Send message to Author

Paper short abstract

Drawing from long-standing research with Arab tribal and Syrian Kurdish interlocutors, who stand on opposite sides of the current conflict in Syria, I ask how anthropologists can speak for local perspectives that are contradictory and that may also be in opposition to the researcher's own views.

Paper long abstract

Anthropological research is associated with a moral/political obligation to stand behind the communities who have supported us during the research process, as interlocutors and hosts. Among other things, this may be understood as making interlocutors' voices heard and their standpoints understood, to both scholarly and wider publics.

This obligation weighs particularly heavily in situations of existential crisis and war. Yet in an ongoing (civil) war situation, where local interpretations and expectations may not only differ but diametrically oppose each other, this seemingly simple tenet may present serious problems. This is exacerbated by methodological issues, as fieldwork in places of war is typically difficult if not impossible to do, leading to a shift in research methods towards remote research, conversations with exiled and diasporic communities to learn about the situation "at home", and a strong reliance on digital representations and social media.

The ongoing conflict in Syria is a case in point. I draw from my long-standing research with two different rural communities in Northern Syria - tribal Arab groups on the one hand, Syrian Kurds on the other - to unpack these issues further. Although the historical experiences of both communities are closely entangled, they stand on opposite sides in the current conflict, contradicting and negating each others' perceptions. How is it possible to accurately reflect local communities' views in this setting in a nuanced and precise manner, while violence, distrust and hatred create an atmosphere of urgency and despair?