AR254-AN34-05 ARI 25 August 2005 14:42

Pierre Bourdieu and the

Practices of Language
William F. Hanks
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2005.34:67-83. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte on 07/25/09. For personal use only.

Department of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley,

California 94720–3710; email: wfhanks@berkeley.edu

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. Key Words

2005. 34:67–83
habitus, field, symbolic power, discourse, linguistics
First published online as a
Review in Advance on
May 23, 2005
Abstract
The Annual Review of This paper synthesizes research on linguistic practice and critically
Anthropology is online at examines the legacy of Pierre Bourdieu from the perspective of lin-
anthro.annualreviews.org guistic anthropology. Bourdieu wrote widely about language and lin-
doi: 10.1146/ guistics, but his most far reaching engagement with the topic is in his
annurev.anthro.33.070203.143907 use of linguistic reasoning to elaborate broader sociological concepts
Copyright

c 2005 by including habitus, field, standardization, legitimacy, censorship, and
Annual Reviews. All rights symbolic power. The paper examines and relates habitus and field in
reserved
detail, tracing the former to the work of Erwin Panofsky and the lat-
0084-6570/05/1021- ter to structuralist discourse semantics. The principles of relative au-
0067$20.00
tonomy, boundedness, homology, and embedding apply to fields and
their linkage to habitus. Authority, censorship, and euphemism are
traced to the field, and symbolic power is related to misrecognition.
And last, this chapter relates recent work in linguistic anthropology
to practice and indicates lines for future research.

67
AR254-AN34-05 ARI 25 August 2005 14:42
Contents
READING BOURDIEU . . . . . . . . . . . .
HABITUS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FIELD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
LANGUAGE
STANDARDIZATION AND
CHANGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
LANGUAGE, LEGITIMATE AND
AUTHORITATIVE . . . . . . . . . . . . .
CENSORSHIP AND
EUPHEMISM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2005.34:67-83. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
SYMBOLIC POWER . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
by Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte on 07/25/09. For personal use only.
CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
READING BOURDIEU
The first challenge for a linguistic anthro-
pologist reading Bourdieu is Bourdieu’s own
language. It is terse in papers like “The
Berber House” (1973), dense and reflexive
in the Outline (1977) and The Field of Cul-
tural Production (1993), and willfully obscure
in Reproduction (Bourdieu & Passeron 1977).
He argues against theoretical programs and
their terminologies but advances his own pro-
gram and terminology. His vocabulary de-
rives from fields as diverse as economics, art
history, literature, linguistics, philosophy of
language, statistics, and social theory (partic-
ularly structuralist and Marxist), along with
the layers of specific literature bearing on
North Africa, French society, and history.
Yet he rejects critical presuppositions that at-
tach to the language in its own field (e.g.,
competition, monopoly, supply, demand, cap-
ital) (1985, p. 19). Throughout the writ-
ings he uses linguistic-semiotic terms, such
as arbitrariness, generativity, invariance, and
structure, but he dismisses much of the lin-
guistics and semiotics from which they are
drawn. He was also embedded in several de-
bates over such basic topics as reason, inten-
tionality, and political thought and was him-
self politically engaged. His linguistic wager
was that he could absorb selected terms and
68 Hanks
concepts from other fields, while excluding
much of the intellectual baggage they usually
carry. The result is that readers unaware or un-
68
sympathetic to his wager will find Bourdieu’s
69
prose paradoxical, inconsistent, or opaque. It
72
also opens him to withering criticism such as
Hasan (1999), who attacks his claims about
language.
75
To understand Bourdieu’s language, we
must situate it in the conceptual universe of
76
practice theory, including the empirical anal-
yses through which the theory was developed
76
and to which it is adapted (Goodman 2003).
77
The attempt was to join theory and analysis
78
in empirically grounded “scientific” sociology
(Bourdieu 1985, p. 11; Bourdieu & Wacquant
1992, pp. 224–47) on the basis of “the re-
lational mode of thinking” (Bourdieu 1977).
This is well illustrated in the ethnographic
treatment of honor, kinship, agricultural prac-
tice, domestic space, the body, the calendar
(Bourdieu 1977), the use of statistics (1977,
1979), survey data on audiences and sales
(1993, pp. 85, 88, 98), and historical back-
ground to generalizations about literature and
art in nineteenth-century France (1993, part
II). The language of practice is focused not on
finished objects, but on processes of construc-
tion, networks of interarticulation, and vari-
eties of reflexivity. This is true whether the
object is symbolic structure (Bourdieu 1973),
political action (1991b), Flaubert (Bourdieu
1993), the French academy (1988), or the
judgment of taste (1979). There is little point
in proposing fixed definitions of his basic
terms because they get their sense from the
relational work they do in analysis.
A student of language can read Bourdieu
in at least two ways. The first way is to focus
on what Bourdieu says about language and
linguistics, on topics such as performativity
and description, censorship, and “legitimate
language” (1991b). Similarly, we could con-
front him on his readings of Saussure, Chom-
sky, Austin, Benveniste, Labov, and other
language theorists (Hasan 1999). The result
would be to focus on what Bourdieu claimed
about language and linguistics, usually in the
AR254-AN34-05 ARI 25 August 2005 14:42
course of a polemic. Important though it
is, the problem with this way of reading is
that it reveals more about Bourdieu than
about language. A more productive approach
is what can be called a second-degree reading:
Bracket what Bourdieu claims about language
directly, and focus instead on what he says
about other aspects of social life. The fact is
that his treatment of a range of social phenom-
ena apart from language bears the trace of lin-
guistic reasoning, sometimes filtered through
structuralism and sometimes not. His intellec-
tual debt to linguistics and semiotics as a way
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2005.34:67-83. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte on 07/25/09. For personal use only.
of thinking is greatest perhaps when it goes
unexplored, for instance in the symbolic anal-
ysis of the Berber house (1973), the develop-
ment of the field concept (1985, 1991a, 1993),
the principle of autonomy applying to fields,
the arbitrariness of classification, and the gen-
erative capacity of habitus and the competence
of those who have it. Moreover, when talk-
ing about language, Bourdieu seldom if ever
approaches the level of empirical specificity
needed to assess his claims, whereas on other
topics he does. To borrow his own terms, the
first degree of reading defines language as the
object or opus operatum about which claims are
made, whereas the second degree of reading
treats linguistic reasoning as a modus operandi,
partly independent of what he is talking about.
Although both are important, we are con-
cerned here about the latter.
HABITUS
One of the widely cited concepts developed
by Bourdieu was his idea of the habitus. At
base, habitus concerns reproduction insofar
as what it explains are the regularities imma-
nent in practice. It explains regularity by ref-
erence to the social embedding of the actor,
the fact that actors are socially formed with
relatively stable orientations and ways of act-
ing. The stability of the habitus is not ex-
pressed in rules, which Bourdieu rejects, but
in habits, dispositions to act in certain ways,
and schemes of perception that order individ-
ual perspectives along socially defined lines.
www.annualreviews.org • Pierre Bourdieu and the Practices of Language
Through the habitus, society is impressed on
the individual, not only in mental habits, but
even more in corporeal ones. Citing Mauss
(1973, p. 117), social embedding is realized in
ways of moving, gesturing, gazing, and orient-
ing in lived space (Csordas 1994, Enfield 2005,
C. Goodwin 2000, Hanks 1990, Haviland
2000, Kendon 1997). For language, the habi-
tus bears on the social definition of the
speaker, mentally and physically, on rou-
tine ways of speaking, on gesture and em-
bodied communicative actions, and on the
perspectives inculcated through ordinary ref-
erential practice in a given language (Ochs
1996).
We can distinguish three lines of thought
joined in the concept of habitus. The first
is the Aristotelian idea of the hexis, which
Bourdieu treats as the individual disposition
that joins desire (intention) with judgment
(evaluation). This idea will become the modus
operandi of practical action, the guiding frame
of reference that aligns intention with judg-
ments of good and bad, appropriate and in-
appropriate. Speakers have hexis insofar as
they enact through speech expressive inten-
tions and the metalinguistic evaluations that
guide both themselves and their understand-
ing of others. The second strand in habitus
is the phenomenological ideas of habitual-
ity and “corporeal schema” (Bourdieu 1985,
p. 14; Merleau-Ponty 1962). The critical shift
here is from disposition to embodiment. The
corporeal schema of Merleau-Ponty (1962) is
neither a representation of the body, nor a
sheerly physical understanding of it. Rather, it
is the prise de conscience, the momentary grasp
that the actor has of being a body. This in-
cludes, grasped jointly, both the actual postu-
ral disposition of the body and the background
horizon of other postural arrangements that
are possible but not actual. At this point,
Bourdieu, like the phenomenologists, is con-
cerned with the familiarity and immediacy of
corporeal experience, both of which are inher-
ited by the habitus. For language, the ques-
tion is how speakers grasp their own engage-
ment in communicative practice, both verbal
69
AR254-AN34-05
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2005.34:67-83. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte on 07/25/09. For personal use only.
ARI 25 August 2005 14:42
and gestural. On this point there is overlap be-
tween habitus and language ideology as stud-
ied in linguistic anthropology. The third line
of habitus is more concrete and detailed. It
is the approach developed by the art histo-
rian Erwin Panofsky. In general, Panofsky
adapted the scholastic concept of habitus
to cultural production in medieval France.
Closer to mentalism than to phenomenology,
Panofsky defined habitus in terms of “habits of
mind” that lay behind Gothic architecture and
scholastic philosophy, arguing in effect that
cultural production is profoundly shaped by
the ways of the thinking of its time. Let us
look more closely at his thesis to better un-
derstand the habitus of linguistic practice.
Panofsky (1976 [1951]) developed a con-
cept of habitus that is the immediate men-
tal counterpart of Bourdieu’s use of the
term. Bourdieu translated Panofsky’s book
into French in 1967, and wrote a postface to
the French edition, in which he comments
on the importance of the art historian’s no-
tion of habitus (Bourdieu 1974 [1967]). To my
knowledge, this is the first usage of the term
in Bourdieu’s published writing. Panofsky’s
starting point is the observation that there
are strong parallels between Gothic architec-
ture and scholastic philosophy, which devel-
oped within a 100 mile radius of Paris, over
about a century and a half (Panofsky 1976,
pp. 4–5). Following a concise overview of
trends in the two fields between 1130 and
1270, the “concentrated phase of this aston-
ishingly synchronous development,” Panof-
sky states his central thesis: that this is more
than mere parallelism—it is
a genuine cause and effect influence, but
in contrast to an individual influence, this
cause-and-effect relation comes about by
diffusion rather than by direct impact. It
comes about by the spreading of what may
be called, for want of a better term, a men-
tal habit—reducing this overworked cliché
to its precise Scholastic sense as a ‘principle
that regulates the act,’ principium importans
ordinem ad actum. Such mental habits are at
70 Hanks
work in all and every civilization. (Panofsky
1976, pp. 20–21).
Panofsky is careful to distinguish the no-
tional content of cultural products from what
he calls the modus operandi of their produc-
tion, the procedures through which they are
produced. It is the modus operandi, not the
opus operatum, the procedure not the work,
that bears the mental habit (Panofsky 1976,
p. 27). Thus, the principle of transparency
governed architectural design, as clarification
governed scholastic thought. Cathedrals were
designed with an eye to totality, symmetry,
and replication of homologous parts, as argu-
ments were based on distinctiveness, deduc-
tive cogency, the mutual inferability among
parts, and explicitness (Panofsky 1976, pp. 43–
58). Using the twin Scholastic principles of
manifestatio and concordatia, he argues for the
existence of a “visual logic” that would have
structured the Scholastic view of architecture,
unifying, for instance, material stability with
textual authority, and subtending the mental
habits of clarification, contradiction, and res-
olution (Panofsky 1976, pp. 68–68).
Bourdieu was sufficiently moved by this
work to undertake its translation and to de-
scribe it as “sans nul doute un des plus beaux
défis qui ait jamais été lancé au positivisme”
(“without any doubt one of the most beau-
tiful challenges ever leveled at positivism”).
As he did repeatedly in subsequent writings,
he seizes on the importance of modus operandi
as opposed to the notional content of cultural
works, quoting Panofsky who described these
as “fundamental principles that support the
choice and presentation of motifs as well as
the production and interpretation of images,
stories and allegories” (Bourdieu 1974 [1967],
pp. 137–39).1 Among the several basic lessons
1
In this review, Bourdieu’s postface is cited as Bourdieu
1974. All translations from French by W.F. Hanks, un-
less otherwise noted. Bourdieu read widely in Panofsky’s
works, citing this quoted passage from “Iconography and
Iconology: An Introduction to the Study of Renaissance
Art.”
AR254-AN34-05 ARI 25 August 2005 14:42

Bourdieu draws from Panofsky is the need to TABLE 1 Two definitions of habitus
reject the dichotomy between individual cre- From Panofsky To Bourdieu
ativity as embodied in singular works and col- Mental habits Embodied habituality
lective values as embodied in the habitus that Evaluative perspective Eye, gaze
guides the creation of those works (Bourdieu Desire/intention Inclination, posture
1974, p. 142). He goes on to contrast “struc- Cultural production Labor of the body
tural methods,” which catalog homologies be- Mental schema Embodied schema
tween symbols and systems, with Panofsky’s Execution Mobility
search for the underlying, mostly unconscious Achieved via training Achieved via reproduction
principles that give rise to those homologies. Exercised in expert practice Exercised in ordinary practice
The latter, inculcated in schools and embod- Relative synchrony (“spirit of age”) Diachrony, emergence
ied in the habitus, are generative schemes that
Design of ritual space Occupancy of domestic space
cut across different spheres of cultural pro-
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2005.34:67-83. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

Links philosophy to architecture Links actor to fields

by Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte on 07/25/09. For personal use only.

duction, generating both works and thoughts

(Bourdieu 1974, p. 152). Bourdieu suggests
a comparison to Chomsky’s generative gram-
mar then later refers to the Saussurian idea of
parole (“speech”) to suggest the existence of
generative schemes whose effects can be per-
ceived only in the works (parole, performance)
in which they are realized (Bourdieu 1974,
p. 160).2 He writes,
. . . the habitus of the creator as a system of
schemes constantly orients choices which,
while not deliberate are nonetheless system-
atic, which without being ordered and or-
ganized expressly in relation to an ultimate
end, are nonetheless bearers of a sort of fi-
nality which reveals itself only post festum:
that self-constitution of a system of works
united by an ensemble of significant rela-
tions is accomplished in and through the as-
sociation of contingency and sense which is
made, unmade and remade ceaselessly ac-
cording to principles that are all the more
constant that they more completely escape
consciousness. . .. (Bourdieu 1974, pp. 161–
62).
If we substitute “speaker” for “creator” we
have here a cogent summary of his approach
Belief, ideology Misrecognition, doxa
Regulates action Regulates practice
to utterance production. The final issue Bour-
dieu addresses in this “Postface” is innovation.
Must we, he asks, revert to irreducible individ-
ual creativity to explain the work of those, like
Abbé Suger, who break from the esthetic tra-
ditions of their time? In effect, he responds in
the negative, asserting the necessity of habi-
tus as the social, generative, unifying principle
that makes intelligible the singularity of the
individual creator (Bourdieu 1974, pp. 165–
66).3
Panofsky’s notion of habitus is focused on
design and does not extend to the embodied
experience of being within the built spaces of
Gothic cathedrals. By 1972, Bourdieu had ex-
plicitly rejected mentalism and proposed that
the body, not the mind, was the “site” of habi-
tus (1977). This shift has numerous entail-
ments, summarized in Table 1.
The left column in Table 1 summarizes
Panofsky’s approach in terms of its elements,
although not in the precise terms that he
used. The mental habits that caused the ho-
mologies between philosophy and architec-
ture have become embodied habits, engaging

2 3
This is the first time, to my knowledge, that Bourdieu Students of linguistic anthropology will be reminded here
compares the habitus with a generative grammar, a mislead- of Sapir’s “Speech as a Personality Trait,” where he spells
ing and ultimately failed comparison that was nonetheless out the necessity of social basis without which individ-
salient to him in 1967, when the “Postface” was written ual style is unintelligible (Sapir 1985). See also Eckert &
(Hanks 1993). Rickford (2001).

