We believe that a stance against advocacy and activism is flawed and unrealistic.
Scientists are not and cannot be wholly objective or unbiased. We are humans asking questions about the world around us. In fact, scholarship demonstrates how propagation of the objectivity myth is damaging to science and is a product of White, cisgender, abled, and heterosexual privilege. “Pure objectivity” is a fallacy: Lived experience, cultural contexts, and the particularities of each case all impact and inform the work of forensic scientists.
This myth of objectivity can also have substantial effects in the courtroom, where jurors expect experts and their science to be infallible; as we have seen from the numerous cases overturned due to faulty forensic evidence or methodologies, failure to acknowledge and control for our own subjectivity can have devastating consequences for victims’ families and those who have been falsely accused.
Further, the field of forensic anthropology has thankfully grown increasingly diverse, comprised of individuals from activist-oriented and marginalized communities who may share identities with the deceased. It is therefore unreasonable to expect scientists to remain silent when we see harm, including racialized police violence, life-threatening border policies, and violent anti-transgender legislation intensifying within our own communities and those we serve.
ADVOCATING FOR THE DEAD—AND THE LIVING
Advocacy and activism are nothing new to anthropology. Cultural anthropologists, archaeologists, and biological anthropologists have included these actions in their scholarship for decades.
We argue that staying neutral does not make science better, and ignoring advocacy and activism goes against anthropology’s mission to deeply understand and improve lives. Research focused on activism challenges unfair and inequitable systems and helps us reduce harm in the communities we serve.
Consider the life of William Montague Cobb, one of the only Black biological anthropologists during the mid-20th century, who was also an avid scholar-activist. Cobb advocated for increased health care for Black Americans, boycotted organizations in racially segregated cities, and was active in civil rights organizations—all while producing research that countered the myth that Black people were biologically inferior. Cobb’s overt advocacy and activism serve as an example of how such engagement may not be a choice for some. His activism was inseparable from his scholarship, and our field benefited greatly from his work.
Individuals from marginalized communities serve as advocates and activists as they navigate spaces that were not made for their success. For them, advocacy and activism are an added demand for entry into a majority White, cisgender, abled, and heterosexual profession such as anthropology. We understand that not every forensic anthropologist can participate in overt activism. Some are employed in governmental organizations or in jurisdictions that may limit their political engagement. Yet when considering the advocacy-activism spectrum, working within the realms of education, casework, and research presents new possibilities.
