Struggling with that Whole Decolonizing of Anthropology Thing

In a previous post I said I was going to read up more on “decolonization” as it pertains to anthropology, as it is considered a pretty important trend right now.

I did some reading… but I kept bumping up against two issues.

Issue #1. I kept reading takes on decolonizing anthropology related to racism that I saw strange.

Issue #2. I kept reading things related to decolonizing anthropology that seemingly has no real relationship with the colonial legacy.

Issue #`1. I was reading some materials from http://www.strangeminds.org (and its follow-on website— http://www.anthrodendum.org). One of the main contributors was complaining about some of the comments they were receiving in which they (since the website is authored by a collective of anthropologists) were getting backlash in the way they were talking about race. The writer responded something to the effect that— it is generally recognized that racism refers to racial biases within a power dynamic. Therefore, it is impossible for a marginalized person to be racist.

Well, I have definitely heard that before, but I don’t think that it is generally recognized. Racism is sometimes understood in that context, but I I don’t see this as a universal understanding. And it really shouldn’t be universal. If it was, we would have to invent a new word that applies to any person or group that judges people based on their race and presumes superiority over other groups based on that race. If, however, “racism” only applies to a power dynamic, then it is really not about race, it seems to me.

Then again, if racism is inherently associated with a power dynamic, one must seemingly face the fact that a power dynamic may reverse in other settings. My wife is a Filipina and so in the US perhaps she is racially oppressed by the majority because of her minority racial status. I am Swedish-American and living in the Philippines, the power dynamic is quite different. I would not call myself oppressed… but I do have a minority status, fewer rights, and some level of racial discrimination when in the country. Things get even more complicated when one enters sub-cultures or sub-regions where the tables may likewise turn.

This is where I get a little suspicious of the term “decolonization.” There have been ethnic or racial oppression, subjugation, and cultural extermination done by many groups all over the world. Arabs, Chinese, Turks, Persians, and Japanese over the centuries are just a few of many such ethnic groups that have projected power and ruled others seeking to undermine the local people and their culture. These sort of imperialistic activities rarely got labeled as colonization, even when it had many of the same characteristics. It makes me wonder if the choice of the term “docolonization” comes from the fact that in today’s parlance, the root term “colony” is used almost exclusively in the context of non-Western European (non-white) countries in the last few centuries.

On the other hand, (and there ALWAYS is another hand) since anthropology was developed in North America and Europe to understand cultures unlike themselves, there is almost inherently a “West versus the Rest” built into the discipline. This sort of perspective may be poorly tied to the analogy of colonization. Additionally, oftentimes anthropology was carried out in a colonial setting. The setting was conducive to research because researchers were given a level of respect and protection in their work. Additionally, there would likely be a level of funding from and interest in their findings from the colonial power.

In the end, I suppose “decolonizing anthropology” makes sense as a metaphor for the reworking of the foundations/presumptions of anthropology. However, it does feel as if some of those involved in decolonizing are already presuming the structures that exist in neoliberal Western nations. I recall one article on decolonizing anthropology that was praising Marxist anthropologists— even though Marxism is very much a system developed in colonizing nations among the elite, based on Western understandings of power and honor in a society, and transformed through the Cold War. The risk is much like some of the theological arguments here in the Philippines where attempts for a “local” theology seem to devolve into arguments over preferred foreign theologies by locals who keep quoting foreigners in their debates.

#2. Much of the concern in decolonizing anthropology was not so much about perspective— white versus non-white, or emic versus etic, although this was definitely a fair bit of it— rather it was often about the question of objective truth. Can ethnologies and ethnographies be considered identifiers and sharers of truth? To me, this has absolutely nothing to do with decolonizing. It is about the battle between positivistic modernism and post-modernism. Truthfully, I thought the battle in this area was long over. I thought that pretty much everyone accepted that we bring a certain amount of subjectivity into our studies, and as such, ethnographies must always be seen as being subjective… perspectival… tentative. It wasn’t clear to me whether those writing on decolonizing anthropology were pointing out that this is indeed a battle that still rages, or whether they were simply attacking a strawman. Regardless, although modernism coincides with the colonial age, I think it is pretty far-fetched to suggest that moving to a post-modern perspective is in any sense moving to a post-colonial perspective.

A stronger point in favor of a decolonizing of anthropology has to do with perspective. Traditionally, the etic (outsider) perspective is given greater weight in anthropology than the emic (insider) perspective. Perhaps, this was because of a racial bias. Lisa Uperesa (https://savageminds.org/2016/06/07/a-decolonial-turn-in-anthropology-a-view-from-the-pacific/) spoke of the battles of Mead and Freeman over the nature of the culture of Samoa. She noted that it was said that there should have been three battlers, not two— Mead, Freeman, and the Samoans. Of course, the insider perspective is important and must not be ignored. The Participant-Observer is still, in the end, an outsider who has been trained in a methodology that was created by outsiders.

That being said, as an American who has lived twenty years of my life in the Philippines, I can say with a high level confidence than some aspects of Americans’ self-understanding of their own culture is humorously off. I have seen situations in the Philippines also where an outsider perspective may add value and nuance to Filipino self-perception.

To me decolonizing should be a move away from the presumption that Western anthropologists have the perspective that should be weighted more favorably than other groups. Tipping the scales and saying that Southern or Majority world perspectives should be given great weight, however, may be a short-term corrective, but hardly a long-term goal.

Some of the discussion on decolonizing anthropology suggests a total change of epistemology and methodology.

For me, the most important aspect of decolonizing should be to stop considering cultural or social anthropology to be a science. It may be a discipline, it may be an art, but if it is a science, it is certainly stretching the definition of “science” considerably.

I would argue that a better term than “decolonization” of anthropology should be “descientization” of anthropology. (Sadly, the term “descientization” has already been grabbed by others (like Mark Dobritza) and used for a very different thing.) The categories, theories, and methods used in cultural anthropology presume an empiricism based on universal categories to arrive at objective truth. If we can’t get past that, it seems to me the decolonizing movement is always going to be getting stuck back where it started.

Note 1: Despite how assured I may sound in some of my opinions, I am still very much a Newbie in this topic. Perhaps I will change my mind on some of this or all of this. Time will tell.

Note 2: While I may disagree with some of it, if you want to read some things on this topic from those who spend a lot more time thinking about it than I, you can go to https://savageminds.org/2016/04/19/decolonizing-anthropology/.