Applied Anthropology/antropologut delagestion:

Debating the Uses of Anthropology in the United States and Latin America
From Policy Ethnography to Theory of Practice: Introductory Considerations
In this set of articles, three anthropologists based in Latin America discuss the politics and practicalities of doing applied anthropology in Mexico and Puerto Rico a discussion based in their own working lives as researchers while two anthropologists based in the United States (Sidney Mintz and myself) provide some commentary. Our goal is to contribute to the "decolonizing of anthropology" (Harrison 1997): by expanding current questions posed in the U.S. to other countries, our intent is to transform what has largely been a discourse on a "native" anthropology (NAPA1995) into a "transnational" anthropology (Hannerz 1998). Thus, rather than a survey of current practice in applied anthropology in the Americas, this special section is offered as an invitation to dialogue, and a call for greater discussion1 among anthropologists concerned with the application of knowledge in different nations and/or regions of the Americas.

Applied Anthropology in the United States of America and in Latin America

In the United States, applied anthropology is considered as the field of inquiry concerned with the relationships between anthropological knowledge and the uses of that knowledge in the world beyond anthropology (Chambers 1985; Wulff and Fiske 1987; Fiske and Chambers 1996). The production of this knowledge base is historically situated: prior to the seventies, anthropology in the U.S. focused on basic research. With the exception of exploring a
TheJournal of hitin American Ant/i/r>po/oii>y6(2^H-19copyright 2001, American Anthropological Association

The Journal of Latin American Anthropology

Judith Freidenberg
University of Maryland, College Park
weakness in a particular policy or course of action, thefielddid not participate in the concerns of policy and decision-making. Since the seventies, however, applied anthropology emerged as a growing sub-field as more anthropologists began to practice outside academic settings, putting their skills to use in planning, human service delivery, administration, and managament (Maack 1995). These new experiences led anthropologists to theorize about the uses of knowledge by comparing use to non-use or mis-use of anthropological knowledge. The occupational patterns of U.S.-based applied anthropologists are very different than those in Latin America. Only half of all anthropologists in the U.S. are currently employed outside of academia, whereas in Latin America, low wages both inside and outside of the academy create a multidimensional occupational pattern in which nearly all anthropologists hold multiple jobs.2 Thus, it is not uncommon to find most anthropologists in Latin America working simultaneously at jobs in the university, the private sector, government, international organizations, and non-governmental organizations in a variety of roles: teacher, consultant, trainer, and/or member of inter-disciplinary teams, among many others. The important point to note here is that although U.S.-based aplied anthropologists do combine roles, the defining characteristic of a regular day on the job for an applied anthropologist in Latin America is to be engaged in a variety of occupational roles. If there are discrepancies in occupational roles, there are similarities in focus: applied anthropologists in both the United States and in Latin America rely on the ethnographic method in constructing in-depth case studies for policy formulation applications, conceptualize culture as process, and use comparative and cross-cultural analytical frameworks. There are also similarities in the topical areas in which most applied anthropologists work: health care, education and development. As an applied anthropologist trained in both Latin America and the United States, I was pleased to encounter so many

Debating the Uses of Anthropology in the U.S. and Latin America

similarities in the domains of application, as well ats a certain ambivalence in the use of the term "applied anthropology." Thus, like their U.S. counterparts, many Latin American applied anthropologists just do applied anthropology - they define their domain of work around addressing population problems - without defining it as such. Perhaps the fact that anthropologists in Latin America commonly hold on to multiple professional roles relates to this phenomenon. While many of those contacted rejected the term applied anthiopology,3 other anthropologists used the term with the same connotation as in the United States (see Valdes Pizzini, this volume) or made it equivalent to a critical anthropology (see Hernandez Castillo, this volume) that questions the impact of anthropological work on the formulation of state policies (see Freyermuth, this volume) to address population needs. Like in Europe, where the term "anthropology of policy" has come of age (Shore and Wright 2000), in Latin America there are efforts to use other terms to label the practice of applied anthropology: in the Southern Cone of Latin America, for example, a new label has emerged - antropologja de h gestioif - to refer to practical activity in action contexts (Ratier 1995), which has recruited enough adherents to hold its Second Meeting this year.5

