Anthropology Is Dead, Long Live Anthro(a)pology: Poststructuralism, Literary Studies, and Anthropology's "Nervous Present" Author(s): David Chioni

Moore Reviewed work(s): Source: Journal of Anthropological Research, Vol. 50, No. 4 (Winter, 1994), pp. 345-365 Published by: University of New Mexico Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3630558 . Accessed: 03/04/2012 02:14
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

University of New Mexico is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Anthropological Research.

http://www.jstor.org

FIRSTPRIZEIN ESSAYCONTEST THE ON "FUTURE ANTHROPOLOGY" OF

ANTHROPOLOGY DEAD, LONGLIVE IS ANTHRO(A)POLOGY: POSTSTRUCTURALISM, LITERARY STUDIES,AND ANTHROPOLOGY'S "NERVOUS PRESENT"1
Chioni Moore David DukeUniversity, NC Literature Durham, 27708-0670 Program, TO CHALLENGE ANTHROPOLOGY THE POSTSTRUCTURALIST outsider(suchas myself,a literITDOES TAKE foran anthropological NOT LONG is circa1994 to figureout that anthropology todayin a state of ary theorist) have termedvariously"epistemologia crisis notablecommentators crisis, wave of challenges," cal worrying," "genuinemalaise,"an "unprecedented even virulence," perhapsmost accu"morbid or, fascination," "grumpiness, declaration of rately, "the nervous present."2Indeed, this anthropological crisis seems a minorindustryor subgenrein its own right,andthoughpercurceived crises are a continuousfeatureof all disciplines,anthropology's at because it is apparently once politicaland episterent state is magnified that anthropology, The politicalcrisis stems fromthe recognition mological. wouldtouch, of long seen as the champion those Othersno other academics and in hadbeen at the same time implicated colonialdomination its modern insidersas well for transformations as long as it hadexisted.Anthropological as outsiders(e.g., Leiris1950;Asad1973;Said1989;and,tackling post-Writin D. Cultureethnography, Scott 1992) have been instrumental making ing this charge. crisishasdifferent relatedepistemological The secondandperhaps roots,and not truthbut that stems largelyfromthe realization anthropologists produce in fictional texts (cf. Crapanzano 1986:51;andmanymore),texts inescapably To the sense of "athingmade,"andtexts hence eminentlydeconstructible. this understand crisis it is necessaryfirstto recall,in a storyby now familiar, viewed itself as an objeccertaintimes andplaces past, anthropology that at was andthoughthat perception generally a knowable tive science of world,3 couldideallyproducea notionthatanthropologists in qualified some way,the and fullandaccurateaccountof a peopleunderstudygreatlymotivated justihad alwaysbeen open to charges fied the profession.Thoughanthropology it that it was not in fact "scientific," alwayspossessed two reliabledefenses: anthroasserta specifically or eitherit would scientificity, itwould attempt greater pological mode of knowledge based on interpretation. Anthropology's
vol. Research, 50, 1994) (Journal Anthropological of
345

346

OF RESEARCH JOURNAL ANTHROPOLOGICAL

Geertzof the mode,characterized "interpretive" canonically the Clifford by 1970s (e.g., 1973), thoughmistrustedfor its "softer"or subjectivistunderoverthe scientificone becauseit seemed tones, was seen as an improvement less naive or simplistic,while it preservedthe reassuringnotionof a transcendentalrealandthus stavedoffthe horrorsof a thoroughgoing, unmoored constructivism. Underinterpretivism, Real,to use a literaryformulation, the to wouldbe "inaccessible us except in textualform,"andour approach it to wouldpass necessarilythroughits narrativization, "prior or textualization" (Jameson1981:35). By the earlyto middle1980s, however,it hadbecomeclearto manyboth insideandoutsidethatanthropology's epistemological twin dikes-scientific and interpretive-which had long held back the sea of chaos from howeverartificial terrafirma,were crumbling ethnography's away,"lyingin ruins aroundus" (in Scholes's phrase, 1985:133),subjectto the incessant wave actionsof a heterogeneityof thinkersandthoughts.The attackon the sciencedikecouldusefullybe tracedfromKuhn(1962),to Feyerabend (1975), on to Bruno Latour(Latourand Woolgar1979; Latour1987) and beyond, while the attackson the interpretive dike,more directlyreflectedandreferenced in the anthropological literature,stemmed more from Continental such as Derridaand Foucault,with their "il n'y a pas de poststructuralists The hors-texte,""gamesof truth,"and"toutest ddj~interpretation."4 many followersandelaborators these theorists,most notablyscholars of powerful associatedwith the seminalvolume WritingCulture(Clifford Marcus and these challengesto the anthro1986),have been chiefamongthose bringing establishment. itself was a major pological Ironically, anthropology precursor to the discoursesthatcameto unsettle its own field,fromthe classiccultural relativismof early and mid-century to ethnography the more epistemologically subversivelinguisticrelativismof Sapirand Whorf(e.g., Whorf1956). At any rate, in the aftermath of all of these attacks, broadly termed antifoundational poststructuralist, in response also to substantial or and crifromwithin,littletheoretical tiquesmadeof the profession's authority ground seemed to be left for anthropology, when the variouspoliticalobjections and were addedin, the generalandindeedfruitfulquestionsfor anthropologists became,andare, Whatare we to do? Whatdo we study?Andhow? In the pages whichfollow,I will explorethese "whatnow"questionsfrom but one perspective-that of literarystudies-for at the same time as anencountered and thropology poststructuralism seemed to lose its nerve, litstudies encountered same theoreticalobjectand came out braver the erary than ever. Thoughliterarystudies too was once largelya self-described obin con(this maysurprisesome anthropologists), marked jectivistenterprise
trast to anthropology the loss of objectivism left literary studies emboldened rather than unsure, and it has expanded indeed at anthropology's expense. So-called cultural studies has been of late the hottest topic at litcrit conferences nationwide. ArjunAppadurai(1991:195), for one, notes the "seizure of

AND ANTHROPOLOGY LITERARY STUDIES

347

and the highground" "themany-sided hijackof culture"by literarystudies; and while literarystudies'job marketoverallgrew a reasonable15 percent from 1985 to 1990, the academicsubcategory "Minority" of Literature(inof Post-Colonial, ThirdWorld,Americanthe "sub-sub" categories cluding and traditional squareon anthropology's Marginal, African-American)-right a stunning636percent growthduringthattime, the terrain-experienced job bulk of the profession'sexpansionoverall (Modem LanguageAssociation battlesandcrises, 1991a).Whathas the literaryacademy, despiteits internal underpoststructuralism, and doneto emergetransformed perhaps triumphant andhas irrelevance(or "loss of the referent")been the price of its success, as is commonlysupposed? To help answer these questions, I will look at two separatebut related and poststructuralist literarytheory currentlitaspects of this phenomenon: The discussionof poststructuralist theorywill take up practice. erary-critical the recentandcontestedpositionthatpoststructural theoryitself has no conor sequencesfor scholarlypractice,or at least not any of the dire paralyzing to consequencesthatmanyhaveattributed it. In such a fashionit unmooring shouldcut its (pure-)theory-angst polishallbe arguedthatanthropology (its andthatwhichliterarystudies seems to lack,is anotherquestion) tics-angst, This essay's subsequent andlearnto love, at least in theory,interpretation. no of currentliterary-critical practice, less extensive, exploration comparative here. will engage more pointsthancan be usefullysummarized One problemmust be addressedbeforehand, however,thoughnot for the communities as awareof the mechanicsof coloare last time. Few academic nialismas the ethnographic andthus it will not haveescapedthe anthroone, in reader'sattentionthatthere are some vaguecolonialundertones pological A whatis here undertaken. worst-casescenariowouldlooklike this:forsome time now the health and numbersof anthropological facultyhave been in the profitof the health,wealth,andeconomicsize decline,in manycases to of departmentsof literature.Highly processed literarytheories have been to tractorsor Chevrolets the distantshores exportedlike so manyCaterpillar humansciences, whose anxiousinhabitof the restive and unsophisticated ants have been seen payingheavyprices to drivethem, despite the fact that nor they neither received wages for their construction can maneuverthem is well on localroads.Since maintenance neglected,when the theoriesbreak have for down,they cannotbe fixed.Unsurprisingly, payments theoryimports been only partiallymet by the sale of unprocessedraw materials-ethnographic,historical,and social description-and a chronicintellectualtrade deficithas todayresulted.The principal consequenceof this tradeimbalance localoutputbut an indigenous has been, as expected,not improved economy
in disarray;the danger, of course, is that any attempt to remedy this situation based on imitation of the colonizing powers generally results not in autonomy but in a reinforcement of the imperial relationship. Nonetheless, for lack of any better solution (an Albanian-style isolationism having been ruled out), a

