thomas, nicholas against ethnography

5/14/2018 Thomas, Nicholas Against Ethnography - slidepdf.com

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thomas-nicholas-against-ethnography 1/18

Against Ethnography

Author(s): Nicholas ThomasReviewed work(s):Source: Cultural Anthropology, Vol. 6, No. 3 (Aug., 1991), pp. 306-322Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the American Anthropological AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/656438 .

Accessed: 06/03/2012 15:47

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 formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Blackwell Publishing and American Anthropological Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,

preserve and extend access to Cultural Anthropology.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=anthro

http://www.jstor.org/stable/656438?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/stable/656438?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=anthro

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black



Against Ethnography

Nicholas ThomasAustralian National University

In March 1803 Lord Valentia was traveling through Awadh, a part of north

India which, as he observed, had not yet been liberated by the East India Company

from Muslim oppression. At Lucknow he was surprised to find in the Nawab'spalace an extensive collection of curiosities, including "several thousand English

prints framed and glazed . . and innumerable other articles of European man-

ufacture."

The dinnerwas French, with plenty of wine ... the Mussulmaunsdranknone, [al-though]theforbidden iquor was servedin abundanceon the table, and they hadtwoglasses of differentsizes standingbefore them. The roomwas very well lightedup,anda bandof music (which the Nawaubhad purchased romColonel Morris)playedEnglish tunesduring the whole time. The scene was so singular, and so contrary o

all my ideas of Asiatic manners,that I could hardlypersuademyself that the wholewas not a masquerade. Valentia1809 1:143-144]

This aristocratic colonial traveler's confusion could be taken to be emblem-

atic of one of the predicaments of late 20th-century anthropology. The problem

of interpretation arises not from an ethnocentric expectation that other peoples are

the same, from a failure to predict the local singularity of their manners and cus-

toms, but from an assumption that others must be different, that their behavior

will be recognizable on the basis of what is known about another culture. The

visitor encounters not a stable array of "Asiatic manners" but what appears to bean unintelligible inauthenticity.

This essay is concerned with anthropology's enduring exoticism, and how

processes such as borrowing, creolization, and the reifications of local culture

through colonial contact are to be reckoned with. Can anthropology simply extend

itself to talk about transposition, syncretism, nationalism, and oppositional fab-

rications of custom, as it may have been extended to cover history and gender, or

is there a sense in which the discipline's underlying concepts need to be mutilated

or distorted, before we can deal satisfactorily with these areas that were once ex-

cluded?The current wave of collective autocritique within anthropology' has a par-

adoxical character in the sense that while reference is made to crisis, experimen-

tation, and even radical transformation in the discipline, one conclusion of most

efforts seems to be an affirmation of what has always been central. Clifford, for

306



AGAINST ETHNOGRAPHY 307

instance, affirms that "ethnographic fieldwork remains an unusually sensitive

method" for cross-cultural epresentation 1988:23-24) and Borofsky's relativ-

izing explorationof anthropological onstructionsof knowledge concludes with

ratherbland reflectionson the importanceof ethnography 1987:152-156).2 In a

very differentgenre, a recent guide to method in economic anthropologyclaims

that the "great future" of the subject arises from its "direct observationmethod

of ethnographic nalysis" (GregoryandAltman 1989:ix). There seems therefore

to be one point about which we are all convinced, one stable term in a highly

eclectic and contesteddiscipline.

The second featureof currentdebate relevant here is that while "writing"

and "writing-up" have been increasingly problematized in a mannerwhich is

essentially necessary and constructive), distinctions are constantlyeffaced be-tweenfieldwork,ethnographic nalysis,andthewritingof ethnography.3 Gregory

andAltman like manyconflatemethods of observationandanalysis, and assume

presentation n the standardform of the monograph (cf. Marcus and Fisher

1986:18-19). Of course, if the claims of culturalhistorians e.g., Darnton1984;

Dening 1988) to write "ethnographichistory" are recognized, it might need to

be acknowledged hatethnography an be written n the absence of fieldwork set-

ting aside the metaphorical xtension of that term to encompassthe archives).

This article, in contrast,sustainsa harddistinctionbetweenpracticesof re-

searchand the particularkinds of writingthat we recognize as "ethnographic."4Thepurposeof such an assertion s not, of course, to permitnaiveempiricistsep-

arationsbetween observationandrepresentation, ince bothresearchandwriting

areclearlypolitical, discursivepractices.While methodsandresearch echniques

such as inquiry through conversation and sociological questionnaires may

stronglyinfluence the form in which information s presented,and the kinds of

questionsasked of it, the relationshipsbetween practicalresearchtechnologies

and forms of writingshouldbe evoked in a notionof mutualentanglement,rather

than some kindof determinism: t is obviously possible to generatesimilar ana-

lytic discoursesfrom very differentresearchprocedures,andequally to use sim-ilarresearchprocedures owarddivergenttheoreticalgenres. The survey, for in-

stance,may be mainly associatedwithpositivisticenumerationand claims about

correlations,but Bourdieu'sDistinction (1984) absorbsthose styles to a limited

extent in a work of "social critique" that seems closer generically to an 18th-

centuryphilosophical and empirical dissertation than it is to either the theory

books or case studiesof postwarsociology. My argument s thusthat while waysof observingand ways of representingare often tangled up, and while methods

admittedlyconstrainand influenceforms of presentation, ieldwork and ethnog-

raphyareseparable,and that at present it helps to situate the enduringproblemsof anthropological ision in theconstitutionof theethnographic enre, while leav-

ing open the potentialfor anotherkind of writing energizedby the experience of

the field.

While most comments on what has been variously called reflexive or post-

modernistanthropologyhave been reactive and negative (e.g., Spencer 1989), I

take theoverallperspective,if notthe specific arguments,of works such as Writ-



308 CULTURALANTHROPOLOGY

ing Culture (Clifford and Marcus 1986) and The Predicament of Culture (Clifford

1988) for granted.This article however attempts o move beyond the currentde-

bate by situatingproblematic eatures of anthropology,such as the tendency toexoticism, in the constitutionof ethnographicdiscourse. One obstaclehere is the

commonsense epistemology of the discipline-which no doubt accords with a

broadercultural model-that understandsknowledge primarily n quantitative

terms. Defects are absences that can be rectifiedthrough he additionof further

information,and morecan be known abouta particular opic by addingotherways

of perceiving it. "Bias" is thus associatedwith a lack and can be rectified or

balanced out by the addition of further perspectives. My preferredmetaphor

would situate the causes of an arrayof momentsof blindness and insight in the

constitutionof a discipline's analytictechnology:particularkindsof overlookingarise from researchmethods,ways of understandingoncepts, andgenres of rep-

resentation.This is essentially a model borrowed rom feminist anthropology:as

those critiques developed, it became apparent hat the essentially imbalanced

characterof anthropologicalaccounts of society could not be correctedwithout

complex scrutiny of methods and analysis, that "academic fields could not be

cured by sexism simply by accretion" (C. Boxer quoted in Moore 1987:2-3). It

is not clear, however, that the problems I discuss are analogous to illnesses; the

fabricationof alterity s not so much a blightor distortion o be excised or exor-

cised, but aprojectcentral o ethnography's enderingof theproper tudyof man.

Exoticism

Although EdwardSaid's work has aroused considerable nterestin anthro-

pology, the responsehas often been qualifiedor critical(e.g., MarcusandFisher

1986:1-2; Clifford1988:255-276).5 It is sometimes asserted hatbecauseanthro-

pologistshave engaged in manystudiesof Europeanor Americansocieties, and

areconcernedwith universalhumanityas well as culturaldifference, the charge

of exoticism is onlypartly ustified.Withoutdisputingeither hatwork carriedoutunder he name of anthropologyhas been extraordinarily iverse, or thata mis-

leading stereotypeof the discipline has wide currency,it must be said that this

overlooks the fact that the presentationof other culturesretains canonical status

within the discipline. Thatis, despite a plethoraof topics andapproaches, here

are still strong prescriptions hat certainanthropologicalprojects(such as those

dealingwithtribalreligions)are moreanthropologicalhanothers. Thearguments

heredeploythisstereotypicconstruct,eventhought t is partlyamisunderstanding

prevalentoutsidethe discipline, andpartlysomethingthatpractitioners ontinue

to impose uponthemselvesand mostparticularlyheirgraduate tudents.The ob-ject of my critiqueis thus an "analytical fiction" in MarilynStrathern's ense

(1988:10),6 and this reified idea of a diverse discipline can only be unfair and

unrepresentative f a varietyof innovativeapproaches.But if what is said here

applies only in a partialway to work remote from canonicaltypes, the converse

also applies, andthe critique s valid insofaras anthropological exts actuallydo

takethe form of ethnographicdepictionsof othercultures.



AGAINSTETHNOGRAPHY 309

Anthropology'smostenduringrhetorical orm uses arichpresentation f one

stable and distantculture o relativizecherishedand unexaminednotionsimputed

to cultureat home. MargaretMead's Samoadestabilizedcertain deas aboutsexroles, while the Balinese polities of Geertz'sNegara (1980) confoundanddeny

thecentral enets of Westernpoliticalthought.7A strand n feministanthropology

establishes hatculturaloppositionselsewhere set up as universalsarepeculiar o

the West; in contrastHagen people have "no nature, no culture" (Strathern

1980). Morerecently, thecentral heme of Borofsky's MakingHistorywas "how

Pukapukans ndanthropologists ome to possess different'ways of knowing' "

(1987:xvii). Andthemachineof relativistdisplacementcan workveryeffectively

upon its own products:while Mead exposed the culturalspecificity of certain

Americanpersonalitytypes, Gewertz (1984; Erringtonand Gewertz 1987) hastakenMeadto taskforher own unreflectivedeploymentof Westernconstructions

of the individual.

Thisoperationclearlygives thedisciplineenormousscope andpotential,be-

causeit canproceedfromtopic to topicexposingpreviouslyunrecognized ultural

differences: he Samoanshave a differentconceptof theperson,the Balinese dif-

ferentconceptsof time, the AustralianAboriginesdifferentconstructionsof spaceandgeography, the Tahitiansdifferent ideas of growthandage, while the Japa-

nese presumablyhave a differentconceptualmodel of a restaurantmenu. And no

doubt heydo. Withoutwishingtodeprive hedisciplineof athousanddissertationtopics, it must be recognizedthat there is greatscope for slippage from the ap-

propriate ecognitionof difference, and the reasonable reactionagainstthe im-

positionof European ategoriesupon practicesand ideaswhich, obviously, often

aredifferent,to an idea that otherpeople must be different.Insofaras this is stip-

ulatedby this form of anthropologicalrhetoric, the discipline is a discourse of

alterity hatmagnifies he distancebetween "others" and "ourselves" while sup-pressing mutualentanglementand the perspectivalandpoliticalfracturingof the

culturesof bothobserversandobserved. As Keesing hasrecentlyobserved, "be-

cause of thereward tructures, riteriaof publishability,andtheoreticalprinciplesof ourdiscipline, papersthatmight show how un-exotic andun-alienotherpeo-ple's worlds are never getting written or read" (1989:460, cf. 469). Although

gesturesare made toward heideaof commonhumanityandsometimesto cultural

universals, hepostulateoperatesatsuch an abstract evel that t does notoverridethe radicaldifference imputed to such people as the Balinese (and those worksthat actually are concernedwith universals, for instance in cognition and lan-

guage, aregenerallyvery marginal o a disciplinedominatedby the sensitivity of

the local case study). Accurateethnographic epresentation f stable andunitary

culturesthus conveys the radicaldifference of other peoples' originalpracticesandbeliefs. It does not depict a succession of meanings and transpositions hatmakeculturespartlyderivativeandmutuallyentangled.

