AdministratorFile Attachment2000a9d5coverv05b.jpg

BIOGRAPHICAL DICTIONARY OFSOCIAL AND CULTURAL

ANTHROPOLOGY

BIOGRAPHICALDICTIONARY OF SOCIAL

AND CULTURALANTHROPOLOGY

Edited by Vered Amit

LONDON AND NEW YORK

First published 2004by Routledge

11 New Fetter Lane, London EC4P 4EE

Simultaneously published in the USA and Canadaby Routledge

29 West 35th Street, New York, NY 10001

Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group

This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2005.

To purchase your own copy of this or any of Taylor & Francis or Routledges collection ofthousands of eBooks please go to www.eBookstore.tandf.co.uk.

2004 Routledge Ltd

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted orreproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic,

mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafterinvented, including photocopying and recording, or in any

information storage or retrieval system, without permission inwriting from the publishers.

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data

A catalog record for this book has been requested

ISBN 0-203-64459-X Master e-book ISBN

ISBN 0-203-67291-7 (Adobe eReader Format)ISBN 0-415-22379-2 (Print Edition)

THIS BOOK IS DEDICATED TO THE MEMORY OFROTEM AMIT, WHO LOVED, APPRECIATED, AND

DEVOURED ALL MANNER OF REFERENCEWORKS THROUGHOUT HER LIFE.

Contents

Editorial advisory committee vi

List of contributors viii

Introduction and Guidelines xxiii

Acknowledgements xxx

Entries A-Z 1

Index of interests 801

Index of institutions 831

Index of names 839

Index of concepts 855

Editorial advisory committee

Eduardo ArchettiUniversity of Oslo, NorwayRobert BorofskyHawaii Pacific University, USARegna DarnellUniversity of Western Ontario, CanadaGuillermo de la PeaCentro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropologia Social,MexicoNoel DyckSimon Fraser University, CanadaKatsuyoshi FukuiKyoto University, JapanJohn GrayUniversity of Adelaide, AustraliaMarian KempnyPolish Academy of Sciences, PolandDaniel LefkowitzUniversity of Virginia, USAMargaret LockMcGill University, CanadaPhilip MooreCurtin University of Technology, AustraliaKaren Fog OlwigUniversity of Copenhagen, DenmarkNigel RapportUniversity of St Andrews, UKSteven RobinsUniversity of Western Cape, South AfricaWerner Schiffauer

Europa-Universitt Viadrina, GermanyThomas K.SchippersUniversit de Nice, FranceMoshe ShokeidUniversity of Tel Aviv, IsraelLygia SigaudMuseu Nacional, BrazilSarah StraussUniversity of Wyoming, USAHugo Garcia ValenciaNational Institute of Anthropology, MexicoHelena WulffUniversity of Stockholm, Sweden

vii

Contributors

Robert AckermanUniversity of Cambridge, UKMario I.AguilarUniversity of St Andrews, UKEmily AlwardIndependent scholar, USAVered AmitConcordia University, CanadaRobert AndersonSimon Fraser University, CanadaSally AndersonUniversity of Copenhagen, DenmarkEduardo ArchettiUniversity of Oslo, NorwayRita AstutiLondon School of Economics and Political Science, UKFlorence E.BabbUniversity of Iowa, USALes BackGoldsmiths College, UKStephen G.BainesUniversity of Brasilia, BrazilRoger BallardUniversity of Manchester, UKMukulika BanerjeeUniversity College, London, UKMarcus BanksUniversity of Oxford, UKAlan BarnardUniversity of Edinburgh, UK

Henyo T.Barretto FilhoUniversity of Brasilia, BrazilLaurent Barrycole des Hautes tudes en Sciences Sociales, FranceIra BashkowUniversity of Virginia, USALus BatalhaPlo Universitrio do Alto da Ajuda, PortugalJoanna BatorPolish Academy of Sciences, PolandGerd BaumannUniversity of Amsterdam, The NetherlandsSimona BealcovschiUniversit de Montreal, CanadaJeremy BeckettUniversity of Sydney, AustraliaIrne BellierCNRS, FranceNicole Belmontcole des Hautes tudes en Sciences Sociales, FranceJonathan BenthallUniversity College, London, UKBernardo BernardiRetired scholar, ItalyLisa BierSouthern Connecticut State University, USAAletta BiersackUniversity of Oregon, USA Dorothy K.BillingsWichita State University, USANancy J.BlackMetropolitan State University, USAHector BlackhurstUniversity of Manchester, UKAleksandar BoskovicRhodes University, South AfricaDaniel BoyarinUniversity of California, Berkeley, USAZoe BrayEuropean University Institute, Italy

ix

Caroline B.BrettellSouthern Methodist University, USAKenneth BrownCNRS, FranceSusan BrownellUniversity of Missouri, USAAnne BrydonWilfred Laurier University, CanadaJohn R.CampbellUniversity College, London, UKJack CampisiMashantucket Pequot Museum and Research Center,USAPat CaplanGoldsmiths College, UKVirginia CaputoCarleton University, CanadaConerly CaseyUniversity of California, Los Angeles, USAArachu CastroHarvard University, USAJohn L.CaugheyUniversity of Maryland, College Park, USARichard ChenhallMenzies School of Health Research, AustraliaJohn M.CinnamonMiami University, USAKim ClarkUniversity of Western Ontario, CanadaSally ColeConcordia University, CanadaSimon ColemanUniversity of Durham, UKChantal CollardConcordia University, CanadaPeter CollinsUniversity of Durham, UKDavid B.CoplanUniversity of the Witwatersrand, South AfricaJane K.CowanUniversity of Sussex, UK

x

Robert CrpeauUniversit de Montreal, CanadaDara CulhaneSimon Fraser University, CanadaRegna DarnellUniversity of Western Ontario, CanadaMichelle DayUniversity of Chicago, USAGuillermo de la PeaCentro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropologia Social,Mexico, MexicoCarol DelaneyStanford University, USALuis Daz G.VianaConsejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientficas, SpainPascal DibieUniversit Paris, FranceLeland DonaldUniversity of Victoria, CanadaHastings DonnanQueens University, Belfast, UKJudith DoyleMount Allison University, CanadaHenk DriessenUniversity of Nijmegen, The NetherlandsSusan Drucker-BrownCambridge University, UKNoel DyckSimon Fraser University, CanadaJeremy EadesRitsumeikan Asia Pacific University, JapanR.F.EllenUniversity of Kent, Canterbury, UKHarri EnglundUniversity of Helsinki, FinlandJudith EnnewCambridge University, UKThomas Hylland EriksenUniversity of Oslo, NorwayT.M.S.Evens

xi

University of North Carolina, USARichard FardonSchool of Oriental and African Studies, UKAllen FeldmanInstitute for Humanities Studies, SloveniaDeane FergieUniversity of Adelaide, AustraliaThomas FillitzUniversity of Vienna, AustriaAndrew FinlayTrinity College, Republic of IrelandMichael D.FischerUniversity of Kent, Canterbury, UKWilliam H.FisherCollege of William and Mary, USAKim FleetIndependent scholar, AustraliaSarah FranklinLancaster University, UKBrian FreerYork University, CanadaSusan FrohlickUniversity of Manitoba, CanadaKatsuyoshi FukuiKyoto University, JapanC.J.FullerLondon School of Economics and Political Science, UKChristine Ward GaileyUniversity of California, Riverside, USADaniella GandolfoColumbia University, USAFaye GinsburgNew York University, USAStephen D.GlazierUniversity of Nebraska, Lincoln, USAFrederic W.GleachCornell University, USAHarvey E.GoldbergThe Hebrew University of Jerusalem, IsraelAdolfo Gonzlez Henriquez

xii

Atlantic University, ColumbiaByron GoodHarvard University, USAYehuda GoodmanTel Aviv University, IsraelKusum GopalLondon School of Economics and Political Science, UKRobert J.GordonUniversity of Vermont, USANelson H.H.GraburnUniversity of California, Berkeley, USASarah GreenUniversity of Manchester, UKAlexandra GreeneSt Andrews University, UKR.D.GrilloUniversity of Sussex, UKRoy Richard GrinkerUniversity of Washington, USARosana GuberInstituto de Desarrollo Econmico Social, ArgentinaP.H.GulliverYork University, CanadaBret GustafsonWashington University, USAUeli GyrUniversitt Zurich, SwitzerlandBernhard HadoltUniversitt Wien, AustriaDieter HallerUniversity of Texas, Austin, USAMary E.HancockUniversity of California, Santa Barbara, USADon HandelmanThe Hebrew University of Jerusalem, IsraelRichard HandlerUniversity of Virginia, USAMarie-lisabeth Handmancole des Hautes tudes en Sciences Sociales, FranceChris Hann

xiii

Max-Planck Institut, GermanyMark HarrisUniversity of St Andrews, UKKeith HartUniversity of Aberdeen, UKRobert M.HaydenUniversity of Pittsburgh, USASuzette HealdBrunel University, UKJoy HendryOxford Brookes University, UKDavid HicksState University of New York, USAJane HillUniversity of Arizona, USAEric HirschBrunel University, UKLawrence A.HirschfeldUniversity of Michigan, USAJanet HoskinsUniversity of Southern California, USADeborah HouseTexas Tech University, USADavid HowesConcordia University, CanadaEugene HunnUniversity of Washington, USAHasse HussStockholm University, SwedenEdvard HvidingUniversity of Bergen, NorwayTim IngoldUniversity of Aberdeen, UKTakashi IrimotoHokkaido University, JapanWilliam IronsNorthwestern University, USAAndr IteanuCNRS, FranceJason Baird Jackson

