Seattle Ethnology Congress: Woker Zeitgeist and Science

At the Ethnology Congress in Seattle you can observe the progressive zeitgeist that prevails at American universities under a magnifying glass. A little field research on a strange tribe.

Is it still appropriate these days for a scientist from Bern to conduct field research on waste collectors in a Nigerian city and then explain the subject to European or even African readers? The question of identity is also becoming more important in ethnology.

Akintunde Akinleye/EPA

In the USA, especially at the universities, there is a well-known culture war between “conservatives” and “progressives” which is increasingly spilling over into Europe. Keywords are cancel culture, wokeness, cultural appropriation or diversity. Roughly speaking, it is about moral issues and consideration for minorities becoming increasingly important. Proponents speak of the end of old white male supremacy and raising awareness of the oppressed; Critics bemoan sectarianism and the paradoxical exclusion of dissenters in the name of diversity.

When a white man explains Nigeria to the others

These conflicts are carried out particularly vehemently in ethnology. That’s logic. On the one hand, ethnology carries a colonial heritage with it, on the other hand, it sees itself as particularly progressive. In view of the current discussions, it increasingly has a legitimation problem.

Is it still appropriate today, for example, for someone from Bern to do field research on garbage collectors in a Nigerian city and then explain the topic to European or even African readers? Isn’t that colonial and arrogant? The question of identity becomes more important. One might assume that in the age of globalization, worldwide migration and mixing, in which cultural identity is becoming more and more hybrid and gender more fluid, the question of skin color is obsolete. The opposite is the case.

In November, Seattle hosted the annual American Ethnology Congress takes place, the most important event of the subject. It is also interesting because ethnology sees itself as the spearhead of progressive thinking; the American ethnologist Jim Weil said in a contribution that ethnologists are by definition radicals. Probably the most frequently heard phrase was “to make a difference”, but no longer in the sense of cultural differences, which ethnology once dealt with (that is frowned upon today), but in the sense of “moving something”. In short: You can observe tendencies here that later spread to other disciplines and outside of the USA.

For example, participants at the conference complained that they had to justify themselves when doing research in the “Global South”; they are asked how a German, for example, can ever understand conditions in Africa or South America – even if he has been dealing with the region for decades. Conversely, someone with a dark complexion is automatically assumed to have an “intuitive” understanding of the same areas, even though they may not be very familiar with them. This occasionally leads to strange situations.

The fake Mohawk

This year, a scandal rocked Columbia University in Berkeley. The professor elizabeth hoover, who had posed as a Native American was accused of not being one at all. In early November, she explained that although her family had always claimed that she had Mohawk ancestry in addition to French, English, Irish and German, she could not prove it. However, she grew up aware of this and felt – at least in part – as a Native American.

What’s now accepted about sexual identity—you’re a woman if you feel like a woman, male body or not—isn’t the case with race. On the contrary. Hoover was accused of “appropriation”. Your ethnological career is probably over.

It is paradoxical: while in the USA it is often disadvantageous to belong to the Native Americans, Afro-Americans or other minorities, in ethnology it is an advantage. It increases “street credibility”.

Research and publications count for nothing

The topic of sexual assaults also occupies a particularly important place in ethnology. The year before last caused the case of the Harvard professor John Comaroff cause a stir. Students accused him of harassment. The only case that has been made public was of a lesbian woman preparing for research in South Africa. Comaroff had warned her not to be too open about her homosexuality there and told her about the widespread “corrective rape” («corrective rape») of lesbian women. She then complained to the university administration. Comaroff has been suspended, his reputation ruined.

The case drew wider circles in Seattle. The 73-year-old ethnologist Ann Stoler, professor at the New School for Social Research in New York, should have received the Gender Equity Award for her life’s work at the congress. Her research, including in Southeast Asia, revolves around the relationship between colonialism, racism and sexuality. But suddenly the social networks erupted Shitstorm about her because she, along with other scientists, had defended Comaroff in an open letter. There was talk of a gap between their “beautiful, feminist theories” and their “sexist practice”. As a result, the award ceremony was postponed indefinitely.

An ethnologist who hated Stoler on Twitter, wrote, all that counts is what they do in practice. «Academic publications do not change institutions and cultures.» While this is an odd notion of science, it seems to be becoming the majority opinion. The program booklet for the Seattle congress states that it is about dealing with the question of how changes can be brought about in the world.

Traditionally, the social sciences have been about attempting a truthful, unbiased analysis. Perhaps engagement will result from the research results; but the will to engage should not be at the beginning of an investigation.

Over-identification, the loss of all distance and objectivity, used to be mockingly called “going native”. Today this seems to be expected. Not having an advocacy, activist relationship with the group you are researching is immoral.

Resistance, solidarity and tactics

A doctoral student at a German university says: “Our generation is concerned not only with thinking critically and in solidarity, but also with acting in this way – in our research, in our institutes, in our lives.” Important keywords are resistance, solidarity, oppressed minorities, justice, tactics. That sounds more like a guerrilla manual than scientific methodology.

The 35-year-old ethnologist, who also worked in the USA for a long time, explains: “In America, certain young people are more liberated than we are.” But radical and ethically guided research projects were still lacking for many older anthropologists. “America is a failed country for the younger generation. It always has been for people of color. But now young white people feel it too.”

Despite all the talk of diversity and inclusion, the universities are still white and western-dominated, says the doctoral student. Since positions and research funds are limited, there are battles over distribution. Perhaps that is why the conflicts over cultural appropriation and skin color also have to be seen in this economic framework.

Zero tolerance for nudity, animal sacrifice and police officers

One gets the impression that today’s anthropologists are both considerate and ruthless at the same time. At the entrance to the convention center, for example, there are posters stating that perfume and deodorant should be avoided out of consideration for people with chemical sensitivities. An elderly scientist tells of the outraged reaction to photos he took during his field research in West Africa of bare-breasted women. His assurances that “topless” was normal in the villages at the time are not valid.

Presentations had to be submitted three months before the Seattle convention. The rules are strict: no nudity, no violence, and no image of a slaughtered animal may be shown during a lecture on animal sacrifice.

The American ethnologist Angela Guy-Lee reports on her courses with police officers on the subject of racism. She explained the concept of “institutional racism” to them, meaning that racism is also expressed in laws, for example. One of the police officers wrote in a test that, to his knowledge, laws only talk about rules and not about skin color. How did she react? “I gave him a zero,” she says, to laughter from the audience.

The ethnologist Paul Stoller explains in an interview that there is a great danger that an overly critical attitude will tip over into an uncritical one, where elementary rules of ethnology, such as taking the context into account, are thrown overboard. Also, an overly sectarian ethnology only reaches like-minded people or, worse still, is directed against almost like-minded people, who are then attacked disproportionately sharply, while the true enemies of the foreign and diversity laugh up their sleeves. “Instead, ethnology should consider how to reach those who think differently,” says the 75-year-old.

The renowned American ethnologist Paul Stoller in Seattle.

The renowned American ethnologist Paul Stoller in Seattle.

David Signer

It needs an outside perspective

Stoller is one of the best-known American ethnologists who has published extensively on magic and witchcraft in Niger. In German he published “Im Schatten der Zauberer”. In recent years he has often been accused of exoticizing Africa and reducing it to clichés. He is also increasingly being asked how he, as an “old white man”, can presume to speak about such “Ur-African” topics. He finds laconically that what counts is whether what someone writes is true.

The demand that ethnologists should show solidarity is also questionable, especially when it comes to Stoller’s topics. Would he have to make himself the advocate of the magical worldview and belief in witches?

Stoller observes that many students hesitate to do research in other cultures in order not to be exposed to such accusations. There is a tendency towards introspection: people are only interested in their own colonial past, exploitation and unconscious prejudices, instead of really exposing themselves to what is foreign.

The scientist considers it a dead end that everyone only writes about their own lives. Even when that happens, it’s often upper-class intellectuals who don’t necessarily belong to “the same culture.” In addition, there needs to be an oscillation between the view from the inside and the distanced view from the outside. He mentions that «Navajo Movie Themselves»-Project: «In 1966 three ethnologists went to the Navajo, gave them a camera, taught them how to use it and asked them to document their lives. Two of them made virtually identical films about a medicine man who invoked the spirits. The films were three hours long and featured the Navajo language chants in a single shot.”

mirror instead of window

Nobody looks at that, says Stoller. «No translation, no explanation, no integration into life in the village. In order to make something like this understandable and interesting for outsiders, you need ethnological mediation.”

However, this is likely to increasingly become a minority opinion in ethnology. It is probably only a matter of time before the former «ethnology» disintegrates and dissolves itself. That’s a pity, because this self-dismantling is done in the name of respect and anti-racism, of all things, but ultimately means that any talk about the “other” becomes suspect. This broadening of horizons was once the goal of ethnology, but is now considered by many to be postcolonial. In the name of consideration, the windows are closed so that everyone can encapsulate themselves in their small, familiar mirror world.


source site-111