One Discipline, Four Ways: British, German, French, and American Anthropology (Halle Lectures)

418 Pages·2005·1.53 MB·English

by  Fredrik Barth

One Discipline,Four Ways

One Discipline, Four Ways: British, German,
French, and American Anthropology
 
 
 
 
The Halle Lectures With a Foreword by Chris Hann
   /   
  is a research fellow ofthe Norwegian Ministry ofCulture and
professor ofanthropology at Boston University.
  is professor in the Department for Social and Cultural
Anthropology at the University ofVienna and head ofthe Anthropology Unit at the
Austrian Academy ofSciences.
  is departmental lecturer in social anthropology at Oxford University.
  is professor emerita ofanthropology at the City University of
New York and president emerita ofthe Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological
Research.
The University ofChicago Press,Chicago 60637
The University ofChicago Press,Ltd.,London
© 2005 by The University ofChicago
All rights reserved.Published 2005
Printed in the United States ofAmerica
14 13 12 11 10 09 08 07 06 05 1 2 3 4 5
:0-226-03828-9 (cloth)
:0-226-03829-7 (paper)
Library ofCongress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
One discipline,four ways :British,German,French,and American anthropology /
Fredrik Barth ...[et al.] ;with a foreword by Chris Hann.
p.cm.— (The Halle lectures)
“The twenty chapters ofthis volume derive from a series oflectures titled Four
traditions in anthropology,which were organized to mark the inauguration ofthe
Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropology in Halle (Saale),Germany,in June
2002”—Fwd.
Includes bilbiographical references and index.
0-226-03828-9 (cloth :alk.paper) — 0-226-03829-7 (pbk.:alk.paper)
1.Anthropology—History—19th century. 2.Anthropology—History—20th
century. 3.Anthropology—Philosophy. I.Barth,Fredrik,1928– II.Series.
17.48 2005
306—dc22 2004024388
oThe paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements ofthe American
National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence ofPaper for Printed Library
Materials,39.48–1992.

Foreword / Chris Hann/ vii
    / Fredrik Barth
1. The Rise ofAnthropology in Britain,1830–1898 / 3
2. From the Torres Straits to the Argonauts,1898–1922 / 11
3. Malinowski and Radcliffe-Brown,1920–1945 / 22
4. The Golden Age,1945–1970 / 32
5. Enduring Legacies ofthe British Tradition,1970–2000 / 44
 -  / Andre Gingrich
1. Prelude and Overture:From Early Travelogues to German
Enlightenment / 61
2. From the Nationalist Birth ofVolkskundeto the Establishment of
Academic Diffusionism:Branching Offfrom the International
Mainstream / 76
3. From the Late Imperial Era to the End ofthe Republican Interlude:
Creative Subaltern Tendencies,Larger and Smaller Schools of
Anthropology / 94
vi/ 
4. German Anthropology during the Nazi Period:Complex Scenarios
ofCollaboration,Persecution,and Competition / 111
5. Anthropology in Four German-Speaking Countries:Key Elements
ofPost–World WarII Developments to 1989 / 137
 -  / Robert Parkin
1. Pre-Durkheimian Origins / 157
2. Durkheim and His Era / 170
3. Mauss,Other Durkheimians,and Interwar Developments / 186
4. Structuralism and Marxism / 208
5. Practice,Hierarchy,and Postmodernism / 229
   / Sydel Silverman
1. The Boasians and the Invention ofCultural Anthropology / 257
2. Postwar Expansion,Materialisms,and Mentalisms / 275
3. Bringing Anthropology into the Modern World / 292
4. Rebellions and Reinventions / 310
5. American Anthropology at the End ofthe Century / 328
References / 349
Index / 389

The twenty chapters ofthis volume derive from a series oflectures titled Four
Traditions in Anthropology,which were organized to mark the inauguration
of the Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropology in Halle (Saale),Ger-
many,in June 2002.Our institute had begun its work in temporary premises
some three years earlier,but no one wanted any rituals before we had moved
into our permanent buildings.By linking the inauguration to the annual gen-
eral meeting ofthe Max Planck Society,we ensured that a good number ofour
research colleagues would be able to join all the ministers,rectors,and other
dignitaries who had played a role in the founding ofthe institute.But we were
also determined to infuse our collective rite ofpassage with an anthropologi-
cal dimension;hence the idea for a lecture series.
Our current research projects are overwhelmingly concerned with con-
temporary social transformation and are based on fieldwork methods,but the
establishment ofa large new research center with an explicitly international
ethos seemed to us an excellent opportunity to take a fresh look at the history
ofanthropology.Because this was very much an exercise in ritual,we felt free
to experiment and even to indulge in role reversals. We therefore invited
Adam Kuper,best known as a historian ofthe discipline,to deliver a Festvor-
tragin the grand opening ceremony on a contemporary topic.(He chose to
address controversies concerning the land claims of indigenous peoples,
under the title “The Return ofthe Native”;for the published version see Cur-
rent Anthropologyfor June 2003.) For the lecture series that preceded the in-
augural ceremonies,we decided to approach four distinguished anthropolo-
gists who,although they had contributed to the writing ofdisciplinary history,
were not primarily specialized in this field.Each lecturer was encouraged to
adopt a basically chronological approach to a single “tradition”but was other-
wise given an entirely free hand.Amazingly,everything proceeded according
viii/ 
to plan,so that over a ten-day period an audience augmented by numerous
foreign guests was treated to a splendid program.
Each lecture was a cocktail based on concentrated scholarship and vari-
ously shaken up with engrossing personal reminiscences, entertaining di-
gressions,and deadly serious scientific,moral,and political criticism.For this
publication we have decided to group each author’s lectures together, al-
though in the Halle delivery they were interspersed. Each lecture was fol-
lowed by a briefquestion-and-answer period,and each cycle offour lectures
by an extended discussion session.In this way,we continuously identified the
multiple links between the four traditions and reminded ourselves ofthe ob-
vious inadequacy ofselecting only four,with a strong “Western”bias.There
are now vibrant schools ofanthropology on every continent.Given my own
views on treating Eurasia as a unity,it was especially regrettable that our for-
mat left us no scope to consider the rich traditions ofRussian anthropology,
or more recent developments in China and India.Perhaps most important,
we constantly questioned the very idea of presenting disciplinary history in
this way.Space restrictions prevent us from including any record ofthese ani-
mated discussions in this volume,but the reader should be aware that they
took place.The lecturers have occasionally picked up some ofthe key points
in their revisions.
It seems to me undeniable that the diverse trajectories of anthropology
(which,ofcourse,we take as an umbrella concept,subsuming fields such as
ethnology and ethnography,as well as folklore,museum studies,and so on)
have indeed been deeply marked by their “national”settings,that is,by differ-
ent intellectual contexts as well as different social and political environments.
This is nowhere more evident than in East-Central Europe,where our insti-
tute is located.German scholars developed pioneering research agendas and
coined numerous key terms in the eighteenth century,long before the forging
ofa unified German state.Here,as elsewhere in Europe,the anthropological
field has been strongly marked by nationalism.Even where this legacy was
later modified by the imposition ofSoviet Marxist theories,the continuities
remain substantial.These lectures are primarily devoted to four variants of
the comparative enterprise of Völkerkunde rather than to Volkskunde, the
study ofone’s own people,but we need to recognize that national frames have
influenced both ofthese strands ofanthropology almost from the very begin-
ning.
Yet it also seems self-evident that at least some differences have been nar-
rowing in recent decades.The very establishment ofthe Max Planck Institute
for Social Anthropology (in German, Max-Planck-Institut für ethnologische
/ ix
Forschung—literally,“for ethnological research”) and my recruitment from
Great Britain as one ofthe founding directors are small signs ofthese trends
ofconvergence.Our institute respects differences in scholarly traditions just
as we respect them in other fields.We have no wish to promote Anglo-Saxon
domination or a bland uniformity of style; instead, we wish to encourage
better contacts across all national and ideological boundaries. In short, we
would like to foster cosmopolitanism in a field that,all in all,has been one of
the less cosmopolitan up until now.João de Pina-Cabral,in a report on the
Halle event (published in Newsletter33 ofthe European Association ofSocial
Anthropologists in October 2002), highlighted the diverse backgrounds of
the participants and concluded optimistically that
The moments ofdiscussion...showed that,today,socio-cultural anthropology
does share a common stock ofknowledge and a set ofmutually available working
concepts and methodological formulations. These constitute a common, global
framework for debate and intellectual fertilization that is claimed by anthropolo-
gists far beyond the boundaries ofthe twentieth century imperial nations.Might
this not be thought ofas a fifth traditionthat,coming out ofthe imperial moment,
provides us today with a largely globalised, non-national tool for scientific en-
deavour?
It remains for me,as the responsible host and project coordinator,to thank
all four lecturers for coping with the limitations of the format,cooperating
throughout the planning phase, performing heroically during our rituals,
punctually supplying their revised texts for this book,and generally being a
wonderful team.
Chris Hann
Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropology
Halle (Saale)
March 2003