A Neo-Boasian Conception of Cultural Boundaries

A Neo-Boasian Conception of Cultural Boundaries
Author(s): Ira Bashkow

Reviewed work(s):
Source: American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 106, No. 3 (Sep., 2004), pp. 443-458
Published by: Wiley on behalf of the American Anthropological Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3567610 .
Accessed: 29/11/2012 20:57
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Wiley and American Anthropological Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to American Anthropologist.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.206 on Thu, 29 Nov 2012 20:57:21 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
IRA BASHKOW
A Neo-Boasian Conceptionof CulturalBoundaries

thenotionof "cultural
critics
haverepeatedly
ABSTRACT Forthepast30 years,anthropology's
boundaries,"
questioned
arguing
inan ever-changing
distinctiveness
worldof
thatconceptsof culture
positstableand bounded"islands"of cultural
inappropriately
tendon-ofanthropology.
heel-orat leasta recurring
inflamed
an Achilles'
"flows."Thisissueremains
cultural
transnational
However,
whoconceived
ofboundaries
notas barriers
we stillhavemuchto learnfromBoasiananthropologists,
intheconception
ofboundaries,
In
and permeable.
thatwereirreducibly
distinctions
or to historical
to outsideinfluence
plural,perspectival,
change,butas cultural
howpeople'sown ideasof "the
I retheorize
and extendtheBoasians'openconceptofcultural
thisarticle,
boundaries,
emphasizing
ofculture,
inwhichtheboundedness
usa wayoutoftheoldconundrum
the"other"distinction-give
the"own"versus
foreign"-and
culture
ofcultural
theopen-ended
nature
seemstocontradict
inspatialterms,
as conceived
boundaries,
concept,
experience.
[Keywords:
ofanthropology]
Boasiananthropology,
history
ofa productive
I developtheoutlines
N THISARTICLE,
conceptionof"culturalboundaries"inspiredbytheanofFranzBoas and his students.Culturalboundthropology

criticism
arieshavebeen a leadingtargetofanthropological
Wolf
Eric
for
In
the
the
last
30
for
1970s, example,
years.
often
too
were
conceptualizedas
complainedthatcultures
and
roundbilliard
hard
"boundedobjects..,.like so many
balls" (Wolf1972:6,14). Andstilltodaytheproblemofthe.
boundednessof cultureis repeatedlyraisedin the field's
A well-known
exampleis the 1997 volvanguardliterature.
ume by AkhilGuptaand JamesFergusonthatseeksto unsettlewhatis claimedto be a pervasivefictionthatcultures
located and bounded. The representation
are territorially
of culturesas discretegeographicalentitieshas been critiwiththecolonialideology
cizedforaligninganthropology
ofculof"indirectrule,"as wellas withtheobjectifications
and nationalism(Asad
turepromotedby ethnicseparatism
1973; Handler1988; Leclerc1972). Thisidea has also been
criticizedas a prop to inequalityand domination,which
authenticates-asdoes the concept of "race"-dominant
groups'exclusionofthosemarkedas "other"(Abu-Lughod
1991:142-143; Kahn 1989). Underlyingall such critiques
servedbyculturalboundariesis
oftheperniciousfunctions
that all boundaries
the commonlysharedunderstanding
Fromthis
artificial.
are constructedand to some degree
critiquesof the idea of bounded culturesare
perspective,
of critiquesof the idea that culturescan
the counterpart
be abstractedfromhistory.Whereascritiquesof ahistorical culturefocuson the neglectof processesand relation-
shipsthatextendacrosstime,critiquesofboundedculture
focuson the neglectof processesand relationshipsthat
extendacrossspace. But whilethe critiquesof ahistorical
culturehave led to importantsynthesesbetweenhistorical and anthropological
methods,therehas been no comin
the
resolution
case of the critiquesof cultural
parable
boundaries.
In part,thislongstanding
theoretical
impasseoverculboundaries
reflects
the
tural
recognition-arisingaround
the same time in political economy,philosophy,and
anthropology-thatthe commonsensenotionof definite,
stable,and naturalboundariesis problematic.Insteadof
seeingculturesas naturallybounded objectsthatexistin
the worldforus to discover,morerecentscholarshiphas
created
appreciatedthatculturalboundariesare constructs
in largepartthroughourownprocessesofrepresentationforexample,in ethnographicmonographs(Cliffordand
Marcus 1986; Gupta and Ferguson1997; Handler 1988;
Manganaro2002; Marcus1998;Moore1999;Wagner1975).
ofourinThis,in turn,has led to a generalreconfiguration
tellectualvalues.Whereasboundarieswerepreviously
taken
forgrantedas usefulnaturalobjectsto be validatedby scientificresearch,theyare now valuedprimarily
forthe opto
and
deconstruct
destabilize
hegetheyprovide
portunity
monicpresuppositions
by exposingthe culturalworkthat
them as naturalor authoritative.
goes into representing
discourse
Boundariesalso can be valued in contemporary
which
transindividuals'
creative
as thebackground
against
and
identities
valued,mercurial,
hybrid
gressions positively
Association.
Vol.106,Issue3, pp.443-458,ISSN0002-7294,onlineISSN1548-1433.? 2004bytheAmerican
American
Anthropological
Anthropologist,
ofCalifornia
2000 Center
Journals
to:Rights
andPermissions,
toreprint
reserved.
Sendrequests
forpermission
Allrights
Press,
Division,
Street,
University
CA94704-1223.
Suite303,Berkeley,
444
AmericanAnthropologist* Vol. 106,No. 3 * September2004
can be constructed.
In our desireto stressfluidity
and the
ofidentity
theverynotionof
freeappropriation
categories,
boundarieshas becomeemblematicof formsof difference
and imposed:merelyarbithatareoverlyrigid,essentialist,
legaciesfromthepast.1
trarydivisions,unasked-for
The theoreticalimpasseoverculturalboundariesalso
reflects
theprecedencegivenin discussionsofglobalization
connectionsand theirnovel formations.
to transnational
It is not that scholarshave been unmindfulof globalization'sdarker,divisiveaspects:the entrenchment
of ethnic
the
mass
mediation
of
and
conflicts,
political
religiousexthe
reach
of
state
the
tremisms, enlarged
terror, globaltrafficin arms,and the wideninginequalitiesdividingnorth
fromsouth,richfrompoor.However,in theorizing
whatis
new and distinctive
about the conditionof contemporary
scholarsin anthropology
and culturalstudies
globalization,
have tendedto stressthebreachingofnationalboundaries
mass communication,
and trade,suggesting
by migration,
theemergence
ofnewformsofidentity,
economy,and commarka breakwiththeold modernist
munitythatostensibly
orderorganizedin termsofnation-states.
Scholarstypically
illustrate
theincreasing
oftheworldusinterconnectedness
ing exampleslikethe disseminationof culturalcommodities in cosmopolitanmedia likeworldmusicCDs and TV
shows.Atthesametime,nationalismis oftentreatedas old
news,an ineradicablethrowbackto a problematicprimordialismthatitselfmanifests
outmodedtheoretical
concepts
of bounded culture.Forexample,when ArjunAppadurai
writesthatrecentcritiqueshave "done muchto freeus of
the shacklesof highlylocalized,boundary-oriented,
holisof
cultural
form
and
tic,primordialist
substance,"
images
he is tarringpreviousanthropologists
and Sikhsecessionistswiththe samebrush,sincebothappearguiltyofnatuto "articulate
ralizingthe "boundaryofa difference"
group
identity"(Appadurai1996:13,15, 46).
Butthereis something
remarkable
aboutthe
altogether
stayingpowerof the anthropological
critiqueof bounded
culture.Forone thing,fewcurrent
areguilty
ethnographies
of positinginappropriately
boundedcultural"islands."Instudiestodayaddressthetranslodeed,mostethnographic
cal connectionsthatare entailedby neocolonialeconomic
structures,
regionalexchangesystems,diasporiccommumassmedia,evangelism,
nities,immigration,
borderlands,
tourism,environmental
activism,cyberspace,and so on.
as RobertBrightman
Moreover,
(1995:520)has pointedout,
criticshave nevermade a clearcase forwhysuchtranslocal
be consideredan argushould,in themselves,
complexities
mentforrepudiating
theconceptofculturalboundaries.In
fact,boundariesare continuallybeingassertedeverywhere
by the people we study,even-and, perhaps,especiallyin translocalsituations,and they do not serve only illiberalfunctionslike the reinforcement
of prejudiceand
the curtailment
of freedom.Boundariesalso serveexpresconstructive
functionsin culture.They
sive, contrastive,
aremeaningful
evenwheretheyarearbitrary,
sociallyconeven
where
are
crossed.
And
boundaries
sequential
they
remainnecessaryto our thinkingand writing,even our
Butbecauserecentscholarship
has
writingabouthybridity.
failedto formulate
a specifically
conceptof
anthropological
boundariesthatis distinctfromthe ethnicnationalistand
common-sensenaturalizedideas thatare so vulnerableto
critique,the problemof boundariesremainsan Achilles'
heel-or at least a recurringinflamedtendon-of the
discipline.
THE RELEVANCEOF BOASIANANTHROPOLOGY
Giventhisrecurring
I believeit is timefor
inflammation,
to
revisit
the
anthropology
conceptofboundariesfoundin
theworkoftheBoasianculturalanthropologists
ofthefirst
halfof the last century.
To embracethe field'sintellectual
legacyin thiswayis to stakeouta different
positiontoward
the past thanhas been customaryin recentanthropological work.Notwithstanding
its sustainedattackagainstthe
metanarrative
of progress,postmodernanthropology
has
tendedto emphasizetheinadequaciesofearlieranthropolitsowndisjuncture
fromit.In so doogywhileaccentuating
theverynotionofprogress
that
ing,it covertly
perpetuates
it rightlycalls into question.But if we takeseriouslythat
the ongoinghistoricaltransformation
of our disciplineinvolvesmuchmorethanprogress
(towardwhat?),we should
do morethantreatthepastas a repository
oferrors;
rather,
we shouldengagewithwhatis worthiest
in the genealogy
ofourideas.
Boasianculturalanthropology
had limitations.Forinthe
Boasians
lacked
ourcurrent,
betterunderstandstance,
and the politicsof culture.But
ings of culturalstructure
theywerehighlysensitiveto culturalhybridities,
idiosyncraticidentities,and translocalconnections-phenomena
that are today held to reveal the failureof the concept
of "bounded culture"itself.Theirawarenessof these issues should be no surprise,since many Boasians were
or earlyfeminist
womenwho
first-generation
immigrants
wereacutelyconsciousof theirown social alienationand
marginality
(Hegeman1999:9; cf.Abu-Lughod1991). Indeed, in referenceto languages Boas himselfwrote of
(Boas 1940[1929]:220),and AlfredKroeber
"hybridization"
devoteda sectionofhisanthropology
textbookto thetopic
of "culturalhybridity"
(1948[1923]:259).We mayfeellike
we arethefirst
generationto grapplewiththecomplexities
of identity,
but the Boasians,grapplingwiththemin their
time,createda richensembleofconceptsforcharacterizing
culture,itsrelationto individualvariation,and thewaysit
is distributed
overspace and time.
What I offerhere,then,is a look back to Boasianan(i.e., seeking
thropologythatis neitherpurelyhistoricist
to understandpastanthropology
in itsown historicalconthatcurrent
ideas
text)norblindlyrecuperative
(i.e.,finding
have pastprecedents).Instead,thepositionI takehereenas seminalthinkers,
gagesBoasiananthropologists
offering
a selectiveretheorization
oftheirworkthathasimplications
forcurrent
culturetheory(see also Darnell2001),especially
overculturaldisgiventheintenseconcernin theliterature
tinctionsin the face of globalization.Specifically,
I argue
Bashkow * A Neo-BoasianConceptionof CulturalBoundaries 445

thatthe Boasians' conceptsof culturalboundariesare superiorto thoseperpetuatedin recentcritiquesbecause (1)
definedand,therefore,
areofgreater
theyaremoreprecisely
analyticalvalue and (2) theydo not createabsurdcontradictions
withcommonplacephenomenaof cultureand
history.
UNDERSTOOD
HOW BOASIANANTHROPOLOGISTS
BOUNDARIES
CULTURAL
While the Boasiansdiffered
sharplyfromone anotherin
the positionstheytook on many questions,theyshared
ofcultural
threeguidingprinciplesin theirunderstandings
boundaries.2
First,it was axiomaticto the Boasians that cultural
boundarieswere porous and permeable.Boasian anthrodid not conceptupologists,whatevertheirdifferences,
alize culturalboundariesas walls or barriersto external
influence.The centralargumentof Boas'scritiqueof 19thcenturyculturalevolutionismwas that similaritiesbemotweencultures-suchas sharedmythicthemes,artistic
tifs,rituals,and ideas-is not evidencethat all cultures
progressaccordingto the same laws, since the similarities are often"much betterexplainedby the well known
factsof diffusionof culture;for archaeologyas well as
ethnographyteach us that intercoursebetween neighboringtribeshas always existedand has extendedover
enormousareas" (Boas 1940[1896]:278).Againstthe evolutionistidea that each culture'sdevelopmentis driven
by universal,autonomousprocessesof change,Boas and
his studentsarguedthat culturaldevelopmentis continwith their
gent on the historyof a people's interactions
neighbors.
Thus, as a principledmatter,the Boasianswere centrallyconcernedwith the diffusion-intoday'sparlance,
the "flows"-ofpeople,objects,images,and ideasbetween
localities(Appadurai1996). Indeed,to a largeextent,their
purposein drawingboundariesaround cultureswas preacross them.3Many
ciselyto gauge the historicaltraffic
Boas directedwere traitdisof the doctoraldissertations
tributionstudieswhich showed how a specificcultural
trait-suchas the"conceptoftheguardianspirit"(Benedict
1923)-had diffusedacrossa largeregion,acquiringvarculied meanings,forms,and functionswithindifferent
sincehas stressedtheimportance
tures.No anthropologist
of diffusionin formingcultureas emphaticallyas Robert
in his oft-quoted
Lowie(1921:428),who hyperbolized
sigh
that civilizationis a "planlesshodgepodge,"a "thingof
shredsand patches,"since it develops not accordingto
a fixedlaw or design but out of a vast set of contingent externalinfluences.In Lowie's stronglyantiprimordialistviewof cultureas intrinsically
(Brightman
syncretic
1995:531),culturesmaybe distinctfromone anotherand,
thus,bounded,withoutthis also implyingthat theyare
discrete-since,in Lowie'sview,thereis no qualitativedifferencebetweentraitsthatarefound"inside"and "outside"
them.4
OtherBoasians'viewson diffusionwerecomplicated
interestin the psychologicalproby theircomplementary
cessesby which traitsimportedinto a culturewerereinterpretedin a mannerconsistentwith what was already
there,therebyproducingqualitiesof coherenceor inteview was exgrationwithina culture.This integrationist
ofCulpressedmostfamouslyby RuthBenedictin Patterns
ture(1934:47), in which she suggestedthat cultureswere
traitsthatthey
"morethanthe sum"oftheheterogeneous
borrowedfromelsewhere,sincethosetraitswerereshaped
by and withinthe patternof the borrowingculture.No
coherenceand
doubt,Benedictfocusedon culture-internal
Boon
has
But
as
noted,it is
James
(1999:28)
integration.
in
Benedict's
to
misremember
argument
easy
unfortunately
Patterns
as one thatpresentsculturesas closed.In partthis
is because she used threeculturesthat were "historically
as littlerelatedas possible"and, thus,maximallydiscrete
in the contextin whichtheywerepresented;in partit is
sketchwas developedprimarily
becauseeach ethnographic
withina discretetextualunit,a chapterofitsown (Benedict
1934:17;Boon 1999:25).ButforBenedict,culturalintegraviewthatcultural
to thediffusionist
tionis notantithetical
itpresumesit.Beneboundariesareporous;to thecontrary,
of
dict'spremiseis that culturesstartwith a "diversity"
elements"providedby outsideinfluence,
"disharmonious
in an ongoingprocessevenas new
and theseareintegrated
materialis imported(Benedict1934:226). Wherethe imBenedict
harmoniously,
portedmaterialhasbeenintegrated
She also recognizesthat
treatsitas a culture'sachievement.
is lacking"in certaincultures"and coexistsin
integration
otherswithconflictand dissonance,whichshe considers
theoutcomeofintegrative
processesbeingoutpacedbydifones
fusionist (1934:225,241). Benedict'sconceptionofcultensionbetweenthe
tureis thusmarkedby an irreducible
reand integration,
processesof diffusion
complementary
the characteristic
dualityof Boasiananthropology
flecting
(Stocking1974:5-8). In this duality,culturesare seen on
mathe one hand as accidentalassemblagesof diffused-in
terial,and on the otherhand as theoutcomesofprocesses
of"innerdevelopment"thattendto moldsuchmaterialto
patterns(Boas 1940[1920]:286).
preexisting
Second, the Boasians pluralizedculturalboundaries.
To be sure,in theoreticalstatements,Boas oftenwrote
as if the "culture,"the "people," the "tribe,"and the
"society"were equivalentunits,and his methodological
delimitaas positinga privileged
holismmaybe interpreted
tionofculturesas "wholes"(Boas 1940[1887],1940[1920],
1940[1932]:258,1974[1889];Stocking1974:13).Butin his
tribal
studies,Boas was carefulto distinguish
ethnographic
divisionsfromthecultureshe designated(Boas 1964,1966),
and fromhis sophisticated"cosmographical"
perspective,
he recognizedthat the unitypredicatedof a culturewas
a "subjective"one thatwas constitutednecessarily"only
in the mind of the observer"(Boas 1940[1987]:645).It is
worthremembering,
too, thatBoas articulatedhis holism
in oppositionto the comparativist
typologiesof the 19th
who interpreted
any cultural
centurysocial evolutionists,
446
element,such as totemicclanshipor firedclaypottery,

by
groupingit togetherwith elementsof apparentlysimilar
typefoundin othercultures,and thenorderingtheresultevolutionary
sequencesthatrepingsetsintohypothesized
resentedhierarchiesof progresswithinartificially
discrete
domainssuch as kinshipsystemsor foodcontainers.Boas
in light
urgedinsteadthat such elementsbe interpreted
of the culturalwholeswithinwhichtheyare embedded-not to set boundariesthatwould delimitculturalentities
as suchbut to providean appropriate
contextfortheirinAnd
since
there
a
was
no
terpretation.
priorilimiton what
a
of
culture
be
most
cultures
might
aspects
illuminating,
in Boas's conceptionwerenecessarilyeclecticand expansive,embracingnot onlya people'spresent-day
ecological
conditions,livelihood,arts,socialrelations,and so on but
also "thehistoryofthepeople,theinfluenceoftheregions
and the peothroughwhich it passed on its migrations,
with
whom
it
cameintocontact"(Boas 1974[1887]:64).
ple
In Boas's conception,culturesappearedto have different
boundarieswhenlookedat fromdifferent
viewpoints,and
it was just thisthemethatbecame increasingly
centralto
Boas'sthinkingoverhis career.In GeorgeStocking's
words,
the "consistenttendency"in Boas's thoughtwas toward
ofblanketclassifications
and toward
"growingskepticism"
insistenceon the discrimination
between"distinctclassificatorypointsof view" (Stocking1974:13-14). The thrust
of Boas's earlyfieldwork
was to show that culturecould
not be correlatedwithenvironmental
thus
determinants,
cultural
boundaries
from
effectively
decoupling
geographical ones (Boas 1940[1896]:278,1964[1888]).Lateron, in his
Boas showedthatthe correcritiqueofracialassumptions,
lationofbodyformwithhereditary
lineswas complicated
in the case of migrationfurther,
he demonstrated
thatin
generalitwas wrongto assumea coincidenceofracial,cultural,and linguisticgroupings,sincetherewereabundant
cases in whichthe applicationof different
criteriaof classificationproduceddifferent
groupings(Boas 1940[1912],
1938[1911],1966a [1911]).
Boas'spluralization
ofboundariesis apparentin hisstudents'workas a basicassumptionofmethod,and itinforms
the Boasian interpretation
of the controversial
conceptof
"cultureareas." Althoughthe termitselfhas sometimes
been assumedto referto discrete,
boundedenterritorially
the
tities, "culturearea" conceptwas embracedby Boasian
likeEdwardSapirand Kroeberprimarily
as
anthropologists
a meansofmakinghistoricalinferences
fromthegeographical distribution
ofsimilartraitsacrosslocalities,and itwas
based on the criticalassumptionthatit is "a normal,permanenttendencyofcultureto diffuse"
(Kroeber1931:264).
Cultureareas were conceivednot as individualcultures
but as aggregations
of cultures-whatwe mighttodaycall
"regions"-withtheemphasison past,ratherthanpresent,
zones of culturalinteraction(Boas 194011896]:277).The
Boasiansrecognizedthatthegeographicalboundingof areas was invariably
butas Kroeberobserved,"areal
arbitrary,
limitation"was "only one aspect" of a "cultureaggregation." Accordingto Kroeber,theoretically
the "ultimate
emphasis"was "on culturecentersinstead of culturearwas pareas," sincein practicewhatthe methodidentified

tiallyoverlappingzones of traitdistribution
implyingseand theradiationofinfluence
from
quencesofdevelopment
dominantcenters(Kroeber1931:251, 261). It
historically
was forthis reason that in Clark Wissler's(1917) study
of AmericanIndian areas,boundarylocationswere puron a
posefullydeemphasized-onlydrawnschematically
coarse-scaled
lines
that
their
mapusingstraight
highlighted
Like
the
culture
area
schemes
Wissler's,
artificiality.
proposed by Sapirand Kroeberbroadlyresembledthe classificationswhichpreviousethnographers
oftheAmericashad
as
but
the
Boasians'schemes
obvious,
accepted empirically
wentfurther
in thattheyexplicitly
distinguished
multiple
kindsof areas constructed
on the basis of different
setsof
criteria:forexample,traitsfoundin presentcultures,archaeologicalfindings,foods,technology,
language,physical indices,kinship,and the environment.
In short,even
whenproposinggeographically
basedcultureareas,Boasian
werecarefulto drawmultipleboundaries
anthropologists
diverseclassificatory
reflecting
pointsof view (Herskovits
1924; Kroeber1948; Sapir1949[1916];Stocking1992:136;
Wissler1917).s
The pluralityof culturalboundarieswas used by
Boasiansas a pointof contentionagainstthe FrenchsociRadcliffeologistDurkheimand the Englishfunctionalists
Brownand Malinowski,forwhom it was axiomaticthat
the social whole compriseda systemof functionally
inelements.6Littleconcernedwiththe chance
terdependent
historicaleventsthat caused societiesto change in unpredictableways,the Durkheimiansand the functionaliststendedto discussthe past in termsof culture-internal
evolutionary
processes.Forthe Boasians,by contrast,culturalintegration
was an ongoingprocessthatcould never
be fullycompletedand thatwas not necessarily
unidirectional;it was not teleological.In Benedict'swritings
espeis somethingthat,in the longviewof a
cially,integration
ebbs and flows,moreor less intenselyat
culture'shistory,
varioustimes.So while the Zufiipueblos of two decades
earlierrepresented
forBenedicta nearlyperfectintegration (Stocking1992), such a climaxcould onlybe temporary,whetherlong or shortlived. For Sapir (1949[1924]),
genuineor harmoniousculturesimilarlyhad the capacity to degenerate,for example into the alienationand
of modern U.S. life. Moreover,
inorganicdisintegration
the Boasiansconceivedof culturalintegration
eclectically
in termsthat were partial,suggestive,and metaphoric,
ratherthan functionaland systematic.
was to
Integration
be found,forexample,in aestheticand thematiccoherence in an analogyto stylesof artand architecture;
in the
ofsymbolism
and motivation,
in an analogyto
patterning
gestaltpsychology;in selectiveperceptionand valuation,
in an analogyto phonologicalapperception;
and in distinctivecharacterological
qualities,in an analogyto Herderian
ideas of the unique spirit,genius,or geistof a nation or
people (Stocking1974:8). Fromthe perspectiveof Lowie,
who launcheda sharpattackon Malinowski's"avowedly

antihistorical"
functionalism,
antidistributional,
any position that "treatseach cultureas a closed system"implies
in demandinglogicallythatthereis a single,
"absurdities"
definitive
demarcation:
variesdemonstrably
from
Socialtradition
villagetovilto family.
Arewe to treatas the
lage,evenfromfamily
the chief'sfamily
bearersof sucha closedsystem
in
theIsland
hisvillage,
thedistrict
ofKiriwina,
Omarakana,
ofBoyowa,
theNorth
Massim
theTrobriand
archipelago,
NewGuinea,orperchance
Melanesia?
province,
In defiance
ofthedogmathatanyone culture
forms
a
closedsystem,
we mustinsistthatsucha culture
is inanartificial
forpurposes
ofexpeunitsegregated
variably
[Lowie1935:235]
diency.
writers
Third,in contrastwithrecentanthropological
who have treatedanalyticconceptsof culturalboundaries
to thesamecritiquesas arepeople'sfolkideas,
as susceptible
the Boasiansrecognizedthatthe boundariestheydrewas
analystswerenot equivalentto the boundariesthatpeople drewforthemselves.Whereasthe formerwereunderstoodto be theoretical
created-as Lowieput
propositions,
"for
of
in
it,
purposes expediency" analysis,ethnographic
and museumdisplays-thelatterwerethemdescription,
selveselementsof culturethat reflected
the ways people
"between'myown' closedgroupand theoutdistinguished
sider"(Benedict1934:7). Indeed,the Boasiansfrequently
criticized
suchdistinctions
as politicallymotivatedand sciincorrect.For example,Benedictwas in effect
entifically
thenaturalization
ofWestern
culturalboundaries
criticizing
by insistingthat such commonsensenotionsas "human
nature"and "racialinheritance"werebut modernrepackus/themfolkdistincagingsof a primalinsider/outsider,
tion: Both notions,she argued,are folkconcepts,even
if at timescloakedin scientific
garb.Ideas of human nature,she suggested,wronglyelevate"our own socialized
habits"to the statusof the universallyhuman,in much
the same way thatthe membersof "primitive
tribes"see
theirown groupsas the onlytruehumansand regardoutsidersas nonhuman"in spiteof the factthatfroman objectivepoint of view each tribeis surroundedby peoples
sharingin its artsand... in elaboratepracticesthat have
ofbehaviourfromone
grownup bya mutualgive-and-take
people to another"(Benedict1934:7). SimilarlyBenedict
ideas of "racialinheritance"are no
arguedthat scientific
morethan "mythology"
when appliedoutsidethe narrow
scopeof"familylines"and "smalland staticcommunities,"
sincescientific
analysisoflargeand dispersedgroupsalways
shows"overlapping"-whatis oftennowadaystermedhybridity.
Accordingto Benedict,"when'racialheredity'is invoked,as it usuallyis, to rallya groupof personsof about
thesameeconomicstatus,graduating
frommuchthesame
schools,and readingthe same weeklies,such a category
is merelyanotherversionof the in- and the out-group"
(1934:15-16).7As a culturalcritic,then,she belittledfolk
boundariesas chauvinisticand parochial,in contrastto a
scientific
thatwouldbe inclusivelyhumanistic
perspective
and cosmopolitan.It was thus clearto Benedictthat anthropologycannotuncritically

acceptthe folkboundaries
culture
a
or
nation
and, indeed,thatwe ought
positedby
to be skepticalofthemas a basicmethodologicalstance.
So axiomaticwas the distinction
betweenfolkand ancultural
boundaries
that
even
feltit necessary
alytic
Sapir
to pointoutthatin certaincasesitwaspossibleforthemto
coincide.So whilethe analytic"culturearea concept"was
a "meredescription
ofculturalflow,"one sometimesfound
that it also described"assemblagesof people who understandeach other'scultureand feelthemselvesas a unity"
(Sapir1994:100).Thispotentialforculturalcomprehension
was a "veryrealthing... in thepsychological
sense,"and it
providedthe "psychologicalground"fora "kindof commonalityof feelingwhich transcendslocal and political
differences"
(Sapir1994:100-101).This was not a primordialistnotion,since mutualunderstanding
was foundby
no means solelyamong groupsthat sharedcommonoriginsbut,rather,arosewherever"in the courseof timethe
cross-fertilization
of traitshas developeda commonpatternof culture"(Sapir1994:100-101).Norwas it a notion
thatdependedon geographical
since"geographcontiguity,
are
a
first
order
icallycontiguousgroups merely
approximationto theinfinitely
variablegroupings
ofhumanbeingsto
whom culturein itsvariousaspectsis actuallyto be creditedas a matterofrealisticpsychology"(1949[1932a]:519).
Asan example,Sapirdescribedhowa SiouxIndianwhowas
capturedby the Blackfootwould understandhis situation
and,thoughamong"deadlyenemies,"would"feelat home
in the culture"ofhis captors,unlike"a PuebloIndiancapturedby a Plainstribe[who]would not feelat home-he
would not knowwhat [hissituation]was about"-because
the culturesweretoo different
to allow fora "communalof
ity understanding"
(Sapir1994:101).Sapirthoughtthat
the movementfrommutualcomprehensionto "a feeling
of unity"had the powerto producenations.Accordingto
Sapir,"thetruepsychologicalmeaningof [thefolknotion
"a nascentnation,and many
of] culturearea" is therefore
nationsprobablyarosein thisway"-thoughhe cautioned
that "thisnotionof the culturearea should neverbe confusedwiththenotionofthe state"(1994:100). It was only
a "culturalunity,the psychologicalground"fora state,
yetit lackedthe state'sinstitutionalized
apparatusforencompassingand reconcilingdiversepointsof view (1994:
100).8
What is especiallyinteresting
about the distinction
Boasian anthropologists
drewbetweenanalyticand folk
culturalboundariesis thattheyallow fora kindof mediatingborderzone of culture,a zone of thingsthat,from
theperspective
ofthepeople'sfolkboundaryconcepts,are
as
regarded foreignbut that,fromthe perspectiveof the
as internalto
analyst,mightnonethelessbe interpreted
theirculture.9The Boasiansconceivedof thisas a kindof
foyeror vestibuleof culture,in whichnewlyimportedelementsof culture"waited,'"so to speak,as partof the process of becomingassimilated.Kroeber'spositionwas that
the waitingperiod was characteristically
short,and that
448
once an elementwas integrated,

itsforeignness
was quickly
lost to nativeawareness.He likedto cite the exampleof
whowereunawarethatitemslike
modernAnglo-Americans
tobacco,paper,potatoes,and the alphabetwerereallyculIn histextbookhe wrote:"Assoonas a culture
turalimports.
in theforhas accepteda new item,ittendsto lose interest
eignnessof originof thisitem,as againstthe factthatthe
itemis now functioning
withintheculture.One mightsay
thatonce acceptanceis made, the sourceis playeddown
and forgotten
as soon as possible"(1948[1923]:257).Simin
ilarly,Boas, his studiesof folkloreand art,emphasized
the forgetting
of the foreignoriginof borrowedmaterial,
in line with his argumentthat people's currentexplanations of folktaleelementsand art motifsare "secondary
thatinterpret
themin termsof contemrationalizations"
and
poraryculturalinterests themes,obscuringoreclipsing
sources(Boas 1940[1996],
priorknowledgeoftruehistorical
1938[1911]:214-219,1966a:66).
But it was also possibleforthe foreignoriginsof asin memoryand
similatedmaterialto be institutionalized
even valued as such,and some Boasiansfoundgreattheoreticalinterestin thisfact.Mead, forexample,portrayed
the MountainArapeshof New Guinea as valuingcertain
becausethey
cultcomplexes,dances,and fashionsprecisely
culwereborrowed.Indeed,in thisspecifically
"importing
of
was
the
remembered,
ture," foreignness objects
actively
since distanceof originin the directionof the seacoast
and sophisticawas associatedwithincreasingrefinement
as such did not necestion. To the Arapesh,foreignness
but could insteadmean greater
sarilymean nonhumanity
FromMead'sanalyticperspeccivilization.
and
worldliness
tive,the factthatan itemwas importeddid not make it
it was preexternalto Arapeshculture.To the contrary,
ciselyin beingcategorizedas an importfromthebeach or
beyondthat an elementcould representa positivevalue
withinthedistinctively
Arapeshschemeofmeanings,thus
showingthat the zone of the foreigncan itselfplay a
centralsymbolicrole in the lifeof a people (Mead 1935,
1938).
Althoughculturalboundednesshas been targetedas
problematicin recentcritiquesof the cultureconcept,the
critiquesarenot reallyapplicableto culturalboundariesas
to
According
theywereconceivedin Boasiananthropology.
forexample,thecultureconceptis flawed
MichaelKearney,
because it presupposesboundednesson the model of the
and
withitsbinarylogicofterritorial
modernnation-state
An individualis eitherinsidethe
corporatemembership:
boundary-as a citizenor a member-or is not (Kearney
1995). But forBoas and his students,culturewas neither
modeledon the statenor confusedwitha polity.Indeed,
Kroeberand Sapirexplicitly
opposedconceivingofcultures
on the model of nations,theirprovinces,and otherpoliticalor sociologicalunits(Kroeber1948[1923]:226;Sapir
1949[1924]:329,1994:100). Cultures,unlikenation-states,
tend to mergeor blend into one another;in Kroeber's
terms,they"intergrade"
(1948[1923]:261).In general,the
in classifying
not personsbut eleBoasianswereinterested
mentsaccordingto culture:Theywroteofcultural"traits."
Andtheywerebyno meansuncomfortable
withconstruing
as beelements-or,forthatmatter,
persons-ambiguously,
ing eitherin or out of a culturedependingon thepointof
view.
The critiquesof bounded culturehave primarilyfocused on the spatializedunits thatformthe provinceof
area studiesand the autonomoustribalworldsconjured
structural-functionalism.10
While
by Radcliffe-Brownian
Boasian scholarsdid workin theseveins,it was afterthe
mid-1930swhen the Boasian paradigmhad alreadybe2004). As Stockingargues,it
gun to dissipate(Silverstein
is clearenoughthatthe Boasiansconstituted
a distinctive
in the 1910s,whenBoas and his
"school"ofanthropology
studentswereunitedin theirradicalcritiquesofevolutionismand racialism,
and in opposingtheinfluenceofeugeniin thescientific
establishcistsand racialistanthropologists
ment.Two decadeslater,however,Boas's studentswereno
withinanthropology,
as intellectulongera unifiedcurrent
and divergingfromone
allytheywerein factdiversifying
another(Stocking1992:125). Many of the Boasianspublishedtheirmostenduringworksduringthistime,but in
it may be seen as the twilightof Boasian anretrospect
Alreadyduringthisdecade,manyofBoas'sstuthropology.
to suchapdents(Meadespecially)werebecomingattracted
as
Radcliffe-Brown's
more
"scientific"
approaches
parently
comparativesociology,and the dilutionof theircollective intellectualpotencycontinuedand even accelerated
throughthe 1940s and afterthewar.DuringWorldWarII,
as scientistsof everystripesoughtto apply theirtalents
Mead and Benedictcompiledstudiesof
to the war effort:
while
Japanese,Russian,and other"nationalcharacters,"
in
RalphLintonwas involved foundingwartimeprograms
transformed
themustyold
in "areastudies"thatultimately
ethnological"culturearea"conceptintoCold Warinstitutes
forRussian,MiddleEastern,SouthAsian,and Africanstudies (Bashkow1991:179; Mintz 1998:29; Yans-McLaughlin
1984). In evaluatingthis workby currentstandards,we
thatMead and Benedictwerethenwritshouldremember
and
for
ing primarily nonspecialistwartimepolicymakers,
theirrelianceon nationalboundariesas a basisfordelimiting culturalunitsmakessensegiventheirpolemicalaims.
Indeed,a closereadingoftheirworksuggeststhattheyunderstoodthe problemsinherentin thiskindof approach.
Butin any case, such workmarkeda departurefromclasand the area studiesinstitutes
sical Boasiananthropology,
the new politicalcontextand intellectualtrends
reflected
(Hegeman1999:165;Pletsch1981;Rafael1994;seeOrtathis
issue). Regardlessof theirhistoricaland biographicalconwere
nections,the cultureareas of Boasian anthropology
on a different
constituted
basisfromtheareasthatwereinin postwararea studies.As Rena Lederman
stitutionalized
has argued,the Boasiancultureareas "werenot drawnup
to fitnationalbordersand were at odds with (if not activelysubversiveof) the interestsand naturalizingclaims
of nation-states"(Lederman1998:431). Thus, it is not
relativecultureareas of the
the permeable,perspectivally
Bashkow* A Neo-Boasian
ofCultural
Boundaries 449
Conception
Thus,it is not
region,village,hamlet,or clan affiliations.
thatthe historically
cultural
imposed
category"Orokaiva"
a merelyfictiveboundingof culture.Rather,as
represents
in so manycasesof "ethnogenesis"
studiedbyanthropoloTHE BOASIAN PRINCIPLES ILLUSTRATED
gists,thecolonialcategoryhas itselfbecomea realcategory
BY OROKAIVA ETHNOGRAPHY
in people'slives,thoughnot to the exclusionof otherdemarcationsthatremainsignificant.
To move beyond the theoreticalimpasse over cultural
A revealingexampleofthedivergence
betweentheanboundaries,I presenta conceptionof culturalboundaries
that builds on the Boasian principlesI have described.I
analyticconceptsofculturalboundariesand
thropologist's
people's folkconceptsis the constructionof "whitemen"
emphasize(1) thatculturalboundariesareopen and permein Orokaivaculture(Bashkowin press).12To the Orokaiva
whichblocktheflowofpeople,objects,or
able,notbarriers
I
encounteredin my fieldwork,
it was obvious that the
drawn
ideas; (2) thattheyarepluraland interested,
always
"whiteman"theyspoketo me aboutrepresents
relativeto particular
contexts,purposes,and pointsofview;
myculture,
and (3) that the divergencebetweenthe anthropologist's not theirs.Indeed,forthem,the "whiteman"is paradigmaticallyforeign:It is a culturalothertheyconventionanalyticboundariesand people'sfolkboundariescreatesa
definedin termsofthe"own"/"other" allycontrastwiththemselvesin variouscontextsofindige"zone oftheforeign"
nous life.Butfrommyanalyticperspective,
it was equally
thatpeoplethemselvesdraw.Allthreeofthese
distinctions
clear
that
the
"whiteman"
is
for
associated
with
to
manypurposesan Orokaiva
objectifying
points respond problems
from
communicated
culturalboundaries,whicharein factsymbolicconstructs, construct,
one individualto another,
fromgenerationto generation,in a way thatmakesit as
in termsof spatialmetaphors.I will elaboratethesepoints
authentica culturalinheritance
as themosthallowedtradiin the nextsection,but firstI illustratethemwithethnotion. Forseveralgenerationsnow,Orokaivachildrenhave
graphicexamplesfrommyown workon Orokaivapeople
been introduced
to "whitemen"primarily
in Papua New Guinea (PNG).
byhearingabout
themfromotherOrokaivaas theyhave grownup in the
That the boundariesof Orokaivacultureare permeable need not be belabored.It has been morethan a cenvillage;theyhave been fed "whitemen'sfoods"by their
mothersand wives;and theyhave themselvesperformed
Britain
was
colonized
since
the
Orokaiva
by
region
tury
in
roles of whitemenin communitydevelopmentassoended
the
While
the
colonial
Australia.
later,
and,
period
1975 with PNG's independence,people's lives have reciations,churchcouncils,local governmentcommittees,
affected
mainedprofoundly
smallholdercropgrowers'boards,and variousbusinesses.
by neocolonialeconomicdeOf
consumer
of
an
the
course,Orokaivainteractwith actual whitesboth in
culture,
imported
velopment, impress
townand in theirvillages.Indeed,a fewOrokaivahaveeven
and Westernschoolingand health
missionChristianity,
care-all to suchan extentthatno credibleculturalboundstayedwithwhitesin theiroverseashomes.Butthesecrossas
cultural
fromtherefbe
conceived
conditions
could
current
aries reflecting
interpreted
experiencesareinevitably
of
erence
their
far
more
intimate
reasons
for
theremaybe
point
acquaintancewith
attempting
nonporous.Certainly,
ofwhitemenperpetuated
withintheirown
theconstruction
of PNG culturesbeforeWestern
a historicalreconstruction
cultureat home.
contact,and in doingso we mightimposea hardfictional
withcertainimportedcommoditiesthatare
Similarly,
boundarybetweenindigenousand Westerncultures,filterregardedbyOrokaivaas thecultureofwhitemen,itis most
ing out the moreobviousimportsof latertimes.Buteven
as a
thisquestionableprocedureresultsin culturalboundaries
analyticallypowerfulto treatthemethnographically
Orokaiva
their
influof
and
to
strata
of
earlier
thatare characterized
culture,
despite
foreign
origins
part
by porosity
the factthat theyare categorizedas "foreign"fromthe
ence,likedance genres,rituals,and linguisticelementsimOrokaivafolkpointofview.ForOrokaiva,theparadigmatic
portedfromotherindigenousgroups.
"whitemen'sfoods" are boiled whiterice,canned mackThe boundariesof Orokaivaculturemaybe drawnin
these
were
and
so
different
erel,and Spam-likecans of cornedbeef.Historically,
they
purposesnow,
waysfordifferent
foods
were
the
most
to
the
rein the past. Althoughthe ethnonymOrokaivaoriginated
among
prominentbrought
but theyhave sincebein presenttimesthe Orokaiva
as a colonial classification,
gion by Australianpatrolofficers,
ofracial
comecentralto a highlyconventionalconstruction
designationhas become a categoryof identityemployed
thatinterprets
characteristics
thesefoodsin oppositionto
But it is not the only such cateby people themselves.11
local taroand porkin termsof an elaborateset of indigegory.A friendof minewho, in some contexts,called himforself"Orokaiva"would,in different
contexts,differentiate nouscontrastive
qualities(Bashkowin press).Moreover,
himselffrom"thoseotherOrokaiva"and,instead,callhimeign "whitemen'sfoods"have become all but essentialin
Orokaivaritualfeasts.Thus,eventhoughtheyareimported,
self"Binandere,"usingthe name of his particulardialect
"whitemen'sfoods"mustbe viewedethnographically
as a
area.The boundariesthatpeople assertare sensitiveto the
contextand theirown immediateaims;thisis so not only
livingpartof Orokaivaculture.For anotherexample,in
theirdevelopmentactivities,
Orokaivaoftentryto workacin relationto what they call the "big name" (javo peni)
Orokaivabutalso to themany"smallernames"(javoisapa)
cordingto Westernclocktime,whichtheycall "whitemen's
thatpeopleuse to expresstheiridentityin termsofdialect,
time,"in contrastto a second,moreautonomisticpattern
Boasiansto which recentcritiquesof culturalboundaries
apply.
450
* Vol.106,No.3 * September
2004
American
Anthropologist
of theirown
of timeuse thatpeople see as characteristic
culture.But froman analyticpoint of view this contrast
itselfis bestseenas partofOrokaivaculture,sinceitis convirtue
distinctive
structedlargelyin termsofthe culturally
whendifferent
individofsocialunity,whichis dramatized
in close synchronization.
uals worktogether
Thus,one can
besee thatthefolkboundariesOrokaivause to distinguish
cultureofwhitemenare
tweentheircultureand theforeign
in no wayto be takenforgrantedas culturalboundariesin
disanalysis;theyare ratherculture-internal
ethnographic
tinctionsthatorganizeand givemeaningto people'slives.13
This divergencebetweenfolkand analyticboundaries
culshownin the Orokaivacase givesthe anthropological
in whichcultureconcepta wayoutoftheold conundrum,
turaldistinctiveness
impliesculturalboundariesthatwould
on thekindsof experiences
seemto place strictlimitations
of theirculthatpeople can have and on the extensibility
ture to novel situations.The distinctionsthat Orokaiva
drawbetweentheirown and "whitemen's
culture"residein
WhiletheyarethingsthatOrokaiva
thezone oftheforeign:
themselves
considertobe outsidetheirculture,froman analyticpointofviewtheymustbe consideredto be a partof
in termsofOrokaivacategories,
itsincetheyareinterpreted
and interests,
and theyareassimilated
values,assumptions,
to distinctively
Orokaivaformsofpractice.Thiszone ofthe
flexibleand accommodating
foreignis an intrinsically
part
oftheirculture;it is whatallowsOrokaivato interpret
their
novelexperiencesusingtheirpreconceivednotionsofothers thatare constructedin a dialecticalrelationshipwith
theirideas ofthemselves.Althoughsuch a construction
of
it
the otheris oftenderidedas ethnocentric
projection, is
liesin the
universal.
Its
value
to
anthropology
undoubtedly
it
releases
native
"incarcerated"
way
Appadurai's(1988:37)
fromtheboundsof his culturalcell,by allowingus to recognize that culturalboundaries,ratherthan imprisoning
people, can paradoxicallyserveto extendculturesacross
them,to the limitsof people's experience.Thereis really
no contradiction
betweentheboundednessof cultureand
the open-endednatureofculturalexperience,
becausecultureitselfprovidesa schemaforincorporating
externalelementsin theverypossibility
ofconstructing
an elementas
foreign.
THE BOASIANCONCEPTIONOF CULTURAL
BOUNDARIESRETHEORIZEDAND EXTENDED
Justbecauseculturalboundariesdo not reallycontaincultureswithinthemdoes notmeanthattheyaremeaningless
and ofno account;itjustmeansthatwe havebeenmisledby
thespatialimagesconventionally
usedtodepictthem,espethe
line
or "curved").Drawnlines
(whether"straight"
cially
to
block
from
passingacrossthem,and they
appear
things
to
create
discrete
cultural
domains,whenin reality,
appear
boundariesare less likebarriersthan theyare likethresholds or frontiers
thatmarkthemovementacrossthemand
even createthemotivationforrelationships
withwhatlies
beyond.Anotherproblemwithlines is thatthe divisions
arecontinuousand complete.Lineshave an
theyrepresent
extension-in formalgeometricterms,the
uninterrupted
between
space
anytwopointson theline is filledbyinterveningpoints-and theyappearto createnonoverlapping
entitiesthatareclosedto each other.Butas we willdiscuss,
culturalboundaries-whethertheyare conceivedin geographical,social,or conceptualspace-may be discontinuous and incomplete.In a provocativepassage,Appadurai
proposesthatwe should thinkof culturesas "possessing
no Euclideanboundaries"-and althoughhe does not say
veryclearlywhat he has in mind by way of alternatives,
suggestingonly thatwe insteaduse a "fractalmetaphor"
and recognizethatculturalformsoverlap(1996:46)-he is
rightto pointout thatculturalboundariesare easyto miswhendrawnas lines.To rethinkthemeaningsof
interpret
the lines we drawto represent
boundaries,I now extend
Boasian anthropology's
threeguidingprinciplesaboutthe
boundariesofculture.
First,we shouldrecognizethatculturalboundaries,in
do notexcludeorcontain.Alltoo often,
and ofthemselves,
we tendto confusetheconceptof"boundaries"withthatof
"barriers"-which,
bar,hinder,or block.Exby definition,
arethecolonialcolorline,ruggedmounamplesofbarriers
tainranges,barbwirefences,and poverty,
all ofwhichcan
impedeordenypersons'accessto objects,places,ideas,and
Boundariesdo notactuallyseparate;theyonlyderesources.
marcateor differentiate;
theydo not exertforceto exclude
or containany aspectsof culture.What sociologistscall a
"hardboundary"is,in ourterms,a symbolicboundarythat
which"holdsthe
has beenfortified
bysomekindofbarrier,
to
like
it
hard
cross
over, JimCrowlawsin the
line,"making
what
South
(Banton1983:125ff.).Similarly,
segregationist
refers
to
is
the
thetermboundary
maintenance
really
shoring
But manyboundariesare
up of a boundarywithbarriers.
not shoredup at all.
A nice illustration
of the distinctionbetweenboundariesand barriers
maybe foundin thebordersof nations,
states,counties,and so on. Such politicalboundariesare
definedin law in termsof latitudes,longitudes,and the
middlesof rivers.They are symbolicrepresentations
that
of the fencesand checkpointsthatin
existindependently
someplacessecurethem.Thisis important,
sincemoreoftenthannotthereareno markers
orbarriers
on theground.
Becausebarriersare expensiveto constructand maintain,
is of
traffic
theyareusuallysetup onlywherecross-border
we
concern.
Alongmajorroads, pass checkpoints
political
markingnationalboundariesand signpostsfortheboundnewsreportsshowus
ariesofstatesand counties.Similarly,
of
boundaries
in
conflict
zones
likeGaza, whereas
pictures
I writethis,Israelis buildinga highconcretewall to keep
out.Butsuchboundariesarewellin theminorPalestinians
Off
the
road,amidstfields,and awayfromthe conflict
ity.
zones, mostboundariesare invisible.So althoughour attentionis drawnmost oftento hard boundariesthat are
barriers
arebyno meansessentialto
shoredup bybarriers,
the definition
of boundaries,
and we need to be carefulto
themtheoretically.
distinguish
ofCultural
Boundaries 451
Conception
Moreover,not all culturalboundariescan be representedin maps. Some of the most importantones must
be conceivedofas abstracttypologicaldistinctions.
Returnto
our
of
the
Orokaiva
construct
beboundary
ing
example
whatwe arefacedwithisa
tweenwhitemenandthemselves,
oftypified
feature
contrasts
constellation
(e.g.,darkvs.light
foodsvs.eatersofstore-bought
skin,eatersofgarden-grown
foods,generousand hospitablevs. closefistedand aloof,
has a coreand periphery
in thatceretc.).The constellation
contrasts
aresalientand often
tainhighlyconventionalized
remarkedon, whileothercontrastsare drawnidiosyncraticallyin particularcontextsand are ideologicallyunelaborated.Nevertheless,
theseculturally
salientfeature
contrasts
aredistributed
overa greatdeal ofemptyspace,sincemany
aspectsof lifeare assignedno specialvalue in termsof the
distinction(Bashkow1999:183-199).
Orokaiva/whiteman
Forexample,personality
(as opposedto behavioral)characand they
teristics
arenot seenbyOrokaivaas generalizable,
are generallynot among the dimensionsof contrastthat
Orokaivaelaboratein typifying
themselvesand whiteman
others(Bashkow2000:295). Thus,the boundarybetween
Orokaivaand whitemen'sculturedoes notcreatea comprehensivedivisionbut,instead,contrastscertainfocalareas
only,leavingothersuntouched.In short,theboundarybecultureis notcompleteand
tweenOrokaivaand whitemen's
continuous,butpartialand fragmentary.
Theporosityofculturalboundaries,whichseemscounterintuitive
when we objectifyboundariesas solid lines,
followseasilywhen we leave hold of spatial metaphors
structures
centered
and represent
theminsteadas conceptual
contrasts
or oppositions.
It is a structuralist
truon symbolic
ism thatopposed termslike selfand otherdefineone anotherreciprocally,
so that the veryoppositionwhich definesa boundaryservesas a conceptualconduitby which
the othergetssmuggledinto the worldof the self.Morefarfromprecluding
transover,suchconceptualstructures,
gressivefeaturereversals,seem to invitethem,the way a
Rubik'sCube invitesbeing turnedor mythicsymbolsinwithinthe structure
of Levi-Straussian
vitetransformation
matrices.Indeed,it is the reversalof specificfeaturesthat
and activatesthelargerstructure
of
evokes,castsintorelief,
are opposed.For
withinwhichthosefeatures
relationships
example,when Orokaiva"turnwhitemen"in churchactivities,
schooling,and villagebusiness,thenormaloppositionbetweenwhitemenand Orokaivais in no wayundone,
inasmuchas the activitiesin whichpeople areengagedare
understoodto be a partofwhitemen'sculture.
nevertheless
thereversal
dramatizes
and drawsattention
To thecontrary,
and substantiating
to the contrast,
paradoxicallyaffirming
theculturalboundaryin theveryact oftransgression.
of the Boasian
Second, extendingour understanding
of
we
should
principle multiplicity,
recognizeas a cardinal
no
of
principlethat singleway drawinga culturalboundarycan serveeverypurpose.That culturalboundariesdo
not markthe edgesof discretesocial,political,economic,
and technologicalsystemsis clear enough in the case of
conceptuallydefinedtypologicalboundarieslikethosejust
discussed:As is illustratedby the Orokaivaconstruction

of the boundarybetweenthemselvesand whitemen,such
boundariesmaydistinguish
culturesevenwheretheyinteractcloselyorinterpenetrate
socially.Butthepointis particin
ularlyrelevant thecomplexcaseofmappedboundariesthatis, boundarieswe do locate in geographicalor social
space. As notedby severalcritics,social scientistshave often tendedto speakof culturalboundariesas interchangeablewiththeedgesofintegrated
socialtotalities(Guptaand
Ferguson1997; Hays 1993). Thatis to say,a culture'slimits are takenfromthe territorial
boundariesof the correspondingsocial collectivity
(e.g.,theboundariesof latmul
cultureare givenby thelimitsoftheterritory
occupiedby
Iatmulpeople). These culturalboundariesare then legitimatedby bringingto bear as manyadditionalcriteriaand so forth-asposethnic,political,linguistic,
historical,
sible(Handler1988:7).Butas theBoasiansknew,a generalof humanityis chimerical.
purposecompartmentalization
found
no
basis
for
They
assumingan ideal coincidenceof
theboundariesofcollectivities,
cultures,
languages,and historicalpopulationsor races.Indeed,our knowledgeof the
possiblebases on whichhumanworldscan be segmented
has onlyincreasedsincetheirtime.The old Boasiantriadof
race,language,and cultureramifies
todayintoa largersetof
demarcational
viewpointsthatincludevariedconstructions
ofsociety,polity,economy,geography,
interactional
fields,
collectiveidentities,ethnicity,
culturalpractice,linguistic
and comprehension,
and regional
codes,communicability
networks(see Brightman
1995:519).To come to gripswith
such complexity,
it maybe helpfulto explorean analogy
fromthelinguisticconceptof "isogloss."
The linguisticconceptof "isoglosses"represents
an alternative
to themorefamiliar
idea oflanguageboundaries.
An isoglossis a line drawnby dialectmappersto markthe
extentofa particular
The featuremaybe
linguisticfeature.
a lexicalitem,likethe use of "hoagie" fora typeof sandwichthatU.S. citizenselsewherecall a "sub" or "hero,"or
it mightbe a featureof pronunciation(phonology),word
form(morphology),
semantics,or syntax.Contraryto our
naive viewof dialectsas discreteentities,the isoglossesof
distinctfeaturesoftenfailto coincide;instead,theyform
and loops, makingit imtangledpatternsof crisscrosses
possibleto establisha definitiveline of demarcationbetweendialects.Indeed,isoglossesrarelycoincideevenatthe
boundariesof languages,in whichthe patternstheyform
resemblestretched-out
bundlesortangledskeinsmorethan
do
thick
redrawn
lines.Isoglossescrisscross
they
language
boundariesbecause featurescan be sharedacrossgeneticallydistinctlanguages,suchas withclicksoundsborrowed
fromKhoisanbyBantu-speaking
peopleas theymovedinto
southernAfrica.
Thenonconvergence
ofisoglossesis central
to the basic dialectologicalphenomenonof dialectchainone
ing,wherebyadjacentcommunities
readilyunderstand
another'sspeech,whilethoseat a greaterremovefindcomuntilat a certaindistancemuprehensionmoredifficult,
tualunderstanding
becomesall butimpossible.In thiswellattestedphenomenon,the boundariesbetweenlanguages
452
cannotbe uniquelyfixed:Givena chain of partialmutual

itis neverclearwhereto drawtheline.Where
intelligibility,
dialectchains span conventionallanguagedivisionslike
Spanishand French,theboundariestheycrossaredrawnin
onlyone ofmanywayssupportableby linguisticevidence,
thoughtheymayhave densehistoricaland politicalmotidraw
vation(Crystal1987:25-33).Thelessondialectologists
fromthisis notthatdistinguishable
languagesdo notexist,
butthatthewayone drawstheirboundariesdependson the
one choosesto emphasize,and
languagefeatures
particular
thatultimately
one mustkeepin mindmultipleisoglosses
and one's purposein drawingthe boundariesin orderto
createan accuratepicture.Culturalboundariesarethussimilarto isoglossesin thattheyare irreducibly
multipleand
in
and
also
that
even
wherethey
reflectdifferent
criteria,
coincidewithconventionalpoliticaland social divisions,
withthemtheoretically.14
theyshouldnotbe identified
ofthe
and
Third,
extendingourunderstanding
finally,
Boasiandistinctionbetweenanalyticand folkboundaries,
ofa generative
we shouldrecognizetheimportance
conceptionofculture,in whichcultureis not onlytheproductof
but also the preconditionformeaningfulaction,thought,
and expression(see Rosenblattthisissue).To be sure,such
a conceptionmaynotbe necessaryto everyprojectthatapbetweenanalyticand folkboundaries.
pealsto a distinction
Forexample,whenwe engagein whatRichardHandlerhas
called the "destructive
analysis"of assumptionsunderlyin
ethnic
nationalistmovements,the
ing identitypolitics
function
of
our
analyticboundaryconceptis to
important
critical
distance
from
thefolkconceptsofinterest;
provide
remove
it is thestandpointfromwhichwe are at sufficient
fromthefolkconceptsthatwe can refutefalseprimordialist
claims,such as thatmultipleboundariesof nationalidenand so on converge(Hantity,culture,language,ancestry,
dler1985). Butitwouldbe wrongto letsucha critiquetake
as Apover our anthropologicalcultureconceptentirely,
paduraidoes whenhe suggeststhatwe "regardas cultural"
that people use to expressor subonly those differences
stantiatetheboundariesofgroupidentities(1996:13). The
view is thatit effecproblemwiththe culture-as-identity
betweenantivelyeliminatesany basis fordistinguishing
alyticand folkviews exceptinsofaras theyimplydifferent evaluativestancestowardthe same substantiveclaim.
in orderto understandhow boundariescan
Mostcrucially,
themselvesbe a creativepartof culture,we need to move
beyondthe notionthatculturalboundariesare motivated
whetheritis conceivedofin objectiveterms
bysharedness,
socialhabits,or other
(sharedlanguage,ancestry,
territory,
in
terms
or
traits)
(sharedfeelingsofbelonging).
subjective
Whatwe need to appreciateis thatboundariescan be proofmutualcomductivelydefinedin termsofa relationship
prehension.
on culSuch appreciationis evidentin Sapir'swritings
tureand theindividual.ForSapir,itwas plainlyinadequate
since
to conceptualizeculturepurelyin termsofsharedness,
individualsdifferso markedlyfromone anotherin every
imaginablerespect.UnderlyingSapir'sconceptionof cul-
tureis the idea thatpeople'sperceptionof a commonality

of cultureis foundedmore on relationsof mutualcomprehensionthan on actual samenessor identity.What is
requiredis only thatpeople can understandone another,
ifonlypartiallyand imperfectly;
indeed,Sapirremarkson
howforgiving
and elasticsuchperceptions
ofmutualintellican be,givenpeople'stendencyto tryto makesense
gibility
in their
of thingsby attendingto thatwhichis intelligible
thatwhich is incomprehenexperienceand disregarding
sible.He givesthe exampleof two individualswho live as
withinthesametown:"Theculturesofthesetwo
neighbors
individuals"maybe "significantly
as significantly
different,
on the givenleveland scale,as thoughone were
different,
therepresentative
ofItaliancultureand theotherofTurkish
of cultureneverseem
culture,"and, yet,"suchdifferences
as significant
as
[topeople] theyreallyare... partlybecause
amtheeconomyofinterpersonal
relationsand thefriendly
indiof
to
for
each
biguities languageconspire reinterpret
vidualall behaviorwhichhe has underobservationin the
termsofthosemeaningswhicharerelevantto hisown life"
difof negotiating
(Sapir1949[1932a]:516).The possibility
to arriveatwhatmaybe an exaggerated
ferences
impression
ofmutualunderstanding
is,forSapir,whatallowsindividuin
als ofdiversebackgrounds
to feelthemselves
participants
a sharedor "generalized
culture"evenas theyeach "unconfromit someidiosyncratic
sciouslyabstract"forthemselves
"worldofmeanings"(1949[1932a]:515).Mutualintelligibilityis also theaspectofculturethatenablespeopleto express
unknownwithintheirculture
meaningsthatarepreviously
but thatcan nonethelessbe readilygraspedby othersand,
thus,mustbe considereda legitimate
partofthecultureout
ofwhichtheyarise." So, forexample,whenSapirdescribes
TwoCrows'rejectionofa conventionalOmaha pattern,
this
commands
our
attenculturalrebel'sdistinctive
response
tion:Again,it is the capacityof his distinctive
responseto
be intelligible
to or "communicat[ed]
to otherindividuals"
to
thatprovidesthepsychological
basisforhisidiosyncrasy
somedaybecome orthodoxy-bymeans of "some kindof
'social infection'" throughwhichit might"lose itspurely
personalquality"(1949[1938]:571,573). FromSapir'sperspective,itis thusnotonlythingsthatconformto a shared
normthatshouldbe construedas a partofa culturebutalso
ways:Inthingsthatdeviatefromthenormin recognizable
deed,cultureis thesymbolicfieldwithinwhichdeviations
can be meaningfully
(Handler1983:211;Sahlins
interpreted
is
in
this
And
it
1985).
just
way thatpeople's frameworks
the differences
between"theirown" and
forinterpreting
cultures
are
themselves
"foreign"
paradoxicallyan authentic partof theirculture;the foreignitselfis incorporated
fromwhichit is seen
withinthe veryculturalperspective
as external.Indeed,whatSapirwroteoffashionand culture
could as wellbe saidoftheforeignand culture:Ideasofthe
foreignare culturein the guiseof departurefromculture
(Sapir1949[1931]:374).
Viewingculturesolelyin termsof identityrelations
thisparadoxicalaspectof
is inadequateforunderstanding
boundaries:thatin separating
boundariesactually
cultures,
Bashkow9 A Neo-Boasian
ofCultural
Boundaries 453
Conception
and integration
the interpretation
ofculturaldiffacilitate
ferencewithin
a culture.Whatevertheformsittakes,theexis partofeveryone's
world,and culperienceofforeignness
turalboundaries,in servingto map, evaluate,and delimit
itontotheforeign
other,ethculture,simultaneously
project
in
form
the
the
of
culture's
values
projecting
nocentrically,
In effect,
and self-conceptions.
culturalboundariesarecrucialsymbolicdivisionsthatenablepeople'saction,thought,
and expressionrelatingto,as withotherthings,theforeign.
And,forthisreason,itis inadequatefortheanalyticculture
boundariesfunctioning
solelyto confine
conceptto portray
and exclude,such as has been the tendencyin our field's
discoursein recentyears.Instead,our
mostelitetheoretical
cultureconcept must be a generativeone that provides
and creativeexpressionand
the basis formeaningfulness
action.
WHY A THEORYOF CULTURAL
BOUNDARIES
IS NECESSARY
Ifboundarieswerebarrier-like
walls thatseparatecultures
fromone another,as some criticshave depictedthem,it
would seem obvious that theyare theoreticalconstructs
would do well to be ridof; afterall, globalanthropology
izationprocessesdisrupt,
cultures
diasporize,and hybridize
and communities,
boundaries
at
best
irrelevant
and
making
at worstpatentlywrong.Moreover,when we thinkof the
perniciouscolonialist,nationalist,and discriminatory
purposesthattheidea ofboundarieshas served,we findfurther
supportforrejectingthem in the harmtheymay cause.
However,this criticalpositionis too limited.It assumes
and perpetuatesa common-senseconceptionof "natural
boundaries"thatis analyticallyflawed,and it generalizes
aboutboundaries'harmfulfunctions
basedon a biasedand
narrowset of examples.In the remainderof the article,I
suggestthat (1) culturalboundariesare necessaryforour
so it is not realisticto repudiatethe
thinkingand writing,
of
"bounded
culture"as such; (2) cultural
generalconcept
boundariesremainimportantphenomenain the worlds
thatwe studyevenundercircumstances
ofinterconnection
and globalization;and (3) culturalboundariesdo notexclusivelyserveharmfulor discriminatory
purposes,but a mix
ofundesirableand desirableones,so thata pan-situational
moralcritiqueof boundariesas an analyticalconcept
is unfounded.
culturalboundariesarenecessary
forthinking
and
First,
writingabout human culturalworlds.As we know from
theteachingsofbothSaussurianand Boasianstructuralisms
(see Hymesand Fought1981),symbolicvalue derivesfrom
ofmeaning
systemsofcontrast,
makingtheverypossibility
of categoricaldifference.
In
dependenton representations
thisway thinkingabout cultureis no different
fromother
kindsof symbolicprocessesthathumanbeingsengagein.
Comparisonis also inevitableifwe areto acknowledgethe
ofhumanculturalworlds.To avoidall formulaparticularity
tionofcomparativeperspective
in ourethnography
would
be untenable;all it would do is leave the implicitcontrast
forreadersto supply,whichtheywoulddo fromtheirown

culturalframesof reference.
Once again, we see thatthe
distinctions
we
draw
need notmap onto spatially
symbolic
discreteunits.Indeed,it is wheredifferent
culturesmeet
that people feelthe distinctionsof culturemost acutely,
sincetheseareso oftenrelevantto navigating
theircomplex
sociallandscape.So itis as wellwithidentity:
The complexitiesof contactbetweenpeople of different
identitiesonly
distinctions-allthe
intensify
people'sawarenessofidentity
moreso whenmultipleor ambiguousidentifications
areat
play.
Indeed, so necessaryare culturalboundariesto our
and writing
abouthumanculturalworldsthatthey
thinking
are invariablypresupposedby the veryargumentsoffered
againstthem.The classic argumentthat culturescannot
be thoughtof as bounded because theyare connectedto
one anotherthroughrelationsofpolitics,trade,migration,
and influence
presupposesthatwe can thinkofthecultures
as distinctfromone anotherand, thus,connectable(Wolf
1982:6).Anotherexampleis thepoststructuralist
argument
thatculturalboundariesare absurdgiventhatindividuals'
identities
orimpure
"in-between,"
maybe culturally
hybrid,
Bhabha
1994:219).Here,too,theargu(Abu-Lughod1991;
mentpresupposesthe idea of boundarieseven as it challengesit,sinceitpresumesan abilityto recognizetheterms
thatarehybridized
(Robbins2004:327-333).No doubtitis
true,as KirinNarayanobserves,that"we all belongto several communitiessimultaneously,"
and we participatein
different
culturesand different
identitiesin different
contexts(1993:676).Butthisrealization,
farfromrendering
culturalboundariesmootorinapplicable,makesitall themore
necessaryto have them constructively
theorized,since it
that the boundariesof cultures,identities,and
illustrates
communities
cannotbe drawnsimplyin termsofgroupsof
individuals.
Second, culturalboundariesare not made irrelevant
by globalization,sincetheydo not dependon an absence
of interactionacrossthem(see Barth1998[1969]:10).It is
thuswrongto depictthe conceptofboundedcultureas irreconcilablewithtranslocalconnections.In the worldof
old tribaldistinctions
likeNuerversusDinka
globalization,
and TlingitversusHaida have notbecomeobsoletebut,inin contextsliketourism,mediarepstead,are refashioned
and politicaland legalaction.Moreover,globresentation,
alizationitselfproducesnew formsof distinctiveness
and
identitypolitics.As BenjaminBarberhas argued,even as
theworldtogether"pop culturally
globalizationis bringing
and commercially,"
itisfostering
theproliferation
oflocalist
movementsand identity
politics,and intensifying
people's
awarenessofthemthroughpossibilities
ofmassmediation
and diasporiccommunities
(Barber1995:9).Globalcommunicationand commerceobligepeopleto operatein increasin which theybecome
environments,
inglymulticultural
evermoreawareof culturaldifferences
and the complexities of identity.Advertisers
and marketers
objectifyculturalboundariesin theirnichemarketing
ofculturally
customizedadvertisements
and products;promoters
oftourism
454
to attractvisitors
emphasizelocal culturaldistinctiveness
fromoutside;and parochialistdemagogues,ethnicnationbroadcasttheiropposition
alists,and religiousextremists
to the amoralityand uniformity
associatedwithWestern
and withglobalizationitself.Thus,inculturalimperialism
steadof rendering
culturalboundariesobsolete,globalization has amplifiedcertainboundariesand multipliedthe
contextsinwhichpeopledealwiththem-a situationnotof
boundlessnessbut,rather,of boundary"superabundance"
1995:519).
(Brightman
Third,itis ofcoursetruethatculturalboundariesareoftendrawnxenophobically
and used in waysthatareharmand racist.Butfromthatit
hierarchizing,
fullyexclusivist,
does not followthatboundariesqua boundariesare pernicious;to argueso would be no morevalid than to cite
Culthe use of missilesas a condemnationof gravitation.
turalboundariesarealso oftendrawnand used forpositive
ofstyle,alpurposes.Theyarewhatpermittherecognition
to
and
so
on
be
connected
items
of
music,
lowing
clothing,
to genres.And theyenable people to criticizewhatis unin a prevailingculturalorder,by pointingto
satisfactory
itself
the plausibilityof betteralternatives.
Anthropology
as a voiceofculturalcritique,
has oftenservedproductively
and the same mightalso be said of our own controversial
and oriendiscoursesofprimitivism,
exoticism,surrealism,
talism(Clifford1988; Hegeman 1999; Marcusand Fisher
as a platform
for
of"otherness"
1986).Andtheconstruction
isbyno meansuniquetotheWest(Chen 1992).
self-critique
Forexample,Orokaiva,too, criticizethemselvesand their
societyusingothersas foils.Duringmy staywiththem,I
oftenheardOrokaivadiscussproblemssuchas jealousyand
violencethatconcernedthemin theirown societybypositworldofwhitemenin whichsuch
ingan exoticalternative
the morewidelywe cast our
are
absent.
Indeed,
problems
net in studyingactual contextsof boundarymaking,the
less boundarypoliticsseem reducibleto inherently
negain New
likeexclusivist
dominance.Certainly,
tivefunctions
Guineasocieties,peoplereadilyseizeon all mannerofcontrastsin linguisticand culturalpracticein orderto position
themselveswithinregionalworldsthattheyconstructas
fieldsof recognizeddifferences-aformofboundarymakofclassand style
ingthatmaybe comparedto distinctions
in our own lives.It mighteven be shownthatboundaries
servein generalto facilitatecommunicationacrosssocial
Evena nation-state
and culturaldifference.
boundarythat
with a borderfenceto exclude "flow"faciliis fortified
tatescommunication,if only by givingthe messagethat
"you cannotpass herewithimpunity"(Handlerand Segal
1990:147).
WHY CULTURALBOUNDARIES SO TROUBLE US:
COMING TO TERMS WITH OUR ANXIETY
OVER DIFFERENCE
the intenseprobI expectthatin the longviewofhistory,

thelematizationofculturalboundariesin anthropological
a deeperanxietysurrounding
issues
orywillappeartoreflect
ofdifference
in thelate20thcentury.
WhereastheBoasians
took culturaldifference
as givenand emphasizedpeople's
and transculabilityto overcomeit throughacculturation
in
turalinsight,
our
time
have
becomeskepanthropologists
ticalofthe conceptof "culturaldifference"
in generaland
culturalcontrastsin particular
cases for
waryof specifying
fearofoverstating
them.Ouranxietystemsfromourheightened awarenessof the negativedimensionof essentialized
othernessand exoticism,as made plain in the pioneering
workofEdwardSaid (1978) and anthropology's
critics.Itis,
and
nurtured
humanistic
moreover,
bylaudablyprogressive
theotherin
egalitarian
impulses,likeourwishto represent
waysundistorted
by the dialecticalrelationwithour conas wellas in waysthatpreserve
theother's
ceptsofourselves,
"coevalness"withourselves,so thatthe possibilityis left
fullyin all partsofourreopen fortheotherto participate
ality(Fabian1983). Buttheanxietyoverculturaldifference
ofthelate 20th
mayalso be seen as a historicalpeculiarity
thefactthatwe areacutelyself-conscious
reflecting
century,
ofourprodigiouspowerand wealth.Indeed,so troubledare
we by our dominantpositionthatthe mereidentification
of an otherhas come to be equatedwithdeprecation:It is
fromus mustsurelybe
as if labelinganotheras different
at leastimplicitly
somekindofput-down,a pejorative,
(see
of
Hence
the
paralyzingcontradiction
Obeyesekere1992).
in
multicultural
discourse:
While
diversity
contemporary
differences
to objectify
theabstractis celebrated,
particular
has becomeunacceptable.16
There is certainlyreason not to fetishizedifference.
as methodological
Whenchanneledwithrestraint
caution,
ouranxietycan preventfacileexoticism.Butwe shouldnot
perpetuatean aversionto boundarymakingas a governtheory.In the firstplace,
ing principleof anthropological
alis to reassert,
to identifyotheringwithinferiorization
conthe universalist
beit unintentionally,
Enlightenment
ceitthattheWesternscholarlyeliteis a globalculturalapex,
understandofthekindofrelativist
denyingthepossibility
has
valued.
Second,
by devaluing
ing anthropology long
we are led again to overemphasizerelationsof
difference,
identityor sharednessas the basis forculture,and to disin theconstitution
differences
counttheroleofmeaningful
of social life(Handlerand Segal 1990:136ff.;Segal 2001).
Third,when we one-sidedlyemphasizenegativeattitudes
towardthe othersuch as deprecationand contempt(see
Said 1978),we overlookthefactthatpeople feelnot onlya
In failingto
fearofthealienbutalso thelureoftheforeign.
ofan other
thatcomparisoncan be affirmative
acknowledge
of
the significance
as well as negative,we underestimate
people'sambivalencetowardtheotherand towardtheself
as well(Sax 1998). Indeed,evenat thelevelofpracticalpoldoes notserveus well.Wedo
itics,ourshynessofdifference
not practicetruepluralismwhenwe soft-pedal
differences,
thatwe areall thesame:A viablepluralism
thuspretending
of significant
demandsthe acknowledgement
differences,
can be thebasisofprothatdifference
and therecognition
ofmutualunderstanding,
ductiverelationships
reciprocity,
As severalwriters
have noted,the "embrace
and respect."17
ofCultural
Boundaries 455
Conception
of hybridityand liminality,"which is often put forwardas
a displacement of difference,does not offera politics that
is necessarilymore egalitarian, forgiving,or liberatory;we
know that hybridity,too, can cause conflict and serve as
a basis for dominance (Kapchan and Strong 1999:247). In
short,the postmodern idealization of a world without shibboleths is a red herring.
It is a sign of the peculiar intellectualethos of our times
that merely sophistic arguments have become so influential. The pervasive notion that boundaries could be invalidated by their artificiality,
instability,fuzziness, and limno
more
should
be
convincing than a claim that
inality
the transitional periods of dusk and dawn render invalid
the distinction between night and day (Ian Fraser,e-mail
to asaonet listserv,September 3, 2002; cf. Hays 1993). And
we readily equate bounded culture with problematic essentialism, even though boundaries offerthe sole basis for
constructingentities in a nonessentialist way. As Andrew
Abbott (2001:277) has shown, viable sociocultural entities
can be created entirely through a process of bounding,
by yoking together particular sites of differenceto form
an apparently enclosing frontier.Drawing boundaries and
positing essences are really alternativeways of constructing culturalentities.And while our stronglyantiessentialist
commitment should be leading us to focus on the distinctions which create boundaries, the unease over difference
that characterizes the anthropology of our times has prevented us fromdoing so.
is routinely
evaluated(in grantcomtraditional
fields,scholarship
itis
etc.)on thebasisofhow successful
petitions,
job descriptions,
in creatively
or,bestofall,reconfiguring
transgressing
disciplinary
demarcations.
2. In what follows,I focus on the views of Boas, Kroeber,
Sapir,Lowie,and Benedict,neglectingotherstudentsof Boassuch as RuthBunzel, Cora DuBois, Manuel Gamio, Alexander
EstherGoldfrank,
MelvilleHerskovits,
Zora Neale
Goldenweiser,
Hurston,AlexanderLesser,ElsieClewsParsons,PaulRadin,Gladys
and LeslieSpier-whoseworkis surelyentitledto a fuller
Reichard,
shareofourattention.
In myincompletereadingsoftheseauthors,
I havenotfoundsignificant
exceptionstothearguments
developed
here.
3. Obviously,thiswas not theironly purpose.So, forexample,
Boaswasinterested
earlyon in showingthatmanyculturalboundor ecologicalones, and
ariesdid notcoincidewithtopographical
thisissuelateron bymappingwhereculturaland
Kroeberrevisited
ecologicalboundariesdidcoincide,in orderto explaintheedgesof
cultureareasin termsofsubsistence
resources.
4. Thus,Lowieis emphaticon thepointthatculturalboundaries
cannotserveas boundariesoftheethnographer's
inquiry.He urges,
"A scienceofculturemust,in principle,
register
every
dauntingly:
it significantly
itemof socialtradition,
withanyother
correlating
oroutside"
whether
thatlieswithinthesameculture
aspectofreality,
(1935:235).
5. An additionalpointraisedby Sapirwas thatnot all areasare
of "equal weightand cogency"and that "not all people can be
fittedinto such a scheme"(1994:99). Althoughhe himselfhad
offeredwhat was perhapsthe subtlestanalysisof cultureareas
(Sapir1949[1916]),Sapirfeltthat"too muchof a fetishhas been
madeofthecultureareaconcept"(1994:99;seealso Benedict1934:
230).
6. Whileit is truethatthe Frenchand the Englishdistinguished
was not
theirconceptof "society"from"culture,"thisdistinction
and the Britishconceptof "society"was treatedby the
clear-cut,
as justanotherclassificatory
Boasiansin effect
pointofviewfrom
which"cultural"boundariescouldbe drawn.
7. The presupposition
thatracialboundarieswerenaturaland,
IRA BASHKOWDepartment of Anthropology,Universityof
thus, trulyscientificwas deeply entrenchedat the time that
VA
22904-4120
Charlottesville,
Virginia,
Priorto themid-1920s,whenthevalidityof
Benedictwas writing.
racialdistinctions
could no longerbe upheldwithscientific
testiinsteadon "theunderstanding
monyand U.S.courtsbeganrelying
NOTES
ofthecommonman,"thekindsof justification
used in decisions
in part
ofthisarticlewas supported
Thewriting
Acknowledgments.
aboutwho was "whiteby law" dependedon the scientific
corrobfortheHumanities
Fellowshipand from
bya NationalEndowment
orationof racialcategories(L6pez 1996:90). In the landmarkrula RichardCarleyHuntMemorialPostdoctoral
Fellowshipfromthe
whichproclaimedthe constitutionality
of
ing Plessyv. Ferguson,
Research.It incorWenner-Gren
FoundationforAnthropological
butequal" facilities,
theSupremeCourtdecidedthatthe
"separate
in the 1990s thatwas supporatesmaterialfrommy fieldwork
raciallymixedHomerPlessywas blackon the
verylight-skinned,
ReFoundationforAnthropological
portedby the Wenner-Gren
that"racialdifferences
grounds
lay outsidethe law,beyondand
ResearchAbroad
DoctoralDissertation
searchand a Fulbright-Hays
beforeanyactofhumanagency"(Hale 1998:23).
Fellowship.I thankMattiBunzlforinspiringthe article,Richard
8. Kroeber'sconceptionof "nationality"
as distinctfromnation
ediHandlerforhelpin editingit,and theAmerican
Anthropologist
or stateis similarto Sapir's:"Whereaslanguagesand culturesare
Thanksalso go to
formanyhelpfulsuggestions.
torsand reviewers
objectivelyalike or unlike,unitaryor distinct,"the nationality,
DanielSegal,and RupertStasch
MatthewMeyer,DanielRosenblatt,
Kroeberwrote,"is fundamentally
subjective"in that it is "esand to thestudentsin myfall
forreadingdraftsofthemanuscript,
a
of
or
distinctness
feeling
sentially
unity,of sense of demarcaat
Univeron
Boasian
the
2000 graduateseminar
Anthropology
tionbetweenin-group
and out-group"
(1948[1923]:226).Formore
SevilBaltaliand SuzanneMenair,for
sityof Virginiaparticularly
on Sapir'sdistinctionbetweenanalyticand folkboundaries,see
of
ofthewritings
to mygeneralunderstanding
theircontribution
1949[1932b]:360,1949[1927]:343.
I am grateful
to GeorgeStockingforhis
Boasiananthropologists.
ofmyworkovermanyyears.Mywife,LiseDobrin,
9. Theconverseis,ofcourse,also possible:Thingsthatpeopleconencouragement
sidertheirownmaybe regarded
as foreign
fromsomeanalyticperhelpedme developideasofthisarticlein numerousconversations
the finalversion
and providedinvaluablehelp in strengthening
spective.This,too,was a pointthattheBoasiansmadeto confront
withhercarefulediting;mydebtto herextendswellbeyondthis
U.S. chauvinism,
mostfamouslyin RalphLinton'schestnut"One
articleand knowsno bounds.
HundredPercentAmerican"(1937). It was one of Boas'sstandard
racismthatWesternachievements
arguments
againstEurocentric
withbounddiscomfort
1. In thecultureofacademia,thecurrent
in no wayimplieda raciallysuperioraptitudeon thepartofWestin a trendof devaluingdisciplinarity.
The tradiariesis reflected
erners,since so manyof themwereproductsof others'"genius"
tionalboundariesof scholarlyfieldshave becomeassociatedwith
thathad been borrowed(Boas 1938[1911],1974[1894]).
as opposed
and narrowness
of perspective,
intellectualstuffiness
and excitingunconventionality
asto thepathbreaking
10. Brightman
notesthatcriticshave tendedto characterize
departures
past
sociatedwithscholarlyworkthatis valorizedas interdisciplinary. scholarshipin termsthatare questionableas intellectualhistory.
boundariesimin thehumanities,
Theirrhetorical
has oftenbeen to depictpastworkselecParticularly
hewingto scholarly
strategy
its most essentialfeaturesas preplies a lackoforiginality,
independence,and spunk.To avoid the
tivelyin a way thatidentifies
humdrumstaidnessof workconductedwithinthe boundariesof
ciselythoseaspectswhicharemost"uncongenialto contemporary
456
beliefs,"while overlookingthose aspectswhich are

disciplinary
consistentwith such beliefsand continuouswith the present
(Brightman1995:527). It should be noted that structuralfunctionalism
is noteventhebestexampleto criticize
forthereifiThathonormaygo insteadtoMarvin
cationofculturalboundaries.
Harris's"culturalmaterialism"
and otherneoevolutionist,
cultural
thatpositbounded"soecological,and materialist
anthropologies
ciocultural
ofone another
systems"to be analyzedindependently
as naturalentities(Harris1979:47).
11. TheboundariesoftheOrokaivawereproposedand refined
by
colonialofficers
and colonialanthropologists
whoworkedoutsimilaritiesand geneticrelationships
amongvariedPapuan"tribes"in
theearly1900s.Althoughtheseboundarieshad a basisin cultural
andlinguistic
similarities,
theyusedtheminlargepartfortheirown
administrative
that
convenience;nonetheless,
theyalsorecognized
thisclassification
thatwereimporcollapsedculturaldistinctions
tantto thepeoplethemselves
and thatremainedpolitically
meaningful.So even whilethe termOrokaivawas naturalizedto some
extentas coveringa "groupoftribeswho areconsideredto belong
to one stockand speakaffiliated
conlanguages,"colonialofficers
tinuedto expressa working
knowledgeofmultiplekindsand scales
ofculturaldemarcation
tribe,subtribe,
byroutinely
usinglocality,
and dialectnamesto refer
to specific"Orokaiva"groupswiththeir
own politicalinterests
and culturalpeculiarities
(Williams1930:2,
see also PatrolReports1909-74).
12. In PNG English,blackand whiteare commontermsthatare
used to talkabout race.Theycorrespondto a rangeof otherexTok Pisin(e.g.,
pressionsin English(e.g.,nationaland European),
blakskin
and waitskin),
and local vernaculars(e.g.,Orokaivahamo
mumeand hamoagena).Orokaivareferto whitesmostfrequently
usingthetermtaupa,borrowedfromPoliceMotu.I use whitemen,
to referto whitemenas Orokaiva
myglossfortaupa,specifically
I do notmarkdistinctions
constructions.
nationalamongdifferent
ities(Australian,
in Orokaiva
German,Chinese,etc.);interestingly,
Chinesearecategorized
as "white,"insteadofbeing
construction,
seen as "people of color"as theyare in the UnitedStates.While
Orokaivado distinguishamong such categoriesforcertainpurposes, theyare most oftenideologicallybackgroundedwithina
schemethat(as in racialconstructions
elsepolarizedblack/white
where)tendsto subsumemanyotherdimensionsof meaningful
difference
amongpersons.
13. Justas analyticboundariesarepluraland interested,
so too are
Orokaivafolkboundaries.Orokaivathemselves
do notalwaysagree
about what is "theirown" versus"whitemen's"culture,and an
in different
contexts.
individualmaydrawboundariesdifferently
14. Linguists'recognition
thatlanguageboundariesareshapedby
politicsis expressedneatlyin the aphorismthat"a languageis a
dialectwithan armyand a navy."Byand large,linguistsseemless
troubledthanareanthropologists
bythefactthattheirobjectsof
boundedentities.
Similarly,
thoughWestern
studyarenotnaturally
to be thenaturalhufolkideologyoftenassumesmonolingualism
have no expectaman stateofaffairs
(Dorian1998),sociolinguists
tionthatthereshouldbe a one-to-onemappingbetweenlanguages
the existenceofmultilingualism
and speakers.To myknowledge,
has neverbeen advancedas an argumentforthe fictivenatureof
boundaries.
linguistic
15. A conceptthatmightbe usefulhereis thecontinuumbetween
and passiveculturalcompetence.In thecase oftheforproductive
mer,people have the culturalmasterynecessaryto act creatively
withina culture,whetherin waysthatproduceordinaryappropriateresponses,or in waysthatinnovate,as Sapirdescribes.In
thecase ofthelatter,althoughpeople mayhave a relatively
good
of themeaningsof others'acts,theirown cultural
understanding
to routineinterchange
and highly
abilitiesare limitedprimarily
between
functions.
standardized
GregUrban(2001) distinguishes
and dissemination
alongsimilarlines,butwiththeforeplication
cus on culturalitemsthatmaybe producedor consumedrather
or consumersthemselves.
thanon theproducers
comof superficial
16. Hence,too, the strategy
de-exoticization
a strategythat stressesthe ways
mon in recentethnography,
in which "exotic" othersare like us (e.g., Balinese priestsuse
cell phones), in contrastto the more profoundlyrelativistdeto us
otherscomprehensible
exoticization
predicatedon rendering
of
in relationto otherparticularities
byshowingtheirreasonability
theirownworld.
17. I am indebtedto conversations
withDrewAlexanderforhelpforpluralismin the
ing me appreciatethe practicalrequirements
faceofkeysocialdifferences.
REFERENCESCITED
Abbott,Andrew
2001 TimeMatters:On Theoryand Method.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.
Lila
Abu-Lughod,
1991 WritingagainstCulture.In Recapturing
Anthropology:
Workingin the Present.RichardFox,ed. Pp. 137-162.Santa
Fe,NM: SchoolofAmericanResearchPress.
Appadurai,
Arjun
1988 PuttingHierarchyin Its Place. CulturalAnthropology
3(1):36-49.
1996 Modernity
atLarge:CulturalDimensionsofGlobalization.
ofMinnesotaPress.
Minneapolis:University
Asad,Talal,ed.
1973 Anthropology
AtlanticHighand theColonialEncounter.
lands,NJ:HumanitiesPress.
Banton,Michael
1983 Racial and EthnicCompetition.Cambridge:Cambridge
Press.
University
Barber,
Benjamin
1995 Jihadvs. McWorld.NewYork:TimesBooks.
Barth,Frederik
InEthnicGroupsand Boundaries:
The
1998[1969] Introduction.
Social Organizationof CultureDifference.
Frederik
Barth,ed.
Pp. 9-38. ProspectHeights,IL: WavelandPress.
Bashkow,Ira
1991 The Dynamicsof Rapportin a Colonial Situation:David
Schneider's
Fieldwork
on theIslandsofYap.In ColonialSituations.GeorgeStocking,
ed. Pp. 170-242.Madison:University
ofWisconsinPress.
1999 "Whitemen"
in theMoralWorldofOrokaivaofPapuaNew
Guinea.Ph.D. dissertation,
ofAnthropology,
UniDepartment
ofChicago.
versity
2000 "Whitemen"Are Good to ThinkWith: How Orokaiva
on Whitemen'sSkin."Whitenessin the
MoralityIs Reflected
Field,"themeissue,Identities:Global Studiesin Cultureand
Power7(3):281-332.
In press The MeaningofWhitemen:Raceand Modernity
in the
OrokaivaCulturalWorld.Chicago:University
ofChicagoPress.
Benedict,Ruth
1923 The Conceptof the GuardianSpiritin NorthAmerica.
Memoirsof the AmericanAnthropological
Association,29.
Association.
Menosha,WI: AmericanAnthropological
1934 Patterns
ofCulture.Boston:HoughtonMifflin.
Bhabha,Homi
1994 The LocationofCulture.London:Routledge.
Boas,Franz
Man. Rev.edition.NewYork:
1938[1911] TheMindofPrimitive
FreePress.
InRace,Languageand Cul1940[1887] TheStudyofGeography.
ture.Pp. 639-647.Chicago:University
ofChicagoPress.
1940[1896] The Limitationsof the ComparativeMethod of
In Race,Languageand Culture.Pp. 270-280.
Anthropology.
ofChicagoPress.
Chicago:University
1940[1912] Changesof BodilyFormin Descendentsof Immigrants.In Race,Languageand Culture.Pp. 60-75. Chicago:
ofChicagoPress.
University
In Race,Languageand
1940[1920] The Methodsof Ethnology.
Culture.Pp. 281-289. Chicago:University
ofChicagoPress.
ofAmerican
IndianLanguages.In
1940[1929] TheClassification
Race,Languageand Culture.Pp. 219-225.Chicago:University
ofChicagoPress.
Research.In Race,
1940[1932] The Aims of Anthropological
of
Languageand Culture.Pp. 243-259. Chicago: University
ChicagoPress.
1964[1888] The Central Eskimo. Lincoln: Universityof
NebraskaPress.

1966a[1911] Introductionto Handbook of AmericanIndian
ofNebraska
Languages.PrestonHolder,ed. Lincoln:University
Press.
1966b KwakiutlEthnography.
HelenCodere,ed. Chicago:UniofChicagoPress.
versity
ofEthnological
Classification.
In The
1974[1887] The Principles
1883-1911:A FranzBoas
ShapingofAmericanAnthropology,
Reader.GeorgeW. Stocking
Jr.,ed. Pp. 61-67. NewYork:Basic
Books.
1974[1889] The Aims of Ethnology.In The Shaping of
1883-1911: A Franz Boas Reader.
AmericanAnthropology,
George W. StockingJr.,ed. Pp. 67-71. New York: Basic
Books.
1974[1894] Human Facultyas Determinedby Race. In The
1883-1911:A FranzBoas
ShapingofAmericanAnthropology,
Reader.GeorgeW. StockingJr.,ed. Pp. 221-242. New York:
BasicBooks.
Boon,James
1999 Vergingon Extra-Vagance:
History,ReliAnthropology,
Princeton
UniverArts...Showbiz.Princeton:
gion,Literature,
sityPress.
Robert
Brightman,
Relexifica1995 ForgetCulture:Replacement,
Transcendence,
.
tion.CulturalAnthropology
10(4):509-546.
Chen,Xiaomei
"He Shang"in Post1992 Occidentalismas Counterdiscourse:
Mao China. CriticalInquiry18(4):686-712.
Clifford,
James
of Culture:TwentiethCenturyEthnog1988 The Predicament
MA:HarvardUniversity
and Art.Cambridge,
raphy,Literature,
Press.
Clifford,
James,and GeorgeMarcus,eds.
Culture:The Poeticsand PoliticsofEthnography.
1986 Writing
ofCaliforniaPress.
University
Berkeley:
David
Crystal,
1987 The CambridgeEncyclopediaof Language.Cambridge:
Press.
CambridgeUniversity
Darnell,Regna
Anthro2001 InvisibleGenealogies:A Historyof Americanist
ofNebraskaPress.
pology.Lincoln:University
Dorian,Nancy
1998 Western Language Ideologies and Small-Language
Prospects.In EndangeredLanguages: Language Loss and
CommunityResponse.LenoreGrenobleand LindsayWhaley,
Press.
eds. Pp. 3-21. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity
Fabian,Johannes
Press.
1983 Timeand theOther.NewYork:ColumbiaUniversity
eds.
Gupta,Akhil,and JamesFerguson,
in CriticalAnthropol1997 Culture,Power,Place:Explorations
Press.
ogy.Durham,NC: Duke University
Hale,GraceElizabeth
1998 Making Whiteness:The Cultureof Segregationin the
South,1890-1940.New York:VintageBooks.
Handler,Richard
and Anthro1983 The Daintyand the HungryMan: Literature
pologyin the Workof EdwardSapir.In ObserversObserved.
of
George Stocking,ed. Pp. 208-231. Madison: University
WisconsinPress.
1985 On Dialogue and Destructive
Analysis:Problemsin NarJournalof Anthropological
ratingNationalismand Ethnicity.
Research41(2):171-182.
1988 Nationalismand the Politics of Culture in Quebec.
ofWisconsinPress.
Madison:University
Handler,Richard,and Daniel Segal
1990 Jane Austenand the Fictionof Culture.Lanham,MD:
Rowmanand Littlefield.
Harris,Marvin
fora ScienceofCulture.
TheStruggle
1979 CulturalMaterialism:
NewYork:VintageBooks.
Hays,Terence
1993 TheNewGuineaHighlands:Region,CultureArea,orFuzzy
Set.CurrentAnthropology
34(2):141-164.
Hegeman,Susan
forAmerica:Modernismand theConceptofCul1999 Patterns
Press.
PrincetonUniversity
ture.Princeton:
Melville
Herskovits,
1924 APreliminary
Consideration
oftheCultureAreasofAfrica.
AmericanAnthropologist
26(1):50-63.
Hymes,Dell,andJohnFought.
1981 AmericanStructuralism.
The Hague:Mouton.
Kahn,Joel
1989 Culture:Demiseor Resurrection?
Critiqueof Anthropology9(2):5-25.
Kapchan,Deborah,and PaulineTurnerStrong
1999 Theorizingthe Hybrid.Journalof AmericanFolklore
112(445):239-253.
Michael
Kearney,
1995 TheLocaland theGlobal:TheAnthropology
ofGlobalizaAnnualReviewsin Anthropology
tionand Transnationalism.
24:547-565.
Alfred
Kroeber,
1931 The Culture-Area
and Age-Area
ConceptsofClarkWissler.
In Methodsin Social Science,a Case Book. StuartRice,ed.
ofChicagoPress.
Pp. 248-265.Chicago:University
Rev. edition.New York:Harcourt,
1948[1923] Anthropology.
Brace.
Leclerc,G&rard
1972 Anthropologieet colonialisme,essai sur l'histoirede
and colonialism:An essayon the
I'africanisme
(Anthropology
Paris:Fayard.
historyofAfricanist
anthropology).
Lederman,Rena
andtheFutureofCultureAreas:Melanesian1998 Globalization
in Transition.
AnnualReviewsin AnthropolistAnthropology
ogy27:427-449.
Linton,Ralph
1937 One Hundred Percent American.AmericanMercury
40(April):427-429.
L6pez,Ian Haney
ofRace.NewYork:
1996 WhitebyLaw:The LegalConstruction
Press.
NewYorkUniversity
Lowie,Robert
1921 Primitive
Society.London:Routledgeand KeganPaul.
1935 The HistoryofEthnological
Theory.NewYork:Rinehart.
Manganaro,Marc
Press.
PrincetonUniversity
2002 Culture,1922. Princeton:
Marcus,George
1998 Ethnographythrough Thick and Thin. Princeton:
Press.
PrincetonUniversity
eds.
Marcus,George,and MichaelFischer,
of
as CulturalCritique.Chicago:University
1986 Anthropology
ChicagoPress.
Mead,Margaret
Societies.New
in ThreePrimitive
1935 Sex and Temperament
York:MorrisQuill.
Culture.An1938 The MountainArapesh,vol. 1: An Importing
PapersoftheAmericanMuseumofNaturalHisthropological
tory,vol. 36, pt.3.
Mintz,Sidney
Practice.Critiqueof
1998 The Localizationof Anthropological
18(2):117-133.
Anthropology
ed.
Moore,Henrietta,
1999 Anthropological
TheoryToday.Cambridge:PolityPress.
Narayan,Kirin
AmericanAn1993 How NativeIs a "Native"Anthropologist?
95(3):671-686.
thropologist
Gananath
Obeyesekere,
1992 The Apotheosisof CaptainCook: EuropeanMythmaking
Press.
PrincetonUniversity
in thePacific.Princeton:
PatrolReports
1909-74 Kokoda, Buna, Higaturu,and PopondettaAdministrativePatrol Reports. Archivedmaterial,Papua New
Guinea National Archives,Port Moresby, Papua New
Guinea.
Pletsch,Carl
ortheDivisionofSocialScientific
1981 TheThreeWorlds,
Labor,
circa1950-1975.ComparativeStudiesin Societyand History
23(4):565-590.
Rafael,Vicente
1994 The Cultureof AreaStudiesin the UnitedStates.Social
Text41:91-111.
458
Robbins,Joel
2004 BecomingSinners:Christianity
and MoralTormentin a
of California
University
Papua New GuineaSociety.Berkeley:
Press.
Sahlins,Marshall
ofChicagoPress.
1985 IslandsofHistory.
Chicago:University
Said,Edward
NewYork:VintageBooks.
1978 Orientalism.
Sapir,Edward
in AboriginalAmericanCulture:
1949[1916] Time Perspective
A Studyin Method.In SelectedWritingsin LanguageCulDavid Mandlebaum,ed. Pp. 389-462.
ture,and Personality.
ofCaliforniaPress.
University
Berkeley:
1949[1924] Culture,Genuineand Spurious.InSelectedWritings
in Language,Culture,and Personality.
David Mandlebaum,
ed. Pp. 308-331. Berkeley: Universityof California
Press.
in
and Sociology.
InSelectedWritings
1949[1927] Anthropology
David Mandlebaum,ed.
Language,Culture,and Personality.
ofCaliforniaPress.
University
Pp. 332-345.Berkeley:
in LanguageCulture,
1949[1931] Fashion.In SelectedWritings
and Personality.
David Mandlebaum,ed. Pp. 373-381. BerkeofCaliforniaPress.
ley:University
and Psychiatry.
In Selected
1949[1932a] CulturalAnthropology
in Language,Culture,and Personality.
David ManWritings
of California
dlebaum,ed. Pp. 509-521. Berkeley:
University
Press.
1949[1932b] Group. In SelectedWritingsin Language,CulDavid Mandlebaum,ed. Pp. 357-364.
ture,and Personality.
ofCaliforniaPress.
Berkeley:
University
NeedsthePsychiatrist.
1949[1938] WhyCulturalAnthropology
In SelectedWritingsin Language,Culture,and Personality.
David Mandlebaum,ed. Pp. 569-577. Berkeley:
of
University
CaliforniaPress.
1994 The Psychology
of Culture:A Courseof Lectures.Judith
Berlin:Moutonde Gruyter.
Irvine,ed. and reconstructor.
Sax,William
and the
1998 The Hall of Mirrors:
Orientalism,
Anthropology,
Other.AmericanAnthropologist
100(2):292-301.
Segal,Daniel
In International
ofMulticulturalism.
2001 Anthropology
Encyclopediaof the Social and BehavioralSciences,N. J.Smelser
and P. B. Baltes,eds. Pp. 10179-10184.New York:Elsevier
Science.
Michael
Silverstein,
andtheSociocentric
2004 BoasianCosmographic
Anthropology
10:131-157.
ComponentofMind.HistoryofAnthropology
Stocking,George
1974 The Shapingof AmericanAnthropology,
1883-1911: A
FranzBoas Reader.GeorgeW. Stocking
Jr.,ed. NewYork:Basic
Books.
1992 The Ethnographer's
Magicand OtherEssaysin theHistory
ofAnthropology.
Madison:University
ofWisconsinPress.
Urban,Greg
2001 Metaculture:How CultureMoves throughthe World.
ofMinnesotaPress.
Minneapolis:University
Wagner,Roy
1975 The InventionofCulture.Chicago:University
ofChicago
Press.
Williams,F.E.
1930 OrokaivaSociety.London:OxfordUniversity
Press.
Clark
Wissler,
1917 The AmericanIndian:An Introduction
to theAnthropologyoftheNewWorld.NewYork:DouglasMcMurtrie.
Wolf,Eric
1972 Europeand thePeoplewithoutHistory.
UniverBerkeley:
sityofCaliforniaPress.
Yans-McLaughlin,
Virginia
1984 Science,Democracy,and Ethics:MobilizingCultureand
forWorldWarII. In Malinowski,Rivers,Benedict,
Personality
and Others.GeorgeStocking,
ed. Pp. 184-217.Madison:UniofWisconsinPress.
versity

A Neo-Boasian Conception of Cultural Boundaries

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

A Neo-Boasian Conception of Cultural Boundaries

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

A Neo-Boasian Conception of Cultural Boundaries

Author(s): Ira Bashkow

A Neo-Boasian Conceptionof CulturalBoundaries

conceptionof"culturalboundaries"inspiredbytheanofFranzBoas and his students.Culturalboundthropology

AmericanAnthropologist* Vol. 106,No. 3 * September2004

Bashkow * A Neo-BoasianConceptionof CulturalBoundaries 445

AmericanAnthropologist* Vol. 106,No. 3 * September2004

element,such as totemicclanshipor firedclaypottery,

emphasis"was "on culturecentersinstead of culturearwas pareas," sincein practicewhatthe methodidentified

Bashkow * A Neo-BoasianConceptionof CulturalBoundaries 447

and cosmopolitan.It was thus clearto Benedictthat anthropologycannotuncritically

AmericanAnthropologist* Vol. 106,No. 3 * September2004

once an elementwas integrated,

discussed:As is illustratedby the Orokaivaconstruction

AmericanAnthropologist* Vol. 106,No. 3 * September2004

cannotbe uniquelyfixed:Givena chain of partialmutual

tureis the idea thatpeople'sperceptionof a commonality

forreadersto supply,whichtheywoulddo fromtheirown

AmericanAnthropologist* Vol. 106,No. 3 * September2004

the intenseprobI expectthatin the longviewofhistory,

AmericanAnthropologist* Vol. 106,No. 3 * September2004

beliefs,"while overlookingthose aspectswhich are

Bashkow * A Neo-BoasianConceptionof CulturalBoundaries 457

AmericanAnthropologist* Vol. 106,No. 3 * September2004

Potrebbero piacerti anche