What do you think?
Rate this book
Yanomami: The Fierce Controversy and What We Can Learn from It
Yanomami raises questions central to the field of anthropology―questions concerning the practice of fieldwork, the production of knowledge, and anthropology's intellectual and ethical vision of itself. Using the Yanomami controversy―one of anthropology's most famous and explosive imbroglios―as its starting point, this book draws readers into not only reflecting on but refashioning the very heart and soul of the discipline. It is both the most up-to-date and thorough public discussion of the Yanomami controversy available and an innovative and searching assessment of the current state of anthropology.
The Yanomami controversy came to public attention through the publication of Patrick Tierney's best-selling book, Darkness in El Dorado, in which he accuses James Neel, a prominent geneticist who belonged to the National Academy of Sciences, as well as Napoleon Chagnon, whose introductory text on the Yanomami is perhaps the best-selling anthropological monograph of all time, of serious human rights violations. This book identifies the ethical dilemmas of the controversy and raises deeper, structural questions about the discipline. A portion of the book is devoted to a unique roundtable in which important scholars on different sides of the issues debate back and forth with each other. This format draws readers into deciding, for themselves, where they stand on the controversy’s―and many of anthropology’s―central concerns.
All of the royalties from this book will be donated to helping the Yanomami improve their healthcare.
The Yanomami controversy came to public attention through the publication of Patrick Tierney's best-selling book, Darkness in El Dorado, in which he accuses James Neel, a prominent geneticist who belonged to the National Academy of Sciences, as well as Napoleon Chagnon, whose introductory text on the Yanomami is perhaps the best-selling anthropological monograph of all time, of serious human rights violations. This book identifies the ethical dilemmas of the controversy and raises deeper, structural questions about the discipline. A portion of the book is devoted to a unique roundtable in which important scholars on different sides of the issues debate back and forth with each other. This format draws readers into deciding, for themselves, where they stand on the controversy’s―and many of anthropology’s―central concerns.
All of the royalties from this book will be donated to helping the Yanomami improve their healthcare.
391 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2005
2 people are currently reading
83 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews
December 28, 2020
This is an excellent source for students and practicing anthropologists re ethics in ethnography. Though it deals with only one very complex case, it does so thoroughly, offering guidelines to practicing ethnographers, also addressing the weaknesses of AAA in dealing with these problems. I read the first two parts only, so far, but intend to read more.
November 30, 2012
Borofsky’s Yanomami: The Fierce Controversy
The ethics of the study performed by Neel and Chagnon on the Yanomami people have caused great concern in the field of Anthropology. One of the major concerns is the idea that if anthropologists are working among a group of people who are living in dire or desperate circumstances, such as poverty or illness; what does the role of the anthropologist become? Unfortunately, this is no simple question to answer.
The primary ethical objective for the anthropologist is to “do no harm”. This directive encompasses not only the physical lives of the people who are being studied, but also includes the avoidance of harm, either direct or indirect, in the future lives of the people. The anthropologist has an obligation to weigh the outcomes of their study, and try to avoid harmful impacts or consequences on the study group. It is in the task of determining potential harms and how said harms are to be avoided that make ethics in anthropology so complex.
Anthropologists always have a goal in mind when conducting field research and the goal is mainly an intellectual one. However, academic goals should not take precedence over the health and welfare of the people who are being studied. The understanding that anthropologists do have other responsibilities to a variety of other people including their funders, future anthropologists and research subjects; however, when viewing the case for the Yanomami, and the research done by Chagnon and Neel, it is clear that the media attention brought to the case because of the ethical questioning of the research methods completely undermined the entire study, which is disruptive to all parties.
The center of the Yanomami controversy revolves around the allegations brought forth by journalist, Patrick Tierney. Tierney accused James Neel, a geneticist, of starting a deadly measles epidemic among the Yanomami people by administering a vaccine to hundreds of the Yanomami people in 1968. Tierney also laid heavy criticism on the anthropologist Napoleon Chagnon for his illustration of the Yanomami people in a negative light which in turn caused more strife between the people themselves, but also between their governments.