"Debating the Uses of Anthropology"

In 1998,1 invited Latin American colleagues whose workfitsthe description of U.S. applied anthropology to debate their uses of anthropology with their U.S. based counterparts at a professional encounter. The resulting session,6 entitled "Debating the Uses of Anthropology: Latin America and the U.S.," was invited as a Plenary Session by the 1998 Annual Meeting of the Society for Applied Anthropology (SFAA), and co-sponsored by the Association of Latina and Latino Anthropologists (ALLA, a unit of the American Anthropological Association). What follows is a description and analysis of those who either presented or sent contributions to that session (not all of whose papers appear in this volume),7 to be shared with each other and their U.S. colleagues. As mentioned earlier, disseminating their work is offered as both a means to share applied anthropology in Latin America with the JLAA readership, and as an invitation to engage in the debate about the uses of anthropology for social action in the Americas. To contribute to such debate, I have organized the discussion of the papers in this set using the contributions to the session to contextualize the domains of application (I), the types of knowledge generated within such domains (n), and the role of anthropological knowledge within policy and political contexts (HI).

The Journal of Latin American Anthropology

I. Domains of Application: 1. Culture and the State Policies of Culture:

Two authors in this segment deal with an ever-present concern of Latin American anthropology, that of constructing and reconstructing culture to represent nation, and in the process, reflect on "official" and "unofficial" versions of national culture, as political ideologies are extricated from development plans formulated by central governments. In "La antropologia aplicada al servicio del estado-nacion: Aculturacion e indigenismo en la frontera sur de Mexico" (Applied Anthropology in the Service of the Nation-State-. Acculturation and Indigenismo in the Southern Border of Mexico), Hernandez Castillo examines the case of the Mames, indigenous people of Mexico and Guatemala sharing territory in the state of Chiapas, to illustrate how, even under the ideology of indigenismo, state policies contributed to deflect the role of the peasantry in subsistence agriculture to cheap wage labor in new development projects. Using ethnography, oral history and government documents, Hernandez Castillo can thus examine the impact of indigenismo on the daily lives of indigenous people. She concludes that this policy implemented programs of forced acculturation: during the thirties there was a focus on changing language, dress, and public forms of adherence to Mexico as a nation. She argues that indigenismo- a state policy towards indigenous people that counted with much involvement from applied anthropologists - had incorporated the discourse of development since the fifties, implemented with no or little consensus from the population. Its unintended result was that class stratification has been intensified - albeit with distinctive regional and ethnic characteristics - a very different goalfromthe originally proposed integration of the indigenous population in national life. Hernandez Castillo's contribution to this discussion raises preoccupations similar to those of Mexican anthropologist Novelo, who aptly reminds us that culture can only be understood within the context of a particular historical period. In her session contribution, "La antropologia mexicana y la nacionalidad" (Mexican Anthropology and Nationality), Novelo explores the role of anthropologists in promoting popular art as an expression of the nationstate, and of the contradictions that emerge when ideologies of state, nation, and social identity vary as political systems change. Novelo notes that, as an ideology of national culture, indigenismo helped carve a role for anthropologists in promoting the production and commercialization of products of popular art. She urges these anthropologists to also study the life conditions of craftsmen

Debating the Uses of Anthropology in the U.S. and Latin America

as producers. Author Hernandez Castillo complements Novelo by critically examining the historical role of applied anthropologists in collaborating with the state on conceptualizing indigenismoas an acculturation strategy and on implementing programs to integrate indigenous people to the state. Hernandez Castillo's thoughts reverberate in those of Bolivian anthropologist Albo who, like Novelo, reminds us that culture cannot be explained without reference to history. In fact, he combines anthropology, history and political advocacy in his contribution "La estrategia de desarrollo rural de CIPCA" (CIPCA's Strategy for Rural Development) where he attempts to understand the role of the non-governmental organization he works forthe CenWode Investigation y Promotion del Carnpesinado, or Peasantry Promotion and Research Center - in strengthening peasants' articulation to the state through organization, education, and economic gains. Albo is representative of a sector of politically engaged anthropologists in Latin America who heigthen the importance of praxis as a permanent, dialectical interplay of action and research. Like Albo, Hernandez Castillo is also concerned with the long-term effects of the state policy of indigenismo on the indigenous people themselves. Valdes Pizzini, reflecting upon the version of Puerto Rican national culture popularized by Steward's The People of Puerto Rico in the fifties, notes that it fails to adequately represent various social sectors - the urban poor, for example, are left out - but also reminds us how national culture can also be reconstructed via "the others," for example via Puerto Ricans living on the mainland United States, or immigrants living on the Island. He counteracts Puerto Rican anthropologist Ricardo Alegria's "official version" of national culture - as a triptych of African, Taino and Spanish cultural influences - with the multicultural, and diasporic contemporary Puerto Rico emergent from Jorge Duany's research on Dominicans and Cubans on the Island, and a generation of younger professionals' work on Puerto Ricans on the mainland (see Duany 1990; Mulero 2000).

2. Public Health and Health Policies:

Freyermuth Endso's work illustrates the effectiveness of using a multiplicity of roles to disseminate praxis, as seen in her session contribution, 'La etnografia como instrumento para las acciones de sensibilizacion y la generation de propuestas: Hacia la problematica de la muerte materna" (Ethnography as an Action-Sensitive Tool and Program Planning on the Problem of Maternal Death). Although Freyermuth's main position is with a research institution,
QESAS(CentnjcfcInvestiga<)nesydeEstudk^ Social, or

The Journal of Latin American Anthropology

Center for Research and Higher Education in Social Anthropology), she also helped found and supports the work of a local non-governmental organization (COLEM, Grupo de Mujeres de San Cristobal de las Casas, San Cristobal de las Casas's Womens' Group), in Chiapas, Mexico to help address the prevalence of high rates of maternal death. The purpose of this NGO is to document and disseminate indigenous people's own views about this public health problem, both to the larger public and to policy makers. Because Freyermuth believes medical providers also need to be sensitized to her research findings, she is also involved in a research program that can reach them through professional networks, the Program for Reproductive Health of the Colegio de Mexico and GESAS-Suieste). Freyermuth's paper highlights two well-developed areas in Latin American anthropology: medical anthropology and the anthropology of human rights. A prominent Latin American medical anthropologist is Eduardo Menendez, whose session contribution "Antropologia medica y epidemiologia: Proceso de convergencia o proceso de medicalizacion?" (Medical Anthropology and Epidemiology: A Process of Convergence or Medicalization?) traced the contributions of anthropologists to public health. Menendez argues that anthropologists' focus on the role of historical processes and socio-cultural factors have made major contributions to the understanding of illness and to the development of health services. According to Menendez, anthropological knowledge can lead to more effective recommendations for action than public health disciplines, given it theorizes by contextualizing rather than by problematizing, and as a result of its long-term methods of data collection rather than rapid appraisals of the situation. Drawing on the case of alcoholism as a public health problem in Mexico, Menendez shows how these theoretical and methodological differences between medical anthropology and public health allow for a bettter understanding of alcoholism as a social condition, rather than as solely a medical problem. Menendez suggests moving anthropology away from its current focus on a "theory versus practice" oposition, and into a theory for a Latin American applied anthropology.

3. Forensic Anthropology and Human Rights:

A major example of the anthropology of human rights in Latin America has been the emergence of forensic anthropology teams since the eighties,8 as historical changes in political systems facilitated the demise of military dictatorships in favor of democratically elected governments. Doretti's contribution to the session, "La antropologia forense y la investigation de la

Debating the Uses of Anthropology in the U.S. and Latin America

violacion de derechos humanos en America Latina" (Forensic Anthropology and Research on Human Rights Violation in Latin America), shows the diversity of employment sites and occupational roles that characterize the work of forensic anthropologists: thus they work with organizations ranging from human rights agencies, international commissions, research institutions, and the judiciary system, to universities and non-governmental organizations. The roles they play might combine such disparate forms of participation as expert witness, consultant, researcher, trainer, teacher. Doretti convincingly demonstrates that anthropological knowledge on human rights can be used to recover the human capaciy to reflect on the past. Through nongovernmental organizations, anthropological knowledge is applied to government, the private sector, and policy making: the presentation highlights the Argentine Forensic Anthropology Team's documentation of human right abuses to be used in state trials, its support of families of the disappeared to recover the memory of their lost ones, and its contribution to society-atlarge for monitoring future repressive governments. Freyermuth's effort to locate the epidemiology of maternal health within the context of human rights abuses in public health is also reflected in her methodological contributions to participatory methods in applied anthropology. By consulting the network of indigenous people related to the deceased about prevalence and causality of the phenomenon of maternal death, Freyermuth's team was able to ascertain that about half of maternal deaths went unregistered. The relevance of this finding is staggering: it would make the rate of maternal death in the Altos de Chiapas about six times higher than the national mean. Freyermuth's team then translated these ethnographicfindingsinto a public health campaign to sensitize providers and policy makers to the socio-cultural factors in maternal death in the region. The paper she contributed to the SFAA session traces the development of one such action group; the inter-institutional and interdisciplinary Work Group convened in 1997, which worked on the testimonies produced by the applied anthropologists to recommend action strategies to decrease maternal death in the region.

II. Types of Knowledge Generated within Domains of Application:

Both the contributions to the session as well as the papers published in this set are offered as case studies of applied anthropology in Latin America: as do their U.S.-based counterparts (see Wulff and Fiske 1987; NAPA1995;

10

The Journal of Latin American Anthropology

Shore and "Wftght 2000), these case studies clearly show that using anthropology in contexts of action does make a difference. The authors in Wulf and Fiske's collection identify a problem, identify its theoretical and political manifestations, define its political parameters and seek solutions in a continuum, from reflecting on available information to implementing induced change. They favor intervention and other action strategies as the focus of applied research. Latin American applied anthropologists certainly share these concerns with their counterparts in the United States (Valdes Pizzini, in this volume, even uses the same definition for applied anthropology). However, since applied anthropology as a policy science (Chambers 1985) needs to be historically situated and politically grounded, I would argue that, while producing knowledge for action might be similar, how the products of that knowledge are used varies with the policy and political contexts for action. In what follows, I will draw on the contributions to the session and the written articles to analyze the uses of knowledge among the Latin American applied anthropologists highlighted in this segment: knowledge about anthropologists, about anthropology, and about the role that anthropologists play in civil society. 1. About Anthropologists: The anthropologists discussed are members of a generation that find it imperative to study their own societies, rather than replicating the mystique of studying the exotic "other" beyond. In so doing, they feel committed to not only position themselves theoretically, but also to take a stand on the political issues affecting their own societies. Often, this results in a multiplicity of worksites, from academia, to research institutes, to government, to nongovernmental organizations. 2. About Anthropology: Within their own societies, the anthropological knowledge these authors are interested in producing relates to issues that bear a contemporary relevance for a variety of audiences: the study of national culture (Hernandez Castillo and Novelo), of human rights (Doretti), of public health (Freyermuth on maternal death and Menendez on alcoholism), of natural resource management (Pizzini) and of rural development (Albo). Taken together, these papers are anthropological commentaries on a Latin America engaged in the current political debates regarding the impact of rapid social change. The change

