Anthropology and Colonialism Author(s): Diane Lewis Reviewed work(s): Source: Current Anthropology, Vol. 14, No. 5 (Dec., 1973), pp. 581-602 Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2741037 . Accessed: 01/08/2012 20:25

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 [email protected].

.

The University of Chicago Press and Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Current Anthropology.

http://www.jstor.org CURRENTANTHROPOLOGY Vol. 14, No. 5, December1973 ) 1973 by The Wenner-GrenFoundation for AnthropologicalResearch

Anthropologyand Colonialism

byDiane Lewis

INTRODUCTION Association(1969) and the publicationof articles whichexplore the social and moral responsibilities ANTHROPOLOGY iS in a stateof crisis.This is demon- ofthe anthropologist (e.g., Diamond 1966; Berreman strated,in the field and in the classroom,by the 1968,1970; Gough 1968;Jorgensen 1971) are recent markedestrangement between anthropologists and attemptsto definethe problem. thenonwhite people theyhave traditionallystudied.' It is significantthat thiscritical self-examination The prospectivefieldworker, for example, may find among anthropologistshas appeared concomitantly that he is banned by the governmentor rejected withthe growing self-awareness of nonwhitepeople. by the intellectualsof the countryhe seeksto enter; The two are not unrelated,and both should be or he may be forcedto pose as an economistor broughtto bearon an attemptto analyzethe current sociologistin order to gain acceptance.Frequently crisis.This paper attemptsto pull togetherinsights he encountersresentment from the group he has gainedfrom the fermentof criticismemerging from chosento study.A willingnessto toleratethe anthro- both sources.Since it examinesanthropology from pologisthas been replacedby outrightdistrust and the viewpointof Third Worldpeople, the emphasis suspicion.Finally, when the fieldworker returns home is necessarilyon those negativelyviewed aspects of to writeand lectureabout "his" people, he is increas- thediscipline which will provide a betterunderstand- inglyconfronted by representatives of thegroup who ing of the currentbehavior and attitudesof many challengethe validity of his findings. nonwhitepeople towardanthropologists. This is not Disillusionmentwith the disciplinefrom outside to deny the positivecontributions of anthropology is paralleledby growingcriticism from within. Most nor to implyeither that anthropologycan be ex- ofthis criticism, appearing increasingly in theUnited plainedonly in theseterms or thatthe situation and Statessince the second half of the 1960s,has focused consciousmotives of all anthropologistsparallel those on the failureof anthropologiststo come to terms describedhere. Similarly,since anthropology,until withand acceptresponsibility for the politicalimpli- recentdecades, has had a unique developmentand cationsof theirwork. The establishmentof a Com- impacton thenon-Western world, it has been singled mitteeon Ethicsby the AmericanAnthropological out from the other social sciences for discussion. Nevertheless,it should be kept in mind that many of thecriticisms stated here apply as wellto theother social sciences.Thus, thispaper focuseson anthro- pology,rather than the social sciencesin general, DIANE LEWIS is Professorof Anthropologyat San Francisco and it purposelyhighlights those factors in thedevel- State College and VisitingProfessor of Anthropologyfor opmentof thediscipline which now alienate anthro- 1972-73 at the Universityof Californiaat Santa Cruz. Born pologistsfrom their subject matter and whichin the in 1931, she was educatedat the Universityof Californiaat Los Angeles(B.A., 1952;M.A., 1954)and at CornellUniversity past unquestionablyaffected their work. (Ph.D., 1962). She has taughtat the Universityof California The paper considersthe traditionalrelationship at Santa Barbara(1961) and at the Universityof California at Riverside(1961-62). She has done fieldworkin Malaysia betweenanthropology and itsnonwhite subject mat- and Indonesiaand in a blackcommunity in theSan Francisco ter.It exploressome of the historicalconditions and Bay area and recentlyspent a sabbaticalleave in traveland assumptionsupon whichthis relationship was based studyin East Africa.Her researchinterests are sociocultural change,urban anthropology, comparative family and kinship and examinestheir effect on theoryand methodin systems,sex roledifferentiation, effect of biason researchand anthropology.Finally, it suggestsan alternativeto teaching,and Afro-Americancultures. Her article"Inas: A the presentapproach as a means of establishinga Studyof Local History"appeared in theJournal of the Malaysian Branchof the Royal Asiatic Society 33. viablesocial science. The presentpaper, submitted in finalform 17 iv 72, was sent for commentto 50 scholars,of whom the following responded:Xavier Alb6, Gerald Berthoud, David Brokensha, EdwardM. Bruner,Richard Frucht, Helmuth Fuchs, Gutorm Gjessin*,Jitka Junkova, Gilbert Kushner, Khalil Nakhleh, Xto *. Okojie,Maxwell Owusu, Roman Raczynski, Hubert Reyn- 'This estrangementhas also been dramaticallyportrayed for olds,Takao Sofue,Milan Stuchlik, Arthur J. Vidich, and Renate the past three years at the annual AmericanAnthropological von Gizycki.Their commentsare printedafter the textand Associationmeetings, in the varioussymposia and panelson the are followedby a replyfrom the author. topic organized by nonwhiteanthropologists. Vol. 14 * No. 5 December1973 581 THE ROLE OF ANTHROPOLOGY IN THE Sinceanthropology emerged along with the expan- WEST sionof Europeand thecolonization of thenon-West- ern world,anthropologists found themselves partici- relation- A long-rangegoal of anthropologywas thediscovery pantsin thecolonial system which organized of generallaws and propositionsabout the nature shipsbetween Westerners and non-Westerners.It is, of mankind.The circumstancesof itsfounding, that perhaps,more than a coincidencethat a method- is, Westernexpansion and thediscovery of the non- ologicalstance, that of the outsider,and a method- ologicalapproach, "objectivity," developed which in Westernworld, meant that these laws and proposi- been influencedby, and in of the retrospectseem to have tions were based on a close study newly turn to have supported,the colonial system.This discovered"primitives." However, an immediateand practicalpurpose of anthropologywas to fillin the pointof view,based on theanalysis of anthropology's role in the West,deserves elaboration, for it throws gaps of Westernman's knowledgeabout himself (Diamond 1964:432; Worsley1964:11; fora parallel considerablelight on the currentdistrust of anthro- people. pointof view,see Jones1970:256). pologistsamong non-Western Given the significanceof anthropologyas a tool in Westernman's search for self-understanding,it THE COLONIAL CONTEXT OF FIELDWORK wasan importantmethodological assumption that the studyof the"primitive" or non-Westernworld could The historicalsetting of anthropology has been vividly takeplace onlyfrom the vantage point of the West- described(Levi-Strauss 1966:126) as erner or outsider. Anthropology,as Levi-Strauss (1966:126) putsit, "is the scienceof cultureas seen ... theoutcome of a historicalprocess which has made fromthe outside." Diamond (1964:433, my emphasis) thelarger part of mankindsubservient tothe other, and describesthe anthropological process as one whereby duringwhich millions of innocent human beings have had "zwesnap the portrait. . . it is onlya representative theirresources plundered and their institutions and beliefs of our civilizationwho can, in adequate detail,docu- destroyed,whilst they themselves were ruthlessly killed, mentthe difference,and helpcreate an idea of the throwninto bondage, and contaminatedby diseases they primitivewhich would not ordinarilybe constructed wereunable to resist. by primitivesthemselves." Thus, if the nativeswere to studythemselves, they were said to produce his- This "era ofviolence" produced a socialsystem which tory or philology,not anthropology(Levi-Strauss had a pervasiveeffect on the relationshipbetween 1966:126).The questionsasked, the problems posed, the anthropologistand the people he studied. and theconstruct of the"primitive" formulated tend- Whetherhe played the role of detached observer ed to reflectinterests external to the groupsstudied. (theoreticalanthropologist) or thatof liaisonbetween This was, in a mannerto be explained below, as thedominant European and subjectnonwhite groups trueof appliedas of "pure"anthropology. (appliedanthropologist), the roles were significantly Sincethe anthropologist worked amid the profound affectedby his membershipin thedominant group. economicand politicalchanges which accompanied The anthropologist,like the other Europeans in the confrontationbetween the Westand the restof a colony,occupied a positionof economic,political, the world, he was often called upon to provide and psychologicalsuperiority vis-a-vis the subject informationand advice to the West in itsefforts to people. From thispoint of view it would seem that manipulateand controlthe non-Westernworld. He the conditionsresponsible for the relationshipof providedthe information either directly or indirectly inequalitybetween Westerner and non-Westerner and became, thereby,implicated in the process of werealso thosewhich created a need forthe anthro- colonization.When the anthropologistthought of pologistand assuredthat the indigenous people would himselfat all as an actor in this confrontation, be accessibleto himfor study. (See Foster1969:1 84- however,it was generallyas a detached scientific 203 fora discussionof the developmentof anthro- observer,objectively recording "primitive" lifeways pology in Britishcolonial administrationand in beforethey disappeared or becameWesternized, or Americanadministration of "dependent"people.) else as a bufferbetween two worlds, serving to soften Economicand legaladvantages accorded other Euro- the blow of Westernpolitical domination and eco- peans in theform of betterjobs, higher wages, lower nomicexploitation. He rarelyquestioned or studied taxes,and accessto cheaperlabor were also enjoyed the processof confrontationitself or consideredthe by theanthropologist, who, ideally, obtained a large waythis milieu affected his "laboratoryconditions." researchgrant (tax-free), paid informantsa pittance, This oversightis apparentin the numerousstudies if anything,and landed a prestigiousjob when he of culturecontact and cultureconflict which ignored returnedhome. All too often,little attention was paid the effectsof colonizationon the culturesstudied to the factthat the benefitsgained were based on and on the conditionsunder whichfieldwork was exploitationof the natives.(See Memmi 1967:7-8 conducted.(See Worsley1964 for a rare studyby for a brilliantanalysis of the inverserelationship a Westernsocial scientistwhich does considerthe betweenEuropean privileges and colonizeddepriva- effectsof colonialism;see also Magubane 1971 for tion.)The psychologicalsuperiority of theanthropol- a recentcriticism by a Third Worldanthropologist ogistwas derivedfrom the factthat he consistently of anthropologicalstudies of change whichignore receivedpreferential treatment, not only from other colonialism.) Europeansin positionsof politicalpower, but also

582 C U R R E N T A N T H R O P O L OG Y fromthe subjectpeoples themselves.For the most Lewis: ANTHROPOLOGY AND COLONIALISM part,this special treatment was accorded, not because of superioraccomplishments or contributionsvalued she asks, ". . . are we such timeserversthat we change by the nativepeople, but simplybecause the anthro- viewswhen power changeshands?" She prefersto pologistwas a memberof thegroup in power. thinknot. In this context,it mightseem that the anthro- In contrast,Maquet (1964) postulatesthat in their pologist'sfacility in engagingin fieldwork,like that theoreticalorientations anthropologists working in of theindustrialist in obtainingcheap labor,derived Africaat differentperiods did unconsciously support fromthe subjugation by his own governmentof the the politicaland administrativegoals of theirown people he was studying.Yet thisfact went unchal- countriesvis-a-vis the groupsstudied. He attempts lenged if not unnoticed.Gough (1968:404) notes: to showhow during the colonial era, unilinealevolu- "We tended to accept the imperialistframework as tionismdeveloped an image of the "savage" which given,perhaps partlybecause we were influenced seemed to justifycolonial expansion; and how, be- bythe dominant ideas of our time,and partlybecause tweenWorld War I and WorldWar II (as Mairnotes at the time there was littleanyone could do to above),structural-functionalism focused on thehealth dismantlethe empire." (See also Mair 1965:439.) and holisticintegration of traditionalcultures and Undoubtedlymost anthropologists were appalled by thedisruptive effects of industrialization,at a period the colonialrelationship and consciouslyrejected it. whenWestern rule was beginningto be undermined Thereinlies the paradox; for no matterhow great by educated radical Africanurbanites advocating the anthropologist'saversion to the colonialsystem, change. Through stressingthe moral inferiorityof he was,as a fieldworker,unable to functionoutside the Africanat an earlier period and the dangers of it.2 It was as impossiblefor him as for other of rapid changeat a laterone and emphasizingthe Europeansto remainin a colonywithout participating differencebetween European and Africanthrough- in the powerand privilegesof the dominantgroup out,the anthropologist was providingconceptual and (e.g., Memmi1967:17). theoreticalmodels which were sociallyuseful to the A great manyanthropologists doubtless felt that existingcolonial system. (Diamond [1971:172] makes theirunderstanding of thenative people placed them theadditional point that 19th-century theories about in the positionto bargainon theirbehalf. Yet, as primitiveswere in factprojections of Europeanman's noted,these individualsrarely questioned the basic self-image.) relationshipof privilegeand were,therefore, in the WhileEuropean anthropologists working in Africa somewhatambiguous position of manyliberals in our seem to have been more sensitivethan American own society,who work to reforma situationfrom anthropologiststothis situation, attempts in American whichthey themselves derive definite benefits. Nev- anthropologyto investigatethe interplaybetween ertheless,the structure of interpersonalrelationships theoryand the dominantpolitical-economic ideas of withina socialsystem tends to influencesignificantly a periodare beginningto emerge(e.g., Wolf 1970, theattitudes of the participants. As Memmi(1967:20) Moore 1971; see also Mills 1959 and Myrdal1969 pointsout: "It is not easy to escape mentallyfrom for more generaldiscussions of the social sciences a concretesituation, to refuse its ideology while fromthis viewpoint). continuingto livewith its actual relationships.... The positiontaken here is that the dominant politicalinterests of the timesnot only blinded many anthropologiststo the implicationsof theirposition, ANTHROPOLOGY AND COLONIAL RACISM but also influencedthem, apparently unconsciously, to justifythe prevailingcolonial social system.For Analogousto the process wherebyanthropologists example,Mair (1965:439-40) discussesthe shiftin whodecried colonialism developed theoretical models attitudestoward social change of anthropologists whichsupported it is the tendency for anthropologists workingin Africabefore and afterWorld War II: whoovertly fought racism at thesame time to perpe- trateformulations, attitudes, and behaviorswhich fosteredit. Racismis a to We all made ourselvesthe defendersof Africancustom developedby group justify againstits critics,and against policiesaimed at radical itsprivileged position (see, forexample, Jordan 1968, change.... We used to saythat people should learn from Gossett 1963, Carmichael and Hamilton 1967). the industrialrevolution in Europe and so spare Africa Memmi(1967:71) argues thatthere are threeideo- itsworst horrors. I am notsure what we meantby this. logicalbases of colonial racism: "one, the gulf between This is not how people studysocial change today.... theculture of the colonialistand thecolonized; two, I thinkit is truethat we nowlook differently at the changes the exploitationof thesedifferences for the benefit takingplace in independentAfrica, and this factis not of the colonialist;three, the use of these supposed unconnectedwith the impatienceof Africa'snew leaders differencesas standardsof absolutefact." The an- forever more rapid change. thropologist'sbehavior and conceptualformulations participatein all three. In questioningwhy there has beena changein outlook, First,anthropology has contributedto the gulf betweenWestern and non-Westernculture by pro- 2 He could,of course,have left.According to Memmi,this is vidinginformation which supports the mentalcon- theonly way a Europeancan avoid playingthe role of colonizer in a colony.A few anthropologistshave exercisedthis option, structsdeveloped by those in power.Anthropologists, althoughusually they do so involuntarily. who peer at a culturefrom the outside,record the Vol. 14 * No. 5 December1973 583 differencesbetween that culture and Westernciviliza- devalueapplied work. Thus, eventhe anthropologist tion.The notingof differencesbetween two groups who moves into the applied field finds his work is not in itselfracist, but it invariablyacquires such constrainedby his preoccupationwith the demands a connotationin the contextof colonialism.The of his professionalacademic career. anthropologistwho conductsfieldwork in a colonial Anthropologistsuse subject people in another, settingprovides that documentationof differences more subtle way. The exploitationis perhaps less which functionsto supportcontinued subjugation apparent,but mustbe considered,for it involvesan of thegroup he studies. attitude,described later, which contributesto the Secondly,anthropologists promote the exploitation systemof oppressionperpetrated against non-West- of these differencesfor their own benefit,both ern people. Anthropology,in itsconcern with exotic personaland professional.This is demonstratedmost cultures,has been marginalto Westernculture, and blatantlyin theattitude of mostanthropologists that anthropologists,as a group, have been somewhat theyhave the rightto exploitthe people theystudy alienatedfrom their own culture. Consequently, many for their own professionaladvancement, without anthropologistsgo to the field looking for a kind havinga correspondingsense of commitment to them of utopia, a place where they hope to find those or theirneeds. They rarelyfeel the obligationto thingssorely lacking in the West. In condemning "do something"and, in fact,justify their inactivity civilizationand in lookingfor alternatives to it,they throughrecourse to the canon of scientific"objec- developa highlyromanticized view of non-Western tivity."We shallreturn to a discussionof the implica- people. Braroeand Hicks(1967) have describedthis tionsof "objectivity"in a colonialcontext below. attitudeas part of the "mystique"of anthropology. Romano (1968) and Diamond (1966), among Fieldworkundertaken in thisspirit is more than a others,have dramaticallydescribed how the profes- means of collectingdata; it becomes virtually"an sional interestsof the anthropologistengender an end in itself." Regular visits to the field and insensitivitytothe personal interests of his informants. preoccupationwith the "primitive"enable the an- Galtung(1967:296) findsparallels between the ex- thropologistto cope withhis sense of alienationfrom ploitationby social scientists and thatby political and hisown culture, as wellas to advancehimself profes- economicinterests within a colony.He describesthe sionally. processas scientificcolonialism, "a process whereby Memmihas indicatedthat once differences between thecenter of gravityfor the acquisition of knowledge thedominated and dominantgroups are definedand about the nationis locatedoutside the nationitself." thedifferences exploited for the benefit of thedomi- A major aspectof thisprocess (p. 300) is "the idea nantgroup, they are thencharacterized as "standards of unlimitedright of access to data of any kind,just ofabsolute fact" or as determinative.We findanthro- as the colonialpower feltit had the rightto lay its pologyequally involved in thisthird ideological basis hand on any productof commercialvalue in the of colonialracism. It maybe instructiveto consider territory.. . ." He finds that the parallel extends the anthropologist'sreification of cultureas similar fromthe extractionto the processingof each kind in functionto the racist'sutilization of biological of resource(p. 296): determinismto explain social and historicaldif- ferences. . . .to exportdata about thecountry to one's own home It is commonfor some anthropologists, particularly countryfor processinginto "manufactured"goods, such in the applied field,to attributea group'sbehavior as books and articles. . . is essentiallysimilar to what ina particularsituation to cultural conditioning, often happenswhen raw materialsare exportedat a low price and reimportedas manufacturedgoods at a veryhigh viewedas highlyresistant to change,and to ignore cost. The mostimportant, most creative, most entrepre- extraculturalfactors which may be farmore signifi- neurial,.mostrewarding and mostdifficult phases of the cant. For example,Lewis (1966) treatsthe culture processtake place abroad. of povertyas more deterministicof behaviorand more resistantto changethan the conditionswhich The primacyof theorybuilding and career ad- create poverty.This has supported policy which vancementat the expense of the real problemsof sidestepsthe issue of povertyand focusesrather on thosestudied is bestseen in thegenerally low esteem tryingto changea nebulous"culture of poverty"(see in whichapplied anthropologyis held withinthe Valentine 1968:48-77). Bonfil Batalla (1966) has discipline.It has been pointedout that it is only shownhow the workof George Fosterand Richard "afteran anthropologisthas 'made good' in conven- Adams,among others,has similarlyled to a strong tional research [that] he can enjoy the luxuryof conservativebias in appliedanthropology. applied researchwithout fearing for his reputation" Whenthe anthropologist combines the idealization (Foster1969:132). Significantly,the applied fieldis of primitiveculture with the notion of culturaldeter- a luxurytoo fewfeel they can afford.For example, minism,the result is an attitudethat is bothpaternal- Diamond (1966:5-6) has discussed the anthro- isticand hypocritical.The veryqualities of primitive pologist'scontemporary unwillingness to getinvolved lifewhich the anthropologist romanticizes and wants withdifficult problems in the developmentof non- to see preservedare attributeswhich he findsunac- Western countries such as Africa, and Foster ceptablein his own culture.The personalfreedom (1969:131-39) has outlinedfactors responsible for and self-determinationhe insistsupon for himself thisreluctance such as teachingwhich ignores applied he withholdsfrom the "primitive"on the basis of trainingand standardsfor conferral of statuswhich culturalconditioning and the need for accommo-

584 C U R R E N T A N T H R O P O L OG Y dationof the individualwithin the community.He LCwis: ANTHROPOLOGY AND COLONIALISM writesenthusiastically of the highlyintegrated life of the "primitive,"of the lack of stressexperienced that "scientificobjectivity" is a myth,an arbitrary whenthere is littlefreedom of choiceand fewalter- construct(Roszak 1969). Writers have stressed cultur- nativesfrom which to choose; yet he defends for al factorssuch as the social,political, and economic himselfthe rightto make his own decisionsand his positionof the investigatorand the degreeto which ownchoices. "The determinismso admiredin primi- these influencethe hypothesishe formulates,the tivesociety is abhorredin civilization"(Braroe and approachhe chooses,and thedata he selects.These Hicks 1967:185). factorsfigure even more prominendy for the anthro- Some writershave suggested that behavior charac- pologist,who differs,not onlyin class or ideology, terizedby the anthropologistsas culturallydeter- but also in the broadestand mostinclusive cultural minedmay, in fact,be an adaptationto situational characteristics,from his objects of research.Thus pressuresor a reaction to external politicaland it seemshardly possible for anthropology to provide socioeconomicfactors (e.g., Lewis 1967, Liebow 1967, an impersonalview of social reality(e.g., Maquet Valentine1968). To ignorethe importanceof such 1964:51). adaptiveprocesses makes of culturea straitjacket, Yet "scientificobjectivity" provided a predominant a rationalizationpar excellencefor the status quo. intellectualapproach in anthropology,an approach Anthropologists,then, have developed a conceptu- whichwas congenialto the colonial circumstances alization,culture, which in itsanalytical and theoretical of anthropology'sbeginnings. When the anthro- usagesseems dangerously reflective of theviewpoint pologistassumed the role of "objective"observer, of colonialracism. Both the anthropologistand the his behaviorsignificantly affected the relationship colonizerfind in thecultural uniqueness of a people betweenhimself and his informants:it assuredboth justificationfor perpetuating things as theyare. The his estrangementfrom, and his superordinateposi- importanceof the concept of culture may help explain tionin relationto, those he studied. whyanthropologists accepted so uncriticallythe colo- As Roszak (1969:217-22) has noted, the process nial systemin whichthey operated. of objectivelystudying others involves the treatment of thosestudied as things,as objectstoward which there can be no (scientifically)justified sense of THE ANTHROPOLOGIST AS "OBJECTIVE" involvement.Since objectificationof the other re- OUTSIDER quiresalienation from him, it requiresthe observer to separatehis innerself fromthe outer world of Whilethe anthropologistmay have playedthe part the observed.(See Diamond 1971:167-69 fora dis- of colonizerunwittingly, he has occupied the role cussionof objectificationand alienationin anthro- of outsiderconsciously. It is, in fact,the perspective pology.)This creationof two spheres,an "In-here" of outsiderwhich is thoughtto assure "objectivity," and an "Out-there"(Roszak 1969:220), permitsthe an importantmethodological goal. A basic part of qualitativedistinction between oneself and the other the trainingof anthropologists,along withthe cre- that Maslow(1966:49, quoted in Roszak 1969:219) ation of high culturaltolerance through exposure describesas characteristicof the objectiveobserver: to culturalrelativity, is preparationfor detachment "It meanslooking at somethingthat is not you, not in the field.Anthropologists-in-training are warned human,not personal, something independent of you ofthe negative results which ensue when they identify the perceiver. . . . You the observerare, then,really too closelywith the interestsof those theystudy. alien to it,uncomprehending and withoutsympathy There is a directrelationship between the scientific or identification.. . ." This alienation must occur validityof a studyand the degree of "objectivity" beforeit is possibleto acquire knowledgewithout thoughtto be associatedwith the approach.This is involvement. based on the assumptionthat there is a singlevalid A similarprocess of objectification is also distinctive realityand thatthrough proper training the field- of thecolonial relationship. Memmi (1967:86) writes workerlearns methods of approximatingthis reality. thatthe colonized, "at theend of thisstubborn effort Ideally,two trained fieldworkers exposed to the same to dehumanize him . . . is hardly a human being. cultureshould, other things being equal, emerge with He tends rapidlytoward becoming an object . . . virtuallythe same descriptionof thatculture. One does not have a seriousobligation toward an The anthropologist'sprivileged position, his role animal or an object." For both the colonizerand of outsider,and his insistenceon objectivityserve thedetached observer, objectification through deper- to reinforceone another.The assumptionsfostered sonalizationdevalues the individual;the individual, bythe objective approach coincide with those engen- preoccupiedwith problems the observerrefuses to deredby the colonial relationship. Further, they blind acknowledge,is ignored(e.g., Worsley1964:25-26). theanthropologist, like thecolonizer, to the validity For the colonizer,the colonized"does not existas of otherthan a singleview of reality. an individual."Similarly the anthropologist,in his Manywriters have cast strongdoubts on the possi- concernwith patterns,ethos, structures, is several bilityof "scientificobjectivity" (e.g., Polyani 1959, levelsof abstractionremoved from the raw data of Kuhn 1962, Seeley 1963), particularlyobjectivity in individualmotivation, attitude, and behavior.The thesocial sciences (e.g., Gjessing1968, Bonfil Batalla mostacclaimed and prestigiouswork in thediscipline 1966,Maquet 1964, Mills 1959). It has beensuggested deals withcomplex theoriesand models in which

Vol. 14 * No. 5 * December1973 585 individualsare lostsight of as people. a radicaltransformation in social science assumptions, The act of detached observation,in effectively methodologies,and goals musttake place. Formula- dehumanizingthe observed, reduces him to an inferi- tionof a disciplinerelevant to the timesmight take or position.When the observer refuses to go beyond as a point of departureLevi-Strauss's advice: "An- the fagadeof outwardbehavior and becomea part thropologywill survive in a changingworld by allow- of the innerworkings of the observed'sexistence, ing itselfto perishin orderto be born again under he presumptuouslyassumes that his outsideunder- a newguise." standingof theobserved is somehowmore valid than Anthropology,it can be argued, must redefine the observed'sown involvementwith life (Roszak traditionalroles. It should now include,on an equal 1969:222-23). Thus the anthropologistwho insists footing,those who reflectthe interests of the people on therole of "objective" observer in a colonialsetting amongwhom they work, along with those who repre- greatlycompounds an alreadyexisting relationship sentthe governmentin power;insiders, in addition of inequality.This situationengenders particular to outsiders. resentmentin the nonwhiteintellectual, for simply An importantmethodological assumption will be to be selectedfor study by the "scienceof savages" a multidimensionalview of reality.The notion of stampsone as unalterablydistinct from and inferior a singlevalid, objective knowledge must be replaced to theEuropean (see Maquet 1964:51). withthat of a "perspectivisticknowledge," a knowl- "Objectivity"under thesecircumstances is consid- edge whichis partialand whichviews reality from ered bymany nonwhite people an affront.However, the particularexistential position occupied by the few anthropologistshave writtenabout the infor- observer.This partialview of realityis not nonobjec- mant'sreaction to being treatedas an "object" of tive; it onlybecomes so when it is acceptedas the research.Levi-Strauss, who seemsto understandthe total reality(Maquet 1964:54). The notion of a relationshipbetween the anthropologist'sability to perspectivisticknowledge will enable the anthro- be "objective"and theinevitability of dehumanization pologistto approach any cultureat any time with under colonialism,alludes to the offensivenessof theassurance that the possibilitiesof understanding being"ethnographized." He suggests(1966:125) that are infiniteand closelylinked with his situationand the anthropologistpermit the tables to be turned purpose. If the situationand purpose are made once in a while,that the subjects be allowedto study explicitand the data carefullycollected, the varied theanthropologist so that"each in turnwill get the perspectivesshould be complementary,although dif- upper hand. And since therewill be no permanent feringin focusand problem(Diamond 1964:433). privilege,nobody will have ground to feel inferior (Whileperspectivism would be of obvioustheoretical to anybodyelse." importanceto anthropology,because the anthro- We haveseen that the anthropologist as "objective" pologisthas in the past been alien to the culture outsiderhas treatedthose studied as objectsand in studied,it is also of theoreticaland pragmaticimpor- the processcompletely ignored the relationshipof tance in the social sciences in general. Mills power and privilegein which he and they were [1959:191] recognizedthis when he envisionedas involved.This approach flourishedin a colonial an importantrole of social scientiststhe offeringof systemwhich made such treatmentinevitable, and contrastingdefinitions of realitywhich would serve it contributedto the perpetuationof that system. as alternativesto theestablishment definition.) It seemsincongruous that the discipline should con- Once it is acceptedthat the anthropologist, as out- tinueto acceptuncritically the traditionalapproach sider,attains only one of severalpossible perspec- in a period whenthe conditionswhich gave rise to tiveson the group he studies,it mustbe realized it are so rapidlychanging. For example, anthro- thatthis outside viewpoint is not the onlyvalid one pologistsstill pride themselveson the presentation and often not the most relevantone in a given of an establishedview of reality,along with a curious situation.The outsiderapproaches "objectivity"in estrangementfrom that reality, as signsof the scien- his study of another group more closelythan a tificnature of theirwork. Most anthropologists look memberof the group can; this is because the lack withdisdain on applied work;research and activism ofcommon interests and senseof commitmentwhich stemmingfrom explicit involvement are considered membersof the group share permitshim to turn inappropriatefor the anthropologistin his profes- thosehe studiesinto objects. But whilehe is capable sional role. Yet this attituderuns counter to the ofdetachment as an outsideobserver, he is stillsubject realitiesof anthropology'spast and to the current to the pull of his own group'sinterests and claims intellectualclimate which questions the existenceof ofcommitment. Thus, the anthropologist, as outsider, "disinterested"theory. If conditionsof the colonial is influencedby a differentset of intereststhan those pastgave riseto the methodologicalstance described ofthe people he studies,but he is influencednonethe- above,what does the presentsuggest as a basis for less.He mayremain unconscious of theseinfluences an alternateapproach? as long as he playsthe role of outsideobserver to a strangegroup. It is much more difficultfor him to remainunaware of themwhen he studieshis own THE ANTHROPOLOGIST AS INSIDER group,where the detachment necessary for objectifi- cationmay be virtuallyimpossible to attain. Whetheranthropology continues to exist as a separate The "portraits"of a group produced by the ob- studyor mergeswith other fields (see Mills1959: 134), serveras outsiderand by theobserver as insiderwill

586 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY differ,as theyreflect different interests, and they Lewis: ANTHROPOLOGY AND COLONIALISM willbe relevantin differentcontexts. This awareness underliesthe currentcry, "You have to be one to and irrelevant.Thus, it is easier to reach white understandone." Some viewthis insistence that only studentswith the existingmaterial, for they are an insidercan understandhis own group as a reaction alreadyon the outside and are simplylooking for to scientificcolonialism (e.g., Galtung 1967:299). different understandings from their exterior However,this view is not based solelyon a desire perspective.They are the ones who "get a lot" out to protectoneself and one's group fromintellectual of such a course. exploitationand feelingsof inferiority.It is based Ethnicminorities not onlyreject being studied by equallyon the convictionthat an outsider'sview of outsidersand readingbooks about themselves written one's groupcan be as biased,in itsown way,as that by outsiders,but find it intolerableany longer to ofan insider,and on theassumption that an insider's be taughtabout themselves by outsiders. For example, view can be as valid, and as acceptableas anthro- whileblacks, among themselves,exhibit a varietyof pology,as thatof theoutsider. opinionsand impressions,such differences generally This attitudeis exemplifiedin thiscountry by the fallwithin the perimetersof a commonexperience. insistenceof ethnicminorities that they be included Sincean outsiderlacks the experience, his views more in the educational curriculumfrom their own oftenfall outsidethese perimeters,no matterhow perspective,not solelythat of the outsider.For this sympatheticor well-intentionedthe attempt. Similar- reason,they frequently find the material written about ly,in a numberof educational projects initiated within themby anthropologistsand othersirrelevant. They theblack community, Afro-Americans with advanced are aware that the studieswritten about them by educationaldegrees are barred as teachers,for it anthropologistshave been writtennot forthem, but is believedthat the more exposed theyhave been for othersof the anthropologist'sown profession, to white,middle-class, scientific bias, the more decul- class,or culture. Very often these studies do notreflect turalizedthey have become and thereforethe less realityas the people studiedview it. Rather,they capable theyare of teachingeffectively about their reflectreality from an outsideand differentlycom- traditionaland contemporaryculture from the inside. mittedperspective, one based on the class as well The argumentis not,as some would interpretit, as professionalbiases and interestsof theinvestigator. thatthe inside view is theonly valid one. Forexample, A numberof examplescome to mind.One involves the sociologistRobert Merton has reportedlyques- a person of Native Americanancestry who agreed tionedthe doctrine that "only blacks can understand to teacha coursein anthropologyat a newlyopened blacks,"noting that "there are certaintruths that can NativeAmerican community college. This individual onlybe learned froma stranger"(as quoted in the had great difficultyfinding suitable sources about San FranciscoExaminer, January 6, 1970). He points Native Americans which were meaningfulto them, out thatblack militantswho supportthis doctrine whichdid notoffer a biased,depersonalized outside are ignoringthe perceptiveobservations made by viewof theirown experience.It was equallydifficult Afro-Americanson the workingsof whitesociety. to findrelevant introductory anthropology texts to Obviously,the perspectivesof both outsider and useamong a peoplewho were already painfully aware insiderreveal "certain truths," and in any situation of the basic principleof an introductorycultural the goal or purpose will dictate the appropriate anthropologycourse: the existenceof differentcul- perspective.3Each perspectivehas itsadvantages and turalworlds and of varietyand complexityin cultural disadvantages,both intellectual and practical. artifactssuch as language,kinship, dress, etc. The The obviousdisadvantage of studyinga group to problemmight also in some measurederive from whichyou belong is thatyour participationin the the taskof makinganthropology appealing to those group oftenblinds you to elementsthat are readily whomanthropology has helped (however unwittingly) apparentto theoutsider. The pressuresof everyday to oppress. life,the emotional and behavioraldemands on your Anotherexample is my own difficultyin finding energies,may make it impossibleto quicklyperceive materialsuitable for a course in Afro-Americancul- alternativesor to adjudge thebest long-term solution ture.Black students reject much of the work by whites to a problem.An outsidercan perceivethings that as notcapturing the "black experience," the personal are so deeplyingrained they escape the insider;he elementof the culture.They charge that manyof can stand back and delineate alternativessimply the books written,even by other Afro-Americans, because he is not involved.The veryinvolvement are orientedtoward explaining, in relativelyabstract ofthe insider, however, which in some instances blinds terms,the Negro conditionto the outsiderin terms him, in other instancesmakes it possiblefor him of theoutsider's interests. These booksrarely capture theexperience of the insider;they do not startwith 5An importantconsideration in the classroom,for example, an assumptionof the common bond of the committed, is the typeof studentenrolled; if the studentsare white,you and thenadd to and buildupon that.The fewworks mightattempt to explain,and createempathy for, black life and culture;if the enrollment isblack, you would need to probefurther black studentsdo feel add to theirunderstanding intoan experiencealready internalized which now needs external- are usuallybooks that many white studentsfind izationand clearerdefinition. The differenceis not unlikethat confusingor vaguelyintimidating. The booksconsid- betweena freshmanand seniorclass for anthropologymajors. If theclass is mixed,and moresophisticated, you mightgrapple ered informativeand usefulby whitestudents are withtechniques of cross-culturalcommunication between insider generallythose which black studentsfind obvious and outsider.

Vol. 14 * No. 5 December1973 587 to graspthe inner workings of the groupto a degree of objectivity,is stillconsidered by manyto be the thatis impossiblefor the outsider.More important, most acceptableapproach. Yet European ethnog- theoutsider's lack of involvementmay pose a grave raphers, in their criticalappraisal of American threatto the group.This pointwas raisedabove in anthropology,challenge the assumption that the an- the discussionof scientificcolonialism, but it must thropologistcan studyonly other societies(Hofer be reiteratedbecause a gooddeal ofthe contemporary 1968:312).Their workdemonstrates the possibilities distrustof anthropologists can be understoodin these ofutilizing the theoretical and methodologicalprinci- terms.There is a growingfear that the information ples of anthropologyin an analysisof one's own collectedby an outsider,someone not constrained people. by groupvalues and interests,will expose the group Differencesin styleand emphasisbetween Europe- to outsidemanipulation and control.Thus, anthro- an insidersand Americanoutsiders, both of whom pologistsand otheroutside researchers are considered have studiedEuropean peasant and postpeasantvil- akin to intelligenceagents, even thoughthey play lages, have been likenedto the differencebetween thatrole unwittingly. The insider,on theother hand, humanistand naturalscientist (Hofer 1968:314).For is accountable;he must remainin the community theoutsider, "objectivity," theory and theformulation and take responsibilityfor his actions.Thus, he is of laws, is the primarygoal; for the insider,the forcedthrough self-interest to exercisediscretion. discovery,definition, and celebrationof cultural The same involvementand accountabilitymake it uniquenessis uppermost.The differentperspectives difficultfor the insider to ignoreproblems perceived of nativeethnographer and outsideranthropologist by the communityas crucial.His worktends to be have resultedin strikinglydifferent portraits of the more pragmaticallyproblem-oriented. Involvement European peasant. Americanstudies have painted spursone to action,to the utilizationof one's skills a depressingpicture of societal breakdownand for change. The outsider,who does not feel the underdevelopment,while ethnographershave fo- pressurestoward realization of thegroup's goals, can cused on the dynamiccomplexity and richnessof justify-onthe basis of the right to know,the priority indigenouscultural forms and processes.Obviously of pure science,or culturalrelativism-his interest nativeethnographer and Americananthropologist in exoticaand in the refinementof theoryand his have explored and highlighteddifferent facets of disdainfor the solving of immediate human problems. European peasantlife, and thesedifferences reflect the unique biases and expectationswhich each has broughtto the study.The ethnographersdeplore THE EUROPEAN NATIVE ETHNOGRAPHER: what they consider the single-mindedfocus, the A PARTIAL MODEL emphasison backwardness,of the Americanstudies (Hofer 1968:315). They resent the fact that the Americananthropology, especially under the influ- outsider,"peoples and culturesare onlylimited cases ence of Boas, has not ignored the importanceof and argumentsin his search for laws" (Hofer the insider'sview of a culture(see Rohner1969 and 1968:314).Their attitudeis not unlikethat of Third workssuch as Radin 1920 and Lurie 1961). Insider World peoples, whichhas resultedin distrustand anthropologyhas been peripheralto outsider anthro- thebarring of anthropologistsfrom new nations and pology,however, and has focusedon trainingnon- fromminority communities in the UnitedStates. Westernersto studytheir own cultures(e.g., Koent- Europeanethnography began withthe emergence jaraningrat1964, Uchendu 1965). It hasrarely turned in the 19thcentury of new nationalcultures. It was the Americananthropologist inward within his own a responseto the need fora new identityand new culture.I feel,along witha numberof otherThird consciousnessand, as such,was an integral"part of Worldanthropologists, that the timehas come for the revitalizationmovement" (Hofer 1968:312). the studyof culturefrom the inside,by the insider, IndependentThird World nationsand ethnicmi- as a dominantapproach in thediscipline. noritiesin theUnited States now face similar circum- Thereis, for both Third World and Euro-American stances.Like the European nationsof an earlier anthropologists,something to be learnedin thiseffort period,they are strugglingto asserta new concept fromthe European native ethnographer. It has been of selfand of nationalor ethnicculture. suggestedthat Americanfieldworkers, unlike their Once a peopleperceives the possibility of liberation, Europeancounterparts, have commonlyfocused on in referenceto a formerexperience of subjugation, simplerpeoples and have paid onlypassing attention it is imperativethat the rightto observeand define to complexsocieties (Hultkrantz 1968:293, 295). It their culture be theirsalone. Understoodin the is onlyrelatively recently, with the growingfear that contextof theanthropologist's role as colonizer,this the disciplinewill disappear withthe extinctionof right,as Levi-Strauss(1966:125) notes,is of primary simplersocieties, that American anthropologists have symbolicimportance. Memmi (1969:181) summarizes turnedto the studyof complexsocieties. (For two cogentlythe significanceof self-definitionand self- recentsurveys of these studies,see Hsu 1969 and study:"For theoppressed to be finallyfree, he must Kushner1970.) Few,however, have assumed the role go beyondrevolt, by anotherpath, he mustbegin ofinside observer of their own cultures. (Some recent in otherways, conceive of himselfand reconstruct notable examples are Clark and Anderson 1967, himselfindependently of the master." Schneider1968, Oswalt1970.) The studyof culture Yet, as we have seen, insideranthropology, for fromthe outside, a positionthought to assure a degree many Third World anthropologists,can never be

588 C U R R E N T A N T H R O P O L O G Y purelycelebrative or purelytheoretical, for "there Lewis: ANTHROPOLOGY AND COLONIALISM is a feelingof urgencyin connectionwith national problems,a feelingthat scarce resources for research and involveddiscipline, one that produces social shouldbe allocatedto studiesthat could fostersocio- scientistscommitted to radical change (see Moore economicdevelopment" (Galtung 1967:309). Thus, 1971,who uses the term"partisan" anthropology). the cry for an anthropologyrelevant to the needs A distinctionshould be made betweenactivist and and interestsof Third World people is for a disci- conventionalapplied anthropology. For Third World plinethat will lead notonly to self-discovery,but also anthropologists,the traditional division between pure to the pragmaticsolution of pressinghuman prob- and applied anthropologyis overshadowedby the lems. factthat many applied anthropologists were and are This is not to deny the validityof the outsider's amongthose most obviously involved in the perpetu- perspectiveor itsimportance to the developmentof ationof colonialand neocolonialsystems. (See Foster theoryand models for change. The issue here is 1969:177, 194-96,for a descriptionof theattack on thatthe formerly colonized will now exercise the right Nadel in the 1940s and the growingdisillusionment to studytheir own culture,as well as to establish of Britishanthropologists with applied anthropology the termsunder whichoutsiders will be permitted forthis reason.) This involvement,more than any- to do so.4 thing else, probablyaccounts for what has been termedapplied anthropology'sgreat failure,"the inabilityto producea soundtheory of socialchange" ACTIVIST ANTHROPOLOGY (Cochrane1971: 111). There seemsto be an unalter- able contraditionbetween an anthropologyrooted While there is no assurance that a Third World in academiaand an appliedanthropology committed anthropologistworking with his own people will be to developmentand change(Cochrane 1971). nonexploitativeor have a deeper sense of commit- From this viewpoint,insider anthropologyem- mentto hisown group than an outsider,there would ployedby the developing nations to furtherindepen- probablybe a markedtendency in that direction. dentlydefined goals is in keepingwith the historical This is true both because of the greaterpressures role of anthropologyin the West. There seems to for accountabilitythat can be broughtby a group be littlepragmatic difference between the trained on one of its own and because of the nonwhite Third Worldinvestigator, whose studiesof his own anthropologist'sown self-identificationas a member cultureare chosen to furtherthe interestsof his of an oppressed group. Given these factors,the people forgreater self-awareness as wellas thesolu- developmentof an insiderperspective should lead tionof immediate practical problems, and theWestern to a differentordering of prioritiesin anthropology. anthropologist,whose preoccupationwith abstract Thus, a shiftfrom an emphasison theory,at the theoriesin the pastwas a responseto Westernman's expenseof development,to a focuson theorydevel- search for self-understandingand the pursuitof opingout of the solution of practicalproblems seems empirebuilding. In the one instance,the goals and inevitable.Similarly, a radicalchange in the way in interestswill be explicit.In theother, they generally whichproblems are selectedand formulatedshould werenot. occurso thatthe people themselves assume an impor- tantrole in determiningproblems to be studiedin termsof theirown interestsas theyperceive them. INSIDER ANTHROPOLOGY FOR THIRD (See Caulfield1972:7-8 and Stavenhagen1971:337- WORLD AND WESTERN ANTHROPOLOGISTS 39 for suggestionsabout specifictypes of roles an- thropologistscan play in such situations.)Group Justas theexistential situation of white and nonwhite involvementin problemformulation helps assure that anthropologistsdiffers, so initiallywill the implica- theanthropologist will stand in an equalitarianrather tionsof insideranthropology for theirwork. It is thana privilegedrelationship to thepeople he studies. possibleto offerjust a fewsuggestions here. (See Jones1971 a: 348-49for a ThirdWorld viewpoint Euro-Americananthropologists who turn their on the elitismwhich is characteristicof manyliberal methodsand insightsto an analysisof their own and radicalapplied anthropologists at present.) These societymay find much-neededanswers to some of considerationsbring us to a crucialpoint. If anthro- the ethicaland methodologicalquestions currently pologyis to meet the real needs and interestsof discussedin the discipline.The anthropologistwho the people studied ratherthan the personal and is forcedto studyhis own culturewill find it more professionalinterests of thediscipline and its practi- difficultto objectifyand dehumanizehis own people. tioners,it muston some levelbe an explicitlyactivist It is not as easy in the contextof one's own society to maintainthat a "professional"is exempt from 4 Some of the newlyindependent Africancountries have clearly valuesand has no responsibilityfor the solutionof defined these conditions. For example, research proposals must pressingproblems. It would take a highlyunre- be submitted to the host government for approval; approval is contingenton the prioritygiven problems dealing with develop- sponsiveresearcher to continue to focus on long-range ment; once accepted, the investigatoris usually bound to fulfill theoreticalproblems when he is forcedto consider, certain professionalcommitments to the host country'sacademic as bothsocial scientist and citizen,that his own world community; etc. Similar conditions will probably be established for American anthropologistsworking in ethnic enclaves in their seemsto be fallingapart around him.He could no own country. longerjustify a lack of commitmentwhile deriving

Vol. 14 * No. 5 December1973 589 professionalbenefits from his research among people shouldalso facilitateacceptance of perspectivismas who are in a positionto make enforceabledemands a criticalmethodological assumption and of activism on hissense of responsibilityto them. The experience as a valid social scientificgoal throughoffering a of workingwithin one's own culturemight render legitimationof contrastingviews of realityand ends obsoletethe problemof whetherthe anthropologist of research.It should lead to an understandingof has the rightto imposehis valueson someoneelse. the limitsand dangers,as well as the possibilities, Instead, the crucial question might.wellbe "How of "objectivity,"and it shouldsharpen awareness of can anthropologybe used for explicitlyhumanistic personaland groupinterests and theirinfluence on ratherthan implicitly oppressive ends?" theoryand action. Finally,a disciplinedeveloping Anthropologistswho studytheir own societieswill out of suchvaried interests should help create condi- also add immeasurablyto theirtheoretical under- tionsfor a thoroughgoingand realisticunderstanding standingof mankind.It has been suggestedthat lack of processesof culturechange. of fieldworkin the anthropologist'sown societyis a measure of the anthropologist's"disassociation" fromhis own cultureand has probablyled to distor- tionin his abilitiesto graspanother culture (Braroe CONCLUSION and Hicks1967:186). The Americananthropologist's researchinto his own culturewould, ideally, correct Colonialismstructured the relationshipbetween an- the situationreferred to by Hofer (1968:312): "It thropologistsand non-Westernpeoples in the past. is almostsymbolic that in the SmithsonianInstitute, Fieldworkersconducted their studies as a formof collectionsfrom all human culturesare housed in privilege,one of manythey exercised through mem- the Museumof NaturalHistory with the exception bership in the dominantgroup. Their work was of the cultureof the 'WhiteMan in America'which pursued in the interestof the colonizersin terms is displayedin the Museumof Historyand Technol- of the conceptsand theoriesthey developed as well ogy." We do not know to whatextent the anthro- as the rolesthey played. pologist'slack of understandingof, and involvement The traditionalanthropologist's syndrome, defined in, his own culturehas affectedthe developmentof by the roles of colonizer,outsider, and "objective" theoryand methodin thediscipline, but it mayturn observer,was adaptiveto an era now fading.The out that thissocial ignorancehas seriouslyskewed era of Westerncolonization and whitesupremacy perspectiveon othercultures. is currentlybeing challengedby revolutionarywars For Third World anthropologists,it is obviously of liberationand revolutionarymodes of thinking. crucial,as noted above, to redefinethe traditional The peoplesof Asia,Africa, and LatinAmerica and view of themselvespresented to themby Western theethnic minorities in NorthAmerica are currently scholars.This is necessaryin order to identifythe questioningthe integrityof theanthropologist, forc- internalstrengths and positivefactors, as wellas the ing him to look criticallyat himselfand reconsider weaknesses(see Murray1971, Barbour 1970), so that someof his assumptions. The questionsmay be posed: the resourcesneeded for far-reachingchange can Is anthropologya trulyuniversal discipline? Can it be effectivelymobilized. Secondly, since much of the be utilizedfor explicit self-study and self-knowledge "objectivity"and antihumanismof the past stemmed by all peoples? Is it able to meet the challengeof fromthe Westernanthropologist's unwillingness or oppressedpeople who seek solutionsto theirprob- inabilityto considerthe allocation of powerand how lems?Or is it usefulonly in providinginformation this affectedthe lives of the people studied,it is about powerlesspeoples to those in power?Is it to essentialthat Third World anthropologistshave a remainan adjunctto Westernexploitation and ma- clearunderstanding of the relationship between their nipulationof Third Worldpeoples? ownpeople and thosewith power who impinge upon If anthropologyis to adapt to the realitiesof the them. It is not only unrealisticfor Third World modernworld, it willbe necessaryto approach the anthropologiststo treattheir own groupsin isolation studyof all menthrough a multiplicityofperspectives as did Westernanthropologists in the past,but also as these are influencedby differentinterests and exceedinglydangerous. Obviously, as noted above, needs.The viewsof bothinsider and outsidermust thesame anthropologistcan functionas bothinsider be acceptedas legitimateattempts to understandthe and outsiderin differentsituations and in termsof natureof culture. differentproblems, or Third Worldand otheran- A view of man broadened by a perspectivistic thropologistscan collaborateon insiderunderstand- knowledgemust be definedby commitment to change ingof interlockingsocial systems, where this is feasi- and the solutionof practicalproblems. As such it ble.5 wouldexpose those anthropologists who use objectiv- Developmentof a methodologywhereby insiders ityand culturalrelativism as a shieldfor self-interest studytheir own culture,whether Euro-American or and moralparalysis, and inhibitthose who focuson ThirdWorld, should help bring about the "decoloni- theoryat theexpense of people and theirreal prob- zation"of the social sciencesnow being urged by lems. The newlydeveloped "primitives," who were radicalsocial scientists(e.g., Stavenhagen1971). It formerlyfair game, are advisingthe anthropologist that he now has an obligationto themas well as tohis discipline, and thatthe former must take priority. 'I am indebted to Charles Valentine (personal communication, Soon, thiswill be the only conditionunder which 1971) fnr hrinoinc this nnAinttn mv attpntionn fieldworkwill be permitted.

590 C U R R E N T A N T H RO PO LOG Y The positiontaken here is that anthropology, Lewis: ANTHROPOLOGY AND COLONIALISM because of its unfortunatecolonialist history, has a seriousresponsibility to its formersubjects. Its core exploitationof subjectmatter can be viewedas an of knowledgeand insight,built out of exploitation academicmanifestation of colonialism.Some of the ofnonwhite and non-Westernpeoples, can no longer biasesinherent in thisrole are examined. remainthe sole preserveof theWest. Anthropology, Withthe liberation of formerlycolonized peoples, along with other social sciences,must develop a the traditionalrole of the anthropologisthas been rationalewhich operates, in theoryand in fact,in undermined.This has resultedin an impassebetween the interestsof all peoples. anthropologistsand manyof the people they formerly studied.The postcolonialera clearlycalls for new rolesfor anthropologists and a more relevantset of Abstract methodologiesand concepts.In the search for al- Anthropologyemerged from the colonial expansion ternatives,consideration isgiven to the "native ethnog- of Europe. Colonialismstructured the relationship raphy"of Europe and the insightsspringing from betweenanthropologists and thepeople theystudied currenteducational innovations among Third World and had an effecton methodologicaland conceptual people in the United States. In this context,the formulationsin thediscipline. For example,the role advantagesof a "nativeanthropology" are examined of "objectiveoutsider" with its resultant professional as one possiblealternative.

Comments by huge field projects such as those heritage.They willrather try to imitate in Chiapas or Vicos.) Not long ago, the ways of the dominant groups. I suggested to a representativeof a Under these conditions,inside anthro- byXAVIER ALBO strong American foundation that pology has to be somehow stimulated La Paz, Bolivia. 10 v 73 translatingforeign research into the fromoutside. But even then,the start- Besides the factorsalready mentioned language of the countrystudied would ing point mustbe related to the actual by Lewis, another possible reason for be a good and nonimperialisticservice expectations and needs of the ethnic the lack of awareness of colonialism to that country.Apparently this is not group. among many anthropologists comes feasible, perhaps because underneath For all these reasons I endorse the from their methodological insistence the scientificcolonialism there is an suggestion of a perspectivisticinside on smallcommunities as self-contained economic colonialism which is still approach to anthropology.The posi- entities.In recent years many authors harder to break. The result is one- tivisticclaim of complete outside ob- have broadened their perspective,but sided research which is not acknowl- jectiveness has been challenged, with thisnarrowness is stillcommon. By the edged as such and which cannot be good reason, in all the social sciences same token,many fail to see that what challenged fromthe inside perspective (see, forinstance, Carr 1961). We must theycall "cultures" are in fact merely because it is simplyunavailable. Since give credit to the former objective deculturizedsubcultures oppressed by the main goal of many outsiders is approach for the refinement it has and hence dependent upon other, "theorybuilding and career advance-. pushed in the sciences which claim to usually Western,groups and cultures ment," few anthropologistsare really interpretsociety. This is a goal and (see Ribeiro 1970). Conversely, this bothered by the lack of confrontation a methodwhich must not be forgotten. insistence on the small community withlocal people and their real prob- Yet, if we cannot be 100% objective, might be an indirect concession to lems. being aware of our concretecondition- colonial or neocolonial rule: in this At least in Latin America, local re- ings we become more objective; un- microperspective,it is not necessaryto searchers are often tied to the same aware of them, we are blind victims come to grips withthe riskyyet crucial sort of research colonialism. Many of of our own subjectivism. Lewis sug- topic of colonialism. our ethnicgroups are eitherminorities gests also the need for an activistan- I must also stress with Lewis that or oppressed majoritieswithin a given thropology "committed to radical the primary commitmentof anthro- state. Most of them stilllack conscious change." I agree. But this implies that pologiststo their"academic communi- inside-elitessuch as those emerging the researcher has a given ideology ty"is a potentialsource of colonialism among the Euro-American ethnic which must be made explicit. If he is if not of bias. From the viewpoint of minoritiesor in the new Africanstates. committedto change, he has to explain the people studied, this means that These groups are thereforestudied by what his conception of change looks "those foreignerscome to study us as outsiders,including local people who like and why. Then anthropological ifwe were insects,but theydo not really belong to dominant groups and tend theorybecomes praxis. Given the social care about us." That is, the ethnologist to have the perspectiveof such groups. condition of most groups studied by may look like an entomologist.In the These local researchers may be very anthropologists,the mostcreative acti- eyes of these people-or the more sensitive to colonial aggression from vistanthropology will probably emerge aware among them-the complaint of foreignscientists and at the same time when the perspective is that which some anthropologists against ethno- may have, probablyunconsciously, the Wachtel (1971; cf. Leon-Portilla 1959) cide may look like fear of not having perspectiveof the internalcolonialist. calls "la vision des vaincus." any more odd insects to study,rather In a situation like this, a real inside than real concern. From the viewpoint anthropology is more difficult.The byGERALD BERTHOUD of the local researcher,this means that lower the prestige of a given culture Montreal,Canada. 10 v 73 most research is not locally available (or subculture) within the state- One of the qualities of Lewis's paper or even translatedinto the main local country,the more difficultit is to find is to be provocative. Any anthro- languages. (Think of the data gathered individuals willingto study their own pologist,whatevei his theoreticaland Vol.14 No. 5 December1973 591 ideological-politicalpositions, must be oppositioncannot account for the eth- e.g., Beattie(1971:chaps. 4 and 10), concerned.Given limited space, I will nic complexityof this continent. Crowder and Ikime (1970), and simplyinsist on whatI regardas an Moreover,insider anthropologists, like Turner(1971). Furtherreferences on importantshortcoming of thispaper. outsiders,are membersof societies anthropologistsand applied anthro- Lewisis rightin diagnosinga state whichare moreand morediversified pologymay be found in Brokensha of crisisin anthropology.Most often, and thus marked by increasingin- (1966), Firth(1947), and Mair(1960). however,she does notgo beyondthis; equality.What may be moreimportant Anthropologistsdid not turn away the essentialunderlying causes are than a simplistic"insider-outsider" fromthe factsof colonialism:indeed neglected,if not ignored. Thus, meth- dichotomyare the political, ideological, it is ironicthat such frank and critical odologyand theoryare predominandy and socialpositions of anthropologists. studiesof administrationwould not be viewedby Lewisas a passiveresult of Advocating that anthropologists tolerated in many contemporary economicand politicalconditions. I work"in the interestsof all peoples" independentnations that succeeded would,rather, postulate that a critical by refusingto exploitnonwhite and thecolonial territories. anthropologymust be basedon a theo- non-Westernpeoples is an idealistic Manywell-known monographs con- reticalradicalism. viewwhich does notcorrespond to the tainonly passing references to colonial Lewis'spaper is a good productof actualcollusion between the dominant rule.This is not surprisingwhen one a developingmovement in theUnited classes of peripheralcountries and considersthat anthropologists concen- States,among anthropologists keenly highlydeveloped capitalist centers at trated-forreasons that at the time conscious of their social responsi- theexpense of thelaborers and peas- seemed compelling,and stillappear bilities,which could be termeda hu- ants of Africa,Latin America,and validto me-on the moreremote re- manisticor ethical approach. However, elsewhere.How are we to understand gions,where colonial rule was general- humanism,to be of someimpact, must thiskind of internalcolonialism? Why lyintermittent and weak.Whether the be linkedwith theory within a dialecti- shouldan "insider"elite be so disdain- studies were made for romantic cal whole. By raisingsuch relevant fulof thedominated so-called pagan, escapism or salvage anthropology, questionsas the so-calledobjectivity ruralpeople? moststudies of kinship,witchcraft, or and neutralityof observersas out- Ethicsand humanismare no more village agriculturedid not need to siders,Lewis expresses some of the main thanvalue judgmentsunless they are stresscolonialism. I know from my own problemsin theproduction of anthro- articulatedwith a sound theoretical experiencein East,Central, and West pologicalknowledge, but does not ex- domainwhose objective is preciselyto Africathat some areas wererelatively plainthem. warnresearchers, insider or outsider, littleaffected by colonialrule, while For instance,the Piagetianopposi- of theinsidious attraction of ideology, others sufferedtraumatic changes. tion between"objectivity" and "real- whichgives a distortedknowledge of Colonialismwas not a uniformand ism" seems to me more useful than anypresent social situation (i.e., impe- monolithicprocess. theview that "objectivity" tends to turn rialism, neocolonialism,"underde- 2. "Peoplehave a rightto statethe people intoobjects (Piaget, quoted in velopment,"poverty, etc.). termson whichthey will be studied." Battro1966:122, translation mine):' (I shall ignoreLewis's more extreme in so wellthe suggestionthat "the rightto observe Objectivityconsists knowing byDAVID BROKENSHA thousandintrusions which derive from it- and define their culture be theirs illusionsof the senses,language, points of Santa Barbara, Calif., U.S.A. 10 v 73 alone."). The problemhere is who is view,values, etc.-that, to be allowed to Lewis weakensher case by attacking to determinethese terms,especially judge, one startsto get free from the toomany targets: she deals with several when Lewis explicitlyadvocates ac- obstaclesof oneself.Realism, on the con- importantdilemmas in contemporary tivism.What happens when there are trary,consists in ignoringthe existence of anthropology,but obscuresthe real competingfactions, or whena change oneselfand, consequently,in takingone's dangersby her scatterguntactics. I of governmentseems the only hope own view for immediatelyobjective and some themes for for To whomdoes the an- absolute. single out major change? comment. thropologistturn for directions? The "objectivity"described by Lewis 1. Is it true that "[the anthro- 3. Lewisrighdy stresses the need for resultsprecisely from an illusorycerti- pologist]rarely questioned or studied insider-outsidercooperation. For tude and serves,consciously or not, theprocess of confrontation"?Despite manyyears I have workedclosely in as a "scientific"justification of the the widelyheld belief that anthro- thefield with African high-school and politicaland ideologicalstatus quo. pologistsignored colonialism, specific universitystudents, as well as with A lackof epistemological knowledge examples introducesome questions. Africanscholars: for example,I re- leads Lewisto variousidealistic state- Fortesand Evans-Pritchard(1940:15) centlyedited a bookwith contributions ments.There is a certainnaivety in say: "[These societies]would not ac- fromnine Ghanaian and nineexpatri- believingthat the simple change from quiesce in [European rule] if the ate scholars(Brokensha 1972). Coop- outsiderto insiderwill make all the threatof forcewere withdrawn." And erationcan concentrateon peaceful difference.How, forexample, are we nearlyall the contributorsto their scholarlytasks, although a man of to discriminaterigorously between book,in analysingtraditional African consciencewill in additionfind himself "inside"and "outside"in an African politicalsystems, deal explicitlywith involvedin coundess"real-life" situa- context? The mere black-white effectsof colonial rule (pp. 46-53, tionswith his hosts-and thosesitua- 65-68, 112-20, 162, 180-81, 240). tionscan, and should,continue long Busia(1951), Fallers (1956), Gluckman afterthe fieldwork is over. "'L'objectiviteconsiste 'a si bienconnaftre (1958), Richards(1960), and Wilson 4. Colonialismdid notabruptly stop les milleintrusions qui en d&ivent-illu- sionsdes sens,du langage,des pointsde (1936) haveall examined,in consider- at national independence.Colonial vue, des valeurs,etc.-que pour se per- abledetail and in forthrightterms, the attitudesunfortunately often persist in mettrede juger, l'on commencepar se effectsof colonialrule on chieftaincy. Third World leaders and students, degagerdes entravesdu moi.Le realisme, While these books were published manyof whomdisplay a depressing au contraire,consiste a ignorer1'existence du moi,et, des lors, aprendre la perspective during the colonial period, other elitism;insiders are not necessarily proprepour immediatementobjective, et importantbooks dealing with the same moreconcerned about the welfareof topichave appearedin recentyears& the people than are outsiders.Surely

592 C U R R E N T A N T H R O P O L OG Y we mustrecognize, in thesesorts of Lewis: ANTHROPOLOGY AND COLONIALISM discussions, that, where anthro- pologistsare rejected,it is not sim- pologistson termsacceptable to both insidersor outsiders.(This bringsup plybecause, of hostilityand suspicion parties.Although all of us are less an issue Lewisbarely mentions: class arising from their colonial role. optimisticand more beset by doubts constraints.Comprador intellectuals of Manynations exclude anthropologists thanwe werea decade ago, I believe theThird World are hardlyless likely throughfear of accurate social analyses withKoentjaraningrat (1964:295) that to be racism-freeor anticolonial,espe- of the newsorts of discriminationand "despite its original Euro-American ciallywith regard to internalcolonial- the wideninggulf between ruler and bias, . . . anthropology [is] the most ism,than outsiders.) ruled.While we can, fortunately,still suitableof all the social sciencesfor Lewis'scomments are appropriate, practiceour craftin manycountries, providingthe basic scientific discipline but it is hard for me to accept that we shouldnot ignorethe widespread forstudying social processes in thenew any anthropologyis possiblein our instanceswhere arbitrary and oppres- Asianand Africancountries." presentclimate of unfreeand uncriti- sive governmentsmanipulate in- cal inquiry,in an upside-downworld formationfor their own purposes. where the majorityof peoples-the Finally,I draw attentionto Firth's byRICHARD FRUCHT raison d'etre of anthropology-are (1972:26-27) statementthat "anthro- Edmonton,Canada. 18 v 73 dominatedby the few through imperi- pologyis notthe bastard of colonialism Thispaper is the latest in a recentspate alism,political, economic, and cultural. but the legitimateoffspring of the of anthropologicalself-criticisms occa- Enlightenment."Firth suggeststhat sioned by the anticapitalistand an- "despitetheir failings, social anthro- tiimperialistsentiments and activities byHELMUTH FUCHS pologistshave on the whole been at that have finallyreached our disci- Toronto,Canada. 16 iv 73 least as competentand perceptiveas pline.Of all thedisciplines which deal Froman idealisticpoint of view Lewis's factoryinspectors" [from whom "Marx withhumankind, anthropology seems articleis a magnificentpiece of work. drewso heavilyfor his generalizations tobe caughtin an unresolvablecontra- It invokes"the realities of themodern on the capitalistsystem"]-"and per- diction.The traditionalethnographic world,"yet it does notbring them into hapshave worked harder and suffered basis is being challenged from within theopen. Two opposingsets of terms more." and without.The subjects of ethnog- are used to depictthe covert political raphy resistbecoming objectifiedand realityof anthropologyand colonial- encapsulated, and increasingly stu- ism.On theone side,there are United byEDWARD M. BRUNER dents and teachers alike are reconsid- States,West, Europe, America, colon- Urbana,Ill., U.S.A. 18 iv 73 ering the traditionalroles of the disci- izer, developed, white, and Euro- Unless we trainmore Third World pline. Lewis proposes a solution to this American.On theother side, there are anthropologiststo study in Third contradiction: perspectivistic knowl- ThirdWorld, non-Western, black, un- Worldcountries, we shall neverhave edge. This is, however, only a partial derdeveloped,Africa, poverty, primi- the opportunityto testLewis's ideas. solution,and not the firststep towards tive,ethnic minorities in the United In Indonesia,for example,a nation a resolutionof our dilemma. Given the States, colonized, Asia, and Latin of 120 millionpeople, formingap- colonialand imperialconditions under America.Concepts like East, rich, cor- proximately300 differentethnolin- which anthropology developed and rupt,empire are keptout of the dis- guisticgroups, there was until the early continues to exist today, anthro- cussion. 1970s only one IndonesianPh.D. in pologistswill be caught not only in the Today nobody is misled by geo- anthropology.The situationis slowly contradiction of insider versus out- graphical,developmental, and racial beingcorrected, as a second anthro- sider, but in the graver conflict be- terms,since most newspaper-reading pologisthas returnedto Indonesia tweenexploited and exploiter.Is it anthropologistsknow the political afterreceiving his doctorate in Austra- reallytrue that the greatestcontribu- realities very well. The acknowl- lia,a thirdhas just passedhis prelimi- tion of our discipline to science is the edgementsof any hundred anthro- nary examinationsat Illinois, and corpus of ethnography,or is it time pologydissertations show clearly from othersare in variousstages of training. we beganto questionthe integrity and whichof thetwo sets the financial and The Euro-Americananthropologist validityof ethnographies done outside humanresources of anthropologyare is beginningto recognizethe colonial the contextof dominationand ex- comingand where the benefitsare contextwithin which he has operated ploitation?The problemsLewis and going.It is thenonly a smallstep to in the past,he acknowledgesthe ex- othersrecognize will perhaps only be findout where supporting foundations ploitivenature of his relationshipto overcomein a world devoid of the investtheir monies in orderto provide his informants,and he realizes the inequalitiesof power, production,and for research.Further, it is easy to implicitracism and theinvidious com- consumptionthat exist todayas part discoverhow high financegenerates parisoninvolved in such distinctions of thesystem of capitalistimperialism. thewealth which supplies the founda- as primitive-civilizedand traditional- Committedanthropologists, radical tions.This is thegrowth-ridden system modern.What to do? He can retreat anthropologists-whateverone wants in whichsome anthropologists are left to the studyof his own culture,and to call them-take as a firsttask the with the bitteraftertaste of having the difficultiesof obtainingfunding dismantling of racist myths and the eitherhelped to betraynative peoples' foroverseas research may force many exposure of colonial and imperialist noo-systemsor, by refusingto do so, to do so. Anotheralternative is to relations,a task which is both a study terriblydisappointed their own ad- continueto trainThird World anthro- of other societiesand necessarilya ministration(Fuchs 1972a). It is there- pologists,but to do so creatively,by study of our own. In these instances, forenot surprising that those peoples involvinghimself and his studentsin insiders and. outsiders seem to have who,despite the anthropologist'sim- cooperativeinvestigations of problems morein common with each other-and mense financialresources (as com- relevantto theThird Worldcountries here is wherea perspectivisticknowl- pared to theirs), offer hospitality themselves.The Euro-Americanan- edge can be truly rewarding-than and informationwill sooner or later thropologistcan, in myopinion, work withthose who seek to treadthe tradi- be induced to pay in one formor jointly with Third World anthro- tionalpaths of anthropology,whether anotherthe entirecost of both the Vol. 14 No. 5 December1973 593 researchproject and itsconsequences thropologists.Otherwise, the results of theheight of reification. (Fuchs 1972b). But, what is an aca- the researchmay be restrictedto his- As Lewisseems to suggest,one may demicexpected to do, if he depends toricalstudies, etc., for anthropology be an observer,or a participantob- on a systemin whichthe same group musthave its firm basis in comparative server,and neverbecome an activist. of personssits simultaneously on the method.Maybe this is also one of the I don'tdoubt that one mighteven be boards of banks, communication reasonsthat anthropology so far has an activist,but in causes other than media, corporations,churches, uni- been mainly the domain of the thoseLewis would espouse, and there- versities,research foundations, and in "whites,"who in their studiesof a forebe ruledout of thetrade. Similar- government? particularcountry may assert their own ly,I wouldargue, adopting Maquet's Lewis's conclusion that "anthro- ambitions,defend colonialismand "perspectivisticknowledge" position pology, along with other social racism,and sometimeseven uncon- does notguarantee that one's activity, sciences, must develop a rationale sciouslyserve tendenciesthey them- as insideror outsider,would be satis- whichoperates, in theoryand in fact, selvesdeny. factoryto Lewis. And I'm not con- in the interestsof all peoples"sounds The processof acquiring knowledge vincedthat being an insidernecessarily like politicalhogwash. It is as futile aboutman is amongthe most complex means thatone becomesaccountable as committeeson ethics in anthro- and mostcomplicated of human en- tothe community or that one is thereby pologyor ethicsin acquisitionsof col- deavours;therefore it is necessaryto "forcedthrough self-interest to exer- lections,which functiononly within take into accountthe factthat there cise discretion,"or thatone automati- and forthe system in whichthey orig- will be, on the one hand, anthro- callybecomes more insightful than an inated.Would Lewis have been able pologistswho will make of colonial outsider,or thatone's workbecomes topublish this article otherwise? Would researchonly a profit-makingbusiness "more pragmaticallyproblem-orient- I, otherwise,have been in a position and, on the otherhand, thosewho in ed." Thereis a vastdifference between to writethis comment? theirromantic approach pay too little ideologicaladherence to these and If thereis any realconflict between attentionto negativefeatures of the other principlesor perspectivesand anthropologyand the systemwhich areainvestigated. Even those of us who thereal activities of individualanthro- allowsit to thrive, the solution will have studythe culture of our owncountries pologists.One must still,I suspect, to come fromoutside of both, and have had to go througha period of becomean activistinsider of a certain neitherof themwill find it acceptable. romanticglorification. We can com- persuasionto satisfyLewis. pare thissituation to thehistorical de- The historyof manis unfortunately velopmentof thinkingin Europe: repletewith situations in which insiders byJITKA JUNKOVA afterthe criticalattitude of the En- objectifiedand dehumanized their Prague,Czechoslovakia. 19 vi 73 lightenmenttowards popular cultures, "own peoples"and in whichinsiders The problem of anthropologyor Romanticismbegan to glorifysome and outsidershave been quickto de- *ethnography(in my view) is much thatwere not always very valuable. fine "explicitlyhumanistic . . . ends" wider than mentionedby the au- for others; ends over which these thoress;it does not merelyconcern othershave little,if any,control (see, therelations between the so-called na- byGILBERT KUSHNER e.g., Kushner1973). Whywill anthro- tiveinhabitants of the "non-Western" Tampa, Fla., U.S.A. 3 v 73 pologistsand anthropology,judged worldand the "white"scholars doing I'm notsure if I writethis as an insider guiltyof supportingcolonialism by theirresearch in thatfield. Some ten- or outsider,and I thinkat least part Lewis,suddenly change course simply sionwill always be presentbetween the ofmy uncertainty (a failing from which throughindividuals' doing fieldwork anthropologistand theperson studied, Lewis,happily for her, seems not to among theirown people? Who are but in my opinion fewerproblems suffer) arises from ambiguitiesin one's own people anyway?Probably arise,as theinterest in thegiven prob- Lewis'sextremely relevant paper. This notEuropean peasant villagers studied lem is predominantlyscientific. may suggestthat it is not so much by urbanite European ethnologists. The descriptionof data is most anthropologywhich is in crisis, but Must I be examinedby Lewis first, importantin present-dayanthro- rather some anthropologists,perhaps identifiedby whatevermeasures she pology. But every anthropologist- especiallythose who rationalizethat has in mind,and thenbe set loose on aftersome time-beginsto combine theywere "forcedto pose" as some- my"own people"? Is allegianceto and withhis descriptionhis own critical thingelse (are therereally any such?). identificationwith the species per- evaluation,and in factcollects data in Lewis's apparent need to speak in missible? termsof his method,which also often termsof highlygeneralized categories I insiston thefreedom to makemy involvesinterpretation. Perhaps that such as "the anthropologist"doesn't own mistakes(Tax 1956), appeals to is the main reason thatthe student, makeher argumentmore convincing. humanitarianinterests of all peoples workingonly in a narrow sphere, Of coursesome anthropologistshave and otherambiguous verities notwith- recordsdata withoutthe necessary been and are nowcolonialists, but that standing. criticalevaluation; this can be achieved does notdemonstrate or even suggest onlyby experience. "Nonwhite" schol- that"objectivity" and "outsiderism" are arswho treat the theme of theirnative relatedin anyway to colonialism.And byKHALIL NAKHLEH culturemay also have this problem. one need not reifyculture in order Collegeville,Minn., U.S.A. 25 iv 73 In the firstphase of education,there to argue thatpeople in povertymust I feltan affinityfor Lewis's article for is usually a departure fromone's own change theirculture rather than the two reasons:first, some of her views native culture and an attachment to largersociocultural context that causes hereparallel mine (see Nakhleh1973); the culture of a higher civilisational it to ariseand be maintained.Indeed, second,I am a nativeanthropologist level. In the second phase, the anthro- one may even be a politicalradical, whois at presentcarrying out research pologist tries to find his way back by as Oscar Lewis was, and stilluphold in hisown culture. criticalevaluation of the historicalde- a culture-of-povertypoint of view.To The genesisof anthropologyand its velopmentofhis own homeland. In this blame this and other sortsof social intimateconnection with colonialistic direction lies the future of anthro- illson the cultureconcept, or on the schemeshave been documentedmore pology conducted by "'nonwhite"an- notionof culturalrelativism, is itself than once, and Lewis's articleis an

594 C U R R E N T A N T H R O P O L OG Y excellentaddition to thatbody of liter- Lewis: ANTHROPOLOGY AND COLONIALISM ature.Since the problemsthis kind of intimacycreates have been recognized and stressingthe moral and cultural sistendy, the portrait white anthro- by the practitionersthemselves, a inferiorityof the African. Whatever pologists who conduct fieldworkin a schemefor action is alreadyoverdue. materials white scholars got were in- politicalsetting have always painted is Colonialismmeans exploitationof variably coloured to suit the "white not only of the Africanas a primitive resources,be theyin the ground or taste" so that they would be read. but also of the society to which he in the heads of men. It also means Both the missionarieswho went ahead belongs as politically,socially, and eco- dichotomizationbetween superiors of the colonial mastersto "soften"the nomicallyinferior. Black American re- and inferiors.The seminalquestion for minds of the subject races and white jection of the work by whites is akin anthropology,therefore, is how to writers described our religion, as to African rejection of the historyof preventthe creationof the potential pagan, to the extent that no Western- African countries written by whites forexploitation while studying people. ized native of the Third World will during colonial days. Even the few Shiftingthe traditionalorientation to appear at an ancestral shrine-the books writtenby earlyAfrican intellec- the "perspectivistic"approach, as repositoryof our oral traditionsand tuals had to be writtenin the same Lewissuggests, is an imperativeand wayof life!The more theseelite natives vein in order to get a publisher. The admirabletack, but it should not be driftedfrom their native culture, the mind of present-dayAfricans and the theultimate goal. This is buta transi- more ridiculousthey became-neither extentof the crisisLewis speaks of are tionalstage, during which the potential Europeans nor Africans! Further, by aptly illustratedby a recent statement of exploitationmay still threaten. My virtueof the anthropologists'belong- by Nigeria Federal Commissioner for premisemakes sense if one keeps in ing to the group in power, theycould Health Alhaji Aminu Kano (Daily mindthat the descriptionof cultural get into societies which to a native Times,May 2, 1973): systemsat a frozenmoment in time, enquirer would be foreverbarred and The Federal Commissionerfor Health which ultimatelyleads to structural get all the informationthey wanted. Alhaji Aminu Kano, regrettedthat the stereotypes,is another formof ex- There were three main sources of disunitynow known in the Countryorigi- ploitation. errors in what these early workers natedfrom deliberately twisted history of To reduce the potentialfor ex- collected: (1) Being members of the Nigeriawritten by ColonialAuthors and ploitation,the traditionaldomain of governed race, the Africans often onlydished out to NigerianScholars who anthropology,i.e., the studyof non- agreed with or were swayed to the had no opportunityof verifyingsuch histo- Western cultures (by Westerners), anthropologists'line of thought.(2) In ry.Those authorswho came to Nigeriain should be redefined.A moratorium the early '50s when some educated the guise of Missionarieswrote the "so- called" historyof Nigeriato satisfytheir shouldbe imposedon crossingcultural radical informantshad started to rec- Colonialselfish ends, thereby creating room boundsto study a culture.A distinction ognize and resent these preferential forsuspicion and hatredamong Nigerians. hasto be madehere between two goals: treatments,they taught their people (1) describinga givenculture with the either to give evasive answers or to nebulousaim of understanding human "cook up" something after "delibera- nature in general and (2) action tionswith our elders" (Okojie 1960:8). byMAXWELL OWUSU anthropology-studyinga given group Thomas (1910:138), obliquely and in Sacramento,Calif., U.S.A. 18 v 73 in orderto help it delineatea specific the language of the group in power, Lewis's stimulating article follows a setof problemsand findpossible solu- supported these first two sources of verylong and continuing traditionof tions.Although Goal 1 is methodo- errors when he wrote: scholarly debate concerning the logicallypossible for the outsideran- grounds-notably the sociology-of thropologist,itis doubtfulwhether the It is frequentlyasserted that the chief char- knowledgeand the nature of sociocul- disciplinecan affordthe luxury. Goal acteristicof the savageis, his readinessto turalreality. The general and intricate 2 cannotand shouldnot be approached tellyou whathe thinksyou want to know, problem of "objectivity"in social re- regardlesswhether the informationthus the between ideas byoutsider anthropologists. I am con- suppliedcorresponds to the factsor not. search, relationship vincedthat if anthropologistsare to ... He does however,realise in all proba- and interests,the constant search for considerthe welfareof the "subjects" bility,that the questioner does not under- socially "useful" knowledge, particu- of theirstudies as paramount,thus standwhat he is talkingabout. larly in periods of rapid social-eco- eliminatingexploitation, they have to nomic change or political upheaval, be motivatedby morethan a profes- (3) How often have we heard how transcend the rather brief historical, sional degree; theyhave to share in all-powerfuleditors put articles in a albeit dehumanising and shattering, the problemsof those"subjects." way that would excite interestin the experience of "natives"associated with home country of the anthropologist! Euro-colonialism.The symbioticrela- For instance, any talk on Africa not tionshipbetween Westernscholarship, byXTO G. OKOJIE laced withphrases like "witchdoctor," includingscience and technology,and Irrua, Nigeria. 8 v 73 "natives in their grass skirts," etc., Western control and domination of Lewis's"Anthropology and Colonial- would be unnatural. A situation that non-Westernpeoples is now well es- ism" is a brilliantstudy, and I find engenders more resentment in the tablished. myselfagreeing with almost every sen- Africanintellectual is hard to imagine. I share with many concerned an- tence she has used in describinga We in Africa have always found an thropologiststhe basic viewspresented sordid and vexing subject. Indeed, underlyingpolitical innuendo in most with unusual candour and sympathy thereis a crisis;this is not surprising, writings of white workers. A few by Lewis. I have, indeed, addressed norare thecauses far to seek.Anthro- months ago a Canadian journalist, myself(Owusu 1971 a, b, n.d., 1972) pologicalfieldworkers, ethnographers, aftervisiting Nigeria, wroteof itscapi- to the fundamentalissues raised by the foreign newspaper reporters,etc., tal, Lagos, as the "citywhere nothing study of "natives" of Africa and the havecut a sorryfigure in thedevelop- works." If Lagos, the capital of Black Americasby white"outsiders." My pri- ing world.Often they went round to Africa'sgiant Nigeria,is a cityin chaos, maryinterest has been withthe validity the remotestvillages taking disparag- smaller African countries boasting of of anthropology'straditional claims to ing photographsto show barbarism independence must be farcical! Con- be scientific.based not so much on Vol. 14 - No. 5 * December1973 595 the obviouslymistaken methodological really part of an age-old methodo- ue to glorify the hunter-and, one assumptionthat "there is a single valid logical problem; nor does the mere mightadd, there may never be an end objective" and complete knowledge, appeal to anthropologiststo be more to the hunt. the search for whkh is the principal committed to radical change (which aim of anthropology,as on the crucial maybe in the serviceof the statusquo) consideration that anthropological and the solutionof practical problems byROMAN RACZYNSKI statementsand conclusionseither must of Third World peoples, however Prague,Czechoslovakia. 9 v 73 follow from the definitions of the commendable, go far enough. At a The statementof Lewis that "anthro- terms-are logically and analytically recentcollege-wide symposium on my pology is in a state of crisis" is more true-or, as empiricalstatements, must present campus, after the panel of than true. I want to draw attention be verifiable or falsifiable in the largely concerned Third World pro- only to the fact that it is not only Popperian sense. The verificationrule fessors had detailed the case against anthropology that is in crisis; even (the free application of the regular Western exploitation and oppression more so are economics, history,soci- procedures of scientificinvestigation: of non-European peoples, an equally ology, and especially political science. accuracy of observation, controlled concerned,elderly black man fromthe These are the branches of science comparison,the correctnessof reason- audience stood up and, angrily and traditionallyused and oftenabused for ing, etc.) pertains eventually to the in themost obscene terms,stressed that political aims. The situationhere is a furtherclaim of anthropology to be poor and oppressed peoples did not sensitivebarometer of the general state "objective" and a branch of natural need well-offcollege professorsto re- of a society. We have known periods science (Naturwissenschaften).The ide- mind them of their misery.To him, in which these disciplines (including alists (humanists) fiercely challenge the primary functions of anthropo- anthropology) ceased to be branches this view and, instead, see anthro- logy-the search for and the dissemi- of science at all, for political reasons. pology as a branch of history,philoso- nation of truthabout all peoples and The cause of the crisisof anthropology phy, or art (Geisteswissenschaften). consciousness raising-are only re- must be sought in the crisis of our We all knowthe great difficulty, even motelyimportant. There are only two whole industrial civilisation,a main after first-classanthropological train- proven weapons against colonialism- sign of which is increasing limitation ing, in attempting to describe and imperialism,organised political unity of the individual's opportunity for analyse systematicallyand unambig- and armed struggle. self-realisation. uously human societies, particularly Mair once said (1934:288, italics The chief device of industrial civi- alien ones, and the dangers inherent added): "The position of the person lisation is a subjectively"more com- in naive empiricismand uncontrolled who sets up to know what is good for fortableand more agreeable" life. The "subjectivism."In studyinghuman so- somebody else is not an enviable one: effortto acquire it is almost the only cieties, we are really studying our- his motives are always suspect. It is psychological stimulus to progress. selves,and the anthropologistinvaria- embarrassingto find oneselfuttering, in The bulk of the people pays for it by bly finds himself having to fall back all honesty,one of thetexts which are most catastrophically increasing the in- on his own personal genius, integrity, frequentlycited by the devil for his terdependence of individuals, to the judgment, imagination, and experi- purpose." However, anthropologists extent of bondage; the result is the ence, based alwayson community(both qua anthropologistssincerely interest- feelingof stress,frustration, and alien- academic and nonacademic) values ed in doing somethingabout the wel- ation. As a vent for this there arise and pressures and often implicidyon fare of underprivilegedpeoples might various ideological currents,common absolute ethical judgments. begin with a massive assault on the denominators of which are irratio- All anthropology has always been twintheoretical pillars of popular and nalityand heedless compulsion to con- done froma particularvalue position, academic racism: the Enlightenment formity.No wonder that the scholar a discoloured perspective, subject to belief in the inevitable progress of is beaten fromall sides because of his the so-called Michelson-Morleyeffect mankindheaded and controlledby the boldness in poking his nose into affairs bywhich what is observedchanges with "white master race" and the organic which are taboo for a "loyal" citizen. the position of the observer. All our theoryof evolution,with its stilldomi- Industrial civilisation became, accounts are necessarily incomplete, nant sociopolitical versions-Social through historical circumstances, a mostly time- and situation-bound,a Darwinism and Social-Imperialism- synonym of colonialism. We cannot litde distorted, and-provided the Cultural-Relativism-which in giving change it any more than we can change canons of logic and common sense are birthto modern anthropologydivided the factthat some anthropologistsand not grossly infringed-more or less mankind into two hostile, mutually social scientistsadminister policy and, valid or true. As Firth puts it, "eth- exclusive groups: congenitally"inferi- in thiscase, policy which damages the nographic facts may be irrelevant-it or" nonwhitesand naturally"superior" Third World. Associatedwith colonial- does not matterso much if they [stu- whites. It does not even seem to have ism are paternalism,racism, and col- dents] get the factswrong so long as occurred to anthropologiststhat the lectivebondage. The list of "scholars" they can argue the theories logically" basic terms,e.g. "tribes,""primitive," who have committedthemselves to the (1970:vii). "simple," or "uncivilized" societies as "scientificjustification" of the inequal- Nevertheless,it is not so much facts opposed to "civilized" or "national" ity of individuals, social groups, and (often indistinguishable from fanta- societies, which inform the academic human races could forma thickbook. sies) as popular, taken-for-granted, curriculumare not primarilycognitive The impact of industrial civilisation circular theories,e.g., the natural su- scientificcategories but invidious and provokes in the Third World xen- periorityof Europeans, that signifi- propagandist in intent. Lewis's "per- ophobia, fascist-likenationalism, "col- cantly shape our world views and spectivisticknowledge" might provide ored racism,"political extremism, and behaviour toward others. Thus, the an answer to such terminologicaland neoimperialism. We must therefore "multidimensionalview of reality"or other "scientific"problems in anthro- assume our share of the responsibility, "perspectivistic knowledge" recom- pology. As W. E. B. DuBois once said, as members of industrial society and mended byLewis as partof the solution untilthe lions have theirown historians as research workers in a discipline to the currentanthropological crisis is (anthropologists),the tales will contin- abused for politicalaims:

596 C U R R E N T A N T H R O P O L OG Y The position of the intellectual in Lewis: ANTHROPOLOGY AND COLONIALISM modern industrialsociety is verylabile. The intelligentsiais neithera class nor projectsof applied anthropology,with nantpolitical interests of the timesmay even a social stratum. It is only a set the involvementof both outsider and influence the anthropologists' own of individuals of a certain degree of insider. viewpoints. education who do mostly intellectual There is, however, a positive con- However, I cannot agree with Lewis work (creation, extension, and ap- structivesuggestion in perspectivistic in her emphasis on the possibilityof plication of values). The feeling of approaches to field research and to anthropologists'analyzing their own group solidarity is rather weak, i.e., commitmentto the solvingof practical cultures. In Japan, the study of cus- the possibilitiesof pressure are limited problems. In the developing countries toms in Japanese villages has been to individual protests,which can easily there is a great need for just such conducted bymembers of the Japanese be hushed up. A well-organizedstrike approaches. Lewis deserves to be con- FolkloreSociety since the 1930s, under of workersin a branch producing val- gratulatedfor shouting attentionto it. the influence of similar studies in ues destined for immediate consump- Anthropology has many affinities Europe. Afterthe World War II, rural tion can quickly break the resistance with other disciplines. In the applied sociologistsand anthropologistsjoined of employers or politicians. The in- field, I am convinced, developmental this trend, and I myselfhave mosdy telligentsiahas no such possibilities,the social work has much to offer in been engaged in thiskind of research. values it creates being too abstract or practical techniques for assisting in In my own experience, however, the consumed aftertoo long a time. Also, solving practical problems. Particular studyof one's own culture has a very a deep-rooted elitismdeprives the in- attentionshould be drawn to the "new clear limitation.As I have said else- telligentsiaof its natural allies. There- community organization" of Arthur where (Sofue 1960:312), everyone has fore the intelligentsiais the most, and Dunham of the Universityof Michi- his own "cultural blind spots," and most often, afflictedcategory of citi- gan. Task goals need the processgoals many important phases of his own zens. of participation and the relationship culturestrike him as too commonplace I do not want my contribution to goals of overcoming the old paternal- to note and are not observed closely. end pessimistically.The present crisis ism and overdependency if neocolon- Especially when he deals with psycho- of industrial society is only a sign of ialism is to be avoided. logical aspects, the task is similar to the scientific-technicalrevolution, of a analyzing his own personality, and transitionto a higher degree of civi- hence he may consciously or uncon- lisation. The developed postindustrial byTAKAO SOFUE sciouslyavoid noticingsome verybasic societywill have another social struc- Tokyo,Japan. 8 v 73 characteristics.Therefore, it is often ture, other problems and ways of I am glad that thisfundamental prob- the case that these features can only working. If we want to lead anthro- lem of anthropologists'ethics is now be discovered by observers from the pology out of the blind alley, we must being discussed in CA. For several outside. Ruth Benedict's The Chrysan- seek waysthat correspond to the epoch years this has been a very popular themumand the Sword, published in of the scientific-technicalrevolution subject of discussion in Japan, too, 1946, is well accepted and widelyread and tryto get financialindependence, even among the general public. Kat- among the Japanese general public ideological nonalignment,and political suichi Honda, an anthropologically even today because it pointsout many immunityfor our discipline. We must oriented news reporter,visited Negro basic traitsof the national culture and work hard to overcome boundaries communitiesand Indian tribesof the personalitywhich the Japanese them- and barriers,which have no business United States in 1969 and wrote an selves had never been aware of. in science. Last but not least, we must article in a Japanese newspaper (re- Therefore, I believe that only collabo- be aware, alwaysand everywhere,that printed in Honda 1970) on their very rationbetween the inside observerand there is only one mankind. unhappy situation. In this article, he the outside observercan produce satis- quotes an Indian as saying that the factoryresults. anthropologistswho visited the reser- byHUBERT REYNOLDS vation were only interestedin writing DumagueteCity, Philippines. 15 vii 73 Ph.D. theses and did not do any re- byMILAN STUCHLiK Isn't it betterto limitthe so-calledcrisis search really useful for Indians Temuco,Chile. 15 v 73 in anthropologyto the Third World? (Honda 1970:24 1). This articleand his I agree withLewis's diagnosis. She has As part of the Third World here in subsequent discussions on anthro- takenone importantstep: the majority the Philippines, I prefer not to over- pologists' roles toward "powerless" of discussions dealing with involve- state the case. natives(Honda 1971a: 188-208; 1971b: ment, commitment,value-free versus Some of the "protest" content of 59-76) aroused various reactions value-laden approaches, etc., treatthe Lewis's positionpapei is understanda- in Japan from intellectuals and an- problem as a problem in normative ble and should receive sympathetic thropologists as well (e.g., Konishi ethics. Anthropologists, it is said, support-but whyweaken the case by 1972). The relationshipbetween Japa- should not side, consciouslyor uncon- utilizing the old card-stacking tech- nese anthropologistsand the Ainus of sciously,with colonialism and should nique? Where are references to an- Hokkaido had been criticized by the feel committedto the interestsof the thropologistslike Oscar Lewis and to Ainus themselvesand by some gradu- groups they are studying.This com- the whole developmentapproach in the ate students of anthropology, who mitmentis usually seen as opposed to field? And why contrast "objectivity" pointed out the danger that Japanese scientific objectivity; we should do with "involvement"? While in the anthropologymight help possible Jap- what is morallyright, even if it means processof fieldresearch all biases must anese imperialism in the future. All lowering the standards of objectivity. be under control and limited for un- these problems have been the subject Lewis points out that this just isn't so: derstandingthe culture from the cul- of long disputes, and the content of howeverhostile or sympathetican an- tural premises of the insider, then, these discussions is largely the same thropologist may be to the interests afterthe data has been processed for as pointed out in Lewis's paper. I also of the group he is studying, he is valid conclusions,values may enter in agree with the author that the domi- basically an outsider. As such, he is

Vol. 14 * No. 5 * December1973 597 collecting data, analysing them, and vity. The crisis of anthropology, say nothingnew except thatit offersa new drawing explanatory conclusions ac- its new critics, requires no less than basis for claims to legitimacy. cording to canons and procedures the rethinking,reinventing, or rebirth In the past, social science, including which may be (and usually are) totally of the discipline. Lewis's eschatology anthropology,has made its claim for alien to the realityof thatgroup. This, castsher in thedouble role of mortician the rightto exist on the grounds that in itself, is understandable and not forthe old, coopted anthropologyand freedom of inquiry was itself an invalid: it becomes so, however, if (as midwife for the new anthropology. instrumental value. Western society normallyhappens) the conclusionsare The question is how this new anthro- has accepted this claim for several presented as the objective interpreta- pology differsfrom the old. centuries,but, as Bensman and Lilien- tion of reality.In such a case, objecti- The idea that anthropologymay be feld (1972:152) have noted, "if the vity becomes largely a myth. While of instrumentalvalue is not new and logic of the need for freedom for studyingmyths and beliefs and their iuns through all of Western social science is consistent, then there is behavioural and cognitive conse- science. Instrumentalism in anthro- nothingin science,per se, thatrequires quences among native peoples, we pology has been expressed as a claim freedom for anyone else except the consistendy refuse to examine the to be both the synthesizingscience that scientist,or even the scientistof one cognitive consequences of our own would embrace all of mankind and a particularschool of thoughtwithin the myths.I thinkLewis makes this abun- policy science capable of solving man- discipline." In anthropology, this dandy clear. kind's problems. It has been assumed means thatinvestigators may gain their Agreeing as I do with Lewis's that the anthropologisthimself is free freedom at the expense of their sub- diagnosis,however, I findit somewhat of the biases, self-interest,and instru- jects. It may also mean that anthro- difficultto agree with her prognosis, mentalvalues associated withthe ordi- pologists may lose their freedom to basically for two reasons. First, it is nary mortals he studies and advises. colleagues who proclaim themselvesto permissible to present outsider an- While Lewis serves the useful purpose be the newly legitimate philosopher- thropologistsas a homogeneous unity, of exposing these claims as false, it is kings of professionaland political af- since the possible internal heteroge- not clear how the new anthropology fairs. neityof their own sociocultural envi- solves the problem of defining a new To this observer, who still places ronment is largely irrelevant; they set of values for anthropology. credence in the idea of free inquiry, personifya general "outside" for the There is nothingin anthropologyas it would appear to be immoral and group they study. I doubt that it is such that can guarantee thatits values unethicalto be both an anthropologist permissibleto present insider anthro- are independent of itself and its and a revolutionary,for to attemptto pologists as equally homogeneous. practitioners.While thisidea has come be both at once simultaneouslycor- Upon closer examination they will be relativelylate to anthropology,Lewis rupts two otherwise independently seen as committednot to their society recognizes it and uses it as the basis honorable professions. as a whole, but to some specificpower for her criticismand as the grounds or pressure group within it; and in for reconceiving anthropology in their case the internal heterogeneity termsof another set of values known of their socioculturalenvironment be- as "perspectivistic knowledge." Ac- byRENATE VON GIZYCKI comes very relevant. The outsider-in- cording to Lewis, perspectivistic Kassel-Wilhelmshohe,Germany. 14 v 73 sider differencemay be not so much knowledge"views reality from the par- Indeed, "anthropologyis in a state of a dichotomyas a continuum. ticularexistential position occupied by crisis." Recent examples from Thai- My second reason has to do with the observer." In addition, perspecti- land (see, e.g., Jones 1971) have shown what Lewis calls the perspectivisticap- visticknowledge means "that the pos- the possible misuse of anthropological proach. Since the outsider lacks the sibilitiesof understandingare infinite knowledge, and Wounded Knee has perception of the internal reality of and closely linked with [the anthro- again demonstratedhow littleanthro- the group he is studying,and since pologist's] situationand purpose." pology can do to help minoritieseven the insider lacks the detachment nec- By definition all anthropologists, within a country where it is held in essary for reporting cold facts, we past and present, have viewed their high esteem, well represented at uni- should take both views as necessary realitiesfrom their particularexisten- versities, and well funded. Anthro- components of a complete explana- tial positions. It is also true that there pology is by no means a "science for tion. Isn't this a somewhat jigsaw- are many formsof understandingand the people." As professionaland aca- puzzle conception of objectivity?Per- thatthese are relativeto the observer's demic ambition is now almost daily haps, instead of tryingto construe a situation and purpose. Perspectivistic confrontedwith the "natural" (which complex pictureby combining oppos- knowledge thus appears to be con- I prefer to call social and political) ing particularisticinterpretations, we strained only by the purposes of the limitationsof our field, this problem should tryto study more consistently investigator.Since investigatorsmay will have to be faced even by the what makes them particularistic. have many different purposes, an- advocates of "value-freeresearch" and thropology embraces all these "pure science": their"objects" are sim- purposes without intrinsicethical or ply disappearing,either by extermina- byARTHUR J. VIDICH moral limitations.Lewis's substitution tion-as in many partsof Latin Ameri- New York,N.Y., U.S.A. 15 v 73 of values is not a solution to the prob- ca (see the Declaration of Barbados) Anthropology,for most of its history, lem and may in fact lead to deeper or by an emancipation to which few has been relatively free of criticism formsof corruptionand opportunism researchershave lent a helping hand. fromboth the primitivesit has studied than already exist within the profes- Much as I appreciate sound concep- and dissident colleagues within its sional ranks. tualization,I doubt whetherthe rela- ranks (Vidich 1966). Within the past Lewis conceives of anthropologyas tion between colonialism (or, for that few years, a dramatic reversal has oc- an instrumentalvalue that can serve matter,imperialism) and anthropology curred, and "anthropology"has been her own purposes and values. In this can adequately be discussed on an accused of monstrous misbehavior respect,she is no differentfrom many abstract and a historical basis (e.g., with respect to its politics,humanity, of those whom she criticizes,and per- Horvath 1972). Some questions I morals, ethics, and scientificobjecti- sniect1v1st1c know]e~dre amnounts to would like to discuss in more detail

598 C UR RENT AN TH ROPOLOG Y with the author: Will permitting"the Lewis: ANTHROPOLOGY AND COLONIALISM tables to be turned" really contribute much to ending the dehumanizing dent and small peoples fromdistant thatmatter, partial autonomy (see, e.g., process of objectification?The myth culturesbut the normsof theirown Fall 1960) is needed for decisions as of "objectivity"needs dismantling, I societies,among othersthe ideology to how and to what extentthis process agree; but will a "perspectivistic"ap- ofanthropology. Just as I cannotquite should be influenced. In thiscase un- proach reallybe sufficientto cope with acceptthe inside-outside alternative, I prejudiced use is even being made of it? Doesn't it, rather, allow the ideal doubtwhether theory and practiceare earlier French colonial research data; of "objective truth"(see, e.g., Myrdal ofmutually exclusive importance. You ingroup and outgroup perspectiveare 1969) to returnsomehow through the cannotreally do withouta comprehen- thus interrelated,not in the sense that back door? And how many perspec- siveconceptual framework ifyou wish necessarily differentpeople have to tives add up to the full picture? Too to tackle relevantproblems, for in- represent them, but by a social and litde attention might still be paid to stance,the survival not just of anthro- political theory (in this case Marxist) historical and socioeconomic dimen- pologybut of its"objects." An interest- whichdoes not stop at "middle-range." sions,including the colonial or imperi- ing reportfrom North Vietnam (Le Perhaps on firstsight this looks rather alistic structure of relationship be- Van Hao 1972) deals, froman eth- like the Thailand example; however, tween the observer and his "object." nographicpoint of view, with the the Meo in Vietnam,for example, have Anothermethodological point: Where practicalproblem of integratinghill- apparendy been "offered"neither res- and when is the anthropologist an tribeminorities and involvesa theory ervations,camps, nor jobs as merce- insider?What about class and language of cultureand nationalidentity as well naries or plantationcoolies. Does this barriers, the "elaborated code" of as socioeconomicdevelopment in this model work? That would be worth- science? The problem of identification society.The ethnologistis interested while studying; but who would fund and of referencegroup remains to be in the traditionsof the villagepeople it? This again turns our attention to solved. These questions may possibly and at the same time is engaged in the social conditions of our own an- be summarized thus: Will anthro- developingconditions of life,much in thropological work, another worthy pology in the end become, and have theway Caulfield (1972) has suggested, research project for committedschol- to become, just another social science? as a "partisanparticipant." As a socialist ars. Should we inviteAfricans to help Still, with Diamond (1964), I would cadre,he identifieswith the needs of us withit? Or would this,as the author, believe in certain contributionsof an- the people, they being part of his in a verysubde analysisof racismunder thropologyto man's knowledge about society.Obviously, a more compre- the cover of idealization,shows, imply himself,provided anthropologistsare hensivetheory (see, e.g., Ribeiro 1971) just a more refined form of. colo- ready to "objectify"not only depen- ofintegration and participationor, for nialism?

Reply sense of identityand others'evaluation of colonialismin Africawith the argu- of that identity may complicate the ment "If we whites leave, it will only matter,but certainattributes are more mean that Africans will oppress one byDIANE K. LEWIS determinativein a particularsituation another." This argument is disturb- Santa Cruz, Calif., U.S.A. 20 Vii 73 than others. Thus, among North inglyextended by intellectualswho feel I agree withthose who stressthe com- American minoritiesat present,ethni- it is their mission to expose the prob- plexities of the issues raised in this cityis a strongunifying force with high lemsof Third Worldcountries (to show paper and willattempt to clarifysome salience; there is probably littlediffi- they were better off under colonial- of them. The proposals for insider cultyin arrivingat consensus as to who ism?). The critical spirit Brokensha anthropology and for perspectivism is an insider in ethnic terms, though advocates is admirable but more ap- have been criticallyappraised. With there may be, considering intragroup propriately applied by us North regardto the first,Berthoud, Kushner, political and socioeconomic dif- Americans to issues of political power Stuchlik and Von Gizycki ask, "How ferences, some difficultyin defining and moralitycloser to home. does one define the insider?" and an insider in ideological terms. In a I would offer somewhat the same Albo, Berthoud, Brokensha, Frucht, complex new Africannation with hier- response to those who charge that in Kushner, and, by implication, Fuchs archically arranged ethnic groups, many Third World countries govern- ask, "How is one assured that the mutual agreement regarding insider mentsare no less elitist,colonialist, and insider, once identified, is any less status would probably accord impor- oppressive in their relations to their exploitativethan the outsider?" tance to ethnic, class, and ideological own people than were European out- Insider anthropology,in which "in- considerations. siders. I doubt whetheroutsiders are sider" at present is synonymouswith Stuchlik'spoint thatoutsider-insider in the best position to understand the the traditional objects of anthro- distinctionsmay be better viewed as strugglesof Third World countriesto pological research, is offered as a a continuum than as a dichotomy establishthemselves after centuries of possible correctivefor the human suf- seems appropriate. I would add that European politicaldomination, partic- feringand theoreticalbiases concomi- as a group's circumstancesand con- ularly in view of present-dayoutsider tantwith much outsideranthropology. sciousnesschange, the basis for valida- interferenceand deliberatelycreated The status of insider is situationally tion of insider status may also shift, divisiveness. An assumption is that, and operationallydefined by the indi- i.e., from ethnic or class to primarily since people act in terms of self-in- vidual in the contextof and in interac- ideological considerations. terest, social scientists who identify tionwith a particulargroup. The indi- Brokensha's observation that Third with the interestsof the groups with vidual has a conscious sense of self World leaders may reject Western so- which they work and must live with whichthe group he/she wishesto work cial scientistsbecause theyfear outside the resultsof theiractions willbe more witheither recognizes or does not. The criticismof their governmentsbrings apt to conduct themselves so as to factthat many attributes make up one's to mind those who oDDosed the end further the groups' interests. Since Vol. 14 * No. 5 - 599 insiders are more likely to be in this ones. Thus, explicit ideologies are to theinequities and exploitationwhich position than outsiders, insider an- needed to form the basis of the new interferedwith true freedomof inqui- thropologymay help curb intellectual theories,as old ideologies formed the ry in the past. If, in the future,tradi- exploitationand academic colonialism. basis of traditional theories. Charles tional, outsider anthropologyfinds its On the other hand, there is nothing Valentine (personal communication, studiescurtailed, it maybe because the intrinsic to the role of insider that 1971) has noted that without such people themselves,the subjects,will no assures commitmentto one's own peo- ideological commitment, insider longer permit them. Similarly,if the ple. Thus, to answer Berthoud's rhe- practitionerscan be coopted and ma- development of a radical insider an- torical question of how we justifyin- nipulated for the oppression of their thropologyis opposed, it will probably sider oppression, the answer is, we do own people. Furthermore, isolation be because it threatens the interests not. can be fostered so as to make them of those who benefit from present I concur withall who point out that intellectually and pragmatically in- inequities. perspectivismdoes not solve the prob- capable of dealing withthe wider con- Berthoud calls the insistence that lems of exploitation raised in the text of oppression. anthropologistsrefuse to continue to paper. As Albo, Berthoud, Frucht, Thus, in the long run, a theoretical exploit the Third World naive in that Gjessing, Stuchlik, Nakhleh, Owusu, radicalism requires the collaboration it ignores the neocolonialism which and Von Gizyckiindicate and as Vidich of both insider and outsider and an makes such exploitation inevitable. states, perspectivismserves as many understandingof both the oppressors Frucht argues that no anthropology purposes as there are anthropologists and the oppressed. Whether,as Nakh- is possible in the present political cli- and does so withoutethical or moral leh suggests,the potentialfor exploita- mate. Fuchs also sees the situation of limitations.Being philosophically,the- tion continues to be so great that a the academic as hopeless, given the oretically,and ideologicallyneutral, it moratorium is necessary on crossing realities of the power relationships can only initiate, not form the basis cultural boundaries and whether, as within which anthropology exists. of, a new criticalanthropology. Gjessing suggests, it will be possible These views are defeatistand as per- In the contextof traditionalanthro- eventuallyfor radical anthropologists petuative of the status quo as those pology, perspectivism simply legiti- to combine withinthemselves the two of traditional, conservative social mates the point of view of anthro- perspectivesare mattersfor continued science. It is becauseof worldwide op- pology's subjects. Okojie's comments debate. pression and exploitation that a radi- clearly show that this outlook has Like the majorityof my colleagues, cal, activistsocial science is needed and heretoforenot been adequately repre- I am not yetable to specifythe content is emerging. In these circumstances, sented. Moreover,as Okojie, Raczyns- of future radical theories. However, should we sit silentlyand helplesslyor ki, and Fuchs note, the problems of perspectivism and insider anthro- attemptto contributein some way to Third World people have been not pology may offer a needed vantage the revolutionin consciousness which only ignored but exacerbated by many point for theirdevelopment. That the is making change possible? It is as- traditional anthropologists through new theorieswill probably be initiated, sumed by these commentatorsthat the the processesand productsof research tested,and refinedunder highlyprag- discipline is of a single mind when, formulated in the outsider's interest. maticcircumstances is attestedto most in reality,it is composed of diverse Thus, perspectivism is inseparable interestinglyby Von Gizycki'sdescrip- groups, among whichare manyno less from insider anthropology.Together tionof thework of a North Vietnamese appalled than they,but willingto work theyconstitute a methodological basis ethnologist. toward meaningfulchange. To argue for formulationof problems and pre- The need for perspectivismin social that a relevant anthropology is only sentation of knowledge distinct from science is apparent when we realize possible when worldwide inequalities those of objective, outsider anthro- the difficultyof assuring equal voice are ended is to ignore the potential pology. for those who have been silentobjects and obligation of the social scientist It should be clear that perspectivism of study in the past. This is demon- to help bring about the creative and insideranthropology do, as Vidich stratedby Vidich, who feels that free- changes necessary.After all, who needs charges, have an instrumentalvalue. dom of the formerly oppressed to radical, activist social scientists in Unlike traditional anthropologists, challenge traditional theories and Utopia? who were unaware of or unwillingto perspectivesis linked to loss of free- I wonder whetherBruner, who sees admit the self-servingnature of their dom of outsider anthropologists to the collaboration of insider and out- work,the insideranthropologist makes pursue their own work. This would sider as a possibilityfor the study of it explicit.This stance is found in other be true only insofar as their work Third World countries, would not disciplines as well; minorities are continues to oppress and limit the consider the studyof one's own people franklyrewriting history, psychology, freedomof the objects of study.Vidich a creativechallenge ratherthan a "re- and sociology in terms of their own realizes this, for he recognizes that treat." It has been noted that anthro- perspectivesand interests.The point freedom of inquiry may be gained at pologists,because of theiroutsider role is that these new insider approaches the expense of one's subjects. His re- in other cultures,bring a unique per- are no less legitimatein termsof the sponse to the notion that formerob- spective to work within their own realitythey disclose than the work of jects have a rightto conduct studies in society. outsiders. theirown interestis much like that of It is interestingthat Sofue findsthat AlbM, Berthoud, and Von Gizycki many Euro-American liberals in the onlycollaboration between insider and note rightlythat the paper should have past to the idea of Black Power. Rather outsider produces satisfactoryresults been more explicitregarding the need than recognizing it as an expression in Japan. While collaboration may be for new conceptual frameworksand of people's desire forcontrol over their the answer in many situationsat pre- radical theories of change and devel- own lives, liberals saw only that it sent, when the study involves an op- opment. Frucht and Berthoud warn undermined their own privilegesvis- pressed or formerlyoppressed group, thattheoretical radicalism must expose a-vis the oppressed. it would seem that the terms should the biases of current theories, and I To clear up doubts on this point, be decided upon by the insidergroup. would argue that it must make explicit the paper advocates truly free and Moreover, if the group to be studied the interestswhich underlie the new meaningfulinquiry for all and an end is in a sensitive situation,it is highly

600 C U R RENT A N T H RO PO LOG Y problematicwhether an objective out- Lewis: ANTHROPOLOGY AND COLONIALISM sider will be accepted. In such a situa- tion, perhaps the only possibilityis an I also dispute Brokensha'sclaim that that anthropologycould not perhaps inside researcheractively committed to anthropologistshave studied colonial- have been a product of both the En- the group's goals. ism. While there were studies stimu- lightenment and colonialism. This I take issue with Brokensha, who lated by colonial intereststo look into paper has not meant to impugn the chooses to ignore my "extreme" com- politics,land tenure, native law, and dedication and perseverance of an- ment thatthe formerlyoppressed, the the like,studies related to specificmat- thropologistsor to deny thatthere are subjects of anthropological study, tersof colonial policyor criticalof that thosewho have workedas honestlyand should have the sole rightto observe policy,these studies seemed clearly in ethicallyas they could given the cir- and define their culture and specify the interest of perpetuating the cumstances. It has attemptedto point the terms under which outsiders are empire. Where in anthropologydid we out the unacknowledged effectof co- allowed to do so. It is essential that have, as Alb6 notes, the macroanalysis lonialismon anthropology.In the same formerobjects no longer be vulnerable that puts the study of traditionalcul- way, others have demonstrated the to outside intellectual and academic tures in proper perspective or the relationshipbetween scientificracism exploitation,that power over the terms considerationof the meaning of colo- and the development of anthro- of study no longer rest in the hands nialism for the natives themselves in pological thought.Recognition of this of the formermasters, if social science terms of their own interests?In my interplaybetween dominant intellec- and political, economic, and cultural opinion, there is considerable dif- tual and political forces and anthro- relationshipsare to be decolonized. If ference between the interestof some pology does not make of everyanthro- this issue is not faced and dealt with early anthropologistsin cultural fac- pologist a colonialist or a racist unless squarely, anthropology is in grave tors impingingon colonial policy and we are willingto accept the notion that danger. The argument is that the an- a consideration of the theoreticaland we are all passive pawns of our own thropologistshould not be permitted methodological implications of the historyand culture. This paper was to enter, to study, and to remain in structureof inequalityfor the peoples writtenon the assumptionthat anthro- a Third World countryunless the peo- studied and forthe discipline.It is true pologists can influence the course of ple or theirrepresentatives feel he/she that with the breakdown of colonial the discipline. It is only when we can has something to offer, i.e., that the empire and with the rising voice of look at our own past from the research will be in their interest. In Third World intellectuals,the effect viewpointof the oppressed and gauge the event of competing factions and of the colonial process can no longer thereby the depth of contemporary changes of power in Third World be ignored by Westernsocial scientists. disaffectionthat we can begin to con- countries,the anthropologistcan take I wonder whether Firth's remark, sider realistic possibilitiesfor the fu- his/herchances (a situationnot unlike cited by Brokensha, is meant to imply ture. the currentone) or stay at home.

ReferencesCited BUSIA, K. A. 1951. The positionof thechief research in British West Africa. Africa in themodern political system ofthe Ashanti: 17:77-91, 170-80. [DB] AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGICALASSOCIATION. A studyof the influence ofcontemporary social . 1970."Foreword," in Politicalsystems 1969. Report of the Ethics Committee. changeson Ashantipolitical institutions. ofhighland Burma, by E. R. Leach. Boston: FellowNewsletter 10(4): 3-6. London: Oxford University Press. Beacon Press. [MO] BARBOUR, FLOYD. Editor. 1970. Black seven- [DB] . 1972.The scepticalanthropologist? ties.Boston: Porter Sargent. CARMICHAEL, STOKELY, and CHARLES HAMIL- Social anthropology and Marxist views BATTRO, A. M. 1966. Dictionnaired'ipiste- TON. 1967. Black power.New York: Ran- on society (Inaugural Radcliffe-Brown mologie ginetique. Dordrecht, Holland: dom House. Lecture in Social Anthropology).Proceed- Reidel. [GB] CARR, EDWARD H. 1961. What is history? ingsof the British Academy 58:3-39. Lon- BEATTIE, JOHN. 1971. The Nyorostate. Ox- London: Pelican Books. [XA] don: Oxford UniversityPress. [DB] ford: Clarendon Press. [DB] CAULFIELD, MINA DAVIS. 1972. Participant FORTES, M., and E. E. EVANS-PRITCHARD. BENSMAN, JOSEPH, and ROBERT LILIENFELD. observation or partisan participation. MS. Editors. 1940. Africanpolitical systems. 1973.Craft and consciousness: Occupational CLARK, MARGARET, and BARBARA G. ANDER- London: Oxford University Press. techniqueand the developmentof world SON. 1967. Cultureand aging.Springfield: [DB] images.New York: J. Wiley. [AJV] Charles C. Thomas. FOSTER, GEORGE. 1969.Applied anthropology. BERREMAN, GERALD. 1968. Is anthropology COCHRANE, GLYNN. 1971. Developmentan- Boston: Little,Brown. alive? Social responsibility in social an- thropology.New York: Oxford University FUCHS, HELMUTH. 1972a. "Fromintegrated thropology. CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Press. to differentiatedhabitat: A case of trans- 9:391-96. CROWDER, MICHAEL, and OBARO IKIME. Edi- culturation."First Joint Meeting of the . 1970. Ethics,responsibility and the tors. 1970. WestAfrican chiefs: Their Societiesfor Hygiene, Preventive and Social funding of Asian research. Paper pre- changingstatus under colonial rule and Medicine,Vienna. [HF] sented at the 22nd annual meeting of independence.Evanston: Northwestern . 1972b. Comment on: Oomingmak: the Association for Asian Studies, San University Press. [DB] A model for man-animalrelationships in Francisco,Calif. DIAMOND, STANLEY. 1964. A revolutionary prehistory,by Paul F. Wilkinson.CURRENT BONFIL BATALLA, GUILLERMO. 1966. Conser- discipline. CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY 5:432- ANTHROPOLOGY 13:37. [HF] vative thought in applied anthropology: 37. GALTUNG,JOHAN. 1967. "After Camelot," in A critique. Human Organization25:89- .1966. The end of the FirstRepublic. Therise and fall of Project Camelot. Edited 92. AfricaToday 13(2):5-12. by Irving Horowitz. Cambridge: M.I.T. BRAROE, NIELS WINTHER, and GEORGE L. . 1971. Man and superman. Partisan Press. HICKS. 1967. Observations on the mys- Review2: 167-82. GJESSING,GUTORM. 1968.The socialrespon- tique of anthropology.Sociological Quar- FALL, BERNARD. 1960. Le Viet-Minh-La Re- sibilityof the social scientist. CURRENT terly8:173-86. publiqueDimocratique du Viet-Nam- ANTHROPOLOGY 9:397-402. BROKENSHA, DAVID. 1966. Appliedanthro- 1945-60. Paris: LibrairieArmand Colin. GLUCKMAN,MAX. 1958. Analysisof a social pologyin English-speakingAfrica. Lexing- [RVG] situationin modernZulutand. Rhodes- ton, Ky.: Society for Applied Anthro- FALLERS, LLOYD A. 1956. Bantu bureaucracy: LivingstonePaper 28. [DB] pology. [DB] A centuryof politicalevolution among the GOSSETT, THOMAS F. 1963. Race: The history . Editor. 1972. Akwapimhandbook. Basogaof Uganda. Chicago: University of of an idea in America. Dallas: Southern Accra: Ghana Publishing Corporation. Chicago Press. [DB] MethodistUniversity Press. [DB1 FIRTH, RAYMOND. 1947. Social problemsand GOUGH, KATHLEEN. 1968.New proposals for Vol. 14 No. 5 December1973 501 anthropologists.CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY LEWiS,HYLAN. 1967. "Culture,class, and pological and EthnologicalSciences, 9:403-7. familylife among low-income urban Ne- Chicago,August 28-September 8, 1973. HOFER, TAMAS. 1968. Comparativenotes on groes,"in Employment,race, and poverty. [MD] the professionalpersonality of two disci- Editedby Arthur Ross and HerbertHill. POLYANI,MICHAEL. 1959. Personalknowledge. plines: Anthropologists and native New York:Harcourt, Brace and World. Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press. ethnographersin Central European vil- LEWIS,OSCAR. 1966. La Vida:A PuertoRican RADIN,PAUL. 1920. The autobiographyofa lages. CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY 9:311-15. familyin theculture of povertSan Juan WinnebagoIndian. Berkeley: University HONDA, KATSUICHI. 1970. AmerikaGasshf- and New York. New York: Random of California Press. koku(United States of America). Tokyo: House. RIBEIRO,DARCY. 1970. The culture-historical Asahi Shimbunsha. [TS] LIEBOW,ELLIOT. 1967. Tally'scorner: A study configurationsof the American peoples. . 1971a. Korosareru-kawano Ronri of Negrostreetcomner men. Boston: Little, CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY 11:403-34. (Logics on the side of the murdered). Brown. [XA] Tokyo: Asahi Shimbunsha. [TS] LURIE,NANCIE. Editor. 1961. Mountain Wolf . 1971. Der zivilisatorischeProzess. . 1971b.Jijitsu towa Nanika? (What Woman.Ann Arbor: University of Michi- Frankfurt:Suhrkamp. [RVG] are facts?).Tokyo: Miraisha. [TS] gan Press. RICHARDS, AUDREY. Editor.1960. EastAfri- HORVATH, RONALD J. 1972. A definitionof MAGUBANE,BERNARD. 1971. A criticallook can chiefs:A studyof political development colonialism. CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY 13: at indicesused in the studyof social in some Ugandaand Tanganyikatribes. 45-51. [RVG] change in colonialAfrica. CURRENT AN- London: Faberand Faber. [DB] Hsu, FRANCIS. 1969. The studyof literate THROPOLOGY12:419-45. ROHNER, RONALD. Editor.1969. Theethnog- civilizations.New York: Holt, Rinehart MAIR,Lucy. 1934. An Africanpeople in the raphyof Franz Boas. Chicago: University and Winstozj. 20thcentury, London: George Routledge. of Chicago Press. HULTKRANTZ, AKE. 1968. The aims of an- [MD] ROMANO, OCTAVIO. 1968. Goodbyerevolu- thropology: A Scandinavian point of . 1960. The social sciences in Africa tion-Hello slum.El Grito1:8-14. view. CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY 9:289-310. southof the Sahara: The Britishcon- ROSZAK, THEODORE. 1969. The makingof a JONES,DELMOS. 1970. Toward a native an- tribution.Human Organization 19(3):98- counterculture. New York: Doubleday. thropology. HumanOrganization 29:25 1- 107. [DB] SCHNEIDER, DAVID. 1968. Americankinship: 59. . 1965. Tradition and modernityin A culturalaccount. Englewood Cliffs: . 197la. Comment on "Decolonizing the new Africa.Transactions of theNew Prentice-Hall. applied social sciences" by Rodolfo Sta- YorkAcademy of Sciences 27:439-44. SEELEY, JOHN R. 1963. "Some probative venhagen. HumanOrgantzation 30:348- MAQUET, JACQUESJ. 1964. Objectivityin problems,"in Sociologyon trial. Edited by 49. anthropology. CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY MauriceStein and ArthurVidich. Eng- . 1971b. Social responsibilityand the 5:47-55. lewoodCliffs: Prentice-Hall. beliefin basic research: An example from MASLOW,ABRAHAM. 1966. The psychologyof SOFUE, TAKAO. 1960. Japanesestudies by Thailand. CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY 12: science.New York:Harper and Row. American anthropologists: Review and 347-50. [RVG] MEMMI,ALBERT. 1967. The colonizerand the evaluation. American Anthropologist JORDAN,WINTHROP D. 1968. Whiteover black. colonized.Boston: Beacon Press. 62:306-17. [TS] Chapel Hill: Universityof NorthCarolina . 1969. Dominatedman. Boston: Bea- STAVENHAGEN, RODOLFO. 1971.Decolonizing Press. con Press. appliedsocial sciences. Human Organiza- JORGENSEN, JOSEPH. 1971. On ethics and MILLS, C. WRIGHT.1959. The sociological tton30:333-44. anthropology. CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY imagination.London: OxfordUniversity TAX, SOL. 1956. The freedom to make 12:321-34. Press. mistakes.Amirica Indigena 16:171-77. KOENTJARANINGRAT. 1964. "Anthropology MOORE,JOHN. 1971. Perspective for a parti- [GK] and the non-Euro-American anthro- san anthropology.Liberation 16:34-43. THOMAS, NORTHCOTE W. 1910. Anthro- pologist: The situation in Indonesia," in MURRAY, ALBERT. 1971. The Omni-Ameri- pologicalreport on theEdo-speaking peoples Explorationsin cultural anthropology. Edit- cans.New York: Outerbridge and Dienst- ofNigeria. Pt. 1. Lawand custom. Appendix ed by Ward Goodenough, pp. 293-308. frey. B. Genealogiesand kinship.London: New York: McGraw-Hill. MYRDAL,GUNNAR. 1969. Objectivityin social Harrison. [XGO] KONISHI, MASATOSHI. 1972. "JinruigakuShi- research.New York: Pantheon Books. TURNER, VICTOR. Editor. 1970. Colonialism k5: Toku ni Chosa o Megutte" (My per- NAKHLEH,K. 1973. On being a native an- in Africa,1870-1960. Vol. 3. Profilesof sonal view of anthropology: Especially thropologist. Paper prepared for the change:African society and colonialrule. concerning the problem of field re- lXth InternationalCongress of Anthro- Cambridge:Cambridge University Press. search). Kikan Jinruigaku(Anthropology pologicaland EthnologicalSciences, Au- [DB] Quarterly) 3(2): 189-205. [TSi gust 28-September 8. [KN] UCHENDU, VICTOR. 1965. TheIgbo of southeast KUHN, THOMAS S. 1962. The structureof OKOJIE,CHRISTOPHER G. 1960. Ishannative Nigeria.New York: Holt, Rinehart and scientificrevolutions. Chicago: University laws and customs. Yaba Lagos: John Winston. of Chicago Press. Okwesa. [XGO] VALENTINE, CHARLES. 1968. Cultureand pov- KUSHNER, GILBERT. 1970. "The anthro- OSWALT, WENDELL H. 1970. Understanding erty.Chicago: Universityof Chicago pology of complex societies,"in Biennial ourculture: An anthropologicalview. New Press. reviewof anthropology,1969. Edited by York: Holt, Rinehartand Winston. VIDICH, ARTHUR J. 1966."Editor's introduc- Bernard J. Siegel. Stanford: Stanford OwuSu, MAXWELL.1971 a. Anthropology: tion,"in Themethod and theory ofethnology, University Press. New insightsor just new stereotypes? by Paul Radin. New York: Basic Books. . 1973. Immigrantsfrom India in AfricaReport, October, pp. 22-24. [AJV] Israel:Planned change in an administered [MD] WACHTEL, NATAN. 1971. La visiondes vain- community.Tucson: University of Arizona _ 1971b. Afro-American studies: cus:Les indiens du Piroudevant la Conquite Press. [GK] Scholarshipor ideology?Paper presented espagnole.Paris: Gallimard. [XA] LEON-PORTILLA,MIGUEL. 1959. Visi6nde los to the AnthropologyForum, University WILSON, MONICA HUNTER. 1936. Reactionto vencidos:Relaciones indigenas de la Con- of Illinois, Urbana, April. [MD] conquest:Effects of contactwith Europeans quista.Mexico: Instituto Indigenista In- . n.d. Ethnic bias, charisma,and the on thePondo of SouthAfrica. London: teramericano. [XA] analysisof leadership: Comment on John OxfordUniversity Press. [DB] LE VAN HAO. Editor. 1972. Ethnographical Hanna's review in American Anthro- WOLF, ERIC. 1970. American anthro- data. Vol. 1. (Vietnamese Studies 32.) pologist,Book Review. In press. [MD] pologists and American society. The Hanoi: Xunhasaba. . 1972. Colonial and post-colonial WesternCanadian Journal of Anthropology LEVI-STRAUSS, CLAUDE. 1966. Anthropology: anthropology of Africa: Scholarship or 1:10-18. Its achievementsand future.CURRENT AN- sentiment?Paper prepared for the IXth WORSLEY, PETER. 1964. The thirdworld. THROPOLOGY7:124-27. International Congress of Anthro- Chicago:University of ChicagoPress.

602 C UR RENT AN TH RO POLOG Y