http://emr.sagepub.

com/
Emotion Review
http://emr.sagepub.com/content/5/4/414
The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/1754073913490045
2013 5: 414 Emotion Review
Andrew Beatty
Current Emotion Research in Anthropology: Reporting the Field

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:

International Society for Research on Emotion

can be found at: Emotion Review Additional services and information for

http://emr.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:

http://emr.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Reprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Permissions:

What is This?

- Sep 3, 2013 Version of Record >>

at FACULTAD DE FILOSOFIA Y LETRA on October 23, 2013 emr.sagepub.com Downloaded from at FACULTAD DE FILOSOFIA Y LETRA on October 23, 2013 emr.sagepub.com Downloaded from at FACULTAD DE FILOSOFIA Y LETRA on October 23, 2013 emr.sagepub.com Downloaded from at FACULTAD DE FILOSOFIA Y LETRA on October 23, 2013 emr.sagepub.com Downloaded from at FACULTAD DE FILOSOFIA Y LETRA on October 23, 2013 emr.sagepub.com Downloaded from at FACULTAD DE FILOSOFIA Y LETRA on October 23, 2013 emr.sagepub.com Downloaded from at FACULTAD DE FILOSOFIA Y LETRA on October 23, 2013 emr.sagepub.com Downloaded from at FACULTAD DE FILOSOFIA Y LETRA on October 23, 2013 emr.sagepub.com Downloaded from at FACULTAD DE FILOSOFIA Y LETRA on October 23, 2013 emr.sagepub.com Downloaded from at FACULTAD DE FILOSOFIA Y LETRA on October 23, 2013 emr.sagepub.com Downloaded from
Emotion Review
Vol. 5, No. 4 (October 2013) 414 422

The Author(s) 2013

ISSN 1754-0739
DOI: 10.1177/1754073913490045
er.sagepub.com
Introduction: Dialogue Across Boundaries
A review of what anthropologists get up tohow they think
about emotionwill look a little different depending on whether
one is talking en famille or to friendly neighbors over the fence.
Not many anthropologists are trained in psychology or philoso-
phy; few can hope to keep abreast of the booming interdiscipli-
nary emotion literature. Those few specialists aside, we tend to
take what we find useful, cheerfully rummaging among theories
like Lvi-Strauss bricoleur, the DIY enthusiast who picks out
what fits his or her needs without always knowing what the
original item was intended for. Theoretical innocence about
emotion might detract from the usefulness of many anthropo-
logical studies for psychologists, though of course the difficulty
of reading across disciplines cuts both ways. Anthropologists
grumble at accounts of culture or cultures that do not regis-
ter how contested these concepts have become in the last 30
years; they shrug at ethnographic reports that scant the deep
immersion that traditionally characterizes anthropology. A fur-
ther barrier is that terms of art have different meanings across
boundaries, stemming from diverse intellectual traditions.
Embodiment in psychology concerns the way in which emotion
is embedded in physiology, in the production and recognition of
facial expression, in the neurology underlying empathy, and so
on. In anthropology, embodiment leaves physiology untouched,
nerves unjangled. It denotes an antipositivist perspective on
lived experience and being-in-the-world that draws heavily
upon phenomenology (Csordas, 2002). Phenomenology, in
turn, means something rather different in anthropology and in
experimental psychology (where it often means no more than
subjective feeling). It was first used in anthropology by
Hallowell to analyze the framing of human experience in what
he called the culturally constituted behavioral environment
(1955, p. 87). Nowadays phenomenological approaches in
anthro pology draw explicitly on Continental philosophy or join
a parallel venture that one of its exponents, following William
James, champions as radical empiricism (Jackson, 1989). The
emphasis here is on capturing the vivid immediacy of experi-
ence, from which meaning cannot be separated. Anthropologists
working in these traditions do not usually show much interest in
the broader currents of psychological and (analytical) philo-
sophical writing on emotion. Readers will be aware that affect
now has similarly diverse, even incommensurate, meanings
across disciplines.
These hazards notwithstanding, I shall defend the view
that anthropology can maintain a dialogue with neighboring
disciplines about emotion, providing not only stimulating
evidence, as it always has done, but also critical challenges
to current thinking. The key, I shall suggest, is in keeping
faith with the findings and insights of ethnography, which
time and again have eluded neat theoretical formulation.
Innocent or not, the anthropologist can be relied upon to turn
up awkward and surprising facts. The problem is what to
make of them, how to recognize them, and how to write
Current Emotion Research in Anthropology:
Reporting the Field
Andrew Beatty
Department of Anthropology, Brunel University, UK
Abstract
An internal critique of anthropology in recent decades has shifted the focus and scope of anthropological work on emotion. In this
article I review the changes, explore the pros and cons of leading anthropological approaches and theories, and argue thatso
far as anthropology is concernedonly detailed narrative accounts can do full justice to the complexity of emotions. A narrative
approach captures both the particularity and the temporal dimension of emotion with greater fidelity than semantic, synchronic,
and discourse-based approaches.
Keywords
anthropological approaches, ethnography, narrative, translation
Corresponding author: Andrew Beatty, Department of Anthropology, School of Social Sciences, Brunel University, Uxbridge UB8 3PH, UK. Email: Andrew.Beatty@brunel.ac.uk
490045EMR5410.1177/1754073913490045Emotion ReviewBeatty Current Emotion Research in Anthropology
2013
VIEW FROM A DISCIPLINE
Beatty Current Emotion Research in Anthropology 415
about them. When it comes to emotions, anthropologists
have often skimped these difficult questions, failing to capi-
talize on their greatest resource: the living evidence of the
field. Leaving aside the vast and various findings of world
ethnography, my concern in this article will be with unre-
solved conceptual and methodological issues. I want to sug-
gest it is time for a rethinking.
Whatever Happened to the Anthropology
of Emotion?
An overview of highlights in the anthropology of emotion
would show that the major contributions have mostly been
made some time ago. Briggs (1970), Levy (1973, 1984), Lutz
(1988), M. Z. Rosaldo (1984), R. Rosaldo (1989), Shweder
(1991), White (1990), and Wikan (1990) staked out the key
theoretical positions a generation ago and offered much of the
best evidence up until the millennium. (Long-term contributors,
such as Shweder and White, are unusual.) So what has hap-
pened since? The apparent thinness of current emotion research
is due to several factors.
Paradigm Creep
A shift of emphasis in psychological anthropology away from
emotion in favor of subjectivity, embodiment, person-
hood, and experience has fruitfully complicated the issues,
making emotion one of a set of interrelated problem-aspects
rather than a distinct topic or explicit focus of interest (Biehl,
Good, & Kleinman, 2007; Csordas, 2002; Jackson, 1989). The
previous litany needs quotes because the key terms refer not to
transparent concepts or standard fields of interestunlike, say,
cognition (another growth area in anthropology)but, in their
fullest extension, to research paradigms with distinctive theo-
retical traditions (some retrospectively constructed), canonical
authors, and specialized jargon. Cross-cutting these diver-
gences, broadly assumedif continuously revisedcentral
theoretical concepts have been ditched or dismantled in the
search for sharper, more manageable tools. Culture has
given way to cultural models, hegemony, and discourse;
society to sociality and relatedness.
Dissolution of the Subject
Postcolonial theory, work in political economy, the postmodern
critique, and a trend toward a more political vision of the disci-
pline have banished the representative cultural actor (The
Balinese, The Nuer) from the scene as fictions and thrown the
emphasis onto how people navigate within structured systems
of power (Clifford & Marcus, 1986). Thanks to the influence of
Bourdieu and Foucault, one might say actors have become
politically instead of culturally generic (culture being an aspect
of power). Theorists have found new ways of ignoringmore
tendentiously, abolishingthe individual. The locus of
emotion has evaporated.
Absorption Into Cognitive Science
Largely a thing apart and at odds with the other factors, a resur-
gent anthropological interest in cognition joins interdisciplinary
work in cognitive science and evolutionary psychology. Some
of this work touches on emotion. For example, Whitehouses
(2004) theory of modes of religiosity, though not centrally
concerned with the nature of emotion, gives the ritual elicitation
of violent emotions a causal role in the transmission of religious
practices in nonliterate societies.
Globalization
Globalization has shaken up the field in both senses (the places
we go, the things we do), forcing a rethinking of what anthro-
pologists should be looking at, how their enquiries should be
framed, and what methodologies to employ (Inda & Rosaldo,
2007). The old model of the researcher alone in a remote village
documenting the culture no longer passes muster. Cultures as
bounded, homogeneous isolates are gone; so too has the ethnog-
rapher as invisible recording angel. In line with critical, post-
colonial, and postmodernist questionings of social scientific
authority, the ethnographer is now a positioned subject (R.
Rosaldo, 1989) in need of critical scrutiny, not a neutral, harm-
less presence. Ethnic identities are fluid, pragmatic, often plu-
ral; old distinctions between home and abroad, us and them,
have disappeared. Increasingly, researchers speak of diasporas,
borderlands, transnationalism, ethnoscapes, and cultural
flows rather than peoples and cultures.
As these heterogeneous factors indicate, in the swirl of theo-
retical realignments and global change, emotion research can no
longer be surveyed as one among many areas of research like,
say, ritual, migration, or markets. The last such comprehensive
effort (Lutz & White, 1986) could not, I think, be repeated
today. Emotion intersects with divergent research programs in
disparate ways, in different theoretical languages, frustrating
the kind of cumulative, inclusive debate on common ground
characteristic of this journal. Any anthropologists view is there-
fore bound to be limited and partial. If this sounds like a counsel
of despair, we should remember that what most anthropological
approaches have in common is a basis in and commitment to
ethnographic fieldwork. It is from this common groundand
with a view back to it: a validation of fieldwork as the best
source of anthropological insightthat I shall base my review.
What Is Emotion? The Ethnographic
Challenge
Consider their diversity. Some emotions come with distinctive
facial expressions (anger), some without (regret). Some respond
instantly to an external stimulus (surprise), others follow intro-
spection (remorse); some prompt action (disgust), others imply
inaction (boredom); some have an evolutionary pay-off (fear,
love), others lack adaptive advantage (nostalgia). Given this
heterogeneity, it is hardly surprising that a superordinate cate-
gory of emotion has not been reported from many of the places
416 Emotion Review Vol. 5 No. 4
where anthropologists have worked. For Russell (1991), this is
the principal challenge posed by ethnography. If a domain of
emotion is unrecognized or unnamed, the comparative project
of recording and contrasting exotic emotion terms seems threat-
ened. For what is to count as an emotion? The very idea of an
emotional domain can lead us to misjudge similarly named
behaviors as equivalent. It is not always clear, for example,
whether a reported instance of shame refers to a feeling, a
form of etiquette, or an unemotional evaluation of a situation
(Beatty, 2005a, 2005b; Russell, 1991). Still, emotion is the word
we are stuck with. And if the historical question is why the cat-
egory should have arisen in Europe, the scientific and philo-
sophical question is whether its cultural specificity vitiates its
general applicability. Can it be that our folk concept just hap-
pens to capture a human universal? Or are scientific definitions
notably different? Are they culture-free?
A glance at the literature shows that, without being commit-
ted to a firm definition of the object of study or a shared view of
its reality, theorists in the human sciences and philosophy are,
indeed, able to agree on a rough area of discussion they call
emotion. In such collections as Ekman and Davidson (1994),
Goldie (2010), and Manstead, Frijda, and Fischer (2004), con-
tributors appear to accept the usefulness of the English word to
categorize certain socially embedded psychobiological pro-
cesses without agreeing about how such processes cohere, or
how much causal or definitional prominence should be given to
such components as arousal, feeling, appraisal, or facial expres-
sion. For some theorists emotion denotes a class of distinctive
processes conveniently labeled by the English word; for others
it lacks any essential referent. But how coherent is the concept
if emotions are not natural kinds (Barrett, 2006; Scarantino,
2012) and there is no agreement about what the word otherwise
might mean?
A compromise position between realism and skepticism can
be found in Averills (1994) suggestion that emotion is a poly-
thetic class, that is, a class composed of overlapping sets of
members belonging in some loose grouping, not by virtue of
exclusive identity, but by sporadic family resemblances.
Needham (1975), from whom I have taken this definition, first
explored the implications of polythetic classification for anthro-
pology, pointing out that many of the categories used by anthro-
pologists, such as religion, kinship, and marriage, have turned
out, on critical inspection (or on the evidence of ethnographic
variation), to be polythetic; which meant that generalizations
based on the assumption that kinshipNeedhams fieldwas a
homogeneous category were false. This led him to such radical
pronouncements as there is no such thing as kinship
(Needham, 1971, p. 5). A trail of scholars in Needhams wake
announced the death of this or that category. Yet the anthropo-
logical ship sailed on. And after languishing in the doldrums,
kinship stormed back onto the scene, albeit trimmed and
tweaked into novel perspectives (e.g., relatedness) that avoid
some of the old essentialist assumptions. The key message was
that rather than abandoning the kinship concept altogether, one
respected its polythetic configuration and looked for regularities
at a lower level, within a fuzzily bounded field, while remaining
alert to connections across the boundary with, say, politics.
This, I take it, is what emotion skeptics like Shweder (1994) and
Wierzbicka (1999) are advocating. Why else write a book called
Emotions Across Languages and Cultures when the English
word emotion does not carve nature at its joints (Wierzbicka,
1999, p. 3)?
Granted this polythetic definition, the anthropologist can get
to work. According to Shweder, emotion is a complex syn-
thetic notion; and particular emotions (e.g., sadness, envy, guilt,
and love) are derivatives of various combinations of wants,
beliefs, feelings, and values (2004, p. 83). The anthropologists
job, on this view, would be to investigate such combinations
without a prior commitment to that notional whole, emotion.
In similar terms, Wierzbicka proposes investigating questions
focusing on what people think, feel, want, know, say, and do;
what happens in their bodies; how the thoughts, feelings, wants,
and bodily events are linked and what role the feelings . . .
play in the stream of life (1999, p. 24). This proposal, which
encompasses a great deal while apparently taking little for
granted, offers a robust basis for ethnographic research.
Nonetheless, those who see emotion as having some theory-
independent reality or integrity (e.g., Manstead et al., 2004;
Mulligan & Scherer, 2012) might wonder at the rationale of
a comparative project whose central organizing concept is
in doubt.
Fortunately for dialogue, both relativists and realists are inter-
ested in how appraisals, feelings, words, and actions are variably
linked, however those linkages may be conceived. Shweder
(1994, 2004) is prepared to suggest that the linkages might not
point to something that we would call emotion. Indeed, to assume
otherwise is to prejudge the case and rule out the possibility that
in other cultural settings appraisals, feelings, and behavior might
not hang together in ways familiar to us. He argues that we must
be open to the possibilityattested by ethnography (Levy, 1973,
1984)that the death of a loved one may be experienced as
fatigue or illness rather than emotionalized as sadness. This
would not be altogether surprising given that, as Lutz writes of
the people of Ifaluk, Micronesia (and as many ethnographers tes-
tify), emotion, thought, and body are seen in ethnotheory as
intimately linked through their roles in illness (1988, p. 100).
But a nonemotional response would depend on the possibility
that cultural practices do not merely shape experience, but can
override putatively universal processes. Emotionalizing, on
this view, would consist in consciously dwelling on the personal
dimension of loss, thinking about the feeling. It would be an
open question which kinds of experience are emotionalized or
not in a given cultural setting.
Shweder is, I believe, onto something here, and his decon-
structive method is useful for the fieldworker. It helps to make
sense of a puzzling episode in my Javanese fieldwork (Beatty,
2009, pp. 245258) when the headman of my host village, pub-
licly humiliated by Islamist critics in the mosque on the
Prophets birthday and unable to face them down, suddenly
sank back in a faintdizzy, he croakedand fell mysteri-
ously ill. He had not emotionalized his response to an event that
might otherwise have prompted expressions of shame or anger.
Beatty Current Emotion Research in Anthropology 417
Although I cannot precisely know the string of thoughts and
feelings leading up to his collapse, seated next to him I was
party to his deliberations as he whispered to me and passed me
notes. He was paralyzed by hesitationwhether to respond or
submit. A Javanese adage I often heard when conflict loomed
goes: Aja kalah, ngalah! (Better to concede than be
defeated!) Sometimes one cannot oppose brute force, stupidity,
or craziness, so one yields, as a tree bends to the wind, and sur-
vives. The headman explicitly deliberated in this way but evi-
dently felt the attack as overwhelming: He could neither accept
defeat nor shrug in face-saving concession. So how did he con-
strue the assaultor, in Shweders preferred sequence, the feel-
ing? In some sense, evidently, he did not emotionalize it; that is,
he did not interpret the event or the feelings evoked in terms that
entailed the locally predictable emotions. To put this in English
terms (and setting aside the question of their cross-cultural
validity), his social defeat was less a shaming disgrace or anger-
ing affront than something like a physical blow: so it material-
ized. Accordingly, his slow recovery was not effected through
emotional introspection or catharsis (as we, in his place might
have it), nor through angry revenge or a public expiation of
shame. Instead, he outflanked his critics. Victory was the cure.
I think also of the ploughman who one day welcomed me
into his house shortly after finding his buffalohis sole means
of livelihoodpoisoned in the stable. His perfect composure
and broad smile gave nothing away. (I heard about the buffalo
later.) This was not simply an instance of Javanese display rules,
miraculous self-control, or evenI hopeof extreme ethno-
graphic dullness on my part. The links between event, appraisal,
feeling, and expression were not what I could have expected or
could even have recognized, though we had been neighbors for
2 years and I knew the man fairly well. Again, something in the
sequence of an emotion episode appears to have been short-
circuited, truncated, or overcome: exhibiting less, implying
more, than what might have been expected.
In Shweders analysis (which in this respect is Jamesian), the
emotion is an interpretation of the feeling, rather than an inter-
pretation of the eliciting event. Emotions are complex narrative
structures that give shape and meaning to somatic and affective
experiences (Shweder, 1994, p. 37). I am not persuaded that the
sequence is necessarily so. My Javanese cases are equivocal; but
so too is introspective knowledge. Sometimes we scan our feel-
ings as a touchstone of what really matters to us: Do I really
love her? More often the touchstone is the affecting situation:
Was that really meant as an insult? Should I be angry?
But however the parts fit together, the challenge remains.
Ethnography throws up examples that contradict our expecta-
tions of how emotions work, prompting doubts about whether
they qualify as emotions, and therefore whether there are such
thingscross-culturally and unambiguouslyas emotions (as
opposed to diverse combinations of appraisals, feelings, etc.).
As ever, it is the exceptions that present the greatest challenge. I
have mentioned two instances of my own already. A famous
example that bears revisiting is that of Levys Tahitian inform-
ant, a man abandoned by his wife, who interpreted his feelings
about separation as some sort of vague sickness (Levy, 1973,
p. 304). On Shweders view (1994), one could not apply the
concepts of sadness or emotion here because the feeling has
not been emotionalized. In another Tahitian example, a man
seen crying at the grave of his wife is assumed by witnesses to
be feeling remorse for his infidelities rather thanas we should
supposesadness for his recent loss (Levy, 1973, pp. 298, 301).
This is a different kind of evidence from the self-reported
malaise of the deserted husband. Nevertheless, in all such cases,
the ethnographer argues, Tahitians hypocognize sadness
(Levy, 1984, p. 227). Lacking an equivalent word, perhaps lack-
ing the concept altogether, and without the cultural formulas
and expectations of prolonged grief, they have no means of
packaging their feelings and thoughts as anything like sadness
and do not recognize or expect persisting sadness in others.
Troublesome feelings following loss are interpreted, instead, as
possession by the departed spirit (Levy, 1973, p. 299; 1984). For
Levy, this implies misrecognition of the primary apprehension,
a culturally imposed cognitive mistake rather than a simple
absence of the (to us) predictable emotion. Like Shweder, Levy
makes the interpretation contingent on the feeling. (The aban-
doned husband obsesses about his loss, so it is not the event or
what Lazarus (1994) calls the core relational theme that is
underrated, only the bad feeling.)
Despite the wealth of cultural information presented in
Tahitians (Levy, 1973), these much discussed examples are
reported in scant terms, with minimal concrete observation, and
mixed with hypothetical cases. We know nothing of the back-
ground of the individuals, the quality of their relationships, the
history of separations, or how normal the individuals are. The
absence of idiosyncratic particulars and the recourse to general
cultural factors and folk psychology make it hard to compare
among cases and across cultures. I cannot easily apply Levys
analysis to my Javanese friends whose reactions, in any case,
are not especially typical, even of the men themselves. To make
sense of them you need a good deal of biographical background
and narrative context. Levys Tahitians are presented as both
typical and fully explained by immediate context; yet only in
the general terms of cultural logic do the examples carry con-
viction. On a human level, as persons with particular relations
and histories, they remain enigmatic, merely exotic. Indeed, the
reader cannot help wondering whether the sharpening of
the argument, the distillation of a generalization, exaggerates
the difference. Is there, as in Ifaluk and Java, a close association
between emotion and illness that might explain why a man
haunted by his wifes departure should experience vague ill-
ness? Or are there untold stories that explain the underrating of
the feelings associated with loss? Something is missing, but we
should not assume it is missing from the Tahitians.
If I have labored an old example, it is because Levys eth-
nography has featured in many discussions of emotion, besides
serving as the model for subsequent person-centered ethnogra-
phy. It remains unsurpassed in its comprehensiveness, but the
problems with its presentation of emotion have not been prop-
erly identified or overcome. And there is a further lesson: If, as
is often the case with cross-cultural comparison, compression,
selection, and narrative omission enhance difference, so does
418 Emotion Review Vol. 5 No. 4
the inverse stereotyping of Euro-American culture, the usual
point of departure.
1
We emotionalize, they somatize. We feel
sadness, they feel fatigue. Yet anyone who has attended a mod-
ern English funeral cannot be surprised by Tahiti. The collective
determination to put on a good face, the cheerful tributes cele-
brating the life of the deceased, and the sheer lack of solemnity
would have seemed unaccountable 50 years ago. And we learn
from the latest version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual
of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) that grief lasting more than a few
weeks is to be classed as pathological. We are all becoming
Tahitians.
Emotions in Translation
Evans-Pritchard, in an apocryphal statement, described anthro-
pology as the translation of culture. In her pathbreaking
book, Unnatural Emotions, Lutz writes: The process of com-
ing to understand the emotional lives of people in different
cultures can be seen first and foremost as a problem of
translation (1988, p. 8). Wisely, Lutz extends the problem of
translation to tears and other gestures, and audience reaction
to emotional performance, but her emphasis is on language
use, or discourse.
2
This does not extend, however, to the
inclusion of natural dialogues or ethnographic narrative; nor
does discourse, in her presentation, have much historical reso-
nance or time-depth. As with Levy, her examples are in the
present and exist only in the present. They are mostly typify-
ing and shorn of particularity. Indeed, an exclusion of idiosyn-
cratic background (if one can call what is most significant for
any individual background) is a matter of principle: cultural
and historical factors supersede the individual in explanatory
import (Lutz, 1988, p. 229, n. 1).
What underpins Lutzs approach is its strong sociologism, an
attribute she shares with Michelle Rosaldo, another pioneer of
constructionism in the anthropology of emotion. Talk about
emotions is simultaneously talk about society, she writes (Lutz,
1988, p. 6). In the same vein, M. Z. Rosaldo declares: selves
and feelings, shaped by culture, may be understood in turn as
the creation of particular sorts of polities (1984, p. 142).
Lutzs (1988) position is the ne plus ultra of construction-
ism, the unnaturalness of emotions consisting precisely in
their cultural composition, their embedding in social processes.
Accordingly, the causal nexus of Ifaluk emotion, in Lutzs anal-
ysis, is functional. Ifaluk emotions take the shape they do
because of the constraints of living in large, intimate households
on a small, crowded island at the mercy of the elements. The
great originality of the book, however, lies not in this function-
alist thesis, but in the exploration of emotional meaning and
its pragmatic interweaving with social processes.
In common with constructionists like Averill and Bedford,
Lutz presents a view of emotionsor at least emotional dis-
courseas pragmatic ploys whose meaning and function can
be explained almost entirely through situational context. All
the more surprising, then, that the ethnography contains very
few detailed firsthand accounts. In fact, there is only one epi-
sode witnessed by the author that extends over more than a
couple of lines (Lutz, 1988, pp. 125127), and this concerns
the death of a child: not an event likely to be rich in emotional
nuance or backstory. Unnatural Emotions is largely free of
particular persons, histories, and narrativesjust those things
which, I suggest, give emotions their force and resonance,
their quality as emotions, distinct from other kinds of opin-
ions, moral judgments, and speech acts. It is free of natural
emotions because it depends mostly on data obtained from
interviews, self-reports, card-sorting classifications, and hypo-
thetical examples. The picture that emerges of emotion as a
function of social situationsand generic situations at that
is also a function of the methodology.
Nevertheless, if we take emotions in an expanded sense (as
ploys, ways of talking about society, etc.), Lutz (1988) marks a
step forward, a means to understanding other kinds of sociality
unimaginable within a Western individualist mindset. Her
discourse-centered approach has much in common with that of
White (1990, 2005), whose work on another Pacific society
explores the political and moral role of emotional rhetoric.
White shows how in the Solomon Islands, public debate enables
the reframing of conflict situations by the indirect means of
emotion talk or disentangling. Through participants narration
of events, anger, which encodes a scenario of retribution,
gives way to sadness, which implies a peaceful outcome.
Disentangling is not mere social commentary: It has a prag-
matic effect on the assembly, engendering prosocial emotions.
White calls it an example of an emotive institution.
Having read Lutz and White, I find I am better able to under-
stand the impassioned oratory of Nias, a tribal society in
Indonesia where I carried out fieldwork in the mid-1980s. A
hundred years earlier (when James and Darwin were publishing
their pioneering studies), a German missionary was similarly
puzzling over Niasan emotion idioms. In preparation for his
Bible translation, Sundermann (1887, pp. 293298) recorded 88
terms referring to the heart, including such bizarre collocations
as my heart has an unhulled grain (suspicious) and feeling as
though my heart has swallowed a ball of cats fur (seriously
disgruntled). Aside from hot-hearted (angry), broken-
hearted (disappointed), and a few others with rough equiva-
lents, most cardiac terms were not readily comprehensible.
Even the simpler phrases could be misleading. Painful-hearted
meant feeling resentful/spiteful; clear-hearted meant con-
tent. And there was an overlap with nonemotional feelings and
thoughts: ebolo dd broad-hearted = patient; aboto ba dd
broken in the heart = understand; other heart terms referred to
thirst and tiredness. Sundermanns approach depended on find-
ing dictionary-like equivalences (he went on to write a German
Nias dictionary), so naturally he drew many blanks. What did it
mean to have a scorched or squeezed heart, or to have a curly
hair in the heart? And how to explain the preponderance of
negative terms? Niasan heart-speech seemed to map a vast
region of discomfort and grievance unsuspected even by the
grim Lutheran missionaries.
3
A century later, I was similarly
perplexed. The fact that most of the terms in use refer not to
personality traits but to feelings is all the more puzzling, sug-
gesting a cognitive clustering at the lower end of the emotional
Beatty Current Emotion Research in Anthropology 419
keyboard. (A man reported as aukhu dd, hot-hearted, is
allegedly angry rather than irascible.) Yet heart-speech in Nias
is best understood as a mode of public oratory, not a native psy-
chology. People declare their hearts at weddings and feasts
when the intention is to win concessions in ceremonial exchange
or fend off the other partys demands for pigs and gold (Beatty,
2012). Although their speeches are often passionate, the pleas
and rebuffs of scorched and shriveled hearts are pragmatic,
even political, as speakers jockey for position. So the auditors
do not look for signs of authentic feeling in a speaker parading
a scorched heart (though they might anticipate a certain move);
nor do they question his sincerity. In most cases heart terms do
not describe actual feelings, either occurrent or past; nor do they
index behavior. Away from the public stage, there is no cats fur
feeling. In ordinary speech a much smaller set of terms is used
for emotionssimple rather than metaphorical and with cog-
nates in other Austronesian languages (e.g., atau = afraid; cf.
Malay takut, Ifaluk metagu).
Should the more outlandish heart idioms nevertheless qual-
ify as emotion terms? By most definitions, they check all the
boxes. They are announced and enacted with passion; they
provoke an emotional response; they imply a normative judg-
ment about ones situation (Solomon, 1980, p. 258); and they
imply action tendencies (of refusal, gratitude, threat, and eva-
sion), which is why they have rhetorical force. In many
respects, heart speech is enacted emotionotherwise it would
not work. But the emotions actually experiencedby the
speakers and the people they are talking aboutare different
from the affairs of the heart reported. There is a distance
between the mixed, undeclared emotions animating the
contending parties and the manipulative, positional soul-
searching of the orators who represent them. Yet although the
auditors recognize posturing for what it is, they are neverthe-
less moved. This, precisely, is the power of oratory. If the job
is well done, the targets feel constrained to concede, to throw
in an extra pig or grain of gold: their hearts are truly squeezed.
What matters if the speakers heart is not really scorched? We
gain little by qualifying his phrases as pretend emotions or
psychological impossibilities. Far more is to be gained by rec-
ognizing the layered context of staged emotion, its background
in interwoven histories, and its relation to unvoiced emotions,
past and present.
From Discourse to Narrative
The language of the heart in Nias is performative, a tactic in the
game of exchange. Emotion speech is at once a form of politics,
a technique of micromanagement, and a rhetoric of moral sua-
sion: On this we can agree with the cultural constructionists. But
there is a life beyond the stage, an emotional hinterland, both
shared and intensely personal, that is not captured in talk alone
and for which there are no stage directions, no simple cultural
grammar. To make sense of it one needs time-depth and a thor-
ough knowledge of plots and players, the people who inhabit the
roles. A debate is a moving tableau of real persons locked into
evolving stories, stories that motivate and overflow the confines
of the debate. The tactical uses of passion, in Baileys (1983)
phrase, imply narrative structures and call, in turn, for narrative
ethnography, not mere diachronic modeling.
If this narrative claim is true of set-piece oratory, with its well-
defined positions and tropes and its indirect relation to occurrent
emotion, it applies all the better to everyday emotions. The rea-
sons are twofold. Firstly, as diverse theorists have emphasized,
emotions are nothing if not particular. Unlike values or norms,
which by definition are widely shared, emotions refer compel-
lingly to an individuals or groups situation. In M. Z. Rosaldos
phrase, they are embodied thoughts, thoughts seeped with the
apprehension that I am involved. (1984, p. 143). Lutz has
pointed out that in the American value system, the subjectivity
of emotions gives them a fundamentaleven sacredrole in
individuating the person From this perspective, emotions are
Me in a way that thoughts are not (1988, p. 71). Yet even in
places like Ifaluk, where emotions are not so conceivedwhere
they are often predicated of usthey remain first-person expe-
riences, felt in our insides; indeed, emerging from our insides
(Lutz, 1988, p. 95). Javanese like to say that at the level of rasa
(feeling/consciousness) we are all the same; but they do not
deny the individuality of the experiencing self. Solomon (1995,
p. 191), in an EastWest comparison, agrees: The personal aspect
of an emotion derives from the individuals perspective, back-
ground, fears, and concerns, not from the feeling.
The peculiar egocentricity of emotion, which psychologists
and philosophers have remarked upon (Barrett, 2006; Ben-
Zeev, 2010; Roberts, 1988), is not contradicted by shared expe-
riences or patterns of emotion that are culturally typical. The
critical point is to recognize that our emotions are always more
than cultural formulas and social structural positions require.
4

My anger, hope, and regret make sense against a background of
cultural expectations and social possibilities, but they take shape
within the unique circumstances of a life, which is why they are
mine alone. The me-focus of emotionswhich transcends
contrasts between individualist and sociocentric ideologies
positively requires a descent to particulars. Only ethnographic
narrative can capture this particularity.
The second reason why emotion implicates narrative is again
to do with how emotions are constituted. Pride, shame, con-
tempt, even fear and anger, are not only tailored to individual
experience, they unfold over time; they tell a story. This obvious
fact is often neglected. A focus on emotions of short duration (of
the kind easily produced in the lab) misleads about the role emo-
tions play in our lives. Likewise, an ethnographic emphasis on
stereotyped behaviors (avoidance, respect) tends to mask the
temporal dimension that inflects even formalized relationships.
Take the case of rural East Java, where fathers and adult sons
make reluctant companions and do not generally sit togethera
mild avoidance recognized in seating arrangements at feasts. The
slight awkwardness that prevails has its roots in deeply held val-
ues of respect, socialization practices, and ideas about person-
hoodstructurally, sons replace their fathers and are felt to be
in mystical competition with them (Beatty, 2009; Geertz, 1974).
But the statistical averagethe stereotyped emotiondoes
not begin to capture the reality. Even in the cases where most
420 Emotion Review Vol. 5 No. 4
conform to type there are always personal stories and previous
emotional encounters that color the relation, often in contradic-
tory ways, and give it its meaning and peculiar tone. It is those
past encountersculturally framed but underdeterminedthat
are most significant to any given relationship and help explain
the course of an emotional episode.
Of the objections that might be offered to a narrative
approach, two are most challenging: that it gives an illusion of
coherence, and that narrative accounts may be culturally inap-
propriate. In his study of the Yolmo of Nepal, Desjarlais for-
swears conventional narrative because in conveying suffering
to others, villagers tend not to tell sequential accounts of how
they hurt or heal, but rather to tell images that portray their
plights: a witchs bloody assault, the casting of grief from the
body (1992, p. 31). On this view, it is inappropriate to impose
a narrative structure on emotion where none has been offered.
To recall an earlier example, if the Tahitians do not emotionalize
certain feelings, nor would they make sense of them narratively.
The narrator falsifies.
But the point must be conceded only if we stick to articulated
feelings. Few ethnographers would so limit themselves. Besides,
we all know cases of individuals who seem unaware they are
jealous, angry, or in love. It is precisely through narrative, not
self-report, that we are able to construe their cases. The fitting
together of actions, responses, expressions, and language in a
temporal sequence that respects particularitiesin a word, nar-
rativeexplains what the passionate actor herself cannot see or
say. For the same reason, one should treat self-reported emotion
and autobiographical narrative (especially as told to a cultural
outsider) with caution. The shaping and revision involved dis-
tort the original experience. As White (1994, p. 231) puts it, if
emotions are fundamentally relational, one cannot analyze
them out of context. Taking his point strictly, we should insist
on the living context: The remembered context is altogether a
different thing.
As to the question of whether narrative might be wholly alien
to a certain people, the case remains to be proven. Even suppos-
ing an aversion to psychological explanations of behavior such
as Mead (1928/1972, p. 107) found in Samoa, or granted a
dogma of the opacity of other minds such as is widely reported
in the Pacific (Hollan & Throop, 2011), people everywhere need
to be able to read behavior, fathom motives, assign significance,
and apportion blame (Bruner, 1990; Carrithers, 1992). A sense of
the evolving structure of persons-in-situations is therefore built
into human sociality, whether the apprehensions are worked up
into fully fledged narratives, transformed into visual images,
tactfully downplayed, or altogether denied.
New Developments
Boster (2005) lists empathy, alongside mapping and transla-
tion, as one of three methods open to the ethnographer in com-
paring emotion systems. As anthropologists have reconsidered
the dynamics of fieldwork, pondering the epistemological quan-
daries of participant-observation and the basis of anthropologi-
cal knowledge in the human encounter, the question of empathy
has become increasingly salient. The revival of interest has a
number sources, among them the rediscovery of Briggss (1970)
classic account of fieldwork among the Inuit, R. Rosaldos
(1989) still-influential essay on the anthropologist as posi-
tioned subject, and person-centered ethnographies such as
Wikans (1990) Balinese study, with its zeitgeist-capturing
title, Managing Turbulent Hearts. These works explored the
researchers ambivalent positioning in the field and the possibil-
ity of knowing through feeling; in different ways they testified
to common factors in human experience that challenged the
prevailing relativism of the time.
Recent work has reopened the debate (for a skeptical review
of the topic, see Beatty 2005a, 2010). Hages (2009) focus, for
example, is on the shared experience of hosts and guests. Do
the researchers emotions in the field offer insight or illusion?
That depends, says Hage, on the overlap not only in situation
and cultural framing, but in intentions, stakes, and personal for-
mation. Hages interest is in political emotions. Are there
such things as emotions that are sui generis political, or are
there merely emotions in general that we end up investing in
various spheres of social life, the sphere of politics being one
among many (Hage, 2009, p. 60)? A familiarity with the non-
anthropological literature might have helped here, but to
answer the question Hage considers how his own sentiments,
as a secular Lebanese exile, differed from those of his Muslim
hosts in confronting the Israeli assault on Lebanon in 2006. His
friends could not feel hatred for an anthropomorphized state as
Hage could. Their engagementtheir political emotions
required something different from the passive frustration of the
intellectual, namely an emotive identification with the resist-
ance that turned them into actors in the conflict, rather than
mere witnesses or victims. They felt differently because they
confronted a practical enemy, not an ideological adversary.
Hage comes to see that his own vacillation between participa-
tion and observationhis semi-identificationlimited the
possibility of empathy.
Drawing on the historian Rosenweins notion of emotional
communities, Dureau (2012) found that the experience of her
child falling sick in the field did not permit a privileged under-
standing of mothers in the Western Solomons. Their expressions
of maternal love take shape against a background of food short-
ages, disease, and life chances starkly different from those of the
Western researcher. Against such claims of experiential know-
ing, I became increasingly aware that with better understanding
of womens lives I felt deeper sympathy but less emotional con-
gruence, grasping taru [love] as I recognized the relative
superficiality of our similarities (Dureau, 2012, p. 146).
Examples pro and contra empathy-as-method could be
multiplied; but only in longer works can the reader really
judge what has been achieved. At novelistic length, there is
enough circumstance, plot, and characterization to place and
evoke emotions. Briggs (1970), Scheper-Hughes (1992), and
Abu-Lughod (2000) offer the outstanding examples of
insightful accounts informed by a self-conscious but unshowy
ethnographic empathy. In each case, a scrutiny of the ethnog-
raphers motives and feelings offers insights into local
Beatty Current Emotion Research in Anthropology 421
constructions of emotion. Once again, narrative provides the
necessary scaffold.
Curiously, none of these works has much overlap with more
conventionally empirical studies of empathy as an ethnographic
topic, such as Hollan and Throops (2011) recent volume on
Pacific societies, or Goluboffs (2008) study of Azeri Jewish
lamentation. The former looks at empathy (or its denial) among
people who hold to the opacity of other minds. The latter joins
the mainstream of recent anthropological work on emotion in
analyzing how specific emotions are generated, the work they
do in social reproduction, and how they shape subjectivities. In
Azerbaijan, the job of the paid mourner is to bring individual
sorrows together in a common lament: she transformed their
personal sorrow into an empathetic statement of communal suf-
fering. The bottom line is political: Weeping functions as an
enactment of female subjectivity firmly located in patriarchal
kinship obligations (Goluboff, 2008, p. 90).
A similar concern with the emotional fashioning of
subjectivityor for that matter the political fashioning of
emotionanimates much recent work on trauma and memory,
an expanding enterprise that crosses disciplinary lines and vari-
ously comments on and criticizes the trauma industry (see
examples in Biehl et al., 2007). Beyond the scope of the present
article, much of this work has its roots in Foucault (especially as
refracted through Hacking), critical theory, postcolonial theory,
and approaches from political economy.
Other work seeks new emotional configurations in nontradi-
tional settings. What, for example, is the nexus between emotion
and social mobility in a globalizing world? What structures of
feeling (nostalgia, homesickness, loss, hope) are created by
migration or work in the modern industrial zone (Boellstorff &
Lindquist, 2004)? Svaek and Skrbi (2007) consider the emo-
tional dynamics of transnational family reunions and ask how
people adapt to the alien emotional climate of their home from
home. They find that migrants distress is often medicalized in the
West, emphasiz[ing] the sharp edges of universalizing dis-
courses of emotions in contexts of power inequality (Svaek &
Skrbi, 2007, p. 375). Studies of this kind testify once again to the
value of ethnography in extending our knowledge of how persons
relate to contexts and how experience is shaped by broader forces.
Conclusion
Anthropologys contribution to the study of emotion is at once
comparative and critical. Its special method, ethnographic
fieldwork, affords unique insights into cultural diversity and
the many ways of being human. But if we are to realize those
insights and continue to unsettle established categories in the
human sciences, we must be faithful to the experience, thinking
harder about what goes on in the field and about how we recog-
nize, record, and write about emotion in other cultural settings.
Interviews have their uses, but only detailed naturalistic obser-
vation that preserves the full narrative context can capture
emotions in all their complexity. A major task for anthropology
in the years ahead will be to rediscover the particularity of
emotion and its temporal dimension which only narrative can
adequately capture. For as Nussbaum observes, all human
emotions are in part about the past, and bear traces of a history
that is at once commonly human, socially constructed, and idi-
osyncratic (2001, p. 177).
Notes
1 For a systematic comparison, pitched at the level of ideology rather
than experience, see Lutz (1988).
2 For a comprehensive review of linguistic approaches to emotion, see
Wilce (2009).
3 White sees in the high proportion of negative terms in emotion vocab-
ularies a reflection of the moral work that emotion words and expres-
sions perform in ordinary discourse (1994, p. 226).
4 This point does not depend on methodological individualism or an
individualist ideology. The claim is not that individuals are the exclu-
sive locus of emotions, that emotions are generated and contained
within the self; only that they are personal and perspectival. The
me-focus is often a we-focus, or, if predicated of others, a they-focus.
References
Abu-Lughod, L. (2000). Veiled sentiments: Honor and poetry in a Bedouin
society (2nd ed.). Berkeley: University of California Press.
Averill, J. (1994). In the eyes of the beholder. In P. Ekman & R. J. Davidson
(Eds.), The nature of emotion: Fundamental questions (pp. 714). New
York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Bailey, F. G. (1983). The tactical uses of passion: An essay on power,
reason and reality. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Barrett, L. F. (2006). Are emotions natural kinds? Perspectives on
Psychological Science, 1, 2858.
Beatty, A. (2005a). Emotions in the field: What are we talking about?
Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 11, 1737.
Beatty, A. (2005b). Feeling your way in Java: An essay on society and
emotion. Ethnos, 70, 5378.
Beatty, A. (2009). A shadow falls: In the heart of Java. London, UK: Faber.
Beatty, A. (2010). How did it feel for you? Emotion, narrative, and the lim-
its of ethnography. American Anthropologist, 112, 430443.
Beatty, A. (2012). The tell-tale heart: Conversion and emotion in Nias.
Ethnos, 77, 126.
Ben-Zeev, A. (2010). The thing called emotion. In P. Goldie (Ed.), The
Oxford handbook of philosophy of emotion (pp. 4162). Oxford, UK:
Oxford University Press.
Biehl, J., Good, B., & Kleinman, A. (Eds.). (2007). Subjectivity: Ethno-
graphic investigations. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Boellstorff, T., & Lindquist, J. (2004). Bodies of emotion: Rethinking
culture and emotion through Southeast Asia. Ethnos, 69, 437444.
Boster, J. S. (2005). Emotion categories across languages. In H. Cohen &
C. Lefebvre (Eds.), Handbook of categorization in cognitive science
(pp. 187222). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.
Briggs, J. (1970). Never in anger: Portrait of an Eskimo family. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Carrithers, M. (1992). Why humans have cultures: Explaining anthropology
and social diversity. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Clifford, J., & Marcus, G. E. (Eds.). (1986). Writing culture: The poet-
ics and politics of ethnography. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
Csordas, T. J. (2002). Body, meaning, healing. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Desjarlais, R. (1992). Body and emotion: The aesthetics of illness and heal-
ing in the Nepal Himalayas. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania
Press.
422 Emotion Review Vol. 5 No. 4
Dureau, C. (2012). Translating love. Ethos, 40, 142163.
Ekman, P., & Davidson, R. (1994). The nature of emotion: Fundamental
questions. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Geertz, H. (1974). The vocabulary of Javanese emotion. In R. A. LeVine
(Ed.), Culture and personality (pp. 249264). Chicago, IL: Aldine.
Goldie, P. (Ed.). (2010). The Oxford handbook of philosophy of emotion.
Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Goluboff, S. (2008). Patriarchy through lamentation in Azerbaijan.
American Ethnologist, 35, 8194.
Hage, G. (2009). Hating Israel in the field: On ethnography and political
emotions. Anthropological Theory, 9, 5979.
Hallowell, A. I. (1955). Culture and experience. Philadelphia: University
of Pennsylvania Press.
Hollan, D., & Throop, C. J. (Eds.). (2011). The anthropology of empathy:
Experiencing the lives of others in Pacific societies. New York, NY:
Berghahn Books.
Inda, X., & Rosaldo, R. (2007). (Eds.). The anthropology of globalization:
A reader. Oxford, UK: Wiley/Blackwell.
Jackson, M. (1989). Paths towards a clearing: Radical empiricism and
ethnographic enquiry. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Lazarus, R. (1994). Universal antecedents of the emotions. In P. Ekman &
R. J. Davidson (Eds.), The nature of emotion: Fundamental questions
(pp. 163171). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Levy, R. I. (1973). Tahitians: Mind and experience in the society islands.
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Levy, R. I. (1984). Emotion, knowing, and culture. In R. A. Shweder &
R. A. Levine (Eds.), Culture theory: Essays on mind, self, and emotion
(pp. 214237). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Lutz, C. A. (1988). Unnatural emotions: Everyday sentiments on a micro-
nesian atoll and their challenge to western theory. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
Lutz, C. A., & White, G. (1986). The anthropology of emotions. Annual
Review of Anthropology, 15, 405436.
Manstead, A. S. R., Frijda, N. H., & Fischer, A. (Eds.). (2004). Feelings and
emotions: The Amsterdam symposium. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Mead, M. (1972). Coming of age in Samoa. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.
(Original work published 1928)
Mulligan, K., & Scherer, K. R. (2012). Toward a working definition of
emotion. Emotion Review, 4, 345357.
Needham, R. (1971). Remarks on the analysis of kinship and marriage. In
R. Needham (Ed.), Rethinking kinship and marriage (pp. 134).
London, UK: Tavistock.
Needham, R. (1975). Polythetic classification. Man, 10, 349367.
Nussbaum, M. (2001). Upheavals of thought: The intelligence of emotions.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Roberts, R. C. (1988). What an emotion is: A sketch. The Philosophical
Review, 97, 183209.
Rosaldo, M. Z. (1984). Toward an anthropology of self and feeling. In
R. A. Shweder & R. A. Levine (Eds.), Culture theory: Essays on mind, self,
and emotion (pp. 137157). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Rosaldo, R. (1989). Culture and truth. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Russell, J. A. (1991). Culture and the categorization of emotions. Psycho-
logical Bulletin, 110, 426450.
Scarantino, A. (2012). How to define emotions scientifically. Emotion
Review, 4, 358368.
Scheper-Hughes, N. (1992). Death without weeping: The violence of
everyday life in Brazil. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Shweder, R. A. (1991). Thinking through cultures: Expeditions in cultural
psychology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Shweder, R. A. (1994). Youre not sick, youre just in love: Emotion as an
interpretive system. In P. Ekman & R. J. Davidson (Eds.), The nature of
emotion: Fundamental questions (pp. 3244). New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Shweder, R. A. (2004). Deconstructing the emotions for the sake of com-
parative research. In A. S. R. Manstead, N. H. Frijda, & A. Fischer
(Eds.), Feelings and emotions: The Amsterdam symposium (pp. 8197).
New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Solomon, R. C. (1980). Emotions and choice. In A. Rorty (Ed.), Explaining
emotions (pp. 251282). Berkeley: University of California Press.
Solomon, R. C. (1995). Some notes on emotion, East and West. Philoso-
phy East & West, 42, 171202.
Sundermann, H. (1887). Die Psychologie des Niassers [The psychology of
the Niasans]. Allgemeine Missions-Zeitschrift, 14, 289302.
Svaek, M., & Skrbi, Z. (2007). Passions and powers: Emotions and
globalisation. Identities: Global Studies in Culture and Power, 14,
367383.
White, G. M. (1990). Moral discourse and the rhetoric of emotion. In
C. A. Lutz & L. Abu-Lughod (Eds.), Language and the politics of emo-
tion (pp. 4668). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
White, G. M. (1994). Affecting culture: Emotion and morality in every-
day life. In S. Kitayama & H. R. Markus (Eds.), Emotion and culture:
Empirical studies of mutual influence (pp. 219239). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
White, G. M. (2005). Emotive institutions. In C. Casey & R. Edgerton
(Eds.), A companion to psychological anthropology (pp. 241254).
Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Whitehouse, H. (2004). Modes of religiosity: A cognitive theory of religious
transmission. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
Wierzbicka, A. (1999). Emotions across languages and cultures: Diversity
and universals. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Wikan, U. (1990). Managing turbulent hearts: A Balinese design for living.
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Wilce, J. M. (2009). Language and emotion. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.