懸浮。流動。安卓帕樂吉司特

在antropologi.info的網站上最近剛好是簡述UW-Madison還沒碰過面的Ph.D.學長/姐（？）部落格的某篇文章，在講印尼的人類學家所扮演的角色與美國人類學家社會功能的不同。他提到很多有趣的對比，談到印尼人類學家成為在公開場合發聲而受到關注與重視的情形，以及他們與媒體的密切關係。印尼第一個人類學學系在他們獨立與建國運動過程中成立，發展至今，人類學學者在印尼被視為政府批判者的角色，所以獲得媒體與大眾的認同。

其實半路出家的我，讀到這裡，想到台灣媒體的政治熱，很好奇人類學學系在台灣的發展，為什麼會還是比較停留在傳統「學術圈」而非走進「人群或大眾」發聲？
總之，這學期要修一門課，就是public anthropology，我很期待大家對於人類學在「後現代」「後殖民」社會中的角色，有精彩的對話與思考。
轉貼antropologi.info的介紹如下：

"Discuss politics!" - How anthropologists in Indonesia engage with the public

Crossroads is the name of a new blog by anthropologist Fadjar I. Thufail,
currently completing his Ph.D. at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
In an interview (from 2001), he tells us that Indonesian
anthropologists continually attempt to link themselves to the
non-academic world - and they succeed. When anthropologists in
Indonesia are interviewed by newspapers, their comments are not
squeezed into tiny sound bites, instead they are written up in long,
detailed articles. Anthropologists often appear on television or on
radio:

What makes anthropology as a discipline
different than the discipline in the United States is that from the
beginning, Indonesian anthropologists are supposed to be able to talk
to the public and get involved in development practices.
The
first anthropology department in Indonesia was established in 1957 and
that was after the Indonesian independence when the people were eager
to develop the country. Part of the institution of Indonesian
anthropology is that the anthropologists were asked to contribute to
development practices and that makes what in the U.S. called “applied
anthropology” a part of Indonesian anthropology. There is no
distinction like in the U.S.

He also explains the differences between "public anthropology" and "applied anthropology":

Public anthropology is supposed to involve in a critical position. It should
be a reminder, no…not a reminder. It should involve engaging the
public, but by criticizing projects or challenging the dominant
paradigm.
To me, applied anthropology is not the same as
public anthropology because they (applied anthropologists) do
government development and journal writing etc. Applied anthropologists
are just technicians or sponsors of the government and hence are not
‘public anthropologists’ because there is not a critical component to
it.
In Indonesia, most of the anthropological scholars are
engaged in such a critical function. (...) That is why lots of
anthropologists in Indonesia are invited to various seminars, give
public talks, probably invited to TV talk shows, or interviewed by
newspaper journalists.
So, basically, in Indonesia, it’s not
only the scholars who want to go public, but also the journalists. A
connection exists between the community of scholars and the media. That
I don’t see in the United States where academics are beyond the reach
of the public.”

This has to do with the specific Indonesian context:

Most of the media think of themselves as opposed to the government. They
have a function to criticize the government. Most of the scholars also
think of themselves as critics. They [the scholar’s] use media to
launch critiques of the government, especially the ‘New Order’
[Suharto’s regime - 1966-1998]. So that is why whatever scholars say,
the media accepts it without saying ‘too difficult’ - nothing is ‘too
difficult’ for the story…they feel this is something we must publish
because we must criticize.”

Therefore, anthropology is much more involved in politics in Indonesia - that's why it's so relevant for people:

Anthropologists in the U.S. think of politics as separate from academics. To do
academic work, one must be free of politics. I think this is a legacy
of colonialism, of the Enlightenment or something.
(...)
In
Indonesia, as I said earlier, Anthropologists from the beginning
actively pursued involvement in public/political events. Some chose to
be part of the government, some put themself against the government.
(...)
I think that is the most important message I want to get across.
Anthropology is political - I want to remind you that as an
anthropologist you must talk about politics. You can’t talk about
culture as separate from politics. In order to put yourself in a more
public sphere, you must discuss politics. There are different ways to
do this. One is by not talking about cultural systems anymore, or
semiosis, but instead discussing politics. Then realize that
anthropology has critical power.