The Anthropological Life in Interesting Times


Clifford Geertz





I have arrived, it seems, at that point in my life and my career when what people most want to hear from me is not some new fact or idea, but how I got to this point in my life and my career. This is a bit discouraging, not just because of its momento mori overtones (when you are seventy-five, everything has memento mori overtones), but because, having spent the whole of my adult life trying to push things forward in the human sciences, I am now being asked to consider what that has entailedówhy I think my direction can be called forward, and what, if that direction is to be sustained, the next necessary thing might be. As a result, I have engaged in the past few years in at least two more or less organized attempts to describe the general curve of my life as a working anthropologist, and this essay will be the third, and, I trust, the last. Talking about oneís self and oneís experiences in a homiletical manneró"go thou and do likewise"óis a bit much the first time around. Recycled, it loses charm altogether.


The first of these essays in apologetical retrospection, originally given as a Harvard-Jerusalem lecture in 1990, became the chapter entitled "Disciplines" in my book After the Fact (Geertz 1995a). There I concentrated mostly on matters of research and scholarship, most especially on my long-term fieldwork in Indonesia and Moroccoóa story of projects leading to outcomes leading to other projects leading to other outcomes. The second, originally given as an American Council of Learned Societies "Life of Learning" lecture in 1999, became the first chapter, entitled "Passage and Accident," of my most recent book, Available Light (Geertz 2000). There I presented a more personal, semi-introspective account of both my life and my career; a sort of sociointellectual autobiography and self-accounting. This timeóthis last timeóI want to do something else: namely, to trace the development of anthropology as a field of study over the more than half-century, 1950ñ2002, I have been involved in it, and to trace, too, the relationships between that development and the broadermovements of contemporary history. Though this also, of necessity, produces something of a "the things I have been through and the things I have done" sort of narrative, I am, for the most part, not concerned with either my work or my persona. I am concerned with what has happened around me, both in the profession in which I have been, however loosely and at times uncomfortably, enclosed, and in what we are pleased to call "the wider world," in which that profession has been, however marginally and insecurely, enclosed. That world is with us late and soon: There is very little in anthropology that is genuinely autonomous; pretensions to the contrary, however dressed in the borrowed clothes of "science," are self-serving. We are, like everybody else, creatures of our time, relics of our engagements.


Admittedly, this is a little vast for a short essay, and I am obliged to pass over some very large matters very quickly, ignoring detail and suppressing nuance and qualification. But my intent is not to present a proper history, an inclusive summary, or a systematic analysis. It is, instead,

  1. To outline the succession of phases, periods, eras, generations, or whatever, both generally and in anthropology as such, as I have lived through it, and them, in the last half of the last century, and,

  2. To trace the interplay between (for the most part, American and European) cultural, political, social, and intellectual life overall and anthropology as a special and specialized profession, a trade, a craft, a mÈtier.

Whether such broad-stroke, impressionistic, the-view-from-here sketching will yield much in the way of insight into how things are, and have been, heading in our field remains to be seen. But, absent a crystal ball, I know of no other way. So far as phases, periods, eras, and the like are concerned, I shall, for my own convenience, mark out four of them. None of them is internally homogeneous, none of them is sharply bounded; but they can serve as useful place-markers in a lurching, tangled, digressive history. The first, roughly between 1946 and 1960ó all dates are movableówas a period of after-the-war exuberance, when a wave of optimism, ambition, and a sense of improving purpose swept through the human sciences. The second, about 1960 to about the mid-1970s, was dominated, on the one hand, by the divisions of the universalized cold war, and, on the other, by the romances and disappointments of Third-Worldism. From 1975 or so to, shall we say, in honor of the fall of The Wall, 1989, there was, first, a proliferation of new, or anyway newfangled, approaches to social and cultural analysis, various sorts of theoretical and methodological "turns," Kehre, tournures díesprit; and then, on the heels of these, the rise of radically critical and dispersive "post-" movements, brought on by increasing uncertainty, self-doubt, and self-examination, both within anthropology and in Western culture generally. Finally, from the 1990s until now, interest has begun to shift toward ethnic conflict, violence, world-disorder, globalization, transnationalism, human rights, and the like, although where that is going, especially after September 11, is far from clear. These, again, are not the only cuts that could be made, nor even the best. They are but the reflections, diffuse and refracted, in my own mind of the way of the world and the ways of anthropology within the way of the world.





During the second world war, American anthropologists were, like American sociologists, historians, psychologists, and political scientists, drawn, almost to the man or woman, into government service. After it ended, in what was, in the United States anyway, not that long a time, three or four years, they returned, immediately, again almost to the man or woman, to academia with their conception of themselves and their profession radically altered. What had been an obscure, isolate, even reclusive, lone-wolf sort of discipline, concerned mainly with tribal ethnography, racial and linguistic classification, cultural evolution, and prehistory, changed in the course of a decade into the very model of a modern, policy-conscious, corporate social science. Having experienced working (mostly in connection with propaganda, psychological warfare, or intelligence efforts) in large, intellectually diverse groups, problem-focused collections of thrown-together specialists, most of whom they had previously known little about and had less to do with, anthropologists came back to their universities in a distinctly experimental frame of mind. Multi- (or inter-, or cross-) disciplinary work, team projects, and concern with the immediate problems of the contemporary world were combined with boldness, inventiveness, and a sense, based mainly on the sudden availability of large-scale material support both from the government and from the new mega-foundations, that things were, finally and certainly, on the move. It was a heady time. I encountered all this at what may have been its point of highest concentration, greatest reach, and wildest confusion: Harvard in the 1950s. An extraordinary collection of persons and personalities had gathered there, and at the nearby Massachusetts Institute of Technology, launching programs in all directions. There was the Department of Social Relations, whichóchaired by the systematic sociologist Talcott Parsons, and animated, rather diffusely, by his rather diffuse "General Theory of Social Action "ócombined sociology, anthropology, clinical psychology, and social psychology into an at least terminologically integrated whole (Parsons& Shils 1951). Therewas the Russian Research Center, headed by the cultural anthropologist Clyde Kluckhohn (195l); the Psychological Clinic, headed by the psychoanalyst Henry Murray (1938); the Laboratory of Social Relations, headed by the social statistician Samuel Stouffer (Stouffer 1949). John and Beatrice Whiting, in fromYale, assembled a team and began exploiting the newly created Human Relations Area Files for comparative correlation studies of socialization (BB Whiting &J Whiting 1975). And at MIT, therewas the Center for International Studies dedicated to stimulating modernization, democratization, and takeoff in the new states of Asia and Africa and the stranded ones of Eastern Europe and Latin America (Millikan & Blackmer 1961). Just about everything that was in any way in the air in the social or, as they soon came to be called as the pressures toward unification intensified, the behavioral sciencesófrom group dynamics (Homans 1950), learning theory (Tolman 1958), and experimental psychology (Bruner & Krech 1950) to structural linguistics (Jakobson 1952), attitude measurement (Allport 1954), content analysis (Inkeles 1950), and cybernetics (Wiener 1962)ówas represented by one or another Institute, one or another Center, one or another Project, one or another entrepreneur. Only Marxism was missing, and a number of the students happily provided that (for a general critique from the left of all this, see Diamond 1992).


For me, as a would-be anthropologistóone who had never had an anthropology course and had no particular aim in mind except to render himself somehow employableóthe figure I had most to come to terms with in this swarm of talkative authorities was Clyde Kluckhohn. A driven, imperious, rather haunted man, with an enormous range of interests, a continuously restless mind, and an impassioned, somewhat sectarian sense of vocation, he had read Classics at Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar. He had studied the Navajo and other peoples in the American Southwest since having been sent there as a teenager for his health, and he knew his way around the corridors of power, both in Washington (where he had worked as consultant to the Secretary of War and directed morale surveys for the Office of War Information) and, an even greater achievement (considering he had been born obscure in Iowa) at Harvard. The author of what was then the most widely read, and best written, statement of what anthropology was all about, Mirror for Man (1949), a past president of the American Anthropological Association, a fierce controversialist, a player of favorites, and a master money-raiser, Kluckhohn was rather a presence.


Of the various collective enterprises (thinking back, I count at least eight, and there were probably more) that Kluckhohn was at that moment either directing, planning, or otherwise animating, I myself became involved, in turn, in three, which, taken together, not only launched my career but also fixed its direction. The first, and smallest,was the compendium of definitions of culture Kluckhohn was preparing in collaboration with Alfred Kroeber, then in his late seventies and concluding a sovereign career in detached retirement (Kroeber & Kluckhohn 1952). I was given what, with the aid of other, more senior, graduate students, they had assembled and what they had written in the way of commentary, and I was asked to review it and offer suggestions. I had some suggestions, most of them expository, a few of which were attended to; but the most fateful result of the experience for me was that I was inducted into the thought-ways of the particular form of anthropology then called, rather awkwardly, pattern theory or configurationalism. In this dispensation, stemming from work before and during the war by the comparative linguist Edward Sapir at Yale and the cultural holist Ruth Benedict at Columbia, it was the interrelation of elements, the gestalt they formed, not their particular, atomistic character, as in previous diffusion and culture area studies, that was taken to be the heart of the matter. A phoneme, a practice, a role, an attitude, a habit, a trait, an idea, a custom was, as the slogan had it, "a point in a pattern"; itwas systems we were after, forms, structures, shapes, contextsóthe social geometry of sense (Kluckhohn 1962, Sapir 1949, Benedict 1934). A large number of expressions of this approach to things current in anthropology appeared at that time. Perhaps the most visible and influential, though as it turned out not so long-lived, was the so-called culture and personality movement, in the service of which Kluckhohn, Murray, and a junior member of the Social Relations Department, David Schneider, put together a more or less definitive reader (Kluckhohn et al. 1949). Strongly influenced by psychoanalytical ideas and by projective testing methods, it sought to relate the processes of individual psychological development to the cultural institutions of various societies. Abram Kardiner and Ralph Linton at Columbia, Cora DuBois, first at Berkeley then at Harvard, Erik Erikson, also first at Berkeley and then at Harvard, and Kluckhohn himself in his Navajowork (Kardiner&Linton 1939,DuBois et al. 1944, Erikson 1950, Leighton & Kluckhohn 1947) were perhaps the most prominent figures in the movement, and Margaret Mead was its battle-fit, out-front tribune; but it was very widespread (Hallowell 1955, Piers & Singer 1953, Wallace 1970). Closely allied to culture and personality there were the so-called national character or culture-at-a-distance studies, such as Benedictís on Japan, and Meadís, Rhoda M¥etrauxís and Geoffrey Gorerís on Europe and America (Benedict 1949; Mead 1942; Mead & M¥etraux 1953; M¥etraux & Mead 1954; Mead & Rickman 1951; Gorer 1948, 1955; Gorer & Rickman 1963), and, of course, those of the Russian Research Center, where sociologists, psychologists, political scientists, and anthropologists attempted to assemble a collective portrait of "the new Soviet man" out of the analysis of communist writings and refugee life-histories (Bauer 1959, Bauer et al. 1956).


My interest in all this was limited by what seemed to me its somewhat mechanical, destiny-in-the-nursery quality and the vastness of its explanatory ambitions. So I drifted instead toward another of Kluckhohnís large-scale, long-term, multidiscipline, multi-inquirer, systematical enterprises in the interpretation of cultures, the so-called Comparative Study of Values or Ramah (later Rimrock) Project. This project, methodical and well financed, was dedicated to describing the value systems (world-views, mental attitudes, moral styles) of five geographically adjacent but culturally discrete, small communities in northwestern NewMexicoóNavajo, Zuni, Spanish American, Mormon, and Anglo (or Texan). Over a period that fi- nally stretched to twenty years or so, dozens of researchers from a wide variety of crossbred specialtiesómoral philosophers, regional historians, rural sociologists, American Indianists, child psychologistsówere dispatched to one or another of these sites to describe one or another aspect of the life being lived there. Their fieldnotes, hundreds upon hundreds of pages of them, were then typed up on cards and filed in the Human Relation Area Files manner at the Peabody Museum of Anthropology, where they could be commonly consulted and a long string of special studies, and finally a collective volume, written (Vogt & Albert 1966, Vogt 1955, Kluckhohn & Strodtbeck 1961, Smith & Roberts 1954, Ladd 1957). As for me, I did not go to the Southwest but worked for some months in the files, then already vast and varied, on a subject set by Kluckhohnóthe differential responses of the five groups to problems set to them all by the common conditions of their existence as small, rural, more or less encapsulated communities: drought, death, and alcohol. Mormon technological rationalism, Zuni rain dancing, Spanish-American dramatic fatalism in the face of drought, Navajo fear of ghosts, Mormon eschatological schemes, Anglo grief-avoidance in the face of death, Zuni sobriety, Mormon puritanism, and Navajo spree drinking in the face of alcoholóall were outlined, rather schematically, and attributed, rather speculatively, to their differing value systems (Geertz, unpublished observations). But whatever the limitations of the report I produced (and it wasnít all that bad as a first pass at things), the experience turned out to be both a sort of dry-run for the kind of field researchócomparative, collaborative, and addressed to questions of meaning and significanceóthat Iwould spend the rest ofmylife pursuing; and a transition to the next phase or period of the immersion of anthropology in the movement of the times: the age of modernization, nation-building, and the all-enveloping ColdWar.





The Center for International Studies at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, which I mentioned earlier as part of the cluster of social science holding-companies emerging in post-war Cambridge, was set up in 1952 as a combination intelligence gathering and policy planning organization dedicated to providing political and economic advice both to the rapidly expanding U.S. foreign aid program and to those it was ostensibly aidingóthe "developing," "under-developed," or, for the less sanguine, "backward" countries of Asia, Africa, and Latin America. At first, the Center, something of an anomaly in an engineering school not much given at that time to social studies of any sort,was hardly more than a secretary, a suite of offices, a name, a large amount of money, and a national agenda. In an effort simply to get it up and running, Kluckhohn, who, still moving in mysterious ways, had again been somehow involved in its formation, proposed that a team of doctoral candidates from Harvard social science departments be formed and sent to Indonesia under its auspices to carry out field research in cooperation with students from that countryís new, European-style universities. Five anthropologists, including myself and my then wife, Hildred, also a Social Relations student; a sociologistwhowas a historian of China; a social psychologist; and a clinical psychologist were given a year of intensive work in the Indonesian language and sent off for two years to the rice fields of eastern Java (not all of them got there, but thatís another story) to carry out, ensemble, parallel, interconnected, and, so it was hoped, cumulative researches: the Ramah Project model updated, concentrated, and projected abroad. The ups and downs of this enterprise, which itself came to be called "The Modjokuto Project" and the degree to which it achieved the ends proposed to it, have been retailed elsewhere (Geertz 1995a). For the present "March of Time" sort of story, its significance lies in the fact that it was, if not the first, surely one of the earliest of what soon turned into a flood of efforts by anthropologists, or teams of them, to adapt themselves and their tribes-and-islands discipline to the study of large-scale societies with written histories, established governments, and composite culturesñnations, states, civilizations. (For another early effort in this direction, see Steward et al. 1956.) In the years immediately following, the number of such country-focused projects multiplied (as did, of course, as a result of decolonization, the number of countries), and a sort of super-discipline called area studies, eclectic, synoptical, reformative, and policy-conscious, came into being to support them (Steward 1950; Singer 1956; Redfield 1953, 1956).


When the Modjokuto team left for Southeast Asia, the Center, as I mentioned, did not yet really exist as a going concern, so its connection with the work we did thereóessentially historical and ethnographic, a refitted community studyó was nominal at best. By the time we returned to Cambridge, three years further on, however, it had become a large, bureaucratized organization with dozens of specialized researchers, most of them economists, demographers, agronomists, or political scientists, engaged in development planning of one sort or another or serving as in-country policy consultants to particular governments, including that of Indonesia. The work of our team seemed, both to the Center staff and to ourselves, to be rather to the side of the Centerís mission, inconsonant with its "applied" emphasis and too concerned with what the program-minded types took to be parochial matters.We drifted away into writing our separate theses on religion, kinship, village life, market selling, and other irrelevancies, and beginning, finally, our academic careers. I, however, was rather more interested in developmental questions, and in state formation, than my colleagues, and I wished to return as soon as possible to Indonesia to take them up. So, after gaining my doctorate, I rejoined the Center and became more directly involved in its work and with the master idea that governed it: modernization.


This idea, or theory, ubiquitous in Third World studies during the 1960s and early 1970s, and, of course, not all that dead yet, stemmed from a variety of sources. Most particularly, it grew out of the writings of the German sociologist Max Weber and his American followers (of whom, Talcott Parsons was perhaps the most prominent, and certainly the most insistent) on the rise of capitalism in theWest (Weber 1950a,b, 1947, 1965; Tawney 1947; Parsons 1937; Bendix 1962; Levy 1960; Eisenstadt 1966; Black 1976). Weberís conception of the history of the West since the Renaissance and the Reformation was that it consisted of a relentless process of economic, political, and cultural rationalization, the instrumental adjustment of ends and means, and he saw everything from bureaucracy, science, individualism, and double-entry bookkeeping to the industrial organization of labor and the disciplined management of inner life as expressions of such a process. The systematic ordering of the entirety of human existence in rational terms, its imprisonment in an "iron cage" of rule and method, was what, in its essence, modernity was. In particular, his famous, in some quarters infamous, Protestant Ethic thesisóthat the harsh, predestinarian beliefs of Calvinism and related inner-worldly ascetic doctrines of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries provided the moral legitimation and driving force for the tireless pursuit of profit under bourgeois capitalismóspurred a whole host of studies designed to support and extend it, to find signs and portents of such progress-producing value systems in that most residual of residual categories, the nonmodern, nonrational, noncapitalist non-West (Bellah 1957, 1965; Eisenstadt 1968; Geertz 1956, 1963b).


As for me, my original thesis proposal, put temporarily aside to address myself to describing Javanese religion more generally for the purposes of the common project,was to pursue the possibility that reformist (or modernist) Islam might play a role in Indonesia similar to that which Weberís Calvinism supposedly played in the West. So, after writing a short book at the Center on the history of Javanese agriculture, which ascribed its failure to rationalize along the capital-intensive, labor-saving lines experienced earlier in the West and, in a somewhat different way, in Japan, to the colonial policies of the Dutch (Geertz 1963a), I headed back to Indonesia hoping to address theWeberian thesis in a more direct and systematic, hypothesis-testing way. I would, I thought, spend four or five months each in a strongly Islamic region in Sumatra, a strongly Calvinist region in Sulawesi, and a Hindu region in Bali and try to ferret out the effects, if any, of different varieties of religious belief on the modernization of economic behavior.

But a funny thing happened on the way to the field. The cold war, previously fought out (the rather special case of Korea perhaps excepted) in the client and satellite states of Europe, shifted its center of gravity to the ThirdWorld, and most especially to Southeast Asia. All thisóthe Malaya emergency, the Vietnam war, the Khmer Rouge, the Huk rebellion, the Indonesian massacresóis much visited, much disputed, history, and I will not rehearse it again here. Suffice it to say this development altered the whole scene of action for those of us trying to carry out field studies in such suddenlyworld-critical places. The induction of the obsessions and machinations of the East-West confrontation into entrenched, long-standing divisions in religious, ethnic, and cultural lifeóanother, less foreseen, form of modernizationóbrought local, hand-to-hand politics to a furious boil just about everywhere it occurred, and it occurred just about everywhere.


From the end of the 1950s to the beginning of the 1970s, the charismatical, heroleaders of the newstatesóNehru, Nkrumah, Nasser, Ben Bellah,UNu,Ayub Khan, Azikwe, Bandanaraike, Sihanouk, Ho, Magsaysay, Sukarnoóbedeviled within and without by these pressures toward ideological polarization, struggled to position their countries in the ever-narrowing, unfilled space between the powers: neutral, nonaligned, newly emerging, "tiers monde." Indonesia, which soon found itself with both the largest Communist Party outside the Sino-Soviet bloc and an American-trained and -financed army, was in the very forefront of this effort, especially after Sukarno organized the Bandung Conference of 29 Asian and African nations, or would-be nations, in that west Javanese city in 1955 (Kahin 1956, Wright 1995). Nehru, Chou, Nasser, and Sukarno himself all addressed the Conference, which led on to the formal creation of the nonaligned movement. All this, and the general unfolding of things, made of Indonesia perhaps the most critical battleground afterVietnam in the Asian coldwar. And in the mid-1960s it collapsed under the weight: failed coup, near civil-war, political breakdown, economic ruin, and mass killings. Sukarno, his regime, and the dreams of Bandung, never more than dreams, or self-intoxications, were consumed, and the grimmer, less romantic age of the kleptocrats, Suharto, Marcos, Mobutu, Amin, and Assad emerged. Whatever was happening in the ThirdWorld, it did not seem to be the progressive advance of rationality, however defined. Some sort of course correction in our procedures, our assumptions, and our styles of work, in our very conception of what it was we were trying to do, seemed, as they say, indicated.





By the time I got back to the United States toward the beginning of the 1960s (my neat little three-way project spoiled by the outbreak of anti-Sukarno rebellions in Sumatra and Sulawesi, I had spent most of the year in Bali), the destabilizing effects of the deepening of the great power confrontation in Southeast Asia were beginning to be felt with some force there as well. The profession itself was torn apart by charges and countercharges concerning the activities, or supposed activities, of anthropologists working in Vietnam. There was civil rights and "The Letter from Birmingham Jail," civil liberties and the Chicago Seven. The universitiesó Berkeley, Harvard, Columbia, Cornell, Kent State, Chicagoóerupted, dividing faculty, inflaming students, and alienating the general public. Academic research on "underdeveloped" countries in general, and on "modernization" in particular, was put under something of a cloud as a species of neoimperialism, when it wasnít being condemned as liberal do-goodism. Questions multiplied rapidly about anthropologyís colonial past, its orientalist biases, and the very possibility of disinterestedness or objective knowledge in the human sciences, or indeed whether they should be called sciences in the first place. If the discipline was not to retreat into its traditional isolation, detached from the immediacies of contemporary lifeóand there were those who recommended that, as well as some who wished to turn it into a social movementónew paradigms, to borrow Thomas Kuhnís famous term, first introduced around this time (Kuhn 1962), were called for. And soon, and in spades, they came.


For the next fifteen years or so, proposals for new directions in anthropological theory and method appeared almost by the month, one more clamorous than the next. Some, like French structuralism, had been around for awhile but took on greater appeal as Claude L¥evi-Strauss, its proprietor-founder, moved on from kinship studies to distributional analyses of symbolic formsómyths, rituals, categorical systemsóand promised us a general account of the foundations of thought (L¥evi-Strauss 1963a,b, 1966, 1964ñ1967; Boon 1972). Others, like "sociobiology" (Chagnon & Irons 1979), "cognitive anthropology" (Tyler 1969, DíAndrade 1995), "the ethnography of speaking" (Gumperz & Hymes 1964, Tedlock 1983), or "cultural materialism," (Harris 1979, Rappaport 1968) were stimulated, sometimes overstimulated, by advances in biology, information theory, semiotics, or ecology. Therewas neo-Marxism (Wolf 1982), neo-evolutionism (Service 1971, Steward 1957), neo-functionalism (Gluckman 1963, Turner 1957), and neo-Durkheimianism (Douglas 1989). Pierre Bourdieu gave us "practice theory" (1977), Victor Turner "the anthropology of experience" (Turner & Bruner 1986), Louis Dumont "the social anthropology of civilizations" (1970), Renajit Guha, "subaltern studies" (1982). Edmund Leach talked of "culture and communication" (1974), Jack Goody of "the written and the oral" (1977), Rodney Needham of "language and experience" (1972), David Schneider of "kinship as a cultural system" (1968), Marshall Sahlins of "structure and conjuncture" (1981). As for me, I contributed to the merriment with "interpretive anthropology," an extension, broadened and redirected by developments in literature, philosophy, and the analysis of language, of my concern with the systems of meaningóbeliefs, values, world views, forms of feeling, styles of thoughtóin terms of which particular peoples construct their existence and live out their particular lives (1973, 1983). New or reconditioned social movements, feminism (Rosaldo & Lamphere 1974, Ortner & Whitehead 1981, McCormack & Strathern 1980, Weiner 1976), antiimperialism (Said 1978), indigenous rights (Deloria 1969), and gay liberation (Newton 1979), added to the mix, as did new departures in neighboring fieldsó the Annales movement in history (Le Roi Ladurie 1980), the "new historicism" in literature (Greenblatt 1980), science studies in sociology (Latour & Woolgar 1986, Traweek 1988), hermeneutics and phenomenology in philosophy (Gadamer 1975, Ricoeur 1981, Habermas 1972), and that elusive and equivocal movement, known, elusively and equivocally, as "post-structuralism" (Foucault 1970, Lacan 1977, Derrida 1976, Deleuze & Guattari 1977). There were more than enough perspectives to go around.


What was lacking was any means of ordering them within a broadly accepted disciplinary frame or rationale, an encompassing paradigm. The sense that the field was breaking up into smaller and smaller, incommensurable fragments, that a primordial oneness was being lost in a swarm of fads and fashions, grew, producing cries, angry, desperate, or merely puzzled, for some sort of reunification (Lewis 1998). Types or varieties of anthropology, separately conceived and organized, appeared, one on top of the next: medical anthropology, psychological anthropology, feminist anthropology, economic anthropology, symbolic anthropology, visual anthropology; the anthropology of work, of education, of law, of consciousness; ethnohistory, ethnophilosophy, ethnolinguistics, ethnomusicology. What had been, when I stumbled into it in the early 1950s, a group of a fewhundred, argumentative but similarly minded ethnologists, as they tended then to call themselves, most of whom knewone another personally, became by the late 1970s a vast crowd of scholars whose sole commonality often seemed to be that they had passed through one or another doctoral program labeled anthropology (there are more than a hundred in the United States alone, and perhaps that many more around the world).


Much of this was expectable and unavoidable, a reflex of the growth of the field and the advance of technical specialization, as well as, once again, the workings of theWorld Spirit as it made its way toward the conclusion of things. But change nonetheless produced both an intensification of polemical combat and, in some quarters anyway, angst and malaise. Not only did there appear a series of trumpedup "wars" between imaginary combatants over artificial issues (materialists vs. idealists, universalists vs. relativists, scientists vs. humanists, realists vs. subjectivists), but a generalized and oddly self-lacerating skepticism about the anthropological enterprise as suchóabout representing The Other or, worse yet, purporting to speak for himósettled in, hardened, and began to spread (Clifford 1988, Fabian 1983).


In time, as the impulses that drove the optimism of the 1950s and the turbulence of the 1960s died away into the routines and immobilities of Reaganís America, this doubt, disillusion, and autocritique gathered itself together under the broad and indefinite, rather suddenly popular banner of postmodernism (Lyotard 1984, Harvey 1989). Defined against modernism in reproof and repudiationó"goodbye to all that"ópostmodernism was, and is, more a mood and an attitude than a connected theory: a rhetorical tag applied to a deepening sense of moral and epistemological crisis, the supposed exhaustion, or, worse, corruption of the received modes of judgment and knowledge. Issues of ethnographic representation, authority, political positioning, and ethical justification all came in for a thorough going-over; the anthropologistís very "right to write" got put into question. "Why have ethnographic accounts recently lost so much of their authority?"óthe jacket copy of James Cliffordís and George Marcusí Writing Culture collection (1986), something of a bellwether in all of this, cried:


Why were they ever believable? Who has the right to challenge an ëobjectiveí cultural description?: Are not all ethnographies rhetorical performances determined by the need to tell an effective story? Can the claims of ideology and desire ever be fully reconciled with the needs of theory and observation? Most of the work in this manner (not all of it so flat-out or so excited as this, nor so densely populated with rhetorical questions) tended to center around one or the other of two concerns: either the construction of anthropological texts, that is, ethnographical writing, or the moral status of anthropological work, that is, ethnographical practice. The first led off into essentially literary matters: authorship, genre, style, narrative, metaphor, representation, discourse, fiction, figuration, persuasion (Geertz 1988, Boon 1982, Fernandez 1986, Sapir & Crocker 1977, Pratt 1992); the second, into essentially political matters: the social foundations of anthropological authority, the modes of power inscribed in its practices, its ideological assumptions, its complicity with colonialism, racism, exploitation, and exoticism, its dependency on the master narratives of Western self-understanding (Hymes 1972, Asad 1973, Marcus & Fischer 1986, Rosaldo 1989). These interlinked critiques of anthropology, the one inward-looking and brooding, the other outward-looking and recriminatory, may not have produced the "fully dialectical ethnography acting powerfully in the postmodern world system," to quote that Writing Culture blast again, nor did they exactly go unresisted (Gellner 1992, cf. Geertz 1995b). But they did induce a certain self-awareness, and a certain candor also, into a discipline not without need of them.


However that may be, I spent these years of assertion and denial, promise and counterpromise, first at the University of Chicago, from 1960 to 1970, then at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, from 1970 on, mostly trying to keep my balance, to remember who I was, and to go on doing whatever it was I had, before everything came loose, set out to do.


At Chicago, Iwas once again involved in, and this time ultimately as its director, an interdisciplinary program focused on the prospects of the by now quite stalled and shreddedóBiafra, Bangladesh, SouthernYemenóthirdworld: the Committee for the Comparative Study of New Nations. This committee, which remained in being for more than a decade, was not concerned as such with policy questions nor with constructing a general theory of development, nor indeed with goal-directed team research of any sort. It consisted of a dozen or so faculty members at the universityósociologists, political scientists, economists, and anthropologistsó working on or in one or another of the decolonized new states, plus a half-dozen or so postdoctoral research fellows, mostly from elsewhere, similarly engaged. Its main collective activity was a long weekly seminar at which one of the members led a discussion of his or her work, which in turn formed the basis for a smaller core group of, if not precisely collaborators, for we all worked independently, similarly minded, experienced field workers directed toward a related set of issues in what was then called, rather hopefully, considering the general state of things, nation building (Geertz 1963b). Unable, for the moment, to return to Indonesia, by then fully in the grip of pervasive rage, I organized a team of doctoral students from the anthropology department, of which I was also a member, to study a town comparable in size, complexity, and general representativeness to Modjokuto, but at the far other, Maghrebian, end of the Islamic world: Morocco (Geertz et al. 1979).


The Chicago department of anthropology, presided over at that time by an unusually open and supportive group of elders (Fred Eggan, Sol Tax, Norman MacQuown, and Robert Braidwood; Robert Redfield having only just died), provided an unusually congenial setting for this sort of free-style, thousand-flowers approach to things anthropological. Lloyd Fallers, Victor Turner, David Schneider, McKim Marriott, Robert Adams, Manning Nash, Melford Spiro, Robert LeVine, Nur Yalman, Julian Pitt-Rivers, Paul Friedrich, and Milton Singer were all there crying up, as I was also, one or another line of cultural analysis, and the interaction among us was intense, productive, and surprisingly, given the range of temperaments involved, generally amicable (Stocking n.d.). But when, in the late 1960s, the Director of the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, the economist Carl Kaysen, invited me to come there and start up a new school in the Social Sciences to complement the schools in Mathematics, Natural Science, and Historical Studies in existence since Einstein,Weyl, von Neumann, Panofsky, and other worthies had put the place in motion in the late 1930s and early 1940s, I, after a couple of years backing and filling, accepted. However exposed and full of hazard it might be, especially in a time of such division within the academy and the dubiousness of the very idea of "the social sciences" in the eyes of many humanists and "real scientists," the prospect of being given a blank and unmarked page upon which to write was, for someone by now addicted to good fortune, simply too attractive to resist.





It is always very difficult to determine just when it was that "now" began. Virginia Woolf thought it was "on or about December 1, 1910," for W.H. Auden it was "September 1, 1939," for many of us who worried our way through the balance of terror, it was 1989 and the Fall of the Wall. And now, having survived all that, there is September 11, 2001.


My years, thirty-one and counting, at the Institute for Advanced Study have proved, after some initial difficulties with the resident mandarins, soon disposed of (the difficulties, not the mandarins), to be an excellent vantage from which to watch the present come into being in the social sciences (Geertz 2001). Setting up a new enterprise in the field from a standing startóthe whole field from economics, politics, philosophy, and law, to sociology, psychology, history, and anthropology, with a few scholars from literature, art, and religion thrown in for leaveningó demanded much closer attention to what was going on in these areas, not only in the United States but abroad as well. And with more than five hundred scholars from more than thirty countries spending a year as visiting fellows at one time or another (nearly a fifth of them anthropologists of various kinds, origins, ages, and degrees of celebrity), one had the extraordinary experience of seeing "now" arrive, live and in color.


