THE NICE THING ABOUT CULTURE IS THAT EVERYONE HAS IT
Marilyn Strathern
When When Kirsten Kirsten Hastrup Hastrup (1978: (1978:136 136)) compar compared ed the ‘world ‘world structu structure’ re’ which which dwin dwin !rdener introduced to the 1973 "ecennial con#erence with $onathan %riedman’s ‘&lo'al structure’ structure’ she was comparin& comparin& two analtical analtical models* models* +he one addressed the totalit o# awareness and ,nowled&e #ound within a sstem- the other a totalit identi#ied ' the anthropolo&ist as the conditions under which a sstem wor,s* !s she put it the one attended attended to culture culture the other to societ* +he world was the phenomenal phenomenal world and the &lo'al a matter o# the comprehensi.eness o# social determinants* +oda it is sometimes di##icult to use these terms without e.o,in& instead an understandin& o# phenomena spread literall literall across ‘the world’* world’* /lo'al culture a new concept concept #or what is percei.ed percei.ed as new circumstances turns such spreadin& into a phenomenon in itsel#* +he #ate o# the anthropolo&ical concept o# culture in these circumstances epitomises one o# the reconte0tualisations o# ,nowled&e outlined in the %oreword and runnin& throu&h this 'oo,* onte0tualisatio onte0tualisation n was ne.er a neutral neutral acti.it acti.it is not without conse2uences* conse2uences* o what is implied ' the in.itation to #ocus on the relations 'etween &lo'al and local which was the con#erence’s in.itation to its participants4 !s man at the con#erence #ound the concepts are alarmin&l inade2uate #or much o# what anthropolo& see,s to do* !t the same time the in.ocation o# local and &lo'al ma,es e0plicit what e.erone also ac,nowled&es: that there are incommensura'les in e.erda li#e which cannot 'e sstematised throu&h constructs such as le.els and domains and other con.entional demarcation de.ices and that on the #ace o# it the two terms seem to capture somethin& o# the conceptual relocations re2uired to ma,e sense o# the late twentieth5centur world* !t the same time the 'rin& in losses and &ains #or anthropolo& o# a speci#icall heuristic ,ind that is #or procedures in the or&anisation o# ,nowled&e +he chapters in this 'oo, mo.e #rom "ou&las’s openin& remar,s on ,nowled&e loss to the horions that heater as well as Hill and +urpin open up in commentin& on the pressures o# in#ormation technolo& with the di##erent worlds o# ,nowin& it holds out the new perspecti.es &ained* +o a certain e0tent the dislocation and relocation o#
conc concep epts ts that that appe appear ar as losse lossess and and &ain &ainss are inhe inhere rent nt to the the prac practi tice ce o# ma,i ma,in& n& ,no ,nowled wled& &e* n so #ar #ar as ,now ,nowle led d&e cons consis ists ts in the the proc proces esss o# (co (consta nstan nt) reconte0tualisation ma,in& in#ormation anew then one e##ect o# 'ecomin& aware o# this process is to ima&ine ,nowled&e as thou&h it were itsel# a su'stantial entit that could 'e &ained or lost appropriated or displaced* 1 n the case o# appropriati appropriation on anthropolo&ist anthropolo&ists’ s’ re#lections re#lections cannot cannot 'e onl inwardturnin& inwardturnin& e.en i# the wished* t is immaterial whether or not an speci#ic utterance has carried in#luence ('ut see note )* $ust as earlier insi&hts were o##ered tota,en ' e.an&elical missions or colonial administrations so in late twentieth centur descriptions o# societ anthro anthropol polo&i o&ists sts encoun encounter ter approp appropria riatio tions ns ' ‘other ‘others’ s’ which which the the ma or ma not welcome* ;ew 'arriers (repossessin& old usa&es) would o# course 'e as pointless as the the would would 'e o'uite apart #rom the #act that the discipline is 'ased on internal contest and de'ate it would 'e na?.e to ima&ine that alon& with the 'orrowin& o# constructs &oes the 'orrowin& o# the understandin&s that produced them* t is important to ,now the wa such 'orrowin&s reconte0tualise the conceptual intent with which the constructs were once used* !nthropolo& turned the concept o# culture into an analtical aid to the &atherin& and collatin& o# in#ormation and created as shall ar&ue particular ,inds o# ,nowled&e* +he concept thus wor,ed in the #irst place as a heuristic de.ice* +his was the conte0t o# its usa&e- and it is conte0t which is displaced* When the salient contrast appears to 'e 'etween ‘the local’ and ‘the &lo'al’ it is not culture 'ut the di##erence 'etween &lo'al and local mani#estations that 'ecomes the interestin& pro'lematic* ulture ac2uires a ta,en5#or5&ranted status* o how use#ul are these terms (local and &lo'al) instead4 uppose a contrast 'etween local and &lo'al were indeed our new heuristic what mi&ht 'e the conse2uences o# or&anisin& ,nowled&e ,nowled&e this wa4
1
use ‘displace ‘displacement ment’’ waril: waril: to echo a condition condition that has continued continued to a##ect a##ect whole populations populations in the 199@s the displacement o# people(s) #rom land and li.elihood* +asteless as it ma seem what would it mean i# anthropolo&ical consciousness a'out the #ate o# certain tpes o# ,nowled&e were not also turned towards ima&inin& displacements o# &rosser ,inds4
GLOBALISED CULTURE
+he art and culture 2uarterl Third Text pu'lishes pu'lishes anthropolo&ists as well as some o# the critics whom the read althou&h it is not an anthropolo&ical
the 2uestion o# #orei&nness has 'ecome a ‘pro'lem’ it is a conse2uence o# the wa uropean culture percei.es or constructs its own identit in relation to other people in the conte0t o# post5war immi&ration and to the status o# the 16 million non5uropean people now li.in& in urope* urope* (+hird +e0t 199:3 m emphasis) emphasis)
n disc discus ussi sin& n& what what it iden identi ti#i #ies es as the the cons conser er.a .ati ti.e .e and and sent sentim imen enta tall ll real realis istt characteristics o# multiculturalism in the art world the editorial then as,s how we mi&ht reach new #orms o# understandin& ‘'ased on the &enuine reco&nition o# di##erence’: ‘How are we now to di##erentiate 'etween the ethno&raphic popular and hi&h cultural o'
+he 2uestion a'out the rele.ance o# anthropolo&ical ,nowled&e to issues 'eond the discipline 'ecomes ironic in the appropriation o# what were once considered distincti.e anthropolo&ical concepts* +he wa ‘ethno&raph’ has 'een 'orrowed ' other social science disciplines is a case in point (!t,inson 199@)* +he concept o# ‘culture’ seems less strai&ht#orward since anthropolo& 'orrowed it in the #irst place #rom &eneral usa&e* =ut what is interestin& a'out much present5da usa&e is its currenc in a recei.ed anthropolo&ical sense: culture as e.idence #or di.ersit in human #orms o# thou&ht and practice and increasin&l salient in late twentiethcentur usa&e at the root o# people’s sense o# identit*3 !t the same time the .er concept that once ser.ed to scale certain phenomena #rom an anthropolo&ist’s point o# .iew (the possi'ilit o# reco&nisin& common patterns and con#i&urations as ‘cultures’) now applies across all scales ima&ina'le* t is pro'a'l not #ortuitous that the concept o# culture starts 'eha.in& in a ‘&lo'al’ wa u'i2uitous encompassin& all5e0planator at the same time as a new and speci#ic phenomenon is desi&nated: &lo'al culture* +he desi&nation is alread esta'lished #or instance in a minor mushroomin& o# te0ts that appeared in the earl 199@s*C +he te0ts ha.e not appeared out o# nothin&: cultural studies and other #orms o# critical practice ha.e car.ed new #ields out o# old ones includin& anthropolo& (Bo'ertson 199) and man anthropolo&ists ha.e welcomed this cross5disciplinar interest*A +he interest is part o# the uro5!merican academic response to what seems a world phenomenon* +hat is the interest is #uelled not onl ' the apparent scale o# &lo'al culture 'ut ' the transcendent (ta,en5#or5&ranted) status o# an people’s e.erone’s conceptualisation o# culture*
$ean and $ohn omaro## re#lect on anthropolo& ha.in& lost control (their term) ‘o.er its two most 'asic terms culture and ethno&raph’ (199: i0 ori&inal emphasis)* %or a commentar on the #ree5#loatin& character o# ‘ethno&raph’ see %a'ian 199@* %or speci#ic 'orrowin&s o# the concept o# culture ' mana&ement and or&anisation studies see ase 199C- his paper comes #rom a wor,shop con.ened ' ase and hapman at the !! "ecennial con#erence (‘Dn the pro#it mar&in’) and ase includes a re.iew o# tracea'le anthropolo&ical in#luences on mana&ement studies* 3 cott (199) discusses the contemporar anthropolo&ical ‘in#lation o# culture’ a#ter %riedman 1987* would comment that what is popular a'out ‘culture’ outside anthropolo& and outside academia are senses that ha.e 'een nota'l pre.alent in twentiethcentur anthropolo&ical and ethno&raphicall deri.ed writin&* usan Wri&ht reminds me that Bamond Williams (1961:9) lon& a&o laid the idea o# culture as a wa o# li#e at the door o# social anthropolo&* =eond anthropolo&
/lo'al culture seies the ima&ination twice o.er* t o##ers an encompassin& re#erence to the world throu&h a concept that has ac2uired unprecedented salience in uro5!merican descriptions o# social li#e* Dne o# the present characteristics o# this concept is its u'i2uitous application* ulture seemin&l crops up e.erwhere as a model or mode o# presentation throu&h which anone (e.erone) can descri'e similarities and di##erences 'etween peoples and at an ‘le.el’ o# epoch or&anisation or sel#5identit* !nd one e##ect o# this u'i2uitous descripti.e is to thin, that it in turn comprises a world historical phenomenon* t is as thou&h those who tal, a'out ‘cultures’ were witnessin& cultures tal,in& a'out themsel.esE6 ertainl an people sect compan 'and andor ma,er o# 'rands ma draw on culture in one per.asi.e uro5!merican sense* +he ,now as Farshall ahlins adum'rated se.eral ears a&o that ‘rather than ser.in& the di##erentiation o# societ ' a di##erentiation o# o'
6
on.entionall ‘culture’ was an educati.e a'straction (see Filler Worlds !part !! "ecennial con#erence series Boutled&e 199A)* n anthropolo&ical usa&e it ser.ed to condense and summarise a ran&e o# understandin&s a'out aspects o# social li#e- it was not commensurate with these understandin&s 'ut an a'straction #rom them and thus a #i&ure to the &round o# anthropolo&ical endea.our* !nthropolo&ists there' in.erted what the too, as the indi&enous relationship 'etween the implicit cultural &round o# people’s li.es and the particular understandin&s (#i&ures) which people e0plicitl #ore&rounded* Where culture 'ecomes e0plicit in people’s understandin&s o# themsel.es a condition that /ellner (e*&* 198) would locate in the nationalism o# industrial societies this particular relation 'etween #i&ure and &round (and ‘anthropolo&ist’ and ‘people’) collapses*
Belatin& a #acet o# this to anti5immi&rant sentiment in urope Ierena tolc,e (199A) coins the phrase ‘cultural #undamentalism’* +he sentiment is 'ound up with modern ideas a'out race and national identit* =ut she su&&ests that somethin& other than a nationalist .ersion o# racism is at issue* ultural di##erence pro.ides a new plat#orm #or an essentialist sense o# identit without the con#rontations (relationships) implied in an o.ertl racist a&enda* tolc,e 2uotes a =ritish o'ser.ation #rom the earl 198@s to the e##ect that social tensions were 'ein& attri'uted to the .er presence o# immi&rants on account o# their alien cultural .alues* 2uall culture can conceal tension presentin& ethnicit in a ,ind o# ‘cleansed’ state* 8 ither wa 2uestions a'out similarit and di##erence appear to re#er to sel#5e.ident mani#estations o# li#estle and communit* uch a conte0t in turn re5creates an essentialist interpretation o# cultural uni2ueness* !nthropolo&ists cannot disclaim responsi'ilit and the nature o# the responsi'ilit deser.es e0ploration* ultural #undamentalism echoes speci#ic was in which the ha.e or&anised their ,nowled&e* +he mid5centur conceptualisation o# culture lon& remo.ed #rom the idea o# culture as the re#inement o# human,ind com'ined into a sin&le o'
Hall o'ser.es this process as it appeared in $amaica in the 197@s (1991:AC)* thnicisation does not
understood as re#errin& to local #orms or e0pressions it was thus conte0tualised ' other descriptions o# (social) relations 'etween people* What is li,el to disappear nowadas is that relational conte0tualisation* What does it mean to 'e told that we are ‘in a period o# &lo'ewide cultural politics*** Gand need to de.elop ima&es o# the &lo'al whole’ (Bo'ertson 199:A emphasis omitted)4 !ppeals to &lo'alism conceal the relational dimensions o# social li#e on two accounts #irst when the concept o# culture is &lo'alised on the presumption that cultures mani#est a uni.ersal #orm o# sel#5 consciousness a'out identit- second when &lo'al culture appears to constitute its own conte0t*9 Be#erences to &lo'al culture are #ound a'o.e all in the writin&s o# commentators critics and social scientists who ha.e to encompass within their te0ts seemin&l incommensurate orders o# data* t is #re2uentl ima&ined as the world5wide spread o# otherwise localised arti#acts and is reco&nised a'o.e all in the spread either o# uro5 !merican (western) products or else o# ‘indi&enous’ products #acilitated ' uro5 !merican (western) technolo&* # ha.e emphasised a pro'lem here #or anthropolo&ical ,nowled&e it is 'ecause o# what &lo'al culture literalises* ‘+he world’ can 'e ta,en as a source o# identit #or social phenomena and culture can 'e ta,en as applica'le to an order o# societ*
PREDISPOSITIONS
# culture ceases to wor, as a relational term in =ritish social anthropolo& it was alwas a much wea,er e0empli#ication o# relationalit than its partner ‘societ’* ndeed one mi&ht sa with hindsi&ht that in the wa anthropolo&ists deploed the concept it was alread predisposed to &lo'alisation* =ut then anthropolo&ists ma alread ha.e 'een predisposed to re&ard &lo'alism in particular was* +he su'stance o# this section was written 'e#ore the con#erence* haracteristic o# past was o# or&anisin& ,nowled&e was a certain con&ruence 'etween the anthropolo&ists’ su'
!n e0ample would 'e the idea o# a &lo'al culture 'ased on a uni.ersal communication sstem that depends on a speci#ic technolo& (e*&* electronics) (c#* mith 199@) where translocal communications were 'oth cultural means and cultural content*
'ridewealth ne&otiation could 'e e0plained with re#erence to ‘relations’ 'etween economic or&anisation (sa) and ,inship 'etween #orms o# wealth and propert inheritance* What was meant ' a relation4 ! relation was a microcosm o# social or&anisation: parties interacted had in#luence on one another &ot into #eed'ac, loops throu&h their communications* t was #rom this perspecti.e that social relations were analo&ous to the ,inds o# e0planator relations anthropolo&ists created in their models* +his was partl 'ecause the o.erarchin& construction o# ‘societ’ (li,e ‘model’) encoura&ed them to percei.e at the same time 'oth the multiplicit o# phenomena and the connections 'etween them* Dne mi&ht sa the same o# culture et its encompassin& e##ect was traditionall .er di##erent #rom that o# societ* pursue aspects o# the di##erence in relation to certain o# the "ecennial con#erence themes- re#erences are to the other .olumes in this series* =oth concepts (culture societ) encoura&ed anthropolo&ists to see in speci#ic details e.idence o# a &eneral state o# a##airs* +hus an e.ent could 'e &rasped as redistri'utin& people’s relations (simultaneousl re.ealin& personal circumstances and social structure) or as endorsin& speci#ic .alues (re.ealin& indi.idual ad.anta&e and cultural norm)* +he more encompassin& the term (‘social structure’ ‘cultural norm’) the more it &athered other le.els o# detail to itsel#* n addition in mid5centur anthropolo&ical usa&e societ was understood as encompassin& 'oth mani#estations o# itsel# and #eatures understood to 'e contrar to it* o while e.er relationship also e0empli#ied societ indi.idual persons could appear prior to or apart #rom such #ormations* !s a conse2uence much modernist anthropolo& was concerned with the relationship 'etween indi.idual and societ* ulture 'eha.ed rather di##erentl: it encompassed e.erthin& as part o# a pattern or con#i&uration and apparentl contradictor elements were reconciled in an en#olded sel#5re#erential manner ' the idea o# ‘cultural conte0t’* ! point to which shall return is that this is similar to the sel#5re#erentialit o# the &lo'al at least in its use as a su'stanti.e* uch en#oldin& would seem to appl to the idea o# there 'ein& a relationship 'etween &lo'al and local* n so #ar as the concepts are &rounded in one another each is also &rounded in the contrast 'etween them* Howe.er %ardon (see Counterwor$s !! "ecennial con#erence series Boutled&e 199A) o'ser.es that rather than ta,in& sides in the &lo'allocal polarit anthropolo&ists mi&ht want instead to ta,e into account the 'roader circumstances o# which polarit is assumption* Jolarit implies some ,ind o#
commensura'ilit 'etween the terms* et unli,e the understandin& that comes #rom ta,in& relationships to si&ni# societ or .alues to si&ni# culture ‘the local’ is not in itsel# either si&n or sm'ol #or ‘the &lo'al’* ertainl the &lo'al is not understood as an entit that encompasses lower5le.el .ersions o# itsel#* /lo'al in#luences ma 'e locall e0pressed 'ut the #orce that dri.es whate.er appears as &lo'al is assumed to ha.e its own ori&ins*1@ ;ow while societ was ne.er commensurate with the indi.idual 11 it was commensurate with e.erthin& that indi.iduals did as persons in relation to one another* /lo'alism does not a##ord that ,ind o# descripti.e partitionin&* Whether one ta,es world networ,s (Hanner 199') or the production o# cultural di.ersit (%eatherstone 199@) what is to count as &lo'al seems descri'a'le onl in its own terms* +o see &lo'al #orms as mani#estations o# strictl local circumstances or to see &lo'al products locall distri'uted is to #orce a parado0 so e0pecta'le it wor,s as a truism* +he one (e*&* &lo'al) is not meant to e0empli# the other (e*&* local) thou&h these most territorial o# terms ma the parado0 'ecomes 'anal inha'it the same place* o what role does the polarisation 'etween the terms pla4 !n initial answer lies in one o# the concrete models o# &lo'alisation on which commentators draw that o# commerce and speci#icall the commerce o# or&anisations sociall constituted as worldwide* Fultinational companies that see, out mar,et niches ma well 'e mar,etin& &oods on the 'asis o# their local character* %or 'rands are nothin& i# the are not identi#ia'le and the are o#ten identi#ied identi#ied ' &eo&raphical ori&in (place o# #irst manu#acture place o# conspicuous consumption)* Foreo.er such commerce re2uires that products are at once uni.ersall a.aila'le in e.er locale and locall desira'le* o &lo'alism mi&ht re#er to a communications technolo& (the capacit to distri'ute products) and localism to the points o# production and consumption* We mi&ht surmise that the anthropolo&ical notion o# cultural conte0t has alread made such con
!ace Lupondo and Mim'a'wean concerns a'out human #ailin&s (see hapter A)* +he model o# the person as a ‘socialised’ indi.idual (socialised ' .irtue o# consumin& social .alues) is a homel uro5!merican wa #or thin,in& a'out the local consumption o# &oods that ma,es a person a ‘&lo'alised’ local* 11
o# cultural milieu0 accordin& to Filler’s (1987) #ormulation* He ar&ues that consumption is such sm'olic la'our- the consumer reconte0tualises the product and rema,es him or hersel# there'* onsumption 'ecomes ‘local’ in so #ar as product distincti.eness is endorsed ' a renewal o# conte0t e.erthin& else summoned in association* Here the media supplies access to cultural milieu0 'eond the consumer’s e0perience* n this sense the media is the locale o# localities: it creates conte0t as an o'
+he connections here were mero&raphic (trathern 199:7#*)* !nnelise Biles (personal communication) adds the important 2uali#ication that in this re&ard local societies cultures situations are not in themsel.es speci#ic* Whether the are &eneral or speci#ic uni.ersal or particular will depend on
ndeed anthropolo&ical models that car.ed out ma
its own condition can 'e li,e the sel#5,nowled&e that a person ac2uires a modellin& that is indu'ita'l localised* /iddens (1991:3 33 emphasis omitted) ascri'es such ,nowled&e to (uro5!merican) modernit: ‘in the conte0t o# a post5traditional order the sel# 'ecomes a re#le0i.e pro
13
+he idea o# collecti.e responsi'ilit #or ,nowled&e and human &o.ernment and o# the NinnatenessO o# the indi.idual and the incidental is characteristic lar&el o# the rationalist mo.ements that sponsor and emulate the culture o# science’ (Wa&ner 1978:3)* Bose (199@:13#*) o'ser.es that &o.ernin& societ toda means &o.ernin& (persons’) su'
closed to an customer or consumer o# them determinin& what is on the shel#* =ut culture ultimatel pro
summon it thus ima&ine a .iew #rom a#ar* ! #ar .iew ma,es ants o# us all as a ;uer sa&e once said in re#erence to /od* n #act the communit o# persons that this world creates encompasses anone who can .iew it ‘as a whole’* ts con&re&ation is those a'le to ta,e ad.anta&e o# whate.er the planet as a whole o##ers* +his could 'e insi&ht into en.ironmental chan&e or mar,ets created ' the a'ilit to distri'ute &oods* +he entire population o# the earth could
!s a constructed (interpreted) di##erence the relational e##ect o# di.ision and the di.isi.e e##ect o# relationships pla o## a&ainst each other* 16 While re&isterin& =Qteille’s (199@:9) reser.ation a'out other cultures use ‘other’ as a deli'erate metaphor #or the o'
ar&ues comprised the unitar discourse it concealed 'eneath contested positions and competin& theories* !s lon& as it remained unitar its 2uestions remained loc,ed into its own assumptions- as lon& as it remained uro5!merican it remained unitar* he poses her own 2uestion: what o# other anthropolo&ies4 %or a start other anthropolo&ies ma not loo, anthin& li,e anthropolo&* +his is wh to ma,e not one’s own position 'ut the world a plat#orm is not the cosmic &esture it seems (and see =arth 1989)* !ppeals to a world5.iew ma not at all ha.e the e##ect o# ma,in& us aware o# alternati.e .iews* Dn the contrar a world made to uro5 !merican speci#ications will alread 'e connected up in determined was* # en.ironmental chan&e disease or ur'anisation appear worldwide the will do so throu&h the wa that pieces o# local in#ormation ha.e 'een encompassed ' the .er idea o# a world* !ttempts at comprehensi.e ,nowled&e production ma create a &lo'al o'
17
0cept in an e0tended historical sense (e*&* Wol# 198) the ‘world sstem’ was not world ‘societ’* ‘+he world’ understood as the most &eneral term #or the holistic totalit o# cultural meanin& &i.en in the notion o# conte0t (Ba'inow and ulli.an 1987:1C) e0isted as an o'
con#i&urations-18 at an one time culture ields a particular pattern 'ut li,e the &enome map as instances o# its own process* What will happen to ,nowled&es that cannot 'e &athered up in a &lo'al pattern4 Will the as ,inship sstems must seem in relation to the Human /enome Dr&anisation 'ecome seemin&l peripheral to the ‘real world’4 !nd i# it is out o# local situations that anthropolo&ists continue to construct their concepts o# relationships and socialit will current &lo'al discourse ma,e social relations appear parochial4 What then o# the totalisin& impetus (the stud o# social li#e) with which anthropolo& ori&inall created its o'
We ma understand this repeated ima&e holo&raphicall or #ractall* With respect to relational possi'ilities the !ustralian interpretations o# the Hi&h5landers were ' contrast partial* nteraction was en.isa&ed the e0plorers certainl wanted to ‘ma,e contact’ with these primiti.e peopleshuman 'ein&s 'ut the ima&ined it would alwas 'e limited ' cultural di##erence* 19
the place the were in now) to similar asmmetric e##ect* +he trou'le with ma,in& this new ,nowled&e out o# the interchan&e is that the &lo'al 'ecomes as speci#ic a descripti.e as the local and the local as &eneral as the &lo'al* !t least in that conte0t whate.er else the &lo'al5local heuristic 'rou&ht to li&ht it would not 'e much use #or understandin& the interchan&e itsel#* +his is not 'ecause it does not ena'le anthin& new to 'e said 'ut 'ecause an anthropolo&ist’s prior understandin& o# the interaction as a social matter rests on a whole other mode o# analsis* +he stud o# social relations pre5empts an illusion o# #irst contact: no one encounters anone ‘#or the #irst time’ #or no one has e.er li.ed in the a'sence o# relationships* nteraction is made possi'le on the minimalist premise that persons (li,e concepts) are ine.ita'l li.ed and percei.ed as .ersions o# other persons the are alwas in that sense alread in a relationship (c#* Weiner 1993)* ndeed ha.e ar&ued that anthropolo&’s practices o# reconte0tualisation
POSTDISPOSITIONS
!s it emer&ed #rom the con#erence ‘the world’ is not an ine.ita'le source #or what anthropolo&ists mi&ht wish to call &lo'al an more than ‘localit’ e0hausts what the mi&ht wish to call local* +here is more to sa a'out the interpla 'etween the terms than the spatial ima&er supposes* /lo'al and local are at once tropes and metaphors and
capture irreduci'le realities in human circumstances* +his dou'le ,nowled&e su&&ests a wa o# turnin& &lo'alism to anthropolo&ical ends* n doin& so capitalise on the predisposition o# the anthropolo&ical concept o# culture to 'eha.e in a &lo'al wa* +he ru'rics #or the "ecennial con#erence (‘+he Pses o# Knowled&e: /lo'al and Local Belations’) were incommensura'le #rom the outset*@ Whate.er relationship lies 'etween the two parts it di.ides as much as lin,s them renders them as much dis
@
ncommensura'ilit a#ter %eera'end and Kuhn- %ischer (in li##ord and Farcus 1986) re#ers to Lotard’s dictum that postmodern sensi'ilit rein#orces the a'ilit to tolerate incommensura'les* %ardon (see Counterwor$s !! "ecennial con#erence series Boutled&e 199A) comments nicel on the ine.ita'ilit o# the 1993 con#erence ma,in& its ru'rics ‘wor,’* 1 =am'ara mas,: li##ord 1988- !'ori&inal women: Ka'err 1939*
+hat incommensura'ilit lies in certain si&ni#in& dis
+he intracta'le is not a 'ase on which the ,nowled&e 'uilds nor is it what thin, Hastrup (1993) means ' the ‘hardness o# #acts’ e0cept in so #ar as she ar&ues that the di##erence 'etween ‘hard’ and ‘so#t’ #acts is esta'lished ' a communit o# a&reement* use the concept to re#er neither to what is
disparateness* +hus the comparati.e method does not
reached a#ter .aria'les ha.e 'een accounted #or nor (as thin, =raidotti (1991) does #or the irreduci'le) to entities that remain in a sta'le state* Bather it is the residue o# relational thin,in& produced ' the #ocus on interconnection* !nthin& ma 'e situationall intracta'leirreduci'le* n "erridean terms (c#* %itpatric, 1993) what is suppressed or mar&inalised in the constitution o# an entit is on reco.er alwas su'
immediate theor on which ha.e drawn here concerns conceptualisation- it supposes that human su'
Wa&ner 1978- 1986 #assim* ‘+he in.ention o# a microcosm ' a'straction #rom a perceptual macrocosm is hal# o# a hi&hl char&ed dialectical interaction esta'lishin& a sensor continuum within which the orderin& and re#i&urin& o# meanin& is accomplished* +he other hal# o# this char&ed interaction is an e2uall si&ni#icant e0pansion or concretisation o# microcosm into macrocosm that occurs in the #ormation o# analo&’ (Wa&ner 1986:19)* C Dn de5totalisation as the em'odiment o# discursi.e si&ni#ication and thus a spatial and temporal (‘localisin&’) process see Weiner (1991:183)*
not necessaril accompanied ' increase in other dimensions (all the local connotations do not add up toðer)- on the contrar it ma 'e that the &reater the spread the less interestin& a commodit ma 'ecome* n the same wa anthin& we mi&ht speci#icall sa a'out the &lo'al human condition is li,el to 'e a thorou&hl impo.erished .ersion o# the comple0ities o# e0istence* =ut while it is eas to render local anthin& that passes #or &lo'alspea, anthropolo&ists cannot close their ears to it either* # the e.idence on which one can mount such a criti2ue rests on what people sa and the worlds the ima&ine so too does this literal identi#ication o# the &lo'al with ‘the world’ comprise an ima&ined one* We are le#t with the irreduci'le #act that what anthropolo&ists ha.e 'een doin& amon& other thin&s is listenin&*A +here is no particular .irtue in listenin& it sas nothin& a'out what will 'e communicated misunderstood or not heard at all* =ut ha.in& to listen ma,es e.ident the di##erence 'etween the anthropolo&ist’s localisin& attempts to 'rin& thin&s toðer and the &lo'al condition that this rests on 'ein& a'le to pa attention to people who themsel.es ha.e other thin&s on their mind* !nthropolo&’s imitati.e and microcosmic practices o# analsis and description must remain incommensurate with theirs* t is 'oth despite that incommensura'ilit and out o# it that the presence o# persons is made apparent* Jerhaps the anthropolo&ist’s macrocosm is this: co5presence* 6 !t least the presence o# persons is not than,#ull reduci'le to the anthropolo&ist’s relationships with them* n this realisation anthropolo& mi&ht #ind a purpose #or the displacement o# ,nowled&e* RRR What also 'ecame clear #rom the con#erence is the need to in.esti&ate
‘Listenin&’ was pic,ed out ' the T-S report on the B!’s press reception and seminar in the conte0t o# the 1A@th anni.ersar cele'rations o# the London thnolo&ical ociet (laire anders T-S, C $une 1993)* 6 o5presence echoes %a'ian’s (1983) appeal o# a decade a&o to cotemporalit or coe.alness in the anthropolo&ical apprehension o# ‘others’* Hastrup’s (1993) ‘solidarit’ carries more positi.e o.ertones than would &i.e to co5presence*
same ma also 'e true o# models and theories* !nthropolo& e0ists in a world o# constantl supersedin& &eneralities o# paradi&m slippa&e o# postmodernisms alread in the past tense and &reed to 'e at the point a#ter ne0t so that the speed 7 with which models turn o.er re.eal how little stic,in& power each has* +his is wh would emphasise somethin& altoðer other: how to use the ,nowled&e we alread ha.e* !nd i# anthropolo& has communicated some o# its ,nowled&e to ‘the world’ as in the do&ma o# cultural di##erence then that accomplishment has &i.en it a new tas,* +he tas, is how to ma,e alread e0istin& ,nowled&e wor, #or not a&ainst humanit* Jressed constantl into ser.ice ‘humanit’ is a term that has 'een used and a'used ' uro5!mericans since modernit 'e&an* =ut its deepl compromised connotations should onl #orce us to turn it to 'etter use* = humanit mean somethin& .er close to the anthropolo&ist’s ‘socialit’* thus ta,e it to re#er neither to citien su'
7
=rennan (1993) de.otes a chapter o# istory after acan to the si&ni#icance o# speed in the wa capital maintains its pro#its* +he sense o# thin&s speedin& up as one encounters in paradi&m shi#ts or re#le0i.e criticism is consonant with an economic sstem which see,s to enhance reproducti.e capacit rather than allowin& raw materials to reproduce at their own rate*
humanit within it one mi&ht wish to conser.e the concept 'eond and outside descriptions o# it and e.en des#ite them* How mi&ht one mo'ilise pre.ious ,nowled&es to this end4 ! piece o# ,nowled&e that was redisco.ered in the course o# the con#erence is that the wor, we do with concepts trans#orms them and sometimes to the point o# displacement* denti#in& local and &lo'al phenomena is a prime e0emplar: i# one #ocuses on the local it .anishes in the realisation that one person’s local #orms are another’s &lo'al ones and .ice .ersa* +his is a cultural practice we mi&ht wish to ma,e e0plicit* +he thou&ht deri.es #rom a trenchant criti2ue that Weiner ma,es apropos the anthropolo&ical search #or relationalit* 8 ither he ar&ues relationalit is the premise upon which persons act in which case it cannot 'e shown or else one ma indeed show it 'ut in doin& so will ta,e awa its a priori status* Keepin& ‘relationalit’ to re#er to what can 'e shown and usin& ‘socialit’ #or its premise Weiner then sas that #or his own part: ‘ am proposin& a search #or a #orm o# socialit that is not mediated that is not directl articulated that is onl made .isi'le when one’s attention is directed elsewhere’ (1991:9C)* onsider the .anishin& e##ect ha.e
Wor, o# mine was one o# the o'
lesser e0emplars o# it to includin& some and e0cludin& others* +his is tolc,e’s (199A) point a'out cultural #undamentalism* t claims to 'e a'out humanit at lar&e to 'e ma,in& &eneralisations a'out 'eha.iour e.erwhere in this case that people ‘' nature’ pre#er to li.e amon& ‘their own ,ind’ in was that are #ran,l discriminator* 3@ +o 'rin& to awareness the idea o# humanit or socialit as co5presence it ma well indeed 'e necessar to #ocus elsewhere* # anthropolo&ists ha.e to #ocus ‘elsewhere’ the ,now where that elsewhere will 'e: on social relations* tolc,e hersel# #ocuses speci#icall on social di.isions and di##erences within urope* !s was said more than once at the con#erence all social relations are local* +he are partial instruments and this is their .irtue #or the are .isi'l less than the awareness with which the are used less than the socialit that 'rin&s them into e0istence* !ttention to the detail o# social relations has alwas 'een one o# the discipline’s stren&ths* ! reason #or ta,in& anthropolo&’s #ocus on local circumstance with a new seriousness is then 'ecause we ,now that is what #ocus does and that includes ta,in& as particular and local those 'ureaucratic structures nationalist and internationalist ideolo&ies and claims a'out uni.ersal human characteristics that appear e.erwhere* # we thin, we ha.e somethin& to share we shall share nothin& ' claimin& to ha.e produced uni.ersal insi&ht- each and e.er one has his or her own .ision o# what is o# uni.ersal importance* !c,nowled&in& the presence o# persons is a premise o# another order* +hose moments when we render ,nowled&e local and people co5e.al conser.e the &lo'al possi'ilities o# that premise*
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
am &rate#ul to Farian Kempn #or his critical o'ser.ations on an earlier dra#t as am to !nnelise Biles #or an unpu'lished commentar on &lo'allocal relations and lana /ershon #or remindin& me to 'e e0plicit* !ndrew Holdin& will reco&nise se.eral parts o# this* 3@
+hus tolc,e ar&ues that cultural #undamentalism #urnishes reasons #or the e0clusion o# immi&rants on the &rounds that cultural di##erence is a power#ul source o# identit #or all human 'ein&s* =oth noch Jowell’s earlier racism ‘!n instinct to preser.e identit and de#end a territor is one o# the deepest and stron&est implanted in man,ind’ and ohn =endit’s latterda description o# 0enopho'ia ‘Fuch indicates that the reser.e (is)*)(is the #orei&ner constitutes an anthropolo&ical constant o# the species’ ma,e appeals to uni.ersals*
REFERENCES
!t,inson J* (199@) The -thnogra#hic /magination, London: Boutled&e*
=arth %* (1989) ‘+he analsis o# culture in comple0 societies’ -thnos, AC:1@C*
=auman M* (1988) ‘ociolo& and postmodernit’ Sociological 0e(iew, 36:79@813*
=Qteille !* (199@) ‘ome o'ser.ations on the comparati.e method’ Wertheim Lecture !msterdam: entre #or !sian tudies*
=raidotti B* (1991) !atterns of Dissonance: " Study of %omen in Contem#orary !hiloso#hy, D0#ord: Jolit Jress*
=rennan +* (1993) istory after acan, London: Boutled&e*
ase J* (199C) ‘+racin& the or&anisational culture de'ate’ "nthro#ology in "ction, 1: 911*
li##ord $* (1988) The !redicament of Culture: Twentieth)century -thnogra#hy, iterature, and "rt, am'rid&e Fass*: Har.ard Pni.ersit Jress*
li##ord $* and Farcus /* (1986) %riting Culture: The !oetics and !olitics of -thnogra#hy, =er,ele and Los !n&eles: Pni.ersit o# ali#ornia Jress* (eds)
omaro## $* and omaro## $* (199) -thnogra#hy and the istorical /magination, =oulder: West.iew Jress*
onnerton J* (1989) ow Societies 0emember, am'rid&e: am'rid&e Pni.ersit Jress*
"esan *
(1989) ‘rowds communit and ritual in the wor, o# *J* +hompson and ;atalie "a.is’ in L*Hunt (ed*) The 1ew Cultural istory, =er,ele and Los !n&eles: Pni.ersit o# ali#ornia Jress*
%a'ian $* (1983) Time and the 2ther: ow "nthro#ology Ma$es its 2b3ect, ;ew or,: olum'ia Pni.ersit Jress* (199@) ‘Jresence and representation: the other and anthropolo&ical writin&’ Critical /n4uiry, 1A:7A37*
%ardon B* (198A) ‘ocia'ilit and secrec: two pro'lems o# ham'a ,nowled&e’ in B* %ardon (ed*) !ower and &nowledge: "nthro#ological "##roaches, din'ur&h: cottish !cademic Jress*
%eatherstone F* (199@) 5lobal Culture: 1ationalism, 5lobalisation and Modernity, London: a&e Ju'lications* (ed) (1991) Consumer Culture and !ostmodernism, London: a&e Ju'lications*
%itpatric, J* (1993) ‘Belational power and the limits o# law’ in K*+urri M*=an,ows,i and $*Pssitalo (eds) aw and !ower: Critical and Socio)egal -ssays, Li.erpool: "e'orah harles Ju'lications*
%oster B* (1991) ‘Fa,in& national cultures in the &lo'al ecumene’ "nnual 0e(iew of "nthro#ology, 1@:3A6@*
%riedman $* (1987) ‘=eond otherness or: +he spectacularisation o# anthropolo&’ Telos, 71:1617@*
/eert * (1973) 2n the /nter#retation of Cultures, ;ew or,: =asic =oo,s*
/ellner * (198) ‘;ationalism and the two #orms o# cohesion in comple0 societies’ !roc. 6ritish "cademy, LSI: 16A87*
/iddens !* (1991) Modernity and Self)/dentity: Self and Society in the ate Modern "ge, D0#ord: Jolit Jress*
/rillo B* (198A) ‘!pplied anthropolo& in the 198@s: retrospect and prospect’ in B* /rillo and !*Bew (eds)Social "nthro#ology and De(elo#ment !olicy, !! Fono&raph 3 London: +a.istoc,*
Hall *
(1991) ‘Dld and new identities old and new ethnicities’ in !*"*Kin& (ed*) Culture, 5lobali7ation and the %orld)System, London: Facmillan ducation Ltd*
Hanner P* (199@) ‘osmopolitans and locals in world culture’ Theory, Culture and Society, 7:11A* (199a) Cultural Com#lexity: Studies in the Social 2rganisation of Meaning, ;ew or,: olum'ia Pni.ersit Jress* (199') ‘+he &lo'al ecumene as a networ, o# networ,s’ in !* Kuper (ed*) Conce#tuali7ing Society, London: Boutled&e*
Har.e "* (199@) The Condition of !ostmodernity, D0#ord: =lac,well*
Hastrup K* (1978) ‘+he post5structuralist position o# social anthropolo&’ in * chwimmer (ed*) The 8earboo$ of Symbolic "nthro#ology, London: Hurst*
(1993) ‘Hun&er and the hardness o# #acts’ Man, 8:7739*
Hawthorn /* (1991) !lausible %orlds: !ossibility and 9nderstanding in istory and the Social Sciences, am'rid&e: am'rid&e Pni.ersit Jress*
$ames W* (1988) The istening -bony: Moral &nowledge, 0eligion and !ower among the 9du$ of Sudan, D0#ord: larendon Jress*
Ka'err J* (1939) "boriginal %oman, Sacred and !rofane, London: /eo* Boutled&e T ons Ltd*
Kin& !*"* (1991) Culture, 5lobali7ation and the %orld)System, London: Facmillan ducation Ltd* (ed*)
Latour =* (1991) %e a(e 1e(er 6een Modern, trans* *Jorter London: Har.ester Wheatshea#*
Lon& ;* and Lon& !* (199) 6attlefields of &nowledge: The /nterloc$ing of Theory and !ractice in Social 0esearch De(elo#ment, London: Boutled&e* (eds)
Fe&hill !* (1991) ‘%our senses o# o'
Filler "* (1987) Material Culture and Mass Consum#tion, D0#ord: =asil =lac,well*
Filton K* (1993) -n(ironmentalism: The iew from "nthro#ology, !! Fono&raph 3 London: Boutled&e* (ed*)
Foore H* (1988) Feminism and "nthro#ology, D0#ord: Jolit*
Jaine B* (199) ‘+he Fara'ar a.es 19@@@’ in *Wallman (ed*) Contem#orary Futures: !ers#ecti(es from Social "nthro#ology, !! Fono&raph 3@ London: Boutled&e*
Ba'inow J* and ulli.an W*F* (1987) /nter#reti(e Social Science: " Second oo$, =er,ele and Los !n&eles: Pni.ersit o# ali#ornia*
Bo'ertson B* (199) 5lobali7ation: Social Theory and 5lobal Culture, London: a&e Ju'lications*
Bose ;* (199@) 5o(erning the Soul: The Sha#ing of the !ri(ate Self, London: Boutled&e* Both#ield J* (1991) ‘!lternati.e epistemolo&ies politics and #eminism’ Social "nalysis (spec* issue !ostmodern Critical Theorising ) 3@:AC67*
ahlins F* (1976) Culture and !ractical 0eason, hica&o: Pni.ersit o# hica&o Jress* (198A) /slands of istory, hica&o: Pni.ersit o# hica&o Jress* (1993) ‘/ood'e to tristes tropes: ethno&raph in the conte0t o# modern world histor’ Journal of Modern istory, 6A:1A*
cott "* (199) ‘riticism and culture: theor and postcolonial claims on anthropolo&ical disciplinarit’ Criti4ue of "nthro#ology, 11:3719C*
mith !*"*
