Benevolent Anthropologies: The Hazards of Critiquing Liberalism
Emma Kowal, University of Melbourne
Critiquing liberalism is a hazardous exercise. To take as an anthropological object those things most people see as inherently good – be it participation of villagers in development projects (Mosse 2001), AIDS activism in the Ivory Coast (Nguyen 2005), or self-determination remote Indigenous communities (Cowlishaw 1999) - is to invite suspicion. Why would one want to analyse these things except to criticise them? And why would one want to criticise them except for two possible reasons: either you are a neoliberal who thinks that liberalism is wrong (e.g. worrying about participation is a waste of time); or you agree with liberalism, and think that that it is not being properly executed (e.g., participation is important and should be done better). As either option spells trouble for the liberal objects of anthropological attention, they are likely to be wary. Under these circumstances, carving out a space for critical analysis is a challenge. This paper draws on the experience of conducting an ethnography of white, middle-class, left wing health professionals who work in Indigenous health. I discuss the difficulties of negotiating complex discourses of research ethics, benefit and responsibility in the setting of dense racial politics. I describe how labouring the distinction between criticism and critique, and the concept of ‘methodological agnosticism’, were useful tools in maintaining a space for critical analysis in a climate of urgent need. Finally, I discuss how other anthropologists of benevolence, predominantly anthropologists of development, have responded to the challenge of ‘encourag[ing] critical purchase without cutting off the strings of hope’ (Tsing 2005).
