonizing US anthropology

AbstractAfter Ferguson, Standing Rock, the Black Lives Matter protests, and the crisis of refugees at the US southern border, there have been renewed calls for a racial reckoning in US anthropology. Dissatisfaction on the domestic front runs parallel to an unease over US anthropology's failure to adequately address militarism, imperialism, and predatory capitalism abroad. Finally, there is the fraught question of US anthropology's oversized influence within world anthropologies. We propose that a reassessment of US anthropology might fruitfully begin with some counterfactual history. How would US anthropology been different had the founding generations conceptualized the discipline as a decolonizing project? What topics or themes might have become central to US anthropology? How might our methods have been different? To make anthropology departments more diverse, inclusive, and equitable, we need to do more than add faculty and students of color. Despite being a field whose central concept is “culture,” we have paid far too little attention to the culture of anthropology departments. Do unexamined practices of “white‐norming” that shape the everyday lives of faculty and students in anthropology departments persistently “Other”—marginalize and alienate—people of color?

Rights, Gifts, Repair

Rights, Gifts, Repair

The Roots of US Anthropology’s Race Problem: Whiteness, Ethnicity, and Ethnography

ABSTRACTThis article offers a three-part explanation as to why US anthropology has largely avoided engagement with critical race studies. First, almost 85% of US anthropologists are white and thus bring colorblind sensibilities to their profession, given the culture in which they live and/or were raised. Second, this penchant is compounded by their discipline’s construction of race as an unscientific, folk category. The proper term to use, anthropologists are taught, is ethnicity, which is deemed discrete from race qua biology. Finally, the consideration of race threatens an understanding of some of white ethnographers' most cherished relationships, the quality and consequences of their work, and, perhaps most importantly, the image of themselves as individuals and/or good people. In the concluding section, we outline concrete, actionable steps forward for anthropology and the risks that the discipline runs if it continues to fail to engage with critical race studies.

The Anthropology of Education and Contributions to Critical Race Studies

ABSTRACTThis essay is a response to Jonathan Warren and Michelle Kleisath's “The Roots of US Anthropology's Race Problem: Whiteness, Ethnicity and Ethnography.” In this essay, I engage with critiques about anthropology’s position on the periphery of critical race studies. The discipline’s lack of attention to racism and critical race scholarship stands in some contrast to the subfield of anthropology of education with its explicit antiracist mission and goals. I suggest educational anthropologists are more explicit about promoting research that details the workings of racism and fosters racial literacy because of at least two reasons – as a subsection of anthropology, educational anthropology is more closely aligned with if not squarely located in the field of education, and it benefits from critical anthropological methods and sensibilities. I address each of these reasons and conclude with thoughts about educational anthropologists’ contribution to critical race studies.

Market share and recent hiring trends in anthropology faculty positions.

Between 1985 and 2014, the number of US doctoral graduates in Anthropology increased from about 350 to 530 graduates per year. This rise in doctorates entering the work force along with an overall decrease in the numbers of tenure-track academic positions has resulted in highly competitive academic job market. We estimate that approximately79% of US anthropology doctorates do not obtain tenure-track positions at BA/BS, MA/MS, and PhD institutions in the US. Here, we examine where US anthropology faculty obtained their degrees and where they ultimately end up teaching as tenure-track faculty. Using data derived from the 2014–2015 AnthroGuide and anthropology departmental web pages, we identify and rank PhD programs in terms of numbers of graduates who have obtained tenure-track academic jobs; examine long-term and ongoing trends in the programs producing doctorates for the discipline as a whole, as well as for the subfields of archaeology, bioanthropology, and sociocultural anthropology; and discuss gender inequity in academic anthropology within the US.

Ebola at a Distance: A Pathographic Account of Anthropology's Relevance

Drawing on a year of researching and writing about the West African Ebola epidemic from afar, I use the heuristic of virality to critically examine the collective US anthropology response to Ebola, a viral disease, and the anthropological knowledge networks formed to address the 2013–2015 outbreak. Specifically, I describe how digital media facilitated an entry point to build connections and knowledge around the epidemic in American anthropologists' quest to prove the discipline's relevance, the viral circulations of and replications of anthropological ideas in the Ebola response, and the attempts to shed pathogenic racial legacies of Africanist anthropology shaping US anthropology's official response.

Anthropology and the law: historicising the epistemological divide

AbstractFocusing on the history of US anthropology between World War II and the high point of the Vietnam War protests in the late 1960s, this paper aims to historicise the assumed epistemological divide between anthropological and legal thinking. It is shown how anthropology as a discipline in the US has restructured some of its basic assumptions and changed its institutional structure in the context of legal interventions in larger struggles, specifically the court-based battles against racial segregation and the legal proceedings related to indigenous land rights before the Indian Claims Commission. Special consideration is given to an analysis of how objectivity is conceptualised in the literature on anthropological expert witnessing: from mechanical objectivity before 1970 to critical objectivity after 1970. The paper concludes with a caveat against exaggerating existing epistemological differences between anthropology and law, and suggests a more pragmatic approach to interdisciplinary communication.

