The Girl-Geek Anthropologist

As the name of this blog implies, I am an anthropologist. And, I consider myself an activist. The two sometimes butt heads, and sometimes leave me with quite a headache. I've been feeling a headache for the last few months which was prompted by a comment during my prospectus defense for my PhD. It's amazing how one off-the-cuff comment can generate such a crisis of discipline.

I have my MA in applied anthropology. It's something which I am actually quite proud of, and I have published about how I felt that applied anthropology has finally solved the paradox between being an academic, and being an activist (Note to self: reread that paper). For my current PhD program, I wrote a prospectus that I was quite proud of. I finally got it to a point where I thought that it was what I wanted to do. During my prospectus, the two non-departmental committee members commented on how much they loved it. One departmental committee member fell asleep, and the other one text-messaged. But... the gist of it is that at the end of the presentation and the Q&A period, one of the members said, "This is very good. But where is the anthropology?" Needless to say, that took me quite by surprise. If the whole thing is not anthro, then what the heck is it?? The follow-up comment was "it reads like a very applied project. There's no theory in it." This was followed by another comment by my major advisor with "if you're hoping to graduate from this program, then you need to make it more theoretical."

Those two comments struck me as "funny", since when I was studying for my applied MA, I was told I was "too theoretical", and now I'm told I'm "too applied." I can't seem to win.

So, the topic I am engaged it, morally and ethically, I cannot be disengaged from. I can't merely "observe", but I have to find ways of creating change both in practice, and in policy.

I just read three papers written by colleagues about active engagement. But how? How is that even possible, when I feel like my back is against the wall sometimes. Yes, I can be "objective" and "relative" (and boy, have i been trying to be relative!). But, there are two distinct reactions to my doing so. One is to receive death threats and hate mail. I've actually learned how to live with those. The second is to be constantly reminded that as an anthropologist, I must remain "detached" and "objective" (well, as close to it as I can, anyways). I have a very difficult time looking at particular practices "symbolically", while I know that some women are actually suffering physically, psychologically, and emotionally from it. It's not something that's "out there", that I need to document and try to understand symbolically. It's people's lives that are at stake. There's so much work to be done, and I just can't see myself sitting somewhere in the ivory tower contemplating the symbolic aspect of it.

This dilemma is really not new. It's something that I thought I dealt with in the past, but apparently, I haven't. It's also something that many anthropologists, especially people like Nancy Scheper-Hughes and others, have had to deal with on a daily basis. They were ridiculed for it. They were told that what they are doing is not "real" anthropology. But, what is "real" anthropology? Certainly, I hope we are past Malinowski's, Radcliffe-Brown, and EE Pritchard's detached observations.

So, where does this leave me? At a crossroads, it seems. I have to keep reminding myself that it's not a black and white thing. There are grey areas, and there are plenty of other anthropologists out there that I can look to for inspiration on how to reconcile my dilemma.

More pondering time is in order.