Seeking clarity at a time of confusion, through world anthropologies

A section called “World Anthropologies” within American Anthropologist (AA) itself speaks to an apparent paradox: the difficulty of going beyond the US-centric perspective to see the plural. But this task is more urgent than ever as American anthropology is engaged in soul-searching that demands serious changes to our practice. As Negrón et al. (2024) summarize, these changes include, among others, decolonizing the ways research is done, addressing precarity in the job market, and responding to urgent societal needs, “all while ensuring that anthropology's unique contributions are recognizable.” Expanding our horizons beyond the gravity center of the United States addresses the pressing dilemma, that is, gaining clarity at a time of confusion. Anthropologists around the world, more than those in other disciplines, are confronted with and largely willing to acknowledge complexity, ambiguity, and messiness in our work. However, when it comes to our practice, especially at the current moment of existential crises both within the discipline and in the larger society, we seek some kind of clarity to orient ourselves toward meaningful and valuable actions, and conversations with colleagues from different parts of the world. After all, the more we elucidate different but intersecting institutional, intellectual, and political conditions and render these conditions visible and legible, the better we can situate ourselves in the world purposefully. Both a framework and a platform within AA, “World Anthropologies” foregrounds anthropology's complex traditions and multifaceted conditions in which we operate and make connections. The previous associate editors have highlighted this complexity, of “multiple concerns to be folded into one another”; “of changing insider and outsider status; of negotiating otherness and identity politics in relation to multiple contexts, including to one's scholarly location (which is increasingly not one's home) and to the discipline of anthropology itself; and finally of heightened mobilities ... in relation to disciplinary training, fieldwork, and ethnographic writing” (Papailias & Gupta, 2021, 962). As incoming associate editors, we continue to unsettle “anthropology” in the singular, to make the journal more attuned to and genuinely committed to diverse and overlapping forms and systems of anthropological knowledge. In doing so, we aim to make this section an influential channel to help our discipline gain some sense of clarity out of confusion. We value a practice-oriented approach to world anthropologies and consider it the core of this section. Since Ribeiro and Escobar (2006) coined the notion of “world anthropologies” in their edited volume with the same title, discussions on this topic have evolved into two threads of reflections: the first on knowledge production in anthropology in various contexts, and the second on interconnectedness between anthropology in different regions at a global level, which sustains a level of disciplinary coherency (Arif, 2016). We value both threads, as these reflections together broaden our perspectives and prompt anthropologists to embrace our discipline as a way of world-making (Papailias & Gupta, 2021). Knowledge production is not merely about the competition of intellectual merit but about how to develop a meaningful relationship with one's academic, social, and political environment. Anthropology is not about merely representing the world, but about actively participating in the world. Seeking clarity does not mean that we look for any unified or totalizing theory or direction in anthropological work. Instead, it demands us to pay close attention to the messiness and confusion in our research and life, taking them seriously as a chance to find new ways of problematization and acquire new perspectives. Seeking clarity does not imply that we assume there is one definitive answer to address our discipline's current crises and potential struggles. Instead, it should be understood as an intellectual and ethical practice to foster a more effective and functional relationship between anthropology and other disciplines, between academic and public knowledge, and between anthropologists and political action worldwide. We further envision “World Anthropologies” as a persistent effort of communication and collaboration in a spirit of openness and humility. What led us to embark on this endeavor was an enthusiasm for collaboration between scholars from different worlds but with overlapping commitments. Our collaboration came as a pleasant surprise even to ourselves, as we had different theoretical orientations, research interests, epistemological lenses, and even political sensibilities. It is our shared sense of dissatisfaction and disillusionment with certain realities of American anthropology, shared confusion about the purpose of anthropological scholarship, combined with the hope for taking our research interlocutors seriously through ethnography, that drove us to transcend differences in research specialization and made our collaboration possible (Xu & Zhan, 2024). Starting from such existential concerns, we see “World Anthropologies” as an ideal platform with both breadth and depth to discuss, debate, and expand the scholarly community's views of what anthropology is and what it is for. We understand collaboration as the central foundation for our editorship, for example, collaboration between the two of us, between