Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Sam Beck
Cornell University
What if we use theory and method to benefit nomic and political issues; and conflict and
the people we study and with whom we part- misunderstanding between and among societ-
ner to develop an increasingly just world in ies through mediation. The intent of this issue
which inequities are reduced and all people is to provide a roadmap for anthropologists
may believe in their ability to reach their po- seeking a larger role in society that we can
tentials by having access to resources that are name ‘Public Anthropology’. Very much like
more or less equally available, distributed and any concept, there is no one definition that lim-
accessible? Each in her or his way, the contribu- its this idea’s meaning. Public anthropology is
tors to this ‘Special Issue on Public Anthropol- fertile ground for anthropologists to explore
ogy’ provide example trajectories which move opportunities for involvement and engage-
anthropologists in this direction. ment inside and outside the discipline, and
In responding to an article on public sociol- inside and outside their objects of research.
ogy by Burawoy (2005), Aranowitz indicated What all share is the idea that local groups and
the importance of public engagement and its communities should be able to control their
origins based on a discourse of the ‘public’ in own well-being and quality of life with the
participatory democracy. While we are far from sophistication of corporate or governmental
reaching what appears to be a utopian dream, institutions. Central to this work is a method
there are anthropologists who are working to- that takes us away from a solely enquiry-based
wards such a goal. Li le disagreement appears methodology and towards one that is dialogic
within the discipline about the aim of anthro- and change oriented.1 This is an anthropology
pology as an intellectual discipline constructed that requires people at the local level to be
to benefit humankind, an issue most recently full participants in research and publications.
broached by a number of people engaged in Cammarota put it this way: ‘the researcher is
thinking about ‘public scholarship’ in general consistently changing his or her questions and
(Mitchell 2008). perspectives via the collective input of com-
Despite periodic deviations that move an- munity members, while the community learns
thropology away from its tacit ethical centre, through the researcher’s involvement’ (2008:
anthropology in the first part of the twenty- 46). Knowledge, in this approach, becomes a
first century has returned to constructing an public good in its ‘orientation and application
intellectual discipline that is not only con- that furthers the general vitality of the mar-
cerned with historical processes, political eco- ginalized community’ (2008: 48). Moreover,
nomic forces and conditions, or discourse ethics here, as Pels noted, is not something that
analysis, but in addition involves itself in is tacked on, but is ‘internal to our research’
shaping the direction of present and future do- (2005: 96).
mestic and international politics; activist agen- The thrust and movement towards con-
das of local communities; the general public’s necting anthropology to real world contexts,
deeper understanding of sociocultural, eco- conditions and processes occur episodically
Anthropology in Action, 16, 2 (2009): 1–13 © Berghahn Books and the Association for Anthropology in Action
doi:10.3167/aia.2009.160201
AiA | Sam Beck
in the history of the discipline and though we discipline never existed and at present cannot
can make linkages to produce a linear history exist without publics.5 Field and Fox asserted
which demonstrates the formation of a ‘tradi- that ‘most anthropology has been “engaged”
tion’ for and of a public anthropology, by do- and public in intention’ (2007: 4). This is par-
ing only this we miss the very nature of what is ticularly true, at least since the Second World
pressing anthropology into the public domain War, as the mission of the academy changed
at this particular moment. Borofsky and oth- dramatically and as universities increasingly
ers in academic circles have defined the public were penetrated by what Giroux called the
anthropologist as one who ‘engages issues ‘military-industrial-academic complex (2007)
and audiences beyond today’s self-imposed and pernicious ‘audit culture’ (Strathern 2000).
