“My point is that social or cultural anthropology is just as impotent as right-wing American journalism when searching for answers to the questions posed by this history, without even the excuse of trying to justify the status quo. This is because fieldwork-based ethnography threw out world history a century ago. Until we combine the two systematically, we will be powerless in the face of the Haitian disaster and could be said to be partly responsible for maintaining public ignorance of its causes.”

Boris

Actually, I think I pretty much agree with everything you wrote–and your insistence on history was what made me think of the historical strain of anthropology that I find really valuable and useful. Also, I wholeheartedly support your inclusion of Mintz, Goody, and a whole series of others who find history to be a critical part of anthropology.

Anyway, great post.

ryan

“My point is that social or cultural anthropology is just as impotent as right-wing American journalism when searching for answers to the questions posed by this history, without even the excuse of trying to justify the status quo. This is because fieldwork-based ethnography threw out world history a century ago.”

I completely agree with you that anthropology is pretty powerless (and voiceless) when it comes to these issues. Part of this is, of course, because it’s pretty rare that anthropologists publish for or speak to wider audiences. A special issue in a journal only reaches more anthropologists.

Maybe I have a different view of anthropology–but I definitely do not think that world history has been chucked by the discipline (although it has been in some circles). But then, Wolf is one of my favorites, so maybe I am a little too biased toward history. But I think you make a good point–if all we do is focus on contextual specifics, it becomes difficult to really make any larger scale arguments.

“Until we combine the two systematically, we will be powerless in the face of the Haitian disaster and could be said to be partly responsible for maintaining public ignorance of its causes.”

I completely agree. There has to be a link between local details and larger networks/relations/connections and histories. I also agree with you when you say that anthropology has been guilty of asserting the same kind of static comparisons between “cultures” that Brooks made. I have heard that argument in other circles: well, the DR is doing ok, so there must be some fundamental problem or resistance to development among the Haitians. My answer: history matters when trying to compare the DR and Haiti. And the whole issue cannot be boiled down to so-called cultural differences. So part of the problem here also comes from older anthropological notions about culture as a kind of static, inherent, THING.

Anyway, I appreciate your points here.

It is unfortunately true that they only hand out brains one at a time. Which is why most of the illuminating contributions to human thought have come from individuals. Some people say Homer was team, not a person. I doubt it. A camel is a horse designed by a committee, that sort of thing. You are right to respect Naomi Klein’s achievement in reaching a broad public. I am currently involved in many collaborations, usually with one person each, since that is hard enough to pull off. I believe that cooperation is indispensable to creativity. That’s why I am committed to the OAC. But in the end we are all stuck with what we can cook up between our own ears.

Thanks for the compliment. Actually, you’ve made me think: what if we – with which I mean as broader that just you and me – would offer our own account of the 20th century and a vision for the future? I mean, ‘Shock Doctrine’ has been an extremely popular book from which I conclude there must be a lot of confused people out there. Confused because virtually nobody is giving an alternative account.

If we are true to our project of a more equal and democratic world, shouldn’t we start with doing what Noami Klein does and make our story available to a larger audience? I’ve been writing for more than six months on a book that might never be finished because it’s scope is so broad. It ranges from the importance of the dog for the rise of agriculture to the potential personal money has to reshape our societies.

But why am I working by myself and what can I hope to achieve by myself? It seems there is a real opportunity out there and a need for an alternative account. Can we make a narrative for our current moment in its historical context and the implications for the future?

Steven

I think this is an amazing article, partly because it is timely but most importantly because you make the effort and give us a chance to learn that by seeing this differently – and less ideologically – there is actually hope for a better world. You ought to be read by all those people who care about what happens in Haiti.

I too was becoming pretty desperate in recent days with the news of the US agenda playing out in Haiti. I’ve never thought of the Pentagon as a socialist collective but of course it is. I never thought about what the influence would be on US foreign policy of the international community descending on Haiti. The planes who circle around the Port-au-Prince airport, failing to get permission to land from the US military, are actually a metaphor.

Thanks for opening my eyes again and reminding us of the project for a more equal and more democratic world.

Steven