The “controversy over the Yanomami” has affected central issues, both epistemological andethical and political, for the discipline and practice of anthropology, particularly concerning theethics of field research; the way to use research data to support certain theoretical hypotheses;the relationships between popularization and politicization of research and, more generally, theresponsibility of anthropologists with respect to both the uses of their studies in the publicsphere and towards the human subjects with whom they work. In this article, I examine somekey moments of the “controversy”. In particular, I try to reconstruct the way in which the imageof the Yanomami as the “last primitive society” was initially consolidated, inside and outsideanthropology, and, in this sense, I compare the ethnographies of Chagnon and Lizot. In thepaper, I also place particular emphasis on the different ways in which ethnographers havetextually marked their positioning in the field as “proof” of the “authenticity” of theirrepresentations of the Yanomami world. In the last part, I summarize the effects of the “mediastorm” on American anthropology, which were caused by the accusations of ethicallyinappropriate, if not completely execrable, behavior addressed to Chagnon and Lizot in Darknessin El Dorado, the book-report by journalist Patrick Tierney.
|Numero di pagine||61|
|Rivista||Archivio Antropologico Mediterraneo|
|Stato di pubblicazione||Published - 2021|