Interesting Friends and Faux Amis: An Introduction to New Directions in French

Anthropology
Author(s): Susan Carol Rogers
Source: Cultural Anthropology, Vol. 14, No. 3 (Aug., 1999), pp. 396-404
Published by: Wiley on behalf of the American Anthropological Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/656656 .
Accessed: 04/02/2014 13:49

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Wiley and American Anthropological Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to Cultural Anthropology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Tue, 4 Feb 2014 13:49:25 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 A Forum on Anthropology in/of France

Interesting Friends and Faux Amis:

An Introduction to New Directions in
French Anthropology
Susan Carol Rogers
New YorkUniversity

The Frenchtermfaux ami (literally, "false friend")is a useful one, referringto a

word in a foreign language that seems familiar but carries a meaning quite dif-
ferent from its French analogue. Eventuellement,for example, does not convey
the futurecertaintydenoted by "eventually"but is more accuratelytranslatedas
an uncertain"should the occasion arise." The pairfaux ami andfalsefriend, in
fact, shares a sense of "notto be trusted,"but while the English phraseconnotes
the moral danger of betrayal in a human relationship, the French phrase con-
notes the technical dangerof misunderstandingresulting from facile translation.
The French and Anglo-American traditions of anthropology,' while un-
doubtedly not false friends, are arguablyfaux amis. For most American-trained
anthropologists,Frenchanthropologyoccupies a kind of familiar/foreignground,
territorymined with misleadingly similar appearances.Certainly, we do share
some professional terrain:the histories of Anglo-American and French anthro-
pology have involved some sharedancestors, mutualborrowing,and apparently
common influences across roughly similar trajectories.Over the course of this
century, Durkheimian, Weberian, Marxist, and structuraliststyles of analysis
have at times-though not always at exactly the same times or in identical
ways-been importantto both traditions. The work of Durkheim and Mauss,
and later Van Gennep and L6vi-Strauss, have helped shape the foundations of
U.S. anthropologicalthought (generally throughthe intermediaryof British so-
cial anthropologists). More recently, the work of such French thinkers as
Bourdieu and Foucaulthas acquiredsufficient prominenceon this side of the At-
lantic to suggest a significant convergence of French and American social
thought. Frenchanthropologists,meanwhile, have generally been more inclined
to look to their American (and British) counterpartsfor data than for ideas.
Nonetheless, such figures as Boas and Herskovits, and later Sahlins and Mintz,
have, like Malinowski, Evans-Pritchard,and Douglas, been familiarreferences

Cultural Anthropology 14(3):396-422. Copyright ? 1999, American Anthropological Association.

396

This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Tue, 4 Feb 2014 13:49:25 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ANTHROPOLOGY IN/OF FRANCE 397

in Frenchanthropologicalwork. More recently, the influence of Erving Goffman

as well as Robert Park and other Chicago-school sociologists suggests a move
toward the Americanization of French anthropological thought.
At the same time, the general contours of both the Anglo-American and
French versions of the discipline have taken similar shapes over the course of
their development as institutionalizeddisciplines during this century (a process
begun somewhat earlier in the United States and Britain than in France).Ameri-
can, British, and French anthropologists all largely focused their research ef-
forts on the more "primitive"partsof their respective national internalor exter-
nal empires.2Arguably, within both Anglo-American and French traditions,the
ultimate purpose of the anthropological enterprise was less to understand
"primitive"societies per se than to deploy such studies to understandbetterthe
natureof human society, using them to stretch our imaginations about the range
of humanpossibility. In any case, Anglo-American and French anthropologies,
as the study of the general humancondition groundedin the experience of exotic
peoples, have stood in sharpcontrastto those many other versions of the disci-
pline that developed in Europe and elsewhere during the 19th or 20th centuries
as the study of a specific national people.
Throughoutthis century,French,British, and Americananthropologists,as
students of the human condition, have occasionally conducted anthropological
researchin their own or otherfamiliarsocieties (e.g., Bernot and Blancard 1953;
Dumont 1951; Frankenberg 1957; Hertz 1928; Kroeber 1918; M6traux and
Mead 1954; Powdermaker 1939) and have perhaps more frequently made
authoritative statements about such settings. Nonetheless, it was not until the
1970s that there emerged within both Anglo-American and French anthropo-
logical traditions a strong and self-conscious move to include within the range
of societies considered interesting and legitimate to study ethnographically
those classified as "Western"(in Anglo-American parlance)or "contemporary"
(in French usage). In the United States and Great Britain, this development has
entailed a dramatic increase in ethnographic research conducted at home and
near-abroad:American anthropologists have turned considerable attention to
the United States and Europe, while our British colleagues have attended in-
creasingly to the British Isles and the Continent. French anthropologists inter-
ested in extending the ethnographic enterprise to the "contemporary"world
have generally remained at home, focusing primarilyon the study of France. It
is certainly noteworthy that such a development has occurred contemporane-
ously in all three settings, suggesting in each case consequential redefinitions of
the intellectual justifications for the ethnographic enterprise, reshaping of re-
searchagendas, andreconfigurationof relationshipswith the cognate disciplines.
Still, it is perhaps not so self-evident that the nature,consequences, or ex-
perience of such a departureare quite the same on either side of the Atlantic (or
Channel). Might not a significant difference of meaning be signaled by the fact
that we are inclined to conceive of the expanded ethnographic map in spatial
terms (Western), while for our Frenchcolleagues, temporalterms (modern,con-
temporary) appear to be more pertinent? If poststructuralist, post-Marxist

This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Tue, 4 Feb 2014 13:49:25 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
398 CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY

Frenchanthropologistsfind inspirationin RobertParkandErving Goffman, and

are as perplexed by postmodern American fascination with Foucault and
Bourdieu as by our indifference to Chicago-school sociology, might we not be
dealing with faux amis?
Indeed, because the family resemblances sketched above are so obvious
and familiar, they invite complacent assumptions about the commonalities of
Anglo-American and French versions of the anthropologicalenterprise, facili-
tating mutual misunderstandings of the conventional as well as novel turns
taken by each. In fact, the intellectual and institutionalhistories and currentcon-
texts of the two traditionsarequite distinct. While British and Americananthro-
pologies developed over this centuryin sustainedexchange, debate, and critique
back and forth across the Atlantic, the intersections between Anglo-American
and Frenchanthropologieshave been much more sporadic.One cause and result
of the latterkind of relationshiphas been thatworks borrowedin either direction
are apt to be reinterpretedto fit the persistently distinctive intellectual preoccu-
pations of their adoptive home. The question of how particularworks change
meaning in the trip to or from France and the United States (or United King-
dom), as well as why and when they are considered worth borrowing, is by no
means a transparentone. But it is undoubtedlybetteransweredwith reference to
their relevance to the intellectual trajectoriesspecific to the point of debarkment
than by expositions of their significance at the point of embarkmentor by claims
to intellectual convergence. Without a doubt, the Chicago-school sociologists
have acquiredmeanings in the contemporaryFrenchcontext thatthey never had
on this side of the Atlantic, just as French thinkers currentlyfashionable in the
United States are certainly understoodand used in ways that are largely unrec-
ognizable in their country of origin (Bahloul 1991; cf. Barbichon 1991). The
phenomenon is by no means a new one: the Durkheimian or Levi-Straussian
thought absorbed into Anglo-American anthropology carries interestingly dif-
ferent meanings and significance than its legacies in the French context, while
French readings of Boas, Evans-Pritchard,or Goffman bear provocatively Gal-
lic twists. Adequate elaboration of this observation would require-and cer-
tainly merits-considerably more space and competence than is available here;
the point I mean to make is thatit is worthbeing both beware of and intriguedby
the faux-amis aspects of French and Anglo-American anthropologicalthought
and practice.
Among the causes and indicators of the distinctive intellectual trajectories
to be found on either side of the Atlantic (or Channel) are the nationally specific
institutional contexts within which the discipline has developed. Over this cen-
tury, anthropology has acquired a well-established place in the highly elabo-
ratedandprofessionalized scholarly worlds to be found in France,GreatBritain,
and the United States. The mannersin which knowledge, scholarship, intellec-
tual life, and higher education are organized, however, vary substantiallycross-
nationally, contrasting in ways that have affected the shape of anthropological
thought and practice in each setting. The specificities of Frenchanthropology's
institutional context are no more consequential than are those characteristicof

This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Tue, 4 Feb 2014 13:49:25 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ANTHROPOLOGY IN/OF FRANCE 399

the United States or Britain, but I shall focus here on the Frenchcase, sketching
some points that stand in particularly sharp contrast to the familiar world in
which American anthropologyhas developed.3
First, althoughthe size of the anthropologyprofession has grown exponen-
tially in France as elsewhere over the last generation or two, the numberof pro-
fessional anthropologists remains very small in comparison with that in the
United States and highly concentratedgeographically compared with both the
United States and Great Britain. Today, there are no more than a few hundred
professional anthropologists in France, the majority of whom were trained in
Paris and are permanentlybased there. To a considerable extent, the world of
French anthropology remains a face-to-face (or back-to-back) community,
characterizedby relatively little geographic mobility, strikingly enduring rela-
tionships of professional allegiance or animosity, and fairly high concentrations
of power over employment, publication, and researchfunding in the hands of a
few patrons.The resultantsocial dynamic facilitates wholesale shifts-consen-
sual or coercive-in dominant styles of anthropological analysis, as well as in
ideas about legitimate alternatives.
A second characteristic of French anthropology stands in equally sharp
contrastto the American (and British) institutionalcontext. While American an-
thropology has developed primarilyas a university-baseddiscipline, French an-
thropology entered the French (public) university system relatively late and re-
mains a limited presence there. Rather, French anthropology has been largely
based in public researchorganizations(especially the National Centerfor Scien-
tific Research [CNRS] but also the Organization for Scientific Research in
Overseas Territoriesand other state-sponsoredresearch institutions). This pat-
tern has at least two importantconsequences. First, relatively few French an-
thropologists hold university positions; most work as full-time researchers, as
members of researchgroups defined by geographic, topical, or theoretical spe-
cialty. Although many research anthropologiststeach regularly or occasionally
within the university system, their primaryinstitutional affiliations and obliga-
tions lie elsewhere. Further,lower status generally attaches to university posts
in anthropologythan to researchappointmentsor to positions in one of the pres-
tigious public graduateinstitutions outside of the university system (College de
France, Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales). The discipline as a
whole has, as a result, been considerably less shaped by the constraints and po-
tentials of college and university teaching than has been the case in the United
States (or Britain).
Anthropology's modest presence in the university system also means that
most French anthropologists acquire substantial training in another discipline
(often philosophy) before undertakinganthropology at a fairly advanced stage
of their postsecondarystudies. Until the 1970s, thereexisted no university train-
ing in anthropologybelow the advanceddoctoral level. Virtually all anthropolo-
gists completing their studies prior to that period passed the agregation (a na-
tional examination roughly equivalent to Ph.D. comprehensive exams) in
philosophy before beginning a specialty in anthropology. Today, there exist

This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Tue, 4 Feb 2014 13:49:25 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
400 CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY

several graduateprogramsin anthropologybeginning at the master's level. Be-

fore entering such programs,however, studentshave necessarily dedicated sev-
eral years of university study to anothersubject and continue to be well served
by a substantialbackgroundin philosophy. Frenchanthropologistsare therefore
apt to bring to their reading and writing of anthropologyacademic backgrounds
that are somewhat different from those common among Anglo-American an-
thropologists.
In France, higher education and scholarly researchare affairs of state. The
university system and the CNRS-and thereforemost anthropologists-fall un-
der the direct jurisdiction of the Ministry of Education and Research, while a
number of other ministries control more specialized schools or research insti-
tutes.4As a result, the general contours of research and education politics and
policy are linked somewhat more directly to high-level national politics in
France than in the United States or GreatBritain. By the same token, persons in
or aiming for powerful positions within anthropology (as in other disciplines)
necessarily cultivate connections and influence within the halls of political
power in the French state. At the same time, they are likely to have access to a
degree of public visibility thatis rarein the British or Americancontexts. French
newspapers, for example, regularly publish commentaries, book reviews, and
interviews by anthropologists and other scholars, and their books are apt to be
advertised and available to a public well beyond the academy.5Even scholarly
journals are regularly sold in Parisian bookstores. And although some of these
are primarilydirectedto a specialized disciplinaryor interdisciplinaryacademic
audience (e.g., L'Homme,Etudes Rurales), French scholars also regularly con-
tributeto and readjournals meant for a sophisticated general audience (e.g., Le
Debat, Les TempsModernes). If classroom teaching provides a relatively less
importantforum for Frenchanthropologiststhan for American ones, the French
audience is considerably more likely to include both a political elite and a rela-
tively broadeducated public.
Without a doubt, such characteristics have helped to mold specifically
French trajectories of anthropological thought and practice, and they provide
partof the setting in which the development of a Frenchanthropologyof France,
as described in the following essays, has occurred.6
Each of the respective authorsof the following two articles has been a key
player in this development. Marc Ab6les followed the royal road to anthropol-
ogy in France and has pursueda careerthat both exemplifies and has mobilized
some recent developments in the discipline. Trained at the Ecole Normale
Sup6rieure,he passed his agr6gationin philosophy before undertakingdoctoral
research in anthropology (1974-75), under the direction of Claude L6vi-
Strauss, on political ritual among the Ochello of Ethiopia. In 1979, he was ap-
pointed to CNRS andjoined the Laboratoired'Anthropologie Sociale directed
by L6vi-Straussat the College de France. Beginning in the 1980s, he turnedhis
attentionto political networks and practices in Franceand the EuropeanUnion,
conducting ethnographicresearch in a French departement(Abeles 1991), the
EuropeanParliament(Abeles 1992), and the EuropeanCommission. In 1994, he

This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Tue, 4 Feb 2014 13:49:25 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ANTHROPOLOGY IN/OF FRANCE 401

founded a new research group within CNRS, the Laboratoired'Anthropologie

des Institutionset des OrganisationsSociales (LAIOS), with the aim of "devel-
oping an anthropologyof political power, institutions, and organizationsin con-
temporary societies" (LAIOS n.d., my translation). This group, composed of
about twenty scholars with CNRS or university appointments,has emerged as
one of the more lively and influential centers currentlyfostering a rethinking of
French anthropology.
ChristineLanglois has been in a privileged position to observe, encourage,
and orient new directions in French anthropology over the past two decades
throughher association, since its inception, with a novel institution, the Mission
du PatrimoineEthnologique in the Ministry of Culture.In conjunction with the
Annee du Patrimoine("HeritageYear")declaredby presidentialdecree in 1980,
Isac Chiva (then associate director of the Laboratoired'Anthropologie Sociale
directed by L&vi-Strauss)and other anthropologistsinterested in promoting an-
thropological scholarship of France organized several major museum exhibits
and other public events to showcase France's ethnographicheritage. Their suc-
cess in broadeningthe notion ofpatrimoine beyond monumentsand "high"cul-
ture to include the materialand intangible cultureof interestto ethnographersof
France was secured with the implementation of their proposal to create a small
unit dedicated to France's "ethnographicheritage"within the Ministry of Cul-
ture. As Langlois explains in her article, this unit was (and is) endowed with re-
sources to finance ethnographicresearchin Franceandto disseminate its results,
institutionallyindependentof existing university andresearchstructures.By an-
nually defining research topics for which it awards competitive grants, it has
played an importantrole in setting the research agendas shaping the anthropol-
ogy of Francesince the early 1980s. Its biannualjournalTerrain(edited by Lang-
lois) has become one of the majoranthropologyjournals in France,serving as an
importantoutlet and resource for professional anthropologists as well as being
disseminated to a wider public. Unlike most scholarly journals in France, it in-
cludes not only articles and book reviews but also reports of research in prog-
ress, announcementsand reportsof conferences, and occasional thematic bibli-
ographies, thus inviting broaderparticipationin-or observation of-research
activity relating to the ethnographyof Francethan is usual in other domains. Fi-
nally, the mission's monographicpublications series (managedby Langlois) has
provided anotherimportantoutlet for ethnographersof France, as well as a col-
lection of readily accessible books of relatively broad interest to the French
reading public.
In my experience, it has required no less ongoing effort to understand
something of the world of French anthropological scholarship than to grasp
those settings in Francewhere I have conducted ethnographicresearch.The dif-
ference lies in our expectation that fieldwork requiresa concentratedperiod de-
voted to deciphering an unfamiliarworld, while we are inclined to suppose that
the styles of thought and practice of those with whom we share a profession will
be immediately transparenton our own familiar terms. The costs of oblivion to
the pitfalls of faux amis are similar to the wages of the sin of ethnocentrism

This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Tue, 4 Feb 2014 13:49:25 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
402 CULTURALANTHROPOLOGY

about which we warn our students: hubristic misunderstandings, wrongheaded

judgments, damaging blunders, and missed opportunities for fruitful exchange.
The insights offered by the following two articles on new developments in
French anthropology will, I hope, offer food for thought about the foreign mean-
ings potentially carried by familiar forms and about the diversity of anthropolo-
gies of and in the contemporary Western world.

Notes

Acknowledgments. Earlierversions of the articles by Abeles and Langlois, as well

as my introduction, were presented at the Instituteof French Studies (IFS) at New York
University in November 1997. The session, entitled "How the Anthropology of France
Has Changed Anthropology in France," was conceived and organized by Emmanuelle
Saada as part of the weekly IFS luncheon seminarseries. Many thanks are due to her for
her (as usual) effective execution of an excellent idea; to Fred Myers for his ongoing
commitment to fostering French-Americananthropological connections, including his
efforts to bring these presentationsto print;and to Daniel A. Segal for his interestin this
project.
1. The simple dichotomy "Anglo-American"and "French"of course obfuscates
the relationships of British anthropology with the U.S. discipline, on the one hand, and
the French, on the other. These would undoubtedly merit closer consideration than is
possible here. For the present purposes, this shorthandis justified partlyby the common
French practice of lumping together American and British anthropology (among other
things) under the rubric "Anglo-Saxon." Further, it can be argued that British and
American anthropologies have developed in sustained interchange of personnel and
ideas, each defined in self-conscious and generally well informed reference to the other;
they are, as a result, closely related and mutually intelligible if not altogether indistin-
guishable.
2. For example, the illiterate societies of FrenchWest Africa or anglophone Africa
generally drew more anthropological attention than did the literate "civilizations" of
North Africa or India; the aboriginal populations of North America and Australia were
of interest, while the former settler colonies of Quebec and Australia were not.
3. As in the case of national distinctions in the intellectual histories of anthropol-
ogy, I would argue that the discipline's institutional histories in the United States and
Britain are, if not similar, at least mutuallyfamiliarthanksto sustained exchanges of per-
sonnel, observation, and commentary(e.g., Kuper 1996; Murphy 1971). In comparison,
the French institutional context has remainedconsiderably more dissimilar and unfamil-
iar with respect to either American or British settings.
4. For example, the Ministry of Agriculturesponsors a network of schools provid-
ing advanced training in the agriculturalsciences, as well as the National Institute for
AgriculturalResearch, which employs a few anthropologists.
5. French colleagues are frequently astonished to discover the low sales figures of
most academic books in the United States. Assuming the same breadthof audience they
can expect in France, they are inclined to imagine a readership three or four times as
great in the United States (commensurate with differences in total population size),
ratherthan the more realistic fraction of copies of comparable books likely to be sold
here.
6. For a more general survey of the state of French anthropology as it appeareda
decade ago, see Revue L'Homme (1986). Collections treating the emergence of an

This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Tue, 4 Feb 2014 13:49:25 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 IN/OFFRANCE 403
ANTHROPOLOGY

anthropology of Franceinclude Althabe et al. 1992, Chiva and Jeggle 1987, and Segalen
1989.

