Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Contextualizing Ethnographic Peace Research

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Ethnographic Peace Research

Part of the book series: Rethinking Peace and Conflict Studies ((RCS))

Abstract

The local or local understandings of conflict and peace cannot be grasped by quantitative means, which has made peace scholars start looking at anthropology. This chapter promotes interdisciplinary dialogue and provides suggestions for how anthropology can help to overcome conceptual and methodological challenges of Ethnographic Peace Research (EPR) through anthropologically informed multi-sited and multi-temporal field research that allows for the dynamic construction of the field, the study of complex peace processes and a perspective from below. It is an appeal to go beyond the conceptualization of EPR as yet another tool co-opted by the international peace industry. The argument is substantiated with insights from long-term fieldwork on peacebuilding in Eastern Indonesia, in which culture and the highly ambivalent revival of traditional institutions figured prominently.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    At this point, I am not talking about the many anthropologists who have been doing ethnographic research on conflict and related issues for many decades, but who have not been proactive enough in entering the field of peace studies.

  2. 2.

    Other methods used by anthropologists include “archival research, questionnaires, interviews, textual investigations (from comic books to sacred books), and more” (Ortner 1997: 61).

References

  • Amit, Vered. 2000. Introduction: Constructing the Field. In Constructing the Field. Ethnographic Fieldwork in the Contemporary World, ed. Vered Amit, 1–18. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Appadurai, Arjun. 1991. Global Ethnoscapes: Notes and Queries for a Transnational Anthropology. In Recapturing Anthropology: Working in the Present, ed. Richard G. Fox, 191–210. Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Autesserre, Séverine. 2010. The Trouble with the Congo. Local Violence and the Failure of International Peacebuilding. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2014. Going Micro: Emerging and Future Peacekeeping Research. International Peacekeeping 21 (4): 492–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bachmann-Medick, Doris. 2006. Cultural Turns. Neuorientierungen in den Kulturwissenschaften. Hamburg: Rowohlt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnard, Alan. 2012. Widening the Net: Returns to the Field and Regional Understanding. In Returns to the Field: Multitemporal Research and Contemporary Anthropology, ed. Signe Howell and Aud Talle, 230–249. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barth, Fredrik, ed. 1969. Ethnic Groups and Boundaries. The Social Organization of Culture Difference. Bergen-Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhabha, Homi K. 1995. Cultural Diversity and Cultural Differences. In The Post-Colonial Studies Reader, ed. Bill Ashcroft, Gareth Griffiths, and Helen Tiffin, 206-209. New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Björkdahl, Annika, Kristine Höglund, Gearoid Millar, Jaïr van der Lijn, and Willemijn Verkoren. 2016a. Conclusion. Peacebuilding and the Significance of Friction. In Peacebuilding and Friction. Global and Local Encounters in Post Conflict-Societies, ed. Annika Björkdahl, Kristine Höglund, Gearoid Millar, Jair van der Lijn, and Willemijn Verkoren, 201–213. New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2016b. Introduction. Peacebuilding Through the Lens of Friction. In Peacebuilding and Friction. Global and Local Encounters in Post Conflict-Societies, ed. Annika Björkdahl, Kristine Höglund, Gearoid Millar, Jair van der Lijn, and Willemijn Verkoren, 1–16. New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bloomfield, David. 2006. On Good Terms: Clarifying Reconciliation. Berghof Report No. 14. Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borofsky, Robert. 2000. Public Anthropology. Where To? What Next? Anthropology News 41 (5): 9–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2011. Defining Public Anthropology. Center for a Public Anthropology Blog, 11 May 2011. Accessed November 23, 2016. http://www.publicanthropology.org/public-anthropology/

