As anthropologists, we revel in self-criticism and questioning. Shedding light on preconceptions is perhaps the greatest joy anthropology offers – a moment of revelation: showing something considered complex to be simple; something thought obvious to be intricate, and practices seen as ‘normal’ suddenly appearing alien. We enjoy this revelatory moment as much, if not more when it is focused on our own discipline. Sharing this with our students can be hugely gratifying. But this joy is not necessarily transferable if it appears as ‘us’ (anthropology), criticizing ‘them’ (development).

To be able to successfully communicate, we need to recognize the ways in which students, particularly in courses they are treating as vocational, are increasingly using their choice of discipline in self-affirmation. We need to recognize that when we are teaching, we are not simply engaging with academic discourses and debates, but develop structures of the learners’ Selves. Only then can we attempt to counter defensive barriers and the emotive responses that blinker students into focusing only on the negatives. There is no doubt that while students continue to embrace the moral crusade of Development presented in the media and politics, they will suffer a personal crisis when it comes to re-evaluating these beliefs. Our role then is to be aware of this so we can be ready to teach accordingly, to support them to find their own way through to the other side.

In anthropology, my experience of teaching is that we offer many critical courses, but stop short of going on to show how our critical, self-reflective content can have a positive application in ‘the real world.’ The opportunity to develop a student’s self-structure, namely their critical capacity, broadens horizons both inside and well beyond anthropology. There must be real world application, for such application illuminates how introversion can contribute to the world, therefore communicating anthropology’s relevance as a discipline. Nonetheless, we often leave it up to students to address this aspect themselves, to make sense of our tendency to deconstruct the world. Is it any wonder then that so often they charge anthropology with producing only critical deconstruction, and making no contributions to the ‘real’ problems of contemporary life? What we are witnessing in such statements is the relevance and positive contribution of anthropological knowledge getting ‘lost in translation.’ As moral discourse and crusade rhetoric become more prominent in the practices of development, anthropology must make itself heard and listened to if we are to influence the practitioners about the future.

To successfully communicate what are increasingly important anthropological critiques of development practice, we need to recognize how student encounters with these criticisms can cause a defensive reaction that limits interdisciplinary understanding. Working to strengthen students’ capacity for self-reflective learning is, therefore, crucial to the successful communication of anthropology not just within development studies, but also more widely, as a constructive, relevant discipline for the 21st century.

Find an error? Take a screenshot, email it to us at error@mytestingsolution.com, and we’ll send you $3!