Same Old Same Old? ...

: Resurrecting Political Culture or Conducting Ethnographies of Human

Possibilities?
Author(s): Nina Glick Schiller
Reviewed work(s):
Source: American Ethnologist, Vol. 30, No. 4 (Nov., 2003), pp. 497-499
Published by: Wiley-Blackwell on behalf of the American Anthropological Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3805242 .
Accessed: 04/11/2012 21:21

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-Blackwell and American Anthropological Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve
and extend access to American Ethnologist.

http://www.jstor.org

Same old same old? . . .
Resurrecting polifical culture or
human po.ssihilifes?
ohn Borneman's (this issue) invokingof contrastive
Jpolitical culturesresurrectsalong-discreditedmodeof
analysispopularizedby political science in the hey-
day of modernizationtheory and intermixesit with
the weakness of Habermas'svision of a democratic
public culture (AlmondandVerba1963;Habermas1984;see
critiques of the revivalof the concept of political culture in
Lauriain press and LiPumain press). He is not just painting
a portraitof the currentsituationwith brush strokesthat are
too broad to provide useful information about the current
situation;he is painting a picture that echoes and reinforces
dominant views, at a time when anthropologists urgently
need to see beyond the hegemonic. As I will argue,concepts
of political and public culture, when equated, as in Borne-
man's article, with nation-states or bounded regions, lack
the explanatorypowerto tracemultipletransborderconnec-
tions. These connections, including the pervasive force of
U.S. imperial power, are basic to the unequal and diverse
power relationships that structurethe globe and its "sepa-
rate"states. They are also an intimate and crucialpart of the
social fieldswithin which largenumbersof people, including
migrants,businesspeople, and the devout of everyfaith,live
their lives.
As with any concept of political culture,in his use of the
term U.S. John Borneman chooses to ignore differences of
class, racialization,gender,region, politics, and the transna-
tional connections established by families, businesses, pro-
fessions, and educational and religious organizations. His
laudable efforts at political critique of the U.S. government
are hindered by a profound "methodologicalnationalism"
that equates society with the boundaries of the nation-state
(VVimmer and GlickSchiller2002). "TheReaganproject,"and
"theBush administration"become the United States,which
is transmogrified into a bounded, isolated, nationalistic
unity of government and people. Meanwhile, for the Euro-
pean arena, Bornemanspeaks sometimes of the region as a
unified actor and sometimes of a dualityof governmentand
AmericanEthnologist30(4):497-499. Copyright @ 2003, American Anthropological Association.
NINA GLICKSCHILLER
Universityof NewHampshire and
Instituteof SociaLAnthropoLogy
MaxPLanck
conducting ethnographies of
a faceless, nonsituated public that wears an apparently
WesternEuropeanChristian(white)skin.
Where do we end up when anthropologists reify the
nation or an entire region?Whatis the outcome of us speak-
ing of a "European"or "U.S.self-understanding"(thisissue)?
Whathappens when complex and variegatedpublic cultures
become a single public voice? Borneman'sstance when his
gaze turns to the Middle East is revealing. Reportingthat
Europe and the United States appear to have little leverage
there, he asks, "Who listens to them there?" (this issue)
thereby setting up an immediate oppositional binary.Now
both Europe and the United States become a single voice,
opposed to another "them,"one that is beyond the reach of
reason and so is to be rightlyfeared.This opposition contin-
ues in other guises throughouthis argument.Forexample,it
lies underneath Borneman's imagining of a United States
that is able to incorporatemigrantsthrougha "multicultural
and radicallyuneven integration"(this issue), and a Europe
that fails in this regard.Despite the contrast,he manages to
project a uniform "Muslim and Arab" mass in both in-
stances. Did not anthropologistsbuilding on Said'sconcept
of "Orientalism"popularize the concept of the "Other"as a
precautionarytale to guardagainst exactlyagainst this kind
of homogenized distancing?Retromay be fashionable, but
is it accurate?
There is no doubt that there are and continue to be
profound differencesto the ways in which dominant classes
in the United States and variousstates in Europeimplement
capitalism.Capitalismis a differentset of social relationships
in various state locations. These social relationships create
differentkinds of habitus, a differentLebenslauf:But they do
not produce uniform, homogeneous, and bounded ones.
Despite various Europeannarrativesabout national culture
and Borneman'sinvoking of an emerging Europeanpublic
culture,underneaththenarrativelevelthereis neveruniformity
of practice and outlook, and common narrativesare always
polysemous. Invoking suggestions that Europeanization
American Ethnologist * Volume30 Number4 November2003
could be studied ethnographicallydoes not substitute for
grounded ethnographic research that not only tests such
broad statements but also reformulatesthem to reflect the
multiple differentways Islam is actuallylived in Europe,the
multiple forms of incorporation of migrants, even asylum
seekers,into dailyfabricsof life invariedlocationsinEurope,
and the webs of social relationsthat link migrantsof various
generations and class backgrounds to individuals, institu-
tions, and organizationsin Europe.
Once we look beyond the text we are able to note that
within quotidianactivitiesthere is no sharpdivisionbetween
native Europeansembedded in their societies and these un-
incorporatedforeigners.Andwhen it comes to alienationthe
picture is also complex. There are alienated youth, of both
migrant and nonmigrant backgrounds. There are Islamic
networks and neo-Nazi organizationsand "Goths"dressed
as relativesof Dracula.But the question is, who are the true
global vampires?
Anthropologists need to be asking and providing an-
swersto othersets of questions, lookingat macroissues,local
issues, and their mutual constitution. For example, on the
macrolevel, how were the stances of French, German,and
Russian political leaders against the U.S.-led war in Iraq
shaped by their own interests in oil and so-called develop-
ment contracts?Whatarethe similaritiesbetween European
capitalistsand U.S. capitalistsin their driveto obtain certain
types of investments, includingoilfieldsand the distribution
of government-subsidized food? Is it not more fruitful to
examine the way these similarities foster a fundamental
unity of outlooks, as well as particularitiesof competition,
between the rich and powerfulcartelsa la Enron,the Carlyle
Group,Krup,Beyer,Elf,and so forth,who search for profits
in the two/thirds world to bring back to the northern core?
More locally, what do migrants who live across borders as
well as various people who experience the positioning of
race, gender, and minority religious status or those who
choose to identifywith the oppressed learn from each other
about globalizationand its discontents?How arewe to assess
the significance of the emergence of global discourses on
human rights and multiple struggles for justice (Brecheret
al. 2000; Sassen 1994)?European governments may see a
uniformglobalIslam,and the United Statesmay readterror-
ism into every armed struggle. But on a more microlevel
ethnographers need to ask what people who have been
driven off their land, away from any reliable means of sup-
portingtheir family,and into the smotheringembrace of the
proselytizersof a neoliberal agenda actually think, believe,
or hope for.
I agree with Borneman that ethnography can provide
answersas well as questions, but it mattersamong whom we
conduct our ethnography.I see Europe, the United States,
and the long-distance connections of migrants and their
descendants differently than does Borneman. Migrant
populations live within social fields that extend into the po-
4,l
litical, cultural,economic, religious, and institutionallife of
the state where they reside. They simultaneously maintain
various transnational connections, using some of them to
sustain incorporationin transnationalsocial fields.Transna-
tional ties are multivalent.Money sent home in remittances
provides families all over the world with their major source
of sustenance. Transnationalpoliticalties may fuel struggles
againstoppression or supportthe most reactionaryof politi-
cal or religious regimes. It is important to understand the
multipleways,largeand small,that migrantsseek and obtain
incorporation. It is also urgent that we critique the social
science models from assimilation to transnationalismthat
can obfuscate the ways in which society is composed of
social relationsthat extend globally (GlickSchillerin press).
Borneman's equation of all migrant efforts to support
homeland struggleswith reactionarylong-distance nation-
alism and his portrayalof all Araband Muslimtransnational
ties as suspicious greatlytrouble me. It is both analytically
and politicallyquestionable to uphold incorporationwithin
a bounded core society, be it the United States or Europe,as
normal and to counterpose transborderextensions of social
relations as transgressiveand the object of scrutiny.
Anthropologists' analytical contribution should be to
question analyses that equate society with the state. Of
course, some states continue to hold the power to police
bordersand surveilpopulations;and the U.S.state continues
to impose its power globally.Nonetheless, it is importantto
understandthat the interlockingsocial networksthat make
up the social fields within which people live their lives are
constrainedbut not delimitedby states.The times areindeed
frightening.The fact is that a small group of capitalistactors
who control the U.S. political system now constitute an im-
perial militaryforce willing and able to reshape large por-
tions of the world for their own purposes. They are able to
wrap their project in the U.S. flag so that any opposition
becomes both support for global terrorismand treason. In
response, those who identifywith states in Europeand with
a Europeanproject may indeed be seduced to define them-
selves as an Other,identifyingwith various Europeanstates
as reflexiveof a more civilized, caring, socially responsible
Europe.
As scholars we can make political contributions on the
basis of our ethnography.We must be ready to critique the
automatic equation of the militaryactions of states or coali-
tions of states, be they the United States,Israel,NATO,or the
United Nations, as legitimate and of networks of social, fa-
milial, economic, religious, or political relations as a threat
to global security. Many of these networksmay sustain hu-
man possibilities all over the world. It is these possibilities
that are threatened by coalitions of capitalistswho speak in
the name of both Europe and the United States. Further-
more, it is possible to locate, wherever we go, alternative
voices who yearn for the means of fulfillingtheir humanity.

References cited
Almond,Gabriel,and SidneyVerba
1963 TheCivicCulture:PoliticalAttitudesandDemocracyinFive
Nations. Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress.
Brecher,Jeremy,Tim Costello,and BrendanSmith
2000 Globalizationfrom Below.Boston:South EndPress.
GlickSchiller,Nina
In press TransnationalTheoryand Beyond. In A Companionto
the Anthropologyof Politics. David Nugent and JoanVincent,
eds. Malden,MA:Blackwell.
Habermas,Jurgen
1984 Theory of CommunicativeAction, vol. 1. Boston: Beacon
Press.
Lauria,Antonio
In press "Freedom,""PublicCulture"and History in Jamaica:
The RightIssue, the WrongAnalysis.Identities:GlobalStudies
in Cultureand Power.
Sameoldsameold?. . . * American Ethnologist
LiPuma,Edward
In press Democracy,Freedom,and the Vise of Encompassment.
Identities:GlobalStudiesin Cultureand Power.
Sassen, Saskia
1994 LosingControl?New York:ColumbiaUniversityPress.
Wimmer,Andreas,and Nina GlickSchiller
2000 Methodological Nationalism and Beyond. Nation-State
Building,Migrationand the Social Sciences. GlobalNetworks
2(4):301-334.
Nina GlickSchiller
Universityof New Hampshireand
MaxPlanckInstituteof SocialAnthropology
Halle/Saale,Germany
schiller@eth.mpg.de
4,9