How did World War II change the relationship between anthropology and colonialism?

World War II had a significant impact on the relationship between anthropology and colonialism, marking a shift in the ways anthropologists viewed their roles in society and their involvement with colonial powers.

1. Ethical Reconsideration: Before and during the early years of World War II, anthropology, like many other disciplines, was often complicit in colonialist agendas. Anthropologists were frequently employed by colonial governments to study and manage indigenous populations, justifying colonialism under the guise of scientific research. They sometimes contributed to the colonial project by providing information that helped colonial powers control and govern indigenous people. However, after World War II, particularly in the wake of the war’s atrocities and the global push for decolonization, there was a growing ethical reconsideration. Many anthropologists began to question the role of their discipline in perpetuating colonial structures and the way it had been used to legitimize imperialist ideologies. The war highlighted the destructive impact of colonialism, leading to a critical rethinking of anthropology’s relationship to colonial domination.
2. Decolonization of the Discipline: The post-war period saw the emergence of movements for decolonization in many parts of the world, as former colonies gained independence. In response to this, anthropologists increasingly began to reconsider their research practices. Many scholars became more aware of the need to work in solidarity with indigenous peoples, respecting their agency and focusing on the social and political realities of colonized populations. As a result, anthropology began to move away from the tradition of “armchair anthropology,” which involved distant, detached research, toward more engaged and participant-centered approaches. This included the development of the fieldwork model, where anthropologists immersed themselves in the communities they studied, with the intention of understanding local perspectives in more nuanced and collaborative ways.
3. Shift Toward Postcolonial Critiques: Post-World War II, a wave of intellectual movements, particularly postcolonial theory, emerged, challenging the traditional colonial narratives embedded in academic disciplines. Anthropologists such as Edward Said (with his seminal work Orientalism in 1978) critiqued how knowledge about the “Other” had been constructed to serve colonial purposes. These critiques called attention to the ways in which anthropology had been complicit in colonial practices and its role in perpetuating stereotypes and justifying imperial control.
4. Emphasis on Indigenous Voices: After WWII, the decolonization of anthropology became more pronounced, with a growing emphasis on giving voice to the subjects of anthropological study, particularly indigenous peoples. Scholars started advocating for methodologies that emphasized collaboration and mutual respect, such as participatory research methods. The aim was to involve local communities in the research process, and in some cases, to allow them to have control over how their cultures were represented.
5. Shifts in Academic and Political Landscape: In the post-war world, as European powers lost their colonies and the Cold War began, anthropology increasingly became part of broader political and social debates about imperialism, human rights, and social justice. Some anthropologists became advocates for the rights of indigenous peoples and began to engage more actively with political movements, pushing for change in the way that both anthropology and colonialism intersected.