348

OF RESEARCH JOURNAL ANTHROPOLOGICAL

And of indicated. deeperunderstanding the colonialpowersis at a minimum so caveatlector. These pointswill be revisitedtowardsthe end of this essay. AND LEARNED TO HOW I STOPPED WORRYING LOVE INTERPRETATION I will dealfirst with the poststructuralist theorieswhichseem so hobbling to ethnography.The working view of these theories will be as follows: contendsthat there are no transcendental truths,no abpoststructuralism5 solutegrounds whichone canstandto makeajudgment, metanarratives. on no The worldis all bias, cant, instability, power. To cite the classic older and Nietzscheanformulation truthis noughtbut ([1873]1954:46-47), a mobilearmyof metaphors, metonyms,and anthropomorphisms-in whichhavebeen enhanced, short,a sumof human relations, transposed, and embellishedpoeticallyand rhetorically, which after long use and seem firm, canonical,and obligatoryto a people:truths are illusions aboutwhichone has forgottenthatthis is whatthey are .... In poststructuralist theory this essentiallyfictionalnatureof truth extends into the fictionalnatureof things,andas ShapinandSchaffer quitenaturally (1985) and Bruno Latourhave differentlyargued,"even""scientists"(on whommanyonce reliedfor modelsof objectivity) literallyinventthe objects whichthey purport have discovered.There exists no shortageof anthroto pologicalevidence for a constructivistor relativistontology,the canonical instancebeingthe Karam wordyakt,whichrefers to most birdsandall bats, but not to whatWesternerswouldcall the cassowary"bird" (Bulmer1967; see also Lakoff1987).Whenappliedto conceptsmore crucialto anthropolothe gists than polypeptidesor cassowaries,such as "culture," notion of a contructivist nonessentialist or ontologyhas hadunsettlingeffects.In a body of once-oppositional literaturethat has rapidly becomeclassic, writerssuch as MarcusandCushman that "ob(1982)have demonstrated anthropology's of jective"rendering other culturesis in factlargelythe productof a literary realism,composedof a complexset of masking genre called ethnographic of tropes (e.g., the representation the native point of view, the markingof whichcombineto producewhatRolandBarthes(1968)described fieldwork) as "theeffect of the real." In the wakeof this realization ethnographies that were fictions,manysolutions or "waysout"were suggestedin the relevantliterature,amongwhich weredialogic, and self-reflexive, otherexperimental polyphonic, styles, writing as well as "rhetorical texts whichwould"clearthe analyses"of ethnographic
way for a discussion of claims and evidence" (Marcusand Cushman 1982:56n). Not surprisingly, none of the products of this scramble for alternatives could survive a continued postmodern interrogation. The dialogic ethnography ad-

AND ANTHROPOLOGY LITERARY STUDIES

349

vocatedby amongothers Clifford (1983, and 1986:15)as "rendering negotiand was ated realitiesas multi-subjective, power-laden, incongruent" argued masto be, like the realisticgenres it was supposedto replace,"monologue as dialogue"(Tyler, quotedin Kahn1989:15).6 ethquerading "Polyphonic" was of course susceptibleto a similarcritique.Similarly, rhetorical nography accountswouldget one nowhereundera rigorously analysesof ethnographic critique,since the rhetoricalanalyses themselves appliedpoststructuralist of wouldbe againinterested and fictionalmeta-accounts the initialaccount, themselves susceptibleto yet more rhetoricalanalysis.Rhetorical analysis is no way to escape rhetoric.Reflexivity,finally,wouldalso requirean infinite regress, since if one acceptedreflexivityin the firstplace,one wouldbe accountof "whereI stand in writing obligedto admitthat one's "up-front" fiction"woulditself be a fiction,and so on, andso on.7 this acknowledged Thus one can sympathize, finally,with Joel Kahn(1989:11)when he asks "Is of his fellowanthropologists, there no exit?"The answeris, in one sense, at "No,there is not,"not as longas one wishes to continuethinking all, foras Nietzsche tells us, "we have to cease to think if we refuse to do it in the Thoughin point of fact people do escape from prison-houseof language."8 for prisons,this offerslittle surceaseto the academic, it has alwaysbeen her option to cease to think (in the sense of to cogitate) and thereby escape, however temporarily,that languagewhich imprisonsus. People regularly in achieve this transcendence manyways, via ashrams,free jazz, triathlons, virtualreality, and so forth, but as academicprograms,the limitapeyote, are tions of such extralinguistic approaches surely apparent. it has been saidin an anthropological Now, context,andin responseto the not specter)of an all-unmooring that poststructuralism, if all one prospect(if can ever produceis fiction,then one mightas well stop beingan anthropologist andbecomea novelist.It has also been saidthatit is surelyunacceptable if the best one canhopeforundera Nietzscheanlinguisticregimeis to be the highest-statusflunkyin the prison.I wish to argue,however,thatin no sense or shouldthe escapeless postmodernist conclu"imprisonment" "all-fiction" be or sions (or metaphors) particularly since no shorttroubling paralyzing, age of positive things has happenedandwill continueto happenin the linguistic prisonand as a result of fictions.Take, for example,IsaacNewton's now-discredited fiction,or story, that force equalsmass times acceleration, which imprisoned Western science for centuries.Newton was "wrong," of course, but that did not stop his fictionfrombeing usefulto bridgebuilders the and architectsthroughout West. Nor did Newtonianbridgesand buildings suddenlyfallin 1905with the adventof the (in this sense) inconsequenwere cerebralinventions tial theoryof specialrelativity. Microbes,similarly, of Pasteur,phenomenafictionalized differently other cultures,and pheby nomenawhichwill eventuallybe fictionalized differently our own. But as by of Latourhas written ([1984]1988),the combination Pasteur's temporary, fictionwith the effortsof thousandsof zealcontingent,yet useful microbial