disciplinary boundaries’ (2000; reproduced in This is not to assert that the academic and
his Public Anthropology website) by writing, universities were ever independent of publics
publishing or speaking in public media. Many (see Bender 1997, Boren 2001). However, it is
other anthropologists use public anthropolo- with which publics, how and with what in-
gy’s theories and methods in a broader sense tensity public engagement occurs that defines
that reach beyond the academic form of public a public anthropology and differentiates it
anthropology. Borofsky put the focus ‘on con- from other anthropological practices, theories
versations with broad audiences about broad and methods. And this is something for which
concerns’.2 Cox perceives public anthropol- anthropology must account. Moreover, the
ogy ‘to be an anthropology of the public that discipline must recognize it as a central com-
disrupts the traditional academy–community ponent of professional practice and not allow
dichotomy by locating the intellectual and po- it to be marginalized as applied anthropology
litical strategies necessary to effectively address had been, similarly locking out public anthro-
social concerns with the dialogues that occur pologists as somehow less valued, and forcing
in the public sphere as well as in disciplin- their sub-discipline like a minority position to
ary based discussions – loosening the hinged reinvent itself, perhaps by creating a ‘Public
border that artificially separate the two’ (2009: Anthropology Association’. Nor should an-
53). Her position radicalizes Borofsky’s under- thropology place public anthropology within a
standing of public anthropology. Yet both per- stratified, hierarchical division of labour in the
spectives, for me, are not enough. I believe that discipline, a condition against which Singer
public anthropology must include not only or warned us (2000).
just conversations, dialogues or discussions.3 In her work as an employee of a Detroit
The articles in this Special Issue are a start of homeless shelter for young women, with whom
a larger project that seeks to demonstrate how she identifies as being involved in the same
far the reach of a broad Public Anthropology struggle and with whom she worked, Cox
presently exists in the discipline. This is a sign indicates that the young women ‘have shown
of vigour in anthropology because this kind me one way to explode public anthropology to
of anthropology breaks down the barriers that accommodate co-theorising and co-authorship
isolate anthropologists in a discourse limited through performance’ (2009: 60). Smith’s no-
to themselves. tions complement those identified by Cox. Her
I follow Burawoy’s inclusive direction for approach moves research into the hands of
‘public sociology’ by advocating for a public an- those we normally research (2007). Her work
thropology among other anthropologies.4 It is entailed working with her own people, the
not as if anthropology, academic anthropology Maori of New Zealand. She critiques Western
(‘professional’ in Burawoy’s terms) in particu- knowledge production and suggests research
lar, has ever been independent of publics. The based on developing indigenous people’s re-
2 |
Introduction: Public Anthropology | AiA
search capacities, with outsiders invited to fare of all those affected by their work’ (see the
participate in research that the people identify American Anthropology Association’s Code of
and determine – a very different sort of public Ethics). At present, we are conflicted because
anthropology. This kind of research confirms nationalism, expressed as patriotism, brought
the capacity and power of local-level knowl- some anthropologists to position themselves
edge production, legitimizing people’s own as participants in what they might consider a
perceptions of their culture. ‘just war’, or understand the work in which
The American Anthropology Association they are engaged as protecting vulnerable West-
(AAA) did recognize public anthropology in ern, especially American, interests.7
a unique way in the November 1986 amended Anthropologists study processes and is-
‘Principles of Professional Responsibility’, first sues affecting general human welfare and
adapted by the Council of the American An- conditions. It is safe to say that not all anthro-
thropological Association in May 1971 (see pologists do this, especially where contractual
h p://www.aaanet.org/stmts/ethnstmnt.htm), arrangements may vitiate the ethical stance
which claimed public engagement as a central quoted above. This is not to say that other
tenet of what anthropologists were ethically practitioners of anthropology, who do not see
obliged to do. themselves as applied anthropologists, are
Public anthropology has implications for ‘pure’ in the work they do, especially when
theory, method and methodologies. The con- carrying out fieldwork, as they generate the
troversy that brewed regarding the engage- data they use to increase their credibility in the
ment of anthropology with military purposes discipline. I can safely say that many of us of-
is an example (see Glenn 2007, Griffin 2007, ten work in grey areas, even when we try hard
Vine 2007), one that is, in many ways, not so to protect and safeguard ‘our people’.
