“A relevant anthropology is a committed anthropology. A committed anthropology is capable of saying, unembarrassedly, that human suffering ought to be alleviated.”
I was going over my last anthropology paper when it occurred to me that it took nine pages of argument to reach this conclusion: “Human suffering ought to be alleviated.” Nine pages of argument that was almost elliptically tight to say that anthropologists, people whose training and experience make them best-prepared to interact with other cultures, ought to have a vested interest in identifying and ameliorating what would otherwise be invisible and untreated suffering.
There are obvious moral complexities involved, but the fact of the matter is that students of my generation are such kneejerk relativists that the fact of suffering isn’t even given weight in the ethical deliberation. Their relativism has become stronger than the most basic animal sense that it is unbearable to watch another creature suffer.
I had a much longer lecture prepared, but in light of how much reading I have to get done, I’m going to save it for some other time. Suffice to say: this is why I drink.
reblogged from phyllis-stein
