Paper short abstract:

In this paper, I explore the ethics of conducting long-term anthropological research in conflict zones. After narrating M23’s invasion of my fieldsite in November 2012 and the aftermath of their occupation, I examine the consequences of my presence in DRC on my local networks and my university.

Paper long abstract:

In this paper, I explore the ethics of conducting long-term anthropological research in conflict zones though a description of my own research in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo. In November 2012, halfway through my dissertation research on conflations of love and sexual violence in 'the rape capital of the world,' M23 invaded and occupied Goma and its surrounding vicinities. By narrating the events surrounding my evacuation from and subsequent reinstallation in my fieldsite in a small village in North Kivu, I identify the communities of people affected by my decisions to leave and to return: my staff, my friends, beneficiaries of the hospital at which I worked, employees at an NGO with which I associated, members of various armed groups, and my California-based thesis committee. As I recount and contrast each community's narrative about the possibilities and the risks of my continued research in the area, I demonstrate the diverging ways in which conflict is lived, managed, and understood by differently situated actors. Then, I critically examine the anthropological desire to 'be there,' which becomes a sacred concept in conflict zones, simultaneously revered and banned. I conclude with a rigorous consideration of the contradictions between the ethics of the discipline and those of its subjects who remain suspended in conflict zones long after the anthropologists that study them leave.