  • Bräuchler, Birgit. 2010. The Revival Dilemma: Reflections on Human Rights, Self-Determination and Legal Pluralism in Eastern Indonesia. Journal of Legal Pluralism and Unofficial Law 42 (62): 1–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2011. Kings on Stage: Local Leadership in the Post-Suharto Moluccas. Asian Journal of Social Sciences 39 (2): 196–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2013. Cyberidentities at War: The Moluccan Conflict on the Internet. New York, NY: Berghahn Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2015. The Cultural Dimension of Peace. Decentralization and Reconciliation in Indonesia. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, M. Anne. 2013. Anthropology and Peacebuilding. In Routledge Handbook of Peacebuilding, ed. Roger Mac Ginty, 132–146. New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Certeau, Michel. 1984. The Practice of Everyday Life. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clifford, James, and George E. Marcus, eds. 1986. Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Czempiel, Ernst-Otto. 1975. Recht und Friede: Ein Beitrag zur Diskussion zwischen Völkerrecht und Friedensforschung. Die Friedens-Warte 58 (1/2): 55–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dalsgaard, Steffen. 2013. The Field as a Temporal Entity and the Challenges of the Contemporary. Social Anthropology 21 (2): 213–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davidson, Jamie S., and David Henley, eds. 2007. The Revival of Tradition in Indonesian Politics: The Deployment of Adat from Colonialism to Indigenism. New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Debiel, Tobias, and Patricia Rinck. 2016. Rethinking the Local in Peacebuilding. Moving Away from the Liberal/Post-Liberal Divide. In Peacebuilding in Crisis. Rethinking Paradigms and Practices of Transnational Cooperation, ed. Tobias Debiel, Thomas Held, and Ulrich Schneckener, 240–256. New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denskus, Tobias, and Nikolas Kasmatopoulos. 2015. Anthropology & Peacebuilding: An Introduction. Peacebuilding 3 (3): 219–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donais, Timothy. 2009. Haiti and the Dilemmas of Local Ownership. International Journal 64 (3): 753–773.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engelke, Matthew. 2008. The Objects of Evidence. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 14 (1): 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geertz, Clifford. 1993. The Interpretation of Cultures. London: Fontana Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodale, Mark. 2006. Toward a Critical Anthropology of Human Rights. Current Anthropology 47 (3): 485–511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, Akhil, and James Ferguson. 1992. Beyond “Culture”: Space, Identity, and the Politics of Difference. Cultural Anthropology 7 (1): 6–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hafner-Burton, Emilie M. 2014. A Social Science of Human Rights. Journal of Peace Research 51 (2): 273–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hastrup, Kirsten, and Karen Fog Olwig. 1997. Introduction. In Siting Culture: The Shifting Anthropological Object, ed. Karen Fog Olwig and Kirsten Hastrup, 1–14. New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hazan, Haim, and Esther Hertzog. 2012. Introduction: Towards a Nomadic Turn in Anthropology. In Serendipity in Anthropological Research: The Nomadic Turn, ed. Haim Hazan and Esther Hertzog, 1–11. Surrey: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heidemann, Frank. 2011. Ethnologie: Eine Einführung. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hess, Sabine, and Maria Schwertl. 2013. Vom “Feld” zur “Assemblage”? Perspektiven europäisch-ethnologischer Methodenentwicklung—eine Hinleitung. In Europäisch-ethnologisches Forschen. Neue Methoden und Konzepte, ed. Sabine Hess, Johannes Moser, and Maria Schwertl, 13–37. Berlin: Reimer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirblinger, Andreas, and Claudia Simons. 2015. The Good, the Bad, and the Powerful: Representations of the ‘Local’ in Peacebuilding. Security Dialogue 46 (5): 422–439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hörning, Karl H. 2004. Kultur als Praxis. In Handbuch der Kulturwissenschaften. Band 1: Grundlagen und Schlüsselbegriffe, ed. Friedrich Jaeger and Burkhard Liebsch, 139–151. Stuttgart: Metzler.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, Caroline. 2015. Poor People’s Politics in East Timor. Third World Quarterly 36 (5): 908–928.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ingold, Tim. 2011. Being Alive. Essays on Movement, Knowledge and Description. New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2014. That’s Enough about Ethnography! HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory 4 (1): 383–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kappler, Stefanie. 2015. The Dynamic Local: Delocalisation and (Re-)Localisation in the Search for Peacebuilding Identity. Third World Quarterly 36 (5): 875–889.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mac Ginty, Roger. 2014. Everyday Peace: Bottom-Up and Local Agency in Conflict-Affected Societies. Security Dialogue 45 (6): 548–564.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2015. Where is the Local? Critical Localism and Peacebuilding. Third World Quarterly 36 (5): 840–856.