Paper short abstract:

This paper engages anthropology and philosophy of social science by asking how uniquely anthropological approaches to the study of political violence contribute to or constrain the actualisation of the emancipatory aims of anthropologists in relation to philosophical ontologies of social change.

Paper long abstract:

As debates surrounding the status of anthropology as either an objective science or politically-engaged, moral enterprise continue to unfold, scholars examining the phenomenon of state terror and political violence remain adamant about their position as 'political advocates' for the oppressed (Scheper-Hughes 2004:3). Following Linda Green (1995), Jeffrey Sluka considers the construction of 'sites of resistance' and 'acts of solidarity' via ethnography as a central means for 'writing against terror' (2000:ix). Similarly, others argue for a shift towards a more emancipatory or liberation anthropology by maintaining the notion that 'neutrality is not an option' (Scheper-Hughes and Falla in Sluka 2000:20), and that the primary endeavour of anthropology should be to critique Western (capitalist) culture (Taussig 1980). For anthropologists, violence appears as a dichotomous, complex phenomena often constituted by a continuum or spectrum of experiences; hence, by considering the physical, symbolic, and structural configurations of violence, anthropological theories in this domain vary widely in their focus and scope. Drawing on my current master's thesis, this presentation will examine some of the ontological presuppositions that are attributes of a uniquely anthropological approach to understanding, explaining, and resisting state violence. Furthermore, I will address questions surrounding how this 'uniqueness' has the potential to constrain or contribute to the actualisation of the emancipatory aims held by anthropologists concerned with political violence and state terror.