All that is well and good, but as the present immediate is, in the nature of the case, entirely in motion, confused and unsettled, it does not yield so readily to sorting out as does, at least apparently, the perfected, distanced past. It is easier to recognize the newas newthan to say exactly what it is that is newabout it, and to try to discern which way it is in general moving is but to be reminded again of Hegelís Dictum: the future can be an object of hope or of anxiety, of expectation or of misgiving, but it cannot be an object of knowledge. I confine myself, then, in finishing up this picaresque tale of questing adventure, to just a few brief and evasive remarks about how things anthropological seem to have been going in the last decade or so. At theworld-history level I have been invoking throughout as active background, the major developments are, of course, the end of the cold war, the dissolution of the bipolar international system, and the emergence of a system, if it can be called a system, which comes more and more each day to look like a strangely paradoxical combination of global interdependence (capital flow, multinationals, trade zones, the Net) and ethnic, religious and other intensely parochial provincialisms (The Balkans, Sri Lanka, Ruanda-Burundi, Chechnya, Northern Ireland, the Basque country). Whether this "Jihad vs.McWorld" (Barber 1995), is genuinely a paradox, or, as I tend to think, a single, deeply interconnected phenomenon, it has clearly begun to affect the anthropological agenda in ways that September 11 can only accelerate.


Studies of ethnic discord (Daniel 1996), of transnational identities (Appadurai 1996), of collective violence (Das 2000), of migration (Foner 2000), refugees (Malkki 1995), and intrusive minorities (Kelly 1991), of nationalism (Gellner 1983), of separatism (Tambiah 1986), of citizenship, civic and cultural (Rosaldo 1997), and of the operation of supra-national quasi-governmental institutions [e.g., the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, UN bodies, etc. (Klitgaard 1990)]óstudies which were not thought to be part of anthropologyís purview even a few short years agoóare now appearing on all sides. There are works, and very good ones, on the advertising business in Sri Lanka (Kemper 2001), on television in India (Rajagopal 2001), on legal conceptions in Islam (Rosen 1989, 2000), on the world trade in sushi (Bestor 2000), on the political implications of witchcraft beliefs in the new South Africa (Ashforth 2000). Insofar as I myself have been directly involved in all this, it has been in connection with the paradox, real or otherwise, of the simultaneous increase in cosmopolitanism and parochialism I just mentioned; with what I called in some lectures I gave in Vienna a few years ago (and hope soon to expand) "TheWorld in Pieces" calling for an anthropological rethinking of our master political conceptions, nation, state, country, society, people (Geertz 2000). Things are thus not, or at least in my view they are not, coming progressively together as the discipline moves raggedly on. And this, too, reflects the direction, if it can be called a direction, in which the wider world is moving: toward fragmentation, dispersion, pluralism, disassembly, -multi, multi-, multi-. Anthropologists are going to have to work under conditions even less orderly, shapely, and predictable, and even less susceptible of moral and ideological reduction and political quick fixes, than those I have worked under, which I hope I have shown were irregular enough. A born fox (there is a gene for it, along with restlessness, elusiveness, and a passionate dislike of hedgehogs), this seems to me the natural habitat of the cultural : : : social : : : symbolic : : : interpretive anthropologist. Interesting times, an inconstant profession: I envy those about to inherit them.


© The Annual Review of Anthropology,online at:





Allport GW. 1954. The Nature of Prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley

Appadurai A. 1996. Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization. Minneapolis: Univ. Minn. Press

Asad T, ed. 1973. Anthropology and the Colonial Encounter. New York: Humanities

Ashforth A. 2000. Madumo: a Man Bewitched. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press

Barber BR. 1995. Jihad vs. McWorld. New York: Times Books

Bauer R. 1959. The New Man in Soviet Psychology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press

Bauer R, Inkeles A, Kluckhohn C. 1956. How the Soviet System Works: Cultural, Psychological, and Social Themes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press

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

Bellah RN, ed. 1965. Religion and Progress in Modern Asia. New York: Free Press

Bendix R. 1962. Max Weber: an Intellectual Portrait. Garden City, NY: Doubleday

Benedict RF. 1934. Patterns of Culture. Boston: Houghton Mifflin

Benedict R. 1949. The Chrysanthemum and the Sword: Patterns of Japanese Culture. Boston: Houghton Mifflin

Bestor TC. 2000. When sushi went global. Foreign Aff.: Nov.ñDec.

Black C, ed. 1976. Comparative Modernization: a Reader. New York: Free Press

Boon JA. 1972. From Symbolism to Structuralism: LÈvi-Strauss in a Literary Tradition. Oxford: Blackwell

Boon JA. 1982. Other Tribes, Other Scribes: Symbolic Anthropology in the Comparative Study of Cultures, Histories, Religions, and Text. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press

Bourdieu P. 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press

Bruner JS, Krech D, eds. 1950. Perception and Personality. Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press

Chagnon N, Irons W, eds. 1979. Evolutionary Biology and Human Social Behavior. North Scituate, MA: Duxbury

Clifford J. 1988. The Predicament of Culture: Twentieth Century Ethnography, Literature, and Art. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press

Clifford J, Marcus G, eds. 1986. Writing Culture: the Poetics and Politics of Culture. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press

DíAndrade RG. 1995. The Development of Cognitive Anthropology. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press

Daniel EV. 1996. Charred Lullabies: Chapters in an Anthropology of Violence. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press

Das V, ed. 2000. Violence and Subjectivity. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press

Deleuze G, Guattari F. 1977. Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. New York: Viking

Deloria V. 1969. Custer Died for Your Sins: an Indian Manifesto. New York: Macmillan

Derrida J. 1976. Of Grammatology. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press

Diamond S. 1992. Compromised Campus: the Collaboration of the Universities with the Intelligence Community, 1945ñ1955. New York: Oxford Univ. Press

Douglas M. 1989. How Institutions Think. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse Univ. Press

Du Bois C, Kardiner A, Oberholzer E, et al. 1944. The People of Alor: a Social-Psychological Study of an East Indian Island. Minneapolis: Univ. Minn. Press

Dumont L. 1970. Homo Hierarchicus: an Essay on the Caste System. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press

Eisenstadt S, ed. 1968. The Protestant Ethic and Modernization: a Comparative View. New York: Basic Books

Eisenstadt SN. 1966. Modernization: Protest and Change. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall

Erikson EH. 1950. Childhood and Society. New York: Norton

Fabian J. 1983. Time and the Other: How Anthropology Makes Its Object. New York: Columbia Univ. Press

Fernandez JA. 1986. Persuasions and Performances: the Play of Tropes in Culture. Bloomington: Ind. Univ. Press

Foner N. 2000. From Ellis Island to JFK: New Yorkís TwoGreatWaves of Immigration.New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press

Foucault M. 1970. The Order of Things, an Archaeology of the Human Sciences. New York: Pantheon

Gadamer H-G. 1975. Truth and Method. London: Sheed & Ward

Geertz C. 1956. Religious belief and economic behavior in a central Javanese town: some preliminary considerations. Econ. Dev. Cult. Change 2: 134ñ58

Geertz C. 1963a. Agricultural Involution: the Process of Ecological Change in Indonesia. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press

Geertz C, ed. 1963b. Old Societies and New States. New York: Free Press

Geertz C. 1973. The Interpretation of Cultures, Selected Essays. New York: Basic Books

Geertz C. 1983. Local Knowledge: Further Essays in Interpretive Anthropology.NewYork: Basic

Geertz C. 1988. Works and Lives: the Anthropologist as Author. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press

Geertz C. 1995a. After the Fact: Two Countries, Four Decades, One Anthropologist. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press

Geertz C. 1995b. Reason, religion and Professor Gellner. In The Limits of Pluralism: Neoabsolutism and Relativism, ed. HR Hoetink, p. Amsterdam: Praemium Erasmanium Found.

Geertz C. 2000. Available Light: Anthropological Reflections on Philosophical Topics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press

Geertz C. 2001. School building: a retrospective preface. In Schools of Thought: Twenty-five Years of Interpretive Social Science, JW Scott, D Keates, pp. 1ñ11. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press

Geertz C, Geertz H, Rosen L. 1979. Meaning and Order in Moroccan Society. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press

Gellner E. 1983. Nations and Nationalism. Oxford: Basil Blackwell

Gellner E. 1992. Postmodernism, Reason, and Religion. New York: Routledge

Gluckman M. 1963. Order and Rebellion in Tribal Africa, Collected Essays. Glencoe, IL: Free Press

Goody J. 1977. The Domestication of the Savage Mind. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press

Gorer G. 1948. The American People: a Study National Character. New York: Norton

Gorer G. 1955. Exploring English Character. London: Cresset

Gorer G, Rickman J. 1963. The People of Great Russia, a Psychological Study. London: Cresset

Greenblatt SJ. 1980. Renaissance Self-Fashioning: From More to Shakespeare. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press

R, ed. 1982. Subaltern Studies: Writings South Asian History and Society. New York: Oxford Univ. Press

Gumperz JJ, Hymes D, eds. 1964. The Ethnography of Communication. Washington, DC: Am. Anthropol. Assoc.

Habermas J. 1972. Knowledge and Human Interests. Boston: Beacon

Hallowell AI. 1955. Culture and Experience. Phila.: Univ. Penn. Press

Harris M. 1979. Cultural Materialism: the Struggle for a Science of Culture. New York: Random House

Harvey D. 1989. The Condition of Post Modernity. Cambridge, UK: Blackwell

Homans G. 1950. The Human Group. New York: Harcourt-Brace

Hymes DH, ed. 1972. Reinventing Anthropology. New York: Pantheon

Inkeles A. 1950. Public Opinion in Soviet Russia: a Study of Mass Persuasion. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press

Jakobson R. 1952. Preliminaries to Speech Analysis: the Distinctive Features and Their Correlates. Cambridge: MIT Acoust. Libr. Tech. Rep. No. 13

Kahin GMcT. 1956. The Asian African Conference, Bandung, Indonesia, April 1958. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press.

Kardiner A, Linton R. 1939. The Individual and His Society: the Psychodynamics of Primitive Social Organization. New York: Columbia Univ. Press

Kelly JD. 1991. The Politics of Virtue: Hinduism, Sexuality, and Counter Colonial Discourse in Fiji. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press

Kemper S. 2001. Buying and Believing: Sri Lankan Advertising and Consumers in a Transnational World. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press

Klitgaard R. 1990. Tropical Gangsters. New York: Basic Books

Kluckhohn C. 1949. Mirror for Man: the Relation of Anthropology to Modern Life. New York: McGraw-Hill

Kluckhohn C. 1951. Project on the Soviet Social System. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Russ. Res. Cent.

Kluckhohn C. 1962. Culture and Behavior: Collected Essays, ed. R Kluckhohn. New York: Free Press

Kluckhohn C, Murray HA, Schneider DM. 1949. Personality in Nature, Society, and Culture. New York: Knopf

Kluckhohn FR, Strodtbeck F. 1961. Variations in Value Orientations. Evanston, IL: Northwestern Univ. Press

Kroeber AL, Kluckhohn C 1952. Culture: a Critical Review of Concepts and Definitions. Cambridge, MA: Pap. Peabody Mus. Archaeol. Ethnol., Harvard Univ., 57 (1)

Kuhn TS. 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press

Lacan J. 1977. Ecrits, a Selection. New York: Norton

Ladd J. 1957. The Structure of a Moral Code: a Philosophical Analysis of Ethical Discourse as Applied to the Ethics of the Navaho Indians. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press

Latour B, Woolgar S. 1986. Laboratory Life: the Construction of Scientific Facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press

Leach ER. 1974. Culture and Communication. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press

Leighton DC, Kluckhohn C. 1947. Children of the People: the Navaho Individual and His Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press

Le Roy Ladurie E. 1980. Montaillou: Cathars and Catholics in a French Village, 1294ñ1324. New York: Penguin

LÈvi-Strauss C. 1963a. Structural Anthropology. New York: Basic Books

LÈvi-Strauss C. 1963b. Totemism. Boston: Beacon

LÈvi-Strauss C. 1964ñ1967. Mythologiques. 4 Vols. Paris: Plon

LÈvi-Strauss C. 1966. The Savage Mind. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press

Levy M. 1960. Modernization and the Structure of Societies: a Setting for International Relations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press

Lewis HS. 1998. The misrepresentation of anthropology and its consequences. Am. Anthropol. 100 (3): 716ñ31

Lyotard J-F. 1984. The Post-Modern Condition: a Report on Knowledge. Minneapolis: Univ. Minn. Press

Malkki L. 1995. Purity and Exile: Violence, Memory, and National Cosmology Among the Hutu Refugees of Tanzania. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press

Marcus G, Fischer M. 1986. Anthropology as Cultural Critique: an Experimental Moment in the Human Sciences. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press

McCormack CP, Strathern M, eds. 1980. Nature, Culture, and Gender. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press

Mead M. 1942. And Keep Your Powder Dry: an Anthropologist Looks at America.NewYork: Norton

Mead M, M¥etraux R. 1953. The Study of Culture at a Distance. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press

Mead M, Rickman J. 1951. Soviet Attitudes Toward Authority: an Interdisciplinary Approach to the Study of Soviet Character. NewYork: McGraw-Hill

MÈtraux R, Mead M. 1954. Themes in French Culture. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press

Millikan M, Blackmer D, eds. 1961. Emerging Nations: Their Growth and United States Policy. Boston: Little Brown

Murray HA, ed. 1938. Explorations in Personality: a Clinical Exploratory Study of Men of College Age. New York: Oxford Univ. Press

Needham R. 1972. Belief, Language, and Experience. Oxford: Blackwell

Newton E. 1979. Mother Camp: Female Impersonators in America. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press

Ortner SB, Whitehead H, eds. 1981. Sexual Meanings: the Cultural Construction of Sexuality. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press

Parsons T. 1937. The Structure of Social Action: a Study in Social Theory with Special Reference to a Group of Recent European Writers. New York: McGraw-Hill

Parsons T, Shils E, eds. 1951. Toward a General Theory of Action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

Univ. Press

Piers G, Singer MB. 1953. Shame and Guilt, a Psychoanalytical and a Cultural Study. Springfield, IL: Thomas

Pratt ML. 1992. Imperial Eyes: Travel Writing and Transculturation. New York: Routledge

Rajagopal A. 2001. Politics After Television: Hindu Nationalism and the Reshaping of Public in India. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press

Rappaport RA. 1968. Pigs for the Ancestors: Ritual in the Ecology of a New Guinea People. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press

Redfield R. 1953. The Primitive World and Transformations. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press

Redfield R. 1956. Peasant Society and Culture: an Anthropological Approach to Civilization. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press

Ricoeur P. 1981. Hermeneutics and the Human Sciences. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press

Rosaldo M, Lamphere L, eds. 1974. Woman, Culture, and Society. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press

Rosaldo R. 1989. Culture and Truth: the Reworking of Social Analysis. Boston: Beacon

Rosaldo R. 1997. Cultural citizenship, inequality, and multiculturalism. In Latino Cultural Citizenship: Claiming Identity, Space, and Right, ed.WFlores, R Benmajor, pp. 27ñ33. Boston: Beacon

Rosen L. 1989. The Anthropology of Justice: Law as Culture in Islamic Society. NewYork: Cambridge Univ. Press

Rosen L. 2000. The Justice of Islam: Comparative Perspectives of Islamic Law and Society. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press

Sahlins M. 1981. Historical Metaphors and Mythical Realities: Structure in the Early History of the Sandwich Islands. Ann Arbor: Univ. Mich. Press

Said EW. 1978. Orientalism. New York: Pantheon

Sapir E. 1949. Culture, Language, and Personality. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press

Sapir JD, Crocker JC, eds. 1977. The Social Use of Metaphor: Essays on the Anthropology of Rhetoric. Phila.: Univ. Penn. Press

Schneider DM. 1968. American Kinship: a Cultural Account. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall

Service ER. 1971. Cultural Evolutionism: Theory and Practice. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston

Singer M. 1956. Traditional India, Structure and Change. Phila.: Am. Folklore Soc.

Smith W, Roberts JM. 1954. Zuni Law: a Field of Values. Cambridge, MA: Pap. Peabody Mus. Archaeol. Ethnol., Harvard Univ., 43 (1)

Steward JH. 1950. Area Research: Theory and Practice. New York: Soc. Sci. Res. Counc.

Steward JH. 1957. Theory of Culture Change: the Methodology of Multilinear Evolution. Urbana: Univ. Ill. Press

Steward JH, Manners R,Wolf ER, Padilla Seda E, Mintz SW, et al. 1956. The People Puerto Rico. Urbana: Univ. Ill Press

Stocking GW. n.d. "From the Paleolithic Palo Alto," "The Boom Years," "Untying Sacred Bundle," cases 19, 20, 21.

Stouffer SA, ed. 1949. The American Soldier. 4 Vols. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press

Tambiah SJ. 1986. Sri Lanka: Ethnic Fratricide and the Dismantling of Democracy. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press

Tawney RH. 1947. Religion and the Rise Capitalism: a Historical Study. New York: Harcourt-Brace

Tedlock D. 1983. The Spoken Word and Work of Interpretation. Phila.: Univ. Penn. Press

Tolman EC. 1958. Essays in Motivation Learning. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press

Traweek S. 1988. Beamtimes and Lifetimes. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press

Turner VW. 1957. Schism and Continuity an African Society. Manchester, UK: Manchester Univ. Press

Turner VW, Bruner E, eds. 1986. The Anthropology of Experience. Urbana: Univ. Ill Press

Tyler SA, ed. 1969. Cognitive Anthropology: Readings. New York: Rinehart & Winston

Vogt EZ. 1955. Modern Homesteaders. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press

Vogt EZ, Albert EM, eds. 1966. People of Rimrock: a Study of Values in Five Cultures. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press

Wallace AFC. 1970. Culture and Personality. New York: Random House

Weber M. 1947. The Theory of Social Economic Organization. Glencoe, IL: Free Press

Weber M. 1950a. The Protestant Ethic and Spirit of Capitalism. New York: Scribner

Weber M. 1950b. General Economic History. Glencoe, IL: Free Press

Weber M. 1965. The Sociology of Religion. Boston: Beacon

Weiner AB. 1976. Women of Value, Men of Renown: New Perspectives in Trobriand Exchange. Austin: Univ. Tex. Press

Whiting BB, Whiting J. 1975. Children of Six Cultures: a Psycho-Cultural Analysis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press

Wiener N. 1962. Cybernetics; or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press

Wolf ER. 1982. Europe and the People Without History. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press

Wright R. 1995. The Color Curtain: a the Bandung Conference. Jackson: Press Miss.



An inconstant profession: the anthropological life in interesting times, in: The Annual Revue of Anthropology (Palo Alto/Ca.: Annual Reviews), vol. 31 no. 1 (2002), pp. 1-19.


online sources:
. (active link via EBSCO SocIndex)


Using this text is also subject to the general HyperGeertz-Copyright-regulations based on Austrian copyright-law (2001), which - in short - allow a personal, nonprofit & educational (all must apply) use of material stored in data bases, including a restricted redistribution of such material, if this is also for nonprofit purposes and restricted to the scientific community (both must apply), and if full and accurate attribution to the author, original source and date of publication, web location(s) or originating list(s) is given ("fair-use-restriction"). Any other use transgressing this restriction is subject to a direct agreement between a subsequent user and the holder of the original copyright(s) as indicated by the source(s). HyperGeertz@WorldCatalogue cannot be held responsible for any neglection of these regulations and will impose such a responsibility on any unlawful user.

Each copy of any part of a  transmission of a HyperGeertz-Text must therefore contain this same copyright notice as it appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission, including any specific copyright notice as  indicated above by the original copyright holder and/ or the previous online source(s).