INTRODUCTION
Anthropologists have always remained concerned for the future of anthropology and its sub-disciplines (Srivastava, 1999). One of the earliest expressions of such concerns was raised by Franz Boas, the first president of the American Anthropological Association (AAA) in 1919. Later, Bronislaw Malinowski was categorical in his writing about the need for anthropological knowledge for the benefit of people. In 1929, he wrote that “a new branch of anthropology must sooner or later be started: the anthropology of the changing native”. He called it “Practical Anthropology”. As a subject, especially social anthropology finds its feet within socially and spatially excluded communities. The question that perplexes anthropologists is about the degree and extent of involvement with the community; or to use “community” as a laboratory to experiment anthropological idea or knowledge for generation of theory and policy prescription. This emerging ethical concern of social anthropologists gave way to a new way of thinking and doing – called Action Anthropology. Action Anthropology as a sub discipline was an outcome of project with Fox Indians in USA by Sol Tax. It is more about the way the “communities” are used in a real life laboratory. Action Anthropology suggests a new approach to involve, inculcate and insinuate changes as desired by the community in the real life laboratory. It is more to facilitate what the community wants and less about introduction of “outsiders rationale view”. It is also termed the ethno-scientific approach towards development in anthropological knowledge. In other words, it is more of action than reaction to local situations.
4.2 ACTION ANTHROPOLOGY
In 1951, the term action anthropology was coined by Sol Tax at the American Anthropological Association meeting in Chicago. According to Sol Tax, action anthropology is similar to clinical method of study. Like a clinician continuously improves his diagnosis with tentative remedies, action anthropologists do not conceptualise the community as simply observing what would happen “naturally”; action anthropologists are willing to make things happen, or to help them along or to be at least catalysts. Therefore, action anthropologists are interested in solving anthropological problems, but perused in the context of action; hence, a sub-discipline called action anthropology (1975). In principle, it implies that there is no one pill for every ill. Every ill requires subjective treatment in the specific local conditions. Action anthropology has been applied to solve practical problems of human welfare in a variety of situations. According to Holmberg (1970), the situation demands a strategy for local solution through collective action. Therefore, the action anthropologists are expected to bring decision-making bodies of the community to a level of competence to redress local problems. The approach by action anthropologists is to seek participatory solutions. Here, local knowledge inspires the community to reflect and act. This knowledge as a tool can only be understood and implied as a fieldworker. Therefore, action anthropology cannot be practiced without fieldwork. In the current context of scale and speed of social change, fieldwork entails challenge of time tenacity and trust of the community members.
4.3 CHARACTERISTICS OF ACTION ANTHROPOLOGISTS
The action anthropologist does not apply ‘science’ to solve a local problem. She or he in fact coordinates two critical goals: 1) Desires to help a group of people to solve a problem, and 2) Wants to learn something in the process. Action anthropologists therefore are interested for welfare while keeping the culture intact with the community. In fact, such priorities are given because of two important reasons: Firstly any tribal community like most cultural minorities, value their way of life and resent any external threat. Secondly, often the state leads development activities that are introduced among tribal communities with an effort to change their lifestyle towards modernity. But the result of such a ‘top down approach’ has often failed and instead of positive outcomes, it may result into several irreversible negative consequences. The failure of ‘top down approach’ Action Anthropology is primarily due to a lack of understanding of local conditions. This may be the result of overemphasis on their reinforcement of limited knowledge of the experts. The problem of top down approach can be best illustrated in a cartoon (figure 4.1). This cartoon is about the lack of understanding in a holistic perspective resulting into different interpretations of the same problem. As an outcome, the development intervention overlooks the larger context. In the beginning of the Fox program, there was a dilemma of introduction of some good practices. But later it was decided not to introduce it as it may be an outsider’s or expert’s choice. And this choice may not be best suited for the actors in the local situation. Therefore, the best decision can be made by the community; and it is not for the experts to decide what would be good for people. Anthropologists have been critical of the top-down approach.
