In your previous research, you studied the moral economy of healthcare in Malinau, what does moral economy mean for you?
Moral economy is a concept discussed not only in anthropology but also across the social sciences and humanities. In my paper, I used it in a specific way, but it’s a long-standing concept overall. Essentially, moral economy examines how moral values, like what we consider right and wrong, are circulated within society. These perceptions are not only internally constructed but also communicated and shaped through political and social relations.
For example, in my study of healthcare, every aspect involves moral considerations. Healthcare workers constantly evaluate the best way to care for patients, considering what is right and what the consequences of their actions might be. These decisions are often influenced by bureaucracy and policy. Indonesian law regulates certain healthcare procedures, but workers sometimes lack the resources to fully comply, creating a moral tension. This illustrates how moral values are circulated and negotiated in real-world contexts.
Do you feel that could be tied to your current research, or maybe to the Ancient Near East in some way?
Yes I think so, because when we talk about history or historiography, which is the act of writing history, scholars constantly debate what is right and wrong. One might think those debates are purely epistemic, so about truth, but they also involve moral questions. What we consider to be “truth” can also raise the question of whether it is right to write history in a particular way, given for example the political circumstances scholars face. There are also questions of representation, which are quite common in Ancient Near Eastern studies and worth discussing further.
So yes, I think there is a connection with the concept of moral economy. However, my current project is more focused on what people usually call economics or political economy. But it’s related, since political economy is also deeply tied to moral questions, even though it’s a different concept.
What does reflexivity mean for you in research?
Reflexivity is key, especially because the history of Ancient Near Eastern studies is deeply intertwined with Western imperialism and colonialism. Early scholars of Ancient Near Eastern studies often entered the field as part of French or British imperial agendas, which shaped the epistemic development of the discipline. Likewise, Anthropology itself has been described as a kind of handmaiden of colonialism in the past, serving as an intellectual tool for control and violence.
In my research, I examine whether scholars today consider this colonial context relevant or assume it can be ignored because colonialism no longer operates in the same way. I look into how any discipline shaped by imperialism retains traces of it in its logic, and that reflexivity is essential to understanding this.
The second focus of my research is economics. Economics, as a discipline, rests on certain assumptions about human nature that I find problematic. For example, the concept of homo economicus assumes humans are purely rational and self-interested, which simplifies human interaction by assuming market logic as a social totality . Historical data, however, shows that human interactions are far more complex.
Part of my project is reflecting on how these economic biases shape the writing of history. Economics is a powerful discourse influencing policy and society. In Indonesia, prominent economists often hold government positions, and anthropologists rarely do. Examining these assumptions helps us question how deeply ingrained economic thinking affects both historical interpretation and modern societal structures.
You’re conducting your research among peers. Do you see yourself as doing anthropology of historians or anthropology with historians?
This is an important question because it touches on a major debate in anthropology. Historically, anthropologists often studied societies as outsiders, assuming they could observe objectively without influencing their subjects, for example, think of Malinowski in the Trobriand Islands, Clifford Geertz in Java, or Evans-Pritchard in Africa. These approaches assumed the anthropologist’s presence had little impact, producing what was called “anthropology of” a group.
However, an anthropologist’s presence always influences the subjects. For this reason, I prefer to frame my work as anthropology with historians. There is a reciprocal influence, as I affect how they think, and they influence my understanding. Doing anthropology with others also acknowledges power dynamics between researcher and subjects and encourages navigating those dynamics fairly.
How do you personally navigate being part of the community you study, as a colleague within the team and as an ethnographer?
I interact with colleagues as I would normally, as part of the team. For me, ethnography is not about uncovering an objective “truth”, but understanding how others perceive and reason about truth. My presence is acknowledged and considered by participants, which is part of the research itself.
I observe interactions, debates, and what scholars highlight in their arguments, while participating in the team in a natural way. This approach respects the reality that all interactions are shaped by my presence and that no engagement is inherently less authentic.
What kind of ethical dimensions are included in doing research about your colleagues?
Ethics are central. When I critically analyze colleagues in my ethnography, I must consider how to write in a way that is critical but fair. Ethnography is inherently about representation and representing someone unfairly is a serious ethical concern.
Writing about scholars presents challenges, but representing marginalized communities introduces even greater responsibility. Scholars often have privileges, including access to academic language and networks, whereas marginalized communities may not. This requires constant reflection to avoid misrepresentation or injustice in doing anthropology.
What kind of sources or materials are you working with?
There are two types of sources. First, I engage with scholars directly. I don’t consider them “data” or “materials” in kind of the traditional sense, because they are human beings. My work involves observing and interacting with them while writing about their practices.
Second, there are material sources, namely published economic historiographies. I conduct extensive literature reviews to understand what past scholars have written about the Ancient Near East, especially regarding economic history. This includes analyzing the debates, logic, and political and social contexts surrounding these discussions.
For example, a key debate in the seventies through nineties concerned whether economies are embedded in culture and social relations [add: the substantivist position] or autonomous and separate from politics and culture [add: the formalist position]. Similar debates occurred regarding capitalism, as in whether it is historically specific, emerging in certain periods, or transhistorical, existing even in the Ancient Near East. These discussions form the foundational material I consider in my research.