Yıl 2017, Cilt , Sayı , Sayfalar 1 - 11 2017-06-15


M. Nazif SHAHRANI [1]

34 48



Complexities of power/knowledge relationships are widely recognized, theorized and examined in multiplicities of contexts in social sciences and humanities. In this presentation I will, however briefly, examine how and why anthropology, often referred to as the bastard child of nineteenth century Western imperialism, has transformed itself at the dawn of twenty first century, at least according to the American Anthropological Associations (AAA:2012), to become one of the “most humanistic of sciences and scientific of humanities.” A discipline with the current goals of producing and “disseminating anthropological knowledge to solve human problems”, according to the AAA, the institutional governing body of the field in the United States of America. History of the development of anthropology, like other social sciences and humanities disciplines, has been shaped by the diverse relationships of its practitioners, the anthropologists, to the fluid nature of Western imperial powers. That is, transforming from empires of commerce, and conquest to “empires by invitation or empires of trust”, during the twentieth century, especially after the Second World War.  Here I will focus on the following significant questions: How did the instrumental uses by Western colonial powers of anthropologists and cultural knowledge they produced about the non-Western colonized societies during the nineteenth and early twentieth century shape trajectories of the development of the discipline? How or whether the ab/uses of anthropology and anthropologists changed during the two World Wars as well as the anti-colonial wars of liberation in Asia, Africa and Latin America? What were the impact of Western decolonization, onset of the Cold War, wars by proxies, and creation of neo-empires by “invitation/trust”, on anthropology, after the end of WWII? More significantly, how did the triumph of Western Capitalism over the USSR, the beginning of war on global terror (after September 11-2001) and the need for counterinsurgency (COIN) campaigns in the Middle East influence militarization/weaponization of anthropology and anthropologizing the military? Also explored will be the role of recently trained non-Western or “native” anthropologists in reassessing anthropology’s imperialist past and its extremely critical contemporary stance.

Power and Knowledge; Anthropology & Imperialism; Ab/using Social Sciences
  • Abu-Lughod, Lila. 2013. Do Muslim Women Need Saving? Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press. Asad, Talal. 1973. Anthropology and the Colonial Encounter. London: The Ithaca Press Barth, Fredrick. 1966. Models of Social Organization. London, Royal Anthropological Institute, Occasional paper (Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland); no. 23. Carroll, Ward. 2009. “The Human Terrain Project”. Defense Tech. January 6, 2009 Deeb, Laura and Jessica Winegar. 2016. Anthropology’s Politics Disciplining the Middle East. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press Ghani, Ashraf and Clare Lockhart. 2008. Fixing Failed States: A Framework for Rebuilding a Fractured World. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press Harris, Marvin. 1980. Cultural Materialism: the struggle for a science of culture. New York: Random House, c1980. Harris, Marvin. 1968. The rise of anthropological theory; a history of theories of culture. New York, Crowell. Lewis, Diane. 1973. Anthropology and Colonialism. Current Anthropology, 14(5):581-602. Geertz, Clifford. 1973. The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books. Gough, Kathleen. 1968. Anthropology and Imperialism. Monthly Review, 19(11):12-27 Kroeber, Alfred A and Talcott Parsons. 1958. The Concept of Culture and of Social System. American Sociological Review. 23:582-83. Lundestad, Geir.1999. “Empire by Invitation” in the American Century. Diplomatic History. 23/2:189-2017. Madden, Thomas. 2008. Empire of Trust: Hoe Rome Built-and America is Building- a New World. New York: Dutton Marlowe, Ann. 2007. Anthropology Goes to War. The Weekly Standard, Friday, November 23, 2007. Memmi, Albert. 1969. Dominated Man. Boston: Beacon Press Ortner, Sherry. 1984. Theory in Anthropology since the Sixties. Comparative Studies in Society and History. 26(1): 126-166. Paine, Robert. 1974. Second Thoughts about Barth's Models of Social Organization. London: Royal Anthropological Institute. Pels, Peter. 1997. The Anthropology of Colonialism: Culture, History, and the Emergence of Western Governmentality. Annual Reviews in Anthropology. 26:163-183. Rohde, David.2007. “Army Enlists Anthropology in War Zones”. The New York Times. October 5, 2007. Said, Edward. 1978. Orientalism. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Scott, James. 1985. Weapons of the weak: everyday forms of peasant resistanceNew Haven : Yale University Press. Scott, James. 1990. Domination and the arts of resistance hidden transcripts. New Haven : Yale University Press. Shahrani, Nazif M. 2016. Why Muslim Sectarian Politics of Rage in the Age of “Empire of Trust”?. Journal of Islamic and Muslim Studies. Vol 1. No. 1:28-46. Shachtman, Noah. 2008. Montgomery McFate: Use Anthropology in Military Planning, in Wired, available at https://www.wired.com/2008/09/sl-mcfate/; accessed June 4-2017. Slezkine, Yuri. 1994. Arctic Mirror: Russia and the Small Peoples of the North. Ithaca & London: Cornell University Press Stannard, Matthew. 2007. Montgomery McFate’s Mission. San Francisco Chronicle Magazine, April 29. http://www.sfgate.com/magazine/article/#photo-2705527. Accessed 4-1-2017 Turk, Austin T. 1962. An Examination of the Kroeber-Parsons Distinction between “Culture” Turk, Austin and “Society”. The Sociological Quarterly. Volume 3, Issue 2, April 1962; pages 135–146 White, Leslie. 1969. The Science of Culture; a Study of Man and Civilization New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Wolf, Eric. 1980. They Divide and Subdivide, And Called it Anthropology. New York Times, Sunday, November 30, 1980, p. E9.
Konular Sosyal ve Beşeri Bilimler
Dergi Bölümü Bildiriler

Yazar: M. Nazif SHAHRANI (Sorumlu Yazar)
E-posta: shahrani@indiana.edu

Bibtex @konferans bildirisi { ibad365852, journal = {Uluslararası Bilimsel Araştırmalar Dergisi (IBAD)}, issn = {}, address = {Hayrullah KAHYA}, year = {2017}, volume = {}, pages = {1 - 11}, doi = {10.21733/ibad.365852}, title = {ANTHROPOLOGY: “BASTARD CHILD” OF IMPERIALISM’S COMING OF AGE AT THE DAWN OF 21ST CENTURY}, key = {cite}, author = {SHAHRANI, M. Nazif} }
APA SHAHRANI, M . (2017). ANTHROPOLOGY: “BASTARD CHILD” OF IMPERIALISM’S COMING OF AGE AT THE DAWN OF 21ST CENTURY. Uluslararası Bilimsel Araştırmalar Dergisi (IBAD), (), 1-11. DOI: 10.21733/ibad.365852
MLA SHAHRANI, M . "ANTHROPOLOGY: “BASTARD CHILD” OF IMPERIALISM’S COMING OF AGE AT THE DAWN OF 21ST CENTURY". Uluslararası Bilimsel Araştırmalar Dergisi (IBAD) (2017): 1-11 <http://dergipark.gov.tr/ibad/issue/32857/365852>
Chicago SHAHRANI, M . "ANTHROPOLOGY: “BASTARD CHILD” OF IMPERIALISM’S COMING OF AGE AT THE DAWN OF 21ST CENTURY". Uluslararası Bilimsel Araştırmalar Dergisi (IBAD) (2017): 1-11
RIS TY - JOUR T1 - ANTHROPOLOGY: “BASTARD CHILD” OF IMPERIALISM’S COMING OF AGE AT THE DAWN OF 21ST CENTURY AU - M. Nazif SHAHRANI Y1 - 2017 PY - 2017 N1 - doi: 10.21733/ibad.365852 DO - 10.21733/ibad.365852 T2 - Uluslararası Bilimsel Araştırmalar Dergisi (IBAD) JF - Journal JO - JOR SP - 1 EP - 11 VL - IS - SN - -2536-4642 M3 - doi: 10.21733/ibad.365852 UR - http://dx.doi.org/10.21733/ibad.365852 Y2 - 2017 ER -
EndNote %0 Uluslararası Bilimsel Araştırmalar Dergisi (IBAD) ANTHROPOLOGY: “BASTARD CHILD” OF IMPERIALISM’S COMING OF AGE AT THE DAWN OF 21ST CENTURY %A M. Nazif SHAHRANI %T ANTHROPOLOGY: “BASTARD CHILD” OF IMPERIALISM’S COMING OF AGE AT THE DAWN OF 21ST CENTURY %D 2017 %J Uluslararası Bilimsel Araştırmalar Dergisi (IBAD) %P -2536-4642 %V %N %R doi: 10.21733/ibad.365852 %U 10.21733/ibad.365852