relationship to the theorist whose work has unquestionably had the greatest impact on anthropological engagement with this topic. We have already invoked Louis Dumont in the epigraph above, and his influence is evident throughout this issue. 1 Beyond the fact
Hierarchy, Value, and the Value of Hierarchy
Naomi Haynes and Jason Hickel
Rank Infraction among the Ngadha in Flores, Indonesia
Olaf H. Smedal
Taking up the issue of whether the study of values is best served by monist or pluralist accounts, Joel Robbins (2013: 102) notes that debates over these issues center on the nature of the relations between values. Inspired by Louis Dumont
Christian Lund, Anthony D. Buckley, Gavin Smith, Martijn Koster, Johannes Stahl, Elizabeth Tonkin, and Luisa Steur
Deema Kaneff, Who owns the past? The politics of time in a ‘model’ Bulgarian village
William F. Kelleher Jr., The troubles in Ballybogoin: Memory and identity in Northern Ireland
Don Kalb and Herman Tak, Critical junctions: Anthropology and history beyond the cultural turn
Jonathan Xavier Inda (ed.), Anthropologies of modernity: Foucault, governmentality, and life politics
Tatjana Thelen, Privatisierung und soziale Ungleichheit in der osteuropäischen Landwirtschaft. Zwei Fallstudien aus Ungarn und Rumänien
André Celtel, Categories of self: Louis Dumont’s theory of the individual
Gerald Sider, Living Indian histories: Lumbee and Tuscarora people in North Carolina
Jean-Christophe Marcel, Timothy Jenkins, David Moss, William Ramp, Mike Gane, Anne de Sales, and W. S. F. Pickering
Emile Durkheim. L’Évaluation en comité. Textes et rapports de souscription au Comité des travaux historiques et scientifiques 1903-1917, présentés et édités par Stéphane Baciocchi et Jennifer Mergy, Oxford and New York: Durkheim Press/Berghahn Books. 2003. p. 207.
Marcel Mauss, On Prayer, translated by Susan Leslie, edited with an introduction by W. S. F. Pickering and anthropological commentary by Howard Morphy, Oxford and New York: Durkheim Press/Berghahn Books. 2003. pp. 208
Massimo Rosati e Ambrogio Santambrogio (eds). Émile Durkheim, contributi per una rilettura critica, Rome: Meltemi. 2002. pp. 308.
Ken Thompson. Emile Durkheim, Revised edition. London: Routledge. 2002. pp. 179.
Michèle Richman. Sacred Revolutions, Durkheim and the Collège de Sociologie, Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press. 2002. pp. 248.
Robert Parkin. Louis Dumont and Hierarchical Opposition, New York and Oxford: Berghahn Books. 2003. p. 251.
Raymond Boudon avec Robert Leroux. Y a-t-il encore une sociologie?, Paris: Odile Jacob, 2003. pp. 249.
Thomas Hylland Eriksen
, following Louis Dumont (1980) , sociocentric and egocentric persons. Perhaps the closest non-Western approximation of cosmopolitan politesse can be found in those Melanesian societies where people are open to social change and often speak each other
Instead of amplifying Louis Dumont’s (1972) Homo Hierarchicus as the locus classicus of the anthropological conception of hierarchy, I shall take his work back to an earlier publication by another French master, Marcel Mauss. In doing so, I
The Place of Destruction in the Organization of Social Life, Which Means Hierarchy
Frederick H. Damon
reworked version for the Department of Anthropology at the University of Bergen in November 2011. The immediate genesis for its current form was the Louis Dumont Centennial Conference, “Diversité des sociétés et Universalisme idéologique” organized by André
constituted by history, the state, and the nation.” 59 Commenting on Troeltsch's contrast between two kinds of freedoms, Louis Dumont points out 60 that it coincides with the one between Gesellschaft (society) and Gemeinschaft (community), an opposition
Resources and Socio-cosmic Fields in Odisha, India
given to it by Louis Dumont. To Dumont ( 2013) , values provide an order, or ‘hierarchy’, to relations within a cultural system of non-normative representations, or ‘ideas and values’. These values differ depending on the “social environment
Counter-Ethics of Gender and Sexuality in an Indian Dream Analysis
?’ – show the tenacity of this arrangement and the precarity of marriage’s certainty. In contrast to a history of contests around women’s dependence, a heavily trod anthropological literature on ‘the self’ in South Asia (via Louis Dumont  , Marriott