How can an engaged public anthropology be rooted in the discipline and can it have an ethical or political base?
The first question is inspired by a debate at the recent annual meeting of anthropologists in
Denmark where a student argued that anthropology is by definition a left wing enterprice, he didn’t mean that in a good way, and that it’s social critique stems from academics backgrounds as socialists rather than being rooted in the discipline itself and its practise. I do not agree. I want to argue that anthropology does not and cannot be political in the sense of being part of a larger power-seeking project or political party for that matter, neither can it have a fixed ethical stance. However, as I argue, it can serve a thoroughly democratic purpose, in the widest sense of the word democratic.
I believe the engagement of anthropologists in public debates comes from the experience and practice of fieldwork, in particular when studying down among people with no direct access to the public debate. Fieldwork installs in us the desire to assist people in endeavors to improve their sitution, why? Because fieldwork, if it is to make any sense at all, consists of mutual respect, solidarity and reciprocity, incl the generous exchange of stories between informants and ethnographers. The engagemrnt also comes from knowing that we can actually play a role in peoples lives, being privileged and with access to political instruments such as media, knowledge and economic funds. The social institution of fieldwork is what enables us to represent people who are un- or underrepresented in the public sphere. This is not based on political conviction or party membership. But the engagement also comes from our ability to analyze local and global political structures and to identify power imbalances.
The seminal book Writing Culture raised several questions about politics of representation, pointing to ways of conveying a multiplicity of voices. Unluckyly this became a discussion about style and the aestetics of writing and sometimes it undermined the authority of anthropology to represent anything or anybody. The kind of representation that I am speaking about is not merely a textual representation, it is first and foremost a democratic representation, not unlike the logic of representative democracy, ensuring that people are heard, whoever they are.
…..
But should our engagement be based on an ethical stance? My answer is negative.
I want to bring in Nancy Scheper-Hughes’s proposal for at Militant Anthropology and her call for the primacy of the ethical because this still seem to be a central source of inspiration for todays engaged anthropologists.
So what does Scheper-Hughes mean by being ethical?
She writes,
“The "barefoot anthropologists" that I envision must become alarmists and shock troopersthe producers of politically complicated and morally demanding texts and images capable of sinking through the layers of acceptance, complicity, and bad faith that allow the suffering and the deaths to continue”. –she continues…
1

”If anthropologists deny themselves the power to identify an iII or a wrong and choose to ignore the extent to which dominated people sometimes play the role of their own executioners, they collaborate with the relations of power and silence that allow the destruction to continue.” (end)
Besides the fact that this is equal to saying to anthropological colleagues that either ”you are with us or you supporting powers that be”, the ethical stance also implies the ability of the militant anthropologist to identify a wrong by himself and to identify when dominated people play the role of their own executioners, and hence to distinquish bad faith from good faith.
Bad faith it seems is just another word for the Marxian concept of false consciousness.
Scheper-Hughes thus falls into the category of a public intellectual, similar to Sartre who also used the concept of bad faith in his critique of the lack of revolutionary spirit of French workers. Public intellectuals believe they are gifted with a special capacity to decide what the problem is for dominated people not so much based on a thorough and contextualized power analysis, or on the testimonies of these people themselves. Rather often it is based on ethical principles of doing the right thing, decided not in a horizontal and respectful dialogue with informants but somehow revealing itself as transcendent values. She writes,
”To speak of the "primacy of the ethical" is to suggest certain transcendent, transparent, and essential, if not
"precultural," first principIes. (end of qoute)
This ethical stance, I argue, risks lacking self-critique, and reflexiveness about the political role of the anthropologist vis-a-vis informants and power structures. When we go to the field, we go to learn , to become students, we dont go there as teachers localizing bad faith.
Our critique and engagement must be based on an analysis of power structures, paying attention to how hegemonic formations are made through ideologies, discourses, capital, material structures, and access to political, economic and media institutions. Based on this analysis we can identify which groups or sub-groups are unrepresented and marginal and how we might assist them in getting their own platform to speak from.
I want to give a example of what might happen when engagement is based on an idea of universal ethics, that do not stem from engagement with marginalized people, democratic representation, and on a solid power analysis.
The fight againt human trafficing is at the top of the agenda of the US state department, the
EU, parts of the UN and various NGOs and celebrities, media (CNN), even the Pope and Ashton
Kutcher are engaged in this billion dollar struggle to end what they call modern slavery.
However, this war is based on a notion of slavery that first and foremost targets prostitution seen as a moral evil, where every women is forced to sell her body, as they say. This ethical or moral crusade, right now affecting policies around the world criminalizing sex sale or sex purscase and putting sex workers in danger, is based on the desire to do good, to fight injustice. In fact it ends up jeopardizing thousands of women, migrants and transgenders who refuse to exit prostitution for different reasons, often because this is the better out of a range of less attrative solutions to their problems of poverty, unemployment or social immobility. It has also made SWs furhter vulnerable to HIV/AIDS, violence and stigmatization. However, a
2

range of anthropologist are becoming part of this struggle to safe SW based on an ethical approach saying that they do not know what is best for themselves and they live in denial.
At the same time this approach is being blind to the structural forces of global inequality, incl faxtors of class, race and gender– not to mention capitalism, which as Marx said, is itself the modern equivalent of slavery and exploitation. But when will we hear Aston Kutcher, Obama,
CNN and the Pope fighting the injustices of the capitalist system, promoting global redistribution and including the voices of sex workers?
This brings me to the second question:
What does representation and critique mean in current debates on sex work and prostitution in the Global North and South?
In my own activim in DK I have refused to accept the dominant policy-framework, which at the outset problematizes prostituton, and I refused to accept the anti-human trafficking paradigm, taking as point of departure a discourse created by powerful forces outside of independent research institutions and universities and which have a particular agenda based on radical feminist theory, anti-immigration policies and moral stands againt prostitution.
This refusal was strengthened when I realized how the stories and experiences of sex workers contradicted this policy-framework and pointed to a completely different set of understandings and challenges. People have asked me: So what if the sex workers discourse became hegemonic would you still be representing….? My answar is this:
Whenever a marginal position or discourse becomes powerful we must take one step back to avoid becoming entangled with hegemonic forces. An example is the sex worker discourse in
Denmark, which was very marginal in 2005 when I entered the debate. From 2008 and right up until today it has gained power with help from researhers and intellectuals, to an extent where it has its own organization and spokesperson, even if still very marginalized. Therefore
I have drawn back and instead begin talking about the inclusion of voices of migrant sex workers that are much less heard, esp those of Nigerian and Romanian origin. The same goes for my engagement in Mozambique where I have done fieldwork for several years.
In Mozambique the sex work perspective has gained saliance w support from parts of the UN, and UN has invited me to speak in favor of rights and inclusion. …I have been hesitant as I dont want to become part of a political system, or a governing body, which always risks exluding certain voices. Instead I have written about the manifold identities and challenges that women and men face in the highly stratefied sexual economy in the countrys capital
Maputo. As Gramsci said about the role of intellectuals, there is a difference between the organic intellectual who works closely with marginalised people and represent their views and interests and critiques oppression, be it practiced through the state or market forces, religion or ”tradition” – and the intelligentsia, who are more or less married to the powers that be, and serves the interest of the hegemonic ideology.
Anthropology is basically a democratic discipline, or a radically democratic discipline, as
Johannes Fabian once said. Fieldwork requires us to stay open, to listen, representing voices,
3

experiences that have not yet gained salience, but we must not be tempted to seize power for ourselves. Thank you.
The current agenda fighting trafficking and modern slavery is not based on the marginalized voices of the myriad of women, men and transgender people whose experiences, interests and wishes differ enourmously, but on the notions of ethics of small national and global elites.
(((Why should we as anthropologists take on the role as those who include the voices of the unheard, such as sex workers,? Because we know better than most people what these people wish for and what they would argue if they had the chance to speak to power and if they had the tools of communication and the skills of writing and rethorics that we do. But first and foremost because we can play a role which is supplementary or maybe complementary to existing representative democracy, by being representative of voices that are not heard in public debates and representative of people who do not feel that their experiences are represented by todays’ politicians. ))))
(((One example of the dangers of the ethical stance:
In 1945 the Danish anthropologist Kaj Birket-Smith suggested that anthropology should play a more prominent role in figting social evils, he thought were universal: crime, prostitution, single motherhood and threats to the family institution, mental and psychological illness. The solution he suggested had been used with great success in Germany and included forced sterilization of persons he called ”under-people”. The idea was that it was an ethical responsibility of anthropology to stops such social illls by encouraging governments, social institutions and health systems to take seriously the threat of evils and intervene among the parts of the population that risked undermining the progress of human civilisation. ))) and wishes is easier in our own communities, because once we bring peoples stories back home from around the world and try to represent them they become placed outside of the debate. They cannot keep us in check, or respond to our imprecise or completely stereotypical representations. Lack of accountability from our interlucotors.
4

This has already been done among drug users in Copenhagen who to a larger degree have received what they most asked for, which is a safe place to inject drugs, and experiements with free heroine. This has made the group more satisfied with fewer annual drug related deaths.
How to navigate between representation of marginalized voices and the risks of scandalization and threats in a highly politicized field?
After I had been in a live TV debate with a Danish politician from the EU parliament on whether or not to criminlize sex purchase in the country, the member of parliament told a journalist that I was if not a pimp then at least she was sure I was a sex customer. And this was the reason I had the opinions I had and took part in the debate, that I got a personal benefit or of supporting sex workers. The journalist called me the next day and asked me all sorts of question about my private life and sexuality, but quickly understood that there was no story but that it was a way of undermining my authority and credabiliy as researcher.
However, I told the journalist I would not mind if she ran the story about politicians attempt to scandalize an independent researcher. Because I felt that this was becoming ever more common, also among my collegues. So the journalist want back to the member of parliament and asked if she could still quote her for her allegations. But now she drew her back her comments and said that of course she had no proof but that I was most likely biased in favor of legal prostitution because I was a man with a vested interest. What disturbs me the most is not the threats I get on my e-mail but the public writing about my person, because my family has to face this and it does not disappear from blogs, or news sites, or when my name pops up in a political speech. The stories are out there and that makes you vulnerable. In fact, my head of department advised me to keep a low profile in the debate before I became associate professor, because it could endanger my position/promotion if I was too outspoken.
This should not make us refrain from taking part in debates because people need us.
INTEGRERE DET NEDENFOR OVENFOR.
Anthropology is always in opposition.
5

