Hosts, Again: From Conditional Inclusion and Liberal Censorship to Togetherness and Creative/Critical Refugee Epistemologies

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Review of the article

“WRITING OTHERWISE: FROM LIBERAL CENSORSHIP TO SELF-AUTHORIZED REFUGEE EPISTEMOLOGIES”

I am grateful for the opportunity to read the submitted article. It is a sharp and powerful piece of writing that addresses some of the problems of anthropology understood as a cultural critique of the ‘West’/’Us’. These issues have been widely felt yet remain woefully undertheorized. The article goes a step further by finding the words to articulate them.

I recommend publication without revisions. I will still share below my reflections and thoughts prompted by the article.

The author begins by describing the conditional acceptance of refugees in (neo)liberal democracies such as Germany, the US, and Croatia. They vividly portray that there is a specific place for refugees in the cultural life of (neo)liberal democracies, provided their stories affirm the foundational premises of these political collectives and respect the moral sensitivity of its citizens. Stories that affirm the liberal order can easily become objects for consumption. Any attempt to utter anything else gets ignored or, more or less violently, shut down. Part of the problem here is that the speaking platforms to which the displaced persons are invited are severely limiting; another part is that most of us generally have little to no influence over what other people will do with our words.

The critique of conditional acceptance of refugees is followed by an important reflection on the liberal assumptions of cultural anthropology as a discipline. The author considers the problems of writing a critique that does not and cannot differentiate between ‘Them’ and ‘Us’, because the anthropologist was the refugee, and the refugee becomes an anthropologist. They suggest that this blurring of subject positions changes the character of the anthropological project: “Rather than critique, liberation – however tentative or uncertain – is the goal.”

I wonder what kind of pronoun, and grammatical form, would be appropriate for the intellectual project that goes beyond the cultural critique of the West? To insert myself into this review: as a person who has never been a refugee, but whose heart has been similarly broken several times by anthropology, what would infrastructures of togetherness (what a beautiful term!) look like? What would be the modus of engagement of an anthropology that works towards building a political form able to bring together “witches, engineers, elders, perverts, Christians, mothers, and Leninists long enough to disarm the state”, to quote Donna Haraway? And what kind of a political collective could be built in its place?

The experimental format of the article, with poetry and comments (author’s?) on the side, works beautifully. The comments illustrate that thinking is always a conversation, at the very least a conversation we have with ourselves.

Two questions that may or may not be useful: What is the difference between the infrastructures of togetherness (p. 1) and infrastructures of support (p. 25)? Is there a difference between substantive critique (p. 21), radical self-critique (p. 22), and liberation as goals for an anthropology done differently?

Author Response

Thank you very much for your thoughtful, kind, and encouraging feedback. I have substantively revised and clarified the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

I'll be honest and say that I've hardly ever read or reviewed an article I thought to be more necessary for the discipline of anthropology, and beyond (for instance, those who work directly with refugee and asylum services, with narrative theory, etc.). I believe this article will have broad ranging implications, if the critique that the author is making is heeded (and believed, as the author shows how refugee narratives are often ignored/reframed/seen as "lies" unless they fit within certain parameters that do not critique their interlocutors, nor the regimes of power that... create the conditions for displacement in the first place.

The writing itself was so beautiful -- I say this as a person who pays attention to the aesthetics of language (which is, of course, like all aesthetics, subjective). The writing is such a pleasure to read -- though full of painful truths and necessary critique. That beautiful writing is part of the value of publishing this kind of innovative writing and critiques of the discipline. And of course, the work, critique, and analysis is supported by the necessary scholarship.

I commented extensively on my downloaded copy of the article. Many of the comments are simply my acknowledgement of how necessary I think such a critique to be, for the discipline. A few comments ask for a slight clarification or an addition to the existing text, to emphasise the point. 

I am deeply honored that I was asked to read this article. Thank you for the opportunity and gift of this writing and critique. I go into the New Year with this writing, knowing that scholars like this writer will (hopefully) inform the discipline (and others) to do better. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you very much for your thoughtful, kind, and encouraging feedback and detailed comments. I have substantively revised and clarified the manuscript.