Method in Our Critique of Anthropology

Author(s): Fredrik Barth and Brian V. Street

Source: Man, New Series, Vol. 27, No. 1 (Mar., 1992), pp. 175-179
Published by: Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2803600
Accessed: 21/07/2010 08:21

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=rai.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

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.

Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve
and extend access to Man.

http://www.jstor.org
 COMMENT

Method in our critique of projectas much as the reputationof others:to

anthropology betterour own chance of transcendingpre-
established understandings and learning
somethingnew, it would seem essentialto be
A personalconcem arisingout of a particular able to summarizethe challengedstateof the
case has motivatedme to reflecton thecontem- artfaithfully, and to allow it to providea rea-
porary anthropologicalcottage industryof sonableresistance to our own1agenda.
re-presenting theworkof otheranthropologists Let me illustrate the failure,and whereit can
as a basisfortheoreticalspeculation.Anthropo- bringus, witha particular case. RichardFardon
logical writingsin the eighties have been
and his associates (Fardon 1990) recently
characterizedby such an intensified critiqueof
gatheredfora symposiumin which to explore
our individualand collectivework. It has led to
the dialecticbetween regiotnaland theoretical
an enhanced awarenessof the many ways in
factorsinfluencing the developmentof mono-
whichunstatedtheoryimpingeson our concep-
graphwritingon distinctethnograplhic regions.
tion of the object of study - from our
to our of texts For one of the regionsexplored,BriatnStreet
ontologicalframing writing -
discoursesin the anthro-
and has also made us more sensitiveto our addresses'Orientalist
and Pakistan',in
possibleimpacton the world. These develop- pology of Iran, Afghanistan
yearsback,
mentshave had salutaryand revitalizing effects which my owI1 work fromthirty
on our discipline,teachingus, in the wordsof both Politicalleadershiip amotng Swat Pathatns
one of thetrend-setters, to improvein 'the pre- (1959) and Nomnads of SouthPlersia (1961), figure
cision with which we vex each other' (Geertz prominenitly (Street1990). I have haldthe op-
1973: 29). portunity elsewlhereto confronit whatI hlavefelt
Of course,such critiquingis in no sense un- to be a persistent warpingof miiy argument, anid
precedented.I imagine it must always,in all of the contendedethnograplhic materials, in re-
serious teaching,have formeda major com- gard to the formerstudy(Barth 1981; 1985),
ponent of our lectures, though it was less and will not pursuethe matterhere. But I now
acknowledgedas a genre of publication.My findthatI am confronted withsome relateddis-
concernis thatthe differences thatobtainbet- tortionsalso introducedinto the representation
ween the two arenas of lecturing and of the studyof the Basseri,on which I shall
publicationhave not been fullyrecognized,and focus. I shall not carp on the persistentmis-
thatsome of themethodological implicationsof spellingof my name, or on my being credited
the difference have been insufficientlydrawn. with more thanitwice the fieldtime with thie
Besides not reachingvery far, the lecturer's Bassernthanthe Iranianauthorities were willinig
voice generallycritiquestextswhich heror his to allow me; I shallfocusonilyoi1mnatters of fact
audience is engagedin studying.For theserea- whlich are of major consequence forthe con-
sons, it has been usual to allow oneself clusionis thatare drawnin Street'sessay.
considerablelicense in being both incomplete My book is clharacterized as 'on-eof the first
and polemical: thatthe studentundertakesan to describethe politicalstructureof niomadic
independentreadingof the critiquedtextpro- pastoralists' and to have 'set the styleforfuture
vides a built-in premiss,or at least a fond workin itsemphasison thisgroup[i.e. nomads]
assumption. and in itsuse of segmentary lineagethieory'(p.
whenan authorre-presents 248). In termsof my own declaredinitenition,
It is quitedifferent
the work of anotherto readerswho do not and the understanding of most of my readers
have thetextat handand areunderno particular outsideof Brntain, its themewas ratherother-
incentiveto retrieveit. Unless we are rather wise,witha focuson an ecologicalanalysisand,
fastidious in our scholarship,
we are in danger- connectedwith that,certaineconomic, demo-
if I maysuggestan appropriate phrase- of rid- graphicand organizational processes.I have met
ing slipshodover theworkof colleaguesand of before this widespread disinclinationamong
failingto achievethatprecisionwhose develop- Britishcolleagues to recognize an ecological
ment Geertz remarkedupon. Indeed, we are perspective;more startlinig to me, however,is
therebyalso in danger of harmingour own mysupposeduse of'segmentary lineagethieory'.
176 COMMENT
But beforeStreetarrivesat thisdiscussion,he both to me and to mostof his otherreaders,I
providesthedetailthatI spentmytimewiththe can onlyregardtheformof wordsin thesecita-
Basseri'mostlywithM. Zarghamithe leader,or tions as his own choice of expression.A key
khan' (p. 248). I have nevertillnow published criticalpassage reads: 'As Wright points out,
any record of my contactswith Mohammed Barth"expected informants to be able to pro-
Zarghami;as a matterof facttheyamountedto vide himwithgenealogiesand found'puzzling'
one overnightvisitto hisvillageresidenceat the and 'frustrating' the inabilityof the Basserito
pointwhen the camp withwhich I was staying give 'good pedigrees'and 'the whole segmen-
passedclose by thatvillage.This was a courtesy tarycharterof theirdescentgroup' (Barth1964
visitwhich I made because he had, some years [1961]: 56). He did not questionhlisassumption
earlier, been hospitable to my distinguished thatthetribeis a descentgroup"'. (p. 249).
teacher of Persian,ProfessorGeorg Morgen- Observe my published form of words to
stierne,when he visitedthe areato collectsome which referenceis given. I am in the opening
languagematerialsfromthe smallJewishcom- partof the chapteron 'tribeand sections',and
munityin Sarvestan. am discussingthe patrilineal transmission of the
Why thislittletouch?Because, as it turnsout, rathercomplexlyregulatedpasturerights.While
it is partof Street'sowvnagenda. We are told informants would give pedigreesof up to eight
that when Streetvisitedthe Basseribrieflyin or ten generationswithconsiderableease to es-
1967 (the familiarI-was-theretheme)'M. Zar- tablish such rights,'they proved unable to
ghamirecalledBarth'svisitclearlyand referred expandtheminto trueramifying genealogiesof
to his book Nomtiads of SouthPersiaas the story the wlhole[sub-section].On the backgroundof
of "myfamily"'(p. 248). This is linkedup to an my previous experience with 1Pathans,who
unreferenced, but no doubtcorrectand - in the might have difficulties givinig good pedigrees
appropriatecontext- possiblyquite wvell-takenibut readily outlined the wlhole segmentary
critique,by Asad, of antlhropologists wlhoprc- charterof theirdescenitgroup (Barth1959: 22
senttheview of leadersas thouglh itrepresented sqq.), thisinabilityof the Blasseriwas in thefield
the whole society.It is matclhed withan obser- situationi bothlpuzzliig anidfrustrating'. I would
vation by Eickelman to the effect that trustthatthiscomes acrossratherdifferenitly -
ethnographers workingin tribalsocietieshave mynafvete,oniwlichi I report,derivesfrommy
frequently based tlhciraccountsof kinshiprela- fieldexperiencein a historically relatedculture,
tions anid tribal organizationon iniformation not from the writings of Evanis-Pritchard.
providedbysociallyand politically dominantin- Moreover, it served for me to openi up an
dividuals,althoughl the notionis
of tribalidenitity avenue of inquiry,the aniswersto wlhiclhare
maintainedby ordinarytribesmeni oftendiffer givenI in the inmediatelyfollowingtexton de-
fromsuch formalideologiesof the scent, catnp compositioni,usufruct-controllinig
significanitly
dominant. segmentsof the population,and historical tradi-
Beforeconfronting theseimputationis, I need tions onl the originsof groups. It points out
to completethe factualrecordof my contacts how the primaryunitsof residenice, camps,are
withthe Basserikhans:It was MohammedZar- tot descent segmentsand distirnguiislhes rather
ghami'syoungerbrother,HassaniAli Zarghami, carefully betweenseveraldistinict econiomicand(i
who, once I had my researchclearance,con- politicalprocessesthatwilllead to subdivisionof
sented to my stayingamong the Basseri. He higher-levelgroupsunder concditions of inter-
droveme to the winterarea and dumpedme in nal populationgrowth.Later,on p. 61, thisleads
a camp withordersthattheyslhouldtakecareof to a discussiotn in whichlthe organizationI de-
me. Hassan Ali had been khan forsome years scribeis contrastedon the onlehlanid to 'lineage
afterhis elder brotherwas dismissedby the systems'and on the otherto internally unseg-
Government,and until he himselfwas dis- mentedclans. A readermust be eithergrossly
missedand replacedby an Armycolonel two inattenitive or ignorantto see segmenitary lineage
years before my fieldwork.13ecause of this organizationi in thepatternthatunifolds - instead
politicalsituationhiedid not at the timeof my my account elaborateson the conjunictionof
fieldworkfindit wise to make more thanoc- distinctprocesseswhiclh is announced at the
casional day-timevisitsto Basseritent camps, opening of the chapter,where I assert'that
when messagesreachedhim thatthe migration basic featuresof Basseriorgatizationare better
scheduleshad been fouledup. I saw himtwo or understoodwlhenthisbreak[betweenprocesses
threetimeswhen he turnedup, on such brief on household/campleveland on higlher organii-
visits,whereI happenedto be, aindI paid myre- zatioial levels]is emphasized,rathler thanislurred
spectsto him in Shiraz as I leftthe field.For over by a simpleorderingof groupsin a typo-
these reasons,and perhapsregrettably, nonieof logicalseriesof iniclusiveness' (13arth1961: 49).
the materialson which the studyis based were So much formy use of 'segmentary lineage
derivedfromthe Zarghamifamily. theory'.Next, let us proceed to my analysisof
Now to myuse of segmentary lineagetheory. the growthand disappearanice of tribesthrough
Streetcitesfragments froma thesisby S. Wright processesotherthanitnternal populationgrowtlh.
(1985). Since it is unpublishedand unavailable Accordinigto Street: 'Wright, in fact, finds
 COMMENT 177
considerableevidence for her claim thattribal lived among tribesmenin Swat who support
groupsin Irancome togetherand dividein ways themselvesby intensiverice agriculture,I was
otherthanthroughthesegmentary lineage,such startledby the pervasive conviction among
as through"broad recruitment", collateralties, urbanIraniansto whom I spoke thatall tribes-
immediate interestsetc. ... Repeatedly, new men in Iran - the land of Kurds and Lurs and
groups arrive,seek protection,and grow by Baluchis- shouldbe nomads.I was likewiselec-
themselvesreceivingfurtherrefugees.... One turedby the Court Minister,when he finally
mightinferthatsimilarstorieswere told by the grantedme my briefresearchpermission,on
Basseri but that Barth's frameworkprevented how a tribeformsa big familydescendedfroma
him from"hearing"them' (1990: 249). I now commonfather.I had severalsmallpiecescoun-
counterposemy own text,which followsafter teringthese representations publishedin Farsi;
an analysisof authorityand successionamong and Nomadsof SouthPersiawas eventuallytrans-
chiefs:'In frequentcases,therefore, one chief is latedintoFarsi.Yet thesestereotypes apparently
able to extend his sphere of controland en- lingeron: I have been much lessinfluential than
croach on, or even usurp, tihe authorityof Street'sdistortedaccount of my messageleads
another.[There followsa majorrecenit example him to conclude. More disturbingly, I can re-
of this among Basseri.] ... The effectsof this portthatthesamestereotypes are also embraced
processof encroachmentand usurpation... are by some of our Britishcolleagues, a distin-
further magnified bytheresponseit callsforthin guished one of whom has (thouglhin passing
the nomad populationiat largc. Camps, oulads only) made laudatoryreferenceto my studyof
and sectionsseek out the strongchief and sub- the'nomadictribesmen'(sic)of Swat. Anidnow
mit to him; from him they obtain better I findthat anotherstereotypeis being repro-
protectionand by him theiriniterests are best duced in some, presumablywider, circles,
safeguarded.It was noted earlierthata "tribe" namelythat I have describedthe 'segmentary
among South Persiannomadsis a politicalcon- lineagesystem'of South Persiannomads. Per-
cept: its unityis not ethnic,but dependson its haps the troubleis not so much thatotherand
allegianceto a chief' (Barth 1961: 85). These impressionable people read our studiesanldare
dramaticprocessesare subsequentlydepictedin misled;rather,it is thatwe an-thropologists don't
the formation of the confederacy of whichithe eveni read each other's books with sufficient
Basseriare a branch,whichiprovesto have been acutenessto notice wheCInthey contradictour
createdand led forfourgetnerationis byan urban, own1 stereotypes.There are processesat work
merchantfamilyin thetownof Shiraz! here whichare clearlynot revealedby the cur-
An individualscholarnight be startled,but rent conventionalinsiglhtsof our self-critical
yet findsome comfortthathis insightshave at literature.
leastbeen obliquelyvinidicated, when lhefinds The questioniof wlhateffectsour anthropo-
his discoveriesof thirty yearsago beingre-pre- logicalwritings mayhave on publicopiniOlnand
sentedwiththeoppositeconclusion,to clearthe public policy, particularlyin the regions on
way fortheirnovel discoveryby someone else. whichwe publish,is veryimportantand merits
But in the nextstepof the argumentwe are all, carefulanalysisand judgement.Fabricatedevi-
collectively,takenfora ride. We are told that dence to supportsweepingconiclusionis can only
thisfalselyrepresented 'dominantdiscourse,par- have unfortunate consequenices, anidtheseneed
ticularlyas inscribedbyBarth,was passedoninot to be arrested.Our more initernial debatescoIn-
only to European an-thropologists but also to cerning the ethnographic construction of
local Iranianresearchers.... And in turn,local regionaldifferences in our textualtraditions, and
academics had influencedlocal administrators how theseare perpetuatedand affectthe course
who, [Wright]found,seemed to expecta tribe of inquiry,also constitutean importantbut
to be "a big familydeveloped froma common demandingsubject,whlichlrequiresa degree of
ancestor".... [Wright]also startedfromdifferent scholarshipto depict and anialysetraditionsof
assumptionsregardingthe relationshipof no- knowledge and contentionperceptively.The
madismto tribalidentity(viz. thatmanytribal opposite view seems to prevail,however,that
groups are settledcultivators).... SIclh atn ap- theseare softtopicson whichone can writeand
proach,she found,also appearedto fracture the publish frivolouslywithout careful prior re-
dominantdiscourseon tribes,now partof ad- search. But whatever one's standards,our
ministrative jargon as well as of anthropology. disciplineis poorlyservedby the publicationof
The discourse of western academic anthro- erroneousinformation and falseimputations.
pology had become an everyday term of FREDRI1K BARTH
reference forwhatwas realand notrealamongst University of Oslo & E 0oryUniversity
non-Europeanpeoples in "other" partsof the
world' (Street1990: 250).
I can assureWrightand Streetthat if such
were thecase,theculpableanithropologists must I am gratefulforthe opportunityto respond
have wroughttheirmystifying work before I to Barth'spiece. The framingof his objections
firstarrivedin Iraniin December 1957. Having in terms of grander aspects of the new
178 COMMENT

auto-critiquein anthropologyraisesinteresting cit argumentof the book signifies the 'ecologi-

generalquestionsbeyond our particulardiffer- cal' approachthatBarthwishesto put forward,
ences of interpretationover his Iranian ratherthanthe focuson 'politicalstructure' that
ethnography. For instance,it raisesthe question I read fromtheselexical choices and the 'sub-
of genre:whatkindof wntingcountsand what text' they represent,remains a matter of
authoritydoes each kind have? Like Barth,I interpretation; once the texthas been authored,
shalldeal withone or two of thespecificpoints Barth'sview is onlyone amongstmany.
he makes in the contextof currentconcerns A similarissue arisesover the significance of
with the nature of the process of 'writing 'segmentary lineagetheory'in Barth'saccount.
ethnography'. CertainlyBarth makes a distinctionbetween
My main pointin the articlewhichProfessor levelsof Basseriorganisation, wherebyat lower
Barthcriticises (Street1990) was, in thecontext levels than the camp, 'tents and elementary
of the conferenceand resultingbook on 'Re- families'are the major source of organisation,
gional issuesin ethnographicwriting'(Fardon whilstat higherlevels thisemanatesfrom'the
in
1990), to explorethe ways which particular central chiefof the Basseri'. The notion of
'burningissues' came to be writtenabout in segmentary lineageorganisationi, does not,then,
differentareasof the world. I wished to 'read' providea solutionto the problemof how to
the anthropological literature on Iranand other describe 'the phenomenon of growthi and
Middle Westerncounitries somewhatin theway segmenitation'.Barth suggests a number of
thatI had approachedthe 'ethnographlic novel' processesthatachieve splitting withoutthe ap-
of the nineteenthl centuryin an earlierwork peal to geniealogical traditionisusual in
(Street1975). This involvedreadingthetextsas segmentary systems (p. 64). B3utat thesametimc
representations' and uncoveringhiddencultural thereare pressurestowards'agnaticconsolida-
assumptions, embeddedas much in tropesand tion' (p. 65) and 'towardsthe of
crystallisation
metaphors as in explicittheoreticalformulations.
descentcores in maturccamps' (p.
patrilin1cal
The approachalso involvessome conisideration 62). It is not so muchthatBarthfailecd to 'qucs-
of 'reception'as well as representation, in the
tion his assurnption thatthe tribeis a descenit
sense thatparticulartextsmay have been taken
group',as Wrightassertsin the passagcI quote,
to provide a particularview of a region irre-
since thatis the veryquestionwithwhich hc is
spectiveof itsauthor'sinitentionis.
concerned.But our point was preciselythathe
One of the textsto wlhichI applied these
hisagendain the contextof the debatebet-
concepts was Barth's influentialand seminal set
ween segmentary lineagetheoryand otherways
studyNominads Persia(1961). Like many
of Souithl
of explaininig splitting,segmentation and politi-
authorssubjectedto theprocedure,Barthwishes
cal authority.Wright,researchling a similararea
to re-assertcontrolover 'hiis'text:'In termsof
some yearslaterand afterthe agendahad shifted
my own declared intentionand the under-
standing of most of my readers outside of somewhat in the discipline,looked insteadfor
Britain',he asserts,its theme was not 'to de- discursivestrategies thlroughl whlichlhistoricalal-
scribe the political structure of nomadic liancesand splitswere ratified. My contributioni
as I took it to be in myarticle.The was simplyto note such shiftsin approach,of
pastoralists',
focus,Barthargues,was on 'an ecologicalanaly- the kind with which Fardon'sbook was coin-
sis and, connectedwiththat,certaineconomic, cerned,ratherthanto criticiseBarthhimself.
demographicand organisational processes'.Nor In terms of reception rather than repre-
was his intentionto use 'segmentarylineage sentationthereis not much argument.Wright
theory',whichhiscriticshavc continuedto find and I feltthatBarth'swork had influencedboth
in the text. studentsof the disciplineand local Iraniansto
WhetherBarth'stextis 'about' politicalstruc- see tnbesas 'a big familydescendedfroma com-
turesis probablytoo open an issue to allow mon ancestor'.Bartharguesthatthisstereotype
definitivedebate. Sufficeit to say forthc pur- was presentbeforehe visitedIran: 'I have been
poses of this exchange that references much less influential thanStreet'sdistortedac-
throughout to the 'politicalsystem'(e.g. p. 80), count of imiymessagcleads him to coinclutde'.
the 'systemsof ecology,economy,and politics Nevertheless, frommyown experienceand that
of South Persia'(p. 113), the 'unifying political of Wright,stories emerged that gave Barth
structureof the tribe' (Foreword) anidto the creditforsuch1views,such as theclaimI quoted
'powerof thechief (p. 129) makeitsusceptible fromM. Zharghami,chief of the Basseri,that
to my interpretation. In dealingwith relations Barthhad writtenthe account of 'my family'.
withinand betweencamps,forinstance,Barth Again,thereis a difference betweenauthor'sin-
wntes: 'the strongly bilateralauthontydistribu- tentionand readers'/observers' inference.It was
tion thatcharacterizes the domesticdomainand with the relationbetween intentionand infer-
relationsbetween close relationscan be ex- ence, ratherthanthe formerin isolation,thatI
tendedto the politicalspherewithinthe camnp was concerned,and it seemsto me thatBarth's
withoutcoming into conflictwith an explicit account here reinforces ratherthan refutesmy
patrilinealideology'(p. 41). Whethertheexpli- argument.
 COMMENT 179

A similarprocessis at workin thedetaileddis- pology. The protestationsof ProfessorBarth

cussionof how long Barthspentin South Iran onlyserveto reinforce thepoint.
and fromwhom he receivedmuch of hisinfor- BRIAN V. STREET
mation. I had argued that he received University of Sussex
knowledge fromthe tribalchief,Mohammed
Zharghami,thatperhapscontributed to the 'top
down' picturehe provided.Barthrepliesthatit [A commentrelatingto thisexchangeby Dr Sue
was MohammedZharghami'syoungerbrother, Wright will appear in a forthcomingissue
Hassan Ali Zharghami,who was his contact, (vol.27,3, September1992) - Ed.]
althoughhe did brieflysee Mohammed Zhar-
ghamihimselfat the outset.This does littleto Barth, F. 1959. Politicalleadership amongSwat
challengethe methodologicalargument.Barth Pathans.London: Athlone.
does,however,also pointout thathe did notsee 1961. Nomadsof SouthPersia:theBasseri
verymuchof HassanAli Zharghamieither,due tribeof the Khamsehconfederacy. Oslo &
London: Oslo UniversityPress & George
to politicalconstraints. I am not sure how far
Allen& Unwin.
such empiricalevidencechallengesthetheoreti- 1981. Featuresofpersonand societyin
cal point:namelythat,as Nabi Misdaq saysin a Swat:collected essaysonSwatPathans(Selected
reviewof Barth'sbook on the Swat Pathans,he Essays of FredrikBartlhvol. II). London:
providesa 'khan'seye view'. Routledge& Kegan Paul.
I am not the onlypersonto have pointedout 1985. The last Wali of Swat. Oslo &
a number of these issues: the attentionto Oxford: Oslo UniversityPress & Oxford
segmentarylineage theoryin Barth's account University Press.
(whichreadersin Britainand some Iranianoffi- Fardon,R. (ed.) 1990. Localizing regional
strategies:
cials persistin getting'wrong',as Barthhimself traditions
of etlhnographicwriting.Ediniburgh &
complains); the contributionto the study of Washington:Scottish Academic Press &
Ipoliticalstructures'in nomadicsocietiesin con- Smithsonian InstitutionPress.
trastto his own preferred emphasison ecology Geertz,C. 1973. Theinterpretation ofcultures.New
('I have met beforethiswidespreaddisinclina- York: Basic Books.
B. 1975. Thesavageintheliterature.
Street, London:
tion among Britishcolleaguesto recognisean
Routledge& Kegan Paul.
ecological perspective');and the focus on the 1985. Literacyin theoryand practice.
chief ratherthan 'ordinary'tribesmen(which Cambridge:Univ. Press.
the chief himselfpraisedand a numberof an- 1990. Orientalist discourse in the
thropologists, such as Asad,Misdaq and Wright anthropology of Iran, Afghanistanand
havecritiqued). Pakistan. In LocalizingStrategies:regional
It is not,then,thatI have failedto readBarth's of ethnographic
traditiotns writing (ed.) R.
books 'withsufficient acutenessto noticewhen Fardon.Edinburgh& Washington:Scottish
theycontradict[my]own stereotypes'. Nor do I Academic Press& SmithsonianInstitution
treatrepresentation as a 'softtopic' to be written Press.
on 'frivolously' and with 'fabrication'.Rather, Wright, S. 1985. Identitiesandinfluence: political
the intensityof Barth's response,and his at- organizationi in DoshmanZiari,Iran.Thesis,
temptto locate his complaintwithinthe larger University of Oxford.
contextof debatesabout ethnographic writing,
makeme feelthatthecurrentcriticalturnin the
disciplinehas toucheda nervein thisparticular Would the real Malinowski
writerthatmaybe indicativeof a moregeneral please stand up?
processto whichwe are all subject:it is painful
for authorsif readerskeep insistingon their I once had an Australian Aboriginialstudentwho
own rightto read and to resistthe author's'in- had her own clearinterpretation of Britishan-
tention'.One explanationforwhy readersread thropology'spast. Malinowskiwas a Pole, his
us differently fromthewaywe would likemight countrywas occupiedbyoutsidersso he livedin
be that we provide 'sub-texts',linguisticor- exile and therefore he was a 'good' anthropolo-
gist.Radcliffe-Brown was British,Britainhad a
ganisation,lexicalchoices and cues and agendas
vastcolonial empirewhich had enslavedother
that point in other directions.It is necessary,
peoples,includingher own kind,and therefore
therefore,for both writersand readersto be he was 'bad'. This splendidexhibitionof post-
moresensitive to these featuresof our academic colonial moral rectitude,combined with a
production.Greaterattentionto thatsensitivity, rathersimplisticcomprehensionof European
ratherthan some of the more obscure argu- history,mayappearamusing,but it is no more
mentsof the 'Rice' school, seems to me the laughable than what often passes as under-
major gain fromthe 'literaryturn' in anthro- standingin considerationsof the historyof