Mutuality, responsibility, and reciprocity in situations of marked inequality

Paradoxes shape the relationship of the US anthropological community to its counterparts elsewhere and require new thinking about leadership that focuses on mutuality, responsibility, reciprocity, and pragmatism. Explored here are some key contradictions I see in ways of looking at the current, past, or plausible role of the US anthropological community and, in particular, the American Anthropological Association and its nearly forty Sections. Marked inequality exists among national and international anthropological organizations in size, finances, journal production, and conference attendance and often in perceived degree of importance, control, vibrancy, or agenda-setting. Yet this intervention argues for ways to mitigate that marked inequality, nonetheless, by refusing a binary us-them conceptualization and emphasizing creative pragmatism, mutuality, and responsibility. Unconventionally it even asks whether US anthropology should lead more in the world of anthropology than it currently does or lead less, and why both are worth exploring.

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

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

Foucault and political anthropology

French anthropologists gave Michel Foucault's works a very different, rather cool reception, from that of their North American counterparts, who turned Foucault into an essential reference. This difference deserves to be analysed because it is symptomatic of the differences in perspective between US and French anthropology. At a deeper level, it posits the question of the relations between philosophy and anthropology. In the case of US anthropology, Foucault's reflection on the relationships between power and knowledge influenced the critical thinking that developed at the end of the twentieth century. This article shows what impact Foucault's writings on power have had on recent developments in political anthropology: today, his concepts of governmentality and bio‐politics are having a remarkable impact and we find them applied in many empirical studies.

Modernity that Predated the Modern: Sidney Mintz’s Caribbean

Sidney Mintz’s most significant contribution to the historical anthropology of the Caribbean is his argument about the inaugural and distinctive modernity of the region. This modernity, he suggests, one that ‘predates the modern’, was shaped by the singular colonial history of the proto-industrial character of the African slave-based sugar plantations that made the region one of the earliest overseas constituents of the emerging capitalist world economy. Indeed, Mintz’s anthropological career begins in one of the projects – the Puerto Rico Project – that help to shift post-War US anthropology away from the Boasian salvaging of the ‘primitive’ towards the study of ‘contemporary’, that is, ‘modern’, people. Finally I suggest that Mintz’s magnum opus, Sweetness and Power, while clearly a book about the interconnectedness of the world, grows out of lessons about commodities, modernity, and Europe first learned in his work on Puerto Rico.

Confronting Anthropological Ethics: Ethnographic Lessons from Central America

The concern with ethics in North American cultural anthropology discourages political economy research on unequal power relations and other `dangerous' subjects. US anthropologists define ethics in narrow, largely methodological terms - informed consent, respect for traditional institutions, responsibility to future researchers, legal approval by host nations, and so on. The responsibility of the researcher to uphold `human rights' or to document political repression and suffering is not merely dismissed by mainstream anthropology as a partisan issue outside the realm of scholarship, but is actually condemned as ethically problematic. The growing postmodernist deconstructivist approach within US anthropology allows ethnographers to obey their discipline's narrow ethical dictates through a reflexive investigation of the hermeneutics of signs and symbols devoid of political economic social context. Drawing on his fieldwork experiences in Central America, the author argues that anthropologists have a historical responsibility to address larger moral issues because their discipline's traditional research subjects - exotic others in remote Third World settings - are violently being incorporated into the world economy in a traumatic manner that often includes starvation, political repression, or even genocide. Meanwhile, in the name of ethics, North American anthropologists continue to ignore or avoid the human tragedies engulfing their `research subjects'.

FOUR FULBRIGHT SCHOLARS IN US ANTHROPOLOGY DEPARTMENTS

FOUR FULBRIGHT SCHOLARS IN US ANTHROPOLOGY DEPARTMENTS

The Declaration of Barbados: For the Liberation of the Indians

Previous articleNext article No AccessThe Declaration of Barbados: For the Liberation of the IndiansPDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Current Anthropology Volume 14, Number 3Jun., 1973 Sponsored by the Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/201329 Views: 4Total views on this site Citations: 2Citations are reported from Crossref Copyright 1973 The Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological ResearchPDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article:Akhil Gupta, Jessie Stoolman Decolonizing US anthropology, American Anthropologist 124, no.44 (Sep 2022): 778–799.https://doi.org/10.1111/aman.13775Elias Steinhilper From “the Rest” to “the West”? Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the Western Bias in Norm Diffusion Research, International Studies Review (Aug 2015): n/a–n/a.https://doi.org/10.1111/misr.12229