Anyway, so maybe an alternative strategy is situational, pragmatic, attendent to concerns of actual communities and negotiated solutions. Which is why it’s delightful to realize that there are these days many ‘communities’ that really do recognize same-sex marriage, and where it’s really not a big deal. LIke, Amsterdam!, where I am presently sitting, looking out over the IJ River.

[Note to someone at Wiley-Blackwell: Please fix the tagging for this blog!]

I’ve saved the previous marriage blog for future reference. Thanks again.

As someone who’s always been an activist and “theoretical” anthropologist (and sees them as mutually informing), I think there are several issues going on here.

One is this interesting pattern in contemporary anthropology (by which I mean the last 30 years or so) where there are all kinds of insecurities and hand-wringing about relevance, being public etc.

This despite the fact that: #1 anthropology is actually quite relevant and influential in a range of domains, and not simply based upon claims to being scientific.

#2, despite the fact that in any case, what would count as sufficient influence is rarely clear.

#3, anthropology also has an important role to play in the academy, and despite the anti-intellectualism you often find in the U.S. (including, ironically, amongst some U.S. intellectuals), the academy remains an important place. In fact, it is a key aspect of “the public.”

I think Thomas is right that a lot of what’s going on here has to do with notions of modernity. In my GLQ piece last year (“When Marriage Falls”: see my website), which is a queer theoretical argument in favor of supporting the possibility of same-sex marriage, I develop a notion of “straight time” to think through how heteronormative temporality is literally predicated upon a notion that time is linear, that is, “straight.” It’s a longer (and hopefully interesting) argument but the overall claim is quite consonant with what Thomas is saying about the often implicit place of modernity in these debates.

Communities do decide what counts as acceptable practice. That’s what community means and it’s a human principle worth defending. Therefore the language of human rights about marriage or anything else tends to be either the product of a particular community sneakily trying to universalize its own norms or an attempt to put individuals before communities to the obvious destruction of the latter (and eventually, the former via anomie). Such a dilemma, with elucidation and discussion our only recourse.

Btw I’d like to reiterate Strong’s recommendation of Oneman’s previous guided discussion on this topic. It really is excellent.

I believe anthropology would indeed have a great deal to offer in an open discussion of the issues involved, if finding/building consensus were the goal. Your question, who would it convince if anthropologists were to show the existence of “a custom literally called gay marriage?” is an excellent one for reflecting on the utility of that line of argument for actually opening and changing people’s minds.

I realize these comments could be read as anti-modern in the appeal to community standards (ala Michael Sandel), but what could be more modern than suggesting an appeal to reason, and using anthropology to elucidate the deeply human concerns that marriage raises universally.