Why Does Politics Matter?
For Introduction to Anthropology 2017 we tackled some of the big questions anthropology has attempted to answer. One question: Why Does Politics Matter?
We had two readings:
- Lavenda & Schultz chapter 12, “How Do Anthropologists Study Political Relations?” in Anthropology: What Does it Mean to be Human?.
- Jack Weatherford, “Tribal Politics in Washington” in PoLAR – Political and Legal Anthropology Review (1993); this article was part of the October 2016 issue of Open Anthropology, Anthropology in an Election Year.
Interestingly in June 2017 Richard Cohen used an example of his college anthropology professor commenting on North American politics. Cohen’s piece, Trump will never be presidential–and the GOP knows it echoes the classic gambit of Body Ritual Among the Nacirema. As I wrote in my comment: “Many anthropologists are producing some excellent and insightful contemporary political commentary. In this context, Jack Weatherford’s book Tribes on the Hill written in *1985* could be used as a prescient analysis and prediction of our increasingly tribal political apparatus.”
Politics and Anthropology
Understanding the question of “Why does politics matter?” takes us into some fundamental issues of anthropological study. How do people organize themselves? How is this organization related to the economic system? The question of “why does politics matter?” is about “the role of power in human societies” (Lavenda & Schultz 2015:350).
Early Assumptions about “Why Does Politics Matter?”
When anthropologists began their field studies, many believed that European and American institutions were the correct form of government, law, and political order (Lavenda & Schultz:352). These ideas are part of a deep view of human nature which dates to Thomas Hobbes and the “war of all against all” (in Lavenda & Schultz:352). Economists eventually promoted Hobbesian ideas for running economic systems, assuming a free market balances self-interest. But in politics, Hobbes insisted that state government is necessary to prevent political chaos.
One result of these views is we commonly assume others are warped, primitive, or lacking, in “state-less” societies. Such attitudes correspond to contemporary ideas of a need for “spreading democracy,” even if it must be imposed by military means.
Early anthropologists investigated how people displayed amazing feats of organization, such as Big Mokas (see film below). Anthropologist spent a lot of time investigating social organization without a state (Evans-Pritchard with the Azande in Lavenda & Schultz:352). Anthropologists wondered about resistance to colonial rule (Evans-Pritchard among the Nuer).
At times, anthropologists assumed forms of kinship were organizing principles without state government. This went with an assumption that in other societies they mix kinship and politics, whereas our evolved society is a meritocracy.
Anthropology’s Holistic Understanding: Why does Politics Matter?
Anthropology challenges the idea of “lack” or “absence” in non-state societies. Anthropology also challenges the idea that in modern societies, kinship and gender become less relevant to politics (Lavenda & Schultz:359). This is an important point of Jack Weatherford’s article “Tribal Politics in Washington” (interestingly, we also saw Weatherford comment on Potosi & Capitalism). And remember that Weatherford’s article was written before the election of George W. Bush (2000) and the candidacy of Hillary Clinton (2008 & 2016). As Lavenda & Schultz put it “kinship continues to play a significant role in people’s political lives, even in contemporary settings, in which it would not necessarily be expected to do so” (2015:360).
Anthropology provides tools for analyzing politics
Gramscian ideas of domination and hegemony have been influential (Lavenda & Schultz 2015:352-353)
Another set of interesting concepts anthropologists adopt to describe power and state politics are “Biopower and Governmentality” (Lavenda & Schultz:355-356). Governmentality is a concept originally developed by French theorist Michel Foucault. Lavenda & Schultz employ a definition of governmentality that “involves using the information encoded in statistics to govern in a way that promotes the welfare of populations within a state” (2015:356). There are certainly benefits to such a shift in ideas about governance. However, “the fact remains that providing the government (or any bureaucratic institution) with detailed vital statistics can be threatening, especially in cases where people are concerned that the state does not have their best interests at heart” (Lavenda & Schultz:356).
Power & Nation
Lavenda & Schultz use the case of Sri Lanka to describe how anthropologists consider ideas of power and nation. “Anthropologist Michael Woost described how the government of Sri Lanka has used a wide range of cultural media to link the national identity to development” (Lavenda & Schultz:354).
Of course for Hartwick College anthropology we know anthropologist Michael Woost as Professor Mike Woost. Woost is offering three amazing courses for fall 2017: “Travel, Tourism, and Ethnography”; “Anthropology of Violence”; “Ethnographic Methods.”
And for more on issues of power, nation, and nationalism, see the material on the question Is Nationalism Bad?
Don’t be afraid to think big and differently about politics
Finally, and in relation to what we discussed about capitalism, Lavenda & Schultz provide a profound statement on “the paradox of the human condition” (2015:350):
On the one hand, open cultural creativity allows humans to imagine worlds of pure possibility; on the other hand, all humans live in material circumstances that make many of those possibilities profoundly unrealistic. We can imagine many different ways to organize ourselves into groups, but, as Marx pointed out long ago, the past weighs like a nightmare on the brain of the living.
At the same time, one of the interesting ways in which people have been imagining worlds of more open possibility is in regard to kinship, sex, and gender. This was the theme of the next class.
Another interesting resource for thinking big and differently about anthropology & politics are the thoughts published in a 2016 forum on Anthropological publics, public anthropology. The panel included a contribution from David Price who would later speak at Hartwick, invited by Mike Woost. Mayanthi Fernando’s concludes with a provocation:
It is simply not at all clear to me that the way forward–and this is intended as a provocation–is the reentrenchment of a liberal, deliberative, rational, and secular public sphere. . . I think that there is something else going on in this moment, and I think that something else is actually productive to think with. And I believe that we as anthropologists may be well equipped to do just that, to think with that, and to do politics in the United States and Europe in a way that actually marshals that non-liberal, non-secular mode of thought and action rather than tries to deny it.
Politics and Ongka’s Big Moka
This was a good time to view Ongka’s Big Moka as a way of linking various parts of what we did in the course:
- Language: What is Ongka saying?
- Economics: What is the Moka system?
- Politics (this class): What authority does Ongka have?
- Kinship: How does kinship intersect with economics & politics?
- What evidence of colonial encounters?
- The film series is titled “Disappearing World.” Is Ongka’s world disappearing?