new (Wolf and Jorgensen 1970, Price 2005; also The AAA backed away from forms of ethi-
see Wakin 1992). How anthropologists partici- cal engagements with ‘research populations’.
pated in the Vietnam War anticipated what is In 1986 the AAA statement on ethics was
now happening in the Middle East and Central an expression of what was deemed essen-
Asia. This particular issue raises into relief a tial to the practice of anthropology that had
set of values, professional practices and ethi- moral implications. ‘In research, anthropolo-
cal principles that members of the American gists’ paramount responsibility is to those they
Anthropology Association share. study. When there is a conflict of interest, these
The discipline is reawakening central issues individuals must come first. Anthropologists
regarding what anthropology and anthropolo- must do everything in their power to protect
gists stand for. This is presently expressed the physical, social and psychological welfare
through controversy and conflict over the and to honor the dignity and privacy of those
role of a few anthropologists involved in the studied’ (www.aaanet.org/stmts/ethstmnt.htm;
wars associated with oil sources and delivery 1986). The first section, ‘Relations with those
routes (Gonzalez 2004, 2007; Price 2005, 2007). studied’, of the ‘Statement of Ethics; Principles
Some might argue that this is a form of public of Professional Responsibility’ (AAA 1986)
anthropology.6 states: ‘Every effort should be exerted to coop-
Until recently, anthropologists accepted erate with members of the host society in the
without question a shared ethical stance re- planning and execution of research projects’.
garding the relationship between anthropolo- Moreover, section 2: ‘Responsibility to the
gists and vulnerable populations. We accepted public’ is central to the importance of a public
the idea that ‘Anthropologists must respect, anthropology. I quote it here in full because it
protect and promote the rights and the wel- most likely eludes most anthropologists. I con-
| 3
AiA | Sam Beck
4 |
Introduction: Public Anthropology | AiA
AAA should develop an ethical stance for this in the public sphere as writers (Eriksen 2006).
part of our practice and not leave it as ‘an in- This is what we do as academicians. We carry
dividual decision’. Lamphere (2003) suggests out our research and hopefully we teach it,
that graduate students, as they develop their write about it and publish it. The issue that Er-
research proposals, should include statements iksen addresses in his book is anthropology’s
about the implications their research will have invisibility in the public sphere. In the first few
for the population being studied. Her posi- pages of his well-conceived book he provides a
tion articulates an idea that moves graduate short history of engagement and remarks that
study and eventual professional work at least engagement took place as an aspect of the de-
towards the consideration that research has an velopment of science for public consumption
impact on the people studied. in the nineteenth century based in museums.
The movement away from ethical prescrip- This was the period in which British imperial-
tions for advocacy also distances the work that ism reigned and agrarian political economy
anthropologists carry out as ‘activists’, some- gave way to industrialization and urbaniza-
thing increasingly disciplined by university ad- tion particularly in the West. This was also
ministrators. The disassociation of advocacy, the period of American imperialism, one that
activist and even participatory anthropology continues to this day.10
has a silencing impact through which confor- It is no coincidence that the Royal Anthro-
mity results, instead of innovation. Sansom pological Institute in London was founded
added that: in 1871, nor that the U.S. Bureau of Ethnol-
ogy was established in 1879.11 The academic
in anthropology [canons of disciplinary prac- world at this time had not segmented itself as
tice] is an empty category. What we have is no-
it did in the twentieth century, with the spe-
canonical practice: work conducted by indi-
vidual practitioners each of whom works on his/
cializations of various sorts spli ing off and
her own cognizance. At workshops in applied creating self-referential languages, jargons and
anthropology we thus seem to be trying to alter discourses. Academicians and public scholars
the situation and find remedies for solitude and outside the academy mixed and mingled and
the onus of personal rather than professional engaged in discourses that cut across disci-
responsibility of anthropological endeavor, es-
plinary boundaries. Of particular importance
pecially in those instances where anthropologi-
cal representations are not merely academic but
is that academics, including explorers, found
representations that are made to a purpose and access to a lay audience through public print
so count as acts of advocacy. (1985: 4) media, presentations and debates. We should
not be surprised that those at the margins of
Wallman (1985) points to an inconsistency in the academic discipline could be responsible
participant-observation. It contradicts any idea for greater experimentation and innovation.
