Accepted Paper:

Power and professional practice: a comparison of anthropological ethics codes  

Author:

Miriam Grossi (UFSC)

Paper short abstract:

To what extent do the ethical codes of different Anthropological associations, mostly designed more than two decades ago, respond to new ethical challenges posed to Anthropologists, especially risks associated with their field studies? How do these different codes of ethics deal with the political engagement of some Anthropologists?

Paper long abstract:

To what extent do the ethical codes of different Anthropological associations, mostly designed more than two decades ago, respond to new ethical challenges posed to Anthropologists, especially concerning risks associated with their field studies? How do these different codes of ethics deal with the political engagement of some Anthropologists in the groups studied? How is the anthropological assertion "change the world", consistent with other traditional theoretical assumptions such as "scientific neutrality" and "detachment" with regard to the groups studied? This paper analyses some anthropological ethics codes in order to answer these questions. Through a comparative analysis of the texts of different codes of ethics provided by national anthropological associations, we try to understand if - and to what extent - ethical regulation has - or has not - contributed to new ways of doing anthropology in the contemporary world. We reflect upon examples drawn from some contemporary ethnographies, in fields that include issues such as gender, sexual orientation, ethnic-racial, disability, social class and other social markers of difference that also mark the identities of male and female Anthropologists in different contexts of anthropological practice, focusing particularly on contexts that are defined as risky or dangerous.

Panel WIM-HLT05b
Moving moralities: anthropological fieldwork and risk in a violent world