Political correctness: A form of anthropological “do-goodism”
10.7340/anuac2239-625X-3514
Commento di Jonathan Friedman, Politicamente corretto. Il conformismo morale come regime, a cura di Piero Zanini, traduzione di Francesca Nicola e Piero Zanini, Milano, Meltemi, 2018, pp. 348.
application/pdf
2239-625X
3514
2
en
Christian Giordano
Anuac
Political correctness: A form of anthropological “do-goodism”
Text.Serial.Journal
https://ojs.unica.it/index.php/anuac
7
Book forum: Jonathan Friedman – Politicamente corretto
2018-12-31
2018-12-08
2018-12-31
2018-12-31
235-240
1
Christian Giordano
2018/12/31
10.7340/anuac2239-625X-3514
235
University of Fribourg, Germany
2239-625X
2
en
240
Political correctness: A form of anthropological “do-goodism”
https://ojs.unica.it/index.php/anuac/article/download/3514/3207
7
                                      2018 | ANUAC. VOL. 7, N° 2, DICEMBRE 2018: 235-240




                                                                        BOOK FORUM

Political correctness: A form of anthropological
“do-goodism”
Christian GIORDANO
University of Fribourg


Comment on JONATHAN FRIEDMAN, Politicamente corretto. Il conformismo morale come
regime, edited by Piero Zanini, translation by Francesca Nicola and Piero Zanini,
Milano, Meltemi, 2018, pp. 348.



   In his new book Politicamente corretto. Il conformismo morale come regime,
Jonathan Friedman once again hits the mark with his critical spirit often
tinged with polemical tones. In fact, he cogently highlights the hypocrisy in-
herent in the ideological and political practice of what I would define as “do-
goodism”, widespread in present-day anthropology as we shall see.
   Jonathan Friedman aptly and strongly stresses that “political correctness”
has become an ideological instrument of today’s elites. In my view, however,
the term “elites” is ambiguous since it is semantically too broad, thus also
too indefinite. Vilfredo Pareto had already been criticized in his days be-
cause of the concept’s lack of semantic clarity (Pareto 2006). Who are the
elites? Are they the “political classes” as defined by Gaetano Mosca (Mosca
1958) or, quoting Robert Michels (Michels 1989), the political parties’ upper
echelons or again the power elites mentioned by Charles Wright Mills (Wright
Mills 1989), i.e. those who steer and monopolize parliamentary life? Could
they be the upper spheres of bureaucracy controlling public administrations?
Or again, those in a dominant position in the cultural and artistic spheres,
i.e. those who successfully produce or manage cultural activities? Finally, to


This work is licensed under the Creative Commons © Christian Giordano
Political correctness: A form of anthropological “do-goodism”
2018 | ANUAC. VOL. 7, N° 2, DICEMBRE 2018: 235-240.
ISSN: 2239-625X – DOI: 10.7340/anuac2239-625X-3514
236                                                              CHRISTIAN GIORDANO


avoid drawing out this certainly incomplete list, we need to mention those
who, rightly or not, are defined as academics, i.e. those holding university
positions or active in similar institutions for scientific or humanities re-
search.
    Bearing in mind these differences, we notice that the term elite applies to
persons in positions of power yet in very diverse activities and with highly
dissimilar rhetorics of “political correctness”. In the framework of this brief
contribution, which definitely subscribes to Jonathan Friedman’s arguments,
we can hardly examine them all. Therefore, I will focus on one type of aca-
demic elites hailing from my own discipline who over the past twenty years
have generated a specific form of “political correctness” that I like to call
“anthropological correctness”.
    With the term “anthropological correctness”, I am referring to a scientific
discourse linked to a specific analytical terminology that must not upset the
subjects from a socially and/or culturally different society studied during
fieldwork. On the surface this may seem a sensible and commendable course
of action to avoid forms of crass ethnocentrism. Thus, “anthropological cor-
rectness” first emerged also to exclude blatantly unacceptable concepts such
as the one of race. In brief, at first its function was to ensure the discipline’s
praiseworthy morality. At this point though, we need to put this concept in
historical context and consider when it appeared and then began to spread.
    Starting in the 1980s, anthropology went through a profound and benefi-
cial process of self-criticism, widely known as the postmodern “reflexive
turn”, essentially based on a deconstructive stance towards the then pre-
dominant anthropological currents of thought. Yet, notwithstanding its
many positive aspects, the “reflexive turn” also generated negative con-
sequences that have led to the still rampant fervour of “anthropological cor-
rectness” which continues to influence our discipline’s language and rhetor-
ic.
    In the aftermath of the postmodern “reflexive turn”, anthropology as a
typically empirical discipline of social sciences undeniably developed a sig-
nificant inclination for radical self-criticism. In fact, the detached or disen-
chanted, if not indeed sceptical or agnostic attitude towards societies that
are unlike the one of origin of the person carrying out fieldwork has become
less apparent.
    In fact, in the book Writing Culture (Clifford, Marcus 1986), which may be
regarded as the founding text of the “reflexive turn”, the two authors point
up a number of fundamental flaws, i.e. capital sins of empirical research and
consequently also flaws in the ethnographic description and finally and es-
pecially in anthropological theorization, both idiographic and nomothetic.


2018 | ANUAC. VOL. 7, N° 2, DICEMBRE 2018: 235-240
POLITICAL CORRECTNESS: A FORM OF ANTHROPOLOGICAL “DO-GOODISM”                       237


   In the just mentioned book, James Clifford and George Marcus accuse the
anthropological reflection of having an authoritarian approach. Indeed, even
the theoretical paradigm of Clifford Geertz’s interpretive anthropology falls
under this category. The two authors propose a new “dialogical” and “poly-
phonic” theoretical paradigm that considers not only the anthropologist’s
voice, but also that of the “subjects” being studied, i.e. the “others” who
have been viewed as “objects” for far too long.
   Nothing to object, up to this point. However, the “reflexive turn” led to
probably unwanted or unexpected consequences that in my opinion turned
out to be negative especially in terms of the spread of “anthropological cor-
rectness”.
   At present, in fact, we have to avoid embarking on research matter that
may upset or even hurt the feelings of individuals or groups belonging to the
societies being studied, especially if these are peripheral societies. Present-
ing this type of material at conferences or seminars, especially with refer-
ence to subaltern groups or socially or economically disadvantaged individu-
als, is viewed as “anthropologically incorrect”. This methodological oddity is
noticeable in political anthropology in particular. Nowadays, in fact, a neut-
ral or detached analysis of those phenomena that Western anthropologists
deem immoral or uncivilized (such as clientelism or corruptive and Mafioso
practices), or destructive (such as interethnic conflicts or family feuds and
honour killings), is regarded with disapproval. This stance is now very wide-
spread because showing one’s participation or, better yet, involvement in
safeguarding the “good guys down here” in societies regarded as defenceless
or threatened by the social strategies of socially, economically and politically
dominant classes, i.e. “the bad guys up there”, is almost mandatory.
   Most of these practices that are deemed immoral from a Western, thus
ethnocentric point of view, are instead attributed to the upper social strata
and hegemonic political classes. In these cases, it is “anthropologically cor-
rect” to roundly voice criticisms, thus all ostensibly negative social practices
are ascribed to those who can take advantage of economic and political posi-
tions of power.
   Nowadays, whoever dares or continues to deal with subjects that are not
“anthropologically correct” will be chastised, if not indeed discredited with
specific epithets. One of the most widely employed terms to discredit
someone is unquestionably “orientalist”. Whoever uses this term in a
blatantly disparaging way is clearly referring to the title of the famous book
Orientalism by Edward Said (Said 1978). It is not my intention to criticize
Said’s theses, which I consider absolutely praiseworthy and above all relev-
ant, though at times a bit too unilateral, but I do believe that criticizing this
term in connection with “anthropological correctness” is relevant.

                                      2018 | ANUAC. VOL. 7, N° 2, DICEMBRE 2018: 235-240
238                                                           CHRISTIAN GIORDANO


   To avoid the various forms of abhorred Orientalism, many of today’s an-
thropologists tend to regard the “others” as having “our” same “spaces of
experience” and “horizons of expectations”, thus the same social knowledge.
Consequently, one expects the same behaviour in the “others”. Any display
of alterity in an anthropologist is censured as the “invention of others”, i.e.
as a mystification conceived by those who claim to have studied diversity,
namely anthropologists. These forms of anthropological correctness aim to
avoid terminologies and themes that might even hypothetically hurt the
others’ feelings. The following is a typical example; nowadays using the
term “gypsies” is practically impossible. According to the logic of “anthropo-
logical correctness”, the proper term is Roma or, better yet, Rroma (with two
R’s) because allegedly the term “gypsy” has a negative connotation and is in-
herently insulting, thus socially discriminatory. Paradoxically, however,
some of the Roma groups want to be called gypsies.
   Objectionable social phenomena, according to the logic of “anthropolo-
gical correctness” are regarded as irrelevant in those in low or marginal so-
cial positions or roles. Unlike the “good guys down here”, anthropological
correctness attributes all possible and imaginable abominations to the “bad
guys up there”. In fact, whoever holds power must perforce be a “bad guy”.
In the logic of this populist and do-goodery methodology, carrying out a dis-
passionate and unprejudiced research on the elites has become nearly im-
possible because it would amount to a sort of sacrilege.
   We ought to add that paradoxically the dialogical and polyphonic ap-
proach proposed by Clifford and Marcus (Clifford, Marcus 1986) has gener-
ated a kind of anthropologically correct neo-paternalism that aims to con-
trast the moral virtues and positive forms of social solidarity of the “good
guys down here” with the arrogance, abuse and arbitrariness of the “bad
guys up there”. Thanks to this logic, at present an anthropologist feels a spe-
cific moral pressure to highlight the positive human and social qualities of
the members of the society being studied.
   Given the drifts produced by “anthropological correctness”, we can rightly
wonder whether we might be dealing with a new anthropological fiction sim-
ilar to the one of the “noble savage”.
   The sole difference lies in the fact that the “primitive man” has been re-
placed by the “immigrant”, the “refugee” without documents, the “politic-
ally persecuted” and, more in general, by the “poor”, the “exploited”, the
“marginalized”, the “outcast”. The “new noble savages” are precisely those
who fall under these categories on the fringes of society. Personally, I won-
der whether anthropology may be turning into a specific “social work” vari-


2018 | ANUAC. VOL. 7, N° 2, DICEMBRE 2018: 235-240
POLITICAL CORRECTNESS: A FORM OF ANTHROPOLOGICAL “DO-GOODISM”                       239


ant in quest of a hypothetical, but unachievable “good society”. Yet, anthro-
pology cannot and must neither be the scientific crutch for “bleeding-heart”
development agencies, NGOs and such like associations.
   In the name of the current anthropological correctness, certain social rep-
resentations and related practices that might cast doubts on the moral integ-
rity of the so-called “powerless” as the “good guys” par excellence, have be-
come rather deplorable in anthropology. In this context we need only men-
tion themes that are considered disgraceful, such as representations and
everyday strategies linked to mistrust in the public sphere or the frequent
conflicts for status, reputation and honour. These behaviours instead are at-
tributed, without empirical evidence, to the “bad guys up there”.
   In line with “anthropological correctness”, if one wishes to be acknow-
ledged and respected in one’s own “scientific community”, one can hardly
avoid searching for unlikely relations, since they are missing, of communit-
arian trust, inclusion mechanisms, negotiation skills, hospitality institu-
tions, grassroots democratic structures, social movements, civil society or-
ganizations etc. of the “good guys down here”. In any case, to avoid any
charge of ethnocentrism and orientalism, current anthropology delights in
researching and inventing fictional, subaltern “cosy worlds” that are des-
pised and threatened by obscure and nefarious hegemonic powers.
   Finally, we need to add that this anthropologically correct populism is
strictly linked to a specific form of methodological individualism that most
times results in a sort of naïve voluntarism by which men, aside from any so-
cial boundaries, act freely and build their own Lebenswelt to their own liking.
This logically implies that social actors have the -clearly illusory- possibility
of choosing among a practically infinite array of action strategies beyond the
most diverse claims of social control. As such, social action is characterized
by an indiscriminate “everything goes”.
   Due to the above-mentioned “populism”, anthropology has lost its initial
allure stemming from its ability to develop and achieve a healthy regard
éloigné as in Lévi-Strauss or at least a realistic “interpretive approach” as in
Clifford Geertz (Geertz 1973), who, I would underscore once again, drew in-
spiration from Max Weber’s verstehende Soziologie (Weber 1980).
   In agreement with Jonathan Friedman, I can conclude that anthropologic-
al correctness, clearly one based on a do-goodery populism, is the social pro-
duction of intellectuals and academics who rightly or not feel burdened by a
guilty conscience because of their apparently higher social standing.




                                      2018 | ANUAC. VOL. 7, N° 2, DICEMBRE 2018: 235-240
240                                                                     CHRISTIAN GIORDANO


REFERENCES
Clifford, James, George Marcus, eds,1986, Writing culture. The poetics and politics of
      ethnography, Berkeley & Los Angeles, University of California Press.
Geertz, Clifford, 1973, The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays, New York, Basic
      Books.
Michels, Robert, 1989, Zur Soziologie des Parteiwesens in der modernen Demokratie.
      Untersuchungen über die oligarchischen Tendenzen des Gruppenlebens, Stutt-
      gart, Kröner Verlag.
Mosca, Gaetano, 1958, La classe politica, Bari, Laterza.
Pareto, Vilfredo, 2006, The rise and fall of elites: An application of theoretical sociolo-
      gy, London & New York, Routledge.
Said, Edward, 1978, Orientalism, New York, Pantheon.
Weber, Max, 1980, Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. Grundriss der verstehenden Soziologie,
      Tübingen, J.C.B Mohr, Paul Siebeck.
Wright Mills, Charles, 2000, The power elite, New York & London, Oxford University
      Press




2018 | ANUAC. VOL. 7, N° 2, DICEMBRE 2018: 235-240