Debating the Uses of Anthropology in the U.S. and Latin America

11

from military dictatorships to democratic political systems contributed to the process leading anthropologists like Doretti and Albo to uncover and disseminate the voice of- until recently - silenced stakeholders in Argentina and Bolivia. For example, Doretti analyzed the social movements initiated by the families of the "disappeared," while Albo contextualizes the emergence of organized peasantry including indigenous peoples. In countries like Mexico and Guatemala, where there were internal pressures to increase the political participation of "forgotten" nations, anthropologists like Hernandez Castillo contributed to the political and historical contextualization of their concerns. Valdes Pizzini recounts for Puerto Rico the public acknowledgements of undocumented migrants in their midst. By using history as political history in order to understand the past, these anthropologists provide a rationale for problematizing the present (Novelo, Doretti, and Menendez). Their work is clearly interdisciplinary. Although forensic anthropology utilizes all four fields in anthropology in addition to other disciplines, all contributors to the session make use of various disciplines outside of anthropology. The focus, however, is clearly placed on ethnography: all authors in this collection mention ethnography as the primary data collection method both to uncover population profiles as well as to understand the cultural factors to be considered in the planning and implementation of change programs. No wonder, then, that the papers contribute methodologies appropriate for generating the increased participation of action programs' beneficiaries in the research process: from questioning the usefulness of rapid assessments in anthropology (Menendez), to proposing repeated self-diagnosis exercises to monitor change processes (Albo), to supporting social movements through the provision of systematic data collection (Doretti), to using population data to further the participation of stakeholders in change programs (Freyermuth). In that sense, the contributions show that action research is triggered by policy ethnography, that actions increase their effectiveness when based on ethnographic understandings of the population, particularly if these understandings are debated with diverse stakeholders. The result of this process, evidenced in Freyermuth's contribution, is that policy recommendations can be anchored ethnographically, historically, and politically. Other contributions validate social policy analysis using ethnography: for example, by understanding the ethnographic impact of indigenismo, it is possible to better understand the policies that pervade most top-down development initiatives in the Meso-American and the Andean regions of Latin America. 12 The Journal of Latin American Anthropology

These approaches allow for a critical questioning of the idea of the state and the nation: the "other within" plays a central role in the construction of the nation-state (Pizzini, Novelo, Albo and Hernandez Castillo). They also allow for understanding the local in the global: although the contributors research issues within specific countries, they all stress the validity of issues researched for transnational linkages framed as increased dependency on either core countries and-or global processes that bind cores and peripheries together. Thus, in thinking about Puerto Rico, we are invited to think about the Dominican Republic and Cuba within Puerto Rico (Valdes Pizzini); in reflecting on Mexico, we enlarge our vision of geopolitical borders as we follow Mexican immigrants to the United States, and Guatemalan immigrants to Mexico. By following the caseloads of the Argentine Forensic Anthropology Team, we are transported to Chile, Guatemala, and into Africa and Eastern Europe; in studying major ethnic groups in Bolivia, we are invited to think about the six Andean countries (Argentina, Chile, Peru, Eduador, and Venezuela, in addition to Bolivia). Local issues thus became an entry point to consider similarities and differences alongside regional and international frameworks. 3. About the Role that Anthropologists Play in Civil Society:
What can anthropologists say about the relationships between the state and civil society? Anthropologists can clarify these nexi and point out contradictions by researching various versions of the same event. Doretti, for example, points to discrepancies between the "official" history of the Argentine military government and the story told by the relatives of the disappeared since the mid-eighties. Hernandez Castillo tells us of two parallel histories of the same event: that of landowners (finqueros) and peasants (campesinos indigenes) during the fifties and sixties. Some of the contributors take an active role in strenghening civil society and become actively involved in founding and funding non-governmental organizations (Albo in CIPCA, Doretti in AAFT, Freyermuth in COLEM), as mechanisms to integrate state and civil society as stakeholders in the political process. By asserting that they have a say in how history is written to tell the story of all sectors of society (Novelo and Doretti), anthropologists express ethical concerns regarding the role of anthropology in the larger society. The consensus is that anthropologists are responsible citizens, and therefore, their research is accountable not only to particular individuals but to the whole of society, to a "collective memory," as Doretti puts it. Debating the Uses of Anthropology in the U.S. and Latin America 13

The Forum
This special section contains case studies from Puerto Rico and Mexico. In "Dialogia y ruptura: La tradition etnografica en la antropologia aplicada en Puerto Rico, a partir de The People ofPuerto Rico" Valdes Pizzini overviews applied anthropology in Puerto Rico against the background of the by now classic study by Steward (1956). Valdes Pizzini considers The People a primary source of Puerto Rican anthropology, which was taken by a generation of Puerto Rican scholars as a symbol of US anthropology of Puerto Rico. No doubt, then, that the book has generated ambivalence on a native anthropology of Puerto Rican culture. 'Torunkdoqueremcszafknosdesuyug^

'seminal'), no solo pom Puerto Rico, sinoporalaetnologia en general''(45). Later on, Valdes Pizzini ennumerates its universal contributions: [Ujno de los primeros acercamientos a las sociedades nadonales por parte de los antropologos; el desarrollo de una etnografia del contexto rural y el cambio social; el analisis de los problemas de los campesinosylostrabajadoies rurales y su categorization; el desarrollo de un enfoque historico sobre las cuestiones laborales y de trabajo; una aproximation a la relation entre las sotiedades humanas y el entomo; la aplication del concepto de subcukura; y el analisis de la centralidad de las corporationes agrarias capitalists con su impacto sobre el mundo rural. (46) He notes, however, that many Puerto Rican scholars critized its impact in understanding Puerto Rican society and culture, and focused on the population sectors which were not singled out for study (as the urban poor, women, immigrants) at the time. Thus, Puerto Rican anthropology develops within the context of a critique of this "view from outside," continuing even today
to take "el asunto de la cultura puertoniquena.., como el "issue"... central ...El analisisdelo cultural... haformadop^eesendalcteesaruptumixndtiabajode Stewaid"m).

Fortunately for the JLAA readership, one of the authors of The People of Puerto Rico, Sidney Mintz, offers a commentary on Valdes Pizzini's assessment of the contribution of The People... If it had such an impact, then why was it not read nor used, and instead generated a critique beyond the goals of the study? Could it be that these were the fifties, when most anthropologists refrained from studying their own culture, since it was still considered mainstream anthropology to study outside one's own culture? That a "native 14 The Journal of Latin American Anthropology

anthropology" was not yet discussed, nor encouraged among students? Mintz shares important observations about these issues, and leaves us with a major thought: "It was as if some fundamental misconception about the goals and principles of social science had somehow held us back - held all of us back - for so many years" (81). In El material etnografico como un instrumentopara la jdertftirifade&Xo^detiesgpy muertematema (2001), Freyermuth Enciso and Fernandez Guerrero present a case study from Chiapas, Mexico to underscore the importance of a cultural epidemiology of maternal death for planning health care services, and the work of their team in using ethnographic data to propose action programs. The authors note that although the policy of indigenismo that permeated all programs directed to the indigenous population paid much attention to the health sector, it did not, particularly from their perception, to problems related to women's health. Based on sound ethnographic documentation, the authors are able to list problems, action proposals, and themes that were discussed in inter-disciplinary and inter-institutional work teams. In "La antropologfa aplicada al servicio del estado-nacion: Aculturacion e indigenismo en la frontera sur de Mexico," Hernandez Castillo overviews the impact of indigenismo on the life conditions of the indigenous populations since the fifties. Although the policy was embedded in the post-revolutionary zeal to construct a homogeneous and modern Mexican nation, its results were far from its intentions. Since the seventies, when the policy changes, anthropologists develop a critical anthropology showing how, in Hernandez
CastiDo'sterms, 'insusosddoonochnientDantoopok^^ delos pueblos incKgenasson paitede la negra. histDria denuestra disdplina "(20). The

author focuses on how development programs supposedly engineered to integrate the indigenous population of the southern border of Mexico really resulted in forced acculturation and recruitment into coffee plantations. This is yet another example of how development programs orchestrated without consensus from the population result in solidifying class divisions and power alliances among ethnic groups.

Concluding Remarks
As these introductory remarks have attempted to argue, applied anthropology in Latin America shares concerns similar to those of the counterparts in the United States. They also acknowledge an epistemology of an anthropology of policy in,first,showing how knowledge is produced within a policy context (Chambers 1985), and second, acknowledging that change in such context is Debating the Uses of Anthropology in the U.S. and Latin America 15

concurrent to the knowledge produced in that both policy and political climates are under constant change (Paredes 1997). Two other similarities are worthy of notice: applied anthropologists construct case studies from social issues in contemporary society (Wulff and Fiske 1987), which sets the groundwork for theorizing practice based on the relationship between the state and civil society. Fiske and Chambers' (1996) call for theory-making based on generalizations generated by case studies remains a vital and urgent call, though still not fully answered. The contributors noted in this segment significantly add to the capacity of applied anthropology to theorize about contemporary issues, particularly on the relationships between the knowledge we produce and the potential uses of such knowledge. A second contribution of this section is its addition to the international interest in applying anthropology. But perhaps the most important contribution this set makes resides in having Latin American anthropologists themselves inform their U.S. counterparts about their work. For this, we are all in debt and make a call to our readership to make yet a third contribution: resporiding to this discussion so a dialogue can better state and clarify our commonalities.

Notes
1. Judith N. Freidenberg is Associate Professor, Department of Anthropology, University of Maryland at College Park, Co-Coordinator of the Track in Community Health and Development in the Masters in Applied Anthropology Program, and a member of UMCP's Center for Latin American Studies Steering Committee. 2. Thanks are due to research assistants Anna Teigen, forherccrtfributionstothe organization of the 1999 Society for Applied Anthropology (SFAA) session in Puerto Rico that led to this group of articles, and Marcos Pantelis for helping compile the edited version JLAA's Associate Editor Headier M<hjre ariy sunrojnredthecffik^ encountered in working across borders and languages. The Intiodudkxi also benefits from helpful comments by JLAA editor Mary Weismantel, Associate Professor, Department of Anthropology, Northwestern University, and Leopoldo Bartolome, Director de la Maestria en Antropologia Social, Universidad National de Misiones, Posadas, Argentina. 3. ThsJoumrioftetfriAniericmAndiiupck^ to begin this dialogue by publishing a few such brief ramments, either in future issues or on its website. Cariments should be sent toJLAA electronically at jlaa@nQrthwestem.edu. Pleasenote thatJLAA will not be able to publish or respond to everyone. 4. These assertions are based on informal interviews with anthropologists practicing in Latin America, as well as personal observations conducted in my role of Coor-

16

The Journal of Latin American Anthropology

dinator of the International Division of Community Medicine, Mt. Sinai School of Medicine (City University of New York) during 1992-1995 and since 1995, as faculty with the Department of Anthropology for the University of Maryland at College Paik Observations were also derived d u r ^ Institute) Nacional de AntropobgH y Pensamiento Latinoamericano in Buenos Aires, Argentina during the summer of 1999, and as invited Professor for the Universidad Nacional de Misiones, Argentina during the summer of 2001. 5. Some of those contacted because of their concern with using anthropological knowledge in action contexts associated the term "applied anthropology" with topdown development projects received with much critkdsm by dependency theorists in Latin America since the seventies (see Chew and Denemark 1996). 6. ">Xeundenstardartfiopologja professional artfriropologists, outside or iiisideacademia, that implies p l ^ ^ implementing actions for state or private entities... that result in the modification of life conditions of specified populations" (Ratier 1995:6, my translation). 7. The "Segundo Encuentto de la AritiorxiogiadekGestico" took place August 30 and 31,2001, at the Universidad Nacional de Buenos Aires, Argentina. 8. Although many were contacted, only a few responded and even fewer were able to attend a meeting taking place in North America. The present discussie^ fore,resultsfromoral and written presentations. 9. Not all papers were prepared for publication. However, this introduction could not have been written without the presentations cfaflsessienm^^ especially, the contributions of anthropologists Xavier Albo (Bolivia), Mercedes Doretti (Argentina) and Eduardo Menendez and Victoria Novelo (Mexico). 10. The Argentine Forensic Anthropology Team/ Equipo Argentino de Antropologia Forense was created by Dr. Clyde Snow, renowned U.S. forensic anthropologist, who was commissioned by the American Association for the Advancement of Science to respond to the call by the National Commission on the Disappearance of People created by the Argentine government in 1984 to document recent atrocities. During the next decade, Dr. Snow and the Argentine Team helped train similar forensic anthropology teams in Chile and Guatemala.

References Cited
Albo, Xavier 1998 La estrategia de desarrollo rural de CIPCA (CIPCA's Strategy for Rural Development). Paper presented to J. Freidenberg, Session Organizer, "Debating the Uses of Anthropology: Latin America and the U.S.," Society for Applied Anthropology Annual Meetings, San

Debating the Uses of Anthropology in the U.S. and Latin America

17

Juan, Puerto Rico. Chambers, E. 1985 Applied Anthropology: A Practical Guide. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Chew, Sing C. and Robert Allen Denemark (eds.) 1996 The Underdevelopment of Development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Doretti, Mercedes 1998 La antropologia forense y la investigation de la violation de derechos humanos en America Latina (Forensic Anthropology and Research on Human Rights Violation in Latin America). Paper presented to J. Freidenberg, Session Organizer, "Debating the Uses of Anthropology: Latin America and the U.S.," Society for Applied Anthropology Annual Meetings, San Juan, Puerto Rico. Duany, Jorge (ed.) 1990 Los dominicanos en Puerto Rico: Migration en la semi-periferia. Rio Piedras, Puerto Rico. Fiske, SJ. and E. Chambers 1996 Inventions of Practice. Human Organization 55 (1): 1-12 Freyermuth Enciso, Graciela 1998 La etnografia como instrumento para las acciones de sensibilization y la generacion de propuestas: Hacia la problematica de la muerte materna. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Applied Anthropology, San Juan, Puerto Rico. Freyermuth Enciso, Graciela and Mariana Fernandez Guerrero 2001 El material etnografico como un instrumento para la identification de factores de riesgo y la generacion de propuestas en relation al problema de la muerte materna. Unpublished manuscript. Hannerz, Ulf 1998 Transnational Research. In Handbook of Methods in Cultural Anthropology, Bernard H.R., ed. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press. Harrison, F. (ed.) 1997 Decolonizing Anthropology: Moving Further Toward an Anthropology for Liberation. Second Edition. Arlington, Virginia: American Anthropological Association. Maack, S.C. 1995 Applying Anthropology in Urban Non-Profit Organizations. In Applying Anthropology in the Inner City. Urban Anthropology and Studies of Cultural Systems and World Economic Development 24:137-88. 18 The Journal of Latin American Anthropology

Menendez, Eduardo 1998 Antropologia medica y epidemiologia: Proceso de convergenda o proceso de medicalizacion? (Medical Anthropology and Epidemiology: A Process of Convergence of Medicalizatioa?) Paper presented to J. Freidenberg, Session Organizer, "Debating the Uses of Anthropology: Latin America and the U.S.," Society for Applied Anthropology Annual Meetings, San Juan, Puerto Rico. Mulero, Maria D. 2000 Strategies for Survival in a Changing Economic Structure: The Puerto Rican Women in the Informal Economy. Ph.D. Dissertation. Temple University. NAPA (National Association for the Practice of Anthropology) 1995 Insider Anthropology. NAPA Bulletin Number 16. Arlington, Virginia: American Anthropological Association. Novelo, Victoria 1998 La antropologia mexicana y la nacionalidad. (Mexican Anthropology and Nationality). Paper presented toj. Freidenberg, Session Organizer, "Debating the Uses of Anthropology: Latin America and the U.S.," Society for Applied Anthropology Annual Meetings, San Juan, Puerto Rico. ParedesJA 1997 The Influences of Government Policies and Academic Theories on the Practice of Applied Anthropology in the United States: Some Personal Observations. Human Organization 56 (4): 484-9. Ratier, H.E. 1995 Documento base. Colegio de Graduados en Antropologia. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Universidad Nacional de Buenos Aires. Shore, Cris and Susan Wright 2000 Anthropology of Policy. London: Association for European Social Anthropologists. StewardJ.H. 1956 The People of Puerto Rico: A Study in Social Anthropology Michigan: University of Illinois Press. Wulff, R.M. and SJ. Fiske (eds.) 1987 Anthropological Praxis: Translating Knowledge into Action. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Debating the Uses of Anthropology in the U.S. and Latin America

19