Opening the Closet: William S. Willis Jr. and Anthropology’s Reckoning

Opening the Closet: William S. Willis Jr. and Anthropology’s Reckoning

In 1971, anthropologist William S. Willis Jr. published an essay that would echo through the discipline for decades: “Skeletons in the Anthropological Closet.” It was not simply a critique—it was a call to conscience. At a moment when anthropology was already being challenged by decolonization movements and civil rights struggles, Willis asked the field to confront its own hidden history.

This was not an outsider’s critique. Willis was trained within the very institutions he examined, and his work reflects both deep knowledge and deep disappointment.

The Core Argument: Anthropology Is Not Innocent

Willis argued that anthropology, particularly in the United States, had long been entangled with racial ideology. While the discipline often celebrated itself as the study of human diversity, it had also:

Helped construct racial hierarchies through physical anthropology

Collected human remains—often from Black and Indigenous communities—without consent

Participated in colonial systems that treated non-European cultures as objects of study rather than as intellectual partners

The “closet” in Willis’s essay is the institutional memory of these practices—hidden, minimized, or rationalized.

Columbia University and the Boasian Legacy

To understand Willis’s position, it’s important to consider Columbia University Department of Anthropology, one of the most influential centers in American anthropology.

The department was shaped by Franz Boas, often called the “father of American anthropology.” Boas challenged scientific racism and argued for cultural relativism—the idea that cultures must be understood on their own terms.

Boas trained a generation of influential anthropologists, including:

Ruth Benedict

Margaret Mead

Zora Neale Hurston

On the surface, this tradition appears progressive—and in many ways, it was. But Willis complicates this narrative.

Willis’s Critique of the Boasian Tradition

Willis did not dismiss Boas outright. In fact, he recognized Boas’s role in challenging biological determinism. However, he pointed out a deeper contradiction:

Even as Boas rejected overt racism, the institutional structures of anthropology—museums, universities, funding systems—continued to operate within a racialized society.

In other words:

Anthropology could critique racism intellectually

While still benefiting from systems built on inequality

Willis exposed this tension. He asked:

Can a discipline truly oppose racism if it does not confront its own foundations?

Relationships with Other Anthropologists

Willis’s work places him in conversation—sometimes in alignment, sometimes in tension—with other anthropologists.

With Boasians and Their Legacy

He engaged critically with the Boasian lineage, acknowledging its contributions while refusing to treat it as morally complete. His stance can be seen as both an extension and a correction of that tradition.

With Black Anthropologists

Willis also brought attention to the marginalization of Black scholars within anthropology. Figures like Allison Davis and St. Clair Drake contributed significantly to the field, yet were often excluded from its central narratives.

Willis’s essay can be read as part of a broader intellectual movement insisting that anthropology must recognize these voices—not as peripheral, but as foundational.

With Emerging Critical Thinkers

His work anticipates later critiques by scholars such as James Clifford, who questioned the authority of ethnographic writing, and others who examined how power shapes knowledge.

Columbia as a Site of Tension

At Columbia, these contradictions were particularly visible.

The department stood for:

Cultural relativism

Anti-racist intellectual arguments

Yet it also existed within:

Elite academic structures

A society marked by segregation and inequality

Willis’s critique suggests that Columbia’s anthropology department was both a place of innovation and a site where unresolved tensions persisted.

It was not enough to produce new ideas—institutions themselves had to change.

The Essay’s Legacy

“Skeletons in the Anthropological Closet” became part of a larger shift in anthropology toward reflexivity—the practice of examining how knowledge is produced.

It helped open the door to:

Ethical debates about human remains and repatriation

Greater inclusion of marginalized voices

Critical examinations of fieldwork, authorship, and representation

Today, these conversations continue in areas like museum ethics, decolonizing methodologies, and collaborative anthropology.

A Closing Reflection

Willis did not write to condemn anthropology entirely.

He wrote to deepen it.

He understood that a discipline dedicated to studying humanity must also study itself.

And so the question remains:

What does it mean to know others

if we refuse to know our own history?

The closet, once opened, does not close easily.

Nor should it.