350

OF RESEARCH JOURNAL ANTHROPOLOGICAL

ous nineteenth-centuryFrench hygienists producedconcrete health care advanceswhichhave rescuedlives the worldaround. And,as Latour argues, it is possibleto accountfor this in a strictlyantifoundational way. one as Closerto anthropology, notes that "gender" an ontological category socialconstruction numerouscultural has been shownto be a thoroughly by classicstatement([1949]1952:301) andfeministtheorists,fromde Beauvoir's to that "oneis not born,but ratherbecomes,a woman," JudithButler'smore that of is recentassertion(1990:33) "gender the repeatedstylization the body, framethatcongealover a set of repeatedacts withina highlyrigidregulatory sort of being."Yet of time to producethe appearance substance,of a natural of does not prevent the thoroughontologicaldiscreditation "woman" still, in fromremaining, the wordsof the historian now-fictional JoanScott gender The pointof these ex(1988:28),"a useful categoryfor historicalanalysis." or kickingof the ontologiamplesis thatthe poststructuralist postmodernist cal propsout fromunderall nouns,or all writing,does not in anywayunmoor can us or remove the poweror uses to whichnoun-fictions be put. To take word"knife," whichcanno doubt one last example,considerthe unambiguous be shown-at least in the worldof professionalcutlers-to be "contested, temporal,and emergent"(whichis whatJoel Kahn[1989:13]says of "culword, ture").Yet every daypeople accomplish things using this discredited andas longas this is the case, there is no reasonto stop usingit. The pointis by now belabored,and it is this: as a matter of strict theory or ontology, conceptin critiquethreatensno one andno anthropological poststructuralist becauseit attacksthem all with equalvigor.Nobody,andno alterparticular doesn't kick the native writing strategy, can "get out." Poststructuralism out fromunderolderor even classic nounsor conceptsbecausein fact props there were never any props there to begin with. Thus, qua theory, critiqueis like sayingthatall of the articlesin last month's poststructuralist CriticalInquirywould disintegrateif droppedin a volcano:it providesno one basis on whichto differentiate text fromanother,whichis to say that in this respect it has no consequences. argumentmay seem simplynihilistic,it is Thoughthis no-consequences three pointsshouldmakeclear.First,a poststructuralist not, as the following temcritiquewouldnot thereforeimplythatfictional(contested,contingent, poral) concepts such as "tree," "dog," "scenarios" (Ortner), "habitus" or dramas" haveno power (Sahlins), just "culture" (Bourdieu), "cosmological andcan be put to no use, or misuse.' Second,poststructuralist critiquedoes not suggest thatall conceptswill thereforebe equal(this maybe termedthe fallacy),since a varietyof highlycompellingpolitical,social,and egalitarian but economicarguments (themselvescontingent, perhapsstablefor longperiods and across broad populations) will be put forth to differentiate them, as they always have (cf. Smith 1988, esp. 150-84). Third and finally, poststructuralism would not argue that theory, writing, or representation has no consequences in the broader sense, since the practice of theory (and the

ANTHROPOLOGY LITERARY AND STUDIES

351

is powerfultodayas a rhetoricof criterminologyis important) undeniably tique, a means of gaininginstitutional power,andmore.The pointis, finally, that anthropology shouldstop worryingaboutmetaphysical foundations (or lack thereof)and shouldlearn to love interpretation, least in theory,beat cause that's all there ever is, and it's not such a badthing at that. If somesketchedout herethingseems fishyaboutthe no-consequences argument an argument oftentermedpragmatist-then I referthe readerto the various writingsof StanleyFish (e.g., 1980, 1989), Richard Rorty,and to the Fishinflectedwaters of W.J.T.Mitchell'sedited volume Against Theory (1985), which have been lurkingin the depths of these paragraphs along.10 all This closes the discussionof the purelytheoretical(if such a thing can be saidto exist) aspect of, and, insofaras it is purely theoretical,largely unfounded crisis in, anthropology. AND LITERARY STUDIES:TWODIVERGENT ANTHROPOLOGY RESPONSESTO POSTSTRUCTURALISM The theory-work now complete,this sectionwill examine,with anthropolin mind,the recent historyof literarystudies,whichhas thrivedin these ogy powerbeen purchased? poststructuralist days. How has its currentapparent And at what price?Thoughone might objectthat even if one did know the answersto such questions,it wouldbe of little use to anthropologists (since and anthropology literarystudies are so different-texts versus people, or will illuminate,not only besomethingalong those lines), the comparison incause the text/thingdistinctioncollapsesin the light of poststructuralist sights, but because of many practicalcrossovers as well. Anthropologists makeuse of mythsandsongs, for example,while manyliteratiare immersed In anin publishing and practices,Zeitgeisten, writingcommunities. addition, andliterarystudies sharethree significant (andperhapssurpristhropology a a ing) historicalparallels: legacy of (an alwayscontested)objectivism, reanda recent deprivileging the of cent loss of the centralconceptual category, canonical objectsof study. We beginwith the first. For manydecades-from the late 1920s to some"NewCritical" time in the 1960s-the predominant concepAnglo-American tion of literarystudies was that it was an objective,nearlyscientificactivity on by unitary objectsuncontaminated the conperformed timeless, isolatable, and of their production unaffected the status of their observer:the texts by is anthropology clearly strong. A brief parallelwith the contemporaneous figuresin the criticismof thattime will illustrate surveyof some of the major and the point.W.K.Wimsatt MonroeC. Beardsley,for example,in 1949 echoed the long-heldobjectivistanthropological principlethat the researcher shouldbe in no way a partof the meaningof the objectof study.Theiressay "The AffectiveFallacy"-one of the most celebratedof twentieth-century criticism-argued that the effect a poem had on its beholderwas not to be

352

RESEARCH OF JOURNAL ANTHROPOLOGICAL

confusedwith "thepoem itself."Notablyfor this paper'saudience,"TheAfand fective Fallacy" Malinowski the asclosed with a footnoteto Bronislaw in anthropology "thefieldworkeramongthe Zunisor sertionthat, generally, the Navahosfindsno informant informative the poet or the memberof so as the tribe who can quote its myths. In short, thoughcultureshave changed and andwill change,poems remainandexplain" (Wimsatt Beardsley[1949] 1971:1031). In a similarobjectivistand unifyingfashion,JohnCroweRansom([1934] core"and"a 1971:883)contendedthat a poemconsistedof a "paraphrasable contextof livelylocaldetails," formulation a similar the attempts to strikingly of contemporaneous or to anthropologists "paraphrase" distillthe "coremeantext as ing"of a culturein an ethnographic andto marginalize necessarythe continued that livelylocaldetails.Ransom([1934]1971:887, emphasisadded) the goalof the criticwas "toexamineanddefinethe poemwith respectto its
structure and its texture ... [and] the final desideratum is an ontological in-

drum in sight,nothingless." R.P.Blackmur the 1930salsobeat an objectivist with his call to scholarsto be bias-freeand faithfulto the object of study "itself." his important Critic's ofWork," In "A Blackmur Job ([1935]1971:897) detailedthe defects of variouspieces of criticismwhich were pollutedby whathe termed"ulterior that is, the criticshadbroughtMarxist purposes," or moralor psychological to their analyses,while the true critic (or, biases read:"anthropologist") broughtnone. Closerto the present,E.D. Hirsch(the authorof 1988'sbest-sellingWesternistDictionary Cultural to madehis majorcontribution literary Literacy) of entitled"Objective (1967), theoryin anearlyessay revealingly Interpretation" whicharguedthat the meaningof a poem inheres in the poem,is unaffected over time, and is independent of by the context of its epoch, is unchanging the position of the reader. A most extreme example comes from Sigurd who Burckhardt, at the end of his careerwrote an essay detailinghis vision of a trulyscientificliterarymethodwhichwouldseek the "intrinsic interpretation"of a poem's "infallible" andentailed,amazingly unity enough,an exmodel of classical physics: "This interpretive pressly pre-Heisenbergian methodwas intrinsicin thatit wasentirely subservient thephenomena at to and the same time entirelyfaithful the beliefin their utterlawfulnessandconto [1968] 1971:1203,emphasis literarycriticit has barelybegun"(Burckhardt added).In what to later poststructuralist eyes was an amazingblunder,for decadesobjectivism indeedruledthe literary-critical day. A second parallelbetween the postmodern of predicaments both literary studiesandanthropology been the radical has destablization over the past of,
decade, their major motivating concepts of "culture"and "literature."There is no need to go over the troubles of anthropology'sCultureconcept given this journal'saudience, but a glimpse at the similar travails of literature's "Literasistency .... For the physicist the classical age may be obsolete; for the

