Paper short abstract:

Anthropologists are uniquely equipped to critique the universalising master narrative of VAWG by paying attention to local understandings of violence yet risk being misunderstood as apologists for violence or for discriminatory attitudes against “violent” indigenous people.

Paper long abstract:

Through their distinctive methodology of long-term, immersive fieldwork, social anthropologists are uniquely equipped to critique the universalising master narrative of violence against women and girls (VAWG) by paying attention to local understandings of violence. For instance, similarly to other Latin American societies, the Nahuatl-speaking people of Milpa Alta in the Federal District of Mexico have an ideology of women as "fighters" (luchadoras), so that they conceptualise domestic violence as a fight between equally powerful partners. Local ideologies need to be taken into account in order to develop effective violence prevention strategies. Thus, anthropologists may act as valuable cultural brokers, negotiating between the specific worldview and needs of an indigenous population and the globalised, UN-inspired policies of government agencies. However, the anthropologist requires foresight and political skills to avoid their work being used to justify VAWG in the population they study or having their work misinterpreted to justify "modernising" government agendas and discriminatory attitudes against indigenous cultures, which are perceived to be "culturally violent" and "backward". I will illustrate the opportunities and dangers of applying an anthropological perspective on the subject of VAWG with examples taken from my recent 15-month doctoral fieldwork in Milpa Alta, where I collaborated with the local government organisation, Inmujeres (Women's Institute), on this subject. To conclude, I will argue that anthropological interventions in social policy are worth the risks and that a commitment to public outreach is essential for minimising them.