Marriott's Review of Dumont's Homo Hierarchicus: A Comment

Author(s): Louis Dumont

Source: American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 72, No. 2 (Apr., 1970), pp. 468-469
Published by: Wiley on behalf of the American Anthropological Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/671648 .
Accessed: 23/06/2014 20:22

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 American Anthropologist.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.78.108.40 on Mon, 23 Jun 2014 20:22:39 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
ReviewCorrespondence
GOULD'sREVIEWOF Contemporary my criticismin a footnote of Lloyd Rudolph
India: A REJOINDER and Susanne Rudolph'sposition that caste is
I am not in the habit of quibbling with an instrumentof democratization.I am not
the views of a reviewer, but as an editor of denying that caste groups in India like eth-
nic groups in the United States are politi-
Contemporary India (AA 71:331-333) I cized. I am questioningthe value of equat-
deem it my duty to set some facts straight.
Every article in the book was commissioned ing democracy with politicization, which
and written in accordance with a general seems to be a major fallacy in the writings
outline supplied by me and as such they of most political scientists in the United
were not pulled out of "a bottom desk States.
drawer filled with assorted research papers Professor Gould has unhesitatingly
that yearn to find their way into print" for praised the essays of eleven of the nineteen
whatevermotivation. contributors to this book, but he cannot
Professor Gould has selected the essay ti- make up his mind about the quality of the
book. However, I would take his first verdict
tled "History and the Indian World View" of the book as "somewherebetween reward-
as his special target for attack. Questionsof
character"may not be the meat ing and uninspiring"and his last recommen-
"onto.logical
to Gould's taste but they are certainly rele- dation for "using this book in India courses
vant to an analysis of history, as should be to provoke discussion"as indices of his real
clear to anyone who reads this essay written opinion of the book and thank him for this.
I should also add my gratitudeto American
by Professor John T. Marcus.To claim that
Marcus "is really suggestinga new variation Anthropologistfor giving it a major review
on Rudyard Kipling's famous old invoca- as some of the journalsand leading newspa-
tion" on East and West is really doing great pers in India and Europe have done, espe-
because the Journal of Asian Studies
injustice to a man who has spent a lifetime ciallywhatever
(for reason) chose to ignore it and
fighting this myth through various publica- thus close it to the
tions, some of them in journals that most scrutiny of American
read. scholarsinterestedin india.
anthropologists
Professor Gould is again unfair when he BAIDYANATH VARMA
reads in my "fairly extensive discussion of Columbia University
caste" a message "thatno one except Profes-
sor Varma knows how to deal properlywith MARRIOTT'SREVIEW OF DUMONT'S Homo
the subject."Of course, I may be guilty of hierarchicus: A COMMENT
suggesting a rather comprehensive frame- Thanks to the kindness of Professor
work for the analysis of caste, in which so- McKim Marriott I was allowed to see his re-
ciologists as well as political scientists are as view of my book, Homo hierarchicus, be-
interested as the anthropologists.The sen- fore its publication (AA 71:1166-1175). It
tence Gould quotes and calls jargon is one will be clear to any reader that in this case
of the four categories of analysis of the the authorand the reviewerare separatedby
caste system and is not one that any anthro- fundamental disagreements, which I don't
pologist is likely to use easily. It is written in think it would be profitable to go into at this
perfectly good English and can be under- point. Yet I feel moved to say that I cannot
stood by any educatedlayman. recognize my endeavor in the account the
I may have "an ideological aversion" to reviewer gives. It is obvious to me that he
the caste system but that does not color my misunderstoodand misrepresentedit.
sociological perception and analysis of it. It is possible that the difficultyof the lan-
Professor Gould again misses the point in guage in the originalmay be partlyresponsi-
468

This content downloaded from 195.78.108.40 on Mon, 23 Jun 2014 20:22:39 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Review Correspondence 469
ble for some misunderstandings.'As an Eng- Bulletin of the School of Orientaland African
lish translationis to appear shortly, I hope Studies 32:392;
that those who look into it may share my Tribus 18: 152-161;
reaction to Professor Marriott's strictures. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenliindischen
That it is not simply a case of the author Gesellschaft 118:399-402.
being hopelessly muddled is seen in the fact For more on the problem see:
that another colleague with field experience J. Henninger, Ueber Lebensraumund Lebens-
in this part of the world, Nur Yalman, has form der Friihsemiten, Arbeitsgemeinschaft
shown a complete grasp of the main tenets fidr Forschung des Landes Nordrhein-West-
of the book in a review article he published falen, Heft 151, 1968, K•1n-Opladen.
in Man (4:123-131). For the future, I take the liberty of point-
Louis DUMONT
ing out that we European anthropologists
Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes, Paris are interested only in reviews by competent
NOTE American scholars and not by young Euro-
on whose background
STosingleout one detail,the reviewertrans- pean anthropologists
lates en retrait ("receding")by "in retreat" most of our American colleagues are not in-
as if I had written en retraite (which would not formed.
be correct French in the context). WALTERDOSTAL
Universitiit Bern
LOFFLER'S REVIEWOF Die Beduinen
in Siidarabien: A COMMENT LOEFFLER'S
REPLYTO DOSTAL
A review of my book by Dr. Reinhold L. Professor Dostal's letter does not invali-
L*ffler, Western Michigan University, was date any of the arguments presented in my
publishedin the February 1969 issue of the review of his book. To those who are in-
American Anthropologist (AA 71:325- formed about his "background," his claim
326). I regret that your publication was to speak for "we European anthropologists"
abused for a private revenge-action.As cor- seems as unfounded as most of the
arguments
rectives to the ignorant and incompetentre- in his book.
view, I refer to the following: REINHOLD LOEFFLER
Anthropos, 63/64: 298-301; Western Michigan University

This content downloaded from 195.78.108.40 on Mon, 23 Jun 2014 20:22:39 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions