Nomadic Thoughts

The fluidity of culture, power, and history is one reason it has often been difficult for anthropology to maintain a definitional consensus on these three concepts. The relatively short history of the field coupled with its own dynamic nature further complicate this situation. The social revolution of the 1960’s and 1970’s fundamentally restructured anthropology in the United Stated as the emergence of applied and action anthropology found acceptance among a small but growing circle of academics (Bennett 1996). As a result, scholars are beginning to approach the concepts of culture, power, and history from a different perspective, one that emphasizes the existence of multiple, equally valid sets of meanings. Additionally, the meanings given by one community, group, or individual may or may not compliment those of another.

Wright (1998) defined two sets of ideas about what culture is: one that is inextricably linked to a people and one that is defined in terms of political processes and the power to define. When a checklist typology is employed to delineate what seems to be a unique group of individuals, as with the former set of ideas, much is lost in terms of individuality and the possibility of those being advocated for having an active role in the advocacy process. The latter is more congruent with a strategy that takes into account the large variety of experiences and viewpoints that make up a culture. Like culture, “power” alone is often too broad of a concept to convey the complexities that define a situation. Wolf (1989) articulates this idea by describing four different modes of power: as an attribute of the person, as one person imposing his or her will on another, power that controls contexts, and as power that “…specifies the distribution and direction of energy flows.” By describing finer meanings of the concept of power Wolf creates the possibility of capturing the variable experiences of people as they exist within a society’s power structure. Finally, history cannot be taken for granted in an advocacy strategy because often a group’s present situation has come about due to past events and how these have interacted with the concepts described above. The intersection of culture, power, and history is both complex and distinct in Cabanaconde.

Gelles’ (1994) study focuses on the peasant community of Cabanaconde and how it navigates a political system that, like any other, is the product of a long and complex history. The official political structure is made up of a municipal council, a governor, an irrigation commission, a local water administrator, and two water mayors. A number of powerful and influential families are also involved in the political process. Cabanaconde’s situation is influenced on a regional scale as well. Although locally managed, the Irrigators Commission has an effect on water management when it enacts the state model of irrigation during dry spells of the rainy season. This group has an interest in maintaining the state model for a certain period of time and, when not burdened by shady commission members looking to benefit themselves, can be quite effective. Although Cabaneño society is economically differentiated, often resulting in conflicting interests from these different groups, acquiring wealth is not the only motivating factor behind differing viewpoints. Gelles discusses at length the complicated and ritualized nature of localized water management and how this plays out in the context of power relations. More important than the specific details of these practices is the reality of them and the value placed on the structure they provide. This is an example of history intersecting with culture in such a way as to provide a set of boundaries within which power relations are carried out. The complexity of the entire system is evident in the multiple intersections between these three concepts. In other words, each concept is played out in the context of the other two.

An additional viewpoint that is absent from Gelles’ two-part study is that of the anthropologist. While this is not necessarily detrimental to the value of such work, it becomes integral when designing a successful advocacy strategy. Hastrup and Elsass (1990:307) make this point when they conclude that “anthropology is concerned with context rather than interest, while advocacy means making a choice among interests within the context.” When anthropologists decide to cross over into the realm of advocacy, they bring with them their own experiences and worldview and are forced to examine these in relation to indigenous concepts of culture, power, and history.

The role of these various viewpoints and how they interact is important to advocacy strategies that are informed by anthropological studies. The dynamics that shape how, when, and by whom water is manipulated are deeply embedded in personal- and community-level relationships (power), beliefs about the supernatural properties of water as well as rational norms and community expectations (culture), and organizational structure and ideas about land management (history). In order to achieve the goals set forth in a successful advocacy strategy, it is important to synthesize the characteristics of Cabanaconde’s water management system with nonrestrictive, contextualized definitions of culture, power, and history (described above). Underlying this approach is the recognition that indigenous or traditional concepts of reality, however incongruous with those of anthropology, are equally valid. The rest of this paper will outline a potential advocacy strategy that underscores the importance of a multidimensional approach.

The concepts of culture, power, and history and their intersections correspond to the different components of an advocacy strategy that could be implemented in Cabanaconde. First, recognition of and respect for the culture of the peasant farmers should inform the particulars of the strategy. The strategy must recognize that Cabaneños exist in the same physical world as the advocate anthropologist. All humans require water for survival and this is a fundamental reality that connects peasant farmer to advocate. With this realization firmly in place, advocacy planning can proceed in such a way as to not dismiss even the smallest nuance of Cabaneño water management. Second, recognition of the power relationships that define water management must be at the forefront of the advocacy strategy. These relationships translate to social structures that hold together the current system, for better or worse. Becoming cognizant of the dynamics that inform these relationships independent of their role in the exploitation or suppression of indigenous rights will ensure that an advocacy strategy is effective. Finally, history provides a context that sheds light on all aspects of a strategy and can magnify the finer points of a situation.

It has been shown that there is much that needs to be considered when integrating advocacy with anthropological research. Concepts of culture, power, and history are often too broad to account for the complexities of a given situation. In the case of water management at Cabanaconde in Peru, peasant farmers, like any group of individuals, must make decisions in a variety of contexts. To reduce these contexts to three terms can be problematic, but need not restrict the anthropologist who wishes to offer information and insight. These terms are convenient for generalized discussion but must be more specifically defined in order to achieve the goal of aiding indigenous communities in mobilization efforts. It is not the job of the anthropologist to single-handedly induce change. Instead, the advocate anthropologist should recognize the impossibility of separating culture, power, and history for the purpose of bettering one or more. The inclusion of all viewpoints that are involved in a situation is directly linked to the success or failure of an advocacy strategy.

References

Bennett, John W.
1996 Applied and Action Anthropology: Ideological and Conceptual Aspects. Current Anthropology (supplement, February) 36: S23-S53.

Gelles, Paul H.
1994 Channels of Power, Fields of Contention: The Politics of Irrigation and Land Recovery in an Andean Peasant Community. In Irrigation at High Altitudes: The Social Organization of Water Control Systems in the Andes, edited by William P. Mitchell and David Guillet, pp. 233-273. Society for Latin American Anthropology Publication number 12.

Hastrup, Kirsten and Peter Elsass
1990 Anthropological Advocacy: A Contradiction in Terms?. Current Anthropology 31(3): 301-311.

Wolf, Eric R.
1990 Distinguished Lecture: Facing Power-Old Insights, New Questions. American Anthropologist 92: 586-596.

Wright, Susan
1998 The politicization of “culture.” Anthropology Today 14(1): 7-15.

As always, this weblog is licensed under a Creative Commons License.