Abstract
This article explores anthropology, power, and political engagement first by examining Eric Wolf's approach to power. His concern with structural power challenges our understanding of power as involving imposition and unequal outcomes. It then moves on to consider how ethnographers identify power, from overt conflicts to subtle hegemonies. Although the various ethnographic strategies are insightful, the full extent of structural power does not and cannot emerge directly from empirical material. It requires, in addition, comparisons to other possible states of affairs arising from the theories and values of the social analyst. They function as the inverse of power, illustrating its presence and workings by contrasts. These `counterpart ideals' are ever-present in anthropology and other social sciences, yet we rarely talk about them openly or acknowledge their role in our analysis. One cannot identify a single true or foundational counterpart ideal, yet we can have an open dialogue about them, grounded in rigorous empirical and analytical knowledge. Hence, the article finishes by outlining various possible counterpart ideals for anthropologists and their uses in helping to identify power. The goal is to stimulate further dialogue on the social sciences, power, and political engagement.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
