Public Anthropology as Public Pedagogy: An Autobiographical Account

Abstract

This autobiographical account provides a historical map of landmarks in the author's personal and professional life that led him to his present understanding of public anthropology as public pedagogy and vice versa. He indicates that his experiences led him to study sociocultural anthropology to investigate learning from experience, a foundational method in anthropology that this discipline describes as participant observation. While not completely rejecting participant observation, he asserts that objective and value-free anthropology is not viable, and hence an activist approach may not only support research agendas but also support the needs of the people and communities under study. He explains some of the issues that are related to making this approach work and the ethical elements involved in an approach that is mutually advantageous. As an anthropologist, he became more involved in the political engagement of the people who were the subjects of his investigation. His position is that at this time in human history anthropology must become more activist, given that the vulnerable of the world are subjected to conditions that are increasingly more exploitative and oppressive. Public pedagogy developed out of his research experiences, and as his activist orientation grew, he found that his anthropological engagement was also an in-context and in-process pedagogy. Not only was he teaching, but he was also learning dialogically, as Paulo Freire might do.

Paulo Freire’s blunt challenge to anthropology: Create a Pedagogy of the Oppressed for Your Times

“…“The intent is to use the tools of social science to give validity to local knowledge, thus reversing elitist structures that dominate the production of scientific knowledge and its uses. We have found this form of collaboration to be highly meaningful, both personally and professionally, and at the same time fraught with challenges and contradictions” (Schensul et al., 2008; see also, Beck, 2011; Belle, 1984; Burton, 1980; Center for Social Well Being, 2013; Dias, 1999; Ervin, 2005; Fals-Borda and Rahman, 1991; Fetterman, 1986; Fisher, 2010; Hammer, 2004; Harrison, 2008; Lambert-Pennington, 2013; Maida, 2011; Meek, 2012; Mencher, 2012; Moriarty, 2004, 2006; Nading, 2012; Oppenheim, 2011; Phillips, 2010; Schensul et al., 2008; Schugurensky, 2011; Unterberger, 2012; Wahab, 2010).…”