Dr. Sidney Greenfield

Talk Summary: In this presentation I review the events in my career that happened prior to my beginning to study Kardecist Spiritist surgeries and healing in 1981. After showing examples of patients being cut into, reporting feeling no pain and recovering, I discuss my efforts to learn the emic explanation for the healings and then to find an etic or scientific explanation. The crux of the paper, however, is why I felt it necessary to seek a scientific explanation. Following on Marshall Sahlin’s questioning of anthropology’s need to replace the explanations of their behavior given by the people we study with scientific ones from our own culture, I ask is why I felt I needed to find a biomedical explanation for the behaviors I observed rather than accepting the one my teachers of Kardecism gave me. The argument leads me to conclude by apologizing to them.

Bio: Sid Greenfield is Professor of Anthropology Emeritus at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee and Co-chair of the Columbia University Seminars on Brazil, Studies in Religion and Contents and Methods in the Social Sciences. He is past president of the Association of Senior Anthropologists, the Association for the Anthropology of Consciousness and past vice-president of the Society for the Anthropology of Religion. He has conducted ethnographic research in Barbados and New Bedford, Massachusetts, but mostly in Brazil, and ethnohistorical and historical research in Portugal and the Atlantic Islands on problems ranging from family and kinship, patronage and politics, the history of plantations and plantation slavery and entrepreneurship to Spiritist surgery and healing, syncretized Brazilian religions such as Candomblé, Umbanda, and Kardecist Spiritism, and Evangelical Protestants in Brazilian politics. He is author and/or editor of nine books, producer, director and author of five video documentaries, and has published some 150 articles and reviews in books and professional journals.

Jim Weil

Talk Summary: An alternative title might be posed as a question: Can Memoir Writing Be a Distinctive Project of the Association of Senior Anthropologists? The presentation begins with reference to several inspirational anthropological memoirists. This serves as a background for proposing autoethnohistory as kind of memoir falling between autobiography and autoethnography. Early formative influences are distinguished from professional training and ongoing life experiences in the shaping and channeling of careers. Assessments of “degrees of belonging” demonstrate the relevance of reflexivity for comparisons of otherwise unique professional identities. Past ASA contributions to the living history of the discipline are reviewed as preliminary forays into memoir writing (Weil 2019). Jim’s own efforts at “compiling fragments of a memoir” illustrate additional variations in the forms and styles of presentation (Weil 2023a, Weil 2023b). In the ensuing discussion, colleagues are invited to give examples from their own lives and, as the case may be, their own writing.

Bio: Following his childhood in the suburbs of Los Angeles, Jim completed undergraduate studies at UC-Berkeley with a generalist social science major. He worked in a rural health development program as a Peace Corps volunteer in Thailand and earned an MPH degree at the University of Hawaii. He served as associate director of the Waikiki Drug Clinic before plunging into doctoral studies emphasizing human ecology and political economy in the Columbia University anthropology department. Research in Bolivia and Costa Rica focused his interests in the anthropology of work and its manifestations in material culture and expressive culture, also raising issues of personal engagement in the field (see Weil 2020). While temporary and adjunct positions prevailed in his teaching career, Jim’s affiliation as a research associate at the Science Museum of Minnesota continues.

Rena Lederman

February 29, 2024

My ASA Chat excerpts and summarizes my contribution to the November 2023 American Ethnologist Forum, “What’s the good of anthropology?”.  For the paper in full, see: https://anthrosource.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/amet.13229.

That paper concerns a dilemma faced in practicum courses and in helping students represent anthropology’s distinctive research style to research ethics committees mostly comprising mainstream social-behavioral scientists. In my experience, the quality of anthropological research that attracts students is its realism—its rooting in anthropologists’ sustained relationships with persons and circumstances wherever they actually are. Students are captivated by the possibility of engaging in meaningful ways with people whose experience moves them. However, from a conventional social-behavioral science perspective, being with and learning from people on the latter’s terms and in conditions not controlled by the researchers, is incoherent as science (and, in that sense, unprofessional and unethical). Dominant social-behavioral research styles sacrifice realism for replicability by creating special-purpose settings to enable systematic hypothesis-testing and reproducible findings. Realism is also devalued in research ethics reviews, which treat replicability (not realism) as the social-behavioral research standard. 

