The controversy that appeared in the Sciruccazzo column of the October
issue of Sicilia libertaria on internationalism and solidarity withoppressed groups whose cultural and ideological aspects are not shared,
pushes me to reflect on the same theme in relation to the work of the
anthropologist when he does field research outside the Western world.
Let's look at the terms: left-wing and libertarian internationalism,
understood as solidarity with oppressed or needy social groups, external
to one's own community or country, was born ideologically in the 19th
century, sinking its roots in the Enlightenment that universalized the
concept of humanity in a secular way, based on the birth of the
de-Christianized Western "modern" individual (universalism derives
precisely from Christianity). From that same Enlightenment also arose a
new way of considering nature and human societies, laying the
foundations of the social sciences that would develop in the nineteenth
century. Among these, a social discipline aimed at knowing, for
evidently political but also comparative purposes, which will be called
ethnology and finally anthropology, overcoming the concept of folklore
thanks above all to the concept of culture produced by Taylor in 1871.
It was a question of studying small indigenous societies, especially
American ones, thought of as "simple", with the aim of understanding how
their structures and cultures are shaped, and extracting models that
would also allow us to understand Western societies.
This path intersects with that of internationalism, so much so that
Marx, Engel and Kropotkin relied on ethnographic descriptions to found
their theories of human development (Morgan, for example). Precisely to
understand the difference between past and present societies, the
comparison between societies will be used, particularly the economic
system, which had already been partly developed by Smith in the
eighteenth century, with his theory of the four stages of development,
which Marx will use to develop his model of the mode of production. In
this way, to give the most important example, the American natives went
from "savages" to "primitives", in an evolutionary context, while those
of the Far East became "barbarians", at least in the evolutionary
representation (see the concept of orientalism studied by Said). As can
be seen, the same problem announced at the beginning reappears in this
area, on whether to accept the difference of others in full and respect
it or stigmatize some aspects of their cultural practices.
In the case of twentieth-century anthropology, this problem was solved,
so to speak, with the concept of relativism produced by Boas, which
theoretically overcame Western ethnocentrism, with its corollary,
racism. The new concept placed all cultures on the same level, each with
its own way of constructing reality and, above all, with its own ethical
and moral universe. Evidently, this is an essentially intellectual
"overcoming" that fails to dissolve the ethnocentrism of Western
populations, but serves as an ideological justification for those groups
critical of the West, both internal and external. And, on the other
hand, already in political terms, both the Catholic Church and the right
deny its validity, convinced, the former, of the universal truth of its
creed, the latter, of their social and cultural superiority (see the
positions of Salvini and Vannacci, in the Italian case).
The anthropologist studies, for the most varied purposes, other
societies, elaborates descriptions of them that are more or less
consistent with reality, including aspects that, in his society of
origin, may not be accepted or that clash with his particular
ideological conceptions. If this is the situation, as an anthropologist,
what does he do? The discipline requires him not to interfere, since
this would disturb the relationship with the other and the collection of
data; but it could also fall into the temptation of the "missionary" and
try to intervene, as in the case of certain feminists concerned about
the condition of indigenous women, for example, perceived as exploited.
There is also another possibility: to enter into a dialogue of cultures;
and in fact it is normal for others to become active subjects from
objects of study and to respond to the anthropologist's questions by
asking: "But how do you do this or that in your house?". And in fact,
this is what happens more and more often, especially starting from a
critical anthropology that, turning its gaze to the history of the
discipline, identifies its uses of power and, above all, its
evolutionist and paternalistic attitudes, and tries to overcome them.
Moreover, in an increasingly globalized world, the figure of the
classical anthropologist is no longer relevant, being the other who
rebels against being reduced to a simple informer.
So, returning to internationalism, the individual who travels to support
local struggles, assuming that he has been accepted as an ally, finds
himself in the same situation as the anthropologist, with two
differences: he travels to intervene directly or indirectly in the
social process of a society different from his own and he consciously
brings with him an ideological baggage that justifies his action (any
ideology has a strong sense of truth, like religions). Precisely this
ideology pushed him to leave and it is always this that makes him
accepted by others, but it can also be the basis of a direct contrast
with the political or cultural ideas of the group that welcomed him (I
would invite you to read Jean Genet's diary on his coexistence with the
Palestinians, Un captif amoreux). Certainly, with a somewhat naive
statement, we could indicate that dialogue between the parties can be a
promoter of changes, in one direction or another; however, any dialogue
should be balanced in terms of forces and generally this is not possible
to maintain and even less so in situations of war. Thus, both in the
case of the anthropologist and the libertarian internationalist who
intervenes in the field, there is nothing left to do but accept the
local cultural and political rules or abandon (it would be interesting
to reread from this perspective the anarchist participation in the
Spanish civil war and the problems with the local communists).
In terms of a distant view, that is, of those who from their own country
are empathetically interested in the political and social situation of
other peoples, the problem presents itself a little differently:
solidarity is expressed, at least in the libertarian field, in raising
awareness, producing counter-information, creating critical debates;
even going as far as fundraising to help groups in struggle, for
example, or who are in precarious or desperate situations. This activity
is strongly marked by an internationalist ideology, theoretically
respectful of the culture and ideology of others. What matters, it is
said, is to help them "fight against imperialism", normally understood
as American. Here the contradictions begin, since often the groups in
conflict are, in turn, supported by nations that are also imperialist
(see the case of the war in Ukraine); or, in the case of the Middle
East, Hamas and Hezbollah, financed and armed by Iran, a repressive
theocracy. Certainly, it is possible to put into practice a "critical
support" but this does not completely solve the problem, especially
since others evidently have the right to demand respect for their
decisions or traditions. As you can see, I have trapped myself in a
seemingly insoluble contradiction that touches the very roots of Western
"modernity". Let's open the debate...
Emanuele Amodio
http://sicilialibertaria.it
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S N E W S S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten