history of anthropology.” Indeed, only in their personal writings and speeches do anthropologists reveal beliefs or religiously laden affiliations and recall self-censorship along the boundaries erected, although perhaps never imperviously, between
A Northern Perspective
Dmitry V. Arzyutov and Sergei A. Kan
at this point is that because of our professional interests in Arctic anthropology and the history of anthropological thought, we refer for the most part to the “Leningrad school of anthropology” and draw on experiences of ethnographers specializing
Radcliffe-Brown and Malinowski’s South African engagements, 1919–1934
. 2016 . Pioneers of the field: South Africa’s women anthropologists . New York : Cambridge University Press . Barnard , Alan . 1992 . Through Radcliffe-Brown’s spectacles: Reflections on the history of anthropology . History of the Human Sciences
Two Vepsian Villages and three Researchers
Laura Siragusa and Madis Arukask
.V. 2011 . “ Bremiia traditsii: proshloe v nastoiashchem rossiiskoi antropologii ”. Antropologicheskii Forum 15 : 205 – 220 . Stocking , G.W. , Jr. , ed. 1992 . The Ethnographer’s Magic and Other Essays in History of Anthropology . Madison
A Discursive Analysis of a Century of Anthropological Writings on Missionary Ethnographers
Travis Warren Cooper
, material demise” (see Michaud 2007: 7 ). 6 Discourse Two: The Missionary as Practical Intermediary A number of works in the history of anthropology, concentrated in but not limited to the 1980s to 2000s, have problematized Discourse One’s dominance. In
Historical Obstacles, Current Situation, Future Challenges
Dan Podjed, Meta Gorup, and Alenka Bezjak Mlakar
Future of Anthropology: Its Relevance to the Contemporary World , (eds.) A. S. Ahmed and C. Shore ( London : Athlone Press ), 65 – 93 . Wright , S. ( 2006 ), ‘ Machetes into a Jungle? A History of Anthropology in Policy and Practice, 1981
Political and Academic Agendas
Thomas Hylland Eriksen
Since the early 1960s, Scandinavian anthropologists have made considerable contributions to the study of ethnicity, an early high point having been reached with the 1967 Wenner-Gren conference leading to the publication of Ethnic Groups and Boundaries in 1969. Later Scandinavian research on ethnicity and social identification more generally has been varied and rich, covering all continents and many kinds of majority/minority relations. However, over the last twenty years, anthropologists have increasingly focused on the study of the relationship between immigrant minorities and the majorities in their own countries. There are some significant general differences between ethnicity research overseas and at home, shedding light on the theoretical constructions of anthropology as well as the 'double hermeneutics' between social research and society. It can be argued that anthropology at home shares characteristics with both European ethnology (with its traditional nation-building agenda) and with sociology (which, in Scandinavia, is almost tantamount to the sympathetic study of the welfare state), adding a diluted normative relativism associated with the political views of the academic middle class (to which the anthropologists themselves, incidentally, belong). The article reflects on the consequences of embroilment in domestic politics for anthropological theory, using the experiences of overseas ethnicity research as a contrast to ethnicity research at home, where anthropologists have been forced, or enabled, to go public with their work.
The Office of Strategic Services' 1943 'Preliminary Report on Japanese Anthropology'
David H. Price
More than two dozen U.S. anthropologists worked for the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) during the Second World War. Some anthropologists at the OSS's Research and Analysis Branch analysed information on Japanese culture and tracked shifts in Japanese morale to estimate the best ways of employing psychological warfare. Among the papers produced by these anthropologists was a 1943 'Preliminary Report on Japanese Anthropology' which included the contemplation of biological warfare programmes using anthrax and other weapons of mass destruction on Japanese civilian and military populations. This article summarizes and critiques the roles of American anthropology in designing and opposing various programmes directed against Japanese soldiers and civilians under consideration at the OSS.
Western representations of the Other are criticized by anthropologists, but similar hegemonic classifications are present in the relationships between anthropologists who are living in the West and working on the (post-socialist) East, and those working and living in the (post-communist) East. In a hierarchical order of scholars and knowledge, post-socialist anthropologists are often perceived as relics of the communist past: folklorists, theoretically backward empiricists, and nationalists. These images replicate Cold War stereotypes, ignore long-lasting paradigm shifts as well as actual practices triggered by the transnationalization of scholarship. Post-socialist academics either approve of such hegemony or contest this pecking order of wisdom, and their reactions range from isolationism to uncritical attempts at “nesting intellectual backwardness“ in the local context (an effect that trickles down and reinforces hierarchies). Deterred communication harms anthropological studies on post-socialism, the prominence of which can hardly be compared to that of post-colonial studies.
Contextualizing the Bishop Museum Hale Pili Exhibit through Archaeological Analyses
Jennifer G. Kahn
subsurface activities, touches upon themes relevant to representations of culture and place in museum exhibits, analysis of existing museum collections to holistically interpret material culture, and the history of anthropological collecting. The house was