Cultures, traditions and radical humanism

1
Social Anthropology, University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, UK.
Andrew.odges!"anchester.ac.#$
%his wor$ was s#pported &y the 'cono"ic and Social (esearch )o#ncil *grant n#"&er
'S+,-.././+10
Abstract
1n this paper 1 review de&ates concerning the analytic #se and ethnographic prevalence of the
c#lt#re concept in social anthropology with specific foc#s on Anglo2A"erican and So#th2'ast
'#ropean anthropological traditions. 1 draw specific attention to the highly pro&le"atic #se
and prevalence of the c#lt#re concept a"ongst people with who" 1 spo$e whilst cond#cting
fieldwor$ in 3elgrade and 4agre&. %he paper &egins with a disc#ssion of pro&le"s
concerning the idea of c#lt#re and how the ter" is #sed. 1t then "oves to consider de&ates
s#rro#nding c#lt#re with partic#lar e"phasis on its #se a"ongst the acade"ic Left. 5riting
fro" an antinational, radical h#"anist perspective, 1 arg#e that the insistence on strong
versions of c#lt#ral difference and the definition of c#lt#re as a &o#nded whole resonates with
a "ainstrea" 5estern tradition that anthropological writing on the 3al$ans wo#ld do well to
avoid. %he paper concl#des with a disc#ssion s#rro#nding the possi&ility of ac$nowledging
the i"portance and reclai"ing the concept of tradition as an alternative for 6c#lt#re tal$6,
which is re7ected for its insistence on radical c#lt#ral difference and #nco"forta&le tendency
to reify social wholes.
Keywords: culture, anthropology, Marxism, nationalism, difference, tradition
Introduction
)#lt#re is a well2worn word, not only in Anglo2A"erican anthropology &#t in "any different
conte8ts all over the world at present. 1ts "eanings and #ses have &een disc#ssed, dissected
and deconstr#cted &y vario#s anthropologists9 partic#larly those writing in or co""enting on
the "ainstrea" anthropological tradition in the USA, for which the concept was i"ported via
,ran: 3oas fro" ;er"an (o"anticis" <see K#per 1999=>39?. 5hilst the de&ates "ay &e
so"ewhat e8ha#sted, its #se is not @ as K#per re"ar$ed, AEveryone is into c#lt#re now. ,or
1
Many than$s to Ainhoa Montoya, Barna 3r$oviC, Marina Si"iC and Stef Dansen for co""ents on vario#s
versions of this paper.
anthropologists, c#lt#re was once a ter" of art. Eow the FnativesG tal$ c#lt#re &ac$ at the".
AF)#lt#reGH the word itself, or so"e local eI#ivalent, is on everyoneGs lips,J Marshall
Sahlins has o&servedJ <1999, p..?. As s#ch, it is worth paying contin#ed attention to the
concept, and especially to how it is #sed &y those people alongside who" anthropologists
wor$ when cond#cting fieldwor$. %his is partic#larly the case as the concept has &eco"e
"ore fashiona&le since the Second 5orld war in artic#lating nationalis"s, as &iological
e8planations in ter"s of race ca"e to &e regarded as dangero#s and+or distastef#l. 1n this
article, 1 disc#ss the #se of the ter" c#lt#re with respect to the conte8t in which 1 heard it
when co"pleting fieldwor$, as #sed in the conte8t of everyday disc#ssions with scentists and
st#dents in 3elgrade, Ser&ia and 4agre&, )roatia. 1 foc#s in the first instance on reviewing a
theoretical de&ate in the discipline rather than disc#ssing "y fieldwor$ in great detail. 1 do
however highlight, where relevant, how "y perspective on the de&ate e"erged when thin$ing
thro#gh "y field wor$ e8periences. 1 &egin with a &rief disc#ssion of c#lt#ral relativis" as
e"ployed &y so"e infor"ants and anthropologists in the 3al$an conte8t. 1 then review the
#se of the ter" c#lt#re in the Anglo2A"erican anthropological tradition. My central arg#"ent
is that the insistence on strong versions of c#lt#ral difference and the definition of c#lt#re as a
&o#nded whole resonates with a "ainstrea" 5estern tradition that anthropological writing on
the 3al$ans wo#ld do well to avoid. %he paper concl#des with a disc#ssion s#rro#nding the
possi&ility of ac$nowledging the i"portance and reclai"ing the concept of tradition as an
alternative for 6c#lt#re tal$6, which is re7ected for its insistence on radical c#lt#ral difference
and #nco"forta&le tendency to reify social wholes.
Culture in the field
;iven the sensitivity of the Ser&ian and )roatian post2war conte8ts in which 1 wor$ed, 1 was
told &y so"e people with who" 1 spo$e that 1 wo#ld never &e a&le to, nor sho#ld 1 try to write
a pro7ect &ased aro#nd recent events, as 1 co#ld never $now the lang#age or historical
&ac$gro#nd well eno#gh to "a$e an infor"ed assess"ent, or that 1 wo#ldn6t &e a&le to
#nderstand as 1 hadn6t &een there d#ring the nineties.
.
S#ch acc#sations co#ld &e divided into
two categories @ a FgentlerG acc#sation that "y lac$ of first2hand e8perience of the wars "eant
that 1 co#ld not "a$e an infor"ed assess"ent, and a "ore Fe8tre"eG acc#sation that 1 wo#ld
never &e a&le to adeI#ately "aster the lang#age or e8perience the Fc#lt#reG first hand if 1
didnGt have roots in the region. %hese e8periences resonated with doc#"ented e8periences of
.
A colleag#e fro" the UK who" 1 "et in 3elgrade whilst attending lang#age classes, who lived
there thro#gho#t the nineties was very highly regarded &y "any d#e to the fact that he had &een
there.
other anthropologists wor$ing in the region, s#ch as Si"iC <.--9? and Kan de Port <1999?.
Si"iC, who grew #p in the region, was I#estioned a&o#t the FgentlerG aspect, na"ely over
whether had &een in L#goslavia d#ring the nineties, partic#larly d#rng the ti"e of the EA%M
&o"&ings.
Another anthropologist, Kan de Port, who ca"e fro" a 5estern '#ropean &ac$gro#nd in
so"e ways si"ilar to "y own, disc#ssed these iss#es in his article A1t ta$es a Ser& to $now a
Ser&J. N#ring his fieldwor$ in the early nineties, he freI#ently faced si"ilar charges that he
wo#ld never &e a&le to #nderstand the sit#ation or lang#age s#fficiently to co""ent #pon
events. ,ro" this, he drew a series of highly pro&le"atic and non2e"pirical concl#sions,
accepting the nationalist ter"s of de&ate with which so"e infor"ants presented hi", as
e8pressed in the charge, Ayo# donGt $now our historyJ, where the first person pl#ral 6o#r6 often
<&#t not always? depicted FSer&sG. is analysis of tavern life in Eovi Sad displayed a strong
version of c#lt#ral relativis" where&y he insisted on what he ter"ed the 6o&stinate otherness6
of the culture he &elieved hi"self to &e investigating, and that he co#ld never F$nowG
s#fficiently. e th#s appropriated Fc#lt#reG as an analytic concept. %his was &y no "eans an
#northodo8 "ove in social anthropology, altho#gh he ac$nowledged that the e8tre"e
relativis" he and so"e of his infor"ants were pro"oting was fairly radical even within the
discipline <Kan de Port 1999, O?.
1 repeatedly ca"e across infor"ants who had #nderstandings of Ser&ian and )roatian c#lt#re
as &o#nded wholes which 1 did and co#ld not &elong to whilst engaged in fieldwor$ as well.
,or e8a"ple, 1 fo#nd that the concept of a 6national "entality6 was often referred to in
everyday speech, with attri&#ted 6personality6 characteristics, often inde8ed #sing the first
person pl#ral prono#n FweG.
3
Nespite reference to a national "entality which evo$es a static
and #nchanging personality or Fcollective egoG, it str#c$ "e that the concept of national
"entality was often #nderstood as &eing a historical fact, with references "ade to the effects
of different historical legacies <%odorova .--9?, s#ch as the A#stro2#ngarian and Mtto"an
e"pires. %his was #ns#rprising given the organisation of social and political life in the region
over the past cent#ry, so"e details of which 1 will now &riefly disc#ss.
Nationalisms during and after the !"#
5hilst the Social ,ederal (ep#&lic of L#goslavia <hereon S,(L? was antinationalist, it "ost
3
%he #se of the first person pl#ral &y no "eans always denoted a national gro#ping. 1n fact, one
interesting ethnographic strategy 1 p#rs#ed was following the i"plicit referents of first person
pl#rals.
certainly was not antinational. Nespite the leadership arg#ing against nationalis"s as a
political organising principle, they accepted national categories developed in earlier nation2
&#ilding atte"pts, reifying the e8istence of national categories s#ch as FSer&G and F)roatG. ,or
instance, the president Dosip 3ro: %ito stated that, Afor al"ost twenty years 1 have &een living
in 3elgrade, and a"ong the Ser&s, 1 feel as a Ser&, whereas in )roatia, 1 feel as a )roat. 1 a" a
L#goslav and it cannot &e otherwiseJ <Pta#&ringer, cited in ;odina 199O, p.Q1R?.
,#rther"ore, as the writer N#&rav$a UgreSiC o&served=
1f anything in for"er L#goslavia can really &e descri&ed as a&#ndantly stressed <rather than
repressed?, then it was fol$lore.
Q
,or so"e fifty years, the L#goslav peoples capered and
pranced, tripped and 7igged in their &rightly colo#red national cost#"es in vario#s for"ations
<of the songs and dances of the nations and nationalities of Yugoslavia?...ethnic identities
were forged &y sta"ping, s$ipping, whirling, twirling, choral singing, pipes, l#tes, har"onicas
and dr#"s <UgreSiC 1999, 131@.?.
1ndeed, a stress on fol$lore is present to this day in )entral 'astern '#ropean anthropological
traditions, which typically have at least one section of anthropology depart"ents co""itted to
ethnology and the st#dy of fol$ traditions and c#lt#re in the region. %his is often alongside
anthropological wor$ which draws "ore heavily on other traditions, partic#larly the Anglo2
A"erican tradition at present, and which is often "ore theoretical in foc#s. %he S,(L th#s
actively contin#ed in a process of constr#cting FethnicG identities, which had &eg#n in early
periods of nation2&#ilding, nota&ly in the late nineteenth cent#ry. %his was achieved thro#gh
the pro"otion of a "#ltic#lt#ral politics #nderpinned &y the socialist rhetoric of F&rotherhoodG
and #nity amongst the vario#s L#goslav FnationsG. 1n the 19/Q constit#tion, provision was
"ade for e8tensive decentralisation, a political "ove which lay the gro#nd for the recent
prod#ction of nationally defined states. %his view, far fro" &eing challenged over the past
twenty years after the S,(L ceased to e8ist, was reinforced &oth &y advocates of nationalist
political strategies in the post2L#goslav states, and international instit#tions s#ch as the 'U,
who accepted the accession of states &ased on an ethno2national definition of citi:enship and
pro"oted the "osaic logic <Mal$$i 199.? of a world of &o#nded c#lt#res happily coe8isting
<see TiUe$ 199/?. ;iven its widespread prevalence in &oth social anthropological traditions
and widely differing state conte8ts in which li&eral or Mar8ist ideas were circ#lating, it is also
worth loo$ing at so"e aspects of the history of the ter" in "ore depth.
Q
,ol$lore in )entral 'astern '#rope refers to traditional songs and dances and not fairytales. 1 "ade
this "ista$e whilst enth#siastically anticipating the fol$lore classes delivered as part of the
)roatian lang#age school 1 attended.
Culture in the Anglo$American anthropological tradition
%he ter" 6c#lt#re6, traced &ac$ to erder and Volk ro"anticis"
>
in K#perGs <1999? genealogy,
was first #sed in a distinctively anthropological sense &y <%yler *1O/10 cited in K#per 1999,
p.>R? to descri&e Athat co"ple8 whole which incl#des $nowledge, &elief, art, "orals, law,
c#sto", and any other capa&ilities and ha&its acI#ired &y "an as a "e"&er of societyJ. %his
contrasted with another i"portant #se of the ter" in the sense of 6high c#lt#re6, which 1 also
freI#ently ca"e across when cond#cting fieldwor$, phrased as kultura, to descri&e wor$s of
art, literat#re, fil" and so forth which were prod#ced and val#ed highly &y gro#ps of people.
1ndeed, the ad7ective kulturan also designated 6c#lt#redness6 #nderstood as politeness and
etiI#ette and is $ey to #nderstanding processes of distinction in the postL#goslav region.
Kultura "ay designate a s#&set of the anthropological #se of the ter" c#lt#re, &#t the
anthropological sense is "#ch wider and "ore holistic in definition. ,#rther"ore, the
presence of kultura does not necessarily pres#ppose the e8istence of Fc#lt#reG in %ylerGs sense9
collections of nota&le wor$s "ay &e referred to witho#t reference to %ylerGs sense of the ter"
c#lt#re, in the style of, for e8a"ple, 3o#rdie#Gs <19OR? analysis in Distinction.
%he anthropological sense which %yler #sed gained pop#lar c#rrency in Anglo2A"erican
social+c#lt#ral anthropology
R
via ,ran: 3oas. %his view entailed the &elief that=
'very people e8pressed thro#gh its c#lt#re a distinctive Volksgeist. %his was the approach that
,ran: 3oas &ro#ght fro" 3erlin to )ol#"&ia University at the t#rn of the cent#ry. %hro#gh
his infl#ence it &eca"e instit#tionalised in A"erican c#lt#ral anthropology, the do"inant
school in twentieth2cent#ry anthropology <K#per 1999, >39?.
3oasG e"&race of a c#lt#ralist approach too$ place in a conte8t in which Aryan race theory
was in the ascendant thro#gho#t '#rope, and his advocacy of c#lt#ralis" was an e8plicit
re7ection of what he viewed as a dangero#s &iological racis" <Sandall .---, >Q?. owever,
following the horri&le concl#sions of the Second 5orld 5ar, c#lt#ralist #nderstandings ca"e
to ass#"e increased i"portance in the artic#lation of nationalis"s given the #npop#larity of
>
,ro" hereon, when 1 refer to Volk ro"anticis", 1 a" referring to erder6s #nderstanding of
c#lt#res as &o#nded, organic, spirit#al wholes.
R
1t is typically referred to as social anthropology in the UK, in a tradition e"phasising the social
relation, and c#lt#ral anthropology in the USA, with a greater foc#s on the concepts of c#lt#re and
identity+difference. 1 #se the ter" Anglo2A"erican tradition as the A"erican foc#s on c#lt#re is
also pop#lar in the UK.
Aryan race theory at that ti"e, &oth in '#ropean acade"ic circles and pop#lar disco#rse.
K#per arg#ed that, &y foc#sing &roadly aro#nd the $ey ideas of 6c#lt#re6 and Fidentity6,
c#lt#ralist trends prod#ced a line of arg#"ent Athat fe*d0 readily into a c#rrent political
disco#rse that lin$s identity, c#lt#re and politics.J <K#per 199Q, >Q3?. %his trend &eca"e
"ainstrea"ed in later twentieth cent#ry USA and 5estern '#rope thro#gh the ideology of
"#ltic#lt#ralis".
K#per was not the only anthropological critic of the c#lt#re concept. %he concept was also
criticised fro" the political right in the discipline &y advocates of civil society, s#ch as the
A#stralian scholar Sandall who derided the Ac#lt#re c#ltJ <Sandall .---? in anthropology as
steeped in ;er"an ro"anticis". S#ch ro"anticis", according to Sandall, was &est
#nderstood as a reaction of inferiority to the glo&al Fs#ccessG <on his view? of Anglo2A"erican
li&eral econo"ics. %he anthropologist (apport, in advocating a Fpost2c#lt#ralG anthropology,
has also criticised the concept fro" a li&eral h#"anist position <A"it and (apport .--.?.
S#ch a position arg#es that the concept of c#lt#re is #nnecessarily collective, that this
collectivity generates an #nnecessary &#rden and "ay &e overco"e thro#gh recognising
others as individ#al h#"ans #n"ar$ed &y c#lt#ral &elonging. Mther anthropologists s#ch as
;#pta and ,erg#son "ade strides in the direction of F#prootingG the c#lt#re concept thro#gh
e8a"ining its relationship with #nderstandings of place in anthropological disco#rse=
%he inherently frag"ented space ass#"ed in the definition of anthropology as the st#dy of
c#lt#res <in the pl#ral? "ay have &een one of the reasons &ehind the long2standing fail#re to
write anthropology6s history as the &iography of i"perialis". ,or if one &egins with the
pre"ise that spaces have always &een hierarchically interconnected, instead of nat#rally
disconnected, then c#lt#ral and social change &eco"es not a "atter of c#lt#ral contact and
artic#lation &#t one of rethin$ing difference thro#gh connection <;#pta and ,erg#son 199.,
p.O?.
%hey as$ed= A5hat is 6the c#lt#re6 of far" wor$ers who spend half a year in Me8ico and half a
year in the United StatesVJ <i&id. = p./?. ;#pta W ,erg#son contin#ed to #se the concept, in a
sense si"ilar to the process#al definition e"ployed &y )lifford, who arg#ed that 6c#lt#re6
sho#ld &e retained Afor its differentiating f#nction while conceiving of collective identity as a
hy&rid, often discontin#o#s processJ <)lifford 19OO, 1-?.
1ndeed, despite relatively recent post"odern trends in Anglo2A"erican anthropology which
have layered several criticis"s against certain aspects of the (o"antic tradition, nota&ly
critiI#es of a#thenticity and of "etaphysical spec#lation as "anifest in Kantian 6things in
the"selves6, c#lt#re tal$ has contin#ed. Ass#"ing a depth or reality &eneath the world of
appearances was derided in post"odern circles as relying on "etaphysical ass#"ptions
/
.
Eevertheless, K#per arg#ed that c#lt#re tal$ persisted in a ro"anticisation of the 6co""#nity6
or 6ethnic6 voice, for=
%ho#gh lac$ing independent a#thority, and witho#t "a$ing clai"s to o&7ective insight, there
was a $ind of tr#th to which the ethnographer was nevertheless o&liged to &ear witness= the
natives had to &e given their #nedited say. %his prescription was 7#stified &y a political
arg#"ent against do"ination, and in favo#r of de"ocratic e8pression "ost e8plicitly, perhaps,
in Marc#s W ,ischer <19OR? <K#per 199Q, >Q.?.
Mn this #nderstanding, anthropologists in the Anglo2A"erican tradition often &eca"e
spo$espersons or cond#its for a partic#lar voice, or set of voices, which on "any occasions
had an 6ethnic6 connotation. %his view, na"ely that the social #niverse is "ade #p of a "osaic
of discrete yet cross2c#tting c#lt#res @ the 'nglish, the )roatian, the Ser&ian, and also the
6&lac$6 co""#nity, the 6les&ian6 co""#nity, the 6scientific co""#nity6 and so forth @
constit#tes a set of ass#"ptions which contin#e to for" the &asis of legiti"ation for &oth
nationalis"s and "#ltic#lt#ralis"s. 1ndeed, the e8pansion of s#ch Fc#lt#re tal$G increased in
intensity d#ring the postcolonial period which saw the opening of n#"ero#s )#lt#ral St#dies
depart"ents, especially in the USA and UK, in an era which &oth saw a political foc#s on
pro"oting, "anaging and Fcele&ratingG c#lt#ral difference and a "assive increase in econo"ic
differences &etween gro#ps, characterised &y Fglo&alisationG.
Nespite atte"pts to redefine and reconfig#re c#lt#re as a dyna"ic concept #lti"ately relating
to the prod#ction of difference, 1 arg#e that the erderian sense of an organic, perhaps
spirit#al whole contin#es to l#r$ in the &ac$gro#nd. 1n "y e8perience, anthropologists often
contin#e to refer to Fc#lt#resG they attri&#te to the FA"ericanG conte8t, the FSer&ianG conte8t
and so forth, rather than to Fc#lt#ral differenceG alone. )r#cially, referring to an FA"ericanG or
FSer&ianG conte8t potentially conflates state and nation, and freI#ently reifies a &o#nded
whole when that conte8t is #nderstood as c#lt#ral.
O
/
%his is $ey to Nerrida6s <199O? revision of Martin eidegger6s <19/O*19./0? e8istential pro7ect,
which he so#ght to p#rge of "etaphysics.
O
owever, 1 arg#e that reg#larities do occ#r &y virt#e of state and international policy which ta$e
FnationalG gro#pings as given, altho#gh the e8tent of these reg#larities "ay &e overstressed &y
state2&#ilders. 1 s#ggest then, that it "a$es sense to refer to a Ser&ian <state? conte8t, as the effects
of state policy shape peopleGs everyday interactions. %he ad7ective FSer&ianG here &eco"es a place
holder disting#ishing the na"e of the state fro" others, rather than having an FethnicG connotation.
5here reference to a state conte8t in "y opinion &eco"es pro&le"atic, is when it is invo$ed as a
Additionally, arg#"ents which "o&ilised Fc#lt#reG in order to e8plain social facts often, &#t
not always, downplayed the role of history as an e8planatory factor shaping social change.
Mary No#glas6 ahistorical str#ct#ralist approach in which she conceived c#lt#res as Fsets of
principles and val#es fo#nded in partic#lar instit#tional for"sG <.--3, p.13>/? is a pri"e
e8a"ple. %he lac$ of attention s#ch approaches paid to history was of partic#lar concern for
Mar8ist anthropologists, so"e of who" arg#ed vocifero#sly against the "ainstrea"ing of
c#lt#ralist trends in US anthropology <see ;regory .--/?. %he iss#e was well2stated &y
,a&ian <.--.?, who arg#ed that the #se of the present tense in ethnographic writing often
served to sit#ate the narratives of the co""#nities with which anthropologists engaged,
6o#tside6 of the history of the 5est. As ,a&ian descri&ed, Athe present tense Afree:esJ a society
at the ti"e of o&servation9 at worst, it contains ass#"ptions a&o#t the repetitiveness,
predicta&ility, and conservatis" of pri"itivesJ <i&id.= p.O1?.
Let anthropologists who chose to pay attention to the role of history in effecting social change
still often "ade c#lt#ralist ass#"ptions. '8a"ples incl#de dialectical Mar8ist or egelian
approaches where&y ethnic gro#pings or Fco""#nitiesG were #nderstood as snapshots of a
"oving FsocietyG at a point in ti"e. Miller6s disc#ssion of )oca2)ola in %rinidad, which
Earot:$y <199/, p.1-9? descri&ed as Fegel inspiredG, is one s#ch e8a"ple. Miller descri&ed
the local F%rinidadianG conte8t#alisations of glo&al capitalist for"s <Miller .--., p..>9?. %his
led Miller to a c#lt#ralist #nderstanding of capitalis" as a process of co"parative practices, in
which cons#"ption appears as a "#t#ally constit#tive process of c#lt#re and identity creation
<Earot:$y 199/, 1-O?. %his resonated with Appad#raiGs disc#ssion of the co""odity for" in
which he e8panded the definition of co""odity to enco"pass "any "ore e8changes
typically #nderstood as FgiftG e8change <Ma#ss .--1*19.30?. 1n so doing, he "oved away
fro" disc#ssion of val#e <sing#lar? to his concept of Fregi"es of val#eG, Awhich acco#nt for
the constant transcendence of c#lt#ral &o#ndaries &y the flow of co""odities, where c#lt#re
is #nderstood as a &o#nded and localised syste" of "eaningsJ <Appad#rai 19OO, 1>?. 1n other
words, c#lt#ralist ass#"ptions often persisted even in analyses which foc#sed on flows and
processes of "ove"ent across c#lt#ral &o#ndaries.
,inally, K#per has &een criticised &y so"e anthropologists fro" )entral 'astern '#rope s#ch
as 3#chows$i <.--Q? for painting a cr#de pict#re of the region as the geographical Fho"eG of
the Volk ro"anticis" that infl#enced Malinows$i and #lti"ately the 3oasian tradition.
Fnat#ral containerG in policy for"ation, for e8a"ple &y see$ing to pro"ote Fc#lt#ralG changes in
)roatian or Ser&ian society. 1 have ta$en ti"e to disentangle this conflation, as it is often #nclear in
the literat#re, which often refers to Fnation2statesG <hyphenated <sic??.
K#per6s "isconceptions "ay have arisen fro" his lac$ of $nowledge of a vernac#lar fro" the
region and li"ited awareness of social and political processes that "ight have res#lted in Volk
ro"anticis" having attractive I#alities for so"e people and anthropologists wor$ing in the
region <see Ea#"oviC 199O?. Let the do"inance of this ideology in the 3oasian tradition and
the &lind spot created &y that tradition in critiI#ing nationalis" is "ore diffic#lt to I#estion.
K#per has also &een criticised &y anthropologists in the Anglo2A"erican tradition who have
arg#ed for the contin#ing relevance of the c#lt#re2concept and of culturally relativist
approaches in the discipline, nota&ly &y Sahlins <1999?. owever, Sahlins contin#ed to wor$
inside a set of ass#"ptions @ na"ely that there e8ist FpeoplesG <i&id. = p.399? of the world,
against which K#per was arg#ing. 1n Sahlins6 defence of the c#lt#re concept, he attac$ed what
he referred to as a Mar8ist tendency, "ost cogently artic#lated in the te8t The Invention of
Tradition <o&s&aw" and (anger 199.?, and which drew an e8plicit connection &etween
processes of 6cele&rating6 c#lt#ral difference, where ti"eless c#lt#ral i"ages of different
societies were presented and displayed, and the increased e"phasis on co""ercialis" and
alongside other social changes #nder the conditions of econo"ic glo&alisation, where&y
6natives6 were reI#ired to repac$age and sell difference to to#rists.
Mne interesting aspect to this de&ate fro" the perspective of acade"ics sy"pathetic to Leftist
ideas is the fact that Mar8ist approaches have on the one hand offered a ro#te o#t of reifying
Fc#lt#reG as an analytic concept, and at the sa"e ti"e, were seen to re"ar$a&ly acco""odate
the idea in conte8ts in which r#ling elites "ade Mar8ist clai"s.
Marxism and culture: an aw%ward relation&
%o recap, so far 1 have arg#ed that the c#lt#re concept i"plicitly entails the 6ghost of erder69
the idea of the e8istence of organic c#lt#ral wholes, to which people 6&elong6, al&eit in a
variety of different ways. Additionally, 1 have noted that Mar8ist anthropologists, "ore
concerned with the co""on #nity of h#"an$ind <;regory .--/?, than with displaying
difference, and indeed contri&#ting to the prod#ction of new distinctions, wo#ld &e loathe to
foc#s on the ela&oration of c#lt#ral difference as an analytic strategy. Eevertheless, s#ch
writers have still often ass#"ed the e8istence of national c#lt#res, the o#tco"e of earlier
ela&orations of c#lt#ral difference on the part of nationalist scholars. %his potentially e8plains
the tacit acceptance of the e8istence of national c#lt#res, in states with Mar8ist govern"ent
and in which Mar8ist concepts were circ#lating. 1t echoes 3r#&a$er and )ooper6s o&servation
regarding the Soviet Union, where they arg#ed that=
Altho#gh antinationalist, and of co#rse &r#tally repressive in all $inds of ways, the Soviet
regi"e was anything &#t anti2national. ,ar fro" r#thlessly s#ppressing nationhood, the regi"e
went to #nprecedented lengths in instit#tionali:ing and codifying it. 1t carved #p Soviet
territory into "ore than fifty p#tatively a#tono"o#s national Xho"elands,X each X&elongingX
to a partic#lar ethno national gro#p9 and it assigned each citi:en an ethnic Xnationality,X which
was ascri&ed at &irth on the &asis of descent, registered in personal identity doc#"ents,
recorded in &#rea#cratic enco#nters, and #sed to control access to higher ed#cation and
e"ploy"entG <(. 3r#&a$er and )ooper .---, .>@R?.
As earlier "entioned, whilst antinationalism was pro"oted as an ideal in the S,(L, and
indeed, pro"inent "e"&ers of the co""#nist party s#ch as ,ran7o %#Y"an were criticised
for ta$ing a "ore nationalist approach in so"e of their writings, the fact that Mar8ist
approaches are not necessary antinational hints that there is a &lind spot in the Mar8ist
tradition s#rro#nding critiI#e of the c#lt#re concept, a fact which e8plains the "#ltic#lt#ralist
#nderstanding of the FpeoplesG of L#goslavia in a state conte8t "a$ing Mar8ist clai"s. %he
doc#"ented shift fro" socialist to Volk nationalist ideology as a political organising principle
on the part of so"e intellect#als d#ring and after the collapse of the S,(L <see )o#lson 1993
for the case of the Pra8is gro#p? is an e8a"ple of this. 1n short, Mar8ist approaches in
sociology and anthropology can &e ro#ghly divided into two ca"ps9 one which ass#"es the
e8istence of 6c#lt#res6 as an analytic and not si"ply ethnographic reality, and another which
does not.
For Culture
%he sociologist (ay"ond 5illia"s fa"o#sly advocated the concept of Awor$ing class
c#lt#reJ <5illia"s 19>/? which he disc#ssed, a"ongst others, in ter"s of a Fway of lifeG.
S#ch a definition co#ld provide an i"portant so#rce of solidarity a"ongst "e"&ers of the
wor$ing class. Mc;#igan <199.? entered the de&ate descri&ing hi"self as a Asy"pathetic
criticJ of what he ter"ed Ac#lt#ral pop#lis"J9 the tendency to ta$e the Fc#lt#reG, sy"&olic life
and practices of Fordinary peopleG serio#sly, with partic#lar reference to the 3ir"ingha"
school of c#lt#ral st#dies, ac$nowledging the origins of this in erderGs Volk ro"anticis"
<i&id. = p.1-?. 1n partic#lar, orthodo8 Mar8ist approaches which "ade &ase+s#perstr#ct#re
distinctions and then foc#sed on s#perstr#ct#re, #nderstanding c#lt#ral as part of
s#perstr#ct#re and the &ase as ca#sally prod#cing it, rather than the dialectic prod#ction of
&oth, were also prone to "a$e c#lt#ralist ass#"ptions, yet witho#t Fani"atingG c#lt#re as a
ca#sal agent.
Mne attraction to s#ch approaches perhaps lies in an #nderstanding of Fc#lt#reG as offering
partic#lar for"s of local solidarity in the face of a &o#rgeoisie pro"oting increasing
individ#ation. %his relates to the A"erican sociologist )alho#nGs fa"o#s arg#"ent with
3r#&a$er in which they de&ated precisely this point9 )alho#n ta$ing iss#e with proponents of
li&eral cos"opolitan arg#"ents. )alho#n <.--3, >3.? arg#ed that, Aan approach that starts
with individ#als and treats c#lt#re as contingent cannot do 7#stice to the legiti"ate clai"s
"ade on &ehalf of Fco""#nities,G and the reasons why Fthic$ attach"entsG to partic#lar
solidarities still "atter @ whether in the for"s of nations, ethnicities, local co""#nities, or
religions.A
3r#&a$er replied as follows=
Participants "ay well represent s#ch conflicts in gro#pist or even pri"ordialist ter"s. %hey
"ay well cast ethnic gro#ps, races, or nations as the protagonists @ the heroes and "artyrs @ of
s#ch str#ggles. %his is entirely #nderstanda&le, and doing so can provide an i"portant
reso#rce in social and political str#ggles. 3#t this does not "ean analysts sho#ld do the sa"e.
As a social process, reification is central to the practice of politici:ed ethnicity, as indeed to
other for"s of politics. (eifying gro#ps is what ethnopolitical entreprene#rs <li$e other
political entreprene#rs? are in the &#siness of doing. <3r#&a$er .--3, >>Q?
5hilst s#ch solidarities are e8perienced as very real &y participants, the I#estion is whether
sociologists and anthropologists o#ght to accept the categories of analysis s#&stantively, or
e8plore their everyday pervasiveness as a social fact to &e e8plained, e8ercising what (icoe#r
referred to as a 6her"ene#tics of s#spicion6 <(icoe#r .-->?. %he tacit acceptance &y so"e
Mar8ist theorists s#ch as the a&ove, of the e8istence of s#&stantive c#lt#ral totalities, whether
they are e8perienced as 6wor$ing class c#lt#re6 or in national or ethnic categories leads to their
deserving the na"e, c#lt#ral pop#lis", which Mc;#igan <199.? , as earlier "entioned,
ascri&ed to the".
Against Culture
1n his st#dy, Mc;#igan <199.? also descri&ed the wor$ of several Mar8ist writers who have
&een critical of the c#lt#ralist ass#"ptions inherent in the idea of Fc#lt#ral pop#lis"G. ,or
instance, he noted that for Lacla# W Mo#ffe, Apop#lis" is not inherent in the "ove"ent, nor
in the ideology, &#t in the artic#lation of Fnon2class contradictionsG into political disco#rses
originating in class contradictionsJ. <cited in Mc;#igan 199.. = pp.1>21R?. Mther
anthropologists writing in a Mar8ist tradition, s#ch as 5olf, have also &een highly critical of
the #se of ter"s s#ch as Fc#lt#reG, arg#ing as 3r#&a$er s#ggested in the a&ove I#ote, that the
ethnographic realities of c#lt#res and ethnicities need not, and indeed o#ght not &e reified &y
analysts. 5olf arg#ed that=
)oncepts li$e 6nation6, 6society6 and 6c#lt#re6 na"e &its and threaten to t#rn na"es into things.
Mnly &y #nderstanding these na"es as &#ndles of relationships, and &y placing the" &ac$ into
the field fro" which they were a&stracted, can we hope to avoid "isleading inferences and
increase o#r share of #nderstanding <5olf .-1-*19O.0, p.3?.
%he "ost fa"o#s Mar8ist acade"ic to challenge s#ch approaches however, is perhaps
o&s&aw"e and his fa"o#s concept of Finvented traditionsG <o&s&aw" and (anger 199.?.
,or o&s&aw"e, invented traditions refer to=
A set of practices, nor"ally governed &y overtly or tacitly accepted r#les and of a rit#al or
sy"&olic nat#re, which see$ to inc#lcate certain val#es and nor"s of &ehavio#r &y repetition,
which a#to"atically i"plies contin#ity with the past. <o&s&aw" and (anger 199., 1?
o&s&aw"e ta$es care to disting#ish traditions fro" c#sto"s, and ta$es iss#e with a
partic#larly static definition of tradition, targeted specifically at i"ages of rit#als, cere"onies,
activities and o&7ects which give the i"pression of changing little over ti"e, a pheno"enon
he arg#es constit#tes a sociological pro&le"= 2 in the conte8t of a rapidly changing "odern
world, why do "any people e8perience an apparent need to $eep certain things #nchanging
and invariantV 3oth 5olf and o&s&aw"e s#ggest that anthropologists and sociologists o#ght
not ta$e s#ch rit#als, cere"onies and traditions considered ti"eless at face val#e, &#t o#ght to
#nderstand the" as F&#ndles of relationshipsG in need of e8plaining, with a political "eaning
freI#ently Fcapt#redG in the acts of prod#cing rit#als as fictitio#sly ti"eless=
St#dents of peasant "ove"ents $now that a villageGs clai" to so"e co""on land or right &y
c#sto" fro" ti"e i""e"orial often e8presses not a historical fact, &#t the &alance of forces
in the constant str#ggle of village against lords or against other villages. <o&s&aw" and
(anger 199., .?
)ritics, and nota&ly Sahlins as earlier "entioned, have ta$en iss#e with the incessant placing
of a political "eaning on acts which they wo#ld si"ply accept as referring to aspects of a
c#lt#ral tradition, which do not always necessitate an instr#"entalist #nderstanding. As
Sahlins co""ented=
%his is perhaps the "ain criticis" of conte"porary c#lt#re2tal$= it is really instr#"ental, an
ideological s"o$escreen of "ore f#nda"ental interests, principally power and greed 2
practical f#nctions, nota &ene, that have the added pers#asive virt#es of &eing #niversal, self2
e8planatory and "orally reprehensi&le <Sahlins 1999, Q-3?.
"eclaiming 'tradition(
5hilst 1 disagree with SahlinGs defence of the "ain tenets of the Anglo2A"erican
anthropological tradition, 1 a" sy"pathetic to his criticis" of the politicisation o&s&aw"e
advocates, which "ay &e appropriate to so"e conte8ts &#t not others. %here is an e8tent to
which the a#thors tal$ past one another however, as SahlinGs #nderstanding of tradition is
"#ch "ore dyna"ic @ s#ggesting a carrying across9 a "ove"ent, than o&s&aw"eGs static
definition of tradition <which he contrasts with Fc#sto"sG?, which appears to &e sI#ared "ore
at proponents of nationalist i"ages, and "ore generally, arg#"ents that assign an a#thority to
instit#tions d#e to a perceived, long historical legacy9 an attri&#tion which fro" a dialectically
"aterialist perspective, falsely represents what is a dyna"ically changing social world
creating constant new possi&ilities.
%his dyna"is" is also e8pressed in the ety"ology of the word tradition, a ter" derived fro"
the Latin 6trans dare6, which literally "eans 6giving across6, which, &esides conveying a sense
of Fhanding so"ething downG, also connotes a process of "ove"ent and trans"ission.
9
1n
contrast, the ter" 6c#lt#re6, however, has a genealogy foc#sed "#ch "ore closely aro#nd
c#ltivation and hortic#lt#re, evo$ing organic "etaphors of growing and &reeding and eI#ally
of roots, which are clearly "#ch closer to the definitions of a <spirit#al? whole which e"erged
in the Volk (o"antic tradition, and which in t#rn, infl#enced the Anglo2A"erican
anthropological tradition via 3oas.
9
http=++o8forddictionaries.co"+definition+english+traditionVIZtradition *accessed on 1R+11+1.0
1 share SahlinsG enth#sias" for what he descri&ed as the inventiveness of tradition <i&id.=
p.Q-O?, in his &roader, "ore dyna"ic #se of the ter". %raditions prod#ce new and dyna"ic
perspectives on the world. Let there is a clear leap fro" the concept of tradition, which as
earlier "entioned, genealogically evo$es a sense of giving so"ething across, of trans"itting
so"ething, to that so"ething &eing the contin#ation of so"e $ind of organic, perhaps spirit#al
whole, or a FpeopleG.
1-
%he slippage in SahlinsG #sage here perhaps reflects the do"inance of
regi"es of private property and a partic#lar politics of difference in the USA which has forced
other traditions to have to for"#late their clai"s in a reified Fc#lt#ralistG "ode in order to have
a voice <see (ose&erry 199Q?.
As s#ch, 1 arg#e that it "a$es sense to tal$ a&o#t different traditions, and indeed different
anthropological traditions, as 1 have in this article. %he pro&le" rather lies in the reification of
social wholes on the &asis of these different traditions, and f#rther"ore the assertion of radical
c#lt#ral differences &etween s#ch reified do"ains, and associated c#lt#ral relativis". ,or in
foc#sing on difference, we contri&#te to its consolidation and f#rther prod#ction. 5hilst s#ch
an approach wo#ld clai" that any $ind of h#"anis" is in so"e sense a F5esternG c#lt#ral
perspective, one can eI#ally arg#e that the radical differences they pres#"e e8ist are 7#st as
deeply ca#ght #p in the history of the 5est, ta$ing their lead instead fro" Fc#lt#ralG strands of
Volk (o"anticis". %he reification of traditions as c#lt#re f#rther"ore creates a space for the
prod#ction of hierarchies &etween Fc#lt#resG and the deh#"anisation of c#lt#ral others
associated with war. 5hilst the de&ates s#rro#nding the c#lt#re concept are well2trodden, they
are worth ret#rning to on a reg#lar &asis, partic#larly in light of recent historical events in
'#rope and the contin#ed prevalence of the concept as i"portant in the lives of "any people
with who" we, as anthropologists and sociologists, contin#e to wor$, and atte"pt to
#nderstand.
)ibliography
A"it, Kered, and Eigel (apport. .--.. The Troule !ith "ommunity# $nthropological
%eflections on &ovement, Identity and "ollectivity. Pl#to Press.
Appad#rai, Ar7#n, ed. 19OO. The 'ocial (ife of Things# "ommodities in "ultural )erspective.
Eew 'd. )a"&ridge University Press.
3o#rdie#, Pierre. 19OR. Distinction# $ 'ocial "riti*ue of the +udgement of Taste. Eew 'd.
(o#tledge.
1-
Sahlins conflates the ter"s 6c#lt#re6 and 6tradition6 <Sahlins 1999, Q-3?, and appears to #nderstand
c#lt#re as traditions &elonging to 6peoples6 <i&id. = p.Q-.?.
3r#&a$er, (., and ,. )ooper. .---. A3eyond FidentityG.J Theory and society .9 <1?= 1@Q/.
3r#&a$er, (ogers. .--3. AEeither 1ndivid#alis" nor F;ro#pis"G.J Ethnicities 3 <Q?
<Nece"&er 1?= >>3 @>>/. doi=1-.11//+1QRO/9RO-3--3--Q--R.
3#chows$i, Michal. .--Q. Aierarchies of Knowledge in )entral2'astern '#ropean
Anthropology.J $nthropology of East Europe %evie! .. <.?= >@1Q.
)alho#n, ). .--3. A3elongingGin the cos"opolitan i"aginary.J ET,-I"ITIE'.(/-D/-. 3=
>31@>>..
)lifford, D. 19OO. The )redicament of "ulture# T!entieth.century Ethnography, (iterature and
$rt. ,irst ed. arvard University Press.
)o#lson, M. 1993. ALoo$ing &ehind the violent &rea$2#p of L#goslavia.J 0eminist %evie!
<Q>?= OR@1-1.
Nerrida, DacI#es. 199O. /f 1rammatology. %rans. ;ayatri )ha$ravorty Spiva$. )orrected ed.
%he Dohns op$ins University Press.
No#glas, Mary. .--3. A3eing ,air to ierarchists.J 2niversity of )ennsylvania (a! %evie!
1>1 <Q? <April 1?= 13Q9@13/-. doi=1-..3-/+331.933.
,a&ian, Dohannes. .--.. Time and the /ther# ,o! $nthropology &akes Its /3ect. Eew 'd.
)ol#"&ia University Press.
;odina, K.K. 199O. A%he o#t&rea$ of nationalis" on for"er L#goslav %erritory= a historical
perspective on the pro&le" of s#pranational identity.J -ations and -ationalism Q <3?=
Q-9@Q...
;regory, )hris. .--/. 'avage &oney. 1st ed. %aylor W ,rancis.
eidegger, Martin. 19/O. 4eing and Time. Eew 'd. 5iley23lac$well.
o&s&aw", 'ric, and %erence (anger, eds. 199.. The Invention of Tradition. )anto 'd.
)a"&ridge University Press.
K#per, Ada". 199Q. A)#lt#re, 1dentity and the Pro7ect of a )os"opolitan Anthropology.J
&an .9 <3?. Eew Series= >3/@>>Q. doi=1-..3-/+.O-Q3Q..
HHH. 1999. "ulture# The $nthropologists5 $ccount. arvard University Press.
Mal$$i, L. 199.. AEational geographic= the rooting of peoples and the territoriali:ation of
national identity a"ong scholars and ref#gees.J "ultural anthropology / <1?= .Q@QQ.
Marc#s, ;eorge '., and Michael M. D. ,ischer. 19OR. $nthropology as "ultural "riti*ue# $n
E6perimental &oment in the ,uman 'ciences. University of )hicago Press.
Ma#ss, Marcel. .--1. The 1ift 7%outledge "lassics8# 0orm and %eason for E6change in
$rchaic 'ocieties. .nd ed. (o#tledge.
Mc;#igan, Di", and Nr Di" Mcg#igan. 199.. "ultural )opulism. 1st ed. (o#tledge.
Miller, N. .--.. A)oca2)ola= a &lac$ sweet drin$ fro" %rinidad.J The material culture reader=
.Q>@.R>.
Earot:$y, S#sana. 199/. -e! Directions in Economic $nthropology. Pl#to Press.
Ea#"oviC, Slo&odan. 199O. A(o"anticists or No#&le 1nsidersV An 'ssay on the Mrigins of
1deologised Nisco#rses in 3al$an 'thnology.J Ethnologia alkanica .= 1-1@1.-.
Kan de Port, M. 1999. A1t ta$es a Ser& to $now a Ser&.J "riti*ue of $nthropology 19 <1?= /@
3-.
(icoe#r, P. .-->. The E)9 "onflict of Interpretations. )ontin##".
http=++www.google.co"+&oo$sV
hlZenWlrZWidZ$,A[odIgRNw)WoiZfndWpgZP(9WdIZricoe#r\her"ene#tics\of\s
#spicionWotsZQ,KMvDvSorWsigZ&as;[5s"Lw#P.heP%#"#s4#sL.
(ose&erry, 5illia". 199Q. Aege"ony and the Lang#age of )ontention.J 1n , 3>>@3RR.
Sahlins, Marshall. 1999. A%wo or %hree %hings that 1 Know a&o#t )#lt#re.J The +ournal of
the %oyal $nthropological Institute > <3?= 399@Q.1. doi=1-..3-/+.RR1./>.
Sandall, (oger. .---. The "ulture "ult# Designer Trialism /nd /ther Essays. Perse#s.
Si"iC, Marina. .--9. AF'8it to '#ropeG= state, travel, pop#lar "#sic and Fnor"al lifeG in a
Ser&ian townJ. Manchester= University of Manchester.
%odorova, Maria. .--9. Imagining the 4alkans. Updated ed. MUP USA.
UgreSiC, N#&rav$a. 1999. The "ulture /f (ies. Eew ed. Phoeni8.
5illia"s, (. 19>/. A5or$ing class c#lt#re.J 2niversities and (eft %evie! . <1?= 31@..
5olf, 'ric. .-1-. Europe and the )eople !ithout ,istory. .nd (evised ed. University of
)alifornia Press.
TiUe$, S. 199/. &ulticulturalism, or, the cultural logic of multinational capitalism. Eew Left
(eview.