Greg Acciaioli Anthropology & Sociology The University of Western Australia

1. FROM WORLD ANTHROPOLOGY TO WORLD ANTHROPOLOGIES:The International Union of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences (IUAES),the World Council of Anthropological Associations (WCAA),and Future Directions of the Discipline, Greg Acciaioli Anthropology & Sociology The University of Western Australia <acciaiol@cyllene.uwa.edu.au>

2. Death of Lévi-Strauss at age 100 An author whose writings were good to think with The Elementary Structures of Kinship Structural Anthropology (vols 1 & 2) Totemism The Savage Mind Mythologiques Etc. ‘To the layman, much of the debate between structuralists and existentialists, which raged from the 1950s into the 1980s, now seems incomprehensible, if not sterile and outdated. But no matter what one thinks of Mr. Lévi-Strauss and his theories, it is hard today to undertake the serious study of anthropology, ethnology, sociology, philosophy or linguistics without at least acknowledging him or trying to debunk him.’ Larry Rohter, The New York Times, 5 November 2009

3. Upcoming Symposium: Ancestors and Contemporaries: Engaging Anthropological Practice Follow-up to the 50th Anniversary Symposium Subjects, Objects and Publics: Histories of the Practice of Anthropology in Western Australia 9 April 2010 (tentatively) In association with Anthropology and Sociology, The University of Western Australia The Anthropological Society of Western Australia

4. Current Context of Internationalisation •  World Council of Anthropological Associations (WCAA) • Outgrowth of World Anthropologies Network • Platform of World Anthropologies Framework • E.g. ‘Other Anthropologies and Anthropology Otherwise’ • Restrepo & Escobar, etc. • See World Anthropologies Network website www.ram-wan.org and WCAA website www.wcaanet.org

6. WCAA: Original statement of purpose The World Council of Anthropological Associations (WCAA) is a network of national and international associations that aims to promote worldwide communication and cooperation in anthropology. Its primary objectives are: to promote the discipline of anthropology in an international context; to promote cooperation and the sharing of information among world anthropologists; to promote jointly organized events of scientific debate and cooperation in research activities and dissemination of anthropological knowledge.

7. Platform of WCAA • Ribeiro & Escobar, ‘World Anthropologies: Disciplinary Transformations within Systems of Power’ • ‘…the present can be another moment of reinvention of anthropology, this time mostly linked to changes in the relationships among anthropologists located in different parts of the world system.’ • Junji Koizumi, WCAA President to 2009, now Secretary General of the IUAES • ‘Linking anthropologies and beyond” is a project which has just been started but it bears a lot of possibilities.’

8. Contrast with‘International Anthropology’ • ‘Traditional’ project of internationalisation • UNESCO • Translation series • Etc. • Continued privileging of metropoles of anthropological production in the West • North Atlantic axis as place of ‘unmarked’ (hegemonic) anthropology • USA, United Kingdom, (secondarily) France • Counterassertions • ‘Metropolitan Provincialism’ • ‘Provincial Cosmopolitanism’

9. Acknowledged ancestral moments of ‘World Anthropologies’ • ‘Critique of Anthropology’ of late 60s and 70s • Literature of Anguish • Hymes (ed.) Reinventing Anthropology (1974) • Bob Scholte (‘emancipatory anthropology’) • Stanley Diamond • Talal Asad • ‘Indigenous Anthropology’ • Fahim (ed.) Indigenous Anthropology in Non-Western Countries (1982) • Anthropological Praxis sensitive to 3rd World Liberation Struggles • Harrison (ed.) Decolonizing Anthropology: Moving Further toward an Anthropology of Liberation (1991) • Critique of anthropological representation • ‘Postmodern moment’: critique of objectivism’ • Marcus • Fischer, • Clifford • Rosaldo • Itself subjected to Marxist and feminist critiques • Emphases upon contribution of nonhegemonic anthropologies • From the periphery of the colonised

10. Distinctiveness of the ‘World Anthropologies’ project 1) Globalization opening up heterodox opportunities to the academic world 2) Concerted action creating a more heteroglossic, democratic and transitional community of anthropologists 3) Possibility of writing from no particular national viewpoint 4) Understanding the dominance of certain styles of anthropology through relating them to unequal power relations: COLONIALITY

11. ‘COLONIALITY’ • Reproduction of World System inequalities in production and distribution of knowledge • Continuing normalisation of metropole-produced perspectives But is the relation with the previous project of ‘World Anthropology’ that discontinuous?

12. Re-examining ‘World Anthropology’ • Culmination in the series of volumes issuing from the 9th International Congress of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences (ICAES) (Chicago, 1973) • 94 volumes (NACSIS list) • Tax [editorial introductions] (90) • Weaver (91)

13. ‘World Anthropology’ publication series as both utopian enterprise & fiasco • International enterprise engineered by anthropological impresario Sol Tax (1907-1995) • Bankrupting of Mouton Publishers • Merger with de Gruyter • Inability to cover USD$200,000 advance royalties • Only one volume in series go into 2nd edition • Visual Anthropology (Paul Hockings, ed.)

14. ‘World Anthropology’ range • Augmented 4-field vision of Anthropology • Physical/Biological ‘Anthropology’ • Social/Cultural Anthropology • Linguistics • Archaeology • Folklore • Medical Anthropology • Applied Anthropology • Etc. • Continuing influence of Anthropology Today: An Encyclopaedic Inventory (A.L. Kroeber, ed. 1953)

15. World Anthropology’ range • Yet also attempts to cover newer perspectives: • e.g.The World as a Company Town: Multinational Corporations and Social Change • Cultures of the Future • Influence of Japanese-Americdan anthropologist Magoroh Maruyama on Tax • Future abolition of nation-states • Small independent communities of 100,000 to 500,000 linked electronically

16. ICAES as an institution of the global North in origin • ICAES as conference series predate IUAES (begin London, 1934) • IUAES founded under auspices of UNESCO in 1948. • Up to that point still held in cities of the Global North • Tax’s attempt to bring anthropologists of Global South • Parallels to earlier Heritage of Conquest conference & publication

17. International Congresses of Anthropo-logical and Ethnological Sciences (ICAES) • I Congress (1934) - London, • II Congress (1938) - Copenhagen, • III Congress (1948) - Brussels, • IV Congress (1952) - Vienna, • V Congress (1956) - Philadelphia, • VI Congress (1960) - Paris, • VII Congress (1964) - Moscow, • VIII Congress (1968) - Tokyo & Kyoto, • IX Congress (1973) - Chicago • X Congress (1978) - New Delhi, • XI Congress (1983) - Québec City • XII Congress (1988) - Zagreb • XIII Congress (1993) - Mexico City • XIV Congress (1998) - Williamsburg • XV Congress (2003) - Florence • XVI Congress (2009) - Kunming • XVII Congress (2013) – Manchester

18. My own relation to the IXth ICAES:A remembered ‘event ethnography’? • Congress Service Corp volunteer • Organised by Margaret Mead • Duties • Greeting delegates at the airport • Facilitating the sessions on ethnicity • Responsibility for Soviet delegation • “Ethnos’ as strange

19. Margaret Mead as the public face of World Anthropology

20. Ethnicity Publicationsfrom IXth ICAES

21. IXth ICAES as an attempt to present Anthropology as publicly relevant • Commissioning of opera Tamu, Tamu (Menotti) • Vietnam IDPs displaced onto generic Indonesian context • A critical flop • Despite good intentions still a very Western, exoticist take on bare-breasted Others • An icon of the failures of the World Anthropology project of that stage?

22. World Anthropology as expression of Community • Discussion as the purpose of sessions • Pre-circulated papers • Pre-Congress conferences • Simultaneous translation into 5 languages • Projected conference volume summarising discussions to be distributed free to conference delegates • Axed by de Gruyter/Mouton • Tax’s identification of IXth ICAES with project of Current Anthropology as a meeting place of anthropologists

23. Platform of Current Anthropology • 'Current anthropology is a co-operating group of scholars who interact and exchange knowledge and ideas by means of this journal. These scholars are called 'Associates in Current Anthropology’ and have the obligation to foster the full and free world-wide interchange of knowledge in the sciences of man centering around physical anthropology, prehistory, archaeology, linguistics, folklore, ethnology, and social anthropology‘ • (Inside front cover of Current Anthropology, vol. 1, number 1, January 1960)

24. Principles of Current Anthropology • '1. It should be as broad and open as the problems of the changing sciences of man require, bringing together the widest variety of relevant ideas and data, and extending and facilitating intercommunication among students of man wherever in the world they are working. • 2. It should be unitary, a single set of cross-cutting materials available to all. All students of the sciences of man should be speaking to one another on the same pages in the same language. Though no scholar can be equally interested in all things, CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY should not prejudge where the individual's interests will carry him. • 3. It should provide communication that is both fast and convenient, a single, common center where scholars can with a minimum of duplication of effort share knowledge of their current activities.'

