Paper short abstract:

Do the hierarchical structures shaping academia cause us to solidify as ‘natural’ those very ideological constructs which anthropological practice seeks to unpack? For example how has anthropology become a site of both complicity and resistance in relation to the dispossession of indigenous peoples?

Paper long abstract:

Anthropologists thrive on mapping how, why and by whom, some patterns of difference-making gain power over others, whilst often losing sight of the hierarchical structures of academic livelihoods which seek to solidify as 'natural' those very forces and patterns which anthropological practice seeks to unpack as ideologically constructed. Rather than seeing 'Anthropology and Postcolonialism' as being primarily about the decentring of Europe and the complicity or otherwise of Europe's Others in their own domination, this paper examines the ways in which we can become complicit in our own domination by an ideology which pervades our academic practice because it permeates our everyday experience. The paper examines the way colonisation and resistance plays out in anthropologists' interpretations of the trajectories of those whom European societies call 'indigenous peoples'. In this particular example how can we avoid the traps of either freezing such people out of time, or asserting their agency but only within a frame of reference which predetermines the direction such agency must take. On the one hand the attempt to assert difference in order to assert the rights of dispossessed minorities can be perceived as essentialising difference, on the other hand the attempt to erase difference through denying indigenous peoples' rights is an erasure on terms set by the dominant party, and as such is an act of assimilation rather than a meeting of equals. How might the practice of anthropology enable us to move towards equality rather than shore up inequality?