Lawyers and Anthropologists - Something in Common?

I recently travelled to Merida, Mexico, to attend the annual meeting of the Society for Applied Anthropology at which my sister, Jean (Jay) Schensul, received the Malinowsky Award for lifetime achievement for her contributions to applied anthropology in writing, community activism, health initiatives, etc. Among her many achievements, Jay founded the Institute for Community Research (ICR), a non-profit society based in Hartford, Conn. Hartford has many diverse ethnic and cultural groups. ICR's mission is to collaborate on research projects with other community groups. The goal is to understand community issues and promote justice and equity in Hartford and elsewhere. Although the goal may seems ambitious, the projects are focussed, targeting very specific problems.

Over the years, Jay obtained grants for research projects on many primarily health related issues for projects in Mexico, Peru, Sri Lanka and India. Through her work, she changed the landscape of applied anthropology in the Western hemisphere. She was and continues to be a “maverick” (not quite like Sarah Palin).

While listening to Jay’s keynote address, what impressed me was her commitment to change and her insight into the systemic problems retarding change. My interpretation was that anthropologists have many skills but must learn to use them in a different way in order to effect change and stay relevant in a milieu where many disciplines compete for resources.

Staying relevant and effecting change are of universal application. Throughout my career I have frequently thought about the relevance of my work and the legal system generally and struggled to find some deeper meaning. But if you are a lawyer, until you determine the role law should play, it is difficult to determine your own part. Visionaries, like Jay, force their peers to confront the larger picture.

In her presentation, Jay pointed out the strengths of trained anthropologists, the systematic weaknesses preventing those in the field from utilizing their skills and abilities, and then described how to use technology to harness those skills and bring about change.

She started with the benefits anthropologists [for almost all you can substitute “lawyer”, “doctor” or “educator” for anthropologist] can offer, for example:
- anthropologists work locally and globally
- Many anthropologists are motivated by social justice concerns.
- Some are artist/scholars
- Anthropology is interdisciplinary
- anthropologists see things as a whole

The systemic roadblocks which prevent real and effective changes to applied anthropology [again many of these all inhibit change to other professions] include:
- archaic rules governing promotion and tenure
- funders, policy makers and schools of public health do not institute training or encourage peer review opportunities for innovative products
- lack of cooperative research efforts between schools of public health and community organizations
- failure to support Community Based Research Organizations (CBRO) or link them to universities
- disinclination to publish innovative community-useful research methods and results which are meaningful but may not meet the standards of university peer-reviewed publications

According to Jay:
“In sum, the message for anthropologists is direct: further engaged action research from university bases, advance infrastructural changes, facilitate the development of CBROs and other forms of community competence in research with social justice objectives; join academy and CBRO forces with community voices to forge and to use new knowledge that makes a difference in reducing inequities and specific disparities in health education, culture and environment; and link with local, national and global networks.

We need to join forces with the action researchers of the north and the south, the sociologists, psychologists, feminists, disability researchers, and community based participatory research for health movement. By reclaiming action research, we forge alliances with researchers all over the globe in emerging networks … concerned with critiquing science, and with producing new community based knowledge in partnership with the communities who most need it.”

She suggests utilizing electronic tools such a national network of researchers linked through a wiki, communicating about their methods and results.

“Imagine a network of activist oriented applied researchers … among them anthropologists, communicating at any point in time and from any position on the globe about inequitable situations on the ground and steps required or taken to remedy them. This is now a technically achievable fundable vision.”

Jay is saying to her cohort group that to remain relevant, to contribute, to make impacts and to preserve their professional status, they must move beyond the confines of their particular expertise and make connections with other disciplines. This requires respect for others and intellectual curiosity. One has to be able to embrace new ideas, rather than be intimidated by them. Jay challenges us to act, seek, explore, understand and progress.

How does this apply to law? Lawyers by nature are drawn to and are comfortable in a world governed by rules (and frequently resist change). We are inundated with seminars and professional literature on how to use technology for the practice of law, research, accounting, billing etc., but are frequently too busy with the day-to-day applications of the law to examine the systemic issues in the law itself and the institutions of law. The universities, law societies and the law firm models that have been around for many decades and are, by and large, accepted but are becoming outmoded and may soon be obsolete. The power of technology is largely ignored as an instrument for the advancement justice in an active participatory manner.

I hope Jay’s work is of interest to a broader audience.