Forinstance, while caste in modem India has clearlybeen profoundly nflu-encedby Britishcodificationand the transformation f warriorkings intobearersof hollowcrowns(Dirks 1987) the mostfamousanthropological ccount(Dumont

1980) is concernedabove all with the oppositionbetween Indianhierarchyand




the individualismof the West (and ironicallyalso with the alleged superiorityof

purity over power). While the power-claimsof culturalethnographyhave been

based on rigor n cultural ranslation, n a more faithful,less ethnocentricaccount

of local belief, that facilitatesa professionalpotlatchof sophisticated nterpreta-

tions, thereis clearly a certainselectivity;it is notablethat matter o be translated

must come from somewheredifferent.For instance, while informants n the so-

cieties of the "kula ring" frequentlymake analogies between the famous shell

valuables(thatthey sometimescall "Papuanmoney") and Europeancash,8 that

strandof local discourse is not conspicuous in the cultural ethnographyof the

Massim. Beliefs and notionsthat are not differenttakeon the appearanceof dif-

ference throughthe process of apparent ranslation, hrough a discourseof the

translation f culture. Althoughthereare sceptics withinanthropology Keesing1989), those in other disciplinesappear o have hada more balancedview of the

problemsof translation ndexoticism. In justifying the use of Englishcategories

such as "class" and "capitalist" in the analysis of Indianhistory,Bayly recently

suggested that although there are "dangers in glib comparison . . . excessive

Orientalistpurismhas done little except make India seem peculiarto the outside

world" (1988:x).

The claim thatanthropology s concerned with difference within as well as

between cultures s excessively charitable.There are, of course, works that deal

with conflict, disagreementabout beliefs, and perspectivaldifferencesbetweenmen andwomen, but thesethemes couldhardlybe said to have thesamecentrality

for the disciplineas the operationof imputingdifferencebetween cultures. This

is in fact more accuratelydescribedas contrast, since the most persuasiveand

theoreticallyconsequentialethnographic hetoricrepresents he otheressentially

as an inversionof whateverWestern nstitution,practice,or set of notions is the

real objectof interest.Hence Balinesetheaterand aestheticsstandagainst he me-

chanical andnarrowlypolitical Westernunderstanding f the state;and, without

endorsingFreeman'sstyle of critiqueor ethologicalnon sequiturs, t mustsimi-

larlybe acknowledged hatMead's theoreticalorientationandliterary lair ed herto renderSamoanfreedomas the mirrorof Americanconstraint.The proposition

thatthe gift is only intelligibleas an inversionof the categoryof the commodity

hardlyrequiresextendeddiscussionhere(butcf. Parry1986:466-467).

Manyworks of the relativizingstyle were or are intended to be critical, at

leastin theminimalsense thattheyaimed to affirm hevalue of otherculturesand

expressa certainscepticismabout"Western" ideasthat were takento be natural

and eternal. But the culturalcritiquedepended uponthe fabricationof alterity,9

upona showcaseapproach o other culturesthat is now politicallyunacceptable,

in its homogenizationof othersandimplicitdenialof the significanceof migrantcultureswithin the West. After so many decades of "economic development"

andconflict in tribaland thirdworld societies, it is ludicrousif anthropological

commentarycontinuesprimarily o place such peoples in anotherdomain, in a

spacethatestablishesthe difference andcontingencyof our own practice(cf. Fa-

bian 1983). I am not sayingthatpeople are all the same, and that culturaldiffer-

encesare nconsequential;hechallengeis not to do awaywith culturaldifference,




and with what is locally distinctive, but to integratethis more effectively with

historicalperceptionsanda sense of the unstable andpolitically contestedchar-

acterof culture.Hence, as Moore has noted, "understanding ulturaldifferenceis essential, butthe concept itself can no longer stand as the rulingconcept of amodem anthropology,because it addressesonly one form of difference amongmany" (1987:9).

Thetendencyto exoticize others could be regardedas a quirkof the individ-

uals who become anthropologists,or an inevitableconsequenceof the encounter

of fieldwork.The secondsuggestionmightseem compelling, given thepervasivenotionof fieldworkas theexperienceof an individual romone culture n another.

Thoughelaborated or the purposes of collective professionalself approbation,

this notion of inquiryandinterpretationrom a liminalperspectiveclearlycannotbe dismissed. But the pointthat is profoundlymystifiedin contemporary nthro-

pologicalconsciousness concerns the formsanddiversityof the differences at is-

sue. If one is seeking out contexts in which a sense of "not fitting" or "beingelsewhere"facilitatesheightenedawarenessof thesingularityandcontingencyof

both the cultureof the situation and one's own assumptions,then it is clear thattherearemanycircumstancesn which theseconditionsexist. Therearenumerouscontexts in "Western" cultures n which alienationor foreignnessfacilitate cul-turalcritique (a south Londonblack woman in an Oxbridgecollege), and it is

obvious also thatthecrucialdifferencesrelateto age, sex, class, andvariousothercriteria, as well as the implicit ethnic categories that separatedifferent "cul-tures." Or, to expressthepointdifferently,thenotion of what constitutesculturaldifferenceseems to be restricted o distinctionbetween an undefined"West" andanotherdomain of experience and meaning;the separationbetween these termsenergizesthe interpretiveprojectof ethnography,while differencemight also besituatedbetweenthe sortof self-consciousexposition of local culture hat s oftenofferedby seniormen, andthe voices of those withoutauthority;betweenthosewho stayin thecountrysideandthose who have left;betweenthosewho holdfast

to what s valorizedas local identityandthosewho appear o abandon t tobecomeChristians,Mormons,or communists.It could also, of course, be situated n dif-ferenceamonganthropologists,given that one of the reasons for engaging in re-search s to gathermaterial hatserves a particular rgument.

Fromthis perspective, the notion thatfieldworkentailspartakingof alterityandthusrequiresan account of culturaldifference is manifestlyinsufficient.Allthecrucialquestionsarepassedoverbecausea multiplicityof culturaldifferencesarecondensed.The contrastiveoperationdiscussed is almostinherent n any textthatexplicates, or purports o explicate, the distinctivenessof a "culture." A

monograph s not about"othercultures"butratheranotherculture,and the factthatthis must at some level be treatedas a boundedandstablesystemmakes im-plicit contrastwitha home-pointalmostinevitableeven wherethere is no explicitone-to-one uxtaposition.However, thenumberof cases inwhichshowcasecoun-terpositioningovertly animatesanalysis is considerable. Insofar as this is what

ethnographicwritingis about,exoticism can only be disposedof by disposing ofethnography,by breaking romone-to-onepresentation nto modes thatdisclose




otherregistersof culturaldifferenceandthatreplace "culturalsystems" withless

stable and more derivativediscoursesand practices. These have a systemic char-

acter, but a dialectical account mustdo justice to the transpositionof meanings,

their local incorporation.0

It might be added that the theme of the difference of the other has been as

overplayed n anthropology s has thebody in the library n detective fiction;even

ironic renderings the body in the video library) eem merely to reproducean es-

tablished tyle that s notjust unoriginalbut seems rapidly o be becoming sterile.

It might thus be argued merely on literarygrounds that it is about time for the

rhetorical orm to be disfigured.

The Subsumption of Theory

The status of ethnographymight also be problematized rom an epistemo-

logical perspective. This is to open up a second line of criticism seemingly less

motivatedby a political consideration the objectionableaspect of inventingal-

terity)thana theoreticalone: the view that the ethnographic enre localizes ques-

tions and thus refractsrather han generatesany wider theoreticalresolutionor

cultural ritique. However, this epistemologicalargument s also groundedpolit-

ically: exoticism conveys a false view of historical entanglementand the trans-

positionof meaning, while the particularizing ffect of ethnographicdiscourse isnot merely unproductive heoreticallybut also associated with professional in-

troversionanda failureto engage in wider discussion.

An enormous amount of anthropology s motivatedby questionsat a high

level of generality. Anthropological exts legitimize the specificityof their case

materialsand the localized andparticular haracterof analysis by theirbearing

upon problemsthat are takento be theoreticallyconsequential-the efficacy of

ritual,the natureof gift exchange, the intersectionof statusandpower, the ritual

structuresof divine kingship, the basis of gender asymmetries,and so on. But

whatoperationdoes the analytictechnologyof ethnographyperformuponthesequestions?

Theargumentherepresupposes hat ourgenreis a discourseof ethnography

andnot a discourseupon it. " The questionhere is of the extent to which writing

is or is not containedby the process of representing ts object; the second type

makes strongclaims to externalauthorityandsupposesananalyticapparatushat

is not subsumedby the matterwith which it deals. A discourseof something,on

theotherhand, may attempt o depictor analyze somethingthat is externalto it,

butconstantlycreatesdiscursiveandanalyticaleffects thatcanonly be understood

in termsof categoriesthat arealready nternal o the discourse.Thereis, for in-stance, an obvious difference between the ostensibly apolitical theoreticaldis-

courseupon politics in the academicdisciplineof political science, and the dis-

courseof politics manifested n the speechof a professionalpoliticianor activist.

The authoritative laims of the latter are highly self-referential; herecan be no

external validationof statementsbecause the object, interpretative gency, and

theoretical ategoriesare conflated nthevery processof revealingandrendering.




The mode of representationecursively ntertwines he momentsof transcription,

explicationof the termsfor transcription,and the explanatorydevices thatposi-

tion the productsof transcription.Of course, it is clear that these binarycate-

gories, like all similar analytic fictions, cannot ultimatelybe sustained as polar

types, but thedistinctioncan havetheoreticaleffect if it is associatedparticularly

with the discourseof ethnography.I take Strathern o endorse Runciman'ssug-

gestion thatthe conventionalunderstanding f the relationshipbetweenexplana-

tion and descriptionbe inverted:"Good descriptions n turnhave to be grounded

in theory . . . the synthetic aims of adequate description . . . must deploy delib-

erate fictionsto that end" (1988:10). Strathern's laims about her own methods

may not reflectviews about he generalconditionof ethnographicwriting,butthe

propositionput forwardhereis in fact thatdepiction, theoryandanalysisarechar-acterizedby a high degreeof mutualdependence.

This is veryobvious in some recent culturalethnographies.Forexample, in

The Fame of Gawa (Munn 1986) thereis a strongsense that no operation akes

place outsidethe elaborationof indigenouscategoriesin theoretical erms,or the

reverse-that the elaborationof theoreticalvocabulary s merelyillustratedby in-

digenouscounterparts. n this case, the analysis is brilliantlyeffective, but there

are few spacesfor adjudicatingplausibilityor implausibility ndependentlyof in-

ternalcoherence,and thereis little scope forrereading thnographicmaterial hat

is separable rom the analysisfrom the perspectiveof a differentkind of inquiry.Ethnographyhus establishesthings in an empiricallyisolated and strictlyillus-

trativemanner;cases stand by themselves, andtheiradequacydependsmoreon

the effects createdthrough nternalanalyticalnarrationhan either externaltheo-

retical validationor an interestin the replicabilityof findings (setting aside the

naivepositivisticclaims associated, for instance, with Freeman's"falsification"

of Mead).The assessmentof a useful ethnographicbook dependsabove all upon

thepersuasive ictions of its analysis.

Munn'sbookmightbe regardedas an extremecase, but from theperspective

of this argument, t wouldbe incorrect o considerthis state of textual self-refer-entialityas a quantitypresent n some works to a greaterdegree thanothers.Such

an impression nsteadderivesmerelyfrom distinctsubjectivereactionsto differ-

ent theoreticalparadigmsand devices such as Munn'sneologisms. What for one

readerappearas clear tools are highly contrivedfor another. The view adopted

here,whichmay be counterintuitive,s thatwritingethnographyntothe premises

of analysisis a basic conditionof the genre.

I am not saying that priorassumptionsplay too substantiala role in the pro-

ductionof accounts of othercultures. The premise here is that any scholarlydis-

course is an illustrativeoutcome of a conjunctureof theoretical nterests,disci-plinaryprocedures,and case materials;questionsof interestdo not relateto the

relativeproportionsof these terms-that quantitativeepistemologicalmetaphor

havingbeen eschewed-but instead concern the particularways of seeing per-

mittedor disabledby available disciplinary orms.

The most conspicuousfeature of the discourseof ethnographys a disjunc-

tion betweengeneralquestions n social andcultural heoryof the kind mentioned




aboveanda way of writingthatby its naturecannotresolve them. The dominant

processthattakesplace as issues of theoreticalconsequenceareworkedthrough

ethnographicallys subsumption.The illustrativematerialcan be seen in a sin-

gularway, but anyrevelationsareethnographically ontained.

This may be briefly illustrated hroughreferenceto the ethnographiccri-

tiquesof Ortner's mportantargument hatuniversalgenderasymmetrycould be

explainedon thebasisof pervasiveassociationsbetweenthemale/femaleandcul-

ture/natureontrasts Ortner1974). This was transposed o theregisterof ethnog-

raphy n an influentialcollection of critiques(Strathern nd MacCormack1980)

that arguedthat the nature/culture pposition was a singularform in Western

thought,could not be seen as a culturaluniversal,andwas not necessarilyartic-

ulatedwith gender. While similarcontrastssometimes were present, and wereassociatedwith genderin indigenoussymbolic systems, the effect of the critique

was to expose a formof differencebetweenthese societies andWesternthought

thathadpassedunrecognized n Ortner'sanalysis. Ethnographyhusdisposedof

a generalargumentand affirmed he differenceand specificityof othercultures.

The point here is not simply that the particular hesis advancedby Ortnerwas

ethnographically isfigured,butthattherewas no way of movingback fromthese

critiques o any similarargumentat the same level of generality.Nature, Culture

and Genderoffers no basis for any theorycomparable o Ortner's,and it is not

surprising t all thattheequallysignificantand generalizedargumentsof Rosaldoand Chodorow,which epitomizedthe scope and force of Woman,Cultureand

Society(Rosaldoand Lamphere1974)have been criticizedon analogousgrounds

(Moore 1987:22-24; see also Gewertz 1988 on Bamberger1974). I am not, of

course,arguing hatthevariouscriticismswerenot reasonable,but amconcerned

with the epistemologicalpointthatthediscipline s supposed o tack between gen-

eralquestionsandethnography,butappears o be capableof movingonly in one

direction, nto shallowerwater.

Departures

At this pointI wish to establisha certaindistancefromthe argument hatI

have developed, by stressing that analogous propositionscould be developed

aboutany academicdiscoursethatis tightlyconnectedwith a particularmethod-

ology or formof writing.Insofaras prehistory s a discourseof archaeology,it is

aprisonerof a certainkind of historical,social, andbehavioral econstructionhat

is at oncepartialandinevitablycircular.Some similarpointsmightbe madeabout

the inevitabilityof denying the worthof oral traditions rom the perspectiveof

archive-bound onventionalhistory;such devaluationarises necessarilyin a dis-ciplinethatdefinesitself aroundrigorousworkon a certainkindof material.Al-

thoughthereis a directparallelwith the dismissalof travelers'reports n anthro-

pology, it should be stressedthat the discipline's investmentin the practiceof

fieldwork s less disablingthanthedominanceof a narrowrangeof ways in which

fieldwork s "writtenup." Hence the narrativeandbiographicalgenres of con-

ventionalhistorywere ultimatelymore important hanthe fact that certainkinds




of "primary"researchmightbe privileged.The pointhere, though, is thatwhilethis is a critiqueof ethnography'santhropology, t is not one thatsupposes that

someotherscholarlydisciplineprovidesa model for arelationshipbetweeninitial

general questions and the analytic form of the genre where the latter sustains

rather hansubverts he former; f the hegemonicgenresof anthropologicalwrit-

ing now presentthemselves mainly as styles to be disfigured,the positive alter-

nativesarenot to be constituted hrough he old gameof interdisciplinary orrow-

ing, through he claim to fix up one line of inquiryby addingfromanother.

Theassociationbetween exoticism andthe marked endencyforethnographyto render heoreticalquestions internal o local analyses is thus not entirelycon-

tingent. Both of these featuresof contemporaryanthropologyhave a strongas-

sociationwith thedominanceof ethnographicwriting,whichpresentsculturesasunitary otalities. A bookabsorbedby acultureabsorbed n abook cannotproducea discourseupon ethnography,a discourse that uses ethnography o generateawiderargument.At the same time the one-to-one uxtaposition hatthis form nor-

mallyentailscanonly establishstabilityat a certaindistance fromthe culture m-

putedto the reader; he truthof the ethnographic ase dependsupon its originalandnonderivative elationwith the "us" to which it is opposed. It follows from

this, of course, that ethnographies hat turnupon local comparison(e.g., Fox

1977; Leach1954;White1981) arelikely to be less enmeshed nthisorientalizing

andparticularizingogic to theextentthatdimensionsof differencedisconnectedfromthe us/themfiction areanalyticallyconsequential.The aim of this article isnot to condemn anythinglike the whole discipline, but to suggest that crucialflaws are associatedwith the canonicalmodel, rather hansome superficialsub-jective interest n culturalauthenticity.If there was merely a problemof self-de-ception, thiswouldpresumablyhavebeenexpunged ong ago. Thepersistenceofexoticismarisesfromthe fact thatit is precisely whatethnography s directedtoproduce.

It is perhapsnecessaryto reiterate heearlierpoint thattheseargumentshave

nothingto do with fieldwork, which is obviously a crucialway of learning.Theargument s rather hatfieldworkshouldbe drawn ntootherkinds of writingthatmove into the space between the theoreticalanduniversalandthe local andeth-nographic,andthat areenergizedby forms of differencenotcontainedwithintheus/themfiction.

The potentialresponses arediverse. Montageclearly refractsanddisplacesthe pursuitof stableculturesthrough a succession of historicaland experientialcontexts (as in Taussig 1987) and offers the most effective and radicalassaultupon anthropology's endency to fix a unitarysymbolic system at a distance.'2

Here,however, I arguefor an approach hat in a sense is moregrounded n con-ventional nterests n an interpretative roject, in analysisthatworksuponlargerproblems owarda widergenerativeaccount of social andculturalphenomena.

Fromthis perspectivethe reinvigorationof comparativeanthropologyap-pearsto be crucial. The value of a method not containedby ethnography s ap-parent romits use fromsome feministperspectives(Collier andRosaldo 1981):there is still a sense of political urgency about clarifyingthe broadernatureof




sexual asymmetries,which has resisted the tendency for these questions to be

subsumedwithin a localized ethnography f genderrelations. The importanceof

comparisonemerges also from the fact that some kind of explicit discussion of

regional relationshipsand histories is necessary if older ethnologicalcategories

and adjudicationsare not to be implicitly perpetuated.Many areal categories,

such as "Melanesia" and "Polynesia" live on in contemporary nthropological

parlanceas thoughthey had linguistic or prehistoricalvalidity, while misleading

typificationsof regional social structuresand culturalforms provide silent con-

texts for ethnographic ase studies (cf. Thomas 1989b).

At this point it might seem desirable to present an example of the kind of

projectenvisagedhere, but this would partly misrepresent he claims and inten-

tions of the presentarticle.3 I do not appeal in a messianicmanner o a style of

workthat is unprecedented,which wouldbe supposedto magically transcend he

orientalizing ontrivanceandparticularism haracteristic f the discipline at pres-

ent. Since this critique s directed at a kind of canonicalwork, it is obvious that

much anthropologicalwriting is not to be subsumedwithinthat canon, andthat

examplesof comparativeanalysis alreadyexist. The interest s thus in altering he

marginal tatusof thatgenre, andelaboratingupon it in certaindirections.

This is not to say, though, thatthere is an establishedstyle of comparison

thatshould simply be adopted and generalized.To the contrary, t appearsthatmuch comparativework is inadequatebecause it is set up as a projectsecondary

to ethnography; ne thatperhapsoperatesat a higher evel of generality,andwith

moretheoreticalambitions,butneverthelessone thatis essentially parasiticupon

the richnessof what can be describedas "primary ources" (Strathern1988:10).

This is why it seems important o establish an intermediate evel of writing

betweenproblematicuniversalismandethnographicllustration,a kind of writing

thatincorporates thnographybut is not subordinatedo it. At a theoretical evel

this shouldbe able to displace discoursesof alterity by representingdifference

withinculturesand differenceamonga plurality(as opposedto one-to-one con-trast). It should be able to combine nuanced firsthandknowledge of particular

localities with the interpretationf a broader angeof "secondary" ethnographic

or "primary"historicaldescriptions.This typeof grounding husdepends upon

a modelof knowledgeratherdifferentto thatimplicit in various academicdisci-

plines, wherethereis a strongif generally implicit idea thatwriting ought gen-

erallyto be basedon one's own specializedandoriginalresearch.Otherworkis

oftenconsignedto a secondaryorresidualcategory,such as thatof the "literature

review" or textbook;even though it is obvious that many theoreticallycrucial

workshave not derivedfrom work that was primary n anempiricalsense. A newkindof post-ethnographicnthropologicalwritingwouldpresume he sortof local

knowledgethat has always been critical for representingcircumstancesboth at

home and abroad,but would refuse the boundsof conveniently sized localities

throughventuring o speakaboutregionalrelationsand histories.If case material

from a rangeof associatedplaces cannotexpose the historicalcontingencyand

particular etermination f social and cultural ormsthatmightotherwisebe up-




heldas relativizingethnological exhibits, it is difficultto see any otherapproach

that could sever anthropology'sroots in the colonial imagination.

WhatI'm suggesting, then, is not the old kind of positivistcomparison hatseeks to establish general theories, but a form of analysis that uses a regional

frameto argue about processes of social change and diversity, that is critically

conscious of its own situation n a succession of European epresentations f such

places, thatdevelops its arguments trategicallyandprovisionallyrather hanuni-

versally. The significance of regional comparisonarises from the fact that it is

concernedwith a pluralityof others, a field in which differenceemergesbetween

one context and the next, and does not take the radicalform of alterityin a gulf

betweenobserversand observed. Difference is thushistoricallyconstituted,rather

than a fact of culturalstability. The contexts that can be exploredare not neces-sarily fenced around as "other cultures" but include historical processes and

forms of exchangeand communication hat havepermitted ulturalappropriation

and transposition.The second strandof this conclusion is thus that while anthro-

pology has dealt effectively with implicit meaningsthat can be situatedin the

coherence of one culture, contemporaryglobal processes of culturalcirculation

and reificationdemandan interest in meaningsthat are explicit and derivative.

Otherwise he risk is thatourexpectationsaboutothercultures,like thoseof Lord

Valentia,will preventus from seeing anything n local mimicryor copying other

than an inauthenticmasquerade. t's not clear that the unitarysocial system everwas a good model for anthropological heory, but theshortcomingsare now more

conspicuous hanever. We cannotunderstand ulturalborrowings,accretions, or

locally distinctive variantsof cosmopolitanmovements, while we privilege the

richnessof localized conversationand the stableethnography hatcaptures t. The

nuances of village dialogues are unending, and theirplays of tense and person

beguiling, but if we are to recover an intelligible debatebeyond the multiplicity

of isolated ongues we must surrender omething o thecorruptions f pidgins and

creoles, tradingothers' grammars or our own lexicons. Derivative ingua franca

have always offended those preoccupied with boundariesand authenticity, butthey offer a resonantmodel for the uncontained ranspositionsand transcultural

meaningswhich cultural nquirymust now deal with.

Notes

Acknowledgments.The encouragementandcommentsof HenriettaMoore, PascalBoyer,andMargaretJolly made it possible for me to write this article; but it shouldnot be pre-sumedthatany of these people agree with the positionsadvanced.

'The discursiveentityis obviouslydiverse, andthe reificationrequiredby anydisciplinarycritiquemust be inaccuratewithrespect to a varietyof idiosyncraticandinnovativeworks.My interesthere is not in establishingthatwhatis said appliesto any single work(whichwouldprovenothing aboutthe genre) or the statisticalextentto whichthe claims apply totherangeof work.

2Theargumentshere should not be read to denigrate he work of writerssuch as CliffordandMarcus, upon which they obviously depend. While I take much of what they have




advanced o be essential to any novel and criticalanthropology,my complaint s that the

questionof exoticism incontemporary nthropologyhasbeen passedover-as thoughsuch

works as Anthropologyand the ColonialEncounter(Asad 1974) hadexpunged the prob-lem.

3Thisperhapsaccountsfor the curiouslyprevalentmisconception hat the authorsof Writ-

ing Culture CliffordandMarcus 1986) were puttingreflection, criticism or some kind of

theoretical elf-consciousness n the place of primary esearch;"it seems more than likely

thatthe book will provoke a trendawayfrom doing anthropology,andtowardsever more

barren riticism andmeta-criticism" Spencer 1989:161). It was quiteclear from Anthro-

pology as CulturalCritique(Marcusand Fisher 1986) thatat least two of the writers saw

a kind of criticalethnography, ather hanany criticismdetached rom ethnography,as the

centralprojectof the discipline; t mightalso be pointedoutthat since WritingCulturewas

publishedsome contributors t least have producedothersubstantivestudies (e.g., Rabi-

now 1989) and not works of "metacriticism." The notion that the 1986 collection and

associated publicationsrepresentedan assault on ethnography s thus clearly false; this

articledepartsfrom both WritingCulture and its aggrieved detractorsby insisting on a

fieldwork/ethnographyistinction and using that as a basis for doing what the reflexive

theoristshave been unjustifiablyaccusedof doing-arguing that ethnography's ime has

passed.

4Thiswas intended,but not madeproperlyexplicit, in Outof Time(Thomas 1989a). The

presentarticle s intended o some extent to be an amendment o thatcritique,even though

it does not take up the questionof ethnography's ack of history, whichwas centralto mybook.

'This formof wordsmay suggestthatI do notregardcriticismsof Said'sprojectasjustified;

I hope to explore the topic of the receptionof Said's work in a separatearticle, but cannote

briefly here thatI agree with some of the points made by Clifford, but believe that most

anthropological ritics have neglectedthe sense in which Orientalism s a work of specif-

ically literary cholarshipand secondly thatit is but a partof a series of works thatoperate

at distinctlevels of generality and with distinctpurposes (Said 1978, 1979, 1981, 1984,

1986;Saidand Hitchins 1988). Some of these worksare referred o by Clifford,butmost

authors itenothing

otherthanOrientalism;

amnot,

ofcourse, complaining

about ncom-

plete bibliographies,butdraw attention o the fact that Orientalismhas been criticized for

notdoingthingsthat Said actuallyhas done elsewhere.

6Strathern oweverimpliesthatherpropositionsaresimplyintended o generatenovel the-

oreticaleffects, as if the epistemological status of analyticalfictions excludes both sub-

stantiveclaims,anddisputationbased onthenoncorrespondencef a fictionwith evidence.

If this is in fact thepositionof theprefaceto TheGenderof the Gift, it would seem at odds

withwhat are in factsubstantivepropositions n thebodyof thetext, andalso a stancethat

ratherdisables one's own analysis. My view, which mayor maynot divergefrom a posi-tionthat Strathern id not succeed in expressingunambiguously, s thatanalytical ictions

are, like other forms of knowledge, partial(in the sense of being both interestedand in-complete),and because of this condition(rather hanin spite of it), mayoffer an account

of thingsin the worldthat s adequate or thepurposesof a historicallysituatedcommunityor arrayof people. Insofaras a fiction is seen to be representative, ts substantiveclaims

are as trueas anyof the otherthingswe believe.

7Myuse of Negara as a model of the one-to-one contrastthat is fundamental o ethno-

graphicwritingis quitedeliberate,since the historicalcharacterof the workmakes it ob-




vious thatethnographycan and must be understoodat a separate evel from fieldwork.However, as Marcusand Fisherhave notedwithrespectto thatbook, theformof "cultural

criticism [offered] as epistemological critique . . . is also characteristicof many othersuch worksin anthropology" 1986:145).

8MarthaMacintyre,personalcommunication.

9Thispointthatthesevarietiesof culturalcritiquehavea darkside is generallypassedoverin Marcus and Fisher'sdiscussion of various "techniquesof culturalcritiquein anthro-

pology" (1986:137-164). It is still possible to takeargumentsproceeding hroughphrasessuch as "By contrast,Balineseconceptions of the state . . ." (p. 145)as thoughthey op-eratedonly uponthe "Western"ideas that aredisplaced. It should be noted,however, that

they do discusssome of the shortcomingsof the "static, us-them uxtaposition"(pp. 160-

162) and the ways in which consciousness has moved "to locate [an otherculture]in a

time and space contemporaneouswith our own, and thus to see it as partof our world,rather han as a mirroror alternative" (p. 134). However, theirsuggestionsthatcultural

critiquewould revolvearoundanythingotherthan uxtapositionor therepatriationf meth-

ods employedto study the exotic areweakly developed. It is notable that what is looselycalledreflexiveanthropologyhas notengaged much withfeminism, while theperspectiveadvancedhere takes the feminist critiqueof perspectivaland political difference withinculturesas a modelfor breaking rom a discoursepreoccupiedwithdifference between.

'0Accordingo Sahlins, worldsystems theoristsargue"that since the hinterland ocieties

anthropologists abitually tudy areopento radicalchange,externally mposedby Westerncapitalistexpansion, the assumptionthatthese societies work on some autonomouscul-tural-logiccannotbe entertained.This is a confusionbetweenan open system anda lackof system" (1985:viii). The questionthat is not addressed, however, is quite what thisopennessgenerates: n Sahlins' view, events andexternalintrusionsarecreativelyturnedto the purposesof a local culturalorder. This is to save structural nthropology'sset oforiginalmeanings romhistorical ransposition,and is anaptapproach irrespectiveof theplausibilityof realizations) or histories of earlycontact.The problemarisesfromthe factthat these hardlyexemplify global processes or even laterphasesof colonial contact;herethecultural amifications reanalogous o linguisticcreolization. Ido, however, agreewith

Sahlinsthat global systemstheory is not up to the task of accounting or "the diversity oflocal responsesto the world-system-persisting, moreover,in its wake" (1985:viii).

"This distinction is abducted rom the work of PeterDe Bolla (1989:34 andpassim). Itwill be obvious to anyonewho consults thisbookthatI havedistortedandrecontextualizedthecontrast or my own purposes.

'2Thereare, however, arguablyrisks thatauthorialencompassment s relocatedcovertlythrough herefusal oenunciateprecisearguments ndmethodological laims (cf. Kapferer1988).

'3Acomparative tudyof exchange, transculturalmovementsof materialculture,and co-lonialhistory n thePacific(Thomas n press)does howeverattempt o exemplify the styleof comparativeandhistoricalanalysisadvocatedhere.

References Cited

Asad, Talal, ed.

1974 Anthropologyandthe ColonialEncounter.London:Ithaca.




Bayly, C. A.

1988 Indian Society andthe Makingof the British Empire(New CambridgeHistory

of India 11.1).Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Borofsky,Robert

1987 MakingHistory:Pukapukan nd AnthropologicalConstructions f Knowledge.

Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Bourdieu,Pierre

1984 Distinction:A Social Critiqueof the Judgementof Taste. London:Routledge.

Clifford,James

1988 The Predicament f Culture.Cambridge,Mass.: HarvardUniversityPress.

Clifford, James, andGeorgeE. Marcus,eds.

1986 WritingCulture:The Poetics andPoliticsof Ethnography.Berkeley: University

of CaliforniaPress.Collier,Jane F., andMichelleZ. Rosaldo

1981 Politicsand Gender n Simple Societies. In Sexual Meanings:TheCulturalCon-

structionof Gender and Sexuality. Sherry B. Ortner and HarrietWhitehead,eds.

Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Darnton,Robert

1984 The Great Cat Massacreand Other Episodes in FrenchCulturalHistory. Har-

mondsworth:Penguin.

De Bolla, Peter

1989 The Discourse of theSublime:Readings n History,Aestheticsand the Subject.

Oxford:Basil Blackwell.

Dening, Greg

1988 History'sAnthropology:The Death of WilliamGooch. Lanham,Md.: Univer-

sity Press of America.

Dirks,NicholasB.

1987 The Hollow Crown:Ethnohistory f an IndianKingdom.Cambridge:Cambridge

UniversityPress.

Dumont, Louis

1980 Homo Hierarchicus.Secondedition. Chicago:Universityof ChicagoPress.

Fabian,Johannes

1983 Time and theOther:How AnthropologyMakesItsObject.New York:Columbia

UniversityPress.

Fox, JamesJ.

1977 Harvestof the Palm. Cambridge,Mass.: HarvardUniversityPress.

Geertz,Clifford

1980 Negara:The TheatreState in NineteenthCenturyBali. Princeton,N.J.: Prince-

ton UniversityPress.

Gewertz,Deborah

1984 The TchambuliView of Persons:A Critiqueof Individualism n the Works of

Mead and Chodorow.AmericanAnthropologist85:615-629.

Gregory,C. A., and J. C. Altman

1989 Observing he Economy. London:Routledge.

Kapferer,Bruce

1988 TheAnthropologist s Hero:ThreeExponentsof Post-ModernistAnthropology.

Critiqueof Anthropology8(3):77-104.

Keesing, RogerM.

1989 Exotic Readingsof CulturalTexts. CurrentAnthropology30:459-479.




Leach, Edmund

1954 PoliticalSystemsof HighlandBurma. London:Athlone.

Marcus,GeorgeE., andMichaelM. J. Fischer1986 Anthropologyas CulturalCritique:An ExperimentalMoment n the HumanSci-

ences. Chicago: Universityof ChicagoPress.

Moore,HenriettaL.

1987 FeminismandAnthropology.Oxford:Polity Press.

Munn,NancyD.

1986 The Fame of Gawa. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Ortner,SherryB.

1974 Is Female to Male as Nature is to Culture?In Woman, Cultureand Society.

Michelle Z. Rosaldo and LouiseLamphere,eds. Stanford:StanfordUniversityPress.

Parry,Jonathan1986 The Gift, the IndianGift, and the "Indian Gift." Man21:453-473.

Rabinow,Paul

1989 French Modern: Norms and Forms of the Social Environment.Cambridge,Mass.:MIT Press.

Rosaldo,MichelleZ., andLouise Lamphere,eds.

1974 Woman,Cultureand Society. Stanford:StanfordUniversityPress.

Sahlins,Marshall

1985 Islandsof History.Chicago:Universityof ChicagoPress.

Said, Edward

1978 Orientalism.London:Routledge.

1979 The Question of Palestine.New York:Times Books.

1981 CoveringIslam: How the Media and the ExpertsDetermine How We See the

Rest of the World. London:Routledge.

1984 The World, the Text and the Critic. London:Faberand Faber.

1986 Afterthe Last Sky:PalestinianLives. New York:Pantheon.

Said, Edward,andChristopherHitchins,eds.

1988 Blamingthe Victims:SpuriousScholarshipandthe PalestinianQuestion. Lon-

don:Verso.

Spencer, Jonathan

1989 Anthropologyas a Kindof Writing.Man24:145-164.

Strathern,Marilyn

1980 No Nature,No Culture:The Hagen Case. In Nature,Cultureand Gender.Cam-

bridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

1988 The Genderof the Gift. Berkeley:Universityof CaliforniaPress.

Strathern,Marilyn,andCarol P. MacCormack,eds.

1980 Nature,CultureandGender.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Taussig,Michael

1987 Shamanism,Colonialism and the Wild Man. Chicago: Universityof ChicagoPress.

Thomas,Nicholas

1989a Out of Time:HistoryandEvolution n AnthropologicalDiscourse.Cambridge:

CambridgeUniversityPress.

1989b The Force of Ethnology:OriginsandSignificance of the Melanesia/PolynesiaDivision. CurrentAnthropology30:27-41; 211-213.

in press EntangledObjects:Exchange, MaterialCulture and Colonialism in the Pa-cific. Cambridge,Mass.: HarvardUniversityPress.




Valentia,Viscount George

1809 Voyages and Travelsto India, Ceylon, the Red Sea, Abyssinia, and Egypt, in

the years 1802 . . . 1806. London: William Miller.

White, Caroline

1981 Patronsand Partisans.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

thomas, nicholas against ethnography

Documents