AND ANTHROPOLOGY LITERARY STUDIES

353

I ture"maybe illuminating.quotefromthe firstpageofTerryEagleton's widely An readLiterary Theory: Introduction: ... includesShakespeare, Whatis literature? Englishliterature Webster, Marvelland Milton;but it also stretches to the essays of FrancisBaand con, the sermonsof JohnDonne,Bunyan'sspiritual autobiography whateverit was thatSir ThomasBrownewrote.It mighteven at a pinch be taken to encompassHobbes's Leviathanor Clarendon's Historyof French literature theRebellion. contains, seventeenth-century alongwith Corneilleand Racine,La Rochefoucauld's maxims,Bossuet's funeral letters Boileau'streatise on poetry,Madamede Sdvingnd's speeches, of and Nineteenthto her daughter the philosophy DescartesandPascal. not usuallyincludesLamb(though Bentham), centuryEnglishliterature (but Macaulay not Marx),Mill (butnot Darwinor HerbertSpencer).A and distinction between "fact" "fiction," then, seems unlikelyto get us very far.... (Eagleton1983:1) On subsequentpages Eagletongoes on to dismantleevery other definition "fine one mightput forthfor Literature-that whichis creative,ambiguous, and self-referential, estranging, so on-and in the endhe concludes writing," is thatLiterature not an objectiveconceptat all but is insteadconstructed by a historicallyvariableset of value judgments(Eagleton 1983:16).Despite in recenttraditionalist outcriesto the contrary, Literature, literarystudies at is for the most partas unstablea constructas Cultureis in anthropolleast, conceptsof literarystudies and ogy today.So much,then, for the motivating anthropology. of studies betweenthe currentpredicaments bothliterary One finalparallel not comes in the recent deprivileging, only of their motiand anthropology objectsof study:the Primiphysical vatingconcepts,butalso of theirprincipal foranthropology, the canon highWestand of tive (native, savage,exotic,Other) ern poetry, drama,and prose fictionfor literarystudies. Again,there is no audineed here to detail the death of the Primitivefor an anthropological ence, andindeedwith all of the recent mediaattentiongiven the debateover Civ"in U.S. universities,neitheris there muchneed to rehashthe "Western decline in literarystudies of "deadwhite Europeanmale"literature-not the very mirror(cf. Kuper1988:5).Whatis intercoincidentally, Primitive's demises is esting or perhapsironicto note, however,aboutthese mirrored that the same recent set of anti-imperialist politicalimperativeshas motidirecand vated anthropology literarystudies to move in virtuallyopposite was tions:while "moveawayfromthe Occident" the activists'chantin front was "moveawayfromthe Orient" in manyplaces of the EnglishDepartment,
the cry in front of Anthropology, or even from its subjects. This has played a great role in anthropology's current perplex, as will be detailed below.

354

OF RESEARCH JOURNAL ANTHROPOLOGICAL

of Butfirst,to the question the apparently fortunes anthropology of divergent and literarystudies in recent decades. I'd like to begin this consideration drawn witha parable froma novelby the Chilean writerJose Donoso.Casade A Housein theCountry concernsthe hellish summer [1978] 1984) campo(or Venturafamily.Aboutmidwaythroughthe narexperiencesof the powerful rative,it seems as if the Venturasare in dangerof losing their quiteconsiderablepositionand wealth, and they are nearlyparalyzed this prospect. by Whilethe Venturasfret over how to regainpower, andone of their number nervouslyspeculatesthattheir "wholemissionwill fail,"a darkandoracular to and figurenamedJuanPerez steps forward the familypatriarch informs him that it is not "the possession of so manycoveted objects [that]makes YourGraces superior"(Donoso 1984:189)."Andin yourjudgment," asked consist?" Silvestre, perhapsa trifle offended,"inwhat does our superiority JuanPerez didn'thesitate:"Inthe absenceof doubt." I must admitI am almostembarrassed begin an analysisof somebody to else's institutionaldisarraywith what appearsto be a piece of dime-store of (as psychoanalysis well as with an intentional misreading Casade campo), but I do wantto considerseriouslythe possibility that in addition all of the to theoretical,political,and institutionalcauses for an actuallyquite wealthy "nervous anthropology's present,"there is also an anxietywhichneeds to be addressedpure and simple,as anxiety,in its currentprofessional worry.Of course it is presumptuous me as an outsiderto make such a claim,andit of as maybe counterproductive well, in the mannerof someonewho breaksup with theirboy- or girlfriend, that the explaining "you'retoo insecure": enunciationof this type of problemonly rarelyhelps to solve it. Nonetheless, it needs to cure its currentmalaise,in addition maybe thatwhatanthropology to the more satisfyinggeneraltheories of anthropology so manytoday that seek, is an initialtheoryof its chronicrecent anthro-apology. To some extent anthropology's anxiety (andliterature'sconfidence)can be tracedto the two disciplines' divergentresponsesto the deathof objectivism. In literarystudies, as the recent floweringof the professionattests, death,thoughresisted in some circles, was generallygreeted objectivism's witha sigh of relief,as if a burdenhadbeen thrownoff,a dispensation granted fromthe grimlyrational tasks it hadneverapproached thatmuchenthuwith siasm in the first place. For those amongus who make our life's work of verses such as this: Let me not to the marriage true minds of Admitimpediments. Love is not love Whichalters when it alteration finds,
Or bends with the remover to remove ... are rarely disposed towards disciplines in which, to paraphrase Sigurd Burckhardt,"aclassical physics has barely begun." Anthropology,on the other

AND ANTHROPOLOGY LITERARY STUDIES

355

memberof the socialsciences community, hand,as a three-fourths-invested has been that muchmore weddedto a whole networkof older,broadly "scientific"practices,practiceswhichindeed,despite what is now perceivedas their methodological remarkable results. As Geertz defectiveness,produced (1988:4)pointsout, Malinowski'stheoreticalapparatus, once a proudtower indeed, lies The in ruins,but he remainsthe ethnographer's ethnographer. largely ratherpasse qualitythatMead'spsychological, culture-and-personality now seem to have ... doesn'tseem to detractvery much speculations unmatched any of the rest of fromthe cogencyof her observations, by whatthe Balineseare like.... PeoplewillreadTheNuer us, concerning even if, as it has tendedto, segmentarytheory hardensinto a dogma. And so because anthropology's investmentin scientismand/oran objective thanthatof literarystudrealhadbeen so muchdeeperandmoreproductive were when science's paradigms ies, it becamethat muchmore disorienting taken away.To recast a metaphorused above, objectivism'sdeath was for not anthropology a burdenlifted,but a propkickedout fromunderneath. death,as I have up Still, it wouldbe a mistaketo considerobjectivism's of for untilthis point,as a purelyinternalor disciplinary affair, considerations audiencealso loomlarge.The literarycritic'saudiencehadnever demanded fromcriticism.In fact the much in the way of science or "hard knowledge" a as at largesaw literature somewhatof a diversion, sourceof "beauty" public of or "higher humanvalues,"or sometimesas a component national culture, on literatureat all. Anthropology, the other hand, if the publicsaw canonical hadalwaysbeen supported a muchwideraudiencewhichincludedpolitiby cal and economicdecision makers,grantingagencies, generals,and strategists, as well as a rangeof aidandpolicyactorson the furtherleft-in short, knowledgeaboutthe exotic Otherwas at a prepeoplefor whom"objective" mium.Edward Said(1989)has been one amongmanyto makethis charge.It on of wouldbe naivethen to thinkthatan abandonment objectivism the part its moniedinterlocuwouldbe greeted with equanimity of anthropology by of tors, whatevertheir politics,or thatthe discomfort an audiencewouldnot in some fashiondiscomfitits paidperformers. and Yet anotherfactorto considerin assessing literature's anthropology's is divergentresponses to poststructuralism the specific modalitiesof the referredto some paragraphs from two disciplines' ago, pull-backs," "opposite and theirrespectivesubjectmattersof Canon Native.The key elementto conendswithrespectto to have siderhereis howthese pull-backs worked opposite the majordemographic changes that have only just begun to occur in the
academy. I refer, of course, to the formidableinflux (the tip of whose iceberg has only just been seen) into the academy of women, "out" gays, and above all scholars of African, Asian, Latino, and other non-First-World descents. It

