I am sad to have missed the AAAs this year. Although, I must thank the wonderful anthropologists who have blogged and tweeted their thoughts and observations throughout, helping those of us stuck at home stay involved.
The post by Jason Antrosio on the presidential address by Virginia Dominguez, Anthropology’s Challenge: We can be better, was one of those exciting posts that makes you want to throw your fist in the air and say “Hear! Hear!” I regret having missed the original address, but Antrosio’s summary was still enough to get my fingers typing.
Antrosio broke down Dominguez’s address into three challenges: to be better, stronger and bigger. Three comparative adjectives on a mission! However, it was the “better” portion of the post that really sparked my desire to write.
Better
I generally agree with the notion that we take our own liberalism for granted and that the AAA and the anthropological population in general has much to do to move away from racist, sexist and imperialistic practices. Reading the Commission on Race and Racism in Anthropology’s (CRRA) Final Report was filled with embarrassing observations of our “liberal” discipline.
I was particularly taken aback by Karen Brodkin’s observation that many anthropologists refuse to answer demographic questions about race because, “Many of us don’t like these questions, because we believe either that ‘race is socially constructed’ or that we live in ‘a color-blind’ society.” (CRRA 2010:2) My first thoughts were to a lecture I gave to my introductory level anthropology class on race just a month ago. I explained to my students how, despite the fact that race is social constructed and that true color-blindness would be wonderful, that racism exists as a fundamental thread that permeates every context of everyday life. So, to approach any situation from a “color-blind” stance denies the reality of the lived experience of racism and thus exacerbates the problem more than it solves it.
Antrosio, the CRRA and others are now calling for better practices of mentorship, recruitment and professional encouragement. Although these are much needed and valiant efforts, I question how successful such ventures will be when our self knowledge as anthropologists tells us that we are not racist, sexist or imperialist and yet our actions represent us to marginalized groups as just that.
Anthropology was not developed in a vacuum. The same underlying biases that plague society at large are the fundamental root of our own biases. Anthropologists are not born and raised in anthropological environments. We are raised in societies and in homes with complex histories that form our characters, biases and self knowledge for nearly two decades before most of us are even exposed to the idea of anthropology in college. So, by the time anthropologists become professors, mentors and colleagues, our habits and biases are already entrenched in our personalities.
This is not to say that we can’t or don’t change, as most every one of my peers in college and graduate school had many awakenings throughout their educations and careers. However, some biases are represented in our speech and behavior in such subtle and nuanced ways that they are imperceptible to any who do not feel the lash of their consequences.
For example, I work as a web designer/developer and adjunct faculty member for a community college. My office is located in the middle of an office suite in the IT department. To get to my office, you must pass the generally open doors of four of my male coworkers. Yet, the majority of the visitors to our office suite pass all four of these offices and stop at mine for directory information, to deliver mail, turn in paper work and other tasks generally handled by our administrative assistant. Last Spring, when there were two other women in the front offices of our suite, I was very rarely asked by visitors to perform these duties.
I would never downplay the work of an administrative assistant; my experience is that such individuals are the binding agents that keep departments from falling apart. However, the determination that I, a woman in an IT department, must be an administrative assistant, is irksome.
I would venture to guess that these visitors who classified my position by my gender would not consider themselves sexist. Neither would I assume that my gender was a conscious part of their decision making. Yet, as a woman, who has felt the sharp pain and frustration of sexist behavior in many contexts and situations throughout my life, I notice what is invisible to others.
Even Better
With the understanding that these biases are rooted in something deeper than our roles as anthropologists and that these biases are often hidden to us, how can a simple call for being better really help us progress?
Anthropology, when dealing with internal issues and debates, often fails to use the tools that make the discipline so formidable when dealing with these same issues externally. After last year’s #AAAFail, Alex Golub over at Savage Minds argued for ethnography as a solution to the science debate and PR meltdown. However, in this case, I argue not for ethnography of anthropology, but for ethnography of bias in our societies. And, I do not mean of the victims of bias, I mean that we must ethnographically engage the abusers.
My thesis fieldwork was performed working with Muslim women living in Louisiana. Yet, after completing it, I felt that, while I had, to the best of my ability, represented the women’s plights (and strengths), I failed to truly understand the rampant bias against my informants because I had not put ethnographic scrutiny on those who perpetuated and acted on that bias. How could I truly comprehend the ways that Islamaphobia festers by examining consequences rather than actions?
My mentors and peers have nearly all attempted to dissuade me from pursuing such ethnographic endeavors on the basis of ethical engagement. How do you ethically work with informants while rooting out their racism, sexism, and other biases, especially in the name of social justice? However, how are we to ever understand the roots and functions of these practices in society if we do not turn our attentions to them? How are we to understand how to make progress in our own behavior if we fail to understand why we behave as we do?
It is not enough to look from the marginalized perspective and say that such biases are bad and should be stopped. Just as the responses to biases are complex and embedded in a thickly woven tapestry of projects and desires, so are the biases themselves. Thus, any attempt to stamp out or reduce biased action in ourselves or others must come from a more informed position.
I am heartened by the proposed changes to the AAA’s code of ethics toward questioning engagement with ethical issues rather than a “do no harm” outlook. As well as by Nancy Sheper-Hughes fieldwork on the trafficking of human organs, which involved deception and the betrayal of her informants to the police. This is something that is commonly considered unethical by many anthropologists. Yet, Sheper-Hughes and many others have found her actions to be ethical and carefully considered while she was able to uncover the culture of the negative behavior.
I believe that more work in this direction (both in the ethnography of abusers and in the careful consideration of the ethics of working with such groups) could open anthropology into new “even better” understandings of society and ourselves.