References Cited

Abeles, Marc
1991[1989] Quiet Days in Burgundy. Annella McDermott, trans.Cambridge:Cam-
bridge University Press.
1992 La vie quotidienne au ParlementEuropeen. Paris: Hachette.
Althabe,Gerard,Daniel Fabre,andGerardLenclud,eds.
1992 Vers une ethnologie du present. Paris: Editions de la Maison des Sciences de
l'Homme.
Bahloul, Joelle
1991 France-USA: Ethnographied'une migration intellectuelle. Ethnologie Fran-
caise 21:49-55.
Barbichon,Guy
1991 Le Huron chez Narcisse: Un regard renouvele de l'anthropologie americaine
sur la France. Ethnologie Francaise 21:56-66.
Berot, Lucien, andRene Blancard
1953 Nouville, un village Francais.Paris: Institut d'Ethnologie.
Chiva, Isac, andUtz Jeggle, eds.
1987 Ethnologies en miroir:La France et les pays de langue allemande. Paris: Edi-
tions de la Maison des Sciences de l'Homme.
Dumont,Louis
1951 Tarasque: Essai de description d'un fait local d'un point de vue ethno-
graphique. Paris: Gallimard.
Frankenberg,Ronald
1957 Village on the Border: A Social Study of Religion, Politics and Football in a
North Wales Community. London: Cohen and West.
Hertz,Robert
1928 Saint-Besse: Etude d'un culte alpestre. In Melanges de sociologie religieuse et
de folklore. Pp. 131-194. Paris: LibrairieFelix Alcan.
Kroeber,Alfred
1918 On the Principle of Orderin Civilization as Exemplified by Changes in Fash-
ion. American Anthropologist 21:235-263.
Kuper,Adam
1996 Anthropology and Anthropologists: The Modern British School. London:
Routledge.
Laboratoired'Anthropologiedes Institutionset OrganisationsSociales (LAIOS)
N.d. Le LAIOS. Brochure.
Metraux,Rhoda,andMargaretMead,eds.
1954 Themes in French Culture:A Preface to a Study of French Community. Stan-
ford, CA: StanfordUniversity Press.
Murphy,Robert
1971 The Dialectics of Social Life: Alarms and Excursions in AnthropologicalThe-
ory. New York: BantamBooks.
Powdermaker,Hortense
1939 After Freedom: A CulturalStudy in the Deep South. New York: Viking Press.

This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Tue, 4 Feb 2014 13:49:25 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
404 CULTURALANTHROPOLOGY

Revue L'Homme
1986 Anthropologie: Etat des lieux. Paris: Livre de Poche.
Segalen, Martine
1989 L'Autre et le semblable: Regards sur l'ethnologie des societes contempo-
raines. Paris: Presses du CNRS.

How the Anthropology of France Has Changed

Anthropology in France: Assessing New Directions
in the Field
Marc Abeles
Laboratoire d'Anthropologie des Institutions et des Organisations Sociales
Maison des Sciences de I'Homme

It may seem a bit presumptuousto assert that the anthropology of France has
changed anthropologyin France, and I believe that many of my colleagues who
work in distant societies in other parts of the world would not agree with this
idea. Anthropology has developed largely as the study of the "other."For a long
time, the obsession with alterity played an importantpart in the conception of
anthropological work in France, as elsewhere. There is a great traditionof an-
thropology characterizedby exotic fieldwork and the study of such topics as
kinship, religion, and symbolism. For many anthropologists,what is important
is the remoteness (in space or in time) of their object of study, whether it is a
tribe or a marginalized urbangroup. In the classical paradigmwhat is empha-
sized is the distance of the object. I think it is possible to introduceanotherway
of practicing anthropology.
Until the 1970s the most noticeable contributions to anthropological
knowledge in France were produced by anthropologists like Claude Levi-
Strauss, Dumont, and Balandier-an Americanist, South Asianist, and African-
ist, respectively. The Instituteof Ethnology, the first such institution in France,
was createdbefore WorldWarII. Until the end of the 1950s, otheranthropologi-
cal research centers did not exist, and anthropology was taught only at the Sor-
bonne for postgraduatestudents. The creation of Laboratoired'Anthropologie
Sociale (LAS) by Levi-Strauss, and a few years later of the Laboratoryof Eth-
nology and ComparativeSociology in Nanterre,and the development of cultural
areas centers in the Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, such as the
Centerfor African Studies and the Centerfor IndianStudies, have played an im-
portantrole in the institutionalizationof anthropology.
One must also take note of the existence of the Center for French Ethnol-
ogy, which has been located in the Museum of PopularArt and Traditionsince
being founded before World War II. In this research center, ethnological work
on France was pursuedvery much along the lines of more exotic anthropology.
Its aim was to study traditions among the most distant communities: oral

This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Tue, 4 Feb 2014 13:49:25 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions