12 June 2024
Anthropology and the State
Agenda: Delegates can briefly (2-3 minutes) discuss the relation of the anthropological association(s) in their society to the state, and the relation of anthropologists to the state: is the state seen as a supporter, a source of funds, a regulator, a threat, an antagonist? This will be the primary area of discussion, but we can also touch briefly upon the larger question of how anthropologists should view their country. What is an anthropologist’s obligation to one’s country, if any?
—-
In attendance: Gordon Mathews, Valery Tishkov, Hassen Chaabani, Mary Racelis, Junji Koizumi, James Chen, Silvia Hirsch, Bela Feldman-Bianca, Ed Liebow, Lia Ferrero, Cristiana Bastos, Tim Pilbrow, Virginia Dominguez, Veronica Lopez Tessore, Francine Saillant, Helen Macdonald, Gabby Dlaminii, “Mugsy” Andrew Spiegel, Mary Racelis, Silvia Hirsch, Marisa Ruiz Trejo, Thomas Reuter, Francesca Declich, Carmen Rial, and Michel Bouchard
—
Valery Tishkov (representing anthropology in Russia): Anthropology is based under the Russian Academy of Sciences. The grant system is very modest but does exist. We seek to get an assured amount of state budget to fund more anthropology students and professors: there are no more than a dozen centers of anthropology in Russia. One of the challenges of anthropology is that it is still under the umbrella of the historical sciences. Are there anthropological topics that cannot be studied? Migration data is a sensitive issue. Also, there are some limits in some regions, some sensitive issues that are regulated by local authorities, although not from the federal level.
Mary Racelis (representing anthropology in the Philippines): Relations with the state in the Philippines are fairly good with various government agencies. Anthropologists managed to stop the publishing of archaeological site locations to avoid treasure hunters looting sites. Anthropologists have been included in the social science council of the government. Anthropologists have worked to promote the interests of indigenous populations, helping local communities to gain recognition. In the south of the Philippines, where there is a large Muslim population, these populations have sought to be recognized as Indigenous and anthropologists have been active in assisting them. The challenge is that the military and private interests can move into Indigenous population areas to build dams or access natural resources. Anthropologists, including Indigenous anthropologists, are speaking out not so much against the government but against military incursions; anthropologists along with NGOs seek to support Indigenous populations seeking to protect their lands.
Christiana Bastos (representing anthropology in Portugal): There are no big issues at present with the state in Portugal at present. But there have been two distinct periods, before democracy and after democracy. In the past Portugal had colonies and anthropologists trained to be colonial personnel stationed in colonies. That period is done, but traces remain. Today it is different: anthropologists explore what has been suppressed in these former colonial societies. Today, anthropology gets state support indirectly: work is done by anthropologists funded by the state. But there remain issues with the state: mining, lithium mining, mining, environmental impacts that do not take into account the people living in an area; some colleagues are involved with marginalized populations that are often in the crosshairs of police. There is also the work and support given to the autonomous population of Galicia in Portugal.
Gordon Mathews (representing anthropology in Hong Kong): in Hong Kong at present there is some fear of the national security law. This has led to some Taiwanese anthropologists leaving Hong Kong, fearing that they could be arrested. Some students have been arrested and are in jail, but anthropologists have not been arrested yet. The challenge is that there is no clear idea where the red line is located. The state is therefore seen a potential enemy in many ways, just because no one knows how far it may go. How long the quality of Hong Kong universities be maintained in their intellectual freedom remains an open question. So far, that freedom largely remains.
Hassen Chaabani (representing anthropology in Tunisia). To date there are neither positive nor negative reactions towards anthropology from the state. This is likely related to the fact that the number of anthropologists in Tunisia is very small. Sociocultural anthropology departments have been created in two universities only a few years ago, and there is no biological anthropology at universities, although there is research being carried on by anthropologists since the 1980s. We are free to do anthropology in any area we want in Tunisia. Anthropologist must avoid ethnocentrism by appreciating human diversity and in disseminating anthropological knowledge to their society.
Tim Pilbrow (representing anthropology in Australia). There is no state funding for the association. Anthropology has been starting to disappear in Australian universities; one university got rid of its department of anthropology two years ago. Academic anthropologists are nervous about trends of managerialism in Australian universities. Anthropology is not seen as a useful discipline for the job market. The native title industry employs a lot of non-university anthropologists in Australia (similar to the Philippines); anthropologists often work with aboriginal communities to fight state governments and mining companies. Archaeology is not included with anthropology in Australia; that’s another large employment sector, in terms of cultural heritage work. There are no particular issues with the state, but universities are government universities and managerialism is putting pressure on disciplines like anthropology that don’t directly relate to mainstream occupations.
Gordon Mathews: I’m surprised that there isn’t more a critical attitude towards the state among our speakers so far. Anthropologists really don’t say “I love my country” in a society such as the U.S…
Ed Liebow (representing anthropology in the United States): Yes, if an anthropologist in the United States says they love their country, they might be ostracized. There’s a notion of “tough love,” meaning very high expectations of the state and the role it plays.
Silvia Hirsh (representing anthropology in Argentina), I speak on a very grim note. There is now a 48-hour university strike of university professors against laws the government is issuing. Until December of last year, the relation of anthropology to the state was good, some ups and downs, but there was funding for research, support for universities, and anthropologists were working for the state as well. Since December, the new president wants to destroy the state, he literally says, which he considers evil. This has meant a downsizing of funding for state universities. Many anthropologists have lost their jobs. The situation right now is not good at all. This is not against anthropology in particular, but against universities—the government now holds that the state shouldn’t support universities.
Francesca Declich (representing anthropology in Italy): In Italy we still have constitutional rights as well as freedom of speech, but the academic culture is being impacted by quantification set forth by bureaucrats, and measures where it is not clear exactly what is being quantified.
Virginia Dominguez (representing anthropology in the United States): Most anthropologists in the United States not only are not happy with the state, but also don’t even talk about the state. Most anthropologists in the U.S. hate Trump. The majority of anthropologists in the U.S. probably don’t think that they are working for the state, because they are opposed to its policies, but the majority are working not for private but for public institutions—they are working for the state, through government funding. Anthropologists tend to be very critical of the state, but their salaries are paid by state institutions. …Most anthropologists feel that the U.S. government doesn’t really care about anthropology. Most feel that we are always vulnerable as anthropologists..
Michel Bouchard (representing Canadian anthropology): One of the historical weaknesses of anthropology is that we don’t know how to effectively study the state. Anthropologists traditionally studied in villages, ignoring the larger colonial state. Then there was the idea that everything is a social construct, as if we could wish away the state. Today we study transnationalism, ignoring the state except in the background. We don’t have ethnographic access to where a lot of the state’s decisions get made; we’re not good at looking at institutions at large.
James Chen (representing anthropology in China): Anthropological associations in China are regulated by the government and tied to government institutions. Anthropology was introduced to China in the 1920 along with other social sciences like Marxism. At that time, China was in a terrible state—a few warlords controlled it. The role of anthropology was to help to get rid of those hardships, to improve the lives of the people, to make China better, stronger. China has inherited this anthropological tradition from the 1930s, to make China better. I was born in the 1960s and knows how hard life was like in the 1970s. To make the lives of the people better: this cannot be done without the government. Anthropology was illegal in Chinese universities in the 1950s and 1960s; in the late 1980s, it was revived. There are topics that cannot be studied in China: gender, civil society; since your salary comes from the government, you cannot do a project that crosses the red line. Instead most anthropologists work on topics like rural revitalization that are acceptable to the state and can help people. Cultural heritage projects are acceptable. Archaeology is hugely funded to support heritage projects.
Gordon Mathews: There are red lines in every society—there are things anthropologists can’t study or say—but that seem more overt in China today. Anthropologists get funded by the state, and may worry about the objectivity of referees. But James is saying that if the state is paying for it, it can get what it wants…
Thomas Reuter (representing anthropology in Australia) I did a five-year study of the power elite in Indonesia, from celebrities to military men to tycoons and politicians. I directly explored this, using anthropological methods to great effect. I didn’t get into trouble in Indonesia, but I did get in trouble with the Australian government in discovering controversial activities in Indonesia. There are indeed red lines. When good research is done, it can be upsetting to some people. But we can indeed study the state
Marisa Ruiz Trejo (representing anthropology in Mexico) The relation between anthropology and the state began when Columbus arrived and claimed territories in the name of the Castilian state. In the early 20th century, Mexican anthropology developed a crucial role in the consolidation of national identity and indigenous politics. Much of the work of scholars emphasized the need of assimilating indigenous peoples where anthropologists collaborated with the state. In the 1960s and 1970s some scholars criticized the policies of the state; in this period it was seen how some anthropologists were collaborating with the state, while also collaborating with American anthropologists. There was a new era for the emergence of critical anthropology and applied anthropology, in the middle of discussions. 1994 was a very important moment with the uprising of the Zapatistas in the Chiapas region. It forced the rethinking of relations with indigenous peoples and anthropologists. The latter started working much more closely with Indigenous peoples as they sought greater agency and autonomy.
Gordon Mathews: It’s interesting thinking about Latin American anthropology, on the one hand, often focusing on supporting indigenous rights often against the government, as opposed to China, where anthropologists entirely work with the government. There also remains a big difference between anthropologists as in Latin America, who study groups in their own society, and those anthropologists like those in the US and Japan who study groups outside their own society. This relates to different feelings towards one’s own country: whether you study within its bounds or outside.
Bela Feldman-Bianco (representing anthropology in Brazil): anthropologists in Brazil study and teach in public universities, get funding from state institutions and therefore are tied to the state. We have a great connection with the state. Anthropology was not seen as dangerous in some earlier eras and it flourished. Anthropology more recently some anthropologists have indeed persecuted by the state, but it has managed to survive under Bolsonaro. It is now very active in defending Indigenous peoples and their rights as well as other marginalized populations. It works with the government in terms of writing technical reports seeking to protect Indigenous peoples, which has become politicized. ABA is dangerous now for this reason.
Veronica Lopez Tessore (representing anthropology in Latin America). There are strong national anthropological societies, such as those in Brazil and Mexico. Other anthropologists outside these countries, anthropology may lack recognition and relations with the state, in ways that are not harmonious. ALA has expressed itself in terms of countries throughout Latin America on events impacting the discipline.
Francine Saillant (representing anthropology in Canada): In Canada—in Quebec–the situation of anthropology is not bad, the state is still funding anthropological research. The relation of the state to anthropology is tied to challenges to the state, national questions involving Indigenous peoples and ethnic and cultural minorities. Many anthropology departments in Canada were big fifteen years ago but are decreasing in size; they may have to link with sociology. Many anthropologists are critical of the Canadian state even though they are in a privileged position vis-a-vis the state. My own department has become a de facto Indigenous Studies department, because so many of us are doing that. Anthropologists in Canada continue to have freedom to critique the state.
Helen Macdonald (representing anthropology in South Africa): In South Africa, anthropology is well supported by the state, I see from listening to everyone else. There was a historical hostility, but post-apartheid relations with the state are good. The state funds our national research foundation, and has a rating system of research. The only real impact from the state now is that they are funding the universities less and less. South Africa is unusual in that the government gives money for publications; no research topics are out of bounds.
Carmen Rial (representing anthropology in Brazil). It was not the case that everything changed for anthropology or other disciplines when Bolsonaro was elected; anthropology kept fighting. Anthropology was one of the main forces that faced off with Bolsonaro. It is one of the reasons why Bolsonaro targeted anthropologists. However, other institutions, notably the Supreme Court listened to anthropologists and took into account what anthropologists said.
Junji Koizumi (representing anthropology in Japan). Anthropology in Japan is supported by business—that’s unusual—but universities in Japan, like elsewhere, are suffering from budget cuts. A recent statement was issued by the Japanese Society of Cultural Anthropology was very apologetic about anthropologists’ role in oppressing Ainu people. Anthropologists are looking at the Ainu people within Japan; the government gave a lot of money to build museums and other public spaces for the Ainu people, 250 million USD was given for the Ainu people and this museum and symbolic state. The paradox is that this is only symbolic. There are some Ainu left in Japan, but very few. Anthropology in Japan is strong, although there are only about 800 anthropologists. The government funds the National Museum of Ethnology in Japan, which may be the biggest museum in the world… The Japanese budget was earlier directed towards technology, but now the humanities and social sciences are included.
Gordon Mathews: To sum up: One thing that is surprising is the extent to which we anthropologists are bound up with the state—it funds us—even though we may view it with ambivalence. A second matter is how much anthropology in most societies is tightly linked to Indigenous groups, in a way that’s not true in all societies. A third matter is that very few of you spoke of what the state restricting anthropologists from researching: it is a more gentle interaction.
Mary Racelis: on the state not restricting what anthropologists do. Actually, it does in authoritarian governments, such as what the Philippines earlier had: in authoritarian regimes, any critics become suspect, including anthropologists, through national security laws: you can get “red-tagged” if you are too critical of government policies. Authoritarian governments do have this effect. It’s also true that managerialism really is undermining anthropology in universities. We must publish in Scopus journals, which must be done in English, though anthropologists often want to publish in local languages to connect with local populations and NGOs.
Bela Feldman-Bianca: Yes, in authoritarian regimes, as Mary was saying, it’s very difficult to do research with Indigenous populations. Our research is always being evaluated by hostile politicians. Anthropology and research becomes more challenging with extreme right authoritarian governments.
Valery Tishkov: In Russia, the privilege of being critical of the state is usurped by outsiders. Therefore, domestic experts opt for a defensive stand, though all major Western anthropological books on Russia have been translated and published in this country.