DOCSLIB.ORG

Anthropology 519 Authority, Power and Political Form

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

16.070.519 Parvis Ghassem-Fachandi !1 Anthropology 519 Authority, Power and Political Form ! (The Anthropology of Politics) Department of Anthropology, Rutgers University Instructor: Parvis Ghassem-Fachandi Class time: Mondays 2:55 - 5:55 o’clock Email: [email protected] Office: RAB 309, Hours: Mo. 12:30-1:30, Thurs. 12:30-1:30 Phone: (732) 932 98 86 Location of course: RAB 302 !Credits: 3 Semester: Spring 2016 Pre-requisites: 101 This seminar situates politics around other tensions than the friend-foe binary, which Carl Schmitt argued, at the beginning of the 20th century, was the elementary foundation of the political. We will engage comparatively a selection of ethnographic accounts and theories that focus on alternative political forms. “Political form” here means broadly the various social and cultural configurations that organize collective and individual life vis-a-vis the exercise of power and the construction of authority. We will try to account for the diversity of various conceptions of what constitutes the political and the effects of these conceptions on the organization of society. Such an approach implies both a sensitivity to the changes that accompanied the emergence of modern states with their administrative technologies (populations, nations, elections) and to the social forms (authoritarian, monarchical, democratic, totalitarian) that grew out of the use of the modern state form of organizing territory and people. The course will consider the gains and losses accrued through colonialism, independence movements, and the embrace of social transformation. Theoretical debates will include a reflection on patriarchic authority, political theology, the nationalization of religious belonging, genocide and collective violence as it relates to group solidarity or dissolution, regulated anarchy in stateless societies (segmentary organization), big man and chief systems, as well as the anonymous mass. The seminar will pay particular attention to how political form becomes imminent in everyday !practice, bodies, sensory experiences, memories, and identifications. General Reference Works in English: International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, David L. Sills, editor. (as far s I know this classic reference work has not been digitalized) Encyclopedia of Social and Cultural Anthropology, edited by Alan Barnard and Jonathan Spencer, Routledge. (Call number: GN307.E53 1996) Below is an list of edited volumes and introductory monographs incompletely covering the Anthropology of Politics, the Ethnography of the State, of the Political, and of Law. The syllabus does not make specific reference to these materials in the weekly reading assignments or in the recommended sections. It is useful to view, browse, skim, and generally remain aware, of such broader works. These readings are supplementary, not central for particular weekly themes in this course. As they might be useful for general reference you can consult them in various !libraries. !1 16.070.519 Parvis Ghassem-Fachandi !2 !Selection of Edited Volumes for Political Anthropology, include: 1. Michael Banton. ed. 1965. Political Systems and the Distribution of Power. In A.S.A. Monographs. London: Tavistock Publications. 2. Joan Vincent. ed. 2002. Anthropology and Politics: A Reader in Ethnography, Theory, and Critique, Blackwell. 3. Joan Vincent and David Nugent. eds. 2004. A Companion to the Anthropology of Politics, Blackwell. 4. Sally Falk Moore. ed. 2005. Law and Anthropology: A Reader, Blackwell. 5. Aradhana Sharma and Akhil Gupta. ed. 2006. The Anthropology of the State: a reader, Blackwell. 6. Daniel Goldstein and Enrique Desmond Arias. 2010. Violent Democracies in Latin America (The Cultures and Practice of Violence). Durham: Duke University Press. 7. James Carrier. 2005. Handbook of Economic Anthropology. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. 8. Massimiliano Mollona, Geert de Neve and Jonathan Parry. 2009. Industrial ! Work and Life: An Anthropological Reader. Oxford: Berg. !Monographs for Political Anthropology, include: 1. Robert Lowie. 1927. The Origin of the State. New York: Harcourt, Brace & Company. 2. Isaac Shapera. 1956. Government and Politics in Tribal Society. NY: Schocken Books. 3. Lucy Mair. 1962. Primitive Government. Penguin Books. 4. Victor Turner, Marc J. Swartz and Arthur Tuden. 1966. Political Anthropology. New Brunswick: Aldine Transactions. 5. George Balandier. 1970. Political Anthropology. New York: Vintage Books. 6. Joan Vincent. 1990. Anthropology and Politics: Visions, Traditions, and Trends. University of Arizona Press 7. Donald Kurtz. 2001. Political Anthropology: Paradigms and Power. Westview Press. !8. Ted C. Lewellen. 2003. Political Anthropology: An Introduction. Westport: Praeger. !Books for Purchase for this Course Books are available at the main store on Reserve at Mable Smith Douglass Library and can be !bought at the Rutgers University Bookstore: 1. Abdellah Hammoudi. 1997. Master and Disciple: The Cultural Foundations of Moroccan Authoritarianism. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-31528-2 2. Maurice Godelier. 1986. The Making of Great Men: Male domination and power among the New Guinea Baruya. Translated by Rupert Swyer. Cambridge University Press (Éditions de la Maison des Sciences de l’Homme). ISBN 0-521-31212-4 3. François Bizot. 2003[2000]. The Gate. Translated by Euan Cameron. Foreword by ! John Le Carré. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. ISBN 978-0375727238 ! !2 16.070.519 Parvis Ghassem-Fachandi !3 MOVING IMAGES: Barbet Schroeder. 1974. Général Idi Amin Dada: Autoportrait, 1hr 30 min Filip de Boeck. 2010. Cemetery State, 1hr 12 min Jean Rouch. 1955. Les Maitres Fous, 28 min Dino Risi. 1971. Noi donne siamo fatte cosi, 1hr 52 min Bob Connolly and Robin Anderson. 1989. Joe Leahy’s Neigbhors, 1hr 30 min Tobias Wendl and Daniela Weise. 1988, Mami Wata: Der Geist der Weißen Frau, 45 min. Carmen Losmann. 2011. Work Hard, Play Hard, min. 1hr 30 min. ! John Carpenter. 1988. They Live, 1hr 34 min. READING LOAD: Varies, but maximally 200 pages/week. All required books are on Course Reserves (The Anthropology of Politics, 519) at Mable Smith Douglass Library (8 Chapel Drive, New Brunswick, DC) and selected readings are posted on Sakai. It is advisable to buy most if not all of the classic texts (e.g. at the Rutgers University Bookstore), as they might be of use in the future and frequently become unavailable (unlike edited volumes mentioned above, which apparently remain available till the end of times and hence need not be bought). Please inform me !immediately if the books are either not available for purchase or not on Library Reserve. COURSE REQUIREMENTS AND GRADING CRITERIA: The seminar will be discussion driven. Hence it is vitally important that you come to class having read and screened all class materials (this includes movies). Final paper (40%), max. 15-20 pages, due by May 11th. Class Participation (40%) and Précis (10%) and Powerpoint Presentation (10%). There will also be due an Obligatory Homework the weekend after Spring break March 21st. as part of the preparation for the presentation and completion of final paper (see below the week after spring recess). Attendance in each class is required (no more than two class absences are acceptable in one semester). If you miss a class please consult student !colleagues. Précis: Students have to hand in the short précis (1-2 pages) every week during the semester at least one day before the class, i.e. on Sunday (24 hours before class begin). For the first and last week of class this imperative is canceled. The précis offers the instructor material documentation of the student’s independent work outside of class. While précis might not be regularly discussed in class, they can be revised and discussed in office hours (in which case you need to bring it to the !office). Powerpoint Presentation: In the last week of class, and as preliminary preparation for the final paper, every participant of the seminar will offer a short presentation (5-10 minutes) that begins an analysis of a populist leader in the contemporary world whether deceased or dead. The presentation is to be short, and sufficiently humble, but focused on aligning some of the elements learned to an emerging analytic narrative. This exercise practices concise articulation, application of theoretical concepts, and the balanced use of various visual material (video, images, photographs, webpages). The presentation should be geared towards the class community to foster discussion. During the semester, all participants of the seminar will be expected to spontaneously !3 16.070.519 Parvis Ghassem-Fachandi !4 introduce and lead discussion in which they should minimally delineate directions for argumentation and critique of the text relevant for the week. Content questions of the texts should be addressed in discussion or in précis. The readings given in the recommended sections of the syllabus are not selected as aids for clarification of the weeks’ themes. They are merely offered as future references for those students who want to enter more deeply into the matters at hand. For intellectual help, please refer to the general reference work presented above. This seminar strives to build intellectual community through mutual challenge with as little antagonism as possible. Participants of the seminar are expected to be respectful to one another !and generous with their insights especially when they fundamentally disagree with one another. COURSE OBJECTIVES: To provide graduate-level competency in comparative
Recommended publications
  • View 2019 Edition Online

