Anthropology in conversation with an Islamic tradition: Emmanuel Levinas and the practice of critique

Abstract

As an alternative to approaching Islam as an object for anthropological analysis, this article develops the idea of an anthropologist participating in conversations going on within an Islamic tradition. The idea of a conversation is developed through the ethical philosophy of Emmanuel Levinas and his ideal of knowing as an ethical relation with an infinite other. Levinas opposes a sterile and oppressive relation of 'totality', where the knowing self encompasses the other within concepts and thought that originate in the self, with a critical and creative relation of 'infinity', in which the alterity of the other is maintained and invites conversation that brings the self into question. In the article, recent disciplinary discussions of how anthropology should engage with alterity, which have been framed in terms of ontology and post-secular anthropology, are examined in the light of Levinas's ideal of knowing as ethical and critical practice.How can, or, perhaps more importantly, how should, anthropology engage with Islam? I was first prompted to revisit this problem by a response in the question-and-answer session following a talk I gave at a university anthropology department in the United States on the topic of Islam in Uzbekistan. The questioner, a Muslim, said that he had been offended by my presentation. I had been talking about lived experience as a site for the development of moral selves. A person comes to an understanding of what it is to be a Muslim, I had argued, through rituals and practices that refer to Muslim histories and sacred texts, but also in the ongoing flow of experience, in marrying off one's children successfully, helping a neighbour to build a house, participating fully in a sociality of neighbourhood and kinship, and, perhaps more problematically for my questioner, in dream or waking interaction with spirits, often in the context of illness, whether as a patient or a healer. I sought to engage sincerely with the experience of individual Muslims in Uzbekistan. But the questioner felt that I was misrepresenting what Islam is truly about, that I was presenting beliefs and practices that many Muslims would themselves view as humanly produced tradition, the misunderstandings or nonQur'anic practices of some Muslims, as standing for Islam itself.I was taken by surprise by the response because this is not a new problem and is one I thought had long been resolved. It was the central concern of disciplinary

Virtual prayers and real violence: Religion as a resource in challenging times

“…46 Recent anthropological works have emphasized the importance of studying religions or religious adherents not as objects, but as conversation-partners. 47 These works have leveled convincing critiques of secular policies imposed in modern Islamic states. 48 These secular, western biases in writing on religion are repeated in conflict transformation theory and practice, as noted earlier.…”

“…Thus, intervenors require cultural fluency in relation to specific contexts and awareness of their worldview assumptions. 49 An open approach inclusive of diverse worldviews and diverse ways of conceptualizing them is needed. We call this emphasis on bridging diverse ontologies an inclusive worldview approach, and we now turn to its implications for conflict analysis.…”

Introduction: Muslim care beyond the self: Ethics of care among Muslims and their Neighbors

“…There is always the risk, as Emmanuel Levinas has taught us, that responding to the ethical demand of the other one reduces the other to a token or type, doing violence to the singularity of the other (Levinas, 1969; see also Rasanayagam, 2017). Numerous anthropological works have convincingly demonstrated this, focusing on violent care practices, often in the context of state bureaucratic institutions (see, for example, Biehl, 2005;Garcia, 2010;Han, 2012;Stevenson, 2014;Tickin, 2011;Zigon, 2019).…”

Face‐to‐face with the (animal) Other

“…It demands that we encounter interlocutors in dialogue, think with/along/through them to unknot myriad threads of embedded mutualities, and strive to comprehend those specific knowledge practices that manifest when people become‐with Other critters. It demands that the production of anthropological knowledge become both an ethical and an intellectual practice (Faubion, 2011; Laidlaw, 2002; Lambek, 2010; Rasanayagam, 2018; Zigon, 2007), one that can help us reinvigorate the concept of “relations” even beyond the human (Strathern, 2020, pp. 11, 182).…”