“Neel originally planned the expedition for the purpose of collecting blood samples and other biological data that would have a bearing on his research in genetic variation among Indigenous communities”. (pg.153) Neel was unable to set aside his academic research goals in order to help the Yanomami people. This is not to say that he did not try. According to Hill: “James Neel’s actions saved more Yanomami lives during this epidemic than any other person on the planet, yet he is roundly criticized for not doing more than he did”. (pg. 84) In my opinion, yes, Neel did go to great lengths to help the Yanomami people during this disastrous turn of events, however, he was unable or unwilling to set aside his academic goals. Instead, Neel tried to walk the center of the road, both performing his work, while trying to aid the Yanomami, and in the end, both were found wanted.
Another issue surrounding this controversy is the consequences of not only what Neel and Chagnon did in 1968, but also, the consequences of Tierney’s spot-light accusations against them. Firstly, when giving a vaccination in the way that Neel did, the effects must be taken into account. By diagnosing and then vaccinating the Yanomami people with the measles vaccine, it is possible that Neel could have created a demand among the people for the medicine, which in turn could skew the data that was collected by Chagnon. However, it was not Neel’s decision alone to treat the Yanomami people. The Yanomami people were willing participants, (whether or not informed consent was gained is a whole other issue) and if they were willing to receive the vaccine against a disease that Neel knew was prevalent, and he did not administer it, that would have been unethical as well.
Secondly, Mr. Tierney, in challenging the methods and approach taken with the Yanomami people, caused such a media frenzy that could potentially have effects on future efforts of vaccination among those groups of people in need. The legacy of questioning ethics within the field of anthropological study is an enduring one, and there is no correct answer, or whole truth that can be followed. It could also be argued that Mr. Tierney’s allegations honed in on an area of anthropology that was and is still found lacking, which in turn allowed for more internal review by anthropologists across the entire field.
In conclusion, anthropology is invariably the act of humans working with other humans; and it will be the individual choices made by each anthropologist that guides them when making ethical choices about fieldwork.
The ethics of the study performed by Neel and Chagnon on the Yanomami people have caused great concern in the field of Anthropology. One of the major concerns is the idea that if anthropologists are working among a group of people who are living in dire or desperate circumstances, such as poverty or illness; what does the role of the anthropologist become? Unfortunately, this is no simple question to answer.
The primary ethical objective for the anthropologist is to “do no harm”. This directive encompasses not only the physical lives of the people who are being studied, but also includes the avoidance of harm, either direct or indirect, in the future lives of the people. The anthropologist has an obligation to weigh the outcomes of their study, and try to avoid harmful impacts or consequences on the study group. It is in the task of determining potential harms and how said harms are to be avoided that make ethics in anthropology so complex.
Anthropologists always have a goal in mind when conducting field research and the goal is mainly an intellectual one. However, academic goals should not take precedence over the health and welfare of the people who are being studied. The understanding that anthropologists do have other responsibilities to a variety of other people including their funders, future anthropologists and research subjects; however, when viewing the case for the Yanomami, and the research done by Chagnon and Neel, it is clear that the media attention brought to the case because of the ethical questioning of the research methods completely undermined the entire study, which is disruptive to all parties.
The center of the Yanomami controversy revolves around the allegations brought forth by journalist, Patrick Tierney. Tierney accused James Neel, a geneticist, of starting a deadly measles epidemic among the Yanomami people by administering a vaccine to hundreds of the Yanomami people in 1968. Tierney also laid heavy criticism on the anthropologist Napoleon Chagnon for his illustration of the Yanomami people in a negative light which in turn caused more strife between the people themselves, but also between their governments.
“Neel originally planned the expedition for the purpose of collecting blood samples and other biological data that would have a bearing on his research in genetic variation among Indigenous communities”. (pg.153) Neel was unable to set aside his academic research goals in order to help the Yanomami people. This is not to say that he did not try. According to Hill: “James Neel’s actions saved more Yanomami lives during this epidemic than any other person on the planet, yet he is roundly criticized for not doing more than he did”. (pg. 84) In my opinion, yes, Neel did go to great lengths to help the Yanomami people during this disastrous turn of events, however, he was unable or unwilling to set aside his academic goals. Instead, Neel tried to walk the center of the road, both performing his work, while trying to aid the Yanomami, and in the end, both were found wanted.
Another issue surrounding this controversy is the consequences of not only what Neel and Chagnon did in 1968, but also, the consequences of Tierney’s spot-light accusations against them. Firstly, when giving a vaccination in the way that Neel did, the effects must be taken into account. By diagnosing and then vaccinating the Yanomami people with the measles vaccine, it is possible that Neel could have created a demand among the people for the medicine, which in turn could skew the data that was collected by Chagnon. However, it was not Neel’s decision alone to treat the Yanomami people. The Yanomami people were willing participants, (whether or not informed consent was gained is a whole other issue) and if they were willing to receive the vaccine against a disease that Neel knew was prevalent, and he did not administer it, that would have been unethical as well.
Secondly, Mr. Tierney, in challenging the methods and approach taken with the Yanomami people, caused such a media frenzy that could potentially have effects on future efforts of vaccination among those groups of people in need. The legacy of questioning ethics within the field of anthropological study is an enduring one, and there is no correct answer, or whole truth that can be followed. It could also be argued that Mr. Tierney’s allegations honed in on an area of anthropology that was and is still found lacking, which in turn allowed for more internal review by anthropologists across the entire field.
In conclusion, anthropology is invariably the act of humans working with other humans; and it will be the individual choices made by each anthropologist that guides them when making ethical choices about fieldwork.
December 10, 2023
This book is a great starting point for researchers from all fields, not only anthropology. It presents three rounds of a fantastic discussion about the complex "Fierce Controversy" between seven anthropologists. It helps the reader visualize the complexity and deep implications of ethical research and informed consent. I recommend it as material for a class about scientific ethics in any discipline.
Read
April 24, 2025read this for class, was really surprised at how much I was actually interested does this mean I’m an adult?
December 3, 2015
Borofsky is very clearly in the anti-Chagnon camp, and he uses the first half of the book to explain why postmodernist anthropologists believe Chagnon's methods were unethical. The problem is that all the while he's pretending to be impartial. He makes no bones about having a reform agenda for the field though. So this is in no way a fairly weighted back-and-forth. Only two of the contributors are sympathetic to Chagnon, while three others come down strongly (even rabidly) against him (and one remains neutral). When you add the space provided to these three to the entire first half of the book, the sum is a tedious, unconvincing, and repetitive anti-Chagnon screed with a couple of dissenting voices thrown in to give it an undeserved air of legitimacy. One of Chagnon's defenders, Kim Hill, reveals that contributors were instructed to avoid discussions of the evidence pointing to Chagnon's guilt or innocence and to instead focus on the "ethical issues" raised by the controversy. Anyone who isn't in the postmodernists' camp will likely find the whole exchange as insane as I did.
Really, Borofsky's book is nothing but a desperate effort to salvage the campaign against Chagnon after the author of an earlier libelous book about him, "Darkness in El Dorado," was exposed as a fraud. The most important ethical questions raised by both books all have to do with the behavior, not of Chagnon, but of his detractors. This book will really only be of interest to people interested in the moral perversions of postmodernism and the checkered history of anthropology.
Really, Borofsky's book is nothing but a desperate effort to salvage the campaign against Chagnon after the author of an earlier libelous book about him, "Darkness in El Dorado," was exposed as a fraud. The most important ethical questions raised by both books all have to do with the behavior, not of Chagnon, but of his detractors. This book will really only be of interest to people interested in the moral perversions of postmodernism and the checkered history of anthropology.
May 14, 2012
The implications of academic research should be minimal and this book explores the options and implications when they are not. Anthropological accountability is called for, the book may be repetitive but the offenses were most egregious.
February 22, 2011
Not a bad view of everything. Not one that I would normally read, but it is a really good way to look at the whole problem. Borofsky does a great job. I think any way
July 30, 2024
Anthropology was a bad idea. Stay in the cave 4/5 stars
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews