Scan barcode
A review by aegagrus
Yanomami: The Fierce Controversy and What We Can Learn from It by Rob Borofsky
4.5
Borofsky's project in Yanomami moves through a number of stages. First, he clearly lays out the basic contours of the controversy under discussion. He profiles the major characters, itemizes the various things Napoleon Chagnon and James Neel stand accused of, and sketches a brief timeline of developments following the publication of Patrick Tierney's book Darkness in El Dorado. Second, he identifies some key issues to keep in mind when moving forward to evaluate the controversy: power differentials, just researcher-informant relationships, and how to locate credibility in these discussions. Third, he devotes a chapter to presenting the perspectives of several Yanomami leaders through excerpted interviews, lightly commenting upon notable throughlines (for instance, the Yanomami concern over blood samples still found in American labs; Borofsky notes that although Yanomami voices do not always agree on how to resolve this situation, it consistently assumes much more importance to them than it seems to hold in the broader academic back-and-forth). Fourth, Borofsky previews the "roundtable" portion of his book, introducing the six experts he has recruited to participate and highlighting the general stances taken in their respective essays. Usefully, a reader could stop here and come away with a good general sense of the discussion that has taken place. Finally, the book concludes with Borofsky's roundtable, taking the form of three rounds of essays in which the participants are asked to respond directly to one another. The multi-round format is important, as different essayists tend to initially focus on different elements of the controversy. The second and third-round essays tend to be a little unwieldy, as the experts try to engage with multiple strands of the debate as it has already occurred. However, as Borofsky notes, if the roundtable had stopped after round one the essayists would have run the risk of talking past one another by each defaulting to a narrow "specialization" (a criticism Borofsky levies against the report produced by the American Anthropological Association's initial task force, which leveraged errors in Tierney's account of Neel's role in the spread of Measels to attempt to dismiss Tierney's other allegations).
Borofsky's own perspective is not entirely absent from his book, but his earnest belief in bringing together divergent scientific perspectives ensures that his own contributions focus mostly on prompting and guiding students who may be asked to wade through the controversy's details. This is certainly a "teaching book"; a classroom or seminar setting is the ideal way in which to engage with this book, especially its roundtable section. As a teacher, Borofsky has one exceptional quality: he expresses earnest and deep admiration for the anthropology students who mobilized to challenge the AAA over its initially dismissive attitude following Tierney's book. It is to these students that Yanomami is dedicated. It is truly refreshing that a scholar trying to move a controversy away from circular partisan recrimination and towards a discussion about how anthropology can be less exploitative believes so deeply that students can and must be at the forefront of change.
I believe there are two major deficiencies with Borofsky's roundtable. First, although he is to be commended for explicitly including the perspectives of Yanomami leaders and activists, he does so in a separate chapter, rather than as part of the roundtable. I understand the logistical difficulties in changing this dynamic (some of which Borofsky discusses), but the division remains notable. Second, while his participants cover a wide range of affiliations and perspectives, Napoleon Chagnon himself does not contribute to the discussion. This, to be fair, is entirely Chagnon's fault. His increasing hostility and defensiveness when presented with any opportunity to engage with his critics clearly saddens Borofsky, and remains an impediment to the pursuit of justice among the Yanomami.
Borofsky's own perspective is not entirely absent from his book, but his earnest belief in bringing together divergent scientific perspectives ensures that his own contributions focus mostly on prompting and guiding students who may be asked to wade through the controversy's details. This is certainly a "teaching book"; a classroom or seminar setting is the ideal way in which to engage with this book, especially its roundtable section. As a teacher, Borofsky has one exceptional quality: he expresses earnest and deep admiration for the anthropology students who mobilized to challenge the AAA over its initially dismissive attitude following Tierney's book. It is to these students that Yanomami is dedicated. It is truly refreshing that a scholar trying to move a controversy away from circular partisan recrimination and towards a discussion about how anthropology can be less exploitative believes so deeply that students can and must be at the forefront of change.
I believe there are two major deficiencies with Borofsky's roundtable. First, although he is to be commended for explicitly including the perspectives of Yanomami leaders and activists, he does so in a separate chapter, rather than as part of the roundtable. I understand the logistical difficulties in changing this dynamic (some of which Borofsky discusses), but the division remains notable. Second, while his participants cover a wide range of affiliations and perspectives, Napoleon Chagnon himself does not contribute to the discussion. This, to be fair, is entirely Chagnon's fault. His increasing hostility and defensiveness when presented with any opportunity to engage with his critics clearly saddens Borofsky, and remains an impediment to the pursuit of justice among the Yanomami.
In substantive terms, I came away from this book the most persuaded by Leda Martin's discussion of the concrete ways in which Chagnon's depiction of the Yanomami as "fierce" and violent seeped into Brazilian discourse and contributed to the undermining of Yanomami sovereignty, strengthening the political backers of intruding miners. The response from Raymond Hames, Chagnon's onetime student, feels like question-begging when Hames insists that an anthropologist's objectivity is only useful to a society if the anthropologist is free from worrying about the political ramifications of their work ("useful" how?). The notion of an anthropologist as an objective, detached researcher may be somewhat untenable -- but this is exactly what Yanomami activist Davi Kopenawa has said, describing a model in which those who learn from a community take an active role in "defending" that community. Aside from my appreciation of Borofsky's methodology in constructing this book, this position from Kopenawa forms my strongest lasting impression.