4.4 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ACTION AND APPLIED ANTHROPOLOGY
Applied and action anthropology revolves around seeking probable solutions to a social problem. The difference between applied and action anthropology lies in the degree and form of involvement. In applied anthropology, the anthropologist may provide solutions to a local problem, but they seldom solve the problem while being part of the community. In other words, action anthropologists facilitate (work with the) community to seek solutions, while in applied anthropology, community may be provided (work for) with alternate solutions. According to Piddington (1970:138-39) the fundamental distinction exists in the refusal of the action anthropologist to draw up a “blueprint” for action, instead letting the community decide what should be done. This strategy of the action anthropologist can be termed participatory. Action anthropologists can also be considered as “nondirective counseling for a community” (Peattie 1968:303). In this definition ‘nondirective’ is referred to a situation where the community decision is preferred over that of the anthropologist. Applied anthropology differs from action anthropology in adhering to the means-ends scheme of planning. According to Sol Tax (1960:168), applied anthropology applies a body of scientific knowledge as empirical propositions. This knowledge in the form of solutions is developed by theoretical anthropologists and awaiting application to particular situations when they are asked to do so by management, government, administrator, or organisation. Sol Tax addressed the difference between action anthropology and applied anthropology in the following ways: 1) As an action anthropologist, they should become part of the lives of people of another culture. 2) An action anthropologist learns the world of the studied or host culture without asking, and 3) They must be a theoretical anthropologist, not in background but in practice. Last but not the least, an action anthropologist cannot have any master; he or she works as a member of the local community. According to Barth (2002), understanding human knowledge allows us to unravel a number of aspects of the cultural worlds which people construct. According to him there are three faces of knowledge: 1) A substantive corpus of assertions: ideas about aspects of the world. 2) A range of media of representation- communicated in the form of words, concrete symbols, pointing gestures, actions, and 3) A social organisation: distributed, communicated, employed, and transmitted within social relations. This knowledge interrelates in particular ways and generates tradition-specific criteria of validity for knowledge about the world. Thus the trajectory of a tradition of knowledge will be to a large extent endogenously determined. This implies that anthropologists can demonstrate how already established thoughts, representations, and social relations to a considerable extent configure and filter our individual human experience of the world around us and thereby generate culturally diverse worldviews
4.5 FOX PROJECT: A REAL LIFE LABORATORY
The tribal (or Indian communities) are uncomfortable with the changing socioeconomic conditions and the response of the state. Most of the spatially and socially excluded communities are under the pressure to change. This pressure is internal as well as external. Internal pressure is propelled by its vulnerabilities; while external pressure is formed due to either market forces or state policies as alternate options. Often these external pressures on small and vulnerable community result in the disappearance of its cultural traits; or it might lead to conflict if they resist. American Indian communities faced a similar situation. They have adjusted to the dominant cultural environment of the contemporary Americans and in past with the Europeans. According to Sol Tax: ‘this is a worldwide syndrome’ (1975). An approach to practical problems was tested in the Fox project, which later came to be known as “action anthropology”. It was developed in a project that Sol Tax and his associates at the University of Chicago carried out among the Fox Indians at Tama, Iowa. The Fox (also called Meskwaki) came originally from Wisconsin, USA. During the nineteenth century, due to increase of white population in the region, Fox Indians migrated to Illinois, Iowa, and subsequently to Kansas. Being primarily a forest community, for Fox Indians, Kansas with less forest and insecure land rights was not a compatible choice for settlement. As a result, by selling their horses, they purchased land near Tama in Southern Iowa in 1854. In 1960s, five to six hundred Fox Indians were settled in around 3,000 acres of land. The settlement was different to that of the usual tribal reservation allocated by the Government. The Bureau of Indian (Tribal) Affairs administered school and basic supplies of primary health care. As the land was not fertile, the Fox had no other option but to migrate to Tama and neighbouring towns to work as unskilled labour force. Consequently their quality of life was below the average standard in most of the development indicators, such as health, education, and poverty.
The perpetual social and economic exclusion of the Fox Indian and the constant dominance by outside culture resulted in acculturation (See Box 1). The Fox community (living in Iowa) was the result of acculturation from the modern dominant American culture. Sol Tax’s study highlights that though there are few families who have adapted Christianity as their religion, the traditional Fox totemic religion still dominants the cultural and religious traits. There is, however, influence of inter-tribal (Indian) cultural trait also, such as the widespread peyote cult
The ethno-history of Fox Indian like many other tribes asserts their own cultural trait being original and not borrowed. This assertion of past culture is very common between the tribes. The ethno-history often justifies their self esteem for existing cultural trait. Often they act as reinforcement mechanisms for resisting their own culture change, especially among the youths in the contemporary society. This is also reflected in a contemporary belief about the Chippewa reincarnation of Christ. According to this belief the unmarried daughter of an old Chippewa couple became pregnant. The Chippewas lived in the forest. The mother, knowing that her daughter had no interaction with boys, suspected her father of making her pregnant. At the time of birth, her mother thinking it to be an incestuous child raised an axe to kill the baby. Reacting to this gesture, the newborn baby boy spoke, that he was born to the whites across the sea and they killed him. He asked the mother: Are you going to kill me too? He showed the marks on his body (stigmata) corresponding to those left on Christ’s body by Crucifixion (said to be on the body of St Francis of Assisi and others). This led to the belief that the boy will soon become a religious leader of the tribes, as his predecessor did for the white man.
4.6 IDEOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES OF ACTION ANTHROPOLOGISTS
Sol Tax formulated a system of three values that one should have as an action anthropologists. These three values are as follows: 1) The value of truth: represents the fact and knowledge as expressed by the community 2) The values of freedom: represents the freedom for individuals to choose the group to which they identify and for a community to choose its ways of life. That means that as an action anthropologist we must reduce restrictions or create an option that expands choices for the community. 3) The value or principle of operation: is like law of parsimony which tells us not to settle questions of values unless they concern us
4.7 ROLE OFACTION ANTHROPOLOGY
Action anthropology emphasises the right of self-determination. As Sol Tax candidly puts it that it is the choice and freedom of the community to make mistakes. In today’s language it may be termed as doing while learning. The Fox were faced with the need of making decisions relevant to their future. The role of the action anthropologist is not to impose his or her own knowledge as solution. This applies more to development agencies, administrators or policy makers, who decide solutions for tribal communities without appropriate consultation. The action anthropologist’s role is to act as a catalyst, to help clarify issues for the tribal communalities and to make available to them sustainable options and outcomes, which either may not be accessible to them or may not have occurred to them. Any lines of action or solution, even if it appeals to the action anthropologist, must be rejected if they are not acceptable to the people.
The Tama Craft project was successful and its impact was primarily threefold: 1) Firstly it has built the self-esteem and confidence of the Fox. The experiential knowledge made the Fox Indians to realise that they can run entrepreneurial activities efficiently and effectively within the larger American economy. The process also added substantial per capita income to Fox families. 2) Secondly it has built confidence of the outsiders, particularly the administrators, that the Fox are capable of promoting self sufficient livelihood options, resulting in change in the stereotype that tribal communities are incompetent and burden on the state and 3) More importantly, it has provided Charles Pushetonequa (and many aspiring youths) with a career in which they can pursue their artistic aspirations without losing the identity of their community. This led to a new way of thinking that converts art as fulfilling interest and income too.
4.8 ENGAGINGAS ACTION ANTHROPOLOGISTS
As a result two broad perspectives emerge: one that employs anthropology to challenge the reproduction of structural inequality (Mullings 2000) and the others whose anthropological work reaches beyond the boundaries of the intellectual endeavour influencing non-academic spheres. Action anthropologists incorporate the discipline serving advocacy interests from an interventionist perspective capable of liberating the marginalised communities (Harrison 1997). In broader terms, the role and relationship of anthropologists at work are threefold. According to Hymes (1972), anthropologists: 1) Are critics and scholars in the academic world; 2) Work for communities, movements, institutions; and 3) Are linked to direct action as members of a community or social movements. All three roles are necessary. More importantly they are present in every role with varying degree of priority.
4.9 RATIONALE FOR ACTION ANTHROPOLOGY IN INDIAN CONTEXT
The tribal population of India is 8.43 crore, constituting 8.2 percent of the total population (Census, 2001). Central Indian states have the country’s largest tribes, and, taken as a whole, roughly 75 per cent of the total tribal population live there. About 47 percent the Scheduled Tribe population is concentrated in the States of Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Maharashtra, Jharkhand, Gujarat and Odissa. The tribal community varies in size, there are approximately 700 communities recognised by the government as Scheduled Tribes. The Gonds are roughly 7.4 million, the Santals are approximately 4.2 million while Chaimals in the Andaman Islands are limited to 18 members only. According to the National Tribal Policy (Draft), the STs have traditionally lived in about 15 percent of the country’s geographical areas, mainly forests, hills, undulating inaccessible terrain in plateau areas, rich in natural resources. Out of 58 districts, which have 67 percent of forest cover, 51 happen to be tribal districts. 70 per cent of their total income is from the collection and marketing of minor forest produce (MFP). A survey of 2001-03 forest cover shows a net increase of 321,100 ha in tribal districts. On the other hands, the tribal community remains most marginalised spatially excluded group with respect to health, education, income and well being. This spatial exclusion clubbed with socio-economic exclusion have been responsible for the lower growth, dissimilar pattern of their socio-economic and inability to negotiate and cope with the consequences of their involuntary integration with the mainstream society and market. According to the Planning Commission, Government of India, the proportion of ST children, aged 12-23 months who received basic vaccinations, is much lower than the rest of the population. The ST children also have a much higher incidence of anemia. The incidence of stunting and wasting is much higher among ST children. Incidence of overall under-nutrition (underweight) is significantly higher among the ST children than among others (2008). According to NHFS III, deliveries in a health facility are only 18 percent among the tribes in comparison to the general population with 51 percent (National Family Health Survey 3, 2005/6). Till late 2000, the essential interdependence of the forest and tribe that came in the wake of colonial rule was not accorded due recognition. However, the above changes in the policy context have resulted in a changed perspective among the policy makers. The Hon’ble President of India in her address to Parliament earlier this year laid down the task of completing the process of distribution of title deeds under the Forest Rights Act by 2009. On November 4th 2009 the Prime Minster addressed Chief Ministers’ Conference, State Ministers of Tribal Affairs, Social Welfare and Forest Department on the implementation of Forest Rights Act 2006. In his speech he reiterated, those whose lives are dependent on the forests should be made essential partners in the process of planning, conservation and protection. Just after his speech, the Minster of Tribal Affairs shared the issues and concerns over inequality of distribution of outcomes and opportunities between other social categories and the scheduled tribes.
4.10 CHALLENGES OF ENGAGEMENT FOR AN ACTION ANTHROPOLOGIST
A problem common to all action anthropologists entering agency employment from academia is the conflict between disciplinary specialisation and teamwork. Unlike anthropologists in academics who usually carry out a research project or fieldwork, analyse the data and publish their articles and reports, and devote most of their time teaching, action anthropologists work in close collaboration with other like-minded administrators or policy makers, activists and community members to draw their attention towards the problems of the communities under study or observation. According to Raymond Firth, a bridge is to be built between the people and the culture that is forced upon him; and the anthropologist can play their part in what may be called, social engineering. (Firth 1950: 399) The philosophical basis of action anthropology is practical application of engagement in participatory learning activity. Increasing knowledge through participation with the community yields constructive, cohesive and collateral action. The purpose of the action anthropologist is to learn local knowledge and apply it in a manner in accordance with the existing value and social structure of the people involved. Action anthropology is more clinical. Like doctors, anthropologists deal with human lives. No attempt is made to apply general anthropological principles directly to the body of observed data existing at any fixed time. Nothing is force-fed; top-down approach is not followed; the people themselves make all the decisions which might influence their future i.e. the bottom-up approach. The principles of action anthropology developed by Tax and associates during the Fox Project, were applied independently by Holmberg in (the Vicos Project) and by Spillius during fieldwork in Tikopia (Tax 1975:108). Due to the demand of different situations the Vicos’ approach was different from that of the Fox Project. The Vicos project adopted different strategies in social action. Holmberg subscribed to identical principles: “to bring decision-making bodies of the community up to a level of competence at which we, the patrons, could be dispensed with.” In his critique of the Fox Project, Stucki (1967:313) concluded that it was doubtful that a project of this type would ever be undertaken again. Reservations on action anthropology and challenges of action anthropologists are legitimate, but action anthropology is possible and is successful; however, it requires long term commitment and engagement. According to Karl H. Schlesier (1974), an action anthropologist becomes part of the studied community’s culture. Their obligation to the community is first; they must protect them in the fragile phase of cultures. Schlesier elucidated about the, action anthropologists’ relations that they may face challenges from the discipline, from grant or Government agencies, and with the host population. 1) The Discipline: The action anthropologists are suspected by their colleagues because he or she violates the established approaches of research and standards of anthropological professional behaviour, especially in academics. He or she neither uses nor develops theoretical propositions. Instead, he addresses himself to a specific case which demands specific adaptations for practical solutions. 2) Grant or Government Agencies: The action anthropologist is suspected by the bureaucracy or administrators because he may challenge existing practices. He may publicly expose or make transparent the bad policies or programmes design that are harmful to the host population. Consequently, he may be perceived by the bureaucratic power structure as an opponent of the system, or a radical activist.
3) The host population or the community: Action Anthropology Often action anthropologists are suspected at the beginning by many members of the host population. Some may remain unconvinced until the end of his engagement. In an action anthropology engagement, the host population often suspects the hidden motives of the action anthropologist.
4.11 FUTURE OF ACTION ANTHROPOLOGISTS
According to Dana-Ain Davis (2003), the discipline is a logical extension of community work especially, in the methodological tools used to understand priorities and preferences of the community. Today with rapid globalisation and opportunities of cultural interaction, the notion of community and time has changed. The community is of stakeholders and may reside in any part of the society, while time has accelerated its scale and speed. In other words, anthropologists need to understand community as a multi-cultural paradigm in limited time. The point the action anthropologists put forth is that no action work can be carried out independently of the political scenario and concerns. What is universal is the politics of change; thus one has not to forgo this politics. In fact, anthropology and activism (advocacy included) can be profitably combined, after all the aim is not just to understand that local situation, but initiate an array of changes in consultation with the local people, who are at the ‘centre of changes programmes’. In the late seventies, the anthropologists were occasionally working in development or administrative agencies (D’Andrade et al. 1975). But today, the employment opportunities for anthropologists in development agencies have increased. According to Almy (1979), anthropologists are presented with three alternatives for “involved” research: 1) Anthropological research under the direct control of oppressed minorities, or community advocacy. 2) Research as consultants employed by evaluative research firms or government agency to feed data into analyses contracted by other agencies to assist in their decision-making, and 3) Adversary research from a university or development agency setting on contemporary bureaucracies and power elites, for the oppressed majority