AN40CH11-Stasch ARI 16 August 2011 13:7

ANNUAL
REVIEWS Further Ritual and Oratory Revisited:
Click here for quick links to
Annual Reviews content online,
including:
The Semiotics of Effective
• Other articles in this volume
• Top cited articles
• Top downloaded articles
Action
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2011.40:159-174. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

• Our comprehensive search

Rupert Stasch
Department of Anthropology, University of California San Diego, La Jolla,
California 92093-0532; email: rstasch@ucsd.edu
by Cornell University on 07/29/12. For personal use only.

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2011. 40:159–74 Keywords

First published online as a Review in Advance on indexicality, iconicity, power, semiotic ideologies, poetics
June 29, 2011

The Annual Review of Anthropology is online at Abstract

anthro.annualreviews.org
This article’s doi:
10.1146/annurev-anthro-081309-145623
Copyright  c 2011 by Annual Reviews.
All rights reserved
0084-6570/11/1021-0159$20.00
Scholars have converged on a theory that ritual involves poetically dense
figuration of macrocosmic order in microcosmic action. I illustrate this
by surveying work on how ritual and oratory involve coordination of
action across multiple semiotic media. I review at greater length the “po-
etic density” theory’s interest in how ritual and oratory causally shape
people’s worlds, and the theory’s interest in the edginess of ritual as a
site of articulation between actors with disparate political positionalities.
Much scholarship now examines norms of the pragmatics of sign use
(not just signification’s semantics, so to speak) as being of a piece with
the poetic, figurational organization of ritual and oratorical processes.
This turn of attention is important for understanding what it means
that ritual seems to be action about the organization of action itself. A
final element in ritual and oratory’s poetic density surveyed here is their
nesting in culturally variable ideologies of ritual and oratorical genres
themselves.

159
 AN40CH11-Stasch ARI 16 August 2011 13:7
INTRODUCTION
Amid anthropology’s dramatic reorientations,
ritual has remained a core subject. Since its
Semiotic: having to
do with signification, most recent treatment in the Annual Review
or ways in human of Anthropology (Kelly & Kaplan 1990), several
experience that the thousand more anthropological journal articles
presence of something
and book chapters have been published on this
also makes present
something else topic, along with hundreds of monographs (for
a sample, see Kreinath et al. 2007). Roughly
one article is published in each issue of American
Ethnologist and the Journal of the Royal Anthropo-
logical Institute alone. By comparison, anthropo-
logical work on “oratory” narrowly conceived
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2011.40:159-174. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
has been less prodigious. But already when this
smaller topic was last reviewed (Parkin 1984),
anthropologists increasingly saw research on
oratory as inextricably part of a wider field of
by Cornell University on 07/29/12. For personal use only.
inquiry into efficacy and authority in language
use generally (surveyed by Brenneis 1988, Gal
1989, and Bauman & Briggs 1990). This wider
field has now further burgeoned.
Treating oratory and ritual together does,
however, suggest a principle of selectivity. As
speech to a listening collectivity that is un-
derstood to have potentially powerful conse-
quences by dint of the speech’s own qualities,
oratory is a form of persuasion through repre-
sentation. It involves making present via lan-
guage of what is otherwise not present, in a
manner that might lead people to deepen or al-
ter convictions about social goods. On the ritual
side, the clearest parallels and overlaps with or-
atory scholarship will lie in writing that takes
ritual as also fundamentally semiotic and that
is concerned with how rituals’ organization as
representations bears on those rituals’ forma-
tive contributions to social life.
Given this, I privilege here a single theory
of ritual toward which anthropological studies
have long converged. The first section outlines
the heart of this theory: Ritual involves excep-
tionally dense representation of spatiotempo-
rally wider categories and principles in an inter-
actional here-now. After a brief section tracing
how this theory is exemplified in work on co-
ordination of ritual and oratorical signs across
multiple semiotic media, I then review a va-
riety of ways ritual and oratory’s figurational
160 Stasch
processes have world-making effects and are
closely tied to politics and history. Last, I dis-
cuss scholarship examining cultural variability
in definition and evaluation of ritual and ora-
tory as such.
RITUAL AS POETICALLY DENSE
FIGURATION OF
MACROCOSMIC ORDER IN
MICROCOSMIC ACTION
It is probably a feature of human activities at
large that they involve assimilation of partic-
ulars to generals and vice versa. Action is the
linking of specific times, spaces, and situations
to more spatiotemporally expansive categorial
types and norms, even when these categories
are tacit, partial, plural, or unsettled. In this
sense, all action is representation, and all ac-
tion is tropic figuration: Certain things support
and evoke the presence of other things that are
different from them, as when a highly particu-
lar act makes present an abstract norm. And all
action is characterized by tensions of the pres-
ence in concrete practice of spatiotemporal lay-
ers that are “other” to that concreteness.
Anthropological work has converged to-
ward a theory that what defines ritual is the
unusual density in it of representational rela-
tions of the kind just sketched. A ritual event is
characterized by the exceptional quantity and
vividness of the general types that are felt as
present in its concrete particulars. Further, this
piling on of links between a microcosmic space-
time of ritual action and larger macrocosmic
spacetimes requires and implies a great density
of links between different elements within the
microcosm of concrete ritual actions. Two
mutually correlative levels of dense figuration
are brought into existence through ritual’s
markedly constrained and elaborate forms of
action: a level of dense semiotic links between
elements internal to the ritual scene, and a level
of links between this concrete scene and its
multiple “other scenes” of more expansive, ab-
stract, or tacit categories and principles. (Here,
“macrocosmic” is a placeholder, not meant to
constrain what might count as a “cosmological”
 AN40CH11-Stasch ARI 16 August 2011 13:7
element, beyond the premise that it is greater
in spatiotemporal reach or in determination of
human affairs than are microcosmic elements.)
Aspects of this theory have been presented
in many vocabularies. Babcock (1978) describes
ritual as characterized by a “surplus” of signi-
fiers and signifieds. Kapferer (1997) suggests
that ritual involves a correspondence between
bodily motions and motions of consciousness.
Refining an earlier concept of ritual as “ef-
ficacious representation,” Valeri (1985) sug-
gests that ritual fosters “model experiences”
(pp. 345–47) in which participants encounter
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2011.40:159-174. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
objects symbolic of implicit presuppositions
of action. Rampton (2002, p. 492) posits that
ritual helps people get past difficult “changes
or problems in the flow of ordinary life” by
by Cornell University on 07/29/12. For personal use only.
“draw[ing] on symbolic material that holds spe-
cial significance above and beyond the prac-
tical requirements of the here-and-now” (also
Duranti 1994; Hanks 2000, p. 241; Gaenszle
2002, pp. 112–71). Houseman & Severi (1998)
argue that ritual is distinguished by the mul-
tiplicity of normally incompatible aspects of
everyday life that it unifies. Tambiah (1985)
holds that “rites enact and incarnate cosmo-
logical conceptions” and that in them “redun-
dant patterns fuse into one configurational to-
tality” (p. 153). Parmentier (1994) states that
“rituals are not just structured; they are ‘hyper-
structured’ in that these cultural forms literally
call out: behold the structure!” (p. 129). Mines
(2005) traces the quality of “density” cultivated
by the material organization of Tamil temple
festivals (pp. 157–67).
This consensus is also discernible in a
dominant genre feature of empirical books and
articles. Anthropologists’ practice is to draw
connections between a ritual form and broader
features of its sociocultural context. These fea-
tures could be wide conceptual, political, and
moral structures such as a sex-gender system
or a configuration of conflicting class position-
alities, and they could be unfolding historical
experiences such as a heritage of colonial dom-
ination or an incipient process of economic
upheaval. There is much variation in the kinds
and directions of causal and conceptual linkage
that authors see between ritual and surrounding
conditions, but these linkages are nonetheless
ones of making present: Something contains
Indexicality: mode of
within itself in partial, displaced, refracted form signification involving
the echo and fate of something else. Scholar- a felt quality of causal,
ship that proceeds in this mode is semiotic in spatiotemporal
actual orientation even when not in name. contiguity between
one element and what
Within this theory, one step of further en-
it additionally makes
gagement with ritual’s organization has been present
recognition of indexicality as a distinctive mode
Poetics: relations of
of signification, in which a signifier makes patterned similarity
present something else through a felt quality of and difference between
causal and spatiotemporal contiguity, as when elements in a
a knocking sound makes present an idea that performed series of
semiotic acts, giving
someone is on the other side of a door and
the series aesthetic
wishes it to be opened. This step invites analysts force
to appreciate that ritual actions are composed
Iconicity: mode of
not just of a large quantity of semiotic layers but signification involving
also composed of a density of different kinds of a felt quality of
representational links by which one thing can likeness between one
make another present. Influenced sometimes element and what it
additionally makes
by Jakobson’s (1960) theory that poetic ef-
present
fects in language use are created through dense
juxtaposition in contiguous text of elements
standing in relations of likeness-and-difference,
or by related lectures and publications of
Silverstein (e.g., 2003, p. 41), many authors
have analyzed rituals as involving close in-
teraction between indexical sign relations and
iconic ones (Caton 1986, 1993; Kratz 1994;
Keane 1997b; Stasch 2003; Shoaps 2009, p. 460;
see also Turner 1991, using a vocabulary of
metaphor and metonymy). Ritual is composed
of densely crisscrossing indexical and iconic
relations between its different internal ele-
ments and of densely crisscrossing indexical and
iconic relations between the ritual spacetime
and larger macrocosmic orders made present
in that spacetime.
This idea can be illustrated even by a
reduced ritual such as a handshake, which
involves close relations of iconic and indexical
coordination between acts of sight, touch,
speech, and facial expression, as well as dense
indexical iconicities between the narrow
spacetime of the physical handshake and the
more expansive definition of participants’
bond at levels of affect, morality, knowledge,
www.annualreviews.org • Ritual and Oratory Revisited 161
 AN40CH11-Stasch ARI 16 August 2011 13:7
obligation, or memory. Another image for
getting across the theory would be the type
of map containing a “You are here” arrow
Metasemiosis:
signification about the or dot that is often found at malls, campuses,
activity of signification and airports. Like such a map, a ritual makes
present in a small sensory space a picture of
larger, more diffuse spatiotemporal orders. The
ritual act and the larger order it projects are
not just iconically but indexically in each other.
Interpreting a “You are here” sign, a pedestrian
is in the plane of the map itself, as the arrow
or colored dot labeled “here.” Conversely, the
map is in the plane of the macrocosm, by virtue
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2011.40:159-174. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
of being mounted in a particular location in that
space. The viewer, by linking the cartographic
sign’s “you” and “here” to the “here” of where
he or she stands, has a model experience of
by Cornell University on 07/29/12. For personal use only.
locatedness within a wider world. An actual
“You are here” sign is semiotically simple and
determinate, but imagine if what is depicted on
such a sign consisted not just of buildings but of
layers upon layers of other scales and categories
of space, time, action, history, personhood, and
social morality. Imagine too if within the sign’s
plane there are multiple “You are here” arrows,
wrought in different media, but each connect-
ing the small scene of ritual action indexically
and iconically to larger spatiotemporal orders.
This understanding of ritual solves a contra-
diction between two commonly encountered
theoretical intuitions. On the one hand, ritual
is widely agreed to be a marked activity set
apart from everyday life and not reducible to it
(e.g., Babcock 1978; Smith 1987; Handelman
1990; Kapferer 2004, p. 37). On the other,
scholars regularly affirm that ritual is not easily
distinguishable from daily life but is an aspect
or potential of all action, such that a notion of
“ritualization” might be preferable to “ritual”
itself (e.g., Humphrey & Laidlaw 1994, p. 3;
Sax 2010, p. 4). Numerous studies document
the pervasive presence of ritual qualities in
everyday settings (Csordas 1997, Enfield
2009, Haviland 2009). The theory of ritual as
characterized by poetic density of signification
likewise understands ritual as a matter of
degree: Ritual intensifies features common to
human activity at large. But the theory also
162 Stasch
understands differences of degree in this area
to amount to a difference in kind. The more
elaborate an act’s poetic density, the more the
act stands out from other actions as metasemi-
otic (or metacommunicative, after Bateson
1972), a reflexive meditation on semiotic
interconnection as a condition of activity.
RELATIONS ACROSS MEDIA
AND GENRES
One topic of inquiry through which scholars
have converged on the understanding of rit-
ual as poetically dense figuration is interaction
between semiotic processes in different media.
That ritual events unfold in multiple coordi-
nated media has been well appreciated since at
least the deepening of the quality of accounts
of ritual prompted by Victor Turner’s work.
However, scholars have recently gone further
in examining how ritual and oratorical events
involve proliferation of parallel, contrasting, or
complementary signifying effects in different
media, fostering dense links of iconicity and in-
dexicality across an event’s elements and mak-
ing the principles signified by those elements
all the more vivid and convincing by virtue of
being reflected on many different surfaces (e.g.,
Kratz 1994).
Studying male oratory in an Amazonian so-
ciety, for example, Graham (1993) examines
how spatial and sensory arrangement of partic-
ipants’ bodies (including their physical voices)
contributes to the quality of the polity made
through their talk. Lying on their backs out-
doors at night and frequently overlapping their
speech, orators do not speak as or toward in-
dividual persons. Rather, the polyvocal, de-
personalizing physical arrangements of speak-
ing are indexical and iconic of messages of
balanced consensus between political factions
that are also the denoted content of the talk
(compare Duranti 1994; Yankah 1995; Basso
2009, p. 266). Bate (2009) examines the mul-
tisensory reorganization of urban space that
is integral to oratory in Tamil electoral ral-
lies. Concerning cassette sermons in Cairo,
Hirschkind (2006) underlines the piety felt to
inhere in qualities of the human voice as such,
 AN40CH11-Stasch ARI 16 August 2011 13:7
and the ways that sermon listening’s force is
relationally dependent on urban space’s sen-
sory monotony. Talk’s iconic and indexical co-
ordination with other semiotic channels has
been particularly fruitfully examined in re-
search on ritual speech and on relations of semi-
otic complementarity between speech and ma-
terial valuables in ritual exchange (Merlan &
Rumsey 1991, p. 219; Keane 1997b; Robbins
2001b; Jackson 2003; Demmer 2007).
Just as work on oratory has often exam-
ined linkages of speech and space, so too a
main concern of scholarship on rituals more
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2011.40:159-174. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
generally has been their dense relations with
buildings, settlement space, and landscape (e.g.,
Sather 1993, Santos-Granero 1998, Stasch
2003, Mines 2005). Often issues of a ritual’s
by Cornell University on 07/29/12. For personal use only.
links to spatial forms lead also to questions of
a ritual’s intertemporal links with other events.
As Kratz (2009) shows, dense iconic and index-
ical “resonance” is not only an internal feature
of a ritual but also an aspect of its relation to
ritual forms performed at other times.
An allied tendency in research on oratory
has been increasing attention to formal politi-
cal speech’s dense interdependencies with other
expressive genres. Authors have examined re-
lations of antipathy between oratorical forms
and gossip (Brenneis 1984, Besnier 2009), po-
litical cartoons ( Jackson 2012), or enraged pub-
lic invective (Kulick 1993). But these authors
also document links of permeability, appro-
priation, and tropic refiguration across genres.
Knowing the internal makeup of an oratori-
cal form and assessing the form’s cultural con-
sequentiality require study of the wider field
of semiotic genres within which it is situated
(Merlan & Rumsey 1991, Briggs 1992, Duranti
1994, Manning 2007, Shoaps 2009). Many of
these researchers show that the dialectics of
genre are a main site of the dialectics of social
domination along lines of gender or class. Main
stratificatory dimensions of oratory are not vis-
ible without the comparative genre analysis.
WORLD-MAKING
Kelly & Kaplan (1990) emphasized ritual’s links
to politics and history. This family of issues
has further grown in prominence since their
review and is probably the most robust area
of anthropologists’ current engagement with
ritual’s paradoxical framing as both separated
from and joined with its surrounding environ-
ment: at once an alternative activity tinged by
otherness and an activity linked to its wider con-
text by lines of causal and conceptual force.
The world-making consequentiality of
rituals continues to be a core concern. Most
exponents of the theoretical consensus in-
troduced above do not prejudge the relative
priority of microcosmic and macrocosmic
orders but expect these to be coconstitutive.
By fostering dense patterns of figuration
among ritual elements, as well as dense link-
ages between a microcosmic spacetime and
wider macrocosms, ritual actors often causally
bootstrap into existence the very macrocosmic
conditions the rituals represent, including
forms of political subordination, visions of
political community, or economic structures
(Wells & McAnany 2008). For semiotically
oriented scholars, describing ritual’s world-
making effects has been part of a larger project
to unwind and dispel the persistent folk idea
that a representation is a nonreal portrayal of
preexisting real entities. Rather, processes of
signification are of the order of causality and
materiality, simultaneous to being of the order
of ideas. A person or village might be a sign,
making present—and made present by—other
entities such as a god, a moral principle, or a
history (Mines 2005, p. 55). But the person or
village is no less real for that, and it may be
through the fleshly, dusty sign’s involvement in
causal chains that it makes present its meanings.
Studies of oratory have been among
the richest empirical demonstrations of the
material and political constitutiveness of signi-
fication. Caton (1987, 1990) shows that artful
speaking is the substance of power and political
order, rather than secondary to it, in Middle
Eastern “segmentary” communities (also
Silverstein 2005, Demmer 2007). One way
basic political conditions of people’s lives are
created through linguistic representation lies
in defining the agents of action. Writing about
www.annualreviews.org • Ritual and Oratory Revisited 163
 AN40CH11-Stasch ARI 16 August 2011 13:7
oratorical mediation of political life in highland
New Guinea, Merlan & Rumsey (1991) trace
how social groups “are at once problematical
Pragmatics: aspects
of signification having semiotic constructions and of very real material
to do with sign use, consequence” (p. 35) by documenting the
such as models of the steadily reflexive, interactive character of the
relations between talk, person reference forms used to depict who
speakers, and hearers
is transacting with whom at major exchange
events. Rumsey (1999, pp. 63–64; 2000) further
examines implications of speakers’ use of first
person singular “I” forms to refer to social
groups, following up on Sahlins (1985). Rumsey
also explores political implications of the co-
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2011.40:159-174. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
occurrence of different construals of a person-
to-collectivity relation within a single stretch
of discourse, or even within single pronominal
tokens. Duranti (1994) and Jackson (2012) dis-
by Cornell University on 07/29/12. For personal use only.
cuss oratorical avoidance of syntactic patterns
that strongly attribute agency to particular
actors, and the force of exceptions indexing a
speaker’s unusually high status or a project to
introduce a new political dispensation.
What this literature is partly addressing is
the way the pragmatics of speaking is itself
made a figural medium, through and around
which macrocosmic sensibilities about power
and polity are projected (Silverstein 2005,
Lempert 2012). Efforts to define ritual typi-
cally highlight that it is action which is highly
conventional, or carried out in adherence to
a rule. To quote Parmentier (1994) again,
“[R]itual actions are not just conventional, they
are so conventionalized that they highlight or
call attention to the rules, that is, to the pattern,
model, or semiotic type which the ritual action
instantiates” (p. 133). This adherence to a
received form is often felt to involve distancing
of action from the voluntaristic personal
intentionality of those who perform it. Ritual
participants frequently do not consider them-
selves to be authors of the forms they enact, or
of those forms’ efficacy. This is a point empha-
sized by the definition of Rappaport (1999),
and it is a point that leads Bloch (1974 and
elsewhere) to characterize ritual as, in effect, an
antipolitics. Yet coexisting with the opening of
space between act and de novo personal volition
is the strong sense that ritual centrally consists
164 Stasch
of action and is reflexively about action. The
ritual act “becomes its own object” (Turner
2006, p. 236), such that we might even think
of ritualists as among the original practice the-
orists. Scholars of oratory have given extensive
attention to questions of the relation between
speakers and their speech, and to ways that the
defining of these pragmatic arrangements is
a site of figuration of what people are to each
other politically. Work on the relation between
actor and act in ritual (and on this relation’s
political implications) might look to this liter-
ature for clues about empirical and theoretical
possibilities other than the antipolitics account.
Allied with patterns in the pronominal
and syntactic representation of personhood,
another tendency widely documented by
linguistic anthropologists is the widespread
occurrence of pragmatic representations of dis-
tance between orators and their utterances that
may work paradoxically to give these speakers a
stronger voice. Declarations of personal inade-
quacy or respectful subordination to superiors
separate talk from the speaker’s own will or
self-regard, but also tacitly invite audiences’
ratification of that speaker as authoritative
(Bauman 1992; Basso 2009, pp. 258–59;
Jackson 2012). Irvine (1992) looks at how
genre formalities of an insult practice allow
evasion of responsibility for the slight (compare
Shoaps 2009). Agha (1997) traces gaps between
orators’ overt portrayals of their manner of
spoken interaction and their actual practice,
enabling “aggression” to hide in plain sight.
Du Bois (1986) and Keane (1997b) explore
elaborate gradations of distance between ritual
speakers and their speech, including attribution
