Theory in Furs

Kulick, Don

doi:10.1086/507198

Cited by 44 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The scientific form anthropology takes also inflects the question of its appropriate forms of public-ness. As a field science whose expertise is predicated, in a fundamental way, on the generosity of others, anthropology must establish appropriate forms of relationality, and explore ways of building balanced reciprocity into its designs and operations without succumbing to salvationist fantasies (Kulick 2006). If ethical considerations are part of the equation (Scheper-Hughes 1995; Lambek 2010), how do anthropologists, aware of the fact that anthropology relies heavily on the generosity of those it studies and also of the relativity of ethics, proceed to elaborate research codes of ethics entirely without consultation or negotiation with the 'natives', 'migrants' or the 'Other', and expect it to be celebrated as a caring and compassionate discipline?…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Without a rigorous commitment to science, and with little patience for knowledge production as a collaborative endeavour, anthropology today, it seems to me, is preponderantly evangelical in its approach -'fighting back', saving situations, saving souls, winning converts and 'giving back' to poor villagers and migrant labourers. Soul saving, however desirable, pleasurable and gratifying to anthropologists wedded to redeeming 'powerless people' (Kulick 2006), should be left to religious and political pundits and to NGOs, while * …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Does it need to be reconfigured and reconceptualised with time, experience and knowledge? (see Current Anthropology 36 (3): 409-440 for Nancy Scheper-Hughes's (1995) call for a 'militant anthropology' and responses to it; see also Robins (1996), Dominguez (2000), Kulick (2006); Anthropology Southern Africa, 35 (3)(4): 100-123 for Shannon Morreira's (2012) call for an 'ethics of engagement' through an 'ethics of mutuality' and responses to it; and Anthropology Today, 29 (6): 1-22 for Catherine Besteman and Angelique Haugerud's (2013) 'desire for relevance' and five related contributions by Besteman (2013), Haugerud (2013), Gusterson (2013), Eriksen (2013) and Ferrandiz (2013)). …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Beyond an evangelising public anthropology: science, theory and commitment

Nyamnjoh

2015

Journal of Contemporary African Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

If my experience of anthropology in and on Africa is anything to go by, there has been too much of engaged or public anthropology and too little of anthropology as an intellectual pursuit animated by rigorous contemplation and practice on and around a set of shared curiosities. Distinguishing between academic anthropology and engaged or public anthropology requires a priori reflection on the scientific status of anthropology. This paper argues that anthropology's scientific potential has yet to be fully realised. Without a rigorous commitment to science, theory building, and an acknowledgement of associated epistemologies, as well as little patience for knowledge production as a collaborative endeavour, much anthropology today is little different from an evangelical and ideological commitment to saving souls, saving situations, winning converts and 'giving back'. The paper challenges anthropologists to commit to the essential task of producing critical knowledge of critical value, and to re-embrace and fulfil anthropology's core mission and ambition as an evidence-based field science. The need for anthropology as a rigorous and collaborative field science, liberated from 'western' and 'male' dominance, calls for a negotiated, inclusive and accountable ethics, evidence-based thick description, an understanding of interconnections and interdependencies, and critical and comparative theory building as a permanent engagement and as a dynamic and constructive debate. Africa (Nyamnjoh 2012) is anything to go by, there has been too much of engaged or public anthropology and too little of anthropology as an intellectual pursuit animated by rigorous contemplation and practice on and around a set of shared curiosities. Even with cultural relativism in mind, and recognition that habitus and social position matter, conversion seems privileged over conversation, including among anthropologists differently and differentially positioned by factors such as place, class, race, gender and generation. Without a rigorous commitment to science, and with little patience for knowledge production as a collaborative endeavour, anthropology today, it seems to me, is preponderantly evangelical in its approach -'fighting back', saving situations, saving souls, winning converts and 'giving back' to poor villagers and migrant labourers. Soul saving, however desirable, pleasurable and gratifying to anthropologists wedded to redeeming 'powerless people' (Kulick 2006), should be left to religious and political pundits and to NGOs, while * If my experience of anthropology in and on

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Beyond an evangelising public anthropology: science, theory and commitment

Nyamnjoh

2015

Journal of Contemporary African Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Critiques of liberalism can also be misread as totalising and nihilistic (Morton 2007). Some readers rejected Kulik's (2006) analysis of unconscious motivation behind anthropological work out of hand because they were unable to accept the premises of his enquiry. 10 Langton (2008) dubbed the avid public interest in violence and child abuse 'an obscene and pornographic spectacle' that 'shifts attention away from everyday lived crisis that many Aboriginal people endure'.…”

Section: State Sponsored Culture?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Critiques of liberalism can also be misread as totalising and nihilistic (Morton 2007). Some readers rejected Kulik’s (2006) analysis of unconscious motivation behind anthropological work out of hand because they were unable to accept the premises of his enquiry.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Mythologising culture

Cowlishaw

2010

Australian J of Anthropology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In western Sydney, I found an extreme version of what I propose is a national Aboriginal mythopoeia, that is, a powerful system of beliefs and practices in relation to Aboriginal people and culture. A reified Aboriginal culture is promoted at institutional sites and in reconciliation discourses that evokes the presence of something precious and mysterious that must be re‐read into local Aboriginal people, but which assiduously avoids their actual circumstances and subjectivities. The awkward relationships and avoidances evident in a western Sydney reconciliation group are posited as a benign example of this mythology, born of a ‘sentimental politics’ of regret and reparation at work in Australia. Unity between the state and civil society is evident here, thus requiring an analysis that goes beyond a critique of government policies and programmes as intentional and rational, and grasps the nature of the widespread desire for Aboriginality. Through ethnographic attention to the actual relationships of Indigenous people and others, anthropologists can avoid being complicit in this regressive, separatist construction.

show abstract

Shifting Indigenous Australian Realities: Dispersal, Damage, and Resurgence: Introduction

Hinkson

Vincent

2018

Oceania

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The new millennium has seen the landscape of Australian Indigenous politics and policy rapidly transformed. This overview essay explores these transformations, highlighting the rise of incorporation and intervention as preferred modes of governance in this period. The essay argues for a need for anthropological attention to grapple with settler colonial legacies as well as higher level processes at work in the contemporary circumstances of Aboriginal people's lives. It offers three terms through which these circumstances might be approached: Dispersal refers to the uneven and unpredictable distribution of policy and ecological effects, the advent of more dispersed and pervasive technologies of governmental surveillance, and new patterns of and reasons for Indigenous movement. Damage glosses questions of suffering, harm, poverty, and also a broader condition: the ecological wreckage colonial capitalist developments often leave in their wake. Resurgence addresses the variety of creative responses made by Indigenous people as they endure and attempt to transcend this intensified governance of their lives.

show abstract

Theory in Furs

Cited by 44 publications

References 14 publications

Beyond an evangelising public anthropology: science, theory and commitment

Beyond an evangelising public anthropology: science, theory and commitment

Mythologising culture

Shifting Indigenous Australian Realities: Dispersal, Damage, and Resurgence: Introduction

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About