There must be an articulation between research activism and marginal subjects represented.
As Candei said yesterday: What about non-engaged a? What if we do not work with excluded people, or powerfull institutions, if we study neither up or down?
Antropologen: Den fleksible samfundskritiker
Hvordan kan antropologens bidrag til samfundsdebatten i dag forankres i den faglige
tradition?
 I dag er antropologien er baseret på feltarbejdet som idealt set bygger på ligeværd, reciprocitet og solidaritet mellem etnograf og informanter
 Antropologien har udviklet en tradition for at studerer nedad og skriftligt at repræsentere marginaliserede grupper, eller formidle deres vilkår eller kampe
 Fx indfødte og undertrykte folk, socialt udsatte og afvigere fra sociale og kult normer
 Antropologen giver dermed en stemme og en synlighed til de fortiede, de bortgemte og dem afskåret fra demokratiske debat.
 Antropologien studerer opad via magtkritik

 Men hvis vi accepterer kritisk repræsentation som en legitim måde at deltage i samfundsdebatten kan vi så samtidig sige at denne må hvile på en bestemt politisk base? Mit svar er ganske antropologisk: Både ja og nej. Ja, fordi antropologien fortsat hviler på feltarbejdet og dets idealer og fordi antropologien dermed kan udfylde en rolle som få andre fag er i stand til og bidrage til en mere demokratisk inklusion.
 Men nej, fordi antropologien ikke kan have noget fasttømret principprogram eller partipolitisk ståsted . Må derfor afvise at arbejde indenfor et eksisterende paradigme
 udformet af staten eller af magtfulde institutioner.
 Hvordan har jeg selv anvendt kritisk repræsentation og magtkritik i forhold til fx prostitutionsdebatten?

Jeg har fra starten nægtet at accepterede det dominerende policy-perspektiv der definerer
”prostitution som et problem”, for hvad er prostitution, hvordan er ideen skabt politisk og historisk? Og i hvilken udstrækning erfares og italesættes prostitution som et problem blandt dem det handler om, nemlig sexsælgerne selv? (slide 6)
 Magtanalysen lyder som følger: Prostitution har alle dage været set som et samfundsproblem, men i nyere tid kampen imod prostitution som et socialt onde taget til i hele den vestlige verden. Kampen hviler på et solidt kulturelt, socio-økonomisk hegemoni, understøttet af statslige og private aktører: ministeriet, socialstyrelsen,
NGOere og kommunale tiltag der søger at redde kvinder ud af sexindustrien. Selv kendisserne bakker op. Det bygger på en patroniserende ide om at det er samfundets opgave at redde ”kvinden som stakkel”, uanset hvad hun i øvrigt selv mener. Men hvad
6

hvis sexsælgeren ikke har brug for at blive reddet, men i stedet foretrækker at få dækket hendes udgifter og få mere sikre arbejdsforhold eller bare være i fred?
Hegemoniet er tydeligt i sammenligning med den svagere position som bla. udgøres af de sexsælgere der ikke føler sig repræsenteret af de dominerende institutioner, både danske og udenlandske, også M og T. Den ulighed i debatten berettiger i mine øjne antropologens kritiske repræsentation af netop deres erfaringer, interesser og perspektiver i tæt dialog med dem, og når de ikke selv kan komme til orde. Men den type engagement kan ikke være ahistorisk. Dvs den dag de sexsælgere der ikke kommer til orde i dag eller som har en svag platform at tale fra får skabt stærke alliancer, hvor man kan tale om ”fair game” mellem debattørerne, den dag er min kritiske rolle overflødiggjort. (slide 7). I Moz..
 Konklusionen er at Antropologisk samfundskritik både må være fleksibel og konstant i opposition til herskende dagsordener
Hvor går grænsen for antropologens engagement?
 Antropologen er ofte set som klassens uartige dreng eller pige . Vi stiller de irriterende spørgsmål, vender tingene på hovedet , viser hvor indviklet og sammensat verden er, peger på de strukturelle magtstrukturer og viser hvordan inddragelsen af nye perspektiver og erfaringer kan udvide den fælles horisont. Det skal vi blive ved med.

 Men ja, der er grænser for antropologens deltagelse. Først of fremmest bør vi undgå at reproducere eksisterende policy-perspektiver eller en dominerende politisk ideologi, eller tage faget til indtægt for en personlig holdning uden legitimitet blandt antropologiens subjekter. Det er de to sidstnævnte faldgruber som man måske kan anklage Nørmark for at falde i. Men det kan han nu selv få muligheden for at svare på 
Jeg er enig i at faget ikke bør forfladiges af dem der taler i dets navn, og mener ikke alle er forpligtet til at deltage.
7