356

RESEARCH OF JOURNAL ANTHROPOLOGICAL

. .)-malesinto the is clear that the entry of non-white-straight-European-(. has been tailor-made its movementto diversifythe high for literary academy Westerncanontowardsthe literaryOther.In contrast,anthropology's move coincideswith, or flows awayfromstudiesof the exotic Otherimpropitiously against,the tricklingentry of just those Othersinto its professionalranks (thoughperhapsthese Othersare just the peopleneededto go aboutstudysituationis furthercomplicated the again by ing "us").This demographic divergentreactionsof the two professionsto studies of the Otherconducted has bythe Other.The literaryestablishment been morethanwillingto hand literaturesto the sons over responsibility, authority,for noncanonical nay and daughtersof those traditions; hardlya wordof objectionis heardabout are their biasedpositions,and indeedif any bias-apologies made in literary at studies,they most likelycome fromthe gringosandnot the marginals the seminar.Take, for example,this list of presidentsof the officialDiscussion Association,as listed in a recent issue of Groupsof the Modem Language PMLA(ModernLanguage Association1992:727-28): MichaelPatrickGillespie Literature Anglo-Irish Asian-American Literature Sau-ling Wong ChicanoLiterature Jose DavidSaldivar Romanian DomnitaDumitrescu Studies and Scandinavian Language LiteratureSverre Lyngstad Ornote the authorsof the following paperspresentedat the 1991MLAConventionin San Francisco(ModernLanguage Association1991b): in Chicanos the Bay Area in the Early1900s:JorgeUlica's Cronicas diabolicas Cassidyandthe Hopalong Problem Jewish Ddcolonisation des ou colonisations: dilemme Le de linguistique l'intellectuel colonise Amharic versus Sayings:Official Folk (Interpretation) MariaMontesde OcaRicks

ShimonWincelberg AllaouaToumi

YonasAdmasu

In contrast to this, consider the diffident welcome extended by the anthropological establishment to "halfies" (the term is Kirin Narayan's, via AbuLughod 1991:161 n.1) who study their own heritage. Though it would be difficult to find any published examples of bias accusations leveled against

AND STUDIES ANTHROPOLOGY LITERARY

357

of an has (1991:116)writes thathis "combination birthrights produced interLila thatthe less observant mistakefor a dilemma"; might esting complexity devotes an entire articleto the "specialdilemmas" that (1991) Abu-Lughod such as herselfface;Arjun halfieanthropologists (1991:200)must Appadurai male ... turnedintohomoacademicus in confess thathe is "aTamilBrahman the United States";and finallyMichel-Rolph Trouillot(1991:19)feels obliof claims, gatedto writethat"minorities allkindscananddovoicetheircultural not on the basis of explicittheories of culturebut in the name of historical authenticity. They enterthe debatenot as academics--ornot onlyas academics .... ." Whatis surprising, though,is that these semi-defenseshave not come on the heels of Clifford Geertzconfessinghe was bornin SanFrancisco, she or SherryOrtneradmitting grew up in, say, the culturally skewingenvironmentof New Jersey. Theirprecursory defenses can only not-have-come becausethe professionhas not seriously,consequentially impliedthat those in factsmightsaddlethemwitha certain "bias" theiranthropological research." If one were to extrapolate fromthe recent halfiehalf-apologetics (whichdo not, it must be emphasized,get their impetusfromthe halfies),one might celebratedinformant to projectthat were Griaule's Ogotemmeli shift avocations and submita paperon the Dogonto be readat a futureAAAmeeting, there mightbe murmured (or allegations amongsthis reviewersof his "bias" "far frommybias"),andthey woulddeferto the "moreobjective" (or perhaps, on perhaps,"closerto my bias")Griaule this point.In short,andto returnto the overallpurpose of this analysis,the influx of historicallymarginalized peoples into the American academyvexinglygoes againstboth the subjectmattertrend and the still-extantthoughtheoreticallytroubledbias against It "nativebias"in anthropological research.12 is no surprise,then, thata nervous presentresults. A finalfactorto considerin diagnosing illness and apparent anthropology's healthis the sneaking literature's that must suspicion anthropologists apparent have: that literatureis enjoyinga false vigor, that its rise has been literally "a "fictional," literallyon paper,textual,builtup on referentlessfoundations, a heavyFrenchsauceovera badpiece of meat,"'3 freeplayof literary signifiers which,like the globalstock marketrun-upof 1982-87, will have its October crashwhen investorsrealizethatno substanceexists at its base. Ofcourseto assertionwould requireone to "takeon the dispute such a foundationalist whole literature," Latour as wouldsay;to rearticulate entiretheoryarguan textualnatureof history;to pointto the highlyconseforthe inescapably ing of interventions antifoundationalist political quential literarystudies(ofwhich the late-1980s Bloom-Bennett-Cheneycountercrusadewas the clearest and marker); to recallthat
fact and fiction are old acquaintances. . . . Fact comes fromfacere-to make or do. Fiction comes fromfingere-to make or shape .... But in what sense do things done or things made partake of truth or reality? A

358

OF RESEARCH JOURNAL ANTHROPOLOGICAL

thingdonehas no realexistenceonce it has been done.A thingmade,on the otherhand,exists untilit decaysor is destroyed. has Fact,finally, no realexistence, while fictionmaylast forcenturies.(Scholes1981:3) But all of these arguments have been mademore cogentlyby others elseandI can only gesture to them here. At the same time I also wantto where, discomfortwith a world thought entirely through respect anthropology's "text"-but my reasonis not finallytheoreticbut disciplinarily To economic. of Geertz'sphrases,in academic borrowone discoursewe are "vexingeach otherwithprofit" and 1986:256), it is my beliefthatover (quotedin Rabinow the past ten years the rise of the term "text"has unbalanced terms and the vexations,or trade."Text,"like all academic profitsof our interdisciplinary concepts,is a signifierwitha value-a coin, in otherwords:a coin whichhas no doubtbeen the strongestof recent currenciesand has spurreda fruitful but and globalcommerce, a coinwhose mintis staffedmainly literati, a coin by whoseproduction skillsnothistorically anthropologist's.14 privithe To requires is academy lege this "text"coinor conceptamongallothersin the humanistic thereforeto measurethat academy'sintellectualeconomy(andto denominate its debts) solely in the currencyof the dominant colonialpower.This or of one country'scurrencyis whathas been called(for the global hegemony America's It dollar) "extravagant privilege." is whatresults in anthropology's referredto earlyon. Andit is whatbringsus problem production indigenous to a provisional conclusion. CONCLUSION: REISSUING THE CURRENCY, RETAKINGTHE MINT As little qualified I am to speculateon the causes of anthropology's as nervous present,I am even less qualified propose solution its ills, that is, to to any for any comprehensive prescription its future.I believe that muchof whatI havesaidalready regardsto its presentconstitutesa kindof polemicabout in thatfuture.But I will offerone last closingand,I believe, not trivialobservationon thatfuture.I willnot repeatmy previouscontention anthropology that need not haveanytheory-angst; the argument it wouldbe wrongfor nor that it to do anythingbut embrace,in internaldialogics,its "biased" halfienewexamineits anxietyas anxiety, comers;northe suggestionthatanthropology pureandsimple.I will suggest,however,a theory(or story)by whichthe rise of literature the fall(toostronga word)ofanthropology and mightbe explained. It is a storywhose centralportionor climaxis outlined the endof the previat
ous section-literature owns the mint, denominatingthe intellectual economy in its own coin-but whose development and ddnouement, or future, have been neglected until now. Like most, this story begins with a loss: sometime during the past twenty