of authorship to ancestors or deities. Often
these patterns in social deferral of authorship
and mediated voicing of authority are in
relations of mutual iconicity and indexicality
with use of special registers experienced as
obscure, archaic, “deep,” “beautiful,” “good,”
or foreign (Duranti 1994, Engelke 2004, Basso
2009, Bate 2009). Rampton (2002) analyzes
British adolescents’ use of German fragments
in peer conversation as ambivalent meditations
on the emotion and political organization of
 AN40CH11-Stasch ARI 16 August 2011 13:7
classroom interaction with their foreign lan-
guage teacher. Dialogic presence of multiple
agents of speaking in single utterances has been
a core theme of work on oratory and ritual
speech (Duranti & Brenneis 1986; Agha 1997;
Gaenszle 2002; Demmer 2007, p. 49). Often
participation frameworks of delegation or
diffusion of oratorical roles are important
to making speech unattributable to a single
voice (Graham 1993, Yankah 1995, Keane
1997b). Social networks of transmission and
repetition of speech iconically and indexically
support the sense of its divine emanation
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2011.40:159-174. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
(Engelke 2004) or other qualities of social and
ontological distance between beings involved
in the communication (Keane 1997a,b; Hanks
2000). Tomlinson (2004) underlines how
by Cornell University on 07/29/12. For personal use only.
Fijian solicitation of divine aid through prayer
not only resolves afflictions but also deepens
supplicants’ sense of powerlessness. Across
these diverse cases, power has something of a
Maussian feel: A speaker affiliates to it by giving
it up or by entering into delicate dances of
checking and rechecking the interdependence
and boundaries of one’s own personhood
vis-à-vis consociates and divinities.
Another overlapping emphasis has been on
how speech forms are densely indexical and
iconic of understandings of the social and moral
relation of speakers and listeners. The listen-
ing relation in some settings may itself be a ba-
sic model of subordination (Hirschkind 2006),
whereas in others it is conceived as a relation
of joint responsibility or mutual completion
( Jackson 2012; Kuipers 1998, pp. 74–76). Else-
where, orientation to the listener—rather than
expression of the speaker—is a template of the
social as such (Robbins 2001a). Numerous au-
thors (e.g., Bate 2009, Jackson 2012, Lempert
2011) are broadly concerned with ways ora-
tory creates its audiences by addressing them in
particular modes, a concern overlapping with
scholarship on formation of “publics” through
specific modes of mass-mediated communica-
tive address (Cody 2011, this volume).
While demonstrating that the poetics and
pragmatics of how orators speak shape people’s
notions of polity and their convictions about
specific political decisions, the above-noted lin-
guistic anthropological works also empirically
underline the partiality and indeterminacy of
specific efforts of speech-based world-making.
This theme has also been central to the theoret-
ical convergence in studies of ritual. Intrinsic to
the idea of ritual as hyperelaboration of semiotic
relationalities is that there are too many of these
links in play, that they conflict with each other
(albeit sometimes systematically so), and that as
an “other” formation in relation to what lies be-
yond it, ritual principles will be pitched against
competing macrocosmic understandings not
signified by the ritual except by occlusion
(Valeri 1985, p. xi; Handelman 1990, p. 9).
These are some of the forces leading toward
such generalizations as that “a custom does not
become ‘a ritual’ until people can disagree about
its meaning” (Humphrey & Laidlaw 1994,
p. 12). A ritual “You are here” sign coexists and
competes with other such signs, only succeeds
partially and provisionally in convincing any-
one of a macrocosmic order’s existence, and ap-
pears to different persons as containing very dif-
ferent macrocosmic maps and guiding arrows.
One nuanced ethnography of political di-
mensions of ritual figuration is Mines’s (2005)
study of caste politics in Tamil temple festivals.
Issues such as the “village”-defining path of in-
clusion and exclusion taken by a procession, or
the order and manner in which audiences gain
access to a deity’s gifts of ash, are focused sites at
which economically rising castes revise the vil-
lage’s heritage of Brahmin ascendancy, and at
which members of enduringly dominated castes
struggle with hierarchy’s indignities (on proces-
sions, see also Schnell 1999, Bryan 2000). Many
other authors similarly show rituals to be flash
points of political conflict, around which people
are provoked to articulate new discontent with
structures of inequality (e.g., Smith 2004). Like
Mines and others, Merlan & Rumsey (1991)
draw on categories from Voloshinov or Bakhtin
to characterize how conflicting evaluations can
adhere to the same acts, as when certain com-
munity members label as “insane” (pp. 192, 219)
the New Guinea women who successfully inno-
vated a previously unknown oratorical practice.
www.annualreviews.org • Ritual and Oratory Revisited 165
 AN40CH11-Stasch
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2011.40:159-174. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
by Cornell University on 07/29/12. For personal use only.
ARI 16 August 2011 13:7
Kuipers (2009) shows how in certain interethnic
social events, multiple and shifting ritual codes
are brought to bear on the definition of what
is going on, such that explaining a sequence of
events requires laying bare the specific macro-
cosmic implications that different actors under-
stood as immanent in their particular actions of
the here-and-now (compare also George 1996,
Schrauwers 2000, Hatfield 2010).
Keane (1997b) shows that among an east-
ern Indonesian people, a main focus of ora-
torical as well as extralinguistic ritual signs is
the difficulty and uncertainty of ritual signifi-
cation itself. This difficulty is due in part to
the otherness of the parties who relate to each
other via ritual acts, including their differences
of political positionality and the uncertainties
of whether and how they have a common po-
litical community. Keane’s turn of analysis of-
fers a fruitful path by which to grasp the thor-
oughly semiotic character of ritual politics and
to make use of the rich semiotic evidence avail-
able for spelling out the shape of that politics
in a given case. One aspect of Keane’s study is
its demonstration of how much ritual is cen-
trally composed of participants’ awareness and
representation of possibilities of ritual acts fail-
ing, being misperformed, or leading to harm
(also Schieffelin 1996, Howe 2000, Stasch 2003,
Hüsken 2007). This is one aspect of the larger
pattern of ritual being pervasively metasemiotic
in character, and one illustration of the point
that ritual is action about action. Sign use it-
self is a central site and object of ritual’s dense
figurativeness, such that the tropes of ritual are
pragmatic, not (just) semantic. Often the main
way a ritual unfolds is through representation
about how to perform a correct, successful rit-
ual. So too it is well established that a central
feature of oratorical discourse and its politi-
cal efficacy is meta-oratorical discourse about
oratory’s appropriate conduct and definition
(Merlan & Rumsey 1991; Duranti 1994;
Manning 2007; Jackson 2012, updating Ochs
1973).
Ritual’s siting at the intersection of differ-
ences of social and political positionality, and
capacity to provoke or mediate such differences,
166 Stasch
has also been addressed through continued
work on classic issues of suspension or trans-
gression of everyday norms, as a signature
form of ritual’s figural density. Studies examine
the association of rituals with boundary zones
foundational to the distribution of social power
(Aggarwal 2001) and single rituals’ promotion
of heterogeneous or contradictory overarching
principles (Waldman 2003; Sanders 2008,
pp. 139–59). In many cases, analysts emphasize
the systematic character of the contradictions
themselves, finding in the ritual form an
expression of some condition of dialectical
interrelation and mutual irreducibility between
incompatible and yet conjoined alternatives
(Handelman 1990, p. 30; Hammoudi 1993;
Kratz 1994, p. 231; Houseman & Severi 1998;
Brightman 1999; Werbner 2001).
Ongoing attention to ritual’s consequential-
ity in shaping material and political worlds has
been matched by inquiry into ritual’s efficacy in
making cognitive and emotional worlds as well.
Another feature of the theoretical consensus
about ritual is that it does not prejudge that
dense signification (including the macrocosmic
conditions iconically and indexically signified
by ritual forms) is of a separate order from
personal subjectivity. Many empirical studies
have contradicted early statements by Tam-
biah (1985), that ritual’s formulaicness fosters
emotional distance, or by Bloch (1975), that
formulaicness occludes thought and agency.
An attitudinal imperative to “pay attention”
is regularly noted to be a basic aspect of ritual
(e.g., MacAloon 1984, Handelman 1990),
a subjective correlative of ritual’s semiotic
density. And even when participants are not
exactly understood as a ritual form’s authors,
ritual is often characterized by experiences
of lack of distance between personal volition
and the skillful act (Schieffelin 2006), as well
as aesthetic and bodily pleasure. Concerning
Islamic women’s daily prayer in Egypt and Iran,
respectively, Mahmood (2001) and Haeri (n.d.)
explore how repetitive, disciplinary perfor-
mance of formulaic actions can foster deepened
rather than reduced senses of self-expression
and emotional involvement with an addressed
 AN40CH11-Stasch ARI 16 August 2011 13:7
other. Many further studies similarly trace
paths of reciprocal uptake and transformation
between subjective experience and collective
or impersonal levels of ritual form (Dussart
2000, Cole 2004, Mines 2005, Du Bois 2009).
Issues of ritual’s causal efficacy and po-
litical loadedness are difficult to separate
from numerous facets of the intimate relation
between ritual and history. Many works tell
histories of social upheaval through the lens of
transformations in a specific ritual or show how
rituals represent practitioners’ historical con-
sciousness (Hoskins 1993, George 1996, Bucko
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2011.40:159-174. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
1998, Schnell 1999, Spyer 2000, Smith 2004).
These and other studies look at the shifting sig-
nificance of ritual complexes as points through
which people define themselves relative to pow-
by Cornell University on 07/29/12. For personal use only.
erful regional or extraregional others (Williams
2003, Wibbelsman 2009). There is growing
work on ritual as a site of intercultural artic-
ulation between regional neighbors through
reciprocities of participation across differences
of form ( Jackson 2003); through individual
and collective schismogenesis concerning the
value, conduct, or appropriate exegesis of
specific ritual practices (Nourse 1999); and
through interethnic exchange of ritual forms
or careful exclusion of ethnic others from ritual
access (Harrison 1992, Poirier 1992, Wiessner
& Tumu 1998, De Jong 2007). Studies also
document the opening of fissures between rit-
ual practices and their social contexts (Snyder
1997, Waldman 2003), leading even to radical
disavowal of a ritual system (e.g., Tuzin 1997).
There is also a large literature on ritual revi-
talization or genesis in relation to new political
and economic structures projecting definitions
of what rituals are and who should have them
or offering new kinds of resources to support
earlier ritual projects (e.g., Adams 1997, Sáez
2004, Rudolph 2008). Addressing a common
theme, Munn (1995) interprets a ritual’s dense
orchestration of historical memory and forget-
ting, here on the scale of personal remembrance
of shared lives with kin. Vast numbers of studies
document the innovation or recontextualiza-
tion of ritual forms in sociocultural modernity,
not only under conditions of postcolonial
economic or political distress but also in
bourgeois, industrialized, or settler-colonist-
dominated social locations (e.g., Comaroff &
Comaroff 1993, Shaw 2003, Kendall 2008,
Hellweg 2009, Roberts 2010). Many authors
address articulations between rituals and
state formation (Bowie 1997), in some cases
tracing patterns of divergence or only partial
appropriation between ritual activities and the
formal political sphere (e.g., Lomnitz 1995,
Malarney 1996, Kandiyoti & Azimova 2004,
Paulson 2006).
One important feature of the consequen-
tial ritual figuration of historical temporality,
and a basic locus of rituals’ semiotic density,
is the frequent nesting in rituals of multiple
scales of time and scales of a temporalized so-
cial field. This includes the common experience
that ritual events have an evenemential quality
of intense singularity, as well as of typicality.
Venbrux (1995, p. 71) details how a specific
1988 performance of a mourning ritual by Tiwi
islanders, while centrally linking the temporal-
ity of survivors’ mourning for one man to ritual
forms of the longer run, also included a song
and exchange of objects alluding to a famous
ambush of the early 1900s. This ambush was in
turn intertextual with land-focused narratives of
a mythological timescale, but was also brought
up as an oblique warning to a specific partic-
ipant in the 1988 performance who was be-
ing excessively willful in marriage politics. This
man was murdered by an unknown assailant two
weeks after the performance.
Although it is a well-established practice
to link ritual to political economy and history,
studies vary a great deal in whether they give
an account of ritual as having an “internal”
relation to temporality and to power: in other
words, whether they provide a nonreductionist
account of ritual operations, in their formal
details, as being reflexively about the defining
of temporal succession, temporal now-ness,
and intertemporal relations and about the
constitution of social authority. The elaborate
figurational makeup of ritual practices is proba-
bly best understood to be not in time and power
as its external containers, but of time and power
www.annualreviews.org • Ritual and Oratory Revisited 167
 AN40CH11-Stasch ARI 16 August 2011 13:7
in the sense of being consubstantial with them.
From the side of semiotic approaches to ritual,
giving explicit accounts of how this works will
Linguistic
ideologies: language probably mean even further increasing the
users’ tacit or overt focus on spatiotemporally situated sign use as
reflexive sensibilities itself not external to signification but a main
about language, and site and object of ritual’s figurational density.
their sensibilities about
specific modes of its
use
IDEOLOGICAL VARIATION IN
Semiotic ideologies: THE DEFINITION AND VALUE
sign users’ reflexive
OF RITUAL OR ORATORY
sensibilities about the
definition, value, and One important feature of recent research on
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2011.40:159-174. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
effects of different ritual’s relation to history and politics has
semiotic systems they
been deepened concern with cross-cultural and
use
cross-historical variability in people’s ideolo-
gies of ritual, following the lead of literature
by Cornell University on 07/29/12. For personal use only.
on linguistic ideologies in particular or semi-
otic ideologies generally (Keane 2006). Here
“ritual” is understood to be not universal or
constant, but dependent for its definition and
flourishing on reflexive models about ritual. A
similar insight has been a central area of inno-
vation in recent work on oratory. Indeed, ad-
vances in scholarship on ritual and oratory alike
in these areas have often been led by work on
ritual speech or work that examines interplay in
single societies between ideologies of nonverbal
ritual and ideologies of language.
Robbins (2001a,b; 2007) explores one
New Guinea people’s ideological distrust of
language as a medium for knowing personal
intentions or social states and their high esteem
for ritual exchange of tangible objects as
reliable measures of truth (see also Merlan &
Rumsey 1991). Contrasting this configuration
with Protestantism’s valuing of sincere spoken
expression of subjective interiority and distrust
of ritual, Robbins suggest that these variations
in semiotic ideology are a main site of cultural
and moral struggle in processes of religious
conversion (also Keane 2006, Schieffelin 2007,
Seligman et al. 2008, Bate 2010). Kohn (2002)
describes a situation in which incomers enact-
ing ritual emblems of belonging are tolerated
but are not received as insiders unless they en-
gage in appropriate everyday social interaction.
168 Stasch
Such cases illustrate that ritual efficacy is medi-
ated by culturally particular sensibilities about
what ritual should look like, whether it should
be practiced, what it can do, and what else
it should be combined with. Other work has
sought to historicize the category “ritual” itself
to particular political conditions (Asad 1993,
Pemberton 1994) or has attempted to typolo-
gize kinds of rituals associated with fundamen-
tally different institutional formations (Han-
delman 1990, Humphrey & Laidlaw 1994).
Research on oratory has similarly explored
oratorical forms’ cross-cultural embeddedness
in language ideologies different from the indi-
vidualistic and reference-focused models dom-
inating European theory. In her already-
mentioned account of political speech in an
Amazonian society, Graham (1993) argues that
Xavante assumptions that relations between
persons are the locus of political agency contrast
with a Habermasian ideology of political pro-
cess as emerging out of communication of in-
dividual intentions. This case underscores that
different oratorical forms consist of culturally
and contextually particular clusters of commu-
nicative norms (also Basso 2009; Besnier 2009,
pp. 120–83; Manning 2007, pp. 192–93) and
that the folk model of oratory as necessarily a
matter of “a single apical figure addressing some
multitude” (Bate 2009, p. 50) is only one pos-
sibility among others. In his own study, Bate
(2009) charts how Tamil campaign oratory is
oriented by a model of the desirability of de-
votional proximity to superiors, with audiences
or cospeakers signifying through subordination
their own participation in the power of the
praised. He examines the related paradox of
the postcolonial democratic turn toward a cre-
ated register of “beautiful,” archaicism-marked
Tamil not controlled by the very audiences who
are persuasively moved by it.
In work on the Malagasy oratorical practice
of kabary classically discussed by Ochs (1973),
Jackson (2008, 2009) explores how this genre
is embedded in notions that a speaker’s role
is not to deliver an ultimate message but to
share a path of thought that audiences can
 AN40CH11-Stasch ARI 16 August 2011 13:7
themselves take in and engage with. She quotes
one kabary teacher’s statement on the craft of
indirectness: “Metaphor is a must. That is how
Malagasy people prefer to hear what one has to
tell them. They prefer it this way, in a curvy
manner. . .which is a way that calls for some
thinking and reflection, and not too direct,
too direct” ( Jackson 2012). This contradicts
Bloch’s (1975) oft-criticized thesis, emerging
out of his own Malagasy fieldwork, that oratori-
cal form is a tool of mystification and social con-
trol. Here instead subtle speech is a provoca-
tion to reasoning, indexical and iconic of subtle
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2011.40:159-174. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
thought and of a subtle and considerate speaker-
to-audience social relation (also Caton 1990).
Jackson further examines, though, how during
the 2002 presidential campaign and initial in-
by Cornell University on 07/29/12. For personal use only.
cumbency of Marc Ravalomanana the ideology
of kabary as communal meaning-making was
temporarily eclipsed by a competing model that
oratory should index a speaker’s internal moral
nature. Working with professional electoral ad-
visors from the United States, this politician
emphasized referential directness, and he stig-
matized poetic properties of kabary as tied to
corruption, deception, and lack of real politi-
cal results. The newness of a form of gover-
nance was iconically indexed by the difference
and newness of a speech style.
Linguistic anthropologists have also in-
creasingly studied oratory in the U.S. formal
political sphere and its constitutive ideologies
(Duranti 2006, Lempert 2009). Discussing
the first President Bush, Hill (2000) traces
how U.S. campaign politics is informed
by a linguistic ideology of “personalism”:
Speech mainly expresses the moral character
of the would-be leader [in a fashion quite
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
The author is not aware of any affiliations, memberships, funding, or financial holdings that might
be perceived as affecting the objectivity of this review.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I am grateful to Joel Robbins, Alan Rumsey, and Francis Cody for eleventh-hour support.
opposite to Samoan oratorical avoidance of
the figure of the willful actor reported by
Duranti (1994)]. Hill also documents a strong
ideological concern with “message”: What
counts is not political speech’s propositional
information about a candidate’s doctrines, but
the brand-like type of personhood indexed
by how a candidate speaks. (This is the same
explicit ideology of “message” as the crux of
effective political speech that Ravalomanana’s
U.S. advisors encouraged him to adopt in his
successful national campaign in Madagascar.)
Silverstein (2003) traces “message” through to
the second President Bush’s cultivation of a
character image of “trying hard.” He contrasts
this with Lincoln’s incarnation at Gettysburg
of a message of Christian rebirth via sacrifice,
conveyed iconically and indexically through a
fabric of artful metrical echoes and reversals in
a brief dedicatory address.
CONCLUSION
Ritual and oratory are interesting cases of basic
anthropological topics that have been around
for a long time, but about which genuinely new
theoretical and empirical insights are very much
possible to achieve. Even the model of ritual as
poetically dense figuration of macrocosmic or-
ders in microcosmic acts, which I claim to be
a well-established paradigm, is perhaps still in
need of its benchmark full-length theoretical
statement and empirical demonstration. The
language-learning and evidence-gathering in-
vestments demanded by serious work on both
these topics are often exceptionally daunting. I
hope to have provided some reminders, though,
that the effort yields valuable rewards.
www.annualreviews.org • Ritual and Oratory Revisited 169
 AN40CH11-Stasch ARI 16 August 2011 13:7

