leaping: a primal act of faith in humankind

I am convinced that Michel-Rolph Trouillot is brilliant.
Professor Ulysse assigned us, her Contemporary Anthroplogical Theory class, chapters from his book, Global Transformations: Anthropology and the Modern World (New York: Palgrave Macmillan 2003). For today, our last day, we read the last chapter.


i read this chapter and got so excited about it that i texted clasmate/dear friend sarah brown saying, 'trouillot read my mind. (though obviously said it better)' and she texted me back so i knew she was awake so i called her so i could share with someone how much i loved the reading and we were both in the library, i was in the stairwell and she was in a quiet space so walked out into the stairway to be able to talk and we pretty much walked right into each other and got to have an in-person moment about how incredible and powerful and important this was...

reading it was ecstatic for me-- an intellectual orgasm of sorts.
so much of what trouillot described is how i understand things-- that we have a choice in how we see things, glass half empty or half full, humankind as inherently good or inherently bad, and not only can we interpret the past in either way, but we can create the future in either way, and we must take the LEAP, without reason except for that there is no better option, and act/live/believe/understand/create/write/love based on a deep faith in humankind.
and so of course to see this faith-in-humankind so intrinsically linked to anthropology( as an ACADEMIC discipline), or maybe the other way around, as trouillot does, was...inspiring.

PLEASE get ahold of this book and read as much of it as possible.
it is not just about anthropology, but about academe, activism, globalization, power, oppression, agency, the West, the world, humanity.
in the meantime, some excerpts:

"[ In A Discourse on Inequality] Rousseau does not share in the certainty of progress or the necessary improvement of humanity along teleological lines. Contrary to many thinkers of his time, he does not see the inevitability of the great march forward. Yet Rousseau leaps anyway, but backward--as it were--into savagery: if I cannot bet on the Savage, how can i bet on us? He must assume, for no reason, that humanity is essentially good, its history notwithstanding." (135)

"Moral optimism need not produce political naiveté. The two become close only when that optimism is shameful, when it refuses to present itself as a primal act of faith in humankind, however qualified by history and politics." (p. 135)

"We [anthropologists] owe it to ourselves and to our interlocutors to say loudly that we have seen alternative visions of humankind--indeed more than any academic discipline--and that we know that this one may not be the most respectful of the planet we share, nor indeed the more accurate nor the most practical. We also owe it to ourselves to say that it is not the most beautiful nor the most optimistic." (139)

"At the end of the day, in this age where futures are murky and utopias mere reminders of a lost innocence, we need to fall back on the moral optimism that has been anthropology's greatest--yet underscored--appeal. But we need to separate that optimism from the naiveté that has been liberalism's most convenient shield. We need to assume it as a choice--whether we call it moral, philosophical, or aesthetic in the best sense. We need to hang on to it not because we are historicall, socially, or politically naive--indeed as social scientists we cannot afford such naiveté--but because this is the side of humanity that we choose to prefer, and because this choice is what moved us to anthropology in the first place. We need to assume that optimism because the alternatives are lousy, and because anthropology as a discipline is the best venue through which the West can show an undying faith in the richness and variability of humankind." (139)