To relativize the meaning of anthropology's practicality and reconsider the potential of anthropology, this panel revisits the multiplicity proposed by the interpretive turn. The panel calls for case studies that describe the multiple natures of anthropological knowledge around the world.
There is a global trend toward cutting anthropology from university curriculums due to its lack of practicality. While it is necessary to refashion anthropology to respond to the modern public's concerns to be more responsible to the public, we as anthropologists must also relativize the idea of practicality itself. In this respect, this panel revisits the impact of the interpretive turn. The interpretative turn in anthropology, which centered around the work of Clifford Geertz, may be a crucial point of reference even now, in the way that anthropology was developed in interaction with other neighboring disciplines and society as a whole to prove its potential. In particular, the multiplicity proposed by the interpretive turn is a key to relativize the meaning of practicality and to reconsider the debate on useful anthropology. One of the major points in the argument of this panel is considering what types of influences anthropology has or could have on society, with a focus on rethinking theories and practices surrounding the interpretive turn, including other trends and turns such as the linguistic turn and the ontological turn. The strong focus on the multiplicity proposed by the interpretive turn may relate to the issue of world anthropologies as well. We look forward to papers considering interpretative approaches using fieldwork-based case studies that will describe the multiple natures of anthropological knowledge around the world, the interaction between these, and the potential for anthropology in the world of multiple value systems.