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2016. What do We Mean When We Use the Term ‘Local’? Imagining and Framing the Local and the International in Relation to Peace and Order. In Peacebuilding in Crisis. Rethinking Paradigms and Practices of Transnational Cooperation, ed. Tobias Debiel, Thomas Held, and Ulrich Schneckener, 193–209. New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mac Ginty, Roger, and Oliver P. Richmond. 2013. The Local Turn in Peace Building: A Critical Agenda for Peace. Third World Quarterly 43 (5): 763–783.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malinowski, Bronislaw. 1922. Argonauts of the Western Pacific. New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marcus, George E. 1995. Ethnography in/of the World System: The Emergence of Multi-Sited Ethnography. Annual Review of Anthropology 24: 95–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mead, Margaret. 2000. Warfare is Only an Invention—Not a Biological Necessity (Originally Published in Asia, XL, 1940: 402–5). In Approaches to Peace: A Reader in Peace Studies, ed. David P. Barash, 19–22. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Millar, Gearoid. 2014a. Disaggregating Hybridity: Why Hybrid Institutions do not Produce Predictable Experiences of Peace. Journal of Peace Research 51 (4): 501–514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2014b. An Ethnographic Approach to Peacebuilding. New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, Sally Falk. 1986. Social Facts & Fabrications: Customary Law on Kilimanjaro, 1880–1980. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nordstrom, Carolyn. 1997. The Eye of the Storm: From War to Peace—Examples from Sri Lanka and Mozambique. In Cultural Variation in Conflict Resolution: Alternatives to Violence, ed. Douglas P. Fry and Kaj Björkqvist, 91–103. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ortner, Sherry B. 1984. Theory in Anthropology Since the Sixties. Comparative Studies in Society and History 26 (1): 126–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1995. Resistance and the Problem of Ethnographic Refusal. Comparative Studies in Society and History 37 (1): 173–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1997. Fieldwork in the Postcommunity. Anthropology and Humanism 22 (1): 61–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richmond, Oliver P. 2009. Becoming Liberal, Unbecoming Liberalism: Liberal-Local Hybridity via the Everyday as a Response to the Paradoxes of Liberal Peacebuilding. Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding 3 (3): 324–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2011. A Post-Liberal Peace. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robben, Antonius C.G.M., and Jeffrey A. Sluka. 2007. Fieldwork in Cultural Anthropology: An Introduction. In Ethnographic Fieldwork: An Anthropological Reader, ed. Antonius C.G.M. Robben and Jeffrey A. Sluka, 1–28. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robins, Steven, Andrea Cornwall, and Bettina Lieres. 2008. Rethinking ‘Citizenship’ in The Postcolony. Third World Quarterly 29 (6): 1069–1086.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schierenbeck, Isabell. 2015. Beyond the Local Turn Divide: Lessons Learnt, Relearnt and Unlearnt. Third World Quarterly 36 (5): 1023–1032.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneckener, Ulrich. 2016. Peacebuilding in Crisis? Debating Peacebuilding Paradigms and Practices. In Peacebuilding in Crisis. Rethinking Paradigms and Practices of Transnational Cooperation, ed. Tobias Debiel, Thomas Held, and Ulrich Schneckener, 1–20. New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, James C. 1985. Weapons of the Weak. Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Streck, Bernhard. 2013. Das Auge des Ethnografen. Zur perspektivischen Besonderheit der Ethnologie. In Ethnologie im 21. Jahrhundert, ed. Thomas Bierschenk, Matthias Krings, and Carola Lentz, 35–54. Berlin: Reimer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tax, Sol. 1975. Action Anthropology. Current Anthropology 16 (4): 514–517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Theidon, Kimberly. 2006. The Micropolitics of Reconciliation in Postwar Peru. Journal of Conflict Resolution 50 (3): 433–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Trotha, Trutz. 2004. In Search of Peace. History, Basic Narrative, the Future of War, and the Rise of the Local. An Introduction with a Short Overview of the Contributions. In Healing the Wounds: Essays on the Reconstruction of Societies after War, ed. Marie-Claire Foblets and Trutz von Trotha, 1–12. Oxford: HART Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsing, Anna. 2005. Friction: An Ethnography of Global Connection. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallensteen, Peter. 2001. The Growing Peace Research Agenda. Occasional Paper #21:OP:4, Kroc Institute.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Anthropology, School of Social Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

    Birgit Bräuchler

Authors
  1. Birgit Bräuchler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, United Kingdom

    Gearoid Millar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Bräuchler, B. (2018). Contextualizing Ethnographic Peace Research. In: Millar, G. (eds) Ethnographic Peace Research. Rethinking Peace and Conflict Studies. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-65563-5_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation