“The Nuer” or “The responsibility of Anthropology”
Reread Anthropology II’s bibliography is a dual experience: At same time I remember what I think it was Anthropology and Social Sciences 4 years ago; And I think what it is all about for me now. After All, what is Anthropology and Social Sciences?
“The Nuer”, is a essay writed by a english man in the 1940’s: Evans-Pritchard. The book is rated in Brazil (and maybe all the world) as Anthropology's Classic work. It’s a classic because it’s part of the first generation of anthropological works that is done by a actual Anthropology Department. In other words, it is a example of institutionalized discipline, with proper resources and methodology can do. Besides, the essay shows sensibility that’s needed to get to know a native knowledge, beyond occidental pre-definition of social, culture, politics and even space and time. And that is the actual core of the contemporary anthropology’s concern: be real open to Other’s world and other worlds.
However, I can’t avoid to think that book is also a example of United Kingdom’s imperialism, a colonist enterprise. It’s impossible to be aware that behind the lovely appreciation of Nuer’s political behavior, there is The Britain Empire looking for a better way to control Sudan (At that time, a colony called Anglo-Egyptian Sudan). The comprehension of why group A is fighting against B and suddenly, in a another week they’re together as allies against group C is more than cultural knowledge. It is a knowledge of how to better control that colony.
Nowadays, the conflict between Nuer and Dinka (described on the Pritchard’s essay) continues but with guns and national independence’s issues. Today they have to deal with new notions as Nation State and oil. (News report). It’s clear that the research that asked about Nuer’s politics system has brought baggage with the “best of” occidental politics: exploring for sale with best profits and non care about conflicts that isn’t on a western territory.
Nowadays Anthropology don’t work for a Empire. At least it is what contemporary anthropologist says for itself . But what have really changed? The contemporary anthropology aim for a mind decolonization, gathering movements in philosophy (mainly the post-structuralism authors like Giles Deleuze, Félix Guattari and even Michel Foucault). However, can Antrhopology really achieve that? And what is the consequence of this, for the researchers and theirs “objects”?
Among all anthropology production, what percentage is actually used for land demarcation? And what percentage stay in Academic circle between intellectuals? What has been given in change for the work that was done? How this essays have been helping the native people? I’m using a accusatory tone because there’s a trick on Anthropology’ classes: It’s proposing a deconstruction of itself, a mind decolonization, a de-westernization of Philosophy, but at the same time it isn’t approaching the historical bad effects of the Anthropology. Don’t new anthropologies be aware of the bad effects that their work can do? They guess what is the responsibility of Evans-Pritchard in the conflicts of The Nuer People nowadays? How could it isn’t on theoretical debates?
I think this question has a value for all Sciences: Which bachelor really afford to be free and bring benefits for those that are objects of their studies? How about the Hard Sciences (biology, physics)? It can bring benefits besides relations of power and domination? Are the Science doomed to support control and exploration? Are the Science doomed to be among intellectuals and power figures? What is Science about and what is it purpose after all?
