312 97 1MB
English Pages 161 Year 2006
EngagingAnthropology
This page intentionally left blank
EngagingAnthropology TheCaseforaPublicPresence
ThomasHyllandEriksen
Oxford•NewYork
Firstpublishedin2006by Berg Editorialoffices: 1stFloor,AngelCourt,81StClementsStreet,OxfordOX41AW,UK 175FifthAvenue,NewYork,NY10010,USA ©ThomasHyllandEriksen2006 Allrightsreserved. Nopartofthispublicationmaybereproducedinanyform orbyanymeanswithoutthewrittenpermissionofBerg. BergistheimprintofOxfordInternationalPublishersLtd.
LibraryofCongressCataloging-in-Publicationdata AcataloguerecordforthisbookisavailablefromtheLibraryofCongress.
BritishLibraryCataloguing-in-Publicationdata AcataloguerecordforthisbookisavailablefromtheBritishLibrary. ISBN-13 9781845200640(Cloth) 9781845200657(Paper) ISBN-10 1845200640(Cloth) 1845200659(Paper) TypesetbyJSTypesettingLtd,Porthcawl,MidGlamorgan PrintedintheUnitedKingdombyBiddlesLtd,King’sLynn
www.bergpublishers.com
InlovingmemoryofEduardoP.Archetti (1943–2005)
‘Evenmudgivestheillusionofdepth.’(MarshallMcLuhan) ‘Youhavenothingtolosebutyouraitches.’(GeorgeOrwell)
Contents Preface
ix
1
AShortHistoryofEngagement
1
2
WhatWentWrong?
23
3
ComplexityandContext
43
4
FastandSlowMedia
69
5
NarrativeandAnalysis
93
6
AltercentricWriting
115
7
WhyAnthropologyMatters
129
Bibliography
133
Index
145
vii
This page intentionally left blank
Preface Anthropology,thestudyofhumanculturesandsocieties,isexceptionallyrelevant asatoolforunderstandingthecontemporaryworld,yetitisabsentfromnearly everyimportantpublicdebateintheAnglophoneworld.Itslackofvisibilityisan embarrassmentandachallenge. When,inearlysummer2004,theculturalmagazineProspectpresenteditslist ofthetop100Britishpublicintellectuals,notasingleanthropologistwasonit. Thisdoesnotmeanthatuniversityacademicswereabsent–therewerehistorians, sociologists,philosophersandbiologistssprinkledamongthebroadcasters,essayists andcritics.Theabsenceofanthropologistsshouldhavehadthedisciplineworried –afterall,animportantpartofthesocialscientist’sjobinoursocietiesconsistsin beingworried–buttherearegoodreasonstosuspectthatfewcaredmuch.Afterall, anthropology,whetheritcallsitself‘social’or‘cultural’,hasn’tbeenverypublicfor sometime.Infact,ithasalmostgoneundergroundintheEnglish-speakingworld, ‘hibernatinginadifficultlanguage’,asAdornosaid,knowingverywellindeedwhat hewastalkingabout. Thissituationispuzzling.Anthropologyisaboutmakingsenseofotherpeople’s worlds,translatingtheirexperiencesandexplainingwhattheyareupto,howtheir societiesworkandwhytheybelieveinwhateveritisthattheybelievein–including theirwhispereddoubtsandshoutedheresies.Anthropologistshaveanenormous amount of knowledge about human lives, and most of them know something profoundaboutwhatitisthatmakespeopledifferentandwhatmakesusallsimilar. Yetthereseemstobeaprofessionalreluctancetosharethisknowledgewithawider readership.Translatingfromotherculturesiswhatwearepaidtodo;translatingfor thebenefitofreadersoutsidethein-groupseemsmuchlessurgent.Anthropological monographsandarticlestendtobedense,technicalandfranklyboring,andinmany casestheyarepreoccupiedwithdetails,allowingthelargerpicturetoslipawayfrom sight.Attentiontodetailisnotitselfabadthing;professionalspecializationandthe useofaspecializedlanguagemaybenecessaryforknowledgetoadvanceamongthe initiates,lestweallbecomejournalists. Theproblemisthatallthesefineanalytictexts,oftenbrimmingwithinsights andnovelangles,rarelybuildbridgesconnectingthemwiththeconcernsofnonspecialists.Also,theyarefartoorarelysupplementedbywritingsaimedatengaging awiderreadership.Ihavewrittenthisbook,whichtriestoshowhowanthropology couldmattertoeverythinkinghumanbeing,asaresultofseveralyearsofmounting frustration.Ihavespentmostofmyworkinghourssincemymid-twentiesasa
ix
x • EngagingAnthropology practisinganthropologistandamfamiliarwithnootherprofession.Iamimpressed andoftenawestruckbytheprofessionaldeterminationandintellectualachievements ofmycolleaguesworldwide,yetthereisquiteclearlysomethingabouttheway anthropologicalresearchispresentedthatturnsalmosttheentirepotentialreadership off.Anditcannotmerelybeputdowntoinadequatemarketingbypublishersor incompetenceinthegeneralpublic.Whendidyoulastreadaproperpage-turner writtenbyananthropologist?Ireadalotofinterestinganthropologymyself,but wouldmoreoftenthannotbehard-pressedtoanswerthequestionwithconfidence. Youngstudentswhocometoanthropologytendtohaveageneralinterestin ‘othercultures’.Veryoften,theyarealsomotivatedbyadesiretomaketheworld aslightlybetterplace.Thetaskofanthropologyteachersistomakecertaintheir studentsdonotforgettheseinitialsourcesofmotivation–thattheonslaughtofdry theoryandabstractmodelsdoesnotdetractfromthebigissuesconcerninghuman lifeinallitsdiversity,whichfuelthepassionnecessarytokeeptheflameburning. Thisbookismeantforanyonewhomightbeinterestedinglimpsingwhat anthropologyhastooffer,insideand–hopefully–outsidethedisciplineitself, andinevitablyitiscriticalofthewaywehavedealtwithourinheritedwealth.The criticismisaimedatinstitutionsratherthanindividuals;luckily,associalscientists, weareexpectedtoknowathingortwoabouthowtochangeinstitutions. Istartwithanexaminationofanthropology’sroleasacentralcontributortoWestern intellectuallife–whichithasbeeninthepast,andwhichitshouldbeatpresent. Ithenaskwhatwentwrongandhow,andsuggestsomewaysinwhichtheabyss betweenanthropologistsandeverybodyelsecouldbebridged.Ithenmoveonto amoredetailedexaminationofthefraughtrelationshipbetweenanthropological writingandthereadingworld.Here,Ihavetakenthelibertytoincludesomesamples ofmyownwritingforthedailypress–theyarenottobetakenasexemplarstobe emulated,butasexamplesforbetterorforworse. Afewcaveatsmightbewelladvisedattheoutsetofwhatcouldotherwiseappear tobeanindecentlyimmodestpieceofwork.First,thissmallbookdoesnotpretendto becomprehensiveinanyway.ThetextsIhavesingledoutfordiscussionhavebeen chosenfortheirwidersocialorintellectualrelevance,asrepresentativesamples,or simplyfortheirpublicimpact.Inmost(butnotall)cases,otherexamplescouldhave beenusedinstead. Secondly,Idonotwishtobelittletheimportantappliedworkcarriedoutby colleaguesinvolvedinindigenousrightsmovements,developmentwork,policy advice,immigrantissuesandsoon.Ofcourse,anthropologyalreadymattersboth sociallyandintellectually,farbeyondtheconfinesoftheacademy,intheseand othercontexts.Myconcernhere,however,iswiththewayanthropologiststackle (orignore)mattersofpublicimportancethroughthemedia,therebyengagingnonanthropologiststodiscusssharedconcerns,inpublic,withanthropologists.Itis aboutwhattheGermanscallDieÖffentlichkeitor,atadmoretepidly,‘thepublic sphere’inEnglish.
Preface • xi Thirdly,thebooklargely(butnotexclusively)concentratesonEnglish-language anthropology,usingafairnumberofScandinaviancounter-examplestoillustratethe possiblerolesofpublicanthropology.TheEnglishlanguagehasanunchallenged hegemonyincontemporaryanthropology,anditdominatespublishing,conferences andreadinglistsonthesubject.Actually,publicationsinotherlanguagesnowadays alsotendtoechoAnglophoneanthropology,unlikethesituationinthefirsthalfof thetwentiethcentury,whennon-Anglophoneanthropologiesfollowedtheirown itinerariesandagendas.WhenIwasrecentlydoinglibraryresearchforabookon globalizationandanthropology,Iwasdisappointedtofindmuchlesslocalflavour intheSpanish-andGerman-languageanthropologiesofglobalizationthanIhad expected.Theymostlyreferredto,anddiscussed,thesameAnglophonetheories andscholarsaseverybodyelse,therebytacitlyacquiescingintheirown,unjustly imposedidentityasperipheralscholars.Still,hadIendeavouredtocomparedifferent languagecommunitiesinanthropology,includingthosewhowriteandspeakin Afrikaans,FrenchorItalian,forexample,thisbookwouldhavebeenadifferent one,sinceengagementwithawiderpublicsphereissometimessignificantamong anthropologistswhouselanguagesotherthanEnglish. Thisbookisalso,finally,chieflyconcernedwiththeanthropologistasawriter, toalesserextentwiththeanthropologistastalker,andhardlyatallwiththeanthropologistasphotographerorfilm-maker.Itistheworldofwordswhichisinfocus. Thebookwaswrittenin2004–2005,butsomeoftheargumentswerepresented anddiscussedinseminarsattheanthropologydepartmentsofUniversityCollege London,UniversityofCapeTown,RhodesUniversity,VrijeUniversiteitAmsterdam andtheUniversityofWesternAustraliaduring2003.Ithankeverybodyinvolvedfor invitingandenlighteningme.AnearlierversionofthemiddlepartofChapter4was publishedinAnthropologyTodayin2003(Eriksen2003)thankstoaninitiativeby itseditor,theexcellentnon-anthropologistGustaafHoutman. Iamalsogratefultoagreatnumberofpeople,attheUniversityofOsloandelsewhere,whohavebeenfellowtravellers,guidesandspeed-bumpsonmyjourneyof twenty-oddyearsamongethnicminorities,ceremonialgiftexchanges,structuralist binaries,Marxistorthodoxiesandpostmodernheresies.Icannotevenbegintoname them–youknowwhoyouare–butsomeonewhohasperhapstaughtmemorethan anybodyaboutwhyanthropologymatters,ismyformerteacherandcolleagueof fifteenyears,EduardoArchetti,whoseuniquemestizajeofplayfulenthusiasmand intellectualseriousnesseludesdescription.IamalsodeeplygratefultoBerg’stwo readers,oneofwhomhasmadehimselfknownasKeithHart,fortheirdevastating criticismofthefirstdraft,combinedwithunflaggingsupportfortheproject.Their careful,criticalreadingofmyworkwentbeyondthecallofdutyandresulted,I hope,inamuchimprovedtext.Finally,aheartfeltthankstoKari,OleandAmanda formakingmynon-professionallifeaworthwhilejourneyaswell. Oslo,May2005
xii • EngagingAnthropology Asthisbookwasgoingtopress,EduardoArchettipassedawayafteraperiodof illness.Hehadnotreaditinmanuscript,andIhadbeenespeciallylookingforward tohisreactions.Hewouldhavelaughedandpointedoutsillyerrors,mentioned relevanttextsandtopicsIhadignored,disagreedwithbitsanddiscussedthewider implicationsofsomeofthebetterideas.ThelossofEduardo’slaughter,generosity anderuditionleavesaterriblevoidinthelivesofeveryonewhoknewhim. (June2005)
–1– AShortHistoryofEngagement Anthropologyshouldhavechangedtheworld,yetthesubjectisalmostinvisiblein thepublicsphereoutsidetheacademy.Thisispuzzling,sinceawiderangeofurgent issuesofgreatsocialimportancearebeingraisedbyanthropologistsinoriginal andauthoritativeways.Anthropologistsshouldhavebeenattheforefrontofpublic debateaboutmulticulturalismandnationalism,thehumanaspectsofinformation technology,povertyandeconomicglobalization,humanrightsissuesandquestions ofcollectiveandindividualidentificationintheWesternworld,justtomentionafew topicalareas. Butsomehowtheanthropologistsfailtogettheirmessageacross.Innearly everycountryintheworld,anthropologistsareallbutabsentfromthemediaand fromgeneralintellectualdiscourse.Theirsophisticatedperspectives,complex analysesandexcitingfieldmaterialremainunknowntoallbuttheinitiates.In fact,wheneveranthropologistsendeavourtowriteinapopularvein,theytendto surroundthemselveswithanairofcoynessandself-mockery,ortheystressthat thetopicathandisofsuchaburningimportancethattheyseenootheroption than(Godforbid)addressingnon-anthropologists.PhilippeDescola,writingin thecontextofaFrenchanthropologythathasproducedpopularworksofgreat literaryandintellectualvalue,thusdescribeshismixedfeelingswhenaskedbya publishertowritesomethingabouttheJívaro,theAmazonianpeoplehehadlived amongst,forageneralpublic(Descola1996).RetracingtheprocessofwritingLes LancesduCrépuscule[TheLancesoftheTwilight],headmitstofeeling‘anobscure wishtojustifytomypeerstheprojectofwritingananthropologicalbook“forthe generalpublic”’(1996:208).Hethenspeculatesthatthecuriousreluctanceof anthropologiststoaddressgeneralaudiencesmaybecausedbyananxietythatthe outsideworldmightdiscover‘thefragilityofthescientificprecepts’fundamental tothesubject.Inotherwords,Descolasuggeststhatitmayultimatelybealackof confidencethathascausedthecocooningofanthropology.Thisviewhasalotto recommenditalthoughitispartial,andwe’lllookatitagainbelow.Butfirstitis necessarytomakeabriefexcursionbackintime. Foritwasnotalwaysthus.Thingswereinfactgoingratherwellforalongtime. TheRoyalAnthropologicalInstituteinLondonwasfoundedin1871inthespiritof bringingsciencetothemasses,andalloverEuropeandNorthAmerica,nineteenthcenturyanthropologywasfirmlybasedinthemuseums,whoseveryraisond’être
1
2 • EngagingAnthropology consistedincommunicatingwiththegeneralpublic.Itwasonlyinthesecondhalf ofthetwentiethcenturythatthedominantAnglophonetraditionsinanthropology turnedawayfromawiderreadershipandbegantogazeinwards.Whydidthis happen? Ofthemengenerallyrecognizedasthefoundingfathersofmodernanthropology, neitherLewisHenryMorgan,E.B.TylornorJamesFrazersawthemselvesas membersofaclosedclique,buthappilyandenergeticallytookpartinthedebates oftheirtime.Morgan,whoseworkonsocialevolutionandkinshiphashadlasting effects,wasreadeagerlybythelikesofFriedrichEngels;CharlesDarwinborrowed fromTylor,theoriginatorofthemodernconceptofculture,whenhewroteThe DescentofMan.Frazer,theauthorofthemulti-volumeGoldenBough,avast comparativestudyofmyth,wasoneofthemostinfluentialBritishintellectualsofthe earlytwentiethcentury,stimulatingwriterslikeT.S.Eliotandphilosopherssuchas LudwigWittgenstein.Dealingwiththelargequestionsofculturalhistoryandhuman nature,theseearlygenerationsofanthropologistswerepartofabroadandcolourful intellectualpublicspherewhichincludednaturalists,historians,archaeologists, philosophersandotherswhostrovetounderstandhumanity’spastandpresent.These anthropologists,lackinganacademictraininginasubjectcalled‘anthropology’, weregeneraliztsandoftengentleman-scholarsofindependentmeans,whorespected noinstitutionalboundariesbetweenuniversitysubjectsintheirquestforknowledge. Intheirlastgeneration,theyincludedAlfredHaddon,whosekeeninterestinbiology ledhimtotheorisehumanorigins,W.H.R.Rivers,apioneeringculturalhistorian andanunsungfounderofpsychologicalanthropology,andFrazerhimself. Posterityhastendedtodismisstheseearlymodernanthropologistsasdilettantes and,ofteninaccuratelyandunfairly,asspeculativearmchairtheorists(Hart2003). Tellingly, a leading representative of the next generation of anthropologists, BronislawMalinowski,boastedin1922thatethnology(oranthropology)hadnow finallybegunto‘putitsworkshopinorder,toforgeitspropertools,tostartreadyfor workonitsappointedtask’(Malinowski1984[1922]:xv).Professionalizationand specializationwereunderway,andthestagewassetforanthropology’swithdrawal, althoughitsultimatecocooningwasstillagenerationaway. Infact,thereisastarkcontrastbetweenMalinowskiandhisgeneration,andthe post-waranthropologists,asregardstheirwillingnesstotalkacrossdisciplinary boundariesandtotheinterestedlaypublic.Malinowskihimselfwroteinpopular magazinesandgavepubliclecturesontopicsofgeneralinterest,suchasprimitive economicsandsex.FranzBoas,generallyacknowledgedasthefounderofAmerican culturalanthropologyandanimportantpublicvoiceintheanti-racistdiscourseof histime,debatedvigorouslyinthepress,inmagazinesandjournals,andatpublic meetings.Hisopponentswerethosewhoheldthatracecouldaccountforcultural variation,andintheearlytwentiethcentury,theyweremanyandpowerful.InFrance andGermany,similarly,anthropologistswereimmersedintheissuesoftheirday,
AShortHistoryofEngagement • 3 andsawthemselvesnotsomuchasadistinctintellectualmovementasmembersofa largerpublicsphereexploringtopicsofsharedinterest.Therewas,bythetimeofthe inter-waryears,agrowingprofessionalself-awarenessbyanthropologists,whohad sharpenedtheirtheoreticaltoolsandpurifiedtheirfieldmethods;buteventhelikes ofE.E.Evans-PritchardinBritainandRobertLowieintheUSAhadtowritetheir bookswithprofessionalsandnon-professionalsalikeinmind. Infact,theinter-waryearssawsomeofthemostspectacularsuccessesinthe historyofanthropologicalinterventionsinawiderfield.RuthBenedict’sPatternsof Culture(1934)wasabestsellerinmanycountries,challengingpopularpreconceptions aboutcultureandfoundingaresearchprogrammewithinanthropologyatthesame time.However,itwasBoas’andBenedict’sstudentMargaretMeadwhowould becomethegreatestcelebrityandbestsellingauthorinthedisciplineinthetwentieth century. AtthetimewhenMeadpublishedherfirstbook,ComingofAgeinSamoa(1928), fieldwork-basedanthropologyinformedbyculturalrelativismcouldcrediblypresent itselfasafreshandexcitingapproachtohumandiversity,offeringgenuinelynew insightsandprovocativetruthsaboutpossibleworlds.AsemphasizedbyMarcus andFischer(1986),Mead’sbooksshowedinpowerfulwayshowanthropology couldfunctionasaculturalautocritique,byshowingthatmuchofwhatwetendto takeforgrantedmighthavebeendifferent. Itwasculturalrelativism’sfinesthour.Boascouldconfidently,inhisbestavuncularstyle,prefacehisprotégé’sdebutworkasanexemplificationofthebestthat culturalrelativismhadtooffer–simultaneouslyadistortingmirrorandasourceof new,excitingknowledge,andultimatelyprobingdeeperthanmostintothehuman condition: [C]ourtesy,modesty,goodmanners,conformitytodefiniteethicalstandardsareuniversal,butwhatconstitutescourtesy,modesty,goodmanners,andethicalstandardsis notuniversal.Itisinstructivetoknowthatstandardsdifferinthemostunexpectedways. Itisstillmoreimportanttoknowhowtheindividualreactstothesestandards.(Boasin Mead1977[1928]:6)
Mead’sbooksneverbecameclassicswithinanthropology.Shewasperceivedas toosuperficialinherethnography,tooquicktomakesweepinggeneralizations and,arguably,tooengagedtobeproperlyscientific.Heruncomplicated,often overtlysentimentalprosealsohaditsdetractors,aswhenEvans-Pritchard(1951: 96)describeditas‘chattyandfeminine’,perhapsnarrowlyescapingallegationsof misogynybyassociatingherstylewith‘whatIcalltherustling-of-the-wind-in-thepalm-treeskindofanthropologicalwriting,forwhichMalinowskisetthefashion’. InEuropeatleast,Meadisscarcelyreadbystudents,unlikehercontemporaries MalinowskiandEvans-Pritchard.
4 • EngagingAnthropology Infact,themixedreactionstoMead’sflowingproseseemtohavesetastandard forthelaterreceptionofpopularizedandengagedanthropology.Asarule,anthropologicaltextsthatbecomepopularwithawiderreadershiprarelyreceivemuchcredit withinthedisciplineitself. Therecanobviouslybebothgoodandbadreasonsforthisscepticalattitude.In hereagernesstopresentcrispandclear-cutimagesofher‘aliencultures’forher middle-classAmericanreadership,Meadrarelyshiesawayfrommakingsweeping generalizationsofatleastthreekinds:shecaricaturesherownculture,sheturns ‘theothers’intocardboardcut-outs,andfinally,shedrawsconclusionsaboutthe characteristictraitsofentireculturesafterexaminingthestoriesofafewindividuals. Ontheotherhand,itcanequallywellbearguedthatMead’sintellectualstyle addedafewdropsofcomplexitytothelivesofthousands,possiblymillionsof middle-classWesterners,andtheworldmayhavebecomeaslightlybetterandmore enlightenedplaceasaresult.Lettheacademics’academicsdiscussthefinerpoints aboutexplanation,interpretationandethnographicaccuracy,onemightarguein defenceofMead–andleavethedisseminationofthemainvisiontosomeonecapable ofdoingthejob.Apparently,inComingofAgeinSamoa,thecomparisonsbetween thePolynesiansandtheAmericanswereaddedbyMeadfollowingasuggestionby herpublisher(diLeonardo1998). Meadwroteherfirstbooksatatimewhenculturalrelativismstoodforanew andlargelyuntriedperspectiveonthehumancondition,notwithstandingembryonic culturalrelativismincanonicalWesternthinkerslikePascalandMontaigne;insome versionsofintellectualhistoryitsancestryistracedallthewaybacktoHerodotos. Asatoolforculturalreformathome,Mead’scommonsensicalrelativistinjections provedverypowerfulindeed,influencingbeatniks,hippiesandotherculturalradicals inthepost-warperiod;andherimpactasanantidotetofacilebiologicalessentialism intheinter-waryearsshouldnotbeunderestimated. Inspiteofherreputationasafeministandaculturalrelativist,Meadwasnot acceptedasafullypaid-upmemberineithercamp.DiLeonardoveryacerbically, attheendofalengthytreatmentofMead’swork,describesMead’s‘relativism’as ‘theself-assuredmodernist’simperialevaluationoftheworld’sculturalwealthfor the“benefitofall”’,addingthatherviewsof‘benefits’had,naturally,shiftedover thedecades(1998:340).SheconcludesthatMead‘thoughttheworldwasbothher naturallaboratoryandadomaininneedofherAmericantutelage’(1998:363). Meadwasthebestknown,butfarfromtheonlyanthropologistofhergeneration whoeasily,andwithvisiblepleasure,translatedresearchmaterialsintoengaging prose.RalphLinton,amasterofpopularization,wrotevolumesoffascinatinganthropologyandsociologywithouteverlapsingintojargon.Hismostfamouspiecewas probably‘OneHundredPerCentAmerican’,firstpublishedinTheAmericanMercury in1936beforeitsinclusionintheauthor’sintroductorytext,TheStudyofMan(1937). Featuredinthechapteronculturaldiffusion,thearticlewasoriginallywrittenasa subversivecommentontendenciestoisolationismandnationalistself-righteousness intheUSofthe1930s.Lintonsetsthetoneofhisethnographicvignettebyan
AShortHistoryofEngagement • 5 arrestingopeningsentence:‘OursolidAmericancitizenawakensinabedbuiltona patternwhichoriginatedintheNearEastbutwhichwasmodifiedinNorthernEurope beforeitwastransmittedtoAmerica’(Linton1937:326).Followinghis‘typical American’throughtheminutiaeofmorningroutines,buyinganewspaperwithcoins (aLydianinvention),eatinghisbreakfastwithafork(amedievalItalianinvention) andaknifemadeofsteel(anIndianalloy),heeventuallythanks‘aHebrewdeityin anIndo-Europeanlanguagethatheis100percentAmerican’(Linton1937:327). UnlikeMead,whohadtodescribeothers’livesvividlyandintimatelytocreatea basisforempathyandidentification,Lintoncouldsafelyrelyoninstantrecognition amonghisreaders.Whileshestrivestomaketheexoticappearfamiliar,hemakes thefamiliarexotic. Andtherewereothers.EventheevolutionistLeslieWhite,whomobilized expressionslike‘harnessingenergy’andadistinctionbetween‘generalandspecific evolution’inabidtomakeanthropologylesschattyandmorescientific,couldoften beengagingandprovocative(like,incidentally,hisstudentMarshallSahlins).In anarticlepublishedinapopularscientificmagazine,TheScientificMonthly,White (1948)talksaboutanythingfrommuteconsonantstowomen’sskirtlengthsandthe puzzlingabsenceofpolygynyinWesterncultures.White,whoalsoonceexpounded atlengthaboutthecuriousAmericanhabitoftreatingdogsasthoughtheywerea kindofhuman,hadacomplexargumenttomakeabouttheinsignificanceofthe individualwillandthelinkbetweentechnologyandculture.Yethediditwithout losinghisnon-anthropologistreadersontheway. Muchoftheenergyinvestedintopopularizedandinterdisciplinaryanthropology atthetimecamefromaculturewarfoughtontwofronts:againstethnocentric supremacism(ourcultureisthebest;theothersareinferior)andagainstbiological determinism(humansshouldprimarilybeunderstoodasbiologicalorganizms). BothtendencieswerepowerfulideologicalforcesintheWestoftheinter-warperiod. Afterthewar,thischanged.Nazismhaddiscreditedthenotionofraceand,through alogicallydubiouscorollary,thenotionthathumanswerebiologicallydetermined. Scientistsweredividedonthematter,butthesocialandculturalanthropologists werealmostunanimousinarguinginfavouroftheprimacyofsocialandcultural factors. Oneofthemostimportantpublicfiguresofpost-waranthropology–aman whoseworksarerarelyreadonanthropologycourses–wasAshleyMontagu.A defenderoftheviewthathumanswereshapedbytheenvironmentratherthanby biologicalinheritance,MontaguhadadecisiveinfluenceonUNESCOpolicies initsearlydays,anduntilhisdeathin1999,hetirelesslywrotepolemicaltracts againstbiologicaldeterminism.Admittedly,hisbookscouldbeunexciting,butthey werelucid,passionateandimportantinprovidingammunitionagainstbiological reductionism. Montagu’spositiononraceandcultureconformedtotheBoasianview,butitwas enhancedbyhisbackgroundinphysicalanthropology,andthequestionheaddressed alsobecameapublicissueofthefirstorderduringandafterthewar.
6 • EngagingAnthropology DoubtlesshelpedbytheNaziatrocities,butalsobyadvancesinhumangenetics, thesocialandculturalanthropologistshadwonaprovisionalvictoryinthe‘nature– nurture’debate.Theconventionalwisdomfromthe1950sandafewdecadeson wasthathumansareprimarilyconditionedsocially;consequentlybiologicalfactors arelessimportant.Atthesametime,however,therelativistviewswhichwerenow firmlyapartoftheanthropologalteachingsbecamecontroversialfromthemoment theywereseentobeinconsistentwithuniversalhumanrights.Ina1947statement onhumanrightsfromtheAmericanAnthropologicalAssociation(AAA),pennedby thewidelyrespectedMelvilleHerskovits,denouncedtheideaofuniversalhuman rights,deemingitethnocentric(AAA1947).Insteadofthisso-calleduniversalism, theAAAdefendedtheideathateveryculturehaditsuniquevaluesanditsownway ofcreatingthegoodlife. Inthepost-warera,therefore,twofundamentaltenetsofthenewlyinstitutionalized disciplineofsocial/culturalanthropologybecamecentraltopublicdiscourseabout theworldanditspeoples.Insteadofcapitalizingonthisnewpublicimportance, anthropologybegantowithdrawsoonafterthewar. Thereareexceptions,someofthemverynotable,andIshallonlymentiona fewwhichhavemadeaperceptiblepublicimpact.InFrance,whereintellectualsof allkindsroutinelyinteractwiththeoutsideworld,ClaudeLévi-Strausspublished TristesTropiquesin1955,atravelogueandaphilosophicaltreatiseabouthumanity whichwasreceivedwellinalmostallquarters.Lévi-Strauss,ofcourse,isrecognized asamaître-penseur,andthroughhislongprofessionallife,hehasintervenedquite oftenwithpoliticalstatements–andheseemstohaveratherenjoyedhisexchanges with non-anthropologists, be they philosophers like Sartre or, more recently, sociobiologists. AcoupleofdecadesafterTristesTropiques,theAmericananthropologistMarvin Harrispublishedafewbooksinapopularstyle,themostfamousbeingCannibals andKings(1978),whichsetsforthtoexplainculturalevolutionasaresultofthe interactionbetweentechnologicalandecologicalfactors.InGreatBritain,bythe 1960sEdmundLeachwasalmostaloneinwritingformagazines,givingradio lecturesandengagingingeneralintellectualdebate.ColinTurnbullwrotetwobooks withaperceptibleimpactoutsideofanthropology,TheForestPeople(1961)and themuchmorecontroversialTheMountainPeople(1972),bothofwhichwere meanttoshedlightonfundamentalaspectsofsocial(dis)integration.Thelatterwas adaptedforthestagebyPeterBrook.Yet,inthe1980s,theonlytrulybestselling anthropologistintheUKwasNigelBarley,whosehumorousbooksmadefunnot onlyoftheanthropologistbutalso,lesseasilydigestible,ofhisinformants.Afew morecouldhavebeenmentioned,includingAkbarAhmed’simportantpopularizing andcriticalworkonIslam(e.g.Ahmed1992)andDavidMaybury-Lewis’sworkon indigenouspeoples,suchasMillennium(1992).ErnestGellner’sstatureasamajor publicintellectualgrewuntilhisuntimelydeathin1995,butitcouldbeargued
AShortHistoryofEngagement • 7 thatitwaschieflyGellnerasphilosopherandtheoristofnationalism,ratherthanas anthropologist,whobecameahouseholdnameinintellectualcirclesaroundEurope. Morerecently,KateFox’spopularbooksabouttheanthropologyofracing,pubcrawling,flirtingandEnglishnesshaveenjoyedverygoodsalesandpositivereviews inthedailypress(aswellas,itmustinallfairnessbesaid,afewextremelyhostile ones).Themeritsofherbooksnotwithstanding,Foxisanoutsiderinanthropology; shedoesnotparticipateinprofessionalmeetingsorcontributetojournalsandedited books,andsheworksatanindependentcentreofappliedsocialresearch.Watching theEnglish(Fox2004),adescriptionof‘typicallyEnglish’formsofbehaviour, containsnocarefulpresentationofthedataonwhichgeneralizationsaremade, andhaslittletoofferbywayofanalysis.Foxismorecomfortableindiscussion withpeoplelikeJeremyPaxmanandtravelwriterBillBrysonthaninengaging withanthropologistswhohavedoneresearchinBritain,suchasA.P.Cohen,Nigel RapportorMarilynStrathern.(TheonlyethnographerofEnglandwhoiscitedinthe bookisDanielMiller.)Initsreviewofthebook,TheDailyExpressnotesthat‘Fox isasocialanthropologist,butthatdoesnotpreventherfromwritinglikeanangel’ –whiletheNewStatesmandenouncesthebookas‘witless,patronisingpap’.One cannothelpwonderingifFox’sabilitytowritelight-hearted,easilydigestibleprose isaresultofherinsulationfromuniversity-basedanthropologicalresearch.Ifthatis thecase,bothpartiesshouldtakeheed. Thistrickleapart–andonlyafewnameshavebeenomitted–thebestanthropologistswereabletodoinordertoengagepeopleoutsideacademiccirclesconsisted inwritinggoodtextbooks,whichisfine,butitisnotenough. Thesourcewouldappeartohavedriedout.Orhadit?Curiously,debateand theoreticaldevelopmentwithinthedisciplineflourished.Thenumberofprofessional anthropologists,andthenumberofconferences,journalsandbookspublished,grew bytheyear.Newintellectualfashions,likestructuralMarxism,appeared,spread andbecameobsolete.Inthe1970s,womenenteredthesubjectonalargescale andintroducednewwaysofwritinganthropology,oftenwithapotentialforbeing widelyread. Anthropologybecameapopularundergraduatesubjectinthesameperiod,and acertaindegreeofanthropologicalcommonsenseseepedintothepublicsphere, atthesametimeasneighbouringdisciplinessuchasreligiousstudiesandcultural sociologybegantoborrowideasandconceptsfromanthropology.Scholarlyworksof greatandenduringimportancewerepublishedfromthe1960stothe1980s:Claude Lévi-Strauss’sLaPenséeSauvage(1962),MaryDouglas’sPurityandDanger (1966),VictorTurner’sTheRitualProcess(1969),FredrikBarth’sEthnicGroups andBoundaries(1969),MarshallSahlins’StoneAgeEconomics(1972),Clifford Geertz’sTheInterpretationofCultures(1973)andMarilynStrathern’sTheGender oftheGift(1988),tomentionbutafew.Yet,theresponsefromthenon-academic worldwasnegligible,andthisgenerationseemedtohavenoMargaretMeadtotake currentideasandrunwiththem.Thedisciplinehadbecomealmostself-contained.
8 • EngagingAnthropology However,itwouldbesimplistictoconcludethatanthropologistsnolonger trytocommunicateoutsidetheirdiscipline.Foronething,manyareinvolvedin importantinterdisciplinarywork.Foranother,manytrytobreakoutofthecharmed circleoftheirowndiscipline.Tomentiononeexample,NancyScheper-Hughes’s award-winningbooksfromIreland(1979)andBrazil(1992)arewellwritten, experience-nearintheirapproachandskilfullyconstructed,andhavereceived lavishpraisefromnon-professionalreviewers.KeithHartandAnnaGrimshaw’s pamphletseries,PricklyPearPamphlets(from1973to2001),anditssuccessor series,PricklyParadigm(since2002)publishedbyMarshallSahlins,havebrought socialengagementandgoodanthropologicalscholarshiptogetherinasnappy, pointedandoccasionallyfunnyform.NeitherMarxistsnorfeministswouldbe inclinedtoseethemselvesas‘sociallydisengaged’orpoliticallysomnambulent.In thetwenty-firstcentury,anthropologistslikeBruceKapfererandJonathanFriedman, VerenaStolckeandCrisShorewritepowerfultextsaboutthestateandtheconflict potentialofglobalization;andIcouldgoon.Thereisnolackofsocialengagement orgeneralintellectualsavvyamongcontemporaryanthropologists.Yetthey–let’s faceit–hardlyseemtomattertopeopleoutsideanthropology. CliffordGeertz,themostwidelycitedlivinganthropologistinsideandespeciallyoutsidethediscipline,deservesspecialattentionhere.Geertzisnotonly aneloquentwriterbutaneruditemanwhoseframeofreferenceextendswell beyondanthropology.Heisalmostuniversallyrespectedinsidethedisciplineand occasionallycontributesessaysonanthropologicalpublicationstoTheNewYork ReviewofBooks.Geertz’sessays,richinconnotationsandreferencestoother intellectualsandartists,mustbeexplainedandunpackedtoundergraduatesfor unusualreasons:iftheyfailtomakesenseofwhathewrites,theexplanationmay bethattheyhaveneverheardofCroceorareuncertainastoexactlywhatkindof characterFalstaffis,notthattheyareunfamiliarwiththeNayarkinshipsystemor MaxWeber’sviewofCalvinismasthespiritualengineofcapitalism.Geertzmaybe theclosestanthropologycomestohavingitsownStephenJayGould(thatdazzling humanistsciencewriter),butattheendoftheday,Geertzistoocoytocomeclean asapublicintellectual.Althoughitwouldhardlycosthimtwocaloriestowritean interestingessayonfemalecircumcisionintheAtlanticMonthly,orapieceonIslam inIndonesiafortheNewYorkTimes,hedoesnotdothiskindofthing.Onecanonly guessathisreasons;itisneverthelessbeyonddisputethathesharesthisinclination toremainintheacademiccirclesofdiscoursewithalmosteverybodyelseinhis profession–whichisashame. Norwayisanoddexceptionhere.Whenthemainliberalnewspaper,Dagbladet, madealistofthetenmostimportantintellectualsofthecountryinJanuary2005, followedbytenextensiveinterviewsandalotofnoisy,butultimatelyusefuldebate spillingintoothermedia,threeofthemwereanthropologists(therewerenoneinthe jury).Tothisinterestinganomalyweshallhavetoreturnlater.
AShortHistoryofEngagement • 9
StylesofEngagement Therearemanypossiblestylesofengagement;thereisnotjustonewayofengaging areadershipwhichisneitherpaid(colleagues)norforced(students)toreadwhatever itisthatonewrites.MarvinHarris’sreadersareunlikelytooverlapsignificantlywith Lévi-Strauss’s,andtheirrespectivebooksconveytheirverydifferentmessagesin equallydifferentways.Severalstylesofpresentation,onemightsaydramaturgies, canbeidentified,sometimesincombination. DavidSutton(1991),inadiscussionofthewriter–readerrelationshipinanthropologicalwriting,examinesaclutchofsuccessfulpopularizers,discussingtowhat extenttheyenterintoa‘partnership’withtheirreaders.AshleyMontagu,heargues, activelysolicitsthereaders’viewsandreactions,andprodsthemtoallowhisideas tomakeadifferenceintheirownlife.MarvinHarris’sstrength,moreover,liesinhis holism,hisabilitytomakesenseoftheworldasawhole.ThebookWhyNothing Works(Harris1987),Suttonsays,mightaswellhavebeentitled‘HowEverything Fits’.Harrisoftenpresentshistopicsasriddles(twoofhisbookshavetheword ‘riddle’intheirsubtitle).Closure,Suttonobserves,‘isalwayssuspendeduntilthe end,whenhebringseverythingtogether’(Sutton1991:97).Finally,WadeDavis,in TheSerpentandtheRainbow(Davis1986),appealstothesharedworldinhabitedby bothhimselfandhisreaders,avoidinganytemptationtostepbackandwatchhuman worldsonlyfromtheoutside. Allthesethreewaysofengagingthereaderappeartohavebeeneffective.Butin addition,thereexistavarietyofotherstrategiesofcommunicationwiththeoutside world,whichshowthepotentialefficacyofapublicanthropologynotonlyinform, butalsoinsubstance. TheVerfremdungorDefamiliarization. Thistechniquewasusedtogreateffectby BertoldBrecht,andavariantisoftenutilizedinsciencefictionstories,forexample inthenovelsofAlfredKroeber’sdaughter,UrsulaLeGuin.SomeofJ.G.Ballard’s novelsandshortstories,moreover,aresetinanEnglandofthenearfuture,where atendencyalreadynoticeableinthepresentisidentifiedbytheauthorandslightly magnified–holidaysinSpain,afascinationwithspeedandviolence,communication viatechnologicalmeanssuchastelephones–withdevastatingandshockingresults. Inanthropology,defamiliarizationhasbeenpraisedasatechniqueofcultural critique(MarcusandFischer1986),anditissometimesutilizedbyanthropologists whostudytheirownsociety.Asayoungercolleaguetoldme,uponhisreturnfrom fieldworkinasemi-rurallocalitynotveryfarfromhisnativeOslo:‘Well,obviously oneofthefirstthingsIaskedthemwas,“Whodoyoumarry?”Mytraininghadtold methatitisalwaysimportanttosortthiskindofthingout,andeveniftheydidn’t respondimmediately,Ifoundoutsoonenoughthattheymarrywithinaradiusofone hour’stravel.’
10 • EngagingAnthropology When,inthe1980s,theIndiananthropologistG.PrakashReddywasinvitedto studyaDanishvillage,hisprimarymotivationmaynothavebeentodefamiliarize theDanes,butthatishowhisworkwasperceived.Notwithstandingtheflaws andmisunderstandingsmarringhiswork,Reddymadeanumberofobservations whichcouldhaveenabledDanestoseethemselvesfromanewangle.Althoughhis analysis(Reddy1993)wascontroversialandhotlydebated,itmayhavehadthe indirecteffectofgeneratingsomereflectionaboutthewaysWesternanthropologists unwittinglydefamiliarizethepeopletheystudy,forexamplevillageIndians. Reddymadeanumberofinterestingobservations.Onhisfirstdayoffieldworkin theDanishvillage,heaskedhisinterpreterifitwouldbepossibletoringsomeone’s doorbellandaskforaglassofwater.Hethoughtthismightnotjustbeawayto quenchhisthirst,butalsotogethisfirstinformant.Fieldworkbeganinthemiddle ofaweekday,andthevillagewascompletelydeserted,muchtohisdismay.The interpreter,incidentallyafellowanthropologist,explainedthattheycouldn’tdothat; onesimplydoesn’tknockonstrangers’doorsandaskforwater.Later,Reddywould writeabouttheDanes’oddrelationshipwiththeirdogs,whichtheytreatedbetter,it seemed,thantheiroldparentswhomightbetuckedawayinanoldpeople’shome; abouttheweaknessandisolationofthesmallDanishfamilyandotherissuesthathe sawinrelationtohisimplicithorizonofcomparison,theIndianvillage. Asitturnedout,however,mostDanesdidnotenthusiasticallyallowthemselves to be defamiliarized. Reddy’s book was given a lukewarm reception among anthropologistsandnon-anthropologistsalike,whofelt(largelyjustifiably,itmust beconceded)thathehadmisrepresentedtheDanes.Somewerescandalized. AlthoughitwaspublishedinbothEnglishandDanish,andreviewedinthe AmericanAnthropologistbyJonathanSchwartz,anAmerican-bornanthropologist livinginDenmark,‘DanesAreLikeThat!’isscarcelyknownoutsidethecountry.The reallysadthing,however,isthatethnographiesofthiskind,whereanthropologists fromthesouthstudycommunitiesinthenorth,remainrareevenafterallthese years. Ingeneral,thetechniqueofdefamiliarization–renderingthefamiliarexotic –seemstohavebeenmorecommoninmid-twentieth-centuryanthropologythanat present.Linton’s‘OneHundredPerCentAmerican’hasbeenmentioned;another classic,whichdefendsitsplaceintheAnthropology101courseswhereitisstilla staple,isHoraceMiner’samusingarticle‘BodyritualamongtheNacirema’.The Nacirema,ofcourse,are‘aNorthAmericangrouplivingintheterritorybetweenthe CanadianCree,theYaquiandTarahumareofMexico,andtheCaribandArawakof theAntilles.’Theirbodyritualsinvolvetheuseofsacredfontsandpotionskeptina chestbuiltintothewall.Theritualsaresecretandneverdiscussed,evenprivately, exceptwhenchildrenareinitiatedintotheirmysteries.Themedicinemenofthe Naciremahaveimposingtemples,latipso,and‘[t]helatipsoceremoniesareso harshthatitisphenomenalthatafairproportionofthereallysicknativeswhoenter thetempleeverrecover’(Miner1956).WhatMinerdoes,apartfromparodying
AShortHistoryofEngagement • 11 exoticizingethnographicjargon,istosensitizestudentstotheimplicitnorms,rules andtaboosprevalentintheirownsociety. Oneofthemessagesfromanthropologyisthatnothingisquitewhatitseems.As DanielMillerandothershavedemonstrated,fundamentalaspectsofhumanlifecan beilluminatedthroughstudiesofmodernconsumptioninformedbyanthropological perspectives.InATheoryofShopping(1998)andthesubsequentTheDialectics ofShopping(2001),Millerarguesthat,contrarytopopularopinion,shoppingis notaselfish,narcissistickindofactivity.Rather,womenshopoutofconsideration forothers,whethertheybuythingsforthemselvesorforrelativesandfriends.In Miller’sanalysis,shoppingcanbecomparedtosacrifice,andhisanalysisisalso indebtedtoMarcelMauss’scelebratedtheoryofreciprocity,ormutualobligations, asthemostfundamentalglueofhumancommunities. NoneofMiller’shighlyoriginaltextsonshoppingarepopularinastrictsense, buttheyfulfiltheirmissionasgeneralstatementsonmodernitybybeingread outsideofanthropologynarrowlydefined–inbusinessschools,andculturalstudies andinterdisciplinarystudyprogrammesonmodernsociety.Theyalsocreatea Verfremdungeffectbypositingthatinfact,manyofoureverydaypracticescan signifytheoppositeofwhatwemaybeinclinedtobelievebeforewehavebothered tofindout. The CulturalAutocritique. Unlike Linton’s vignette, Miner’s article on the Naciremaispoliticallyharmlessandcouldscarcelybeaccusedofbeing‘antiAmerican’whenitwaspublishedinthe1950s,evenifitmakesfunoftheAmerican crazeforcleanliness.Inrecentyears,therehasinfactbeenasubstantialdemand forsimilarself-exotizingexercisesinScandinavia,wheretouristboards,thecivil serviceandevenprivateenterprisessolicittheservicesofanthropologistswhoare chargedwiththetaskoftellingthem‘whattheyarereallylike’.(Farmoreoften, theyaskconsultants,whoaremoreexpensive,lessknowledgeableandmuchmore ‘professional’thananthropologists,todothesamething.) Amorecritical,andmuchmoredemandingtask,wouldconsistinshowing thepeculiaritiesofmajoritycultureinthecontextofimmigration.Inmostifnot allNorthAtlanticcountries,itisvirtuallytakenforgrantedinthepublicsphere thatimmigrantsareheavilyburdenedwithculture,whilethemajorityarejust ordinarypeople.OneofMead’sgreatcontributionstothepublicdiscourseofher timeconsistedinpointingoutnotonlythatthemiddle-classwaysoflifetypicalof MiddleAmericawereculturallyconstructedandhistoricallycaused,butalsothat thingsherreaderstookforgrantedcouldbechanged;thatgenderrelations,values underpinningsocializationandallsortsofculturalconventionswereinfactdifferent inothersocietiesandthereforescarcelynatural.ThisapproachishailedbyMarcus andFischer(1986)asexemplary,althoughthey–likealmosteverybodyelse–have misgivingsaboutthequalityofMead’sdata,bothinSamoaandintheUSA.They askformorenuanceandcontext,forproperethnographyonadolescenceinthe
12 • EngagingAnthropology USA(ratherthanunreliablenon-ethnographicaccounts)andalessone-sidedview ofeitherculture.Itmaywellbethecase,however,thatapublicinterventionofthis kindhastomakeitspointclearlyandconciselyattheoutset,addingnuanceonthe way.Infact,thereisquiteabitofnuanceinMead’saccountfromSamoa,although muchofitisburiedinendnotes. TheRiddle. Thenarrativestructurebehindthe‘whodunit’ordetectivestory,the riddleformisatime-honouredandwellrehearsedformofstorytelling,whichmakes itnolesseffectivetodayifplacedintherighthands.Theauthorbeginswitha naive,butdifficultquestion(WhydidtheEuropeansconquertheworld?Whyis theIndiancowsacred?Whydopeopleeverywherebelieveingods?Whydoesthe mother’sbrotherhaveaspecialplaceeveninmanypatrilinealsocieties?)andthen spendsthenextpages–tenorfivehundred,asthecasemightbe–answeringit.He, orincreasinglyshe,firstbrushesawayresistancebypresentingafewalternative explanationstobediscardedasludicrousormisguided,beforeembarkingonthe questforcredibleanswers.Iftheanswertotheriddleistooobviousattheoutset, thegenrecandegenerateintoajust-sostory.Inthatcase,itmaytellthereader,in thespaceofacoupleofhundredpages,howhumanityhasmovedfromaforaging lifeonthesavannah,viahorticulturalandagriculturalformsofsubsistence,toa situationwherethefortunateworryabouttheirmortgagesandwatchtelevision, whiletheunfortunatetoilmirthlesslyassomanyforgottencogsintheheartless machineryofglobalcapitalism. Thebird’s-eye-viewnecessaryforthiskindofnarrativetoworkproperlyisrarely adoptedbyanthropologists,whousuallyinsistontheprimacyoftheparticular,but thegenrehasbeenpopularforcenturies.Alatter-dayexponentofthisstyleisthe lateMarvinHarris.Likeacurrentlyverysuccessfulnon-anthropologist,namely thescientistandpopularizerJaredDiamond(1997,2005),Harrisskilfullymoves betweenthevastcanvasofhumanhistoryandthenitty-grittyoflocalcustoms, weavingthemtogetherwithalogicwhichisinvincible,alltheaccountsbalanced, untilthemomentoneconfrontsthemwithboringdetails,counter-examplesand alternativeinterpretations. Harris’spopularbooksarenotsimpletriumphalistaccountsoftechnological progress.Disliked,ignoredorsneeredatbymostoftheanthropologistsIknow, CannibalsandKingsisnotdevoidofembellishmentsandhasatraceofthatinner tensionwhichoftendistinguishestheexcellentworkfromthatwhichismerely good.PraisedbyTheDailyExpressasa‘brilliantlyarguedbook’,itdefendsthe view,inheritedfromJulianStewardandLeslieWhite,thatculturalevolutionis tantamounttoanintensificationoftechnologyandresourceexploitation.Going furtherthanhismentors,Harrisalsoarguesthatspiritualbeliefsareultimately causedbyfactorsinthephysicalenvironment.Theaimis‘toshowtherelationship betweenmaterialandspiritualwell-beingandthecost/benefitsofvarioussystemsfor increasingproductionandcontrollingpopulationgrowth’(Harris1978:9).However,
AShortHistoryofEngagement • 13 Harris’sviewisthatcontemporaryindustrialcivilizationdoesnotrepresentthe apexofhumanprogress.UnlikerevolutionarywritingsofMarx,thereisnoplace forahappyendinHarris’sundialecticalhistoryofintensifiedproduction.Infact, likeDarwinhimself,Harrisdoesnotidentifyevolutionwithprogress,andseesa potentialcatastropheinthecombinedeffectsofpopulationgrowthandindustrial waste.Notingthatprehistoricalhunter-gathererstendedtobeinbetterhealththan thesucceedingagriculturalists,andthatthelifeexpectancyofaninfantinearly VictorianEnglandmightnotcomparefavourablytothesituation20,000years earlier,Harrismanagestoaddanounceofuncertaintytohisotherwiselinearand unexcitingstoryline.Inasense,he‘suspendsclosuretotheend’,asSutton(1991) putsit,butsincetheintelligentreaderquicklyunderstandsthattheanswertoallhis riddlesislikelytobeprotein,thecharminHarris’sversionoftheanthropological riddleliesinhisabilitytocreatesurpriseathow,attheendoftheday,everythinghas asimplefunctionalexplanation. ThePersonalJourney. ThephilosopherA.R.Louchonceinfamouslyintimated thatanthropologywasjustbadtravelwriting(Louch1966);justashisnear-namesake EdmundLeachonceremarkedthatallanthropologistswerefailednovelists.Every self-respectinganthropologistwouldopposethisviewandpointout,perfectly reasonably,thatanthropologyraisestheissuesathandinamuchmoreaccurate waythananytravelwriterwouldbeableto,thatitisbyfarmoresystematicand conscientiousinitspresentationoftheeventsandstatementsofpeoplethatformthe basisforgeneralization,andsoon.Ontheotherhand,consideringtheprofessional scepticismofmanycontemporaryanthropologists,whoeschewtheword‘science’, relinquishexplicitcomparisonandaredisdainfulofanythingthatsmacksofhuman universals,agoodtraveloguemightwellpassforanethnographytoday.Inprinciple, thatis;itdoesnotseemtohappenveryofteninpractice. Thescarcityofreadable,personal,anthropologicaltraveloguesispuzzling.It seemsthatjustasanthropologistsexcelinthestudyofotherpeople’sritualsbut areineptatorganizingandimmersingthemselvesintheirownrituals,andjust asanthropologistshavewaxedlyricalabout‘narratives’fortwodecadeswithout offeringmanyjuicynarrativesthemselves,alltheelementsofthepersonaltravelogue arepresentinthecontemporarycredoofpost-positivistanthropology,yetthey arerarelybroughttofruition.Contemporarysocialandculturalanthropologyis anti-scientisticandconcernedwithpositioningandreflexivity.Phenomenological micro-descriptionandhermeneuticempathyarecontemporaryvirtues.Andyet,there remainfewbonafideanthropologicalmonographsthathavethecharacteristicsofthe personaljourney.MichelLeiris’sL’AfriqueFantôme(1934)isoneclassicexample, butitwasnotthoughthighlyofbyhisprofessionalpeersinParis.Itwastoopersonal andtoocriticalofcolonialisminthewrongway,andaccordingtoBoskovic(2003: 4),itembarrassedMarcelGriaulesufficientlyforhimtodiscontinueallcontactwith Leirisafteritspublication.
14 • EngagingAnthropology Theoneworkthatstandsout,andwhichisincludedinanygeneralassessment oftheauthor’sœuvre,isLévi-Strauss’sTristesTropiques(1978a[1955]).Thebook seemstohavenoequivalentinEnglish.Eventhemostpersonalmonographsof recentyearsintheEnglishlanguage,executedinaspiritof‘experimentalwriting’ (paceMarcusandFischer1986)andoftenportrayingonlyahandfulofinformants, tendtobepepperedwithjargonandmetatheoreticaldiscussions(well,thereare admittedlyafewexceptions,suchasWikan’sLifeAmongthePoorinCairo(1980), Scheper-Hughes’sDeathWithoutWeeping(1992)andDavis’sTheSerpentandthe Rainbow(1986),buttheyarerare). TristesTropiquesrevealsLévi-Strauss’sworld-view.Ittellsusalittleaboutthe tenetsofstructuralism,especiallyinthepassagesdealingwithAmazonpeoplesand theautobiographicalchapterdescribinghowLévi-Straussdecidedtobecomean anthropologist.Butthemessageofthebookliesinitssadbeauty;thetexturesand sentimentsevokedintheunwillingtraveller’sstoryovershadowanyethnographic ortheoreticalmeritthatitmightpossess.Thebookisatravelogueproper;itislong, poorlyorganized(onemightsayunstructured),fullofprejudiceandnostalgia,and itisalsodeeplyengaging.TristesTropiqueswasdescribedas‘oneofthegreat booksofourcentury’bySusanSontag,itmovedGeertztocompareLévi-Strauss withRousseau,anditwasimportantinbringingstructuralismtotheattentionofthe French(andlatertheAnglo-Saxon)intelligentsia.Anditbeginswiththeinfamous sentence,‘Ihatetravellingandexplorers’.Somuchforfieldwork,onemightthink, until,lateronthesamepage,theauthorelaborates: Adventurehasnoplaceintheanthropologist’sprofession;itismerelyoneofthose unavoidabledrawbacks,whichdetractfromhiseffectiveworkthroughtheincidental lossofweeksormonths;therearehoursofinactionwhentheinformantisnotavailable; periodsofhunger,exhaustion,sicknessperhaps;andalwaysthethousandandonedreary taskswhicheatawaythedaystonopurposeandreducedangerouslivingintheheartof thevirginforesttoanimitationofmilitaryservice...(Lévi-Strauss1978a[1955]:15)
Thiskindofbad-temperedoutburst,areadermightbeforgivenforthinking,would besthavebeenkeptinthenotebookswhereithad,afterall,lingeredforfifteenyears beforetheauthordecidedtofinishthebook.ButthenLévi-Straussgoesontoexpress hisambitiontowriteadifferentkindoftravelbook;hefreelyconfessesthathefinds itincomprehensiblethattravelbooksenjoysuchagreatpopularity,astatement whichisintendedtomakethereaderexpectthatthisbookisgoingtobedifferent. Thejadedreader,knowingwhathecanusuallyexpectfromtravelwriting,sharpens hisears.Soon,heisdrawnintotheuniverseofthetravellerwhohatestravelling, theethnographerunabletogetintocontactwithhisinformants,theanthropologist unabletoconcealhiscontemptforMuslimsocieties,thetravelwriterwhodespises travelwriting.YetLévi-Straussmanagestopullitoff.LikeAlanCampbell(1996), IhaveoftenwonderedwhyTristesTropiquesbecamesuchasuccess,givenits
AShortHistoryofEngagement • 15 contemptuousattitudeandself-defeatingtone.UnlikeCampbell,Ilikethebookand believethereasonistheenigmaticpersonaofthewriterandthemanyinevitable tensionsthatarisebetweenhimandhisworld.WhenLévi-StraussarrivesinIndia, onecannotbutwonderhowheisgoingtocopewiththefilth,themiseryandthe sheeramorphousmassofIndianculture.(Asitturnedout,hecopedslightlybetter thanV.S.Naipaulwouldintheearly1960s.)Thebookdripswithnostalgia,itis almostdevoidofdeliberatehumour,mostcontemporaryreadersarelikelytoseethe authorasdatedandprejudiced–andyetthebookcommandsourinterest.Thereis nodoubtthatLévi-Straussisaworthycompanion,andhechallengesourprejudices (orperhapsourbeliefthatwehaveshedourprejudices)when,forexample,inoneof thebook’smorememorablepassages,hesays: NowthatthePolynesianislandshavebeensmotheredinconcreteandturnedintoaircraft carrierssolidlyanchoredinthesouthernseas,whenthewholeofAsiaisbeginningto looklikeadingysuburb,whenshantytownsarespreadingacrossAfrica,whenciviland militaryaircraftblighttheprimevalinnocenceoftheAmericanorMelanesianforests evenbeforedestroyingtheirvirginity,whatelsecantheso-calledescapismoftravelling dothanconfrontuswiththemoreunfortunateaspectsofourhistory?(Lévi-Strauss 1978a[1955]:43)
Nowthisisquiteamouthful,anditiswellworthponderinginthewidercontextof thebookand,especially,themuchwidercontextofaninterconnectedworld.The pointisnotwhetheronesympathiseswithLévi-Strauss’svisionornot(personally, Iconsideritdangerousandreactionary),butwhetherhesucceedsinbringing anthropologytonon-anthropologists.Theanswermustbeaffirmative,andthe reasonisthatthebookiswritteninsuchaninsistent,passionatevoicethatthereader istransportedtotheAmazonlowlandsortheloftyheightsoftheory,almostwithout noticing. Theanthropologicaltravelogue,writtenasapersonaljourneywheretheauthor addresseshisreadersasfellowtravellers,hasconsiderableuntappedpotential–it existsinFrance,inbookssuchasDescola’sLancesduCrépusculeandtheseries TerresHumaines,butingeneral,itisnotestablishedasarespectablegenre,as somethinganacademicmaydowithoutblushing.Ontheotherhand,itisoften mentionedthatonlysmallportionoftheknowledgethattheanthropologistreturns withfromthefieldisbeingeffectivelyusedinherarticlesandmonographs.We tellourdoctoralstudentsandevenMAstudents,returningfromamerethreeto sixmonthsoffieldwork,thattheyhavetoedittheirfieldnotescarefully,withtheir researchquestionsinmind,andleaveouteverythingsuperfluousorirrelevant.This isapainfulthingtodo,killingone’sbabiesandleavingone’scherishedmemories tooblivion,butmuchcouldbesalvagedthroughadifferentkindoftext.Perhapsthe mainexplanationissimplythatacademiceducationtendstodestroyourabilityto writewell.
16 • EngagingAnthropology TheIntervention. Itisnotdifficulttofindanthropologistswhoseworkandlifeare fuelledbyaburningmoralandpoliticalengagement.Manyofthemdoimportant andadmirableworkwithstudents,withNGOsandotherkindsoforganizations; somewriteimportanttextsaboutviolence,theState,economicexploitationor cultureandhumanrights,justtomentionafewtopics–butfewstepforwardsto theflickeringedgesofthelimelightinordertointerveneintheunpredictableand riskypublicsphereofthemediaandgeneralnon-fiction(‘trade’)publishing.Many saythattheylacktheskills,notthewill;butthatisnoexcuse–skillscomefrom practice,andonehastobeginsomewhere. Apartfromwritingwell,themostimportantunlearningthattakesplaceat universityaffectsthestudents’normativemotivations.Timeandagain,studentsare beingtoldthatit’sfineiftheywanttosavetheworld,butreally,academiclearning isaboutunderstandingit–soiftheywouldpleasekeeptheir‘ought’tothemselves, theycanhavesomemore‘is’asareward.Crudesubjectiveopiniondoesnotbelong inadissertation,whichissupposedtobesomethingdifferentfromapoliticaltract. WhileIagreebroadlywiththisview–analyticalworkisandshouldbedifferent fromadvocacy–thereisonlyashortstepfromneutraldescriptiontonumbness,and afalsecontrastisseentoappearbetweenprofessionalismandengagement.Isuspect thatnotafewanthropologistshavelosttheiroriginalmotivationforstudyingthe subject–understandinghumanity,orchangingtheworld–ontheway,replacing itwiththeintrinsicvaluesofprofessionalism.Andyet,justastheanthropological traveloguemaybecomplementarytothemonograph,theengagedpamphletcan oftenbeanecessarycomplementtotheanalyticaltreatise.However,thatpamphlet iswrittentoorarely.Itgivesyounopointsintheacademiccreditsystem,itmay causeembarrassmentamongcolleaguesandcontroversytobesortedoutbyoneself. Theeasywayout,andthesolutionmostbeneficialtoone’scareer,consistsin limitingoneselftoscholarlywork.YetGeraldBerremanwasrightwhen,speakingat theheightoftheVietnamWar,hesaidthat: [the]dogmathatpublicissuesarebeyondtheinterestsorcompetenceofthosewho studyandteachaboutmancomprisesmyopicandsterileprofessionalism,andafearof commitmentwhichisbothirresponsibleandirrelevant.Itsresultistodehumanizethe mosthumanistofthesciences.(Berreman1968:847)
Incontemporaryanthropology,thereisonesubjectareainwhichthepractitioners areunusualinbeinggenerallystronglyandexplicitlyengaged,namelythestudyof indigenouspeoples.OrganizationssuchasCulturalSurvivalandIWGIA(International WorkGroupofIndigenousAffairs)werefoundedbyanthropologists–theformer byDavidMaybury-Lewis,thelatterbyHelgeKleivan–andundertheirauspices, muchanthropologicallyinformedpolicyworkandadvocacy,popularizationsaimed atenlighteningthepublic,andnormativelymotivatedresearch,isbeingcarriedout. Theareaofindigenousissuesisasmalluniverseofitsown,shapedinnosmall degreebyanthropologists.
AShortHistoryofEngagement • 17 One of the most important anthropologists to devote himself to an openly normative,generaliztprojectinthetwentiethcenturywasAshleyMontagu,whose mostfamousbook,Man’sMostDangerousIdea:TheFallacyofRacewasfirst publishedduringtheHolocaust,in1942.Goingthroughseveralrevisions,thesixth updatededitioncameoutin1997,whentheauthorwasninety-two.Montaguhadone bigidea,withbothacademicandpoliticalramifications:thatracewasadangerous fiction,andthathumanswerechieflysocialandnotbiologicalcreatures.Theview wasuncontroversialinmainstreamsocialandculturalanthropology,andMontagu wasneverlionizedamonghisown,inspiteofhiswork,spanningmorethanhalfa century,whichconsistentlydemonstratedtheintellectualandpoliticalimportanceof theperspectivesdrawnfromBoasianculturalanthropology. Althoughhecommandedagreatdealofrespectandaffection,Montagu’sbooks wereneitherlovednoradmiredinthewayreadersmightloveMead’sbooksand admirethoseofLévi-Strauss.Butmanyrecognizedthemasbeingimportantand necessary.Montagu’smainshortcomingasapopularwriterconsistedinnotbeinga storyteller,alackwhichwouldincidentallynothavebeenaproblemhadheconfined himselftotheacademy.Considerthefollowing,typicalextractfromapopular articleofhis: Inviewofthefactthatthereexists,atthepresenttime,awidespreadbeliefintheinnate natureofcompetition,thatistosay,thatcompetitionisaformofbehaviourwithwhich everyorganizmisborn,andthatthisisparticularlytrueofman,itwillbenecessary todiscusssuchfacts,withwhichscientificstudieshaverecentlyacquaintedus,which throwlightuponthisnotion. JustwhentheideaoftheinnatecompetitivenessofmancameintobeingIhavenot theleastidea.Itisatleastseveralthousandyearsold,andwasprobablyincirculation longbeforetheOldTestamentcametobewritten.Itisquitepossiblethattheideaofthe innatecompetitivenessofmanisasoldasmanhimself.Therearesomeexistingnonliteratecultures,suchastheZunioftheAmericansouth-west,whichabhorcompetition andinwhichtheideaofinnatecompetitivenessisnon-existent.Itisquitepossiblethat manyprehistoricpeoplesheldsimilarnotions.(Montagu1952)
Lucidandinformative?Definitely.Butengagingandexciting?Hardly.Yetitmust bekeptinmindthatMontagu,aBritishJewhimself,studiedunderBoasatatime whenmainstreamintellectualsandpoliticianssaweugenicsasreasonableandracial scienceasrespectable,andthathewrotehisfirstmajorbookaboutraceandculture attheheightoftheSecondWorldWar.Thetimeandtopicplacedthecontextofhis workbeyondthedemandsoftheentertainmentindustry. TheEssay. Thischallengingliterarygenrecanbedefinedasanextremelysubjectiveformofnon-fiction.AssumingthatLeachwasrightinclaimingthatmost anthropologistswerefailednovelists,hereisachancetobecomeatrulycreative writerwithouthavingtoinventpersonsandevents.MicheldeMontaigne,the sixteenth-centurythinkerusuallycreditedwiththeinventionoftheliteraryessay,
18 • EngagingAnthropology sawhistextsasessaisinthepropersenseoftheword,thatis,asattempts.Theessay, unlikethearticle,isinconclusive.Itplayswithideas,juxtaposingthem,tryingthem out,discardingsomeideasontheway,followingotherstotheirlogicalconclusion. Inthecelebratedclimaxofhisessayoncannibalism,Montaigneforceshimselfto admitthathadhehimselfgrownupamongcannibals,hewouldinalllikelihood havebecomeacannibalhimself.Thisisnotanoptionthatmostsixteenth-century Frenchnoblemenwouldhaveevencontemplated. Itispossibletoplaceessaysonacontinuumbetweentheliteraryessay,verging onprose-poetryatoneextreme,andthenon-literary,whichattheotherextreme approachesthearticleornon-fictionbook.Unlikeothernon-fictiongenres,however, theessayhastobewritteninaspiritofexploration.Theauthormustnotgivethe impressionthatsheknowsalltheanswersbeforethewritingprocessbegins(even ifshethinksshedoes).Moreover,intheessay,thewriterseesthereaderasanally andcompanion,notasanantagonisttobedefeatedorpersuaded.Theessayappeals tothereader’scommonsense,itmayoccasionallyaddresshimdirectly,andthe essayisttriestoensurethatthereaderfollowsheroutonwhicheverlimbsheis headingfor. Therearemanysplendidexamplesofanthropologicalessays.ManyofGeertz’s celebratedwritingswouldfitmostofthecriteria.BookssuchasAdamKuper’s Culture:TheAnthropologist’sAccount(1999)andpossiblyMaryDouglas’sPurity andDanger(1966)couldbeclassifiedasessays.PierreClastres’sremarkableLa SociétéContrel’État(1977;SocietyAgainsttheState,1988)isbotharomantic travelogue,acriticalinterventionwithananarchisttendencyand–chiefly–an essayaboutthefateofstatelesspeoplesinthemodernworld,writteninthetradition ofLeirisandCaillois.TheGermanmaverickanthropologistHansPeterDuerr, throughhisboldcriticismofNorbertElias’stheoryof‘thecivilizingprocess’andhis somewhatNewAgetingedaccountofshamanism(Duerr1984),hasalsoengaged withthegeneralintellectualdebateofhistimethroughthedemanding,open-ended formofthelearnedessay.Therearealsosomeothers–butagain,theyaresurprisingly few.Ratherthanappealingtocommonsenseandintellectualcuriosityinthereader, mostanthropologistsclosethemselvesofffromgeneralscrutiny(andreadership)by retreatingintothearcaneconventionsofthediscipline. OneanthropologistwhodidnotsuccumbtothistemptationwasRuthBenedict, whowroteoneofthemostinfluentialbooksaboutJapanesecultureduringtheSecond WorldWar.Thebook’ssuccessmayhaveledtosomeprofessionalembarrassment amongthosewhosawhands-onfieldworksurplaceastheonlypossiblewayof gaininginsightintoanotherculture,sinceBenedicthadneverbeentoJapan,nordid shespeakorreadJapanese.UnliketheotherAmericanacademicsenlistedbythe USOfficeofWarInformationtomakesenseoftheenemy,however,shemetand interviewedmanyJapanesewhowereinternedintheUSA,watchedJapanesefilms anddiscussedthemwithnatives,anddideverythinginherpowertoobtainintimate knowledgeofthat‘enigmaticculture’fromadistance(Hendry1996).
AShortHistoryofEngagement • 19 SomereadersmaybesurprisedtofindBenedict’sTheChrysanthemumand theSwordasanexemplaroftheanthropologicalessay.Forwasitnotabook commissionedbythewarindustry,writtenwithaveryclearobjectiveinmind, namelytounderstandtheJapaneseinordertodefeatthem?AnddidnotBenedict alsoembodytheveryoppositespirittothatofthegoodessayist:linear,abstract, confidentinherownanswers?Well,yes,butherbookonJapanisverydifferentfrom thecommerciallymuchmoresuccessfulPatternsofCultureinthatsheapproaches hersubjectmatterwithacertainhumilityandbewilderment,allowingherreaders toshareherinitialconfusion.Thebook,writtenlargelyfornon-anthropologists, actuallyinfluencednotonlypoliciesduringthepost-warAmericanoccupationof Japan(alaterversionoftheUSgovernmentmighthaveneededasimilarbookon Iraq),buthasalsoledtovividdebatesaboutJapanesecultureandidentityinJapan itself.AccordingtoasourcecitedbyHendry(1996),thebookmayhavebeenread byasmanyastwentymillionJapanese!Thebookiswrittenandcomposedinthe riddlegenre,interspersinganalysisanddescriptionwithdoubtanduncertainty.Inthe end,everythingseemstofallneatlyinplace,butthebookissufficientlyambiguous (avirtueinessaywriting;aviceinstandardacademicpractice)tohavebeenreadin manyways,almostlikeaworkofliterature.Now,manyrecentanthropologybooks arealsointerpretedindifferentways,butthereasonmayjustaswellbeobscurity, deliberateorinvoluntary,ascomplexity–andobscurityisnottobeconflatedwith subtlety.InBenedict’scase,thereislittleoftheformerbutmuchmoreofthelatter. TheBiography. Single-informantethnographiesexist,suchasCrapanzano’s TuhamiorShostak’sNisa,andmany‘wholesociety’ethnographiesmighthave beenwrittenasbiographies,relyingastheydoonkeyinformants.Addtothis thegrowingappreciationofthelifestoryasempiricalmaterialinanthropology, anditbecomesnothingshortofpuzzlingthatsofewanthropologistshavewritten accessible,engagingbiographiesofpeopletheyknowintimately.Publisherswant biographies,readerswantbiographies,andthebestbiographiesportrayatimeand aplacejustasmuchastheytellthelifestoryofsomeindividualdeemedinteresting foronereasonoranother. Lifestorieshavebeenputtoseveralinterestingusesinrecentyears.Onemethod isthatdeployedbyMarianneGullestadinEverydayPhilosophers(1996),where theinformantshavethemselveswrittenlengthynarrativesabouttheirownlivesand theanthropologistassumesaneditor’srole.Althoughfewwouldusethismethod initsextremeform,promptinginformantstowriteaboutthemselvesisarguably anunderusedformofdatacollection.Alessexperimental,butnolesssuccessful, methodistheoneemployedbyKatyGardnerinSongsfromRiver’sEdge(1997), surelyoneofthemostbeautifullywrittenethnographiesofrecentdecades.Basedon villagefieldworkinBangladesh,Gardner’sbookhasineffectcrossedtheboundary intoliterature,anditispresentedbythepublisherasacollectionofstories.(She alsopublishedamoreacademicbookfromthesamefieldwork.)Gardnerhaschosen
20 • EngagingAnthropology narrativeoveranalysis,andthebookisfreeofjargonandwaspublishedasatrade book,notasanacademicmonograph.Readingitmademethinkthatthereisno goodreasonwhyanthropologistsshouldnotcombinethisapproach–letthepeople’s biographiesandtheeventstheanthropologistencountersspeakforthemselves –withananalyticalwrappingatthebeginningandtheend.Thisisnottheplace todiscusswhetherGardner’sunusualwayofpresentingherethnographyisuseful foranthropology(Isuspectitmightbe,butthereareseveralissuesthatneedto beaddressedbeforeconcluding),butasawayofenlargingageneralreadership’s visionoftheworld,itiscommendable.Aflourishingofwell-writtenanthropological biographies,ordocumentarystories,woulddoubtlessraiseanthropology’spresence inthepopularconsciousness,andasanadditionalbonus,itwouldalertthepublicto thedifferencesbetweenanthropologyandotherformsofacademicinquirysuchas culturalstudies. Justbeforethefinaldeadlineforthisbook,anewsub-genreoftheanthropological genrewasintroducedbyAlanMacfarlane,aCambridgeprofessorchieflyknownfor hisstudiesinculturalhistory.Macfarlane’sLetterstoLily(2005)consistsofthirty thought-provokingletterstohisgranddaughter,whereheimagineshertobearound seventeen(atthetimeofwriting,sheisseven).Thelettersareanthropologically informedresponsestoquestionsMacfarlaneassumesshewillask,suchas:Whyis therewar?Whatislove?Wheredoesfreedomcomefrom?Akindofanthropological Sophie’sWorld,thebookisasplendiddemonstrationofanthropology’sabilityto functionasanempiricallybasedphilosophy,whichhasimportantthingstosayto anyonewhoisuncertainofwhereshe,hersocietyorindeedtheworldisheading. Ratherthanofferinganswers,Macfarlaneinvitesthereadertolingernearthe questions. SincetheSecondWorldWar,anthropologyhasshrunkawayfromthepubliceye inalmosteverycountrywhereithasanacademicpresence.Studentnumbers grow;youngmenandwomenarestillbeingseducedbytheintellectualmagicof anthropology,ideasoriginatinginanthropologybecomepartofaneverydaycultural reflexivity–andyet,thesubjectisallbutinvisibleoutsideitsowncircles.Infact, oneofthegreatestanthropologicalpublishingsuccessesofrecentdecadeshasbeen somethingofanembarrassmenttothesubject,namelyNigelBarley’ssatirical booksfromCentralAfricaandSouth-EastAsia(Barley1985).Thefeelingthat anthropologistsfeedinaparasiticalmanneron‘theothers’isstillratherwidespread amongintellectualsoutsidethediscipline,andBarley’sbookshavedonelittleto disprovethisview. Withfewexceptions,theexamplesofsuccessfulpublicengagementthatIhave discussedabovewerepublishedatleasthalfacenturyago.Paradoxically,asthe disciplinehasgrown,itsperceivedwiderrelevancehasdiminished.Inthemidtwentiethcentury,thedayofMead,MontaguandEvans-Pritchard,anthropologists stillengagedingeneralintellectualdebateandoccasionallywrotepopular,yet
AShortHistoryofEngagement • 21 intellectually challenging, texts.The number of anthropologists doing so has dwindled.IntheUSA,WilliamBeemanmaybealoneinwritingregularlyforthe press,andtheculturalanthropologistsvisibleinthehugeandvariegatedAmerican medialandscape–NancyScheper-HughesandMicaeladiLeonardoareamongthem –caneasilybecounted.IntheUK,EdmundLeach(d.1989)andErnestGellner(d. 1995)werethelastmajorpublicintellectualsamonganthropologists. Therearemoreofusthaneverbefore,yetfewerreachouttocommunicatewith awiderworld.Probablythereisacauseandeffecthere.AsJeremyMacClancyhas remarked(1996:10;seealsoGrimshawandHart1993,Wilken1994),thenumber ofprofessionalanthropologistswassolimitedintheinter-waryearsthatmonograph writerswereforcedtokeepageneraleducatedaudienceinmindastheywrote.After theSecondWorldWar,anthropologistshaveincreasinglybeentalkingtoeachother, theargumentgoes,simplybecausetheynolongerhadtospeaktoothers. Asageneralexplanationthiswillnotdo.Surely,thereisaverysignificantnumber ofhistoriansintheAnglophoneworldaswell,yetmanyofthemareextremely successfulintheirattemptstocommunicatewithnon-historians.Theirprofessional communityislesssequestered,lessbounded,lesssmugandpossiblylessselfrighteousthantheanthropologists’guild.Thereissomethingthatthehistoriansdo thatanthropologistscouldlearnfrom. Ananecdoteaboutthehistorianandtheanthropologistmaygiveahint.The historianandtheanthropologistdiscusstherelativemeritsoftheirsubjects.The anthropologistsays,inasmugvoice:‘Well,ifyouhistoriansintendtostudya river,youhavetowaituntilithasdriedout.Youthenenterthedryriverbedwith yourmagnifyingglassesandwhatnot.Weanthropologists,ontheotherhand,wade straightintothemessywetnessoftheriverandstaythereuntilwehavebeenableto makesenseofitasitflowsby.’Thehistorianlightshispipe,looksoutofthewindow andanswersslowly:‘Yes,Isupposeyouareright.Yet,youanthropologistsseem todryoutthelivingriver,whilewehistoriansendeavourtobringwatertothedry riverbed.’ Whathistoriansdoistotellstories.Whatanthropologistsdoistoconvertstories intoanalysis.Whilethisbringsusalittleclosertoansweringthequestionofwhy anthropologyisoutoftouchwiththepopularconsciousness,thequestionissufficientlycomplex,andhasenoughramifications,toneedachapterofitsown.
This page intentionally left blank
–2– WhatWentWrong? Thewithdrawalofanthropologyfromgeneralintellectualdiscourseinthelatter halfofthetwentiethcenturyisafactwhichneedsnofurtherqualification.There areimportantexceptions–somehavebeenmentionedalready,whileotherswillbe discussedlater–butonthewhole,anthropologicaldiscoursehaswithdrawninto itself.Intryingtoaccountforthistendencyandcriticizingit,itisnotmyintention tobelittle,inaspiritofanti-intellectualpopulism,thesignificanceofacademic anthropology,noramIoblivioustothewide-rangingandhighlyconsequential practicalandappliedworkcarriedoutbyanthropologistswhofunctionascritics orspecialistsworkingwithindigenousaffairs,‘developmentaid’,immigrantsor othersocialissues.ThequestionIamraisingissimplywhyitisthatcontemporary anthropologistsaresoreluctanttopresenttheirworktolargeraudiencesinsideand outsidetheacademy,andwhyitissoimportantthatwedoso. Therearemanypossiblescapegoats.Thelastdecadesofthetwentiethcentury sawafundamentaltransformationof–indescendingorderofimportance–the universities,theroleoftheacademicintellectualinsociety,andanthropology. Universitiesarebeingturnedintofactories.Academicshave,asaconsequence, lostmuchofthetimetheycouldformerlydevotetoengagementingreatersociety, theyhavebeenspecializedtothepointoffragmentationandbesides,theirsocietal authorityhasdiminished.Asfarasanthropologyisconcerned,thegrandtheories whereeverythingcouldbemadetofitevaporatedaround1980,ThirdWorldliberation madetheclassicanthropologistseemtobeaneo-colonialromanticrefusinglocals therighttodefinethemselves;andtheassaultofpostmodernismonanykindof truthclaimwasthelastthinganthropologyneeded,saturatedasitalreadywaswith self-doubt. Perhapsnon-engagementoraloofnessfromsocialissuesisthemainresidueof theoldculturalrelativism,thatisthespiritoflettingthenativesdealwithnative problems?Orperhapsthemisuseofthecultureconceptinethnicconflictsand nationalistwarshasgivenuscoldfeet?Therearemanypossibleinterpretations.Yet anthropologyis,orshouldbe,particularlyrelevantinthecontemporaryworld,asa wayofthinkingcomparatively,basedonalocalperspectiveonhumanaffairs.
23
24 • EngagingAnthropology
TheArtofStayingAloof Thepositionofacademicsingreatersocietyvaries.InNorway,anthropologists areroutinelycontactedbyorganizationsandmedia,askedabouttheiropinionsor invitedtogivepublictalksonsometopicofgeneralinterest.Thisisnotthecase,for example,intheUSA.Afewyearsago,onavisittoNorway,MichaelHerzfeldmentionedthathewouldliketoreachagreateraudiencewithhiswork,butalas–anthropologybookssoldpoorly.FredrikBarthsuggestedthathegiveafewtalkstoassociationsororganizationsoutsidetheuniversity,inordertogettoknowhispotential readershipbetter.Herzfeldsawthepropositionasbeingentirelyunrealistic.Howon earthshouldhegetincontactwithsuchassociations?(Gullestad2003). Insomecountries,therearemanypossiblelinesofcommunicationconnecting academicswith‘theoutsideworld’;inothers,theselinesseemtobeabsentfor allexceptahandfulofauthorizedpublicintellectuals.Thisdifferencemayhave somethingtodowithscaleanddifferentiation;thenumberofmediaoutlets,both fastandslow,isgenerallymuchhigherpercapitainasmall,richcountrythanina largecountry,richorpoor.Oslohasninenewspapersforapopulationoflessthana million.Perthhasone,theWestAustralian,forapopulationofamillionandahalf. Yetinspiteofsuchobjectivefactors,itcanhardlybedeniedthattosomeextent, theisolationisself-imposed.Thereismuchunpleasant,ifinvisibleandimplicit, boundary-patrollingtakingplaceinanthropologydepartmentsaroundtheworld. Anthropologistsjustlypridethemselvesontheirstronggroupidentityasaprofession, butthedownsideofanystrong,proudgroupidentityis–aseveryanthropologist knows–aglorificationofone’sownachievementsattheexpenseofdenigrating thoseofothers.Wesometimesbehaveasthoughanyonewhomakesacommenton, say,childlabourinPakistan,andwhohasn’tdonelotsoffieldworkthere,isnottobe takenseriously.Thisisapreposterousandunproductiveattitude.Itistimetoadmit thatthediffusionistElliotSmithwasnotentirelyoffthemarkwhenhewrote,ina privatecommentonMalinowski,thathefailedtounderstandthat‘thesolemethod ofstudyingmankindistositonaMelanesianislandforacoupleofyearsandlisten tothegossipofthevillagers’(ElliotSmithquotedinStocking1992:58).Again,this shouldnotbeunderstoodasanegativeviewoftheethnographicmethod,onlyasa reminderthattheremayexistdifferentsourcesofvalidknowledge. Severalbookspublishedsincetheearly1980shavetakenissuewiththeapparent irrelevanceofanthropologytotheoutsideworld.Oneofthemostinfluentialhas beentheaforementionedAnthropologyasCulturalCritique(MarcusandFischer 1986),wherethecentralargumentisthatanthropologyinthelatetwentiethcentury hadthepotentialtorepeatsomeofthepopularandcriticalsuccessesoftheinterwaryears.Sinceitssubjectmatterhadbecomeevermorecomplex,andbecauseof relevantcriticismbyfeminists,formercolonialsubjectsandothers,anthropology wasgoingthrough‘anexperimentalmoment’whichoughttohave,intheviewof theauthors,inspiredanthropologiststousetheirknowledgeofotherculturesto
WhatWentWrong? • 25 questionbasicassumptionsintheirown.Tosomeextent,thishascomeaboutin theinterveningtwodecades,butthisdevelopmenthashadnodirecteffectonthe relationshipbetweenanthropologyandthenon-academicworldofpublicdiscourse, althoughitispossible,asBenthall(2002a:4)maintains,thatthereisa‘trickle-down intopublicdebate’. Althoughitsmessageisthatanthropologyoughttomakeadifferenceoutside theuniversities,AnthropologyasCulturalCritiqueandensuingworksbythesame authorsandtheirassociatesgivenoindicationofanearnestattempttoconvey anthropologicalinsightstothegeneralreader.Inthatbook,andtoanevengreater extentinWritingCulture(CliffordandMarcus1986),publishedsimultaneously, thereisadeepconcernwithstyleandrhetoric,withrepresentation(anditsso-called crisis)andsymbolicpower.Whilethisheightenedself-reflectionhasbeenvery tangibleinmuchlateranthropology,itcannotbearguedthatanthropologyhas madeitselfmoreindispensableasasourceofculturalcriticisminthesameperiod. Infact,thetendencytowardscocooningandself-imposedghettoizationwas,if anything,evenstrongerinthe1980sand1990sthaninthepreviousdecades,partly asaresultoftheweakenedpositionofMarxistapproachesto‘underdevelopment’, aweakenedengagementwithissuesofglobaldevelopmentasaresult,andthe narcissisttemptationsofpostmodernism.Itseemsthatthemuch-discussedcrisisof representationisreallyneithermorenorlessthanacrisisofcommunication. Infact,inretrospectitiseasytoseethatpostmodernismdidconsiderabledamage toanthropology.Otherdisciplinesneededit–mainstreampoliticalscienceisstill waitingforitsinjection–asanaidtodevelopcriticalself-awarenessandtheoretical modesty.Inanthropology,debateshadalreadybeenrunningfordecadesabout thepossibilityoftranslationbetweenonecultureandanother,thepossibilityof comparisonandissuespertainingtoreflexivityandobjectivityindescriptionand analysis.Withtheinfluxofpostmodernideas(orideasbelievedtobepostmodern byanthropologists–sometimesFoucaultwaslumpedwithLyotardandDeleuze as‘postmodern’)intoanthropologicalwriting,thesubjectgotanextradoseofa foul-tastingmedicineithadalreadybeenstrugglingtoswallowforthebestpartof acentury.Althoughpostmodernismwasvigorouslyresisted–Geertzdiagnosedits adeptsassufferingfromepistemologicalhypochondria–itmadedeepinroadsinto thealreadyfragileself-confidenceofanthropologyasarobustandscientificway ofknowing.Adoublepositiveseemstohavemadeanegativeinthisrespect,and thepostmodernimpulsechasedanthropologyfurtherdowntheroadofintroverted rumination.InacomparisonbetweentheromanticLévi-StraussianPierreClastres andthepostmodernisthistorianofanthropologyJamesClifford,Geertz(1998) concludesthatwhatevertheflawsofhisapproach,Clastres‘knewwherehewas going,andhegotthere.’Clifford,inRoutes,abookabouttravel,movementand ethnography,onthecontrary‘seemsstalled,unsteady,fumblingfordirection’,and histexthas‘ahesitant,stutteringquality(whatcanIsay?howcanIsayit?withwhat rightdoIdoso?)’.Postmodernismtaughtagenerationofanthropologiststodissect
26 • EngagingAnthropology themenuwithoutbotheringtolookatthefood;itconcentratesonthewallpaper patternsinsteadofthequalityofthemason’swork. Cocooningalsohasasocialdimension,whichmaybepeculiartoanthropology. Oneofthefirstquestionsananthropologistislikelytoaskayoungercolleague,after establishinghisorherfieldofstudy,is:‘Whoareyouworkingwith?’,or‘Whowas yoursupervisor?’Therearelineagesandclans,feudsandoldantagonismsenough foreveryone.Conflictstendtobeinherited,sometimesformorethanageneration. Thediplomaticandeasy-goingRaymondFirthexcepted,therelationshipbetween Malinowski’sstudentsandRadcliffe-Brown’sstudentsseemstohavebeenstrained untilwellintothe1960s(Kuper1996).IntheUSA,youwereeitherwithBoasor withthedarkforces.Thesociologyofanthropologicalcliques,loyaltiesandenmities might,atcritical,definingmomentsinourpast,revealaclosefamilyresemblanceto thestudyofreligiouscults,paranoidorotherwise. Inthepreviouschapter,someexplanationsforthecocooningofanthropology werementionedalmostinpassing.Itisnowtimetolookmoresystematicallyatthe causes.
RecipesforCocooning Elitism Anthropology,unlikesomeotheracademicdisciplines,hasyettoescapefullyfrom themouldyloungesandpompoushallwaysofpre-waruniversitylife.Inspiteof thedemographicexplosionithasgonethroughsincetheSecondWorldWar,andin spiteofthedemocratizationofhighereducation,anthropologysomehowremainsan elitesubjectintheEnglish-speakingworld.Sinceanthropologyisasubjectwhich pridesitselfonstudyingtheworld‘frombelow’,seeingtheworld‘fromthenative’s pointofview’,givingvoiceto‘muted’groupsandsoon,thereisasadironyinthis self-imposedsnobbery.Inthepioneeringdaysoftheearlytwentiethcentury,many significantanthropologistswereJews,immigrantsandwomenandwerethus,by virtueofpersonalexperience,inaprivilegedpositiontounderstandandempathize withthedisenfranchised.Theyneverthelesstendedtohaveabackgroundinthe Europeanculturalbourgeoisie.MeadandBenedict,too,camefromsolidmiddleclassbackgrounds.Butsodidmostacademicsregardlessofsubject,andtheearly predominanceofminoritiesandwomenattheverycentreofthedisciplinewas significant. Evans-Pritchard’sgenerationdidnotevenwantanthropologytobetaughtasan undergraduatesubject.InBritain,thesubjectremainsdominatedbythedepartments oftheeliteuniversities,whilethesexierculturalstudies(‘anthropologywithout thepain’,asacolleaguecallsit)departmentstendtobelocatedinlessprestigious red-brickuniversities.Thesituationiscomparablealthoughsometimeslessstark
WhatWentWrong? • 27 inothercountries.WhenIwasrecentlyinvitedtospendatermteachingataSouth Africanuniversity,Iwasnaivelylookingforwardtomeetinganunfamiliarand challengingkindofstudent.Ienvisionedthelectureroomasthickwiththeadrenaline ofangryyoungmenandwomenwhohadsufferedatthehandsofatheoryofculture, apartheidthatis,whichdrewmuchofitsinspirationfromearlytwentieth-century anthropology.Theactualanthropologystudentsturnedouttobeprettymuchlike theonesIknewfromhome:pale-skinned,mostlyfemalestudentsfromrespectable families,whoseparentscouldaffordtolettheirchildrenstudyauselesssubject. Theproperviewofanthropologyinundergraduatecoursesshouldinfactbethe oppositeofthetwentieth-centuryBritisheliteview:inanidealworld,everybody wouldtakeafewcoursesofanthropology.ItisasessentialatoolasPlatoandKant foranunderstandingofthehumanworld. Some years ago, I asked a British colleague, who now worked in a nonanthropologydepartment,howshefeltaboutnotworkingasananthropologist properanymore.Slightlyannoyedbythequestion,shesaidwithgreatemphasisthat shewasrelievedtohaveleftanthropology,maintainingthatsocialanthropology,at leastintheUK,wasincrediblysnobbish,resolutelyturningitsnoseupatanything smackingofpopulismor‘notproperanthropology’,andsaturatedwithanancient Oxbridgespirittotallyoutoftunewiththecontemporaryworld.Themediaare regardedwithagreatamountofcondescension,sheintimated,andpopularization and‘impure’engagementswiththeoutsideworld(whichmightcompromiseone’s integrityasoneoftheselectedfew)wereviewedwithdeepsuspicion. TheseremarksledmetorecallthesituationinNorway,wheresocialanthropology hasenjoyedareputationasananti-elitistkindofactivity–anunruly,anarchist scienceofgreatcoated,ruffledmenwithunpolishedshoesandstrangeviews–since themid-twentiethcentury.Intheviewofmanynon-academicobservers,viewit comparesfavourablywiththehumanities,wheretheWesterncanonicaltraditions stilltendtobereproducedinanalmostmonasticway,andevenwithsubjects likesociology,wherethereverenceforancestorslikeWeberandDurkheim(‘the classics’)cansometimesmakelecturessoundlikesermons.Norwegianjournalists contactanthropologistsforcommentsoncurrentaffairseverydayoftheweek–beit aroyalwedding,asportscandalorrecentpoliticalchangesinaThirdWorldcountry –andtheanthropologistsplayanotnegligiblepartinpublicdebate. However,whatstruckmeatthetimeoftheconversationwasnotthisdifference, butthefactthatalthoughmanyNorwegiananthropologistsnowstudyaspectsoftheir ownsociety,thevastmajorityofusknowmuchmoreaboutcontemporaryAfrican witchcraftandsacrificeineasternIndonesiathanaboutthewayoflifetypicalofthe domesticworkingclass,whichcouldeasilybeobservedatwenty-minutetuberide fromtheleafybourgeoisenvironmentoftheuniversitycampus.Noanthropologist hadsteppedforwardandtriedtoexplain,onthebasisofethnographicresearch,why, forexample,asubstantialpartoftheworkingclasshadrecentlychangeditspolitical alignmentfromtheLabourPartytothepopulist,anti-immigrationProgressParty.
28 • EngagingAnthropology Thefactisthatthereisacertainotherworldlinessaboutacademicanthropology, virtuallyeverywhere.Thereinliesitscharmforthewiderpublic,perhaps.While asociologistorpoliticalscientistmightdealwith,say,theOlympicGamesin termsoftheglobaleconomy,powerabuseintheIOCordomesticnationalism,an anthropologistwouldbemorelikelytoseeitinthelightofWesternindividualism andthecultofmodernity,andwouldpresumablyinterpretitasaritual,drawing onacenturyofresearchonritualsinnon-literatesocieties.Anthropologycanoffer slantedandskewed,unexpectedandthought-provokingperspectivesonapparently pedestrianandmundanematters.Thishasmadesomeanthropologistsdarlingsofthe mediainNorway,buttheverysamequalityofthesubjecthasleditspractitioners towithdrawelsewhere.Toputitdifferently:inspiteofitsconsiderablegrowth, anthropologystillcultivatesitsself-identityasacounter-culture,itsmembers belongingtoakindofsecretsocietywhoseinitiatespossessexclusivekeysfor understanding, indispensable for making sense of the world, but alas, largely inaccessibletooutsiders. JonathanSpencer(2000),inapartlyexperience-basedaccountofBritishanthropologyinitsmainperiodofdemographicexpansion,fromthe1960stothe1980s, pointsoutthatthedominantfiguresofthedisciplineshudderedatthethought ofintroducinganthropologyinsecondaryschools(seealsoShore1996).Leach argued:‘Itcouldbeveryconfusingtolearnaboutotherpeople’smoralvaluesbefore youhaveconfidentunderstandingofyourown’(Leach1973quotedinSpencer 2000:3).Asaresultoftheanthropologists’refusaltoadapttheirsubjecttothe requirementsofAlevels,thousandsofyoungBritonshavelearnttherudiments ofsociologyandpsychologyintheirlateteens,whilehardlyanybodyhasbeen exposedtoanthropology. Theanthropologistssimplydidnotwanttheirsubjecttobecometoopopular. Fearingtheinfluxofformercolonialofficersandyoungidealistswhowereinterested inapplyinganthropologytonon-academicpursuits,theestablishmentreactedby purifyingthesubjectevenfurther.AtthemainBritishuniversitiestherewereno curricula,butinsteadveryextensivereadinglists.Textbookswererarelyused. Again,Leachexpressedadominantsentimentwhenhestated: Itmustbeemphasizedtosuchpotentialstudents[whowereinterestedinnon-academic employment] that the prospects of ever being employed as a professional social anthropologists(sic)areextremelysmall...Iwouldpersonallybehorrifiedifitbecame apparentthatthe‘syllabusdesign’...wasslantedtowards‘appliedanthropology’. (LeachquotedinSpencer2000:7)
IntheUSA,thecausesofthediminishedengagementwiththeoutsideworlddiffered. Foronething,anthropologyhasalwaysbeenmuchlarger,boththematicallyandin termsofdemography,intheUSAthaninanyEuropeancountry.TheAssociationof SocialAnthropologistsintheUKhasamembershipofslightlyover500,whilethe
WhatWentWrong? • 29 AmericanAnthropologicalAssociationhasnearly12,000members(Mills2003:13). Inotherwords,althoughthepopulationoftheUSisonlysixtimesthatofBritain, therearetwenty-fourtimesasmanyorganizedanthropologists. Yetanthropologyfailstomakesignificantinroadsinthegeneralintellectual discourseontheothersideoftheAtlanticaswell.Popularizationandrefraining frommindingone’sownprofessionalbusinessarenotactivitiesthataddtoone’s academiccredentials.Inasituationwithfiercecompetitionforfewjobs,itpays moretowritejournalarticlesinthestyleofone’steachersthantopopularizeor enterintogeneraldiscussionswithnon-colleagues.Moregenerally,thereisadeep abyssbetweenacademicsandthegeneralpublicintheUSand,asarguedbyRussell Jacoby(1987),therenowadaysseemtobefewpublicspacesavailableforAmerican intellectualsoutsidetheacademyitself. TheMyopicSpecializationResultingfrom‘myEthnography’. Itcouldalsobe thecasethatthelong-termeffectsoftheMalinowskianfieldworkrevolutionand Boas’shistoricalparticularism,togetherwiththenewconstraintsimposedbythe post-colonialcritiqueandtheincreaseddemandforreflexivity,hasmadeitdifficult foranthropologiststoretaintheirprofessionalvirtueandsimultaneouslyofferwiderangingoverviewsofanykind.TheMalinowskianglorificationofthedetailed, synchronicsingle-societystudyencouragesspecializationandgivesthehighest markstothecolleaguewhoremainsloyaltoherfieldnotesthroughouthercareer. ItisgenerallyagreedamongthemajorityofEnglish-speakinganthropologists thatRadcliffe-Brown,withhisfutileambitionsfora‘realscience’ofsystematic comparisonandcumulativegrowthinknowledge,isbestforgotten;thatG.P. Murdock’senormousethnographicatlas,knownastheHumanRelationsAreaFiles, islargelyuselessbecausethedataaredecontextualized;anditcanalsobeargued thatJackGoody’sambitiousforaysintocomparativeEuro-Asianhistoryareforgiven onlybecauseGoodyisalsoaneminentWestAfricanist.Thesmaller,thebetter,ina sense.Thereismuchtobesaidforsuchjudgements,atleastwhentheyarepassed inapolemiccontext.Butimpurecompromisesbetweenone’sownethnography andotherkindsofknowledgearepossible(andare,evidently,madeallthetime).It maybethatthetendencytocrawlonallfourswithamagnifyingglass,ratherthan circlingtheworldinahelicopterlookingatsocietieswithapairofbinoculars,could beanthropology’sgreatgifttotheworld,butitneedstobesupplementedbybold comparisonsandsweepingoverviews. ComplexityasConclusionratherthanPremise. Someyearsago,onamaddrive fromHeathrowtoHull,Ihappenedtoheararadiodebateabouthumanevolutionon theBBC.Oneofthepanellists,anevolutionarypsychologist,explainedhowculture couldbeseenaspartofthehumanevolutionaryprocess,presentingatheory-ofgameskindofmodelaccountingforadaptiveadvantages.Theotherparticipant,a socialanthropologist,saidsomethingtotheeffectthat,‘Yes,thisisprobablycorrect
30 • EngagingAnthropology asfarasitgoes,butwemustkeepinmindthatitismorecomplexthanthat.’Of coursehewasright,butitwouldmostlikelybetheevolutionist’ssimpleandrobust argumentsthatwererememberedbythelisteners. Thiskindofdebatealwaysbringstomindacartoon,inalllikelihoodnon-existent, whichdepictsapublicdemonstrationconsistingofalargecrowdofanthropologistscarryingplacardsandbannerswithtextssuchas‘Morecomplexitynow!’, ‘Ambiguityrules’,‘Downwithsimpleanswers!’andsoon. Thatiswhereourpredicamentlies:whatanthropologyhastoofferappearstobe irreduciblecomplexityandambiguity;inotherwords,apparentlynon-marketable commoditieswithrespecttothemassmediaandthegeneralreader.Thisisnottosay thatthereadingpublicisnecessarilydismissiveofcomplexityassuch,butthatmost readersexpectabooktomakesenseofthecomplexityandnotjustleavethejobtothe reader.Mostanthropologistsarereluctanttosimplifytheirinsights,andevenifthey wantedto,itmightnotalwaysbepossibletodistilthecomplexityintopunchlines orpersuasiveargumentsneatlywrappinguptheprecedingchaos.Fewmonographs orevenarticleshaveasimplepointtomake,onethatmightbesummarizedina singlesentence.Someofthepopularizingsuccessesofanthropologydomakesuch simplepoints,whichmaybeamainreasonthattheyaresounpopularinsidethe discipline:Meadarguedthatnurturewasmoreimportantthannature;Harrisargued thatecologicalandtechnologicalfactorsexplainedcultureandsociety;Turnbull described,inhisMbutibook,analmostRousseauianstateofEden,andsoon. Thepractisingethnographerisscepticalofsuchbooks,andwithsoundreasons,at leastifthesolecriteriaofjudgementaretakenfromwithinanthropologyitself.If, instead,oneweretoacceptthatthemajorityoutthere,whoarenevergoingtobe anthropologistsanyway,mightbenefitfromaninjectionofanthropologicalthinking andethnographicfacts,onemightbemoreinfavouroftheideaofusingasimpler language.Infact,someofthenormallyleastreadableanthropologistshaveshown thistobepossible.Lévi-Strauss’sMythandMeaning(1978b)andhisinterview bookwithDidierEribon,DePrèsetdeLoin(1988),conveythemainelementsin hisstructuralismandhisintellectualvisionwithoutlosing,presumably,asingle potentialreaderontheway.ManyofushavesomethingtolearnfromLévi-Strauss inthisregard. ThePost-colonialCritiquesandtheLossoftheNative. Thepost-colonialcritique of Eurocentrism and the hegemony ofWestern forms of discourse is seen by someanthropologistsasaconfirmationthattheywererightallalong.Afterall, anthropologistswerealwaysawarethatknowledgewaspositionedculturallyand geographically,andthatlocalknowledges,althoughtheydifferfromoneanother, canbeequallyvalid.However,manypost-colonialcriticstargetedanthropologists inparticular(Deloria,1969,mayhavebeenthefirst)fortheirtendencytodescribe traditionalpeoplesasexoticand‘radicallyother’.Theshiftinpowerofdefinition urgedbypost-colonialwritersandpoliticalmovementsseemedtoimplythatsince
WhatWentWrong? • 31 thetaskofanthropologyhadconsistedinidentifyingothers,andsincethose‘others’ werenowperfectlycapableofidentifyingthemselves,anthropologistshadbasically losttheirvocation.Thisviewwasmetwithagreatdealofsympathyamonganthropologists,who–unlikeotherscholars–perfectlywellunderstoodwhatwasat stake,giventheirprofessionalbackground.Nowthattheerstwhilenativeshad,in manycases,developedtheirownstoriesabouttheircultureandtheirownviewsof relevantknowledge,anthropologistswereseeminglyleftwiththetaskofidentifying andanalysingnativetheoriesaboutcultureratherthannativeculture.Ortheycould shifttothestudyofmodernsocietiesinthenorth.Bothdevelopmentstookplace, increasinglysofromthelate1970s,whileatthesametimemanycontinuedto studytraditionalsocieties,thoughitwouldnowhavetobetraditionalsocietiesin transition. Inalllikelihood,thelossofthenativewasamoreseriousblowtotheidentity ofanthropologythanmosthavebeenwillingtoadmit.Itisrepeatedoverandover, likeamantra,thatwhatdistinguishesanthropologyisitsethnographicmethod,not itssubjectmatter(whichwouldhavebeennon-industrialsocietiesinthepast);but inpractice,thisimpliesthatwhereastheboundariesofthesubjectremainintact, itssymbolicmarkersofidentityhavebecomeproblematic.Forothersproduce ethnographyaswell,andanthropologistshavediscoveredthesignificanceofother sourcesofdata,suchasarchivesandmassmedia.Thelossofthenativewasto anthropologywhatthelossofsocialistEasternEuropewastoWesternsocialism. Onehadattheverymostbelievedinithalf-heartedly,butthemomentitwasgone, onediscoveredthatanimportantelementinone’sself-identitywasgone. Thepost-colonialcritiqueofthedefinitionalpoweroftheWestthusundermined theanthropologicalconfidenceintwoways:ittaintedthegenealogyofthesubject, turninganthropologistsintotheinheritorsofacolonialscience.Italsotoldanthropologiststhattheirworkon‘theother’wasirrelevant,unnecessaryandprobably harmful.Unfairasmostoftheseclaimsmighthavebeen,theyhaveledtoanew soft-spokenness,afearofoffendingthesensibilitiesofothers,whichcanbequite paralysing. Moregenerally,itcouldbesaidthatafterthepost-colonialcritiqueofWestern representations, the collapse of classic cultural relativism and the damaging postmodernistautocritiqueofthe1980s,anthropologyhasbecomemodestinits claims,introvertedinitsintellectualperspectiveandevenmorereluctantthan beforetoraisetheBigIssuesingenerallyintelligibleways.Otherdisciplineshave emergedalmostunscathedfromthesecritiques,andsothehistorians,biologistsand evolutionarypsychologists,themediascholarsandculturalsociologistshavemoved ontoandoccupiedturfthatmighthavebeenclaimedbyanthropology. The complex relationship between anthropology and colonialism has been addressedtimeandagain.JackGoody(1995)hasarguedagainsttheviewthat anthropologistsintheclassicmodernperiodwerecloselyalliedwiththecolonial service,showingthattherelationshiptendedtobestrainedandthatfundingoften
32 • EngagingAnthropology camefromAmericanfoundations.Yettotheextentthatmembersofthegeneral publichaveanynotionofwhatanthropologistsdo,theytendtoidentifythesubject withVictorianexplorersofsomekind.Theclichéoftheanthropologistasabearded explorerinasafarisuit,acollectorofbizarreexoticaandaromanticsoulill-adapted tolifeinthemodernworld,isnolongerbeingnurturedwithinthediscipline,butin theoutsideworld’soccasionalglancesatit,itpredominates(Shore1996,Peterson 1991).Thesocialorculturalanthropologist,wheneverhe(or,morerarely,she) appearsinapopularfilmornovel,ismoreoftenthannotacomicalfigure(see alsoFirth1984).AsShoreputsit(1996:4),theacademicanthropologistusually comesacrossasapitifulcharacter:‘uselessknowledge,largeego,dangerously incompetent,butgoodasafigureoffun’.Inspiteofcontinuouseffortstotellpeople outtherewhatanthropologistsreallydo,thesubjecthasbeenunabletogetproperly ridofitsreputationforexoticismanditsnotionof‘theprimitive’. Awareofthisreputation,anthropologistssometimeslosethemselvesinepistemologicalhypochondria,andwhentheydon’t,atleasttheymakesurethattheirisolation fromtherestofsocietyisnotbroken. Seriousandoftenwellexecutedattemptstoinformtheoutsideworldwhatwe reallydo,somehowfailtoreachthetargetgroup.Thereisanexcellentwebsite edited by Robert Borofsky, and an accompanying book series called Public Anthropology,butperusingitoccasionallyforpleasure,Ihonestlyfailtoseehow itcouldattractanyonebutotheranthropologistsorpeoplewithspecialregional interests.AnthropologyTodayhasalreadybeenmentioned(seeBenthall2002b forarepresentativecollectionof‘greatesthits’);anotherrecentexampleisJeremy MacClancy’s edited volume Exotic No More:Anthropology on the Frontline (MacClancy2002),analmostbreathtakingcollectionofarticlesrepresentingthe diversityofconcernsincontemporaryanthropology,fromtheorgantradeinBrazil totourismandhungerinAfrica.Someyearsearlier,AhmedandShore’simportant bookTheFutureofAnthropology(AhmedandShore1995)similarlyarguedthat anthropologyshouldbeessentialforanyone’sendeavourtounderstandtheworld, butIfearitwasnotwidelyreadoutsidethesubject,despitetheepiloguebyAnthony Giddens. DiLeonardo(1998)hasshownhowotheracademicsperpetuateamythabout anthropologybeinganexoticist,irredemiablyromanticdisciplineunabletodealwith theculturalimpuritiesandsymbolicpowerdifferencesoftheintegralcontemporary world.CriticizingEdwardSaid’sdenunciationsofanthropologyasacolonial discipline,shedescribesthemastheresultofa‘synecdochicfallacy,identifyingthe entirefieldeitherwithpast,clearlycolonialworkorwithrecentpostmodernisttexts’ (diLeonardo1998:47).Mainstreamanthropology,infact,ceasedtoexoticizeyears ago,buttheoutsideworldhasyettodiscoverit. LossofConfidenceasScience. Everybodyknows,evendisregardingthesexist language, that today it would be academic suicide to publish a book entitled
WhatWentWrong? • 33 ‘Anthropology:TheScienceofMan’oranythingsimilar.Theterm‘science’does notfeelrightanymore,whenappliedtowhatanthropologistsdo.Inthemid1990s,atthefirstoftheannualdebatesorganizedbytheGroupforDebatesin AnthropologicalTheoryattheUniversityofManchester,themotiontobediscussed andeventuallyvotedoverwas‘Anthropologyisageneralizingscienceoritisnothing’(Ingold1996).Itwasrejectedby37to26votes(8abstentions).Itisespecially intheUSA,however,thatsomeofthemostincendiarycontroversiesofthelast decadeshavecentredontheconceptof‘science’,sometimespositingacontrast betweenscientificandpostmodernanthropology,sometimesbetweenscientificand humanistanthropology.AllthisleadsustorecallthelateEricWolf’smuchquoted statementtotheeffectthatanthropologyisthemosthumanistofthesciencesandthe mostscientificofthehumanities,butthetruce,synthesisorcompromisethatWolf suggests(andwhichhisworkislivingevidenceof)isallbutabsentinmuchofthe contemporarydebate. ThetwomostfamousrecentcontroversieswhichaddressedthescientificpotentialsofanthropologywerethedebatesoverDerekFreeman’sreinterpretationof MargaretMead’sSamoanresearch(Hellman1996,Robin2004)andthe‘Darkness inElDorado’scandal(Robin2004).Bothhavebeenextensivelycoveredandhave reachedtheattentionofreaderswellbeyondtheacademy,sothereisnoneedto reiteratethedetails.Briefly,then,Freeman(1983)arguedthatMead’s(1928)rosy viewofSamoanadolescencewastaintedbywishfulthinkingandpoorethnography. However,hewasinturncriticizedbyotherexpertsoftheregion(andahostof others)forsimplisticbiologicalandpsychodynamicexplanations.Tooutsidersas wellasinsiders,itmightseemthatFreeman’s‘morescientificanthropology’,which purportedtoshowthatSamoanswerepsychologicallyvolatileandpronetoviolence, wasjustasone-sidedasMead’srathermoreidyllicpicture.Whatseepedthroughto thegeneralpublicfromthecontroversyislikelytohavebeenthatanthropologists areunabletoagreeoneventhesimplestfact–inaword,thatthedisciplineisina mess. Theothercontroversy,whichfirsteruptedthroughaflurryofe-mailssentto anthropologistsacrosstheworldinlate2000,concernedtheinvestigativejournalist PatrickTierney’sbookabouttheYanomami(Tierney2000),whichcontainedsome extremelydamagingcriticismofanAmericanresearchgroup’sbehaviouramong thisAmazonpeoplefromthe1960sonwards.Theanthropologistwhowaspartof thegroup,NapoleonChagnon,wasaccusedofvariousformsofmisconduct,ranging frommanipulatinghisevidenceofwidespreadviolenceamongtheYanomamito upsettingsocialcohesionbyinstigatingconflict.Itwaseventuallyprovedthatthe mostseriousaccusation,namelythattheresearchteamhaddeliberatelyspread measlesinaeugenicexperimentworthyofJosefMengele,wasfalse.Someofthe otheraccusations,however,appearedtobeaccurate.Chagnonandhisdefenders, amongthemmanyprominentsociobiologists,arguedthatthecriticismwasapart ofaplotagainstthescientificapproachesinanthropologythatChagnonadvocated.
34 • EngagingAnthropology AbelieverinobjectivescienceandDarwinianexplanationsofculturalbehaviour, Chagnonfeltvictimizedbywhathesawasthepostmodernist,relativistmainstream ofculturalanthropology. Dustsettled,theTierney–Chagnoncontroversyrevealedadisciplineseverely dividedanddeeplytroubledinitsself-identityasascience.AsRobin(2004:164) observes,nomiddlegroundcouldbefoundbetweenbelieversinquantitativemethods andfalsificationofhypotheses,andhumanistinterpreters.Theresultwasastalemate, ultimatelymostdamagingtothereputationofanthropologyandtheconfidenceof itspractitioners,givingtheimpressionthatdifferentschoolsofanthropologiststruly livedindifferentculturalworldsunconnectedbybridgingprinciplesoftranslation (seeBorofsky,2005,forthefullstory). Onalessdramaticnote,anthropologyhas,onbothsidesoftheAtlantic,quietly diversifiedintoajungleoftheoreticalperspectiveswithnodominant‘school’proper tobeseenanywhere.ItisthefruititionofwhatEdwinArdenerpropheticallyspokeof as‘theendofmodernism’inanthropologytwentyyearsago(Ardener1985).Inthis kindofsituation,anthropologyhasbecomeitsownworstenemywhenitcomesto communicatingwiththewiderpublic.Anthropology,tornandfragmented,haslost itsprofessionalconfidenceastheScienceofMan.Whenanthropologyoccasionally makesittothefrontpagethesedays,whatisondisplayis,disconcertingly,itsdirty laundry. AnthropologyasaSubversivekindofActivity. Nosingleexplanationcanaccount forthefailureofanthropologytosustainaclear,visible,constructivepublicpresence.Elitism,myopicspecializationandtheresultingrelativism,cultivatingcomplexityforitsownsake,internalconflictsandlossofscientificconfidencepartly illuminatetheproblem.Butwhatifwesupposethemessagesfromanthropologists areoftenperfectlyintelligible,wellexecutedandnicelycrafted,yettheystillfailto arouseenthusiasmandinterestamongthereadingpublic?Oneshouldnotruleout thepossibilitythatanthropologistsareoftenunderstood,butdisagreedwith.Since anthropology‘makestheexoticfamiliarandthefamiliarexotic’,touseKirsten Hastrup’swords,itsperspectivescontinuouslythreatentosubvertvaluesandideas helddearbyitspotentialnon-academicaudience.Theveryideaofanthropologyasa cultural(auto)critique,defendedbymanyofthosewhoseethepotentialofapublic anthropology,presupposesthatthereisagreatdemandforculturalself-criticismout there.This,plainly,maynotbethecase. Someanthropologistsmayrespondtothissituationbyofferinghumorousand light-heartedsatires,‘Nacirema-style’,abouttheirownsociety.Eschewingamore messianroleassolemnculturalcritics,theymayneverthelesscontributeinasmall waytoanenhancedlevelofreflexivity.However,sucharelegationofanthropology toaharmlesstricksterpositioninsocietysmacksofdefeat.Asacolleagueonce remarked:Wheneveraneconomistmakesastatement,non-academiclistenersmay describehismessageas‘interesting’oreven‘important’.Butwhenananthropologist
WhatWentWrong? • 35 sayssomething,thereactionislikelytobethatitis‘fascinating’.Good,cleanfun,in otherwords,butultimatelyunimportant. ComparingthepresentsituationofAmericananthropologiststothatofMargaret Mead,diLeonardo(2001)arguesthatthechangedideologicalclimatehascast anthropologistsinanewpublicrole,whichmostofthemareunwillingtotake on.MeadthrivedbeforetheriseoftheNewRight,beforetherecenttriumphsof arefurbishedsociobiology,beforethetanglesofidentitypoliticsmadeitvirtually impossibletogeneralizeabout‘cultures’,‘beforetheglobalrightwardtiltandrecent neo-liberaltriumph,beforethecorporateconsolidationandincreasingtabloidization ofthemedia’(diLeonardo2001).Inthenewsetting,sheintimates,anthropologists arewelcometoexoticizetheirowncultureinhistorical,entertainingandpreferably cuteways,ortomakewide-rangingpronouncementsonhumanuniversals.Rejecting thisdiscursiveframe,anthropologistsbecomeinvisibleinstead,keepingtheir subversiveviewstothemselvesandleavingthepublicarenatopeopleburdened withfewerreservations. Alternatively,theyjumponthebandwagonandfindaplaceinthepublicsphere bytellingamusinganecdotesabouthowweare‘really’likeNewGuineatribesmen. DiLeonardonotes,acerbically,that‘[t]heattributionof“our”characteristicsto “them”,andviceversa,isalwaysgoodforalaughinpopularculture’(diLeonardo 1998:57).Althoughsheiscorrecttopointoutthedangersoftrivialization,one cannothelpaskingwhatiswrongwithalaugh.Inritualsofrebellion,fromMax Gluckman’sZulustoDarioFo’stheatre(herewego...),laughtercanbothbean easywayoutofacontradictionandanexpressionofserioussocialcriticism. PrivilegingAnalysisoverNarrative. Thisfinalargumentispossiblythemostimportantone.Thepartialexplanationsabovegivehistoricalbackgroundandsome sociologicalexplanationofthefailureofanthropologytocommunicateinthepublic sphere,buttomymindthesinglemostimportantcharacteristicofanthropological writingisthatittendstobechieflyanalytical.Thismeansthatitismoredifficult togetintoandlesseasytorememberthannarratives.Storiesarethestuffoflife; analysisisforspecialists. WhenIcarriedoutfieldworkinTrinidad,oneofmymostimportantcollaborators wasaregularcontributortothepublicdiscourseinTrinidadiansociety.Hewasa journalistandwriter,hehadauniversitydegreefromJamaicaandhadwrittenbook chapters,butheretainedanambivalentattitudetowardsacademicresearch,largely becausehefeltthatitsinsistenceonanalysis‘driedouttheriver’.Weoftenhadabeer ontheterraceoutsidehishouseintheevenings,andImightaskhimaquestionsuch as:‘WhatexactlycouldbetheconsequencesforaruralAfricangirlifshemarries anIndianman?’Insteadofgivingthefolkmodelanditsdeviations,whichhemight havebeencapableof,hewouldalmostinvariablybeginhisresponsebysaying:‘Let metellyouastory...’–oftentalkingforfifteenminutesormorebeforeallowingme totrytopulltheanalyticimplicationsoutofthestory.Ifhegaveapublictalk,his
36 • EngagingAnthropology notesbarelyfilledthebackofasupermarketreceipt.Sincehistalkswouldconsistof interwovenstories,heonlyneededafewkeywordstoremindhimselfofwhichones totellandinwhichorder. Incontemporaryanthropology,pleasfornarrativehavealmostbecomeacliché. Ourjournalsregularlybringtheoreticaldiscussionsaboutthecentralityofnarrative, aboutnarrativeasakeytounderstandinglife,aboutthewaysinwhichthegreat narrativesofhistorymirrorthesmallnarrativesofpersonallives,andsoon;but werarelygetonwithactuallytellingstories.Maybethisisageneralprofessional affliction.Anthropologistsareworldchampionsatstudyingandanalysingrituals, butmany(most?)ofusfinditexcruciatinglydifficulttoorganize,oreventakepart in,ritualsourselves. Asalways,thereareexceptionsheretoo.KatyGardner’sacclaimedstoriesfrom Bangladesh(Gardner1997),whichusenarrativestrategiesderivedfromliterature, havealreadybeenmentioned.Afewyearslater,Gardnerwouldencountercommercial successasanovelistwithLosingGemma(Gardner2002),apsychologicalthriller setinIndia.Actuallytherearemanybrilliantnarrativesinanthropologicalliterature, buttheyareusuallyhiddeninanalysis,makingtheminedibleforgeneralreaders. Ifweconsiderthesuccessfulinterventionsmadebyanthropologistsinthepast, whatevertheirdifferencestheyhaveonethingincommon,namelyanarrative threadandaclearlystatedtheme.EvenTristesTropiques(Lévi-Strauss1978a),that labyrinthofabook,hasathemecrisplystatedintheveryfirstsentence:theauthor hatestravellingandtravellers,yethewritesa500-pagebookabouthisowntravels –howonearthishegoingtodoit,andwhatdoesheintendtotellus? Anthropologiststendtoresistsimplicity,andoftenforgoodreasons.Readingthe blurbonthecoverofanthropologicalmonographs,Iusuallyconcludethatitwillin alllikelihoodbenecessarytoreadthewholebookinordertogetthepoint.Thetimeconsuming,slowlycumulativefieldworkprocessisinthiswaytransposedfaithfully towriting.Themonographhasitstwistsandturns,itslacunaeandadagios,just likefieldworkitself.Thereisabeautyinthis.Butthereisalsoaproblem.Phrased uncharitably,itispossibletosaythatthegenreofwrittenanthropologycombines theworstoftwoacademictraditions.Thelanguagegameofthenaturalsciences favourslucidityandanalyticalclarity,aparsimoniousstyleandalogicallyconsistent argument.Inmid-twentieth-centuryanthropology,thiswouldhavebeenthenorm, certainlyinBritain.Thelanguagegametypicalofthehumanities,especiallyhistory, favoursrichnessandcomplexity,eschewingsimplesolutionsandeasywaysout. Thisidealhasbeenpredominantinlatetwentieth-centuryanthropology. Atthesametime,manyoftheacademicswhofavour‘richnessandcomplexity’ alsotellstories,therebybringingthemclosertotheworldsofnon-academics.A modelisprovidedbythehistorians.Historyisalmostaloneamongacademicsubjects tofuseoriginalresearchandpopularwritingintheverysametexts.Outstanding historianslikeSimonSchamaorEricHobsbawm,EmmanuelLeRoyLadurieor FernandBraudelareabletoattractthesustainedinterestofverylargereaderships,
WhatWentWrong? • 37 whilesimultaneouslyproducingnewknowledgeandfreshperspectives.Theirbooks arebasedonnarrative,usuallychronologicallylinear,andarescrupulousintheir attentiontodetail.Althoughheisacard-carryingMarxist,itisdifficulttoaccuse Hobsbawmofbeingareductionist. Theotherkindofpopularacademicwriter,thenaturalscientist,tendstochoose adifferentstrategy(althoughthereisaclearoverlapwiththenarrativestructures ofhistoryinevolutionarytheory).Theessentiallyanalyticargumentininfluential sciencewriterslikeSteveJones(1997)orStevenPinker(2002)ispunctuatedwith anecdotes,literaryquotations,andstoriesfromthecontemporarymediaorfrom everydaylife,therebybringinglifetowhatmightotherwisehavebeenaverydry riverbedindeed. Intheanthropologicalliterature,thereisatendencytocombineapenchantfor complexitywithalackofengaging,sustainednarrative–inthelatterregard,it resemblesnaturalsciencemorethanhistory.Asaresult,itappearsthatanthropological textsarereadableonlybyotheranthropologists,whohavelearnt–thehardway–to readthem.Whenbooksofcrisp,clearandentertainingwritingarepublished,suchas mostofMacClancy’sExoticNoMoreorBenthall’sTheBestofAnthropologyToday, theyfailtoarouseattentionoutsidethedisciplineitself:otherpotentialreaders,who mayhaveskimmedthroughafewvolumesofanthropologybefore,thinktheyknow whattoexpectandmoveontothemoreexcitingbookshelvesofmediastudies, historyorevolutionarypsychology.
TheAnthropologistasPublicIntellectual JonathanBenthall,whohasspentdecadeshelpinganthropologiststowriteintelligiblyandwellastheDirectoroftheRoyalAnthropologicalInstituteandeditor ofRAIN,laterAnthropologyToday,musesthat‘theoretically,anthropologyought perhapstobethequeenofthesocialsciences’(Benthall2002a:10).Hethenadds, immediately,thatitshouldprobablybeseenasa‘servicediscipline’instead;small, butwiththepotentialtoinfluence‘moremainstreamdiscipines’.Butcoulditnot bepreciselyitsslightlycounterculturalcharacter,whichenablesittolookatthe worldwithfresheyesfromunexpectedangles,thathasthepotentialofplacing anthropologyinacentrallocation?Themythsofuniquenessthatdefinedtwentiethcenturyanthropologywereveryhelpfulininternalidentitypolitics,buttheycreated strongandimpenetrableoutwardboundaries.Ifanthropologycontinuestosurround itselfwithamysticalaurainternally,thetrade-offwillconsistinitbeingundersold externally. Theanthropologistaspublicintellectual,a‘professionalstranger’,isnot‘the anthropologistashero’.Itissomebodywhobreakswithbourgeoisetiquetteby makingtheimplicitexplicit.IntheintroductiontohisstudyofCreoleeliteidentity inSierraLeone,AbnerCohen(1981)makessomeinterestingremarksaboutwhatit
38 • EngagingAnthropology wasthatdefineda‘gentleman’inVictorianEngland.Itwasasetofsubtle,implicit skillstuckedawayinthegentleman’sbodilyhabitus.Likethetricksterofmany folktales,thepublicanthropologistunpacksanddisplayssuchembodied,implicit, apparentlytrivialsnippetsofsociallife,revealingthemtoberepositoriesofsymbolic power.Quiteoften,thepersonwhopointsoutthattheemperorisindeednaked, oughttobeananthropologist. Thisbookchieflyfocusesoninterventionsthroughwriting.Agoodcasecould bemadeforanthropologicalradio,filmandtelevision,butthemainstayofour intellectualculturehasalwaysbeen,andremains,writing.Now,therearelinguists, folkloristsandbiologistswhowritesyndicatedcolumnsinqualitynewspapers.Why notanthropologists?QuiteafewofBenthall’sowneditorialsinAnthropologyToday mighthavebeenadaptedtofitsuchacontext.And,asPeterson(1991)pointsout, ifanthropologistscannotrepresentthemselves,theywillberepresentedbyothers. HehaslookedatUStabloidstoriesfeaturinganthropologists,andhascomeupwith storiessuchastheonefeaturing‘anthropologistFritzGrederfromSwitzerland’, accordingtowhichcannibalsrecentlyatesixaliensfromspace.Anunsettling pointmadebyPetersonisthatduringarandommonth,nostoriesfeaturingcultural anthropologistswereprintedinfiveoftheleadingqualitynewspapersintheUSA, butelevenstoriesappearedinasimilarsampleoftabloids. Thereareseveralwaysofgettingthemessageacross.Popularizationisone;ambitiousoverviewsandevenpresentationsofnewideasinsparklingproseareanother; whileintellectualinterventionsaimedatraisingthepublicconsciousnessabout sometopicalissueareathird. Thepopularizerandthepublicintellectualarenotalwaysasingleperson–in fact,theycanbeopposedtoeachother.Inordertobepopular,thepopularizerhas topandertowidespreadsentiments;shehastobeanorganicintellectualofsorts, sometimesstatingtheobvious,sometimesgivinganaptandaccuratephrasingof notionsalreadyheldsemi-consciouslybythereadership.Shemustconvincethe readersthatsheisontheirside.Theintellectual,accordingtoSaid(1993),Furedi (2004)andothers,isobligedtosayunpopularthingsinastrikingway.Thevery pointofcriticism,inFoucault’sview(2001),istospeakagainstthe‘people’,against receivedwisdomsandrepresentationsthataredominant.Inmakingthisargument, FoucaultdrawsontheGreeknotionofparrhesia,whichreferstotheactivityof speakingagainstpowerinawaythatentailsacertainpersonalrisk(Neumann 2004). Inspiteoftheapparent,andoftenreal,contradictionbetweentheroleofthe popularizerandthatoftheintellectual,manyseemtocombinetherolesratherwell. Theydothisbymakingstatementswhichareperceivedasoutrageouslyprovocative bypartsofthetargetgroup,whileconfirmingthepre-existingworld-viewofothers. RichardDawkinstypicallydoesthis.Hisoftenrash,butpithy,attacksonanyform ofbeliefthatdoesnotconformtoscientificrationalismarehailedaspuregenius(or
WhatWentWrong? • 39 commonsense)bypeoplewhohavebeeninagreementwithhimallalong,andare perceivedasirritatingordangerousbyvariousothers.MargaretMead’sworkhada similarfunction. WhatmakesFoucault’sdistinctionultimatelyunhelpfulinoureraisthedifficulty inidentifyinghegemoniesordominantmodesofthought.Isglobalcapitalism,or neo-liberalism,hegemonic?Thisisclaimedsooften,routinely,thatitringsuntrue.At thelevelofeconomicpractice,itmaybethecase;butamongthechatteringclasses, itwouldhavebeensomethingofasensationifarespectedthinkingmanorwoman weretocomeoutindefenceoftheWorldBankandthetransnationals.Ortake multiculturalisminanyofitsguises.Theideathatculturalvariationwithinasociety isOKandthatNorthAtlanticsocietiesoughttobeabletoaccommodateimmigrants withoutassimilatingthemis,perhaps,perceivedasadaringandbravepositionby thosewhodefendit.Moreover,atthelevelofpoliticalpractice,anythingsmacking ofmulticulturalismiscontroversialinmanycountries–butamongcolumnists, academics,writersandotherswhoraisetheirvoicesintheleft-liberalpublicsphere, itismoreriskytodefendthesupremacyofWesternculturethantoadvocatea greatersensitivitytosay,theancientwisdomoftheEastorSouthAsianfamily values.MaverickslikeSlavojZizek(2000)or,closertohome,theanthropologist JonathanFriedman(1997),whoquestionthebasicassumptionsofmulticulturalism, admittedlycomeacrossasbraverandlesspredictablethantherestofus. ThesociologistFrankFuredi(2004),usingZygmuntBauman’sterminology, arguesthatwhileintellectualswerelegislatorsinthepast,theyarenowmereinterpreters.LackingtheglobalvisionandimperialambitionsofJean-PaulSartre,Furedi argues,contemporaryintellectualstellstoriesinaminorkeyandtendtolimit themselvestospecificinterventions.Theyareinstitutionalizedintheuniversities, fragmentedthroughprofessionalspecialization,andcomplacentintheirsecure careers.Theongoingformalizationoftherecognitionofskillsthroughnever-ending evaluationsofresearch,auditingandotherformsof‘Professionalization’(cf.Furedi 2004:154)threatenstotakethecreativityoutofacademiclife,andalsocontributes toisolatingitfurtherfromsociety.Sincethelatterhalfofthetwentiethcentury, wehavewitnessedaphenomenalgrowthinthenumberofhighlyeducatedpeople. WhileIwasservingaseditorofabi-monthlyculturaljournal,Ioftenwonderedwhy itscirculationdidnotskyrocketinthe1970sandinthe1990s,followinggrowth periodsinthesystemofhighereducation.Themainreasonmaybethatstudentsare nolongerencouragedtobeintellectuals,buttospecializeandbecomeprofessionals, ratherthanwastetheirtimeonreadingessaysaboutthis,thatandtheother. Yetthesituationisfarfromcatastrophic.Anthropologyhasapivotalroletoplay, andthereexistssomethingwemightcalltheintellectualpublicsphere,whereitcan playitsrole.Theview,commonamongculturalpessimists,thatthepublicintellectual is disappearing because of McDonaldization, the closed circuits of academe, governmentinstrumentalismorthepredominanceofmindlessentertainmentinthe massmediamaybepartlytrue,butitisnotparticularlyhelpful.Besides,Isuspect
40 • EngagingAnthropology thatitisnottrue.Therearestillagreatnumberofhighlyspecializedacademicswho arewillingtogooutoftheirwaytointerveneinmattersofpublicimportance,and bothGreatBritainandtheUSAhavetheirshareifonecarestolook.Buthardlyany ofthemareanthropologists.Thatisthestrangefactwearegrapplingwithinthis book.WhenpeoplelikeRichardDawkinsdescribereligionas‘harmlessnonsense’, addingafter9/11thatheisnowinclinedtodroptheword‘harmless’,onemustbe forgivenforthinkingthatthereoughttobeamarketforotherkindsofintellectual. PatrickWilken(1994),inathought-provokingpamphletaboutanthropologists andtheGulfWar,findssupportfromintellectualssuchasRussellJacoby,Régis DebrayandTerryEagletonwhenheconcludesthatthe‘institutionalizationof intellectuals[inroutineuniversitywork]hasseverelycurtailedtheirindependence, madeobsoletetheroleofthefree-ranginggeneralistandsignalledtheriseofthe professionalspecialist’(Wilken1994:9).Thisobservationdoesnot,obviously, concernanthropologistsexclusively,butweshouldbeespeciallyreceptivetothe argument,givenourdismalrecordinpublicintellectuallifeoverthelasthalfcentury. Moreanthropologistsoughttofunctionasintellectuals,addressingissuesof generalpublicinterestintheirhabitualcontrarian,unexpectedandprovocative ways.Althoughthedemiseofthepublicintellectualisproclaimedregularly,nothing infactseemstobefurtherfromthetruth.Inthelastdecadesofthetwentiethcentury, thenumberofmedia–bothkindsandtitles–grewenormously.Althoughitmaybe difficulttobeheardundersuchcircumstances,duetothesheernoiseandvolumeof simultaneousattemptsofmasscommunication,nobody,andcertainlynouniversity academic,canclaimthatthereisnowheretopublish.Thedemocratizedmedia situationofferssomethingforeverybody.Althoughitmayultimatelyleadtoageneral stateof‘enlightenedconfusion’(Castells1996)inlargepartsofthepopulation,we shouldseetheliberatingpotentialinthefactthatthetimeofthemimeoislonggone fortheearnestacademic. Anintellectualisapersonwhorefusestomindhisownbusiness.Unlikespecialists,intellectualsaregeneralists;unlikethebelieverinpure,unadulterated knowledge, intellectuals have opinions. Unlike most members of the public, however,theyalsohaveconsiderableknowledgedrawnfromavarietyofsources, andthiscanbothmaketheminfluentialandworthlisteningto.Thetrueintellectuals, asSaid(1993)saidinhisfamousReithlectures,thrivewhenthey‘aredrivenby metaphysicalpassionanddisinterestedperceptionsofjusticeandtruthtodenounce disingenuityandimmorality,todefendtheweak,toopposeimperfectoroppressive authorities’(Said1993:21).Anthropologistshavealegitimateroletoplayaspublic intellectuals,andalthoughIhavegivenseveralexplanationsofwhythishasnotcome about,itstillremainssomethingofamysterythatsofewtakeiton.Thisisbecause anthropologyissouniquelysuitedforpublicinterventions,notleastintherealm ofpolitics.Theemphasisonthelocalexperiences,thealternativeinterpretations, theVerfremdungeffectonourownsocietiesandthenotinconsiderable(dareI
WhatWentWrong? • 41 sayit?)entertainmentvalueofthestoriesweareabletotell,makeanthropologya perfectlaunchpadforanyonewantingtoengagethewiderpublicindiscussionabout pressingorexistentialissues. Likeallintellectuals,ourjobpartlyconsistsinbeingspeedbumpsintheinformationsociety,bymakingeasyanswerstocomplexquestionsslightlymoredifficultto defend.Wehaveadutytoremindthegreaterpublicthatthereisaworldoutthere whereknowledgeisbeingproducedslowly.Populism,inotherwords,isnotthe answer.AsEinsteinisreputedtohavesaid:Makethingsassimpleaspossible.But notsimpler! What,then,doesanthropologyhavetooffer?Thereareobviouslysometopics whicharebestlefttojournalistsandcreativewriters,althoughthereisafascinating greyzonebetweenanthropologyandthosegenres,justasthezoneofambiguity betweenbiographyandfictionhasbeendebatedextensively(inmainstreammedia, incidentally)inrecentyears.Likethemembersofanyprofession,anthropologists andtheiracademiccross-cousinsandothercollateralsarebestadvisedtoconcentrate onwhateveritisthattheydobest. Likemanyuniversity-employedanthropologists,IhaveoccasionallyreadMA dissertationswonderingwhethertheycontainanyinsightwhichcouldnothave beenincludedinalong,wellresearchedreportageorfeaturearticleinaquality newspaper.Disturbingly,theanswerissometimesnegative.Ofcourse,anacademic treatiseshouldprovideunderstandingsthatcouldnotbeobtainedanddigested duringaweekorsoofcleverjournalisticresearch.Conversely,ifengagement inthepublicsphere,frustratingandexasperatingasitcansometimesbe,istobe worthwhile,anthropologistshavetooffersomethingwhichisnotalreadythere.The questionis,therefore,whataretheuniqueinsightsthatanthropologistscanbringto thepublicsphere?Letmementionfourkindsofcontributionfornow. First,thecomparativeperspectiveanditsaccompanyingVerfremdungordefamiliarizationeffectsbelongproperlytoanthropology.Theinsightthatsocietycould havebeenverydifferent,thatyouandIcouldhaveheldothervaluesandhadother expectationsoflife,isoneofanthropology’sgreatestgiftstohumanity. Secondly,theanthropologicalinsistenceontheprimacyoftheinsider’sview, thelivedexperienceof‘ordinarypeople’andthetextureoftheirlife-worlds,is usuallymissingeveninthebetternewspaperarticlesaboutfar-flungplaces.Again, thisperspectivecanmakeadifference.Assomeoftheexamplesinlaterchapters show,mediaimpactoftendependsontheabilitytoconveygrippingstoriesabout individuals. Thirdly,anthropologistsareratherskilledatexposingoversimplificationsby insistingonamorenuancedandcomplexview,beitintherealmofmilitaryexpansion orthatofbiologicaldeterminism. Fourthly,anthropologists(andacademicsingeneral)shouldbelessafraidof statingtheobvious(orthatwhich,atanyrate,isobvioustothem).Wheneverwe
42 • EngagingAnthropology moveoutoftheivorytower,theintendedaudiencedoesnotincludepeoplewho cantellpost-developmentfrompost-structuralism.Orwhogiveadamnaboutthe differenceeveniftheyknowit.
–3– ComplexityandContext Agoodarticle,Iwasoncetold,isshapedlikeafox,withapointedmuzzle,some stuffinthemiddle,andanextravaganttailendinginanimpressiveflourish.Thiswas theviewoncedefended,tongueincheek,bythedistinguishedgeologistThomas WeibyeBarth,accordingtohissonFredrik. Advancedstudentswhoplantheirfirstventureintothefield,orwhohavejust embarkedonalargish,library-basedproject,arenormallyaskedbytheirsupervisors abouttheirresearchquestion.Whatexactlyisitthattheywanttofindout,andwhy dotheybother?Mostsupervisorsregularlyencounterresearchproposalswhichare wellexecutedattheleveloftheory,methodologyandregionalknowledge,butwhich lacksomethingessential:aproblem,anissue,aburningquestiontobeexploredif notnecessarilyanswered,oranexistentialconcern.Theseproposalsaresummarily returnedtothefledglingrecruit,whomoreoftenthannotreturnswithoneorperhaps afewquestions.Ifthestudenthasnotquitegraspedwhatscientificknowledgeaims todowiththeworld,theproposalmaycontaintoomanyquestions,whichisin practicetantamounttonone.Unlesscorrected,thestudentwillasaresultwritea disorganizedandultimatelyaimlesstext,possiblyresortingtothelameexcusethat thecomplexityofthematerialdefiedsimplification. InoneofBorges’sphilosophicalshortstories,therulerofaremotekingdom ordershiscartographerstomakehimatotallyaccuratemapofthecountry.Aftera numberoffalsestartsandrejections,theycomeupwithamapwhich,whenrolled out,coversthecountrycompletely–amapona1:1scale.Inotherwords,the worldisthereforustosimplifyit.Naturallytherearemanyalternativemodesof simplification,andallthelearneddebatesaboutepistemology,methodologyandthe ideologicalembeddednessofknowledgeconcernwhichsimplifications,ifany,are themostfruitfulordefensible. Whenyouwriteanethnography,youessentiallycarveabitoftheworldintoa plotwithanarrativethreadand/orheuristicvalueforformalmodelling.Ifyouare awriterofapositivistbent,youmayusetheempiricalstufftotestahypothesis;no matterwhatyourpersuasioninmattersofmethodology,youwillpresumablytryto illuminateoneorafewinterrelatedquestions.Unlessitismadeclearwhattheissues athandare,thereadermayjustlyaskwhatisthepointoftheentireexercise. Itissometimessaidthatwhatmilitatesagainstapublicanthropologyisitsinherent complexity.Thepublic,theargumentgoes,wantssimplicity–simpleanswersto
43
44 • EngagingAnthropology complexquestions,butwhatanthropologyhastoofferismerelymorecomplexity. Andsoanthropologistsmayjokinglysay,inagestureofmockself-depreciation,that atleastweraisethepublicconsciousnesstoahigherlevelofconfusion. Thiswillnotdo.Thereareimpressivedegreesofcomplexityin,say,Simon Schama’sorEricHobsbawm’shistoricalnarratives,yettheysucceedinattracting thesustainedattentionofthousandsofreaders.Popularsciencewritingcanalsobe verycomplex.TheexamplesandargumentsofRichardDawkins’sbestbooks,such asTheBlindWatchmaker(Dawkins1986),canbefollowedbyanydiligentreader, butnotevenhisenemieshaveclaimedthatthesebookslackcomplexity(evenif hisanswersare,attheendoftheday,alwaysnaturalselection).Theproblemwitha greatdealofanthropologyinthisregardisdual:first,thewritingisn’tgoodenough toattractanon-professionalreadership.Second,itisnotalwaysmadeclearwhatthe researchquestionsare.Often,theanthropologistplungesintoacomplexintellectual territorywithoutreturningtothesurfaceinordertoshowthefindingstothereader. Uncharitablysaid,anthropologistssometimesgivetheimpressionofeitherholding theanswerbackorofferinganswersforwhichtherearenoquestions. Theproblemisnotcomplexityassuch,butaditheringattitudeandsomewhat coquettishrefusaltobelucidandunequivocal.Asarule,inadebatingcontest, themostlucidcontenderislikelytowin,evenifhismoreobliqueadversaryhas thebestarguments.Inanarticleabouttheassumed‘Islamophobia’ofpost-9/11 Britain,thenon-anthropologistKenanMalikconcludeswithasummarydismissal ofmulticulturalism: Diversityisimportant,notinitself,butbecauseitallowsustoexpandourhorizons,to comparedifferentvalues,beliefsandlifestyles,andmakejudgementsuponthem.In otherwords,itallowsustoengageinpoliticaldialogueanddebatethatcanhelptocreate moreuniversalvaluesandbeliefs,andacollectivelanguageofcitizenship.Butitisjust suchdialogueanddebate,andthemakingofsuchjudgements,thatcontemporarymulticulturalismattemptstosuppressinthenameof‘tolerance’and‘respect’.(Malik2005)
Malikhereidentifiesmulticulturalismtoutcourtwitharefusaltodiscusstheintrinsic qualitiesofanyself-professedculture,includingitsunintentionalside-effectsof moralconstipationandfundamentalistcertainties.Hispositingofmulticulturalism anduniversalvaluesasoppositesmaybereasonableinthecontextofhispolemical essay,butitisultimatelysimplistic,astheanthropologistTerenceTurnershowed morethanadecadeearlierinhisfamous(amonganthropologists,thatis)article onanthropologyandmulticulturalism(Turner1993).Turnerdistinguishesbetween adifferencemulticulturalismandacriticalmulticulturalism.Onlytheformerfits Malik’sbill.CriticalmulticulturalismisineffectanextensionoftheEnlightenment languageofrightsandequality,andtakesitasitsaimtocountertheWesternmonopoly ofdefinitionalpower.IncludingNativeAmericanhistoryinschoolcurriculainthe USA,forexample,wouldbeanexpressionofcriticalmulticulturalism.Hadhebeen armedwiththiskindofdistinction,itwouldhavebeenmoredifficultforMalikto
ComplexityandContext • 45 denouncethepeoplewhocomplainedthatMuslimswerenotsufficientlyrespected inthepublicsphere. However,Turner’s article failed to make an impact outside anthropology. Althoughitismostlylucid,itdoescontainanumberoflinguisticknots,forexample inanimportantparagraphnearthemiddleofthetext,wheretheauthorformulates thebridgebetweenanthropologyandcriticalmulticulturalism: [W]henanthropologistscontextualizetheirideasaboutculturebyfocusingontheways culturalconstructsmediatethesocialprocessesandpoliticalstrugglesthroughwhich peopleproducethemselvesandresistand/oraccommodateasymmetricalpowerrelations, andwhentheycombinethecriticaldecentringofculturalrepresentationswiththe decentringoftheirowntheoreticalperspectivesonthoserepresentations,thentheywill notmerelyhaveabasefromwhichtocomplainaboutbeingignoredbymulticulturalists, butabasisformakingconstructivecriticalcontributionstothecriticalmulticulturalist programmeforademocraticculture.(Turner1993:422–423)
Thismeans,roughly:anthropologistsofferfinelygrainedaccountsofotherpeople’s culturesandthewaytheireverydaystrugglesarebeingshapedbyculturalideas. However,anthropologistsalsocriticallyquestiontheirownideasandtheoriesabout howtheseculturalworldscomeintobeing,sincetheseideas,too,areculturally constructedandhaveanideologicaldimension.Anthropologistscouldthustell multiculturaliststhatiftheycriticizetheiradversariesforprovidingaslantedand partialviewoftheworld,bytheverysametokentheyhavetoquestiontheirown viewoftheworld.Ifmorepeopledidthis,societywouldbecomemoredemocratic asaresult. Theargumentisfarfromtrivialandcouldmakeapositivecontributiontocurrent controversiesaboutmulticulturalism,butinordertodoso,itneedstobeunpacked. Thesamepointcouldbemadeaboutanthropologicalcontributionstotheongoing debateaboutgeneticengineering,whicharefartooimportanttoremaintuckedaway intheinnercircleofinitiates. Ratherthanlookingatourownfailures,however,itmightbeworthwhiletolook atthesuccessesofothers.Intheworldofpopularizedscience,whichoftencontains anonetooconcealedpoliticalagenda,anthropologyhasbeenutterlymarginalized foragenerationormore.Itisunlikelythatthefullexplanationistheirreducible complexityofanthropologicalwritings.Yetitmayseemthattheattractionofmany ofthemostpopularsciencewritersconsistsintheirabilitytoofferlucid,simple answerstoseeminglyenormouslycomplicatedquestions;tocuttheGordianknot ofcontemporaryconfusionandprovidecrystalclearandeasilyunderstandable scientificreasoninginitsstead.Anthropologistsoughttotakethissituationvery seriouslyindeed.Shouldnotthecomparisonofcultures,questionsofhumannature, thediffusionofideasandtheriseandfallofcivilizationsbethedomainproperof anthropology?Well,theseproblemareascertainlyhaven’tbeenpartofmainstream
46 • EngagingAnthropology anthropologyforsometime,andothershavefilledthevoid.Justconsiderthe followingforastart.
TheLargeCanvas Afewyearsbeforetheturnofthemillennium,abooklistedunder‘anthropology’ appearedinbookshopsworldwide,andthroughmanypaperbackprintings,itsteadily becameagreatsuccessforitsauthor,turninghimintoasciencewriterofthefirst order.Thebook,writtennotbyananthropologistbutbyaphysiologist,evolutionary biologistandsciencepopularizer,claimsinitssubtitletotell‘ashorthistoryofeveryoneforthelast13,000years’.JaredDiamond’sGuns,GermsandSteel(Diamond 1997)isahugelyambitiousculturalhistorywhich,toananthropologist,smacks ofHarrisandperhapssomeofWhite’smoreaccessiblework.Itisacharming, enlighteningandentertainingbook,whichbelongsfirmlytotheriddlegenrerather thanthejust-sostory.Theinitialquestion,raisedforDiamondbyaNewGuinean, is,simply,‘Whyisitthatyouwhitepeopledevelopedsomuchcargo[goods]and broughtittoNewGuinea,butweblackpeoplehadlittlecargoofourown?’(Diamond 1997:14).Well,Diamondsays,thisbookisananswertothatquestion.Combining evolutionarytheory,ecologyanddemography,Diamondarguespowerfullyand oftenpersuasivelythatthingsarenotwhattheyseem,verymuchinthewayanonMarxistmaterialistanthropologistmighthavedoneagenerationago.Coincidences, populationmovementandecologicalcircumstancesexplain,inDiamond’sbook, whyhumangroupsdevelopedinsuchdifferentways.Althoughtheaccountis sometimessimplistic,theoverallpictureaddsinsightandfulfilsitsmissionasa powerfulargumentagainstracism.Inshort,allmytribalaffinitiestellmethatit isashamethatthebookwasn’twrittenbyasocialorculturalanthropologist.In Diamond’sview,humannatureisconstant;whatvariesareecologicalfactors. Afewyearslater,Diamonddiditagain,withCollapse:HowSocietiesChoose toFailorSucceed(Diamond2005).Thisisanotherfact-richbook,flatteringtothe generalreaderbecauseitiseasytoread,anditsargumentismorecomplexthanthat ofGuns,GermsandSteel.InCollapse,Diamondrelinquishespurelymaterialistic accountsandincludessocialandpoliticalfactorsaswell(thustheverb‘choose’in thesubtitle).Thebook,across-cultural,historicalaswellascontemporarysurvey ofakindthatwentoutoffashioninanthropologymanyyearsago,hasanobvious messagetoitsreaders:manycivilizationswereatthepeakoftheirgloryand achievement,seeminglyinvincible,immediatelybeforetheirinevitabledeclineand fallintooblivion.Sohowdooursocietiesmeasureup?Diamond’sansweristhatwe collectivelyhavetomakesomedifficultdecisions,thesoonerthebetter. Intherealmoflarge-scaleculturalhistory,anthropologistsdooccasionallystill trytoprovideglobaloverviews.EricWolf’smagnificentEuropeandthePeople WithoutHistory(1982)exemplifiesanapproachthatismorehistoricalandless
ComplexityandContext • 47 naturalistthanDiamond’s,butwhichcanstillbeseenascomplementarytoit.Inthis book,Wolfalsoparadestheuniquecontributionanthropologyhastomake,insisting onseeingworldhistoryfromnon-Europeanviewpoints.PeterWorsley’sTheThree Worlds(1984),amoresociologicalvariant,ismorecontemporaryandlesshistorical again,butitsharesapotentiallywideappealandinterdisciplinaritywiththeother booksmentioned.KeithHart’s(2000)bookonmoneyinanunequalworld,moreover, isalsoawide-ranging,non-specializedoverview,anditwasmarketedasageneral non-fiction(‘trade’)book.Otherscouldalsohavebeenmentioned,evenifitistrueto statethatthegeneralizingoverviewofculturalhistoryandthecontemporaryworld israreincontemporaryanthropology,anditisscarcelyencouragedbytheguild.Is thisbecausesuchoverviewsinevitablybecomesuperficialandunsatisfactoryatthe leveloflocaldetail?Maybe,butifthatisthecase,thenanthropologycoulddowith alesspuritanattitude. Additionally,thereisafartooweakanengagementwiththegeneralintellectual debateabouthumannature.Criticismsbyanthropologiststendtobedirected inwards,reachingpeoplewhodon’tneedthemsincetheyalreadyagreewiththe arguments.Let’sfaceit:afternearlyacentury,Mead’sSamoanworkremainsthe mostfamousanthropologicalcontributiontothedebateabouthumannature.Always controversialwithinandoutsideanthropology,itwaseventuallyconfrontedwith anequallyone-sidedperspective–thepublicationofDerekFreeman’sMargaret MeadandSamoain1983,fiveyearsafterMead’sdeath.Freemantookgreatpains toshowthatMeadhadgotmostofherfactswrongandwastotallymistakenabout thenatureofSamoansociety.Infact,heclaimed,violence,rapeandsuicidewere commonoccurrences.However,Mead’sbookwasnotquiteassimpleasithasbeen representedretrospectively,byFreemanandothers.Inalengthyappendixcalled ‘Samoancultureasitistoday’,Meadsaysthefollowing,amongotherthings: ButitisonlyfairtopointoutthatSamoanculture,beforewhiteinfluence,wasless flexibleanddealtlesskindlywiththeindividualaberrant.AboriginalSamoawasharder onthegirlsexdelinquentthanispresent-daySamoa.Andthereadermustnotmistakethe conditionswhichhavebeendescribedfortheaboriginalones,norfortypicalprimitive ones.Present-daySamoancivilizationissimplytheresultofthefortuitousandon thewholefortunateimpetusofacomplex,intrusivecultureuponasimplerandmost hospitableindigenousone.(Mead1977[1928]:216)
Bethisasitmay,theattractionofMead’snumerouspopularbookslayintheir insistenceontheopen-endedandflexiblecharacterofhumannature.Shedrew strikingcontrastsbetween‘personalitytypes’andcultures,persuadingthousands ofadoringreadersofthealmostlimitlesspermutabilityofthehumanmind.Now,a MargaretMeadofourtimewouldhavedifficultiesinbeingtakenseriously(cf.di Leonardo1998,2001).Contemporaryintellectualdebateabouthumannaturehasits epicentreveryfarindeedfromMead’sworldofearlyconditioningandmindboggling
48 • EngagingAnthropology culturalvariation.Asmostreaderswillhavenoticed,thebiologicalscienceshave achievedapresenceinthepublicsphereintheearlytwenty-firstcenturywhichis markedlydifferentfromthesituationonlyacoupleofdecadesago.Andnowhere istherisetopublicprominenceofbiologymorestrikingthaninpubliccoverageof mattersrelatingtohumannature,anareawhichwasforalongtimedominatedby theologians,philosophers,literarypeopleandsocialscientists. Afewyearsago,theinfluentialeditorandliteraryagentJohnBrockman(1995) expressedthenewconfidenceamongnaturalscienceenthusiastsbylaunching theterm‘thethirdculture’,intendedtocovertheinvasionofnaturalscientists (mostlybiologists)intothetraditionaldomainofthehumanities.Thiswasjustified, Brockmanargued,bythefactthatthebigissuesofhumanexistencehadbeen forgotteninthehumanities,wherethousandsoffinemindswerekeepingthemselves busybysquaringthecircleorsplittinghairs.Thevacantslotwasdestinedtobe filledbyclevernaturalscientistswhoofferedmoreexcitingtheoriesabouthuman naturethantheirscholastic,introvertedcolleaguesacrosstheuniversitysquare. Brockman’s programmatic statement formed the gist of his introduction to a collectionofinterviewswithprominentnaturalscientiststalkingabouttheirideas abouthumanity. Thisdevelopmenthascomeasasurprisetomanyonlookers,includingnotafew academics.Justasmanypeoplearound1980assumedthatThatcherismandReaganomicsweresimplytemporaryaberrationsnotworthyofseriousattention,amajority ofintellectualsatthesametimebelievedthatunderstandingsofhumanitybased onbiologywouldneveragainbedominantafterthedemolitionofacertainkindof biologygonemadin1945.Amonghumanists,E.O.WilsonandRichardDawkins wereperceived,onemightsay,astheReaganandThatcherofthehumansciences. Well,theywerewrong.Neo-liberalismremainsthedominantideologytoday (ifanything,itismoreomnipresentthanever),andbiologicalaccountsofhuman naturearespreadinglike...anunusuallyfitgenome:neo-Darwinisttemplatesof thoughtenterintopsychology,economics,religioustheoryandnotleastfolknotions ofwhatitentailstobehuman.Thelargestresearchprojectofthefinalyearsofthe twentiethcenturywastheHumanGenomeProject(whichretrospectivelyappears asamountainthatgavebirthtoamouse),andpopularsciencebooksaboutthe biologicalfoundationsofanythingyoumightcaretothinkof(aswellasacouple ofthingsfewofuscaretothinkof)becomeairportbestsellers.Thesebooksare wellwritten,livelyandsparklingwithwitandconfidence,andtheymakestandard academicbooksappeartiredanddull.Thismakesthemrelevantforthequestofthis book.Howoneartharetheydoingit?
HumanNatureandKindsofComplexity Foryearsitwasdifficulttotakethespokesmen(nearlyallofthemweremen)of biologicalaccountsofcultureseriously.Theirobsessionwithterritorialinstincts,
ComplexityandContext • 49 sexandviolenceledtoanobviousneglectofphenomenasuchaslanguage,artand technology,afactwhichinspiredthegeneticistSteveJones(1997)toquipthatthe theoryofnaturalselectioncantelluseverythingaboutphenomenasuchasoperaor sex–except,ofcourse,theinterestingthings. Thesituationintheearlytwenty-firstcenturyisdifferent.Thenewgenerationof writers,whocallthemselvesevolutionarypsychologistsratherthansociobiologists, concentrateonunderstandingtheworkingofthemind.Whiletheirpredecessors tendedtoseelanguageonaparwithgruntsandgroomingamongchimpanzees,and sawegotisminallinteraction,currentevolutionistshavecometotermswiththe uniquenessofverballanguageandaltruism,andsomeofthemreadilyadmitthatthe genesdonotalwaysknowwhat’sgoodforthem(e.g.Kohn1999). Oneofthebrighteststarsinthesparklingspaceofevolutionarysocialsciencehas inrecentyearsbeenStevenPinkeroftheMIT,whopublishedalargebookcalled TheBlankSlate:TheModernDenialofHumanNaturein2002.Asthetitlereveals, thebookdevelopsaninnatistalternativetothepresumedlywidespreadideathat humanscanlearnanythingbecausetheirmindis,paceLocke,ablankslate.When itwasreleased,thebookwashighlypraisedbyreviewers,especiallyintheUSA; thereceptioninEuropewasmoremixed.TheBritishsciencejournalistMattRidley neverthelesssaysinhisblurbtestimonialthatthis‘isthebestbookonhumannature thatIoranyoneelsewilleverread’(emphasisadded).Quiteapartfromrevealing anenviableknowledgeofthefuture,thiskindofstatementsuggeststhatweare witnesstothebirththroesofareligiousmovement.That,ifnothingelse,isreason goodenoughtodipintotherevealedtruthofferedinPinker’sworkasascience popularizer. Pinkerisamoresophisticatedtheoristthanmanyofhiskindredspirits;Ienjoyed hisintelligentandenlighteningbookTheLanguageInstinct,andbeganthisbookin anticipationofanattempttodevelopatruesynthesis.Alas,thebookturnedoutto exemplifyallthetypicalweaknessesofthiskindofliterature.Thismustbeseenas anopportunitylost,sincePinker,aneuropsychologistspecializinginthestudyof language,couldhaveplacedhimselfinapositionenablinghimtobridgegapsrather thandeepenthem.Thebookrevealsvariableandoftenpoorknowledgeofwhat socialandculturalscientistsactuallydo,anditisbasedonasillypremise,namely theideathatthemaincharacteristicsofthehumanmindmustbeeitherinborn oracquired(aseverynon-specialistknows,theyareboth,simultaneously).The depictionofhisopponents’viewscomesclosetoparody,andPinker’sownposition isconsequentlymorerigidthanhisargumentssuggest,andmorewide-rangingthan hisfactsallow. Thecentralargumentisthatthehumanmindhasevolvedthroughnaturalselection,whichisinterpretednarrowly,hereasinmanyotherneo-Darwinistaccounts, asindividualcompetitionforoffspringandgeneticfitness.Pinkeralsowishesto showthatawiderangeofhumanactivitiesareultimatelybiologicallybasedand canbetracedbacktothestruggleforsurvivalinthe‘environmentofevolutionary adaptation’(EEA).Therearelotsofdeepissuestobegrappledwithhere,not
50 • EngagingAnthropology leastconcerningtherelationshipbetweengroup,individualandecosysteminthe dynamicsofevolution.EcologicallyliterateanthropologistslikeBateson(1978)and Ingold(2000)–unsurprisinglyabsentfromPinker’saccountofthesocialsciences –havewrittenintelligentlyandauthoritativelyabouttheseissues. Anothercrucialquestionconcernstherelationshipbetweenbiology,cultureand freedom.Pinkerisrightinpointingoutthatsocialscientistshavenotgenerallytaken itsufficientlyseriously.Theonlyproblemisthathehimselfdoesnotlookatthe complexinteractionsbetweenindividualandgroup,individualandsub-individual entities(genes,cellsetc.),orbiology,cultureandindividuality.Heoffersthesimplest conceivableanswerstosomeoftheworld’smostdifficultquestions. Thepaucityofnuanceisastonishing.Forexample,Pinkerarguesthatparentsand otherenvironmentalfactorshavenoimportanteffectsonthepersonalityofachild. Thispositionisasabsurdasitsopposite,behaviourism(thedoctrineclaimingthat environmentalfactorsaccountforeverything,inborncharacteristicsfornothing). Fortherecannotbemanywhoseriouslybelievethatitmakeslittledifferencetothe personalityofachildifitgrowsupinSomaliaorIceland,intheinner-cityghettoor inthemiddle-classsuburb? Pinkerisungenerous,sometimesborderingonthedisingenuous,whenhemakes ithisbusinesstodepicttheargumentsofhisopponents.Thisismostobviouswhen hecursorilyandwithreferencetofewifanysourceswritesoff‘theleft’forits pathetichabitualthinking(forexampleregardinggenderroles),butheisnotmuch morecrediblewhenhedealswithacademicresearch.Inoneplacehementionsafew famoussocialthinkerswhohaveallegedlyrefusedtoaccepttheinnateaspectsofthe humanmind(fromPlatotoLévi-Strauss),obviouslyunawarethatLévi-Strauss,for one,hasspenthislongandproductivelifedocumentingtheinnatestructuresofthe mind. Writersofthethiskindusuallycomeintodifficultieswhentheyembarkonthe topicoffreewill.ThisisastrueofPinkerasitwasofDawkinsandindeedDarwin himself.Ifonecorrectlyidentifiesthecomplexrelationshipbetweeninheritance, thesocialandnaturalenvironmentandfreedom,thenthedoctrineaboutthegenetic programmesofthemindbecomesawatered-downandrelativekindoftruth,of littledirectuseinformulatingslogansandpolicies.Pinkerresiststhistemptation. Yetheadmitsthatifhedoesnotlikewhatthegenesaskhimtodo,hewillaskthem to‘goandjumpinthelake’.Butifheandeverybodyelsepossessesthiskindof freedom,whatremainsoftheevolutionaryoriginsofthemind?Quiteabit,tobe sure.ButnotmuchmorethanEmileDurkheim,CliffordGeertzandothersocial constructivistPrügelknabenhaveconcededtimeandagain:wearebornwithinnate predispositions,buttheyalwaysarticulatewiththeenvironment,withcoincidences ofcircumstancesandwiththeexertionofchoice,leadingtoanalmostincredible variationbetweenculturesandbetweenindividuals. Therearemanylogicalweaknessesandundocumented,butnolessbrashly presentedassumptionsinPinker’sbook.Thismakesitallthemoresurprisingthat
ComplexityandContext • 51 thebookwasmetwithalmostunanimousapplauseintheAmericanmedia.This isnotbecausehesayssomethingnew.Themainsellingpointofthiskindofbook isthatitofferssimpleanswersinaworldwhichisgenerallyoverflowingwith ambiguityandconfusingcomplexity.Theanswers‘seemright’inthesamewayas popularhoroscopes:theyarepersuasiveuntilonethinksaboutit.Thatthismodel ofhumanitycanalsoeasilybeusedtojustifyneo-liberalism(seeMattRidley’s excellentTheOriginsofVirtue,1996,foranexplicitconnection)isalsonotexactly adisadvantageintoday’smarket. Thiskindofmapisunabletoaccountforthecomplexityoftheterritory.There ismore‘bothand’than‘eitheror’intheworld.Thebiologicalcontributiontoour understandingofourselvesisnecessaryandimportant.Presentedasamonologue, however,itsoundslikeonehandclapping. AlthoughIhaveseriousmisgivingsaboutPinker’sstyleofargument,onecannot helpbutadmirehisachievement.Hisbookisbasedonamassofresearch,and hesucceedsinmakingthereaderapproachaseeminglyworn-outproblem–the nature–nurtureissue–withrenewedcuriosity.IthinkitisPinker’sskillsasawriter, hisabilitytoturntediousresearchintogoodstories,andnothisultimatelysimplistic conclusions,thatexplainhissuccess.Inotherwords,asthisbookmadeit,densely packedasitiswithreferencestoscientificanalyses,thentherearereadersoutthere forotherambitious,complexaccountsaswell.
SoWherearetheAnthropologists? AlthoughitiseasytodismissPinker’sattackonsocialscienceinTheBlankSlateas anoverblownwaronstrawmen,anthropologistsandotherhumanistshavenoreason toremainsmugandself-satisfiedwhentheyarefacedwithquestionsconcerning humannature.Itistruethatbothhumanitiesandsocialscienceshaveshiedaway fromthebigquestionsabouthumanexistence,especiallythoseinvolvinglargescaleculturalhistory(oftheDiamondkind)andhumannature(oftheDarwinian kind).Itcaninfactbearguedthatmanyofusofferintelligentandelaborateanswers toquestionsnobodyhasasked.Ifpressed,Isuspectthatmostofuswouldprefer beingnearthequestionratherthanbeingofferedamassofirrelevantanswers.The evolutionistsarerightontargetinthisregard.Theydeservebetterthanbeingmet withindifferenthostility. Changesmaybeimminent,atleastinEurope.TheAmericansituationappears tobehopelesslypoliticizedandpolarized,attacksandcounterattackshavingbeen depressinglypredictablesincethepublicationofEdwardO.Wilson’sSociobiology in 1975.According to Chris Knight and his collaborators (1999), social and biologicalanthropologistsinBritainhadnotreallyspokentoeachotherbetween theRoyalSocietyconferenceaboutritualizationamonghumansandanimalsin 1965andasimilar,butsmallerconferenceonritualandtheoriginsofculturein
52 • EngagingAnthropology 1994.Afewyearslater,anumberofsocialanthropologistscontributedtoavolume about‘memetics’(Aunger2002)dominatedbyDarwinianscholars,andlaterstill, asymposiumorganizedbyHarveyWhitehouse(2001)broughttogetherdifferent viewsontheroleofevolutioninshapingreligiousbeliefsandpractices.Perhaps socialanthropologyiskeentofinditsfeetagainafterpostmodernism,andmaybe mainstreamanthropologyisbeginningtoprobeforambitiousandrobustmodesof explanationwhichcanbereconciledwiththeirproverbial,andlaudable,attention tolocaldetail.Certainly,thenewevolutionarypsychologyseemsmorerelevantand isbetterinformedaboutculturalvariationthantheoldsociobiologyofthe1960s and1970s,whosemachoobsessionwithsexandviolence,andmanicsearchfor adaptivefunctionseverywhereinculturalpractices,couldhardlywinthesustained attentionofmanysocioculturalanthropologists.Manyofthepositionstakenby thesociobiologistsweresoembarrassingthattheywereusuallypassedoverin silence–except,forexample,whensomeonelikeIngold(1986)pointedout,with exasperation,thatE.O.Wilson(1978),happilyobliviousofintellectualhistory,had reinventedE.B.Tylor’scomparativemethodfromthelatenineteenthcenturyinhis energeticattemptto‘reintegrate’thesocialsciencesintobiology. There-brandedDarwinistsocialscienceofthe1990sand2000s,evolutionary psychology,reallydoesappeartohavemovedawayfromthecrudereductionism representedinthepreviousgeneration.Usuallydrawingonproperknowledgeof socialscienceandculturalvariation,itdoesnotpresupposethatcultureisperse adaptiveinabiologicalsense(whichwouldhavebeenanabsurdpositionanyway), but is instead concerned with identifying evolved cognitive mechanisms that developedinresponsetoselectivepressureandwhichremainpartofourcognitive architecturetoday,althoughtheynolongernecessarilyserveanadaptivefunction. Evolutionarypsychologistsareinterestedinthingslikereligionandreciprocity, theydeveloptheoriesaboutthefirststrikeinprehistoryandtheroleofgossipin earlylanguage,anditmayseemasiftheconditionsforfruitfulinteractionacross theintradisciplinarydividehavebeengreatlyimprovedoverthepastcoupleof decades. EvolutionarypsychologytriestosolvewhatwemightcallWallace’sproblem. HailedasthegreatestbiologistofthenineteenthcenturybyGregoryBateson,Alfred RusselWallace,whodevelopedthetheoryofnaturalselectionindependentlyof Darwin,believedthatthehumanbodywasclearlyaproductofnaturalselection (whichhe,incidentally,sawmoreasasystemicorecologicalprocessthanone basedonindividualcompetition),whereastheimmensecomplexityofthehuman mindneededanotherexplanation,sincehefounditdifficulttobelievethatprimitive peoplesneededamindenablingthemtobuildcathedralsorcomposeBeethoven’s NinthSymphony,whichtheywerenevergoingtodoanyway.Darwinresponded toWallace’schallengeinTheDescentofMan,bystatingthatprimitivemanwould needasmuchintelligence,inventivenessandingenuityashecouldpossiblygetin ordertosurvive,inotherwordsthatthestaggeringcomplexityofthehumanmind
ComplexityandContext • 53 wasaresultofnaturalselection,justasmuchashe(women,ofcourse,werenot yetseenasindependentagentsinthemid-nineteenthcentury)neededhisopposable thumbsandbipedalgait.Thecentralissueengagingevolutionarypsychologists,and whichshouldalsoengagesocialanthropologists,concerns–providedDarwinis rightagainstWallace–whatexactlythisevolvedmindlookslike:towhatextentit givesinstructionsthatstillguideourthoughtandbehaviour,and,conversely,towhat extentitisflexibleandopen-ended. However,apartfromasmallhandfulofattempts,thedialogueremainsallbut absent.ThecontroversysurroundingPatrickTierney’sDarknessinElDoradointhe USAin2000,brieflydiscussedinthelastchapter,broughtoutbitterness,rageand supremacistrhetoriconbothsidesintheUnitedStates.Therewasnomiddleground availableatthetime. InEurope,includingtheUK,itwouldbeanoverstatement,toputitmildly,to claimthatevolutionarybiologyhasbecomeatrendysubjectinsocialanthropology. Infact,therelationshipislargelyone-sided:evolutionarypsychologistspublish provocativetractsdenouncingthenaivetéofunreformedandunconvertedsocial anthropologistsandsimilarsocialscientists,whorarelybothertorespondinkind,or eventorectifyfactsandcorrectmisunderstandings. Socialanthropologiststypicallyreacttothechallengefromevolutionarypsychologyinfourways:(i)Darwinistsareirrelevanteveniftheymayberight(thatis, theirtruthsaretrivialormarginal);(ii)Darwinistsarerelevant,buthaveafundamentallymisguidednotionofwhatitistobehuman;(iii)Darwinistsarerelevant andsometimesright;or(iv)Darwinistsocialscientistsandothersocialscientists playdifferentlanguagegames–theyaskqualitativelydifferentkindsofquestion, andasaresult,theirtheoriesareincommensurableanddonottalktoeachother.All theseviewsarewidespreadamongsocialanthropologists,thethirdviewperhaps lesssothantheothers.Manyseemcontenttoobservethathumanbiologyplaces certainconstraintsonourpotentialforthoughtandaction,butaddthatwhatneeds attentionisthevariationwhichexistswithintheseboundaries.Othersarguethat theobjectivismandnaturalismproposedbyDarwiniansneedtobecounteredby approachesemphasizingsystemiccomplexity,dynamicprocessandindividual agency.Yetothers(butIsuspectasmallminority)trytosiftthematerialand argumentsofferedbytheDarwinistsinsearchofnuggetsofgold. Seenfromahumanistorsocialscienceperspective,therearemanyserious problemswithmostneo-Darwinistaccountsofhumanity.Thearchitectandcultural commentatorCharlesJencks(2001)relatesastoryfromalecturebyEdwardO. Wilson,wherethefamoussociobiologistclaimed,amongotherthings,thathumans hadauniversal,inheritedabhorrenceofsnakes(Jencks’sdaughterhadjustsmuggled oneintothecountry),thatthehourglassfigurewastheobjectiveidealoffemale beauty(whataboutTwiggy,andwhatabouttheplumpmothergoddessesofneolithic Europe?),thathumanshadaninheritedpreferenceforartfeaturingflatlandscapes withneatlytrimmedgrass,waterpondsandclumpsoftrees(i.e.suburbanAmerica,
54 • EngagingAnthropology oranIvyLeagueuniversitycampus)andsoon.Pinker,incidentally,sharesWilson’s viewsofaesthetics–peopleareostensiblyinclinedtopreferpaintingsfeaturing grassandwater,andhementions,asoneofthreecausesofart,‘theaestheticpleasure ofexperiencingadaptiveobjectsandenvironments’(Pinker2002:405).Theyboth comeclosetothenowthoroughlydiscreditedsociobiologicalviewthatculturecan beexplainedthroughitsadaptivefunctions.Mostcontemporyevolutionarypsychologistsaccept,atleastataprogrammaticlevel,evidencetothecontrary:culturecan beexceptionallyunadaptiveinDarwinistterms. Therehasbeensubstantialcriticismofsimplisticadaptationistargumentsfrom withinthenaturalsciences.AmongthemostinfluentialcriticsareRichardLewontin andthelateStephenJayGouldintheUSA,andStevenRoseintheUK;butthe geneticistSteveJones,bynomeansamilitantcriticofbiologicalexplanations,also remarks,ontheassumedheredityofalcoholism,thatitappearstobehereditaryin BritainbutnotinIran(Jones1997).Inthesamebook,IntheBlood,acompanion volumetotheeponymousBBCseries,Jonesalsomentionsthatalthoughitcanbe arguedthathomicidesomehowrelatestoinheritedaggression,itisamuchmore interestingfactthatmurderfrequenciesvaryhugelybetweenbigAmericancities andbigBritishcities,andthatthiscannotbeunderstoodwithouttakingintoaccount thedifferingnumbersofhandgunsinthetwocountries. Neo-Darwinistaccountsofhumannaturetendtobeone-sidedandunsatisfactory.ButasthephilosopherImreLakatosnevertiredofpointingout,purely negativecriticismneverkilledaresearchprogramme.Inotherwords,weneed moreconvincingalternatives.Intheacademicliteratureofanthropology,several suchalternativesexist,fromGregoryBateson’ssystemecologytoTimIngold’s ecologicalphenomenology,buttheseimpressiveresearchprogrammessofarremain tobetranslatedintoaform,andalanguage,thatcommunicatesbeyondthegroupof initiates. Thekindofcomplexityneededforanaccountofhumannaturetobepalatable foranthropologistshasbeendescribedoftenenough.Atypicalexample,thoughnot verywellknownintheAnglophoneworld,isEdgarMorin’sdescriptionofsacrifice (Morin2001).Astapleinanthropologicalresearch,andatopicwhichhasalso occasionallyattractedtheattentionofevolutionists,sacrificecanbeaccountedforin manyways.ThereareDarwinian,structural-functionalistandculturalistnarratives aboutsacrifice.Morin,however,distinguishesbetweennolessthansevenlevelsof significationinhisaccount:(i)Itisaresponsetoanxietyoruncertainty,alleviated throughofferingstotheGods;(ii)Itsignifiesobediencetosterndemandsfromthe sameGods;(iii)Itsignifiesreciprocityatthesymbolicleveltowardsothergroups; (iv)Itisamagicalexploitationoftheregenerativeforceofdeath;(v)Ittransfersevil toavictimbeingsubjectedtoexorcism;(vi)Itrepresentsacontrolledchannelling ofviolence,andfinally,(vii)Itreinforcesthesolidarityofthecommunity(Morin 2001:38).Noneoftheselevelscanbereducedtoanotherwithoutlosingsomething essentialontheway.
ComplexityandContext • 55 Inotherwords,thecomplexityofhumanactivitiesismanytimesgreaterthan assumedinsimplecausalaccounts.Thisisnottosaythatsuchaccountsarenecessarilysimplywrong,northattheycannotbeuseful,butonlythatifwewantto understandaphenomenon,ageneralaccount(beitDarwinianorotherwise)isat bestabeginning.Thequestionsarebeingraisedinsideandoutsideofacademia,and anthropologistsarewellpositionedtoputthemselvesintheirvicinity.
ASmallHandfulofAnthropologicalContributions Whateverone’sfeelingsaboutthenewDarwinism,hereisagamethatanthropologistsandothersocialscientistscannotaffordnottoplay.And,astheexamples ofDiamondandPinkershow,thereadingpublicisfarfromunabletoabsorbacademiccomplexity,provideditiswrappedingoodwritingandpresentedthrougha straightforward,credibleargument.Therearelamentablyfewcontemporaryanthropologybookswhichareinterdisciplinary,addressageneralintellectualaudience andtakeonthebigissuesofhumannature/culture.Buttherearesome.Michael Carritherspublished,someyearsago,abookwiththetantalizingtitleWhyHumans haveCultures(Carrithers1992),subtitled‘ExplainingAnthropologyandSocial Diversity’.Carrithers’saimistoreconciletheperspectivesfromsocialanthropology withthoseofDarwinism,noless.Heidentifiessocialityasaninherited,evolved traitofhumanity,andbuildshisaccountofhumanlivesfromthisstartingpoint. Thebookisexcellent,writteninalivelystylewithengagingexamples–andyet, Isuspectthatfewofyouhavereadit.HismainmessagetotheDarwiniansseems tobe:‘Yes,youareright,butitismorecomplicatedthanthat.’LikeBrianMorris’s AnthropologyoftheSelf(Morris1994),itengageswithevolutionarytheorybut noticestheshortcomingsofitsmostsimplisticversions,andasaresult,whatithas toofferintheendiscomplexity.Thisishonourableandintellectuallydefensible,but itisnotbyitselfgoingtosolveourproblem.Atacertainpoint,onemusthavethe nervetoallowone’scomplexvisiontocometogetherinaclear,brief,pithystatement. Letmementionacoupleofotherexamples.AnalmostunknownbookisPeter J.Wilson’sMan–ThePromisingPrimate(Wilson1980),which,likeWhyHumans haveCultures,isanambitiousattempttobridgethegapbetweenevolutionaryand culturalistaccounts.Wilson,whoseCrabAntics(1978)isamodernclassicofCaribbeanstudies,herearguesthat‘theevolutionarycharacteristicoftheprimateorderis atendencytowardsincreasinggeneralizationofmorphology’(Wilson1980:151). Putdifferently,theflexibilityandlackoffixitytypicalofhumansareproductsof evolution.Althoughtheargumentisnotentirelyoriginal,thematerialutilizedby Wilson,primateevolutionandthepeculiaritiesofthebranchthatbecamehumanity, deservesattention.Yethefailedtogetit. Similarly,AdamKuper’sbookaboutcultureandhumanevolution,TheChosen Primate(Kuper1994)ispossiblyhisleastcitedbook.Kuper’saccount,beginning
56 • EngagingAnthropology brisklywiththeunforgettablesentence‘WeareallDarwinistsnow’,presumably startlinghalfofthereadershipattheoutset,movesontoacarefullyargued,and cautiouslyambivalent,accountofthedebatesabouthumanevolutionandculture. Thebookhasaclearlyphrasedproblem,namelywhathumanevolutioncantellus aboutculture.Kuperthenembarksonanentertainingandenlighteningstory,which interweavesthehistoryofhumanevolutionitselfwiththehistoryofresearchand controversyonthetopic.Itisalsoaverywittybookpeppered,likehisAnthropology andAnthropologists(Kuper1996),withanecdotesandamusingasides.Finally,itis anuancedbook,writteninthespiritofdialogue,andthoughtheauthorultimately concludesthatbiologycantelluspreciouslittleabouthumansociety,hemakes importantconcessionstothe‘hardscience’ofevolutionarybiologyontheway. Whydidthisbookfailtomakeit?Foronething,itdoesnotseemtobeafavourite amonganthropologists,whomayhaveregardedsuchfraternizationwiththeenemy asunwarrantedfrivolity.However,itcouldbearguedthatthemaintargetgroupis nototheranthropologists,butinterestedlaypeople–thesamepeoplewhowould laterbuyandreadPinker’sBlankSlate. Itisdifficulttoblamethelackofsuccessoncomplexityinthiscase(andtheother anthropologicalbooksmentioned).Kuperisanelegantwriter,lucidandwitty,and easytofollowforaneducatedreader.Depressingasitmayseem,amainreasonfor thebook’sconfinementtolimitedcirclescouldbethatpotentialreadersunderstandits message,buteitherdisagreeorareuninterested.Followinganequivocaldiscussion ofgenderroles,cultureandbiology,Kuperconcludes: Somewritershavesuggestedthatthereareuniversallyacknowledged,bedrockvalues; butitishardtofindanyethicalprinciplesthatcommandassentinallculturaltraditions. Othersmightprefertoseek...anethicbasedonourrealhumannature,butitishard tobesurewhatingredientsmakeupthatcommon,underlyingnature,andevenifthey couldbeidentifiedtheymightbeworthmodifyingifwecandoso.(Kuper1994:207)
Thisisanentirelysensibleandintelligibleview,presentedincrispprose,which followslogicallyfromthematerialpresentedinthechapter–andofcourseitisnot exactlyheadlinefodder.ItisunlikelytoreinforcethereadersofTheEconomistin theirconvictionthathumansarecompetitiveandindividualistic,norwillitcomfort readerswhoseecomplexityasanobstaclewithanelegant,simpleexplanation. Allthreebooksunderreviewshareacommontrait:ambivalence.Inthisthey differfromthebrasher,moreconfident,shiny-armour-cladDarwinianstorieswhich promisepowerful,compactanswerstoquestionsofstaggeringcomplexity.This qualityofsomecurrentpopularbiologymakesitreminiscentofreligion.Butit alsocatchestheattentionoftheintelligentlaypersonwhowantstheworldtomake sense.Still,thequestionofhumannatureisfartooimportanttobelefttobelievers insimplegeneticexplanations.AsBrianMorrispointedoutinamemorablepassage inAnthropologyoftheSelf:Creatingahumanbeingcanbecomparedtobaking
ComplexityandContext • 57 acake.Youneedarecipeforsure(DNA),butyoualsoneedingredients(soma; nourishment),anoven(theenvironment)andacook(subjectivityorwill).Onlyif youareabletoseeallfourelementssimultaneouslywillyouhaveunderstoodwhat ittakestobakeacake.Thisisthemessagethatneedstobeconveyedinwaysthat catchtheattentionofthegeneralpublic. Thepointisnot,obviously,thatDarwinismiswrong,butthatthe‘stateofnature’ isafiction.AsKupershowedinhishistoricalaccountoftheideaofprimitivesociety (Kuper1988),thefictionhaspersistedamongacademicsuptothepresent,evenif ithasrepeatedlybeenshowntobefalse.AsBarnard(1999)hasshown,Bushmen andAborigineshaveawidelydifferingsymboliccultureinspiteofasimilarlevel oftechnologicaldevelopmentandcomparablegroupcomplexity.AndasIngold pointsout(2000),itisonlythroughontogenesis–continuousengagementwiththe environment,socialandnatural–thatinnatepropertiescandevelopatall.Sothe environment,naturalandcultural,mattersquiteabitnomatterhowoneseesthe matter.Again,asGeertzsays,theonlywaytobehumanisbywayofculture–there isnosubstratumunderneaththatmessy,ever-changingconglomerateofcultural andsocialconditioning,inborncharacteristics,individualwhim,environmental circumstancesandpurecoincidence.Thepointisthattheseperspectivescanand shouldbepopularized,evenifrecentattemptshavebeen,oftenundeservedly, unsuccessful.
MemeticsandtheAnthropologists Ifregularevolutionarybiologycanbewrittenoff–ifunwisely–asirrelevantto theenterpriseofmodernsocioculturalanthropology,thesamecandefinitelynotbe saidofits‘culturological’offshoot,memetics.Firstdevelopedasanafterthoughtto TheSelfishGene(Dawkins1976),theterms‘meme’and‘memetics’havespread phenomenally(itsadherentssometimespointout,lamely,thatthenotionofthe memehasbeenanextremelysuccessfulmeme).Dawkins’soriginalargument wasthatgenesareakindofreplicator(theyareprogrammedtoproducecopiesof themselves),butthatotherkindsofreplicatorsmightexist,forexampleinculture. Anidea,aditty,askillsuchasorigami,mightthusbeseenasgeneequivalents, competingforsurvivalandpropagationinthespacesofculturalstuff.Dawkins hasscarcelydevelopedtheideaofthememehimself,butothershave,including thephilosopherDanielDennett(1995),thepsychologistSusanBlackmore(1999) andthephysicalanthropologistRobertAunger(2000,2002).Asthememehas apparentlyprovedsuchasuccessfulexemplificationofthetheoryofmemetics,it iscuriousthatnoneofitsdefendersseemtohavereferredtotheoriginalcoinage ofmemetics,inRichardSemon’s1908bookDieMnemealsErhaltendesPrinzip inWechseldesOrganizchenGeschehens[TheMnemeasConservingPrinciple intheExchangesofOrganicProcesses].Semon’sconceptofmemesisrelatedto Dawkins’susage,butitdidnotcatchon.
58 • EngagingAnthropology Inspiteofappearances,memeticsisnotabranchofbiology.Unlikesociobiology anditsaffiliates,itisnotanattempttoexpandthescopeofbiologicalexplanations inordertobeabletosubsumehumanthought,behaviourandcultureunderthe Darwinianumbrella.Infactitisqualitativelydifferentfromthematerialismoften encounteredinevolutionarypsychologyandotherbranchesofsociobiology.Itisa metaphoricDarwinism,andthecommonalitiesbetweenhumansociobiologyand memeticscouldbesummedupintwopoints:
TheDarwinianprinciplesofevolutionarerelevantinmorecontextsthancommonlyassumed,notablywithreferencetohumanlife. Thereexistsonlyoneformofscientificknowledge,andultimatelyallphenomena canbeaccountedforaccordingtothesameproceduresofdiscovery.
InspiteofasharedcommitmenttounitaryscienceandDarwinianthought,the differencesbetweensociobiologyandmemeticsarealsoobvious,ifnotalways spokenabout.Sociobiology,includingevolutionarypsychology,teachesthathuman behaviourshould,ifpossible,beinterpretedinthelightoflong-termevolutionary strategies,inotherwordsthathumansshouldprimarilybeseenasmammalswho respondtoselectivepressuresinthesamewaysasothermammalswould.Memetics isadifferentkindofintellectualendeavour,anditshouldbenotedthatDawkins initiallyproposedtheconceptinordertomodifytheextremeclaimshehadmade inhiscreativedevelopmentofHamilton’sRule,where,amongotherthings,he describesorganismsasmeresurvivalmachinesforthegenes.Thememe,hesays, isadifferentkindofreplicatorfromthegene,andalthoughitspreadsaccordingto thesamegeneralmechanismsofselectionandcompetition,thememeticdomainis autonomousandhasnodirectlinktogeneticsurvival.DanielDennett’s‘universal Darwinism’ elaborates on Dawkins’s original sketch and proclaims that the Darwinianprinciplesofnaturalselectionarea‘universalacid’thatrenderother attemptsatexplanationredundantinmostifnotalldomains. Thecontradictionsbetweensociobiologyandmemeticshavenotbeenproperly workedoutintheliterature,andauthorslikePinkerwanttohaveitbothways:Humans areprimarilymammalsrespondingtoselectivepressuresintheirreproductive strategies,documentedinnurturing,parentalinvestment,personalitydevelopment andsoon;andatthesametime,ideasspreadaccordingtothesameprinciplesof selection,butquiteindependentlyfromgeneticselection.However,ifideasdo evolveandspreadautonomously,itiseasytoseethattheyinevitablycomeinto conflictwiththepostulatedbiologicalneeds;thereisnoreasontoassumethatideas andnormsshouldbeconsistentwithgeneticstrategiesunlesstheyaredetermined bythem;andiftheyaredeterminedbythem,theydonotconstituteanautonomous, differentkindofreplicator.Somememeticists,suchasSusanBlackmore,havenoted thisdiscrepancy,andherdevelopmentofmemeticsinTheMemeMachine(1999) maybethemostconsistentachievementsofar.
ComplexityandContext • 59 Inotherwords,memeticsbelongstoculturalstudiesandnottobiology.Itisa metaphoricalDarwinismusingnaturalselectioninananalogousway,andassuch ithasnomoreincommonwithDarwinismproperthanDurkheim’sphysiological metaphorforsocietyhaswithphysiologyproper.Humanthoughtcannot,according tomemetics,bereducedtoselectivepressuresoperatingatthelevelofthegenome, butitcanbeexplainedinthesametheoreticalterms.Thesimilarityisoneofpattern resemblance,notofcausation. ConsiderE.O.Wilson’sfamousstatementinOnHumanNature(1978:167): ‘Thegenesholdcultureonaleash.Theleashisverylong,butinevitablyvalueswill beconstrainedinaccordancewiththeireffectsonthehumangenepool.’Thiswill notdoforamemeticist(e.g.Dennett1995:470etpassim).Wilson’sclaimistoo substantivist(heimpliesthatgenesdeterminevaluesinthelastinstance)andthus notsufficientlyformalist(accordingtomemetics,naturalselectioncanoperateon anykindofreplicator). Seenfromtheperspectiveofculturalstudies,thememeticistswinhandsdown. Itisalltooobviousthatmanyoftheproductsofthehumanmind,includingsomeof theenduringones,arenon-adaptiveinanevolutionarysense.AsLévi-Strausssays somewhere:Statingthatsocietiesfunctionistrivial,butstatingthateverythingina societyisfunctional,isabsurd.Thiskindofviewisfinewiththememeticists.They, oratleastsomeofthem(Dawkins,Dennett,Blackmore)neverthelessclaimthat memeticsisnotmerelyalooseanalogytogenetics:memeevolution‘obeysthelaws ofnaturalselectionquiteexactly’(Dennett1995:345).Thethreeprinciplesofnatural selectionarevariation,heredityanddifferentialfitnessamongthereplicators. Anthropologistshavenoted,withsomeirritation,thatnoneoftheleadingadvocates ofmemeticsdiscussearlierworkonculturaldiffusion,whichisveryconsiderable. Thisisforgivable;themostoriginalresearchissometimesproducedbynewcomers toafieldwhoareunburdenedbyconventionalassumptions.However,ignoranceof earlierresearchmayalsoleadpeopleintothesamepitfallsastheirpredecessors. Memeticsisakindofdiffusionism:aresearchstrategywhichaimstodiscover howculturalideasandpracticesspreadfromtheirpointoforiginoutwards,and promises to explain why some cultural items become very widespread while othersdonot.Thequestionraisedisexcellent.Alas,sofar,memetics,atleastin itspopularform,hasnotdeliveredanythingbutpompousprogrammaticstatements pepperedwithanecdotalevidence.WhatwasamitigatingideainDawkinscomes,in Blackmore’sandDennett’sdevelopmentofit,closetoabsurdity. Nobodydoubtsthatculturaldiffusiontakesplace.Ideasandpracticesspread. Manyarekeentounderstandwhyitisthatsomeculturalideasandpracticestravel fastwhileothersdonot.WhydidMicrosoftandWintelcomputersconquertheworld whenthearguablysuperiorproductsfromcompetitorslikeAppledidnot?Whydo thefashion-consciousspendtheirsavingsondressinginclothesthatothersdeem horrible?WhydoesEnglishspreadfasterthananyothersecondlanguage?More
60 • EngagingAnthropology generally:towhatextentaresocieties/culturesinfluencedbyeachother,andhow shouldwegoaboutimprovingourknowledgeoftheculturaldynamicsinvolved? Diffusionismwasfashionableahundredyearsago,incompetitionwithan evolutionismthatowedlesstoDarwinthantosocialtheoristslikeMarxandSpencer. Diffusionistsgenerallyregardedpeopleaslessinventivethanwasassumedby evolutionists,anddidnotbelieveinuniversallawsthatpermittedallsocietiesto developalongthesamelines.However,mostdiffusionistswerealsoevolutionists: accountingforthediffusionofparticulartraits,theyarguedthatthemoreadvanced wouldnormallyreplacethemoreprimitive. Theproblemofclassicdiffusionism,asanthropologistsmighttellthememeticists,isthatitisdifficulttoshowwhetherornotapparentsimilaritiesaredueto diffusion,andmorecritically,thatasingleculturalitemisneverthesameafter havingbeenmovedfromonecontexttoanother.Thisispartlybecauseitismodified enroute,andpartlybecausethecontextisdifferentinthenewsetting,leadingits meaningandfunctioningtochange. Some eightyyearsago,diffusionismwasreplacedby functionalism as the dominanttheoreticalapproachinsocialanthropology.Functionalismadvocatedthe detailedstudyofsinglesocietiesandviewedthemasself-sustainingentitiesupheld bytheinteractionofanumberofinstitutionssuchasinheritance,kinshippractices, divisionoflabour,andreligiousbeliefsandpractices.Functionalismhaditsobvious flawsasatheoreticalprogramme,butwhatitdidofferwasethnographicdescription ofthehighestquality,revealingsomeofthecomplexitiesatworkinactualexisting societies.Memeticshas,thusfar,offerednothingofthekind. Otherobjectionstothefledglingtheoryofmemeticshavealsobeenraised. What,forexample,istheunit?Isitthefirstmovementorjustthefirsteightbarsof Beethoven’sFifthSymphony?BlackmoreandDennettseemtothinkthatmemes couldbeidentifiedinbothmemories,actionsandartefacts;inotherwords,that memesexistbothinbrains,behaviourandthings.Aunger(2002:164)takesissue withthisview,andarguesthatmemesexistonlyinbrains.Memes,inotherwords, arerecipes.Butseeminglyidenticalresultsmaybetheresultofdifferentrecipes (asthecritiqueofdiffusionismshowed),socautionisrecommendedbeforewiderangingconclusionsaredrawn. Acommonobjectiontothemetaphoricuseofthegene-meme,isthatunlike genes,ideas(ormemes)arenotcopiedperfectly.The‘fidelity’ofthecopying processislow,asanyacademicwhohasbeenquotedoutofcontext,forexampleby anewspaper,knows. A more major objection, as pointed out by the philosopher Mary Midgley (2001),isthatideasarenotgranular.AdamKuperaddsthatculturetraitsarenot theequivalentofphilosophicalnotions(Kuper2000:181),andthatitwouldbevery misleadingtopretendthattheywere.MauriceBlochagreeswiththisview,pointing outthatknowledgecannotbeseparatedfromitscontextofaction(Bloch2000).Dan Sperber(2000),criticizingmemeticsfromwithinanevolutionistframework,argues
ComplexityandContext • 61 thatsincethedevelopmentofknowledgetakesplacewithinevolveddomain-specific framesofdisposition,ideasmovethroughinferences,notmerecopying. Anotherseriousquestion,sinceselfish-genebiologyisthesourceofinspirationfor themetaphorofthememe,concernswheretheselectivepressurecomesfrominthe caseofmemetics.Regardinggeneticselection,theanswerisstraightforwardenough: survivalandprocreation.Concerningmemeticselection,theanswerislessobvious. DawkinsisapplaudedbyDennettwhenhesays(1976:214),uncharacteristically vacuously,that‘aculturaltraitmayhaveevolvedinthewayithassimplybecause itisadvantageoustoitself’.Thissoundslikechancetome,andbesides,whatdoes itmeanthatsomethingisadvantageoustoitselfwhenthecontextisoneoffierce competition?Ontheotherhand,allmemeticiststomyknowledgehappilyuse personalpronouns(mostoften‘we’)whentheydescribetheselectionprocess–and yet,theyrejecttheideathatanautonomous,discerninghumansubjectexists! Inanyserioustheoryofculturaltransmissionanddiffusion,oneexpectspresentationofempiricalmaterial.Nosuchluxuryisaffordedusbytheleadinglightsof memetics.Atagenerallevel,thetheoryrepeatsfactswhichhavebeenfamiliarsince theriseofsocioculturalanthropologyasanacademicdisciplineinthe1870s:that humanstransmitinformationthroughsymboliccommunicationandaretherefore differentfromotheranimalsatleastinthisrespect;thatthereisconsiderable, butimperfectverticalcontinuityinknowledge,skillsandvalueswhencultureis transmittedbetweenthegenerations,andthatconsiderableborrowingacrosscultural boundariestakesplace,oftenblurringtheboundariesandleadingtophenomenasuch assymbolicdomination,hegemoniesandhybridities.Morerecently,globalization researchhaslookedintotheconsequencesoftherevolutionincommunicationand informationtechnologyforculturaldynamics. Theexamplesmarshalledbyleadingmemeticistsarefewandweak.Dawkins mentionspaperorigami,DennettthefirstfournotesofBeethoven’sFifthSymphony. Theyseemtoshareageneralfondnessforditties,fadsandclearlydelineatedpractices suchasthebanonshavingamongtraditionalistmaleSikhs.Theseexamplesare,as everyanthropologistknows,meaninglesswithoutaconsiderationoftheircontext. Whyisitthatcertainsimplepoptunesconquertheworld,whilemoresubstantial contributionstomusicdonot?Trytoanswerthequestionwithoutconsidering context,andyouseewhatImean.Theseparticularsongsarelikelytobereminiscent oftunespeoplehaveheardbefore,theyareaggressivelymarketedontelevision, radioandthroughothermedia,theyconnectwithotheraspectsofyouthculture deemeddesirable,andsoon.Thesamecouldbesaidaboutbluejeans,exceptthata pairofLevi’slastslongerthanmostpopsongs. WhentheageingMarcelMausswroteaboutswimmingtechniquesin1935,he notedthatthewayhewastaughttoswiminthelatenineteenthcentury,fillinghis mouthwithwaterandspittingitout‘likeasmallsteamer’asawayofmarking therhythmofeachstroke,wasbynowlongobsolete.Howcanoneaccountfor thischange?Presumablysomeonegotthebrightideathatfillingone’smouth
62 • EngagingAnthropology withseawaterdidnothelplocomotion.Inmemeticterms,suchachangemightbe describedasacopyingerror,butthisisnotahelpfultermhere.Thenewswimming techniqueismoreefficient,butitisalsoeasytothinkaboutchangesincultural practicesandideasthatreduceaparticularformofefficiencyinordertopromote someotherquality.Changesinthedominantswimmingtechniquesmustbeseenin thewidercontextofotherculturalchanges–ingenderrelations,inattitudestothe body,andprobablyintheriseofindustrialsocietyanditsvalues. ThespreadofthehijaborheadscarfamongMuslimwomenworldwidefrom thelate1990sonwardscouldbeanothertestcaseformemetics.Howcanthatbe explained?Lotsoffactorscouldbementioned,includingagrowingideological influencefromconservativeArabformsofIslamsuchasWahabismdisseminated efficientlythankstoglobalmeansofcommunicationandSaudioilmoney;the increased muscle of theArab world and subsequent pride in Muslim identity followingtheoilcrisisof1973–74;anidentityformationcentredonthePalestinian problemandUS/Israeliimperialism;apost-colonialfeelingofsymbolicdomination triggeringcounter-movesintheformoftraditionalism...itisdifficulttoseehowthe conceptofthememecouldhelpusunderstandthisphenomenonbetter.Historical contextiscrucialhere,butsoishumanreflexivityandemotionssuchasresentment, humiliationandself-esteem.Withoutasubject,oracollectivityofsubjects,sifting, organizingandprioritizingbetweenalternatives,nounderstandingispossible.As Blochhasremarked(2000:198),‘thefactthatthehabitofmakingnoodlescameto ItalyfromChinadoesnotexplainwhyItaliansmakenoodles’. Thetwomajoranthropologicalobjectionstomemeticscanbesummarizedasa chicken-and-eggproblemandaproblemofcontext.Firstly,wheredoestheselective pressurecomefrominthecaseofmemes?Theycompetefor‘brainspace’saythe defendersofmemetics–well,butwhoorwhatallocates‘brainspace’andonwhich criteria?Secondly,nothinghasameaningbyitself,andcultureisnotgranular.For anythingtospread,itmustmakesenseinthenewcontextandforthatpurposeit mustoftenbetransformed,consciouslyornot.Iffemalecircumcisionisameme,it canonlybeunderstoodinrelationtoalargenumberofothermemesandtheirmutual interactions;inaword,afullsymbolicuniversethatrenderstheworldmeaningfulto thepeoplewhoinhabitit.Ratherthansensitizingustothecomplexityofsymbolic meaning(apreconditionforideastosurvive),memeticsasksustosplitupculture intobasiccomponents,whichcanneverthelessneverbeunderstoodunlesstheyare seenaspartsoflargerentities. Memeticsmaybebeyondsalvationasatheoreticalproject.However,itraisesa fewquestionswhicharejustrightforanthropologyseenasanendeavourofpublic relevance.Itseeshumancultureaspartofnatureyetrejectsthesimplifications of human sociobiology, and it asks highly pertinent questions about cultural transmission,culturaldiffusionandculturalchange.Thenotionofcontagionis usefulandhasnotbeenproperlyexploredinculturalstudies,includinganthropology. But–Irepeat–withoutanunderstandingofthehumansubject,noadvancewillbe
ComplexityandContext • 63 made,andofcourse,asanyecologistwillagree,contextiseverything.Curiously,in attemptsatapplyingmemetics,thebiologyitselfseemstosuffer.InIngold’swords, thegenotypeexists‘inthemindofthebiologist’(Ingold2000:382).Theambition ofofferingasimpleandstraightforwardanalyticaccountofthehumanmindhasled toanuntenableabstraction. Thelessonfromtheexperimentofmemeticsisthatwehavetodobetter:those ofuswhofeelthatmemeticsisinsufficienthavetocomeupwithabetteralternative thanmerelystatingthatthingsaremorecomplicatedthanthis.Saying‘thingsare morecomplicated’islikehavingendlessmeetingstoavoidmakingacontroversial decision. Theanthropologist’saccountofhumannaturehastobeholist–itmustincludethe recipe,theingredients,theovenandthecook–anditmustsupersedetheconventional culture/naturedivide.Lookinginthedirectionofbiology,itislikelytofindmoreby wayofinspirationinecologythaningenetics.Itmustalsotakehumanexperience seriouslyasanareaofenquiry.Thesegeneraldelineationsnotwithstanding,several pathsarepossibleandmightshedlightonthehumancondition.Thefieldisopen: withahandfulofexceptions,therehavebeenfewattemptssincetheSecondWorld Wartodevelopatheoryofhumannaturewhichdrawsonbiologicalknowledge withoutsuccumbingtothetemptationsofeasyfixes. Butisitpossible?InaspeechgiveninLundin1820,theSwedishpoetEsaias Tegnérfamouslysaid,possiblywithHegelinmind,that‘Whatisobscurelyspoken isobscurelythought’(Detdunkeltsagdaärdetdunkelttänkta).Tothisonemust addthatobscurethoughtmaysometimesbenecessary,butitisnotvirtuousin itself.Styletendstomirrorcontent;asSutton(1991)pointsoutinhisdiscussion ofsuccessfulpopularizationinanthropology,hischosenwriters’styleofwriting andpresentationofargumentarecongruentwiththeirmessage.Anthropologists thereforeneednotshyawayfromcomplexityintheirpopularwritings,butshould ratherstrivetofindanauthorialvoicethatcarriesthemessageofcomplexitybeyond theguild.Anthropologistsshouldstopfidgetingandgetonwithit.
LucidityandComplexity GregoryBatesononceadvisedscientiststosetupplacardsatthelimitsoftheir knowledge,statingthattheworldis‘unexploredbeyondthispoint’.Soundadvice nodoubt,butitseemsthatinthecaseofsocialandculturalanthropologists,these placardshavebeentoonumerous,whiletheytendtobefarlesscommonamong biologicalanthropologistsoratleasttheirpopularizers. Themainproblemwhichhasbeenidentifiedinthischapteristhatofsimplification andgeneralization.Thereseemstobeagreatdemandforsimpleanswerstocomplex questions,andanthropologistsrefusetoofferthem–however,thatrefusaldoesn’t exactlymaketheheadlines,anditdoeslittletochangetheworldortoinfluence
64 • EngagingAnthropology people’sthoughtsabouttheworld.Itmaybedifficulttobeaccessiblewithout compromisingone’scommitmenttocomplexity,butperfectlysoundwaysofdealing withtheproblemexist,asthebestofthewritinginpopularscienceandhistory shows.Forexample,concentratingononeortwoargumentsatatimeoftenhelps. Beingextremelyspecific,dealingwithonlyoneexampleandrevealingittobevery differentfromwhatitmightseem,isanothermethod.Luciditydoesnotnecessarily precludecomplexity.Nomatterwhatone’sstrategy,itisquiteclearthatviewsof humannaturearefartooimportanttobelefttoneo-Darwiniststoworkout. Theissuesdiscussedinthischapterarebeingdebatedintheelitemedia–the TLS,theNewYorkReviewofBooksandsoon.Buttheyarealsofarfromabsent inmainstreammedia,andthevoiceofanthropologistsmightmakeadifference theretoo.InSeptember2004,thelargestNorwegiandaily,VG(circulationover 400,000),publishedastoryfeaturingawell-knownpsychiatristwhohadargued,at aprofessionalmeeting,thatourevolutionaryhistoryhadequippedhumanswitha propensityforunflinchingloyaltytowardsclosekinandanever-weakeningfeeling ofsolidaritytowardsothers.Itwasclaimedinthearticlethatthepsychiatrist,Prof. BertholdGrünfeld,alsosuggestedthatthis‘scientificfact’meantthatethnicconflict wasunavoidable.Iwasthenbusyatworkonanearlyversionofthischapter,and realizedthatanopportunitytoturntheoryintopracticewasathand,andsoIsubmitted thefollowingarticle,whichwasprintedinthenewspaper,slightlyabbreviated,afew dayslater.Theexamplehopefullysuggeststhatevenverymodestandtheoretically trivialworkcansometimesbeworthwhile.
ThePredicamentofCommunity Isxenophobianatural?Thequestionwasrecentlyraisedfollowingtheclaim bypsychiatristBertholdGrünfeldtotheeffectthatpeople‘aremadeforliving insmall,territoriallybasedgroups’.Therefore,Grünfeldsaid,accordingtoVG, ‘strangersfromotherterritoriesentailathreat[tothegroup’sintegrity]’. Naturally,Grünfeldwasmetwithcriticism,initiallyfrombiologyprofessorInger Nordalandtheministeroflocaladministration,ErnaSolberg.Hispointofview evidentlyappearsunattractiveinaculturallycomplexsociety.Butsupposehe stillhappenstoberight?Afterall,itmayseemasifpeoplehaveinalltimesbeen suspiciousoftheneighbouringtribe,haveattackednewcomersdrivingtheir cattletothewaterhole,havebuiltfortressesandnotleasttoldnastyjokesabout thepeopleonthefarsideofthelake? Grünfeldisrighttosomeextent,buttheideathatpeopleareonlyabletofeel solidarityinsmallgroupsisclearlywrong.Howshouldoneotherwiseexplaina phenomenonsuchasAmericanpatriotism? Allovertheworld,peopleliveingroupsbased,toagreaterorlesserextent, ascommonidentityandmutualtrust.The‘glue’keepingthegroupstogether maybethickorthin;itcanbeeasyordifficulttobecomeamemberofthe groupforthosewhocomefromtheoutside,andthegroupsvaryinsize.But
ComplexityandContext • 65 allgroupshavesomethingincommon,andthemostinterestingsharedfeature inthisdiscussionisthatnoteveryonecanbeamember.Inotherwords,they haveboundaries.Theydenypeopleentry.Often,boundary-markingtakesplace throughnegativestereotypes,thatisprejudices.ThisisfarfrombeingaWestern orEuropeanspeciality.Forexample,researchhasindicatedthatanimportant reasonwhyEuropeansforalongtimeheldthatcannibalismwaswidespread inAfrica,wasthatneighbouringpeopleshadspreadrumoursaboutthisorthat groupbeingcannibals. Peoplethushaveatendencytofeelsolidarityandtrusttowards‘theirown’and tokeep‘theothers’atbay. Sofar,wemustconcedethatGrünfeldisright.Butfromhereonwards,it becomesmorecomplicated.Amajorpartofhumanculturalhistoryisthehistory tellingushowgroupshaveamalgamated,assimilatedoutsiders,splitintosmaller groups,shrunkand–especially–grown.Thismeansthatthereisnosimple answertothequestionofwhoare‘one’sown’andwhoare‘theothers’. Itmaybethecasethatsomesociobiologistsstillbelievethathumansare ultimatelyadaptedtolivinginsmallgroupsofhuntersandgatherers,andthatall laterdevelopments–fromtheagriculturalrevolutiononwards–areunnaturaland slightlyundesirable.Butevenifwesticktohuntersandgatherersasourexample, the‘stateofnature’accordingtosome,itquicklybecomesevidentthatnoteven thatconditionwasparticularlynatural. ArchaeologicalfindingsfromsouthernAfricasuggestthatinacertainperiod in our prehistory, tens of thousands of years ago, the human groups grew veryrapidly,fromafewdozenindividualstoahundredormore.Aninfluential explanationofthischangeisthatlanguageappearedaroundthistime.When peoplewereabletodiscusstheweather,commonacquaintancesandrecent eventssuchasasuccessfulhuntingtriporthebirthofachild,theywereenabled tokeeplargercommunitiestogether. Thisdescriptionisasimplification,butthepointremains:humanshavenot knowna‘stateofnature’.Wearenaturallyequippedwithanabilitytodream andfantasize,worshipinvisiblegodsorcriticizethosewhodoit,makeplans andpersuadeeachother,trustpeopleorgossipaboutthem.Itwearegoingto bracketthisaspectoflife,inordertodevelopasimpleandelegantexplanation ofhumanfolly–well,inthatcase,thetheorybecomessocrudethatitfailsto explainanythingatall. Duringthelastcenturies,nationsandmodernstateshaveemerged.They havebeendescribedas‘imaginedcommunities’becauseanyonewhopleads allegiancetoanationisforcedtousehisorherimaginationtobelieveintheir existence.Wecannotseethem.‘Norway’isaninvisibleentity.Asocietywhich isabletopropagateandmaintainthebelief,trustandloyaltyofmillionstowards somethingthisabstractandhuge,isworthyofrespect.Nationsareabstractand flimsy,yetmanyarenotonlywillingtocheerfortheirathletes,butgiventheright kindofpressure,manyareevenwillingtogotowarontheirbehalf. This was not always the situation. A couple of hundred years ago, most Europeanarmiesconsistedofprofessionalsoldiersandconscriptedpeasants.
66 • EngagingAnthropology Nationalloyaltywasminimaltonon-existent.Atthattime,thelocalcommunity wouldhavebeenthemostimportantfocusofidentificationformost,though fortheupperclasses,thecosmopolitan,internationalcommunityofaristocrats matteredthemost–andthemenandwomenofthechurchwere,fortheirpart, willingtosacrificeanythingforthesupranationalreligiouscommunity. Sowhoisgoingtoclaimthatcertainkindsofcommunitiesare‘morenatural’ thanothers? It may be true, as some argue, that contemporary nations are troubled. Travelling,migration,theInternetandglobalpopularculturecontributetoa weakeningofthesenseofnationalcommunityinmanycountries.Youngpeople developsympathiesandcommonalitiesacrossnationalborders.Immigrants oftenhavetwoplacestheycancallhome,notjustone.Englishhasbecome thesecondlanguageoftheworld.Manyfeelthattheybelongtoseveralgroups thatareimportanttothem.Perhapstheyhaveareligion,anationality,alocal community,aneducation,aspecialinterest,asexualorientationorsimplya personalitythatmakesthemfeelathomeinmanykindsofcommunities,intheir owncountryaswellasabroad.Besides,therewillalwaysbeafewwhotakean especialpleasureinbreakingoutofthegroupsandinsistingthattheyareunique individuals,fullstop. If,inspiteofallthis,Grünfeldshouldstillturnouttoberight,onecanat leastfeelrelievedinonerespect.Forinthatcase,Muslimfundamentalismis impossibleandclearlydoesn’texist.Islamisareligionencompassingabillion individuals.Mostofthemwillnevermeet;theylookdifferentandspeakdifferent languages.Ifitistruethatwearegeneticallyprogrammedtofeelsolidarityonly withthatintimatecircleofpeoplewholiveinthesameplaceaswedo,who weknowpersonallyoratleastindirectly–well,inthatcaseitisimpossibleto imagineanyonebeingwillingtosacrificeeverythingforanabstractentitysuchas areligion. Thepredicamentneverthelessremains.Allgroups,nomatterwhattheyare basedon,demarcatedifferencestowardsothers.Thereisnofinalsolutiontothis problem.Thebestalternative,providedwhatwedesireispeaceandcooperation, istoencouragemanykindsofoverlappingcommunities.Insteadofregardinga countrylikeNorwayasakindofextendedfamily(offourandahalfmillion),we mightenvisionitasamosaicwheretheinhabitantshavesomethingincommon, butarealsoallowedtobedifferent.Inthatcaseweshallhaveseveralpointsof entryintotheimaginedcommunity,andtheticketcostwillnotbeprohibitive forallthosewhodonotimaginethattheyaredescendantsofHaroldtheHairy [legendaryninth-centurychieftain,describedinofficialhistorybooksas‘thefirst kingofNorway’].Thegoodnewsisthatthelongculturalhistoryofhumanity showsusthatthisispossible.Anditremainsaquestionofwill,notbiology.
Theintendedreadershipofthisarticle,onemustbeallowedtosaywithoutaccusationsofbeingpatronising,waspeoplewhodidnotnecessarilyhavemorethan avagueideaaboutanthropology,biologyorscienceingeneral. VGisaright-
ComplexityandContext • 67 leaningtabloidwhichrarelygoesoutofitswaytodefendimmigrants,andwhich hasoftenruncampaignsagainstillegalmigrantsand‘asylumtourists’.Thepreferred afternoonnewspaperofuniversity-educated,left-of-centreNorwegiansistheslightly moreupmarket,andmuchmorepoliticallyprogressive, Dagbladet.Iimagined thereadershiptoconsistofengagedcitizenswhomightbeinclinedtobelieve,as manydo,thatwhenallissaidanddone,humansaredrivenbyinheritedbiological instincts,andthat‘we’areprobablynevergoingtoapproveofMuslimsanyway. Myambitionwastoencouragethemtothinktheissuesoveroncemore,tomake theirworldslightlymorecomplicated.Theattemptmaynothavebeensuccessful: thearticle,printedinnearlyhalfamillioncopies,didnotelicitasinglereactionthat Iknowof,neitherinprintnorinmye-mailinbox.Iincludeithereonlyinsupport oftheargumentthatitisperfectlypossibletoargueagainstsimplisticbiological determinismwithoutleavingtheeverydaylivedrealityandtheeverydaylanguageof theaveragecitizen,andthatitisourdutytodoitmoreoften. Whatkindofcomplexityismissinginthissampleofjournalism?Firstofall, itlacksempiricalcontextualization,makinganumberofgrand,unsubstantiated statementsandpresentingitsexamplesinatelegraphicform.Thiswouldnotbe acceptableinabook,nomatterwhotheaudience.Secondly,itdoesnotworkout theargumentsystematically,doesnotbringindifficultexamplesorgoodcounterarguments.Inalongeressayorabook,theintellectualworkexemplifiedherewould rightlyhavebeendismissedasshoddyandlazy.Yet(andhereIgallantlyrallyto myowndefence),thepointofanarticleofthislengthistoencouragethereaders tothinkalongunfamiliarlinesandtoquestionideassomeofthemmayhabitually takeforgranted.Ifitsucceedsinaddingadropofcomplexitytothedebateabout xenophobia(which,Iregrettoadmit,thisarticleappearsnottohavedone),thena textofthiskindhassucceeded.
This page intentionally left blank
– 4– FastandSlowMedia Manyconflictingdemandsareplacedonscholarsinthehumanitiesandsocial sciencesthesedays.Universitiesarebeingrestructured,curriculaandcourseplans standardized(inEurope,thisisknownasthe‘Bolognaprocess’).Staffareencouraged, sometimesforced,toapplyforexternalfundingfortheirresearch,oftenthrough extremelytime-consumingapplicationprocessesinvolvingcolleaguesfrommany countries.Theteacher–studentratiohasgoneup,theworkingdayisfragmentedby e-mails,meetings,adminwork;universitiesarebeingredefinedasakindofbusiness enterprise,thereisincreasingpressureonacademicstobe‘societallyrelevant’, andontopofit,thepopulationexplosioninhighereducationhascreatedamore competitiveenvironment,forcingusalltopublishmorethanbefore,inamongstthe almostcontinuousmutualevaluationandthesprawlingminutiaeofcontemporary universitylife.Insmallishnon-English-speakingcountries,thereisconcernthat publicationsshould‘meetinternationalstandards’,whichissmall-countrynewspeak for‘publishedinEnglishabroad’.(WhichmeansthatpublicationintheBotswana JournalofSocialConstructivismmightcountmorethananarticleinadomestic journalwitharejectionrateof90percent.)Butjustasweneeditmorethanever before,thetimewhichcanbedevotedtoslowworkisshrinkingfastformostofus. Somemaycomparetheirsituation,therapeutically,tothatofKafka,perhaps,who hadatediousofficejobduringthedayandwroteintenseproseatnight.Notthatthis kindofpretentiouscomparisonultimatelyhelps. Othersoptoutofmereacademicwork.RonRobin,aprofessorofcommunication andhistory,hasidentifiedanewkindofintellectual,the‘hybridscholar’,who staysawayfromtheindustrialmachineryofthenewuniversitiesandinsteadwrites popularizedworkbasedonotherpeople’sresearch(Robin2004).Nowthisisa perfectlyrespectablenichetooccupyaslongasoneremainswithintheboundsof commondecency(Robindealsatlengthwithvariouscasesofplagiarism).However, hisanalysisofcontroversiesinacademia,whichinvolvebothanthropologistsand historians,indicatesthatwhentheseconflictsareallowedtoentertheswirlingworld ofthefastmedia,anythingcanhappen.Hisconclusionis,infact,that‘themedium indeedisthemessage’(Robin2004:25).Heexplainsthat‘theuseofaparticular mediumdicatesthetermsofdebate;ithasasignificantimpactonthecontroversies’ lifespan,theirnarrativestructure,andtheirtone’(ibid.).Actually,hesays,theuseof massmediaandvirtualcommunicationontheinternet‘reflectsfundamentalchanges inthestatusofprofessionalgatekeepers,theriseofanewpluralism,andsignificant
69
70 • EngagingAnthropology shiftsinthegeopoliticsofacademia’(ibid.).Manyofhisexamplesindicatethat speedisindeedheat,asthephysiciststaughtuslongago.Thefasterthemedium,the morevitriolicandbombasticthedebate.Incyberspace,hesays,‘thistypeofinstant pluralismsometimesincreasesdissonanceandintensifiesconflict’(Robin2004:24). It’splaincommonsensetostatethatspeedencouragessimplification.Whenthefirst trainsappeared,Britonswereconcernedthattheywerepsychologicallyharmful becausetheirspeedmadeitimpossibletotakeinallthedetailsofthepassing surroundings.Thesameprincipletendstoapplyinintellectualdebate. Thispresentsaproblemforanthropologists(andotheracademics)whowishto engageinthepublicsphere,sincetheformofpresentationinwhichtheyspecialize isunsuitableforthedominantregimeofcommunication.Yetusingthisobviousfact asapretextforremainingalooffromthemassmedia,onprincipleandforeternity,is hardlyasatisfactoryoptionforeverybody.
AHintofDoubt,aDropofComplexity,aSubversiveRemark... Oneofthefewmetropolitananthropologistswhohasaregularmediapresence isMicaeladiLeonardo,whowritesforTheNationandisoccasionallycontacted bymainstreammediaforcommentsonvariouscurrentissues.Sowhendoes‘the fourthestate’contactdiLeonardo?Withaudibleexasperation,shelistssomeof theoccasionswhenshehasbeenrungupbyjournalists(diLeonardo1998).One TVproducerwantedherviewsonwhysomemenaresexuallyattractedtovery obesewomen.AnotherwantedhertotakepartinaValentine’sDayshowonlove andcourtshipritual,andshehasalsobeenaskedforherviewsonwhy‘symmetry’ seemstoarousepeoplesexuallyallovertheworld.Yetanotherjournalistwanted acapsuleanthropologicalanalysisofwhywomenwerebuyingWonderbras.(Not beingawoman,Idon’thaveaclueastowhatWonderbrasare,andIdon’tthinkI’m goingtofindout.)Shehasalsobeenaskedforherthoughtsonwhy,despitesomany decadesoffeminism,Americanwomenstillenlisttheaidsofhairdye,make-up, plasticsurgeryanddiets,anddoesn’tthisprovethattheyaregeneticallyencodedto attractmentoimpregnatethemandprotecttheiroffspring.Finally,aGoodMorning Americaproducerbeggedhertoappearonashowwiththetheme‘IsInfidelity Genetic?’(1998:354).Whatcanonesay?KudostodiLeonardofornotdismissing theUSpublicsphereafteraseriesofsuchdismalepisodes,butcontinuingtosearch forpointsofentrythatmightopenupthemagicofanthropologyforagreater audience! These examples reminds one of Johan Galtung’s term ‘pyjama sociology’, coinedafterhehadbeencontactedbyajournalistwhowantedthesociologist’s explanationforthedeclineinpyjamauseintheWesternworld(Galtung,personal communication).Thetrivializationofseriousknowledgeentailedintheexamples isobvious,andinaddition,alltheexamplesmentionedbydiLeonardoindicate
FastandSlowMedia • 71 theprevalenceofapopversionofgeneticreductionism,whichisincidentallyless widespreadinEuropethanintheUSA.Notthatitisentirelyunknownonthisside oftheAtlanticeither.ThenowretiredanthropologyprofessorArneMartinKlausen onceservedonanexpertpanelinapopularsciencemagaineinNorway,buthe resignedafteronlyafewmonths.Theonlyquestionshereceived,asa‘scientific expertinanthropology’,wereofthegenerickind:‘WhydotheNegroes(sic)have kinkyhair?’ However, I must say that my own experience is different.Whenever I am contactedbytheScandinavianmediaforcommentsoncurrentaffairs,theytypically askforcommentsonsocialandculturalissues.Duringthelastweek,journalists havephonedore-mailedmeforcommentsonnationaldifferencesinleadership styles,followinganinternationalsurveywhichindicatedthatsuchdifferencesmight beconsequential;ontheculturalchangesthattookplaceinthe1980sfollowingthe worldwidepoliticalturntotheright;ontherootsofcontemporaryNorwegiannationalisminnineteenth-centuryromanticism(thiswasanItalianjournalistvisiting);on thenew,proposeduniversitylawwhichthreatenstoremovethelastremnantsof democraticgovernanceinuniversities;ontheimagesofNorwayprojectedabroad bytheForeignMinistry(helpedbyMarkLeonard’sDemosinstitute);and,finally, IwasaskedtoreviewtheIndianauthorArundhatiRoy’slatestcollectionofcritical interventions. Soundslikeheaven?Well,notquite.Theagendaissetbythemedia,andourjob largelyconsistsinfillinginafewdetailsorofferingasoundbiteortwo–ordeciding notto,inwhichcasetheysoonerorlaterfindanotheracademicwhoiswillingtodo so.Now,itwouldnotbeaself-servingorevendefensibleviewthatnewspapersare evilincarnate.Grantedthattheyarenotpeer-reviewedjournals,anthropologistscan stilloftencontributeadropofcomplexity,ahintofdoubtorasubversiveremark. Giventhatourexistencedependsonourlicencetoquotefromothersandindeedto describetheirlives,weshouldnotbeaboveallowingotherstoquoteus. Thisoughtnottobetakentoimplythatthereshouldbenolimitswhatsoever. Anthropologycan,forexample,easilybereducedtoaformoflightentertainment bythemediainwhatdiLeonardospeaksof,disparagingly,as‘theanthropological gambit’:‘Theattributionof“our”characteristicsto“them”,andviceversa,isalways goodforalaughinpopularculture’(diLeonardo1998:57).Thisfacilejuxtaposition of‘us’and‘them’,inherview,obliteratesconcretepowerrelations,contextand tormentedhistories,andservesonlytotrivializeculturaldifferences.Inthisspirit, sheattacksLévi-Strauss’sspeechgivenathisadmissionintheCollègedeFrance, wherethereveredmastercomparesthatritualofadmissionwithasimilarritual, involvingsymbolicpoweramongagroupofCanadianIndians.IndiLeonardo’s harshwords,this‘drolllikeningofapowerful,state-sponsoredintelligentsiato apowerlessgroupofNorthAmericansisanexampleofchutzpahasobscenity’ (1998:66).Ifailtoseetheobscenityanddonotthink,asarule,thatthereistoo muchhumourandlaughterintheattemptsbyanthropologiststocommunicateto
72 • EngagingAnthropology outsiders.Comparisoncanbestupid,superficialandmisleading,butattheendof theday,evencomparisonsofaGaryLarsontypecanbringusslightlyclosertoeach other.Audiencesarenotuncriticalreceptacles,and‘theanthropologicalgambit’ canhelpthemtolaughnotjustatthefolliesoftheirleadersbuteven,occasionally, atthemselves.Asamatterofprofessionalethics,thedistinctionbetweenkicking upwardsanddownwardsshouldbekeptinmind. Anumberofcontrastscanbepositedbetweenacademicresearchandjournalism, makingforanunrulyandfrustratingrelationship.Foremostamongtheseisthecontrast pertainingtospeed:academicworkisslow,whilejournalismisfast.Associatedwith thisisthecontrastbetweencomplexityandsimplification.Journaliststypically presentissuesineverydaylanguage,workunderseriousconstraintsregardingboth timeandlength,andareusuallyexpectedtotellstorieswithasimplemessage. Inmostsocieties,moreover,thecraftofjournalismisnothighlyregarded.Inthe richcountries,journalismisincreasinglyassociatedwiththesensationalismand commercialbiasofthelarge-circulationpress.Surveysaboutthepublic’sperception ofthetrustworthinessofthoseengagedinvariousprofessionsindicatethatinNorth AtlanticcountrieslikeBritainandNorway,journalistsaretobefoundnearthe bottom,alongwithpoliticians. Mediafrequentlyaskacademicstocontribute,toallowthemselvestobeinterviewedandtofurnishjournalistswithrelevantfacts.Manyacademicsroutinely refusetocooperatewiththemedia,giventheveryconsiderabledifferencesin aimsandmethodsbetweenresearchandjournalism.Itcanoftenbeappropriate foracademicstoremainalooffromthemediaworld.Theirviewsarelikelytobe representedinsimplisticwaysbythejournalists,andthekindofresearchtheyare committedtoisoftenirrelevanttothemediaanyway.Itneverthelessoccasionally happensthatthefieldsofinterestbetweenthetwoprofessionsconverge.Inthecase ofsocialanthropology,thisisincreasinglythecaseinsofarasgrowingnumbers ofanthropologistsstudycontemporarymodernsocieties,ontopicswherethereis alreadyconsiderablemediainterest,suchasmulti-ethnicsocietyandmigration, nationalculturesandculturalchange,changingkinshipstructures,‘newwork’, tourism,consumptionandsoon. Asmentioned,anthropologydoeshaveastrongmediapresenceincertaincountries,whereanthropologistsregularlycommentoncurrentevents,writenewspaper articles,debateminorityissuesontelevision,writepolemicalbooksforgeneral audiences,andsoon.Inthisengagement,itiseasytoseethepredictabledilemmas: theacademicqualitiesoftheanthropologist’sworkarequicklyforgotten,and onlytheiropinionscomeacross.Theanthropologist’sviewsappearinacontext definedbyconsiderationsotherthanthosethatinitiallymotivatedtheintervention, and the outcome may be frustrating to the academic, who feels betrayed and misunderstood. Ontheotherhand,severalanthropologistshavebecomehighlyskilledatusingthe mediatoinfluencepublicopinion,someofthemfunctioningaspublicintellectuals
FastandSlowMedia • 73 withpoliticalagendasandtheabilitytoexplainthem.Therelationshipbetween mediaandacademicsshouldthusnotbeseenasaformofone-wayparasitism,but asacomplexrelationshipwherethereisastruggleoverthedefinitionofthesituation.Mainstreammassmediamayevenhaveanuntappedpotentialasvehiclesfor complexideas.
ANoteonNorwegianExceptionalism Abonusrewardthatcomesfromengagementwiththepublicsphereisthepossibility thatone’sownshortcomingsandweaknessesareilluminatedbyrelevantcriticism fromunexpectedquarters.Thereisrealdangerinexposingoneselfinthisway, butifanthropologyisgoingtoinfluencethedominantpatternsofthoughtinthe anthropologist’sownsociety,thereisnootherway. Asindicated,thepublicsphereinNorwayisunusualinthatanthropologists featureregularlyinpublicdiscourseatalllevels.Theyappearonradioandtelevision,writefororareinterviewedbynewspapers,takepartinvariouspublic debatesinsideandoutsidetheacademicsystem,andpublishpopularbooksand essays.Letusthereforelookbrieflyatsomeexamplesofanthropologists’recent interventionsintheNorwegianpublicsphere,justtoindicatetherangeofpossible formsofparticipation. Theannualsecondaryschoolstudents’graduationinvolvesprotractedpartying inpublicspaces,reachingaclimaxofsortsaround17May,ConstitutionDay.The pupils,justoldenoughtodriveanddrink(althoughnotsimultaneouslyandcertainly notinNorway),buydilapidatedoldbusesrepaintedredwithrisquébons-motsand afewpaidadspaintedinwhite.Everyyear,concernedjournalistsreportthat‘this year’spartyingiswilderandmoreirresponsiblethaneverbefore’.Someyearsago,an OslonewspaperhadtheexcellentideaofinterviewingtheArgentineanthropologist EduardoArchetti,whohaslivedinNorwayformanyyears,aboutthephenomenon. Oneofhisownchildrenleftschoolthatyear.Archettiexplained,amongother things,thatforthenineteenyear-oldsinquestion,thiswouldbethefirsttimethey participatedinritualsinvolvingsexandalcohol,whichwasthemainreasonthatthe eventwassocontroversialandsaturatedwithpowerful,earthysymbolism.Thiswas notexactlyamessagetoreassureotherparentsperhaps,buthecertainlyintroduced anewperspective,andanentirelyanthropologicalone,onaphenomenonwhich usuallyelicitedpredictable,worriedcommentsfromsocialscientists. WhileIwascollectingmaterialforthisbook,onedayIhappenedtolistentothe carradioandheardafamiliarvoicediscoursingontheroleofcoffeeininformal socializing.IrecognizedthevoiceasthatofRunarDøving,whohadrecently defendedhisPh.D.inanthropology,laterpublishedasabook(Døving2004),on foodandsocietyinacoastalhamletlessthantwohoursoutofOslo.Hedescribed someofthetypicalcontextswherecoffeewasserved,addingthatifyourefuse
74 • EngagingAnthropology someone’sofferofacupofcoffee,ithadbetterbethatyou’reallergicorit’stoolate intheevening,andyouarethenexpectedtoacceptteainstead.Hespokeatsome lengthabouttheroleofcoffeeatwork(everyNorwegianworkplacehasasemipublicspacewithacoffeemachine)andclaimedthatwithoutcoffee,agreatnumber ofsocialencounterswouldsimplynottakeplace.Inanotherprogrammeinthe series,Døvingdescribed,drawingonMauss’sclassicanalysisofreciprocity(Mauss 1954[1924]),thetypicaloutragedreactionifahouseguestpolitelyrefusedcoffee, tea,beer,softdrinksandsoon,insistingthatshe‘justwantedaglassofwater’. Yetanotheranthropologist,UnniWikan,hasforyearsarguedpassionatelyfor humanrightsandtherighttoindividualchoiceamongminoritygirls.Inherbook MotenNyNorskUnderklasse?[TowardsaNewNorwegianUnderclass](Wikan 1995;rewritteninEnglishasGenerousBetrayal,2001),Wikanarguesthatmuddled thinking informed by wishy-washy multiculturalism and misplaced cultural relativismhasdeprivedmanysecond-generationgirlsofrightsthatwouldhave beenself-evidentforethnicNorwegiangirls.Shehasoftenwritteninnewspapers andappearedinothermediatoexpressherviews,hasadvisedpoliticalparties,and hasencounteredbothsupportandcriticismfromothers,includinganthropologists andminorityresearchers.ThemanythousandsofNorwegianswhofollowminority issueswithaninterestaboveaveragehaveovertheyearsgotthedistinct,andcorrect, impressionthattheanthropologistsinthiscountryrepresentdifferingviewsabout thegroup–individualrelationship,andaccordinglyholddifferentviewsregarding policy. Again,asIwascollectingmaterialforthisbook,anthropologistswereinthe nationalmediaatleastthreetimesinasmanydays.First,acoupleofprominent sportexecutivesproposedthatoneshouldpickoutthetalentatayoungeragethan presently,inordertoimprovethecountry’scompetitiveedge.AnthropologistJo Helle-Vallewasinterviewedinthiscontext,andlatercitedbycommentators.HelleValle,whowasthencarryingoutresearchonchildren’ssports(andhadhimselfbeen achildren’sfootballcoach),arguedthatthereisnoindicationthattalentinasport likefootballisevidentbeforepuberty.Healsohadafewthingstosayabouttherole ofsportinchildren’ssociallife.Second,aPh.D.studentwhohadjustdefendedhis thesisabouttransnationalfootballfans,HansHognestad,wasinterviewedonafull pageofaSaturdaydaily,byajournalistwhoclearlyunderstoodwhathisresearch wasabout.Hognestadcouldpointout,amongotherthings,thattheinternational fanclubofLiverpoolhadmoremembersinNorwaythananyNorwegianfanclub; andthatthismighttellussomethingaboutgroupallegianceandthetransnational potentialofsportloyalties.Thirdly,ontheverysamedayIhadanarticleabout ethnicityand‘humannature’inNorway’slargestdaily,reprintedinthelastchapter. ItisnotconsideredaprofessionaldutyforNorwegiananthropologiststoengage withthepublic.Someraisetheirvoiceonlyrarely,tocommentonissueswhere theyarespecialistsorwheretheydeemthatimportantvaluesareatstake.Thus,in theearlydaysofthe2001US-ledinvasionofAfghanistan,FredrikBarthappeared
FastandSlowMedia • 75 onradioandwroteanewspaperarticlediscussingwhattheWesternpowersmight realisticallyexpecttoachieveiftheytriedtoimposeaWestern-typedemocracyon Afghanistan.HewasoneofthefewpeopleinNorwaywiththeprofessionalauthority todoso,andalthoughBarthrarelyappearsinthemedia,hehasaperceptibleimpact whenhedoes.Infact,Barthwasinhisdaysomethingofapioneerforapublic anthropologyinNorway.Inthelate1970s,aTVserieswasmadefeaturingBarth, where(asIrememberit)hespentmostofthetimesittingbehindhisdeskatthe EthnographicMuseum,showingslidesandtalkingabouthisfieldwork.Theseries wasutterlycaptivating,itwasswiftlytransformedintoabestsellingbook(Barth 1980),andconvertednotafewyoungspectatorstothemagicofanthropology–in itswaydoingthesamekindofworkasGranada’sDisappearingWorldsseriesdid intheUK. However,intherecenthistoryofNorwegianpublicanthropology,theoneperson whostandsoutisArneMartinKlausen,whowasaprofessorattheUniversityofOslo fordecadesuntilhisretirementinthelate1990s.Klausen’sfirstfieldofintervention wasdevelopmentassistance,wherehecriticized–bothinacademicandinpublic forums–thetendencyamongdonororganizationstoneglecttheculturaldimension. HewouldlaterpublishstudiesofNorwegiansociety,andthebookheeditedin1984, DenNorskeVæremåten[TheNorwegianWayofBeing],hadadecisiveimpacton publicdebateabout‘Norwegianness’.Thechaptersdealtwithtopicssuchasthe localcommunityastotem,equalityasakeyvalueandconflict-avoidance.Tellingly, therewasnothingabouthybridity,creolizationorimmigrantsinthebook.Adecade later,suchanomissionwouldhavebeenperceivedasamortalsin. Klausen,wholedagroupofresearchersstudyingthe1994WinterOlympicsasa ritualcelebratingmodernity(Klausen1999),alwaysmaintainedinhislecturesthat anthropologistsshouldberelativistsawayandcriticsathome.Heseesanthropology asageneralist’sdisciplineopposedtothefragmentingspecializationtypicalof knowledgeproductionindifferentiatedmodernsocieties.Inaword,Klausentriedto teachagenerationofanthropologiststhattheyshouldbequintessentialintellectuals: theirjobathomeconsistedinapproachingsocietyfromaslantedangle,writing andsayingunexpectedandsometimesunpopularthings,addingwidthanddepthto society’sself-reflection. IwillnotattempttogiveafullexplanationofNorwegianexceptionalism,nor shoulditbeexaggerated.Othercountrieshavetheirpublicintellectualswhofill similarniches,andthesituationinNorwaymaybearesultoffortuitoushistorical coincidences.Itisnonethelessworthnotingthatin1995,aleadingjournalist inAftenposten,theacademicallyeducatedHåkonHarket,introducedalengthy articlewiththeclaimthatwhileeverysocialcommentatorinthe1970sseemed tothinklikeasociologist,theywerenow‘carryinganembryonicanthropologist inside’:anthropologicalideasaboutculturaldifference,thesignificanceofethnicity, the modernity of contemporary tradition and the sins of ethnocentrism had somehowseepedintothecollectivepsyche.(Inothercountries,theymightblame
76 • EngagingAnthropology postmodernismforsimilarailments.)YetNorwayisunusualforhavingabroad paletteofpubliclyactiveanthropologistscoveringawiderangeoftopics.Thereal embarrassmentisthatanthropology,souniquelypositionedtomakesenseofour world,isallbutinvisiblealmosteverywhereelse.
TheMulticulturalMinefield Anthropologistshave,overtheyears,intervenedoccasionallyinpublicdebates aboutmulticulturalismanditsdilemmas,notmerelyasspecialistsofferingfacts aboutthisorthatgroup,butasgeneraliztsmakingassessmentsofasituationon thebackgroundofacertainwayofthinkingandacertainrangeofknowledge. Sometimestheyhaveparticipatedaspoliticalactorsintheirownrightaswell, defendingorattackingparticularpoliciesormoralstances,asUnniWikanhasdone inherGenerousBetrayal(Wikan2001),acriticalbookaboutmulticulturalism.The boundarybetweenthelearnedacademicshoweringthepublicspherewithadrizzle ofknowledgeandtheengagedintervenerisoftenspuriousinpractice,however, andanthropologistswhowanttotakepartinalessshelteredpublicspherethan theonetheyhavebeensocializedinto,mightaswellgetusedtobeingco-opted, misunderstoodandmisrepresented.Becauseitisboundtohappenanyway.Yet,it canbeargued,thisisusuallybalancedbythebenefits. AnanthropologistattheUniversityofUppsala,Sweden,MikaelKurkialatook hisPh.D.researchonidentitypoliticsamongOglalaLakotainSouthDakota.Yethis mostimportantinterventioninthemediatodatedidnotconcernNativeAmericans orevenindigenouspeoples,butitisnonethelessobviousthathisminuteanalysisof thetwistsandturnsoftheirdiscourseonculturalidentitywasbroughttobearonhis articles(seeKurkiala2003forasummaryoftheSwedishmediadebate). InJanuary2002,aSwedishwomanofKurdishorigin,FadimeSahindal,was shotdeadbyherfather.Sahindal,twenty-sixyearsoldandasociologystudent, wassomethingofanationalcelebrity,andhadoftenappearedinthemediato explainwhyitwasimportantforhertoopposethepatriarchaltraditionsofher familyandtoinsistontherighttoliveherlifelikeanyotherSwede.Therewas shockandtremendouspublicoutrageinSweden,infactinallofScandinavia.The tragedy,whichhappenedonlyafewmonthsafter9/11,servedasapowerfulcatalyst todebatesaboutminorities,Islamandimmigrationingeneral.Inneighbouring NorwayandDenmark,the‘Fadimeaffair’strengthenedanalreadystrongopinion againstcertainaspectsof‘immigrantculture’,notablythenormsandpractices limitingthepersonalfreedomofyoungMuslimwomenofthesecondgeneration. InSweden,publicreactionsweremorecautious.Anxiousnottobetakenhostage toxenophobicgroups,politiciansandpubliccommentatorsdeniedthatFadime’s murderhadanythingtodowithKurdishcultureorIslam.Someevenattributed themurdertouniversalpatriarchy.Atthesametime,maleKurdishintellectualsin
FastandSlowMedia • 77 Sweden,alsodenyingthattherewasanyconnectionwithKurdishculture,described thefatherasmentallyderanged. However,athirdviewsoonappeared,onewhichwouldhavebeensupremely compatiblewithanthropologyhadthemurdertakenplaceinamoreinnocenttime oramoredistantplace.Severalcontributorstothepress,allofthemwomenfrom areaswherehonourkillingsoccur,arguedthatFadime’smurderhadanundeniable culturaldimensionwhichneededtobeaddressed.FarfromessentialisingKurdish cultureorIslam,theypointedoutthatinmanypartsoftheworld,malecontrolover femalesexualityisroutinelysanctionedbyviolence. Atthispoint,KurkialawroteanarticleinSweden’sleadingdailynewspaper, DagensNyheter,whereheexpressedconcernthatthesewomen’sviewswerenot takenseriously.Indeed,heargued,Fadime’sownanalysisofhersituation,which wasnotonlythatofaSwedishwomanofKurdishorigin,butalsoofasociology student,hadactuallygivenprioritytoculturalfactors. Kurkialawasimmediatelyattackedforallowinghimselftofunctionasauseful idiotforthenewrightandtheirculturalracism.Respondinginanarticlewhere hepointedoutthatinfact,honourkillingsarerealandbasedonactualcultural traditions,Kurkialawaseventuallyledtoreflectonthefateofthecultureconcept.If youcannot,asananthropologist,identifyculturaldifferenceswithoutbeingaccused ofnewracism,themotivationtoleavetheivorytowerbecomesevenweakerthanit alreadyis. TheproblemevidentinKurkiala’sentanglementwiththeSwedishpublicsphere highlightsadifferencebetweentherushedmediadebateandtheintellectualdebate, whichmustinsistonitsplaceinthemediainspiteofitsslowness.Ofcourse, KurkialadidnotintimatethatFadime’sfatherwasculturallydeterminedtokillhis daughterforhavingbroughtshameonthefamily,butthatthisoptionwasreadily available,asoneofseveralpossiblescripts,inhisKurdishculturalbackground.But publicsentimentafterFadime’sdeathwasheatedandpassionate,therewaslittle timetodevelopcomplexpositions,andKurkialawasinadvertentlyturnedintoa cardboardcut-out. Theexampleisunusualinthatanthropologistswhointerveneonsimilarissues normallyissuewarningsagainstfacileculturalessentialism;Kurkiala’srolewas theopposite.OurjobinthesecasesprobablyconsistsindefendingwhatMichael Herzfeldhasspokenofasthe‘militantmiddleground’. Anotherrecentincidentinvolvedboththemedia,agroupgenerallyconsidered vulnerableandsubaltern,namelySomaliwomanrefugees,andananthropologist specializinginEastAfrica.Followingacontroversialtelevisiondocumentaryabout femalecircumcision,whichdocumentedthatthepracticeexistedamongcertain immigrantsinNorway,ajournalistwiththelargestNorwegiannewspaper,VG, decidedtowriteanopinionpieceontheissue.ShedulycontactedAudTalle,who haddonefieldworkinKenya,Tanzania,Somalia,andamongSomaliwomenin
78 • EngagingAnthropology London.Tallefaxedheranarticledescribingthesocialandculturalembeddedness ofthepractice,aswellasexplainingthepracticeonthephone.Soonafter, VG publishedanarticleonfemalecircumcisionillustratedbyanimageofaveiled, chainedwomantrottingbehindabriskandconfidentfemaleanthropologist.The storyobjectedtothe‘culturalrelativism’oftheanthropologists,whopreferredto studycircumcisionasanexoticriteratherthantryingtocombatit. Atfirst,Tallewasuncertainastohowsheshouldreact.Eventuallyshedecided nottowritearesponseinthenewspaperitself.Thefastmedia,shereckoned,were simplyunabletoaccommodatethekindofdetailnecessaryinanaccountwhich hadtotakealltherelevantfactorsintoconsideration.Soshewroteabookinstead, OmKvinnelegOmskjering[OnFemaleCircumcision](Talle2003).Thebookwas publishedayearafterthenewspapercommentary,anditiswritteninapopular style.Itendswithafewpolicyrecommendations,whereTallemakesaninteresting comparisonbetweenNorth-EastAfricanfemalecircumcisionandChinesefootbinding,suggestingthatthesuccessfulcampaignagainstthelatterpracticeahundred yearsagomightinspiresimilarstrategiestoday.Hermainargumentsaretheones insidersmightexpectfromasocialanthropologist,andwhichare,incidentally, rareingeneralpublicdebate:circumcisionhastobeunderstoodasanindividual experience,butalsointermsofculturalmeaningandsocialinterests. Predictably,Talle’sbookwasnotreviewedbyVGnorbyanyoftheothermainstreammedia.Butithaditsshareofattentioninthesmallelitemedia,and–more importantly–itbegantobeusedbyhealthworkersandpublicservants,whoare oftenremindedoftheirneedtounderstandwhycertainimmigrantsdocertainthings. Thisexampleshowshowanthropologistscanfunctionasspeedbumpsinthepublic sphere;whyitsometimespaystobepatient.Talle’sbookhasanexpectedlongevity whichexceedsVGarticlesbyyears.
TheGeniusesandtheIdiots Mythirdexample,whichillustratesboththenecessityandthedifficultiesofinvolvingoneselfinthefastmediadebatesoveridentitypoliticsandmulticulturalism, takesasitspointofdeparturetheongoingdebateaboutimmigrants,thesecond generation,enforcedmarriages,cultureandrights.Suchissueshavebeenatthe forefrontofScandinavianpublicattentionsincethemid-1990s. Inthesummerof2002,acontroversyeruptedinmajorNorwegianmedia,which notonlyinvolvedsocialanthropologists,butwhichalsolentitselftoacritical interrogationofthepossiblerolesforacademicsinpublicarenas.Likemanypublic controversies,itintroducedfewnewargumentsorfactsaboutsociety,butlargely consistedinavigorousexchangeofinsults,argumentsaboutformandsymbolic power,juxtaposing–inthewordsofoneofthecontributorstothedebate–‘the dustyprofessors’with‘theyoungfemalerebel’.
FastandSlowMedia • 79 Thisishowthestorybegan.ItwaslateJuly,andwewereonholidayintheLofoten archipelago.TheislandsarerightinthemiddleoftheGulfStream,buttheSunday weatherwashorrible,withtorrentialrainandstrongwinds.Ourwhale-watchingtrip hadbeencancelled,toourgreatdisappointment.Waitingforaferry,weboughta newspapertocheckontheweatherathome,which–unsurprisingly–wassunnyand hot.Idlyopeningthepaperonpagefour,mywifediscoveredthathalfofitconsisted ofaphotoofherhusbandinfrontofabookshelfandabatikprintofaHindudeity, gesturingandapparentlysayingsomethingtothephotographer.Glancingoverher shoulder,Icouldseeatoncethatthearticle,entitled‘Thegeniusesandtheidiots’, didnotbringgoodnews.Nottomeanyway. Theraincontinuedtopour,theferrywaslate,andIreadthearticle.Theauthor,a columnistandstandupcomediannamedShabanaRehman,waslashingoutagainst ‘theintellectuals’,usingmeashermainpunchball,forbeingirrelevant,patronising andarrogant.Now,thebackgroundofthisunexpectedattack,printedinDagbladet, thelargestleft-liberalnewspaperinthecountry,wasapieceIhadpublishedaweek orsoearlierinamuchsmallermedium,thehighbrowweeklyMorgenbladet.That newspaperhadinturnprintedanarticleattackingacademicsandso-calledleftist intellectualsforsheepishness,‘politicalcorrectness’andnaiveanti-racismintheir dealingswithbothimmigrantandminorityissuesandwiththeaftermathof9/11. Asoneoftheintellectualsimplicitlyattacked(andperhapsnotsoimplicitly;the writerislikelytohavehadmeinmindwhenhespokecondescendinglyabout‘pop anthropologists’),Irespondedwithanangryarticlewhicharguedthatvirtually everything he said was wrong.There had always been conflicting views and perspectivesinresearchandpublicdebateonmigrationandethnicrelations;and hardlyanybodycommentingon9/11believed,asthiswriteralleged,thatOsamabin Ladenwasaspokesmanfortheimpoverishedandoppressedoftheworld. Inthearticle,Ialsoclaimedthattheseviews(abouttheconformist‘political correctness’ in academia) had mysteriously become commonplace, and that amythhadbeenestablishedduringthelastyearorso,claimingthatbeforethe appearanceofShabanaRehman,thedebateaboutmulti-ethnicsocietyhadbeen dominatedbyconservativeculturalrelativism.Thiswasnotintendedtobelittle herroleinNorwegiansociety–herliberalindividualistviews,sodifferentfrom mainstreamimmigrantviewsandsocompatiblewiththeZeitgeist,hadbeenvery influentialandhadthedefinitemeritofmakingsimplisticnotionsof‘theimmigrant’ problematical. Rehman’ssubsequentattackonme,andbyextensiononallacademics,accused usofdespisingpeoplewhohadreadfewerbooksthanus,beingcocoonedinthe ivorytower,andfinallyofhavingconformistviewsandnoinfluenceingreater society.Togiveaflavouroftheengagementdisplayedinherarticle,hereisasample neartheend:
80 • EngagingAnthropology TheelitetowhichEriksenbelongsjustwantsto‘know’moreandmore,andparadoxically, theywillencountergrowingproblemsinbeingunderstood.Therefore,theywillnever contributetoanysocialchange.Besides,theirmainconcernistogetareputationas ‘mastersofunderstanding’.Theintellectualschieflywishtorevelinothers’admiration oftheirknowledge.Isurefeeltheyshouldbeallowedtodothis,butitoughttotakeplace inaconfinedroominanivorytower,especiallydesignatedforthisactivity.(Rehmanin Dagbladet,28July2002)
ThateveningIgotatextmessageonmycellphonefromacoupleoffriends–my Oslopublisherandhisarthistorianwife–whoadvisedmenottorespond.Since Rehman’saccusationswereobviouslyoverthetop,theysaid,Ioughttokeepmy counsel. ReturningtoOsloafewdayslater,Ifailedtoheedtheiradviceandsentashort commenttothenewspaper,rectifyingsomeoftheerrorsintheSundayarticle. Amongotherthings,Iwrote:‘Pointingoutfactualerrorsintheaccountsofothers seemstobesynonymouswitharrogantelitisminShabanaRehman’sworld’,but addedthat‘Shehasbeencourageousanduncompromising,andhasdeservedly receivedadmirationandrecognition’(ErikseninDagbladet,3August2002). However,bythetimethisletterwasprinted,thedebatehadalreadytakenanew direction.Acoupleofdaysearlier,thesocialanthropologistMarianneGullestad publishedalengthyarticleintheerstwhilebroadsheetAftenposten,whereshe criticallyinterrogatedRehman’sroleinNorwegianpubliclife,claimingthather extensivemediapresence‘overshadowedothers’.Moresubstantially,sheargued thatRehman’semphasis,inherregularcolumn,onissuessuchassexualityand lifestyle,hadcontributedtoshiftingpublicattentionawayfromethnicdiscrimination towardslessimportantmatters.ShealsointimatedthatRehman’sviewscouldeasily beappropriatedbypeoplewhodemandedculturalassimilationfromimmigrants. Perhapsmostimportantly,shearguedthatRehman’spositionasaliberal,‘liberated’ youngwomanofthesecondgenerationconfirmedNorwegianstereotypesratherthan questioningthem,andfinally,shelamentedherexplicitanti-intellectualism–inher originalSundayarticle,Rehmanhadclaimedthatintellectualswereonlyinterested inrecognitionfromotherintellectuals,notininfluencingorchangingsociety. Gullestadmadeasystematiclistoftenpoints(suchas‘playsgameswithOrientalizingeffects’,‘humourandcharisma’and‘confirmsnegativestereotypesabout immigrants’)describingRehman’seffectsontheNorwegianpublicsphere,the wayshesawit,andwentontoanalysewhyshewassophenomenallypopularin theliberalmedia.Thereason,toputitmorebluntlythanGullestaddidinhervery politearticle,wasthatRehmanfunctionedasafemale‘UncleTom’or,astheysayin Britain,a‘coconut’–blackontheoutside,whiteontheinside.However,Gullestad’s initialarticlewasquitebalanced.ItpraisedRehmanforhercourageandoriginality, butultimatelycastigatedherforconfirmingcommonNorwegianstereotypes.Aftenpostenhadchangedheroriginalheadlineto‘Rehmanovershadowsothers’,thereby stressingtheconflictpotential.
FastandSlowMedia • 81 Inthefollowingdays,bothAftenpostenandDagbladetpublishedcommentaries andinterviewswithacademics,activistsandprominentimmigrants,whopresented avarietyofviewsonthecontroversy.SomesaidthatRehman’soffensivelanguage (amongotherthings,shehasdescribedobedientMuslimwomenas‘aherdofcows’) ledtoanunhealthypolarizationbetween‘liberals’and‘conservatives’inimmigrant circles,makingitdifficulttobuildbridgesbysustainingmoresoft-spokenand compromisingpositions;somedefendedheragainsttheonslaughtfromtheivory tower;someattackedthemediafornotallowingagreatervariationinperspectives; andafewconfessedambivalence. Moreover,bothnewspaperspublishedseveralnewarticlesbybothGullestad andRehman,wheretheypartlyrepeatedtheircriticisms,partlytriedtoexplain whatthey‘reallymeant’,andpartlyexpresseddismayattherhetoricaldevices employedbytheiradversary.Interestingly,peoplewithforeign-soundingnames almostunanimouslysupportedGullestad,whowasinturnattackedvigorouslyby mostethnicNorwegianswhohadtheirsay,includingfeministacademics. Thecontroversydoesnotonlypertaintodebatesoveridentitypoliticsinvolving anthropologistsjostlingforattentioninthatnoisycrowdwhichmakesupthepublic sphereinanyhealthysociety.LiketheSwedishexample,italsobringsupsome generalissuestobetakenintoaccountforanthropologists(andotheracademics) whowishtoinfluenceopinionintheircountry. SymbolicPowerRelations. Differentintellectualandpoliticalagendasaresetin differentarenas.Thestrategyofthecolumnist-activististocreatemaximumattention withinaminimumoftime,throughawellorchestratedinterventionphrasedin powerfulwords.Incanvassingforpublicattentionontheissueofenforcedmarriage, Rehmanherselfhadsucceededsuperblyinthisthepreviouswinter.Academics developanddefendtheirsymbolicpowerinslowerandmorecumbersomeways,as ittakesdecadesfortheircapitaltoaccumulate.Theirpublicauthorityrestsnotonthe felicitiousturnofphrase,butontheirimpliedprofessionalexpertise.Inthisdebate, bothpartiesseemtohavesuspectedtheotheroftryingtomonopolizesymbolic powerwheretheirarenasintersect,namelyinmediatedattemptstoinfluencepublic opinionandpolicy.Justconsiderthedifferenceinlanguage.Gullestadwrote,inher firstarticle: Shecourageouslychallengespatriarchalandauthoritarianwaysofthinkingamong ‘immigrants’,but[does]not[address]typicalprejudicesintheNorwegianestablishment. (Gullestad,Aftenposten,1August2002)
Rehmanangrilyrespondedthenextday,inDagbladet: Foralongtime,Ithoughtfundamentalistimamsandpoliticiansweresubvertingtheopen debateaboutequityandthemulti-ethnicsociety.ButnowIrealizethatitisethnically
82 • EngagingAnthropology Norwegianwomenlike...socialanthropologistMarianneGullestadwhoreallysabotage thedebate.(Rehman,Dagbladet,2August2002)
WhileGullestadcomesacrossasmildandequivocal,Rehman’stextsbrimwithrighteousangeratthe‘politicallycorrectmantras’ofminorityexperts,theircowardly relativismandtheirpatronisingattitude: HadIonlysmiledandnoddedpolitely,livedinanarrangedmarriagewithmycousinand coveredmyhair,spokenbrokenNorwegianandtoldstoriesaboutthatidioticneighbour hagwhoforcesmetoscrubthestairs,thenIwouldhaveservedasanacceptableexample forMarianneGullestad.(Rehman,ibid.)
Deliberatelyprovocative,RehmanheresuggeststhatGullestadandherilkwant immigrantwomentobeoppressedbyNorwegianstofitamasterstoryaboutracism andintolerance.Gullestadresponded,acoupleofdayslater: Ihopethatinthefuture,theNorwegianpublicspherewill...beabletoaccommodate experiencesfrommanymorepointsofviewthanmineandthatofShabanaRehman. (Gullestad,Aftenposten,4August2002)
Impeccablypolite,Gullestadadoptsthebird’s-eyeview.Shepresentsherselfnot assomeonewhosedutyitistointerveneonherownbehalf,butasapersonwho coollydefendstherightsofthepeopleRehmanhaddescribedas‘aherdofcows’. Rehman,onherpart,drawsonherownexperienceasayoungwomanwitha Muslimbackground,arguingthatpeoplelikeGullestadhavebeenusefulidiotsfor reactionaryforces. Itisnoteasytoseewhichofthemcarriesthemostsymbolicpowerinapublic spherewheretheauthorityofacademicshasalreadybeenundermined.Rehman, whoinherlaterarticlessaidthatshewasnotananti-intellectual,butwantedthe intellectuals(thatisacademics)tobemorerelevantandclosertothelifeexperiences of‘realpeople’,wentontoofferargumentsfamiliarfromfeministandhumanrights groupsinIndiaandtheMuslimworld.Gullestadarguedthattherewerelotsof‘real people’whowerenotrepresentedinRehman’suniverse.Bothhadimportantpoints tomake,buttheirframesofreferenceweredifferent. SocialResponsibility. Boththeacademicandthenon-academicwhowereacting outthiscontroversyprofesshumanist,politicalormoralintentions.Rehmanevidentlyseesherselfasachampionofuniversalhumanrights;Gullestad,anengaged intellectualwhohasoftenintervenedthroughtheNorwegianmedia,isconcernedwith therespectforandrecognitionofamultitudeofexperiencesandlife-worlds.There aresomefundamentaldifferencesbetweentheirontologies(Rehmanbeingstrongly individualist–somewouldevensayvoluntarist–whileGullestademphasizesthe
FastandSlowMedia • 83 socialandrelationalintheshapingofpersons),butthatisnotthepointhere.Their viewsonsocialresponsibilityaresimilar,buttheydivergepoliticallyaswellasin theirrespectiveviewsonproperform. Thereisanoftenneglectedclassdimensiontothiskindofconflict.Itcanbe arguedthatacademicsandtheirbenignlycondescendingmiddle-classworld-view reduceotherstopuppets.ThiswouldbeRehman’sview.InGullestad’sview, Rehman’stendencyto‘shootfromthehip’alienatesandoffendspeoplewhoarein theirrighttosubscribetoothervaluesandliveotherkindsoflives. ScholarlyResponsibility. Thissetofobligationsappliesinatleasttwoways: academicsareresponsiblefornotmisrepresentingtheirresearchobjectinpublic, andforprotectingtheintegrityoftheirinformants.Bothkindsofresponsibility militateagainsttheirpresentingtheirfindingsinthemassmedia.Journalistsareless constrained.Acolumnistrepresentsonlyherselfandcantellanystoryshelikes.In aTVdocumentaryrevealingthatseveralMuslimleadersinNorwaydefendedthe practiceoffemalecircumcision,theywerefilmedwithahiddencamera,andthe interviewerwasayoungAfricanwomanwhoaskedtobetakenintotheirconfidence, neverrevealingthatshewasajournalist.Suchmethodscouldneverhavebeen usedbysocialanthropologists,andourethicalguidelinesreduceourpotentialfor generatingjuicytabloidfodder. TheNorwegianjournalistÅsneSeierstad’sinternationalbestsellerTheBookseller ofKabul,incidentally,broughtupsimilarethicalissuesintheNorwegianpressin 2003(Myhre2004).Inherbook,Seierstadhadpresentedthemainprotagonist, theAfghanibookshopowner,withouttryingtoconcealhisidentity(asifithad beenpossible–therearealimitednumberofwell-stockedbookshopsinKabul, toputitmildly).Byrevealingfactsandretellingintimatestoriesgiventoherin confidentialitybyfamilymembers,andbyrepresentinghermaincharacterina largelyunflatteringway,shesatisfiedthesensibilitiesofherNorthAtlanticfeminist readers,butseemstohavecompromisedthetrustplacedinherbyherhosts.The booksellereventuallygottoseeadraftEnglishtranslationofthebook,passedto himnotbySeierstadorherpublisher,butbyathirdparty.Hewasoutragedand announcedhisintentionofsuingforlibel.Ananthropologistwouldnecessarilyhave treatedherinformantsdifferentlyandcreatedfewerheadlines. TheSocialConstructionofAcademicReality. Inoneofhercontributionstothe debatewithGullestad,Rehmanwrotethatacademicsliveina‘goldfishbowl’.This viewwassubsequentlysupportedbymanyofthecontributorstoonlinedebates, whoclaimedthatacademicresearchersknewlittleabout‘therealworld’.Instead ofconfrontingmessyrealitiesanddangerouspoliticalissues,Rehmanandothers havealleged,theypolitelyandrespectfullyexchangeviewsintheclosedcircles oftheacademy,riskinglittlebywayofexposuretothelesspolishedvoices‘from thepeople’orthemercilessmachineryofthemassmedia.Thismaybecorrect,but
84 • EngagingAnthropology academicswouldbelikelytorespondthattheirjobisdocumentationandanalysis, possiblyinfluencingpoliticsbyproducingcommissionedreports;andthattheyhave noobligationtobevisibleinthenewsmedia.Heavenknows,asGullestadremarked, weallliveinourgoldfishbowls.YetRehman’sviewneedstobetakenseriously. Thereisamiddle-classaloofnessinthestandardacademicwayofengaging,evident evenamongthoseofuswhodotaketheriskofstickingtheirnecksout,andby nottakingpersonalrisks(asRehmancertainlyhasdone),academicscaneasilybe accusedofcomplacencyandcowardice.Therearetimeswhenoneisobligedto shoutone’sheresiesratherthanwhisperingone’sdoubts. Form,ContentandEfficacy. Thedebate,whichlargelytookplaceintwomajor Norwegiannewspapers(butwascommenteduponinothermedia),wascharacterized byextremespeed.BythetimeIpublishedmyveryshortresponsetoRehman’s attack,lessthanaweekafteritwasprinted,thefocusofthecontroversyhadalready changed,andmycommentsseemeddated.Fewacademicswouldhavebeenable tofollowthespeed,andtonotfeelintimidatedbythemassivemediapressure, entailedbythecontroversy.AsMarianneGullestadremarkedsometimeafterwards, followingseveralweeksofalmostdailyattacksonherwork,herviewsand/orher person:Whoisgoingtofeeltemptedtosticktheirneckoutnow? Thereisnosimplelessontobelearntaboutanthropologistsaspublicintellectuals here.Surely,theRehman–Gullestadcontroversycanbeunderstoodasaconfrontation betweentwopartlyoverlappinglanguagegames.ThelanguagegamewhereRehman isathomeexhortstheplayertobewitty,provocative,fastandpersonallyengaged. Gullestad’slanguagegameisregulatedbyrulesthatrequirelogicalconsistency, conscientiousandbalancedpresentationoftheevidence,unambiguouslanguage,and loyaltytotheexposedsubjects.However,themediaallowboth(andother)language gamestocoexist,butthereislittledoubtthattheformerhasamoreconsiderable publicimpactthanthelatter. Interestingly,themostcommoncomplaintamongscholarsandresearchers whofeelmisrepresentedinthemedia,namelythattheirviewsaresimplifiedand misunderstood(Eriksen2003b),doesnotseemtoapplyhere.BothGullestadand theotheracademicswhoparticipatedinthiscontroversyweregivenamplespaceto elaboratetheirviews–thiswas,afterall,earlyAugust,anotoriouslyquietperiod oftheyear,newswise,the‘cucumberseason’inNorwegianparlance,thatisa periodwhennewspapersaredesperateenoughtoprintstoriesaboutunusuallylarge ormisshapencucumbers,displayedbytheproudchildrenoflocalfarmers.Still, thecontrastbetweenspeedandsimplificationontheonehand,andslownessand complexityontheother,isevidentasacontextualfactor.Inthecommentarythat startedthedebate(althoughthiswassoonforgotten),Ihadcriticizedanewspaper article for not offering a shred of evidence for its sweeping statements, thus requestingaslowerandmorecautiouswayofdealingwiththeworld.Inoneofher responsestoGullestad,Rehmanwrotethatatthetimewhenthemurderofayoung,
FastandSlowMedia • 85 second-generationSwedishwomanbyherfather(Fadime)wasalloverthenews, ‘theacademics’werebusydebatingwhetherornotNorwegianshadbecomemore racistoverthepastdecade.Inherresponsetothis,Gullestadexplainedthatshehad beenworkingonthebookinquestionforfouryears,whichistosaythatitbelonged toaslowertemporalregimethantheflickeringdailynews. Thecontrastpertainstoacademicandjournalisticwaysofpresentinganargument. However,thedebatesayslittleaboutthesituationofsocialanthropologyassuch. Similarexchangesmighttakeplacebetweencautiousresearchersandimpatient activistsinmanyotherareas,forexamplerelatingtoenvironmentalissues,GM foodsorinternationalpolitics. Sohowdoesanthropologycomeintoit,ifatall?Ithinkitdoes,andifourstrength consistsinseeingtheworldfrombelowandfromtheinside,andinrepresenting(in bothmeaningsoftheword)voiceswhicharesometimesmuted,thenMarianne GullestaddoesjustthiswhensheremindstheNorwegiannewspaperreadersthat there are many other stories, experiences and life-worlds among members of first-,second-andthird-generationminorities,thantheonestoldbyDagbladet’s powerfulcolumnist.ButwhereasGullestad’scallfornuanceandpluralismsubverts amonolithicsetofideasaboutthegoodlife,Rehman’sangryaccusationsofbetrayal areuncomfortableremindersofthemiddle-classaloofnessallowinganthropologists tokeepsocialconflictsintheirownsocietyatarm’slength.Inthelastanalysis, theRehman–Gullestadshoot-outwasnotsomuchaboutethnicityasaboutclass; certainlyincontentandpossiblyinformaswell.
SpeedVersusSlowness Thischapterhasbeenaboutspeedandslownessinmasscommunication.Kurkiala’s viewsweredistortedbyspeed,whileTallerefusedtoparticipateinthefastgame andinsistedonslowingdown.IttakesShabanaRehman,anintelligentandpowerful writer,tensecondstosay,togeneralacclaim,thattheemperorisnaked(Hey,why don’tyouthinkwebrownwomenshouldbefree?).Theanthropologists’response hasconsistedinslowingdown,spreadingouttheircardsonebyone,patiently explainingthattherealworldismorevariegatedandrealliveslesseasytojudge thanslogan-likeheadlinesimply. Likeotherintellectuals,anthropologistscanfunctionasspeed-bumpsinthis kindoflandscape,andthatisanimportantpartoftheirjob.Inthisregard,perhaps weshouldsimplyacceptandendorseourmiddle-classhabitusanditstherapeutic effectonheatedcontroversy?Thismaybeworthconsidering.Yet,nothingisgained ifweareonlyabletoserveasspeed-bumpsforeachother.Myviewisthatwhen anthropologiststakeonidentitypolitics,theyshouldnotshyawayfromunabashed moral-political engagement.They could also be bolder in their comparisons, notwithstandingdismissiveviewsoftheahistorical‘anthropologicalgambit’.Ifan
86 • EngagingAnthropology anthropologistsays,ashemightwelldo,thatstudiesofstatelesssocietiesinCentral AfricacanshedlightonthecivilwarinBosnia,heislikelytogetanaudience.The momentthereadersarehooked,theycanbeseducedintofollowingthatcumbersome, cautiouswayofreasoningwhichisnecessaryinordertomovebeyondtheclichés. Ialsothinkwecouldmakemoreofthementalunityofhumanity;giveitsome content.Surelytheremustbesometracesofhumanuniversalsinthewaypeoplego aboutdealingwithdifferenceundershiftingcircumstances?Thisisprobablywhere weshouldultimatelylookforsimpleanswers,inhumannature.Butonemustnot gettheretoofast. Animportantdifferencebetweenanthropologicalwritingandjournalismisthat anthropologiststendtopostponetheclimaxuntiltheconcludingparagraphsofthe text,whilejournalistsaretaughttograbthereader’sattentioninthefirstsentence. Attentionspansaresupposedtobeshort,andshrinking,inthiseraoffast,abundant communication.Ithasalsobeenclaimed,withsomesupportivedocumentation,that contemporaryWesternersgenerallyspeakfaster,useshorterwordsandalanguage poorerinnuanceandvocabulary,thanthepreviousgenerations.Debatableasthese viewsare,itisdoubtlessoneoftheintellectual’staskstofunctionasaspeed-bump. Whenevertheintellectualtriestoplaythegameofthefastmedia,frictionsbetween temporalregimesdevelop,andthisishowitshouldbe. However,itshouldbekeptinmindthattherearemanymediainthespacebetween thetabloidandthespecialistmonograph.Radioisgenerallyslowerthantelevision. Magazinespublishedbyorganizationsforthebenefitoftheirmembersarealsoless sensation-seekingandpolarizingthanthemasscirculationmedia,sincethemembers sharesomeinterestsandreceivethemagazineregardlessofthecoverstory.Overthe years,Ihavecontributedtosuchmagazinesquiteoften,occasionallyasaregular columnistforayearortwo.ThecolumnreprintedbelowappearedinAmnesty-Nytt [AmnestyNews],thenewsletteroftheNorwegianbranchofAmnestyInternational. Intendedfortheeducatedandabove-averageinterestedreadershipofAmnesty-Nytt, thearticlewasnotmeanttoquestiontheindividualismofhumanrightsprinciples, buttocriticizetheinadequatesociologicalunderstandingcharacteristicofsomeof themorefacileattacksonculturalpracticesandnotionsamongimmigrants.
Neo-liberalismandtheMinorities Therehavebeenchangesinthewaywetalkaboutmulti-ethnicsociety.This hasnotjusttakenplacehere,incidentally;inallofWesternEurope,therehas occurredagradualshiftinrecentyears,especiallyafter11September2001,in thedominantframeworkregulatingexchangesofviewsaboutimmigrantsand natives. Twochangesareparticularlynoticeable.First,therehasbeenashiftfroma sociologicalfocusondiscriminationandracism,towardsafocusonrepression andrightsviolationsinsidetheminoritycommunities.Second,theanthropological
FastandSlowMedia • 87 emphasisonculturalrights(associatedwithlanguage,religiouspracticesetc.) hasbeenreplacedalmostcompletelybypublicdebateregardingindividual rightsandchoiceasunquestionedvalues,eveninextremequantities.Freedom values replace security values, and the burden of evidence is pushed from greatersocietyacrosstotheimmigrantstheselves.ThestigmatizingProgress Party[right-wingpopulistparty]term‘culturallyalien’(fremmedkulturell)has enteredtheeverydayvocabularyofthepressinspiteofwarningsfromboth academicsandjournalists.Theblanketterm‘immigrantcommunity’hasbecome synonymouswithoppressionanddarkpowers.ThetragicFadimeaffairlast winterdemonstratedtothepublicsphereonceandforallthatgroupsareevil (atleastiftheyareculturallyalien),andwhatnowmattersistospeedupand intensify‘integration’(readNorwegianization). Bothtendenciesareconnectedtoneo-liberalistideology,whichtranscends conventionalpoliticaldividesandisaswidespreadintheLabourPartyasin theProgressParty.Thisistheideologywhich,amongotherthings,promotes maximalindividualfreedomofchoiceandtheadjustmentofpublicservicesto renderthemmoreefficientandtheirinstitutionsmorecompatiblewithmarketeconomiccommonsense. Neo-liberalismisnotinitselfxenophobic.Quitetheopposite:itisadoctrine offreedomwhichpromotesopenbordersandfreecompetition.However,itis basedonaviewofwhatitistobehumanwhichconformsbadlywithrealityin wayswhichcanstimulatexenophobicattitudes. Wearetalkingaboutanunreformed(andunreflected)individualismwhere the only thing the individual owes his surroundings is self-realization. This individualismcarrieswithitconventionalcriteriaofsuccess–money,power, publicvisibility.Moreover,itimpliesthatgroupseitherdonotexist(‘Thereisno suchthingassociety’)orcreateobstaclestotheindividual’sfreedom. The ideological shift has led to a change in emphasis in the standard presentationofminorityissues(enforcedmarriagesratherthandiscrimination inthelabourmarket;unwillingnesstointegrateamongimmigrantsratherthan demandsforculturalrights),andentailsthatgreatersocietyiseitherregardedas non-existentordevoidofresponsibilities–itisuptotheindividualsthemselvesto sortouttheirlives–andculturalinstitutionsinminoritygroupsbecomedisturbing elements;theycurtailindividualfreedomandreducetheefficiencyofNorway Ltd. Asapartofthenewrhetoric,ithasbecomeacommonexerciseamong commentatorstodenouncethe‘kindnesspolicy’ofthelastgeneration.Since bothfemalecircumcisionandenforcedmarriagesdemonstrablyoccuramong immigrants (however rarely), and researchers have devoted relatively little attentiontosuchphenomena,mythshavebeenspunanddisseminatedquickly andefficientlyaboutpowerfulalliancesofNGOs’networks,researchersandhighrankingbureaucratswhohaverefusedtofacerealities,andwhohaveinstead builtacastleintheskycalled‘therainbowsociety’.Thisimageisacaricature. Ontheotherhand,itiscorrectthatitwasuntilquiterecentlycommonto acceptthevalidityofastructuralunderstandingofproblemsassociatedwith
88 • EngagingAnthropology migration;thatis,onecouldnotjustblameindividualdecisionsorshortcomings, personal idiosyncracies and so on. Someone who belongs to a minority is entitledtobothfreedomandsecurity.Heorshecantakedecisions,andgreater societyisobligedtoensurethatthechoicesarereal.Forexample,itoughttobe possible,notjustintheorybutalsoinpractice,forruralandworking-classyouths totakehighereducationiftheywantto,anditsimilarlyoughttobepossiblefora youngwomanwithPakistaniparentstorefusetomarrythemanherparentshave chosenforher. Atthesametime,itwouldbeignorantanddangeroustodenythatimportant aspectsofthesocialworldweinhabithavenotbeenchosen,neitherbyourselves norbyanybodyelse.Wedonotchooseourearlychildhoodexperiences,ourkin, ourclassbackgroundorourmothertongue.Crucialexperiencesvaryandimply thateachofusmakesdecisionsondifferingpremises.Tosomeofusitisnot evencertainthatthedecisionsorchoicesarethemostimportantthingsinlife; maybeweprefersecurity,predictabilityandbelongingtoagroup. Thereisagenuinepredicamenthere,whichincidentallygoesrighttothe coreofthefoundationalproblemsofsocialscience.Ontheonehand,society isnothingbuttheresultofalotofindividualchoices.Ontheotherhand,these choicesareimpossibleunlessthereexistsasocietybeforehand,whichprovides uswithalanguageandasetofvalues,andidentifieswhichalternativesitis possibletochoosebetween. Eagertoemphasizethefreelychoosingindividual,publicdebatehasalmost inadvertentlydoneawaywiththegroups.Attheveryleast,thishashappenedin theminoritydebate.Allofasudden,culturallyspecificexperiencesandcultural differenceshavenovalueinthemarketplaceofideas;andiftheyexistafterall, theyshouldbeflattenedoutofconsiderationforthefreechoicesofindividuals. Justadecadeago,itwasacceptabletotalkaboutculturaldifferencesina respectfulway,indicatingthattheyhadtobeunderstoodandacknowledged iftheintegrationofculturallydifferentgroupsinasinglesocietyweretobe successful.Differencesinchild-raisingandgenderrolesprovokedandenraged socialdemocraticpoliticiansandsocialworkers,andmanywerehopingthat thingswouldeventuallychange–butatthesametime,everybodyinvolved agreed that it was impossible to remove deep-seated cultural practices by decree.Suchchangescomeaboutslowlyandgradually,aspeopleacquirenew experiencesandnotions. This kind of insight has become rare. The public sphere thus sees only shortcomingsandevilintentionswhenconfrontedwithculturaldifferences.‘The others’haveagainbecomeinferior,astheywereinthepast.Thistime,however, theyarenotinferiorasaraceoraculturalgroup,butexclusivelyasindividuals, whooppresseachother,whotacitlyallowthemselvestobeoppressed,andwho havenothingtocomplainaboutintheirrelationshiptomajoritysociety,sinceas everybodyknowsbynow,theanti-Norwegiansentimentamongimmigrantsis muchmoreseriousthanxenophobicattitudesamongethnicNorwegians.(Asif thatwouldmakeadifference!Asimplecalculationwouldshowthatevenifthis viewwerecorrect,immigrantsencounterprejudicemoreoftenthanNorwegians,
FastandSlowMedia • 89 simplybecausetherearefewerofthem.TheymeetNorwegiansfarmoreoften thanNorwegiansmeetimmigrants.) Thenew,cynicalwayoftalkingaboutminoritiesandrightsinNorwayisnot, inotherwords,aresultofold-fashionednationalism.Thelatterwasakind ofcollectivismwhichcouldoccasionallyproposecompromiseandpeaceful coexistencewithothergroups.Itneverthelesshaditsobviousweaknesses, whichcouldonlybeaddressedproperlyviaastrongantidoteofno-nonsense individualism.However,thependulumhasnowswungsofarintheopposite directionthatconceptssuchas‘ethnicgroup’or‘culturalminority’areimmediately associatedwithenforcedmarriagesandauthoritarianreligion.Inthiskindof situation,entirelife-worldsareopenedtogeneralsuspicionandcensored. Theonlyviablesolutionisonewhichacceptsimpuritiesandlocatesitself somewherebetweensecurityandfreedom,betweengroupintegrationand individuality.Eachofthemismeaninglesswithouttheother,andthatiswhythere canbenoeasywayout.
Thisintervention,admittedlywrittenforaculturalelitereadership,wasanattempt toquestionacurrentlytaken-for-grantedviewof‘freechoice’andtohighlightthe fundamentaltensionbetweenwhatsocialscientistscall‘agencyandstructure’. Whatismissinginthiscolumnisdocumentation.Theargumentisparasiticalonthe readers’structuresofrelevance.Unlesstheargumentringstruewiththem,itfails forlackofsubstantialprops.Now,tomydelight,thenextissueofAmnesty-Nytt containedanirritatedresponsetomyarticle,pennedbyasmartwomanwhoaskedif allthismeantthatIheldthatenforcedmarriagesandotherpatriarchalpracticeswere acceptable,sincetheywereembeddedinculturalexperience.Arejoinderfollowed, enablingmetoelaboratefurtherontheissue.Inasmallway,theexchangeshowed thatcivilsocietycontinuedtofunction. Yetitcannotbedeniedthattherearesomegenuinedilemmashere.Sincethelate 1980s,IhavetakenpartinmoreradioandTVprogrammesthanIcaretoremember; Ihavedoneshort,longandportraitinterviewswithallkindsofmedia,writtenagreat numberofcolumns,bookreviewsandlongerarticlesinallthemajornewspapersin NorwayandcontributedfrequentlytonationalnewspapersinDenmarkandSweden aswell.Obviously,ifitwerepossible,Iwouldhavedeletedsomeofthesemedia appearances,especiallyontelevision,fromhistoricalrecord.Foryears,Iwould defendtheviewthatifyouweregivenoneminuteonnationaltelevisiontotellyour fellowcitizensthat,say,terrorismhasnothingtodowithIslam,that‘traditional’ Norwegiancultureisamoderninventionwithacommercialfaceandapolitical one,orthatitisawidespreadfeelingamongimmigrantsthattheygettheworstfrom bothworlds;thenthatsingleminutewouldstillbebetterthannothing.Experience nowtellsmethatthisisnotnecessarilythecase.Fartoooften,Ihave,likeMicaela diLeonardo,feltco-optedbytheentertainmentindustryafterinitiallyentering thestudioexpectingaseriousdebate.Yet,thecondescendingattitudedisplayedto
90 • EngagingAnthropology manyacademicstowardsthemainstreammediaassuchistoocrude,categorical andmisinformedtobehelpful.Itisalsoultimatelyundemocratic.Ifpeoplewho seethemselvesasenlighteneddonottrytoshapeopinionintheirenvironment, whowouldtheyratherleavethetaskto?Mindyou,thereisagreatdifference betweentalkingtoajournalistonthephoneaboutwhyitmightbethatadultsno longerwearpyjamasinourpartoftheworld,andtakingpartinaforty-minuteradio programmeaboutthe2004tsunami,risk,humanrights,theLisbonearthquakeand vulnerability.Trivializationshouldnotbeconflatedwithinterventionsthatmight makeadifference.Andthereisanimportantqualitativedifferencebetweenwriting a1,000-wordarticleabouttheshortcomingsofgeneticdeterminismandtalkingfor thirtysecondsaboutthesametopicontelevision.Inotherwords,forthosewhofear thelossoftheiracademicvirtue,thequestionoughtnottobefororagainstpublic interventions,butratherwhichkindofinterventionthroughwhatkindofmedia. Besides,ifwetakealargeviewofthings,itisprobablybetterbothforthesubject’s reputationandforthequalityofpublicdiscourseifsomepractitionersoccasionally makesimplisticstatementsinthemedia,thaniftheyallremainsilentinthewider publicsphere.Itiseasytoblamethecontemporarymedia–shallow,sensationalist, profit-oriented–fortherelativeabsenceofanthropologists,buttheargumentcango bothways:perhapstheuncheckedsuperficialityandtrivialityofcontemporarymass media(especiallytelevision),whereeveryissue,nomatterhowserious,seemstobe turnedintosomeformofentertainment,hasbeenabletoprogresswithoutmeeting seriousresistance,preciselybecauseintellectualshavebeenbusytalkingtoeach otherforthelastfewdecades? Realdilemmasneverthelessremain.Recently,apoliticalscientistwascontacted byajournalistwritingafeaturestoryaboutthesituationinChechnya.Theresearcher wasaregionalexpertwhothoughtitimportanttotellthepublicthattheIslamic characteroftheChechenuprisingwasarecentinvention;thattheChechenmovementwasrootedinnineteenth-century,anti-imperialpoliticalnationalism.Getting thismessageacrossmightnotjustinfluencecitizens’viewsoftheChechenconflict, butitcouldalso,inasmallway,mollifythegrowingresentmentagainstIslamand Muslimsgenerally.However,itwasabusyday,andtheresearcherhadalready madeherpointseveraltimesonradioandtelevisionduringthepreviousweeks.So shetoldthejournalistthatshewasn’tkeenontalkingaboutitrightnow.Hisreply was,‘Allrightthen,s’poseI’lljustwritesomethingthen’,implyingthatwithout herexpertcomments,hewouldhavetomakehisownamateurinferences.Soshe acquiescedintheend,allowingherselftobeblackmailedbythejournalistforthe sakeofthepublicgood. Apparently,theconversationbetweenthejournalistandtheintellectualcommentatorisbasedonasharedunderstandingandsharedinterestsinusingthemediato enlightenthepublic.Inpractice,asmanymembersofbothgroupshaveexperienced, theencounterisoftenconflictual.Thejournalistwantsconciseness,factsandclear conclusions,andhewantsitnow.Theacademicwantstothinkaboutthematter
FastandSlowMedia • 91 forawhile,beforereturningwithcomplexityandambiguity.Theacademicalso increasinglydeclinestobeanintellectual.Movehertwoinchesoutsideofherarea ofspecialization,andshebecomessilent. Therearemanyformsofjournalism,butasarule,ajournalistictextisstructured almostintheoppositewaytotheacademicarticle,withthemainpointsofthe articlesummarizedalreadyinthefirstparagraphandembellishments,insofaras spaceadmits,below.Academictexts,onthecontrary,buildupslowly(likethe proverbialIndianmarriage)andoftenrevealthewholepointoftheexerciseonlyin theconclusion.Academicsareconditionednottogiveeverythingawayatonce,and theyarenaturallyoftendisappointedwhentheyreadtheirquote(typicallyoneto threesentences)inthepress.Whentheyareinterviewedasexperts,theyadmittedly havelittleinfluenceonthenarrativestructureandtheoverallcontextinwhichtheir statementisframed.Speakingtonewspapermenonthephoneisahazardoussport. Intheirownwritingsforthegeneralpublic,however,academicswouldoftenbenefit frompickingupatechniqueortwofromwriterswhodependoninstantconsumption andcommercialappeal.Anthropologybooksthatsucceedincommunicatingwith thegeneralpublicoftendrawonstrikingexamplestowhettheappetiteformore, beforeofferingrelativelycomplexexplanationswhich,ifwellexecuted,givethe readertherewardingfeelingofhavingunderstoodsomethingnewanddifficult.As someoneoncesaidofRichardDawkins,hecanmakethereaderfeellikeagenius. Nowitisoftensaid(notleastbyacademics)thatthemediaworld,liketheStateand themarketintheirways,isablackholeofsimplification.However,itcouldalsobe envisionedasamaelstrom,withquieterwatersattheedges,wherethereisample spaceforreflection.Ourtask,ratherthanremainingalooffromthecrazyworldout there,consistsinresistingthetemptationtosimplifytoomuch,notunderestimating theintelligenceandpatienceofthereaders,andacceptingthatwritingwellandoral rhetoricarerespectableskillsthatcanbelearnt.
This page intentionally left blank
–5– NarrativeandAnalysis Everybodywantstheirworktomakeadifference,butthereisnojusticeintheworld. AsHowardMorphysays,followinganappreciationofBillHarney’spioneering ethnographicworkamongAustralianAborigines,‘inworldterms,Harney’sworks havemadenoimpactwhatsoever,whereas[Bruce]Chatwin’sTheSonglineshas achievedconsiderablerenown’(1996:172).Tothegeneralreadingpublic,itmatters littlewhetherChatwinusedanthropologicalexpertknowledgeirresponsiblyand accordingtowhim,thathisbookmaybemuddledinitsreasoning,reactionaryin itssocialattitudesanddangerouslyold-fashionedinitsromanticviewofcultural authenticity–mostofall,itmatterslittlethatmostofhisinsightsmaybederivative.(Hislanguageisnot!)AccordingtoMorphy,AustraliananthropologistsdislikedChatwin’sbook,perhaps–hesuggests–becausetheywerethemselveshis informants.Hissuccesswasparasiticalontheirsweat. Theworldofpublicdiscourseand,beyondthat,literaryfame,isnotfairandjust inaHabermasiansense.Itdoesn’tnecessarilyhappenthatthebestarguments,and thebestdocumentedstatements,winintheend.BettyMahmoody’ssensationalist novelaboutpatriarchyandbrokenfamilyrelationships,NotWithoutMyDaughter (Mahmoody1989),mayinitsdayhavebeenthemainsourceofinformationabout lifeinIrantomostreadingAmericans;FlorindaDonner’spseudo-documentary Shabono(Donner1992)hasbeenabestsellingbookabouttheYanomami;andNigel BarleyremainsmorewidelyknownintheUKthan,say,MarilynStrathernorAdam Kuper. Suchdetailsmayleadanthropologistsinclinedtowardsculturalpessimismto believethatonehastobesimplisticandmoralizing,topresentcaricaturesofthe otherandtowadeinsex,violence,tearfulconfessionsandmelodramaticbetrayals inordertogettheattentionofpeoplewhoarenotpaidtoreadwhateveritisthatone writes.This,fortunately,isfarfromthetruth,andtherecordofsuccessfulpopular anthropologybooksshowsotherwise:TheChrysanthemumandtheSword(Benedict 1974[1946])notonlymodifiedAmericanideasaboutJapan,buthadaprofound influenceinJapanitself;TristesTropiques(Lévi-Strauss1978a)is,initsway,just ascomplexasLesStructuresÉlémentairesdelaParenté(Lévi-Strauss1949).Even lessambitiousbooks,suchCannibalsandKings(Harris1978)orGrowingupin NewGuinea(Mead1930),presumablyenrichedthereaders’perspectivesonthe world,ratherthanmerelyconfirmingtheirprejudices,aslesserbooksdo.
93
94 • EngagingAnthropology Aglanceatthepublishingsuccessesoftwentieth-centuryanthropologyinfact suggeststhattheygivelittlereasontobeashamedonbehalfoftheguild.Compared tootherswhowriteaboutculturaldifferencesortraditionalsocieties,popularizing anthropologists nearly always succeed in adding complexity and challenging ethnocentriccomplacency.Moreoftenthannot,theyrevealthehumanistoriginsof theirsubjectbyemphasizingtheequalvalueofallhumanlife,thusintimatingthat knowledgeofotherculturesorsocietiescanultimatelyleadtoreformathome.Even thearch-deterministHarrisendshisCannibalsandKingsonanupbeatnote:‘Inlife, asinanygamewhoseoutcomedependsonbothluckandskill,therationalresponse tobadoddsistotryharder’(Harris1978:210). Anthropologysometimesseemstobepercheduncomfortablybetweentwoperils: thetyrannyofdetailsandthetyrannyofmodels.Ontheonehand,theserious ethnographerrarelyusesoneexampleiffivewilldo;butontheotherhand,themass ofexamplesfailstomakesenseunlessitisstructuredbyapowerfulandconvincing setofresearchquestions.Yetthefeelingremainsthatanthropologyinadvertently driesouttheriver,unlikehistory,whichbringswatertothedryriverbed. A doctoral student who was also an active musician once approached the legendaryavant-garderockmusicianRobertFripp,askinghimifhecoulddoan ethnographicstudyofFripp’srenownedGuitarCraftSeminar.Thisstudentwas partoftheseminar,whichwasnotableforitsinnovativeteachingmethods,among themmixinghighyskilledplayersandbeginnersinthesameclasses,oftenwith astunningcollectiveresultinperformance.Fripp,whodidnotthinkhighlyof academicresearch,althoughheadmiredVictorTurner’sworkoninitiationrituals, hesitated.Intheend,heaskedthestudent:‘Whydoanacademicstudywhenyou havetherealthingathand?’Inotherwords:Whydryouttheriverwhenyouare capableofhavingaswim? Thestudentfoundanotherempiricalfieldforhisdoctoralproject.(Hewrotehis thesisonculturalhybridityamongyouthsinOslo.) Merelystatingthatanthropologistsdryouttheriverisnotjustinsulting,butit isalso,fortunately,inaccurate.Mostanthropologistspresumablyhaveadefinite audienceinmindastheywrite,butittendstobesolimitedthatmanypotential readersareusuallynotevenaddressed.Obviously,specializedresearchshould chieflybedisseminatedamongthespecialistsandtheirstudents,anditwouldbe irrelevanttocomplainthatitisdryanddifficult.Butequallyoften,anthropological textsaddresstopicareas,andilluminatequestionspertainingtothehumancondition, whichareofburningimportancetoagreatnumberofnon-specialists.Byoptingfor analyticaldissectionratherthanadramaticnarrativewithebbs,flows,counterpoints andconstructedclimaxes,manyanthropologistsendupalienatingthepeoplethey shouldhavereached. Asexamplesinpreviouschaptershaveshown,therearemanywaysoftelling ananthropologicalstoryefficientlywithoutcompromisingitsintricacies.Ina
NarrativeandAnalysis • 95 discussionofpopularizingstrategies,Sutton(1991)proposesaninterestingcontrast, inspiredbyWalterBenjamin,betweenstorytellingandnovel-writing.Thestoryteller ‘sharesthecompanionshipofhisaudience,andtheycanrespondandaddtohis creations....Thenovel,bycontrast,isbothconstructedandconsumedinisolation’ (Sutton1991:92).Theimpliedcontrastseemstoapplytothedifferencebetween theoralandthewritten,butthatwouldbefartoosimple.Manyofthebestwriters addresstheirreadersasaccomplices,asfriendsorfellow-travellers,orasadversaries tobewonover.ThatwasMontaigne’smethodinEssais,anditspotentialhasnot beenexhaustedyet.Arguably,theopen-endedstorytellingmodewouldhavebeen appropriateforadisciplinelikeanthropologyinitscurrentincarnation,wherefew finalanswersareofferedandtheoreticalconclusionstendtobeprovisional. Wenowmovetolookatafewexampleswhichdemonstratewhatthecontrast betweenananalyticalandanarrativemodemaylooklikeinpractice.Forthis chapter,Ihavechosenthefieldofidentitypolitics,sinceitisasubjectareawhere anthropologistshaveastrongexpertise,publishactivelyandoughttobeableto reachabroadorevenmassaudiencenowandthen.Towardstheend,Ilookat waysinwhichanthropologistshaveutilizedtheirknowledgetointerveneinglobal politics,chieflythroughthemediumofjournalism.Now,journalismisfastand anthropologyisslow,asdiscussedearlier.However,journalismisalsonarrativein waysthatanthropologyisnot.‘Showing,nottelling’isajournalisticsloganwhich sitsuncomfortablywiththeanthropologicalhabitus.Thismakesforinteresting confrontations.
AnthropologyandIdentityPolitics Thedebatesaboutculturalpluralism,culturalconflictandfundamentalism,hybrid identitiesandreligiousrevitalizationsometimesseemtobeeverywhere.Onemain clusterofdebatesconcernstherelationshipbetween‘IslamandtheWest’.Gaining prominenceaftertheendoftheColdWar,concomitantwiththeemergenceofthe symbolicallyimportantRushdieAffair,strengthenedbythefirstGulfWar(which, incidentally,hadlittleornothingtodowithIslam),andboostedenormouslya decadelaterbythe9/11shockintheUSAandEuropeandebatesabouttopicssuchas Muslimheadscarvesandimmigrantpolicy,therehasbeenaphenomenalincreasein publicattentiontowardstheseissuessincethemid-1980s. HereisatasteoftheomnipresenceofthistopicintheNorthAtlanticworldofthe earlytwenty-firstcentury.TravellingtoasymposiumontheDalmatiancoastinApril 2004,IreadanAustriannewspaperontheplane,whichranafeaturestoryonthe likelihoodofMuslimterroristattacksinJordanandotherArabcountries.AnEnglish newspaperleftbyapreviouspassengercontainedareportonhijabsinBritainand theUSA,andthesymposiumitselfoccasionallydippedintothetopicofidentity politicsinawider,comparativesense.Retreatingtomyroomaftereveningdrinks,I
96 • EngagingAnthropology perusedOrhanPamuk’snovelSnow,wherethestorygravitatesaroundamysterious stringofsuicidescommittedbyyounghijab-wearinggirlsinKars,acityineastern Turkey.ReturningtoquietOsloafterashortweekofabsence,Idiscoveredthatthe talkofthetownforthelastfewdayshadbeenawomanofPakistaniorigin(the ShabanaRehmanofthepreviouschapter),whohadperformedanimpromptulifting ofaMuslimclericduringapublicmeeting,therebyridiculinghiminpublic.The questiondiscussedbyeverycolumnistinthelandduringthenextcoupleofweeks waswhethershetherebyeffectivelycommentedonpatriarchyandmalepomposity inIslam,orifshesimplyconfirmedandstrengthenedthehegemonyofacertain Westernviewongenderrelationsandreligion.Thequestionwaswhethertheassault ontheclericcamefromaboveorfrombelow–or,translatedintoacademicjargon, whetheritwasahegemonicactofsymbolicdominationoracounter-hegemonicone ofresistance. Anotherapproachtoidentitypoliticstakesnewtheoriesofcultureasitspoint ofdeparture.Anthropologistsnowknowthesedebateslikethebackoftheirhand. Followingaperiodwhencultureswereseenastightlyintegratedandbasedoninside sharingandoutsideboundaries,criticismof‘monolithic’viewsofculturemounted intheaftermathofthepoliticalradicalizationofstudentsinthe1960s,and‘multiple voices’,‘culturalhybrids’,‘alternativediscourses’andsimilartermsbecamecommonplace.Systematizingaviewofcultureasthebasisforcommunicationrather thanthesharingoftraits,anthropologistslikeUlfHannerz(1992)developedneodiffusionisttheoriesofglobalizationandculturalcreolization,whileothersmoved towardsthearcanelanguageandsublimeinsightsofpostmodernism,where‘iln’ya pasd’hors-texte’.Pouncingonthenewconceptsofculture,liberatedfromthestraitjacketofassumedsharing,stabilityandhomogeneity,ethnographersbegantomake studiesfocusingonvariousformsofmixing,migration,intragroupvariationand localvarietiesofglobalphenomenasuchassoapoperasandhamburgerconsumption.Intherealmofidentitypolitics,studiesofculturalmixingrangedfromthe sociologicallycomplex(e.g.Baumann1996)totheculturallysurprising(e.g. Çaglar1999),sometimespointingoutthatthereisoftenadynamicinterrelationship betweenstrictpatrollingofboundariesandculturalpurificationontheonehand,and movementstowardsindividualismandself-consciousmixingontheother.Indeed, differentmembersofthesamefamilymightoptfordifferentidentitystrategies;one soninanurbanMauritianfamilymighttakegreatpainstolearnabouthisTamil tradition,andtrytoconformtoitsrequirements,whilehisbrotherstudiesinEurope, speaksFrench,wearsWesternclothesandcaresnothingforthearchaicbeliefsand customsofhisgreat-grandparents. Onemayaskrhetorically:Isanyonebetterequippedtomakesenseofthese complexities–religion,identification,modernities,migration,mixing–thananthropologists?Asalways,theycanbetrustedtomakealotofsenseofit.Chieflytoeach other,thatis.Therearetextbooksandgeneraloverviewswrittenbyanthropologists whichareuseful,notleastasameansofsocializingstudentsintothesubject,but
NarrativeandAnalysis • 97 theyareunlikelyto,andprobablynotintendedto,makethecrowdsruntogeta copy.
TheRightWingAccordingtoHolmes Itcanbedeeplyrewarding,butalsofrustrating,toreadwhatanthropologistshave tosayaboutidentitypolitics.Intermsofsheervolume,anthropologistshavebeen prolificinthefield.Consideringvariation,thecontributionfromanthropologyis nothinglessthandaunting.Thequalityofsomeoftheanthropologicalworkin theareaisstunning,combiningoriginaltheorizingwithmeticulousattentionto detail.AnimportantexampleisDouglasHolmes’analysisofright-wingpopulistsin EnglandandFrance,IntegralEurope(Holmes2000).Thereasonitdeservesafairly detailedtreatmenthereisthatthebookbyandlargefulfilsitsextravagantpromise, namelytoidentifyandaccountfortheconnectionbetweenglobalcapitalismandthe newrightinEurope.Yetithasfailedtoachieveeitherthemassreadershiporthe broadintellectualimpactitmighthavehad. Holmes’argumentrunsroughlylikethis.Pittingvulnerablegroupsagainsteach other,theanonymous,butelite-dominatedsocialorderchannelspopularresentment awayfromfundamentalaspectsoftheeconomicsystemthroughadivideetimpera manoeuvre.Holmesshowsthatright-wingpopulismdirectedagainstimmigrantsis aperfectlyunderstandablereactionamongthatdisenchantedworkingclasswhich isnolongerreallyneededinsociety.Healsoshowshowitislinkedtothe‘new racism’,whereone’sowncultureisglorifiedandpresentedasbeingancientand pure.Facedwithrationalist,centralistEuropeanintegrationontheonehandand ruthless,technology-drivenglobalcapitalismontheother,largegroupsdiscoverthat theirinputisnolongernecessary,orthattheycompetefortheremainingmanual jobswithdeterminedandhighlymotivatedimmigrants. Atthesametime,Holmessaysthatthe‘flattening’effectsofwhathecallsfastcapitalismandconsumerismcreateasenseofalienationandinvoluntaryuprootedness onalargerscale,asensethatsomethingislost,whichisafeelingalsosharedby manywhoarenotdirectlyaffectedbytherestructuringoftheeconomy. Holmesfollowsothersocialscientistsindevelopingthegistofhisargument. ZygmuntBaumanisquotedapprovinglyinapassagewhichstatesthattherearea growingnumberofpeopleinourNorthAtlanticsocietieswhoaresimplynolonger neededas‘drawersofwaterandhewersofwood’or,forthatmatter,foranyother purpose.IthasbeenestimatedthatinearlyEdwardianEngland,themostcommon occupationinBritainwasthatofadomesticservant.Ifanyoneexcepttheveryrich haveservantsnowadays,theyarelikelytobeeithernineteen-year-oldaupairsfrom anotherEuropeancountryorrecentimmigrants. ThemaintheoreticalsourceofinspirationforHolmes’workseemstobeIsaiah Berlin’sworkonthecounter-Enlightenment(Berlin1976;seealsoGellner1991).
98 • EngagingAnthropology Nowhereisanintellectualwhohasnofearofcommunicatingbeyondtheguild noroftakingonhugequestions!Berlinshows,inhisseminalbook,howGerman Romanticism,directedagainstFrenchdomination(andcomplacentphilosophers likeVoltaire),culturalnationalismandwidespreadnostalgiafollowedinthewake ofrationalismandindustrializationfromthelateeighteenthcenturyon.Healso showshowthesestrandspermutatedintoFascismandNazismintheearlytomiddle partofthetwentiethcentury,leavingittopeoplelikeHolmestoexplainhowthe xenophobicnewrightisalsoatrue-bornchildofthecounter-enlightenment.There isobviouslyanimportantargumenthereandonewhichgoesmuchfurtherthanto Europeanright-wingpopulism.Politicsfeedingonresentmentandhumiliationare wellknownallovertheworld,especiallyinthepoorerareas.Sinceglobalcapitalism createsbothwealthandpoverty,theresentmentislikelytogrowdeeperasthe globalizationofmarketsintensifies.AbookiswaitingtobewrittenabouttheUSA astheFranceoftheturnofthemillennium,pittedagainstitsRomanticGermanyof politicalIslamandotherlocalistmovements. Inthemid-1990s,frustratedwiththeprejudicedandnationalistperspectives onEuropeprevalentinmyowncountry,Iwroteacoupleofarticles(published inaSwedishnewspaper,Englishversionavailableonline,Eriksen1996)which comparedthereligiouspuritanismofAlgeria’sFrontIslamiqueduSalut(The IslamicSalvationFront)withtheculturalpuritanismoftheNorwegian‘NotoEU’ movement.ReadingHolmes’superioraccountmademerecallthisargument,which identifiedtwoverydifferent,yetrelatedinstancesofanti-Enlightenmentsentiment whichcanbeobservedvirtuallyeverywhereintheglobalera.SoHolmesisunlikely tobecorrectinidentifyingthetensionbetweentheEnlightenmentandcounterEnlightenmentwithEuropeassuch;inthemodernworld,itismoreuniversalthan that. IhaveseenthedevelopmentofwhatHolmesdescribesasfast-capitalismtake placeinmyowncity.Aslateastheearly1980s,therewerestillalargenumber ofmajorindustrialenterprisesinOslo,andmostshopswereoftheone-of-a-kind category,manyofthemfamily-runandcarryingnameslike‘Andersen&Søn’. IncredibleasitmaysoundtoAnglo-Americanreaders,wehadnofranchisedfastfoodoutlets,nightshopsornationwidesupermarketchains.Thepropertymarket wasuninterestingforinvestors,andtheshopsclosedatfive.Adecadelater,thehuge shipyardAkersMekaniskeVerkstedhadbeenreplacedbyanupmarketconsumption reservationandafewblocksofexorbitantlypricedsea-viewflats.Twoofthethree brewerieshadbeentransformedintocollegesandbusinessschools.Where,two decadesago,burlymenwerestillluggingcratesoflagerandsortingempties,a moistroll-uprestinginthecorneroftheirmouth,onemightfindtodaymenofa slighterbuild,wearingjeansandanopenshirt,teachinggroupsoftwentysomethings aboutcross-culturalcommunication.InNydalen(NewValley),hometosomeofthe oldestindustryinNorway,allheavyindustryhaddisappearedbythemid-1980s,to bereplacedbyenterprisescharacteristicoftheirtime,theinformationage:ahuge
NarrativeandAnalysis • 99 book-clubcorporation,MicrosoftNorway,TVstudios,aradiostationandassorted consultancyandcommunicationfirmshavetakenoverthebright,refurbishedlocales wherethousandsofworkersspenttheirdaysinarecentpastwhichsuddenlyseems verydistant. Inthesameperiod,globalchainslikeMcDonald’sand7-Elevenappearedforthe firsttime,andby2005,fourmajorchainscontrolledmorethanninetypercentofthe retailtradeingroceries.LeavingOsloforaconferenceinKualaLumpursomeyears ago,thelastthingIsawbeforeenteringtheplanewasaTGIFridayrestaurantwitha specialofferonchicken.DisembarkinginMalaysia,thefirstthingtomeetmyeyes uponleavingtheplane,drowsyandnicotine-starved,wasaTGIFridayrestaurant withaspecialofferonchicken.ThepoliticalreactiondescribedbyHolmesderives fromasenseofflattening,wherenothinghassignificanceanymore,aswellasa dreadfulfeelingofsuperfluity. Whatinterestsusinparticularhere,ofcourse,ishowHolmesbringshisanthropologicalgazeandskillstobearonthetopic.Hisconcerniswiththenewright. TochartitscompassandspreadinthenewEurope,hehascarriedoutmulti-sited ethnographyofthekindadvocatedbyGeorgeMarcus(1999),beginninginanorth ItalianvalleyandmakinghiswaytoStrasbourgandBrussels,beforeendingupin London’sEastEnd. Studyinguptendstobemoredifficultthanstudyingdown.Moreisatstakefor therichandpowerfulthanforthosewho‘havenothingtolosebuttheirchains’, theyhavelesstimeontheirhands,andtheyriskmorebytalkinginformallyto strangers.ItisanopenquestionwhetherHolmes’fieldworkwasamatterofstudying uporstudyingdown.Hemet,andhadlongconversationswith,right-wingpolitical leadersatalllevels,fromthesmallcommunitycouncilmembertopeoplelikeJeanMarieLePen,thefounder-leaderoftheFrontNational,andRichardEdmonds,the nationalorganizeroftheBNP(BritishNationalParty).Thelatterwerepowerful enough;theformerappearmostlyasworking-classbigotsseenthroughtheeyesof avisitorfromthemiddleclass.Fast-capitalism,aglobalforceifanything,isseen partlyfromthedistance,partlythroughtheeyesofsomeofitsvictims.Unlikea popular(andimportant!)booksuchasNaomiKlein’s,whichisknownasNoLogo, butwhichisactuallycalled,somewhatlesselegantly,NoSpace,NoChoice,No Jobs,NoLogo:TakingAimattheBrandBullies(Klein1999),IntegralEuropedoes notgivetheimpressionthattheauthorhasspokentohundredsofdisenfranchised workersorangryfascists.Rather,heoscillatesbetweenthemacroandthemicro, usesthemacroforoverviewsandexplanatoryfactors,anddelvesdeeplyintohis chosensliversofmicro,whichlargelyamounttotherationalebehindthestatements andtheactionsofdedicatedright-wingers.Asaresult,weunderstandthelogicof right-wingpopulism,orneo-fascism,muchbetterthanwedidbefore.Therecent ‘Europeanization’ofLePen’spublicpersonaisanalysedand,forexample,Holmes showshowLePennowspeaksof‘culturalincommensurability’ratherthanusing lesspoliteterms,whichhedidinthepast.Therearealsolengthy,veryinstructive
100 • EngagingAnthropology excerptsfromconversationsbetweenHolmesandotherright-wingleadersinFrance andBritain,andifanything,theFrenchmencomeacrossasmorepolishedand suaveintheirstylethantheirBritishcounterparts,evenifthepoliticsarelargely thesame.ConsiderthisstatementfromRogerJohnston,LePen’sright-handman: ‘ThegrowingimmigrationthatcomesfromoutsideofEuropeisathreattoour cultureandouremploymentsituation’(Holmes2000:87).Nowcompareitwith thisstatementfromRichardEdmonds:‘Weusetheterm“racist”inafactual,what wewouldsayapositive,sense.Wedescribearacistassomeonewhoattemptsto maintainBritainasraciallywhite’(Holmes2000:116).UnliketheFrontNational, theBNPhasapparentlynotdiscoveredthe‘newracism’yet,thatwhichusesculture asafoiltomaskcolourprejudice. Bethisasitmay,andtemptingasitmightbe,wecannotloseourselvesintherich fabricofHolmes’ethnographyofthenewrightwing.Seenwiththecriteriaofamore public,moreengaged,lessenclosedanthropology,Holmesdoesalmosteverything right.Unlikemanyothers,hehasactuallyspunanarrative,astoryrelatinghisown processofdiscovery.BeginningwithintegralistsinFriuli,heunravelsthechains andnetworksthatconnectneo-liberalismwithneo-fascismbytravellingthrough theepicentresoftheEuropeanUnionandending,inthesecondpartofthebook, intheEastEndofLondon,beforereturningtoStrasbourg,LePenandacouple ofhisspeeches.Thenarrativeispunctuatedwithanalysis,especiallyinthefirst chapters,butthereisnoverbiageandnotheorizingthatdoesn’tleadanywhere.If therewereanyjusticeintheworld,Holmes’bookwouldbeinfluentialfarbeyond theconfinesofanthropology.Ifitweretobecomereallysuccessfulintermsof influence,however,itwouldneedtobeevensharperinitscentralformulationson theconnectionsbetweenfast-capitalism,multiculturalismandneo-fascism,itwould havetointegratetheanalyticalframeworkmoreseamlessly,andmostimportantly, itwouldhavetotellthestoryinamorestraightforwardandengagingway.Integral Europeisagreatachievement,whichspeakstomanyintellectualandpolitical concerns,butitislessquotablethanalmostanythingwrittenbytheaforementioned BerlinorBauman.Holmescannotbeblamed:anthropologistsjustdon’tseemto takethecraftofwritingfluentlyandwellseriouslyenough.Analysis,itseems,keeps gettingintheway.
Ong’sDiasporaChinese Anotherpowerfulanthropologicalmonographwhichaddressesidentity,oridentification,inthe‘afterological’world(touseSahlins’,1999,acidturnofphrase)is AihwaOng’saward-winningbook,FlexibleCitizenship,abouttransnationalism andcitizenshipamongChinese(Ong1999).LikeHolmes’multi-sitedethnography, Ong’sbookcoversawidergeographicalareathanmostanthropologybooks.Again, likeHolmes,Ongmakesanumberofargumentsthatfeeddirectlyintothegeneral
NarrativeandAnalysis • 101 intellectualdebateabout‘clashesofcivilizations’,citizenshipandidentity,andclass inaneraofglobalpolitics. IftheNorthAtlanticworkingclasses,coresupportersforthenewright-wing populistparties,havebeenvictimsofdownwardmobility,theChinesediasporas seemtoexperienceupwardmobilitywherevertheysettle.Ithasbeenestimated thatinthePhilippines,onepercentofthepopulation,theChineseminoritythatis, controlssixtypercentoftheeconomy(Chua2003).RiotsinIndonesiahavebeen directedagainstthemarket-dominantChineseminority.Moreover,ontheUSwest coast,inSouth-EastAsiaandfromMoscowtoMauritius,localsareconcernedwith, andoftenworriedabout,theriseofahugelysuccessfulexpatriateChinesebusiness class.Ong’sstudyshowsthatthefacileviewofglobalizationas‘Westernization’is misleading,thattheboundariesofthenation-statearepenetratedlikeaSwisscheese, andthatnationsthesedaysextendwellbeyondtheirphysicalterritories.Icantestify tothis;duringmyfirstfieldworkinMauritius,Iwaswitnesstoanunprecedented economictransformation.Theisland,whichhadbeendependentonsugarsincethe eighteenthcentury,wascatapultedintotheeraofmanufacturinginthespaceofa fewyears,andtheChineseChamberofCommercewasinstrumentalinbringingit about,throughitsabilitytoattractinvestmentsfromtheFarEast. SoOnghasalottowriteabout.Money,power,movement,multiplestrandsof belonging,andofcoursekinship.Thepublisher’sblurbmademeslightlywary –theprosewascumbersomeandseemedacademicallyfashion-conscious–butmy scepticismtemporarilywanedasIopenedthebook,whichbeginslikethis: OntheeveofthereturnofHongKongfromBritishtomainlandChineserule,thecity wasabuzzwithpassportstories.AfavouriteoneconcernedmainlandofficialLuPing, whopresidedoverthetransition.AtatalktoHongKongbusinessleaders(taipans),he fishedanumberofpassportsfromhispocketstoindicatehewasfullyawarethatthe HongKongelitehasaweaknessforforeignpassports.(Ong1999:1)
Thetopicistherebyintroducedinthreeshort,powerfulsentences.Chinesebusiness elitesabroadaresuspectedofbeingunfaithfultotheirnation-state,theirethnic identityasChineseisnotidenticalwiththeirnationalidentity,whichmightchange accordingtocircumstances,andtherelationshipwithmainlandChina(‘PRC’,as itusedtobeknowninUSnewspeak)isthuscomplicated.LikeHolmes,butina differentstyleandusingaverydifferentkindofmaterial,Ongquestionstheability ofthecontemporarynation-statetocontainpeople’sloyalties,showingthatthey adaptpragmatically.TheChinesediasporasareconnectedwitheachotherthrough kinship,language,cultureandvariouskindsofeconomicnetworks.Mostofthem seemtohavestrongethnicidentitiesbutaweakallegiancetoChina,andinthis theydifferfromothertransnationalgroupssuchasSriLankanTamils,Turksor PakistanisinEurope.
102 • EngagingAnthropology Ongsetsouttomakesixarguments,shesaysintheintroduction,allofthem interestingfortheenlightenedpublic–buttruthtotell,sheisboundtoloseatleast halfofthepotentialreadershiponthefirsttenpages,presuminganyoneoutsidethe circuitsofAsia-Pacificstudiesandtheanthropologyofglobalizationwerealertedto thebookinthefirstplace.Thebookdoesappearabitbloatedasyoupickitup,in themannerofAmericannovels,butitturnsouttobeaneasyread,atleastforthose ofuswhoareaccustomedtoreadingacademicprose.Butmanypotentialreaders arenot,andtheywillbelost.Thereistalkintheintroductionof‘thetransnational practicesandimaginingsofthenomadicsubject’,‘embeddednessindifferently configuredregimesofpower’andsoon.Now,asfarasacademicjargongoes, theusageismoderateherecomparedtomanyotherbooksonecouldthinkof, butoneismoreattentivethanusualtolanguageinabookwhosetopicindicates thatitdeservesawidereadership.Whodoesn’twanttoknowaboutthespreadof Chineseeconomicinterestsworldwide?Andwhoisn’tkeenonunderstandinghow theexpatriateChineseandtheirdescendantsfeelaboutwhotheyareandwherethey belong?Imean,ifmostoftheChinesein,say,IndonesiaorthePhilippineslivein gatedcommunities,avoidpayingtaxesandinvesttheirsurpluswhereveritgivesthe highestyields,thenonewouldtakeaslightlydifferentviewofthepopularuprisings againstthemthanonewouldiftheywereloyalcitizens,philantropiststoaman, committednotonlytoincreasingtheirownfortunesbuttodevelopingtheirchosen countryofresidenceaswell. Ongshedsmuchlightonthesequestions,butsheisatherbestwhenshedescribes thesalientfeaturesofaChinesemodernity,thathasappropriated‘Asianvalues’(hard work,loyalty,familysolidarity)andcombinedthemwithtransnationalambitions. UnlikeHolmes’book,FlexibleCitizenshipisnotbasedonfieldwork,andthereis littleofthecontextualized,experience-nearethnographyherethatoneisusedtoin ananthropologicalmonograph.Yetitisclearthatthebookcouldonlyhavebeen writtenbyananthropologisttrainedinthelastdecadesofthetwentiethcentury,and oneofitsgreatmeritsconsistsinshowingtherestofusthatthemethodology,as C.WrightMillstoldusdecadesago(Mills1959),dependsonthesubjectathand. Carefulnottoessentialise‘Chineseculture’,Ongnonethelessidentifiesandanalyses culturalfeaturesgoverningthetightlyintegratedknotsofdiasporicChinese,such ashierarchical,patrilinealkinship,theethicofguanxiorinterpersonalrelations, andtheideologyofracialexclusivenessthatlimitsintermarriage.Ongalsohas interestingthingstosayaboutthesacrificesandtrade-offsfamilieshavetomake inordertobecomesuccessfulincompetitive,oftenvaguelyhostileenvironments. OneteenagerinsouthernCaliforniasarcasticallyreferstoherfatheras‘theATM machine’because,apparently,heprovidesmoneyandlittleelse.Ongalsomentions coupleswhodivorcebecausetheyneverfindanopportunitytospendtimetogether. FlexibilityisakeyterminOng’sbook,regrettablynotdefined;butitcouldbe mentioned,stayingwiththespiritofherbook,thatareedcanbeextremelyflexible butsoonerorlatersnapsintwo.
NarrativeandAnalysis • 103
Chua’sDominantMinorities Chinesediasporasappeartobe‘unmeltableethnics’wherevertheygo.Aftera century,oldSino-MauritianladiesinPort-Louis,Mauritius,remainmorefluent inHakkathaninCreole.Theyneverthelessrepresentakindofminoritywhichis widespreadinthenon-NorthAtlanticworld,andwhichisnotnecessarilyChinese, namelythekinddescribedbyAmyChua(2003)asmarket-dominantminorities. IfwearegoingtounderstandwhyitisthatbookssuchasOng’sneverenterthe discussionsofthechatteringclasses,itmightbeanideatotakealookatChua’s WorldonFire.Bothbooksdiscussaspectsofglobalizationandidentitypolitics, bothfocusontransnationalism,instabilityandelitegroups,andbothhappentobe authoredbyfemaleuniversityprofessorsofEastAsianorigin,workingintheUSA. Ong’sbookhasbeenpraisedbyanthropologists,whilelawprofessorChua’swas praisedinTheIndependentandspentalongtimeontheNewYorkTimes’bestseller list. AmyChua’sbookisnotnecessarilybetterthanAihwaOng’s.Academicspecialistsarelikelytofindthelattermorerewarding.Ongvisiblystrugglestofindaccurate wordswhereasChuacanbebothglibandslick;Ongengagescriticallywithreceived viewsofChineseculture,globalization,liberalismanddemocracy,whileChua takesUSworlddominanceforgrantedandpreferspithyconclusionstobewildering complexity.Chua’smainargumentcanbesummarizedastheviewthattheconflict betweenliberaldemocracyandtheeconomicdominanceofethnicelitesleadsto instability.Thesubtitleofthebookputsitneatly:‘HowExportingFreeMarket DemocracyBreedsEthnicHatredandGlobalInstability’. Therearethreeimportant,andIthinkrelevant,differencesbetweenthebooks. First,Chuawritesinajournalisticstyle.Insteadofdelvingintointricateissuesof terminology,shereferstothespecialistliterature.Sherevelsinlucidityandhasno timeforFoucault.Bycontrast,Ongpatientlytriesoutwordstofindalanguagewhich doesjusticetothecomplexitiesshedescribes(akindofskilloccasionallybroughtto dizzyingheightsincontemporaryanthropologyonbothsidesoftheAtlantic). Secondly,Chua’sbookisdrivenbynarrative,whileOng’sisdrivenbyanalysis. InOng’sFlexibleCitizenship,shortnarrativesintroduceandillustrate;inChua’s WorldonFire,thestoriesaretheveryengineandstuffofthebookitself.Theloftier andmoregeneralizingstatementsatthebeginningandtheendaremereorganizing principlesforthestoriesshehastotellabouttheplightofmarket-dominantminorities inaworldwherethemassesdemandjusticeandequality. Thirdly,Chuahasamoreinclusivewayofcommunicatingwithherpresumed readers.Addressinghermiddle-classAmericanreadershipdirectly,sheusestheir languageratherthanknotty,cumbersomeacademicterms.Speakingfromwithina worldofconventionalmiddle-classsensibilities,shecanhavethousandsofreaders whoarenotonlyeducatedbyherbook,butwhotakepleasureincurlingupwithit.
104 • EngagingAnthropology CouldFlexibleCitizenshiphavebeenwritteninasimilarlyengagingandpopular stylewithoutcompromisingitsmessage?Well,yesandno.Theanalyticsignificance ofabookdoesnotdependonitsuseoffashionablejargon,butanargumentativebook thatdoesmorethanmerelyconfirmviewsthatthereaderalreadyheldbeforehand, hastooffersomeresistance.Chua,sympathetictoglobalcapitalism,canhardlybe saidtodothis,evenifherpostulatedconflictbetween‘free’marketsanddemocracy iscontroversialenough.However,nomatterwhatone’sagenda,evenacritical interventionisexecutedmoreefficientlythroughstriking,provocativenarratives thanthroughaninsistenceonarcaneterminologyandin-houserulesofargument. Thefactmaybethatwhenanthropologistsfailtoreachthegeneralintellectual public,itisbecausetheyhavebeentaughttobemoreworriedaboutthereactions fromthepeopletheyeatlunchwiththanwhatpeopleoutsidetheuniversitymight think.Asaresult,theysometimesseemtowritebadlyonpurpose. ThereasonI’vetreatedHolmesandOnginsomedetailisthattheirbooksare suggestiveofthepotentialsofapublicanthropology.Envisionedonlyslightly differently,writtenwithagreaterattentiontostyleandanawarenessoftheexistence ofajaded,butintelligentandengagedreadershipoutthere,theymighthavesoldby thebucket-load. Andtherearesomanyothersthatmighthavebeenmentioned,suchawealth ofgood,original,potentiallyimportantanthropologicalstudiesofidentitiesin thecontemporaryworld.GerdBaumann’s(1996)andMarieGillespie’s(1995) complementarystudiesofethnicityinSouthall(south-westLondon)demonstrate beyondashadowofdoubtthatethnicityinpracticeissomethingaltogetherless rigidandpredictablethanwhatonemightexpectfromareadingofstatisticsor newspapers.ThelateAbnerCohen’sstudyoftheNottingHillcarnival(1993)isa brilliantexposéofhybridity;KarenFogOlwig’sworkontransnationalisminthe Caribbeananditsdiasporas(e.g.Olwig2003)showswhatadifficultconcept‘home’ hasbecome,andthisisonlythefirsthandfulofstudiesthatcomestomind.My argumentisthatwithmodestbutdeterminedeffort,someofthisworkcouldhave madeadifferenceoutsidethesubjectandindeedoutsidetheacademy.Provided,of course,thisisconsideredworthwhile.
VirulentIdentityPoliticsandtheAnthropologist Anotherpopularbookthattriestomakesenseofidentitypolitics,concentratingonits mostvirulentforms,isBenjaminBarber’sJihadvs.McWorld.Itsinstantlyappealing (ordiscouraging,tosome)titlemayhaveledmanytoassumethatBarber’sproject resemblesthatofsomeonelikeSamuelHuntington,whohasinfamouslyarguedthat civilizationaldifferencesaccountforcurrentconflicts;orthatBarbersimplybelieves thatthereisadeepchasmbetween‘theWestandtheRest’.Thebook,writtenbya
NarrativeandAnalysis • 105 socialscientistwhocaresabouthisreaders,isthekindofbookyou’dbelikelyto findinasmallishairportbookshopalmostanywhereintheworld.Firstpublishedin 1995,newprefaceshavebeenaddedtwice.First,in2001,followingthefirstBritish editionofthebook,Barbertakestheopportunitytoreflectontheseeminglackof receptivityintheUKforhisview(perhapstheBritishhadfounda‘middleway’?); then,in2003,hereviewshisthesisinthelightofthe9/11eventsandtheensuing ‘waragainstterrorism’. Infact,Barber’sargumentismoresubtle,andmoreinteresting,thanthetitle suggests,andheisintellectuallyclosertosociologistslikeRobertPutnam(Bowling Alone)orGeorgeRitzer(TheMcDonaldizationofSociety)thantoapocalyptic prophetsorsimple-mindedmodernisers.Thebook–racy,wittyandseriousinits analysis–discussestheerosionofcivilsociety:theincreaseddominanceofthe globalizingmarket,theauthorargues,renderscitizenspowerlessandultimately turnsthemintomereconsumers.Thelossofpublicspaceswherecitizenscan interactinnon-consumingmodesleavesanihilisticvoidwhichisexploitedby irrationalpoliticalgroups.Thelossofparticipatorydemocracyandtheabdication ofpoliticstothemarketplace,inotherwords,isconnectedtotheriseofidentity politics,frequentlybasedonreligionorethnicidentityand,inthecasesexamined byBarber,usingnon-democraticandviolentmeans.Thebookdepictsageopolitical ordercharacterizedbyconflictsbetweenterritorialstatesandde-territorialized networks whose existence is possible because of the decline in participatory democracyandglobalizationincommunications.Itisnotwithoutitsweaknesses –povertyisnotaddressedproperly,noristhefactthatviolentidentitypoliticsoften arisesincountrieswherecivilsocietywasweakinthefirstplace,inotherwords thatthereneednotbeadirectconnectionbetweenMcWorldandJihad(which,in Barber’susage,coversmuchmorethanIslamicholywar). What is interesting here is not the strengths and weaknesses of Jihad vs. McWorld,butthefactthatthebooktakesonaclusterofissuesintensivelystudied byanthropologists,andhasbeencommerciallysuccessfulandpoliticallyinfluential. Clintonseemstohavereaditduringhispresidency,andtheupdated(post-9/11) editioncanbepurchasedinreasonablywell-stockedbookshopsallovertheworld, inmanylanguagesincludingFarsi. Whatmightthisbookhavelookedlikeifithadbeenwrittenbyananthropologist specializinginidentitypoliticsandglobalization?Assuming,asawildexperiment ofthought,thatasocialanthropologistwasapproachedbyapublisherwhowanted someonetomakesenseofglobaltensionsandconflictsintheperiodafterthecold war? Tobeginwith,thebookwouldhavehadtoincludegreaterempiricaldetail. Barber’sexamplesoftenreadlikearticlesfromtheHeraldTribune,whileananthropologistwouldbelikelytousematerialfromhisownfieldworkregionextensively andrecurrently,morecautiousinhiscomparisons,andwouldneedtoquestionthe categoryof‘theWest’whilepresumablynotabandoningitcompletely.Actually,
106 • EngagingAnthropology Barber’scavalierapproachtoempiricaldetailresultsinhisbookbeinglittered withsmallbutirritatingerrors.Injustafewpagesoftheintroduction,hemisspells ‘Pathan’as‘Panthan’,describesRwandaintheworsttabloidmanneras‘slaughterhappy’,andmusesoverthefactthatreggae‘getsonlyatinypercentageofMTVplay timeeveninLatinmarkets’(p.12)–well,onedoesnothavetobearegionalexpert toknowthatreggaeisaJamaicaninvention.Unlike,say,MichaelIgnatieff’sor TimothyGartonAsh’sbooksonEasternEurope,thisbookcarriesaminimalimprint oftheauthor’sownexperiences.Thereisscarcelyanyofwhatanthropologists wouldcallfirst-handempiricalmaterial. Yetthereareextremelygoodreasonsfornotmerelyturningone’snoseupatthis kindofbookas‘notbeinganthropology’(ofcourseit’snot!).Grantedthatmarket fetishismisrampantandspreadingglobally,andtherearegoodreasonsforclaiming thatitis,andgrantedthatthereactionstoglobalcapitalismandperceivedUS hegemonyintherealmsofgeopolitics,masscultureandtheworldeconomyhave somesimilaritiesindifferentplaces,thereiseveryreasontoexpectanthropologists, ‘peddlersinculturaldifference’,tohavesomethingtotellthepublicaboutthis.To theextentthatwehaven’tdoneso,weleavethediscussiontoothers,whichmeans, inpractice,othersocialscientistsandjournalists. Ananthropologicalbookabout‘JihadandMcWorld’wouldhavebeenfinely attunedtonuanceandlocalvariation.Yetitwouldalsohavetoconcedethatcertain ideologiesandculturalidentitiescurrentlytakeonatransnationalcharacter,and thatdiscreteeventsareinterconnected.Idraftedthissectioninearlyautumn2004, theaftermathofthehostagedramainBislan,NorthOssetia,whichcoincidedwith thekidnappingofmorethantwentyNGOworkersinDarfur,theabductionoftwo FrenchmenandthekillingoftwelveNepaleseinIraq,andseveralsuicidebombings inIsrael.Someofthehostage-takersinBislanweresaidtohavebeenArabs.Osama binLaden,whohasalsofoughtRussiansinChechnya,hadacloserelationshipwith theregimeinSudanforyears.TheIraqiinsurgencyispartlymotivatedbyreligion, partlybylessspecificresentmenttowardstheoccupyingforces.Suchconnections, documentedorrumoured,wouldhavetobeelaborateduponbyananthropologist, notwithstandingmanyanthropologists’currentreluctancetolookbeyondtheirown regionofspecialization. Butonthewhole,ananthropologistwouldhavegonedeeperintoeachexample. TheresultmayhavebecomelessconvincingthanBarberindescribingglobal uniformities,butinsteadsuchabookwouldhavedelvedintolocalspecificitiesof kindsusuallyignored.Itwouldshowthatalthoughtheforcesleadingtoidentity politicsinallitsforms–democraticandanti-democratic,fromaboveandfrom below–aretrulyglobalinscopeandreach,anyexplanationorevendescription whichdoesnotseeglobalizationthroughthelensoflocalmeaningsandstruggles, isinadequate.AsAihwaOnghasshown,thereissomethingpeculiartoChinese diasporas,andChinesepoliticsofidentitydoesnotresembleIslamicpoliticsof identityexceptinthemostgeneralway.
NarrativeandAnalysis • 107 Such a book might profit from employing the ‘whodunit’ structure of the suspensenovel,orthe‘riddle’format.Accordingtothereceivedwisdom,Tutsis andHutusaredifferenttribeswithdifferentcultures,andtheirmutualanimosities arepartlyancient,partlycreatedbytheBelgians.Ananthropologist,withorwithout first-handexperienceofRwandaandBurundi,wouldbelikelytoquestionthe verycategoriesofTutsiandHutu,indicatingtheambiguitiesandmobilityacross theethnicboundary,demonstratingculturalsimilarities(language,religion,way oflife),andwouldalmostcertainlyshowhowHutuandTutsibecamereifiedas statisticalcensuscategoriesinfairlyrecenttimes.Hopefully,thisanthropologist wouldnotbaulkatobjectivedata,butwouldconcedethattheconflictsintheregion areconnectedtolandandwatershortagescausedbyatreblingofthepopulationina littlemorethanageneration.Thusthe‘atavistictribalwar’mightbetranslatedinto adesperatestruggleoverscarceresourceswherealignmentswerebasedonalmost random,butstate-sanctioned,‘ethnic’distinctions. Unlikemostbooksonthesubject,thepopularanthropologicalbookaboutvirulent identitypoliticswouldshowthattheterm‘ethnicconflict’isanemptyvessel, sincepeopledonothaveconflictsoverethnicity.Ethnicidentityorreligioninstead functionsasasymbolicfocus,ameansofmobilizationandapretextfortransgressing rulesandnorms.Afterstatingsomethingtothiseffect,ouranthropologistwould needtoleavehisownfieldworkandcomparecasessuchasHindunationalism,the Europeanextremeright,Palestinianresistanceandsoon,usingseveralpagesto describeeachofthemandconcludingthattheglobalizedstrugglesinvolvingmarket liberalismandcollectiveidentitiesare,attheendoftheday,alwayslocal. Thisbookwouldalsohavetogomoredeeplyintothesocialandpsychological foundationsofidentificationthanwhatiscommon.How,forexample,canintimacy, trustandreciprocitybetransformedintofundamentalistattitudes,andhowdosuch relationships,crucialinhumanlives,developinthefirstplace?Howcanloyalty towardsothersturnintohatredandresentmentofoutsiders?And–thisisoneof anthropology’sclassictoursdeforce–howdoesaperson’sidentificationshiftfrom situationtosituation?Whydosomanytightlyorganized,politicallypotentgroups havereligiousandethniclabels?Apopularanthropologicalbookonantagonistic identitypoliticswouldhavetocomecleanonquestionsregardinghumannature. Sincehumansaresocialanddependontrustfortheirpsychologicalwell-being, perceivedbetrayalsofourwebsoftrustareperceivedasgravethreatstoourvery existence.Relationshipsoftrustarenotmerelybiological,however,butdepend onmetaphoricandsymbolicextensionsofprimaryrelationships.Ifmyprimary attachmenttomyfamilyandintimatesisextendedmetaphoricallytoincludefellow citizens,fellowbelieversorsomethingsimilar,thenIwouldreactinapersonaland existentiallyurgentwaywheneversomeonethreatenssuchimaginedcommunities. Thusananthropologyofcontemporaryidentitypoliticshastoaskwhereparticular identitiescomefrom,notjusthistorically,butinouruniversalhumanexperience –andhowitcanbethattheyareexpressedsovariously.