25. CA* treatment as the cornerstone of Current Anthropology • Critical discussion by invited associates of featured article • Originally acknowledged comments to be incorporated into paper • Later change to having all comments printed with author’s rejoinder • Critical interchange as expression of anthropological community of conversation • Parallel purpose of discussion format of IXth ICAES sesions

26. Current Anthropology as Community: Exemplification of ‘Action Anthropology’ • Action Anthropology as Tax’s Rejection of pure Theoretical Anthropology • Rejection as well of much Applied Anthropology • Attempt to emphasise the agency of the peoples with whom working • Anthropologist as facilitator • Helping to implement projects requested by peoples themselves • Parallel Tax’s conception of his position as editor of CA • Exemplification in the ‘Fox Project’ • Mesquaki (Meskwaki) of Iowa • Attempt to overcome structural paralysis of continuing dependency

27. Tax’s Manifesto of Action Anthropology: The Term • Term ‘action anthropology’ first used in 1951 • The Fox Project • A conscious attempt to decentre anthropological production • First published (1959) in Journal of Social Research (Ranchi, Bihar, India) • Subsequently reprinted in Current Anthropology (1975)

28. Tax’s Manifesto of Action Anthropology: Foci (my updated terminology) (1) Recognition of difference • Cultural Relativism (2) Interculturality • Acculturation Situation • No necessaary mnovment of accommodation to a dominant culture (3) Situation-based • Model of a community study (Redfield) • Encompassing research with all peoples involved in a situation • Necessarily multi-sited • Reservation • Local people(s) • Government officials • Missionaries • State officials: state capital • National officials: Washington DC

29. Tax’s Manifesto of Action Anthropology: Foci (my updated terminology) (4) Clinical or experimental method of study • Rejection of pure observation, even participant observation • Not just observing what happens ‘naturally’ • Interventionist: Anthropologist as catalyst • Test hypotheses by changing aspect of the situation under study in accord with hypotheses and see results (5) Rejection of ‘scientism’ • Action (i.e. interventions) cannot wait upon having calculated statistical probabilities of effects of courses of action • Science cannot justify anything • ‘But of course the action anthropologist eschews “pure science.” For one thing his work requires that he not use people for an end not related to their own welfare: people are not rats and ought not to be treated like them. Not only should we not hurt people; we should not sue them for our own ends.

30. Tax’s Manifesto of Action Anthropology: Foci (my updated terminology) (6) Welfare of the community as ultimate goal: ‘Community research is thus justifiable only to the degree that the results are imminently useful to the community and easily outweigh the disturbance to it…One may characterize action anthropology by saying that the community in which it works is not only its subject of study but also its object.’ (7) Lack of top-down mandate • Academic autonomy • No framing of issues (i.e. terms of reference) accepted from • Non-community organisation management • Government officials • Administrators

31. Tax’s Manifesto of Action Anthropology: Guiding Values • (1) Truth • Anticipating Scheper-Hughes’s ‘speaking truth to power’ • ‘…we also fee impelled to trumpet our truth against whatever falsehoods we find, whether they are deliberate or psychological or mythological.’ • (2) Freedom • Of individuals to choose group with which to identify • Of communities to choose their way of life • Anthropologist as facilitator • Removing restrictions on alternatives • Attempt to remove self from position of power • (3) Parsimony • Questions of value only to be settled when relevant to problems of action • Criterion of relevance: developing more constructive relations within community and to others • Eschewal of abstract value judgements • Simply not address issue of cannibals having right to self-determination (Redfield’s query) unless work with community of cannibals • Parallel to operation of US Supreme Court • Case-based • Constitutional issues not decided in abstract

32. Tax’s Manifesto of Action Anthropology: Guiding Values • Influence of American pragmatism (John Dewey) • Answering questions only sufficiently to settle problems in concrete instances • Action anthropology as a balancing act • Help a group of people to solve a problem • Learn something in the process

33. Failures of realisation of Fox Project • Foley: Actual projects tend to be planned, initiated, organised by anthropologists themselves • Few survive after departure of anthropologists • Only scholarship project enduring effects • Anthropologists’ power brokering with white contribute to continuing Mesquaki dependency • Tax’s team’s reassessment • Anthropologist’s role as educating people about consequences of choosing various alternatives • Gearing (The Face of the Fox): • ‘Sadly, the more I came to recognize the underlying nature of the discomfort of this small community, the more my “helping” was reduced to mere talk.’

