What Kind of Political Anthropology?
Bjørn Thomassen1
Anthropology and the political: what happened to politics?
I cannot help but start this reflection with a paradox. I do not present it in order to solve it,
but simply because any debate of what political anthropology is (or should be) today ought
to relate to it. The paradox is simple: anthropology has become increasingly political, even
politicized, exactly in the same period as the established subcategory of the discipline,
political anthropology, has faded away, and exactly as many works carried out under this
category were either deconstructed or pushed into oblivion – mostly the latter.
The term “political anthropology” was one of those sub-disciplinary categories
produced by post-war “classical anthropology”, and accordingly inspired by the major postwar
–isms; functionalism, structuralism and Marxism. The demise of these narratives led to
the momentary retreat of “political anthropology” in the early 1980s. And yet, from exactly
the same moment, anthropology experienced a return to politics via post-structuralism. The
shift in the social and political sciences toward an understanding of power outside and
beyond state and sovereignty, replaced by a focus on representation and symbolic power,
prepared the way for what may even be recognized as an “anthropological turn” in politics.
This development has changed the language we use when speaking about politics, as
it altered and clearly widened meanings of the “political” in the first place. In terms of
terminology, the tendency since the late 1980s has been to put “politics of … ” in front of
every single anthropological theme. There is a “politics of” gender, race, identity,
reproduction, citizenship, genes, space and place, state, storytelling, globalization, to name
just the more conspicuous ones. This almost ubiquitous “politics of” indicates that the world
as such has become politicized, including of course “culture” itself. This so-called “politics
of culture” was not invented by anthropologists, but evidently results from larger societal
transformations, much beyond what can possibly be discussed here.
This state of affairs makes it virtually impossible to interrogate the what, how, why and
where of current political anthropology: one is immediately thrown into the impossible task of
reviewing not only the entire discipline of anthropology, but also the many interfaces
between anthropology and the social and political sciences in a world of blurry boundaries.
Risking an unfair generalization (itself a strategy of power), it is however possible to identify
today’s “politics of” anthropology in terms of approach or maybe even “world-view”. To
invoke a “politics of” very often relates to an explicit or implicit use of discourse analysis, a
thematic focus on discursive power and discursive practices by means of which concrete
phenomena are unmasked and heavily criticized. This very often involves a critical stance
towards centralized or institutionalized forms of power and modes of representation from
the vantage point of peripheries. Edward Said’s or Michel Foucault’s writings from the 1970s
are often referred to here, together with a range of post-structuralist social theorists from
outside the discipline of anthropology. In so many ways, contemporary “politics of”
anthropology is a marriage between critical theory approaches and postmodern,
“Foucaldian” emphases on power and representation, held together by the bottom-up
approaches that have always defined anthropology. Much “politics of” anthropology
International Political Anthropology Vol. 1 (2008) No. 2
264
simultaneously draws on older (Leftist) vocabularies of repression as well as resistance and
newer ones that stress strategies of representation, local agency and diversity.
One of the visible effects of this development is that while everything has become
political, some of the earlier, more definable political themes have been pushed into the
background – and so the anthropologists who established those themes as nodes of debate.
The delimitation of “politics” was of course never an easy task. Indeed, one of the main
insights provided by political anthropologists was always that the “political” cannot be so
neatly separated, as the political sphere intersects with social and cultural patterns and
practices. This was especially true in societies where an institutional differentiation within the
political realm had simply not taken place. However, anthropologists have been successful in
pointing out that even in modern states a great deal of “politics” takes place via informal
networks and informal institutions, underpinning or overlapping with the more objectifiable
ones that political scientists concentrate on. Here, anthropology has undeniably provided a
supplement to, and an enriching of, the wider social and political sciences. Nonetheless, this
insight never prevented post-war political anthropologists from converging around a series
of key questions that guided empirical analysis and gave orientation to the theoretical
debates. Very broadly, these debates were oriented towards comparative studies of forms of
political organization, types of political leadership, and ways of dealing with conflict and cooperation
in the absence of formal institutions.
Which then, one may ask, are today’s key questions? This is not an easy question to
answer, and any answer given will depend heavily on one’s perspective. The most recent
work that attempts a survey of contemporary political anthropology is the “Companion to
the anthropology of politics”, published in 2004 (edited by David Nugent and Joan Vincent).
The reader contains the following 28 chapters:
Affective States, After Socialism, AIDS, Citizenship,
Cosmopolitanism, Development, Displacement, Feminism,
Gender, Race and Class, Genetic Citizenship, The Global City,
Globalization, Governing States, Hegemony, Human Rights,
Identity, Imagining Nations, Infrapolitics, Mafias, Militarization,
Neoliberalism, Popular Justice, Postcolonialism, Power
Topographies, Race Technologies, Sovereignty, Transnational Civil
Society, Transnationality.
Editors always have to make hard choices, but the selection of representative themes
defining political anthropology today is hardly random, and does indeed reflect a trend. “The
Companion” no doubt makes an excellent reading, yet one can easily list 28 other themes
that do result strikingly absent:
Alliances, Bureaucracy, Caste, Civilization, Clan, Crime,
Crisis, Democracy, Elections, Elites, Hierarchy, Law,
Leadership, Mimesis (or Mimetic Crisis), Modernity, Myth,
Kingship, Patron-Client Relations, Punishment,
Resistance, Segmentation, Poverty, Religion and Politics,
Revolutions, Ritual Politics, Tribal Politics, Violence, War.
In other words, the most salient themes and ideas of political anthropology as it developed
throughout the 20th
century are somehow gone with the wind. Of course, sometimes older
Bjørn Thomassen What Kind of Political Anthropology?
265
terms are brought into new concerns and thematic fields that have simply been conceptually
redefined (“war” becomes “militarization”). But most often they are simply abandoned, left
behind as a relic of the past, in what seems like a rare and exceptionally clean paradigm shift.
E.E. Evans-Pritchard, Edmund Leach, Georges Balandier, Victor Turner or Max Gluckman
are barely quoted (let alone discussed) in a 500-page companion to political anthropology.2
The nature of this change can be readily witnessed by comparing the indices of textbooks in
political anthropology written in the 1960s with the more recent ones (Schwartz, Turner and
Tuden, 1966; Balandier, 1967; Gledhill, 1994; Vincent, 1990; 2002; Lewellen, 2003; Jörke,
2005). Speaking in general terms, anthropology from the 1980s ritually posited itself in
contrast to “classical anthropology”; almost every single article published in the 1980s and
1990s started out by somehow denouncing the “classical tradition”, clearing the ground for a
“new”, more (self)-critical and reflexive approach. While this may have been necessary, it
has, as far as I can see, had some less fortunate consequences. One can only hope that this
journal, International Political Anthropology, may also become a forum for discussing exactly this
development. Let me continue with just a few preliminary remarks in this direction.
Anthropology and politics, the beginnings
Against the background of the development sketched out above, one must carefully strike a
balance: that of recognizing any real gains achieved by the reflexive turn of the 1980s and the
still dominant focus on representation, while not throwing away what preceded it. In fact,
there might even be compelling reasons for a return to the “classics”, exactly due to problems
of the contemporary political scene, whose underlying challenges or even dangers may in
fact be not so new after all. I do not think that an insistence on the term “political
anthropology”, as indicated by the name of this Journal, can or should imply a call to arms
around either new or old paradigms, and I certainly do not think that any attempt to
territorially identify or demarcate what the political is or should be about is either possible or
desirable. At the same time, “political anthropology” is not a new term. The history and
meanings the term carries require respect and consideration.
To a certain extent anthropology was of course always about politics. The very first
anthropologists, from Henry Maine, Lewis Henry Morgan, and Edward Tylor, had a direct
or indirect relationship to law. Many, like Morgan and John McLennan, were in fact lawyers,
and early disciplinary debate was closely related to legal discourse. In this sense,
anthropology was critically rooted in legal discourse to much the same extent as sociology,
whose founding fathers also held law degrees. The 19th
century discussion over the “original
society” being male or female was couched in legal terms, as clearly reflected in Johann
Jacob Bachofen’s Das Mutterrecht (1861). Anthropological focus on politics was naturally
inclined towards establishing a typology of political forms, ranging them from their simplest
to their most complex forms. Early evolutionism sought to establish the evolutionary ladder
by which societies had developed from bands to tribes toward more complex political
arrangements in chiefdoms and finally states. Although these attempts often failed, and
although the underlying epistemology of early evolutionism has rightly been deconstructed
as deeply flawed, the question concerning succession and change of political forms has never
been entirely abandoned, nor should it (see Fried, 1969; Kurtz, 2001). The links between
cultural/social anthropology and archaeology or paleoanthropology, and a continued interest
in bio-cultural evolution, have been more salient in American compared to European
anthropology.
International Political Anthropology Vol. 1 (2008) No. 2
266
Bronislaw Malinowski and Franz Boas, who established the fieldwork tradition, are
not always considered founding figures in our standard genealogies of political anthropology,
yet both of them paid great attention to political organization in their ethnographies, as did
practically all their students. In Crime and Custom in Savage Society, Malinowski (1970 [1926])
continued the “legal approach”, but sought to analyze law, order, crime and punishment
with the help of more solid ethnographic data. Moreover, and this should not be forgotten,
both Boas and Malinowski engaged in political themes and discussions outside their primary
ethnographic areas of research. Boas used very consciously a comparative anthropological
perspective to reflect on political questions like race, nationalism, eugenics and criminology
in the West, as in his “Anthropology and Modern Life” (1962 [1928]). In many ways, this
was an early “critical” and “reflexive” political anthropology.
Alfred R. Radcliffe-Brown is more often referred to as a forefather of political
anthropology. His structural functionalism, developed in the pre-war period, was more
clearly “political”, as single institutions were always analyzed against the larger social order
that they were seen to uphold, and this was to become the theoretical background to British
political anthropology. In 1927 Robert Lowie had published The Origin of the State (1962),
trying to liberate the “anthropology of the state” from unilineal, speculative evolutionism.
These are some reasons why Georges Balandier (1967) claimed that the foundations of
political anthropology were actually laid in the 1920s. This claim can be substantiated by
referring to the work of Marcel Mauss, who in the interwar period did in fact seek to
establish new foundations for anthropology and sociology. I shall return to this below.
Political anthropology developed as a recognizable, well-defined branch of
anthropology only in the 1940s and 1950s, as it became a main focus of the British
functionalist schools, heavily inspired by Radcliffe-Brown, and openly reacting against
evolutionism and historicism. The approach was empirical, with the main bulk of work
carried out in colonial Africa. The British structural-functionalist school was institutionalized
with African Political Systems, edited by Meyer Fortes and E.E. Evans Pritchard (1940). A
similar degree of institutionalization of a distinctive political anthropology never took place
in post-war America, partly due to the Parsonian (di)vision of the sciences, which artificially
relegated anthropology to the sphere of culture and symbolism.
The very strong stress on social equilibrium, which was so evident in EvansPritchard’s
approach, was quickly questioned in a series of works that focused more on
conflict and change (Leach, 1954). These works attempted to show how individuals acted
within political structures, and that changes took place both due to internal and external
pressures. Contradictions and conflict came to the fore. A special version of conflict
oriented political anthropology was developed in the so-called “Manchester school”, started
by Max Gluckman (1963). Gluckman focused on social process and an analysis of structures
and systems based on their relative stability. In his view, conflict maintained the stability of
political systems through the establishment and re-establishment of crosscutting ties among
social actors. Gluckman even suggested that a certain degree of conflict was necessary to
uphold society, and that conflict was constitutive of social and political order.
From the 1960s a “process approach” developed, stressing the role of agents (Barth,
1959; Bailey, 1969; Vincent, 1978). It was a meaningful development as anthropologists
started to work in situations where the colonial system was being dismantled. The focus on
conflict and social reproduction was carried over into Marxist approaches that became
particularly dominant in the 1960s and 1970s (Asad, 1973; Friedman, 1975; Schneider and
Schneider, 1976; Bourdieu, 1977).
Bjørn Thomassen What Kind of Political Anthropology?
267
From stateless anthropology to an anthropology in and of the state
While for nearly a century (1860 to 1960 roughly) political anthropology was concerned
primarily with politics in stateless societies, a new development started from the 1960s, and
is still unfolding: anthropologists increasingly started to study more “complex” social settings
in which the presence of states, bureaucracies and markets became more visible in
ethnographic accounts. This was not an unexpected development or the result of any sudden
discovery of contextuality. From the 1940s and 1950s anthropologists who studied peasant
societies in Latin America and Asia had increasingly started to incorporate their local setting
(the village) into its larger context, as in Robert Redfield’s famous distinction between
“small” and “big” traditions, developed in the 1930s (Redfield, 1941). The 1960s and 1970s
also witnessed the emergence of Europe as a category of anthropological investigation. This
turn toward the study of complex societies made anthropology inherently more political. It
was no longer possible to carry out fieldwork in say, Spain, Greece, Italy, Mexico, Algeria, or
India without taking into account the way in which all aspects of local society were tied to
states and markets. It is true that early ethnographies in Europe had sometimes done just
that; they had carried out fieldwork in villages of Southern Europe, as if they were isolated
units or “islands”. However, from the 1970s that tendency was openly criticized:
anthropologists had “tribalized Europe” and if they wanted to produce relevant ethnography
they could no longer afford to do so (Boissevain and Friedl, 1975). Contrary to what is often
heard from colleagues in the political and social sciences, anthropologists have for more than
half a century been careful to link their ethnographic focus to wider social, economic and
political structures. This, of course, does not mean to abandon an ethnographic focus on
very local phenomena, the care for detail.
In a more direct way, the turn towards complex societies also signified that political
themes were increasingly taken up as the main focus of study, and at two main levels. First
of all, anthropologists continued to study political organization and political phenomena that
lay outside the state-regulated sphere (as in patron-client relations or tribal political
organization). Second, they started to slowly develop a disciplinary concern with states and
their institutions (and of course with the relationship between formal and informal political
institutions). An anthropology of the state unfolded, and it is a most thriving field today.
Clifford Geertz’ work on the Bali state is an early, famous example (Geertz, 1980). There is
today a rich canon of anthropological studies of the state (see for example Abèlés, 1990;
Trouillot, 2001; Hansen and Stepputat, 2002; Sharma and Gupta, 2006).3
From the 1980s onwards there has been an increasing focus on ethnicity and
nationalism and ethnic-national conflict developed (Hylland Eriksen, 2002; Heidemann,
2002; Bowman, 2003). “Identity” and “identity politics” became defining themes of the
discipline, partly replacing earlier the focus on kinship and social organization. This of
course made anthropology even more obviously political, as both ethnicity and nationalism
can be understood as the political organization of cultural difference. The interest in
cultural/political identity construction also went beyond the nation-state dimension.
Increasingly, anthropological fieldwork is today carried out inside bureaucratic structures or
in companies. By now, several ethnographies have been carried out in the international
organizations (like the European Union) studying the fonctionnaires as a cultural group with
special codes of conduct, dressing, interaction etc. (Abélès, 1992; Wright, 1994; Bellier, 1995;
Zabusky, 1995; MacDonald, 1996; Rhodes, ‘t Hart, and Noordegraaf, 2007). And
International Political Anthropology Vol. 1 (2008) No. 2
268
bureaucracy can in fact be studied by living in it – it is far from the rational system we and
the practitioners like to think, as Max Weber himself had indeed pointed out long ago
(Weber, 2002; Herzfeld, 1992; Gellner and Hirsch, 2001).4
In a broader vein this relates to
the symbolic and ritualistic dimension of politics, for long a core theme in political
anthropology (Cohen, 1969; Kertzer, 1988; Rivière, 1988; Bodnar, 1994)
The concern with political institutions has also reinforced a focus on institutionally
driven political agency. There is now an anthropology of policy making (Yanow, 1996; Shore
and Wright, 1997). This focus has been most evident in “development anthropology” or the
anthropology of development, which over the last decades has established itself as one of
the discipline’s largest subfields. Political actors like states, governmental institutions, NGOs,
International Organizations or business corporations are the primary subjects of analysis
here. In their ethnographic work anthropologists have cast a critical eye on discourses and
practices produced by institutional agents of development in their encounter with local
culture (see for example Ferguson, 1994). Development anthropology obviously ties political
anthropology to political economy as it concerns the management and redistribution of both
ideational and real resources (see for example Hart, 1984). In this vein, Arturo Escobar
(1995) famously argued that international development largely helped to reproduce the
former colonial power structures.
Over the last two decades many other themes have been opened up. Taken together
they are making anthropology increasingly political: post-colonialism, post-communism,
gender, multiculturalism, migration, not to forget the umbrella term of globalization. It thus
makes sense to say that while anthropology was always to some extent about politics, this is
even more evidently the case today. And that is one reason why a journal dedicated to
political anthropology just had to be established.
Alternative genealogies?
Where does all this leave us? The sketchy history of political anthropology provided above
has purposely stressed continuity. When launching a journal of political anthropology, one
necessarily builds upon a long disciplinary history, which involves the most prominent
figures of the entire field. This relates even to “classical” thematic concerns that may indeed
not be so outdated after all. Patron-client politics, tribalization, segmentation, the rise of new
political leadership figures, violence and wars more or less define the world in which we live.
The comparative study of patron-client relations should still be considered a crucial
contribution to the study of politics in many settings. It is simply not possible to reach even
a rudimentary understanding of politics in settings like Sicily, Beirut or Lima by relying on
formalistic models tied to institutional frameworks. It is not how it functions; it is not how
people vote and it is not how political actors create alliances. So why should we stop talking
about it? Let me provide concrete evidence to indicate the paradox: readers in political
anthropology written after 1990 barely talk about “tribe” any longer – and if they do, it will
be mostly to show how “tribe” was discursively created by anthropologists and colonialists.
In the meantime, readers in political or social theory have started to incorporate this concept
(see for example the Routledge Encyclopedia of Social Theory, 2006). This is evidently
because tribal organization is well and alive, however “constructed”, and one could even
argue that new forms of tribal organization are becoming increasingly dominant in parts of
the world – and not only in war-torn Afghanistan and Iraq.
Bjørn Thomassen What Kind of Political Anthropology?
269
The almost wholesale dismissal of “classical anthropology” has, as far as I can see,
had another consequence which critically has to do with the “role” of (political)
anthropology: the contribution of anthropology to the larger social and political sciences has
been largely confined to a question of methodology. Anthropologists can say something else,
simply because we do fieldwork, because we see things “from a different perspective”. This
role is often forced upon anthropologists as straightjackets from colleagues in neighbouring
disciplines, but more often than not it is also a self-ascription. We are anthropologists
because we talk to normal people, not because we come from a discipline with a different
history of theoretical development. It is again true that a “thick description” or a “deep
immersion” approach has positively identified the discipline within the larger social sciences
(and increasingly so as we started to study the same “complex” societies). But why
completely abandon important conceptual and theoretical developments that did take place
within (political) anthropology?
Whereas we are quick to search for hidden treasures among literary critics and social
theorists we have been somewhat slower to search in our own backyard. And while we have
been sharp in our critique of disciplinary forefathers, we have given much less credit to
exactly those figures who recognized the limits of the functionalist-structuralist-Marxist
paradigms, much before post-modernism or post-structuralism were invented. There are
indeed good reasons to question the works of Radcliffe-Brown and Malinowski; but this was
realized by figures like Victor Turner and Gregory Bateson some fifty to sixty years ago.
This lack of attention to a wealth of non-mainstream anthropologists is all the more
striking given the fact that ideas produced by anthropologists are increasingly starting to
circulate among social and political scientists, with surprisingly little effect on the discipline
of anthropology itself. One can invoke four salient (but far from exhaustive) examples.
While Victor Turner’s mature work has only recently been included in a reader of political
anthropology (Vincent, 2002) political scientists and sociologists over the last ten years have
come to recognize the applicability of Turner’s liminality concept to the analysis of social
thought and political change (Bauman, 1995; Eisenstadt, 1995; Szakolczai, 1998; 2000).
While anthropologists (especially in France) hardly consider René Girard one of “theirs”,
scholars from other disciplines are now engaged in a systematic application of his ideas in
their analysis of religion, politics and violence (Scubla, 1982; Schwager, 2000; Fleming, 2004;
Farneti, 2000; Palaver, 2008; Wydra, 2008). While Gregory Bateson is a popular, albeit
somewhat ambiguous figure, among anthropologists, he is rarely if ever discussed in political
anthropology, and this despite the fact that perhaps Bateson’s central concept,
schismogenesis, was developed with a view to the understanding of both personality
disorders and political crises. And, as a final example, while Marcel Mauss is indeed
considered a classic, anthropologists have rarely considered the evident political dimensions
of his work, let alone Mauss’ political engagement. Yet, the now globally influential antiutilitarian
movement builds its entire political theory on The Gift. And for Mauss The Gift was
just that: a political theory.
As the exclusion of Marcel Mauss in any standard account of political anthropology
is in itself a startling fact, let me finally invoke his example to stress a more general concern.
Marcel Mauss is routinely placed in a Durkheim/Mauss/Lévi-Strauss “French school” of
anthropology. While it is evidently true that Mauss started out as a pupil of Durkheim, and
while it is just as true that Lévi-Strauss took inspiration from Mauss, his teacher, this
standard account of a Durkheim/Mauss/Lévi-Strauss trilogy simply misses the whole point,
as it encapsulates Marcel Mauss in exactly the two –isms that his approach cannot be reduced
International Political Anthropology Vol. 1 (2008) No. 2
270
to: functionalism and structuralism. There are two ends to the story. First, Mauss never
confronted Durkheim openly, not even after his uncle’s death. Yet he very clearly sought to
provide anthropology and sociology with a completely new foundation, as clearly stated in
the last chapter of The Gift. Mauss is still today rendered as a very talented Durkheimian,
although his mature anthropology/sociology was a clear attempt to establish foundations
outside a Durkheimian framework. This foundation, however, has nothing to do with LéviStrauss’s
structuralism, which decoded Marcel Mauss and re-inserted the gift-giving principle
in a formalistic model of exchange and communication. This was not only a reinsertion of
Mauss’s work into another type of reductionist stance that leaves little space for historical
individuals; it was also a reinsertion of Mauss’s thoughts into exactly that neo-Kantian type
of formal theorizing that Mauss so carefully had liberated himself from.
In his interpretation, Lévi-Strauss also filtered away the most evident political aspects
of Mauss’ works. In today’s standard reception of Mauss, it is well-known that he was
inspired by Socialism, but the substance of his political-economic analysis has largely been
lost.5
While Mauss in his early years was much focused on “archaic” religions, and never
abandoned an interest in religion, his mature scholarship, as it developed after Durkheim’s
death and the end of World War I, was clearly oriented towards a comparative analysis of
economic and political systems. The essay on the Gift was indeed only a part of Mauss’ larger
engagement with monetary capitalism (and Mauss was not a “utopian socialist” who saw the
gift-giving principle as a romantic counter-principle to capitalist market economy; see Hart,
2007b). Mauss also started work on nations and nationalism (Mauss, 1969 [1920]). And
finally, Mauss wrote extensively about socialism, both from an academic and politically
engaged perspective – a distinction that probably would have made little sense to Mauss
himself. Mauss never for a second thought that markets could or should be replaced with
Communist states, and made this clear in his account of Russian communism. It is indicative
that Mauss’s important, path-breaking analysis of the Bolshevik Revolution (Mauss, in Gane
1992, Ch. 7) has received so relatively little attention by political anthropologists, even within
the very rich post-Communist literature.
It may be time to engage in reconstructing alternative genealogies of political
anthropology while not forgetting the more well-known history of political anthropology
alluded to in the above. And this may well turn out as a way to question the persistence of
those Enlightenment roots of political anthropology so rightly singled out by Joan Vincent
(see her Introduction, 2002). There is indeed every indication that this was recognized by
Mauss himself, and that he wished to bring our understanding of “politics” in closer contact
with Ancient Greek ideals, where the political very simply is what ties the social and moral
human being to his or her community in meaningful existence. On this note, all I can do is
to leave the last word to Mauss himself and let the closing lines of the Gift speak to us again
(1990: 107).
In certain cases, one can study the whole of human behaviour, and
social life in its entirety. One can also see how this concrete study
can lead not only to a science of customs, to a partial social science
but even to moral conclusions, or rather, to adopt one more old
word, ‘civility’, or ‘civics’, as it is called nowadays. Studies of this
kind indeed allow us to perceive, measure, and weigh up the
various aesthetic, moral, religious, and economic motivations, the
diverse material and demographic factors, the sum total of which
are the basis of society and constitute our common life, the
Bjørn Thomassen What Kind of Political Anthropology?
271
conscious direction of which is the supreme art, Politics, in the
Socratic sense of the word.
Notes
1 The author wishes to thank Lyndsay Krebs for help with the writing of this article.
2 This of course stands in contrast to the 2002 Reader in Political Anthropology edited by Joan Vincent,
which, probably more than any other recent overview work in the field, uses the “classics” to inform
contemporary scholarship, and vice versa. Kurtz (2001) is another exception.
3 Hastings Donnan, Thomas Wilson and others started in the early 1990s a productive subfield, an
“anthropology of borders”, which addresses the ways in which state borders affect local populations,
and how people from border areas shape and direct state discourse and state formation (see for
example Alvarez, 1996; Thomassen, 1996; Vereni, 1996; Donnan and Wilson, 1994; 1999; 2003).
4 Michael Herzfeld is also one of the few anthropologists who has analysed political elections. This is
still a relatively neglected field of enquiry, despite the evident fact that it is exactly during election
campaigns that alliances and local strategies of power come to the fore (see for example Lenclud,
1988; Spencer, 2007).
5 Fortunately, a recovery of Marcel Mauss has begun. See Fournier, 2006; Hart, 2007a; 2007b.
Bibliography
Abélès, Marc (1990) Anthropologie de l'État, Paris: Armand Colin.
____(1992) La vie quotidienne au Parlement européen, Paris: Hachette.
Alvarez, Robert R. (1995) “The Mexican-US Border: The Making of an Anthropology of
Borderlands”, Annual Review of Anthropology, 24: 447-70.
Asad, Talal (ed.) (1973) Anthropology and the Colonial Encounter. London: Ithaca.
Balandier, Georges (1967) Anthropologie politique, Paris: PUF.
Bellier, Irene (1995). “Moralité, langues et pouvoirs dans les institutions européennes”, Social
Anthropology, 3 (3): 235-250.
Bachofen, Johann Jakob (1861) Das Mutterrecht, Basel: Benno Schwabe und Co. Verlag.
Bailey, Frederick G. (1969) Strategems and Spoils: A Social Anthropology of Politics, New York: Schocken
Books, Inc.
Barth, Fredrik (1959) Political Leadership among the Swat Pathans, London: Athlone Press.
Bauman, Zygmunt (1995) Life in Fragments: Essays in Postmodern Morality, Oxford: Blackwell.
Boas, Franz (1962 [1928]) Anthropology and Modern Life, New York: W. W. Norton and Company Inc.
Bodnar, John (1994) Remaking America: Public Memory, Commemoration and Patriotism in the Twentieth
Century, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Boissevain, Jeremy and John Friedl (1975) Beyond the Community: Social Process in Europe, The Hague:
University of Amsterdam.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1977) Outline of a Theory of Practice, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bowman, Glen (2003) “Constitutive Violence and the Nationalist Imaginary: Antagonism And
Defensive Solidarity in ‘Palestine’ and ‘Former Yugoslavia’”, Social Anthropology 11 (3): 37-58.
Cohen, Abner (1969) “Political Anthropology: The Analysis of the Symbolism of Power Relations”,
Man, 4: 215-235.
International Political Anthropology Vol. 1 (2008) No. 2
272
Donnan, Hastings and Thomas M. Wilson (eds) (1994) Border Approaches: Anthropological Perspectives on
Frontiers, Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
____ and Thomas M. Wilson (1999) Borders: Frontiers of Identity, Nation and State, Oxford: Berg.
____ and Thomas M. Wilson (eds) (2003) “European States at Their Borderlands”, Focaal: European
Journal of Anthropology, Special Issue, 41 (3).
Escobar, Arturo (1995) Encountering Development, the making and unmaking of the Third World, Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
Eisenstadt, Shmuel N. (1995) “The Order-maintaining and Order-transforming Dimensions of
Culture”, in Shmuel N. Eisenstadt, Power, Trust, and Meaning, Essays in Sociological Theory and
Analysis, Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Farneti, Roberto (2000) “‘L’invidia ama nascondersi’. Girard su Shakespeare”, Strumenti critici. Rivista
quadrimestrale di cultura e critica letteraria, no. 2, 2000.
Ferguson, James (1994) The Antipolitics Machine: “Development”. Depoliticization and Bureaucratic Power in
Lesotho, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Fleming, Chris (2004) René Girard: Violence and Mimesis, Cambridge: Polity
Fortes, Meyer and E. E. Evans-Pritchard (eds) (1940) African Political Systems, Oxford: The Clarendon
Press.
Fournier, Marcel (2006) Marcel Mauss: A Biography, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Fried, Morton H. (1967) The Evolution of Political Society, New York: Random House.
Friedman, Jonathan (1975) “Tribes, States and Transformations”, in M. Bloch (ed.), Marxist analyses
and Social Anthropology, A.S.A. Studies 2, London: Malaby Press.
Gane, Mike (ed.) (1992) The Radical Sociology of Durkheim and Mauss, London/New York: Routledge.
Gellner, David and Eric Hirsch (2001) Inside Organizations: Anthropologists at Work, Oxford: Berg.
Gledhill, John (1994) Power and Its Disguise: Anthropological Perspectives on Politics, London: Pluto Press.
Gluckman, Max (1963) Order and Rebellion in Tribal Societies, London: Cohen & West.
Geertz, Clifford (1980) Negara: The Theatre State in Nineteenth-century Bali, Princeton: Princeton
University Press.
Hansen, Thomas and Finn Stepputat (2001) States of Imagination: Ethnographic Explorations of the
Postcolonial State, Durham: Duke University Press.
Hart, Keith (1982) The Political Economy of West African Agriculture, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Hart, Keith (2007a) “In Pursuit of the Whole. A Review Essay”, Comparative Studies in Society and
History, 49 (2): 1-13.
Hart, Keith (2007b) Marcel Mauss: our guide to the future,
(http://www.thememorybank.co.uk/2007/03/20/marcel-mauss-our-guide-to-the-future/)
(accessed 22 January 2009).
Heidemann, Frank (2002) “Über die Langlebigkeit von ethnischen Konflikten und die
Ontologisierung von Gewalt: Ein Rückblick auf den Singhalesen-Tamilen Konflikt in Sri
Lanka”, Münchner Beiträge zur Völkerkunde, 7: 175-186.
Herzfeld, Michael (1992). The Social Production of Indifference: Exploring the Symbolic Roots of Western
Bureaucracy, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Hylland Eriksen, Thomas (2002) Ethnicity and Nationalism: Anthropological Perspectives, London: Pluto
Press.
Jörke, Dirk (2005) Politische Anthropologie: Eine Einführung, VS Verlag für Sozialwisseschaften.
Kertzer, David I. (1988) Ritual, Politics and Power, New Haven: Yale University Press.
Kurtz, Donald V. (2001) Political Anthropology: Paradigms and Power, Boulder: Westvie Press.
Bjørn Thomassen What Kind of Political Anthropology?
273
Leach, Edmund (1954) Political Systems of Highland Burma: A Study of Kachin Social Structure, London,
LSE and Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Lenclud, Gérard (1988) “Des idées et des hommes: patronage électoral et culture politique en Corse”,
Revue Française de Science Politique, 38 (5): 770-782.
Lewellen, Ted C. (1992) Political Anthropology: An Introduction. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.
Lowie, Robert H. (1962 [1927]) The Origin of the State, New York: Russell & Russell.
Malinowski, Bronislaw (1970 [1926]) Crime and Custom in Primitive Society, London: Routledge & Kegan
Paul.
Mauss, Marcel (1969) La Nation, “Les classiques des sciences socials”, University of Quebec,
(http://classiques.uqac.ca/classiques/mauss_marcel/oeuvres_3/oeuvres_3_14/la_nation.ht
ml) (accessed 22 January 2009).
Mauss, Marcel (1990) The Gift, London: Routledge.
McDonald, Maryon (1996). “Unity and Diversity: Some tensions in the construction of Europe”, in:
Social Anthropology 4 (1): 47-60.
Moreno, Isodoro, “¿Violencia Étnica O Violencia De Estado? Nacionalismos Estatalistas,
Etnonacionalismos Y Minorías Étnicas”, Antropologia Online, (http://antropologiaonline.blogspot.com/2007/10/violencia-tnica-o-violencia-de-estado.html)
(accessed 21
December 2008).
Palaver, Wolfgang (2008) René Girards mimetische Theorie: Im Kontext kulturtheoretischer und
gesellschaftpolitischer Fragen, Münster/Wien: Lit.
Redfield, Robert (1941) The Folk Culture of Yucutan, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Rhodes, Rod, A.W Paul 't Hart and Mirko Noordegraaf (eds) (2002) Observing Government Elites,
Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Rivière, Claude (1988) Les liturgies politiques, Paris: PUF.
Schneider, Jane and Peter (1976) Culture and Political Economy in Western Sicily, New York: Academic
Press.
Schwager, Raymund (2000) Must There Be Scapegoats? Violence and Redemption in the Bible, New York:
Crossroad.
Scubla, Lucien (1985) “Le christianisme de René Girard et la nature de la religion”, Violence et
vérité: Colloque de Cérisy autour de René Girard, P. Dumouchel (ed.), Paris: Grasset,
243-257.
Sharma, Aradhana and Akhil Gupta (2006) The Anthropology of the State: A Reader. Oxford: Blackwell.
Shore, Chris and Susan Wright (eds) (1997) Anthropology of Policy: Critical Perspectives on Governance and
Power, London, Routledge.
Spencer, Jonathan (2007) Politics, and the State. Democracy and Violence in South Asia, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Trouillot, Michel-Rolph (2001) “The Anthropology of the State in the Age of Globalization”, Current
Anthropology, February 2001, 42 (1): 125-133.
Swartz, Mark, Victor Turner, and Arthur Tuden (1966) Political Anthropology, Chicago: Aldline.
Szakolczai, Arpád (1998) Max Weber and Michel Foucault: Parallel Life-Works, London: Routledge.
____ (2000) Reflexive Historical Sociology, London: Routledge.
Thomassen, Bjørn (1996) “Border Studies in Europe: Symbolic and Political Boundaries,
Anthropological Perspectives”, Europaea: Journal of the Europeanists, 2 (1): 37-48.
Vereni, Pietro (1996) “Boundaries, Frontiers, Persons, Individuals: Questioning ‘Identity’ at National
Borders”, Europaea: Journal of the Europeanists, 2 (1): 77-89.
International Political Anthropology Vol. 1 (2008) No. 2
274
Vincent, Joan (1978) Political Anthropology: Manipulative Strategies, Annual Review of Anthropology, 7:
175-194.
Vincent, Joan (1990) Anthropology and Politics, Tucson: The University of Arizona Press.
____ (2002) The Anthropology of Politics: A Reader in Ethnography, Theory, and Critique, Oxford: Blackwell.
____ and David Nugent (eds) (2004), Companion to the Anthropology of Politics, Oxford: Blackwell.
Weber, Max (2002) Political Writings, Peter Lassman (ed.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wright, Susan (ed.) (1994) The Anthropology of Organizations, London: Routledge.
Wydra, Harald (2008) “Towards a new Anthropological Paradigm: The Challenge of Mimetic
Theory”, International Political Anthropology, 1 (1): 161-174.
Yanow, Dvora (1996) How does a Policy Mean? Interpreting Policy and Organizational Actions, Washington
D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
Zabusky, Stacia E. (1995) Launching Europe: An Ethnography of European Cooperation in Space Science,
Princeton: Princeton University Press.