AND STUDIES ANTHROPOLOGY LITERARY

359

as as concept,"fiction" an years literarystudies lost Literature a motivating of exclusivecharacteristic thatconcept,andits canonas the privileged object methodolorealizedthatits distinctiveandproductive of study.But literature attentionto the nuancesandefmainly-a painstaking gies ("closereading," The writtenwords)couldbe applied aboutanywhere. fects of sequentially just and "text"arose to replaceLiterature, the result was that an encompassing worldbecamethat discipline's oyster;nothingwas left outsideof its domain, afflicted with the loss of was andboldlyit went forth.Anthropology similarly of as Cultureas its sure motivating concept,"fact" a characteristic that conof study.Whatanthropolas andits "exoticOther" the privileged object cept, practices ogy mustrealizeis thatsomewherein its heterogeneityof historical and must lurkalsoa moreor less essentialcore,distinctive massivelyproducto whichin its infinitevaritive, a methodological counterpart "closereading" that the worldcan be seen eties can also be appliedto just aboutanything; its through lenses andthatboldlyit cango forth.Whatliteratido most notably do a is read,but whatanthropologists extraordinarily-with history,on-site no tenacity,andphysicalcommitment other disciplinecan match-is watch, live, measure, interpret(participant-observation being the most renowned versionof this),not "text," well, life,behavior, conflict: perhaps and but, "practice" is the best andmost generaltermfor all that. Over the past several years, in response to the "crisis,"a wide arrayof discourse. Marcusand next-steps have been proposedin anthropological the the Fischer(1986)representsperhaps earliest"post-" proposal; contributions to the Fox volume (1991b,andtaken up in Escobar[1993])represent more recent, even "post-post-" propositions.Still other scholarshave adissues such as global/local framesof reference(e.g., dressedmethodological Marcus1989;'sAppadurai 1990), shiftingaudiences,new modes of writing, and or technological other cyber-subjects, more. And at the same time deof bates have continuedas to the currentviabilityor "rehability" olderpracas in Barbara Tedlock's(1991)reformulation participant-observation, of tices, the fieldwork (1986,1987)andhis manycriticsin Driessen disputesin Llobera et et al. (1987)andFernandez al. (1987),andmore.It is here, in the passingof postmodern insightsthroughthese latter dailypractices-for anthropology, its discursive otherwise,as much and like allotherdisciplines, set of practices, future.This is, as its epistemologies-that I believe rests an anthropological solutionto anthropology's currentperto be sure, not a deep metaphysical of a disciplinary strategythan it is a plex, and it is more the announcement of with actualtheorizations the social.But, in the end, it has been grappling that holdsno necessarysolutions. partof my argument metaphysics
"Observation of practice," then: not simply a retrograde move, nor a reparochializationof the discipline, a pretending that nothing had been written in Paris between 1966 and 1990-for as H.R. Haldeman said to John Dean in quite a different context in 1973, "once the toothpaste is out of the tube, it is awfully hard to get it back in." "Observation"as flexible but tenacious meth-

360

OF RESEARCH JOURNAL ANTHROPOLOGICAL

odology, and "practice"as transdisciplinarycoin. Old-fashioned,perhaps, but then again, no less old-fashioned than would be the accurate description of a burgeoning literary, even Culturalstudies, as the "readingof text." Practice, then, perhaps, will become a coin of the more general academic realm in the coming years. With such a realization in hand, anthropology's only missing ingredient might then be a fashionably French theorist, call him Jacques Bourdieuida (and why not?), gliding from conference to conference and mysteriously intoning that in anthropology as elsewhere, "il n'y a pas de horspractique,"or, "there is no outside-of-practice."

NOTES
1. I wouldlike to thankMichaelChorost,StanleyFish, RobertI. Levy, Richard readand FredMyers,William Fox,SangeetaLuthra, Reddy, twoexactinganonymous and ers for at once supportive resistantcommentson draftversions.A muchearlier Division of incarnation this paperwas presentedat the Anthropological Approaches of the ModernLanguage Associationannualconventionin New York,Demeeting fromthatpanel.I amof courseresponalso cember1992;I amgrateful to questioners This paperis forJulieByrne. sible for all shortcomings. 2. Phrasesfrom,respectively,Marcusand Cushman(1982:64),Said (1989:208), Rabinow Trouillot(1991:17),Fox (1991a:93), (1991:64),andGeertz(1988:11). of 3. Aconcentrated reminder thisformer-andnowquite foreign-sounding--scientism of in and canbe found the Introduction Tableof Contents the surveyof 1950s'anthropolshortintro(Kroeber 1953).Kroeber's Inventory Today: ogy,Anthropology AnEncyclopedic and as in of refersto anthropology a "science" overhalf its paragraphs callson "the duction and and "total natural methods fundamental of science," culture," "physics engineering," number external of science"of an infinite the ideaof anthropology a "co-ordinating as it of to which "forge this can together vastarray knowledge, hammer intoa set disciplines, revealsa substanA similar volume SolTax(1964) ofcoherent by interpretations." survey thereafter. tialdifference shortly only and 4. FromDerrida (1967, 1980). (1967:227) Foucault 5. Thisessay, againstmorecommon anthropological usage,willfavorthe narrower will over Here, "poststructuralism" the moreexpansive"postmodernism." the former and referto a rangeof (largelyFrench)theoretical programs stancesdevelopedsince West-driven 1967, while the latterwouldmore broadly signifya longer-lived global formation. bibliography bothtermsis of coursemassive.Inthis paper, The on cultural I am awarethat I am focusingmy attentionson poststructuralism's epistemological powerful critiqueof the subject.My thanksto William critique,leavingout its equally Reddyforpointingthis out. Culfor is 6. The earlyargument dialogism D. Tedlock(1979).Fora post-Writing B. see turedefense of dialogism, Page (1988)and,less directlybut morepowerfully, Tedlock(1991). of see 7. Fora morethorough reflexivity, Watson critique specifically anthropological (1987). that to 8. This is the famousepigraph Jameson(1972:i).I aminformed the original as is laterpublished TheWilltoPower,but quotation fromNietzsche'slate notebooks, for I havenot been ableto locatethe specificpassage.My thanksto Fredric Jameson

ANTHROPOLOGY LITERARY AND STUDIES

361

this information. 9. "Culture," course,hasbeen contestedforcenturies.Herder,forone, wrotein of the late eighteenthcenturythat "nothing more vexed thanthis term"(quotedin is Frantzen For semantichistoryof the term,see Markus 1990:xv). animportant (1993), andpriorto that,Kroeber Kluckhohn and (1952). 10. Robert Pool(1991)characterizes I (correctly, believe)mostlate-1980scritiques of anthropology's postmodernist turn as coming from one of two returnedfoundationalist eitherthe objectivist-positivist the Marxist-critical. pragor The camps: matistcritiquepresentedhere, I wouldsuggest, is neitherof these things.It rather and begins withinpoststructuralist assumptions takes them to their own theoretical domain pragmatics, politics.Thoughwritten of or limits,leavingone in the important of versuscognitive-linguistic one againsta backdrop materialist conceptions, mayread Harris(1974),in a sense, as a sort of protopragmatist. 11. For a too-infrequent see exampleof such an intonation, Asad's(1984)critique of Geertzfor theorizingreligionwithoutdiscussingChristianity. is the case that It Franz Boasdidaddress "native the bias"situation withregard Jewishscholars to studyhis to ing Jewish communities; relationship Judaismwas, however,quite complex. See Glick(1982). 12. Anincreasingly bodyofwriting, outside scopeofthispaper, the dealswiththe large and intellectuals Westernknowledge questionof non-Western See, production. forexof Saidin Ahmad ample,Said(1990)andthe critique an earlier (1992).I do not meanto that model "authentic" of scholimply mydiscussion I believethegoingliterary-studies by is to standard morecharacarlycultural authority necessarily superior the "externalist" teristicof anthropology. particular, In studies'privilege "authentic" of literary authority riskscultural Balkanization blindProtestants read/teach/understand can ("only Milton"), a and the function literature promoting falseessentialism devaluing important "bridging" hasalways offered. Thisgeneral is question farfromsettled. 13. GreilMarcus's reminiscent the last of (1992)phrase,coincidentally remarkably of (1969). paragraph ElmanService'sclassic "Mouthtalk" 14. For more on "text,"andliterarystudies'role in this concept'sexpansion,see Robbins (1987)andMowitt(1992). 15. The articulation the localandthe global Marcus's of in reessaybearsinteresting semblance the thoughtof PercyBarnevik, to chairman ABB Asea BrownBoveri,a of Swiss-Swedish industrial andone of the mosttransnational in giant companies the world. Barnevik his company calls "multilocal" assertsthat"weareat homein manyplaces, and butwe haveno home." Taylor the Harvard See in Business Review (1991).

REFERENCES CITED
AnthroL., Abu-Lughod, 1991,Writing AgainstCulture. 137-62 in Recapturing Pp. in pology:Working the Present (ed. by R. Fox).SantaFe, N.M.:Schoolof American Research Press. and and in Location Ahmad, 1992,Orientalism After:Ambivalence Metropolitan A., the Work Edward of Said.Pp. 159-219in In Theory:Classes,Nations,Literatures (by A. Ahmad). London: Verso. and in Cultural Public A., Appadurai, 1990,Disjuncture Difference the Global Economy. Culture 2(2):1-24. Notes andQueriesfora Transnational AnA., Appadurai, 1991,Global Ethnoscapes:

362

OF RESEARCH JOURNAL ANTHROPOLOGICAL

in Pp. thropology. 191-210in Recapturing Anthropology: Working the Present(ed. by R. Fox).SantaFe,N.M.:Schoolof American Research Press. and Encounter. and London Atlantic Asad,T.,ed., 1973,Anthropology the Colonial Press andHumanities Press. Highlands, N.J.:Ithaca of Reflections Geertz.Man on Asad,T.,1984,Anthropological Conceptions Religion: 18:237-59. 11:84-89. Barthes,R., 1968,Ieffet du reel. Communications S. New York: Beauvoir, de, [1949]1952,The SecondSex (trans.by H.H.Parshley). A. Alfred Knopf. Blackmur, [1935]1971,A Critic's of Work. 892-904 in Critical R.P, Job Pp. Theory Harcourt since Plato(ed. by H. Adams). New York: BraceJovanovich. pubOriginally and lished 1935in The DoubleAgent:Essays in Craft Elucidation R.P Blackmur), (by New York: Arrow Editions. Not Man(n.s.)2:5-25. Bulmer, 1967,WhyIs the Cassowary a Bird? R., of Burckhardt, [1968]1971,NotesontheTheory Intrinsic S., Interpretation. 1201Pp. 11 in CriticalTheory since Plato (ed. by H. Adams).New York:HarcourtBrace 1968in Shakespearean (by Jovanovich. published Originally Meanings S. Burckhardt), Princeton Press. Princeton, University N.J.: of New Trouble: Feminism the Subversion Identity. York: and Butler, 1990,Gender J., Routledge. 1:118-46. Clifford, 1983,OnEthnographic J., Authority. Representations Partial The Truths. 1-26 in Writing Culture: PoetClifford, 1986,Introduction: J., Pp. ics andPoliticsof Ethnography byJ. Clifford G. Marcus). and (ed. Berkeley: University of California Press. Culture: The PoeticsandPoliticsof Clifford, andG. Marcus, eds., 1986,Writing J., of Press. Berkeley: University California Ethnography. in The of V, Crapanzano, 1986,Hermes'Dilemma: Masking Subversion Ethnographic The 51-76 in Writing Culture: PoeticsandPoliticsof Ethnography (ed. Pp. Description. and of Press. byJ. Clifford G. Marcus). Berkeley: University California Paris: Editions Minuit. Les de Derrida, 1967,De la grammatologie. J., and Donoso,J., [1978] 1984, A House in the Country(trans.by D. Pritchard S.J. A. Alfred Knopf/Borzoi. Levine).New York: N. L. and Driessen,H., C. Giordano, Kielstra, Li Causi, de PinaCabral, J. Verrips, J. Fieldwork Southwestern in of 1987,Discussion: Europe, 2. Critique Anthropology part 7(2):77-99. Eagleton,T., 1983, LiteraryTheory:An Introduction. Minneapolis: Universityof Minnesota Press. Politicsin Anthropology's A., Escobar, 1993,The Limitsof Reflexivity: Post-Writing Culture Journal Anthropological Era. of Research 49(4):377-91. A. Fernandez, M. Herzfeld, Leeds, P Loizos,O.Pi-Sunyer, 1987,Anthropology J.W, andFieldwork: of 7(1):83-99. Responsesto Llobera, 1. Critique Anthropology part London: Verso. P, Feyerabend, 1975,AgainstMethod. of CommuFish,S., 1980,Is Therea Textin ThisClass?-The Authority Interpretive nities. Cambridge, Mass.:Harvard Press. University and Fish,S., 1989,DoingWhatComesNaturally: Rhetoric, the Practiceof Change, in Literary LegalStudies.Durham, and N.C.:DukeUniversity Press. Theory Cahiers Royaumont du 6:183-200.Paris: Foucault, 1967,Nietzsche,Freud, Marx. M.,

AND ANTHROPOLOGY LITERARY STUDIES

363

iditions de Minuit. M., (ed. Foucault, 1980, Truthand Power.Pp. 109-33 in Power/Knowledge by C. New York: Pantheon. Gordon). AnFox,R.G.,1991a,Fora NearlyNew Culture History. 93-113 in Recapturing Pp. in thropology: Working the Present(ed.by R. Fox).SantaFe,N.M.:Schoolof American Press. Research in Fox,R.G.,ed., 1991b,Recapturing Anthropology: Working the Present.SantaFe, Research Press. N.M.:Schoolof American New Language, English,andTeaching Old Frantzen, A.J.,1990,Desire for Origins: Press. New the Tradition. Brunswick, NJ.: RutgersUniversity New York: BasicBooks. of Geertz,C., 1973,The Interpretation Cultures. Calif.: as and Stanford, Geertz,C., 1988,Works Lives:The Anthropologist Author. Press. Stanford University Glick,L.B.,1982,TypesDistinctfromOurOwn:FranzBoas on JewishIdentityand American Assimilation. 84(4):545-65. Anthropologist of M., Harris, 1974,Whya PerfectKnowledge All the RulesOneMustKnowto Act of of Leadto the Knowledge HowNativesAct.Journal AnthropoLikea NativeCannot Research 30(4):242-51. logical in Pp. Hirsch,E.D.,Jr.,1967,Objective Interpretation. 209-44 in Validity InterpretaPress. Yale tion (byE.D. Hirsch, New Haven,Conn.: University Jr.). Uniof Princeton, N.J.:Princeton Jameson,E, 1972, The Prison-House Language. Press. versity Press. Cornell Unconscious. N.Y.: Ithaca, University E, Jameson, 1981,The Political of Demiseor Resurrection? 9(2):5Kahn, Critique Anthropology J.S.,1989,Culture: 26. An Inventory. Chicago: A.L.,ed., 1953,Anthropology Kroeber, Today: Encyclopedic Press. of Chicago University and A Reviewof Concepts 1952,Culture: Critical A.L.,andC. Kluckhohn, Kroeber, and Museumof American Definitions. Archaeology Ethnology, Papersof the Peabody Books. Mass.Reprinted vol. 47. Harvard 1963,Vintage University, Cambridge, of Revolutions. of University ChiKuhn, 1962,The Structure Scientific Chicago: T., Press. cago of of A., Society:Transformations an Illusion. Kuper, 1988,The Invention Primitive New York: Routledge. Revealabout What Fire,andDangerous G., Lakoff, 1987,Women, Things: Categories Press. of the Mind.Chicago: University Chicago ScientistsandEngineers Howto Follow through Latour, 1987,Sciencein Action: B., Press. Mass.:Harvard University Cambridge, Society. and of B. Latour, [1984] 1988, The Pasteurization France(trans.by A. Sheridan J. Mass.:Harvard UniversityPress. Law).Cambridge, of Facts. Life: 1979,Laboratory The Construction Scientific Latour, andS. Woolgar, B., Press. Princeton Princeton, University N.J.: Les devantle colonialisme. tempsmodernes58:357Leiris,M., 1950,Lethnographe de Mercure France. 74. Reprinted 1966,pp. 125-45 in Brisdes(byM. Leiris),Paris: Notes and Ethnography: Lim6n, 1991,Representation, J., Ethnicity, the Precursory in of a NativeAnthropologist. 115-35 in Recapturing Working the Anthropology: Pp. Press. Research Present(ed.by R. Fox).SantaFe,N.M.:Schoolof American

364

OF RESEARCH JOURNAL ANTHROPOLOGICAL

Panacea or in Llobera, Anthropological J.R.,1986,Fieldwork Southwestern Europe: of Anthropology 6(2):25-33. Critique Straitjacket? Epistemological of 7(2):101-18. Llobera, J.R.,1987,Replyto Critics.Critique Anthropology to the Efforts SituMarcus, 1989,Imagining Whole: G., Ethnography's Contemporary of ate Itself.Critique Anthropology 9(3):7-30. Common 1(1):8. Marcus, 1992,CallforPapers. G., Knowledge Reviewof AnandD. Cushman, as 1982,Ethnographies Texts.Annual Marcus,G., 11:25-69. thropology An as G., 1986,Anthropology Cultural Marcus, andM.Fischer, Critique: Experimental Momentin the Human of Press. Sciences.Chicago: University Chicago The An and of G., Markus, 1993,Culture: Making the Make-up a Concept: Essayin Historical Semantics. Dialectical 18(1):3-29. Anthropology Studiesandthe New PragmaMitchell,W.J.T., 1985,AgainstTheory:Literary ed., tism. Chicago: of Press. University Chicago Modern in Association, 1991a, Job-Market Job Language Changes the MLA InformationList.MLANewsletter23(2):6-8. Modern for in Association, 1991b, Language Program the 107thConvention SanFranPMLA106(6). cisco, California. Modern PMLA107(4). Association, 1992,Directory. Language of N.C.: Mowitt, 1992,Text:The Genealogy anAnti-Disciplinary Durham, J., Object. Press. DukeUniversity and Sense. Pp.42-47 in Nietzsche,E, [1873]1954,OnTruth Lie in the Extra-Moral The Portable Nietzsche(trans.anded. by W Kaufmann). York: New Penguin. in Page,H.E., 1988, DialogicPrinciplesof Interactive Learning the Ethnographic of Research 44(2):163-81. Journal Anthropological Relationship. of Pool,R., 1991,Postmodern 11(4):309-31. Critique Anthropology Ethnography? Are and Rabinow, 1986,Representations SocialFacts: P, Modernity Post-Modernity in Anthropology. 234-61 in Writing The Culture: PoeticsandPoliticsof EthnograPp. and of Press. phy (ed.byJ. Clifford G. Marcus). University California Berkeley: Late AnthroP, Rabinow, 1991,ForHire: Resolutely Modern. 59-71 in Recapturing Pp. in pology:Working the Present (ed. by R. Fox).SantaFe, N.M.:Schoolof American Research Press. A Ransom, [1934]1971,Poetry: Note on Ontology. 871-81 in Critical J.C., Pp. Theory since Plato(ed. by H. Adams). New York: Harcourt BraceJovanovich. pubOriginally lished1934in The World's New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. Body(byJ.C.Ransom), off Raritan Robbins, 1987,Poaching the Disciplines. B., 6(4):81-96. the Interlocutors. Critical Said,E.W,1989,Representing Colonized: Anthropology's 15:205-25. Inquiry World Intellectuals Metropolitan and Raritan Culture. Said,E.W,1990,Third 9(3):2750. New York: Oxford Press. Scholes,R., 1981,Elementsof Fiction. University Power: andthe Teaching English. of New Scholes,R., 1985,Textual Literary Theory YaleUniversity Press. Haven,Conn.: and Claimson AnthroScott,D., 1992,Criticism Culture: TheoryandPost-Colonial of 12(4):371-94. pological Disciplinarity. Critique Anthropology for Scott,J.W,1988,Genderas a UsefulCategory Historical Analysis.Pp.28-50 in Gender the Politics History J.WScott).NewYork: and of Columbia Press. (by University of Southwestern Service,E.R.,1969,Modelsforthe Methodology Mouthtalk. Jour-

AND ANTHROPOLOGY LITERARY STUDIES

365

nalof Anthropology 25(1):68-80. and Hobbes,Boyle, and S., 1985, Leviathan the Air-Pump: Shapin, andS. Schaffer, Press. Princeton the Experimental Princeton, Life. University N.J.: for of Alternative B.H.,1988,Contingencies Value: Smith, Perspectives Critical Theory. Press. Mass.:Harvard University Cambridge, W, Taylor, 1991, The Logic of GlobalBusiness: An Interviewwith ABB's Percy BusinessReview(March-April):91-105. Harvard Barnevik. AldinePublishing. of Tax,S., ed., 1964,Horizons Anthropology. Chicago: The of Observation Observation Participation: to Tedlock, 1991,FromParticipant B., of Research47(1):69Ethnography. Journal Anthropological Emergenceof Narrative 94. Anand Tradition the Emergenceof a Dialogical D., Tedlock, 1979,The Analogical Research of Anthropological 35(4):387-400. Journal thropology. and Trouillot, M-R.,1991,Anthropology the SavageSlot:The PoeticsandPoliticsof in Otherness.Pp. 17-44 in Recapturing Working the Present(ed. by R. Anthropology: Press. Research Fox).SantaFe,N.M.:Schoolof American Essenfor Watson, 1987,MakeMe Reflexive-But NotYet: G., Strategies Managing Research of Discourse. in tialReflexivity Ethnographic 43(1):29Journal Anthropological 41. Press. Mass.:M.I.T. and Cambridge, Whorf, B.L.,1956,Language, Thought Reality. [1949]1971,The Affective Pp. WK.,andM.C.Beardsley, Fallacy. 1022-31 Wimsatt, Harcourt Brace New York: in Critical Jovanovich. TheorysincePlato(ed.by H.Adams). and Icon (by WK.Wimsatt M.C.Beardsley), 1949 in the Verbal published Originally Press. of University Kentucky Lexington: