In what way can anthropologists help mediate cross-cultural violence?

Reposted with permission, from http://ashkuff.com/blog/?p=182

 

The taste of blood flooded my mouth. “See what I mean?” ‘Raux asked me, grinding his knuckles across my face, gnashing my lips into my teeth. “Maybe get ‘em to back off like this!” I had ‘Raux pinned to the ground, demonstrating my scarf hold, while he experimented with some escapes. “Or use pressure points!” ‘Raux switched techniques, driving his thumbs into the soft spots below my occipital ridge.

 

I tried to pretend it didn’t hurt. ‘Raux scoffed, “Son, Sensei does that to me all the time, so don’t even pretend that don’t hurt. But hey, is this even legal in grapplin’?” I responded, “Yeah, it’s legal. Just terribly impolite. Kinda’ like this.” I struck out, throttling his neck.

 

“Oh, that’s s###ty!”
Thrashing away, ‘Raux croaked,
“and you’re allowed to do that sorta’ thing?”

 

I paused, uneasily.
“I think so. But nobody really does. It’s… rude.”

 

‘Raux frowned incredulously.
“So what? You gonna be polite during a real fight?”

 

‘Raux and I are damn close. He even made me his Best Man. Further, we’ve both been into martial arts for years. If any two guys should be able to spar smoothly, it should be us. Right? Wrong. Even though we share so much, we belong to distinct subcultures. I come from submission grappling, ‘Raux comes from Aikido, and we sometimes experience culture clash. For example, in submission grappling, there’s no rule explicitly prohibiting knuckle grinds, yet there’s a tacit understanding that it’s “cheap.” Of course, as an Aikidoka, ‘Raux couldn’t have known that.

 

Even in the context of violence, we remain influenced by our culture’s etiquette. Some colloquialisms include “clean fighting” versus “dirty fighting,” “cheap shots,” and more militaristically, “rules of engagement” versus “war crime.” Sometimes these systems of etiquette become so elaborate, violence becomes game-like. Anthropologists have documented this phenomenon for generations, including the so-called “Mesoamerican Ball Game” and “Trobriand Cricket.” Thus, when different cultures fight, the conflict’s etiquette can get wonky. Practically, that’s an issue anthropologists could help navigate in combat athletics, law enforcement, and war. Indeed, some already have, in the “Human Terrain Program.”

 

So I want to open this discussion based on a simple question: in what way can anthropologists help mediate cross-cultural violence?

Tags: aikido, anthropology, arts, grappling, martial, submission, violence

Views: 226

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Thanks a lot by bringing on board this good discussion it will first of depend with the people involved in the 'conflict' as an anthropologists who understands people in the sense of cross cultural advise one to be sensitive of the others plight.more to follow

Nice example. That said, anthropologists might begin by recognizing that conflict resolution is already a topic in which many other folk have already established footholds. The literature is already substantial. It would be a good idea to review it and then ask what, if anything, anthropologists can do that others aren't already doing.

Start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_resolution

It seems as though the current conflict-resolution models are too standardized.

As in, "here are the strategies we use, and they should be applicable anywhere."

 

Anthropologists, by contrast, can offer more culture-specific tactics.

As in, "counter-intuitive as it seems, note that self-described 'no holds barred' fighters in America actually do bar certain holds, such as any involving weapons."

 

--- Ashkuff | www.ashkuff.com | How to venture out of “armchair” scholarship and into action? One anthropologist tackles business, occultism and violence! He gets spooked and roughed up a lot.

John McCreery said:

Nice example. That said, anthropologists might begin by recognizing that conflict resolution is already a topic in which many other folk have already established footholds. The literature is already substantial. It would be a good idea to review it and then ask what, if anything, anthropologists can do that others aren't already doing.

Start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_resolution

Huh? Forgive me, I'm still trying to understand the last half of what you wrote. 


muyekho barasa said:

Thanks a lot by bringing on board this good discussion it will first of depend with the people involved in the 'conflict' as an anthropologists who understands people in the sense of cross cultural advise one to be sensitive of the others plight.more to follow

Come on, Ashkuff. It's not that hard. The basic idea that anthropologists might function as culturally sensitive mediators helping parties to a conflict discover common ground has been around for a long time. Whether anthropologists are, in fact, better equipped to play this role than other people in the conflict resolution community is a serious question.

Ah! I see, now.

It's not that it was "hard," my brain just glitched for a second.

 

Well, as a business anthropologist, I perceive professional competition as an indicator of demand.

If the demand exists, why shouldn't we compete?

 

Furthermore, it's not that we're uniformly "better equipped," it's that we'd be "better fitted" in certain circumstances. For instance, an anthroplogist studying wilderness paramilitarism in the US would be pretty useless for resolving conflicts between street gangs in New York City.

 

--- Ashkuff | www.ashkuff.com | How to venture out of “armchair” scholarship and into action? One anthropologist tackles business, occultism and violence! He gets spooked and roughed up a lot.

That "in certain circumstances" is the vital bit. As an anthropologist who happens to have a deeper than most grasp of what is going on with both parties to a conflict, you might be more useful than someone trying to apply standard models from a conflict-resolution cookbook. Different quarrel, different place, you might be even more at sea. The treacherous assumption here is that anthropologists, qua anthropologists, are more likely to know what is going on. In my experience this is simply not true. We have no magic wands. We are not clairvoyant. We, too, will have to spend a lot of time listening and learning before we have anything useful to say. And a well-trained conflict-resolution negotiator may be better at it than we are if we enter a new situation as ignorant as anyone else.

I stumbled into some violence the other night in Seattle, where I live. I wrote about it on my blog here: http://urbanadonia.blogspot.com/2012/02/send-congress-message.html

I was sitting at a bus shelter, two young black men came up, and someone in a passing car hurled a bottle at them. This neighborhood in Seattle, Rainier Beach, has seen a lot of violence/ muggings at transit stops or on transit itself recently. I'm doing ethnographic research on transportation beliefs in that neighborhood because I want to be able to show the local bike movement that marginalized communities don't see biking the same way that we bike advocates do. Seattle is pretty far along in the "green gentrification" process, with communities of color, immigrants, and the poor largely forced to the outskirts while the central city sees rising rents and new boutique bars every week. I'm using anthropology as a tool to make a connection between the well-meaning-but-way-out-of-touch sustainable transportation movements and the frightening everyday life of transportation on the edge of the city. It's part of my theoretical project to promote "human infrastructure" as a necessary component of livable cities.

Agreed. Absolutely.

Anthropologists are experts only in the communities they study.

That said, if a community has ongoing conflicts (as they often do,) and other mediators haven't put much of a dent in those conflicts (as they often don't,) then why not try letting anthropologists conduct some extended research on said community? Even if they don't handle the mediation themselves, their research might prove useful to the mediators.

 

--- Ashkuff | www.ashkuff.com | How to venture out of “armchair” scholarship and into action? One anthropologist tackles business, occultism and violence! He gets spooked and roughed up a lot.

John McCreery said:

That "in certain circumstances" is the vital bit. As an anthropologist who happens to have a deeper than most grasp of what is going on with both parties to a conflict, you might be more useful than someone trying to apply standard models from a conflict-resolution cookbook. Different quarrel, different place, you might be even more at sea. The treacherous assumption here is that anthropologists, qua anthropologists, are more likely to know what is going on. In my experience this is simply not true. We have no magic wands. We are not clairvoyant. We, too, will have to spend a lot of time listening and learning before we have anything useful to say. And a well-trained conflict-resolution negotiator may be better at it than we are if we enter a new situation as ignorant as anyone else.

Interesting blog post. But I wonder, as an anthropologist, exactly what do you could do to mediate this violence? Interesting how you noted that these "black teens" reflexively blamed "Asian gangsters," without even seeing their attackers faces. One interesting research question might include: will they take that anger home with them, and point it at other Asians?

Like, where I'm from, I might've felt tempted to blame "drunk frat boys" in much the same vein. And yeah, I might even feel tempted to turn some of that resent toward the next frat boy I met.

--- Ashkuff | www.ashkuff.com | How to venture out of “armchair” scholarship and into action? One anthropologist tackles business, occultism and violence! He gets spooked and roughed up a lot.

Adonia Lugo said:

I stumbled into some violence the other night in Seattle, where I live. I wrote about it on my blog here: http://urbanadonia.blogspot.com/2012/02/send-congress-message.html

I was sitting at a bus shelter, two young black men came up, and someone in a passing car hurled a bottle at them. This neighborhood in Seattle, Rainier Beach, has seen a lot of violence/ muggings at transit stops or on transit itself recently. I'm doing ethnographic research on transportation beliefs in that neighborhood because I want to be able to show the local bike movement that marginalized communities don't see biking the same way that we bike advocates do. Seattle is pretty far along in the "green gentrification" process, with communities of color, immigrants, and the poor largely forced to the outskirts while the central city sees rising rents and new boutique bars every week. I'm using anthropology as a tool to make a connection between the well-meaning-but-way-out-of-touch sustainable transportation movements and the frightening everyday life of transportation on the edge of the city. It's part of my theoretical project to promote "human infrastructure" as a necessary component of livable cities.

 

As I read the posts to this discussion, I notice many obvious directions for this discussion that are being missed in order to make points concerning the ignorance of one "cuture's" view of it's neighboring "culture".  (ie gangs)  Mr. Ashkuff, your story that began these posts; did it not deal more with "sport" than true violance.  Violance that one person inflicts on another can happen in many ways.  If violant acts are planned, it may contain many rules and prohibitions by the one who plans the act.  The target will be in a state of reaction.  If the target has had the benift of good training, the reations MAY contain rules and or prohibitions, or in most cases, the reactions will be lead by fear and/or passion.  In this latter case, the reaction will only be limited by the crativity or instinct of the target.  When survival is on the line, no rule applies.  I encourage you to sit with a group of veterans from a brutal conflict, one that saw hand to hand violance.  Our ideals find themselves sacrificed to our instinct to survive.

 

As far as the expertise of an anthropologist being able to midigate violance... I believe that indirect action may be effective.  Many groups that are found in our citys (I live in the Los Angeles area), would be insulted by the idea that you or I could ever become an "expert" on thier culture.  Only those raised in a culture truly understand the combination of emotions and experiances that make a group what it is.  In humility an outsider such as you or I may be granted an opertunity to observe for a while and attempt to understand, but will we ever experiance the oppression, the fear, or the anger that another group has?  We cannot.  We often mistakenly interpose our own previous experiances to help us understand what a seperate group has and is going through.  This is bad science.  If I understand that I am not part of the group, but I am given the honor of being allowed the oppertunity to befriend a group to learn its culture and the challanges that it faces; than I am in the unique position of being able to allow others the chance to understand what I learn.  The availabilty to understand oneanother, even on a limited basis, can have great influance in how one group responds to another.  This can be good or bad.  The ability to begin discussions can end violance and it can escalate violance.  Either way I believe that it is worth doing.  In every group there are those that are unwilling to consider the needs of others (causing conflict), but there are also those who are more reasonable.  Knowledge, can seperate and fracture a group.  The violance may continue, but it's momentum will be slowed or broken by those of reason.  I would never see myself as a mediator.  However, people want their stories told.  By willing to do simply that, as honestly as I can, the fuel of ignorance can be removed from the fires of violance.

Very thoughtful contribution, Todd. Thanks! That said, I disagree on four points.

 

First, I've seen people get hurt worse during "sport," than during some gang fights. Let's not pretend that sport doesn't have overtones of "true violence." Indeed, sport has even been used as proxy for war.

 

Second, during a life or death conflict, the "no rules apply" anecdote superficially appears reasonable. However, as you said, "the reaction will only be limited by the crativity or instinct of the target," and both of these limitations are culturally influenced. Therefore, even if those influences operate at a merely subconscious level, they're still there, and rules are coming into effect.

 

Third, rules and prohibitions are not exclusive to those "with good training." Schoolyard brawls, whose combatants are often completely untrained, often display predictable rules of engagement. Even chimpanzees from different bands sometimes demonstrate distinct combat techniques and dominance displays; a good example includes the hunting spears fashioned by some chimps.

 

Fourth, I've already taken your advice, and sat down with hardened war veterans and gang members. Although most of them explicitly DESCRIBE the "no rules apply" mentality, they nonetheless DEMONSTRATE predictable and culturally defined rules of engagement. The weapons, clothing, environments, upbringings, motivations, and resulting instincts of war veterans inescapably produce different behaviors than gang members, even during life or death conflict.

 

All that said, I totally agree that an anthropologist cannot wholly "understand" another culture. Heck, even the natives sometimes fail to understand their own cultures! For example, as an American, I still sometimes don't understand my own people's behavior (especially in the voting booth.) The best anthropologists can hope for, is to glean useful "insights."

 

I also agree that it's out "honor" to study other cultures. Well said.

 

--- Ashkuff | www.ashkuff.com | How to venture out of “armchair” scholarship and into action? One anthropologist tackles business, occultism and violence! He gets spooked and roughed up a lot.
Todd Gardner said:

As I read the posts to this discussion, I notice many obvious directions for this discussion that are being missed in order to make points concerning the ignorance of one "cuture's" view of it's neighboring "culture".  (ie gangs)  Mr. Ashkuff, your story that began these posts; did it not deal more with "sport" than true violance.  Violance that one person inflicts on another can happen in many ways.  If violant acts are planned, it may contain many rules and prohibitions by the one who plans the act.  The target will be in a state of reaction.  If the target has had the benift of good training, the reations MAY contain rules and or prohibitions, or in most cases, the reactions will be lead by fear and/or passion.  In this latter case, the reaction will only be limited by the crativity or instinct of the target.  When survival is on the line, no rule applies.  I encourage you to sit with a group of veterans from a brutal conflict, one that saw hand to hand violance.  Our ideals find themselves sacrificed to our instinct to survive.

 

As far as the expertise of an anthropologist being able to midigate violance... I believe that indirect action may be effective.  Many groups that are found in our citys (I live in the Los Angeles area), would be insulted by the idea that you or I could ever become an "expert" on thier culture.  Only those raised in a culture truly understand the combination of emotions and experiances that make a group what it is.  In humility an outsider such as you or I may be granted an opertunity to observe for a while and attempt to understand, but will we ever experiance the oppression, the fear, or the anger that another group has?  We cannot.  We often mistakenly interpose our own previous experiances to help us understand what a seperate group has and is going through.  This is bad science.  If I understand that I am not part of the group, but I am given the honor of being allowed the oppertunity to befriend a group to learn its culture and the challanges that it faces; than I am in the unique position of being able to allow others the chance to understand what I learn.  The availabilty to understand oneanother, even on a limited basis, can have great influance in how one group responds to another.  This can be good or bad.  The ability to begin discussions can end violance and it can escalate violance.  Either way I believe that it is worth doing.  In every group there are those that are unwilling to consider the needs of others (causing conflict), but there are also those who are more reasonable.  Knowledge, can seperate and fracture a group.  The violance may continue, but it's momentum will be slowed or broken by those of reason.  I would never see myself as a mediator.  However, people want their stories told.  By willing to do simply that, as honestly as I can, the fuel of ignorance can be removed from the fires of violance.

Reply to Discussion

RSS

Translate

@OpenAnthCoop

© 2014   Created by Keith Hart.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service