Contextualizing Ethnographic Peace Research

  • Birgit Bräuchler
Chapter
Part of the Rethinking Peace and Conflict Studies book series (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.

References

  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. Autesserre, Séverine. 2010. The Trouble with the Congo. Local Violence and the Failure of International Peacebuilding. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. ———. 2014. Going Micro: Emerging and Future Peacekeeping Research. International Peacekeeping 21 (4): 492–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bachmann-Medick, Doris. 2006. Cultural Turns. Neuorientierungen in den Kulturwissenschaften. Hamburg: Rowohlt.Google Scholar
  6. 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
  7. Barth, Fredrik, ed. 1969. Ethnic Groups and Boundaries. The Social Organization of Culture Difference. Bergen-Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. ———. 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
  11. Bloomfield, David. 2006. On Good Terms: Clarifying Reconciliation. Berghof Report No. 14. Berlin.Google Scholar
  12. Borofsky, Robert. 2000. Public Anthropology. Where To? What Next? Anthropology News 41 (5): 9–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. ———. 2011. Defining Public Anthropology. Center for a Public Anthropology Blog, 11 May 2011. Accessed November 23, 2016. http://www.publicanthropology.org/public-anthropology/
  14. 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
  15. ———. 2011. Kings on Stage: Local Leadership in the Post-Suharto Moluccas. Asian Journal of Social Sciences 39 (2): 196–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. ———. 2013. Cyberidentities at War: The Moluccan Conflict on the Internet. New York, NY: Berghahn Books.Google Scholar
  17. ———. 2015. The Cultural Dimension of Peace. Decentralization and Reconciliation in Indonesia. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Brown, M. Anne. 2013. Anthropology and Peacebuilding. In Routledge Handbook of Peacebuilding, ed. Roger Mac Ginty, 132–146. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. de Certeau, Michel. 1984. The Practice of Everyday Life. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  20. Clifford, James, and George E. Marcus, eds. 1986. Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  21. 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
  22. Dalsgaard, Steffen. 2013. The Field as a Temporal Entity and the Challenges of the Contemporary. Social Anthropology 21 (2): 213–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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
  24. 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
  25. Denskus, Tobias, and Nikolas Kasmatopoulos. 2015. Anthropology & Peacebuilding: An Introduction. Peacebuilding 3 (3): 219–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Donais, Timothy. 2009. Haiti and the Dilemmas of Local Ownership. International Journal 64 (3): 753–773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Engelke, Matthew. 2008. The Objects of Evidence. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 14 (1): 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Geertz, Clifford. 1993. The Interpretation of Cultures. London: Fontana Press.Google Scholar
  29. Goodale, Mark. 2006. Toward a Critical Anthropology of Human Rights. Current Anthropology 47 (3): 485–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gupta, Akhil, and James Ferguson. 1992. Beyond “Culture”: Space, Identity, and the Politics of Difference. Cultural Anthropology 7 (1): 6–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hafner-Burton, Emilie M. 2014. A Social Science of Human Rights. Journal of Peace Research 51 (2): 273–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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
  33. 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
  34. Heidemann, Frank. 2011. Ethnologie: Eine Einführung. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
  35. 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
  36. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hughes, Caroline. 2015. Poor People’s Politics in East Timor. Third World Quarterly 36 (5): 908–928.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ingold, Tim. 2011. Being Alive. Essays on Movement, Knowledge and Description. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  40. ———. 2014. That’s Enough about Ethnography! HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory 4 (1): 383–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kappler, Stefanie. 2015. The Dynamic Local: Delocalisation and (Re-)Localisation in the Search for Peacebuilding Identity. Third World Quarterly 36 (5): 875–889.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mac Ginty, Roger. 2014. Everyday Peace: Bottom-Up and Local Agency in Conflict-Affected Societies. Security Dialogue 45 (6): 548–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. ———. 2015. Where is the Local? Critical Localism and Peacebuilding. Third World Quarterly 36 (5): 840–856.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. ———. 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
  45. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Malinowski, Bronislaw. 1922. Argonauts of the Western Pacific. New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd.Google Scholar
  47. Marcus, George E. 1995. Ethnography in/of the World System: The Emergence of Multi-Sited Ethnography. Annual Review of Anthropology 24: 95–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 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
  49. Millar, Gearoid. 2014a. Disaggregating Hybridity: Why Hybrid Institutions do not Produce Predictable Experiences of Peace. Journal of Peace Research 51 (4): 501–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. ———. 2014b. An Ethnographic Approach to Peacebuilding. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  51. Moore, Sally Falk. 1986. Social Facts & Fabrications: Customary Law on Kilimanjaro, 1880–1980. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  52. 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
  53. Ortner, Sherry B. 1984. Theory in Anthropology Since the Sixties. Comparative Studies in Society and History 26 (1): 126–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. ———. 1995. Resistance and the Problem of Ethnographic Refusal. Comparative Studies in Society and History 37 (1): 173–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. ———. 1997. Fieldwork in the Postcommunity. Anthropology and Humanism 22 (1): 61–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. ———. 2011. A Post-Liberal Peace. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  58. 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
  59. Robins, Steven, Andrea Cornwall, and Bettina Lieres. 2008. Rethinking ‘Citizenship’ in The Postcolony. Third World Quarterly 29 (6): 1069–1086.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Schierenbeck, Isabell. 2015. Beyond the Local Turn Divide: Lessons Learnt, Relearnt and Unlearnt. Third World Quarterly 36 (5): 1023–1032.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 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
  62. Scott, James C. 1985. Weapons of the Weak. Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  63. 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
  64. Tax, Sol. 1975. Action Anthropology. Current Anthropology 16 (4): 514–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Theidon, Kimberly. 2006. The Micropolitics of Reconciliation in Postwar Peru. Journal of Conflict Resolution 50 (3): 433–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 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
  67. Tsing, Anna. 2005. Friction: An Ethnography of Global Connection. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  68. Wallensteen, Peter. 2001. The Growing Peace Research Agenda. Occasional Paper #21:OP:4, Kroc Institute.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Birgit Bräuchler
    • 1
  1. 1.Anthropology, School of Social SciencesMonash UniversityMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations