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 future. Asanewcomertothe field Ialso considered itadvisable tocomplementmyreading withsome primary information from “indigenous informants”.7

The legendary period

Structuralanthropologywaspractised in Leiden long beforeitwasdescribed assuch, letalone the coining of the term“structural ism ”byLévi-Strauss in Paris.Nevertheless, the initialimpulsecame from Francethrough the workofDurkheim and Mauss on systemsof “primitiveclassification”(1963 [1903]). Inthisinfluentialpieceofwork, Durkheim and Mauss tried toshowhowthe physicalorganizationofsocieties(the empiricallevel),forexample the spatiallayout of tribalsettlements,produced corre- sponding indigenous categoriesof thought,suchasculturallyspecificnotionsof space. InLeiden itwasthe lawyerVanOssenbruggen(VanOssenbruggen 1977 [1917])who applied theirideastoIndonesianethnographicdataand isthus regarded asone of the founding fathers of structuralanthropologyin the Netherlands(Moyer1988;Prager 1996). Around thistime,W.H.Rassers,working atthe NationalMuseumofEthnol- ogyin Leiden (founded in 1837),recognized the importanceofthe same ideasand alsoinspired hiscolleagueatthe museum,J.P.B.deJosselin de Jong,totake thisdi- rection (cf. Prager1998). Being appointed part-time professorof generalanthropology in 1922 and tothe main chair(established 1877)related tothe culturalanthropology of Indonesiain 1935,itwasJ.P.B.deJosselin de Jong who institutionalized thisearly formofDutchstructuralanthropology,whichfrom its very beginningswascloselyre- lated tothe studyof Indonesia–the Netherlands”most importantcolony. The inaugurallecturebyJ.P.B.deJosselin de Jong,the “culturehero” of the Lei- den School’(de Ruijter1981:32),in 1935,introduced anewmethodologicaloutlook thatcanberegarded asone of the most significantthreadsof Dutchstructuralanthro- pology:the notion of the “Field of EthnologicalStudy”(1977),latercalled the “Field of AnthropologicalStudy”(FAS)(cf. Oosten 1988:259). Thismethod entailsthe com- parison of historicallyrelated societiesthatsharecertain socio-structuralfeatures–the “structuralcore” including “asymmetricalliance”,“exogamous moieties”,“double des-

7 InJanuary 2009Ihadaconversation withJarichOosten in Leiden and in February 2009another withJosPlatenkamp and Michael Pragerin Münster.Furthermore,Ihadalong telephone conversa- tion in March2009withSabine Luning. Iwould like tothank all of them fortheirtime and the in- spiring discussions. PeterBerger:The Inventiveness of aTradition:StructuralAnthropologyin the Netherlands 5 cent”and marriage as“totalprestation”–but whicharenevertheless sufficientlydiffer- enttomake acomparison fruitful.8 Thismethodologicalperspectiveproved tobethe most influentialaspectof J.P.B.deJosselin de Jong’stenureofthe chairatLeiden (until 1956),and itwasadopted and developed overthe years byotheranthropologists working in Leiden (Barraudand Platenkamp 1990; Kuper1977,1982; Oosten 1985; Platenkamp 1996; Schefold 1994,2001). Within thiscomparativeframework,J.P.B.deJosselin de Jong and hisstudents hadaparticularvision of structurethatisessentiallypre-Lévi-Straussian,astheyas- sumed ittobemanifest on the empiricallevel. Thus,the notion of structurewasmore orless identicaltothatdevised byRadcliffe-BrowninOxford,in the sensethatitwasa matterof observable relationships.Itwasdissimilar,however,in thatJ.P.B.deJosselin de Jong and hisstudents commonlyused adiachronicexplanation (whichRadcliffe- Brownwould haverefuted) toaccountforthe factthatthe socialstructurestheyen- countered empiricallyin Indonesiawereusuallyfarfrom perfect–theywereincom- plete. Asreality did notfitthe model,itwasassumed thatacompleteproto-system must haveexisted,of whichwefind merelydegenerateformsin the present(Prager 1996). The understanding of structurechanged fundamentallywhen J.P.B.deJosselin de Jong wassucceeded in Leiden byhisnephewP.E.deJosselin de Jong in 1956. Throughout hislife P.E.deJosselin de Jong wasanadmirerof Lévi-Strauss and he introduced the latter’sideastoLeiden,therebygiving anewtwist tothe school’sout- look. Lévi-Strauss published hisfirst opus magnumonkinship in 1949 and in contrast tothe greaterpart of the anthropologicalworld,whichmostlywaited forthe English translation 20 years later,hisideaswerequicklyreceived and debated in Leiden,with hisworknotonlybeing readbut alsounderstood (Oosten,personalcommunication). ForLévi-Strauss,structureswererealand completeonthe level of the model –onthe conceptualplane –and always onlypartiallyand imperfectlyrealized. Structureswere anempiricalpossibility notanecessity.Certainlyinfluenced byLévi-Strauss,from the early1950s onwardsP.E.deJosselin de Jong came toquestion the empiricalnotion of structureand distinguished severaldifferentmodelsof culture(see de Ruijter1988:89) asabstractions.Hence,the crutchofaproto-system could bethrownawayand the notion of regionalcomparison nevertheless bemaintained,asthe aim wasnow,as Gellneronceput it,“toseek structure in culture” (1981:xxxiii),thatis,on the cogni- tiveplane and noton the level of observable socialstructures.While “moieties”(a “core” feature) werehardtodetectempirically,exceptin a“degenerated”form,dual- ismswithin the indigenous cosmologieswereall too evidentin the Indonesiandata. Lévi-Strauss’snotion of “transformation” furtherhelped tograspthe factthatsocieties

8 Mauss hadthe same ideaof comparing Inuitsocietiesthatweresufficientlysimilaraswell asdiffer- ent.J.P.B.deJosselin de Jong and Mauss almost used the identicalformulation (cf. Platenkamp 1996:213fn. 14). 6 Zeitschriftfür Ethnologie 134(2009) within the region realized,elaborated and reversed themesthatwerecommon tothe region asawhole. Therefore,featuresthatwereweaklyemphasized orabsentin one society could beexplained bylooking atthe waytheywereelaborated in others. Following Prager(1996),majorparadigm shifts canthus bedetected in the period between 1917and 1956.The first theoreticalframeworkwasprovided bythe Année sociologique and the studyof systemsof classification,the second around 1935,when the previouslybroadregionalscope9 wasnarrowed downtoIndonesia, asaFAS de- fined bycorefeaturesmade comparisonswithin thisregion. Throughout,the notion of structurewasempiricaland inconsistencieswereexplained bythe ideaof proto-sys- tems.Asstudents of J.P.B.deJosselin de Jong became engaged in the colonialadmin- istration of the DutchEast Indies,questionsof culturalchange,culturaldegeneration and acculturation became virulent,leading toastrand of applied anthropologywhich intended tominimizethe effects of theseapparentlyinevitable processes(Prager 1996:212f.).10 Theoreticallyof moreimpactwasthe shifteffected through the work of Lévi-Strauss and the corresponding change in of the notion of structure,whichbe- came explicitin the twocontributionsof vanWouden11 and P.E.deJosselin de Jong in the FestschriftforJ.P.B.deJosselin de Jong in 1956(P.E.deJosselin de Jong 1977c;VanWouden 1956; cf. Prager1996:236 f.,241 f.). While thisnewimpulsefrom Francewasgreatlywelcomed and the theoreticalso- phistication of Lévi-Strauss admired,the Dutchstructuralanthropologists wereatthe same time sceptical(Prager1996:6,218 ff.;P.E.deJosselin de Jong 1977b). Inthe first place,Leiden structuralanthropologymeantthorough fieldworkand avery high quality of ethnographicdata(P.E.deJosselin de Jong 1977c:233). Thisrespectforthe significanceofethnographicdataalsofuelled acertain aversion togrand theories. While P.E.deJosselin de Jong remained anadmirerof Lévi-Strauss throughout his long career,the youngergeneration wasmorecritical.12 Forexample,JarichOosten, who became lecturerin Leiden in 1970,criticized Lévi-Strauss forabiased approach

9 Onlytwoout of ten studiesbyJ.P.B.deJosselin de Jong and hisstudents between1926 and 1935 dealtwithIndonesia(Prager1996:211). 10 Withregardtothe 1950s and 1960s,de Ruijternevertheless claimsthat“Leiden structuralismwas notaformofappliedanthropology”(de Ruijter1981:46). 11 The workofvanWouden isof greatsignificanceforthe Leiden school and hismain contribution (vanWouden 1968[1935])isregarded byPrager(1996:88) aspioneering or“alsdasFlagschiff unter den Studien derLeidenerSchule”. InalettertoJ.P.B.deJosselin de Jong (in 1953)Lévi-Strauss con- sidered the factthathe wasunawareofvanWoudensbook asone of the greatest shortcommingsof his Elementary Structures (Prager1996:230,the letterisreprinted in Prager1996:257f.). 12 Leiden anthropologists of all generationshavebeen criticalofthough fascinated bythe workof Lévi-Strauss.The earlycriticism,forexample the reviewof Elementary Structures byJ.P.B.deJosselin de Jong in 1952,is,however,confined “within aframeworkinwhichthe limits hadbeen setbyLévi- Strauss”(de Ruijter1981:38). PeterBerger:The Inventiveness of aTradition:StructuralAnthropologyin the Netherlands 7 tohisdata.Lévi-Strauss would trytoestablishthe primacyof allianceinhiskinship theory and then automaticallyassume the same in hisstudyof myths,although thereis certainlyno necessary relationship between the field of kinship and thatof mythin relation toalliance. Hethus would notoriouslyeclipsethe importanceofdescentin hisanalysesof myth(Oosten 1981a, Oosten and de Ruijter1983b). Furthermore, the universalist tendenciesof Lévi-Strauss informing hisnotion of the “humanmind” could nevergain ground in Leiden,anexample being the criticismofhisfamous state- mentconflating the thoughtprocessesof SouthAmericanIndiansand hisown(Oos- ten and de Ruijter1983b:6f.;Oosten 1981b). Inaddition tothe factthatuniversalist notionsin structuralist theory wererejected,Oosten alsodetected in Lévi-Strauss’sar- gumentacompletelackofconcernforthe problematicrelationshipbetween the views of observers and participants.Thistopichadalreadybeen taken upbyP.E.deJosselin de Jong (1977[1956])inthe above-mentioned contribution in the issueof Bijdragen in honour of hisuncle,whichwasreprinted in Englishunderthe title The Participants’ Viewof theirCulture .Here,he contrasts the anthropologist’smodel withthe partici- pants’model,asking whetherthe indigenous vision recognizesthe structuralprinciples thatanthropologists considertheyhavedetected in the data. Between 1922,when J.P.B.deJosselin de Jong became professorin Leiden,and 1988,when P.E.deJosselin de Jong retired,Dutchstructuralanthropologydeveloped aclearprofile. Asalreadypointed out,in thisperiod the Leiden tradition wasinventive and alsoincluded the ideasof Lévi-Strauss.Thisled toareconsideration of the notion of structure,whichcame tobelocated on the cognitiveplane,and consequentlytoa shedding of quasi-historicalarguments and the notion of proto-systems.Integrating Frenchideasdid notmeancopying them,and clearlythe indigenisation of Lévi- Strauss’sideasfollowed alocalpattern,withthe focus on ethnography,regionalcom- parison and the accountingforindigenous modelsand participants’perspectives. Thesefeatures–aswell asotheraspects thatpointtowardsthe futureand were taken upbylatergenerations–canall betraced in P.E.deJosselin de Jong’sinaugural lecture,given in Leiden in 1957,whichparticularlyraised methodologicalissues.He rejects the nomotheticapproachofRadcliffe-Brown,the vagueness of MeyerFortes and the “extremelydecrepit”(P.E.deJosselin de Jong 1957:9) statisticalmethod of Murdock’sHumanRelationsAreaFiles(HRAF),concluding:“Weencountered laws thatdid notworkout; laws thatwereformulated sovaguelythattheybecame mean- ingless and tautological;and correlationsdeduced on the basisof dubious statistics” (ibid. 10). Insteadofsearching forlaws,he suggested looking for“tendencies”,which clearlyattests tothe above-mentioned scepticismtowardsgrand theories.Incontrast to Radcliffe-Brownand Murdock’scomparativeendeavours,P.E.deJosselin de Jong fa- voured the FASmethod devised byJ.P.B.deJosselin de Jong. Within thisconfined frameworkofrelated cultureshe did noteven rule out the possibility of nomothetic statements and the reasonable useofstatisticalmethodsin the future. However,for now,thiswasnotthe priority.Insteadhisanthropologicalmethod aimed atrevealing the principleswithin aparticularculture(ibid. 13). 8 Zeitschriftfür Ethnologie 134(2009)

Related tothisaim,P.E.deJosselin de Jong stressed othermethodologicalfeatures. Firstly,he identified thorough fieldworkasthe basisof anytheoreticaldevelopment and asthe benchmarkofour conceptualequipmentwhichneedsconstantrefinement. Sinceanthropologists werenolongerworking onlyon small-scale societies,“without history”,P.E.deJosselin de Jong adopted Evans-Pritchard’sposition (Evans-Pritchard 1950),thatis,anthropologists must take history intoaccount.Hestated thatthe con- ditionsforsuchanendeavour wereespeciallyfavourable in Leiden becausecooperation between anthropologyand orientalstudieshadalways existed,adding thathe intended tocontinuethisdialogue(P.E.deJosselin de Jong 1957:14). Itisworthdrawing attention tothe factthatP.E.deJosselin de Jong alsoidentified culturalchange asasignificanttopicforresearch. While the generalaim wastoiden- tifyculturalprinciples,thesestructureshaveneverbeen static, he claimed. However, currently(in 1957)duetoincreasing contactwithWesternsocieties,indigenous cul- tureswererapidlychanging and hencethe processesof adaptation and acculturation must bestudied. Finally,Iwanttoemphasizeone aspectwhichP.E.deJosselin de Jong (1957:11) considered tobe“perhapsthe most importantfrom apracticalviewpoint”,namelythe deep ethnocentrismthathe sawpervading our thinking and influencing our percep- tionsand analysesof othercultures.While P.E.deJosselin de Jong obviouslyconsid- ered thisproblem tobecrucialhenevertheless held ittobeamere“practical” problem. Itwasanotherstructuralist,LouisDumont,who devoted hisworktothe analysesof ideologies,including whathe called “modernideology”,and therebyplaced thisques- tion,understood asanepistemologicalproblem,atthe centreofthe anthropological agenda.Thus,in P.E.deJosselin de Jong’sstatementwefind thisideaonlypartially articulated,and while some of hisstudents werehighlyinfluenced byDumont,P.E. de Josselin de Jong remained aligned withLévi-Strauss.

Inconspicuous continuity

Inthe 1970s,structuralismwas,if notnew,still largelyaccepted asaparadigm within the discipline asawhole. Consecutivelyseveralevents occurred whichcannotbead- dressed here:the culturalturn,reflexiveanthropologyand postmodernismdawned in anthropology,the lattertrying to“deconstruct”all the grand theoriesand scrutinizing the modesof productionofanthropologicalknowledge. Inthe Netherlandsin particu- lar,atthe end of the 1970s universitieswereunderincreasing financialpressureand budgetcuts continued during the 1980s,resulting in the closureofentiredepartments, ashappened in Groningen (Vermeulen 1997,2002; Papousek and Kuiper2002). Cer- tainly,anapparentlyworn-out paradigm would notbehelpfulinsuchacompetitive academicsetting. Inhisintroduction toacollection of essays in honour of P.E.de Josselin de Jong atthe time of hisretirement,Arie de Ruijterexpressed hisbitterness overthe situation of the youngergenerationofanthropologists and “greatconcern” (de PeterBerger:The Inventiveness of aTradition:StructuralAnthropologyin the Netherlands 9

Ruijter1987:85) regarding the futureofthe Leiden school. The main threats he iden- tified werethe financialsituation and the university’sstaffing policies,aswell asthe “juridical-organisationalfoundation of Dutchscience” (ibid. 95),whereprivileges hadbecome morevalued thanacademicachievement.Insuchasituation,he consid- ered thatmost of the young contributors tothe volume would remain “outside acade- mia”as“asort of vagrant,marginalresearchproletariat... blocked in theirdevelop- mentratherthanbeing encouraged in it”(ibid.).13 DeRuijterendswiththe bleak prospectthatthe Leiden tradition “mayno longerberepresented atthe professorial level afterthe retirementof P.E.deJosselin de Jong”(ibid.). Although de Ruijter wasrightin the sensethatmost of the contributors tothe volume did notreceiveper- manentpositionsin the anthropologydepartment,forawhile atleast the Leiden tra- dition did continueatthe professoriallevel. Thus,aftermorethan60 years the de Josselin de Jong dynasty came toanend, withP.E.deJosselin de Jong retiring and ReimarSchefold receiving the chairin 1989. Heisgenerallynotregarded asastructuralanthropologist orastructuralist but ratherasasymbolicanthropologist.Being interested in materialcultureand connected toethnologicalmuseums,Schefold studied in Basel,whereinthe late1950s and 1960s the “Kulturhistorische Schule”still permeated the field (Vermeulen 2003a). Alook at hisworks,however,revealsthe characteristicfeaturesof the Leiden tradition thatI havementioned thus far.Therefore,IconsiderSchefold’sworktobeacontinuation of structuralanthropologyin Leiden regardless of the factthatthe term“structural” isno longerused. Inhisinaugurallectureof1990,Schefold explicitlyalignshimself withhisprede- cessors J.P.B.and P.E.deJosselin de Jong. Centraltohisargumentisthe antagonistic relationship between twokeyprinciplesin Indonesia, whichheglossesas“harmony” and “rivalry”. Inhisfocus on the systematicrelationshipsbetween ideas,Schefold takes upakeyaspectof the Leiden tradition traceable backtothe initialinfluenceofDurk- heim and Mauss.Schefold,however,reversestheirdeterminismand thatof the early Leiden school,stating thatideasarenotthe results of the socialstructurebut,on the contrary,determine the patternsof socialorganization (1990:5).14 Symbolicstructures, suchasthe complementary ideasof harmonyand rivalry,notonlymanifest themselves in socialreality,he goeson tosay,but alsoofferthe possibility of reflection on reality bycreating alternativevisionsof the world,something he exemplifieswithreferenceto