authors and editors, between interviewers and interviewees, and between this and the other sections of AA. We also aim to recognize and explore the potential of gaining clarity from the margins. Both of us were trained in the United States as international students and spent years learning to see the world through theories and epistemologies largely developed at the hegemonic centers of knowledge production. But with cumulative experience of speaking to and writing for different audiences beyond the United States, we have become more conscious and critical about the limits of these dominant theories and epistemologies in understanding our home country, various communities we study, as well as the larger world we live in. Currently, we are positioned somewhat at the margins of global anthropological knowledge production, in terms of geographic region, topical specialization, and/or the hierarchical academic system. We are in between worlds. But marginal and ambiguous positions also generate creativity. Moving through academic communities and crossing geographical, cultural, social, and ideological boundaries can help anthropologists better understand our discipline in the plural and together find new reference points and lenses to reorient knowledge production. Anthropological research demands intellectual labor and deep engagement between individual minds, between scholars and research interlocutors in our fieldwork sites. But it is also more than that when we take one step back and examine how we survive within and beyond academic institutions. We acknowledge ethnographers’ “intense vulnerability” (Pollard, 2009) in the field, especially for students. We are also sensitive to the fact that multiple and increasingly brutal conditions limit the very survival of scholars and scholarship, such as employment opportunities, training orientations, promotion mechanisms, publication metrics, visibility of and availability of funding for specific topics, and language biases. In the United States, for example, the number of doctoral graduates in anthropology between 1985 and 2014 increased from about 350 to around 530 graduates per year. However, approximately 79% of them do not obtain tenure-track positions in US academia (Speakman et al., 2018). Anthropologists elsewhere also struggle within the system, and one reason is that many countries outside the United States, for example, countries in the Global South, if not always the case, favor English publications and international venues today (Mathews et al., 2024). American anthropology holds itself as a single discipline with heightened internal fissures at the moment (Horowitz, Yaworsky, & Kickham, 2019). However, the American model of four-field anthropology cannot be assumed elsewhere. Rather, the different components of such a four-field model in other regions have quite diverse institutional origins and genealogical affinities with related disciplines. Moreover, the institutionalization of knowledge cannot be assumed as a unilateral process because it occurs in different manners and for different reasons across diverse spatial-temporal contexts. Some trace the institutionalization of anthropology to the study of folklore and ethnology (Vermeulen, 2013, 40–42) in Europe and further emphasize the multiple origins of contemporary Euro-American anthropology in the 18th century. For example, in France, until the 1960s, anthropologists were often trained initially in philosophy. Later, it was at anthropologist Maurice Godelier's suggestion that French research institutions started to employ the term “human and social sciences” in the 1980s (Bowen & Bentaboulet, 2002). In western Andalucía, the institutionalization of social anthropology should be understood as “a struggle for a decolonized discipline” (Roca & Martín-Diaz, 2016). In China, the institutionalization of anthropological knowledge across the country only came together after the 2000s (Zhan, 2024). We thus value reflections on the institutionalization of anthropology across countries, regions, and historical contexts. Indeed, anthropology takes its form within multiple conditions, and whether and how the discipline will survive cannot be assumed. The sense of intellectual crisis has always been present within anthropology and critique has evolved in various directions, for example, on how anthropology has been facing “difficulties in formulating an adequate theory of social change” (Asad, 1979), “approaching the issues at stake in the reality we face” (Motta, 2019), and losing “its ability to criticize based on in-depth knowledge” (Jebens, 2010). There is an urgency to seek clarity regarding the serious work anthropologists should do in response to structural transformations and urgent problems. At a time of globalization of knowledge and education, anthropological knowledge can be mistaken as unified and hegemonic. This condition has led many young students to study anthropology in Western countries. At the global level, the concrete tensions with local publication venues and incentive mechanisms played out in particular ways in different countries or academic systems. (Mathews et al., 2024). However, as neoliberalism has entered a crisis in recent decades (Duménil & Lévy, 2013), anthropologists today face an increasingly contentious and complicated reality. American anthropology, ironically, is an apt example, in the sense that it has become quite provincialized at its institutional level, which makes the discipline difficult to respond to