108 • EngagingAnthropology Actually,thescenariodescribedafewparagraphsagoisnotunthinkable;avery similaroneunfoldedsomeyearsagoinOslo.InFebruary1995,followingapublic interventiononmypartinconnectionwiththeRushdieAffair,Iwascontactedby apublisherwhoaskedmetowriteabookabout‘theWestandIslam’.Ihadreacted againstthecocksureandmonolithichumanrightsfundamentalismthatdominated thedebateinScandinavia,andhadnoticed(althoughIdidn’tsayitpublicly)that someofthemostconfidentdefendersofuniversalfreedomofspeechhadbeen similarlyconfidentMaoistsadecadeortwoearlier.Asifsocialcontextandhistorical experienceshadnothingtodowithattitudestofreedomofspeech!Myviewwasthat ifwearegoingtobeculturalimperialists,andIsupposeweare,thenletusatleastbe knowledgeable,respectfulandopen-mindedculturalimperialists. AlthoughIfeltstronglyabouttheseissues,Ireactedtothepublisher’ssuggestions withsomehesitation.IhaveneverdonefieldworkinapredominantlyMuslim countryandwasnotkeentoposeasanexpertingeopolitics.Intheend,thatisto sayafteracoupleofdays,Inonethelessacceptedthecommissionandthebookwas publishedattheendoftheyearwiththetitleDetNyeFiendebildet[TheNewEnemy Image].Anew,updatedandexpandededitioncalledBakFiendebildet[Behindthe EnemyImage],(Eriksen2001a)waspublishedafewmonthsafter9/11.Thebookset forthtoexplainhow‘theWest’and‘Islam’arepassinghistoricalconstructionsthat mayneverthelessbecomeself-fulfillingprophecies.Likemanyothers,Icriticised SamuelHuntingtonforhissimplisticbeliefsin‘civilizationalfaultlines’–based onideasaboutculturepopularinthelateVictorianera–andlikewisecriticized anotherinfluentialconservativeintellectual,FrancisFukuyama,forbelievingthat theAmericanwaywastheonlygameworthplayingintheglobalvillage.Ithrew inabitofpost-colonialtheory,manystoriesabouthumiliationexperiencedby immigrants,acriticalappraisaloftheRushdieAffair,and–inthesecondedition–a bitaboutthecomparativeadvantagesofscatterednetworksasopposedtoterritorial power,aswellassomemusingsaboutpoliticalIslamasaglobalfamilyofcounterculturalmovements,orperhapsalternativemodernities.Themainargumentwasthat recognitionand,conversely,theabilitytolistenweresomeofthescarcestresources inthecontemporaryworld. Thebook,shortandmodestinitsambitions,wasnotananthropologybook (itcontainedhardlyanyoriginalethnography,andhadfewreferencestoother anthropologists),butIcouldn’thavewrittenitwithoutbeingananthropologist.It rejecteduniversalizingnarrativesabout‘thedirectionofworldhistory’andinsisted ontheprimacyofthelocal,aswellasstressingtheknottyandintricatewebsof connectednessthatmakereductioniststatementsaboutthisorthatgroupbeing ‘chieflyMuslim’patentlyludicrous.Theverysamepeoplewhowereconsidered ‘guestworkers’inthe1970sbecame‘Pakistanis’and‘Turks’adecadelater,before becoming‘Muslims’inthe1990s.Nobodyaskedthemhowtheywouldpreferto identifythemselves.
NarrativeandAnalysis • 109 Amaindifficultyinwritingthiskindoftext,whichispoliticallyengagedat thesametimeasittriesnottocompromisetheanthropologicalwayofthinking, consistsinnegotiatingthelinebetweenculturalrelativismandpoliticalcommitment –incidentallytheverycontradictionidentifiedintheliberaltraditionbyJohnGray inhisTwoFacesofLiberalism(Gray2000).Aworkingsolutionisoftentobefound inperspectivismandcontextualism.Or,toputitdifferently:Onlyanidiotwould believethathisformofgovernment,andhispoliticalideas,wouldarisesuigeneris anywhereintheworld,ifonejustgotridofthebadguys.Solocalcontextcannotbe ignored.Moreover,nobodycandenythatworldhistorylooksdifferentfromHanoi thanitdoesfromLondon.Sowhatyouseedependsnotjustonwhatyouarelooking atorevenwhatyouarelookingthrough,butalsowhereyouarelookingfrom.All ofthisisplaincommonsensetoananthropologist,butnotnecessarilytoeverybody else. Thereis,naturally,alotmorethatanthropologistsmightwanttosayabout identitypolitics.TheroleoftheStateinsimplifyingandfreezingcategoriesof race,ethnicityandreligionhasbeenstudiedbymanyinilluminatingways.Thegap betweenofficialandpopularperceptionshaslikewisebeendocumented,andthe fictionof‘irreconcilableculturaldifferences’hasbeenexposedoftenenough.But thesethingsneedtobesaidagainandagain,andpointingoutthatLeachsaidthis fortyyearsago,orforthatmatterBoaseightyyearsago,assomeofusoccasionally do,cansometimesfunctionasanexcuseforlazinessandsmugdetachment.
MakingtheForeignFamiliar Anthropologistsexcelincommunicatingtheexperiencesofotherstopeoplewho sharetheirownexperiencesandrepresentations.Theytendtobelessskilledwhen itcomestodrawingontheexperiencesoftheiroutsidereadership.Atthispoint, narrativeskillsbecomerelevant.Aseveryschoolgirlknows(oratleastevery anthropologyundergraduate),thethresholdforempathyiscalledidentification.The foreignneedstobemadefamiliar,eitherbydescribingtheforeignersasiftheywere familiarorbyshowinghowtheirlivesaresimilarto,andconnectedto,ours.Inthe contextofworldpolitics,thisisabsolutelycrucial,andfewareinabetterpositionto dothejobthananthropologists. ThereisagenreofNorwegianjournalismwhichonemightcall‘NoNorwegians wereharmed’.ItisaversionoftheoldBritishstoryfromthedaysbeforethe Chunnel,whenstormyweatherintheNorthSeapreventedferriesfromcrossing. TheapocryphalBritishnewspaperheadlineread:‘BadweatherintheNorthSea:the Continentisolated’. Wheneverdisasterstrikes–earthquakes,insurgencies,wars–oneofthefirsttasks ofthepressconsistsinfindingoutwhetheranyofournationalswereintheregion, andtheirpresentwhereabouts.Thisisunderstandableandprobablydefensible;the
110 • EngagingAnthropology problemariseswhenthereisasystematicasymmetryinthecoverageofdifferent kindsofforeigners’deaths.AsaEuropeanNGOworkerinSudanexclaimedduring theDarfurfamine:Thesechildren’smistakeconsistedinnothavingmadetheir waytotheWorldTradeCenter!Aseveryoneknows,threethousandmiddle-class professionalsfromtheUSAhaveanimmenselyhighervaluethanafewhundred thousandunknownAfricanilliterates.Sincethisfactmakesclaimsaboutuniversal humanismsoundhollow,anthropologists(andothers)maynowandthentakethe timetoremindtheircompatriotswhyitisthatinfactAfghanlivesarejustasvaluable asthelivesnextdoor,butthatourmediararelyallowustodiscoverthis. Anthropologistsaretoorarelyabletoconnectwiththeirpublicspheresintimes ofcrisis.Totakesomeofthemostpublicizedconflictsofthe1990s,noneofthe mostinfluentialtextsaboutBosnia,SriLanka,SomaliaorRwandawerewrittenby anthropologists.AlexdeWaal’sincisiveandpenetratingwritingsinvariousformats andaddressingavarietyofaudiencesnotwithstanding,anthropologistshavebeen slowtoreactefficientlytocrises.DeWaal,afounderofthesmallbutinfluential NGOAfricanRights,publishedashockingbookaboutfamineinDarfurasearlyas 1989,andhiswritingssparklewithengagementanddetermination,likethework ofafewotherswhoplythewatersbetweenacademicworkandadvocacy,such asDavidMaybury-Lewis,anotheranthropologistwhohasturnedhimselfintoan influentialactivistandpopularizer. Yettheanthropologistsarerarelyfarawaywhenwarorfaminebreaksout.They haveoftenbeeneyewitnessesandeveniftheyhaven’tbeen,theyareamongthe mostknowledgeablepeople,obviousspecialiststoconsultabout.say,theintricacies oflocal-levelpoliticsinAfghanistan,theultimatecausesofthegenocideinRwanda andthesignificanceofethnicityintheformerYugoslavia.Anthropologistshave writtenincisivelyabouttheseissues–some,suchasLiisaMalkki’s(1995)book aboutRwanda,andToneBringa’s(1996)bookaboutBosniaarechillingdocuments, welldocumentedandmorallyengaged.Butofcourse,theywerepublishedafterthe dusthadsettled,andwerepresumablyreadchieflybyregionalspecialistsapartfrom otheranthropologists. InpreviouschaptersIhavearguedthatspeedisafactorindeterminingwhetheror notoneisabletomakeanimpactthroughthemedia,anditisevidentlythecasehere too.TheSwedishanthropologistStaffanLöfving,himselfanex-journalist,reflects onthedifferencesintemporalitybetweenanthropologyandjournalism:‘Writing slowlyaboutfastchangesconstitutesaparadoxinanthropology.Theparadoxof journalismconsistsinwritingquicklyandsometimessimplisticallyaboutcomplex changes’(Löfving2004:139). Confrontingthesameparadox,Hannerz(2004a:16f.)humorouslyspeculates onthepossibilityof‘parachuteanthropology’,ifhighlycompetentteamsofanthropologistsscatteredaroundouruniversitydepartmentswereequippedandready toleaveinstantlyforthefield–tentandmalariapillswaitinginanofficecorner –likefirefighters,ifsomethingurgentcameup.Presumablythisteamofurgent
NarrativeandAnalysis • 111 anthropologistsshouldalsobepreparedtowriteuptheirfindingsreallyfast.Hannerz, whohasdonefieldworkonforeigncorrespondentsinrecentyears(Hannerz2003), neverthelessnotesthatitisnotjusttheanthropologistswhochasethebigeventsin the‘alreadycold’footprintsofjournalists.Afterall,thereareAsiacorrespondents basedinHongKongwhoareexpectedtoreportauthoritativelyoneventsinJordan. The media sphere’s demands for speed cannot be met by fieldwork-based anthropology.Itnecessarilytakeslongertoanalyseandpresentthedatathana newspaperorcommercialpublishercanaccept.However,itisfarfromimpossible towriteengagingandimportantworkbasedonknowledgeonealreadypossesses,or whichcanquicklybeaccessedthroughtheavailableprofessionalliterature.Itiseasy tothinkofexamplesofserious,wellresearched,successfulbooksandotherkinds ofinterventionsaddressingcontemporarypoliticalissues,whichmayhavemadea differenceinthepoliticalarenaitself.SomearewrittenbyjournalistslikeThomas Friedman(TheLexusandtheOliveTree,1999)orRobertKaplan(TheEndsofthe Earth,1997),orbyacademicswhohavereinventedthemselvesasjournalists(orthe otherwayaround),likeTimothyGartonAsh,FredHallidayandMichaelIgnatieff. Yetothers,likeNoamChomskyandthelateEdwardSaid,usetheirprofessorial authoritytomakestatementspertainingtoareaswheretheyarenotspecialistsinan academicsense. Itisthislattercategorythatconstitutesthepublicintellectualproper.Richard Dawkins,votedBritain’s#1publicintellectual,rarelyleavesbiologyinhiswritings, buthehasrecentlybeenwritingaboutraceandpolitics(2004)–anareawhere manywouldarguethatanthropologistsarethemostknowledgeableacademics –andhemadeacommentaboutreligionimmediatelyafter11September2001. Comparedtomanyotherpublicintellectuals,Dawkinsiscarefultosettopicallimits forhisengagements,butanthropologistsrarelyventureevenasfarashedoesfrom theirareaofexpertise.Everyday,weseemtoconfirmthecommonsayingthatthe contemporaryacademicknowsmoreandmoreaboutlessandless. Itistruethattherigoursofcarryingoutfieldwork,writingupandestablishing authoritywithinsocialandculturalanthropologyusuallyimplyintenseconcentration onalimitedsetofquestions,veryoftenaskedinrelationtoanintensivelystudied andcompactempiricalmaterial.Ithinkmostpractisinganthropologistscontribute tothefragmentationofthediscipline,oftenmalgréeux,intheirteachingofthese ideals.Infact,duringsupervisionofanMAstudenttoday,Iwasconfrontedwith heranxietyaboutwritingin‘toogeneralamode’aboutTurkeybetweenWestand East.Afterall,thefieldworkhadzoomedinonmiddle-classIstanbuldwellersin theirtwentiesandtheirpersonalwaysofdealingwiththetensionsbetweenWestern modernityandIslam.ItoldherthatashortchapteronTurkishhistorywasentirelyin order,remarkingonthearea’splaceinancientphilosophy,thewavesofsettlement fromtheeast,themultinationalcharacteroftheOttomanempire,theauthoritarian secularismofKemalAtatürkandthecontemporary,troubledrelationshipwiththe EUontheonehandandIslamontheother.But,sheobjected,thisissupposedtobe
112 • EngagingAnthropology anthropology,nothistoryorpoliticalscience.Well,Iresponded,thechapterwe’re discussingnowprovidescontext,andyoumoveonfromtheretotherealthing –yourownfieldmaterial–asquicklyaspossible. Thiskindofcomment,passedoftenenoughinanthropologydepartmentsworldwide,givesthestudentstheimpressionthatthereexistsauniversalhierarchyof knowledge,withethnographyontop.Accordingly,thehubrisofsocialandcultural anthropologytraditionallyconsistsintheideathatitwaspossible,asWilliamBlake famouslyputitinhis‘AuguriesofInnocence’, Toseetheworldinagrainofsand Andaheaveninawildflower, Holdinfinityinthepalmofyourhand, Andeternityinanhour.
However,followingtheendofmodernism(Ardener1985),thatisthegeneralloss offaithinuniversalpatterns,theimperialambitionsofanthropologistshavewaned, andwhatisleftismereethnography–thegrainofsandwithouttheworld,notto mentioneternity.Tocompensateforthisloss,manyanthropologistshavediscovered historyasanalternativesourcefordevelopingasomewhatlargertapestrythanthe oneofferedbyethnography,butsystematiccomparison–oncethehallmarkof anthropology–isnowadaystaughthalf-heartedlyandonlypractisedoccasionally. Addingthistocommentsmadepreviouslyaboutthecausesofanthropology’s weakpositioninthepublicsphere,webegintounderstandwhythebooksand articlesenlighteningthegeneralpublicaboutthestateoftheworldarehardlyever writtenbyanthropologists.Theirworldsimplyfailstoconnectwithours.Whenever thereisaglobalorregionalcrisis,thousandsofanthropologists,includingthose whoarefamiliarwiththeregioninquestionaswellasothers,aretryingveryhard toavoidcomingtotermswithit.Whichistosay,theyanalyseandcriticizealot amongstthemselves,someofthemwriteexcellentacademicarticlesaboutthe situationathand–and,inallfairness,theysometimessurfaceinthemediaorin mainstreampublications.Butthisistheexceptionratherthantherule.Occasionally, therevealingmonographispublished,butalwaysafterthefact.DuringthebreakupandensuingwarsofYugoslavia,theAnglophonewritersexplainingandtrying toinfluenceopinionabouttheconflictinlengthyarticles,essaysandbooks,were allnon-anthropologists(although,inallfairness,ToneBringa’sbrilliantfilmWe HaveAlwaysBeenNeighboursdidmakeanimpactaftertheendofthewar).The anthropologistsdiscussedamongthemselves.InconnectionwiththeVietnamWar, anthropologistsseemtohavebeenmoreconcernedwiththepossiblemisuseoftheir ethnographies(bytheUSA)thanwithactiveintervention(Salemink2003). Moreover,asPatrickWilken(1994)hasshowed,anthropologistswerevirtually absentfromthepubliceyeduringandafterthefirstGulfWar.Thisisunsettling, asanthropologistsspecializingintheregionpossessedknowledgeaboutlocal
NarrativeandAnalysis • 113 circumstances,whichmighthaveshiftedpublicopinionaboutthelegitimacyof boththeGulfWarandfuturewars.Infact,byvirtueoftheirclose-upviewofsocial life,anthropologistscantelltroublingtruthsaboutanywar,bygivingafaceanda voicetothevictimsandshowingthevisceralandgruesomerealityofviolenceto audiencesaccustomedtosanitizedTVviolence,realorvirtual. Allisnothopeless.AhandfulofmediacommentsbyAmericananthropologists followingthe9/11attack(seeGonzález2004)demonstratethatanthropologistsare ableandsometimeswillingtoaddressurgentpoliticalquestionsoutsidetheirfield ofspecialization,andthattheyareperfectlycapableofaddingtheirethnographycoloureddropofcomplexitytothepaletteofideasthatmakesupthepublicsphere, relinquishingdetailedanalysistemporarilyinordertotellstoriesfromthewide worldinstead. RobertoGonzàlez’seditedbookhasthepromisingtitleAnthropologistsinthe PublicSphereandcontainsfifty-twochapters,allofthemwrittenbyacademic anthropologistsaddressingpublicissues–race,insurgenciesandarmedconflicts, Americanhegemonyandtherecent‘waronterror’.AimedlargelyatanAmerican studentreadership,thecollectionconfinesitselftoAmericanmedia.Itisalso somewhatlimitedinscopegivenitstitle;therearelotsofothersubjectareaswhere anthropologistscanhaveanimpactaspublicintellectuals,suchasdevelopment, indigenousissues,simplisticevolutionarytales,thevicissitudesofidentification, consumptionandmodernlivingingeneral.González’sbookaimstoshowthat anthropologistscanfunctionascriticalintellectualsbyspeakingupagainstpower, and that in doing so – not as academics, but as citizens – they draw on their professionalknowledgeandinsights. Inspiteofitsexcellentintentions,González’sbookinadvertentlyconfirmsthat anthropologiststendtobefarawayfromthemainstreamdiscourseoftheirsociety evenwhenthereisacriticalsituationsomewhere.Thebookcoverseightyyearsof publicinterventionsbyAmericananthropologists,largelyinthepress,anditrunsto about250pages,editorialintroductionsincluded.Itincludesaboutthesameamount oftextasagoodjournalistmightchurnoutinacoupleofmonths.Ofcourse,the bookdoesnotincludeeverything,butnowheredoestheeditorsignalthathehas haddifficultiesinmakinghisselection.Moreover,manyofthearticlesarespecialist contributions–theyrectifyerrorsandadddepthandperspective–ratherthan beinginterventionsbyengagedgeneralizts.Asnotedearlier,WilliamO.Beeman (representedwiththreeentries)seemstobetheonlyAmericananthropologistwho writesregularlyforthepress.IntinyNorway,bycontrast,anthropologistsareso usedtohandlingthemediathattheyoftenusethepresstoargueagainsteachother. Thebookisnonethelessveryuseful,rangingasitdoesfromMargaretMeadon wartoDavidPrice,LauraNaderandHughGustersononacademicfreedom.Some ofthemmighthavebeendevelopedintoarticlesformagazinesorbooksformore long-termimpact.Alltextssuggestthat‘contextual,historicalknowledgeabout
114 • EngagingAnthropology othercultures’(González2004:16)makestermslike‘collateraldamage’difficultto stomachandtheprisoncampinGuantanamoBayimpossibletotoleratebyanyone withahumanistoutlook. AttheendofhisepilogueonanthropologyandUSworlddominance,González quotes‘oneanthropologist’atlengthwithoutrevealingthename.Thispersonsays: Iamawarethatthisdiscussionisunconventionalanthropology,buttheseareunconventionaltimes.Weareallinvolvedinunconventionalandportentousmilitary andpoliticalevents...Theseeventshaveworldwideconsequences.Itistimethatwe acceptedsomeunconventionalresponsibilitiesforouracts,betheyactsofcommission orofomission.(InGonzàlez2004:266)
Itappears,then,thataconcernedcolleagueismakingastatementaboutthenew eraofAmericangeopoliticshere,the‘withusorwiththeterrorists’logicofthesocalledwaronterror.Theendnotereferencereveals,surprisingly,thattheoriginof thequotationisa1968articlebyGeraldBerreman,quotedinthefirstchapterofthis bookandquestioningtheroleofanthropologistsinconflictssuchastheVietnam War.Ifanything,Berreman’sstatementindirectlytellsusthat‘conventionaltimes’ areunlikelytoreturnandthattherearelimitstocomplacencywhenweliveinthe eyeofawhirlwind.Oursarethestoriesthathardlyanybodyelsebothersabout,and theyneedtobetoldinavarietyofformats–thefilm,thenewspaperarticle,the magazinearticle,thepage-turner,thelearnedarticleormonograph.
–6– AltercentricWriting Forawhileinthemid-1990s,thephilosopherDenisDuttonrananannualbad writingcontest,invitingreadersofhisjournalPhilosophyandLiteraturetosubmit theirfavouritesnippets.ApartfromanhonourablementionforStephenTylerinthe thirdcontest,noanthropologistswereonDutton’sshortlists,whichweredominated bywritersworkingintheborderareabetweenliterarystudies,culturalstudiesand philosophy.Partlythiswasbecausethejournaldealtwithexactlythisintersection, butitisalsoprobablytruethatthewritingencounteredinthisareaisoftenmuch morestilted,impenetrableandtendingtowardsthevacuousthaninmostotherfields, academicornon-academic.Fewanthropologistsarelikelytoevencontemplate writingsentenceslikethefollowing: Themovefromastructuralistaccountinwhichcapitalisunderstoodtostructuresocial relationsinrelativelyhomologouswaystoaviewofhegemonyinwhichpowerrelations are subject to repetition, convergence, and rearticulation brought the question of temporalityintothethinkingofstructure,andmarkedashiftfromaformofAlthusserian theorythattakesstructuraltotalitiesastheoreticalobjectstooneinwhichtheinsights intothecontingentpossibilityofstructureinauguratearenewedconceptionofhegemony asboundupwiththecontingentsitesandstrategiesoftherearticulationofpower.
Notasentencetobereadaloudbypeoplewithlimitedlungcapacity,thisquotation fromJudithButler(1stprize,badwritingcontest1998)cannoteasilybetranslated intolucidprose,simplybecauseitishardtoseewhatitisabout.Eventhemost ‘difficult’anthropologistswouldbeunlikelytowriteinthiskindofstyle.Whenever theywritebadly,ittendstobearesultofcarelessnessorlazinessratherthanattempts toseemprofoundandcomplex.Andquiteoften,writingthatseemsbadisactually complexandconscientious,offeringresistancewhennecessaryinsteadofglib smoothness.Take,forexample,thisparagraphbyMarilynStrathern,whoisoften (andtomymindunfairly)accusedofdeliberatelywritingimpenetrableprose: Thinkofaculturewherebodilyexperiencesarenothiddenawaytobeencountered assecretknowledgethatresistssocialcontrol,butwheretheyarethesubjectofovert attentionformenaswellaswomen.Andaculturewhichdoesnothypostatise‘thebody’ assuch,forthebodyisnotanexternalyetpossessedpresence,andintegratedwhole,but whereonthecontrarybodyimagerysuggestssocialdisjunctionaswellasconjunction.
115
116 • EngagingAnthropology Where,indeed,everybodyisacompositeofdifferentidentities;wherebodiesdonot belongtopersonsbutarecomposedoftherelationsofwhichapersoniscomposed. Finally,then,aculturewherepartibilityorfragmentationofpersons/bodiesisnotthe unintendedresultbutasmuchas(sic)explicitaimofpeople’sactionsasistheirunity. (Strathern1992:76)
ThisisvintageStrathern,reflectingonkinshipandrelatedness,theboundariesof thepersonandthepossibilitiesofimaginingpersonsasbeingmadeupoftheir relationshipstoothers.Thelanguageisknottyandspiky,offeringsolidresistance againstanyattempttobereadsuperficially.Onemaylikeordislikeherstyle,butit ishardtoarguethatitisunnecessarilycomplicated,orthatshehidesinadifficult languagebecauseshehaslittletosay.AsinmostofStrathern’swritings,there arefewarcaneortechnicalterms.Thecomplexityliesintheideas.Buildingon feministtheoryandthecontrastbetweenMelanesianandBritishkinship(shehas donefieldworkonboth),shearguesthatpersonsmayperfectlywellbeseennotas autonomousentities,butratherasthesumtotaloftheirrelationshiptoothers.The writingcouldnonethelesshavebeenmoreelegant.Forexample,shemighthaveput itlikethis: Thinkofaculturewherebodilyexperiencesarenothiddenawayandsubjectedtoshame andsecrecy.Instead,theyareopenlyviewedanddiscussedbybothmenandwomen. There,‘thebody’wouldnotbeseenasanentityinitself,butratherasanintegratedpart ofthesocialsurroundings.Infact,everybodywouldbecomposedofdifferentidentities andrelationships.Also,inthisculture,thefragmentationofthepersonwouldnotbeseen asaproblem,butindeedasanormalaspectofwhatitmeanstobehuman.
Yet,thestyleisnotamajorproblemhere.Onthecontrary,Strathernismaking herselfperfectlyunderstoodtoherintendedreadership,thatisanthropologistsand otheracademicsinterestedinkinshipandrelatedness.Abookaboutthesametopic oughttobewrittenforageneralaudience,andpreferablybyananthropologist,but thereisnopressingreasonwhyStrathernshoulddoitherself.Moreover,refusing toacknowledgethattextssometimeshavetoofferresistance,especiallyifthey aretryingtosaysomethingnew,wouldbeblatantpopulism.Sometimes,ideasare compromised,orflattened,iftheyaretranslatedintoanondescriptmiddle-class prose.Itcanbenecessarytobedifficultifyouhavedifficultthingstosay. ThepointthatI’mgettingto,whichisthemessageofthischapter,isthatwhether one’sintendedreadershipisahundredorahundredthousand,awritershouldthink veryhardaboutwhotheymightbe.Sometimesdifficultwritinghastomakefor difficultreading.Aristotlecanbeexcruciatinglydifficulttoread,evenifacademic jargonhadyettobeinventedwhenhewrote.Butawriterhasanobligationtowards hisorheraudience.Sometrytoimpresstheirreaders,otherstrytointimidatethem. Someappearasteachers,othersasfriends.Somereaderswanttobeimpressed, especiallywhenyoung,andareeasyvictimsforthepeacocksofacademiaunless
AltercentricWriting • 117 theyareluckyenoughtostumbleacrossthetrulyprofound(withlimitedexperience, itcanbedifficulttoseethedifference);otherssimplywanttobetaught,andyet othersenjoyhavingsomeknowledgeablepersontodiscusswith. Inhisdiscussionofsuccessfulpopularizationinanthropology,Sutton(1991) isespeciallyconcernedwiththequestionofreadership.Scrutinizingthestrategies employedbyMarvinHarris,WadeDavisandAshleyMontagu,heconcludesthat theydifferagreatdealfromoneanother,butinallcases,‘theirwritingisdirectly concernedwiththecontextofitsreception’(Sutton1991:100).Harrisasksriddles (although,asMarshallSahlinsonceremarked,theanswerisalwaysprotein).Davis appliesastorytellingmodeandappeals,likeanovelist,tothesharedworldinhabited byboththereaderandhimself.Montagu,finally,initiatesakindofdialogicrelationshipwiththereaderinSutton’sview,activelyaskingforthereader’sreactionsand arguingthattheideashepresentsoughttomakeadifferencetothereader’slife. Anthropologistsarenottrainedtobeeloquent.Unlikethehistorians,anthropologistsarenottaught,orevenencouraged,towritewell.Onthewhole,non-initiates confrontedwithtypicalanthropologicalwritingarelikelytoagreewithPratt(1986: 33)whowonders,‘how...couldsuchinterestingpeopledoingsuchinteresting thingsproducesuchdullbooks?’Now,theyaresometimesabletoescapefromdullness.Manyanthropologistsareinfactexcellentwriters,butitisalmostasiftheytry toconcealitinordertoconformtothestandardsofstylesetbytheirpeers. Thatmanyanthropologistsareperfectlycapableofwritingwell,isregularly demonstratedinthepagesofamagazinesuchasAnthropologyToday.Infact, manyofthecontributionstoATaresogood,sowellwrittenandinterestingfora generalreadership,thatonecanonlylamentthefactthatthismagazinepublished bytheRoyalAnthropologicalInstitute,abodycommittedtothepopularizationof anthropology,isonlybeingdistributedtoanthropologists.Asusual,anthropologists arerathergoodattalkingtoeachother,butdon’tseemtoworrytoomuchaboutthe restoftheworld.Asamatteroffact,manyofthemostrespectedanthropologistsare abletowriteengaginglyandwell.Geertzisthefirstnamethatcomestomind;but MarshallSahlinsalsosparkleswithwitandintelligentpunsasaspeakeratpublic functions(Sahlins1993);andbothMaryDouglasandLévi-Strausscanbedamnfine writerswhentheysettheirmindtoit.Justtomentionafewofthebiggestnames. Whatcountsaseffectivewritinghaschanged,inanthropologyaselsewhere,since theearlytwentiethcentury.InMalinowski’stime,theanthropologistwasexpected tobeanomniscientobserverofferingnotonlyethnographicdetailbutalsoageneral overviewtohismotleyreadership.ThusMalinowskiintroducingtheTrobrianders: ThecoastalpopulationsoftheSouthSeaIslands,withveryfewexceptions,are,or werebeforetheirextinction,expertnavigatorsandtraders.Severalofthemhadevolved excellenttypesoflargesea-goingcanoes,andusedtoembarkinthemondistanttrade expeditionsorraidsofwarandconquest.ThePapuo-Melanesians,whoinhabitthecoast andtheoutlyingislandsofNewGuinea,arenoexceptiontothisrule.(Malinowski1984 [1922]:1).
118 • EngagingAnthropology Today,thiswayofintroducingthefieldwouldappearpreposterousandpompous. Itisnowparamountthattheanthropologistkeepsherearsneartheground,and farfrombeingabsentormakingcameoappearancesinthetext,shecanoftenbea character,apositionedagent,herself;indeed,contemporaryethnographicauthority reliestoagreatextentonsubjective‘I-witnessing’.Considerthispassageatthe beginningofanarticlebyPhilippeBourgois: Ididnotrunfastenoughoutofthedoorofthevideoarcadecrackhousetoavoidhearing thelookout’sbaseballbatthudtwiceagainstacustomer’sskull.Ihadmisjudgedthe harshwords.Caesar,thelookout,hadbeenexchangingwithadrug-intoxicatedcustomer tobetheaggressivebutultimatelyplayfulposturingthatischaracteristicofmuchmale interactiononthestreet.(Bourgois2002:15)
Thesewordsaresaturatedwithspeed,dramaandviolence,andintroducethe ethnographerasaslightlyanxiouscharacterwhoisforcedtodealwiththeunpredictabilityofapatentlydangerousneighbourhood.Bourgois’stextaboutcocaine andgangcrimeinNewYorktakesusalongwayfromMalinowski’sserenetableau fromtheSouthSeas,butbothcountasefficientopeningsinmybook:theytake thereaderbythehand(orbythelapels)immediately,attheoutsetofthetext,and guidehimintoaculturaluniversewhichpresumablyhaslittleincommonwiththe placewherehecarriesouthiseverydayaffairs.Yet,althoughbothintroductory paragraphsarguablysucceedincatchingtheattentionofthereader,neitherofthem isparticularlywellwritten.Malinowski’stextisdryandlexicographical;Bourgois’s textlacksrhythmandmusicality,anditsfirstandlastsentencescontaintoomany clumsilyclusteredwordstoreadsmoothly.Iftheseintroductionsstillworkfor non-professionalreaders,andtheydo,itisbecauseoftheirtantalizingcontent.In Bourgois,thereisspeedandviolence;inMalinowski,thereisculturaldifferenceand thelureoftheSouthSeas. Fartoooften,however,theexcitementofananthropologicaltextstopsonthe titlepage;anthropologicalmonographssurprisinglyoftenhavebeautifulpoetic titleswhichbetraytheirtedious(ifoftenimportant)contents.Itmaybethatabid forrecognitionas‘realscience’inthemid-twentiethcenturyispartlytoblame,but whateverthecasemaybe,itisafactthatanthropologistsdonotvaluegoodwriting ashighlyastheyoughtto.I,forone,havetoldpostgraduatestudentsmorethanafew timesthatitdoesn’tmatteriftheirworkisnotparticularlywellwrittenordramatic initsbuild-up,aslongasitislucid,linearanddevelopscumulatively.However,a consequenceofthisattitudemaybethatwhenanthropologistsonedaywishtoto writeforpeopleotherthanmembersoftheirownprofession,theydiscoverthatthey havelostthelanguagethatwouldhaveenabledthemtoreachout. Malinowskiwasawarethatbadwritingcouldalienateprofessionalanthropologyfromitspotentialreadership,andclumsilyadmitted,inthefirstchapterof Argonauts:
AltercentricWriting • 119 Needlesstoadd...thescientificfield-workisfaraboveeventhebestamateurproductions.Thereis,however,onepointinwhichthelatteroftenexcel.Thisis,inthe presentationofintimatetouchesofnativelife,inbringinghometoustheseaspectsofit withwhichoneismadefamiliaronlythroughbeinginclosecontactwiththenatives,one wayortheother,foralongperiodoftime.(Malinowski1984[1922]:17)
YetforMalinowskithisproblemwasmostpronouncedinquantitativesurveywork entailingsuperficialworkonlargesamples,becauseitcouldbeovercomeinvivid ethnographicdescriptionbasedonlong-termparticipantobservation.Itisnevertheless debatabletowhatextenthe,orthemajorityofhissuccessors,demonstratedthatit wasinfactpossibletocombinescientificrigourwithgoodnarrativewriting.Itcan bearguedthattheychoseanaudienceofthealreadyconverted.AsIsearchthe anthropologicalliterature,canonicalornot,forgoodstorylinesdevelopedinvivid, sparklinglanguage,theanecdoteabouttheanthropologistandthehistoriankeeps hauntingme:Theanthropologistdriesoutthelivingriver,whilethehistorianbrings watertothedryriverbed.Itmaybetruethatanthropologistscarenolessfortheir readersthanotherwritersdo,buttheyareattheirmosteffectivewhenaddressing readerswhoarealreadyhooked.Thehistorians,bycontrast,haveacenturies-old traditionofresponsibilityforenlighteningthepeople.Itisnottheirsoleraison d’être,butwritingfornon-specialistshasalwaysbeenarespectableactivityamong historians,whileanthropologistshavespentagoodpartofthetwentiethcentury turningtheirnosesupatthe‘rustling-of-the-wind-in-the-palm-trees’styleofwriting thatcouldhavebeenonewayofgivingthesubjectabroaderimpact.
InSearchofZombis Therarepublishingsuccessesofanthropologycanalwaysteachussomething aboutthecraftofwriting,themanyformsoftranslation–PaulFeyerabendonce saidthatthebesttranslationofabookbyDostoyevskymightbeonebyDickens –and,occasionally,thetemptationsofliterarypopulism.WadeDavis’sremarkably successfulTheSerpentandtheRainbow(Davis1985)representsonekindofpopular anthropologyatitsverybest,andtellsusmoreaboutthefirsttwothanthethird. Perhapstheimmediacyandfluidityofthisbookaboutvoudun,thezombipuzzle andHaitianpeasantsocietyisconnectedtothefactthatitwaswrittenquickly.Davis steppedofftheplaneinPort-au-PrinceinApril1982;threeyearslater,thebookwas out.Consideringthatthiswashisfirstbook,aswellastheconventionallyslowpace ofacademicwriting,nottomentiontheoftengruellingprocessofrefereeingand actualpublishingofacademictexts,thespeedisalmostmiraculous–evenmoreso asthebookisreallywellcrafted.TheSerpentandtheRainbowisarareexample ofananthropologybookfromrecentdecadeswhichhasenjoyedpopularsuccessas wellasrespectfulnodsfromfellowacademics.
120 • EngagingAnthropology Whatcantherestofuslearnfromabooklikethis?Foronething,thebook definesitsproblem–whatliesattheheartoftheallegedphenomenonofHaitian zombis–succinctlyandwithoutanyunnecessaryelaboration.Foranother,itdoes notburdenthereaderwithintimidatingreferencestoarcanetheoryandin-crowd texts.(Now,Iwouldinfactarguethatsomepopularanthropologybooksshouldin factdojustthis,minustheintimidation,butitisunnecessaryinabookthatismainly ethnographic.)Andofcourse,Daviswasluckyenoughtohaveastorytotellwhich wasboundtocatchtheinterestofmany. Iftoldtherightway,thatis.Throughhisbook,Daviscomesacrossfirstandforemostasanadventurerandastoryteller,andalmostincidentallyasanacademic.It couldmaketherestofusthinkthatmaybewehavethisinourselvestoo,but–alas –wenevercaredtolook. Thestoryistoldintherightmanner,butinmeanderingandidiosyncraticways. Davisenjoystellingstories,andsometimeshiscomparativeimagination,stretched bysnippetsofundergraduateloreandrecentswottingforexams,carrieshimfar fromHaiti–toinstancesofpoisoningintheRussiancourt,toastoryaboutananthropologistamongtheYaquiofMexicoandsoon.Heevenhasthenervetoinclude,in thefirstchaptersofthebook,anarrativefromhisownfirstfieldexperienceinthe Amazon.Allthisiseasilyforgivenbythesympatheticreader,whoismorelikely thannottobeanon-anthropologist.Davistakesvisiblejoyfromtellingstoriesand isunafraidofhisreaders.Farfrommakingthemfeelinadequateorawed,Davis tellsjokes,oftenofaslapstickkind,athisownexpense,andcarrieshislearning lightly.Butheisfarfromalientothelureoftheexoticandgrotesque.Dealingwith aparticularlynastyordealinWestAfricaasaprecursortovoudun,hedescribesthe courthearinglikethis: Iftheaccusedwasluckyenoughtovomitandregurgitatethepoison,hewasjudged innocentandallowedtodepartunharmed.Ifhedidnotvomit,yetmanagedtoreachthe line,hewasalsodeemedinnocent,andquicklygivenaconcoctionofexcrementmixed withwaterwhichhadbeenusedtowashtheexternalgenitaliaofafemale.(Davis1985: 42)
TheSerpentandtheRainbowisdifficulttoplaceinoneofthecategorieslistedinmy firstchapter.Itisasingle-personnarrativewherethereaderfollowstheanthropologist onhispathofdiscovery,andassuch,itcanalmostbereadasaBildungsroman.Atthe outset,Davisisanunfocusedstudentwithwaveringmotivation,idlydrinkingcoffee withafellowstudent;towardstheend,hemetamorphosesintoanaccomplished ethnobotanistwithaRealDiscoverytoshowforhimself. Butthebookisalsoananthropologicalwhodunit,orriddle,wherethemysteries ofHaitianvoudonreligionand,inparticular,thestrangephenomenonofthezombi formthecentrepiece.Davisdoesindeedencounterzombiseventually,andhe identifiesthepoisoncausingtheiruncannyconditionas‘livingdead’.However,like
AltercentricWriting • 121 anygoodsuspensewriter,whenthemysteryfinallyseemstohavebeenunravelled, hetakestheplottoanewlevelanddelvesintothedeepculturalcontextofHaitian beliefsandritualpractices.HedocumentstheinformalpowerwieldedbytheTonton Macoutesandthesecretsocietiesadministeringnotonlypoisonbutvariousother formsofsanctionsaswell,anddiscussestheoriginsofHaitianpeasantculture inNigeriansocietiesandplantationslavery.Bynow,thereaderislikelytobeso engrossedbythepeopleofHaitiandcharmedbytheirethnographerthatsheis preparedtoacceptasmuchcontextualcomplexityasittakestogettothebottom ofvoudun.Asareward,thereaderisgiventounderstandthatitdoesnotarisesui generisbutisconnectedtostateviolenceandlocalpowerstruggles. Inthemainsectionsofthebook,Davisenlivenshistextwithdialogue–real,racy dialoguethatis,notlengthyinformants’statements–andfrankcharacterizations ofindividualsofakindthatmostanthropologistswould,forbetterorworse,shy awayfrom.Thecastofpersonsfeaturedinthebook,moreover,wouldbeworthy ofaGrahamGreenenovel–infact,thecharactersDavisdescribessovividlyare evenmorevariedandexcitingthanthepeopleinhabitingGreene’sHaitiannovel, TheComedians.OntheopeningpagesofDavis’sstory,wemeetthelegendary ethnobotanistRichardEvansSchultes,whohadoncetakenasemester’sleave tocollectplantsintheAmazonandsubsequentlydisappearedintotheforestfor eightyears.Wealsomeet,ontheopeningpages,acastofeccentric,buthighly accomplishedscientistsgivingfatherlyadvice,switchingbetweensphinx-likeand warningmodes,toDavisontheeveofhisdeparture.TheHaitiansarealsopainted withaliterarybrush,andcomeacrossasdiverse,fascinatingpersonalities.Ourfirst encounterwiththeimportantlocalexpertMaxBeauvoirreadslikethis: There,amongadustycollectionofamuletsandAfricanart,MaxBeauvoirawaitedme. Hewasimmediatelyimpressive–tall,debonairindressandmanner,andhandsome. Fluentinseverallanguages,hequestionedmeatlengthaboutmypreviouswork,my academicbackground,andmyintentionsinHaiti.(Davis1985:46)
Davis’slanguageisunashamedlyliterary.Arguingforwhatheseesasevidence oftheAfricanheritageinHaitiansociety,hedescribesthesocialenvironmentlike this: Inthefields,longlinesofmenwieldhoestotherhythmofsmalldrums,andjustbeyond themsitsteamingpotsofmilletandyamsreadyfortheharvestfeast....Marketssprout upateverycrossroads,andlikemagnetstheypullthewomenoutofthehills;onesees theirnarrowtrafficonthetrails,thebillowywalkofgirlsbeneathbasketsofrice,the silhouetteofastubbornmatrondraggingahalf-dozendonkeysladenwitheggplant. (Davis1985:72)
IntheimportantsectionwhereDavisfinallysucceedsinmeetingandencountering amanwhohasbeenmadeazombiandhasrecovered,muchofthedescriptiontakes theformofdialoguebetweenethnographerandinformant.
122 • EngagingAnthropology ‘Evenastheycastthedirtonmycoffin,Iwasnotthere.Myfleshwasthere,’hesaid, pointingtotheground,‘butIfloatedhere,movingwherever.Icouldheareverything thathappened.Thentheycame.Theyhadmysoul,theycalledme,castingitintothe ground.’Narcisselookedupfromtheground.Attheedgeofthecemeteryapairofthin gravediggersstoodasstillandattentiveasgazelles.Narcissefelttheweightoftheir recognition. ‘Aretheyafraidofyou?’Rachelasked. ‘No,’hereplied,‘onlyifIwascreatingproblems,thenI’dhaveproblemsmyself.’ (Davis1985:81)
Returningtocampusinaninterludewhichefficientlyconstruestheenormousgulf betweenruralHaitiandsuburbanNorthAmerica,Davispresentshispreliminary scientificdiscoveries,againlargelybymeansofdialogue,thistimewithtwospecialists.HeisnowonthebrinkofdiscoveringwhatkindofpoisonHaitiansusetomake peopleappeardead,butcapableofbeingresuscitated. ‘Anythingonitschemistry?’[Nathan]Klineasked. ‘Notmuch.IspokewithProfessorSchultes,andheseemstothinktheseedsare psychoactive.He’salsoseenitusedmedicinallyinColombiatotreatcholeraandinternal parasites.’ [Bo]Holmstedtjoinedin.‘ThereisaspeciesofMucunacalled...Damnit,whatisit? Yes,flaggelipes.It’susedinCentralAfricaasanarrowpoison.’(Davis1985:110)
Afterdiscussingthevariouspossiblesourcesofthepoison,theyconclude: ‘Whataboutthetoad?’Holmstedtasked. ‘Bufomarinus.’ ‘You’recertain.’ ‘It’sunmistakable.ThepeopleatHerpetologyconfirmedit.’ Holmstedtpausedtoconsider.‘Quite,’hesaidfinally,andlookingstraightatme. ‘Wade,I’dsayyou’reontosomething.’(Davis1985:112)
Afewpageslater,Davisstumblesoverthefinal,crucialingredientintheHaitian concoction,namelythepufferfish.Thesourceturnsouttobeanunlikelyremark madebyalabworkeraboutthefinalsceneofaJamesBondfilm,whereittranspires thatthepoisonpreparedfromthisfishslowsdownbodilyfunctionstothepointof makingpeopleappeardead.Thepuzzleaboutthepoisonisresolved–thezombi phenomenonhasacrediblebiochemicalexplanation–butDavis’sexploration hasonlyjustbegun.HenowreturnstoHaitideterminedtomakesenseofthedark ritualscarriedoutbythepriestsofthereligionofthenight,todrummusicandthe flickeringflamesoftorchesandcandles,aquestthateventuallybringshimtothe heartofthepowerful,secretBizangosociety.
AltercentricWriting • 123 Itisrisky,toputitmildly,topresentone’sscientificworkinthismanner.Davis rarelyleavesthestorytellingmodetodo‘properanalysis’,andhisownpersonais sonearthatthereadercanalmosthearhisvoice.Heneverabandonstheengaged, subjectiveviewpointofthenoviceonthetrackofanexcitingdiscovery.Thisstyle isnotforeverybody,butTheSerpentandtheRainbowisinterestinginthatitshows howfaronecanventurefromtheestablishedconventionsofscientificdiscourse withoutlosingcaste.Forthebook,theethnographyandeventhepersonaDavishas createdforhimselfappearcredible,notthroughthesuspensionofdisbeliefrequired bywritersoffiction,butbecauseofinternalconsistency.Davis’sisnottheonlystory toldbyananthropologistaboutvoudonandzombis,anditmaynotevenbethebest, butithasmanystrengthsevenifjudgedfromanacademicviewpoint.Inthecontext ofthepresentbook,thatisitsmostimpressiveachievement. Inhishauntingsong‘SomethingaboutYsabel’sDance’(1989),PeterHammill bemoansthedebilitatinginfluenceoftourismonlocalculture(‘Placesdisappear, butthenames/remainasalibis’),buthemaintainsthatafterhours,hisheroinewill, maybe,‘dancethedanceforrealagain’.Thesongendswiththelines,‘There’s somethinghere/theanthropologistdarenotexplain/SomethingaboutYsabel’s dance.’Suggestingthattheacademicapproachislimitedwhenitisconfrontedwith passion,Hammillisofcourseright,yethemighthavebeenimpressedbyDavis’s optimistic,almostboyishabilitytoconveytheflavoursandsmellsofHaitianlife withoutleavinghisacademicquest. Now,TheSerpentandtheRainbowarguablyveerstowardsexoticism,butatthe sametimeittreatsHaitiansrespectfullyandmakesitpossibleforWesternreaders withoutmuchexposureto‘othercultures’tounderstandhowandwhyitcanbethat Haitiansarebothdifferentfromandsimilartothemselves.Inthisshared,shrinking worldofours,anthropologistshaveadutytodowhattheydobest,namelytomake credibletranslationsbetweendifferentlife-worldsandworld-views,andtoshowhow suchtranslationsmakeembarrassingreadingforglobaleliteswhoseethemselvesas theguardiansofuniversalhumanism.Ratherthanregurgitatingtherelativistviews ofearlytwentieth-centuryanthropology,acontemporarypublicanthropologycan representauniversalhumanismwhichrecognizesthesignificanceofdifference.By virtueofitsexperience-nearmaterial,anthropologistsareinabetterpositionthan mosttodothiscrucialjob. Letmeputitlikethis.Asked,doubtlessbyanadoringdisciple,aboutthenature oftruth,theGermanpolymathandiconoclastRudolfSteinerrespondedwitha counter-question:‘Whatisthetruthaboutamountain?’Respondingtohisown question,theageingsagesaidthatonecouldapproachthemountainfromthenorth, fromthesouth,fromtheeastandfromthewest–and,indeed,fromabove–andone wouldseedifferentthings.Andonemightadd:onecouldapproachthemountain withthemindofamountaineer,ageologist,askier,alandscapepainter...Sowhat istruth?PerhapsthemostsacredcontributionofEuropeanthoughttoworldculture,
124 • EngagingAnthropology onemarshalledbyanthropologymorethananyotherschoolofthought,istheinsight thatalltheseviewsofthemountainareequallytrueandthatweneedaworldwhere alltheperspectivesonthemountainhavearightfulplace.Infulfillingthisvision, anthropologyhasanalmostsacredvocation.
TargetingtheAudience AsIwasdraftingthischapterinNovember2004,Iwasinterruptedbyane-mail fromtheculturaleditoroftheSwedishnewspaperSydsvenskaDagbladet,whereI occasionallycontributeabookrevieworacommentary.IntheaftermathoftheUS elections,hewonderedif,sinceIhadwrittenaboutsimilartopicsbefore,Iwould writeanarticleaboutthepossiblegrowinggulfbetweenurbanandruralpopulations intheNorthAtlanticarea–notjustintheUS,butinEuropeaswell.Althoughthe topicwasnotfarfrommyfield,Ihesitated.Afterall,Ihadabooktofinish,andthe paperneededthearticlewithinacoupleofdaysatmost.Ontheotherhand,since thisbookwasgoingtobepreciselyabouttheanthropologistaspublicintellectual,I thought‘Tohellwithit’,pouredmyselfaglassofredandsettowork.ThisiswhatI wrote(originallyinNorwegian,translatedintoSwedishbySydsvenskan):
StadtluftMachtFrei InthelastcoupleofweeksbeforetheUSpresidentialelections,themedia showedmapsdepictingthepredictedoutcome.Kerrywaspoisedtowinalong thecoasts,morespecificallyalongtheentirewestcoastandtheeastcoastfrom MainetoMaryland.InsomeofthestatesaroundtheGreatLakes,hewasalso doingwell,especiallyintheChicagoarea.Therestofthemapshowedalikely Republicanmajority.Amorefine-grainedmapwouldhaverevealedaDemocratic majorityinthelargercitiesandRepublicanmajoritieselsewhere. Instyleandexternalappearance,thetwocandidatesrepresenteddifferent facesoftheUSA,andtherewerealsomarkeddifferencesintheirrespective politicalprogrammes.Kerry,aYankeefromthenorth-east,wasfavourabletoa morevisibleregulationoftheeconomyandamoreresponsiblebudgetpolicy. HealsoseemedmoreconcernedthattheUSshouldhavetrustworthyallies inEuropethanBush,who,onhispart,carriedoutarhetoricallystrongand emotionallypotentcampaignbasedonaparticularsetofideologicalnotions abouttheessentialAmerica:churchandfamily,idyllicsmall-townAmerica,and thespiritofcompetitiveness. Commenting on the campaign, many have written and said that the US isadeeplydividedcountry.[Thewell-knownjournalist]ÅsneSeierstad,who coveredthepresidentialelectioninNorwegianmedia,opinedthatEuropean commentatorshadfailedtounderstand‘ordinaryAmericans’.Mostofthemhad supportedandbelievedinKerry.
AltercentricWriting • 125 Now,onemay,inthenameofjustice,askwhatmakesamechanicinthe Biblebeltsomuchmore‘ordinary’thanalawyerinBostonorastudentinSan Francisco,andtheinterestingquestionishowthedivision,ifitexists,canbe described. Kerryandhissupportersrepresentedthe‘liberal’faceoftheUSA(theword ‘liberal’,inAmericanusage,usuallymeans‘radical’;like‘toilet’,‘radical’isataboo word).ItistheUSAofthecosmopolitanbigcities,theUSAofmulticulturalism, secularJewry,toleranceandindividualismandthatofsinglemothers,affirmative action,taxincreasesandgayrights.Bushandhispeoplestandforamore traditional modernity founded in religion, big business and petty-bourgeois values. Thedistinctioncannoteasilyberelatedtoclass.Inacountrywhereclass consciousnessisweaklydeveloped,manyimmigrantsandothersinthelowincomebracketvoteforBush.Onthecontrary,itappearstobearural-urban contrast,whichishighlyinteresting.IthasbeensaidtimeandagainthatKerry isclosertoEurope,culturallyandideologically,thanBush.Butthetruthmay bethatheisclosertourbanEurope,thatistheregionswhereEuropeanmedia commentatorsbelong. The maps depicting voting patterns in Norway and Sweden around the EUreferendumsin1994indicatedthatsupportersofEUmembershipwere inmajorityinthebigcityregionsonly–inandaroundStockholm,Göteborg, Malmö,OsloandBergen.InGreatBritainithasbecomeacommonviewthat theglobalcityofLondonrepresentssomethingquitedifferentfromtherestof England.AndonecouldmakeasimilarstatementaboutParisinthecontextof France,BerlininGermanyandCopenhageninDenmark.Thedistancebetween cityandcountryside,whichhasbeenshrinkingthroughtwohundredyearsof determinednation-buildingandindustrialization,seemstobegrowingagain.This isjustastrueofEuropeasitisoftheUSA. Thebigcitiesoffermuchfreedomandlittlesecurity.Theyenabletheirinhabitants tohandledirtandcomplexity,noiseandchange.Smallercommunitiesaremore likelytocultivatetheirtraditionsandtheirlocaluniqueness.Ruralbelongingoffers thepossibilityofgrowingroots,butonecannotgrowrootsthroughtarmac,and asacompensation,thecitiesofferfeet. TheGermansaying‘Stadtluftmachtfrei’[Cityairmakesonefree]hasitsorigins inamedievallegalprinciple,whichstatedthatserfswhospentmorethanayear inatownorcitywithoutbeingtracedbythefeudallord,weregivenfreedom. Inmorerecenttimes,cityairandfreedomhavebeenassociatedinotherways. Youngmenfromthecountrywhomovetotowninordertodevelopasindividuals, arearecurrentkindofcharacterinearlymodernEuropeanliterature,andtheyare alsoabundantlypresentinAfricannovels.Thecitygeneratescomplexityand makesalternativewaysoflifepossible.Iamunawareofanystatistics,butIshould beverysurprisedifgaysandlesbianswerenotperceptiblyover-representedin thebigcities.Nowadays,thereisadocumentedtendencythatrefugeeswhoare forciblyplacedinruralregionsduringthefirstperiodoftheirstayinNorway,move toacityassoonastheirfreedomofmovementisreturnedtothem.
126 • EngagingAnthropology Earlytwenty-firstcenturycitiesarecharacterizedbytheneweconomy.They arenolongerprimarilyindustrial,butproduceservicesofallkindsandenormous amountsofinformation.InmanyWesterncities,therearemorepeoplepaidto comeupwithstrikingslogansthanthereareconstructionworkers.Thistendency hasledtoagentrificationofEuropeanandAmericancities,whicharecurrently dominateddemographicallybythemiddleclassesandbyethnicminorities. Thecityisassociatedwithliberalattitudestoalternativewaysoflife,freedom andrisk,crimeandpollution,mediapowerandmulticulturalism,sinfultemptations rangingfromprostitutiontonightclubs,coffeeshopsandbusyness,anonymity andalienation.Manyofthesetopicshavebeendealtwithbywritersonurban lifeformorethanahundredyears.Whatisnew,istheroleofthebigcitiesas nodalpointsintheglobalizationprocess,or‘switchboards’tousetheSwedish anthropologistUlfHannerz’sterm.Here,illegalimmigrantscanhideandmaybe findasmalljobwithoutbeingcaughtbytheauthorities;itisinthebigcities that impulses and influences from abroad first establish themselves, and it is impossible to monitor every movement and activity. The city is unruly. In Mauritius,whereIlivedinafishingvillageforafewmonths,Itoldmyhostfamily thatIintendedtomovetoPort-Louis,thecapital,aboutanhour’sbusrideaway. Theywarnedme.Watchoutforpickpocketsandrobbers,theysaid,addingthat citypeopleingeneralweregodlessandunreliable.Thisattitudemaybetypical, butthepolarizationbetweentownandcountryisstrengthenedbyglobalization. Thetendencyisthatcitydwellershavemoreincommonwithcity-dwellersin othercountriesthanwiththeruralpopulationintheirown.Theyfavourincreased immigration,aweakeningofreligiouspower,freeabortion,broadband,andhave aninternationalorientation. Inthistension,thereisapoliticalgulfwhichhasnotfullybeenexploited,butit maystillcome.AlainMincwrote,in1991,aboutEurope’snewMiddleAges,that isalliancesbetweencitiesleadingtoamarginalizationoftheurbanareas,where StockholmmighthavemorecontactwithMilanthanwith[peripheral]Falun. TheLatinofourtime,themediumofcommunicationtyingthecitiestogether,is naturallyEnglish,butMincistoomuchofaFrenchmantodiscussthataspect. Thebigcitiesfunctionlikepowerfulmagnets,buttheyhavetheirlimitations. ForevenifStadtluftmachtfrei,itdoesnotcreatesecurity.Itmayseemasifthe majorityofAmericanvotersoptedforsecuritythistime.Thequestioniswhether thesamekindofpolarizationwitnessedintheUSAwillalsofinditsexpressionin Europe,andifso,whowillwin.
Theformofthisshortarticlewasentirelyshapedbyconsiderationsaboutthe readership.TherespectedculturepageofSydsvenskaDagbladettendstoberead bythe‘chatteringclasses’ofsouthernSweden,includingpolicymakers,academics andvariousothers.WheneverIwriteanythinginthisnewspaper,Iknowmore specificallythatitwillbereadbymanyoftheacademicswhoworkattheUniversity ofLundandMalmöUniversity,andsowritingforthepapersetsmethinking,‘I wonderhowmyoldfriendO.H.isgoingtoreacttothis,’or‘I’dbetterphrasethis
AltercentricWriting • 127 morecarefully,sinceJ.F.mightreadit’.Itmaywellinfactbethecasethat,having ahandfulofsouthernSwedishreadersinmind,mymodestoutputforSydsvenskanis differentintoneandapproachfromwhatitwouldhavebeeninadifferentnewspaper. Suchfinedistinctionsshouldnotbeexaggerated,butitisnotatrivialpointthat distinctpublicspheresencouragedistinctwaysofcommunicating.TheNewYork ReviewofBooksreviewessayisadistinctgenrewithitsownliteraryconventions, in-jokesandcriteriaforassessingquality.The800-wordbookreviewintheJournal oftheRoyalAnthropologicalInstituteortheAmericanAnthropologistislikelytobe verydifferentfroman800-wordbookreviewpublishedbythesamereviewer,on thesamebook,inadailynewspaperorgeneral-audiencemagazine.Aseditorofa bi-monthlyculturaljournalcalledSamtiden[Thepresenttime]from1993to2001,I discoveredthatitwouldbeverydifficulttochangethestyleandformatofthetypical Samtidenarticle.EnvisioningamoreexperimentalandvariedjournalwhenIbegan mytenure,Iwassoontolearnthatwhenpeoplewroteforthisparticularjournal,they adoptedamodeofwritingwhichhaddeveloped,becomeassociatedwiththejournal andslowlyevolved,forthelasthundredyears.ThetypicalSamtidenarticleisan essayof4,000to5,000wordswithlessthantwentyendnotesandlessthanfifteen references,dealingwithacurrenttopicoraclassicalonemadecurrentthrougha recenteventorthewriter’soriginalargument.Thestyleofwritingislightenoughto beaccessibletoreadersintheirlateteens,yetthecontentcanbeaschallengingas thewriteriscapableofmakingit.Afterhavingreceivedafewdozenarticlesofthis kind,solicitedandunsolicited,Ibegantoponderhowthiskindofconventioncould beperpetuatedsoefficiently.Theanswerisprobablythatthewritershadaparticular kindofreaderinmindastheywrote,anamalgamationoftheeditor(whosetastewas evidentthroughthepreviousissues)andtheidealreader,whohadprobablyenjoyed previousissues.Whilecaringforone’sreadersisalaudabletraitinanywriter, stereotypicalideasaboutreaders’expectationsdonotmakeforinnovativewriting.It canbeagoodexercisetowritefordifferentaudiences,notleastbecauseitsensitizes thewritertotheriskofcateringtostandardizedformats.Thisriskisjustasrealin academicwritingproperasincommercialbooksandjournalism. Ihavementionedspeedseveraltimesasafactordistinguishingtypicalanthropologyfromthetypicalengagedintervention.Butanthropologistscanwritequickly iftheyfeeltheyhaveto.FollowingthepublicationofE.O.Wilson’sSociobiology, MarshallSahlinsquicklywroteanangrylittlepamphlet,TheUseandAbuseof Biology,denouncingWilson’ssimplisticviewofhumanlifeinplainlanguage.The pamphletdiditsworkatthetime,shiftingthegeneralfocusofthedebateslightly. Inasituationofurgency,itcanbedone.Itisembarrassingtoobservethatthecommentatorsandanalystswhosettheagendaforthepublicbuzzaboutglobalquestions andgeopoliticsfartoorarelysharetheintellectualapproachsetoutatthebeginning ofthissection,whichcharacterizeananthropologicalwayofthinkingaboutthe world.
128 • EngagingAnthropology Speedisnottheonlyfactor.Theuseofanarrativemodeofpresentation,good writingandasenseofurgencyareequallyimportant.Likeitornot,virtuallyall thebooksonglobalaffairsthatmakeanimpactoutsideacademia,haveasimple argumentatbottom:theUSAisanevilimperialistforce(Chomsky);thecitizens oftheworldwantWesternmodernityandareembitteredwhentheycan’thaveit (T.Friedman,Fukuyama);thereisanemergingclashofcivilizationscausedby fundamentallydifferentvalues(Huntington);theUSAisHobbesianwhileEuropeis Kantian(Kagan);thereisaconflictbetweenunfetteredcapitalism(‘freemarkets’) anddemocracy(Chua);themaintensionintheworldisbetweenneo-liberalismand fundamentalisms(Barber).Whenyoubuyabookthatsignalssuchamessagein thetitleoratleastontheblurb,youknowsomethingaboutwhatyouwillget.Not everything,butenoughtomakeyou,asaninterestedlayperson,wanttopickthe bookup.Sahlins’shastilywrittenpamphletagainstsociobiologyworkedinexactly thesameway.Largelydispensingwiththeusualacademicalapparatusofreferences, astheauthoradmitsdoingattheoutset,thebookmorethancompensatesforthis throughitstemperandengagement.Itisevidentthatsomethingisatstakeforthe writer,andthiskindofsentimentiscontagious.Itflattersusasreadersbecauseit makesusfeel,justasWadeDavisdoes,thatthewriterisinterestedinus. Theconclusionisnotthatthereisaninevitabletrade-offbetweencomplexity andefficiency,butthatnarrative-drivenaccounts,whichmayinfactbeengagementdriven,aremorelikelytocatchtheattentionofawidereadershipthanchiefly analyticalones.Manyanthropologybookscouldhavebeenturnedintocompelling narrativeswithoutlosingtheiranalyticalcomplexity;theanalysiswouldjusthave tobewovenintothenarrative.Anessentialvoiceismissingfromthegeneral intellectualdebatesaboutthestateoftheworld–thevoicewhichpurportstosay somethingabouttheviewfromtheotherside,beitremoteorsubaltern,orboth.Itis thevoiceofananthropologywhichcaresforitsreaders,whoevertheymightbe.
–7– WhyAnthropologyMatters Itmaynotbenecessarythatthefirstsentenceattachesitselftothereader’seyelikea fish-hook,pullingitirresistablydowntothepage. Butithelpsifitdoes.Ihaveusedtheprojectofresearchingandwritingthisbook asafoilforreflectingonthewaysinwhichanthropologycouldreclaimitsrightful placeasafundamentalintellectualdiscipline,andonewhichcouldcontributenot onlytounderstandingtheworld,butchangingit.Theconclusionisnotaplea forpopulism.Amassiveamountofhigh-quality,strictlyacademicresearchis continuouslybeingproducedinanthropology,andthisisnotmerelywonderful, butitisabsolutelynecessary.Yetmuchofthisworkfailstoachievetherelevanceit deserves,sinceithardlyentersintoawiderecologyofideas. Sometimeago,Icameacrossareallynicearticleabouttheslowfoodmovement inItaly,writtenbyAlisonLeitchforEthnos(Leitch2003).Thearticle,orperhaps Ishouldsayessay,describesthegrowthofthemovementasareactionagainstthe ‘goldenarches’andsoullessfoodoftheAmerican(anddomestic,itmustinalljustice besaid)fast-foodchains.Theslowfoodmovement,foundedbytheleftistwriterand wineenthusiastCarloPetriniin1987(Petrini2001),spreadquicklyincertainparts ofItalyinthelate1990s,anditcombinedapoliticalcritiqueofglobalization-cumstandardizationwithanational,andoftenregional,patriotismassociatedwithlocal produceandculinaryachievement.Leitch’sfieldworkareawasCarrarainTuscany, ofCarraramarblefame,andfollowingafive-yeargapafterheroriginalfieldwork, shearrivedtofindthemarbleindustryinashambles,withhighunemploymentand generaldecline.Insteadofcontinuingherfieldworkamongmarbleworkers,she wasattractedtoanewphenomenon,whichwas–ofallthings–thecultoflard.Il lardodeColonnata,alocalspeciality,whichhastheadditionalcharm(tosome)of subvertingthegloballow-caloriehysteria,hadrecentlybeennominatedas‘thekey exampleofanationally“endangeredfood”’(Leitch2003:438). WhatLeitchdoes,whichmakesherarticlesoattractive,consistsintracingthe shiftingmeaningoflardothroughthelastdecades,fromanunmarkedlocalfoodto apotentsymbolofresistanceandacertaindolcevitaassociatedwithItaly.Shealso writesinterestinglyabouttheplaceoffoodintheItalianleftandtheinevitableconflict betweenlocalproducersandthenational,morehighbrowSlowFoodmovement.It somehowremindedmeofthepredatordebateathomeinNorway,wheremarginal sheep-farmerswanttoshootthewolveswhileurbanconservationistswanttoletthe endangeredcreaturesbreedinpeace.
129
130 • EngagingAnthropology Finishingthearticleandwantingmore,IsentAlisonLeitchane-mailaskingif shehadpublishedanythingaboutlardoforpeoplewhodonotregularlyreadjournals likeEthnos.Sherespondedthatshewouldloveto,butwell,nothingmuchyet.This isthesituationformanyofus.Thereasonswhymostofusremaininsideacademia withourworkincludetimeconstraints,alackofwell-developedchannelsoutside ourownclosedcircuits,aninformal(andincreasinglyformal)rankingsystemwithin thesubjectwhichdisdainsnon-academicwriting,andasaconsequence,afailureto developtheskillsnecessarytoreachalargerormorevariedaudience. Inthisbook,Ihavespokenaboutthepossibilityofpresentingtheintricaciesof anthropologicalknowledgeinstraightforward,vividlanguage,ourdutytomake theworldsimplerandmorecomplexatthesametime,andtheneedforagreater awarenessofformandstyle;butIhavealsostressedtheimportanceofnarrative throughout.Thestrangelackofgoodstoriesinmostanthropologicalwriting,andthe generalreluctancetomakebold,surprisingcomparisons,makesthesetextstough goingmostofthetime.Moreover,thestoriesandcomparisonsthatdoexistaremore oftenthannothiddeninalabyrinthofacademicclaptrapanddiscussionsinternalto thesubject.Equallyimportantistheconsciousnessabouttherebeingapublicsphere outthere,thatthereareintelligentnon-specialistswhocareaboutourknowledgeand whoarerightfullyexasperatedifwefailtogetitthroughtothem. Thisargumentisworthwhileonlybecauseanthropologyhassomuchtooffer. Apartfromprovidingaccurateknowledgeaboutotherplacesandsocieties,itgives anappreciationofotherexperiencesandtheequalvalueofallhumanlife,andnot least,ithelpsustounderstandourselves.Inthecontemporary,intertwinedworld, anthropologyshouldbeacentralpartofanybody’sBildung,thatiseducationinthe widestsense.Anthropologycanteachhumilityandempathy,andalsotheabilityto listen,arguablyoneofthescarcestresourcesintherichpartsoftheworldthesedays. Itcanevenbefun. ‘Youhavenothingtolosebutyouraitches’,saidOrwelltohismiddle-class compatriotsinclass-dividedBritain,therebymakingthepointthattherewasnothing tofearfromapproachingtheworldoftheworkingclasswithanopenmind.Ina criticalcommentaryonOrwellandhis‘aitches’,AnthonyBurgessremarks:‘But thosewerejustwhathecouldnotlose.Hehadatheartthecauseofworking-class justice,buthecouldn’treallyaccepttheworkersasrealpeople’(Burgess1978: 32–33).UnfairtoOrwellasBurgess’sjudgementmightbe,itisnightmarishevento imaginethatsomethingsimilarmightbeposterity’sverdictonanthropologyinits twilightyearsoftheearlytwenty-firstcentury.Butitisnotunthinkable. Thereis,inotherwords,arealjobtobedoneonanthropology’srelationshiptothe societalcirculationofideas.Evenwhenanthropologistsgooutoftheirwaytowrite well,totellstoriesandtoconfrontthebigissues–whichtheysometimesdo,iffar toorarely–theyarenotnoticed.Itsometimesfeelsasthoughonehasbeenpigeon holedonceandforallasadatedromanticwritingimpenetrabletexts,burnished,asit were,withthedamningmarkofanthropology.Inthiskindofsituation,itisperhaps
WhyAnthropologyMatters • 131 notsurprisingthatmostanthropologistsretreattotheirinstitutionalizeduniversity life.Myview,whichhasbeenmadeapparentthroughoutthisshortbook,isthatwe shoulddotheopposite,thatanthropologyneedsaPRstrategy,bothforthesakeof theenlightenmentoftheworldandforthefutureofthediscipline. Seenfromtheperspectiveoftheinterestedandenlightenedlayperson,scientific researchcanbelikenedtoaspacemission.Onesendsaprobeintospace,ceremoniouslywavingitoffintheanticipationthatitwillreturnwithnewknowledge abouttheuniverse.Eachtimeonesuchspacecraftfailstoreturn,butinsteadchooses tostayoutthere,ponderingthecalmdarknessinsilence,itbecomeslesslikelythat ourenlightenedcitizenwillcontributefundsforanotherprobe.Iftheworldisour oyster,ourjobistomakeittalk.
This page intentionally left blank
Bibliography Ahmed,AkbarS.(1992)IslamandPostmodernism:PredicamentandPromise. London:Routledge. ——andCrisShore(eds)(1995)TheFutureofAnthropology:ItsRelevancetothe ContemporaryWorld.London:Athlone. AmericanAnthropologicalAssociation (1947) Statement on Human Rights. AmericanAnthropologist,49(4):539–43. Ardener,Edwin(1985)‘Theendofmodernisminsocialanthropology’,inReason andMorality,(ed.)JoannaOvering,pp.47–70.London:Tavistock. Aunger,Robert(2002)TheElectricMeme:AnewTheoryofHowWeThink.New York:FreePress. ——(2000)(ed.)DarwinizingCulture:TheStatusofMemeticsasaScience.Oxford: OxfordUniversityPress. Barber,Benjamin(1996)Jihadvs.McWorld:HowGlobalismandTribalismare ReshapingtheWorld.NewYork:Ballantine. Barley, Nigel (1985) The Innocent Anthropologist. Notes from a Mud Hut. Harmondsworth:Penguin. Barnard,Alan(1999)‘Modernhunter-gatherersandearlysymbolicculture’,in TheEvolutionofCulture:AnInterdisciplinaryView,(eds)ChrisKnight,Robin DunbarandCamillaPowers,pp.50–70.Edinburgh:EdinburghUniversityPress. Barth,Fredrik(1980)AndresLiv–ogVårtEget[Others’Lives–andOurOwn]. Oslo:Gyldendal. ——(1969)(ed.)EthnicGroupsandBoundaries:TheSocialOrganizationof CultureDifference.Oslo:ScandinavianUniversityPress. Bateson,Gregory(1972)‘Ecologyandflexibilityinurbancivilization’,inBateson, StepstoanEcologyofMind,pp.502–514.NewYork:BasicBooks. ——(1978)MindandNature.Glasgow:Fontana. Baumann,Gerd(1996)ContestingCulture:DiscoursesofIdentityinMulti-ethnic London.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress. Benedict,Ruth1970[1934]PatternsofCulture.Boston,MA:HoughtonMifflin. ——1974[1946]TheChrysanthemumandtheSword.Boston,MA:Houghton Mifflin. Benthall,Jonathan(2002a)Generalintroduction,inTheBestofAnthropologyToday, (ed.)JonathanBenthall,pp.1–15.London:Routledge. ——(2002b)(ed.)TheBestofAnthropologyToday.London:Routledge.
133
134 • Bibliography Berlin,Isaiah(1976)VicoandHerder.Twostudiesinthehistoryofideas.London: HogarthPress. Berreman,Gerald(1968)‘Isanthropologyalive?’,inCurrentAnthropology9(5): 391–396. Blackmore,Susan(1999)TheMemeMachine.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress. Bloch,Maurice(2000)‘Awell-disposedanthropologist’sproblemswithmemes’, inDarwinizingCulture,(ed.)RobertAunger,pp.189–204.Oxford:Oxford UniversityPress. Borchgrevink,Tordis(2003)‘Etubehagiantropologien’[Somethingunsettlingin anthropology],inNæreSteder,NyeRom:UtfordringeriAntropologiskeStudier iNorge[ClosePlaces,NewSpaces:ChallengesforAnthropologicalStudies inNorway],(eds)MarianneRugkåsaandKariT.Thorsen,pp.263–291.Oslo: Gyldendal. Borofsky,Robert(2005)Yanomami:TheFierceControversyandWhatWeCan LearnFromIt.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress. Boskovic,Aleksandar(2003)‘PhantomsofAfrica:MichelLeirisandtheanthropologyofthecontinent’,inGradhiva34:1–6. Bourgois,Philip(2002)‘Understandinginner-citypoverty:ResistanceandselfdestructionunderUSapartheid’,inExoticNoMore,(ed.)JeremyMacClancy,pp. 15–32.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress. Bringa,Tone(1996)BeingMuslimtheBosnianway:IdentityandCommunityina CentralBosnianVillage.Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress. Brockman,John(1995)(ed.)TheThirdCulture:BeyondtheScientificRevolution. NewYork:Simon&Schuster. Burgess,Anthony(1978)1985.London:Hutchinson. Çaglar,Ayse(1999)‘McKebap:Dönerkebapandthesocialpositioningstruggle ofGermanTurks’,inChangingFoodHabits:CaseStudiesfromAfrica,South AmericaandEurope,(ed.)CarolaLentz,pp.263–283.Amsterdam:Harwood. Campbell,Alan(1996)‘Trickytropes:Stylesofthepopularandthepompous’,in PopularizingAnthropology,(eds)JeremyMacClancyandChrisMcDonaugh,pp. 58–82.London:Routledge. Carrithers,Michael(1992)WhyHumanshaveCultures:ExplainingAnthropology andSocialDiversity.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress. Castells,Manuel(1996)TheRiseoftheNetworkSociety.(TheInformationSociety, I)Oxford:Blackwells. Chagnon,Napoleon(1983)Yanomamö.TheFiercePeople,3rdedition.NewYork: Holt,Rinehart&Winston. Chua,Amy(2003)WorldonFire:HowExportingFreeMarketDemocracyBreeds EthnicHatredandGlobalInstability.London:Arrow. Clastres,Pierre(1977)LaSociétéContrel’État.Paris:Minuit. ——(1988)SocietyAgainsttheState,trans.PaulAuster.NewYork:ZoneBooks. Clifford,James(1997)Routes.TravelandTranslationintheLateTwentiethCentury. Cambridge:HarvardUniversityPress.
Bibliography • 135 ——andGeorgeMarcus(1986)(eds)WritingCulture:ThePoeticsandPoliticsof Ethnography.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress. Cohen,Abner(1981)ThePoliticsofEliteCulture:ExplorationsintheDramaturgy ofPowerinaModernAfricanSociety.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress. ——(1993)MasqueradePolitics:ExplorationsintheStructureofUrbanCultural Movements.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress. Crapanzano,Vincent(1980)Tuhami:PortraitofaMoroccan.Chicago:University ofChigacoPress. Darwin,Charles(1981[1871])TheDescentofMan,andSelectioninRelationto Sex.Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress. Davis,Wade(1985)TheSerpentandtheRainbow.London:Collins. Dawkins,Richard(1976)TheSelfishGene.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress. ——(1986)TheBlindWatchmaker.London:Longman. ——(2004)‘Raceandcreation’,inProspect,103(October2004). Deloria,VineJr.(1969)CusterDiedforyourSins:AnIndianManifesto.NewYork: Macmillan. Dennett,Daniel(1995)Darwin’sDangerousIdea:EvolutionandtheMeaningsof Life.NewYork:Simon&Schuster. Descola, Philippe (1996) ‘A bricoleur’s workshop: Writing Les Lances du Crépuscule’,inPopularizingAnthropology,(eds)JeremyMacClancyandChris McDonaugh,pp.208–224.London:Routledge. Diamond,Jared(1997)Guns,GermsandSteel:AShortHistoryofEveryoneforthe Last13,000Years.London:JonathanCape. ——(2005)Collapse:HowSocietiesChoosetoFailorSucceed.London:Allen Lane. diLeonardo,Micaela(1998)ExoticsatHome:Anthropologies,Others,American Modernity.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress. ——(2001)‘MargaretMeadvs.TonySoprano’,inTheNation,May21,2001. Donner,Florinda(1992)Shabono.SanFrancisco:Harper. Douglas,Mary(1966)PurityandDanger.London:Routledge&KeganPaul. Døving,Runar(2004)RypemedLettøl[GrousewithLightBeer].Oslo:Pax. Duerr,HansPeter(1984)SednaoderdieLiebezumLeben.Frankfurt-am-Main: Suhrkamp. Eriksen,ThomasHylland(1996)Counterreactions:‘NotoEU’andtheFISintheeye ofthewhirlwindofglobalmodernity.http://folk.uio.no/geirthe/Counterreactions. html ——(2001a)BakFiendebildet:IslamogVerdenetter11.September[Behindthe EnemyImage:IslamandtheWorldafter11September].Oslo:Cappelen. ——(2001b)TyrannyoftheMoment:FastandSlowTimeintheInformationAge. London:Pluto. ——(2003a)‘Antropologienogdenoffentligedebatt’[Anthropologyandpublic debate],inNæreSteder,NyeRom:UtfordringeriAntropologiskeStudieriNorge
136 • Bibliography [ClosePlaces,NewSpaces:ChallengesforAnthropologicalStudiesinNorway], (eds)MarianneRugkåsaandKariT.Thorsen,pp.292–313.Oslo:Gyldendal. ——(2003b)‘Theyoungrebelandthedustyprofessor:Ataleofanthropologists andthemediainNorway’,inAnthropologyToday,19(1):3–5. Evans-Pritchard,E.E.(1951)SocialAnthropology.London:Cohen&West. Firth,Rosemary(1984)‘Anthropologyinfiction:Animageoffieldwork’,inRAIN, 64:7–9. Foucault, Michel (2001) Fearless Speech, (ed.) Joseph Pearson. NewYork: Semiotext(e). Fox,Kate(2004)WatchingtheEnglish:TheHiddenRulesofEnglishBehaviour. London:Hodder&Stoughton. Freeman,Derek(1983)MargaretMeadandSamoa:TheMakingandUnmakingof anAnthropologicalMyth.Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress. Friedman,Jonathan(1997)‘Globalcrises,thestruggleforculturalidentityand intellectualporkbarrelling:Cosmopolitansversuslocals,ethnicsandnationals inaneraofde-hegemonisation’,inDebatingCulturalHybridity:Multi-cultural IdentitiesandthePoliticsofAnti-racism,(eds)TariqModoodandPninaWerbner, pp.70–89.London:Zed. Friedman,Thomas(1999)TheLexusandtheOliveTree.NewYork:Farrar,Strauss &Giroux. Fukuyama,Francis(1993)TheendofHistoryandtheLastMan.NewYork:Avon. Furedi,Frank(2004)WhereHavealltheIntellectualsGone?Confronting21stCenturyPhilistinism.London:Continuum. Gardner,Katy(1997)SongsfromRiver’sEdge:StoriesfromaBangladeshiVillage. London:Pluto. ——(2002)LosingGemma.London:Penguin. Geertz,Clifford(1973)TheInterpretationofCultures.NewYork:BasicBooks. ——(1998)‘Deephangingout’,inNewYorkReviewofBooks,45(16):69–72. Gellner,Ernest(1991)ReasonandCulture:TheHistoricalRoleofRationalityand Rationalism.Oxford:Blackwell. Gillespie, Marie (1995) Television, Ethnicity and Cultural Change. London: Routledge. González,RobertoJ.(2004)(ed.)AnthropologistsinthePublicSphere:Speaking OutonWar,PeaceandAmericanPower.Austin:UniversityofTexasPress. Goody,Jack(1995)TheExpansiveMoment:AnthropologyinBritainandAfrica 1918–1970.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress. ——andIanWatt(1963)‘Theconsequencesofliteracy’,inComparativeStudiesin SocietyandHistory,5:304–345. Gould,StephenJay(2002)TheStructureofEvolutionaryTheory.Cambridge,MA: Belknap. ——andElizabethVrba(1981)‘Exaptation:Amissingterminthescienceofform’, inPaleobiology,8:4–15.
Bibliography • 137 Gray,John(2000)TwoFacesofLiberalism.Cambridge:Polity. Greene,Graham(1965)TheComedians.London:BodleyHead. Grillo,Ralph(1994)‘TheapplicationofanthropologyinBritain,1983–1993’,in WhenHistoryAccelerates,(ed.)ChrisHann,pp.300–316.London:Athlone. Grimshaw,AnnaandKeithHart(1993)AnthropologyandtheCrisisoftheIntellectuals.Cambridge:PricklyPearPress(PricklyPearPamphletno.1). Gullestad,Marianne(1996)EverydayPhilosophers:Modernity,MoralityandAutobiographyinNorway.Oslo:Universitetsforlaget. ——(2002)DetNorskesettmedNyeØyne[Norwegiannessinanewperspective]. Oslo:Universitetsforlaget. ——(2003)‘Kunnskapforhvem?’[Knowledgeforwhom?],inNæreSteder,Nye Rom:UtfordringeriAntropologiskeStudieriNorge[ClosePlaces,NewSpaces: ChallengesforAnthropologicalStudiesinNorway],(eds)MarianneRugkåsaand KariT.Thorsen,pp.233–262.Oslo:Gyldendal. Habermas,Jürgen(1968)ErkenntnisundInteresse.Frankfurt-am-Main:Suhrkamp. Hannerz,Ulf(1992)CulturalComplexity.NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress. ——(2003) Foreign News: Exploring the World of Foreign Correspondents. Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress. ——(2004a)‘Introduktion:Mellantvåskrivarkulturer’[Introduction:Betweentwo culturesofwriting],inAntropologi/journalistik,(ed.)UlfHannerz,pp.5–37. Lund:Studentlitteratur. ——(2004b)(ed.)Antropologi/journalistik:OmSättattBeskrivaVärlden[Anthropology/journalism:OnWaystoDescribetheWorld].Lund:Studentlitteratur. Harris,Marvin(1978)CannibalsandKings:TheOriginsofCulture.Glasgow: Fontana. ——(1987)WhyNothingWorks:TheAnthropologyofEverydayLife.NewYork: Simon&Schuster. Hart,Keith(2000)TheMemoryBank:MoneyinanUnequalWorld.London: Profile. ——(2003)‘Britishsocialanthropology’snationalistproject’,inAnthropology Today,19(6):1–2. Heath,S.B.(1983)WayswithWords:Language,LifeandWorkinCommunitiesand Classrooms.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress. Hellman,Harold(1996)GreatFeudsinScience:TenoftheLiveliestDisputesEver. London:Wiley. Hendry,Joy(1996)‘Thechrysanthemumcontinuestoflower:RuthBenedictand someperilsofpopularanthropology’,in PopularizingAnthropology,(eds) JeremyMacClancyandChrisMcDonaugh,pp.106–121.London:Routledge. Holmes,DouglasR.(2000)IntegralEurope:Fast-capitalism,Multiculturalism, Neo-fascism.Oxford:PrincetonUniversityPress. Huntington,Samuel(1996)TheClashofCivilizationsandtheRemakingofaWorld Order.NewYork:SimonandSchuster
138 • Bibliography Ingold,Tim(1986)EvolutionandSocialLife.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press. ——(2000)ThePerceptionoftheEnvironment.EssaysinLivelihood,Dwellingand Skill.London:Routledge. ——(1996)(ed.)KeyDebatesinAnthropology.London:Routledge. Jacoby,Russell(1987)TheLastIntellectuals:AmericanCultureintheAgeof Academe.NewYork:BasicBooks. Jencks,Charles(2001)‘EP,phonehome’,inAlasPoorDarwin,(eds)HilaryRose andStevenRose,pp.28–46.London:Vintage. Jones,Steve(1997)IntheBlood:God,GenesandDestiny.London:Flamingo. Kaplan,Robert(1997)TheEndsoftheEarth.NewYork:Fodor. Kearney,Michael(2004)ChangingFieldsofAnthropology:FromLocaltoGlobal. Oxford:Rowman&Littlefield. Klausen,ArneMartin(1984)(ed.)DenNorskeVæremåten[TheNorwegianWayof Being].Oslo:Cappelen. ——(1999)(ed.)OlympicGamesasPerformanceandPublicEvent:TheCaseof theXVIIWinterOlympicGamesinNorway.NewYork:Berghahn. Klein,Naomi(1999)NoSpace,NoChoice,NoJobs,NoLogo:TakingAimatthe BrandBullies.NewYork:Picador. Knight,Chris,RobinDunbarandCamillaPowers(1999)‘Anevolutionaryapproach tohumanculture’,inRobinDunbar,ChrisKnightandCamillaPowers(eds),The EvolutionofCulture.Edinburgh:EdinburghUniversityPress. Kohn,Marek(1999)AsWeKnowIt.ComingtoTermswithanEvolvedMind. London:Granta. Kuper,Adam(1988)TheInventionofPrimitiveSociety.London:Routledge. ——(1994)TheChosenPrimate:HumanNatureandCulturalDiversity.Cambridge, MA:HarvardUniversityPress. ——(1996)AnthropologyandAnthropologists:TheModernBritishSchool.London: Routledge. ——(1999)Culture:TheAnthropologist’sAccount.Cambridge,MA:Harvard UniversityPress. ——(2000)‘Ifmemesaretheanswer,whatisthequestion?’,inDarwinizing Culture,(ed.)RobertAunger,pp.175–188.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress. Kurkiala,Mikael(2003)‘Interpretinghonourkillings:ThestoryofFadimeSahindal (1975–2002)intheSwedishpress’,inAnthropologyToday,19(1):6–7. Leach,Edmund(1970)ClaudeLévi-Strauss.NewYork:Viking. ——(1973)‘Keepsocialanthropologyoutofthecurriculum’,inTimesEducational Supplement,Feb2:4. Leiris,Michel(1981[1934])L’AfriqueFantôme.Paris:Gallimard. Leitch,Alison(2003)‘Slowfoodandthepoliticsofporkfat:Italianfoodand Europeanidentity’,inEthnos68(4):437–462. Lévi-Strauss,Claude(1949)LesStructuresÉlémentairesdelaParenté.Paris:PUF.
Bibliography • 139 ——(1962)LaPenséeSauvage.Paris:Plon. ——(1968)LesOriginesdesManièresduTable.MythologiquesIII.Paris:Plon. ——(1978a[1955])TristesTropiques.Harmondsworth:Penguin. ——(1978b)MythandMeaning.London:RoutledgeandKeganPaul. ——(1988)DePrèsetdeLoin,withDidierEribon.Paris:OdileJacob Linton,Ralph(1936)TheStudyofMan:AnIntroduction.NewYork:AppletonCentury. ——(1937)‘OneHundredPerCentAmerican’,inTheAmericanMercury40: 427–429. Louch,AlfredR.(1966)ExplanationandHumanAction.Oxford:Blackwell. Löfving,Staffan(2004)‘Omkrigetskonturer’[Ontheoutlinesofwar],inAntropologi/ journalistik,(ed.)UlfHannerz,pp.115–142.Lund:Studentlitteratur. MacClancy,Jeremy(1996)‘Popularizinganthropology’,inPopularizingAnthropology,(eds)JeremyMacClancyandChrisMcDonaugh,pp.1–57.London: Routledge. ——(2004)(ed.)ExoticNoMore:AnthropologyontheFrontLines.Chicago: UniversityofChicagoPress. ——andChrisMcDonaugh(eds)(1996)PopularizingAnthropology.London: Routledge. Macfarlane,Alan(2005)LetterstoLily:OnHowtheWorldWorks.London:Profile. Mahmoody,Betty(1989)NotWithoutMyDaughter.NewYork:Corgi. Malik,Kenan(2000)Man,Beast,orZombie:WhatScienceCanandCannotTellUs AboutHumanNature.London:Weidenfeld&Nicholson. ——(2005)‘Islamophobiamyth’,inProspect107(February2005):24–28. Malinowski,Bronislaw(1984[1922])ArgonautsoftheWesternPacific.Prospect Heights:Waveland. Malkki,Liisa(1995)PurityandExile:Violence,Memory,andNationalCosmology amongHutuRefugeesinTanzania.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress. Marcus,GeogeE.(1999)EthnographyThroughThickandThin.Princeton:Princeton UniversityPress. ——andMichaelM.J.Fischer(1986)AnthropologyasCulturalCritique:An ExperimentalMomentintheHumanSciences.Chicago:UniversityofChicago Press. Mauss,Marcel(1954[1924])TheGift.London:Cohen&West. ——(1960/1934)‘Lestechniquesducorps’,inMauss,SociologieetAnthropologie. Paris:PUF. Maybury-Lewis,David(1992)Millennium:TribalWisdomandtheModernWorld. London:Viking. McLuhan,Marshall(1994[1964])UnderstandingMedia.London:Routledge. Mead,Margaret(1930)GrowingUpinNewGuinea:AComparativeStudyof PrimitiveEducation.NewYork:TheAmericanLibrary. ——(1977[1928])ComingofAgeinSamoa.Harmondsworth:Penguin.
140 • Bibliography ——(1950[1935])SexandTemperamentinThreePrimitiveSocieties.NewYork: Mentor. Midgley,Mary(2001)‘Whymemes?’,inAlasPoorDarwin,(eds)HilaryRoseand StevenRose,pp.67–84.London:JonathanCape. Miller,Daniel(1998)ATheoryofShopping.Cambridge:Polity. ——(2001)TheDialecticsofShopping.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress. ——andMukulikaBanerjee(2003)TheSari.Oxford:Berg. Mills,C.Wright(1980[1959])TheSociologicalImagination.Harmondsworth: Penguin. Mills,David(2003)‘Professionalizingorpopularizinganthropology?’,inAnthropologyToday,19(5):8–13. Mimouni,Rachid(1992)DelaBarbarieenGénéraletdel’IntégrismeenParticulier. Paris:LePréauxClercs. Minc,Alain(1993)LeNouveauMoyenÂge.Paris:Broché. Miner,Horace(1956)‘BodyRitualamongtheNacirema’,inAmericanAnthropologist,58:503–507. Montagu,Ashley(1997[1942])Man’sMostDangerousIdea:TheFallacyofRace, 6threv.edition.WalnutCreek:AltaMira. ——(1952)‘The“Go-Getter”Spirit:Competitionthrivesoninsecurity,works againstdemocracy’.http://www.harvardsquarelibrary.org/unitarians/montagu. html.OriginallypublishedinTheChristianRegister,November1952. Morin,Edgar(2001)L’IdentitéHumaine(LaMéthodeV).Paris:Seuil. Morphy,Howard(1996)‘Proximityanddistance:representationsofAboriginal societyinthewritingsofBillHarneyandBruceChatwin’,in Popularizing Anthropology,(eds)JeremyMacClancyandChrisMcDonaugh,pp.157–179. London:Routledge. Morris,Brian(1994)AnthropologyoftheSelf.London:Pluto. Myhre,KnutChristian(2004)‘ThebooksellerofKabulandtheanthropologistsof Norway’,inAnthropologyToday,20(3):19–22. Neumann,IverB.(2004)‘Maktkritikksomantropologiensadelsmerke’[Critiqueof powerasdefiningtraitofanthropology],inNorskAntropologiskTidsskrift,15: 133–144. Nørretranders,Tor(1999)TheUserIllusion.Harmondsworth:Penguin. Olwig, Karen Fog (2003) ‘Global places and place-identities – lessons from Caribbeanresearch’,inGlobalization–StudiesinAnthropology,(ed.)T.H. Eriksen,pp.58–77.London:Pluto. Ong,Aihwa(1999)FlexibleCitizenship:TheCulturalLogicsofTransnationality. Durham:DukeUniversityPress. Pamuk,Orhan(2004)Snow.London:Faber&Faber. Peterson,MarkAllen(1991)‘Aliens,apemenandwackysavages:theanthropologist inthetabloids’,inAnthropologyToday,7:5. Petrini,Carlo(2001)SlowFood:TheCaseforTaste.NewYork:ColumbiaUniversity Press.
Bibliography • 141 Pinker,Steven(1994)TheLanguageInstinct.London:AllenLane. ——(2002)TheBlankSlate:TheModernDenialofHumanNature.London: Penguin. Pratt,MaryLouise(1986)‘Fieldworkincommonplaces’,inWritingCulture.The PoeticsandPoliticsofEthnography,(eds)JamesCliffordandGeorgeMarcus, pp.27–50.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress. Putnam,Robert(2001)BowlingAlone:TheCollapseandRevivalofAmerican Community.NewYork:Simon&Schuster. Reddy, G. Prakash (1993) ‘Danes Are Like That!’ Perspectives of an Indian AnthropologistontheDanishSociety.Mørke:Grevas. Ridley,Matt(1996)TheOriginsofVirtue:HumanInstinctsandtheEvolutionof Cooperation.London:Viking. Ritzer,George(2000/1993)TheMcDonaldizationofSociety,millenniumedition. ThousandOaks:PineForgePress. Robin,Ron(2004)ScandalsandScoundrels:SevenCasesthatShooktheAcademy. Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress. Rose,Steven(1996)Lifelines:BiologyBeyondDeterminism.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress. Rose,HilaryandStevenRose(eds)(2001)AlasPoorDarwin:ArgumentsAgainst EvolutionaryPsychology.London:JonathanCape. Rugkåsa,MarianneandKariT.Thorsen,(eds)(2003)NæreSteder,NyeRom: UtfordringeriAntropologiskeStudieriNorge[ClosePlaces,NewSpaces: ChallengesforAnthropologicalStudiesinNorway].Oslo:Gyldendal. Sahlins,Marshall(1972)StoneAgeEconomics.Chicago:Aldine. ——(1977)TheUseandAbuseofBiology.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress. ——(1993) Waiting for Foucault. London: Prickly Pear Press (Prickly Pear Pamphlet#3). ——(1999)‘TwoorthreethingsthatIknowaboutculture’,inJournaloftheRoyal AnthropologicalInstitute,5:399–422. Said,EdwardW.(1993)RepresentationsoftheIntellectual.London:Vintage. Salemink,Oscar(2003)TheEthnographyofVietnam’sCentralHighlanders:A HistoricalContextualization1850–1990.London:Routledge/Curzon. Scheper-Hughes,Nancy(1979)Saints,ScholarsandSchizophrenics:MentalIllness inRuralIreland.Berkelely:UniversityofCaliforniaPress. ——(1992)DeathWithoutWeeping:TheviolenceofEverydayLifeinBrazil. Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress. Schneider,Jane(1994)‘Inandoutofpolyester:Desire,disdainandglobalfibre competitions’,inAnthropologyToday,10(4):2–10. Scribner,SylviaandMichaelCole(1981)ThePsychologyofLiteracy.Cambridge, MA:HarvardUniversityPress. Seierstad,Åsne(2004)TheBooksellerofKabul.London:Virago. Semon,Richard(1908)DieMnemealsErhaltendesPrinzipinWechseldesOrganizchenGeschehens.Leipzig:WilhelmEngelmann.
142 • Bibliography Shore,Cris(1996)‘Anthropology’sidentitycrisis’,inAnthropologyToday,12(2): 2–5. Shostak,Marjorie(1981)Nisa:theLifeandWordsofan!KungWoman.Cambridge: HarvardUniversityPress. Spencer,Jonathan(2000)‘Britishsocialanthropology:Aretrospective’,inAnnual ReviewofAnthropology,29;1–24. Sperber,Dan(2000)‘Anobjectiontothememeticapproachtoculture’,inDarwinizingCulture,(ed.)RobertAunger,pp.163–174.Oxford:OxfordUniversity Press. ——andDeirdreWilson(1986)Relevance:CommunicationandCognition.Oxford: Blackwells. Stewart,Charles(1992)‘Thepopularizationofanthropology’,inAnthropology Today,8(4):15–16. Steinick,Karl(2004)‘Denrättavinkeln:Geojournalistikochhjärtekrossarantropologi’[Therightangle:Globaljournalismandheartbreakinganthropology], inAntropologi/journalistik,(ed.)UlfHannerz,pp.183–212.Lund:Studentlitteratur. Stocking,GeorgeW.Jr.(1992)TheEthnographer’sMagicandotherEssaysinthe HistoryofAnthropology.Madison:UniversityofWisconsinPress. Strathern,Marilyn(1988)TheGenderoftheGift:ProblemswithWomenand ProblemswithSocietyinMelanesia.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress. ——(1992)ReproducingtheFuture:Anthropology,KinshipandtheNewReproductiveTechnologies.Manchester:ManchesterUniversityPress. Sutton,David(1991)‘Isanybodyoutthere?Anthropologyandthequestionof audience’,inCritiqueofAnthropology,11(1):91–104. Talle,Aud(2003)OmKvinnelegOmskjering[OnFemaleCircumcision].Oslo: Samlaget. Tierney,Patrick(2000)DarknessinElDorado:HowScientistsandJournalists DevastatedtheAmazon.NewYork:Norton. Todorov,Tzvetan(2000)MémoireduMal,TentationduBien:EnquêtesurleSiècle. Paris:RobertLaffont. Tooby,JohnandLedaCosmides(1992)‘ThepsychologicalfoundationsofCulture’, inTheAdaptedMind:EvolutionaryPsychologyandtheGenerationofCulture, (eds)JeromeBarkow,LedaCosmidesandJohnTooby,pp.19–136.Oxford: OxfordUniversityPress. Turnbull,Colin(1961)TheForestPeople.NewYork:Simon&Schuster. ——(1972)TheMountainPeople.London:JonathanCape. Turner,Terence(1993)‘Multiculturalismandanthropology’,inCulturalAnthropology,8(4):411–429. Turner,Victor(1969)TheRitualProcess.Chicago:Aldine. deWaal,Alex (1989) Famine that Kills: Darfur, Sudan, 1984–1985. Oxford: Clarendon.
Bibliography • 143 White,Leslie(1948)‘Man’scontrolovercivilization:Ananthropocentricillusion’, inTheScientificMonthly,66:235–247. Whitehouse,Harvey(2001)(ed.)TheDebatedMind:EvolutionaryPsychology VersusEthnography.Oxford:Berg. Wikan,Unni(1980)LifeAmongthePoorinCairo.London:Tavistock. ——(1995)MotenNyNorskUnderklasse?[TowardsanewNorwegianUnderclass?] Oslo:Gyldendal. ——(2001)GenerousBetrayal.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress. Wilken,Patrick(1994)Anthropology,theIntellectualsandtheGulfWar.Cambridge: PricklyPearPress(PricklyPearPamphlet#5). Wilson,EdwardO.(1975)Sociobiology:TheNewSynthesis.Cambridge,MA: HarvardUniversityPress. ——(1978)OnHumanNature.Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress. Wilson,PeterJ.(1978)CrabAntics,2ndedition.NewHaven,CT:YaleUniversity Press. ——(1980)Man–thePromisingPrimate:TheConditionsofHumanEvolution. NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress. Wogan,Peter(2004)‘Deephangingout:Reflectionsonfieldworkandmulti-sited Andeanethnography’,inIdentities,11:129–139. Wolf,Eric(1982)EuropeandthePeopleWithoutHistory.Berkeley:Universityof CaliforniaPress. Worsley,Peter(1984)TheThreeWorlds.CultureandWorldDevelopment.London: Weidenfeld&Nicholson. Zizek,Slavoj(2000)TheTicklishSubject.London:Verso.
This page intentionally left blank
Index academics pressureson69–70 stereotypes78–85,89–91 Ahmed,Akbar6,32 AmericanAnthropologicalAssociation6,29 Amnesty-Nytt86,89 anthropologists aspublicintellectuals37–42,78–85 crisisresponse109–11,112–14 historyof1–8 Norway8,24,27,73–6 popularizing93–5,104 pressureson69–70 publicperceptionof32,78–81 relationships26 stylesof9–21 writingstyle115–28 anthropology analytical35–7 asscience32–4,45–6 cocooningof1,25–6 complexity29–30,43–4 elitism26–9 andmassmedia70–3,89–91 popularization3–5 post-colonialcritiques30–2 publicperception20–1,23–6 roleof41–2,129–31 specialization29 subversion34–5 AnthropologyToday32,37,38,117 Archetti,Eduardo73 Ardener,Edwin34 AssociationofSocialAnthropologists28 Aunger,Robert57 autocritique11–12 Ballard,J.G.9 Barber,Benjamin104–6 Barley,Nigel6,20,93
Barnard,Alan57 Barth,Fredrik7,24,74–5 Bateson,Gregory63 Baumann,Gerd104 Bauman,Zygmunt97 Beauvoir,Max121 Beeman,William21,113 Benedict,Ruth3,18–19 Benthall,Jonathan37,38 Berlin,Isaiah97–8 Berreman,Gerald16,114 biographies19–20 biology,andhumannature48–51 Blackmore,Susan57,58 Blake,William112 Bloch,Maurice60,62 Boas,Franz2–3 Borofsky,Robert32 Bosnia110 Bourgois,Philippe118 Brecht,Bertold9 Bringa,Tone110 Brockman,John48 Burgess,Anthony130 Campbell,Alan14–15 Carrithers,Michael55 Chagnon,Napoleon33–4 Chatwin,Bruce93 Chechnya90 Chinesediaspora100–4 Chomsky,Noam111 Chua,Amy103–4 Clastres,Pierre18,25 Clifford,James25 Cohen,Abner37–8,104 colonialism,andanthropology31–2 communication,speedof69–70,85–6,110–11 communities,natureof64–6 complexity,ofanthropology29–30,43–4
145
146 • Index crises,responseto109–11,112–14 culturalautocritique11–12 culturalrelativism3–4,23 CulturalSurvival16 Dagbladet8,79–85 Darwin,Charles2,52–3 Darwinism48–60 Davis,Wade9,117,119–23 Dawkins,Richard38–9,40,43,48,91,111 memetics57–8,61 defamiliarization9–11,41 Dennett,Daniel57,61 Descola,Philippe1,15 Diamond,Jared12,46 diffusionism59–60 diLeonardo,Micaela4,21,32,35,70,71 Donner,Florinda93 Douglas,Mary7,18,117 Døving,Runar73–4 Duerr,HansPeter18 Dutton,Denis115 Edmonds,Richard99,100 elitism,ofanthropology26–9 essays17–19 Evans-Pritchard,E.E.3 evolutionarypsychology49–57 Fadimeaffair76–7,87 fast-capitalism98–9 femalecircumcision77–8 Firth,Raymond26 Fischer,MichaelM.J.11,24–5 Foucault,Michel38–9 Fox,Kate7 Frazer,James2 Freeman,Derek33,47 Friedman,Jonathan8,39 Friedman,Thomas111 Fripp,Robert94 functionalism60 Furedi,Frank39 Galtung,Johan70 Gardner,Katy19–20,36 GartonAsh,Timothy106,111 Geertz,Clifford7,8,18,25,117
Gellner,Ernest6–7,21 Gillespie,Marie104 globalization97–100 González,Roberto113–14 Goody,Jack29,31–2 Gould,StephenJay54 Gray,John109 Greder,Fritz38 Grimshaw,Anna8 Grünfeld,Berthold64 GulfWar112–13 Gullestad,Marianne19,80–5 Haddon,Alfred2 Haiti119–23 Halliday,Fred111 Hamilton’sRule58 Hammill,Peter123 Hannerz,Ulf96,110–11 Harket,Håkon75 Harney,Bill93 Harris,Marvin6,9,12–13,94,117 Hart,Keith8,47 Hastrup,Kirsten34 Helle-Valle,Jo74 Herskovits,Melville6 Herzfeld,Michael24 Hobsbawm,Eric36–7,44 Hognestad,Hans74 Holmes,Douglas97–100 humannature47–51 identitypolitics95–7,104–9 Ignatieff,Michael106,111 immigrants,attitudesto76–7,86–9,97 indigenousissues16 individuality50 Ingold,Tim57 intellectuals,anthropologistsas37–42,78–85 internet69–70 intervention16–17 Islam,identitypolitics95–6,104–6,108 Italy,food129 IWGIA(InternationalWorkGroupofIndigenous Affairs)16 Jacoby,Russell29 Jencks,Charles53
Index • 147 Johnston,Roger100 Jones,Steve49,54 journalismseemedia Kapferer,Bruce8 Kaplan,Robert111 Klausen,ArneMartin71,75 Klein,Naomi99 Kleivan,Helge16 Knight,Chris51 Kuper,Adam18,55–6,60 Kurkiala,Mikael76–7 Lakatos,Imre54 Leach,Edmund6,13,21,28 Leiris,Michel13 Leitch,Alison129–30 LePen,Jean-Marie99–100 Lévi-Strauss,Claude7,9,30,50,71,117 TristesTropiques6,14–15,36 Lewontin,Richard54 Linton,Ralph4–5,10 Löfving,Staffan110 Louch,A.R.13 Lowie,Robert3 lucidity63–4 MacClancy,Jeremy21,32 Macfarlane,Alan20 Mahmoody,Betty93 Malik,Kenan44–5 Malinowski,Bronislaw2,3,29,117–19 Malkki,Liisa110 Marcus,George11,24–5 massmediaseemedia Mauritius101 Mauss,Marcel61 Maybury-Lewis,David6,16,110 Mead,Margaret3–5,11–12,33,35,47 media andanthropology70–3,89–91 speedof69–70,72,85–6,110–11 memetics57–63 Midgley,Mary60 Miller,Daniel7,11 Miner,Horace10–11 Montagu,Ashley5,9,17,117 Montaigne,Michelde17–18
Morgan,LewisHenry2 Morin,Edgar54 Morphy,Howard93 Morris,Brian55,56–7 multiculturalism39,44–5,76–8 Murdock,G.P.29 Nacirema10–11 narrative andanalysis103–4 importanceof35–7,130 native,lossof30–2 nature-nurturedebate6,49–51 neo-fascism98–100 neo-liberalism86–9 Norway academicstereotypes78–85 anthropologists8,24,27,73–6 capitalism98–9 immigrants86–9 Olwig,KarenFog104 Ong,Aihwa100–4 Orwell,George130 personaljourney13–15 Peterson,Mark38 Pinker,Steven49–51 post-colonialcritiques30–2 postmodernism25–6 Putnam,Robert105 Radcliffe-Brown,A.R.26,29 Reddy,G.Prakash10 Rehman,Shabana79–85,96 riddletechnique12–13 Ridley,Matt49 right-wingpopulism97–100 Ritzer,George105 Rivers,W.H.R.2 Robin,Ron69 Rose,Steven54 RoyalAnthropologicalInstitute1,117 Rwanda107,110 sacrifice54 Sahindal,Fadime76 Sahlins,Marshall5,7,117,127–8
148 • Index Said,Edward32,111 Samtiden127 Schama,Simon44 Scheper-Hughes,Nancy8,21 Schultes,RichardEvans121 Schwartz,Jonathan10 science,anthropologyas32–4,45–6 Seierstad,Åsne83 Semon,Richard57 shopping11 Shore,Cris8,32 Smith,Elliot24 speed,ofcommunication69–70,85–6, 110–11 Spencer,Jonathan28 Sperber,Dan60–1 Steiner,Rudolf123 Stolcke,Verena8 Strathern,Marilyn7,115–16 Sudan110 Sutton,David9,63,95,117 SydsvenskaDagbladet124–7 Talle,Aud77–8 Tegnér,Esaias63 Tierney,Patrick33–4,53 travelogues13–15
Turnbull,Colin6 Turner,Terence44–5 Turner,Victor7 Tylor,E.B.2 UnitedKingdom,anthropologists28–9 UnitedStates anthropologists28–9 rural-urbandivisions124–6 universalism6 universities,pressures69–70 Verfremdung9–11,40–1 VG64,66–7,77–8 deWaal,Alex110 Wallace,AlfredRussel52–3 White,Leslie5 Wikan,Unni74,76 Wilken,Patrick40,112 Wilson,EdwardO.48,51,53–4,59,127 Wilson,PeterJ.55 Wolf,Eric33,46–7 Worsley,Peter47 writingstyle115–28 Zizek,Slavoj39