The Future of Anthropology
Author(s): Vinay Kumar Srivastava
Source: Economic and Political Weekly , Feb. 27 - Mar. 5, 1999, Vol. 34, No. 9 (Feb. 27 Mar.
5, 1999), pp. 545-552
Published by: Economic and Political Weekly
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.com/stable/4407708
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Economic and Political Weekly is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Economic and Political Weekly
This content downloaded from
147.251.113.161 on Mon, 27 Nov 2023 10:24:27 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
The Future of Anthropology
Vinay Kumar Srivastava
This paper submits that practical concerns have overtaken the theoretical in contemporary anthropology,
especially in India. A perilous consequence of this trend is that instead of illuminating the functioning and
dynamics of society and culture in particular and genera! i: runs, it confines itself to the question of policy
prescription. By directing their energies to the 'issue, \i.' us.efulness', anthropologists have come to think
that the future survival of anthropology is incumbent upon St. immediate market value. The future of
anthropology can be enhanced, instead, by giving primacy to an .' erpretive understanding of societies and
cultures, thereby making comments on existinlg policies for 1evelopmcnit and social justice more perceptive
and relevant.
THE future of their discipline, or one of
its offshoots, has seriously concerned the
anthropologists.. Several seminars and
workshops have been held under the aegis
of 'retrospect and prospect'. or the
'relevance of anthropology', where
thoughts of the possible futures of our
subject have figured. One of the topics of
addresses and discussions in the centenary
meeting of the Royal Anthropological
institute of Great Britai n and Ireland (RAI),
the proceedings of which appeared in Man
in 1944, was 'The Future of Anthropology'.1
Murray Leaf's Frontiers of
Anthropology, a book of 1974, carried a
chapter in' the end, on the 'anthropology
of 2000' (pp 311-24). The statement 'Anthropology
has a notorious past, dismal
present, and uncertain future' - broadly
summarises our collective anxiety about
the integrity of our discipline and its
survival [Srivastava 1986]. In other words,
regardless of the time and the progress of
anthropology, its professionals have often
pondered over its future.
Questions of the future begin zooming
large when a culturally-constructed time
period is to be replaced by another. One
may imagine how bold andbig this question
would be when a century is to be replaced.
In the 1990s, many contributions have
appeared on the future of anthropology;
some important ones are by Hart (1990),
Kahn (1990), Sponsel (1990), Firth (1992),
Grimshaw and Hart (1993), and Giddens
(1996). None of these writers even hints
that anthropology is devoid of a future.
That we are contemplating the future itself
strikes a chord of optimism: there is a
future of, for, and in anthropology. But,
where does it lie? In theory or policy
prescriptions, or in a better, evolving
relationship between the two? In making
the discipline frontierless, unbounded, or
in a precise delineation of its aims? What
is our vision of future for which anthropology
should be made to work'? [Hart
1990; 14; Firth 1992: 2081]
Why does the question of their
discipline's future worry anthropologists?
To my knowledge, such a question is
generally not raised in other subjects.2 Is
the crisis in anthropology, wherein storms
the debate about its future, imaginary? Is
it sipply a panic button so that the quality
of research improves with continued
introspection? In astrongly-worded article,
Keith Hart (1990:14) says that British
anthropologists are 'overspecialised,
fragmented, alienated from the society in
which the majority of people.live,' and
they lack 'any vision of [their] own or
humanity's future'. This has also been the
conclusion of many observers of national
anthropologies [Pathy 1981; Gerholm and
Hannerz 1982: Hastrup 1987; Mahajan
and Srivastava 1978].
Today, anthropology discovers itself in
a multicultural world of reflexivity which
'demands new forms of inventiveness and
subtlety' [Clifford 1986:23]. We are
sceptical of and wish to enquire into 'all
grounds of authority, assumption, or convention'
[Fischer 1986:194].- Knowledgeproducers
in the contemporary world are
not just academic professionals,
Journalists, media persons, tele producers,
tilm makers, and even bureaucrats. are
concerned with all those social issues on
which we anthropologists claimed intellectual
monopoly some years ago. A programme,
for instance. on the Yanomamo
Indians made and telecast by Discovery
Channel, is not only worth thousands of
words, but reaches millions of crosscultural
viewers [refer Giddens 1996:121].
Today, anthropology finds itself in the
midst of myriad theoretical perspectives,
the contest between them is not like the
blood-feud which characterised the relation
between the descent and the alliance
theorists in British anthropology. Contesting
paradigms co-exist today with
exemplary tolerance of another's vantage
point. These are the times of postmodernity,
post-structuralism, postcolonialism,
post-savage, post-positivism;
or as Geertz (1998:69). says, of 'posteverything'.
Anthropology faces a set of
new challenges in this world.
Against the background of the contemporary
practice, this paper outlines the
conditions which will affect the future of
anthropology. Not offered here are the
tasks for the 21 st century. Unless adequate
steps are taken, the already existent crises
of ecosystem, resources, society and
culture are bound to escalate with the
passage of time, and the anthropological
researches will be expected to understand
the genesis of these crises and suggest
remedies. The practising anthropol':gists
are hopeful about the contribution their
discipline can make to ameliorate human
condition. Marketability of anthropological
skills (especially fieldwork) has been
recognised by development and welfare
organisations. but the full potentiality of
the subject is yet to be tapped.
So far, a study of the impact of anthropology
on its learners has not been carried
out, but I learnt from my students that
anthropology brought about a marked
difference in their orientation to life.4 They
developed a higher degree of sensitivity
to other human beings and their problems,
besides trying to understand the 'other' (a
fellow being. a community, a group) in
holistic terms. Some Indian bureaucrats.
who read anthropology as one of the
subjects for the civil services examination,
told me about .the profound impact that
anthropology made on them. In theiractual
workings, they have become comparative,
analytical, field-oriented. and contextual.
Now they understand human predicaments
in abetter perspective.5 Yet, anthropology
is not the first subject-priority of a college
student who casts his eyes on courses
whichpromise him a lucrative profession.6
At the outset, I submit that the future
of anthropology will depend upon its
conception that we hold and reproduce
didactically. If its vision is of a discipline
Economic and Political Weekly February 27, 1999 545
This content downloaded from
147.251.113.161 on Mon, 27 Nov 2023 10:24:27 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
without frontiers, then we have already
started ringing its death knell. Further,
anthropology's future is conditioned by
the sound analytical and theoretical
perspectives that we are able to generate.
We cannot sustain it by an array of policy
suggestions, the long list of pleas, viz,
'what should be done?' A dialectical
relationship exists between theoretical
conclusions and the areas of application.
In it rests the strength of anthropology. We
also note with concern the woeful decline
in the quality of fieldwork (especially by
Indian anthropologists and neophytes) and
in the sophistication of analysis.
II
In 1978, six young anthropologists from
the University of Delhi, three each from
physical and social anthropology, decided
to launch a journal with their pooled resources
titled Spectra of Anthropological
Progress. Its acronym SAP acquired
popularity in academic circles in years to
roll. These men were crystal clear about
their aim. They did not want to merely add
another volume to gather dust on the library
shelves. They were deeply concerned with
the question of quo vadis: whither goeth
anthropology?7
The inaugural issue of SAP (1978: i-iii)
carried a brief editorial which spelled out
the direction anthropology had taken, its
overspecialisation, concluding that the
specialised research did not quite connect
itself with the central aims of anthropology.
Twenty years later, Bhattacharya (1999:
24-5) observed that the 'distancing of
archaeology from anthropology has now
gone to the ultimate. It is a consequence
of this that archaeologists are now trying
to have their own agenda of ethnology
which need not concern itself with cultural
themes.' The likelihood of unconnected
and ceaseless specialisations existed in
anthropology, because, to begin with, it
dealt with two facts - the biological and
the cultural - and each one of them could
become the pivot of a separate discipline
with its distinct methodology, terminological
apparatus, and epistemology. The
relation of the observer with the observed
is bound to be different in a biological
science in contrast to a socio-cultural
discipline.8
The SAP editors did not denigrate the
tendency of overspecialisation, seeing it
as an index of the progress and development
of a subject. However, they advised the
specialists to think carefully of their
grounding in the parent discipline and
relate their specialisation to it. Otherwise,
the specialist's work would become alien
to the anthropological concerns. Moreover,
he would be marginalised in other
disciplines he intends to venture into. If
this differentiation of the discipline is
permitted to go unchecked, with no attempt
to integrate the new branches with the goal
of anthropology, the danger is that the
specialisations will fall apart. The
Spencerian proposition - 'Integration
compensates for differentiation of parts'
- asserts the truism. Anthropologists should
devote themselves to the task of integrating
their discipline. Each stream of differentiation
must relate to the central aims
of anthropology. If we proceed in this
manner, a higher differentiation of the
discipline will inevitably imply a higher
degree of integration.
A discipline should not be allowed to
become pigeon-holed, forthis wouldrender
intense inbreeding, thus lowering its
creativity and scholarship and eventually,
making it sterile. At the same time, let it
not become so porous that, as in our case,
almost every biological, sociological, or
cultural study of humans could claim a
place in anthropology. We already know
of health scientists, historians, experts in
foreign affairs, journalists, film makers,
and many others, who not only call
themselves anthropologists, but compete
with hard-core anthropologists for scarce
funds for research, tenurial positions, chairs
of committees, awards, etc.9 Osmosis is
creative; flooding is destructive. We may
borrow theories and techniques of analysis
from other disciplines to understand our
data better or to illuminate our concerns.
But the crises, which the SAP editors called
the 'identity crises', surface when a
specialisation of some other subject is
placed under the rubric of anthropology
by an enthusiast without its relationship
with the principal anthropological concerns
being properly worked out.
It is not only with respect to physical
anthropology that social anthropologists,
or vice versa, find it difficult to maintain
academic communication and to undertake
collaborative research, but within social
(or physical) anthropology, a number of
branches have emerged which increasingly
emphasise their separation. Each of these,
what I would call, 'special anthropologies'
(such as linguistic anthropology, medical
anthropology, ecological anthropology,
demographic anthropology, etc), which
acquired prominence in the second half of
the 20th century, interacts with another
full-fledged discipline having its own
history and preoccupations. Linguistic
anthropology, for instance. has an intimate
connection with linguistics, in the same
way as is the proximity ofethnomusicology
to the science of music.
Closeness to other disciplines applies to
the main branches of anthropology as well;
for example, the British social anthropology
is considered closer to French
sociology; and cultural anthropology, the
American variant, to history and folklore.
However, not all the practitioners of social
or cultural anthropology assumed that their
subject was a branch of humanities or one
of the specialisations of the arts. RadcliffeBrown
(1948), the chief architect of British
social anthropology, ardently believed that
his subject was a natural science of society.
Similarly, the American neo-evolutionist,
Leslie White (1943) considered the natural
science of culture as culturology, a term
most dear to him. But these analogies
between social or cultural anthropology
on the one hand and natural science on the
other, were based on an assumed
isomorphism of methods and techniques.
The methodology employed for the study
of natural systems was extendible to social
systems.10
The idea that social or cultural anthropology
was a science of society or culture,
or both as Kroeber's (1948:5) collocation
socio-cultural anthropology suggested, did
not imply its active interaction with
biological or natural sciences. None of the
campaigners of the,scientific status of social
or cultural anthropology ever thought of
working out its relationship with physical
anthropology (or archaeology), or of
planning a study in which these branches
could be meaningfully integrated.
Radcliffe-Brown (1952) and EvansPritchard
(1951) wrote extensively on the
nature of social anthropology and the
relation it bore with psychology, history.
and sociology, but never chose to examine
its kinship with physical anthropology or
archaeology.11
It may be suggested that the relationship
between social and physical anthropology
in the British tradition was almost like that
of the kinspersons who stood back to back.
But, it did not imply any hostility or competition
between them. Social and physical
anthropology (and also archaeology) were
non-interacting disciplines but sharing the
same hearth. Social anthropology forged
its alliance with sociology and history,
whilst physical anthropology (which in
Britain is called biological anthropology)
shared common concerns with medicine
anid other biological sciences.12 Anthropology,
therefore, can be conceptualised
as a myriad of disciplines having close
contact with other independent subjects,
rather than amongst themselves.
The pattern established in Britain at the
beginning of this century has continued
till date. Separate departments of physical,
546 Economic and Political Weekly February 27, 1999
This content downloaded from
147.251.113.161 on Mon, 27 Nov 2023 10:24:27 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
social, and archaeological anthropology
exist in British universities, and are placed
under the faculty of anthropology. Interaction
between these departments is
negligible. Each one of them is almost like
a gemeinschaft. Anthropology for the
British is either biological anthropology,
or social anthropology, or archaeology.
The issue of its integration does not worry
them. Nor do they engage themselves with
the question of what 'anthropological' part
in physical anthropology is homologous
to the 'anthropological' quiddity in social
anthropology? The British pattern is
replicated in many other universities of the
world. At the level of the work, the microstudies
take precedence over the philosophical
discussions about a discipline's
total identity, integration, and the
boundary-maintaining mechanisms.
The American anthropology began with
its division into physical anthropology
and ethnology, the latter being further
segmented into cultural anthropology,
linguistic anthropology, and prehistoric
archaeology. Physical anthropology
studied bio-genetic facts, while culture in
all its manifestations, and in spatiotemporal
dimensions, was the key concept
in ethnology. Although not clear in the
beginning on how biological and cultural
facts could be meaningfully integrated in
a study, American anthropology nevertheless
furthered its holistic conception.
The textbook definition (almost like a 'holy
litany') that anthropology is the 'study of
man in all his aspects in time and space',
seems to me an American view. The
founders of professional anthropology in
America insisted on an integrated
anthropology. We are reminded of Franz
Boas (1948) for whom fieldwork meant
the collection of socio-cultural, archaeological,
linguistic, and biological facts of
a givenpeople. This was the encyclopaedic
approach to anthropology which is amply
reflected in the American textbooks.
Some American scholars have discussed
the issue of the integration of anthropology
at the level of the syllabuses, teaching and
research seminars, and common projects
and investigations [Tax 1956; Godelier
1974; Leaf 1974, 1979]. But they were all
conscious of the fact that the subject was
fast fragmenting. Their concern can be
estimated from Eric Wolfs aptly-titled
article: 'They divide and subdivide and
call it anthropology' (New York Times,
November 30, 1980).
Because of these divergent specialisations,
which are strange bedfellows,
anthropology has become a 'dilettante's
discipline', including in its scope 'literally
anything from lemur feet to shadow plays'
[Rabinow 1977:3].13 In a trenchant
criticism of overspecialisation, Needham
(1970:46) envisaged an 'iridescent metamorphosis'
of anthropology. The field
might be redistributed among many other
disciplines.14 Many authors have
reconciled to the academic disintegration
of anthropology and see their works as
part of the 'metamorphosis' of which
Needham spoke. 5 Anthropology today is
a 'group of subjects'.16
III
Integration of anthropology has the
following facets: first, certain aspects of
human existence can be fully comprehended
when equal attention is given to
its biological and socio-cultural dimensions.
Some 'special anthropologies' lie
at the confluence of biological and socio.cultural
anthropology; for example,
ecological anthropology, demographic
anthropology, medical anthropology, and
the anthropology of development. Other
anthropologies are preeminently biological,
but use several socio-cultural
factors and indices; anthropology of growth
and physiological anthropology may be
cited as examples. Even in highly technical
fields such as foetal anthropology, one
cannot ignore the political economy of
health and various declarations of the
international organisations (like UNICEF)
[Chandra 1990].
In those specialisations which are at the
interface, a restriction of analysis to either
fact (biological or socio-cultural) is bound
to be myopic. Medical anthropologists
know full well that if illness is cultural,
disease is a pathological concept. Pain is
both a culturally-constructed reality and
also, biologically inscribed on the body.
The first lesson a student learns is that
medical anthropology is a bio-cultural
discipline. We analyse the medical system
as a biological system and as a sociocultural
system, which we further break
down, following the systemic approach,
into social system and cultural system. In
the integration of the three subsystems of
the medical system can one locate the
spirit of medical anthropology [Forter and
Anderson 1978; for similar argument on
Indian material see Joshi and Mahajan
1990, Bhasin and Srivastava 1991].
A similar argument can be adduced for
demographic and ecological anthropologies.
Some of us may be sceptical of
the place I have given to the anthropology
of development, for this specialisation is
dominated by social anthropologists. Those
who think that development has nothing
to do with physical anthropology are
mistaken because the issue of the biological
survival of people is of utmost importance.
We have a significant literature on the
diseases caused by development, and how
the health of the natives was jeopardised
as a consequence of the measures the
planners and development specialists
thought were ameliorative [Kunitz 1994].
For depopulating tribes, the health-related
programmes score priority over those
dealing with cultural matters. Development
is a bio-cultural phenomenon, and for the
future survival of anthropology, this notion
is crucial.
Besides this, another way to integrate
anthropology is to generate a paradigm
which can explain both the biological and
cultural facts. In one such attempt, Mahajan
and I (1978) examined the possibility of
using dialectical materialism to integrate
anthropology. Jan Wind suggested the
use of cybernetics for a similar purpose
(Personal communication, December 12,
1978). Neo-Darwinian philosophical
traditions could also be explored [Ashley
Montagu 1960,1981].Forde (1948)argued
that ecology canunitephysical with social
anthropology. Howsoever promising these
theoretical insights are, they have not
become popular in our subject. Whatever
integration is visible it is at the level of
studies which require a knowledge of both
physical and socio-cultural anthropology.
IV
One of the consequences of the American
encyclopaedic approach is that anthropology
has gradually become more and
more porous and spongy. offering a
respectable place to people from varied
disciplines, but losing its identity in the
process. 17 What has really been detrimental
to its progress is the oft-repeated statement,
pronounced with boastfulness and
pomposity, that it is a subject without
frontiers, without boundaries. The protagonists
of this view present a catalogue
of different anthropologies and show
several empty shelves to the academic
world where more and more specialisations
could be placed.18 We may beam with
satisfaction on seeing a huge list of
anthropologies, but in this process we have
eroded the concerns of the discipline. The
future of anthropology depends upon these
pivotal concerns, and not on the unwieldy
list of its specialisations.
Often, a question like 'what is anthropological'
in 'economic anthropology', or
in 'medical anthropology', or in any other
'special anthropology', is asked. We want
to know the distinctions between collateral
disciplines or interests - for instance, between
political science, political sociology,
political philosophy, and political
Economic and Political Weekly February 27, 1999 547
This content downloaded from
147.251.113.161 on Mon, 27 Nov 2023 10:24:27 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
anthropology. Engaging debates ensue on
whether the study of economic systems of
tribes and peasants be termed 'economic
anthropology' or 'anthropological
econ(,mics'. Such taxonomic debates are
in other specialisations as well. Some
scholars believe that if we opt for titles
such as 'anthropological economics'. or
'anthropology of development', or
'ethnolinguistics', then we emphasise in
them the anthropological content more
than that of the other discipline with which
they interact.
Whether or not we accept the suggestion
about a proper nomenclature of the
discipline or its branch, there is no doubt
that such borderline or inter-disciplinary
enterprises are required to interact with
other disciplines. The student of 'anthropological
economics' or 'economic anthropology'
needs to acquire an arduous competence
in econoitic theory and techniques
of analysis. In a similar vein, an anthropologist
of transcultural psychiatry is
expected to be 'familiar with western
psychiatry, its mbdes of treatment, and its
concept of man. In such disciplines, the
anthropologist has to do an extra labour
- to gain competence in another subject.
Dalton remarked that 'economic anthropologists'
suffer from -nervous inferiority'
while corresponding their ideas with hardcore
economists who tend to look down
upon their counterparts in anthropology
[Dalton 1971: 30]. Similar observations
can be culled from the practitioners of
other borderline anthropologies who have
to interact regularly with other closely
allied subjects. One would like to read a
detailed account of the professional
experiences of a medical or physiological
anthropologist working in a hospital or
medical college. and trying to justify his
place amidst those who' might consider
such positions as sheer apppefdages, easily
dispensable. 19
Needham (1970:40) called an anthropologist's
encounter with the other
discipline(s) 'awkward'. It is bound to
generate 'nervous inferiority' in him unless
he stands on the steady feet of his discipline,
is committed to intellectual osmosis, and
constantly reminds himself of his goals
and purposes. If he is an 'economic anthropologist',
he judiciously and critically
examines the propositions of economics
to determine their suitability in understanding
his data. He does not use his data
to illuminate or support the economic
theory. When his aims are lopsided, his
encounter with economics will become
'awkward' rather than fruitful, and he will
suffer from 'nervous inferiority' in relation
to the economist, rather than becoming a
'coparcener' in the production of alternative
perspectives on society.
All this boils down toourown conception
of anthropology. If a study of what different
anthropologists mean by the subject is
conducted, we shall come across'highly
divergent opinions. For many, anthropology
will be what they do: the practice
will define the subject and not the other
way round. Some will subscribe to the
encyclopaedic notion: there is anthropology
in everything and everything can
be studied anthropologically. Rarely do
we ask: What is 'anthropological' in what
I do?
V
Problems for an anthropologist's work
'can be found everywhere human beings
are in communication' [Firth 1992:211],
wherevergroups are formed and sustained.
The anthropologist's lab6ratory is the entire
mankind; the Way in which people structure
the reality around them, is what he
studies. The human universes are not
'museumified'entities, static, neatly-kept
and catalogued. They are perpetually
changing. Those orders (and institutions)
which men themselves proudly created at
one time are rejected by them at another
time. Taxonomies are challenged; the
catalogues need to be constantly updated.
Human beings have tremendous capacity
to perfect themselves. This process is
however punctuated with crises - with
contradictions and conflicts. Change is
ceaselessly occurring: it is imperceptible
and needs to be constructed. Geertz
(1995:4) writes: 'Change, apparently, is
not a parade that can be watched as it
passes.'
The anthropologist did (and does) many
things with societies and cultures. In the
formative era, he studied -the origin of
institutions, customs, groups and col?ectivities,
and the stages through which
they were believed to have passed. Then,
he compiled the detailed accounts of the
past of these societies by focusing on the
"memory culture' of his respondents. How
social institutions had diffused from the
centre of their origin, or from one society
to another, greatly interested him. In the
wake of the repudiation of earlier pseudohistorical
approaches and psychological
reductionism, and the aimless documentation
of cultural traits, came the much
celebrated functional approach. With this,
anthropology became a synchronic study,
of 'here and now'. The criticism of functionalism
revived many earlier approaches.
The French became interested in the
working of the human mind and unravelling
its underlying structure. Their contemporaries
in America. those who became
popular as cognitive anthropologists,
intended to study culture by getting into
the heads of its bearers. Some French and
American scholars applied the Marxian
approach to the superstructure of society.
Network analysis, transactionalism,
modern variants of structuralism, feminism,
reflexivity, interpretivism, have been
other corrective alternatives.
The aforementioned approaches and
their several kindred variations, known by
different technical hames, btaring those
which were conjectural, 6o-exist in contemporary
anthropology. But, the mos4
rallying is around the one which is
concerned with meaning. Some of its
advocates derive their intellectual authority
from Weberian sociology and its further
development in the hermeneutical
tradition. In a nutshell, the contemporary
anthropo6lgists do the following. They
conduct a lengthy fieldwork with a
'community' of people, far-away ornearer
honir.20 During the course of study, they
are 'hued' by the 'object' of study.21 From
this experience is born the ethnography.
Anthropology is a 'sceptical study' [Firth
1992:210]. It does not take anything for
granted. Whether acknowledged or not,
we begin with the Durkheimian rule: 'I do
not know a social fact unless I have studied
it' [Durkheim 1938]. Our aim is to understand
the plexus of meanings people
attribute to their thoughts and action.
Alongside, we unravel those meanings
and interconnections of institutions of
which their creators may be unaware. We
keep adistinction between the perspectives
and analyses of the actor and the observer.
The anthropologist is an empiricist
('world-observer' ),'an interpreter ('worlddescriber'),
a comparativist ('worldcomparer'),
and a futurist ('worldimaginer'),
whose cosmic ambition is to
know about the human society as a whole.22
His aim is pre-eminently academic: to
interpret and explain. It is not to delve in
the charters of policy prescriptions.23
Today, especially in India. many anthropologists
are solely concerned with the
issues of policy, churning out the agendas
of action. Perhaps they feel that in this
market-oriented world they have to be
utilitarian. They try to prove their Darwinian
fitness'in the academic world as well as
in the market-society by formulating
hypothetical programmes for the betterment
of human beings. Their comments
on policies, lists of pleas, designs of action,
scarcely rise above the commonplace.24
None of the scholars concerned with the
future of anthropology has argued against
action anthropology, putting knowledge
548 Economic and Political Weekly February 27, 1999
This content downloaded from
147.251.113.161 on Mon, 27 Nov 2023 10:24:27 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
to real and concrete use.25 Giddens
(1996:126) writes: "Anthropology must
be ready to contest unjust systems of
domination, along the way seeking to
decide what 'injustice' actually is, and be
prepared to bring potentially controversial
issues to light". For Hart (1990:14):
"Anthropology is 'for' making a better,
more democratic world for everyone".
To achieve this, we should be 'politically'
and 'morally' engaged with social
problems. Our vision of future is of greater
freedom and equality of human beings,
both as a right and policy, and anthropology
must work towards their achievement.
Inspiration for applied work, Hart thinks,
could be drawn from Leach's lectures
published as A Runaway World? where
he argued that anthropology could be used
for resolving crises of the contemporary
world. He also suggested that we should
try to spread the anthropological vision
amongst the mass audience.
Sponsel (1990) argues for greater involvement
of anthropologists with the
people they study. Grimshaw and Hart
(1993:44) say that the 'resolution to
anthropology's dilemma' requires new
'patterns of social engagement'. For Ingold
(1 994:xviii), anthropology is a 'science of
engagement'. The 'subjects' of our
research are not 'objects'; they are fellow
beings. One of our duties is to take overt
action to defend human rights. Cultural
relativism is simply a 'frame of mind', a
methodological tool. It does not imply, or
should not be confused with, ethical
relativism. The topic of universal human
values and basic needs has become central
to contemporary anthropology [Hatch
1983: Scupin and DeCorse 1995]. None
should starve, none should be inflicted
with physical or psychic torture, none
should be stripped of basic human rights
and needs, are some examples of universal
values. The anthropologist should render
his firm commitment to them in academic
as well as practical terms. Firth's summary
expresses it well: "[The] anthropologists
must have a social awareness, a social
conscience, some degree of commitment
to the people among whom they work.
Locally. an anthropologist can sometimes
defend the peoples' interests against
bureaucratic ignorance, the rapacity of
salesmen or the arrogance of developers"
[Firth 1992:2191. The role of anthropology
in exposing various myths which perpetrate
inequality in society is well acclaimed.
And, famously known is its contribution
in planning and executing development.
The applied role will definitely condition
anthropology's future, but the list of
suggestions, policy prescriptions, must
entail from a rigorously conducted study
in which the focus is on understanding.
Theoretical and applied researches are two
sides of the same coin: 'knowledge for
practice' and 'practice for knowledge' are
intimately connected [Srivastava 1990:
316]. Before peoples' interests are defended,
we should acquire a thorough knowledge
of the conditions which breed rapacious
salespersons or arrogant developers.
Understanding and interpretation are
placed before action, advocacy, and activism.
A good anthropology is one which
yields sound, detailed, and convincing
knowledge of a society;, and from this
follows a culturally-rooted, endogenous,
and holistic plan of development.
The social responsibility of the
anthropologist has increased manifold
presently. It is bound to enlarge further.
Anthropology began in the mid-19th
century as the evolutionary study of the
entire human society. As it grew in time
and space, especially with the addition of
ethnology sections in museums, it
progressively became a mode of producing
knowledge of the 'exotic other', the
'primitive society'. By the time the term
'social anthropology' was invented for the
Liverpool Chair founded in 1908 forJames
Frazer, the 'intellectual object' of anthropology
- the savage, the pre-literate, the
simple, the non-western - had been fully
found. Gough (1968:403) writes: 'most of
our fieldwork was carried out in societies
that had been conquered by our own
government'. The we-they distinction, or
the distinction of the self and the other,
was the pith of the anthropological work:
'...anthropological knowledge came to be
a map of difference, of alterity' [Das
1995:3]. That the 'they' was qualitatively
different from the 'we' constituted the
discourse. Anthropologists wrote what
they thought was right, proper, and just,
on and about the primitives, who were
mute, who did not answer back [Giddens
1996: 12.1-2; Geertz 1998: 72]. The monographs
thus produced were for the literate,
white, western public.
Overtime, as a result of culture contact
with modern societies, the primitives have
been de-primitivised. No more are they
'they' in pristine terms, but are gradually
assimilated-with the 'we' [Geertz 1998].
As globalisation progresses apace, the
difference between the 'we' and the 'they'
narrows down tremendously. The erstwhile
primitives now read and write; question
the inquisitiveethnographeron the purpose
of his study and wish to share the results
of his enquiries; read monographs to
discover their past moorings and also detect
grave errors made by the anthropologist
in understanding their culture. The staunchest
critics of ethnographic writings on
a society are now its 'literate' people.
They answer back and interrogate their
ethnographers.26 The latter has to be
cautious about the veracity of ethnographic
details he collects. Furthermore, the
'natives'-now study their own societies
where they enmesh their experiences of
being a native with an objective project.
Native anthropology, orautoethnography,
as it is designated, brings with it its own
commitments and values [Srivastava
1995b]. Anthropology is now produced in
a different set of social conditions. It has
to be far more reflective and humanistic.
This changed scenario does not suggest
that we become 'subjective'- in our
approach. Rather, we have to combine the
requirements of a dispassionate study with
an unflinching commitment to universal
human values and rights. Our methodology
adheres to the principle of objectivity,
whilst our 'practical anthropology' (to
borrow Malinowski's term) does not
compromise on the agenda of human
welfare; it is value-loaded.27 It is wrong
to assume that if we 'side' with particular
arguments regarding human condition,
then we tend to lose our objectivity. To
recall Cresswell (1968:411-2): 'A physicist
can fulfil his sense of social responsibility
by speaking out, for instance, against the
use that politicians and the military make
of the atom bomb he has made possible,
without affecting the laws describing the
behaviour of atoms and molecules'. In a
similar way, we endeavour to understand
human society as objectively as possible,
but speak out against all those social
contexts where human rights are abrogated,
where values of equality are suppressed,
where injustice prevails.
The people whom we study, wherever
they live, are no longer hidden, forgotten,
lost, or cloistered.28 No more is the tribal
society 'isolated', a 'complete society', an
'anthropological whole'. Not only the
national but also the international economic
systems affect the micro-societies. The
genesis of rural poverty can be traced to
the unjust social and economic system of
the international order. Ethnicity has
become a transnational phenomenon. The
future anthropologists will need to study
the socio-cultural aspects of international
relations [Foster 1984: Wright 1988;
Messer 1993; Cole 1995; Srivastava
1995a]. Impact of the fast-changing
technology, global consumption patterns
(overconsumption of a few co-existing
with the underconsumption of many),
shifting geo-political configurations, and
new forms (and strategies) of domination
Economic and Political Weekly February 27, 1999 549
This content downloaded from
147.251.113.161 on Mon, 27 Nov 2023 10:24:27 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
on human communities all over the world,
are the areas of priority. The relation of
the local with the global Will be central
to future anthropology [Moore 1996].
Although defined as the study of the
entire human society, anthropology has
predominantly dealt with tribals and
peasants. Its emphasis in urban'studies has
been on slums and squatters, shanty satellite
towns and migrants, religious communities,
and lower-class neighbourhoods. It
has not so far conducted detailed fieldbased
studies of elite societies, of people
who 'answer back' and reflect on the
methods used and conclusions reached.
The effect of functionalism, or any other
method which searched for fixed
categories, has been so overwhelming that
we did not contribute much to the understanding
of social turbulence. Forthe future
survival of anthropology, it is imperative
that we study societies in distress, in hunger,
in collective pain and war [Das 1995:
Nordstrom and Robben 1995]. We should
apply anthropological knowledge to
understand social issues and apprise the
lay public in a de-jargonised language
with our findings and suggestions for
improvement. I may refer here to
Bhattacharya's recent researches (1998)
on the history of hunger and starvation.
The lesson we learn is that no more is
anthropology esoteric, the 'engagement of
colonial masters' or the 'sport of kings'.29
VI
We have tremendous faith in the
analytical ability of anthropology. Even
other disciplines have been considerably
influenced by anthropological perspectives.
The future of our discipline is
incumbent upon a better understanding of
human society and culture,.because from
this will logically follow the steps to be
undertaken for ameliorating human
condition. Whether we are physical or
social anthropologists, we view a system
(biological, social, or cultural) in a state
of dynamic equilibrium. We consider a
number of factors- intrinsic and extraneous
- which condition the working of systems.
Biological and cultural factors should be
seen as complementary, in a state of
'heuristic synergism' [Srivastava 1990:
314]. If we erroneously believe that one
fact is 'superior' to the other, or is
hermetically sealed, then we are likely to
fission the discipline as well the 'tribe' of
anthropologists (to borrow the popular
words of Max Gluckman). We hear of
incessant conflicts between physical and
social anthropologists over the allocation
of resources, and teaching and research
positions in a department. These cleavages
reflect the orientations these 'sub-tribes'
of anthropology have towards the two
great anthropological constructions - the
biology and the culture. Some physical
anthropologists think that their accomplishments
are true to the scientific
tradition, whereas their counterparts in
social anthropology are simply raconteur,
not more than story-tellers. The social
anthropologists may regard their work as
more important, by claiming that their
work begins where science ends. Instead,
if we begin with a model of complementariness
between different facts that
concern us, the tenor of our research will
be qualitatively different. We can learn a
lot about it from the actual practice of
medical anthropologists. The future of
anthropology lies in such studies.
Anthropology is principally a field
science. This is not to say that anthropologists
have depended upon fieldwork
for their ideas, but have always referred
to the field for a critical scrutiny of their
theories and ideas [Fox 1975]. Unfortunately,
the quality of fieldworks, especially
in Indian anthropology, has become poorer.
Our students prefer to study their own
societies rather than venturing into ethnographic
landscapes where they struggle to
learn a new language and pass through the
non-assuaging pangs of loneliness. Since
they study their own society, they start
with the assumption that they know enough,
thus overlooking the nuances, the finer
points, the underlying currents. the subterranean
elements, and the subtleties. It
is here that they commit the-error.30
Needless to say, a good antfiropoogy
depends a great deal upon the quality of
our fieldworks.
To sum up: a future of and for anthropology
lies in constantly struggling to
evolve a sophisticated theoretical and
methodological apparatus, conducting
solid fieldworks, and unswervingly
subscribing to the premises of human
rights, democratisation, welfare, and the
development of people of all shades of
life.
Notes
I Four addresses were delivered on the futures
of physical anthropology, archaeology, social
anthropology, and material culture,
respectively by G M Morant, V Gordon Childe.
Raymond Firth, and R U Sayce. See Man,
1944, vol XLIV: 16-24.
2 However, I refer to a piece on the future of
British sociology in Payne et al (1981).
3 Inthesewords, Fischer( 1986)has parphrased
Jean-Francois Lyotard's concept of the 'post-
modem'.
4 For the last few years, I have been collecting
data on this topic. At the close of the teaching
session (generally mid-March), I make my
students write in whichever language (Hindi
or English) they have adeptness a short essay
on the impact of anthropology on theirpersonal
lives and orientations. I have read these essays,
but so far have not analysed them properly.
The observation I make here is based on these
write-ups. The'students have invariably noted
that they becameless prejudicial after studying
anthropology. Inthis context I rememberFirth,
'Ignorance and prejudice about other peoples,
particularly peoples of a different colour, is
still widespread, and it is part of our
[anthropologists'] job to try and break it down'
[Firth 1944: 22].
5 Before 1995, anthropology was one of the
most popular options for the Indian civil
services examination. Its popularity declined
after its syllabi in both the papers was
frighteningly increased. Many topics were
included on which good reading material did
not exist. My comments on the revised syllabi
appeared in Hindi in Pratiyogita Samrat,
January 1996, 4(12):53-4.
6 This observation is not only based on Indian
experience. Many western writers have pointed
this out. Mayer (1981:vii) noted that when
Furer-Haimendorf decided to read anthropology,
it was an 'unconventional choice'. A
Delhi anthropologist, Abhimanyu Shanna, was
reported (in The Hindustan Times, June 26,
1976) to have said that the 'rejected lot' of
students joined anthropology. I rebutted his
observation (The Hindustan Times, July 2,
1976). The drop-out rate of students in anthropology
department is quite high; these students
leave anthropology to seek admission in other
-coveted courses. The heads of anthropology
departments all over the world are engaged
in increasing the popularity of the subject
amongst the wider public. See MacClancy and
McDonaugh (1996).
7 These six Delhi anthropologists were Surinder
Nath, V C Channa, S L Malik, Anil Mahajan.
Lalit Kumvt, and myself. Today, four of them
are teachiag in the Delhi department of
anthropology. The other.two are employed
elsewhere but do the anthropological work.
Later, P C Joshi, N K Chaddha. and M P Sachdeva
were also inducted in the editorial board
of SAP. Chaddha is a psychologist but is
reputed for many works on psychological
anthropology. SAP continued its uninterrupted
publication till 1991; then its publication was
suspended following financial problems.
8 Because of his lengthy stay (often not less than
a year or so) with a community, the social
anthropologist develops almost quasipermanent
relations with its members. In many
cases, he 'adopts' the community of people
forever. Empathy, therefore, is an important
element of the relationship between the
observer and the observed. This is, however,
absent in a physical anthropological work
which treats its 'subjects' of study as mere
'objects'. In my opinion, physical anthropologists
and archaeologists do not conduct
the 'fieldwork' associalanthropologistsdefine
this term. Physical anthropologists may collect
data from the field or laboratory situation.
Archaeologists conduct excavations on sites
likely to yield an industry of human artifacts.
See Wolcott ( 1995)forthe notionoffieldwork.
9 By 'hard-core' anthropologists, I mean those
who have undergone a professional training
in anthropology. They are not 'self-taught'
550 Economic and Political Weekly February 27, 1999
This content downloaded from
147.251.113.161 on Mon, 27 Nov 2023 10:24:27 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
anthropologists. Today, sociologists write
articles and books which bear the word
'anthropology' in their titles. 'Anthropology'
has become a sort of 'discourse' in these
writings ratherthanjust remaining adiscipline.
Refer to works by Das (1995), Thapan (1998).
1 ) Leslie White (1943) submitted that all sciences
dealt with energy antd motion. Culture and
civilisation were also forms of energy; the
sciences were therefore unified methodologically.
The organismic theorists developed
the concept of society by comparing it
systematically with that of the organism about
which they knew well, courtesy the growth of
biology. Organic analogy was a procedure to
know the unknown ('society') with the help
of the known ('organism'). See Harris (1968).
1 1 Well known are their conclusions of the status
of social anthropology. For Radcliffe-Brown
(1952). it was a branch of 'comparative
sociology', another name of sociology
according to Emile Durkheim. And, it was a
kind of historiography for Evans-Pritchard
(1951).
12 In his reply to Forde's question regarding the
integration of anthropology's branches, Firth
( 1944:22) said that the four branches (physical
anthropology, archaeology, social anthropology,
and material culture) 'called forentirely
separate disciplines, and that the ties of social
anthropology were with sociology, rather than
with physical anthropology or archaeology'.
13 Anthropologists are seen as those 'dilettantes
who flit from one area to the next' [Kleinman
and Copp 1993:6].
14 I have often heard of a suggestion that physical
anthropology should be placed along with
zoology; archaeology with ancient history;
and social anthropology with sociology; and
departments of anthropology should be done
away with.
15 For instance, see Clifford (1986) and his joint
venture, Writilg Culture. He writes that 'man'
has disintegrated as telos for a whole discipline
(p 4).
16 Ingold writes: "...anthropology, as it exists
today. is not a single field, but is rather a
somewhat contingent and unstable amalgam
of subfields, each encumbered with its own
history, theoretical agenda and methodological
preoccupations" fIngold 1994: xiv) Also see,
Moore. (1986: 1): "Anthropology is no longer
a singular discipline, if it ever was, but rather
a multiplicity of practices engaged in a wide
variety of social contexts".
17 In a recent paper. Sillitoe (1998:224) notes
that agricultural economists, human geographers,
and plant pathologists are 'stealing
our ['anthropologists'l disciplinary clothes'.
They themselves conduct the anthropological
work required for their study. If I may add,
the quality of their anthropological work is
inferior which brings bad name to the subject.
18 In his keynote presentation at a seminar (on
'Anthropology in India: Problems and
Prospects') in departmnent of anthropology,
Punjab University. Chandigarh, from March
6-9, 1986, Indera P Singh presented a long list
of anthropological specialisations. An idea of
special anthropologies can be gathered from
the list of seminar topics prepared for the Xth
International Congress of Anthropological and
Ethnological Sciences (see Indian Anthropoblfgst,
vol 7, no 1, 1977, pp 68-70).
19 Here, we may refrerto the following observation
from Needham: "The more the anthropologist
specialises the more he will be obliged to
observe the standard of the discipline that he
enters; and if he is to induce the practitioners
of that discipline to take serious notice of his
knowledge and understanding ofethnographic
evidence, he must in his own work earn their
professional respect by conforming to the
scientific or scholarly criteria which they
acknowledge" [Needham 1970: 40].
20 Besides the conventional areas, the
'community' could be of laboratory scientists,
homosexuals, psychiatric clients, drug addicts,
sex workers, professionals and politicians, etc.
Anthropologists have worked on the impact
ofthe new reproductive technology on kinship,
family, and gender [Strathern 1990] and on
the ethnography of the immune system [Martin
1996]. The 'field' of research is not given; it
has to be constructed. Geertz (1995:106)
remarks: '...research sites are not found, they
are made'.
21 Geertz (1995:210) describes this in the
following words: "You don't exactly penetrate
anotherculture, as the masculinist image would
have it. You put yourself in its way and it
bodies forth and enmeshes you".
22 Anthropology is as much about 'us' as it about
'them' - the 'other' culture [Leach 1982].
23 Giddens writes, 'The practical connotations of
anthropology are likely to depend upon a
rekindling of the anthropological imagination
than upon a narrowing-down of the subject to
limited social policy issues' [Giddens 1996:
125].
24 See for instance, Samal ed (1996), a book of
six hundred pages.
25 This however is not the opinion of many other
anthropologists; see Leach (1982), Beteille
(1993). Hugh-Jones writes about Leach,
'...throughout his [Leach] life he remained
deeply suspicious of the supposed benefits of
applied anthropology' [Hugh-Jones 1989: 14].
26 There are many cases where the people are
aware of the fact that they were studied anthropologically.
For instance, Pul Eliya, the Sri
Lankan village which Leach studied, had a
notice at its entrance placed many years after
Leach had done his fieldwork there. It read:
'This is the village of the famous anthropological
study' [Hugh-Jones 1989:21].
27 Somle anthropologists believe thatethnography
is not a fact but only personal opinion, a view
which Firth termed 'egoistic or solipsistic
anthropology' (1992: 219). For Leach (1987)
as well as Hugh-Jones (1989:34),ethnography
was fiction; for Geertz ( 1988) it was a 'literary
enterprise'. But this is not the opinion which
will help the future social anthropology.
28 But many coffee-table books on tribes may
carry these words in their titles. or descriptions
of people, in order to increase their sale. See,
for instance, a French publication on Indian
tribes titled L 'ndedes Tribus Oubliees (Chene,
Paris, 1993). Perhaps the publishers are
motivated by the idea that the 'exotic' sells,
the 'familiar' does not.
29 1 have borrowed the last phrase from Godfrey
Lienhardt. Lewis writes: "When PrinceCharles
began his anthropological study at Cambridge,
Godfrey Lienhardt (at an RAI council meeting)
quipped that 'anthropology had become the
sport of kings' " [Lewis 1998: 567.
30 It is relevant to remember here Beteille's
observation. He writes: "I have seen many
young British and American anthropologists
return physically exhausted from the field,
looking lean and hungry, like Cassius in the
play. My Indian students show less wear and
tear during their movements in and out of the
field...Indian research scholars stretch field
work out longer, doing it in several short
spells, but rarely spend as much time in the
field as their counterparts from overseas. They
also rarely choose to do field work in a region
other than the one to which they belong; this
enables them to dispense with the trouble of
learning a new language, and it allows them
to take other shortcuts that in the end detract
from the quality oftheir field work" ( 1996:234).
References
Ashley-Montagu, M F (1960): Anthropology and
Human Nature. The Merlin Press London.
- (1981): Socio-biology Examined, University
Press, Oxford.
Beteille, Andre (1993): 'Sociology and
Anthropology: Their Relationship in one
Person's Career', Contributions to Indian
Sociology (ns) 27(2):291-304.
-( 1996): 'Epilogue: Village Studies in Retrospect'
in Caste, Class andPower: Changing Patterns
of Stratifi :ation in a Tanjore Village, Oxford
University Press (second edition), Delhi:
(pp 231-48).
Bhasin VeenaandV K Srivastava( 1991): 'Medical
Anthropology: A Review'. Journal of Human
Ecology. 2(1): 1-19.
Bhattacharya, D K (1998): 'Onion: The Warning
of Nature We Missed' (unpublished paper).
- (1999): 'Prehistory in India: An urgent Need
for Change', presidential address (January 4,
1999), anthropology and archaeology section,
86th session of Indian Science Congress
Association, Chennai.
Boas, Franz ( 1948): Race, Language and Culture,
Macmillan, New York.
Chandra, N Satish (1990): 'Foetal Anthropology:
Problems and Prospects', Indian
Anthropologist , 20(1-2): 81-98.
Clifford, James (1986): 'Introduction: Partial
Truths' in James Clifford and George Marcus
(eds), Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics
of Ethnography. Oxford University Press,
Delhi: pp 1-26.
Cole, Johnnetta B ( 1995): 'Human Rights and the
Rights of Anthropologists'. American
Anthropologist, 97(3):445-56.
Cresswell, Robert (1968): 'Comment (Social
Responsibilities Symposium)', Current
Anthropology, 9(5):411-2.
Dalton, G (1971): Economic Anthropology and
Development: Essays in Trilbxl and Peasant
Economies, Basic Books, New York and
London.
Das, Veena (1995): Critical Events: An Anthropological
Perspective on Contemporary
India, Oxford University Press, Delhi.
Durkheim. Emile( 1938, original 1895): The Rules
?f the Sociological Method, Free Press, New
York.
Evans-Pritchard,EE( 1951): SocialAnthropology,
Free Press, New York.
Firth, Raymond (1944): 'The Future of Social
Anthropology', Man, XLIV: 19-22.
-(1992): 'A Future for Social Anthropology?' in
Sandra Wallnan (ed), Contemporary Futures:
Perspectivefrom Social Anthropology. Routledge,
London and New York, pp 208-24.
Economic and Political Weekly February 27, 1999 551
This content downloaded from
147.251.113.161 on Mon, 27 Nov 2023 10:24:27 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Fischer, Michael M J (1986): 'Ethnicity and the
Postmodern Arts of Memory' in James Clifford
and George Marcus (eds), Writing Culture:
The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography,
Oxford University Press, Delhi, pp 194-233.
Forde. C D (nd): 'The Integration of Anthropological
Studies', Journal of Royal Anthropological
Institute, 78.
Foster, G M (1984): 'The Role of Anthropology
in the Enhancement of Peace and International
Understanding', The Eastern Anthropologist.
39(2): 139-44.
Foster, G M and B G Anderson (1978): Medical
Anthropology, John Wiley and Sons, New
York.
Geertz, Clifford (1988): Works land Lives: The
Anthropologist as Author, Polity Press.
- (1995): After the Fact: Two Countries, Four
Decades, One Anthropologist. Harvard
University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
- (1998): 'Deep Hanging Out', The New York
Review of Books. October 22, XLV(16):
69-72.
Gerholm. Tomas and Ulf Hannerz (1982): 'Introduction:
The Shaping of National Anthropologies',
Etlnos, 1-2:5-35.
Giddens, Anthony (1996): 'The Future of
Anthropology' in The Defence of Sociology:
Essays. Interpretations and Rejoinders, Polity
Press, Cambridge.
Godelier, M (1974): 'Anthropology and Biology:
Towards a New Form of Co-operation'. International
Social Science Journal, XXVI(4):
611-35.
Gough. Kathleen (1968): 'New Proposal for
Anthropologists', Current Anthropology.
9(5):403-7.
Grimshaw, Anna and Keith Hart (1993): Anthropology
and the Crisis of Intellectuals, Prickly
Pear Press, Cambridge, (pamphlet no 1).
Harris, Marvin ( 1968): The Rise of Ainthropological
Theory, Thomas Y Crowell Company, New
York.
Hart, Keith (1990): 'Swimming into the Human
Current', The Times Higher Education Supplement,
(May 18), 13-4.
Hastrup. Kirsten (1987): 'The Reality of
Anthropology'. Ethnos, 52(3-4):287-300.
Hatch. Elvin (1983): Culture and Morality:
The Rel(tivity of Values in Anthropology,
Columbia University Press, New York.
Hugh-Jones, Stephen (1989): Edlund Leach.
1910-1989, King's College, Cambridge
(private circulation).
Ingold,Tim( 1994): 'General Introduction' in Tim
Ingold (ed) Companion Encyclopaedia of
Anthropology, Routledge, London and New
York. pp xiii-xxii.
Joshi, PC and Anil Mahajan (eds) (1990): Studies
in MedicalAnthropology, Reliance Publishing
House, New Delhi.
Kahn, J S ( 1990): 'Towards a History of a Critique
of Economism: The Nineteenth-Century
German Origin of the Ethnographer's
Dilemma', Man, 25(2):30-49.
Kleinman, Sherryl and Martha A Copp (1993):
Emotions and Fieldwork, Sage Publications.
Kroeber, A L (1948): Anthropology, Harcourt,
Brace, New York.
Kunitz, Stephen J (1994): 'Disease and the
Destruction oflndigenous^opulations' in Tim
Ingold (ed), Companion Encyclopaedia of
Anthropology, Routledge, London and New
York, pp 297-325.
Leach, E R (1967): A Runaway World?, A BBC
Publication, London.
-(1982): SocialAnithropology, Oxford University
Press, New York.
-(1987): 'Tribal Ethnography: 'Past, Present,
Future', Cambridge Anthropology, 11(2): 1-14.
Leaf, Murray J (1974): Frontiers ofAnthropology,
An Introduction to Anthropological Thinking,
D van Nostrand Company. New York.
- (1979): Man, Mind and Science: A History of
Anthropology, Columbia University Press,
New York.
Lewis. I M (1998): Book Review in The Journal
of the Royal Anthropological Institute
(Incorporating Man). 4(3):567-8.
MacClancy, Jeremy and Chris McDonaugh (eds),
(1996): Popularising Antlhropology. Routledge.
London and New York.
Mahajan, Anil and V K Srivastava( 1978): 'Social
Anthropology Reconsidered: Quest for a
Meaningful Social Science of the Third World',
presented in the Xth International Congress
of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences,
Delhi (abstracted in the Proceedings, no 1374,
vol ii: 208-9).
Martin, Emily (1996): 'Interpreting Electron
Micrographs' in Henrietta L Moore (ed). The
Futur e of Anthropological Knowledge,
Routledge, London and New York, pp 16-36.
Mayer, A C (ed) (1981): Culture and Morality:
Essays in Honour of Christoph von FurerHaiinendorf,
Oxford University Press, Delhi.
Needham, Rodney (1970): 'The Future of Social
Anthropology: Disintegration or Metamorphosis?'
in Anniversary Contributions to
Anthropology, E J Brill, Leiden. pp 34-47.
Messer, Ellen (1993): 'Anthropology and Human
Rights', Ainnual Review of Anthropology,
22:221-49.
Moore, Henrietta L( 1996): 'The Changing Nature
of Anthropological Knowledge: An Introduction'
in Henrietta L Moore (ed), The Fututtre
f' Anthropological Knowledge, Routledge,
London and New York, pp 1-18.
Nordstrom, Carolyn and Antonius C G M Robben
(eds) (1995): Fieldwork under Fire: Conteilporary
Studies of Violence and Survival,
University of California Press. Berkeley,
London.
Pathy. Jaganath (1981): 'Imperialism, Anthropology
and the Third World', Economic atnd
Political Weekly, April 4, pp 623-7.
Payne, Geoff, Robert Dingwall, Judy Payne, and
Nick Carter (1981): Sociology and Social
Research, Routledge and Kegan Paul. London,
Boston and Henley.
Rabinow. Paul (1977): Reflections on Fieldwork
in Morocco, University of California Press,
Berkeley.
Radcliffe-Brown, A R (1948): A Natural Science
of Society, Free Press, New York.
- (1952): Structure and Function in Primitive
Society. Oxford University Press, London.
Samal, Prasanna K (ed) (1996): Tribal Development:
Options, Gyanodaya Prakashan,
Nainital.
Scupin, Raymond and Christopher R DeCorse
(1995): Anthropology: A Global Perspective,
Prentice-Hall, New Jersey.
Sillitoe, Paul (1998): 'The Development of
Indigenous Knowledge: A New Applied
Anthropology', Current Anthropology,
39(2):223-52.
Sponsel. L E (1990): 'Does Anthropology Have
any Future?', Anthropology Newsletter. p 32.
Srivastava. V K (1986): 'Culture and Development'.
Mant in India. 66(1): 67-80.
- (1990): 'Practice of and 'Practice in' Anthropology'.
The Easterni Anthropologist.
43(4):301-23.
-( 1 995a): 'Role of Anthropology in Understanding
International Relations', The Toppers' India.
2(10):70-1.
- (1 995b): 'An Auto-ethnography of the Tangkhul
Nagas', The Eastern A nthr7opologist,
48(2): 185-93.
Srivastava. V K and Anil Mahajan (1978):
'Towards a Paradigm of Integrated Anthropology',
presented in the symposiun. 'Biology
and Culture', Xth International Congress of
Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences,
December 12, 1978, Delhi (Abstracted in the
Proceedings no 1515. vol ii. pp 286-87).
Strathern. Marilyn (1990): 'Enterprise Kinship:
Consumer Choice and the New Reproductive
Technique', Cambridge Anthlropology,
14(1):1-12.
Tax, Sol ( 1956): 'The Integration of Anthropology'
in William L Thomas Jr (ed), Currenit
Anthrlopology: A Supplement to Anthropolog)
Today. The University of Chicago Press,
Chicago, pp 313-28.
Thapan, Meenakshi (ed) ( 1998 }: Anthropological
Journeys: Reflections onl Fieldwork, Orient
Longman, Delhi.
White. Leslie A (1943): 'Energy and the Evolution
of Culture'. American Anthropologist,
45:335-56.
Wolcott, Harry F (1995): The Art of Fieldwork,
Altamnira Press.
Wright. Robin M (1988): 'Anthropological
Presuppositions of Indigenous Advocacy',
Annual Review oft Anthropology. 17:365-90.
For the Attention of Subscribers and
Subscription Agencies Outside India
It has come to our notice that a large number of subscriptions to the EPW
from outside the country together with the subscription payments sent to supposed
subscription agents in India have not been forwarded to us.
We wish to point out to subscribers and subscription agencies outside India
that all foreign subscriptions, together with the appropriate remittances, must
be forwarded to us and not to unauthorised third parties in India.
We take no responsibility whatsoever in respect of subscriptions not registered
with us.
MANAGER
552 Economic and Political Weekly February 27, 1999
This content downloaded from
147.251.113.161 on Mon, 27 Nov 2023 10:24:27 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms