Karl Marx, Anthropologist 1845205111, 9781845205119, 9781845205096, 184520509X

Citation preview

Karl฀Marx,฀Anthropologist

This page intentionally left blank

Karl฀Marx,฀Anthropologist

Thomas฀C.฀Patterson

Oxford฀•฀New฀York

First฀published฀in฀2009฀by Berg Editorial฀offices: 1st฀Floor,฀Angel฀Court,฀81฀St฀Clements฀Street,฀Oxford,฀OX4฀1AW,฀UK 175฀Fifth฀Avenue,฀New฀York,฀NY฀10010,฀USA

©฀Thomas฀C.฀Patterson฀2009

All฀rights฀reserved. No฀part฀of฀this฀publication฀may฀be฀reproduced฀in฀any฀form or฀by฀any฀means฀without฀the฀written฀permission฀of฀Berg. Berg฀is฀the฀imprint฀of฀Oxford฀International฀Publishers฀Ltd.

Library฀of฀Congress฀Cataloguing-in-Publication฀Data Patterson,฀Thomas฀Carl. ฀ ฀ Karl฀Marx,฀anthropologist฀/฀Thomas฀C.฀Patterson. ฀ ฀ ฀ p.฀cm. ฀ ฀ Includes฀bibliographical฀references฀and฀index. ฀ ฀ ISBN-13:฀978-1-84520-511-9฀(pbk.) ฀ ฀ ISBN-10:฀1-84520-511-1฀(pbk.) ฀ ฀ ISBN-13:฀978-1-84520-509-6฀(cloth) ฀ ฀ ISBN-10:฀1-84520-509-X฀(cloth) ฀ 1.฀Marx,฀Karl,฀1818–1883.฀ 2.฀Anthropologists—Germany—Biography.฀ 3.฀ Anthropology—History.฀ 4.฀Anthropology—Philosophy.฀ I.฀Title. ฀ ฀ GN21.M2575P38฀2009 ฀ ฀ 301.092—dc22 ฀ ฀ [B] 2009000314

British฀Library฀Cataloguing-in-Publication฀Data A฀catalogue฀record฀for฀this฀book฀is฀available฀from฀the฀British฀Library. ISBN฀ 978฀184520฀509฀6฀(Cloth) ISBN฀ 978฀184520฀511฀9฀(Paper) Typeset฀by฀JS฀Typesetting฀Ltd,฀Porthcawl,฀Mid฀Glamorgan Printed฀in฀the฀UK฀by฀the฀MPG฀Books฀Group

www.bergpublishers.com

For฀Friends,฀Colleagues,฀and฀Students

This page intentionally left blank

Contents Preface฀

ix

Chronology฀

xi

Introduction฀ Polemics,฀Caveats,฀and฀Standpoints฀ Organization฀of฀the฀Book฀

1 3 5

1฀ ฀ ฀ ฀

The฀Enlightenment฀and฀Anthropology฀ Early฀Enlightenment฀Thought฀ The฀New฀Anthropology฀of฀the฀Enlightenment฀ The฀Institutionalization฀of฀Anthropology฀

9 10 15 23

2฀ ฀ ฀ ฀

Marx’s฀Anthropology฀ What฀are฀Human฀Beings?฀ History฀ Truth฀and฀Praxis฀

39 41 51 57

3฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀

Human฀Natural฀Beings฀ Charles฀Darwin฀and฀the฀Development฀of฀Modern฀Evolutionary฀Theory฀ Human฀Natural฀Beings:฀Bodies฀That฀Walk,฀Talk,฀Make฀Tools,฀and฀ ฀ Have฀Culture฀ Marx฀on฀the฀Naturalization฀of฀Social฀Inequality฀

65 67

4฀ ฀ ฀

History,฀Culture,฀and฀Social฀Formation฀ Marx’s฀Historical-Dialectical฀Conceptual฀Framework฀ Pre-Capitalist฀Societies:฀Limited,฀Local,฀and฀Vital฀

91 93 105

5฀ ฀ ฀ ฀

Capitalism฀and฀the฀Anthropology฀of฀the฀Modern฀World฀ The฀Transition฀to฀Capitalism฀and฀its฀Development฀ The฀Articulation฀of฀Modes฀of฀Production฀ Property,฀Power,฀and฀Capitalist฀States฀

117 119 128 138

74 87

viii฀ •฀ Contents 6฀ ฀ ฀

Anthropology฀for฀the฀Twenty-First฀Century฀ Social฀Relations฀and฀the฀Formation฀of฀Social฀Individuals฀ Anthropology:฀“The฀Study฀of฀People฀in฀Crisis฀by฀People฀in฀Crisis”฀

145 147 158

Notes฀

173

Bibliography฀

181

Index฀

219

Preface This฀book฀is฀an฀exploration฀of฀a฀form฀of฀social฀theory฀that฀has฀a฀long฀history฀of฀ suppression฀in฀the฀United฀States.฀The฀high฀points฀of฀this฀were฀undoubtedly฀the฀ Palmer฀Raids฀of฀the฀1920s฀and฀the฀McCarthyism฀and฀the฀House฀Un-American฀ Activities฀of฀the฀1950s,฀although฀the฀antipathy฀of฀the฀vast฀majority฀of฀academics฀to฀ anything฀but฀mainstream฀social฀thought฀in฀the฀decades฀that฀followed฀has฀been฀only฀ slightly฀less฀deadening.฀The฀red-baiting฀of฀scholars฀who฀saw฀Marx฀only฀through฀the฀ lens฀of฀anti-communism฀has฀gradually฀been฀replaced฀by฀scholars฀who฀assert฀that฀ Marx฀is฀really฀passé,฀especially฀after฀the฀dismantling฀of฀the฀Soviet฀Union.฀While฀the฀ sentiments฀underlying฀such฀statements฀are฀often฀conveyed฀by฀rolled฀eyes฀or฀kneejerk฀red-baiting,฀they฀are฀as฀often฀backed฀up฀by฀claims฀that฀one฀or฀another฀of฀the฀ latest฀fads฀in฀social฀theory฀provide฀the฀bases฀for฀more฀textured฀analyses฀of฀what฀has฀ happened฀during฀the฀last฀twenty฀years฀or฀even฀by฀declarations฀that฀history฀is฀over฀ since฀the฀whole฀world฀is฀now,฀or฀should฀be,฀on฀the฀road฀to฀capitalism.฀What฀rarely฀ happens,฀however,฀is฀any฀direct฀engagement฀and฀extended฀dialogue฀with฀what฀Marx฀ actually฀said.฀More฀common฀are฀statements฀that฀rely฀on฀what฀someone฀claimed฀ Marx฀said฀or฀that฀engage฀with฀the฀commentators฀on฀Marx,฀sympathetic฀or฀otherwise,฀ rather฀than฀Marx฀himself. My฀goal฀is฀to฀engage฀directly฀with฀Marx’s฀works฀rather฀than฀those฀of฀subsequent฀ writers฀in฀the฀Marxist฀tradition.฀Nevertheless,฀I฀am฀acutely฀aware฀of฀the฀difficulty฀ of฀ disengaging฀ from฀ the฀ arguments฀ and฀ insights฀ of฀ subsequent฀ commentators฀ on฀Marx’s฀views,฀both฀sympathetic฀and฀otherwise,฀since฀my฀own฀thoughts฀and฀ actions฀were฀shaped฀in฀part฀in฀the฀same฀intellectual฀and฀social฀milieu฀in฀which฀they฀ wrote฀and฀were฀read.฀Keeping฀in฀mind฀Marx’s฀quip฀that฀he฀was฀not฀a฀Marxist,฀the฀ book฀is฀Marxian฀rather฀than฀Marxist.฀Hence,฀it฀is฀not฀a฀book฀about฀Marxism฀and฀ anthropology฀or฀Marxist฀anthropology;฀several฀of฀those฀have฀already฀been฀written.฀ While฀Maurice฀Godelier’s฀(1973/1977)฀Perspectives฀in฀Marxist฀Anthropology,฀Ángel฀ Palerm’s฀(1980)฀Antropología฀y฀marxismo,฀Marc฀Abélès’s฀(1976)฀Anthropologie฀et฀ Marxisme,฀and฀Randall฀McGuire’s฀(1992)฀A฀Marxist฀Archaeology฀are฀a฀few฀that฀ come฀immediately฀to฀mind,฀there฀are฀others฀as฀well. My฀first฀direct฀acquaintance฀with฀Marx’s฀writing฀occurred฀in฀1959฀in฀an฀introductory฀ course฀ in฀Western฀ civilization฀ with฀ a฀ selection฀ from฀ The฀ Communist฀ Manifesto.฀Two฀years฀later฀in฀Peru,฀I฀realized฀that฀broadly฀leftist฀newspaper฀writers฀ in฀Peru฀provided฀accounts฀that฀better฀fit฀with฀my฀perceptions฀than฀those฀of฀their฀ more฀mainstream฀contemporaries,฀and฀that฀they฀gave฀me฀a฀clearer฀and฀deeper฀ understanding฀of฀what฀was฀happening฀there฀at฀the฀time.฀Over฀the฀next฀five฀years฀in฀

ix

x฀ •฀ Preface Peru,฀I฀would฀occasionally฀buy฀at฀a฀kiosk฀in฀Lima฀and฀read฀pamphlets฀containing฀ articles฀Marx฀had฀written฀about฀capitalism.฀I฀also฀purchased฀the฀English-language฀ edition฀of฀his฀Pre-capitalist฀Economic฀Formations฀shortly฀after฀it฀arrived฀in฀a฀Lima฀ bookstore.฀The฀latter฀provided฀the฀inspiration฀and฀means฀for฀beginning฀to฀think฀ in฀new฀ways฀about฀the฀societies,฀past฀and฀present,฀that฀were฀the฀object฀of฀inquiry฀ for฀anthropologists.฀At฀various฀times฀from฀the฀late฀1960s฀or฀early฀1970s฀onward,฀ I฀participated฀rather฀regularly฀in฀reading฀groups฀or฀university฀courses฀variously฀ concerned฀with฀the฀writings฀of฀Marx,฀Engels,฀or฀their฀successors.฀These฀groups฀ ranged฀from฀ones฀composed฀entirely฀of฀political฀activists฀through฀those฀with฀mixtures฀ of฀activists,฀anthropologists,฀and฀students฀from฀different฀universities฀to฀courses฀and฀ seminars฀with฀student฀and฀occasionally฀other฀faculty฀participants. Writing฀is฀a฀social฀rather฀than฀a฀solitary฀venture฀for฀me.฀I฀read฀passages฀to฀friends฀ over฀the฀telephone฀and฀share฀drafts฀of฀manuscripts฀with฀them,฀hoping฀they฀have฀ time฀to฀comment฀on฀them฀and฀feeling฀exceedingly฀appreciative฀when฀they฀do.฀I฀also฀ try฀out฀ideas฀in฀courses฀to฀see฀if฀they฀are฀expressed฀clearly฀in฀ways฀that฀students฀ can฀understand฀and฀use฀constructively฀to฀build฀and฀refine฀their฀own฀views.฀Since฀ I฀have฀been฀doing฀this฀for฀quite฀a฀few฀years฀at฀this฀point฀in฀my฀life,฀the฀list฀of฀ people,฀living฀and฀dead,฀who฀have฀helped฀me฀clarify฀my฀own฀ideas฀is฀a฀long฀one.฀ Instead฀of฀attempting฀to฀list฀all฀of฀them,฀and฀undoubtedly฀missing฀a฀few฀in฀the฀ process,฀let฀me฀mention฀just฀a฀few:฀Karen฀Spalding฀and฀Richard฀Lee฀who฀have฀been฀ there฀almost฀since฀the฀beginning;฀Christine฀Gailey,฀John฀Gledhill,฀Karen฀Brodkin,฀ Bob฀Paynter,฀Peter฀Gran,฀and฀Kathy฀Walker฀who฀have฀regularly฀helped฀me฀clarify฀ my฀ideas฀and฀prose฀since฀the฀1980s;฀Edna฀Bonacich,฀Joseph฀Childers,฀Stephen฀ Cullenberg,฀Michael฀Kearney,฀and฀Juliet฀McMullin฀who฀have฀helped฀me฀to฀look฀ at฀Marx฀through฀different฀lenses฀since฀I฀arrived฀at฀UCR฀in฀2000;฀and,฀most฀of฀all,฀ Wendy฀Ashmore—my฀colleague,฀friend,฀and฀wife—who฀sets฀high฀standards฀and฀has฀ provided฀instantaneous฀feedback,฀constructive฀criticism,฀happiness,฀and฀contentment฀ for฀more฀than฀a฀decade.

Chronology 1818฀ 1820฀

5฀May:฀Karl฀Marx฀born฀in฀Trier,฀Westphalia฀in฀the฀Rhineland฀of฀Prussia. 28฀ November:฀ Frederick฀ Engels฀ born฀ in฀ Barmen,฀ Westphalia฀ in฀ the฀ Rhineland฀of฀Prussia. 1830฀ Marx฀enters฀high฀school฀in฀Trier. 1835฀ Marx’s฀essay฀on฀choosing฀a฀vocation;฀Marx฀enters฀the฀University฀of฀ Bonn. 1836฀ Marx฀transfers฀to฀the฀University฀of฀Berlin. 1837฀ Marx฀writes฀about฀fragmentation฀of฀curriculum฀and฀begins฀to฀grapple฀with฀ Hegel’s฀writings. 1838฀ Engels฀drops฀out฀of฀high฀school฀to฀work฀as฀unsalaried฀clerk฀in฀Bremen. 1841฀ Engels฀joins฀Prussian฀army฀and฀attends฀lectures฀at฀the฀University฀of฀ Berlin. 1842฀ November:฀Marx฀and฀Engels฀meet฀at฀Cologne฀office฀of฀the฀Rheinische฀ Zeitung;฀Engels฀goes฀to฀work฀at฀family฀textile฀firm฀in฀Manchester,฀England,฀ where฀he฀meets฀Mary฀Burns฀who฀introduces฀him฀to฀English฀working-class฀ life฀and฀with฀whom฀he฀has฀lifelong฀relationship;฀Engels฀begins฀collecting฀ materials฀for฀The฀Condition฀of฀the฀Working฀Class฀in฀England฀(1845),฀ arguably฀the฀first฀empirical฀anthropology฀of฀an฀urban฀community. 1843–4฀ Marx฀resigns฀from฀the฀Rheinische฀Zeitung;฀marries฀Jenny฀von฀Westphalen;฀ emigrates฀to฀Paris฀in฀search฀of฀employment,฀and฀writes฀Economic฀and฀Philosophical฀Manuscripts฀(1844);฀Marx฀and฀Engels฀meet฀for฀second฀time฀and฀ begin฀lifelong฀collaboration,฀the฀earliest฀product฀of฀which฀was฀The฀Holy฀ Family฀(1845),฀a฀critique฀of฀the฀Young฀Hegelians. 1845–8฀ February฀1845:฀Marx฀expelled฀from฀France฀by฀the฀Minister฀of฀the฀Interior;฀ Marx,฀his฀wife฀and฀children฀move฀to฀Brussels;฀Marx฀argues฀in฀Theses฀on฀ Feuerbach฀(1845)฀for฀the฀importance฀of฀the฀practical฀activity฀of฀corporeal฀ human฀ beings฀ as฀ social฀ individuals฀ bound฀ together฀ by฀ ensembles฀ of฀ social฀relations.฀April฀1845:฀Engels฀arrives฀in฀Brussels;฀in฀The฀German฀ Ideology฀(1845–6),฀Marx฀and฀Engels฀lay฀foundations฀of฀their฀materialist฀ theory฀of฀history฀and฀refine฀the฀philosophical฀anthropology฀Marx฀sketched฀ earlier;฀both฀devote฀energies฀to฀organizing฀workers฀and฀join฀the฀German฀ Communist฀ League.฀ 21฀ February฀ 1848:฀ German฀ Communist฀ League฀ publishes฀Marx฀and฀Engels’s฀The฀Communist฀Manifesto.฀3฀March฀1848:฀ King฀of฀Belgium฀deports฀Marx,฀who฀returns฀to฀Cologne฀and฀launches฀the฀ Neue฀Rheinische฀Zeitung.

xi

xii฀ •฀ Chronology 1849฀

The฀Neue฀Rheinische฀Zeitung฀suppressed฀by฀Prussian฀government;฀Marx฀ and฀Engels฀arrested฀and฀subsequently฀released;฀Marx฀deported฀and฀deprived฀ of฀citizenship.฀June:฀Marx฀and฀family฀arrive฀in฀Paris,฀are฀placed฀under฀ police฀surveillance฀in฀July,฀and฀leave฀in฀late฀August฀for฀London;฀Engels฀ participates฀in฀armed฀uprising฀in฀South฀Germany,฀escapes฀as฀refugee,฀ returns฀to฀England,฀re-enters฀family฀firm฀in฀Manchester฀as฀clerk. 1851–3฀ Marx฀and฀Engels฀analyze฀the฀failed฀revolutions฀of฀1848–9;฀Marx’s฀The฀ Class฀ Struggle฀ in฀ France,฀ 1848฀ to฀ 1850฀ (1850)฀ and฀ The฀ Eighteenth฀ Brumaire฀of฀Louis฀Bonaparte฀(1852)฀and฀Engels’s฀Revolution฀and฀CounterRevolution฀in฀Germany฀(1851–3). 1853–7฀ Marx฀writes฀series฀of฀articles฀for฀New฀York฀Daily฀Tribune฀on฀colonialism฀ and฀plunder฀of฀India,฀destruction฀of฀Indian฀textile฀economy,฀complexity฀of฀ Indian฀society,฀village฀communities,฀and฀subversion฀of฀traditional฀property฀ relations฀and฀creation฀of฀new฀property฀relations฀during฀colonial฀rule. 1857–9฀ Marx฀synthesizes฀his฀philosophical฀anthropology,฀critique฀of฀political฀ economy,฀and฀notions฀of฀pre-capitalist฀modes฀of฀production฀in฀Grundrisse฀ (1857–58)฀ and฀ A฀ Contribution฀ to฀ the฀ Critique฀ of฀ Political฀ Economy฀ (1859). 1861–3฀ Marx฀historicizes฀and฀further฀refines฀his฀views฀on฀labor,฀the฀importance฀and฀ appearance฀of฀surplus฀values,฀and฀the฀role฀of฀competition฀and฀monopoly฀in฀ creating฀dependence฀in฀an฀increasingly฀international฀capitalist฀economy฀in฀ his฀early฀drafts฀of฀the฀three฀volumes฀of฀Capital. 1864฀ Formation฀of฀the฀International฀Workingman’s฀Association฀(i.e.฀The฀First฀ International)฀in฀which฀Marx฀and฀Engels฀would฀play฀prominent฀roles฀until฀ it฀was฀disbanded฀in฀1876. 1867฀ Marx฀publishes฀first฀volume฀of฀Capital฀(1867),฀which฀analyzes฀the฀simple฀ reproduction฀of฀capital฀and฀primitive฀accumulation฀using฀anthropological฀ and฀historical฀information. 1870฀ Social฀relations฀and฀contradictions฀of฀the฀Paris฀Commune฀analyzed฀by฀ Marx฀in฀The฀Civil฀War฀in฀France฀(1871). 1875฀ Marx฀circulates฀his฀Critique฀of฀the฀Gotha฀Program,฀a฀proposal฀put฀forward฀ by฀socialists฀and฀communists฀in฀the฀German฀Democratic฀Workers฀Party฀ who฀advocate฀social฀reform฀rather฀than฀revolution. 1876฀ Engels฀writes฀The฀Part฀Played฀by฀Labor฀in฀the฀Transition฀from฀Ape฀to฀ Man. 1877–82฀ Marx฀writes฀large฀part฀of฀second฀volume฀of฀Capital,฀including฀section฀ on฀the฀circuits฀of฀capital฀and฀expanded฀reproduction฀of฀capital;฀this฀was฀ buttressed฀by฀readings฀of฀rural฀social฀organization฀in฀Russia,฀changes฀in฀ global฀property฀resulting฀from฀colonialism฀and฀intrusion฀of฀capitalism฀ into฀non-Western,฀non-capitalist฀societies฀in฀order฀to฀understand฀interconnections฀of฀cultural฀diversity฀and฀capitalist฀expansion;฀Marx฀circulates฀ Workers’฀Questionnaire฀(1880).

Chronology฀ •฀ xiii 1880฀ 1883฀ 1884฀

Engels฀writes฀Socialism:฀Utopian฀and฀Scientific. 13฀March:฀Marx฀dies฀in฀London. Engels฀publishes฀The฀Origins฀of฀the฀Family฀Private฀Property฀and฀the฀State:฀ In฀Light฀of฀the฀Investigations฀of฀Lewis฀H.฀Morgan฀(1884),฀which฀was฀based฀ partly฀on฀Marx’s฀notes฀on฀Morgan’s฀Ancient฀Society฀(1877);฀Engels’s฀book฀ translated฀into฀Italian,฀Rumanian,฀Danish,฀and฀French฀during฀next฀four฀ years. 1893฀ Engels฀elected฀honorary฀president฀of฀International฀Socialist฀Congress฀(i.e.฀ Second฀International). 1884–95฀ Engels฀prepares฀the฀second฀and฀third฀volumes฀of฀Capital฀for฀publication. 1895฀ 5฀August:฀Engels฀dies฀in฀London

This page intentionally left blank

Introduction Karl฀Marx฀was฀an฀anthropologist.฀This฀may฀seem฀an฀unusual฀claim,฀since฀he฀is฀ more฀frequently฀identified฀as฀a฀political฀radical,฀an฀economist,฀a฀journalist฀and,฀ occasionally,฀even฀a฀philosopher.฀When฀Marx฀(1818–83)฀lived฀in฀the฀nineteenth฀ century,฀knowledge฀had฀not฀yet฀been฀divided฀into฀the฀academic฀disciplines฀found฀on฀ college฀and฀university฀campuses฀today.฀While฀anthropology฀as฀an฀academic฀discipline฀ and฀a฀profession฀would฀not฀appear฀until฀the฀1870s฀or฀1880s,฀courses฀on฀anthropology฀ had฀already฀been฀taught฀in฀some฀universities฀for฀more฀than฀a฀century฀by฀a฀variety฀of฀ persons—physicians,฀historians,฀theologians,฀and฀philosophers,฀like฀Immanuel฀Kant฀ who฀lectured฀annually฀on฀the฀subject฀for฀more฀than฀twenty฀years฀beginning฀in฀1772.฀ We฀know฀that฀Marx฀took฀an฀anthropology฀course฀taught฀by฀Henrik฀Steffens฀during฀ his฀first฀year฀at฀the฀University฀of฀Berlin฀in฀1837,฀and฀that฀he฀attended฀lectures฀by฀the฀ anthropogeographer฀Carl฀Ritter฀(Finkelstein฀2001;฀Kelley฀1978,฀1984;฀Ryding฀1975:฀ 7);฀however,฀we฀also฀know฀that฀taking฀a฀course฀in฀a฀subject฀is฀not฀a฀rite฀of฀passage฀ that฀automatically฀or฀necessarily฀makes฀students฀into฀anthropologists฀or฀physicists฀ at฀the฀end฀of฀the฀term.฀Thus,฀we฀need฀to฀look฀at฀the฀claim฀more฀carefully.฀Precisely฀ what฀does฀it฀mean฀to฀assert฀that฀Marx฀was฀an฀anthropologist?฀What฀evidence฀and฀ lines฀of฀argumentation฀support฀this฀contention? Anthropology฀has฀a฀dual฀heritage.฀One฀strand,฀which฀we฀will฀call฀“empirical฀ anthropology”฀ for฀ the฀ moment,฀ examines฀ both฀ the฀ external฀ characteristics฀ of฀ human฀beings฀and฀their฀cultural฀achievements,฀including฀how฀they฀communicate฀ symbolically,฀the฀activities฀that฀define฀their฀social฀lives฀and฀relationships,฀and฀the฀ material฀evidence฀for฀their฀history฀both฀social฀and฀as฀a฀species฀(Diamond฀1980:฀ 13).฀Over฀the฀centuries,฀various฀writers฀have฀contributed฀to฀this฀strand฀of฀anthropological฀ thought;฀ these฀ include฀ Herodotus’s฀ description฀ of฀ Egyptian฀ society฀ in฀ the฀fifth฀century฀ BC,฀Li฀Ssu’s฀analysis฀of฀tributary฀relationships฀during฀the฀Ch’in฀ Dynasty,฀Domingo฀de฀Santo฀Tomas’s฀sixteenth-century฀grammar฀and฀dictionary฀of฀ the฀Inca฀language,฀Heinrich฀Schliemann’s฀excavations฀at฀Troy,฀or฀Mary฀Leakey’s฀ fossil฀and฀archaeological฀discoveries฀in฀East฀Africa,฀to฀name฀only฀a฀few.฀Empirical฀ anthropology฀has฀had฀a฀very฀discontinuous฀distribution฀in฀time฀and฀space,฀and฀this฀fact฀ has฀fueled฀a฀number฀of฀long-running฀debates฀concerned฀with฀whether฀anthropology฀ originated฀in฀classical฀antiquity,฀the฀Renaissance,฀the฀Enlightenment,฀or฀the฀late฀ nineteenth฀century;฀whether฀it฀was฀quintessentially฀a฀European฀activity;฀and฀whether฀ there฀might฀be฀non-European฀traditions฀of฀empirical฀anthropological฀practice.฀In฀ my฀view,฀it฀is฀possible฀to฀talk฀about฀a฀number฀of฀distinct฀traditions฀of฀empirical฀ anthropological฀inquiry,฀such฀as฀those฀fostered฀in฀classical฀antiquity,฀Renaissance฀

1

2฀ •฀ Karl฀Marx,฀Anthropologist Italy,฀sixteenth-century฀Spain,฀or฀the฀late฀eighteenth-century฀Enlightenment฀(e.g.฀ Pagden฀1982;฀Rowe฀1964,฀1965;฀Wokler฀1993).1 The฀other฀strand,฀often฀called฀“philosophical฀anthropology,”฀is฀concerned฀with฀ the฀presuppositions฀of฀the฀various฀traditions฀of฀empirical฀anthropology,฀especially฀ with฀what฀its฀practitioners฀believe฀to฀be฀the฀core฀features,฀or฀ontological฀structures,฀ that฀constitute฀human฀beings.฀As฀Michael฀Landmann฀(1969/1974:฀18)฀put฀it:฀“Are฀ we฀looking฀for฀properties฀that฀must฀be฀manifested฀in฀all฀men฀who฀have฀ever฀lived฀or฀ will฀live,฀in฀all฀cultures,฀or,฀in฀other฀words,฀for฀a฀criterion฀enabling฀us฀to฀determine฀ whether฀or฀not฀a฀being฀is฀a฀man฀at฀all?”฀Since฀its฀scope฀is฀different,฀philosophical฀ anthropology฀operates฀at฀a฀different฀level฀from฀the฀empirical฀strand฀and฀articulates฀in฀ different฀ways฀with฀social฀critiques฀as฀well฀as฀with฀other฀discussions฀or฀disciplines.฀ It฀arguably฀has฀a฀more฀continuous฀distribution฀in฀time฀and฀space.฀While฀I฀am฀not฀ claiming฀that฀there฀is฀only฀a฀single฀tradition฀of฀philosophical฀anthropology,฀I฀would฀ argue฀that,฀at฀any฀given฀moment,฀it฀resembles฀a฀cable฀with฀multiple,฀intertwined฀and฀ interacting฀strands.฀Moreover,฀empirical฀inquiries฀have฀episodically฀forced฀changes฀ in฀philosophical฀anthropology. While฀Marx฀was฀undoubtedly฀aware฀of฀both฀empirical฀and฀philosophical฀anthropology฀during฀his฀student฀days฀at฀Berlin,2฀he฀was฀seemingly฀concerned฀initially฀at฀ least฀with฀the฀former,฀judging฀by฀his฀1842฀critique฀of฀the฀philosophical฀underpinnings฀ of฀influential฀faculty฀members,฀who฀constituted฀the฀“German฀historical฀school฀of฀ law”฀and฀who฀argued฀among฀other฀things฀that฀laws฀typically฀develop฀organically฀ from฀the฀community฀without฀the฀interference฀of฀authorities฀(Marx฀1842/1975).฀His฀ association฀with฀Frederick฀Engels,฀which฀also฀began฀that฀year,฀would฀soon฀bring฀ the฀empirical฀strand฀and฀its฀ongoing฀importance฀into฀sharp฀focus.฀Shortly฀after฀ they฀met,฀Engels฀would฀spend฀two฀years฀in฀Manchester,฀England฀where฀he฀worked฀ in฀a฀family-owned฀mill฀and฀assembled฀the฀information฀for฀The฀Condition฀of฀the฀ Working฀Class฀in฀England,฀which฀has฀a฀legitimate฀claim฀to฀being฀the฀first฀urban฀ ethnography฀(Engels฀1845/1975).฀In฀a฀similar฀vein,฀Marx฀and฀Engels’s฀(1848/1976)฀ Communist฀Manifesto,฀which฀appeared฀in฀1848,฀can฀be฀viewed฀as฀a฀set฀of฀policy฀ recommendations฀not฀unlike฀those฀made฀today฀by฀applied฀anthropologists฀concerned฀ with฀the฀well-being฀of฀the฀peoples฀with฀whom฀they฀work.฀It฀was฀an฀early฀effort฀at฀ anthropological฀praxis—the฀merging฀of฀data,฀theory,฀and฀practice. These฀were฀followed฀from฀the฀early฀1850s฀onward฀by฀the฀thick฀descriptions฀ and฀analyses฀of฀The฀Eighteenth฀Brumaire฀and฀The฀Civil฀War฀in฀France,฀which฀ depict฀the฀dynamics฀of฀mid฀nineteenth-century฀class฀struggle฀in฀France฀and฀the฀ organization฀of฀the฀Paris฀Commune฀in฀the฀wake฀of฀the฀Franco-Prussian฀War฀of฀ 1871฀(Marx฀1852/1979,฀1871/1986).฀Interspersed฀with฀his฀more฀empirical฀studies฀ were฀theoretically฀informed,฀historical฀analyses฀of฀different฀forms฀of฀pre-฀or฀noncapitalist฀property฀relations฀and฀the฀development฀of฀capitalism—i.e.฀The฀Grundrisse฀ of฀1857–8฀and฀Capital,฀which฀he฀wrote฀in฀the฀mid฀1860s฀(Marx฀1857–8/1973,฀ 1863–7/1977,฀1864–94/1981,฀1865–85/1981).฀Marx฀also฀continued฀his฀explorations฀ of฀the฀philosophical฀underpinnings฀of฀a฀variety฀of฀subjects฀ranging฀from฀his฀critique฀

Introduction฀ •฀ 3 of฀the฀socialists’฀Gotha฀Program฀to฀the฀new฀ethnology฀of฀Lewis฀Henry฀Morgan฀and฀ others,฀which฀he฀outlined฀in฀his฀Ethnological฀Notebooks฀in฀the฀early฀1880s฀just฀ before฀his฀death฀(Marx฀1875/1989,฀1880–2/1974). This฀book฀has฀two฀aims.฀The฀first฀is฀to฀examine฀what฀one฀social฀theorist,฀Karl฀ Marx,฀made฀of฀the฀anthropological฀discussions฀that฀had฀taken฀place฀since฀the฀mid฀ eighteenth฀century฀and฀that,฀in฀many฀ways,฀had฀formative฀or฀shaping฀influences฀on฀ his฀thought.฀For฀more฀than฀a฀century,฀commentators฀have฀customarily฀acknowledged฀ that฀Marx฀drew฀inspiration฀from฀the฀writings฀of฀British฀political฀economists,฀German฀ philosophers,฀and฀French฀socialists฀(e.g.฀Engels฀1878/1987;฀Lenin฀1913/1963).฀ However,฀it฀is฀clear฀from฀citations฀and฀casual฀references฀that฀Marx฀read฀more฀widely฀ than฀those฀commentators฀suggested.฀While฀trained฀as฀a฀philosopher,฀Marx฀was฀ also฀an฀anthropologist฀by฀nineteenth-century฀standards฀if฀not฀by฀modern฀ones.฀The฀ question฀here฀is:฀What฀were฀the฀sensibilities฀of฀his฀philosophical฀anthropology฀and฀ what฀might฀it฀look฀like฀today? After฀contextualizing฀Marx’s฀work฀and฀elaborating฀his฀anthropology,฀I฀want฀to฀ consider฀what฀his฀legacy฀actually฀is฀or฀could฀be฀to฀the฀issues฀of฀anthropological฀ importance฀today—not฀just฀the฀obvious฀or฀the฀easy฀ones฀such฀as฀the฀transition฀to฀ or฀the฀effects฀of฀capitalism฀but฀also฀issues฀about฀which฀he฀said฀little฀if฀anything฀ directly.฀In฀other฀words,฀given฀what฀we฀know฀about฀his฀philosophical฀anthropology,฀ what฀might฀he฀have฀said฀today฀about฀such฀issues฀of฀empirical฀anthropology฀as฀the฀ evolution฀of฀humankind,฀the฀origins฀and฀consequences฀of฀symbolic฀communication฀ with฀and฀through฀language,฀the฀development฀of฀personhood,฀state฀formation,฀and,฀ perhaps฀most฀importantly,฀the฀question฀of฀where฀anthropology฀goes฀from฀here.

Polemics,฀Caveats,฀and฀Standpoints This฀book฀is฀a฀polemic.฀I฀have฀a฀perspective฀or฀standpoint฀on฀Marx’s฀writings฀and฀their฀ relations฀with฀authors฀who฀employ฀and฀advocate฀other฀social฀theoretical฀traditions฀as฀ well฀as฀with฀subsequent฀writers฀within฀the฀Marxist฀tradition฀who฀have฀been฀influenced฀ to฀varying฀degrees฀and฀in฀different฀ways฀by฀Marx฀and฀his฀successors.฀Controversies฀ have฀swirled฀around฀interpretations฀of฀Marx฀and฀his฀writings฀for฀more฀than฀a฀century.฀ These฀result฀partly฀from฀different฀political฀and฀philosophical฀commitments฀and฀ partly฀from฀disagreements฀over฀political฀tactics฀in฀particular฀concrete฀situations.฀ There฀are฀diverse฀external฀critiques฀of฀Marx’s฀thought฀and฀that฀of฀his฀successors฀(e.g.฀ Giddens฀1981;฀MacGregor฀1998;฀Rorty฀1989)฀as฀well฀as฀even฀more฀numerous฀and฀ diverse฀disagreements฀that฀are฀internal฀to฀the฀Marxist฀tradition฀(e.g.฀Cohen฀1978;฀ Cullenberg฀1996;฀O’Neill฀1982;฀Thompson฀1978).฀Some฀of฀the฀debates฀reflect฀the฀ availability฀of฀Marx’s฀writings฀at฀the฀time฀they฀were฀written.฀For฀example,฀the฀third฀ volume฀of฀Capital฀was฀not฀published฀until฀1895;฀the฀Theories฀of฀Surplus฀Value฀did฀ not฀appear฀until฀1911;฀The฀Economic฀and฀Philosophical฀Manuscripts฀of฀1844,฀which฀ were฀published฀first฀in฀German฀in฀1932฀and฀then฀in฀Russian฀in฀1956,฀only฀became฀

4฀ •฀ Karl฀Marx,฀Anthropologist available฀in฀English฀in฀1960;฀and฀the฀Grundrisse฀was฀largely฀unknown฀in฀the฀West฀ until฀Martin฀Nicolaus’s฀English฀translation฀appeared฀in฀1973.฀In฀practical฀terms,฀this฀ means฀that฀someone฀writing฀in฀1910,฀for฀instance,฀might฀not฀even฀have฀been฀aware฀ of฀the฀existence฀of฀the฀unpublished฀works฀and฀would฀certainly฀not฀have฀been฀able฀to฀ assess฀either฀their฀content฀or฀potential฀significance฀at฀the฀time. A฀number฀of฀things฀are฀at฀stake฀in฀the฀debates.฀These฀include฀but฀are฀not฀limited฀ to฀the฀following฀questions:฀Did฀Marx฀hold฀a฀linear฀theory฀of฀social฀(r)evolution,฀or฀ did฀he฀have฀more฀textured฀appreciation฀of฀the฀possibilities฀of฀diverse฀trajectories฀ of฀historical฀development฀and฀the฀importance฀of฀historical฀contingency?฀Was฀he฀an฀ economic฀determinist฀who฀held฀to฀a฀strict฀base–superstructure฀model฀of฀society฀and฀ believed฀in฀the฀economic฀determination฀of฀society,฀culture,฀and฀history฀in฀the฀last฀ instance,฀or฀did฀he฀have฀a฀more฀nuanced฀understanding฀of฀the฀mutual฀interconnections฀ of฀ensembles฀of฀social฀relations,฀culture,฀practical฀activity,฀and฀the฀capacity฀of฀people฀ to฀make฀their฀own฀history฀on฀occasion?฀Did฀he฀argue฀that฀people฀were฀merely฀the฀ bearers฀of฀economic,฀political-juridical,฀and฀ideological฀structures฀that฀shaped฀their฀ beliefs฀and฀actions,฀or฀did฀he฀believe฀that฀human฀beings฀possessed฀agency฀and฀ had฀the฀capacity฀to฀change฀those฀structures?฀Did฀he฀hold฀that฀human฀beings฀acted฀ always฀as฀economically฀rational฀individuals฀and฀that฀the฀cultural฀norms฀of฀a฀society฀ were฀reducible฀to฀individual฀choice,฀or฀did฀he฀think฀that฀people฀make฀their฀own฀ history฀under฀circumstances฀not฀of฀their฀own฀choice฀but฀rather฀under฀those฀which฀ they฀confronted?฀Did฀he฀accept฀a฀notion฀of฀society฀that฀was฀merely฀the฀sum฀of฀its฀ individual฀parts,฀which฀existed฀prior฀to฀and฀independent฀of฀the฀totality฀(a฀Cartesian฀ totality฀which฀could฀be฀reduced฀atomistically฀to฀those฀parts);฀did฀he฀adopt฀a฀more฀ holistic฀(Hegelian)฀notion฀of฀society฀in฀which฀neither฀the฀parts฀nor฀the฀whole฀were฀ reducible฀to฀the฀other฀and฀whose฀essence฀unfolded฀dialectically,฀successively,฀and฀ teleologically฀throughout฀history;฀or฀did฀Marx฀see฀the฀sociohistorical฀totality฀as฀ something฀that฀lacked฀a฀beginning฀(essence)฀or฀end฀(telos)฀and฀was฀instead฀“the฀ ever-pre-givenness฀of฀a฀structured฀complex฀unity”฀as฀Louis฀Althusser฀(1963/1970:฀ 199;฀emphasis฀in฀the฀original)฀claimed?฀Did฀Marx฀suppose฀that฀thinking฀and฀being฀ were฀distinct฀from฀one฀another฀and฀that฀the฀latter฀had฀an฀ontological฀priority฀over฀the฀ former,฀or฀did฀he฀believe฀that฀they฀were฀mutually฀constitutive฀of฀one฀another฀and฀hence฀ both฀irreducible฀to฀and฀overdetermined฀by฀the฀other?฀Were฀social-class฀structures฀ expressing฀domination,฀oppression,฀and฀exploitation฀universal฀features฀of฀the฀human฀ condition,฀or฀were฀they฀historically฀constituted฀under฀particular฀circumstances฀ and฀conditions?฀Were฀Marx’s฀social฀individuals—defined฀by฀their฀positionality฀in฀ particular฀ensembles฀of฀social฀relations—also฀fragmented,฀contradictory฀subjects?฀ Were฀they฀alienated฀individuals฀whose฀subjectivities฀were฀partly฀constituted฀through฀ the฀perceptions฀of฀others;฀were฀their฀subjectivities฀self-constructed,฀situational,฀and฀ impermanent;฀or฀did฀they฀only฀come฀into฀existence฀through฀the฀interplay฀of฀language฀ and฀power฀lodged฀in฀impersonal฀institutions? The฀answers฀to฀these฀and฀similar฀questions฀are฀not฀exclusively฀academic฀concerns,฀ since฀they฀may฀have฀immediate฀consequences฀for฀what฀you฀as฀a฀human฀being฀

Introduction฀ •฀ 5 believe,฀for฀how฀you฀choose฀to฀live฀your฀life,฀and฀for฀the฀kinds฀of฀practical฀activity,฀ commitments,฀and฀political฀action฀with฀which฀you฀are฀able฀and฀willing฀to฀engage.฀As฀ an฀activist฀friend,฀born฀and฀bred฀on฀the฀Lower฀East฀Side฀of฀New฀York,฀used฀to฀say:฀ “The฀path฀to฀radical฀social฀change฀is฀like฀riding฀the฀Broadway฀local฀from฀the฀Staten฀ Island฀terminal฀(a฀subway฀line฀that฀runs฀from฀Staten฀Island฀to฀the฀Bronx).฀Some฀ people฀get฀off฀at฀the฀first฀stop;฀others฀will฀ride฀to฀Times฀Square฀or฀even฀Harlem;฀and฀ a฀few฀will฀stay฀all฀the฀way฀to฀the฀end฀of฀the฀line.” This฀book฀has฀a฀standpoint฀with฀regard฀to฀these฀and฀other฀issues.฀Among฀other฀ things,฀I฀will฀argue฀that฀Marx฀adopted฀a฀critical-dialectical฀perspective฀that฀historicized฀both฀nature฀and฀human฀society—a฀perspective฀that฀began฀with฀Montesquieu,฀ Rousseau,฀and฀Buffon฀in฀the฀mid฀eighteenth฀century,฀and฀that฀ultimately฀had฀a฀ significant฀impact฀on฀Scottish฀Enlightenment฀writers฀like฀Adam฀Smith฀as฀well฀as฀ German฀critics฀of฀Enlightenment฀liberalism฀like฀Herder฀and฀Hegel.฀In฀the฀late฀1830s฀ and฀early฀1840s,฀Marx฀began฀to฀develop฀a฀philosophical฀anthropology฀that฀included฀ the฀corporeal฀organization฀of฀human฀beings,฀ensembles฀of฀social฀relations,฀the฀ relation฀of฀the฀individual฀to฀society,฀the฀diversity฀and฀historicity฀of฀human฀societies,฀ alienation,฀objectification,฀production,฀reproduction,฀labor,฀freedom,฀practical฀ activity,฀and฀the฀historicity฀of฀dispositions฀and฀social฀relations฀commonly฀attributed฀ to฀human฀nature.฀These฀informed฀the฀empirical฀anthropology฀he฀developed฀from฀ the฀1840s฀onward:฀his฀studies฀of฀the฀failed฀revolutions฀on฀the฀European฀continent฀in฀ 1848–9,฀the฀Indian฀mutiny฀of฀the฀1850s,฀the฀critique฀of฀capitalism฀in฀the฀1860s,฀and฀ the฀impact฀of฀imperialism฀on฀societies฀and฀cultural฀practices฀on฀the฀periphery฀of฀the฀ capitalist฀world฀in฀the฀1870s.

Organization฀of฀the฀Book Marx฀was฀a฀prodigious฀reader.฀He฀was฀familiar฀with฀the฀writers฀of฀both฀classical฀ antiquity฀and฀the฀Enlightenment.฀Since฀neither฀were฀ever฀monolithic฀intellectual฀ movements,฀ this฀ means฀ that฀ he฀ had฀ greater฀ or฀ lesser฀ familiarity฀ with฀ various฀ philosophical฀perspectives฀that฀were฀developed฀first฀in฀antiquity฀and฀then฀were฀ recycled,฀refined,฀and฀superseded฀from฀the฀late฀seventeenth฀century฀onward.฀More฀ importantly,฀he฀was฀familiar฀with฀the฀arguments฀they฀produced฀and฀with฀the฀ways฀in฀ which฀they฀were฀inscribed฀in฀the฀cultural฀patterns,฀traditions,฀and฀politics฀of฀his฀day. Chapter฀1,฀“The฀Enlightenment฀and฀Anthropology,”฀examines฀how฀nature฀and฀ then฀human฀society฀were฀slowly฀historicized฀from฀the฀1670s฀onward,฀culminating฀ in฀Montesquieu’s฀The฀Spirit฀of฀the฀Laws,฀Buffon’s฀Natural฀History,฀and฀Rousseau’s฀ Discourse฀on฀the฀Origins฀of฀Inequality,฀all฀of฀which฀were฀published฀around฀1750.฀ These฀path-breaking฀works฀had฀marked฀influences฀on฀subsequent฀writers.฀It฀is฀ reasonable฀to฀say฀that฀the฀Scottish฀historical฀philosophers฀like฀Adam฀Smith฀as฀well฀ as฀central฀European฀philosophers฀like฀Kant,฀Herder,฀and฀Hegel฀engaged฀in฀a฀dialogue฀ with฀the฀historical-dialectical฀and฀critical฀anthropology฀outlined฀by฀Montesquieu,฀

6฀ •฀ Karl฀Marx,฀Anthropologist Buffon,฀and฀Rousseau.฀An฀anthropological฀perspective,฀combining฀both฀its฀empirical฀ and฀philosophical฀dimensions,฀crystallized฀at฀the฀University฀of฀Göttingen฀in฀the฀ late฀eighteenth฀century;฀the฀importance฀of฀this,฀from฀our฀standpoint,฀was฀that฀this฀ perspective฀served฀as฀the฀model฀for฀university฀reform฀in฀Europe฀and฀elsewhere,฀most฀ notably฀at฀the฀University฀of฀Berlin฀where฀Marx฀was฀a฀student฀in฀the฀late฀1830s. Chapter฀2,฀“Marx’s฀Anthropology,”฀outlines฀the฀major฀features฀of฀his฀philosophical฀anthropology—the฀corporeal฀organization฀of฀human฀beings,฀the฀significance฀of฀ ensembles฀of฀social฀relations,฀the฀diversity฀and฀historicity฀of฀human฀societies,฀and฀ the฀importance฀of฀praxis฀in฀the฀production,฀reproduction,฀and฀transformation฀of฀those฀ communities.฀Unlike฀Rousseau,฀Hegel,฀and฀others,฀Marx฀did฀not฀distinguish฀between฀ the฀physical฀and฀moral฀character฀of฀human฀beings฀and฀thus฀separate฀the฀human฀ history฀from฀the฀realm฀of฀nature.฀He฀saw฀a฀dialectical฀interplay฀between฀a฀biological฀ substrate—the฀corporeal฀organization฀of฀the฀body,฀which฀endows฀all฀members฀of฀the฀ human฀species฀with฀certain฀potentials—and฀the฀sets฀of฀social฀relations฀that฀shape฀ everyday฀life฀in฀the฀worlds฀in฀which฀the฀social฀individuals฀of฀historically฀specific฀ communities฀live฀and฀acquire฀their฀consciousness.฀Thus,฀human฀nature฀is฀not฀only฀ historicized฀but฀also฀plural.฀Marx’s฀view฀of฀the฀world฀was฀profoundly฀historicist,฀and฀ history฀involved฀the฀intertwined฀development฀of฀human฀beings,฀ensembles฀of฀social฀ relations฀(societies),฀and฀nature฀itself.฀Finally,฀the฀chapter฀considers฀Marx’s฀notion฀of฀ praxis,฀the฀most฀basic฀and฀characteristic฀feature฀of฀human฀beings,฀by฀means฀of฀which฀ they฀establish฀relations฀with฀objects฀of฀the฀external฀world฀and฀with฀one฀another. Chapter฀3,฀“Human฀Natural฀Beings,”฀considers฀the฀bases฀for฀Marx’s฀agreement฀ with฀and฀positive฀evaluation฀of฀Charles฀Darwin’s฀The฀Origin฀of฀Species฀(1859/1964).฀ These฀included฀Darwin’s฀rejection฀of฀teleological฀arguments฀in฀the฀natural฀sciences,฀ his฀adoption฀of฀a฀notion฀of฀historically฀contingent฀change,฀his฀concern฀with฀variation,฀ and฀his฀view฀that฀individual฀organisms฀are฀the฀consequence฀of฀interactions฀with฀ their฀environments.฀This฀provides฀a฀foundation฀for฀considering฀in฀more฀detail฀real฀ or฀potential฀connections฀between฀the฀materialist฀and฀naturalist฀positions฀put฀forth฀ by฀Marx฀and฀Charles฀Darwin฀in฀the฀nineteenth฀century—a฀process฀which฀has฀been฀ set฀in฀motion฀by฀Joseph฀Fracchia,฀Richard฀Lewontin,฀David฀McNally,฀and฀others฀in฀ recent฀years.฀The฀chapter฀then฀explores฀concepts฀elaborated฀by฀Marx฀in฀the฀1840s,฀ which฀he฀subsequently฀honed฀in฀later฀works:฀the฀corporeal฀organization฀of฀human฀ beings,฀objectification฀(how฀they฀came฀to฀be฀aware฀of฀the฀world฀through฀sensory฀ experience฀while฀living฀in฀social฀groups฀that฀transformed฀given฀natural฀and฀preexisting฀sociocultural฀worlds฀into฀human฀worlds),฀and฀dispositions฀(the฀capabilities฀ and฀constraints฀embedded฀in฀those฀thinking฀bodies).฀Labor฀is฀an฀embodied฀process฀ as฀are฀instruments฀of฀labor฀like฀the฀hand,฀the฀human฀perceptual฀system,฀the฀brain,฀and฀ the฀anatomical฀structures฀associated฀with฀speech.฀Using฀this฀conceptual฀framework฀ as฀well฀as฀Engels’s฀(1876/1972)฀essay฀on฀the฀role฀of฀labor฀in฀the฀transition฀from฀ape฀ to฀human,฀it฀examines฀the฀human฀fossil฀record฀in฀order฀to฀discern฀the฀interplay฀of฀ changing฀dispositions฀and฀anatomical฀structures,฀the฀emergence฀of฀practices฀such฀as฀ tool-making฀and฀language,฀and฀how฀these฀might฀have฀happened.

Introduction฀ •฀ 7 Chapter฀4,฀“History,฀Culture,฀and฀Social฀Formation,”฀explores฀the฀alternative฀ Marx฀developed฀from฀the฀late฀1850s฀onward฀to฀the฀societal฀evolutionism฀of฀the฀ Enlightenment฀theorists฀of฀agrarian฀capitalism฀or฀to฀Hegel’s฀teleological฀views฀ about฀the฀actualization฀of฀the฀human฀mind฀and฀the฀unfolding฀of฀free฀subjectivity.฀ Marx฀focused฀instead฀on฀the฀historicity฀of฀the฀individual฀and฀of฀social฀relations฀ rather฀than฀a฀human฀nature฀that฀could฀be฀reduced฀largely฀to฀its฀psychobiological฀or฀ spiritual฀dimensions.฀In฀his฀view,฀the฀distinctive฀features฀of฀humankind—creative฀ intelligence฀realized฀through฀and฀manifested฀in฀labor,฀sociality,฀language,฀culture,฀the฀ production฀of฀use฀values฀(items฀that฀satisfy฀human฀needs),฀and฀the฀creation฀of฀new฀ needs—were฀neither฀timeless฀nor฀persistent฀but฀rather฀were฀constituted,฀reproduced,฀ and฀transformed฀in฀particular฀sociohistorical฀contexts.฀Marx฀began฀his฀analysis฀of฀ how฀societies฀produced฀the฀material฀conditions฀for฀their฀own฀reproduction฀not฀with฀ exchange,฀supply฀and฀demand,฀or฀the฀allocation฀of฀scarce฀resources฀(the฀starting฀ points฀for฀classical฀political฀economists)฀but฀rather฀with฀production฀itself.฀Using฀ the฀concept฀of฀a฀mode฀of฀production,฀he฀developed฀a฀commentary฀on฀alternative฀ pathways฀in฀the฀development฀of฀property฀relations฀away฀from฀those฀of฀the฀original฀ kinship-based฀communities.฀In฀effect,฀he฀argued฀that฀not฀all฀historically฀specific฀ societies฀developed฀in฀the฀same฀way฀or฀even฀passed฀through฀the฀same฀succession฀ of฀modes฀of฀production.฀Here,฀we฀examine฀both฀the฀theoretical฀framework฀Marx฀ sketched฀as฀well฀as฀how฀archaeologists฀and฀historians฀have฀contributed฀to฀the฀ clarification฀of฀its฀implications. Chapter฀5,฀“Capitalism฀and฀the฀Anthropology฀of฀the฀Modern฀World,”฀considers฀ what฀Marx฀thought฀about฀the฀processes฀underlying฀the฀transition฀to฀capitalism฀and฀ the฀subsequent฀development฀of฀industrial฀capitalism฀on฀an฀ever-expanding฀scale฀ through฀the฀formation฀of฀domestic฀and฀overseas฀markets,฀and฀colonies฀that฀supplied฀ not฀only฀raw฀materials฀but฀also฀customers฀for฀the฀commodities฀produced.฀While฀it฀ is฀a฀story฀of฀the฀plunder฀of฀primitive฀accumulation฀and฀the฀relentless฀subordination฀ of฀ever-increasing฀numbers฀of฀people฀both฀at฀home฀and฀abroad฀into฀the฀disciplinary฀ relations฀of฀capitalism,฀it฀is฀also฀a฀story฀of฀resistance,฀uneven฀development฀along฀ different฀trajectories฀as฀a฀result฀of฀articulation฀of฀capitalist฀societies฀with฀societies฀ with฀different฀modes฀of฀production฀that฀were฀differentially฀resistant฀to฀change,฀and฀ the฀imposition฀of฀colonial฀rule฀by฀capitalist฀national฀states.฀The฀story฀also฀involved฀ massive฀emigration,฀the฀rise฀of฀nationalist฀politics฀and฀its฀interconnections฀with฀ diasporic฀communities,฀political฀fragmentation,฀creation฀of฀new฀colonial฀territories฀ and฀national฀states,฀and฀the฀development฀of฀new฀forms฀of฀political฀institutions฀and฀ practices.฀Marx฀was฀aware฀that฀there฀were฀state-based฀societies฀in฀which฀commodity฀ production฀was฀not฀well฀developed฀and฀market฀exchange฀had฀not฀penetrated฀into฀all฀ corners฀of฀everyday฀life.฀What฀distinguished฀them฀from฀capitalist฀societies฀and฀from฀ one฀another฀were฀the฀forms฀of฀social฀property฀relations฀and฀production฀as฀well฀as฀ the฀specific฀forms฀in฀which฀goods฀or฀labor฀power฀were฀appropriated฀from฀the฀direct฀ producers฀by฀the฀members฀of฀non-producing฀class(es)—e.g.฀through฀extra-economic฀ means฀such฀as฀coercion,฀taxes,฀laws,฀or฀rent฀or฀the฀exploitation฀of฀various฀categories฀

8฀ •฀ Karl฀Marx,฀Anthropologist of฀unfree฀labor฀and฀wage-workers.฀He฀recognized฀that฀property฀was฀a฀relation฀ between฀classes฀of฀individuals฀that฀was฀mediated฀by฀things.฀He฀also฀recognized฀that฀ political฀power฀entailed฀maintaining฀injustice฀in฀and฀through฀property฀relations.฀This฀ recognition฀underpinned฀his฀writings฀about฀the฀state฀from฀the฀1840s฀onward฀both฀ in฀general฀works฀and฀in฀accounts฀of฀particular฀cases,฀like฀France,฀Germany,฀or฀the฀ United฀States.฀His฀views฀on฀these฀topics฀provide฀the฀foundations฀for฀a฀historical฀and฀ critical-dialectical฀anthropology฀for฀the฀twenty-first฀century. Chapter฀6,฀“Anthropology฀for฀the฀Twenty-First฀Century,”฀begins฀with฀Marx’s฀first฀ premise฀of฀history:฀the฀existence฀of฀real,฀living฀human฀individuals.฀In฀The฀German฀ Ideology,฀he฀identifies฀three฀additional฀premises:฀(a)฀the฀activities฀by฀which฀the฀ individuals฀satisfy฀their฀needs;฀(b)฀the฀creation฀of฀new฀needs;฀and฀(c)฀the฀reproduction฀ of฀the฀individual฀in฀the฀family.฀Marx฀also฀claimed฀that฀reality฀does฀not฀reside฀in฀ the฀idea฀of฀society฀but฀rather฀in฀the฀reality฀of฀the฀individual,฀and฀that,฀while฀there฀ can฀be฀no฀relation฀between฀the฀individual฀and฀society,฀there฀are฀relations฀among฀ individuals.฀Moreover,฀history฀is฀experienced฀phenomenologically฀in฀the฀lives฀of฀ living฀individuals.฀This฀raises฀a฀number฀of฀questions.฀For฀example,฀how฀do฀personal฀ conditions฀and฀experiences฀become฀general฀ones?฀How฀do฀individuals฀realize฀needs฀ and฀desires,฀create฀new฀needs,฀and฀reproduce฀themselves?฀What฀is฀involved฀in฀the฀ self-realization฀of฀these฀capacities,฀and฀what฀constrains฀their฀self-actualization? The฀problems฀we฀confront฀in฀the฀twenty-first฀century฀have฀not฀changed:฀the฀need฀ for฀social฀justice฀in฀its฀myriad฀dimensions,฀discrimination฀(based฀on฀racism,฀sexism,฀ xenophobia,฀and฀the฀intolerance฀of฀various฀nationalisms฀and฀fundamentalisms),฀ the฀inequities฀marked฀by฀class฀struggle,฀and฀the฀degradation฀of฀the฀world฀on฀which฀ we฀live,฀to฀name฀only฀a฀few.฀Marx฀might฀even฀argue฀that฀the฀celebration฀of฀diverse฀ identities฀in฀the฀absence฀of฀inequality฀and฀discrimination฀is฀probably฀not฀such฀a฀bad฀ idea.฀The฀issue฀is฀how฀do฀we฀eliminate฀discrimination฀in฀circumstances฀in฀which฀ diversity฀is฀continually฀reconstituted฀in฀order฀to฀perpetuate฀inequalities?฀Marx’s฀ political฀activism฀and฀sense฀of฀social฀justice฀were฀always฀combined฀with฀continuous฀ critical฀investigation.฀He฀was฀acutely฀aware฀of฀how฀unforgiving฀the฀consequences฀of฀ political฀action฀can฀be;฀he฀also฀knew฀how฀important฀it฀is฀to฀understand฀as฀accurately฀ and฀completely฀as฀possible฀the฀forces฀involved฀and฀in฀getting฀political฀action฀right.฀ After฀all,฀some฀stories฀or฀visions฀of฀the฀future฀have฀better฀endings฀than฀others!

–1– The฀Enlightenment฀and฀Anthropology The฀Enlightenment,฀the฀“Age฀of฀Reason,”฀was฀a฀tumultuous฀period.฀It฀persisted,฀ according฀to฀some,฀from฀the฀early฀1600s฀to฀as฀late฀as฀the฀1830s.฀It฀was฀marked฀by฀a฀ series฀of฀processes฀that฀mutually฀shaped฀and฀reinforced฀one฀another.฀These฀included:฀ (1)฀the฀formation฀of฀merchant฀empires฀and฀overseas฀colonies฀in฀the฀Americas,฀Africa,฀ and฀Asia฀established฀by฀Holland,฀Spain,฀Portugal,฀England,฀France,฀and฀Russia฀from฀ the฀mid฀fifteenth฀century฀onward฀combined฀with฀the฀creation฀of฀increasingly฀large฀ domestic฀markets฀in฀England฀and฀other฀parts฀of฀Europe฀(McNally฀1988;฀Tracy฀1990);฀ (2)฀the฀rise฀of฀anti-authoritarian฀sentiment,฀skepticism,฀and฀the฀appeal฀to฀reason฀or฀ rationality฀which฀challenged฀and฀ultimately฀eroded฀the฀divinely฀ordained฀authority฀ claimed฀by฀the฀churches฀and฀the฀aristocracy฀during฀and฀after฀the฀Reformation฀ (Israel฀2001;฀Popkin฀1979);฀(3)฀the฀“scientific฀revolution”—also฀characterized฀as฀ the฀“conquest฀of฀nature”฀or฀the฀“death฀of฀nature”—which฀involved฀the฀assimilation฀ of฀a฀new฀understanding฀of฀nature฀into฀the฀wider฀culture฀and฀society,฀because฀of฀the฀ desire฀of฀the฀emerging฀commercial฀classes฀for฀technological฀innovations฀and฀the฀ erosion฀of฀barriers฀separating฀intellectuals฀and฀artisans฀(Forbes฀1968;฀Jacob฀1988;฀ Merchant฀1980;฀Zilsel฀2003);฀and฀(4)฀the฀rise฀of฀industrial฀capitalism,฀analyzed฀later฀ by฀Marx฀in฀Capital,฀which฀involved฀the฀appearance฀of฀new฀forms฀of฀manufacture฀ from฀about฀1750฀onward฀that฀were฀based฀on฀the฀continual฀adoption฀of฀technological฀ innovations,฀the฀transformation฀of฀social฀relations,฀the฀construction฀of฀factories,฀and฀ the฀growth฀of฀cities฀across฀northern฀Europe฀(Hobsbawm฀1968). The฀Enlightenment฀was฀also฀marked฀by฀continuous฀conflicts฀between฀Catholics,฀ Lutherans,฀Calvinists,฀and฀various฀Protestant฀fringe฀movements฀from฀the฀1520s฀ onward.฀Some฀claim฀that฀this฀“war฀of฀the฀Churches฀constituted฀Europe’s฀prime฀ engine฀of฀cultural฀and฀educational฀change”฀until฀the฀mid฀seventeenth฀century฀when฀ “major฀intellectual฀turmoil฀developed฀first฀in฀the฀Dutch฀Republic฀and฀the฀Calvinist฀ states฀of฀Germany”฀(Israel฀2001:฀23).฀Besides฀the฀ideological฀and฀political฀strife฀ that฀formed฀the฀backdrop฀to฀everyday฀life,฀there฀were฀probably฀no฀more฀than฀a฀few฀ decades฀between฀1600฀and฀1830฀when฀peace฀prevailed฀and฀battles฀or฀wars฀were฀not฀ being฀waged฀somewhere฀in฀the฀world.฀The฀impact฀of฀the฀Enlightenment฀was฀not฀ limited฀to฀the฀soldiers฀and฀sailors฀who฀died฀in฀these฀wars.฀It฀was฀felt฀by฀all฀layers฀of฀ society.฀More฀than฀one฀aristocrat฀and฀preacher฀of฀the฀day฀lamented฀that฀“even฀the฀ common฀people฀were฀susceptible฀to฀new฀ideas”฀(Israel฀2001:฀1,฀8–9). While฀Europe฀is฀often฀portrayed฀as฀its฀center฀of฀gravity,฀this฀is฀not฀precisely฀correct.฀ Enlightenment฀thought฀was฀discussed฀and฀deployed฀in฀the฀Americas,฀the฀Middle฀

9

10฀ •฀ Karl฀Marx,฀Anthropologist East,฀and฀Asia.฀For฀example,฀the฀rhetoric฀of฀the฀American฀Revolution฀was฀rooted฀in฀ the฀ideas฀of฀Enlightenment฀writers.฀The฀contents฀of฀Mercurio฀Peruano,฀published฀in฀ Peru฀during฀the฀1790s,฀included฀articles฀ranging฀from฀Newtonian฀science฀and฀natural฀ history฀through฀commentaries฀on฀political฀economy฀to฀discussions฀of฀philosophy,฀the฀ French฀Revolution,฀and฀the฀idea฀of฀the฀nation.฀Commercial฀minorities฀that฀connected฀ the฀Ottoman฀state,฀India,฀China,฀and฀Japan฀to฀Europe฀were฀familiar฀with฀the฀scientific฀ and฀social-theoretical฀contributions฀of฀the฀Enlightenment฀(e.g.฀Chatterjee฀1986:฀ 54;฀Gran฀1979;฀Habib฀1990;฀Mauro฀1990;฀Rossabi฀1990;฀Wang฀1990).฀What฀the฀ Enlightenment฀provided฀were฀analytical฀categories฀and฀a฀conceptual฀framework—a฀ language,฀if฀you฀will—for฀discussing฀issues฀of฀the฀day.฀Political฀reformers฀and฀ leaders฀of฀nationalist฀or฀revolutionary฀movements฀in฀areas฀as฀widely฀separated฀as฀ Latin฀America,฀the฀eastern฀Mediterranean฀(including฀Egypt฀and฀Greece),฀and฀Japan฀ used฀this฀language฀from฀the฀late฀eighteenth฀century฀onward฀to฀express฀and฀buttress฀ their฀plans฀and฀goals.฀Moreover,฀virtually฀every฀nationalist฀movement฀of฀the฀last฀two฀ centuries฀has฀made฀use฀of฀concepts฀originated฀by฀or฀derived฀from฀Enlightenment฀ writers. This฀chapter฀has฀three฀goals.฀The฀first฀is฀to฀comment฀briefly฀on฀early฀Enlightenment฀thought฀in฀order฀to฀provide฀a฀background฀to฀standpoints฀that฀appeared฀around฀ 1750฀and฀affected฀social฀commentators,฀including฀Marx,฀who฀wrote฀after฀that฀date.฀ The฀second฀goal฀is฀to฀examine฀both฀the฀philosophical฀and฀empirical฀foundations฀of฀ the฀new฀anthropology฀of฀Enlightenment฀writers฀as฀well฀as฀the฀contexts฀in฀which฀it฀ emerged฀in฀the฀mid฀eighteenth฀century.฀The฀third฀goal฀is฀to฀examine฀the฀subsequent฀ development฀ of฀ anthropology฀ and฀ to฀ consider฀ the฀ various฀ manifestations฀ of฀ anthropological฀sensibilities฀in฀the฀late฀eighteenth฀and฀early฀nineteenth฀centuries.

Early฀Enlightenment฀Thought The฀standpoints฀of฀Enlightenment฀thinkers฀never฀constituted฀a฀unified,฀fixed฀body฀ of฀ideas฀and฀arguments.฀The฀movement฀can฀be฀described฀as฀a฀spectrum฀of฀warring฀ factions฀engaged฀in฀heated฀debate,฀whose฀perspectives,฀boundaries,฀centers฀of฀ gravity,฀and฀even฀membership฀shifted฀as฀they฀developed฀through฀time.฀At฀one฀end฀ were฀the฀traditionalists฀who฀argued฀for฀the฀divinely฀inspired฀authority฀of฀the฀existing฀ aristocratic฀and฀ecclesiastical฀hierarchies.฀The฀other,฀radical฀end฀of฀the฀spectrum฀ was฀occupied฀by฀a฀number฀of฀individuals,฀the฀most฀notable฀of฀whom฀were฀Baruch฀ Spinoza฀(1632–77)฀and฀Gottfried฀Leibniz฀(1646–1716).฀The฀former,฀a฀Dutch฀lens฀ grinder,฀challenged฀knowledge฀claims฀based฀on฀revealed฀religion฀and฀argued,฀among฀ other฀things,฀that฀nature฀creates฀itself฀in฀accordance฀with฀rules฀which฀govern฀its฀ operation,฀that฀the฀creations฀of฀nature฀are฀produced฀in฀a฀fixed฀order,฀and฀that฀human฀ values฀(e.g.฀good฀and฀evil)฀do฀not฀exist฀in฀nature฀but฀are฀human฀creations฀instead฀ (Allison฀2005;฀Garrett฀1995).฀The฀latter,฀a฀German฀mining฀engineer฀and฀civil฀servant,฀ laid฀the฀foundations฀for฀seeing฀nature฀historically฀as฀a฀dynamic฀world฀in฀flux฀that฀had฀

The฀Enlightenment฀and฀Anthropology฀ •฀ 11 the฀capacity฀to฀change฀continually฀through฀time฀(Garber฀2005;฀Glass฀1959:฀37–8;฀ Sleigh฀1995).฀Arrayed฀between฀the฀traditionalist฀and฀radical฀extremes฀were฀a฀series฀ of฀intermediate,฀“moderate”฀standpoints—such฀as฀Cartesianism฀(rationalism)฀and฀ empiricism.฀Each฀position฀had฀theological,฀scientific,฀political,฀and฀philosophical฀ dimensions.฀The฀arguments฀among฀their฀advocates฀“rarely฀referred฀directly฀to฀the฀ political฀and฀social฀conflict฀but฀did฀so฀in฀a฀mediated฀way.฀These฀conflicts฀were฀about฀ the฀nature฀of฀fundamental฀boundaries,฀like฀that฀between฀mind฀and฀body,฀human฀and฀ animal,฀living฀and฀non-living,฀male฀and฀female”฀(Jordanova฀1986:฀33).฀They฀also฀ gave฀rise฀to฀enduring฀terms฀like฀“materialist,”฀“liberal,”฀“romantic,”฀“conservative,”฀ and฀“socialist”฀not฀to฀mention฀the฀words฀“ideology”฀and฀“scientist.” The฀most฀striking฀features฀shared฀by฀a฀majority฀of฀the฀factions฀of฀the฀Enlightenment,฀but฀not฀always฀the฀same฀ones,฀were฀arguments฀about฀the฀autonomy฀of฀the฀ individual,฀the฀importance฀of฀rationality฀or฀the฀use฀of฀reason,฀the฀existence฀of฀a฀natural฀ world฀constituted฀outside฀of฀human฀beings,฀and฀rather฀mechanistic฀views฀about฀what฀ nature฀was฀like.฀It฀is฀also฀clear,฀however,฀that฀they฀did฀not฀always฀necessarily฀see฀or฀ understand฀the฀individual,฀rationality,฀and฀nature฀in฀quite฀the฀same฀way.฀This฀was฀ true฀as฀well฀of฀their฀views฀on฀the฀importance฀of฀toleration,฀equality,฀property,฀and฀ contracts,฀which฀were฀also฀widely฀discussed.฀For฀our฀immediate฀purposes฀here,฀ the฀debates฀about฀nature฀and฀history฀from฀about฀1670฀to฀1750,฀fueled฀in฀significant฀ ways฀by฀Spinoza฀and฀Leibniz,฀laid฀the฀foundations฀for฀the฀development฀of฀a฀new฀ way฀of฀perceiving฀and฀understanding฀nature฀and฀the฀place฀of฀human฀beings฀in฀it.฀As฀ Jacques฀Roger฀(1963/1997:฀366)฀observed,฀“Like฀the฀thought฀it฀was฀combating,฀the฀ new฀scientific฀philosophy฀was฀to฀rest฀upon฀a฀general฀conception฀of฀man,฀nature,฀and฀ God.”฀This฀perspective฀emphasized฀the฀importance฀of฀observation฀and฀reasoning;฀it฀ asserted฀that฀mechanistic฀explanations฀which฀viewed฀nature฀as฀a฀huge฀machine฀were฀ too฀simple฀to฀account฀for฀its฀complexity;฀and฀it฀transformed฀God฀from฀a฀creator฀who฀ intervened฀directly฀in฀nature฀into฀an฀artisan฀who฀either฀acted฀indirectly฀or฀not฀at฀all.1

The฀World฀Historicized Both฀nature฀and฀human฀society฀were฀slowly฀historicized฀after฀the฀1670s.฀By฀this,฀ I฀mean฀that฀understanding฀the฀history฀of฀some฀thing฀was฀absolutely฀necessary฀for฀ truly฀knowing฀that฀thing,฀regardless฀of฀whether฀it฀was฀nature,฀human฀society,฀or฀a฀ commodity.฀Here,฀history฀involved฀the฀concepts฀of฀both฀process฀and฀succession.฀ This฀historicized฀perspective฀of฀the฀world฀and฀its฀inhabitants฀crystallized฀in฀the฀ mid฀eighteenth฀century฀with฀the฀appearance฀in฀rapid฀succession฀of฀Montesquieu’s฀ The฀Spirit฀of฀the฀Laws฀in฀1748,฀Buffon’s฀Natural฀History฀in฀1749,฀and฀Rousseau’s฀ Discourse฀on฀the฀Origins฀of฀Inequality฀in฀1755.฀Let฀us฀consider฀each฀writer฀in฀more฀ detail. The฀Baron฀de฀Montesquieu,฀Charles-Louis฀de฀Secondat฀(1689–1755),฀was฀an฀ astute฀social฀commentator฀and฀critic฀who฀had฀read฀widely฀in฀the฀travel฀literature฀

12฀ •฀ Karl฀Marx,฀Anthropologist of฀the฀day฀and฀recognized฀the฀diversity฀of฀manners฀and฀customs฀that฀existed฀from฀ one฀society฀to฀another.฀For฀our฀purposes,฀he฀wrote฀three฀books฀of฀note.฀The฀earliest฀ was฀the฀Persian฀Letters฀(Montesquieu฀1721/1973),฀in฀which฀two฀imaginary฀young฀ princes฀from฀Persia฀travel฀throughout฀France฀and฀comment฀in฀letters฀they฀send฀ home฀about฀the฀incomprehensibility฀of฀French฀mores฀and฀traditional฀values฀as฀they฀ existed฀in฀the฀early฀eighteenth฀century฀around฀the฀time฀of฀Louis฀XIV’s฀death.฀In฀ this฀work,฀Montesquieu฀saw฀“society฀as฀a฀reality฀that฀was฀external฀to฀the฀individual,฀ constraining฀him฀to฀act฀and฀think฀in฀certain฀ways”฀and฀that฀“prevents฀him฀from฀ evaluating฀his฀position฀in฀society฀with฀any฀degree฀of฀objectivity,฀.฀.฀.฀[since]฀his฀ understanding฀of฀its฀values,฀norms฀and฀institutional฀structures฀are฀purely฀subjective”฀ (Baum฀1979:฀43). In฀his฀second฀work,฀Considerations฀on฀the฀Causes฀of฀the฀Greatness฀of฀the฀Romans฀ and฀Their฀Decline฀(1734/1965),฀Montesquieu฀rejected฀theological฀arguments฀and฀ began฀to฀work฀out฀the฀methodological฀foundations฀for฀a฀historical฀standpoint฀that฀ would฀neither฀view฀human฀history฀as฀one฀accident฀or฀error฀after฀another฀nor฀see฀the฀ diversity฀of฀manners฀and฀customs฀of฀peoples฀around฀the฀world฀as฀signs฀of฀human฀ weakness฀or฀irrationality฀(Althusser฀1959/1982:฀20–1).฀He฀sought฀instead฀to฀discover฀ the฀particularities฀of฀Roman฀history.฀With฀regard฀to฀the฀former,฀he฀wrote: It฀is฀not฀chance฀that฀rules฀the฀world.฀Ask฀the฀Romans,฀who฀had฀a฀continuous฀sequence฀ of฀successes฀when฀they฀were฀guided฀by฀a฀certain฀plan,฀and฀an฀uninterrupted฀sequence฀ of฀reverses฀when฀they฀followed฀another.฀There฀are฀general฀causes,฀moral฀and฀physical,฀ which฀act฀in฀every฀monarchy,฀elevating฀it.฀Maintaining฀it,฀or฀hurling฀it฀to฀the฀ground.฀ All฀accidents฀are฀controlled฀by฀these฀causes.฀And฀if฀by฀chance฀of฀one฀battle—that฀is,฀a฀ particular฀cause—has฀brought฀a฀state฀to฀ruin,฀some฀general฀cause฀made฀it฀necessary฀for฀ that฀state฀to฀perish฀in฀a฀single฀battle.฀In฀a฀word,฀the฀main฀trend฀draws฀with฀it฀all฀particular฀ accidents.฀(Montesquieu฀1734/1965:฀169)

Thus,฀as฀Raymond฀Aron฀(1965/1998:฀15)฀put฀it:฀“behind฀the฀seemingly฀accidental฀ course฀of฀events,฀we฀must฀grasp฀the฀underlying฀causes฀which฀account฀for฀them.”฀ Montesquieu฀distinguished฀two฀phases฀of฀Roman฀historical฀development:฀one฀when฀ the฀government฀and฀the฀society฀were฀in฀harmony฀or฀equilibrium;฀the฀other฀when฀ there฀were฀contradictions฀between฀the฀aims฀of฀the฀state,฀on฀the฀one฀hand,฀and฀values,฀ principles,฀or฀spirit฀that฀unified฀the฀populace,฀on฀the฀other.฀These฀crises฀were฀the฀ dialectic฀of฀history,฀its฀motor. Montesquieu฀refined฀his฀concept฀of฀the฀underlying฀causes฀of฀development฀in฀his฀ third฀work,฀The฀Spirit฀of฀the฀Laws฀(1748/1965).฀He฀argued฀that฀the฀diversity฀of฀laws฀ and฀manners,฀i.e.,฀forms฀of฀government,฀found฀in฀societies฀around฀the฀world฀could฀ be฀reduced฀to฀a฀few฀types—republics,฀monarchies,฀and฀despotisms.฀Each฀type฀had฀ its฀own฀distinctive฀nature,฀which฀was฀shaped฀by฀both฀the฀number฀of฀individuals฀who฀ possessed฀sovereignty฀and฀the฀ways฀in฀which฀they฀exercised฀it;฀each฀type฀also฀had฀ distinctive฀sentiments—such฀as฀morality,฀honor,฀or฀fear—that฀promoted฀harmony฀

The฀Enlightenment฀and฀Anthropology฀ •฀ 13 among฀its฀citizens.฀In฀other฀words,฀Montesquieu฀saw฀a฀connection฀between฀the฀form฀ of฀government,฀on฀the฀one฀hand,฀and฀the฀style฀of฀interpersonal฀relations,฀on฀the฀other;฀ he฀argued฀that฀social฀life฀is฀shaped฀by฀the฀way฀in฀which฀power฀is฀exercised.฀As฀he฀ had฀shown฀earlier,฀when฀there฀were฀contradictions฀between฀the฀spirit฀(sentiments)฀ of฀the฀people฀and฀the฀aims฀of฀the฀state,฀crises฀emerged฀which฀eroded฀the฀form฀of฀ government.฀Montesquieu฀also฀considered฀the฀material฀or฀physical฀causes—like฀ climate฀or฀soil—have฀on฀the฀customs,฀manners,฀and฀laws฀of฀diverse฀peoples.฀He฀ argued฀that฀there฀was฀a฀correlation,฀for฀example,฀between฀the฀incidence฀of฀polygamy฀ and฀warm฀climates,฀and฀that฀the฀laws฀and฀forms฀of฀government฀of฀nations฀reflect฀ those฀material฀influences.฀Thus,฀there฀was฀a฀second฀dialectical฀relationship฀between฀ the฀environment฀broadly฀defined฀and฀the฀customs฀and฀institutions฀of฀people.฀He฀ was฀also฀adamant฀that฀the฀spirit฀or฀will฀of฀the฀people฀was฀determinant฀in฀the฀final฀ instance.฀There฀is฀a฀continuous฀dialectic฀throughout฀The฀Spirit฀of฀the฀Laws฀“between฀ absolute฀values฀which฀seem฀to฀correspond฀to฀the฀permanent฀interests฀of฀men฀as฀ such,฀and฀those฀which฀depend฀upon฀time฀and฀place฀in฀a฀concrete฀situation”฀(Berlin฀ 1955/2001:฀157). The฀project฀of฀Georges-Louis฀Leclerc,฀Comte฀de฀Buffon฀(1707–88)—superintendent฀of฀the฀royal฀botanical฀gardens฀in฀Paris—was฀more฀expansive฀than฀that฀ of฀Montesquieu.฀In฀the฀first฀three฀volumes฀of฀his฀Natural฀History,฀which฀appeared฀ under฀the฀imprimatur฀of฀the฀Royal฀Press฀in฀1749,2฀Buffon฀covered฀diverse฀topics฀ ranging฀from฀the฀history฀and฀theory฀of฀the฀earth฀and฀the฀formation฀of฀planets฀ through฀biological฀reproduction฀and฀embryonic฀development฀to฀the฀natural฀history฀ of฀human฀beings.฀There฀was฀a฀ready฀audience฀for฀his฀work,฀which฀was฀composed฀of฀ a฀curious,฀sophisticated,฀and฀politically฀influential฀public฀that฀wanted฀to฀be฀usefully฀ entertained฀without฀having฀to฀invest฀too฀much฀effort฀as฀well฀as฀the฀ savants฀and฀ natural฀philosophers฀of฀the฀various฀royal฀societies฀and฀academies฀of฀science.฀This฀ audience฀was฀fascinated฀with฀the฀steady฀stream฀of฀unknown฀plants฀and฀animals฀ from฀the฀far฀reaches฀of฀the฀earth฀that฀arrived฀each฀year฀in฀Amsterdam,฀Paris,฀and฀ the฀other฀commercial฀centers฀of฀Europe;฀its฀members฀flocked฀to฀lectures฀illustrated฀ with฀various฀scientific฀experiments,฀anatomical฀dissections,฀and฀opportunities฀to฀ peer฀at฀specimens฀through฀one฀of฀the฀new,฀powerful฀microscopes฀fashioned฀in฀the฀ 1670s฀by฀Anton฀van฀Leeuwenhoek฀(1632–1723).฀As฀a฀result,฀Buffon’s฀theories฀were฀ widely฀read฀and฀critically฀discussed฀almost฀from฀the฀moment฀they฀appeared฀(Roger฀ 1989/1997:฀68–78;฀Sloan฀1979,฀1995).฀“Buffon฀made฀the฀study฀of฀natural฀history฀ everybody’s฀pastime”฀(Mayr฀1982:฀101). The฀opening฀essay฀in฀the฀first฀volume,฀“Discourse฀on฀Method,”฀established฀ a฀backdrop.฀Here,฀Buffon฀dealt฀with฀three฀issues:฀human฀reason,฀whether฀or฀not฀ there฀is฀an฀order฀to฀nature,฀and฀man’s฀place฀in฀nature฀(Roger฀1989/1997:฀81–92).฀ With฀regard฀to฀the฀first,฀the฀two฀dominant฀views฀concerning฀reason฀were฀those฀ of฀Descartes฀and฀Locke;฀the฀former฀argued฀rational฀thought฀would฀yield฀truth;฀ the฀latter฀claimed฀that฀the฀mind฀combined฀ideas฀derived฀from฀sensory฀experience฀ in฀new฀ways.฀Buffon฀merged฀the฀two฀perspectives.฀Science฀was฀more฀than฀the฀

14฀ •฀ Karl฀Marx,฀Anthropologist description฀of฀mere฀facts,฀since฀it฀also฀involved฀the฀use฀of฀reason—comparison,฀ analogy,฀and฀generalization.฀With฀regard฀to฀the฀second฀question,฀he฀argued฀that฀there฀ was฀indeed฀an฀order฀in฀nature,฀but฀that฀the฀mathematicians฀and฀taxonomists,฀like฀ Carolus฀Linnaeus฀(1707–78),฀had฀simply฀failed฀to฀capture฀its฀complexity,฀because฀it฀ was฀too฀complicated฀for฀their฀equations฀(Sloan฀1976).฀In฀this฀discussion,฀Buffon’s฀ model฀of฀the฀natural฀historian฀was฀Aristotle,฀the฀naturalist฀of฀living฀systems,฀organic฀ diversity,฀and฀internal,฀teleological฀processes.฀Like฀Aristotle,฀Buffon฀took฀human฀ beings฀as฀his฀starting฀point;฀however,฀he฀also฀added฀Leibniz’s฀recently฀published฀ views฀about฀continuous฀gradations,฀or฀chains฀of฀being,฀in฀nature. In฀the฀next฀two฀essays,฀Buffon฀tackled฀the฀history฀and฀theory฀of฀the฀earth฀and฀the฀ formation฀of฀planets฀(Roger฀1989/1997:฀93–115).฀Here,฀history฀meant฀a฀description฀ of฀the฀present฀distribution฀of฀oceans,฀mountains,฀and฀strata,฀while฀theory฀was฀viewed฀ as฀an฀attempt฀to฀explain฀the฀physical฀causes฀or฀past฀organization฀that฀produced฀the฀ present฀distributions฀(Haber฀1959;฀Porter฀1972;฀Rossi฀1984;฀Rudwick฀1985).฀Buffon฀ argued฀that฀the฀processes฀of฀planetary฀formation฀as฀well฀as฀the฀cyclical฀ones฀that฀ operated฀on฀the฀earth’s฀surface฀after฀it฀formed฀erased฀virtually฀all฀traces฀of฀the฀original฀ events.฀Thus,฀a฀proper฀theory฀of฀natural฀history฀had฀to฀combine฀natural฀causes฀with฀ accidents.฀Jacques฀Roger฀(1989/1997:฀114)฀described฀his฀theory฀in฀the฀following฀ way:฀“The฀normal฀sequence฀of฀natural฀causes฀only฀generated฀an฀eternal฀repetition฀of฀ the฀present,฀[while]฀chance฀alone฀could฀create฀the฀unique฀and฀irreversible฀event,฀after฀ which฀nothing฀would฀remain฀as฀it฀was฀before.”฀The฀importance฀of฀Buffon’s฀theory฀ was฀twofold.฀First฀it฀was฀a฀theory฀of฀transformation฀and฀change.฀Second,฀it฀freed฀ studies฀of฀the฀history฀and฀formation฀of฀the฀earth฀as฀well฀as฀its฀antiquity฀from฀reliance฀ on฀or฀even฀reference฀to฀the฀biblical฀account. Buffon’s฀underlying฀concern฀in฀the฀second฀volume฀of฀Natural฀History฀was฀to฀ change฀the฀direction฀of฀natural฀history฀as฀a฀field฀of฀inquiry฀(Roger฀1989/1997:฀ 116–50).฀To฀do฀so,฀he฀distinguished฀living฀beings,฀animals฀and฀plants,฀from฀nonliving฀matter—a฀classification฀that฀recognized฀animal,฀vegetable,฀and฀mineral.฀The฀ focus฀of฀the฀new฀natural฀history฀would฀be฀the฀study฀of฀reproduction;฀he฀further฀ argued฀that฀it฀was฀necessary฀to฀start฀at฀the฀simplest฀level—the฀living฀(organic)฀matter฀ that฀was฀shared฀by฀both฀animals฀and฀plants.฀This฀argument฀seemed฀to฀combine฀ the฀materialism฀of฀the฀Epicureans฀and฀Leibniz.฀Buffon฀argued฀that฀living฀beings฀ reproduce;฀the฀question฀in฀his฀mind฀was฀how฀rather฀than฀why฀they฀did฀so.฀This฀ materialist฀formulation฀of฀the฀question,฀which฀was฀quite฀similar฀to฀the฀way฀he฀wrote฀ about฀the฀formation฀and฀subsequent฀history฀of฀the฀earth,฀stirred฀some฀controversy,฀ because฀it฀seemed฀to฀talk฀about฀internal฀molding฀forces฀while฀excluding฀two฀forms฀ of฀creationism—preformationism฀and฀pre-existence—that฀had฀been฀popular฀among฀ religious฀traditionalists฀and฀the฀mechanists฀since฀the฀late฀seventeenth฀century. 3฀ Buffon฀observed฀animal฀reproduction฀in฀a฀variety฀of฀species฀in฀order฀to฀establish฀ regularities฀through฀comparison.฀The฀conclusions฀he฀drew฀were฀that฀the฀first฀development,฀the฀fetus฀at฀conception,฀was฀a฀production฀of฀parts฀that฀appeared฀for฀the฀first฀ time,฀whereas฀subsequent฀embryonic฀development฀was฀merely฀growth฀of฀those฀parts.฀

The฀Enlightenment฀and฀Anthropology฀ •฀ 15 In฀other฀words,฀living฀matter฀(organic฀molecules)฀was฀combined฀and฀recombined฀to฀ produce฀successive฀generations฀of฀individuals฀of฀the฀same฀species.4 Buffon’s฀third฀volume฀of฀Natural฀History฀picked฀up฀where฀the฀first฀one฀began— with฀man.฀Its฀concern฀was฀the฀natural฀history฀of฀the฀human฀species฀(Blanckaert฀ 1993;฀Roger฀1989/1997:฀151–83).฀Buffon฀clearly฀placed฀human฀beings฀in฀nature฀and฀ argued฀that฀all฀of฀their฀propensities—their฀capacities฀for฀speech,฀intellectual฀activity,฀ and฀creative฀innovation,฀which฀underpin฀the฀rise฀of฀civilization—were฀also฀natural.฀ Moreover,฀there฀was฀an฀unbridgeable฀gap฀between฀human฀beings฀and฀the฀rest฀of฀the฀ animal฀kingdom,฀and฀Buffon฀simply฀refused฀to฀humanize฀the฀latter฀as฀some฀of฀his฀ contemporaries฀did.฀Since฀human฀beings฀lived฀in฀the฀physical฀world,฀they฀had฀to฀ appropriate฀the฀resources฀of฀that฀world฀in฀order฀to฀cope฀with฀the฀uncertainties฀of฀their฀ own฀cultures฀and฀ultimately฀to฀survive.฀In฀the฀opening฀chapters,฀he฀examined฀the฀ history฀of฀the฀individual฀and฀the฀different฀stages฀of฀human฀development—childhood,฀ puberty,฀adulthood,฀and฀old฀age;฀he฀relied฀on฀differences฀in฀climate,฀environment,฀ dietary฀regimes,฀and฀nationality฀to฀account฀for฀the฀physical฀and฀physiological฀ differences฀noted฀in฀travel฀accounts.฀As฀Claude฀Blanckaert฀(1993:฀33)฀remarked,฀ it฀was฀necessary,฀after฀Buffon,฀to฀take฀account฀of฀the฀physiological฀demands฀and฀ to฀consider฀the฀disruptive,฀initiating,฀or฀dynamic฀role฀played฀by฀customs,฀modes฀of฀ subsistence,฀and฀education฀of฀peoples฀living฀in฀different฀climatic฀regions.฀Buffon฀ also฀argued฀that฀the฀human฀species฀had฀been฀relatively฀uniform฀(and฀archetypically฀ white-skinned)฀in฀its฀early฀stages,฀and฀that,฀as฀its฀members฀moved฀out฀from฀their฀ mid-latitude฀homeland,฀their฀physical฀appearance,฀customs,฀and฀abilities฀were฀slowly฀ altered฀(degenerated฀in฀his฀words)฀and฀diversified฀under฀the฀influence฀of฀climate฀into฀ the฀varieties฀that฀are฀seen฀today. While฀Buffon’s฀empirical฀anthropology฀was฀rooted฀in฀the฀travel฀literature,฀medicoanatomical฀investigations,฀and฀biases฀of฀his฀day,฀his฀philosophical฀anthropology฀was฀ materialist.฀It฀put฀human฀beings฀in฀nature฀and฀attempted฀to฀account฀for฀changes฀in฀ the฀species฀in฀terms฀of฀its฀concrete฀interactions฀and฀relationships฀with฀the฀rest฀of฀ the฀natural฀world฀at฀particular฀times฀and฀places.฀This฀led฀him฀to฀consider฀in฀new฀ ways฀factors฀like฀climate,฀geography,฀diet,฀reproduction,฀or฀customs.฀The฀long-term฀ impact฀of฀Buffon’s฀work฀rests฀on฀his฀capacity฀to฀integrate฀studies฀that฀ranged฀from฀ cosmology฀and฀the฀history฀of฀the฀earth฀to฀animal฀reproduction.฀His฀analyses฀cut฀ across฀different฀levels฀ranging฀from฀the฀molecular฀to฀the฀cosmological,฀historicized฀ nature฀in฀the฀process,฀and฀integrated฀seemingly฀disparate฀ideas฀and฀information฀into฀ a฀more฀or฀less฀coherent฀whole.฀More฀importantly,฀they฀influenced฀later฀writers฀(e.g.฀ Reill฀2005;฀Richards฀2002;฀Sloan฀1979).

The฀New฀Anthropology฀of฀the฀Enlightenment Montesquieu฀and฀Buffon฀provided฀a฀“green฀light”฀to฀Jean-Jacques฀Rousseau,฀Adam฀ Smith,฀and฀other฀commentators฀of฀the฀Scottish฀Enlightenment฀to฀write฀about฀the฀

16฀ •฀ Karl฀Marx,฀Anthropologist history฀of฀human฀society.5฀Although฀Locke฀and฀the฀natural฀law฀theorists฀had฀written฀ about฀the฀origins฀of฀the฀ownership฀of฀private฀property฀in฀the฀late฀seventeenth฀century,฀ Rousseau฀and฀the฀Scots฀historicized฀discussions฀about฀the฀origins฀and฀expansion฀of฀ property฀rights฀and฀relations฀after฀1750.6฀Their฀accounts฀were฀conjectural฀histories฀ concerned฀with฀the฀development฀of฀human฀nature฀and฀the฀progress฀of฀society฀as฀ reflected฀by฀changes฀in฀modes฀of฀subsistence.฀In฀spite฀of฀the฀fact฀that฀they฀drew฀from฀ the฀same฀ethnographic฀and฀historical฀accounts,฀their฀philosophical฀anthropologies฀as฀ well฀as฀their฀views฀about฀contemporary฀commercial฀society฀differed฀in฀significant฀ ways.฀The฀aim฀of฀this฀section฀is฀to฀consider฀both฀their฀differences฀and฀some฀of฀their฀ shared฀concerns.

Rousseau’s฀Historical-Dialectical฀Anthropology Jean-Jacques฀Rousseau฀(1712–78)฀was฀critical฀of฀modern,฀civil฀society,฀which฀was฀ based฀increasingly฀on฀commerce฀and฀industry.฀In฀A฀Discourse฀on฀the฀Moral฀Effects฀ of฀the฀Arts฀and฀Sciences,฀he฀charged฀that฀people฀were฀morally฀corrupted฀both฀by฀ the฀civilizing฀process฀and฀by฀life฀in฀the฀commercial฀societies฀that฀were฀slowly฀ crystallizing฀across฀the฀globe,฀as฀their฀elites฀steadily฀severed฀customary,฀mutually฀ recognized฀obligations฀to฀the฀members฀of฀the฀lower฀classes฀and฀replaced฀them฀with฀ social฀relations฀based฀on฀market฀exchange.฀He฀wrote฀that฀“the฀politicians฀of฀the฀ ancient฀world฀were฀always฀talking฀about฀morality฀and฀virtue;฀ours฀speak฀of฀nothing฀ but฀commerce฀and฀money”฀(Rousseau฀1750/1973:฀16).฀History,฀in฀his฀view,฀provided฀ a฀corrective฀to฀what฀politicians฀said฀by฀focusing฀on฀what฀they฀actually฀did.฀It฀also฀ furthered฀“people’s฀reflective฀self-identification฀and฀self-location฀within฀time,฀space,฀ and฀a฀context฀of฀others,”฀and฀it฀had฀the฀potential฀of฀expanding฀their฀vision฀of฀human฀ possibilities,฀of฀thinking฀of฀themselves฀not฀as฀“passive฀observers”฀but฀rather฀“as฀ active฀participants”฀(Barnard฀2003:฀162). Rousseau฀(1755/1973,฀1755/1992a)฀outlined฀his฀critical,฀philosophical฀anthropology฀in฀the฀Discourse฀on฀the฀Origins฀of฀Inequality,฀published฀in฀1755.฀Some฀of฀the฀ distinctive฀features฀of฀his฀historical-dialectical฀perspective฀were:฀(1)฀human฀nature฀ as฀a฀historical฀process฀associated฀with฀the฀emergence฀of฀human฀beings฀from฀nature฀ through฀the฀creation฀of฀culture฀and฀their฀transformation฀of฀nature฀through฀social฀ labor;฀(2)฀the฀interactions฀of฀human฀beings฀with฀one฀another฀and฀with฀their฀external฀ (natural)฀world฀as฀shaped฀by฀successively฀different,฀historically฀specific฀sets฀of฀social฀ relations;฀(3)฀a฀recognition฀of฀both฀the฀existence฀and฀anteriority฀of฀social฀forms฀other฀ than฀modern฀bourgeois฀society;฀and฀(4)฀a฀historicized฀conception฀of฀“man”฀as฀a฀ subject฀who฀was฀not฀always฀identical฀with฀“bourgeois฀man”฀of฀modern฀society. Rousseau฀saw฀human฀beings฀as฀part฀of฀nature฀(Rousseau฀1755/1973:฀37–8).7฀ While฀he฀declined฀to฀speculate฀on฀whether฀the฀first฀human฀beings฀were฀“covered฀ with฀hair,”฀or฀“walked฀upon฀all฀fours,”฀he฀was฀certain฀that฀successive฀transformations฀ in฀the฀constitution฀of฀the฀human฀species฀had฀occurred฀since฀its฀inception:฀“changes฀

The฀Enlightenment฀and฀Anthropology฀ •฀ 17 which฀must฀have฀taken฀place฀in฀the฀internal฀as฀well฀as฀external฀conformation฀of฀ man,฀as฀he฀applied฀his฀limbs฀to฀new฀uses,฀and฀fed฀himself฀on฀new฀kinds฀of฀food”฀ (Rousseau฀1755/1973:฀47).฀Rousseau฀(1775/1992a:฀81–3)฀also฀believed฀that฀the฀ great฀apes฀were฀a฀variety฀of฀human฀being,฀because฀they฀had฀similar฀biological฀and฀ psychological฀dispositions;8฀however,฀unlike฀savage฀and฀modern฀man,฀the฀ape฀had฀ not฀“develop[ed]฀any฀of฀its฀potential฀faculties.”฀He฀inferred฀that฀there฀might฀be฀“a฀ temporal฀and฀sequential฀relation”฀between฀apes฀and฀human฀beings,฀one฀reflecting฀ “genetic฀continuity”฀(Frayling฀and฀Wokler฀1982:฀113–14;฀Wokler฀1997a,฀1997b).฀ In฀his฀view,฀the฀test฀for฀determining฀whether฀apes฀and฀human฀beings฀were฀varieties฀ of฀the฀same฀species฀would฀take฀more฀than฀one฀generation฀to฀answer;฀it฀involved฀ determining฀whether฀they฀could฀produce฀hybrids฀that฀could฀continue฀to฀reproduce.฀ Asher฀Horowitz฀(1987:฀31)฀described฀this฀dimension฀of฀Rousseau’s฀philosophical฀ anthropology฀in฀historical-dialectical฀terms:฀“As฀a฀biological฀species,฀humanity฀ is฀the฀product฀of฀a฀process฀of฀evolution.฀The฀evolution฀of฀the฀human฀species฀is฀ inseparable฀from฀the฀inauguration฀of฀its฀own฀history,฀and฀humanity’s฀biological฀ evolution฀is฀a฀result฀of฀its฀own฀historical฀activity.” Let฀us฀consider฀more฀closely฀what฀was฀involved฀in฀emergence฀of฀history—i.e.,฀the฀ creation฀of฀culture—from฀nature.฀Rousseau฀began฀his฀historical฀account฀with฀“savage฀ man”฀who฀initially฀was฀virtually฀indistinguishable฀from฀other฀animals,฀which฀he฀ viewed฀as฀little฀more฀than฀“ingenious฀machines”฀whose฀demands฀were฀established฀ and฀satisfied฀through฀“inherited฀repertoire[s]฀of฀instinctual฀behavior”฀(Horowitz฀ 1987:฀68).฀To฀the฀extent฀that฀proto-humans฀possessed฀an฀inherited฀repertoire,฀they฀ were฀like฀other฀animals;฀what฀distinguished฀them,฀almost฀imperceptibly฀at฀first,฀from฀ other฀animals฀was฀a฀capacity฀to฀learn฀from฀their฀experiences฀of฀and฀interactions฀ with฀the฀external฀world.฀This฀process฀of฀free฀agency฀slowly฀released฀them฀from฀the฀ constraints฀of฀their฀behavioral฀repertoire฀and฀laid฀the฀foundations฀for฀further฀learning฀ and฀the฀development฀of฀truly฀social฀relations฀as฀opposed฀to฀the฀atomized,฀independent฀ behaviors฀of฀animals฀like฀ants฀or฀bees.฀It฀also฀led฀gradually฀to฀what฀Rousseau฀called฀ perfectibility฀or฀self-transformation:฀an฀increased฀consciousness฀of฀desires฀and฀needs,฀ which฀in฀turn฀set฀the฀stage฀for฀the฀transformation฀of฀the฀external฀world฀through฀labor฀ and฀the฀creation฀of฀new฀needs.฀Language฀and฀tool-making฀were฀early฀but฀essential฀ steps฀in฀the฀process฀of฀perfectibility฀(Horowitz฀1987:฀60–76;฀Rousseau฀1755/1973:฀ 47–61).฀Thus,฀the฀development฀of฀both฀free฀agency฀and฀perfectibility฀was฀part฀and฀ parcel฀of฀the฀sociohistorical฀development฀of฀human฀nature฀and฀of฀the฀transformation฀ or฀mutilation฀of฀nature,฀both฀of฀which฀occurred฀within฀historically฀specific฀forms฀ of฀social฀relations.฀This฀“self-constitutive฀practical฀activity”฀involved฀“the฀creation฀ of฀a฀cultural,฀superorganic฀realm฀in฀the฀social฀process฀of฀labour”฀(Horowitz฀1987:฀ 86–7). Rousseau฀recognized฀three฀successive฀forms฀of฀society฀in฀the฀Discourse฀on฀the฀ Origins฀of฀Inequality,฀each฀with฀its฀own฀distinctive฀socioeconomic฀relations,฀internal฀ contradictions,฀and฀incomplete฀realization฀of฀freedom฀and฀happiness.฀These฀were฀ primitive฀society,฀traditional฀pre-capitalist฀society฀modeled฀after฀the฀Greek฀polis,฀

18฀ •฀ Karl฀Marx,฀Anthropologist and฀modern,฀civil฀society.฀Rousseau฀(1755/1973:฀72)฀also฀believed฀that฀“many฀of฀the฀ differences฀between฀men฀which฀are฀ascribed฀to฀nature฀stem฀rather฀from฀habit฀and฀the฀ diverse฀modes฀of฀life฀of฀men฀in฀society.” The฀historical฀development฀of฀primitive฀society฀rested฀on฀the฀growing฀importance฀in฀society,฀rather฀than฀in฀nature,฀of฀the฀bonds฀that฀were฀created฀by฀mutual฀ affection,฀dependence,฀self-esteem,฀and฀self-interest;฀he฀called฀these฀sentiments฀ amour฀propre฀and฀believed฀that฀the฀development฀of฀self-esteem฀and฀pride฀occurred฀ as฀a฀result฀of฀public฀recognition฀of฀personal฀qualities฀of฀excellence฀that฀were฀valued฀ by฀the฀community฀(Horowitz฀1987:฀92–4).9฀Thus,฀amour฀propre฀played฀a฀crucial฀ role฀in฀both฀the฀formation฀and฀control฀of฀behavior฀in฀primitive฀society,฀and฀primitive฀society฀itself฀was฀not฀entirely฀based฀on฀a฀system฀of฀needs,฀as฀the฀empiricists฀ had฀claimed.฀In฀his฀view,฀communal฀life฀was฀an฀expression฀of฀the฀abilities฀of฀its฀ members,฀who฀were฀further฀bound฀together฀by฀sharing.฀What฀internal฀differentiation฀ existed฀in฀the฀community฀reflected฀a฀nascent฀division฀of฀labor฀based฀on฀age฀and฀ sex,฀rather฀than฀a฀division฀in฀which฀the฀members฀of฀one฀or฀another฀group฀enforced฀ order฀or฀monopolized฀the฀use฀of฀force.฀Life฀in฀primitive฀society฀was฀disrupted฀ when฀production฀begins฀to฀be฀based฀on฀forms฀that฀the฀community฀could฀no฀longer฀ replicate.฀The฀development฀of฀functionally฀differentiated฀forms฀of฀production฀was฀ always฀historically฀contingent฀rather฀than฀necessary฀from฀Rousseau’s฀perspective.฀ When฀new฀divisions฀of฀labor฀appeared,฀they฀undermined฀and฀ultimately฀dissolved฀ both฀communal฀life฀and฀the฀existing฀social฀relations฀of฀production.฀The฀motors฀ driving฀this฀change฀were฀the฀adoption฀of฀agricultural฀and฀metallurgy฀as฀well฀as฀the฀ consolidation฀of฀new฀forms฀of฀amour฀propre฀that฀increasingly฀emphasized฀vanity฀ rather฀than฀pride,฀competition฀for฀public฀esteem,฀and฀the฀life฀of฀the฀individual฀as฀ opposed฀to฀that฀of฀the฀community.฀What฀emerged฀in฀their฀wake฀was฀a฀society฀that฀ was฀simultaneously฀structured฀by฀newly฀forged฀sets฀of฀needs,฀by฀exchange฀relations฀ rather฀than฀generalized฀reciprocity,฀by฀internal฀social฀differentiation,฀and฀by฀the฀ institutionalization฀of฀separate฀spheres฀of฀activity.฀In฀a฀phrase,฀the฀emergent฀society฀ was฀no฀longer฀a฀unity฀(Rousseau฀1755/1973:฀76–85;฀Horowitz฀1987:฀89–107). Rousseau’s฀second฀stage฀of฀sociohistorical฀development฀was฀constituted฀by฀the฀ city-states฀of฀classical฀antiquity.฀Conceptually,฀they฀were฀midway฀between฀primitive฀ society฀and฀the฀kind฀of฀commercial฀society฀that฀was฀emerging฀in฀the฀mid฀eighteenth฀ century.฀The฀distinctive฀feature฀of฀Athens฀and฀the฀Roman฀Republic฀was฀that฀certain฀ individuals฀had฀a฀new฀relationship฀with฀the฀community.฀They฀were฀citizens,฀because฀ they฀fulfilled฀the฀obligations฀required฀of฀members฀of฀the฀community,฀such฀as฀serving฀ in฀the฀army฀or฀as฀a฀state฀official.฀A฀right฀of฀citizenship฀was฀access฀to฀the฀productive฀ resources฀of฀the฀community,฀which,฀while฀owned฀by฀the฀community,฀were฀held฀ privately฀so฀long฀as฀the฀beneficiary฀discharged฀his฀duties฀to฀the฀state.฀These฀privately฀ held฀resources฀were฀not฀worked฀by฀the฀citizen฀himself฀but฀rather฀by฀slaves฀or฀serfs฀ who,฀as฀a฀result฀of฀their฀status,฀were฀not฀citizens.฀The฀goals฀of฀the฀productive฀activity฀ of฀this฀servile฀class฀were฀neither฀production฀for฀the฀market฀nor฀the฀accumulation฀of฀ profit;฀it฀was฀aimed฀instead฀at฀the฀production,฀maintenance,฀and฀reproduction฀of฀the฀

The฀Enlightenment฀and฀Anthropology฀ •฀ 19 citizen฀in฀his฀new฀relation฀to฀the฀community.฀This฀relationship฀was฀predicated฀on฀the฀ organic฀unity฀of฀the฀citizen฀and฀his฀community.฀Amour฀propre฀was฀transformed฀in฀ the฀process฀of฀forging฀this฀new฀relationship.฀Virtue฀came฀to฀be฀viewed฀increasingly฀ in฀terms฀of฀“glory฀and฀public฀esteem฀in฀directly฀social฀endeavors,”฀and฀individuals฀ strived฀for฀“the฀cultivation฀of฀personal฀qualities,฀so฀that฀communal฀virtue฀becomes฀ the฀condition฀and฀occasion฀for฀personal฀virtue”฀(Horowitz฀1987:฀105).฀In฀sum,฀ freedom฀and฀equality฀were฀realized฀only฀by฀individual฀citizens฀in฀the฀community,฀ who฀ cultivated฀ virtue,฀ on฀ the฀ one฀ hand,฀ and฀ saw฀ no฀ distinction฀ between฀ the฀ universality฀of฀their฀claims฀and฀the฀particularity฀of฀their฀social฀position,฀on฀the฀other.฀ These฀early฀civilizations฀were฀exceedingly฀fragile฀and฀contained฀the฀seeds฀not฀only฀ for฀their฀own฀destruction฀but฀also฀for฀their฀own฀transcendence.฀The฀possibilities฀for฀ destruction฀included฀enlightenment฀(the฀capacity฀to฀think฀and฀speak฀for฀oneself),฀the฀ further฀growth฀of฀individualism฀based฀on฀the฀distinction฀between฀public฀and฀private,฀ increasing฀conflicts฀between฀the฀individual฀citizen฀and฀the฀state-based฀community,฀ the฀expansion฀of฀commercial฀relations,฀the฀emergence฀of฀despotism,฀militarism,฀and฀ defeat฀in฀war.฀The฀road฀taken฀for฀transcendence฀involved฀a฀further฀metamorphosis฀ of฀amour฀propre,฀increased฀individuation,฀and฀alienation฀(Horowitz฀1987:฀102–7;฀ Rousseau฀1755/1973:฀85–105;฀1755/1992b). Civil฀society฀was฀Rousseau’s฀third฀stage฀of฀sociohistorical฀development.฀He฀ viewed฀it฀as฀a฀vast฀system฀of฀needs,฀a฀form฀of฀society฀in฀which฀each man฀must฀now,฀therefore,฀have฀been฀perpetually฀employed฀in฀getting฀others฀to฀interest฀ themselves฀in฀his฀lot,฀and฀in฀making฀them,฀apparently฀at฀least,฀if฀not฀really,฀find฀their฀ advantage฀in฀promoting฀his฀own.฀Thus฀he฀must฀have฀been฀sly฀and฀artful฀in฀his฀behaviour฀ to฀some,฀and฀imperious฀and฀cruel฀to฀others;฀being฀under฀a฀kind฀of฀necessity฀to฀ill-use฀all฀ the฀persons฀of฀whom฀he฀stood฀in฀need,฀when฀he฀could฀not฀frighten฀them฀into฀compliance,฀ and฀did฀not฀judge฀it฀his฀interest฀to฀be฀useful฀to฀them.฀Insatiable฀ambition,฀the฀thirst฀of฀ raising฀their฀respective฀fortunes,฀not฀so฀much฀from฀real฀want฀as฀from฀the฀desire฀to฀surpass฀ others,฀inspired฀all฀men฀with฀a฀vile฀propensity฀to฀injure฀one฀another,฀and฀with฀a฀secret฀ jealousy,฀which฀is฀the฀more฀dangerous,฀as฀it฀puts฀on฀the฀mask฀of฀benevolence,฀to฀carry฀its฀ point฀with฀greater฀security.฀(Rousseau฀1755/1973:฀86–7)

Rousseau’s฀ conceptualization฀ of฀ the฀ “dynamic฀ of฀ civil฀ society,”฀ as฀ Horowitz฀ (1987:฀109)฀noted,฀“compel[ed]฀all฀the฀actors฀to฀foster฀actively฀the฀proliferation฀ of฀the฀needs฀of฀others.”฀This฀system฀of฀social฀relations฀constructed฀as฀exchange฀ relations฀promoted฀a฀condition฀characterized฀by฀“universal฀disorder,฀competition,฀ and฀exploitation”฀(Horowitz฀1987:฀116).฀The฀historically฀contingent฀tendencies฀that฀ underwrote฀the฀development฀of฀civil฀society฀emerged฀from฀the฀increasing฀conflicts฀ between฀the฀individual฀citizen฀and฀the฀state-based฀community฀and฀the฀consolidation฀ of฀individualism.฀These฀were฀buttressed฀by฀the฀simultaneous฀liberation฀of฀property฀ from฀ the฀ community฀ and฀ the฀ assertion฀ of฀ exclusive฀ property฀ rights฀ (rights฀ of฀ ownership,฀use,฀and฀disposal)฀by฀individuals,฀and฀by฀the฀formation฀of฀the฀state,฀

20฀ •฀ Karl฀Marx,฀Anthropologist which฀claimed฀to฀guarantee฀the฀safety,฀freedom,฀and฀equality฀of฀property฀owners— “the฀constituent฀elements฀of฀their฀being”฀(Rousseau฀1755/1973:฀92). For฀Rousseau,฀money฀was฀one฀of฀the฀characteristic฀features฀of฀civil฀society.฀The฀ use฀of฀money฀facilitated฀exchanges฀initially฀between฀property฀owners฀producing฀ different฀goods฀and฀later฀between฀property฀owners฀and฀those฀who฀lacked฀property.฀ Its฀use฀was฀increasingly฀universalized.฀Not฀only฀was฀money฀equated฀with฀work฀ itself,฀it฀was฀also฀pursued฀for฀itself,฀because฀it฀had฀became฀a฀sign฀of฀accumulated฀ wealth.฀In฀civil฀society,฀“money฀was฀the฀prime฀necessity,฀and฀thus฀the฀immediate฀ object฀of฀labour;฀and฀.฀.฀.฀in฀consequence฀all฀labour฀incapable฀of฀earning฀money฀was฀ necessarily฀neglected”฀(Rousseau฀1765/1986:฀309–10).฀This฀impoverished฀everyday฀ life฀and฀underwrote฀both฀the฀erosion฀of฀the฀last฀vestiges฀of฀community฀as฀well฀as฀the฀ growing฀objectification,฀alienation,฀and฀repression฀of฀its฀members.฀In฀civil฀society,฀ amour฀propre฀had฀become฀Hobbes’s฀“war฀of฀all฀against฀all,”฀one฀individual’s฀quest฀ for฀power฀gained฀at฀the฀expense฀of฀others. Rousseau’s฀focus฀in฀his฀historicized฀account฀of฀humanity฀was฀its฀rise฀in฀nature,฀its฀ slow฀creation฀of฀nature฀as฀a฀category,฀and฀its฀subsequent฀sociohistorical฀development,฀ which฀he฀viewed฀as฀the฀continuous,฀but฀always฀historically฀contingent,฀transformation฀of฀the฀individual฀in฀society฀and฀of฀the฀simultaneous,฀related฀transformation฀ of฀society฀itself.฀From฀his฀perspective,฀the฀existence฀of฀human฀beings฀outside฀of฀ society฀was฀simply฀unthinkable.฀The฀motors฀driving฀his฀account฀were฀agency฀and฀ perfectibility.฀He฀was฀also฀aware฀of฀the฀significant฀differences฀that฀existed฀between฀ primitive฀society฀and฀modern฀civil฀society. The฀savage฀and฀the฀civilized฀man฀differ฀so฀much฀in฀the฀bottom฀of฀their฀hearts฀and฀in฀their฀ inclinations,฀that฀what฀constitutes฀the฀supreme฀happiness฀for฀the฀one฀would฀reduce฀the฀ other฀to฀despair.฀The฀former฀breathes฀only฀peace฀and฀liberty;฀he฀desires฀only฀to฀live฀and฀ be฀free฀from฀labour.฀.฀.฀.฀Civilized฀man,฀on฀the฀other฀hand,฀is฀always฀moving,฀sweating,฀ toiling฀and฀racking฀his฀brains฀to฀find฀still฀more฀laborious฀occupations.฀.฀.฀.฀He฀pays฀court฀ to฀men฀in฀power,฀whom฀he฀hates,฀and฀to฀the฀wealthy,฀whom฀he฀despises;฀he฀stops฀at฀ nothing฀to฀have฀the฀honour฀of฀serving฀them;฀he฀is฀not฀ashamed฀to฀value฀himself฀on฀his฀ own฀meanness฀and฀their฀protection;฀and,฀proud฀of฀his฀slavery,฀he฀speaks฀with฀disdain฀of฀ those,฀who฀have฀not฀the฀honour฀of฀sharing฀it.฀.฀.฀.฀[T]he฀source฀of฀all฀these฀differences฀is฀ .฀.฀.฀[that฀the฀civilized฀or฀bourgeois]฀man฀only฀knows฀how฀to฀live฀in฀the฀opinion฀of฀others.฀ (Rousseau฀1755/1973:฀104)

Moreover,฀Rousseau฀knew฀that฀the฀political฀life฀of฀the฀city-states฀of฀ancient฀Greece฀ was฀no฀longer฀a฀model฀for฀politicians฀in฀modern฀society.฀In฀1764,฀he฀wrote฀the฀ following฀to฀the฀citizens฀of฀Geneva: The฀ancient฀peoples฀are฀no฀longer฀a฀model฀for฀the฀moderns;฀they฀are฀too฀foreign฀in฀ every฀respect.฀You,฀especially,฀Genevans,฀stay฀in฀your฀place.฀.฀.฀.฀You฀are฀neither฀Romans฀ nor฀Spartans;฀you฀are฀not฀even฀Athenians.฀Leave฀those฀great฀names฀alone;฀they฀do฀not฀

The฀Enlightenment฀and฀Anthropology฀ •฀ 21 become฀you.฀You฀are฀merchants,฀artisans,฀bourgeois,฀always฀occupied฀with฀your฀private฀ interests,฀your฀work,฀commerce,฀profits;฀you฀are฀people฀for฀whom฀freedom฀itself฀is฀only฀ a฀means฀toward฀untrammeled฀acquisition฀and฀secure฀possession.฀(Rousseau,฀1764/1962:฀ 284,฀quoted฀by฀Löwy฀and฀Sayres฀2001:฀47)

While฀the฀presuppositions฀of฀Rousseau’s฀philosophical฀anthropology฀were฀fundamentally฀different฀from฀those฀of฀the฀Scots฀as฀well฀as฀those฀of฀German฀commentators฀ from฀the฀1770s฀onward,฀his฀influence฀on฀them฀was฀nonetheless฀substantial.

The฀Scottish฀Historical฀Philosophers Through฀their฀travels,฀the฀Scots฀were฀acutely฀aware฀of฀what฀is฀now฀called฀uneven฀ development.฀Their฀country฀was฀less฀prosperous฀than฀England,฀and฀there฀were฀ significant฀differences฀within฀the฀country฀between฀the฀north฀and฀the฀south฀or฀between฀ the฀Highlands฀and฀the฀Lowlands.฀In฀1750,฀a฀day’s฀ride฀into฀the฀countryside฀from฀ a฀commercial฀center฀like฀Glasgow฀with฀its฀shops฀and฀burgeoning฀factories฀must฀ have฀seemed฀like฀a฀journey฀into฀a฀past฀era฀replete฀with฀clan฀chieftains,฀backwoods฀ subsistence฀farmers,฀herders,฀and฀roving฀foragers฀on฀the฀margins,฀all฀of฀whom฀bartered฀ the฀goods฀they฀owned.฀A฀sincerely฀felt฀moral฀concern฀among฀Scottish฀intellectuals,฀ like฀Adam฀Smith฀(1723–90),฀was฀to฀determine฀how฀they฀could฀make฀a฀backward฀ country฀prosper฀(Waszek฀1988:฀30–7).฀To฀accomplish฀this฀goal,฀they฀argued,฀it฀was฀ necessary฀to฀have฀accurate฀empirical฀information฀derived฀from฀experiment฀and฀ observation,฀comparison฀and฀analysis;฀they฀could฀then฀synthesize฀the฀information฀ and฀use฀the฀results฀to฀formulate฀the฀natural฀laws฀of฀economic฀development฀(Forbes฀ 1982).฀The฀ methodology฀ was฀ Newton’s฀ applied฀ to฀ human฀ society฀ rather฀ than฀ inanimate฀objects.฀To฀do฀so฀would฀be฀a฀virtuous฀act฀that฀would฀benefit฀the฀nation฀ and฀meet฀with฀the฀approval฀of฀others;฀they฀knew฀the฀act฀was฀virtuous,฀because฀it฀involved฀sympathy฀(i.e.,฀empathy),฀the฀capacity฀to฀put฀themselves฀imaginatively฀into฀ the฀situation฀of฀others฀and฀to฀intuit฀what฀the฀others฀instinctively฀feel฀(Broackes฀1995:฀ 380).฀The฀concepts฀of฀spectatorship฀and฀sympathy฀played฀prominent฀roles฀in฀Smith’s฀ (1759/1976)฀Theory฀of฀Moral฀Sentiments฀and฀guided฀the฀conjectural฀histories฀of฀ society฀that฀Smith฀and฀his฀contemporaries฀wrote฀between฀1757฀and฀1777. The฀Scots฀did฀not฀believe,฀as฀Hobbes฀and฀Locke฀had,฀that฀society฀was฀constituted฀ by฀a฀rational฀act,฀a฀social฀contract฀among฀individuals,฀in฀order฀to฀protect฀life,฀ liberty,฀and฀property.฀They฀argued฀instead฀that฀the฀formation฀of฀society฀could฀not฀ be฀predicated฀on฀reason.฀In฀their฀view,฀emotion฀preceded฀reason฀and฀reflection,฀ and฀awareness฀of฀the฀advantages฀of฀life฀in฀a฀community฀only฀emerged฀later.฀David฀ Hume฀(1711–76)฀argued฀that฀the฀sociability฀of฀human฀beings฀was฀natural฀and฀rested฀ on฀sexual฀impulse฀and฀desires฀that฀linked฀generations฀together฀and฀shaped฀their฀ habits฀regarding฀the฀distribution฀of฀beneficial฀but฀scarce฀goods.฀For฀him,฀protecting฀ property฀rights฀to฀goods฀was฀the฀main฀condition฀for฀society฀and฀preceded฀notions฀

22฀ •฀ Karl฀Marx,฀Anthropologist of฀justice.฀Taking฀a฀slightly฀different฀tack,฀Smith฀argued฀that฀human฀sociability฀ underpinned฀the฀development฀of฀morality,฀since฀individuals฀serve฀as฀mirrors฀for฀one฀ another.฀The฀exchanges฀that฀occurred฀among฀individuals฀in฀the฀mirroring฀process฀ were฀not฀only฀the฀means฀by฀which฀they฀gained฀the฀approval฀of฀others฀and฀satisfied฀ their฀mutual฀needs,฀but฀they฀were฀also฀the฀way฀in฀which฀those฀individuals฀were฀ constituted฀as฀individuals฀in฀the฀society.฀More฀importantly,฀they฀were฀the฀foundation฀ of฀human฀sociability฀itself. Hume,฀Smith,฀and฀the฀other฀Scots฀had฀a฀common฀perspective฀on฀human฀nature฀ that฀was฀intimately฀linked฀with฀their฀views฀on฀sociability.฀Despite฀the฀diversity฀ of฀human฀actions,฀institutions,฀and฀customs—reflecting฀variously฀the฀influence฀ of฀education,฀government,฀and฀environment฀as฀well฀as฀peculiarities฀of฀particular฀ cultures฀ and฀ individuals—there฀ were฀ also฀ stable฀ characteristics,฀ motives,฀ and฀ instincts฀that฀were฀shared฀by฀all฀human฀beings.฀That฀is,฀human฀beings฀have฀in฀ common฀certain฀predispositions,฀such฀as฀“the฀natural฀effort฀of฀every฀individual฀to฀ better฀his฀own฀condition”฀or฀“the฀propensity฀to฀truck,฀barter,฀and฀exchange฀one฀thing฀ for฀another”฀that฀distinguish฀them฀from฀other฀species฀(Smith฀1776/1976:฀17).฀These฀ dispositions฀were฀fixed฀characteristics฀of฀the฀species฀that฀were฀invariant฀from฀one฀ society฀to฀another฀or฀from฀one฀individual฀to฀the฀next;฀this฀view,฀of฀course,฀contrasted฀ markedly฀with฀Rousseau’s. Besides฀their฀views฀about฀natural฀sociability฀of฀human฀beings,฀property,฀scarcity,฀ exchange,฀and฀the฀immutability฀of฀human฀nature,฀the฀Scots฀also฀believed฀in฀progress,฀ the฀idea฀that฀society฀was฀developing฀in฀a฀desirable฀direction.฀Smith฀and฀the฀others฀ saw฀progressive฀development฀in฀areas฀of฀society฀as฀diverse฀as฀language,฀astronomy,฀ jurisprudence,฀government,฀and,฀most฀importantly,฀the฀mode฀of฀subsistence.฀In฀his฀ Lectures฀on฀Jurisprudence฀(1762–3/1982),฀Smith฀argued฀that฀the฀progress฀of฀society฀ was฀a฀natural,฀law-driven฀process฀tied฀both฀to฀the฀natural฀dispositions฀shared฀by฀ all฀human฀beings—e.g.฀to฀better฀their฀own฀circumstances—and฀to฀the฀increasing฀ division฀of฀labor,฀which฀was฀associated฀with฀population฀growth฀and฀changes฀in฀their฀ modes฀of฀subsistence.฀From฀his฀perspective,฀the฀first฀societies฀were฀composed฀of฀ small฀numbers฀of฀individuals฀who฀provisioned฀themselves฀by฀hunting฀and฀foraging.฀ As฀their฀numbers฀increased,฀they฀domesticated฀animals฀and฀became฀pastoralists.฀ When฀ their฀ numbers฀ increased฀ even฀ further,฀ those฀ in฀ favorable฀ environments฀ domesticated฀plants฀and฀turned฀to฀agriculture.฀This฀was฀followed฀by฀a฀significant฀ advance฀in฀the฀division฀of฀labor,฀as฀artisans—carpenters,฀weavers,฀tailors,฀and฀the฀ like—ceased฀to฀produce฀their฀own฀food฀and฀settled฀instead฀in฀towns฀to฀pursue฀their฀ crafts฀and฀to฀barter฀or฀exchange฀the฀goods฀they฀produced฀with฀other฀members฀of฀the฀ community฀and฀then฀with฀the฀inhabitants฀of฀other฀nations.฀The฀Scots฀also฀recognized฀ that฀the฀culture฀and฀values฀of฀a฀societies฀were฀linked฀to฀their฀modes฀of฀subsistence;฀ hence,฀foraging฀societies฀were฀different฀from฀those฀whose฀economies฀were฀based฀on฀ commerce฀and฀manufacturing.฀However,฀the฀sequence฀in฀which฀the฀different฀forms฀ of฀society฀appeared฀followed฀from฀the฀nature฀of฀property,฀or฀as฀Smith฀(1776/1976:฀ 405)฀put฀it,฀“according฀to฀the฀natural฀course฀of฀things.”

The฀Enlightenment฀and฀Anthropology฀ •฀ 23 The฀materialist,฀conjectural฀histories฀of฀society฀constructed฀by฀Smith฀and฀his฀ associates฀in฀Glasgow฀and฀Edinburgh฀with฀their฀emphasis฀on฀the฀natural฀development฀of฀the฀economy฀were฀merely฀part฀of฀a฀more฀general฀system฀of฀morality฀rooted฀ in฀a฀discussion฀of฀imagination฀and฀sympathy.฀They฀described,฀and฀promoted,฀the฀ development฀of฀commercial฀society฀in฀accordance฀with฀natural฀laws฀and฀the฀natural฀ propensities฀that฀were฀shared฀by฀all฀human฀beings.฀They฀realized฀that฀manifestations฀ of฀these฀natural฀laws฀and฀propensities฀varied฀from฀one฀time฀to฀another,฀even฀as฀basic฀ human฀nature฀itself฀remained฀constant.฀They฀interpreted฀the฀variation฀as฀a฀series฀of฀ gradations฀that฀reflected฀not฀only฀continuous฀and฀uninterrupted฀historical฀change฀ but฀also฀the฀unfolding฀of฀some฀potential฀or฀force฀that฀was฀inherent฀in฀society฀itself.฀ While฀they฀historicized฀society,฀the฀Scots฀separated฀the฀study฀of฀history฀from฀the฀ study฀of฀social฀dynamics;฀however,฀theirs฀were฀not฀the฀only฀attempts฀to฀historicize฀ discussions฀of฀human฀nature฀and฀society฀in฀the฀mid฀eighteenth฀century. Rousseau฀and฀the฀Scots฀were฀concerned฀with฀the฀development฀of฀a฀new฀kind฀ of฀society—commercialized฀and฀later฀industrialized—that฀came฀to฀be฀called฀“civil฀ society.”฀Their฀questions฀were:฀What฀was฀it?฀And,฀how฀did฀it฀develop?฀While฀the฀ Scots฀advocated,฀with฀some฀uneasiness,฀the฀growth฀of฀civil฀society฀as฀a฀means฀to฀ increase฀the฀wealth฀of฀nations,฀Rousseau฀was฀openly฀critical฀of฀the฀effects฀of฀modern฀ civil฀society฀on฀individuals,฀their฀outlooks฀on฀life,฀and฀the฀social฀relations฀that฀ structured฀their฀interactions.฀The฀views฀of฀Rousseau฀and฀the฀Scots฀on฀the฀trajectory฀ of฀human฀historical฀development,฀as฀well฀as฀their฀philosophical฀anthropologies,฀ also฀differed฀significantly.฀While฀Rousseau฀blurred฀the฀distinction฀we฀now฀make฀ between฀the฀human฀and฀the฀natural฀realms,฀the฀Scots฀highlighted฀their฀differences.฀ For฀Rousseau,฀the฀motors฀driving฀human฀history฀were฀the฀interplay฀of฀free฀agency,฀ perfectibility,฀and฀the฀transformation฀of฀the฀external฀world฀in฀contexts฀shaped฀by฀ contingent฀rather฀than฀necessary฀forms฀of฀social฀relations.฀For฀Smith฀and฀the฀Scots,฀ human฀history฀reflected฀the฀gradual,฀progressive฀development,฀in฀accordance฀with฀ natural฀law,฀of฀propensities฀that฀were฀common฀to฀all฀human฀beings,฀even฀though฀they฀ manifested฀themselves฀variously฀in฀societies฀with฀different฀modes฀of฀subsistence.฀ The฀ problems฀ addressed฀ by฀ Rousseau,฀ Smith,฀ and฀ the฀ others,฀ as฀ well฀ as฀ their฀ philosophical฀anthropologies,฀both฀influenced฀and฀provoked฀successive฀generations฀ of฀writers฀from฀the฀late฀eighteenth฀century฀onward.฀Kant,฀Herder,฀Hegel,฀Jefferson,฀ Marx,฀and฀others฀wrestled฀with฀their฀views฀about฀humanity฀and฀how฀the฀world฀in฀ which฀they฀lived฀came฀to฀be฀the฀way฀it฀was.

