http://www.indiana.edu/~wanthro/appadurai.

htm#Books
ARJUN APPADURAI
(by Layla Al-Zubaidi)
1. Personal data 2. Basic Basic concepts and 3. Publications
accomplishments
 Current positions  Modernity  Books
 Degrees and previous positions  Culture and difference  Articles
 Specialization  Ethnicity  Edited volumes
 Fieldwork  Culturalism  Editorial
 Consumption
 Globalization

1. Personal data
 Current positions
Arjun Appadurai is Samuel N. Harper Professor of Anthropology and South Asian Languages and
Civilizations at the University of Chicago where he was previously director of the Chicago Humanities
Institute. He is also the director of the Globalization Project at the University of Chicago.
 Degrees and previous positions
Appadurai's first degree was in Intermediate Arts at the University of Bombay in 1967. He received his
B.A. in History from Brandeis University in 1970 and his M.A. in Social Thought from the University of
Chicago in 1973. He completed his Ph.D. 1976 in Social Thought also at the University of Chicago. After
graduating with the Ph.D., Appadurai was assistant professor of Anthropology at the University of
Pennsylvania until 1981. From 1981 to 1987, he became associate professor, and from 1987 to 1992 he
was given the position of a full professor of Anthropology and that of a Consulting Curator at the Asian
Section of the University Museum. From 1992 on, he is professor at the University of Chicago.
 Specialization
Arjun Appadurai is specialized in sociocultural anthropology, globalization, and public culture and his
current research interests are the internal organization of mass media and the historical study of state
policies involving quantification. He teaches mainly historical anthropology as well as the anthropology
of consumption and globalization. Regionally, he is specialized in South Asia.
At the moment he is studying the relation between the ethnic violence and images of territory in modern
nation-states. From 1997 to fall 1998 he is on leave.
 Fieldwork
Appadurai’s fieldwork experience comprises five major periods:
 1974, 1977: Library research in the Indian Office Library and British Museum, London.
 1973-74, summer 1977: Ethnographic and archival research in Madras, India.
 1981-82: Fieldwork in rural Maharashtra State, India.
 Winter 1986, winter 1988 (short-term): Fieldwork in Madras, Bombay and Delhi, India.
 Winter 1995-96: Fieldwork in Bombay, India.
2. Basic concepts and accomplishments
The major accomplishment of Arjun Appadurai’s work is the formulation of concepts, which allow taking
an anthropological approach to problems such as modernity, globalization, consumption, and public
culture. Since neither of them is a traditional anthropological field of research, anthropologists for a long
time have hesitated to develop tools for dealing with them empirically and theoretically.
Appadurai believes that the nation-state is in crisis and thus argues, although this view is not
necessarily popular, that current global processes of migration and communication will lead to the
deterritorialization of identities in a world which will be increasingly culturally hybrid by a growth of
diasporic public spheres and the global flow of images, finances, technologies, and ideologies. He
suggests to "think beyond the nation," (1996a) by imagining a form of sovereignty which replaces
territoriality with translocalities.
Anthropology is for Appadurai an archive of lived actualities (1996: 11). Anthropology reminds
him steadily that every similarity hides more than one difference and that similarities and differences
conceal each other indefinitely. Anthropology brings with it a professional tendency to privilege the
cultural as the key diacritic in many practices. This tendency is crucial for his approach, since he argues
for the cultural dimension of processes such as globalization and consumption.
Appadurai’s second field of specialization is area studies, particularly South Asian studies. Area
studies in his view reflect particular maps, marking groups and their way of living by culture and creating
topographies of national cultural differences (1996: 16). The geographical divisions, cultural differences,
and national boundaries become isomorphic, and world processes are seen in this spatial imaginary
through the lens of national-cultural map. Appadurai sees the significance of area studies in reminding us
that globalization itself is a historical, uneven, and even localizing process. Area case studies have shown
that globalization does not necessarily result in homogenization or Americanization. With regard that
different societies appropriate the materials of modernity differently, there is still a need for the study of
specific geographies, histories, and languages. Appadurai views the genealogy of cultures in their
circulation across regions, while the history of these forms is their steady domestication into local
practice. He stresses that locality itself is a historical product and subject to the dynamics of the global.
Areas put in this way represent sites for the analysis of how localities emerge in a globalizing world, how
colonial processes underlie contemporary politics, and how history and genealogy inflect each other.
In the following paragraphs his basic concepts are outlined along his major publications.

 Modernity
Appadurai suggests contrary to most grand theories of western social science (Comte, Marx,
Tönnies, Weber, and Durkheim) and modernization theory, that modernity is irregularly self-conscious
and unevenly experienced rather than one single moment of break between past and present. This
conventional view in his view dichotomizes tradition and modernity and does not take into account
change and the politics of pastness. He does not doubt a general break with all sorts of parts, however,
points out that the nature of this break has still to be identified. Instead, he proposes a "theory of rupture"
that takes media and migration as its two majors, exploring their joint effect on the work of imagination
as a constitutive feature of modern subjectivity (1996: 2-3).
Appadurai explores how electronic media offer new everyday resources and disciplines for the
imagination of the self and the world. He suggests that similarly, motion and migration cause a new
instability in the creation of subjectivities. In concert with the global flow of mass-mediated images, they
produce diasporic public spheres (for example Pakistani cabdrivers in Chicago listening to sermons
recorded in Iranian mosques), thus confounding theories on social change that are centered on nation-state
as entities.
He makes three basic distinctions of imagination in the postelectronic world (1996: 5-9):
1) Distinction between exceptional and daily practice:
Imagination has broken out of the expressive space of art, myth, and ritual as the domain of charismatic
individuals and specialists, and has become a part of the everyday life and practices of ordinary people,
who formerly were excluded.
Modern diaspora, whether wanted or forced, distinguishes itself from past forms of migration in
the sense that today mass-mediated imaginary frequently transcends the boundaries of national space, and
the politics of adaptation, move and return are deeply affected by mass-mediated images, scripts, models,
and narratives. Diasporic public spheres are no longer small, marginal, or exceptional.
2) Distinction between imagination and fantasy:
Many critics of mass culture (Frankfurt School, Weber, Talcott Parsons, Edward Shils, Daniel
Lerner, Alex Inkeles) described a modern world based on growing rationality, shrinking religiosity,
secularization, increasing commoditization and regulation at the loss of activity, play and spontaneity.
Appadurai counters that there is evidence that new religiosities of every sort are not dead at all, but even
fed by global media and networks. Critiques of the "media imperialism" discourse have shown that the
consumption of media does not result necessarily in passivity, but rather often evokes resistance,
selectivity, and agency. While fantasy represents the concept of "opium for the masses," and thus implies
passivity and a "false consciousness," imagination is the prelude to expression, and, especially when
collective, potentially fuels action rather than preventing it. Thus, "imagination is today a staging ground
for action, and not only for escape" (1996: 7).
3) Distinction between the individual and collective senses of imagination:
Imagination is now the property of collectives, creating "communities of sentiment," groups that
imagine and feel things together (1990b). Benedict Anderson has shown how print capitalism created
"imagined communities" of people who were never in face-to-face contact, which was the perquisite for
the formation of nation-states (1983). Electronic capitalism has produced forms that, by exceeding both
the potential of the printing press to tie communities and the level of the nation-state, work transnationally
and internationally. These communities carry the potential of moving from shared imagination to
collective action. As an example, Appadurai shows how the "Rushdie-affair" is about a text-in-motion,
whose commoditized trajectory brought it outside the western space of artistic freedom and right of
speech into the space of religious authorities and their own transnational spheres (and the very different
settings of New York, Cologne, Karachi, New-Delhi and more). The transformation of everyday
subjectivities through media and imagination is not only a cultural fact, but deeply connected to politics,
through the new ways individual interests crosscut those of the nation-state. Today’s battles over
immigrant rights are not just one more variant on the politics of pluralism: they are about the capability of
nation-states to contain the politics of their diasporic minorities.
This "theory of rupture" is one of the recent past, since it is only in the past two decades that
media and migration have been so massively globalized across transnational terrains. According to
Appadurai, his own approach is no mere update of older social theories of modernization, but presents
something radically new (1996: 9):
1) He is not concerned with teleological propositions how modernization can universally
converge into rationality, democracy, and free markets.
2) His focus is not large-scale social engineering (carried out by states, international agencies and other
elites), but the everyday cultural practice and transformation of imagination.
3) He is suspicious about any kind of prognosis where the present condition will lead us to in terms of
nationalism, violence, and social justice.
4) His theory of break, based on the joint force of mass media and migration, moves away from classical
approaches that are dependent on the salience of the nation-state, and is instead explicitly transnational
and even postnational.
He does not provide explicit alternative models, but suggests that actually existing social forms
carry the potential of more dispersed and diverse forms of transnational allegiance. He expects that
materials for a postnational imaginary exist already, particularly in the form of diasporic public spheres.
Activist movements involved with women’s issues, the environment, human rights etc. have created a
sphere of transnational discourse, resting on the authority of displaced persons such as refugees and
exiles. However, he admits that the move from transnational movements to sustainable forms of
transnational forms of government cannot be sufficiently explained by this approach.
 Culture and difference
Appaduari attempts to replace the term culture by the adjectival form of the word, that is,
"cultural." By doing this he wants to move away from a concept of culture that carries associations with
some kind of physical or metaphysical object or substance. He argues that such a substantialization brings
culture back into the discursive realm of race, the idea that it was initially designed to combat. The
concept of culture as a coherent entity privileges forms of sharing, agreement and bounding, and thus
neglects the facts of inequality and differences in lifestyles. The adjective cultural, to the contrary,
recognizes differences, contrasts, and comparisons.
He thus argues that the most valuable feature of using the concept of the cultural is the concept of
difference. He defines difference as a contrastive rather than substantive property of certain things. Since
Jacques Derrida, difference has a vast set of associations. Appadurai sees its main virtue in being a useful
heuristic that is capable to highlight points of similarity and contrast between all sorts of categories
(classes, genders, roles, groups, and nations). Describing the cultural dimension of something thus
stresses the idea of situated difference, that is difference in relation to something local, embodied, and
significant: culture is better regarded as a dimension of phenomena (than a substance), a dimension that
attends to situated and embodied difference (1996: 13). Stressing the dimensionality of culture rather than
its substantiality permits according to Appadurai to think about culture less as a property of groups and
more as a heuristic device for talking about difference. He suggests to regard as cultural only those
differences that express or provide the basis for the mobilization of group identities. With this selection,
Appadurai brings the word culture close to the idea of ethnicity.
Summarized, he resists the noun form of culture that implies the idea of actual social groups as
cultures. He suggests an adjectival approach to culture, which stresses its contextual, heuristic, and
comparative dimensions and moves to the idea of culture as difference, especially in the realm of group
identity. Hence, culture is a dimension of human discourse that employs difference to generate diverse
conceptions of group identity (1996: 13).
 Ethnicity
Appadurai defines the idea of ethnicity as the idea of naturalized group identity (1991 c, 1996: 13). As a
boundary-maintenance question, culture then becomes a matter of group identity. Put like this, culture is
equated with ethnicity in the sense that in this usage culture stresses not only the possession of certain
attributes (material, linguistic, or territorial), but the consciousness of them and their naturalization as
essential to group identity. Ethnicity thus does not rest on the extension of the primordial idea of kinship,
but rather takes at its core the conscious and imaginative construction and mobilization of difference.
Culture 1, the virtually open-ended archive of differences, is consciously shaped into Culture 2, the subset
of these differences that constitutes the diacritics of group identity (the process of mobilizing certain
differences and linking them to group identity). This process is also unlike ethnicity in the sense that it
does not depend on the extension of primordial sentiments, nor assumes that larger social units simply
draw on the sentiments of family and kinship. This logic is the reverse of the old primordialist or
extensionist idea of ethnicity (1996:14). The idea of culture, mobilizing and naturalizing differences
through historical processes and the tensions between structures and agents comes closer to an
instrumental conception of ethnicity, as opposed to the primordial one.
 Culturalism
Appadurai has moved from culture as substance to culture as the dimension of difference, to culture as
group identity based on difference, to culture as the process of naturalizing a subset of differences that
have been mobilized to articulate group identity (1996: 14-15). He then attempts to move to the question
of culturalism. Culturalism is a word usually encountered with prefixes like multiculturalism,
biculturalism, and interculturalism. He understands culturalism as identity politics; a feature of movement
that involves identities consciously in the making and is usually targeted at nation-states. Culturalist
movements according to Appadurai tend to be counternational and metacultural. Many groups
consciously mobilize themselves according to identitarian criteria and against the efforts of modern-
nation states to encompass (sometimes forcibly) their ethnic diversities into fixed and closed sets of
cultural categories. Although cultural movements themselves may be self-conscious about identity,
culture, and heritage, it is the deliberate, strategic, and populist mobilization of cultural material that
justifies calling them culturalist. Appadurai argues that in the era of mass media and migration, the form
that cultural differences tend to take, is culturalism.
 Consumption
Appadurai tries to conceptualize what is new about consumption. Drawing on Frederic Jameson, he
employs the concept of repetition as characterizing commodity culture of consumer capitalism. He
suggests that consumption like eating has to be seen in the wider context of habituation through repetition
(1996: 67). What Marcel Mauss has called the "techniques of the body" means that the body as the site of
the practices of social reproduction calls for disciplines that are periodic or repetitive. Difficult to
maintain anarchic consumption patterns, the techniques of the body become social disciplines and parts of
a habitus. According to Appadurai, any consumption system that strives for freedom from habit is pushed
toward an aesthetic or ephemeral.
Appadurai defines consumer revolution as a cluster of events whose key feature is a generalized shift
from sumptuary law to fashion (1996: 72). This detaches consumer revolution from any particular
temporal sequence (e.g. mass merchandising) and from specific historical sequences (e.g. literacy). He
hopes that this definition opens up the possibility that large-scale changes in consumption may be
associated with various sequences and conjunctures of these factors. For example, in India department
stores have only a very late development, coming after advertising, in contrast to France where
department stores preceded advertising. He thus tries to avoid the search for preestablished sequences of
institutional change, which then becomes defined and established as constitutive of the consumer
revolution. He intends rather to encourage the recognition of the multiplicity of scenarios concerning the
appearance of consumer society, in which the rest of the world will not simply be seen as repeating or
imitating, the conjunctural precedents of England or France (1996: 73). For comparing consumer
societies, he makes the distinction between history and genealogy. He understands history as leading
outward by linking patterns of changes to increasingly larger universes of interaction. Genealogy leads
inward: toward cultural dispositions and styles that are embedded in local institutions and in the history of
the local habitus. For example, Mahatma Gandhi’s ascetic reluctance towards goods and possessive
individualism might historically lead to John Ruskin and others in the West who formulated pastoral and
anti-industrial visions. Genealogically, however, Gandhi’s attitude might lead inward, to a long-standing
Indian discomfort with sensory experience at large. It thus follows for the study of other societies’
consumer practices, that we have to expect a host of different histories and genealogies present at the
same moment. The more diverse a society and the more complex its interactions, the more fragmented its
consumer practices are likely to be (1986a).
 Globalization
For Appadurai, the global situation is an interactive rather than one-sidedly dominated one. The United
States do no longer dominate the world system of images, but are only one mode of a complex
transitional construction of "imaginary landscapes." In his widely cited paper "Disjuncture and difference
in the global cultural economy," he argues that in this new conjuncture, the invention of tradition and
other identity-markers becomes slippery, as the "search for certainties is regularly frustrated by the
fluidities of transitional communication." He also stresses that there are various alternative fears to that of
Americanization: "it is worth noticing that for the people of Irian Jaya, Indonesianization may be more
worrisome than Americanization, as Japanization may be for Koreans, Indianization for Sri Lankans,
Vietnamization for Cambodians, Russianization for the people of Soviet Armenia and the Baltic
republics," and reminds us that "one man’s imagined community is another man’s political prison." (1990:
5-6).
Appadurai differentiates five dimension of global "scapes," flowing across cultural boundaries: 1)
ethnoscapes, the landscape of persons who constitute the shifting world in which people live, 2)
technoscapes, the global configuration of technologies moving at high speeds across previously
impermeable borders, 3) financescapes, the global grid of currency speculation and capital transfer, 4)
mediascapes, the distribution of the capabilities to produce and disseminate information and the large
complex repertoire of images and narratives generated by these capabilities, 5) ideoscapes, ideologies of
states and counter-ideologies of movements, around which nation-states have organized their political
cultures.
Appadurai stresses that globalizing and localizing processes, or "global homogenization" and
"heterogenization" feed and reinforce each other rather than being mutually exclusive, and calls for more
anthropological studies on the "production of locality" (1995a).

3. Publications
 Books
1981 Worship and conflict under colonial rule: A South Indian case. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
1983 (Reprint) Worship and conflict under colonial rule: A South Indian case. New Delhi: Orient
Longman.
1996 Modernity at large: cultural dimensions of modernity. London and Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press.
 Articles
1974 Right and left hand castes in South India. Indian Economic and Social History Review 11 (2-3):
216-59.
1977 Kings, sects and temples in south India, 1350-1700 A.D. Economic and Social History Review 14
(1): 47-73.
1978 Understanding Gandhi. In Childhood and selfhood: essays on tradition, religion and modernity in
the psychology of Erik H. Erikson. Peter Homans, ed. Pp. 113-43. Lewisburg, Pennsylvania: Bucknell
University Press.
1980 Comment on the female lingam: interchangeable symbols and paradoxical associations of Hindu
gods and goddesses by G. Eichinger Ferro-Luzzi. Current Anthropology 21 (1): 54.
1981a (Review) Contributions to South Asian Studies 1. Delhi: Oxford University Press. Gopal Krishna,
ed. American Ethnologist 8 (1): 211-12.
1981b Gastro-politics in Hindu South Asia. American Ethnologist 8 (3): 494-511.
1981c The past as a scarce resource. Man 6 (2): 201-19.
1981d Rituals and cultural change. Reviews in Anthropology 8 (2): 121-38.
1983 The puzzling status of Brahman temple priests in Hindu India. South Asian Anthropologist 4 (1):
43-52.
1984a Wells in western India: irrigation and cooperation in an agricultural society. Expedition 26 (3): 3-
14.
1984b (with Gregory Possehl) "Cow," man and animals: living, working and changing together.
Philadelphia: University Museum, University of Pennsylvania: 47-56.
1984c How moral is South Asia’s economy? A review essay. Journal of Asian Studies 43 (3): 481-97.
1985a (Review) The cult of the goddess Pattini, by G. Obeyesekere. Journal of Asian Studies 44 (3):
647-49.
1985b (Review) Understanding green revolutions: agrarian change and development planning in South
Asia. Bayliss-Smith, Tim P. and Sudhir Wanmali, eds. Third World Quaterly. London.
1986a Introduction: commodities and the politics of value. In The social life of things. Commodities in
cultural perspective. Arjun Appadurai, ed. Pp. 3-63. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
1986b Center and periphery in anthropological theory. Comparative Studies in Society and History 28
(2): 356-61.
1986c (with Wilhelm Halbfass) History of the study of Indian religions. Encyclopaedia of Religion.
Mircea
Eliade, ed. New York: Macmillan.
1986d Is Homo Hierarchicus? American Ethnologist 13 (4): 745-61.
1987a Hinduism. Encyclopaedia of Asian History. New York: The Asia Society and Scribner and Sons 2:
56-59.
1987b The Indian cow. Encyclopaedia of Asian History. New York: The Asia Society and Scribner and
Sons 1: 347.
1987c Street culture. The India Magazine 8 (1): 2-23.
1988a How to make a national cuisine: cookbooks in contemporary India. Comparative Studies in
Society and History 30 (1): 3-24.
1988b Place and voice in anthropological theory. Introduction to special issue of Cultural Anthropology
3 (1): 16-20.
1988c Putting hierarchy in its place. Cultural Anthropology 3 (1): 36-49.
1988d Comment on Francis Zimmerman, the jungle and the aroma of meats. Social Science and
Medicine 27 (3): 206-7.
1988e Imagined worlds: the decolonization of cricket. In The olympics and cultural exchange. Kang,
S.P., J. McAloon and R. da Matta, eds. Pp. 163-90. Hanyang University: Seoul, Institute for Ethnographic
Studies.
1988f (with Carol A. Breckenridge) Why public culture? Public Culture 1 (1): 5-9.
1989a Transformations in the culture of agriculture. In Contemporary Indian Tradition. Carla Borden, ed.
Pp. 173-86. Washington and London: Smithsonian Institution Press.
1989b Small-scale techniques and large-scale objectives. In Conversations between economists and
anthropologists. Parnab Bardhan, ed. Pp. 250-82. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
1990a Disjuncture and difference in the global cultural economy. Public Culture 2 (2): 1-23.
1990b Disjuncture and difference in the global cultural economy. In theory, culture, and society 7 (2-3):
295-310 (short version).
1990c Topographies of the self. In Language and the politics of emotion. Lutz, C.A. and Lila Abu-
Lughod, eds. Pp. 92-112. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
1990d Technology and the reproduction of values in western India. In Dominating knowledge:
development, culture and resistance. Marglin, Stephen A. and Frederique A. Marglin, eds. Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
1990e (with Carol A. Breckenridge) Public culture in late 20th-century India. Items 44 (4): 77-80.
1991a Dietary improvisation in an africultural economy. In Diet and domestic life in society. Sharman et
al, eds. Pp. 207-32. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
1991b (with Carol A. Breckenridge) Marriage, migration and money: Mira Nair’s cinema of
displacement. Visual Anthropology 4 (1): 95-102.
1991c Global ethnoscapes: notes and queries for a transnational anthropology. In Recapturing
anthropology. Working in the present. Richard G. Fox, ed. Pp. 191-210. Santa Fe: School of American
Research Press.
1991d Museums are good to think: heritage on view in India. In Museums and communities: the politics
of public culture. Karp, Ivan., Steven D. Levine, and Christine Mullen Kraemer, eds. Pp. 34-55.
Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press.
1993a Number in the colonial imagination. In Orientalism and the post-colonial predicament.
Breckenridge, Carol A. and Peter van der Veer, eds. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
1993b Patriotism and its futures. Public Culture 3 (5): 411-29.
1993c The heart of whiteness. Callaloo 16: 797-807.
1993d (Reprint) Disjuncture and difference in the global cultural economy. In The phantom public
sphere. Bruce Robbins, ed. Pp. 269-95. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
1993e Consumption, duration and history. Stanford Literary Review 10 (1-2): 11-23.
1993f The geography of canonicity. In What is Fundamental? Chicago: the University of Chicago: The
Committee on Social Thought: 3-12.
1995a The production of locality. In Counterwork. Richard Fardon, ed. London: Routledge.
1995b Playing with modernity: the decolonization of Indian cricket. In consuming modernity: public
culture in a South Asian world. Carol A. Breckenridge, ed. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
1995c Public modernity in India. In Consuming modernity: public culture in a South Asian world. Carol
A. Breckenridge, ed. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
1996a Sovereignity without territoriality: notes for a postnational geography. In The geography of
identity. P. Yaeger, ed. Pp. 40-58. Ann Arbor, Michigan: the University of Michigan Press.
1996b Diversity and disciplinarity as cultural artifacts. In Disciplinarity and dissent in cultural studies.
Nelson, Cary and Dilip Gaonkar, eds. New York: Routledge.
1996c (with James Holston) Cities and citizenship. Public Culture 8: 187-204.
1996d Off-white. A.N.Y. (Architecture New York). Winter.
1997 The colonial backdrop. Afterimage. February.
 Edited Volumes
Appadurai, Arjun, ed.
1986 The social life of things. Commodities in cultural perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Appadurai, Arjun, Carol A. Breckenridge, eds.
1987 Special Annual Issue on "Public culture" of The India Magazine. New Delhi.
Appadurai, Arjun, ed.
1988 Special Issue of Cultural Anthropology on "Place and voice in anthropological theory" 3 (1).
Appadurai, Arjun, Frank J. Korom, Margaret A. Mills, eds.
1991a Gender, genre, and power in South Asian expressive traditions. Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press.
 Editorial
 Assistant Editor, Journal of Asian Studies, 1983-86.
 Associate Editor, Public Culture, 1988-present.
 Associate Editor, American Ethnologist, 1989-94.
 Advisory Board, special issue of Daedalus ("Another India"), Fall 1989.
 Member, Editorial Board, Public Worlds (book series), University of Minnesota, 1992-present.
 Co-editor (with Jean Comaroff and Judith Farquhar) Bodies, Texts, Commodities (book series),
Duke University Press. 1992-present.
 Advisory Board, Positions, 1992-present.
 Member, Advisory Board, International Journal of Comparative Religion.