13 Thisstatementcould perfectlydescribethe situationinGermanymorethanten years later,when the newregulationsforthe qualification periodsfor Promotion and Habilitation hadbeen implemen- ted and manysuddenlyfound themselves“outside academia”. 14 However,the sociologicaldeterminismasput forwardin PrimitiveClassification hadalreadybeen rejected byG.W.Locherin 1938(de Ruijter1981:37). Locherwasastudentof J.P.B.deJosselin de Jong and animportantfigureinthe foundation of the instituteofCulturalAnthropologyand Sociol- ogyof Non-WesternPeoplesin 1955/56.Hewasprofessorin Leiden between 1954 and 1973 (cf. Vermeulen 1999). 10 Zeitschriftfür Ethnologie 134(2009) the ritualson MentawaiinIndonesia.Schefold conducted twoyears of fieldworkon Mentawai(1967–69) and hislectureisadefinitivepleaformeticulous,long-term fieldwork. Accordingly,he concludesbyreminding the students nottoforgetthatlater generationswill carelittle about past theoreticaltrends,but will acknowledge human imagination asitemergesfrom the ethnographicmaterial(1990:26). While Schefold stressesthe continuity of the Leiden tradition bymaking indigenous concepts astheyemerge from detailed fieldworkcentraltohisagenda, hislecturealsohas anidiosyncraticnote. Ihavealreadymentioned hisreversalofthe relationship between ideasand socialmorphology.Thereisalsoanewnuanceinhisrequest forthe considera- tion of economic, ecological,politicaland historicalaspects of anygiven context when explaining the differencesbetween systemsof ideaswithin the field of ethnologicalstudy (1990:23,cf. 1994:817). Hethus explicitlylinksthe ideologicalplane toexternalfactors, ratherthanconsidering iton its ownterms,thatis,asastructuraltransformation. Bothbeforeand afterhisinauguralspeechin1990,Schefold –among otherthings– dealtwithsystemsof classification,in particularasexplicated in ritualpractice. Healso continued the Leiden tradition in the sensethathe wasinspired and atthe same time criticalofLévi-Strauss.Thus he took upthe notion of the culinary code and tried to develop the argumentof the culinary triangle withreferencetohisMentawaimaterial (Schefold 1982). Nevertheless,he rebuked Lévi-Strauss in awaythatisreminiscentof otherLeideners.Herejected the scope of Lévi-Strauss’scomparisonsand hisargument thatmythisaboveall asignification of auniversalhumanmind. Schefold wasnotinter- ested in structuresassuchand theirunconscious transformationsbut in the participants’ viewand a“symbolic“parole”(1982:64),thatis,actualculturalpractice. While critical of Lévi-Strauss,hisanalysisof the culinary code iscertainlystructural,pointing out the systematicrelationshipsevidentin culinary ritualpracticeonMentawai: The meaning of its [a symbolicelementin ritual]classificatory position isulti- matelyclarified onlybyits structuralarrangement,i. e. bythe evolution of the mu- tualrelationshipsamong the elements in the courseofthe ritualitself. Thisisthe keytoaplausible “decoding”ofthe symbolicmessage. (1982:68) Inrecentpublications,he hasalsoworked within the same structuralframework,for example,in hisanalysisof ritualblessings(2001). Herehecompared,within the spe- cificFAS, notionsof blessing in relation tothe socialstructureofvarious societiesun- derconsideration and the valueofprecedence. Mention should alsobemade of aprogrammaticarticle published in the 150 th vol- ume of Bijdragen,entitled “CulturalAnthropology,futuretasksfor Bijdragen,and the IndonesianField of AnthropologicalStudy”(Schefold 1994). Thisarticle readslike a manifestoofthe structuraltradition,withthe subheadingsof the contribution deli- neating the Leiden programme,among them “Ethnography”and the “Field of Anthro- pologicalStudy”,“Ideaprinciples”,“Participants”models”,“Total” configurations.In thisarticle,Schefold recapturesthe shiftin the Leiden tradition whichIoutlined above,thatis,the shiftfrom the notion of astructuralcorewithin the comparative PeterBerger:The Inventiveness of aTradition:StructuralAnthropologyin the Netherlands 11 endeavour of the FAS, understood in socio-structuralterms–entailing the ideaof structurelocated in empiricalreality –toacognitiveunderstanding of structureand anewperception of the coreelements as“ideaprinciples”,atermP.E.deJosselin de Jong adopted from D.Moyer(ibid. 811). Thus,asymmetricalmatrimonialexchange, dualisticstructuresand double descent–previous elements of the structuralcore–are nowregarded asideologicalfeaturesthat may berealized empirically.Schefold further arguesforanextension of the featurescompared within the FAS, and against anypre- determination of theirmeaning. Herefers tothe workofFoxand Platenkamp,and suggests deriving the comparativecriteriafrom the categoriesof indigenous cosmolo- gies(ibid. 813). Anotherfeaturestressed in thisarticle isthe holisticnatureofcomparison. Schefold cautionsagainst the atomisticcomparison of elements and formulatesthe goalofcom- paring totalconfigurations,thatis,comparison of wholeson the level of ideas.This comparison should proceed on twolevels,intraculturallyand interculturally.Intracul- turally,anthropologists should focus on the waythe participants trytointegratecultur- alcategoriesin aholisticconfiguration,and on the interculturallevel,anthropologists should examine whethertheseconfigurationsarerecurrentwithin the FASand whethersystematictransformationsarediscernable. Hence,theselevelsalsoentail the distinction between participants’modelsand moreabstractmodelsthatthe anthropol- ogists constructon the basisof theircomparison (ibid. 815). The above-mentioned article bySchefold on ritualblessingsexemplifiessuchaprocedure(2001:377 f.). Schefold’sposition,asjust summarized,alsotestifiestothe significanceofthe third waveofinfluencecoming from France. Afterthe initialinfluenceofDurkheim and Mauss atthe beginning of the twentiethcentury,who drewattention tothe theme of systemsof classification in the first place,and the second phaseofinfluencemid-cen- turythrough the workofLévi-Strauss,whichmodified the notionsof structureinLei- den,the thirdinnovation from Francecame through the workofLouisDumont.In- dologists atLeiden,suchasJanC.Heesterman,werecertainlyinfluenced byDumont –ifinacriticalway–asearlyashisoriginalpublication of Homo Hierarchicus in 1966 (Dumont1980),but the main impactof histhinking wasfeltin Leiden in the 1980s. Dumontdevoted hisacademiclife tothe studyof ideology,understood asasystem of ideasand values.The notion of value,according toDumont,implieshierarchy,de- fined asarelationshipof“encompassment”,wheresuperordinatevaluesencompass subordinatevalues.Afterwriting hismagnumopus on Hinduideology,in the follow- ing decadesDumontconcentrated on whathe called modernideology,thatis,individ- ualism(Dumont1986). Dumontalsosetuparesearchgroupwithin the CNRS called ERASME,15 attracting scholars who developed hisideasin various ethnographiccon- texts and focused mainlyon the interrelationshipsbetween morphologyand ideology aswell asthe expression of socialrelationshipsand valuesin systemsof exchange. In

15 Equipe de recherche d’anthropologie sociale:morphologie,échanges. 12 Zeitschriftfür Ethnologie 134(2009) one of theirmain publications(Barraudetal. 1994 [1984]),systemsof exchange in Melanesia, Moroccoand EasternIndonesiawerecompared on the level of ideology, thatis,assystemsof valuesrepresentingeachsociety asawhole. Schefold’stheoretical frameworkwascertainlyinfluenced bythesescholars,forexample,when he speaks about “systemsof values”(“waardenstelsels”,1990:22)inhisinaugurallecture,refer- ring toDumontin afootnote(1990:30f.). However,otherLeiden anthropologists weremoredirectlyinvolved in the intellec- tualexchange between Dumont’sgroupand Leiden,notablyJosPlatenkamp.Hestud- ied atLeiden withP.E.deJosselin de Jong and taughtatthe institutefrom 1978until 1993,when he took upthe chairof SocialAnthropologyin Münster,Germany. 16 Itwas alsoP.E.deJosselin de Jong who initiated the contactbetween Leiden and the ERASME teaminParis,when he invited Cécile Barraud,astudentof Dumont,tore- spond toapaperbyJosPlatenkamp ataconferenceinLeiden. Although notreallyinter- ested in the workofDumont,P.E.deJosselin de Jong nevertheless arranged agrantso thatPlatenkamp could spend ayearstudying underDumontin 1984 (Platenkamp,per- sonalcommunication). Avery fruitfulcollaboration developed between CASA, the Lei- den researchprogramme CognitiveAnthropology/StructuralAnthropologyand ERASME, whichbecame apermanentworkshop from 1986onwardsand included ex- change visits,reciprocalpresentationsand criticismofresearch,aswell asjointconfer- ences.The cooperation alsoresulted in twovolumesof Bijdragen thatwerejointlyedited byBarraudand Platenkamp (Barraudand Platenkamp 1989,1990). The influenceofDumontand ERASME isapparentin Platenkamp’swork,with the emphasison the studyof systemsof values(forexample,1988,2009). However, wecandetectareservation in relation toFrenchstructuralanthropology,whichisin line withprevious statements byLeiden scholars.Inashort contribution about the cooperation between CASA in Leiden and ERASME in Paris,Platenkamp (1991) ar- guesthatthereisabroadconsensus about the significanceofin-depthethnographi- callybased studiesof valuesystems,but thattherearedifferencesaswell,especially in the scope of comparison of thesesystemsof values.While ERASME makescompar- isonson aworldwide scale,asforexample in the projectmentioned above(Barraudet al. 1994 [1984]),Leiden,he claimed,has“amorecautious”(Platenkamp 1991:45) approach,confining its attempts atcomparison toaspecificculturalarea.Thisre-em- phasizesthe significanceofthe FASmethod and alsoreformulatesthe Leiden scepti- cismtowardsgrand theories,whereasthe Frenchingeneralaremuchless hesitant. Anotherimportantstructuralanthropologist in Leiden who wasinfluenced by–as well ascriticalof,asIhavealreadynoted –various wavesof FrenchstructuralismisJarich Oosten. Ashe describesit,P.E.deJosselin de Jong and he hadaBrahman/Kshatriya

16 Platenkamp wasnotthe onlystructuralanthropologist who leftLeiden topursuehisvision of anthropologyelsewhere. JanBrouwer,forexample wenttoMysoreand Shillong (India),David Moyer toBritishColumbia(Canada)and Danielle Geirnaert toParis. PeterBerger:The Inventiveness of aTradition:StructuralAnthropologyin the Netherlands 13 relationship in Leiden,withP.E.deJosselin de Jong being ascribed sacred status and Oosten being the profane organizerand manofaction (personalcommunication). Coming from Groningen he arrived in Leiden in 1970 and atfirst did notfitintothe localscene well withhistheologicalbackground,enthusiasmforWittgenstein’s Philo- sophicalInvestigations and northernCanadaashisregionalfocus (cf. Platenkamp forth- coming). Hetaughtand supervised students in Leiden foralong time beforehebecame professorin 1997.Ashe describesit,he wasinterested in theoreticalissuesduring the 1970s and 1980s (Oosten and de Ruijter1983a),but from 1990onwardsmainlyim- mersed himself in Inuitethnography.While manywithin the CASA researchgroup voiced the urge toescape the frameworkofstructuralanthropologyand tofind new terms,Oosten wasthe last tobeconcerned about the labelling of anthropologyin Leiden (personalcommunication). Inpractice,however,ashispublicationstestify,he wasdedi- cated toastructuralapproachand adapted Frenchelements from all three “waves”. Inhisinaugurallecture,entitled “The ValueofDifference” (1999),wefind arefor- mulation and re-emphasisof characteristicfeaturesof structuralanthropologyin Lei- den. Oosten primarilystresses“values”inthe waytheyareembedded in particular ideologieswhicharedifferentfrom one another,but nevertheless of equalworth. This claim of equalworth,Oosten argues,isalreadyamoralstatementwithin our own ideologyand mightbecontradicted from the perspectiveofanotherculture. Here, without directlyreferring tohim,Oosten providesevidenceofDumont’sinfluence on hiswork,bystressing the comparison of systemsof valuesand difference,notasa formofderogatory “othering”,but asthe essenceofanthropology.Inhiscollaboration withHenriClaessen,who wasprofessorof CulturalAnthropologyatLeiden,Oosten alsointroduced afocus on ideologyfrom 1970 onwards.While Oosten waspart of the CASA researchgroup,Claessen wasdirecting aresearchteamfocusing on Evolution- ismand Materialism(EVOMAT). Claessen wasmainlyinterested in politicalanthro- pology,especiallyin “the earlystate”,from aneo-evolutionist and materialist perspec- tive(cf. Vermeulen 2002:133). Heinvolved Oosten in thisresearchprogramme despitethe latter’slackofconvictionabout “the earlystate” and the factthathe found materialismingeneralshallow.The common denominatorwastheirhistoricalinterest. Oosten describeshispart asmissionary work. Hetried tospreadthe wordthat“you havetoinclude ideology.Youdo notunderstand anything about anothercultureifyou ignorethe ideologicalsystem and if youdon't reflecton your ownideologicalperspec- tive” (Oosten,personalcommunication). The book thatwaseventuallypublished shows thathisefforts boresome fruit(Claessen and Oosten 1996). However,Oosten wasnotonlyaproponentof researchonideologiesbut wasalso criticalofDumont.Forexample,he considered Dumont’sdistinction between modern (individualistic)and non-modern(holistic)societiestobesimplistic.Furthermore,he wasalsointerested in whatpeople do withideology,thatis,howitisplayed out,for example withreferencetogenderorstatus groups.Sinceideologiesarecomplexphe- nomena, he wasalsocautious about constructing aspecificideologyin abstractterms from ethnographicaldata.Whatweencounterhereagain isthe typicalLeiden caution. 14 Zeitschriftfür Ethnologie 134(2009)

