Sara Gormley - Entry No. 6 (Marcus)

George E. Marcus opens this reading with the explanation of how anthropologists are molded and shaped by their first fieldwork, specifically in dangerous surroundings or conflict zones. Beginning anthropologists are subject to certain expectations that come with the commencement of one`s experience in the field must retain some level of objectivity in relation to their reporting. Only with time and experience can these anthologists create a unique perspective based on past experiences. However, there is a standard of uncertain identities of anthropologists, as they carry out their work in more ambiguous ways surrounded by locals rather than political elite. By compartmentalizing the anthropologist as either an expert working in the service of an intervening agency (during this time of interventionism) or simply as a reporter with no understanding of the complex situations found in their reports would neglect and underestimate the complexity of their approach to their work. Marcus then asks the question, how do you create the identity of independence and engagement that can bridge these two experiences of bureaucracy and groundwork? Disconnect between those politically involved in a state of emergency, and those who witness and report on the events on the ground such as anthropologists. Marcus hoped to connect the two parties through a discourse policy makers are accustomed to, surrounding topics experienced by the fieldworkers. 

Intervention of colonialism is the traditional experience of anthropological fieldwork, where it has grown and expanded. This is what has shaped anthropology, much to Marcus`s disappointment. Following the Cold war, a new era has emerged. Contributed to by a failed or weak state, breakdown of society, and multinational interventionism (UN, NATO, US unilateralism, NGOs, humanitarian and otherwise), it created a new way of thinking in relation to world powers and their role in the game and introduces the idea of the empire to our perspective. Historically, critiques have relied on grand narratives common to all to base their legitimacy upon. A revolutionary idea is considered, that other outside ideas are introduced to find new and unique perspectives. The key problem becomes this: in an attempt to reorganize the thought on ethnography in this new age, how do anthropologists orient their thought around their objects of study.

It would be easy to consider this rethinking based on previous schools of thought that were applied to the same locations now facing interventionism. But this “regime of intervention” creates an issue of identity among anthropologists that necessitates the rethinking of disengagement. Anthropologists have taken a subsidiary role to policy makers and other beaurocratic elite in conferences. But anthropologists bring a thorough understanding of the experience of the citizen that they don`t have, and therefore we find anthropologists at the cusp of situations where they experience and report on the situation on a local level while utilizing academic contexts. 

It is here where Marcus introduces the three identities of anthropologists: the expert, the reporter, and the witness. In this reading, all three identities are studied through the lens of experience in a time of multinational interventionism. First to be explained is the expert, who is to be called upon by a local actor or organization, and the most readily available opportunity of the three. The role the expert would play would be one of objectivity, in order to allow for the detached view that can study a situation solely for social inquiry and theory. This impartiality could provide a sort of legitimacy to the conclusions determined upon. This identity is repelled by anthologists who feel the necessity in pointing out shortcomings of policy; preventing them from the ability to fully implement this idea. Next comes the reporter. This identity has a previous occupier in the form of journalism. It embraces the idea of “independence, balance, or fairness.” This is a different approach from the disinterestedness involved in anthropology, but still appeals to many as it is relevant to ethnological study. This is an identity that falls between disinterestedness and engagement, making if more feasible. Finally, Marcus finishes with the witness, the most complex and enduring identity of the three. Witnessing allows for a replacement for the traditional role of scholarly objectivity and supports the notion of independent anthropologists as a possibility, though this is proven difficult in a time of interventionist involvement financially, politically, and militarily. Here, anthropologists allow themselves to witness through their inherent nature to side with the victims of history, relevant to this lens of interventionism where victims are created and must watch on as political events leave them helpless. 

Marcus follows this explanation with support through an account of his own experiences. The first being an organization of articles of experiences categorized as “witnessing.” These included accounts of long-time anthropologists who had the sufficient experience to shape themselves, all in this case through destabilizing events through a shift in politics, similar to what we can relate to this reading as the post-Cold War shift toward multinational interventionism. Further examples talked about anthropologists who included violence and upheaval in their writings. These experiences helped shape the term witnessing into his concept that it is today, and show him how it could be put into use in our world, for example a multilateral approach to a UN peacekeeping mission in Cambodia. Marcus ends with the current forms of the witness, both testimony which focuses on honestly and activism in its approach to facilitating the story of the victim, and intellectualized and conceptualized identity where a shift in world order is considered in order to find a new and unique approach. The witness continues to struggle to find the balance between a tool utilized by an outside force, and its intimate relation with and commitment to the people and experience on the ground.