of anthropological neutrality and distance. This fits the ecological principles associated
Anthropological practice is by its very nature with frontiers or margins.
involved; the people being researched are also Eriksen notes that a ‘culture war’ was fought
a ‘public’.9 In responding to Scheper-Hughes on two fronts between the two world wars.
(1995), Harris remarked that Tylor identified One was ‘against ethnocentric supremacism’.
anthropology as ‘essentially a reformer’s sci- The other was ‘against biological determinism’
ence … active at once in aiding progress and (2006: 5). In the United States, Mead, Bene-
in removing hindrance’ (Lowie 1938: 83, cited dict and Boas of course were iconic notables
in Harris 1995: 424). in these wars, but also Montague (1951) and
We should not be surprised that ‘engaged Benedict (1946) sought to make the cultures
anthropologists’ are more apt to be involved of enemies available to the U.S. government
| 5
AiA | Sam Beck
as well as to the general public by founding education do not stand alone. Medical anthro-
Columbia University’s Research in Contempo- pology, archaeology, and visual anthropology
rary Cultures (Mead 2000; Mead and Metraux are strong candidates within the discipline
2000; Mead, Rickman and Gorer 2001). Each of that worked on a public anthropology agenda
these issues has remained central to Western early on and became increasingly activist and
discourses tied to colonial, neo-colonial, im- participatory.
perial and neo-imperial forces. Clearly these A public anthropology has earlier anteced-
wars are not over, either in physical conflicts or ents. Chambers mentions that in 1838 profes-
in the arena of public discourse. Recently, the sional anthropologists were involved in the
AAA stepped into the fray with its own public, Aboriginal Protection Society in London and
award-winning project on ‘Race’. that the Women’s Anthropological Society, es-
As far as writing is concerned, Eriksen be- tablished in 1885, supported housing improve-
lieves that a er the Second World War anthro- ments for Washington, DC’s poor (1989: 20, see
pology began to withdraw from the public. I also Schensul and Schensul 1978). Mediating
am uncomfortable with this notion since there between clients (in an applied anthropology
are too many notable exceptions, for example sense) and subjects has had an advocacy twist
Claude Levi-Strauss, Marvin Harris, Edmund to it. On the extreme end of advocacy falls
Leach, Colin Turnbull, David Maybury-Lewis, the Vicos Project, carried out by Holmberg
Janet Siskind, Oscar Lewis, Elenore Smith and other Cornell University anthropologists
Bowen, Marjorie Shostak, Clifford Geerz, Eric (Holmberg 1962 Ross 2005). The project be-
Wolf, and many more who have wri en for came a landowner with the peasantry. Eventu-
the public. Gonzalez asserted the following, ally the peasants took control over the land.
‘Today few anthropologists could be consid- Sol Tax engaged in ‘action anthropology’ in
ered celebrities in the United States, but that the Fox Indian Project (1958), perhaps more
does not mean that none speak to the public’ aptly referred to as ‘activist anthropology’ in
(2004: 2). Furthermore, he said, ‘There is a as much as ‘the anthropologist must operate
wide range of projects under way to dissemi- within the framework of goals and activities
nate anthropology within the United States’ initiated by groups seeking to direct the course
(ibid.). Beeman (1987) advocated for the role of of their own development’ (Chambers 1989:
anthropology in the print media. He stressed: 22). The work at the Hispanic Health Council
‘Questions that anthropologists can address in Hartford, Connecticut, exemplifies partici-
with some effectiveness exist on three levels patory, action, advocacy and activist forms of
of abstraction. The first level addresses overt anthropology by having communities partici-
questions – questions that the public is asking pate as co-investigators of their own communi-
openly. The second level deals with unspoken ties, advocating for change, and activist as the
questions. The third, and most difficult, deals distinction between ‘researcher’ and ‘client’ is
with anticipated questions’ (Beeman 2001: 2). radically blurred.
In a recent issue, the Anthropology and Edu- Writing for or speaking to a broad, general
cation Quarterly editorial team wrote in its public is not the only means for carrying out
‘Introductory Note’ that ‘the field [Anthropol- public anthropology. Sanday coined ‘Public
ogy and Education] is becoming more, not Interest Anthropology’ a decade ago (1998), to
less activist in orientation and practice’ (2008: which she referred as a paradigm, in Thomas
1). This is an intriguing declaration that may Kuhn’s sense, that it is a perspective with its
point us towards learning which aspects of own theory and method made up, according
the anthropological discipline are more or less to Sanday, of two trends. The first offers theory
activist. It seems to me that anthropology and and analysis in the service of problem solving
6 |
Introduction: Public Anthropology | AiA
to bring about change. The second is to make creates methodological questions, more o en
anthropology available to the general public. than not, related to power. What is the work?
In both instances central to Public Interest An- Who controls the work? Who makes deci-
thropology (PIA) is a dedication to social jus- sions about what data to use? Who does the
tice, human rights, in the broadest sense of the data analysis? What forms do the products of
term, and democratic principles. While writing research take? Who presents the findings and
as an anthropological public practice is central to whom? The rationale for the project itself
to Sanday’s expression of PIA, it is not the may be contested unless clear understanding
only possibility of practice (see Sanday 2002). is reached among all participants, an under-
Her suggestion to blur the distinction between standing that most likely must be renegotiated
action (or practice) and theory leaves the door over time as things change.
open for research-based action as another sort On a positive note, Hemment recently dis-
of public anthropology, a praxis (see Keene cussed PAR as offering ‘a framework through
and Colligan 2004) that I understand as a dia- which we can bring critical anthropological
lectic of theory and practice intentionally ori- insights to collaborative projects with research
ented to bring about change. participants in the field’ (2007). As Lyon-Callo
This brings us to a relatively new invented and Hya suggest ‘Through long-term col-
approach, really a re-invention, what is referred laborations with community-based activists,
to as participatory and participatory action re- engaged ethnographers can contribute to cre-
search (PAR) (see Greenwood and Levin 1998). ating a space for the realization of new poli-
This is a research approach that integrates the cies, new subject positions, and the emergence
expertise of the scholar/researcher with local of new political possibilities beyond what the
level (indigenous) expertise for the purpose global economy and its neoliberal rationaliza-
of sociocultural change, political engagement tions have set for us’ (2003: 136).
and economic development. While on the face PAR practitioners do not evade the po-
of it, PAR seems simple to apply, its implemen- litical side of fieldwork practice or the politi-
tation generates all sorts of contradictions that cal consequences of their work. In fact, social
must be resolved in-context and in-process, as change is at least equal to the wri en product
research and action is carried out (Hampshire, of their practice, usually the goal established
Hills, and Iqbal 2005). This is not surprising by PAR partners (see Wali 2006 as a wonder-
since this is what most of us do during field- ful example). The tension that is o en raised
work. This type of public anthropology, I dare in fieldwork by focusing on the impact the
say any type of public anthropology, must researcher may have on those being studied
consider knowledge production, rather than is part of the methodology used in this kind
knowledge transference, as a dialectical pro- of public anthropology. The work being car-
cess which uses people’s own experiences as a ried out by the Chicago Field Museum stands
starting point for learning – what Freire (1996, out as an example not only of anthropological
1997) referred to as an ‘open learning para- praxis, but also the transformation of museum
digm’ (see also Giroux 1983, Schoen 1983, Shor work from a relatively passive approach to one
and Freire 1986 Beck 2002 2005, 2006). that is activist in design and purpose, another
Additional conceptual and methodological public anthropology effort.
knowledge and skills are needed to imple- Complemented to PAR, mostly seen as a ped-
ment PAR successfully. The very nature of the agogical device, is Community Service Learning
relationship created in the mixing of exper- (see Hya 2000. Community Service Learning
tise, variously called cooperation, partnership, (CSL) emerged as a pedagogy, research strat-
collaboration, contractual and consultative, egy and community engagement vehicle (see
| 7
AiA | Sam Beck
Beck 2002, 2005, 2006, Keene and Colligan interests and necessities. The exceptions are
2004). While anthropologists were slow in us- when the instructor/researcher is a member of
ing the term ‘community service learning’, the the community being engaged.
result was that CSL advocates assumed that Keep in mind that the public anthropology
anthropologists were not involved in this type movement is not a disciplinary isolate. Enor-
of anthropological practice and knowledge mous pressures brought the academy to ex-
production. Anthropology certainly was not press itself through universities and colleges
represented in the CSL literature. This resulted that commit themselves, their faculties and stu-
in the silencing of an important trend in our dents to community engagement. This is an
discipline that we can trace back to the very expression of long-term trends that started in
origins of anthropology in the United States the USA in the 1860s with the development of
(see Hymes 1969). We must also be mindful the Land-Grant system of practical education,
that this type of work, practice and knowledge research and extension. Pressure, inducement
production has appeared in other parts of the and support continues to come from govern-
world, if not by anthropologists by anthropol- ment, business and foundation sectors with
ogy-like practitioners in earlier historic peri- the presence of middle-class families seeking
ods (Cernea 1981, Beck 2002 and grew out of to provide their children the basis for secure
nation-state creation and development whose futures. This movement towards ‘university–
outcomes are a double-edged sword (see Erik- community’ engagement has support from
sen in this issue). Take Romania’s ‘monograph government and corporations, but clearly for
school’ developed by Gusti (Cernea 1981) in different reasons than progressively minded
the inter-war period, whose students repre- educators. Inasmuch as higher education pro-
sented the political right (Traian Herseni) and duces li le of its own funding for research, a
the political le (Henri Stahl). CSL today has dependency relationship exists between uni-
similar features. versities, foundations and the government,
CSL is a way of learning and teaching. The who are able to provide large sums of money
normative approach focuses on service projects and in the process direct research and educa-
that enhance and enrich classroom coursework. tion agendas. A case in point is the Human
A more critical approach focuses on service as Terrain System in which anthropologists were
the principle device for learning. One goal of used by the US military. The CSL movement
CSL is to increase student awareness of civic was energized right at the moment neoliberal
responsibilities while providing support for policies reduced social service expenditures.
a community in need. Pedagogically, service Volunteerism was to take the place of govern-
learning provides students with the context and ment support masked by the American ideol-
conditions for critical thinking through reflec- ogy of neighbours helping neighbours.
tion and empowers students who learn that
they too are knowledge producers (see Beck
2002, 2005, 2006). From the perspective of in- Some Conclusions
stitutional higher learning, CSL is supposed
to extend the university into the community Field and Fox insightfully acknowledge that
in some sort of imagined partnership. In too anthropological work has changed and con-
many cases the relationship is rarely mutually tinues to change, and that anthropology must
beneficial. Academic interests tend to prevail adjust to these changes with new or different
and community service remains a pedagogy research methods, innovate different types of
that supports student learning and faculty re- social relationships in research-practice, clarify
search interests, rather than community-based ‘research for whom’ and even consider a set of
8 |
Introduction: Public Anthropology | AiA
| 9
AiA | Sam Beck
have a reading culture in which what academ- whose insights continue to enrich me. He is a
ics write influences the public, and public dis- gentle critic and a helpful editor. I look forward
course in turn impacts on public politics and to a long partnership with him. I also want to
government policies. In this sense the bound- thank the contributors to this Special Issue
aries between research and politics are contin- for their involvement and stimulating further
uously blurred. In his example of Norway, he work in Public Anthropology as we bring the
demonstrates how anthropologists are actively discipline into the twenty-first century. Chris
sought out by political parties to inform them McCourt is the kind of editor and colleague
on Sami and non-ethno-national (and non- that is sorely needed in our discipline. She is
Sami) Norwegian integration policies. encouraging, supporting, motivating and de-
McKenna uses his academic acumen to lightful throughout the process of producing
make visible the disguised relationship be- the following insightful articles. Many thanks.
tween Michigan State University (MSU) in the
U.S. and the Dow Chemical Company. In the
context of presently existing capitalism, Dow Sam Beck is the Director of the New York City
not only successfully penetrated MSU but Urban Semester Program of the College of Human
also the state of Michigan, influencing what is Ecology of Cornell University, an ethnographi-
researched. McKenna asserts that as a result of cally informed experiential learning programme
the political pressure Dow was able to unleash that facilitates the development and maturation
MSU allowed itself to be used to become a of bright, highly goal oriented students. He has
‘knowledge factory’, rather than a place where carried out research in a variety of locations: Iran,
critical perspectives may innovate. In addi- Yugoslavia, Romania, Germany, Austria, Utah,
tion, he declared that education for the market Providence (Rhode Island) and in New York City.
undermines education produced for critical He has worked with migrant workers, peasant
citizenship. The present economic calamity workers, US workers, nomadic pastoralists, sed-
confirms McKenna’s position that ‘markets do enterizing pastoral nomads, higher education as
not reward moral behaviour’. Too many con- an institution, artists and students. In his work
temporary examples exist to contest this idea. among the Roma of Romania and then with Cape
Using his own efforts as an example, he advo- Verdeans in Providence, his interests moved to-
cates for social science praxis that ‘demands wards understanding how a social justice agenda
[an] unrelenting public voice about injustice’. may be used to move anthropology towards a more
In his public work, he has used various forms enlightened form of research. At the same time he
of media to make his point, including print, is interested in developing an anthropology that
video and film, and public programming. works with people and organizations who are seek-
ing to bring about changes in their communities
and neighbourhoods, and who work to enhance
Acknowledgements the resources for their communities, especially
children and youth, to flourish and reach for their
I would like to thank Marianne A. Cocchini, potential. While such communities may be finan-
my companion and colleague, for discussions cially poor and ill equipped to enter the highly
about the ethics of community work and how competitive market economy, it is not enough to
to create solidarity with underserved but em- refer to them as impoverished. Their wealth is situ-
powered communities. I thank Carl Maida, a ated in their strong kin ties and social networks
most generous friend and colleague, whose and the assets that are linked to well-integrated
persistence motivated me to do the work and communities.
10 |
Introduction: Public Anthropology | AiA
| 11
AiA | Sam Beck
12 |
Introduction: Public Anthropology | AiA
Mead, M. and Metraux, R. (2000), The Study of Sansom, B. (1985), ‘Canons of Anthropology’, in
Culture at a Distance (New York: Berghahn Advocacy and Anthropology, (ed.) Paine, R. St.
Books). John’s, (Newfoundland, Memorial University,
Mead, M., Rickman, J. and Gorer, G. (2001), Rus- Canada: Institute of Social and Economic Re-
sian Culture. New York: Berghahn Books. search), 3–15.
Mitchell, K. (ed.) (2008), Practicing Public Scholar- Schensul, S. L. and Schensul, J. J. (1978), ‘Advocacy
ship: Experiences and Possibilities Beyond the Acad- and Applied Anthropology’, in Social Scientists
emy (West Sussex, U.K.: Wiley-Blackwell). as Advocates, (eds.) G. Weber and G. McCall
Montague, A. (1951), Statement on Race: An Ex- (Beverly Hills: Sage Publications), 211–219.
tended Discussion in Plain Language of the Unesco Scheper-Hughes, N. (1995), ‘The Primacy of the
Statement (New York: Schuman) <h p://www Ethical: Propositions for a Militant Anthropol-
.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o8&d=242476#>. ogy’, Current Anthropology 36, no. 3: 409–428.
Pain, R. (ed.) (1985), Advocacy and Anthropology Schoen, D. A. (1983), The Reflective Practitioner: How
(Newfoundland, Canada: Institute of Social and Professionals Think in Action (New York: Basic
Economic Research). Books).
Pels, P. (2005), ‘“Where There Aren’t No Ten Com- Shor, I. and Freire, P. (1986), A Pedagogy for Libera-
mandments”: Redefining Ethics during the tion: Dialogue on Transforming Education (West-
Darkness in El Dorado Scandal’, in Embedding port, CT: Bergin and Garvey Publishers).
Ethics: ShiĞing Boundaries of the Anthropological Singer, M. (2000), ‘Why I Am Not a Public Anthro-
Profession, (eds.) L. Meskell and P. Pels (Oxford: pologist’, Anthropology News 41, no. 16: 6–7.
Berg), 69–99. Smith, T. S. (2007), Decolonizing Methodologies:
Price, H. D. (2005), ‘Anthropology and Total War- Research and Indigenous Peoples (London: Zed
fare: The Office of Strategic Services’ 1943 “Pre- Books).
liminary Report on Japanese Anthropology”’, Strathern, M. (ed.) (2000), Audit Cultures: Anthro-
Anthropology in Action 12, no. 3: 12–20. pological Studies in Accountability, Ethics and the
Ross, E.B. (2005), ‘Vicos as Cold War Strategy: Academy (New York: Routledge).
Anthropology, Peasants and “Community De- Tax, S. (1958), ‘The Fox Project’, Human Organiza-
velopment”’, Anthropology in Action 12, no. 3: tion, 17: 17–19.
21–33. Vine, D. (2007), ‘Enabling the Kill Chain’, The
——— (2007), ‘Buying a Piece of Anthropology, Chronicle of Higher Education, 26 November.
Part 1: Human Ecology and Unwi ing Anthro- Wakin, E. (1992), Anthropology Goes to War: Profes-
pological Research for the CIA’, Anthropology sional Ethics and Counterinsurgency in Thailand
Today 23, no. 3: 8–14. (Madison, WI: Center for Southeast Asian Stud-
Sanday, P. R. (1998), ‘Opening Statement: Defin- ies, University of Wisconsin-Madison).
ing Public Interest Anthropology’, Presented Wali, A. (2006), Collaborative Research: A Practical
at AAA Symposium, Defining a Public Inter- Introduction to Participatory Action Research (PAR)
est Anthropology, 97th Annual Meetings of for Communities and Scholars (Chicago: Field
the American Anthropological Association. 3 Museum Center for Cultural Understanding
December, Philadelphia, Peggy Reeves Sanday and Change).
home page, 1–4 <h p://www.sas.upenn.edu/ Wallman, S. (1985) ‘Rules of Thumb’ in Advocacy
anthro/CPIA/whatispia/pia198.html>. and Anthropology: Frist Encounters (ed) R.
——— (2002), ‘Science and Engagement in Public Paine, R., St. John’s, Newfoundland, Memorial
Interest Anthropology: Lessons from Boas and University, Canada Institute of Social and Eco-
Bourdieu’, AAA Panel: Public and Public Inter- nomic Research. 13–15.
est Anthropology, New Orleans, 1–6. <h p:// Wolf, E. R. and Jorgensen, J. G. (1970), ‘Anthro-
www.sas.upenn.edu/anthro/CPIA/PAPERS/ pology on the Warpath in Thailand’, New York
sanday.aaa.2002.pdf>. Review of Books, 19 November.
| 13