From skepticism to embrace: Human rights and the American anthropological association from 1947-1999

Human Rights Quarterly

Volumn 23, Issue 3, 2001, Pages 536-559

  Engle, Karen ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF UTAH   (United States)

^b NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

HUMAN RIGHTS;

EID: 0034856865     PISSN: 02750392     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1353/hrq.2001.0034     Document Type: Article

References (123)

1. Executive Board, American Anthropological Association, Statement on Human Rights, 49 AM. ANTHROPOLOGIST 539 (1947).
2. AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION, DECLARATION ON ANTHROPOLOGY AND HUMAN RIGHTS (1999), available on 〈http://www.aaanet.org/committees/cfhr/ar95.htm〉 (last updated 2000).
3. For the text of the questionnaire, which was formulated by the UNESCO Committee on the Theoretical Bases of Human Rights, see HUMAN RIGHTS: COMMENTS AND INTERPRETATIONS: A SYMPOSIUM EDITED BY UNESCO 251-57 (1949). For other responses to the questionnaire, see generally id. Somewhat ironically, given all the attention the Statement has received within anthropology, it was not among the responses that UNESCO chose to publish in its 1949 volume. It was presumably, however, among the responses to the questionnaire that UNESCO forwarded in a report to the Commission on Human Rights. According to Johannes Morsink, the Commission "did not pay much attention to the UNESCO report and was even a bit miffed at what had been done." JOHANNES MORSINK, THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS: ORIGINS, DRAFTING & INTENT 301 (1999). Indeed, the Commission did not distribute the report to all member states. Id. In short, although it has plagued anthropologists for the past fifty years, the AAA's Statement seems to have had little or no impact on either UNESCO or the Commission.
4. For the text of the questionnaire, which was formulated by the UNESCO Committee on the Theoretical Bases of Human Rights, see HUMAN RIGHTS: COMMENTS AND INTERPRETATIONS: A SYMPOSIUM EDITED BY UNESCO 251-57 (1949). For other responses to the questionnaire, see generally id. Somewhat ironically, given all the attention the Statement has received within anthropology, it was not among the responses that UNESCO chose to publish in its 1949 volume. It was presumably, however, among the responses to the questionnaire that UNESCO forwarded in a report to the Commission on Human Rights. According to Johannes Morsink, the Commission "did not pay much attention to the UNESCO report and was even a bit miffed at what had been done." JOHANNES MORSINK, THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS: ORIGINS, DRAFTING & INTENT 301 (1999). Indeed, the Commission did not distribute the report to all member states. Id. In short, although it has plagued anthropologists for the past fifty years, the AAA's Statement seems to have had little or no impact on either UNESCO or the Commission.
5. Although the Statement only lists the Executive Board as the author, Herskovits is generally considered to have drafted the text. One commentator has noted that the Statement reflects Herskovits' style. See ALISON DUNDES RENTELN, INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS: UNIVERSALISM VERSUS RELATIVISM 83 (1990) (citing D. Bidney, The Concept of Value in Modern Anthropology, in ANTHROPOLOGY TODAY 682-99 (1953)).
6. Although the Statement only lists the Executive Board as the author, Herskovits is generally considered to have drafted the text. One commentator has noted that the Statement reflects Herskovits' style. See ALISON DUNDES RENTELN, INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS: UNIVERSALISM VERSUS RELATIVISM 83 (1990) (citing D. Bidney, The Concept of Value in Modern Anthropology, in ANTHROPOLOGY TODAY 682-99 (1953)).
7. Executive Board, Statement on Human Rights, supra note 1, at 539.
8. Id. at 540.
9. Id. at 541.
10. Id.
11. Id. at 542.
12. Id.
13. Id. at 543.
14. Id. at 539.
15. Id.
16. Id. at 540.
17. Id.
18. Id. at 541.
19. Id. at 542.
20. Id. at 541-42.
21. Id. at 543 (discussing the need for any human rights document to be convincing to these groups).
22. Id.
23. Julian H. Steward, Comments on the Statement on Human Rights, 50 AM. ANTHROPOLOGIST 351 (1948).
24. H.G. Barnett, On Science and Human Rights, 50 AM. ANTHROPOLOGIST 352 (1948).
25. Id.
26. See id. at 353.
27. Id.
28. Id. at 355.
29. Id.
30. Steward, supra note 21, at 351.
31. Id. at 352.
32. Barnett, supra note 22, at 354 (quoting Statement, supra note 1, at 543).
33. Id. at 354. This criticism of Boasian anthropology is still echoed today, even by at least one sympathizer of the position. See, e.g., Elvin Hatch, The Good Side of Relativism, 53 J. ANTHROPOLOGICAL RES. 371, 376 (1997) ("[T]he Boasians proceeded to do exactly what they asserted should not be done, which was to advance a universal moral standard. This was the standard of tolerance . . . ").
34. Id. at 354. This criticism of Boasian anthropology is still echoed today, even by at least one sympathizer of the position. See, e.g., Elvin Hatch, The Good Side of Relativism, 53 J. ANTHROPOLOGICAL RES. 371, 376 (1997) ("[T]he Boasians proceeded to do exactly what they asserted should not be done, which was to advance a universal moral standard. This was the standard of tolerance . . . ").
35. Barnett, supra note 22, at 354.
36. Steward, supra note 21, at 351.
37. Id. at 352.
38. Barnett, supra note 22, at 354.
39. Id. at 355.
40. Id.
41. Id.
42. But see Melville J. Herskovits, Tender-and Tough-Minded Anthropology and the Study of Values in Culture, 7 S.W. J. OF ANTHROPOLOGY 22, 23 (1951): One friendly critic of our discipline, more witty than wise in his assertion, has defined an anthropologist as a person who respects every culture-pattern but his own. Like any other bon mot, it is true and not true; but the part that is true is to the point here. That is, anthropologists, as with any members of any society, live in a climate of opinion whose influence is so strong and yet so gentle that it is only by an effort of will that one becomes aware of it. And on this point the present-day climate of opinion in the United States - an in this paper we are concerned only with American anthropologists, since cultural relativism has not as yet evoked any responses from elsewhere in the world - is quite confused. Herskovits then goes on to point out the contradiction he sees between American society's assertion that Western ways are best and its belief that political freedom for all is desirable. Hence, while Herskovits might have recognized the irony that Barnett pointed out, he was untroubled by it because he imagined American anthropologists as his audience.
43. EDWARD A. PURCELL, JR., THE CRISIS OF DEMOCRATIC THEORY: SCIENTIFIC NATURALISM & THE PROBLEM OF VALUE 68 (1973) (citing FRANZ BOAS, THE MIND OF THE PRIMITIVE MAN (1913), Franz Boas, The Methods of Ethnology, reprinted in RACE, LANGUAGE & CULTURE 281-82 (1940)).
44. EDWARD A. PURCELL, JR., THE CRISIS OF DEMOCRATIC THEORY: SCIENTIFIC NATURALISM & THE PROBLEM OF VALUE 68 (1973) (citing FRANZ BOAS, THE MIND OF THE PRIMITIVE MAN (1913), Franz Boas, The Methods of Ethnology, reprinted in RACE, LANGUAGE & CULTURE 281-82 (1940)).
45. EDWARD A. PURCELL, JR., THE CRISIS OF DEMOCRATIC THEORY: SCIENTIFIC NATURALISM & THE PROBLEM OF VALUE 68 (1973) (citing FRANZ BOAS, THE MIND OF THE PRIMITIVE MAN (1913), Franz Boas, The Methods of Ethnology, reprinted in RACE, LANGUAGE & CULTURE 281-82 (1940)).
46. Id. at 71.
47. Id.
48. At the very least, the language was not in the original draft. See Wilcomb B. Washburn, Cultural Relativism, Human Rights, and the AAA, 89 AM. ANTHROPOLOGIST 939, 940 & n.1 (1987) (suggesting that Herskovits might have added the paragraph in response to comments from other board members).