LITERATURE CITED
Adams KM. 1997. Ethnic tourism and the renegotiation of tradition in Tana Toraja (Sulawesi, Indonesia).
Ethnology 36(4):309–20
Aggarwal R. 2001. At the margins of death: ritual space and the politics of location in an Indo-Himalayan
border village. Am. Ethnol. 28(3):549–73
Agha A. 1997. Tropic aggression in the Clinton-Dole presidential debate. Pragmatics 7(4):461–97
Asad T. 1993. Toward a genealogy of the concept of ritual. In Genealogies of Religion: Discipline and Reasons of
Power in Christianity and Islam, pp. 55–79. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press
Babcock B. 1978. Too many, too few: ritual modes of signification. Semiotica 23:291–302
Basso E. 2009. Civility and deception in two Kalapalo ritual forms. See Senft & Basso 2009, pp. 243–70
Bate B. 2009. Tamil Oratory and the Dravidian Aesthetic: Democratic Practice in South India. New York: Columbia
Univ. Press
Bate B. 2010. The ethics of textuality: the Protestant sermon and the Tamil public sphere. In Ethical Life in
South Asia, ed. A Pandian, D Ali, pp. 101–15. Bloomington: Indiana Univ. Press
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2011.40:159-174. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

Bateson G. 1972. A theory of play and fantasy. In Steps to an Ecology of Mind, pp. 177–93. New York: Ballantine
Bauman R. 1992. Disclaimers of performance. See Hill & Irvine 1992, pp. 182–96
Bauman R, Briggs CL. 1990. Poetics and performance as critical perspectives on language and social life.
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 19:59–88
by Cornell University on 07/29/12. For personal use only.

Besnier N. 2009. Gossip and the Everyday Production of Politics. Honolulu: Univ. Hawai’i Press
Bloch M. 1974. Symbols, song, dance and features of articulation: Is religion an extreme form of traditional
authority? Arch. Eur. Sociol./Eur. J. Sociol. 15(1):55–81
Bloch M. 1975. Introduction. In Political Language and Oratory in Traditional Society, ed. M Bloch, pp. 1–28.
New York: Academic
Bowie KA. 1997. Rituals of National Loyalty: An Anthropology of the State and the Village Scout Movement in
Thailand. New York: Columbia Univ. Press
Brenneis D. 1984. Grog and gossip in Bhatgaon: style and substance in Fiji Indian conversation. Am. Ethnol.
11:487–506
Brenneis D. 1988. Language and disputing. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 17:221–37
Briggs CL. 1992. “Since I am a woman, I will chastise my relatives”: gender, reported speech, and the
(re)production of social relations in Warao ritual wailing. Am. Ethnol. 19(2):337–61
Brightman R. 1999. Traditions of subversion and the subversion of tradition: cultural criticism in Maidu clown
performances. Am. Anthropol. 101(2):272–87
Bryan D. 2000. Orange Parades: The Politics of Ritual, Tradition, and Control. London: Pluto
Bucko R. 1998. The Lakota Ritual of the Sweat Lodge: History and Contemporary Practice. Lincoln: Univ. Neb.
Press
Caton SC. 1986. Salam Tahiyah: greetings from the Highlands of Yemen. Am. Ethnol. 13:290–308
Caton SC. 1987. Power, persuasion, and language: a critique of the segmentary model in the Middle-East.
Int. J. Middle East Stud. 19(1):77–102
Caton SC. 1990. “Peaks of Yemen I Summon”: Poetry as Cultural Practice in a North Yemeni Tribe. Berkeley:
Univ. Calif. Press
Caton SC. 1993. Icons of the person: Lacan’s “Imago” in the Yemeni male’s tribal wedding. Asian Folk. Stud.
52:359–81
Cole J. 2004. Painful memories: ritual and the transformation of community trauma. Cult. Med. Psychiatry
28(1):87–105
Comaroff J, Comaroff J, eds. 1993. Modernity and its Malcontents: Ritual and Power in Postcolonial Africa.
Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
Csordas TJ. 1997. Language, Charisma, and Creativity: The Ritual Life of a Religious Movement. Berkeley: Univ.
Calif. Press
De Jong F. 2007. Masquerades of Modernity: Power and Secrecy in Casamance, Senegal. Edinburgh: Edinburgh
Univ. Press
Demmer U. 2007. The power of rhetoric: dialogue and dynamic persuasion in healing rituals of a South
Indian community. In The Power of Discourse in Ritual Performance: Rhetoric, Poetics, Transformations, ed.
U Demmer, M Gaenszle, pp. 26–53. Berlin: Lit

170 Stasch
 AN40CH11-Stasch ARI 16 August 2011 13:7

Du Bois JW. 1986. Self-evidence and ritual speech. In Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology, ed.
WL Chafe, J Nichols, pp. 313–36. Norwood, NJ: Ablex
Du Bois JW. 2009. Interior dialogues: the co-voicing of ritual in solitude. See Senft & Basso 2009, pp. 317–40
Duranti A. 1994. From Grammar to Politics: Linguistic Anthropology in a Western Samoan Village. Berkeley: Univ.
Calif. Press
Duranti A. 2006. Narrating the political self in a campaign for US Congress. Lang. Soc. 35(4):467–97
Duranti A, Brenneis D, eds. 1986. The Audience as Co-Author. Special Issue, Text 6(3):239–347
Dussart F. 2000. The Politics of Ritual in an Aboriginal Settlement: Kinship, Gender, and the Currency of Knowledge.
Washington, DC: Smithson. Inst. Press
Enfield NJ. 2009. Everyday ritual in the residential world. See Senft & Basso 2009, pp. 51–80
Engelke M. 2004. Text and performance in an African church: the book, “live and direct.” Am. Ethnol.
31(1):76–91
Gaenszle M. 2002. Ancestral Voices: Oral Ritual Texts and Their Social Contexts among the Mewahang Rai of East
Nepal. Münster: Lit
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2011.40:159-174. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

Gal S. 1989. Language and political economy. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 18:345–67
George KM. 1996. Showing Signs of Violence: The Cultural Politics of a Twentieth-Century Headhunting Ritual.
Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
Graham L. 1993. A public sphere in Amazonia? The depersonalized collaborative construction of discourse
by Cornell University on 07/29/12. For personal use only.

in Xavante. Am. Ethnol. 20(4):717–41

Haeri N. n.d. The private performance of Islamic prayers: form, time, and repetition.
Hammoudi A. 1993. The Victim and its Masks: An Essay on Sacrifice and Masquerade in the Maghreb. Chicago:
Univ. Chicago Press
Handelman D. 1990. Models and Mirrors: Towards an Anthropology of Public Events. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
Univ. Press
Hanks WF. 2000. Copresence and alterity in Maya ritual practice. In Intertexts: Writings on Language, Utterance,
and Context, pp. 249–70. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield
Harrison S. 1992. Ritual as intellectual property. Man 27(2):225–44
Hatfield DJ. 2010. Taiwanese Pilgrimage to China: Ritual, Complicity, Community. New York: Palgrave
Macmillan
Haviland JB. 2009. Little rituals. See Senft & Basso 2009, pp. 21–50
Hellweg J. 2009. Hunters, ritual, and freedom: Dozo sacrifice as a technology of the self in the Benkadi
movement of Cote d’Ivoire. J. R. Anthropol. Inst. 15(1):36–56
Hill JH, Irvine JT, eds. 1992. Responsibility and Evidence in Oral Discourse. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ.
Press
Hill JH. 2000. Read my article: language ideology and the overdetermination of promising in American
presidential politics. In Regimes of Language, ed. PV Kroskrity, pp. 259–92. Santa Fe, NM: SAR Press
Hirschkind C. 2006. The Ethical Soundscape: Cassette Sermons and Islamic Counterpublics. New York: Columbia
Univ. Press
Hoskins J. 1993. The Play of Time: Kodi Perspectives on Calendars, History, and Exchange. Berkeley: Univ. Calif.
Press
Houseman M, Severi C. 1998. Naven or the Other Self: A Relational Approach to Ritual Action. Boston: Brill
Howe L. 2000. Risk, ritual and performance. J. R. Anthropol. Inst. 6(1):63–79
Humphrey C, Laidlaw J. 1994. The Archetypal Actions of Ritual: A Theory of Ritual Illustrated by the Jain Rite of
Worship. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press
Hüsken U, ed. 2007. When Rituals Go Wrong: Mistakes, Failure and the Dynamics of Ritual. Leiden: Brill
Irvine JT. 1992. Insult and responsibility: verbal abuse in a Wolof village. See Hill & Irvine 1992, pp. 105–34
Jackson JB. 2003. Yuchi Ceremonial Life: Performance, Meaning, and Tradition in a Contemporary American Indian
Community. Lincoln: Univ. Neb. Press
Jackson JL. 2008. Building publics, shaping public opinion: interanimating registers in Malagasy Kabary
oratory and political cartooning. J. Linguist. Anthropol. 18(2):214–35
Jackson JL. 2009. To tell it directly or not: coding transparency and corruption in Malagasy political oratory.
Lang. Soc. 38:47–69

www.annualreviews.org • Ritual and Oratory Revisited 171

 AN40CH11-Stasch ARI 16 August 2011 13:7

Jackson JL. 2012. Getting an Edge in Wordwise: Political Oratory and Cartooning in Malagasy Democratic Process.
Chichester, West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. In press
Jakobson R. 1960. Closing statement: linguistics and poetics. In Style in Language, ed. T Sebeok, pp. 350–77.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
Kandiyoti D, Azimova N. 2004. The communal and the sacred: women’s worlds of ritual in Uzbekistan. J. R.
Anthropol. Inst. 10(2):327–49
Kapferer B. 1997. The Feast of the Sorcerer: Practices of Consciousness and Power. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
Kapferer B. 2004. Ritual dynamics and virtual practice: beyond representation and meaning. Soc. Anal. 48:35–
54
Keane W. 1997a. Religious language. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 26:47–71
Keane W. 1997b. Signs of Recognition: Powers and Hazards of Representation in an Indonesian Society. Berkeley:
Univ. Calif. Press
Keane W. 2006. Christian Moderns: Freedom and Fetish in the Mission Encounter. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
Kelly JD, Kaplan M. 1990. History, structure, and ritual. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 19:119–50
Kendall L. 2008. Of hungry ghosts and other matters of consumption in the Republic of Korea: the commodity
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2011.40:159-174. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

becomes a ritual prop. Am. Ethnol. 35(1):154–70

Kohn T. 2002. Becoming an islander through action in the Scottish Hebrides. J. R. Anthropol. Inst. 8(1):143–58
Kratz CA. 1994. Affecting Performance: Meaning, Movement, and Experience in Okiek Women’s Initiation.
Washington, DC: Smithson. Inst. Press
by Cornell University on 07/29/12. For personal use only.

Kratz CA. 2009. Communicative resonance across settings: marriage arrangement, initiation, and political
meetings in Kenya. See Senft & Basso 2009, pp. 171–202
Kreinath J, Snoek J, Stausberg M. 2007. Theorizing Rituals: Annotated Bibliography of Ritual Theory, 1966–2005.
Leiden: Brill
Kuipers J. 1998. Language, Identity, and Marginality in Indonesia: The Changing Nature of Ritual Speech on the
Island of Sumba. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
Kuipers J. 2009. Unjuk Rasa (“Expression of Feeling”) in Sumba: Bloody Thursday in its cultural and historical
context. See Senft & Basso 2009, pp. 223–42
Kulick D. 1993. Speaking as a woman: structure and gender in domestic arguments in a New Guinea village.
Cult. Anthropol. 8(4):510–41
Lempert M. 2009. On “flip-flopping”: branded stance-taking in U.S. electoral politics. J. Socioling. 13(2):223–
48
Lempert M. 2011. Avoiding “The Issues” as addressivity in US electoral politics. Anthropol. Q. 84(1):187–208
Lempert M. 2012. Discipline and Debate: The Language of Violence in a Tibetan Buddhist Monastery. Berkeley:
Univ. Calif. Press. In press
Lomnitz C. 1995. Ritual, rumor, and corruption in the constitution of polity in modern Mexico. J. Lat. Am.
Anthropol. 1(1):20–47
MacAloon J. 1984. Introduction: cultural performance, cultural theory. In Rite, Drama, Festival, Spectacle:
Rehearsals toward a Theory of Cultural Performance, ed. J MacAloon, pp. 1–15. Philadelphia: Inst. Study
Hum. Issues
Mahmood S. 2001. Rehearsed spontaneity and the conventionality of ritual: disciplines of salat. Am. Ethnol.
28(4):827–53
Malarney SK. 1996. The limits of “state functionalism” and the reconstruction of funerary ritual in contem-
porary northern Vietnam. Am. Ethnol. 23(3):540–60
Manning P. 2007. Rose-colored glasses? Color revolutions and cartoon chaos in Postsocialist Georgia. Cult.
Anthropol. 22(1):171–213
Merlan F, Rumsey A. 1991. Ku Waru: Language and Segmentary Politics in the Western Nebilyer Valley, Papua
New Guinea. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
Mines DP. 2005. Fierce Gods: Inequality, Ritual, and the Politics of Dignity in a South Indian Village. Bloomington:
Indiana Univ. Press
Munn ND. 1995. An essay on the symbolic construction of memory in the Kaluli Gisalo. In Cosmos and Society
in Oceania, ed. D de Coppet, A Iteanu, pp. 83–104. Oxford: Berg
Nourse JW. 1999. Conceiving Spirits: Birth Rituals and Contested Identities among Laujé of Indonesia. Washington,
DC: Smithson. Inst. Press

172 Stasch
 AN40CH11-Stasch ARI 16 August 2011 13:7

Ochs [Keenan] E. 1973. A sliding sense of obligatoriness: the poly-structure of Malagasy oratory. Lang. Soc.
2:225–43
Parkin D. 1984. Political language. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 13:345–65
Parmentier RJ. 1994. Signs in Society: Studies in Semiotic Anthropology. Bloomington: Indiana Univ. Press
Paulson S. 2006. Revolution, neoliberalism, and cosmopolitics: body, nation, and consubstantiation in Bolivian
ritual meals. Am. Ethnol. 33(4):650–64
Pemberton J. 1994. On the Subject of “Java”. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press
Poirier S. 1992. “Nomadic” rituals: networks of ritual exchange between women of the Australian Western
Desert. Man 27(4):757–76
Rampton B. 2002. Ritual and foreign language practices at school. Lang. Soc. 31(4):491–525
Rappaport RA. 1999. Ritual and Religion in the Making of Humanity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
Robbins J. 2001a. God is nothing but talk: modernity, language, and prayer in a Papua New Guinea society.
Am. Anthropol. 103(4):901–12
Robbins J. 2001b. Ritual communication and linguistic ideology: a reading and partial reformulation of Rap-
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2011.40:159-174. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

paport’s theory of ritual with CA comment. Curr. Anthropol. 42(5):589–612

Robbins J. 2007. You can’t talk behind the Holy Spirit’s back: Christianity and changing language ideologies in
a Papua New Guinea society. In Consequences of Contact: Language Ideologies and Sociocultural Transformations
in Pacific Societies, ed. M Makihara, B Schieffelin, pp. 125–39. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press
by Cornell University on 07/29/12. For personal use only.

Roberts E. 2010. Ritual humility in modern laboratories: or, why Ecuadorian IVF practitioners pray. See Sax
et al. 2010, pp. 131–49
Rudolph M. 2008. Ritual Performances as Authenticating Practices: Cultural Representations of Taiwan’s Aborigines
in Times of Political Change. Berlin: Lit
Rumsey A. 1999. The personification of social totalities in the Pacific. J. Pac. Stud. 23(1):48–70
Rumsey A. 2000. Agency, personhood, and the “I” of discourse in the Pacific and beyond. J. R. Anthropol. Inst.
6:101–15
Sáez OC. 2004. In search of ritual: tradition, outer world and bad manners in the Amazon. J. R. Anthropol.
Inst. 10(1):157–73
Sahlins M. 1985. Islands of History. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
Sanders T. 2008. Beyond Bodies: Rainmaking and Sense Making in Tanzania. Toronto: Univ. Tor. Press
Santos-Granero F. 1998. Writing history into the landscape: space, myth, and ritual in contemporary
Amazonia. Am. Ethnol. 25(2):128–48
Sather C. 1993. Posts, hearths and thresholds: the Iban longhouse as a ritual structure. In Inside Austronesian
Houses: Perspectives on Domestic Designs for Living, ed. JJ Fox, pp. 64–115. Canberra: Dep. Anthropol., Res.
Sch. Pac. Stud., Aust. Natl. Univ.
Sax WS. 2010. Ritual and the problem of efficacy. See Sax et al. 2010, pp. 3–16
Sax WS, Quack J, Weinhold J, eds. 2010. The Problem of Ritual Efficacy. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press
Schieffelin BB. 2007. Found in translating: reflexive language across time and texts in Bosavi, Papua New
Guinea. In Consequences of Contact: Language Ideologies and Sociocultural Transformations in Pacific Societies,
ed. M Makihara, BB Schieffelin, pp. 140–65. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press
Schieffelin EL. 1996. On failure and performance: throwing the medium out of the seance. In The Performance
of Healing, ed. C Laderman, M Roseman, pp. 59–90. New York: Routledge
Schieffelin EL. 2006. Participation. In Theorizing Rituals: Issues, Topics, Approaches, Concepts, ed. J Kreinath, J
Snoek, M Stausberg, pp. 615–26. Leiden: Brill
Schnell S. 1999. The Rousing Drum: Ritual Practice in a Japanese Community. Honolulu: Univ. Hawai’i Press
Schrauwers A. 2000. Three weddings and a performance: marriage, households, and development in the
highlands of Central Sulawesi, Indonesia. Am. Ethnol. 27(4):855–76
Seligman AB, Weller RP, Puett MJ, Simon B. 2008. Ritual and Its Consequences: An Essay on the Limits of
Sincerity. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press
Senft G, Basso E, eds. 2009. Ritual Communication. Oxford: Berg
Shaw A. 2003. Interpreting images: diagnostic skill in the genetics clinic. J. R. Anthropol. Inst. 9(1):39–55
Shoaps R. 2009. Ritual and (im)moral voices: locating the testament of Judas in Sakapultek communicative
ecology. Am. Ethnol. 36(3):459–77

www.annualreviews.org • Ritual and Oratory Revisited 173

 AN40CH11-Stasch ARI 16 August 2011 13:7

Silverstein M. 2003. Talking Politics: The Substance of Style from Abe to “W.” Chicago: Prickly Paradigm
Silverstein M. 2005. The poetics of politics: “theirs” and “ours”. J. Anthropol. Res. 61(1):1–24
Smith DJ. 2004. Burials and belonging in Nigeria: rural-urban relations and social inequality in a contemporary
African ritual. Am. Anthropol. 106(3):569–79
Smith JZ. 1987. To Take Place: Toward Theory in Ritual. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
Snyder KA. 1997. Elders’ authority and women’s protest: the Masay ritual and social change among the Iraqw
of Tanzania. J. R. Anthropol. Inst. 3(3):561–76
Spyer P. 2000. The Memory of Trade: Modernity’s Entanglements on an Eastern Indonesian Island. Durham, NC:
Duke Univ. Press
Stasch R. 2003. The semiotics of world-making in Korowai feast longhouses. Lang. Commun. 23(3/4):359–83
Tambiah S. 1985. A performative approach to ritual. In Culture, Thought, and Social Action: An Anthropological
Perspective, pp. 123–66. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
Tomlinson M. 2004. Ritual, risk, and danger: chain prayers in Fiji. Am. Anthropol. 106(1):6–16
Turner T. 1991. “We are parrots,” “twins are birds”: play of tropes as operational structure. In Beyond
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2011.40:159-174. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

Metaphor: The Theory of Tropes in Anthropology, ed. J Fernandez, pp. 121–58. Stanford: Stanford Univ.
Press
Turner T. 2006. Structure, process, form. In Theorizing Rituals: Issues, Topics, Approaches, Concepts, ed. J
Kreinath, J Snoek, M Stausberg, pp. 207–46. Leiden: Brill
by Cornell University on 07/29/12. For personal use only.

Tuzin D. 1997. The Cassowary’s Revenge: The Life and Death of Masculinity in a New Guinea Society. Chicago:
Univ. Chicago Press
Valeri V. 1985. Kingship and Sacrifice: Ritual and Society in Ancient Hawaii. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
Venbrux E. 1995. A Death in the Tiwi Islands: Conflict, Ritual and Social Life in an Australian Aboriginal Community.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
Waldman L. 2003. Houses and the ritual construction of gendered homes in South Africa. J. R. Anthropol.
Inst. 9(4):657–79
Wells EC, McAnany PA, eds. 2008. Dimensions of Ritual Economy. Research in Economic Anthropology, Vol. 27.
Bingley: JAI
Werbner P. 2001. The limits of cultural hybridity: on ritual monsters, poetic licence and contested postcolonial
purifications. J. R. Anthropol. Inst. 7(1):133–52
Wibbelsman M. 2009. Ritual Encounters: Otavalan Modern and Mythic Community. Urbana: Univ. Ill. Press
Wiessner P, Tumu A. 1998. Historical Vines: Enga Networks of Exchange, Ritual, and Warfare in Papua New
Guinea. Washington, DC: Smithson. Inst. Press
Williams P. 2003. Gypsy World: The Silence of the Living and the Voices of the Dead. Chicago: Univ. Chicago
Press
Yankah K. 1995. Speaking for the Chief: Okyeame and the Politics of Akan Royal Oratory. Bloomington: Indiana
Univ. Press

174 Stasch
 AN40-FrontMatter ARI 23 August 2011 7:33

Annual Review of
Anthropology

Volume 40, 2011

Contents

Prefatory Chapter
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2011.40:159-174. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

Anthropological Relocations and the Limits of Design

Lucy Suchman p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 1

Archaeology
by Cornell University on 07/29/12. For personal use only.

The Archaeology of Consumption

Paul R. Mullins p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 133
Migration Concepts in Central Eurasian Archaeology
Michael D. Frachetti p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 195
Archaeologists and Indigenous People: A Maturing Relationship?
Tim Murray p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 363
Archaeological Ethnography: A Multitemporal Meeting Ground
for Archaeology and Anthropology
Yannis Hamilakis p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 399
Archaeologies of Sovereignty
Adam T. Smith p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 415
A Century of Feasting Studies
Brian Hayden and Suzanne Villeneuve p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 433

Biological Anthropology
Menopause, A Biocultural Perspective
Melissa K. Melby and Michelle Lampl p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p53
Ethnic Groups as Migrant Groups: Improving Understanding
of Links Between Ethnicity/Race and Risk of Type 2 Diabetes and
Associated Conditions
Tessa M. Pollard p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 145
From Mirror Neurons to Complex Imitation in the Evolution
of Language and Tool Use
Michael A. Arbib p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 257

vi
 AN40-FrontMatter ARI 23 August 2011 7:33

From Hominoid to Hominid Mind: What Changed and Why?

Brian Hare p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 293
The Human Microbiota as a Marker for Migrations of Individuals
and Populations
Maria Gloria Dominguez-Bello and Martin J. Blaser p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 451

Linguistics and Communicative Practices

Publics and Politics
Francis Cody p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p37
Ritual and Oratory Revisited: The Semiotics of Effective Action
Rupert Stasch p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 159
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2011.40:159-174. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

Language and Migration to the United States

Hilary Parsons Dick p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 227
The Balkan Languages and Balkan Linguistics
by Cornell University on 07/29/12. For personal use only.

Victor A. Friedman p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 275

International Anthropology and Regional Studies

Central Asia in the Post–Cold War World
Morgan Y. Liu p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 115
The Ethnographic Arriving of Palestine
Khaled Furani and Dan Rabinowitz p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 475

Sociocultural Anthropology
Substance and Relationality: Blood in Contexts
Janet Carsten p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p19
Hallucinations and Sensory Overrides
T.M. Luhrmann p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p71
Phenomenological Approaches in Anthropology
Robert Desjarlais and C. Jason Throop p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p87
Migration, Remittances, and Household Strategies
Jeffrey H. Cohen p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 103
Climate and Culture: Anthropology in the Era of Contemporary
Climate Change
Susan A. Crate p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 175
Policing Borders, Producing Boundaries. The Governmentality
of Immigration in Dark Times
Didier Fassin p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 213

Contents vii
 AN40-FrontMatter ARI 23 August 2011 7:33

The Cultural Politics of Nation and Migration

Steven Vertovec p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 241
Migrations and Schooling
Marcelo M. Suárez-Orozco, Tasha Darbes, Sandra Isabel Dias, and Matt Sutin p p p p p p 311
Tobacco
Matthew Kohrman and Peter Benson p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 329
Transnational Migration and Global Health: The Production and
Management of Risk, Illness, and Access to Care
Carolyn Sargent and Stéphanie Larchanché p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 345
Concepts and Folk Theories
Susan A. Gelman and Cristine H. Legare p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 379
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2011.40:159-174. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

Migration-Religion Studies in France: Evolving Toward a Religious

Anthropology of Movement
Sophie Bava p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 493
by Cornell University on 07/29/12. For personal use only.

Theme I: Anthropology of Mind

Hallucinations and Sensory Overrides
T.M. Luhrmann p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p71
Phenomenological Approaches in Anthropology
Robert Desjarlais and C. Jason Throop p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p87
From Mirror Neurons to Complex Imitation in the Evolution of
Language and Tool Use
Michael A. Arbib p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 257
From Hominoid to Hominid Mind: What Changed and Why?
Brian Hare p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 293
Concepts and Folk Theories
Susan A. Gelman and Cristine H. Legare p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 379

Theme II: Migration

Migration, Remittances, and Household Strategies
Jeffrey H. Cohen p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 103
Ethnic Groups as Migrant Groups: Improving Understanding of Links
Between Ethnicity/Race and Risk of Type 2 Diabetes and Associated
Conditions
Tessa M. Pollard p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 145
Migration Concepts in Central Eurasian Archaeology
Michael D. Frachetti p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 195

viii Contents
 AN40-FrontMatter ARI 23 August 2011 7:33

Policing Borders, Producing Boundaries. The Governmentality

of Immigration in Dark Times
Didier Fassin p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 213
Language and Migration to the United States
Hilary Parsons Dick p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 227
The Cultural Politics of Nation and Migration
Steven Vertovec p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 241
Migrations and Schooling
Marcelo M. Suárez-Orozco, Tasha Darbes, Sandra Isabel Dias,
and Matt Sutin p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 311
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2011.40:159-174. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

Transnational Migration and Global Health: The Production

and Management of Risk, Illness, and Access to Care
Carolyn Sargent and Stéphanie Larchanché p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 345
by Cornell University on 07/29/12. For personal use only.

The Human Microbiota as a Marker for Migrations of Individuals

and Populations
Maria Gloria Dominguez-Bello and Martin J. Blaser p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 451
Migration-Religion Studies in France: Evolving Toward a Religious
Anthropology of Movement
Sophie Bava p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 493

Indexes

Cumulative Index of Contributing Authors, Volumes 31–40 p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 509

Cumulative Index of Chapter Titles, Volumes 31–40 p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 512

Errata

An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Anthropology articles may be found at

http://anthro.annualreviews.org/errata.shtml

Contents ix