34. ‘Action Anthropology’ as predecesor of ‘Engaged Anthropology’ • 2008 American Anthropological Association (San Francisco) meeting: ‘Inclusion, Collaboration, and Engagement’ • ‘Engaged skepticism’ in evaluation of Minerva project & ‘human terrain system’ by AAA President • 2009 Australian Anthropological Society meeting: ‘Engaging with Politics and Ethics’ • Course outlines • E.g. ‘The Anthropology of Engagement/Engaged Anthropology’ • David Valentine, Sarah Lawrence College

35. ‘Engaged Anthropology’ as key word in publications and websites • Keith Hart (Goldsmith’s College, London): ‘An engaged anthropology for the 21st century’ • Savage Minds: ‘Engaged Anthropology and Academic Freedom’ (Kerim) • Engaged Observer: Anthropology, Advocacy and Activism (Sanford, Angel-Ajani)

36. Engaged Anthropology as Impactful (Pragmatic criterion) • Ric Curtis ‘Adventures in Engaged Anthropology: Why “Getting it Right” is Not Enough?’ • Tactical Anthropology: influence on illegal drug policy • ‘Active engagement with law enforcement folks’ • Syringe Exchange program

37. Engaged Anthropology as Publicly Relevant • Engaging Anthropology: The Case for a Public Presence (Thomas Hylland Eriksen) • Anthropological writing as focus • Influence of rhetorical critique of anthropological writing by Marcus & associates • Borofsky’s ‘Public Anthropology’: Echoes of Tax’s Action Anthropology • Overcoming contrast of theory and practice • Recovery of holism • Conversations among concerned parties • Recovering sense of status and respect from broader public • Contrast with Applied anthropology (e.g. contract anthropology) • Refusing to accept hegemonic framing of problems

38. Borofsky’s Acknowledgment of Heritage of Tax’s Action Anthropology • Acknowledging shortcomings of Action Anthropology in realisation • Critical discussion of the project as an exemplification of public anthropology • CA* treatment of Foley’s article • Current Anthropology as a more successful realistion of both public anthropology & action anthro-pology than the Fox project itself!

39. Discontinuities of Tax’s vision of World Anthropology with World Anthropologies • World Anthropology still a modernist project centred in a Western metropole (Chicago) • Both IXth ICAES and Current Anthropology • Continuing domination by Western scholars in publications of World Anthropology series and in Current Anthropology • Euro-American vision of core of World Anthropology (heir to Anthropology Today) • Faith in unity of Anthropology as a coherent, unified discipline • Tax’s final proposition in his ‘Anthropology for the World of the Future: Thirteen Professions and Three Proposals’ • Heir to Kroeber

40. Continuities of Tax’s vision with World Anthropologies • Inclusionist urge of Tax’s efforts • Internationalisation of anthropology through the CA associates framework • Action anthropology as a vision of anthropology emphasising its practice with people rather than merely theorising about them • Rejection of unilineal models of development • Tax’s revelatory realisation that acculturation not occurring among Native Americans • Rejection of his mentors • Linton & Redfield as co-articulators of acculturation concept • Redfield’s ‘folk-urban’ continuum • Questioning of the nation-state as a given • Cosmopolitanism as creed (i.e. Fabian’s ‘transnationalism’)

41. Tax’s Vision of World Anthropology • Anthropology as a community of conversation • Pluralist inclusion • Engagement with a multitude of perspectives • But still a modernist perspective • Faith in a unified adherence to Western liberal, democratic values

42. Lessons for World Anthropologies? • Postmodernist/poststructural emphasis upon discontinuities (e.g. Foucault) • World Anthropologies as an epistemic break with previous perspectives • But in many ways a continuing evolution from perspectives earlier articulated by Tax • Continuities of ‘World Anthropologies’ with ‘World Anthropology’ • Tax’s marginalisation from mainstream (Western) anthropology in his own time • Perhaps now a more appropriate time for such an inclusionary project

43. Prospects for ‘World Anthropologies’ • Within academic anthropology: • ‘Culture of Accountability’ as the major obstacle • Fetichisation of rankings • Pressure to publish in journals of the metropoles • Within applied anthropology • ‘Terms of reference’ dictated by governments and other sponsoring organisations • Restricted parameters of Native Title • Countervailing hope: • Engaged alliance with Indigenous organisations and social movements • Fulfilment of promise of ‘action anthropology’ through work in civil society organisations Perhaps even through anthropological associations like ASWA