The Yanomami Controversy

1431 Words3 Pages

When out in the field, how should an anthropologist conduct themselves to ensure their fieldwork is ethical for everyone involved? What role does an anthropologist play during and after the study of a group of people? These questions expose problems that anthropologists could encounter when performing fieldwork among highly vulnerable groups such as the problems Napoleon Chagnon and his colleague, James Neel, encountered when studying the Yanomami tribe of the Amazon rainforest. Chagnon is a renowned but contentious anthropologist that during and after his fieldwork among the Yanomami, detailed in his ethnography Yanomamö: The Fierce People, generated controversy for his behavior toward the Amazonian Indians. The Chagnon controversy not only …show more content…

Robert Borofsky, anthropology professor and author of Yanomami: The Fierce Controversy, “Many perceived the problem as being larger than the mistakes of two famous scientists. They wondered if anthropology…had gone astray in allowing such behavior…” (Borofsky 2005: page 3). Whether looking at the details or big picture of the Chagnon controversy, Napoleon Chagnon and James Neel were in violation of the principles of informed consent, the ethic of “do no harm”, and offering just compensation by their unscrupulous actions toward the Yanomami. These principles are crucial to anthropological fieldwork because they ensure complete knowledge of the study by the subjects, convey what role the anthropologist plays in relation to their subjects, and allow for both parties to equally benefit from the information …show more content…

Chagnon and Neel’s violation of the principles of informed consent, the ethic of “do no harm”, and offering just compensation initiated a reevaluation of their significance. These principles permit more ethical anthropological fieldwork by ensuring complete knowledge of the study by the subjects, conveying what role the anthropologist plays in relation to their subjects, and allowing for both parties to equally benefit from the information gained. If another anthropologist were to conduct an ethnoarchaeological study involving the Yanomami, they would have to conduct their research differently to avoid another controversy. First, the anthropologist would have to extensively outline the purpose and effects of the research. This complete research outline should be explained to the Yanomami and if this is not possible then the outline should be rewritten for clarification. Once explained, the anthropologist should address any concerns the Yanomami may have and if this is not possible then the outline should be rewritten to address these concerns. When both parties agree on the research, then the anthropologist should receive some form of signed consent from the Yanomami. Second, the anthropologist should compile all the information they have collected and have it reviewed by the Yanomami, this includes any

Open Document