Harrison, Faye. Anthropology as an Agent of Transformation. Introductory Comments and Queries (Decolonizing Anthropology)

7/23/2019 Harrison, Faye. Anthropology as an Agent of Transformation. Introductory Comments and Queries (Decolonizing Anthropology)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/harrison-faye-anthropology-as-an-agent-of-transformation-introductory-comments 1/11

Warning Concerning Copyright Restrictions

The Copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of photocopies or other

reproductions of copyright material. Under certain conditions specified in the law, libraries and archives areauthorized to furnish a photocopy or other reproduction. One of these specified conditions is that the photocopy orreproduction not be "used for any purposes other than private study, scholarship, or research." If a user makes a

request for, or later uses, a photocopy or reproduction for purposes in excess of "fair use," that user may be liablefor copyright infringement.

Further information concerning copyrights may be found on the Morris Library website at:

www.lib.siu.edu/ereserves-copyright

The following pages, scanned by the Morr is Librar y Reserves staff , reflect the original qual ity of the pagessubmi tted by the instructor of the given course to the Reserves desk.

http://www.lib.siu.edu/ereserves-copyright





LIBR

Decolonizing nthropology

Moving urther Toward an Anthropology for Liberation

Edited y

Faye V Harrison

Association

of

Black Anthropologists

American Anthropological Association

Washington D.C.



II

Copyright

© 99

by

the American A

tl

I

All rights reserved

c

n

nopo

ogleal Association

Printed in the United States of America

ISBN 0-913167-45-2

Library o Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Decolonizing

anthropology mavin f

1

liberation I edited by Faye VH _g

urt ler

toward an anthropology for

I I d b' . .

arnson, p.

em

ne u es IbhographicaI references '

ISBN 0-913167-45-2 .

1.

Ethnology-Philosoph 2 M .

anthropology.

4. Anthro o l ~

i c ~ e

~ x l s t anthr?pology. 3.

Applied

Association of

Black A n r h r o ~ o l o g i ~ ~ l C S i I r A H a r n ~ o n , Faye Venetia. II

Association. s, .

mencan Anthropological

GN345 D43 99

301 .01-dc20

91-27659

CIP

30 I, ) r

])-, 2' l

6

,J

TABLE

o

CONTENTS

Acknowledgments and Dedication

Contributors

Anthropology as

an

Agent of Transformation:

Introductory Comments and Queries

Faye V. Harrison

Man and Nature, White and Other

Michael L. Blakey

Colonized Anthropology: Cargo-Cult Discourse

Pem Davidson Buck

On Ethnography in an Intertextual Situation:

Reading Nurrativcs or Dcconstructing Discourse?

Glenn H.

Jordan

Undoing Fieldwork: Personal Political Theoretical

and Methodological Impli cations

.

Deborah

D'Amico-Samuels

Ethnography as Politics

Faye V. Harrison

Confronting

the

Ethics

of

Ethnography: Lessons from

Fieldwork in

Central

America

Philippe Bourgois

They Exploited Us But We Didn t Feel It : Hegemony,

Ethnic Militancy, and the Miskitu-Sandinista Conflict

Charles R. Hale

Anthropology and Lihe1'8tion

Edmund T.

Gordon

Militarism

and Accumulation

as

Cargo Cult

Angela Gilliam

iv

v

1

5

24

42

68

88

110

127

49

168



Edmund Gordon received his Ph.D. from Stanford

fIeldwork In Belize

,and

Nicaragua and

is

interest d In 1981 . He has conducted extensive

class, counter-h egemonic struggle H h d e

III ~ c o n o m l c

development, ethnicity and

with Nicaragua's Center for R e s e ~ r c h : n d a ~ one a p p h ~ d research and development work

He has published in numerous Cent ? c u ~ e n t a t l D n

on

the Atlantic Coast (CIDCA)

D ~ v e l o p m e n t

Study Unit

p U b l i c a t i ~ : 1

~ , ~ ; : ~ a ~

J o u r n a l ; , : ; n ~

in a 1 ~ 8 7 C I D C A - S t o c k h o l ~

Nlcaragua.

Since 1989

he

has been ' . t roups

a

. t Je

Natwn-State:

The

Case

of

of

Texas, Austin.

an

aSSlS

ant professor

In

anthropology

at

the University

Charles R.

Hale

earned a Ph D .

extensive applied research in N·· . m anthropology from Stanford in 1989. He has don

D . Icaragua

under

the auspic f tb C e

ocumentatlDn on the Atlantic Co t d . .es

0

e enter for Research and

published on ethnic consdousness

~ n ~ n U ; a ~ s o c J a t i o n ,:ith

OXF.AM-Ameri,ca. He has

structure, and ethnicity and the stat .

S,

d . e g e ~ o n y , ll1terethmc relations and class

and the Nation-State.

He also h a ~ In {Can

h

ltlSta

.

Nicaragua

Mosquitia,

and

Ethnic

Grounr..o

con ' , a lort c01mng book th M . Y

SClOusness. He S an assistant prof f on e IskItU's cont radictory

Davis. essor

0

anthropology

at

the University

of

California

.

F l l Y ~

V. Harrison

is

the current president of the

s

,

~ c e I V e d

a Ph.D. from Stanford University in 1982

s ~ ~ a t ~ o n

of Black Anthropologists.

She

,

reat

Bntam

and Jamaica

on

rassroots " .

~ ~ s

done ethnog raphic research in

International-level factors H

g

k

hPOhtIcs

and Its lllterplay with the state and w'th

A h

. er wor as been bl' h d . . I

III ropology TransAfrica Forum, Social I I pu . S e

III

such journals as Urban

Indian Guide; and in the anthologl'e P

us

Ice:

and

NIeuwe West-Indische Gids/New

Wiest

m m s,

erspectlve in U.S

M. .

O u omen

and

the Polilics

0 ~ S

. .

arxlSt

Amhropolopv and Third

I't· I d . ,remllllsm.

he

has b "

V

po Ilca e ucatlOn and in building cO'I't' een actIve III community-based

. t " allOns amon g worn ' ,

~ a c l s organtzatlOns.

She

experiments 'th ' , en

s,

peace, sohdarity, and anti-

Ill,formed drama.

She

is currently an a s s o ~ ~ t w n ~ m g and performing anthropologically

ot Tennessee-Knoxville. e pro essor

of

anthropology

at

the University

Glenn H. J O ~ d a n holds a master's de ree from "

doctoral candIdate in anthropology at

t h ~

Universit t a n f ~ r d . UlllvefSlty, and is currently a

years, he has been engaged in col1aborativ I I Yof IllInOIs-Urbana. For the past several

Cardiff Butetown neighborhood where the

~ t ~ l ; ; e r s e d

authoriti oriented fieldwork in the

m the 1940s. He is a founder and director

of

the

B

laIr

D r a k ~

dId

hIS

dissertation research

p ~ s t

he served as editor and secreta -treasure utetown HIStory and Arts Project. In the

HIS SchOlarly interests include

i n t e l l ~ t u a l

histo of

~ s s o c ~ a t l D n of

Black Anthropologists.

dommatlOn and resistance, and social tr 7' cntI,ca SOCIal theory, discourse and power

m0 10graph

on

St. Clair

Drake s

i n t e l l e c t u ~ n ~ o o r ~ a t l ~ n . He has written articles and

senes of occasional and working pa d ntnbutlOlls to anthropolo gy and edited two

SOciology

and cultural studies at the l ~ ~ ~ e c ~ : ~ ~ e : f ~ a ~ ~ : , Black experience. He teaches

vi

ANTHROPOLOGY

AS AN

AGENT OF TRANSFORMATION:

