Secrets of the Tribe

SECRETS OF THE TRIBE" compiled and directed by Brazilian filmmaker José Padilha, viewed at the Los Angeles Film Festival, LAFF, 2010

A very thought-provoking documentary focusing on the interference of academic anthropologists in the life of an extremely primitive tribe in the Amazon jungle, the Yanomami, in ways that has threatened the very survival of these people. It is also about the squabbles, scandals, and venomous back-biting among these so-called social scientists, arguing over the authenticity of their "findings", with some soul-searching thrown in regarding the irreparable damage that has been inflicted on the people they are theoretically investigating in the name of "the advancement of science". One French anthropologist, a gay disciple of the famous French anthropological theoretician, Levi Strauss, spent 25 years among the Yanomami, apparently teaching the young boys of the tribe the fine points of European pedophilia. An American scholar went down to the Amazon and came back with a Yanomami wife with whom he has fathered three children who can't count past two — the highest number in the Yanomami language. However he was black-balled from the academic community and couldn't find a teaching job. (You ain't supposed to marry these people –you're just supposed to write papers about them…) — Made me shudder since I was once an "anthro" major myself! should be Required viewing for students of genocide.

This is not a straightforward documentary that presents easily digestible facts that can be carried away and recited. For me, it was more like a trial where many perspectives are laid out for the audience, and it is up to each person to decide where they stand. I think the documentary did a great job in sympathizing with each side and making judgment truly difficult.

It's the story of a traumatic epistemological division within an academic discipline. The stakes are high. The divide is nothing short of a disagreement about human nature. One side thinks that there is something in humans that predisposes them towards violence. The other rejects this as a dangerous notion and, even if true (which they probably sincerely do not believe), it is still completely contradictory to the their ethical purpose as academics which is the proliferation and attainment of peace.

Complications arise when we learn that the involved parties did some super shady stuff while they were conducting their research. Each side ushers as much incriminating evidence against the others as they can in order to discredit them. They aren't just mindlessly bickering, they are doing this because they have very different epistemological perspectives on human life.

On top of this, the documentary calls into question problems that are inherent in the entire field of anthropology (or at least anthro at this time period).

I think it would be most enjoyable for people who are interested in this idea that I touched upon--- that it is a story of an academic discipline in epistemological turmoil--- because this happens all the time throughout all of academia.

The documentary portrays the complex web of relations around the discovery of indigenous rain forest tribe, the Yanomami, by Napoleon A. Chagnon. These relations of anthropologists of different schools, and their conflicts has ended in or added up to the total devastation of the members of the tribe, as a consequence of the method and the objective of Chagnon.

Biological anthropologists, who in an attempt to critique the inaccurate representation of the Yanomani people as peaceful, develop the argument that the chances of transferring of genes (taken as the main motives of human 'subjects', the natives in this case) increases in war making tribes compared to more peaceful tribes. However, how can one prove this argument, especially when there is active interference of the anthropologists? Exchange of information and sexual favors with subsistence tools and diseases can leave an 'unacculturated' sphere, as the scientific approach requires?

We are presented a picture of the inner workings of the relations of power between anthropologists of various schools.(structural anthropology and biological anthropology appear, not as opposite poles but dominant elements of a complex network) The ethics of anthropological research has been compramised; and the whole process of research has been devastating to the community.

In short, this documentary presents a powerful critique of the practices of field work in the 60's and 70's, the disciplines relations with government/military complex and the question of the value of the anthropological knowledge over the lives of its subjects.

My knowledge of anthropology is limited to repeated watching of Bones, but I found this documentary to be extremely interesting.

The fact that there is such disagreement among anthropologists makes it difficult to consider that they are truly scientists. It's somewhat akin to Psychology, where there are several right answers to every question.

What was most amazing, however, was the actions of some of these scientists while they were out in the field. Studying a people is one thing, but apparently some are not content to do just that and started making changes in their lives. There were indications of pedophilia and even prostitution was introduced in some villages.

The value of this film lies not in the anthropological facts, which are quite interesting, but in the discussion of behavior of anthropologists that went clearly over the line.

At my uni at year 3 (cultural studies) we were asked to choose one specialism from amongst 5, anthropology was one of them - least popular. I remember one of the students telling me: this is some shady sh*it for white men in linen shorts to be paid for reporting on their grooming of boys and girls in remote communities of indigenous people.

I did not care for this remark, nor anthropology for that matter, but this documentary made me think of it - how possibly spot on it was. Obviously didn't cover the genocide aspect, but still - spot on for the large part.

And the fact that some in this movie are so desperate to call it science - I think if just based on size of egos and number of hypothesis that at the inception, made their creators c*m in their pants - this definitely resembles science and its self-belief in its authority. The "how dare he/she question my theory!" instead of "OK, let's talk then - what would be best next steps considering conflicting perspectives".

The concept of "science of humanity" is great, however how it translated into actual practice of anthropology, is an interesting study of humanity in itself. And that's what this documentary is about, and is excellent in portraying.

I've seen a short clip of a transorbital lobotomy performed on a patient with bipolar disorder today, and then this documentary. I found both equally disturbing.