An Inconstant Profession: The Anthropological Life in Interesting Times Author(s): Clifford Geertz Source: Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol.

31 (2002), pp. 1-19 Published by: Annual Reviews Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4132869 Accessed: 05/08/2009 16:25
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=annrevs. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Annual Reviews is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Annual Review of Anthropology.

http://www.jstor.org

Annu. Rev. Anthropol.2002. 31:1-19 doi: 10.1146/annurev.anthro.31.040402.085449 Copyright? 2002 by AnnualReviews. All rights reserved

AN INCONSTANT PROFESSION:

in Interesting TheAnthropological Life Times

Geertz Clifford
Institute Einstein NewJersey Drive,Princeton, 08540; for Advanced Study, email:geertz@ias.edu ColdWar Key Words social sciences,history,thirdworld,modernization, M Abstract I give an overallview of anthropology andof my careerwithinit over the past fifty years,relatingthemto changesin the worldin generalduringthattime. All lessons areimplicit,all moralsunstated, all conclusionsundrawn.

INTRODUCTION
I have arrived,it seems, at that point in my life and my careerwhen what people most want to hear from me is not some new fact or idea, but how I got to this point in my life and my career.This is a bit discouraging,not just because of its momentomori overtones(when you are seventy-five,everythinghas memento mori overtones), but because, having spent the whole of my adult life trying to push thingsforwardin the humansciences, I am now being askedto considerwhat that has entailed-why I think my directioncan be called forward,and what, if that directionis to be sustained,the next necessary thing might be. As a result, I have engaged in the past few years in at least two more or less organizedattempts to describethe generalcurveof my life as a workinganthropologist, andthis essay will be the third,and,I trust,the last. Talkingaboutone's self andone's experiences in a homileticalmanner--"go thou and do likewise"-is a bit much the firsttime around.Recycled, it loses charmaltogether. The first of these essays in apologetical retrospection,originally given as a Harvard-Jerusalem lecture in 1990, became the chapterentitled "Disciplines"in the book Fact (Geertz 1995a). ThereI concentrated After my mostly on mattersof researchand scholarship,most especially on my long-termfieldworkin Indonesia and Morocco-a story of projects leading to outcomes leading to other projects leading to other outcomes. The second, originallygiven as an AmericanCouncil of LearnedSocieties "Life of Learning" lecturein 1999, became the firstchapter, entitled"PassageandAccident,"of my most recentbook, AvailableLight (Geertz accountof both my 2000). There I presenteda more personal,semi-introspective life and my career;a sort of sociointellectualautobiography and self-accounting. This time-this last time-I want to do something else: namely, to trace the 0084-6570/02/1021-0001$14.00 1

GEERTZ developmentof anthropologyas a field of study over the more thanhalf-century, 1950-2002, I have been involvedin it, and to trace,too, the relationshipsbetween thatdevelopmentandthebroader movementsof contemporary history.Thoughthis also, of necessity,producessomethingof a "thethingsI have been throughandthe I am, for the most part,not concernedwith things I have done" sort of narrative, either my work or my persona.I am concernedwith what has happenedaround me, both in the profession in which I have been, however loosely and at times enclosed, and in what we arepleased to call "thewider world,"in uncomfortably, which thatprofessionhas been, howevermarginallyandinsecurely,enclosed. That thatis genuinely world is with us late andsoon:Thereis very little in anthropology howeverdressedin the borrowedclothes autonomous; pretensionsto the contrary, of "science,"are self-serving.We are, like everybodyelse, creaturesof our time, relics of our engagements. Admittedly,this is a little vast for a shortessay, and I am obliged to pass over some very large mattersvery quickly,ignoringdetail and suppressingnuance and But my intentis not to presenta properhistory,aninclusivesummary, qualification. or a systematicanalysis.It is, instead, 1) To outline the succession of phases, periods,eras, generations,or whatever, both generally and in anthropologyas such, as I have lived throughit, and them, in the last half of the last century,and, 2) To trace the interplaybetween (for the most part,Americanand European) cultural,political, social, and intellectuallife overalland anthropologyas a special and specializedprofession, a trade,a craft,a mitier. the-view-from-here Whethersuchbroad-stroke, sketchingwill impressionistic, yield much in the way of insight into how things are, and have been, heading in our field remainsto be seen. But, absenta crystalball, I know of no otherway. So far as phases, periods, eras, and the like are concerned,I shall, for my own convenience, mark out four of them. None of them is internallyhomogeneous, in a none of them is sharplybounded;but they can serve as useful place-markers lurching,tangled,digressivehistory.The first,roughlybetween 1946 and 1960all dates are movable-was a period of after-the-war exuberance,when a wave of and a sense of ambition, improvingpurposeswept throughthe human optimism, sciences. The second, about 1960 to aboutthe mid-1970s, was dominated,on the one hand,by the divisions of the universalizedcold war, and, on the other,by the From 1975 or so to, shall we of Third-Worldism. romances and disappointments of in of the fall The there honor 1989, was, first, a proliferationof new, Wall, say, or anyway newfangled, approachesto social and culturalanalysis, various sorts of theoreticaland methodological"turns," Kehre,tournures d'esprit;and then, on the heels of these, the rise of radicallycritical and dispersive"post-"movements, bothwithin self-doubt,andself-examination, broughton by increasinguncertainty, anthropologyand in Westernculturegenerally.Finally,from the 1990s until now, interesthas begunto shift towardethnic conflict,violence, world-disorder, globalhumanrights,andthe like, althoughwherethatis going, ization,transnationalism,

AN INCONSTANT PROFESSION

especially afterSeptember11, is farfrom clear.These, again, arenot the only cuts that could be made, nor even the best. They are but the reflections, diffuse and refracted,in my own mind of the way of the world and the ways of anthropology within the way of the world.

POSTWAR EXUBERANCE
were, like AmericansoDuringthe second world war,Americananthropologists ciologists, historians,psychologists, and political scientists, drawn,almost to the manor woman,into governmentservice.After it ended,in whatwas, in the United Statesanyway,not thatlong a time, threeor fouryears,theyreturned, immediately, again almost to the man or woman, to academiawith their conception of themselves and their profession radically altered.What had been an obscure, isolate, even reclusive,lone-wolf sortof discipline,concernedmainlywith tribalethnography, racialandlinguisticclassification,culturalevolution,andprehistory, changed in the course of a decade into the very model of a modern,policy-conscious, corporate social science. Having experienced working (mostly in connection with propaganda, psychological warfare,or intelligence efforts) in large, intellectually diverse groups,problem-focusedcollections of thrown-together specialists, most of whom they hadpreviouslyknownlittle aboutandhadless to do with, anthropologists came back to their universitiesin a distinctlyexperimentalframeof mind. Multi- (or inter-,or cross-) disciplinarywork, teamprojects,and concernwith the immediate problems of the contemporaryworld were combined with boldness, inventiveness,and a sense, based mainly on the suddenavailabilityof large-scale materialsupportboth from the governmentand from the new mega-foundations, that things were, finally and certainly,on the move. It was a heady time. I encounteredall this at what may have been its point of highest concentration, greatestreach, and wildest confusion: Harvardin the 1950s. An extraordinary collection of persons and personalitieshad gatheredthere, and at the nearby Massachusetts Instituteof Technology,launchingprograms in all directions.There was the Department of Social Relations,which-chaired by the systematicsociologist TalcottParsons,andanimated,ratherdiffusely,by his ratherdiffuse "General clinical psycholTheory of Social Action "--combined sociology, anthropology, and social into an at least ogy, psychology terminologicallyintegratedwhole (Parsons & Shils 1951). Therewas the RussianResearchCenter,headedby the cultural anthropologistClyde Kluckhohn(1951);the Psychological Clinic, headed by the of Social Relations,headedby (1938); theLaboratory psychoanalystHenryMurray the social statisticianSamuelStouffer(Stouffer1949). JohnandBeatriceWhiting, in fromYale,assembleda teamandbeganexploitingthe newly createdHumanRelationsAreaFiles for comparative correlation studiesof socialization(BB Whiting & J Whiting 1975). And atMIT,therewas the CenterforInternational Studiesdedicated to stimulatingmodernization, andtakeoffin the new states democratization, of Asia and Africa and the strandedones of EasternEurope and Latin America (Millikan& Blackmer 1961). Just abouteverythingthatwas in any way in the air

GEERTZ in the social or, as they soon came to be called as the pressurestowardunification intensified,the behavioralsciences-from groupdynamics(Homans1950), learning theory (Tolman1958), and experimentalpsychology (Bruner& Krech 1950) to structurallinguistics (Jakobson 1952), attitudemeasurement(Allport 1954), content analysis (Inkeles 1950), andcybernetics(Wiener1962)-was represented by one or anotherInstitute,one or anotherCenter,one or anotherProject,one or anotherentrepreneur. Only Marxismwas missing, and a numberof the students happily providedthat (for a generalcritiquefrom the left of all this, see Diamond 1992). For me, as a would-beanthropologist-one who hadneverhad an anthropology course and had no particularaim in mind except to render himself somehow employable-the figureI hadmost to come to termswith in this swarmof talkative authoritieswas Clyde Kluckhohn.A driven,imperious,ratherhauntedman, with an enormousrangeof interests,a continuouslyrestless mind, andan impassioned, somewhatsectariansense of vocation,he had readClassics at Oxfordas a Rhodes Scholar.He had studiedthe Navajo and otherpeoples in the AmericanSouthwest since having been sent there as a teenager for his health, and he knew his way around the corridorsof power, both in Washington(where he had worked as consultantto the Secretaryof Warand directedmorale surveysfor the Office of WarInformation) and, an even greaterachievement(consideringhe had been born obscure in Iowa) at Harvard. The authorof what was then the most widely read, and best written,statementof what anthropologywas all about,Mirrorfor Man (1949), a past presidentof the American AnthropologicalAssociation, a fierce a player of favorites,and a mastermoney-raiser, Kluckhohnwas controversialist, rathera presence. Of the variouscollective enterprises(thinkingback, I count at least eight, and there were probablymore) that Kluckhohnwas at that moment either directing, planning, or otherwise animating,I myself became involved, in turn, in three, which, takentogether,not only launchedmy careerbut also fixed its direction. The first,andsmallest,was the compendium of definitionsof cultureKluckhohn was preparingin collaborationwith Alfred Kroeber,then in his late seventies and concludinga sovereigncareerin detachedretirement(Kroeber& Kluckhohn 1952). I was given what, with the aid of other, more senior, graduatestudents, they had assembled and what they had written in the way of commentary,and I was asked to review it and offer suggestions. I had some suggestions, most of them expository, a few of which were attendedto; but the most fateful result of the experience for me was that I was inducted into the thought-waysof the particularform of anthropologythen called, ratherawkwardly,patterntheory or In this dispensation,stemmingfrom work before and during configurationalism. the war by the comparativelinguist EdwardSapir at Yale and the culturalholist Ruth Benedict at Columbia,it was the interrelation of elements, the gestalt they atomisticcharacter, as in previousdiffusionandculture formed,not theirparticular, area studies,thatwas takento be the heartof the matter.A phoneme,a practice,a role, an attitude,a habit,a trait,an idea, a customwas, as the sloganhad it, "apoint

AN INCONSTANT PROFESSION

it was systems we were after,forms,structures, in a pattern"; shapes,contexts-the Benedict of sense social geometry 1934). (Kluckhohn1962, Sapir 1949, A large numberof expressionsof this approachto things currentin anthropology appearedat that time. Perhapsthe most visible and influential,though as it turnedout not so long-lived, was the so-called cultureandpersonalitymovement, and a juniormemberof the Social Rein the service of which Kluckhohn,Murray, David Schneider,put togethera more or less definitivereader lations Department, ideas andby proet al. 1949). Stronglyinfluencedby psychoanalytical (Kluckhohn jective testingmethods,it soughtto relatetheprocessesof individualpsychological developmentto the culturalinstitutionsof varioussocieties. AbramKardinerand Ralph Linton at Columbia,Cora DuBois, first at Berkeley then at Harvard,Erik and Kluckhohnhimself in his Erikson,also first at Berkeley and then at Harvard, & Linton1939, Du Bois et al. 1944, Erikson1950,Leighton Navajowork(Kardiner & Kluckhohn 1947) were perhapsthe most prominentfigures in the movement, but it was very widespread Mead was its battle-fit,out-fronttribune; and Margaret (Hallowell 1955, Piers & Singer 1953, Wallace 1970). Closely allied to culture or culture-at-a-distance andpersonalitytherewere the so-called nationalcharacter studies, such as Benedict's on Japan,and Mead's, RhodaM6traux'sand Geoffrey Gorer'son Europe and America (Benedict 1949; Mead 1942; Mead & M6traux 1953; M6traux& Mead 1954; Mead & Rickman 1951; Gorer 1948, 1955; Gorer & Rickman 1963), and, of course, those of the Russian Research Center,where sociologists, psychologists, political scientists, and anthropologistsattemptedto of "thenew Soviet man"out of the analysis of comassemble a collective portrait munist writingsand refugee life-histories(Bauer 1959, Baueret al. 1956). My interestin all this was limitedby what seemed to me its somewhatmechanical, destiny-in-the-nursery quality and the vastness of its explanatoryambitions. So I driftedinsteadtowardanotherof Kluckhohn'slarge-scale,long-term,multiin the interpretation of cultures, systematicalenterprises discipline,multi-inquirer, of Values or Ramah the so-called Comparative (later Rimrock) Study Project.This well was dedicated to the value sysmethodical and financed, describing project, tems (world-views,mentalattitudes,moral styles) of five geographicallyadjacent New Mexico-Navajo, butculturallydiscrete,small communitiesin northwestern Zuni, Spanish American,Mormon,and Anglo (or Texan). Over a period that fifrom a wide varietyof nally stretchedto twenty years or so, dozens of researchers crossbredspecialties-moral philosophers,regionalhistorians,ruralsociologists, American Indianists,child psychologists-were dispatchedto one or anotherof these sites to describe one or anotheraspect of the life being lived there. Their fieldnotes,hundredsuponhundredsof pages of them, were then typed up on cards and filed in the HumanRelation Area Files mannerat the Peabody Museum of Anthropology,where they could be commonly consultedand a long stringof special studies, and finally a collective volume, written (Vogt & Albert 1966, Vogt 1955, Kluckhohn & Strodtbeck 1961, Smith & Roberts 1954, Ladd 1957). As for me, I did not go to the Southwest but worked for some months in the files, then already vast and varied, on a subject set by Kluckhohn-the differential

GEERTZ responses of the five groups to problems set to them all by the common conditions of their existence as small, rural,more or less encapsulatedcommunities: drought,death, and alcohol. Mormontechnologicalrationalism,Zuni rain dancdramaticfatalism in the face of drought,Navajo fear of ing, Spanish-American Mormon ghosts, eschatological schemes, Anglo grief-avoidancein the face of Zuni death, sobriety,Mormonpuritanism,and Navajo spree drinkingin the face of alcohol-all were outlined,ratherschematically,and attributed, ratherspeculatively, to their differingvalue systems (Geertz,unpublishedobservations).But whateverthe limitationsof the reportI produced(andit wasn't all thatbad as a first for the kind of pass at things),the experienceturnedout to be botha sortof dry-run field research-comparative, collaborative, andaddressed to questionsof meaning anda transition to andsignificance-that I would spendtherestof my life pursuing; the next phase or periodof the immersionof anthropology in the movementof the andthe all-envelopingCold War. times:the age of modernization, nation-building,

AND THE COLDWAR MODERNIZATION

The Centerfor International Studies at the Massachusetts Instituteof Technology, which I mentionedearlieras partof the clusterof social science holding-companies was set up in 1952 as a combinationintelligence emergingin post-warCambridge, and gathering policy planning organizationdedicatedto providing political and economic advice both to the rapidlyexpandingU.S. foreign aid programand to those it was ostensibly aiding-the "developing,""under-developed," or, for the countriesof Asia, Africa, and Latin America.At first, less sanguine,"backward" the Center,somethingof ananomalyin anengineeringschoolnot muchgiven atthat a suiteof offices, time to social studiesof any sort,was hardlymorethana secretary, a name, a largeamountof money,anda nationalagenda.In aneffortsimply to get it up andrunning,Kluckhohn,who, still moving in mysteriousways, had againbeen somehow involved in its formation,proposedthat a team of doctoralcandidates be formedandsent to Indonesiaunderits fromHarvard social science departments auspicesto carryout fieldresearchin cooperationwith studentsfromthatcountry's universities.Five anthropologists, new, European-style includingmyself and my thenwife, Hildred,also a Social Relationsstudent; a sociologist who was a historian of China;a social psychologist; and a clinical psychologist were given a year of intensive work in the Indonesianlanguage and sent off for two years to the rice fields of easternJava(not all of themgot there,butthat'sanotherstory)to carryout, ensemble, parallel,interconnected,and, so it was hoped, cumulativeresearches: and projectedabroad. the RamahProjectmodel updated,concentrated, The ups and downs of this enterprise,which itself came to be called "The ModjokutoProject"and the degree to which it achieved the ends proposedto it, have been retailed elsewhere (Geertz 1995a). For the present "Marchof Time" sort of story, its significance lies in the fact that it was, if not the first, surely one of the earliest of what soon turnedinto a flood of efforts by anthropologists, or teams of them, to adaptthemselves and their tribes-and-islands discipline to

AN INCONSTANT PROFESSION

the study of large-scale societies with writtenhistories, establishedgovernments, and composite cultures-nations,states, civilizations. (For anotherearly effort in this direction, see Stewardet al. 1956.) In the years immediatelyfollowing, the numberof suchcountry-focused projectsmultiplied(as did, of course,as a resultof called area decolonization,the numberof countries),and a sortof super-discipline studies, eclectic, synoptical,reformative,and policy-conscious, came into being to supportthem (Steward1950; Singer 1956; Redfield 1953, 1956). When the Modjokutoteam left for SoutheastAsia, the Center,as I mentioned, did not yet really exist as a going concern, so its connection with the work we did there--essentially historicaland ethnographic,a refittedcommunitystudywas nominal at best. By the time we returnedto Cambridge,three years further on, however, it had become a large, bureaucratized organizationwith dozens of specialized researchers,most of them economists, demographers,agronomists, or political scientists, engaged in developmentplanning of one sort or another or serving as in-countrypolicy consultantsto particulargovernments,including that of Indonesia. The work of our team seemed, both to the Center staff and to ourselves, to be ratherto the side of the Center'smission, inconsonantwith its typestook to "applied" emphasisandtoo concernedwith whatthe program-minded be parochialmatters.We driftedaway into writingour separatetheses on religion, kinship,village life, marketselling, andotherirrelevancies,andbeginning,finally, our academic careers. I, however, was rathermore interestedin developmental questions, and in state formation,than my colleagues, and I wished to returnas soon as possible to Indonesiato take them up. So, after gaining my doctorate,I rejoined the Centerand became more directly involved in its work and with the masteridea that governedit: modernization. This idea, or theory,ubiquitousin ThirdWorld studies duringthe 1960s and early 1970s, and, of course, not all that dead yet, stemmed from a variety of it grew out of the writings of the Germansociologist sources. Most particularly, Max Weberand his Americanfollowers (of whom, TalcottParsonswas perhaps the most prominent,and certainlythe most insistent) on the rise of capitalismin the West (Weber1950a,b, 1947, 1965; Tawney 1947; Parsons1937; Bendix 1962; Levy 1960; Eisenstadt 1966; Black 1976). Weber'sconception of the history of the West since the Renaissance and the Reformationwas that it consisted of a relentless process of economic, political, and culturalrationalization,the instrumental adjustmentof ends and means, and he saw everythingfrom bureaucracy, science, individualism,and double-entrybookkeepingto the industrialorganization of labor and the disciplinedmanagementof innerlife as expressionsof such a process. The systematic orderingof the entirety of human existence in rational terms, its imprisonmentin an "iron cage" of rule and method, was what, in his famous, in some quartersinfamous, its essence, modernitywas. In particular, beliefs of Calvinism and ProtestantEthic thesis-that the harsh, predestinarian relatedinner-worldlyascetic doctrinesof the sixteenthand seventeenthcenturies providedthe moral legitimationand drivingforce for the tireless pursuitof profit underbourgeoiscapitalism-spurred a whole host of studies designed to support

GEERTZ value systems and extend it, to find signs andportentsof such progress-producing in thatmost residualof residualcategories,the nonmodern, nonrational, noncapitalist non-West(Bellah 1957, 1965; Eisenstadt1968; Geertz 1956, 1963b). aside to addressmyself As for me, my originalthesis proposal,put temporarily to describingJavanesereligion more generally for the purposes of the common Islammightplay project,was to pursuethe possibilitythatreformist(ormodernist) a role in Indonesiasimilarto thatwhich Weber'sCalvinismsupposedlyplayed in the West. So, after writing a short book at the Centeron the history of Javanese agriculture,which ascribed its failure to rationalizealong the capital-intensive, labor-savinglines experiencedearlier in the West and, in a somewhat different way, in Japan,to the colonial policies of the Dutch (Geertz 1963a), I headedback thesis in a moredirectandsystematic, to Indonesiahopingto addressthe Weberian hypothesis-testingway. I would, I thought, spend four or five months each in a stronglyIslamic region in Sumatra,a stronglyCalvinistregion in Sulawesi, and a Hindu region in Bali and try to ferretout the effects, if any, of differentvarieties of economic behavior. of religious belief on the modernization But a funny thing happenedon the way to the field. The cold war, previously fought out (the ratherspecial case of Korea perhapsexcepted) in the client and satellite statesof Europe,shiftedits centerof gravityto the ThirdWorld,and most especially to SoutheastAsia. All this-the Malaya emergency,the Vietnamwar, the KhmerRouge, the Huk rebellion,the Indonesianmassacres-is much visited, much disputed,history,and I will not rehearseit again here. Suffice it to say this developmentalteredthe whole scene of action for those of us trying to carryout field studiesin such suddenlyworld-critical places. The inductionof the obsessions and machinationsof the East-Westconfrontationinto entrenched,long-standing divisions in religious, ethnic, and culturallife-another, less foreseen, form of politics to a furious boil just about modernization-brought local, hand-to-hand everywhereit occurred,and it occurredjust abouteverywhere. heroFromthe end of the 1950s to the beginningof the 1970s, the charismatical, leadersof thenew states-Nehru, Nkrumah, Nasser,Ben Bellah,U Nu, AyubKhan, Azikwe, Bandanaraike,Sihanouk, Ho, Magsaysay, Sukarno-bedeviled within and without by these pressurestowardideological polarization,struggledto pounfilled space between the powers: sition their countriesin the ever-narrowing, neutral,nonaligned,newly emerging,"tiersmonde."Indonesia,which soon found itself with both the largestCommunistPartyoutside the Sino-Soviet bloc and an and-financedarmy,was in the very forefrontof this effort,espeAmerican-trained after Sukarno cially organizedthe BandungConferenceof 29 Asian and African nations, or would-be nations, in that west Javanese city in 1955 (Kahin 1956, Wright 1995). Nehru, Chou, Nasser, and Sukarnohimself all addressedthe Conference, which led on to the formalcreationof the nonalignedmovement.All this, and the general unfolding of things, made of Indonesiaperhapsthe most critical afterVietnamin the Asian cold war.And in the mid-1960sit collapsed battleground economic ruin, underthe weight:failed coup, nearcivil-war,political breakdown, and mass killings. Sukarno,his regime, and the dreamsof Bandung,never more

AN INCONSTANT PROFESSION

than dreams,or self-intoxications,were consumed,and the grimmer,less romantic age of the kleptocrats,Suharto,Marcos, Mobutu,Amin, and Assad emerged. Whateverwas happeningin the ThirdWorld,it did not seem to be the progressive advance of rationality,however defined. Some sort of course correctionin our procedures,our assumptions,and our styles of work, in our very conception of what it was we were tryingto do, seemed, as they say, indicated.

AN EXPLOSION OF PARADIGMS
By the time I got back to the United Statestowardthe beginningof the 1960s (my neat little three-way project spoiled by the outbreakof anti-Sukarno rebellions in Sumatraand Sulawesi, I had spent most of the year in Bali), the destabilizing effects of the deepening of the greatpower confrontationin SoutheastAsia were beginning to be felt with some force there as well. The profession itself was torn apartby chargesand countercharges concerningthe activities,or supposedactivities, of anthropologists workingin Vietnam.Therewas civil rightsand "TheLetter from BirminghamJail,"civil libertiesand the Chicago Seven. The universitiesBerkeley, Harvard,Columbia, Cornell, Kent State, Chicago--erupted, dividing faculty,inflamingstudents,and alienatingthe generalpublic. Academic research on "underdeveloped" countriesin general, and on "modernization" in particular, was put undersomethingof a cloud as a species of neoimperialism, when it wasn't being condemnedas liberal do-goodism. Questions multipliedrapidlyabout anthropology'scolonial past, its orientalistbiases, and the very possibility of disinterestednessor objectiveknowledgein the humansciences, or indeedwhetherthey should be called sciences in the firstplace. If the discipline was not to retreatinto its traditional life-and isolation,detachedfromthe immediaciesof contemporary there were those who recommendedthat, as well as some who wished to turnit into a social movement-new paradigms,to borrowThomasKuhn'sfamousterm, first introducedaroundthis time (Kuhn 1962), were called for. And soon, and in spades, they came. For the next fifteen years or so, proposals for new directions in anthropological theory and method appearedalmost by the month, one more clamorous than the next. Some, like French structuralism, had been aroundfor awhile but took on greaterappeal as Claude L6vi-Strauss,its proprietor-founder, moved on from kinship studies to distributionalanalyses of symbolic forms-myths, rituals, categoricalsystems-and promisedus a general account of the foundations of thought (Ldvi-Strauss1963a,b, 1966, 1964-1967; Boon 1972). Others, like "sociobiology"(Chagnon& Irons 1979), "cognitiveanthropology" (Tyler 1969, D'Andrade 1995), "the ethnographyof speaking" (Gumperz & Hymes 1964, Tedlock 1983), or "culturalmaterialism,"(Harris 1979, Rappaport1968) were stimulated,sometimes overstimulated, by advances in biology, informationtheory,semiotics, or ecology. Therewas neo-Marxism(Wolf 1982), neo-evolutionism (Service 1971, Steward1957), neo-functionalism(Gluckman1963, Turner1957), and neo-Durkheimianism(Douglas 1989). Pierre Bourdieu gave us "practice

10

GEERTZ "theanthropology of experience"(Turner & Bruner theory"(1977), VictorTurner "the of Louis Dumont social civilizations" 1986), (1970), Renajit anthropology Guha, "subalternstudies" (1982). EdmundLeach talked of "cultureand communication"(1974), Jack Goody of "the written and the oral" (1977), Rodney Needham of "languageand experience"(1972), David Schneiderof "kinshipas a culturalsystem"(1968), MarshallSahlins of "structure and conjuncture" (1981). I to with As for me, contributed the merriment an ex"interpretive anthropology," tension, broadenedand redirectedby developmentsin literature, philosophy,and the analysis of language, of my concern with the systems of meaning-beliefs, values, world views, forms of feeling, styles of thought-in terms of which particular peoples constructtheir existence and live out their particularlives (1973, 1983). New or reconditionedsocial movements,feminism (Rosaldo & Lamphere 1974, Ortner& Whitehead 1981, McCormack& Strathern1980, Weiner 1976), (Said 1978), indigenousrights (Deloria 1969), and gay liberation antiimperialism in neighboringfields(Newton 1979), addedto the mix, as did new departures the Annales movement in history (Le Roi Ladurie 1980), the "new historicism" in literature(Greenblatt1980), science studies in sociology (Latour& Woolgar 1986, Traweek1988), hermeneuticsandphenomenologyin philosophy(Gadamer 1975, Ricoeur 1981, Habermas1972), and thatelusive and equivocalmovement, known, elusively and equivocally,as "post-structuralism" (Foucault1970, Lacan 1977, Derrida 1976, Deleuze & Guattari1977). There were more than enough perspectivesto go around. What was lacking was any means of orderingthem within a broadlyaccepted disciplinary frame or rationale,an encompassing paradigm.The sense that the field was breakingup into smallerand smaller,incommensurable fragments,that a primordialoneness was being lost in a swarmof fads and fashions, grew, producing cries, angry,desperate,or merely puzzled, for some sort of reunification (Lewis 1998). Types or varieties of anthropology,separatelyconceived and organized, appeared,one on top of the next: medical anthropology, psychological anthropology,feminist anthropology,economic anthropology,symbolic anthropology, visual anthropology;the anthropologyof work, of education,of law, of consciousness;ethnohistory, ethnophilosophy, ethnolinguistics, ethnomusicology. Whathadbeen, whenI stumbledintoit in the early 1950s, a groupof a few hundred, but similarlymindedethnologists,as they tendedthen to call themargumentative selves, most of whomknew one another personally,becameby the late 1970s a vast crowdof scholarswhose sole commonalityoften seemedto be thatthey hadpassed through one or anotherdoctoral programlabeled anthropology(there are more than a hundredin the United Statesalone, andperhapsthatmanymore aroundthe world). Much of this was expectableandunavoidable,a reflexof the growthof the field and the advanceof technical specialization,as well as, once again, the workings of the WorldSpiritas it made its way towardthe conclusionof things. But change nonetheless producedboth an intensificationof polemical combat and, in some quarters anyway,angstandmalaise.Not only did thereappeara series of trumpedup "wars"between imaginarycombatantsover artificialissues (materialistsvs.

AN INCONSTANT PROFESSION

11

idealists, universalistsvs. relativists,scientists vs. humanists,realists vs. subjectivists), but a generalizedandoddly self-laceratingskepticismaboutthe anthropoThe Otheror,worse yet, purporting logical enterpriseas such-about representing to speakfor him-settled in, hardened,andbeganto spread(Clifford1988, Fabian 1983). In time, as the impulsesthatdrovethe optimismof the 1950s andthe turbulence of the 1960s died away into the routinesand immobilities of Reagan's America, this doubt, disillusion, and autocritiquegathereditself together under the broad and indefinite,rathersuddenlypopularbannerof postmodernism(Lyotard1984, Harvey 1989). Defined againstmodernismin reproofandrepudiation--"goodbye to all that"-postmodernism was, and is, more a mood and an attitudethan a connectedtheory:a rhetoricaltag appliedto a deepeningsense of moralandepistemological crisis, the supposedexhaustion,or, worse, corruptionof the received modes of judgment and knowledge. Issues of ethnographicrepresentation,authority,political positioning, and ethical justificationall came in for a thorough going-over;the anthropologist's very "rightto write"got put into question."Why have ethnographic accountsrecentlylost so much of theirauthority?"--the jacket copy of James Clifford'sand George Marcus' WritingCulturecollection (1986), somethingof a bellwetherin all of this, cried: Why were they ever believable?Who has the rightto challenge an 'objective' culturaldescription?... Are not all ethnographies rhetorical deperformances terminedby the need to tell an effective story?Canthe claims of ideology and desire ever be fully reconciledwith the needs of theory and observation? Most of the work in this manner(not all of it so flat-outor so excited as this, nor so densely populatedwith rhetoricalquestions)tendedto centeraroundone or the otherof two concerns:eitherthe constructionof anthropological texts, thatis, work,thatis, ethnowriting,or the moralstatusof anthropological ethnographical graphicalpractice. The first led off into essentially literarymatters:authorship, discourse,fiction,figuration, genre, style, narrative, metaphor, representation, persuasion (Geertz 1988, Boon 1982, Fernandez1986, Sapir & Crocker1977, Pratt 1992); the second, into essentially political matters:the social foundationsof anthropological authority,the modes of power inscribed in its practices, its ideological assumptions, its complicity with colonialism, racism, exploitation, and of Westernself-understanding exoticism, its dependencyon the masternarratives (Hymes 1972, Asad 1973, Marcus& Fischer 1986, Rosaldo 1989). These interlinked critiquesof anthropology, the one inward-lookingand brooding,the other and outward-looking recriminatory, may not have producedthe "fully dialectical in the ethnographyacting powerfully postmodernworld system," to quote that blast nor did Culture Writing they exactly go unresisted(Gellner 1992, cf. again, Geertz 1995b). But they did induce a certainself-awareness,and a certaincandor also, into a discipline not withoutneed of them. However thatmay be, I spent these years of assertionand denial, promise and firstat the Universityof Chicago, from 1960 to 1970, then at the counterpromise, Institutefor Advanced Study in Princeton,from 1970 on, mostly trying to keep

12

GEERTZ my balance, to rememberwho I was, and to go on doing whateverit was I had, before everythingcame loose, set out to do. At Chicago,I was once againinvolvedin, andthis timeultimatelyas its director, an interdisciplinary programfocused on the prospectsof the by now quite stalled andshredded-Biafra, Bangladesh,Southern Yemen-third world:the Committee for the Comparative of New Nations. This committee, which remainedin Study being for morethana decade,was not concernedas such with policy questionsnor with constructinga generaltheoryof development,nor indeed with goal-directed team researchof any sort. It consisted of a dozen or so faculty members at the university-sociologists, political scientists, economists, and anthropologistsworking on or in one or anotherof the decolonized new states, plus a half-dozen or so postdoctoralresearchfellows, mostly from elsewhere,similarlyengaged. Its main collective activity was a long weekly seminarat which one of the members led a discussion of his or her work, which in turnformed the basis for a smaller core group of, if not precisely collaborators,for we all worked independently, similarlyminded,experiencedfield workersdirectedtowarda relatedset of issues in what was then called, ratherhopefully,consideringthe general state of things, nation building (Geertz 1963b). Unable, for the moment, to returnto Indonesia, by then fully in the grip of pervasiverage, I organizeda team of doctoralstudents from the anthropology of which I was also a member,to study a town department, to Modjokuto, comparablein size, complexity, and general representativeness but at the far other, Maghrebian,end of the Islamic world: Morocco (Geertz et al. 1979). The Chicago departmentof anthropology,presided over at that time by an unusually open and supportivegroup of elders (Fred Eggan, Sol Tax, Norman MacQuown,and RobertBraidwood;RobertRedfieldhaving only just died), provided an unusuallycongenial setting for this sort of free-style, thousand-flowers to thingsanthropological. David Schneider, LloydFallers,VictorTurner, approach RobertAdams, ManningNash, Melford Spiro, RobertLeVine, McKim Marriott, Nur Yalman,JulianPitt-Rivers,Paul Friedrich,and Milton Singer were all there cryingup, as I was also, one or anotherline of culturalanalysis,andthe interaction given the range of temperaamong us was intense, productive,and surprisingly, ments involved, generally amicable (Stocking n.d.). But when, in the late 1960s, the Directorof the Institutefor AdvancedStudy in Princeton,the economist Carl Kaysen, invitedme to come thereand startup a new school in the Social Sciences to complementthe schools in Mathematics,NaturalScience, and HistoricalStudies in existence since Einstein,Weyl, von Neumann,Panofsky,and otherworthies had put the place in motion in the late 1930s and early 1940s, I, aftera couple of years backing and filling, accepted.Howeverexposed and full of hazardit might be, especially in a time of such division within the academyand the dubiousness of the very idea of "the social sciences" in the eyes of many humanistsand "real scientists,"the prospect of being given a blank and unmarkedpage upon which to write was, for someone by now addictedto good fortune,simply too attractive to resist.

AN INCONSTANT PROFESSION

13

CONCLUSION
It is always very difficultto determine just when it was that"now"began.Virginia Woolf thought it was "on or about December 1, 1910," for W.H. Auden it was "September1, 1939," for many of us who worriedour way throughthe balance of terror,it was 1989 and the Fall of the Wall. And now, having survivedall that, there is September11, 2001. My years, thirty-oneand counting, at the Institutefor Advanced Study have proved, after some initial difficultieswith the residentmandarins,soon disposed of (the difficulties,not the mandarins),to be an excellent vantage from which to watchthe presentcome into being in the social sciences (Geertz2001). Settingup a new enterprisein the field from a standingstart-the whole field from economics, politics, philosophy,and law, to sociology, psychology, history,and anthropology, with a few scholars from literature,art, and religion thrown in for leaveningdemandedmuch closer attentionto what was going on in these areas,not only in the United States but abroadas well. And with more than five hundredscholars from more thanthirtycountriesspendinga year as visiting fellows at one time or of variouskinds, origins, ages, and another(nearlya fifth of them anthropologists of one had the extraordinary degrees celebrity), experienceof seeing "now"arrive, live and in color. All thatis well andgood, butas thepresentimmediateis, in thenatureof thecase, entirelyin motion,confusedandunsettled,it does not yield so readilyto sortingout the perfected,distancedpast. It is easier to recognize as does, at least apparently, the new as new thanto say exactly whatit is thatis new aboutit, andto tryto discern which way it is in generalmoving is but to be remindedagain of Hegel's Dictum: the futurecan be an object of hope or of anxiety,of expectationor of misgiving, but it cannot be an object of knowledge. I confine myself, then, in finishing up this picaresquetale of questingadventure,to just a few brief and evasive remarks abouthow things anthropological seem to have been going in the last decade or so. At theworld-history level I havebeeninvokingthroughout as activebackground, the majordevelopmentsare, of course, the end of the cold war, the dissolutionof the bipolarinternational system, andthe emergenceof a system,if it can be called a which more andmore each day to look like a strangelyparadoxical comes system, combinationof global interdependence tradezones, (capitalflow, multinationals, the Net) and ethnic, religious and other intensely parochialprovincialisms(The Balkans, Sri Lanka, Ruanda-Burundi, Chechnya, NorthernIreland,the Basque Whether this vs. McWorld" "Jihad (Barber1995), is genuinelya paradox, country). as I tend a interconnected to think, single, deeply or, phenomenon,it has clearly in to affect the that begun anthropologicalagenda ways September 11 can only accelerate. Studies of ethnic discord (Daniel 1996), of transnational identities(Appadurai 1996), of collective violence (Das 2000), of migration (Foner 2000), refugees (Malkki 1995), and intrusive minorities (Kelly 1991), of nationalism (Gellner 1983), of separatism(Tambiah1986), of citizenship, civic and cultural(Rosaldo

14

GEERTZ institutions[e.g., 1997), andof the operationof supra-national quasi-governmental the World Bank, the InternationalMonetaryFund, UN bodies, etc. (Klitgaard 1990)]-studies which were not thoughtto be partof anthropology's purvieweven a few shortyears ago-are now appearingon all sides. Thereare works, andvery businessin SriLanka(Kemper2001), on televisionin good ones, on the advertising India (Rajagopal2001), on legal conceptionsin Islam (Rosen 1989, 2000), on the beliefs worldtradein sushi(Bestor2000), on thepoliticalimplicationsof witchcraft been as I have Insofar Africa the new in South (Ashforth2000). myself directly involvedin all this, it has been in connectionwith the paradox,real or otherwise,of the simultaneousincreasein cosmopolitanismand parochialismI just mentioned; with whatI called in some lecturesI gave in Viennaa few yearsago (andhope soon to expand)"TheWorldin Pieces" calling for an anthropological rethinkingof our masterpolitical conceptions,nation,state, country,society, people (Geertz2000). Things are thus not, or at least in my view they are not, coming progressively togetheras the disciplinemoves raggedlyon. And this, too, reflectsthe direction,if it can be called a direction,in which the widerworldis moving:towardfragmentaare tion, dispersion,pluralism,disassembly,-multi,multi-,multi-.Anthropologists going to have to workunderconditionseven less orderly,shapely,andpredictable, and even less susceptibleof moral and ideological reductionand political quick fixes, than those I have workedunder,which I hope I have shown were irregular enough. A born fox (there is a gene for it, along with restlessness, elusiveness, and a passionatedislike of hedgehogs), this seems to me the naturalhabitatof the cultural... social ... symbolic ... interpretive times, an Interesting anthropologist. inconstantprofession:I envy those aboutto inheritthem. is online at http://anthro.annualreviews.org The Annual Reviewof Anthropology

CITED LITERATURE
Allport GW. 1954. The Nature of Prejudice. MA: logical, andSocial Themes.Cambridge,

MA:Addison-Wesley Cambridge,
AppaduraiA. 1996. Modernityat Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization.Minnea-

Harvard Univ.Press
Bellah RN. 1957. Tokugawa Religion: the Values of Pre-Industrial Japan. New York:Free

polis:Univ.Minn.Press
and the ColoAsad T, ed. 1973. Anthropology nial Encounter.New York:Humanities AshforthA. 2000. Madumo:a ManBewitched.

Press
Bellah RN, ed. 1965. Religion and Progress in

FreePress Asia.NewYork: Modern

Bendix R. 1962. Max Weber:an Intellectual Portrait.GardenCity, NY: Doubleday BenedictRF. 1934.Patternsof Culture.Boston:

Press Univ.Chicago Chicago:

Barber BR. 1995. Jihad vs. McWorld.New

TimesBooks York:
Bauer R. 1959. The New Man in Soviet Psy-

Mifflin Houghton

ton:Houghton Press Mifflin ForTC.2000.Whensushiwentglobal. C. 1956.How Bestor BauerR, Inkeles A, Kluckhohn

the Soviet System Works:Cultural,Psychoeign Aff.:Nov.-Dec.

and the BenedictR. 1949. TheChrysanthemum BosPatterns Culture. Sword: MA: Harvard Univ. of Japanese chology. Cambridge,

AN INCONSTANTPROFESSION Black C, ed. 1976. ComparativeModernization: a Reader. New York:Free Press Boon JA. 1972. FromSymbolismto Structuralism: Levi-Strauss in a Literary Tradition. Oxford:Blackwells Boon JA. 1982. Other Tribes, Other Scribes: SymbolicAnthropologyin the Comparative Study of Cultures,Histories, Religions, and Text.New York:CambridgeUniv. Press BourdieuP. 1977. Outlineof a Theoryof Practice. New York:CambridgeUniv. Press BrunerJS, KrechD, eds. 1950. Perceptionand Personality.Durham,NC: Duke Univ. Press ChagnonN, Irons W, eds. 1979. Evolutionary Biology and HumanSocial Behavior. North Scituate,MA: Duxbury Clifford J. 1988. The Predicamentof Culture: TwentiethCenturyEthnography, Literature, and Art. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press CliffordJ, MarcusG, eds. 1986. WritingCulture: the Poetics and Politics of Culture. Berkeley:Univ. Calif. Press D'Andrade RG. 1995. The Development of Cognitive Anthropology.New York: CambridgeUniv. Press Daniel EV. 1996. CharredLullabies: Chapters in an Anthropologyof Violence. Princeton, NJ: PrincetonUniv. Press Das V, ed. 2000. Violence and Subjectivity. Berkeley:Univ. Calif. Press Deleuze G, GuattariF. 1977. Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia.New York: Viking Deloria V. 1969. CusterDied for YourSins: an Indian Manifesto.New York:Macmillan DerridaJ. 1976. Of Grammatology. Baltimore, MD: Johns HopkinsUniv. Press Diamond S. 1992. Compromised Campus:the Collaboration of the Universities with the Intelligence Community,1945-1955. New York:OxfordUniv. Press Douglas M. 1989. How Institutions Think. Syracuse,NY: SyracuseUniv. Press Du Bois C, KardinerA, OberholzerE, et al. 1944. The People of Alor: a Social-Psychological Study of an East Indian Island. Minneapolis:Univ. Minn. Press

15

DumontL. 1970.HomoHierarchicus:an Essay on the Caste System.Chicago:Univ.Chicago Press EisenstadtS, ed. 1968. TheProtestantEthicand Modernization:a Comparative View. New York:Basic Books Eisenstadt SN. 1966. Modernization:Protest and Change.EnglewoodCliffs, NJ:PrenticeHall EriksonEH. 1950. Childhoodand Society.New York:Norton FabianJ. 1983. Timeand the Other:How Anthropology Makes Its Object. New York: ColumbiaUniv. Press FernandezJA. 1986. Persuasions and Performances: the Play of Tropes in Culture. Bloomington:Ind. Univ. Press FonerN. 2000. FromEllis Island to JFK: New York's TwoGreatWavesoflmmigration.New Haven, CT:Yale Univ. Press Foucault M. 1970. The Order of Things, an Archaeology of the Human Sciences. New York:Pantheon Gadamer H-G. 1975. Truth and Method. London:Sheed & Ward GeertzC. 1956. Religious belief and economic behavior in a central Javanese town: some considerations. Econ. Dev. Cult. preliminary Change 2:134-58 Geertz C. 1963a. AgriculturalInvolution: the Process of Ecological Change in Indonesia. Berkeley:Univ. Calif. Press Geertz C, ed. 1963b. Old Societies and New States. New York:Free Press GeertzC. 1973. TheInterpretation of Cultures, Selected Essays. New York:Basic Books GeertzC. 1983. Local Knowledge:FurtherEsNew York: Anthropology. says inInterpretive Basic Geertz C. 1988. Worksand Lives: the Anthropologist as Author.Stanford,CA: Stanford Univ. Press GeertzC. 1995a.AftertheFact: TwoCountries, Four Decades, One Anthropologist. CamUniv. Press bridge,MA: Harvard Geertz C. 1995b. Reason, religion and Professor Gellner.In TheLimitsof Pluralism:Neoabsolutismand Relativism,ed. HR Hoetink,

16

GEERTZ Homans G. 1950. The Human Group. New York:Harcourt-Brace Hymes DH, ed. 1972. ReinventingAnthropology. New York:Pantheon InkelesA. 1950. Public Opinionin SovietRussia: a Studyof Mass Persuasion.Cambridge, Univ. Press MA: Harvard Jakobson R. 1952. Preliminaries to Speech Analysis: the DistinctiveFeaturesand Their Correlates. Cambridge:MIT Acoust. Libr. Tech. Rep. No. 13 Kahin GMcT. 1956. The Asian African Conference, Bandung, Indonesia, April 1958. Ithaca,NY: CornellUniv. Press. KardinerA, Linton R. 1939. The Individual and His Society: the Psychodynamics of Primitive Social Organization.New York: ColumbiaUniv. Press Kelly JD. 1991. The Politics of Virtue:Hinduism, Sexuality, and Counter Colonial Discourse in Fiji. Chicago:Univ. Chicago Press Kemper S. 2001. Buying and Believing: Sri Lankan Advertising and Consumers in a TransnationalWorld. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press KlitgaardR. 1990. Tropical Gangsters. New York:Basic Books KluckhohnC. 1949. Mirrorfor Man: the Reto ModernLife. New lation of Anthropology York:McGraw-Hill KluckhohnC. 1951. Project on the Soviet SoMA: Harvard Russ. cial System.Cambridge, Res. Cent. Kluckhohn C. 1962. Culture and Behavior: Collected Essays, ed. R Kluckhohn. New York:Free Press Kluckhohn C, Murray HA, Schneider DM. 1949. Personality in Nature, Society, and Culture.New York:Knopf KluckhohnFR, StrodtbeckF. 1961. Variations in ValueOrientations.Evanston,IL: NorthwesternUniv. Press KroeberAL, Kluckhohn C. 1952. Culture: a CriticalReview of ConceptsandDefinitions. Cambridge, MA: Pap. Peabody Mus. Archaeol. Ethnol.,Harvard Univ., 57(1) KuhnTS. 1962. TheStructure of ScientificRevolutions. Chicago:Univ. Chicago Press

n.p. Amsterdam: Praemium Erasmanium Found. Geertz C. 2000. Available Light: Anthropological Reflectionson Philosophical Topics. Princeton,NJ: PrincetonUniv. Press Geertz C. 2001. School building: a retrospective preface.In Schools of Thought:Twentyfive Years of Interpretive Social Science, ed. JW Scott, D Keates,pp. 1-11. Princeton, NJ: PrincetonUniv. Press Geertz C, Geertz H, Rosen L. 1979. Meaning and Order in MoroccanSociety. New York: CambridgeUniv. Press GellnerE. 1983. Nations and Nationalism.Oxford:Basil Blackwell Gellner E. 1992. Postmodernism, Reason, and Religion. New York:Routledge Gluckman M. 1963. Order and Rebellion in TribalAfrica,CollectedEssays. Glencoe,IL: Free Press Goody J. 1977. The Domestication of the Savage Mind. New York:CambridgeUniv. Press GorerG. 1948. TheAmericanPeople: a Study in National Character.New York:Norton Gorer G. 1955. ExploringEnglish Character. London:Cresset GorerG, RickmanJ. 1963. ThePeople of Great Russia, a Psychological Study. London: Cresset GreenblattSJ. 1980. Renaissance Self-FashChicago: ioning:FromMoreto Shakespeare. Univ. Chicago Press GuhaR, ed. 1982. SubalternStudies: Writings on South Asian History and Society. New York:OxfordUniv. Press GumperzJJ,Hymes D, eds. 1964. TheEthnogWashington,DC: raphy of Communication. Am. Anthropol.Assoc. HabermasJ. 1972. Knowledgeand HumanInterests.Boston: Beacon Hallowell AI. 1955. Cultureand Experience. Phila.: Univ. Penn. Press Harris M. 1979. Cultural Materialism: the Strugglefor a Science of Culture.New York: RandomHouse HarveyD. 1989. The Conditionof Post Modernity. Cambridge,UK: Blackwell

AN INCONSTANTPROFESSION Lacan J. 1977. Ecrits, a Selection. New York: Norton LaddJ. 1957. TheStructure ofa Moral Code: a Philosophical Analysis of Ethical Discourse as Applied to the Ethics of the Navaho IndiUniv. Press ans. Cambridge,MA: Harvard LatourB, Woolgar S. 1986. LaboratoryLife: the Constructionof ScientificFacts. Princeton, NJ: PrincetonUniv. Press Leach ER. 1974. Cultureand Communication. New York:CambridgeUniv. Press Leighton DC, Kluckhohn C. 1947. Children of the People: the Navaho Individual and His Development.Cambridge,MA: Harvard Univ. Press Le Roy LadurieE. 1980. Montaillou: Cathars and Catholics in a French Village, 12941324. New York:Penguin L6vi-StraussC. 1963a. StructuralAnthropology. New York:Basic Books L6vi-Strauss C. 1963b. Totemism. Boston: Beacon Ldvi-StraussC. 1964-1967. Mythologiques.4 Vols. Paris:Plon Ldvi-Strauss C. 1966. The Savage Mind. Chicago:Univ. Chicago Press Levy M. 1960. Modernizationand the Structure of Societies: a Settingfor International Relations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press of anLewis HS. 1998. The misrepresentation Am. Anand its thropology consequences. 100(3):716-31 thropol. Condition: J-F.1984. ThePost-Modern Lyotard a Reporton Knowledge.Minneapolis:Univ. Minn. Press Malkki L. 1995. Purity and Exile: Violence, Memory, and National Cosmology Among the Hutu Refugees of Tanzania. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press Marcus G, Fischer M. 1986. Anthropologyas Moment CulturalCritique:an Experimental in the Human Sciences. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press McCormackCP, StrathernM, eds. 1980. Nature, Culture,and Gender. Cambridge,UK: CambridgeUniv. Press PowderDry: an Mead M. 1942. AndKeep Your

17

LooksatAmerica.New York: Anthropologist Norton Mead M, M6trauxR. 1953. The Study of Culture at a Distance. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press Mead M, Rickman J. 1951. Soviet Attitudes TowardAuthority:an Interdisciplinary Approach to the Study of Soviet Character. NewYork:McGraw-Hill M6trauxR, Mead M. 1954. Themesin French Culture.Stanford,CA: StanfordUniv. Press Millikan M, Blackmer D, eds. 1961. The EmergingNations: TheirGrowthand United States Policy. Boston: Little Brown MurrayHA, ed. 1938. Explorationsin Personality: a Clinical ExploratoryStudy of Fifty Men of College Age. New York: Oxford Univ. Press Needham R. 1972. Belief, Language, and Experience. Oxford:Blackwell NewtonE. 1979. MotherCamp:FemaleImpersonatorsinAmerica.Chicago:Univ.Chicago Press Ortner SB, Whitehead H, eds. 1981. Sexual of SexMeanings:the CulturalConstruction uality. New York:CambridgeUniv. Press Parsons T. 1937. The Structureof Social Action: a Study in Social Theorywith Special Reference to a Group of Recent European Writers.New York:McGraw-Hill ParsonsT, Shils E, eds. 1951. Toward a General MA: Harvard Action. Cambridge, Theoryof Univ. Press Piers G, Singer MB. 1953. Shame and Guilt, a Psychoanalytical and a Cultural Study. Springfield,IL: Thomas PrattML. 1992. ImperialEyes: TravelWriting and Transculturation. New York:Routledge Rajagopal A. 2001. Politics After Television: HinduNationalismand the Reshapingof the Public in India. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press RappaportRA. 1968. Pigs for the Ancestors: Ritual in the Ecology of a New Guinea People. New Haven, CT:Yale Univ. Press Redfield R. 1953. The Primitive Worldand its Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Transformations. Press

18

GEERTZ StewardJH. 1957. Theoryof CultureChange: the Methodology of Multilinear Evolution. Urbana:Univ. Ill. Press StewardJH,MannersR, Wolf ER, PadillaSeda E, Mintz SW, et al. 1956. The People of Puerto Rico. Urbana:Univ. Ill Press Stocking GW. n.d. "From the Paleolithic to Palo Alto,""TheBoom Years," "Untyingthe Sacred Bundle," cases 19, 20, 21. http:// anthropology.uchicago.edu/about.html Stouffer SA, ed. 1949. The American Soldier. 4 Vols. Princeton,NJ: PrincetonUniv. Press Tambiah SJ. 1986. SriLanka:EthnicFratricide and theDismantlingofDemocracy.Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press Tawney RH. 1947. Religion and the Rise of Capitalism: a Historical Study. New York: Harcourt-Brace Tedlock D. 1983. The Spoken Wordand the Workof Interpretation.Phila.: Univ. Penn. Press Tolman EC. 1958. Essays in Motivation and Learning.Berkeley:Univ. Calif. Press Traweek S. 1988. Beamtimes and Lifetimes. Harvard Univ. Press Cambridge: TurnerVW. 1957. Schism and Continuity in an African Society. Manchester,UK: ManchesterUniv. Press TurnerVW, BrunerE, eds. 1986. The AnthroUniv.MII Press pology ofExperience.Urbana: Tyler SA, ed. 1969. Cognitive Anthropology: Readings. New York:Rinehart& Winston Vogt EZ. 1955. Modern Homesteaders.CamUniv. Press bridge:Harvard VogtEZ, AlbertEM, eds. 1966. People of Rimrock: a Study of Values in Five Cultures. Univ. Press Cambridge,MA: Harvard Wallace AFC. 1970. Cultureand Personality. New York:RandomHouse Weber M. 1947. The Theory of Social and Economic Organization.Glencoe, IL: Free Press WeberM. 1950a. TheProtestantEthic and the Spirit of Capitalism.New York:Scribner WeberM. 1950b. General Economic History. Glencoe, IL: Free Press Weber M. 1965. The Sociology of Religion. Boston: Beacon

RedfieldR. 1956. PeasantSocietyand Culture: anAnthropologicalApproach to Civilization. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press RicoeurP. 1981. Hermeneuticsand the Human Univ. Sciences. Cambridge,UK: Cambridge Press Rosaldo M, LamphereL, eds. 1974. Woman, Culture,and Society.Stanford,CA: Stanford Univ. Press Rosaldo R. 1989. Cultureand Truth:the Reworkingof Social Analysis. Boston: Beacon Rosaldo R. 1997. Cultural citizenship,inequalIn Latino Cultural ity, and multiculturalism. Citizenship: Claiming Identity, Space, and Right, ed. W Flores, R Benmajor,pp. 27-33. Boston: Beacon Rosen L. 1989. The Anthropologyof Justice: Law as Culturein IslamicSociety.New York: CambridgeUniv. Press Rosen L. 2000. TheJustice oflslam: Comparative PerspectivesofIslamic Law and Society. Oxford,UK: OxfordUniv. Press Sahlins M. 1981. Historical Metaphors and Mythical Realities: Structure in the Early History of the SandwichIslands. Ann Arbor: Univ. Mich. Press Said EW. 1978. Orientalism. New York: Pantheon SapirE. 1949. Culture,Language,and Personality. Berkeley:Univ. Calif. Press Sapir JD, Crocker JC, eds. 1977. The Social Use of Metaphor: Essays on the Anthropology of Rhetoric. Phila.: Univ. Penn. Press Schneider DM. 1968. American Kinship: a Cultural Account. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Service ER. 1971. CulturalEvolutionism:Theory and Practice. New York:Holt, Rinehart & Winston Singer M. 1956. TraditionalIndia, Structure and Change. Phila.:Am. FolkloreSoc. Smith W, RobertsJM. 1954. ZuniLaw: a Field of Values. Cambridge,MA: Pap. Peabody Mus. Archaeol. Ethnol., Harvard Univ., 43(1) StewardJH. 1950. Area Research:Theoryand Practice. New York:Soc. Sci. Res. Counc.

AN INCONSTANTPROFESSION

19

Communicationin the Animal and the MaWeiner AB. 1976. Womenof Value, Men of chine. Cambridge,MA: MIT Press Renown: New Perspectives in Trobriand Wolf ER. 1982. Europeand thePeople Without Exchange.Austin:Univ. Tex. Press History. Berkeley:Univ. Calif. Press Whiting BB, Whiting J. 1975. Childrenof Six Cultures:a Psycho-Cultural Analysis. Cam- WrightR. 1995. The Color Curtain:a Report on the Bandung Conference.Jackson:Univ. Univ. Press bridge,MA: Harvard Press Miss. Wiener N. 1962. Cybernetics;or Controland