Johannes Fabian takes an historical look at anthropology to demonstrate the emergence, transformation, and differentiation of uses of Time. Anthropological theory, from its beginnings in philosophy and linguistics, has provided Western thought and politics with deep-rooted images and convictions amounting to a kind of political cosmology. The anthropologists are 'here and now, ' the objects of their discourse are 'there and then, ' and the existence of the 'other'-- the 'savage', 'the 'primitive, ' the 'underdeveloped' world -- in the same (...) time as ours is regularly denied. While written for the anthropologist, Time and the Other applies equally well to the fields of literary criticism, philosophy, and history. (shrink)

Marilyn Strathern argues that gender relations in Melanesia have been a particular casualty of unexamined assumptions held by Western anthropologists and feminist scholars alike. The book treats with equal seriousness, and with equal good humour, the insights of Western social science, feminist politics, and ethnographic reporting, in order to rethink the representation of Melanesian social and cultural life.

At this point I should say something about one of the frequent criticisms addressed to me, and to which I have always wanted to respond, that in the process of characterizing the production of Europe’s inferior Others, my work is only negative polemic which does not advance a new epistemological approach or method, and expresses only desperation at the possibility of ever dealing seriously with other cultures. These criticisms are related to the matters I’ve been discussing so far, and while (...) I have no desire to unleash a point-by-point refutation of my critics, I do want to respond in a way that is intellectually pertinent to the topic at hand.What I took myself to be undertaking in Orientalism was an adversarial critique not only of the field’s perspective and political economy, but also of the sociocultural situation that makes its discourse both so possible and so sustainable. Epistemologies, discourses, and methods like Orientalism are scarcely worth the name if they are reductively characterized as objects like shoes, patched when worn out, discarded and replaced with new objects when old and unfixable. The archival dignity, institutional authority, and patriarchal longevity of Orientalism should be taken seriously because in the aggregate these traits function as a worldview with considerable political force not easily brushed away as so much epistemology. Thus Orientalism in my view is a structure erected in the thick of an imperial contest whose dominant wing it represented and elaborated not only as scholarship but as a partisan ideology. Yet Orientalism hid the contest beneath its scholarly and aesthetic idioms. These things are what I was trying to show, in addition to arguing that there is no discipline, no structure of knowledge, no institution or epistemology that can or has ever stood free of the various sociocultural, historical, and political formations that give epochs their peculiar individuality. Edward W. Said is Parr Professor of English and Comparative Literature at Columbia University. His most recent contribution to Critical Inquiry is “An Ideology of Difference”. (shrink)

Sandra Harding here develops further the themes first addressed in her widely influential book, The Science Question in Feminism, and conducts a compelling analysis of feminist theories on the philosophical problem of how we know what we ...

Many feminists have aruged that researchers must “give voice” to hitherto silenced women by adopting “the view from below.” Critically reviewing the literature on feminist methodology, the author argues that this perspective, while absolutely essential, is not sufficient. Confining research to induction-based methods ignores the limits to such research: Ideologies of oppression are often internalized, while the underlying structures of oppression are hidden. Marxist approaches may help reveal hidden determinants of oppression, but they risk exacerbating inequalities between researcher and researched. (...) Women's experience of a world shaped by structures of inequality produces contradictory relationships among researcher and researched and requires a methodology that deals with difference and the blindness of privilege among women. Women's oppression is “a complex of many contradictions” and necessitates a new standpoint-based methodology, created by researchers and participants of diverse race, class, and other oppressed groups, refocusing and re-visioning knowledge based on theory, action, and experience. (shrink)

Taken as a philosophical issue, the idea of representation implies the prior assumption of a difference between reality and its “doubles.” Things are paired with images, concepts, or symbols, acts with rules and norms, events with structures. Traditionally, the problem with representations has been their “accuracy,” the degree of fit between reality and its reproductions in the mind. When philosophers lost the hope of ever determining accuracy , they found consolation in the test of usefulness: a good representation is one (...) that works. The proof of its working is that it enables us to act on the world together.1 In such a frame, science, including anthropology, is conceived as the pursuit of privileged representations, privileged in that, by their nature of by their combination, they establish knowledge of a special kind. In the case of anthropology, “culture” has served as a sort of umbrella concept for representations. The strcuturalists have been most explicit about the need to think of representation in the plural, but their position is shared, in varying degrees, by all those who conceive of knowledge as the selection and combination of signs in systems, patterns, or structures, in short, as some kind of conceptual order ruling perceptual chaos. 1. Remember the connection between the Kantian quest for synthetic forms and Émile Durkheim’s idea of collective representations sustained by the moral authority of a society. Durkheim certainly was one to look for the “ethic” in the “ethnic” primitive, and it makes me wonder whether Stephen A. Tyler’s characterization of postmodern ethnography as a return to “an earlier and more powerful notion of the ethical character of all discourse, as captured in the ancient significance of the family of terms ‘ethos,’ ‘ethnos,’ ‘ethics’” might not signal a return to the Durkheimian fold . Johannes Fabian is professor of cultural anthropology at the University of Amsterdam. His publications include Jamaa: A Charismatic Movement in Katanga , Time and the Other: How Anthropology Makes Its Object , and Language and Colonial Power: The Appropriation of Swahili in the Former Belgian Congo, 1880-1938 . Two books will appear in 1990: History from Below: The Vocabulary of Elisabethville by André Yav, a commented edition-translation of a colonial history written in Swahili by the colonized for the colonized, and Power and Performance, a study of conceptions of power through popular wisdom and theater in Shaba/Zaire. (shrink)

The ten papers in this volume offer different versions of how and where anthropologists might work usefully in today's world, converging on the issue of how anthropology can best recapture the progressive character its basic concepts, such as "culture," once had. Together the authors demonstrate that a reinvigorated anthropology must recognize how the profession labors under an existing intellectual discipline, with its own political and economic history, on a global "shop floor.".

