The Inventiveness of aTradition: StructuralAnthropologyin the Netherlands from anoutsider’sperspective PeterBerger Faculty of Theologyand Religious Studies,University of Groningen,the Netherlands Abstract: Leiden structuralanthropologyachieved internationalrenownthrough the workofJ.P.B. and P.E.deJosselin de Jong and theircolleaguesand students.Inthe 1980s,especiallyafterthe retire- mentof P.E.deJosselin de Jong in 1988,itgrewquietaround thisschool.Thisarticle investigatesthe status quoofstructuralanthropologyin the Netherlandsbyfocusing on developments in the last twenty years.Itisargued thatthe structuraltraditioncontinued,though in less conspicuous ways,be- causeitchanged and atthe same time retainedcharacteristicfeatures.Old concepts and methodswere refined and developed,newemphasisadded and currentproblemsapproached. Overthe decadesthis inventiveprocess wasenhanced byacreativeopposition and closebut criticalcooperation withvarious wavesof Frenchstructuralism. Atthe turnofthe twenty-first century,Marshall D.Sahlinsdiagnosed the discipline of anthropologyassuffering from a“paralysing fearof structure” (Sahlins1999:399). Various formsof “afterology”(postmodernism,postcolonialism,etc.),he states,assume morallyappropriateattitudeswithrespecttocolonialismorracism,forexample,but insteadoffacilitating the understanding of othercultureswould rathermake “cultural logicsdisappear”(ibid.:406). Although Europeananthropologymighthavebeen slightlyless in thrall toafterologiesthanelsewhere,itisalsotruethatrecentlythere hasbeen no discernible focus on structureand,in Germanyatleast,therearefew who would nowdescribethemselvesasstructuralistsorbesodescribed byothers. However,the stateofanthropologyin Europe isnotthe same everywhere. While there wasneveratradition of structuralanthropologyin Germananthropology,the circum- stancesweredifferentin the Netherlands. The namesof J.P.B.and P.E.deJosselin de Jong,although perhapsconfused out- side the Netherlandsattimes,areinternationallyrecognized,and notonlybyIndone- sianists.Inthe late1970s and 1980s especially,severaledited volumesappeared that claimed astructuraltradition forLeiden anthropology,and workspreviouslyonlyac- cessible in Dutchweretranslated (Claessen and Moyer1988;P.E.deJosselin de Jong 1977a;Moyeretal. 1981;Ridderand Karremans1987). Therewasthereforeahigh degree of whatMichael Pragercalls“auto-historiography”,thatis,the retrospective Zeitschriftfür Ethnologie 134(2009) 1–27 Ó 2009DietrichReimerVerlag 2 Zeitschriftfür Ethnologie 134(2009) construction of adistinctschool of anthropology(Prager1996:11 f.;Oosten,personal communication). The retirementof P.E.deJosselin de Jong in Leiden in 1988 wasan occasion forseveralFestschriften,whichprovided evidenceofavitalanthropological endeavour.Atthe same time,hisretirementcanalsoberegarded asthe swansong of Dutchstructuralanthropology.Atleast asperceived from across the borderitgrew quietaround the Leiden school in the late1980s. Intheirreviewof Dutchanthropology,addressed toaninternationalaudience,An- ton Blok and JeremyBoissevain proclaimed the “discontinuity of Dutchstructuralism” even beforeP.E.deJosselin de Jong’sretirement(1984:337). However,therearestate- ments tothe contrary.Forexample,HanVermeulen,in 1997,found thatstructural anthropologywasone of the “conspicuous continuities” 1 in Leiden (Vermeulen 1997:42). Keeping thisin mind aswevisitthe currentwebsitesof the faculty staff of the Departmentof CulturalAnthropologyand DevelopmentalSociology, 2 weonly find one scholar,Franklin Tjon Sie Fat,associating himself withstructuralanthropol- ogyand thismayappearasananachronismtosome people. Thisarticle investigates,if in asomewhatimpressionisticway,the status quoof structuralanthropologyin the Netherlands. 3 Did structuralanthropologycome toan end withthe retirementof P.E.deJosselin de Jong,withthe lackofthe word“struc- ture” on the websitesmerelymirroring thisfact?Orcanwedetectacontinuity of this tradition,which,although notthe same asin the 1950s or1970s,isnevertheless alive and well? Iwill arguethatthe latteristhe caseand thatthe disappearanceofthe term “structure” asalabel –the intolerable “s-word”,asSahlins(1999:406)hasit–doesnot automaticallyentail the end of structuralanthropology.Rather,whatwehavehere,al- luding toVermeulen,isan“inconspicuous continuity”ofstructuralanthropologyafter 1988. Furthermore,one canspeakherewithSahlinsabout the inventiveness of atra- dition,“apermutation of olderformsand relationships,made appropriatetonovel situations”(Sahlins1999:408f.). Thatthe tradition changed,integrating and making indigenous external–mainlyFrench–elements,and atthe same time articulating its distinctiveness,caninthisviewbeseen asasign of its vitality. The intention hereisnottopresentacompleteorcomprehensivehistory of Leiden anthropology.Muchhasbeen written on the subject:particularlydetailed arePrager’s 1 All translationsfrom DutchorGermanaremine. 2 http://www.fsw.leidenuniv.nl/ca-os/organisatie/stafleden.jsp,accessed on 24March2009. 3 The motivebehind writing thiscontribution derivesfrom the academicbackground and currentsi- tuation of its author.Asastudentof GeorgPfeffer,one of the fewGermananthropologists who would notbebothered about being called astructuralist (cf. Bergeretal. 2009),and workingforthe last twoyears in Groningen in aplacewhereanthropologists soughtrefuge in the Faculty of Theology and Religious Studiesin the 1980s when theirowndepartmentwasclosed down(Papousek and Kui- per2002),Ibecame curious about the stateofaffairs in Dutchstructuralanthropology.Iwantto thank Yme Kuiper,JarichOosten,JosPlatenkamp and PatriciaSpyerforcomments on and reactions tothe manuscript. PeterBerger:The Inventiveness of aTradition:StructuralAnthropologyin the Netherlands 3 study(1996)whichtakesahistoriographicand contextualizing approach,identifying various paradigm shifts in the period between 1917and 1956,and Vermeulen’swork (2002),whichfocusesmoreonthe institutionalhistory of anthropologyatLeiden.4 Most of the literatureconcentrateson the period between 1922 and 1988,when J.P.B.deJosselin de Jong and hisnephewgaveshape tothe structuraltradition in Leiden. However,Iwill focus on the pervasiveness and modificationsof analytical ideas,theoreticalassumptionsand methodologicalconvictions,particularlyafterP.E. de Josselin de Jong’sretirementin 1988. While emphasizing aspects of continuity,Ido notwanttoindicatethatwearedealing herewithahomogenous tradition. Manystu- dents of P.E.deJosselin de Jong,forexample,did notcontinueinthe structuralist tradition and found otherperspectivesmorepromising,feminismbeing anexample. Furthermore,aswill beseen,thosewho continued in the structuralist line did soin various ways,eachscholaraccentuating certain featuresand giving structuralanthro- pologyhisorherownstamp.Nevertheless,thesearevariationson atheme. Finally, thisarticle doesnotattempttopigeonhole thoseinvolved. Whatisatstake hereisa particularanthropologicalpracticeand notthe nameswithwhichthispracticeisasso- ciated. Thisconvictionisshared bymanyscholars whoseworksIwill discuss. Inthe following Iwill outline the main ideas,methodsand convictionsof anthro- pologists working in Leiden5 within astructuralframework. Inparticular,the focus will beonthosewho held the chairof Indonesiananthropology, 6 first held byJ.P.B. de Josselin de Jong and laterbyotherprofessors who wereassociated withstructural anthropologyatthe University of Leiden. Inaddition topublicationsbythe scholars concerned,specialattention will begiven totheirinaugurallectures,whichhavethe status of a“publication”inthe Netherlandsbut arenotin every casereadilyavailable outside the country.Suchlecturesareparticularlyvaluable forthe presentpurposebe- 4 See furtherClaessen and Moyer1988;P.E.deJosselin de Jong 1977; P.E.deJosselin de Jong and Vermeulen 1989;Platenkamp and Prager1994;Pouwer1989;Ridderand Karremans1987; de Ruiter 1981;Vermeulen 1997. 5 Structuralanthropologyin the Netherlandsismoreorless synonymous withLeiden. JosPlaten- kamp,forexample,recallshow,afterhisfirst yearin anthropologyin Nijmegen in 1969,he wastold he should studyin Leiden. Similarly,JarichOosten explainsthateveryone who wanted toworkinthis traditioncame toLeiden (Platenkamp,personalcommunication;Oosten,personalcommunication). Thereforethe focus on Leiden anthropologywhen talking about the tradition of structuralanthropol- ogyin the Netherlandsmaywell bejustified. However,alsoinUtrecht(Arie de Ruijter)and Nijmegen (JanPouwer)structuralanthropologywasdeveloped bysome.Mention hasalsotobemade of Jan vanBaal,who neverheld aposition in Leiden but iscloselyassociated withthistradition;acontribu- tion of hisisalsoincluded in the reader StructuralAnthropologyin the Netherlands (J.P.B.deJosselin de Jong 1977). Hismajorethnographicworkison SouthNewGuinea(vanBaal1966),forhistheo- reticalvision see his SymbolsforCommunication (vanBaaland vanBeek 1985;see alsoKuiper1986). 6 The title of the chairhaschanged overtime:Culturele Antropologie,i.h.b.vanZuid-Oost Azië en hetZuidzeegebied (P.E.deJosselin de Jong 1957);Culturele Antropologie en Sociologie vanIndone- sië (Schefold 1990);Culturele Antropologie en Sociologie vanhethuidige Indonesië (Spyer2002). 4 Zeitschriftfür Ethnologie 134(2009) causetheyareprogrammaticstatements –“visiting cards”asYme Kuipercallsthem (personalcommunication) –thatprovide alink between past,presentand future. In theirlecturesthe newprofessors commenton the history of the position theynowfill, theyemphasizeparticularaspects of thistradition while omitting others,and theystate theirmotives,beliefsand ambitionsforthe