10.AHU.30_187-195.

qxd 21/10/2005 6:29 Page 187

Anthropology Beyond Crisis: Toward an Intellectual

History of the Extended Present
MATTI BUNZL
Department of Anthropology
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
109 Davenport Hall
Urbana, IL 61801

SUMMARY This essay, presented in honor of Edward M. Bruner, offers a prelimi-

nary history of anthropology’s radical transformation in the last forty years. It identi-
fies the “crisis of anthropology” in the late 1960s as the pivotal moment in this
development and proceeds to recognize four domains—the epistemological, political,
textual, and disciplinary—as the defining sites of anthropology’s postmodern rearticu-
lation. [Keywords: crisis of anthropology, epistemology, politics, textuality,
disciplinarity]

Few academic disciplines have ever undergone the kind of conceptual

upheaval that has characterized the development of American anthropology in
the course of the last forty years.1 During that time, the field has changed its
shape almost completely. What was once a comparative and generalizing
inquiry into the world’s “primitive” peoples has become a historicizing and
particularized investigation conducted beyond the West/rest divide. In the
process, staunch empiricism gave way to theoretical reflection, positivism to
interpretivism, and the quest for objectivity to the demand for subjective
accounting. The result has brought a far-reaching categorical shift. Anthropology,
to some, is no longer a social science. It is part of the humanities.2
The career of Edward M. Bruner exemplifies this shift with paradigmatic
precision. Trained in the realist ethnographic mode of the 1950s, he fully aban-
doned that approach by the early 1980s when he emerged as a leading voice of
a group of anthropologists who “move[d] beyond the confines of the now-
familiar paradigms of structuralism and symbolic anthropology” by stressing
narrativity, experience, and play (Bruner 1984:1; cf. Turner and Bruner 1986).
The group, inspired by and loosely configured around Victor Turner, stood for
a self-consciously humanistic vision of anthropology, a program that was soon
echoed by the champions of “Writing Culture” and their quest for a poetics and
politics of ethnography (Clifford and Marcus 1986; cf. Marcus and Fischer
1986). The influence of these interventions can hardly be overstated. In the
twenty years since their original formulation, they have defined the conceptual
parameters of almost all anthropology.
This essay is a preliminary attempt at a critical history of anthropology’s
about-face. As such, it tries to uncover layers hidden by the texts of the 1980s.

Anthropology and Humanism, Vol. 30, Issue 2, pp 187–195, ISSN 0193-5615, electronic ISSN 1548-1409.
© 2005 by the American Anthropological Association. All rights reserved. Direct all requests for
permission to photocopy or reproduce article content through the University of California Press’s
Rights and Permissions website, http://www.ucpress.edu/journals/rights.htm.
10.AHU.30_187-195.qxd 21/10/2005 6:29 Page 188

188 Anthropology and Humanism Volume 30, Number 2

Like many paradigm-shifting contributions, that work tended to obfuscate its

own historicity. Born as it was in a “spirit of openness and freedom,” it seemed
characterized to its authors by radical newness (Bruner 1984:1). The “postmodern”
anthropology that emerged in the 1980s certainly was a decisive departure from
its “modern” precedent. But the historical trajectory was more continuous than
suggested by the rhetoric of revolutionary overthrow. Rather than emerging
wholesale in the 1980s, anthropology’s dominant paradigm came about
through a series of transformations whose impetus can be traced to the 1960s.
This does not render the contributions of the 1980s less important (let alone less
influential). But it does add a layer of historical complexity, one that seems espe-
cially relevant at a time when the postmodern paradigm is actively rethought
by scholars across the discipline (cf. Bashkow 2004; Bunzl 2004).
It is my argument in this article that the transformations in the recent history
of anthropology need to be understood as engendered by and a reaction to the
so-called “crisis of anthropology.” This crisis, which hit the discipline in the late
1960s, stood at the heart of profound reorientations in the profession—reorien-
tations that have, in the last forty years, shaped the anthropology of today.
Along these lines, I will identify and discuss four overlapping domains that
constitute a kind of typology of transformation. Those domains are epistemo-
logical, political, textual, and disciplinary. Taken together, they not only account
for the reconfiguration of anthropology in the last forty years but also pave the
way toward a more nuanced history of anthropology’s present. It is in this
sense that I will suggest a more precise periodization—a periodization that
locates anthropology’s epistemological and political reorientation in the early
1970s, while placing the textual and disciplinary transformations in the intel-
lectual context of the early 1980s.
In many ways, the crisis of anthropology was part and parcel of a general
reaction in the social sciences against various forms of positivism. As such, it
recalled such debates as sociology’s Positivismusstreit, which ignited transat-
lantic debates in the late 1960s (Adorno 1972). Beyond that, anthropology’s
malaise was exacerbated by the peculiar nature of the discipline’s project. In the
course of political decolonization, access to many traditional fieldwork sites had
become problematic—a situation brought into particularly sharp relief by the
presence of various liberation movements and their largely university-based
Western supporters. As the emancipatory wings of the student movement
demanded an end to U.S. involvements in colonial and postcolonial settings, a
seemingly disinterested anthropology appeared to be radically out of step with
the spirit of the age. The exposure of Project Camelot—the Department of
Defense’s promotion of counter-insurgency research in Latin America—and the
question of anthropologists’ involvement in the Vietnam War further under-
mined anthropology’s status quo (Horowitz 1967). Arguably, however, it was
the publication of Bronislaw Malinowski’s field diaries in 1967 that transformed
anthropology’s postcolonial predicament into a full-blown crisis. Malinowski’s
codification of fieldwork as the “ethnographer’s magic” had served as the
founding myth of a discipline whose pragmatic realities rested on the objectify-
ing possibilities of cultural relativism. In this context, the revelation of
Malinowski’s imperialist frustrations articulated forcefully with emerging con-
cerns about the intrinsically unequal relationships between anthropologists and
natives (Malinowski 1967; cf. Weaver 1973; Hoebel et al. 1982).
10.AHU.30_187-195.qxd 21/10/2005 6:29 Page 189

Bunzl Anthropology Beyond Crisis 189

Epistemologies and Politics

In the immediate wake of the crisis of anthropology, it was epistemology
and politics that took center stage in a discussion that was carried on in venues
ranging from the Anthropology Newsletter to such pathbreaking and radical
publications as Dell Hymes’ Reinventing Anthropology (1972a). In regard to the
epistemological redirection, such critics as Bob Scholte and Johannes Fabian
took the occasion of the crisis to reassert a disciplinary epistemology grounded
in a submerged continental tradition. Writing in the early 1970s under such
titles as “Toward a Reflexive and Critical Anthropology” and “Language,
History and Anthropology,” they forcefully critiqued anthropology’s posi-
tivism (Scholte 1972; Fabian 1971). Pointing to the absence of systematic reflec-
tions on the situational means of anthropological knowledge production, they
questioned the legitimization of the ethnographic project. In place of what they
came to regard as the fiction of detached objectivity, they demanded sincere
appraisals of fieldwork dynamics. As Scholte put it in his essay in Reinventing
Anthropology,

Anthropological activity is never only scientific. In addition, it is expressive or

symptomatic of a presupposed cultural world of which it is itself an integral part. As
anthropologists, we cannot simply take this Lebenswelt and its attendant scientific
traditions for granted. We must subject them to further reflexive understanding,
hermeneutic mediation, and philosophical critique. [Scholte 1972:431]

In the designs of Scholte and Fabian, these self-critical appraisals would free
anthropology from the straightjackets imposed by natural scientific methods,
rendering ethnography as a domain of intersubjective, and hence hermeneutic,
praxis. In this conception, anthropological knowledge ceased to be figured as
the result of experimental testing in the field, emerging instead as the situa-
tional result of interpretive and dialogic interactions. In Fabian’s words, “social
facts should be sought in a context of communicative interaction” (Fabian
1971:17).
Articulated in direct opposition to what they saw as the traditional, colo-
nially veiled objectification of anthropology’s Others, the anti-positivism of
Scholte and Fabian struck at the core of contemporary practices and assump-
tions. The immediate reaction in the profession was overwhelmingly negative.
Much like other radical critics of anthropology, Scholte and Fabian were ostra-
cized during the 1970s (e.g., Jarvie 1975). However, their insistence on a self-
critically hermeneutic quest for cultural understanding became axiomatic with
the arrival in the 1980s of the age of “partial truths” (Clifford 1986; c.f.
Crapanzano 1980; Dwyer 1982; Rosaldo 1980; Taussig 1980).
The trajectory was rather similar in regard to the political reorientation of
anthropology. There, too, the roots of the now dominant stance can be traced
readily to positions articulated in immediate response to the crisis of anthro-
pology. At the center of the relevant shift stood the reconceptualization of the
ethnographer’s position in relation to the colonial and postcolonial realities
underwriting much of ethnographic knowledge production. Before the crisis,
that relation was at once assumed and obscured. It was a situation famously
exemplified in the introduction of E. E. Evans-Pritchard’s The Nuer, which nar-
rated the anthropologist’s frustration with the Nuer’s ethnographic resistance,
10.AHU.30_187-195.qxd 21/10/2005 6:29 Page 190

190 Anthropology and Humanism Volume 30, Number 2

only to forgo mentioning that this resistance was triggered, in part at least, by
a colonial war the British were waging against the Nuer at the time Evans-
Pritchard was conducting his fieldwork (Evans-Pritchard 1940).
Such telling moments in anthropology’s colonial history aside, what the
crisis of anthropology triggered was a radical rethinking of the role of the
ethnographer in the colonial and postcolonial contest. While ostensible neu-
trality and sometimes even colonial collaboration were the assumed modes of
operation until the late 1960s, the crisis of anthropology posed the question of
ethics and politics in newly urgent terms. Reflecting widespread debates on
ethics and relevance, critics like Dell Hymes and Gerald Berreman demanded
in Reinventing Anthropology that anthropologists abandon the cloak of scien-
tificity to become advocates on behalf of the groups they worked with. In
rhetoric that resounded with the slogans of the student movement, these crit-
ics held that anthropologists’ failure to fight the inequities they encountered
rendered them complicit in their reproduction. As Hymes explicated in his
introduction to Reinventing Anthropology,
It has become generally recognized that information directly injurious [to the
communities under investigation] should not be provided, but there is a less
obvious, more profound obligation as well. It is to work toward ways in which the
knowledge one obtains can be helpful to those from whom it comes. Not to do so is
to be “neutral” on the side of the existing structure of domination. [Hymes 1972b:50]

In this conceptual context, anthropology’s political valence profoundly

shifted. While most earlier work had been guided by a relativist maxim of non-
intervention that made its political appeal through a liberal, enlightened cos-
mopolitanism, the new stance was much more radical in that it saw the role of
the anthropologist in explicitly activist terms. In this sense, Berreman called for
a “humane, responsible, and relevant science of man” (Berreman 1972:96)—
a sentiment echoed by Hymes:

I would hope to see the consensual ethos of anthropology move from a liberal
humanism, defending the powerless, to a socialist humanism, confronting the
powerful and seeking to transform the structure of power. [Hymes 1972b:52]

Much like in the case of anthropology’s epistemological shift, the

discipline’s political orientation was hotly contested in the course of the 1970s.
But while radical demands to transform anthropology into an applied science
on behalf of the disenfranchised never came to dominate the discipline,
mainstream anthropology did abandon the stance of liberal detachment in
favor of a systematically critical position. By the end of the twentieth century,
few anthropologists conceived of their role as that of a neutral observer. Quite
on the contrary, the dominant mode of analysis became “cultural critique”—a
mode that merged the interrogation of local and translocal power with a cele-
bration of various forms of resistance (Marcus and Fischer 1986; cf. Comaroff
1985; Comaroff and Comaroff 1991, 1997; Abu-Lughod 1986; Scott 1985, 1990).

Ethnographic Texts and Disciplinary Boundaries

While the intellectual roots of anthropology’s epistemological and political
reorientations can be located in the years immediately following the crisis of
10.AHU.30_187-195.qxd 21/10/2005 6:29 Page 191

Bunzl Anthropology Beyond Crisis 191

anthropology, the textual and disciplinary transformations date to the early

1980s—a moment when anthropology moved from internal debates over its
reinvention to wide-ranging reconsiderations of its standing in the larger field
of the human sciences. In regard to the textual dimension of anthropology’s
reorientation, it was the reception of Edward Said’s seminal study Orientalism,
along with its Foucauldian framework, that gave the shift its strongest impetus
(Said 1978). Itself the product of postcolonial theory-building, Orientalism’s
poststructurally inspired emphasis on the micro-politics of textual Othering
provided the analytic tool for the discursive reevaluation of a traditional
anthropology. While early critics had focused on the politics of ethnographic
knowledge production, a new generation of scholars—James Clifford, George
Marcus, and Renato Rosaldo most prominent among them—followed Said in
scrutinizing representations of cultural Otherness as a constitutive element of
analytic domination. Rosaldo, for example, famously analyzed the conditions
of Evans-Pritchard’s “ethnographic rhetoric” in The Nuer, concluding that its
narrative strategies were deployed in an “effort to suppress the interplay of
power and knowledge” (Rosaldo 1986:77, 97; cf. Boon 1982; Fabian 1983;
Clifford 1982, 1988).
It was in the wake of such damning assessments of ethnography’s rhetorical
motives that anthropologists began to conceive of new and radical ways for
“writing culture.” As the objectifying traces of a conventional anthropology
became more and more suspect, the discipline’s practitioners began to embrace
“text, play, and story” and to valorize “cultural poetics”—a style of ethno-
graphic writing that favored polyphonic voices, abhorred analytic and narra-
tive closure, and generally sought to displace ethnographic authority (Bruner
1984; Clifford 1986). Instead of a textual “ideology claiming transparency of
representation and immediacy of experience,” the “literary genre” of ethnog-
raphy was now seen as “properly experimental and ethical” with a “focus on
text making and rhetoric” that served to “highlight the constructed, artificial
nature of cultural accounts” (Clifford 1986:2). While earlier critiques of anthro-
pology’s epistemological and political orientation had left the discipline’s
textual dimension unexamined, the early 1980s thus witnessed the extension of
the critical project to the rhetorical plane. Hymes and other earlier critics had
demanded a total reform of anthropology’s practice; for the protagonists of
cultural poetics, this practice was visible, first and foremost, in the production
of ethnographic texts—a fact that rendered anthropology’s rhetorical devices
an ongoing site of interrogation and creative rearticulation (e.g., Fabian 1990,
1996; Herzfeld 1997; Steedly 1993; Steward 1996; Tsing 1993).
If the broader “Writing Culture”-movement of the mid-1980s radically
changed the way ethnographic texts were constructed, it was also instrumen-
tal in repositioning anthropology in the postmodern academy. Once more, the
continuities with such earlier critiques as Reinventing Anthropology are readily
discernible. In the introduction to the volume, Hymes had questioned the unity
of four-field anthropology, concluding that if anthropology were to be newly
invented, it would likely be in a different subdisciplinary configuration. Yet
this postdisciplinary rhetoric notwithstanding, Reinventing Anthropology ulti-
mately advanced an overtly disciplinary reorientation. For in Hymes’ analysis,
the crisis of anthropology could be transcended most effectively through
recourse to an explicitly Boasian framework—a framework that would renew
10.AHU.30_187-195.qxd 21/10/2005 6:29 Page 192

192 Anthropology and Humanism Volume 30, Number 2

anthropology in accordance with many of its classic postulates, the project of

“enlarging the moral community” foremost among them (Hymes 1972b:53).
While Reinventing Anthropology only intimated anthropology’s disciplinary
dissolution, the critical work of the 1980s effectively deconstructed the disci-
pline’s conceptual boundaries. Writing Culture was paradigmatic. Coedited by
the non-anthropologist James Clifford, the volume failed to invoke such ven-
erable anthropological ancestors as Boas. Quite on the contrary, such canonical
figures as Evans-Pritchard came in for relentless critique. At the same time, a
new transdisciplinary set of figures emerged as anthropology’s guideposts.
Writing in retrospect, Bruner mentions Mikhail Bakhtin, Roland Barthes,
Jacques Derrida, and Michel Foucault, all of whom figure prominently in
Writing Culture (Bruner 2005:9). Indeed, the first epigraph of Clifford’s intro-
duction to the volume mobilized Barthes to prepare this new conceptual
ground:

Interdisciplinary work, so much discussed these days, is not about confronting

already constituted disciplines (none of which, in fact, is willing to let itself go). To
do something interdisciplinary it’s not enough to choose a “subject” (a theme) and
gather around it two or three sciences. Interdisciplinarity consists in creating a new
object that belongs to no one. [Clifford 1986:1]

Through such transdisciplinary invocations, Writing Culture rather purpose-

fully dislodged its contribution from the anthropological canon—a notion
only reinforced by the absence of the word “anthropology” (or any of its
cognates) in the book’s title (which was subtitled “The Poetics and Politics of
Ethnography”).
This move was neither accidental nor without ramifications. While deeply
anthropological in concern, orientation, and commitment, Writing Culture was
also decisively post-anthropological. A self-conscious contribution to larger
debates in the emergent field of “Cultural Studies” (and its postdisciplinary
object “culture”), Writing Culture seemed to renew the discipline of anthropol-
ogy at the very moment of its effective transcendence. Having incorporated the
epistemological, political, and textual reorientations engendered by the crisis
of anthropology, the volume thus stood at the beginning of anthropology’s
transdisciplinary turn—a turn that reinvented the discipline through the delib-
erate erasure of what had come to be seen as its compromised history.
This move might have given Writing Culture the aura of originality that
eclipsed such earlier contributions as Reinventing Anthropology from the disci-
pline’s presentist view of its history. But as this essay has sought to document
by way of a typological approach, the ideas of Writing Culture as well as that of
other seminal interventions from the 1980s deeply resonated with (and grew
out of) the critical framework developed in immediate response to the crisis of
anthropology.
Finally, this typological approach might also serve as a contribution to
current debates in anthropology. While the postmodern paradigm continues to
shape the discipline through its influential elaborations (e.g., Appadurai 1996;
Gupta and Ferguson 1997a, 1997b), a set of critical positions has been emerging
as well (e.g., Bashkow 2004; Bunzl 2004). As these are articulated in conver-
sation with and response to the “Writing Culture” school, an appreciation
for the anatomy of its intellectual components can facilitate a more nuanced
10.AHU.30_187-195.qxd 21/10/2005 6:29 Page 193

Bunzl Anthropology Beyond Crisis 193

discussion. Such a discussion might well want to differentiate between those

aspects of postmodern anthropology pioneered in the immediate wake of
anthropology’s crisis and those that date to the 1980s. With the ongoing rele-
vance of anthropology’s ancestors coming into sharper view, this approach could
be a building block of anthropology’s post-postmodern redisciplinarization.

Notes
1. This essay only covers developments in sociocultural anthropology, the largest
subfield in the discipline’s American four-field configuration. Without going into any
details, it should be noted that the subdisciplines of physical anthropology and archaeol-
ogy have followed different trajectories, while developments in linguistic anthropology
have tended to parallel those in sociocultural anthropology.
2. My own career is a good example of this development. Trained in the mid-1990s
in the context of anthropology’s rapprochement with history and the emergence of cul-
tural studies, I always had a strong affinity for humanistic concerns. When I arrived at
the University of Illinois in 1998, the humanists on campus became some of my closest
colleagues, leading to numerous collaborations and interdisciplinary activities. These,
in turn, led to my 2003 appointment to the directorship of the Illinois Program for
Research in the Humanities, the university’s interdisciplinary humanities institute. That
an anthropologist should figure in such a role is telling evidence for the transformations
this essay seeks to chart.

References Cited
Abu-Lughod, Lila
1986 Veiled Sentiments: Honor and Poetry in a Bedouin Society. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Adorno, Theodor
1972 Der Positivismusstreit in der deutschen Soziologie. Neuwied: Luchterhand.
Appadurai, Arjun
1996 Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press.
Bashkow, Ira
2004 A Neo-Boasian Conception of Cultural Boundaries. American Anthropologist
106(3):443–458.
Berreman, Gerald
1972 “Bringing It All Back Home”: Malaise in Anthropology. In Reinventing
Anthropology, Dell Hymes, ed. Pp. 83–98. New York: Random House.
Boon, James
1982 Other Tribes, Other Scribes: Symbolic Anthropology in the Comparative Study
of Cultures, Histories, Religions, and Texts. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Bruner, Edward M.
2005 Culture on Tour: Ethnographies of Travel. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Bruner, Edward M., ed.
1984 Text, Play, and Story: The Construction and Reconstruction of Self and Society.
Prospect Heights, IL: Wavelength Press.
Bunzl, Matti
2004 Boas, Foucault, and the “Native Anthropologist”: Notes toward a Neo-Boasian
Anthropology. American Anthropologist 106(3):435–442.
Clifford, James
1982 Person and Myth: Maurice Leenhardt in the Melanesian World. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
10.AHU.30_187-195.qxd 21/10/2005 6:29 Page 194

194 Anthropology and Humanism Volume 30, Number 2

1986 Partial Truths. In Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography,
James Clifford and George Marcus, eds. Pp. 1–26. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
1988 The Predicament of Culture: Twentieth-Century Ethnography, Literature, and
Art. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Clifford, James, and George Marcus, eds.
1986 Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography. Berkeley: University
of California Press.
Comaroff, Jean
1985 Body of Power, Spirit of Resistance: The Culture and History of a South
African People. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Comaroff, Jean, and John Comaroff
1991 Of Revelation and Revolution: Christianity, Colonialism, and Consciousness in
South Africa. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
1997 Of Revelation and Revolution: The Dialectics of Modernity on a South African
Frontier. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Crapanzano, Vincent
1980 Tuhami: Portrait of a Moroccan. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Dwyer, Kevin
1982 Moroccan Dialogues: Anthropology in Question. Baltimore: The Johns
Hopkins University Press.
Evans-Pritchard, E. E.
1940 The Nuer. A Description of the Modes of Livelihood and Political Institutions
of a Nilotic People. New York: Oxford University Press.
Fabian, Johannes
1971 Language, History and Anthropology. Philosophy of the Social Sciences
1:19–47. Reprinted in idem., Time and the Work of Anthropology: Critical Essays,
1971–1991. Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishing, Pp. 3–30.
1983 Time and the Other: How Anthropology Makes Its Object. New York:
Columbia University Press.
1990 Power and Performance: Ethnographic Explorations through Proverbial
Wisdom and Theater in Shaba, Zaire. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
1996 Remembering the Present: Painting and Popular History in Zaire. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Gupta, Akhil, and James Ferguson, eds.
1997a Anthropological Locations: Boundaries and Grounds of a Field Science.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
1997b Culture, Power, Place: Explorations in Critical Anthropology. Durham: Duke
University Press.
Herzfeld, Michael
1997 Portrait of a Greek Imagination: An Ethnographic Biography of Andreas
Nenedakis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hoebel, Adamson, Richard Currier, and Susan Kaiser, eds.
1982 Crisis in Anthropology: View from Spring Hill, 1980. New York: Garland.
Horowitz, Irving
1967 The Rise and Fall of Project Camelot: Studies in the Relationship between
Social Science and Practical Politics. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Hymes, Dell, ed.
1972a Reinventing Anthropology. New York: Random House.
1972b The Uses of Anthropology: Critical, Political, Personal. In Reinventing
Anthropology, Dell Hymes, ed. Pp. 3–79. New York: Random House.
Jarvie, Ian
1975 Epistle to the Anthropologists. American Anthropologist 77(1975):253–265.
Malinowski, Bronislaw
1967 A Diary in the Strict Sense of the Term. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Marcus, George, and Michael Fischer
1986 Anthropology as Cultural Critique: An Experimental Moment in the Human
Sciences. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
10.AHU.30_187-195.qxd 21/10/2005 6:29 Page 195

Bunzl Anthropology Beyond Crisis 195

Rosaldo, Michelle
1980 Knowledge and Passion: Illongot Notions of Self and Social Life. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Rosaldo, Renato
1986 From the Door of His Tent: The Fieldworker and the Inquisitor. In Writing
Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography. James Clifford and George
Marcus, eds. Pp. 77–97. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Said, Edward
1978 Orientalism. New York: Vintage Books.
Scholte, Bob
1972 Toward a Reflexive and Critical Anthropology. In Reinventing Anthropology.
Dell Hymes, ed. Pp. 430–457. New York: Random House.
Scott, James
1985 Weapons of the Weak: Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance. New Haven:
Yale University Press.
1990 Domination and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts. New Haven: Yale
University Press.
Steedly, Mary Margaret
1993 Hanging Without a Rope: Narrative Experience in Colonial and Postcolonial
Karoland. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Steward, Kathleen
1996 A Space on the Side of the Road: Cultural Poetics in an “Other” America.
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Taussig, Michael
1980 The Devil and Commodity Fetishism in South America. Chapel Hill:
University of North Carolina Press.
Tsing, Anna Lowenhaupt
1993 In the Realm of the Diamond Queen: Marginality in an Out-of-the-Way Place.
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Turner, Victor W., and Edward M. Bruner, eds.
1986 The Anthropology of Experience. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Weaver, Thomas, ed.
1973 To See Ourselves: Anthropology and Modern Social Issues. Glenview: Scott,
Foresman and Company.