Assuch,he hadthe same reservationswithrespecttothe ERASME teamasdid Pla- tenkamp.Moreover,Oosten considered ERASME tobetoo doctrinallyfixed (Oosten, personalcommunication). Anotherkeytheme in Oosten’sinaugurallectureisculturalchange. Thisisatopic whichengaged Leiden anthropologists from the time of J.P.B.deJosselin de Jong on- wards(e. g. Locher1978;cf. Prager1996:181 f.),but whichisstill widelyassumed to becontradictory tostructuralanalysis.SimilarlytoSahlins,Oosten arguesthatin or- dertounderstand culturalcontinuity wehavetostudyprocessesof change. Newele- ments areindigenised according tolocalconfigurationsof valuesand in reacting to newchallengesacultureisable tomaintain its particularity.Oosten providesevidence of thiswhen he discussesthe attempts of Inuitshamanstocome totermswithChris- tianity –thisprocess notonlybeing one of simple combination but alsoinvolving conflictand tension,atasocialaswell asanindividuallevel (Oosten 1999;Oosten and Laugrand 2002). Inaddition tothe focus on valuesand the studyof change,and in relation toboth, Iwould identifythree furtheraspects thatarecrucialforthe anthropologyof Jarich Oosten. Theyareall represented in hisinaugurallecture,but theywerealsoempha- sized in the conversation wehadand permeatehisotherpublications:the participants’ view,interdisciplinarity and ethnography.While Ipresume theyareofequalvalueto him,Iwould suggest thatperhapsthe most conspicuous ishisstress on ethnography. ForOosten,the taskofthe ethnographeristorevealthe intrinsicorderof the ethno- graphicmaterial–anemphasiswhichalmost literallyechoesthe inaugurallectureof P.E.deJosselin de Jong. Todojusticetothisenormous task,the ethnographerhasto beprepared togointoevery detail of the cultureathand and toencounteritwitha certain humbleness.Oosten valuesthisstress of detail in the workofLévi-Strauss,who takesall versionsof amythintoaccountand givesfull attention toseeminglyinsignif- icantparticulars.But atthe same time the treatmentof ethnographyisalsoacontro- versialpointin relation tothe structuralismofLévi-Strauss.The supreme valueofeth- nographyand ethnographicdataentailsaseverescepticismtowardssweeping analysis and grand theorizing whichtendstousedataasmereillustration,oratleast creates room forthe suspicion thatconstructing neatmodelsisthe ultimateaim of anthropol- ogists.ForOosten,ethnographyhasvalueinitself and the amountof ethnography presented in thisinaugurallectureisratherunusual(though similartoSchefold’slec- ture). However,itismorethanamatterof style. Inhisvision,ethnographyiscentral tothe survivalofanthropologyasadiscipline:“Onthe level of empiricalresearchthe anthropologist hastomeetthe challenge posed bythe detailed studiesof historians and linguists,if he doesnot,he isnothing”(Oosten,personalcommunication). The othertwoaspects of Oosten’sapproachcanbeseen asconsequencesof thiscon- viction. Taking ethnographyseriouslyalsomeanstaking the people withwhom one is working and theircultureseriously.The assumption of unconscious patternsin Lévi- Straussianstructuralismentailsarroganceinthisregard,Oosten argues.Notonlyisfal- sification difficult,italsoentailsthe hubrisof asserting thatthe anthropologist bydefi- PeterBerger:The Inventiveness of aTradition:StructuralAnthropologyin the Netherlands 15 nition always knows best (Oosten,personalcommunication;cf. Oosten 1981b). Not denying the factthatmanythingsin acultureremain implicitforparticipants,in his recentInuitresearchOosten placesthe participants atcentrestage byhaving Inuitstu- dents interviewtheirelders.Hedoesthiswithout lofty theorizing about the nativevoice orlamenting the crisisof representation. Heissimplyexperimenting withethnographic methodsout of adevotion tothe data, keeping aneyeonthe particularculturalconfig- uration athand aswell ason the participants’aimsand requirements.Inthisway,he immenselyenhancesand modifiesthe emphasison the participants’viewasfirst formu- lated byP.E.deJosselin de Jong (cf. Oosten 1999,2005). Anotherconsequenceofthe devotion toethnographyisthe realization thatthe skillsand knowledge of the anthropologist arelimited and cooperation withotherdis- ciplinesnecessary,especiallywithhistory and the studyof languages.Oosten reminds us of thisin hisinaugurallecture,and hislong engagementwiththe CentreofNon- WesternStudiesresearchinstitute(CNWS)isfurtherevidenceofthiscredo.From the beginning,Oosten wasinvolved in thisproject,becoming its secretary when itoffi- ciallyopened in 1988 and its directorbetween 1997and 2004. The strengthofthe CNWS, asOosten puts it,liesin the combination of humanities(Non-WesternLan- guagesand Cultures)and socialsciencesand its aim istoeducateanthropologists to haveacommand of the languagesof the region in whichtheyareresearching,aswell astoengage language specialists working within the humanitiesin the culturalprob- lemsof the region (Oosten 1991:19). Furthermore,the CNWS stimulated coopera- tion between various disciplinesaswell asbetween university departments and non- university institutionsin Leiden,suchasmuseumsand researchinstitutes(ibid.). Seen from across the border,the CNWS wasasuccess story thatlooked towardsnewhor- izonsforinterdisciplinary researchand its discontinuationin2008leavesone baffled.

Conspicuous discontinuity

“Anewparadigm of postmodernanthropologynowentered the Leiden scene, somewhatbelatedly.” HereHanVermeulen (2002:149) isreferring tothe factthatPa- triciaSpyersucceeded ReimarSchefold tothe chairin the Anthropologyand Sociol- ogyof Contemporary Indonesiain 2001. DoesthismeanthatSahlins”diagnosisof paranoiain the field hasnowreached Leiden,and withthe newcentury,eighty years of distinguished structuralanthropologyin Leiden (Vermeulen 2002:150)hascome to anend? Looking atSpyer’sbackground one would notexpectthistohappen. She isa studentof Sahlinsand of anotherrenowned structuralanthropologist,Valerio Valeri, the latterstudying in Parisin the late1960s and early1970s underLévi-Strauss,Du- montand Sahlins(cf. Stasch1999).17

17 BesidesSahlinsand ValeriSpyeralsostudied withNancyD.Munn and BernardS.Cohn in Chicago. 16 Zeitschriftfür Ethnologie 134(2009)

Inherinaugurallectureof2002,Spyeranalysesthe climateofviolencebetween Christiansand Muslimsin Ambon,Indonesia(Spyer2002). Itbears the title “Fire without Smoke and OtherPhantomsof Ambon’sViolence:MediaEffects,Agency, and the WorkofImagination”. The focus isnotsomuchonactualviolencebut rather on expectationsof violenceor“anticipatory practice” (ibid. 13). Alocalfriend of Spyer’s“heard” about burning mosquesand churchesbeforeanysmoke could beseen, hence“firewithout smoke”. Rumours preceding actionshaveimportantsocialconse- quencesand leadtonervous situationswhereevery minorphenomenon ordetail is taken tobeasign. Spyercallssuchacondition “hyper-hermeneutics”(ibid. 13). Pre- vious attempts atexplaining the civil warin economicorpoliticalterms,she argues, havefailed toaccountforthisparticularclimate. The mobile,dense,and murkyterrain in whichsomething thatiswaiting tohap- pen does,in fact,happen isbuilton spiralsof information,misinformation,and disinformation,on the revamping of criteriaof credibility,customsof trust and ac- countability,and on knowledge formsthatblur the boundariesbetween whatis seen and whatisheard,whatisknownand whatissuspected,whatisfeared and whatisfantasized,whatisfactand whatisfiction. (ibid. 4) According toSpyer,in thisfield,various formsof media, from TV tograffiti,playa crucialrole in feeding the “workofimagination”becausescenesof violencefrom all overthe world maybeused in the specificcontext and therebygiveitglobalweight. Ratherthantrytoextricateacausalchain [of chronologicalevents], Iarguethat confounding anycleartrajectory from whichone mightplotthe actionsof the var- ious partiesinvolved isaswirlofimages,vocabularies,sound-bites,slogans,and vectors introducing ahost of mediatized and mediated elsewheresintothe pic- ture–or,inverselyprojecting Ambon,withall its troublesand sufferings,ontoalar- gerthanlocalscale. (ibid. 8) Afterreading through the worksof otherLeiden anthropologists,Spyer’sstyle of writ- ing and heranalyticlanguage alreadycreateasharpcontrast.However,itisof course notonlyamatterof style but alsoofinterests,themesand perspectives.Previously, Leideners studied the relationshipsbetween,forexample,morphologicalforms,myths and ideasunearthed byethnographyand setin aholisticframework. Tensionsand in- consistenciesarose,asthe participants’views weregiven dueweight,but ultimatelyall thesefeaturescould beintegrated intoanoverall order.Asthe quotationsaboveshow, in herinaugurallectureSpyerisconcerned withintrinsicallyhard-to-graspand am- bivalentphenomena, and wordssuchassocialstructureormythappearassolid rocks compared to“mediated elsewheres”. Anotherexample isSpyer’sbook, The Memory of Trade,arevised version of her PhD(Chicago 1992),written during heryears atthe University of Amsterdam (1993–2001). Itisbased on twoyears of fieldworkamong sea-divers and traders in the Moluccasand pays detailed attention tothe annualAru ritual,whichfocuseson PeterBerger:The Inventiveness of aTradition:StructuralAnthropologyin the Netherlands 17 cassowaries.The book issetin the same postmodernmould,asit“considers the dilem- mas,ambivalences,and compromisesthatdescribeAruesepeople’sengagementand location of themselvesvis-à-vistwoimaginary elsewheres–the “Malay”and the “Aru”(Spyer2000:ix). Onthe following page of the preface,Spyerstatesthatherre- searchfollows the “tradition of classicethnography”(2000:x),insofarasshe constructs asmall-scale community,onlytoemphasizethe differencefrom whatshe considers to beclassicalethnography. Amodest pointImake in thisbook ...isthatthe community atstake in its pagesisin acrucialsensecompelled in imagining and constructing itself toimagine and con- structthe muchlargerworld around it.Simplyput,suchacommunity doesnotover- lapwiththe bounded “societies”ofanolderanthropologydevoted tothe documenta- tion of placeslike Aru ...whichassigned nativealterity toatimeless topography... Arguing insteadthatAru’s“runawaytopographies”areinherentlyfissured ... their presenceongoinglyhaunted bytheirabsentelsewheres,thispartialwriting of Aru thereforeassumesentanglementand modernity asits preconditions.(2000:x) Insome parts of Spyer’sbook structuralthemescome tothe foreground,forexample, when she discussesthe complementary rolesof tworitualspecialists –Prowand Stern– in the greatcassowary ritual(2000:161f.). The whole village community isthen ima- gined asaboatand Prowand Sternrepresentoppositesin spatialand temporalterms, the frontvs.the backofthe boataswell asthe beginning vs.the end of the ritualprocess. Here,the influenceofherteachers isrecognisable sinceSpyerleavesroom forthe intrin- sicstructuresof the ethnographicmaterialtobearticulated and she concedessignificance tothesepatterns.She doesnot,however,pursueastructuralanalysisof herdata.Lévi- Strauss”expression thatnotthe Leiden anthropologists but the Indonesiansarethe great structuralists(cf. Prager1996:1) seemstobesuitable in thiscase. Itshould bemade quiteclearthatin describing Spyer’sworkand providing long quotesIdo notintend toevaluateherwork,noristhe issueofwhetheritcanbelabelled aspostmodernanthropologyornotrelevantin thiscontext.The question thatisrelevant hereiswhether,considering thatshe isthe successorof de Josselin de Jong and Schefold, herworkcanberegarded asacontinuation ormodification of Leiden structuralanthro- pology.The brief outline presented makesitsufficientlyclear,Ithink,thatitdoesnot amounttocontinuity.While Imightbeaccused of being selectiveinmychoiceofquotes orpossiblybiased in otherways,sound evidenceofthisdiscontinuity and its deliberate natureisproved byherinauguralspeech,whichcompletelyignoresall of herpredeces- sors.While P.E.deJosselin de Jong,Schefold,Oosten and even Kuper(1977)empha- sized the inspiration theygained from the worksof theirprecursors and atthe same time introduced apersonalemphasis,wefind no suchreferenceinSpyer’slecture.18

18 Authors thatarereferred toare,among others,BenedictAnderson,ArjunAppadurai,Deborah Poole,Ann LauraStolerand Raymond Williams. 18 Zeitschriftfür Ethnologie 134(2009)

Inconspicuous continuity,onceagain

Discontinuity withrespecttouniversity chairs doesnotnecessarilyimplythe end of academicendeavours in directionsotherthanthoseofthe chairholders.Incontrast to Germany,whereyoueitherbecome aprofessorornothing,withnon-professorialuni- versity staff onlyholding temporary positions,in the Netherlandsasubstantialpart of the researchand teaching activitiesin the departments isundertaken bylecturers (UD, universitairedocent )orreaders (UHD, universitairehooftdocent )withpermanentposi- tions.Theselecturers arealsoengaged in supervising PhDstudents –intandem fash- ion,whereprofessors formallysupervisethe studentwhile the lecturer de facto guides him orher–and areassuchinvolved in the academicreproductionofacertain anthropologicalgrinding. Thisalsoenablesdepartments toofferabroaderspectrum of anthropologythanwould berepresented bythe professors alone. InLeiden,the kin- ship specialist Franklin E.Tjon Sie Fat(Tjon Sie Fat1990),associated withthe de- partmentsincethe 1970s,holdssuchaposition of lecturerin anthropology.Jarich Oosten alsosupervised PhDstudents who wereformallyunderthe guidanceofPeter GeschiereorReimarSchefold beforehehimself became professorin 1997(Oosten, personalcommunication). TwoofOosten’sformerPhDstudents arenowlecturers in the departmentof Cul- turalAnthropologyand DevelopmentalSociologyin Leiden,Erik de Maakerand Sa- bine Luning. The latterhadpreviouslystudied anthropologyatLeiden and wasaPhD studentbetween 1991 and 1995,doing fieldworkonthe Maane chiefdom in Burkina Faso. Onthe backcoverof herPhDthesis ToGatherin the Harvest.Ritualand Society in Maane,BurkinaFaso (Luning 1997)itisidentified asastructuralstudy.Luning investigatesthe relationshipsbetween ritualprocesses,various levelsof socialstructure (house,village,chiefdom),oraltraditionsand the keyvaluesof Maane society.Onthe ideologicallevel the distinction of naam and tenga iscrucialand hasrepercussionsin all of the above-mentioned domains. Naam isthe quality of ruling overpeople and is associated withthe outside,sincerulers arebydefinition allochthonous.Complemen- tary tothisisthe ideaof tenga ,whichmeans“earth” and isthe association withaspe- cificlocality mediated bythe earthpriests of various autochthonous groups.While, according toLuning,otheranthropologists of the region havefocused on the annual ritualcycle of the rulers alone (in relation to naam ),Luning examinesthiscomplexof ritualsin relation tothe annualcycle of various groups,represented bythe earthpriests (in relation to tenga ). Luning repeatedlystressesthe methodologicalsignificanceof comparison and arelationalperspective,and according tothisconviction she notonly investigatesthe relationshipsbetween the ritualsof the annualcyclesbut alsocompares twooccurrencesof the ritualofsuccession,one whichshe wasable todocumentin 1993and anotheroccasion from 1963.Furthermore,she exploresthe relationshipsbe- tween the domainsof ritualsand oraltraditionsororigin myths.The notion of origin orthe past isepitomized in the conceptof rogem miki,whichcould betranslated as “found atbirth” (ibid. 17)or“thatwhichprecedes”(Luning 2007:99). Relating to PeterBerger:The Inventiveness of aTradition:StructuralAnthropologyin the Netherlands 19 the time beforenow,itentailsasetof rulesor“customs”and represents anentity with whichregulated ritualrelationshipshavetobemaintained,but italsohasasubjective meaning forparticipants (ibid. 230 f.). The rulerisregarded asthe nodalpointbe- tween society asawhole (Maane chiefdom) and its origin. Beforeanewchief may commencehisrule he hastorituallytravel totwoplacesassociated with naam and tenga –respectively,the royaltombsand the sacrificialsitesof the earth–therebyunit- ing bothprinciplesand providing the link tothe origin,whichatthe ideologicallevel encompassesthe relationshipsof the present(ibid. 228,287f.). Inherstructuralanalysisof ritualsLuning choosesanactorfocus.Thisisalready apparentin herdefinition of ritual,whereLuning arguesthatthe emphasisshould be on the concepts used bythe participants themselves(ibid. 16). Furthermore,she isnot primarilyinterested in idealtypesof ritualpracticesbut in the ways ritualsareempiri- callyacted out.Thisalsoincludesadescription and analysisof negotiationsconcerning the scheduling of ritualevents,whichvariesaccording todifferentlocalgroups.More- over,from the participants’perspective,ritualsaresubjecttochange,and aconcept suchas rogem miki,whichcould beglossed as“tradition”,isin no wayunchangeable but intrinsicallysubjecttochange and particularelaborations(ibid. 17,114 f.;cf. 2007:92). Luning became awarethatparticipants’explanations,discussionsand ela- borationsvary according tothe context,and the deathofthe rulertriggered responses in socialactors thatindicated arelationshipbetween ritualsof succession and annual rituals,whichalthough the anthropologist hadnoted itearlier,hadnotbeen previously discussed bythe participants.Infollowing the participants’view,Luning isnotjust recording nativevoicesbut paying attention tothe tension and interaction between the perspectivesof the participants and the anthropologist and ultimatelytranscending the actors”pointof viewatthe comparativelevel,whichshe stressesthroughout (ibid. 18).19 Beforecoming toLeiden,Ericde Maakerstudied anthropologyatthe University of Amsterdamand,asOosten reports,when he started hisPhDin Leiden,he approached him and stated thathe did notwanttowriteastructuralist thesis.Oosten replied that the onlything he would beinterested in wasagood thesis.However,Oosten con- tinues,de Maaker’sbook isnowperceived asastructuralworkbymany(Oosten,per- sonalcommunication). First and foremost,de Maaker’sbook (de Maaker2007)isethnographic.The dis- sertation,entitled Negotiating Life. GaroDeathRitualsand the Transformation of So- ciety,isbased on almost twoyears of fieldworkinNortheast India.Inaddition toocca-

19 Currently,Luning isinvolved in amultidisciplinary researchprojecton gold mining in West Afri- ca, involving internationalcompaniesand whichismainlyconcernedwitheconomicanthropology and the relationship between society and the state. Relationshipsof debtplayanimportantrole here, and theycanbefruitfullyanalysed from the perspectiveofstructuralanthropology,she says.Inthe fu- ture,she would beinterested in furtherinvestigating the relationship between economyand cosmol- ogy(personalcommunication). 20 Zeitschriftfür Ethnologie 134(2009) sionalreferencestoauthors suchasHertz,Blochand Parry,asisappropriatefora studyof deathrituals,de Maakerabstainsfrom taking anyexplicitlytheoreticalposi- tion. Instead,he immerseshimself and the readerin Garoethnography,trying todis- closethe intrinsicpatternsof relationshipsthatareatstake in the context of death. Like Luning,hisfocus ison the relationship between ritualand society. Inaddition tobeing ariteofpassage,deathritualsamong the Garoareabout the redefinition of socialrelationships,in particularbetween “houses”. Crucialand of great consequenceisthe rule thatwhen amarried person dieshe orshe hastobereplaced by someone from the originalkin group,sothatthe widoworwidowerreceivesanew husband orwife. Again like Luning,de Maakerfocuseson the actualritualpractice, the process of negotiation asthe title Negotiating Life makesclear,in addition todis- cerning the generalpatterns.Assuchhepoints out thatthe processesof replacement arenotamatterof course,but depend on various considerationsof the actors in- volved. Ifthe “house” thatthe deceased belongstoisanimportantone,withalotof land and significantrelationshipstodeities,then the chancesof replacementareopti- mal,otherwisethe chancesareless.Deathritualsthus entail the option of “houses” being continued through the generations,asistrueforthe affinitiverelationshipsat stake. The processesof replacementarejust one type of transaction in awebof ex- changeswhichdeMaakeroutlineswithgreatcare. Aswell asthe focus on ethnographicdetail,intrinsicstructuresand actualpractice, anotherfeatureofdeMaaker’sworkworthmentioning in the presentcontext ishis choicetoworkamong aGarominority who havenotyetconverted toChristianity,the so-called Songsarek. Some otheranthropologists mighthavewanted tostudy“change” immediately,while de Maaker,apparently,first chosetoinvestigatethe basicpatterns thatmightbesubjecttomodifications. 20 Furthermore,like otheranthropologists whose workhasbeen sketched here,de Maakerplacesanemphasison the participant’spointof view.Being trained asavisualanthropologist,he filmed scenesof deathritualsand then discussed thesewiththe Garoasameansof minimizing hisownconceptualbiasesand totake intoaccountthe actor’sviewon the events (ibid. 17). Erik de Maaker’sdedicationtovisualanthropologycanbetaken asanexample of anotherstrand of Leiden anthropologythatIhavenotmentioned thus far,namelythe visualisation of systemsof classification. SeveralLeiden anthropologists havebeen in- volved in making documentary films,forexample JosPlatenkamp and DirkNijland directed the film Tobelo Marriage (1985),while Erik de MaakertogetherwithNijland and the lateDanielle C.Geirnaert directed Ashesof Life:the AnnualRitualsof Laboya, Sumba 1996 (2007). The visualisationsare,however,notonlyrelated tofilm and photographybut alsotootheraspects of materialculture. Geirnaert,who worked clo-

20 Although de Maakerhasaneyeforchangesin the ritualsetupand stresseshisinclination topre- senthismaterialinahistoricalperspective(ibid. 15),hisstudyismainlysynchronic, notwithstanding the factthatthe ritualsthemselveshaveanintrinsicdiachronicdimension. PeterBerger:The Inventiveness of aTradition:StructuralAnthropologyin the Netherlands 21 selytogetherwithOosten,Platenkamp and the ERASME team,did researchonsocio- cosmicideasand valuesrelated totextileson Laboya(Geirnaert-Martin 1992). From the beginning,anthropologyin Leiden wascloselyrelated tothe ethnologicalmuseum and especiallyAdriaanGerbrands,who wasconnected tothe museumfrom 1947and professoratLeiden from 1966,applied the structuralapproachtomaterialcultureun- derstood as“language of things”(Gerbrands1966).

Conclusion

While in the early1980s the conviction thatthe “structuralist tradition isdeeply rooted in the Netherlands”(Oosten and de Ruijter1983b:9) wasitself still deeply rooted,alittle laterthe first doubts wereraised (Blok and Boissevain 1984) and the prospects forthe futurewereevaluated asbleak–atleast bysome (de Ruijter1987). Thisarticle considered the question of whetherthe structuraltradition in Leiden con- tinued afterthe retirementof P.E.deJosselin de Jong in 1988 and,if so,in whichway. Traditionspersist becausetheychange. Thisinsight,commonlyapplied toother cultures(Oosten 1999;Sahlins1999),alsoholdstrueforacademicschoolsof thought and practice. Ihaveargued thatthe Leiden tradition hasin factcontinued throughout the last 20 years and uptothe presentbyincorporating newideasand modifying old concepts and methodologies.However,itdid soinaless conspicuous waythanbefore 1988 and the label “structural” attracted increasinglyless attention. Again,like cul- tures,academictraditionsdefine theiridentity in relationalterms.Notwithstanding matters of relationalidentitieswithin the Netherlands–mainlythe contrast between Amsterdamand Leiden –the pointof referenceformanyLeiden anthropologists over the decadeswereParisiananthropologists,beginning withDurkheim and Mauss,then Lévi-Strauss and finallyDumontand the youngermembers of the ERASME team. Certainly,Leiden anthropologists did notalways look across the bordertotheirFrench colleagues,but the relationship maybeusefulinoutlining differencesaswell ascom- monalities.Iwill start withthe latter. Aboveall,various formsof structuralismand structuralanthropologysharethe fundamentaltheoreticalassumption deriving from linguisticsthatanyculturalelement hasmeaning onlyin relation toothers.Thishasthe significantmethodologicalconse- quenceofanthropologists having totracethe system of relationshipsin whicheach elementisembedded (Platenkamp 1984:57,2003). Anthropologists design models thatintend torepresentthesestructures,but the ontologicalstatus of thesestructures and modelsisalreadyapointof debate,asIwill discuss below.Going backtoDurk- heim,anothershared featureofstructuralapproachesistheirfocus on collectiverepre- sentationsorsystemsof ideas.Moreover,structuralanthropology,whetherin Leiden or Paris,wasconcerned withtwotypesof holism. Onthe one hand the approachwas holisticbecausevarious domainsof aculturesuchasart,ritual,architecture,economy werebroughtintorelation toeachother,on the otherhand the indigenous cultural 22 Zeitschriftfür Ethnologie 134(2009) orders displaythemselvesasatotality.Theseidealwholesvery rarelycorrespondto empiricalreality and the analysisof the relationship–often one of tension –between the idealand the empiricalreality pervadesstructuralapproaches. Throughout the decadesakeyvalueofgreatconsequenceforLeiden anthropology hasbeen ethnographyand thorough fieldwork,generally“mono-sited”. Incombina- tion withthe interests and assumptionsjust outlined thisgivesLeiden structural anthropologyits distinctivequality.Although ethnographyiscertainlyhighlyvalued in the Frenchstructuraltradition,whichisparticularlytrueofthe members of the ERASME team,who aredevoted todetailed fieldworkand ethnographicnuances, the corollariesin bothcasesaredifferent,i. e. the levelsof abstraction aimed aton the basisof ethnography.Inthe caseofLeiden the supreme appreciation of ethnogra- phymanifests itself in various formsof theoreticalrestraint.Theoreticalclaimsare moderateand Leiden anthropologists feel uncomfortable when theirhypothesesbe- come too farremoved from ethnographicfacts.The often sweeping analysesof Lévi- Strauss and otherFrenchstructuralistsaremetwithscepticism. Thisholdstrue,for example,in relation toLévi-Strauss’suniversalisticclaims,hisscope of comparison or hisnotion of the unconscious.The universalisticnotion of the humanmind isrejected and the conceptof the unconscious considered problematic.Ifweconstructamodel of culturalrelationshipsthatthe people westudyarenotawareof,thatisfine,but wecan neitherclaim norprovethatsuchamodel islocated in theirunconscious (Oosten 1981b:248). While Lévi-Strauss aswell asmembers of the ERASME team 21 made comparisonson aworldwide scale,Leiden anthropologists prefertomake comparisons within aspecificculturalarea.The methodologicaloutline of the Field of Anthropo- logicalStudy(FAS)isanoriginalcontribution tothe field byLeiden anthropology, devised almost 20 years beforeFrederickEggan’s(1954) “controlled comparison”, and elaborated and modified throughout the generations. Anothertheoreticaland methodologicalrepercussion of the centrality of ethnogra- phyisthe relevanceofthe participant’sview–first formulated in 1956and then con- tinuallyrevised. Here,Irefertothe question of the natureofmodelsmentioned ear- lier.P.E.deJosselin de Jong,Oosten,Platenkamp and Schefold all emphasized the importanceofdistinguishing the anthropologist’smodelsfrom participant’smodels. Indigenous modelsreceivegreatattention;however,asanoutsiderapplying acom- parativeviewwithin the region and possiblyacross history the anthropologist further abstracts from the indigenous perspectiveand tracessimilaritiesand transformations. Moreover,thisperspectivealsoentailsafocus on the level of practice,avariantof the tension between idealand real,mentioned above. Manyof the authors showaconcern in theirwork,notonlyforpatternsof ideasbut alsoforthe ways theseideasareused in practice. Hence,Oosten askswhatpeople do withideology,de Maakerisinterested

21 Thisisnottosuggest thatthe approachesof Lévi-Strauss and ERASME arethe same in every re- spect,on the contrary,the latterwerevery criticalofLévi-Strauss (e. g. 1994 [1984]). PeterBerger:The Inventiveness of aTradition:StructuralAnthropologyin the Netherlands 23 in the processesof negotiation surrounding adeathand Schefold dealswiththe sym- bolismof parole.Thus,while emphasizing structureand ideas,Leiden anthropologists payspecificattention totheirimplementation in practice,totensions,variationsand frictions.The methodologicalimplication of the participant’sviewentailsthe involve- mentof indigenous actors in the process of research. DeMaakerdiscussed hisfilms withthe Garo,though perhapsno one in Leiden hasgone asfarasOosten,who in- itiated aprojectin whichInuitelders wereinterviewed bythe youngergeneration. He puts Inuitconcernsatthe centreofthe investigation and furtherfulfilsanimportant socialfunction aswell byproviding aplatformforintergenerationalcommunication. However,thisconcernwiththe participant’sviewshould notbeconfused withaform of methodologicalindividualism,becausethe scope of individualaction is,from this perspective,always framed byculturalideasthatarecollectiveinnature. Inaddition tothe main featuresof the Leiden tradition alreadymentioned,which arecloselyrelated tothe keyrole of ethnography,twootheraspects seem tobechar- acteristic.Firstly,manyLeiden anthropologists wereand still areintenselyconcerned withhistory and culturalchange,although theoreticalelaboration in thisregardis rarelyfound;Locher(1978,1981) isone of the fewwho systematicallydealswith both. Oosten and others make itvery clearthatthe notionsof structureortradition do notimplyastaticviewof culture. Thiscliché about structuralanthropologyiscer- tainlydisclosed assuchbyLeiden anthropologists.Secondly,manyLeiden anthropol- ogists retain anopen-minded and liberalacademicattitude,whichresults in non-dog- maticacademicpracticeand permeable groupboundaries,and in particularastrong emphasison interdisciplinarity.The discussion forumcalled WDO (InterfacultairEth- nologischDispuut),founded in 1928bythe first generation of J.P.B.deJoselin de Jong’sstudents (cf. Vermeulen 1997; 2003b)isone example of this,asisthe regular collaboration between anthropology,regionalstudiesand language studiesin Leiden. Thesetendenciesreceived aformalshape in the CentreofNon-WesternStudies (CNWS)thatexisted between 1988 and 2008. Becausestructuralanthropologyisbasicallyconcerned withsystemsof ideasitis crucialforthe understanding of culturealsointhe twenty-first century.Certainly,in the Leiden tradition,anthropologists arenotof the opinion thatstructuralanalysiscan onlybeapplied to“cold societies”. All culturalphenomena, beit“globalisation”or “fundamentalism” areinfluenced through ideasand valuesthatinformsocialaction. JosPlatenkamp recentlyshowed thatthe discourseon“foreigners”inGermanycan befruitfullyanalysed in structuralterms(Platenkamp 2004). Even moresignificantly, particularlythrough the influenceofDumont,structuralanthropologists in Leiden and otherplacesareawarethatour ownsocietiesareshaped byparticularideologies which,forexample,suggest thatthe individualisthe “natural” unitof researchand tend toexplain humanaction essentiallyin termsof economyorpower(cf. Sahlins 1999). Platenkamp arguesthat“globalisation”ispreciselysuchacategory,acreature of our ownideology,coined in economicdiscourses(personalcommunication). Itis the taskofanthropologists tooutline the relevanceofvalue-ideasin theseprocesses. 24 Zeitschriftfür Ethnologie 134(2009)

Ageneralpredicamentrelated tothisideologicalembeddedness isthe determina- tion of the subjects of anthropologicalresearchaccording toproblemsrelated tothe anthropologist’sownsociety.BothOosten and Platenkamp voicegraveconcernabout the trend toevaluateand support researchonthe basisof its “socialrelevance” (“maatschappelijke relevantie”),the “flimsy yardstickofthe pundits of academicfund- ing”(Platenkamp,forthcoming). Oosten fears thatsuchascheme based on our own standardsturnsthe valuesand principlesof the cultureswestudyintoepiphenomena. Structuralanthropologists in anycaseshould propagatethe valueofdifferenceaswell asinvestigatethe differencesin values.

References

Baal,Janvan1966: Dema.Description and Analysisof Marind-Anim Culture(SouthNewGuinea). The Hague:Martinus Nijhoff. Baal,Janvanand W.E.A.vanBeek 1985: SymbolsforCommunication. AnIntroduction tothe Anthro- pologicalStudyof Religion.Assen:VanGorcum. Barraud,Cécile and J.D.M.Platenkamp (eds.) 1989: Ritualsand Socio-CosmicOrderin EasternIndo- nesianSocieties,Part I: NusaTenggaraTimur.SpecialAnthropologicalIssueBijdragen totde Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde 145/4. Barraud,Cécile and J.D.M.Platenkamp (eds.) 1990: Ritualsand Socio-CosmicOrderin EasternIndo- nesianSocieties,Part II: Maluku .SpecialAnthropologicalIssueBijdragen totde Taal-,Land- en Volkenkunde 146/1. Barraud,Cécile,Coppet,Daniel de,Iteanu,Andréand Raymond Jamous 1994: OfRelationsand the Dead. Four SocietiesViewed from the Angle of theirExchanges .Oxford:Berg. (orig. 1984) Berger,Peter,Hardenberg,Roland,Kattner,E.and Michael Prager(eds.) 2009: The Anthropologyof Values.Essays in Honour of GeorgPfeffer .NewDelhi:Pearson Education. Blok,Anton and JeremyBoissevain 1984:Anthropologyin the Netherlands:Puzzlesand Paradoxes. AnnualReviewof Anthropology 13:333–344. Claessen,HenriJ.M.and D.S.Moyer(eds.) 1988: Time Past,Time Present,Time Future. Perspectives on IndonesianCulture. Essays in Honour of ProfessorP.E.deJosselin de Jong.Dordrecht:ForisPub- lications. Claessen,HenriJ.M.and JarichG.Oosten (eds.) 1996: Ideologyand the Formation of EarlyStates. Studiesin HumanSociety Vol. 11.Leiden etal.:Brill. Dumont,Louis1980: Homo Hierarchicus.The CasteSystem and its Implications .Chicago:The Uni- versity of Chicago Press.(orig. 1966) Dumont,Louis1986: Essays on Individualism. ModernIdeologyin AnthropologicalPerspective. Chica- go:University of Chicago Press.(orig. 1983) Durkheim,Émile and Marcel Mauss 1963: PrimitiveClassification.London:Cohen &West.(orig. 1903) Eggan,Frederick1954:SocialAnthropologyand the Method of Controlled Comparison. American Anthropologist 56(5):743–763. Evans-Pritchard,EdwardE.1950:SocialAnthropology:Past and Present. Man 50:118–124. Geirnaert-Martin,Danielle C.1992: The Woven Land of Laboya.Socio-cosmicideasand valuesin West Sumba, EasternIndonesia .Leiden:CNWS. Gellner,Ernest 1981:Introduction. InEvans-Pritchard,E.E. AHistory of AnthropologicalThought . NewYork:BasicBooks. PeterBerger:The Inventiveness of aTradition:StructuralAnthropologyin the Netherlands 25

Gerbrands,AdrianA.1966: DeTaalderDingen.The Hague:Mouton &Co. Josselin de Jong,J.P.B.de1977:The MalayArchipelago asaField of EthnologicalStudy.In:P.E.de Josselin de Jong (ed.), StructuralAnthropologyin the Netherlands:AReader .The Hague:Martinus Nijhoff,pp. 166–82.(orig. 1935) Josselin de Jong,PatrickE.de1957: Enige Richtingen in de HedendaagseCultureleAntropologie.’s Gravenhage:Martinus Nijhoff. Josselin de Jong,PatrickE.de(ed.) 1977a: StructuralAnthropologyin the Netherlands:AReader .The Hague:Martinus Nijhoff. Josselin de Jong,PatrickE.de1977b: Introduction:Structuralanthropologyin the Netherlands:a CreatureofCircumstance. In:P.E.deJosselin de Jong (ed.), StructuralAnthropologyin the Neth- erlands:AReader .The Hague:Martinus Nijhoff,pp. 1–29. Josselin de Jong,PatrickE.de1977c: The Participants’Viewof theirCulture. In:P.E.deJosselin de Jong (ed.), StructuralAnthropologyin the Netherlands:AReader .The Hague:Martinus Nijhoff, pp. 231–252.(orig. 1956) Josselin de Jong,PatrickE.deand HanF.Vermeulen 1989:CulturalAnthropologyatLeiden Uni- versity:from EncyclopedismtoStructuralism. In:W.Otterspeer(ed.), Leiden OrientalConnec- tions1850–1940 .Leiden etal.:Brill,pp. 280–316. Kuper,Adam1977: RegionaalVergelijkend onderzoek in Afrika .Leiden:UniveritairePers. Kuper,Adam1982: WivesforCattle. Bridewealthand Marriage in SouthernAfrica.London:Rout- ledge and KeganPaul. Kuiper,Y.1986:Religions,symbolsand the humancondition. Ananalysisof the anthropologyof religion of JanvanBaal. In:H.G.Hubbeling and H.G.Kippenberg(eds.), OnSymbolicRepresen- tation of Religion.Berlin etal.:Walterde Gruyter,pp. 59–69. Locher,Gottfried W.1978: Transformation and Tradition and otherEssays.The Hague:Martinus Nijhoff. Locher,Gottfried W.1981:StructuralAnthropologyand History.In:G.A.Moyer,D.S.Moyerand P.E. de Josselin de Jong (eds.), The NatureofStructure .Leiden:ICA Publication No. 45,pp. 11 –25. Luning,Sabine 1997: Hetbinnenhalen vandeoogst.Ritueel en samenleving in Maane,BurkinaFaso . Leiden:CNWS. Luning,Sabine2007:RitualTerritoriesasLocalHeritage? DiscourseonDisruptionsin Society and natureinMaane,BurkinaFaso. Africa 77 (1):86–103. Maaker,Erik de 2006: Negotiating Life. GaroDeathRitualsand the Transformation of Society.PhD thesisLeiden University. Moyer,D.S.1988 The Poem. Time Past,Time Present,Time Future. In:H.J.M.Claessen and D.S. Moyer(eds.), Time Past,Time Present,Time Future. Perspectiveson IndonesianCulture. Essays in Honour of ProfessorP.E.deJosselin de Jong.Dordrecht:ForisPublications. Moyer,G.A, Moyer,D.S.and P.E.deJosselin de Jong 1981 (eds.), The NatureofStructure .Leiden. ICA Publication No. 45. Oosten,JarichG.1981a: Filiation and allianceinthree Bororomyths.Areconsideration of the social code in the first chapters of the rawand the cooked. In:P.Kloosand H.J.M.Claessen (eds.), CurrentIssuesin anthropology:the Netherlands .(no place) Ministry of Education and Science, pp. 200–14. Oosten,JarichG.1981b: Meaning and Structureinthe StructuralAnalysisof Myth. In:G.A.Moyer, D.S.Moyerand P.E.deJosselin de Jong (eds.), The NatureofStructure .Leiden:ICA Publication No. 45,pp. 245–58. Oosten,JarichG.1985: The Warof the Gods.The SocialCode in Indo-EuropeanMythology .London: Routledge and KeganPaul. Oosten,JarichG.1988:The StrangerKing. AProblemofComparison. In:H.J.M.Claessen and D.S.Moyer1988 (eds.), Time Past,Time Present,Time Future. Perspectiveson IndonesianCulture. Essays in Honour of ProfessorP.E.deJosselin de Jong.Dordrecht:ForisPublications,pp. 259–75. 26 Zeitschriftfür Ethnologie 134(2009)