real-world challenges in a wider scope. We are particularly interested in those emergent interventions intended to break institutional boundaries and address difficulties within academia. Estalella and Criado (2019) promote an anthropology done together with others, assembling from scratch a conceptual body, caring for the mundane issues that are very often forgotten and rendered invisible by disciplinary fields. They therefore advocate “a DIY anthropology,” anthropological practice rebuilt in ways that blur our disciplinary boundaries. In a similar spirit, we also take anthropology beyond academia in many parts of the world seriously. Of course, the increasingly precarious job market within academia contributes to the diversification of anthropology career paths, but the active engagement of anthropologists in other professions or other spheres has enhanced the relevancy and visibility of anthropology in some parts of the world as an unintended consequence. For example, recently in China, anthropological and ethnographic knowledge, both academic books translated from English and those written in Chinese, have become popular and influential among the general public, as evidenced by remarkable book sales, media attention and outreach opportunities, and a booming nonfiction writing industry inspired by it. In doing so, we also hope to reflect on and emphasize the relationships between concrete institutional bases of anthropological knowledge (i.e., universities, research organizations, NGOs, and media agencies) and larger political and geopolitical processes (Green, 2009). We also aim to understand the institutionalization of anthropological knowledge around the world against or in relation to other social structures and realities that shape our lives. Since 2019, Günel, Varma, and Watanabe have been developing the concept of “patchwork ethnography” to spotlight how ethnographers conduct fieldwork amid intersecting personal and professional responsibilities. They have highlighted the fact that many ethnographers feel the pressure to suspend familial and professional ties to separate “the field” from “home” for prolonged periods. We appreciate the notion of “patchwork ethnography” in particular because it illuminates a basic but overlooked fact that anthropologists are producing knowledge while living their private lives (Günel et al., 2020; Günel & Watanabe, 2024). Seeing world anthropologies through this lens, we interrogate how researchers’ personal lives impact the process of knowledge production, showcase the innovations that have stemmed from efforts to “balance multiple commitments, and advocate for writing with rather than against the disruptions that might characterize anthropological research projects” (Günel & Watanabe, 2024, 131–32). Globalization of knowledge transmission does mean that many scholars travel between different but intersecting worlds. Take our own journeys as an example: We received education first in China and then in the United States. Although we now work on opposite sides of the Pacific, both of us still write for and engage with both English-speaking and Chinese-speaking audiences and attune ourselves to different linguistic, intellectual, political, and moral contexts. A sense of in-betweenness became our starting point in this exciting endeavor of coediting “World Anthropologies.” It characterizes knowledge production for many anthropologists across the world. It weaves individual scholars’ pursuits into the larger disciplinary trajectories. In-betweenness is, of course, not a new topic. Anthropologists have always been traveling across boundaries. Doing fieldwork itself has in-betweenness at its very core. But we hope to highlight the experience of many anthropologists whose experience is more complicated. Anthropologists have reflected on “native anthropologists” and positionalities for many years since the 1990s. Recent critique of US anthropology calls for “continual decentering of hegemonic knowledge production” (Rouse, 2023, 356), or essentially, the need to critically and intentionally reflect on the “silent universalist pretensions” of US anthropology (Ribeiro, 2021). “Attending to pluriversal ontologies, diverse regional histories, and context-inspired research approaches requires letting go of totalizing narratives about what the discipline was or should be” (Rouse, 2023, 358). This call for humility and warning against totalizing narratives is especially relevant for exploring the multifaceted in-betweenness. Building upon and expanding from such critique, we would like to take seriously the myriad entanglements between US anthropology and anthropologists based in or originating from other parts of the world. In-betweenness is not just a singular dimension of experience, but rather a relevant, prevalent, and contested condition facing contemporary anthropological knowledge production around the world. Many anthropologists today find themselves situated between multiple contexts and traversing various boundaries, in a more complex manner than ever before. We are navigating through interconnected global and local knowledge systems, mediating across different intellectual traditions, oscillating between diverse linguistic communities, weaving through multiple epistemologies, negotiating different, sometimes contradictory ethical demands, bridging gaps across disciplines, and expanding our horizons beyond the academe and into public and We highlight the of the to dominant epistemologies and to reflect on the intersecting of and to conversations across different academic communities beyond the hegemonic of US anthropology, conversations that are not just (Ribeiro, 2021). point to examine the multifaceted and condition of in-betweenness in world anthropologies is to conversations with individual scholars through and/or In such we and embrace the messiness of anthropological knowledge production in different institutional, and linguistic contexts. We explore the challenges and of individual anthropologists traversing multiple worlds and how might and these different worlds. “World Anthropologies” a platform to in and about the intellectual journeys and of individual Many anthropologies positioned in different of intellectual traditions and political have unique and relevant to are not intended to or to for career anthropologists in to their own work. We against the of or the of influential theories in American Rather, we hope these can how anthropologists in different regions work and that speaks to diverse audiences in and beyond academic not only us to trace and concrete knowledge comes from but also us an point to understand the mechanisms of knowledge production in various contexts. to many other in the social anthropologists are more weaving fieldwork reflections into for such reflections are valuable and to fieldwork experience, reflections of the of our work and the messiness of our intellectual journeys gain attention in academic Anthropologists are still or even a language to our intellectual and Many are folded into or and Of course, intellectual and are personal and not always be relevant to the scholarly But to the might well become critical to on and how anthropologists can and should to and the world. about the and crises in individual scholars’ intellectual is also an to practice the kind of anthropology we to of which often to be the of scholarship, we aim to more openness and humility through the we Our own collaboration from shared (Xu & Zhan, and can be as an of 2021). and even can as a point to generate new new and new scholarly orientations, especially at the time of our discipline's existential anthropologies cannot the of the which is still the relevant and But to recognize the plural of anthropology, it is also to go beyond such a in reflections on knowledge production. and of are also relevant for understanding how realities are of the still has to do with has anthropological reflections for a time and to shape how we about the of our After the globalization and the of neoliberalism became framework that anthropologists new in time many research and to what calls Although these are still relevant and it is also to in other for example, conditions (Zhan, to understand the of anthropology in many parts of the world. Ribeiro against an to anthropologies elsewhere as it in different countries and whether the term decolonizing itself the of Western of and a we that the value of decolonizing anthropology is about topical (i.e., whether or not we on the topic of in the United States is to its politics but rather about the political around the world that are in specific historical contexts and orient us in research and our lives of an (Ribeiro, to concrete issues and concerns, we embrace plural ways of problematization in world of also go beyond They are often as that gain and in time and Seeing from the world anthropologies these of are about but rather anthropological that or not be relevant and to us at present and in the We are interested in how different intellectual traditions travel through and time and some more than in A understanding of such of social is for anthropologists to our work in time and and become conscious about what we our intellectual both as individual and as lenses, we also at the center of our section. The American Anthropological address that we mean by how we and how we our be at the center of our 2024, We the effort in the of research in institutions an step in going beyond an Seeing from a world anthropologies we approach as a more and condition that anthropologists around the world are as we are situated within intersecting political and academic Some basic but For example, how do we understand and the purpose of our do we to our research local and other at various of our work do we make sense of and live with the impact of our Moreover, to “the into our we need to expand from a Western moral foundation and our in a ethical framework This to take seriously different of that are and across to explore multiple ways scholars in different academic communities might and engage with the study, and to address various of and in their practice. In the spirit of and we scholars and in anthropology and related to work with We will individual with scholars based in a certain region, and or on topics, in with the other We look to exploring existential issues facing the world, such as and and and emergent social as political actions, and social critique from the Global South, among We would like to broaden the discussions on our discipline's and from a in the practice and of in relation to other and other et al., across different academic We that world anthropologies can become a for meaningful conversations that help address within anthropology et al., and with other fields. is to anthropologists from different regions to reflect on research popular in today but still largely in theoretical and epistemological are just a as we to envision our work. We are to and and hope to make this section more relevant to world

CLARITY · Confusion · Psychoanalysis · Sociology · Anthropological Studies and Insights · History · Psychology

• Seeking clarity at a time of confusion, through world anthropologies

  Open Access•Helina S Woldekiros, Yang Zhan et al.•American Anthropologist•2024

  Incluir item

• Muddying the Waters

  Richa Nagar•Muddying the Waters•2014

  Incluir item

• The Vulnerable Observer

  Ruth Behar•The Vulnerable Observer•1997

  Incluir item

• Fieldwork and Footnotes

  Hendrik Frederik Vermeulen, Han F Vermeulen et al.•Fieldwork and Footnotes•2013

  Incluir item

• The Crisis of Neoliberalism

  Gérard Duménil, Dominique Lévy et al.•Crisis of Neoliberalism•2013

  Incluir item

• Field of screams

  Open Access•Amy Pollard•Anthropology Matters•2009

  Incluir item

• China in and out of World Anthropologies

  Open Access•Helina S Woldekiros, Yang Zhan•American Behavioral Scientist•2024

  Incluir item

• On the Institutionalization of the "Human and Social Sciences" in France

  John R Bowen, Martine Bentaboulet•Anthropological Quarterly•2002

  Incluir item

• Ordinary realism

  Open Access•M Motta•Anthropological Theory•2019

  Incluir item

• DIY Anthropology

  Open Access•A Estalella, T S Criado•ANUAC•2019

  Incluir item

• Anthropology and the Analysis of Ideology

  Talal Asad•Man•1979

  Incluir item

• The Multiply Produced Film

  Open Access•Emily Hong•Cultural Anthropology•2021

  Incluir item

• Dark anthropology and its others

  Open Access•B Ortner, Sherry B Ortner•Hau Journal of Ethnographic Theory•2016

  Incluir item

• Theorizing in ex-centric sites

  Open Access•Faye V Harrison•Anthropological Theory•2016

  Incluir item

• Doing development and writing culture

  Open Access•M Green•Anthropological Theory•2009

  Incluir item

• World Anthropologies

  Open Access•G L Ribeiro•Critique of Anthropology•2006

  Incluir item

• Neoliberalism

  Tejaswini Ganti•Annual Review of Anthropology•2014

  Incluir item

• Patchwork ethnography

  Open Access•Gökçe Günel, C Watanabe•American Ethnologist•2024

  Incluir item

• An anti-genealogical take on US anthropology and disciplinary reform

  Open Access•Carolyn Rouse•American Ethnologist•2023

  Incluir item

• Seeking clarity at a time of confusion, through world anthropologies

  Open Access•Helina S Woldekiros, Yang Zhan et al.•American Anthropologist•2024

  Incluir item

• Ethnographic methods

  Open Access•Melissa Beresford, Rosalyn Negrón et al.•American Anthropologist•2024

  Incluir item

• When do no harm becomes harm done

  Open Access•Ramona L Pérez•American Anthropologist•2024

  Incluir item

• Comparing the situations of anthropologists around the world as to publication and evaluation criteria

  Open Access•G Mathews, Gonzalo Díaz Crovetto et al.•American Anthropologist•2024

  Incluir item

• Can anthropologists get humor? A collaborative experiment on empathetic knowing at a time of predicaments

  Open Access•Jing Xu, Yang Zhan•American Anthropologist•2024

  Incluir item

• Blowing up "the World" in World Anthropologies

  Open Access•Penelope Papailias, P Gupta•American Anthropologist•2021

  Incluir item

• Anthropologizing the World and Worlding the Anthropologist

  Open Access•Yasmeen Arif, Yasmeen R Arif•American Anthropologist•2016

  Incluir item

• The Institutionalization of Social Anthropology in Western Andalucía

  Open Access•Beltran Roca, Emma Martín-Díaz et al.•American Anthropologist•2016

  Incluir item

• Anthropology's Science Wars

  Mark Horowitz, W Yaworsky et al.•Current Anthropology•2019

  Incluir item