Special Section on Nativism, Nationalism, and Xenophobia: What Anthropologists Do and Have Done

The World Anthropologies section in this issue consists of essays written fairly quickly by anthropologists in various places in the world who responded to our request in early December 2016 for short- to medium-length essays due January 20. We thought the topic was clear, but it was apparently too broad for some and too daunting for others. We were, therefore, delighted with the number and range of essays we received and include here. Poland, Greece, India, Brazil, Argentina, the Netherlands, and Japan feature quite visibly, but so does most of Europe, the United States (even if backgrounded here), and many other contemporary societies and countries around the world. The WORLD ANTHROPOLOGIES section of AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST invites anthropologists living and working amid any of the growing nativist/nationalist/xenophobic/protectionist movements in various parts of the world, outside of the United States, to submit short- to medium-length pieces (anywhere from 1200 to 2000 words) to a special section planned for the September 2017 issue of American Anthropologist. Essays in this planned World Anthropologies section of AA may address how anthropologists respond to, interpret, analyze, engage with, resist, and/or teach about these movements, or how anthropologists in the past have responded to the rise of similar movements in their societies. We added that we welcomed essays written in languages other than English, though we explained that they would have to be translated into English before appearing in the journal.1 We asked colleagues interested in contributing an essay to this special section to let us know as soon as possible that they were planning to submit, especially if their essays were not going to be in English, so we would have the necessary time to translate them or get them translated. We approached certain individuals we knew were working on related issues and received some commitments that way, but we also sought to reach far and wide by sending the call out through the WCAA (and its heads of over forty anthropological associations around the globe) and through the journal's editorial board, which has many members outside the United States. The ten scholars who committed to writing essays for this special section (though not all came through) were a mix of those approached by Virginia individually and anthropologists who heard about it in one of these other ways. Indeed, half were people we approached individually and half were people who heard or read the call and approached Virginia directly. The end result is suggestive, not exhaustive, but it documents developments in many countries, in the recent past as well as in the contemporary moment, where anthropologists have had to live and work in environments that most found too nativist, too nationalist, too protectionist, and downright xenophobic and intolerant. Put differently, most colleagues included here describe periods, actions, practices, activities, representations, and/or rhetoric they find antithetical to anthropology. We have copyedited the essays but have otherwise given the authors wide berth to address or focus on an issue or a place to the best of their abilities and with arguments that are fully their own. We recognize that other anthropologists living and working in those countries or settings might prefer to stress a different phenomenon or offer a different interpretation than the ones found here, but our aim is to broach the topic rather than provide closure, and we will welcome future essays (short or medium in length) that critique one or more of these essays, offer alternative arguments, or stress something else altogether. Many of our colleagues around the world have bravely taken up this topic with respect to the present, and not just with respect to the past. But others have been admonished to be less public, less visible, and less vocal in their criticism if they want to keep their jobs or have any hope of making inroads or providing continuous alternative, dissident visions. Anthropology is not a homogeneous field, but it does tend to see itself as standing for equality, human rights, social justice, respect for diversity, and indeed even fighting for the underdog. When so many of our colleagues around the world tell the stories of incidents they have witnessed that go against those widespread anthropological values, it is time for us to pause and contemplate our response(s). Perhaps Sarah Green (Helsinki) was the bravest of all contributors when she mentioned how she did not respond to the perpetrators in Greece in 2012 and how she remembers wondering why. Together, these essays point to important questions and considerations for anthropologists who want to attenuate these movements and discourses, diversely characterized as racist, xenophobic, far right, and nationalist in this collection of essays. Whether the movements (or governments) are driven by a smaller sector of elites, as in Argentina, or the majority, as Michał Buchowski tells us is the case in Poland; whether they claim to speak on behalf of "the people" or a Judeo-Christian god or some other symbol of what is taken to be good and righteous, as Tuhina Ganguly asks, to which audiences must we address our scholarship to make an impact, and in what languages must we speak and write? What analytical tools can we bring to bear on this discussion? Can we broaden our scope of understanding by working with the knowledge produced across the four fields of our discipline (as defined in the United States) as well as the knowledge produced by scholars working on related phenomena in different geopolitical and sociocultural contexts, as Yasuko Takezawa advises? Is nationalism always and necessarily repressive, and how are we to differentiate between various movements for autonomy and national identity? Sarah Green suggests we distinguish an inward-looking, separatist, "ethnicist" nationalism based on origins from a "kinship vision of belonging" that maintains the potential for inclusion. Carmen Rial and Miriam Grossi make it clear that anthropology can indeed matter (which is also the theme of the 2017 annual meeting of the American Anthropological Association) and can build disciplinary strength in times of great repression. As Mariano Perelman suggests, anthropologists are uniquely poised to better understand these movements beyond the purely economic realm and to extend the public narrative about them with questions about what it means for people to live with dignity and about how people imagine their past and future horizons. Also stressing the affective and phenomenological forces behind such political projects, Anouk de Koning and Wayne Modest suggest that we historicize the "anxious politics" they see—and feel—in the Netherlands as well as other Western European countries and perhaps the United States, and recognize their ties to legacies of colonialism. All of these authors emphasize the personal and professional dangers anthropologists face when our work challenges such powerful and repressive political configurations, but all seek out paths for anthropologists to do so. Our hope is that their bravery will serve as inspiration to those among us who seek to join them in whatever creative ways we can muster.