Jeremy Kingsley and Kari Telle’s provocation article raises several
important issues. The thrust of their argument as I understand it is that
anthropology does not matter much to the field of law in many parts
of the world. They are quick to point out, however, that this is a relative
point and that their comparative frame takes as its point of departure
the much greater degree of intellectual engagement that obtains
between schools of medicine and public health on the one hand and the
field of anthropology on the other. I concur with their overall argument
but will phrase it in slightly different terms: despite the robust collaborations
that sometimes involve legal scholars and anthropologists (e.g.
in legal clinics at New York University and elsewhere; see Merry, this
issue), faculty in law schools are much less likely to embrace the work
of anthropologists than are their colleagues who specialise in medicine
and public health. In this brief comment, I offer tentative hypotheses as
to why this situation exists in the North American context. I approach
the relevant issues from a historical perspective, focusing on hierarchies
of legitimacy and prestige, shifts in both academia and the job market
for anthropologists, and the rise of neoliberal doctrines in academia
and beyond.
