Q ity of Florida Interlibrary Loan ‘iversi Uni 8 5 3 Zz z 3 Borrower: FHM Lending String: ‘FUG,FUG,FDA,FGM,GUA Patron: Yelvington, Kevin Journal Title: Ethnos, Volume: 47 Issue: 1 Month/Year: 1982Pages: 1-35 Atticle Author: Article Title:_Getholm, Tomas and Ulf Hannerz; Introduction; The Shaping of National Anthropologies. Imprint: London [etc] Routledge on behalf of the ILL Number: 36425178 Call #: GN1 E88 Location: WEST PER DLL Charge Maxcost: $20.001FM Shipping Address: Univ of South Florida- Tampa- 1765362 University of South Florida 4202 E Fowier Ave Tampa, FL 33620 TPA Fax: (813) 974-3016 131.247.113.22 : illreqs@lib.usf.edu Notice 10 READER: ‘To captht iofth Uniea Sata ie 17, Une tte rr the making of photocoples or ether reproducion af cpynghed aera Unde eran conations specified nthe law rares and archives are ‘auherized to furnish a photocopy or other reproduction. One ofthese specled conditions fs reproduetion sna tobe used foray purpose cer tan [rv study, echolarship, or esearch a use! makes 8 ‘equest fr oF ater uses, a photocopy or reproduction for [urposes in excess ofa de that uoor may beable or cBpyright infringement. These matrale are made avaible {ore educatonal purposes of students enolod at University of Florida. No further reproduction, wansmission, ‘ot electronic dictbuton ofthis materia sparedKaunoo e ur surdiosyp ay) ulIpE Ayssparp Jo saai8ap isisiBojodosyiue Jo Suuren pue punoi#y2eq onstaisereyp ayp ‘soununod suasayyyp us oumDnaNE qurapeoe yo sonisexinaad ayy :uoruido jo aust 40 ry8no%p Jo afk ‘uoR ‘ennis jeuoneu ay; Jo A#orodoatpue uo aouanygut yp — soiSojodostpure jewoHr ‘eu snouies ay 01 sg{9ads 8101985 agfoaus as1n09 jo jl" Suorisanb mo Jo KUED Asaydyiog pur say asorovut jo snutod sofeur 210s 24 01 2421 ame yous 0 yproys Areurunyord w aduronve q ansst 9g) 107 ayqysuodsox Ayers ‘onipa taq aXe] Ol IM sakOUILHOD K4OINpONUL BoH> UT “OHO}FTP S19YO Us “fens sXe autos ur mo wana Katp “sauma|no puk sapRuNLAOD se Up 8 As ojodosypue yeuonen adeys y>qys 490105 auf Jo autos Jo Zurpueasiapun we sy sxowqine ano jo stioyj9 pautquio) ayy wosy aB1uH9 im acon ax veya, “IeL ‘edos passnosip aq 01 1ysino epeueD auoydoysuy pure 29qan% reU paeape tuooq Suisey ‘suonnquiues os axey| am EpeueD Worg) ,“sUONEL UO HH toy pooped se autjdiasip ay) Kesuod em — uapang pur [eg “epeUED depng 2x9 “puejod ‘eIpuy — saununo> xis toss sHojodonpuy “ASoodoxp tue reanayno pue yelp0s feuoreuaaru Jo Aals:244p pue Aaxun Jo s9seq a4 OWE Suumnbut ase am 104 saojodonpiue so jjenise 19 “ABojodosypue jo KBoyod. ‘one ue ‘4Sojodospueesou s|ws92u0> smo ‘sou yo ans edad sep ty (er 6261 weurpooag 25une Hs) squjodwats euopee jo Sufernyd si uy Syasioaud ay SBoqodosyrae jo axmvew yesm|n> Suva pur wseuoneusoius ay2 vey Xopesed Suiquosqe ue se pondie 99 prno> 3! apons “wpoanpons jo fasion ruauunpy fi pu ujoysay somo 6 sa1sojodoryjuy [euoneN, jo 8urdeys ayy, ‘uoNonponUy eat TvHOWWY “opmissyugny wy ssosu~E) 2 sat SuRay “My 2anqng on ist apuy sreuouoy sof 9R¥nayg s194 1 Ud SMOTAIY ye el saeeadeaae aeeaeeeeeaeeent(6 Tomas Gerholm and Ui Hannere long-term trends; and so forth. But to begin with, we should give some atten. tion to the larger whole, the "world order of anthropology”. If international anthropology is defined by the plurality of national view- points, as suggested by the late Maurice Freedman in the quotation above, these viewpoints hardly carry equal weight. Look at any of the recent texts on the history of anthropology (they are almost all American). There are some noteworthy Germans in the nineteenth century, but after that almost only the British, the French, and the Americans. Take a quick look at a book named Rementing Anthropology (Hymes 1972). Obviously what is being re invented is American anthropology. Listen in discreetly for instance at some ‘more or less chance encounter berween a Scandinavian anthropologist and an Indian colleague, meeting each other for the first time. Quite possibly they will try to place one another by way of common acquaintances at Chica go or Cambridge, rather like Australian aborigines identifying each other by searching for kinship links when they mect as strangers, It scems that the map of the discipline shows a prosperous mainland of British, American, and French anthropologies, and outside it an archipel ago of large and small islands — some of them connected to the mainland by sturdy bridges or frequent ferry traffic, others rather isolated, On the mainland, people can go through their professional lives more or less unaware of what happens on the islands. ‘The reverse seems not so often to be the case. If international anthropology to a great extent equals Ameri can + British + French anthropology, in other words, then these national anthropologies need hardly take external influences into account to more than a very limiced degree. To find a more intricate interplay between na tional and international anthropology, and perhaps also some tension be toween them, we have to go ashore on some of the islands, This is what we hhave chosen to do in this issue. (Although Stocking, based at the University of Chicago. offers the final remarks from the mainland). ‘To put it bluntly, one of our interests is in the inequalities of international anthropology; in the ways the strong influence those relatively weaker. For such purposes, itis tempting to draw on recent thinking about "center and periphery”, or (with more particular implications) “metropolis and satellite”? Such conceptual adoptions, however, must not be made uncriti cally, and for the moment we must emphasize that we will use these terms loosely. without committing ourselves to entire analytical packages. Anyway, it may be one of the advantages of these terms that through their connota tions we are sensitized to “the big picture”, to the interconnections between ‘on one hand relationships among nations, on the other hand relationships among national anthropologies, and more generally perhaps to the entangle ment of facts of macrosociology and microsociology. As far as British, French, and American anthopolo of then, their research tadtont Mery good at what they are doing 7 the peripheries, and conte anihopologee But they have not dy ther infunce continues tobe linkages between nations "The point mos often made aon especially in Abdel Ghatfar Ahmed ology i a child of colonialism, an Collaboration bern anthropotog the wali of the general argument fis if France and Great Britain Stats its inernal colonies of Nati ped such aang anthroploge c tags concerning te reatontip be Very moment, however, ogc, more or lee context csonial connections. What we national anthropology include from a colonie ‘ne can look ar this strata less in network terns, a kindof anthopolages, and snthroplogs teres national boundaries, fa Grersimpifiation, what we have (a) metropolitan andhropeogi goes on at home, oF pos (0) the anthropologists ofthe peo in che dap nth opolan anthropoogies. than the later, co other with the faaiar dint (Mercon 1957-587) (©) the anthropologists of i not of each ater work, Gon through metropolitan We wll come back exception is through what channel the pei The simplest, and most wide through publications. Man, me