{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.041353383458646614, 'fraction_numerical': 0.007518796992481203, 'mean_word_length': 5.251677852348993, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Responses to ‘“Other Anthropologies and Anthropology Otherwise”: Steps to a World Anthropologies Framework’ by Eduardo Restrepo and Arturo Escobar (June, 2005)

I sympathize with the authors’ intentions. Unfortunately, they attempt to do precisely that which they claim should not be done. The authors try to speak for us, who remain outside the borders of the present-day imperialist centre, instead of speaking of us. In the face of our already consolidated anthropological practices, the authors’ attempt to re-invent ‘anthropologies otherwise’ is a blatant case of ‘translation’ in the sense that Bruno Latour gives to the term, when he defines it as ‘all the negotiations, intrigues, calculations, acts of persuasion and violence by means of which an actor or social force assumes, or confers upon itself, the authority to speak or act in the name of another actor or force’ (Callon and Latour, 1981: 279). Across the globe, we are only anthropologists because we value anthropology. But what anthropology? Not some form of discourse invented anew by ‘theory’, but a discursive tradition that has been building itself up over more than a century. When we become anthropologists, we constitute ourselves as heirs to a backlog of knowledge and knowledge-making dispositions; we do so with a fascinated but critical mind. Are we, then, the unwitting subjects of a ‘normalizing machine’ when we teach our students (in my case, in Macau, Maputo, Lisbon, Barcelona or São Paulo) the most creative anthropology of the past – independently of whether its authors were American, British, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Brazilian, Indian, Chinese, etc.? When our students find it fascinating, have we reproduced ‘coloniality’? Restrepo and Escobar propose a ‘revolutionary’ approach to anthropology that breaks with ‘Eurocentric’ academic discourse, but the seat of 467