Brazilian Anthropology as seen in ABA data for the Global Survey of Anthropological Practice. From an imaginary nation to a defense of rights

Abstract The article explores the characteristics of Brazilian anthropology identified by analyzing the response of more than 300 Brazilian anthropologists to the GSAP. Even if there is a movement towards internationalization, the data shows that majority of anthropologists in the country conduct research in Brazil and are employed by universities. The article argues that the thematic foci most often chosen are due to the anthropologist's public role in combining research with defense of rights since the 70’s. Social or cultural anthropology are the topical expertise of the majority of Brazilian anthropologists, followed by ethnology. The thematic foci most often cited are: ethnicity and social identity; urban anthropology; political anthropology; Indigenous peoples and colonialism; gender and sexuality. In a Brazilian society where democracy is not consolidated, an anthropological study rarely fails to raise a political debate, either among anthropologists, as it was the case for racial quotas or, either, confronting segments of society or government. In this sense, Brazilian anthropology’s focus on national social and political issues cannot be considered from the European or American point of view to be the same as “anthropology at home”. The voices of Anthropologists are present in the public arena and in many cases have influenced state practices.

摘要 本文通过分析300余名巴西人类学家对GSAP的反馈，探究巴西人类学的特征。尽管存在国际化发展趋势，但数据显示该国绝大多数人类学家的研究均在巴西境内开展，且就职于高等院校。本文指出，自20世纪70年代以来，人类学家将研究与权利维护相结合的公共角色，是其选定主流研究主题的核心动因。巴西人类学家的主流专业领域为社会文化人类学，其次为民族学。学界最常提及的研究主题包括：族群与社会认同、城市人类学、政治人类学、原住民群体与殖民主义、性别与性研究。在民主尚未巩固的巴西社会，人类学研究几乎必然引发政治争论——既可能在人类学界内部引发争议（如种族配额议题），也可能与社会群体或政府产生立场对立。就此而言，若以欧美视角评判，巴西人类学对本国社会与政治议题的关注，不能等同于“本土人类学（anthropology at home）”的范畴。人类学家的发声活跃于公共领域，且在诸多案例中对国家治理实践产生了影响。