www.annualreviews.org • Pierre Bourdieu and the Practices of Language 71

AR254-AN34-05
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2005.34:67-83. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte on 07/25/09. For personal use only.
ARI 25 August 2005 14:42
both mind and body. The evaluative perspec-
tive, once embodied, emerges as active per-
ception, and the intentional states of desire
and purpose become the inclination of body
posture. On these points, which together de-
fine hexis, Bourdieu comes to rely more on
Merleau-Ponty (1945) than on Panofsky. The
cultural production of the philosopher and ar-
chitect becomes the labor of the body. The
mental schemas become embodied schemes
of perception and understanding. The active
process of production works through the body
in motion and gesture. The inculcation of
the mental habits through specialized training
becomes the discipline of the body through
the repeated regularities of ordinary practice.
Whereas Panofsky sought to define the “spirit
of the age” as a relatively synchronous system
of ideas, Bourdieu foregrounds the temporal
open-endedness of habitus. Where the for-
mer examined the design of monumental rit-
ual spaces, the latter was concerned with the
actual occupancy of ordinary spaces, particu-
larly the household. Panofsky derived the reg-
ularities of philosophy and architecture from
his version of habitus, and Bourdieu derived
the regularities of ordinary embodied practice
from his redefined habitus. Finally, although
Panofsky does not speak of belief or ideol-
ogy, the habitus he discerns is an intellectual
formation complete with principles, premises,
and self-justifying judgments. These elements
emerge in practice sociology as misrecogni-
tion and doxa, that is, the false belief that so-
ciety operates on reason and merit and the
unquestioning adherence to its order.
From a language perspective, habitus cor-
responds to the social formation of speak-
ers, including the disposition to use language
in certain ways, to evaluate it according to
socially instilled values, to embody expres-
sion in gesture, posture, and speech produc-
tion (Arno 2003, Bucholtz 1999, Farnell 2000,
Ochs 1996, Ruthrof 2000, Streeck 2003). It
was developed to explain reproduction with-
out rules. It follows that in a practice approach
to language, regularities of “usage” are not
explained by rules, codes, or conventions but
72 Hanks
by embodied dispositions and schemas, which
are not “followed” or “obeyed” but are actu-
alized in speech. Obviously, such an approach
must have a way of treating context because
the habitus neither arises in a vacuum, nor is
it actualized in a vacuum. This leads to Bour-
dieu’s idea of the “field,” to which we now
turn. Habitus, he says, emerges specifically in
the interaction between individuals and the
field, and it has no independent existence apart
from the field (Bourdieu 1993, p. 349).
FIELD
As defined in practice theory, a field is a form
of social organization with two main aspects:
(a) a configuration of social roles, agent po-
sitions, and the structures they fit into and
(b) the historical process in which those posi-
tions are actually taken up, occupied by actors
(individual or collective). For instance, if “de-
manding instructor” or “motivated student”
are positions in the academic field, they are
taken up in the course of such situated activ-
ities as seminar discussion, grading, and eval-
uation. Ready examples of fields are primary
education, the academy, the field of artistic
production, discipline-based fields such as an-
thropology or linguistics, and the field of or-
ganized religion. The idea is that each of these
can be treated as a space of positions and po-
sition takings. Like the duality of perception
schemes and practices of perceiving in the
habitus, the duality of position and position
taking make any field a dynamic form of orga-
nization, not a fixed structure. Within a field,
positions are defined by opposition, such as
teacher
= student, author
= literary agent
=
reviewer, or judge
= jury
= defendant in a
legal proceeding. This sense of opposition is a
case of relational thinking, derived primarily
from structuralism. Among his sources, Bour-
dieu cites Trier (Bourdieu 1993, p. 314), Ty-
nianov and the Russian formalists (Bourdieu
1985, p. 17), Cassirer, and Jakobson (Bourdieu
1977). Thus the linguistic analogs of the con-
cept are readily apparent: semantic field, any
paradigmatic array of opposed terms, any
AR254-AN34-05 ARI 25 August 2005 14:42
“system” of literary genres. Moreover, like a
language for the Prague School linguists, a
“field” is durable but not fixed; it exists in a
“dynamic synchrony.”
If the positions in a field are related to one
another by opposition, the agents who take up
positions are related by struggle and compe-
tition. [Compare Eckert & McConnell-Ginet
(1992) on “communities of practice.”] From
the viewpoint of action, any field is a space of
“strategic possibilities” in which actors have
potential moves and courses of action, an idea
Bourdieu (1993, p. 314) credits to Foucault.
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2005.34:67-83. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte on 07/25/09. For personal use only.
This shift from structure and dynamic syn-
chrony to action and history is intended to
move beyond classic structuralism (Brubaker
1993; Calhoun 1993; de Certeau 1984, 1988;
Comaroff & Comaroff 1991). It also implies
another key element, namely that values cir-
culate in any field and are the basis of compe-
tition among agents. This circulation of value
includes such things as prestige, recognition,
and authority, but also material wealth and
capital. Relative to a field, any agent has a tra-
jectory or career consisting of the positions it
has occupied, how they were taken up, how
they were vacated, etc. Hence from a prac-
tice perspective, speaking and discourse pro-
duction are ways of taking up positions in so-
cial fields, and speakers have trajectories over
the course of which they pursue various values
(Bourdieu 1993, pp. 345–46; compare Spitul-
nik 1996, Urban 2001). In so doing, they are
formed by the field.
This is the point at which habitus and field
articulate: Social positions give rise to embod-
ied dispositions. To sustain engagement in a
field is to be shaped, at least potentially, by
the positions one occupies. The speaker who
produces discourse in a field like the academy
comes to be shaped by the positions (s)he takes
up and the forms of discourse they call forth.
Already molded to the field, the habitus shapes
the individual in a way similar to Elias’s (2000)
“civilizing process” or Pascal’s formation of
the believer through the practice of prayer and
the pomp of spectacle (Pascal 1976, pp. 116,
118, 127, 139–143; Bourdieu 1997). The field
www.annualreviews.org • Pierre Bourdieu and the Practices of Language
thus becomes not an external feature of con-
text but a formative input that shapes the in-
dividual through the habitus.
To describe a social phenomenon as a
“field” is therefore to focus on certain of its
features: the space of positions, the histori-
cal processes of their occupancy, the values
at stake, the career trajectories of agents, and
the habitus shaped by engagement. Compared
with a term like “context,” field is both more
specific and more consequential. The factors
already cited give rise to additional features
found in any field, including three specified
by Bourdieu (1985, pp. 20–21): (a) a language
game in which certain ends are pursued with
certain discursive resources according to es-
tablished guidelines, (b) a set of beliefs and
assumptions that undergird the game, and (c)
the specific stakes at play (what is to be lost
or gained, how, and by whom). These factors
could be illustrated with the language games
of argument, publication, and discussion in
the academy, all based on the beliefs that ra-
tional analysis and effective rhetoric are skills
that mark “good work,” and productivity is
measured by discourse production in recog-
nized genres (Kroskrity 2000, Schieffelin et al.
1998, Woolard & Schieffelin 1994). These be-
liefs further feed into the definition of the
habitus and are activated in the choices, hopes,
and expectations of agents in the field. There-
fore, struggles over particular stakes reinforce
the ground rules of the game as well as the
dispositions of its players (Bourdieu 1991b,
p. 57). This circularity is a type of reflexivity
central to practice theory. Irrespective of the
intentions, aims, or understandings of any of
the players, practice in the field reproduces
the demands of the field in the embodied dis-
positions of the players.
One final feature contrasts the concept of
field from that of context as usually under-
stood in language studies. Any field is rela-
tively bounded, not by walls or natural barri-
ers but by constraints on who can engage in
which positions. This bounding is illustrated
in institutional settings by certifications,
specialized training, competitive selection,
73
AR254-AN34-05
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2005.34:67-83. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte on 07/25/09. For personal use only.
ARI 25 August 2005 14:42
class-based exclusions or inclusions, and eco-
nomic or symbolic resources. The idea is not
that any field has a discrete, accepted border
around it, but that access is always differen-
tial and selective. Thus the degree granting
training of scientists, the exclusivity of elite
schools and companies, the religious training
and disciplines of organized religions, and the
limits on access to the media in politics are
all boundary mechanisms that help define the
fields in which they operate. Whereas “dis-
course context” as usually understood is the
surround of an utterance or form, the field
with its boundaries assumes no discursive act
at its center. It exists prior to and apart from
any particular utterance or engagement and is
in this sense objective.
There are many fields in any society, and
this raises the question of how they relate to
one another. One important relation is sim-
ilarity of organization, which Bourdieu calls
homology. There are homologies between the
literary and artistic fields, in which evaluation
and consumption of genres is differential in
parallel ways. Similarly, access to capital and
leisure is differential in the economic field.
The outsider artist is to the field of artis-
tic production as the poor are to the field
of economy because both stand in a rela-
tion of marginal exclusion (Bourdieu 1993).
Bourdieu’s interest in homologies is already
at work in the habitus and probably derived
from his reading of Panofsky, reinforced by
the premium he placed on relational thinking.
For our purposes, it points toward comparison
among different fields in terms of their posi-
tions, position takings, distributions of value
and resources, habitus, and so forth. A study
focused on language would compare fields in
terms of their discursive resources, the kinds
of effects they have when put to use, the sorts
of strategies producers (speakers) pursue and
the ends they achieve.
Beyond their “topological” similarities,
fields may be concretely articulated in what
we can call embedding relations. For instance,
the field of literary production is embedded in
the field of power, which is, in turn, embed-
74 Hanks
ded in the field of class relations (Bourdieu
1993, pp. 38, 319). Here there is more than
homology at stake because the embedded field
is, to a degree, organized by the embedding
one(s). A field based on, contained within,
or constrained by another field is, to that
degree, nonautonomous, whereas one whose
organizing elements are specific to itself is
autonomous. For example, an academic de-
partment in a public university in contem-
porary U.S.A. can be looked at as a field
embedded within the broader fields of the dis-
cipline, the institution, higher education, and
the sources of research funding. To the extent
that the departmental field is organized by the
mandates of these other fields it is nonau-
tonomous, whereas it is autonomous insofar
as it has its own functioning principles. (See
also Bachnik & Quinn 1994.)
One kind of field central to linguistic prac-
tice is the deictic field, namely the socially de-
fined context of utterance in which language
is used for various purposes, including ref-
erence and description, the performance of
speech acts, and ordinary verbal interaction
(Hanks 2005). The positions in the deictic
field include minimally the participant frames
of Spr, Adr, Object, and their numerous multi-
party analogs (Goffman 1981, Goodwin 1981,
Hymes 1972); the spatial and temporal set-
ting; and the indexical parameters in which
participants have access to each other and the
situation around them. In the course of speak-
ing, interactants take up and vacate positions,
and they act within them and upon them. Em-
bedded within the deictic field are settings,
defined by interactive relevance, and situa-
tions, defined by the mutual perceptibility of
the parties. Given that linguistic practice takes
place in virtually every sphere of social life, the
deictic field is in turn embedded in one or an-
other social fields: The interactant in verbal
practice speaks as a proponent of a position
in political debate, as a boss or worker, as a
preacher, as legal counsel, as therapist or pa-
tient, as a kinsman in the domestic field. The
deictic field is relatively autonomous insofar as
it is defined by language, but nonautonomous
AR254-AN34-05 ARI 25 August 2005 14:42
in those features imposed by the embed-
ding social fields. In this perspective, verbal
functions such as reference, description, il-
locutionary forces, and indirection are recast
as ways of taking up positions in the field.
The boundary processes in play in all fields
constrain participants’ differential access to
positions, and individuals have meaningful
trajectories of position taking over time (at
whatever level we measure). Values that cir-
culate through the deictic field are varied,
according to the embedding field. Perhaps
most important, sustained engagement in spe-
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2005.34:67-83. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte on 07/25/09. For personal use only.
cific deictic fields helps shape the interactants’
habitus, their dispositions to construe settings
in socially formed ways.
LANGUAGE
STANDARDIZATION AND
CHANGE
Much of traditional linguistics treats language
as the product of an irreducible inner logic,
sometimes called a code. The grammar of a
language like English or Maya states the cor-
responding code in terms of categories (Sen-
tence, Noun Phrase, Verb Phrase, etc.) and
the processes that derive and operate on them.
In traditional grammar, it is standard to as-
sume that this code is perfectly shared by the
speakers of the language, this sharedness be-
ing a common sense requisite for mutual un-
derstanding. In a move congenial to sociolin-
guists and anthropologists, Bourdieu notes
that the apparent unity of any language is the
product of a historical process of unification
or standardization, and languages vary across
the society in which they are spoken. Accord-
ing to Bourdieu, standardization is produced
by suppressing nonstandard variants, a point
on which sociolinguists have provided more
subtle accounts (Eckert & Rickford 2001,
Silverstein 1998). Whereas a grammarian uses
the term code analytically, for Bourdieu it
echoes the legal code in which conduct is
regulated and “rules are to be followed”
(Haviland 2003, Mertz 1994). Behind the
unity of most standard languages lie power
www.annualreviews.org • Pierre Bourdieu and the Practices of Language
relations, unifying administrations, economy
and state formation, or governance (Herzfeld
1996). Dictionaries, grammars, and their au-
thors are part of the same process, as is the
inculcation of standard in the educational sys-
tem. Access to the standard through education
provides access to the positions of power in
which it is used. The entire process is a kind
of symbolic domination in which nonstandard
varieties are suppressed, and those who speak
them are excluded or inculcated. Thus indi-
viduals acquire the disposition to acquiesce to
the standard as a matter of their own interest
because it gives access to power. Thereby, they
uphold the system of domination, just as com-
petitors in a field uphold the game in which
they compete. Discourse strategies aimed at
securing ends involve attunement to the de-
mands of the field, and thereby underwrite
the field with its hierarchies. The result is that
social hierarchy, based on access to power, is
transposed into stylistic hierarchy, on the ba-
sis of the association of different verbal styles,
registers, or varieties with different positions
(Agha 1994; Bourdieu 1991b, p. 55; Errington
1988; Heller 1992; Kataoka & Ide 2003;
Rumsey 2002; compare Ochs 1992, Eckert
1998, Cameron 1998 on gender).
Just as a practice approach splits “the lan-
guage” into social varieties, it also distin-
guishes among discourse genres (Eckert 2000,
Eckert & Rickford 2001, Hanks 1987, Feld &
Schieffelin 1998, M. Goodwin 1990). Gen-
res are historically specific, relatively stable
types of discourse practice corresponding to
different positions in social fields. French
literary genres, for instance, are hierarchi-
cally ordered, each one defining a position,
and to write in a genre is to take up a
position (Bourdieu 1993, pp. 312, 326; see
also Bauman 2001, Briggs & Bauman 1992,
Hanks 1987). From this perspective, indi-
vidual discourse works instantiate genres or
genre blends drawn from a space of discur-
sive possibilities (Bourdieu 1985, p. 21). The
definition of the literary in terms of formal
properties, such as the poetic function of Ty-
nianov and Jakobson, is inseparable from the
75
AR254-AN34-05
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2005.34:67-83. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte on 07/25/09. For personal use only.
ARI 25 August 2005 14:42
broader field of cultural production. By de-
limiting the literary, it in effect affirms the
autonomy of the literary field itself, which
once again illustrates the principle that ac-
tion tends to reinforce the field in which it
occurs, regardless of the intentions of the
actors.4
LANGUAGE, LEGITIMATE AND
AUTHORITATIVE
The processes at work in standardization and
hierarchies of styles and genres also give
rise to what Bourdieu calls legitimation and
authorization. Both of these turn on how
language is socially evaluated. Legitimacy is
accorded to selected ways of speaking or writ-
ing in that they are recognized by other pro-
ducers, by the dominant classes and by mass
audiences (Bourdieu 1993, p. 331; Garnham
1993). Inculcated in education (Collins 1993,
Lave & Wenger 1991, Mertz 1996, Wortham
& Rymes 2003) and the family (Ochs 1988,
Ochs & Schieffelin 1995), the dominant lan-
guage is legitimated in that it receives recog-
nition and is the measure by which other vari-
eties are evaluated (in at least some situations).
Differences in social and economic position
tend to be reproduced in unequal knowledge
of legitimate language, which in turn rein-
forces constraints on access to power. At this
point, Bourdieu cites Labov’s work on English
variation in New York (Labov 1966), suggest-
ing that members of a speech community can
share allegiance to the same standard, despite
differences in the (nonstandard) varieties they
themselves speak. Thus, even though non-
standard varieties are an unavoidable effect
of social differences, it is the standard that is
accorded recognition as legitimate. The dis-
crepancy between what speakers do and what
they consider legitimate is a force of language
4
It is questionable whether the poetic function actually re-
inforces the autonomy of the literary field, given that this
function is at work in much of ordinary language use, a
point emphasized by Jakobson (1960) and carried forth in
the ethnography of speaking.
76 Hanks
change in the form of distinctive deviations
from the standard.
Legitimacy is closely related to autho-
rization in Bourdieu’s approach (Bourdieu
1991b). The key difference is that authority
is invested not in language varieties, but in
the agents who use them (compare Ahearn
2001). This is also the main difference be-
tween Bourdieu (1991b) and Austin (1962),
as Bourdieu himself presents it. For the most
part, Austin’s speech acts are recast as practices
in the field, and Bourdieu derives from the
field itself the illocutionary effects that Austin
attached to performative speech. To be effec-
tive, any speech act must be recognized as ef-
fective, it must be legitimate for those upon
whom it has an effect. Whereas this constraint
could be treated as an Alpha felicity condi-
tion by Austin, it is the core phenomenon for
Bourdieu. Moreover, the speaker gets the au-
thorizing effect from the field, not from the
language nor from his or her own best inten-
tions. To produce authorized language is then
to draw on the social field for authority and,
in so doing, to reinforce it.
CENSORSHIP AND EUPHEMISM
The flip side of authoritative and legitimate
language is censorship and euphemism. To
speak a language is not to command a code,
but to act in a world that one accepts tac-
itly. Standardization and legitimation sanc-
tion certain ways of speaking, rewarding some
while silencing others. The effect is to intim-
idate and censor speech without any discrete
acts of intimidation or censoring. Any field
automatically censors the discourse that cir-
culates through it. It calls for what Bourdieu
(1991b, pp. 137–62) describes as euphemism,
namely the muting of critique and individual
expression according to what is rewarded or
sanctioned in the field. Through euphemism,
the sanctions of the field become part of lin-
guistic practice itself, not external conditions
but internal elements. A game joining form
with field, euphemism requires competence
to play effectively. Like censorship, it helps
AR254-AN34-05 ARI 25 August 2005 14:42
shape the habitus of speaking agents, both
their own expressive dispositions and their
evaluations of others’ expression. To euphem-
ize one’s speech, consciously or not, is to self-
regulate: The individual is fitted ever more
closely to his or her position in the field. This
is one of the mechanisms by which the habitus
is formed at the point where actors engage in
fields.
SYMBOLIC POWER
Censorship, authorization, and the reinforce-
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2005.34:67-83. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte on 07/25/09. For personal use only.
ment of dominant languages are all trace-
able to the pervasive effects of power (com-
pare Gal & Irvine 1997, Lindstrom 1992).
Insofar as the power is symbolic, Bourdieu
(1991b, p. 164) describes it as “that invisi-
ble power which can be exercised only with
the complicity of those who do not want to
know that they are subject to it, or even that
they themselves exercise it.” This complicity
lies at the heart of practice and is explained
not by any conscious concealment but by the
structural relations between semiotic systems
(including language), the habitus (including
the perspectives it embodies), and the field.
Bourdieu arrives at this analysis stepwise.
First, structuralism (from Saussure to Lévi
Strauss) demonstrated that symbolic systems
are internally structured, have their own his-
torical dynamics, and are logically prior to
the acts in which they are instantiated. Sec-
ond, citing Kant, Cassirer, Sapir, Whorf, and
Americanist anthropology, he observes that
these systems construct the worlds inhabited
by those socialized into them. As developed
under the guise of linguistic relativity, rou-
tine language use provides ready-made terms
in which actors apprehend and represent re-
ality, including language itself (Gumperz &
Levinson 1996, Hill & Manheim 1992,
Lucy 1992, Silverstein 2000). Hence through
speaking a language one is embedded in a
universe of categorization, selective distinc-
tions, and evaluations. Symbolic systems are
structuring as well as structured. Inspired by
Durkheim and Mauss, Bourdieu joins the two
www.annualreviews.org • Pierre Bourdieu and the Practices of Language
steps in a circular relation that foreshadows
the complicity cited above: It is because sym-
bolic systems are structured that they can
order experience in the ways they do, and
because they order experience they are rein-
forced by practice. The third step is to link
the first two steps to class divisions on the ba-
sis of relations to labor and production, and
therefore to a political economy (Irvine 1998).
Bourdieu took the political economy to be a
sociological precondition and source of any
symbolic system, thereby rejecting the arbi-
trariness assumed by structuralism. By bring-
ing to bear their own categories on relations
of power from which they are ultimately de-
rived, symbolic systems reinforce domination.
Much as stylistic hierarchies are motivated by
social hierarchies, symbolic systems arise from
and reinforce power differences. By engag-
ing in linguistic practice, and quite apart from
their intentions or aims, actors are complicit
with the pervasive power relations in which
their language is embedded. Competence in
the standard emerges as a form of symbolic
capital, often rationalized as the intrinsic value
of “refined” or “proper” speaking, but ulti-
mately derived not from language but from
power relations.
Why does Bourdieu claim that this elabo-
rate circularity is invisible to the people in-
volved in it? The chain of reasoning goes
like this. Systems of distinction, including lan-
guage, present themselves to native speakers
as natural. This is a by-product of the circu-
larity between distinctions made in a language
on the one hand, and divisions in the social
field to which they are applied on the other.
The two are partially independent but mutu-
ally reinforcing. Furthermore, in the course
of ordinary practice, speakers tacitly assume
systems of distinction and division from mo-
ment to moment (Cicourel 1993). Speech is
produced and understood against this social
horizon, whose very tacitness shelters it from
scrutiny. Assumed, habituated, and schema-
tized in the habitus, systems of difference ap-
pear self-evident. They are too thoroughly
incorporated and too obvious to be easily
77
AR254-AN34-05
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2005.34:67-83. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte on 07/25/09. For personal use only.
ARI 25 August 2005 14:42
noticed in ordinary practice. When they are
noticed, they are usually rationalized in terms
of arbitrary convention (why does “table”
stand for table?), the functional requirements
of communication (why does language have
the properties it does?), or local communica-
tive motives (why did he say that?). Further-
more, as linguistic anthropologists have es-
tablished, commentary on language is itself
formulated in language. Consequently, the
ontological complicity between linguistic and
social categories makes each of them appear
natural.
This naturalness is illusory though because
it misrecognizes the role of power in the mak-
ing of semiotic distinctions. Indeed, one of
the signal concepts developed by Bourdieu
is this circle of masking and misrecognition
(Bourdieu 1990). Linguistic anthropologists
have long known that native speakers are
largely unaware of the systematic workings
of their language, but misrecognition is more
fundamental than awareness. It is the social
effect whereby power divisions and the im-
posed rules of the game are underwritten by
practice, however strategic, and by the ratio-
nalizing ideas people have about language and
practice. Thus common sense doxa regarding
correctness, elegance, clarity, or effectiveness
in speech hides what is more accurately seen
as the market value of speech styles relative to
the dominant language. In the literary field,
for instance, the belief in individual creativ-
ity is a misrecognition based on the illusio that
what is valued is intrinsic creativity. In a more
accurate account, as Bourdieu sees it, what is
valued is what fits the demands of the field, and
the effective producer is the one best attuned
to the field. Bourdieu & Passeron (1977) make
this point in relation to education when they
argue that success in school depends not on in-
dividual ability, as usually claimed, but on the
selection effect whereby successful students
come from the social milieux that the educa-
tion system is designed to legitimate. They de-
scribe this misrecognition as “genesis amne-
sia” (Bourdieu & Passeron 1977, pp. 5, 9). In
discussing the historicity of reason, Bourdieu
78 Hanks
generalizes the point, arguing that what le-
gitimates reason is not reason, but rather re-
ceived convention, ultimately linked to power
and pageantry (Bourdieu 1997, Ch. 3).
It is a small step from power misrecog-
nized to symbolic violence. The speaker cen-
sored or obliged to euphemize in order to earn
credit, show loyalty, or maintain confidence is
the object of symbolic violence because his
or her speech is curtailed, whether by self or
other. Obviously, to be classified, evaluated,
stereotyped, or portrayed as such and such is
to be the object of symbolic violence. Just as
misrecognition is a structural relation more
general than any instance of misrecognizing,
symbolic violence is a structural relation. The
violence in question depends neither on vi-
olent acts nor on the intentions that may
animate them. Masking relations of force,
symbolic violence dominates by defining as
legitimate limitations that derive from and re-
inforce differences of power.
CONCLUSION
Many of the linguistic anthropologists cited
here have addressed one or another element in
Bourdieu’s approach to language, sometimes
to great effect [Irvine (2001) on style and dis-
tinction; Ochs (1996) on socialization; Haeri
(1997), Hill (1987), and Woolard (1985) on
language markets; Cicourel (2001) on medi-
cal knowledge]. For the most part, broad dis-
cussions of the approach have been critical of
Bourdieu’s claims about language, sometimes
for good reason (Hasan 1999). He is usually
vague where a linguist needs specificity and of-
ten specific where linguists do not tread. But
if we look beyond such claims, there is a deep
consonance between much of practice the-
ory and the intellectual framing of linguistic
anthropology (Goddard 2002, Hanks 1996).
This is evident in the occasional citations
to linguistic sources, but more pervasively in
the way Bourdieu reasons about such criti-
cal concepts as habitus and field. From these
two concepts and their interactions emanate
a range of phenomena of great interest to
AR254-AN34-05 ARI 25 August 2005 14:42

students of language, including standardiza-
tion, domination, authorization, legitimation,
and their opposites. To this we add censorship,
euphemism, and symbolic violence, whose re-
lations to discourse production are direct.
This list is unfinished, as is Bourdieu’s legacy
for language, but it indicates some of the sites
at which work has been done and more could
be done. The meanings of these terms are ob-
viously specific to Bourdieu’s approach, and it
is difficult to map precisely from his paradigm
into the approaches typical of linguistic an-
thropology (Duranti 2003). Phenomena that
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2005.34:67-83. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte on 07/25/09. For personal use only.
fects of the relation between habitus and field.
For the linguistic anthropologist, by contrast,
Bourdieu’s habitus splits apart into many dif-
ferent factors that run the gamut from gram-
mar to speech, gesture, language ideology, and
space. The contemporary focus on indexical-
ity derives mostly from Peirce’s semiotics and
its development in the ethnography of speak-
ing. By contrast, Peirce and indexicality are
virtually absent from practice sociology, just as
Panofsky and Merleau-Ponty are all but miss-
ing in linguistic anthropology. These absences
are generative sites for future research into

appear unified under one view are split apart linguistic practice, understood as both object
under the other. Language ideology, style, and modus operandi, form and occupancy, ours
and interaction correspond to multiple ef- and others’.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The research on which this article is based has benefitted from contributions from a number of
students and colleagues. I am grateful for extended discussions with Berkeley graduate students
in the seminars on colonial history, practice theory and linguistic anthropology between 2000
and 2004 and from discussions with Liu Xin, in our co-taught seminar. Special thanks to
Rob Hamrick and Alysoun Quinby who have assisted me in all phases of this article from
bibliographic research to final editing. Thanks finally to Jennifer Johnson-Hanks, extraordinary
interlocutor.

LITERATURE CITED
Agha A. 1994. Honorification. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 23:277–302
Ahearn L. 2001. Language and agency. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 30:109–37
Arno A. 2003. Aesthetics, intuition and reference in Fijian ritual communication: modularity
in and out of language. Am. Anthropol. 105:807–19
Austin JL. 1962. How to Do Things with Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
Bachnik J, Quinn CM. 1994. Situated Meaning, Inside and Outside in Japanese Self, Society and
Language. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
Bauman R. 2001. The ethnography of genre in a Mexican market. In Style and Sociolinguistic
Variation, ed. P Eckert, JR Rickford, pp. 57–77. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
Bourdieu P. 1973. The Berber house or the world reversed. In Rules and Meanings: The Anthro-
pology of Everyday Knowledge, ed. M Douglas, pp. 98–110. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin
Educ.
Bourdieu P. 1974 [1967]. Postface. In Architecture Gothique et Pensée Scolastique, ed. E Panofsky,
transl. P Bourdieu. pp. 135–67. Paris: Éd. Minuit. From French
Bourdieu P. 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Transl. R Nice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
Univ. Press. From French
Bourdieu P. 1979. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Transl. R Nice.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press. From French

www.annualreviews.org • Pierre Bourdieu and the Practices of Language 79

AR254-AN34-05 ARI 25 August 2005 14:42

Bourdieu P. 1985. The genesis of the concepts of habitus and field. Sociocriticism 2:11–24
Bourdieu P. 1988. Homo Academicus. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press. xxvi, 344 pp.
Bourdieu P. 1990. The Logic of Practice. Transl. R Nice. Cambridge: Polity. From French
Bourdieu P. 1991a. Genesis and structure of the religious field. Comp. Soc. Res. 13:1–44
Bourdieu P. 1991b. Language and Symbolic Power. Transl. G Raymond, M Adamson. Cambridge:
Polity. From French
Bourdieu P. 1993. The Field of Cultural Production: Essays on Art and Literature. New York:
Columbia Univ. Press
Bourdieu P. 1997. Pascalian Meditations. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press
Bourdieu P, Passeron J-C. 1977. Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard Univ. Press
Bourdieu P, Wacquant LJD. 1992. An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. Chicago: Univ. Chicago
Press
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2005.34:67-83. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte on 07/25/09. For personal use only.

Brenneis D, Macaulay RHS, eds. 1998. The Matrix of Language: Contemporary Linguistic An-
thropology. Boulder, CO: Westview
Briggs C, Bauman R. 1992. Genre, intertextuality and social power. J. Ling. Anthropol. 2:131–
72
Brubaker R. 1993. Social theory as habitus. See Calhoun et al. 1993, pp. 212–34
Bucholtz M. 1999. “Why be normal?” language and identity practices in a community of nerd
girls. Lang. Soc. 28:203–23
Calhoun C. 1993. Habitus, field and capital: the question of historical specificity. See Calhoun
et al. 1993, pp. 61–88
Calhoun C, LiPuma E, Postone M, eds. 1993. Bourdieu: Critical Perspectives. Cambridge: Polity
Cameron D, ed. 1998. The Feminist Critique of Language, a Reader. New York: Routledge
Cicourel A. 1993. Aspects of structural and processual theories of knowledge. See Calhoun et
al. 1993, pp. 89–115
Cicourel A. 2001. Le Raisonnement Médical. Paris: Seuil
Collins J. 1993. Determination and contradiction: an appreciation and critique of the work of
Pierre Bourdieu on language and education. See Calhoun et al. 1993, pp. 116–38
Comaroff J, Comaroff J. 1991. Of Revelation and Revolution. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press.
Vol. 1
Csordas TJ. 1994. Embodiment and Experience: The Existential Ground of Culture and Self. Cam-
bridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
de Certeau M. 1984. The Practice of Everyday Life. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
de Certeau M. 1988. The Writing of History. New York: Columbia Univ. Press
Duranti A. 2003. Language as culture in U.S. anthropology: three paradigms. Curr. Anthropol.
44:323–47
Eckert P. 1998. The whole woman: sex and gender differences in variation. See Brenneis &
Macaulay, pp. 116–38
Eckert P. 2000. Linguistic Variation as Social Practice. Oxford, UK: Blackwell
Eckert P, McConnell-Ginet S. 1992. Think practically and look locally: language and gender
as community-based practice. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 21:461–90
Eckert P, Rickford JR. 2001. Style and Sociolinguistic Variation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
Univ. Press
Elias N. 2000. The Civilizing Process. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Rev. ed.
Enfield NJ. 2005. The body as a cognitive artifact. Curr. Anthropol. 46: In Press
Errington JJ. 1988. Structure and Style in Javanese: A Semiotic View of Linguistic Etiquette.
Philadelphia: Univ. Penn. Press

80 Hanks
AR254-AN34-05 ARI 25 August 2005 14:42

Farnell B. 2000. Getting out of the habitus, an alternative model of dynamically embodied
social action. J. R. Anthropol. Inst. 6:397–418
Feld S, Schieffelin BB. 1998. Hard words: a functional basis for Kaluli discourse. See Brenneis
& Macaulay, pp. 56–47
Foucault M. 1979. What is an author? In Textual Strategies: Perspectives in Post-structuralist
Criticism. ed. JV Harari, pp. 141–60. Ithaca: Cornell Univ. Press
Gal S, Irvine JT. 1997. The boundaries of languages and disciplines: how ideologies construct
difference. Soc. Res. 62:967–1001
Garnham N. 1993. The cultural arbitrary and television. See Calhoun et al. 1993, pp. 178–92
Goddard C. 2002. Ethnosyntax, ethnopragmatics, sign-functions and culture. In Ethnosyntax:
Explorations in Grammar and Culture. ed. N Enfield, pp. 52–73. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ.
Press
Goffman E. 1981. Footing. In Forms of Talk, pp. 124–59. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2005.34:67-83. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte on 07/25/09. For personal use only.

Goodman J. 2003. The proverbial Bourdieu: habitus and the politics of representation in the
ethnography of Kabylia. Am. Anthropol. 105:782–93
Goodwin C. 1981. Conversational Organization: Interaction Between Speakers and Hearers. New
York: Academic
Goodwin C. 2000. Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. J. Pragmat.
32:1489–522
Goodwin M. 1990. He-Said-She-Said, Talk as Social Organization Among Black Children. Bloom-
ington: Indiana Univ. Press
Gumperz J. 1996. The linguistic and cultural relativity of inference. In Rethinking Linguistic
Relativity, ed. J Gumperz, SC Levinson, pp. 232–70. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ.
Press
Gumperz JJ, Levinson SC. 1996. Rethinking Linguistic Relativity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
Univ. Press
Haeri N. 1997. Reproduction of symbolic capital: language, state and class in Egypt. Curr.
Anthropol. 38:795–816
Hanks WF. 1987. Discourse genres in a theory of practice. Am. Ethnol. 14:64–88
Hanks WF. 1990. Referential Practice: Language and Lived Space Among the Maya. Chicago: Univ.
Chicago Press
Hanks WF. 1993. Notes on semantics in linguistic practice. See Calhoun et al. 1993,
pp. 139–55
Hanks WF. 1996. Language and Communicative Practice. Boulder, CO: Westview
Hanks WF. 2005. Explorations in the deictic field. Cult. Anthropol. 46:In Press
Hasan R. 1999. The disempowerment game: Bourdieu and language in literacy. Ling. Educ.
10:391–409
Haviland JB. 2000. Pointing, gesture spaces and mental maps. In Language and Gesture, ed.
D McNeil, pp. 13–46. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
Haviland JB. 2003. Ideologies of language: some reflections on language and U.S. law. Am.
Anthropol. 105:764–74
Heller M. 1992. The politics of codeswitching and language choice. J. Multiling. Multicult.
Dev. 13:123–42
Herzfeld M. 1996. National spirit or the breath of nature? The expropriation of folk positivism
in the discourse of Greek nationalism. In Natural Histories of Discourse, ed. M Silverstein,
G Urban, pp. 277–300. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
Hill J. 1985. The grammar of consciousness and the consciousness of grammar. Am. Ethnol.
12:725–37s

www.annualreviews.org • Pierre Bourdieu and the Practices of Language 81

AR254-AN34-05 ARI 25 August 2005 14:42

Hill J, Manheim B. 1992. Language and worldview. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 21:381–404
Hymes D. 1972. Explorations in the Ethnography of Speaking. Philadelphia: Univ. Penn. Press
Irvine JT. 1998. When talk isn’t cheap: language and political economy. See Brenneis &
Macaulay, pp. 258–83
Irvine JT. 2001. “Style” as distinctiveness: the culture and ideology of linguistic differentiation.
In Style and Sociolinguistic Variation, ed. P Eckert, JR Rickford, pp. 21–43. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge Univ. Press
Jacquemet M. 1996. Credibility in Court: Communicative Practices in the Camorra Trial. Cam-
bridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
Jakobson R. 1960. Closing statement: linguistics and poetics. In Style in Language. ed. TA
Sebeok, pp. 350–77. Cambridge, MA: The M.I.T. Press
Kataoka K, Ide S, eds. 2003. Culture, Interaction and Language. Tokyo: Hituzisyobo
Kendon A. 1997. Gesture. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 26:109–28
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2005.34:67-83. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte on 07/25/09. For personal use only.

Kroskrity P, ed. 2000. Language Ideologies: The Cultures of Language in Theory and Practice. Santa
Fe: Sch. Am. Res. Press
Labov W. 1966. The Social Stratification of English in New York City. Washington, DC: Cent.
Appl. Ling.
Lave J, Wenger E. 1991. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge Univ. Press
Lindstrom L. 1992. Context contests: debatable truth statement on Tanna (Vanauatu). In
Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon, ed. A Duranti, C Goodwin, pp.
101–24. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press
Lucy J. 1992. Language Diversity and Thought: A Reformulation of the Linguistic Relativity Hy-
pothesis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
Mauss M. 1973. Techniques of the body. Econ. Soc. 2:70–88
Merleau-Ponty M. 1962. Phenomenology of Perception. New York: Humanities
Mertz E. 1994. Legal language: pragmatics, poetics and social power. Annu. Rev. Anthropol.
23:435–55
Mertz E. 1996. Recontextualization as socialization: text and pragmatics in the law school class-
room. In Natural Histories of Discourse, ed. M Silverstein, G Urban, pp. 229–52. Chicago:
Univ. Chicago Press
Ochs E. 1988. Culture and Language Development: Language Acquisition and Language Socialization
in a Samoan Village. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
Ochs E. 1992. Indexing gender. In Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon.
ed. A Duranti, C Goodwin, pp. 335–58. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
Ochs E. 1996. Linguistic resources for socializing humanity. In Rethinking Linguistic Relativity,
ed. JJ Gumperz, SC Levinson, pp. 407–37. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
Ochs E, Schieffelin BB. 1995. Language acquisition and socialization: three developmental
stories and their implications. In Language, Culture and Society, A Book of Readings. ed. B
Blount, pp. 470–502. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland
Panofsky E. 1976 [1951]. Gothic Architecture and Scholasticism. An Inquiry into the Analogy of the
Arts, Philosophy and Religion in the Middle Ages. New York: Meridian
Pascal B. 1976. Pensées. Paris: Mercure de France
Rumsey A. 2002. Aspects of Ku Waru ethnosyntax and social life. In Ethnosyntax: Explorations
in Grammar and Culture. ed. N Enfield, pp. 259–86. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
Ruthrof H. 2000. The Body in Language. London: Cassell
Sapir E. 1985. Speech as a personality trait. In Selected Writings in Language, Culture, and
Personality. ed. DG Mandelbaum, pp. 533–43. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press

82 Hanks
AR254-AN34-05 ARI 25 August 2005 14:42

Schieffelin BB, Woolard K, Kroskrity P. 1998. Language Ideologies: Practice and Theory. Oxford,
UK: Oxford Univ. Press
Silverstein M. 1998. Monoglot “standard” in America: standardization and metaphors of lin-
guistic hegemony. See Brenneis & Macaulay, pp. 284–306
Silverstein M. 2000. Whorfianism and the linguistic imagination of nationality. In Regimes of
Language: Ideologies, Polities, and Identities, ed. P Kroskrity, pp. 85–138. Santa Fe: Sch. Am.
Res. Press
Spitulnik D. 1996. The social circulation of media discourse and the mediation of communities.
J. Ling. Anthropol. 6:161–87
Streeck J. 2003. The body taken for granted: lingering dualism in research on social interaction.
In Studies in Language and Social Interaction, ed. P Glenn, C LeBaron, J Mandelbaum, pp.
427–40. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
Urban G. 2001. Metaculture: How Culture Moves Through the World. Minneapolis: Univ. Minn.
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2005.34:67-83. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte on 07/25/09. For personal use only.

Press
Woolard K. 1985. Language variation and cultural hegemony: toward an integration of soci-
olinguistic and social theory. Am. Ethnol. 12:738–48
Woolard K, Schieffelin BB. 1994. Language ideology. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 23:55–82
Wortham S, Rymes B, eds. 2003. Linguistic Anthropology of Education. Westport, CT: Praeger

www.annualreviews.org • Pierre Bourdieu and the Practices of Language 83

 Contents ARI 12 August 2005 20:29

Annual Review of
Anthropology

Volume 34, 2005

Contents

Frontispiece
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2005.34:67-83. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte on 07/25/09. For personal use only.

Sally Falk Moore p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p xvi

Prefatory Chapter

Comparisons: Possible and Impossible

Sally Falk Moore p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 1

Archaeology

Archaeology, Ecological History, and Conservation

Frances M. Hayashida p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p43
Archaeology of the Body
Rosemary A. Joyce p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 139
Looting and the World’s Archaeological Heritage: The Inadequate
Response
Neil Brodie and Colin Renfrew p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 343
Through Wary Eyes: Indigenous Perspectives on Archaeology
Joe Watkins p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 429
The Archaeology of Black Americans in Recent Times
Mark P. Leone, Cheryl Janifer LaRoche, and Jennifer J. Babiarz p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 575

Biological Anthropology

Early Modern Humans

Erik Trinkaus p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 207
Metabolic Adaptation in Indigenous Siberian Populations
William R. Leonard, J. Josh Snodgrass, and Mark V. Sorensen p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 451
The Ecologies of Human Immune Function
Thomas W. McDade p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 495

vii
Contents ARI 12 August 2005 20:29

Linguistics and Communicative Practices

New Directions in Pidgin and Creole Studies

Marlyse Baptista p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p33
Pierre Bourdieu and the Practices of Language
William F. Hanks p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p67
Areal Linguistics and Mainland Southeast Asia
N.J. Enfield p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 181
Communicability, Racial Discourse, and Disease
Charles L. Briggs p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 269
Will Indigenous Languages Survive?
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2005.34:67-83. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte on 07/25/09. For personal use only.

Michael Walsh p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 293

Linguistic, Cultural, and Biological Diversity
Luisa Maffi p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 599

International Anthropology and Regional Studies

Caste and Politics: Identity Over System

Dipankar Gupta p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 409
Indigenous Movements in Australia
Francesca Merlan p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 473
Indigenous Movements in Latin America, 1992–2004: Controversies,
Ironies, New Directions
Jean E. Jackson and Kay B. Warren p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 549

Sociocultural Anthropology

The Cultural Politics of Body Size

Helen Gremillion p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p13
Too Much for Too Few: Problems of Indigenous Land Rights in Latin
America
Anthony Stocks p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p85
Intellectuals and Nationalism: Anthropological Engagements
Dominic Boyer and Claudio Lomnitz p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 105
The Effect of Market Economies on the Well-Being of Indigenous
Peoples and on Their Use of Renewable Natural Resources
Ricardo Godoy, Victoria Reyes-Garcı́a, Elizabeth Byron, William R. Leonard,
and Vincent Vadez p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 121

viii Contents
 Contents ARI 12 August 2005 20:29

An Excess of Description: Ethnography, Race, and Visual Technologies

Deborah Poole p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 159
Race and Ethnicity in Public Health Research: Models to Explain
Health Disparities
William W. Dressler, Kathryn S. Oths, and Clarence C. Gravlee p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 231
Recent Ethnographic Research on North American Indigenous
Peoples
Pauline Turner Strong p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 253
The Anthropology of the Beginnings and Ends of Life
Sharon R. Kaufman and Lynn M. Morgan p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 317
Immigrant Racialization and the New Savage Slot: Race, Migration,
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2005.34:67-83. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte on 07/25/09. For personal use only.

and Immigration in the New Europe

Paul A. Silverstein p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 363
Autochthony: Local or Global? New Modes in the Struggle over
Citizenship and Belonging in Africa and Europe
Bambi Ceuppens and Peter Geschiere p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 385
Caste and Politics: Identity Over System
Dipankar Gupta p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 409
The Evolution of Human Physical Attractiveness
Steven W. Gangestad and Glenn J. Scheyd p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 523
Mapping Indigenous Lands
Mac Chapin, Zachary Lamb, and Bill Threlkeld p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 619
Human Rights, Biomedical Science, and Infectious Diseases Among
South American Indigenous Groups
A. Magdalena Hurtado, Carol A. Lambourne, Paul James, Kim Hill,
Karen Cheman, and Keely Baca p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 639
Interrogating Racism: Toward an Antiracist Anthropology
Leith Mullings p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 667
Enhancement Technologies and the Body
Linda F. Hogle p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 695
Social and Cultural Policies Toward Indigenous Peoples: Perspectives
from Latin America
Guillermo de la Peña p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 717
Surfacing the Body Interior
Janelle S. Taylor p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 741

Contents ix
Contents ARI 12 August 2005 20:29

Theme 1: Race and Racism

Race and Ethnicity in Public Health Research: Models to Explain

Health Disparities
William W. Dressler, Kathryn S. Oths, and Clarence C. Gravlee p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 231
Communicability, Racial Discourse, and Disease
Charles L. Briggs p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 269
Immigrant Racialization and the New Savage Slot: Race, Migration,
and Immigration in the New Europe
Paul A. Silverstein p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 363
The Archaeology of Black Americans in Recent Times
Mark P. Leone, Cheryl Janifer LaRoche, and Jennifer J. Babiarz p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 575
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2005.34:67-83. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte on 07/25/09. For personal use only.

Interrogating Racism: Toward an Antiracist Anthropology

Leith Mullings p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 667

Theme 2: Indigenous Peoples

The Effect of Market Economies on the Well-Being of Indigenous

Peoples and on Their Use of Renewable Natural Resources
Ricardo Godoy, Victoria Reyes-Garcı́a, Elizabeth Byron, William R. Leonard,
and Vincent Vadez p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 121
Recent Ethnographic Research on North American Indigenous
Peoples
Pauline Turner Strong p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 253
Will Indigenous Languages Survive?
Michael Walsh p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 293
Autochthony: Local or Global? New Modes in the Struggle over
Citizenship and Belonging in Africa and Europe
Bambi Ceuppens and Peter Geschiere p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 385
Through Wary Eyes: Indigenous Perspectives on Archaeology
Joe Watkins p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 429
Metabolic Adaptation in Indigenous Siberian Populations
William R. Leonard, J. Josh Snodgrass, and Mark V. Sorensen p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 451
Indigenous Movements in Australia
Francesca Merlan p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 473
Indigenous Movements in Latin America, 1992–2004: Controversies,
Ironies, New Directions
Jean E. Jackson and Kay B. Warren p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 549

x Contents
 Contents ARI 12 August 2005 20:29

Linguistic, Cultural, and Biological Diversity

Luisa Maffi p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 599
Human Rights, Biomedical Science, and Infectious Diseases Among
South American Indigenous Groups
A. Magdalena Hurtado, Carol A. Lambourne, Paul James, Kim Hill,
Karen Cheman, and Keely Baca p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 639
Social and Cultural Policies Toward Indigenous Peoples: Perspectives
from Latin America
Guillermo de la Peña p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 717

Indexes
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2005.34:67-83. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte on 07/25/09. For personal use only.

Subject Index p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 757

Cumulative Index of Contributing Authors, Volumes 26–34 p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 771
Cumulative Index of Chapter Titles, Volumes 26–34 p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 774

Errata

An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Anthropology chapters

may be found at http://anthro.annualreviews.org/errata.shtml

Contents xi