Oosten,JarichG.1991:HetCentrumvoorNiet-WesterseStudiesin Leiden. In:H.F.Vermeulen (ed.), RecenteOntwikkelingen in de LeidseAntropologie.Leiden:ICA,pp.15–28. Oosten,JarichG.1999: DeWaarde vanhetVerschill/Verschillen in Waarden.Leiden:CNWS. Oosten,JarichG.and A.deRuijter(eds.) 1983a: The FutureofStructuralism. Papers of the IUAES- Intergoncress Amsterdam1981.Göttingen:Edition Herodot. Oosten,JarichG.and A.deRuijter1983b: Introduction. In:J.G.Oosten and A.deRuijter(eds.), The FutureofStructuralism. Papers of the IUAES-Intergoncress Amsterdam1981.Göttingen:Edi- tion Herodot,pp. 1–10. Oosten,JarichG.and F.Laugrand 2002: Qaujimajatuquangit and socialproblemsin modernInuit society.Anelders workshop on angakkuuniq. ÉtudesInuitStudies 26 (10):17–44. Ossenbruggen,F.D.E.van1977:Java’s monca-pat :Originsof aPrimitiveClassificationSystem. In: P.E.deJosselin de Jong (ed.), StructuralAnthropologyin the Netherlands:AReader .The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff,pp. 32–60.(orig. 1917) Papousek,D.A.and Y.Kuiper2002:ASmall InstituteinaWicked World:CulturalAnthropologyat the University of Groningen 1951–89. In:H.Vermeulen and J.Kommers (eds.), Talesfrom Aca- demia.History of Anthropologyin the Netherlands.Nijmwegen Studiesin Developmentand Cultural Change,Vol. 40 .Saarbrücken:Verlagfür Entwicklungspolitik,pp. 515–46. Platenkamp,J.D.M.1984:StructureleAntropologie en de Studie vanIndonesische Culturen. In:J.D. Speckmann (ed.), Indonesische Studiën in Nederland.Wassenaar:NetherlandsInstituteforAd- vanced Studiesin the Humanitiesand SocialSciences,pp. 57–66. Platenkamp,J.D.M.1988: Tobelo.Ideasand Valuesof aNorthMoluccanSociety.Leiden:ReproPsy- chologie. Platenkamp,J.D.M.1991:HetSamenwerkingsverband CASA-ERASME en de relatie Parijs-Leiden. In:H.F.Vermeulen (ed.), RecenteOntwikkelingen in de Leidseantropologie.Leiden:ICA Publicatie 91,pp. 41–48. Platenkamp,J.D.M.1996:NorthHalmahera: Non-Austronesianlanguages,AustronesianCultures? In:J.vanBremen,V.Godina, J.D.M.Platenkamp (eds.), Horizonsof Anthropology.AnAnthology of TheoreticalAnthropologyin Europe.Leiden:CNWS, pp. 206–23. Platenkamp,J.D.M.2003:Strukturalismus in derEthnologie. In:B.Beerand H.Fischer(eds.), Eth- nologie. Einführung und Überblick .Berlin:ReimerVerlag,pp. 295–308. Platenkamp,J.D.M.2004:Überdie gesellschaftliche RelevanzderEthnologie. In:U.Bertels,B.Bau- mann,S.Dinkel and I.Hellmann (eds.), Aus derFerne in die Nähe. NeueWege derEthnologie in die Öffentlichkeit .Münster:Waxmann,pp. 21–32. Platenkamp,J.D.M.2009:Becoming aLaoperson. Ritualsof birthand socialisation in Luang Pra- bang,Laos.In:P.Berger,R.Hardenberg,E.Kattner,M.Prager2009(eds.), The Anthropologyof Values.Essays in Honour of GeorgPfeffer .NewDelhi:Pearson Education,pp. 180–200. Platenkamp,J.D.M.forthcoming From high upNorthtoParadiseand bywayof the Southback ontothe Ice. In:J.Jansen,S.Luningand E.deMaaker(eds.), Traditionson the Move .Leiden: CNWS. Platenkamp,J.D.M.and M.Prager1994:Amirrorof paradigms.Nineteenth- and twentieth-century aethnologyreflected in Bijdragen. Bijdragen totde Taal-,Land- en Volkenkunde 150(4):703–27. Pouwer,Jan1989:The Leiden Structuralist Tradition:a“FrenchConnection”? Antropologische Ver- kenningen 8(1):21–34. Prager,Michael 1996: Strukturale Anthropologie in Leiden 1917–1956.Ursprung und Entwicklung eineswissenschaftlichen Forschungsprogramms .Unpublished PhDthesisUniversity of Heidelberg. Prager,Michael 1998:From ObjecttoSociety.Landmarkson the WaytoRassers”Analysisof Batak Socio-CosmicStructure. In:M.Pragerand P.terKeurs (eds.),W.H.Rassers and the BatakMagic Staff.Leiden:RijksmuseumvoorVolkenkunde,pp.11–30. Ridder,R.deand J.A.J.Karremans(eds.) 1987:The Leiden Tradition in StructuralAnthropology. Essays in Honour of P.E.deJosselin de Jong. Leiden:Brill. PeterBerger:The Inventiveness of aTradition:StructuralAnthropologyin the Netherlands 27

Ruijter,A.de1981:The Leiden School of Anthropologyin Historicalperspective. In:G.A.Moyer, D.S.Moyerand P.E.deJosselin de Jong (eds.), The NatureofStructure .Leiden:ICA Publication No. 45,pp. 26–54. Ruijter,A.de1987:BreakdownorBreakthrough. In:Ridder,R.deand J.A.J.Karremans1987(eds.), The Leiden Tradition in StructuralAnthropology.Essays in Honour of P.E.deJosselin de Jong.Lei- den:Brill,pp. 85–98. Sahlins,Marshall D.1999:Twoorthree thingsthatIknowabout culture. Journalofthe RoyalAnthro- pologicalInstitute 5(3):399–421. Schefold,Reimar1982:The Culinary Code in the PuliaijatRitualofthe Mentawaians. Bijdragen tot de Taal-,Land-enVolkenkunde 138(1):64–97. Schefold,Reimar1990: Harmonie en Rivaliteit.Verbeelding vanbotsendeprincipesin Indonesië.Leiden: University of Leiden. Schefold,Reimar1994:Culturalanthropology,futuretasksforBijdragen,and the IndonesianField of AnthropologicalStudy. Bijdragen totde Taal-,Land-enVolkenkunde 150(4):805–25. Schefold,Reimar2001:Three Sourcesof RitualBlessingsin TraditionalIndonesianSocieties. Bijdra- gen totde Taal-,Land- en Volkenkunde 157(2):359–81. Spyer,Patricia2000: The Memory of Trade. Modernity’sEntanglements on anEasternIndonesianIsland. Durhametal.:Duke University Press. Spyer,Patricia2002: FireWithout Smoke and OtherPhantomsof Ambon’sViolence:MediaEffects, Agency,and the WorkofImagination.Leiden:Leiden University. Stasch,Rupert 1999:Obituary,Valerio Valerie (1944 –1998). AmericanAnthropologist 101(4):814– 17. Tjon Sie Fat,Franklin E.1990: Representing Kinship:Simple Modelsof Elementary Structures .PhD thesisUniversity of Leiden. Vermeulen,HanF.1997:VanInstituut voorCA en SNWV totVakgroep CA/SNWS(1955 –1997): professionalisiering vanden antropo-sociologie in Leiden. In:H.J.M.Claessen and H.F.Vermeu- len (eds.), Veertig Jaren Onderweg. Lezingen gehouden op de eerstealumnidagvandevakgroep Cul- turele Antropologie en Sociologie derNiet-WesterseSamenlevingen teLeiden. Leiden:DSWO, pp. 13–55. Vermeulen,HanF.1999:Structuur en Verandering. InMemoriamGottfried Wilhelm Locher. Bij- dragen totde Taal-,Land- en Volkenkunde 155 (1):1–31. Vermeulen,HanF.2002:Contingencyand Continuity:Anthropologyand OtherNon-WesternStud- iesin Leiden,1922–2002.In:H.Vermeulen and J.Kommers (eds.), Talesfrom Academia.His- tory of Anthropologyin the Netherlands .Nijmwegen Studiesin Developmentand CulturalChange, Vol. 40.Saarbrücken:Verlagfür Entwicklungspolitik,pp. 95–182. Vermeulen,HanF.2003a: ReimarSchefold and the studyof IndonesianCultures.In:P.Nas,G.Per- soon and R.Jaffe (eds.), Framing IndonesianRealities.Essays in SymbolicAnthropologyin Honour of ReimarSchefold.Leiden:KITLV.pp. 371–86. Vermeulen,HanF.2003b: History of and publicationsbyWDO.http://www.wdo.leidenuniv.nl/ index.php3-c=21.htm,access 8 th of May2009. Wouden,Franciscus A.E.van1956:Locale groepen en dubbele afstamming in Kodi,West-Sumba. Bijdragen totde Taal-,Land- en Volkenkunde 112:204–46. Wouden,Franciscus A.E.van1968: Typesof SocialStructureinEasternIndonesia .The Hague:Marti- nus Nijhoff (orig. 1935).