Skip to main content
Log in

Courts, culture, and complicity: How anthropological knowledge sustains state imaginations of indigeneity

  • Review Essay
  • Published:
Jindal Global Law Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This review essay explores the themes that emerge from contributions published in the Special Section on Cultural Expertise in the American Anthropologist. The contributions provide relevant insights into the key debates that surround the participation of cultural experts, especially anthropologists, in courtrooms, and the use of anthropology in courts to adjudicate claims. In this review essay, we assess how anthropological knowledge impacts claims made by Indigenous people, building on the experiences of the contributors to the Special Section. The contributors highlight how anthropological knowledge can support Indigenous claims even though it also reinforces culturally essentialist tropes about the Indigenous population. This is because it is the judicial system that sets the terms of how anthropological knowledge is to be incorporated in a courtroom. We provide a conceptual vocabulary to categorise this form of complicity between anthropological knowledge and state legal order, calling it claim-enhancing complicity. We also discuss how the Special Section in American Anthropologist does not capture another form of complicity—which we classify as claim-dismissing complicity. We find examples of claim-dismissing complicity in the Indian context, in two areas—first, in the denial of the Indigenous status of tribal communities, where anthropological knowledge reinforces the Indian state’s position in the international arena, and second, in the use of anthropological knowledge to set a heavy burden on tribal candidates of India’s affirmative action programmes to prove the authenticity of their tribal identity.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Notes

  1. Christopher Loperena, Mariana Mora, and R Aida Hernández-Castillo, ‘Cultural Expertise? Anthropologist as Witness in Defense of Indigenous and Afro-Descendant Rights’ (2020) 122(3) American Anthropologist 588.

  2. ‘Special Section: Cultural Expertise’ (2020) 122(3) American Anthropologist 584.

  3. Juan Carlos Martinez, ‘Anthropological Expert Work in Today’s Legal Field: Between Legitimising the State Judicial Arena and Seeking Justice for Indigenous Peoples’ (2020) 122(3) American Anthropologist 632, 634.

  4. Emphasis added.

  5. Emphasis added.

  6. Emphasis added

  7. James Rose, ‘Forensic and Expert Social Anthropology’ (2022) 2(1) Open Anthropological Research 27.

  8. ibid.

  9. Serena Nanda and Richard L Warms, Cultural Anthropology (11 edn, Cengage Language 2013) 4.

  10. ibid.

  11. Emphasis added.

  12. Livia Holden, ‘What Is Cultural Expertise?’ in Livia Holden (ed), Cultural Expertise, Law, and Rights: A Comprehensive Guide (Routledge 2023) 12.

  13. Mary Kavita Dominic, ‘Cultural Expertise in South Asia’ in Holden (ed), Cultural Expertise, Law, and Rights (n 12) 309.

  14. Emphasis added.

  15. Loperena, Mora, and Hernández-Castillo, ‘Cultural Expertise?’ (n 1) 590; see also Holden (ed), Cultural Expertise, Law, and Rights (n 12) 13.

  16. ‘Special Section: Cultural Expertise’ (n 2).

  17. Samatha v Union of India & Others AIR 1997 SC 3297; See also K Gopal v The State Level Scrutiny Committee WP No. 4941 of 2012 (Madras High Court).

  18. Christopher Loperena, ‘Adjudicating Indigeneity: Anthropological Testimony in the Inter-American Court of Human Rights’ (2020) 122(3) American Anthropologist 595, 596.

  19. Loperena was invited by Indigenous organisation Organización Fraternal Negra Hondureña (OFRANEH) to submit an amicus brief in the case of Garifuna Community Triunfo de la Cruz v Honduras (Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of October 8, 2015) Series C No. 305 (Inter-American Court of Human Rights). Questions were raised on Loperena’s authority as a scholar and his methodological approach by government lawyers. Subsequently, when he was invited to provide an expert witness report in the case of Punta Piedra v Honduras (Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of October 8, 2015) Series C No. 304 (Inter-American Court of Human Rights), the Honduran attorney general attempted to delegitimise the research findings of Loperena as an expert because of his prior collaborative relationship with OFRANEH. See Loperena, 'Adjudicating Indigeneity' (n 18) 599.

  20. ibid 602.

  21. Marianna Mora, ‘(Dis)placement of Anthropological Legal Activism, Racial Justice and the Ejido Tila, Mexico’ (2020) 122(3) American Anthropologist 612.

  22. ibid.

  23. ibid 615.

  24. Emphasis added.

  25. Loperena, ‘Adjudicating Indigeneity’ (n 18) 596.

  26. ibid.

  27. Charles R Hale, ‘Using and Refusing the Law: Indigenous Struggles and Legal Strategies after Neoliberal Multiculturalism’ (2020) 122(3) American Anthropologist 618, 619.

  28. Emphasis added.

  29. Loperena, Mora, and Hernandez-Castillo, ‘Cultural Expertise?’ (n 1) 589.

  30. ibid 588.

  31. ibid 589.

  32. Emphasis added.

  33. Magdalena Gómez, as quoted in Mora, ‘(Dis)placement of Anthropological Legal Activism, Racial Justice and the Ejido Tila, Mexico’ (n 21) 607.

  34. Noelle Higgins, ‘Cultural Expertise and Indigenous Rights’ in Holden (ed), Cultural Expertise, Law, and Rights (n 12).

  35. ibid 202.

  36. Mora, ‘(Dis)placement of Anthropological Legal Activism, Racial Justice and the Ejido Tila, Mexico’ (n 21) 612.

  37. ibid.

  38. Loperena, ‘Adjudicating Indigeneity’ (n 18) 599.

  39. Livia Holden, ‘Anthropologists as Experts: Cultural Expertise, Colonialism, and Positionality’ (2022) 47(2) Law & Social Inquiry 669, 685.

  40. Loperena, ‘Adjudicating Indigeneity’ (n 18) 596.

  41. ibid.

  42. Martinez, ‘Anthropological Expert Work in Today’s Legal Field’ (n 3) 634.

  43. ibid 636.

  44. ibid 634.

  45. Mora, ‘(Dis)placement of Anthropological Legal Activism, Racial Justice and the Ejido Tila, Mexico’ (n 21) 612.

  46. ibid.

  47. ibid 613.

  48. ibid 609.

  49. Punta Piedra v Honduras (n 19). See Loperena, ‘Adjudicating Indigeneity ’ (n 18) 596.

  50. Loperena, 'Adjudicating Indigeneity' (n 18) 601.

  51. ibid 602.

  52. ibid.

  53. ibid.

  54. Hale, ‘Using and Refusing the Law’ (n 27) 625.

  55. ibid 626.

  56. ibid 619. See also Awas Tingni v Government of Nicaragua (Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of August 31, 2001) Series C No. 79 (Inter-American Court of Human Rights).

  57. Holden, ‘Anthropologists as Experts’ (n 39) 683–686.

  58. Hale, ‘Using and Refusing the Law’ (n 27) 620–621; See also Loperena, Mora, and Hernandez-Castillo, ‘Cultural Expertise? ’ (n 1) 592; Martinez, ‘Anthropological Expert Work in Today’s Legal Field’ (n 3) 635.

  59. Holden, ‘Anthropologists as Experts’ (n 39) 686.

  60. ibid 675.

  61. ibid 675–677.

  62. ibid 687.

  63. Samatha v State of Andhra Pradesh & Others (n 17) [12].

  64. Emphasis added.

  65. Emphasis added; Bengt G Karlsson, ‘Anthropology and the “Indigenous Slot”: Claims to and Debates about Indigenous Peoples’ Status in India’ (2003) 23(4) Critique of Anthropology 403.

  66. ibid 407; India has not ratified Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention (adopted 27 June 1989, entered into force 5 September 1991) 1650 United Nations Treaty Series 28383. The Ministry of External Affairs and the Ministry of Home Affairs have taken the position that the concept of Indigenous peoples is not relevant to India. See National Commission for Scheduled Tribes, Special Report: Good Governance for Tribal Development and Administration (May 2012) [9, 10].

  67. André Béteille, ‘The Idea of Indigenous People’ (1998) 39(2) Current Anthropology 187, 188.

  68. ibid 189.

  69. ibid.

  70. Lok Sabha Secretariat, Constituent Assembly Debates (Vol 1, 19 December 1946) 143–144.  

  71. Karlsson, ‘Anthropology and the “Indigenous Slot”’ (n 65) 407.

  72. ibid 407–410.

  73. Emphasis added.

  74. Constitution of India 1950, arts 330, 332.

  75. ibid arts 15, 16.

  76. ibid art 342. The President by a notification, specifies the tribes or tribal communities that are deemed as Scheduled Tribes for the purpose of the Constitution.

  77. Marc Galanter, Competing Equalities: Law and Backward Classes in India (University of California Press 1992) 146–147.

  78. Kumari Madhuri Patil v Additional Commissioner Tribal Development (1994) 6 SCC 241.

  79. Laura D Jenkins, Identity and Identification in India: Defining the Disadvantaged (Routledge 2003) 25.

  80. Kumari Madhuri Patil v Additional Commissioner Tribal Development (n 78) [3].

  81. ibid [5].

  82. ibid [10].

  83. ibid.

  84. ibid [5].

  85. ibid.

  86. ibid [11].

  87. Laura D Jenkins, ‘Race, Caste and Justice: Social Science Categories and Antidiscrimination Policies in India and the United States’ (2004) 36(3) Connecticut Law Review 747, 761.

  88. Kumari Madhuri Patil v Additional Commissioner Tribal Development (n 78) [13].

  89. Mah. Adiwasi Thakur Jamat v State of Maharashtra (2023) SCC OnLine SC 326 [25].

  90. Jenkins, ‘Race, Caste and Justice’ (n 87) 762.

  91. ibid.

  92. Srinivasalu Sumathi and G Pandiaraj, ‘Engaged Anthropology and an Ethnographic Approach to Community Development: A Case Study from Tamil Nadu’ in Sandra Kurfürst and Stefanie Wehner (eds), Southeast Asian Transformations: Urban and Rural Developments in the 21st Century (Transcript 2020) 214.

  93. Jenkins, Identity and Identification in India (n 79) 14.

  94. ibid.

  95. See, for example, Birender P Singh, ‘Denotified Tribes or Vimukt Jatis of Punjab’ (2010) 40(2) Indian Anthropologist 71.

  96. Kumari Madhuri Patil v Additional Commissioner Tribal Development (n 78) [9].

  97. Béteille, ‘The Idea of Indigenous People’ (n 67) 187.

  98. Diane Lewis, ‘Anthropology and Colonialism’ (1973) 14(5) Current Anthropology 581, 583.

  99. Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao and Ors v State of AP and Ors (2020) SCC Online SC 383.

  100. ibid [116].

  101. Jenkins, ‘Race, Caste and Justice’ (n 87) 762.

  102. Loperena, ‘Adjudicating Indigeneity’ (n 18) 602.

  103. ibid.

  104. ibid.

  105. ibid 596.

  106. ibid.

  107. Emphasis added.

  108. E Karthikeyan v The Chairman, Tamil Nadu State Level Scrutiny Committee, WP Nos 2828 & 5237 of 2022 (Madras High Court).

  109. ibid [11].

  110. ibid.

  111. Emphasis added; Valsamma Paul v Cochin University (1996) 3 SCC 545 [36].

  112. Anjan Kumar v Union of India (2006) 2 SCC 257. See Rameshbhai Dabahi Naika v State of Gujarat (2012) 3 SCC 400 for a limited dilution of this rule holing that the rule that the children take their social status from their father is not an inflexible rule.

  113. Emphasis added.

  114. Mah. Adiwasi Thakur Jamat v State of Maharashtra (n 89).

  115. ibid [3].

  116. Martínez, ‘Anthropological Expert Work in Today’s Legal Field’ (n 3) 633.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aishwarya Singh.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflict of interest to declare that are relevant to the content of this review essay.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Singh, A., Ramkumar, M. Courts, culture, and complicity: How anthropological knowledge sustains state imaginations of indigeneity. Jindal Global Law Review 14, 305–324 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41020-023-00215-x

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41020-023-00215-x

Keywords

Navigation