49. PURCELL, supra note 40, at 65.
50. See id. (discussing Margaret Mead's warning that plasticity was "a two-edged sword") (quoting MARGARET MEAD, SEX AND TEMPERAMENT IN THREE PRIMITIVE SOCIETES 226 (1935)).
51. See id. (discussing Margaret Mead's warning that plasticity was "a two-edged sword") (quoting MARGARET MEAD, SEX AND TEMPERAMENT IN THREE PRIMITIVE SOCIETES 226 (1935)).
52. Id. at 72-73.
53. RENTELN, supra note 4, at 86.
54. David Maybury-Lewis, Anthropologists, Anthropology and the Relativist Challenge, in INTERDISCIPLINARY FACULTY PERSPECTIVES ON THE HUMAN RIGHTS MOVEMENT 29 (1999) (transcript of a symposium held in 1997).
55. See id. at 24.
56. Id. at 25.
57. Id.
58. ELVIN HATCH, CULTURE AND MORALITY 104 (1983).
59. Washburn, supra note 43, at 940.
60. Clifford Geertz, Distinguished Lecture: Anti Anti-Relativism, 86 AM. ANTHROPOLOGIST 263 (1984).
61. Id. at 267 (citing PAUL JOHNSON, MODERN TIMES: THE WORLD FROM THE TWENTIES TO THE EIGHTIES (1983)).
62. Id. at 267 (citing PAUL JOHNSON, MODERN TIMES: THE WORLD FROM THE TWENTIES TO THE EIGHTIES (1983)).
63. Id. at 266 ("[B]ehind relativism nihilism looms," quoting I.C. Jarvie, Rationalism and Relativism, 34 BRIT. J. SOC. 44 (1983)).
64. Id. at 266 ("[B]ehind relativism nihilism looms," quoting I.C. Jarvie, Rationalism and Relativism, 34 BRIT. J. SOC. 44 (1983)).
65. HATCH, supra note 52, at 103. See also RENTELN, supra note 4, at 67 (according to Barnes and Bloor, "In the academic world relativism is everywhere abominated.").
66. HATCH, supra note 52, at 103. See also RENTELN, supra note 4, at 67 (according to Barnes and Bloor, "In the academic world relativism is everywhere abominated.").
67. HATCH, supra note 52, at 103. See also RENTELN, supra note 4, at 67 (according to Barnes and Bloor, "In the academic world relativism is everywhere abominated.").
68. HATCH, supra note 52, at 106-08 (discussing the work of Ralph Linton and Clyde Kluckhohn).
69. Id. at 126-32.
70. Ellen Messer, Anthropology and Human Rights, 22 ANN. REV. ANTHROPOLOGY 221, 224 (1993).
71. Leslie E. Sponsel, 1995 Annual Report Commission for Human Rights, available on 〈http://www.aaanet.org/committees/cfhr/ar95.htm〉 (last updated 2000).
72. Id.
73. Johnetta B. Cole, Human Rights and the Rights of Anthropologists, 97 AM. ANTHROPOLOGIST 445 (1994).
74. Id. at 447.
75. See PURCELL, supra note 40, at 227.
76. Id. at 223.
77. Id. at 227.
78. On Boas' own opposition, Purcell tells that when Boas was struck by a fatal heart attack during a Columbia faculty club luncheon, he spent his last words urging his colleagues to oppose racism. See id. at 227-28.
79. HATCH, supra note 52, at 65.
80. Id.
81. Id. at 85. For Hatch's basic critique of Boasian anthropology, see id. at 85-101. Nevertheless, he continues to defend some parts of the theory. See generally Hatch, supra note 31.
82. Id. at 85. For Hatch's basic critique of Boasian anthropology, see id. at 85-101. Nevertheless, he continues to defend some parts of the theory. See generally Hatch, supra note 31.
83. Id. at 85. For Hatch's basic critique of Boasian anthropology, see id. at 85-101. Nevertheless, he continues to defend some parts of the theory. See generally Hatch, supra note 31.
84. RENTELN, supra note 4, at 63.
85. Messer, supra note 60, at 224.
86. Carole Nagengast & Terence Turner, Introduction: Universal Human Rights Versus Cultural Relativism, 53 J. ANTHROPOLOGICAL RES. 269, 270 (1997).
87. Messer, supra note 60, at 236.
88. AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION, COMMITTEE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS, 1997 ANNUAL REPORT 4 (1997), available on 〈http://www.aaanet.org/committees/cfhr/ar95.htm〉 (last updated 2000). In 1988, the Committee added to the criteria: "More pragmatic factors include the following: Do we have (or can we obtain) expertise? Are the facts reasonably clear cut? Do we have time? Can we have a salutary impact?" AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION, COMMITTEE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS, 1998 Annual Report 6 (1997), available on 〈http://www.aaanet.org/committees/cfhr/ar95.htm〉 (last updated 2000).
89. AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION, COMMITTEE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS, 1997 ANNUAL REPORT 4 (1997), available on 〈http://www.aaanet.org/committees/cfhr/ar95.htm〉 (last updated 2000). In 1988, the Committee added to the criteria: "More pragmatic factors include the following: Do we have (or can we obtain) expertise? Are the facts reasonably clear cut? Do we have time? Can we have a salutary impact?" AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION, COMMITTEE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS, 1998 Annual Report 6 (1997), available on 〈http://www.aaanet.org/committees/cfhr/ar95.htm〉 (last updated 2000).
90. See id.
91. See id at 6-8. Most of the action taken involved letters addressed to the respective government signed by the AAA's president.
92. AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION, COMMITTEE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS, GUIDELINES 2 (1995), at 2, available on 〈http://www.aaanet.org/committees/cfhr/ar95.htm〉 (last updated 2000).
93. AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION, supra note 2.
94. Id.
95. Terence Turner, Human Rights, Human Difference: Anthropology's Contribution to an Emancipatory Cultural Politics, 53 J. ANTHROPOLOGICAL RES. 273, 286 (1997).
96. Hatch, supra note 31, at 374.
97. Id.
98. Id.
99. Geertz, supra note 54, at 265.
100. HATCH, supra note 52, at 144.
101. RENTELN, supra note 4, at 74.
102. Id. at 75.
103. Id. at 77.
104. Turner, supra note 82, at 275.
105. Id. at 276.
106. Id. at 278.
107. AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION, supra note 2.
108. See RENTELN, supra note 4 and accompanying text. See, e.g., Ralph Linton, Universal Ethical Principles: An Anthropological View, in MORAL PRINCIPLES OF ACTION: MAN'S ETHICAL IMPERATIVE 645 (Ruth Nanda Anshan ed., 1952) (cited and discussed in HATCH, supra note 52, at 106-07).
109. See RENTELN, supra note 4 and accompanying text. See, e.g., Ralph Linton, Universal Ethical Principles: An Anthropological View, in MORAL PRINCIPLES OF ACTION: MAN'S ETHICAL IMPERATIVE 645 (Ruth Nanda Anshan ed., 1952) (cited and discussed in HATCH, supra note 52, at 106-07).
110. See RENTELN, supra note 4 and accompanying text. See, e.g., Ralph Linton, Universal Ethical Principles: An Anthropological View, in MORAL PRINCIPLES OF ACTION: MAN'S ETHICAL IMPERATIVE 645 (Ruth Nanda Anshan ed., 1952) (cited and discussed in HATCH, supra note 52, at 106-07).
111. See RENTELN, supra note 4, at 80.
112. AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION, supra note 2.
113. See supra note 1 and accompanying text.
114. Executive Board, Statement on Human Rights, supra note 1, at 542.
115. Id.
116. Richard A. Wilson, Introduction, HUMAN RIGHTS, CULTURE & CONTEXT 1, 2.
117. Nagengast & Turner, supra note 74, at 270.
118. Turner, supra note 82, at 289.
119. Id.
120. Ann-Belinda S. Preis, Human Rights as Cultural Practice: An Anthropological Critique, 18 HUM. RTS. Q. 286, 297 (1996).
121. Id. at 288-89.
122. Id. at 288.
123. It might well be that pro-rights anthropologists are intentionally reacting to the postmodernism or even nihilism they see in the very type of work that Preis cites as contemporary anthropological thinking on relativism. Consequently, notions like creolization and hybridity - which Preis notes have emerged in anthropological thinking - have not made it into the discourse of the AAA Committee. Ironically, they seem to have more currency in the legal than in the anthropological discussions of human rights.