Anthropological Theory Today by Henrietta L. Moore Review by: Herbert S. Lewis Journal of Anthropological Research, Vol. 57, No.

2 (Summer, 2001), pp. 229-231 Published by: University of New Mexico Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3631574 . Accessed: 24/01/2012 17:04
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

University of New Mexico is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Anthropological Research.

http://www.jstor.org

BOOK REVIEWS

229

Tropes" (1993) embody his distinctive style and his ironic view of the while suggestingthe "historical turn" thathis worktook at ethnographic enterprise the Universityof Chicago.In the formeressay, a critiqueof Berlin andKay's Basic Color Terms,he summarizeshis thesis as follows: "Itis not, then, thatcolor terms have their meanings imposed by the constraintsof humanand physical nature; rather,theytakeon such constraintsinsofaras theyare meaningful" (p. 141, italics in original). The isomorphism with Marx's statement on the relationship of "consciousness"to "social being" seems obvious. Missing from these sixteen selections are, of course, the monographs on Polynesian ecology, political structure,and the more recent works on Pacific Island history, as well as the complex theoretical ideas put forth in his Culture and Practical Reason here by one chapter)or his critiqueof sociobiology in Use and Abuse (represented of Biology (both 1976!). In the long Introduction (pp. 9-41), however,he manages to integrateideas from virtuallyall of these pauses in his journeywhile delivering well-deserved zingers such as "'Discourse' is the new culturalsuperorganic" (p. 12) and "Relativismis the provisionalsuspensionof one's own judgmentsin order to situatethe practicesat issue in the historicaland culturalorderthatmade them possible" (p. 21). Unlike many collections of essays, this one has been carefully proofed and clearly printed. It deserves a place on the shelf of every open-minded anthropologist. Philip K. Bock Universityof New Mexico

Anthropological Theory Today. Henrietta L. Moore, ed. Cambridge,Eng.: Polity Press, 1999, 304 pp. $28.95, paper;$62.95, cloth. L. Moore wants anthropologists to returnto theory.She believes thatthe Henrietta and the "linkingof battle against grandnarratives,the "crisisof representation," anthropologyas a practiceto questionsof power, dominationand discrimination" has resultedin a retreatfrom theory-"even from the projectof anthropology" (p. is not an adequate 1). The subsequent "retreatto ethnographicparticularism" intendedto move response,so Moorehas put togethera volume with contributions beyond this impasse. There is no pretense that these will provide syntheses of in a debate."Critique,even metaknowledge,however;they will be "interventions critique,will still be the orderof the day. Introduction as she presents Thereis much to considerin Moore's substantial her view of fundamental questionsregardinganthropologyand theory and as she introducesthe nine papersat some depth.One of Moore's basic pointsis the extent to which anthropologicaltheory "borrows,appropriates and transformstheories
Journal of AnthropologicalResearch, vol. 57, 2001

230

OFANTHROPOLOGICAL JOURNAL RESEARCH

from other disciplines" (p. 10). Much in this book owes more to those other disciplines than it does to pre-postmodern anthropology. Moore claims that "anthropology is anthropology" because it "dealsnot just with 'culturaldifference,' 'other cultures' and 'social systems,' but how those differencesandsocial systemsareembeddedin hierarchical relationsof power"(p. 2). Power, inequality, hierarchy,and domination are the givens at the base of Moore's discussion, as they are the foundation of so much contemporary anthropology.It seems odd that such a monumentalpresupposition,with such powerfulconsequencesfor the natureof researchandthought,is neversubjectedto examination. The paper by Pascal Boyer, "HumanCognition and CulturalEvolution," comes as a surprise; it is very differentin spiritfromthe restof the book. It is based the experimental method and research in cognitive psychology, upon are neuroscience,and even evolutionarybiology. Boyer reportswhat researchers in about children and adults crossthrough discovering conceptualdevelopment culturalstudiesandexperimentsanddiscussesthe implicationsof thesefor cultural transmissionand evolution.They find thatthe humanmind everywhereprocesses fundamentalideas similarly, and this chapter points more in the direction of universality than postmodernist thought allows. Boyer's discussion of the of "blindvariationand selective retention" applicationof the Darwinianmetaphor to the developmentof cultureis suggestive, but it must sit uncomfortably with the other contributors. ThomasJ. Csordas'schapteroffers a useful surveyof thinkingaboutthe body in anthropologyand includes a bibliographical essay. He has his own perspective to propose as well. Csordaswants to increase attentionto the phenomenological notion of embodiment,bodily experience,perception,and feeling ("being-in-theworld") in a discussion that has long been dominatedby semiotics, textuality, symbols, language, and representation. Moore's chapter, "WhateverHappenedto Women and Men? Gender and OtherCrises in Anthropology," struckthis outsideras a model of clear exposition and restraint,a well-balancedand interestingpresentationof some of the major issues in this vital domain. James Weiner writes of the value of psychoanalysisfor anthropology,with referenceto unconsciousmotivation,the developmentof identityandthe particular self throughthe perceptionof others.Nicholas Thomasblursgenresin "Becoming Undisciplined:Anthropologyand CulturalStudies." JamesG. Carrier and Daniel Miller addressthe problemof linkingthe private andmicroscopicto the public,the global, the macroscopic.Theirsolutioninvolves studiesof local economies. They intendtheirapproach as empatheticethnographic an alternativeto the formalmodels of academiceconomists and planners.After a survey of several classic approachesto the problemof economy and virtue,they advocate ethnographicstudies of consumption, of people's experience of and relationto materialobjects, andthe ways thatthey acquireobjects anduse them to create social relationships. They recommend studies of commodity chains

Journal of AnthropologicalResearch, vol. 57, 2001

BOOKREVIEWS

231

(inspired by Mintz's work on sugar). They are emphatic in their dislike of the global economy andtrade; economistsandof the new institutionsfor furthering however,the impactsof these new institutionsneed more empatheticethnographic study before they are so confidentlycondemned. Aihwa Ong's discussionof the politicaleconomies of contemporary Malaysia and Singapore is a rebuke to "traditional political anthropology"for allegedly essentializing cultures, indulging in cultural relativism, and leading some to culturaldifferences," Westernandnon-Western believe thatthereare"fundamental andnon-Western ones communitarian. with Westernsocieties being individualistic I question this genealogy, but by the end of her article, Ong finds that there is, Asia"andthatit does drawupon"the indeed,a "caringsociety model in South-East culturallogics of Asian traditions"(p. 66). (She rationalizesharsh authoritarian measures to curtail criticism and individual freedom in these states. There is that she would somethingpatronizingin her acceptanceof controls on "Others" for calls not "to herself.). Ong upon anthropology ignore the surely reject 'alternativemodernities'producedelsewhere in the world," apparentlyunaware that Benedict, Herskovits,and their studentswere making the same plea at least sixty years ago. Catherine LutzandDonaldNonini call for the studyof violence andeconomy, andthey offer a classificationof six majorcategoriesof violence, from every form of killing to hurtfulwordsandunemployment. Everycategoryrests upon a base of capitalism.It is clear how the authorsfeel about capitalismbut not so clear how solid a foundation their view is for a usable understandingof violence and economic systems. Debbora Battaglia ("Towardan Ethics of the Open Subject")is concerned aboutthe harmwe do to otherswhen we assume that they have undividedselves capable of agency. She warns us that "acceptingthat persons are locations of relations,any limitationof another'ssocialitymoves themin the directionof social disconnectionanddeath"(p. 133). I doubtthe validityandusefulnessof Battaglia's view of the self and agency, and I am unconvincedby her Trobriand examples. I also found her sweeping essentializationof "Euro-Americans" (p. 136) oddly out of keeping with her philosophy and proclaimedvalues.

HerbertS. Lewis University of Wisconsin-Madison

Journal of AnthropologicalResearch, vol. 57, 2001