            My references to “mainstream” and “conventional” social and behavioral science rest on field research of a different kind from the work I carried out in Papua New Guinea in the late 1970s–early 1990s.  While the first couple of decades of my research career were devoted to Melanesianist field research and teaching, I have spent a larger fraction of the past three decades reflecting comparatively on anthropological research values and practices in relation to those of our disciplinary neighbors in the humanities and social/behavioral sciences. Much of that reflection was accomplished as a university and disciplinary citizen serving on committees and other bodies as the only anthropologist among experts in those neighboring disciplines. In addition to reading published and unpublished sources of various kinds, my comparative disciplinary understanding derives from practical, engaged experience serving on those bodies—including post-doctoral fellowship committees, an IRB, various funding agency subcommittees, national-level commissions evaluating research ethics oversight practices themselves, and more.  

Rena Lederman (PhD Columbia; Professor, Princeton): At Princeton, Dr. Lederman administered the department’s undergraduate program (especially 1980s); she was on the board and executive committee of the Program in Women’s (then Gender and Sexuality) Studies (1980s-2000s), served as Anthropology’s Director of Graduate Studies and was her department’s representative on the university’s Institutional Review Board for a total of 16 years, among other service responsibilities.  Dr. Lederman began her scholarly career as a student of Melanesian exchange meanings and practices, gender relations and politics, and historical dynamics and discourses—drawn to Highland Papua New Guinea for its decentralized, participatory political culture; and to anthropological scholarship on PNG and the Pacific as resources for rethinking EuroAmerican assumptions about sociality and about “cultures” as bounded, ahistorical, and shared. Pacific perspectives on cultural boundaries, differences, and transformations continued to inform her thinking as her work shifted during the 1990s and into the 2000s to engage controversy within and beyond anthropology over the public reception of disciplinary expertises. Around 2000 her emergent comparative understanding of disciplinary knowledges became a means for intervening in national and international policy discourse on human research regulation. Much of her time over the past 25 years has been spent intervening in practical and scholarly ways to respond to the panic prompted by international regulatory “hypervigilance” that appeared to threaten ethnographic research disproportionately. Once fully retired in 2024, she plans to return to delayed projects central to her scholarship.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkRdpMfyx5s&authuser=0

Robert Rubenstein

January 18, 2024

In this talk I reflect on the role of relationships in the field. I mean this in two senses, (1) the professional and personal relationships that we form with colleagues; and (2) the roles played by relationships we form with people among whom we do fieldwork, and how these intersect. Both forms of relationship influence the shape of the discipline and contribute to defining the topics of our research. Regarding the first, in this talk I reflect on how a chance introduction to Sol Tax contributed to my own anthropological practice. I met Sol half a dozen years after completing my doctorate. Completed at the end of 1976, my doctoral studies focused on Mesoamerica, language and education, and on the philosophy of science.  Before meeting Sol, I had read Robert Redfield’s papers in the University of Chicago Special Collections. Among those papers I found fascinating the relationship between Robert Redfield and Tax. I discuss what led me to the 1991 publication of Fieldwork: The Correspondence of Robert Redfield and Sol Tax, which compiles and annotates some of the letters they exchanged during their Guatemalan fieldwork. I describe the archival work that led to the publication and the ways in which referees reacted to the book proposal. Working further with Sol, I found Action Anthropology to be a good case to work with as I sought to replicate research done by Don Campbell on the role of relationships and personality in the founding of schools in psychology, which I discuss. As well, Sol’s leadership in the IUAES led to an introduction to Mary LeCron Foster, from which developed a 20 year-long collaboration on the anthropology of peace and human rights. I describe the way this led to the founding of the IUAES Commission on Peace and Human Rights, and to my subsequent work on the anthropology of multilateral peacekeeping.  Regarding the ways in which relationships with people among whom we do our fieldwork, in this talk I discuss how the reciprocal obligations of field work with multilateral peacekeeping forces led to my working with the United States Army Peacekeeping Institute and the United Nations. The former somewhat paradoxical given my own biography in relation to the US war in Vietnam. Subsequently, this led back to the discipline because, despite peacekeeping being exempted from the list of ‘anthropological sins’ articulated by the Network of Concerned Anthropologists, I was among those described as war criminals at the business meeting of the 2007 annual meeting of the American Anthropological Association.

Robert A. Rubinstein is currently Distinguished Professor of Anthropology and Professor of International Relations at the Maxwell School of Syracuse University. His research focuses on political and medical anthropology and on social science history and research methods. He received his Ph.D. in anthropology from the State University of New York at Binghamton in 1977. He received a master’s degree in public health from the University of Illinois in Chicago in 1983.From 1994 to 2005 Rubinstein directed the Program on the Analysis and Resolution of Conflicts at the Maxwell School.Rubinstein has conducted overseas research in urban and rural Egypt, where he lived from 1988-1992, and in Belize and Mexico. In the United States, he has conducted research in Atlanta, Chicago, and Syracuse. In political anthropology, Rubinstein’s work focuses on cross-cultural aspects of conflict and dispute resolution, including negotiation, mediation and consensus building. He is an originator of the subfield now referred to as the  anthropology of peacekeeping. In 1983, Rubinstein was a founding member of the Commission on Peace and Human Rights of the International Union of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences.  Rubinstein has collaborated on policy applications of his work with the International Peace Academy, the United Nations Department of Peacekeeping Operations, The United Nation Office of Internal Oversight Services, and the United States Army Peacekeeping Institute. As a medical anthropologist, Rubinstein has focused on conflict and health, disparities in access to health care and the implications of those disparities for the health of populations, and on the integration of qualitative and quantitative research methodologies. He has developed community-based health interventions in Egypt and Atlanta. And additionally, he has collaborated on health policy issues with the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Carter Center, the Georgia Department of Physical Health, and the Onondaga County Health Department. Robert Rubinstein has published more than 100 articles in journals and books. He is author or editor of ten books and research monographs.  Among the many honors he has received are the 2016 Victor Sidel and Barry Levy Award for Peace from the American Public Health Association, the 2010 Robert B. Textor and Family Prize for Excellence in Anticipatory Anthropology from the American Anthropological Association, and the Chancellor’s Citation for Faculty Excellence and Scholarly Distinction from Syracuse University.

https://youtu.be/WMkfsOwedV0

December 7, 2023

Magdalena Zegarra Chiappori

October 9, 2023

Leslie Sponsel

The Yanomami of the Amazon in Brazil and Venezuela are one of the most famous, fascinating, studied, misrepresented, exploited, and endangered Indigenous people in the world. The Yanomami are reflected in various ways and degrees in many of the theoretical approaches and issues in the history of anthropology since the 1960s. They are a microcosm of anthropology. Moreover, they have suffered horrifically from devastating alien invasions of their traditional territory, most of all waves of illegal gold miners in the 1980s, and again in recent years. Every aspect of their population, culture, and ecology has been impacted, and for many communities in devastating ways. Building on his recent book, The Yanomami in the Amazon: Toward an Ethical Anthropology beyond Othering, Les Sponsel will discuss in historical perspective the research and controversies and scandals surrounding the Yanomami and as well as a few of the more than one hundred anthropologists who have had the unique privilege of living and studying with them. Sponsel will home in on professional ethics and human rights, as well as the changing political ecology of the Yanomami and of anthropology. The talk will also inform the Yanomami case as a component of the “human nature industry” which erroneously and dangerously celebrates the ubiquity of warfare through ideologically driven Hobbesian pseudoscience.

Dr. Leslie E. Sponsel is Professor Emeritus at the University of Hawai’I. He earned his B.A. in Geology from Indiana University (1965), and the M.A. (1973) and Ph.D. (1981) in Biological Anthropology from Cornell University. Over the last four decades he taught at seven universities in four countries, including two as a Fulbright Fellow (Venezuela and Thailand). In 1981, he was hired to develop and direct the Ecological Anthropology Program at the University of Hawai`i. His courses include Ecological Anthropology, Environmental Anthropology, Primate Behavioral Ecology, Spiritual Ecology, Sacred Places, Anthropology of Buddhism, Ethics in Anthropology, and Anthropology of War and Peace. Although retired since August 2010, usually he teaches one course each semester and devotes the remainder of his time to research and publications. From 1974 to 1981, Sponsel conducted several trips to the Venezuelan Amazon to research biological and cultural aspects of human ecology with the Yanomami and other Indigenous societies. Almost yearly since 1986 Sponsel visits Thailand to research aspects of Buddhist ecology and environmentalism together with his wife, Dr. Poranee Natadecha-Sponsel. In recent years, their research has focused on sacred caves in northern Thailand. Sponsel’s extensive publications include numerous journal articles, book chapters, encyclopedia articles, four monographs, three edited books, and two co-edited books. He also publishes in other fields to better integrate his work with different subjects and broaden his audiences. He is one of the pioneers in developing the interdisciplinary subjects of spiritual ecology, nonkilling anthropology, and ethnoprimatology.

September 14, 2023

Riall W. Nolan

A casual question from my advisor in the Spring of my senior year set me off on a trajectory I would never have imagined. I’d like to chat about how and why I “came to” anthropology, and what I’ve tried to do with it over the years. During my career, I learned a bit about the institutions we’ve creat