The second half of the twentieth century was characterized by brutal insurgency and counterinsurgency wars; civilian populations experienced extreme violence on an unprecedented scale. A challenge for anthropologists working in such war-torn societies across the globe is that of paying attention not only to rapid sociocultural change but also to processes of dehumanization and local redefinitions of what it means to be human. The non-sense and inhumanity of war thereby challenge the very definition of “anthropology,” as informants claim and fear that some of those affected are no longer human. The ethnographic method is not necessarily geared toward capturing such a mood of inhumanity and lack of sense. Nonetheless, significant numbers of ethnographers are being sent to hot spots of extreme violence and asked to write narrative accounts of such zones of dehumanization. This critique of ethnography carried out in times of crisis explores the consequences of the ethnographic study of dehumanization.

In terms of research methodology and ethics, a common question relates to the ethnographer’s capability to interview and work with traumatized survivors. Here, however, I move beyond this level of critique and consider the impact of the wider cultural and linguistic consequences of twentieth century waves of extreme violence on the ethnographic method. The notion of a “traumatized” population easily leads ethnographers toward understanding their findings as narratives of the traumatized, reenactments of violence, or symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder. This approach envisages the provision of a therapeutic moral framework to a selected few within the community, while obscuring important cultural processes related to dehumanization and its reversal. In view of the moral devastation of certain communities, rehabilitation is more than a question of participation in NGO programs or traditional healing. In parallel to the reestablishment of a social order, people need to find ways to feel human again and transcend cultural meaninglessness. Such a cultural moment is not easily captured within a discourse on trauma and readily elides ethnographic representation.