    View 2019 Edition Online

    Emmanuel Emmanuel College College MAGAZINE 2018–2019 Front Court, engraved by R B Harraden, 1824 VOL CI MAGAZINE 2018–2019 VOLUME CI Emmanuel College St Andrew’s Street Cambridge CB2 3AP Telephone +44 (0)1223 334200 The Master, Dame Fiona Reynolds, in the new portrait by Alastair Adams May Ball poster 1980 THE YEAR IN REVIEW I Emmanuel College MAGAZINE 2018–2019 VOLUME CI II EMMANUEL COLLEGE MAGAZINE 2018–2019 The Magazine is published annually, each issue recording college activities during the preceding academical year. It is circulated to all members of the college, past and present. Copy for the next issue should be sent to the Editors before 30 June 2020. News about members of Emmanuel or changes of address should be emailed to [email protected], or via the ‘Keeping in Touch’ form: https://www.emma.cam.ac.uk/members/keepintouch. College enquiries should be sent to [email protected] or addressed to the Development Office, Emmanuel College, Cambridge CB2 3AP. General correspondence concerning the Magazine should be addressed to the General Editor, College Magazine, Dr Lawrence Klein, Emmanuel College, Cambridge CB2 3AP. Correspondence relating to obituaries should be addressed to the Obituaries Editor (The Dean, The Revd Jeremy Caddick), Emmanuel College, Cambridge CB2 3AP. The college telephone number is 01223 334200, and the email address is [email protected]. If possible, photographs to accompany obituaries and other contributions should be high-resolution scans or original photos in jpeg format. The Editors would like to express their thanks to the many people who have contributed to this issue, with a special nod to the unstinting assistance of the College Archivist.
  • Social Anthropology 2 Handbook 2016

    Social Anthropology 2 Handbook 2016

    University of Edinburgh School of Social & Political Science Subject Area 2016 – 2017 Social Anthropology 2, Key Topics in Social Anthropology SCAN 08004 Semester 1, Year 2 Key Information Course Organiser Dr. Naomi Haynes Email: [email protected] Room no. 4.10 Chrystal MacMillan Building, 15A George Square Guidance & Feedback Hours: Mondays 13.00 – 15:00 and by appointment Lecturers Prof Jonathan Spencer Email: [email protected] Dr John Harries Email: [email protected] Location Mondays and Thursdays 15:10 – 16:00 Lecture Hall C, David Hume Tower LTs Tutors Tutor’s name: Jenny Lawy Email: [email protected] Tutor’s name: Heid Jerstad Email: [email protected] Tutor’s name: Leo Hopkinson Email: [email protected] Course Secretary Secretary’s name: Lauren Ayre Email: [email protected] Undergraduate Teaching Office Assessment • Essay #1 – 17 October 2016 12 noon Deadlines • Essay #2 – 14 November 2016 12 noon • Essay #3 – 12 December 2016 12 noon Aims and Objectives This course will provide a historical overview of anthropological thought and will be taught through an introduction to keywords that have helped to shape the development of social anthropology. The thematic approach is designed to be engaging and stimulating to students and to help to foster critical conceptual and theoretical thought. It will highlight the continued significance of key concepts and oppositions over time. The course is organized around the exploration of a cluster of linked keywords: society and culture; humans and the environment; and persons and 2016-17 Social Anthropology 2A 1 production.
  • Max Weber and the Legitimacy of the Modern State

    Max Weber and the Legitimacy of the Modern State

    David Beetharn Max Weber and the Legitimacy of the Modern State Abstract: Max Weber's typology of Iegitimale 'Herrschaft' has provided the basis for the treatment of Jegitimacy in twentieth century sociology and political science. The thesis of the article is that this typology is a misleading tool for the analysis of the modern state, and especially for the comparative analysis of political systems. This is because of basic flaws in Weber's conceptualisation of Jegitimacy itself, and in his account of the norma­ tive basis of authority. The article offers an alternative, multi-dimensional, account of political Jegitirnacy, and suggests how it might be used to develop a typology of forms of 'Herrschaft' more appropriate to the analysis ofthe modern state. The argument of this article is that Weber's typology of legitimate 'Herrschaft' is fundamentally flawed as a basis for analysing political legitimacy, and especially the legitimacy of the modern state. If my argument is sound, then it has signifi­ cant consequences, in view of the fact that the large majority of sociologists and political scientists in the twentieth century who have written about legitimacy have either adopted the Weberian typology as it stands, or have used it as the basis for further developments of their own. Even those who have rejected it have failed to establish a wholly convincing alternative, so that Weber's typology is left holding the field, if only by default. I shall begin by briefly reviewing Weber's typology and the uses to which he put it. I shall then show why the categories he developed misrepresent the nature of legitimacy, and serve to confuse rather than elucidate its complexity.
  • Authority and Rationality—Max Weber (German, 1864–1920)

    Authority and Rationality—Max Weber (German, 1864–1920)

    05-Allen.qxd 12/23/2004 11:51 AM Page 143 CHAPTER 5 Authority and Rationality—Max Weber (German, 1864–1920) 143 05-Allen.qxd 12/23/2004 11:51 AM Page 144 144—— EXPLORATIONS IN CLASSICAL SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY ● The Perspective: Complex Sociology 147 ● The Evolution of Religion 154 ● The Rise of Capitalism: Religion and States 159 ● Class, Authority, and Social Change 164 ● Rationality in Action 172 ● Thinking About Modernity and Postmodernity 176 ● Summary 180 ● Building Your Theory Toolbox 181 Weber’s writings are somewhat schizophrenic....[I]n his volumi- nous works, one can find almost anything one looks for. There is plenty of material for Parsons’ functionalism...and also for Schluchter or Habermas’s rationalist evolutionism. Weber is a legit- imate ally of the symbolic interactionists, as well as an influence upon Alfred Schutz, who in turn influenced social phenomenology and ethnomethodology. On the other hand, modern organization theory and stratification theory could reasonably emerge from Weber’s work, and he could influence conflict sociologists...all these elements are in Weber. (Collins, 1986, p. 11) ax Weber is one of sociology’s most intricate thinkers. Part of this complexity is undoubtedly due to the breadth of his knowledge. Weber M was a voracious reader with an encyclopedic knowledge and a dedi- cated workaholic. In addition, Weber was in contact with a vast array of prominent thinkers from diverse disciplines. As Lewis Coser (2003) comments, “In leafing through Weber’s pages and notes, one is impressed with the range of men with whom he engaged in intellectual exchanges and realizes the widespread net of rela- tionships Weber established within the academy and across its various disciplinary boundaries” (p.
  • John Gledhill There Are Significant National Differences Between The

    John Gledhill There Are Significant National Differences Between The

    FATEFUL LEGACIES AND THE BURDENS OF ACADEmic EXCELLENCE: UK ANTHROPOLOGY AND THE PUBLIC SPHERE John Gledhill There are significant national differences between the public profiles of anthropology in different countries and regions of the world today. The obvious way to account for them is to apply sociological analysis to the development of the discipline in different contexts, and at the same time consider the differences between the contexts themselves. In the case of British social anthropology, much, if not all, of what we need to know to diagnose the roots of the problem has already been published. Key texts include Jonathan Spencer’s incisive implementation of Edmund Leach’s suggestion that: ‘the sociology of the environ- ment of social anthropologists has a bearing on the history of social anthropology’, in an article published in Annual Review of Anthropology in 2000 (Spencer 2000: 21). David Mills has recently been exploring the history of the discipline in a whole range of incisive articles, with a major book on the way. One very acce- ssible example that illustrates the way David makes history ask searching practical questions about the future is his Anthropology Today piece on the history of the two UK associations, ASA and RAI, and the implications of their continuing separation (Mills 2003). Adam Kuper’s celebrated and thrice updated contribution to the intellectual and social history of ‘The Modern British School’ remains a rich and indispensable reference (Kuper 1996), even if Spencer’s article also makes the important point that we need to continue thinking about what, if anything, makes British anthropology distinctive today.
  • Adorno's Dilemma: on Difficult Writing and Sophistication in Anthropology

    Adorno's Dilemma: on Difficult Writing and Sophistication in Anthropology

    38 Kroeber Anthropological Society Papers Vol. 99/100 KROEBER ANTHROPOLOGICAL SOCIETY, 100(1): 38-63 Adorno’s Dilemma: On Difficult Writing and Sophistication in Anthropology Today1 Marc Goodwin, University of California, Berkeley Introduction Writing in 1966, in an essay entitled “Difficulties,” Theodor Adorno saw modern mu- sic as, “faced with an alternative,” “that between the fetishism of the material and the process, on the one hand, and unfettered chance [in the form of aleatory music] on the other” (2002:660). In other words, after the collapse of tonality in the early twenti- eth century, composers could choose either to ignore this fact and compose music that could make no claims to being autonomous art, or face complete isolation from musical expressivity. This paper uses Adorno’s dilemma as a starting point and central organiz- ing device for exploring the political, ethical, and aesthetic dimensions of debates on “difficult writing” in anthropology. More specifically, for heuristic purposes, it draws a connection between the “crisis of musical meaning” in the early to mid-twentieth cen- tury, and the so-called “crisis of representation” in anthropology in the 1980s and 1990s in order to think of the problem of difficulty as a particular response to objective histori- cal conditions. In particular, I argue that the shift to textuality in anthropology created a bifurcation between the epistemological and political dimensions of representation, and introduced sophistication as the key diacritic of critical engagement and inquiry. Because the notion of sophistication implies both technical refinement and deception, I show how criticisms of difficulty in writing imply already a specific notion of failed or inauthentic public address.
  • Making-Up the Toraja? the Appropriation of Tourism, Anthropology, and Museums for Politics in Upland Sulawesi, Indonesia

    Making-Up the Toraja? the Appropriation of Tourism, Anthropology, and Museums for Politics in Upland Sulawesi, Indonesia

    Loyola University Chicago Loyola eCommons Anthropology: Faculty Publications and Other Works Faculty Publications Spring 1995 Making-up the Toraja? The Appropriation of Tourism, Anthropology, and Museums for Politics in Upland Sulawesi, Indonesia Kathleen M. Adams Loyola University Chicago, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://ecommons.luc.edu/anthropology_facpubs Part of the Anthropology Commons Recommended Citation Adams, K. (1995). "Making-up the Toraja? The Appropriation of Tourism, Anthropology, and Museums for Politics in Upland Sulawesi, Indonesia." Ethnology, 34(2), p. 143-153. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Publications at Loyola eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Anthropology: Faculty Publications and Other Works by an authorized administrator of Loyola eCommons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License. © University of Pittsburgh, Department of Anthropology, 1995. MAKING-UPTHE TORAJA? THE APPROPRIATIONOF TOURISM, ANTHROPOLOGY,AND MUSEUMS FOR POLITICS IN UPLAND SULAWESI, INDONESIA1 KathleenM. Adams Loyola Universityof Chicago Overthe past fifteenyears anthropologists studying ethnic phenomena have rejected olderconceptions of culturalidentity and tradition as stable,bounded realities born out of the past, turninginstead to embracea notionof culturalidentity as a dynamic, ongoingprocess of negotiationand political contestation. As the
  • The Classical Theorists in Sociology (Marx, Weber, and Durkheim): What Can They Tell Us About Environment - Society Relations?

    The Classical Theorists in Sociology (Marx, Weber, and Durkheim): What Can They Tell Us About Environment - Society Relations?

    The Classical Theorists in Sociology (Marx, Weber, and Durkheim): What can they tell us about environment - society relations? The classical theorists have all been justifiably criticized during the past 40 years for ignoring the relationship of humans to their natural environment. In the current historical moment it might be useful to alter the intellectual agenda some and focus on the possible utility of the classical theorists' work as a heuristic tool for interpreting contemporary environment - society relations. Common Points of Departure for Marx, Weber, and Durkheim All three were preoccupied with 'the Great Transformation' (Polanyi) that occurred with the industrialization and urbanization of Europe in the 19th century. All three of them applauded Darwin's work. They each produced a vast 'oeuvre', much of which we will not review. All three of them analyze the contexts (eg. structures) that shape market exchanges. The three theorists can be considered structuralists, but they focused on different types of structures For Marx, think about factories that convert natural resources into commodities through human labor. For Weber, think about norms, but also about offices that contain bureaucracies that enforce norms. For Durkheim, think about norms, but also about cities that house different kinds of occupational specialists with distinct sets of norms. Karl Marx (1818-1883) Marx conceived of societies largely as factories and cities that took in massive amounts of resources and used them to spew out a continuing stream of commodities and massive amounts of pollution Factory owners engage in an insatiable drive for profits which they earn by exploiting both workers and natural resources.
  • The Ecology of Puha: Identity, Orientation, and Shifting Perceptions Reflected Through Material Culture and Socioreligious Practice

    The Ecology of Puha: Identity, Orientation, and Shifting Perceptions Reflected Through Material Culture and Socioreligious Practice

    University of Montana ScholarWorks at University of Montana Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers Graduate School 2021 THE ECOLOGY OF PUHA: IDENTITY, ORIENTATION, AND SHIFTING PERCEPTIONS REFLECTED THROUGH MATERIAL CULTURE AND SOCIORELIGIOUS PRACTICE Aaron Robert Atencio Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Atencio, Aaron Robert, "THE ECOLOGY OF PUHA: IDENTITY, ORIENTATION, AND SHIFTING PERCEPTIONS REFLECTED THROUGH MATERIAL CULTURE AND SOCIORELIGIOUS PRACTICE" (2021). Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers. 11734. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd/11734 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at ScholarWorks at University of Montana. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at University of Montana. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE ECOLOGY OF PUHA: IDENTITY, ORIENTATION, AND SHIFTING PERCEPTIONS REFLECTED THROUGH MATERIAL CULTURE AND SOCIORELIGIOUS PRACTICE By AARON ROBERT ATENCIO Anthropology, University of Montana, Missoula, Montana, U.S.A., 2021 Dissertation Presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of PhD Philosophy of Anthropology The University of Montana Missoula, MT Official Graduation Date (May 2021) Approved by: Scott Whittenburg, Dean of The Graduate School Graduate
  • Anthropology, Culture and Society

    Anthropology, Culture and Society

    Small Places, Large Issues Eriksen SPLI4 00 pre 1 29/06/2015 10:44 Anthropology, Culture and Society Series Editors: Professor Vered Amit, Concordia University and Professor Christina Garsten, Stockholm University Recent titles: Becoming Arab in London: At the Heart of the State: The Gloss of Harmony: Performativity and the The Moral World of Institutions The Politics of Policy Making Undoing of Identity DIDIER FASSIN ET AL. in Multilateral Organisations AMY LY EDITED BY BIRGIT MÜLLER R M. K. A Discordant Development: Community, Cosmopolitanism Global Capitalism and the Contesting Publics: and the Problem of Human Struggle for Connection in Feminism, Activism, Commonality Bangladesh Ethnography VERED AMIT AND KATY GARDNER LYNNE PHILLIPS NIGEL RAPPORT Anthropology and Development: AND SALLY COLE Home Spaces, Street Styles: Challenges for the Twenty-first Food For Change: Contesting Power and Identity Century The Politics and Values in a South African City KATY GARDNER AND DAVID LEWIS of Social Movements LESLIE J. BANK Organisational Anthropology: JEFF PRATT AND PETER LUETCHFORD In Foreign Fields: Doing Ethnography in and The Politics and Experiences of Among Complex Organisations Checkpoint, Temple, Church Transnational Sport Migration EDITED BY CHRISTINA GARSTEN and Mosque: AND NETTE YQVIST THOMAS F. CARTER A N A Collaborative Ethnography Border Watch: of War and Peace Dream Zones: JONATHAN SPENCER, Anticipating Capitalism and Cultures of Immigration, Detention and Control JONATHAN GOODHAND, Development in India HAHUL ASbuLLAH LEXANDRA
  • Traditional Political Institutions and Democracy: Reassessing Their Compatibility and Accountability1

    Traditional Political Institutions and Democracy: Reassessing Their Compatibility and Accountability1

    Traditional Political Institutions and Democracy: Reassessing their Compatibility and Accountability1 Kate Baldwin2 and Katharina Holzinger3 Abstract This article revisits prominent frameworks for understanding traditional political institutions which make pessimistic assessments about their compatibility with democracy. Traditional political institutions are often assumed to be unaccountable because they are led by undemocratic leaders who are not subject to electoral sanctioning. However, drawing on new information from the TradGov Group dataset, an expert survey on the contemporary practices of more than 1400 ethnic groups that currently have traditional political institutions, we show that these institutions contain their own distinct mechanisms of accountability. In a majority of cases, decision-making is consensual and leaders must account for their actions in various ways. We challenge the electoral accountability framework for understanding the quality of traditional leaders’ performance, instead arguing that traditional political institutions can be compatible with democracy and even accountable to their citizens insofar as they adopt inclusive decision-making processes and their leaders have strong non-electoral connections to the communities they represent. 1 We thank the German Research Foundation (DFG) for funding the Reinhart Koselleck Project “Traditional Governance and Modern Statehood” (grant no. HO 1811/10-1), and Clara Neupert-Wentz, Sven-Patrick Schmid, Axel Bayer, Daniela Behr and Roos Haer for supporting the data collection and analysis. We thank Lindsay Benstead, Florian Kern, Carolyn Logan, Virginia Oliveros and Peter Van Der Windt for providing feedback on earlier drafts. 2 Peter Strauss Family Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, Yale University. Mailing address: 115 Prospect Street, P.O. Box 208301, New Haven, CT 06520, United States.
  • ​P Art​1. Framing Fieldwork in the Batticaloa Region

    ​P Art​1. Framing Fieldwork in the Batticaloa Region

    part 1. framing fieldwork in the batticaloa region Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/books/book/chapter-pdf/633593/9780822389187-001.pdf by guest on 30 September 2021 introduction ri Lanka has been a remarkably fertile site for Sresearch in social and cultural anthropology, starting with C. G. and Brenda Z. Seligmann’s colo- nial monograph on the Veddas (1911) and continuing to this day with important ethnographic studies by Edmund R. Leach (1961), Nur Yalman (1967), Stanley J. Tambiah (1958), Gananath Obeyesekere (1967, 1981, 1984), James Brow (1978), Michael Roberts (1982), Bruce Kapferer (1983), Jonathan Spencer (1990a), R. L. Stirrat (1992), E. Valentine Daniel (1996), Rohan Bastin (2002), and many others. Despite “postcolo- nial and postempiricist” objections to anthropology in Sri Lanka (Ismail 2005), my intention was always to produce a book in the same scholarly tradition, a study that would extend understanding of the island’s remarkable sociological complexity through long- term, community-based fieldwork, as well as through critical engagement with anthropological writing on South Asia more generally. Now, however, given the brutal ethnic conflict which has consumed Sri Lan- kan society since the 1980s, this study also helps to illuminate what has become the most critical and divided conflict zone of the Eelam War—the island’s Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/books/book/chapter-pdf/633593/9780822389187-001.pdf by guest on 30 September 2021 Map 1. Sri Lanka and South India eastern coastal region—and the two Tamil-speaking minority communities who have lived there side by side for centuries—the Tamils and the Muslims (or Sri Lankan Moors).