xiv

University of Oklahoma, USAJohn L.Jackson, JrDuke University, USAMichael JacksonUniversity of Copenhagen, DenmarkMarco JacquemetBarnard College, USAAllison JamesUniversity of Sheffield, UKIan JamesUniversity of St Andrews, UKStefan JansenUniversity of Hull, UKNitish JhaInternational Water Management Institute, South AfricaJeffrey C.JohnsonEast Carolina University, USAChristine JourdanConcordia University, CanadaBruce KapfererUniversity of Bergen, NorwayAneesa KassamUniversity of Durham, UKWilliam W.KellyYale University, USAMichael G.KennySimon Fraser University, CanadaGalina KhizrievaRussian State University for the Humanities, RussiaPaul KockelmanColumbia University, USATamara KohnUniversity of Durham, UKAndrey KorotayevRussian State University for the Humanities, RussiaGrazyna Kubica-HellerJagiellonian University, PolandWladyslaw KwasniewiczJagellonian University, PolandJames Laidlaw

xv

University of Cambridge, UKSarah LambBrandeis University, USAMichael LambekUniversity of Toronto, CanadaMarie Nathalie LeblancConcordia University, CanadaTakie LebraUniversity of Hawaii, Manoa, USARichard LeeUniversity of Toronto, CanadaDaniel LefkowitzUniversity of Virginia, USAJos Sergio Leite LopesMuseu Nacional, BrazilWinnie LemTrent University, CanadaJoan LeopoldLondon Metropolitan University, UKMichael D.LevinUniversity of Toronto, CanadaHerbert S.LewisUniversity of Wisconsin, Madison, USAI.M.LewisLondon School of Economics and Political Science, UKMarianne E.LienUniversity of Oslo, NorwayCarlos David Londoo SulkinUniversity of Regina, CanadaNorman LongAgricultural University, The NetherlandsAlejandro LugoUniversity of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, USATanya LuhrmannUniversity of Chicago, USAStephen M.LyonUniversity of Kent, Canterbury, UKIrma McClaurinFisk University, USAJudith Macdonald

xvi

University of Waikato, New ZealandCarole McGranahanUniversity of Colorado, USAKeith E.McNealUniversity of California, San Diego, USASaba MahmoodUniversity of California, Berkeley, USABill MaurerUniversity of California, Irvine, USAAndrs MedinaUniversidad Nacional Autnoma de Mexico, MexicoMargaret MeibohmUniversity of Pennsylvania, USAMarit MelhuusUniversity of Oslo, NorwayMarguerite MendellConcordia University, CanadaCharles MenziesUniversity of British Columbia, CanadaMilos MilenkovicUniversity of Belgrade, SerbiaDaniel MillerUniversity College, London, UKLaura MillerLoyola University, USAKay MiltonQueens University, UKYukio MiyawakiOsaka Prefecture University, JapanHanne O.MogensenUniversity of Copenhagen, DenmarkPhilip MooreCurtin University of Technology, AustraliaRoland S.MoorePacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, USAR.Christopher MorganUniversity of Victoria, CanadaAnne Friederike MllerKings College, London, UKJohn Mulvaney

xvii

Australian National University, AustraliaStephen O.MurrayInstituto Obregn, USAFred MyersNew York University, USAPeter NiedermuellerHumboldt University, GermanyFinn Sivert NielsenUniversity of Copenhagen, DenmarkGeorg W.OesterdiekhoffUniversitt Wrzburg, GermanyEugene OganUniversity of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USACarmen OrtizConsejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientfi-cas, SpainJimmy M.Pagan, JrThe State University of New Jersey, USARichard J.ParmentierBrandeis University, USAThomas C.PattersonUniversity of California, Riverside, USANorbert PeabodyUniversity of Cambridge, UKDeborah PellowSyracuse University, USAGlenn PetersenCity University of New York, USAJames PiscatoriUniversity of Oxford, UKEvie PlaiceUniversity of New Brunswick, CanadaAlice PomponioSt Lawrence University, USAInes PricaInstitute of Ethnology and Folklore Research, Zagreb, CroatiaJames QuesadaSan Francisco State University, USANaomi QuinnDuke University, USARayna Rapp

xviii

New York University, USANigel RapportUniversity of St Andrews, UKJudith A.RassonCentral European University, HungaryTodd W.RawlsUniversity of Chicago, USAStephen P.ReynaUniversity of New Hampshire, USABruno RiccioUniversity of Bologna, ItalyDavid RichesUniversity of St Andrews, UKBruce RigsbyThe University of Queensland, AustraliaLaura RivaiUniversity of Oxford, UKGaspar Rivera-SalgadoUniversity of Southern California, USARichard RottenburgUniversitt Viadrina Grosse, GermanySandra RouseUKTom RyanUniversity of Waikato, New ZealandFernando I.Salmern CastroCIESAS, MexicoCristina Snchez-CarreteroConsejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientficas, SpainAlan R.SandstromIndiana University-Purdue University, Fort Wayne, USAPaul Sant CassiaUniversity of Durham, UKVilma Santiago-lrizarryCornell University, USANicole SaultUniversity of Costa Rica, Costa RicaWerner SchiffauerEuropa-Universitt Viadrina, GermanyThomas K.Schippers

xix

Universit de Nice, FranceAlexander Hugo SchulenburgCorporation of London, UKMary ScogginPeking University, ChinaRobbyn SellerMcGill University, CanadaDavid ShanklandUniversity of WalesLampeter, UKMutsuhiko ShimaTohoku University, JapanJack SidnellUniversity of Toronto, CanadaMarilyn SilvermanYork University, CanadaSydel SilvermanCity University of New York, USAMonique SkidmoreAustralian National UniversityJonathan SkinnerQueens University Belfast, UKDan I.SlobinUniversity of California, Berkeley, USAAlan SmartUniversity of Calgary, CanadaJosephine SmartUniversity of Calgary, CanadaRaymond T.SmithUniversity of Chicago, USAJacqueline S.SolwayTrent University, CanadaTrevor StackUniversity of St Andrews, UKJohn E.StantonUniversity of Western Australia, AustraliaClaudia SteinerUniversidad de los Andes, Bogota, ColumbiaR.L.StirratUniversity of Sussex, UKPaul Stoller

xx

West Chester University, USASarah StraussUniversity of Wyoming, USABernhard StreckUniversitt Leipzig, GermanyTanka SubbaNorth Eastern Hill University, IndiaMelissa J.F.TantaquidgeonUSAMichael TaylorMinistry of Agriculture, BotswanaGerry TierneyWebster University, USACatherine TihanyiWestern Washington University, USATine Tjrnhj-ThomsenUniversity of Copenhagen, DenmarkSusan R.TrencherGeorge Mason University, USAHenry TruebaUniversity of Texas, USACynthia A.TysickState University of New York, Buffalo, USAPatricia UberoiInstitute of Economic Growth, University Enclave, IndiaTatiana UvarovaRussian Academy of Sciences, RussiaCecilia Van HollenUniversity of Notre Dame, USARoberto VarelaUniversidad Nacional Autnoma de Mexico, MexicoKinsco VereblyiEtvs Lornd Tudomnyegyetem, HungaryGerard VerschoorWageningen University, The NetherlandsDrew WalkerJohns Hopkins University, USAHuon WardleUniversity of St AndrewsKay B.Warren

xxi

Harvard University, USAJames WeinerAustralian National University, AustraliaRichard WerbnerUniversity of Manchester, UKSarah S.WillenEmory University, USAAndrew WillfordCornell University, USABrett WilliamsAmerican University, USARichard A.WilsonUniversity of Connecticut, USAThomas M.WilsonState University of New York, Binghamton, USAHelena WulffStockholm University, SwedenTakako YamadaKyoto University, JapanMichael YoungAustralian National University, AustraliaWalter P.ZennerUniversity of Albany, USA

xxii

Introduction and Guidelines

Why biography?There is an inherent danger that this reference work will be viewed and read as

a kind of academic Whos Who, thus diverting attention away from the keyideas, practices, and institutions that have shaped social and culturalanthropology to more superficial concerns of individual career status andprestige. This is a very real danger. Yet there are also some important insightsthat can accrue from a biographical approach that can deepen, rather thantrivialise, our understanding of the dynamic contexts and processes throughwhich the approach, discipline, and craft of anthropology have developed.

Perhaps the most difficult challenge in compiling this dictionary has beenlocating contributors who could undertake the various entries with relative ease.Many of the potential contributors whom we approached were very familiar withparticular stages of research and/ or publications by the individual scholar beingincluded in the dictionary. They were not however equally familiar with thewider corpus of work undertaken by this figure. This recurrent circumstancehighlighted a much broader tendency within the field of anthropology (and manyother academic disciplines) to iconise particular published works. In the process,our very familiarity with the manuscript or the research interest attributed to ascholar can obscure both the broader contributions she or he has made as well asthe shifting social, political, and temporal contexts or concerns framing theseefforts. In a recent publication (2002), Anthony P.Cohen complained that thebook for which he was probably best known, The Symbolic Construction ofCommunity, was the least meritorious of his four books and espoused viewswhich he was already busy rethinking by the time it was actually published. Yetseventeen years later, he was still being asked to account for this work as if itrepresented his current views and research interests. By the same logic withwhich we have been critical of the use of the ethnographic present (Fabian1983) in many monographs for dehistoricising and therefore distorting itsprotagonists, we should also be wary of the tendency to displace anthropologicalvoices and works from the intellectual trajectories through which they weredeveloped.

There are several other temptations in reading the disciplinary history ofanthropology that a biographical approach can help reorient if not entirely

obviate. The first is the most obvious: ignoring the past. We have all encounteredstudents or colleagues who didnt think anything published over five years ago wasworth reading or citing. And some of us have probably been exasperated whenthe new ideas or research projects we were reading about seemed to beretreading ground already well, perhaps better, covered in earlier work. Thetemptation to search for the latest fashion, that much lampooned but still soughtafter cutting edge, can lead to a tediously unimaginative reinvention of thewheel. Fortunately, there is now a growing body of scholarship withinanthropology that is carefully charting the history of the discipline, includingscholars such as Regna Darnell, Richard Handler, Adam Kuper, and GeorgeStocking, who have contributed and/or featured in entries within this dictionary.However, to the extent that attending to the history of a discipline is meant toinform and therefore link up with current practices and ideas, it would be asdistorting to cut off our inventory of scholarship at some arbitrary boundary ofthe past as to focus only on very recent accomplishments. As a result, thisdictionary includes scholars whose work traverses the history of anthropologyfrom its disciplinary beginnings in the late nineteenth century to research in thetwenty-first century.

Biography can also ameliorate a temptation to stereotype intellectual careersby assigning them to broad, homogenous categories: functionalism, structuralism,post-modernism, and so on. Many of the entries in this dictionary illustrate notonly shifts and reorientations over the course of individual careers but alsoremind us that these protagonists reflected upon, reacted to, doubted or disagreedwith, criticised or nuanced successive disciplinary and academic trends. And farfrom monolithic schools of thought, many contributors to this dictionary havesought to draw attention to the very particular interlocutors of their biographicalsubjects, pivotal relationships variously with teachers, mentors, colleagues,collaborators, students, spouses, or rivals that helped shape research efforts,ideas, and organisations.

As you flip through the starting pages of this dictionary, it will not be longbefore it becomes apparent that these anthropological networks regularly crossnational borders. The editorial consultants who provided me with so much crucialadvice in developing this volume hold positions in universities distributed acrossfifteen different countries. However, the countries in which they currently workwere often not the locales in which they received some or all of theiranthropological training. A number have held visiting appointments inuniversities situated in yet other countries. And like most of their contemporaries,they regularly attend conferences or conduct fieldwork, and correspond orcollaborate with people in still other countries. However, these kind oftransnational connections are hardly new. From its professional beginnings,anthropology has been framed in terms of border crossings of one kind oranother. The most famous (or, in some versions, infamous) of these has involvedfieldwork, away, far removed from the researchers usual abode or academicinstitution. However, this kind of border crossing has been more common in some

xxiv

renderings of anthropology than others. In some locales, anthropologicalfieldwork was primarily oriented within the country where researchers alsocustomarily resided and worked, while professional networks of training,collaboration, or intellectual exchange extended far beyond these nationalborders.

Consider the situation of many of the Mexican anthropologists featured in thisdictionary. Scholars such as Guillermo Bonfil, Manuel Gamio, Alfonso VillaRojas, Rodolfo Stavenhagen, Angel Palerm, or Guillermo de la Pea contributedat different periods to the development of a national anthropology focused on thestudy of Mexican populations, particularly indigenous peoples and variouslydisadvantaged groups. Yet many of these anthropologists received at least part oftheir training outside Mexico, perhaps not surprisingly in the USA but also inBritain, France, and Peru. Angel Palerm collaborated with Eric Wolf and workedin Washington for a time. Julio de la Fuente trained variously with GeorgeMurdock and Sol Tax, and collaborated with Bronislaw Malinowski on aseminal study of Oaxaca. Guillermo Bonfil was trained in, and conducted hisfieldwork in, Mexico but was a co-signatory of the Declaracion de Barbardoswith ten other anthropologists from various countries. And similar relationshipscan be traced for many of their other colleagues in Mexico.

As the efforts of Mexican anthropologists to develop a critical and politicallyengaged anthropology aptly illustrate, anthropological projects do not operate inan academic bubble. Some entries therefore outline the ramifications of politicalsystems and events through the lives and careers of particular anthropol ogists.We can see anthropologists resisting or fleeing oppressive political regimes,marginalised within their own countries or as exiles elsewhere, denied universitypositions, seeking to influence government policies, serving as politiciansthemselves, setting up anthropological projects, departments, or institutes even inthe face of concerted official opposition and harassment. In many periods andcountries, it has not been easy to be an anthropologist, a particular kind ofscholar, an intellectual of any kind, or to be associated with certain politicalbeliefs or social identities. Anthropologists have charted the effects of thesesocial phenomena in the lives of others but this dictionary reminds us that not afew have also experienced these pressures in their own lives and careers.

In a sense, this dictionary tries to do for the practitioners of anthropology whatthey themselves have done best: the elucidation of general social and culturalprocesses through a focus on particular lives and situations. However, because thenature of the dictionary format only allows for thumbnail sketches, thebiographies included in this volume should be viewed as introductions, invitingreview of much wider bodies of work, not only of the scholars featured in thembut also of the larger academic organisations and networks to which theycontributed.

The boundaries of the projectIn North America, anthropology has developed as the umbrella for four

distinct fields of study: cultural anthropology, linguistics, archaeology, and

xxv

physical or biological anthropology When these fields are applied to one topic ofstudye.g. their founding common focus on indigenous peoplestheircoherence as sub-domains of one discipline appears reasonable and unforced. Itis also true that many North American departments of anthropology, both largeand small, continue to maintain some measure of this intradisciplinary scope, andrecently the American Anthropological Association changed its administrativestructure to reaffirm the inclusion of all four sub-fields. Nonetheless, the gap interms of literature, methods, and practitioners between some of these sub-fieldsis major and growing. In many cases, it is thus much easier to trace theoreticaland empirical commonalities between social/cultural anthropology and suchdisciplines or programmes as sociology, cultural studies, cultural geography, orpolitical science than with either archaeology, physical, or biologicalanthropology

The four-field division of anthropology does not necessarily travel very welloutside North America. In some countries, social or cultural anthropology hasbeen allied with history or folklore studies rather than with archaeology,archaeology but not biological anthropology, physical anthropology but notarchaeology, or altogether none of these. However, what has tended to recur inmany countries has been the close association and overlap between the study ofthe social use of speech and the study of culture or social organisation. As aresult, in this dictionary we have elected to limit the featured scholarship to socialand cultural anthropology as well as linguistic anthropology

Many anthropologists, however, draw on the work of scholars in other academicdisciplines and this influence has often been reciprocal. As ethnographicmethods and the study of culture have ramified through a wide range of fields, ithas sometimes become very difficult to tell where social and culturalanthropology leaves off and other disciplines begin. This blurring of boundariesbecame abundantly evident in the many recommendations I received for theinclusion in the dictionary of scholars from sister disciplines. However, trying totrack all these cross-influences and exchanges is a task that goes beyond themandate of one reference source. Thus the Biographical Dictionary of Social andCultural Anthropology is not intended to be an index to the contributions of allthe scholars whose work has influenced anthropologists. Rather, its aim is moremodestly intended as outlining key figures that at some point in their careershave directly engaged in the discipline of sociocultural anthropology.

In sketching out this engagement, I have chosen to focus on several kinds ofpossible contributions that have often overlapped. First, priority was given to theinclusion of persons who, through their research and/or writing, advancedanthropological knowledge or raised important debate in one or more of threemajor categories: theoretical, empirical (with a particular emphasis onethnography), and epistemological. For example, Bronislaw Malinowskisseminal ethnography of the Trobriand Islanders is still read and debated today,nearly eighty years later. Beyond this specific research, Malinowski, perhapsmore than any other figure, established extended ethnographic fieldwork as the

xxvi

hallmark of anthropological research practice. However, this kind of intellectualinput occurs within and is made possible by a particular institutional context. Aneffort was therefore made to also take cognisance of the fuller range of practicesthat comprise an academic discipline including teaching and institutionaldevelopment. Many of the figures included in this dictionary had their mostlasting impact on the development of social and cultural anthropology throughtheir development of institutions, departments, and programmes of research and/or through their mentorship of subsequent generations of scholars. Thus FranzBoas established the contemporary four-field division of North Americananthropology, founded the journal, American Anthropologist, and trainednumerous students who eventually exerted considerable influence in their ownright on the development of Americanist anthropology, not least in terms of theircontrol of the American Anthropological Association.

The biographies of Bronislaw Malinowski and Franz Boas exemplify some ofthe contradictions vested in the long-standing transnational influences uponanthropology. They were seminal figures in the establishment and developmentof two of the largest and most influential traditions of anthropology, Britishsocial and American cultural anthropology Yet both were themselves expatriatesfrom respectively Poland and Germany where they had received a considerableportion of their own education. In London, Malinowski continued to train Polishanthropologists such as Andrzej Waligrski and Joseph Obrebski amongststudents from countries as far flung as Japan and Mexico. One of Boass primaryachievements during his years at the American Museum of Natural History wasthe Jesup North Pacific Expedition, which relied on the research efforts ofRussian exiles. Nonetheless, in their influence on the international developmentof anthropology, the traditions that these two expatriates helped to found haveprobably been more often criticised for their hegemonic tendencies than laudedfor an egalitarian appreciation of, and openness towards, numerous lessdominant loci of anthropological production. How many anthropologists in howmany countries have gnashed their teeth over the insularity of Americaninstitutions even as they prepared to make their annual pilgrimage to theAmerican Anthropological Association meetings? Yet by going, they make themeetings of what is after all a national association, international.

This dictionary is shaped by these contradictions. First and foremost this is anEnglish-language volume. While the contributors, editorial consultants, andscholars featured in the dictionary hail from numerous countries, our commonlanguage of communication has been English. This has undoubtedly privilegedrecognition of work that has either originally been published in or has beentranslated into English. British and especially American anthropologistsdominate the list of entries. In this respect, the dictionary reflects influences thatextend well beyond the particular history and circumstance of anthropologyEnglish is the dominant international language. And if Britain no longerexercises the academic influence of its heyday, the sheer scale of the Americanacademic sector, its extraordinarily numerous post-secondary institutions,

xxvii

scholars, students, presses, and readers ensures its international dominancewithin the much larger academic world of many disciplines. In developing thisdictionary, I have therefore sought both to recognise the major output of past andcurrently preeminent anthropology centers while going beyond them to outline atleast some of the work that has emanated from numerous other as yet lessinfluential but nonetheless vigorous nexuses of anthropological production.

Organising the volumeKeeping this ambit in mind, the selection of scholars to be included in this

dictionary proceeded on the basis of a fairly lengthy process of consultation withthe members of the editorial advisory committee. These twenty-one editorialadvisors were themselves selected to try and ensure a broad range of expertiseacross a number of different subjects, approaches, and regions. When combined,their initial recommendations produced a voluminous list far exceeding thecapacity of this volume. Along the way, I also received numerous suggestionsand advice (some solicited, some volunteered) from anthropologists who werenot members of the editorial committee. Several rounds of further consultationswere then held to try and prune down the list to a more manageable number.While it would simply not have been possible for me to develop the directory ofscholars included in the dictionary without the advice of the editorial committee,at the end of the day, the final decision and hence responsibility for any sins ofcommission and especially omission can only be laid at my own doorstep.Without a doubt, many members of the committee were disappointed about atleast some of the exclusions I felt it necessary to make.

However, undoubtedly the most formidable task has involved findingcontributors with sufficient knowledge to write highly condensed biographies ofsuch an extraordinarily varied range of anthropologists, many with careers thatspanned decades. As suggestions led to other suggestions, I learned a great dealabout the breadth and distribution of the international networks organisingcontemporary anthropology. And if the occasional bit of pettiness arose, I havebeen repeatedly impressed by the generosity with which hundreds of contributorsundertook a task that commands little prestige and even more modest tangiblereturns. Hundreds of other people we contacted and whose names do not appearin the dictionary also generously provided us with extremely helpful advice andinformation. Nonetheless when the dust settled and the submission of thedictionary, already past its original deadline, could no longer be delayed, someforty-four entries we had hoped to include could not be submitted. For some ofthese entries, in spite of following up numerous leads, we were just not able tofind contributors able and/or willing to take on the task. For others, we foundcontributors but they were not, in the end, able to deliver the entries they hadcontracted for.

All of which is to emphasise, that as for most such reference works, there arepeople I very much wanted to include as entries in this dictionary who for onereason or another, within the time frame and resources available, I couldnt.

Guidelines for reading the dictionary

xxviii

Entries were assigned (by me) maximum word limits of respectively 300, 500,800, or, in a few cases, 600 words, and contributors were asked as much aspossible to keep within these restrictions. Each contributor was asked whereverpossible, to provide specific biographical information about the scholar featuredin their respective entry, specifically about birthplace and date, post-secondaryeducation, fieldwork locales and periods, and a short list of key publications. Inorder to ensure that entries did not become mostly bibliographic, contributorswere asked to restrict this opening list of key publications to no more than two inthe case of shorter entries and four in the case of longer ones. Thus readersshould keep in mind that these are very partial and select lists of publications,and are encouraged to read more widely from the much larger corpus of workpublished by each of the scholars featured in the dictionary When dealing withnon-English publications, wherever possible, we tried to list an English-languageedition when this existed. When the publication had not been translated, welisted its non-English title with a working translation of this title provided inparentheses after it. At the end of some entries, suggestions for further readingare provided that review the work or are the biographies of the scholar inquestion.

References

Cohen, Anthony P. (2002) Epilogue, in Vered Amit (ed.) Realizing community:Concepts, Social Relationships and Sentiments, London and New York: Routledge,pp. 16570.

Fabian, Johannes (1983) Time and the Other: How Anthropology Makes its object, NewYork: Columbia University Press.

xxix

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the many contributors whose efforts made this referencework possible. I would also like to thank the members of the editorial advisorycommittee, many of whom additionally served as contributors, for their valuablesuggestions, advice, and support throughout the process of compiling thisdictionary Laura Shea provided exceptionally skilled and thoughtful assistance.Her diplomacy, sleuthing skills, and perseverance made my own job much easier.Dominic Shryanes reminders kept us moving ahead steadily. Finally, I wouldlike to thank Noel Dyck for his help, advice, and good humour in treading theslipstream of my preoccupation with this project for the last four years.

AAbls, Marcb. 1950, Paris, FranceMarc Abls advocates a political anthropology that views traditional and

modern societies in the same light, with a special interest in the relation betweenpolitics and space. During the mid-1970s, Abls conducted field research in anacephalous society, the Ochollo of southern Ethiopia. Assemblies took decisions,with dignitaries and sacrificers carrying out rituals that set the political fieldapart from the rest of the village territory. The spatial organisation of the villageitself accentuated the assembly places. The most important meeting placeoccupied the highest possible spot on the summit of the rock on which Ochollowas perched, in congruence with an ideology that valued the high more thanthe low.

Ablss next important study dealt with politics in the French dpartement ofYonne in Burgundy. He combined fieldwork with archival study reaching backto the middle of the nineteenth century In the local context, power was oftentransmitted by family dynasties, the family name guaranteeing eligibility byitself. Rootedness is a criterion by which politicians on all levels are judged,including the president of the French Republic. For instance, as Ablsillustrated, Franois Mitterand made clever use of his symbolic attachment to theFrench territory.

European Union politics, which Abls investigated in the first half of the1990s, seem to be the antithesis of French politics in several respects. There arefew rituals. Officials working for the Commission are often unable to locatethemselves historically Deterritorialisation is another characteristic of Europeanpolitics. The public and the private are also less ostensibly separated than inFrance; lobbyists can enter the buildings of the European Parliament, which isinterpreted as an opening towards civil society.

By contrast, the French National Assembly, where Abls carried outfieldwork at the end of the 1990s, appears to be a city within a city. Spatialarrangements in the National Assembly building underline the antagonisticnature of parliamentary politics, which is rightly described by the battlemetaphor that representatives often use. Abls distinguished between battles ofopinions, where truth is at stake, and battles of interests, which are determined by

power relationships. The latter are more characteristic of the EuropeanParliament, the former of the French National Assembly in its best moments.

In 2000, Abls conducted research among charity foundations in the USA,revealing that, despite their philanthropic appearance, these foundations aredriven by a concern with profitability. Abls is also interested in theglobalisation of environmentalist movements.

Education

cole Normale Suprieure, Paris, 196873 Ph.D. cole des Hautes tudes en Sciences Sociales, Paris, 1976

Fieldwork

Ochollo, Ethiopia, 19745Yonne, France, 19828European Parliament, Strasbourg, France; Luxemburg; Brussels, Belgium,

19902European Commission, Brussels, Belgium, 1993French National Assembly, Paris, France, 1998Silicon Valley, USA, 2000

Key Publications

(1983) Le Lieu du politique (The Place of the Political), Paris: Socit dEthnographie.(1990) Anthropologie de ltat (Anthropology of the State), Paris: Armand Colin.(1991) Quiet Days in Burgundy: A Study of Local Politics (Jours tranquilles en 1991),

trans. A. McDermott, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.(2000) Un Ethnologue lAssemble (An Anthropologist at the Parliament), Paris: Odile

Jacob.Aberle, David F.b. 1918, St Paul, Minnesota, USADavid Aberle wrote his dissertation under Ruth Benedict and became a

significant figure in culture and personality studies in the early 1950s. Hisinterests gradually turned to social movements and kinship, and to morematerialist explanations of cultural and social variables. In his best-known work,a study of Navaho peyotism, he used relative deprivation theory to explain whyindividual Navaho became peyotists. This work includes rich ethnographicdescription and analysis of Navaho peyote beliefs and rituals, and an influentialclassification of social movements. Aberles other important publications on theNavaho include papers on contemporary Navaho kinship and on economicconditions on the Navaho Reservation.

In addition to a major paper on matrilineal kinship in cross-culturalperspective, Aberles main effort in kinship studies was a collaboration with

2

Isidore Dyen on the historical reconstruction of the proto-Athapaskan kinshipsystem. They applied the formal method of lexical reconstruction developed byDyen to reconstruct proto-Athapaskan kinship terminology and then usedinferences based on cross-cultural data to reconstruct other probable features ofthe wider proto-Athapaskan kinship system.

Aberles anthropology is influenced by his social justice concerns. Examplesof socially concerned applied anthropology are his testimony before the NavahoTribal Council about peyotism and its Navaho followers, his involvement instudying the impact of Navaho relocation resulting from efforts to resolve theHopi-Navaho land dispute, and as an advocate for Navahos displaced by thisdispute.

Education

BA Harvard University, 1940Ph.D. Columbia University, 1950

Fieldwork

Navaho Reservation, summers 1939, 194954, 1962, 19656, 1968, 1971, 19748, 1980

Key Publications

(1966) The Peyote Religion among the Navaho, Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co.with Dyen, Isidore (1974) Lexical Reconstruction: The Case of the Proto-Athapaskan

Kinship System, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Abu-Lughod, Lilab. 21 October 1952, Champaign, Illinois, USALila Abu-Lughod is a leading ethnographer of the Middle East, whose work

has helped shape linguistic anthropology, the anthropology of emotion, andanthropological theories of gender. Her innovative ethnographic writing andinsightful theoretical critiques helped bring emotion, verbal art, women, and theMiddle East to the forefront of anthropological practice in the 1990s.

Abu-Lughods dissertation, published in 1986 as Veiled Sentiments, looked atoral poetry and emotion in an Awlad Ali Bedouin community in Egypt. Abu-Lughod observed that Awlad Ali women expressed opposed sentiments ineveryday conversation (strength and independence) and in performances of oralpoetry (vulnerability and attachment). These opposed discourses, Abu-Lughodargued, articulated fundamental tensions of Bedouin social life. But carefulattention to sociolinguistic detailthe form and function of oral poetry, thesocial contexts of poetic performance, and the cultural aesthetics of verbal artallowed Abu-Lughod to show that neither discourse occupied a privileged

3

position ontologically. Veiled Sentiments thus dramatically revisedanthropological notions of everyday resistance, while providing rich evidence forthe socially constructed nature of emotion. Her work on emotion continued withLanguage and the Politics of Emotion (edited with C.Lutz), a volume importantfor situating the anthropology of emotion in the study of discourse.

Abu-Lughods work with Bedouin women led to an important critique ofanthropologys culture concept. Her (1991) essay, Writing against culture,argued that anthropological descriptions of people and practices in terms ofculture are unavoidably essentialising, obscuring individual agency and erasingthe historical contingency of actual lives. Her 1993 book, Writing WomensWorlds, is a beautifully written attempt to avoid this representational trap. Abu-Lughod skilfully weaves Bedouin womens own narratives into an insightfulexploration of their livesas traditional anthropological paradigms, such askinship, might query them. Abu-Lughods work on women in the Middle Eastcontinued with Remaking Women, a collection of essays that explore gender as anexus for symbolic negotiations of power that articulate discourses of traditionand modernity, secularism and religion, post-coloniality and nationhood in theMiddle East.

Abu-Lughods subsequent work has looked at the role of melodramatictelevision serials in constructing modern consciousness in Egypt. Integratingethnographic study of reception with textual analysis of media messages,AbuLughod argues that the serials popularise new discourses of (modern)selfhood characterised by the individuated experiencing of interiorised emotion.

Education

BA Carleton College, 1974MA Harvard University, 1978Ph.D. Harvard University, 1984

Fieldwork

Awlad Ali Bedouin, Egypt, 197880, 1985, 19867, 1989Islam, television and public culture, Egypt, 198990, 1993, 19967, 1999Health and medicine, Egypt, 2001

Key Publications

(1986) Veiled Sentiments: Honor and Poetry in a Bedouin Society, Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press.

with Lutz, C (eds) (1990) Language and the Politics of Emotion, Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press.

(1993) Writing Womens Worlds: Bedouin Stories, Berkeley: University of CaliforniaPress.

4

(ed.) (1998) Remaking Women: Feminism and Modernity in the Middle East, Princeton:Princeton University Press.

Adams, Richard N.b. 4 August 1924, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USAAfter his doctoral research in Muquiyauyo, Peru, Richard Adams chose to

work in applied anthropology in Latin America. From 1950 to 1956, hecollaborated in nutrition and public health programmes throughout CentralAmerica, training practitioners in beliefs and practices associated with illness inrural and Indian communities. He also worked on programmes in GuatemalansInstituto Indigenista Nacional. During these years he undertook studies of MayanIndian medical practices (1952) and rural political ideologies in Guatemala(1957), but the major product was a series of national surveys of rural culture inPanama, Nicaragua, Honduras, El Salvador, and Ladino society in Guatemala(1958).

In practice Adams found that applied anthropology depended as much oncultural relativism and common sense as on the prevalent anthropologicaltheorieshistoricism, functionalism, structuralism, and Marxismeach ofwhich in its own way was inadequate for understanding the social dynamics ofpost-colonial Central America. In 1956, he accepted a professorship at MichiganState University and in 1962 moved to the University of Texas, where hedeveloped the anthropology doctoral programme, and served in the Institute ofLatin American Studies. At Texas he sought more dynamic concepts and holistictheories while carrying out research, teaching and consultation in Argentina,Brazil, Bolivia, Chile, Mexico, Peru, Paraguay, Nicaragua, Guatemala, andAustralia.

From 1960 to 1985 he sought a holistic dynamic model that would serve bothsimple and complex societies. This led to a study of Guatemalan society from1944 to 1966, tracing social power structure changes over an era of attemptedsocial revolution (1970). This was followed by treatises on social power (1975,1978), the role of energy in Victorian society (1982), and then on energy andself-organisation in social evolution (1988). This included comparisons ofchanging human energy use in seventy nations over the previous century. Heconstructed a rigorous set of concepts, univocally defining social power as theability to influence the conduct of others through controlling energetic processesof interest to them, and analysed the structures within which individuals andsocial groups operated. Taking off from Leslie Whites energy thesis, he arguedthat social complexity grew through a sequence of growth in social power, basedfirst on identity, then integrating through co-ordination and centralisation, andexpanding thorough emergent levels of social integration.

The model saw social evolution as one phase of the dynamic self-organisationcommon to all of nature. It examined social development in terms of the Laws ofThermodynamics, natural selection, Lotkas principle, minimum dissipation, thetrigger-flow processes, and Prigogines dissipative structuresenergy/ materialassemblages, poised far from the thermodynamic equilibrium, whose

5

maintenance and reproduction require the constant self-organisation of energyflows and conversions. Significant energy increases could trigger stochasticoscillations that produced new, more encompassing complex structures at higherlevels of integration. At each such level of integration, the degree ofcentralisation depended directly on strategic controls over the energy flows. Thesurvival of the human species and its several societiesand the maintenance ofany leveldepended on self-organising power structures to sustain energy flow.Failure would lead to some social disintegration.

Adams served as president of the American Anthropological Association andthe Society for Applied Anthropology, as vice-president of the AmericanAssociation for the Advancement of Science, and was a founder and president ofthe Latin American Studies Association. With the Ford Foundation, he assistedthe development of anthropology in Argentina, Brazil, and Paraguay. WhileAdams saw his work as seeking to understand the dynamics of society, in theheightened political atmosphere of the era it was criticised as variously beholdento revolutionary and imperialist interests.

By 1990, these macro-theoretical explorations found little resonance in thefield where interests were swinging to post-modernism and social concerns withmore immediate problems of energy depletion and environmental degradation. In1991 Adams retired to Guatemala with his wife who was farming there andturned his attention to local ethnic relations. He published on historical materialsfrom the archives and co-authored a studyof changing ethnic relations inGuatemala from 1944 to 2000 at the Centro de Investigaciones RegionalesMesoamericanas in 2002. This work examined the states efforts to cope with theconsolidation of the imagined community of Maya Indians.

Education

BA Michigan State University, 1947MA Yale University, 1949Ph.D. Yale University, 1951

Fieldwork

Peru, 194950; 1958El Salvador, Honduras, Panama, Nicaragua, 19506, 1959Guatemala, 19506, 1959, 19629, 1984Bolivia, Chile, 1958Nicaragua, 1979

6

Key Publications

(1970) Crucifixion by Power: Essays on Guatemalan National Social Structure, 19441966, Austin: University of Texas Press.

(1975) Energy and Structure: A Theory of Social Power, Austin: University of TexasPress.

(1988) The Eighth Day: Social Evolution as the Self-Organization of Energy, Austin:University of Texas Press.

(1995) Etnias en evolucin social: estudios de Guatemala y Centroamrica (Etnias onSocial Evolution: Studies of Guatemala and Central America), Mexico: UniversidadAutnoma Metropolitana, Iztapalapa.

Agar, Michael H.b. 1945, Chicago, Illinois, USAA pioneer in the anthropological study of drug use, Michael Agar is above all

a staunch advocate of the utility of cognitive and linguistic ethnography forunderstanding social problems. Approaching drug use through observation andsystematic interviews with addicts, he has been funded in numerous grants fromthe National Institute on Drug Abuse to carry out studies of heroin, LSD, PCPand other drug use. Agars Ripping and Running (1973) argued that, throughethnography, the unstated assumptions governing the drug-procuring behaviourof male heroin addicts could be made explicit and more understandable totreatment counsellors and policymakers trying to help the men shake their habits.

His occupational ethnography of long-haul trucking represents another highpoint in a career devoted to practical anthropology Agars study of independenttruckers demystified a mythologised occupation, transmitting the insiders viewof how trucking works. He did so by quoting from interviews with truckers andplacing those quotes in the context of his observations on truck runs and ananalysis of economic constraints ultimately structuring the profession.

Because Agars writing style is clear and jargon-free, he has reached anaudience beyond his fellow anthropologists. In a series of publications, includingThe Professional Stranger (1996), Cognition and Ethnography (1974), andSpeaking of Ethnography (1985), he explained to a lay audience howethnography and socio-linguistics can be conducted both scientifically andhumanistically Accordingly, these books have been useful for undergraduate andgraduate students alike as textbooks.

A mainstream press publication, entitled Language Shock: Understanding theCulture of Conversation (1994), serves to translate highly technical treatises onsociolinguistics into a witty discussion about language frames, speech acts, andother linguistic features. Agar coined the term languaculture to underscore howlanguage and culture are tightly bound together. As a good anthropological story-teller/teacher should, he illustrated this close relationship using accounts of hisown life experience with cultural miscommunications in different parts of theworld.

7

Whether his writings describe research methods or analyse the livedexperience of truckers or addicts, the common thread running through much ofAgars work is the principle of honest demystification.

Education

AB Stanford University, 1967Ph.D. University of California, Berkeley, 1971

Fieldwork

The Lambardi, Karnataka, India, 19656Heroin addicts in treatment, Kentucky, USA, 196870Heroin addicts, New York, USA, 19735Drug users, Houston, USA, 19767Owner-operator truckers, Maryland, USA, 19817Political language and bilingualism, Austria, 19867, 198990A Mexican-American business, Mexico City, Mexico, 19913LSD-using adolescents, suburban Washington, USA, 1992Health professionals and drug users, Baltimore, USA, 1993, 1998Community residents in Roatan, Honduras, 1997Key Publications

(1973) Ripping and Running: A Formal Ethnographic Study of Urban Heroin Addicts,New York: Seminar Press.

(1986) Independents Declared: The Dilemmas of Independent Trucking, Washington,DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

(1994) Language Shock: Understanding the Culture of Conversation, New York: WilliamMorrow.

(1996[1980]) The Professional Stranger: An Informal Introduction to Ethnography,second edn, New York: Academic Press.

Aguirre-Beltran, Gonzalob. 7 September 1908, Tlacotalpan (Veracruz), Mexicod. 5 February 1996, Veracruz, MexicoGonzalo Aguirre-Beltran explored a wide range of subjects and issues: race

relations, medical anthropology, cultural change, applied linguistics,development, political anthropology, regional studies. In addition, he was one ofthe main organisers of the Indigenista movement in Mexico and Latin America.In his work, the indigenous and black populations of the Americas never appearsimply as passive subjects of colonial and neo-colonial exploitation, but as actorsof their own histories and participants in the dynamics of mestizaje, a complexprocess of biological and cultural blending.

Initially trained as a medical doctor, Aguirre-Beltran found his true vocationas an ethnohistorian and anthropologist when as director of a rural clinic in the

8

state of Veracruz, he wrote one of the first detailed studies of agrarian rebellionsin colonial Mexico. Encouraged by Manuel Gamio, he then undertook anambitious research project on the Mexican black population, from its origins incolonial slavery to the twentieth century In 19456 he became a graduate studentat Northwestern University, where he worked under the guidance of MelvilleHerskovits and Irving Hallowell.

In 1948 he became a senior researcher in the newly created Instituto NacionalIndigenista (INI), where he constructed his theory of the regions of refuge,positing that the indigenous population has to be understood in the context ofregional power relationships that subordinate Indian rural communities to a non-indigenous dominant urban sector. Accordingly, the INI should co-ordinate theactions of government development agencies in order to allow the acculturationof the indigenous people and their full participation in the benefits of the modernnation. This would not imply the obliteration of indigenous culture but itsblending into a new mestizo national one.

In 1952 Gonzalo Aguirre-Beltran became the director of the first INI co-ordinating center in Chiapas, which would provide the model for similar centersin Mexico and Latin America in general. Throughout his career he occupied thepositions of sub-director and director general of INI, as well as director of theInstituto Indigenista Interamericano and vice-minister of Education. In 1975 hewas the first recipient of the Malinowski Award granted by the InternationalSociety for Applied Anthropology His ideas were harshly criticised by the newindigenous movements that emerged after 1970 and by his younger, more radicalcolleagues, but he never ceased to defend them on the basis of research and fresharguments.

Education

Doctor of Medicine, National University of Mexico, 1931Graduate Diploma (Anthropology), North-western University, 1946

Fieldwork

Huatusco (Veracruz), Mexico, 193240Cuijla (Guerrero), Mexico, 19423, 1954The Chiapas Highlands, Mexico, 19501Tarascan Sierra, Mexico, 19512Tarahumaran Sierra, Mexico, 1952The Papaloapan Basin, Mexico, 19579Sierra of Zongolica, Veracruz, Mexico, 1960

9

Key Publications

(1946) La Poblacin Negra de Mexico, 15191810. Estudio Etnohistrico (The BlackPopulation of Mexico, 15191810. An Ethnohistorical Study), Mexico City: FuenteCultural; second edn (enlarged), Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura Economica, 1972.

(1953) Formas de Gobierno Indgena (Indigenous Forms of Government), Mexico City:Imprenta Universitaria.

(1957) El Proceso de Aculturacion (The Process of Acculturation), Mexico City:Universidad Nacional Autnoma de Mxico.

(1967) Regions of Refuge (Regiones de Refugio), Mexico City: Instituto IndigenistaInteramericano; English edn, Washington: International Society for AppliedAnthropology, 1975.

Angrosino, Michael V.b. 1947, Brooklyn, New York, USAMichael V.Angrosino distinguished himself in the field of applied

anthropology with the publication of Do Applied Anthropologists ApplyAnthropology? in 1976. This book introduced the term the new appliedanthropology, which is still widely used in the literature; it also launched thecourse of over twenty years of exploration in the world of applied anthropology,particularly with social policy implications of advocacy at the grassroots level. Hisfocus is in the area of qualitative research methodologies, especially life historyand intensive participant observation, which he has employed over the years on avariety of applied projects, particularly in the area of medical anthropology.

Anthropology Field Projects and Doing Cultural Anthropology illustrate hiscommitment to the philosophy of learning-by-doing. They also illustrate hiscommitment to students by presenting them with viable projects and the methodsthey might use to solve social problems, always with an eye out for ethicaltreatment of the persons with whom they interact.

One of Angrosinos major contributions to anthropology is through his workwith stigmatised individuals, particularly mentally retarded persons. Throughouthis work, Angrosino seeks a humane approach towards investigating the lives ofthese individuals. Opportunity House represents a summation of nearly twodecades of ethnographic research. In this book, Angrosino discloses the uniquequalities of each individual in the study, and discloses the humanity of peoplewho have been marginalised by society He presents these individuals as personswho collaborate with him in order to present an intimate, insiders view of theirdaily lives. They share their feelings and insights, as well as their hopes anddreams; in so doing, they illustrate the collaborative and interactional nature ofthis kind of anthropological research. This approach allows us to see how theseindividuals view themselves, and, in so doing, Angrosino presents a glimpse of hisown humanity as well as the persons who are in the study group. Few academicshave presented stigmatised persons with the dignity, sensitivity, and respect theydeserve, or contributed more to the understanding of this misunderstood minoritygroup.

10

Education

BA City University of New York, 1968Ph.D. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 1972Postdoctoral Fellow, Vanderbilt University Institute for Public Policy Studies,

1981Certification in Oral History Research, Vermont College, 1989MA Saint Mary-of-the Woods College, 1999

Fieldwork

Trinidad, August 1970September 1971, June-August 1973 (overseas Indianethnic identity)

Saba, June-July 1970 (Life History collection)Aruba, June-August 1975 (labour migration and cultural pluralism)Tampa, Nashville, Washington, DC, USA, September 1981June 1996

(communitybased treatment for adults with mental retardation and chronic mentalillness)

Indianapolis, Tampa, New York, USA, September 1996-present (culturaldiversity training programmes)

Key Publications

(ed.) (1976) Do Applied Anthropologists Apply Anthropology?, Athens: University ofGeorgia.

with Crane, Julia(eds) (1984) Anthropology Field Projects: A Student Handbook,Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.

(1998) Opportunity House: Ethnographic Stories of Mental Retardation, Walnut Creek,CA: AltaMira.

(ed.) (2002) Doing Cultural Anthropology: Projects for Ethnographic Data Collection,Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.

Appadurai, Arjunb. 4 February 1949, Bombay, IndiaFrom the beginning of his academic career, Arjun Appadurais work has been

characterised by an integration of historical, ethnographic, and theoreticalapproaches, reflecting his training at the University of Chicagos inter-disciplinary Committee on Social Thought. His dissertation research focused onthe politics of a Sri Vaisnava temple in the Madras region of south India, forwhich he was awarded the University of Chicagos prize for the best doctoraldissertation in the social sciences in 1976. The dissertation was published first bythe University of Cambridge Press under the title Worship and Conflict underColonial Rule: A South Indian Case (1981), and later reprinted by OrientLongman in 1983. Subsequent articles, published through the mid-1980s, rangedfrom reconsideration of more traditional topics like caste and hierarchy to

11

innovative explorations of gastro-politics and gratitude as a social mode.Appearing in such journals as American Ethnologist and Man, these pieces beganto develop Appadurais reputation as a social theorist.

But it was the introduction to his edited volume entitled The Social Life ofThings that really brought Appadurais name to the attention of scholars outsidethe realm of South Asian studies. Using an ethnohistorical approach, Appaduraiproposed a new way of looking at commodities, or things that have value. Heargues that the value created through the act of economic exchange is itselfembodied in commodities, the objects that are exchanged. Rather thanemphasising the forms or processes of exchange, we can learn a great deal byfocusing on the commodities themselves, tracing their connections andtrajectories through time, or, in other words, their social lives. That work hascontinued to be cited internationally as a seminal contribution to theunderstanding of commodities in a cultural context, and was the impetus for aretrospective conference on the subject, held in the Netherlands in 1999, morethan a decade after the initial publication of the volume.

With his wife, historian Carol Breckenridge, Appadurai began a workinggroup on the study of what they termed Public Culture in the mid-1980s. Theseexplorations in globalisation and transnational cultural forms ultimately led tothe development of the Center for Transnational Cultural Studies at theUniversity of Pennsylvania, and the creation of a journal, Public Culture, whichhad its inaugural issue in the autumn of 1988, and as of 2003 was still goingstrong. An article first published in Public Culture in 1990, Disjuncture anddifference in the global cultural economy, was subsequently refined andreprinted in several other venues, and became the cornerstone of Appaduraisbook, Modernity at Large (1996). The key concept introduced in that article wasthe topographic metaphor of scapes: ethnoscapes, finanscapes, mediascapes,technoscapes, and ideoscapes. Together, these provide a framework for makingsense of the workings of transnational cultural flows, and a way of connectingthe deterritorialising forces of globalisation with the situated production ofspecific localities. In Modernity at Large, Appadurai moves beyond thenecessary construction of scaffolding for intellectual engagement of theinterrelations of the global and the local, presenting an argument for the centralrole of the imagination as a social force for the development of new forms ofidentity and, ultimately, for the emergence of new political forms beyond thenational.

