Development and Security or Public Anthropology? Reflections on the uses of anthropology
Keywords:
public anthropology, applied anthropology, securityAbstract
With the advent of the New Millennium many anthropologists proposed a public anthropology to express their engagement with contemporary problems. This article analyzes how this orientation emerged, the constraints it might face, whether it is compatible or not with a critical anthropology. It also examines the so-called security-development nexus, an orientation often criticized and to which many anthropologists contribute their work. Concepts such as transparency, accountability, governance, associated to the discourses of public anthropology and to the security-development nexus are identified and criticized.References
Borofsky, Rob (2011). Why a Public Anthropology? Hawaii, Center for A Public Anthropology.
Hale, Charles (2006). “Activist Research vs.Cultural Critique: Indigenous Land Rights and the contradictions of Politically Engaged Anthropology”, Cultural Anthropology, Vol. 21, Nº 1, pp. 96-120.
Hettne, Björn (2010). “Development and Security: Origins and future”, Security Dialogue, Vol. 41, Nº 10, pp. 31-52.
McNeish, John-Andres y Sande Lie, Jon Haral (eds.) (2010). Security and Development. New York and Oxford, Bergahn Books.
Osterweil Michal (2013). “Rethinking Public Anthropology Through Epistemic Politics and Theoretical Practice”, Cultural Anthropology, Vol. 28, Nº 4, pp. 598-620.
Susser, Ida (2010). “The Anthropologists as Social Critic. Working Toward a More Engaged Anthropology”, Current Anthropology, Vol. 51, Nº 2, pp. 227-233.
