Short Abstract

Anthropology has long faced theoretical, methodological, and ideological polarizations. This panel explores key cases of conflict within the scholarly community, their trajectories and impacts, and reflects on the lessons these divisions offer for the discipline’s present and future.

Long Abstract

Throughout its trans/national trajectories and histories, Anthropology has experienced various moments of polarization, whether theoretical disagreements, methodological crossroads, or conflicting ideas — and ideologies — about the discipline’s overarching goals and praxis. Polarizations encompass both famous personal disputes (e.g. Obeyesekere vs. Sahlins) that arguably left no one indifferent, and larger divergences that have grouped anthropologists into opposing camps. Polarized debates can arise, for example, from disputed ethnographies—such as Margaret Mead’s on Samoa, or the turbulent representation of the Yanomami in anthropological texts; it may even stem from philosophical assumptions about humanity—the clash between conceptions of Indigenous political life rooted in Rousseau’s work and the neo Marxist positions of the 1960s and 1970s being a case in point. These disagreements can transcend the immediate interests of academia, to involve broader issues such as human rights and political activism. And while some polarizations have become common knowledge or part of the discipline’s mythology, others have been relegated to oblivion over time. The aim of this panel is to present a comparative overview of polarization in anthropology through case studies that examine their development and outcomes: whether they were resolved, remained dead locked, were abandoned due to the exhaustion of arguments, or remained open and inspirational. Proponents are also invited to address the historical lessons that can be drawn for current anthropology.

This Panel has 1 pending paper proposal.
Propose paper