The฀Institutionalization฀of฀Anthropology In฀the฀late฀eighteenth฀century฀the฀lines฀between฀disciplines฀were฀not฀as฀sharply฀ drawn฀as฀they฀would฀become,฀nor฀were฀they฀even฀drawn฀in฀the฀same฀places฀as฀ they฀are฀today.฀Instead,฀it฀was฀a฀time฀when฀a฀physiologist–comparative฀anatomist฀ (Blumenbach)฀wrote฀about฀epistemology;฀when฀a฀naturalist฀(Buffon)฀discussed฀

24฀ •฀ Karl฀Marx,฀Anthropologist mathematics;฀when฀a฀philosopher฀(Kant)฀lectured฀on฀anthropology,฀astronomy,฀ history,฀and฀laid฀the฀foundations฀for฀the฀modern฀concept฀of฀biological฀species;฀when฀ a฀poet,฀novelist,฀and฀statesman฀(Goethe)฀discovered฀the฀intermaxillary฀bone฀of฀the฀ human฀skull,฀collected฀botanical฀samples,฀and฀drew฀pictures฀of฀Roman฀ruins;฀and฀ when฀a฀political฀revolutionary฀(Jefferson)฀conducted฀archaeological฀excavations฀ in฀Virginia฀and฀collected฀vocabulary฀lists฀of฀American฀Indian฀languages.฀What฀ united฀them฀were฀curiosity฀about฀the฀world฀and฀their฀quest฀for฀enlightenment,฀for฀ understanding฀that฀world฀without฀necessarily฀having฀to฀rely฀solely฀or฀exclusively฀on฀ the฀authority฀of฀others.฀What฀inspired฀them,฀among฀other฀things,฀were฀authors฀like฀ Montesquieu,฀Buffon,฀Rousseau,฀and฀the฀Scots,฀whose฀writings฀provoked฀critical฀ thought฀and฀practice. The฀influence฀of฀Rousseau฀and฀others฀was฀already฀evident฀in฀the฀German฀principalities฀by฀the฀late฀1750s.฀This฀was฀a฀time฀of฀massive฀foreign฀influence฀in฀Central฀ Europe.฀East฀Prussia฀had฀been฀incorporated฀into฀the฀Russian฀Empire฀during฀the฀Seven฀ Years฀War฀(1756–63),฀and฀the฀president฀of฀the฀Berlin฀Academy,฀French฀naturalist฀ Pierre-Louis฀Maupertuis,฀actively฀sought฀to฀bring฀the฀issues฀of฀Enlightenment฀ debate฀to฀the฀“center฀of฀German฀cultural฀discourse”฀by฀offering฀annual฀prize฀competitions฀on฀subjects฀selected฀by฀the฀Academy฀(Zammito฀2002:฀59).฀This฀was฀part฀ of฀the฀cultural฀and฀political฀agenda฀of฀King฀Frederick฀II,฀who฀himself฀was฀a฀longtime฀friend฀of฀Voltaire.฀Another฀aspect฀of฀Frederick’s฀agenda฀was฀to฀reform฀the฀ universities฀and฀remodel฀them฀after฀the฀curriculum฀at฀the฀University฀of฀Göttingen.฀A฀ third฀aspect฀of฀Frederick’s฀plan฀was฀to฀undermine฀and฀displace฀academic฀philosophy,฀ which฀he฀viewed฀as฀pedantic฀and฀out฀of฀touch฀with฀the฀real฀world.฀The฀king฀was฀ supported฀in฀his฀effort฀to฀bring฀the฀ideas฀of฀the฀French฀and฀Scottish฀Enlightenments฀ to฀the฀public,฀especially฀by฀that฀newly฀emerging฀layer฀of฀society,฀the฀“bourgeois฀ intelligentsia,”฀whose฀members฀were฀concerned฀with฀education฀not฀only฀as฀a฀source฀ of฀social฀mobility฀but฀more฀importantly฀as฀a฀sign฀of฀social฀identity฀(Zammito฀2001,฀ 2002:฀16–35).฀Testimonials฀perhaps฀to฀the฀impact฀of฀these฀intellectual฀exchanges฀ were฀Immanuel฀Kant’s฀(1724–1803)฀claims฀that฀“Hume฀awoke฀him฀[i.e.,฀Kant]฀ from฀his฀dogmatic฀slumbers”฀and฀that฀“Rousseau฀set฀him฀straight.”฀It฀was฀in฀this฀ context฀that฀Kant฀and฀his฀student,฀Johann฀Gottlieb฀von฀Herder฀(1744–1803),฀began฀ to฀grapple฀with฀Rousseau’s฀writings฀at฀the฀University฀of฀Königsberg฀in฀1762,฀that฀ Kant฀launched฀his฀annual฀course฀in฀anthropology฀in฀1772,฀and฀that฀anthropology฀was฀ institutionalized฀at฀Göttingen฀in฀the฀1770s.

Kant’s฀Pragmatic฀Anthropology Kant’s฀early฀writings฀were฀concerned฀mainly฀with฀the฀natural฀sciences.฀Two฀additional฀themes฀appeared฀in฀his฀writings฀in฀the฀early฀1760s.฀The฀first฀was฀an฀extended฀ critique฀of฀Cartesian฀rationalism฀and฀the฀application฀of฀mathematical฀methods฀to฀ metaphysical฀questions;฀his฀Inquiry฀into฀the฀Distinctness฀of฀the฀Principles฀of฀Natural฀

The฀Enlightenment฀and฀Anthropology฀ •฀ 25 Theology฀and฀Ethics฀(1762),฀which฀was฀runner-up฀for฀the฀Berlin฀Academy’s฀prize,฀ shifted฀the฀study฀of฀human฀nature฀from฀metaphysics฀toward฀the฀natural฀world.฀It฀also฀ gained฀him฀public฀recognition.฀The฀second฀theme฀dealt฀with฀human฀equality฀and฀ education.฀By฀the฀time฀that฀Observations฀on฀the฀Feeling฀of฀the฀Beautiful฀and฀Sublime฀ (1764)฀appeared,฀Kant฀was฀already฀working฀his฀way฀through฀Rousseau’s฀comments฀ about฀human฀nature,฀culture,฀enlightenment,฀inequality,฀and฀the฀trajectory฀of฀history;฀ at฀the฀same฀time,฀he฀was฀also฀forging฀his฀own฀critique฀of฀academic฀philosophy฀in฀the฀ German฀states฀(Beiser฀1992a).฀Terms฀like฀“freedom”฀and฀“equality”฀slowly฀crept฀into฀ his฀writings.฀The฀alternative฀he฀proposed฀in฀the฀mid฀1760s฀was฀a฀practical฀philosophy,฀ which฀would฀not฀only฀study฀“natural฀phenomena฀that฀hinder฀or฀contribute฀to฀the฀ development฀of฀morality฀in฀human฀life,”฀but฀also฀be฀useful฀by฀helping฀us฀distinguish฀ natural฀from฀artificial฀feelings฀by฀stressing฀what฀human฀beings฀share฀(Louden฀2000:฀ 18).฀The฀natural฀phenomena฀he฀had฀in฀mind฀included฀the฀diverse฀experiences฀of฀ natural฀and฀civilized฀man,฀categories฀clearly฀derived฀from฀Rousseau,฀that฀resulted฀ from฀differences฀in฀sex,฀age,฀culture,฀education,฀and฀environment฀(Zammito฀2002:฀ 108–9).฀In฀a฀course฀description฀for฀the฀1765–6฀academic฀year,฀he฀wrote: [It]฀considers฀man,฀throughout฀the฀world,฀from฀the฀point฀of฀view฀of฀the฀variety฀of฀his฀ natural฀properties฀and฀the฀differences฀in฀that฀feature฀of฀man฀which฀is฀moral฀in฀character.฀ Unless฀these฀matters฀are฀considered,฀general฀judgements฀about฀man฀would฀scarcely฀be฀ possible.฀The฀comparison฀of฀human฀beings฀with฀each฀other,฀and฀the฀comparison฀of฀man฀ today฀with฀the฀moral฀state฀of฀man฀in฀earlier฀times,฀furnishes฀us฀with฀a฀comprehensive฀ map฀of฀the฀human฀species.฀Finally,฀there฀will฀be฀a฀consideration฀of฀.฀.฀.฀the฀condition฀ of฀the฀states฀and฀nations฀throughout฀the฀world.฀(Kant฀1765/1992:฀289;฀emphasis฀in฀ original)

This฀was฀one฀of฀the฀building฀blocks฀for฀the฀anthropology฀course฀that฀Kant฀taught฀ each฀winter฀semester฀from฀1772฀to฀1796฀and฀for฀his฀Anthropology฀from฀a฀Pragmatic฀ Point฀of฀View฀(Kant฀1798/1978;฀Louden฀2000:฀62–4;฀Stark฀2003;฀Zammito฀2002:฀ 221–307);฀it฀was฀apparently฀paired฀with฀an฀ethics฀course฀that฀he฀also฀taught฀during฀ that฀period.฀While฀the฀content฀of฀the฀anthropology฀course฀varied฀somewhat฀from฀year฀ to฀year,฀he฀typically฀dealt฀with฀human฀beings฀as฀sensuous฀things฀of฀nature฀endowed฀ with฀natural฀talents฀and฀temperaments฀in฀one฀part฀and,฀in฀another,฀considered฀them฀ as฀ethical฀beings฀who฀acted฀from฀principles฀and฀reason฀instead฀impulse฀or฀inclination฀ in฀social฀contexts฀molded฀by฀diverse฀factors.฀Thus,฀he฀distinguished฀the฀physical฀ character฀of฀human฀beings฀from฀their฀moral฀character.฀The฀former฀was฀what฀nature฀ made฀of฀human฀beings;฀the฀latter฀was฀an฀individual฀achievement฀formed฀through฀ education,฀moral฀discourse,฀reflection,฀and฀the฀ability฀to฀think฀for฀oneself฀(Louden฀ 2000:฀76–85).฀For฀Kant,฀the฀formation฀of฀moral฀character฀was฀the฀more฀fundamental฀ question,฀judging฀by฀his฀remark฀that฀the฀proper฀materials฀of฀anthropology฀were฀“to฀ be฀found฀neither฀in฀metaphysics฀nor฀in฀a฀museum฀of฀natural฀history฀in฀which฀the฀ skeleton฀of฀the฀human฀being฀can฀be฀compared฀with฀that฀of฀other฀animals฀.฀.฀.฀[but]฀

26฀ •฀ Karl฀Marx,฀Anthropologist rather฀these฀materials฀can฀be฀found฀only฀in฀human฀actions,฀in฀which฀the฀human฀ character฀is฀revealed”฀(Kant฀1785/1991:฀211–12;฀emphasis฀in฀original). For฀Kant,฀there฀was฀a฀linkage฀between฀the฀emotional฀temperaments฀and฀physical฀ states฀of฀the฀human฀species.฀He฀posited฀psychological฀differences฀between฀men฀ and฀ women฀ and฀ argued฀ that฀ these฀ were฀ rooted฀ in฀ nature.฀ In฀ his฀ view,฀ women฀ played฀ the฀ central฀ role฀ in฀ the฀ formation฀ of฀ moral฀ character,฀ because,฀ besides฀ ensuring฀the฀preservation฀of฀the฀species,฀they฀were฀a฀moralizing฀force฀in฀society฀ that฀influenced฀men,฀legislated฀customs,฀and฀established฀how฀social฀intercourse฀ should฀be฀structured.฀It฀was฀the฀natural฀duty฀of฀women฀to฀provide฀individuals฀with฀ the฀skills฀and฀discipline฀required฀to฀become฀rational฀and฀ethical฀human฀beings.10฀ Skill฀and฀discipline฀collectively฀constituted฀culture.฀Skills฀allowed฀individuals฀to฀ use฀the฀products฀of฀nature;฀discipline฀allowed฀them฀to฀free฀themselves฀from฀the฀ dominance฀of฀natural฀needs฀and฀desires.฀While฀the฀process฀of฀enculturation฀was฀ apparently฀asocial฀in฀Kant’s฀mind,฀culture฀could฀only฀unfold฀and฀progress฀in฀the฀ context฀of฀social฀relations฀and฀could฀begin฀to฀achieve฀its฀full฀potential฀in฀a฀civil฀ society฀(civilization),฀which฀was฀composed฀of฀free฀individuals฀whose฀actions฀were฀ constrained฀by฀the฀lawful฀authority฀of฀the฀whole.฀The฀moralization฀of฀civilization฀ represented฀another,฀higher฀stage฀of฀historical฀development฀as฀yet฀unachieved฀ (Louden฀2000:฀79–87,฀143–4). The฀concepts฀of฀races฀and฀peoples฀also฀played฀roles฀in฀Kant’s฀philosophical฀ anthropology.฀His฀concept฀of฀race,฀which฀built฀on฀Buffon’s฀work,฀was฀simultaneously฀ historical,฀naturalistic,฀and฀teleological.฀Kant฀viewed฀race฀exclusively฀as฀skin฀ color;฀it฀was฀hereditary,฀and฀involved฀the฀transmission฀of฀a฀latent฀set฀of฀natural฀ predispositions฀manifest฀in฀all฀human฀beings฀that฀were฀activated฀differentially฀as฀ human฀beings฀moved฀into฀different฀environmental฀settings.11฀These฀predispositions฀ helped฀the฀human฀species฀achieve฀its฀“collective฀destiny”฀(Louden฀2000:฀97).฀By฀a฀ people,฀he฀meant฀the฀inhabitants฀of฀a฀region฀who฀viewed฀themselves฀as฀a฀civic฀whole฀ because฀of฀their฀common฀descent,฀customs,฀and฀language฀(Kant฀1798/1978:฀225).฀ For฀Kant,฀the฀two฀were฀not฀the฀same.฀Races฀reflected฀the฀effects฀of฀environment,฀ whereas฀peoples฀reflected฀culture฀and฀history.฀From฀his฀perspective,฀some฀peoples฀ were฀racially฀mixed,฀and฀races฀often฀included฀numerous฀peoples.฀Moreover,฀some฀ peoples,฀mostly฀Europeans,฀had฀developed฀their฀natural฀predispositions,฀while฀others,฀ mostly฀non-European,฀had฀yet฀to฀do฀so,฀because฀they฀lacked฀culture฀and฀civilization,฀ which,฀of฀course,฀could฀only฀emerge฀in฀civil฀society.฀In฀sum,฀Kant฀historicized฀the฀ development฀of฀the฀human฀species฀and฀human฀society.฀Like฀the฀Scots,฀he฀believed฀ in฀progress;฀however,฀he฀saw฀it฀as฀moral฀progress,฀rather฀than฀economic฀progress.฀ It฀was฀achieved฀through฀legal฀and฀political฀means฀and฀the฀“unsociable฀sociability”฀ of฀individuals฀who฀simultaneously฀entered฀into฀social฀relations฀and฀fought฀with฀one฀ another฀(Louden฀2000:฀146–53). Kant฀(1784/1986),฀1785/1991,฀1786/1991)฀began฀to฀develop฀his฀theory฀of฀history฀ in฀the฀mid฀1780s,฀building฀on฀Rousseau฀and฀on฀the฀liberal฀political฀thought฀of฀ Hobbes,฀Locke,฀and฀the฀Scots;฀his฀essays฀were฀also฀responses฀to฀Herder’s฀Reflections฀

The฀Enlightenment฀and฀Anthropology฀ •฀ 27 on฀the฀Philosophy฀of฀History฀of฀Mankind฀(1784/1968).฀Kant฀understood฀history฀ teleologically,฀as฀motion฀toward฀a฀goal.฀This฀movement฀was฀characteristic฀not฀only฀ of฀the฀natural฀world฀viewed฀as฀lifeless฀matter฀in฀motion฀but฀also฀of฀humanity.฀In฀the฀ former,฀the฀laws฀of฀nature฀were฀the฀motor฀driving฀change.฀In฀the฀latter,฀the฀underlying฀ force฀was฀the฀increasing฀perfectibility฀of฀the฀natural฀capacity฀of฀human฀beings฀to฀ reason.฀“Restless฀reason”฀induced฀by฀the฀constant฀tendency฀of฀human฀beings฀to฀move฀ toward฀and฀away฀from฀one฀another฀was฀the฀initial฀impetus฀for฀movement฀away฀from฀ animality฀(Galston฀1975:฀236).฀The฀threat฀of฀a฀war฀of฀all฀against฀all฀not฀only฀drove฀ human฀beings฀into฀civil฀society฀with฀coercive฀laws฀but฀also฀promoted฀education,฀ freedom,฀and฀commerce.฀Implicit฀in฀Kant’s฀notion฀of฀the฀perfectibility฀of฀reason฀ were฀the฀ideas฀that฀someday,฀with฀freedom,฀there฀would฀be฀universal฀agreement฀and,฀ hence,฀the฀“end฀of฀history”—ideas฀whose฀actualization฀he฀thought฀were฀a฀long฀way฀ off.฀What฀he฀did฀sketch,฀however,฀was฀the฀kind฀of฀empirical฀information฀that฀the฀ study฀of฀history฀would฀reveal฀and฀that฀could฀inform฀the฀enlightened฀peoples฀of฀his฀ day:฀the฀advances฀of฀each฀civilization,฀the฀evils฀that฀led฀to฀their฀destruction,฀and฀the฀ mechanisms฀of฀enlightenment฀that฀remained.฀As฀William฀Galston฀(1975:฀265)฀noted,฀ “morality฀participates฀in฀the฀universality฀of฀Reason,฀but฀Reason฀progresses.฀The฀ content฀of฀morality฀is฀therefore฀everchanging.฀Moreover,฀this฀change฀corresponds฀ to฀the฀actuality฀of฀history,฀for฀the฀universality฀of฀Reason฀manifests฀itself฀in฀concrete฀ human฀affairs.” As฀you฀will฀recall,฀Kant฀distinguished฀between฀pure฀reason,฀which฀was฀independent฀ of฀experience,฀and฀practical฀reason,฀which฀used฀empirical฀data฀in฀relation฀to฀particular฀bodies฀of฀experience.฀In฀light฀of฀this฀distinction,฀Robert฀Louden฀(2000)฀described฀ Kant’s฀pragmatic฀anthropology฀as฀the฀study฀of฀the฀“impure฀ethics”฀that฀result฀when฀ purely฀“rational฀beings”฀become฀“human฀beings”฀embedded฀in฀society.

Herder’s฀Historical-Dialectical฀Anthropology In฀1765,฀Johann฀Gottfried฀von฀Herder,฀Kant’s฀student฀at฀Königsberg฀only฀two฀years฀ earlier,฀also฀began฀to฀write฀about฀the฀question฀of฀how฀philosophy฀could฀be฀made฀ more฀universal฀and฀useful.฀Herder’s฀(1765/2002)฀essay,฀“How฀Can฀Philosophy฀ Become฀More฀Universal฀and฀Useful฀for฀the฀Benefit฀of฀People,”฀dealt฀with฀a฀theme฀ that฀concerned฀his฀teacher฀as฀well.฀Kant’s฀inspiration฀was฀apparent฀both฀in฀the฀ question฀itself฀and฀in฀how฀the฀essay฀was฀conceptualized;฀Herder฀also฀acknowledged฀ the฀influence฀of฀Montesquieu,฀Rousseau,฀and฀the฀Scots.฀Nevertheless,฀he฀set฀forth฀ an฀agenda฀whose฀developmental฀trajectory฀would฀increasingly฀diverge฀from฀the฀ one฀pursued฀by฀his฀mentor.฀He฀argued฀that฀“if฀philosophy฀is฀to฀become฀useful฀for฀ human฀beings,฀then฀let฀it฀make฀the฀human฀being฀its฀center;”฀later฀in฀the฀same฀essay,฀ he฀suggested฀the฀“restriction฀of฀philosophy฀to฀anthropology”฀(Herder฀1765/2002:฀21,฀ 27).฀Herder฀was฀critical฀of฀the฀views฀of฀Hume฀and฀Voltaire฀who฀saw฀humankind฀as฀ pretty฀much฀the฀same฀in฀all฀times฀and฀places฀and฀who฀asserted฀that฀history฀has฀not฀

28฀ •฀ Karl฀Marx,฀Anthropologist provided฀us฀with฀any฀new฀insights.฀What฀Herder฀proposed฀instead฀was฀to฀allow฀history฀ and฀philosophy฀to฀interact฀and฀mutually฀enliven฀each฀other฀in฀order฀to฀learn฀“about฀ the฀spirit฀of฀the฀changes฀in฀various฀ages”฀(1766/2002:฀255;฀emphasis฀in฀original).฀ In฀1769,฀he฀stated฀this฀cultural฀relativism฀somewhat฀differently:฀“Human฀nature฀ under฀diverse฀climates฀[i.e.,฀the฀total฀physical,฀organic,฀and฀humanly฀constituted,฀ cultural฀milieus]฀is฀never฀wholly฀the฀same”฀(quoted฀by฀Barnard฀1969:฀382).฀From฀ his฀perspective,฀human฀nature฀was฀both฀malleable฀and฀variable.฀Moreover,฀each฀age฀ and฀people฀had฀its฀own฀distinctive฀customs,฀ways฀of฀life,฀manners฀of฀thought,฀tastes,฀ and฀forms฀of฀government;฀these฀changed;฀and฀what฀was฀considered฀true฀and฀useful฀ for฀one฀might฀be฀false฀and฀useless฀for฀another.฀Moreover,฀there฀was฀less฀pronounced฀ diversity฀among฀the฀individuals฀of฀the฀same฀age฀or฀people฀(culture).฀Herder฀would฀ elaborate฀these฀themes฀for฀the฀rest฀of฀his฀life. For฀our฀purposes,฀three฀of฀Herder’s฀works฀are฀important.฀The฀first฀is฀his฀essay฀ “Treatise฀on฀the฀Origin฀of฀Language,”฀which฀won฀the฀Berlin฀Academy฀prize฀in฀1771฀ and฀established฀him฀as฀a฀major฀intellectual฀force฀(Herder฀1772/2002).฀The฀second฀ is฀“This฀Too฀a฀Philosophy฀of฀the฀History฀for฀the฀Formation฀of฀Humanity”฀which฀ appeared฀in฀1774฀(Herder฀1774/2002).฀The฀third฀is฀Reflections฀on฀the฀Philosophy฀ of฀the฀History฀of฀Mankind,฀the฀first฀volume฀of฀which฀appeared฀in฀1784฀(Herder฀ 1784/1968).฀In฀them,฀Herder฀laid฀the฀foundations฀for฀a฀philosophical฀anthropology฀ concerned฀with฀language,฀culture,฀history,฀and฀their฀interconnections. Herder฀used฀the฀word฀“culture”฀in฀both฀the฀singular฀and฀the฀plural.฀Briefly,฀ the฀former฀referred฀to฀the฀patterns฀of฀language,฀thought,฀and฀behavior฀that฀were฀ characteristic฀of฀a฀particular฀community฀in฀time฀and฀space;฀the฀latter฀acknowledged฀ the฀diversity฀that฀existed฀between฀communities฀that฀were฀separated฀from฀one฀another฀ in฀time฀and฀space.฀For฀Herder,฀culture฀was฀an฀integrated฀whole a฀composite฀or฀complex฀configuration฀which,฀by฀virtue฀of฀its฀inherent฀relational฀characteristics,฀is฀something฀more฀than฀a฀mere฀sum฀total฀or฀aggregate.฀In฀an฀aggregate฀the฀ parts฀are฀separate฀and฀unrelated,฀and฀their฀number฀can฀be฀increased฀or฀reduced฀without฀ having฀this฀affect฀the฀nature฀of฀the฀total฀but฀merely฀the฀size.฀A฀whole,฀on฀the฀other฀hand,฀ is฀something฀more฀than฀the฀sum฀of฀its฀constituent฀parts.฀The฀“more”฀is฀not฀contained฀ in฀the฀parts฀considered฀in฀isolation,฀but฀rather฀arises฀from฀their฀inter-relation฀and฀the฀ varying฀degree฀of฀their฀integration.฀Herder฀contrasted฀the฀holism฀characterizing฀culture฀ with฀the฀atomism฀characterizing฀an฀aggregate,฀by฀comparing฀the฀former฀to฀an฀organism.฀ In฀doing฀so,฀he฀wished฀to฀focus฀on฀two฀crucial฀qualities:฀functional฀inter-relatedness฀and฀ self-generated฀activity.฀(Barnard฀1969:฀385)

Herder฀viewed฀the฀culture฀of฀a฀community฀as฀a฀complex฀of฀interacting฀organisms.฀ There฀were฀two฀reasons฀for฀this฀perspective.฀First,฀he฀believed฀that฀the฀different฀ parts฀or฀segments฀of฀culture฀might฀develop฀at฀different฀rates,฀which฀could฀disturb฀its฀ internal฀cohesion฀and฀lead฀to฀conflicts฀and฀contradictions฀within฀the฀whole.฀Thus,฀the฀ cultural฀whole฀was฀not฀necessarily฀in฀“a฀state฀of฀blissful฀harmony”฀but฀rather฀was฀

The฀Enlightenment฀and฀Anthropology฀ •฀ 29 “a฀field฀of฀tension”฀(Barnard฀1969:฀385–6).฀Second,฀the฀diversity฀existing฀within฀ the฀social฀and฀political฀culture฀of฀a฀community฀also฀had฀the฀capacity฀to฀produce฀the฀ kinds฀of฀tensions฀that฀were฀characteristic฀of฀the฀human฀condition.฀This฀diversity฀and฀ the฀tensions฀it฀produced฀were฀consequences฀of฀the฀fact฀that฀Herder฀viewed฀politics฀ as฀human฀activity฀rather฀than฀a฀set฀of฀practices฀and฀institutions฀that฀were฀associated฀ exclusively฀with฀the฀state.฀Thus,฀the฀coherence฀of฀a฀culture฀was฀contingent฀and฀ dependent,฀at฀any฀given฀moment,฀on฀the฀relations฀that฀existed฀among฀the฀reciprocally฀ interacting฀processes฀that฀constituted฀the฀whole฀and฀on฀the฀intrinsic฀capacity฀of฀the฀ whole฀to฀forge฀new฀features฀and฀integrate฀them฀into฀the฀fabric฀of฀everyday฀life.฀ This฀provided฀a฀synchronic฀view฀of฀culture,฀which฀was฀situational฀and฀functional;฀ however,฀it฀was฀clear฀to฀Herder฀that฀a฀historical,฀or฀diachronic,฀analysis฀was฀also฀ needed฀in฀order฀to฀describe฀content฀or฀the฀purpose฀of฀particular฀cultural฀segments. Herder’s฀notion฀of฀history,฀which฀involved฀both฀persistence฀and฀change,฀was฀an฀ interactive,฀dialectical฀one฀that฀involved฀the฀interplay฀of฀two฀processes:฀Bildung฀ and฀tradition.฀Bildung฀was฀a฀non-repetitive฀process฀that฀entailed฀the฀assimilation,฀ evaluation,฀and฀addition฀of฀new฀materials฀to฀the฀distinctive฀heritage฀of฀the฀community.฀ Tradition฀was฀an฀ongoing,฀intergenerational฀process฀that฀entailed฀sifting฀through฀the฀ stock฀of฀institutionalized฀beliefs฀and฀so฀forth฀in฀order฀to฀update฀them฀and฀to฀resolve฀ the฀tensions฀and฀contradictions฀created฀by฀Bildung.฀Herder฀was฀less฀concerned฀with฀ the฀antecedents฀of฀particular฀cultural฀segments฀or฀configurations฀than฀he฀was฀with฀ their฀significance฀once฀they฀had฀been฀integrated฀into฀the฀heritage฀of฀the฀community฀ (Barnard฀1969:฀389–90).฀He฀thought฀of฀historical฀development฀as฀motion฀in฀which฀ what฀was฀already฀latent฀in฀a฀culture฀was฀actualized฀or฀made฀manifest;฀in฀other฀words,฀ there฀was฀teleology฀in฀history.฀Herder’s฀views฀about฀teleology฀derived฀inspiration฀ from฀both฀Spinoza฀and฀Leibniz. For฀Herder,฀a฀shared฀or฀common฀language฀was฀the฀cement฀that฀held฀together฀the฀ members฀of฀a฀community.฀To฀paraphrase฀Barnard฀(1965:฀57),฀there฀was฀a฀relationship,฀an฀interaction,฀among฀the฀language฀shared฀by฀the฀members฀of฀a฀community฀and฀ the฀habits฀of฀thought฀and฀modes฀of฀life฀of฀its฀members.฀It฀was฀the฀means฀by฀which฀ they฀became฀conscious฀of฀themselves฀as฀individuals฀and฀of฀their฀social฀relations฀with฀ other฀individuals฀both฀inside฀and฀outside฀of฀the฀community.฀Language฀not฀only฀linked฀ them฀to฀the฀past฀by฀revealing฀the฀thoughts฀and฀sentiments฀of฀past฀generations,฀it฀also฀ allowed฀them฀to฀enrich฀and฀perpetuate฀those฀views฀for฀future฀generations฀through฀the฀ processes฀of฀Bildung฀and฀tradition.฀In฀his฀essay฀on฀the฀origins฀of฀language,฀Herder,฀ in฀contrast฀to฀Rousseau,฀saw฀language฀as฀a฀uniquely฀human฀attribute฀that฀separated฀ human฀beings฀from฀animals.฀In฀his฀view,฀human฀beings฀were฀fundamentally฀different฀ from฀animals;฀they฀were฀not฀simply฀animals฀with฀reason฀added,฀but฀beings฀whose฀ energies฀had฀developed฀in฀an฀entirely฀different฀direction.฀Language,฀in฀his฀view,฀ marked฀the฀possession฀of฀a฀reflective฀mind. At฀the฀time฀Herder฀was฀formulating฀his฀philosophical฀anthropology,฀the฀idea฀of฀ race฀was฀being฀discussed฀increasingly฀by฀Enlightenment฀writers.฀Kant,฀for฀example,฀ incorporated฀it฀into฀the฀core฀of฀his฀anthropological฀thought.฀Herder,฀however,฀did฀not฀

30฀ •฀ Karl฀Marx,฀Anthropologist find฀any฀utility฀in฀the฀concept.฀In฀1784,฀he฀described฀his฀thoughts฀and฀reservations฀ about฀its฀use฀in฀the฀following฀way: Lastly,฀I฀could฀wish฀the฀distinction฀between฀the฀human฀species,฀that฀have฀been฀made฀ from฀a฀laudable฀zeal฀for฀discriminating฀sciences,฀not฀be฀carried฀beyond฀due฀bounds.฀ Some฀for฀instance฀[i.e.,฀Kant]฀have฀thought฀fit,฀to฀employ฀the฀term฀races฀for฀four฀or฀five฀ divisions,฀originally฀made฀in฀consequence฀of฀country฀or฀complexion;฀but฀I฀see฀no฀reason฀ for฀this฀appellation.฀Race฀refers฀to฀a฀difference฀of฀origin,฀which฀in฀this฀case฀either฀does฀ not฀exist,฀or฀in฀each฀of฀these฀countries,฀and฀under฀each฀of฀these฀complexions,฀comprise฀ the฀most฀different฀races.฀For฀every฀nation฀is฀one฀people,฀having฀its฀own฀national฀form,฀ as฀well฀as฀its฀own฀language:฀the฀climate฀it฀is฀true,฀stamps฀on฀each฀its฀mark,฀or฀spreads฀ over฀it฀a฀slight฀veil,฀but฀not฀sufficient฀to฀destroy฀the฀original฀national฀character.฀This฀ originality฀of฀character฀extends฀even฀to฀families,฀and฀its฀transitions฀are฀as฀variable฀as฀ imperceptible.฀In฀short,฀there฀are฀neither฀four฀or฀five฀races,฀nor฀exclusive฀varieties,฀on฀ this฀Earth,฀Complexions฀run฀into฀each฀other:฀forms฀follow฀the฀genetic฀character:฀and฀ upon฀the฀whole,฀all฀are฀at฀last฀but฀shades฀of฀the฀same฀great฀picture,฀extending฀through฀ all฀ages,฀and฀over฀all฀parts฀of฀the฀earth.฀They฀belong฀not,฀therefore,฀to฀proper฀systematic฀ natural฀history,฀as฀to฀the฀physico-geographical฀[i.e.,฀anthropological]฀history฀of฀man.฀ (Herder฀1784/1968:฀7)

Herder’s฀historical-dialectical฀and฀critical฀anthropology฀built฀on฀Rousseau’s฀ and฀consequently฀resembled฀it฀in฀important฀ways.฀Both,฀for฀example,฀distinguished฀ culture฀from฀civilization—Herder฀explicitly฀and฀Rousseau฀more฀tentatively.฀For฀ both,฀civilization฀was฀something฀mechanical฀that฀was฀associated฀with฀the฀state,฀and฀ the฀civilizing฀process฀was฀one฀that฀muted฀or฀erased฀altogether฀people’s฀knowledge฀ and฀experience฀of฀everyday฀life.฀Culture,฀in฀Herder’s฀view,฀was฀organic,฀and฀he฀ situated฀it฀in฀activities฀and฀reflective฀thought฀of฀people฀who฀shared฀a฀language฀and฀ resided฀in฀relatively฀unstratified฀communities.฀Culture฀emerged฀not฀from฀activities฀ of฀intellectuals฀and฀officials฀supported฀by฀the฀state฀but฀rather฀from฀the฀creativity฀ and฀spontaneity฀of฀people฀dealing฀with฀everyday฀issues฀in฀the฀worlds฀in฀which฀they฀ lived.฀Herder฀was฀by฀no฀means฀an฀anarchist฀who฀advocated฀the฀end฀of฀the฀state.฀ He฀argued฀instead฀that฀the฀state฀should฀take฀responsibility฀for฀the฀humanization฀ of฀its฀subjects,฀for฀ensuring฀that฀they฀enjoyed฀a฀certain฀level฀of฀welfare,฀and฀for฀ providing฀education฀so฀that฀they฀might฀achieve฀their฀full฀potential,฀and฀he฀was฀ openly฀critical฀of฀those฀that฀did฀not.฀Herder฀agreed฀with฀the฀Scots฀who฀also฀argued฀ that฀history฀was฀an฀unconscious฀process฀rather฀than฀a฀consequence฀of฀great฀leaders฀ or฀the฀result฀of฀“restless฀reason”฀as฀Kant฀would฀have฀it.฀What฀bothered฀Herder฀about฀ the฀arguments฀of฀many฀of฀his฀contemporaries฀was฀their฀ethnocentrism,฀their฀claims฀ that฀the฀commercial฀society฀emerging฀in฀Europe฀represented฀the฀highest฀stage฀of฀ sociohistorical฀development,฀and฀their฀concomitant฀obfuscation฀of฀the฀cultural฀ diversity฀that฀existed฀among฀communities฀in฀different฀regions,฀whose฀members฀had฀ the฀same฀mode฀of฀subsistence.

The฀Enlightenment฀and฀Anthropology฀ •฀ 31

Göttingen:฀Beyond฀“Anthropology฀for฀Doctors฀and฀Philosophers”฀฀ The฀title฀of฀Ernst฀Platner’s฀(1744–1818)฀book,฀New฀Anthropology฀for฀Doctors฀ and฀Philosophers:฀With฀Special฀Consideration฀to฀Physiology,฀Pathology,฀Moral฀ Philosophy,฀and฀Aesthetics,฀published฀in฀1772,฀marked฀the฀acceptance฀of฀new฀ideas฀ about฀the฀linkages฀between฀the฀human฀and฀natural฀realms฀that฀were฀proposed฀earlier฀ in฀the฀century.฀Unlike฀Descartes฀who฀viewed฀mind฀and฀body฀as฀independent฀substances—the฀former฀concerned฀with฀the฀principles฀of฀thought฀or฀consciousness฀and฀ the฀latter฀possessing฀bulk฀and฀physical฀properties—Platner฀emphasized฀the฀mutual฀ interdependence฀of฀mind฀and฀body฀and฀the฀natural฀forces฀involved฀in฀the฀process฀ (Allert฀1991;฀Košenina฀1989;฀Zammito฀2002:฀237–53).฀The฀title฀also฀signaled฀the฀end฀ of฀an฀era,฀for฀it฀gave฀no฀indication฀that฀new฀ideas฀about฀the฀significance฀of฀historical฀ understanding,฀of฀organized฀systems฀as฀opposed฀to฀aggregates฀of฀individuals,฀of฀ change฀through฀time,฀of฀the฀contexts฀in฀which฀things฀occurred,฀and฀of฀cultural฀and฀ physical฀diversity฀were฀already฀crystallizing฀and฀becoming฀conjoined฀with฀one฀ another,฀or฀that฀anthropology฀would฀be฀infused฀with฀these฀new฀perspectives฀by฀the฀ end฀of฀the฀century. Montesquieu฀ had฀ linked฀ the฀ historical฀ development฀ of฀ human฀ society฀ with฀ nature฀(i.e.,฀the฀environments฀in฀which฀different฀peoples฀lived).฀Buffon,฀Rousseau,฀ and฀the฀Scots,฀in฀different฀ways,฀made฀human฀history฀part฀of฀nature:฀Buffon฀by฀ looking฀primarily฀at฀the฀human฀species฀as฀a฀biological฀organism;฀Rousseau฀by฀seeing฀ people,฀in฀the฀process฀of฀emerging฀from฀nature,฀as฀making฀their฀own฀history฀and฀ transforming฀both฀themselves฀and฀the฀natural฀world฀through฀ongoing,฀reciprocal฀ interactions฀with฀that฀world;฀the฀Scots฀by฀considering฀the฀historical฀development฀ of฀humanity฀as฀the฀consequence฀of฀natural฀laws฀that฀were฀analogous฀to฀those฀of฀ Newtonian฀physics.฀Their฀contemporaries฀and฀successors฀embroidered฀the฀fabric฀ they฀had฀woven.฀The฀new฀historical฀understanding฀involved฀explanations฀of฀both฀ the฀individual฀and฀individuality฀as฀well฀as฀of฀the฀development฀of฀society฀(Reill฀ 1998).฀While฀Hume฀strove฀to฀develop฀a฀“science฀of฀human฀nature”฀that฀was฀applicable฀in฀all฀circumstances,฀Herder฀and฀others฀recognized฀the฀diversity฀of฀human฀ societies฀and฀argued฀that฀the฀nature฀of฀individuals฀was฀shaped฀by฀the฀sociocultural฀ and฀natural฀milieus฀of฀which฀they฀were฀a฀part.฀In฀a฀phrase,฀human฀nature฀was฀the฀ result฀of฀socialization฀under฀historically฀specific฀and฀contingent฀social฀relations฀and฀ circumstances,฀and฀it฀was฀imperative฀to฀take฀account฀of฀and฀to฀explain฀the฀diversity฀ of฀both฀present฀and฀past฀societies.฀As฀Herder฀and฀others—like฀Johann฀Winckelmann฀ (1717–68)—noted,฀there฀was฀uneven฀culture-historical฀development,฀and฀each฀ era,฀each฀society฀had฀its฀own฀unique฀configuration฀of฀elements฀that฀underwrote฀its฀ distinctive฀“spirit”฀or฀appearance.฀By฀the฀1780s,฀Herder,฀Kant,฀and฀Johann฀Friedrich฀ Blumenbach฀(1752–1840)฀were฀noting฀that฀sociohistorical฀and฀cultural฀development฀ as฀well฀as฀the฀development฀of฀the฀human฀species฀itself฀was฀genetic฀in฀the฀sense฀ that฀they฀involved฀both฀mechanical฀and฀teleological฀processes,฀and฀that฀the฀latter฀ could฀not฀be฀reduced฀to฀the฀former.12฀Their฀“fascinat[ion]฀about฀the฀idea฀of฀genetic฀

32฀ •฀ Karl฀Marx,฀Anthropologist development฀was฀that฀it฀assumed฀the฀dual฀existence฀of฀individuality฀and฀regular฀ order,฀without฀collapsing฀one฀upon฀the฀other”฀(Reill฀1998:฀119).฀It฀also฀required฀a฀ new฀form฀of฀explanation,฀one฀that฀relied฀on฀narrative฀rather฀than฀reference฀to฀some฀ universally฀applicable฀law.฀History฀was฀no฀longer฀the฀chronicles฀of฀kings,฀lists฀of฀ dates,฀or฀the฀highways฀traversed฀by฀generals฀and฀armies฀but฀rather฀the฀byways฀where฀ everyday฀folk฀wandered฀silently. An฀increasingly฀prevalent฀idea฀in฀the฀late฀eighteenth฀century฀was฀the฀notion฀that฀ both฀the฀natural฀and฀human฀realms฀were฀constituted฀by฀more฀than฀mere฀aggregates฀ of฀individual฀parts.฀Instead,฀they฀were฀organized฀wholes฀that฀resembled฀an฀organism.฀ Unlike฀aggregates,฀the฀distinctive฀features฀of฀such฀totalities฀were฀more฀than฀the฀sum฀ of฀their฀parts฀and฀were฀constituted฀by฀the฀organization฀of฀those฀parts.฀Writers฀began฀ to฀think฀of฀nature฀and฀human฀society,฀both฀synchronically฀and฀diachronically,฀as฀ internally฀differentiated฀structures฀that฀not฀only฀developed฀through฀time฀but฀also฀ metamorphosed฀in฀the฀process.฀Friedrich฀Schelling฀(1775–1854),฀for฀example,฀ viewed฀“nature฀as฀a฀dynamically฀shifting฀balance฀of฀forces,”฀while฀other฀Romantic฀ writers฀were฀fascinated฀with฀the฀diversity฀manifested฀in฀tropical฀rainforests฀or฀the฀ tangled฀banks฀beside฀English฀streams฀(Richards฀2002:฀295–306).฀The฀comparisons,฀ analogies,฀and฀metaphors฀employed฀by฀Herder฀and฀others฀underwrote฀and฀supported฀ new฀ways฀of฀conceptualizing฀organization,฀growth฀or฀change฀over฀time,฀and฀diversity฀ at฀various฀levels:฀the฀natural฀world,฀human฀society,฀and฀the฀individual฀human฀being.฀ More฀importantly,฀they฀allowed฀commentators฀to฀articulate฀issues฀related฀to฀human฀ organization,฀change,฀and฀diversity฀to฀their฀own฀experiences฀and฀to฀the฀sociocultural฀ milieus฀in฀which฀they฀lived฀and฀worked. The฀University฀of฀Göttingen฀was฀a฀focal฀point฀for฀the฀convergence฀of฀these฀ideas฀ in฀the฀late฀eighteenth฀and฀early฀nineteenth฀centuries฀(e.g.฀Beiser฀1992b;฀Denby฀ 2005;฀Fink฀1993;฀Flavell฀1979,฀Leventhal฀1986;฀Stagl฀1995;฀Vermeulen฀1992,฀ 1995).฀Here,฀individuals฀with฀diverse฀interests฀rubbed฀shoulders฀with฀one฀another฀on฀ virtually฀a฀daily฀basis.฀For฀example,฀classical฀philologist฀and฀archaeologist฀Christian฀ Gottlob฀Heyne฀(1729–1812)฀was฀Blumenbach’s฀teacher,฀Herder’s฀close฀friend,฀ and฀a฀colleague฀of฀August฀Schlözer฀(1735–1809)฀who฀wrote฀extensively฀about฀the฀ history,฀linguistics,฀and฀ethnology฀of฀peoples฀on฀the฀margins฀of฀Europe฀and฀used฀ statistics฀to฀develop฀the฀comparative฀study฀of฀states.฀Moreover,฀the฀philological฀ seminar฀that฀Heyne฀taught฀for฀many฀years฀had฀shaping฀effects฀on฀the฀curricula฀of฀ other฀universities,฀like฀Harvard฀and฀the฀Andover฀Theological฀Seminary฀in฀the฀United฀ States.฀One฀of฀Heyne’s฀students฀in฀the฀seminar฀was฀Wilhelm฀von฀Humboldt฀(1767– 1835),฀who฀is฀hailed฀as฀a฀founder฀of฀comparative฀philology฀and฀as฀the฀educational฀ reformer฀who฀modeled฀the฀curriculum฀of฀the฀newly฀opened฀University฀of฀Berlin฀ after฀that฀of฀Göttingen.฀Marx,฀as฀you฀recall,฀was฀exposed฀to฀that฀curriculum฀and฀to฀ Humboldt’s฀plan฀for฀a฀historically฀informed,฀comparative฀anthropology฀when฀he฀ attended฀the฀university฀in฀the฀late฀1830s฀(Bunzl฀1996;฀Leroux฀1958).฀Through฀the฀ courses฀he฀took,฀Marx฀was฀also฀exposed฀to฀the฀critical-historical฀anthropology฀of฀ Georg฀F.฀W.฀Hegel,฀who฀was฀the฀most฀prominent฀philosopher฀and฀social฀theorist฀on฀ the฀continent฀until฀his฀death฀in฀1831.

The฀Enlightenment฀and฀Anthropology฀ •฀ 33

Hegel’s฀Critical-Historical฀Anthropology Georg฀F.฀W.฀Hegel’s฀(1770–1831)฀philosophical฀anthropology฀sought฀to฀account฀for฀ the฀actual฀(concrete)฀conditions฀of฀human฀existence฀and฀to฀explain฀how฀that฀social฀ reality฀had฀been฀transformed฀by฀the฀collective฀(social)฀activity฀of฀human฀beings.฀ From฀the฀late฀1790s฀onward,฀he฀wrote฀with฀the฀ideas฀of฀Kant,฀Herder,฀Rousseau,฀ and฀the฀Scots฀as฀almost฀continual฀points฀of฀reference.฀While฀he฀addressed฀themes฀ that฀they฀had฀already฀discussed,฀he฀was฀at฀the฀same฀time฀critical฀of฀some฀of฀the฀ conclusions฀they฀had฀drawn.฀For฀example,฀like฀Kant,฀Hegel฀believed฀that฀philosophy฀ should฀be฀critical฀as฀well฀as฀systematic฀(scientific),฀that฀the฀social฀problems฀of฀the฀ day฀were฀ultimately฀ethical฀or฀moral,฀and฀that฀social฀change฀was฀the฀product฀of฀ human฀activity;฀however,฀unlike฀Kant,฀he฀viewed฀change฀from฀the฀standpoint฀of฀the฀ community฀rather฀than฀the฀individual.฀From฀Herder,฀he฀gained฀an฀appreciation฀of฀ the฀importance฀of฀historical฀understanding฀and฀the฀significance฀of฀varied฀cultural฀ configurations฀of฀different฀historical฀epochs฀and฀civilizations;฀he฀also฀developed฀ concepts฀of฀history฀and฀the฀primacy฀of฀collective฀social฀activity฀that฀were฀inchoate฀in฀ Herder’s฀writings.฀Like฀Rousseau฀and฀Herder,฀he฀viewed฀history฀in฀terms฀of฀uneven฀ development฀and฀the฀resolution฀of฀conflicts฀and฀contradictions.฀Hegel฀agreed฀with฀ Herder฀and฀the฀Scots,฀notably฀Adam฀Ferguson,฀that฀the฀members฀of฀a฀society฀were฀ bound฀together฀by฀shared฀cultural฀practices฀and฀beliefs฀as฀well฀as฀by฀the฀political฀ institutions฀under฀which฀these฀habits฀manifested฀themselves.฀Like฀Rousseau฀and฀ the฀Scots,฀Hegel฀was฀deeply฀concerned฀with฀the฀development฀of฀both฀modern฀civil฀ society฀and฀the฀state฀as฀well฀as฀with฀the฀kinds฀of฀transformations฀they฀wrought฀on฀ human฀beings.฀As฀a฀result,฀Hegel’s฀philosophical฀anthropology฀shared฀important฀ features฀with฀those฀of฀his฀predecessors฀and฀diverged฀in฀significant฀ways฀from฀them฀ (Lukács฀1966/1976;฀Rockmore฀1992/1993).฀His฀empirical฀anthropology฀was฀rooted฀ in฀his฀concern฀with฀history฀and฀with฀the฀formation฀of฀civil฀society฀(e.g.฀Berry฀1982;฀ Dickey฀and฀Nisbet฀1999;฀Knox฀and฀Pelczynski฀1964;฀Waszek฀1988). History,฀in฀Hegel’s฀(1822–30/1975:฀11–151)฀view,฀simultaneously฀involved฀the฀ interconnected฀development฀of฀the฀individual฀and฀the฀community฀in฀relation฀to฀the฀ realization฀of฀a฀goal—the฀actualization฀of฀the฀human฀mind฀in฀all฀its฀potential฀and฀free฀ subjectivity฀(Geist)฀in฀both.฀Thus,฀history฀was฀teleological;฀there฀was฀“a฀rationally฀ discernible฀development฀in฀history,฀a฀development,฀which,฀once฀comprehended,฀ would฀change฀the฀attitude฀of฀people฀toward฀their฀social฀environment”฀(Plant฀1983:฀ 57;฀emphasis฀in฀original).฀The฀clearest฀embodiment฀of฀this฀goal,฀which฀was฀inchoate฀ in฀earlier฀stages฀of฀human฀history,฀was฀manifested฀most฀clearly฀in฀the฀latest฀historical฀ stage—modern฀civil฀society—which฀was฀ushered฀in฀by฀the฀French฀Revolution.฀ What฀emerged฀in฀the฀wake฀of฀the฀revolution฀was฀an฀era฀in฀which฀the฀institutions฀ and฀practices฀of฀the฀old฀regime,฀which฀limited฀freedom฀and฀the฀capacity฀of฀reason,฀ had฀been฀dismantled฀and฀replaced฀by฀rampant฀individualism.฀This฀was฀the฀first฀time,฀ according฀to฀Hegel,฀that฀human฀beings฀had฀the฀freedom฀to฀actualize฀themselves฀as฀ rational,฀moral฀individuals;฀moreover,฀through฀their฀individuality,฀they฀could฀also฀

34฀ •฀ Karl฀Marx,฀Anthropologist actualize฀themselves฀as฀social฀members฀of฀a฀community.฀In฀this฀particular฀form฀of฀ society,฀they฀could฀step฀back฀from฀their฀social฀roles฀in฀the฀community฀and฀conceive฀ of฀themselves฀as฀autonomous,฀self-determining฀individuals฀who฀possessed฀rights฀ as฀well฀as฀interests,฀ideas,฀and฀the฀capacity฀to฀make฀moral฀judgments฀that฀were฀ distinct฀from฀those฀of฀other฀individuals฀in฀the฀community.฀They฀realized฀themselves฀ as฀individuals฀in฀their฀social฀roles฀in฀the฀family,฀the฀market,฀and฀civil฀society฀and฀ in฀their฀roles฀as฀citizens฀of฀a฀political฀state.฀States,฀in฀Hegel’s฀view,฀had฀evolved,฀ embodying฀the฀positive฀values฀of฀earlier฀states,฀to฀ensure฀the฀actualization฀of฀the฀ individuals฀and฀to฀promote฀the฀good฀of฀the฀community฀as฀opposed฀to฀the฀particular฀ interests฀of฀its฀members฀(Hegel฀1817–30/1978;฀1821/1967). For฀Hegel,฀human฀beings฀were฀social฀beings.฀They฀satisfied฀biological,฀social,฀ and฀cultural฀needs฀in฀society฀and฀actualized฀their฀distinctly฀human฀capacities— thought,฀ language,฀ and฀ reason—by฀ virtue฀ of฀ their฀ membership฀ in฀ historically฀ specific฀communities฀(Hardimon฀1994:฀153–6).฀Most฀importantly,฀they฀developed฀ their฀minds,฀intellect,฀and฀subjective฀spirit฀in฀the฀context฀of฀the฀social฀institutions,฀ practices,฀and฀roles—the฀cultural฀configurations—that฀shaped฀everyday฀life฀in฀ those฀communities฀and฀formed฀the฀backdrop฀to฀the฀processes฀of฀socialization฀and฀ education฀that฀took฀place฀in฀them.฀They฀not฀only฀determined฀how฀biologically฀ given฀drives฀and฀desires฀were฀satisfied฀but฀also฀how฀individuals฀expressed฀and฀ developed฀their฀interests,฀talents,฀and฀skills.฀Another฀way฀of฀saying฀this฀is฀that฀the฀ physical,฀psychic,฀cultural,฀and฀social฀dimensions฀of฀human฀beings฀interpenetrated฀ and฀articulated฀with฀one฀another,฀and฀that฀how฀the฀whole฀individual฀was฀actualized฀ varied฀in฀important฀ways฀from฀one฀historical฀stage฀to฀the฀next฀and฀even฀within฀the฀ same฀historical-cultural฀people. Hegel฀saw฀history฀as฀the฀progressive฀unfolding฀of฀reason฀and฀consciousness฀and฀ the฀development฀of฀Spirit.฀As฀Robert฀D’Amico฀has฀noted,฀Hegel’s฀theory฀of฀history฀ is฀based฀on self-production฀[in฀which]฀Spirit฀(Geist)฀manifests฀itself฀.฀.฀.฀in฀objectifications,฀externalizations,฀ and฀ alienations฀ that฀ represent฀ forms฀ of฀ consciousness.฀ Spirit฀ comes฀ to฀ understand฀itself฀through฀the฀history฀of฀these฀objectifications.฀Spirit฀is฀ultimately฀the฀ reason฀inherent฀in฀history฀as฀a฀teleological฀process.฀Hegel฀calls฀objectification฀a฀power฀ of฀negativity฀because฀the฀objectifications฀of฀Spirit฀transform฀and฀therefore฀negate฀what฀ is฀given฀in฀reality฀[i.e.,฀external฀nature].฀Human฀labor฀is฀just฀such฀a฀manifestation฀of฀the฀ power฀of฀Spirit.฀Labor฀modifies฀its฀world฀and฀thereby฀allows฀man฀to฀know฀it฀and฀free฀ itself฀from฀the฀bonds฀of฀natural฀necessity.฀.฀.฀. ฀ Hegel฀stresses฀two฀aspects฀of฀the฀role฀of฀labor฀as฀objectification.฀First,฀labor฀is฀defined฀ as฀that฀which฀mediates฀the฀world.฀By฀the฀term฀mediation฀Hegel฀means฀that฀the฀human฀ world฀becomes฀transformed฀(mediated฀by฀activity฀and฀purpose฀and฀therefore฀is฀no฀ longer฀a฀world฀of฀natural฀objects.฀Culture฀or฀Spirit฀is฀precisely฀the฀objectification฀of฀this฀ teleology฀or฀mediation.฀Second,฀practical฀activity,฀by฀giving฀meaning฀to฀its฀world,฀creates฀ a฀“second฀nature”฀which฀conditions฀humanity.฀Since฀what฀is฀conditioning฀humanity฀is฀ the฀externalization฀of฀its฀own฀purposive฀activity,฀it฀is฀conditioned฀by฀its฀own฀product฀and฀

The฀Enlightenment฀and฀Anthropology฀ •฀ 35 not฀by฀an฀external,฀natural฀object.฀.฀.฀.฀For฀example,฀law฀and฀morality฀condition฀and฀form฀ human฀beings฀through฀a฀process฀of฀cultivation฀(Bildungsweise)฀or฀civilizing฀influence.฀ (1981:฀5–6)

As฀Hegel฀put฀it,฀“After฀the฀creation฀of฀the฀natural฀universe,฀man฀appears฀on฀the฀ scene฀as฀the฀antithesis฀of฀nature;฀he฀is฀the฀being฀who฀raises฀himself฀up฀into฀a฀second฀ world.฀The฀general฀consciousness฀of฀man฀includes฀two฀distinct฀provinces,฀that฀of฀ nature฀and฀that฀of฀the฀spirit.฀The฀province฀of฀the฀spirit฀is฀created฀by฀man฀himself”฀ (1822–30/1975:฀44;฀cf.฀1837/1956:฀52–3,฀241–2).฀Thus,฀for฀Hegel,฀objectification฀ is฀characterized฀exclusively฀by฀consciousness,฀which฀has฀nothing฀whatsoever฀to฀do฀ with฀the฀kinds฀of฀determination฀that฀occur฀in฀the฀natural฀world. History฀began฀with฀the฀rise฀of฀states฀and฀ended฀with฀the฀present.฀While฀Hegel฀ acknowledged฀the฀existence฀of฀pre-state฀societies฀in฀the฀prehistoric฀period฀that฀had฀ achieved฀“a฀significant฀development฀in฀certain฀directions”฀or฀even฀experienced฀ “complications,฀wars,฀revolutions,฀declines,”฀these฀did฀not฀give฀rise฀to฀history฀(Hegel฀ 1822–30/1975:฀134–7).฀History฀progressed฀unevenly฀through฀fits฀and฀starts฀as฀the฀ people฀of฀a฀historical฀era฀succeeded฀in฀resolving฀the฀contradictions฀of฀their฀time.฀ For฀example,฀Hegel฀argued฀that฀neither฀Abraham฀nor฀Jesus฀was฀able฀to฀reconcile฀ his฀vision฀of฀the฀independence฀and฀freedom฀of฀the฀individual฀with฀those฀of฀the฀ wider฀communities฀of฀which฀they฀were฀members;฀consequently,฀they฀felt฀a฀sense฀ of฀profound฀estrangement฀from฀those฀societies.฀The฀male฀citizens฀of฀the฀Greek฀ city-states฀were฀able฀to฀overcome฀this฀kind฀of฀estrangement฀even฀though฀they฀did฀ not฀see฀themselves฀as฀independent฀individuals฀in฀the฀modern฀sense—i.e.,฀as฀distinct฀ from฀the฀customs฀of฀the฀city-state฀or฀as฀participants฀in฀the฀market฀exchange฀relations฀ that฀characterized฀modern฀civil฀society.฀The฀separation฀of฀the฀individual฀from฀the฀ community฀only฀occurred฀during฀the฀Protestant฀Reformation฀(Plant฀1983:฀55–75).฀ History฀was฀important,฀because฀it฀explained฀the฀present฀and฀ended฀in฀the฀present.฀ It฀accounted฀for฀the฀cultural฀configuration฀of฀modern฀civil฀society฀as฀well฀as฀the฀ modern฀state.฀In฀civil฀society,฀individuals฀satisfied฀their฀needs฀by฀pursing฀their฀ private฀interests฀in฀the฀market,฀where฀the฀purchase฀and฀sale฀of฀goods฀and฀services฀ made฀them฀interdependent฀and฀connected฀them฀in฀an฀increasingly฀dense฀web฀of฀ social฀relations.฀The฀modern฀state฀not฀only฀reaffirmed฀the฀unity฀of฀the฀nation,฀which฀ was฀weakened฀as฀individuals฀pursued฀their฀own฀goals,฀but฀also฀provided฀the฀system฀ of฀ethical฀life฀and฀social฀substance฀that฀would฀allow฀them฀to฀reconcile฀and฀overcome฀ the฀conflicts฀and฀contradictions฀of฀civil฀society฀and฀thereby฀ensure฀that฀they฀could฀ achieve฀their฀humanity฀(Rose฀1981).฀For฀Hegel,฀“the฀rational฀end฀of฀man฀is฀life฀in฀the฀ state”฀(1817–30/1978:฀242). Hegel฀was฀not฀the฀only฀theorist฀to฀comment฀on฀civil฀society฀and฀the฀state฀during฀ the฀first฀quarter฀of฀the฀nineteenth฀century.฀His฀contemporary,฀Henri฀Saint-Simon฀ (1760–1825)฀made฀a฀slightly฀different฀argument฀about฀their฀connection.฀SaintSimon฀was฀concerned฀with฀the฀appearance฀of฀industrial฀society,฀which,฀in฀his฀view,฀ marked฀the฀both฀the฀internationalization฀of฀society฀and฀the฀end฀of฀the฀nation฀state.฀

36฀ •฀ Karl฀Marx,฀Anthropologist While฀industrial฀society฀was฀built฀around฀the฀institutions฀of฀civil฀society,฀a฀point฀ with฀which฀Hegel฀would฀have฀agreed,฀Saint-Simon฀viewed฀the฀state฀as฀opposed฀to฀ the฀development฀of฀civil฀society฀because฀of฀the฀domination฀of฀society฀by฀incapable฀ bureaucrats฀who฀were฀out฀of฀touch฀with฀the฀times.฀Unlike฀the฀Scots฀and฀Hegel฀who฀ viewed฀the฀present฀as฀the฀end฀of฀history,฀Saint-Simon฀had฀a฀vision฀of฀what฀society฀ could฀become฀in฀the฀future.฀Saint-Simon฀died฀in฀1825,฀Hegel฀six฀years฀later฀in฀1831,฀ when฀the฀young฀Karl฀Marx฀had฀barely฀entered฀his฀teens.฀In฀the฀1830s,฀Marx฀would฀ absorb฀the฀ideas฀of฀both฀writers฀as฀well฀as฀those฀of฀Montesquieu฀and฀Rousseau฀ among฀others.฀He฀would฀also฀absorb฀the฀importance฀of฀enlightenment,฀critical฀ thought,฀and฀the฀difference฀between฀faith฀and฀reason. In฀this฀chapter,฀we฀have฀viewed฀the฀Enlightenment฀as฀an฀ongoing฀conversation฀ among฀individuals฀who฀held฀distinct,฀theoretically฀informed฀views฀about฀the฀world,฀ about฀human฀beings,฀and฀about฀their฀place฀in฀that฀world.฀The฀conversation฀was฀often฀ acrimonious,฀and฀it฀was฀always฀threatening฀to฀those฀whose฀privileged฀positions฀in฀ society฀rested฀on฀the฀maintenance฀of฀tradition฀and฀the฀active฀repression฀of฀critical฀ inquiry.฀At฀times,฀the฀conversation฀was฀public฀as฀when฀the฀Scots,฀Kant,฀Herder,฀and฀ Hegel฀responded฀in฀different฀ways฀to฀Rousseau฀and฀to฀one฀another.฀At฀other฀times,฀it฀ was฀more฀private—an฀exchange฀of฀words฀between฀friends฀(Spinoza)฀or฀a฀university฀ lecture฀published฀only฀posthumously฀(Hegel).฀The฀conversation฀was฀fueled฀by฀ the฀conquest฀of฀nature,฀exploration,฀commerce,฀colonization,฀and฀later฀industrialization,฀which฀provided฀the฀grist฀for฀the฀development฀of฀an฀empirical฀anthropology฀ that฀increasingly฀took฀cognizance฀of฀the฀history฀and฀diversity฀of฀human฀beings฀ as฀well฀as฀the฀world฀in฀which฀they฀lived.฀This฀realization฀paved฀the฀way฀for฀the฀ development฀of฀new฀philosophical฀anthropologies฀that฀were฀distinguished฀from฀one฀ another฀by฀the฀(ontological)฀beliefs฀that฀their฀advocates฀held฀about฀the฀nature฀of฀ human฀beings,฀their฀relations฀with฀one฀another,฀and฀their฀place฀in฀the฀world.฀In฀one฀ sense,฀the฀Enlightenment฀provided฀a฀set฀of฀questions฀that฀the฀proponents฀of฀different฀ philosophical฀anthropologies฀felt฀they฀needed฀to฀address.฀In฀another฀sense,฀the฀ conversation฀that฀ensued฀can฀be฀viewed฀as฀a฀work฀in฀progress. Let฀us฀dwell฀for฀a฀moment฀on฀some฀of฀the฀issues฀and฀lessons฀that฀Marx’s฀predecessors฀raised฀for฀him.฀First,฀nature,฀human฀beings,฀and฀human฀society฀had฀been฀ historicized฀and฀their฀diversity฀acknowledged.฀After฀Rousseau,฀it฀was฀no฀longer฀ possible฀to฀argue฀effectively฀that฀individual฀human฀beings฀living฀in฀a฀state฀of฀nature฀ entered฀into฀a฀social฀contract฀with฀the฀sovereign฀(Hobbes)฀or฀with฀one฀another฀ (Locke)฀ thereby฀ creating฀ society฀ in฀ the฀ process;฀ moreover,฀ it฀ was฀ becoming฀ increasingly฀difficult฀to฀argue฀that฀human฀beings฀were฀ontologically฀prior฀to฀human฀ society.฀Second,฀while฀many฀of฀Marx’s฀predecessors฀believed฀in฀progress฀(Smith)฀ or฀the฀dialectical฀unfolding฀of฀history฀(Hegel),฀others฀did฀not.฀For฀some฀of฀them,฀ human฀nature฀was฀fixed฀and฀immutable฀and฀progress฀was฀a฀consequence฀of฀the฀ passage฀of฀time;฀for฀others,฀however,฀human฀nature฀was฀culturally฀determined฀ (Herder฀and฀Hegel)฀and฀progress,฀if฀it฀occurred฀at฀all,฀resulted฀from฀the฀resolution฀ of฀contradictions.฀Third,฀Marx’s฀predecessors฀were฀collectively฀concerned฀with฀the฀

The฀Enlightenment฀and฀Anthropology฀ •฀ 37 inequalities฀and฀individualism฀that฀were฀characteristic฀of฀the฀commercial-industrial฀ societies฀that฀shaped฀their฀everyday฀lives฀(Rousseau,฀Herder,฀Hegel,฀Saint-Simon).฀ These฀civilizations,฀to฀use฀a฀term฀coined฀in฀response฀to฀Rousseau,฀were฀described฀as฀ mechanical,฀associated฀with฀the฀state,฀and฀limited฀or฀muted฀the฀knowledge฀acquired฀ in฀the฀course฀of฀everyday฀life฀in฀the฀community฀(Herder).฀Fourth,฀from฀the฀time฀ of฀Rousseau฀onward,฀it฀was฀increasingly฀difficult฀to฀maintain฀that฀the฀profound฀ individualism฀and฀kinds฀of฀unequal฀social฀relations฀developing฀in฀modern฀civil฀ society฀were฀characteristic฀of฀all฀societies.฀Fifth,฀there฀also฀was฀a฀growing฀clamor฀ about฀the฀meaning฀of฀freedom฀and฀the฀autonomous฀individual฀in฀the฀context฀of฀the฀ class฀structure฀of฀modern฀civil฀society฀and฀the฀state฀(Hegel).฀Marx฀certainly฀learned฀ from฀their฀writings฀and฀carried฀many฀of฀their฀arguments฀into฀his฀own฀work.฀In฀the฀ chapters฀that฀follow,฀we฀will฀consider฀what฀he฀retained฀of฀their฀views฀and฀where฀he฀ broke฀with฀them.

This page intentionally left blank

–2– Marx’s฀Anthropology Marx฀was฀a฀child฀of฀the฀Enlightenment.฀As฀a฀teenager฀in฀Trier฀during฀the฀early฀ 1830s,฀he฀discussed฀various฀writers฀with฀his฀father,฀his฀future฀father-in-law,฀and฀ the฀director฀of฀the฀local฀high฀school฀that฀he฀attended฀(McLellan฀1973:฀1–16;฀Seigel฀ 1978:฀28–64).฀The฀writers฀ranged฀from฀Homer฀and฀Shakespeare,฀on฀the฀one฀hand,฀ to฀Rousseau,฀Voltaire,฀Kant,฀and฀Saint-Simon,฀on฀the฀other.฀The฀discussions฀had฀a฀ significant฀impact฀on฀the฀young฀man;฀for฀example,฀when฀he฀was฀seventeen฀and฀still฀ a฀student฀in฀Trier,฀Marx฀(1835/1975)฀wrote฀an฀essay฀on฀choosing฀a฀vocation฀which฀ contained฀arguments฀that฀paralleled฀those฀of฀Rousseau’s฀Émile,฀which฀had฀been฀ published฀in฀1762฀(Hillmann฀1966:฀33–48).฀Marx฀was฀also฀a฀bookworm.฀He฀read฀ classical,฀Enlightenment,฀and฀contemporary฀writers฀with฀considerable฀care฀(e.g.฀ McLellan฀1973:฀15,฀22,฀113,฀267,฀418).฀The฀excerpts฀he฀copied฀from฀Aeschylus,฀ Goethe,฀Winckelmann,฀and฀others฀and฀his฀commentaries฀on฀those฀passages฀would฀ come฀to฀fill฀fifty฀notebooks—more฀than฀30,000฀pages—by฀the฀time฀he฀died฀(Prawer฀ 1978:฀348).฀From฀early฀onward,฀he฀quoted฀long฀passages฀from฀favorite฀authors฀like฀ Shakespeare฀and฀Homer฀and฀easily฀found฀quotations฀in฀the฀works฀of฀Aristotle฀and฀ other฀writers฀of฀classical฀antiquity.฀In฀fact,฀he฀made฀the฀first฀German฀translation฀of฀ Aristotle’s฀De฀Anima฀and฀apparently฀intended฀to฀publish฀it฀(Meikle฀1985:฀58).฀His฀ library฀would฀eventually฀include฀nearly฀a฀hundred฀volumes฀by฀Greek฀and฀Roman฀ writers,฀many฀in฀the฀original฀language,฀as฀well฀as฀commentaries฀on฀those฀works฀by฀ later฀authors฀(DeGolyer฀1992:฀115;฀Kaiser฀1967). Marx฀owed฀an฀intellectual฀debt฀to฀Enlightenment฀writers:฀the฀importance฀of฀ reason,฀the฀centrality฀of฀the฀problem฀of฀freedom,฀the฀denial฀of฀knowledge฀claims฀ based฀on฀authority,฀the฀historicity฀of฀things฀including฀forms฀of฀society,฀and฀the฀ separation฀of฀the฀real฀world฀from฀representations฀of฀that฀world,฀to฀name฀only฀a฀few.฀ However,฀their฀influence,฀as฀Nigel฀Davidson฀(2005:฀8–9)฀perceptively฀remarked,฀ did฀not฀come฀exclusively฀from฀books.฀There฀are฀two฀obvious฀reasons฀for฀this.฀First,฀ Marx,฀who฀was฀born฀in฀1818,฀was฀raised฀in฀the฀Prussian฀Rhineland,฀which฀was฀ occupied฀by฀the฀French฀from฀1794฀to฀1814;฀it฀was฀the฀region฀in฀Europe฀“where฀ the฀influence฀of฀the฀French฀Revolution฀was฀most฀directly฀experienced.฀.฀.฀.฀For฀ Marx,฀therefore,฀the฀French฀Revolution฀was฀not฀simply฀absorbed฀from฀the฀works฀of฀ French฀liberals,฀it฀was฀also฀a฀historical฀experience฀only฀recently฀past,฀whose฀effects฀ and฀unfulfilled฀promises฀still฀defined฀the฀politics฀of฀the฀time”฀(Davidson฀2005:฀

39

40฀ •฀ Karl฀Marx,฀Anthropologist 8–9).฀Second,฀revolutions฀elsewhere฀formed฀an฀almost฀continuous฀backdrop฀to฀his฀ childhood฀and฀adolescence:฀Naples฀(1820),฀Spain฀(1820),฀Greece฀(1821),฀Spanish฀ America฀(1808–22),฀and,฀a฀decade฀later,฀the฀Irish฀Rebellion฀(1829),฀Holland฀(1830),฀ and฀Poland฀(1830–1).฀The฀July฀Revolution฀in฀France฀(1830),฀the฀English฀Reform฀ Act฀(1832),฀and฀Andrew฀Jackson’s฀presidency฀(1829–37)฀enabled฀mass฀politics฀and฀ extended฀voting฀rights฀(Hobsbawm฀1962:฀138–40).฀The฀debate฀about฀revolution฀was฀ not฀an฀abstract฀one.฀“There฀was฀going฀to฀be฀some฀sort฀of฀revolution—everybody฀but฀ the฀dullest฀Prussian฀bureaucrat฀knew฀that—but฀what฀kind฀of฀revolution?”฀(Davidson฀ 2005:฀9).฀Marx’s฀participation฀in฀this฀debate฀as฀well฀as฀in฀the฀revolutionary฀politics฀ of฀the฀nineteenth฀century฀was฀continuous฀from฀his฀days฀as฀a฀student฀at฀the฀University฀ of฀Berlin฀in฀the฀late฀1830s.฀The฀failure฀of฀the฀revolutions฀of฀1848฀and฀1870฀forced฀ him฀to฀further฀hone฀and฀refine฀his฀analyses฀and฀understanding฀of฀the฀world.฀This฀ process฀of฀continual฀critique฀and฀re-examination฀persisted฀until฀his฀death฀in฀1883. This฀is฀the฀milieu฀in฀which฀Marx฀honed฀his฀philosophical฀anthropology—his฀ answers฀to฀the฀questions:฀Who฀or฀what฀are฀human฀beings,฀and฀what฀has฀made฀them฀ human?฀Some฀writers฀(e.g.฀Gould฀1978;฀Henry฀1976/1983:฀12;฀Schaff฀1965/1970:฀ 50)฀have฀argued฀that฀the฀central฀categories฀of฀answers฀to฀these฀questions฀are฀the฀social฀ individual,฀praxis,฀and฀history.฀With฀respect฀to฀these฀categories,฀Marx฀insisted฀that฀ human฀beings฀are฀“a฀part฀of฀nature”฀and฀that฀they฀“begin฀to฀distinguish฀themselves฀ from฀animals฀as฀soon฀as฀they฀begin฀to฀produce฀their฀means฀of฀subsistence,฀a฀step฀ which฀is฀conditioned฀by฀their฀physical฀[i.e.,฀bodily฀or฀corporeal]฀organisation”฀ (Marx฀1844/1975a:฀276;฀Marx฀and฀Engels฀1845–6/1976:฀31;฀emphasis฀in฀original).฀ These฀productive฀activities฀or฀practices฀always฀occur฀in฀the฀context฀of฀associated฀ individuals฀living฀in฀specific฀“ensembles฀of฀social฀relations”฀that฀have฀varied฀in฀space฀ and฀time฀(Marx฀1845/1976:฀4).฀Simply฀put,฀human฀beings฀are฀born฀into฀communities฀ and฀formed฀as฀social฀individuals฀through฀the฀intersubjectivity฀(the฀shared฀meanings฀ and฀activities)฀of฀the฀persons฀who฀participate฀in฀those฀sets฀of฀relations.฀Praxis฀is฀the฀ creative฀and฀self-creative฀activity฀by฀which฀human฀beings฀shape฀their฀world฀and฀ themselves;฀it฀involves฀work,฀the฀mastering฀of฀nature,฀and฀formation฀of฀the฀human฀ individual฀as฀a฀subject฀and฀social฀being฀(Kosík฀1963/1976:฀133–7;฀Petrović฀1991).฀ The฀temporal฀dimensions฀to฀these฀processes฀are฀fundamental.฀Human฀beings฀are฀ determined฀by฀their฀history;฀at฀the฀same฀time,฀they฀chart฀the฀course฀of฀that฀history฀ through฀their฀actions,฀within฀the฀constraints฀imposed฀by฀their฀bodies฀and฀the฀societies฀ of฀which฀they฀are฀members.฀In฀this฀sense,฀the฀human฀condition฀has฀an฀irreducibly฀ historical฀character.฀This฀historical฀understanding—which฀has฀the฀capacity฀to฀make฀ clear฀the฀interconnections฀of฀the฀past,฀present,฀and฀future—affords฀us฀not฀only฀the฀ opportunity฀to฀confront฀the฀burden฀of฀the฀past฀but฀also,฀under฀some฀circumstances,฀ to฀set฀off฀on฀new฀courses฀for฀the฀future.฀The฀goal฀of฀this฀chapter฀is฀to฀explore฀Marx’s฀ historical-dialectical฀anthropological฀theory.

Marx’s฀Anthropology฀ •฀ 41

What฀Are฀Human฀Beings? Marx,฀like฀Rousseau฀and฀Hegel฀before฀him,฀saw฀a฀relationship฀between฀human฀ beings฀and฀nature.฀While฀his฀predecessors฀distinguished฀between฀the฀physical฀and฀ moral฀characters฀of฀human฀beings฀and฀thus฀separated฀nature฀from฀the฀realm฀of฀ human฀history,฀Marx฀did฀not.฀While฀Rousseau฀and฀Hegel฀viewed฀the฀relationship฀ as฀one฀of฀emergence—the฀creation฀of฀culture฀for฀the฀former฀and฀the฀actualization฀of฀ free฀subjectivity฀for฀the฀latter—Marx฀believed฀instead฀that The฀first฀premise฀of฀all฀human฀history฀is,฀of฀course,฀the฀existence฀of฀living฀human฀ individuals.฀The฀first฀fact฀to฀be฀established฀is฀of฀the฀physical฀[i.e.,฀bodily฀or฀corporeal]฀ organisation฀of฀these฀individuals฀and฀their฀consequent฀relation฀to฀the฀rest฀of฀nature.฀Of฀ course,฀we฀cannot฀here฀go฀either฀into฀the฀actual฀physical฀nature฀of฀man,฀or฀into฀the฀natural฀ conditions฀in฀which฀man฀finds฀himself—geological,฀oro-hydrographical,฀climatic,฀and฀so฀ on.฀All฀historical฀writing฀must฀set฀out฀from฀these฀natural฀bases฀and฀their฀modification฀in฀ the฀course฀of฀history฀through฀the฀action฀of฀men.฀(Marx฀and฀Engels฀1845–6/1976:฀31)

Thus,฀Marx฀rejected฀the฀notion฀of฀a฀fixed฀human฀nature฀or฀essence฀in฀the฀singular฀ and฀adopted฀instead฀a฀historicized฀notion฀of฀human฀natures฀in฀the฀plural.฀That฀is,฀there฀ is฀a฀dialectical฀interplay฀between฀the฀biological฀substrate,฀which฀endows฀all฀members฀ of฀the฀species฀with฀certain฀potentials,฀and฀the฀ensemble฀of฀social฀relations฀that฀shape฀ everyday฀life฀in฀the฀worlds฀in฀which฀they฀live฀and฀which฀they฀themselves฀produce,฀ reproduce,฀and,฀on฀occasion,฀change.฀On฀the฀one฀hand,฀as฀Joseph฀Fracchia฀(2005:฀ 40)฀has฀argued,฀the฀“transhistorical฀attributes฀of฀human฀corporeal฀organisation฀.฀.฀.฀ underlie฀and฀make฀possible฀the฀infinite฀though฀not฀unlimited฀range฀of฀those฀changing฀ manifestations฀of฀human฀being—that฀is,฀of฀socio-cultural฀forms.”฀On฀the฀other฀hand,฀ the฀ensembles฀of฀social฀relations฀not฀only฀condition฀how฀human฀beings฀live฀but฀also฀ shape฀their฀relations฀of฀production฀as฀well฀as฀the฀personalities,฀consciousness,฀and฀ behaviors฀that฀are฀characteristic฀of฀each฀historical฀epoch฀(Fracchia฀1991:฀159–60).฀ Keeping฀in฀mind฀that฀Marx฀was฀averse฀to฀both฀biological฀reductionist฀and฀culturehistorical฀relativist฀perspectives,฀let฀us฀now฀look฀in฀more฀detail฀at฀how฀he฀characterized฀ human฀beings฀simultaneously฀as฀natural฀beings฀and฀as฀social฀and฀conscious฀natural฀ beings,฀as฀he฀discussed฀the฀specifically฀human฀features,฀capabilities,฀needs,฀and฀ dispositions฀shared฀generically฀by฀all฀members฀of฀the฀species.1

The฀Corporeal฀Organization฀of฀Human฀Beings While฀Marx฀made฀numerous฀references฀to฀the฀corporeal฀organization฀of฀human฀ beings฀throughout฀his฀writings,฀he฀never฀systematically฀developed฀the฀idea.฀Nonetheless,฀the฀importance฀of฀the฀concept฀is฀evident฀in฀his฀remarks.฀For฀example,฀in฀the฀ “Theses฀on฀Feuerbach,”฀he฀mentions฀“practical,฀human฀sensuous฀activity;”฀in฀

42฀ •฀ Karl฀Marx,฀Anthropologist Capital,฀he฀discusses฀the฀corporeal฀foundations฀of฀use฀values฀(they฀satisfy฀the฀needs฀ of฀human฀individuals)฀and฀the฀immiserating฀effects฀or฀costs฀on฀the฀human฀body฀that฀ result฀from฀lengthening฀the฀duration฀of฀the฀work฀day฀and฀thereby฀diminishing฀the฀ time฀for฀rest฀and฀recuperation฀(Marx฀1845/1976:฀4;฀1863–7/1977:฀125–6,฀276–7,฀ 341–416).฀Fracchia฀(2005:฀41ff.)฀suggests฀that฀enough฀can฀be฀gleaned฀from฀these฀ scattered฀passages฀to฀see฀the฀“systematic฀and฀foundational฀logic”฀underpinning฀the฀ remarks;฀in฀his฀view,฀the฀organization฀of฀the฀human฀body฀is฀for฀Marx฀more฀than฀ merely฀“a฀simple฀prerequisite”฀for฀being฀human. The฀foundations฀for฀Marx’s฀view฀that฀human฀beings฀were฀a฀part฀of฀nature฀first฀ appeared฀in฀The฀Economic฀and฀Philosophical฀Manuscripts,฀which฀he฀wrote฀early฀ in฀his฀career฀to฀begin฀sorting฀out฀his฀theoretical฀differences฀with฀other฀writers— especially฀Hegel,฀the฀political฀economists,฀and฀the฀socialists.฀Marx฀agreed฀with฀ Hegel’s฀view฀that฀human฀beings฀were฀part฀of฀nature฀and฀that฀they฀had฀produced฀a฀ “second฀world.”฀In฀the฀gendered,฀referential฀language฀of฀the฀day,฀Marx฀wrote: Man฀is฀directly฀a฀natural฀being.฀As฀a฀natural฀being฀and฀as฀a฀living฀natural฀being฀he฀is฀on฀ the฀one฀hand฀endowed฀with฀natural฀powers,฀vital฀powers—he฀is฀an฀active฀natural฀being.฀ These฀forces฀exist฀within฀him฀as฀tendencies฀and฀abilities—as฀instincts.฀On฀the฀other฀ hand,฀as฀a฀natural,฀corporeal,฀sensuous,฀objective฀being฀he฀is฀a฀suffering,฀conditioned฀ and฀limited฀creature,฀like฀animals฀and฀plants.฀That฀is฀to฀say,฀the฀objects฀of฀his฀instincts฀ exist฀outside฀him,฀as฀objects฀independent฀of฀him;฀yet฀these฀objects฀are฀objects฀that฀he฀ needs—essential฀objects,฀indispensable฀to฀the฀manifestation฀and฀confirmation฀of฀his฀ essential฀powers.฀To฀say฀that฀man฀is฀a฀corporeal,฀living,฀real,฀sensuous,฀objective฀being฀ full฀of฀natural฀vigour฀is฀to฀say฀that฀he฀has฀real,฀sensuous฀objects฀as฀the฀object฀of฀his฀ being฀or฀of฀his฀life,฀or฀that฀he฀can฀only฀express฀his฀life฀in฀real,฀sensuous฀objects.฀To฀be฀ objective,฀natural฀and฀sensuous,฀and฀at฀the฀same฀time฀to฀have฀object,฀nature,฀and฀sense฀ outside฀oneself,฀or฀oneself฀to฀be฀object,฀nature฀and฀sense฀for฀a฀third฀party,฀is฀one฀and฀the฀ same฀thing.฀Hunger฀is฀a฀natural฀need;฀it฀therefore฀needs฀a฀nature฀outside฀itself,฀an฀object฀ outside฀itself,฀in฀order฀to฀satisfy฀itself,฀to฀be฀stilled.฀Hunger฀is฀an฀acknowledged฀need฀of฀ my฀body฀for฀an฀object฀existing฀outside฀it.฀(1844/1975a:฀336;฀emphasis฀in฀the฀original)

Marx฀made฀several฀points฀in฀this฀passage.฀Let฀us฀begin฀to฀unpack฀what฀he฀meant. First,฀human฀beings฀are฀active,฀sensuous฀creatures฀that฀perceive฀the฀world฀around฀ them.฀Their฀sense฀organs—their฀eyes,฀ears,฀nose,฀mouth,฀skin—combined฀with฀ motor฀skills฀that฀allow฀them฀to฀move฀their฀bodies฀or฀various฀parts฀of฀them,฀including฀ the฀ sensory฀ organs,฀ constitute฀ an฀ interrelated฀ perceptual฀ system.฀This฀ system฀ provides฀sensations฀of฀the฀world;฀more฀importantly,฀they฀are฀active฀mechanisms฀for฀ exploring฀nature—for฀moving,฀looking,฀listening,฀smelling,฀tasting,฀and฀touching฀ the฀various฀external฀objects฀in฀the฀world฀around฀them.฀It฀permits฀human฀beings฀ to฀feel฀by฀providing฀both฀passive฀and฀active฀sensations฀of฀the฀external฀world.฀It฀ provides฀perceptions,฀assessments,฀and฀understandings฀of฀the฀ambient฀conditions฀ as฀well฀as฀the฀animate฀and฀cultural฀elements฀of฀the฀environments฀the฀human฀beings฀ inhabit.฀The฀ adjustments฀ resulting฀ from฀ movement฀ of฀ parts฀ of฀ the฀ perceptual฀

Marx’s฀Anthropology฀ •฀ 43 system—e.g.฀eye,฀head,฀or฀hand฀movements—constitute฀modes฀of฀attention฀that฀ allow฀human฀individuals฀to฀explore฀the฀available฀information,฀to฀form฀conceptions฀ of฀those฀externalities,฀to฀orient฀themselves฀and฀move฀in฀relation฀to฀them.฀The฀human฀ perceptual฀system฀also฀provides฀a฀basis฀for฀communication฀(Gibson฀1966/1983). The฀human฀perceptual฀system,฀broadly฀conceived,฀evolved฀through฀time฀over฀the฀ past฀60฀or฀so฀million฀years.฀Parts฀of฀the฀human฀perceptual฀system฀are฀shared฀to฀varying฀ degrees฀and฀in฀different฀ways฀with฀those฀of฀their฀non-human฀primate฀relatives฀and฀ shared฀ancestors.฀Some฀features฀of฀the฀human฀perceptual฀system฀and฀the฀anatomical฀ correlates฀associated฀with฀them฀are:฀upright฀posture;฀bipedal฀locomotion;฀increased฀ brain฀size;฀emphasis฀on฀vision฀including฀the฀related฀brain฀centers:฀stereoscopic฀color฀ vision;฀diminished฀sense฀of฀smell฀and฀taste฀relative฀to฀other฀animal฀species;฀ability฀ to฀discern฀intensity฀and฀direction฀of฀middle-range฀sounds;฀hands฀with฀opposable฀ thumbs฀and฀enhanced฀dexterity;฀relatively฀small฀deciduous฀and฀permanent฀teeth;฀ reduced฀amounts฀of฀bodily฀hair฀and฀increased฀number฀of฀sweat฀glands;฀prolonged฀ life฀history฀stages฀(gestation,฀infancy,฀immaturity);฀menstrual฀as฀opposed฀to฀estrus฀ cycles฀in฀reproductive฀females;฀tool-use;฀and฀habitual฀speech฀including฀the฀vocal฀ apparatus฀and฀related฀brain฀centers฀(Langdon฀2005).฀The฀structure฀and฀organization฀ of฀the฀system฀and฀their฀anatomical฀correlates,฀as฀well฀as฀the฀externalities฀of฀their฀ environments฀dispose฀human฀beings฀to฀interact฀with฀the฀worlds฀around฀them฀in฀ particular฀ways.฀For฀example,฀human฀individuals฀are฀terrestrial฀and฀diurnal—that฀is,฀ they฀typically฀do฀not฀inhabit฀ocean฀floors,฀reside฀on฀high฀mountain฀peaks,฀or฀see฀very฀ well฀at฀night.฀The฀system฀imposes฀limitations,฀some฀of฀which฀have฀been฀overcome฀in฀ recent฀years฀as฀a฀result฀of฀enormous฀amounts฀of฀cultural฀intervention;฀for฀example,฀ human฀beings฀carrying฀oxygen฀and฀other฀essentials฀with฀them฀regularly฀climb฀to฀the฀ top฀of฀Mt.฀Everest฀or฀use฀night-vision฀goggles฀to฀see฀in฀the฀dark. Second,฀to฀say฀that฀human฀beings฀are฀part฀of฀nature฀means฀that฀they฀are฀also฀ feeling฀organisms฀that฀are฀actively฀involved฀with฀the฀world฀in฀which฀they฀live.฀ They฀experience฀a฀range฀of฀feelings฀and฀emotions:฀fear,฀joy,฀love,฀and฀hunger,฀to฀ name฀only฀a฀few.฀This฀engagement฀begins฀at฀the฀moment฀of฀birth฀and฀starts฀from฀ the฀individual.฀The฀world฀provides฀the฀objects฀and฀others฀that฀the฀human฀individual฀ internalizes฀and฀objectifies.฀This฀is฀the฀process฀of฀subjectification—the฀formation฀ and฀development฀of฀the฀self฀(Ego)—which฀underpins฀the฀self-expression฀of฀the฀ individual.฀Subjectification฀is฀an฀active฀process฀that฀involves฀action,฀thinking,฀and฀ feeling.฀As฀Agnes฀Heller฀(1979:฀11)฀has฀noted,฀feeling฀“is฀an฀inherent฀structural฀part฀ of฀acting฀and฀thinking฀rather฀than฀their฀mere฀‘accompaniment.’”฀At฀any฀moment,฀ the฀individual’s฀engagement฀with฀its฀surroundings฀may฀range฀from฀minimal฀(out฀of฀ awareness฀or฀consciousness),฀on฀the฀one฀hand,฀to฀the฀center฀of฀conscious฀attention,฀ on฀ the฀ other.฀ Nevertheless,฀ it฀ is฀ during฀ the฀ process฀ of฀ acting฀ and฀ thinking,฀ of฀ developing฀new฀capacities฀and฀reintegrating฀them฀into฀more฀meaningful฀wholes,฀that฀ the฀individual’s฀capacity฀for฀feeling฀also฀has฀the฀potential฀to฀expand. Third,฀human฀beings฀distinguish฀themselves฀from฀the฀worlds฀in฀which฀they฀live฀ through฀a฀process฀of฀self-objectification—i.e.,฀labor฀or฀purposive฀activity—and฀

44฀ •฀ Karl฀Marx,฀Anthropologist thereby฀constitute฀themselves฀in฀a฀world฀of฀externalized฀objects฀that฀they฀have฀ not฀only฀created฀but฀also฀that฀condition฀their฀lives฀in฀turn.฀In฀other฀words,฀objects฀ are฀subjected฀to฀human฀purposive฀activity,฀and฀the฀subject฀who฀is฀objectified฀in฀a฀ world฀of฀objects,฀is฀transformed฀in฀the฀process.฀These฀externalized฀objects฀satisfy฀ needs,฀like฀hunger,฀that฀are฀experienced฀subjectively฀and฀whose฀satisfaction฀requires฀ an฀object฀outside฀the฀self.฀Objectification,฀labor฀in฀its฀essential฀form,฀has฀been฀ described฀as฀“the฀embodiment฀of฀human฀motivation,฀purpose,฀and฀ends”฀(D’Amico฀ 1981:฀3)฀with฀the฀“modes฀of฀objectification฀.฀.฀.฀[being]฀as฀many฀as฀human฀capacities฀ and฀practices฀and฀the฀results฀.฀.฀.฀[being]฀worlds฀of฀artifacts—material,฀social,฀and฀ semiotic”฀(Fracchia฀2005:฀44).฀Marx฀argued฀that฀Hegel’s฀views฀about฀labor฀were฀ abstract฀and฀philosophical,฀and฀that฀his฀standpoint฀was฀that฀of฀political฀economy.฀ For฀Marx฀(1844/1975a:฀333),฀Hegel฀“grasps฀labour฀as฀the฀essence฀of฀man—as฀man’s฀ essence฀which฀stands฀the฀test:฀he฀sees฀only฀the฀positive,฀not฀the฀negative฀side฀of฀ labour.฀Labour฀is฀man’s฀coming-to-be฀himself฀within฀alienation,฀or฀as฀alienated฀man.฀ The฀only฀labour฀which฀Hegel฀knows฀and฀recognizes฀is฀abstractly฀mental฀labour.”฀ Thus,฀Marx’s฀notions฀of฀objectification฀and฀labor฀were฀broader฀than฀those฀of฀his฀ predecessor.฀They฀were฀tied฀not฀to฀thought฀or฀the฀movement฀of฀Spirit฀but฀rather฀to฀ human฀activity฀and฀history฀as฀these฀were฀shaped฀by฀specific฀forms฀of฀alienation. Fourth,฀ what฀ is฀ distinctive,฀ in฀ Marx’s฀ (and฀ Fracchia’s)฀ view,฀ about฀ human฀ corporeal฀organization฀are฀the฀bodily฀organs฀that฀were฀transformed฀into฀instruments฀ of฀production:฀most฀notably,฀the฀perceptual฀system,฀arms,฀legs,฀hands,฀brain,฀and฀the฀ vocal฀tract.฀Human฀beings฀deploy฀them฀and฀the฀objects฀they฀created฀as฀extensions฀ of฀their฀corporeal฀organization฀to฀mediate,฀regulate,฀and฀control฀the฀metabolism฀that฀ exists฀between฀them฀and฀nature.฀For฀Marx The฀solitary฀man฀cannot฀operate฀upon฀nature฀without฀calling฀his฀own฀muscles฀into฀ play฀under฀the฀control฀of฀his฀own฀brain.฀Just฀as฀head฀and฀hand฀belong฀together฀in฀the฀ system฀of฀nature,฀so฀in฀the฀labour฀process฀mental฀and฀physical฀labour฀are฀united.฀(Marx฀ 1863–7/1977:฀643) The฀use฀and฀construction฀of฀instruments฀of฀labour,฀although฀present฀in฀the฀germ฀among฀ certain฀species฀of฀animals,฀is฀characteristic฀of฀the฀specifically฀human฀labour฀process,฀and฀ [Benjamin]฀Franklin฀therefore฀defines฀man฀as฀“a฀tool-making฀animal.”฀(Marx฀1863– 7/1977:฀286) In฀creating฀a฀world฀of฀objects฀by฀his฀practical฀activity,฀in฀his฀work฀upon฀inorganic฀ nature,฀man฀proves฀himself฀a฀conscious฀species-being.฀.฀.฀.฀Admittedly฀animals฀also฀ produce.฀They฀build฀themselves฀nests,฀dwelling,฀like฀the฀bees,฀beavers,฀ants,฀etc.฀But฀ an฀animal฀only฀produces฀what฀it฀immediately฀needs฀for฀itself฀or฀its฀young.฀It฀produces฀ one-sidedly,฀whilst฀man฀produces฀universally.฀It฀produces฀only฀under฀the฀dominion฀of฀ immediate฀physical฀need,฀whilst฀man฀produces฀even฀when฀he฀is฀free฀from฀physical฀need฀ and฀only฀truly฀produces฀in฀freedom฀therefrom.฀An฀animal฀process฀only฀itself,฀whilst฀ man฀reproduces฀the฀whole฀of฀nature.฀An฀animal’s฀product฀belongs฀immediately฀to฀its฀

Marx’s฀Anthropology฀ •฀ 45 physical฀body,฀while฀man฀freely฀confronts฀his฀product.฀An฀animal฀forms฀objects฀only฀ in฀accordance฀with฀the฀standard฀and฀the฀need฀of฀the฀species฀to฀which฀it฀belongs,฀whilst฀ man฀knows฀how฀to฀produce฀in฀accordance฀with฀the฀standard฀of฀every฀species,฀and฀knows฀ how฀to฀apply฀everywhere฀the฀inherent฀standard฀of฀the฀object.฀Man฀therefore฀also฀forms฀ objects฀in฀accordance฀with฀the฀laws฀of฀beauty.฀(Marx฀1844/1975a:฀276–7) We฀are฀not฀dealing฀here฀with฀those฀first฀instinctive฀forms฀of฀labour฀which฀remain฀on฀the฀ animal฀level.฀.฀.฀.฀We฀presuppose฀labour฀in฀a฀form฀in฀which฀it฀is฀an฀exclusively฀human฀ characteristic.฀A฀spider฀conducts฀operations฀which฀resemble฀those฀of฀a฀weaver,฀and฀a฀bee฀ would฀put฀many฀human฀architects฀to฀shame฀by฀the฀construction฀of฀its฀honeycomb฀cells.฀ But฀what฀distinguishes฀the฀worst฀architect฀from฀the฀best฀of฀bees฀is฀that฀the฀architect฀builds฀ the฀cell฀in฀his฀mind฀before฀he฀constructs฀it฀in฀wax.฀At฀the฀end฀of฀every฀labour฀process,฀ a฀result฀emerges฀which฀had฀already฀been฀conceived฀by฀the฀worker฀at฀the฀beginning,฀ hence฀already฀existed฀ideally.฀Man฀not฀only฀effects฀a฀change฀of฀form฀in฀the฀materials฀of฀ nature;฀he฀also฀realizes฀his฀own฀purpose฀in฀those฀materials.฀And฀this฀is฀a฀purpose฀he฀is฀ conscious฀of,฀it฀determines฀the฀mode฀of฀his฀activity฀with฀the฀rigidity฀of฀a฀law,฀and฀he฀must฀ subordinate฀his฀will฀to฀it.฀(Marx฀1863–7/1977:฀283–4)

Marx฀referred฀repeatedly฀over฀the฀years฀to฀the฀centrality฀of฀labor฀as฀the฀condition฀ for฀human฀existence฀and฀the฀self-realization฀of฀human฀beings.฀It฀is฀the฀way฀human฀ beings฀mediate฀and฀regulate฀the฀metabolism฀that฀exists฀between฀them฀and฀nature.฀ It฀is฀the฀way฀they฀appropriate฀and฀alter฀external฀objects฀and฀transform฀them฀into฀ things฀that฀satisfy฀their฀needs.฀More฀important,฀however,฀is฀the฀fact฀that฀all฀labor฀or฀ work฀involves฀physical฀activity฀as฀well฀as฀thinking฀and฀other฀mental฀activities.฀As฀ a฀result,฀this฀development฀of฀all฀the฀human฀productive฀forces฀is฀a฀process฀of฀both฀ self-creation฀and฀self-affirmation,฀one฀that฀entails฀aesthetic฀as฀well฀as฀utilitarian฀attitudes฀toward฀human฀activity.฀It฀is฀a฀mode฀of฀objectification฀involving฀intentionality฀ rather฀than฀instinct;฀it฀makes฀the฀life฀activity฀of฀the฀individual฀an฀object฀of฀will฀and฀ self-consciousness.฀Marx฀saw฀this฀as฀a฀process฀of฀emergence,฀“the฀creation฀of฀man฀ through฀human฀labour฀and฀the฀emergence฀of฀nature฀for฀man”฀(1844/1975a:฀304);฀the฀ motor฀for฀the฀developmental฀and฀directional฀change฀in฀human฀corporeal฀organization฀ was฀labor฀which฀he฀described฀as฀“the฀living,฀form-giving฀fire”฀(1857–8/1973:฀361). Fifth,฀human฀beings฀work฀to฀satisfy฀existing฀needs฀and฀to฀create฀new฀ones฀in฀the฀ process.฀Labor,฀for฀Marx,฀involved฀the฀articulation฀of฀physical฀and฀mental฀activities฀ directly฀or฀indirectly฀through฀thought฀and฀language.฀While฀the฀objects฀made฀by฀ human฀beings฀may฀be฀utilitarian฀in฀the฀broad฀sense฀of฀the฀word,฀they฀may฀more฀ importantly฀be฀aesthetic฀expressions—for฀example,฀the฀beauty฀of฀a฀finely฀chipped฀ stone฀knife,฀the฀splendor฀of฀a฀poem,฀or฀the฀exquisite฀taste฀of฀a฀carefully฀prepared฀ meal฀in฀contrast฀to฀fast฀food.฀Marx฀(1863–7/1977:฀276–7,฀655)฀rather฀systematically฀ distinguished฀ between฀ physiological฀ and฀ necessary฀ needs.฀ The฀ former฀ were฀ indispensable฀for฀the฀production฀and฀reproduction฀of฀the฀individual;฀the฀latter฀were฀ “habitually฀required”฀in฀a฀given฀society.฀The฀needs฀of฀human฀beings฀developed,฀in฀ his฀view,฀with฀the฀development฀of฀the฀productive฀forces—i.e.,฀purposive฀activity฀

46฀ •฀ Karl฀Marx,฀Anthropologist (work),฀the฀instruments฀of฀work,฀and฀the฀objects฀upon฀which฀work฀is฀performed฀ (Marx฀1857–8/1973:฀494,฀612;฀1863–7/1977:฀284). Marx฀ also฀ alluded฀ to฀ social฀ needs—“the฀ level฀ of฀ needs฀ of฀ the฀ worker฀ as฀ a฀ socially฀developed฀human฀being฀at฀a฀given฀point”฀(Lebowitz฀2003:฀40).฀Social฀ needs฀are฀the฀genuine฀needs฀of฀every฀individual฀in฀a฀given฀society,฀like฀adequate฀ health฀care฀or฀rest;฀these฀are฀typically฀available฀only฀to฀the฀privileged฀layers฀of฀that฀ society,฀who,฀like฀congressmen฀in฀the฀United฀States฀today,฀portray฀themselves฀as฀ representatives฀of฀the฀masses.฀While฀Marx฀never฀systematically฀elaborated฀a฀theory฀ of฀social฀needs,฀he฀and฀Engels฀made฀passing฀references฀to฀the฀needs฀of฀human฀ beings฀in฀general฀(McMurtry฀1978:฀33–4).฀These฀included฀adequate฀food,฀drink,฀ clothing,฀and฀habitation;฀fresh฀air฀and฀sunlight;฀adequate฀living฀and฀working฀space;฀ cleanliness฀of฀person฀and฀surroundings;฀rest฀from฀exertion;฀variation฀of฀activity;฀ time฀for฀intellectual฀development,฀social฀intercourse,฀fulfillment฀of฀social฀functions,฀ free฀play฀of฀the฀vital฀forces฀of฀the฀body฀and฀mind;฀growth;฀development;฀healthy฀ maintenance฀of฀the฀body;฀aesthetic฀stimulation;฀play;฀and฀meaningful฀interpersonal฀ and฀sexual฀relationships฀(Marx฀1844/1975a:฀295–6;฀1863–7/1977:฀341,฀362,฀375–6,฀ 611,฀762–802;฀Marx฀and฀Engels฀1845–6/1976:฀38,฀417).

“Ensembles฀of฀Social฀Relations”฀and฀Human฀Beings฀as฀฀ Social฀Individuals Human฀beings฀are฀distinguished฀as฀much฀by฀their฀sociocultural฀and฀historical฀ characteristics฀as฀they฀are฀by฀their฀need฀to฀work,฀their฀corporeal฀organization,฀or฀ their฀biological฀features.฀Marx฀recognized฀the฀sociality฀of฀human฀beings฀and฀that฀ being฀human฀was,฀in฀fact,฀actualized฀in฀their฀relations฀with฀other฀individuals,฀in฀their฀ participation฀in฀historically฀specific฀communities.฀He฀wrote .฀.฀.฀that฀the฀development฀of฀the฀individual฀is฀determined฀by฀the฀development฀of฀all฀the฀ others฀with฀whom฀he฀is฀directly฀or฀indirectly฀associated,฀and฀that฀the฀different฀generations฀ of฀individuals฀entering฀into฀relation฀with฀one฀another฀are฀connected฀with฀one฀another,฀that฀ the฀physical฀existence฀of฀the฀later฀generations฀is฀determined฀by฀that฀of฀their฀predecessors,฀ and฀that฀these฀later฀generations฀inherit฀the฀productive฀forces฀and฀forms฀of฀intercourse฀ accumulated฀by฀their฀predecessors,฀their฀own฀mutual฀relations฀being฀determined฀thereby.฀ In฀short,฀it฀is฀clear฀that฀development฀takes฀place฀and฀that฀the฀history฀of฀a฀single฀individual฀ cannot฀possibly฀be฀separated฀from฀the฀history฀of฀preceding฀or฀contemporary฀individuals,฀ but฀is฀determined฀by฀this฀history฀(Marx฀and฀Engels฀1845–6/1976:฀438).

Another฀way฀of฀saying฀this฀is฀that฀these฀webs฀of฀social฀relations฀are฀the฀foundation฀ on฀ which฀ intersubjectivity฀ is฀ possible.฀As฀ a฀ result,฀ human฀ individuals—their฀ consciousnesses,฀their฀personalities,฀their฀ambivalences,฀their฀subjectivities,฀their฀ individualities,฀their฀identities,฀and฀their฀cultures—have฀a฀profoundly฀social฀character฀ (e.g.฀Henry฀1976/1983;฀54–118;฀Márkus฀1978:฀15–35;฀Negt฀1988:฀228–33:฀Schaff฀

Marx’s฀Anthropology฀ •฀ 47 1965/1970:฀49–102).฀Human฀beings฀are฀shaped฀by฀the฀sets฀of฀relations฀into฀which฀ they฀are฀born฀and฀which฀they฀help฀to฀actualize,฀reproduce,฀and฀occasionally฀even฀ transform฀during฀their฀lives.฀The฀kinds฀of฀work฀they฀do—the฀ways฀in฀which฀they฀ satisfy฀their฀needs,฀express฀their฀identities,฀and฀form฀new฀wants฀and฀desires—are฀all฀ cast฀in฀this฀forge.฀In฀a฀phrase,฀sociality฀permeates฀all฀aspects฀of฀the฀individual’s฀life,฀ even฀when฀he฀or฀she฀is฀seemingly฀alone.฀The฀spheres฀of฀activity฀founded฀on฀these฀ relations฀are฀internalized,฀accepted,฀or฀rejected฀by฀the฀individuals฀involved.฀Thus,฀ these฀ensembles฀are฀not฀natural฀relations฀that฀exist฀among฀generalized฀or฀universal฀ human฀individuals฀but฀rather฀are฀the฀particular฀relations฀that฀exist฀among฀specific,฀ concrete฀individuals฀who฀live฀at฀particular฀times฀and฀in฀particular฀places฀or,฀as฀Marx฀ would฀say,฀in฀given฀historical฀epochs.฀As฀a฀result,฀“the฀specific฀character฀of฀human฀ beings฀in฀a฀given฀era฀cannot฀be฀determined฀a฀priori฀but฀only฀in฀reference฀to฀the฀ [particular]฀ensembles฀of฀social฀relations”฀(Fracchia฀1991:฀160). Human฀beings฀are฀clearly฀social฀individuals,฀but฀how฀did฀human฀social฀individuals฀come฀into฀being?฀For฀Marx,฀work฀in฀the฀broad,฀not฀exclusively฀utilitarian,฀ sense฀was฀one฀distinctive฀feature.฀Consciousness฀was฀another.฀“Conscious฀life฀ activity฀distinguishes฀man฀immediately฀from฀the฀life฀activity฀of฀the฀animal,”฀wrote฀ Marx฀(1844/1975a:฀294).฀By฀consciousness,฀he฀meant฀the฀mental฀outlook฀(1)฀that฀ is฀formed฀under฀particular฀social฀conditions,฀and฀(2)฀that฀is,฀at฀the฀same฀time,฀an฀ expression฀of฀those฀circumstances.฀His฀view฀of฀consciousness฀was฀broader฀than฀the฀ one฀we฀typically฀employ฀today.฀It฀involves฀intentionality.฀It฀also฀includes฀“cognizance฀ of฀the฀surrounding฀world”฀as฀well฀as฀the฀“mental฀production”฀of฀the฀whole฀sphere฀of฀ presuppositions,฀dispositions,฀feelings,฀and฀so฀forth฀that฀are฀handed฀down฀by฀tradition฀ and฀accepted฀in฀an฀unreflective฀manner฀(Márkus฀1978:฀26,฀70n31a;฀Marx฀and฀Engels฀ 1845–6/1976:฀36).฀While฀consciousness฀is฀ultimately฀based฀on฀the฀possibilities฀for฀ development฀in฀the฀corporeal฀organization฀of฀the฀species,฀consciousness฀itself฀is฀a฀ social฀phenomenon.฀Adam฀Schaff฀describes฀this฀in฀the฀following฀way: at฀a฀certain฀level฀of฀biological฀evolution,฀which฀changes฀very฀slowly,฀man—in฀the฀sense฀ of฀his฀attitudes,฀opinions,฀value-judgments,฀etc.—is฀a฀product฀of฀ontogenesis,฀a฀wholly฀ determined฀social฀product.฀For฀what฀he฀becomes฀in฀ontogenesis฀is฀fully฀determined฀ socially;฀and฀this฀in฀a฀way฀that฀is฀quite฀beyond฀his฀control—through฀language,฀which฀ embodies฀a฀certain฀type฀of฀thinking,฀and฀education,฀which฀imparts฀certain฀customs,฀ modes฀of฀behavior฀and฀of฀ethics,฀etc.฀(1965/1970:฀66)

For฀Marx,฀consciousness฀is฀not฀the฀passive฀reception฀of฀stimuli฀from฀the฀natural฀ and฀sociohistorical฀world฀in฀which฀the฀human฀individual฀lives.฀This฀socially฀and฀ historically฀determined฀activity฀is,฀instead,฀a฀“creative฀and฀formative฀factor฀in฀all฀ social฀activity”฀(Márkus฀1978:฀28).฀It฀entails฀increasing฀awareness฀of฀the฀objects฀of฀ the฀natural฀world,฀other฀human฀beings,฀and฀their฀relations฀with฀them.฀It฀is฀a฀repeated฀ moment฀in฀the฀life฀activity฀of฀the฀individual.฀It฀exists฀between฀the฀appearance,฀ recognition,฀and฀subjectification฀of฀those฀objects,฀persons,฀and฀relations฀and฀the฀

48฀ •฀ Karl฀Marx,฀Anthropologist potentials฀they฀have฀for฀satisfying฀or฀creating฀new฀needs;฀the฀appropriation฀of฀these฀ “objects฀of฀social฀practice;”฀and฀“the฀activation฀of฀human฀actuality”฀(Márkus฀1978:฀ 29).฀Thus,฀consciousness฀is฀also฀related฀to฀Marx’s฀concepts฀of฀objectification฀and฀ labor—the฀transformation฀of฀exterior฀objects฀to฀satisfy฀needs.฀Consciousness฀“is฀a฀ particular฀type฀of฀activity฀directed฀toward฀the฀‘appropriation’฀of฀reality฀in฀a฀specific฀ way”฀(Márkus฀1978:฀29).฀Social฀consciousness฀never฀exists฀in฀a฀general฀or฀abstract฀ sense฀but฀rather฀always฀is฀a฀manifestation฀of฀particular฀ensembles฀of฀social฀relations฀ and฀sociohistorical฀conditions;฀hence,฀it฀also฀includes฀“false฀consciousness”— mistaken฀ideas฀that฀conceal,฀distort,฀or฀invert฀reality฀and฀of฀whose฀existence฀the฀ subjects฀are฀unaware. Marx฀portrayed฀the฀linkages฀of฀consciousness฀in฀his฀famous฀base–superstructure฀ architectural฀metaphor: In฀the฀social฀production฀of฀their฀existence,฀men฀inevitably฀enter฀into฀definite฀relations,฀ which฀are฀independent฀of฀their฀will,฀namely฀relations฀of฀production฀appropriate฀to฀a฀given฀ stage฀in฀the฀development฀of฀their฀material฀forces฀of฀production.฀The฀totality฀of฀these฀ relations฀of฀production฀constitutes฀the฀economic฀structure฀of฀society,฀the฀real฀foundation,฀ on฀which฀arises฀a฀legal฀and฀political฀superstructure฀and฀to฀which฀correspond฀definite฀ forms฀of฀social฀consciousness.฀The฀mode฀of฀production฀of฀material฀life฀conditions฀the฀ general฀process฀of฀social,฀political฀and฀intellectual฀life.฀(Marx฀1859/1970:฀20)

This฀passage฀is฀often฀read฀not฀as฀a฀shorthand฀or฀summary฀statement฀of฀complex฀ relations฀but฀rather฀as฀claims฀for฀(1)฀the฀separation฀of฀the฀economic฀from฀the฀cultural฀ and฀other฀realms฀of฀society฀and,฀ultimately,฀(2)฀the฀economic฀determination฀of฀ society฀and฀history.฀It฀does฀not฀say฀that฀the฀culture฀is฀not฀economic฀or฀that฀the฀ economic฀lacks฀significant฀cultural,฀legal,฀or฀political฀dimensions.฀Such฀claims฀ also฀overlook฀passages฀Marx฀wrote฀earlier฀that฀are฀hard฀to฀square฀with฀models฀of฀ economic฀determination.฀For฀example, In฀the฀case฀of฀the฀arts,฀it฀is฀well฀known฀that฀certain฀periods฀of฀their฀flowering฀are฀all฀out฀of฀ proportion฀to฀the฀general฀development฀of฀society,฀hence฀also฀to฀the฀material฀foundation,฀ the฀skeletal฀structure,฀as฀it฀were,฀of฀its฀organization.฀(Marx฀1857–8/1973:฀110) The฀mode฀of฀production฀must฀not฀be฀considered฀simply฀as฀being฀the฀reproduction฀of฀ the฀physical฀existence฀of฀the฀individual.฀Rather฀it฀is฀a฀definite฀form฀of฀activity฀of฀these฀ individuals,฀a฀definite฀form฀of฀expressing฀their฀life,฀a฀definite฀mode฀of฀life฀on฀their฀part.฀ As฀individuals฀express฀their฀life,฀so฀they฀are.฀What฀they฀are,฀therefore,฀coincides฀with฀ their฀production,฀both฀with฀what฀they฀produce฀and฀how฀they฀produce.฀(Marx฀and฀Engels฀ 1845–6/1976:฀31–2)

In฀this฀view,฀“culture฀[consciousness]฀constitutes฀a฀mode฀of฀expression฀of฀life฀ conditioned฀by฀the฀form฀of฀production฀or฀form฀of฀life฀activity”฀(D’Amico฀1981:฀ 11).฀Thus,฀cultures,฀which฀are฀the฀expression฀of฀particular฀ensembles฀of฀social฀

Marx’s฀Anthropology฀ •฀ 49 relations,฀are฀scaffoldings฀for฀human฀activity฀in฀historically฀particular฀circumstances.฀ Consciousness฀renders฀those฀relations฀intelligible฀and฀reproducible;฀it฀is฀also฀a฀ condition฀for฀transforming฀them฀(McMurtry฀1978:฀145–56;฀Outhwaite฀1991:฀128). As฀social฀beings,฀human฀individuals฀acquired฀their฀consciousness฀in฀historically฀ specific฀communities฀and฀could฀develop฀as฀individuals฀only฀in฀those฀societies.฀Marx฀ was฀aware฀that฀“the฀development฀of฀the฀individual฀is฀conditioned฀by฀the฀development฀ of฀all฀other฀individuals฀with฀whom฀he฀stands฀in฀a฀direct฀or฀indirect฀intercourse,฀ and฀that฀the฀various฀generations฀of฀the฀individuals,฀which฀enter฀into฀relations฀with฀ each฀other฀have฀an฀interconnection”฀(Marx฀and฀Engels฀1845–6/1976:฀438).฀Their฀ consciousness,฀passed฀from฀one฀generation฀to฀the฀next,฀is฀re-created฀daily,฀reworked,฀ and฀transformed฀by฀particular฀historical฀individuals.฀Marx฀(1844/1975a:฀299)฀was฀ acutely฀aware฀of฀the฀dialectical฀relation฀between฀the฀individual฀and฀species-life฀(the฀ community).฀Richard฀Lichtman฀writes฀that Like฀other฀dialectically฀related฀notions,฀individual฀life฀and฀species฀(communal)฀life฀ can฀neither฀be฀separated฀from฀each฀other฀nor฀identified.฀Though฀joined,฀their฀mode฀of฀ experience฀does฀not฀coincide.฀Individual฀life฀is฀the฀mode฀of฀“experience”฀of฀the฀social฀ whole,฀and฀the฀social฀whole฀has฀itself฀no฀existence฀separate฀from฀the฀fact฀of฀its฀being฀ experienced฀in฀the฀lives฀of฀individuals.฀Each฀individual฀is฀an฀experiencing฀nodule฀or฀ terminus฀of฀the฀ensemble฀of฀relations฀that฀constitutes฀the฀social฀system.฀This฀is฀not฀to฀ reduce฀society฀to฀the฀sum฀of฀individual฀experiences.฀For฀what฀the฀individual฀experiences฀ is฀primarily฀the฀structure฀of฀social฀relations฀in฀dialectical฀polarity฀with฀the฀world฀of฀nature.฀ But฀even฀more฀significant฀is฀the฀fact฀that฀how฀this฀experience฀is฀itself฀structured฀is฀also฀a฀ dialectical฀consequence฀and฀cause฀of฀the฀particular฀form฀of฀individualism฀in฀a฀historical฀ epoch.฀In฀short,฀the฀specific฀conscious฀experience฀of฀individuals฀occurs฀in฀the฀context฀ of฀the฀totality฀of฀structural฀relationships฀among฀individuals,฀structural฀relationships฀ among฀the฀aspects฀of฀nature,฀and฀the฀structure฀of฀relationships฀between฀these฀distinct฀but฀ reciprocal฀realms.฀And,฀of฀course,฀there฀is฀that฀part฀of฀the฀human฀psyche,฀which฀plays฀ no฀part฀in฀Marx’s฀system—the฀structure฀of฀the฀repressed฀unconscious.฀(Lichtman฀1982:฀ 220)

This฀does฀not฀mean,฀however,฀that฀all฀of฀the฀individuals฀of฀particular฀communities฀ share฀some฀monolithic฀form฀of฀consciousness฀that฀is฀imposed฀externally฀or฀by฀ tradition฀and฀that฀homogenized฀their฀views฀of฀the฀world,฀and฀Marx฀realized฀this.฀ Gyorgy฀Márkus฀describes฀individuality฀and฀the฀constituents฀of฀personality฀in฀the฀ following฀way: The฀material฀and฀ideal฀“elements”฀of฀his฀objective฀world฀become฀transformed฀into฀ constituents฀of฀his฀own฀personality฀.฀.฀.฀only฀through฀a฀process฀of฀appropriation฀.฀.฀.฀ [that฀is]฀due฀to฀his฀own฀selective฀activity.฀And฀it฀is฀first฀of฀all฀this฀activity฀and฀its฀social฀ consequences฀that฀directly฀form฀the฀specific,฀irreducible฀individuality฀of฀every฀human฀ being.฀Each฀concrete฀individual฀finds฀a฀more฀or฀less฀strictly฀circumscribed฀scope฀of฀ historically฀possible฀forms฀of฀behavior฀and฀activity฀as฀something฀set฀by,฀and฀with,฀his฀

50฀ •฀ Karl฀Marx,฀Anthropologist historical฀situation,฀class฀position,฀etc.฀.฀.฀.฀A฀concrete฀walk฀of฀life,฀the฀personal฀history฀ of฀an฀individual฀is฀determined฀in฀the฀incessant฀interplay,฀give-and-take฀if฀his฀own฀ actions฀and฀the฀“reactions”฀of฀his฀social฀environment.฀Human฀personality฀evolves฀.฀.฀.฀in฀ a฀constant฀dialogue฀between฀man฀and฀world,฀between฀subjective฀activity฀and฀objective฀ social฀reality.฀(Márkus฀1978:฀23)

Marx฀referred฀to฀this฀as฀“the฀difference฀between฀the฀individual฀as฀a฀person฀and฀what฀ is฀extraneous฀[accidental]฀to฀him”฀(Marx฀and฀Engels฀1845–6/1976:฀81). Accidents฀are฀not฀the฀only฀way฀in฀which฀individualization฀and฀the฀emergence฀of฀ individuality฀occur.฀As฀the฀production฀and฀reproduction฀of฀everyday฀life฀acquire฀an฀ increasingly฀social฀character฀and฀individuals฀begin฀to฀produce฀for฀each฀other฀through฀ cooperation,฀they฀have฀greater฀possibilities฀of฀learning฀from฀the฀experiences฀of฀those฀ with฀whom฀they฀have฀ties.฀This฀is฀a฀consequence฀of฀the฀ongoing฀dialogue฀between฀ human฀beings.฀This฀does฀not฀prevent฀them,฀as฀Marx฀and฀Engels฀(1845–6/1976:฀47)฀ phrased฀it,฀from฀hunting฀in฀the฀morning,฀fishing฀in฀the฀afternoon,฀herding฀in฀the฀ evening,฀and฀criticizing฀after฀dinner฀without฀ever฀becoming฀a฀hunter,฀fisherman,฀ shepherd,฀or฀critic.฀However,฀when฀and฀if฀a฀social฀division฀of฀labor฀develops฀and฀ the฀interests฀of฀the฀individual฀conflict฀with฀those฀of฀the฀community,฀social฀relations฀are฀transformed.฀Some฀individuals฀begin฀to฀pursue฀their฀own฀interests฀and฀ to฀exploit฀others—i.e.,฀appropriate฀their฀objects฀and฀labor.฀Social฀differentiation฀ and฀specialization฀follow฀in฀their฀wake.฀In฀the฀example฀cited฀above,฀individuals฀ are฀no฀longer฀persons฀but฀rather฀have฀become฀hunters,฀fisherman,฀shepherds,฀or฀ philosophers฀through฀the฀exchange฀relations฀and฀rules฀of฀distribution฀that฀have฀been฀ forged.฀They฀are฀simultaneously฀universalized฀and฀depersonalized,฀which฀are฀two฀ sides฀of฀the฀same฀coin.฀On฀the฀one฀hand,฀their฀dependence฀on฀others฀means฀that฀they฀ can฀potentially฀draw฀on฀the฀knowledge฀and฀experience฀of฀an฀ever-widening฀circle฀of฀ human฀beings.฀On฀the฀other฀hand,฀their฀autonomy฀and฀independence฀are฀diminished.฀ In฀these฀historicized฀processes,฀they฀are฀increasingly฀estranged฀from฀nature,฀from฀ others,฀from฀the฀products฀they฀produce,฀and฀from฀themselves.฀This฀estrangement,฀ or฀alienation,฀resulting฀from฀forces฀that฀occur฀behind฀the฀backs฀of฀individuals,฀leads฀ to฀the฀reformation฀of฀personality฀characteristics฀and฀individuality;฀they฀too฀are฀ manifestations฀of฀historically฀particular฀ensembles฀of฀social฀relations. Marx’s฀focus฀on฀“ensembles฀of฀social฀relations”฀emphasizes฀the฀connection฀ between฀the฀human฀individual฀who฀is฀growing฀self-conscious฀of฀other฀persons฀and฀ of฀things฀that฀are฀external฀to฀him.฀His฀aim฀is฀to฀understand฀the฀human฀social฀being฀ as฀a฀worker฀and฀thinker,฀a฀producer฀and฀consumer฀situated฀in฀historically฀specific฀ social฀worlds฀that฀vary฀in฀time฀and฀space.฀The฀historical฀development฀of฀these฀ variable฀social฀worlds฀provides฀the฀real฀conditions฀for฀individualization฀and฀human฀ individuality.฀It฀underscores฀the฀sociohistorical฀character฀of฀work฀and฀consciousness,฀ both฀of฀which,฀in฀turn,฀are฀linked฀dialectically฀to฀the฀corporeal฀organization฀of฀human฀ beings.฀As฀Marx฀put฀it,฀real฀individuals฀are฀“individualized฀through฀the฀process฀of฀ history”฀(1857–8/1973:฀496).

Marx’s฀Anthropology฀ •฀ 51

History Marx’s฀view฀of฀the฀world฀is฀profoundly฀historicist฀in฀the฀sense฀that฀he฀believed฀it฀ impossible฀to฀understand฀something฀fully฀unless฀one฀knew฀how฀it฀came฀to฀be฀the฀ way฀it฀is.฀The฀historicity฀of฀things฀was฀important฀for฀understanding฀both฀process฀and฀ succession.฀For฀Marx,฀history฀involved฀the฀inextricably฀intertwined฀development฀of฀ human฀beings,฀of฀ensembles฀of฀social฀relations฀(societies),฀and฀of฀nature฀itself.฀Early฀ on,฀he฀and฀Engels฀wrote฀that฀“we฀know฀only฀a฀single฀science,฀the฀science฀of฀history.฀ One฀can฀look฀at฀history฀from฀two฀sides฀and฀divide฀it฀into฀the฀history฀of฀nature฀and฀ the฀history฀of฀men.฀The฀two฀are,฀however,฀inseparable;฀the฀history฀of฀nature฀and฀the฀ history฀of฀men฀are฀dependent฀on฀each฀other฀so฀long฀as฀men฀exist”฀(Marx฀and฀Engels,฀ 1845–6/1976:฀28).฀Marx’s฀materialist฀science฀of฀history฀has฀a฀number฀of฀distinctive฀ features.฀Let฀us฀look฀at฀these฀in฀more฀detail. First,฀perhaps฀the฀most฀significant฀features฀of฀his฀historical฀science฀are฀the฀rejection฀of฀nineteenth-century฀atomist฀(Cartesian)฀reductionism,฀on฀the฀one฀hand,฀and฀ the฀adoption฀of฀a฀dialectical฀holism,฀on฀the฀other.฀Reductionism,฀which฀is฀still฀a฀ prominent฀mode฀of฀analysis฀of฀the฀natural฀and฀social฀worlds฀today,฀attempts฀to฀ explain฀complex฀organisms,฀like฀human฀beings,฀and฀their฀behavior฀in฀terms฀of฀their฀ constituent฀parts—e.g.฀neurons,฀genes,฀or฀the฀molecular฀sequences฀on฀chromosomes.฀ The฀proponents฀of฀atomist฀reductionism฀are฀committed฀to฀five฀ontological฀principles:฀ (1)฀each฀system฀has฀a฀set฀of฀natural฀building฀blocks฀which฀they฀seek฀to฀identify;฀(2)฀ these฀units฀are฀homogeneous฀at฀least฀with฀regard฀to฀the฀whole฀of฀which฀they฀are฀ parts;฀(3)฀the฀building฀blocks฀exist฀prior฀to฀the฀whole฀and฀hence฀have฀properties฀ that฀are฀distinct฀and฀independent฀from฀those฀of฀the฀whole;฀(4)฀the฀whole฀may฀be฀ nothing฀more฀than฀the฀sum฀of฀its฀parts,฀or฀the฀interactions฀of฀the฀building฀blocks฀ may฀produce฀additional฀or฀emergent฀properties;฀and฀(5)฀causes฀are฀active฀subjects฀ (agents)฀whereas฀effects฀are฀the฀properties฀of฀objects฀that฀have฀been฀acted฀upon.฀ Marx฀(1840–1/1975)฀laid฀the฀foundations฀for฀his฀rejection฀of฀atomist฀reductionism฀ in฀his฀doctoral฀dissertation฀and฀developed฀the฀argument฀throughout฀his฀career.฀ Basically,฀he฀challenged฀the฀validity฀of฀each฀of฀its฀ontological฀premises฀and฀resisted฀ reductionist฀epistemologies,฀which฀reduced฀the฀source฀of฀knowledge฀to฀appearances฀ (cf.฀Levins฀and฀Lewontin฀1985:฀269;฀Meikle฀1985:฀10–15;฀Wilson฀1991:฀120–30).฀ As฀Marx฀(1864–94/1981:฀956)฀put฀it:฀“All฀science฀would฀be฀superfluous฀if฀the฀form฀ of฀appearance฀of฀things฀directly฀coincided฀with฀their฀essence.” Second,฀Marx’s฀theory฀of฀history฀builds฀on฀the฀notion฀of฀a฀totality฀that฀includes฀ both฀natural฀history฀and฀human฀history.฀In฀his฀view,฀a฀totality฀is฀a฀multileveled,฀ historically฀contingent,฀and฀dialectically฀structured฀unity฀that฀exists฀in฀and฀through฀ the฀ diverse฀ interpenetrations,฀ connections,฀ and฀ contradictions฀ that฀ shape฀ the฀ interactions฀of฀the฀parts฀with฀one฀another,฀with฀the฀unity฀itself,฀and฀with฀the฀greater฀ whole฀of฀which฀they฀are฀a฀part฀(Kosík฀1963/1976:฀18–9;฀Levins฀and฀Lewontin฀1985:฀ 133–42,฀278–85;฀Mészáros฀1991).฀Thus,฀(1)฀reality฀is฀structured฀by฀processes฀and฀

52฀ •฀ Karl฀Marx,฀Anthropologist relations฀that฀are฀not฀always฀apparent฀on฀the฀surface;฀(2)฀the฀constituents฀of฀the฀ totality฀are฀not฀identical฀with฀each฀other฀or฀in฀their฀relations฀to฀the฀whole;฀(3)฀the฀ parts฀do฀not฀exist฀prior฀to฀the฀whole฀but฀rather฀acquire฀their฀characteristic฀properties฀ in฀the฀interactions฀that฀constitute฀the฀whole;฀(4)฀the฀whole฀is฀always฀greater฀than฀the฀ sum฀of฀its฀parts,฀and฀it฀is฀impossible฀to฀understand฀the฀whole฀merely฀by฀studying฀its฀ constituent฀elements;฀(5)฀the฀whole฀is฀in฀continual฀flux฀though฀the฀parts฀and฀levels฀ of฀the฀totality฀may฀be฀changing฀at฀different฀rates;฀(6)฀this฀flux฀means฀that฀they฀may฀ destroy฀the฀conditions฀that฀brought฀the฀totality฀into฀being฀in฀the฀first฀place;฀and฀(7)฀ these฀transformations฀create฀possibilities฀for฀new฀historically฀contingent฀structures฀ that฀have฀not฀existed฀previously.฀Consequently,฀Marx’s฀ontology฀and฀epistemology฀ have฀different฀foundations฀from฀those฀of฀atomist฀reductionism.฀As฀he฀put฀it:฀“The฀ method฀of฀rising฀from฀the฀abstract฀to฀the฀concrete฀is฀only฀the฀way฀in฀which฀thought฀ appropriates฀the฀concrete,฀reproduces฀it฀as฀the฀concrete฀in฀mind.฀But฀all฀of฀this฀is฀ by฀no฀means฀the฀process฀by฀which฀the฀concrete฀itself฀comes฀into฀being”฀(Marx฀ 1857–8/1973:฀101). Third,฀Marx’s฀theory฀is฀firmly฀rooted฀in฀an฀appreciation฀of฀variation.฀He฀wrote฀ approvingly฀that฀the฀historical฀geologists฀had฀shown฀that฀the฀formation฀of฀the฀earth฀ was฀a฀process,฀a฀“self-generation”฀(Marx฀1844/1975a:฀304–5). 2฀This฀historical,฀ material฀world฀was฀a฀precondition฀for฀the฀existence฀of฀human฀beings,฀of฀human฀ production,฀and฀of฀human฀society฀in฀its฀myriad฀forms.฀He฀appreciated฀the฀significance฀ of฀variation฀in฀both฀time฀and฀space.฀It฀was฀impossible฀in฀his฀view฀to฀speak฀of฀either฀ nature฀or฀society฀in฀general฀or฀in฀some฀abstract฀sense;฀it฀was฀necessary฀instead฀to฀think฀ of฀the฀spatial฀and฀temporal฀particularities฀of฀both.฀He฀referred฀repeatedly฀over฀the฀ years฀to฀the฀diverse฀“natural฀conditions฀in฀which฀man฀finds฀himself”—a฀multiplicity฀ of฀worlds฀shaped฀subtly฀or฀not฀by฀their฀geology,฀hydrology,฀climate,฀and฀soil฀fertility฀ exhaustion฀to฀name฀only฀a฀few฀of฀the฀factors฀he฀mentioned฀(e.g.฀Marx฀1863–7/1977:฀ 637–8;฀Marx฀and฀Engels฀1845–6/1976:฀31,฀42).฀For฀human฀communities฀with฀similar฀ modes฀of฀production,฀the฀consequence฀of฀such฀environmental฀variation฀is฀that฀even฀ slight฀differences฀of฀emphasis฀in฀what฀is฀taken฀from฀nature฀or฀in฀how฀tools฀and฀labor฀ power฀are฀employed,฀can฀yield฀significant฀variations฀in฀the฀details฀of฀how฀labor฀is฀ organized.฀Marx฀was฀acutely฀aware฀of฀the฀fact฀that฀particular฀physical฀conditions,฀ or฀material฀worlds,฀could฀impose฀limitations฀on฀human฀communities฀with฀particular฀ means฀of฀production—for฀instance,฀the฀unpredictability฀or฀impossibility฀altogether฀ of฀agricultural฀production฀in฀high-elevation฀or฀high-latitude฀environments,฀like฀ the฀alpine฀grasslands฀of฀the฀Andes฀mountains฀or฀the฀tundra฀of฀northern฀Canada.฀ Moreover,฀he฀was฀aware฀that฀environments฀changed฀with฀the฀passage฀of฀time.฀Some฀ changes฀were฀due฀to฀the฀impact฀of฀new฀forms฀of฀human฀activity,฀like฀agriculture฀or฀ the฀domestication฀of฀animals฀(Marx฀1863–7/1977:฀287–8).฀Other฀changes—such฀as฀ those฀produced฀by฀earthquakes฀or฀floods—were฀less฀obviously฀or฀less฀directly฀the฀ result฀of฀human฀activity.฀He฀also฀knew฀that฀the฀tempo฀and฀mode฀of฀such฀changes฀ varied฀from฀region฀to฀region฀and฀from฀epoch฀to฀another.฀Frederick฀Engels,฀I฀believe,฀ eloquently฀captured฀Marx’s฀sentiments฀in฀this฀regard฀when฀he฀wrote:

Marx’s฀Anthropology฀ •฀ 53 There฀is฀damned฀little฀left฀of฀“nature”฀as฀it฀was฀in฀Germany฀at฀the฀time฀when฀the฀ Germanic฀peoples฀immigrated฀into฀it.฀The฀earth’s฀surface,฀climate,฀vegetation,฀fauna,฀ and฀the฀human฀beings฀themselves฀have฀continually฀changed,฀and฀all฀this฀owing฀to฀human฀ activity,฀while฀the฀changes฀of฀nature฀in฀Germany฀which฀have฀occurred฀in฀the฀process฀ without฀human฀interference฀are฀incalculably฀small.฀(Engels฀1873–82/1987:฀511)

Fourth,฀although฀he฀often฀employed฀the฀language฀of฀essentialism฀and฀reductive฀ materialism฀in฀his฀writing,฀Marx฀did฀not฀view฀historical฀change฀exclusively฀as฀either฀ the฀unfolding฀of฀some฀potential฀inherent฀in฀the฀totality฀that฀revealed฀a฀necessary฀and฀ regular฀succession฀of฀development฀stages฀or฀the฀outcome฀of฀forces฀or฀events฀that฀ accidentally฀impinged฀upon฀the฀totality฀from฀the฀outside.3฀Yet,฀there฀are฀elements฀of฀ both฀developmental฀necessity฀(directionality)฀and฀chance฀(accident)฀in฀his฀historical฀ arguments.฀For฀example,฀Marx฀(1863–7/1977:฀772–80)฀described฀the฀developmental฀ logic฀of฀capital฀accumulation฀in฀terms฀of฀concentration฀(reproduction฀on฀an฀extended฀ scale)฀and฀centralization฀(regrouping฀capital฀into฀fewer฀units)—a฀logic฀that฀played฀ itself฀out฀historically฀in฀England,฀albeit฀with฀fits฀and฀starts,฀in฀the฀nineteenth฀century.฀ But,฀he฀also฀noticed฀that฀the฀development฀of฀capitalism฀in฀Russia฀in฀the฀1870s฀was฀ seemingly฀following฀a฀different฀pathway฀from฀that฀of฀England฀(Marx฀1881/1983:฀ 123–4).฀Moreover,฀when฀considering฀the฀structure฀of฀capitalist฀production฀in฀the฀ 1860s,฀Marx฀(1864–94/1981:฀567–72)฀suggested฀that฀there฀were฀several฀potential฀ routes฀of฀its฀development฀in฀the฀immediate฀future฀given฀the฀then-existing฀property฀ relations฀and฀balance฀of฀force—the฀formation฀of฀monopolies฀in฀certain฀spheres฀of฀ production฀that฀would฀provoke฀both฀state฀intervention฀and฀the฀emergence฀of฀a฀new฀ financial฀aristocracy.฀An฀alternative฀was฀the฀development฀of฀factories฀or฀companies฀ run฀by฀workers.฀Both,฀in฀fact,฀have฀occurred฀since฀he฀wrote. “Developmental฀ contingency,”฀ a฀ concept฀ elaborated฀ in฀ another฀ context฀ by฀ Richard฀Levins฀and฀Richard฀Lewontin฀(1985:฀94–6),฀affords฀us฀a฀useful,฀shorthand฀ description฀of฀Marx’s฀views฀about฀historical฀change.฀The฀concept฀captures฀the฀ interplay฀of฀structure฀and฀process,฀of฀necessity฀and฀accident.฀To฀paraphrase฀their฀ description฀of฀the฀concept฀and฀its฀implications,฀development฀is฀a฀historical฀process฀ in฀which฀the฀effects฀of฀a฀force฀cannot฀be฀specified฀in฀a฀general฀or฀abstract฀way;฀they฀ can฀only฀be฀specified฀in฀the฀singularity฀of฀the฀conditions฀and฀relations฀that฀exist฀at฀a฀ particular฀time฀and฀place.฀One฀consequence฀of฀this฀is฀that฀the฀historical฀formation฀of฀ ensembles฀of฀relations฀and฀their฀associated฀environments฀appear฀as฀“as฀a฀temporal฀ sequence฀of฀events฀in฀which฀the฀exact฀order฀is฀critical”฀(Levins฀and฀Lewontin฀1985:฀ 95).฀Another฀consequence฀is฀that฀subtle฀variations฀among฀local฀communities฀have฀ the฀potential฀to฀affect฀what฀happens฀or฀does฀not฀happen฀next;฀in฀other฀words,฀further฀ development฀always฀involves฀confronting฀the฀existing฀structures฀and฀following,฀ or฀not,฀one฀of฀several฀alternative฀pathways.฀Still฀another฀consequence฀is฀that฀the฀ transition฀from฀one฀historical฀formation฀to฀another฀depends฀more฀on฀the฀conditions฀ that฀prevailed฀at฀the฀time฀of฀the฀transition฀than฀on฀how฀those฀conditions฀and฀relations฀ of฀the฀totality฀emerged.฀Finally,฀in฀some฀instances฀(labor฀strikes,฀for฀example),฀

54฀ •฀ Karl฀Marx,฀Anthropologist the฀possible฀outcomes฀for฀particular฀communities฀are฀often฀quite฀constrained฀but฀ perhaps฀not฀completely฀controlled;฀as฀a฀result,฀the฀driving฀forces฀involved฀appear฀ to฀play฀themselves฀out฀with฀almost฀law-like฀regularity.฀At฀other฀moments,฀when฀the฀ balance฀of฀forces฀are฀more฀nearly฀equal,฀people฀do฀have฀a฀real฀potential฀or฀capacity฀ to฀make฀their฀own฀histories;฀whether฀they฀have฀chosen฀to฀do฀so฀or฀succeeded฀in฀ doing฀so฀are฀other฀issues. Fifth,฀Marx’s฀science฀of฀history฀is฀not฀a฀philosophy฀of฀world฀history฀that฀attempts฀ to฀describe฀humanity฀or฀the฀flow฀of฀history฀in฀some฀general฀or฀abstract฀sense.฀This฀is฀ an฀impossibility.฀He฀is฀concerned฀instead฀with฀examining฀what฀is฀happening฀or฀what฀ has฀taken฀place฀in฀communities฀that฀have฀particular฀locations฀in฀time฀and฀space.฀As฀a฀ result,฀the฀histories฀of฀communities฀are฀not฀internally฀monolithic฀because฀the฀different฀ subjectivities฀that฀emerge฀are฀inseparable฀from฀the฀ensembles฀of฀relations฀that฀make฀ them฀possible.฀Nor฀is฀history฀homogeneous,฀either฀within฀a฀given฀historical฀epoch฀ or฀when฀different฀communities฀are฀compared.฀While฀the฀ensembles฀of฀relations฀that฀ produce฀and฀reproduce฀history฀are฀empirically฀rich฀in฀detail฀and฀specificity,฀they฀do฀ not฀create฀or฀constitute฀an฀infinite฀diversity.฀There฀are฀limits.฀Marx฀recognized฀them.฀ They฀underpin฀his฀concept฀of฀a฀mode฀of฀production,฀which฀acknowledges฀the฀forms฀ of฀cooperation,฀the฀commonalities,฀of฀different฀types฀of฀societies. In฀ the฀Grundrisse,฀ Marx฀ (1857–8/1973:฀ 459–514)฀ distinguished฀ two฀ broad฀ categories:฀capitalist฀and฀pre-capitalist฀modes฀of฀production.฀There฀were฀two฀major฀ differences฀between฀them,฀as฀Jason฀Read฀(2003:฀38)฀notes.฀Capitalist฀societies฀ separated฀propertyless฀workers฀from฀the฀means฀of฀production฀and฀subsistence฀and฀ freed฀up฀the฀flow฀of฀money฀within฀the฀community.฀In฀pre-capitalist฀communities,฀the฀ workers฀retained฀control฀over฀their฀means฀of฀production,฀and฀wealth฀was฀integrated฀ into฀the฀community.฀In฀addition,฀Marx฀made฀further฀distinctions฀within฀the฀category฀ of฀pre-capitalist฀modes฀of฀production,฀which฀he฀labeled฀the฀primitive฀communal,฀ ancient,฀Asiatic,฀Germanic,฀Slavonic,฀and฀feudal.฀The฀names฀Marx฀chose฀designated฀ different฀forms฀of฀cooperation฀and฀social฀structure฀rather฀than฀either฀presumed฀ geographically฀based฀identities฀or฀presumed฀inferiority฀resulting฀from฀some฀“chain฀ of฀being”฀placement฀on฀a฀social฀evolutionary฀ladder฀whose฀top฀rung฀was฀occupied฀ by฀Western฀capitalism.฀For฀example,฀the฀Inca฀and฀Aztec฀states฀of฀the฀Americas฀have฀ been฀described฀in฀terms฀of฀the฀Asiatic฀mode฀of฀production;฀the฀Maasai฀and฀other฀ pastoral฀peoples฀of฀East฀Africa฀have฀been฀described฀in฀terms฀of฀the฀Germanic฀mode฀ of฀production;฀and฀the฀forms฀of฀cooperation฀and฀social฀relations฀of฀the฀primitive฀ communal฀mode฀of฀production฀figure฀prominently฀in฀the฀everyday฀lives฀of฀numerous฀ American฀Indian฀peoples,฀including฀many฀of฀those฀whose฀communities฀now฀own฀ casinos.฀Eric฀Hobsbawm฀(1964:฀36)฀is฀correct,฀I฀believe,฀when฀he฀interprets฀the฀ various฀pre-capitalist฀modes฀of฀production฀identified฀by฀Marx฀not฀as฀an฀evolutionary฀ succession฀or฀progression฀but฀rather฀as฀different฀forms฀of฀individuation฀and฀property฀ relations,฀as฀alternative฀steps฀away฀from฀or฀pathways฀out฀of฀historically฀specific฀ forms฀of฀primitive฀communal฀society.

Marx’s฀Anthropology฀ •฀ 55 Marx฀was฀struck฀by฀the฀observation฀that฀communities฀manifesting฀pre-capitalist฀ modes฀of฀production฀tended฀to฀reproduce฀existing฀social฀relations.฀He฀described฀this฀ in฀various฀ways: In฀all฀these฀forms—in฀which฀landed฀property฀and฀agriculture฀form฀the฀basis฀of฀the฀ economic฀order,฀and฀where฀the฀economic฀aim฀is฀hence฀the฀production฀of฀use-values,฀ i.e.,฀the฀reproduction฀of฀the฀individual฀within฀the฀specific฀relation฀of฀the฀commune฀in฀ which฀he฀is฀its฀basis—there฀is฀to฀be฀found:฀(1)฀Appropriation฀not฀through฀labour,฀but฀ presupposed฀to฀labour;฀appropriation฀of฀the฀natural฀condition฀of฀labour,฀of฀the฀earth฀as฀ the฀original฀instrument฀of฀labour฀as฀well฀as฀its฀workshop฀and฀repository฀of฀raw฀materials.฀ The฀individual฀relates฀simply฀to฀the฀objective฀conditions฀of฀labour฀as฀being฀his;฀[he฀ relates]฀to฀them฀as฀the฀inorganic฀nature฀of฀his฀subjectivity,฀in฀which฀the฀latter฀realizes฀ itself;฀the฀chief฀objective฀condition฀of฀labour฀does฀itself฀appear฀as฀a฀product฀of฀labour,฀ but฀is฀already฀there฀as฀nature;฀on฀one฀side฀the฀living฀individual,฀on฀the฀other฀the฀earth,฀ as฀the฀objective฀condition฀of฀his฀reproduction;฀(2)฀but฀this฀relation฀to฀land฀and฀soil,฀to฀ the฀earth,฀as฀the฀property฀of฀the฀labouring฀individual—who฀thus฀appears฀from฀the฀outset฀ not฀merely฀as฀labouring฀individual,฀in฀this฀abstraction,฀but฀who฀has฀an฀objective฀mode฀ of฀existence฀in฀his฀ownership฀of฀land,฀an฀existence฀presupposed฀to฀his฀activity,฀and฀not฀ merely฀a฀result฀of฀it,฀a฀presupposition฀of฀his฀activity฀just฀like฀his฀skin,฀his฀sense฀organs,฀ which฀of฀courses฀he฀also฀reproduces฀and฀develops฀etc.฀in฀the฀life฀process,฀but฀which฀are฀ nevertheless฀presuppositions฀of฀this฀process฀of฀his฀reproduction—is฀instantly฀mediated฀ by฀the฀naturally฀arisen,฀spontaneous,฀more฀or฀less฀historically฀developed฀and฀modified฀ presence฀of฀the฀individual฀as฀member฀of฀a฀commune—His฀naturally฀arisen฀presence฀as฀a฀ member฀of฀a฀tribe฀etc.฀[i.e.,฀an฀ensemble฀of฀relations].฀(Marx฀1857–8/1973:฀485)

With฀particular฀reference฀to฀communities฀manifesting฀the฀Asiatic฀mode฀of฀production,฀ he฀wrote฀that The฀simplicity฀of฀the฀productive฀organism฀in฀these฀self-sufficing฀communities฀which฀ constantly฀reproduce฀themselves฀in฀the฀same฀form฀and,฀when฀accidentally฀destroyed,฀ spring฀up฀again฀on฀the฀same฀spot฀with฀the฀same฀name—this฀simplicity฀is฀the฀key฀to฀ the฀riddle฀of฀the฀unchangeability฀of฀Asiatic฀societies,฀which฀is฀in฀such฀striking฀contrast฀ with฀the฀constant฀dissolution฀and฀refounding฀of฀Asiatic฀states,฀and฀their฀never-ceasing฀ changes฀of฀dynasty.฀The฀structure฀of฀the฀fundamental฀economic฀elements฀of฀society฀ remain฀untouched฀by฀the฀storms฀which฀blow฀up฀in฀the฀cloudy฀regime฀of฀politics.฀(Marx฀ 1863–7/1977:฀479)

In฀the฀back฀of฀Marx’s฀mind฀as฀he฀wrote฀these฀passages฀was฀the฀dynamism฀of฀ capitalism—the฀continuous฀reinvention฀of฀the฀subject฀and฀transformation฀of฀the฀ productive฀forces.฀As฀Read฀(2003:฀10)฀points฀out,฀capitalism฀was฀no฀longer฀fettered฀ by฀the฀need฀to฀reproduce฀“any฀particular฀structure฀of฀belief,฀desire,฀or฀tradition.”฀One฀ issue฀to฀be฀explained฀was฀that฀the฀different฀forms฀of฀consciousness,฀subjectivity,฀and฀ social฀practice—as฀refracted฀by฀the฀modes฀of฀production฀manifested฀in฀particular฀

56฀ •฀ Karl฀Marx,฀Anthropologist communities—directly฀ affected฀ and฀ shaped฀ the฀ tempo฀ and฀ form฀ of฀ historical฀ change. At฀the฀same฀time,฀Marx฀was฀acutely฀aware฀that฀historical฀changes฀had฀already฀ happened,฀that฀they฀were฀taking฀place฀at฀an฀increasing฀pace฀in฀the฀present,฀and฀that,฀ given฀the฀existing฀webs฀of฀social฀relations,฀they฀would฀continue฀to฀take฀place฀in฀the฀ future.฀He฀portrayed฀the฀conditions฀that฀laid฀the฀foundations฀for฀the฀appearance฀of฀ new฀forms฀of฀cooperation฀and฀subjectivity฀with฀the฀advent฀of฀capitalism: The฀discovery฀of฀gold฀and฀silver฀in฀America,฀the฀extirpation,฀enslavement฀and฀entombment฀in฀mines฀of฀the฀indigenous฀population฀of฀that฀continent,฀the฀beginnings฀of฀ the฀conquest฀and฀plunder฀of฀India,฀and฀the฀conversion฀of฀Africa฀into฀a฀preserve฀for฀the฀ commercial฀hunting฀of฀blackskins,฀are฀all฀things฀which฀characterize฀the฀dawn฀of฀the฀ era฀of฀capitalist฀production.฀.฀.฀.฀Hard฀on฀their฀heels฀follows฀the฀commercial฀war฀of฀the฀ European฀nations,฀which฀has฀the฀globe฀as฀its฀battlefield.฀.฀.฀.฀These฀different฀moments฀are฀ systematically฀combined฀together฀at฀the฀end฀of฀the฀seventeenth฀century฀in฀England;฀the฀ combination฀embraces฀the฀colonies,฀the฀national฀debt,฀the฀modern฀tax฀system,฀and฀the฀ system฀of฀protection.฀These฀methods฀depend฀on฀brute฀force,฀for฀instance฀the฀colonial฀ system.฀But฀they฀all฀employ฀the฀power฀of฀the฀state,฀the฀concentrated฀and฀organized฀force฀ of฀society฀to฀hasten,฀as฀in฀a฀hothouse,฀the฀process฀of฀transformation฀of฀the฀feudal฀mode฀ of฀production฀into฀the฀capitalist฀mode฀and฀to฀shorten฀the฀transition.฀Force฀is฀the฀midwife฀ of฀every฀old฀society฀which฀is฀pregnant฀with฀a฀new฀one.฀It฀is฀itself฀an฀economic฀power.฀ (Marx฀1863–7/1977:฀915–16)

In฀this฀passage,฀Marx฀identifies฀the฀motors฀that฀are฀driving฀the฀expansion฀of฀the฀ capitalist฀mode฀of฀production฀as฀well฀as฀the฀complexities฀of฀the฀transition฀from฀ the฀dominance฀of฀one฀mode฀of฀production฀to฀the฀dominance฀of฀another.฀Read฀ (2003:฀5)฀described฀the฀historicity฀of฀transition฀as฀the฀tension฀between฀reproduction฀ (determination)฀of฀traditional฀forms฀of฀cooperation฀and฀subjectivity,฀on฀the฀one฀hand,฀ and฀their฀dissolution฀(underdetermination),฀on฀the฀other.฀The฀new฀conditions฀forged฀ during฀moments฀of฀transition฀were฀apparent฀not฀only฀to฀the฀peoples฀of฀the฀traditional฀ societies฀in฀the฀colonies฀but฀also฀to฀those฀of฀the฀metropole฀and฀its฀satellites฀or฀ internal฀colonies.฀Importantly,฀transitions฀are฀processes฀rather฀than฀single฀events;฀ they฀are฀spread฀over฀both฀time฀and฀space.฀For฀example,฀the฀cotton฀fabrics฀produced฀ by฀English฀wage-workers฀in฀the฀textile฀mills฀of฀Manchester฀in฀the฀late฀eighteenth฀ century฀were฀made฀from฀cotton฀that฀was฀grown฀by฀African฀slaves฀in฀South฀Carolina;฀ much฀of฀the฀cotton฀cloth฀produced฀in฀northern฀England฀was฀ultimately฀sold฀in฀India฀ where฀the฀British฀had฀destroyed฀the฀local฀textile฀industry฀earlier฀in฀the฀century. In฀sum,฀Marx’s฀theory฀of฀history฀contains฀notions฀of฀structure,฀transformation,฀ and฀directionality฀(Callinicos฀1995:฀95–110,฀141–65).฀The฀structure฀is฀forged฀by฀ particular฀ensembles฀of฀social฀relations฀and฀the฀connections฀of฀those฀communities฀ with฀the฀environments฀that฀they฀continually฀use฀and฀re-create฀anew.฀Marx฀used฀the฀ concept฀of฀a฀mode฀of฀production฀to฀distinguish฀one฀kind฀or฀type฀of฀society฀from฀ another.฀These฀types฀were฀different฀from฀actually฀existing฀communities.฀Historically฀

Marx’s฀Anthropology฀ •฀ 57 specific฀communities,฀like฀the฀one฀in฀Atlantic฀Canada฀around฀1750,฀manifested฀ either฀a฀particular฀mode฀of฀production฀or฀some฀combination฀of฀modes฀of฀production,฀ one฀of฀which฀was฀dominant฀over฀the฀others.฀Marx’s฀notion฀of฀history฀was฀based฀on฀ the฀contradictions,฀tensions,฀and฀conflicts฀that฀develop฀within฀the฀realm฀of฀social฀ production฀in฀its฀myriad฀manifestations;฀these฀were฀the฀motors฀of฀historical฀change.฀ It฀recognizes฀changes฀in฀tempo—moments฀of฀acceleration,฀moments฀of฀stasis—as฀ well฀as฀alternative฀pathways฀of฀development.฀It฀also฀acknowledges฀that฀sometimes฀ changes,฀which฀were฀possible,฀did฀not฀happen;฀they฀were฀blocked฀for฀one฀reason฀ or฀another.฀Finally,฀Marx’s฀theory฀of฀history฀contains฀a฀notion฀of฀non-teleological฀ directionality,฀what฀we฀referred฀to฀above฀as฀contingent฀determinism.

Truth฀and฀Praxis Praxis฀extends฀Marx’s฀answers฀to฀the฀questions:฀What฀are฀human฀beings?฀What฀is฀ their฀reality?฀How฀was฀that฀reality฀formed?฀Praxis฀is฀the฀most฀basic฀characteristic฀ of฀human฀beings฀and฀their฀most฀distinctive฀feature.4฀It฀is฀not฀an฀attribute฀of฀either฀ animals฀or฀machines.฀As฀you฀will฀recall฀from฀earlier฀in฀the฀chapter,฀something฀ essential฀happens฀when฀the฀sphere฀of฀human฀being฀becomes฀established฀in฀opposition฀ to฀the฀“givenness”฀of฀nature,฀when฀human฀being฀becomes฀distinct฀from฀what฀is฀not฀ human.฀Praxis฀is฀the฀active฀process฀by฀which฀human฀beings฀establish฀a฀relation฀with฀ objects฀of฀the฀external฀world฀and฀with฀one฀another.฀It฀is฀the฀way฀they฀renew฀those฀ relations,฀create฀new฀relations,฀and฀gain฀a฀more฀profound฀understanding฀of฀what฀ they฀have฀made.฀Most฀importantly,฀praxis฀is฀not฀something฀that฀exists฀outside฀of฀ human฀beings;฀instead,฀it฀permeates฀the฀very฀core฀of฀their฀existence.฀As฀Karel฀Kosík฀ (1963/1976:฀139)฀noted:฀“Praxis฀is฀both฀the฀objectification฀of฀man฀and฀the฀mastering฀ of฀nature,฀and฀the฀realization฀of฀human฀freedom.”฀Let฀us฀look฀in฀more฀detail฀at฀how฀ Marx฀conceptualized฀and฀employed฀the฀idea฀of฀praxis. The฀first฀dimension฀of฀Marx’s฀notion฀of฀praxis฀is฀that฀it฀involves฀human฀activity฀ and฀production;฀it฀also฀involves฀consciousness฀of฀self฀and฀other.฀As฀Marx฀put฀it: Let฀us฀suppose฀that฀we฀had฀carried฀out฀production฀as฀human฀beings.฀Each฀of฀us฀would฀ have฀in฀two฀different฀ways฀affirmed฀himself฀and฀the฀other฀person.฀(1)฀In฀my฀production฀ I฀would฀have฀objectified฀my฀individuality,฀its฀specific฀character,฀and฀therefore฀enjoyed฀ not฀only฀an฀individual฀manifestation฀of฀my฀life฀during฀the฀activity,฀but฀also฀when฀looking฀ at฀the฀object฀I฀would฀have฀the฀individual฀pleasure฀of฀knowing฀my฀personality฀to฀be฀ objective,฀visible฀to฀the฀senses฀and฀hence฀a฀power฀beyond฀all฀doubt.฀(2)฀In฀you฀enjoyment฀ or฀use฀of฀my฀product฀I฀would฀have฀the฀direct฀enjoyment฀both฀of฀being฀conscious฀of฀ having฀satisfied฀a฀human฀need฀by฀my฀work,฀that฀is,฀of฀having฀objectified฀man’s฀essential฀ nature,฀and฀of฀having฀thus฀created฀an฀object฀corresponding฀to฀the฀need฀of฀another฀man’s฀ essential฀nature.฀(3)฀I฀would฀have฀been฀for฀you฀the฀mediator฀between฀you฀and฀the฀species,฀ and฀therefore฀would฀become฀recognized฀as฀felt฀by฀you฀yourself฀as฀a฀completion฀of฀your฀ own฀essential฀nature฀and฀as฀a฀necessary฀part฀of฀your฀yourself,฀and฀consequently฀would฀

58฀ •฀ Karl฀Marx,฀Anthropologist know฀myself฀to฀be฀confirmed฀both฀in฀your฀thought฀and฀your฀love.฀(4)฀In฀the฀individual฀ expression฀of฀your฀life,฀and฀therefore฀in฀my฀individual฀activity฀I฀would฀have฀directly฀ confirmed฀and฀realized฀my฀true฀nature,฀my฀human฀nature,฀my฀communal฀nature.฀(Marx฀ 1844/1975b:฀227–8;฀emphasis฀in฀the฀original)

Marx฀makes฀several฀points฀in฀this฀passage.฀The฀objects฀produced฀by฀the฀individuals฀entail฀the฀transformation฀of฀raw฀materials฀provided฀by฀the฀natural฀world฀through฀ the฀mental฀and฀physical฀activity฀of฀those฀persons.฀The฀objects฀are฀a฀manifestation฀of฀ their฀activity฀in฀a฀congealed฀or฀crystallized฀form;฀as฀a฀result,฀the฀person฀and฀object฀ are฀viewed฀as฀belonging฀to฀the฀same฀ontological฀category฀rather฀than฀to฀separate,฀ distinct฀categories฀of฀person฀and฀thing฀(Bernstein฀1971:฀44).฀The฀object฀produced฀ by฀one฀individual฀satisfies฀a฀need฀perceived฀by฀the฀other;฀thus,฀in฀Marx’s฀terms,฀the฀ objects฀are฀use฀values.฀During฀the฀process฀of฀producing฀the฀object,฀the฀individual฀ imagines฀the฀object฀in฀its฀finished฀form฀and฀subordinates฀his฀will฀to฀the฀task฀at฀hand.฀ As฀Marx฀(1863–7/1977:฀284)฀would฀put฀it฀later:฀“Besides฀the฀exertion฀of฀bodily฀ organs,฀the฀process฀demands฀that,฀during฀the฀whole฀operation,฀the฀workman’s฀will฀ be฀steadily฀in฀consonance฀with฀his฀purpose.”฀The฀way฀human฀beings฀apprehend฀ the฀world฀with฀their฀bodies,฀how฀they฀interact฀with฀the฀natural฀and฀social฀worlds฀in฀ which฀they฀live,฀and฀how฀they฀relate฀to฀each฀other฀in฀these฀processes฀are฀all฀aspects฀ of฀objectification.฀In฀the฀process฀of฀objectification,฀human฀beings฀have฀not฀only฀made฀ themselves;฀they฀also฀portray฀themselves฀as฀having฀dissolved฀the฀unity฀of฀nature฀and฀ as฀having฀a฀separate฀existence฀from฀the฀material฀world.฀This฀is฀Marx’s฀theory฀of฀ alienation,฀which฀is฀ultimately฀concerned฀with฀the฀separation฀of฀human฀beings฀from฀ their฀practical฀activity,฀from฀the฀products฀they฀create,฀from฀one฀another,฀and฀from฀ the฀realization฀of฀their฀own฀potential.฀Thus,฀the฀questions฀of฀how฀and฀what฀human฀ beings฀produce฀are฀especially฀important,฀because฀Marx฀tied฀them฀to฀the฀question฀of฀ freedom,฀which฀ultimately฀involves฀removing฀impediments฀to฀the฀development฀of฀ the฀human฀capacity. Marx฀(e.g.฀1844/1975a:฀270–82;฀1857–8/1973:฀831–3)฀is฀clear฀that฀objectification฀ takes฀different฀forms฀in฀different฀sociohistorical฀settings.฀In฀modern฀capitalist฀society,฀ for฀instance,฀it฀involves฀alienation฀or฀estrangement฀of฀the฀worker฀from฀the฀product฀ of฀his฀labor฀because฀of฀social฀relations฀that฀based฀on฀wage฀labor,฀private฀property฀ in฀the฀means฀of฀production,฀and฀market฀exchange.฀Marx฀describes฀the฀process฀by฀ which฀alienation฀emerges฀historically฀in฀capitalist฀society฀from฀a฀certain฀point฀of฀ departure: The฀worker฀becomes฀all฀the฀poorer฀the฀more฀wealth฀he฀produces,฀the฀more฀his฀production฀ increases฀in฀power฀and฀size.฀The฀worker฀becomes฀an฀ever฀cheaper฀commodity฀the฀more฀ commodities฀he฀creates.฀The฀devaluation฀of฀the฀world฀of฀men฀is฀in฀direct฀proportion฀to฀ the฀increasing฀value฀of฀the฀world฀of฀things.฀Labour฀produces฀not฀only฀commodities:฀it฀ produces฀itself฀and฀the฀worker฀as฀a฀commodity.฀.฀.฀.฀This฀fact฀expresses฀merely฀that฀the฀ object฀which฀labour฀produces—labour’s฀product—confronts฀it฀as฀something฀alien,฀as฀

Marx’s฀Anthropology฀ •฀ 59 a฀power฀independent฀of฀the฀producer.฀The฀product฀of฀labour฀is฀labour฀which฀has฀been฀ embodied฀in฀an฀object:฀it฀is฀the฀objectification฀of฀labour.฀Labour’s฀realisation฀is฀its฀ objectification.฀Under฀these฀economic฀conditions฀this฀realization฀of฀labour฀appears฀as฀ loss฀of฀realization฀for฀the฀workers;฀objectification฀as฀loss฀of฀the฀object฀and฀bondage฀ [subservience]฀to฀it;฀appropriation฀as฀estrangement,฀as฀alienation฀[and฀as฀externalization]฀.฀.฀.฀(1844/1975a:฀271–3;฀emphasis฀in฀the฀original)

Marx฀proceeds฀to฀point฀out฀that฀“Political฀economy฀conceals฀the฀estrangement฀ inherent฀in฀the฀nature฀of฀labour฀by฀not฀considering฀the฀direct฀relationship฀between฀ the฀worker฀(labour)฀and฀production”฀(1844/1975a:฀274;฀emphasis฀in฀the฀original).฀ In฀other฀words,฀because฀they฀posit฀the฀categories฀and฀conditions฀that฀are฀historically฀ specific฀to฀capitalist฀production฀as฀transhistorical฀and฀hence฀universally฀applicable,฀ the฀ political฀ economists฀ have฀ only฀ a฀ partial฀ understanding฀ of฀ this฀ historically฀ contingent฀reality.฀They฀have฀created฀instead฀an฀ideology฀and฀continue฀to฀portray฀ their฀representation฀of฀the฀world฀as฀real. Consciousness,฀the฀second฀dimension฀of฀Marx’s฀theory฀of฀praxis,฀is฀intimately฀ related฀to฀objectification.฀For฀Marx,฀consciousness฀of฀nature฀is฀always฀a฀social฀ product฀conditioned฀by฀the฀level฀of฀development฀of฀the฀forces฀of฀production฀and฀the฀ ensembles฀of฀social฀relations฀and฀cultural฀forms฀associated฀with฀them.฀Consciousness฀originates฀in฀a฀new฀relation฀between฀the฀subject฀and฀self;฀it฀is฀a฀reflective฀ moment฀in฀which฀the฀unity฀of฀humanity฀(subject)฀and฀nature฀(object)฀is฀negated,฀ and฀a฀new฀understanding฀of฀what฀the฀relationship฀could฀be฀is฀initiated฀through฀ human฀activity.฀Consciousness฀is฀an฀integral฀part฀of฀activity—consciousness฀not฀ only฀of฀the฀properties฀of฀the฀raw฀materials฀given฀by฀nature,฀what฀potentially฀can฀ be฀done฀with฀them,฀and฀the฀processes฀for฀transforming฀them,฀but฀also,฀and฀more฀ importantly,฀awareness฀of฀the฀needs,฀feelings,฀and฀sentiments฀of฀other฀persons.฀ For฀Marx,฀consciousness฀is฀simultaneously฀an฀element฀of฀human฀experience,฀a฀ moment฀in฀its฀historical฀development,฀and฀the฀understandings฀that฀result฀from฀the฀ sociohistorical฀development฀under฀historically฀specific฀ensembles฀of฀social฀relations.฀ Thus,฀consciousness฀combines฀both฀real฀(true)฀understandings฀of฀the฀world฀and฀other฀ human฀beings฀with฀misperceptions฀and฀misunderstandings฀of฀both. This฀leads฀us฀to฀a฀third฀dimension฀of฀Marx’s฀idea฀of฀praxis:฀the฀“relentless฀ criticism฀of฀all฀existing฀conditions.”฀This฀aspect฀of฀Marx’s฀work฀was฀already฀crystallizing฀when,฀as฀a฀student,฀he฀was฀first฀beginning฀to฀grapple฀with฀Hegel’s฀thought฀and฀ writings.฀The฀criticism฀of฀the฀writings฀of฀Hegel,฀Feuerbach,฀the฀political฀economists,฀ and฀others฀as฀well฀as฀of฀his฀own฀thoughts฀would฀continue฀for฀the฀rest฀of฀his฀life.฀ The฀kinds฀of฀questions฀he฀posed฀in฀his฀critiques฀were:฀What฀is฀the฀argument?฀What฀ is฀implicit฀and฀explicit฀in฀the฀argument?฀What฀are฀the฀presuppositions?฀Where฀is฀ the฀argument฀persuasive฀and฀why?฀What฀are฀the฀weaknesses฀and฀fallacies฀of฀the฀ argument?฀Where฀is฀it฀ambiguous฀or฀vague?฀What฀empirical฀evidence฀supports฀or฀ refutes฀the฀claim?฀How฀might฀we฀move฀from฀misleading฀or฀inadequate฀arguments฀ to฀ones฀that฀provide฀new฀insights฀and฀fuller฀explanations฀or฀representations฀of฀

60฀ •฀ Karl฀Marx,฀Anthropologist human฀reality?฀What฀are฀the฀implications฀for฀action?฀What฀kinds฀of฀action฀have฀the฀ arguments฀supported฀or฀sustained?฀In฀some฀instances,฀his฀critiques฀involved฀sentenceby-sentence฀analyses฀of฀the฀arguments฀he฀was฀examining฀(e.g.฀Marx฀1843/1975a,฀ 1875/1989,฀1880–2/1974).฀In฀other฀instances,฀they฀were฀the฀bases฀for฀working฀out฀ new฀hypotheses฀(e.g.฀Marx฀1857–8/1973).฀In฀still฀others,฀they฀were฀detailed฀analyses฀ and฀assessments฀of฀the฀balance฀of฀forces฀at฀particular฀historical฀moments,฀like฀the฀ Paris฀Commune,฀and฀why฀the฀particular฀courses฀of฀action฀that฀unfolded฀ultimately฀ failed฀with฀regard฀to฀the฀realization฀of฀human฀freedom฀(e.g.฀Marx฀1871/1986). Thus,฀for฀Marx,฀praxis฀as฀the฀determination฀of฀reality฀begins฀with฀an฀accurate,฀ theoretical฀understanding฀of฀existing฀institutions฀and฀the฀contradictions฀inherent฀ in฀them.฀He฀realized฀the฀importance฀and฀significance฀of฀empirical฀evidence฀in฀the฀ process฀of฀developing฀such฀an฀understanding฀of฀the฀world—that฀is,฀how฀it฀came฀to฀ be฀the฀way฀it฀is฀and,฀given฀the฀conditions฀at฀any฀particular฀time,฀the฀real฀possibilities฀ that฀exist฀for฀the฀future.฀Marx฀was฀not฀particularly฀concerned฀with฀speculating฀about฀ what฀the฀future฀might฀be฀like.฀His฀“relentless฀criticism”฀did฀mean,฀however,฀that฀he฀ devoted฀considerable฀time฀and฀energy฀to฀examining฀the฀ideas฀that฀people฀had฀about฀ the฀world.฀These,฀he฀observed฀repeatedly,฀did฀not฀always฀conform฀to฀ways฀things฀ really฀were,฀although,฀as฀Richard฀Bernstein฀(1971:฀52)฀notes,฀they฀do฀tell฀us฀something฀ about฀the฀reality฀at฀that฀moment฀in฀time.฀They฀are฀representations฀or฀reflections฀of฀ reality฀rather฀than฀reality฀itself.฀Marx’s฀relentless฀criticism฀of฀institutions฀and฀beliefs,฀ then,฀is฀ultimately฀concerned฀with฀understanding฀them฀rather฀than฀condemning฀them฀ outright.฀For฀example,฀in฀a฀famous฀passage,฀Marx฀(1843–4/1975:฀175–6)฀wrote฀that Religious฀suffering฀is฀the฀expression฀of฀real฀suffering฀and฀at฀the฀same฀time฀the฀protest฀ against฀real฀suffering.฀Religion฀is฀the฀sigh฀of฀the฀oppressed฀creature,฀the฀heart฀of฀a฀ heartless฀world,฀as฀it฀is฀the฀spirit฀of฀spiritless฀conditions.฀It฀is฀the฀opium฀of฀the฀people. ฀ The฀abolition฀of฀religion฀as฀a฀people’s฀illusory฀happiness฀is฀a฀demand฀for฀their฀real฀ happiness.฀The฀demand฀to฀abandon฀illusions฀about฀their฀condition฀is฀a฀demand฀to฀ abandon฀a฀condition฀which฀requires฀illusions.฀The฀criticism฀of฀religion฀is฀thus฀in฀embryo฀ a฀criticism฀of฀the฀vale฀of฀tears฀whose฀halo฀is฀religion.฀(as฀translated฀by฀Easton฀and฀ Guddat฀1967:฀250;฀emphasis฀in฀the฀original)

The฀goal฀of฀this฀dimension฀of฀praxis,฀in฀Marx’s฀(1843/1975b:฀144)฀view,฀should฀ be฀the฀“reform฀of฀consciousness฀not฀through฀dogmas,฀but฀by฀analysing฀the฀mystical฀consciousness฀that฀is฀unintelligible฀to฀itself,฀whether฀it฀manifests฀itself฀in฀a฀ religious฀or฀a฀political฀form.”฀A฀correct฀theoretical฀analysis฀of฀politics,฀political฀ economy,฀religion,฀or฀philosophy฀and฀the฀contradictions฀inherent฀in฀them฀would฀ yield฀understanding฀of฀the฀institutions,฀beliefs,฀and฀practices฀involved฀(Bernstein฀ 1971:฀53).฀It฀was฀essential,฀in฀Marx’s฀view,฀to฀speak฀to฀truth฀and฀to฀let฀the฀chips฀fall฀ where฀they฀might.฀Consequently,฀he฀did฀not฀accept฀arguments฀based฀on฀authority฀ or฀divine฀inspiration฀or฀rely฀on฀the฀eloquence฀of฀arguments฀themselves.฀He฀argued฀ instead฀that฀there฀is฀empirical฀evidence฀and฀that฀an฀argument฀should฀mirror฀the฀facts.฀

Marx’s฀Anthropology฀ •฀ 61 In฀other฀words,฀Marx฀was฀committed฀to฀a฀correspondence฀theory฀of฀truth฀whose฀ criterion฀involves฀praxis—i.e.,฀an฀unmediated฀representation฀of฀reality฀of฀both฀the฀ immediate฀forms฀and฀the฀underlying฀structures฀that฀are฀reflected฀in฀them;฀with฀ regards฀to฀the฀criterion฀of฀praxis,฀this฀means฀that฀truth฀must฀be฀explanatory฀rather฀ than฀predictive฀(Bhaskar฀1991b).฀Thus,฀Marx฀rejected฀claims฀based฀on฀authority,฀ divine฀inspiration,฀consensus,฀or฀whether฀an฀argument฀was฀consistent฀with,฀entailed฀ by,฀or฀contingent฀upon฀another฀statement—i.e.,฀what฀philosophers฀call฀subjective,฀ voluntarist,฀or฀coherence฀theories฀of฀truth,฀all฀of฀which฀were฀resurrected฀by฀one฀or฀ another฀subsequent฀writers฀in฀the฀Marxist฀tradition. From฀early฀onward฀in฀his฀writings฀about฀capitalist฀society,฀Marx฀privileged฀ the฀standpoint฀of฀politically฀engaged฀and฀socially฀conscious฀working฀classes฀that฀ are฀capable฀of฀exposing฀and฀potentially฀transcending฀the฀inhumanity฀of฀their฀real฀ existing฀relations฀(e.g.฀Marx฀1843–4/1975:฀184–7;฀1844/1975a:฀281–2;฀1844/1975c:฀ 202–6;฀Marx฀and฀Engels฀1848/1976:฀493–6).฀One฀reason฀for฀this฀stance฀harkens฀ back฀to฀the฀master–slave฀relationship฀that฀Hegel฀described฀in฀his฀Phenomenology฀ of฀Spirit฀(1807/1977:฀111–19,฀§178–96).฀As฀you฀will฀recall฀in฀this฀vignette,฀the฀ master,฀in฀order฀to฀be฀a฀lord,฀must฀possess฀a฀slave,฀who฀produces฀things฀for฀the฀ master฀to฀consume฀and฀is฀dependent฀upon฀him.฀The฀slave฀initially฀takes฀the฀master฀ to฀be฀his฀reality฀and฀lives฀in฀fear฀of฀him;฀his฀essential฀nature฀is฀his฀labor,฀and฀his฀ consciousness฀is฀expressed฀in฀the฀things฀he฀produces,฀which฀are฀externalized฀from฀ himself.฀However,฀the฀more฀the฀master฀succeeds฀in฀his฀lordship,฀the฀more฀he฀fails,฀as฀ he฀slowly฀realizes฀his฀dependent฀consciousness;฀he฀has฀in฀fact฀achieved฀his฀position฀ by฀virtue฀of฀the฀slave฀who฀is฀his฀essential฀reality.฀As฀the฀slave฀begins฀to฀realize฀that฀ he฀is฀more฀than฀the฀things฀he฀produces,฀he฀realizes฀that฀he฀has฀a฀consciousness฀in฀his฀ own฀right฀as฀well฀as฀a฀self-existence฀and฀freedom฀outside฀of฀the฀things฀he฀produces.฀ Increasingly,฀as฀his฀consciousness฀grows฀more฀independent,฀he฀realizes฀that฀he฀can฀ no฀longer฀be฀reduced฀to฀the฀things฀he฀makes.฀Both฀master฀and฀slave฀are฀aware฀of฀ their฀divided฀nature฀and฀contradictory฀being฀(Bernstein฀1971:฀24–8,฀91).฀Clearly,฀ the฀master฀and฀the฀slave฀have฀different฀perceptions฀and฀understandings฀of฀reality.฀ For฀Marx,฀the฀standpoint฀of฀the฀slave฀provides฀a฀fuller,฀more฀accurate฀image฀of฀ reality฀than฀does฀that฀of฀the฀lord.฀While฀there฀is฀no฀impetus฀for฀the฀master฀to฀alter฀his฀ relation฀with฀the฀slave,฀the฀slave฀has฀every฀reason฀to฀emancipate฀himself,฀to฀become฀ a฀free฀human฀being.฀The฀incompleteness฀of฀the฀master’s฀understanding฀as฀well฀as฀the฀ perversity฀of฀his฀actions฀is฀another฀reason฀why฀Marx฀privileged฀the฀perspective฀of฀ an฀engaged,฀conscious฀working฀class.฀In฀his฀view,฀“the฀non-worker฀does฀everything฀ against฀the฀worker฀which฀the฀worker฀does฀himself;฀but฀he฀does฀not฀do฀against฀himself฀ what฀he฀does฀to฀the฀worker”฀(Marx฀1844/1975a:฀282). In฀1845,฀a฀third฀dimension฀of฀Marx’s฀notion฀of฀praxis฀crystallized.฀This฀was฀ revolutionary฀practice,฀or฀as฀he฀put฀it,฀“philosophers฀have฀only฀interpreted฀the฀ world฀in฀various฀ways;฀the฀point฀is,฀to฀change฀it”฀(Marx฀1845/1976:฀5;฀emphasis฀ in฀the฀original).฀This฀coincided฀roughly฀with฀his฀growing฀involvement฀in฀workingclass฀political฀movements฀(e.g.฀the฀Communist฀League),฀the฀deteriorating฀political฀

62฀ •฀ Karl฀Marx,฀Anthropologist situation฀in฀Europe,฀his฀steadily฀more฀difficult฀economic฀circumstances,฀and฀the฀ appearance฀of฀Frederick฀Engels’s฀(1845/1975)฀The฀Condition฀of฀the฀Working-Class฀ in฀England.฀From฀Personal฀Observation฀and฀Authentic฀Sources.฀The฀appearance฀ of฀Marx’s฀“revolutionary฀practice”฀involved฀a฀shift฀in฀perspective฀from฀that฀of฀the฀ sympathetic฀philosopher฀looking฀at฀society฀from฀the฀outside฀to฀that฀of฀an฀empathetic฀ participant฀in฀working-class฀everyday฀life฀and฀struggles—a฀participant฀scrambling฀ to฀provide฀for฀his฀family฀and฀their฀survival,฀who฀simultaneously฀was฀critically฀ assessing฀the฀balance฀of฀forces฀in฀European฀society,฀and฀trying฀to฀devise฀tactics฀and฀ strategies฀for฀altering฀the฀balance฀of฀force฀and฀the฀circumstances฀of฀workers฀(e.g.฀ Draper฀1978;฀McLellan฀1973:฀137–225).฀Perhaps฀the฀most฀famous฀manifestation฀of฀ this฀dimension฀of฀praxis฀is฀Marx฀and฀Engels’s฀(1848/1976:฀519)฀call:฀“working฀men฀ of฀all฀countries,฀unite!” Marx฀did฀not฀elaborate฀a฀theory฀of฀revolutionary฀practice.฀In฀his฀view,฀the฀possibility฀for฀revolution฀was฀a฀dialectical฀one฀that฀built฀on฀the฀contingency฀of฀relations,฀the฀ balance฀of฀forces,฀and฀contradictions฀that฀existed฀at฀a฀particular฀moment.฀He฀did฀not฀ have฀an฀elaborate฀theory฀about฀the฀form฀an฀ensemble฀of฀social฀relations฀would฀take฀ as฀a฀people’s฀genuine฀needs฀were฀recognized฀and฀satisfied฀and฀as฀their฀freedom฀was฀ actualized.฀He฀did฀not฀argue฀for฀a฀set฀trajectory฀of฀historical฀change;฀for฀example,฀ as฀you฀will฀recall฀from฀the฀preceding฀section,฀he฀thought฀of฀pre-capitalist฀modes฀of฀ production฀as฀alternative฀pathways฀out฀of฀a฀primitive฀communal฀condition.฀Instead,฀ he฀pointed฀out฀the฀potential฀for฀revolutionary฀practice฀that฀might฀exist,฀given฀the฀ balance฀of฀forces฀at฀particular฀moments.฀For฀instance,฀he฀suggested฀that฀there฀were฀ at฀least฀two฀alternative฀possibilities฀for฀capitalist฀development฀in฀the฀1860s฀(Marx฀ 1864–94/1981:฀567–73),฀and,฀together฀with฀Engels฀in฀1882,฀he฀contemplated฀the฀ potential฀impact฀of฀the฀ongoing฀class฀struggles฀in฀Russia฀and฀cautiously฀suggested:฀ “If฀the฀Russian฀revolution฀becomes฀the฀signal฀for฀proletarian฀revolution฀in฀the฀West,฀ so฀that฀the฀two฀complement฀each฀other,฀then฀Russia’s฀peasant-communal฀landownership฀may฀serve฀as฀the฀point฀of฀departure฀for฀a฀communist฀development”฀(Marx฀ and฀Engels฀1882/1989:฀426).฀As฀a฀backdrop฀for฀the฀contingency฀of฀revolutionary฀ practice฀were฀conditions฀of฀capitalist฀development฀that฀unfolded฀with฀almost฀lawlike฀predictability:฀the฀constant฀formation฀of฀new฀markets฀for฀commodities;฀the฀ concentration฀and฀centralization฀of฀production฀into฀steadily฀fewer฀and,฀at฀the฀same฀ time,฀larger฀enterprises;฀increased฀rates฀of฀technological฀innovation;฀the฀increased฀ importance฀of฀technology฀relative฀to฀human฀labor฀power฀in฀developing฀economic฀ sectors;฀the฀tendency฀of฀the฀rate฀of฀profit฀to฀fall;฀and฀periodic฀economic฀and฀financial฀ crises฀that฀result฀from฀the฀impossibility฀of฀a฀smooth,฀continuous฀process฀of฀capital฀ accumulation. In฀this฀chapter,฀we฀have฀sketched฀the฀outlines฀of฀Marx’s฀anthropology.฀As฀we฀ have฀seen,฀Marx฀read฀widely฀and฀thoughtfully.฀At฀the฀same฀time,฀his฀interpersonal฀ relationships฀and฀experiences฀while฀growing฀up฀in฀the฀Rhineland฀and,฀later,฀his฀ steadily฀increasing฀involvement฀in฀political฀activism฀made฀him฀aware฀of฀what฀was฀ happening฀in฀the฀world.฀His฀declining฀economic฀circumstances฀from฀the฀early฀

Marx’s฀Anthropology฀ •฀ 63 1840s฀onward฀thrust฀him฀into฀the฀working฀classes฀and฀helped฀to฀forge฀an฀awareness฀ and฀consciousness฀of฀the฀fact฀that฀he฀could฀learn฀much฀from฀the฀experiences฀and฀ understanding฀that฀the฀masses฀of฀workers฀had฀of฀the฀world฀in฀which฀they฀lived.฀ The฀workers฀were฀not฀the฀objects฀of฀inquiry฀to฀be฀described฀and฀reported฀to฀the฀ world;฀they฀were฀instead฀thoughtful,฀perceptive฀individuals฀with฀vast฀funds฀of฀ knowledge฀from฀whom฀the฀world฀could฀learn.฀In฀this฀sketch฀of฀Marx’s฀anthropology,฀ we฀have฀focused฀on฀the฀corporeal฀organization฀of฀human฀beings,฀the฀significance฀ of฀ensembles฀of฀social฀relations,฀the฀historicity฀and฀diversity฀of฀human฀societies฀ and฀their฀propensities฀to฀change,฀and฀the฀importance฀of฀praxis฀in฀the฀production,฀ reproduction,฀and฀transformation฀of฀those฀communities.฀We฀have฀seen฀how฀Marx฀ interwove฀the฀corporeal฀organization฀of฀human฀beings฀and฀their฀sociality฀with฀the฀ diversity฀of฀their฀social฀relations฀as฀they฀engaged฀in฀practical฀activity฀to฀transform฀ the฀raw฀materials฀of฀the฀environments฀to฀satisfy฀needs฀and฀to฀create฀new฀ones.

This page intentionally left blank

–3– Human฀Natural฀Beings Marx฀was฀a฀materialist.฀In฀1837,฀during฀his฀second฀year฀at฀the฀University฀of฀Berlin,฀ he฀wrote฀to฀his฀father฀mentioning฀his฀struggle฀to฀understand฀Hegel’s฀system฀of฀ philosophy฀and,฀more฀importantly,฀describing฀his฀efforts฀to฀bring฀together฀art฀and฀ science,฀which฀were฀divorced฀from฀one฀another฀in฀the฀university฀(Marx฀1837/1975:฀ 18).฀While฀many฀writers฀have฀focused฀on฀Marx’s฀intellectual฀debt฀to฀Hegel,฀fewer฀ have฀examined฀his฀connections฀with฀traditions฀of฀materialist฀thought.฀His฀attempt฀ to฀bring฀the฀arts฀and฀sciences฀together฀in฀a฀single฀system฀involved฀studies฀in฀natural฀ science,฀history,฀and฀the฀romantic฀philosophy฀of฀Friedrich฀Schelling฀(1755–1854)฀ who฀sought฀the฀common฀basis฀of฀nature฀and฀self.฀Two฀years฀later,฀Marx฀(1839/1975)฀ took฀extensive฀notes฀on฀the฀non-deterministic฀materialism฀of฀Epicurus฀(341–271฀ BC)฀and฀the฀school฀he฀established.฀Briefly,฀the฀Epicureans฀believed฀that฀life฀rose฀ up฀from฀the฀earth฀rather฀than฀descending฀from฀the฀heavens;฀claimed฀that฀there฀ were฀more฀worlds฀than฀this฀one฀and฀that฀the฀present฀one฀will฀change;฀noted฀the฀ emergence฀and฀finite฀duration฀of฀living฀forms;฀denied฀the฀influence฀of฀distant,฀divine฀ powers;฀stressed฀the฀importance฀of฀contingency฀or฀chance฀as฀opposed฀to฀necessity฀ or฀teleology;฀argued฀that฀mind฀and฀body฀were฀united;฀and฀emphasized฀that฀men฀and฀ women฀were฀active฀agents฀in฀the฀acquisition฀of฀knowledge฀and฀that฀they฀were฀capable฀ of฀forging฀their฀own฀happiness฀(Foster฀2000:฀21–65).฀Marx’s฀doctoral฀dissertation,฀ which฀he฀completed฀in฀1841,฀dealt฀with฀the฀differences฀between฀ancient฀Greek฀ philosophies฀of฀nature฀(Marx฀1840–1/1975).฀In฀his฀view,฀the฀Epicureans฀who฀had฀ influenced฀early฀Enlightenment฀writers—like฀Francis฀Bacon,฀Thomas฀Hobbes,฀and฀ Isaac฀Newton—were฀also฀the฀key฀that฀would฀unlock฀understanding฀of฀the฀present.฀ Marx฀thought฀of฀Epicurus฀as฀“the฀greatest฀representative฀of฀Greek฀Enlightenment”฀ (Marx฀1840–1/1975:฀73). As฀we฀saw฀in฀the฀last฀chapter,฀Marx฀was฀concerned฀with฀questions฀about฀the฀ emergence฀and฀development฀of฀human฀natural฀beings,฀their฀creation฀of฀human฀and฀ natural฀history,฀and฀their฀metabolism฀with฀nature.฀These฀were฀important฀issues฀in฀his฀ materialist฀account฀of฀history.฀He฀framed฀his฀argument฀in฀terms฀of฀changes฀in฀human฀ corporeal฀organization,฀ensembles฀of฀social฀relations,฀and฀activities฀and฀practices฀ that฀varied฀because฀of฀the฀different฀metabolisms฀that฀existed฀between฀human฀social฀ individuals฀and฀the฀particular฀natural฀and฀social฀worlds฀(environments)฀in฀which฀ they฀lived.฀He฀saw฀these฀changes฀in฀non-teleological,฀historical฀terms.฀Parts฀of฀his฀ theoretical฀perspective฀were฀already฀supported฀by฀empirical฀evidence฀while฀other฀ parts฀were฀suppositions฀based฀on฀the฀limited฀evidence฀available.฀This฀combination฀

65

66฀ •฀ Karl฀Marx,฀Anthropologist included฀ (1)฀ the฀ anatomical฀ similarities฀ of฀ human฀ beings฀ and฀ chimpanzees฀ recognized฀by฀Edward฀Tyson฀in฀1699;฀(2)฀the฀close฀taxonomic฀and฀presumably฀ historical฀relationship฀of฀human฀beings฀and฀non-human฀primates฀postulated฀by฀ Carolus฀Linnaeus฀in฀the฀1735฀and฀subsequent฀editions฀of฀his฀Systema฀Naturae;฀(3)฀ the฀diverse฀arguments฀proposed฀from฀1750฀onward฀by฀the฀Comte฀de฀Buffon,฀James฀ Hutton,฀Charles฀Lyell,฀and฀Abraham฀Gottlob฀Werner฀that฀the฀earth฀was฀significantly฀ older฀than฀commonly฀believed;฀and฀(4)฀the฀view฀expounded฀by฀Georges฀Cuvier฀in฀ 1812฀that฀there฀was,฀in฀fact,฀a฀succession฀of฀past฀worlds฀on฀earth.฀Thus,฀as฀Valentino฀ Gerratana฀(1973:฀64)฀put฀it,฀“Marx฀was฀already฀not฀only฀taking฀for฀granted฀the฀ principle฀of฀the฀historical฀evolution฀of฀animal฀species฀and฀of฀nature฀in฀general,฀which฀ found฀little฀favour฀in฀the฀sciences฀of฀the฀time,฀but฀[he฀was]฀also฀tending฀to฀exclude฀ from฀that฀evolution฀any฀finalist฀[teleological]฀assumption.” From฀the฀late฀1830s฀onward,฀when฀Marx฀was฀formulating฀his฀materialist฀conception฀ of฀ history,฀ his฀ slightly฀ older฀ contemporary—a฀ young฀ Englishman฀ named฀ Charles฀Darwin฀(1809–82)—was฀also฀working฀out฀his฀own฀materialist฀views฀about฀ the฀historical฀evolution฀of฀plants฀and฀animals฀(Ospovat฀1981).฀Perhaps฀Marx’s฀ (1857–8/1973:฀ 105)฀ most฀ directly฀ germane฀ comment฀ about฀ human฀ evolution฀ before฀the฀appearance฀of฀Darwin’s฀The฀Origin฀of฀Species฀in฀1859฀was฀that฀“human฀ anatomy฀ contains฀ a฀ key฀ to฀ the฀ anatomy฀ of฀ the฀ ape.฀The฀ intimations฀ of฀ higher฀ development฀among฀the฀subordinate฀animal฀species,฀however,฀can฀be฀understood฀ only฀after฀the฀higher฀development฀is฀already฀known.”฀His฀later฀remark—“since฀ Darwin฀demonstrated฀that฀we฀are฀all฀descended฀from฀apes,฀there฀is฀scarcely฀any฀ shock฀whatever฀that฀could฀shake฀‘our฀ancestral฀pride’”—suggests฀that,฀while฀Marx฀ (1864/1985)฀was฀amused฀at฀the฀public฀outcry฀over฀the฀implications฀of฀Darwin’s฀ideas฀ (i.e.,฀human฀beings฀and฀apes฀shared฀a฀common฀ancestor,฀and฀there฀was฀a฀transition฀ from฀ape฀to฀human),฀he฀was฀definitely฀not฀bothered฀by฀them.฀As฀we฀shall฀see,฀while฀ Marx,฀in฀fact,฀had฀the฀highest฀regard฀for฀Darwin’s฀insights,฀he฀was฀also฀critical฀of฀the฀ way฀in฀which฀Darwin฀and฀others฀naturalized฀explanations฀of฀social฀inequality฀and฀ other฀culturally฀constructed฀categories. Thus,฀this฀chapter฀has฀four฀goals.฀The฀first฀is฀to฀review฀the฀bases฀for฀Marx’s฀agreement฀and฀positive฀valuation฀of฀Darwin’s฀arguments฀in฀The฀Origin฀of฀Species฀and฀to฀ survey฀subsequent฀developments฀of฀evolutionary฀theory.฀The฀second฀is฀to฀use฀the฀ lens฀provided฀by฀Engels’s฀(1876/1972)฀“The฀Part฀Played฀by฀Labor฀in฀the฀Transition฀ from฀Ape฀to฀Man”฀and฀by฀Marx’s฀own฀theoretical฀framework฀to฀examine฀relevant฀ data฀derived฀from฀paleoanthropology฀and฀the฀natural฀sciences฀in฀order฀to฀discern฀the฀ interplay฀of฀the฀changing฀dispositions฀and฀anatomical฀structures฀of฀human฀beings฀ and฀their฀primate฀relatives฀as฀well฀as฀the฀emergence฀of฀practices฀such฀as฀tool-making฀ and฀language.฀The฀third฀is฀to฀consider฀the฀implications฀of฀this฀biocultural฀nature฀for฀ population฀structures.฀The฀fourth฀is฀to฀examine฀briefly฀Marx’s฀and฀Engels’s฀critique฀ of฀the฀naturalization฀of฀explanations฀of฀the฀social฀relations฀of฀capitalist฀society฀and฀ how฀this฀critique฀played฀out฀in฀the฀historical฀development฀of฀anthropology฀both฀here฀ and฀abroad.

Human฀Natural฀Beings฀ •฀ 67

Charles฀Darwin฀and฀the฀Development฀of฀Modern฀Evolutionary฀ Theory Marx฀(1860/1985)฀first฀read฀The฀Origin฀of฀Species฀in฀1860.฀He฀immediately฀recognized฀ its฀significance,฀and,฀except฀for฀a฀minor฀complaint฀about฀the฀style฀of฀the฀argument,฀ he฀had฀nothing฀but฀praise฀for฀the฀volume.฀Marx฀commented฀explicitly฀about฀certain฀ points฀of฀agreement฀or฀conclusions฀he฀drew฀from฀Darwin’s฀arguments.฀Moreover,฀ there฀must฀have฀been฀other฀points฀of฀agreement฀between฀Marx฀and฀Darwin฀because฀ of฀the฀materialist฀perspective฀they฀shared;฀these฀can฀be฀inferred฀either฀from฀Marx’s฀ other฀writings฀or฀from฀the฀implications฀of฀his฀materialist฀theoretical฀perspective.฀ The฀former฀include:฀(1)฀a฀short฀quote฀from฀Darwin’s฀chapter฀on฀variation฀describing฀ how฀natural฀selection฀acts฀on฀variations฀of฀form฀under฀different฀conditions฀(Marx฀ 1861–3/1991:฀387–8;฀1863–7/1977:฀461);฀(2)฀the฀notion฀that฀evolution฀is฀a฀gradual,฀ ongoing฀process฀(Marx฀1867/1987:฀494,฀1868/1987a:฀558–9);฀(3)฀evolution฀involves฀ both฀the฀continued฀preservation฀of฀what฀has฀been฀inherited฀and฀the฀assimilation฀of฀ new฀traits฀(Marx฀1861–3/1989:฀427–8);฀(4)฀acknowledgement฀of฀Darwin’s฀“history฀ of฀natural฀technology,฀the฀formation฀of฀the฀organs฀of฀plants฀and฀animals,฀which฀serve฀ as฀the฀instruments฀of฀production฀for฀sustaining฀their฀life”฀(Marx฀1863–7/1977:฀493);฀ (5)฀a฀refutation฀of฀Malthus฀in฀Darwin’s฀discussion฀of฀the฀extinction฀of฀animal฀species฀ (Marx฀1861–3/1989:฀350–1);฀(6)฀human฀natural฀beings฀are฀descended฀from฀apes฀ and,฀hence,฀are฀also฀a฀unity฀with฀nature฀(Marx฀1864/1985:฀581;฀Marx฀and฀Engels฀ 1845–6/1976:฀39–41);฀(7)฀Darwin’s฀“struggle฀for฀existence”฀in฀natural฀history฀is฀ analogous฀to฀class฀struggle฀in฀human฀history฀(Marx฀1860/1985:฀232);฀and฀(8)฀a฀ rejection฀of฀teleological฀arguments฀in฀natural฀science฀and,฀by฀extension,฀the฀adoption฀ of฀a฀notion฀of฀historically฀contingent฀change฀(Marx฀1861/1985:฀246–7).฀In฀the฀latter฀ category฀of฀inferences฀that฀may฀be฀drawn฀from฀Marx’s฀other฀writings฀or฀from฀his฀ materialist฀perspective,฀we฀should฀include฀at฀least:฀(9)฀a฀notion฀of฀internal฀motors฀of฀ formation฀and฀change฀as฀opposed฀to฀external฀engines฀of฀development,฀and฀(10)฀nonreductive฀forms฀of฀argumentation.฀In฀my฀view,฀one฀thing฀that฀emerges฀from฀Marx’s฀ comments฀is฀that฀he฀saw฀Darwin,฀like฀himself,฀as฀more฀concerned฀with฀explaining฀ processes฀of฀change฀rather฀than฀origins฀or฀events.

Darwin’s฀Metaphors฀and฀Theory฀of฀Evolution฀by฀Natural฀Selection The฀idea฀of฀evolution฀was฀“in฀the฀air”฀by฀the฀beginning฀of฀the฀nineteenth฀century.฀The฀ universe฀had฀evolved฀according฀to฀Kant,฀the฀earth฀had฀evolved฀gradually฀according฀ to฀Hutton,฀life฀on฀earth฀had฀evolved฀according฀to฀Lamarck฀and฀Geoffrey฀St.฀Hilaire,฀ and฀even฀human฀beings฀had฀evolved฀according฀to฀Buffon฀and฀Rousseau—from฀apes฀ no฀less.฀Nevertheless,฀there฀was฀a฀good฀deal฀of฀resistance฀to฀the฀idea฀of฀evolution.฀ Part฀of฀it฀arose฀from฀the฀fact฀that฀none฀of฀Darwin’s฀predecessors฀had฀satisfactorily฀ explained฀how฀one฀species฀actually฀evolved฀into฀another.฀The฀other฀source฀of฀

68฀ •฀ Karl฀Marx,฀Anthropologist discontent฀among฀the฀public฀and฀a฀few฀natural฀historians฀was฀that฀it฀threatened฀their฀ beliefs,฀religious฀and฀otherwise,฀about฀the฀world฀and฀man’s฀place฀in฀it฀(Desmond฀ 1989).฀The฀publication฀of฀Charles฀Darwin’s฀The฀Origin฀of฀Species฀in฀1859฀fuelled฀ the฀discontent.฀At฀the฀same฀time,฀it฀marked฀a฀radical฀departure฀from฀the฀teleological฀ worldviews฀of฀his฀predecessors,฀who฀saw฀“the฀real฀objects฀of฀the฀world฀as฀imperfect฀ reflections฀of฀underlying฀ideals฀or฀essences”฀and฀“that฀the฀real฀variations฀between฀ real฀objects฀only฀confuse฀us฀in฀our฀attempts฀to฀see฀the฀essential฀nature฀of฀the฀universe”฀(Lewontin฀1974:฀168).฀Instead฀of฀sweeping฀away฀the฀real฀variations฀among฀ individuals฀of฀the฀same฀species฀in฀order฀to฀focus฀on฀the฀type,฀Darwin฀focused฀his฀ attention฀on฀that฀variation฀and฀made฀it฀the฀object฀of฀his฀study.฀His฀singularly฀stunning฀ insight,฀as฀Richard฀Lewontin฀put฀it,฀was฀that individual฀variation฀and฀the฀differences฀between฀species฀were฀causally฀related.฀Darwin’s฀ revolutionary฀theory฀was฀that฀the฀differences฀between฀organisms฀within฀a฀species฀are฀ converted฀to฀the฀differences฀between฀species฀in฀space฀and฀time.฀Thus,฀the฀differences฀ between฀species฀are฀already฀latent฀within฀them,฀and฀all฀that฀is฀required฀is฀a฀motive฀force฀ for฀the฀conversion฀of฀variation.฀That฀force฀is฀natural฀selection.฀(1974:฀170;฀emphasis฀in฀ the฀original)

Darwin,฀ like฀ Marx,฀ initially฀ framed฀ his฀ ideas฀ in฀ terms฀ of฀ already฀ existing฀ metaphors,฀analogies,฀and฀analytical฀categories.฀He฀built฀on฀the฀language฀and฀ imagery฀of฀German฀romanticism,฀political฀economy,฀animal฀breeding,฀and฀natural฀ science฀as฀he฀struggled฀to฀explain฀his฀new฀understandings฀of฀the฀natural฀world฀and฀ the฀evolution฀of฀species฀(e.g.฀Kohn฀1996;฀Richards฀1992;฀Schweber฀1980,฀1985).฀ Anyone฀who฀has฀ever฀written฀even฀a฀term฀paper฀will฀understand฀and฀hopefully฀be฀ sympathetic฀with฀the฀notion฀that฀the฀language฀and฀imagery฀in฀which฀arguments฀ are฀initially฀conceived฀are฀often฀quite฀different฀from฀those฀that฀clearly฀explain฀ ideas฀and฀their฀implications.฀In฀a฀more฀self-reflexive฀moment,฀perhaps,฀this฀might฀ account฀for฀Marx’s฀two฀comments฀in฀letters฀about฀Darwin’s฀“clumsy฀English฀style฀of฀ argumentation”฀as฀well฀as฀his฀own,฀at฀times,฀fumbling฀and฀often฀opaque฀attempts฀to฀ say฀what฀he฀actually฀meant. Darwin฀used฀four฀powerful฀metaphors฀in฀The฀Origin฀of฀Species฀to฀frame฀and฀ express฀his฀new฀ideas฀about฀nature,฀variation,฀and฀the฀motor฀force฀driving฀evolution.฀ They฀are฀“an฀entangled฀bank,”฀“the฀struggle฀for฀existence,”฀“natural฀selection,”฀and฀ “wedging.”฀His฀metaphors฀were฀used฀singularly฀or฀more฀frequently฀in฀combination฀ to฀produce฀powerful,฀evocative฀images฀rich฀in฀meaning.฀He฀employed฀the฀phrase฀ “an฀entangled฀bank”฀to฀express฀the฀complexity฀of฀organization฀of฀nature.฀The฀dual฀ sources฀of฀inspiration฀were฀the฀engravings,฀paintings,฀and฀poems฀he฀was฀familiar฀ with฀before฀his฀journey฀on฀the฀Beagle,฀on฀the฀one฀hand,฀and฀the฀luxuriant,฀Amazonian฀ rainforests฀of฀Brazil,฀on฀the฀other฀(Kohn฀1996).฀In฀The฀Origin,฀Darwin฀described฀the฀ interrelatedness฀of฀all฀nature฀in฀the฀following฀way:

Human฀Natural฀Beings฀ •฀ 69 It฀is฀interesting฀to฀contemplate฀the฀entangled฀bank,฀clothed฀with฀many฀plants฀of฀many฀ kinds฀with฀birds฀singing฀on฀the฀bushes,฀with฀various฀insects฀flitting฀about,฀and฀with฀ worms฀crawling฀through฀the฀damp฀earth,฀and฀to฀reflect฀that฀these฀elaborately฀constructed฀ forms,฀so฀different฀from฀each฀other,฀and฀dependent฀on฀each฀other฀in฀so฀complex฀a฀manner,฀ have฀all฀been฀produced฀by฀laws฀acting฀around฀us.฀(1859/1964:฀489;฀emphasis฀added)

Darwin’s฀second฀metaphor฀was฀“the฀struggle฀for฀existence.”฀It฀too฀was฀not฀a฀ new฀idea.฀Herder,฀for฀example,฀had฀remarked฀on฀crowding฀as฀well฀as฀the฀struggle฀ between฀individuals฀and฀between฀species฀for฀survival;฀however,฀there฀was฀no฀sense฀ of฀the฀potential฀for฀transformation฀in฀his฀view฀(Lovejoy฀1959b:฀211–2).฀Darwin,฀in฀ contrast,฀used฀the฀metaphor฀to฀mean฀interdependence,฀chance,฀as฀well฀as฀contest,฀ endurance,฀or฀persistence.฀He฀wrote฀that: I฀should฀premise฀that฀I฀use฀the฀term฀Struggle฀for฀Existence฀in฀a฀large฀and฀metaphorical฀ sense,฀including฀dependence฀of฀one฀being฀on฀another,฀and฀including฀(which฀is฀more฀ important)฀not฀only฀the฀life฀of฀the฀individual฀but฀success฀in฀leaving฀progeny.฀Two฀canine฀ animals฀in฀a฀time฀of฀dearth,฀may฀be฀truly฀said฀to฀struggle฀with฀each฀other฀over฀which฀ shall฀get฀food฀and฀live.฀But฀a฀plant฀on฀the฀edge฀of฀the฀desert฀is฀said฀to฀struggle฀for฀life฀ against฀the฀drought,฀though฀more฀properly฀it฀should฀be฀said฀to฀be฀dependent฀on฀moisture.฀ A฀plant฀which฀annually฀produces฀a฀thousand฀seeds,฀of฀which฀on฀average฀only฀one฀comes฀ to฀maturity,฀may฀be฀said฀be฀more฀or฀less฀truly฀said฀to฀struggle฀with฀plants฀of฀the฀same฀ and฀other฀kinds฀which฀already฀clothe฀the฀ground.฀The฀mistletoe฀is฀dependent฀on฀the฀apple฀ and฀a฀few฀other฀trees,฀but฀can฀only฀in฀a฀far-fetched฀way฀be฀said฀to฀struggle฀with฀these฀ trees,฀for฀if฀too฀many฀of฀these฀parasites฀grow฀on฀the฀same฀tree,฀it฀will฀languish฀and฀die.฀ But฀several฀seedling฀mistletoes,฀growing฀close฀together฀on฀the฀same฀branch,฀may฀more฀ truly฀be฀said฀to฀struggle฀with฀each฀other.฀As฀the฀mistletoe฀is฀disseminated฀by฀birds,฀its฀ existence฀depends฀on฀birds;฀and฀it฀may฀metaphorically฀be฀said฀to฀struggle฀with฀other฀ fruit-bearing฀plants,฀in฀order฀to฀tempt฀birds฀to฀devour฀and฀thus฀disseminate฀its฀seeds฀ rather฀than฀those฀of฀other฀plants.฀In฀these฀several฀senses฀which฀pass฀into฀each฀other,฀I฀use฀ for฀convenience฀the฀general฀term฀of฀struggle฀for฀existence.฀(Darwin฀(1859/1964:฀62–3;฀ emphasis฀added)

Darwin’s฀third฀metaphor,฀“natural฀selection,”฀was฀used฀to฀describe฀both฀how฀ variation฀is฀maintained฀and฀how฀descent฀with฀modification฀occurs.฀He฀relates฀it฀to฀his฀ second฀metaphor,฀the฀struggle฀for฀existence: Owing฀to฀this฀struggle฀for฀life,฀any฀variation,฀however฀slight฀and฀from฀whatever฀cause฀ proceeding,฀if฀it฀be฀in฀any฀degree฀profitable฀to฀an฀individual฀of฀any฀species,฀in฀its฀infinitely฀complex฀relations฀to฀other฀organic฀beings฀and฀to฀external฀nature,฀will฀tend฀to฀ the฀preservation฀of฀that฀individual,฀and฀will฀generally฀be฀inherited฀by฀its฀offspring.฀The฀ offspring,฀also,฀will฀thus฀have฀a฀better฀chance฀of฀surviving,฀for,฀of฀the฀many฀individuals฀of฀ any฀species฀which฀are฀born,฀but฀a฀small฀number฀can฀survive.฀I฀have฀called฀this฀principle,฀ by฀which฀each฀slight฀variation,฀if฀useful,฀is฀preserved฀by฀the฀term฀Natural฀Selection,฀in฀

70฀ •฀ Karl฀Marx,฀Anthropologist order฀to฀mark฀its฀relation฀to฀man’s฀power฀of฀selection.฀(Darwin฀1859/1964:฀61;฀emphasis฀ added)

Darwin฀used฀his฀fourth฀metaphor,฀“wedging,”฀to฀represent฀in฀mechanical฀terms฀ how฀natural฀selection฀actually฀operates฀on฀the฀hereditary฀variation฀that฀exists฀between฀ individuals฀and฀between฀species.฀The฀imagery฀refers฀specifically฀to฀the฀activities฀of฀ quarrymen฀and฀the฀implement฀they฀used฀at฀the฀Salisbury฀Craigs฀in฀Scotland฀to฀cut฀ stone฀from฀the฀cliff฀faces,฀and,฀in฀the฀process,฀how฀they฀transformed฀a฀beautiful฀ natural฀landscape฀into฀an฀ugly฀monument฀(Kohn฀1996:฀36). The฀fact฀of฀nature฀may฀be฀compared฀to฀a฀yielding฀surface,฀with฀ten฀thousand฀sharp฀ wedges฀packed฀close฀together฀and฀driven฀by฀incessant฀blow,฀sometimes฀one฀wedge฀being฀ struck,฀and฀then฀another฀with฀greater฀force.฀(Darwin฀1859/1964:฀67)

Let฀us฀describe฀Darwin’s฀theory฀of฀evolution฀by฀natural฀selection฀in฀slightly฀ different฀terms.฀It฀is฀based฀on฀a฀series฀of฀observations฀he฀made฀about฀differences฀ between฀ individuals฀ and฀ on฀ breeding฀ experiments฀ that฀ he฀ and฀ other฀ breeders฀ conducted.฀First,฀hereditary฀variation฀exists฀between฀individuals฀of฀the฀same฀species฀ and฀between฀different฀species.฀Second,฀the฀number฀of฀eggs,฀sperm,฀or฀seeds฀produced฀ by฀an฀individual฀vastly฀exceeds฀the฀number฀of฀individuals฀born.฀This,฀in฀turn,฀ exceeds฀the฀number฀that฀survive฀to฀the฀reproductive฀stage฀and฀that฀can฀potentially฀ contribute฀hereditary฀material฀to฀the฀next฀generation;฀in฀one฀of฀Darwin’s฀plant฀ breeding฀experiments฀only฀about฀one฀seed฀of฀a฀thousand฀actually฀germinated.฀Third,฀ some฀individuals฀have฀a฀greater฀likelihood฀of฀becoming฀adults฀and฀reproducing฀than฀ others,฀because฀the฀hereditary฀material฀they฀possess฀is฀advantageous฀for฀some฀reason฀ in฀the฀environments฀in฀which฀they฀live.฀Fourth,฀as฀a฀result฀of฀differential฀survival,฀ this฀advantageous฀material฀has฀a฀greater฀likelihood฀of฀being฀passed฀on฀to฀succeeding฀ generations.฀Thus,฀Darwin฀could฀explain฀how฀both฀descent฀with฀modification฀and฀ the฀formation฀of฀new฀species฀(speciation)฀occurred.฀He฀could฀account฀for฀the฀way฀ these฀happened.฀He฀could฀assert฀with฀certainty฀that฀the฀kinds฀of฀plants฀and฀animals฀ that฀exist฀today฀are฀the฀modified฀descendents฀of฀different฀kinds฀of฀organisms฀that฀ lived฀in฀the฀past.฀He฀could฀declare฀with฀equal฀certainty฀that฀whatever฀happened฀in฀the฀ future฀would฀be฀based฀on฀the฀organisms฀and฀conditions฀of฀the฀present. Darwin’s฀great฀insights฀were฀the฀principles฀of฀variation,฀heredity,฀and฀selection.฀ What฀ he฀ could฀ not฀ explain,฀ however,฀ was฀ the฀ connection฀ between฀ individual฀ variation,฀on฀the฀one฀hand,฀and฀the฀inheritance฀(heritability)฀of฀characteristics฀from฀ one฀generation฀to฀the฀next,฀on฀the฀other.฀An฀Augustinian฀monk—Gregor฀Mendel฀ (1822–84),฀a฀contemporary฀of฀both฀Marx฀and฀Darwin—would฀provide฀answers฀to฀ these฀questions.฀While฀Mendel฀published฀the฀results฀of฀his฀experiments฀with฀plant฀ hybrids฀in฀1866,฀Marx฀was฀completely฀unaware฀of฀his฀work฀and฀Darwin,฀if฀he฀were฀ aware฀of฀it,฀did฀not฀understand฀its฀importance.฀Although฀Mendel’s฀work฀was฀finally฀ recognized฀in฀the฀early฀1900s,฀its฀significance฀was฀still฀being฀hotly฀debated฀into฀the฀ 1930s฀(Allen฀1978).

Human฀Natural฀Beings฀ •฀ 71

The฀Problems฀of฀Variation฀and฀Inheritance If฀Darwin฀made฀variation฀the฀proper฀study฀of฀biology,฀then฀Mendel฀was฀responsible฀ for฀clarifying฀the฀mechanisms฀by฀which฀hereditary฀variation฀is฀created฀and฀transmitted.฀As฀Richard฀Lewontin฀(1974:฀173–8)฀notes,฀Darwin฀and฀the฀other฀plant฀and฀ animal฀breeders฀of฀his฀day฀were฀aware฀that฀offspring฀tend฀to฀resemble฀their฀parents฀ (like฀produces฀like)฀but฀yet฀are฀different฀from฀them฀and฀that฀these฀differences฀are฀ also฀inherited฀to฀some฀extent.฀They฀attempted฀to฀cross฀organisms฀from฀different฀ varieties,฀and฀even฀species,฀and฀saw฀that,฀if฀any฀of฀the฀hybrids฀produced฀were฀fertile,฀ they฀tended฀to฀revert฀to฀one฀or฀the฀other฀of฀the฀original฀parental฀type฀over฀a฀number฀ of฀generations.฀Because฀the฀breeders฀focused฀on฀the฀differences฀rather฀than฀on฀ the฀similarities,฀they฀viewed฀variation฀and฀inheritance฀as฀ontologically฀distinct฀ categories.฀The฀effects฀of฀this฀were:฀(1)฀they฀saw฀the฀variation฀existing฀between฀ individuals฀within฀the฀same฀species฀as฀different฀from฀the฀variation฀that฀exists฀between฀ species;฀and฀(2)฀they฀focused฀their฀attention฀on฀the฀group฀or฀variety฀rather฀than฀on฀ the฀individual.฀What฀Mendel฀did฀that฀was฀different฀from฀his฀contemporaries฀was฀ that฀he฀focused฀on฀individuals,฀their฀ancestors,฀and฀their฀progeny.฀In฀other฀words,฀ he฀distinguished฀between฀the฀individual฀and฀the฀group.฀Let฀us฀consider฀briefly฀what฀ Mendel฀did฀in฀his฀experiments฀and฀what฀he฀actually฀showed. Mendel฀bred฀varieties฀of฀garden฀peas฀that฀differed฀from฀one฀another฀in฀a฀few฀ traits—that฀is,฀when฀tall฀plants฀were฀bred฀with฀tall฀plants,฀their฀offspring฀were฀also฀ tall.฀Mendel฀then฀bred฀a฀tall฀plant฀with฀a฀short฀one฀and฀noted฀that฀each฀of฀the฀hybrid฀ offspring฀was฀tall฀and,฀in฀this฀trait,฀they฀resembled฀one฀of฀their฀parents.฀However,฀ when฀he฀bred฀the฀hybrids฀of฀the฀first฀generation฀with฀one฀another,฀he฀noted฀that฀ their฀offspring฀resembled฀one฀or฀the฀other฀of฀the฀original฀parental฀types—roughly฀ three-quarters฀were฀tall฀and฀one฀quarter฀was฀short.฀On฀the฀basis฀of฀this฀experiment,฀ he฀concluded,฀with฀regard฀to฀the฀characteristic฀being฀studied฀(1)฀that฀the฀hybrid฀ individuals฀inherited฀a฀discrete฀particle฀(gene)฀from฀each฀of฀the฀parents;฀(2)฀that฀the฀ expression฀of฀the฀gene฀for฀tallness฀was฀dominant฀over฀the฀other;฀and฀(3)฀that฀these฀ particles฀re-assorted฀themselves฀in฀the฀offspring฀of฀the฀first-generation฀hybrids฀in฀ such฀a฀way฀that฀there฀were฀both฀tall฀and฀short฀individuals฀in฀the฀second฀generation.฀ When฀he฀bred฀individuals฀that฀were฀hybrids฀for฀two฀traits—such฀as฀tall฀vs.฀short฀ plants฀and฀smooth฀vs.฀wrinkled฀pods—he฀observed฀that฀the฀gene฀pairs฀associated฀ with฀different฀physical฀characteristics—let฀us฀say฀height฀and฀seed฀color—were฀ inherited฀independently฀from฀one฀another.฀In฀other฀words,฀the฀significance฀of฀ Mendel’s฀work฀was,฀to฀paraphrase฀Lewontin฀(1974:฀177–8),฀that฀it฀showed฀that฀ variation฀and฀inheritance฀were฀manifestations฀of฀the฀same฀underlying฀phenomena฀ but฀that฀they฀required฀two฀different฀kinds฀of฀causal฀explanation. Mendel’s฀studies฀buttressed฀a฀later฀flurry฀of฀activity฀from฀the฀1920s฀onward฀that฀ was฀concerned฀with฀the฀genetic฀variation฀of฀populations฀and฀with฀how฀genetics฀ related฀to฀the฀process฀of฀selection.฀This฀involved฀conceptualizing฀a฀local฀population฀ of฀individuals,฀all฀of฀whose฀genes฀constitute฀the฀gene฀pool฀of฀the฀population,฀its฀ reservoir฀of฀hereditary฀material฀that฀is฀passed฀from฀one฀generation฀to฀the฀next.฀Many฀

72฀ •฀ Karl฀Marx,฀Anthropologist individuals฀or฀only฀a฀few฀may฀contribute฀to฀and฀share฀in฀the฀gene฀pool.฀The฀pool฀may฀ be฀stable฀through฀time฀or฀change฀from฀one฀generation฀to฀the฀next฀depending฀on฀the฀ particular฀conditions฀that฀prevail฀or฀appear.฀These฀investigations฀had฀three฀important฀ consequences.฀First,฀they฀made฀it฀clear฀that฀no฀two฀individuals฀in฀a฀population฀have฀ exactly฀the฀same฀combination฀of฀genes—including฀identical฀siblings฀who฀were฀born฀ with฀the฀identical฀genetic฀systems฀but฀were฀subjected฀to฀different฀environmental฀ and฀historical฀circumstances฀so฀that฀different฀genes฀mutated.฀Second,฀they฀clarified฀ the฀nature฀of฀the฀genetic฀variation฀that฀exists฀within฀a฀population,฀identifying฀ recombination,฀gene฀flow,฀and฀mutation฀as฀important฀sources.฀Recombination฀is฀what฀ occurs฀when฀two฀individuals฀mate฀and฀their฀offspring฀receive฀half฀of฀their฀genetic฀ complement฀from฀each฀parent.฀If฀the฀organism฀has฀about฀30,000฀gene฀pairs,฀as฀each฀ human฀being฀seems฀to฀have,฀then฀the฀continual฀reshuffling฀from฀one฀generation฀to฀ the฀next฀becomes฀a฀major฀source฀of฀the฀genetic฀variation฀that฀occurs฀in฀a฀population.฀ Gene฀flow฀occurs฀when฀an฀individual฀from฀outside฀the฀population฀breeds฀with฀an฀ individual฀from฀the฀population,฀and฀new฀genetic฀material฀is฀potentially฀introduced฀ into฀the฀gene฀pool.฀The฀other฀source฀of฀variation฀is฀mutation.฀While฀many฀but฀not฀ all฀of฀the฀mutations฀that฀appear฀in฀the฀gene฀pool฀of฀a฀population฀are฀variants฀that฀are฀ already฀known฀and฀that฀already฀exist฀in฀the฀population,฀some฀are฀not.฀As฀a฀result,฀ mutation฀is฀the฀ultimate฀source฀of฀new฀genetic฀material฀in฀a฀population.฀Third,฀these฀ researchers฀began฀to฀examine฀how฀selection,฀as฀well฀as฀mutation฀and฀migration,฀ alter฀frequencies฀of฀particular฀genes฀in฀a฀population฀They฀also฀suggested฀that฀genes฀ acted฀in฀ways฀that฀controlled฀the฀metabolism฀of฀cells฀which฀in฀turn฀controlled฀the฀ expression฀of฀particular฀characteristics;฀unfortunately,฀given฀the฀technology฀of฀the฀ time,฀they฀had฀no฀way฀to฀prove฀it฀(Allen฀1978:฀126–40,฀198). The฀first฀generation฀of฀population฀geneticists—Ronald฀A.฀Fisher฀(1890–1962),฀ John฀B.฀S.฀Haldane฀(1892–1964),฀and฀Sewall฀Wright฀(1889–1988)—recognized฀ that฀Mendel’s฀principles฀operated฀in฀all฀organisms;฀that฀small-scale,฀continuous฀ variability฀in฀characteristics,฀like฀height,฀also฀had฀a฀genetic฀basis;฀and฀that฀even฀small฀ selection฀pressures฀acting฀on฀minor฀genetic฀differences฀can฀result฀in฀evolutionary฀ change฀(Gould฀2002:฀504).฀In฀a฀phrase,฀they฀integrated฀and฀synthesized฀the฀views฀ of฀Mendel฀and฀Darwin.฀They฀established฀the฀foundations฀for฀linking฀the฀traditional฀ subfields฀of฀biology—genetics,฀paleontology,฀ecology,฀systematics,฀or฀developmental฀ physiology,฀to฀name฀only฀a฀few—into฀a฀more฀holistic฀biology,฀that฀would฀come฀to฀ be฀called฀the฀Modern฀Synthesis฀or฀the฀New฀Synthesis฀in฀the฀1940s.฀This฀fusion฀was฀ launched฀with฀the฀publication฀of฀Theodosius฀Dobzhansky’s฀(1900–75)฀Genetics฀and฀ the฀Origin฀of฀Species฀in฀1937.

The฀Modern฀Synthesis฀and฀Beyond The฀heyday฀of฀the฀Modern฀Synthesis฀may฀have฀been฀in฀1959฀at฀the฀time฀of฀various฀ centennial฀celebrations฀of฀the฀publication฀of฀The฀Origin฀of฀Species.฀Gould฀(2002:฀

Human฀Natural฀Beings฀ •฀ 73 503–84)฀ described฀ the฀ Modern฀ Synthesis฀ as฀ “a฀ limited฀ consensus,”฀ that฀ had฀ “hardened”฀in฀the฀1940s฀and฀1950s฀in฀time฀for฀those฀celebrations.฀By฀the฀early฀ 1960s,฀however,฀the฀three฀central฀tenets฀of฀the฀synthesis—adaptation,฀the฀individual฀ organism฀as฀the฀unit฀of฀selection,฀and฀the฀sufficiency฀of฀microevolutionary฀theory฀to฀ explain฀change฀as฀it฀is฀refracted฀in฀the฀fossil฀record—began฀to฀be฀challenged. One฀manifestation฀of฀the฀hardening,฀as฀Gould฀describes฀it,฀was฀an฀increased฀ emphasis฀on฀adaptation:฀Every฀gene฀or฀gene฀complex฀was฀somehow฀adaptive.฀ Adaptations,฀as฀you฀recall,฀are฀the฀products฀of฀natural฀selection฀modifying฀the฀ gene฀pool฀of฀population฀in฀such฀a฀way฀that฀it฀increases฀the฀harmony฀between฀the฀ population฀and฀its฀environment.฀Any฀hereditary฀characteristic฀that฀increases฀this฀ congruity฀and฀promotes฀survival฀is฀an฀adaptation;฀adaptations฀take฀many฀different฀ forms฀and฀may฀involve฀morphological,฀physiological,฀or฀behavioral฀features฀that฀ enable฀ individuals฀ to฀ survive฀ and฀ produce฀ offspring.฀ However,฀ evidence฀ was฀ beginning฀to฀accumulate฀which฀indicated฀that฀some฀genes฀may฀be฀neutral—that฀ is,฀they฀have฀no฀selective฀significance฀with฀regard฀to฀increasing฀or฀decreasing฀the฀ fitness฀of฀individuals฀living฀in฀a฀particular฀environment,฀and,฀hence,฀they฀are฀neither฀ advantageous฀nor฀deleterious.฀The฀second฀manifestation฀of฀the฀hardening฀and฀the฀ challenge฀revolved฀around฀the฀question:฀At฀what฀level฀or฀levels฀does฀selection฀ operate—the฀gene,฀the฀individual,฀the฀population,฀or฀the฀species?฀Advocates฀of฀the฀ new฀synthesis฀argued฀that,฀while฀selection฀operates฀at฀the฀level฀of฀the฀individual,฀ the฀adaptations฀that฀result฀might฀be฀beneficial฀to฀the฀group฀as฀well.฀The฀challengers฀ disagreed.฀The฀arguments฀they฀raised฀in฀the฀1960s฀and฀1970s฀continue฀to฀the฀present.฀ The฀third฀tenet฀is฀that฀the฀explanation฀used฀to฀account฀for฀small฀changes฀in฀the฀gene฀ pool฀of฀a฀contemporary฀population฀is฀merely฀writ฀large,฀but฀identical,฀to฀the฀one฀ that฀is฀refracted฀in฀the฀paleontological฀record.฀That฀is,฀change฀is฀steady฀and฀slow.฀ Gould฀(2002:฀558)฀called฀this฀the฀“principle฀of฀extrapolation.”฀One฀challenge฀to฀ the฀uniformitarianism฀embodied฀in฀this฀tenet฀has฀been฀over฀the฀issue฀of฀whether฀ the฀evolutionary฀process฀is฀always฀gradual,฀or฀whether฀it฀proceeds฀by฀fits฀and฀starts฀ with฀moments฀of฀rapid฀change฀preceded฀or฀followed฀by฀periods฀of฀relative฀stasis฀ (punctuated฀equilibrium).฀Gould฀concludes฀his฀discussion฀of฀the฀Modern฀Synthesis฀ by฀noting฀how฀well฀it฀has฀endured,฀in฀spite฀of฀the฀challenges. Molecular฀biology฀has฀been฀a฀major฀growth฀field฀in฀the฀United฀States,฀England,฀ and฀France฀since฀1945฀(Allen฀1978:฀187–228;฀Appel฀2000).฀This฀development฀ was฀accompanied฀by฀number฀of฀new฀technologies฀and฀techniques—computers,฀ X-ray฀crystallography,฀DNA฀sequencers,฀powerful฀mathematical฀and฀statistical฀ methods,฀and฀so฀forth—that฀afforded฀opportunities฀to฀examine฀for฀the฀first฀time฀the฀ molecular฀structure฀of฀cell฀nuclei,฀the฀three-dimensional฀arrays฀of฀DNA฀molecules฀ on฀chromosomes,฀the฀structure฀of฀genes,฀the฀regulation฀and฀development฀of฀genes,฀ the฀sequence฀of฀DNA฀molecules฀on฀chromosomes,฀and฀the฀entire฀genomes฀of฀a฀ number฀of฀species,฀including฀even฀that฀of฀human฀beings.฀We฀now฀know,฀for฀instance,฀ that฀the฀genomes฀of฀human฀beings฀and฀chimpanzees฀are฀virtually฀identical฀(99฀ percent);฀that฀the฀rates฀of฀change฀in฀the฀proteins฀produced฀by฀the฀DNA฀code฀vary฀

74฀ •฀ Karl฀Marx,฀Anthropologist little฀from฀species฀to฀species;฀that฀human฀beings฀and฀chimpanzees฀had฀a฀common฀ ancestor฀5฀to฀7฀million฀years฀ago;฀that฀the฀6฀billion฀or฀so฀human฀beings฀in฀the฀world฀ today฀fundamentally฀have,฀with฀few฀exceptions,฀the฀same฀genotype;฀or฀that฀there฀is฀ more฀variation฀within฀human฀populations—let฀us฀say฀from฀Africa,฀Scandinavia,฀or฀ Japan—than฀there฀is฀between฀them฀(Lewontin฀1995;฀Marks฀2002). There฀seem฀to฀be฀two฀counter-tendencies฀in฀biology฀today.฀The฀research฀of฀many฀ biologists฀is฀reductionist฀in฀the฀sense฀that฀they฀are฀concerned฀with฀breaking฀down฀ their฀objects฀of฀inquiry—the฀cell,฀the฀gene,฀the฀organism,฀or฀the฀environment—into฀ their฀constituent฀parts.฀Another฀group—notably฀Richard฀Lewontin฀(1929–),฀Richard฀ Levins฀(1935–),฀and฀their฀associates—views฀nature฀as฀a฀totality,฀a฀historically฀ contingent฀and฀ever-changing฀structure.฀Nature฀is,฀in฀their฀perspective,฀a฀multi-leveled฀ whole,฀a฀unity฀of฀contradictions,฀characterized฀by฀spontaneous฀activity,฀positive฀and฀ negative฀feedback,฀the฀interpenetration฀and฀interaction฀of฀categories฀from฀different฀ levels฀of฀the฀whole,฀and฀the฀coexistence฀of฀opposing฀principles฀that฀shape฀interaction.฀ The฀various฀elements฀of฀the฀whole—the฀parts฀and฀the฀levels—as฀well฀as฀the฀whole฀ itself฀are฀continually฀changing,฀though฀at฀different฀rates;฀consequently,฀at฀any฀given฀ moment,฀one฀element฀might฀appear฀to฀be฀fixed฀in฀relation฀to฀another฀(Levins฀and฀ Lewontin฀1985:฀133–42,฀272–85).฀The฀importance฀of฀this฀dialectical฀world฀is฀that฀it฀ helps฀us฀think฀of฀genes,฀organisms,฀and฀environments฀as฀interacting฀parts฀of฀a฀whole฀ rather฀than฀distinct฀entities฀with฀their฀own฀roles฀to฀play.฀Lewontin฀(2000:฀jacket),฀for฀ example,฀rejects฀the฀idea฀that฀genes฀determine฀the฀organism,฀which฀then฀adapts฀to฀its฀ environment.฀He฀argues฀instead฀that฀the฀individual฀organism฀is฀a฀unique฀consequence฀ of฀the฀interaction฀of฀genes฀and฀the฀environment,฀and฀that฀individual฀organisms,฀ “influenced฀in฀their฀development฀by฀their฀circumstances,฀in฀turn฀create,฀modify,฀and฀ choose฀the฀environments฀in฀which฀they฀live.”฀Marx฀would฀have฀appreciated฀how฀ Lewontin฀and฀Levins฀have฀conceptualized฀and฀framed฀issues฀concerned฀with฀human฀ natural฀beings฀and฀how฀we฀came฀to฀be฀the฀way฀we฀are,฀because฀of฀the฀non-reductive฀ and฀dialectically฀interactive฀aspects฀of฀their฀argument.

Human฀Natural฀Beings:฀Bodies฀That฀Walk,฀Talk,฀Make฀Tools,฀and฀ Have฀Culture The฀title฀of฀this฀section฀derives฀from฀David฀McNally’s฀(2001)฀insightful฀essay,฀“Bodies฀ that฀Talk:฀Sex,฀Tools,฀Language,฀and฀Human฀Culture,”฀in฀his฀Bodies฀of฀Meaning.฀We฀ saw฀in฀the฀preceding฀chapters฀the฀three฀distinctive฀markers฀Enlightenment฀writers฀ used฀to฀characterize฀human฀beings:฀they฀reasoned,฀they฀made฀tools,฀and฀they฀talked.฀ The฀anatomists฀and฀physicians฀of฀that฀era฀had฀a฀fourth฀characteristic:฀they฀walked฀ upright.฀These฀are฀legacies฀from฀the฀Enlightenment.฀They฀were฀part฀of฀Marx’s฀ intellectual฀inheritance฀as฀well.฀However,฀as฀we฀saw฀in฀the฀last฀chapter,฀he฀did฀ not฀frame฀his฀answer฀to฀the฀question฀of฀what฀human฀beings฀are฀precisely฀in฀these฀ terms.฀He฀emphasized฀instead฀that฀human฀beings฀were฀sensuous,฀active฀creatures;฀

Human฀Natural฀Beings฀ •฀ 75 that฀there฀was฀a฀dialectical฀interplay฀between฀their฀corporeal฀organization฀and฀the฀ ensembles฀of฀social฀relations฀that฀shaped฀their฀activities;฀that฀their฀bodily฀organs฀ were฀transformed฀into฀instruments฀of฀labor฀and฀production;฀that฀they฀objectified฀ the฀world฀and฀the฀resources฀it฀provides฀to฀satisfy฀established฀needs฀and฀to฀create฀ new฀ones;฀and฀that฀their฀conscious฀life฀activity฀in฀contrast฀to฀that฀of฀animals฀was฀ increasingly฀determined฀by฀social฀relations฀and฀culture. As฀Raymond฀Corbey฀(2005:฀93)฀correctly฀observes,฀scientific฀definitions฀of฀the฀ genus฀Homo฀(that฀is,฀modern฀human฀beings฀and฀their฀ancestors)฀established฀in฀the฀ late฀1940s฀and฀early฀1950s—e.g.฀erect฀bipedalism,฀a฀well-developed฀thumb,฀or฀rapid฀ expansion฀of฀cranial฀capacity฀associated฀with฀craniofacial฀remodeling฀and฀reduction฀ in฀jaw฀size—often฀incorporate฀or฀imply฀philosophical฀understandings฀of฀humanness,฀ such฀as฀upright฀gait,฀tool-making,฀large฀brains,฀language,฀and฀culture.฀In฀the฀1950s,฀ it฀was฀possible฀to฀believe฀that฀these฀traits฀appeared฀roughly฀at฀the฀same฀time.฀We฀ now฀know฀that฀they฀did฀not฀appear฀simultaneously,฀but฀rather฀sequentially฀over฀a฀ period฀of฀time฀that฀spanned฀5–7฀million฀years฀for฀some฀scholars฀or฀2–3฀million฀years฀ for฀others.฀The฀result฀of฀this฀is฀that฀the฀biological฀definition฀of฀Homo฀clashes฀with฀ popular฀and฀philosophical฀views฀of฀what฀it฀means฀to฀be฀human.฀Consequently,฀some฀ paleoanthropologists฀have฀argued฀that฀the฀genus฀contains฀both฀“animal”฀hominids฀ and฀“human”฀hominids,฀and฀that฀the฀transition฀from฀ape฀to฀human฀occurred฀some฀ time฀since฀the฀late฀Tertiary.฀This฀refracts฀in฀some฀complex฀way฀the฀criterion฀or฀criteria฀ that฀particular฀individuals฀select฀to฀define฀“human.”฀Another฀potential฀complicating฀ factor฀results฀from฀the฀fact฀that฀geneticists฀have฀found฀that฀chimpanzees฀and,฀to฀ a฀lesser฀extent,฀gorillas฀are฀the฀closest฀living฀animal฀relatives฀of฀human฀beings.฀ The฀primatologists฀who฀study฀these฀apes฀often฀stress฀their฀similarities฀with฀human฀ beings฀rather฀than฀their฀differences.฀Thus,฀they฀portray฀the฀apes฀as฀conscious,฀ active,฀and฀social฀creatures฀who฀vocalize,฀communicate,฀occasionally฀use฀tools,฀and฀ have฀distinctive฀personalities;฀when฀they฀talk฀about฀ape฀language฀and฀culture,฀the฀ discussion฀becomes฀murkier฀and฀the฀audience฀more฀skeptical. For฀our฀purposes฀here,฀the฀question฀is฀not฀whether฀the฀answers฀provided฀by฀ present-day฀scientists฀are฀fundamentally฀different฀from฀and฀thus฀incommensurate฀ with฀those฀of฀Marx,฀but฀rather฀how฀do฀or฀might฀Marx’s฀views฀articulate฀with฀ contemporary฀perspectives฀and฀practices.฀A฀relatively฀unknown฀essay฀by฀Frederick฀ Engels,฀Marx’s฀friend฀and฀collaborator฀for฀more฀than฀forty฀years,฀provides฀additional฀ clues฀for฀contemplating฀the฀linkages.

Engels’s฀“The฀Part฀Played฀by฀Labor฀in฀the฀Transition฀from฀Ape฀to฀Man” The฀publication฀of฀Darwin’s฀The฀Descent฀of฀Man฀in฀1871฀was฀the฀impetus฀for฀Engels฀ (1876/1972)฀to฀set฀down฀his฀own฀views฀on฀the฀transition฀from฀non-human฀primate฀ to฀human฀natural฀being.฀It฀is฀useful฀to฀keep฀in฀mind฀a฀few฀facts฀about฀the฀context฀ in฀which฀Engels฀wrote฀his฀essay,฀“The฀Part฀Played฀by฀Labor฀in฀the฀Transition฀from฀

76฀ •฀ Karl฀Marx,฀Anthropologist Ape฀to฀Man.”฀While฀the฀first฀remains฀of฀“Neanderthal฀man”฀had฀been฀found฀in฀1856,฀ their฀significance฀was฀neither฀recognized฀nor฀appreciated฀until฀the฀early฀years฀of฀the฀ twentieth฀century฀(Delisle฀2007:฀70–124).฀While฀writers฀speculated฀about฀whether฀ human฀beings฀had฀lived฀at฀the฀same฀time฀as฀extinct฀animals,฀the฀first฀incontrovertible฀ evidence฀was฀only฀uncovered฀in฀1859;฀it฀consisted฀of฀stone฀tools฀and฀fossil฀animal฀ bones฀sealed฀beneath฀an฀unbroken฀stalagmitic฀deposit฀in฀Brixham฀Cave฀in฀southern฀ England.฀As฀a฀result,฀Engels’s฀argument฀was฀a฀deductive฀one,฀as฀were฀those฀of฀his฀ contemporaries฀(Trigger฀1967/2003). Engels฀argued฀that฀the฀ancestors฀of฀human฀beings฀were฀social,฀arboreal฀apes฀who฀ lived฀in฀the฀Old฀World฀tropics฀toward฀the฀end฀of฀the฀Tertiary฀period,฀which฀we฀now฀ know฀occurred฀between฀about฀2฀and฀23฀million฀years฀ago.฀He฀was฀clear฀that฀both฀ human฀and฀non-human฀primates฀were฀behaviorally฀highly฀complex,฀and฀structurally฀ integrated฀organisms.฀Even฀though฀he฀had฀no฀conception฀of฀the฀microevolutionary฀ processes฀described฀above,฀he฀was฀also฀clear฀that฀a฀change฀in฀one฀behavior฀would฀ ultimately฀be฀linked฀with฀changes฀in฀other฀organs฀(sensory฀and฀anatomical฀structures)฀ and฀behaviors.฀Through฀reading฀and฀possibly฀even฀trips฀to฀the฀zoo,฀he฀argued฀that฀the฀ arboreal฀primates฀of฀the฀present฀day฀used฀their฀forelimbs฀and฀hindlimbs฀differently฀ when฀they฀climb.฀On฀this฀basis,฀he฀suggested฀that฀the฀decisive฀first฀step฀in฀the฀ transition฀from฀ape฀to฀human฀involved฀upright฀walking,฀an฀erect฀gait.฀This฀change฀ in฀the฀locomotor฀behavior฀and฀structures฀was฀accompanied฀by฀other฀changes,฀most฀ notably฀in฀the฀hand.฀These฀changes฀involved฀the฀development฀of฀greater฀dexterity฀ and฀of฀a฀precision฀grip฀involving฀an฀opposable฀thumb฀long฀before฀the฀first฀flints฀ were฀fashioned฀into฀knives฀and฀these฀early฀humans฀began฀to฀manufacture฀tools.฀ The฀development฀of฀the฀hand฀and฀all฀that฀this฀entailed฀were฀linked,฀in฀turn,฀with฀the฀ development฀of฀the฀brain฀and฀other฀sensory฀organs,฀with฀new฀relations฀to฀the฀objects฀ of฀nature,฀with฀increased฀dependence฀on฀others฀and฀the฀formation฀of฀new฀ensembles฀ of฀social฀relations,฀and฀importantly฀with฀the฀development฀of฀language.฀The฀latter฀was฀ facilitated฀by฀changes฀in฀the฀hand,฀speech฀organs,฀and฀brain—a฀combination฀that฀ enabled฀these฀early฀humans฀to฀undertake฀more฀complex฀activities฀and฀to฀change฀the฀ environments฀in฀which฀they฀lived฀in฀planned,฀conscious฀ways. Marx฀and฀Engels฀often฀forged฀and฀refined฀ideas฀in฀their฀letters.฀However,฀in฀none฀ of฀these,฀to฀my฀knowledge,฀did฀they฀discuss฀Engels’s฀essay฀about฀the฀transition฀from฀ ape฀to฀human,฀even฀though฀they฀may฀have฀done฀so฀in฀conversation.฀Moreover,฀there฀ is฀no฀evidence฀that฀Marx฀disagreed฀in฀any฀way฀whatsoever฀with฀Engels’s฀conclusions฀ in฀this฀regard.฀While฀parts฀of฀Engels’s฀argument฀could฀be฀stated฀with฀more฀precision฀ today฀in฀light฀of฀the฀vast฀quantities฀of฀information฀that฀have฀been฀gathered,฀especially฀ since฀the฀late฀1950s,฀the฀basic฀timeline—erect฀posture,฀tool-making,฀and฀language— is฀still฀correct.฀In฀fact,฀it฀was฀adopted฀by฀paleoanthropologists,฀most฀prominently฀ Sherwood฀Washburn฀(1911–2002)฀in฀the฀late฀1950s฀(e.g.฀Washburn฀1960;฀Washburn฀ and฀Howell฀1963;฀Woolfson฀1982).฀The฀issues฀debated฀today฀are฀not฀whether฀the฀ steps฀outlined฀by฀Engels฀occurred,฀but฀rather฀where฀and฀when฀they฀took฀place.

Human฀Natural฀Beings฀ •฀ 77

Fossils฀and฀Proteins In฀Marx’s฀day,฀the฀empirical฀evidence฀for฀the฀evolution฀of฀human฀beings฀was฀ provided฀by฀the฀comparative฀anatomy฀of฀living฀species.฀Today,฀that฀evidence฀is฀ provided฀by฀fossilized฀bones฀and฀their฀associated฀environments,฀by฀the฀similarities฀ and฀differences฀of฀DNA฀or฀protein฀sequences฀that฀exist฀among฀different฀species,฀and฀ by฀the฀molecular฀clock฀that฀the฀various฀sequences฀provide฀(Marks฀2002:฀7–31).฀The฀ issues฀that฀paleoanthropologists฀explore฀and฀resolve฀are฀still฀upright฀walking,฀toolmaking,฀language,฀and฀culture;฀however,฀the฀terrain฀of฀the฀debates฀has฀shifted฀in฀the฀ last฀fifty฀or฀so฀years฀because฀of฀the฀vast฀quantities฀of฀new฀information. According฀to฀molecular฀anthropologists,฀the฀last฀common฀ancestor฀shared฀by฀ modern฀human฀beings฀and฀chimpanzees,฀our฀closest฀relative฀in฀the฀animal฀kingdom,฀ lived฀10฀to฀5฀million฀years฀ago,฀and฀gorillas฀diverged฀from฀that฀group฀around฀11฀to฀ 9฀million฀years฀ago฀(Patterson,฀Richter,฀Gnerre,฀Lander,฀and฀Reich฀2006).฀Together฀ with฀earlier฀discoveries฀of฀fossil฀hominids฀in฀South฀Africa,฀this฀finding฀helped฀to฀ focus฀attention฀since฀the฀1960s฀on฀the฀tropical฀regions฀of฀Africa,฀especially฀those฀east฀ of฀the฀Rift฀Valley฀in฀Ethiopia,฀Kenya,฀and฀Tanzania.฀Here,฀there฀were฀fossil-bearing฀ deposits฀that฀dated฀to฀the฀end฀of฀the฀Tertiary—that฀is,฀the฀Pliocene฀Era,฀which฀ occurred฀roughly฀5฀to฀2฀million฀years฀ago.฀In฀the฀mid฀1990s,฀paleoanthropologists฀ began฀to฀look฀for฀ancestral฀chimpanzees฀and฀gorillas฀on฀the฀west฀side฀of฀the฀Rift฀ Valley,฀where฀the฀extant฀species฀live฀today.฀In฀Chad,฀they฀found฀a฀number฀of฀fossil฀ hominids฀in฀late฀Miocene฀and฀early฀Pliocene฀deposits฀that฀ranged฀in฀age฀from฀about฀7฀ to฀3.5฀million฀years฀ago.฀No฀one฀questions฀that฀the฀various฀early฀hominid฀species฀on฀ both฀sides฀of฀the฀Rift฀Valley฀were฀bipedal฀walkers,฀keeping฀in฀mind฀that฀anatomical฀ clues฀for฀this฀form฀of฀locomotion฀are฀scattered฀over฀the฀body:฀toes,฀ankles,฀knees,฀ hips,฀shoulders,฀neck,฀and฀hands,฀to฀name฀only฀a฀few.฀Thus,฀at฀the฀present฀time,฀it฀ seems฀that฀human฀natural฀beings฀appeared฀first฀in฀the฀tropics,฀perhaps฀in฀the฀triangle฀ formed฀by฀Chad,฀Ethiopia,฀and฀South฀Africa.฀The฀fossil฀evidence฀has฀raised฀a฀number฀ of฀questions:฀Did฀all฀of฀them฀share฀the฀same฀locomotor฀pattern?฀Were฀they฀bipedal฀ all฀of฀the฀time฀or฀only฀part฀of฀the฀time?฀Are฀some฀individuals฀ancestral฀chimpanzees฀ instead฀of฀precursors฀to฀the฀genus฀Homo?฀Did฀some฀of฀the฀earlier฀individuals฀belong฀ to฀one฀of฀the฀later฀ancestral฀species฀shared฀by฀chimpanzees฀and฀early฀hominids?฀Did฀ any฀of฀these฀individuals฀belong฀to฀species฀that฀stand฀in฀the฀direct฀ancestral฀line฀of฀ modern฀human฀beings฀(Delisle฀2007:฀326–8;฀Gibbons฀2006)? Besides฀the฀fact฀that฀ancestral฀ape฀and฀hominid฀species฀resided฀in฀tropical฀Africa฀ 5฀to฀10฀million฀years฀ago,฀what฀were฀the฀circumstances฀in฀which฀quadrupedal,฀treeclimbing฀primates฀became฀bipedal?฀Paleoanthropologists฀have฀described฀a฀number฀ of฀potential฀advantages฀of฀upright฀walking฀that฀might฀have฀served฀them฀well:฀visual฀ surveillance฀against฀predators,฀hunting,฀carrying฀food฀and฀other฀objects,฀feeding฀on฀ low฀branches,฀and฀reducing฀the฀energy฀costs฀of฀traveling฀long฀distances฀because฀of฀ scarcity฀of฀resources,฀and฀even฀display฀(Delisle฀2007:฀327).฀Marx฀would฀have฀been฀

78฀ •฀ Karl฀Marx,฀Anthropologist fascinated,฀I฀suspect,฀by฀the฀changing฀circumstances฀in฀which฀this฀fundamental฀ change฀occurred. Let฀us฀look฀briefly฀at฀two฀recent฀works.฀First,฀Pierre฀Sepulchre฀and฀his฀associates฀ (2006)฀argued฀that฀the฀6000-km-long฀escarpment฀created฀12฀to฀10฀million฀years฀ ago฀by฀tectonic฀uplift฀associated฀with฀the฀formation฀of฀the฀Rift฀Valley฀in฀East฀ Africa฀altered฀the฀prevailing฀patterns฀of฀atmospheric฀circulation,฀which฀brought฀ moisture฀and฀precipitation฀to฀the฀interiors฀of฀Kenya฀and฀Ethiopia.฀The฀reorganized฀ atmospheric฀circulations฀brought฀less฀moisture฀to฀the฀region,฀and,฀by฀8฀to฀6฀million฀ years฀ago,฀the฀environmental฀conditions฀were฀beginning฀to฀shift฀from฀woodland฀ to฀savanna฀grassland฀habitats฀and฀species;฀this฀transition฀occurred฀between฀5฀and฀ 3.7฀million฀years฀ago.฀A฀second฀argument,฀made฀by฀Geoffrey฀King฀and฀Geoff฀ Bailey฀(2006),฀is฀that฀the฀ancestral฀apes฀and฀hominids฀of฀tropical฀Africa฀lived฀in฀ the฀broken,฀hilly฀country฀created฀by฀the฀formation฀of฀the฀Rift฀Valley.฀Moreover,฀ these฀complex,฀environmental฀mosaics฀with฀their฀diverse฀and฀variable฀resources฀ were฀the฀primary฀habitats฀of฀the฀early฀hominids฀rather฀than฀the฀emerging฀savannas฀ that฀were฀inhabited฀by฀new฀kinds฀of฀ungulates฀and฀a฀rapidly฀expanding฀diversity฀of฀ terrestrial฀monkeys—the฀ancestors฀of฀modern฀baboons฀and฀macaques.฀This฀broken,฀ hill฀country,฀they฀argue,฀continued฀to฀be฀the฀preferred฀habitat฀for฀human฀beings฀along฀ their฀entire฀dispersal฀route฀of฀dispersal฀as฀they฀then฀began฀to฀move฀into฀the฀Eurasian฀ landmass฀about฀2฀million฀years฀ago.฀The฀relation฀of฀these฀changes฀to฀the฀evolution฀of฀ human฀beings฀will฀become฀apparent฀in฀the฀next฀few฀pages. Engels’s฀second฀inferred฀step฀in฀the฀gradual฀appearance฀of฀human฀natural฀beings฀ involved฀changes฀in฀the฀anatomy฀and฀manual฀dexterity฀of฀the฀hand.฀This฀was฀closely฀ associated฀with฀upright฀posture฀and฀gait.฀While฀all฀primates฀manipulate฀objects฀to฀ varying฀degrees฀with฀their฀hands฀(as฀do฀raccoons฀and฀squirrels),฀the฀hands฀of฀modern฀ human฀beings฀are฀quite฀distinctive฀in฀several฀respects—e.g.฀they฀can฀open฀a฀jar฀lid฀ or฀thread฀a฀needle.฀Chimpanzees฀and฀other฀apes฀cannot฀do฀either฀easily,฀if฀at฀all.฀ Modern฀human฀beings฀have฀power฀and฀precision฀grips฀and฀a฀much฀greater฀range฀of฀ motion฀and฀rotation฀in฀their฀fingers,฀wrists,฀forearms,฀and฀shoulders฀than฀do฀nonhuman฀primates.฀These฀capacities฀are฀reflected฀in฀both฀anatomical฀structures฀and฀the฀ ranges฀of฀motion฀they฀exhibit;฀they฀include฀long,฀opposable฀thumbs฀relative฀to฀the฀ length฀of฀the฀other฀digits฀and฀the฀ability฀to฀rotate฀the฀index฀finger฀toward฀the฀thumb.฀ These฀features฀contrast฀with฀those฀of฀modern฀chimpanzees,฀which฀have฀a฀restricted฀ range฀of฀motion฀of฀the฀thumb;฀curved฀digits฀that฀are฀relatively฀long฀with฀respect฀ to฀the฀length฀of฀the฀thumb;฀and฀powerful฀grasping฀muscles฀in฀both฀their฀hands฀and฀ wrists฀(Trinkhaus฀1992). The฀manufacture฀and฀use฀of฀stone฀tools฀has฀been฀taken฀as฀an฀indication฀of฀manual฀ dexterity,฀a฀sign฀that฀“man฀the฀tool-maker”฀has฀arrived฀on฀the฀scene.฀The฀earliest฀ stone฀tools฀now฀known฀are฀chipped฀cobbles฀and฀flakes฀from฀2.5-million-year-old฀ deposits฀in฀Ethiopia.฀These฀are฀probably฀not฀the฀oldest฀tools฀in฀the฀world;฀right฀now,฀ however,฀they฀are฀the฀oldest฀ones฀we฀know฀about.฀We฀know฀that฀modern฀chimpanzees฀ will฀break฀off฀twigs฀and฀use฀them฀to฀fish฀for฀termites,฀and฀we฀can฀safely฀presume,฀I฀

Human฀Natural฀Beings฀ •฀ 79 believe,฀that฀at฀least฀some฀hominids฀used฀sticks฀or฀rocks,฀for฀example,฀earlier฀than฀ 2.5฀million฀years฀ago.฀What฀we฀do฀not฀know฀about฀the฀tools฀from฀Ethiopia฀is฀who฀ made฀them.฀There฀were฀two฀genera฀of฀early฀hominids฀in฀Ethiopia฀between฀about฀2.5฀ and฀1.0฀million฀years฀ago:฀Australopithecus฀and฀Homo.฀We฀suspect฀that฀the฀latter฀ made฀the฀tools,฀because฀the฀configuration฀of฀the฀fingers,฀hand,฀wrists,฀and฀forearms฀ more฀closely฀resemble฀those฀of฀modern฀human฀beings.฀The฀australopithecines฀had฀ hands฀with฀long฀curved฀fingers,฀thumbs฀and฀little฀fingers฀with฀a฀restricted฀range฀ of฀rotation,฀and฀heavily฀muscled฀fingers฀and฀wrists฀adapted฀for฀grasping.฀Some฀ paleoanthropologists฀argue฀that฀both฀genera฀manufactured฀and฀used฀stone฀tools;฀ others฀suggest฀that฀only฀some฀australopithecines฀had฀the฀manual฀dexterity฀to฀make฀ tools;฀a฀third฀group฀claims฀that฀stone฀tool-making฀was฀restricted฀to฀the฀genus฀Homo. Tool-making,฀of฀course,฀is฀a฀marker฀for฀something฀else.฀In฀this฀instance,฀as฀Engels฀ indicated,฀it฀is฀linked฀with฀the฀development฀of฀the฀brain.฀All฀of฀the฀early฀hominids฀ that฀lived฀before฀2.5฀million฀years฀ago฀had฀brain฀volumes฀that฀resembled฀those฀ of฀chimpanzees.฀A฀significant฀increase฀in฀brain฀volume฀began฀to฀appear฀about฀2.0฀ million฀years฀ago฀in฀the฀genus฀Homo฀and฀continued฀until฀about฀100,000฀years฀ago.฀ The฀brain฀volumes฀of฀modern฀human฀beings฀are฀roughly฀three฀times฀larger฀than฀ those฀of฀their฀Plio-Pleistocene฀ancestors.฀Paleoanthropologists฀have฀suggested฀a฀ number฀of฀reasons฀for฀the฀expansion฀of฀brain฀size:฀the฀need฀for฀increased฀brain฀ power฀to฀facilitate฀complex฀manipulative฀tasks฀like฀making฀stone฀tools;฀increased฀ hunting;฀social฀cooperation;฀food฀sharing;฀language;฀and฀heat฀stress.฀Two฀issues฀ emerge.฀First,฀what฀is฀the฀relationship฀between฀increased฀brain฀size฀and฀the฀structural฀ organization฀of฀the฀brain฀itself?฀Second,฀was฀this฀increase฀in฀brain฀size฀gradual฀and฀ continuous,฀or฀was฀it฀punctuated฀with฀episodes฀of฀growth฀followed฀by฀periods฀of฀ relative฀stasis฀(Delisle฀2007:฀328–30)? The฀development฀of฀the฀brain฀was,฀of฀course,฀Engels’s฀third฀step฀in฀the฀evolution฀ of฀human฀corporeal฀organization฀(Schoenemann฀2006).฀There฀are฀three฀facts฀about฀ the฀brain฀that฀it฀is฀useful฀to฀keep฀in฀mind.฀The฀convolutions฀on฀the฀brain’s฀surface฀ leave฀their฀imprint฀on฀the฀interior฀surface฀of฀the฀skull;฀consequently,฀by฀examining฀ the฀endocasts฀of฀the฀imprints฀left฀on฀the฀skulls,฀it฀is฀possible฀to฀learn฀about฀the฀surface฀ organization฀of฀the฀brain.฀The฀second฀fact฀is฀that฀the฀endocasts฀of฀human฀and฀nonhuman฀primates—that฀is,฀chimpanzees฀and฀modern฀human฀beings—are฀different฀ from฀one฀another.฀The฀third฀is฀that฀brains฀consume฀enormous฀amounts฀of฀energy;฀ human฀adults,฀for฀example,฀use฀about฀20฀percent฀of฀the฀metabolic฀energy฀they฀have฀ to฀regulate฀the฀temperature฀of฀their฀brains.฀Heat฀regulation฀is฀accomplished฀by฀the฀ circulation฀of฀blood฀through฀a฀complex฀network฀of฀arteries฀and฀veins฀that฀crisscross฀ their฀brains.฀Dean฀Falk฀(2004:฀161)฀has฀suggested฀that฀the฀vascular฀system฀of฀the฀ hominid฀brain฀was฀reorganized฀to฀deal฀simultaneously฀with฀“the฀changed฀hydrostatic฀ pressures฀associated฀with฀erect฀posture”฀and฀with฀the฀changes฀mentioned฀earlier฀in฀ this฀section฀that฀were฀taking฀place฀in฀the฀habitats฀of฀the฀African฀tropics฀in฀general฀ and,฀more฀specifically,฀in฀the฀habitats฀in฀which฀the฀early฀hominids฀lived฀7฀to฀2฀ million฀years฀ago.

80฀ •฀ Karl฀Marx,฀Anthropologist Examining฀the฀endocasts฀of฀apes,฀the฀large฀and฀small฀species฀of฀australopithecines,฀ and฀early฀members฀of฀the฀genus฀Homo,฀Falk฀learned฀(1)฀that฀the฀surface฀organization฀ of฀the฀brains฀of฀large฀australopithecines฀resembled฀those฀of฀modern฀chimpanzees,฀ and฀(2)฀that฀they฀were฀different฀from฀those฀of฀the฀later,฀small฀australopithecines฀and฀ early฀species฀of฀Homo,฀both฀of฀which฀had฀features฀resembling฀the฀brain฀surfaces฀of฀ modern฀human฀beings.฀In฀her฀view,฀the฀dentition฀of฀the฀large฀australopithecines,฀as฀ well฀as฀associated฀paleoenvironmental฀evidence,฀indicated฀that฀they฀continued฀to฀ live฀in฀wooded฀habitats.฀In฀contrast,฀the฀teeth฀and฀paleoenvironmental฀data฀indicated฀ that฀the฀small฀australopithecines฀and฀early฀species฀of฀Homo฀moved฀into฀more฀open฀ country,฀possibly฀savannas,฀but฀as฀likely฀the฀environmental฀mosaics฀described฀ earlier฀in฀which฀patches฀of฀trees,฀grasslands,฀and฀water฀dotted฀the฀landscape.฀The฀ heat฀stress฀induced฀by฀spending฀more฀time฀in฀open฀country฀created฀another฀set฀of฀ selection฀pressures฀along฀with฀gravity฀and฀the฀changes฀in฀hydrostatic฀pressures฀ that฀accompanied฀bipedal฀locomotion.฀More฀important,฀until฀the฀vascular฀system฀ of฀the฀brain฀was฀able฀to฀regulate฀temperature฀more฀efficiently฀in฀those฀hominids฀ that฀had฀moved฀into฀more฀open฀habitats,฀brain฀volumes฀remained฀low—that฀is,฀ roughly฀similar฀to฀those฀of฀apes.฀Once฀the฀vascular฀system฀of฀the฀brain฀became฀more฀ efficient,฀brain฀volumes฀increased.฀This฀process฀became฀apparent฀in฀the฀remains฀of฀ H.฀habilis฀about฀2.5฀million฀years฀ago.฀It฀seems฀to฀have฀been฀a฀fairly฀continuous฀ process฀until฀about฀100,000฀years฀ago,฀when฀the฀growth฀curve฀flattened฀out฀(Lee฀and฀ Wolpoff฀2003). The฀vascular฀system฀is฀not฀the฀only฀organ฀of฀the฀human฀body฀involved฀in฀heat฀ regulation;฀others฀include฀sweat฀glands,฀the฀distribution฀of฀hair,฀and฀skin.฀Two฀of฀the฀ truly฀distinctive฀features฀of฀modern฀human฀beings฀are฀that฀they฀have฀about฀2฀million฀ more฀eccrine฀sweat฀glands฀than฀non-human฀primates,฀and฀that฀these฀glands฀are฀ distributed฀over฀the฀entire฀surface฀of฀their฀bodies.฀What฀makes฀sweating฀an฀effective฀ evaporative,฀cooling฀mechanism฀is฀that฀human฀beings฀are฀relatively฀hairless฀in฀ comparison฀to฀the฀living฀apes,฀even฀though฀they฀have฀about฀the฀same฀number฀of฀hair฀ follicles฀as฀chimpanzees.฀The฀reason฀for฀their฀appearance฀is฀that฀their฀hair฀shafts฀are฀ much฀smaller฀than฀those฀of฀apes;฀hence฀they฀appear฀hairless฀except฀for฀the฀tops฀of฀ the฀heads.฀In฀this฀regard,฀Adrienne฀Zihlman฀and฀B.฀A.฀Cohn฀(1988:฀404)฀note฀that฀ “hair฀retention฀on฀the฀head฀is฀probably฀important฀in฀protecting฀the฀scalp฀from฀the฀ sun’s฀ultraviolet฀rays฀and฀may฀assist฀in฀stabilizing฀the฀temperature฀of฀the฀brain.”฀One฀ inference฀that฀might฀be฀drawn฀from฀this฀extended฀argument฀is฀that฀even฀the฀earliest฀ of฀our฀big-brained฀ancestors฀probably฀appeared฀relatively฀hairless฀in฀comparison฀to฀ their฀primate฀contemporaries. This฀inference฀has฀some฀additional฀implications.฀As฀you฀will฀recall,฀hominid฀ populations฀began฀to฀move฀out฀of฀the฀African฀tropics฀and฀onto฀the฀Eurasian฀landmass฀ about฀2฀million฀years฀ago.฀Their฀remains฀have฀been฀found฀at฀deposits฀that฀are฀about฀ 1.8฀million฀years฀old฀at฀Dmanisi,฀which฀is฀located฀north฀of฀the฀Caspian฀Sea,฀where฀ winter฀temperatures฀occasionally฀plunge฀below฀0฀°F฀(–17.8฀°C).฀So,฀what฀does฀this฀ imply฀for฀a฀relatively฀hairless฀hominid?฀Brian฀Fagan฀suggests฀an฀answer:

Human฀Natural฀Beings฀ •฀ 81 For฀Homo฀erectus฀to฀be฀able฀to฀adapt฀to฀the฀more฀temperate฀climates฀of฀Europe฀and฀Asia,฀ it฀was฀necessary฀not฀only฀to฀tame฀fire฀but฀to฀have฀both฀effective฀shelter฀and฀clothing฀to฀ protect฀against฀heat฀loss.฀Homo฀erectus฀probably฀survived฀the฀winters฀by฀maintaining฀ permanent฀fires,฀and฀by฀storing฀dried฀meat฀and฀other฀foods฀for฀use฀in฀the฀lean฀months.฀ (Fagan฀1990:฀76)

Thus,฀the฀elaboration฀of฀culture,฀Engels’s฀fourth฀step฀in฀the฀transition฀from฀ape฀to฀ human฀being,฀is฀not฀unrelated฀to฀the฀development฀of฀the฀brain฀and฀other฀sensory฀ organs.฀ It฀ also฀ involved฀ extending฀ the฀ body’s฀ instruments฀ of฀ production฀ and฀ objectifying฀the฀world฀around฀them฀in฀new฀ways฀as฀they฀appropriated฀new฀kinds฀ of฀external฀objects฀to฀satisfy฀new฀needs฀that฀were฀essential฀for฀their฀survival฀and฀ reproduction฀in฀their฀new฀circumstances. The฀final฀step฀mentioned฀by฀Engels฀was฀the฀development฀of฀language.฀Both฀ modern฀human฀beings฀and฀non-human฀primates,฀especially฀chimpanzees,฀are฀quite฀ vocal.฀Both฀use฀vocalizations฀and฀gestures฀to฀communicate฀information,฀which฀ suggest฀that฀our฀common฀ancestors฀10–5฀million฀years฀ago฀probably฀did฀the฀same.฀ Nevertheless,฀the฀vocalizations฀and฀gestures฀of฀non-human฀primates฀are฀not฀the฀same฀ as฀language,฀which฀is฀unique฀to฀the฀human฀species.฀Language,฀as฀you฀know,฀has฀ three฀central฀features:฀(1)฀basic฀sound฀units฀produced฀in฀the฀oral฀cavity,฀which฀lack฀ innate฀or฀intrinsic฀meaning;฀(2)฀rules฀for฀combining฀and฀recombining฀these฀sounds฀ into฀larger฀units,฀like฀words฀(morphology)฀and฀sentences฀(syntax),฀have฀the฀capacity฀ to฀communicate฀enormous฀ranges฀of฀information฀and฀meaning฀(semantics);฀and฀ (3)฀symbolic฀reference฀involves฀both฀the฀arbitrariness฀of฀the฀utterance฀with฀regard฀ to฀what฀is฀being฀represented฀and฀the฀ability฀to฀refer฀to฀things฀that฀are฀not฀immediately฀present฀or฀exist฀only฀in฀some฀abstract฀sense฀(Deacon฀1992a).฀These฀features฀ distinguish฀human฀language฀from฀other฀forms฀or฀systems฀of฀communication—such฀ as฀the฀dances฀of฀honeybees,฀seasonal฀whale฀songs,฀or฀the฀calls฀of฀monkeys—which,฀ respectively,฀are฀referential฀but฀not฀symbolic,฀involve฀mimicry,฀and฀express฀ranges฀ of฀immediate฀feelings฀like฀fear,฀anger,฀or฀pleasure. There฀are฀important฀neuroanatomical฀differences฀between฀the฀vocalizations฀of฀ non-human฀primates฀and฀the฀speech฀of฀modern฀human฀beings.฀Terrence฀Deacon฀ describes฀them฀in฀the฀following฀manner: [Non-human]฀primate฀calls฀are฀controlled฀by฀neural฀circuits฀in฀the฀forebrain฀and฀midbrain฀ that฀are฀also฀responsible฀for฀emotion฀and฀physiological฀arousal,฀but฀not฀the฀motor฀cortex,฀ even฀though฀this฀area฀can฀control฀the฀muscles฀of฀the฀larynx฀and฀mouth.฀Stimulation฀of฀the฀ vocalization฀areas฀in฀a฀monkey฀brain฀often฀produce฀other฀signs฀of฀arousal—such฀as฀hair฀ standing฀on฀end,฀display฀postures,฀facial฀gestures฀and฀even฀ejaculation. ฀ Human฀speech฀uses฀a฀very฀different฀set฀of฀neural฀circuits.฀It฀depends฀on฀the฀region฀ of฀the฀motor฀cortex฀that฀controls฀the฀mouth,฀tongue฀and฀larynx฀and฀the฀areas฀that฀are฀in฀ front฀of฀it.฀Repeated฀efforts฀to฀train฀primates฀to฀mimic฀even฀simple฀speech฀sounds฀have฀ had฀little฀success.฀The฀unique฀skill฀in฀learning฀to฀speak฀suggests฀that฀this฀facility฀may฀ reflect฀some฀critical฀neurological฀difference.฀The฀ability฀to฀combine฀a฀larger฀number฀of฀

82฀ •฀ Karl฀Marx,฀Anthropologist component฀sounds฀to฀form฀larger฀units,฀words฀and฀phrases,฀makes฀possible฀to฀syntactic฀ complexity฀of฀speech.฀Common฀brain฀areas฀may฀be฀involved฀in฀speech฀production฀and฀ grammatical฀processes฀because฀defects฀in฀grammar฀and฀speech฀production฀caused฀by฀ brain฀damage฀often฀occur฀together.฀(Deacon฀1992b:฀119)

Two฀regions฀of฀the฀human฀brain฀involved฀in฀speech฀production฀are฀Broca’s฀area฀ and฀Wernicke’s฀area.฀The฀former฀is฀a฀motor฀speech฀area฀associated฀not฀only฀with฀ sensorimotor฀control฀of฀the฀structures฀of฀the฀oral฀cavity,฀the฀varied฀positions฀of฀ the฀tongue,฀and฀their฀coordination฀with฀movements฀of฀the฀respiratory฀system,฀but฀ also฀with฀manipulative฀and฀gestural฀abilities;฀it฀is฀typically฀located฀on฀the฀left฀hemisphere฀of฀the฀cortex฀and฀also฀seems฀to฀be฀associated฀with฀right-handedness—the฀ tendency฀shared฀by฀about฀90฀percent฀of฀the฀human฀population฀today฀(non-human฀ primates฀typically฀do฀not฀show฀a฀preference฀for฀left-฀or฀right-handedness).฀The฀latter,฀ Wernicke’s฀area,฀which฀controls฀understanding฀and฀formulating฀coherent฀speech,฀is฀ located฀on฀the฀cortex฀amid฀areas฀that฀are฀associated฀with฀seeing,฀hearing,฀and฀feeling฀ (Gibson฀and฀Jessee฀1999:฀205;฀Tobias฀1998:฀72). All฀normally฀developed฀human฀brains฀have฀Broca’s฀and฀Wernicke’s฀areas.฀Since฀ they฀are฀located฀on฀the฀surface฀of฀the฀brain,฀they฀leave฀imprints฀on฀the฀interior฀ surface฀of฀the฀skull฀and฀thus฀appear฀on฀endocasts.฀While฀there฀are฀no฀endocasts฀ currently฀available฀for฀hominids฀that฀lived฀before฀about฀3฀million฀years฀ago,฀both฀ appear฀on฀endocasts฀of฀H.฀habilis฀(c.2.5฀million฀years฀ago).฀An฀endocast฀from฀a฀late,฀ small฀australopithecine,฀A.฀africanus฀(c.3.1฀to฀2.6฀million฀years฀ago),฀has฀an฀ape-like฀ pattern฀but฀shows฀evidence฀of฀Broca’s฀area.฀Thus,฀the฀earliest฀representatives฀of฀ the฀genus฀Homo฀seem฀to฀have฀had฀the฀neural฀capacity฀for฀spoken฀language.฀The฀ configurations฀of฀their฀brain฀surfaces฀resembled฀those฀of฀modern฀human฀beings฀ rather฀than฀apes.฀This฀development฀coincided฀in฀time฀with฀the฀initial฀expansion฀of฀ brain฀volume,฀the฀appearance฀of฀stone฀tool฀making฀(culture฀in฀the฀broadest฀sense),฀ and฀preceded฀by฀a฀half฀million฀or฀so฀years฀the฀initial฀movements฀of฀hominids฀out฀of฀ the฀African฀tropics฀(Tobias฀1998). Between฀7฀million฀and฀2฀million฀years฀ago,฀a฀set฀of฀complex,฀interrelated฀changes฀ occurred฀in฀the฀heads฀of฀our฀human฀and฀pre-human฀ancestors.฀A฀few฀of฀these฀were:฀the฀ brain฀was฀reorganized฀as฀both฀the฀vascular฀and฀neural฀systems฀evolved;฀the฀surface฀ topography฀of฀the฀cerebral฀cortex฀became฀more฀folded฀and฀complex;฀asymmetric฀ hemispherical฀specialization฀of฀the฀brain฀appeared;฀the฀anatomy฀of฀the฀craniofacial฀ region฀was฀significantly฀shortened,฀and,฀toward฀the฀end฀of฀that฀period,฀the฀volume฀of฀ the฀brain฀itself฀expanded,฀particularly฀in฀the฀frontal฀area.฀In฀other฀words,฀the฀brains฀ of฀our฀ancestors฀who฀lived฀2฀million฀years฀ago฀were฀quite฀different฀from฀the฀brains฀ of฀their฀ancestors฀who฀lived฀5฀million฀years฀earlier.฀With฀regard฀to฀the฀evolution฀ of฀language,฀the฀faculty฀seems฀to฀have฀been฀an฀emergent฀phenomenon฀that฀was฀a฀ byproduct฀of฀other฀developments,฀rather฀than฀one฀that฀was฀built฀on฀a฀pre-existing฀ structure฀or฀structures฀shared฀with฀other฀primates.฀That฀is฀to฀say,฀there฀is฀not฀a฀single฀ structure฀that฀is฀concerned฀exclusively฀with฀language฀and฀speech฀production;฀instead฀

Human฀Natural฀Beings฀ •฀ 83 there฀seem฀to฀be฀several฀areas—one฀associated฀with฀emotions,฀another฀with฀sensation฀ and฀motor฀control—that฀have฀become,฀in฀the฀course฀of฀the฀last฀5฀million฀or฀so฀years,฀ interconnected฀by฀neural฀circuitry฀that฀was฀evolving฀simultaneously฀in฀response฀to฀ selection฀pressures฀that฀had฀nothing฀to฀do฀with฀the฀development฀of฀language฀and฀ only฀a฀little฀to฀do฀with฀other฀systems฀of฀communication฀more฀broadly฀defined. The฀interconnections฀between฀the฀faculties฀of฀language฀and฀tool฀use฀in฀human฀ natural฀beings฀were฀confirmed฀more฀than฀seventy฀years฀ago.฀Lev฀Vygotsky฀and฀ Alexander฀Luria฀(1930/1994)฀assessed฀studies฀that฀compared฀the฀development฀of฀ speech฀and฀practical฀intelligence฀in฀individuals,฀both฀apes฀and฀human฀children;฀these฀ studies฀showed฀(1)฀that฀the฀practical฀behavior฀of฀apes฀is฀independent฀of฀any฀speechsymbolic฀activity,฀and฀(2)฀that฀tool-use฀by฀apes฀was฀analogous฀to฀that฀of฀human฀beings฀ who฀were฀either฀pre-verbal฀children฀or฀deprived฀of฀the฀ability฀to฀speak฀(aphasics).฀ While฀the฀tool-using฀abilities฀of฀apes฀remained฀essentially฀unchanged฀throughout฀ their฀lives,฀those฀that฀children฀manifested฀at฀different฀stages฀of฀psychological฀development฀changed฀dramatically,฀especially฀after฀they฀began฀to฀talk,฀first฀to฀themselves฀ and฀then฀increasingly฀to฀others฀when฀they฀were฀confronted฀with฀a฀problem฀to฀solve.฀ While฀practical฀intelligence฀(tool-use)฀operates฀independently฀of฀speech฀in฀young฀ children,฀practical฀activity฀and฀speech฀are฀increasingly฀interconnected฀as฀the฀child฀ matures.฀The฀egocentric,฀inner฀speech฀of฀four-year-olds฀becomes฀increasingly฀ communicative฀as฀they฀turn฀to฀peers฀and฀adults฀for฀information฀and฀insight฀about฀ the฀issues฀they฀confront.฀As฀the฀human฀child฀matures,฀speech฀increasingly฀moves฀ from฀solving฀the฀problems฀that฀are฀immediately฀at฀hand฀to฀a฀planning฀function฀that฀ precedes฀their฀actions;฀that฀is,฀speech฀and฀interpersonal฀relations฀begin฀to฀guide฀and฀ dominate฀what฀they฀will฀do฀in฀future.฀In฀a฀phrase,฀practical฀activity฀(tool-use฀in฀this฀ case)฀and฀language฀began฀to฀be฀linked฀increasingly฀in฀the฀development฀of฀human฀ natural฀beings,฀not฀only฀in฀their฀evolution฀over฀the฀past฀7฀million฀years฀but฀also฀in฀ the฀maturation฀process฀of฀the฀each฀individual฀human฀being.฀It฀is฀part฀of฀the฀complex฀ process฀by฀which฀natural฀beings฀became฀human฀natural฀beings. As฀we฀have฀just฀seen,฀there฀are฀significant฀differences฀in฀the฀growth฀and฀development฀patterns฀of฀non-human฀primates฀and฀human฀beings.฀For฀example,฀ape฀neonatal฀ infants฀have฀about฀50฀percent฀of฀the฀brain฀volume฀of฀adults฀of฀the฀same฀species,฀and฀ their฀brains฀typically฀grow฀to฀roughly฀the฀same฀size฀as฀the฀adults฀by฀the฀end฀of฀their฀ first฀year฀of฀life.฀In฀contrast,฀human฀infants฀are฀born฀with฀brain฀volumes฀that฀are฀ about฀25฀percent฀of฀the฀size฀of฀those฀of฀adults;฀their฀brains฀double฀in฀size฀during฀the฀ first฀six฀months,฀are฀about฀75฀percent฀the฀size฀of฀adults฀by฀two฀and฀a฀half,฀90฀percent฀ by฀age฀five,฀and฀95฀percent฀in฀their฀tenth฀year.฀This฀protracted฀process฀of฀growth฀and฀ development฀of฀humans฀has฀a฀number฀of฀implications:฀(1)฀brain฀development฀occurs฀ much฀more฀rapidly฀in฀apes฀and฀through฀a฀seemingly฀smaller฀number฀of฀developmental฀ stages;฀(2)฀the฀growth฀rate฀in฀brain฀volume฀extends฀beyond฀well฀beyond฀the฀first฀year฀ of฀life฀in฀human฀beings;฀(3)฀human฀infants฀are฀relatively฀helpless฀in฀comparison฀ to฀ape฀infants฀during฀the฀first฀years฀of฀life;฀(4)฀this฀prolonged฀period฀of฀maturation฀ coincides฀with฀growth฀and฀developmental฀stages฀that฀witness฀not฀only฀the฀formation฀

84฀ •฀ Karl฀Marx,฀Anthropologist of฀new฀neural฀connections฀but฀also฀the฀related฀elaboration฀of฀practical฀activity฀and฀ speech;฀and฀(5)฀the฀changes฀in฀the฀neural฀circuitry฀of฀human฀infants฀and฀children฀are,฀ in฀fact,฀associated฀with฀the฀elaboration฀of฀practical฀activity฀and฀speech. Paleoanthropologists฀have฀discerned฀the฀ape฀and฀human฀patterns฀of฀brain฀growth฀ and฀development฀in฀the฀fossil฀remains฀of฀early฀hominids,฀provided฀that฀cranial฀and฀ pelvic฀bones฀are฀present฀in฀their฀sample.฀An฀important฀limiting฀factor฀with฀regard฀ to฀brain฀volume฀at฀the฀time฀of฀birth฀is฀the฀cross-section฀of฀the฀mother’s฀birth฀canal.฀ The฀size฀and฀shape฀of฀the฀neonate’s฀head฀cannot฀be฀greater฀than฀the฀width฀and฀ height฀of฀the฀birth฀canal.฀For฀example,฀an฀early฀hominid—H.฀rudolfensis฀that฀lived฀ about฀2.5฀million฀years฀ago—had฀a฀brain฀volume฀of฀800–900฀cc฀but฀a฀birth฀canal฀ that฀was฀only฀able฀of฀passing฀a฀fetal฀head฀with฀brain฀size฀of฀about฀200฀cc฀(Stanley฀ 1998:฀160–3).฀Thus,฀they฀infer฀that฀the฀human฀rather฀than฀the฀ape฀pattern฀of฀growth฀ and฀development฀was฀already฀in฀existence฀at฀that฀time.฀This฀implied฀that฀the฀infants฀ also฀exhibited฀the฀same฀pattern฀of฀prolonged฀maturation฀and฀dependence฀that฀exist฀ in฀modern฀human฀beings.฀These฀traits฀coincided฀in฀time฀with฀the฀appearance฀of฀ tool-making฀and฀language;฀they฀also฀coincided฀with฀the฀expansion฀of฀those฀stages฀ of฀brain฀growth฀and฀psychological฀development฀when฀new฀neural฀connections฀are฀ being฀formed฀as฀tool-use฀and฀speech฀become฀increasingly฀social฀activities฀embedded฀ in฀ensembles฀of฀social฀relations. With฀more฀than฀130฀years฀of฀hindsight,฀it฀appears฀that฀“Engels฀got฀it฀right!”฀ The฀broad฀outlines฀of฀his฀argument฀have฀stood฀the฀test฀of฀time.฀Nonetheless,฀the฀ accumulation฀of฀diverse฀sorts฀of฀empirical฀evidence฀during฀that฀period฀has฀added฀ unimaginable฀detail฀and฀enriched฀our฀understanding฀of฀the฀process.฀On฀the฀one฀hand,฀ neither฀Marx฀nor฀Engels฀ever฀questioned฀that฀human฀natural฀beings฀were฀also฀social฀ beings.฀As฀Engels฀(1876/1972:฀251)฀put฀it,฀our฀primate฀ancestors฀“lived฀in฀bands.”฀ On฀the฀other฀hand,฀they฀never฀considered฀in฀any฀extended฀manner฀the฀implications฀ that฀the฀life฀histories,฀fertility,฀and฀mortality฀patterns฀of฀the฀early฀hominids฀might฀ have฀on฀the฀demography฀and฀population฀structures฀of฀those฀groups.

Demography฀and฀Population฀Structure Neither฀Marx฀nor฀Engels฀ever฀wrote฀systematically฀about฀the฀relation฀between฀ population฀and฀political฀economy฀(Seccombe฀1983).฀Marx฀(1863–7/1977:฀784)฀ suggested฀that฀“every฀particular฀historical฀mode฀of฀production฀has฀its฀own฀special฀ laws฀of฀population,฀which฀are฀historically฀valid฀only฀within฀that฀particular฀sphere.฀An฀ abstract฀law฀of฀population฀exists฀only฀for฀plants฀and฀animals,฀and฀even฀then฀only฀in฀ the฀absence฀of฀any฀historical฀intervention฀by฀man.”฀He฀refused฀to฀abstract฀population฀ from฀historically฀specific฀social฀structures฀or฀ensembles฀of฀social฀relations.฀His฀ comment฀is฀part฀of฀a฀larger฀discussion฀about฀the฀relation฀between฀the฀capitalist฀mode฀ of฀production฀and฀the฀formation฀of฀a฀reserve฀army฀of฀labor.฀Marx฀was฀certainly฀aware฀ of฀differences฀in฀mortality฀and฀fertility,฀the฀effects฀of฀the฀movement฀of฀workers฀from฀

Human฀Natural฀Beings฀ •฀ 85 the฀countryside฀to฀industrial฀cities;฀and฀the฀deleterious฀effects฀of฀industries,฀like฀ pottery-making,฀on฀the฀health฀and฀life฀expectancies฀of฀the฀individuals฀engaged฀in฀ those฀activities.฀Marx฀(1863–7/1977:฀471)฀certainly฀recognized฀that฀age฀and฀sex฀were฀ important฀factors฀structuring฀the฀division฀of฀labor฀in฀capitalism,฀and฀that฀they฀were฀ potentially฀implicated฀in฀structuring฀discontinuities฀from฀one฀mode฀of฀production฀to฀ another.฀He฀also฀implied฀that฀the฀determination฀of฀population฀dynamics฀is฀situated฀ in฀the฀inner฀workings฀of฀particular฀modes฀of฀production,฀and฀that฀“population฀forces฀ will฀periodically฀come฀into฀contradiction฀with฀themselves฀and฀with฀other฀elements฀of฀ any฀given฀socio-economic฀system,฀and฀will฀tend฀to฀make฀their฀own฀contribution฀of฀ time฀to฀the฀developmental฀propulsion฀of฀particular฀modes฀through฀time฀and฀space”฀ (Seccombe฀1983:฀33). As฀you฀will฀recall฀from฀earlier฀discussions฀in฀the฀last฀chapter฀and฀this฀one,฀labor฀ and฀thus฀the฀division฀of฀labor฀were฀characteristics฀that,฀in฀Marx’s฀view,฀distinguished฀ human฀natural฀beings฀from฀natural฀beings.฀Biodeterminists,฀drawing฀on฀liberal฀social฀ theory฀(notably฀John฀Locke),฀rooted฀the฀division฀of฀labor฀and฀the฀nuclear฀family฀ in฀biology;฀in฀their฀view,฀sharing฀or฀exchange฀occurred฀because฀of฀the฀biological฀ differences฀between฀males฀and฀females,฀which฀resulted฀in฀different฀dispositions฀ and฀activity฀patterns.฀Females,฀whose฀mobility฀was฀periodically฀constrained฀by฀ infant฀care,฀remained฀in฀close฀proximity฀to฀home฀bases฀and฀foraged฀for฀vegetable฀ foods,฀while฀larger,฀more฀aggressive฀males฀hunted฀for฀meat,฀which฀was฀essential฀for฀ survival,฀and฀shared฀this฀prize฀both฀with฀their฀offspring฀and฀with฀the฀mothers฀of฀those฀ offspring฀(e.g.฀Washburn฀and฀Lancaster฀1968).฀However,฀there฀are฀three฀problems฀ with฀this฀perspective:฀(1)฀most฀non-human฀primates,฀including฀chimpanzees,฀forage฀ individually฀most฀of฀the฀time;฀(2)฀the฀perspective฀does฀not฀explain฀how฀individuals฀ of฀both฀sexes฀transformed฀themselves฀from฀self-feeders฀to฀producers;฀and฀(3)฀Engels฀ (1884/1972)฀argued฀that฀families,฀as฀we฀construe฀them฀today,฀developed฀out฀of฀ “bands.”฀Marx฀and฀Engels฀never฀doubted฀that฀our฀primate฀ancestors฀were฀social฀ beings.฀Not฀surprisingly,฀they฀did฀not฀speculate฀about฀the฀demographic฀aspects฀of฀ the฀transition฀from฀social฀natural฀beings฀to฀human฀natural฀beings,฀nor฀did฀they฀ever฀ comment฀on฀the฀potential฀implications฀of฀mortality,฀fertility,฀and฀age฀structure฀in฀that฀ transition;฀however,฀other฀writers฀have฀thought฀about฀these฀issues. The฀early฀hominids฀were฀sexually฀dimorphic—that฀is,฀adult฀males฀were฀larger฀ than฀adult฀females—but฀these฀differences฀were฀not฀as฀great฀as฀the฀sexual฀dimorphism฀ found฀in฀non-human฀primates,฀such฀as฀chimpanzees฀or฀gorillas.฀The฀males฀and฀ females฀of฀sexually฀dimorphic฀primates฀have฀roughly฀the฀same฀growth฀rates฀until฀ puberty;฀the฀males฀continue฀to฀grow฀for฀several฀years฀after฀reaching฀this฀stage,฀while฀ the฀females฀stop.฀Lila฀Leibowitz฀(1985,฀1986)฀argued฀that฀the฀larger฀body฀size฀of฀ adult฀males฀was฀not฀related฀to฀dominance฀and฀sex฀roles,฀but฀rather฀to฀reproductive฀ and฀foraging฀advantages;฀it฀was฀correlated฀with฀either฀solitary฀existence฀(orangutans)฀ or฀transient฀group฀membership฀(chimpanzees฀and฀gorillas).฀The฀larger฀body฀size฀of฀ adult฀males฀gave฀them฀a฀greater฀chance฀for฀survival฀outside฀a฀social฀group;฀it฀also฀ meant฀that฀both฀males฀and฀females฀engaged฀in฀the฀same฀foraging฀activities฀but฀in฀ different฀places.

86฀ •฀ Karl฀Marx,฀Anthropologist There฀is฀a฀great฀deal฀of฀variability฀not฀only฀in฀male฀and฀female฀roles฀but฀also฀ in฀the฀relations฀between฀the฀sexes฀with฀groups฀of฀non-human฀primates฀(Leibowitz฀ 1985,฀1986).฀There฀is฀even฀variation฀between฀social฀groups฀of฀the฀same฀species—e.g.฀ baboon฀troops฀in฀which฀food฀resources฀and฀concentrated฀vs.฀those฀where฀resources฀ are฀dispersed.฀Chimpanzees฀probably฀show฀the฀greatest฀flexibility฀and฀diversity฀of฀ relations.฀The฀core฀members฀of฀chimpanzee฀social฀groups฀are฀adult฀females฀and฀their฀ juvenile฀and฀infant฀offspring.฀Adult฀males฀join฀these฀core฀groups฀temporarily฀for฀ greater฀or฀lesser฀periods฀of฀time,฀before฀wandering฀off฀to฀forage฀in฀other฀localities,฀ either฀alone฀or฀in฀all-male฀groups.฀Thus,฀self-feeding฀is฀the฀rule฀in฀the฀core฀and฀allmale฀groups,฀except฀at฀those฀rare฀times฀when฀a฀small฀animal฀is฀killed฀and฀the฀meat฀is฀ shared฀with฀individuals฀foraging฀nearby. As฀we฀have฀seen,฀the฀maturation฀pattern฀of฀our฀primate฀ancestors฀who฀lived฀3฀ million฀years฀ago฀was฀essentially฀the฀same฀as฀that฀of฀modern฀human฀beings.฀They฀ reached฀reproductive฀age฀at฀about฀the฀same฀rate฀as฀we฀do.฀Paleodemographic฀studies฀ indicate฀that฀infant฀and฀juvenile฀mortality฀was฀high,฀that฀about฀half฀of฀the฀individuals฀ died฀or฀were฀killed฀before฀they฀reached฀reproductive฀age,฀and฀that฀the฀average฀life฀ span฀of฀the฀survivors฀was฀about฀twenty฀years.฀Assuming฀that฀females฀had฀their฀first฀ infants฀shortly฀after฀reaching฀puberty,฀when฀they฀were฀twelve฀or฀thirteen฀years฀old,฀ and฀that฀they฀did฀not฀ovulate฀for฀the฀three฀or฀so฀years฀when฀they฀were฀lactating฀and฀ nursing,฀their฀second฀infant฀would฀have฀been฀born฀when฀they฀were฀fifteen฀or฀sixteen฀ years฀old,฀and฀their฀third฀when฀they฀were฀eighteen฀or฀nineteen. Such฀a฀demographic฀profile฀has฀several฀implications.฀First,฀few,฀if฀any,฀females฀ were฀alive฀when฀their฀offspring฀reached฀puberty.฀Second,฀most฀of฀the฀members฀of฀a฀ social฀group฀were฀prepubescent฀individuals฀who฀had฀not฀reached฀reproductive฀age.฀ Third,฀many฀of฀the฀juveniles฀were฀orphans฀who฀had฀to฀fend฀for฀themselves฀in฀order฀to฀ survive.฀Fourth,฀they฀were฀exposed฀to฀prolonged฀learning฀in฀a฀social฀group฀that฀was฀ composed฀largely฀of฀other฀prepubescent฀individuals.฀The฀conclusion฀that฀Leibowitz฀ drew฀from฀this฀evidence฀is฀that฀age฀or฀stage฀of฀maturation฀may฀have฀been฀more฀ important฀than฀sex฀in฀structuring฀the฀social฀relations฀of฀early฀human฀populations. Her฀observations฀and฀arguments฀suggest฀a฀model฀of฀early฀hominid฀society.฀The฀ social฀groups฀were฀small฀and฀composed฀mainly฀of฀individuals฀who฀had฀not฀yet฀ reached฀reproductive฀age.฀Within฀these฀groups,฀prepubescent฀males฀and฀females฀of฀ the฀same฀age฀were฀roughly฀similar฀in฀size;฀they฀foraged฀for฀themselves฀from฀a฀young฀ age฀and฀shared฀food฀with฀other฀individuals,฀when฀there฀was฀more฀than฀any฀one฀of฀ them฀could฀consume.฀In฀the฀process฀of฀growing฀up฀in฀a฀small฀group,฀they฀learned฀ to฀use฀and฀make฀simple฀wooden฀and฀stone฀tools฀from฀their฀peers.฀They฀shared฀ information฀about฀the฀world฀around฀them฀through฀language.฀Their฀understanding฀of฀ their฀world฀was฀gained฀through฀practical฀activities฀and฀experiences,฀the฀successes฀ and฀failures฀of฀everyday฀life.฀Food฀sharing฀involves฀a฀degree฀of฀cooperation฀that฀does฀ not฀exist฀in฀contemporary฀non-human฀primates฀and฀presumably฀did฀not฀exist฀among฀ their฀ancestors,฀except฀on฀the฀most฀limited฀bases.฀It฀is฀an฀attribute฀that฀involves฀ cooperation฀among฀individuals฀as฀well฀as฀new฀levels฀of฀understanding,฀trust,฀and฀

Human฀Natural฀Beings฀ •฀ 87 confidence฀in฀the฀motivations฀of฀others.฀However,฀cultural฀understandings฀and฀ways฀ of฀doing฀things฀changed฀slowly.฀There฀were฀so฀few฀individuals฀in฀these฀early฀groups฀ that฀new฀ways฀of฀seeing฀and฀understanding฀the฀world฀or฀making฀new฀tools฀were฀ often฀not฀validated฀because฀of฀the฀absence฀of฀an฀appreciative฀audience. It฀appears฀that฀H.฀erectus฀populations฀living฀between฀2฀million฀and฀500,000฀years฀ ago฀may฀have฀exhibited฀less฀sexual฀dimorphism฀than฀their฀immediate฀ancestors.฀ This฀evidence,฀coupled฀with฀their฀movement฀into฀new฀landscapes฀in฀Eurasia฀and฀ the฀changes฀that฀had฀already฀been฀taking฀place฀and฀that฀were฀continuing฀to฀occur฀in฀ Africa,฀suggest฀that฀diminished฀sexual฀dimorphism฀was฀likely฀associated฀with฀new฀ forms฀of฀social฀organization.฀Leibowitz฀suggests฀that฀adult฀males฀may฀have฀been฀ integrated฀into฀the฀juvenile,฀adult฀female,฀and฀infant฀groups฀on฀a฀full-time฀basis.฀ Their฀integration฀coincided฀with฀two฀other฀changes฀that฀facilitated฀both฀new฀forms฀ of฀cooperation฀and฀further฀development฀of฀human฀natural฀beings฀themselves:฀(1)฀ systematic฀hunting฀and฀hence฀the฀increased฀consumption฀of฀meat฀(a฀high฀energy,฀ protein-rich฀food฀source);฀and฀(2)฀appearance฀of฀spatially฀organized,฀hunting฀and฀ hearth-centered฀activities฀that฀were฀carried฀out฀more฀or฀less฀simultaneously฀in฀ different฀places.฀If฀this฀change฀refracts฀new฀relations฀based฀in฀some฀complicated฀ manner฀on฀sex฀differences,฀then฀shifts฀in฀the฀ensembles฀of฀social฀relations฀refracting฀ changes฀in฀the฀age฀structure฀of฀human฀populations฀occurred฀much฀more฀recently.฀ Rachel฀Caspari฀and฀Sang-Hee฀Lee฀(2006)฀have฀argued฀that฀significant฀changes฀in฀the฀ numbers฀of฀individuals฀surviving฀to฀adulthood—i.e.,฀the฀ratio฀of฀older฀to฀younger฀ individuals฀in฀a฀population—did฀not฀occur฀until฀the฀last฀50,000฀years฀or฀so.฀This฀ change,฀they฀argued,฀was฀not฀a฀biological฀one฀but฀rather฀one฀rooted฀in฀culture฀and฀ social฀relations.฀In฀practical฀terms,฀it฀means฀that฀there฀were฀then฀grandmothers฀and฀ grandfathers,฀repositories฀of฀practical฀knowledge,฀who฀could฀share฀that฀information฀ with฀the฀younger฀generations฀of฀the฀social฀groups.

Marx฀on฀the฀Naturalization฀of฀Social฀Inequality Compare฀the฀following฀statements฀made฀by฀Marx฀about฀Darwin’s฀The฀Origin฀of฀ Species.฀The฀first฀was฀made฀less฀than฀a฀month฀after฀its฀publication.฀The฀second฀was฀ made฀two฀and฀a฀half฀years฀later. Darwin,฀by฀the฀way,฀whom฀I’m฀reading฀just฀now,฀is฀absolutely฀splendid.฀There฀was฀one฀ aspect฀of฀teleology฀that฀had฀yet฀to฀be฀demolished,฀and฀that฀has฀been฀done.฀Never฀before฀ has฀so฀grandiose฀an฀attempt฀been฀made฀to฀demonstrate฀historical฀evolution฀in฀Nature,฀ and฀certainly฀never฀to฀such฀good฀effect.฀One฀does,฀of฀course,฀have฀to฀put฀up฀with฀the฀ crude฀English฀method.฀(Marx฀1859/1983:฀551) I’m฀amused฀that฀Darwin,฀whom฀I’ve฀been฀taking฀another฀look,฀should฀say฀that฀he฀also฀ applies฀the฀“Malthusian”฀theory฀to฀plants฀and฀animals,฀as฀though฀in฀Mr.฀Malthus’s฀case,฀ the฀whole฀thing฀didn’t฀lie฀in฀its฀not฀being฀applied฀to฀plants฀and฀animals,฀but—only฀with฀

88฀ •฀ Karl฀Marx,฀Anthropologist its฀geometric฀progression—to฀humans฀as฀against฀plants฀and฀animals.฀It฀is฀remarkable฀ how฀Darwin฀rediscovers,฀among฀the฀beasts฀and฀plants,฀the฀society฀of฀England฀with฀its฀ division฀of฀labour,฀competition,฀opening฀up฀of฀new฀markets,฀“inventions”฀and฀Malthusian฀ “struggle฀for฀existence.”฀It฀is฀Hobbes’฀bellum฀omnium฀contra฀omnes฀[i.e.,฀war฀of฀all฀ against฀all]฀and฀is฀reminiscent฀of฀Hegel’s฀Phenomenology฀in฀which฀civil฀society฀figures฀ as฀an฀“intellectual฀animal฀kingdom,”฀whereas,฀in฀Darwin,฀the฀animal฀kingdom฀figures฀as฀ civil฀society.฀(Marx฀1862/1985:฀381)

What฀stands฀out฀in฀both฀quotations฀is฀Marx’s฀critique฀of฀the฀naturalization฀of฀social฀ inequalities,฀the฀transposition฀of฀capitalist฀social฀relations฀to฀nature,฀and฀their฀ reappropriation฀into฀capitalist฀society฀as฀“natural”฀relations.฀One฀target฀was฀Thomas฀ Hobbes฀(1588–1679),฀the฀seventeenth-century฀materialist฀and฀political฀theorist฀who฀ had฀argued฀that฀human฀individuals฀always฀act฀out฀of฀self-interest฀to฀satisfy฀their฀ appetites฀and฀avoid฀their฀aversions,฀and฀that,฀in฀order฀to฀avoid฀being฀thrust฀back฀into฀ a฀state฀of฀nature฀during฀the฀time฀of฀the฀English฀Civil฀War,฀they฀should฀submit฀their฀ own฀individual฀wills฀to,฀or฀at฀least฀not฀resist,฀that฀of฀the฀sovereign฀in฀exchange฀for฀ self-preservation฀and฀avoiding฀death฀(Wood฀and฀Wood฀1997:฀94–111).฀A฀second฀ target฀was฀Thomas฀Malthus฀(1766–1834)฀who฀also฀assumed฀that฀self-interest฀and฀ competition฀were฀the฀foundations฀of฀modern฀society,฀that฀poverty฀was฀a฀natural฀ outcome฀of฀social฀relations,฀and฀that฀the฀tendency฀to฀over-reproduce฀far฀outstripped฀ the฀capacity฀of฀society฀to฀produce฀food,฀which฀led฀to฀a฀limited฀food฀supply฀and฀a฀ “struggle฀for฀existence”฀among฀its฀members.฀It฀is฀important฀to฀note฀here฀that฀Marx฀ believed฀that฀“human฀nature”฀was฀not฀fixed฀but฀varied฀from฀one฀historical฀epoch฀to฀ another,฀and฀that฀his฀concept฀of฀class฀struggle฀was฀different฀from฀those฀of฀Darwin฀ who฀viewed฀struggle฀between฀different฀individuals฀of฀the฀same฀species฀in฀terms฀ of฀differential฀reproduction฀and฀survival,฀Alfred฀Russel฀Wallace฀(1823–1913),฀and฀ Malthus฀who฀viewed฀struggle฀in฀terms฀of฀limitations฀imposed฀on฀society฀as฀a฀whole฀ by฀its฀environment฀(Bowler฀1976:฀639,฀647–50). In฀ 1875,฀ Frederick฀ Engels฀ made฀ a฀ similar฀ point฀ with฀ regard฀ to฀ “bourgeois฀ Darwinians”฀who฀saw฀only฀struggle฀for฀existence฀in฀nature฀where฀only฀a฀few฀years฀ earlier฀they฀“laid฀emphasis฀on฀co-operation”:1 All฀ that฀ the฀ Darwinian฀ theory฀ of฀ the฀ struggle฀ for฀ existence฀ boils฀ down฀ to฀ is฀ an฀ extrapolation฀from฀society฀to฀animate฀nature฀of฀Hobbes’฀theory฀of฀the฀bellum฀omnium฀ contra฀omnes฀and฀of฀bourgeois-economic฀theory฀together฀with฀the฀Malthusian฀theory฀of฀ population.฀Having฀accomplished฀this฀feat฀.฀.฀.฀these฀people฀proceed฀to฀re-extrapolate฀the฀ same฀theories฀from฀organic฀nature฀to฀history,฀and฀then฀claim฀to฀have฀proved฀their฀validity฀ as฀eternal฀laws฀of฀human฀society.฀(Engels฀1875/1991:฀107–8)

The฀questions฀are:฀What฀happened฀in฀the฀thirteen฀years฀that฀intervened฀between฀ Marx’s฀letter฀and฀that฀of฀Engels?฀What฀were฀the฀relationships฀of฀the฀liberals฀and฀socialists฀that฀Engels฀called฀bourgeois฀Darwinians฀to฀the฀development฀of฀anthropology?

Human฀Natural฀Beings฀ •฀ 89 When฀Darwin฀was฀composing฀The฀Origin฀of฀Species฀in฀the฀1840s฀and฀1850s,฀ many฀of฀the฀concepts฀(e.g.฀evolution)฀and฀metaphors฀(e.g.฀“struggle฀for฀existence”฀ or฀“survival฀of฀the฀fittest”)฀that฀he฀would฀eventually฀use฀had฀already฀been฀employed฀ by฀others.฀In฀a฀real฀sense,฀they฀had฀entered฀into฀the฀public฀domain฀and฀were฀being฀ deployed฀by฀naturalists,฀political฀economists,฀and฀social฀commentators฀at฀a฀time฀ when฀the฀popularity฀of฀reductive฀materialist฀arguments฀was฀on฀the฀rise฀in฀some฀circles฀ and฀challenged฀in฀others,฀especially฀in฀those฀with฀strong฀religious฀convictions.฀The฀ advocates฀of฀this฀reductionist฀standpoint฀were฀attempting฀to฀explain฀the฀development฀ of฀human฀society฀as฀well฀as฀human฀psychology฀and฀social฀organization฀in฀terms฀ of฀natural฀laws฀that฀were฀derived฀from฀biology฀or฀even฀physics;฀their฀perspective฀ frequently฀emphasized฀the฀naturalness฀of฀hierarchy,฀gradualism,฀or฀equilibrium.฀ What฀many฀but฀not฀all฀of฀the฀advocates฀of฀this฀standpoint฀attempted฀to฀do฀was฀replace฀ the฀notion฀of฀divine฀intervention฀with฀the฀“laws฀of฀nature.”฀Moreover,฀their฀efforts฀ were฀facilitated฀by฀the฀fact฀that฀they฀also฀used฀the฀same฀conceptual฀frameworks฀ and฀drew฀on฀the฀same฀analogies฀and฀metaphors฀to฀describe฀the฀human฀and฀natural฀ realms.฀As฀a฀result,฀it฀was฀not฀uncommon฀by฀the฀1850s฀for฀writers฀to฀slip฀between฀ claims฀that฀human฀beings฀had฀a฀nature,฀and฀that฀nature฀had฀a฀moral฀economy฀(Jones฀ 1980:฀1–9).฀These฀tendencies฀became฀increasingly฀common฀in฀many฀countries฀ after฀the฀publication฀of฀The฀Origin฀of฀Species฀in฀1859฀(e.g.฀Glick฀1988).฀Twelve฀ years฀later,฀Darwin฀(1874/1998)฀published฀his฀views฀about฀the฀human฀species฀and฀ the฀development฀of฀the฀intellectual฀and฀moral฀faculties฀of฀primitive฀and฀civilized฀ peoples฀in฀The฀Descent฀of฀Man.฀Darwinism฀and฀evolutionism฀were฀concerned฀with฀ the฀individual,฀with฀the฀evolution฀of฀the฀human฀psyche฀and฀intelligence,฀and฀with฀the฀ evolution฀of฀human฀social฀and฀social฀organization.฀While฀they฀were฀liberal฀reactions฀ against฀entrenched฀aristocratic฀and฀conservative฀understandings฀of฀the฀world,฀they฀ also฀became฀part฀of฀emerging฀discourses฀about฀individualism,฀meritocracy,฀the฀ struggle฀for฀existence,฀and฀scientific฀racism฀that฀came฀to฀be฀called฀Social฀Darwinism฀ after฀1879;฀however,฀many฀features฀and฀metaphors,฀like฀“the฀struggle฀for฀existence”฀ or฀“nature฀red฀in฀tooth฀and฀claw,”฀associated฀with฀Social฀Darwinism฀were฀in฀use฀ before฀Darwin฀wrote฀either฀The฀Origin฀of฀Species฀or฀The฀Descent฀of฀Man.฀While฀it฀is฀ possible฀to฀argue฀that฀Darwin฀was฀a฀Social฀Darwinist,฀it฀is฀also฀clear฀that฀some฀of฀his฀ followers฀were฀socialists฀and฀others฀were฀not. Anthropology—an฀emerging฀discipline฀concerned฀with฀human฀variation,฀the฀ evolution฀of฀human฀societies,฀and฀the฀cultural฀practices฀and฀beliefs฀of฀marginal฀ peoples—also฀began฀to฀coalesce฀rapidly฀in฀the฀1860s฀and฀1870s฀(e.g.฀Hammond฀ 1980;฀Harvey฀1983;฀Kelly฀1981;฀Stocking฀1987;฀Weikart฀1999;฀Weindling฀1989:฀ 11–59).฀Its฀early฀practitioners฀often฀had฀the฀same฀understandings฀of฀human฀beings,฀ human฀diversity,฀and฀societal฀evolution฀and฀made฀use฀of฀the฀same฀analogies฀and฀ metaphors฀ as฀ Darwin฀ and฀ his฀ followers.฀ However,฀ anthropology฀ was฀ never฀ a฀ politically฀homogeneous฀discipline฀even฀at฀its฀inception.฀Some฀early฀figures฀in฀ the฀history฀of฀anthropology—like฀Franz฀Boas฀(1858–1942)฀or฀Robert฀H.฀Lowie฀ (1883–1957)฀in฀the฀United฀States—were฀socialists฀who฀rejected฀the฀positivism฀of฀the฀

90฀ •฀ Karl฀Marx,฀Anthropologist social฀evolutionary฀perspectives฀and฀replaced฀them฀instead฀with฀empiricist-inspired฀ and฀grounded฀studies฀of฀the฀cultural฀practices฀of฀particular฀communities,฀populations฀ rather฀than฀types฀of฀individuals,฀the฀weaknesses฀of฀scientific฀racist฀arguments,฀or฀ the฀politics฀of฀science฀(Pittenger฀1993).฀For฀example,฀Lowie฀was฀highly฀critical฀of฀ Lewis฀Henry฀Morgan’s฀Ancient฀Society฀and฀of฀Ernst฀Haeckel฀(1834–1919),฀who฀was฀ one฀of฀the฀leading฀exponents฀of฀Darwin’s฀thought฀in฀Germany;฀at฀the฀same฀time,฀he฀ praised฀the฀writings฀of฀Russian฀anarchist฀Peter฀Kropotkin฀(1842–1921),฀especially฀ his฀Mutual฀Aid:฀A฀Factor฀of฀Evolution฀(Kropotkin฀1904/1989)฀and฀of฀the฀socialist฀ Alfred฀Russel฀Wallace. For฀our฀purposes฀in฀this฀book,฀it฀is฀worth฀noting฀that฀discourses฀which฀naturalize฀ social฀hierarchy฀and฀power฀relations฀have฀been฀and฀continue฀to฀be฀pervasive฀and฀ influential฀ in฀ anthropological฀ practice฀ and฀ theory฀ and฀ their฀ appropriations฀ by฀ states฀including฀socialist฀ones฀(e.g.฀Patterson฀and฀Spencer฀1995;฀Ssorin-Chaikov฀ 2003;฀Yanagisako฀and฀Delaney฀1995).฀It฀is฀also฀clear,฀as฀the฀letters฀quoted฀above฀ indicate,฀that฀Marx฀and฀Engels฀were฀early฀opponents฀of฀the฀naturalization฀of฀cultural฀ categories. In฀this฀chapter,฀we฀examined฀how฀Marx’s฀materialism฀was฀an฀outcome฀of฀his฀ efforts฀as฀a฀student฀to฀bring฀together฀the฀arts฀and฀sciences฀and฀then,฀a฀few฀years฀later,฀ to฀address฀questions฀concerned฀with฀the฀emergence฀and฀development฀of฀human฀ natural฀beings฀and฀their฀relationship฀with฀the฀worlds฀in฀which฀they฀lived.฀For฀Marx,฀ the฀attraction฀of฀Darwin’s฀theory฀of฀evolution฀by฀natural฀selection฀was฀precisely฀its฀ materialist฀foundations.฀One฀can฀only฀presume฀that฀Marx฀would฀have฀applauded฀ subsequent฀clarifications฀of฀the฀underlying฀mechanisms฀of฀descent฀with฀modification฀ and฀speciation฀as฀well฀as฀of฀the฀historically฀contingent฀and฀ever-changing฀structure฀ of฀the฀world฀in฀which฀these฀mechanisms฀operate.฀We฀then฀moved฀to฀an฀examination฀ of฀Engels’s฀essay฀on฀the฀role฀of฀labor฀in฀the฀transition฀from฀non-human฀primate฀to฀ human฀natural฀being฀and฀suggested฀that฀Marx฀agreed฀with฀the฀views฀of฀his฀longtime฀friend.฀We฀also฀saw฀that฀the฀broad฀outlines฀of฀Engels’s฀argument฀have฀stood฀ the฀test฀of฀time,฀although฀the฀kinds฀of฀detailed฀information฀available฀today฀are฀ infinitely฀richer฀than฀when฀he฀wrote.฀Engels฀linked฀the฀emergence฀of฀human฀natural฀ beings฀with฀a฀series฀of฀interconnected฀changes฀in฀the฀corporeal฀organization฀of฀ our฀ancestors฀that฀involved฀bipedalism,฀changes฀in฀the฀anatomy฀and฀dexterity฀of฀ the฀hand,฀expansion฀and฀reorganization฀of฀the฀brain,฀tool-making,฀language,฀and฀ the฀elaboration฀of฀culture.฀We฀then฀examined฀data฀clarifying฀these฀developments;฀ some฀of฀the฀data฀derived฀from฀the฀investigations฀of฀neuroanatomists,฀while฀others฀ came฀from฀paleoanthropological฀inquiries฀in฀African฀and฀Eurasia.฀Finally,฀we฀raised฀ questions฀about฀the฀kinds฀of฀social฀relations฀that฀might฀have฀existed฀in฀these฀early฀ communities,฀and฀how฀issues฀of฀mortality,฀fertility,฀life฀expectancy,฀and฀life฀history฀ might฀have฀effected฀and฀produced฀diverse฀social฀structures. There฀is,฀however,฀another฀set฀of฀linkages฀between฀Marx,฀Darwin,฀and฀their฀ successors฀that฀we฀explored:฀the฀naturalization฀of฀social฀inequalities฀through฀the฀ use฀of฀folk฀categories฀that฀are฀understood฀as฀the฀biological฀categories฀of฀Western฀ modernity.

– 4– History,฀Culture,฀and฀Social฀Formation Marx฀read฀widely฀in฀anthropology฀and฀history฀in฀the฀1870s.฀He฀filled฀fifty฀notebooks฀ about฀Russia฀and,฀between฀1879฀and฀1882,฀took฀more฀than฀450฀pages฀of฀notes฀ interspersed฀with฀commentaries฀on฀topics฀as฀diverse฀as฀prehistoric฀Europe,฀the฀ history฀of฀India,฀Dutch฀colonialism,฀family฀and฀gender฀in฀Roman฀society,฀and฀ American฀Indian฀societies฀(Anderson฀2002;฀Smith฀2002).฀Only฀about฀a฀third฀of฀ the฀notes฀were฀transcribed฀and฀published฀by฀Lawrence฀Krader฀in฀The฀Ethnological฀ Notebooks฀(Marx฀1880–2/1974).฀It฀was฀the฀second฀time฀in฀his฀career฀that฀Marx฀read฀ extensively฀about฀non-Western฀societies;฀the฀earlier฀one฀occurred฀between฀1853฀ and฀1859฀when฀he฀wrote฀articles฀about฀India,฀China,฀and฀the฀Ottoman฀Empire฀for฀ the฀New฀York฀Tribune฀(Avineri฀1968).฀Marx’s฀interest฀in฀anthropology฀and฀history฀ raises฀two฀interrelated฀questions:฀If฀his฀overriding฀concern฀was฀capitalist฀society,฀as฀ some฀have฀claimed,฀then฀why฀did฀he฀read฀so฀extensively฀about฀non-capitalist฀and฀ pre-capitalist฀societies?฀Did฀his฀theoretical฀standpoint฀and฀understanding฀of฀these฀ societies฀change฀in฀significant฀way฀between฀the฀1850s฀and฀the฀1870s? The฀presupposition฀underlying฀the฀first฀question฀is฀that฀Marx฀saw฀the฀study฀of฀ non-capitalist฀or฀pre-capitalist฀societies฀in฀the฀1870s฀as฀distinct฀from฀and฀unrelated฀ to฀that฀of฀capitalism.฀For฀later฀commentators,฀it฀was฀alternatively฀a฀grander฀project,฀ a฀diversion฀from฀the฀really฀important฀project,฀pedantry,฀a฀sign฀of฀depression฀over฀the฀ defeat฀of฀the฀Paris฀Commune฀in฀1871,฀and฀even฀an฀indication฀of฀encroaching฀senility.฀ In฀contrast,฀David฀Smith฀(2002:฀78–9)฀has฀argued฀that฀it฀is฀difficult฀to฀sustain฀either฀ the฀presupposition฀or฀the฀conclusions฀drawn฀from฀it,฀since฀Marx฀was฀still฀actively฀ working฀on฀the฀second฀and฀third฀volumes฀of฀Capital฀in฀the฀1870s,฀and,฀at฀the฀same฀ time,฀was฀preparing฀a฀new฀edition฀of฀the฀first฀volume฀as฀well฀as฀a฀French฀translation฀ which฀combined฀elements฀of฀the฀first฀and฀second฀German฀editions฀of฀that฀volume฀ (Anderson฀2002:฀87).฀Smith฀further฀suggests฀that฀Marx’s฀turn฀to฀anthropology฀and฀ history฀had฀a฀lot฀to฀do฀with฀the฀subject฀matter฀that฀the฀latter฀was฀planning฀to฀discuss฀ in฀the฀second฀volume.฀In฀volume฀one,฀as฀you฀will฀recall,฀Marx฀(1863–7/1976:฀711– 61)฀discussed฀the฀“simple฀reproduction฀of฀capital”฀and฀drew฀most฀of฀his฀examples฀ from฀the฀British฀Isles.฀In฀the฀second฀volume,฀he฀would฀discuss฀the฀“accumulation฀ and฀reproduction฀of฀capital฀on฀an฀expanded฀scale”฀(Marx฀1865–1885/1981:฀565–99).฀ Smith฀writes฀that,฀at฀this฀point, Marx฀needed฀to฀delve฀further฀into฀the฀multicultural฀specificity฀of฀the฀world฀that฀capitalism฀was฀seeking฀to฀conquer.฀.฀.฀.฀Now฀he฀needed฀to฀know฀concretely,฀in฀exact฀detail,฀what฀

91

92฀ •฀ Karl฀Marx,฀Anthropologist capital฀could฀expect฀to฀confront฀in฀its฀global฀extension.฀So฀it฀should฀not฀be฀surprising฀that฀ Marx฀chose฀to฀investigate฀non-Western฀societies฀precisely฀at฀this฀point.฀Euro-American฀ capital฀was฀speeding฀into฀a฀world฀dense฀with฀cultural฀difference.฀To฀understand฀this฀ difference,฀and฀the฀difference฀it฀makes฀for฀capital,฀Marx฀needed฀to฀know฀as฀much฀as฀ possible฀about฀noncapitalist฀social฀structures.฀(Smith฀2002:฀79)

In฀other฀words,฀Marx’s฀turn฀to฀anthropology฀and฀history฀was฀not฀distinct฀from฀his฀ concern฀with฀capitalism฀but฀rather฀was฀an฀integral฀part฀of฀that฀project. With฀regard฀to฀the฀second฀question,฀Marx’s฀theoretical฀standpoint฀and฀understanding฀of฀pre-capitalist฀and฀non-capitalist฀societies฀did฀change฀during฀his฀career฀ (e.g.฀Krader฀1975).฀The฀changes฀are฀perhaps฀most฀apparent฀in฀his฀discussions฀of฀ transition,฀especially฀the฀transition฀from฀feudalism฀to฀capitalism.฀Marx฀developed฀ one฀explanation฀in฀the฀1840s,฀which฀relied฀heavily฀on฀Adam฀Smith’s฀writings;฀it฀ suggests฀that฀human฀society฀had฀developed฀through฀a฀progression฀of฀stages฀from฀ primitive฀communism฀through฀feudalism฀to฀capitalism฀(e.g.฀Marx฀and฀Engels฀ 1848/1976:฀482–5).฀In฀this฀perspective,฀the฀motor฀driving฀the฀evolution฀of฀class฀and฀ property฀relations฀was฀set฀in฀motion฀by฀the฀growth฀of฀trade฀and฀competition฀and฀ involved฀the฀structural฀differentiation฀of฀roles฀within฀the฀labor฀process฀(Brenner฀ 1989).฀This฀has฀frequently฀been฀characterized฀and฀criticized฀as฀a฀unilinear฀and฀ Eurocentric฀perspective.฀However,฀as฀Kevin฀Anderson฀(2002:฀86)฀notes,฀Marx’s฀ “references฀to฀[European]฀colonialism฀as฀a฀source฀of฀civilization฀and฀progress฀had฀ largely฀disappeared”฀by฀1857,฀when฀he฀began฀to฀develop฀a฀second฀explanation฀ of฀transition.฀This฀explanation฀was฀elaborated฀in฀works฀written฀from฀that฀date฀ onward—notably฀the฀Grundrisse,฀Capital,฀and฀The฀Ethnological฀Notebooks฀(Marx฀ 1857–8/1973,฀1863–7/1977,฀1880–2/1974).฀In฀these,฀he฀abandoned฀the฀earlier฀model฀ and฀viewed฀social฀change฀in฀historical-dialectical฀terms.฀He฀paid฀more฀attention฀to฀ the฀variability฀of฀pre-capitalist฀and฀non-capitalist฀communal฀societies,฀made฀the฀ concept฀of฀modes฀of฀production฀the฀centerpiece฀of฀his฀analysis,฀suggested฀that฀the฀ various฀modes฀of฀production฀were฀differentially฀or฀variably฀resistant฀to฀change,฀ and฀implied฀that฀not฀all฀societies฀formed฀in฀the฀same฀way฀or฀passed฀through฀the฀ same฀succession฀of฀modes฀of฀production.฀Moreover,฀he฀continually฀clarified฀and฀ refined฀his฀argument฀about฀transition.฀For฀example,฀in฀the฀1867฀English฀edition฀of฀ Capital,฀vol.฀1,฀Marx฀(1863–7/1977:฀91)฀wrote:฀“The฀country฀that฀is฀more฀developed฀ industrially฀only฀shows,฀to฀the฀less฀developed,฀the฀image฀of฀its฀own฀future.”฀When฀ the฀French฀edition฀was฀published฀eight฀years฀later,฀he฀had฀modified฀the฀passage฀and฀ made฀the฀implications฀of฀his฀analysis฀of฀capitalist฀development฀more฀transparent:฀ “The฀country฀that฀is฀more฀developed฀industrially฀only฀shows,฀to฀those฀which฀follow฀ it฀on฀the฀industrial฀path฀[échelle],฀the฀image฀of฀its฀own฀future”฀(Marx฀1875/1963:฀ 549฀quoted฀by฀Anderson฀2002:฀88฀with฀emphasis฀added).฀Thus,฀Marx฀was฀already฀ explicitly฀clear฀about฀the฀possibility฀of฀alternative฀pathways฀of฀development฀for฀ capitalist฀societies฀by฀the฀1870s฀and฀for฀non-industrial฀and฀non-Western฀societies฀ more฀than฀a฀decade฀earlier.

History,฀Culture,฀and฀Social฀Formation฀ •฀ 93 The฀goals฀of฀this฀chapter฀are฀to฀look฀at฀Marx’s฀conceptual฀framework฀especially฀ with฀regards฀to฀the฀diversity฀of฀human฀societies฀and฀of฀the฀modes฀of฀production฀that฀ constitute฀them฀(including฀those฀that฀might฀be฀residual,฀dominant,฀or฀emergent฀in฀any฀ given฀society);฀his฀notions฀of฀historical฀trajectories฀and฀the฀historically฀determined฀ contingency฀of฀transitions;฀and฀how,฀given฀this฀standpoint,฀he฀might฀have฀dealt฀with฀ the฀enormous฀amount฀of฀information฀about฀pre-capitalist฀and฀non-capitalist฀societies฀ that฀archaeologists,฀sociocultural฀anthropologists฀(ethnologists),฀and฀historians฀have฀ gathered฀in฀the฀last฀150฀years.

Marx’s฀Historical-Dialectical฀Conceptual฀Framework Marx’s฀empirical฀anthropology฀was฀underpinned฀by฀a฀historical-dialectical฀notion฀ of฀society.฀In฀this฀regard,฀his฀views฀bore฀a฀generic฀resemblance฀to฀those฀of฀Hegel.฀ Both฀saw฀human฀society฀as฀a฀process฀of฀becoming.฀In฀Hegel’s฀view,฀the฀dialectical฀ progression฀of฀human฀history฀and฀society฀toward฀emancipation฀culminated฀in฀ Christianity,฀the฀Reformation,฀the฀French฀Revolution,฀and฀the฀constitutional฀monarchies฀of฀the฀early฀nineteenth฀century.฀In฀Marx’s฀view,฀the฀realm฀of฀individual฀ freedom,฀which฀Hegel฀claimed฀had฀already฀been฀fully฀realized฀in฀the฀Prussian฀state,฀ actually฀“lies฀.฀.฀.฀in฀the฀future฀as฀a฀real฀possibility฀of฀the฀present”฀(Fetscher฀1991:฀ 228)฀As฀Iring฀Fetscher฀put฀it, The฀dialectic฀of฀the฀productive฀forces฀and฀productive฀relations฀which฀effects฀[sic]฀ historical฀progress฀offers฀in฀contrast฀to฀Hegel’s฀dialectic฀of฀world฀spirit฀no฀guarantee฀ that฀the฀realm฀of฀freedom฀will฀be฀realized;฀it฀presents฀only฀the฀objective฀possibility฀of฀ such฀a฀development.฀Should฀the฀historically฀possible฀revolutionizing฀of฀society฀not฀come฀ about,฀then฀a฀relapse฀into฀barbarism฀(Luxemburg)฀or฀the฀“common฀ruin฀of฀the฀contending฀ classes”฀(Marx)฀is฀also฀possible.฀(Fetscher฀1991:฀228)

This฀led฀Marx฀(e.g.฀1852/1979)฀to฀consider฀factors฀such฀as฀contradiction,฀the฀balance฀ of฀force฀among฀opposed฀groups,฀cultural฀beliefs,฀and฀historical฀contingency฀in฀his฀ empirical฀studies฀of฀particular฀societies. Marx฀was฀also฀indebted฀to฀Hegel’s฀critique฀of฀the฀distinction฀that฀Kant฀drew฀ between฀appearance฀and฀reality.฀Kant,฀as฀you฀will฀recall,฀had฀claimed฀that฀human฀ beings฀only฀know฀things฀by฀their฀appearance,฀and฀that฀the฀real฀essence฀of฀the฀thing,฀ the฀“thing-in-itself,”฀was฀unknowable.฀Hegel฀did฀not฀think฀that฀there฀were฀limits฀to฀ the฀application฀of฀human฀knowledge;฀in฀contrast,฀he฀claimed฀that฀appearance฀and฀ essence฀belong฀together,฀and฀that฀unfolding฀of฀consciousness฀or฀knowledge฀of฀the฀ thing-in-itself฀is฀a฀dialectical฀process฀that฀self-corrects฀its฀own฀claims฀(e.g.฀Hartnack฀ 1992).฀Marx฀(1857–8/1973:฀100–8;฀1861–3/1971:฀536–7)฀addressed฀the฀relation฀ between฀appearances฀and฀reality฀in฀the฀Grundrisse฀and฀Theories฀of฀Surplus฀Value,฀ where฀he฀provided฀a฀framework—a฀point฀of฀departure—for฀clarifying฀problems฀ in฀order฀to฀gain฀practical฀understanding฀of฀everyday฀life฀in฀capitalist฀society.฀The฀

94฀ •฀ Karl฀Marx,฀Anthropologist method฀he฀developed฀was฀analogous฀to฀peeling฀an฀onion฀layer฀by฀layer,฀revealing฀ its฀internal฀structure฀with฀each฀successive฀layer฀until฀reaching฀its฀core,฀and฀then฀ reassembling฀ the฀ whole.฀The฀ technique฀ involved฀ looking฀ behind฀ and฀ beneath฀ superficial฀appearances,฀moving฀from฀the฀perceived฀concrete฀appearances฀by฀a฀ process฀of฀abstraction฀(breaking฀the฀whole฀into฀mental฀constructs)฀and฀then฀back฀ to฀the฀newly฀appreciated฀concrete฀whole฀with฀a฀greater฀understanding฀both฀of฀the฀ unity฀of฀parts฀and฀whole฀and฀of฀the฀inner฀dynamics,฀structure,฀and฀contradictions฀of฀ that฀totality.฀Marx’s฀ongoing฀historical฀analyses฀of฀particular฀societies฀underwrote฀ a฀general฀conception฀of฀society฀which฀provided฀both฀a฀framework฀and฀a฀set฀of฀ questions฀for฀further฀detailed,฀empirical฀sociohistorical฀studies฀of฀those฀and฀other฀ historically฀specific฀societies.฀My฀goal฀in฀this฀section฀is฀to฀consider฀the฀conceptual฀ underpinnings฀of฀his฀dialectical฀anthropology฀and฀some฀of฀its฀implications฀for฀ anthropology฀today.

Pre-Capitalist฀Modes฀of฀Production Marx฀recognized฀the฀significance฀of฀the฀diversity฀of฀human฀societies.฀He฀also฀recognized฀the฀significance฀of฀the฀similarities฀and฀differences฀among฀them฀and฀attributed฀these฀to฀underlying฀structures฀that฀constituted฀an฀inner฀core฀beneath฀their฀ surface฀appearances.฀He฀called฀these฀underlying฀structures฀modes฀of฀production.฀ In฀a฀famous,฀often-cited฀passage,฀he฀described฀a฀mode฀of฀production฀in฀terms฀of฀an฀ architectural฀metaphor: In฀the฀social฀production฀of฀their฀existence,฀men฀inevitably฀enter฀into฀definite฀relations,฀ which฀are฀independent฀of฀their฀will,฀namely฀relations฀of฀production฀appropriate฀to฀a฀ definite฀stage฀in฀development฀of฀their฀material฀forces฀of฀production.฀The฀totality฀of฀these฀ relations฀of฀production฀constitutes฀the฀economic฀structure฀of฀society,฀the฀real฀foundation,฀ on฀which฀arises฀a฀legal฀and฀political฀superstructure฀and฀to฀which฀correspond฀definite฀ forms฀of฀social฀consciousness.฀The฀mode฀of฀production฀of฀material฀life฀conditions฀the฀ general฀process฀of฀social,฀political฀and฀intellectual฀life.฀.฀.฀.฀At฀a฀certain฀stage฀of฀their฀ development,฀the฀material฀productive฀forces฀of฀society฀come฀into฀conflict฀with฀the฀ existing฀relations฀of฀production,฀or—this฀merely฀expresses฀the฀same฀thing฀in฀legal฀ terms—with฀the฀property฀relations฀within฀the฀framework฀of฀which฀they฀have฀operated฀ hitherto.฀From฀forms฀of฀development฀of฀the฀productive฀forces฀these฀relations฀turn฀into฀ fetters.฀Then฀begins฀an฀era฀of฀social฀revolution.฀The฀changes฀in฀the฀economic฀foundation฀ lead฀sooner฀or฀later฀to฀the฀transformation฀of฀the฀whole฀immense฀superstructure฀(Marx฀ (1859/1970:฀20).

Marx฀distinguished฀and฀contrasted฀the฀capitalist฀mode฀of฀production฀from฀a฀series฀ of฀pre-capitalist฀modes฀of฀production.฀In฀his฀view,฀the฀four฀most฀distinctive฀features฀ of฀industrial฀capitalist฀societies฀were฀commodity฀production;฀private฀ownership฀ of฀the฀means฀of฀production;฀the฀social฀division฀of฀labor฀between฀a฀class฀whose฀

History,฀Culture,฀and฀Social฀Formation฀ •฀ 95 members฀owned฀the฀means฀of฀production฀and฀the฀direct฀producers฀who฀sold฀their฀ labor฀power฀in฀order฀to฀produce฀and฀reproduce฀the฀conditions฀of฀their฀existence;฀and฀ the฀appropriation฀by฀the฀owners฀of฀the฀surplus฀value฀created฀by฀the฀wage-workers.฀ Due฀to฀these฀features,฀the฀emergence฀of฀industrial฀capitalism฀ushered฀in฀a฀whole฀new฀ rhythm฀of฀history—an฀accelerated฀history—that฀was฀a฀consequence฀of฀continual฀ innovations฀in฀the฀productive฀forces฀and฀the฀organization฀of฀production฀as฀well฀ as฀continual฀disruption฀of฀social฀institutions฀and฀practices.฀Marx฀and฀Engels฀had฀ already฀described฀this฀in฀the฀Communist฀Manifesto: All฀fixed,฀fast-frozen฀relations,฀with฀their฀train฀of฀ancient฀and฀venerable฀prejudices฀and฀ opinions,฀are฀swept฀away,฀all฀new-formed฀ones฀become฀antiquated฀before฀they฀can฀ossify.฀ All฀that฀is฀solid฀melts฀into฀air,฀all฀that฀is฀holy฀is฀profaned,฀and฀man฀is฀at฀last฀compelled฀to฀ face฀with฀sober฀senses,฀his฀real฀conditions฀of฀life,฀and฀his฀relations฀with฀his฀kind.฀(Marx฀ and฀Engels฀1848/1976:฀486–7)

Both฀in฀the฀preface฀to฀A฀Contribution฀to฀the฀Critique฀of฀Political฀Economy฀and฀in฀ the฀Grundrisse,฀Marx฀(1858–8/1973:฀471–514,฀1859/1970:฀21)฀mentioned฀six฀precapitalist฀modes฀of฀production—communal฀(original),฀Asiatic,฀ancient,฀Germanic,฀ feudal,฀and฀Slavonic.1฀He฀sketched฀in฀varying฀detail฀the฀structural฀features฀of฀each,฀ portraying฀the฀last฀five฀as฀alternative฀pathways฀away฀from฀the฀conditions฀of฀the฀original฀primitive฀community.฀He฀phrased฀these฀developments฀in฀terms฀of฀the฀dissolution฀ of฀communal฀property฀and฀the฀consequent฀development฀of฀new฀forms฀of฀property฀ relationships฀and฀social฀divisions฀of฀labor.฀He฀would฀elaborate฀this฀in฀subsequent฀ works,฀most฀notably฀The฀Ethnological฀Notebooks. Primitive฀communism฀ Natural฀communities฀of฀human฀beings฀were฀essential฀for฀ the฀original฀form฀of฀landed฀property.฀These฀communities฀were฀“a฀presupposition฀for฀ the฀communal฀appropriation฀(temporary)฀and฀utilization฀of฀the฀land”฀(Marx฀1857– 8/1973:฀472;฀emphasis฀in฀the฀original).฀The฀communality฀of฀these฀groups—their฀ shared฀customs,฀language,฀and฀kinship—combined฀with฀various฀external฀factors— such฀as฀environmental฀conditions฀and฀the฀circumstances฀in฀which฀they฀lived—to฀ shape฀their฀character,฀beliefs,฀and฀practices.฀Thus,฀culture฀and฀nature฀itself฀provide฀ the฀bases฀for฀the฀appropriation฀of฀the฀objective฀conditions฀of฀life฀for฀their฀members฀ as฀well฀as฀foundations฀for฀their฀activity.฀This฀meant฀that฀“each฀individual฀has฀the฀ status฀of฀proprietor฀or฀possessor฀only฀as฀a฀member฀of฀the฀community”฀(Lefort฀ 1978/1986:฀143).฀Another฀way฀of฀saying฀this฀is฀that฀all฀members฀of฀the฀community฀ participate฀in฀the฀production,฀exchange,฀distribution,฀and฀consumption฀of฀goods,฀and฀ that฀if฀sharing฀breaks฀down,฀the฀community฀ceases฀to฀exist฀(Leacock฀1982:฀159).฀ Another฀feature฀of฀these฀original฀communities—i.e.฀primitive฀communities฀in฀a฀ temporal฀rather฀than฀developmental฀sense—was฀that฀they฀were฀diverse฀(Patterson฀ 1988).฀As฀Marx฀(1857–8/1973:฀472)฀put฀it,฀“this฀form,฀with฀the฀same฀land-relation฀ as฀its฀foundation,฀can฀realize฀itself฀in฀very฀different฀ways”฀(cf.฀Marx฀and฀Engels฀ 1845–6/1976:฀22–3).

96฀ •฀ Karl฀Marx,฀Anthropologist The฀common฀thread฀of฀human฀society,฀in฀Krader’s฀(1976:฀223)฀view,฀is฀life฀in฀the฀ community,฀where฀the฀opposition฀between฀the฀private฀and฀the฀public฀is฀non-existent฀ or฀very฀poorly฀developed.฀This฀thread฀is฀broken,฀however,฀with฀the฀appearance฀of฀ social฀classes,฀when฀men฀begin฀to฀pursue฀individual฀or฀individual-class฀interests฀ in฀the฀context฀of฀the฀continuing฀public฀institutions฀of฀the฀communal฀society.฀These฀ institutions฀and฀the฀community฀itself฀are฀transformed฀in฀the฀process,฀as฀the฀structures฀ of฀the฀old฀mode฀of฀production฀are฀displaced฀by฀those฀of฀the฀new.฀This฀focuses฀attention฀ on฀the฀dual฀character฀of฀the฀relations฀of฀production฀and฀how฀they฀are฀transformed.฀ It฀compels฀us,฀on฀the฀one฀hand,฀to฀consider฀how฀the฀society฀was฀organized฀for฀the฀ production,฀circulation,฀distribution,฀and฀consumption฀of฀goods.฀It฀forces฀us,฀on฀the฀ other,฀to฀examine฀how฀the฀organization฀in฀which฀the฀production฀of฀goods,฀knowledge,฀ and฀human฀beings฀took฀place฀was฀itself฀reproduced฀or฀transformed.฀It฀also฀focuses฀ attention฀on฀the฀contradictions฀that฀emerged฀within฀the฀relations฀of฀production฀and฀ how฀these฀were฀resolved.฀Anthropologist฀Stanley฀Diamond฀(1951/1996)฀referred฀to฀ these฀tensions฀as฀kin/civil฀conflict฀and฀pointed฀to฀the฀fact฀that฀their฀resolution฀was฀ potentially฀always฀a฀two-way฀street. In฀some฀instances,฀the฀contradictions฀were฀resolved฀through฀leveling฀mechanisms฀ that฀inhibited฀social฀differentiation฀within฀the฀community,฀through฀emigration฀by฀part฀ of฀the฀community,฀and฀even฀through฀murder.฀In฀other฀instances,฀they฀were฀resolved฀ by฀the฀simultaneous฀dissolution฀of฀the฀old฀social฀relations฀and฀the฀emergence฀of฀ new฀ones,฀whose฀appearance฀was฀often฀obscured฀or฀disguised฀by฀the฀fact฀that฀they฀ were฀dressed฀up฀in฀old,฀familiar฀ideological฀clothes—i.e.,฀socially฀and฀culturally฀ meaningful฀categories,฀practices,฀and฀beliefs฀(Marx฀1852/1979:฀103–4;฀1880–2/1974:฀ 164,฀329–30).฀In฀a฀phrase,฀the฀dissolution฀of฀the฀primitive฀community฀involves฀ either฀internal฀differentiation฀within฀the฀group฀and฀the฀formation฀of฀the฀state,฀or฀ alternatively฀encapsulation฀by฀and฀enmeshment฀in฀societies฀that฀were฀already฀classstratified฀and฀state-based—i.e.,฀civilized.฀Read฀has฀observed฀that The฀presuppositions฀of฀any฀mode฀of฀production฀are฀the฀conditions฀that฀constitute฀a฀ mode฀of฀production฀but฀are฀not฀produced฀from฀them.฀Their฀original฀appearances฀are฀ unimaginable฀or฀unexplainable฀according฀to฀the฀particular฀protocols฀and฀practices฀of฀that฀ mode฀of฀production.฀Thus,฀.฀.฀.฀the฀very฀question฀of฀these฀presuppositions฀is฀concerned฀ with฀the฀question฀of฀what฀could฀be฀called฀“ideology,”฀or฀the฀manner฀in฀which฀a฀particular฀ mode฀of฀production฀justifies฀itself฀by฀rewriting,฀or฀over-coding,฀its฀own฀emergence.฀ (Read฀2003:฀39–40)

The฀Asiatic฀mode฀of฀production฀and฀the฀Slavonic฀transition฀ As฀small฀communities฀ pass฀from฀one฀or฀another฀variant฀of฀primitive฀communism฀to฀societies฀manifesting฀ the฀Asiatic฀mode฀of฀production,2฀they฀retain฀ownership฀or฀control฀of฀the฀land฀and฀ do฀not฀develop฀distinctions฀between฀food฀production฀and฀manufacture฀or฀between฀ town฀and฀countryside.฀The฀members฀of฀a฀community฀have฀access฀to฀its฀resources฀by฀ virtue฀of฀their฀membership฀in฀the฀community฀and฀participation฀in฀its฀activities฀(Marx฀

History,฀Culture,฀and฀Social฀Formation฀ •฀ 97 1857–8/1973:฀472–4,฀494;฀1863–7/1977:฀477–9).฀Because฀of฀its฀self-sufficiency,฀ the฀community฀is฀relatively฀impervious฀to฀the฀effects฀of฀exchange,฀which,฀when฀ it฀occurs,฀takes฀place฀along฀the฀borders฀with฀other฀communities฀and฀is฀limited฀to฀ surplus฀goods฀or฀labor฀that฀ultimately฀satisfy฀the฀collective฀needs฀of฀its฀members฀ (Lefort฀1978/1986:฀152).฀Marx฀described฀the฀resiliency฀of฀communal฀property฀in฀ Asiatic฀communities฀when฀he฀wrote: In฀the฀oriental฀form,฀the฀loss฀[of฀property]฀is฀hardly฀possible,฀except฀by฀means฀of฀ altogether฀external฀influences,฀since฀the฀individual฀member฀of฀the฀commune฀never฀enters฀ into฀the฀relation฀of฀freedom฀towards฀it฀in฀which฀he฀could฀lose฀his฀(objective,฀economic)฀ bond฀with฀it.฀He฀is฀rooted฀to฀the฀spot,฀ingrown.฀This฀also฀has฀to฀do฀with฀the฀combination฀ of฀manufacture฀and฀agriculture,฀of฀town฀(village)฀and฀countryside.฀(Marx฀(1857–8/1973:฀ 494;฀emphasis฀in฀the฀original) The฀simplicity฀of฀the฀productive฀organism฀in฀these฀self-sufficing฀communities฀which฀ constantly฀reproduce฀themselves฀in฀the฀same฀form฀and,฀when฀accidentally฀destroyed,฀ spring฀up฀again฀on฀the฀same฀spot฀and฀with฀the฀same฀name—this฀simplicity฀supplies฀the฀ key฀to฀the฀riddle฀of฀the฀unchangeability฀of฀Asiatic฀societies,฀which฀is฀in฀such฀striking฀ contrast฀with฀the฀constant฀dissolution฀and฀refounding฀of฀Asiatic฀states,฀and฀their฀neverceasing฀changes฀of฀dynasty.฀The฀structure฀of฀the฀fundamental฀economic฀units฀of฀society฀ remains฀untouched฀by฀the฀storms฀which฀blow฀up฀in฀the฀cloudy฀regions฀of฀politics.฀(Marx฀ 1863–7/1977:฀479)

Marx฀discerned฀two฀variants฀of฀the฀Asiatic฀mode฀of฀production.฀In฀the฀more฀ democratic฀form,฀rural฀village฀communities฀existed฀independently฀side฀by฀side;฀they฀ were฀based฀on฀an฀amalgamation฀of฀food฀production฀and฀handicraft฀production฀and฀ a฀fixed฀division฀of฀labor.฀Besides฀the฀mass฀of฀the฀members฀of฀each฀community฀who฀ were฀occupied฀in฀much฀the฀same฀way,฀there฀were฀perhaps฀a฀dozen฀or฀so฀individuals฀ who฀were฀maintained฀at฀the฀expense฀of฀the฀community฀as฀a฀whole—the฀headman,฀ the฀scribe,฀the฀teacher,฀a฀few฀artisans,฀a฀poet,฀and฀a฀prayer฀leader฀were฀only฀a฀few฀ of฀the฀specialists฀mentioned฀by฀Marx฀(1863–7/1977:฀478–9).฀In฀the฀more฀despotic฀ form฀of฀the฀Asiatic฀mode฀of฀production,฀several฀of฀the฀independent฀villages฀were฀ enmeshed฀in฀a฀larger฀state-based฀society฀that฀claimed฀ownership฀of฀the฀land฀and฀ resources฀of฀which฀the฀village฀communities฀were฀merely฀the฀possessors.฀The฀state,฀ which฀represented฀the฀unity฀of฀the฀wider฀society,฀was฀an฀excrescence฀on฀the฀village฀ communities;฀its฀officials฀were฀supported฀by฀tribute฀in฀the฀form฀of฀surplus฀goods฀ and฀labor฀appropriated฀from฀those฀rural฀communities.฀Cities,฀to฀the฀extent฀that฀they฀ appeared฀at฀all,฀developed฀in฀areas฀favorable฀to฀external฀trade,฀where฀the฀heads฀ of฀state฀or฀their฀representatives฀could฀exchange฀the฀goods฀and฀services฀they฀had฀ appropriated฀from฀the฀communities฀for฀goods฀or฀services฀that฀were฀not฀produced฀ locally฀(Marx฀1857–8/1973:฀472–4;฀1880–2/1974:฀329). Marx฀typically฀characterized฀societies฀manifesting฀the฀Asiatic฀mode฀of฀production฀ as฀relatively฀impervious฀to฀change.฀There฀was฀oscillation฀between฀the฀democratic฀and฀

98฀ •฀ Karl฀Marx,฀Anthropologist despotic฀forms฀because฀of฀the฀relative฀instability฀of฀the฀state฀forms,฀on฀the฀one฀hand,฀ and฀resistance฀by฀the฀autonomous฀communities฀that฀had฀become฀enmeshed฀in฀their฀ webs฀of฀tributary฀relations,฀on฀the฀other฀(Gailey฀2003).฀However,฀he฀also฀portrayed฀ the฀Slavonic฀mode฀of฀production฀as฀a฀transitional฀form฀resulting฀in฀serfdom;฀it฀ occurred฀in฀those฀circumstances฀where฀the฀headmen฀of฀Asiatic฀societies฀were฀able฀ to฀modify฀the฀communal฀property฀of฀the฀villages฀and฀appropriate฀it฀for฀their฀own,฀ potentially฀creating฀serfs฀who,฀while฀they฀had฀effective฀possession฀of฀the฀land,฀were฀ compelled฀by฀extra-economic฀means฀to฀transfer฀goods,฀labor,฀or฀both฀to฀the฀lords฀ (Marx฀1857–8/1973:฀472–4,฀497;฀Hilton฀1991;฀Ste฀Croix฀1981:฀135–6,฀210–11). The฀ancient฀mode฀of฀production฀ A฀second฀form฀of฀property฀was฀that฀found฀in฀many฀ of฀the฀diverse฀societies฀that฀constituted฀the฀social฀mosaic฀of฀the฀classical฀Greek฀and฀ Roman฀worlds฀(Marx฀1857–8/1973:฀474–6;฀Marx฀and฀Engels฀1845–6/1976:฀33;฀ Finley฀1973,฀1991;฀Hindess฀and฀Hirst฀1975:฀80–108;฀Ste฀Croix฀1981).฀Community฀ was฀once฀again฀the฀precondition฀for฀their฀existence;฀however,฀in฀these฀instances,฀it฀ was฀a฀community฀composed฀of฀independent,฀self-sufficient฀landowners฀who฀maintained฀their฀equality฀as฀citizens฀by฀participating฀in฀the฀activities฀of฀their฀city-states,฀ such฀as฀the฀protection฀of฀its฀public฀(state)฀lands,฀waging฀war฀with฀neighboring฀groups,฀ and฀managing฀relations฀with฀the฀outside฀world.฀Marx฀put฀it฀in฀the฀following฀way:฀฀ The฀commune—the฀state—is,฀on฀one฀side,฀the฀relation฀of฀these฀free฀and฀equal฀private฀ proprietors฀to฀one฀another,฀their฀bond฀against฀the฀outside,฀and฀is฀at฀the฀same฀time฀their฀ safeguard.฀.฀.฀.฀The฀presupposition฀of฀the฀survival฀of฀the฀community฀is฀the฀preservation฀of฀ equality฀among฀its฀free฀self-sustaining฀peasants,฀and฀their฀own฀labour฀as฀the฀condition฀ for฀the฀survival฀of฀their฀property.฀.฀.฀.฀The฀survival฀of฀the฀commune฀is฀the฀reproduction฀of฀ all฀its฀members฀as฀self-sustaining฀peasants฀whose฀surplus฀time฀belongs฀precisely฀to฀the฀ commune,฀the฀work฀of฀war฀etc.฀The฀property฀in฀one’s฀own฀labour฀is฀mediated฀by฀property฀ in฀the฀condition฀of฀labour—the฀hide฀of฀the฀land,฀guaranteed฀in฀turn฀by฀the฀existence฀of฀ the฀commune,฀and฀that฀in฀turn฀by฀surplus฀labor฀in฀the฀form฀of฀military฀service฀etc฀by฀ the฀commune฀members.฀It฀is฀not฀cooperation฀in฀wealth-producing฀labour฀by฀means฀of฀ which฀the฀commune฀member฀reproduces฀himself,฀but฀rather฀cooperation฀in฀labour฀for฀ communal฀interests฀(imaginary฀and฀real)฀for฀the฀upholding฀of฀the฀association฀inwardly฀ and฀outwardly.฀(Marx฀1857–8/1973:฀475–6)

In฀other฀words,฀the฀independent฀peasant-citizens฀cooperated฀not฀as฀direct฀producers฀ but฀rather฀as฀citizens฀with฀particular฀obligations฀to฀the฀state฀and฀rights฀that฀derived฀ from฀their฀citizenship.฀For฀example,฀citizens฀were฀obliged฀to฀protect฀state฀property฀or฀ wage฀war,฀but฀only฀they฀had฀the฀right฀to฀appropriate฀surplus฀labor฀or฀goods฀resulting฀ from฀plunder฀or฀tribute.฀Social-class฀distinctions฀between฀direct฀producers฀and฀nonproducers฀in฀the฀ancient฀communities฀were฀defined฀in฀terms฀legal฀statuses,฀such฀as฀ slave฀or฀citizen.฀These฀statuses฀were฀often฀further฀complicated,฀because฀they฀could฀ also฀intersect฀with฀groups฀that฀were฀defined฀either฀by฀kinship,฀place฀of฀residence฀ within฀the฀city-state,฀or฀historical฀circumstances฀(Marx฀1857–8/1973:฀478).

History,฀Culture,฀and฀Social฀Formation฀ •฀ 99 Marx฀was฀acutely฀aware฀of฀historical฀contingency฀and฀the฀specificity฀of฀the฀ sociopolitical฀dynamics฀that฀shaped฀these฀ancient฀communities: The฀commune,฀although฀already฀a฀product฀of฀history฀here,฀not฀only฀in฀fact฀but฀also฀ known฀as฀such,฀and฀therefore฀possessing฀an฀origin,฀is฀the฀presupposition฀of฀property฀in฀ land฀and฀soil—i.e.,฀of฀the฀relation฀of฀the฀working฀subject฀to฀the฀natural฀presuppositions฀ of฀labour฀as฀belonging฀to฀him—but฀this฀belonging฀[is]฀mediated฀by฀his฀being฀a฀member฀ of฀the฀state—hence฀by฀a฀presupposition฀regarded฀as฀divine฀etc.฀(Marx฀1857–8/1973:฀475;฀ emphasis฀in฀the฀original) The฀difficulties฀which฀the฀commune฀encounters฀can฀only฀arise฀from฀other฀communes,฀ which฀have฀either฀previously฀occupied฀the฀land฀and฀soil,฀or฀which฀disturb฀the฀commune฀ in฀its฀own฀occupation.฀War฀is฀therefore฀the฀great฀comprehensive฀task,฀the฀great฀communal฀ labor฀which฀is฀require฀either฀to฀occupy฀the฀objective฀conditions฀of฀being฀there฀alive,฀or฀ to฀protect฀and฀perpetuate฀the฀occupation.฀Hence฀the฀commune฀consisting฀of฀families฀ initially฀organized฀in฀a฀warlike฀way—as฀a฀system฀of฀war฀and฀army,฀and฀this฀is฀one฀of฀the฀ conditions฀of฀its฀being฀there฀as฀a฀proprietor.฀The฀concentration฀of฀the฀residences฀in฀town฀ [is฀the]฀basis฀of฀this฀bellicose฀organization.฀(Marx฀1857–8/1973:฀474)

The฀ expanded฀ reproduction฀ of฀ these฀ communities฀ involved฀ wars฀ of฀ conquest,฀ plunder,฀increased฀reliance฀on฀slave฀production฀on฀state฀lands,฀possibilities฀for฀ the฀concentration฀of฀property฀ownership฀by฀some฀citizens฀at฀the฀expense฀of฀other฀ citizens,฀the฀fragmentation฀of฀estates,฀the฀growth฀of฀foreign฀(overseas)฀trade,฀the฀ monetization฀of฀the฀economy,฀and฀even฀the฀appearance฀of฀wage-workers฀which฀ created฀contradictions฀that฀resulted,฀at฀times,฀in฀the฀restructuring฀of฀social฀relations฀ even฀in฀circumstances฀where฀the฀forces฀of฀production฀were฀poorly฀developed฀(Banaji฀ 2001). The฀Germanic฀mode฀of฀production฀ In฀an฀effort฀to฀understand฀the฀Germanic฀tribes฀ on฀the฀periphery฀of฀the฀Roman฀State,฀Marx฀considered฀a฀third฀route฀away฀from฀ primitive฀communism.฀In฀his฀view,฀Germanic฀society฀manifested฀a฀communal฀form฀ of฀production฀in฀which฀the฀social฀and฀political-economic฀relationships฀that฀joined฀ its฀members฀together฀had฀to฀be฀continuously฀renewed฀(Bonte฀1977:฀174–6).฀The฀ individual฀was฀a฀private฀proprietor฀of฀the฀land฀and฀had฀access฀to฀the฀commons฀ through฀participation฀in฀periodic฀gatherings฀of฀the฀community.฀Here,฀the฀relations฀ of฀production฀are฀based฀in฀the฀household.฀Social฀continuity฀as฀well฀as฀the฀use฀of฀ common฀lands฀and฀other฀resources฀depended฀on฀the฀household’s฀participation฀ in฀larger฀community฀structures฀and฀activities.฀Marx฀conceptualized฀this฀mode฀ production฀in฀the฀following฀way: Among฀the฀Germanic฀tribes,฀where฀the฀individual฀family฀chiefs฀settled฀in฀the฀forests,฀ long฀distances฀apart,฀the฀commune฀exists,฀already฀from฀outward฀observation,฀only฀in฀ periodic฀gatherings-together฀(Vereinigung)฀of฀the฀commune฀members,฀although฀their฀

100฀ •฀ Karl฀Marx,฀Anthropologist unity-in-itself฀is฀posited฀in฀their฀ancestry,฀language,฀and฀history,฀etc.฀The฀commune฀ thus฀appears฀as฀the฀coming-together฀(Vereinigung)฀not฀as฀a฀being-together฀(Verein);฀ as฀a฀unification฀made฀up฀of฀independent฀subjects,฀landed฀proprietors,฀and฀not฀as฀a฀ unit.฀The฀commune฀therefore฀does฀not฀in฀fact฀exist฀as฀a฀state฀or฀a฀political฀body,฀as฀in฀ classical฀antiquity,฀because฀it฀does฀not฀exist฀as฀a฀city.฀For฀the฀commune฀to฀come฀into฀ real฀existence,฀the฀free฀landed฀proprietors฀have฀to฀hold฀a฀meeting,฀whereas฀e.g.฀in฀Rome฀ it฀exists฀even฀apart฀from฀these฀assemblies฀in฀the฀existence฀of฀the฀city฀itself฀and฀of฀the฀ officials฀presiding฀over฀it.฀True฀the฀ager฀publicus,฀the฀communal฀or฀people’s฀land,฀as฀ distinct฀from฀individual฀property,฀also฀occurs฀among฀the฀Germanic฀tribes.฀It฀takes฀the฀ form฀of฀hunting฀land,฀grazing฀land,฀timber฀land,฀etc.,฀the฀part฀of฀the฀land฀which฀cannot฀be฀ divided฀if฀it฀to฀serve฀as฀means฀of฀production฀in฀this฀specific฀form.฀But฀this฀ager฀publicus฀ does฀not฀appear,฀as฀with฀the฀Romans฀e.g.฀as฀the฀particular฀economic฀presence฀of฀the฀state฀ as฀against฀the฀private฀proprietors,฀so฀that฀these฀latter฀are฀actually฀private฀proprietors฀as฀ such,฀in฀so฀far฀as฀they฀are฀excluded,฀deprived,฀like฀the฀plebians,฀from฀using฀the฀ager฀ publicus.฀Among฀the฀Germanic฀tribes,฀the฀ager฀publicus฀appears฀rather฀merely฀as฀a฀ complement฀to฀individual฀property,฀and฀figures฀as฀property฀only฀to฀the฀extent฀that฀it฀is฀ defended฀militarily฀as฀the฀common฀property฀of฀one฀tribe฀against฀a฀hostile฀tribe.฀(Marx฀ 1857–8/1973:฀483;฀emphasis฀in฀the฀original)

Thus,฀the฀diverse฀forms฀of฀Germanic฀society฀were฀focused฀on฀the฀land.฀This฀contrasted฀ with฀the฀emphasis฀of฀ancient฀societies฀on฀the฀city;฀of฀Asiatic฀societies฀which฀exhibited฀ a฀unity฀of฀town฀and฀countryside;฀of฀feudal฀societies฀which฀began฀with฀land฀as฀“seat฀ of฀history฀[and]฀whose฀further฀development฀then฀moves฀forward฀in฀the฀contradiction฀ between฀town฀and฀countryside;฀[and฀of]฀the฀modern฀[age฀which]฀is฀the฀urbanization฀ of฀the฀countryside,฀not฀the฀ruralization฀of฀the฀city฀as฀in฀classical฀antiquity”฀(Marx฀ 1857–8/1973:฀479).฀Marx฀(1881/1983:฀108;฀emphasis฀in฀the฀original)฀would฀later฀ add฀that฀“the฀agricultural฀rural฀commune฀therefore฀emerged฀in฀Germania฀from฀a฀ more฀archaic฀type;฀it฀was฀the฀product฀of฀spontaneous฀development฀rather฀than฀being฀ imported฀ready-made฀from฀Asia.฀It฀may฀also฀be฀found฀in฀Asia—in฀the฀East฀Indies— always฀as฀the฀final฀term฀or฀last฀period฀of฀the฀archaic฀formation.”฀It฀is฀important฀ to฀keep฀in฀mind,฀as฀Pierre฀Bonte฀(1977:฀176)฀remarked,฀that฀Marx’s฀comments฀ on฀the฀historic฀specificity฀of฀Germanic฀societies฀have฀been฀placed฀in฀a฀different฀ context฀by฀societal฀evolutionists฀who,฀when฀they฀mention฀it฀at฀all,฀see฀this฀mode฀of฀ production฀as฀a฀developmental฀stage฀between฀primitive฀communism฀and฀feudalism.฀ Antonio฀Gilman฀(1996)฀has฀also฀contrasted฀Marx’s฀view฀of฀Germanic฀societies฀ with฀conceptualizations฀of฀hierarchically฀organized฀chiefdoms฀that฀have฀tended฀to฀ dominate฀anthropological฀and฀archaeological฀discussions฀of฀social฀stratification฀ from฀the฀1960s฀onward.฀These฀notions฀have฀also฀been฀questioned฀by฀Carole฀Crumley฀ (1987)฀and฀Christine฀Gailey฀(1987)฀who฀respectively฀emphasized฀the฀importance฀of฀ heterarchy฀and฀ambiguity฀in฀kin-stratified,฀communal฀societies. The฀feudal฀mode฀of฀production฀ Marx’s฀discussion฀of฀feudalism฀was฀neither฀straightforward฀nor฀systematic,฀as฀Perry฀Anderson฀(1974a:฀411–28),฀Eric฀Hobsbawm฀(1964:฀

History,฀Culture,฀and฀Social฀Formation฀ •฀ 101 41–9),฀and฀others฀have฀observed. 3฀In฀The฀German฀Ideology,฀Marx฀and฀Engels฀ (1845–6/1976:฀33–5)฀described฀feudalism฀as฀starting฀during฀the฀Middle฀Ages฀in฀ the฀countryside;฀its฀genesis฀involved฀the฀transformation฀of฀structures฀that฀occurred฀ with฀the฀barbarian฀conquest฀of฀the฀Roman฀Empire—the฀deterioration฀of฀agricultural฀ production,฀the฀collapse฀of฀industry฀and฀trade,฀and฀the฀decrease฀of฀both฀urban฀and฀ rural฀populations.฀In฀their฀words, These฀conditions฀and฀the฀mode฀of฀organisation฀of฀the฀conquest฀determined฀by฀them,฀ together฀with฀the฀influence฀of฀the฀Germanic฀military฀constitution,฀led฀to฀the฀development฀ of฀feudal฀property.฀Like฀tribal฀and฀communal฀property,฀it฀is฀also฀based฀on฀a฀community;฀ but฀the฀directly฀producing฀class฀standing฀over฀against฀it฀is฀not,฀as฀in฀the฀case฀of฀the฀ ancient฀community,฀the฀slaves,฀but฀the฀enserfed฀small฀peasantry.฀As฀soon฀as฀feudalism฀ is฀developed,฀there฀also฀arises฀antagonism฀to฀the฀towns.฀The฀hierarchical฀structure฀of฀ landownership,฀and฀the฀armed฀bodies฀of฀retainers฀associated฀with฀it,฀gave฀the฀nobility฀ power฀over฀the฀serfs.฀This฀feudal฀organisation฀was,฀just฀as฀just฀as฀much฀as฀the฀ancient฀ communal฀property,฀an฀association฀against฀a฀subjected฀producing฀class;฀but฀the฀form฀of฀ association฀and฀the฀relation฀to฀the฀direct฀producers฀were฀different฀because฀of฀the฀different฀ conditions฀of฀production. ฀ This฀feudal฀structure฀of฀landownership฀had฀its฀counterpart฀in฀the฀towns฀in฀the฀shape฀ of฀corporative฀property,฀the฀feudal฀organisation฀of฀the฀trades.฀Here฀property฀consisted฀ chiefly฀in฀the฀labour฀of฀each฀individual฀[organized฀into฀guilds].฀(Marx฀and฀Engels฀1845– 6/1976:฀34;฀emphasis฀in฀the฀original)

Marx฀and฀Engels฀often฀linked฀feudalism฀with฀serfdom.฀Marx฀(1868/1987a:฀557)฀ portrayed฀feudal฀society฀as฀a฀“struggle฀between฀the฀free฀peasantry฀and฀serfdom.”฀ Engels฀(1876–8/1987:฀164–6;฀1884/1972:฀213–5)฀stressed฀the฀importance฀of฀smallscale฀agriculture฀in฀feudal฀society฀as฀well฀as฀the฀internal฀stratification฀that฀existed฀ in฀rural฀communities฀during฀the฀European฀Middle฀Ages฀with฀freeholders฀at฀one฀end฀ and฀serfs฀at฀the฀other.฀In฀addition,฀both฀saw฀small-scale฀craft฀production฀and฀trade฀ in฀the฀towns฀as฀developments฀that฀would฀eventually฀erode฀the฀feudal฀class฀structure฀ and฀pave฀the฀way฀for฀capitalism฀(e.g.฀Marx฀1864–94/1981:฀443–52,฀751–4,฀917–38;฀ Marx฀and฀Engels฀1848/1976:฀484–9). Feudalism,฀for฀historian฀Guy฀Bois฀(1976/1984:฀398),฀was฀a฀combination฀of฀smallscale฀individual฀production฀and฀“the฀seigneurial฀levy฀secured฀by฀a฀constraint฀of฀ political฀(or฀extra-economic)฀origin.”฀Agricultural฀production฀was฀predominant฀in฀the฀ total฀economy.฀It฀was฀small-scale฀production฀because฀of฀the฀constraints฀imposed฀by฀ the฀limited฀development฀of฀agricultural฀technology;฀thus,฀investments฀in฀agriculture฀ rested฀on฀the฀shoulders฀of฀the฀peasant฀producers.฀There฀was฀social฀stratification฀ within฀the฀village฀community฀between฀those฀peasant฀production฀units฀that฀owned฀ ploughs฀and฀those฀smallholders฀who฀eked฀out฀a฀livelihood฀with฀their฀inadequate฀ landholdings฀and฀labor.฀The฀various฀layers฀of฀the฀village฀community฀were฀joined฀ together฀by฀the฀shared฀possession฀of฀pastures,฀woodlands,฀and฀other฀resources;฀ the฀artisans฀and฀merchants฀in฀the฀towns฀were฀also฀organized฀into฀communities฀

102฀ •฀ Karl฀Marx,฀Anthropologist (guilds)฀that฀strived฀to฀protect฀the฀interests฀and฀knowledge฀of฀their฀members฀from฀ the฀exactions฀of฀the฀lords.฀The฀manorial฀estates฀of฀the฀nobility฀were฀worked฀with฀ the฀same฀agricultural฀implements฀and฀techniques฀as฀those฀of฀the฀peasant฀landholders฀ and฀sat฀like฀an฀excrescence฀on฀the฀whole฀system฀of฀rural฀production.฀“The฀levy฀ was฀the฀principal฀aspect฀of฀the฀lord’s฀economic฀role”฀(Bois฀1976/1984:฀396).฀The฀ levy฀imposed฀on฀the฀peasant฀producers฀by฀the฀lords฀provided฀the฀former฀with฀rent฀ and฀had฀a฀constant฀but฀varied฀indirect฀impact฀on฀the฀activities฀of฀the฀latter.฀Since฀ the฀agricultural฀technology฀and฀techniques฀were฀relatively฀stable,฀the฀growth฀of฀ feudal฀society฀involved฀the฀addition฀of฀new฀production฀units฀in฀the฀countryside;฀ its฀decline฀entailed฀a฀reduction฀in฀the฀number฀of฀production฀units.฀In฀Bois’s฀view,฀ when฀the฀possibilities฀for฀expansion฀were฀exhausted,฀the฀contradictions฀that฀had฀ accumulated฀ during฀ the฀ process฀ of฀ growth฀ were฀ honed,฀ the฀ existing฀ forms฀ of฀ exploitation฀disintegrated,฀and฀the฀relations฀of฀production฀were฀reorganized฀(Bois฀ 1976/1984:฀393–408).฀In฀this฀regard,฀the฀decline฀of฀the฀feudal฀mode฀of฀production฀ in฀Europe฀mirrored฀its฀crystallization฀in฀the฀tenth฀century,฀which฀involved฀not฀only฀ the฀disintegration฀of฀an฀earlier฀mode฀of฀production฀still฀rooted฀to฀some฀extent฀in฀the฀ productive฀activity฀of฀slaves฀but฀also฀the฀adoption฀of฀more฀productive฀agricultural฀ techniques฀and฀technology,฀the฀growth฀of฀trade,฀and฀the฀appearance฀of฀a฀market฀ for฀land.฀It฀involved฀a฀new฀dynamic,฀one฀that฀was฀based฀on฀interdependence฀and฀ inequality฀with฀new฀forms฀of฀surplus฀extraction฀(Bois฀1989/1992:฀88–93). In฀the฀mid฀1970s,฀economist฀Samir฀Amin฀(1973/1976:฀13–16)฀drew฀a฀distinction฀ between฀the฀primitive฀communal฀mode฀of฀production,฀on฀the฀one฀hand,฀and฀the฀other฀ pre-capitalist฀modes฀of฀production฀discussed฀above,฀on฀the฀other.฀He฀grouped฀the฀ latter฀into฀a฀single฀category,฀which฀he฀called฀the฀“tribute-paying”฀mode฀of฀production.฀ Amin฀then฀asked฀whether฀the฀feudal฀mode฀of฀production฀was฀merely฀a฀“borderline”฀ case฀that฀was฀peripheral฀to฀a฀more฀“central”฀tributary฀mode฀of฀production.฀In฀posing฀ the฀question,฀he฀was฀attempting฀to฀deal฀with฀the฀historic฀specificity฀of฀the฀European฀ case.฀His฀standpoint฀implies฀the฀coexistence฀or฀articulation฀of฀the฀feudal฀and฀other฀ modes฀of฀production฀as฀it฀is฀manifested฀in฀historically฀specific฀societies.฀In฀this฀ regard,฀for฀example,฀Marx฀had฀written฀that Since฀bourgeois฀society฀is฀itself฀only฀a฀contradictory฀form฀of฀development,฀relations฀ derived฀from฀earlier฀forms฀will฀often฀be฀found฀within฀it฀only฀in฀an฀entirely฀stunted฀form,฀ or฀even฀travestied.฀.฀.฀.฀In฀all฀forms฀of฀society฀there฀is฀one฀specific฀kind฀of฀production฀ which฀predominates฀over฀the฀rest,฀whose฀relations฀thus฀assign฀rank฀and฀influence฀to฀the฀ others.฀(Marx฀1857–8/1973:฀105–7) In฀Western฀Europe,฀.฀.฀.฀the฀capitalist฀regime฀has฀either฀directly฀subordinated฀to฀itself฀ the฀whole฀of฀the฀nation’s฀production,฀or,฀where฀economic฀relations฀are฀less฀developed,฀ it฀has฀at฀least฀indirect฀control฀of฀those฀social฀layers฀which,฀although฀they฀belong฀to฀the฀ antiquated฀mode฀of฀production,฀still฀continue฀to฀exist฀side฀by฀side฀with฀it฀in฀a฀state฀of฀ decay.฀(Marx฀1863–7/1977:฀931)

History,฀Culture,฀and฀Social฀Formation฀ •฀ 103 This฀has฀two฀implications.฀First,฀societies฀are฀“concrete฀combinations฀of฀different฀ modes฀of฀production฀organized฀under฀the฀dominance฀of฀one฀of฀them”฀(Anderson฀ 1974b:฀22n6;฀emphasis฀in฀the฀original);฀this฀perspective฀was฀subsequently฀adopted฀ by฀anthropologist฀Eric฀Wolf฀(1982:฀79–88)฀and฀historian฀John฀Haldon฀(1993:฀63–9)฀ among฀others.฀The฀second฀implication฀is฀that฀it฀is฀possible฀to฀speak,฀as฀literary฀critic฀ Raymond฀Williams฀(1977:฀121–8)฀has฀done,฀of฀each฀historically฀specific฀society฀as฀ a฀combination฀of฀residual฀(antiquated),฀dominant,฀and฀emergent฀cultures฀or฀modes฀ of฀production.

Societies฀and฀Cultures Modes฀of฀production฀have฀been฀described฀as฀the฀“bare฀bones฀of฀a฀Marxist฀analysis฀ of฀historical฀process”฀(Hilton฀1985:฀6),฀and฀as฀“the฀base฀of฀our฀understanding฀of฀ the฀variety฀of฀human฀societies฀and฀their฀interaction,฀as฀well฀as฀of฀their฀historical฀ dynamics”฀(Hobsbawm฀1984:฀46).฀They฀consist฀of฀the฀unobservable฀processes฀and฀ relations฀that฀are฀simultaneously฀revealed฀in฀the฀everyday฀life฀of฀a฀given฀society฀ and฀obscured฀or฀concealed฀by฀that฀phenomenal฀world฀of฀appearances.฀They฀are฀the฀ “bare฀bones”฀or฀the฀inner฀layers฀of฀historically฀specific฀societies฀that฀are฀covered฀by฀ muscle,฀flesh,฀skin,฀and฀even฀warts.฀Another฀way฀of฀saying฀this฀is฀that฀historically฀ particular฀societies฀are฀totalities฀that฀exist฀at฀different฀levels;฀they฀are฀structured฀and฀ historically฀determined฀complexes,฀whose฀parts฀are฀not฀only฀continually฀changing฀ but฀are฀also฀linked฀to฀one฀another฀by฀constantly฀shifting,฀changing,฀and฀dynamic฀sets฀ of฀relationships฀and฀contradictions. Marx฀and฀Engels฀(1845–6/1976:฀36)฀developed฀the฀base–superstructure฀model฀of฀ a฀mode฀of฀production฀in฀The฀German฀Ideology฀in฀the฀mid฀1840s,฀a฀model฀that฀Marx฀ made฀famous฀in฀the฀passage฀from฀the฀Preface฀to฀A฀Contribution฀to฀the฀Critique฀of฀ Political฀Economy฀cited฀earlier฀in฀this฀chapter.฀Here,฀as฀you฀will฀recall,฀Marx฀wrote฀ about฀the฀“the฀economic฀structure฀of฀society,฀the฀real฀foundation,฀on฀which฀arises฀a฀ legal฀and฀political฀superstructure฀and฀to฀which฀corresponds฀definite฀forms฀of฀social฀ consciousness”฀(1859/1970:฀20).฀This฀passage฀has฀been฀interpreted฀in฀three฀ways.฀ One฀is฀that฀the฀associated฀forms฀of฀social฀consciousness฀are฀mere฀reflections฀of฀the฀ economic฀base.฀A฀second฀interpretation฀is฀that฀the฀forms฀of฀social฀consciousness฀ constitute฀a฀superstructure฀parallel฀to฀the฀legal฀and฀political฀superstructure.฀These฀are฀ reductive฀arguments฀that฀make฀it฀difficult฀to฀consider฀art฀and฀philosophy,฀for฀example,฀ as฀anything฀but฀epiphenomena฀of฀the฀economy฀or฀the฀state.฀A฀third฀interpretation฀is฀ that฀the฀associated฀form฀of฀social฀consciousness—that฀is,฀culture—is฀intertwined฀ with฀praxis฀and฀social฀relations฀as฀these฀are฀manifested฀in฀particular฀societies.฀This฀ view฀also฀derives฀from฀The฀German฀Ideology,฀where฀Marx฀and฀Engels฀wrote The฀production฀of฀ideas,฀conceptions,฀of฀consciousness,฀is฀at฀first฀directly฀interwoven฀ with฀the฀material฀activity฀and฀the฀material฀intercourse฀of฀men—the฀language฀of฀real฀life.฀

104฀ •฀ Karl฀Marx,฀Anthropologist Conceiving,฀thinking,฀the฀mental฀intercourse฀of฀men฀at฀this฀stage฀still฀appear฀as฀the฀direct฀ efflux฀of฀their฀material฀behaviour.฀The฀same฀applies฀to฀mental฀production฀as฀expressed฀in฀ the฀language฀of฀politics,฀laws,฀morality,฀religion,฀metaphysics,฀etc.฀of฀a฀people.฀Men฀[and฀ women]฀are฀the฀producers฀of฀their฀conceptions,฀ideas,฀etc.,฀that฀is,฀real,฀active฀men฀[and฀ women],฀as฀they฀are฀conditioned฀by฀a฀definite฀development฀of฀their฀productive฀forces฀ and฀of฀the฀intercourse฀corresponding฀to฀these,฀up฀to฀its฀furthest฀forms.฀.฀.฀. ฀ Morality,฀religion,฀metaphysics,฀and฀all฀the฀rest฀of฀ideology฀as฀well฀as฀the฀forms฀ of฀ consciousness฀ corresponding฀ to฀ these,฀ thus฀ no฀ longer฀ the฀ retain฀ semblance฀ of฀ independence.฀They฀have฀no฀history,฀no฀development;฀but฀men฀[and฀women]฀developing฀ their฀material฀production฀and฀their฀material฀intercourse,฀alter,฀along฀with฀their฀actual฀ world,฀also฀their฀thinking฀and฀the฀products฀of฀their฀thinking.฀(Marx฀and฀Engels฀1845– 6/1976:฀36–7;฀emphasis฀added)

This฀third฀interpretation฀allows฀us฀to฀make฀sense฀of฀passages฀that฀do฀not฀employ฀ a฀ reductive฀ base–superstructure฀ model:฀ for฀ example,฀ those฀ in฀ The฀ Eighteenth฀ Brumaire,฀which฀refer฀to฀French฀social฀structure฀in฀the฀mid฀nineteenth฀century,฀ or฀in฀the฀Grundrisse,฀which฀are฀concerned฀with฀Greek฀art฀and฀myth฀in฀classical฀ antiquity฀and฀the฀fascination฀of฀the฀German฀bourgeoisie฀with฀those฀forms.฀Consider฀ the฀following: Upon฀the฀different฀forms฀of฀property฀[i.e.,฀big฀landed฀property฀and฀capital],฀upon฀the฀ social฀conditions฀of฀existence,฀rises฀an฀entire฀superstructure฀of฀different฀and฀distinctly฀ formed฀sentiments,฀illusions,฀modes฀of฀thought฀and฀views฀of฀life.฀The฀entire฀class฀ [both฀the฀aristocratic฀and฀capitalist฀fractions]฀creates฀and฀forms฀them฀out฀of฀its฀material฀ foundations฀and฀out฀of฀the฀corresponding฀social฀relations.฀The฀single฀individual,฀to฀ whom฀they฀are฀transmitted฀through฀tradition฀and฀upbringing,฀may฀imagine฀that฀they฀are฀ the฀real฀motives฀and฀starting-point฀of฀his฀activity.฀(Marx฀1852/1979:฀128) Men฀[and฀women]฀make฀their฀own฀history,฀but฀they฀do฀not฀make฀it฀just฀as฀they฀please;฀ they฀do฀not฀make฀it฀under฀circumstances฀chosen฀by฀themselves,฀but฀under฀circumstances฀ directly฀encountered,฀given฀and฀transmitted฀from฀the฀past.฀The฀tradition฀of฀all฀dead฀ generations฀weighs฀like฀a฀nightmare฀on฀the฀brain฀of฀the฀living.฀And฀just฀when฀they฀seem฀ engaged฀in฀revolutionizing฀themselves฀and฀things,฀in฀creating฀something฀that฀has฀never฀ yet฀existed,฀precisely฀in฀such฀periods฀of฀revolutionary฀crisis฀they฀anxiously฀conjure฀up฀ the฀spirits฀of฀the฀past฀to฀their฀service฀and฀borrow฀from฀them฀names,฀battle-cries฀and฀ costumes฀in฀order฀to฀present฀the฀new฀scene฀of฀world฀history฀in฀this฀time-honoured฀ disguise฀and฀borrowed฀language.฀(Marx฀1852/1979:฀103–4) In฀the฀case฀of฀the฀arts,฀it฀is฀well฀known฀that฀certain฀periods฀of฀their฀flowering฀are฀all฀ out฀of฀proportion฀to฀the฀general฀development฀of฀the฀society,฀hence฀also฀to฀the฀material฀ foundation,฀the฀skeletal฀structure,฀as฀it฀were,฀of฀its฀organization.฀.฀.฀.฀But฀the฀difficulty฀ lies฀not฀in฀understanding฀that฀the฀Greek฀arts฀and฀epic฀are฀bound฀up฀with฀certain฀forms฀of฀ social฀development.฀The฀difficulty฀is฀that฀they฀still฀afford฀us฀artistic฀pleasure฀and฀that฀in฀a฀ certain฀respect฀they฀count฀as฀a฀norm฀and฀as฀an฀unattainable฀model.฀(Marx฀1857–8/1973:฀ 110–11)

History,฀Culture,฀and฀Social฀Formation฀ •฀ 105 In฀these฀passages฀there฀are฀not฀only฀correspondences฀between฀culture,฀on฀the฀ one฀hand,฀and฀the฀forms฀of฀production฀and฀social฀relations,฀on฀the฀other,฀but฀also฀ reciprocal฀interactions฀between฀them.฀Culture฀is฀the฀expression฀of฀life฀as฀it฀is฀shaped฀by฀ historically฀specific฀forms฀of฀production฀and฀ensembles฀of฀social฀relations฀(Williams฀ 1983/1989).฀It฀involves฀both฀objectification฀(the฀process฀of฀rendering฀human฀needs฀ into฀material฀objects฀that฀satisfy฀needs)฀and฀materialization฀(the฀embodiment฀within฀ those฀objects฀of฀social฀relations)฀(Jones฀2002:฀12).฀It฀is฀“bound฀up฀with฀an฀existing฀ state฀of฀affairs฀and฀.฀.฀.฀is฀a฀condition฀which฀makes฀it฀possible฀to฀change฀that฀state฀of฀ affairs”฀(Outhwaite฀1991:฀128).฀As฀Marx฀put฀it, In฀order฀to฀examine฀the฀connection฀between฀spiritual฀[i.e.,฀intellectual]฀production฀and฀ material฀production,฀it฀is฀above฀all฀necessary฀to฀grasp฀the฀latter฀not฀as฀a฀general฀category฀ but฀in฀definite฀historical฀form.฀Thus฀for฀example฀different฀kinds฀of฀spiritual฀production฀ correspond฀to฀the฀capitalist฀mode฀of฀production฀and฀to฀the฀mode฀of฀production฀of฀the฀ Middle฀Ages.฀If฀material฀production฀itself฀is฀not฀conceived฀in฀its฀specific฀historical฀form,฀ it฀is฀impossible฀to฀understand฀what฀is฀specific฀in฀the฀spiritual฀production฀corresponding฀ to฀it฀and฀the฀reciprocal฀influence฀of฀one฀on฀the฀other.฀(Marx฀1861–3/1963:฀285)

Here,฀the฀relation฀between฀culture,฀on฀the฀one฀hand,฀and฀the฀economy฀or฀the฀state,฀ on฀the฀other,฀is฀complex฀not฀simple฀and฀multi-directional฀rather฀than฀a฀one-way฀ street.฀In฀a฀phrase,฀culture฀is฀the฀arena฀in฀which฀the฀ambiguities,฀antagonisms,฀ and฀contradictions฀of฀everyday฀life฀are฀expressed,฀reproduced,฀and฀occasionally฀ resolved.

Pre-Capitalist฀Societies:฀Limited,฀Local,฀and฀Vital Marx฀was฀struck฀by฀the฀diversity฀of฀human฀societies,฀past฀and฀present.฀He฀suggested฀ that฀a฀relatively฀small฀number฀of฀modes฀of฀production,฀representing฀alternative฀pathways฀out฀of฀the฀archaic฀or฀primitive฀communal฀forms฀of฀society,฀underpinned฀this฀ diversity.฀In฀his฀words, The฀archaic฀or฀primary฀formation฀of฀our฀globe฀itself฀contains฀a฀series฀of฀layers฀from฀ various฀ages,฀the฀one฀superimposed฀on฀the฀other.฀Similarly,฀the฀archaic฀formation฀of฀ society฀exhibits฀a฀series฀of฀different฀types.฀.฀.฀.฀These฀older฀types฀all฀rest฀upon฀natural฀ kinship฀relations฀between฀members฀of฀the฀commune.฀(Marx฀1881/1983:฀103) The฀history฀of฀the฀decline฀of฀the฀primitive฀communities฀has฀still฀to฀be฀written฀(it฀would฀be฀ wrong฀to฀put฀them฀all฀on฀the฀same฀plane;฀in฀historical฀as฀in฀geological฀formations,฀there฀is฀ a฀whole฀series฀of฀primary,฀secondary,฀tertiary,฀and฀other฀types).฀(Marx฀1881/1983:฀107)

Moreover,฀societies฀manifesting฀one฀or฀another฀of฀the฀pre-capitalist฀modes฀of฀ production฀were฀only฀“limited”฀and฀“local฀developments฀of฀humanity”฀(Marx฀1857–8/฀

106฀ •฀ Karl฀Marx,฀Anthropologist 1973:฀409–10),฀but฀they฀possessed฀“an฀incomparably฀greater฀[natural]฀vitality฀than฀ the฀Semitic,฀Greek,฀Roman,฀and฀a฀fortiori฀the฀modern฀capitalist฀societies”฀(Marx฀ 1881/1983:฀107).฀He฀believed฀that฀“we฀should฀be฀thoroughly฀acquainted฀with฀all฀ the฀historical฀twists฀and฀turns”฀of฀the฀archaic฀formations฀(Marx฀1881/1983:฀106–7).฀ One฀reason฀for฀his฀interest฀was฀the฀spread฀of฀capitalism฀from฀the฀mid฀nineteenth฀ century฀onward฀and฀its฀articulation฀with฀various฀kinds฀of฀pre-capitalist฀societies฀ in฀Asia,฀Africa,฀and฀the฀Americas;฀the฀diversity฀of฀these฀articulations฀provided฀ alternative฀snapshots฀into฀what฀potentially฀could฀happen฀in฀the฀future.฀Let฀us฀briefly฀ consider฀two฀points฀that฀are฀relevant฀to฀this฀discussion฀of฀pre-capitalist฀societies฀and฀ cultures. First,฀Marx฀characterized฀the฀difference฀between฀capitalist฀and฀pre-capitalist฀ societies฀in฀terms฀of฀the฀relentless฀drive฀of฀the฀former฀toward฀universality,฀its฀constant฀ development฀of฀the฀forces฀of฀production,฀its฀continual฀creation฀of฀new฀needs,฀its฀ exploitation฀of฀both฀workers฀and฀nature,฀its฀continual฀destruction฀of฀local฀or฀national฀ barriers฀and฀traditions,฀and฀its฀reworking฀of฀old฀ways฀of฀life.฀He฀also฀pointed฀to฀the฀ contradictions฀reproduced฀in฀capitalist฀society฀and฀to฀the฀resistance฀they฀provoked.฀ He฀wrote฀that capital฀creates฀the฀bourgeois฀society,฀and฀the฀universal฀appropriation฀of฀nature฀as฀well฀as฀ of฀the฀social฀bond฀itself฀by฀the฀members฀of฀society.฀Hence฀the฀great฀civilizing฀influence฀ of฀capital;฀its฀production฀of฀a฀stage฀of฀society฀in฀comparison฀to฀which฀all฀earlier฀ones฀ appear฀as฀mere฀local฀developments฀of฀humanity฀and฀as฀nature-idolatry.฀For฀the฀first฀ time,฀nature฀becomes฀purely฀an฀object฀for฀humankind,฀purely฀a฀matter฀of฀utility;฀ceases฀ to฀be฀recognized฀as฀a฀power฀for฀itself;฀and฀the฀theoretical฀discovery฀of฀its฀autonomous฀ laws฀appears฀merely฀as฀a฀ruse฀so฀as฀to฀subjugate฀it฀under฀human฀needs,฀whether฀as฀an฀ object฀of฀consumption฀or฀as฀a฀means฀of฀production.฀In฀accord฀with฀this฀tendency,฀capital฀ drives฀beyond฀national฀barriers฀and฀prejudices฀as฀much฀as฀beyond฀nature฀worship,฀as฀ well฀as฀all฀traditional,฀confined,฀complacent,฀encrusted฀satisfactions฀of฀present฀needs,฀ and฀reproduction฀of฀old฀ways฀of฀life.฀It฀is฀destructive฀toward฀all฀of฀this,฀and฀constantly฀ revolutionizes฀it,฀tearing฀down฀all฀barriers฀which฀hem฀in฀the฀development฀of฀the฀forces฀ of฀production,฀the฀expansion฀of฀needs,฀the฀all-sided฀development฀of฀production,฀and฀the฀ exploitation฀and฀exchange฀of฀natural฀and฀mental฀forces. ฀ But฀from฀the฀fact฀that฀capital฀posits฀every฀such฀limit฀as฀a฀barrier฀and฀hence฀gets฀ideally฀ beyond฀it,฀it฀does฀not฀by฀any฀means฀follow฀that฀it฀has฀really฀overcome฀it,฀and,฀since,฀ every฀such฀barrier฀contradicts฀its฀character,฀its฀production฀moves฀in฀contradictions฀which฀ are฀constantly฀overcome฀but฀just฀as฀constantly฀posited.฀Furthermore.฀The฀universality฀ towards฀which฀it฀irresistibly฀strives฀encounters฀barriers฀in฀its฀own฀nature,฀which฀will,฀at฀a฀ certain฀stage฀of฀development,฀allow฀it฀to฀be฀recognized฀as฀being฀itself฀the฀greatest฀barrier฀ to฀this฀tendency,฀and฀hence฀will฀drive฀towards฀its฀own฀suspension.฀(Marx฀1857–8/1973:฀ 409–10;฀emphasis฀in฀the฀original)

Thus,฀the฀development฀of฀capitalist฀society฀was฀fraught฀with฀contradictions฀that฀ were฀concrete฀and฀historically฀specific฀(context-dependent)฀to฀the฀capitalist฀mode฀of฀

History,฀Culture,฀and฀Social฀Formation฀ •฀ 107 production฀(e.g.฀wage-laborer฀vs.฀capitalist,฀the฀use฀value฀of฀commodities฀vs.฀their฀ exchange฀value,฀or฀the฀clash฀between฀capitalist฀and฀small฀peasant฀property).฀On฀ the฀one฀hand,฀they฀have฀contributed฀to฀the฀universal฀development฀of฀the฀forces฀of฀ production฀and฀the฀productive฀power฀of฀labor;฀on฀the฀other฀hand,฀they฀have฀done฀so฀ at฀a฀tremendous฀cost฀to฀the฀members฀of฀the฀societies฀experiencing฀that฀development.฀ Marx฀(1868/1987b:฀552)฀saw฀the฀development฀of฀large-scale฀industry฀and฀all฀that฀it฀ implies฀as฀“the฀mother฀of฀the฀antagonism,฀but฀also฀as฀the฀producer฀of฀the฀material฀ and฀intellectual฀conditions฀for฀resolving฀these฀antagonisms.” Second,฀dialectical฀contradictions฀were฀the฀motors฀of฀historical฀movement.฀For฀ Marx,฀these฀internal฀antagonisms฀had฀the฀capacity฀to฀erode฀and฀dissolve฀old฀social฀ forms฀and฀to฀underwrite฀the฀crystallization฀of฀new฀ones฀(Bhaskar฀1991a;฀Godelier฀ 1966/1972:฀345–61).฀They฀were฀historical,฀structural,฀and฀context฀specific.฀They฀ appear฀under฀historically฀specific฀circumstances฀and฀obscure฀the฀conditions฀in฀which฀ they฀were฀formed.฀While฀the฀interactions฀of฀these฀countervailing฀structures฀and฀ relations฀with฀one฀another฀and฀with฀other฀parts฀of฀the฀social฀whole฀in฀particular฀ historical฀ contexts฀ can฀ reinforce,฀ hinder,฀ subvert,฀ transform,฀ or฀ resolve฀ the฀ antagonisms฀over฀time,฀they฀do฀not฀always฀do฀so.฀Whether฀or฀not฀change฀occurs฀ depends฀on฀the฀balance฀of฀forces฀that฀exist฀at฀a฀particular฀moment฀in฀the฀production฀ and฀reproduction฀of฀a฀given฀society.฀As฀historian฀John฀Haldon฀notes, Different฀modes฀of฀production฀place฀different฀constraints฀upon฀the฀possibilities฀for฀ change,฀on฀the฀one฀hand,฀and฀upon฀the฀structures฀of฀political฀power,฀on฀the฀other,฀which฀ are฀particularly฀important฀for฀understanding฀the฀internal฀dynamic฀of฀a฀given฀historical฀ social฀formation.฀(Haldon฀1993:฀57) A฀mode฀of฀production฀cannot฀of฀itself฀give฀rise฀to฀a฀different฀mode฀of฀production,฀but฀ it฀can฀generate฀at฀times฀the฀conditions฀that฀may฀lead฀to฀its฀break฀up฀or฀transformation.฀ (Haldon฀2006:฀193;฀emphasis฀in฀the฀original)

This฀is฀why฀Marx฀(1863–7/1977:฀479;฀1881/1983:฀107)฀spoke฀not฀only฀about฀the฀ vitality฀and฀resilience฀of฀primitive฀communal฀societies—their฀apparent฀unchangeability฀and฀tendency฀to฀reproduce฀existing฀social฀relations—but฀also฀about฀the฀ relentless฀drive฀of฀capitalism฀to฀transform฀nature,฀itself,฀and฀other฀societies฀around฀ it.฀It฀also฀accounts฀for฀Marx’s฀comments฀about฀the฀“continual฀retrogressions฀and฀ circular฀movements”฀of฀history฀and฀the฀low฀regard฀he฀had฀for฀ideas฀of฀progress,฀ especially฀those฀that฀ignored฀the฀ordinary฀peoples฀of฀society฀(Engels฀and฀Marx฀ 1844–5/1975:฀83–4). Third,฀Marx฀used฀abstractions฀that฀operated฀at฀different฀scales฀and฀levels฀of฀ generality฀in฀his฀discussions฀of฀sociohistorical฀change.฀In฀some฀instances,฀he฀seems฀ to฀have฀been฀using฀a฀telescope฀to฀capture฀the฀“big฀picture”฀in฀a฀sentence฀or฀two—e.g.฀ his฀highly฀abstract฀claim฀that฀“changes฀in฀the฀economic฀foundation฀lead฀soon฀or฀later฀ to฀the฀transformation฀of฀the฀whole฀immense฀superstructure”฀(Marx฀1859/1970:฀21).฀

108฀ •฀ Karl฀Marx,฀Anthropologist In฀other฀instances,฀he฀seems฀to฀have฀employed฀binoculars฀or฀even฀a฀microscope฀to฀ examine฀and฀depict฀almost฀day-to-day฀changes฀in฀the฀balance฀of฀force฀in฀France฀in฀ 1848–51฀and฀again฀in฀1870–1,฀both฀of฀which฀were฀particularly฀volatile฀moments฀in฀ its฀history฀(Marx฀1852/1979;฀1871/1986).฀Each฀perspective฀allowed฀him฀to฀organize฀ information฀and฀to฀grasp฀the฀particularities฀of฀society฀in฀a฀different฀manner.฀Each฀ allowed฀him฀to฀open฀up฀a฀distinctive฀line฀of฀inquiry.฀Shifting฀from฀one฀level฀of฀ abstraction฀to฀another฀allowed฀him฀to฀explore฀the฀sociohistorical฀dynamics฀of฀various฀ societies,฀to฀compare฀their฀similarities฀and฀differences฀to฀examine฀the฀conditions฀in฀ which฀they฀were฀produced฀and฀reproduced,฀and฀to฀develop฀more฀general฀arguments฀ about฀the฀significance฀of฀the฀insights฀he฀gained.฀Studying฀these฀dynamics฀at฀local฀ or฀regional฀levels฀also฀yields฀a฀much฀more฀complicated฀picture฀of฀sociohistorical฀ development฀than฀ones฀that฀project฀them฀either฀as฀a฀unilinear฀succession฀of฀stages฀ leading฀from฀barbarism฀to฀civilization฀or฀as฀the฀unfolding฀of฀some฀natural฀potential฀ for฀internal฀differentiation฀and฀the฀formation฀of฀structure,฀and฀that฀avoid฀altogether฀ the฀issue฀of฀contingency.

Human฀History฀is฀Messy Archaeologists,฀historians,฀and฀historically฀minded฀anthropologists฀study฀past฀societies.฀While฀archaeologists฀rely฀on฀material฀remains฀and฀spatial฀associations฀that฀ have฀survived฀to฀the฀present฀to฀reconstruct฀the฀tempo฀and฀mode฀of฀everyday฀life฀in฀ some฀past฀society,฀historians฀use฀written฀records฀and฀historical฀anthropologists฀use฀ interviews฀of฀living฀peoples฀combined฀with฀traditions฀and฀documents฀to฀accomplish฀ that฀goal.฀Once฀we฀move฀beyond฀the฀specificities฀of฀the฀kinds฀of฀evidence฀and฀ methods฀they฀use,฀all฀of฀them฀are฀concerned฀with฀the฀kinds฀of฀society฀and฀the฀ varieties฀of฀social฀relations,฀processes,฀and฀contexts฀that฀produced฀those฀particular฀ patterns฀of฀objects—including฀artifacts,฀texts,฀and฀traditions—recovered฀from฀the฀ archaeological฀and฀historical฀records.฀The฀archaeological฀record฀provides฀virtually฀ all฀of฀the฀evidence฀of฀human฀history฀until฀the฀last฀5,000฀years,฀when฀writing฀systems฀ appeared฀in฀isolated฀parts฀of฀the฀world.฀These฀areas฀of฀limited฀literacy฀were฀like฀small฀ islands฀in฀a฀vast฀sea.฀It฀has฀only฀been฀in฀the฀last฀century฀or฀so฀that฀literacy฀spread฀to฀ many฀other฀parts฀of฀the฀world.฀As฀a฀result,฀archaeologists฀continue฀to฀provide฀much,฀ but฀not฀all,฀of฀the฀evidence฀for฀human฀history฀well฀into฀the฀twenty-first฀century. During฀the฀twentieth฀century,฀many฀archaeologists฀have฀focused฀their฀efforts฀ on฀three฀questions:฀(1)฀the฀origins฀of฀early฀human฀societies,฀which฀is฀typically฀ viewed฀in฀relation฀to฀the฀development฀of฀tool-making;฀(2)฀the฀origins฀of฀pastoral฀and฀ agricultural฀economies,฀which฀involves฀both฀the฀transformation฀and฀the฀development฀ of฀the฀productive฀forces฀and฀the฀appearance฀of฀sedentism;฀and฀(3)฀the฀origins฀of฀ states,฀which฀is฀often฀glossed฀as฀the฀rise฀of฀civilization฀or฀the฀appearance฀of฀cities.4฀ At฀the฀most฀general฀level฀of฀abstraction,฀they฀have฀confirmed฀that฀kin-communal฀ societies฀both฀preceded฀and฀were฀contemporary฀with฀pre-capitalist฀states,฀and฀that฀

History,฀Culture,฀and฀Social฀Formation฀ •฀ 109 industrial฀capitalism฀appeared฀rather฀late฀on฀the฀world฀stage,฀only฀during฀the฀last฀500฀ or฀so฀years.฀They฀have฀demonstrated฀rather฀convincingly฀the฀diversity฀of฀societies฀ across฀time฀and฀space,฀the฀diversity฀of฀their฀relationships฀with฀the฀natural฀world฀ they฀inhabited,฀and฀the฀diversity฀of฀the฀trajectories฀of฀sociohistorical฀development฀ in฀different฀parts฀of฀the฀world.฀They฀have฀found฀evidence฀that฀suggests฀the฀existence฀ of฀social฀inequality฀in฀some฀societies฀and฀not฀in฀others.฀At฀a฀more฀concrete฀level,฀ they฀have฀examined฀the฀internal฀dynamics฀and฀external฀relationships฀of฀some฀of฀ these฀developmental฀trajectories,฀and฀have฀identified฀similar฀processes,฀conditions,฀ or฀historical฀moments฀in฀some฀but฀not฀all฀of฀them.฀Given฀the฀messiness฀of฀human฀ history,฀these฀are฀significant฀contributions฀to฀our฀understanding฀of฀what฀happened฀in฀ the฀past.฀Let฀us฀highlight฀a฀few฀of฀the฀more฀salient฀ones. While฀there฀are฀some฀broad฀similarities฀between฀humans฀and฀modern฀chimpanzees,฀ sharing฀seems฀to฀be฀a฀distinctly฀human฀feature.฀For฀example,฀there฀are฀published฀ examples฀of฀modern฀chimpanzees฀making฀tools,฀cooperating฀during฀hunting,฀and฀ even฀sharing฀prey฀with฀other฀participants฀and฀bystanders.฀What฀distinguishes฀these฀ behaviors฀from฀human฀sharing฀is฀that฀they฀are฀independent฀or฀separate฀events,฀ which฀are฀neither฀integrated฀into฀a฀cultural฀system฀nor฀are฀they฀regular,฀everyday฀ occurrences฀(Ichikawa฀2005:฀151–7).฀For฀the฀most฀part,฀contemporary฀apes฀do฀not฀ share฀with฀other฀members฀of฀their฀bands,฀and฀presumably฀our฀common฀ancestors฀ 3–5฀million฀years฀ago฀also฀did฀not฀share฀food฀regularly฀with฀one฀another฀either.฀Thus,฀ there฀was฀conceivably฀a฀period฀in฀human฀history฀when฀our฀ancestors฀made฀stone฀ tools,฀perhaps฀talked฀with฀one฀another,฀and฀even฀harvested฀or฀scavenged฀food฀side฀ by฀side฀but฀did฀not฀share฀the฀products฀of฀their฀labor฀with฀one฀another.฀The฀advent฀ of฀sharing฀dissolved฀this฀proto-mode฀of฀production;฀precisely฀when฀that฀occurred,฀ however,฀is฀still฀hotly฀debated฀by฀archaeologists฀with฀estimates฀ranging฀from฀about฀2฀ million฀to฀50,000฀years฀ago฀(Binford฀1985;฀Isaac฀1979). For฀most฀of฀history,฀human฀beings฀lived฀in฀small฀groups฀of฀individuals฀with฀whom฀ they฀interacted฀on฀a฀regular฀basis฀for฀most฀of฀their฀lives.฀These฀bands฀ranged฀from฀a฀ couple฀of฀hundred฀individuals฀during฀those฀parts฀of฀the฀year฀when฀they฀concentrated฀ in฀particular฀localities฀to฀a฀dozen฀or฀so฀individuals฀when฀they฀dispersed;฀there฀were฀ both฀ecological฀and฀social฀reasons฀for฀this฀pattern฀of฀aggregation฀and฀dispersion.฀ Their฀mode฀of฀production฀was฀based฀on฀sharing฀the฀foods฀they฀foraged,฀trapped,฀ hunted,฀or฀fished.฀Food฀was฀consumed฀immediately,฀either฀on฀the฀spot฀or฀shortly฀ thereafter.฀While฀movable฀property—like฀carrying฀bags,฀clothing,฀or฀spears—might฀ have฀been฀individually฀owned,฀land฀in฀a฀general฀sense฀and฀its฀resources฀were฀held฀ in฀common฀with฀complex฀rules฀of฀access฀and฀equally฀complex฀and฀strict฀obligations฀ to฀share฀with฀others฀written฀into฀the฀ethical฀fabric฀of฀everyday฀life฀(Barnard฀and฀ Woodburn฀1988).฀Because฀of฀the฀unity฀of฀the฀production฀process฀and฀the฀direct฀ participation฀of฀all฀members฀in฀the฀band฀in฀the฀production,฀distribution,฀circulation,฀ and฀consumption฀of฀socially฀produced฀goods,฀each฀individual฀was฀dependent฀on฀ the฀group฀as฀a฀whole,฀and฀there฀was฀no฀structural฀difference฀between฀producers฀and฀ non-producers.฀Such฀a฀distinction฀would฀exist฀for฀only฀a฀moment฀in฀time,฀and฀only฀

110฀ •฀ Karl฀Marx,฀Anthropologist from฀the฀perspective฀of฀an฀individual฀who฀was฀too฀young฀for,฀too฀old฀for,฀or฀not฀a฀ participant฀in฀a฀particular฀labor฀process.฀The฀distinction฀disappeared฀when฀the฀focus฀ extended฀beyond฀the฀particular฀moment,฀the฀particular฀individual,฀or฀the฀particular฀ work฀activity;฀it฀was฀inverted฀as฀a฀direct฀producer฀in฀one฀activity฀became฀a฀consumer฀ in฀the฀next.฀Moreover,฀membership฀in฀these฀mobile฀bands฀was฀likely฀to฀have฀been฀ fairly฀flexible฀as฀males,฀females,฀or฀both฀moved฀into฀and฀away฀from฀the฀core฀group฀ during฀the฀course฀of฀their฀lives฀for฀various฀reasons,฀including฀interpersonal฀ones.฀ Leadership,฀as฀Richard฀Lee฀(2005:฀19)฀noted฀for฀a฀different฀context,฀was฀likely฀ “subject฀to฀the฀constraints฀of฀popular฀opinion.฀.฀.฀.฀The฀leader฀of฀a฀band฀could฀persuade฀ but฀not฀command.฀This฀important฀aspect฀of฀their฀way฀of฀life฀allowed฀for฀a฀degree฀of฀ freedom฀unheard฀of฀in฀more฀hierarchically฀organized฀societies.”฀It฀is฀likely฀that฀ there฀were฀probably฀also฀status฀distinctions฀in฀these฀communities฀reflecting฀age,฀ gender,฀kin฀relations,฀and฀life฀experience฀among฀other฀things.฀It฀is฀also฀possible฀that฀ the฀members฀of฀these฀ideologically฀egalitarian฀societies฀occasionally฀experienced฀ individuals฀or฀groups฀among฀them฀who฀attempted฀to฀forge฀hierarchically฀ordered฀ social฀relations;฀these฀efforts฀were฀likely฀tolerated฀briefly฀in฀some฀instances฀and฀ resisted฀in฀others. Between฀20,000฀and฀10,000฀years฀ago,฀new฀modes฀of฀subsistence—pastoralism฀ and฀plant฀cultivation—were฀grafted฀onto฀existing฀economies฀in฀various฀parts฀of฀both฀ the฀old฀and฀new฀worlds฀(Balter฀2007).฀Following฀herd฀animals฀and฀cultivating฀plants฀ involve฀new฀relations฀between฀human฀communities฀and฀their฀natural฀environments.฀ One฀of฀the฀most฀important฀is฀the฀delay฀between฀labor฀investments—e.g.฀preparing฀ the฀land,฀planting฀the฀crop,฀and฀tending฀it—and฀the฀time฀at฀which฀they฀are฀actually฀ consumed.฀During฀that฀period,฀other฀modes฀of฀subsistence฀must฀be฀productive฀ enough฀to฀sustain฀the฀incipient฀herders฀and฀farmers.฀It฀is฀likely฀that฀agriculture,฀ herding,฀and฀cultivation฀were฀only฀a฀few฀of฀a฀number฀of฀subsistence฀strategies฀ during฀their฀initial฀phases฀of฀development,฀and฀that,฀as฀they฀grew฀more฀productive,฀ their฀relative฀importance฀in฀terms฀of฀the฀amount฀of฀time฀and฀energy฀devoted฀to฀them฀ increased฀relative฀to฀other฀subsistence฀practices฀in฀their฀communities฀(Flannery฀ 1968).฀In฀the฀process,฀subsistence฀activities฀that฀were฀once฀important฀now฀became฀ minor฀activities฀or฀were฀dropped฀altogether฀as฀steadily฀more฀time฀was฀devoted฀to฀ the฀preparation฀of฀fields,฀the฀construction฀and฀repair฀of฀walls฀and฀canals,฀to฀tending฀ the฀crops,฀or฀to฀moving฀herds฀from฀one฀seasonal฀pasture฀to฀another.฀In฀a฀phrase,฀ their฀members฀reorganized฀and฀rescheduled฀the฀time฀they฀devoted฀to฀particular฀ subsistence฀particular฀practices;฀in฀some฀instances,฀they฀may฀even฀have฀begun฀ to฀specialize฀in฀certain฀activities฀at฀the฀expense฀of฀others฀creating฀new฀spatially฀ organized,฀intraregional฀technical฀divisions฀of฀labor฀as฀a฀result฀of฀the฀new฀forms฀of฀ cooperation฀which฀were฀emerging฀(e.g.฀Patterson฀1999). These฀communities฀elaborated฀delayed-return฀economies฀that฀relied฀increasingly฀ on฀the฀further฀development฀of฀food฀preservation฀and฀storage฀techniques฀(Testart฀ 1982).฀Thus,฀foods฀that฀were฀acquired฀at฀one฀time฀of฀the฀year฀were฀processed฀and฀ stored฀in฀order฀to฀be฀shared,฀consumed,฀or฀exchanged฀at฀a฀later฀time.฀The฀capacity฀to฀

History,฀Culture,฀and฀Social฀Formation฀ •฀ 111 store฀food฀and฀other฀resources฀for฀long฀periods฀underwrote฀formation฀of฀permanent฀ settlements—that฀is,฀villages฀that฀were฀occupied฀on฀a฀year-round฀basis.฀In฀many฀but฀ not฀all฀parts฀of฀the฀world,฀the฀appearance฀of฀sedentary฀villages฀was฀closely฀associated฀ with฀the฀development฀of฀food฀production฀technologies฀such฀as฀plant฀cultivation฀in฀ Mesopotamia฀or฀highland฀Mexico฀or฀net-fishing฀in฀coastal฀Peru฀(Moseley฀1975). More฀importantly,฀these฀communities฀seem฀to฀have฀elaborated฀practices฀that฀ involved฀the฀actualization฀of฀extra-domestic฀forms฀of฀social฀groups,฀such฀as฀clans฀ or฀lineages,฀that฀were฀corporate฀landholding฀groups฀whose฀members฀placed฀new฀ emphases฀on฀property฀rights฀and฀shared฀only฀with฀close฀kin฀or฀affines.฀As฀Alan฀ Barnard฀and฀James฀Woodburn฀(1988:฀11)฀note,฀these฀social฀relations฀were฀“usually฀ but฀not฀always฀linked฀with฀delayed฀yields฀on฀labour.”฀They฀point฀out฀that฀the฀kinds฀ of฀property฀rights฀that฀might฀have฀been฀elaborated฀include฀those฀over฀certain฀bodies฀ and฀practices฀of฀knowledge,฀land฀and฀water฀sources,฀movable฀property,฀and฀the฀labor฀ or฀reproductive฀capacities฀of฀particular฀categories฀of฀individuals฀(such฀as฀unmarried฀ women).฀Archaeologists฀have฀shown฀that฀societies฀with฀these฀concerns฀regarding฀ property,฀status฀differences,฀and฀some฀degree฀of฀centralized฀decision-making฀existed฀ side฀by฀side฀with฀ones,฀like฀those฀described฀above,฀that฀exhibited฀little฀internal฀ differentiation.฀Mesopotamia฀was฀an฀area฀where฀two฀forms฀of฀egalitarian,฀foodstoring฀agricultural฀societies฀with฀different฀spatial฀distributions฀coexisted฀during฀the฀ sixth฀and฀fifth฀millennia฀ BC฀(Flannery฀2002;฀Frangipane฀2007:฀153).฀Their฀relations฀ with฀each฀other฀and฀with฀contemporary฀pastoral฀peoples฀living฀around฀them฀were฀ complex฀and฀shifting฀as฀social฀conditions฀changed. In฀the฀fishing-foraging฀and฀early฀farming฀communities฀on฀the฀central฀Peruvian฀ coast฀of฀the฀fourth฀to฀the฀end฀of฀the฀first฀millennia฀ BC,฀the฀relations฀of฀production฀ that฀developed฀involved฀the฀elaboration฀of฀community-level฀relations฀and฀their฀ articulation฀with฀the฀domestic฀level,฀where฀the฀real฀appropriation฀of฀raw฀materials฀ continued฀to฀take฀place.฀The฀emergent฀community-level฀relations฀linked฀a฀new,฀ spatially฀organized฀technical฀division฀of฀labor฀with฀traditional฀age-฀and฀genderbased฀activities.฀They฀also฀underwrote฀labor฀processes฀and฀activities—such฀as฀the฀ construction฀of฀fish-drying฀terraces,฀monumental฀platform฀mounds,฀and฀irrigation฀ systems—that฀were฀well฀beyond฀the฀capacities฀of฀a฀single฀or฀even฀a฀small฀number฀of฀ cooperating฀households,฀and฀that฀constituted฀the฀conditions฀for฀the฀reproduction฀of฀the฀ society.฀The฀reproduction฀of฀these฀societies฀depended฀on฀the฀continued฀participation฀ of฀households฀in฀community-level฀structures฀and฀activities.฀The฀results฀of฀this฀were฀ (1)฀that฀each฀member฀of฀the฀community฀was฀dependent฀on฀the฀group฀as฀a฀whole;฀(2)฀ that฀all฀adults฀participated฀directly฀but฀differently฀in฀the฀production,฀distribution,฀ circulation,฀and฀consumption฀of฀the฀social฀product;฀and฀(3)฀that฀it฀is฀difficult฀to฀ discern฀status฀or฀wealth฀differences฀from฀the฀goods฀associated฀with฀human฀burials฀ (Patterson฀1991:฀14–20).฀By฀1000฀BC,฀the฀societies฀on฀the฀central฀Peruvian฀coast฀were฀ also฀linked฀with฀nearby฀communities฀that฀had฀similar฀but฀not฀necessarily฀identical฀ forms฀of฀sociopolitical฀organization฀and฀with฀more฀distant฀societies฀in฀the฀Andes฀that฀ potentially฀had฀quite฀different฀forms฀of฀surplus฀appropriation฀(Burger฀1992).

112฀ •฀ Karl฀Marx,฀Anthropologist The฀formation฀of฀social-class฀structures฀and฀state-based฀institutions฀never฀appear฀ in฀isolation฀from฀one฀another฀or฀from฀other฀changes฀in฀a฀society.฀They฀involve฀ the฀simultaneous฀dissolution฀of฀old฀community-level฀relations฀of฀production฀and฀ their฀reconstitution฀along฀lines฀that฀facilitate฀the฀extraction฀of฀the฀labor฀or฀goods฀ of฀one฀group฀by฀the฀members฀of฀another฀group.฀The฀appearance฀of฀exploitative฀ social฀relations฀is฀related฀to฀other฀changes฀in฀the฀society฀and฀to฀the฀creation฀of฀new฀ sociohistorical฀circumstances฀and฀balances฀of฀force฀within฀the฀society.฀Class฀and฀ state฀formation฀are฀always฀contingent฀processes,฀one฀lane฀of฀a฀two-lane฀street—the฀ other฀being฀the฀state/non-state฀transition฀or฀the฀disintegration฀of฀class฀structures฀as฀ well฀as฀the฀institutions฀and฀practices฀of฀the฀states฀they฀support.฀They฀are฀often฀linked฀ with฀violence,฀conquest,฀repression,฀and฀cooption,฀especially฀from฀the฀standpoint฀ of฀peoples฀that฀become฀enmeshed฀in฀their฀relations.฀The฀appearance฀of฀social-class฀ structures฀is฀always฀linked฀to฀the฀institutions,฀practices,฀and฀legal฀codes฀of฀the฀state,฀ which฀simultaneously฀represent฀the฀interests฀of฀the฀dominant฀class฀and฀afford฀an฀ arena฀of฀struggle฀for฀fractions฀within฀the฀ruling฀class.฀States฀ensure฀that฀bodies฀are฀ counted฀for฀taxation฀and฀conscription,฀both฀of฀which฀require฀records฀(the฀origins฀of฀ writing฀systems);฀that฀internal฀dissent฀is฀suppressed฀or฀deflected฀outward฀toward฀ other฀communities;฀that฀bureaucracies฀are฀formed฀and฀overseers฀are฀selected;฀that฀ stationary฀or฀moving฀capitals฀are฀established;฀that฀production฀is฀reorganized฀to฀ satisfy฀new฀patterns฀of฀distribution฀and฀exchange;฀and฀even฀occasionally฀that฀new฀ distinctions฀are฀created฀between฀town฀dwellers฀and฀their฀rural฀kinfolk.฀Customary฀ authority,฀exercised฀in฀the฀context฀of฀these฀processes,฀is฀often฀transformed฀into฀the฀ exploitative฀exercise฀of฀power. Hierarchical฀social฀relations,฀that฀facilitate฀the฀exploitation฀of฀one฀group฀by฀the฀ members฀of฀another,฀have฀undoubtedly฀appeared฀in฀a฀variety฀of฀ways.฀All฀involved฀ the฀ability฀of฀rulers,฀their฀families,฀close฀kin,฀and฀retainers฀to฀extract฀tribute฀in฀ the฀form฀of฀labor฀or฀goods฀from฀the฀direct฀producers฀in฀the฀society.฀Drawing฀on฀ different฀bodies฀of฀evidence,฀archaeologists฀have฀placed฀this฀original฀extortion฀of฀ the฀community฀in฀the฀political฀realm฀of฀Early฀Dynastic฀society฀in฀Mesopotamia฀ in฀the฀late฀third฀millennium฀ BC,฀where฀the฀lands฀of฀the฀temples฀were฀sequestered฀ from฀the฀community฀and฀became฀in฀effect฀the฀property฀of฀the฀temples,฀which฀used฀ surplus฀variously฀as฀a฀source฀of฀income,฀as฀a฀fund฀of฀goods฀for฀exchange฀with฀other฀ communities,฀and฀as฀insurance฀for฀the฀community฀in฀times฀of฀emergency.฀In฀this฀ view,฀the฀original฀extortion฀resided฀in฀the฀custodians฀of฀the฀shrines฀who฀arrogated฀ or฀were฀granted฀privileges,฀powers,฀and฀restrictions฀that฀distinguished฀them฀from฀ the฀rest฀of฀the฀population;฀they฀were฀“able฀to฀exploit฀their฀position฀crystallizing฀ differences฀in฀rank฀and฀privileges฀between฀themselves฀and฀the฀rest฀of฀the฀population฀ and฀adding฀political฀elements฀to฀their฀ritual฀offices”฀(Southall฀1988:฀75;฀Diakonoff฀ 1972).฀A฀second฀trajectory,฀outlined฀for฀a฀slightly฀earlier฀period฀in฀Mesopotamian฀ history,฀argues฀that฀ad฀hoc฀and฀provisional,฀political฀authority฀that฀was฀granted฀for฀ a฀limited฀period฀of฀time฀was฀usurped฀and฀transformed฀into฀power฀(Jacobsen฀1943,฀ 1957;฀cf.฀Gearing฀1961).฀A฀third฀trajectory฀has฀been฀discerned฀by฀Michael฀Blake฀and฀

History,฀Culture,฀and฀Social฀Formation฀ •฀ 113 John฀Clark฀(1999),฀archaeologists฀working฀on฀the฀Pacific฀coast฀of฀southern฀Mexico.฀ They฀suggest฀that฀the฀appearance฀of฀internal฀social฀differentiation฀toward฀the฀end฀ of฀the฀third฀millennium฀BC฀was฀linked฀with฀the฀appearance฀of฀big฀men—individuals฀ whose฀social฀position฀did฀not฀rest฀on฀traditional฀kinship฀and฀the฀customary฀rights฀and฀ obligations฀that฀were฀moored฀in฀kin฀relations—during฀conditions฀that฀were฀shaped฀ by฀the฀increased฀exchange฀of฀goods,฀especially฀exotic฀ones,฀with฀other฀communities.฀ These฀big฀men฀manipulated฀social฀relations฀to฀create฀personal฀followings,฀to฀gain฀ control฀over฀the฀production฀of฀others,฀and฀to฀appropriate฀goods฀that฀enhanced฀their฀ own฀position฀as฀well฀of฀those฀of฀their฀followers.฀They฀redistributed฀the฀exotic฀goods฀ they฀obtained฀during฀village฀feasts,฀and฀they฀supported฀part-time฀craft฀specialists฀in฀ their฀households. From฀the฀perspective฀of฀Marx’s฀base–superstructure฀metaphor,฀the฀social฀categories฀that฀regulate฀the฀relations฀of฀production฀are฀cultural฀or฀superstructural฀rather฀ than฀ones฀formed฀in฀the฀economic฀base.฀As฀a฀result,฀the฀economic฀aspect฀of฀the฀ society฀is฀concealed฀or฀masked฀by฀these฀structures.฀Since฀the฀cultural฀or฀superstructural฀moments฀are฀dominant฀during฀the฀process฀of฀class฀formation,฀the฀social฀ classes฀that฀emerge฀will฀be฀defined฀largely฀in฀ideological฀terms.฀Thus,฀the฀true฀nature฀ of฀the฀economic฀is฀obscured;฀the฀emergent฀class฀structure฀consists฀of฀a฀hierarchy฀of฀ social฀categories฀that฀cannot฀be฀reduced฀directly฀to฀economic฀class฀relations.฀This฀ hierarchy฀of฀non-economic฀social฀categories฀disguises฀both฀the฀real฀economic฀class฀ relations฀and฀the฀real฀contradictions฀that฀emerge฀from฀them.฀In฀such฀a฀situation,฀ the฀economic฀class฀relations฀appear฀different฀from฀their฀real฀nature,฀while฀the฀ hierarchical฀social฀categories฀of฀the฀class฀structure฀appear฀as฀“natural”฀relations.฀The฀ formation฀of฀the฀class฀structures฀is,฀in฀the฀last฀analysis,฀based฀on฀the฀economic฀order฀ of฀the฀society—the฀unequal฀accumulation฀of฀surplus฀product฀by฀the฀various฀social฀ categories฀that฀make฀up฀the฀hierarchy.฀The฀formation฀of฀the฀class฀structure฀is฀the฀ condition฀for฀the฀formation฀of฀economic฀class฀relations฀to฀the฀extent฀that฀this฀process฀ determines฀the฀place฀of฀the฀different฀social฀categories฀in฀the฀production฀process฀and฀ the฀reorganization฀of฀the฀labor฀processes฀to฀incorporate฀exploitation฀and฀extortion฀ by฀one฀or฀more฀of฀these฀categories.฀The฀reorganization฀of฀the฀labor฀processes,฀ which฀involves฀the฀progressive฀differentiation฀of฀the฀activities฀of฀these฀categories,฀ provides฀the฀conditions฀for฀the฀further฀development฀of฀the฀contradictions฀based฀on฀ the฀appearance฀of฀exploitation฀and฀extortion. The฀ruling฀classes฀of฀pre-capitalist฀states฀live฀on฀the฀tribute฀in฀the฀form฀of฀labor,฀ goods,฀rents,฀or฀taxes฀that฀they฀are฀able฀to฀extract฀from฀the฀direct฀producers.฀As฀ a฀result,฀they฀have฀little฀interest฀in฀changing฀property฀relations,฀since฀these฀were฀ the฀bases฀from฀which฀their฀incomes฀are฀derived.฀In฀other฀words,฀the฀kin-organized฀ communities฀of฀class-stratified,฀state-based฀societies฀continue฀to฀be฀the฀dominant฀ units฀of฀production฀even฀though฀their฀survival฀is฀continually฀threatened฀by฀the฀claims฀ and฀exactions฀of฀states฀that฀are฀unwilling฀or฀unable฀to฀reorganize฀production฀on฀a฀ non-kin฀basis฀(Patterson฀2005).฀While฀the฀state฀can฀intervene฀in฀the฀production฀and฀ reproduction฀of฀the฀local฀kin฀communities,฀its฀survival฀depends฀on฀their฀continued฀

114฀ •฀ Karl฀Marx,฀Anthropologist existence.฀In฀these฀societies,฀production฀is฀organized฀for฀use฀rather฀than฀exchange,฀ and฀the฀items฀and฀goods฀kept฀by฀the฀direct฀producers฀as฀well฀as฀those฀appropriated฀by฀ the฀state฀and฀the฀dominant฀classes฀are฀also฀used฀or฀consumed฀although฀some฀portion฀ of฀the฀tribute฀may฀enter฀into฀market฀exchange฀networks฀as฀it฀did฀in฀Aztec฀Mexico฀ (Hicks฀1987,฀1999). Building฀on฀Marx’s฀(1857–8/1973:฀472–4)฀notion฀that฀exchange฀occurs฀on฀the฀ borders฀between฀societies,฀archaeologists฀have฀pointed฀to฀differences฀among฀tributary฀states,฀most฀notably฀those฀based฀on฀extracting฀tribute฀from฀subject฀farming฀ communities,฀like฀the฀Inca฀Empire฀of฀Peru,฀and฀mercantile฀states,฀like฀the฀Aztecs,฀ that฀were฀organized฀to฀exert฀military฀control฀over฀trade฀routes฀and฀administrative฀ control฀over฀those฀groups฀involved฀in฀the฀production฀and฀circulation฀of฀goods฀(Amin฀ 1973/1976:฀37–52;฀Thapar฀1981).฀The฀ruling฀classes฀of฀mercantile฀states฀exploited฀ the฀direct฀producers฀of฀other฀societies฀rather฀than฀their฀own.฀Merchants฀are฀the฀ intermediate฀agents฀in฀the฀process฀of฀surplus฀extraction;฀they฀transfer฀to฀their฀own฀ state฀and฀ruling฀class฀the฀surplus฀goods฀appropriated฀by฀the฀ruling฀classes฀of฀other฀ societies฀or฀goods฀that฀they฀themselves฀extracted฀directly฀from฀the฀producers.฀By฀ itself,฀trade฀does฀not฀cause฀state฀formation;฀however,฀“monopolies฀over฀imported฀ prestige฀goods฀can฀play฀an฀important฀role฀in฀the฀growth฀of฀social฀stratification฀and฀ centralization฀of฀political-economic฀control”฀(Gledhill฀1978:฀241).฀Since฀subsistence฀ production฀is฀not฀a฀major฀source฀of฀state฀revenues,฀local฀peasant,฀pastoral,฀and฀ farming฀communities฀retain฀a฀great฀deal฀of฀autonomy฀and฀are฀only฀weakly฀linked฀ with฀the฀state.฀Mercantile฀states฀are฀often฀urban-based.฀Their฀cities฀are฀inhabited฀ by฀the฀ruling฀class,฀various฀state฀officials,฀merchants,฀and฀artisans฀engaged฀in฀the฀ production฀of฀goods฀for฀exchange.฀Different฀consumption฀patterns฀occur฀between฀the฀ city฀and฀the฀villages฀and฀hamlets฀of฀the฀surrounding฀countryside฀(Brumfiel฀1991). Archaeologists฀have฀long฀been฀concerned฀with฀the฀interconnections฀of฀craft฀ production฀ and฀ specialization,฀ on฀ the฀ one฀ hand,฀ and฀ the฀ processes฀ of฀ social฀ differentiation฀associated฀with฀class฀and฀state฀formation,฀on฀the฀other฀(e.g.฀Costin฀ 1991,฀2001;฀Patterson฀2005).฀One฀of฀the฀earliest฀was฀V.฀Gordon฀Childe’s฀(1950/2004)฀ historically฀contingent฀thesis฀of฀combined฀and฀uneven฀development.฀Childe฀argued฀ that฀(1)฀agriculture฀facilitated฀surplus฀production฀and฀underwrote฀both฀technical฀and฀ social฀divisions฀of฀labor;฀(2)฀the฀ruling฀classes฀of฀lowland฀Mesopotamia฀used฀part฀ of฀this฀surplus฀to฀support฀full-time฀craft฀specialists,฀notably฀metalsmiths฀who฀relied฀ on฀ores฀obtained฀from฀the฀periphery;฀and฀(3)฀since฀the฀initial฀costs฀were฀born฀by฀the฀ lowland฀elites,฀development฀occurred฀on฀the฀margins฀of฀civilization฀with฀significant฀ local฀investments.฀In฀his฀view,฀the฀development฀of฀full-time฀craft฀specialization฀was฀ linked฀with฀increasing฀social฀structural฀differentiation,฀the฀emerging฀interdependency฀ of฀food-producers฀and฀artisans,฀and฀the฀growth฀of฀market฀exchange.฀Craft฀production฀ was฀linked฀with฀production฀for฀exchange฀and฀the฀activities฀of฀individuals฀who฀ were฀removed฀at฀least฀spatially฀from฀their฀natal฀communities.฀Elizabeth฀Brumfiel฀ and฀Tim฀Earle฀(1987)฀drew฀a฀distinction฀between฀independent฀artisans฀and฀those฀ attached฀to฀patrons.฀Joan฀Gero฀and฀Cristina฀Scattolin฀(2002:฀69)฀pointed฀out฀that฀the฀

History,฀Culture,฀and฀Social฀Formation฀ •฀ 115 distinction฀frequently฀drawn฀between฀domestic฀and฀specialized฀production฀makes฀ the฀two฀incomparable฀and฀relegates฀household฀divisions฀of฀labor฀to฀“background฀ work.”฀Edward฀Harris฀(2002:฀86)฀raises฀the฀issue฀of฀whether฀specialized฀production฀ was฀intended฀for฀local฀consumption฀or฀for฀export.฀Other฀archaeologists—Edward฀ Schortman฀and฀Patricia฀Urban฀(2004)฀among฀others—have฀examined฀how฀craft฀ production฀was฀organized฀in฀particular฀socioeconomic฀settings฀in฀Central฀America฀ on฀the฀southeastern฀periphery฀of฀the฀Maya฀states. The฀processes฀of฀class฀and฀state฀formation฀generate฀contradictions฀and฀conflicts฀ between฀the฀demands฀of฀the฀ruling฀class฀and฀the฀state฀on฀the฀community,฀on฀the฀one฀ hand,฀and฀the฀rights฀and฀obligations฀that฀community฀leaders฀have฀to฀their฀kin฀and฀ neighbors,฀on฀the฀other฀(Zagarell฀1986:฀157–60).฀These฀local฀authorities฀were฀caught฀ on฀the฀horns฀of฀a฀dilemma,฀which฀Stanley฀Diamond฀(1951/1996)฀has฀called฀kin/civil฀ conflict.฀These฀local฀leaders฀simultaneously฀had฀rights฀and฀obligations฀toward฀the฀ members฀of฀the฀communities฀they฀represented฀and฀toward฀the฀state.฀They฀had฀to฀be฀ generous฀and฀concerned฀with฀the฀well-being฀of฀their฀communities฀at฀the฀same฀time฀ that฀they฀appropriated฀goods฀and฀labor฀from฀its฀members฀as฀representatives฀of฀the฀ state.฀Their฀positions฀were฀fraught฀with฀contradictions.฀They฀could฀find฀themselves฀ pitted฀against฀the฀state฀or,฀alternatively,฀their฀own฀kin฀and฀neighbors.฀They฀could฀ pit฀their฀kin฀against฀other฀the฀members฀of฀other฀communities.฀They฀could฀find฀ themselves฀opposed฀by฀their฀kin,฀other฀groups,฀and฀the฀state.฀The฀contradictions฀and฀ their฀resolutions฀were฀often฀violent฀as฀in฀the฀case฀of฀Teotihuacán฀in฀central฀Mexico฀ during฀the฀seventh฀century฀ AD,฀when฀95฀percent฀of฀the฀public฀buildings฀and฀its฀ civic฀center฀were฀burned฀and฀the฀inhabitants฀of฀the฀palace฀were฀slaughtered฀by฀the฀ residents฀of฀the฀city฀(Millon฀1988).฀These฀antagonisms฀and฀the฀alliances฀they฀could฀ engender฀constitute฀the฀historical฀contingency฀of฀the฀formation฀and฀collapse฀of฀precapitalist฀states.฀This฀resistance฀accounts฀for฀the฀apparent฀stability฀of฀pre-capitalist฀ societies,฀for฀their฀tendency฀to฀reproduce฀existing฀social฀relations,฀and฀for฀what฀is฀ often฀seen฀as฀repeated฀cycles฀of฀growth฀and฀collapse,฀progress฀and฀retrogression,฀ in฀ancient฀civilizations.฀As฀Marx฀put฀it,฀the฀history฀of฀pre-capitalist฀societies฀was฀ marked฀by฀“continual฀retrogressions฀and฀circular฀movements”฀(Engels฀and฀Marx฀ 1844–5/1975:฀83–4). In฀this฀chapter,฀we฀saw฀that฀Marx฀drew฀a฀sharp฀distinction฀between฀pre-capitalist฀ and฀capitalist฀societies;฀he฀viewed฀the฀former฀as฀limited,฀local,฀and฀vital฀and฀the฀ latter฀as฀universalizing฀and฀ridden฀with฀antagonisms.฀At฀the฀same฀time,฀Marx฀was฀ emphatic฀about฀the฀importance฀of฀understanding฀the฀structures฀underpinning฀the฀precapitalist฀forms,฀the฀historical-dialectical฀dynamics฀of฀those฀structures,฀the฀processes฀ that฀underwrote฀change฀in฀those฀societies,฀and฀the฀apparent฀resiliency฀of฀those฀ societies฀under฀historically฀specific฀conditions.฀He฀also฀realized฀the฀importance฀of฀ sociohistorical฀and฀cultural฀differences—that฀is,฀different฀societies฀were฀organized฀ on฀the฀basis฀of฀different฀modes฀of฀production฀and฀forms฀of฀property฀relations.฀We฀ also฀saw฀that฀Marx฀had฀a฀more฀textured฀appreciation฀of฀culture฀than฀is฀commonly฀ assumed;฀in฀his฀view,฀culture—the฀associated฀forms฀of฀social฀consciousness—were฀

116฀ •฀ Karl฀Marx,฀Anthropologist intimately฀intertwined฀with฀praxis฀and฀the฀social฀relations฀manifest฀in฀historically฀ specific,฀historically฀contingent฀societies.฀Finally,฀we฀looked฀at฀the฀messiness฀of฀ history—the฀fragmentary฀nature฀of฀the฀evidence฀as฀well฀as฀the฀complexity฀and฀ the฀diversity฀of฀the฀sociohistorical฀record฀itself—to฀see฀what฀archaeologists฀and฀ historians฀have฀discerned฀about฀human฀historical฀development.฀In฀the฀next฀chapter,฀ we฀examine฀in฀more฀detail฀Marx’s฀views฀about฀capitalism฀and฀the฀historicity฀of฀the฀ modern฀world.

–5– Capitalism฀and฀the฀Anthropology฀of฀the฀฀ Modern฀World Marx’s฀lifelong฀fascination฀with฀history฀and฀how฀it฀merges฀with฀the฀present฀has฀its฀ roots฀in฀first-hand฀observations฀about฀and฀experiences฀of฀the฀places฀he฀lived.฀Over฀the฀ years,฀these฀snapshots฀would฀inform฀his฀analyses฀of฀various฀moments฀or฀stages฀in฀the฀ development฀of฀capitalism.฀They฀ranged฀from฀the฀collapse฀of฀rural฀cottage฀industry฀ in฀Trier฀during฀his฀teenage฀years฀through฀the฀explosive฀growth฀of฀Berlin’s฀population฀ and฀burgeoning฀construction฀industry฀in฀the฀early฀1840s฀or฀the฀fragmentation฀of฀ the฀French฀peasantry฀and฀the฀presence฀of฀85,000฀German฀workers฀in฀Paris฀(roughly฀ an฀eighth฀of฀the฀city’s฀650,000฀residents)฀by฀the฀mid฀1840s฀to฀the฀enormous฀pools฀ of฀skilled฀and฀unskilled฀workers฀employed฀in฀the฀gradually฀changing฀industries฀of฀ London฀after฀1849. The฀transition฀to฀the฀factory฀system฀.฀.฀.฀was฀not฀a฀clear-cut฀process.฀For฀a฀long฀time฀there฀ were฀branches฀of฀manufacture฀virtually฀untouched฀by฀mechanization,฀while฀others฀were฀ experiencing฀a฀revolutionary฀transformation.฀More฀than฀that,฀within฀the฀same฀field฀of฀ enterprise,฀old฀and฀new฀methods฀of฀production฀often฀coexisted,฀neither฀strong฀enough฀to฀ overcome฀the฀other,฀though฀time฀was฀clearly฀on฀the฀side฀of฀innovation.฀(Hamerow฀1969:฀ 16)

Marx’s฀understanding฀of฀the฀subtleties฀of฀capitalist฀development฀in฀different฀areas฀ would฀deepen฀in฀the฀years฀to฀come.฀This฀was฀partly฀due฀to฀his฀own฀historical฀anthropological฀research฀and฀partly฀to฀his฀acquaintance฀with฀the฀work฀of฀others,฀including฀ Engels’s฀(1845/1975)฀The฀Condition฀of฀the฀Working฀Class฀in฀England฀and฀the฀sources฀ he฀used฀for฀a฀series฀of฀articles฀about฀British฀colonial฀rule฀in฀India฀and฀local฀reactions฀ to฀it฀that฀appeared฀in฀the฀New฀York฀Daily฀Tribune฀between฀1852฀and฀1862฀(Habib฀ 2006;฀Husain฀2006;฀Patnaik฀2006).฀Marx฀(1880/1989)฀was฀not฀only฀concerned฀with฀ collecting฀information฀about฀actual฀social฀conditions—as฀evidenced,฀for฀example,฀ by฀the฀100฀questions฀in฀his฀“Enquête฀Ouvrière,”฀which฀was฀sent฀via฀labor฀unions฀and฀ political฀groups฀to฀25,000฀workers฀in฀1880—but฀also,฀and฀more฀importantly,฀with฀ disseminating฀this฀knowledge฀both฀to฀the฀workers฀themselves฀and฀to฀the฀wider฀public฀ through฀venues฀like฀the฀Tribune,฀which฀had฀a฀weekly฀circulation฀of฀about฀200,000,฀ making฀it฀the฀most฀widely฀read฀paper฀in฀the฀United฀States฀at฀the฀time฀(Husain฀2006:฀ xiii;฀Weiss฀1936/1973).1฀The฀research฀for฀the฀Tribune฀articles฀provided฀him฀with฀

117

118฀ •฀ Karl฀Marx,฀Anthropologist a฀window฀on฀colonial฀rule,฀capitalist฀development,฀and฀local฀resistance฀to฀those฀ processes฀in฀South฀Asia฀and฀in฀other฀parts฀of฀the฀world. The฀term฀“capitalist”฀is฀typically฀used฀in฀two฀different฀ways.฀In฀the฀first,฀it฀ refers฀to฀a฀set฀of฀economic฀institutions—such฀as฀private฀ownership฀of฀the฀means฀ of฀production,฀the฀employment฀of฀wage฀labor,฀production฀for฀the฀market,฀free฀ enterprise,฀the฀profit฀motive,฀and฀competition฀between฀firms—and,฀by฀extension,฀to฀ those฀political฀institutions,฀cultural฀beliefs,฀and฀practices฀that฀accompany฀or฀promote฀ the฀activities฀carried฀out฀within฀this฀institutional฀framework.฀This฀is฀the฀capitalist฀ mode฀of฀production฀with฀its฀economic฀base,฀superstructure,฀and฀associated฀forms฀ of฀social฀consciousness.฀In฀the฀second฀usage,฀it฀describes฀“a฀society,฀taken฀as฀a฀ whole,฀in฀which฀institutions฀or฀a฀mentality฀described฀as฀capitalist฀are฀predominant”฀ (Rodinson฀1966/1978:฀4–5).฀Capital,฀in฀Marx’s฀view,฀is฀a฀social฀relation฀that฀takes฀ the฀form฀of฀a฀thing฀and฀ensures฀both฀“making฀a฀profit”฀as฀well฀as฀reproducing฀the฀ property฀relations฀that฀underwrite฀the฀process.฀He฀wrote฀that Capital฀is฀not฀a฀thing,฀it฀is฀a฀definite฀social฀relation฀of฀production฀pertaining฀to฀a฀particular฀ historical฀social฀formation,฀which฀simply฀takes฀the฀form฀of฀a฀thing฀and฀gives฀this฀thing฀ a฀specific฀social฀character.฀Capital฀is฀not฀the฀sum฀of฀the฀material฀and฀produced฀means฀ of฀production.฀.฀.฀.฀It฀is฀the฀means฀of฀production฀monopolized฀by฀a฀particular฀section฀of฀ society,฀the฀products฀and฀conditions฀of฀activity฀of฀labour-power฀which฀are฀rendered฀ autonomous฀vis-à-vis฀this฀living฀labour-power,฀and฀are฀personified฀in฀capital฀through฀this฀ antithesis.฀It฀is฀not฀only฀the฀workers’฀products฀which฀are฀transformed฀into฀independent฀ powers,฀the฀products฀as฀masters฀and฀buyers฀of฀their฀producers,฀but฀the฀social฀powers฀and฀ interconnecting฀form฀of฀this฀labour฀also฀confront฀them฀as฀properties฀of฀their฀product.฀ (Marx฀1864–94/1981:฀953–4)

Marx฀distinguished฀three฀forms฀of฀capital—usurers’,฀merchants’,฀and฀industrial฀ (Marx฀1863–7/1973:฀914–26;฀1864–94/1981:฀442,฀744–5).฀Usurers’฀capital฀involves฀ individuals฀lending฀a฀sum฀of฀money฀to฀others฀with฀the฀expectation฀that฀the฀latter฀will฀ return฀a฀greater฀sum฀at฀some฀predetermined฀point฀of฀time฀in฀the฀future.฀Merchants’฀ capital฀involves฀the฀process฀in฀which฀individuals฀purchase฀a฀good฀for฀one฀sum฀of฀ money฀and฀then฀sell฀it฀for฀a฀larger฀sum฀of฀money.฀In฀Marx’s฀view,฀both฀usurers’฀ and฀merchants’฀capital฀antedated฀the฀development฀of฀capitalist฀society฀and฀the฀ capitalist฀mode฀of฀production.฀While฀they฀may฀have฀been฀necessary฀conditions฀for฀ the฀formation฀of฀capitalist฀society,฀they฀were฀not฀sufficient฀conditions฀by฀themselves.฀ The฀appearance฀of฀industrial฀capital฀provided฀these฀conditions.฀Industrial฀capital฀ involves฀individuals฀(or฀firms)฀purchasing฀the฀raw฀materials฀and฀tools฀required฀to฀ make฀a฀commodity,฀employing฀the฀labor-power฀of฀wage-workers฀(also฀a฀commodity)฀ to฀manufacture฀the฀good,฀and฀then฀selling฀the฀items฀produced฀by฀the฀workers฀for฀a฀ price฀that฀is฀greater฀than฀the฀total฀cost฀of฀the฀inputs.฀Part฀of฀the฀money฀received฀by฀ the฀employers฀after฀the฀sale฀is฀reinvested฀to฀purchase฀materials฀and฀labor-power฀for฀ the฀next฀cycle฀of฀production฀and฀circuit฀of฀capital;฀the฀other฀part฀is฀used฀by฀them฀to฀

Capitalism฀and฀Anthropology฀of฀the฀Modern฀World฀ •฀ 119 satisfy฀their฀own฀personal฀needs฀or฀those฀of฀the฀firm.฀In฀industrial฀capitalist฀societies,฀ production฀is฀geared฀to฀exchange฀rather฀than฀immediate฀use฀by฀the฀producers;฀there฀ is฀a฀social-class฀structure฀based฀on฀distinction฀between฀those฀who฀own฀the฀means฀of฀ production฀and฀wage-workers฀who฀sell฀their฀labor-power;฀and฀exploitation฀occurs฀at฀ the฀point฀of฀production฀where฀the฀owners฀appropriate฀the฀surplus฀value฀created฀by฀ the฀workers.฀As฀you฀will฀recall฀from฀the฀last฀chapter,฀Marx฀(1857–8/1973:฀409–10)฀ argued฀that฀there฀were฀differences฀among฀pre-capitalist฀societies฀and฀variations฀ within฀the฀pre-capitalist฀modes฀of฀production;฀in฀addition,฀he฀argued฀that฀there฀ were฀significant฀differences฀between฀pre-capitalist฀and฀capitalist฀societies.฀The฀ former฀were฀local฀and฀limited,฀while฀the฀latter฀continually฀transformed฀the฀forces฀of฀ production,฀created฀new฀markets฀for฀the฀commodities฀they฀produced,฀and฀dissolved฀ or฀reworked฀traditional฀ways฀of฀life฀as฀peoples฀on฀the฀margins฀were฀incorporated฀into฀ capitalist฀relations฀of฀production. The฀goals฀of฀this฀chapter฀are฀threefold.฀The฀first฀is฀to฀outline฀Marx’s฀views฀about฀ the฀transition฀to฀capitalism฀and฀its฀subsequent฀development.฀The฀second฀is฀to฀explore฀ in฀more฀detail฀the฀notions฀of฀articulation฀and฀combined฀and฀uneven฀development฀that฀ are฀implicit฀in฀his฀later฀writings.฀These฀have฀important฀implications,฀theoretical฀and฀ practical,฀for฀his฀anthropology.฀The฀third฀is฀to฀consider฀what฀he฀might฀have฀thought฀ about฀the฀structures฀of฀contemporary฀capitalism฀and฀their฀relations฀to฀the฀modern฀ nation-state.

The฀Transition฀to฀Capitalism฀and฀Its฀Development Industrial฀capitalist฀societies฀and฀the฀capitalist฀mode฀of฀production฀developed฀out฀ of฀earlier฀social฀formations฀and฀tributary฀modes฀of฀production฀of฀which฀the฀feudal฀ mode฀of฀production฀is฀one฀variant.฀This฀truism฀is฀not฀a฀trivial฀statement.฀The฀question฀ it฀raises฀is:฀What฀processes฀were฀involved฀in฀the฀transition?฀As฀we฀saw฀in฀the฀second฀ chapter฀as฀well฀as฀the฀preceding฀one,฀Marx฀was฀well฀aware฀of฀both฀broad฀similarities฀ and฀differences฀within฀and฀between฀the฀tributary฀societies฀of฀Asia฀and฀the฀Americas฀ as฀well฀as฀their฀resemblances฀to฀the฀feudal฀societies฀of฀Northwestern฀Europe฀and฀ the฀Slavonic฀societies฀of฀Eastern฀Europe.฀Another฀way฀of฀saying฀this฀is฀that฀they฀ were฀subject฀to฀different฀internal฀constraints;฀what฀was฀potentially฀an฀opportunity฀ for฀development฀in฀one฀society฀may฀well฀have฀been฀an฀impossibility฀given฀the฀ constraints฀for฀another.฀As฀a฀consequence,฀Marx฀recognized฀multiple฀pathways฀ of฀historical฀development฀in฀both฀pre-capitalist฀and฀capitalist฀forms฀that฀involved฀ internal฀developments,฀external฀linkages,฀and฀historical฀contingency. Therefore,฀it฀should฀not฀be฀surprising฀that฀Marx฀presented฀two฀different฀accounts฀ of฀the฀origins฀of฀industrial฀capitalism฀and฀hence฀of฀capitalist฀societies.2฀One฀viewed฀ it฀as฀the฀fruit฀of฀merchant฀capitalists฀who฀forged฀commercial฀networks,฀promoted฀ commodity฀production,฀and฀dissolved฀the฀natural฀economy฀that฀dominated฀the฀ countryside฀ by฀ restructuring฀ labor฀ processes฀ and฀ organizing฀ rural฀ putting-out฀

120฀ •฀ Karl฀Marx,฀Anthropologist industries฀as฀well฀as฀altering฀the฀division฀of฀labor;฀this฀removed฀production฀from฀ the฀control฀of฀the฀town-based฀guilds฀(Marx฀and฀Engels฀1845–6/1976:฀31–4,฀66– 74;฀1848/1976:฀485).฀The฀other฀saw฀the฀rise฀of฀industrial฀capitalism฀in฀terms฀of฀ the฀technical฀development฀of฀small฀owner-operated฀establishments฀that฀became฀ merchants฀themselves฀and฀produced฀directly฀for฀the฀market.฀In฀the฀first฀account,฀ expanding฀commerce,฀the฀shift฀of฀commodity฀production฀from฀the฀town฀to฀the฀ countryside,฀and฀the฀development฀of฀the฀division฀of฀labor฀in฀terms฀of฀both฀specialization฀and฀cooperation฀were฀the฀motors฀of฀change.฀In฀the฀second฀account,฀the฀ engines฀were฀class฀struggle฀and฀technical฀changes฀in฀the฀productive฀forces.฀The฀first฀ focused฀on฀the฀role฀of฀external฀relationships;฀the฀second฀was฀concerned฀with฀the฀ internal฀dynamics฀of฀change฀(Marx฀1859/1970:฀21;฀1864–94/1981:฀449–55;฀Marx฀ and฀Engels฀1848/1976:฀485). While฀the฀two฀perspectives฀were฀not฀necessarily฀mutually฀exclusive,฀Marx฀grew฀ increasingly฀skeptical฀by฀the฀late฀1850s฀about฀the฀capacity฀of฀the฀development฀of฀ trade฀and฀merchant฀capital฀by฀themselves฀to฀effect฀the฀breakdown฀and฀reorganization฀ of฀the฀old,฀tributary฀or฀feudal฀modes฀of฀production,฀since฀the฀merchants฀themselves฀ were฀typically฀fractions฀allied฀with฀the฀ruling฀classes฀and฀the฀money฀they฀accumulated฀ through฀trade฀or฀usury฀remained฀largely฀in฀the฀sphere฀of฀circulation.฀In฀Capital,฀he฀ wrote฀that The฀development฀of฀trade฀and฀commercial฀capital฀always฀gives฀production฀a฀growing฀ orientation฀towards฀exchange฀value,฀expanding฀its฀scope,฀diversifies฀it฀and฀renders฀it฀ cosmopolitan,฀developing฀money฀into฀world฀money.฀Trade฀always฀has,฀to฀a฀greater฀or฀ less฀degree,฀a฀solvent฀effect฀on฀the฀pre-existing฀relations฀of฀production,฀which฀in฀all฀ their฀various฀forms฀are฀principally฀oriented฀to฀use฀value.฀But฀how฀far฀it฀leads฀to฀the฀ dissolution฀of฀the฀old฀mode฀of฀production฀depends฀first฀and฀foremost฀on฀the฀solidity฀and฀ inner฀articulation฀of฀this฀mode฀of฀production฀itself.฀And฀what฀comes฀out฀of฀this฀process฀ of฀dissolution,฀i.e.,฀what฀new฀mode฀of฀production฀arises฀in฀place฀of฀the฀old,฀does฀not฀ depend฀on฀trade,฀but฀rather฀on฀the฀character฀of฀the฀old฀mode฀of฀production฀itself.฀In฀the฀ ancient฀world,฀the฀influence฀of฀trade฀and฀the฀development฀of฀commercial฀capital฀always฀ produced฀the฀result฀of฀a฀slave฀economy;฀or,฀given฀a฀different฀point฀of฀departure,฀it฀also฀ meant฀the฀transformation฀of฀a฀patriarchal฀slave฀system฀oriented฀towards฀the฀production฀ of฀the฀direct฀means฀of฀subsistence฀into฀one฀oriented฀towards฀the฀production฀of฀surplusvalue.฀In฀the฀modern฀world,฀on฀the฀other฀hand,฀its฀outcome฀is฀the฀capitalist฀mode฀of฀ production.฀It฀follows฀that฀this฀result฀is฀itself฀conditioned฀by฀quite฀other฀circumstances฀ than฀the฀development฀of฀commercial฀capital.฀(Marx฀1864–94/1981:฀449–50)

Marx฀came฀to฀see฀that,฀unlike฀the฀paths฀dominated฀by฀merchant฀capitalists,฀those฀ in฀which฀the฀owners฀of฀small฀production฀units฀were฀able฀to฀create฀markets฀for฀the฀ commodities฀they฀produced฀had฀the฀capacity฀to฀dissolve฀and฀transform฀the฀socialclass฀relations฀of฀the฀existing฀feudal฀or฀tributary฀social฀orders.฀As฀noted฀earlier,฀in฀all฀ of฀the฀pre-capitalist฀forms฀of฀society฀where฀production฀was฀geared฀toward฀use฀rather฀ than฀exchange,฀communities฀of฀direct฀producers฀retained฀control฀of฀their฀means฀of฀

Capitalism฀and฀Anthropology฀of฀the฀Modern฀World฀ •฀ 121 production฀and฀subsistence,฀while฀the฀politically฀dominant฀classes฀whose฀members฀ lived฀off฀the฀goods฀and฀services฀they฀appropriated฀from฀the฀direct฀producers฀pressed฀ to฀reproduce฀those฀exploitative฀social฀relations.฀Marx฀put฀it฀this฀way, The฀aim฀of฀this฀work฀is฀not฀the฀creation฀of฀[exchange]฀value—although฀they฀may฀do฀ surplus฀labour฀in฀order฀to฀obtain฀alien,฀i.e.,฀surplus฀products฀in฀exchange—rather,฀its฀ aim฀is฀sustenance฀of฀the฀individual฀proprietor฀and฀of฀his฀family,฀as฀well฀as฀of฀the฀total฀ community.฀(Marx฀1857–8/1973:฀471–2;฀emphasis฀in฀the฀original) The฀specific฀economic฀form฀in฀which฀unpaid฀surplus฀labour฀is฀pumped฀out฀of฀the฀direct฀ producers฀determines฀the฀relationship฀of฀domination฀and฀servitude,฀as฀this฀grows฀directly฀ out฀of฀production฀itself฀and฀reacts฀back฀on฀it฀in฀turn฀as฀a฀determinant.฀(Marx฀1864– 94/1981:฀927)

Under฀these฀conditions,฀there฀was฀no฀particular฀incentive฀or฀compulsion฀for฀either฀ the฀direct฀producers฀or฀their฀exploiters฀to฀increase฀productivity฀beyond฀subsistence฀ levels.฀Moreover,฀the฀direct฀producers—i.e.,฀the฀owners฀of฀small฀production฀units— remained฀marginal฀to฀the฀dominant฀fractions฀of฀the฀pre-capitalist,฀class-stratified฀ societies,฀whose฀very฀maintenance฀and฀reproduction฀depended฀on฀non-economic฀ means฀of฀extracting฀goods฀and฀services฀from฀them. Marx฀was฀well฀aware฀that฀tradition฀played฀an฀important฀role฀in฀setting฀the฀levels฀ of฀surplus฀that฀were฀extracted฀by฀the฀ruling฀classes฀from฀the฀direct฀producers฀of฀the฀ community.฀The฀demands฀could฀not฀be฀so฀high฀that฀they฀threatened฀the฀well-being฀ and฀survival฀of฀the฀direct฀producers฀themselves;฀as฀a฀result,฀it฀was฀“in฀the฀interest฀ of฀the฀dominant฀section฀of฀society฀to฀sanctify฀the฀existing฀situation฀in฀law฀and฀to฀ fix฀the฀limits฀given฀by฀custom฀and฀tradition฀as฀legal฀ones”฀(Marx฀1864–94/1981:฀ 929).฀These฀caps฀effectively฀regularized฀demands฀from฀one฀year฀to฀the฀next฀at฀least฀ in฀the฀short฀run฀even฀though฀the฀harvests฀undoubtedly฀varied฀considerably.฀There฀ were฀also฀sanctions฀in฀the฀rural฀communities฀of฀some฀but฀probably฀not฀all฀tributary฀ societies฀that฀served฀as฀leveling฀devices฀which฀impeded฀or฀limited฀the฀accumulation฀ of฀property฀and฀the฀process฀of฀rural฀social฀differentiation฀or฀at฀least฀channeled฀them฀ in฀particular฀directions. Nevertheless,฀Marx฀believed฀that,฀while฀there฀may฀have฀been฀marked฀inequalities฀ in฀the฀distribution฀of฀wealth฀among฀the฀rural฀producers฀of฀some฀tributary฀societies,฀ there฀ may฀ have฀been฀relatively฀little฀ internal฀social฀differentiation฀among฀ the฀ members฀of฀those฀ruling-producing฀classes.฀That฀is,฀the฀basic฀social฀cleavage฀in฀the฀ societies฀was฀that฀between฀the฀direct฀producers฀and฀the฀classes฀that฀extracted฀surplus฀ from฀them.฀There฀were฀a฀few฀wealthy฀rural฀producers฀who฀had฀the฀capacity฀to฀ produce฀surplus฀goods฀beyond฀their฀own฀subsistence฀needs฀and฀the฀rents฀demanded฀ by฀their฀communities฀or฀local฀lords;฀there฀were฀many฀who฀could฀satisfy฀their฀own฀ needs฀and฀meet฀obligations฀but฀had฀little฀or฀no฀capacity฀to฀produce฀regular฀surpluses.฀ Although฀he฀cited฀no฀specific฀historical฀evidence,฀he฀wrote฀the฀following฀with฀ particular฀reference฀to฀Europe:

122฀ •฀ Karl฀Marx,฀Anthropologist It฀is฀still฀possible฀for฀this฀villein฀or฀serf฀to฀develop฀independent฀means฀of฀production฀of฀ his฀own฀and฀even฀become฀quite฀wealthy.฀(Marx฀1864–94/1981:฀929) in฀the฀feudal฀period฀the฀wealthier฀peasant฀serfs฀already฀kept฀serfs฀of฀their฀own.฀In฀this฀ way฀it฀gradually฀becomes฀possible฀for฀them฀to฀build฀up฀a฀certain฀degree฀of฀wealth฀and฀ transform฀themselves฀into฀future฀capitalists.฀(Marx฀1864–94/1981:฀935–6)

Subsequent฀historical฀research฀in฀the฀tributary฀societies฀of฀Europe,฀especially฀ England฀and฀France,฀has฀confirmed฀that฀there฀was฀some฀degree฀of฀internal฀social฀ differentiation฀among฀the฀rural฀producers,฀and฀that,฀as฀a฀class,฀its฀members฀were฀ engaged฀in฀a฀long-term฀struggle฀with฀the฀local฀lords฀to฀reduce฀their฀annual฀exactions฀ (e.g.฀Bois฀1976/1984,฀1989/1992;฀Hilton฀1978/1990).฀This฀has฀also฀been฀shown฀in฀ the฀tributary฀Inca฀state฀of฀the฀central฀Andes,฀for฀example,฀where฀(1)฀the฀wealthy฀ were฀those฀individuals฀with฀many฀kin฀and฀the฀poor฀were฀orphans฀who฀lacked฀kin;฀ and฀(2)฀important฀shrines฀seemingly฀possessed฀property฀in฀both฀land฀and฀herds฀ as฀well฀as฀service฀obligations฀that฀were฀distinct฀from฀those฀of฀the฀Inca฀state,฀local฀ tribal฀entities,฀or฀other฀corporate฀landholding฀groups฀in฀the฀region฀(Patterson฀1984;฀ Spalding฀1984). An฀important฀distinction฀that฀Robert฀Brenner฀(1997:฀38–9)฀and฀Ellen฀Wood฀ (2002)฀have฀made฀is฀the฀one฀between฀market฀involvement฀and฀market฀dependence.฀ Terence฀Byres฀(2006:฀18–20)฀notes฀that฀market฀involvement฀means฀voluntary฀and฀ perhaps฀irregular฀participation฀in฀the฀market฀to฀sell฀surpluses฀either฀for฀cash฀or฀ other฀goods฀and฀to฀acquire฀goods฀that฀are฀not฀produced฀locally.฀By฀contrast,฀market฀ dependence฀means฀that฀the฀direct฀producers฀must฀participate฀in฀the฀market฀since฀ they฀no฀longer฀have฀non-market฀access฀to฀all฀of฀the฀subsistence฀goods฀they฀need.฀ Market฀dependence฀is฀rooted฀in฀the฀profit฀motive฀and฀requires฀marketing฀on฀a฀regular฀ basis.฀Markets฀now฀exist฀for฀subsistence฀goods,฀raw฀materials,฀land,฀labor,฀and฀ money.฀The฀logic฀of฀the฀former฀is฀pre-capitalist,฀whereas฀the฀latter฀is฀a฀capitalist฀ logic.฀That฀the฀distinction฀was฀not฀always฀immediately฀apparent฀is฀evident฀by฀the฀ formation,฀for฀example,฀of฀the฀market฀economy฀of฀Mughal฀India฀or฀Aztec฀Mexico฀ (Habib฀1968/1995;฀Hicks฀1987,฀1999).฀Hence,฀the฀distinction฀is฀of฀considerable,฀ but฀probably฀not฀primary,฀importance฀in฀the฀transition฀from฀feudalism฀to฀capitalism.฀ What฀processes฀are฀set฀in฀motion? In฀one฀of฀those฀instances฀where฀the฀direct฀producers฀(that฀is,฀wealthy฀peasants)฀ were฀able฀to฀create฀and฀expand฀markets฀for฀their฀goods,฀they฀became฀increasingly฀ dependent฀on฀the฀market฀for฀their฀own฀livelihoods฀as฀well฀as฀for฀the฀maintenance฀and฀ reproduction฀of฀their฀production฀units.฀These฀circumstances฀brought฀a฀new฀dynamic฀ into฀play฀that฀was฀concerned,฀in฀the฀last฀analysis,฀with฀expanding฀production฀and฀ increasing฀ productivity.฀The฀ elements฀ of฀ this฀ dynamic฀ included,฀ for฀ example,฀ the฀prolongation฀and฀intensification฀of฀the฀work฀day;฀differentiation฀of฀the฀labor฀ process;฀the฀development฀of฀new฀forms฀of฀cooperation฀and฀production;฀and,฀most฀ importantly,฀the฀continual฀transformation฀of฀the฀instruments฀of฀production฀including฀ the฀ introduction฀ of฀ machines฀ which฀ both฀ made฀ workers฀ appendages฀ of฀ those฀

Capitalism฀and฀Anthropology฀of฀the฀Modern฀World฀ •฀ 123 machines฀and฀eventually฀displaced฀human฀beings฀from฀the฀production฀process฀(Marx฀ 1863–7/1977;฀Marx฀and฀Engels฀1848/1976:฀487).฀This฀continual฀development฀of฀the฀ productive฀forces฀and฀the฀concomitant฀reworking฀of฀the฀social฀relations฀both฀at฀home฀ and฀abroad฀constituted฀the฀universalizing฀tendency฀that฀Marx฀(1857–8:฀409–10)฀saw฀ in฀the฀rise฀of฀industrial฀capitalism.฀It฀was฀a฀highly฀uneven฀process฀that฀occurred฀on฀a฀ world฀scale฀over฀a฀period฀of฀several฀centuries.฀Industrial฀capitalism฀thrived฀in฀some฀ regions,฀it฀was฀thwarted฀or฀distorted฀in฀others;฀and฀it฀never฀occurred฀in฀still฀others฀ even฀though฀the฀social฀relations฀among฀peoples฀in฀those฀areas฀were฀inextricably฀ altered฀as฀they฀simultaneously฀resisted฀and฀were฀enmeshed฀in฀emergent฀capitalist฀ exchange฀relations.฀In฀one฀of฀his฀descriptions฀of฀the฀process,฀Marx฀wrote: The฀number฀of฀men฀condemned฀to฀work฀in฀coal฀and฀metal฀mines฀has฀been฀enormously฀ swollen฀by฀the฀progress฀of฀machine฀production฀in฀England.฀.฀.฀.฀Along฀with฀the฀machine,฀ a฀new฀type฀of฀worker฀springs฀into฀life:฀the฀machine-maker.฀We฀have฀already฀learnt฀that฀ machinery฀is฀seizing฀control฀even฀of฀this฀branch฀of฀production฀on฀an฀ever-increasing฀ scale.฀As฀to฀raw฀materials,฀there฀can฀be฀no฀doubt฀of฀the฀rapid฀advance฀of฀cotton฀spinning฀ not฀only฀promoted฀as฀if฀in฀a฀hot฀house฀of฀the฀growing฀of฀cotton฀in฀the฀United฀States,฀ and฀with฀it฀the฀African฀slave฀trade,฀but฀also฀made฀slave-breeding฀the฀chief฀business฀ of฀the฀so-called฀border฀slave฀states.฀.฀.฀.฀On฀the฀other฀hand,฀it฀is฀no฀less฀certain฀that฀the฀ blossoming฀of฀English฀woolen฀factories,฀together฀with฀the฀progressive฀transformation฀of฀ arable฀land฀into฀sheep฀pasture฀brought฀about฀the฀conversion฀of฀the฀agricultural฀labourers฀ into฀“supernumeraries”฀and฀drove฀them฀in฀their฀masses฀from฀the฀land.฀Ireland,฀having฀ during฀the฀last฀twenty฀years฀reduced฀its฀population฀by฀nearly฀one-half,฀is฀at฀the฀moment฀ undergoing฀the฀process฀of฀further฀reducing฀the฀number฀of฀its฀inhabitants฀to฀a฀level฀ corresponding฀exactly฀with฀the฀requirements฀of฀its฀landlords฀and฀the฀English฀woolen฀ manufacturers.฀(Marx฀1863–7/1977:฀570–1)

One฀way฀of฀conceptualizing฀the฀early฀stages฀of฀the฀appearance฀of฀industrial฀capitalism฀is฀to฀imagine฀it฀as฀the฀gradual฀eruption฀of฀a฀few฀volcanic฀islands฀from฀a฀vast฀sea฀ of฀societies฀dominated฀by฀kin-communal,฀tribal,฀or฀tributary฀social฀relations. The฀transition฀from฀feudalism฀to฀capitalism฀took฀place฀on฀a฀world฀scale฀beginning฀in฀the฀fourteenth฀or฀fifteenth฀centuries.฀It฀was฀firmly฀set฀in฀place฀by฀the฀rise฀ of฀industrial฀capitalist฀in฀Northwestern฀Europe฀toward฀the฀end฀of฀the฀eighteenth฀ century.฀This฀historically฀contingent฀structure฀which฀steadily฀spread฀over฀the฀entire฀ planet฀developed฀variably฀or฀differently฀from฀one฀part฀of฀the฀world฀to฀another.฀Three฀ intersecting฀conditions฀were฀necessary฀for฀the฀transition฀to฀occur:฀(1)฀the฀existence฀ of฀a฀rural฀social฀structure฀in฀which฀the฀peasants฀no฀longer฀constituted฀one฀or฀another฀ form฀of฀unfree฀labor;฀(2)฀the฀existence฀of฀independent฀artisans฀who฀produced฀nonagricultural฀commodities;฀and฀(3)฀an฀accumulation฀of฀monetary฀wealth฀derived฀from฀ commerce,฀usury,฀and฀plunder฀(Hobsbawm฀1964:฀46–7;฀1962).฀It฀is฀also฀necessary฀ to฀explain฀why฀industrial฀capitalism฀emerged฀first฀in฀Northwestern฀Europe฀and฀not฀ elsewhere,฀even฀though฀peoples฀in฀other฀parts฀of฀the฀world—notably฀Africa,฀the฀ Americas,฀and฀South฀Asia—played฀important฀roles฀in฀that฀development.

124฀ •฀ Karl฀Marx,฀Anthropologist Marx฀sketched฀the฀rise฀of฀industrial฀capitalism฀in฀the฀famous฀section฀in฀the฀first฀ volume฀of฀Capital฀that฀dealt฀with฀“primitive฀accumulation.”฀He฀was฀clear฀that฀it฀ involved฀the฀separation฀of฀rural฀producers฀from฀their฀means฀of฀production,฀and฀that฀ it฀proceeded฀along฀developmental฀pathways฀that฀were฀different฀from฀the฀one฀that฀ occurred฀in฀England,฀which฀served฀as฀his฀example฀for฀analytical฀purposes.฀He฀said฀ that The฀expropriation฀of฀the฀agricultural฀producer,฀of฀the฀peasant,฀from฀the฀soil฀is฀the฀basis฀ of฀the฀whole฀process.฀The฀history฀of฀this฀expropriation฀assumes฀different฀aspects฀in฀ different฀countries,฀and฀runs฀through฀its฀various฀phases฀in฀different฀orders฀of฀succession,฀ and฀at฀different฀historical฀epochs.฀Only฀in฀England,฀which฀we฀therefore฀take฀as฀our฀ example,฀has฀it฀the฀classic฀form.฀(Marx฀1863–7/1977:฀876)

This฀process฀gave฀rise฀to฀both฀wage-workers฀and฀the฀capitalists฀who฀employed฀them.฀ He฀was฀aware฀that฀serfdom฀had฀all฀but฀disappeared฀in฀England฀by฀the฀end฀of฀the฀ fourteenth฀century฀and฀that฀the฀majority฀of฀the฀population฀in฀the฀fifteenth฀century฀ were฀free฀peasant฀proprietors,฀many฀of฀whom฀supplemented฀their฀needs฀by฀wagework฀on฀the฀large฀estates฀and฀by฀using฀the฀resources฀of฀the฀common฀lands฀that฀were฀ held฀by฀the฀local฀community.฀The฀commons฀provided฀pasture,฀manure,฀timber,฀and฀ firewood฀to฀name฀only฀a฀few฀of฀its฀resources.฀Such฀communal฀property฀was฀always฀ distinct฀from฀both฀that฀of฀the฀state฀and฀the฀large฀estate฀holder฀(Marx฀1863–7/1977:฀ 877–95). In฀the฀late฀fifteenth฀and฀early฀sixteenth฀centuries,฀the฀feudal฀lords฀drove฀the฀free฀ peasants฀from฀the฀lands฀and฀homes฀and฀seized฀the฀common฀lands,฀transforming฀ both฀into฀pastures฀for฀sheep฀which฀could฀be฀tended฀by฀a฀relatively฀small฀number฀of฀ individuals฀and฀whose฀wool฀could฀be฀sold฀either฀to฀Flemish฀wool฀manufactures฀or฀to฀ local฀merchants฀or฀firms฀that฀hoped฀to฀gain฀from฀the฀rise฀in฀prices.฀The฀Reformation฀ provided฀an฀additional฀impetus฀for฀the฀expropriation฀of฀the฀agricultural฀population.฀ At฀the฀time฀when฀the฀properties฀of฀the฀Catholic฀Church฀were฀seized,฀it฀held฀most฀of฀ the฀land฀in฀England.฀As฀Marx฀noted After฀the฀restoration฀of฀the฀Stuarts฀[1660–88],฀the฀landed฀proprietors฀carried฀out,฀by฀legal฀ means,฀an฀act฀of฀usurpation฀which฀was฀effected฀everywhere฀on฀the฀Continent฀without฀ any฀legal฀formality.฀They฀abolished฀feudal฀tenure฀of฀land,฀i.e.,฀they฀got฀rid฀of฀all฀its฀ obligations฀to฀the฀state,฀“indemnified”฀the฀state฀by฀imposing฀taxes฀on฀the฀peasantry฀and฀ the฀rest฀of฀the฀people,฀established฀for฀themselves฀the฀rights฀of฀modern฀private฀property฀ to฀which฀they฀had฀only฀a฀feudal฀title,฀and,฀finally,฀passed฀those฀laws฀of฀settlement฀on฀the฀ English฀agricultural฀labourer฀[which฀meant฀that฀they฀could฀be฀pursued฀for฀five฀years฀and฀ forcibly฀returned฀when฀caught].฀.฀.฀. ฀ The฀“glorious฀Revolution”฀[1688]฀brought฀into฀power,฀along฀with฀William฀of฀Orange,฀ the฀landed฀and฀capitalist฀profit-grubbers.฀They฀inaugurated฀a฀new฀era฀by฀practising฀on฀a฀ colossal฀scale฀the฀theft฀of฀state฀lands฀which฀had฀hitherto฀been฀managed฀more฀modestly.฀ (Marx฀1863–7/1977:฀883–4)

Capitalism฀and฀Anthropology฀of฀the฀Modern฀World฀ •฀ 125 Marx฀was฀clear฀about฀the฀role฀played฀by฀the฀state฀as฀an฀agent฀of฀the฀new฀landed฀ class,฀both฀with฀regard฀to฀the฀expropriation฀of฀peasants฀from฀their฀lands฀as฀well฀ as฀the฀forcing฀down฀of฀wages฀and฀the฀criminalization฀of฀beggars฀and฀vagabonds฀ throughout฀the฀sixteenth฀century—processes฀that฀Michel฀Foucault฀might฀have฀called฀ disciplining฀and฀punishing฀the฀proletariat. Integral฀to฀Marx’s฀account฀of฀the฀transition฀during฀the฀sixteenth฀century฀is฀the฀ progressive฀fall฀in฀the฀value฀of฀precious฀metals.฀He฀wrote฀that The฀discovery฀of฀gold฀and฀silver฀in฀America,฀the฀extirpation,฀enslavement฀and฀entombment฀in฀the฀mines฀of฀the฀indigenous฀population฀of฀that฀continent,฀the฀beginnings฀of฀ the฀conquest฀and฀plunder฀of฀India,฀and฀the฀conversion฀of฀Africa฀into฀a฀preserve฀for฀the฀ commercial฀hunting฀of฀blackskins,฀are฀all฀things฀which฀characterize฀the฀dawn฀of฀the฀era฀ of฀capitalist฀production.฀These฀idyllic฀proceedings฀are฀the฀chief฀moments฀of฀primitive฀ accumulation.฀(Marx฀1863–7/1977:฀915)

Enormous฀quantities฀of฀gold฀and฀silver฀poured฀into฀the฀coffers฀of฀merchant฀houses฀ and฀the฀Spanish฀government.฀They฀poured฀with฀almost฀equal฀rapidity฀out฀of฀the฀ governmental฀coffers฀of฀Spain฀to฀pay฀for฀an฀army฀and฀colonial฀administration,฀to฀ purchase฀weapons,฀cloth,฀and฀other฀commodities฀in฀Northern฀Europe฀that฀were฀not฀ produced฀in฀the฀new฀Iberian฀state,฀or฀to฀purchase฀royal฀and฀noble฀titles฀in฀Central฀ Europe—all฀ultimate฀acts฀of฀conspicuous฀consumption฀by฀the฀monarchy.฀Some฀idea฀ of฀the฀amount฀of฀specie฀that฀flowed฀into฀Europe฀can฀be฀gleaned฀from฀the฀fact฀that,฀ in฀1535,฀the฀Spanish฀conquistadors฀of฀Peru฀ransomed฀a฀claimant฀to฀the฀Inca฀throne฀ for฀13฀tons฀of฀silver฀and฀more฀than฀6.5฀tons฀of฀pure฀gold฀(estimated฀value฀US$83฀ million฀in฀1990),฀and฀this฀was฀only฀an฀infinitesimally฀small฀fraction฀of฀1฀percent฀of฀ the฀precious฀metals฀that฀reached฀Europe฀from฀Peru฀alone฀in฀the฀sixteenth฀century฀ (Patterson฀1991:฀3,฀166–7).฀This฀order฀of฀magnitude฀contrasts฀markedly฀with฀that฀of฀ the฀investment฀of฀a฀group฀of฀Dutch฀merchants฀who฀put฀up฀6.5฀million฀guilders฀(the฀ equivalent฀of฀about฀4฀tons฀of฀gold)฀in฀1602฀to฀form฀the฀United฀East฀India฀Company,฀ which฀was฀one฀of฀the฀world’s฀largest฀merchant฀houses฀at฀the฀time฀and฀had฀more฀than฀ 12,000฀employees฀(De฀Vries฀1976:฀130–2).฀The฀decline฀in฀the฀value฀of฀precious฀ metals฀and฀money฀effectively฀lowered฀wages,฀which฀were฀already฀being฀set฀by฀ law,฀raised฀prices,฀and฀swelled฀the฀profits฀of฀capitalist฀farmers฀(Marx฀1863–7/1977:฀ 903–13). Marx฀(1863–7/1977:฀909–13)฀pointed฀out฀that฀the฀events฀of฀the฀fifteenth฀and฀ sixteenth฀centuries,฀which฀turned฀peasants฀into฀wage-workers฀and฀their฀means฀of฀ subsistence฀into฀commodities,฀also฀created฀a฀home฀market฀for฀both฀labor฀power฀and฀ raw฀materials.฀The฀capitalist฀farmers฀who฀employed฀farm฀workers฀had฀incentives฀to฀ improve฀the฀productivity฀of฀their฀lands฀by฀adopting฀new฀forms฀of฀labor฀organization,฀ new฀regimens฀of฀work,฀and฀new฀methods฀of฀cultivation.฀The฀rural฀proletarians฀now฀ had฀to฀purchase฀the฀very฀food,฀clothing,฀and฀other฀necessities฀of฀life฀that฀their฀parents฀ and฀grandparents฀had฀produced฀for฀themselves฀only฀a฀few฀decades฀earlier.฀Rural฀

126฀ •฀ Karl฀Marx,฀Anthropologist industries—such฀as฀spinning฀and฀weaving—were฀also฀destroyed฀as฀the฀peasants฀ were฀driven฀from฀their฀lands฀and฀homes.฀Those฀parts฀of฀the฀rural฀population฀that฀ remained฀in฀the฀countryside฀were฀transformed฀into฀wage-workers฀on฀capitalist฀ farms;฀those฀parts฀that฀were฀forced฀out฀of฀homes฀and฀off฀their฀lands฀became฀a฀large฀ reserve฀army฀of฀labor฀that฀would฀be฀absorbed฀into฀the฀textile฀factories฀that฀were฀ appearing฀on฀rivers฀in฀the฀vicinity฀of฀the฀new฀market฀places฀that฀were฀beyond฀the฀ control฀of฀the฀old฀towns฀and฀their฀guilds. The฀intermittent฀expulsion฀of฀rural฀producers฀from฀their฀lands฀created฀a฀home฀ market฀for฀the฀subsistence฀and฀other฀goods฀that฀they฀could฀no฀longer฀produce฀for฀ themselves.฀Once฀the฀feudal฀constitution฀and฀guild฀organizations฀of฀the฀towns฀ were฀dissolved,฀it฀is฀clear฀that฀some฀members฀of฀the฀old฀craft฀guilds฀became฀small฀ capitalists฀who฀employed฀wage-workers฀to฀produce฀particular฀commodities฀as฀did฀ some฀merchants฀and฀some฀cottage฀artisans.฀However,฀it฀is฀also฀clear฀that฀some฀ individuals฀began฀to฀bring฀together฀or฀concentrate฀all฀of฀the฀materials฀and฀labor฀ power฀that฀was฀needed฀to฀produce฀a฀commodity฀like฀linen.฀They฀acquired฀the฀flax,฀ rented฀or฀purchased฀the฀machines฀for฀spinning฀and฀weaving฀thread,฀they฀hired฀the฀ workers,฀brought฀them฀together฀in฀a฀crowded฀factory,฀and฀then฀sold฀the฀cloth฀they฀ produced,฀keeping฀the฀profits฀for฀themselves฀in฀order฀to฀meet฀their฀subsistence฀ needs,฀to฀consume฀conspicuously,฀or฀to฀reinvest฀in฀the฀maintenance฀of฀their฀factory฀ and฀to฀purchase฀new฀inputs฀of฀materials,฀machinery,฀and฀human฀resources.฀In฀the฀ early฀stages฀of฀industrial฀capitalism,฀the฀woolen฀manufacturers฀of฀England฀not฀ only฀competed฀with฀one฀another฀but฀also฀with฀Irish฀producers฀for฀a฀share฀of฀the฀ market.฀The฀drive฀for฀profits,฀an฀increasing฀share฀of฀the฀market,฀and฀even฀expanding฀ the฀market฀itself฀underwrote฀the฀continual฀transformation฀of฀the฀machinery฀and฀ organization฀of฀the฀productive฀process฀toward฀greater฀productivity. The฀formation฀of฀overseas฀colonies฀facilitated฀the฀concentration฀of฀capital.฀As฀ Marx฀observed: The฀colonies฀provided฀a฀market฀for฀budding฀manufactures,฀and฀a฀vast฀increase฀in฀ accumulation฀which฀was฀guaranteed฀by฀the฀mother฀country’s฀monopoly฀of฀the฀market.฀ The฀treasures฀captured฀outside฀Europe฀by฀undisguised฀looting,฀enslavement฀and฀murder฀ flow฀back฀to฀the฀mother-country฀and฀were฀turned฀into฀capital฀there.฀Holland,฀which฀ first฀brought฀the฀colonial฀system฀to฀its฀full฀development,฀already฀stood฀at฀the฀zenith฀of฀ its฀commercial฀greatness฀in฀1648.฀It฀was฀“in฀almost฀exclusive฀possession฀of฀the฀East฀ Indies฀trade฀and฀the฀commerce฀between฀the฀south-east฀and฀the฀north-west฀of฀Europe.฀ Its฀fisheries,฀its฀shipping฀and฀its฀manufactures฀surpassed฀those฀of฀any฀other฀country.฀The฀ total฀capacity฀of฀the฀Republic฀was฀probably฀greater฀than฀that฀of฀all฀the฀rest฀of฀Europe฀put฀ together.”฀.฀.฀.฀By฀1648฀the฀people฀of฀Holland฀were฀more฀over-worked,฀poorer฀and฀more฀ brutally฀oppressed฀than฀those฀of฀all฀the฀rest฀of฀Europe฀put฀together. ฀ Today,฀industrial฀supremacy฀brings฀with฀it฀commercial฀supremacy.฀In฀the฀period฀of฀ manufacture฀it฀is฀the฀reverse:฀commercial฀supremacy฀produces฀industrial฀predominance.฀ Hence฀the฀preponderant฀role฀played฀by฀the฀colonial฀system฀at฀that฀time.฀.฀.฀.฀It฀proclaimed฀ the฀making฀of฀profit฀as฀the฀ultimate฀and฀sole฀purpose฀of฀mankind.฀(Marx฀1863–7/1977:฀ 918)

Capitalism฀and฀Anthropology฀of฀the฀Modern฀World฀ •฀ 127 Thus,฀Marx฀points฀out฀that฀the฀colonies฀served฀not฀only฀as฀sources฀of฀raw฀materials฀ that฀were฀exported฀to฀the฀mother฀countries฀but฀also฀as฀the฀ultimate฀destination฀of฀ exports฀for฀goods฀that฀were฀produced฀or฀finished฀in฀the฀metropoles;฀frequently,฀ colonial฀production฀and฀even฀inter-colony฀trade฀were฀forbidden,฀which฀meant฀that฀ raw฀materials฀were฀shipped฀from฀the฀colonies฀to฀the฀home฀country฀and฀were฀processed฀ into฀commodities฀that฀were฀then฀shipped฀back฀to฀the฀colony฀from฀which฀the฀raw฀ materials฀originated฀or฀to฀nearby฀neighboring฀colonies.฀He฀acknowledges฀what฀ anthropologists,฀like฀Stanley฀Diamond฀(1974:฀1),฀have฀long฀recognized:฀“civilization฀ [capitalist฀in฀this฀case]฀originates฀with฀conquest฀abroad฀and฀repression฀at฀home.” Marx฀further฀argues฀that฀the฀maritime฀trade฀and฀commercial฀wars฀which฀were฀ integral฀parts฀of฀the฀colonial฀system฀promoted฀a฀system฀of฀national฀debt฀and฀public฀ credit.฀He฀remarks฀that The฀public฀debt฀becomes฀one฀of฀the฀most฀powerful฀levers฀of฀primitive฀accumulation.฀As฀ with฀the฀stroke฀of฀an฀enchanter’s฀wand,฀it฀endows฀unproductive฀money฀with฀the฀power฀of฀ creation฀and฀thus฀turns฀it฀into฀capital,฀without฀the฀risks฀inseparable฀from฀its฀employment฀ in฀industry฀or฀even฀in฀usury.฀The฀state’s฀creditors฀actually฀give฀nothing฀away,฀for฀the฀sum฀ lent฀is฀transformed฀into฀public฀bonds,฀easily฀negotiable,฀which฀go฀on฀functioning฀in฀their฀ hands฀just฀as฀so฀much฀hard฀cash฀would.฀But฀furthermore,฀and฀quite฀apart฀from฀the฀class฀ of฀idle฀rentiers฀thus฀created,฀the฀improvised฀wealth฀of฀the฀financiers฀who฀play฀the฀role฀ of฀middlemen฀between฀the฀government฀and฀the฀nation,฀and฀the฀tax-farmers,฀merchants฀ and฀private฀manufacturers,฀for฀whom฀a฀good฀part฀of฀every฀national฀loan฀performs฀the฀ service฀of฀a฀capital฀fallen฀from฀heaven,฀apart฀from฀all฀of฀these฀people,฀the฀national฀debt฀ has฀given฀rise฀to฀joint-stock฀companies,฀to฀dealings฀in฀negotiable฀effects฀of฀all฀kinds,฀and฀ to฀speculation:฀in฀a฀word,฀it฀has฀given฀rise฀to฀stock-exchange฀gambling฀and฀the฀modern฀ bankocracy.฀(Marx฀1863–7/1977:฀919;฀emphasis฀in฀the฀original)

Marx’s฀discussion฀of฀the฀primitive฀accumulation฀of฀capital฀is฀an฀analysis฀of฀the฀ transformation฀of฀one฀kind฀of฀tributary฀society฀into฀a฀capitalist฀society฀rooted฀in฀ industrial฀capitalism.฀This฀theory฀of฀history฀also฀embodies฀a฀notion฀of฀directionality,฀ which฀is฀reflective฀of฀contradictions฀in฀the฀domain฀of฀production฀as฀they฀are฀manifest฀ in฀the฀wider฀society.฀Societies฀underpinned฀by฀the฀capitalist฀mode฀of฀production฀ exhibit฀this฀directionality฀because฀of฀their฀continual฀efforts฀at฀expanding฀markets฀ for฀the฀commodities฀they฀produce฀and฀their฀continual฀attempts฀to฀improve฀the฀ productivity฀of฀the฀machines฀and฀labor฀processes฀they฀employ฀in฀the฀manufacture฀ of฀those฀items.฀What฀his฀discussion฀also฀shows฀are฀the฀close฀relationships฀fueled฀ by฀commerce฀and฀colonial฀settlement฀that฀existed฀between฀those฀parts฀of฀the฀world฀ where฀industrial฀capitalism฀developed฀and฀those฀that฀provided฀loot,฀human฀bodies,฀ and฀natural฀resources฀which฀fueled฀the฀growth฀of฀the฀manufacturing฀centers฀in฀ northern฀Europe. What฀were฀the฀manufacturing฀centers฀like?฀Marx’s฀short฀answer฀was฀that,฀in฀the฀ late฀eighteenth฀and฀early฀nineteenth฀centuries,฀they฀were฀composed฀of฀a฀number฀ of฀relatively฀small฀firms,฀some฀of฀which,฀for฀example,฀produced฀cotton฀textiles฀

128฀ •฀ Karl฀Marx,฀Anthropologist while฀ others฀ engaged฀ in฀ more฀ specialized฀ processes฀ or฀ items,฀ like฀ bleaching,฀ dyeing,฀printing,฀or฀the฀production฀of฀looms,฀which฀they฀sold฀to฀one฀or฀more฀of฀ the฀textile฀manufacturers฀in฀the฀region.฀Those฀firms฀that฀were฀able฀to฀increase฀their฀ productivity฀by฀adopting฀more฀efficient฀machines,฀by฀lengthening฀the฀work฀day฀of฀ their฀employees,฀or฀by฀paying฀them฀lower฀wages฀had฀the฀capacity฀to฀gain฀a฀greater฀ share฀of฀the฀market฀for฀their฀goods฀and฀hence฀to฀increase฀their฀profits.฀This,฀however,฀ also฀threatened฀the฀very฀existence฀of฀their฀competitors฀who฀continued฀to฀produce฀in฀ more฀traditional฀or฀less฀efficient฀ways;฀this฀forced฀many฀of฀them฀not฀only฀to฀adopt฀ the฀new฀machines฀or฀practices฀but฀also฀to฀seek฀ones฀that฀were฀even฀more฀productive.฀ Marx฀viewed฀this฀era฀as฀one฀of฀competitive฀capital.฀By฀the฀1850s,฀however,฀many฀of฀ the฀smaller฀firms฀found฀the฀cost฀of฀continually฀upgrading฀the฀machines฀they฀used฀to฀ be฀increasingly฀prohibitive,฀and฀they฀began฀to฀close฀their฀doors฀as฀their฀shares฀of฀the฀ markets฀declined.฀The฀result฀of฀this฀was฀simultaneously฀a฀decline฀in฀the฀number฀of฀ firms฀producing฀a฀particular฀good฀combined฀with฀a฀significant฀increase฀in฀the฀value฀ of฀the฀firms฀that฀survived.฀Marx฀(1863–7/1977:฀774–81)฀called฀these฀processes฀the฀ concentration฀and฀centralization฀of฀capital.฀He฀also฀noted฀other฀changes฀in฀the฀mid฀ nineteenth฀century.฀One฀was฀a฀shift฀in฀the฀relative฀importance฀of฀firms฀from฀those฀ that฀produced฀goods,฀like฀cotton฀textiles,฀to฀those฀that฀produced฀steel,฀for฀example,฀ which฀was฀essential฀for฀the฀construction฀of฀railroad฀tracks,฀locomotives,฀and฀other฀ machines.฀A฀second฀was฀the฀increased฀wealth฀available฀to฀firms฀like฀steel฀factories,฀ for฀example,฀which฀were฀incredibly฀expensive฀and฀were฀often฀the฀property฀of฀joint฀ stock฀companies฀with฀large฀numbers฀of฀investors฀rather฀than฀single฀owners.฀A฀third฀ resulted฀from฀the฀combination฀of฀increasingly฀more฀sophisticated฀machinery฀that฀ required฀fewer฀and฀perhaps฀even฀less-skilled฀workers฀to฀produce฀particular฀goods฀ and฀the฀ongoing฀dispossession฀of฀people฀from฀their฀lands,฀which฀forced฀massive฀ migration—from฀Ireland,฀for฀example;฀together,฀they฀created฀a฀large,฀unemployed฀or฀ underemployed฀reserve฀army฀of฀labor.

The฀Articulation฀of฀Modes฀of฀Production In฀the฀preceding฀section,฀we฀examined฀Marx’s฀concept฀of฀primitive฀accumulation฀ and฀the฀role฀it฀played฀in฀the฀dissolution฀of฀feudal฀(tributary)฀society฀in฀England฀and฀ in฀its฀transformation฀into฀a฀social฀formation฀based฀on฀the฀production฀relations฀of฀ industrial฀capitalism.฀Two฀processes฀were฀involved฀in฀primitive฀accumulation.฀The฀ first฀process฀was฀proletarianization—that฀is,฀the฀formation฀of฀a฀class฀of฀free฀wageworkers฀who฀were฀systematically฀denied฀access฀to฀land฀and฀who฀ultimately฀had฀ only฀their฀labor-power,฀their฀capacity฀to฀work,฀to฀sell฀in฀order฀to฀provide฀for฀their฀ subsistence฀and฀that฀of฀their฀families.฀The฀second฀process฀involved฀the฀creation฀of฀a฀ system฀of฀overseas฀colonies฀that฀yielded฀plunder,฀taxes,฀and฀surplus฀goods฀that฀were฀ often฀produced฀by฀various฀forms฀of฀unfree฀labor—such฀as฀indentured฀servants฀and฀ slaves฀in฀the฀British฀colonies฀or฀individuals฀with฀labor-tax฀obligations฀in฀the฀Spanish฀ colonies.

Capitalism฀and฀Anthropology฀of฀the฀Modern฀World฀ •฀ 129 We฀also฀saw฀that฀the฀state฀underwrote฀both฀processes฀of฀primitive฀accumulation.฀ It฀used฀political฀and฀legal฀forms฀of฀compulsion,฀and฀sometimes฀force,฀to฀drive฀rural฀ producers฀from฀their฀homes฀and฀lands฀and฀then฀to฀criminalize฀their฀poverty.฀In฀ England,฀this฀dispossession฀simultaneously฀created฀the฀conditions฀for฀the฀formation฀ of฀(1)฀a฀class฀of฀wage฀laborers฀and฀a฀labor฀market,฀as฀well฀as฀(2)฀a฀class฀of฀unfree฀ workers฀composed฀of฀debtors,฀criminals,฀and฀indentured฀servants฀who฀toiled฀for฀ varying฀lengths฀of฀time฀to฀repay฀their฀obligations.฀While฀the฀former฀underwrote฀ the฀steady฀expansion฀of฀production฀and฀hence฀provided฀the฀basis฀for฀the฀continual฀ transformation฀of฀the฀productive฀forces,฀the฀latter฀did฀not฀participate฀directly฀in฀ either฀wage฀labor฀or฀the฀labor฀market.฀In฀other฀words,฀the฀forms฀of฀surplus฀extraction฀ were฀different฀for฀the฀two฀classes.฀For฀the฀wage-workers,฀exploitation฀occurred฀at฀the฀ point฀of฀production฀and฀involved฀the฀appropriation฀of฀the฀surplus฀value฀they฀created฀ by฀the฀capitalist.฀For฀the฀unfree฀workers,฀exploitation฀involved฀extra-economic฀forms฀ of฀compulsion฀and฀surplus฀extraction.฀Many฀of฀the฀goods฀from฀the฀North฀American฀ and฀Caribbean฀colonies฀that฀were฀prized฀by฀English฀merchants—tobacco,฀sugar,฀ cotton,฀and฀rum฀to฀name฀only฀a฀few—were฀produced฀by฀unfree฀labor—indentured฀ servants฀and฀increasingly฀African฀slaves฀after฀the฀1690s;฀other฀prized฀items—such฀as฀ furs—were฀produced฀by฀indigenous฀and฀other฀peoples฀who฀lived฀on฀the฀margins฀of฀ the฀colonies฀and฀were฀enmeshed฀in฀the฀colonial฀system฀by฀means฀of฀their฀exchange฀ relations฀with฀merchants฀or฀their฀local฀representatives. While฀Marx฀(1863–7/1977:฀873–940)฀formulated฀his฀concept฀of฀primitive฀accumulation฀largely฀in฀relation฀to฀the฀transition฀to฀capitalism฀in฀England,฀he฀was฀already฀ well฀aware฀from฀his฀own฀observations฀and฀research฀that฀capitalism฀did฀not฀develop฀ everywhere฀in฀the฀same฀manner฀that฀it฀had฀in฀England.฀The฀reason฀was฀that฀England฀ was฀merely฀one฀historically฀specific฀instance฀of฀the฀transition,฀albeit฀the฀earliest฀one.฀ Robert฀Miles฀noted฀that The฀historic฀specificity฀of฀the฀transition฀to฀capitalism฀in฀England฀must฀be฀emphasized.฀ The฀subsequent฀expansion฀of฀the฀capitalist฀mode฀of฀production฀cannot฀be฀considered฀ to฀have฀proceeded฀by฀a฀series฀of฀transitions฀in฀precisely฀the฀same฀way฀as฀in฀England฀ because฀the฀particular฀combination฀of฀circumstances฀that฀led฀to฀this฀emergence฀were฀ transcended฀by฀it.฀Because฀the฀historical฀context฀has฀been฀transformed฀by฀the฀emergence฀ of฀the฀capitalist฀mode฀of฀production,฀the฀latter฀must฀be฀expected฀to฀have฀had฀effects฀upon฀ extant,฀non-capitalist฀modes฀of฀production฀as฀a฀result฀of฀the฀inherently฀expansionary฀ nature฀of฀the฀accumulation฀process.฀(Miles฀1989:฀39;฀emphasis฀in฀the฀original)

Primitive฀accumulation฀was฀the฀connective฀tissue฀that฀linked฀the฀various฀trajectories฀ with฀each฀other.฀Miles฀(1989:฀40)฀and฀others฀observed฀that฀primitive฀accumulation฀ is฀“a฀historically฀continuous฀process฀of฀transformation฀of฀relations฀of฀production฀and฀ not฀a฀single,฀unique฀event฀in฀seventeenth-century฀England.”฀This฀process฀continues฀ to฀the฀present฀day,฀side฀by฀side฀with฀proletarianization฀(the฀spread฀of฀wage฀labor฀ relations),฀the฀privatization฀of฀community฀and฀state฀property,฀plunder,฀and฀other฀

130฀ •฀ Karl฀Marx,฀Anthropologist forms฀of฀the฀appropriation฀of฀value฀from฀peoples฀living฀on฀the฀peripheries฀of฀the฀ industrial฀capitalist฀world฀at฀the฀beginning฀of฀the฀twenty-first฀century.฀In฀a฀phrase,฀ primitive฀accumulation฀has฀been฀and฀continues฀to฀be฀a฀permanent฀feature฀of฀capitalist฀ development;฀one฀only฀need฀consider฀its฀predations฀in฀the฀United฀States,฀Russia,฀the฀ People’s฀Republic฀of฀China,฀or฀Mexico,฀for฀example,฀during฀the฀last฀twenty฀years. As฀we฀saw฀earlier,฀Marx฀(e.g.฀1863–7/1977:฀271–2n3,฀446,฀480,฀570–1,฀876n1,฀ 915–17,฀932–4,฀1039–40,฀1076–80)฀already฀had฀a฀comparative฀perspective฀on฀the฀ development฀of฀capitalism฀in฀different฀countries.฀He฀had฀also฀commented฀on฀the฀ interconnections฀between฀different฀parts฀of฀the฀world:฀for฀example,฀of฀the฀factory฀ workers฀in฀England,฀slaves฀in฀the฀American฀South,฀serfs฀in฀Eastern฀Europe,฀village฀ communities฀in฀India,฀and฀immigrants฀to฀areas,฀like฀the฀United฀States฀or฀Germany,฀ that฀were฀experiencing฀the฀growth฀of฀industrial฀capitalism.฀For฀example,฀with฀regard฀ to฀the฀interdependence฀of฀Manchester฀textile฀factories,฀slaves฀in฀the฀American฀South,฀ and฀commerce,฀he฀wrote Direct฀slavery฀is฀as฀much฀a฀pivot฀upon฀which฀our฀present-day฀industrialism฀turns฀as฀ are฀machinery,฀credit,฀etc.฀Without฀slavery฀there฀would฀be฀no฀cotton,฀without฀cotton฀no฀ modern฀industry.฀It฀is฀slavery฀which฀has฀given฀value฀to฀the฀colonies,฀it฀is฀the฀colonies฀ which฀have฀created฀world฀trade,฀and฀world฀trade฀is฀the฀necessary฀condition฀of฀large-scale฀ machine฀industry.฀Consequently,฀prior฀to฀the฀slave฀trade,฀the฀colonies฀sent฀very฀few฀ products฀to฀the฀Old฀World,฀and฀did฀not฀noticeably฀change฀the฀face฀of฀the฀world.฀Slavery฀ is฀therefore฀an฀economic฀category฀of฀paramount฀importance.฀(Marx฀1846/1982:฀101–2). While฀the฀cotton฀industry฀introduced฀child-slavery฀into฀England,฀in฀the฀United฀States฀it฀ gave฀impulse฀for฀the฀transformation฀of฀the฀earlier,฀more฀or฀less฀patriarchal฀slavery฀into฀ a฀system฀of฀commercial฀exploitation.฀In฀fact,฀the฀veiled฀slavery฀of฀the฀wage-labourers฀ in฀Europe฀needed฀the฀unqualified฀slavery฀of฀the฀New฀World฀as฀its฀pedestal.฀(Marx฀ 1863–7/1977:฀925)

While฀the฀transition฀to฀capitalism฀in฀England฀involved฀primitive฀accumulation฀ through฀the฀dispossession฀of฀producers฀from฀their฀lands,฀proletarianization,฀and฀ the฀creation฀of฀home฀markets,฀those฀that฀occurred฀elsewhere฀involved฀variously฀the฀ intensification฀of฀pre-capitalist฀forms฀of฀surplus฀extraction,฀new฀forms฀of฀unfree฀ labor,฀slave-raiding,฀new฀relations฀between฀indigenous฀elites฀and฀the฀colonial฀ administrators,฀new฀forms฀of฀taxation฀and฀other฀means฀of฀indirect฀exploitation฀by฀ the฀colonial฀and฀metropolitan฀states฀as฀well฀as฀the฀separation฀of฀producers฀from฀their฀ means฀of฀production฀and฀the฀appearance฀of฀new฀contradictions฀within฀the฀colony฀and฀ between฀its฀residents฀and฀the฀metropolitan฀state. Marx฀described฀the฀dynamic฀forged฀by฀the฀articulation฀of฀capitalist฀country฀and฀ non-capitalist฀colony฀in฀the฀following฀way: In฀Western฀Europe฀.฀.฀.฀the฀process฀of฀primitive฀accumulation฀has฀more฀or฀less฀been฀ accomplished.฀Here฀the฀capitalist฀regime฀has฀either฀directly฀subordinated฀to฀itself฀the฀

Capitalism฀and฀Anthropology฀of฀the฀Modern฀World฀ •฀ 131 whole฀of฀the฀nation’s฀production,฀or,฀where฀economic฀relations฀are฀less฀developed,฀it฀has฀ at฀least฀indirect฀control฀of฀those฀social฀layers฀which,฀although฀they฀belong฀to฀antiquated฀ mode฀of฀production,฀still฀continue฀to฀exist฀side฀by฀side฀with฀it฀in฀a฀state฀of฀decay.฀.฀.฀. ฀ It฀is฀otherwise฀in฀the฀colonies.฀There฀the฀capitalist฀regime฀constantly฀comes฀up฀against฀ the฀obstacle฀presented฀by฀the฀producer,฀who,฀as฀the฀owner฀of฀his฀own฀conditions฀of฀labour,฀ employs฀that฀labour฀to฀enrich฀himself฀instead฀of฀the฀capitalist.฀The฀contradiction฀between฀ these฀two฀diametrically฀opposed฀economic฀systems฀has฀its฀practical฀manifestation฀here฀ in฀the฀struggle฀between฀them.฀Where฀the฀capitalist฀has฀behind฀him฀the฀power฀of฀the฀ mother฀country,฀he฀tries฀to฀use฀force฀to฀clear฀out฀of฀the฀way฀the฀modes฀of฀production฀ and฀appropriation฀which฀rest฀on฀the฀personal฀labour฀of฀the฀independent฀producer.฀(Marx฀ 1863–7/1977:฀931–2)

These฀comments฀focus฀attention฀on฀Marx’s฀belief฀that฀historically฀specific฀societies฀ are฀totalities฀manifesting฀diverse฀articulated฀combinations฀of฀different฀modes฀of฀ production.3฀They฀also฀indicate฀that฀the฀structures฀of฀relations฀between฀the฀capitalist฀ and฀pre-capitalist฀forms฀of฀surplus฀extraction฀as฀well฀as฀the฀contradictions฀they฀ engender฀may฀vary฀and฀be฀reproduced฀and฀transformed฀differently฀in฀historically฀ particular฀societies฀such฀as฀India,฀the฀Tongan฀Islands,฀or฀the฀United฀States.฀In฀other฀ words,฀they฀bring฀into฀awareness฀his฀view฀that฀capitalism฀and฀what฀lies฀beyond฀it฀ were฀developing฀and฀will฀continue฀to฀develop฀along฀different฀historical฀trajectories. The฀possibility฀of฀alternative฀trajectories฀of฀development฀in฀the฀future฀was฀one฀ of฀the฀reasons฀why฀Marx฀devoted฀so฀much฀of฀his฀time฀and฀energy฀to฀historical฀ anthropological฀studies฀in฀the฀1870s.฀What฀was฀conceivable฀and฀possible,฀given฀the฀ balance฀of฀forces฀that฀existed฀in฀a฀particular฀society?฀This฀was฀clearly฀a฀question฀he฀ was฀pondering฀as฀he฀wrote฀about฀the฀Paris฀Commune฀and฀his฀famous฀drafts฀of฀the฀ letter฀to฀Vera฀Zasulich฀toward฀the฀end฀of฀his฀life฀(Marx฀1871/1986,฀1881/1983).฀It฀ is฀also฀the฀reason฀why฀political฀activists฀he฀influenced—V.฀I.฀Lenin฀(1899/1960),฀ Rosa฀Luxemburg฀(1913/2003),฀Leon฀Trotsky฀(1930/1980:฀3–15),฀Antonio฀Gramsci฀ (1926/1967,฀1933/1971),฀José฀Mariátegui฀(1928/1971),฀Mao฀Zedong฀(1930/1990),฀ and฀Amilcar฀Cabral฀(1963)฀among฀others—were฀not฀only฀students฀of฀history฀but฀were฀ also฀concerned฀with฀the฀lessons฀it฀taught.฀Many฀anthropologists฀have฀shared฀their฀ concern฀with฀the฀issues฀of฀articulation฀and฀alternative฀pathways฀of฀sociohistorical฀ development฀during฀the฀twentieth฀century.4 While฀Marx฀laid฀the฀foundations฀for฀a฀theory฀of฀articulation,฀his฀formulation฀of฀it฀ was฀inchoate,฀and฀he฀did฀not฀elaborate฀many฀of฀his฀observations฀in฀any฀great฀detail.฀ This฀task฀would฀fall฀to฀his฀successors฀in฀the฀twentieth฀century.฀Let฀us฀look฀briefly฀at฀ a฀few฀of฀those฀insights฀and฀their฀implications฀in฀order฀to฀see฀directions฀in฀which฀they฀ were฀or฀might฀have฀been฀developed. First,฀Marx’s฀theory฀of฀articulation฀draws฀on฀his฀discussions฀of฀colonialism,฀ nationalism,฀ expanded฀ reproduction,฀ and฀ transformation,฀ the฀ latter฀ two฀ being฀ important฀concerns฀in฀the฀second฀and฀third฀volumes,฀respectively,฀of฀Capital.฀His฀ writings฀on฀colonialism฀and฀nationalism,฀which฀began฀in฀the฀late฀1840s฀and฀early฀ 1850s,฀should฀be฀understood฀as฀an฀interconnected฀project฀or฀a฀“continuum”฀(e.g.฀Marx฀

132฀ •฀ Karl฀Marx,฀Anthropologist 1848/1976;฀Ahmad฀2001:฀9).฀Marx฀wrote฀extensively฀about฀two฀British฀colonies,฀ Ireland฀and฀India,฀the฀latter฀which฀he฀characterized฀once฀as฀the฀“Ireland฀of฀the฀East,”฀ because฀of฀the฀similarities฀he฀saw฀in฀the฀implementation฀of฀English฀colonial฀policies฀ in฀the฀two฀countries฀(Marx฀1853/1979a:฀125).5฀These฀can฀be฀described฀briefly฀as฀the฀ destruction฀of฀local฀industry,฀the฀creation฀of฀local฀markets฀for฀goods฀manufactured฀in฀ England,฀the฀dispossession฀of฀people฀from฀their฀lands,฀the฀development฀of฀capitalist฀ agriculture฀(which฀in฀India฀at฀least฀was฀accompanied฀by฀the฀development฀of฀railroads฀ in฀the฀early฀1850s฀to฀move฀raw฀cotton฀to฀ports฀where฀it฀could฀be฀shipped฀to฀the฀home฀ country),฀and฀massive฀emigration฀within฀the฀country฀as฀well฀as฀to฀other฀parts฀of฀ the฀world.฀In฀1813,฀India,฀which฀had฀exported฀fabrics฀manufactured฀in฀Dacca฀and฀ other฀traditional฀handloom฀centers,฀was฀inundated฀with฀thread฀and฀cotton฀goods฀ made฀from฀American฀cotton฀in฀English฀factories.฀The฀English฀merchants฀in฀India฀ undersold฀the฀local฀producers,฀and฀the฀volume฀of฀imported฀English฀cloth฀grew฀ from฀about฀1฀million฀yards฀in฀1824฀to฀64฀million฀yards฀in฀1837.฀During฀the฀same฀ period,฀the฀population฀of฀traditional฀textile฀centers,฀like฀Dacca,฀plummeted฀from฀ 150,000฀to฀20,000.฀However,฀deteriorating฀diplomatic฀relations฀with฀the฀United฀ States฀combined฀with฀a฀poor฀harvest฀in฀the฀American฀South฀in฀1850฀led฀English฀ manufacturers฀to฀seek฀new฀sources฀of฀raw฀cotton,฀most฀noticeably฀in฀the฀interior฀ regions฀of฀India;฀the฀development฀of฀capitalist,฀cotton-producing฀farms฀in฀these฀ areas฀during฀the฀early฀1850s฀spurred฀the฀construction฀of฀railroads฀linking฀them฀with฀ coastal฀cities฀like฀Bombay.฀The฀importance฀of฀the฀English฀exports฀to฀India฀should฀ not฀be฀underestimated.฀In฀1850,฀cotton฀goods฀constituted฀more฀than฀60฀percent฀of฀ the฀total฀value฀of฀English฀goods฀traded฀to฀India฀and฀accounted฀for฀one-fourth฀of฀all฀ of฀its฀foreign฀trade,฀one-twelfth฀of฀its฀national฀revenue,฀and฀one-eighth฀of฀its฀total฀ employment.฀In฀addition,฀the฀British฀government฀collected฀taxes฀from฀the฀colony฀ and฀possessed฀monopolies฀over฀the฀manufacture฀or฀distribution฀of฀certain฀items,฀ most฀notably฀salt฀and฀opium฀which฀was฀sold฀to฀the฀Chinese฀(Marx฀1853/1979a,฀ 1853/1979b:฀154,฀1853/1979c:฀219–21,฀1853/1979d:฀316–17).6฀In฀sum,฀it฀was฀an฀ exploitative฀relationship฀based฀partly฀on฀unequal฀exchange฀and฀partly฀on฀the฀ability฀ of฀the฀Colonial฀Office฀to฀impose฀its฀will. Second,฀Marx฀was฀impressed฀with฀the฀impact฀of฀political฀fragmentation฀initially฀through฀first-hand฀experience฀in฀Europe,฀especially฀Germany฀and฀Austria,฀ during฀the฀late฀1840s฀and฀a฀few฀years฀later฀in฀India฀as฀a฀result฀of฀his฀investigative฀ journalism฀for฀the฀New฀York฀Herald฀Tribune.฀In฀Europe,฀he฀and฀Engels฀confronted฀ the฀classic฀problems฀of฀national฀consolidation—namely,฀the฀political฀unification฀ and฀independence฀of฀nations฀that฀were฀highly฀fragmented฀and฀often฀dominated฀by฀ neighboring฀powers฀(Ahmad฀2001:฀4,฀10–11).฀Engels฀(1849/1977a)฀distinguished฀ “historic฀nations,”฀like฀Poland,฀that฀were฀sizable฀and฀had฀already฀gained฀some฀ degree฀of฀sovereignty฀and฀smaller฀nationalities,฀“peoples฀without฀history,”฀like฀the฀ southern฀Slavs,฀that฀were฀incorporated฀into฀larger฀political฀entities,฀the฀Hapsburg฀ Empire฀in฀this฀case฀(Rosdolsky฀1980).฀He฀also฀pointed฀out฀that฀conflicts฀along฀ national฀lines฀were฀relatively฀unimportant฀so฀long฀as฀the฀ruling฀classes฀in฀each฀

Capitalism฀and฀Anthropology฀of฀the฀Modern฀World฀ •฀ 133 national฀group฀continued฀to฀share฀their฀common฀goal฀of฀“preserving฀the฀monarchy,”฀ in฀order฀to฀maintain฀their฀own฀positions฀against฀the฀emerging฀bourgeois฀classes฀ (Engels฀1849/1977b:฀229). Marx฀was฀also฀aware฀of฀the฀consequences฀of฀political฀fragmentation฀of฀India.฀ As฀Ahmad฀(2001:฀19)฀points฀out,฀that฀segments฀of฀the฀traditional฀classes฀in฀India— displaced฀peasants,฀ruined฀artisans,฀and฀aristocratic฀landowners฀whose฀properties฀ had฀been฀confiscated—reacted฀to฀the฀exactions฀of฀the฀British฀in฀the฀1850s฀did฀not฀ escape฀Marx’s฀attention฀(e.g.฀1857/1986a,฀1857/1986b,฀1857/1986c).฀However,฀as฀ Habib฀notes: Marx’s฀sympathy฀for฀the฀rebels฀shows฀itself฀in฀a฀number฀of฀ways:฀his฀scornful฀skepticism฀ of฀the฀claims฀of฀an฀early฀British฀capture฀of฀Delhi฀from฀the฀mutineers;฀his฀detection฀ of฀exaggeration฀in฀the฀horror฀stories฀of฀atrocities฀committed฀by฀the฀rebels฀and฀his฀ justifications฀of฀these฀as฀events฀inescapable฀in฀such฀revolts฀anywhere;฀and,฀finally,฀his฀ denunciations฀of฀the฀atrocities฀committed฀by฀British฀officers฀and฀troops. ฀ However฀sympathetic฀by฀natural฀instinct,฀Marx฀was฀with฀the฀1857฀rebels,฀he฀was฀clear฀ enough฀in฀his฀mind฀that฀the฀rebellion฀was฀a฀response฀of฀the฀old฀classes฀to฀the฀process฀of฀ pauperization฀of฀a฀large฀mass฀of฀the฀Indian฀people฀and฀the฀dissolution฀of฀a฀whole฀old฀way฀ of฀life,฀it฀was฀not฀the฀product฀of฀the฀Indian฀“regeneration”฀that฀he฀himself฀looked฀forward฀ to.฀He฀admitted฀in฀respect฀of฀the฀Mutiny฀that฀“It฀is฀a฀curious฀quid฀pro฀quo฀to฀expect฀an฀ Indian฀revolt฀to฀assume฀the฀features฀of฀a฀European฀revolution.”฀(Habib฀2006:฀xlix)

Nonetheless,฀Marx฀saw฀the฀similarity฀between฀the฀Indian฀insurrection฀of฀1857–8,฀ which฀he฀called฀a฀national฀revolt,฀and฀the฀nationalist฀movements฀that฀had฀swept฀ across฀Europe฀a฀few฀years฀earlier.฀Not฀only฀was฀it฀geographically฀widespread,฀but฀it฀ also฀cut฀across฀caste,฀religious,฀and฀social-class฀divisions.฀The฀groups฀challenged฀by฀ the฀mutineers฀were฀the฀British฀financiers฀and฀mill฀owners,฀the฀colonial฀government,฀ and฀their฀local฀agents฀and฀representatives฀(Marx฀1853/1979c:฀218).฀What฀the฀Indian฀ rebels฀lacked,฀in฀Engels฀(1857/1986:฀392)฀view,฀was฀“the฀scientific฀element”—that฀ is,฀centralized฀political฀and฀military฀leadership฀or,฀as฀Ahmad฀(2001:฀19)฀put฀it,฀the฀ basic฀features฀of฀twentieth-century฀national฀liberation฀movements.฀From฀the฀late฀ 1850s฀onward,฀Marx฀(e.g.฀1881/1992a:฀63–4)฀was฀aware฀of฀tendencies฀that฀might฀ facilitate฀the฀development฀of฀centralized฀leadership฀in฀Indian฀society฀and฀the฀threat฀ that฀this฀would฀potentially฀pose฀to฀British฀rule.฀Moreover,฀any฀thoughts฀he฀might฀ have฀harbored฀in฀the฀early฀1850s฀about฀the฀progressive฀character฀of฀colonialism฀ in฀India฀were฀long฀dispelled฀by฀the฀time฀he฀wrote฀about฀the฀plunder฀of฀India฀and฀ primitive฀accumulation฀in฀Capital.฀Marx฀(1853/1979c:฀221–2)฀wrote฀not฀only฀about฀ “the฀profound฀hypocrisy฀and฀inherent฀barbarism฀of฀bourgeois฀civilization”฀and฀“the฀ devastating฀effects฀of฀English฀industry,฀when฀contemplated฀with฀regard฀to฀India,”฀ but฀also฀that฀“the฀Indians฀will฀not฀reap฀the฀fruits฀of฀the฀new฀elements฀of฀society฀ scattered฀among฀them฀by฀the฀British฀bourgeoisie,฀till฀in฀Great฀Britain฀itself฀the฀new฀ ruling฀classes฀shall฀have฀been฀supplanted฀by฀the฀industrial฀proletariat,฀or฀till฀the฀ Hindus฀themselves฀shall฀have฀grown฀strong฀enough฀to฀throw฀off฀the฀English฀yoke฀

134฀ •฀ Karl฀Marx,฀Anthropologist altogether.”฀As฀Ahmad฀(2001:฀20)฀has฀noted,฀no฀Indian฀reformer฀of฀the฀nineteenth฀ century฀took฀such฀a฀clear฀position฀on฀the฀question฀of฀Indian฀independence,฀and฀all฀ twentieth-century฀Indian฀nationalists฀accepted฀Marx’s฀claim฀that฀“colonial฀capitalism฀ did฀contribute฀‘new฀elements฀of฀society’฀in฀India”฀(emphasis฀in฀the฀original). Third,฀Marx฀knew฀that฀the฀rise฀of฀industrial฀capitalism฀and฀the฀linkages฀spawned฀ by฀it฀triggered฀massive฀emigration,฀mostly฀from฀the฀colonies฀and฀the฀peripheral฀ regions฀of฀the฀home฀countries.฀For฀example,฀he฀realized฀that฀hundreds฀of฀thousands,฀ if฀not฀millions,฀of฀persons฀were฀displaced฀in฀India฀in฀the฀1830s฀and฀1840s.฀In฀Ireland,฀ he฀noted฀that฀more฀than฀a฀million฀of฀the฀colony’s฀roughly฀7฀million฀inhabitants— that฀is,฀15–20฀percent฀of฀its฀total฀population—emigrated฀elsewhere฀(to฀England,฀ Australia,฀and฀the฀United฀States)฀in฀the฀five-year฀period฀between฀1847฀and฀1852,฀ and฀that,฀by฀the฀mid฀1860s,฀its฀population฀had฀fallen฀by฀half฀to฀about฀3.5฀million฀ persons฀(Marx฀1853/1979e:฀528–32;฀1853/1979f).฀Marx฀frequently฀mocked฀the฀ “public-opinion฀slang฀of฀England,”฀which฀attributed฀the฀plight฀of฀dispossessed฀Irish฀ workers฀to฀“aboriginal฀faults฀of฀the฀Celtic฀race”฀or฀to฀the฀“shortcomings฀of฀Irish฀ nature”฀instead฀of฀to฀British฀misrule;฀he฀certainly฀did฀not฀see฀the฀Irish฀as฀the฀London฀ Economist฀did:฀a฀“redundant฀population”฀whose฀departure฀was฀necessary฀before฀ any฀improvement฀could฀occur.฀Instead,฀he฀saw฀their฀circumstances฀as฀historically฀ conditioned,฀partly฀by฀the฀policies฀of฀capital฀and฀the฀state,฀and฀partly฀by฀their฀own฀ efforts฀to฀ameliorate฀those฀circumstances฀given฀the฀prevailing฀balance฀of฀force฀at฀the฀ time฀(Marx฀1853/1979e:฀528,฀1853/1979f:฀159,฀1859/1980:฀489;฀cf.฀Curtis฀1997:฀ 148–80).฀He฀was฀well฀aware฀that฀Irish฀farmers฀driven฀from฀the฀land฀went฀to฀the฀ cities—including฀London,฀where฀the฀vast฀majority฀of฀those฀who฀were฀employed฀ worked฀as฀unskilled฀day-laborers฀in฀the฀towns฀or฀as฀day-laborers฀in฀the฀surrounding฀ countryside.฀He฀also฀knew฀that฀Irish฀workers฀were฀often฀paid฀lower฀wages฀than฀their฀ English฀counterparts,฀and฀that฀English฀linen฀manufacturers฀were฀closing฀factories฀in฀ the฀Midlands฀and฀relocating฀them฀to฀towns฀in฀Ireland฀where฀they฀could฀pay฀lower฀ wages฀(Marx฀1857/1986d:฀257,฀1863–7/1977:฀866;฀Engels฀1844/1975;฀Robinson฀ 1983:฀38–59;฀Thompson฀1963:฀429–43).฀In฀addition,฀he฀was฀sympathetic฀to฀the฀ plight฀of฀the฀Irish฀emigrants฀who฀were฀separated฀from฀their฀natal฀communities฀as฀ they฀settled฀in฀distant฀and฀often฀hostile฀places,฀like฀the฀United฀States,฀where฀large฀ numbers฀had฀the฀most฀menial฀and฀undesirable฀of฀unskilled฀jobs,฀occupied฀the฀lowest฀ rungs฀of฀the฀social-class฀structure,฀and฀daily฀confronted฀increasingly฀racialized฀ discrimination฀and฀the฀possibility฀of฀violence฀because฀of฀their฀creative฀maintenance฀ and฀ethnogenesis฀of฀a฀rural฀heritage฀and฀national฀identity฀in฀the฀new฀country฀and฀ their฀adherence฀to฀Catholicism฀(e.g.฀Ashworth฀1983:฀181–2;฀Curtis฀1997;฀Foner฀ 1980:฀150–200). Fourth,฀Marx฀explored฀the฀interconnection฀of฀nationalist฀politics฀and฀diasporic฀ communities฀with฀an฀increasingly฀textured฀appreciation฀of฀their฀complexities฀from฀ 1860฀onward฀as฀a฀result฀of฀his฀investigations฀of฀Ireland฀and฀the฀Irish฀question฀and฀ the฀United฀States฀and฀its฀civil฀war฀(Marx฀1972;฀Marx฀and฀Engels฀1972).฀In฀his฀view,฀ the฀English฀landed฀aristocracy฀and฀the฀capitalist฀classes฀had฀a฀shared฀interest฀in฀

Capitalism฀and฀Anthropology฀of฀the฀Modern฀World฀ •฀ 135 maintaining฀English฀domination฀over฀Ireland฀and฀in฀promoting฀emigration.฀Irish฀ farms฀seized฀earlier฀in฀the฀century฀by฀English฀landlords฀were฀turned฀into฀pastures฀ that฀(1)฀provided฀English฀markets฀with฀cheap฀meat฀and฀wool,฀(2)฀ensured฀a฀reserve฀ army฀of฀labor฀that฀drove฀down฀wages฀and฀the฀morale฀of฀the฀English฀working฀class,฀ (3)฀pitted฀English฀workers฀against฀the฀Irish฀immigrants,฀and฀(4)฀guaranteed฀security฀ to฀some฀extent฀by฀scattering฀some฀of฀the฀more฀disgruntled฀members฀of฀Irish฀society฀ around฀the฀world฀and฀by฀insulating฀others฀from฀any฀radical฀or฀revolutionary฀ideas฀ they฀might฀have฀held฀(Marx฀1869/1988a:฀398–9;฀1870/1988).฀The฀resolution฀of฀ the฀Irish฀question฀ultimately฀depended฀on฀the฀political฀independence฀of฀Ireland;฀ minimally,฀Marx฀(e.g.฀1870/1985:฀118–21)฀thought,฀this฀would฀entail฀breaking฀the฀ grip฀of฀the฀landed฀aristocracy฀in฀Ireland,฀linking฀the฀struggle฀over฀land฀with฀social฀ issues,฀and฀forming฀coalitions฀with฀working฀classes฀around฀the฀world฀and฀most฀ especially฀with฀those฀in฀England.฀The฀issue฀was฀how฀to฀achieve฀it.฀This฀was฀the฀ question฀that฀underwrote฀his฀analyses฀of฀the฀goals฀and฀class฀interests฀expressed฀ by฀various฀Irish฀nationalist฀groups฀and฀partly฀by฀the฀tactics฀that฀each฀advocated฀to฀ accomplish฀its฀aims.฀The฀purpose฀of฀his฀analyses฀was฀not฀to฀idealize฀or฀romanticize฀ the฀various฀Irish฀national฀movements฀but฀rather฀to฀assess฀as฀accurately฀as฀possible฀ their฀strengths฀and฀weaknesses. Marx฀(e.g.฀1867/1985,฀1881/1992b)฀was฀sympathetic,฀publicly฀at฀least,฀to฀the฀ various฀groups฀or฀individuals฀within฀the฀Irish฀national฀liberation฀movement,฀notably฀ the฀ Fenian฀ (Irish฀ Republican)฀ Brotherhood฀ and฀ later฀ Charles฀ Steward฀ Parnell฀ (1846–91),฀and฀condemned฀the฀sentences฀imposed฀by฀the฀English฀on฀Irish฀(Fenian)฀ prisoners฀in฀1867.฀Nevertheless,฀in฀correspondence฀and฀confidential฀reports,฀he฀and฀ Engels฀were฀critical฀of฀them฀and฀paid฀close฀attention฀to฀both฀the฀class฀position฀and฀ ideologies฀of฀their฀members฀and฀to฀their฀actions.฀Engels฀(1869/1988)฀described฀the฀ tactics฀of฀the฀groups฀as฀ranging฀from฀spontaneous฀democratic฀and฀revolutionary฀ actions฀of฀peasants฀forced฀from฀their฀lands฀to฀the฀liberal-national฀opposition฀of฀the฀ Irish฀urban฀bourgeoisie.฀They฀were฀particularly฀critical฀of฀the฀views฀and฀tactics฀of฀ the฀Fenians,฀who฀focused฀almost฀exclusively฀on฀the฀issue฀of฀political฀independence,฀ neglected฀both฀land฀and฀social฀issues,฀were฀narrowly฀ethnocentric,฀and฀not฀only฀ failed฀to฀make฀alliances฀with฀democratic฀working-class฀groups฀in฀other฀countries,฀ especially฀England,฀but฀also฀failed฀to฀understand฀the฀importance฀of฀these฀contacts.7฀ As฀a฀result,฀neither฀Marx฀nor฀Engels฀was฀especially฀sympathetic฀with฀cultural฀ nationalism฀in฀the฀narrow฀sense฀of฀the฀term฀regardless฀of฀what฀either฀said฀publicly. Fifth,฀Marx฀(1863–7/1977:฀711–23,฀1865–85/1981:฀468–599)฀was฀aware฀that฀ the฀extent฀of฀capitalist฀markets฀and฀the฀processes฀of฀capitalist฀production,฀including฀ those฀associated฀with฀the฀production฀of฀the฀capitalists฀and฀workers฀themselves,฀ were฀not฀only฀in฀a฀constant฀state฀of฀flux฀but฀were฀also฀incessantly฀renewed฀on฀ an฀ever-increasing฀scale.฀He฀referred฀to฀this฀as฀accumulation฀and฀reproduction฀ on฀an฀expanded฀scale.฀His฀commentary฀about฀expanded฀reproduction฀provoked฀a฀ number฀of฀subsequent฀writers฀to฀critique฀or฀work฀out฀its฀implications.฀For฀example,฀ Luxemburg฀argued฀that

136฀ •฀ Karl฀Marx,฀Anthropologist The฀existence฀and฀development฀of฀capitalism฀requires฀an฀environment฀of฀non-capitalist฀ forms฀of฀production,฀but฀not฀every฀one฀of฀these฀forms฀will฀serve฀its฀ends.฀Capitalism฀ needs฀non-capitalist฀social฀strata฀as฀a฀market฀for฀its฀surplus฀value,฀as฀a฀source฀of฀supply฀ for฀its฀means฀of฀production,฀and฀as฀a฀reservoir฀of฀labour฀power฀for฀its฀wage฀system.฀ (Luxemburg฀1913/2003:฀368)

Thus,฀in฀her฀view,฀the฀capitalist฀mode฀of฀production฀could฀not฀exist฀in฀isolation฀ and฀had฀to฀coexist฀with฀non-capitalist฀modes฀in฀order฀for฀the฀accumulation฀and฀ reproduction฀of฀the฀capitalist฀system฀to฀occur;฀in฀other฀words,฀capitalism฀could฀ never฀become฀a฀universal฀form฀of฀society.฀While฀it฀repressed฀its฀own฀workers฀and฀ engulfed฀non-capitalist฀societies฀it฀also฀sowed฀the฀seeds฀of฀economic฀crises฀and฀ its฀own฀destruction,฀since฀it฀was฀consuming฀the฀very฀conditions฀that฀ensured฀its฀ existence฀(Luxemburg฀1913/2003:฀350,฀365–6,฀467).฀Another฀commentator,฀Rudolf฀ Hilferding฀(1910/1981:฀228–35,฀288–98),฀had฀already฀argued฀that฀economic฀crises฀ were฀always฀latent฀in฀capitalism฀because฀of฀the฀imbalances฀or฀disproportionalities฀ that฀exist฀among฀the฀various฀sectors฀of฀the฀capitalist฀economy,฀the฀declining฀rates฀ of฀profit฀associated฀with฀the฀increased฀use฀of฀machines฀relative฀to฀human฀labor,฀and฀ the฀inter-capitalist฀competition฀in฀the฀market฀(the฀anarchy฀of฀the฀market)—all฀of฀ which฀contributed฀to฀the฀periodic฀overproduction฀and฀underconsumption฀of฀both฀ commodities฀and฀capital.฀Both฀Luxemburg฀and฀Hilferding฀realized฀that฀Marx’s฀ views฀about฀expanded฀reproduction฀and฀economic฀crises฀were฀also฀parts฀of฀his฀ theory฀of฀social-class฀relations. Marx฀saw฀that฀social-class฀structures฀were฀expressions฀of฀exploitative฀social฀relations.฀He฀was฀also฀aware฀that฀social-class฀structures,฀both฀in฀the฀capitalist฀countries฀ and฀their฀colonies฀were฀continually฀reworked฀during฀the฀processes฀of฀expanded฀ accumulation฀and฀reproduction.฀This฀is฀perhaps฀most฀apparent฀in฀his฀discussions฀of฀ how฀young฀women฀and฀children฀constituted฀an฀enormous฀reserve฀army฀of฀labor฀in฀ England฀that฀was฀repeatedly฀moved฀into฀and฀out฀of฀the฀labor฀force฀in฀order฀to฀depress฀ wages฀and฀to฀extend฀the฀length฀of฀the฀working฀day฀(Marx฀1863–7/1977:฀340–416).฀ For฀example, In฀so฀far฀as฀machinery฀dispenses฀with฀muscular฀power,฀it฀becomes฀a฀means฀for฀employing฀workers฀of฀slight฀muscular฀strength,฀or฀whose฀bodily฀development฀is฀incomplete.฀.฀.฀.฀ The฀labour฀of฀women฀and฀children฀was฀therefore฀the฀first฀result฀of฀the฀capitalist฀application฀of฀machinery.฀That฀mighty฀substitute฀for฀labour฀and฀for฀workers,฀the฀machine,฀was฀ immediately฀transformed฀into฀a฀means฀for฀increasing฀the฀number฀of฀wage-labourers฀by฀ enrolling,฀under฀the฀direct฀sway฀of฀capital,฀every฀member฀of฀the฀worker’s฀family,฀without฀ distinction฀of฀age฀or฀sex.฀Compulsory฀work฀for฀the฀capitalist฀usurped฀the฀place,฀not฀only฀ of฀children’s฀play,฀but฀also฀the฀independent฀labour฀at฀home,฀with฀customary฀limits,฀for฀ the฀family฀itself.฀.฀.฀. ฀ Machinery,฀by฀throwing฀every฀member฀of฀the฀family฀onto฀the฀labour฀market,฀spreads฀ the฀value฀of฀the฀man’s฀labour-power฀over฀his฀whole฀family.฀It฀thus฀depreciates฀it.฀To฀ purchase฀the฀labour-power฀of฀a฀family฀of฀four฀workers฀may฀perhaps฀cost฀more฀than฀it฀

Capitalism฀and฀Anthropology฀of฀the฀Modern฀World฀ •฀ 137 formerly฀did฀to฀purchase฀the฀labour-power฀of฀the฀head฀of฀the฀family,฀but,฀in฀return,฀four฀ days’฀labour฀takes฀the฀place฀of฀one฀day’s,฀and฀the฀price฀falls฀in฀proportion฀to฀the฀excess฀ of฀the฀surplus฀labour฀of฀four฀over฀the฀surplus฀labour฀of฀one.฀In฀order฀that฀the฀family฀ may฀now฀live,฀four฀people฀must฀now฀provide฀not฀only฀labour฀for฀the฀capitalist,฀but฀ also฀surplus฀labour.฀Thus฀we฀see฀that฀machinery,฀while฀augmenting฀the฀human฀material฀ that฀forms฀capital’s฀most฀characteristic฀field฀of฀exploitation,฀at฀the฀same฀time฀raises฀the฀ degree฀of฀that฀exploitation.฀(Marx฀1863–7/1977:฀517–18)

In฀other฀words,฀improvement฀in฀machinery฀allowed฀factory฀owners฀to฀substitute฀at฀ lower฀wages฀less฀skilled฀workers฀for฀those฀with฀more฀skills,฀children฀for฀adults,฀and฀ women฀for฀men. Marx฀(e.g.฀1863–7/1977:฀345,฀354–5,฀364–5,฀521)฀also฀knew฀that฀the฀increased฀ rates฀of฀exploitation฀had฀deleterious฀effects฀on฀the฀health฀of฀workers฀both฀in฀the฀ capitalist฀countries฀and฀the฀colonies.฀He฀described฀in฀detail฀the฀effects฀that฀intensified฀ production฀for฀the฀capitalist฀market฀had฀on฀human฀beings.฀These฀included฀but฀were฀ not฀limited฀to:฀(1)฀the฀high฀incidence฀in฀the฀1840s฀of฀pulmonary฀diseases฀and฀lower฀ than฀average฀life-expectancies฀of฀men฀employed฀in฀the฀potteries,฀many฀of฀whom฀ had฀begun฀working฀fifteen-hour฀days,฀six฀days฀a฀week฀when฀they฀were฀eight฀years฀ old;฀(2)฀the฀story฀of฀a฀twenty-year-old฀woman฀employed฀as฀a฀dressmaker฀in฀one฀ of฀London’s฀finest฀millinery฀shops฀who฀frequently฀worked฀twenty฀to฀thirty฀hours฀ without฀a฀break฀with฀sixty฀other฀young฀women฀in฀an฀overcrowded฀room฀that฀lacked฀ ventilation;฀(3)฀the฀high฀infant฀mortality฀rates฀in฀factory฀and฀agricultural฀districts฀ where฀mothers฀had฀to฀work฀away฀from฀their฀homes;฀or฀(4)฀slaves฀in฀the฀American฀ South฀who฀were฀so฀overworked฀that฀their฀bodies฀were฀effectively฀used฀up฀in฀seven฀ years.฀More฀importantly,฀he฀understood฀how฀workers฀were฀segmented฀and฀isolated฀ from฀one฀another฀by฀servile฀status,฀race,฀ethnicity,฀gender,฀age,฀and฀nationalism.฀As฀ a฀result,฀he฀perceived฀similarities฀in฀the฀exploitation฀of฀workers฀in฀different฀parts฀of฀ the฀world.฀After฀relating฀an฀account฀of฀the฀slave฀trade,฀the฀unremitting฀toil฀of฀slaves฀ on฀plantations,฀and฀their฀low฀life฀expectancies,฀Marx฀wrote฀the฀following:฀“Mutato฀ nomine฀de฀te฀fibula฀narrator฀[this฀could฀be฀thy฀story฀under฀a฀different฀name].฀For฀ slave฀trade,฀read฀labor฀market;฀for฀Kentucky฀and฀Virginia,฀Ireland฀and฀agricultural฀ districts฀of฀Scotland,฀and฀Wales;฀for฀Africa,฀Germany.”฀(Marx฀1863–7/1977:฀377–8) Marx฀clearly฀understood฀the฀historicity฀of฀social-class฀structures฀under฀conditions฀ of฀expanded฀accumulation฀and฀reproduction.฀They฀were฀continually฀being฀constituted฀ and฀reworked—but฀not฀always฀in฀the฀same฀ways฀or฀at฀the฀same฀pace—in฀both฀ the฀industrial฀capitalist฀societies฀of฀the฀West฀and฀non-capitalist฀societies฀on฀their฀ peripheries฀(e.g.฀Chakrabarti฀and฀Cullenberg฀2003:฀245–82).฀The฀differences,฀he฀ knew,฀were฀due,฀at฀least฀partly,฀to฀the฀opposition฀and฀resistance฀of฀peoples฀in฀the฀ home฀countries฀and฀of฀those฀on฀the฀margins฀who,฀while฀they฀might฀have฀had฀contact฀ with฀capitalist฀merchants฀(often฀on฀their฀own฀terms),฀had฀not฀yet฀been฀enmeshed฀ in฀capitalist฀social฀relations.฀Another฀way฀of฀saying฀this฀is฀that฀class฀structures฀ were฀made฀historically฀by฀peoples฀who฀were฀striving฀exist฀under฀circumstances฀

138฀ •฀ Karl฀Marx,฀Anthropologist passed฀down฀by฀earlier฀generations฀and฀who฀occasionally฀were฀able฀to฀change฀those฀ conditions.฀He฀also฀clearly฀understood฀that฀the฀inhabitants฀of฀some฀regions—like฀the฀ poppy฀fields฀of฀Afghanistan,฀the฀gold฀mines฀of฀California,฀or฀the฀cotton฀plantations฀ of฀the฀American฀South—provided฀raw฀materials฀that฀could฀either฀be฀exported฀ for฀direct฀sale฀or฀for฀processing฀in฀the฀home฀country.฀In฀these฀regions,฀there฀were฀ small฀commodity-producing฀economic฀sectors฀geared฀to฀export,฀large฀sectors฀of฀ the฀local฀populations฀that฀reproduced฀workers฀outside฀the฀labor฀market,฀and฀often฀ wage-workers฀that฀often฀sought฀to฀exclude฀indigenous฀peoples฀or฀immigrants฀from฀ entering฀the฀labor฀market;฀these฀have฀sometimes฀been฀called฀dual฀economies.฀Other฀ regions—Ireland,฀the฀border฀states฀in฀Antebellum฀America,฀West฀Africa,฀or฀eastern฀ Europe—were฀labor฀reserves฀whose฀primary฀export฀was฀human฀labor-power,฀which฀ had฀long-term฀devastating฀effects฀on฀the฀local฀communities฀in฀spite฀of฀the฀fact฀that฀ they฀often฀engaged฀merchant฀capital฀on฀terms฀shaped฀by฀their฀own฀social฀relations.฀ He฀also฀knew฀that฀the฀societies฀on฀the฀margins฀had฀their฀own฀internal฀dynamics฀that฀ were฀shaped฀but฀not฀entirely฀formed฀by฀their฀relations฀with฀the฀capitalist฀countries.฀ This฀informed฀his฀views฀about฀the฀importance฀of฀alliances฀between฀the฀industrial฀ workers฀in฀capitalist฀states฀and฀progressive฀elements฀of฀the฀working฀masses฀in฀ societies฀on฀the฀periphery฀of฀the฀capitalist฀world฀system฀(e.g.฀Marx฀and฀Engels฀ 1882/1989).

Property,฀Power,฀and฀Capitalist฀States Marx฀began฀his฀examination฀of฀the฀interconnections฀of฀law,฀economy,฀and฀civil฀ society฀in฀the฀1840s.฀His฀investigations฀were฀provoked฀by฀ongoing฀discussions฀ of฀land฀thefts,฀debates฀on฀free฀trade฀and฀protective฀tariffs,฀and฀polemics฀about฀the฀ condition฀of฀the฀peasantry฀in฀Moselle฀as฀well฀as฀by฀the฀distinctions฀Ferguson,฀SaintSimon,฀Hegel,฀and฀others฀drew฀between฀civil฀society฀and฀a฀political฀state฀that฀stood฀ outside฀of฀society฀(Showstack฀Sassoon฀1991).฀Property฀was฀a฀central฀concern฀in฀ these฀arguments.฀Marx฀saw฀property฀as฀rights฀of฀access,฀use,฀and฀disposition—that฀ is,฀as฀political฀relations฀between฀classes฀of฀persons฀that฀were฀mediated฀by฀things;฀ consequently,฀property฀was฀also฀a฀statement฀about฀power฀viewed฀variously฀as฀agency฀ (the฀capacity฀of฀action),฀the฀ability฀to฀realize฀objective฀interests,฀or฀compulsion฀over฀ the฀actions฀of฀others฀(e.g.฀Macpherson฀1971;฀Bourdieu฀1980/1990).8 If฀the฀bourgeoisie฀is฀politically,฀that฀is,฀by฀its฀state฀of฀power฀“maintaining฀injustice฀in฀ property฀relations,”฀which฀is฀determined฀by฀the฀modern฀division฀of฀labour,฀it฀is฀not฀ creating฀it.฀The฀“injustice฀of฀property฀relations”฀which฀is฀determined฀by฀the฀modern฀ division฀of฀labour,฀the฀modern฀form฀of฀exchange,฀competition,฀concentration,฀etc.,฀by฀no฀ means฀arises฀from฀the฀political฀rule฀of฀the฀bourgeois฀class,฀but฀vice฀versa,฀the฀political฀ rule฀of฀the฀bourgeois฀class฀arises฀from฀these฀modern฀relations฀of฀production.฀(Marx฀ 1847/1976a:฀319;฀emphasis฀in฀the฀original)

Capitalism฀and฀Anthropology฀of฀the฀Modern฀World฀ •฀ 139 Society฀itself—the฀fact฀that฀man฀lives฀in฀society฀and฀not฀as฀an฀independent,฀self-supporting฀ individual—is฀the฀root฀of฀property,฀of฀the฀laws฀based฀on฀it฀and฀of฀the฀inevitable฀slavery.฀ (Marx฀1861–3/1963:฀346)

Marx฀initially฀framed฀his฀discussions฀of฀property฀in฀terms฀of฀Hegel’s฀distinction฀ between฀civil฀society฀and฀the฀state—the฀former฀as฀the฀sphere฀of฀individual฀(private)฀ economic฀desires฀and฀the฀latter฀as฀public฀expressions฀of฀the฀common฀concerns฀of฀ society฀as฀a฀whole,฀a฀category฀which฀stood฀above฀those฀of฀individuals฀and฀of฀which฀ political฀organization฀was฀only฀one฀aspect฀(e.g.฀Marx฀and฀Engels฀1845–6/1976:฀3,฀ 89–91;฀Draper฀1977:฀32–4).฀Dissatisfied฀with฀the฀ambiguity฀of฀the฀terms฀and฀the฀ distinction฀implied฀between฀natural฀man฀and฀abstract฀citizen,฀Marx฀(1843/1975c:฀ 166–7)฀virtually฀stopped฀using฀the฀notion฀of฀civil฀society฀by฀the฀1850s฀and฀narrowed฀ the฀meaning฀of฀the฀concept฀of฀the฀state.฀He฀increasingly฀saw฀the฀state฀as฀an฀excrescence฀ of฀society฀rather฀than฀an฀expression฀of฀the฀common฀concerns฀of฀its฀members฀(Marx฀ 1880–2/1974:฀329).฀For฀Marx฀(1843/1975a),฀the฀state฀was฀not฀an฀abstraction฀or฀an฀ ideal;฀it฀referred฀instead฀to฀the฀historically฀specific,฀actually฀existing฀political฀entities฀ that฀claimed฀to฀rise฀above฀the฀differences฀of฀particular฀socioeconomic฀interests฀by฀ relativizing฀them฀and฀portraying฀them฀as฀equivalents. Through฀the฀emancipation฀of฀private฀property฀from฀the฀community,฀the฀state฀has฀become฀ a฀separate฀entity,฀alongside฀and฀outside฀civil฀society;฀but฀it฀is฀nothing฀more฀than฀the฀ form฀of฀organisation฀which฀the฀bourgeois฀are฀compelled฀to฀adopt,฀both฀for฀internal฀and฀ external฀purposes,฀for฀the฀state฀is฀only฀found฀nowadays฀in฀those฀countries฀where฀the฀ estates฀have฀not฀yet฀completely฀developed฀into฀classes,฀where฀the฀estates,฀done฀away฀ with฀in฀more฀advanced฀countries,฀still฀play฀a฀part฀and฀there฀exists฀a฀mixture,฀where฀ consequently฀no฀section฀of฀the฀population฀can฀achieve฀dominance฀over฀the฀others.฀.฀.฀.฀ Since฀the฀state฀is฀the฀form฀in฀which฀the฀individuals฀of฀a฀ruling฀class฀assert฀their฀common฀ interests,฀and฀in฀which฀the฀whole฀civil฀society฀of฀an฀epoch฀is฀epitomised,฀it฀follows฀that฀ all฀common฀institutions฀are฀set฀up฀with฀the฀help฀of฀the฀state฀and฀are฀given฀a฀political฀ form”.฀(Marx฀and฀Engels฀1845–6/1976:฀90)

Later,฀he฀would฀write฀that฀the฀legal฀relations฀and฀the฀political฀forms฀of฀a฀society฀ “originate฀in฀the฀material฀conditions฀of฀life;”฀that฀“the฀anatomy฀of฀civil฀society฀.฀.฀.฀ has฀to฀be฀sought฀in฀political฀economy;”฀and฀that฀“the฀economic฀structure฀of฀society,฀ [is]฀the฀real฀foundation,฀on฀which฀arises฀a฀legal฀and฀political฀superstructure฀and฀to฀ which฀correspond฀definite฀forms฀of฀social฀consciousness”฀(Marx฀1859/1970:฀20).฀Or,฀ in฀the฀kinds฀of฀capitalist฀societies฀that฀were฀crystallizing฀at฀the฀time, The฀specific฀economic฀form,฀in฀which฀unpaid฀surplus-labour฀is฀pumped฀out฀of฀the฀ direct฀producers,฀determines฀the฀relationship฀of฀domination฀and฀servitude,฀as฀this฀grows฀ directly฀out฀of฀production฀itself฀and฀reacts฀back฀on฀in฀turn฀as฀a฀determinant.฀On฀this฀ is฀based฀the฀entire฀configuration฀of฀the฀economic฀community฀arising฀from฀the฀actual฀ relations฀of฀production,฀and฀hence฀also฀its฀specific฀political฀form.฀It฀is฀in฀each฀case฀

140฀ •฀ Karl฀Marx,฀Anthropologist the฀direct฀relationship฀of฀the฀owners฀of฀the฀conditions฀of฀production฀to฀the฀immediate฀ producers—a฀relation฀whose฀particular฀form฀naturally฀corresponds฀always฀to฀a฀certain฀ level฀of฀development฀of฀the฀type฀and฀manner฀of฀labour,฀and฀hence฀to฀its฀social฀productive฀ power—in฀which฀we฀find฀the฀innermost฀secret,฀the฀hidden฀basis฀of฀the฀entire฀social฀edifice,฀ and฀hence฀also฀the฀political฀form฀of฀the฀relationship฀of฀sovereignty฀and฀dependence,฀in฀ short,฀the฀corresponding฀specific฀form฀of฀the฀state฀in฀each฀case.฀This฀does฀not฀prevent฀ the฀same฀economic฀basis—the฀same฀in฀its฀major฀conditions—from฀displaying฀infinite฀ variations฀and฀gradations฀in฀appearance,฀as฀a฀result฀of฀innumerable฀different฀empirical฀ circumstances,฀natural฀conditions,฀racial฀relations,฀historical฀influences฀acting฀from฀ outside,฀etc.,฀and฀these฀can฀only฀be฀understood฀by฀analyzing฀given฀conditions.฀(Marx฀ 1864–94/1981:฀927–8)

Marx’s฀views฀about฀politics,฀power,฀and฀the฀state฀were฀already฀well฀developed฀ by฀the฀mid฀1840s฀(Marx฀1843/1975a;฀Colletti฀1975;฀Miliband฀1977,฀1991).฀They฀ were฀typically฀elaborated฀in฀the฀context฀of฀writings฀whose฀central฀concerns฀were฀ the฀state,฀class฀struggle,฀or฀the฀reproduction฀of฀society฀through฀time.฀If฀modern฀civil฀ society฀was฀the฀realm฀of฀competitive฀individualism฀mediated฀by฀the฀market,฀then฀the฀ modern฀(capitalist)฀state฀was฀an฀expression฀of฀the฀antagonisms฀and฀contradictions฀ resulting฀from฀alienation,฀exploitation,฀and฀the฀historically฀contingent฀processes฀of฀ domination฀and฀subordination฀of฀groups฀inherent฀in฀class-stratified฀societies.฀The฀ institutions฀and฀practices฀of฀the฀state฀sought฀to฀contain฀conflict฀and฀to฀preserve฀the฀ social-class฀structures฀and฀political฀relations฀that฀prevailed฀among฀their฀citizens฀and฀ subjects.฀These฀political฀relations฀were,฀of฀course,฀also฀manifestations฀of฀property฀ and฀power.฀States฀and฀their฀agents฀were฀representatives฀of฀the฀dominant฀social฀ classes฀whose฀members฀owned฀and฀controlled฀the฀means฀of฀production;฀states฀were฀ also฀arenas฀of฀struggle฀within฀and฀between฀classes฀(Marx฀1843/1975a,฀1852/1979;฀ Marx฀and฀Engels฀1848/1976).฀For฀Marx฀(1847/1976b:฀212),฀“political฀power฀was฀ precisely฀the฀official฀expression฀of฀antagonism฀in฀civil฀society.”฀What฀modern฀civil฀ society฀had฀accomplished฀was฀to฀simplify฀the฀expression฀of฀these฀struggles.฀In฀this฀ perspective,฀while฀the฀ethnic,฀religious,฀national,฀and฀other฀kinds฀of฀rivalries฀and฀ conflicts฀generated฀within฀and฀between฀modern฀societies฀have฀their฀roots฀in฀socialclass฀relations,฀they฀are฀not฀simply฀reducible฀to฀purely฀economic฀arrangements.฀In฀ other฀words,฀politics฀and฀culture฀were฀important฀arenas฀of฀struggle,฀even฀though฀ their฀forms฀of฀expression฀and฀intensity฀were฀often฀diverse. As฀we฀saw฀earlier฀in฀this฀chapter,฀the฀rise฀of฀national฀states—England,฀Germany,฀ or฀the฀United฀States,฀for฀example—coincided฀in฀time฀and฀was฀inseparably฀linked฀ with฀the฀development฀of฀industrial฀capitalism,฀the฀formation฀of฀colonies,฀and฀the฀ creation฀of฀both฀domestic฀and฀overseas฀markets฀(Marx฀1863–7/1977:฀914–40;฀Engels฀ 1884/1990).9฀As฀a฀result,฀the฀class฀struggles฀that฀occurred฀in฀one฀national฀state฀were฀ typically฀both฀spatially฀and฀organizationally฀distinct฀from฀those฀taking฀place฀in฀ other฀countries.฀They฀still฀are฀in฀some฀respects.฀Marx฀and฀Engels฀(1848/1976:฀517;฀ 1882/1989)฀were฀acutely฀aware฀of฀the฀complex฀culture-historical,฀political,฀and฀

Capitalism฀and฀Anthropology฀of฀the฀Modern฀World฀ •฀ 141 economic฀roots฀of฀the฀ethnic,฀national,฀and฀racial฀differences฀that฀fragmented฀the฀ working฀classes฀of฀particular฀national฀states฀(like฀England฀or฀the฀United฀States)฀and฀ of฀the฀chasms฀that฀separated฀the฀proletarians฀of฀one฀country฀from฀those฀of฀another฀ when฀they฀wrote฀The฀Communist฀Manifesto฀in฀1848฀and฀called฀for฀the฀“working฀men฀ of฀all฀countries,฀[to]฀unite!”—a฀sentiment฀they฀repeated฀once฀again฀in฀1882฀when฀they฀ pointed฀to฀possible฀linkages฀between฀Russian฀peasants฀and฀industrial฀proletarians฀in฀ the฀capitalist฀countries฀of฀Western฀Europe฀and฀North฀America฀(Benner฀1995).฀They฀ repeatedly฀insisted฀that,฀strategically,฀democratic฀movements฀in฀one฀country฀needed฀ to฀be฀aware฀of฀and฀to฀seek฀the฀support฀of฀similar฀groups฀in฀other฀states.฀Aware฀of฀the฀ common฀interests฀of฀workers,฀Marx฀and฀Engels฀belonged฀to฀political฀groups฀that฀had฀ representatives฀from฀a฀number฀of฀national฀states. Attempts฀to฀organize฀workers฀politically฀within฀national฀states฀as฀well฀as฀across฀ their฀boundaries฀were฀often฀resisted฀by฀both฀the฀capitalist฀classes฀of฀those฀countries฀ and฀the฀state฀apparatuses,฀whose฀institutions,฀laws,฀and฀practices฀were฀shaped฀to฀ varying฀degrees฀by฀the฀dominant฀classes.฀Marx฀(1843/1975a:฀22–3)฀knew฀that฀the฀ political฀unity฀of฀a฀national฀state฀was,฀as฀Erica฀Benner฀(1995:฀31)฀put฀it,฀“realized฀ only฀in฀times฀of฀external฀crisis฀and฀war,฀on,฀in฀times฀of฀peace,฀through฀political฀ repression.฀In฀either฀situation,฀the฀appearance฀of฀unity฀had฀nothing฀to฀do฀with฀the฀ conscious฀commitment฀of฀a฀state’s฀members.฀It฀depended,฀in฀fact,฀on฀denying฀them฀ opportunities฀to฀express฀any฀political฀preferences฀of฀their฀own.”฀Moreover,฀he฀ thought฀that฀one฀should฀evaluate฀the฀reasons฀why฀particular฀national฀identities฀were฀ imposed฀on฀a฀people฀from฀above฀and฀that฀these฀should฀be฀distinguished฀from฀those฀ that฀arose฀in฀the฀community฀and฀addressed฀real฀human฀needs฀as฀opposed฀to฀the฀ abstract฀concerns฀of฀the฀state฀and฀of฀the฀monarchs,฀representatives,฀and฀civil฀servants฀ who฀viewed฀the฀state฀as฀their฀own฀private฀property฀(Marx฀1843/1975a:฀38,฀49–54;฀ Benner฀1995:฀32).฀In฀other฀words,฀the฀modern฀national฀states฀emerging฀in฀Europe฀ and฀North฀America,฀for฀example,฀were฀fragile,฀because even฀the฀limited฀benefits฀of฀“political฀emancipation”฀were฀distributed฀unevenly฀in฀ society,฀since฀they฀derived฀“from฀the฀fact฀that฀part฀of฀civil฀society฀emancipates฀itself฀and฀ attains฀general฀domination,”฀so฀that฀a฀particular฀class฀“proceeding฀from฀its฀particular฀ situation,฀undertakes฀the฀general฀emancipation฀of฀society฀[Marx฀1843–4/1975:฀184].฀ This฀“partial฀revolution”฀left฀a฀potentially฀explosive฀tension฀between฀the฀inclusive,฀ egalitarian฀premises฀of฀democratic฀constitutions฀and฀the฀social฀inequalities฀they฀declined฀ to฀address.฀(Benner฀1995:฀34)

Thus,฀expressions฀of฀national฀identity฀by฀national฀states—like฀the฀United฀States฀ (America),฀for฀example—were฀simultaneously฀assertions฀of฀unity฀vis-à-vis฀other฀ states฀and฀manifestations฀of฀the฀failure฀of฀a฀class-stratified฀society฀to฀achieve฀any฀ real฀sense฀of฀community฀or฀internal฀unity฀by฀other฀means. The฀conflict฀between฀the฀capitalist฀classes฀of฀different฀national฀states฀usually฀ pitted฀one฀country฀against฀another—e.g.฀the฀United฀States฀and฀England฀in฀the฀1850s฀

142฀ •฀ Karl฀Marx,฀Anthropologist and฀1860s฀or฀France฀and฀Germany฀during฀the฀Franco-Prussian฀War฀of฀1870–1.฀More฀ recent฀examples฀are฀the฀First฀and฀Second฀World฀Wars฀of฀the฀twentieth฀century.฀ These฀conflicts฀typically฀involved฀the฀creation฀of฀cross-class฀alliances฀that฀yoked฀ the฀interests฀of฀peasants฀and฀workers฀with฀those฀of฀the฀capitalist฀classes฀under฀the฀ hegemony฀of฀the฀latter.฀Patriotism฀was฀often฀the฀glue฀that฀cemented฀these฀historically฀ constituted฀blocs฀(e.g.฀Dower฀1986;฀Gramsci฀1926/1967,฀1933/1971).฀These฀alliances฀ set฀the฀working฀classes฀of฀one฀country฀against฀those฀of฀another.฀The฀conflicts฀between฀ capitalist฀states฀also฀pitted฀them฀against฀non-capitalist฀societies—such฀as฀India฀or฀ China,฀about฀which฀Marx฀wrote฀extensively฀in฀the฀1850s฀as฀we฀saw฀earlier฀in฀this฀ chapter.฀In฀the฀wake฀of฀the฀Second฀World฀War,฀these฀conflicts฀were฀often฀referred฀ to฀in฀terms฀of฀imperialism,฀decolonization,฀national฀liberation฀movements,฀as฀well฀ as฀distinctions฀between฀developed฀and฀underdeveloped฀countries,฀the฀capitalist฀ countries฀of฀the฀First฀World฀and฀the฀newly฀independent฀but฀poor฀nations฀of฀the฀Third฀ World,฀the฀North฀and฀the฀South,฀or฀the฀core฀and฀the฀periphery฀(e.g.฀Brewer฀1990).฀ Marx฀wrote฀extensively฀about฀the฀contradictions฀of฀industrial฀capitalist฀societies฀ from฀the฀1840s฀onward.฀The฀two฀forms฀of฀contradiction฀described฀above—those฀ between฀capitalist฀states฀and฀those฀between฀capitalist฀states฀and฀non-capitalist฀ societies—have฀persisted฀to฀the฀present฀day;฀they฀exist฀alongside฀and฀articulate฀with฀ a฀fundamental฀antagonism฀in฀capitalist฀societies—the฀one฀that฀pits฀capitalist฀against฀ worker. In฀the฀last฀forty฀years,฀the฀capitalist฀classes฀of฀different฀countries฀have฀also฀joined฀ together฀to฀form฀regional฀or฀international฀institutions—such฀as฀the฀North฀American฀ Free฀Trade฀Agreement฀or฀the฀World฀Trade฀Organization—designed฀to฀facilitate฀the฀ flows฀of฀commodities฀and฀capital฀between฀different฀countries.฀These฀are฀aspects฀of฀ what฀is฀now฀globalization—i.e.,฀the฀rapid฀development฀of฀global฀financial฀markets;฀ the฀adoption฀of฀flexible฀production฀strategies;฀the฀adoption฀of฀new฀information฀ technologies;฀ cheap฀ transportation;฀ movement฀ of฀ vast฀ numbers฀ of฀ people฀ as฀ migrants,฀refugees,฀and฀tourists;฀and฀the฀spread฀of฀capitalist฀culture฀through฀global฀ media฀and฀telecommunications.฀At฀the฀same฀time฀that฀national฀states฀have฀hindered฀ the฀formation฀of฀transnational฀unions฀and฀attempted฀with฀varying฀intensities฀to฀ regulate฀the฀flow฀of฀workers฀across฀their฀borders,฀broadly฀constituted฀movements฀ have฀organized฀to฀protest฀and฀resist฀their฀efforts—the฀demonstrations฀against฀the฀ World฀Trade฀Organization฀in฀Seattle,฀Quebec,฀and฀Genoa฀since฀1999;฀the฀220,000฀or฀ so฀labor฀disturbances฀that฀occur฀annually฀in฀China;฀or฀the฀massive฀immigrant฀rights฀ protests฀that฀took฀place฀across฀the฀United฀States฀in฀2006฀are฀only฀a฀few฀instances฀ (Walker฀2006:฀26n18).฀The฀focus฀of฀the฀highly฀diverse,฀anti-globalization฀movement฀ is฀as฀often฀a฀protest฀against฀the฀institutions฀of฀global฀capitalism฀as฀it฀is฀opposition฀ to฀the฀practices฀of฀particular฀national฀states.฀Marx฀wrote฀about฀these฀contradictions฀ from฀the฀1840s฀onward,฀which฀suggests฀that฀he฀would฀have฀been฀intrigued฀by฀their฀ manifestations฀today. Michael฀Hardt฀and฀Antonio฀Negri฀(2000:฀237),฀for฀example,฀argue฀that฀these฀ attempts฀to฀regulate฀the฀global฀market฀signal฀an฀“epochal฀shift฀in฀contemporary฀

Capitalism฀and฀Anthropology฀of฀the฀Modern฀World฀ •฀ 143 history”฀and฀use฀the฀term฀“empire”฀to฀refer฀to฀the฀new฀form฀of฀sovereignty฀that฀ they฀suggest฀has฀crystallized฀as฀a฀result฀of฀efforts฀to฀unify฀the฀world฀market.฀They฀ see฀a฀fundamental฀contradiction฀“between฀the฀deterritorialising฀logic฀of฀capital฀and฀ the฀territorialising฀nature฀of฀nation-states”฀(Green฀2002:฀40;฀cf.฀Hardt฀and฀Negri฀ 2000:฀42–6,฀237).฀This฀contradiction฀was฀mediated฀through฀imperialism,฀which฀ allowed฀the฀capitalist฀firms฀of฀Europe฀and฀North฀America฀to฀expand฀under฀the฀ protection฀of฀the฀national฀state฀both฀at฀home฀and฀abroad.฀However,฀imperialism฀ “also฀created฀and฀reinforced฀rigid฀boundaries฀among฀the฀various฀global฀spaces,฀strict฀ notions฀of฀inside฀and฀outside฀that฀effectively฀blocked฀the฀free฀flow฀of฀capital,฀labor฀ and฀goods—thus฀necessarily฀precluding฀the฀full฀realization฀of฀the฀world฀market”฀ (Hardt฀and฀Negri฀2000:฀332).฀In฀their฀view,฀the฀weakening฀of฀the฀old฀imperialist฀ powers฀in฀the฀wake฀of฀the฀Second฀World฀War,฀the฀pre-eminence฀of฀the฀United฀States฀ and฀its฀rivalry฀with฀the฀USSR,฀and฀the฀success฀of฀decolonization฀movements฀were฀ conditions฀that฀promoted฀the฀re-creation฀of฀the฀world฀market฀and฀the฀formation฀of฀ a฀new฀global฀division฀of฀labor฀in฀the฀1970s.฀As฀Paul฀Green฀(2002:฀43)฀has฀noted,฀ the฀unification฀of฀the฀world฀market฀did฀not฀involve฀homogenization฀but฀rather฀the฀ uneven฀development฀of฀capitalism,฀the฀decentering฀of฀industrial฀production฀from฀ the฀old฀industrial฀capitalist฀countries฀to฀former฀colonies,฀“the฀entry฀of฀great฀masses฀ of฀workers฀into฀the฀disciplinary฀régime฀of฀modern฀capitalist฀production,฀and฀the฀ emergence฀of฀new฀patterns฀of฀labour฀migration฀.฀.฀.฀even฀as฀some฀parts฀of฀the฀globe,฀ especially฀Africa,฀remain฀peripheralised฀in฀the฀traditional฀sense฀of฀relying฀on฀exports฀ of฀one฀or฀two฀primary฀commodities฀and฀the฀import฀of฀manufactures.” For฀Hardt฀and฀Negri,฀what฀persists฀in฀the฀global฀structure฀at฀the฀beginning฀of฀the฀ twenty-first฀century฀is฀the฀conflict฀between฀transnational฀corporations฀and฀the฀power฀ of฀the฀state,฀albeit฀in฀a฀new฀form: Although฀transnational฀corporations฀and฀global฀networks฀of฀production฀and฀circulation฀ have฀undermined฀the฀powers฀of฀nation-states,฀state฀functions฀and฀constitutional฀elements฀ have฀effectively฀been฀displaced฀to฀other฀levels฀and฀domains.฀.฀.฀.฀Government฀and฀politics฀ come฀to฀be฀completely฀integrated฀into฀the฀system฀of฀transnational฀command.฀Controls฀ are฀articulated฀through฀a฀series฀of฀international฀bodies฀and฀functions.฀(Hardt฀and฀Negri฀ 2000:฀307)

Their฀claim฀is฀a฀provocative฀one฀that฀challenges฀state-centered฀approaches฀to฀understanding฀the฀world฀today;฀however,฀not฀everyone฀agrees฀with฀it฀for฀any฀number฀ of฀reasons.฀These฀include฀but฀are฀not฀limited฀to:฀there฀are฀alternative฀historical฀ explanations฀of฀the฀developments฀Hardt฀and฀Negri฀describe;฀the฀world฀is฀not฀as฀ seamless฀or฀smooth฀as฀they฀suggest,฀since฀the฀income฀gap฀between฀the฀North฀and฀ the฀South฀continues฀and฀may฀even฀be฀widening;฀the฀crisis฀of฀the฀1970s฀was฀not฀as฀ different฀from฀those฀of฀1873–96฀and฀the฀1930s฀as฀they฀imply;฀there฀are฀still฀ongoing฀ and฀emergent฀rivalries฀between฀national฀states;฀there฀is฀a฀profound฀contradiction฀ between฀the฀globalization฀of฀markets฀and฀states฀using฀different฀currencies;฀the฀

144฀ •฀ Karl฀Marx,฀Anthropologist deterritorialization฀they฀describe฀is฀accompanied฀by฀reterritorialization—e.g.฀the฀ border฀between฀the฀United฀States฀and฀Mexico;฀their฀approach฀to฀the฀issue฀of฀power฀in฀ terms฀of฀binary฀oppositions฀is฀problematic;฀or,฀far฀from฀opening฀up฀a฀political฀space฀ for฀the฀voice฀of฀the฀multitudes฀as฀they฀suggest,฀the฀intensification฀of฀competition฀in฀ the฀market฀has฀seemingly฀strengthened฀patriarchal,฀racist,฀and฀national-chauvinist฀ sentiments฀and฀dispositions฀(e.g.฀Balakrishnan฀2003;฀Smith฀2005:฀51). In฀this฀chapter,฀we฀have฀looked฀at฀three฀issues.฀The฀first฀was฀Marx’s฀views฀ about฀the฀development฀of฀industrial฀capitalist฀social฀relations฀and฀its฀intersection฀ with฀primitive฀accumulation,฀the฀formation฀of฀domestic฀and฀overseas฀markets,฀ and฀colonization.฀The฀second฀was฀concerned฀with฀the฀processes฀of฀combined฀and฀ uneven฀development฀along฀different฀historical฀trajectories฀that฀resulted฀from฀the฀ encapsulation฀and฀articulation฀of฀societies฀manifesting฀different฀modes฀of฀production฀ that฀were฀differentially฀resistant฀to฀change.฀The฀third฀focused,฀on฀the฀one฀hand,฀on฀ his฀discussions฀of฀the฀interrelations฀of฀property฀and฀power,฀and,฀on฀the฀other,฀on฀the฀ implications฀of฀his฀writings฀for฀understanding฀what฀is฀happening฀at฀the฀beginning฀of฀ the฀twenty-first฀century.฀It฀is฀perhaps฀fitting฀to฀recall฀Marx’s฀(1857–8/1973:฀409–10)฀ comments฀in฀the฀Grundrisse฀about฀the฀universality฀towards฀which฀capital฀strives,฀on฀ the฀one฀hand,฀and฀the฀obstacles฀that฀it฀erects฀that฀hinder฀this฀process,฀on฀the฀other.

–6– Anthropology฀for฀the฀Twenty-First฀Century Marx฀was฀indeed฀an฀anthropologist.฀His฀anthropology฀was฀empirically฀grounded฀ in฀the฀changing฀realities฀of฀everyday฀life฀in฀his฀own฀society฀broadly฀conceived฀and฀ in฀accounts฀of฀other฀societies—initially฀past฀societies฀in฀the฀West฀and฀increasingly฀ contemporary฀societies฀in฀other฀parts฀of฀the฀world.฀The฀rich฀detail฀of฀his฀empirical฀ anthropology฀is฀perhaps฀most฀evident฀in฀his฀journalistic฀accounts฀and฀his฀analyses฀of฀ capitalist฀society฀and฀the฀capitalist฀mode฀of฀production.฀His฀anthropology฀was฀also฀ rooted฀in฀a฀life-long฀exploration฀and฀elaboration฀of฀the฀ontological฀categories—i.e.,฀ the฀essential฀or฀core฀features—that฀characterize฀and฀structure฀human฀existence.฀ Marx฀honed฀his฀philosophical฀anthropology฀in฀the฀1840s฀after฀completing฀his฀ doctoral฀dissertation฀and฀continued฀to฀refine฀his฀views฀in฀subsequent฀writings฀like฀the฀ Grundrisse.฀These฀inquiries฀buttressed฀his฀critical฀analyses฀of฀both฀the฀contradictions฀ of฀modern฀society฀and฀the฀possibilities฀and฀contingencies฀of฀alternative฀pathways฀of฀ social฀change฀in฀the฀immediate฀future.฀Marx’s฀anthropology฀was฀therefore฀cautiously฀ optimistic.฀He฀clearly฀realized฀that฀societies฀were฀different฀from฀one฀another;฀that฀ they฀change;฀and฀that฀they฀will฀keep฀on฀doing฀so. As฀we฀saw฀in฀earlier฀chapters,฀Marx฀argued฀(1)฀that฀individual฀human฀beings฀ engaged฀in฀creative฀and฀self-creative฀activity฀and฀enmeshed฀in฀webs฀of฀social฀ relations฀are฀the฀fundamental฀entities฀of฀society,฀and฀(2)฀that฀both฀the฀nature฀of฀ the฀individuals฀and฀their฀social฀relations฀with฀each฀other฀change฀historically฀(e.g.฀ Archard฀1987;฀Brenkert฀1983:฀227;฀Gould฀1978:฀6).฀Another฀way฀of฀saying฀this฀is฀ that฀human฀beings฀create฀themselves฀through฀praxis,฀and฀their฀sociality฀creates฀them฀ as฀social฀individuals฀in฀a฀community.฀These฀social฀individuals฀are฀shaped฀by฀their฀ history฀and฀plot฀the฀course฀of฀their฀actions฀within฀the฀constraints฀imposed฀by฀their฀ bodies฀and฀their฀social฀relations฀with฀others.฀Nevertheless,฀they฀experience฀both฀their฀ everyday฀life฀and฀history฀as฀individuals.฀In฀Marx’s฀(1857–8/1973:฀84)฀terms,฀they฀ are฀“dependent฀belonging฀to฀the฀greater฀whole”฀and฀“can฀individuate฀[themselves]฀ only฀in฀the฀midst฀of฀society.”฀Moreover,฀since฀their฀social฀relations฀are฀neither฀fixed฀ nor฀immutable,฀the฀particular฀form฀they฀assume฀at฀any฀given฀moment฀“is฀a฀historic฀ product฀[that]฀belongs฀to฀a฀specific฀phase฀of฀their฀[sociohistorical]฀development”฀ (Marx฀1857–8/1973:฀162). In฀the฀same฀context,฀Marx฀(1857–8/1973:฀158,฀161–3)฀also฀argued฀logically฀that฀ “relations฀of฀personal฀dependence฀(entirely฀spontaneous฀at฀the฀outset)฀are฀the฀first฀ social฀forms,”฀and฀that฀in฀pre-capitalist฀societies฀“individuals,฀.฀.฀.฀although฀their฀฀

145

146฀ •฀ Karl฀Marx,฀Anthropologist relations฀appear฀to฀be฀more฀personal,฀enter฀into฀connection฀with฀one฀another฀only฀ as฀individuals,฀imprisoned฀within฀a฀certain฀definition,฀as฀feudal฀lord฀and฀vassal,฀ landlord฀and฀serf,฀etc.,฀or฀as฀members฀of฀a฀caste฀etc.฀or฀as฀members฀of฀an฀estate฀etc.”฀ He฀then฀proceeded฀to฀point฀out฀that฀the฀social฀relations฀associated฀with฀industrial฀ capitalist฀society฀were฀different.฀They฀were฀based฀on฀exchange฀and฀exchange฀ value฀(commodities),฀which฀had฀appeared฀in฀historical-developmental฀terms฀at฀the฀ interstices฀of฀communities฀rather฀than฀within฀them.฀These฀relations฀depersonalized฀ connections฀between฀individuals฀and฀used฀things฀to฀express฀the฀linkages.฀He฀described฀ the฀“isolated฀individuality”฀and฀“reciprocal฀independence฀and฀indifference”฀of฀the฀ social฀individuals฀in฀capitalist฀societies.฀He฀called฀them฀“universally฀developed฀ individuals”฀and฀then฀suggested: The฀degree฀and฀universality฀of฀the฀development฀of฀wealth฀where฀this฀individuality฀ becomes฀possible฀presupposes฀production฀on฀the฀basis฀of฀exchange฀values฀as฀a฀prior฀ condition,฀whose฀universality฀produces฀not฀only฀the฀alienation฀of฀the฀individual฀from฀ himself฀and฀from฀others,฀but฀also฀the฀universality฀and฀the฀comprehensiveness฀of฀his฀ relations฀and฀capacities.฀In฀earlier฀stages฀of฀development฀the฀single฀individual฀seems฀ developed฀more฀fully,฀because฀he฀has฀not฀yet฀worked฀out฀his฀relationships฀in฀their฀ fullness,฀or฀erected฀them฀as฀independent฀social฀powers฀and฀relations฀opposite฀to฀himself.฀ It฀is฀as฀ridiculous฀to฀yearn฀for฀a฀return฀to฀that฀original฀fullness฀as฀it฀is฀to฀believe฀that฀with฀ this฀complete฀emptiness฀history฀has฀come฀to฀a฀standstill.฀The฀bourgeois฀viewpoint฀has฀ never฀advanced฀beyond฀the฀antithesis฀of฀itself฀and฀this฀romantic฀viewpoint,฀and฀therefore฀ the฀latter฀will฀accompany฀it฀as฀legitimate฀antithesis฀up฀to฀its฀blessed฀end.฀(Marx฀1857– 8/1973:฀162;฀emphasis฀in฀the฀original)

In฀other฀words,฀the฀rise฀of฀capitalism฀provided฀the฀stage฀for฀the฀self-realization฀of฀ truly฀universal฀social฀individuals—that฀is,฀of฀free฀individuality.฀All฀preceding฀communities,฀by฀contrast,฀were฀limited฀developments฀of฀humanity,฀and฀individuals,฀ who฀either฀had฀personal฀(intimate฀but฀not฀necessarily฀harmonious)฀ties฀or฀stood฀in฀a฀ distributive฀relation฀to฀one฀another,฀fulfilled฀only฀the฀personal฀and฀social฀roles฀that฀ existed฀in฀those฀groups.1฀While฀exchange฀value฀opened฀up฀possibilities฀for฀both฀ creating฀and฀expanding฀individuality฀as฀it฀inserted฀itself฀between฀communities,฀ capitalism฀has฀produced฀a฀truly฀peculiar฀kind฀of฀individual฀and฀set฀of฀social฀relations฀ in฀the฀process. In฀this฀concluding฀chapter,฀I฀want฀to฀examine฀three฀interrelated฀themes.฀The฀first฀ is฀broadly฀concerned฀with฀the฀self-actualization฀of฀social฀individuals฀in฀the฀context฀ of฀historically฀specific฀sets฀of฀social฀relations.฀The฀second฀focuses฀briefly฀on฀selfrealization,฀how฀it฀relates฀to฀Marx’s฀notion฀of฀freedom,฀and฀how฀they฀are฀relevant฀ in฀today’s฀world.฀The฀third฀deals฀with฀the฀issues฀that฀confront฀us฀at฀the฀beginning฀of฀ the฀twenty-first฀century฀as฀anthropologists฀and,฀more฀importantly,฀as฀human฀beings.฀ More฀specifically,฀I฀want฀to฀examine฀Marx’s฀relevance฀for฀framing฀and฀addressing฀ today’s฀issues฀and฀to฀consider฀some฀of฀the฀range฀of฀problems฀he฀addressed฀more฀than฀ a฀century฀ago฀that฀are฀pressing฀concerns฀now.

Anthropology฀for฀the฀Twenty-First฀Century฀ •฀ 147

Social฀Relations฀and฀the฀Formation฀of฀Social฀Individuals The฀cornerstone฀of฀Marx’s฀(1844/1975a)฀views฀about฀the฀formation฀of฀social฀individuals฀is฀his฀theory฀of฀alienation฀in฀capitalist฀society,฀which฀he฀presented฀in฀detail฀ in฀The฀Economic฀and฀Philosophical฀Manuscripts฀of฀1844.฀As฀István฀Mészáros฀(2005:฀ 78–9)฀and฀Bertell฀Ollman฀(1976:฀131–5)฀have฀pointed฀out,฀his฀theory฀of฀alienation฀ is฀most฀importantly฀a฀theory฀of฀internal฀relations.฀On฀the฀one฀hand,฀it฀explores฀the฀ contradictions฀between฀culture,฀political฀economy,฀the฀natural฀sciences,฀and฀ethics.฀ On฀the฀other,฀it฀examines฀the฀contradictions฀that฀exist฀between฀human฀beings฀and฀ their฀activity,฀because฀these฀are฀mediated฀by฀the฀division฀of฀labor,฀property,฀and฀ exchange.฀Marx’s฀investigation฀is฀framed฀not฀only฀in฀terms฀of฀revealing฀the฀internal฀ relations฀and฀contradictions฀but฀also฀with฀reference฀to฀transcending,฀superseding,฀or฀ overcoming฀the฀self-alienation฀of฀human฀beings.฀He฀was฀well฀aware฀that฀alienation฀ had฀economic,฀political,฀moral,฀aesthetic,฀and฀cultural฀dimensions.฀He฀was฀also฀ aware฀of฀its฀connections฀with฀social฀stratification,฀domination,฀exploitation,฀and฀ resistance.฀Let฀us฀briefly฀consider฀these฀in฀more฀detail.

Alienation Alienation฀has฀been฀described฀as฀the฀“loss฀of฀control฀[of฀one’s฀humanity฀and]฀its฀ embodiment฀in฀an฀alien฀force฀which฀confronts฀the฀individuals฀as฀a฀hostile฀and฀ potentially฀destructive฀power”฀(Mészáros฀2005:฀8;฀emphasis฀in฀the฀original);฀as฀the฀ “splintering฀of฀human฀nature฀into฀a฀number฀of฀misbegotten฀parts”฀(Ollman฀1976:฀ 135);฀and฀as฀“the฀negation฀of฀productivity”฀(Fromm฀1961/2004:฀37;฀emphasis฀in฀the฀ original).฀Marx฀(1843/1975a,฀1843/1975b,฀1843–4/1975)฀sketched฀his฀initial฀views฀ about฀alienation฀in฀the฀early฀1840s;฀however,฀after฀meeting฀Engels฀for฀the฀first฀time฀in฀ 1844฀and฀discussing฀conditions฀the฀latter฀had฀observed฀in฀England฀where฀industrial฀ capitalism—i.e.,฀the฀capitalist฀mode฀of฀production—was฀more฀fully฀developed฀than฀ it฀was฀on฀the฀Continent,฀Marx฀(1844/1975a)฀sharpened฀his฀analysis฀in฀The฀1844฀ Manuscripts฀(Mészáros฀2005:฀66–76).฀He฀now฀distinguished฀between฀those฀features฀ of฀alienation฀that฀were฀an฀integral฀part฀of฀the฀human฀condition฀and฀those฀that฀were฀ particular฀to฀specific฀sociohistorical฀formations,฀most฀notably฀capitalist฀society.฀ He฀was฀also฀clear฀that฀forms฀of฀alienation฀found฀in฀pre-capitalist฀societies฀were฀ different฀from฀those฀characteristic฀of฀capitalist฀ones—a฀point฀he฀would฀elaborate฀ in฀subsequent฀writings฀like฀the฀Grundrisse฀or฀The฀Ethnological฀Notebooks฀(Marx฀ 1844/1975a:฀266–7;฀1857–8/1973,฀1880–82/1974). As฀you฀will฀recall฀from฀the฀discussion฀in฀Chapter฀2,฀human฀beings฀are฀a฀part฀of฀ nature.฀They฀have฀physical฀needs฀and฀must฀engage฀in฀productive฀(creative)฀activity฀ in฀order฀to฀satisfy฀them.฀In฀the฀process,฀they฀create฀additional฀non-physical฀needs฀ whose฀gratification฀becomes฀a฀necessary฀condition฀for฀the฀satisfaction฀of฀the฀original฀ needs฀(Mészáros฀2005:฀14–5,฀79–82).฀Another฀way฀of฀saying฀this฀is฀that

148฀ •฀ Karl฀Marx,฀Anthropologist Human฀activities฀and฀needs฀of฀a฀“spiritual”฀kind฀thus฀have฀their฀ultimate฀ontological฀ foundation฀in฀the฀sphere฀of฀material฀production฀as฀specific฀expressions฀of฀human฀ interchange฀with฀nature,฀mediated฀in฀complex฀ways฀and฀forms.฀.฀.฀.฀Productive฀activity฀ is,฀therefore,฀the฀mediator฀in฀the฀“subject-object฀relationship”฀between฀a฀human฀mode฀of฀ existence,฀ensuring฀that฀he฀does฀not฀fall฀back฀into฀nature,฀does฀not฀dissolve฀himself฀into฀ nature.฀(Mészáros฀2005:฀80–1;฀emphasis฀in฀the฀original)

Thus,฀when฀human฀beings฀objectify฀nature,฀they฀not฀only฀identify฀objects฀and฀others฀ but฀also฀estrange฀or฀alienate฀themselves฀from฀them฀as฀they฀apprehend฀the฀natural฀ and฀social฀worlds฀in฀which฀they฀live,฀establish฀their฀own฀identity฀and฀individuality฀ in฀the฀process,฀and฀use฀these฀exterior฀objects฀and฀beings฀as฀they฀act฀creatively฀to฀ fulfill฀socially฀defined฀needs฀and฀desires.฀This฀form฀of฀self-alienation,฀which฀entails฀ the฀differentiation฀of฀subject฀from฀object฀and฀the฀estrangement฀from฀nature,฀is฀an฀ essential฀feature฀of฀the฀human฀condition฀in฀all฀societies. Marx฀proceeded฀to฀argue฀that,฀in฀capitalist฀societies,฀human฀beings฀were฀also฀ alienated฀from฀the฀products฀of฀their฀activity,฀from฀one฀another,฀and฀from฀the฀ability฀ to฀satisfy฀their฀creative฀potential—i.e.,฀their฀humanness฀or฀species-being.฀However,฀ as฀Mészáros฀(2005:฀78–9)฀points฀out,฀these฀are฀second-order฀mediations฀that฀arise฀ as฀historically฀specific,฀alienated฀forms฀of฀productive฀activity฀that฀involve—in฀this฀ instance—private฀property,฀the฀division฀of฀labor,฀exchange,฀and฀wage฀labor.฀It฀is฀ worth฀recalling฀that฀Marx฀viewed฀property฀as฀a฀relationship฀between฀individuals.฀ Three฀distinctive฀features฀of฀industrial฀capitalist฀society,฀as฀we฀saw฀earlier,฀are฀(1)฀ that฀the฀members฀of฀the฀capitalist฀class฀own฀or฀control฀access฀to฀the฀conditions฀or฀ means฀of฀production,฀while฀those฀of฀the฀producing฀class฀(proletariat)฀have฀property฀ only฀in฀their฀labor-power฀or฀ability฀to฀produce;฀(2)฀that฀the฀members฀of฀the฀two฀ classes฀meet฀as฀isolated,฀independent฀individuals฀in฀the฀market฀where฀they฀treat฀ each฀other฀as฀equals฀and฀assert฀that฀they฀have฀both฀legal฀title฀to฀the฀property฀they฀ propose฀to฀exchange฀(sell),฀and฀then฀the฀capitalist฀employs฀the฀labor-power฀of฀the฀ direct฀producer฀in฀return฀for฀a฀wage,฀usually฀but฀not฀always฀in฀the฀monetary฀form฀of฀ capital;฀and฀(3)฀that฀the฀illusion฀of฀equality฀which฀seemingly฀existed฀at฀the฀moment฀ of฀exchange฀in฀the฀market฀vanishes฀in฀the฀production฀sphere฀when฀the฀capitalist฀ appropriates฀the฀commodities฀created฀by฀the฀labor-power฀of฀the฀worker฀and฀then฀ sells฀them฀for฀a฀profit฀to฀buyers฀who฀in฀turn฀use฀the฀goods฀and฀services฀to฀satisfy฀ their฀needs,฀wants,฀and฀desires.฀Here฀the฀workers฀are฀alienated฀from฀their฀productive฀ activity,฀from฀the฀products฀of฀that฀activity,฀from฀other฀human฀beings,฀and฀even฀from฀ the฀very฀qualities฀that฀make฀them฀human฀(Ollman฀1976:฀136–56).฀Let฀us฀now฀look฀at฀ the฀four฀aspects฀of฀alienation฀in฀capitalist฀society฀in฀more฀detail. First,฀the฀labor-power฀of฀workers฀is฀purchased฀for฀a฀wage฀to฀produce฀a฀commodity;฀ hence,฀this฀capacity฀for฀productive฀activity฀is฀also฀a฀commodity,฀albeit฀a฀peculiar฀ one,฀because฀the฀labor-power฀of฀the฀workers฀is฀purchased฀in฀a฀buyer’s฀market฀by฀the฀ capitalist฀who฀then฀also฀claims฀property฀rights฀to฀the฀products฀of฀that฀capacity.฀Marx฀ described฀productivity฀activity฀in฀capitalist฀society฀as฀“active฀alienation”฀and฀wrote:

Anthropology฀for฀the฀Twenty-First฀Century฀ •฀ 149 the฀fact฀that฀labour฀is฀external฀to฀the฀worker,฀i.e.,฀it฀does฀not฀belong฀to฀his฀intrinsic฀ nature;฀that฀in฀his฀work,฀therefore,฀he฀does฀not฀affirm฀himself฀but฀denies฀himself,฀does฀ not฀feel฀content฀but฀unhappy,฀does฀not฀develop฀freely฀his฀physical฀and฀mental฀energy฀but฀ mortifies฀his฀body฀and฀ruins฀his฀mind,฀The฀worker฀therefore฀only฀feels฀himself฀outside฀ his฀work,฀and฀when฀he฀is฀working฀he฀does฀not฀feel฀at฀home.฀His฀labour฀is฀therefore฀not฀ voluntary฀but฀coerced;฀it฀is฀forced฀labour.฀It฀is฀therefore฀not฀the฀satisfaction฀of฀a฀need;฀ it฀is฀merely฀a฀means฀to฀satisfy฀needs฀external฀to฀it.฀Its฀alien฀character฀emerges฀clearly฀in฀ the฀fact฀that฀as฀soon฀as฀no฀physical฀or฀other฀compulsion฀exists,฀labour฀is฀shunned฀like฀ the฀plague.฀.฀.฀.฀The฀external฀character฀of฀labour฀for฀the฀worker฀appears฀in฀the฀fact฀that฀it฀ is฀not฀his฀own,฀but฀someone฀else’s,฀that฀it฀does฀not฀belong฀to฀him,฀that฀in฀it฀he฀belongs฀to฀ himself,฀but฀to฀another.฀.฀.฀. ฀ As฀a฀result,฀therefore,฀man฀(the฀worker)฀only฀feels฀himself฀freely฀active฀in฀his฀animal฀ functions—eating,฀drinking,฀procreating,฀or฀at฀most฀in฀his฀dwelling฀and฀in฀dressing฀up,฀ etc.;฀and฀in฀his฀human฀functions฀he฀no฀longer฀feels฀himself฀to฀be฀anything฀but฀an฀animal.฀ What฀is฀animal฀becomes฀human฀and฀what฀is฀human฀becomes฀animal.฀(Marx฀1844/1975a:฀ 274–5;฀emphasis฀in฀the฀original)

In฀a฀phrase,฀the฀creative฀capacities฀and฀productive฀activity฀of฀the฀capitalist฀worker฀ are฀consumed฀like฀fuel,฀and฀“the฀qualities฀that฀mark฀him฀as฀a฀human฀being฀become฀ progressively฀diminished”฀(Ollman฀1976:฀137). Second,฀capitalist฀workers฀are฀also฀estranged฀from฀the฀commodity฀they฀produce฀ in฀the฀context฀of฀alienated฀productive฀activity.฀Their฀labor฀has฀become฀an฀object฀that฀ exists฀outside฀of฀them฀in฀the฀sense฀that฀they฀cannot฀use฀the฀goods฀they฀produce฀either฀ to฀keep฀alive฀or฀to฀engage฀in฀productive฀activity;฀in฀fact,฀they฀have฀no฀control฀over฀ the฀products฀of฀their฀labor฀or฀how฀or฀by฀whom฀they฀might฀be฀used฀(Ollman฀1976:฀ 143).฀As฀Marx฀put฀it the฀worker฀is฀related฀to฀the฀product฀of฀his฀labour฀as฀to฀an฀alien฀object.฀For฀on฀this฀premise฀ it฀is฀clear฀that฀the฀more฀the฀worker฀spends฀on฀himself,฀the฀more฀powerful฀becomes฀the฀ alien฀world฀of฀objects฀which฀he฀creates฀over฀and฀against฀himself,฀the฀poorer฀he฀himself— his฀inner฀world—becomes,฀the฀less฀belongs฀to฀him฀as฀his฀own.฀.฀.฀.฀The฀worker฀puts฀his฀ life฀into฀the฀object;฀but฀now฀his฀life฀no฀longer฀belongs฀to฀him฀but฀to฀the฀object.฀Hence,฀ the฀greater฀this฀activity,฀the฀more฀the฀worker฀lacks.฀Whatever฀the฀product฀of฀his฀labour,฀ he฀is฀not.฀Therefore฀the฀greater฀this฀product,฀the฀less฀he฀is฀himself.฀The฀alienation฀of฀the฀ worker฀in฀his฀product฀means฀not฀only฀that฀his฀labour฀becomes฀an฀object,฀an฀external฀ existence,฀but฀that฀it฀exists฀outside฀him,฀independently,฀as฀something฀alien฀to฀him,฀and฀ that฀it฀becomes฀a฀power฀of฀its฀own฀confronting฀him.฀It฀means฀that฀the฀life฀which฀he฀has฀ conferred฀on฀the฀object฀confronts฀him฀as฀something฀hostile฀and฀alien.฀(Marx฀1844/1975a:฀ 272;฀emphasis฀in฀the฀original)

As฀Ollman฀(1976:฀147)฀notes,฀“the฀hostility฀of฀the฀worker’s฀product฀is฀due฀to฀the฀fact฀ that฀it฀is฀owned฀by฀the฀capitalist,฀whose฀interests฀are฀directly฀opposed฀to฀those฀of฀the฀ worker.”

150฀ •฀ Karl฀Marx,฀Anthropologist Third,฀members฀of฀capitalist฀society—workers฀and฀the฀capitalists฀alike—are฀ alienated฀from฀one฀another.฀The฀workers฀are฀estranged฀from฀the฀capitalists฀by฀virtue฀ of฀the฀fact฀that฀the฀commodities฀produced฀are฀independent฀of฀the฀individuals฀who฀ actually฀made฀them,฀and฀that฀the฀capitalist฀owns—i.e.,฀has฀private฀property฀in—the฀ objects฀produced฀by฀someone฀else.฀Thus,฀the฀workers฀are฀not฀only฀alienated฀from฀ their฀creative฀activity฀and฀the฀objects฀they฀produced,฀but฀also฀from฀the฀capitalists฀ who฀appropriated฀them฀(Marx฀1844/1975a:฀279).฀However,฀there฀is฀still฀more฀to฀ estrangement฀of฀one฀human฀being฀from฀another฀in฀capitalist฀society.฀Because฀of฀their฀ isolated฀individuality,฀growing฀self-interest,฀and฀mounting฀indifference฀to฀others,฀ human฀beings฀in฀these฀conditions฀understand฀others฀as฀objects฀and฀begin฀to฀see฀ themselves฀as฀increasingly฀or฀continually฀in฀competition฀with฀them.฀The฀capitalists฀ compete฀with฀one฀another฀for฀shares฀of฀the฀market฀and฀hence฀profits.฀The฀workers฀ compete฀with฀one฀another฀for฀employment฀and฀for฀better-paying฀jobs฀to฀purchase฀ the฀commodities฀they฀need฀for฀survival.฀While฀the฀capitalists฀who฀control฀the฀ conditions฀of฀production฀remain฀indifferent฀to฀workers฀except฀as฀a฀commodity฀that฀ produces฀surplus฀value,฀the฀competitive฀nature฀of฀capitalism฀itself฀requires฀that฀they฀ appropriate฀surplus฀value฀with฀ever-increasing฀efficiency.฀These฀alienated฀relations฀ between฀human฀beings฀refract฀the฀existence฀of฀private฀property฀in฀the฀means฀of฀ production,฀which฀distorts฀other฀expressions฀of฀everyday฀life฀as฀well฀(Ollman฀1976:฀ 147–9,฀153–6,฀202–11;฀Fracchia฀1995:฀360). Fourth,฀in฀capitalist฀society,฀human฀beings฀are฀estranged฀from฀their฀“species฀ character”—i.e.,฀from฀the฀very฀qualities฀that฀make฀them฀human:฀their฀sociality,฀ their฀curiosity฀and฀imagination,฀their฀faculty฀for฀self-contemplation,฀their฀capacity฀ for฀creative฀productive฀activity,฀and฀their฀ability฀to฀put฀themselves฀imaginatively฀ into฀the฀shoes฀of฀another฀and฀to฀recognize฀both฀the฀similarities฀to฀and฀differences฀ from฀themselves,฀to฀name฀only฀a฀few.฀These฀were฀distorted฀and฀deformed฀as฀social฀ life฀turned฀into฀a฀means฀of฀individual฀life฀and฀spontaneous฀productive฀activity฀ metamorphosed฀into฀a฀means฀of฀mere฀physical฀existence.฀Marx฀(1844/1975a:฀277)฀ wrote฀that฀alienation฀“estranges฀man฀from฀his฀own฀body,฀as฀well฀as฀external฀nature฀ and฀his฀spiritual฀aspect,฀his฀human฀aspect”฀(emphasis฀in฀the฀original).฀However,฀ this฀species฀character฀is฀not฀some฀transhistorical,฀abstract฀essence฀but฀rather฀is฀ a฀historically฀specific฀consequence฀of฀the฀capitalist฀constitution฀of฀labor”฀where฀ abstract฀labor฀becomes฀the฀measure฀of฀value,฀mediates฀social฀relations฀and฀creates฀a฀ “‘a฀society’฀that฀assumes฀the฀form฀of฀a฀quasi-independent,฀abstract,฀universal฀Other฀ that฀stands฀opposed฀to฀the฀individuals฀and฀exerts฀an฀impersonal฀compulsion฀on฀ them”฀(Fracchia฀1995:฀360;฀Postone฀1993:฀159). As฀we฀indicated฀earlier฀in฀this฀section,฀Marx฀(1844/1975a:฀266–7)฀was฀well฀aware฀ that฀different฀forms฀of฀alienation฀prevailed฀in฀pre-capitalist฀societies,฀where฀“the฀ social฀distribution฀of฀labor฀and฀its฀products฀is฀effected฀by฀a฀wide฀variety฀of฀customs,฀ traditional฀ties,฀overt฀relations฀of฀power,฀or฀conceivably,฀conscious฀decisions฀.฀.฀.฀[i.e.]฀ manifest฀social฀relations”฀(Postone฀1993:฀149–50).฀For฀example,฀neither฀the฀slaves฀ (war฀captives)฀of฀classical฀antiquity฀nor฀the฀serfs฀of฀feudal฀society฀were฀separated฀

Anthropology฀for฀the฀Twenty-First฀Century฀ •฀ 151 from฀the฀means฀of฀production฀or฀the฀products฀of฀their฀creative฀activity,฀for฀precapitalist฀societies฀in฀all฀their฀variety฀were฀characterized฀by฀“relations฀of฀dependence”฀ (Marx฀1857–8/1973:฀158).฀They฀were฀not฀isolated฀individuals฀but฀rather฀members฀of฀ a฀community,฀albeit฀legally฀and฀politically฀subordinated฀ones,฀who฀in฀spite฀of฀their฀ status฀and฀position฀had฀rights฀of฀access฀to฀and฀use฀of฀communal฀resources฀as฀well฀ as฀social฀and฀interpersonal฀relations฀with฀one฀another฀by฀virtue฀of฀their฀participation฀ in฀the฀activities฀of฀the฀collectivity.฀Nonetheless,฀they฀were฀alienated฀from฀a฀portion฀ of฀the฀goods฀they฀produced,฀often฀a฀significant฀portion,฀through฀various฀political฀ and฀other฀extra-economic฀forms฀of฀surplus฀extraction,฀and฀they฀were฀certainly฀ estranged฀from฀the฀lords฀and฀rulers฀who฀not฀only฀objectified฀their฀social฀status฀but฀ also฀depended฀on฀them฀for฀the฀goods฀and฀services฀they฀provided.฀Slave฀and฀master,฀ serf฀and฀lord฀constituted฀forms฀of฀state-based฀society฀that฀were฀not฀only฀vital฀but฀also฀ local฀and฀limited;฀they฀were฀also฀not฀inexorably฀driven฀toward฀their฀own฀suspension฀ or฀toward฀the฀formation฀of฀some฀universal฀or฀free฀individuality฀as฀happens฀under฀ capitalism.฀In฀a฀commentary฀on฀Marx’s฀view฀of฀state-based฀societies฀as฀alienated฀ forms฀of฀social฀life,฀John฀Plamentz฀wrote฀perceptively฀that Alienation฀was฀never฀worse฀than฀in฀bourgeois฀society,฀nor฀men฀ever฀more฀the฀victims฀ of฀circumstance.฀The฀medieval฀serf,฀though฀he฀lived฀poorly,฀was฀more฀secure฀than฀the฀ wage-worker฀under฀capitalism;฀the฀medieval฀burgher฀though฀he฀could฀not฀amass฀wealth฀ in฀the฀way฀open฀to฀the฀capitalist,฀was฀less฀exposed฀to฀total฀ruin.฀Manual฀work฀was฀never฀ as฀dull฀or฀precarious฀as฀it฀has฀come฀to฀be฀for฀most฀people฀in฀the฀economy฀in฀which฀labour฀ is฀freely฀bought฀and฀sold.฀Inequalities฀of฀wealth฀were฀never฀greater฀or฀the฀poor฀more฀ constrained฀to฀accept฀the฀terms฀offered฀to฀them฀by฀the฀rich฀in฀the฀[capitalist]฀society฀that฀ proclaims฀the฀equality฀of฀men฀before฀the฀law฀and฀the฀rights฀of฀man.฀(Plamentz฀1975:฀ 297)

Domination,฀Exploitation,฀and฀Forms฀of฀Social฀Hierarchy The฀close฀connection฀Marx฀saw฀between฀alienation฀and฀relations฀of฀social฀domination฀and฀exploitation฀were฀already฀evident฀when฀he฀wrote฀The฀1844฀Manuscripts.฀ Social฀domination฀is฀a฀relationship฀that฀refers฀to฀the฀ability฀of฀the฀members฀of฀ one฀group฀to฀constrain฀the฀agency฀of฀another฀group฀and฀to฀secure฀the฀compliance฀ of฀its฀members.฀It฀has฀been฀called฀“the฀asymmetrical฀distribution฀of฀social฀power฀ [where]฀relations฀of฀domination฀and฀subordination฀comprise฀a฀subset฀of฀power฀ relations,฀where฀the฀capacities฀to฀act฀are฀not฀distributed฀equally฀to฀all฀parties฀to฀ the฀relationship”฀(Isaac฀1987:฀83–4).฀Here,฀power฀viewed฀as฀the฀capacity฀both฀to฀ affect฀something฀and฀to฀actualize฀that฀ability,฀depends฀not฀on฀the฀capabilities฀of฀ individual฀or฀collective฀agents฀but฀rather฀on฀the฀places฀they฀occupy฀relative฀to฀each฀ other฀in฀a฀relational฀system฀that฀structures,฀maintains,฀and฀transforms฀not฀only฀their฀ interactions฀but฀also฀occasionally฀even฀the฀relational฀system฀itself.฀In฀a฀phrase,฀social฀ domination฀is฀a฀relation฀that฀involves฀control฀over฀the฀actions฀of฀groups฀“by฀means฀

152฀ •฀ Karl฀Marx,฀Anthropologist of฀control฀over฀the฀conditions฀of฀their฀activity”฀rather฀than฀a฀causal฀determination฀ of฀social฀action฀itself฀(Gould฀1978:฀135–6).฀Marx฀was฀also฀clear฀by฀the฀late฀1850s฀ if฀not฀earlier฀that฀the฀forms฀of฀social฀domination฀were฀diverse฀and฀varied฀from฀one฀ kind฀of฀society฀to฀another,฀that฀the฀different฀relational฀structures฀were฀historically฀ constituted,฀and฀importantly฀that฀not฀all฀societies฀manifested฀social฀structures฀that฀ supported฀relations฀of฀domination฀and฀subordination. The฀form฀of฀social฀domination฀that฀prevails฀in฀capitalist฀societies฀is฀abstract฀and฀ impersonal.฀As฀Moishe฀Postone฀(1993:฀3–4)฀writes,฀it฀“subjects฀people฀to฀impersonal฀ structural฀imperatives฀and฀constraints฀that฀cannot฀be฀adequately฀grasped฀in฀terms฀ of฀concrete฀domination฀(e.g.฀personal฀or฀group฀domination),฀and฀that฀generates฀an฀ ongoing฀historical฀dynamic.”฀In฀order฀to฀earn฀wages฀with฀which฀they฀can฀purchase฀ commodities,฀workers฀who฀do฀not฀control฀the฀conditions฀of฀production฀are฀continually฀ compelled฀to฀sell฀their฀labor฀power฀to฀capitalists฀who฀control฀those฀conditions.฀The฀ capitalists฀appropriate฀the฀surplus฀value฀created฀by฀the฀workers฀in฀the฀process฀of฀ production฀and฀realize฀that฀value฀as฀profit฀over฀and฀above฀the฀cost฀of฀production฀ when฀the฀commodities฀are฀sold.฀The฀capitalists฀are฀continually฀compelled฀to฀invest฀ in฀new฀technologies฀and฀forms฀of฀regulation฀(management)฀that฀simultaneously฀ increase฀productivity,฀reset฀the฀amount฀of฀value฀produced฀in฀a฀fixed฀amount฀of฀time,฀ redefine฀the฀amount฀of฀time฀workers฀are฀required฀to฀expend฀on฀reproduction,฀and฀ worsen฀(immiserate)฀the฀circumstances฀of฀the฀workers฀regardless฀of฀the฀amount฀ of฀their฀wage฀(Marx฀1863–7/1977:฀799).฀At฀the฀same฀time฀that฀capitalism฀creates฀ wealth,฀it฀remains฀tied฀to฀the฀expenditure฀of฀human฀labor฀(Postone฀1993:฀342).฀ Every฀time฀workers฀sell฀their฀labor฀power฀or฀capitalists฀purchase฀it,฀they฀underwrite฀ the฀reproduction฀of฀capitalism฀with฀its฀hidden฀forms฀of฀social฀domination฀and฀ exploitation,฀its฀proclamation฀of฀freedom฀and฀equality฀before฀the฀law,฀and฀its฀more฀or฀ less฀overt฀forms฀of฀social฀hierarchy฀based฀on฀historically฀constituted฀differences฀that฀ refract฀the฀structure฀of฀its฀labor฀markets. A฀major฀difference฀that฀Marx฀discerned฀between฀capitalist฀and฀pre-capitalist฀ societies฀is฀that฀in฀the฀case฀of฀the฀latter the฀individual,฀and฀hence฀also฀the฀producing฀individual,฀appear[s]฀as฀dependent,฀belonging฀to฀a฀greater฀whole:฀in฀a฀still฀quite฀natural฀way฀in฀the฀family฀and฀in฀the฀family฀expanded฀ into฀the฀clan฀[Stamm];฀then฀later฀in฀the฀various฀forms฀of฀communal฀society฀arising฀out฀of฀ the฀antithesis฀and฀fusion฀of฀clans.฀Only฀in฀the฀eighteenth฀century,฀in฀“civil฀society,”฀do฀ the฀various฀forms฀of฀social฀connection฀confront฀the฀individual฀as฀a฀mere฀means฀toward฀ his฀private฀necessity,฀as฀external฀necessity.฀But฀the฀epoch฀which฀produces฀this฀standpoint,฀ that฀of฀the฀isolated฀individual,฀is฀also฀precisely฀that฀of฀the฀hitherto฀most฀developed฀social฀ (from฀this฀standpoint,฀general)฀relations.฀(Marx฀1857–8/1973:฀84)

The฀key,฀in฀this฀view,฀is฀membership฀in฀a฀community,฀and฀the฀rights฀and฀expectations฀ that฀prevail฀among฀those฀individuals฀who฀constitute฀the฀social฀relations฀of฀the฀ group฀and฀participate฀in฀its฀activities.฀Social฀domination฀is฀not฀a฀factor฀in฀some฀kin฀

Anthropology฀for฀the฀Twenty-First฀Century฀ •฀ 153 communities฀where฀status฀differences฀reflect฀age,฀gender,฀locality,฀or฀life฀experience;฀ where฀resources฀are฀held฀in฀common;฀where฀sharing฀and฀hospitality฀are฀expected;฀ where฀power฀or฀ability฀of฀one฀individual฀or฀group฀to฀constrain฀the฀agency฀of฀another฀ is฀non-existent;฀and฀where฀political฀decisions฀are฀often฀reached฀by฀consensus฀after฀ lengthy฀discussion.฀Lewis฀Henry฀Morgan฀(1881/2003:฀1–103)฀characterized฀these฀ communities฀as฀“communism฀in฀living.”฀There฀are฀also฀kin฀communities,฀like฀those฀ in฀Hawaii฀or฀on฀the฀Northwest฀Coast,฀that฀have฀hereditary฀chiefs,฀hierarchically฀ ranked฀clans,฀nobles฀and฀commoners,฀and฀wealth฀differentials;฀however,฀these฀too฀ are฀characterized฀by฀communal฀control฀and฀use฀of฀resources฀and฀by฀fiercely฀held฀ expectations฀of฀sharing,฀generosity,฀and฀hospitality฀(e.g.฀Lee฀1992:฀77).฀Even฀in฀the฀ pre-capitalist฀tributary฀states฀described฀earlier,฀where฀social฀domination฀was฀overt,฀ personal,฀and฀concrete฀rather฀than฀impersonal฀and฀structural,฀noble฀and฀commoner฀ alike฀were฀members฀of฀the฀same฀community,฀albeit฀divided฀into฀distinct฀dominant฀ and฀subordinate฀layers.฀While฀the฀lords฀certainly฀had฀the฀capacity฀to฀constrain฀the฀ agency฀of฀commoners฀who฀actually฀controlled฀the฀conditions฀of฀production,฀they฀ also฀depended฀on฀the฀latter฀for฀the฀surplus฀goods,฀rent,฀and฀labor฀time฀that฀ultimately฀ constituted฀much฀of฀the฀nobility’s฀livelihood฀and฀actually฀underwrote฀their฀continued฀ existence฀as฀a฀social฀group.฀The฀commoners,฀in฀turn,฀continually฀pressed฀the฀lords฀to฀ fulfill฀their฀obligations฀and฀to฀be฀generous฀especially฀in฀times฀of฀strife฀or฀famine. Exploitation฀has฀been฀described฀variously฀by฀different฀authors.฀One฀especially฀ clear฀definition฀is฀that฀it฀occurs฀“when฀the฀primary฀producer฀is฀obliged฀to฀yield฀up฀ a฀surplus฀under฀the฀influence฀of฀compulsion฀(whether฀political,฀economic฀or฀social,฀ and฀whether฀perceived฀as฀compulsion฀or฀not),฀at฀any฀rate฀at฀the฀stage฀when฀he฀no฀ longer฀receives฀a฀real฀equivalent฀exchange฀.฀.฀.”฀(Ste฀Croix฀1981:฀37).฀A฀second,฀ slightly฀more฀elaborate฀account฀is฀that exploitation฀[occurs]฀when฀the฀use฀of฀the฀surplus฀by฀a฀group฀(or฀an฀aggregate)฀which฀has฀ not฀provided฀the฀corresponding฀labour฀reproduces฀the฀conditions฀for฀a฀new฀extortion฀of฀ surplus฀labour฀from฀the฀producers.฀Thus,฀according฀to฀Marx,฀in฀the฀capitalist฀system,฀at฀ the฀end฀of฀the฀labour฀process฀the฀proletarian฀finds฀himself฀obliged฀once฀again฀to฀sell฀his฀ labour฀power฀which฀the฀capitalist฀will฀then฀exploit฀(more฀intensely)฀thanks฀to฀the฀surplus฀ he฀has฀appropriated฀during฀the฀labour฀process.฀(Dupré฀and฀Rey฀1968/1980:฀196)

The฀most฀distinctive฀feature฀of฀any฀society,฀for฀Marx฀(1864–94/1981:฀929),฀was฀ the฀way฀in฀which฀the฀dominant฀class(es)฀whose฀members฀owned฀or฀controlled฀the฀ conditions฀of฀production฀extracted฀surplus฀goods฀and฀labor฀from฀those฀classes฀that฀ were฀directly฀engaged฀in฀production.฀This฀relationship฀underpinned฀not฀only฀the฀ economic฀basis฀of฀the฀community฀but฀also฀the฀entire฀social฀structure,฀including฀the฀ particular฀political฀forms฀of฀sovereignty฀and฀dependence฀that฀shape฀the฀institutions฀ and฀practices฀of฀the฀state.฀Marx฀was฀also฀aware฀that฀exploitation฀could฀be฀either฀ direct฀or฀indirect.฀That฀is,฀individual฀wage-workers,฀peasants,฀slaves,฀serfs,฀or฀ tenant฀farmers฀could฀be฀exploited฀directly฀by฀individual฀employers,฀landlords,฀or฀

154฀ •฀ Karl฀Marx,฀Anthropologist moneylenders,฀or฀could฀be฀exploited฀indirectly฀through฀taxes,฀military฀conscription,฀ or฀forced฀labor฀levied฀disproportionately฀on฀them฀by฀the฀state,฀which฀he฀viewed฀as฀ both฀the฀collective฀agent฀of฀the฀ruling฀class฀and฀an฀arena฀for฀class฀struggle฀(Ste฀Croix฀ 1981:฀43–4).฀With฀particular฀reference฀to฀the฀exploitation฀of฀the฀French฀peasants฀ from฀1848฀to฀1850,฀Marx฀wrote The฀condition฀of฀the฀French฀peasants,฀when฀the฀republic฀had฀added฀new฀burdens฀to฀their฀ old฀ones,฀is฀comprehensible.฀It฀can฀be฀seen฀that฀there฀exploitation฀differs฀only฀in฀form฀ from฀the฀exploitation฀of฀the฀industrial฀proletariat.฀The฀exploiter฀is฀the฀same:฀ capital.฀ The฀individual฀capitalists฀exploit฀the฀individual฀peasants฀through฀mortgages฀and฀usury;฀ the฀capitalist฀class฀exploits฀the฀peasant฀class฀through฀the฀state฀taxes.฀The฀peasant’s฀ title฀to฀property฀is฀the฀talisman฀by฀which฀capital฀held฀him฀hitherto฀under฀its฀spell,฀the฀ pretext฀under฀which฀it฀set฀him฀against฀the฀industrial฀proletariat.฀(Marx฀1850/1978:฀122;฀ emphasis฀in฀the฀original).

The฀obvious฀difference฀between฀direct฀exploitation฀in฀capitalist฀and฀non-capitalist฀ societies฀is฀the฀locus฀of฀exploitation.฀In฀capitalist฀societies,฀exploitation฀occurs฀in฀ the฀production฀process฀as฀the฀employer฀appropriates฀surplus฀value฀from฀the฀wageworkers—i.e.,฀it฀takes฀place฀in฀an฀indirect,฀impersonal,฀continuous,฀and฀abstract฀ manner฀at฀the฀economic฀level.฀By฀contrast,฀in฀those฀pre-capitalist฀societies—such฀ as฀tributary฀states฀like฀the฀Inca฀Empire—where฀direct฀exploitation฀occurs,฀the฀ appropriation฀of฀surplus฀goods฀and฀labor-time฀is฀typically฀overt฀and฀periodic.฀While฀ the฀demands฀may฀be฀framed฀in฀terms฀of฀reciprocal฀exchange,฀they฀are฀ultimately฀ backed฀up฀with฀threats฀of฀force.฀As฀a฀result,฀the฀locus฀of฀exploitation฀in฀pre-capitalist฀ societies฀resides฀not฀at฀the฀economic฀level฀but฀rather฀in฀their฀social฀or฀political฀ moments. Exploitation,฀which฀occurs฀at฀the฀economic฀realm฀of฀society฀even฀when฀the฀overt฀ means฀of฀enforcing฀it฀derive฀political฀acts฀or฀legal฀practices,฀underwrites฀the฀formation฀and฀reproduction฀of฀social-class฀structures.฀Geoffrey฀de฀Sainte฀Croix฀has฀written฀ that Class฀(essentially฀a฀relationship)฀is฀the฀collective฀social฀expression฀of฀the฀fact฀of฀ exploitation,฀the฀way฀in฀which฀appropriation฀is฀embodied฀in฀a฀social฀structure.฀.฀.฀. ฀ A฀class฀(a฀particular฀class)฀is฀a฀group฀of฀persons฀in฀a฀community฀identified฀by฀their฀ position฀in฀the฀whole฀system฀of฀social฀production,฀defined฀above฀all฀according฀to฀their฀ relationship฀(primarily฀in฀terms฀of฀the฀degree฀of฀ownership฀or฀control)฀to฀the฀conditions฀of฀ production฀(that฀is฀to฀say,฀the฀means฀and฀labour฀of฀production)฀and฀to฀other฀classes.฀.฀.฀. ฀ It฀is฀the฀essence฀of฀a฀class฀society฀that฀one฀or฀more฀of฀the฀smaller฀classes,฀in฀virtue฀ of฀their฀control฀over฀the฀conditions฀of฀production฀(most฀commonly฀exercised฀through฀ ownership฀of฀the฀means฀of฀production),฀will฀be฀able฀to฀exploit—that฀is,฀to฀appropriate฀ a฀surplus฀at฀the฀expense฀of—the฀larger฀classes,฀and฀thus฀constitute฀an฀economically฀and฀ socially฀(and฀therefore฀probably฀also฀political)฀superior฀class฀or฀classes.฀(Ste฀Croix฀1981:฀ 43–4)

Anthropology฀for฀the฀Twenty-First฀Century฀ •฀ 155 In฀ the฀ “classless”฀ societies฀ manifesting฀ variants฀ of฀ the฀ communal฀ mode฀ of฀ production,฀the฀social฀categories฀that฀regulate฀the฀relations฀of฀production฀are฀not฀ economic฀ones,฀and฀the฀economic฀aspects฀of฀the฀community฀are฀masked฀or฀concealed฀ by฀them.฀Since฀these฀relations฀are฀dominant฀during฀the฀processes฀of฀class฀formation,฀ the฀social฀classes฀that฀emerge฀when฀individuals฀or฀groups฀of฀individuals฀begin฀to฀ pursue฀their฀own฀interests฀in฀the฀context฀of฀the฀continuing฀public฀institutions฀and฀ practices฀of฀the฀community฀are฀defined฀largely฀in฀cultural฀terms.฀Thus,฀the฀true฀ nature฀of฀the฀economic฀is฀obscured,฀since฀the฀emergent฀class฀structure฀consists฀of฀ a฀hierarchy฀of฀social฀categories฀that฀cannot฀be฀reduced฀directly฀to฀economic฀class฀ relations.฀This฀hierarchy฀of฀non-economic฀social฀categories฀disguises฀both฀the฀real฀ economic฀class฀relations฀and฀the฀real฀contradictions฀that฀emerge฀from฀them.฀In฀such฀ a฀situation,฀the฀economic฀class฀relations฀appear฀different฀from฀their฀real฀nature,฀while฀ the฀hierarchical฀social฀categories฀of฀the฀class฀structure฀appear฀as฀“natural”฀relations. The฀formation฀of฀the฀class฀structure฀is฀ultimately฀based฀on฀the฀economic฀order฀ of฀the฀society—the฀unequal฀accumulation฀of฀surplus฀product฀by฀the฀various฀social฀ categories฀that฀make฀up฀the฀hierarchy.฀It฀is฀the฀condition฀for฀the฀formation฀of฀ economic฀class฀relations฀to฀the฀extent฀that฀this฀process฀determines฀the฀place฀of฀ the฀different฀social฀categories฀in฀the฀production฀process,฀and฀that฀it฀determines฀ the฀reorganization฀of฀the฀labor฀processes฀to฀incorporate฀exploitation฀by฀one฀or฀ more฀of฀these฀categories.฀The฀reorganization฀of฀the฀labor฀processes,฀which฀involves฀ the฀progressive฀differentiation฀of฀the฀activities฀of฀these฀categories,฀provides฀the฀ conditions฀for฀the฀further฀development฀of฀the฀contradictions฀based฀on฀the฀appearance฀ of฀extortion฀(Bonte฀1981:฀51–5). By฀ the฀ mid฀ 1840s,฀ Marx฀ and฀ Engels฀ (e.g.฀ 1845–6/1976:฀ 46–8,฀ 76–85)฀ had฀ already฀worked฀out฀the฀class฀theory฀of฀the฀state฀(Draper฀1977).฀They฀argued฀that฀ the฀constitution฀of฀the฀state฀was฀connected฀with฀the฀conditions฀for฀the฀constitution฀ of฀the฀class฀structure฀and฀with฀the฀conditions฀for฀the฀reproduction฀of฀the฀dominant฀ class฀as฀real฀economic฀class฀relations฀appear.2฀The฀agencies฀of฀the฀state฀subsume฀ the฀administration฀of฀justice,฀the฀conduct฀of฀war฀and฀diplomacy,฀and฀other฀activities฀ that฀were฀previously฀carried฀out฀by฀the฀community.฀They฀do฀this฀in฀the฀interest฀of฀ the฀state฀and฀of฀the฀society฀as฀a฀whole.฀This,฀however,฀is฀the฀basic฀contradiction฀of฀ civil฀society.฀The฀state฀is฀simultaneously฀the฀representative฀of฀the฀class฀in฀whose฀ interests฀it฀was฀organized฀and฀the฀mediator฀of฀the฀oppositions฀between฀individuals฀of฀ that฀class฀and฀between฀the฀opposing฀classes฀of฀the฀society฀as฀a฀whole฀(Krader฀1978:฀ 94–6).฀In฀Marx’s฀(1880–2/1974:฀329)฀terms,฀the฀state฀was฀an฀excrescence฀of฀society.฀ The฀autonomy฀of฀politics฀and฀of฀the฀state฀was฀the฀product฀of฀modern฀times.฀The฀state฀ stood฀above฀society฀only฀when฀the฀economic฀class฀relations฀of฀appropriation฀have฀ become฀dominant.฀This฀involves฀the฀objectification฀of฀individual฀human฀beings;฀ they฀cease฀to฀exist฀as฀real฀people฀and฀appear฀instead฀as฀formal฀entities—legal฀or฀civil฀ personalities—in฀the฀eyes฀of฀the฀state. Marx฀did฀not฀argue฀that฀other฀sociohistorically฀constituted฀categories—such฀ as฀gender,฀ethnicity,฀or฀race,฀which฀also฀place฀individuals฀and฀groups฀in฀social฀

156฀ •฀ Karl฀Marx,฀Anthropologist hierarchies฀in฀capitalist฀societies—were฀unimportant,฀reducible฀to฀class฀position,฀ or฀could฀only฀be฀understood฀in฀terms฀of฀class฀(Brodkin฀2000;฀Postone฀1993:฀321).3฀ While฀these฀forms฀of฀hierarchy฀were฀not฀well฀developed฀in฀his฀work,฀he฀did,฀however,฀ often฀consider฀them฀in฀terms฀of฀how฀they฀intersected฀with฀social-class฀structures.฀For฀ example,฀in฀Capital,฀he฀quoted฀a฀public฀health฀report฀for฀1863฀and฀commented฀on฀ its฀observations฀and฀remarked฀angrily฀on฀its฀justification฀for฀gendered฀inequities฀ in฀food฀consumption:฀“the฀insufficiency฀of฀food฀on฀agricultural฀labourers฀fell฀as฀ a฀rule฀chiefly฀on฀the฀women฀and฀children฀‘for฀the฀man฀must฀eat฀to฀do฀his฀work’”฀ (Marx฀1863–7/1977:฀809);฀in฀the฀same฀volume,฀he฀described฀vividly฀the฀effects฀ on฀the฀140,000฀or฀so฀women฀and฀children฀employed฀in฀the฀domestic฀production฀of฀ lace฀(Marx฀1863–7/1977:฀590–1,฀595–9).฀In฀The฀Condition฀of฀the฀Working฀Class฀ in฀England,฀Engels฀(1845/1975:฀389–92)฀had฀already฀described฀both฀the฀ways฀in฀ which฀capitalist฀employers฀used฀Irish,฀Scottish,฀and฀English฀identities฀to฀construct฀an฀ ethnically฀stratified฀labor฀force฀in฀Manchester฀and฀the฀slums฀inhabited฀by฀the฀Irish฀ workers฀whom฀he฀characterized฀as฀the฀poorest฀of฀the฀poor.฀Over฀the฀years,฀both฀he฀ and฀Marx฀(e.g.฀1869/1988b)฀would฀lament฀the฀chauvinism฀of฀the฀different฀national฀ groups฀that฀made฀it฀difficult฀for฀them฀to฀see฀their฀common฀cause฀as฀workers.฀In฀The฀ Ethnological฀Notebooks,฀Marx฀(e.g.฀1880–2/1974:฀324,฀335,฀349)฀ranted฀against฀the฀ racial฀classifications฀and฀hierarchies฀that฀were฀being฀constructed฀by฀social฀scientists฀ in฀the฀wake฀of฀massive฀immigration฀in฀the฀late฀nineteenth฀century฀and฀used฀to฀ legitimize฀the฀construction฀of฀working฀classes฀that฀were฀being฀stratified฀in฀terms฀of฀ racialized฀identities฀(Gailey฀2006:฀Patterson฀and฀Spencer฀1995).

Resistance฀and฀Protest It฀is฀worth฀noting฀that฀Marx฀thought฀that฀slaves,฀peasants,฀and฀workers฀were฀never฀ completely฀powerless,฀and฀that฀struggle฀is฀“the฀fundamental฀relationship฀between฀ classes฀(and฀their฀respective฀individual฀members),฀involving฀essentially฀exploitation,฀ or฀resistance฀to฀it”฀(Ste฀Croix฀1981:฀44).฀Over฀the฀years,฀he฀would฀comment฀on฀various฀forms฀of฀protest฀ranging฀from฀religion฀and฀the฀ongoing฀tensions฀between฀communities฀and฀the฀states฀in฀which฀they฀are฀enmeshed฀to฀various฀forms฀of฀resistance,฀ reformist฀efforts,฀and฀open฀rebellion. For฀Marx,฀raised฀in฀a฀predominantly฀Catholic฀region฀oppressed฀by฀a฀state฀whose฀ official฀cult฀was฀evangelical฀Protestantism,฀religion฀was฀always฀more฀than฀“the฀ ideological฀expression฀of฀the฀powerful฀[including฀the฀state],฀legitimating฀social฀ hierarchy;”฀it฀was฀also฀”an฀active฀moral฀agency,฀especially฀for฀the฀deprived฀and฀ despised”฀(Raines฀2002:฀5).฀In฀Marx’s฀own฀words,฀“Religious฀distress฀is฀at฀the฀same฀ time฀the฀expression฀of฀real฀distress฀and฀also฀the฀protest฀against฀real฀distress.฀Religion฀ is฀the฀sigh฀of฀the฀oppressed฀creature,฀the฀heart฀of฀a฀heartless฀world,฀just฀as฀it฀is฀the฀ spirit฀of฀spiritless฀conditions.฀It฀is฀the฀opium฀of฀the฀people.”฀(1843–4/1975:฀175;฀ emphasis฀in฀the฀original)

Anthropology฀for฀the฀Twenty-First฀Century฀ •฀ 157 In฀this฀view,฀religion฀provides฀a฀sense฀of฀community฀and฀meaning฀to฀existence฀in฀ times฀of฀increasingly฀atomization฀as฀human฀beings฀feel฀steadily฀more฀isolated฀from฀ one฀another,฀especially฀in฀capitalist฀society฀(Marx฀1844/1975a:฀377). From฀the฀mid฀1840s฀onward,฀Marx฀sought฀out฀contemporary,฀historical,฀and฀ ethnographic฀accounts฀of฀protest฀and฀resistance.฀His฀earliest฀effort฀was฀an฀analysis฀ of฀the฀revolt฀of฀the฀Silesian฀weavers฀in฀June฀1844฀(Marx฀1844/1975c:฀202–6).฀The฀ protest฀was฀launched฀when฀a฀weaver฀employed฀as฀a฀domestic฀worker฀was฀arrested฀ for฀singing฀a฀song฀lamenting฀the฀starvation฀wages฀paid฀by฀the฀factory฀owner.฀Within฀ hours,฀a฀crowd฀of฀5,000฀weavers฀ransacked฀his฀house฀and฀destroyed฀the฀account฀ books.฀The฀following฀day,฀“a฀crowd฀of฀3,000฀marched฀on฀a฀neighboring฀village฀ (Langebielau),฀where฀similar฀scenes฀occurred”฀(Löwy฀2003/2005:฀83).฀The฀army฀ intervened,฀killing฀or฀wounding฀a฀number฀of฀weavers;฀the฀crowd฀responded฀and฀ drove฀off฀the฀military.฀Reinforcements฀arrived฀on฀the฀following฀day฀and฀dispersed฀ the฀crowd฀into฀countryside฀where฀they฀were฀pursued฀by฀the฀soldiers.฀Thirty-eight฀ were฀arrested฀and฀given฀long฀prison฀sentences.฀Toward฀the฀end฀of฀the฀year,฀other฀ industrial฀workers฀in฀the฀region฀reported฀that฀their฀problems฀were฀the฀same฀as฀those฀ of฀the฀weavers.฀As฀Michael฀Löwy฀(2003/2005:฀85)฀pointed฀out,฀Marx฀recognized฀ the฀relative฀weakness฀of฀the฀working฀class฀at฀the฀time฀and฀raised฀two฀important฀ questions:฀(1)฀what฀was฀the฀balance฀of฀force฀among฀the฀workers,฀the฀dominant฀class,฀ and฀the฀state;฀and฀(2)฀what฀were฀the฀possibilities฀for฀alliances฀between฀the฀workers฀ and฀other฀groups฀both฀within฀and฀beyond฀the฀national฀state?฀These฀would฀guide฀his฀ analyses฀of฀subsequent฀protests฀and฀revolts—for฀example,฀the฀failed฀revolutions฀ of฀1849,฀the฀Indian฀Mutiny฀in฀late฀1850s,฀and฀the฀Paris฀Commune฀in฀1870฀(Marx฀ 1850/1978,฀1852/1979,฀1857/1986b,฀1857/1986c,฀1857/1986e,฀1871/1986). Marx฀(e.g.฀1880–2/1974:฀204,฀261,฀300–3,฀328)฀also฀paid฀particular฀attention฀in฀ The฀Ethnological฀Notebooks฀to฀what฀anthropologist฀Stanley฀Diamond฀(1951/1996)฀ later฀called฀“kin/civil฀conflict”—that฀is,฀the฀contradictions฀arising฀from฀exploitation฀ that฀exist฀between฀the฀priorities฀of฀the฀dominant฀class,฀the฀state,฀and฀the฀subject฀ communities,฀and฀how฀the฀ongoing฀dynamics,฀turmoil,฀and฀resistance฀they฀engender฀ are฀played฀out฀in฀everyday฀life.฀As฀Gailey฀(1987:฀16–7,฀42–4)฀notes,฀when฀kinship฀ relations฀are฀distorted฀and฀become฀attached฀to฀non-kin-based฀state฀institutions,฀such฀ as฀local฀chief฀or฀tax฀collector,฀individuals฀whose฀prestige฀is฀rooted฀in฀kinship฀are฀ threatened,฀and฀the฀new฀local฀representatives฀of฀the฀state฀and฀its฀dominant฀class฀find฀ themselves฀in฀the฀position฀of฀having฀to฀negotiate฀whole฀new฀sets฀of฀relations฀with฀ their฀kin฀and฀neighbors฀at฀the฀same฀time฀they฀are฀dealing฀with฀the฀demands฀of฀the฀ state.฀Kin/civil฀conflict฀often฀spills฀over฀into฀active฀revolt฀(e.g.฀Hobsbawm฀1959;฀ Patterson฀1991:฀98–128).฀Even฀when฀conditions฀are฀quiescent,฀the฀conflict฀continues฀ as฀subject฀communities฀engage฀in฀various฀forms฀of฀passive฀resistance—lying,฀theft,฀ foot-dragging,฀or฀evasion฀to฀name฀only฀a฀few฀(Bodley฀1982;฀Scott฀1985). Let฀us฀briefly฀return฀to฀the฀issue฀posed฀at฀the฀beginning฀of฀this฀section:฀the฀selfactualization฀of฀human฀potential—the฀self-determination฀or฀self-realization฀of฀the฀ social฀individual.฀Marx,฀like฀Hegel฀before฀him,฀believed฀that฀history฀began฀with฀

158฀ •฀ Karl฀Marx,฀Anthropologist human฀existence,฀and฀that,฀because฀it฀is฀historicized,฀the฀particular฀kinds฀of฀human฀ existence฀that฀prevailed฀in฀different฀moments฀in฀the฀past฀were฀different฀from฀those฀of฀ today.฀Individual฀human฀beings฀struggled฀both฀with฀the฀world฀in฀which฀they฀lived฀and฀ with฀their฀inner฀selves.฀They฀had฀an฀existential฀need฀for฀a฀sense฀of฀community,฀for฀ connection฀with฀reality,฀for฀a฀meaningful฀understanding฀of฀the฀worlds฀they฀inhabited,฀ for฀creative฀expression,฀and฀for฀a฀feeling฀of฀wholeness฀(Brian฀2006:฀233–5).฀At฀the฀ same฀time,฀they฀recognized฀“the฀disparity฀between฀thought฀and฀being,฀ideal฀and฀ fact,฀hope฀and฀accomplishment,฀‘ought’฀and฀‘is’”฀(Rader฀1979:฀205).฀In฀other฀words,฀ they฀lived฀in฀crisis,฀and฀their฀crises฀had฀both฀external฀and฀internal฀dimensions฀and฀ dialectics.฀We฀live฀in฀crisis฀as฀well. Marx,฀more฀like฀Hegel฀than฀Adam฀Smith,฀believed฀in฀a฀notion฀of฀progress— that฀is,฀human฀beings฀continually฀struggle฀to฀overcome฀the฀internal฀and฀external฀ contradictions฀in฀their฀daily฀lives฀(Plamentz฀1975:฀322–56).฀Sometimes฀the฀pace฀of฀ change฀was฀relatively฀rapid;฀sometimes฀it฀was฀much฀slower.฀In฀a฀sense,฀the฀resolution฀ of฀those฀contradictions฀involved฀putting฀into฀practice฀those฀capabilities฀that฀could฀be฀ realized฀given฀the฀opportunities฀and฀constraints฀that฀prevail฀in฀historically฀given฀ circumstances.฀Marx,฀like฀a฀number฀of฀his฀predecessors,฀recognized฀that฀capitalism฀ created฀a฀variety฀of฀occupations฀that฀had฀not฀existed฀earlier,฀and฀that฀this฀diversity฀was฀ a฀manifestation฀of฀circumstances฀that฀did฀in฀fact฀offer฀new฀opportunities.฀At฀the฀same฀ time,฀he฀also฀recognized฀capitalism฀condemned฀large฀numbers฀of฀peoples฀to฀lives฀of฀ drudgery,฀long฀working฀hours,฀and฀few฀opportunities฀for฀creative฀activity฀beyond฀the฀ satisfaction฀of฀immediate฀physical฀needs.฀Another฀way฀of฀phrasing฀this฀is฀that฀the฀ structure฀of฀capitalist฀society฀made฀it฀increasingly฀unlikely฀that฀human฀beings฀living฀ under฀the฀conditions฀it฀creates฀would฀have฀the฀freedom฀from฀alienation,฀domination,฀ and฀exploitation฀to฀actualize฀their฀potential.฀As฀a฀result,฀Marx฀saw฀the฀project฀of฀ self-actualization฀as฀a฀revolutionary฀goal฀to฀be฀achieved฀in฀the฀future฀on฀the฀basis฀of฀ conditions฀that฀were฀created฀and฀contested฀in฀the฀present.฀He฀did฀not฀specify฀in฀any฀ great฀detail฀what฀the฀structures฀of฀those฀communities฀would฀be฀like—even฀though,฀ as฀he฀and฀Engels฀had฀advocated฀in฀the฀Communist฀Manifesto,฀it฀might฀involve฀ among฀other฀things฀several฀forms฀of฀income฀redistribution,฀equal฀liability฀for฀work,฀ state฀ownership฀of฀public฀utilities฀and฀banking,฀new฀power฀relations,฀forging฀a฀ social฀safety฀net,฀a฀more฀equitable฀distribution฀of฀justice,฀and฀creating฀conditions฀of฀ material฀abundance฀and฀freedom฀that฀allow฀all฀human฀beings฀to฀actualize฀themselves฀ as฀social฀individuals฀(Marx฀and฀Engels฀1848/1976:฀505).4

Anthropology:฀“The฀Study฀of฀People฀in฀Crisis฀by฀People฀in฀Crisis” Let฀us฀now฀turn฀to฀the฀second฀goal฀outlined฀in฀the฀introduction฀to฀the฀book:฀namely,฀ given฀the฀topics฀Marx฀addressed฀at฀length฀or฀in฀passing฀in฀his฀writings,฀what฀is฀his฀ legacy,฀both฀actual฀and฀potential,฀to฀issues฀of฀importance฀in฀anthropology฀today?฀ Here,฀it฀is฀important฀to฀keep฀in฀mind฀that฀he฀was฀a฀political฀activist฀whose฀aim฀

Anthropology฀for฀the฀Twenty-First฀Century฀ •฀ 159 was฀not฀merely฀to฀describe฀and฀interpret฀the฀world฀but฀rather฀to฀change฀it฀(Marx฀ 1845/1976:฀5).฀Like฀any฀political฀activist฀worth฀his฀salt,฀Marx฀was฀acutely฀aware฀ of฀the฀importance฀of฀accurate฀assessments฀of฀the฀social฀groups฀involved฀and฀their฀ capabilities฀under฀historically฀specific฀conditions,฀their฀relations,฀the฀balance฀of฀ force฀among฀them,฀and฀the฀possibilities฀for฀building฀alliances฀to฀change฀that฀balance,฀ as฀well฀as฀opportunities฀for฀maneuverability฀in฀those฀circumstances.฀Needless฀to฀say฀ in฀these฀appraisals,฀he฀was฀far฀more฀interested฀in฀the฀real฀than฀in฀self-representations฀ that฀put฀the฀best฀possible฀“spin”฀on฀things฀and฀always฀have฀the฀capacity฀to฀distort฀ actually฀existing฀relations฀and฀conditions.฀As฀a฀result,฀Marx’s฀anthropology฀was฀an฀ engaged฀anthropology.฀If฀he฀were฀alive฀today,฀he฀would฀probably฀agree฀with฀Stanley฀ Diamond’s฀observation฀that Anthropology,฀reified฀as฀the฀study฀of฀man,฀is฀the฀study฀of฀men฀in฀crisis฀by฀men฀in฀ crisis.฀Anthropologists฀and฀their฀objects,฀the฀studied,฀despite฀opposing฀positions฀in฀the฀ “scientific”฀equation,฀have฀this฀much฀in฀common:฀they฀are฀both,฀if฀not฀equally,฀objects฀ of฀contemporary,฀imperial฀civilization.฀.฀.฀.฀Unless฀the฀anthropologist฀confronts฀his฀own฀ alienation฀which฀is฀only฀a฀special฀instance฀of฀a฀general฀condition,฀and฀seeks฀to฀understand฀ its฀roots,฀and฀subsequently฀matures฀as฀a฀relentless฀critic฀of฀his฀own฀civilization,฀the฀very฀ civilization฀which฀objectifies฀man,฀he฀cannot฀understand฀or฀even฀recognize฀himself฀in฀the฀ other฀or฀the฀other฀in฀himself.฀(Diamond฀1969/1999:฀401–2)

Marx’s฀anthropology฀of฀engagement฀would฀broadly฀include฀ongoing฀critical฀ considerations฀of฀at฀least฀the฀following฀issues:฀(1)฀the฀relations,฀presuppositions,฀ and฀practices฀of฀one’s฀own฀society;฀how฀they฀came฀to฀be;฀and฀how฀they฀impinge฀on฀ and฀interact฀with฀those฀of฀other฀communities;฀(2)฀the฀sociohistorical฀developmental฀ trajectories฀of฀other฀societies฀as฀well฀as฀of฀their฀complex,฀shifting฀articulations฀ with฀one฀another฀and฀with฀our฀own฀society;฀(3)฀the฀conditions฀of฀constitution฀and฀ historicity฀of฀analytical฀categories฀that฀are฀presumed฀to฀be฀ontological,฀and฀that฀ distinguish฀phenomenal฀(superficial)฀forms฀from฀the฀essential฀relations฀that฀underlie฀ them;฀and฀(4)฀the฀dialectical฀interplay฀of฀theoretically฀informed฀questions,฀which฀ shape฀empirical฀observation,฀and฀the฀empirical฀evidence฀itself,฀which฀necessarily฀ forces฀the฀refinement,฀modification,฀or฀rejection฀of฀theoretical฀understanding.฀As฀you฀ will฀recall,฀Marx฀(1837/1975)฀lamented฀in฀a฀letter฀to฀his฀father฀the฀fragmentation฀of฀ knowledge฀that฀was฀taking฀place฀in฀the฀university฀when฀he฀was฀a฀student.฀Hence,฀ there฀is฀good฀reason฀to฀believe฀that฀his฀anthropology฀today฀would฀be฀integrating฀and฀ integrative฀rather฀than฀one฀that฀balkanizes฀appreciation฀of฀the฀human฀condition฀and,฀ in฀the฀process,฀actively฀promotes฀indifference,฀intolerance,฀or฀even฀contempt฀for฀the฀ work฀of฀others฀among฀the฀diverse฀practitioners฀attempting฀to฀understand฀it. There฀are฀a฀number฀of฀perspectives฀or฀themes฀that฀Marx฀examined฀which฀retain฀ their฀relevance฀today.฀Plausibly฀these฀include:฀the฀historicity฀of฀human฀beings฀ both฀as฀natural฀and฀social฀beings฀and฀their฀changing฀relations;฀capitalism฀and฀its฀ transformations฀on฀an฀increasingly฀global฀scale;฀social-class฀relations฀and฀their฀

160฀ •฀ Karl฀Marx,฀Anthropologist intersection฀with฀racism,฀nationalism,฀and฀sexism;฀the฀health฀and฀well-being฀of฀ human฀ individuals;฀ culture฀ as฀ an฀ arena฀ of฀ social฀ reproduction,฀ creativity,฀ and฀ resistance;฀language,฀communication,฀and฀social฀relations;฀and฀the฀transition฀to฀more฀ just฀forms฀of฀society.฀Let฀us฀briefly฀consider฀each฀of฀them฀in฀the฀pages฀that฀follow. First,฀ Marx’s฀ anthropology฀ would฀ be฀ a฀ theoretically฀ informed,฀ historical฀ anthropology฀whose฀objects฀of฀inquiry฀were฀concerned฀with฀ensembles฀of฀social฀ relations฀and฀culture฀per฀se฀rather฀than฀with฀the฀particular฀methodologies฀that฀ archaeologists,฀historians,฀or฀ethnographers฀use฀to฀recuperate฀information฀about฀ societies฀and฀the฀individuals฀who฀compose฀them฀that฀either฀existed฀in฀the฀past฀or฀ live฀in฀contemporary฀communities฀whose฀day-to-day฀realities฀may฀be฀located฀in฀ one฀part฀of฀the฀world฀while฀their฀centers฀of฀gravity฀and฀reference฀may฀be฀situated฀ elsewhere.฀His฀anthropology฀was฀also฀sensitive฀to฀the฀diversity฀of฀those฀societies฀in฀ time฀and฀space.฀It฀would฀pay฀attention฀to฀the฀historical฀development฀of฀human฀beings฀ as฀both฀biological฀and฀social฀beings.฀Marx฀(e.g.฀1863–7/1977:฀340–416)฀knew฀ that฀the฀human฀body฀simultaneously฀afforded฀certain฀opportunities฀and฀imposed฀ certain฀limitations฀on฀what฀individuals฀could฀accomplish฀given฀the฀circumstances฀ in฀which฀they฀lived฀and฀the฀arrays฀of฀cultural฀knowledge,฀practices,฀and฀things฀ that฀were฀available฀to฀them฀at฀those฀particular฀times฀and฀places.฀He฀also฀knew฀ that฀existent฀social฀relations,฀cultural฀knowledge,฀dispositions,฀and฀practices฀as฀ well฀as฀their฀materialized฀manifestations฀not฀only฀shaped฀how฀the฀members฀of฀ particular฀communities฀understood฀the฀worlds฀in฀which฀they฀live฀but฀also฀influenced฀ the฀significance฀and฀meaning฀their฀members฀attached฀to฀its฀constituent฀elements.฀ Both฀the฀social฀and฀biological฀dimensions฀of฀human฀beings฀are฀implicated฀in฀the฀ metabolism฀that฀exists฀between฀their฀communities฀and฀the฀natural฀worlds฀they฀ inhabit;฀both฀are฀involved฀in฀the฀changes฀to฀those฀metabolisms฀as฀is฀the฀natural฀ world—changes฀that฀have฀the฀capacity฀at฀least฀to฀transform฀not฀only฀how฀human฀ beings฀themselves฀live฀in฀their฀worlds฀but฀also฀to฀modify฀the฀human฀body฀itself. His฀anthropology฀would฀be฀concerned฀with฀the฀everyday฀lives฀of฀individuals,฀ their฀social฀relations฀with฀one฀another,฀and฀the฀cultural฀beliefs฀and฀dispositions฀they฀ share฀or฀contest฀as฀these฀are฀both฀replicated฀and฀transformed฀in฀the฀course฀of฀their฀ day-to-day฀actions.฀Society฀and฀culture฀are฀processes฀that฀reflect฀and฀interact฀not฀ only฀with฀the฀particular฀combinations฀of฀modes฀of฀production฀that฀underlie฀them฀at฀a฀ different฀level฀of฀reality฀but฀also฀with฀contingent฀events฀and฀the฀tide฀of฀history.฀While฀ many฀events,฀like฀brushing฀one’s฀teeth฀in฀the฀morning,฀may฀be฀fairly฀inconsequential,฀ others,฀like฀the฀Russian฀Revolution฀of฀1917,฀have฀had฀profound฀effects฀and฀were,฀ in฀fact,฀chains฀of฀events฀set฀in฀motion฀months฀or฀even฀years฀earlier.฀They฀reflect฀ decisions฀made฀as฀well฀as฀the฀intended฀and฀the฀unintended฀consequences฀of฀those฀ choices฀that฀promote฀particular฀historical฀trajectories฀selected฀out฀of฀wider฀arrays฀of฀ initial฀possibilities.฀This฀is฀what฀is฀sometimes฀meant฀by฀phrases฀like฀“tide฀of฀history,”฀ whose฀course฀and฀outcome฀are฀often฀frighteningly฀foreseeable฀quite฀early฀in฀the฀ process฀as฀events฀begin฀to฀unfold฀with฀almost฀law-like฀predictability฀and฀regularity,฀ like฀those฀in฀the฀wake฀of฀the฀USA’s฀invasion฀of฀Iraq.

Anthropology฀for฀the฀Twenty-First฀Century฀ •฀ 161 His฀anthropology฀would฀deal฀with฀the฀issues฀of฀change฀understood฀both฀as฀ transformation฀ within฀ particular฀ combinations฀ of฀ modes฀ of฀ production฀ and฀ as฀ transition฀from฀one฀mode฀of฀production฀to฀another.฀For฀example,฀the฀former฀might฀ include฀developments฀internal฀to฀tributary฀or฀capitalist฀societies,฀while฀the฀latter฀ might฀focus฀on฀the฀transition฀from฀feudalism฀to฀capitalism฀or฀the฀dual฀processes฀ involved฀in฀the฀simultaneous฀dissolution฀of฀kin-based฀relations฀and฀the฀formation฀ of฀social-class฀relations฀during฀the฀transition฀from฀primitive฀communism฀to฀some฀ form฀of฀tributary฀society฀(e.g.฀Gailey฀1987;฀Lee฀2003;฀Leone฀and฀Potter฀1999;฀Orser฀ 1999).฀This฀anthropology฀would฀continue฀to฀appreciate฀his฀concern฀with฀the฀balance฀ of฀force฀or฀power฀that฀exists฀among฀the฀disparate฀groups฀of฀a฀society฀as฀well฀as฀ the฀changing฀circumstances฀that฀variously฀underwrite,฀reproduce,฀erode,฀alter,฀and฀ even฀occasionally฀erase฀that฀balance.฀It฀would฀stress฀the฀historically฀contingency฀ of฀change฀and฀underscore฀the฀fact,฀contrary฀to฀the฀beliefs฀of฀the฀evolutionists,฀that฀ particular฀outcomes฀are฀never฀guaranteed฀even฀as฀groups฀struggle฀to฀secure฀them.฀ This฀anthropology฀would฀also฀recognize,฀as฀Marx฀did฀in฀The฀Eighteenth฀Brumaire,฀ the฀existence฀of฀dominant,฀residual,฀and฀emergent฀modes฀of฀production฀and฀cultures฀ in฀particular฀societies—sometimes฀perceptively฀and฀presciently,฀sometimes฀by฀ “studying฀history฀backward”฀to฀borrow฀a฀phrase฀from฀Bertell฀Ollman฀(1993:฀133). Marx’s฀anthropology฀would฀also฀engage฀what฀Eric฀Wolf฀(1972)฀called฀“political฀ ecology.”฀He฀realized฀that฀“the฀earth฀.฀.฀.฀[together฀with฀human฀beings]฀is฀active฀ as฀an฀agent฀in฀the฀production฀of฀use-values,฀a฀material฀product”฀(Marx฀1864– 94/1981:฀955)฀and฀that฀“labour-power฀itself฀is,฀above฀all฀else,฀the฀material฀of฀nature฀ transformed฀into฀a฀human฀organism”฀(Marx฀1863–7/1977:฀323).฀Elsewhere,฀Marx฀ (1863–7/1977:฀134)฀described฀the฀metabolism฀of฀human฀beings฀and฀nature฀in฀the฀ following฀way:฀“Labour฀is฀not฀the฀only฀source฀of฀material฀wealth,฀i.e.฀of฀the฀usevalues฀it฀produces.฀As฀William฀Petty฀says฀labour฀is฀the฀father฀of฀material฀wealth,฀ the฀earth฀is฀its฀mother.”฀He฀recognized฀that฀the฀relationship฀between฀people฀and฀ their฀environment,฀as฀well฀as฀the฀production฀of฀use฀values,฀always฀occurred฀under฀ specific฀sets฀of฀social฀relations,฀and฀that฀the฀latter฀had฀a฀shaping฀effect฀on฀how฀ people฀humanized฀nature฀and฀how฀they฀were,฀in฀turn,฀naturalized฀by฀their฀worlds฀ (Soper฀1996:฀87).฀That฀is,฀the฀conditions฀and฀relations฀of฀capitalist฀production฀had฀ different฀consequences฀on฀the฀natural฀world฀than฀those฀that฀prevailed฀during฀earlier฀ phases฀of฀sociohistorical฀development฀or฀in฀societies฀manifesting฀other฀modes฀of฀ production฀(e.g.฀Marx฀1857–8/1973:฀604–5;฀1861–3/1971:฀301;฀1865–85/1981:฀ 321–3;฀1864–94/1981:฀195).฀In฀other฀words,฀while฀Marx฀was฀acutely฀aware฀of฀ environmental฀degradation฀and฀sustainability฀under฀historically฀specific฀conditions,฀ he฀also฀recognized฀the฀dependence฀of฀society฀on฀natural฀conditions฀and฀relativized฀ both฀the฀notions฀of฀ecological฀limitations฀and฀overpopulation.฀As฀a฀consequence,฀he฀ would฀undoubtedly฀be฀fascinated฀with฀current฀discussions฀such฀as฀those฀touching฀ on฀the฀anthropology฀of฀built฀landscapes,฀overpopulation,฀global฀climate฀change,฀ the฀property฀relations฀and฀governmental฀policies฀that฀sustain฀man-made฀natural฀ disasters฀and฀famines,฀environmental฀degradation,฀and฀pollution฀to฀name฀only฀a฀few฀

162฀ •฀ Karl฀Marx,฀Anthropologist (cf.฀Burkett฀1999;฀Davis฀1999,฀2001;฀Franke฀and฀Chasin฀1980;฀Grundmann฀1991;฀ Hughes฀2000;฀Panitch฀and฀Leys฀2006;฀Steinberg฀2000). Second,฀Marx’s฀anthropology฀would฀retain฀a฀focus฀on฀the฀ongoing฀historical฀ development฀of฀capitalism฀and฀the฀periodic฀crises,฀like฀the฀Great฀Depression฀of฀ the฀1930s,฀that฀are฀integral,฀necessary฀features฀of฀its฀growth.฀This฀focus฀would฀ necessarily฀have฀several฀dimensions.฀Marx฀was฀impressed฀by฀the฀ability฀of฀the฀ capitalist฀mode฀of฀production฀to฀produce฀wealth;฀in฀this฀regard,฀it฀was฀unlike฀any฀ of฀its฀predecessors.฀By฀the฀1860s,฀he฀had฀discerned฀that฀capitalism฀was฀developing฀ along฀ different฀ trajectories,฀ for฀ example,฀ in฀ England,฀ the฀ United฀ States,฀ and฀ Germany.฀He฀had฀written฀that฀there฀were฀alternative฀possibilities฀or฀options฀for฀ the฀kinds฀of฀capitalist฀development฀that฀might฀occur฀in฀the฀immediate฀future฀in฀ those฀national฀states.฀He฀was฀aware฀that฀there฀had฀already฀been฀several฀phases฀ of฀industrial฀capitalist฀development฀broadly฀reflecting฀shifts฀from฀production฀of฀ the฀means฀of฀consumption฀(the฀competitive฀capitalism฀of฀textile฀production,฀for฀ instance,฀in฀the฀late฀eighteenth฀and฀early฀nineteenth฀centuries)฀to฀the฀production฀of฀ the฀means฀of฀production฀(the฀manufacture฀in฀the฀mid฀nineteenth฀century฀that฀yielded฀ a฀commodity—steel฀for฀instance฀which฀could฀be฀used฀to฀make฀other฀commodities฀ like฀railroad฀tracks฀or฀steam฀engines;฀this฀shift฀also฀involved฀the฀concentration฀and฀ centralization฀of฀capital,฀the฀formation฀of฀joint฀stock฀companies,฀and฀the฀emerging฀ distinction฀in฀the฀workplace฀between฀managers,฀engineers,฀and฀administrators,฀on฀ the฀one฀hand,฀and฀skilled฀and฀less-skilled฀workers,฀on฀the฀other).฀He฀was฀aware฀ of฀imperialist฀development,฀which฀involved฀the฀acquisition฀of฀raw฀materials฀from฀ colonies฀or฀former฀colonies,฀the฀production฀of฀commodities฀in฀the฀factories฀of฀the฀ capitalist฀state,฀and฀the฀sale฀of฀those฀goods฀in฀overseas฀markets฀created฀in฀the฀colonies;฀ moreover,฀he฀would฀consider฀those฀commodities฀and฀their฀impact฀(e.g.฀Mauer฀2006;฀ Mintz฀1985).฀Marx฀would฀undoubtedly฀have฀been฀fascinated฀by฀the฀development฀ of฀industrial฀capitalism฀and฀its฀peripherals฀in฀the฀twentieth-century—such฀as฀the฀ rise฀of฀finance฀capital฀and฀increasing฀interdependence฀of฀firms฀and฀industries฀in฀ the฀early฀years;฀the฀Fordist฀compromises฀and฀guarantees฀between฀capital฀and฀labor฀ after฀the฀Second฀World฀War฀underwritten฀by฀Keynesian฀state฀welfare฀policies฀ and฀mass฀consumerism;฀the฀breakdown฀of฀those฀agreements฀with฀the฀advent฀of฀ flexible฀accumulation฀in฀the฀1970s;฀the฀dependent฀industrialization฀in฀parts฀of฀Latin฀ America฀and฀East฀Asia;฀further฀fragmentation฀of฀the฀working฀class,฀the฀emergence฀of฀ permanently฀unemployable฀peoples,฀the฀increased฀importance฀of฀financial฀markets฀ following฀the฀partial฀abrogation฀of฀the฀Bretton฀Woods฀agreements;฀innovations฀in฀ transportation฀and฀communication;฀or฀the฀impact฀of฀computer,฀information,฀and฀ robotics฀technologies฀on฀the฀management,฀surveillance,฀and฀structure฀of฀production฀ in฀the฀last฀thirty฀years฀to฀name฀only฀a฀few. Marx฀devoted฀considerable฀attention฀to฀the฀structural฀features,฀the฀conflicting฀ tendencies,฀underlying฀the฀periodic฀crises฀and฀business฀cycles฀of฀the฀capitalist฀mode฀ of฀production.฀His฀analyses฀began฀with฀the฀unequal฀exchanges฀that฀occur฀between฀ those฀firms฀engaged฀in฀the฀manufacture฀of฀steel฀and฀other฀means฀of฀production฀

Anthropology฀for฀the฀Twenty-First฀Century฀ •฀ 163 and฀those฀that฀are฀involved฀in฀the฀manufacture฀of฀consumer฀goods.฀They฀involved฀ the฀tendencies฀of฀the฀rate฀of฀profit฀to฀fall฀in฀industrial฀sectors฀and฀of฀investment฀to฀ move฀from฀less฀to฀more฀profitable฀sectors฀of฀the฀economy฀with฀one฀consequence฀ that฀the฀weaker฀firms฀in฀any฀given฀sector฀were฀destroyed฀through฀the฀concentration฀ and฀centralization฀of฀capital.฀He฀took฀notice฀of฀episodes฀of฀the฀over-accumulation฀ of฀capital—that฀is,฀of฀periods฀when฀it฀was฀not฀being฀invested฀because฀the฀rates฀of฀ return฀on฀investments฀were฀deemed฀too฀low.฀He฀also฀noted฀that฀the฀anarchic฀relations฀ prevailing฀between฀firms฀producing฀means฀of฀production฀and฀those฀producing฀ consumer฀goods฀result฀not฀only฀in฀the฀periodic฀overproduction฀and฀under-consumption฀ of฀those฀goods฀but฀also฀in฀episodes฀of฀underemployment,฀which฀adversely฀affect฀both฀ workers฀and฀the฀profitability฀of฀firms฀that฀sell฀commodities฀targeted฀for฀the฀working฀ classes.฀Besides฀unemployment,฀these฀crises฀have฀also฀underwritten฀emigration฀and฀ yielded฀shortages,฀rapidly฀rising฀prices,฀bank฀closures,฀savings฀and฀loan฀scandals,฀ the฀collapse฀of฀sub-prime฀mortgage฀markets,฀fiscal฀shortfalls฀for฀multiple฀levels฀of฀ government,฀as฀well฀as฀the฀implementation฀by฀national฀states฀of฀various฀Keynesian฀ and฀neoliberal฀policies,฀often฀at฀the฀same฀time,฀in฀an฀effort฀either฀to฀resolve฀the฀crises฀ of฀capitalism฀or฀to฀shift฀responsibility฀and฀the฀burden฀to฀the฀more฀affected฀and฀less฀ powerful. Anthropologists,฀with฀varying฀degrees฀of฀consciousness฀of฀the฀fact,฀have฀long฀ been฀aware฀that฀there฀is฀a฀significant฀spatial฀element฀in฀capitalist฀development฀that฀ simultaneously฀involves฀both฀the฀uneven฀development฀of฀space฀and฀the฀incorporation฀or฀encapsulation฀in฀different฀ways฀of฀societies฀or฀peoples฀residing฀in฀those฀ spaces฀or฀regions฀into฀the฀processes฀of฀capitalist฀production.฀When฀the฀human฀ sciences฀were฀professionalized฀in฀the฀late฀nineteenth฀century,฀anthropology’s฀object฀ of฀inquiry฀in฀that฀emergent฀technical฀division฀of฀labor฀consisted฀of฀peoples฀living฀ on฀the฀margins฀of฀the฀capitalist฀world฀or฀in฀one฀of฀its฀diasporic฀communities฀or฀ internal฀colonies—e.g.฀Ireland,฀the฀Low฀Country฀of฀Georgia฀and฀South฀Carolina,฀ or฀the฀Pueblos฀of฀the฀American฀Southwest.฀Marx฀noted฀that฀the฀process฀of฀capitalist฀ accumulation฀was฀always฀embedded฀in฀particular฀combinations฀of฀social฀relations฀ and฀ecological฀circumstances;฀it฀often฀involved฀the฀dispossession฀of฀local฀inhabitants฀ or฀the฀devaluation฀or฀destruction฀of฀their฀assets฀(like฀the฀textile฀industry฀of฀India฀ in฀the฀late฀eighteenth฀century฀or฀the฀buffalo฀herds฀of฀the฀Great฀Plains฀after฀the฀ American฀Civil฀War);฀efforts฀to฀embed฀the฀process฀of฀accumulation฀and฀create฀the฀ physical฀and฀administrative฀infrastructures฀(the฀built฀environment)฀required฀for฀its฀ success฀frequently฀involved฀tensions,฀conflicts,฀the฀emergence฀of฀social฀movements,฀ and฀even฀the฀destruction฀of฀local฀communities฀as฀well฀as฀their฀articulation฀into฀ the฀regional฀division฀of฀labor฀and฀entry฀into฀and฀participation฀in฀market฀exchange฀ relations฀(cf.฀Harvey฀2006:฀69–116).฀It฀is฀clear฀that฀both฀individuals฀and฀communities฀ on฀the฀peripheries฀of฀capitalism฀frequently฀entered฀into฀these฀relations฀on฀their฀own฀ terms—terms฀that฀made฀sense฀to฀them฀(e.g.฀Sahlins฀1993/2000).฀It฀was฀also฀apparent฀ to฀Marx฀that฀the฀reproduction฀of฀capitalist฀accumulation฀on฀an฀expanded฀scale฀ necessarily฀involved฀the฀continual฀absorption฀of฀peoples฀living฀in฀non-capitalist฀

164฀ •฀ Karl฀Marx,฀Anthropologist regions฀into฀capitalist฀social฀relations—a฀process฀that฀began฀more฀than฀two฀centuries฀ ago฀and฀has฀continued฀virtually฀unabated฀to฀the฀present฀as฀evidenced฀by฀the฀vast฀ numbers฀of฀young฀men฀and฀women฀emigrating฀today฀from฀the฀rural฀regions฀of฀ western฀China฀to฀find฀wage-labor฀in฀the฀factories฀of฀the฀new฀industrial฀cities฀of฀ Guangdong฀Province. There฀has฀been฀an฀intimate฀and฀complex฀relationship฀between฀the฀crystallization฀ of฀the฀capitalist฀mode฀of฀production,฀the฀rise฀of฀capitalist฀societies,฀and฀the฀formation฀ of฀national฀states฀from฀the฀mid฀seventeenth฀century฀onward.฀In฀Capital,฀for฀example,฀ Marx฀(1863–7/1977:฀594,฀877–907)฀discussed฀the฀state’s฀role฀in฀the฀dispossession฀of฀ small฀holders฀from฀their฀lands,฀the฀expropriation฀and฀redistribution฀of฀property,฀and฀ the฀criminalization฀of฀vagabondage฀as฀well฀as฀its฀foot-dragging฀and฀active฀opposition฀ both฀to฀legislation฀and฀to฀the฀enforcement฀of฀laws฀that฀would฀have฀been฀beneficial฀to฀ the฀health฀and฀well-being฀of฀workers.฀Elsewhere,฀he฀commented฀on฀the฀role฀played฀ by฀the฀state฀in฀the฀transformation฀of฀agrarian฀landscapes฀in฀nineteenth-century฀ Scotland฀into฀pasturage,฀the฀expulsion฀of฀their฀inhabitants,฀and฀the฀subsequent฀ conversion฀of฀the฀displaced฀persons฀into฀seasonal฀subsistence฀fishermen,฀littoral฀ harvesters,฀foragers,฀poachers,฀rustlers,฀thieves,฀and฀beggars฀who฀lived฀on฀the฀ margins฀of฀capitalist฀society฀and฀whose฀activities฀were฀often฀of฀questionable฀legality฀ (Marx฀1853/1979g:฀492–4).฀The฀relationship฀of฀capitalism฀to฀the฀national฀state฀ is฀indeed฀a฀complicated฀one฀especially฀in฀the฀former฀colonies฀of฀capitalist฀states฀ and฀in฀areas,฀like฀Afghanistan,฀where฀the฀legitimacy฀of฀the฀colonial฀regime฀was฀ routinely฀challenged฀and฀its฀authority฀was฀weak฀under฀the฀best฀of฀circumstances.฀ Marx฀would฀probably฀not฀be฀surprised฀by฀the฀resilience฀of฀capitalist฀enterprises฀ and฀the฀capitalist฀mode฀of฀production฀in฀the฀years฀since฀his฀death;฀after฀all,฀national฀ states฀have฀historically฀protected฀capitalist฀enterprises฀located฀in฀their฀territories฀and฀ suppressed฀resistance฀to฀the฀actions฀of฀those฀firms฀and฀to฀those฀of฀the฀state฀itself฀(e.g.฀ Kapferer1988;฀Reyna฀and฀Downs฀1999;฀Weis฀1998). Third,฀ Marx’s฀ anthropology฀ would฀ want฀ to฀ examine฀ social-class฀ structures฀ viewed฀in฀terms฀of฀the฀relations฀of฀production฀and฀their฀intersection฀with฀hierarchies฀ socially฀and฀culturally฀constructed฀in฀terms฀of฀race,฀national,฀ethnic,฀and฀gendered฀ identities.฀What฀these฀identities฀or฀categories฀share฀is฀that฀they฀always฀relate฀to฀some฀ essence฀or฀element฀of฀a฀collectivity฀of฀individuals฀that฀is฀viewed฀both฀as฀natural฀and฀ as฀unchanging฀(e.g.฀Mullings฀2005;฀Winant฀2004).฀As฀Peter฀Wade฀(2002:฀20,฀25)฀ indicates,฀these฀categories฀create฀identities฀that฀are฀both฀oppositional฀and฀relational฀ and฀that฀serve฀to฀include฀some฀individuals฀and฀exclude฀others.฀What฀we฀know฀about฀ these฀analytical฀categories฀is฀that฀they฀vary฀significantly฀in฀time฀and฀space฀and฀even฀ from฀one฀neighborhood฀to฀the฀next฀in฀a฀city฀like฀Detroit.฀We฀also฀know฀that฀the฀ ones฀that฀prevail฀today฀developed฀historically฀under฀circumstances฀shaped,฀on฀the฀ one฀hand,฀by฀the฀formation฀of฀colonies,฀national฀states,฀and฀capitalism฀and,฀on฀the฀ other,฀by฀the฀mapping฀of฀elements฀which฀were฀understood฀by฀their฀cartographers฀ to฀reflect฀“essential”฀differences฀in฀collectivities฀of฀human฀bodies฀(e.g.฀Orser฀2001,฀ 2004).฀We฀have฀seen฀that,฀while฀these฀essences฀may฀be฀portrayed฀as฀either฀biological฀

Anthropology฀for฀the฀Twenty-First฀Century฀ •฀ 165 or฀cultural,฀the฀characteristic฀they฀share฀is฀that฀they฀are฀immutable฀or฀fixed.฀As฀you฀ will฀recall,฀Marx’s฀view฀of฀human฀nature฀was฀that฀it฀was฀mutable,฀had฀changed,฀and฀ reflected฀the฀particular฀ensembles฀of฀social฀relations฀that฀prevailed฀during฀different฀ historical฀epochs;฀for฀example,฀he฀once฀wrote What฀is฀a฀Negro฀slave?฀A฀man฀of฀the฀black฀race.฀The฀one฀explanation฀is฀as฀good฀as฀the฀ other. ฀ A฀Negro฀is฀a฀Negro.฀He฀becomes฀a฀slave฀only฀in฀certain฀relations.฀(Marx฀1849/1977:฀ 211;฀emphasis฀in฀the฀original)

While฀Marx฀was฀both฀disbelieving฀and฀contemptuous฀of฀claims฀made฀about฀innate฀ differences฀between฀races฀and฀nationalities,฀he฀also฀realized฀that฀racism,฀nationalism,฀ and฀sexism฀were฀real.฀They฀were฀important฀dimensions฀of฀social฀organization฀and฀ cultural฀meaning฀that฀not฀only฀labeled฀individuals฀and฀collectivities฀but฀also฀had฀ the฀potential฀to฀underwrite฀discrimination,฀domination,฀and฀exploitation.฀He฀was฀ certainly฀aware฀that฀slaves฀lacked฀the฀rights฀of฀free฀men฀and฀women,฀that฀women฀and฀ children฀typically฀received฀lower฀wages฀than฀men฀in฀factories,฀and฀that฀immigrants฀ identified฀as฀one฀of฀the฀marked฀categories,฀like฀the฀Irish,฀were฀paid฀less฀than฀nativeborn฀workers.฀Contemporary฀scholars฀have฀elaborated฀this฀understanding.฀Karen฀ Brodkin฀(2000)฀has฀perceptively฀shown฀that฀categories฀constructed฀in฀terms฀of฀race,฀ nationality,฀ethnicity,฀and฀gender฀structure฀capitalist฀labor฀markets.฀Etienne฀Balibar฀ (1988/1991,฀1989/1994)฀has฀further฀shown฀that฀racism฀and฀sexism฀are฀frequently฀ intertwined฀with฀nationalist฀projects฀that฀attempt฀to฀control฀not฀only฀the฀movement฀ of฀people฀within฀a฀national฀state฀but฀also฀their฀ability฀to฀work฀or฀even฀to฀exist฀within฀ their฀borders฀(e.g.฀Glick฀Schiller,฀Basch,฀and฀Blanc-Szanton฀1992;฀Hinton฀2002a,฀ 2002b;฀Silverstein฀2005;฀Warren฀1998).฀In฀a฀phrase,฀the฀issues฀of฀racism,฀nationalism,฀ and฀sexism฀and฀their฀articulation฀with฀class฀structures฀on฀local,฀national,฀and฀global฀ scales฀continue฀to฀be฀problems฀that฀Marx฀recognized฀and฀addressed฀often฀in฀inchoate฀ form;฀they฀would฀undoubtedly฀be฀a฀feature฀of฀his฀anthropology฀in฀the฀twenty-first฀ century. Fourth,฀his฀anthropology฀would฀certainly฀consider฀the฀health฀and฀well-being฀of฀ communities,฀especially฀in฀relation฀to฀the฀conditions฀in฀which฀individuals฀work฀and฀ live฀their฀everyday฀lives,฀and฀how฀these฀experiences฀are฀inscribed฀in฀their฀bodies฀ through฀repetitive฀performance.฀As฀you฀recall,฀there฀are฀lengthy฀sections฀in฀Capital฀ where฀Marx฀(e.g.฀1863–7/1977:฀320–411,฀517–43,฀610–42)฀discussed฀the฀impact฀of฀ work฀and฀pollution฀from฀lead,฀petroleum,฀persistent฀organic฀compounds,฀toxic฀air,฀ noise,฀and฀others฀on฀the฀health฀and฀well-being฀of฀communities฀(Schell฀and฀Denham฀ 2003).฀Data฀processors฀who฀toil฀over฀computers,฀miners฀who฀inhale฀coal฀dust฀during฀ their฀work฀shifts,฀linemen฀on฀professional฀football฀teams฀whose฀life฀expectancies฀ are฀significantly฀shortened฀by฀long-term฀acute฀obesity฀and฀traumas,฀or฀people฀who฀ reside฀in฀neighborhoods฀poisoned฀by฀toxic฀wastes฀can฀certainly฀attest฀to฀the฀ways฀in฀ which฀such฀habitual฀activities฀affect฀their฀bodies฀and฀impair฀their฀daily฀lives฀(e.g.฀

166฀ •฀ Karl฀Marx,฀Anthropologist Bourdieu฀1972/1977:฀72–95;฀Buikstra฀and฀Beck฀2006;฀Schulz฀and฀Mullings฀2006;฀ Williams฀2001).฀Health฀and฀life฀insurance฀companies฀are฀even฀more฀acutely฀aware฀ of฀the฀effects.฀They฀know฀that฀risk,฀illness,฀the฀availability฀of฀treatment,฀and฀even฀ understanding฀are฀unequally฀distributed฀in฀societies฀stratified฀by฀class฀and฀other฀ socially฀constructed฀categories.฀Marx฀would฀have฀agreed฀with฀the฀observation฀that฀ social-class฀position฀was฀an฀important฀factor฀in฀determining฀morbidity฀and฀mortality.฀ From฀his฀own฀life฀experience,฀he฀knew฀that฀people฀often฀treated฀themselves฀using฀ folk฀remedies฀derived฀from฀a฀variety฀of฀medical฀traditions฀and฀saw฀physicians฀and฀ other฀medical฀practitioners;฀he฀also฀knew฀that฀medical฀practitioners฀were฀not฀only฀ members฀of฀particular฀social฀strata฀but฀also฀that฀they฀were฀“a฀primary฀interface฀ between฀the฀ruling฀and฀subordinate฀classes”฀(Waitzkin฀1979:฀603).฀Consequently,฀it฀ is฀reasonable฀to฀assume฀that฀he฀would฀concur฀with฀the฀interests฀of฀critical฀medical฀ anthropologists฀who฀are฀concerned฀with฀the฀social฀origins฀of฀disease฀and฀poor฀health;฀ the฀health฀policies฀and฀role฀of฀the฀state฀in฀providing฀health฀care;฀the฀interrelations฀ among฀the฀insurance฀and฀pharmaceutical฀companies,฀the฀state,฀and฀health฀care฀ providers—i.e.,฀the฀political-economic฀contexts฀of฀health,฀work,฀and฀everyday฀life;฀ the฀interactions฀of฀different฀medical฀traditions฀in฀national฀and฀transnational฀contexts;฀ and฀the฀social฀relations฀between฀different฀layers฀of฀the฀medical฀hierarchy฀(Singer฀and฀ Baer฀1995:฀61;฀cf.฀Baer,฀Singer,฀and฀Susser฀1997). While฀capitalism฀has฀continually฀striven฀to฀reduce฀human฀beings฀to฀creatures฀ whose฀species฀essence฀is฀to฀work,฀eat,฀and฀reproduce฀the฀next฀generation฀of฀the฀ labor฀force,฀Marx฀recognized฀that฀they฀also฀engaged฀in฀an฀array฀of฀activities฀and฀ behaviors฀and฀did฀things฀with฀and฀to฀their฀bodies฀that฀capitalism฀did฀not฀control.฀ They฀ornamented฀or฀modified฀the฀surfaces฀of฀their฀bodies,฀sometimes฀permanently฀ (tattoos,฀dental฀implants,฀or฀trepanations฀for฀instance),฀in฀ways฀that฀conveyed฀not฀ only฀their฀lived฀experiences฀but฀also฀symbolic฀information฀about฀who฀they฀were,฀ their฀intentions฀and฀identities฀as฀well฀as฀their฀place฀in฀society฀(e.g.฀Joyce฀2005).฀ Personal฀ornaments฀passed฀from฀one฀generation฀to฀the฀next฀embody฀the฀identities฀ and฀experiences฀of฀deceased฀or฀older฀individuals฀and฀have฀the฀ability฀to฀make฀these฀ sentiments,฀dispositions,฀and฀even฀desires฀available฀intergenerationally—something฀ Marx฀noted฀in฀his฀comments฀on฀the฀role฀of฀tradition฀in฀the฀preface฀to฀The฀Eighteenth฀ Brumaire. Fifth,฀as฀you฀will฀recall฀from฀earlier฀in฀the฀book,฀Marx฀was฀already฀working฀by฀the฀ late฀1850s฀with฀a฀sophisticated฀notion฀of฀culture฀as฀the฀forms฀of฀social฀consciousness฀ that฀are฀intertwined฀with฀praxis฀and฀social฀relations฀as฀these฀were฀manifested฀in฀ particular฀societies.฀It฀seems฀reasonable฀to฀assume฀that฀these฀would฀be฀integral฀to฀his฀ empirical฀and฀philosophical฀anthropology฀if฀he฀were฀alive฀today.฀In฀his฀view,฀culture฀ is฀interwoven฀with฀material฀activity,฀objectification฀(the฀rendering฀of฀human฀needs฀ into฀material฀objects฀that฀satisfy฀those฀needs),฀materialization฀(the฀embodiment฀ within฀those฀objects฀of฀social฀relations),฀and฀the฀inscription฀of฀those฀needs฀and฀ forms฀on฀and฀within฀the฀bodies฀of฀human฀beings฀enmeshed฀in฀particular฀ensembles฀ of฀social฀relations.฀Hence,฀culture฀is฀neither฀a฀one-way฀reflection฀of฀the฀views฀of฀the฀

Anthropology฀for฀the฀Twenty-First฀Century฀ •฀ 167 dominant฀classes฀or฀those฀of฀the฀state฀nor฀reducible฀to฀them,฀but฀rather฀is฀the฀product฀ of฀ongoing,฀complex,฀reciprocal฀interactions.฀While฀parts฀of฀culture฀are฀widely฀ shared฀in฀any฀given฀society,฀other฀parts—both฀expressions฀and฀practices—are฀laden฀ with฀diverse฀meanings.฀Culture฀is฀learned฀within฀the฀domestic฀unit฀and฀outside฀of฀ it.฀It฀is฀simultaneously฀mechanical฀and฀critical.฀It฀is฀ambiguous฀and฀contested.฀It฀is฀ the฀locus฀of฀practical฀activity,฀strategy,฀creativity,฀improvisation,฀and฀innovation.฀It฀ is฀also฀the฀theater฀where฀social฀relations฀are฀worked฀out฀as฀well฀as฀the฀arena฀where฀ contradictions฀manifest฀themselves,฀where฀antagonisms฀are฀displaced฀to฀other฀times฀ or฀places,฀and฀where฀they฀are฀occasionally฀even฀resolved.฀And,฀most฀importantly,฀it฀ changes. In฀recent฀years,฀Pierre฀Bourdieu฀(1930–2002)฀has฀developed฀a฀number฀of฀themes฀ about฀culture฀that฀are฀inchoate฀in฀Marx’s฀writings.฀He฀has฀done฀so฀by฀interrogating฀ them฀in฀light฀of฀subsequent฀works฀by฀Émile฀Durkheim,฀Max฀Weber,฀Erving฀Goffman,฀ Claude฀Lévi-Strauss,฀and฀Erwin฀Panofsky฀among฀others฀(e.g.฀Fowler฀1997;฀Hanks฀ 2005;฀Schwartz฀1995:฀15–51).฀Marx฀would฀undoubtedly฀be฀intrigued฀with฀Bourdieu’s฀ standpoint,฀which฀has฀been฀described฀in฀the฀following฀way: Culture฀provides฀the฀very฀grounds฀for฀human฀communication฀and฀interaction;฀it฀is฀also฀a฀ source฀of฀domination.฀The฀arts,฀science,฀religion,฀indeed฀all฀symbolic฀systems—including฀ language฀itself—not฀only฀shape฀our฀understanding฀of฀reality฀and฀form฀the฀basis฀for฀ human฀communication;฀they฀also฀help฀establish฀and฀maintain฀social฀hierarchies.฀Culture฀ includes฀beliefs,฀traditions,฀values,฀values฀and฀language;฀it฀also฀mediates฀practices฀by฀ connecting฀individuals฀and฀groups฀to฀institutionalized฀hierarchies.฀Whether฀in฀the฀form฀of฀ dispositions,฀objects,฀systems,฀or฀institutions,฀culture฀embodies฀power฀relations.฀Further,฀ many฀culture฀practices฀in฀advanced฀societies฀constitute฀relatively฀autonomous฀arenas฀ of฀struggle฀for฀distinction.฀Intellectuals—the฀specialized฀producers฀and฀transmitters฀of฀ culture—play฀key฀roles฀in฀shaping฀those฀arenas฀and฀their฀institutionalized฀hierarchies.฀ (Schwartz฀1995:฀1)

In฀other฀words,฀culture฀consists฀of฀the฀historically฀constituted฀and฀learned฀habits฀ of฀the฀mind฀and฀their฀materializations฀that฀derive฀from฀the฀habitual฀practices฀and฀ ways฀of฀doing฀things฀in฀everyday฀lived฀experience.฀It฀reflects฀the฀underlying฀unity฀ of฀everyday฀life.฀It฀is฀interconnected฀with฀but฀not฀directly฀reducible฀to฀economic฀ or฀social฀spheres฀of฀activity.฀It฀relates฀the฀dispositions,฀sentiments,฀habits,฀and฀ aspirations฀of฀individual฀agents฀to฀the฀wider฀social฀institutions฀and฀hierarchies฀ they฀create฀and฀reproduce฀through฀their฀everyday฀activities.฀It฀is฀a฀response฀to฀ the฀experiences฀and฀relations฀of฀individuals฀in฀social-class฀structures฀and฀hence฀ is฀reflective฀of฀their฀class฀position฀and,฀thus,฀involves฀not฀merely฀the฀relations฀of฀ production฀but฀also฀considerations฀of฀age,฀gender,฀status,฀education,฀property,฀and฀ even฀the฀dialects฀they฀speak.฀Culture฀reflects฀the฀inequalities฀reproduced฀by฀these฀ class฀structures.฀Struggles฀over฀the฀meaning฀of฀culture฀are฀waged฀in฀the฀context฀of฀ these฀structures฀or฀fields,฀as฀antagonisms฀are฀reproduced฀or฀changed฀(e.g.฀Bourdieu฀

168฀ •฀ Karl฀Marx,฀Anthropologist 1964/1979,฀1979/1984,฀1980/1990,฀1984/1988,฀1989/1996,฀1991,฀1993;฀Bourdieu฀ and฀Passeron฀1977/1990;฀Crehan฀2002). Sixth,฀Marx’s฀anthropology฀would฀certainly฀examine฀the฀interconnections฀of฀ language,฀consciousness,฀communication,฀and฀social฀relations,฀on฀the฀one฀hand,฀and฀ language฀and฀ideology,฀on฀the฀other.฀For฀Marx,฀as฀Marnie฀Holborow฀(2006:฀4–7)฀has฀ pointed฀out,฀language฀and฀consciousness฀are฀dialectically฀intertwined,฀and฀both฀have฀ their฀bases฀in฀the฀relations฀of฀human฀beings฀to฀one฀another฀and฀to฀the฀worlds฀they฀ inhabited. Language฀is฀as฀old฀as฀consciousness,฀language฀is฀practical฀consciousness฀that฀exists฀ also฀for฀other฀men,฀and฀for฀that฀reason฀alone฀it฀really฀exists฀for฀me฀personally฀as฀well;฀ language,฀like฀consciousness,฀only฀arises฀from฀the฀need,฀the฀necessity,฀of฀intercourse฀ with฀other฀men.฀Where฀there฀exists฀a฀relationship,฀it฀exists฀for฀me.฀.฀.฀.฀Consciousness฀is,฀ therefore,฀from฀the฀very฀beginning฀a฀social฀product,฀and฀remains฀so฀as฀long฀as฀men฀exist฀ at฀all.฀(Marx฀and฀Engels฀1845–6/1976:฀44;฀emphasis฀in฀the฀original)

Thus,฀in฀his฀perspective,฀there฀is฀a฀dialectical฀relationship฀between฀language฀and฀ human฀beings฀in฀society.฀Language฀is฀historical,฀creative,฀and฀dynamic;฀it฀is฀a฀means฀ for฀conveying฀information฀and฀emotions,฀planning,฀and฀perhaps฀even฀changing฀one’s฀ relations฀with฀others฀and฀the฀world฀they฀inhabit;฀as฀those฀relations฀change,฀so฀do฀ language฀and฀consciousness. Holborow฀proceeded฀to฀argue฀that฀Valentin฀Vološinov฀(1895–1936)฀and฀Lev฀ Vygotsky฀(1896–1934)฀developed฀Marx’s฀notion฀that฀language฀was฀part฀of฀human฀ consciousness฀in฀different฀ways.฀Vološinov฀(1927/1976:฀15;฀1929/1986)฀argued฀that฀ consciousness฀(inner฀speech฀and฀a฀social฀event฀as฀he฀described฀it)฀was฀“bathed฀by฀ and฀suspended฀in”฀spoken฀utterances,฀and฀that฀the฀meaning฀of฀these฀utterances฀could฀ only฀be฀understood฀in฀terms฀of฀the฀contexts฀in฀which฀verbal฀interactions฀occurred.฀ Since฀words฀are฀social฀signs฀that฀have฀a฀number฀of฀potentially฀different฀meanings฀for฀ different฀social฀classes฀or฀in฀different฀social฀contexts,฀it฀is฀important฀to฀understand฀ who฀said฀what,฀how฀he฀or฀she฀said฀it,฀and฀how฀the฀other฀participants฀in฀the฀interaction฀ understood฀what฀was฀said฀as฀well฀as฀the฀milieu฀in฀which฀it฀was฀made.฀This฀has฀come฀ to฀be฀called฀“the฀ethnography฀of฀communication”฀by฀linguistic฀anthropologists฀ (Hymes฀1967/1986).฀It฀recognizes฀that,฀while฀language฀is฀shared,฀it฀is฀also฀contested,฀ that฀words฀are฀signs,฀and฀that฀“wherever฀a฀sign฀is฀present,฀ideology฀is฀present,฀too”฀ (Vološinov฀1927/1976:฀10). Vygotsky฀(1934/1962)฀focused฀instead฀on฀Marx’s฀notion฀of฀language฀as฀practical฀ consciousness—i.e.,฀how฀the฀processes฀of฀problem-solving,฀reflection,฀generalization,฀and฀thought฀are฀socially฀formed.฀As฀you฀will฀recall฀from฀Chapter฀3,฀he฀saw฀ parallels฀between฀the฀use฀of฀tools฀and฀signs.฀The฀former฀mediated฀human฀activity฀ oriented฀toward฀managing฀nature,฀while฀the฀latter฀were฀geared฀toward฀mastering฀ one’s฀own฀behavior.฀The฀first฀provided฀the฀means฀for฀satisfying฀human฀needs;฀the฀ other฀for฀developing฀higher฀mental฀processes฀and฀internalized฀abstract฀thought.฀

Anthropology฀for฀the฀Twenty-First฀Century฀ •฀ 169 For฀Vygotsky,฀signs฀(inner฀speech)฀had฀a฀different฀function฀from฀oral฀utterances,฀ even฀though฀there฀was฀a฀back฀and฀forth฀relationship฀between฀word฀and฀sign.฀Inner฀ (egocentric)฀speech฀was฀a฀critical฀step฀in฀the฀processes฀of฀concept-formation฀and฀ decision-making฀and฀whose฀structure฀was฀“highly฀context-dependent”฀(Holborow฀ 2006:฀23).฀He฀also฀noted฀that฀when฀the฀thoughts฀and฀experiences฀of฀speakers฀and฀ listeners฀coincide,฀verbalization฀is฀often฀reduced,฀incomplete,฀and฀disconnected.฀ Importantly,฀Vygotsky฀was฀concerned฀not฀only฀with฀the฀development฀of฀inner฀speech฀ itself฀but฀also฀with฀how฀the฀intellectual฀(thought)฀and฀communicative฀(speech)฀ functions฀were฀combined฀and฀elaborated฀during฀the฀sociohistorical฀development฀of฀ human฀beings฀as฀a฀species฀and฀of฀their฀relations฀to฀one฀another฀and฀to฀the฀worlds฀they฀ inhabited. Seventh,฀Marx’s฀anthropology฀of฀today฀would฀also฀include฀considerations฀of฀ morality฀and฀of฀such฀central฀moral฀issues฀as฀justice,฀fairness,฀rights,฀and฀freedom฀ (emancipation).฀Morality฀is฀a฀public฀system฀of฀rules,฀ideals,฀or฀virtues฀that฀govern฀ behavior฀that฀affects฀others;฀it฀is,฀as฀Marx฀(e.g.฀1843c/1975c:฀162–4;฀1880–2/1974:฀ 329)฀noted฀from฀the฀1840s฀onward,฀dependent฀not฀only฀on฀material฀circumstances฀ but฀also฀reflects฀the฀prejudices฀and฀ideology฀of฀the฀dominant฀classes.฀Consequently,฀ he฀was฀typically฀critical฀of฀discussions฀of฀morality,฀yet฀he฀has฀been฀described฀as฀ a฀“moralist”฀when฀writing฀about฀the฀alienation,฀domination,฀and฀exploitation฀of฀ workers฀in฀capitalist฀societies฀(Thompson฀1978:฀363–4).฀Steven฀Lukes฀(1987:฀ 26–7)฀provides฀a฀resolution฀to฀this฀seeming฀paradox:฀Marx฀did฀not฀think฀of฀morality฀ as฀a฀system฀of฀individual฀rights฀deriving฀from฀membership฀in฀civil฀society฀or฀a฀ political฀community฀but฀rather฀as฀emancipation฀from฀rights฀that฀had฀been฀honed฀and฀ imposed฀by฀the฀members฀of฀politically฀and฀economically฀dominant฀classes.฀This฀ perspective฀led฀Marx฀to฀focus฀on฀issues฀such฀as฀freedom฀and฀justice.฀It฀is฀worth฀ noting฀in฀this฀context฀that฀Marx฀was฀a฀strong฀advocate฀for฀the฀abolition฀of฀slavery,฀ the฀implementation฀and฀enforcement฀of฀child฀labor฀and฀occupational฀health฀and฀ safety฀regulations,฀freeing฀political฀prisoners,฀and฀democracy฀among฀others;฀he฀also฀ publicly฀opposed฀the฀torture฀and฀mistreatment฀of฀slaves฀in฀America฀and฀British฀war฀ crimes฀in฀India.฀These฀and฀other฀themes฀in฀his฀writings฀and฀public฀statements฀are฀ either฀identical฀or฀similar฀to฀ones฀that฀have฀been฀addressed฀by฀anthropologists฀for฀at฀ least฀the฀last฀forty฀years฀(e.g.฀Diamond฀1970;฀González฀2007;฀Kapferer฀2004,฀2005;฀ Paley฀2002;฀Price฀2007;฀Wakin฀1992;฀Wilson฀1997). Marx฀(e.g.฀1857–8/1973:฀705)฀was฀clear฀that฀the฀wage-relation฀between฀capitalist฀ and฀worker฀in฀capitalist฀societies฀was฀not฀just฀and฀used฀terms฀like฀“exploitation,”฀ “theft,”฀or฀“plunder,”฀to฀describe฀it.฀The฀capitalist,฀as฀Ziyad฀Husami฀(1978/1980)฀ points฀out,฀does฀not฀believe฀that฀he฀steals฀from฀his฀workers,฀because฀after฀all฀they฀ have฀entered฀into฀a฀contract฀which฀applies฀the฀standards฀of฀justice฀underpinning฀ capitalist฀society฀and฀assumes฀that฀the฀capitalist฀owns฀the฀means฀of฀production.฀He฀ proceeds฀to฀argue฀that฀Marx฀applied฀a฀different฀ethical฀standpoint,฀which฀claims฀ that฀the฀labor฀contributions฀of฀the฀workers฀are฀not฀adequately฀rewarded.฀As฀Gary฀ Young฀(1981)฀further฀notes,฀Marx฀distinguished฀between฀the฀spheres฀of฀exchange฀

170฀ •฀ Karl฀Marx,฀Anthropologist and฀production.฀While฀workers฀as฀the฀owners฀and฀sellers฀of฀their฀labor฀power฀may฀ “freely”฀enter฀into฀contracts฀with฀the฀capitalist฀in฀the฀labor฀market,฀they฀become฀ “a฀living฀component฀of฀capital”฀owned฀by฀the฀capitalist฀in฀the฀production฀sphere.฀ Hence,฀ the฀ freedom฀ of฀ the฀ workers฀ is฀ illusory,฀ “an฀ideological฀ appearance฀ .฀.฀.฀ veiling฀and฀mystifying฀the฀[extraction฀and]฀transfer฀of฀surplus฀value,฀which฀is฀the฀ essence฀of฀capitalist฀production”฀(Lukes฀1987:฀53–4).฀In฀a฀phrase,฀Marx฀saw฀the฀ relation฀between฀worker฀and฀capitalist฀as฀neither฀just฀nor฀equitable.฀The฀issues฀of฀ justice,฀equality,฀and฀property฀and฀their฀presuppositions฀have฀also฀been฀examined฀by฀ anthropologists฀since฀the฀late฀nineteenth฀century฀(e.g.฀Bohannon฀1957;฀Hann฀1998;฀ Malinowski฀1926;฀Mauss฀1925/1990;฀Morgan฀1881/2003;฀Nagengast฀1994;฀Verdery฀ and฀Humphrey฀2004;฀cf.฀Cohen฀1988:฀286–304;฀1995,฀2000). From฀the฀mid฀1840s฀onward,฀Marx฀was฀also฀concerned฀with฀the฀issue฀of฀freedom฀ or฀emancipation.฀By฀freedom,฀as฀Gajo฀Petrović฀(1965/1967:฀119–27)฀has฀argued,฀ Marx฀did฀not฀mean฀either฀the฀“absence฀of฀external฀impediments฀to฀movement฀or฀ activity”฀or฀power฀over฀nature฀and฀self฀resulting฀from฀“knowledge฀of฀internal฀and฀ external฀necessity.”฀Rather,฀he฀viewed฀freedom฀in฀terms฀of฀self-determination:฀ Human฀beings฀are฀free฀only฀when฀they฀determine฀their฀own฀deeds;฀when฀their฀ creativity฀and฀actions฀reflect฀an฀integral,฀many-sided฀personality฀that฀is฀not฀tied฀ to฀special฀thoughts฀or฀emotions;฀and฀when฀what฀is฀creative฀in฀them฀determines฀ not฀only฀their฀deeds฀but฀also฀contributes฀to฀the฀extension฀of฀the฀humanity฀itself฀ (Petrović฀1965/1967:฀126–7).฀For฀Marx,฀the฀struggle฀for฀a฀free,฀more฀democratic฀ society฀was฀also฀part฀of฀the฀struggle฀for฀emancipating฀the฀individual฀from฀the฀ constraints฀imposed฀by฀alienation,฀domination,฀and฀exploitation.฀This฀was฀the฀appeal฀ of฀socialism฀and฀communism—first฀as฀theorized฀and฀then฀described฀in฀detail฀by฀ Morgan฀(1881/2003).฀Marx฀was฀concerned฀throughout฀his฀life฀with฀the฀questions:฀ How฀do฀we฀actualize฀a฀more฀democratic฀society?฀And,฀how฀do฀we฀transcend฀the฀ limitations฀of฀our฀own฀society,฀which฀proclaims฀inalienable฀rights฀and฀equality฀at฀the฀ same฀time฀that฀it฀is฀riven฀by฀structural฀inequities,฀poverty,฀intolerance฀of฀difference,฀ and฀intense฀nationalist฀or฀fundamentalist฀sentiments?฀Marx฀was฀shrewd฀enough฀ to฀realize฀that฀one฀does฀not฀start฀by฀creating฀something฀de฀novo,฀but฀rather฀with฀ relations,฀conditions,฀and฀contradictions฀as฀they฀already฀exist.฀This,฀in฀his฀view,฀ was฀the฀importance฀of฀emergent฀tendencies฀in฀societies฀in฀the฀context฀of฀dominant฀ structures.฀Once฀again,฀anthropologists฀have฀contributed฀to฀our฀understanding฀of฀ emerging฀tendencies฀in฀societies฀throughout฀the฀twentieth฀century—for฀example,฀the฀ Ghost฀Dance,฀the฀cargo฀cults฀that฀appeared฀in฀Melanesia฀from฀the฀1880s฀onward,฀the฀ civil฀rights฀struggles,฀the฀women’s฀movement,฀indigenous฀activism,฀or฀the฀Zapatista฀ movement฀that฀formed฀in฀southern฀Mexico฀in฀the฀wake฀of฀the฀NAFTA฀accords฀in฀ the฀early฀1990s฀(e.g.฀Collier฀1994;฀Marable฀1995;฀Mooney฀1896;฀Mullings฀1997;฀ Stephen฀1997;฀Warren฀1998;฀Worsley฀1968/1970). In฀sum,฀Marx’s฀anthropology฀is฀concerned฀with฀Kant’s฀question:฀“What฀are฀human฀ beings?”฀It฀recognizes฀the฀importance฀of฀totality—the฀sometimes฀contradictory฀ unity—of฀various฀approaches฀to฀understanding฀the฀human฀condition.฀It฀has฀a฀finely฀

Anthropology฀for฀the฀Twenty-First฀Century฀ •฀ 171 tuned฀sense฀of฀historical฀temporality฀that฀makes฀change฀as฀normal฀as฀reproduction.฀ It฀takes฀account฀of฀the฀existence฀and฀potential฀significance฀of฀the฀variability฀and฀ diversity฀of฀human฀beings฀as฀both฀social฀and฀natural฀beings฀in฀space,฀place,฀and฀time.฀ It฀provides฀culture,฀ensembles฀of฀social฀relations,฀and฀even฀the฀human฀body฀itself฀ with฀sociohistorical฀contingency.฀It฀does฀not฀separate฀the฀historical฀development฀of฀ human฀societies฀or฀the฀human฀species฀from฀the฀events,฀contradictions,฀and฀forces฀ that฀shaped฀their฀development฀in฀time฀and฀space.฀It฀knows฀that฀human฀activity฀ can฀effect฀significant฀change฀as฀witnessed฀by฀the฀diverse฀array฀of฀societies฀that฀ existed฀in฀the฀past฀and฀continue฀to฀form฀in฀the฀present.฀It฀acknowledges฀the฀complex฀ interrelations฀of฀consciousness,฀communication,฀and฀the฀subjectivity฀of฀individuals฀in฀ particular฀sets฀of฀social฀relations.฀It฀engages฀rather฀than฀shies฀away฀from฀the฀critical฀ social,฀moral,฀and฀political฀issues฀of฀the฀day.฀It฀knows฀that฀people฀occasionally฀do฀ make฀their฀own฀history,฀and฀that฀some฀trajectories฀of฀change฀potentially฀have฀better฀ outcomes฀than฀others.

This page intentionally left blank

Notes Introduction 1.฀ For฀example,฀the฀contrast฀between฀Renaissance฀and฀sixteenth-century฀anthropology฀can฀be฀drawn฀by฀the฀emphasis฀on฀language฀and฀then฀archaeology฀in฀the฀ former฀and฀the฀concern฀with฀comparative฀ethnology฀in฀the฀latter฀(Pagden฀1982;฀ Rowe฀1964,฀1965). 2.฀ Anthropology฀was฀clearly฀taught฀in฀different฀university฀faculties—e.g.฀law,฀ theology,฀ and฀ medicine—by฀ individuals฀ with฀ diverse฀ backgrounds฀ and฀ philosophical฀presuppositions฀(Kelley฀1984:฀247;฀Vermeulen฀1995).฀It฀also฀is฀ doubtful฀that฀the฀empirical฀and฀philosophical฀strands฀were฀ever฀entirely฀separated฀ in฀anthropology฀courses฀taught฀in฀the฀German฀states฀during฀the฀late฀eighteenth฀ and฀early฀nineteenth฀centuries,฀judging฀by฀the฀content฀of฀Kant’s฀lectures฀(Kant฀ 1798/1978;฀Stark฀2003).

Chapter฀1฀ The฀Enlightenment฀and฀Anthropology 1.฀ Jacques฀Roger฀(1963/1997:฀181–204)฀discusses฀“the฀God฀of฀philosophers฀and฀ scientists”฀in฀the฀late฀seventeenth฀and฀early฀eighteenth฀centuries.฀As฀he฀points฀out,฀ the฀shift฀in฀conception฀was฀complex;฀describing฀it฀as฀solely฀in฀terms฀of฀“a฀growing฀ hostility฀to฀Christianity฀which฀drove฀many฀into฀deism฀and฀some฀into฀outright฀ materialism฀and฀atheism,”฀while฀accurate฀at฀one฀level,฀misses฀the฀nuances฀and฀ subtleties฀at฀other฀levels฀(Bowler฀1974:฀161). 2.฀ The฀imprimatur฀of฀the฀Royal฀Press฀was฀important฀for฀two฀reasons.฀It฀made฀the฀ volumes฀official฀publications฀of฀the฀Crown.฀It฀also฀allowed฀Buffon฀to฀avoid฀ censorship,฀which฀was฀a฀continual฀threat฀faced฀by฀his฀contemporaries,฀notably฀ Montesquieu,฀Diderot,฀Voltaire,฀and฀Rousseau฀(Fellows฀1963a:฀608–9). 3.฀ Rogers฀(1963/1997:฀259–60)฀describes฀the฀doctrines฀of฀preformationism฀and฀preexistence฀of฀germs฀in฀the฀following฀way.฀Preformationists฀argued฀that฀the฀actual฀ generation฀of฀a฀living฀being฀occurred฀in฀the฀body฀because฀of฀its฀ensoulment฀by฀ the฀seed฀of฀the฀male฀parent.฀This฀seed฀contained฀an฀entirely฀formed฀or฀preformed฀ individual,฀and฀embryonic฀development฀consisted฀merely฀of฀the฀enlargement฀of฀ the฀already฀existing฀parts.฀Advocates฀of฀the฀pre-existence฀of฀germs฀argued฀that฀ the฀germ฀contained฀in฀the฀seed฀was฀not฀produced฀by฀the฀male฀genitor฀but฀rather฀ by฀God฀at฀the฀beginning฀of฀the฀world฀and฀had฀merely฀been฀preserved฀in฀the฀adult฀ male฀until฀the฀moment฀of฀development.

173

174฀ •฀ Notes 4.฀ While฀Buffon฀conceptualized฀descent฀with฀modification,฀he฀did฀not฀accept฀the฀ idea฀of฀transformism—i.e.,฀one฀species฀developing฀into฀another.฀He฀reasoned฀ that฀no฀new฀species฀were฀known฀to฀have฀appeared,฀that฀the฀infertility฀of฀hybrids฀ constituted฀a฀barrier,฀and฀that,฀if฀one฀species฀did฀evolve฀from฀another,฀then฀the฀ process฀was฀a฀gradual฀one฀(Mayr฀1982:฀330–6).฀Buffon’s฀friend,฀Denis฀Diderot฀ (1713–84),฀crystallized฀the฀idea฀of฀transformism฀in฀1753,฀when฀he฀argued฀that:฀ “(1)฀each฀species฀has฀had฀a฀history;฀(2)฀it฀has฀evolved฀over฀a฀long฀period฀of฀time;฀ (3)฀new฀species฀appear฀through฀a฀process฀of฀variation,฀but฀maintain฀a฀relation฀to฀ each฀other”฀(Crocker฀1959:฀131;฀Fellows฀1963b;฀Lovejoy฀1959a). 5.฀ Ronald฀Meek฀(1967:฀35–7,฀48)฀characterized฀the฀Scottish฀historical฀school฀as฀ Smith฀(1723–90),฀Henry฀Home,฀Lord฀Kames฀(1696–1782),฀William฀Robertson฀ (1721–93),฀Adam฀Ferguson฀(1723–1815),฀and฀James฀Millar฀(1740–1805).฀David฀ Hume฀(1711–76)),฀who฀was฀a฀close฀associate฀of฀Smith,฀and฀James฀Burnett,฀Lord฀ Monboddo฀(1714–99),฀whose฀views฀were฀outside฀the฀mainstream฀of฀the฀Scottish฀ Enlightenment,฀might฀also฀be฀included฀as฀well.฀Marx฀mentioned฀Smith,฀Hume,฀and฀ Ferguson฀by฀name฀in฀his฀own฀writings฀and฀cited฀works฀that฀mentioned฀Millar. 6.฀ My฀understanding฀and฀appreciation฀of฀Enlightenment฀social฀thought฀have฀benefited฀generally฀from฀the฀writings฀of฀Isaiah฀Berlin,฀Crawford฀B.฀Macpherson,฀ Ronald฀ Meek,฀ Roy฀ Pascal,฀ and฀ Robert฀Wokler,฀ and฀ especially฀ from฀Asher฀ Horowitz’s฀pathbreaking฀analysis฀of฀Rousseau’s฀anthropology,฀Peter฀H.฀Reill’s฀ studies฀of฀historicism฀and฀the฀importance฀of฀history฀in฀the฀formation฀of฀the฀social฀ sciences฀in฀the฀late฀eighteenth฀century,฀Robert฀Louden’s฀discussion฀of฀Immanuel฀ Kant’s฀“impure฀ethics,”฀and฀Frederick฀Barnard’s฀explorations฀of฀Herder’s฀ideas฀ about฀culture฀and฀history. 7.฀ Rousseau’s฀relationship฀with฀Buffon฀and฀their฀contemporaries,฀notably฀PierreLouis฀de฀Maupertuis฀(1698–1759)฀and฀Diderot,฀is฀discussed฀by฀Bowler฀(1974),฀ Fellows฀(1960),฀and฀Mason฀and฀Wokler฀(1992). 8.฀ While฀Rousseau฀was฀not฀the฀first฀to฀argue฀that฀apes฀occupied฀an฀intermediate฀ position฀between฀human฀beings฀and฀animals,฀the฀Origins฀of฀Inequality฀sparked฀ an฀interesting฀debate฀that฀linked฀the฀origins฀of฀language฀with฀what฀Robert฀Wokler฀ (1978)฀called฀“perfectible฀apes.”฀Wokler฀(1978,฀1980,฀1988)฀describes฀the฀debate฀ in฀the฀following฀way.฀Comparative฀anatomist฀Edward฀Tyson฀(1650–1708)฀argued฀ in฀the฀1690s฀that,฀while฀apes฀were฀intermediate฀because฀of฀physical฀characteristics฀ they฀shared฀with฀human฀beings,฀they฀were฀nonetheless฀not฀human฀beings฀because฀ they฀lacked฀the฀mental฀powers฀of฀humans—i.e.,฀they฀did฀not฀possess฀language฀ which,฀at฀the฀time,฀was฀taken฀to฀be฀the฀true฀mark฀of฀rationality.฀Buffon฀agreed฀ and฀further฀suggested฀that฀only฀men฀had฀souls.฀In฀the฀late฀1740s,฀the฀gap฀between฀ man฀and฀animal฀closed฀briefly.฀Julien฀Offray฀de฀La฀Mettrie฀(1709–1751)฀argued฀ that฀souls฀were฀fictitious,฀and฀Étienne฀Bonnet฀de฀Condillac฀(1714–80)฀claimed฀ that฀the฀cries฀of฀animals฀were฀evidence฀of฀thought.฀In฀contrast,฀Rousseau฀argued฀ that฀the฀development฀of฀language฀was฀part฀of฀the฀perfectibility฀of฀human฀beings,฀ which฀occurred฀in฀the฀context฀of฀contingent฀social฀relations,฀and฀that฀apes,฀even฀

Notes฀ •฀ 175 ฀

฀ 9.฀ 10.฀

11.฀

12.฀

though฀they฀did฀not฀speak,฀were฀still฀a฀variety฀of฀human฀being,฀because฀of฀their฀ behavior.฀Lord฀Monboddo฀developed฀Rousseau’s฀ideas฀concerning฀the฀humanity฀ of฀apes฀and฀historically฀contingent฀nature฀of฀language;฀like฀Rousseau,฀he฀stressed฀ the฀importance฀of฀the฀capacity฀for฀language฀rather฀than฀its฀attainment.฀In฀the฀ 1770s,฀social฀critic฀Johann฀Gottfried฀von฀Herder฀(1744–1803)฀and฀physiologist,฀ comparative฀anatomist฀Friedrich฀Blumenbach฀(1752–1840),฀often฀claimed฀as฀ a฀founder฀of฀physical฀anthropology,฀disagreed฀with฀Rousseau฀and฀Monboddo.฀ They฀argued฀instead฀that฀the฀anatomical฀differences฀between฀apes฀and฀humans฀ were฀too฀great฀to฀permit฀considering฀the฀former฀as฀part฀of฀the฀human฀species.฀By฀ 1795,฀when฀Johann฀Gottlieb฀Fichte฀(1762–1814)฀wrote฀his฀essay฀on฀the฀origins฀ of฀language,฀the฀whole฀question฀had฀once฀again฀become฀dehistoricized฀(Stam฀ 1976:฀182–9). Thomas฀Hobbes฀(1588–1679)฀and฀John฀Locke฀(1632–1704),฀by฀contrast,฀argued฀ that฀self-interest฀alone฀was฀the฀sufficient฀basis฀of฀society. Kant฀did฀not฀champion฀the฀rights฀of฀women฀in฀the฀public฀sphere.฀He฀argued฀that฀ women฀did฀not฀think฀independently฀and฀thus฀should฀work฀behind฀the฀scenes฀in฀ the฀private฀sphere฀(e.g.฀Louden฀2000:฀84–5). Kant’s฀(e.g.฀1775/2000,฀1788/2001)฀views฀on฀race,฀developed฀from฀1775฀onward,฀played฀an฀important฀role฀in฀distinguishing฀species฀and฀races฀and฀in฀developing฀a฀historical฀interpretation฀of฀species฀(Lenoir฀1980;฀Sloan฀1979).฀While฀ Kant฀was฀skeptical฀about฀the฀possibility฀of฀physiognomy฀(i.e.,฀judging฀the฀ dispositions฀or฀thoughts฀of฀individuals฀from฀their฀visible฀or฀exterior฀forms),฀he฀ practiced฀it฀with฀some฀regularity฀(Bernasconi฀2001). Winckelmann฀is฀arguably฀one฀of฀the฀founders฀of฀both฀art฀history฀and฀classical฀ archaeology฀as฀we฀know฀them฀today,฀and฀Blumenbach฀has฀been฀portrayed฀for฀ more฀than฀a฀century฀as฀the฀first,฀truly฀modern฀physical฀anthropologist.

Chapter฀2฀ Marx’s฀Anthropology 1.฀ Marx’s฀views฀about฀human฀nature฀have฀been฀discussed฀by฀a฀number฀of฀authors,฀ especially฀during฀the฀past฀thirty฀years฀(e.g.฀Archibald฀1989;฀Geras฀1983;฀Heyer฀ 1982;฀Lewis฀1974;฀Lichtman฀1990;฀Márkus฀1978;฀McMurtry฀1978;฀Sayers฀1998;฀ Soper฀1981,฀Venable฀1945/1966).฀They฀do฀not฀always฀agree฀with฀one฀another.฀ In฀this฀section,฀I฀generally฀follow฀the฀persuasive฀arguments฀set฀forth฀by฀Joseph฀ Fracchia฀(1991,฀2005)฀and฀David฀McNally฀(2001). 2.฀ The฀geologists฀Marx฀had฀in฀mind฀were฀Abraham฀Gottlob฀Werner฀(1749–1817)฀ and฀Charles฀Lyell฀(1797–1875)฀(Foster฀2000:฀116–20;฀Greene฀1982:฀19–68).฀He฀ had฀studied฀with฀Henrik฀Steffens,฀one฀of฀Werner’s฀students.฀Both฀Werner฀and฀ Lyell฀were฀concerned฀with฀empirical฀evidence฀for฀geological฀change฀and฀with฀the฀ mechanisms฀that฀underpinned฀those฀changes. 3.฀ Kosík฀(1963/1976:฀24)฀observed฀that฀Marx’s฀notion฀of฀totality฀differed฀from฀both฀ the฀atomist-rationalist฀conception,฀which฀asserts฀that฀“reality฀[is]฀.฀.฀.฀a฀totality฀

176฀ •฀ Notes of฀simplest฀elements฀and฀facts,”฀and฀the฀organicist฀view,฀“which฀formalizes฀ the฀whole฀and฀emphasizes฀the฀predominance฀and฀priority฀of฀the฀whole฀over฀the฀ parts.”฀Marx’s฀view,฀instead,฀is฀a฀dialectical฀conception฀“which฀grasps฀reality฀as฀a฀ structured,฀evolving฀and฀self-forming฀whole.” 4.฀ I฀am฀indebted฀in฀this฀section฀to฀the฀insights฀of฀Karl฀Kosík’s฀(1963/1976)฀Dialectics฀ of฀the฀Concrete฀and฀Richard฀Bernstein’s฀(1971)฀Praxis฀and฀Action.

Chapter฀3฀ Human฀Natural฀Beings 1.฀ The฀“bourgeois฀Darwinians”฀specifically฀mentioned฀by฀Engels฀were฀Ludwig฀ Büchner฀(1824–99),฀Karl฀Vogt฀(1817–95)฀and฀Jakob฀Moleschott฀(1822–93).฀ The฀first฀was฀a฀physician฀and฀the฀latter฀were฀physiologists.฀All฀were฀scientific฀ materialists฀and฀reductionists฀who฀believed฀the฀properties฀or฀forms฀of฀behavior฀ exhibited฀by฀human฀beings฀should฀be฀sought฀in฀the฀laws฀of฀physics.฀In฀the฀political฀ sphere,฀their฀politics฀were฀reformist,฀and฀they฀concentrated฀their฀attention฀on฀ education฀and฀popularizing฀rather฀than฀political฀action฀(Gregory฀1977a,฀1977b).

Chapter฀4฀ History,฀Culture,฀Social฀Formation 1.฀ Later฀anthropologists฀inspired฀by฀Marx฀and฀Engels—e.g.฀Eleanor฀Leacock฀(1972),฀ Richard฀Lee฀(1988),฀or฀Eric฀Wolf฀(1982:฀88–100)฀to฀name฀only฀three—refer฀to฀ Marx’s฀original฀communal฀(tribal)฀form฀as฀primitive฀communism฀or฀the฀kinordered฀mode฀of฀production.฀Lewis฀H.฀Morgan฀(1881/2003:฀63ff.)฀coined฀the฀ phrase฀“communism฀in฀living”฀in฀his฀Houses฀and฀House-Life฀of฀the฀American฀ Aborigines. 2.฀ The฀concept฀of฀Oriental฀or฀Asiatic฀society฀had฀a฀substantial฀history฀before฀Marx฀ wrote.฀Marx’s฀conceptualization฀of฀the฀Asiatic฀mode฀of฀production฀relied฀not฀only฀ on฀analyses฀of฀societies฀in฀India,฀Persia,฀and฀China฀but฀also฀on฀those฀of฀Peru฀and฀ Mexico฀(Bailey฀and฀Llobera฀1981;฀Krader฀1975). 3.฀ Hobsbawm฀also฀remarked฀that฀Engels฀(1850/1978,฀1876–8/1987,฀1882/1989,฀ 1882/1990,฀1884/1972)฀wrote฀more฀systematically฀about฀feudalism฀than฀Marx,฀ and฀that฀there฀is฀no฀indication฀that฀the฀latter฀disagreed฀with฀what฀Engels฀wrote. 4.฀ V.฀Gordon฀Childe฀(1892–1957),฀arguably฀the฀most฀influential฀archaeologist฀of฀the฀ twentieth฀century฀and฀a฀political฀activist฀of฀the฀Left฀for฀his฀entire฀life,฀described฀the฀ origins฀of฀agriculture฀and฀the฀rise฀of฀states฀in฀terms฀of฀the฀“Neolithic฀Revolution”฀ and฀the฀“Urban฀Revolution.”฀He฀was฀aware฀that฀the฀former฀involved฀a฀changing฀ metabolism฀between฀people฀and฀the฀natural฀worlds฀they฀inhabited,฀and฀that฀the฀ latter฀involved฀new฀forms฀of฀surplus฀extraction,฀social-class฀structures,฀conquest,฀ repression,฀and฀craft฀specialization฀as฀well฀as฀literacy,฀monumental฀architecture,฀ and฀new฀forms฀of฀settlement฀(Childe฀1936/1983,฀1950/2004,฀1954).

Notes฀ •฀ 177

Chapter฀5฀ Capitalism฀and฀the฀Anthropology฀of฀the฀Modern฀World 1.฀ Engels’s฀(1845/1975)฀study฀of฀the฀conditions฀of฀the฀workers฀in฀Manchester฀was฀ arguably฀the฀first฀urban฀ethnography.฀While฀Marx฀began฀with฀the฀available฀sources฀ on฀India,฀including฀Hegel,฀he฀was฀already฀impressed฀by฀1853฀with฀the฀shaping฀ effects฀of฀common฀property฀in฀the฀village฀community฀rather฀than฀religion฀in฀the฀ organization฀of฀Indian฀society.฀Marx฀and฀Engels฀discussed฀the฀bases฀of฀this฀view฀ and฀its฀implication฀in฀letters,฀and฀the฀former฀mentioned฀it฀in฀one฀of฀the฀early฀Tribune฀ articles฀(Marx฀1853/1983a:฀332–4,฀1853/1983b:฀347–8,฀1853/1979a;฀Engels฀ 1853/1983:฀339–41).฀Marx฀(1857–8/1973:฀473,฀1863–7/1977:฀477–9)฀elaborated฀ his฀views฀on฀the฀communal฀ownership฀of฀land฀and฀the฀village฀community฀in฀the฀ Grundrisse฀and฀Capital฀(Habib฀2006;฀Patnaik฀2006). 2.฀ The฀two฀accounts฀were฀polarized฀to฀some฀extent฀by฀informed฀commentators฀on฀ Marx฀during฀the฀debates฀on฀the฀“transition฀question”฀after฀the฀Second฀World฀War฀ (e.g.฀Brenner฀1977,฀1989;฀Byres฀2006;฀Dobb฀1947;฀Hilton฀1953/1976,฀1978/1990;฀ Sweezy฀1950/1976;฀Wallerstein฀1974). 3.฀ Marx’s฀views฀about฀articulation฀generated฀a฀significant฀debate฀in฀the฀1970s฀and฀ 1980s฀among฀anthropologists฀who฀were฀coming฀to฀grips฀with฀the฀linkages฀between฀ capitalist฀and฀non-capitalist฀relations฀of฀production฀and฀reproduction฀in฀former฀ colonies.฀This฀discussion,฀which฀was฀launched฀by฀Pierre-Philippe฀Rey฀(1971,฀ 1973/1982,฀1975,฀1979)฀and฀Claude฀Meillassoux฀(1971/1980,฀1975/1981),฀was฀ soon฀joined฀by฀Harold฀Wolpe฀(1980,฀1985),฀Joel฀Kahn฀and฀Josep฀Llobera฀(1981),฀ and฀Wim฀van฀Binsbergen฀and฀Peter฀Geschiere฀(1985)฀among฀others. 4.฀ Godfrey฀and฀Monica฀Wilson฀(1945/1954),฀Eric฀Wolf฀(1959,฀1969,1982),฀Peter฀ Worsley฀(1961,฀1968/1970),฀June฀Nash฀(1979),฀Joel฀Kahn฀(1980,฀1993),฀Michael฀ Taussig฀(1980,฀1987),฀Peter฀Rigby฀(1985,฀1992),฀Christine฀Gailey฀(1987),฀Marshall฀ Sahlins฀(1988/2000),฀and฀John฀Gledhill฀(1991,฀1995)฀are฀only฀a฀few฀of฀those฀who฀ come฀immediately฀to฀mind. 5.฀ As฀Aijaz฀Ahmad฀(2001)฀notes,฀Marx,฀and฀Engels฀to฀a฀greater฀extent,฀wrote฀about฀ the฀issues฀of฀nation฀and฀nationality฀in฀the฀eastern฀and฀southeastern฀parts฀of฀the฀ Hapsburg฀Empire฀and฀the฀Crimean฀War.฀They฀did฀so฀at฀the฀same฀time฀that฀the฀Marx฀ was฀also฀writing฀about฀China,฀India,฀the฀independence฀question฀in฀Ireland,฀condemning฀slavery฀in฀the฀United฀States,฀and฀denouncing฀the฀caste฀system฀(e.g.฀Marx฀ 1846/1982:฀101–2,฀1853/1983c:฀339–42;฀Engels฀1851–3/1979:฀Benner฀1995). 6.฀ Long-term฀monopolies฀over฀the฀sale฀of฀particular฀items฀seem฀to฀have฀been฀a฀ common฀practice฀for฀the฀English.฀In฀1884,฀English฀bondholders฀gained฀control฀ over฀a฀railroad฀built฀in฀southern฀Peru฀in฀the฀1870s฀to฀facilitate฀the฀transport฀of฀ wool฀from฀the฀southern฀highlands฀to฀the฀port฀city฀of฀Mollendo.฀In฀exchange฀for฀ the฀cancellation฀of฀the฀debt,฀the฀bondholders฀received฀a฀66-year฀monopoly฀on฀the฀ railroad฀as฀well฀as฀monopolies฀on฀the฀sale฀of฀coca,฀matches,฀and฀playing฀cards฀ (Spalding฀1975).

178฀ •฀ Notes 7.฀ The฀Fenian฀Brotherhood฀was฀formed฀in฀1858฀by฀members฀of฀the฀Irish-American฀ petit฀bourgeoisie฀who฀desired฀political฀independence฀for฀Ireland฀and฀whose฀goal฀ was฀fueled฀by฀hatred฀of฀the฀English฀landlords฀which฀appealed฀to฀many฀of฀the฀ Irish฀immigrants.฀In฀the฀wake฀of฀the฀American฀Civil฀War,฀some฀of฀its฀leaders,฀ former฀officers฀in฀the฀Union฀army,฀organized฀raids฀into฀Canada฀in฀1866฀and฀1870.฀ Others฀sailed฀for฀Cork,฀Ireland฀in฀1867฀where฀they฀planned฀to฀organize฀and฀lead฀an฀ army฀that฀would฀overthrow฀the฀British.฀Many฀were฀quickly฀arrested,฀imprisoned,฀ and฀deprived฀of฀habeas฀corpus,฀much฀like฀the฀prisoners฀held฀unconstitutionally฀ by฀the฀government฀of฀the฀United฀States฀at฀Guantanamo฀today.฀Their฀supporters฀ attempted฀to฀blow฀up฀a฀prison฀in฀London฀but฀succeeded฀only฀in฀destroying฀nearby฀ houses.฀The฀British฀press฀used฀this฀to฀whip฀up฀anti-Irish฀sentiment.฀Some฀of฀the฀ prisoners฀were฀eventually฀executed;฀others฀served฀their฀sentences฀in฀Australia. 8.฀ Dick฀Pels฀(1998:฀18–73)฀has฀argued฀that฀the฀concepts฀of฀property฀and฀power฀are฀ enmeshed฀in฀disciplinary฀and฀intellectual฀politics.฀Today,฀it฀is฀commonplace฀to฀ treat฀property฀and฀power฀as฀distinct—the฀former฀concerned฀with฀socially฀acquired฀ things,฀their฀possession,฀use,฀and฀disposition,฀and฀the฀latter฀with฀command฀over฀ the฀actions฀and฀activities฀of฀persons.฀He฀also฀pointed฀out:฀(1)฀the฀bases฀for฀this฀ dichotomy฀were฀already฀present฀in฀the฀writings฀of฀seventeenth-century฀theorists;฀ (2)฀the฀boundary฀between฀the฀two฀concepts฀has฀often฀been฀blurred;฀(3)฀one฀concept฀ has฀frequently฀served฀as฀the฀limiting฀case฀of฀the฀other;฀and฀(4)฀the฀prominence฀of฀ one฀category฀relative฀to฀the฀other฀not฀only฀depends฀on฀national฀traditions฀(Scottish฀ and฀French฀vs.฀German฀and฀Italian)฀but฀also฀has฀shifted฀over฀time฀(power฀being฀ the฀more฀prominent฀of฀the฀two฀in฀late฀twentieth-century฀intellectual฀discourse). 9.฀ In฀The฀German฀Ideology,฀Marx฀and฀Engels฀(1845–6/1976:฀73,฀89)฀saw฀nationality฀ as฀an฀attribute฀of฀existing฀states฀rather฀than฀ethnic฀communities฀defined฀exclusively฀ in฀terms฀of฀language฀and฀culture฀or฀language฀and฀blood฀or฀as฀peoples฀aspiring฀to฀ self-determination.฀This฀form฀of฀nation฀or฀nationality฀had฀pejorative฀connotations฀ for฀them฀and฀was฀not฀a฀substitute฀for฀the฀formation฀of฀communities฀from฀the฀ bottom฀up฀that฀genuinely฀dealt฀with฀the฀needs฀of฀their฀members.฀In฀their฀later฀ writings,฀they฀sometimes฀also฀used฀the฀term฀“nation”฀to฀refer฀to฀peoples,฀like฀the฀ Irish฀or฀the฀Russians.฀As฀Erica฀Benner฀1995:฀45)฀put฀it: They฀saw฀pre-political฀forms฀of฀ethnicity,฀language฀community,฀and฀territorial฀ attachments฀as฀unthreatening฀to฀their฀revolutionary฀project฀so฀long฀as฀these฀were฀ not฀pressed฀into฀the฀service฀of฀aggrandizing฀authoritarian฀states.฀What฀worried฀them,฀ and฀what฀they฀wanted฀most฀urgently฀to฀discredit,฀were฀the฀“political฀claims”฀of฀such฀ states฀to฀represent฀what฀Hegel฀had฀called฀the฀“genuine฀nationality”฀or฀patriotism฀of฀ “the฀people.”

Notes฀ •฀ 179

6฀ Anthropology฀for฀the฀Twenty-First฀Century 1.฀ I฀use฀the฀term฀“intimate”฀as฀a฀synonym฀for฀“sharing”฀in฀order฀to฀indicate฀the฀ relationships฀among฀those฀with฀whom฀one฀shares฀with฀no฀particular฀expectation฀ of฀immediate฀or฀future฀return.฀In฀this฀sense,฀sharing฀is฀distinct฀from฀reciprocity,฀ where฀there฀is฀some฀expectation฀of฀return.฀John฀Price฀(1975:฀4)฀notes฀that฀sharing฀ is฀the฀glue฀that฀holds฀together฀the฀members฀of฀intimate฀societies฀are฀which฀are฀ typically฀“small฀in฀scale฀and฀personally฀in฀quality,฀such฀that฀the฀members฀have฀ extensive฀knowledge฀of฀each฀other,฀interpersonal฀sentiments฀have฀developed,฀and฀ changing฀the฀identity฀of฀the฀persons฀would฀change฀their฀relationships.฀There฀is฀ usually฀face-to-face฀interaction฀of฀the฀same฀people฀over฀an฀extended฀period฀of฀ time.฀In฀an฀intimate฀economy฀the฀particular฀patterns฀of฀personal฀interdependency฀ significantly฀influence฀the฀patterns฀of฀economic฀production฀and฀distribution.”฀ Anthropologists—Eleanor฀Leacock฀(1982)฀among฀several฀others—have฀pointed฀ out฀that฀the฀social฀units฀forged฀by฀sharing฀are฀often฀larger฀than฀households฀or฀ families,฀which฀of฀course฀are฀not฀necessarily฀the฀same฀thing.฀While฀sharing฀is฀ certainly฀not฀a฀predominant฀form฀of฀economic฀behavior฀in฀capitalist฀societies,฀the฀ sense฀of฀community฀embodied฀in฀the฀practice฀clearly฀exists;฀moreover,฀people฀ continually฀struggle฀to฀maintain฀and฀re-create฀it฀in฀these฀and฀other฀contexts฀(e.g.฀ Gailey฀1987). 2.฀ What฀distinguished฀one฀kind฀of฀pre-capitalist฀state฀from฀another,฀as฀Eric฀Wolf฀ (1999:฀5)฀noted,฀were฀kinds฀of฀relational฀structures฀that฀resulted฀from฀the฀capacities฀ to฀control฀that฀inhered฀in฀groups,฀how฀these฀were฀manifest฀in฀interactions฀with฀ others,฀the฀contexts฀in฀which฀they฀were฀activated฀and฀realized,฀and฀how฀the฀ relationships฀operated฀in฀and฀organized฀those฀settings.฀While 3.฀ August฀Nimtz฀(2000,฀2003)฀provides฀textured฀discussions฀of฀Marx’s฀views฀about฀ slavery,฀racism,฀and฀race฀in฀the฀North฀America฀from฀the฀early฀1850s฀onward฀as฀ well฀as฀his฀active฀participation฀in฀abolitionist฀and฀democratic฀political฀movements฀ in฀the฀United฀States. 4.฀ In฀1971,฀Noam฀Chomsky฀(1928–)฀and฀Michel฀Foucault฀(1926–84)฀engaged฀in฀a฀ debate฀with฀one฀another฀about฀human฀nature฀and฀with฀the฀proposals฀made฀by฀Marx฀ and฀Engels฀in฀The฀Communist฀Manifesto฀(Chomsky฀and฀Foucault฀1971/2006:฀ 37–66).

This page intentionally left blank

Bibliography Abélès,฀Marc฀(1976),฀Anthropologie฀et฀marxisme.฀Bruxelles:฀Editions฀Complexe. Ahmad,฀Aijaz฀(2001),฀“Introduction,”฀in฀Aijaz฀Ahmad฀(ed.),฀Karl฀Marx,฀Frederick฀ Engels:฀On฀the฀National฀and฀Colonial฀Questions:฀Selected฀Writings,฀New฀Delhi:฀ LeftWord฀Books,฀pp.฀1–20. Allen,฀ Garland฀ E.฀ (1978),฀ Life฀ Science฀ in฀ the฀ Twentieth฀ Century.฀ Cambridge:฀ Cambridge฀University฀Press. Allert,฀Beate฀(1991),฀“Review฀of฀Ernst฀Platners฀Anthropologie฀und฀Philosophie.฀ Der฀philosophische฀Arzt฀und฀seine฀Wirkung฀auf฀Karl฀Wezel฀und฀Jean฀Paul฀by฀ Alexander฀Košenina,”฀The฀German฀Quarterly฀64(2):฀260–1. Allison,฀Henry฀E.฀(2005),฀“Spinoza,฀Benedict฀de฀(1632–77),”฀in฀Edward฀Craig฀(ed.),฀ The฀Shorter฀Routledge฀Encyclopedia฀of฀Philosophy,฀Abingdon,฀UK:฀Routledge,฀ pp.฀985–1000. Althusser,฀ Louis฀ (1959/1982),฀ “Montesquieu:฀ Politics฀ and฀ History,”฀ in฀ Louis฀ Althusser,฀Montesquieu,฀Rousseau,฀Marx,฀London:฀Verso,฀pp.฀17–109. Althusser,฀Louis฀(1963/1970),฀“On฀the฀Materialist฀Dialectic฀on฀the฀Unevenness฀of฀ Origins,”฀in฀Louis฀Althusser,฀For฀Marx,฀New฀York:฀Vintage฀Books,฀pp.฀161–218. Amin,฀Samir฀(1973/1976),฀Unequal฀Development:฀An฀Essay฀on฀the฀Social฀Formations฀ of฀Peripheral฀Capitalism,฀New฀York:฀Monthly฀Review฀Press. Anderson,฀Kevin฀B.฀(2002),฀“Marx’s฀Late฀Writings฀on฀Non-Western฀and฀Precapitalist฀ Societies฀and฀Gender,”฀Rethinking฀Marxism฀14(4):฀84–96. Anderson,฀Perry฀(1974a),฀Lineages฀of฀the฀Absolutist฀State,฀London:฀New฀Left฀Books. Anderson,฀Perry฀(1974b),฀Passages฀from฀Antiquity฀to฀Feudalism,฀London:฀New฀Left฀ Books. Appel,฀Toby฀A.฀(2000),฀Shaping฀Biology:฀The฀National฀Science฀Foundation฀and฀ American฀Biological฀Research,฀1945–1975,฀Baltimore,฀MD:฀The฀Johns฀Hopkins฀ University฀Press. Archard,฀David฀(1987),฀“The฀Marxist฀Ethic฀of฀Self-Realization:฀Individuality฀and฀ Community,”฀in฀J.฀D.฀G.฀Evans฀(ed.),฀Moral฀Philosophy฀and฀Contemporary฀ Problems,฀Cambridge:฀Cambridge฀University฀Press,฀pp.฀19–34. Archibald,฀W.฀Peter฀(1989),฀Marx฀and฀the฀Missing฀Link:฀“Human฀Nature,”฀Atlantic฀ Highlands,฀NJ:฀Humanities฀Press. Aron,฀Raymond฀(1965/1998),฀“Montesquieu,”฀in฀Raymond฀Aron,฀Main฀Current฀ in฀Sociological฀Thought,฀vol.฀1,฀Montesquieu,฀Comte,฀Marx,฀deTocqueville,฀ Sociologists฀ and฀ the฀ Revolution฀ of฀ 1848,฀ New฀ Brunswick,฀ NJ:฀Transaction฀ Publishers,฀pp.฀13–72.

181

182฀ •฀ Bibliography Ashworth,฀John฀(1983),฀“Agrarians”฀and฀“Aristocrats”:฀Party฀Political฀Ideology฀in฀ the฀United฀States,฀1837–1846,฀Cambridge:฀Cambridge฀University฀Press. Avineri,฀Schlomo฀(1968),฀Karl฀Marx฀on฀Colonialism฀and฀Modernization,฀New฀York:฀ Doubleday฀and฀Company. Baer,฀Hans฀A.,฀Singer,฀Merrill,฀and฀Susser,฀Ida฀(1997),฀Medical฀Anthropology฀and฀ the฀World฀System:฀A฀Critical฀Perspective,฀Westport,฀CT:฀Bergin฀and฀Garvey.฀ Bailey,฀Anne฀M.฀and฀Llobera,฀Josep฀R.฀(eds)฀(1981),฀The฀Asiatic฀Mode฀of฀Production:฀ Science฀and฀Politics,฀London:฀Routledge฀and฀Kegan฀Paul. Balakrishnan,฀Gopal฀(ed.)฀(2003),฀Debating฀Empire,฀London:฀Verso. Balibar,฀Etienne฀(1988/1991),฀“Racism฀and฀Nationalism,”฀in฀Etienne฀Balibar฀and฀ Immanuel฀Wallerstein,฀Race,฀Nation,฀Class:฀Ambiguous฀Identities,฀London:฀ Verso,฀pp.฀37–67. Balibar,฀ Etienne฀ (1989/1994),฀ “Racism฀ as฀ Universalism,”฀ in฀ Etienne฀ Balibar,฀ Masses,฀Classes,฀Ideas:฀Studies฀on฀Politics฀and฀Philosophy฀before฀and฀after฀ Marx,฀London:฀Routledge,฀pp.฀191–204. Balter,฀Michael฀(2007),฀“Seeking฀Agriculture’s฀Ancient฀Roots,”฀Science฀316(5833):฀ 1830–5. Banaji,฀Jairus฀(2001),฀ Agrarian฀Change฀in฀Late฀Antiquity:฀Gold,฀Labour,฀and฀ Aristocratic฀Dominance,฀Oxford:฀Oxford฀University฀Press. Barnard,฀Alan฀and฀James฀Woodburn฀(1988),฀“Property,฀Power฀and฀Ideology฀in฀ Hunter-Gathering฀Societies:฀An฀Introduction,”฀in฀Tim฀Ingold,฀David฀Riches,฀ and฀James฀Woodburn฀(eds)฀Hunters฀and฀Gatherers,฀vol.฀2,฀Property,฀Power฀and฀ Ideology,฀Oxford:฀Berg฀Publishers,฀pp.฀4–31. Barnard,฀ Frederick฀ M.฀ (1965),฀ Herder’s฀ Social฀ and฀ Political฀ Thought:฀ From฀ Enlightenment฀to฀Nationalism,฀Oxford:฀Clarendon฀Press. Barnard,฀ Frederick฀ M.฀ (1969),฀ “Culture฀ and฀ Political฀ Development:฀ Herder’s฀ Suggestive฀Insights,”฀The฀American฀Political฀Science฀Review฀63(2):฀379–97. Barnard,฀Frederick฀M.฀(2003),฀Herder฀on฀Nationality,฀Humanity,฀and฀History,฀ Montreal:฀McGill-Queen’s฀University฀Press. Baum,฀John฀A.฀(1979),฀Montesquieu฀and฀Social฀Theory,฀Oxford:฀Pergamon฀Press. Beiser,฀Frederick฀C.฀(1992a),฀“Kant’s฀Intellectual฀Development:฀1746–1781,”฀in฀ Paul฀Guyer฀(ed.),฀The฀Cambridge฀Companion฀to฀Kant,฀Cambridge:฀Cambridge฀ University฀Press,฀pp.฀26–61. Beiser,฀Frederick฀C.฀(1992b),฀Enlightenment,฀Revolution,฀and฀Romanticism:฀The฀ Genesis฀of฀German฀Political฀Thought,฀1790–1800,฀Cambridge,฀MA:฀Harvard฀ University฀Press. Benner,฀Erica฀(1995),฀Really฀Existing฀Nationalisms:฀A฀Post-Communist฀View฀of฀ Marx฀and฀Engels,฀Oxford:฀Clarendon฀Press. Berlin,฀Isaiah฀(1955/2001),฀“Montesquieu,”฀in฀Isaiah฀Berlin,฀Against฀the฀Current:฀ Essays฀in฀the฀History฀of฀Ideas,฀Princeton,฀NJ:฀Princeton฀University฀Press,฀pp.฀ 130–61.

Bibliography฀ •฀ 183 Bernasconi,฀Robert฀(2001),฀“Who฀Invented฀the฀Concept฀of฀Race?฀Kant’s฀Role฀in฀the฀ Enlightenment฀Construction฀of฀Race,”฀in฀Robert฀Bernasconi฀(ed.),฀Race,฀Oxford:฀ Blackwell฀Publishers,฀pp.฀11–36. Bernstein,฀Richard฀J.฀(1971),฀Praxis฀and฀Action,฀Philadelphia,฀PA:฀University฀of฀ Pennsylvania฀Press. Berry,฀Christopher฀J.฀(1982),฀Hume,฀Hegel฀and฀Human฀Nature,฀International฀Archives฀ of฀the฀History฀of฀Ideas฀103,฀The฀Hague:฀Martinus฀Nijhoff฀Publishers. Bhaskar,฀Roy฀(1991a),฀“Contradiction,”฀in฀Tom฀Bottomore฀(ed.),฀A฀Dictionary฀of฀ Marxist฀Thought,฀2nd฀edition,฀Oxford:฀Blackwell฀Publishers,฀pp.฀109–10. Bhaskar,฀Roy฀(1991b),฀“Truth,”฀in฀Tom฀Bottomore฀(ed.),฀A฀Dictionary฀of฀Marxist฀ Thought,฀2nd฀edition,฀Oxford:฀Blackwell฀Publishers,฀pp.฀500–1. Binford,฀Lewis฀R.฀(1985),฀“Human฀Ancestors:฀Changing฀Views฀of฀Their฀Behavior,”฀ Journal฀of฀Anthropological฀Archaeology฀4(4):฀292–327.฀Orlando. Binsbergen,฀Wim฀van฀and฀Geschiere,฀Peter฀(1985),฀“Emerging฀Insights฀and฀Issues฀ in฀French฀Marxist฀Anthropology,”฀in฀Wim฀van฀Binsbergen฀and฀Peter฀Geschiere฀ (eds),฀Old฀Modes฀of฀Production฀and฀Capitalist฀Encroachment:฀Anthropological฀ Explorations฀in฀Africa,฀London:฀Routledge฀and฀Kegan฀Paul,฀pp.฀1–38. Blake,฀Michael฀and฀Clark,฀John฀(1999),฀“The฀Emergence฀of฀Hereditary฀Inequality:฀ The฀Case฀of฀Pacific฀Coastal฀Chiapas,฀Mexico,”฀in฀Michael฀Blake฀(ed.),฀Pacific฀ Latin฀America฀in฀Prehistory:฀The฀Evolution฀of฀Archaic฀and฀Formative฀Cultures,฀ Pullman,฀WA:฀Washington฀State฀University฀Press,฀pp.฀55–74. Blanckaert,฀Claude฀(1993),฀“Buffon฀and฀the฀Natural฀History฀of฀Man:฀Writing฀History฀ and฀the฀‘Foundational฀Myth’฀of฀Anthropology,”฀History฀of฀the฀Human฀Sciences฀ 6(1):฀13–50. Bodley,฀John฀H.฀(1982),฀Victims฀of฀Progress,฀Mountain฀View,฀CA:฀Mayfield฀Publishing฀Company. Bohannon,฀Paul฀(1957),฀Justice฀and฀Judgement฀among฀the฀Tiv,฀London:฀Oxford฀ University฀Press. Bois,฀Guy฀(1976/1984),฀The฀Crisis฀of฀Feudalism:฀Economy฀and฀Society฀in฀Eastern฀ Normandy฀c.฀1300–1550,฀Cambridge:฀Cambridge฀University฀Press. Bois,฀Guy฀(1989/1992),฀The฀Transformation฀of฀the฀Year฀One฀Thousand:฀The฀Village฀ of฀Lournand฀from฀Antiquity฀to฀Feudalism,฀Manchester:฀Manchester฀University฀ Press. Bonte,฀Pierre฀(1977),฀“Non-Stratified฀Social฀Formations฀among฀Pastoral฀Nomads,”฀ in฀Jonathan฀Friedman฀and฀Michael฀Rowlands฀(eds),฀The฀Evolution฀of฀Social฀ Systems,฀London:฀Gerald฀Duckworth,฀pp.฀172–200. Bonte,฀Pierre฀(1981),฀“Kinship฀and฀Politics.฀The฀Formation฀of฀the฀State฀among฀ the฀Pastoralists฀of฀the฀Sahara฀and฀the฀Sahel,”฀in฀Henri฀J.฀M.฀Claessen฀and฀Peter฀ Skalník฀(eds),฀The฀Study฀of฀the฀State,฀The฀Hague:฀Mouton฀Publishers,฀pp.฀35–58. Bourdieu,฀Pierre฀(1964/1979),฀The฀Inheritors:฀French฀Students฀and฀Their฀Relation฀ to฀Culture,฀Chicago:฀The฀University฀of฀Chicago฀Press.

184฀ •฀ Bibliography Bourdieu,฀ Pierre฀ (1972/1977),฀ Outline฀ of฀ a฀ Theory฀ of฀ Practice,฀ Cambridge:฀ Cambridge฀University฀Press. Bourdieu,฀Pierre฀(1979/1984),฀Distinction:฀A฀Social฀Critique฀of฀the฀Judgement฀of฀ Taste,฀Cambridge,฀MA:฀Harvard฀University฀Press. Bourdieu,฀ Pierre฀ (1980/1990),฀The฀ Logic฀ of฀ Practice,฀ Stanford,฀ CA:฀ Stanford฀ University฀Press. Bourdieu,฀Pierre฀(1984/1988),฀Homo฀Academicus,฀Stanford,฀CA:฀Stanford฀University฀ Press. Bourdieu,฀Pierre฀(1989/1996),฀The฀State฀Nobility:฀Elite฀Schools฀in฀the฀Field฀of฀ Power,฀Stanford,฀CA:฀Stanford฀University฀Press. Bourdieu,฀Pierre฀(1991),฀Language฀and฀Symbolic฀Power,฀Cambridge,฀MA:฀Harvard฀ University฀Press. Bourdieu,฀Pierre฀(1993),฀The฀Field฀of฀Cultural฀Production,฀New฀York:฀Columbia฀ University฀Press. Bourdieu,฀Pierre฀and฀Jean-Claude฀Passeron฀(1977/1990),฀Reproduction฀in฀Education,฀ Society,฀and฀Culture,฀2nd฀edition,฀London:฀Sage฀Publications. Bowler,฀Peter฀J.฀(1974),฀“Evolutionism฀in฀the฀Enlightenment,”฀History฀of฀Science฀ 12:฀159–83. Bowler,฀Peter฀J.฀(1976),฀“Malthus,฀Darwin,฀and฀the฀Concept฀of฀Struggle,”฀Journal฀of฀ the฀History฀of฀Ideas฀37(4):฀631–50. Brenkert,฀George฀G.฀(1983),฀Marx’s฀Ethics฀of฀Freedom,฀London:฀Routledge฀and฀ Kegan฀Paul. Brenner,฀Robert฀(1977),฀“The฀Origins฀of฀Capitalism:฀A฀Critique฀of฀Neo-Smithian฀ Marxism,”฀New฀Left฀Review,฀no.฀104:฀25–92. Brenner,฀Robert฀(1989),฀“Bourgeois฀Revolution฀and฀Transition฀to฀Capitalism,”฀in฀฀ A.฀L.฀Beier,฀David฀Cannadine,฀and฀James฀M.฀Rosenheim฀(eds),฀The฀First฀Modern฀ Society:฀Essays฀in฀English฀History฀in฀Honour฀of฀Lawrence฀Stone,฀Cambridge:฀ Cambridge฀University฀Press,฀pp.฀271–304. Brenner,฀Robert฀(1997),฀“Property฀Relations฀and฀the฀Growth฀of฀Agricultural฀Productivity฀in฀Late฀Medieval฀and฀Early฀Modern฀Europe,”฀in฀Amit฀Bhaduri฀and฀ Run฀Skarstein฀(eds),฀Economic฀Development฀and฀Agricultural฀Productivity,฀ Cheltenham,฀UK:฀Edward฀Elgar,฀pp.฀9–44. Brewer,฀Anthony฀(1990),฀Marxist฀Theories฀of฀Imperialism:฀A฀Critical฀Survey,฀2nd฀ edition,฀London:฀Routledge. Brian,฀Kevin฀M.฀(2006),฀Marx,฀Reason,฀and฀the฀Art฀of฀Freedom,฀2nd฀edition,฀ Amherst,฀NY:฀Humanity฀Books. Broackes,฀Justin฀(1995),฀“Hume,฀David,”฀in฀Ted฀Honderich฀(ed.),฀The฀Oxford฀ Companion฀to฀Philosophy,฀Oxford:฀Oxford฀University฀Press,฀pp.฀377–81. Brodkin,฀Karen฀(2000),฀“Global฀Capitalism:฀What’s฀Race฀Got฀To฀Do฀With฀It?”฀ American฀Ethnologist฀27(2):฀237–56. Brumfiel,฀Elizabeth฀M.฀(1991),฀“Weaving฀and฀Cooking:฀Women’s฀Production฀in฀ Aztec฀Mexico,”฀in฀Joan฀M.฀Gero฀and฀Margaret฀W.฀Conkey฀(eds),฀Engendering฀ Archaeology:฀Women฀and฀Prehistory,฀Oxford:฀Basil฀Blackwell,฀pp.฀224–51.

Bibliography฀ •฀ 185 Brumfiel,฀Elizabeth฀M.฀and฀Earle,฀Timothy฀K.฀(1987),฀“Specialization,฀Exchange,฀ and฀Complex฀Societies:฀An฀Introduction,”฀in฀Elizabeth฀M.฀Brumfiel฀and฀Timothy฀ K.฀Earle฀(eds),฀Specialization,฀Exchange,฀and฀Complex฀Societies,฀Cambridge:฀ Cambridge฀University฀Press,฀pp.฀1–9. Buikstra,฀Jane฀E.฀and฀Lane฀A.฀Beck฀(eds)฀(2006),฀Bioarchaeology:฀The฀Contextual฀ Analysis฀of฀Human฀Remains,฀Burlington,฀MA:฀Academic฀Press. Bunzl,฀Matti฀(1996),฀“Franz฀Boas฀and฀Humboldtian฀Tradition:฀From฀ Volkgeist฀ and฀Nationalcharakter฀to฀an฀Anthropological฀Concept฀of฀Culture,”฀in฀George฀ W.฀Stocking,฀Jr.฀(ed.),฀History฀of฀Anthropology,฀vol.฀8,฀Volkgeist฀as฀Method฀ and฀Ethic:฀Essays฀on฀Boasian฀Anthropology฀and฀the฀German฀Anthropological฀ Tradition,฀Madison,฀WI:฀The฀University฀of฀Wisconsin฀Press,฀pp.฀79–154. Burger,฀Richard฀L.฀(1992),฀Chavin฀and฀the฀Origins฀of฀Andean฀Civilizations,฀London:฀ Thames฀and฀Hudson. Burkett,฀Paul฀(1999),฀Marx฀and฀Nature:฀A฀Red฀and฀Green฀Perspective,฀New฀York:฀ St.฀Martin’s฀Press. Byres,฀Terence฀J.฀(2006),฀“Differentiation฀of฀the฀Peasantry฀under฀Feudalism฀and฀the฀ Transition฀to฀Capitalism:฀In฀Defence฀of฀Rodney฀Hilton,”฀Journal฀of฀Agrarian฀ Change฀6(1):฀17–68. Cabral,฀Amilcar฀(1963),฀Revolution฀in฀Guinea:฀Selected฀Texts,฀New฀York:฀Monthly฀ Review฀Press. Callinicos,฀Alex฀(1995),฀Theories฀and฀Narratives:฀Reflections฀on฀the฀Philosophy฀of฀ History,฀Durham,฀NC:฀Duke฀University฀Press. Caspari,฀Rachel฀and฀Sang-Hee฀Lee฀(2004),฀“Older฀Age฀Becomes฀Common฀Late฀ in฀Human฀Evolution,”฀Proceedings฀of฀the฀National฀Academy฀of฀Sciences฀of฀the฀ United฀States฀of฀America฀101(30):฀10,895–90. Chakrabarti,฀Anjan฀and฀Stephen฀Cullenberg฀(2003),฀Transition฀and฀Development฀in฀ India,฀London:฀Routledge. Chatterjee,฀Partha฀(1986),฀Nationalist฀Thought฀and฀the฀Colonial฀World:฀A฀Derivative฀ Discourse,฀London:฀Zed฀Press. Childe,฀V.฀Gordon฀(1936/1983),฀Man฀Makes฀Himself,฀New฀York:฀The฀New฀American฀ Library. Childe,฀V.฀Gordon฀(1950/2004),฀“The฀Urban฀Revolution,”฀in฀Thomas฀C.฀Patterson฀ and฀Charles฀E.฀Orser,฀Jr.฀(eds),฀Foundations฀of฀Social฀Archaeology:฀Selected฀ Writings฀of฀V.฀Gordon฀Childe,฀Walnut฀Creek,฀CA:฀AltaMira฀Press,฀pp.฀107–16. Childe,฀V.฀ Gordon฀ (1954),฀ “Early฀ Forms฀ of฀ Society,”฀ in฀ Charles฀ Singer,฀ E.฀ J.฀ Holmyard,฀and฀A.฀R.฀Hall฀(eds),฀A฀History฀of฀Technology,฀vol.฀I,฀From฀Earliest฀ Times฀to฀the฀Fall฀of฀Ancient฀Empires,฀New฀York:฀Oxford฀University฀Press,฀pp.฀ 38–57. Chomsky,฀ Noam฀ and฀ Michel฀ Foucault฀ (1971/2006),฀ “Human฀ Nature:฀ Justice฀ vs.฀Power:฀A฀Debate฀Between฀Noam฀Chomsky฀and฀Michel฀Foucault,”฀in฀The฀ Chomsky-Foucault฀Debate฀on฀Human฀Nature,฀with฀a฀foreword฀by฀John฀Rajchman,฀ New฀York:฀The฀New฀Press,฀pp.฀1–67.

186฀ •฀ Bibliography Clark,฀ John฀ E.฀ (1995),฀ “Craft฀ Specialization฀ as฀ an฀Archaeological฀ Category,”฀ Research฀in฀Economic฀Anthropology฀16:฀267–94. Cohen,฀Gerald฀A.฀(1978),฀Karl฀Marx’s฀Theory฀of฀History:฀A฀Defence,฀Princeton,฀NJ:฀ Princeton฀University฀Press. Cohen,฀Gerald฀A.฀(1988),฀History,฀Labour,฀and฀Freedom:฀Themes฀from฀Marx,฀ Oxford:฀Clarendon฀Press. Cohen,฀Gerald฀A.฀(1995),฀Self-Ownership,฀Freedom,฀and฀Equality,฀Cambridge:฀ Cambridge฀University฀Press. Cohen,฀Gerald฀A.฀(2000),฀If฀You’re฀an฀Egalitarian,฀How฀Come฀You’re฀So฀Rich?฀ Cambridge,฀MA:฀Harvard฀University฀Press. Colletti,฀Lucio฀(1975),฀“Introduction,”฀in฀Karl฀Marx฀Early฀Writings,฀Harmondsworth,฀ UK:฀Penguin฀Books,฀pp.฀7–56. Collier,฀George฀A.฀(1994),฀Basta!:฀Land฀and฀the฀Zapatista฀Rebellion฀in฀Chiapas,฀ Oakland,฀CA:฀Food฀First฀Book,฀The฀Institute฀for฀Food฀and฀Development฀Policy. Corbey,฀Raymond฀(2005),฀The฀Metaphysics฀of฀Apes:฀Negotiating฀the฀Animal-Human฀ Boundary,฀Cambridge:฀Cambridge฀University฀Press. Costin,฀Cathy฀L.฀(1991),฀“Craft฀Specialization:฀Issues฀in฀Defining,฀Documenting,฀ and฀Explaining฀the฀Organization฀of฀Production,”฀in฀Michael฀B.฀Schiffer฀(ed.),฀ Archaeological฀Method฀and฀Theory,฀vol.฀3,฀Tucson,฀AZ:฀The฀University฀of฀ Arizona฀Press,฀pp.฀1–56. Costin,฀Cathy฀L.฀(2001),฀Craft฀Production฀Systems,”฀in฀Gary฀M.฀Feinman฀and฀฀ T.฀Douglas฀Price฀(eds),฀Archaeology฀at฀the฀Millennium:฀A฀Sourcebook,฀New฀ York:฀Kluwer฀Academic/Plenum฀Publishers,฀pp.฀273–327. Crehan,฀Kate฀(2002),฀Gramsci,฀Culture฀and฀Anthropology,฀Berkeley,฀CA:฀University฀ of฀California฀Press. Crocker,฀Lester฀G.฀(1959),฀“Diderot฀and฀Eighteenth฀Century฀French฀Transformism,”฀in฀Bentley฀Glass,฀Owsei฀Temkin,฀and฀William฀L.฀Strauss,฀Jr.฀(eds),฀The฀ Forerunners฀of฀Darwin:฀1745–1859,฀Baltimore,฀MD:฀The฀Johns฀Hopkins฀Press,฀ pp.฀144–72. Crumley,฀Carole฀(1987),฀“A฀Dialectical฀Critique฀of฀Hierarchy,”฀in฀Thomas฀C.฀ Patterson฀and฀Christine฀W.฀Gailey฀(eds),฀Power฀Relations฀and฀State฀Formation,฀ Washington,฀DC:฀Archeology฀Division,฀American฀Anthropological฀Association,฀ pp.฀155–69. Cullenberg,฀Stephen฀(1996),฀“Althusser฀and฀the฀Decentering฀of฀the฀Marxist฀Totality,”฀ in฀Antonio฀Callari฀and฀David฀F.฀Ruccio฀(eds),฀Postmodern฀Materialism฀and฀the฀ Future฀of฀Marxist฀Theory,฀Hanover,฀NH:฀Wesleyan฀University฀Press,฀pp.฀120–47. Curtis,฀L.฀Perry,฀Jr.฀(1997),฀Apes฀and฀Angels:฀The฀Irishman฀in฀Victorian฀Caricature,฀ revised฀edition,฀Washington,฀DC:฀Smithsonian฀Institution฀Press. D’Amico,฀Robert฀(1981),฀Marx฀and฀the฀Philosophy฀of฀Culture,฀University฀of฀Florida฀ Humanities฀Monograph฀No.฀50.฀Gainesville. Darwin,฀Charles฀R.฀(1859/1964),฀On฀the฀Origin฀of฀Species฀by฀Means฀of฀Natural฀ Selection,฀or฀the฀Preservation฀of฀Favoured฀Races฀in฀the฀Struggle฀for฀Life,฀1st฀

Bibliography฀ •฀ 187 edition,฀with฀an฀introduction฀by฀Ernst฀Mayr,฀Cambridge,฀MA:฀Harvard฀University฀ Press. Darwin,฀Charles฀R.฀(1874/1998),฀The฀Descent฀of฀Man,฀Amherst,฀NY:฀Prometheus฀ Books. Davidson,฀Nigel฀(2005),฀“How฀Revolutionary฀Were฀the฀Bourgeois฀Revolutions?฀ (contd.),”฀Historical฀Materialism฀13(4):฀3–54. Davis,฀Mike฀(1999),฀Ecology฀of฀Fear:฀Los฀Angeles฀and฀the฀Imagination฀of฀Disaster,฀ New฀York:฀Metropolitan฀Books. Davis,฀Mike฀(2001),฀Late฀Victorian฀Holocausts:฀El฀Niño฀Famines฀and฀the฀Making฀of฀ the฀Third฀World,฀London:฀Verso. Deacon,฀Terrence฀W.฀(1992a),฀“Biological฀Aspects฀of฀Language,”฀in฀Stephen฀Jones,฀ Robert฀Martin,฀and฀David฀Pilbeam฀(eds),฀The฀Cambridge฀Encyclopedia฀of฀Human฀ Evolution,฀Cambridge:฀Cambridge฀University฀Press,฀pp.฀128–34. Deacon,฀Terrence฀W.฀(1992b),฀“The฀Human฀Brain,”฀in฀Stephen฀Jones,฀Robert฀Martin,฀ and฀David฀Pilbeam฀(eds),฀The฀Cambridge฀Encyclopedia฀of฀Human฀Evolution,฀ Cambridge:฀Cambridge฀University฀Press,฀pp.฀115–23. DeGolyer,฀Michael฀(1992),฀“The฀Greek฀Accent฀of฀the฀Marxian฀Matrix,”฀in฀George฀ E.฀McCarthy฀(ed.),฀Marx฀and฀Aristotle:฀Nineteenth-Century฀German฀Social฀ Theory฀and฀Classical฀Antiquity,฀Savage,฀MD:฀Rowman฀and฀Littlefield฀Publishers,฀฀ pp.฀107–54. Denby,฀David฀(2005),฀“Herder:฀Cultural฀Anthropology฀and฀the฀Enlightenment,”฀ History฀of฀the฀Human฀Sciences฀18(1):฀55–76. Delisle,฀Richard฀G.฀(2007),฀Debating฀Humankind’s฀Place฀in฀Nature,฀1860–2000:฀The฀ Nature฀of฀Paleoanthropology,฀Upper฀Saddle฀River,฀NJ:฀Pearson฀Prentice฀Hall. Desmond,฀Adrian฀(1989),฀The฀Politics฀of฀Evolution:฀Morphology,฀Medicine,฀and฀ Reform฀in฀Radical฀London,฀Chicago:฀The฀University฀of฀Chicago฀Press. De฀Vries,฀Jan฀(1976),฀The฀Economy฀in฀Europe฀in฀an฀Age฀of฀Crisis,฀1600–1750,฀ Cambridge:฀Cambridge฀University฀Press. Diakonoff,฀Igor฀(1972),฀“Socio-Economic฀Classes฀in฀Babylonia฀and฀the฀Babylonian฀ Conception฀of฀Social฀Stratification,”฀in฀D.฀O.฀Edzard฀(ed.),฀Gesellschaftsklassen฀ im฀Alten฀Zweistromland฀und฀in฀den฀angrenzenden฀Gebieten—XVIII,฀Recontre฀ Assyriologique฀ Internationale,฀ Bayerische฀Akademie฀ der฀ Wissenschaften,฀ Philosophisch-Historische฀Klass,฀Abhandlungen,฀Heft฀75,฀Munich,฀pp.฀41–9. Diamond,฀Stanley฀(1951/1996),฀“Dahomey:฀The฀Development฀of฀a฀Proto-State,”฀ Dialectical฀Anthropology฀21(2):฀121–216. Diamond,฀Stanley฀(1969/1999),฀“Anthropology฀in฀Question,”฀in฀Dell฀Hymes฀(ed.),฀ Reinventing฀Anthropology,฀Ann฀Arbor,฀MI:฀University฀of฀Michigan฀Press,฀pp.฀ 401–29. Diamond,฀Stanley฀(1970),฀“Un฀ethnocide,”฀Les฀Temps฀Modernes,฀no.฀238:฀1194– 206. Diamond,฀Stanley฀(1974),฀In฀Search฀of฀the฀Primitive:฀A฀Critique฀of฀Civilization,฀New฀ Brunswick฀NJ:฀Transaction฀Books.

188฀ •฀ Bibliography Diamond,฀Stanley฀(1980),฀“Anthropological฀Traditions:฀The฀Participants฀Observed,”฀ in฀Stanley฀Diamond฀(ed.),฀Anthropology:฀Heirs฀and฀Ancestors,฀The฀Hague:฀ Mouton฀Publishers,฀pp.฀1–16. Dickey,฀Laurence฀and฀Nisbet,฀Hugh฀B.฀(eds)฀(1999),฀Hegel:฀Political฀Writings,฀ Cambridge:฀Cambridge฀University฀Press. Dobb,฀Maurice฀(1947),฀Studies฀in฀the฀Development฀of฀Capitalism,฀New฀York:฀ International฀Publishers. Dower,฀John฀W.฀(1986),฀War฀without฀Mercy:฀Race฀and฀Power฀in฀the฀Pacific฀War,฀ New฀York:฀Pantheon฀Books. Draper,฀Hal฀(1977),฀Karl฀Marx’s฀Theory฀of฀Revolution,฀vol.฀I,฀State฀and฀Bureaucracy,฀ New฀York:฀Monthly฀Review฀Press. Draper,฀Hal฀(1978),฀Karl฀Marx’s฀Theory฀of฀Revolution,฀vol.฀II,฀The฀Politics฀of฀Social฀ Classes,฀New฀York:฀Monthly฀Review฀Press. Dupré,฀Georges฀and฀Rey,฀Pierre฀Philippe฀(1968/1980),฀“Reflections฀on฀the฀Relevance฀ of฀a฀Theory฀of฀the฀History฀of฀Exchange,”฀in฀David฀Seddon฀(ed.),฀Relations฀of฀ Production:฀Marxist฀Approaches฀to฀Economic฀Anthropology,฀London:฀Frank฀ Cass฀and฀Company,฀pp.฀171–208. Easton,฀Loyd฀D.฀and฀Guddat,฀Kurt฀H.฀(eds)฀(1967),฀Writings฀of฀the฀Young฀Marx฀ on฀Philosophy฀and฀Society,฀Garden฀City,฀NY:฀Anchor฀Books,฀Doubleday฀and฀ Company. Engels,฀Frederick฀(1845/1975),฀“The฀Condition฀of฀the฀Working-Class฀in฀England.฀ From฀Personal฀Observation฀and฀Authentic฀Sources,”฀in฀Karl฀Marx,฀Frederick฀ Engels:฀Collected฀Works,฀vol.฀4,฀New฀York:฀International฀Publishers,฀pp.฀295– 586. Engels,฀ Frederick฀ (1849/1977a),฀ “Democratic฀ Pan-Slavism,”฀ in฀ Karl฀ Marx,฀ Frederick฀Engels:฀Collected฀Works,฀vol.฀8,฀New฀York:฀International฀Publishers,฀ pp.฀362–78. Engels,฀Frederick฀(1849/1977b),฀“The฀Magyar฀Struggle,”฀in฀Karl฀Marx,฀Frederick฀ Engels:฀Collected฀Works,฀vol.฀8,฀New฀York:฀International฀Publishers,฀pp.฀227–38. Engels,฀Frederick฀(1850/1978),฀“The฀Peasant฀War฀in฀Germany,”฀in฀Karl฀Marx,฀ Frederick฀Engels:฀Collected฀Works,฀vol.฀10,฀New฀York:฀International฀Publishers,฀ pp.฀397–482. Engels,฀Frederick฀(1851–3/1979),฀“Revolution฀and฀Counter-Revolution฀in฀Germany,”฀ in฀Karl฀Marx,฀Frederick฀Engels:฀Collected฀Works,฀vol.฀11,฀New฀York:฀International฀Publishers,฀pp.฀8–102. Engels,฀Frederick฀(1853/1983),฀“Letter฀from฀Engels฀to฀Karl฀Marx,฀6฀June฀1853,”฀in฀ Karl฀Marx,฀Frederick฀Engels:฀Collected฀Works,฀vol.฀39,฀New฀York:฀International฀ Publishers,฀pp.฀235–42. Engels,฀Frederick฀(1857/1986),฀“The฀Capture฀of฀Delhi,”฀in฀Karl฀Marx,฀Frederick฀ Engels:฀Collected฀Works,฀vol.฀15,฀New฀York:฀International฀Publishers,฀pp.฀392–9. Engels,฀Frederick฀(1869/1988),฀“Letter฀from฀Engels฀to฀Karl฀Marx,฀9฀December฀ 1869,”฀in฀Karl฀Marx,฀Frederick฀Engels:฀Collected฀Works,฀vol.฀43,฀New฀York:฀ International฀Publishers,฀pp.฀394–6.

Bibliography฀ •฀ 189 Engels,฀Frederick฀(1873–82/1987),฀“Dialectics฀of฀Nature,”฀in฀Karl฀Marx,฀Frederick฀ Engels:฀Collected฀Works,฀vol.฀25,฀New฀York:฀International฀Publishers,฀pp.฀313– 590. Engels,฀Frederick฀(1875/1991),฀“Letter฀from฀Engels฀to฀Pyotr฀Labvrov,฀12[–17]฀ November฀1875,”฀in฀Karl฀Marx,฀Frederick฀Engels:฀Collected฀Works,฀vol.฀45,฀ New฀York:฀International฀Publishers,฀pp.฀106–9. Engels,฀Frederick฀(1876/1972),฀“The฀Part฀Played฀by฀Labor฀in฀the฀Transition฀from฀ Ape฀to฀Man,”฀in฀Frederick฀Engels,฀The฀Origin฀of฀the฀Family,฀Private฀Property฀ and฀the฀State:฀In฀Light฀of฀the฀Investigations฀of฀Lewis฀H.฀Morgan,฀New฀York:฀ International฀Publishers,฀pp.฀249–64฀[=฀Karl฀Marx,฀Frederick฀Engels:฀Collected฀ Works,฀vol.฀25,฀New฀York:฀International฀Publishers,฀1987,฀pp.฀452–64]. Engels,฀Frederick฀(1876–8/1987),฀“Anti-Dühring:฀Herr฀Eugen฀Dühring’s฀Revolution฀ in฀Science,”฀in฀Karl฀Marx,฀Frederick฀Engels:฀Collected฀Works,฀vol.฀25,฀New฀ York:฀International฀Publishers,฀pp.฀5–309. Engels,฀Frederick฀(1878/1987),฀Anti-Dühring,฀in฀Karl฀Marx,฀Frederick฀Engels:฀ Collected฀Works,฀vol.฀25,฀New฀York:฀International฀Publishers,฀pp.฀5–309. Engels,฀Frederick฀(1882/1989),฀“The฀Mark,”฀in฀Karl฀Marx,฀Frederick฀Engels:฀ Collected฀Works,฀vol.฀24,฀New฀York:฀International฀Publishers,฀pp.฀439–56. Engels,฀Frederick฀(1882/1990),฀“Manuscripts฀on฀Early฀German฀History,”฀in฀Karl฀ Marx,฀Frederick฀Engels:฀Collected฀Works,฀vol.฀26,฀New฀York:฀International฀ Publishers,฀pp.฀6–107. Engels,฀Frederick฀(1884/1972),฀The฀Origin฀of฀the฀Family,฀Private฀Property฀and฀the฀ State:฀In฀Light฀of฀the฀Investigations฀of฀Lewis฀H.฀Morgan,฀with฀an฀introduction฀by฀ Eleanor฀B.฀Leacock,฀New฀York:฀International฀Publishers. Engels,฀Frederick฀(1884/1990),฀“On฀the฀Decline฀of฀Feudalism฀and฀the฀Rise฀of฀ National฀States,”฀in฀Karl฀Marx,฀Frederick฀Engels:฀Collected฀Works,฀vol.฀26,฀New฀ York:฀International฀Publishers,฀pp.฀556–65. Engels,฀Frederick฀and฀Karl฀Marx฀(1844–5/1975),฀“The฀Holy฀Family,฀Or฀Critique฀of฀ Critical฀Criticism.฀Against฀Bruno฀Bauer฀and฀Company,”฀in฀Karl฀Marx,฀Frederick฀ Engels:฀Collected฀Works,฀vol.฀4,฀New฀York:฀International฀Publishers,฀pp.฀5–211. Fagan,฀Brian฀M.฀(1990),฀The฀Journey฀from฀Eden:฀The฀Peopling฀of฀Our฀World,฀ London:฀Thames฀and฀Hudson. Falk,฀Dean฀(2004),฀Braindance:฀New฀Discoveries฀about฀Human฀Origins฀and฀Brain฀ Evolution,฀Gainesville,฀FL:฀University฀Press฀of฀Florida. Fellows,฀Otis฀(1960),฀“Buffon฀and฀Rousseau:฀Aspects฀of฀a฀Relationship,”฀Publications฀ of฀the฀Modern฀Language฀Association฀75(1):฀184–96. Fellows,฀Otis฀(1963a),฀“Buffon’s฀Place฀in฀the฀Enlightenment,”฀Studies฀on฀Voltaire฀ and฀the฀Eighteenth฀Century฀25:฀603–29. Fellows,฀Otis฀(1963b),฀“Diderot฀et฀Buffon฀en฀1749,”฀Diderot฀Studies฀4:฀221–36. Fetscher,฀Iring฀(1991),฀“Hegel฀and฀Marx,”฀in฀Tom฀Bottomore฀(ed.),฀A฀Dictionary฀of฀ Marxist฀Thought,฀2nd฀edition,฀Oxford:฀Blackwell฀Publishers,฀pp.฀228–9. Fink,฀Karl฀J.฀(1993),฀“Storm฀and฀Stress฀Anthropology,”฀History฀of฀the฀Human฀ Sciences฀6(1):฀51–71.

190฀ •฀ Bibliography Finkelstein,฀Gabriel฀(2001),฀“Romanticism,฀Race,฀and฀Recapitulation,”฀ Science฀ 294(5549):฀2101–2. Finley,฀Moses฀I.฀(1973),฀The฀Ancient฀Economy,฀Sather฀Lectures฀in฀Classics,฀vol.฀43,฀ Berkeley,฀CA:฀University฀of฀California฀Press. Finley,฀Moses฀I.฀(1991),฀“Ancient฀Society,”฀in฀Tom฀Bottomore,฀A฀Dictionary฀of฀ Marxist฀Thought,฀2nd฀edition,฀Oxford:฀Basil฀Blackwell฀Publishers,฀pp.฀23–6. Flannery,฀Kent฀V.฀(1968),฀“Archeological฀Systems฀Theory฀and฀Early฀Mesoamerica,”฀ in฀Betty฀J.฀Meggers฀(ed.),฀Archeology฀in฀the฀Americas,฀Washington,฀DC:฀The฀ Anthropological฀Society฀of฀Washington,฀pp.฀67–87. Flannery,฀Kent฀V.฀(2002),฀“The฀Origins฀of฀the฀Village฀Revisited:฀From฀Nuclear฀to฀ Extended฀Households,”฀American฀Antiquity฀67(3):฀417–34. Flavell,฀M.฀Kay฀(1979),฀“Winckelmann฀and฀the฀German฀Enlightenment:฀On฀the฀ Recovery฀and฀Uses฀of฀the฀Past,”฀The฀Modern฀Language฀Review฀74(1):฀79–96. Foner,฀Eric฀(1980),฀Politics฀and฀Ideology฀in฀the฀Age฀of฀the฀Civil฀War,฀Oxford:฀Oxford฀ University฀Press. Forbes,฀Duncan฀(1982),฀“Natural฀Law฀and฀the฀Scottish฀Enlightenment,”฀in฀Roy฀H.฀ Campbell฀and฀Andrew฀S.฀Skinner฀(eds),฀The฀Origins฀and฀Nature฀of฀the฀Scottish฀ Enlightenment,฀Edinburgh:฀John฀Donald฀Publishers,฀pp.฀186–203. Forbes,฀Robert฀J.฀(1968),฀The฀Conquest฀of฀Nature,฀New฀York:฀The฀New฀American฀ Library. Foster,฀ John฀ B.฀ (2000),฀ Marx’s฀ Ecology:฀ Materialism฀ and฀ Nature,฀ New฀York:฀ Monthly฀Review฀Press. Fowler,฀Bridget฀(1997),฀Pierre฀Bourdieu฀and฀Cultural฀Theory:฀Critical฀Investigations,฀London:฀Sage฀Publications. Fracchia,฀Joseph฀(1991),฀“Marx’s฀Aufhebung฀of฀Philosophy฀and฀the฀Foundations฀of฀a฀ Materialist฀Science฀of฀History,”฀History฀and฀Theory฀30(2):฀153–79. Fracchia,฀ Joseph฀ (1995),฀ “Review:฀ Time,฀ Labor฀ and฀ Social฀ Domination:฀A฀ Reinterpretation฀of฀Marx’s฀Critical฀Theory.฀By฀Moishe฀Postone,”฀History฀and฀ Theory฀34(4):฀355–71. Fracchia,฀Joseph฀(2005),฀“Beyond฀the฀Human-Nature฀Debate:฀Human฀Corporeal฀ Organisation฀as฀the฀‘First฀Fact’฀of฀Historical฀Materialism,”฀Historical฀Materialism฀ 13(1):฀33–62. Frangipane,฀Marcella฀(2007),฀“Different฀Types฀of฀Egalitarian฀Societies฀and฀the฀ Development฀of฀Inequality฀in฀Early฀Mesopotamia,”฀World฀Archaeology฀39(2):฀ 151–76. Franke,฀Richard฀W.฀and฀Chasin,฀Barbara฀(1980),฀Seeds฀of฀Famine:฀Ecological฀ Destruction฀and฀the฀Development฀Dilemma฀in฀the฀West฀African฀Sahel,฀Montclair,฀ NJ:฀Allanheld,฀Osmun. Frayling,฀Christopher฀and฀Wokler,฀Robert฀(1982),฀“From฀the฀Orang-utan฀to฀the฀ Vampire:฀Towards฀an฀Anthropology฀of฀Rousseau,”฀in฀R.฀A.฀Leigh฀(ed.),฀Rousseau฀ after฀ 200฀ Years:฀ Proceedings฀ of฀ the฀ Cambridge฀ Bicentennial฀ Colloquium,฀ Cambridge:฀Cambridge฀University฀Press,฀pp.฀109–29.

Bibliography฀ •฀ 191 Fromm,฀Erich฀(1961/2004),฀“Marx’s฀Concept฀of฀Man,”฀in฀Erich฀Fromm,฀Marx’s฀ Concept฀of฀Man,฀London:฀Continuum,฀pp.฀1–70. Gailey,฀Christine฀W.฀(1987),฀Kinship฀to฀Kingship:฀Gender฀Hierarchy฀and฀State฀ Formation฀in฀the฀Tongan฀Islands,฀Austin,฀TX:฀University฀of฀Texas฀Press. Gailey,฀Christine฀W.฀(2003),฀“Community,฀State฀and฀Questions฀of฀Social฀Evolution฀ in฀Marx’s฀Ethnological฀Notebooks,”฀Anthropologica฀45(1):฀43–55. Gailey,฀Christine฀W.฀(2006),฀“Community,฀State,฀and฀Questions฀of฀Social฀Evolution฀ in฀Karl฀Marx’s฀Ethnological฀Notebooks,”฀in฀Jaqueline฀Solway฀(ed.),฀The฀Politics฀ of฀Egalitarianism:฀Theory฀and฀Practice,฀Methodology฀and฀History฀in฀Anthropology,฀vol.฀12,฀New฀York:฀Berghahn฀Books,฀pp.฀31–52. Galston,฀William฀A.฀ (1975),฀ Kant฀ and฀ the฀ Problem฀ of฀ History,฀ Chicago:฀The฀ University฀of฀Chicago฀Press. Garber,฀Daniel฀(2005),฀“Leibniz,฀Gottfried฀Wilhelm฀(1646–1716),”฀in฀Edward฀ Craig฀(ed.),฀The฀Shorter฀Routledge฀Encyclopedia฀of฀Philosophy,฀Abingdon,฀UK:฀ Routledge,฀pp.฀552–69. Garrett,฀Don฀(1995),฀“Spinoza,฀Baruch,”฀in฀Robert฀Audi฀(ed.),฀The฀Cambridge฀ Dictionary฀of฀Philosophy,฀2nd฀edition,฀Cambridge:฀Cambridge฀University฀Press,฀ pp.฀870–4. Gearing,฀Fred฀(1961),฀“The฀Rise฀of฀the฀Cherokee฀State฀as฀an฀Instance฀in฀a฀Class:฀ The฀‘Mesopotamian’฀Career฀to฀Statehood,”฀in฀William฀N.฀Fenton฀and฀John฀L.฀ Gulick฀(eds),฀Symposium฀on฀Cherokee฀and฀Iroquois฀Culture,฀Bureau฀of฀American฀ Ethnology฀Bulletin฀180,฀Washington,฀pp.฀125–34. Geras,฀Norman฀(1983),฀Marx฀and฀Human฀Nature:฀Refutation฀of฀a฀Legend,฀London:฀ Verso. Gero,฀Joan฀M.฀and฀Scattolin,฀M.฀Cristina฀(2002),฀“Beyond฀Complementarity฀and฀ Hierarchy:฀New฀Definitions฀for฀Archaeological฀Gender฀Relations,”฀in฀Sarah฀ M.฀Nelson฀and฀Myriam฀Rosen-Ayalon฀(eds),฀In฀Pursuit฀of฀Gender:฀Worldwide฀ Archaeological฀Approaches,฀Walnut฀Creek,฀CA:฀Altamira฀Press,฀pp.฀155–72. Gerratana,฀Valentino฀(1973),฀“Marx฀and฀Darwin,”฀New฀Left฀Review,฀no.฀82:฀60–82. Gibbons,฀Ann฀(2006),฀The฀First฀Human:฀The฀Race฀to฀Discover฀our฀Earliest฀Ancestor,฀ New฀York:฀Doubleday. Gibson,฀James฀J.฀(1966/1983),฀The฀Senses฀Considered฀as฀Perceptual฀Systems,฀ Westport,฀CT:฀Greenwood฀Press. Gibson,฀ Kathleen฀ R.฀ and฀ Jessee,฀ Stephen฀ (1999),฀ “Language฀ Evolution฀ and฀ Expansions฀of฀Multiple฀Neurological฀Processing฀Areas,”฀in฀Barbara฀J.฀King฀(ed.),฀ The฀Origins฀of฀Language:฀What฀Nonhuman฀Primates฀Can฀Tell฀Us,฀Santa฀Fe,฀NM:฀ School฀of฀American฀Research฀Press,฀pp.฀189–228. Giddens,฀Anthony฀(1981),฀A฀Contemporary฀Critique฀of฀Historical฀Materialism,฀vol.฀ 1,฀Power,฀Property,฀and฀the฀State,฀Berkeley,฀CA:฀University฀of฀California฀Press. Gilman,฀Antonio฀(1996),฀“Prehistoric฀European฀Chiefdoms:฀Rethinking฀‘Germanic’฀ Societies,”฀in฀T.฀Douglas฀Price฀and฀Gary฀M.฀Feinman฀(eds),฀Foundations฀of฀ Social฀Inequality,฀New฀York:฀Plenum฀Press,฀pp.฀235–51.

