It is of critical importance for anthropologists to consider the ethical and representational stakes of writing violence, especially when the values and uses of anthropology are increasingly disputed, both within and beyond the discipline. As suggested by Indigenous Papuan women's contrasting views on the promise and perils of ethnographic writing, the good of anthropology is a question best approached in conversation with the people upon whose cultures anthropologists build our careers and capital. Engaging upfront with our interlocutors’ divergent desires and demands in turn invites a practice of hesitant anthropology that productively avows—rather than disavows—the dilemmas of disclosure faced by the people whose stories we are entrusted with and become responsible for. Such a practice centers the realities of noninnocence and compromise that animate or preempt the ethnographic craft, including the diverse perspectives, obligations, and betrayals shaping the experience of being there and of (not) writing it.

中文翻译：

---

写还是不写？

对于人类学家来说，考虑书写暴力的伦理和代表性风险至关重要，特别是当人类学的价值观和用途在学科内外都受到越来越多的争议时。正如巴布亚土著妇女对民族志写作的前景和危险的不同看法所表明的那样，人类学的好处是通过与人类学家在其文化上建立我们的职业和资本的人们的对话来解决的最佳问题。提前了解对话者不同的愿望和要求反过来会引发一种犹豫不决的人类学实践，这种实践有效地承认——而不是否认——我们被委托讲述并负责其故事的人们所面临的披露困境。这种实践以非纯真和妥协的现实为中心，这些现实激发或抢占了民族志的技艺，包括塑造在那里和（不）写它的经历的不同观点、义务和背叛。