Moving in 1992 from the University of Pennsylvania back to his Alma Mater,the University of Chicago, Appadurai headed the Humanities Institute, bringing awide variety of international scholars into dialogue on topics including diasporaand the globalisation of media. He continued in 1996 as Samuel N. Harperprofessor of anthropology and South Asian languages and civilizations, as wellas director of the University of Chicago Globalization Project, funded principallyby the Ford and MacArthur Foundations. In the late 1990s, Appadurais researchfocus shifted to a complex study of ethnic relations and social crisis in his home

12

town of Mumbai, India. With major funding from the Ford Foundation, he begana 3-year collaborative project addressing issues including poverty, housing,media, and violence in this global city, around the core theme of grassrootsglobalisation. He also continues to work on comparative ethnographic analyses ofethnic violence, and the emergence of transnational organisational forms.

Education

Intermediate Arts, Elphinstone College, University of Bombay, 1967BA Brandeis University, 1970MA University of Chicago, 1973Ph.D. University of Chicago, 1976

Fieldwork

Madras, India, 19734, 1977, 1986, 1988Rural Maharashtra State, India, 19812Delhi, India, 1986, 1988 (short term) Mumbai (Bombay), India, 1986, 1988, 1995 6, 1997, 1998, 20001

Key Publications

(1986) (ed.) The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective, New York:Cambridge University Press.

(1988) Putting hierarchy in its place, Cultural Anthropology 3, 1:3750.(1990) Disjuncture and difference in the global cultural economy, Public Culture 2, 2: 1

24.(1996) Modernity at large: cultural dimensions of globalization, Minneapolis: University

of Minnesota Press.Appell, George N.b. 1926, York, PennsylvaniaGeorge Appells theoretical work is informed by years of experience and

motivated by his concern for indigenous communities that have been cut loosefrom their sociocultural moorings because of social change imposed on them inthe wake of globalisation. Based on extensive fieldwork, he has developed ananalytical system that allows researchers to document resource ownership byindigenous jural units and, thereby, help prevent the unlawful capture ordestruction of such resources by outsiders. Sudden changefor which thesecommunities are unprepared harms the physiological and psychosocial healthof their members, he argues. He encourages research on threatened indigenouspeoples, to enable them to understand the worth of their own cultures, and helpthem adapt to social change. To this end, he established the Fund for UrgentAnthropological Research and a project that aims to compile the rapidlydisappearing oral literature of the peoples of Sabah. He is the president and

13

founder of the Borneo Research Council, which supports scholarship on Borneansocieties. He was the first to use the case study method for instruction on ethicalissues in anthropological inquiry He has also helped develop a theory of cognaticsocial structure. A prolific writer, Appell has almost 150 books, articles, andreviews to his name.

Education

BA Harvard University, 1949MBA Harvard University, 1952MA Harvard University, 1957Ph.D. Australian National University, 1966

Fieldwork

Sabah, Malaysia, 195960, 19613, 1986, 1990, 1992, 1994, 1996, 1999, 2002East Kalimantan, Indonesia, 19801Northwest Territories, Canada, 1957, 1977Maine, USA, 19713 (part time)Denmark, 19712 (part time)

Key Publications

(ed.) (1976) The Societies of Borneo: Explorations in the Theory of Cognatic SocialStructure, Special Publication 6, Washington, DC: American AnthropologicalAssociation.

(1978) Dilemmas and Ethical Conflicts in Anthropological Inquiry: A Case Book,Waltham, MA: Crossroads Press.

Apthorpe, Raymondb. 1932, Luton, UKRaymond Apthorpe is a distinguished anthropologist of development whose

work has involved research, consultancy, and teaching in Africa, Europe, EastAsia, and Australia. After a theoretically focused, library-based D.Phil. (Instituteof Social Anthropology, 1957), he went to the Rhodes-Livingstone Institute,Lusaka, where he undertook fieldwork among the Nsenga, publishing papers ontheir history, social and political ideas, and, with John Blacking, their music. Hewas also responsible for organising workshops on the practical and socialscientific problems of contemporary Africa. Thereafter, with posts in Nigeria andUganda (as professor of sociology at Makerere), and in Europe (IDS Sussex,East Anglia, the Hague, and later Swansea), he increasingly focused on theproblems of development, including land settlement schemes, planned socialchange, and the sociology of planning and planners (or planistrators as he likesto call them).

14

In great demand for consultancies, his work is never simply applied, butalways grounded in a wide-ranging knowledge of social theory and the currenttheoretical literature. His thinking has often represented a radical departure fromorthodoxy. For example, during the 1960s, in noting the continuity betweendevelopment planning and colonialism, Apthorpe criticised the then-prevailingparadigms of African societythe traditional and tribal community modelsthat pervaded both. This dual orientation towards theory and practice continuedto inform his later work in East Asia (Taiwan, the Philippines, and elsewhere),especially in his writing, from the mid-1980s, on the language of policy and thepower of policy language, in which he made effective use of Foucault longbefore it became fashionable. Apthorpes insistence that the study of discoursemust be situated in an analysis of its institutional context is also apparent in hiswork in the 1990s focusing on aid, conflict, and development, and the evaluationof emergency aid programmes in Africa and Europe (Balkans).

As a development anthropologist his work is inevitably multidisciplinary,involving cooperation with political scientists and economists, even when hefinds himself doing battle with them over their respective approaches todevelopment. This he sees primarily as social development, with social policyneeded to relieve the consequences of economics. Tending to call what he doessociology, but for long a member of the Association of Social Anthropologists(from 1956), Apthorpe is a critical humanist with considerable under standing of,and commitment to, the situation of people whose societies emerged fromcolonial rule into the world of development; an intellectual (and witty) writerpassionately concerned with the practical application of anthropology

Education

BA Durham University, 1953D.Phil. University of Oxford, 1957

Fieldwork

Zambia, 195761Taiwan, 19705

Key Publications

(ed.) (1970) People, Planning and Development Studies: Some Reflections on SocialPlanning, London: Cass.

(1986) Development policy discourse, Public Administration and Development 6, 4:37789.

with Gasper, D. (eds) (1996) Arguing Development Policy: Frames and Discourses,London: Cass.

15

with Chiviya, E. and Kaunda, G. (1995) Decentralization in Malawi: Local Governanceand Development, Lilongwe: UNDP/Ministry of Local Government and RuralDevelopment.

Archetti, Eduardo P.b. 1943, Santiago del Estero, ArgentinaEduardo Archetti is a scholar with an exceptionally open mind and a broad

range of interests. His main works cover such diverse themes as agrarian reformand issues of development, food and knowledge systems, the use andsignificance of texts in the anthropological endeavour, gender and theconstruction of masculinities, morality, and the meanings of sports and dance forunderstanding national identities. Nevertheless, underpinning many of hisqueries is a sustained interest in social transformations, modernity, and itsimplications for social life.

The thrust of Archettis research has been devoted to different Argentinianrealities. He has had the rare privilege of doing anthropology at home, but froma foreign vantage point. Having lived and worked in Norway since 1976, hecombines insider knowledge with outsider perspectives. His first major studyfocused on the Italian immigrant community of northern Santa F. This studycombined detailed ethnography of the settler community with a careful historicalcontextualisation. He was able to demonstrate key elements (encompassing bothsentiments and economic factors) affecting a demographic transition withimplications for family structure and the organisation of production.

Archetti pursued the tension between economic and cultural factors and theirexplanatory power in his work on the guinea pig from the highlands of Ecuador.This study represented not only a well-grounded criticism of a developmentproject and the rational approach of planners, but it was also a uniquecontribution to the more general study of ritual, consumption, and indigenousknowledge. Archetti explored the complex social and cultural practicessurrounding the guinea pig revealing its profound symbolic significance withrespect to gender relations as well as the relation between humans and animals.

The interest in ritual and gender is further developed in Archettis innovativestudies of tango, football, and polo, serving as prisms through which Argentiniannationalism is refracted. By juxtaposing such distinct social phenomena, Archettiwas able to demonstrate how the national narrative is constructed aroundmetaphors of movement and performance, and how masculine identities areinscribed in the creation of otherness.

Education

BA University of Buenos Aires, 1964MA University of Buenos Aires, 1967Ph.D. cole Pratique des Hautes tudes, 1976

16

Fieldwork

Santa F, Argentina, February 1973March 1974.Pichincha, Ecuador, April 1976May 1977Zambia, January-July 1981Salcedo, Chimborazo and Azuay, Ecuador, July 1983December 1983, 1986Buenos Aires, Argentina, July-December 1984, January-August 1988, August-

December 1993, October-December 1994Shorter fieldwork: Albertville, France, 1992; Lillehammer, Norway, 1994

Key Publications

with Stlen, Kristi Anne (1975) Explotacin familiar y acumulacin de capital en elcampo argentino (Family Farms and Capital Accumulation in Rural Argentina),Buenos Aires: Siglo XXI Editores.

(1997) Pigs, Food, Symbol and Conflict of Knowledge in Ecuador (El mundo social ysimblico del cuy, 1992), Oxford: Berg.

(ed.) (1994) Exploring the Written. Anthropology and the Multiplicity of Writing, Oslo:Scandinavian University Press.

(1999) Masculinities. Football, Plo and the Tango in Argentina, Oxford: Berg.Ardener, Edwin W.b. 1927, London, UKd. 1987, Oxford, UKEdwin Ardeners work has contributed greatly to the ethnography and

historiography of West Africa, and to theoretical discourse in British socialanthropology around themes of ethnicity, language, politics, gender, and historyAfter reading anthropology at the LSE he conducted thirty months of fieldworkwith the Ibo of Mba-Ise in Nigeria, followed by eleven years in the Cameroons.His researches (often with his wife, Shirley Ardener) focused on the impacts ofthe plantation system on social and economic life in the Southern Cameroonsand involved extensive survey work as well as fieldwork with the Bakweri andEsu. He returned to the UK and the post of lecturer in social anthropology at theUniversity of Oxford in 1963. His lectures and writings examining history andethnicity often drew from his Cameroon material as well as from examples inEurope. Other important works on the relationship between social anthropologyand language are partly represented in the 1971 ASA volume he edited by thattitle. His discussions on the problem of women provided a timely andtheoretically rich contribution to a burgeoning field of gender studies,particularly with his development of muted group theory. Ardener acted aschair of the Institute of Social Anthropology at Oxford for many years, as chairmanof the ASA, and as one of the key contributors in the establishment of the humansciences degree at Oxford.

17

Education

BA London School of EconomicsMA University of Oxford

Fieldwork

Nigeria, 194952Cameroons, 195263Cameroons, 19639, summer monthsScottish Hebrides, UK, 1980s

Key Publications

(1989) Edwin Ardener: The Voice of Prophecy and Other Essays, ed. M.Chapman,Oxford: Blackwell.

(1996) Kingdom on Mount Cameroon: Studies in the History of the Cameroon Coast,15001970, ed. S. Ardener, Oxford: Berghahn.

Ardener, ShirleyShirley Ardeners anthropological career began in the 1950s and 1960s when

she was based in West Africa with her husband (and fellow anthropologist), EdwinArdener. Her fieldwork included interview- and survey-based studies of thesocioeconomic, marriage, and migration patterns of tribal groups in the SouthernCameroons who laboured in the plantations. Ardeners commitment to herresearch in Africa continues to the present with frequent trips to Cameroon andpublications that examine issues of microcredit, gender, and family as well asarchival work on Cameroon studies.

It is, however, with the study of gender in British social anthropology thatShirley Ardeners name and published work are most closely associated. In 1972she was one of a small group of women anthropologists who founded a seminaron the anthropology of women at Queen Elizabeth House, Oxford. In 1983 theseminar group was formally recognised as the Center for Cross-CulturalResearch on Women (CCCRW) and Ardener became its director. Editedvolumes (twenty-five so far) emanating from the seminars have made significantcontributions to gender studies. In a descriptive extension of Edwin Ardenersanalysis of the silence of thinking, feeling women in pre-1970s ethnographicdescriptions (muted group theory), Shirley Ardener suggested that themutedness of one group may indeed be seen as the flip side of the dominantgroups (mens? academys?) deafness. Over the years, the research outputfrom the CCCRW has certainly attempted to address this shortcoming and booksproduced cover a diverse range of topics including women in peace and war,rotating savings and credit associations for women, bilingual women, theincorporated wife, etc. Ardeners own contributions to most of the volumes as

18

either contributor, editor, or series editor may certainly be seen as theinspirational drive that has allowed for success.

Ardener has also long been a member of the sub-faculty of anthropology andgeography at the University of Oxford, and since 1989 she has co-convenedseveral successful seminar series at the Institute of Social andCultural Anthropology (e.g. Ethnicity and Identity, which has produced nineedited volumes). She has influenced generations of human sciences,anthropology, and archaeology students at Oxford who have attended hertutorials and lectures. In 1995 she retired as director of the CCCRW, butcontinues to be actively involved as a senior associate and continues with herwriting and teaching in Oxford. For her contributions to social anthropology shewas given the Wellcome Medal in 1962 and for that as well as her contributionsto gender studies and the CCCRW she was awarded the OBE.

Education

B.Sc. (Econ.) London School of EconomicsMA Stat. University of Oxford

Fieldwork

Nigeria, Cameroon, 1950s to present

Key Publications

(ed. and chapter Sexual insult and female militancy; also in Man 8, 3, 1973) (1975)Perceiving Women, London: J.M.Dent & Sons Ltd.

(ed. and introductory essay) (1981) Defining Females: The Nature of Women in Society,London: Croom Helm.

(ed. and introductory essay) (1981) Women and Space, London: Croom Helm.(ed. with commentaries) (2002) Swedish Ventures in Cameroon 18831923, Oxford:

Berghahn Press.Arensberg, Conrad Maynadierb. 12 September 1910, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USAd. 10 February 1997, New York City, USAConrad Arensberg was a leader in the development of theory, method, and

applied approaches in American anthropology over most of the twentieth century.Because of his intellectual interests, interdisciplinary endeavours, and scholarlyachievements, as well as his personal warmth and openness, he had an incalculableeffect on the growth of the profession of anthropology in the USA in general, butmore particularly in the lives of hundreds of colleagues and students over thethirty years in which he taught at Columbia University in New York City. Hewas also among the first American anthropologists to marry the theoretical andmethodological perspectives of British structural-functionalism with a more

19

humanistic and historical American cultural anthropology. He achieved this firstin what has become one of the classic ethnographic community studies inworld anthropological history, in the rural west of Ireland, from 19324.Arensberg was arguably the most influential American ethnographer to conductfield research in Europe for over a generation; to this day students in Ireland andstudents of Irish society and culture in Europe and beyond still use hisethnographic studies of Clare (done in the main with Solon T. Kimball) as primesources.

Arensbergs first ethnographic research was as part of W.Lloyd WarnersYankee City project, wherein Arensberg showed his interest in the study ofclass, work, ethnicity, and culture in complex societies. This research, along withthat done soon after in Ireland, constitute some of the earliest studies of modern,urban, and rural industrial society, and were pioneering efforts in what somewould now call anthropology at home. In the course of this work Arensbergproblematised the nature of community as both method and object of study, asone way in his view to keep anthropology firmly on its footing as one of thenatural sciences, which was one of his lifelong interests (a number of articlesthat elaborated his ideas about theory and method were standard reading for ageneration of anthropologists trained in the 1960s and 1970s; many of theseessays are collected in Culture and Community, co-authored with Kim ball). InArensbergs view culture could be observed and compared through the study ofrepetitive interactions of individuals and groups. This was the basis ofinteraction theory, which he applied in his ethnographic research, as part ofwider comparisons of complex cultural systems (an interest which led to suchworks as Trade and Markets in Early Empires (1957), co-edited with KarlPolanyi and Harry Pearson.

Arensbergs professional career kept pace with his scholarlyaccomplishments. After service in the US Army in the Second World War, in1946 he began his association with Columbia University by becoming the chairof the sociology department of Barnard College. In 1952 he moved toColumbias graduate department of anthropology, where he stayed until hisretirement in 1979, after which he continued at the university in the JointProgram in Applied Anthropology at Teachers College. In 1991 he was given theMalinowski Award of the Society for Applied Anthropology, and the firstConrad M.Arensberg Award of the Society for the Anthropology of Work. In19456 he served as president of the Society for Applied Anthropology, and in1980 he was president of the American Anthropological Association.

Arensberg is justly remembered as an inspirational leader in the growth ofanthropological method, theory, and teaching, whose erudition and imaginationhelped make both the USA and Western Europe acceptable locales forethnographic research, thus helping to liberate anthropologists from theconstraints of a past imperialist science. His research and writing influenced thedevelopment of historical, economic and applied anthropology, and he wasamong the first anthropologists to focus on work and ethnicity in industrial

20

society. But perhaps his most enduring legacy is the personal model he set for hisstudents. His generous giving of his time, advice, and expertise influenced threegenerations of Columbia scholars, and this generosity was extended to manypeople of other universities, not least to those graduate students who sought hiscounsel when preparing their doctoral ethnographic field research in Ireland.

Education

BA summa cum laude, Harvard University, 1931Ph.D. Harvard University, 1934

Fieldwork

Newburyport, Massachusetts, USA, 19302Ennis, County Clare, Ireland, 19324New England cities, various locales and intermittent research, USA, 193841

Key Publications

(1937) The Irish Countryman: An Anthropological Study, New York: The MacmillanCompany

with Kimball, Solon T. (1940) Family and Community in Ireland, Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.

with Kimball, Solon T. (1965) Culture and Community, New York: Harcourt, Brace &World.

(1981) Cultural holism through interactional systems, American Anthropologist 83, 3:56281.

Arguedas, Jos Marab. 1911, Andahuaylas, Perud. 1969, Lima, PeruWhen J.M.Arguedas graduated with a degree in ethnology from the University

of San Marcos in 1957, he was already a widely published writer of fiction,articles in folklore, and critical essays in language and literature. Arguedassintellectual formation happened in the context of a burgeoning Indigenistamovement, a loose collective of Latin American artists and intellectuals whosework called attention to the oppressive living conditions of native peoples.Arguedas was critical of Indigenista forms of representation, which he thoughtwere intellectualist and detached from the realm of experience. However,because he openly shared in the nationalist and socialist impetus of the movement,vindicating of indigenous peoples and cultures, Arguedas is often classed as anIndigenista writer and intellectual.

Arguedass non-fictional writings present descriptive and interpretive accountsof contemporary life, cultural practices, and beliefs among Indians and mestizosof the central and southern Andes. Whether as part of these works or as

21

independent pieces, Arguedas published numerous Quechua myths, songs, andpoems, such as the collection, Canto kechwa, which he translated into Spanishwith exceptional lyricism. As is evident in the ethnohistorical essays ofFormacin de una cultura nacional indoamericana, Arguedas was greatlyinterested in processes of cultural transformation. While disturbed by the loss offorms of c