You are on page 1of 15


Missionaries versus Blind Justice in Rowboats:a Battle for Hegemony


History480 Dr. Baskerville 24 November I 1999

Early in RonaldWalters' article

'Signs of the Times' thereis a statement which, upon

it, encountering I thoughtdifticult to believe. Walterstells us that "a numberof today's scholars to yearsbelievinganthropology be the socialscienceclosestto passed their undergraduate history"(539). This was the oppositeof what I would haveexpected.The creatorof scientific anthropologywhose methodsand ideasdefine the 'prototypical anthropologist' was Franz Boas

(Cantor 136-137).Boasheld "that societies [were] not evolving . . .they simply [existed]. into one another.This is known as the synchronic Societies[were] not transformingthemselves (comparative)as opposedto the diachronic(historical) view of society"(Cantor136; emphasis mine). History and anthropology- at leastto early and prominent anthropologists were antithetical;logical enemies- how could they be close,intimate,in any way? Waltersexplains: to "Historians get their anthropologythrough Clifford Geertz,and references his work have the appearance being usedas window dressing]at times"(340). Walters doesnot stop there, [of I but Geertziscreditedwith many useful innovations, I will, because believethis one point
. .:

that anthropology for an suggests explanation this odd couplingof the two disciplines. I suspect is appealingto historiansso long as they take careto keep a certaindistance like window 'shop'. So doing, the historian is introducedto exciting watchers- and not enter the anthropology surpriseslike "an obscureepisode[being] madeto revealthe complexitiesof intercultural contact" Walters s4I),while still playing to, and thus not disturbing,the "anti-theoreticalbias Inside,however,closeto the hearthof the store,and the Boasnianheart amonghistorians"(553). of the anthropologicaldiscipline, historianscome too closeto anthropology'srotten core to avoid being repulsed. the Rotten isn't too harsha word, I think, because reactionof historianswho move beyond work on the Balinesecockfightsat one remove- i.e. gGeertz'sethnographical discussin as virtuesof thick description an idea without looking too closelyat the resultsof it as discussing a method- is that his work might havefoul implications. Foul, andnot misleadingimplications, from Geertzdo this more, I think, than because the because historianswho distancethemselves and a historicalone. It isn't that they betweenhis approach, they seemajor incompatibilities

don't seeincompatibilities - most of thesehistoriansactually go further and arguethat because is Geertz'smethodof thick description static, is thereforeunreal but there is a degreeof overreactionin their rejection of Geertz;a certainamount of testinessdetectablein and an elementof dogmatismcharactenzingtheirexplanationof what is really their responses; true (the 'hard' realities:changes that I believe throughtime; political and economicstructures)

and worth exploring(Biersack:80; Walters:549). are suggestive It is as if part of what they are doing in respondingto Geertzis simultaneously compartmentalizingor caging certainthoughtsarising from Geertz's descriptionof the Balinese cockfights - an attemptto erect a 'hard' barrier to a "danger, [the] aestheticizingof all domains

'hard surface' moorings"(Biersack [and a] transformation[which] cuts the symbolic free from its o'cause concern. . . that there are for as 81). Why? - perhapsbecause, Walters notes,there is a in and politically loadedprecedents his [Geertz'sftreatmentof power"(553-554). If dangerous to so, then perhapsit isn't unreasonable wonder if we ought to move beyond an analysisof the good and bad aspectsof particular disciplines' methodstowards an analysisof the motivations of the scholarsfor choosingor avoiding particular methods. Do historiansemphasize importanceof thesethings are indisputably through participation,because changeover time, transformations implications of other methods? they thereby avoid the dangerous real and relevantor because The primary concernof all scholarsis the truth . . . isn't it? Before I explore the possibility that it isn't, or at least not primarily, I want to provide some examplesof how I believe somehistorianstry to contain or limit the influence of Geertz as much through rhetorical style or rhetorical intimidation as through analysis indeed,I believe that in many casesGeertzis refuted primarity by rhetorical manipulation. Aletta Biersack,who I've alreadyquoted as warning about the aestheticizingof all domains,arguesthat Geertz's method e becaus we live in a time "when Foucault's work of symbolic transformationsis inadequate us impresses with the ubiquity of the political function [and thusJsuch claims are especially mine). In my mind, this is argumentby intimidation - to agreewith vulnerable"(81;emphasis Geertzyou will find yourself out of stepwith the majority of scholarsor at least all reasonable

'usoto mean). (I that is who Biersacktakes scholars am guessing Most of Bernard Cohn's article has what he would call a playful (and I think mocking) tone his he turns'serious'with while discussing'anthropologyland'and'historyland'until explorationstoward an anthropologicalhistory. Here he statesthat : No matter how much the anthropologistmay be committed to the studying from the natives'point of view, what he or shelearnsis alwaysmediatedby a subtle or not so subtlecomparativemethod. This method,though, is studiesare necessarily atemporal,despitethe fact that the culture.:he peopleeverywhere they are constantlybeing constructed: historical because of the past.Cultureis continuallybeing out live lives which are constituted invented or modified, without being totally transformed. Men live in a world Intention and action are turned into culture by of intention and consequence. history.QI7) This is of coursea theory - but theory disguisedas truth with the help of a changein tone by the author. Hans Medick praises Geertzbut warns, like Walters does,of Geertzianethnologists,and that Cohn "perhapstoo modestlypointed only to [the dangersofl ethnographers' suggests mine). With Medick if you agreewith ethnologists emphasis ahistoricalways of seeing"(76: 'missionary in a row boat'. I from either the anthropologyor history discipline then you are a believe that this is the kind of derogatorylabeling (much like psychohistorybeing labeled the ,potty training theory of history'( althoughI admit I like to usethis label myself - I think its scholarsaway. Medick, like Cohn, follows with a funny)) that could scareimpressionable dogmatic assertionof 'reality'. He statesthat the "meaning under the conditions of

asymmetrically structuredsocial contextsof action and interpretationis neverjust inherited, mine). You almostwantto agreewith him because' and transmitted"(97;emphasis reproduced as RenatoRosaldosays,it almost compels [the] readerto plead,"Please,pleasecut off my hand, don't subjectme to your disciplining gaze"(338).There is a but don't give me the Panopticon, to sensethat the readermight agree agreewith theseauthorsas a way to relieve anxiety. 'real' way the world works without feeling the need The authorsI have mentionedpresentthe

to explain how they know this is the

'truth', and not simply one way of seeingthe world. If they

this truth is obvious then it is unclearas to why Geertzneedsto be refuted at such do so because After all, if everythingin the world is always means. length,and by suchquestionable of otherwise?Our own experience transforming,alwaysin motion, how could anyoneassume the flux of the world should be enoughthat thesehistoriansneedonly ask their readerto go read Geertzto limit his influence. are transformations not always evident, or at least not always I would arguethat it is because 'overreactions'. If we worthy of the importancethesehistoriansassignthem, that we get such observethe Balineseand 'see' ritualsthat seemcyclical or if by staying"within the viewpoint of

the protagonists[which thereby] diminishesthe social,political, and economic context" (Walters 555)we might imagine that "studying societyfrom the bottom up [doesnotf necessarily[lead] to and expropriationsof various and the natureof control mechanisms the study of ruling classes kind"(Cohn 218). In fact, it makesyou wonderif it is lessGeertz'svirtue that for him thereis ,,no such thing . . . as disembodiedhistoriesof ideas" as Walters suggests, and more his vice that their own truths as to thesehistorianshe exposes or accuseGeertz, at leasthis followers,as being. the Walters recognizes ironical propositionthat ethnographycan be a misleading enterprise it is after all the study of peopleclose up: an antidote to armchairtheorists but to him "human of their own situationand its patternsof beings are not always the most accurate lufges exploitation and submission"(555). Cir(is Martin, in the introduction to the American Indian by and the problem of History, statesflat out what this statement Walter;could suggest: arrogance:"We have createdcanonsof reality, truth, credibility, and evidenceof what constitutesfact . . . identified and interpretedcertainpoints of referencewithin the human the psyche"(7) which hasus " colonizingthe Indian's mind, like a virus commandeering cell's us geneticmachinery"(6; emphasismine). Martin accuses of being "fired by a kind of we ethnocentricrighteousness: believe our scienceof humankindis the most powerful analytical tool yet invented"(13). 'soft' - as lacking the roots to reality as they 1.


According to Martin our pride hasus "maintainthatthey [Indians],like us, did tastethe fruit and that they, too, were expelled "of the tree of the knowledgeof good and evil" (Genesis2:17) strugglewith from the Gardeninto a world whereHomo is convincedthat survival is a ceaseless a mute and indifferent cosmos" (I2). "We make them into a "people of history": assignthem our terms and conceptionof living in time and space,our commitment to changingreality and refusingthem "a changinghumanityover the ages. We, too, poseand then doctorthe negatives, with the white at the basic theaterfor tribal eventsin mythic time" (16). "The native is equated level of human motivation and self-interest"(10) and thereforewe do not recognizethat "Native to Americans traditionally subscribed a philosophyof history, and of time, profoundly different from ours and that of our forebears"(6). According to Martin, Indians are tational they are else's someone judges of their own situation;"the problemis they are being assigned accurate rationality"(10). :- More is the pity, accordingto Martin, because until we recognize"the truth of Paul Radin's once and for all, of the curious notion that conviction that until scholarsrid themselves, an everything possesses evolutionary history; until they realizethat certain ideasand certain 'no progress will be achieved"'(20). are. . . ultimatefor man. . . concepts and when he usesthe word Now Martin is referringto Native Indians,not the Balinese, 'we'

or he is not discriminating betweenanthropologists historians;but he meansto generalizein the sameway Cohn doeswhen Cohn melts the distinctionsbetweendisciplinesdefining them both as the study of 'otherness'.Therefore,I feel it is appropriate bring him into this essaywhich to

to is primarily abouthistoriansand their response Geertz'sstudyof the Balinese. It is also suits my purposeto shift the focus from method choice to the motivations of those scholarswho use that when of them. Martin is accusingscholars being proud;and by so doing he insinuates encounteringcultureswith world views different from their own that we be skepticalwhen they of dismisstheseviews as ignorant. The importance avoidingthe possibility of being wrong, or to have his/her opinions groupedinto a world view, one no betterthan others,to a proud person he/shecomesto. might shapethe conclusions especially,


I the thatit is pridewhichbestcharacterizes historians havebeendiscussing. I do not believe work, of by repulsed the implications Geertz's seem that After all I havesuggested historians other that rottento them,surelysuggesting something andthat the coreof his work might seem be whatI think mightinstead involvedby or morethanprideis involved. I think I canexplore and Martin'sview that"the reverberations our stubborn strictlyheldwestern [of considering robbed thatwe "havethereby including(quotingDrinnon), viewsof timel areenorrnous"(6) mine). emphasis people"(16; these surelystrangle of tribal people their reality [andthereby] seriously, for that Martin believes therearetenibleconsequences not takingothercultures the therefore toneof his articleis oftenangryandalarmist- andthusnot dissimilarfrom the tone the If I've discussed. he is correct, toneis certainlyappropriate; andrhetoricof the otherarticles werepotentially ences takingthemseriously is but whatwe mustconsider thatif theconsequ for I to of asterribleasfor not doingso,then thereactions the historians GeerJzthat havepreviously and eactions but ratherasboth appropriate could not fairly be thoughtof asoverT discussed Martin'sview thatwhatis primarilyat issuehere If sensible. true,it shouldleadusto reconsider Martin andthe otherhistorians between meltingthe distinctions consider is pride,and,instead, with I,ve dealtwith andthink of themall assimil{iity concerned justice:we aredealingwith the But good,not proud,scholars. if this is true,we mayalsoneedto takeseriously possibility that politicalimplications, they to uncover'truths'thatseem havedangerous thatwhenscholars or doneconsciously whether transformations, mightmakesubtleor evendramatic 'truths' into less'dangerous' good to forms. If so,andin reference these of unconsciously, these the thoughtof Martin's:"thoughhe speaks words another we scholars, maywantto contemplate and is his his charity,andsympathy, philosophy, metaphysics mischievous of benevolence, (4). ultimatelydestructive" with agreeing perhaps Martin'sareaof study(NativeAmerican history)- asMartin admits, if the in behindotherhistorians employing newapproaches Horsman "hadn'tlagged Reginald of that andtechniques havebegunto transformwriting on otherareas Americanhistory" and theirapproaches his own (9). Martin between somesimilarities he might haverecognized


maintainsthat there are antagonisticand irreconcilabledifferencesin their two core philosophies; namely, as alreadymentioned,differencesin conceptionsof time and space.But the philosophicalinfluence that is largely prevalentin current histories,and certainly prevalentin to thesearticles in response Geertz,is often a mixture of Antonio Gramsci and Michel Foucault. Although both philosophersfocus on processand change,especiallywith Gramsci there is the sensethat the result of all this changewill be a final 'throwing off of chains': a rise of the

to which has a utopic, timelesssense it. You sensethis most dramatically in Rosaldo's oppressed article, where it seemsthat an event of this kind is very close. She saysthat: the aftermath of decolonization has stimulated further changesin the disciplines. Changesin the postcolonialworld have becomeincreasingly evident in metropolitancentersthroughoutthe world. The hinterlandshave engulfed urban centerand the third world has imploded into the first. and culturesnow live side by side in Different races,ethnicities,languages, Jakarta,Paris, Lima, London, Bombay, and Manhattan. In the state of California, demographersestimatethat twenty years from now the state's population will be sixty percentminority...In this context it should probably and come as no surprisethat when ethnographers "natives" meet it is difficult will pick up the pencil and who will put on the loincloth...In such to predict who contexts yesterday's solid truth now appearsto be a partial truth or the dominant ideologY.(339-3aO) Rosaldois writing in protestof the comforting effect of Geertz's absurdimage of the discipline of history being devoured by the anthropological rabbit. Her dramatic responsein demonstrating the potency of the anthropologicalchallenge,has somethingof the samepopulist, revolutionary senseas Martin's protestfor us to:

the that of in Pause this greatmission oursto remindourselves in studying who hassurvived the species of with a member AmericanIndianwe aredealing for survived all thosemillenniawith aswe haveon this planet, equallyaslong second of levelof insight,andsophistication perception of a refinement intellect, the and scrutinized pondered great to none. Thesepeopleandtheir ancestors just ascomplete and answers and issues produced cosmicandexistential pointto than evenmoresatisfactory ours...The as satisfactory ours. Perhaps waseverybit as cultures Indian of orientation American be madeis that...the paradigm.The proof anthropological the and reasonable Western


is that Indians survived;they reproducedand thrived. (8) Biersack,too, can be interpretedas if she believesthat the "globally and geopolitically... structuresof domination" which have silencedpeoplefor too long are vulnerable;and that these voices are becominglouder and louder and now finally being heard(52). She saysthat "each field . . . is today a site of theoreticalexcitation where multiple traditions battle for hegemony. Theseconflicts provide the fertile soil out of which eachdiscipline is presentlystruggling to views are winning this hegemonicbattle? createits own future"(73-74). Which philosophical According to Biersack it is Foucaultand Marx. And so we might extrapolateand say that capitalisticsystem" has somedog days aheadof Biersack's "transnational,Western-dominated, it (83). I I believe that there is sentimentof this kind at work in pretty much every response to encountered Geertz. I want to usethis point to suggestthat Martin is wrong to think that ze historiansare incapableof imagining a timelessexistence,and emphasi thatthere ate tactical for reasons not doing so. Martin is correctthat the new philosophicaltrendsput his view of 'backw ater' existence- the parochial 'missionary in a rowboat' view - but native life into a do perhapsincorrect that thesenew approaches a disserviceto the peoplesstudied. The old 'hot'

/ 'cold' divisionsof culturesis no longer popularor respectable they seemchildishly simple and mystical. Thereforewhen Martin applaudsscholarswho are "implicitly engagedin a revolt againsttime and history [seekinga] timelesswisdom of the human species[and who] are not 'history,' as it is conventionallyunderstood:the collection looking for, nor looking to compose, and interpretationof facts and data in the serviceof academicknowledge" (16), they all come acrossas,well, 'insane'.Yet this is arguablywhat historians who cite Foucault,Marx, and

Gramsci are doing - only they manageto remain respectable. 'cold' conception cultureswas oncehegemonic."Cultural anthropology of The old 'hot'/ grew up as part of a humanistic,reformist, and vaguely radical protest. It was the war against social scientistsin the United statesto reject evolutionary racism that predisposed

'hot' culturescould work in oppositeways to western'cold' cultures 67). So theories"(Lasch: (including being atemporal)and be deemeddifferent but equal. Peoplelike MargaretMead pushedfurther, like Martin does,and claimed that 'hot' cultureswere in many ways superiorto

'cold' ones. The 'hot'/ 'cold' distinctionwas an invitation to suspend disbeliefand imagine,like Margaret Mead did, that infanticidal culturesraisedtheir children betterthan we did because disbeliefis their children weren't spanked.But I believethat today,the willingnessto suspend lessprevalent. thick descriptionsof such things as cockfights Scholarsnow have to deal with ethnographic just one of many different but from people like Geertzwhich are not as easily characterizedas his equal ways of doing things. Geerlzdescribes own method of analysisas textual, and as I have noted, it has beenrefutedfor its aestheticproperties;but really, when you read the actual accountof the cockfight its difficult not to consciouslyor unconsciouslythink that this is a pretty behaviouror savageritual, and only perverselyaestheticif at all. It's not simply the aggressive the waste of animal life which disturbs,there is the whole matter of the exclusion of the women from the ritual to deal with, and'addme"where feminists and Marxists find oppression"and 166). "symbolistsfind meaning"(Biersack philosopherslike Foucault and Gramsci provide an out. You can read descriptionsof cockfights, allow yourself to be disturbedby what you encounter,and not assumethat there is not somethingdeeply wrong with the people. Instead,they are oppressed; wholly aware of other of yet possibilities; not passiveeither:slowly, but surely,they are in the process emancipating echoedby Biersackand others, themselves.So you get repliesto GeertzbyWilliam Roseberry, to at that the cockfight should be understood, least partially, as a kind of resistance colonialism the because Balineseregardtheir islandas taking the shapeof "a small proud cock, poised,neck Java"(1021). extended,back taut, tail raised,in eternalchallengeto large, reckless,shapeless And, unfortunately,what you also get is very liule extrapolationof exactly how this to resistance colonialism can be observedin Geertz's descriptionof the cocKight. Instead,there are the warnings of 'dangerousimplications' of taking Geertztoo seriously. Like, I wonder, the


1965,duringthe of notethatin "two weeks December Geertz's of danger takingseriously forty andeightythousand between coup following the unsuccessful in Djakarta, upheavals thattheirtraditionof the of werekilled, largelyby oneanother", whichhe says Balinese to less if seem not lessappalling, like a contradiction the cocldight"shouldmakethis massacre and this that lawsof nature-(4s2). I suggest it is difficult not to encounter statement readit asif to are to acre the mass wasn'ta contradiction their nature.Scholars morelikely nowadays think 'hot'/ 'cold' culturaldivide,namelythatall cultures of sincewhatremains theold sothemselves, but otherpeoples, is that suggests we becarefulin makinganyclaimto understand arecomplex, once as not aseffectivein wardingoff judgements the old cry of ethnocentrism was. rotten, and is methods in a sense I Therefore, arguethat the coreof currentanthropological of thatthis rot couldcomrptthe healthydevelopments concern that thereis a genuine his has Geertz hadan impacton historians; namehas historians. enlightened progressive, ,.cropped in articles subjects far removed family life in earlymodern Europe, as as on up prussian and in differences England, deathin colonialnewEngland"(Walters regional ideology, work offersthe mostplausible "Geertz's declaring: RichardBeeman Waltersquotes 537). of the point . . . for the 'new socialhistorian'.. . in discovering character both starting 'structure"'(538). Geettz's at comes a time hegemony But community'values'andcommunity and are and like scholars Foucault Gramsci at leastasprominent reputable whenanti-bourgeois aestheticism [that as historians he is. In a way it doesallow for a "a kind of sociological amongst but is suggests truewith Geertz not of touchwithl the hardsurfaces life"(80) asBiersack loses an systems; evil so are truewith Foucault.All peoples victimsof the globalcapitalistic see its escapes influence.Somehistorians that so oppressive, omnipresent, no activityor person ,fightingcocks'everywhere, islands "untothemselves in not or [not] placed localframesof of within structures domination"(Biersack globallyandgeopolitically . awareness. . but situated Geertz's in havealargeinfluence the universities, and 82).So long asFoucault Gramsci thatif tealize Waltersespecially, historians, But is influence not reallya danger. someof these like evershiftsin favourof conservatives J.C.D in for the struggle hegemony thedisciplines


is knowsthathegemony a gamemorethanonecan (who PafiickJoycesays Clarkin England likesto usemilitary (who,according PeterBaskerville, to in play),or Granastein Canada massacres, relateit to Balinese cocldight, like they metaphors), couldpointto episodes Geertz's as andmakethe casethat what we haveherearepeoplewho arebestnot understood rational 'native' - at all. As Martin says, potential reverberations are " the whether'western'or 'truth' thatis takenfrom Geertz's minded conservative cocldights, If enonnous"(6). this is the by influenced his work, at pre-modern studies otherhistorical mightlook to all these scholars bearbaiting,witch burning,sheep and peoples example, saythattheir wife sales, for European 'people oncethought.The theft,food riots wereaboutasinational- savage aspatricians the withouthistory'couldbecome 'mob' onceagain.

like at is Clark,for example, already work doingsomething this: he saysthatthe English very little. They areasreligious, havein fact changed people overthe lastfew centuries to according Clark,is ago. Progress, as locallyoriented, theywerecenturies conservative, is ritualistic;andchange largelyin the mindsof a are largelyan illusion;processes statically this thatwe consider aspossible like few. But he doesnot believe, Martin does, revolutionary with fellow Clark shares an that evidence theyhavediscovered idealway to live. Instead, in historianNormanStonethe drearyview of humannatureadvanced Stone's conservative MackaY's to introduction Charles century...we in have Somevery oddmanifestations appeared thetwentieth 'rights' on the who demand minoritygroups of the haveseen emergence In responsibilities. the wake ratherthanpresent grounds pastgrievances of not the requirement to be insulted- andthe rise has of thesedemands come that languages havebeencenturies whichreduces of 'politicalcorrectness' to enthusiasms alterstates Sudden levelof primness. a'giowingto a childish - for goodor ill - for centuries havesweptthrough of-affairsthat haveendured of and of The opponents child abuse the advocates and nations continents. throughhistoryhave whereevilsthathaveendured animalrightsareexamples are examples numerous' notice...The cometo theforefrontof human suddenly things theymanaged to to and disturbing, seem be peculiar our age. Surely, of the befferin the past?Well, no, theydidn't. Of necessity, oddities our age Popular arepeculiarto it, but morein detailthanextent. Extraordinary

12 today asit waswhen of and Delusions the Madness Crowdsis asrelevant only in folly changes human and it waswrittena century a half ogo,because (vi) detailnot in scale. nonsense. dangerous of to I would do prettymuchanything limit the influence this pessimistic, includingthe menandwomenpossibly wouldmanyotherdecent And so,too, I believe, this throughout essay. I historians havebeendiscussing I Honestly, wouldprefernot to, but if aftersomemoralistic Would I everlie, or mislead? a of a I calculus concluded lie wouldbe a kind of smallevil put in service defeating very big one, a wouldeveradmitto this (not necessarily bad I think I would. I don't think thatmanyscholars tr:* placingcluest"ililJfrks thing)but I canstill imagine from readers to meant dissuade

dangerous, are conclusions deemed these primarilybechusb comingto certainconclusions.lDone and of but selfjustified by a rendering themasboth dangerous untrue.lBut if I am correctabout we implications, wherethetruthhasdangerous justicetakingprecedence truth,in a case over if shouldn'tbe too surprised we find thatladyjusticeis blind. to missinspiringpeople takethe scholars of the But if by emphasizing dangers Geertz, it or into experience the archive library"(22I),asCohnsuggests, would be a "anthropological the to "enables historian befferappreciate the thatthis experience realloss. Cohnsays true,but I to appear be meretrivia" (22I). Probably of significance whatwouldotherwise loss,would be to an and that suspect the moreilluminatingexperience, therefore evengreater abouta people andthentakethe of takethe 'library experience' the experience reading by described to one: anthropological visitingthemyourself seewith your own eyesthe activities 'saw' wasquitedifferentfrom thatof or anthropologists historians.If you foundthatwhatyou the accepted author's who you read'saw',andif you hadinitially unquestioningly the person a can that view, you mightbe powerfullyreminded two people witness similar eventandyet see by simplyenough crediting can suchdifferentthings. It may bethatthe difference be explained truism: eyeswide think of another but of 'globalizingforces'; you may instead it to the effects barrier open,you seea wink; eyeswide shut,you seewhatyou wantto see. History'sgreatest


betterandbetter goal Our its is not necessarily pastness. greatest mightnot be to discover our maywell be thatour own biases, secret to methods helpus 'see'the past.But our darkest of whatwe 'see' regardless the mighttransform our for own motivations studying subject,
of or methodswe use and the abundance, absence, particularkinds of evidencewe work with.


where Geertzsees,.,#, are with Martinthatthe "reverberations enonnous": [, again,agree
lr -.-+e-*-4'" d

pry"norogvi.[""[il'ild;,{ in My I meaning, suspect,,avma. readings developmental

tenibl,n"urui56;,?;#or6;til;#tt peopre have through who rived doubtrhat

{*' ',:w\rfi"


in repeatinga replica of the original traumatizingexperience an effort to control and deflatetheir L*il ,,"/ free floating memories.They havetrouble growing, trouble maturing,andlead lives that not a \J*^[ tlem, as peoplestrangles a ",i r[ I singlehumanbeingshould.I don't tlink thatmisunderstanding ,,#" " of Martin believes,but I do believethat it may amountto an abandonment them. ..i' But this dreamingatleist hasa vision of his own timelessutopia;and it is a happyand holy the havedefeated badones,put down their place: the good 'hegemoners'
I t.,t*l"4 ""

'weapons',picked up

of and Fo\riditions of Psychohistory?), asa new generation their .bibles, (Lloyd deMause's havesetoff in rowboatsto help savepeoplefrom their terible painsfar too bravemissionaries, long iglored.





BIBLIOGRAPHY NormanCantor,The AmericanCentury:Varietiesof Culturein ModernTimes.New York: lW7. HarperCollins, New York: BasicBooks, World: the Family Beseiged. [,asch,Havenin a Heartless Christopher

of and Delusions the Madness Crowds.Ware: Mackay,ExfiaordinaryPopular Charles I99s. WordsworthRlitions Ltd., d*is, Martin, The AmericanIndianandthe Problemof History.Oxford: Oxford University 1987. Press,
6 6r.linr