Paper short abstract:

This paper considers the challenge that mental illness presents to the category of 'anthropologist', using the diagnosis of Borderline Personality Disorder as a case study. It asks what practical steps can be taken to further true epistemic inclusion in our departments.

Paper long abstract:

What kind of person makes a good anthropologist? Will a mental illness seriously affect the quality of your data? Are there people who simply shouldn't be anthropologists? This paper is an attempt to reckon with these taboo questions, taking as an example the diagnosis of Borderline Personality Disorder. BPD is a chronic condition characterised by severe deficiencies in interpersonal functioning, identity formation, and emotional regulation. It is thought to stem from an impaired ability to 'mentalize'; that is, to understand how beliefs and mental states affect behaviour, both in oneself and in others. That this impairment stands at profound odds with normative perceptions of the skills required to produce good ethnography made the coincidence of my own diagnosis with the outset of my doctoral fieldwork a challenging one. Beginning with a brief account of how BPD affected my experience of fieldwork, I outline the challenge that mental illnesses - particularly those associated with social impairment - pose to the category of 'anthropologist'. I argue that true epistemic inclusion requires bravery that begins in our departments. On the one hand, emphasis must be given to practical development of social skills associated with fieldwork, rather than their a priori assumption. On the other, we must commit to interrogating our reliance on normative forms of knowledge and experience. Careful navigation of these countervailing concerns reveals that there is still much to learn about what it is an anthropologist is and does.