192฀ •฀ Bibliography Glass,฀Bentley฀(1959),฀“The฀Germination฀of฀the฀Idea฀of฀Biological฀Species,”฀in฀ Bentley฀Glass,฀Owsei฀Temkin,฀and฀William฀L.฀Strauss,฀Jr.฀(eds),฀The฀Forerunners฀ of฀Darwin:฀1745–1859,฀Baltimore,฀MD:฀The฀Johns฀Hopkins฀Press,฀pp.฀30–48. Gledhill,฀John฀(1978),฀“Formative฀Development฀in฀the฀North฀American฀Southwest,”฀in฀ David฀Green,฀Colin฀Haselgrove,฀and฀Matthew฀Spriggs฀(eds),฀Social฀Organization฀ and฀Settlement,฀B.A.R.฀International฀Series฀(Supplementary)฀47,฀pt.฀ii,฀Oxford,฀ pp.฀241–90. Gledhill,฀John฀(1991),฀Casi฀Nada:฀A฀Study฀of฀Agrarian฀Reform฀in฀the฀Homeland฀ of฀Cárdenismo,฀Albany,฀NY:฀Institute฀of฀Mesoamerican฀Studies,฀University฀at฀ Albany,฀State฀University฀of฀New฀York. Gledhill,฀John฀(1995),฀Neoliberalism,฀Transnationalization฀and฀Rural฀Poverty:฀A฀ Case฀Study฀of฀Michoacán,฀Mexico,฀Boulder,฀CO:฀Westview฀Press. Glick,฀Thomas฀E.฀(ed.)฀(1988),฀The฀Comparative฀Reception฀of฀Darwin,฀Chicago:฀ The฀University฀of฀Chicago฀Press. Glick฀ Schiller,฀ Nina,฀ Basch,฀ Linda฀ and฀ Blanc-Szanton,฀ Cristina฀ (eds)฀ (1992),฀ Toward฀a฀Transnational฀Perspective฀on฀Migration:฀Race,฀Class,฀Ethnicity,฀and฀ Nationalism฀Reconsidered,฀Annals฀of฀the฀New฀York฀Academy฀of฀Sciences,฀vol.฀ 645,฀New฀York. Godelier,฀Maurice฀(1966/1972),฀“Structure฀and฀Contradiction฀in฀Capital,”฀in฀Robin฀ Blackburn฀(ed.),฀Ideology฀in฀Social฀Science:฀Readings฀in฀Critical฀Social฀Theory,฀ Glasgow:฀Fontana/Collins,฀pp.฀334–68. Godelier,฀Maurice฀(1973/1977),฀Perspectives฀in฀Marxist฀Anthropology,฀Cambridge฀ Studies฀in฀Social฀Anthropology฀18,฀Cambridge:฀Cambridge฀University฀Press. González,฀Roberto฀J.฀(2007),฀“Phoenix฀Reborn?฀The฀Rise฀of฀the฀‘Human฀Terrain฀ System’,”฀Anthropology฀Today฀23(6):฀21–2. Gould,฀Carol฀C.฀(1978),฀Marx’s฀Social฀Ontology:฀Individuality฀and฀Community฀in฀ Marx’s฀Theory฀of฀Social฀Reality,฀Cambridge,฀MA:฀The฀MIT฀Press. Gould,฀Stephen฀J.฀(2002),฀The฀Structure฀of฀Evolutionary฀Theory,฀Cambridge,฀MA:฀ Harvard฀University฀Press. Gramsci,฀Antonio฀(1926/1967),฀“The฀Southern฀Question,”฀in฀Antonio฀Gramsci,฀ The฀Modern฀Prince฀and฀Other฀Writings,฀New฀York:฀International฀Publishers,฀฀ pp.฀24–65. Gramsci,฀Antonio฀(1933/1971),฀“Notes฀on฀Italian฀History,”฀in฀Quintin฀Hoare฀and฀ Geoffrey฀N.฀Smith฀(eds),฀Selections฀from฀the฀Prison฀Notebooks,฀New฀York:฀ International฀Publishers,฀pp.฀44–120. Gran,฀Peter฀(1979),฀Islamic฀Roots฀of฀Capitalism:฀Egypt,฀1760–1840,฀Austin,฀TX:฀ University฀of฀Texas฀Press. Gregory,฀Frederick฀(1977a),฀Scientific฀Materialism฀in฀Nineteenth฀Century฀Germany,฀ Dordrecht:฀D.฀Reidel฀Publishing฀Company. Gregory,฀Frederick฀(1977b),฀“Scientific฀versus฀Dialectical฀Materialism:฀A฀Clash฀of฀ Ideologies฀in฀Nineteenth-Century฀German฀Radicalism,”฀Isis฀68(242):฀206–23.

Bibliography฀ •฀ 193 Green,฀Paul฀(2002),฀“‘The฀Passage฀from฀Imperialism฀to฀Empire’:฀A฀Commentary฀ on฀Empire฀by฀Michael฀Hardt฀and฀Antonio฀Negri,”฀Historical฀Materialism฀10(1):฀ 29–78. Greene,฀Mott฀T.฀(1982),฀Geology฀in฀the฀Nineteenth฀Century:฀Changing฀Views฀of฀a฀ Changing฀World,฀Ithaca,฀NY:฀Cornell฀University฀Press. Grundmann,฀Reiner฀(1991),฀Marxism฀and฀Ecology,฀Oxford:฀Oxford฀University฀ Press. Haber,฀Francis฀(1959),฀The฀Age฀of฀the฀World:฀Moses฀to฀Darwin,฀Baltimore,฀MD:฀The฀ Johns฀Hopkins฀Press. Habib,฀ Irfan฀ (1968/1995),฀ “Potentialities฀ of฀ Capitalistic฀ Development฀ in฀ the฀ Economy฀of฀Mughal฀India,”฀in฀Irfan฀Habib,฀Essays฀in฀Indian฀History:฀Towards฀a฀ Marxist฀Perception,฀New฀Delhi:฀Tulika฀Books,฀pp.฀180–222. Habib,฀Irfan฀(1990),฀“Merchant฀Communities฀in฀Precolonial฀India,”฀in฀James฀D.฀ Tracy฀(ed.),฀The฀Rise฀of฀Merchant฀Empires:฀Long-Distance฀Trade฀in฀the฀Early฀ Modern฀World,฀1350–1750,฀Cambridge:฀Cambridge฀University฀Press,฀pp.฀371– 99. Habib,฀Irfan฀(2006),฀“Introduction:฀Marx’s฀Perception฀of฀India,”฀in฀Iqbal฀Husain฀ (ed.),฀Karl฀Marx฀on฀India:฀From฀the฀New฀York฀Daily฀Tribune฀(Including฀Articles฀ by฀Frederick฀Engels)฀and฀Extracts฀from฀Marx-Engels฀Correspondence฀1853– 1862,฀New฀Delhi:฀Tulika฀Books,฀pp.฀xix–liv. Haldon,฀John฀(1993),฀The฀State฀and฀the฀Tributary฀Mode฀of฀Production,฀London:฀ Verso. Haldon,฀John฀(2006),฀“On฀Igor฀Diakonoff’s฀ The฀Paths฀of฀History,”฀Historical฀ Materialism฀14(2):฀169–201. Hamerow,฀Theodore฀S.฀(1969),฀The฀Social฀Foundations฀of฀German฀Unification,฀ 1858–1871:฀Ideas฀and฀Institutions,฀Princeton,฀NJ:฀Princeton฀University฀Press. Hammond,฀Michael฀(1980),฀“Anthropology฀as฀a฀Weapon฀in฀Social฀Combat฀in฀LateNineteenth-Century฀France,”฀Journal฀of฀the฀History฀of฀the฀Behavioral฀Sciences฀ 16(2):฀118–32. Hanks,฀William฀F.฀(2005),฀“Pierre฀Bourdieu฀and฀the฀Practices฀of฀Language,”฀Annual฀ Review฀of฀Anthropology฀34:฀67–83. Hann,฀Chris฀M.฀(ed.)฀(1998),฀Property฀Relations:฀Renewing฀the฀Anthropological฀ Tradition,฀Cambridge:฀Cambridge฀University฀Press. Hardimon,฀ Michael฀ O.฀ (1994),฀ Hegel’s฀ Social฀ Philosophy:฀ The฀ Project฀ of฀ Reconciliation,฀Cambridge:฀Cambridge฀University฀Press. Hardt,฀Michael฀and฀Negri,฀Antonio฀(2000),฀Empire,฀Cambridge,฀MA:฀Harvard฀ University฀Press. Harris,฀Edward฀M.฀(2002),฀“Workshop,฀Marketplace,฀and฀Household:฀The฀Nature฀of฀ Technical฀Specialization฀in฀Classical฀Athens฀and฀its฀Influence฀on฀Economy฀and฀ Society,”฀in฀Paul฀Cartledge,฀Edward฀E.฀Cohen,฀and฀Lin฀Foxhall฀(eds),฀Money,฀ Labour,฀and฀Land:฀Approaches฀to฀the฀Economies฀of฀Ancient฀Greece,฀London:฀ Routledge,฀pp.฀67–99.

194฀ •฀ Bibliography Hartnack,฀Justus฀(1992),฀“Categories฀and฀Things-in-Themselves,”฀in฀Stephen฀Priest฀ (ed.),฀Hegel’s฀Critique฀of฀Kant,฀Oxford:฀Oxford฀University฀Press,฀pp.฀77–86. Harvey,฀David฀(2006),฀Spaces฀of฀Global฀Capitalism:฀Towards฀a฀Theory฀of฀Uneven฀ Geographical฀Development,฀London:฀Verso. Harvey,฀Joy฀(1983),฀“Evolutionism฀Transformed:฀Positivists฀and฀Materialists฀in฀ the฀Société฀d’Anthropologie฀de฀Paris฀from฀Second฀Empire฀to฀Third฀Republic,”฀ in฀David฀Oldroyd฀and฀Ian฀Langham฀(eds),฀The฀Wider฀Domain฀of฀Evolutionary฀ Thought,฀Dordrecht:฀Kluwer,฀pp.฀289–310. Hegel,฀Georg฀W.฀F.฀(1807/1977),฀Hegel’s฀Phenomenology฀of฀Spirit,฀with฀analysis฀ and฀foreword฀by฀John฀N.฀Findley,฀Oxford:฀Oxford฀University฀Press. Hegel,฀Georg฀W.฀F.฀(1817–30/1978)฀Hegel’s฀Philosophy฀of฀Subjective฀Spirit,฀vol.฀ 2,฀Anthropology,฀edited฀by฀Michael฀J.฀Petry,฀Dordrecht:฀D.฀Reidel฀Publishing฀ Company. Hegel,฀Georg฀W.฀F.฀(1821/1967),฀Hegel’s฀Philosophy฀of฀Right,฀translated฀by฀Thomas฀ M.฀Knox,฀Oxford:฀Oxford฀University฀Press. Hegel,฀Georg฀W.฀F.฀(1822–30/1975),฀Lectures฀on฀the฀Philosophy฀of฀World฀History,฀ translated฀by฀Hugh฀B.฀Nisbet,฀Cambridge:฀Cambridge฀University฀Press฀[=฀Introduction.฀The฀Philosophy฀of฀History,฀New฀York:฀Dover฀Publications,฀1956]. Hegel,฀Georg฀W.฀F.฀(1837/1956),฀The฀Philosophy฀of฀History,฀edited฀by฀Eduard฀Gans,฀ New฀York:฀Dover฀Publications. Heller,฀Agnes฀(1979),฀A฀Theory฀of฀Feeling,฀Assen:฀Van฀Gorcum. Henry,฀Michel฀(1976/1983),฀Marx:฀A฀Philosophy฀of฀Human฀Reality,฀Bloomington,฀ IN:฀Indiana฀University฀Press. Herder,฀Johann฀Gottlieb฀von฀(1765/2002),฀“How฀Philosophy฀Can฀Become฀More฀ Universal฀and฀Useful฀for฀the฀Benefit฀of฀People,”฀in฀Michael฀N.฀Forster฀(ed.),฀ Herder:฀Philosophical฀Writings,฀Cambridge:฀Cambridge฀University฀Press,฀pp.฀ 3–29. Herder,฀Johann฀Gottlieb฀von฀(1766/2002),฀“On฀the฀Change฀of฀Taste,”฀in฀Michael฀N.฀ Forster฀(ed.),฀Herder:฀Philosophical฀Writings,฀Cambridge:฀Cambridge฀University฀ Press,฀pp.฀247–56. Herder,฀Johann฀Gottlieb฀von฀(1772/2002),฀“Treatise฀on฀the฀Origin฀of฀Language,”฀in฀ Michael฀N.฀Forster฀(ed.),฀Herder:฀Philosophical฀Writings,฀Cambridge:฀Cambridge฀ University฀Press,฀pp.฀65–164. Herder,฀Johann฀Gottlieb฀von฀(1774/2002),฀“This฀Too฀a฀Philosophy฀of฀History฀for฀the฀ Formation฀of฀Humanity฀[=Auch฀eine฀Philosophie฀zur฀Geschichte฀der฀Menscheit],”฀ in฀ Michael฀ N.฀ Forster฀ (ed.),฀ Herder:฀ Philosophical฀ Writings,฀ Cambridge:฀ Cambridge฀University฀Press,฀pp.฀272–358. Herder,฀Johann฀Gottlieb฀von฀(1784/1968),฀Reflections฀on฀the฀Philosophy฀of฀the฀ History฀of฀Mankind฀[=Ideen฀zur฀Philosophie฀des฀Geschichte฀der฀Menscheit],฀ edited฀by฀Frank฀E.฀Manuel,฀Chicago:฀The฀University฀of฀Chicago฀Press Herder,฀Johann฀Gottlieb฀von฀(1784–91/1969),฀“Ideas฀for฀a฀Philosophy฀of฀the฀History฀ of฀Mankind฀[=Ideen฀zur฀Philosophie฀des฀Geschichte฀der฀Menscheit],”฀in฀Frederick฀

Bibliography฀ •฀ 195 M.฀Barnard฀(ed.),฀J.฀G.฀Herder฀on฀Social฀and฀Political฀Culture,฀Cambridge:฀At฀ the฀University฀Press,฀pp.฀253–326. Heyer,฀Paul฀(1982),฀Nature,฀Human฀Nature,฀and฀Society:฀Marx,฀Darwin,฀Biology,฀ and฀the฀Human฀Sciences,฀Contributions฀to฀Philosophy,฀no.฀21,฀Westport,฀CT:฀ Greenwood฀Press. Hicks,฀Frederic฀(1987),฀“First฀Steps฀toward฀a฀Market-Integrated฀Economy฀in฀Aztec฀ Mexico,”฀in฀Henri฀J.฀M.฀CLaessen฀and฀Pieter฀van฀de฀Velde฀(eds),฀Early฀State฀ Dynamics,฀Studies฀in฀Human฀Society,฀vol.฀2,฀Leiden:฀E.฀J.฀Brill,฀pp.฀91–107. Hicks,฀Frederic฀(1999),฀“The฀Middle฀Class฀in฀Ancient฀Central฀Mexico,”฀Journal฀of฀ Anthropological฀Research฀55(3):฀409–28. Hilferding,฀Rudolf฀(1910/1981),฀Finance฀Capital:฀A฀Study฀of฀the฀Latest฀Phase฀of฀ Capitalist฀Development,฀London:฀Routledge฀and฀Kegan฀Paul. Hillmann,฀Günther฀(1966),฀Marx฀und฀Hegel:฀Von฀der฀Spekulation฀zur฀Dialektik:฀ Interpretation฀der฀ersten฀Schriften฀von฀Karl฀Marx฀im฀Hinblick฀auf฀sein฀Verhältnis฀ zu฀Hegel,฀1835–1841,฀Frankfurt-am-Main:฀Europäische฀Verlagsanstalt. Hilton,฀Rodney฀(1953/1976),฀“The฀Transition฀from฀Feudalism฀to฀Capitalism:฀A฀ Comment,”฀in฀Rodney฀Hilton฀(ed.),฀The฀Transition฀from฀Feudalism฀to฀Capitalism,฀ London:฀New฀Left฀Books,฀pp.฀109–17. Hilton,฀Rodney฀(1978/1990),฀“Reasons฀for฀Inequality฀among฀Medieval฀Peasants,”฀in฀ Rodney฀Hilton,฀Class฀Conflict฀and฀the฀Crisis฀of฀Feudalism:฀Essays฀in฀Medieval฀ Social฀History,฀London:฀The฀Hambledon฀Press,฀pp.฀139–51. Hilton,฀Rodney฀(1985),฀“Introduction,”฀in฀T.฀H.฀Aston฀and฀C.฀H.฀E.฀Philpin฀(eds),฀ The฀Brenner฀Debate:฀Agrarian฀Class฀Structure฀and฀Economic฀Development฀in฀ Pre-Industrial฀Europe,฀Cambridge:฀Cambridge฀University฀Press,฀pp.฀1–9. Hilton,฀Rodney฀(1991),฀“Serfdom,”฀in฀Tom฀Bottomore฀(ed.),฀A฀Dictionary฀of฀Marxist฀ Thought,฀2nd฀edition,฀Oxford:฀Basil฀Blackwell฀Publishers,฀pp.฀494–6. Hindess,฀Barry฀and฀Hirst,฀Paul฀Q.฀(1975),฀Pre-Capitalist฀Modes฀of฀Production,฀ London:฀Routledge฀and฀Kegan-Paul. Hinton,฀Alexander฀L.฀(ed.)฀(2002a),฀Annihilating฀Difference:฀The฀Anthropology฀of฀ Genocide,฀Berkeley,฀CA:฀University฀of฀California฀Press. Hinton,฀Alexander฀L.฀(ed.)฀(2002b),฀Genocide:฀An฀Anthropological฀Reader,฀Oxford:฀ Blackwell฀Publishers. Hobsbawm,฀Eric฀J.฀(1959),฀Primitive฀Rebels:฀Studies฀in฀Archaic฀Forms฀of฀Social฀ Movement฀ in฀ the฀ 19th฀ and฀ 20th฀ Centuries,฀ New฀York:฀ W.฀ W.฀ Norton฀ and฀ Company. Hobsbawm,฀Eric฀J.฀(1962),฀The฀Age฀of฀Revolution฀1789–1848,฀New฀York:฀The฀World฀ Publishing฀Company. Hobsbawm,฀Eric฀J.฀(1964),฀“Introduction,”฀in฀Karl฀Marx:฀Pre-Capitalist฀Economic฀ Formations,฀with฀an฀introduction฀by฀Eric฀Hobsbawm,฀London:฀Lawrence฀and฀ Wishart,฀pp.฀9–65. Hobsbawm,฀Eric฀J.฀(1968),฀Industry฀and฀Empire,฀Harmondsworth,฀UK:฀Penguin฀ Books.

196฀ •฀ Bibliography Hobsbawm,฀Eric฀J.฀(1984),฀“Marx฀and฀History,”฀New฀Left฀Review,฀no.฀143:฀39–50. Holborow,฀Marnie฀(2006),฀“Putting฀the฀Social฀Back฀into฀Language:฀Marx,฀Vološinov,฀ and฀Vygotsky฀Reexamined,”฀Studies฀in฀Language฀and฀Capitalism,฀issue฀1:฀1–28.฀ Electronic฀online฀journal. Horowitz,฀Asher฀(1987),฀Rousseau,฀Nature฀and฀History,฀Toronto,฀ON:฀University฀of฀ Toronto฀Press. Hughes,฀ Jonathan฀ (2000),฀ Ecology฀ and฀ Historical฀ Materialism,฀ Cambridge:฀ Cambridge฀University฀Press. Husain,฀Iqbal฀(2006),฀“Prefatory฀Note,”฀in฀Iqbal฀Husain฀(ed.),฀Karl฀Marx฀on฀India:฀ From฀the฀New฀York฀Daily฀Tribune฀(Including฀Articles฀by฀Frederick฀Engels)฀and฀ Extracts฀from฀Marx-Engels฀Correspondence฀1853–1862,฀New฀Delhi:฀Tulika฀ Books,฀pp.฀xiii–xviii. Husami,฀Ziyad฀I.฀(1978/1980),฀“Marx฀on฀Distributive฀Justice,”฀in฀Marshall฀Cohen,฀ Thomas฀ Nagel,฀ and฀Thomas฀ Scanlon฀ (eds),฀ Marx,฀ Justice,฀ and฀ History:฀A฀ Philosophy฀and฀Public฀Affairs฀Reader,฀Princeton,฀NJ:฀Princeton฀University฀Press,฀ pp.฀42–79. Hymes,฀Dell฀(1967/1986),฀“Models฀of฀the฀Interaction฀of฀Language฀and฀Social฀Life,”฀ in฀John฀J.฀Gumperz฀and฀Dell฀Hymes฀(eds),฀Directions฀in฀Sociolinguistics:฀The฀ Ethnography฀of฀Communication,฀Oxford:฀Basil฀Blackwell,฀pp.฀35–71. Ichikawa,฀Mitsuo฀(2005),฀“Food฀Sharing฀and฀Ownership฀among฀Central฀African฀ Hunter-Gatherers:฀An฀Evolutionary฀Perspective,”฀in฀Thomas฀Widlok฀and฀Wolde฀ Gossa฀Tadesse฀(eds),฀Property฀and฀Equality,฀edited฀by฀vol.฀1,฀Ritualisation,฀ Sharing,฀Egalitarianism,฀New฀York:฀Berghahn฀Books,฀pp.฀151–64. Isaac,฀Glynn฀(1979),฀“The฀Food-Sharing฀Behavior฀of฀Protohuman฀Hominids,”฀ Scientific฀American฀238(4):฀90–108. Isaac,฀Jeffrey฀(1987),฀Power฀and฀Marxist฀Theory:฀A฀Realist฀View,฀Ithaca,฀NY:฀Cornell฀ University฀Press. Israel,฀Jonathan฀I.฀(2001),฀Radical฀Enlightenment:฀Philosophy฀and฀the฀Making฀of฀ Modernity,฀1650–1750,฀Oxford:฀Oxford฀University฀Press. Jacob,฀Margaret฀C.฀(1988),฀The฀Cultural฀Meaning฀of฀the฀Scientific฀Revolution,฀ Philadelphia,฀PA:฀Temple฀University฀Press. Jacobson,฀Thorkild฀ (1943),฀ “Primitive฀ Democracy฀ in฀Ancient฀ Mesopotamia,”฀ Journal฀of฀Near฀Eastern฀Studies฀2(3):฀159–72. Jacobson,฀ Thorkild฀ (1957),฀ “Early฀ Political฀ Development฀ in฀ Mesopotamia,”฀ Zeitschrift฀für฀Assyriologie฀und฀voderasiatische฀Archaologie฀52:฀92–140. Jones,฀Greta฀(1980),฀ Social฀Darwinism฀and฀English฀Thought:฀The฀Interaction฀ between฀Biological฀and฀Social฀Theory,฀Brighton,฀UK:฀The฀Harvester฀Press. Jones,฀Paul฀(2002),฀“Williams฀and฀Markus฀on฀Production,”฀in฀John฀Grumley,฀Paul฀ Crittenden,฀and฀Pauline฀Johnson฀(eds),฀Culture฀and฀Enlightenment:฀Essays฀for฀ György฀Markus,฀Aldershot,฀UK:฀Ashgate฀Publishing,฀pp.฀111–30. Jordanova,฀Ludmilla฀(1986),฀“Introduction,”฀in฀Ludmilla฀Jordanova฀(ed.),฀Languages฀ of฀Nature:฀Critical฀Essays฀on฀Science฀and฀Literature,฀New฀Brunswick,฀NJ:฀ Rutgers฀University฀Press,฀pp.฀10–47.

Bibliography฀ •฀ 197 Joyce,฀Rosemary฀(2005),฀“Archaeology฀of฀the฀Body,”฀Annual฀Review฀of฀Anthropology฀34:฀139–58. Kahn,฀Joel฀S.฀(1980),฀Minangkabau฀Social฀Formations:฀Indonesian฀Peasants฀and฀ the฀World-Economy,฀Cambridge:฀Cambridge฀University฀Press. Kahn,฀ Joel฀ S.฀ (1993),฀ Constituting฀ the฀ Minangkabau:฀ Peasants,฀ Culture,฀ and฀ Modernity฀in฀Colonial฀Indonesia,฀Oxford:฀Berg฀Publishers Kahn,฀Joel฀S.฀and฀Josep฀R.฀Llobera฀(eds)฀(1981),฀The฀Anthropology฀of฀Pre-Capitalist฀ Societies,฀London:฀The฀Macmillan฀Press. Kaiser,฀Bruno฀(1967),฀Ex฀Libris฀Karl฀Marx฀und฀Friedrich฀Engels:฀Schicksal฀und฀ Verzeichnis฀einer฀Bibliothek,฀Berlin:฀Dietz฀Verlag. Kant,฀Immanuel฀(1765/1992),฀“Immanuel฀Kant’s฀Announcement฀of฀the฀Programme฀ of฀his฀Lectures฀for฀the฀Winter฀Semester,฀1765–1766,”฀in฀David฀Walford฀(ed.)฀ in฀collaboration฀with฀Ralf฀Meerbote,฀Immanuel฀Kant:฀Theoretical฀Philosophy,฀ 1755–1770,฀Cambridge:฀Cambridge฀University฀Press,฀pp.฀287–300. Kant,฀Immanuel฀(1775/2000),฀“On฀the฀Different฀Races฀of฀Human฀Beings,”฀in฀Robert฀ Bernasconi฀and฀Tommy฀L.฀Lott฀(eds),฀The฀Idea฀of฀Race,฀Indianapolis,฀IN:฀Hackett฀ Publishing฀Company,฀pp.฀8–22. Kant,฀Immanuel฀(1784/1991),฀“Idea฀for฀a฀Universal฀History฀with฀a฀Cosmopolitan฀ Purpose,”฀in฀Hans฀S.฀Reiss฀(ed.),฀Kant:฀Political฀Writings,฀2nd฀edition,฀Cambridge:฀ Cambridge฀University฀Press,฀pp.฀41–53. Kant,฀Immanuel฀(1785/1991),฀“Review฀of฀Herder’s฀Ideas฀on฀the฀Philosophy฀of฀ History฀of฀Mankind,”฀in฀Hans฀S.฀Reiss฀(ed.),฀Kant:฀Political฀Writings,฀2nd฀edition,฀ Cambridge:฀Cambridge฀University฀Press,฀pp.฀201–20. Kant,฀Immanuel฀(1786/1991),฀“Conjectures฀on฀the฀Beginning฀of฀Human฀History,”฀in฀ Hans฀S.฀Reiss฀(ed.),฀Kant:฀Political฀Writings,฀2nd฀edition,฀Cambridge:฀Cambridge฀ University฀Press,฀pp.฀221–34. Kant,฀Immanuel฀(1788/2001),฀“On฀the฀Use฀of฀Teleological฀Principles฀in฀Philosophy,”฀ in฀Robert฀Bernasconi฀(ed.),฀Race,฀Oxford:฀Blackwell฀Publishers,฀pp.฀37–56. Kant,฀ Immanuel฀ (1798/1978),฀ Anthropology฀ from฀ a฀ Pragmatic฀ Point฀ of฀ View,฀ Carbondale,฀IL:฀Southern฀Illinois฀University฀Press. Kapferer,฀Bruce฀(1988),฀Legends฀of฀People,฀Myths฀of฀State:฀Violence,฀Intolerance,฀ and฀Political฀Culture฀in฀Sri฀Lanka฀and฀Australia,฀Washington,฀DC:฀Smithsonian฀ Institution฀Press. Kapferer,฀Bruce฀(ed.)฀(2004),฀State,฀Sovereignty,฀War:฀Civil฀Violence฀in฀Emerging฀ Global฀Realities,฀New฀York:฀Berghahn฀Books. Kapferer,฀Bruce฀(ed.)฀(2005),฀Oligarchs฀and฀Oligopolies:฀New฀Formations฀of฀Global฀ Power,฀New฀York:฀Berghahn฀Books. Kelley,฀Donald฀R.฀(1978),฀“The฀Metaphysics฀of฀Law:฀An฀Essay฀on฀the฀Very฀Young฀ Marx,”฀The฀American฀Historical฀Review฀83(2):฀350–67. Kelley,฀Donald฀R.฀(1984),฀“The฀Science฀of฀Anthropology:฀An฀Essay฀on฀the฀Very฀Old฀ Marx,”฀Journal฀of฀the฀History฀of฀Ideas฀45(2):฀245–62. Kelly,฀Alfred฀(1981),฀The฀Descent฀of฀Darwin:฀The฀Popularization฀of฀Darwinism฀in฀ Germany,฀1860–1914,฀Chapel฀Hill,฀NC:฀The฀University฀of฀North฀Carolina฀Press.

198฀ •฀ Bibliography King,฀ Geoffrey฀ and฀ Bailey,฀ Geoff฀ (2006),฀ “Tectonics฀ and฀ Human฀ Evolution,”฀ Antiquity฀80(308):฀265–86. Knox,฀Thomas฀M.฀and฀Pelczynski,฀Zbigniew฀(eds)฀(1964),฀Hegel’s฀Political฀Writings,฀ Oxford:฀At฀the฀Clarendon฀Press. Kohn,฀David฀(1996),฀“The฀Aesthetic฀Construction฀of฀Darwin’s฀Theory,”฀in฀Alfred฀I.฀ Tauber฀(ed.),฀The฀Elusive฀Synthesis:฀Aesthetics฀and฀Science,฀Boston฀Studies฀in฀the฀ Philosophy฀of฀Science,฀Dordrecht:฀Kluwer฀Academic฀Publishers,฀pp.฀13–49. Košenina,฀Alexander฀(1989),฀Ernst฀Platners฀Anthropologie฀und฀Philosophie.฀Der฀ philosophische฀Arzt฀und฀seine฀Wirkung฀auf฀Karl฀Wezel฀und฀Jean฀Paul,฀Würzburg:฀ Königshausen฀and฀Neumann. Kosík,฀Karel฀(1963/1976),฀Dialectics฀of฀the฀Concrete:฀A฀Study฀on฀Problems฀of฀Man฀ and฀World,฀Boston฀Studies฀in฀the฀Philosophy฀of฀Science,฀vol.฀LII,฀Dordrecht:฀฀ D.฀Reidel฀Publishing฀Company. Krader,฀Lawrence฀(1975),฀The฀Asiatic฀Mode฀of฀Production:฀Sources,฀Development฀ and฀Critique฀in฀the฀Writings฀of฀Karl฀Marx,฀Assen:฀Van฀Gorcum฀and฀Company. Krader,฀Lawrence฀(1976),฀Dialectic฀of฀Civil฀Society,฀Assen:฀Van฀Gorcum฀and฀Company. Krader,฀Lawrence฀(1978),฀“The฀Origin฀of฀the฀State฀among฀the฀Nomads฀of฀Asia,”฀ in฀Henri฀J.฀M.฀Claessen฀and฀Peter฀Skalník฀(eds),฀The฀Early฀State,฀The฀Hague:฀ Mouton฀Publishers,฀pp.฀93–108. Kropotkin,฀Peter฀(1904/1989),฀Mutual฀Aid:฀A฀Factor฀of฀Evolution,฀Montréal,฀QU:฀ Black฀Rose฀Books Landmann,฀Michael฀(1969/1974),฀Philosophical฀Anthropology,฀Philadelphia,฀PA:฀ The฀Westminster฀Press. Langdon,฀John฀H.฀(2005),฀The฀Human฀Strategy:฀An฀Evolutionary฀Perspective฀on฀ Human฀Anatomy,฀Oxford:฀Oxford฀University฀Press. Leacock,฀Eleanor฀B.฀(1972),฀“Introduction,”฀in฀Frederick฀Engels,฀The฀Origin฀of฀the฀ Family,฀Private฀Property฀and฀the฀State,฀New฀York:฀International฀Publishers,฀pp.฀ 7–67. Leacock,฀ Eleanor฀ B.฀ (1982),฀ “Relations฀ of฀ Production฀ in฀ Band฀ Society,”฀ in฀ Eleanor฀Leacock฀and฀Richard฀Lee฀(eds),฀Politics฀and฀History฀in฀Band฀Societies,฀ Cambridge:฀Cambridge฀University฀Press,฀pp.฀159–70. Lebowitz,฀Michael฀A.฀(2003),฀Beyond฀Capital:฀Marx’s฀Political฀Economy฀of฀the฀ Working฀Class,฀2nd฀edition,฀Basingstoke,฀UK:฀Palgrave฀Macmillan. Lee,฀Richard฀B.฀(1988),฀“Reflections฀on฀Primitive฀Communism,”฀in฀Tim฀Ingold,฀ David฀Riches,฀and฀James฀Woodburn฀(eds),฀Hunters฀and฀Gatherers,฀vol.฀1,฀History,฀ Evolution฀and฀Social฀Change,฀Oxford:฀Berg฀Publishers,฀pp.฀252–68. Lee,฀Richard฀B.฀(1992),฀“Demystifying฀Primitive฀Communism,”฀in฀Christine฀W.฀ Gailey฀(ed.),฀Dialectical฀Anthropology:฀Essays฀in฀Honor฀of฀Stanley฀Diamond,฀ vol.฀1,฀Civilization฀in฀Crisis:฀Anthropological฀Perspectives,฀Gainesville,฀FL:฀ University฀Presses฀of฀Florida,฀pp.฀73–94. Lee,฀Richard฀B.฀(2003),฀The฀Dobe฀Ju/’hoansi,฀3rd฀edition,฀Belmont,฀CA:฀Thomson฀ Learning.

Bibliography฀ •฀ 199 Lee,฀Richard฀B.฀(2005),฀“Power฀and฀Property฀in฀Twenty-First฀Century฀Foragers:฀ A฀Critical฀Examination,”฀in฀Thomas฀Widlok฀and฀Wolde฀Gossa฀Tadesse฀(eds),฀ Property฀and฀Equality,฀vol.฀2,฀Encapsulation,฀Commericalisation,฀Discrimination,฀ New฀York:฀Berghahn฀Books,฀pp.฀16–31. Lee,฀Sang-Hee฀and฀Milford฀H.฀Wolpoff฀(2003),฀“The฀Pattern฀of฀Human฀Brain฀Size฀ Evolution,”฀Paleobiology฀29(2):฀186–96. Lefort,฀Claude฀(1978/1986),฀“Marx:฀From฀One฀Vision฀of฀History฀to฀Another,”฀ in฀Claude฀Lefort฀(ed.),฀The฀Political฀Forms฀of฀Modern฀Society:฀Bureaucracy,฀ Democracy,฀Totalitarianism,฀Cambridge,฀MA:฀MIT฀Press,฀pp.฀139–80. Leibowitz,฀Lila฀(1985),฀“Humans฀and฀Other฀Animals:฀A฀Perspective฀on฀Perspectives,”฀ Dialectical฀Anthropology฀9(1–4):฀127–46. Leibowitz,฀Lila฀(1986),฀“In฀the฀Beginning฀.฀.฀.:฀The฀First฀Origins฀of฀the฀Sexual฀ Division฀ of฀ Labor฀ and฀ the฀ Development฀ of฀ the฀ First฀ Human฀ Societies,”฀ in฀ Stephanie฀Coontz฀and฀Peta฀Henderson฀(eds),฀Women’s฀Work,฀Men’s฀Property:฀The฀ Origins฀of฀Gender฀and฀Class,฀London:฀Verso,฀pp.฀43–75. Lenin,฀Vladimir฀I.฀(1899/1960),฀“The฀Development฀of฀Capitalism฀in฀Russia:฀The฀ Process฀of฀the฀Formation฀of฀a฀Home฀Market฀for฀Large-Scale฀Industry,”฀in฀Lenin:฀ Collected฀Works,฀vol.฀3,฀Moscow,฀USSR:฀Progress฀Publishers,฀pp.฀21–607. Lenin,฀Vladimir฀I.฀(1913/1963),฀“The฀Three฀Sources฀and฀Three฀Component฀Parts฀ of฀Marxism,”฀in฀Lenin:฀Collected฀Works,฀vol.฀19,฀Moscow:฀Progress฀Publishers,฀฀ pp.฀23–8. Lenoir,฀Timothy฀(1980),฀“Kant,฀Blumenbach,฀and฀Vital฀Materialism฀in฀German฀ Biology,”฀Isis฀71(256):฀77–108. Leone,฀Mark฀P.฀and฀Potter,฀Parker฀B.,฀Jr.฀(eds)฀(1999),฀Historical฀Archaeologies฀of฀ Capitalism,฀New฀York:฀Kluwer฀Academic/Plenum฀Publishers. Leroux,฀Robert฀(1958),฀L’Anthropologie฀Comparée฀de฀Guillaume฀de฀Humboldt,฀ Publications฀de฀la฀Faculté฀des฀Lettres฀de฀l’Université฀de฀Strasbourg,฀fasc.฀135,฀ Paris:฀Société฀d’Éditions. Leventhal,฀Robert฀S.฀(1986),฀“The฀Emergence฀of฀Philological฀Discourse฀in฀the฀ German฀States,฀1770–1810,”฀Isis฀77(287):฀243–60. Levins,฀Richard฀and฀Lewontin,฀Richard฀(1985),฀The฀Dialectical฀Biologist,฀Cambridge,฀ MA:฀Harvard฀University฀Press. Lewis,฀John฀(1974),฀The฀Uniqueness฀of฀Man,฀London:฀Lawrence฀and฀Wishart. Lewontin,฀Richard฀C.฀(1974),฀“Darwin฀and฀Mendel—The฀Materialist฀Revolution,”฀ in฀Jerzy฀Neyman฀(ed.),฀The฀Heritage฀of฀Copernicus:฀Theories฀“Pleasing฀to฀the฀ Mind,”฀Cambridge,฀MA:฀The฀MIT฀Press,฀pp.฀166–82. Lewontin,฀Richard฀C.฀(1995),฀Human฀Diversity,฀New฀York:฀Scientific฀American฀ Books. Lewontin,฀Richard฀C.฀(2000),฀The฀Triple฀Helix:฀Gene,฀Organism,฀and฀Environment,฀ Cambridge,฀MA:฀Harvard฀University฀Press. Lichtman,฀ Richard฀ (1982),฀ The฀ Production฀ of฀ Desire:฀ The฀ Integration฀ of฀ Psychoanalysis฀into฀Marxist฀Theory,฀New฀York:฀The฀Free฀Press.

200฀ •฀ Bibliography Lichtman,฀Richard฀(1990),฀“The฀Production฀of฀Human฀Nature฀by฀Human฀Nature,”฀ Capitalism,฀Nature,฀Socialism,฀no.฀4:฀13–51. Louden,฀Robert฀B.฀(2000),฀Kant’s฀Impure฀Ethics:฀From฀Rational฀Beings฀to฀Human฀ Beings,฀Oxford:฀Oxford฀University฀Press. Lovejoy,฀Arthur฀O.฀(1959a),฀“Buffon฀and฀the฀Problem฀of฀Species,”฀in฀Bentley฀Glass,฀ Owsei฀Temkin,฀and฀William฀L.฀Strauss,฀Jr.฀(eds),฀The฀Forerunners฀of฀Darwin:฀ 1745–1859,฀Baltimore,฀MD:฀The฀Johns฀Hopkins฀Press,฀pp.฀84–113. Lovejoy,฀Arthur฀O.฀(1959b),฀“Herder:฀Progressivism฀without฀Transformism,”฀in฀ Bentley฀Glass,฀Owsei฀Temkin,฀and฀William฀L.฀Strauss,฀Jr.฀(eds),฀The฀Forerunners฀ of฀Darwin:฀1745–1859,฀Baltimore,฀MD:฀The฀Johns฀Hopkins฀Press,฀pp.฀207–22. Löwy,฀Michael฀(2003/2005),฀The฀Theory฀of฀Revolution฀in฀the฀Young฀Marx,฀Chicago:฀ Haymarket฀Books. Löwy,฀Michael฀and฀Robert฀Sayre฀(2001),฀Romanticism฀against฀the฀Tide฀of฀Modernity,฀ Durham,฀NC:฀Duke฀University฀Press. Lukács,฀Georg฀(1966/1976),฀The฀Young฀Hegel:฀Studies฀in฀the฀Relations฀between฀ Dialectics฀and฀Economics,฀Cambridge,฀MA:฀The฀MIT฀Press. Lukes,฀Steven฀(1987),฀Marxism฀and฀Morality,฀Oxford:฀Oxford฀University฀Press. Luxemburg,฀Rosa฀(1913/2003),฀The฀Accumulation฀of฀Capital,฀London:฀Routledge. MacGregor,฀David฀(1998),฀Hegel฀and฀Marx฀after฀the฀Fall฀of฀Communism,฀Cardiff:฀ University฀of฀Wales฀Press. Macpherson,฀ Crawford฀ B.฀ (1971),฀ “A฀ Political฀Theory฀ of฀ Property,”฀ in฀ C.฀ B.฀ Macpherson,฀Democratic฀Theory:฀Essays฀in฀Retrieval,฀Oxford:฀Oxford฀University฀ Press,฀pp.120–40. Malinowski,฀Bronislaw฀(1926),฀Crime฀and฀Custom฀in฀Savage฀Society,฀London:฀ Kegan฀Paul,฀Trench฀and฀Trubner. Mao฀Zedong฀(1930/1990),฀Report฀from฀Xunwu,฀Stanford,฀CA:฀Stanford฀University฀ Press. Marable,฀Manning฀(1995),฀Beyond฀Black฀and฀White:฀Transforming฀African-American฀ Politics,฀London:฀Verso. Mariátegui,฀José฀(1928/1971),฀Seven฀Interpretive฀Essays฀on฀the฀Peruvian฀Reality,฀ Austin,฀TX:฀University฀of฀Texas฀Press. McGuire,฀Randall฀H.฀(1992),฀A฀Marxist฀Archaeology,฀San฀Diego,฀CA:฀Academic฀ Press. McLellan,฀David฀(1973),฀Karl฀Marx:฀His฀Life฀and฀Thought,฀New฀York:฀Harper฀ Books. McMurtry,฀ John฀ (1978),฀ The฀ Structure฀ of฀ Marx’s฀ World-View,฀ Princeton,฀ NJ:฀ Princeton฀University฀Press. McNally,฀ David฀ (1988),฀ Political฀ Economy฀ and฀ the฀ Rise฀ of฀ Capitalism:฀ A฀ Reinterpretation,฀Berkeley,฀CA:฀University฀of฀California฀Press. McNally,฀David฀(2001),฀Bodies฀of฀Meaning:฀Studies฀on฀Language,฀Labor,฀and฀ Liberation,฀Albany,฀NY:฀SUNY฀Press. Marks,฀Jonathan฀(2002),฀What฀It฀Means฀To฀Be฀98%฀Chimpanzee:฀Apes,฀People,฀and฀ Their฀Genes,฀Berkeley,฀CA:฀University฀of฀California฀Press.

Bibliography฀ •฀ 201 Márkus,฀Gyorgy฀(1978),฀Marx฀and฀Anthropology:฀The฀Concept฀of฀Human฀Essence฀ in฀the฀Philosophy฀of฀Marx,฀Assen:฀Van฀Gorcum. Marx,฀Karl฀(1835/1975),฀“Reflections฀of฀a฀Young฀Man฀on฀the฀Choice฀of฀a฀Profession,”฀ in฀Karl฀Marx,฀Frederick฀Engels:฀Collected฀Works,฀vol.฀1,฀New฀York:฀International฀ Publishers,฀pp.฀3–9. Marx,฀Karl฀(1837/1975),฀“Letter฀from฀Marx฀to฀His฀Father฀in฀Trier,฀November฀10–11,฀ 1837,”฀in฀Karl฀Marx,฀Frederick฀Engels:฀Collected฀Works,฀vol.฀1,฀New฀York:฀ International฀Publishers,฀pp.฀10–21. Marx,฀Karl฀(1839/1975),฀“Notebooks฀on฀Epicurean฀Philosophy,”฀in฀Karl฀Marx,฀ Frederick฀Engels:฀Collected฀Works,฀vol.฀1,฀New฀York:฀International฀Publishers,฀ pp.฀403–509. Marx,฀Karl฀(1840–1/1975),฀“Difference฀between฀the฀Democritean฀and฀Epicurean฀ Philosophy฀of฀Nature,”฀in฀Karl฀Marx,฀Frederick฀Engels:฀Collected฀Works,฀vol.฀1,฀ New฀York:฀International฀Publishers,฀pp.฀25–109. Marx,฀Karl฀(1842/1975),฀“The฀Philosophical฀Manifesto฀of฀the฀Historical฀School฀ of฀Law,”฀in฀Karl฀Marx,฀Frederick฀Engels:฀Collected฀Works,฀vol.฀1,฀New฀York:฀ International฀Publishers,฀pp.฀203–10. Marx,฀Karl฀(1843/1975a),฀“Contribution฀to฀the฀Critique฀of฀Hegel’s฀Philosophy฀ of฀Law,”฀in฀Karl฀Marx,฀Frederick฀Engels:฀Collected฀Works,฀vol.฀3,฀New฀York:฀ International฀Publishers,฀pp.฀3–129. Marx,฀Karl฀(1843/1975b),฀“Letters฀from฀the฀Deutsch-Französische฀Jahrbücher,”฀in฀ Karl฀Marx,฀Frederick฀Engels:฀Collected฀Works,฀vol.฀3,฀New฀York:฀International฀ Publishers,฀pp.฀133–45. Marx,฀Karl฀(1843/1975c),฀“On฀the฀Jewish฀Question,”฀in฀Karl฀Marx,฀Frederick฀ Engels:฀Collected฀Works,฀vol.฀3,฀New฀York:฀International฀Publishers,฀pp.฀146– 74. Marx,฀Karl฀(1843–4/1975),฀“Contribution฀to฀the฀Critique฀of฀Hegel’s฀Philosophy฀of฀ Law.฀Introduction,”฀in฀Karl฀Marx,฀Frederick฀Engels:฀Collected฀Works,฀vol.฀3,฀ New฀York:฀International฀Publishers,฀pp.฀175–87. Marx,฀Karl฀(1844/1975a),฀“The฀Economic฀and฀Philosophical฀Manuscripts฀of฀1844,”฀ in฀Karl฀Marx,฀Frederick฀Engels:฀Collected฀Works,฀vol.฀3,฀New฀York:฀International฀ Publishers,฀pp.฀229–348. Marx,฀Karl฀(1844/1975b),฀“Comments฀on฀James฀Mill,฀Éléments฀d’économique฀ politique,”฀in฀Karl฀Marx,฀Frederick฀Engels:฀Collected฀Works,฀vol.฀3,฀New฀York:฀ International฀Publishers,฀pp.฀211–28. Marx,฀Karl฀(1844/1975c),฀“Critical฀Marginal฀Notes฀on฀the฀Article฀‘The฀King฀of฀ Prussia฀and฀Social฀Reform.฀By฀a฀Prussian’,”฀in฀Karl฀Marx,฀Frederick฀Engels:฀ Collected฀Works,฀vol.฀3,฀New฀York:฀International฀Publishers,฀pp.฀189–206. Marx,฀Karl฀(1845/1976),฀“Theses฀on฀Feuerbach,”฀in฀Karl฀Marx,฀Frederick฀Engels:฀ Collected฀Works,฀vol.฀5,฀New฀York:฀International฀Publishers,฀pp.฀3–5. Marx,฀Karl฀(1846/1982),฀“Letter฀from฀Marx฀to฀Pavel฀Vasilyevich฀Annenkov,฀28฀ December฀1846,”฀in฀Karl฀Marx,฀Frederick฀Engels:฀Collected฀Works,฀vol.฀38,฀New฀ York:฀International฀Publishers,฀pp.฀95–106.

202฀ •฀ Bibliography Marx,฀ Karl฀ (1847/1976a),฀ “Moralising฀ Criticism฀ and฀ Critical฀ Morality:฀ A฀ Contribution฀to฀German฀Cultural฀History฀contra฀Karl฀Heinzen,”฀in฀Karl฀Marx,฀ Frederick฀Engels:฀Collected฀Works,฀vol.฀6,฀New฀York:฀International฀Publishers,฀ pp.฀312–40. Marx,฀Karl฀(1847/1976b),฀“The฀Poverty฀of฀Philosophy.฀Answer฀to฀the฀Philosophy฀of฀ Poverty฀by฀M.฀Proudhon,”฀in฀Karl฀Marx,฀Frederick฀Engels:฀Collected฀Works,฀vol.฀ 6,฀New฀York:฀International฀Publishers,฀pp.฀105–212. Marx,฀Karl฀(1848/1976),฀“On฀the฀Polish฀Question,”฀in฀Karl฀Marx,฀Frederick฀Engels:฀ Collected฀Works,฀vol.฀6,฀New฀York:฀International฀Publishers,฀pp.฀545–9. Marx,฀Karl฀(1849/1977),฀“Wage฀Labour฀and฀Capital,”฀in฀Karl฀Marx,฀Frederick฀ Engels:฀Collected฀Works,฀vol.฀9,฀New฀York:฀International฀Publishers,฀pp.฀197– 228. Marx,฀Karl฀(1850/1978),฀“The฀Class฀Struggle฀in฀France,฀1848฀to฀1850,”฀in฀Karl฀ Marx,฀Frederick฀Engels:฀Collected฀Works,฀vol.฀10,฀New฀York:฀International฀ Publishers,฀pp.฀45–145. Marx,฀Karl฀(1852/1979฀“The฀Eighteenth฀Brumaire฀of฀Louis฀Bonaparte,”฀in฀Karl฀ Marx,฀Frederick฀Engels:฀Collected฀Works,฀vol.฀11,฀New฀York:฀International฀ Publishers,฀pp.฀99–197. Marx,฀Karl฀(1853/1979a),฀“The฀British฀Rule฀in฀India,”฀in฀Karl฀Marx,฀Frederick฀ Engels:฀Collected฀Works,฀vol.฀12,฀New฀York:฀International฀Publishers,฀pp.฀125–34. Marx,฀Karl฀(1853/1979b),฀“The฀East฀India฀Company—Its฀History฀and฀Results,”฀in฀ Karl฀Marx,฀Frederick฀Engels:฀Collected฀Works,฀vol.฀12,฀New฀York:฀International฀ Publishers,฀pp.฀148–57. Marx,฀Karl฀(1853/1979c),฀“The฀Future฀Results฀of฀British฀Rule฀in฀India,”฀in฀Karl฀ Marx,฀Frederick฀Engels:฀Collected฀Works,฀vol.฀12,฀New฀York:฀International฀ Publishers,฀pp.฀217–22. Marx,฀Karl฀(1853/1979d),฀“The฀Western฀Powers฀and฀Turkey.—Imminent฀Economic฀ Crisis.—Railway฀ Construction฀ in฀ India,”฀ in฀ Karl฀ Marx,฀ Frederick฀ Engels:฀ Collected฀Works,฀vol.฀12,฀New฀York:฀International฀Publishers,฀pp.฀309–17. Marx,฀ Karl฀ (1853/1979e),฀ “Forced฀ Emigration.—Kossuth฀ and฀ Mazzini.—The฀ Refugee฀Question.—Election฀Bribery฀in฀England.—Mr.฀Cobden,”฀in฀Karl฀Marx,฀ Frederick฀Engels:฀Collected฀Works,฀vol.฀11,฀New฀York:฀International฀Publishers,฀ pp.฀528–34. Marx,฀Karl฀(1853/1979f),฀“The฀Indian฀Question.—Irish฀Tenant฀Right,”฀in฀Karl฀ Marx,฀Frederick฀Engels:฀Collected฀Works,฀vol.฀12,฀New฀York:฀International฀ Publishers,฀pp.฀157–62. Marx,฀ Karl฀ (1853/1979g),฀ “Elections.—Financial฀ Clouds.—The฀ Duchess฀ of฀ Sutherland฀and฀Slavery,”฀in฀Karl฀Marx,฀Frederick฀Engels:฀Collected฀Works,฀vol.฀ 11,฀New฀York:฀International฀Publishers,฀pp.฀486–94. Marx,฀Karl฀(1853/1983a),฀“Letter฀from฀Marx฀to฀Frederick฀Engels,฀2฀June฀1853,”฀in฀ Karl฀Marx,฀Frederick฀Engels:฀Collected฀Works,฀vol.฀39,฀New฀York:฀International฀ Publishers,฀pp.฀329–35.

Bibliography฀ •฀ 203 Marx,฀Karl฀(1853/1983b),฀“Letter฀from฀Marx฀to฀Frederick฀Engels,฀14฀December฀ 1853,”฀in฀Karl฀Marx,฀Frederick฀Engels:฀Collected฀Works,฀vol.฀39,฀New฀York:฀ International฀Publishers,฀pp.฀403–5. Marx,฀Karl฀(1853/1983c),฀“Letter฀from฀Marx฀to฀Frederick฀Engels,฀6฀June฀1853,”฀in฀ Karl฀Marx,฀Frederick฀Engels:฀Collected฀Works,฀vol.฀39,฀New฀York:฀International฀ Publishers,฀pp.฀335–42. Marx,฀Karl฀(1857/1986a),฀“The฀Indian฀Question,”฀in฀Karl฀Marx,฀Frederick฀Engels:฀ Collected฀Works,฀vol.฀15,฀New฀York:฀International฀Publishers,฀pp.฀309–13. Marx,฀Karl฀(1857/1986b),฀“State฀of฀the฀Indian฀Insurrection,”฀in฀Karl฀Marx,฀Frederick฀ Engels:฀Collected฀Works,฀vol.฀15,฀New฀York:฀International฀Publishers,฀pp.฀318– 21. Marx,฀Karl฀(1857/1986c),฀“The฀Indian฀Insurrection,”฀in฀Karl฀Marx,฀Frederick฀Engels:฀ Collected฀Works,฀vol.฀15,฀New฀York:฀International฀Publishers,฀pp.฀327–30. Marx,฀Karl฀(1857/1986d),฀“The฀English฀Factory฀System,”฀in฀Karl฀Marx,฀Frederick฀ Engels:฀Collected฀Works,฀vol.฀15,฀New฀York:฀International฀Publishers,฀pp.฀255– 61. Marx,฀Karl฀(1857/1986e),฀“The฀Indian฀Revolt,”฀in฀Karl฀Marx,฀Frederick฀Engels:฀ Collected฀Works,฀vol.฀15,฀New฀York:฀International฀Publishers,฀pp.฀353–6. Marx,฀Karl฀(1857–8/1973),฀Grundrisse:฀Foundations฀to฀the฀Critique฀of฀Political฀ Economy,฀New฀York:฀Vintage฀Books. Marx,฀Karl฀(1859/1970),฀A฀Contribution฀to฀the฀Critique฀of฀Political฀Economy,฀New฀ York:฀International฀Publishers฀[=Karl฀Marx,฀Frederick฀Engels:฀Collected฀Works,฀ vol.฀29,฀New฀York:฀International฀Publishers,฀1987,฀pp.฀257–417]. Marx,฀ Karl฀ (1859/1980),฀ “Population,฀ Crime,฀ and฀ Pauperism,”฀ in฀ Karl฀ Marx,฀ Frederick฀Engels:฀Collected฀Works,฀vol.฀16,฀New฀York:฀International฀Publishers,฀ pp.฀487–91. Marx,฀Karl฀(1859/1983),฀“Letter฀from฀Marx฀to฀Frederick฀Engels,฀11฀or฀12฀December฀ 1859,”฀in฀Karl฀Marx,฀Frederick฀Engels:฀Collected฀Works,฀vol.฀40,฀New฀York:฀ International฀Publishers,฀pp.฀550–1. Marx,฀Karl฀(1860/1985),฀“Letter฀from฀Marx฀to฀Frederick฀Engels,฀19฀December฀ 1860,”฀in฀Karl฀Marx,฀Frederick฀Engels:฀Collected฀Works,฀vol.฀41,฀New฀York:฀ International฀Publishers,฀pp.฀231–3. Marx,฀Karl฀(1861/1985),฀“Letter฀from฀Marx฀to฀Ferdinand฀Lassalle,฀16฀January฀ 1871,”฀in฀Karl฀Marx,฀Frederick฀Engels:฀Collected฀Works,฀vol.฀41,฀New฀York:฀ International฀Publishers,฀pp.฀245–7. Marx,฀Karl฀(1861–3/1963),฀Theories฀of฀Surplus฀Value,฀part฀I,฀Moscow:฀Progress฀ Publishers. Marx,฀Karl฀(1861–3/1971),฀Theories฀of฀Surplus฀Value,฀part฀III,฀Moscow:฀Progress฀ Publishers. Marx,฀Karl฀(1861–3/1989),฀“Economic฀Manuscript฀of฀1861–63฀(continuation),”฀in฀ Karl฀Marx,฀Frederick฀Engels:฀Collected฀Works,฀vol.฀31,฀New฀York:฀International฀ Publishers,฀pp.฀1–577.

204฀ •฀ Bibliography Marx,฀Karl฀(1861–3/1991),฀“Economic฀Manuscript฀of฀1861–63฀(continuation),”฀in฀ Karl฀Marx,฀Frederick฀Engels:฀Collected฀Works,฀vol.฀33,฀New฀York:฀International฀ Publishers,฀pp.฀1–539. Marx,฀Karl฀(1862/1985),฀“Letter฀from฀Marx฀to฀Frederick฀Engels,฀18฀June฀1862,”฀in฀ Karl฀Marx,฀Frederick฀Engels:฀Collected฀Works,฀vol.฀41,฀New฀York:฀International฀ Publishers,฀pp.฀381–2. Marx,฀Karl฀(1863–7/1977),฀Capital:฀A฀Critique฀of฀Political฀Economy,฀vol.฀1,฀New฀ York:฀Vintage฀Books. Marx,฀Karl฀(1864/1985),฀“Letter฀from฀Marx฀to฀Lion฀Philips,฀25฀June฀1864,”฀in฀Karl฀ Marx,฀Frederick฀Engels:฀Collected฀Works,฀vol.฀41,฀New฀York:฀International฀ Publishers,฀p.฀581. Marx,฀Karl฀(1864–94/1981),฀Capital:฀A฀Critique฀of฀Political฀Economy,฀vol.฀3,฀New฀ York:฀Vintage฀Books. Marx,฀Karl฀(1865–85/1981),฀Capital:฀A฀Critique฀of฀Political฀Economy,฀vol.฀2,฀New฀ York:฀Vintage฀Books. Marx,฀Karl฀(1867/1985),฀“The฀Fenian฀Prisoners฀at฀Manchester฀and฀the฀International฀ Working฀Men’s฀Association,”฀in฀Karl฀Marx,฀Frederick฀Engels:฀Collected฀Works,฀ vol.฀21,฀New฀York:฀International฀Publishers,฀pp.฀3–4. Marx,฀Karl฀(1867/1987),฀“Letter฀from฀Marx฀to฀Frederick฀Engels,฀7฀December฀ 1867,”฀in฀Karl฀Marx,฀Frederick฀Engels:฀Collected฀Works,฀vol.฀42,฀New฀York:฀ International฀Publishers,฀pp.฀493–5. Marx,฀Karl฀(1868/1987a),฀“Letter฀from฀Marx฀to฀Frederick฀Engels,฀25฀March฀1868,”฀in฀ Karl฀Marx,฀Frederick฀Engels:฀Collected฀Works,฀vol.฀42,฀New฀York:฀International฀ Publishers,฀pp.฀557–9. Marx,฀Karl฀(1868/1987b),฀“Letter฀from฀Marx฀to฀Ludwig฀Kugelmann,฀17฀March฀ 1868,”฀in฀Karl฀Marx,฀Frederick฀Engels:฀Collected฀Works,฀vol.฀42,฀New฀York:฀ International฀Publishers,฀pp.฀551–3. Marx,฀Karl฀(1869/1988a),฀“Letter฀from฀Marx฀to฀Frederick฀Engels,฀10฀December฀ 1869,”฀in฀Karl฀Marx,฀Frederick฀Engels:฀Collected฀Works,฀vol.฀43,฀New฀York:฀ International฀Publishers,฀pp.฀396–9. Marx,฀Karl฀(1869/1988b),฀“Letter฀from฀Marx฀to฀Frederick฀Engels,฀4฀December฀ 1869,”฀in฀Karl฀Marx,฀Frederick฀Engels:฀Collected฀Works,฀vol.฀43,฀New฀York:฀ International฀Publishers,฀pp.฀392–3. Marx,฀Karl฀(1870/1985),฀“Confidential฀Communication,”฀in฀Karl฀Marx,฀Frederick฀ Engels:฀Collected฀Works,฀vol.฀21,฀New฀York:฀International฀Publishers,฀pp.฀112– 24. Marx,฀Karl฀(1870/1988),฀“Letter฀from฀Marx฀to฀Sigfrid฀Meyer฀and฀August฀Vogt,”฀in฀ Karl฀Marx,฀Frederick฀Engels:฀Collected฀Works,฀vol.฀43,฀New฀York:฀International฀ Publishers,฀pp.฀471–6. Marx,฀Karl฀(1871/1986),฀“The฀Civil฀War฀in฀France,”฀in฀Karl฀Marx,฀Frederick฀Engels:฀ Collected฀Works,฀vol.฀22,฀New฀York:฀International฀Publishers,฀pp.฀307–59. Marx,฀Karl฀(1875/1963),฀Ouevres.฀Economie,฀vol.฀1,฀Paris:฀Gallimard.

Bibliography฀ •฀ 205 Marx,฀ Karl฀ (1875/1989),฀ “Critique฀ of฀ the฀ Gotha฀ Programme,”฀ in฀ Karl฀ Marx,฀ Frederick฀Engels:฀Collected฀Works,฀vol.฀24,฀New฀York:฀International฀Publishers,฀ pp.฀75–99. Marx,฀Karl฀(1880/1989),฀“Workers’฀Questionnaire,”฀in฀Karl฀Marx,฀Frederick฀Engels:฀ Collected฀Works,฀vol.฀24,฀New฀York:฀International฀Publishers,฀pp.฀328–34. Marx,฀Karl฀(1880–2/1974),฀The฀Ethnological฀Notebooks฀of฀Karl฀Marx,฀2nd฀edition,฀ edited฀by฀Lawrence฀Krader,฀Assen:฀Van฀Gorcum฀and฀Company. Marx,฀Karl฀(1881/1983),฀“Marx-Zasulich฀Correspondence:฀Letters฀and฀Drafts,”฀in฀ Teodor฀Shanin฀(ed.),฀Late฀Marx฀and฀the฀Russian฀Road:฀Marx฀and฀“The฀Peripheries฀ of฀Capitalism,”฀New฀York:฀Monthly฀Review฀Press,฀pp.฀97–129฀[=Karl฀Marx,฀ Frederick฀Engels:฀Collected฀Works,฀vol.฀24,฀New฀York:฀International฀Publishers,฀ 1989,฀pp.฀346–71]. Marx,฀Karl฀(1881/1992a),฀“Letter฀from฀Marx฀to฀Nikolai฀Danielson,฀15฀February฀ 1881,”฀in฀Karl฀Marx,฀Frederick฀Engels:฀Collected฀Works,฀vol.฀46,฀New฀York:฀ International฀Publishers,฀pp.฀60–4. Marx,฀Karl฀(1881/1992b),฀“Letter฀from฀Marx฀to฀Jenny฀Longuet,฀11฀April฀1881,”฀in฀ Karl฀Marx,฀Frederick฀Engels:฀Collected฀Works,฀vol.฀46,฀New฀York:฀International฀ Publishers,฀pp.฀81–5. Marx,฀Karl฀(1972),฀Karl฀Marx฀on฀America฀and฀the฀Civil฀War,฀edited฀by฀Saul฀K.฀ Padover,฀New฀York:฀McGraw-Hill฀Book฀Company. Marx,฀Karl฀and฀Engels,฀Frederick฀(1845–6/1976),฀“The฀German฀Ideology,”฀in฀ Karl฀Marx,฀Frederick฀Engels:฀Collected฀Works,฀vol.฀5,฀New฀York:฀International฀ Publishers,฀pp.฀19–452. Marx,฀Karl฀and฀Engels,฀Frederick฀(1848/1976),฀“Manifesto฀of฀the฀Communist฀Party,”฀ in฀Karl฀Marx,฀Frederick฀Engels:฀Collected฀Works,฀vol.฀6,฀New฀York:฀International฀ Publishers,฀pp.฀477–519. Marx,฀Karl฀and฀Engels,฀Frederick฀(1882/1989),฀“Preface฀to฀the฀Second฀Russian฀ Edition฀of฀the฀Manifesto฀of฀the฀Communist฀Party,”฀in฀Karl฀Marx,฀Frederick฀ Engels:฀Collected฀Works,฀vol.฀24,฀New฀York:฀International฀Publishers,฀pp.฀425–6. Marx,฀Karl฀and฀Engels,฀Frederick฀(1972),฀Ireland฀and฀the฀Irish฀Question:฀A฀Collection฀ of฀Writings฀by฀Karl฀Marx฀and฀Frederick฀Engels,฀edited฀by฀R.฀Dixon,฀New฀York:฀ International฀Publishers. Mason,฀John฀H.฀and฀Wokler,฀Robert฀(1992),฀“Introduction,”฀in฀John฀H.฀Mason฀ and฀Robert฀Wokler฀(eds),฀Diderot:฀Political฀Writings,฀Cambridge:฀Cambridge฀ University฀Press,฀pp.฀ix–xli. Mauer,฀Bill฀(2006),฀“The฀Anthropology฀of฀Money,”฀Annual฀Review฀of฀Anthropology฀ 35:฀15–36. Mauro,฀Frédéric฀(1990),฀“Merchant฀Communities,฀1350–1750,”฀in฀James฀D.฀Tracy฀ (ed.),฀The฀Rise฀of฀Merchant฀Empires:฀Long-Distance฀Trade฀in฀the฀Early฀Modern฀ World,฀1350–1750,฀Cambridge:฀Cambridge฀University฀Press,฀pp.฀255–86. Mauss,฀Marcel฀(1925/1990),฀The฀Gift:฀Form฀and฀Function฀of฀Exchange฀in฀Archaic฀ Societies,฀London:฀Routledge.

206฀ •฀ Bibliography Mayr,฀Ernst฀(1982),฀The฀Growth฀of฀Biological฀Thought:฀Diversity,฀Evolution,฀and฀ Inheritance,฀Cambridge,฀MA:฀The฀Belknap฀Press฀of฀Harvard฀University฀Press. Meek,฀Ronald฀(1967),฀“The฀Scottish฀Contribution฀to฀Marxist฀Sociology,”฀in฀Ronald฀ L.฀Meek,฀Economics฀and฀Ideology฀and฀Other฀Essays:฀Studies฀in฀the฀Development฀ of฀Economic฀Thought,฀London:฀Chapman฀and฀Hall,฀pp.฀34–50. Meikle,฀Scott฀(1985),฀Essentialism฀in฀the฀Thought฀of฀Karl฀Marx,฀La฀Salle,฀IL:฀Open฀ Court฀Publishing฀Company. Meillassoux,฀Claude฀(1971/1980),฀“From฀Reproduction฀to฀Production:฀A฀Marxist฀ Approach฀to฀Economic฀Anthropology,”฀in฀Harold฀Wolpe฀(ed.),฀The฀Articulation฀ of฀Modes฀of฀Production:฀Essays฀from฀Economy฀and฀Society,฀London:฀Routledge฀ and฀Kegan฀Paul,฀pp.฀189–201. Meillassoux,฀Claude฀(1975/1981),฀Maidens,฀Meal฀and฀Money:฀Capitalism฀and฀the฀ Domestic฀Community,฀Cambridge:฀Cambridge฀University฀Press. Merchant,฀Carolyn฀(1980),฀The฀Death฀of฀Nature:฀Women,฀Ecology,฀and฀the฀Scientific฀ Revolution,฀New฀York:฀Harper฀and฀Row,฀Publishers. Mészáros,฀István฀(1991),฀“Totality,”฀in฀Tom฀Bottomore฀(ed.),฀A฀Dictionary฀of฀Marxist฀ Thought,฀2nd฀edition,฀Oxford:฀Blackwell฀Publishers,฀pp.฀536–8. Mészáros,฀István฀(2005),฀Marx’s฀Theory฀of฀Alienation,฀5th฀edition,฀London:฀Merlin฀ Press. Miles,฀Robert฀(1987),฀Capitalism฀and฀Unfree฀Labour:฀Anomaly฀or฀Necessity?฀ London:฀Tavistock฀Publications. Miliband,฀Ralph฀(1977),฀Marxism฀and฀Politics,฀Oxford:฀Oxford฀University฀Press. Miliband,฀Ralph฀(1991),฀“State,฀The,”฀in฀Tom฀Bottomore฀(ed.),฀A฀Dictionary฀of฀ Marxist฀Thought,฀2nd฀edition,฀Oxford:฀Blackwell฀Publishers,฀pp.฀520–4. Millon,฀Rene฀(1988),฀“Last฀Years฀of฀Teotihuacan฀Dominance,”฀in฀Norman฀Yoffee฀ and฀George฀L.฀Cowgill฀(eds),฀The฀Collapse฀of฀Ancient฀States฀and฀Civilizations,฀ Tucson,฀AZ:฀University฀of฀Arizona฀Press,฀pp.฀102–64. Mintz,฀Sidney฀W.฀(1985),฀Sweetness฀and฀Power:฀The฀Place฀of฀Sugar฀in฀Modern฀ History,฀New฀York:฀Viking฀Penguin. Montesquieu,฀Charles฀Louis฀de฀Secondat,฀Baron฀de฀(1721/1973),฀Persian฀Letters,฀ Harmondsworth,฀UK:฀Penguin฀Books. Montesquieu,฀Charles฀Louis฀de฀Secondat,฀Baron฀de฀(1734/1965),฀Considerations฀on฀ the฀Causes฀of฀the฀Greatness฀of฀the฀Romans฀and฀Their฀Decline,฀Indianapolis,฀IN:฀ Hackett฀Publishing฀Company. Montesquieu,฀Charles฀Louis฀de฀Secondat,฀Baron฀de฀(1748/1977),฀The฀Spirit฀of฀Laws,฀ Berkeley,฀CA:฀University฀of฀California฀Press. Mooney,฀James฀E.฀(1896),฀“The฀Ghost-Dance฀Religion฀and฀the฀Sioux฀Outbreak฀ of฀1890,”฀Fourteenth฀Annual฀Report฀of฀the฀Bureau฀of฀Ethnology,฀1892-’93,฀ Washington,฀pp.฀653–1136. Morgan,฀Lewis฀H.฀(1877/1963),฀Ancient฀Society,฀or฀Researches฀in฀the฀Lines฀of฀ Human฀Progress฀from฀Savagery฀through฀Barbarism฀to฀Civilization,฀edited฀by฀ Eleanor฀B.฀Leacock,฀Cleveland,฀OH:฀The฀World฀Publishing฀Company.

Bibliography฀ •฀ 207 Morgan,฀Lewis฀H.฀(1881/2003),฀Houses฀and฀House-Life฀of฀the฀American฀Aborigines,฀ Salt฀Lake฀City,฀UT:฀University฀of฀Utah฀Press. Moseley,฀Michael฀E.฀(1975),฀The฀Maritime฀Foundations฀of฀Andean฀Civilizations,฀ Menlo฀Park,฀CA:฀Cummings฀Publishing฀Company. Mullings,฀Leith฀(1997),฀On฀Our฀Own฀Terms:฀Race,฀Class,฀and฀Gender฀in฀the฀Lives฀of฀ African฀American฀Women,฀London:฀Routledge. Mullings,฀Leith฀(2005),฀“Interrogating฀Racism:฀Toward฀an฀Antiracist฀Anthropology,”฀ Annual฀Review฀of฀Anthropology฀34:฀667–93. Nagengast,฀Carole฀(1994),฀“Violence,฀Terror,฀and฀the฀Crisis฀of฀the฀State,”฀Annual฀ Review฀of฀Anthropology฀23:฀109–136. Nash,฀June฀(1979),฀We฀Eat฀the฀Mines฀and฀the฀Mines฀Eat฀Us:฀Dependency฀and฀ Exploitation฀in฀the฀Bolivian฀Tin฀Mines,฀New฀York:฀Columbia฀University฀Press. Negt,฀Oskar฀(1988),฀“What฀Is฀a฀Revival฀of฀Marxism฀and฀Why฀Do฀We฀Need฀One฀ Today:฀Centennial฀Lecture฀Commemorating฀the฀Death฀of฀Karl฀Marx,”฀in฀Cary฀ Nelson฀and฀Lawrence฀Grossberg฀(eds),฀Marxism฀and฀the฀Interpretation฀of฀Culture,฀ Urbana,฀IL:฀University฀of฀Indiana฀Press,฀pp.฀211–34. Nimtz,฀August฀H.฀(2000),฀Marx฀and฀Engels:฀Their฀Contribution฀to฀the฀Democratic฀ Breakthrough,฀Albany,฀NY:฀State฀University฀of฀New฀York฀Press. Nimtz,฀August฀H.฀(2003),฀Marx,฀Tocqueville,฀and฀Race฀in฀America:฀The฀“Absolute฀ Democracy”฀or฀“Defiled฀Republic,”฀Lanham,฀MD:฀Lexington฀Books. Ollman,฀Bertell฀(1976),฀Alienation:฀Marx’s฀Conception฀of฀Man฀in฀Capitalist฀Society,฀ 2nd฀edition,฀Cambridge:฀Cambridge฀University฀Press. Ollman,฀Bertell฀(1993),฀Dialectical฀Investigations,฀London:฀Routledge. O’Neill,฀John฀(1982),฀For฀Marx฀Against฀Althusser฀and฀Other฀Essays,฀Washington,฀ DC:฀Center฀for฀Advanced฀Research฀in฀Phenomenology฀and฀University฀Press฀of฀ America. Orser,฀Charles฀E.,฀Jr.฀(1999),฀A฀Historical฀Archaeology฀of฀the฀Modern฀World,฀New฀ York:฀Plenum฀Publishers. Orser,฀Charles฀E.,฀Jr.฀(ed.)฀(2001),฀Race฀and฀the฀Archaeology฀of฀Identity,฀Salt฀Lake฀ City,฀UT:฀University฀of฀Utah฀Press. Orser,฀Charles฀E.,฀Jr.฀(2004),฀Race฀and฀Practice฀in฀Archaeological฀Interpretation,฀ Philadelphia,฀PA:฀University฀of฀Pennsylvania฀Press. Ospovat,฀Dov฀(1981),฀The฀Development฀of฀Darwin’s฀Theory:฀Natural฀History,฀ Natural฀Theology,฀and฀Natural฀Selection,฀1838–1859,฀Cambridge:฀Cambridge฀ University฀Press. Outhwaite,฀William฀(1991),฀“Culture,”฀in฀Tom฀Bottomore฀(ed.),฀A฀Dictionary฀of฀ Marxist฀Thought,฀2nd฀edition,฀Oxford:฀Blackwell฀Publishers,฀pp.฀127–30. Pagden,฀Anthony฀(1982),฀Fall฀of฀Natural฀Man:฀The฀American฀Indian฀and฀the฀Origins฀ of฀Comparative฀Ethnology,฀Cambridge:฀Cambridge฀University฀Press. Palerm,฀Ángel฀(1980),฀Antropología฀y฀Marxismo,฀Mexico,฀DF:฀Editorial฀Nuevo฀ Imagen.

208฀ •฀ Bibliography Paley,฀Julia฀(2002),฀“Toward฀an฀Anthropology฀of฀Democracy,”฀Annual฀Review฀of฀ Anthropology฀31:฀469–96. Panitch,฀Leo฀and฀Leys,฀Colin฀(eds)฀(2006),฀Coming฀to฀Terms฀with฀Nature,฀Socialist฀ Register฀2007,฀New฀York:฀Monthly฀Review฀Press. Patnaik,฀Prabhat฀(2006),฀“Appreciation:฀The฀Other฀Marx,”฀in฀Iqbal฀Husain฀(ed.),฀ Karl฀Marx฀on฀India:฀From฀the฀New฀York฀Daily฀Tribune฀(Including฀Articles฀by฀ Frederick฀Engels)฀and฀Extracts฀from฀Marx-Engels฀Correspondence฀1853–1862,฀ New฀Delhi:฀Tulika฀Books,฀pp.฀xl–lxviii. Patterson,฀Nick,฀Richter,฀Daniel฀J.,฀Gnerre,฀Sante,฀Lander,฀Eric฀S.,฀and฀Reich,฀David฀ (2006),฀“Genetic฀Evidence฀for฀Complex฀Speciation฀of฀Humans฀and฀Chimpanzees,”฀ Nature฀441(7097):฀1103–8. Patterson,฀Thomas฀C.฀(1984),฀“Pachacamac—An฀Andean฀Oracle฀under฀Inca฀Rule,”฀ in฀D.฀Peter฀Kvietok฀and฀Daniel฀Sandweiss฀(eds),฀Recent฀Studies฀in฀Andean฀ Prehistory฀and฀Protohistory:฀Papers฀from฀the฀Second฀Annual฀Conference฀on฀ Andean฀Archaeology฀and฀Ethnohistory,฀Ithaca,฀NY:฀Latin฀American฀Studies฀ Program,฀Cornell฀University,฀pp.฀159–76. Patterson,฀Thomas฀C.฀(1988),฀“La฀creación฀de฀cultura฀en฀las฀formaciones฀sociales฀ pre-estatales฀y฀no฀estatales,”฀Boletín฀de฀Antropología฀Americana,฀no.฀14:฀53–61. Patterson,฀Thomas฀C.฀(1991),฀The฀Inca฀Empire:฀The฀Formation฀and฀Disintegration฀ of฀a฀Pre-Capitalist฀State,฀Oxford:฀Berg฀Publishers. Patterson,฀Thomas฀C.฀(1999),฀“The฀Development฀of฀Agriculture฀and฀the฀Emergence฀ of฀Formative฀Civilizations฀in฀the฀Central฀Andes,”฀in฀Michael฀Blake฀(ed.),฀Pacific฀ Latin฀America฀in฀Prehistory:฀The฀Evolution฀of฀Archaic฀and฀Formative฀Cultures,฀ Pullman,฀WA:฀Washington฀State฀University฀Press,฀pp.฀181–8. Patterson,฀Thomas฀C.฀(2005),฀“Craft฀Specialization,฀the฀Reorganization฀of฀Production฀ Relations฀and฀State฀Formation,”฀Journal฀of฀Social฀Archaeology฀5(3):฀307–37. Patterson,฀Thomas฀C.฀and฀Frank฀Spencer฀(1995),฀“Racial฀Hierarchies฀and฀Buffer฀ Races,”฀Transforming฀Anthropology฀5(1):฀20–7. Pels,฀Dick฀(1998),฀Property฀and฀Power฀in฀Social฀Theory:฀A฀Study฀in฀Intellectual฀ Rivalry,฀London:฀Routledge. Petrović,฀ Gajo฀ (1965/1967),฀ Marx฀ in฀ the฀ Mid-Twentieth฀ Century:฀A฀ Yugoslav฀ Philosopher฀Reconsiders฀Karl฀Marx’s฀Writings,฀Garden฀City,฀NY:฀Doubleday฀and฀ Company. Petrović,฀Gajo฀(1991),฀“Praxis,”฀in฀Tom฀Bottomore฀(ed.),฀A฀Dictionary฀of฀Marxist฀ Thought,฀2nd฀edition,฀Oxford:฀Blackwell฀Publishers,฀pp.฀435–40. Pittenger,฀Mark฀(1993),฀American฀Socialists฀and฀Evolutionary฀Thought,฀1870–1920,฀ Madison,฀WI:฀The฀University฀of฀Wisconsin฀Press. Plamentz,฀John฀(1975),฀Karl฀Marx’s฀Philosophy฀of฀Man,฀Oxford:฀Clarendon฀Press. Plant,฀ Raymond฀ (1983),฀ Hegel:฀ An฀ Introduction,฀ Oxford:฀ Basil฀ Blackwell฀ Publisher. Popkin,฀Richard฀H.฀(1979),฀The฀History฀of฀Scepticism฀from฀Erasmus฀to฀Spinoza,฀ Berkeley,฀CA:฀University฀of฀California฀Press.

Bibliography฀ •฀ 209 Porter,฀Roy฀(1972),฀“The฀Industrial฀Revolution฀and฀the฀Rise฀of฀the฀Science฀of฀ Geology,”฀in฀Mikulás฀Teich฀and฀Robert฀Young฀(eds),฀Changing฀Perspectives฀ in฀the฀History฀of฀Science:฀Essays฀in฀Honour฀of฀Joseph฀Needham,฀Dordrecht:฀D.฀ Reidel฀Publishing฀Co.,฀pp.฀320–43. Postone,฀Moishe฀(1993),฀Time,฀Labor,฀and฀Social฀Domination:฀A฀Reinterpretation฀of฀ Marx’s฀Critical฀Theory,฀Cambridge:฀Cambridge฀University฀Press. Prawer,฀Siegbert฀S.฀(1978),฀Karl฀Marx฀and฀World฀Literature,฀Oxford:฀Oxford฀ University฀Press. Price,฀David฀(2007),฀“Anthropology฀as฀Lamppost?฀A฀Comment฀on฀the฀Counterinsurgency฀Field฀Manual,”฀Anthropology฀Today฀23(6):฀20–1. Price,฀John฀A.฀(1975),฀“Sharing:฀The฀Integration฀of฀Intimate฀Economies,”฀Anthropologica฀(n.s.)฀17(1):฀3–27. Rader,฀ Melvin฀ (1979),฀ Marx’s฀ Interpretation฀ of฀ History,฀ New฀York:฀ Oxford฀ University฀Press. Raines,฀ John฀ (2002),฀ “Introduction,”฀ in฀ John฀ Raines฀ (ed.),฀ Marx฀ on฀ Religion,฀ Philadelphia,฀PA:฀Temple฀University฀Press,฀pp.฀1–14. Read,฀Jason฀(2003),฀The฀Micro-Politics฀of฀Capital:฀Marx฀and฀the฀Prehistory฀of฀the฀ Present,฀Albany,฀NY:฀State฀University฀of฀New฀York฀Press. Reill,฀Peter฀H.฀(1998),฀“The฀Construction฀of฀the฀Social฀Sciences฀in฀Late฀Eighteenth฀ and฀Early฀Nineteenth฀Century฀Germany,”฀in฀Johan฀Heilbron,฀Lars฀Magnusson,฀ and฀Björn฀Wittrock฀(eds),฀The฀Rise฀of฀the฀Social฀Sciences฀and฀the฀Formation฀ of฀Modernity:฀Conceptual฀Change฀in฀Context,฀1750–1850,฀Dordrecht:฀Kluwer฀ Academic฀Publishers,฀pp.฀107–40. Reill,฀Peter฀H.฀(2005),฀Vitalizing฀Nature฀in฀the฀Enlightenment,฀Berkeley,฀CA:฀ University฀of฀California฀Press. Rey,฀ Pierre-Philippe฀ (1971),฀ Colonialisme,฀ néo-colonialisme฀ et฀ transition฀ du฀ capitalisme,฀Paris:฀Maspero. Rey,฀Pierre-Philippe฀(1973/1982),฀“Class฀Alliances,”฀International฀Journal฀of฀ Sociology฀12(2):฀1–120. Rey,฀ Pierre-Philippe฀ (1975),฀ “The฀ Lineage฀ Mode฀ of฀ Production,”฀ Critique฀ of฀ Anthropology,฀no.฀3:฀27–79. Rey,฀ Pierre-Philippe฀ (1979),฀ “Class฀ Contradiction฀ in฀ the฀ Lineage฀ Mode฀ of฀ Production,”฀Critique฀of฀Anthropology,฀no.฀13–14:฀41–61. Reyna,฀ Stephen฀ P.฀ and฀ Downs,฀ R.฀ E.฀ (eds)฀ (1999),฀ Deadly฀ Developments:฀ Capitalism,฀States฀and฀War,฀War฀and฀Society,฀vol.฀5,฀Singapore:฀Gordon฀and฀ Breach฀Publishers. Richards,฀ Robert฀ J.฀ (1992),฀ The฀ Meaning฀ of฀ Evolution:฀ The฀ Morphological฀ Construction฀and฀Ideological฀Reconstruction฀of฀Darwin’s฀Theory,฀Chicago:฀The฀ University฀of฀Chicago฀Press. Richards,฀Robert฀J.฀(2002),฀The฀Romantic฀Conception฀of฀Life:฀Science฀and฀Philosophy฀ in฀the฀Age฀of฀Goethe,฀Chicago:฀The฀University฀of฀Chicago฀Press.

210฀ •฀ Bibliography Rigby,฀Peter฀(1985),฀Persistent฀Pastoralists:฀Nomadic฀Societies฀in฀Transition,฀ London:฀Zed฀Books. Rigby,฀ Peter฀ (1992),฀ Cattle,฀ Capitalism,฀ and฀ Class:฀ Ilparakuyo฀ Maasai฀ Transformations,฀Philadelphia,฀PA:฀Temple฀University฀Press. Robinson,฀Cedric฀J.฀(1983),฀Black฀Marxism:฀The฀Making฀of฀the฀Black฀Radical฀ Tradition,฀London:฀Zed฀Books. Rockmore,฀Tom฀(1992/1993),฀Before฀and฀After฀Hegel:฀A฀Historical฀Introduction฀to฀ Hegel’s฀Thought,฀Berkeley,฀CA:฀University฀of฀California฀Press. Rodinson,฀Maxime฀(1966/1978),฀Islam฀and฀Capitalism,฀Austin,฀TX:฀University฀of฀ Texas฀Press. Roger,฀Jacques฀(1963/1997),฀The฀Life฀Sciences฀in฀Eighteenth-Century฀French฀ Thought,฀Stanford,฀CA:฀Stanford฀University฀Press. Roger,฀Jacques฀(1989/1997),฀Buffon:฀A฀Life฀in฀Natural฀History,฀Ithaca,฀NY:฀Cornell฀ University฀Press. Rorty,฀Richard฀(1989),฀Contingency,฀Irony,฀and฀Solidarity,฀Cambridge:฀Cambridge฀ University฀Press. Rosdolsky,฀Roman฀(1980),฀Friedrich฀Engels฀y฀el฀problema฀de฀los฀pueblos฀“sin฀ historia”:฀la฀cuestión฀de฀las฀nacionalidades฀en฀la฀revolución฀a฀la฀luz฀de฀la฀“Neue฀ Rheinische฀Zeitung,”฀Mexico,฀DF:฀Siglo฀XXI฀Editores. Rose,฀Gillian฀(1981),฀Hegel฀contra฀Sociology,฀London:฀Athalone฀Press. Rossabi,฀Morris฀(1990),฀“The฀‘Decline’฀of฀the฀Central฀Asian฀Caravan฀Trade,”฀in฀ James฀D.฀Tracy฀(ed.),฀The฀Rise฀of฀Merchant฀Empires:฀Long-Distance฀Trade฀in฀the฀ Early฀Modern฀World,฀1350–1750,฀Cambridge:฀Cambridge฀University฀Press,฀pp.฀ 351–70. Rossi,฀Paolo฀(1984),฀The฀Dark฀Abyss฀of฀Time:฀The฀History฀of฀the฀Earth฀from฀Hooke฀ to฀Vico,฀Chicago:฀The฀University฀of฀Chicago฀Press. Rousseau,฀Jean-Jacques฀(1750/1973),฀“A฀Discourse฀on฀the฀Arts฀and฀Sciences,”฀in฀ George฀D.฀H.฀Cole฀(ed.),฀The฀Social฀Contract฀and฀Discourses,฀London:฀J.฀M.฀ Dent฀and฀Sons,฀pp.฀1–26. Rousseau,฀Jean-Jacques฀(1755/1973),฀“A฀Discourse฀on฀the฀Origin฀of฀Inequality,”฀ in฀George฀D.฀H.฀Cole฀(ed.),฀The฀Social฀Contract฀and฀Discourses,฀London:฀J.฀M.฀ Dent฀and฀Sons,฀pp.฀27–114. Rousseau,฀Jean-Jacques฀(1755/1992a),฀“Discourse฀on฀the฀Origin฀and฀Foundations฀of฀ Inequality฀among฀Men,”฀in฀Roger฀D.฀Masters฀and฀Christopher฀Kelly฀(eds),฀The฀ Collected฀Writings฀of฀Rousseau,฀edited฀by฀vol.฀3,฀Discourse฀on฀the฀Origins฀of฀ Inequality฀(Second฀Discourse),฀Polemics,฀and฀Political฀Economy,฀Hanover,฀NH:฀ University฀Press฀of฀New฀England,฀pp.฀1–95. Rousseau,฀Jean-Jacques฀(1755/1992b),฀“Discourse฀on฀Political฀Economy,”฀in฀Roger฀ D.฀Masters฀and฀Christopher฀Kelly฀(eds),฀The฀Collected฀Writings฀of฀Rousseau,฀ edited฀by฀vol.฀3,฀Discourse฀on฀the฀Origins฀of฀Inequality฀(Second฀Discourse),฀ Polemics,฀ and฀ Political฀ Economy,฀ Hanover,฀ NH:฀ University฀ Press฀ of฀ New฀ England,฀pp.฀140–70.

Bibliography฀ •฀ 211 Rousseau,฀Jean-Jacques฀(1764/1962),฀Lettres฀écrites฀de฀la฀montagne,฀Neuchâtel:฀ Ides฀et฀Calendes. Rousseau,฀ Jean-Jacques฀ (1765/1986),฀ “Constitutional฀ Project฀ for฀ Corsica,”฀ in฀ Frederick฀Watkins฀(ed.),฀Jean-Jacques฀Rousseau:฀Political฀Writings,฀Madison,฀ WI:฀The฀University฀of฀Wisconsin฀Press,฀pp.฀277–330. Rowe,฀John฀H.฀(1964),฀“Ethnology฀and฀Ethnography฀in฀the฀Sixteenth฀Century,”฀ Kroeber฀Anthropological฀Society฀Papers,฀no.฀30:฀1–20. Rowe,฀John฀H.฀(1965),฀“The฀Renaissance฀Foundations฀of฀Anthropology,”฀American฀ Anthropologist฀67(1):฀1–20. Rudwick,฀Martin฀J.฀S.฀(1985),฀The฀Meaning฀of฀Fossils:฀Episodes฀in฀the฀History฀of฀ Palaeontology,฀2nd฀edition,฀Chicago:฀The฀University฀of฀Chicago฀Press. Ryding,฀James฀N.฀(1975),฀“Alternatives฀in฀Nineteenth-Century฀German฀Ethnology:฀ A฀Case฀Study฀in฀the฀Sociology฀of฀Science,”฀Sociologus฀25(1):฀1–28. Sahlins,฀Marshall฀D.฀(1988/2000),฀“Cosmologies฀of฀Capitalism:฀The฀Trans-Pacific฀ Sector฀of฀‘The฀World฀System’,”฀in฀Marshall฀Sahlins,฀Culture฀in฀Practice:฀Selected฀ Essays,฀New฀York:฀Zone฀Books,฀pp.฀415–70. Sahlins,฀Marshall฀D.฀(1993/2000),฀“Goodbye฀to฀Tristes฀Tropes:฀Ethnography฀in฀the฀ Context฀of฀Modern฀World฀History,”฀in฀Marshall฀Sahlins,฀Culture฀in฀Practice:฀ Selected฀Essays,฀New฀York:฀Zone฀Books,฀pp.฀471–500. Sainte฀Croix,฀Geoffrey฀E.฀M.฀de฀(1981),฀The฀Class฀Struggle฀in฀the฀Ancient฀Greek฀ World;฀from฀the฀Archaic฀Age฀to฀the฀Arab฀Conquest,฀Ithaca,฀NY:฀Cornell฀University฀ Press. Sayers,฀Sean฀(1981),฀Marx฀and฀Human฀Nature,฀London:฀Routledge. Schaff,฀Adam฀ (1965/1970),฀ Marxism฀ and฀ the฀ Human฀ Individual,฀ New฀York:฀ McGraw-Hill฀Book฀Company. Schell,฀Lawrence฀M.฀and฀Melinda฀Denham฀(2003),฀“Environmental฀Pollution฀in฀ Urban฀Environments฀and฀Human฀Biology,”฀Annual฀Review฀of฀Anthropology฀32:฀ 111–34. Schoenemann,฀P.฀Thomas฀(2006),฀“Evolution฀of฀the฀Size฀and฀Functional฀Areas฀of฀the฀ Human฀Brain,”฀Annual฀Review฀of฀Anthropology฀35:฀379–406. Schortman,฀Edward฀M.฀and฀Urban,฀Patricia฀A.฀(2004),฀“Modeling฀the฀Roles฀of฀Craft฀ Production฀in฀Ancient฀Political฀Economies,”฀Journal฀of฀Archaeological฀Research฀ 12(2):฀185–226. Schulz,฀Amy฀J.฀and฀Mullings,฀Leith฀(eds)฀(2006),฀Gender,฀Race,฀Class,฀and฀Health:฀ Intersectional฀Approaches,฀San฀Francisco,฀CA:฀Jossy-Bass. Schwartz,฀David฀(1995),฀Culture฀and฀Power:฀The฀Sociology฀of฀Pierre฀Bourdieu,฀ Chicago:฀The฀University฀of฀Chicago฀Press. Schweber,฀Silvan฀S.฀(1980),฀“Darwin฀and฀the฀Political฀Economists:฀Divergence฀of฀ Character,”฀Journal฀of฀the฀History฀of฀Biology฀13(2):฀195–299. Schweber,฀Silvan฀S.฀(1985),฀“The฀Wider฀Context฀in฀Darwin’s฀Theorizing,”฀in฀David฀ Kohn฀(ed.),฀The฀Darwinian฀Heritage,฀Princeton,฀NJ:฀Princeton฀University฀Press,฀ pp.฀35–70.

212฀ •฀ Bibliography Scott,฀James฀(1985),฀Weapons฀of฀the฀Weak:฀Everyday฀Forms฀of฀Peasant฀Resistance,฀ New฀Haven,฀CT:฀Yale฀University฀Press. Seccombe,฀Wally฀(1983),฀“Marxism฀and฀Demography,”฀New฀Left฀Review,฀no.฀137:฀ 22–47. Seigel,฀Jerrold฀E.฀(1978),฀Marx’s฀Fate:฀The฀Shape฀of฀a฀Life,฀Princeton,฀NJ:฀Princeton฀ University฀Press. Sepulchre,฀Pierre,฀Ramstein,฀Gilles,฀Fluteau,฀Frédéric,฀Schuster,฀Mathieu,฀Tiercelin,฀ Jean-Jacques,฀and฀Brunet,฀Michel฀(2006),฀“Tectonic฀Uplift฀and฀Eastern฀Africa฀ Aridification,”฀Science฀313(5792,฀8฀September):฀1419–23. Showstack฀Sassoon,฀Anne฀(1991),฀“Civil฀Society,”฀in฀Tom฀Bottomore฀(ed.),฀A฀ Dictionary฀of฀Marxist฀Thought,฀2nd฀edition,฀Oxford:฀Blackwell฀Publishers,฀pp.฀ 82–4. Silverstein,฀Paul฀A.฀(2005),฀“Immigrant฀Racialization฀and฀the฀New฀Savage฀Slot:฀ Race,฀ Migration,฀ and฀ Immigration฀ in฀ the฀ New฀ Europe,”฀ Annual฀ Review฀ of฀ Anthropology฀34:฀363–84. Singer,฀Merrill฀and฀Baer,฀Hans฀A.฀(1995),฀Critical฀Medical฀Anthropology,฀Amityville,฀ NY:฀Baywood฀Publishing. Sleigh,฀Robert฀C.,฀Jr.฀(1995),฀“Leibniz,฀Gottfried฀Wilhelm,”฀in฀Robert฀Audi฀(ed.),฀ The฀Cambridge฀Dictionary฀of฀Philosophy,฀2nd฀edition,฀Cambridge:฀Cambridge฀ University฀Press,฀pp.฀491–4. Sloan,฀Phillip฀R.฀(1976),฀“The฀Buffon-Linnaeus฀Controversy,”฀Isis฀67(3):฀356–75. Sloan,฀Phillip฀R.฀(1979),฀“Buffon,฀German฀Biology,฀and฀the฀Historical฀Interpretation฀ of฀Biological฀Species,”฀The฀British฀Journal฀for฀the฀History฀of฀Science฀12(41):฀ 109–53. Sloan,฀Phillip฀R.฀(1995),฀“The฀Gaze฀of฀Natural฀History,”฀in฀Christopher฀Fox,฀Roy฀ Porter,฀and฀Robert฀Wokler฀(eds),฀Inventing฀Human฀Science:฀Eighteenth-Century฀ Domains,฀Berkeley,฀CA:฀University฀of฀California฀Press,฀pp.฀112–51. Smith,฀Adam฀(1759/1976),฀The฀Theory฀of฀Moral฀Sentiments,฀Indianapolis:฀Liberty฀ Press. Smith,฀Adam฀(1762–3/1982),฀Lectures฀on฀Jurisprudence,฀Indianapolis:฀Liberty฀ Press. Smith,฀Adam฀(1776/1976),฀An฀Inquiry฀into฀the฀Nature฀and฀Causes฀of฀the฀Wealth฀of฀ Nations,฀Chicago:฀The฀University฀of฀Chicago฀Press. Smith,฀David฀N.฀(2002),฀“Accumulation฀and฀the฀Clash฀of฀Cultures,”฀Rethinking฀ Marxism฀14(4):฀73–84. Smith,฀Neil฀(2005),฀The฀Endgame฀of฀Globalization,฀London:฀Routledge. Soper,฀Kate฀(1981)฀On฀Human฀Needs:฀Open฀and฀Closed฀Theories฀in฀a฀Marxist฀ Perspective,฀Brighton,฀UK:฀Harvester฀Press. Soper,฀Kate฀(1996),฀“Greening฀Prometheus:฀Marxism฀and฀Ecology,”฀in฀Ted฀Benton฀ (ed.),฀The฀Greening฀of฀Marxism,฀New฀York:฀Guilford฀Press,฀pp.฀81–99. Southall,฀Aidan฀(1988),฀“The฀Segmentary฀State฀in฀Africa฀and฀Asia,”฀Comparative฀ Studies฀in฀Society฀and฀History฀30(1):฀52–82.

Bibliography฀ •฀ 213 Spalding,฀Karen฀(1975),฀“Class฀Structures฀in฀the฀Southern฀Peruvian฀Highlands,฀ 1750–1920,”฀in฀Benjamin฀Orlove฀and฀Glynn฀Custred฀(eds),฀Land฀and฀Power฀in฀ Latin฀America,฀New฀York:฀Holmes฀and฀Meier,฀pp.฀79–97. Spalding,฀Karen฀(1984),฀Huarochirí:฀An฀Andean฀Society฀under฀Inca฀and฀Spanish฀ Rule,฀Stanford,฀CA:฀Stanford฀University฀Press. Ssorin-Chaikov,฀Nikolai฀V.฀(2003),฀The฀Social฀Life฀of฀the฀State฀in฀Subarctic฀Siberia,฀ Stanford,฀CA:฀Stanford฀University฀Press. Stagl,฀Justin฀(1995),฀“August฀Ludwig฀Schlözer฀and฀the฀Study฀of฀Mankind฀According฀ to฀Peoples,”฀in฀Justin฀Stagl,฀A฀History฀of฀Curiosity:฀The฀Theory฀of฀Travel฀1550– 1800,฀Chur,฀Switzerland:฀Harwood฀Academic฀Publishers,฀pp.฀233–68. Stam,฀James฀H.฀(1976),฀ Inquiries฀into฀the฀Origin฀of฀Language:฀The฀Fate฀of฀a฀ Question,฀New฀York:฀Harper฀and฀Row,฀Publishers. Stanley,฀Steven฀M.฀(1998),฀Children฀of฀the฀Ice฀Age,฀New฀York:฀W.฀H.฀Freeman. Stark,฀Werner฀(2003),฀“Historical฀Notes฀and฀Interpretive฀Questions฀about฀Kant’s฀ Lectures฀on฀Anthropology,”฀in฀Brian฀Jacobs฀and฀Patrick฀Kain฀(eds),฀Essays฀on฀ Kant’s฀Anthropology,฀Cambridge:฀Cambridge฀University฀Press,฀pp.฀15–37. Steinberg,฀Ted฀(2000),฀Acts฀of฀God:฀The฀Unnatural฀History฀of฀Natural฀Disaster฀in฀ America,฀Oxford:฀Oxford฀University฀Press. Stephen,฀Lynn฀(1997),฀“The฀Zapatista฀Opening:฀The฀Movement฀for฀Indigenous฀ Autonomy฀and฀State฀Discourses฀on฀Indigenous฀Rights฀in฀Mexico,฀1970–1996,”฀ Journal฀of฀Latin฀American฀Anthropology฀3(1):฀72–101. Stocking฀George฀W.,฀Jr.฀(1987),฀Victorian฀Anthropology,฀New฀York:฀The฀Free฀Press. Sweezy,฀Paul฀(1950/1976),฀“A฀Critique,”฀in฀Rodney฀Hilton฀(ed.),฀The฀Transition฀ from฀Feudalism฀to฀Capitalism,฀London,฀UK฀New฀Left฀Books,฀pp.฀33–56. Taussig,฀Michael฀T.฀(1980),฀The฀Devil฀and฀Commodity฀Fetishism฀in฀South฀America,฀ Chapel฀Hill,฀NC:฀University฀of฀North฀Carolina฀Press. Taussig,฀Michael฀T.฀(1987),฀Shamans,฀Colonialism฀and฀the฀Wild฀Man:฀A฀Study฀in฀ Terror฀and฀Healing,฀Chicago:฀The฀University฀of฀Chicago฀Press.), Testart,฀Alain฀(1982),฀“The฀Significance฀of฀Food-Storage฀among฀Hunter-Gatherers:฀ Residence฀Patterns,฀Population฀Densities,฀and฀Social฀Inequalities,”฀Current฀ Anthropology฀23(5):฀523–37. Thapar,฀Romila฀(1981),฀“The฀State฀as฀Empire,”฀in฀Henri฀J.฀M.฀Claessen฀and฀Peter฀ Skalník฀(eds),฀The฀Study฀of฀the฀State,฀The฀Hague:฀Mouton฀Publishers,฀pp.฀309–26. Thompson,฀Edward฀P.฀(1963),฀The฀Making฀of฀the฀English฀Working฀Class,฀New฀York:฀ Vintage฀Books. Thompson,฀Edward฀P.฀(1978),฀The฀Poverty฀of฀Theory฀and฀Other฀Essays,฀New฀York:฀ Monthly฀Review฀Press. Tobias,฀Philip฀V.฀(1998),฀“Evidence฀for฀the฀Early฀Beginnings฀of฀Spoken฀Language,”฀ Cambridge฀Archaeological฀Journal฀8(1):฀72–81. Tracy,฀James฀D.฀(ed.)฀(1990),฀The฀Rise฀of฀Merchant฀Empires:฀Long-Distance฀Trade฀ in฀the฀Early฀Modern฀World,฀1350–1750,฀Cambridge:฀Cambridge฀University฀ Press.

214฀ •฀ Bibliography Trigger,฀Bruce฀G.฀(1967/2003),฀“Engels฀on฀the฀Part฀Played฀by฀Labor฀in฀the฀Transition฀ from฀Ape฀to฀Man:฀An฀Anticipation฀of฀Contemporary฀Archaeological฀Theory,”฀in฀ Bruce฀G.฀Trigger,฀Artifacts฀and฀Ideas:฀Essays฀in฀Archaeology,฀New฀Brunswick,฀ NJ:฀Transaction฀Books,฀pp.฀31–44. Trinkhaus,฀Erik฀(1992),฀“Evolution฀of฀Human฀Manipulation,”฀in฀Stephen฀Jones,฀ Robert฀Martin,฀and฀David฀Pilbeam฀(eds),฀The฀Cambridge฀Encyclopedia฀of฀Human฀ Evolution,฀Cambridge:฀Cambridge฀University฀Press,฀pp.฀346–9. Trotsky,฀Leon฀(1930/1980),฀The฀History฀of฀the฀Russian฀Revolution,฀New฀York:฀ Monad฀Press. Venable,฀Vernon฀(1945/1966),฀Human฀Nature:฀The฀Marxian฀View.฀Cleveland,฀OH:฀ The฀World฀Publishing฀Company. Verdery,฀Katherine฀and฀Humphrey,฀Caroline฀(eds)฀(2004),฀Property฀in฀Question:฀ Value฀Transformation฀in฀the฀Global฀Economy,฀Oxford:฀Berg฀Publishers. Vermeulen,฀Han฀F.฀(1992),฀“The฀Emergence฀of฀‘Ethnography’฀ca.฀1770฀in฀Göttingen,”฀ History฀of฀Anthropology฀Newsletter฀19(2):฀6–9. Vermeulen,฀Han฀F.฀(1995),฀“Origins฀and฀Institutionalization฀of฀Ethnography฀and฀ Ethnology฀ in฀ Europe฀ and฀ the฀ USA,฀ 1771–1845,”฀ in฀ Han฀ F.฀Vermeulen฀ and฀ Arturo฀Alvarez฀Roldán฀(eds),฀Fieldwork฀and฀Footnotes:฀Studies฀in฀the฀History฀of฀ European฀Anthropology,฀London:฀Routledge,฀pp.฀39–59. Vološinov,฀Valentin฀N.฀(1927/1976),฀Freudianism:฀A฀Critical฀Sketch,฀Bloomington,฀ IN:฀Indiana฀University฀Press. Vološinov,฀Valentin฀N.฀(1929/1986),฀Marxism฀and฀the฀Philosophy฀of฀Language,฀ Cambridge,฀MA:฀Harvard฀University฀Press. Vygotsky,฀Lev฀S.฀(1934/1962),฀Thought฀and฀Language,฀Cambridge,฀MA:฀The฀MIT฀ Press. Vygotsky,฀Lev฀S.฀and฀Alexander฀Luria.฀(1930/1994),฀“Tool฀and฀Symbol฀in฀Child฀ Development,”฀in฀René฀Van฀Der฀Veer฀and฀Jaan฀Valsiner฀(eds),฀The฀Vygotsky฀ Reader,฀Oxford:฀Blackwell฀Publishers,฀pp.฀99–174. Wade,฀Peter฀(2002),฀Race,฀Nature฀and฀Culture:฀An฀Anthropological฀Perspective,฀ London:฀Pluto฀Press. Waitzkin,฀Howard฀(1979),฀“Medicine฀Superstructure฀and฀Micropolitics,”฀Social฀ Science฀and฀Medicine฀13a(4):฀601–9. Wakin,฀ Eric฀ (1992),฀ Anthropology฀ Goes฀ to฀ War:฀ Professional฀ Ethics฀ and฀ Counterinsurgency฀in฀Thailand,฀University฀of฀Wisconsin฀Center฀for฀Southeast฀ Asian฀Studies,฀no.฀7,฀Madison. Walker,฀Kathy฀L.฀(2006),฀“‘Gangster฀Capitalism’฀and฀Peasant฀Protest฀in฀China:฀The฀ Last฀Twenty฀Years,”฀The฀Journal฀of฀Peasant฀Studies฀33(1):฀1–33. Wallerstein,฀ Immanuel฀ (1974),฀ The฀ Modern฀ World-System,฀ vol.฀ 1,฀ Capitalist฀ Agriculture฀and฀the฀Origins฀of฀the฀European฀World฀Economy฀of฀the฀Sixteenth฀ Century,฀New฀York:฀Academic฀Press. Wang,฀ Gungwu฀ (1990),฀ “Merchants฀ without฀ Empire:฀ The฀ Hokkien฀ Sojourning฀Communities,”฀in฀James฀D.฀Tracy฀(ed.),฀The฀Rise฀of฀Merchant฀Empires:฀

Bibliography฀ •฀ 215 Long-Distance฀ Trade฀ in฀ the฀ Early฀ Modern฀ World,฀ 1350–1750,฀ Cambridge:฀ Cambridge฀University฀Press,฀pp.฀400–21. Warren,฀ Kay฀ B.฀ (1998),฀ Indigenous฀ Movements฀ and฀ Their฀ Critics:฀ Pan-Mata฀ Activism฀in฀Guatemala,฀Princeton,฀NJ:฀Princeton฀University฀Press. Washburn,฀Sherwood฀L.฀(1960),฀“Tools฀and฀Human฀Evolution,”฀Scientific฀American฀ 203(3):฀63–75. Washburn,฀Sherwood฀L.฀and฀Howell,฀F.฀Clark฀(1963),฀“Human฀Evolution฀and฀ Culture,”฀in฀Sol฀Tax฀(ed.),฀Evolution฀after฀Darwin,฀vol.฀II,฀The฀Evolution฀of฀Man,฀ Chicago:฀The฀University฀of฀Chicago฀Press,฀pp.฀33–56. Washburn,฀Sherwood฀L.฀and฀Lancaster,฀C.฀S.฀(1968),฀“The฀Evolution฀of฀Hunting,”฀ in฀Richard฀B.฀Lee฀and฀Irven฀DeVore฀(eds),฀Man฀the฀Hunter,฀Chicago:฀Aldine฀ Publishers,฀pp.฀293–303. Waszek,฀Norbert฀(1988),฀The฀Scottish฀Enlightenment฀and฀Hegel’s฀Account฀of฀“Civil฀ Society,”฀International฀Archives฀of฀the฀History฀of฀Ideas฀120,฀Dordrecht:฀Kluwer฀ Academic฀Publishers. Weikart,฀Richard฀(1999),฀ Socialist฀Darwinism:฀Evolution฀in฀German฀Socialist฀ Thought฀from฀Marx฀to฀Bernstein,฀San฀Francisco,฀CA:฀International฀Scholars฀ Publications. Weindling,฀Paul฀(1989),฀ Health,฀Race฀and฀German฀Politics฀between฀National฀ Unification฀and฀Nazism,฀1870–1945,฀Cambridge:฀Cambridge฀University฀Press. Weis,฀Linda฀(1998),฀The฀Myth฀of฀the฀Powerless฀State,฀Ithaca,฀NY:฀Cornell฀University฀ Press. Weiss,฀Hilde฀(1936/1973),฀“Karl฀Marx’s฀‘Enquête฀Ouvrière’,”฀in฀Tom฀Bottomore฀ (ed.),฀Karl฀Marx,฀Oxford:฀Basil฀Blackwell,฀pp.฀172–84. Williams,฀Brett฀(2001),฀“A฀River฀Runs฀Through฀Us฀(Anacostia฀River,฀Washington,฀ D.C.),”฀American฀Anthropologist฀103(2):฀409–32. Williams,฀Raymond฀(1977),฀Marxism฀and฀Literature,฀Oxford:฀Oxford฀University฀ Press. Williams,฀Raymond฀(1983/1989),฀“Marx฀on฀Culture,”฀in฀Raymond฀Williams,฀What฀I฀ Came฀to฀Say,฀London:฀Hutchinson฀Radius,฀pp.฀195–225. Wilson,฀Godfrey฀B.฀and฀Wilson,฀Monica฀H.฀(1945/1954),฀The฀Analysis฀of฀Social฀ Change,฀Cambridge:฀Cambridge฀University฀Press. Wilson,฀H.฀T.฀(1991),฀Marx’s฀Critical/Dialectical฀Procedure,฀London:฀Routledge. Wilson,฀Richard฀A.฀(ed.)฀(1997),฀Human฀Rights,฀Culture฀and฀Context:฀Anthropological฀ Perspectives,฀London:฀Pluto฀Press. Winant,฀Howard฀(2004),฀The฀New฀Politics฀of฀Race:฀Globalism,฀Difference,฀Justice,฀ Minneapolis,฀MN:฀University฀of฀Minnesota฀Press. Wokler,฀ Robert฀ (1978),฀ “Perfectible฀Apes฀ in฀ Decadent฀ Cultures:฀ Rousseau’s฀ Anthropology฀Revisited,”฀Daedalus฀107(3):฀107–34. Wokler,฀Robert฀(1980),฀“The฀Ape฀Debates฀in฀Enlightenment฀Anthropology,”฀Studies฀ on฀Voltaire฀and฀the฀Eighteenth฀Century฀192:฀1164–75.

216฀ •฀ Bibliography Wokler,฀Robert฀(1988),฀“Apes฀and฀Races฀in฀the฀Scottish฀Enlightenment:฀Monboddo฀ and฀Kames฀on฀the฀Nature฀of฀Man,”฀in฀Peter฀Jones฀(ed.),฀Philosophy฀and฀Science฀ in฀the฀Scottish฀Enlightenment,฀Edinburgh:฀John฀Donald฀Publishers,฀pp.฀145–68. Wokler,฀Robert฀(1993),฀“From฀l’homme฀physique฀to฀l’homme฀moral฀and฀Back:฀ Toward฀ a฀ History฀ of฀ Enlightenment฀Anthropology,”฀ History฀ of฀ the฀ Human฀ Sciences฀6(1):฀121–38. Wokler,฀Robert฀(1997a),฀“Tyson,฀Edward฀(1650–1708),”฀in฀Frank฀Spencer฀(ed.),฀ History฀of฀Physical฀Anthropology:฀An฀Encyclopedia,฀vol.฀2,฀New฀York:฀Garland฀ Publishing฀Company,฀pp.฀1048–50. Wokler,฀Robert฀(1997b),฀“Rousseau,฀Jean-Jacques฀(1712–1778),”฀in฀Frank฀Spencer฀ (ed.),฀History฀of฀Physical฀Anthropology:฀An฀Encyclopedia,฀vol.฀2,฀New฀York:฀ Garland฀Publishing฀Company,฀pp.฀887–90. Wolf,฀Eric฀R.฀(1959),฀Sons฀of฀the฀Shaking฀Earth,฀Chicago:฀The฀University฀of฀Chicago฀ Press. Wolf,฀Eric฀R.฀(1969),฀Peasant฀Wars฀of฀the฀Twentieth฀Century,฀New฀York:฀Harper฀and฀ Row. Wolf,฀Eric฀R.฀(1972),฀“Ownership฀and฀Political฀Ecology,”฀Anthropological฀Quarterly฀ 45(2):฀201–5. Wolf,฀ Eric฀ R.฀ (1982),฀Europe฀ and฀ the฀ People฀ without฀ History,฀ Berkeley,฀ CA:฀ University฀of฀California฀Press. Wolf,฀Eric฀R.฀(1999),฀Engendering฀Power:฀Ideologies฀of฀Dominance฀and฀Crisis,฀ Berkeley,฀CA:฀University฀of฀California฀Press. Wolpe,฀Harold฀(1980),฀“Introduction,”฀in฀Harold฀Wolpe฀(ed.),฀The฀Articulation฀of฀ Modes฀of฀Production:฀Essays฀from฀Economy฀and฀Society,฀London:฀Routledge฀and฀ Kegan฀Paul,฀pp.฀1–43. Wolpe,฀Harold฀(1985),฀“The฀Articulation฀of฀Modes฀and฀Forms฀of฀Production,”฀in฀ Dipentra฀Banerjee฀(ed.),฀Marxian฀Theory฀and฀the฀Third฀World,฀New฀Delhi:฀Sage฀ Publications,฀pp.฀89–103. Wood,฀Ellen฀M.฀(2002),฀“The฀Question฀of฀Market฀Dependence,”฀Journal฀of฀Agrarian฀ Change฀2(1):฀50–87. Wood,฀Ellen฀M.฀and฀Wood,฀Neal฀(1997),฀A฀Trumpet฀of฀Sedition:฀Political฀Theory฀and฀ the฀Rise฀of฀Capitalism,฀1509–1688,฀New฀York:฀New฀York฀University฀Press. Woolfson,฀Charles฀(1982),฀The฀Labour฀Theory฀of฀Culture:฀A฀Re-examination฀of฀ Engels’s฀Theory฀of฀Human฀Origins,฀London:฀Routledge฀and฀Kegan฀Paul. Worsley,฀Peter฀(1961),฀“The฀Analysis฀of฀Rebellion฀and฀Revolution฀in฀Modern฀British฀ Social฀Anthropology,”฀Science฀and฀Society฀21(1):฀26–37. Worsley,฀Peter฀(1968/1970),฀The฀Trumpet฀Shall฀Sound:฀A฀Study฀of฀“Cargo”฀Cults฀in฀ Melanesia,฀New฀York.฀Schocken฀Books. Yanagisako,฀Sylvia฀and฀Delaney,฀Carol฀(1995),฀“Naturalizing฀Power,”฀in฀Sylvia฀ Yanagisako฀and฀Carol฀Delaney฀(eds),฀Naturalizing฀Power:฀Essays฀in฀Feminist฀ Cultural฀Analysis,฀London:฀Routledge,฀pp.฀1–22.

Bibliography฀ •฀ 217 Young,฀Gary฀(1981),฀“Doing฀Marx฀Justice,”฀in฀Kai฀Nielsen฀and฀Steven฀C.฀Patten฀ (eds),฀Marx฀and฀Morality,฀Canadian฀Journal฀of฀Philosophy,฀Supplementary฀ Volume฀VII,฀Guelph,฀pp.฀251–68. Zagarell,฀Alan฀(1986),฀“Structural฀Discontinuity—A฀Critical฀Factor฀in฀the฀Emergence฀ of฀Primary฀and฀Secondary฀States,”฀Dialectical฀Anthropology฀10(3–4):฀155–77. Zammito,฀ John฀ H.฀ (2001),฀ “Rousseau,฀ Kant,฀ and฀ Herder฀ and฀ the฀ Problem฀ of฀ Aufklärung฀in฀the฀1760s,”฀in฀Tom฀Rockmore฀(ed.),฀New฀Essays฀on฀the฀Precritical฀ Kant,฀Amherst,฀NY:฀Humanities฀Books,฀pp.฀201–23. Zammito,฀John฀H.฀(2002),฀Kant,฀Herder,฀and฀the฀Birth฀of฀Anthropology,฀Chicago:฀ The฀University฀of฀Chicago฀Press. Zihlman,฀Adrienne฀L.฀and฀Cohn,฀B.฀A.฀(1988),฀“The฀Adaptive฀Response฀of฀Human฀ Skin฀to฀the฀Savanna,”฀Human฀Evolution฀3(5):฀397–409.฀Florence. Zilsel,฀Edgar฀(2003),฀Social฀Origins฀of฀Modern฀Science,฀Boston฀Studies฀in฀the฀ Philosophy฀of฀Science,฀vol.฀200,฀Dordrecht:฀Kluwer฀Academic฀Publishers.

This page intentionally left blank

Index alienation,฀59,฀147–51 anthropology,฀89–90,฀158–71,฀173 and฀the฀Enlightenment,฀5–6 as฀social฀critique,฀2–3 corporeal฀organization฀of฀human฀beings,฀ 16–17,฀24–5,฀41–6,฀65–87,฀176 critical-dialectical฀perspective,฀5 dialectical฀interplay฀of฀human฀natural฀ and฀social฀beings,฀16–20,฀24–7 diversity฀and฀historicity฀of฀societies,฀ 17–21,฀27–8 empirical,฀1–2,฀5 ensembles฀of฀social฀relations,฀46–50 institutionalization฀at฀Göttingen,฀23–4,฀ 31–2 philosophical,฀2,฀4–5, praxis,฀40–6,฀57–62,฀158–71 articulation฀of฀modes฀of฀production,฀ 128–38 Buffon,฀Comte฀de,฀5,฀13–15,฀174 combined฀empiricism฀and฀rationalism฀ 13–14 development฀of฀human฀society,฀15 historicism,฀13–14 on฀human฀reproduction฀14–15 on฀diversity฀of฀human฀species,฀15 capitalism,฀7,฀117–44,฀175–8 and฀health,฀136–8,฀165–6 commodity฀production,฀58 defined,฀118–19 development฀of฀capitalism,฀56,฀117–44,฀ 162–4 difference฀from฀precapitalist฀societies,฀ 105–8,฀119,฀152–4 dynamism฀of,฀55,฀137–8

emigration,฀134 formation฀of฀domestic฀and฀overseas฀ markets,฀122–3,฀126–8 overseas฀colonies,฀127–8,฀131–2 social฀reproduction฀of,฀135–8 transition,฀119–28 chance,฀53 class฀and฀state฀formation,฀114–15,฀136–7 class฀defined,฀154–5 health,฀136–8 colonialism,฀131–2 community,฀16–20,฀22–3,฀26,฀28–30,฀33–6,฀ 41–50,฀152–3 consciousness,฀47–50,฀57,฀147–58,฀164–8 contingency,฀53–4,฀137–8 culture,฀15–21,฀22,฀27–9,฀48–9,฀103–5,฀160,฀ 166–8 Darwin,฀Charles,฀6,฀66–70,฀89–90 and฀Marx,฀89–90 theory฀of฀evolution,฀66–70 use฀of฀metaphors,฀66–70 development฀of฀human฀society and฀natural฀world,฀15–17,฀31 Montesquieu,฀12–13,฀31 Rousseau,฀17–21 Scottish฀historical฀philosophers,฀21–3 distinctive฀features฀of฀human฀beings,฀7 diversity฀(see฀also฀variation),฀12–15,฀105,฀ 158 domination,฀151–6 economic฀determination Marx฀on฀48–9 Engels,฀Frederick,฀6,฀62,฀88,฀117–18 chronology,฀xi–xiii transition฀from฀ape฀to฀human,฀6,฀75–84

219

220฀ •฀ Index Enlightenment,฀5–6,฀9,฀36–7 anthropology,฀15–37 Early฀Enlightenment฀thought,฀10–15 historicization฀of฀nature,฀11–15 historicization฀of฀society,฀12–13,฀ 15–23 evolution,฀67–74 Darwin,฀67–71 modern฀synthesis,฀72–4 transition฀from฀ape฀to฀human,฀75–84 exchange฀114,฀120 exploitation,฀151–6 Fraachia,฀Joseph,฀6,฀41–6 genetics,฀70–2 Göttingen,฀23–4,฀31–2 health,฀136–8,฀156,฀165–6 Hegel,฀Georg฀F.฀W.,฀5,฀33–6,฀93 and฀individualism,฀33–4 history,฀33–6 on฀civil฀society,฀35–6 on฀labor,฀34–5 teleology,฀7,฀33 Herder,฀Johann,฀5,฀27–30 concept฀of฀culture,฀28–9 distinction฀between฀culture฀and฀ civilization,฀29 diversity฀and฀cultural฀relativism,฀27–8 on฀language,฀29 philosophical฀anthropology,฀28 hierarchy forms฀of฀social฀hierarchy,฀151–6 historicization nature฀and฀development฀of฀society,฀31 of฀human฀society,฀12–13,฀15–23 of฀nature,฀10–15 historicism,฀5,฀9–36 defined,฀11 holism฀(see฀totality) Horowitz,฀Asher,฀16–21 human฀beings and฀praxis,฀57–62 as฀individuals,฀17–19,฀31–2,฀41–50

as฀moral฀beings,฀25 as฀natural฀beings,฀16–17,฀24–5,฀41–6,฀ 65–87,฀176 as฀social฀beings,฀18,฀34,฀44,฀46–50,฀ 74–86 Marx฀on,฀41–50,฀158 human฀evolution,฀77–84 brain,฀82–4 demography฀and฀population฀structure,฀ 84–7 language,฀82–4 tool-making,฀17,฀78–80 human฀history,฀8 alternative฀pathways,฀108–15 as฀dialectical฀unfolding,฀17–21,฀28–9,฀ 33–5,฀54 as฀progress,฀21–3 chance,฀51 contingency,฀51 directionality,฀53 Kant฀26–7 Marx’s฀premises,฀8,฀51–7 relation฀to฀nature,฀31 Rousseau,฀17–18 human฀nature Buffon,฀14–15 Rousseau฀on฀human฀nature,฀16–17 Scottish฀historical฀philosophers฀and฀ immutability฀of฀human฀nature,฀ ฀ ฀ 21–3 human฀society฀ Montesquieu฀on฀development,฀12–13 Rousseau฀on฀successive฀forms,฀17–18 Scottish฀historical฀philosophers฀and฀ natural฀laws฀of฀development,฀21–3 human฀species Buffon,฀14–15 language฀and฀tool-making฀as฀markers,฀ 16–17 Rousseau,฀16–17 India,฀117,฀132–8,฀177–8 individual,฀36–7,฀41–50 formation฀of฀social฀individuals,฀147–51,฀ 158

Index฀ •฀ 221 individualization,฀50 inequality,฀87–9,฀121–2 and฀health,฀136–8,฀156 Marx฀on฀naturalization฀of฀social฀ inequality,฀87–9 Ireland,฀132–8,฀178 justice,฀169–71 Kant,฀Immanuel,฀5,฀24–7,฀175 concept฀of฀race,฀26 distinction฀between฀human฀beings฀as฀ natural฀and฀moral฀beings,฀24–7 theory฀of฀history,฀26–7 kin/civil฀conflict,฀157–8 labor,฀6,฀34–5,฀43–6 language,฀17,฀28–9,฀43,฀81–3,฀168–9 and฀toolmaking,฀17,฀81–3 Leibniz,฀Gottfried,฀10 Lewontin,฀Richard,฀6,฀53,฀67,฀71–4 markets,฀122–3 Marx,฀Karl alienation,฀59 and฀Darwin,฀89–90 anthropology,฀1–5,฀6,฀40,฀145–6,฀158–71 corporeal฀organization฀of฀human฀ beings,฀41–6 dialectical฀interplay฀of฀human฀natural฀ and฀social฀beings,฀65–6 diversity฀and฀historicity฀of฀societies,฀ 50 ensembles฀of฀social฀relations,฀46–50 praxis,฀40 premises฀of฀human฀history,฀8 biographical฀information,฀1,฀5,฀39–40,฀ 62–3,฀65–7,฀91–3,฀117–18,฀145–6,฀ 158–9 chronology,฀xi–xiii consciousness,฀59,฀147–68 critical-dialectical฀perspective,฀5 debates฀over฀interpretation฀of฀work,฀3–5 historical-dialectical฀perspective,฀40,฀ 93–104

historicity฀of฀individual,฀7,฀41–50 mode฀of฀production,฀7,฀51–7 on฀historical฀development,฀7,฀53–4,฀56–7 philosophical฀anthropology,฀40 McNally,฀David,฀6,฀74–5 Mendel,฀Gregor,฀70 mode฀of฀production,฀7,฀103 ancient,฀98–9 as฀forms฀of฀cooperation฀and฀social฀ structure,฀54–6 Asiatic,฀55,฀96–8,฀176 capitalist,฀117–44 distinction฀between฀capitalist฀and฀ precapitalist,฀54 Germanic,฀54,฀99–100 feudal,฀100–2 dissolution,฀119–28 precapitalist,฀54–5,฀92–105 primitive฀communism,฀95–6,฀102–3 transition,฀56,฀92,฀105–15 Montesquieu,฀Baron฀de,฀5,฀11–13 development฀of฀society,฀12 nationalism,฀132–5,฀175,฀178 national-states,฀140–4,฀164 naturalization฀of฀social฀inequality,฀87–9 nature and฀historical฀development฀of฀society,฀31 Marx฀and฀Engels,฀52–3 needs,฀42–6 objectification,฀43–6,฀58,฀148 defined,฀44 philosophical฀anthropology,฀11–13,฀15–22,฀ 25–6,฀28,฀33–6,฀40 Platner,฀Ernst,฀31 power,฀138–44,฀178 praxis,฀40–6,฀57–62,฀158–71 defined,฀57 precapitalist฀modes฀of฀production,฀7–8,฀ 93–105 precapitalist฀societies,฀105–15,฀179 difference฀from฀capitalist฀societies,฀ 105–8,฀119,฀152–3

222฀ •฀ Index primitive฀accumulation,฀119–30 progress,฀158 property,฀138–44,฀178 race฀and฀racism,฀15,฀26,฀179 reductionism,฀51 resistance,฀133,฀156–8 Rousseau,฀Jean-Jacques,฀5,฀174–5 and฀individualism,฀17–19 critique฀of฀modern฀civil฀society,฀16 development฀of฀human฀nature,฀17–19 development฀of฀human฀society฀and฀its฀ rise฀in฀nature,฀20 historical-dialectical฀anthropology,฀16–21 stages฀in฀development฀of฀society,฀17–21 Saint-Simon,฀Henri,฀35–6 Scottish฀historical฀philosophers,฀21–3,฀174 concern฀with฀natural฀laws฀of฀social฀ development฀21 immutability฀of฀human฀nature,฀21–3,฀ 36–7

Smith,฀Adam,฀5,฀21–3 social฀relations,฀147–58 society,฀16–20,฀22–3,฀26,฀28–30,฀33–6,฀ 41–50,฀103–5 Spinoza,฀Baruch,฀10 states capitalist,฀138–44 precapitalist,฀112–16,฀122–4,฀128–31,฀ 133 subjectification,฀43 subjectivity,฀46–7 teleology,฀33 tool-making฀79–80 totality,฀28,฀31–2,฀51–2,฀131,฀175–6 truth as฀determination฀of฀reality,฀60–1 theories฀of,฀61 variation,฀52,฀105 genetic,฀71–2 and฀inheritance,฀70–2