INTRODUCTORY COMMENTS AND QUERIES

Faye V. Harrison

Moving Further Toward

an

Anthropology for Liberation:

An Agenda from the Periphery behind the Veil

l

With

the

turn of

the

century rapidly approaching, anthropologists committed to

applying knowledge to action and struggle must re-assess the state

of the

discipline. Since

the late 1960s, critiques of anthropology's collusion with and complicity in colonial and

imperialist dominati on and proposals for more socially and politically responsibl e

disciplinary ag<;nda have been numerous (e.g., G o ~ g h 1 9 6 8 Hymes 1969, Lewis 1973, Asad

1975, and Huiz er and Mannhe im 1979). In spite ofvarying attempts at revision and reform,

anthropology remains overwhelmingly a Western intellectual-- and id,,-ological-- project that

is

embedded in relations

of

power which favor- class sections and historical blocs belonging

to or with allegiances to the world's White minority. While these global relations no longer

adhere to classical colQnial principles or-forms;-{ll-e-f etain, nonetheless, t h e J ? ~ s i c substance

of colonial control. Hence , the contemp orary world system

~ · I ~ Q ~ o . 1 9 I ) . J a l - i ' n

its structure and

dynamic. When anthropologists fail to recognize anthropologlc,ll inquiry as

an

historically

specific set

of

discourses "which the West deploys in order

to

make sense of, define, and

figure

out

and

render

intelligible how a world ordered by [Western] capitalism works"

(Magubane and Faris 1985:93, 101), their contributions are all the more vulnerable to heing

complicit if not in fact collusive with the prevailing forces of neocolonial domination.

Magubane and Faris (1985) take the strong position that

l ' l t h r ~ p ( ) l o g y . _ a " _ , , u r r e n t l y

constituted must cease to exist.

For

cross-cultural knowledge to advance 1i uman -- -

e m a n c i l ) ' a i T C m , - - ~ f c t i v i s t - - i i i t e n e c i u a l s m i i s t

move beyond what many Marxists and

other

progressives have contributed (see Gordon in this volume).

It is

not enough

to

rethink

.anthropological insights in light of an historicized political economy (e.g., Wolf 1982).

De.sPite good intentions, radical anthropology "remains part of what people in the Third

l

World consider suspect-- as

an

invention

of

their enemy" (Magubane and Faris 1985:92).

-Whereas most of anthropology's critics have sought a reinvention by expunging the most

obvious bourgeois and colonial elements, and then rethinking and reordering

what

remains,

Magubane and Faris argue

that

a genuine science

of

humankind based upon premises

of

freedom and equality cannot emerge u n j ? i l t ~ _ a n t l l r ( ) p < : l I Q g y l,-orR Q L t I 1 ~ _ ~ l i ( l a l i s t a n d

JiiJeral

intyllectual tr-"<li ignJo..del .t(9Y"d. j

-Can an aiitlientic anthropology emerge from the critical intellectual traditions and

counter-hegemonic struggles

of

Third World peoples? Can

-a

genuine study of humankind

\ arise from dialogues, debates, arid recondl1ations amongst various non-Wester n and Wes tern

.

fl intellectuals--

both

those with formal credentials and those with

other

socially meaningful

\

II and app reciate d qualifications? Is genuine dialogue and reconciliation' possible, and, if so,

1



under,

what,

co.ndition.s?

How

can anthropological knowledge advance the interests

of

the

~ o r 1 d S ,maJonty

dunng

this

,Period of ongoing crisis

and uncertainty, marked,

on the

mternatIOnal level, by the coolIng of Cold War, serious dilemmas and setbacks n sociaHst

development,,,the

eSC,a,lati?ll

of conflict in the Persian Gulf and the emergence of a "New

World.

?rder

led

m l h . t ~ n l y

by the U.s., growing ecological/environmental problems, the

~ , m p O S l t I ~ n ~ d e ~ u m a m z m g

and,recolonizing

structural

adjustment policies upon debt-ridden

developmg natIons, and the heIghtening

of

North-South

contradictions; and, on the national

l e ~ e l ,

by backlash and threats

t? civil

rights, hostile reactions to multiculturalism,

d e m d u s t n a l I z a t ~ o n a ~ d

ec?nomlc displacement, a widening gap between

the

rich and the

rest,

~ n d

the intensIfIcatIon

of

state repression in ghetto and

barrio

communities?

QuestIons such as these should be taken to heart by anthropologists preparing themselves

for the global challenges

~ n d

~ r i s ~ s of the 21st century.

On,e of this v ~ I u m e s objectIves is to reassess

and, hopefully,

transcend the

limitations

of

the radical and

c ~ l t i c a l a n t h ~ o p o l o g y th. .t

has emerged from the debates and experiments

of

the past two decades. CntIques of cntIques and provocative syntheses

will

provide the

g r o ~ n d . f o r

~ a p p I ~ g a

path or

p a t ~ s to an

a n t h r o p o ~ o g y

designed to promote equality- and

J u s t I c e ~ m d u c t n g ~ o . c J a l

transformatIOn. The perspectIves expressed in the following chapters

are t h o ~ e of activISt anthr?pol.ogists. o m ~ i t t e d to. and engaged in struggles against racist

o ~ p r e s s 1 O n ,

gender mequahty,

clas. d. lspantIes, and mternatiojl

patterns

of

exploitation and

ldlfference" rQotedJargely ilL cflpitalist _worId development.

'.

According

, ~ o

Ulin (1991),

pOlitlcafeconomyimd

postmodernism along with "the

f e m l ~ l s t

t r a J e ~ t o r y

a ~ e currently competing to define

lithe

critical anthropological project."

An

aim thIS book to place

a ~ o t h e r

claim onto the site of anthropological debate and

C O l ~ _ e s t a t I o n . The, r a J e ~ t o r y that .advanced here is informed in considerable measure by

tful'lfltelkctyal, eXlstenlI"l, and poht",al experiences of ThirdWorld,peQples and theicallies.

In, ~ t h e r

words,

t h l ~

volume seeks to challenge anthropologists to take

m ~ ~ e

s e r i ~ ~ s l y the

c n t ~ q u e s , ~ o n s t r u c t I o n s , and theoretical deliberations of scholars belonging to neglected,

p e n p h e r ~ l l z e d , or erased traditions that have long confronted

and

challenged colonial and

neoco]omaI, structures of ~ ~ w e r and economic relations. The major impetus for

trarsformatlOn and

for

t h e o ~ z z n g

about

it must come out of the experiences and struggles of

Third World peoples m Afnca, ASIa and the Pacific, Latin America and the Caribbe an and

"the belly

of

beast,' n ~ m e l y the l I i n ~ r n a I colonies" within the so-cal1ed First World,

.

The

trajectory

o u . t 1 ~ n e d here is

a synthetic

one

that draws upon four major streams:

(1) a

n e o ~ M a f X I s t

polItIcal economy, (2) experiments in inte rpre tive and reflexi e

ethnographiC analysis, (3) a feminism which underscores the impact race and class have p ~ n

gender, and (4) traditions of radical Black and (other) Third World scholarship which

acknowledge the interplay between race and other forms of invidious difference, notably

c l a s ~ a ~ d g e n ~ e r , For anth:opology to be able lito theorize the sociocultural terrain" of late

cap,It,ahsm,

It

must,

as

Ulm and others argue, reconciJe the tensions between Marxist

polItICal

e c o n o ~ y

and i n t e r p r e t i v e / t e ~ t . u a l i s t approaches.

n authentic study of

humankind

must

also recon": .le

t e ~ s l o n s

benveen cntlcal Western

and

Third World intellectual traditions

(cf.

J o h ~ s o n 1988). This collectIOn results from a project with its beginnings in an invited

seSSIOn that,

o r g a m ~ e d

and , e n c o u r a ~ e d such reconciliations among female and male

anthropologIsts of dIverse raetal, ethmc, class, and national backgrounds,

2

Race, Gender,

and

Class

Inequalities at the Heart of the World

System

The contemporary sociocultural terrain

of

the world system is

one

that is shaped,

colored,

and

violently distorted by what Haviland (1990) designates as a f o r ~ of

l ~ b a l

apartheid

He targets this i n t e r n a t i ~ n a l i z e d Whit.e s u ~ r e ~ a c y as one of the world s pn.nclpal

problems. Arguing that South

Mnca

and the s l t u a ~ l o ~ m the world at large are stnkmgly

similar, he explains that on

the

glob"Ul1y"l_aparthmd

IS

a de facto structure .. which combines socioe conomic and racial antagonsims

and in which

(1)

a minority of whites occupies the pole of aftluence, while a

majority composed of other races occupies the pole .of poverty; (2). social

integration of the two groups is made extremely difficult by barners of

complexion, economic position, political boundaries, and other factors; 3)

economic development

of

the two groups

is

interdependent; and (4)

the

affluent white minority possesses a disproportionately large share

of

the world

society's polticial, economic, and military power (1990:457-458).

Whether in South Africa,

Papua

New Guinea (see Buck's chapter),

or on

the global level,

under conditions

of

apartheid racial exploitation is inextricably interwined with patterns

of

class formation that arise in situations and contexts

of

colonial/imperialist expansion and

domination-- where land alienation, coerced labor exaction, and repressive state power are

key features of the social formation (cf. M a g ~ b a n e 1979). ' : I a v i l ~ n d . i n s i s t s

t h ~ , t

the world

system of apartheid engenders structural VIOlence which IS bUilt mto and. exerted by

situations" such as world hunger, o v e r ~ p o p u l a t i o n , pollution, and cultures

of

dIscontent. In

other words, he traces the source

of

humanity's major contemporary problems back to

enduring race/class

i n e ~ a . l ( j i e s . , - - . - . - - .. _

. . .

~ ~ - - P a r a d n x i c a n y ; - d e s p i t e

the pervasiveness

of

racIahzed structures

of e q u a , h ~ ,

neIther

mainstream nor radical/critical anthropology has contributed a wealth of Illslght and

\ 1 knowledge to our ' \ l l ) d e r s t a ~ . ~ L n g f _.racism' n? the s o ~ i o £ . ' l t u r a L " Q l j , t n K t i . Q 1 U l f r a d ~ L

v i ~ e n c e s

Jru:e D'Amico-Samuels' chapter).

W

hile a n t ~ r o p o l o g y

IS

m

the pOSItIon

to benefit

and mature from feminist

t h ~ o r i e s

of kinship (e.g., Collier and YanaglSako

1987), the

state

(e.g., Sacks 1974,

S i l v e r b l ~ t t

1987, Gailey 1987), politics ( e . ~ . ,

B o o k m ~ n

and M o r g ~ n 1988),

economic life (e.g., Bossen 1989; Lamphere 1987), and SOCIal mequahty (e.g., Collier 1988,

Caulfield 1981),

tQ<:

anthropology

ofrace

is a relatively underdeveloped

and

sore.lY

neglected

, d o m ~ i _ n . Anthropology's preoccupati? n ,with redressing

e t h ~ o c e ~ t i s m

does not . e x o n e r ~ t e

it f rom' neglecting

to

confront,

both

Illtellectual and sOCiopolitical terms,

r ~ c l s m / W b l t e

,supremacy as a major ideological and institutionalized ~ o r ~ e , in today's r o r l d ~ The

connotations

of

a racialized Other --its most extreme and mVldlOus form bemg

the lack

Other --

have

been

and, unfortunately, still remain underpinnings

of

many anthropological

assumptions and perspectives (Pandian 1985; Blakey's chapter). .

The emphasis within the discipline on c u l t u ~ a l d I f f e r ~ n c e s h ~ ~ diverted neede,d,

attention away

from

differenCe

•

constructed ultlffiately from the polItICal

and

economic

"processes that have given rise to the dominant pattern

of

world

d e : e l o ~ m : n t . C ~ a s s ,

gender, racial, and ethnic differences cannot be reduced to cultural dIverSIty, espeCIally

3



when the latter

is

often a smokescreen behind

which

power disparities

and

economic

polarizations lie unaddressed or inadequately treated. As Rollwagen

(1988:153-154)

and

Wolf

(1982:387)

note

in

their treatments

of

the world system, the very concept

of

culture,

which has been

so

central to sociocultural anthropology, must be reconstructed, and culture

theory must "take account

of

larger [contexts and wider fields of force]" (Wolf

1982:387).

Moreover, a critical theory of culture must be freed from the Social Darwinist implications

of

many evolutionist postulates concerning human cultural variation.

The centrality of race

is

finally being recognized

by

some feminist scholars (e.g., Sacks

1989,

Morgen

1988,

Moore

1988)

who, over the past two decades, have matur ed from three

phases of feminist anthropology (Moore 1988). The third phase (following one devoted to

the study

of

women and.

a n o ~ h e r

focused on gender) is concerned with ~ f o p _ S _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . l J L

~ a m e n e s _ s _ a n d _

u n d e r s t a n d m g _ d _ ] f f e r e f . c e s ~ - understanding, or

.example-,

-how- race

and_.class---

/1 shape ~ n d divide

gender

identity and experii;mce see D'Amico-Samuels' and Harrison's

,chapters ,

Recent studies point to the integral parts both genderization and racialization

play in the consolidation

of

ruling class hegemony

in

state societies (e.g" Silverblatt 1987 and

1988,

Greenberg 1980 and

in

the international division

of

labor (Nash and Fernandez-Kelly

1983;

Leacock, Safa et al.

1986).

Anthropologists have reached a point where they can

, ,- potentially formulate theoretical explanations that place the race/gender/class intersection

I

/

t the very center of such phenomena as economic development, social change, and the

\

politics

of

domination, resistance, and contestation.3

If anthropologists are to contribute to the study

of

race and its intersections with

gender, class, and ethnicity, then they would benefit from revisiting and critically building

upon a body of knowledge produced by anthropologists who were generally forced to work

and struggle in an intellectual periphery (see Harrison

1988).

The results of Allison Davis'

collaborative scholarship,

e,g" Children

o

ondage (1940) and Deep South (1941), SI.

Clair

Drake and Horace Cayton's classic

lack Metropolis (1945),

and Drake's two volume tour

de force, lack Folk

Here

and

There

(1987, 1991) are just examples of classic works that have

yet to receive their deserved attention and appreciation within anthropology. See Harrison

[1988]

for further discussion on the peripheralization

of

Davis' and Drake's activist

scholarship and critique of racism.)

What's 'Postmodernism'

Gotla Do With It?

According to its enthusiasts, postmodernism has moved onto anthropology's "cutting

edge" and has the potential to liberate the discipline from its dysfunctional

modernist/positivist/realist legacy (Turner

1987:72), In

the social sciences modernism

is

characterized

by

the positivist/realist model of science, which in anthropology legitimates the

authority of the outsider/Western researcher

in the study

of

non-Western cultures.

According to this model, the production of knowledge takes place outside the realm

of

values and politics and under conditions of unbiased objectivity (Jordan n,d,). This posture

Serves to mask and authenticate the underlying logic, value orientation, and ideology of a

Eurocentric intellectual supremacy (see Joseph et

aJ. 1990

and Amin

1989).

Postmodernism

is

a general epistemological orientation influenced by post

structuralism, hermeneutics, and neo-Marxism.

It

can

be

argued that

it

represents an

4

intellectual response largely by Western White males to the challenges to

~ s t e m ~ e g e ~ o n y

and White supremacy in a world marked by the a s c e n d a n c ~ of postcololllal n a t I o n a h ~ ~ s .

Japanese capitalism and feminism

(ef,

West

1988

and Hardlllg

1987).

There are femlmst

critics who go so fa; as to argue that postmodernism is "fundamentally a sexist [and, one

could add racisl] response tha t attempts to preserve the legitimacy

of

androcentric [am:

Eurocent:ic] claims in the face

of

contrary

v i d ~ n c e

( M a s c i ~ - L e e s

et aJ. 1989:15),

Ironically,

postmodernist literary experiments that essenttally undermme the ?ntologlcal status of the

subject have risen in academic popularity when

WOl eJ1

and Third

~ o r l ?

t h L o n s ~ s are

hallenging the universality and hegemony

o f W e s t ~ m

aml.androce?tflc

v t ~ w ~

ThIS. h ~ s

, ~ , v i r a v e implications for the

e g i t i m a ~ a ~ t h o n t y of

counter-hegemOnIc contnbu Ions

WIthIn

; ~ h e domain

of

established academIa. .

\ Although the postmodernist turn's critique of positivism and realist writing

is

certamly

a significant contribution, its other features are seriously

p ~ o b l e m a t i c . J o ~ ~ a n

(n,d.)

~ o i n t s

out a number

of

serious 1imitations: the extreme relatiVism and

s k e p ~ I c i s m

(cf. FIscher

1986:194)

which invalidate radical critique from the ranks of the poh:lcally, engaged

( ~ f .

Mascia-Lees

et

aJ.

1989);

the reaction against scientific do£?,atism that

~ v e s

flse to a demal

of the validity and reliability of theoretical explanaMn,

(ef.

Ffledman

1 9 8 7 ~ ;

the

appropriation and neutralization of the

c o n c ~ p t s

c o n t ~ a d l c t ~ o n power, and

a u t ~ o f l t y

(cf.

di Leonardo

1989);

the conceptualization of

dIalogIC

r e l a t ~ o n s h l p s as t e x t ~ a l s t r ~ t e g l e s

rather

than as concrete collaborations (e.g., co-authorshIp and co-edItorship) between

ethnographers and informants;

IIdispersal of authority as .a

n a r r ~ t i v e techmque or ~ ~ l e

rather than

as

a means

of

empowering informants

( e . ~ . ,

by

I m p a ~ m g

rese.arch and

~ f 1 t m g

skills to them); the privileging of the force of rhetonc over

m s t I t u t l o ~ a h z e d ~ e l ~ t l o n s

power (di Leonardo

1989);

the absence

of

attention to racism and class

m ~ q u a h t y III o ~ t t c

treatments

of

authority and power; and a notion

of

cultural critique that

S

largely hmited

to

giving

privileged Americans the benefits of c.r?ss-cultu al

k n ? ~ l e ? g e .

Jordan

c o n ~ l u d e s

that postmodernism privileges poetics over pohttcs, and Its pohttcs S

~ h a t

of academta and

not of the world at large. (See his chapter in this volume.) As F a b l ~ n

(1983),

notes, the

dilemmas postmodernism poses cannot

be

resolved

by t e ~ t u a l a ~ d

eplstet;J0logtcal means;

they can only

be

resolved through political struggle. A genumely

n t t c ~ l / r ~ d l c a l a n t h r o p o l o ~

must

"go

beyond the relativizing of narratives to chalknge the

e x p l O l t a t t v ~

and

h ~ g ~ ~ o n ~ c

social practices and social formations among our co-subjects of anthropologtcal tnqutry (Uhn

1991:81). , b

f f

A decolonizing and <lecolonized anthropology can tndeed ene

It.

rom.an

tlexperimental moment, but one directed toward the empowerment of

Its

studIed

populations. Jordan's fieldwork (see

his

chapter here)

d e m o n s ~ a t e s how, cOl.tcrete

collaborative relationships can serve to disperse ethnographic authonty

I I I

the dIrectIOn

of

the traditional "objects"

of

study. Jordan 's research (as well

as

the analyses that all the, other

contributors present) demonstrates how cultural c r i t i q ~ e

. ~ s

politicized deconstruction of

various hegemonic ideologies and discourses can be a

s I g m f I ~ a n t . a n ~

necessary

c o m p o n ~ n t

of

broader struggles for equality, social and economIC

JustIce,

and far-reachmg

democratization. . .

Also

at

issue

is

the dissemination

of

ethnographic representations to

WIder

audIences

that include the ordinary folk anthropologists typically study. Experimental ethnographies

5



are generally geared to the cultural and intellectual tastes of educated Western readers.

Anthropologists need to experiment with a wider repertoire of communicative strategies,

techniques, and media in order to address

more

--but not necessari1y all--

of their

work to

lay readers. t also must be recognized that the published text is not the most accessible,

appealing, and effective mediim for communicating with some, if not many, of the audiences

that anthropologists need to reach. Ethnography can also be presented through such media

as video, film, and drama

se.e

Harrison 1990a and D'Arnico-Samuels' chapter). When

ethnography is in written form, it must be straight-forward and cl ear if a broa d cross-section

of readers is

to

be engaged. Bettylou Valentine's approach to ethnographic writing entailed

extensive inputs and co-editing insights from

her

African-American inner-city informants.

The

resultant ethnography on ghetto life styles (1978) did not, however, compromise its

intellectual contribution.

t is important to recognize

that artistry,

creative experimentation, and discipJinary

boundary blurring, which

are

so very prominent in postmodernist anthropology

are

not

p e ~ u J i a r l y postmodern.1I Zora Neale Hurston and Katherine Dunham are just two ~ x a m p l e s

?f

n t e l l e c t u a l s who, through

~ h e

use of literary art and dance theatre, took anthropological

mSlghts

and knowledge to WIder audiences beginning more than five decades ago-- long

before

postmodernism postcoloniaIism postindustrialism

or

post-

anything was in vogue. (See

Aschenbrenner [1989] and Mikell [1989] for intellectual biographies of these peripheralized

anthropologists.)

The Politics of Canon Setting

Harrison (1988) a nd Lutz (1990) have exposed trends within anthropology which have

effectively peripheralized or erased significant contributions made by peoples of color and

women

from the canon.

These

trends have served

to reproduce

andro-

and Buro-centric

biases

in

the assumptions, concepts, and theories at the core of the discipline. Although

anth,ropology preoccupied with

human

cultural d iversity, multiple cultural perspectives-

partICularly ThIrd World/non-Westernt'minority" perspectives-- have been distanced from

sites of cross-cultural theory-validation (cf. Blakey 1988:4; cf. Hsu 1973; see D'Arnico

Samuels' c h ~ p t e r ) . The underlying assumption seems to be that cultural, epistemological,

and

theoretIcal perspectives outside of the Eurocentric canon are less adequate, less

universal,

and less scientific --in other

words,

inferior; and both modernist and

postmodernist approaches have placed

native

theorizing on tenuous ground.

These hidden but deeply ingrained presuppositions are not unrelated to the

conservative biases refl ected in the multiculturalism/cultural diversity debates being waged

throughout the U.S. Conservatives

are

inclined to believe that cult ural literacy

is

necessarily

based on aSSimilating the IIfacts

and

truths associated with the Western intellectual tradition,

Consequently, when universities and school systems accommodate multiculturalistcurricular

changes, academic standards are lowered and the politically correct

propaganda l

of

s p e c i ~ l interest ~ r o u p s

is

"forced" upon the majority (cf. Moses 1990). The historical

expenences and mtellectual contributions

of minorities

and women are relegated to

the

status of p e d a l i n t e r e s . t r ~ ~ ~ , . ~ n ~ l l r e not viewed as deserving of scholarly validation outside

of the establlSlretIl fUdyof social problems" or the aut horized curricular menu of expendable

6

add and

stir

electives. Institutionalized anthropology is not untouched by these.

~ n ~ i m ~ n t s .

socially responsible and genuinely critical anthropology sh?uld challeng?

t h l ~ I m q U l t o ~ s

-reaction,

and;

furthermore,

~ e t

a positive example by promotmg cu1tural diverSIty where

t

-counts,

at

its

very

core, , .

J o n ~ s has pointed out how native

t

anthropologists have

hIstOrically

been relegated

to the ranks of overqualified fieldwork

a ~ s i s t a 1 t s .

He has stated that

ef( -·- ·' __ '

__

o o o_oo -

the native anthropologist

is

seen

...

not

as

a professional who

wil1 c o n ? u ~ t

research

and

develop theories and generalizations, but a person ;thO

S

m

a position to collect information

in

his own

cu1ture to

which an outSIder does

not have access (1970 [1988]:31).

A decolonize.d.

an. h r o

po.logy/equires the c : l e ' y J ' l Q I ' . m ~ n t ( ) C ' t h ~ ~ ~ ~ . o ~ ~ d o ; n . " n o n , w . ,estern",.

rece ts and ~ ~ ~ u . m p t j , Q 1 [ : (Ibid.); however, tlthere is as. yet

n o . ~ e t

of h e o r e t I c ~ 1 ~ p n c l u $ l . o n R

~ e n e r l i i e a from the o i n t ~ f view of native a n t h r o p o l o g l ~ t s ( ~ b l d . : 3 0 ) . questIon that m ~ s t

be raised is this: when natives of the various cultures d e n ~ e d hIStOry and mtellectual a u t ~ o n t y

do indeed theorize, are those t h e o r i " ' . J i g i i m ~ l e d ? Are they even

a c k n Q w l e ~ g e d

ashlgh.er-

o

order e x p l a n a t i o n ~ ? ; ;utz analysis c o g ~ n t l y

d e m o n s ~ r a t e s

t ~ a t ~ v e n when a s l z ~ b l e quantity

of

women adhere to the publish or pensh rules, theu contnbutlons

to the

lIterature c a ~ be

and, in effect} ~ r ~

b . e J J 1 g . _ ? r a ~ c ~ ~ "

In

her ; i

erasures,

e s u l t

when

c o n t r l b u t I ? ~ s are

not

CIted

nor

included

in

literature overviews An addItional means

of

partIal

e r a ~ u r e

or

peripheralization occurs, however, wh n

works

~ r e cited

for

r e a ~ o n s other .than t h e l ~ actual

tlleoretical import. This tltracking process d l v e ~ t s a n ~ , restncts attentIon.

to

m m o r . ~

secondary points concerning interesting ethnographic data or n?rrow e o g r . a p h l c a l l y - s p e c ~ f l c

topics. While the latter

are

not at all insignificant, :he authonty to explam and generalIze

beyond the specificity of limited field data (and, m the ~ a s e . of B l a ~ k scholars, ~ e y o n d

knowledge/mastery o f the "Black c o n d i t i o n ' : I . " ~ I S the bottom lIne m effectIvely mfluencmg the

direction and scope of inquiry). .. . s there a ' g l a ~ s c ~ i l i n g l t

.in

a ~ a d e m i a comparable

to

what

women and people of color have encountered n

big

~ u s . m e ~ s ' - . .

Ul.t.im.7.ly<canonSettiriiriS a process em?edded In m . . i l i l J 2 ~ l z e < . r e l l i j 9 1 s . Q[power

,El ,Jcj."m. hQtit): Research and scholarship I t d ~ s ] g . n e ~ to contnbute to the e m p o w e r ~ e n t of

disempowere groups [require] appropn ate Insltt."tlOnal

b ~ s e s ,

a ~ d these can be bUIlt only

in part [if even that much] from existing foundations WIthIn, for mstance, such establIshe.d

institut ions as schools, colleges and universities" (Har rison 1990b: 10). C o u n t ~ r - h e g e m o m c

analysts must be concerned with ' ~ ~ i f t i l g . 1 ~ " , £ e n ~ e r of

a u t h o r l t y . o o ~ . ' _ ( L ~ l l t l l 1 J l . J l f Y c ' M f m m

\those

.

.institutions which our people do not contr?l

tomore e m o ~ r a t ~ c a l l y . s t ~ l 1 c t ~ r e . d bas,es

which embody the interests and prioritie,s of ordmary

.

.folk m theIr dIverSIty (Ibld . ll .

Native anthropologies (Jones 1970) and meaningful reconciliations between West ern

and non-Western theories and epistemologie,s/(Johnson 1988)

are

contmgent upon a

sociopolitical climate and institutional a l i g n m e n t ~ that ~ I l o w f?r and s u p p o ~ t . the

democratization of intellectual and theoretical ~ t h o n t y / O u t s ~ d ~ of thiS context of polItlca.lly

engaged authori ty dispersal, radical anthropological scholarship

IS v u l n e r ~ b l e

to the

~ g a n e s

of trends

and

vogues which influence the ways that critical and potentIally emanclpatory

knowledge is neutralized and

a p p r o p r i a t ~ d

(see Gordon's chapter).

7



Perspectives on DecoJoJiizing Anthropology

From the Contributors

This volume explores the epistemological, methodological, political, and ethical

parameters o f ~ m de of anthropological inquiry g e ~ r - " d toward social. t [ a n ~ f o r m a Q l L ' m c J

hurna } i ~ t u h Building upon earlier critiques,fthis collectio n offers critical perspectives '

O ini:fiT11i=Opo]o ·as

colonial discourse (Buck), the invidious biodeterministic implications of

hegemonic ·museological categories and representations (Blakey), cultural critique and

politicizei:l discourse deconstruction (Jordan), ethical hierarchies and tensions between

professionalism and higher moral a nd political values (Bourgois), reflexivity and ethnographic

politics (Harrison), the constraints of hegemony upon popular consciousness and struggle

Hale

a n ~

G ~ r d o n ) , and

m i l l e ~ a r i a n

underpinnings of U.S. militarism (Gilliam).

D A n 1 J c o ~ S a m u e I s , Harnson,

BourgOis and

Gordon offer perspectives on various ways

t h a ~ . n t h r o ~ o l o g i s t s - - as "organic i n t e l l ~ ~ t u a l s " or othelWise-- ~ ~ L £ n g a g e

t h ~ m ~ ~ y ~ ~

._p- )IItIcally w I t h _ J b ~

p e ~ p l e s

and commumtIeS that host

e t h n o g ~ p l : i . c j l l v e s . i g l l t l o / l £ .

__The -

Importance of demystIf'ying hegemonic ideOlogies fnd priiducinglco producing forms of

knowledge. h ~ t

c ~ n

be ?seful and potentially liberating for the world's dispossessed and

oppressed S hIghlIghted m several chapters, particularly in those by Buck Jordan Harrison

Gord.on, Hal e, and Gi1liam. Bourgoi.s, Gordon, and Hale offer insightful ~ n a l y s e s of

conflIcts and s t ~ u g g l e s around ~ l g h t s ,violatio.ns, militant ethnic self-determination,

F ? u r t h W ~ r l d

Ideology,

k 1 g l ( ) - I 1 < ; l l e m o ~ y ,

and revolutioriiiry-poIil cs--iif-Nicaragua and

elsewhere Central Amenca .

I/

B l a k ~ y and D'

i c o - S a m u e l s

underscore the racist underpinnings of many

anthropologtcal perspectIves and concerns, from the conventions associated with exhibiting

the p e o p l ~ s and ~ u l t u r e s of Sub-Saharan Africa in museums to 'postmodernism's

preoccupatIons

~ n d

mtertextual biases. Th e insidiousness of racism is especially underscored

when B l ~ k e y d l s c u s ~ e s the problem of the racially oppressed consenting to biological

d e ~ e r m m l s t

assumptlOns about

"race,"

and when

D ~ A m i c o - S a m u e l s

briefly mentions her

p a m ~ u l estrangement .from her family because of ber commitment to racial equality.

Hamson.

~ x p l o r e s

th.e Impact race combined with gender and class have upon self-identity

and _ o h t 1 c a l conSCIOusness, and how the latter: inform and influence ethnographic

expenence.

Gilliam's c r i t ~ q ~ e of U.S. militarism is premised upon a "parallel

analysis that

employs concepts ongmally constructed for studying the exoticized Other. Drawing in part

upon Buck's compe11ing deconstruction

of

the

"cargo-cult"

construct Gilliam elucidates the

r e ~ ~ v a n c e o ~ this " m i 1 1 e n ~ r i a n l notion for understanding the

l o g i ~

and workings of the

ffilh ar;-capltal a c c u m ~ l a t 1 o n complex. She connects global racism, capital accumulation,

C h ~ I s t I ~ n .

fundamentalIsm, and the hegemonic definition of masculinity with the U.S.'s

m l h t ~ r t s t I c responses to geopolitical conflicts and struggles for egalitarianism in Grenada, the

PersIan Gulf, and elsewhere.

The reification of Otherness is problematized by a number of chapters, but D'Amico

Samuels, Harnson, and Gordon are especially forthright in their assertions concerning the

concept of "the field" and the relations of affinity, kinship, and solidarity that anthropologists

may have WIth the peopl es among whom they work. On a whole, these chapters question

8

w h v t h e r : ( l ; I 1 ~ h r o p o l o g y

can continue to be preoccupied with constructions

and. r e ~ r e s e n t a t i o n s

of

Othernes's'if

the

discipline

is

to undergo a thorough process

of

decolomzatIOn.

-Contrary

to the extreme versions

of

the "ethnography as fiction" approach, the

analyses presented here do not

e x p ~ e s s th.e

"epistemic

s k e p t i ~ i s ~

... and

e ~ l . ~ n a t o r y

agnosticism

or

nihilism" (West 1991:XXI)

that

S strongly

r e f l e ~ t e d In d e c ~ n s t r u c t I V e

trends

today. Among the anthropologists represented here, theoretIcal explanatIons are sought to

be acted upon in creative, socially responsible, human-centered ways.

The Intended Significance o this Colleclion

This collection aims to go beyond antecedent cntIques, proposals, and agenda by

dvancing an analytical comprehensiveness generally lacking in most of the earlier

~ o n t r i b u t i o n s

Analyses presented here confront the major sources

of Itdiffere.nce,", ~ e q u a l ~ t y

nd structural and symbolic violence in the world today. Race and class dIspantIes, WhICh

:nthropologists are too prone to neglect f

ignore,

are

j ~ j n e d w ~ t h

ge?der to assume their

rightful place at

the

center

of

political as well as

t h e o r e ~ l ~ a l d e l I b e r a t l O ~ .

This book amplifies

the

central role of polItIcally responSIble Third World

intellectuals. While earlier critiques have dealt with "native

anthropologists

~ n d .

the

significance

of

their prospective contributions,

t h i ~ v o l u m ~

attempts to

p r ~ s s

thIS

l ~ s ~ e

further. In a world in which de facto apartheId prevaIls, and where blOdetermmIst

presuppositions are extant in popular beliefs and

in. t t s c i e n t ~ f i c t t

research on race. an?

intelligence,

the

disciplinary role an d p o t e n t i a l l e a d e r ~ h l p o ~

:hUd

World anthropologIsts

S

a thorny but imperative issue. The varieties

of

Marxist pohtlcal. economy

~ o s t m o d e r m s m ,

and feminism that Ulin (1991) identifies as the major contenders In d e t e r m ~ m n g the contours

and content

of

lithe critical anthropological project" are overly Eurocentnc and, except for

feminist anthropology, androcentric. How can an authentically ~ r i t i c a l anthropology

equipped

to

identify and help solve

the

world's problet;ts

b.e d?mmated

by.

eve.n

well·

intentioned and truly radical representatives

of

the world s mmonty? Authonty.

I s p ~ r ~ a l

cannot be limited to textualist experiments

in

representing Others when the prevaIlmg

political climate and epistemological tenor calls into question

the

very legitimacy

of the

explanations and resolutions that historically defined

O t h ~ r s

offer. .

The papers here also suggest that for meanIngful dmlogue and reconCIlIatIOn to take

place across boundaries

of

culture and nationality, race,

~ l a s s ,

and gender, m ~ ~ h more than

logically-sounding talk

is

required. The

p o l i t i c a l . a u t h o ~ I t y

structure and polItIcal

e c o n ~ m y

of

profeSSional anthropology must

be

seriously

dealt

WIth and changed before condItIons

can exist for

the

kinds

of

principled debates and syntheses that can generate

h u m a n - ~ e n t e r e d

inquiry. Only on such

an

altered terrain can Western. an?

W ~ s t e r n

anthropologIsts truly

work together as partners with equalized access to mstltutIOnahzed resources and power.,

Finally, this book underscores anthropologists'

r e s p o n s i b i i ~ .

to

~ t r u g g l e

n.ot only for

the

enhancement

of

Third World intellectuals and the poiItICIzatlOn

of

FIrst World

researchers but also for the empowerment of those most alienated from and dispossessed

of

their rights to democratized power and the material benefits

of

economic

jU,stice.

The

perspectives offered here challenge the received dichotomy between

"pure"

and

"applied"

science or that between social science and advocacy which the proponents

of n v a l u e ~ f r e e n

researJ h assume. Knowledge-production and praxis are inseparable. T?e conceptual

. - ~ - - . - -

9



s ~ p a r a t i o n

built into the received tradition has seIVed to shroud the role Western research

and scholarship have actually played in rationalizing and providing useful information or

tlintelligence l for sociopolitical control and economic development-- at national and

international levels.

The views expressed in this volume do not exhaust the ideas which can contribute to

the subversion, decolonization,

and

transformation

of

anthropological inquiry. However, the

papers included here effectively contribute to the book's principal goal: to encourage more

anthropologists to accept the challenge of working to free the study of humankind from the

prevailing forces of global inequality and dehumanization and to locate it firmly in the

complex struggle for genuine transformation.

Notes

Acknowledgments

Many thanks are due to Willie Baber, Angela Gilliam, and Arthur Spears

for theIr generous and helpful comments on an earlier version of this essay, and to Pem

Buck, Deborah D'Amico-Samuels, Edmund ItTed

t

Gordon, Yvonne Jones, Glenn Jordan,

Yolanda Moses, Donald Nonini, Hehln Page, and others for the insightful conversations that

stimulated my thinking about anthropology's possibilities for making a real difference. This

essay

is

dedicated to the legacy of Eduardo Chivambo Mondlane, the founder and first

p r ~ s i d e ~ t

of the Front for the Liberation of Mozambique (FRELIMO). A sociologist also

tramed m anthropology, Mondlane was on the faculty of Syracuse University's anthropology

department during the 1960s. His activism and scholarShip (e.g., 1969) reflected his concern

with racial and national' oppressions, the liberation struggle, and education's role

in

reproducing colonial orders. In 1969 Mondlane was assassinated in Dar es Salaam.

1 This is an allusion to W.E.B.

u

Bois' prolific contributions on lithe color linell and the

veil of separation (Harrison 1990c).

2.

This emphasis on the critical traditions within both Western and Third World intellectual

trajectories is made in recognition that neither Western nor any non-Western scholarship is

~ o m o g n ~ u s or monolithic. There are opposit ional paradigms within Western

mtellectuahsm that can potentially make an important contribution to an authentically

transformative anthropology.

3. Ih her role as a discussant for the 1990 AAA session entitled, Other Appropr iations:

Whe? Symbolic Violence Becomes Symbolic Capital, Brackette Williams pointed out that

dommatIon and resIstance are not opposite processes or phenomena, as is often implied.

The problem of

contestation

has been neglected.

4. Before the U.S. withdrew its support in 1985, UNESCO represented an important site

for the production of innovative and

internationalist

knowledge. That scholarship challenged

the unequal distribution of the world's material and ideological resources as wen

as

the

t h e o ~ e t i c a l

justifications for global. disparities. The U.S. withdrawal --under the Reagan

admmlstratIon-- sabotaged a major mternatlOnal source of institutional support --the Uni ted

10

Nations-- for non-aligned Third World scholarship (personal communication from Angela

Gilliam; Gilliam 1985).

References Cited

Amin, Samir

1989 Eurocentrism. New York: Monthly Review Press.

A,ad, Talal, ed.

1975 Anthropology and the Colonial Encounter. London: Ithaca Press.

Aschenbrenner, Joyce

.

1989 Katherine Dunham. In Women Anthropologists: Selected BIOgraphies.

Ute

Gacs et

aI.,

eds. pp. 80-87. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Blakey, Michael

1988 A Comment on Representat ion. Notes from the ABA 14(2):2-4.

Bookman, Ann and Sandra Morgen, eds.

.

1988 Womena and the Politics of Empowerment. PhdadelphIa: Temple Umverslty

Press.

Bossen, Laurel .

1989 Women and Economic Institutions. In Economic Anthropology. Stuart Plattner,

ed. pp. 318-350.

Caulfield, Mina Davis

. .

981 Equality, Sex, and M ode of Production. In SOCIal Inequabty: Comparatlve and .

Development Approaches. Gerald D. Berreman, ed. pp. 201-219. New York: AcademiC

Press.

Collier, Jane

1988 Marriage and Inequality in Classless Societies. Stanford: Stanford University

Press.

Collier Jane F. and Sylvia J. Yanagisako, ed.

1987 ' Gender and Kinship: Essays Toward a Unified Analysis. Stanford: Stanford

University Press.

Davis, Allison and John Dollard .

1940 Children of Bondage: The Personality of Negro Youth m the Urban South.

Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education.

Davis, Allison, Burleigh B. Gardner, and Mary R. Gardner

1941 Deep South: A Social Anthropological Study of Caste and Class. Chicago:

University of Chicago Press.

di Leonardo, Micaela .

1989 Malinowski's Nephews. The Nation, March 13, pp. 350-351.

Drake, St. Clair

1987 Black Folk Here and There: An Essay in History and Anthropology, Volume

I.

Los Angeles: Center for Mro-American Studies, University of California-Los

Angeles.

1990 Black Folk ere and There: An Essay in History and Anthropology, Volume II.

Los Angeles: CAAS, UCLA.



D r ~ k e St. Clair and Horace Cayton

1945 Black Metropo lis: A Study of Negro Life in a Northe rn City New York: Harcour t

Brace & World, Inc.

Fabian, Johannes

1983

Ti'."e and the Other:

How

Anthropology Makes its Object. New York: Columb,'a

Umverslty Press.

Fischer, Michael M. J.

1986 Ethnicity and the Post· Modern Arts

of

Memo

i

W

and Politics of Ethnography. James Clifford and G

y. n

E

ntmg

Culture: The Poetics

Berkeley: University of California Press eorg e . Marcus, eds. pp. 194-233.

Friedman, Jonathan .

1987

e ~ o ~ d

Otherness: The Spectacularization of Anthrop I

Galley, Chnstme W. oogy . Telo s 71:161-170.

1987

From

Kinship to Kingship' Gend H' h

. Islands. Austin: University of ~ x a s p;;ss.lerarc y and State Formation in the Tongan

GIlham, Angela

1985

The

Reagan Administration Confronts the Third World

Quarter:90-94. . Freedomways, Second

Gough, Kathleen

1968 Anthropo logy: Child of Imperialism. Monthly Review 19(11):12-27.

Greenberg, Stanley

1980

Race

and State in Capitalist

De

I

C

Yale University Press. ve opment: omparative Perspectives. New Haven:

Harding, Sandra

1987 Introduction:

Is There

a Feminist Method? F

H.arding, ed. pp. 1-14. Bloomington: Indiana u n 7 v e r ~ ~ t y m ; m and Methodology. Sandra

Harnson, Faye

V. ress.

1988 Introduction' An African D' P .

Folks in Cities He;e and There: C ~ : : ; ~ ~ a erspecnve for Urb?n Anthropology. Black

issue

of Urban

Anthropology and S t ~ d i ~ r ~ : t ~ ~ ~ of DommatlOn and Response. Special

Developme nt 17(2-3):111-141. u ural Systems and World Economic

1990a "Three Women

One

Struggle'" Anthr

I

Transforming

A n t h r o ~ o l o g y

1(1)'1-9' opo

ogy,

Performance,

and

Pedagogy.

1990b From the Pr 'd t T . .

1990 Th

D .

eSl

en.

ransformmg Anthropology

1 1):10-11

c e u BOlsJan Legacy in Anth

I

P .

Meeting of the American

A n t h r o p o l o ; ~ a ~

:1

.

per

prNesented at

the

89th Annual

New Orleans, Louisiana. SOclatlOTI ovember 27-December 2.

Haviland, William A.

1 ~ ~ ~ .

Cultural Anthropology. Sixth Edition.

Fort

Worth,

TX:

Holt, Rinehart and Winston,

Hsu Francis

1973 Prejudice and its Intellectual Effects

in

American Anth I

Am

Anthropologist 75:1-19. ropo ogy. encan

12

Huizer, Gerrit and Bruce Mannheim, eds.

1979

The

Politics of Anthropology: From Colonialism and Sexism Toward a View from

Below. The Hague: Mouton Publishers.

Hymes, Dell, ed.

1979 Reinventing Anthropology. New York: Vintage Books.

Johnson Norris Brock

198£ Image and Archetype: Male and Female as Metaphor in the Thought of Carl G.

Jung

and

Ogotmmeli

of the

Dogon. Dialectical Anthropology 13:45-62.

Jones, Delmas

1970 Towards a Native Anthropology.

Human

Organization 29(4):251-259.

Reprinted in

Anthropology for

the

Nineties. Johnetta

B.

Cole, ed. pp. 30-41. New York:

The Free

Press.

Jordan, Glenn

n.d. Beyond the New Cultural Anthropology: Subjects, Objects and the Politics of

Representation. Unpublished manuscript.

Joseph, George Gheverghese et a .

1990 Eurocentrism in the Social Sciences. Rac e Class 31(4):1-26.

Lamphere, Louise

1987

From

Working Daughters to Working Mothers: Immigrant Women in a New

England Industrial Community. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Leacock, Eleanor,

Helen

I.

Safa, and Contributors

1986 Women's Work: Development and the Division

of

Labor by Gender. South Hadley,

MA:

Bergin Garve y Publishers, Inc.

Lewis, iane K.

1973 Anthropology and Colonialism. Curr ent Anthropo logy 14(5):581-597.

Lutz, Catherine

1990 The Erasure

of

Women's Writing in Sociocultural Anthropology. American

Ethnologist 17(4):611-627.

Magubane, Bernard M.

1979 The Political Economy of Race and Class in South Africa. New York: Monthly

Review Press.

Magubane, Bernard M. and James C. Faris

1985

On the

Political Relevance

of

Anthropology. Dialectical Anthropology

9:91-104.

Mascia-Lees, Frances et a1.

1989

The

Postmodernist

Turn

in Anthropology: Cautions from a Feminist Perspective.

Signs 15(1):7-33.

Mikell, Gwendolyn

1989 Zora Neale Hurston. In Women' Anthropologists: Sel ected Biographies. Ute Gacs

et

a ., eds. pp.

160-166.

Urbana: University

of

Illinois Press.

Mondlane, Eduardo

1969

The

Struggle for Mozambique. Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin Books, Ltd.

Reprinted in 1983 by Zed Press (London).

Moore, Henrietta

1988 Femin ism and Anthropology . Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

13



Morgen, Sandra

1988 The Drea m of Diversity, the Dilemma of Difference: Race

and

Class Contradictions

in a Feminist Health Clinic. In Anthropology for the Nineties. Johnne tta B Cole, ed.

pp.370-380. New York: The Free Press.

Moses, Yolanda T.

1990

The

Challenge of Diversity: Anthropological Perspectives on University Culture.

Education and Urban Society 22(4):402-412.

Nash, June and Maria Patricia Fernandez-Kelly, ed.

1983 Women, Men, and the Inte rnati onal Division of Labor. Albany: State University

of New York Press.

Pandian, Jacob

1985 Anthropology and the Western Tradition: Toward an Authentic Anthropology.

Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press, Inc.

Rollwagen, Jack

1988 New Directions in Urban Anthropology. In Urban Life: Readings in

Urban

Anthropology. George Gmelch and Walter

P

Zenner, eds. pp. 149-160.

Sacks, Karen

1974 Engels Revisited: Women, the Organization of Production, and Private Property.

In Women, Culture, and Society. Michelle Z. Rosaldo and Louise Lamphere, eds. pp.

207-222. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

1989 Towards a Unified Theory of Class, Race, and Gender. American Ethnologist

16(3):534-550. .

Silverblatt, Irene

1987 Moon, Sun, and Witches: Gender Ideologies and Class in Inca and Colonial Peru.

Princeton: Princeton University Press.

1988 Women in States. In Annual Review of Anthropology 17:427.460.

Turner, Victor

1987 The Anthropology of Performance. New York: P Publications, Perf orming

Arts Journal, Inc.

Ulin, Robert

C

1991 Critical Anthropology Twenty Years Later: Modernism and Postmodernism in

Anthropology. Critique of Anthropology 11(1):63-89.

Valentine, Betty Lou

1978 Hustling and

Other Hard

Work: Life Styles in the Ghetto . New York:

The

Free

Press.

West, Cornel

1988 Postmodernism and Black America. Z Magazine, June, pp.27-29.

1991 The Ethical Dimensions of Marxist Thought. New York: Monthly Review Press.

Wolf, Eric

1982

Europe

and the Pe ople Without History. Berkeley: University of California

Press.

14

MAN AND NATURE, WIllT AND OTHER

Michael L. Blakey

There

are

few concepts in Western thought more vital than

that

of nature

Considering the natural from the perspective of theology, as lithe state of man unredeemed

by grace,'1

it

represents a large chunk of our universe. Yet n a t ~ r e r e f ~ r s to the underlying

drive of behavior' t hat which

is

normal and acceptable; and whIch IS gIven

to

govern much

of our behavior natural

law.

In realistic

art

it

is

the essence

of

empirical fact; the real

world. We define the natural

as

the real, objective universe, lias distinguished from the

spiritual, intellectual, or imaginary world. I believe that Ales Hrdlick.a (n.d.), the principal

founder of physical anthropology in the United States, was refemng to the presumed

association between nature and objective reality early in this century, when

he

wrote that.

.

Pure impersonal science... has nothing to do either with safeguarding the

human society, or with the directing of human progress. t is, however, next

to nature and in some respects even above nature ..

Cartesian reductionism in scientific theory makes

of

nature the most fundamental and

comprehensive cause of our secular m o t i v a t i o ~ s David Hume

i

T r e a t ~ e

Of Human

Nature (1739) had already set the epistemologIcal

s t a ~ e

for r e d ~ m g the bastc dnves

and

logic of humankind to a set of underlying natural prmclples. UltImately: however, the ~ d e a

that nature is the objective universe seems to have

been

confounded, that nature

ztseif

(which mayor may not be objective ) and n a t u r ~ l science theory (that is .intended to

discover natural relationships have been confused With one another. Natural SCIence theory

is cultural, thereby having

no

greater claim to objectivity than any other body of theory.

There

are

other connotations of the natural in the Anglophone West. Natur e denotes

the pre-cultural, primitive, uncultivated or uncivilized

in

humankind.

t is

defined as

independent of social law. s it is used t o ~ r e f e r to t h ~ subjects of th e

n a t u ~ a l s C l e n ~ e s

and

natural history, nature is emphatically sub-human; m m ~ plant, and phySIcal. t S what

remains when the peculiar qualities of sapiens the sentient, cultural, and technological are

omitted. . .

In its most pejorative, natural

l

describes the fool and idiot. At its most pleaslllg t

denotes the normal, acceptable, or unpretentious.

The

white keys on the piano; the removal

of sharps a nd flats.

5

Documents

Harrison, Faye. Anthropology as an Agent of Transformation. Introductory Comments and Queries (Decolonizing Anthropology)