The door in the middle: six conditions for anthropology

Comparative Studies in Society and History, 1986

Sherry Ortner's account of the development of anthropological theory is admirable both because of the complexity of her argument and because it opens up a series of interesting possibilities for theoretical self-criticism among anthropologists. In this essay, I consider a theme which is not directly addressed in Ortner's piece, but which might usefully be considered in relation to it. The theme involves the significance of place in the construction of anthropological theory in the period since World War II.

Constructing knowledge: authority and critique in social …, 1991

This book began to take shape in December 1988. The setting was the Department of Cultural Anthropology at the University of Amsterdam. A conference was held in memory of the anthropologist Bob Scholte, whose sudden death in the preceding year shook his students and colleagues profoundly. The Conference was intended to follow lines of critical and reflexive inquiry initiated by, among others, Scholte himself. It appeared to be a particularly auspicious moment for such an event, as critical, feminist and symbolic perspectives in anthropology seemed to converge. Political critique, reflexive analysis and the experience of multiple voices had combined to produce doubts about the authority of the anthropological expert, whose line of descent includes sexist, racist and imperialist ancestors. As anthropological authority was questioned and the anthropologist's voice toned down, there seemed to be a promise for a conversation with other voices.

2022

What is anthropological theory and why should we care? Anthropologists develop theory to make sense of processes still unfolding and for which outcomes are unclear. At the same time, theory shapes what we notice and find important in ethnographic or archival research. What do we think the most decisive forces shaping the reality we are studying? Should we focus on culture, class, race, gender, or some combination? Theory allows us to make sense of, and coherently write about, these different aspects of reality in any topic we hope to understand and write about. In this course we will read both classic works that shaped the discipline and emerging work today—always with implications for our own research projects in mind. What is the relationship of ethnography to theory? How is anthropology grounded in social theory and political economy of the early 20th century? How have anthropologists deployed key concepts of “culture,” “social structure,” “power,” “colonialism,” or “racial capitalism” to make sense of human universals and the ubiquity of difference? How can we mobilize anthropological theory and concepts to make sense of the world—and our own research projects—today?

2001

Series Preface vii Preface to the Second Edition viii Preface to the First Edition ix 1. Proto-Anthropology 1 Herodotus and other Greeks 1; After Antiquity 3; The European conquests and their impact 6; Why all this is not quite anthropology yet 10; The Enlightenment 11; Romanticism 15 2. Victorians, Germans and a Frenchman 20 Evolutionism and cultural history 21; Morgan 23; Marx 25; Bastian and the German tradition 27; Tylor and other Victorians 29; The Golden Bough and the Torres expedition 32; German diffusionism 35; The new sociology 38; Durkheim 39; Weber 41 3. Four Founding Fathers 46 The founding fathers and their projects 49; Malinowski among the Trobriand Islanders 52; Radcliffe-Brown and the 'natural science of society' 55; Boas and historical particularism 58; Mauss and the total social prestation 61; Anthropology in 1930: parallels and divergences 64 4. Expansion and Institutionalisation 68 A marginal discipline? 69; Oxford and the LSE, Columbia and Chicago 72; The Dakar-Djibouti expedition 74; Culture and personality 77; Cultural history 80; Ethnolinguistics 82; The Chicago school 83; 'Kinshipology' 86; Functionalism's last stand 90; Some British outsiders 92 5. Forms of Change 96 Neo-evolutionism and cultural ecology 99; Formalism and substantivism 104; The Manchester school 107; Methodological individualists at Cambridge 112; Role analysis and system theory 117 6. The Power of Symbols 120 From function to meaning 121; Ethnoscience and symbolic anthropology 125; Geertz and Schneider 127; Lévi-Strauss and structuralism 130; Early impact 133; The state of the art in 1968 135 vi A History of AntHropology 7. Questioning Authority 138 The return of Marx 139; Structural Marxism 141; The not-quite-Marxists 145; Political economy and the capitalist world system 147; Feminism and the birth of reflexive fieldwork 151; Ethnicity 155; Practice theory 158; The sociobiology debate and Samoa 161 8. The End of Modernism? 166 The end of modernism? 171; The postcolonial world 176; A new departure or a return to Boas? 179; Other positions 184 9. Global Networks 192 Towards an international anthropology? 194; Trends for the future 200; Biology and culture 203; Globalisation and the production of locality 211 Bibliography 221 Index 239

Social Dynamics, 1998

As we approach• the millenniumn the discipline of anthropology occupies a hiighly contested terrain, a battle-ground on which scientistic, humanistic, political-economic, anld postmodern agendas are puttinlg forth conficting claimns anid vying for hegemony (Lee 1992).,Onie readinig of anithropology is that it is a part of the discredited canon conlstructed by dead white males, architects and apologists for capitalismn and imiperialism. But despite the vogue fo'r anthropology-bashing • in some circles, I believe that quite differenlt r•eadigs are possibl: and I would like to present onie here. Anthropology's br•ief history as a discipline has beenl marked by both successes and failures. It is commiionplace to say it is a discipline in crisis; but on•e could argue thiat thiis has beenl true of its enltire history. Whiat I would like to do is give you a personal view of some of its strenigth~s and weaknesses; wher•e the disciplinie has come fromT and where it is goinlg. If I have anything to add to the usual rumninations on this subject it is thiat I feel that anthropology's politics are as muchi a part of its histo'ry and future as is its bodies of method, theory, anld knowledge. The paper will draw examples from anthropology generally but the ma7in line of marchi is to use a broad overview of th~e crisis and tranisformnation in anthropology as a point of departure to examine aspects of South• African society in the first post-Apartheid years. Regarding the disciplinie as a whole mny thesis is this: anthropology is un•dergoing a tranlsformnation that is pregniant with possibilities, but to paraphrase Gramnsci: whenever the old order is dyinlg anid the new struggling

If, as Boaventura de Sousa Santos (2008) and others have argued, another knowledge or other knowledges are possible beyond the imperial gatekeeping of northern epistemologies, then anthro-pology as we know it must be decolonized and transformed (Harrison 2010 [1991]). A fuller understanding of these processes can be informed by taking theoretical trajectories within the southern hemisphere into serious consideration (e.g., Connell 2007, Nyamnjoh 2011). Social analysis and especially "theory from the south" (Comaroff & Comaroff 2012) have historically been relegated to the margins of established canons—whether in anthropology or any other field in the social sciences and humanities. However, there now appears to be growing interest in imagining an alternative status quo. This trend is reflected in recent conversations framed by the concerns of world social sciences (ISSR 2010) and, in the specific case of our discipline, world anthropologies (Ribeiro and Escobar 2006). Gran...

Man and World, 1994

JOURNAL-ROYAL ANTHROPOLOGICAL INSTITUTE, 2006

In January 2006, the international community of anthropologists was confronted with a surprising piece of news. France's principal funding body, the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), was contemplating striking anthropology out of its disciplinary list, attributing to it a subsidiary position within the field of history. A heated debate ensued concerning anthropology's independent position within the CNRS funding structure. One does not know whether it was thought that anthropology always had been a branch of history or whether it was thought that it always should have been or, alternatively, if the idea was that it was simply irrelevant! Ultimately, in the face of national and international outcry, the proposal was dropped and the change was not implemented. We were all very pleased about that outcome. Many of us, however, remained preoccupied by it all, feeling that a misunderstanding on that scale should not be treated as an isolated event. Rather, it should be seen as a sign that the public understanding of anthropology is not what it should be, that the issue is in bad need of further debate. 1 How ironic that this mishap should have occurred on the turf of Marcel Mauss and Lévi-Strauss, where modern anthropology was born! Now, let it be clear from the start that anthropologists have nothing against history or historians -to the contrary. Never has the dialogue between the two disciplines been richer than over the past two decades. Their disciplinary history, however, remains radically distinct. Their contributions to the humanities and the social sciences are not in competition; rather they are mutually indispensable parts of the more general socio-scientific field that modernity has launched.