Borofsky, Robert. An Anthropology of Anthropology: Is It Time to Shift Paradigms? Kailua, HI: Center for Public Anthropology, 2019, 345 pages

Public anthropology as a field within social/cultural anthropology has gained momentum in the discipline in the last decade or so. The focus of this initiative is, however, not well-defined, and the conceptual territory remains somewhat nebulous. One wonders if the term “public anthropology” is simply one catch phrase among the many that have emerged in the discipline, or if there is something of pedagogical merit here that is sustainable in the long term. As an example, is public anthropology to be understood as a sub-field of applied anthropology? How about “engaged” anthropology, or Sol Tax’s earlier “action” anthropology, or “collaborative” anthropology, or “participatory action research (PAR),” or Malinowski’s “practical” anthropology,” or “activist” anthropology? Unfortunately, this present volume by Borofsky does not shed much useful light on this conceptual issue. As for the future prospects of public anthropology, or the brand of it espoused by Borofsky, Erikson (2006, 32), for example, has cautioned that it is improbable that Borofsky’s book series will attract anyone except other anthropologists. Time will of course tell if this prognostication is accurate or not. Borofsky’s book is well worth reading, if for no other reason than as an epistemological exercise in how to avoid the errors in logic the volume contains and how to circumvent them. The book also represents the failure of the peer-review process in academia, as seen when one enlists friends and colleagues to write favorable reviews and self-congratulatory endorsements of one’s work, and then publishes the work with a publishing house that one controls and directs. In this case, Borofsky, as most people know, is Director of the Center for Public Anthropology and the Series Editor which also published his book. This is not to suggest that self-publishing one’s own work might not lead to a credible result; it is that the scientific scrutiny that this peer-review process engenders does not generally allow for critical analysis. Notice also the numerous anthropologists who have provided endorsements of his work, touted on the very first pages. All are, of course, highly laudatory of Borofsky’s book. He seems to have gone to great lengths to solicit such support, suggesting, one suspects, that the work cannot stand academic scrutiny on its own merits. All of this begins to take on the aura of a special club of academics who tout each other’s works. Where in all of this, one might ask, are the critical appraisals upon which sound academic work flourishes? A case in point is the question posed by Borofsky which is the sub-title of this volume, to wit, “Is it Time to Shift Paradigms?” Most anthropologists would rely on Thomas Kuhn’s, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions for a definition of a “paradigm,” which is to say a research strategy that dominates and guides scientific inquiry. As the author states, “This book seeks to shift cultural anthropology’s paradigm from one focusing on ‘do no harm’ to one emphasizing a ‘public anthropology’ focused on benefiting others” (xi). Rather than viewing cultural anthropology in a global perspective, as the author indicates, the “book narrows its focus to American cultural anthropology.” This approach is what one has come to expect of our American colleagues who seem content to ignore what is happening in the rest of the world. Is this because the author does not care what is happening on a global perspective from the viewpoint of public anthropology, or simply because he happens to be unaware of significant occurrences beyond the confines of American academic borders? There are many themes that have a global perspective that are worth studying, such as Indigenous rights, resistance and public justice, …