Like Conrad's Marlow, whose tale of journeying into the "heart of darkness" gives us as much insight into one man's personality as it does into the mysteries of the dark world he explored, so the anthropologist's record of another culture contains more than objective, scientific data about his investigation. Embedded within it are clues to the "personality" of anthropology itself: the attitudes, approaches, even prejudices that at any given stage in history are inextricable from the ideology of the anthropologist. Therefore, (...) the mirror he holds up to show us another culture can never be a perfect one. His own professional attitude toward his subject, as well as his choice of medium, are factors that create "cracks" in the mirror of anthropology through which we believe we view the life of other cultures. Hence, the concept of "reflexivity" and the striving to recognize how it warps in the portrayal of anthropological truth lie at the core of the twelve finely wrought essays collected in this volume. Wide ranging in geography as well as viewpoint, they highlight various methods and media (film, ethnography, text) through which an anthropologist chooses to portray a culture, and the various forms, such as art, theater, and ritual, through which a culture portrays itself. Recognizing the link between these two processes provides the key to cultural and methodological self awareness. Reflexivity is defined and clarified in the introduction and in three of the essays, and the remaining nine essays evince the principle through fieldwork and startling case studies. Essays by Jay Ruby and Eric Michaels shed new light on the enormous potential of film and video, showing how a form generally thought to be "nonscientific" can in fact give fresh insight into the scientific premises underlying the discipline's methodology. Essays by Barbara Babcock and Carol Ann Parssinen focus on the novel and ethnography, examining existing works. Anthropologists, as well as students of film, art, and theater, will find that this intriguing work begins to redefine traditional distinctions between science and the arts and brings to light fresh resources that are utilized in the search for anthropological truth. Contributors: Richard Schechner, Victor Turner, Barbara Myerhoff, Jay Ruby, Eric Michaels, Dennis Tedlock, George Marcus, Paul Rabinow, Barbara Babcock, Carol Ann Parssinen, and Dan Rose. (shrink)

"Elegantly written essays.... Roseberry is the real gem, an anthropologist with extensive Latin American field experience and an impressive scholarly grasp of the histories of anthropology and Marxist theory."--Micaela di Leonardo, The Nation "An extremely stimulating volume... rich and provocative, and codifies a new depature point."--Choice "As a critic... Roseberry writes with sustained force and clarity.... his principal points emerge with a directness that will make this book attractive to a wide range of readers."--American Anthropologist "Roseberry in among the most (...) astute, careful, and theoretically cogent of the anthropologists of his generation.... [This book] illustrates well the breadth and coherence of his thinking and guides the reader through the complicated intersections of anthropology with history, political economy, Marxism, and Latin American studies."--Jane Schneider, CUNY In Anthropologies and Histories, William Roseberry explores some of the cultural and political implications of an anthropological political economy. In his view, too few of these implications have been explored by authors who dismiss the very possibility of a political economic understanding of culture. Within political economy, readers are offered sophisticated treatments of uneven development, but when authors turn to culture and politics, they place contradictory social experiences within simplistic class or epochal labels. Within cultural anthropology, history is often little more than new terrain for extending anthropological practice. Roseberry places culture and history in relation to each other, in the context of a reflection on the political economy of uneven development. In the first half of this books, he looks at and critiques a variety of anthropological understandings of culture, arguing for an approach that sees culture as socially constituted and socially constitutive. Beginning with a commentary on Clifford Geertz's seminal essay on the Balinese cockfight, Roseberry argues that Geertz and his followers pay insufficient attention to cultural differentiation, to social and political inequalities that affect actors' different understandings of the world, other people, and of themselves. Sufficient attention to such questions, Roseberry argues, requires a concern for political economy. In the second half of the book, Roseberry explores the assumptions and practices of political economy, indicates the kind of problems that should be central to such an approach, and reviews some of the inadequacies of anthropological studies. William Roseberry is a professor of anthropology at the New School for Social Research. (shrink)

"Gender at the Crossroads of Knowledge offers us much more than a sampling of current work in feminist anthropology.... Taken together, the chapters ought to convince readers that feminist anthropology is a force to be reckoned with in the reshaping of our intellectual life. It presents a challenge to the familiar conceptual categories out of which not only our theories but also our everyday experience are built.... Feminist anthropology has a very important analytical position in gender studies generally.... This volume (...) will do a good job of presenting anthropological contributions to non-anthropological audiences."--Rena Lederman, Princeton University. (shrink)

'At last one of the most famous generalizing works in anthropology by the field's most stimulating and controversial contemporary figure has been translated, beautifully, and with the enlightening preface of the second French edition.