Anthropology and Culture in the New Millennium: New Directions and Challenges in Anthropology of the post-colonial era
Paper Prepared for CODESRIA’s 10TH General Assembly on "Africa in the New Millennium", Kampala, Uganda, 8-12 December 2002.
Ana Piedade Monteiro
Centre for African Studies
Maputo Mozambique
monteiro11uk@yahoo.co.uk
Abstract:
For decades, anthropology has been used as a tool in the studies of social cultures. Anthropology began during the process of enlightenment and colonization, and later became part of these processes. This happened when the colonizers began to realize on the issue of "us" as the civilized, and the "others" as the exotic low cultures. The civilized, the westerners studied other people’s cultures and explained them according to their own views. This paper attempts to show the role of anthropology in the past century and in the contemporary world. Anthropology as a unit of analysis of cultures has not changed since it continues studying cultures. What is different today is its transformation from ethnocentrism (the civilized as opposed to the uncivilized culture). The new millennium anthropology (post-colonial) is about the shift from traditional anthropology to post-modern anthropology. Basically, this means "us" may consist the "other". Because of the shift, many developing countries are engaged in the revival of cultural heritages and attempted to solve social complex problems that were not solved in the past last century. The change in anthropology is enforced by globalization, which converses diverse cultures for sharing the same space. As a result, anthropology becomes more important than ever before since its role is being seen now as constructive and assertive, especially in developing countries.
Introduction
The paper begins with presentation of the history of anthropology. As a discipline, anthropology processed through structural changes during its historical epochs. From later, anthropology has changed into a new face, which marks the importance of anthropology in the contemporary societies.
II. The History of Cultural Anthropology
I start with the History of anthropology because that will allow us to understand the actual changes and the role of it in the contemporary world. The history of anthropology enables us to locate the role of anthropology.
The term anthropology comes from the two Greek words: anthropos + logos. Anthropos means human and logos mean study. These two words were combined to mean the study of humankind. The word was also coined by Otto Casmann in 1594. Therefore anthropology became the study of humankinds and their society (Colleran, 1997; Sidney W. Mintz; 1998; Franz Boas, 1904).
The specific definition of the term anthropology -the study of humankind is viewed in a broad context, which holds the same sense of cross-cultural understanding and cultural relativism. Thus anthropology encompasses four fields, namely are archeology, biological, cultural and linguistics anthropology’s (Boas, 1995:2). Anthropology as a discipline, focused on the study of non-Western, ‘primitive’ and ‘exotic' cultures.
Different social scientists have defined culture in different ways but many of them agree that culture is a body of learned behaviors -shaping behavior and consciousness with a human society from generation to generation (Geertz's 1973; Visweswaran's 1998; and Bromley's 1974). The concept also encompasses different characteristics of social actions such as languages, systems and ways in which societies are organized themselves, from kinships to states and multi-national corporations and the uniqueness and the characteristics of each group in societies. Each of these aspects is an important element of cultural systems.
This concept is an illustration of the differences between people, who come from different places, with different kind of knowledge, and with different cultures and different way they talk about ‘Culture’. One may concur with Boskovic A. (1998.p72) when he argues that "anthropologists have a duty and an obligation to at least try to present "the others" in an acceptable way". The question is what is an acceptable way? This is a very important question because it leads to re-conceptualization of the role of anthropology. According to Lars (1998) the challenge of anthropology in the New Millennium is to view "cultural patches" (p.55), which are historical to me and older than anthropology itself.
The history of anthropology reveals that traditional anthropology was about the Europeans learning the others, the unfamiliar people, which have been a topic of interest. Thus, in Europe from 15th century onwards accounts from travelers about people encountered in distant territories were widely available. According to Colleran (1997) during the Enlightenment, the idea of ‘primitive’ man existing in a simple communal society became prevalent. In the study of the primitive societies Colleran argues that the Philosopher Jean-Jacque Rousseau, from France, is pointed as one of the most distinct theorist who lauded the ‘noble savage’ who lived in communal and dignified states. An ideal that was preferable, he claimed, to the economic inequity and social deterioration of European societies. It was in context of evolutionists discourse (Colleran, 1997).
The term ‘primitive’ was used to distinguish "Us" from "Other" peoples - "those exotic other world", Nelson (1990). The "Us" were the Europeans who studied the "Other" who were non-European people. These Others were seen as marginalized, the term marginal was well developed by Tsing (1993) to begin discussing about distinctive and unequal subject positions within common fields of power and knowledge. The tendency of Anthropologists is to focus on differences that all humans share (Sax 1998). Primitive can be viewed not only in sense of creating distinctions between the Self and the "Other", but as a way to value the Self while and to vilify the "Other".
However, the thinkers of the 19th century viewed the ‘primitive’ in different way; their theories of race and evolutionism stressed the progressive development of societies from state of ‘primitive’ savagery to the peak of contemporary European civilization. To support these theories Anthropologists were engaged in documenting human biological features (Colleran 1997). During the colonization, anthropologists worked in colonized countries conducting studies of social organizations, customs and religions (Nelson 1990). Thus Anthropology was established as a specific discipline separated from sociology and philosophy. By the same century, Anthropologists started to reject earlier theories regarding ‘primitive’ established by evolutionism and physical Anthropology.
In 1914 Anthropologists such as Bronislaw Malinowski began new era in Anthropology, which focused on the way societies work. He argued that Anthropologists must be engaged in extended fieldwork aimed at gaining clearer insights that the communities they were living with. Malinowski becomes the father of participant observation method, which became a base of functionalism theory. This theory (functionalism) as Colleran (1997) argues concentrated on how anthropologists can present social practice and institutions, which were systematically linked together. Colleran's (1997) argument is that the internal logic of relations between Kinship, ritual, political and economic practices, each society was considered as a complex interrelated whole. At the same time American Anthropologists like Franz Boas established the discipline of Cultural Anthropology, which prioritized the study of culture as the system of values, ideas and beliefs, while British Social Anthropology emphasized social roles, norms and organizations.
As we can see Anthropology as a tool in the study of the 'Other' and the exotic, it increasingly became more developed and the theories around it were constantly changing. In the 1960s, the French Anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss introduced new method of analyzing culture by applying structuralism models derived from linguistics. The focus was to investigate the conceptual structures of the mind using the observable patterns of social and cultural elements, which were myths, symbols, and totemism (Colleran, 1997). However, theories of functionalism and structuralism did not consider historical processes within communities.
During the 1970s, the American school of cultural anthropology begun with the Interpretative approach in anthropology as a way of considering the manner in which individuals within cultures assign symbols, and meanings of cultures. Their theorists believed that meanings could be extracted from the world-views of the people. They highlighted the process of reflexivity, which examined the possibility of anthropology imposing its own meaning in the process of translation from one culture to another. Thus the interpretive approach becomes central in the contemporary Anthropology’s self-critical awareness of its role as mediator between different societies. Therefore, the discourse of 'culture' was replaced by the discourse of 'cultures'. The interpretative approach is very important in the analysis of cultures of the people. According to Geertz (1975) interpretive approach is important because it brings the opinions of people who belong to that particular culture to be included in analysis. The interpretive approach involves a presentation of culture in a valuable meaning with the realization of that a researcher is an interpreter of culture since he/ she is a researcher who observed it.
The early interpretive approach involved some problems of misinterpretation of cultures, e.g. the misinterpretation of social relationship in the study of the Chambri of Papua New Guinea. The Chambri community was subject of study of gender relations by Margaret Mead, in contrast to women of the western societies. Mead compared the Chambri women to American women on economic independence, women subordination and male dominance. From my standpoint, she missed the point because she used the western tool to analyze the Chambri women and Chambri culture as a whole from western perspective. She did not use the Chambri context to analyze the Chambri culture; instead she resorted to Eurocentric mode of 'us' versus 'them' research analysis. According to Errington and Gewertz (1987) Mead failed in her analysis because she misinterpreted the nature of gender relations among the Chambri. This is one of the case studies, which enable the new anthropologists to identify new principles and directions in the new era as we look at the past of anthropology.
The 1960s Marxist Anthropologists originally from France, began to be concerned with more historical, political and economic analyses of particular societies and their relation to countries with a colonizing history. It was by this time when most non-Western countries had shaken off their colonial rulers. Marxists Anthropologists claim that there is neo-colonialism that persists because ex-colonial countries still dominate world affairs by virtue of their political and economic power (Colleran 1997). Here we can see that the efforts of Marxists was to show that human material relations couldn’t be theoretically separated from their cultural - expression (Narotzky 1997).
The post-colonial era brings new structural challenges as the notion of culture is expanded and that it is becoming complex and plural- cultures. There is a paradoxical fusion of western and traditional cultural values, which tend to undermine the notion of 'Other'. The omnipresence of modernity is inevitable with the fact it creates reception and rejection at the same, is the new social phenomenon which anthropology needs to take up seriously in the context of change. The fact is that much knowledge that we thought we already had also needs reworking. The way, in which some terms are used in context of Anthropology, force one to agree with Clammer (1987). He points out that the "science of man has not yet come of age precisely because it still avoids many of the issues of being concretely human in a world of growing complexity and real as well as symbolic oppression".
The post-colonial/New Millennium re-evaluates the role of Anthropologists, questioning whether anthropological research has been utilized to maintain or challenge the status quo between different groups in societies or between nations.
One of the challenges facing anthropology is the assumption about the universal subordination of women, which shows gender roles assumed to be cross-culturally subject to considerable variation. In addition, the increasing complexity and cultural pluralism mean that Anthropology can no longer be described as the study of small-scale ‘primitive’ societies. The impacts of globalization, regionalization, and localities on cultures suggest that Anthropology, as a discipline should also expand its field of inquiry. It influenced and incorporated but also got influenced by other disciplines such as sociology, psychology, philosophy, political, economic and literary theories. Through the incorporation and changes of some ideas with other discipline, anthropology is able to expand its ideas and knowledge.
III. Anthropology of Today's World
Today Anthropology adopted interdisciplinary domain, which is necessary for the consideration of societies in understanding human motives and capabilities. This assumption gives anthropology a strong position to interpret how societies operate in complex regional and global affairs.
The approach that leads to wider knowledge enables anthropology to extend into different anthropological perspectives. Recent areas have emerged and commanded anthropological attention in the way of expanding the formerly limited horizons of both discipline and the subject. Such areas include development, tourism, visual anthropology, emotions, ethnicity and the global systems, which concentrate on tourism, migration, political, economic and media networks that affect communities around the world (Clammer 1987; Narotzky, 1997). Anthropological Discourse in the new millennium should be about a dialogue between diverse cultural perspectives and aspires to a better understanding of others as well as of us, and that is one of the challenges that anthropology is facing in the new era.
The post-colonial reaction has centered on the premise that the anthropology as a discipline has not changed because anthropologists are viewed as 'peddlers of tribalism' that continue to use the old platform to study society. They are seen as people who neglect the impact of inter-cultures and promoting ethnic divisions in the context of nationalism. However, I think anthropology has a very important role to play, as old cultures reinvent and the new one emerges, but it should operate within the context of the prevailing social contexts. Thus the question of Other should be seen from within as opposed to seeing it as something from outside. In post colonial the shifting of culture, the multiculturalism that is to say cultural diversity (Appiah 1997:30) and the intercultural interconnections allow the reproduction of cultures.
IV. Challenges facing Anthropology in the next decade and beyond.
The role of anthropology in the new millennium should be looked from a long term point of view, particularly when one consider the socio-cultural issues of the developing countries and the impact of globalization which advocates cultural interconnectedness. Therefore one decade may not be enough and not the right criterion to assess and evaluate its productive role in the new era. However, one of the key challenges of anthropology in the post-colonial and new millennium is that anthropology should focus on the new unit of analysis, which is plural and complex in nature. As I have argued before in the paper, the unit of analysis in the contemporary situations centered amongst other thing areas such as development, tourism, visual anthropology, emotions, ethnicity and the global systems.
Another crucial element is that anthropology is no longer a tool that can be used only by Westerners but also by people who belong to a particular culture, that were initially subjects of study. For instance, there are increasing black anthropologists in Africa, and that means Africa is beginning to produce it own anthropologists. The units of analyses are beginning to study themselves, which is another social dynamics that social anthropology uses in the new millennium. Here are some of the Herculean tasks that anthropology has to be faced with in the next decade. The below-identified factors form the base of the possible suggestions of the principles and new direction in the study of culture as a holistic phenomenon:
In the future Anthropology particularly in context of African studies it has a political-intellectual role. The main challenge is to do ‘our thing’ better and even more relevantly to the consideration of complexities of the current situation.
There continues to be a view that Africa’s ills lie with overpopulation, environmental degradation and ethnic conflicts as a result of clashes between cultures and ethnics rather than states. Thus Anthropology can be a challenge to contemporary debates relating to the new ecology and critiques to power.
Women face almost insurmountable difficulties in achieving direct election, mainly in Africa because prejudice marshaled against them both from men and women. This outcome is paradoxical given the pivotal role, which women played in the nationalist movements. Giving the example of the role of women. In economy I would give the example of in trade unions, which are losing power under globalization. The tendency is to employ women as cheap labourers. The need of developing organizations for empowering women at political, social, and economic is a fact. Anthropology can play an important role by examining at the kind of strategies that women can take in order to survive. It must also look at how all women can benefit from such organizations.
Mozambique’s cashew nut production failed to recover after the war during 1982-92, which brought a serious implication for peasant as producers and workers in the country’s single largest industry. Cashew has the potential to regain its role as major sector of the Mozambican economy. Anthropology can have a role in looking at how the World Bank can implement and imposed policies in poor countries. The value of anthropological contribution to development work, is to ‘challenge and clarify, and hence to revise explicit and implicit assumptions made by those responsible for planning and implementing development policies’ (Hoben cited in Sacherer, 1986:259).
In cross-cultural processes when cultures collide cultural changes are inevitable, we witness problematic consequences such as exploitation, and planned action through colonization or overseas development programs. In this process, small-scale indigenous societies are more affected by cultural changes and environmental damage. Thus anthropological knowledge can increase understanding with regards to the way in which society functions. The knowledge can aid in the preservation of ethnic or cultural integrity, to predict the outcome of program, in sense to avoid the emergence of new problems in attempt to ensure the success of the program.
As a means of creating better ways of communication, teamwork and multi-disciplinary approach, aid in the success of development programs, the communication between social scientists, administrators and the indigenous population becomes very important. The involvement of local population in decision-making allows them to become a part of the research process. Whether the program constructed in that base/local input are accepted more easily and understood by the local, the role of Anthropologists can bring a detailed knowledge of the people in a particular area and the holistic, integrated perspective being essential to successful planning (Howard 1993:370).
V. Toward a conclusion
This paper has argued that anthropology is the social tool used to study cultures, and it has been shaped by the context in which it finds itself. It emerged within the colonial era, and thus it has been part of the entire process of colonization and western enlightenment. I argued that the question of ''us'' (the civilized) and the ''other'' (the exotic low cultures) was central in terms of who is the subject or unit of analysis. I argued that the point of divergence is that, despite the new Millennium, the Anthropology as a tool and culture and as a unit of analysis has not changed. However, the context that has changed in - post-colonial and new Millennium era.
This paper argued that the emergence and the relative importance of cultures, has eroded the ''us'' and ''them'' as a determining factor. As a result, in the new millennium the unit of analysis has shifted in a sense that it is located anywhere and within ourselves, because all cultures have occupied a center stage. This paper further argued that the context of anthropology in the new Millennium lies on the idea of the diversity cultures sharing the same space. As a result, the role of anthropology is now more central and important and its unit of analysis is not necessarily exotic or ''them'' but can be anywhere. Traditionally anthropology used to study cultures from a small-scale and enclosed point of view, for instance, studying culture of Tchambuli (Errington 1987) and 'preserving' Warao culture (Briggs 1996), which was all about ethnocentrism.
The cultures are now seen within broader historical, political and economic perspectives, which shaped them. The reemergence of cultures and cultural interdependence necessitate the central role of anthropology. Therefore anthropology has an important role to play in the study of cultures, which are characterized by contemporary socio-cultural, economic, and political dynamics in a complex and diverse space and contexts. Therefore, anthropology has an important role to play in the developing countries. For instance, in the context of African studies it has a political and intellectual role.
Anthropology can play a constructive role to the contemporary debates relating to issues of ecology and critique to power. It can advocate for women in development and workplaces. Anthropology can be central in development projects by acting as an agent for communities, which are affected by them. In the context of globalization, which revamped the importance of difference cultures, cultural heritages, cultural interconnectedness, cultural diversity and identity, the role of anthropology is indispensable. These are the contexts, which influence how anthropology should function as a discipline and it must also be flexible to be shaped by them.
Reference
APPIAH, A. (1997): "The Multiculturalists Misunderstanding". New York: Review of Books, October 9, 1997.pp 30-33 ALEXANDER, J.C. (1990): "Analytic debates: understanding the relative autonomy of culture". In: Culture and Society, Cambridge University Press.
BOSKOVIC, A. (1998): "Postmodernism, anthropology and common sense", Manuscript
BRIGGIS, C. (1996): "The politics of discursive authority in research on the "Invention" of Tradition". Cultural Anthropology 11(4):431-433
BROMLEY, Y. (1974): "Soviet Ethnology and Anthropology Today", Mouton, The Hague, Paris
CARNEGIE, C. V. (1996): ‘The Dundus and the Nation’. Cultural Anthropology 11(4): 435-509
CLAMMER, J. (1987): "Beyond the New Economic Anthropology", St. Martin’s Press, New York.
CLIFORD, J. (1986): "Introduction: Partial Truths". In Writing Culture: The poetics and Politics of Ethnography, edited by James Clifford and Gorge Marcus. Berkeley: University of California Press.
COLLERAN, C. (1997): "Applied Anthropology, its Contribution to Development and Planning, and its Ethical Dilemmas.
DUARTE, E.M (199?): "Self as Post-Colonial Pastiche: historical Artifact and Multicultural Ideal". Hofstra University.
ERRINGTON, Frederick et al. (1987): "Cultural alternatives and a feminist anthropology: An analysis of culturally constructed gender interests in Papua New Guinea", Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
FRANK, G. (1997): "Jews, multiculturalism and Boasian anthropology". American Anthropology 99(4):731
FOUCAULT, M (1994): ''Two Lectures" In: Culture/Power/History, edited by Nicholas DIRKS, G. ELEY AND SHERRY ORTNER. PRINCETON: PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PRESS.
GEERTZ, C. (1975): INTERPRETATION OF CULTURES, PUBLISHER: LONDON: HUTCHINSON,
HASTRUP, K. (1997): "The Dynamics of Anthropological Theory. Cultural Dynamics", 9 (3): 351-371.
HERZFELD, M. (1997): "Anthropology: A practice of theory". International Social Science Journal 49(3):301
KNAUFT, B. (1996): ‘Stories, histories and theories’, Chapter 1 in Genealogies of the Present in Cultural Anthropology. London and New York: Routledge.
HUTNYK, J. (1998): ‘Clifford’s Ethnographica. Critique of Anthropology 18(4):339-378.
KNAUFT, B. (1996): "Multicultural Speaking: Beyond Essentialism and Relativism". Chapter 8, in: Genealogies of the Present in Cultural Anthropology. New York and London: Routledge.
KNAUFT, B. (1997): "Pushing Anthropology Past the Post: Critical Notes on Cultural Anthropology and Cultural Studies as Influenced by Postmodernism and Existentialism". Chapter 3, pp63-104, in: Genealogies of the Present in Cultural Anthropology. London and New York: Routledge.
KNAUFT, B. (1997): "Theoretical currents in late modern cultural anthropology. Cultural Dynamics", 9(3):277-300
MARCUS, A. (1997): "Counter Flows: Marxist Anthropology", in the New Millennium presented in annual meeting of the American Anthropological Association.
MINTZ, S. (1998): ‘The Localization of Anthropological Practice: From Area studies to transnationalism’. Critique of Anthropology 18(2):117-133.
NAROTZKY, S. (1997): "New Directions in Economic Anthropology", Pluto Press, London
PEACOCK, J. (1995): "The Future of Anthropology". American Anthropologist 99(1):9
REYNA, S.P. (1997): "Theory in Anthropology in the Nineties. Cultural Dynamics". 9(3): 325-350
SAHLINS, M. (1999): "Two or three things that I know about culture". Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute. 5(3): 399-422.
SAHLINS, M. (1993): "Goodbye to tristes tropes: Ethnography in the context of modern world history", Journal of Modern History 65: 1-25.
SAX, W. S. (1998): ‘The hall of Mirrors: Orientalism, Anthropology and the Other" American Anthropologist 100(2): 292.
STOCKING, G. M. ‘Delimiting Anthropology: historical reflections on the boundaries of boundless discipline.’ Social Research. 62(4):933-966.
TSING, A. L. (1993): ‘Opening’ and Part I: Politics of the Periphery’, pp.3-120, In: The Realm of the Diamond Queen. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
WRITING, S. (1998): "The Politicization of ‘Culture’. http://lucy.ukc.ac.uk/rai/Anthtoday/writing.html.