An In Constant Profession Geertz

An Inconstant Profession: The Anthropological Life in Interesting Times Author(s): Clifford Geertz Source: Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 31 (2002), pp. 1-19 Published by: Annual Reviews Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4132869 Accessed: 26/06/2009 20:04 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=annrevs. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Annual Reviews is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Annual Review of Anthropology.

http://www.jstor.org

Annu. Rev. Anthropol.2002. 31:1-19 doi: 10.1146/annurev.anthro.31.040402.085449 Copyright? 2002 by AnnualReviews. All rights reserved

AN INCONSTANT PROFESSION:

TheAnthropological Lifein Interesting Times CliffordGeertz Institute for AdvancedStudy,EinsteinDrive,Princeton,NewJersey08540; email:[email protected] ColdWar Key Words social sciences,history,thirdworld,modernization, M Abstract I give an overallview of anthropologyandof my careerwithinit over the past fifty years,relatingthemto changesin the worldin generalduringthattime. All lessons areimplicit,all moralsunstated,all conclusionsundrawn.

INTRODUCTION I have arrived,it seems, at that point in my life and my careerwhen what people most want to hear from me is not some new fact or idea, but how I got to this point in my life and my career.This is a bit discouraging,not just because of its momentomori overtones(when you are seventy-five,everythinghas memento mori overtones), but because, having spent the whole of my adult life trying to push thingsforwardin the humansciences, I am now being askedto considerwhat that has entailed-why I think my directioncan be called forward,and what, if that directionis to be sustained,the next necessary thing might be. As a result, I have engaged in the past few years in at least two more or less organizedattempts to describethe generalcurveof my life as a workinganthropologist,andthis essay will be the third,and,I trust,the last. Talkingaboutone's self andone's experiences in a homileticalmanner--"go thou and do likewise"-is a bit much the firsttime around.Recycled, it loses charmaltogether. The first of these essays in apologetical retrospection,originally given as a Harvard-Jerusalem lecture in 1990, became the chapterentitled "Disciplines"in the book Fact (Geertz 1995a). ThereI concentratedmostly on mattersof After my researchand scholarship,most especially on my long-termfieldworkin Indonesia and Morocco-a story of projects leading to outcomes leading to other projects leading to other outcomes. The second, originallygiven as an AmericanCouncil of LearnedSocieties "Life of Learning"lecturein 1999, became the firstchapter, entitled"PassageandAccident,"of my most recentbook, AvailableLight (Geertz 2000). There I presenteda more personal,semi-introspectiveaccountof both my life and my career;a sort of sociointellectualautobiographyand self-accounting. This time-this last time-I want to do something else: namely, to trace the 0084-6570/02/1021-0001$14.00

1

.

2

GEERTZ developmentof anthropologyas a field of study over the more thanhalf-century, 1950-2002, I have been involvedin it, and to trace,too, the relationshipsbetween thatdevelopmentandthebroadermovementsof contemporaryhistory.Thoughthis also, of necessity,producessomethingof a "thethingsI have been throughandthe things I have done" sort of narrative,I am, for the most part,not concernedwith either my work or my persona.I am concernedwith what has happenedaround me, both in the profession in which I have been, however loosely and at times uncomfortably,enclosed, and in what we arepleased to call "thewider world,"in which thatprofessionhas been, howevermarginallyandinsecurely,enclosed. That world is with us late andsoon:Thereis very little in anthropologythatis genuinely autonomous;pretensionsto the contrary,howeverdressedin the borrowedclothes of "science,"are self-serving.We are, like everybodyelse, creaturesof our time, relics of our engagements. Admittedly,this is a little vast for a shortessay, and I am obliged to pass over some very large mattersvery quickly,ignoringdetail and suppressingnuance and qualification.But my intentis not to presenta properhistory,aninclusivesummary, or a systematicanalysis.It is, instead, 1) To outline the succession of phases, periods,eras, generations,or whatever, both generally and in anthropologyas such, as I have lived throughit, and them, in the last half of the last century,and, 2) To trace the interplaybetween (for the most part,Americanand European) cultural,political, social, and intellectuallife overalland anthropologyas a special and specializedprofession, a trade,a craft,a mitier. Whethersuchbroad-stroke,impressionistic,the-view-from-heresketchingwill yield much in the way of insight into how things are, and have been, heading in our field remainsto be seen. But, absenta crystalball, I know of no otherway. So far as phases, periods, eras, and the like are concerned,I shall, for my own convenience, mark out four of them. None of them is internallyhomogeneous, none of them is sharplybounded;but they can serve as useful place-markersin a lurching,tangled,digressivehistory.The first,roughlybetween 1946 and 1960all dates are movable-was a period of after-the-warexuberance,when a wave of optimism, ambition,and a sense of improvingpurposeswept throughthe human sciences. The second, about 1960 to aboutthe mid-1970s, was dominated,on the one hand,by the divisions of the universalizedcold war, and, on the other,by the romances and disappointmentsof Third-Worldism.From 1975 or so to, shall we say, in honorof the fall of The Wall, 1989, therewas, first, a proliferationof new, or anyway newfangled, approachesto social and culturalanalysis, various sorts of theoreticaland methodological"turns,"Kehre,tournuresd'esprit;and then, on the heels of these, the rise of radicallycritical and dispersive"post-"movements, broughton by increasinguncertainty,self-doubt,andself-examination,bothwithin anthropologyand in Westernculturegenerally.Finally,from the 1990s until now, interesthas begunto shift towardethnic conflict,violence, world-disorder,globalization,transnationalism,humanrights,andthe like, althoughwherethatis going,

AN INCONSTANT PROFESSION

3

especially afterSeptember11, is farfrom clear.These, again, arenot the only cuts that could be made, nor even the best. They are but the reflections, diffuse and refracted,in my own mind of the way of the world and the ways of anthropology within the way of the world.

POSTWAREXUBERANCE Duringthe second world war,Americananthropologistswere, like Americansociologists, historians,psychologists, and political scientists, drawn,almost to the manor woman,into governmentservice.After it ended,in whatwas, in the United Statesanyway,not thatlong a time, threeor fouryears,theyreturned,immediately, again almost to the man or woman, to academiawith their conception of themselves and their profession radically altered.What had been an obscure, isolate, even reclusive,lone-wolf sortof discipline,concernedmainlywith tribalethnography, racialandlinguisticclassification,culturalevolution,andprehistory,changed in the course of a decade into the very model of a modern,policy-conscious, corporate social science. Having experienced working (mostly in connection with propaganda,psychological warfare,or intelligence efforts) in large, intellectually diverse groups,problem-focusedcollections of thrown-togetherspecialists, most of whom they hadpreviouslyknownlittle aboutandhadless to do with, anthropologists came back to their universitiesin a distinctlyexperimentalframeof mind. Multi- (or inter-,or cross-) disciplinarywork, teamprojects,and concernwith the immediate problems of the contemporaryworld were combined with boldness, inventiveness,and a sense, based mainly on the suddenavailabilityof large-scale materialsupportboth from the governmentand from the new mega-foundations, that things were, finally and certainly,on the move. It was a heady time. I encounteredall this at what may have been its point of highest concentration, greatestreach, and wildest confusion: Harvardin the 1950s. An extraordinary collection of persons and personalitieshad gatheredthere, and at the nearby MassachusettsInstituteof Technology,launchingprogramsin all directions.There was the Departmentof Social Relations,which-chaired by the systematicsociologist TalcottParsons,andanimated,ratherdiffusely,by his ratherdiffuse "General Theory of Social Action "--combined sociology, anthropology,clinical psychology, and social psychology into an at least terminologicallyintegratedwhole (Parsons & Shils 1951). Therewas the RussianResearchCenter,headedby the cultural anthropologistClyde Kluckhohn(1951);the Psychological Clinic, headed by the psychoanalystHenryMurray(1938); theLaboratoryof Social Relations,headedby the social statisticianSamuelStouffer(Stouffer1949). JohnandBeatriceWhiting, in fromYale,assembleda teamandbeganexploitingthe newly createdHumanRelationsAreaFiles for comparativecorrelationstudiesof socialization(BB Whiting & J Whiting 1975). And atMIT,therewas the CenterforInternationalStudiesdedicated to stimulatingmodernization,democratization,andtakeoffin the new states of Asia and Africa and the strandedones of EasternEurope and Latin America (Millikan& Blackmer 1961). Just abouteverythingthatwas in any way in the air

4

GEERTZ in the social or, as they soon came to be called as the pressurestowardunification intensified,the behavioralsciences-from groupdynamics(Homans1950), learning theory (Tolman1958), and experimentalpsychology (Bruner& Krech 1950) to structurallinguistics (Jakobson 1952), attitudemeasurement(Allport 1954), content analysis (Inkeles 1950), andcybernetics(Wiener1962)-was represented by one or anotherInstitute,one or anotherCenter,one or anotherProject,one or anotherentrepreneur.Only Marxismwas missing, and a numberof the students happily providedthat (for a generalcritiquefrom the left of all this, see Diamond 1992). For me, as a would-beanthropologist-one who hadneverhad an anthropology course and had no particularaim in mind except to render himself somehow employable-the figureI hadmost to come to termswith in this swarmof talkative authoritieswas Clyde Kluckhohn.A driven,imperious,ratherhauntedman, with an enormousrangeof interests,a continuouslyrestless mind, andan impassioned, somewhatsectariansense of vocation,he had readClassics at Oxfordas a Rhodes Scholar.He had studiedthe Navajo and otherpeoples in the AmericanSouthwest since having been sent there as a teenager for his health, and he knew his way around the corridorsof power, both in Washington(where he had worked as consultantto the Secretaryof Warand directedmorale surveysfor the Office of WarInformation)and, an even greaterachievement(consideringhe had been born obscure in Iowa) at Harvard.The authorof what was then the most widely read, and best written,statementof what anthropologywas all about,Mirrorfor Man (1949), a past presidentof the American AnthropologicalAssociation, a fierce controversialist,a player of favorites,and a mastermoney-raiser,Kluckhohnwas rathera presence. Of the variouscollective enterprises(thinkingback, I count at least eight, and there were probablymore) that Kluckhohnwas at that moment either directing, planning, or otherwise animating,I myself became involved, in turn, in three, which, takentogether,not only launchedmy careerbut also fixed its direction. The first,andsmallest,was the compendiumof definitionsof cultureKluckhohn was preparingin collaborationwith Alfred Kroeber,then in his late seventies and concludinga sovereigncareerin detachedretirement(Kroeber& Kluckhohn 1952). I was given what, with the aid of other, more senior, graduatestudents, they had assembled and what they had written in the way of commentary,and I was asked to review it and offer suggestions. I had some suggestions, most of them expository, a few of which were attendedto; but the most fateful result of the experience for me was that I was inducted into the thought-waysof the particularform of anthropologythen called, ratherawkwardly,patterntheory or configurationalism.In this dispensation,stemmingfrom work before and during the war by the comparativelinguist EdwardSapir at Yale and the culturalholist Ruth Benedict at Columbia,it was the interrelationof elements, the gestalt they formed,not theirparticular,atomisticcharacter,as in previousdiffusionandculture area studies,thatwas takento be the heartof the matter.A phoneme,a practice,a role, an attitude,a habit,a trait,an idea, a customwas, as the sloganhad it, "apoint

AN INCONSTANT PROFESSION

5

in a pattern";it was systems we were after,forms,structures,shapes,contexts-the social geometryof sense (Kluckhohn1962, Sapir 1949, Benedict 1934). A large numberof expressionsof this approachto things currentin anthropology appearedat that time. Perhapsthe most visible and influential,though as it turnedout not so long-lived, was the so-called cultureandpersonalitymovement, in the service of which Kluckhohn,Murray,and a juniormemberof the Social Relations Department,David Schneider,put togethera more or less definitivereader (Kluckhohnet al. 1949). Stronglyinfluencedby psychoanalyticalideas andby projective testingmethods,it soughtto relatetheprocessesof individualpsychological developmentto the culturalinstitutionsof varioussocieties. AbramKardinerand Ralph Linton at Columbia,Cora DuBois, first at Berkeley then at Harvard,Erik Erikson,also first at Berkeley and then at Harvard,and Kluckhohnhimself in his Navajowork(Kardiner& Linton1939, Du Bois et al. 1944, Erikson1950,Leighton & Kluckhohn 1947) were perhapsthe most prominentfigures in the movement, and MargaretMead was its battle-fit,out-fronttribune;but it was very widespread (Hallowell 1955, Piers & Singer 1953, Wallace 1970). Closely allied to culture andpersonalitytherewere the so-called nationalcharacteror culture-at-a-distance studies, such as Benedict's on Japan,and Mead's, RhodaM6traux'sand Geoffrey Gorer'son Europe and America (Benedict 1949; Mead 1942; Mead & M6traux 1953; M6traux& Mead 1954; Mead & Rickman 1951; Gorer 1948, 1955; Gorer & Rickman 1963), and, of course, those of the Russian Research Center,where sociologists, psychologists, political scientists, and anthropologistsattemptedto assemble a collective portraitof "thenew Soviet man"out of the analysis of communist writingsand refugee life-histories(Bauer 1959, Baueret al. 1956). My interestin all this was limitedby what seemed to me its somewhatmechanical, destiny-in-the-nurseryquality and the vastness of its explanatoryambitions. So I driftedinsteadtowardanotherof Kluckhohn'slarge-scale,long-term,multidiscipline,multi-inquirer,systematicalenterprisesin the interpretationof cultures, the so-called ComparativeStudyof Valuesor Ramah(laterRimrock)Project.This project,methodicaland well financed,was dedicatedto describingthe value systems (world-views,mentalattitudes,moral styles) of five geographicallyadjacent butculturallydiscrete,small communitiesin northwesternNew Mexico-Navajo, Zuni, Spanish American,Mormon,and Anglo (or Texan). Over a period that finally stretchedto twenty years or so, dozens of researchersfrom a wide varietyof crossbredspecialties-moral philosophers,regionalhistorians,ruralsociologists, American Indianists,child psychologists-were dispatchedto one or anotherof these sites to describe one or anotheraspect of the life being lived there. Their fieldnotes,hundredsuponhundredsof pages of them, were then typed up on cards and filed in the HumanRelation Area Files mannerat the Peabody Museum of Anthropology,where they could be commonly consultedand a long stringof special studies, and finally a collective volume, written (Vogt & Albert 1966, Vogt 1955, Kluckhohn & Strodtbeck 1961, Smith & Roberts 1954, Ladd 1957). As for me, I did not go to the Southwest but worked for some months in the files, then already vast and varied, on a subject set by Kluckhohn-the differential

6

GEERTZ responses of the five groups to problems set to them all by the common conditions of their existence as small, rural,more or less encapsulatedcommunities: drought,death, and alcohol. Mormontechnologicalrationalism,Zuni rain dancing, Spanish-Americandramaticfatalism in the face of drought,Navajo fear of ghosts, Mormon eschatological schemes, Anglo grief-avoidancein the face of death, Zuni sobriety,Mormonpuritanism,and Navajo spree drinkingin the face of alcohol-all were outlined,ratherschematically,and attributed,ratherspeculatively, to their differingvalue systems (Geertz,unpublishedobservations).But whateverthe limitationsof the reportI produced(andit wasn't all thatbad as a first pass at things),the experienceturnedout to be botha sortof dry-runfor the kind of field research-comparative, collaborative,andaddressedto questionsof meaning andsignificance-that I would spendtherestof my life pursuing;anda transitionto the next phase or periodof the immersionof anthropologyin the movementof the times:the age of modernization,nation-building,andthe all-envelopingCold War.

MODERNIZATIONAND THE COLDWAR The Centerfor InternationalStudies at the MassachusettsInstituteof Technology, which I mentionedearlieras partof the clusterof social science holding-companies emergingin post-warCambridge,was set up in 1952 as a combinationintelligence gatheringand policy planning organizationdedicatedto providing political and economic advice both to the rapidlyexpandingU.S. foreign aid programand to those it was ostensibly aiding-the "developing,""under-developed,"or, for the less sanguine,"backward"countriesof Asia, Africa, and Latin America.At first, the Center,somethingof ananomalyin anengineeringschoolnot muchgiven atthat time to social studiesof any sort,was hardlymorethana secretary,a suiteof offices, a name, a largeamountof money,anda nationalagenda.In aneffortsimply to get it up andrunning,Kluckhohn,who, still moving in mysteriousways, had againbeen somehow involved in its formation,proposedthat a team of doctoralcandidates fromHarvardsocial science departmentsbe formedandsent to Indonesiaunderits auspicesto carryout fieldresearchin cooperationwith studentsfromthatcountry's new, European-styleuniversities.Five anthropologists,includingmyself and my thenwife, Hildred,also a Social Relationsstudent;a sociologist who was a historian of China;a social psychologist; and a clinical psychologist were given a year of intensive work in the Indonesianlanguage and sent off for two years to the rice fields of easternJava(not all of themgot there,butthat'sanotherstory)to carryout, ensemble, parallel,interconnected,and, so it was hoped, cumulativeresearches: the RamahProjectmodel updated,concentrated,and projectedabroad. The ups and downs of this enterprise,which itself came to be called "The ModjokutoProject"and the degree to which it achieved the ends proposedto it, have been retailed elsewhere (Geertz 1995a). For the present "Marchof Time" sort of story, its significance lies in the fact that it was, if not the first, surely one of the earliest of what soon turnedinto a flood of efforts by anthropologists, or teams of them, to adaptthemselves and their tribes-and-islandsdiscipline to

AN INCONSTANT PROFESSION

7

the study of large-scale societies with writtenhistories, establishedgovernments, and composite cultures-nations,states, civilizations. (For anotherearly effort in this direction, see Stewardet al. 1956.) In the years immediatelyfollowing, the numberof suchcountry-focusedprojectsmultiplied(as did, of course,as a resultof decolonization,the numberof countries),and a sortof super-disciplinecalled area studies, eclectic, synoptical,reformative,and policy-conscious, came into being to supportthem (Steward1950; Singer 1956; Redfield 1953, 1956). When the Modjokutoteam left for SoutheastAsia, the Center,as I mentioned, did not yet really exist as a going concern, so its connection with the work we did there--essentially historicaland ethnographic,a refittedcommunitystudywas nominal at best. By the time we returnedto Cambridge,three years further on, however, it had become a large, bureaucratizedorganizationwith dozens of specialized researchers,most of them economists, demographers,agronomists, or political scientists, engaged in developmentplanning of one sort or another or serving as in-countrypolicy consultantsto particulargovernments,including that of Indonesia. The work of our team seemed, both to the Center staff and to ourselves, to be ratherto the side of the Center'smission, inconsonantwith its "applied"emphasisandtoo concernedwith whatthe program-mindedtypestook to be parochialmatters.We driftedaway into writingour separatetheses on religion, kinship,village life, marketselling, andotherirrelevancies,andbeginning,finally, our academic careers. I, however, was rathermore interestedin developmental questions, and in state formation,than my colleagues, and I wished to returnas soon as possible to Indonesiato take them up. So, after gaining my doctorate,I rejoined the Centerand became more directly involved in its work and with the masteridea that governedit: modernization. This idea, or theory,ubiquitousin ThirdWorld studies duringthe 1960s and early 1970s, and, of course, not all that dead yet, stemmed from a variety of sources. Most particularly,it grew out of the writings of the Germansociologist Max Weberand his Americanfollowers (of whom, TalcottParsonswas perhaps the most prominent,and certainlythe most insistent) on the rise of capitalismin the West (Weber1950a,b, 1947, 1965; Tawney 1947; Parsons1937; Bendix 1962; Levy 1960; Eisenstadt 1966; Black 1976). Weber'sconception of the history of the West since the Renaissance and the Reformationwas that it consisted of a relentless process of economic, political, and culturalrationalization,the instrumental adjustmentof ends and means, and he saw everythingfrom bureaucracy, science, individualism,and double-entrybookkeepingto the industrialorganization of labor and the disciplinedmanagementof innerlife as expressionsof such a process. The systematic orderingof the entirety of human existence in rational terms, its imprisonmentin an "iron cage" of rule and method, was what, in its essence, modernitywas. In particular,his famous, in some quartersinfamous, ProtestantEthic thesis-that the harsh, predestinarianbeliefs of Calvinism and relatedinner-worldlyascetic doctrinesof the sixteenthand seventeenthcenturies providedthe moral legitimationand drivingforce for the tireless pursuitof profit underbourgeoiscapitalism-spurred a whole host of studies designed to support

8

GEERTZ and extend it, to find signs andportentsof such progress-producingvalue systems in thatmost residualof residualcategories,the nonmodern,nonrational,noncapitalist non-West(Bellah 1957, 1965; Eisenstadt1968; Geertz 1956, 1963b). As for me, my originalthesis proposal,put temporarilyaside to addressmyself to describingJavanesereligion more generally for the purposes of the common project,was to pursuethe possibilitythatreformist(ormodernist)Islammightplay a role in Indonesiasimilarto thatwhich Weber'sCalvinismsupposedlyplayed in the West. So, after writing a short book at the Centeron the history of Javanese agriculture,which ascribed its failure to rationalizealong the capital-intensive, labor-savinglines experiencedearlier in the West and, in a somewhat different way, in Japan,to the colonial policies of the Dutch (Geertz 1963a), I headedback to Indonesiahopingto addressthe Weberianthesis in a moredirectandsystematic, hypothesis-testingway. I would, I thought, spend four or five months each in a stronglyIslamic region in Sumatra,a stronglyCalvinistregion in Sulawesi, and a Hindu region in Bali and try to ferretout the effects, if any, of differentvarieties of religious belief on the modernizationof economic behavior. But a funny thing happenedon the way to the field. The cold war, previously fought out (the ratherspecial case of Korea perhapsexcepted) in the client and satellite statesof Europe,shiftedits centerof gravityto the ThirdWorld,and most especially to SoutheastAsia. All this-the Malaya emergency,the Vietnamwar, the KhmerRouge, the Huk rebellion,the Indonesianmassacres-is much visited, much disputed,history,and I will not rehearseit again here. Suffice it to say this developmentalteredthe whole scene of action for those of us trying to carryout field studiesin such suddenlyworld-criticalplaces. The inductionof the obsessions and machinationsof the East-Westconfrontationinto entrenched,long-standing divisions in religious, ethnic, and culturallife-another, less foreseen, form of modernization-brought local, hand-to-handpolitics to a furious boil just about everywhereit occurred,and it occurredjust abouteverywhere. Fromthe end of the 1950s to the beginningof the 1970s, the charismatical,heroleadersof thenew states-Nehru, Nkrumah,Nasser,Ben Bellah,U Nu, AyubKhan, Azikwe, Bandanaraike,Sihanouk, Ho, Magsaysay, Sukarno-bedeviled within and without by these pressurestowardideological polarization,struggledto position their countriesin the ever-narrowing,unfilled space between the powers: neutral,nonaligned,newly emerging,"tiersmonde."Indonesia,which soon found itself with both the largestCommunistPartyoutside the Sino-Soviet bloc and an American-trainedand-financedarmy,was in the very forefrontof this effort,especially after Sukarnoorganizedthe BandungConferenceof 29 Asian and African nations, or would-be nations, in that west Javanese city in 1955 (Kahin 1956, Wright 1995). Nehru, Chou, Nasser, and Sukarnohimself all addressedthe Conference, which led on to the formalcreationof the nonalignedmovement.All this, and the general unfolding of things, made of Indonesiaperhapsthe most critical battlegroundafterVietnamin the Asian cold war.And in the mid-1960sit collapsed underthe weight:failed coup, nearcivil-war,political breakdown,economic ruin, and mass killings. Sukarno,his regime, and the dreamsof Bandung,never more

AN INCONSTANT PROFESSION

9

than dreams,or self-intoxications,were consumed,and the grimmer,less romantic age of the kleptocrats,Suharto,Marcos, Mobutu,Amin, and Assad emerged. Whateverwas happeningin the ThirdWorld,it did not seem to be the progressive advance of rationality,however defined. Some sort of course correctionin our procedures,our assumptions,and our styles of work, in our very conception of what it was we were tryingto do, seemed, as they say, indicated.

AN EXPLOSIONOF PARADIGMS By the time I got back to the United Statestowardthe beginningof the 1960s (my neat little three-way project spoiled by the outbreakof anti-Sukarnorebellions in Sumatraand Sulawesi, I had spent most of the year in Bali), the destabilizing effects of the deepening of the greatpower confrontationin SoutheastAsia were beginning to be felt with some force there as well. The profession itself was torn apartby chargesand counterchargesconcerningthe activities,or supposedactivities, of anthropologistsworkingin Vietnam.Therewas civil rightsand "TheLetter from BirminghamJail,"civil libertiesand the Chicago Seven. The universitiesBerkeley, Harvard,Columbia, Cornell, Kent State, Chicago--erupted, dividing faculty,inflamingstudents,and alienatingthe generalpublic. Academic research on "underdeveloped"countriesin general, and on "modernization"in particular, was put undersomethingof a cloud as a species of neoimperialism,when it wasn't being condemnedas liberal do-goodism. Questions multipliedrapidlyabout anthropology'scolonial past, its orientalistbiases, and the very possibility of disinterestednessor objectiveknowledgein the humansciences, or indeedwhetherthey should be called sciences in the firstplace. If the discipline was not to retreatinto its traditionalisolation,detachedfromthe immediaciesof contemporarylife-and there were those who recommendedthat, as well as some who wished to turnit into a social movement-new paradigms,to borrowThomasKuhn'sfamousterm, first introducedaroundthis time (Kuhn 1962), were called for. And soon, and in spades, they came. For the next fifteen years or so, proposals for new directions in anthropological theory and method appearedalmost by the month, one more clamorous than the next. Some, like French structuralism,had been aroundfor awhile but took on greaterappeal as Claude L6vi-Strauss,its proprietor-founder, moved on from kinship studies to distributionalanalyses of symbolic forms-myths, rituals, categoricalsystems-and promisedus a general account of the foundations of thought (Ldvi-Strauss1963a,b, 1966, 1964-1967; Boon 1972). Others, like "sociobiology"(Chagnon& Irons 1979), "cognitiveanthropology"(Tyler 1969, D'Andrade 1995), "the ethnographyof speaking" (Gumperz & Hymes 1964, Tedlock 1983), or "culturalmaterialism,"(Harris 1979, Rappaport1968) were stimulated,sometimes overstimulated,by advances in biology, informationtheory,semiotics, or ecology. Therewas neo-Marxism(Wolf 1982), neo-evolutionism (Service 1971, Steward1957), neo-functionalism(Gluckman1963, Turner1957), and neo-Durkheimianism(Douglas 1989). Pierre Bourdieu gave us "practice

10

GEERTZ theory"(1977), VictorTurner"theanthropologyof experience"(Turner& Bruner 1986), Louis Dumont "the social anthropologyof civilizations"(1970), Renajit Guha, "subalternstudies" (1982). EdmundLeach talked of "cultureand communication"(1974), Jack Goody of "the written and the oral" (1977), Rodney Needham of "languageand experience"(1972), David Schneiderof "kinshipas a culturalsystem"(1968), MarshallSahlins of "structureand conjuncture"(1981). As for me, I contributedto the merrimentwith "interpretiveanthropology,"an extension, broadenedand redirectedby developmentsin literature,philosophy,and the analysis of language, of my concern with the systems of meaning-beliefs, values, world views, forms of feeling, styles of thought-in terms of which particular peoples constructtheir existence and live out their particularlives (1973, 1983). New or reconditionedsocial movements,feminism (Rosaldo & Lamphere 1974, Ortner& Whitehead 1981, McCormack& Strathern1980, Weiner 1976), antiimperialism(Said 1978), indigenousrights (Deloria 1969), and gay liberation (Newton 1979), addedto the mix, as did new departuresin neighboringfieldsthe Annales movement in history (Le Roi Ladurie 1980), the "new historicism" in literature(Greenblatt1980), science studies in sociology (Latour& Woolgar 1986, Traweek1988), hermeneuticsandphenomenologyin philosophy(Gadamer 1975, Ricoeur 1981, Habermas1972), and thatelusive and equivocalmovement, known, elusively and equivocally,as "post-structuralism" (Foucault1970, Lacan 1977, Derrida 1976, Deleuze & Guattari1977). There were more than enough perspectivesto go around. What was lacking was any means of orderingthem within a broadlyaccepted disciplinary frame or rationale,an encompassing paradigm.The sense that the field was breakingup into smallerand smaller,incommensurablefragments,that a primordialoneness was being lost in a swarmof fads and fashions, grew, producing cries, angry,desperate,or merely puzzled, for some sort of reunification (Lewis 1998). Types or varieties of anthropology,separatelyconceived and organized, appeared,one on top of the next: medical anthropology,psychological anthropology,feminist anthropology,economic anthropology,symbolic anthropology, visual anthropology;the anthropologyof work, of education,of law, of consciousness;ethnohistory,ethnophilosophy,ethnolinguistics,ethnomusicology. Whathadbeen, whenI stumbledintoit in the early 1950s, a groupof a few hundred, argumentativebut similarlymindedethnologists,as they tendedthen to call themselves, most of whomknew one anotherpersonally,becameby the late 1970s a vast crowdof scholarswhose sole commonalityoften seemedto be thatthey hadpassed through one or anotherdoctoral programlabeled anthropology(there are more than a hundredin the United Statesalone, andperhapsthatmanymore aroundthe world). Much of this was expectableandunavoidable,a reflexof the growthof the field and the advanceof technical specialization,as well as, once again, the workings of the WorldSpiritas it made its way towardthe conclusionof things. But change nonetheless producedboth an intensificationof polemical combat and, in some quartersanyway,angstandmalaise.Not only did thereappeara series of trumpedup "wars"between imaginarycombatantsover artificialissues (materialistsvs.

AN INCONSTANT PROFESSION

11

idealists, universalistsvs. relativists,scientists vs. humanists,realists vs. subjectivists), but a generalizedandoddly self-laceratingskepticismaboutthe anthropological enterpriseas such-about representingThe Otheror,worse yet, purporting to speakfor him-settled in, hardened,andbeganto spread(Clifford1988, Fabian 1983). In time, as the impulsesthatdrovethe optimismof the 1950s andthe turbulence of the 1960s died away into the routinesand immobilities of Reagan's America, this doubt, disillusion, and autocritiquegathereditself together under the broad and indefinite,rathersuddenlypopularbannerof postmodernism(Lyotard1984, Harvey 1989). Defined againstmodernismin reproofandrepudiation--"goodbye to all that"-postmodernism was, and is, more a mood and an attitudethan a connectedtheory:a rhetoricaltag appliedto a deepeningsense of moralandepistemological crisis, the supposedexhaustion,or, worse, corruptionof the received modes of judgment and knowledge. Issues of ethnographicrepresentation,authority,political positioning, and ethical justificationall came in for a thorough going-over;the anthropologist'svery "rightto write"got put into question."Why have ethnographicaccountsrecentlylost so much of theirauthority?"--thejacket copy of James Clifford'sand George Marcus' WritingCulturecollection (1986), somethingof a bellwetherin all of this, cried: Why were they ever believable?Who has the rightto challenge an 'objective' culturaldescription?... Are not all ethnographiesrhetoricalperformancesdeterminedby the need to tell an effective story?Canthe claims of ideology and desire ever be fully reconciledwith the needs of theory and observation? Most of the work in this manner(not all of it so flat-outor so excited as this, nor so densely populatedwith rhetoricalquestions)tendedto centeraroundone or the otherof two concerns:eitherthe constructionof anthropologicaltexts, thatis, ethnographicalwriting,or the moralstatusof anthropologicalwork,thatis, ethnographicalpractice. The first led off into essentially literarymatters:authorship, genre, style, narrative,metaphor,representation,discourse,fiction,figuration,persuasion (Geertz 1988, Boon 1982, Fernandez1986, Sapir & Crocker1977, Pratt 1992); the second, into essentially political matters:the social foundationsof anthropological authority,the modes of power inscribed in its practices, its ideological assumptions, its complicity with colonialism, racism, exploitation, and exoticism, its dependencyon the masternarrativesof Westernself-understanding (Hymes 1972, Asad 1973, Marcus& Fischer 1986, Rosaldo 1989). These interlinked critiquesof anthropology,the one inward-lookingand brooding,the other outward-lookingand recriminatory,may not have producedthe "fully dialectical ethnographyacting powerfully in the postmodernworld system," to quote that WritingCultureblast again, nor did they exactly go unresisted(Gellner 1992, cf. Geertz 1995b). But they did induce a certainself-awareness,and a certaincandor also, into a discipline not withoutneed of them. However thatmay be, I spent these years of assertionand denial, promise and counterpromise,firstat the Universityof Chicago, from 1960 to 1970, then at the Institutefor Advanced Study in Princeton,from 1970 on, mostly trying to keep

12

GEERTZ my balance, to rememberwho I was, and to go on doing whateverit was I had, before everythingcame loose, set out to do. At Chicago,I was once againinvolvedin, andthis timeultimatelyas its director, an interdisciplinaryprogramfocused on the prospectsof the by now quite stalled andshredded-Biafra, Bangladesh,SouthernYemen-third world:the Committee for the ComparativeStudy of New Nations. This committee, which remainedin being for morethana decade,was not concernedas such with policy questionsnor with constructinga generaltheoryof development,nor indeed with goal-directed team researchof any sort. It consisted of a dozen or so faculty members at the university-sociologists, political scientists, economists, and anthropologistsworking on or in one or anotherof the decolonized new states, plus a half-dozen or so postdoctoralresearchfellows, mostly from elsewhere,similarlyengaged. Its main collective activity was a long weekly seminarat which one of the members led a discussion of his or her work, which in turnformed the basis for a smaller core group of, if not precisely collaborators,for we all worked independently, similarlyminded,experiencedfield workersdirectedtowarda relatedset of issues in what was then called, ratherhopefully,consideringthe general state of things, nation building (Geertz 1963b). Unable, for the moment, to returnto Indonesia, by then fully in the grip of pervasiverage, I organizeda team of doctoralstudents from the anthropologydepartment,of which I was also a member,to study a town comparablein size, complexity, and general representativenessto Modjokuto, but at the far other, Maghrebian,end of the Islamic world: Morocco (Geertz et al. 1979). The Chicago departmentof anthropology,presided over at that time by an unusually open and supportivegroup of elders (Fred Eggan, Sol Tax, Norman MacQuown,and RobertBraidwood;RobertRedfieldhaving only just died), provided an unusuallycongenial setting for this sort of free-style, thousand-flowers approachto thingsanthropological.LloydFallers,VictorTurner,David Schneider, McKim Marriott,RobertAdams, ManningNash, Melford Spiro, RobertLeVine, Nur Yalman,JulianPitt-Rivers,Paul Friedrich,and Milton Singer were all there cryingup, as I was also, one or anotherline of culturalanalysis,andthe interaction among us was intense, productive,and surprisingly,given the range of temperaments involved, generally amicable (Stocking n.d.). But when, in the late 1960s, the Directorof the Institutefor AdvancedStudy in Princeton,the economist Carl Kaysen, invitedme to come thereand startup a new school in the Social Sciences to complementthe schools in Mathematics,NaturalScience, and HistoricalStudies in existence since Einstein,Weyl, von Neumann,Panofsky,and otherworthies had put the place in motion in the late 1930s and early 1940s, I, aftera couple of years backing and filling, accepted.Howeverexposed and full of hazardit might be, especially in a time of such division within the academyand the dubiousness of the very idea of "the social sciences" in the eyes of many humanistsand "real scientists,"the prospect of being given a blank and unmarkedpage upon which to write was, for someone by now addictedto good fortune,simply too attractive to resist.

AN INCONSTANT PROFESSION

13

CONCLUSION It is always very difficultto determinejust when it was that"now"began.Virginia Woolf thought it was "on or about December 1, 1910," for W.H. Auden it was "September1, 1939," for many of us who worriedour way throughthe balance of terror,it was 1989 and the Fall of the Wall. And now, having survivedall that, there is September11, 2001. My years, thirty-oneand counting, at the Institutefor Advanced Study have proved, after some initial difficultieswith the residentmandarins,soon disposed of (the difficulties,not the mandarins),to be an excellent vantage from which to watchthe presentcome into being in the social sciences (Geertz2001). Settingup a new enterprisein the field from a standingstart-the whole field from economics, politics, philosophy,and law, to sociology, psychology, history,and anthropology, with a few scholars from literature,art, and religion thrown in for leaveningdemandedmuch closer attentionto what was going on in these areas,not only in the United States but abroadas well. And with more than five hundredscholars from more thanthirtycountriesspendinga year as visiting fellows at one time or another(nearlya fifth of them anthropologistsof variouskinds, origins, ages, and degreesof celebrity),one had the extraordinaryexperienceof seeing "now"arrive, live and in color. All thatis well andgood, butas thepresentimmediateis, in thenatureof thecase, entirelyin motion,confusedandunsettled,it does not yield so readilyto sortingout as does, at least apparently,the perfected,distancedpast. It is easier to recognize the new as new thanto say exactly whatit is thatis new aboutit, andto tryto discern which way it is in generalmoving is but to be remindedagain of Hegel's Dictum: the futurecan be an object of hope or of anxiety,of expectationor of misgiving, but it cannot be an object of knowledge. I confine myself, then, in finishing up this picaresquetale of questingadventure,to just a few brief and evasive remarks abouthow things anthropologicalseem to have been going in the last decade or so. At theworld-historylevel I havebeeninvokingthroughoutas activebackground, the majordevelopmentsare, of course, the end of the cold war, the dissolutionof the bipolarinternationalsystem, andthe emergenceof a system,if it can be called a system, which comes more andmore each day to look like a strangelyparadoxical combinationof global interdependence(capitalflow, multinationals,tradezones, the Net) and ethnic, religious and other intensely parochialprovincialisms(The Balkans, Sri Lanka, Ruanda-Burundi,Chechnya, NorthernIreland,the Basque country).Whetherthis "Jihadvs. McWorld"(Barber1995), is genuinelya paradox, or, as I tend to think, a single, deeply interconnectedphenomenon,it has clearly begun to affect the anthropologicalagenda in ways that September 11 can only accelerate. Studies of ethnic discord (Daniel 1996), of transnationalidentities(Appadurai 1996), of collective violence (Das 2000), of migration (Foner 2000), refugees (Malkki 1995), and intrusive minorities (Kelly 1991), of nationalism (Gellner 1983), of separatism(Tambiah1986), of citizenship, civic and cultural(Rosaldo

14

GEERTZ 1997), andof the operationof supra-nationalquasi-governmentalinstitutions[e.g., the World Bank, the InternationalMonetaryFund, UN bodies, etc. (Klitgaard 1990)]-studies which were not thoughtto be partof anthropology'spurvieweven a few shortyears ago-are now appearingon all sides. Thereare works, andvery good ones, on the advertisingbusinessin SriLanka(Kemper2001), on televisionin India (Rajagopal2001), on legal conceptionsin Islam (Rosen 1989, 2000), on the worldtradein sushi(Bestor2000), on thepoliticalimplicationsof witchcraftbeliefs in the new South Africa (Ashforth2000). Insofaras I myself have been directly involvedin all this, it has been in connectionwith the paradox,real or otherwise,of the simultaneousincreasein cosmopolitanismand parochialismI just mentioned; with whatI called in some lecturesI gave in Viennaa few yearsago (andhope soon to expand)"TheWorldin Pieces" calling for an anthropologicalrethinkingof our masterpolitical conceptions,nation,state, country,society, people (Geertz2000). Things are thus not, or at least in my view they are not, coming progressively togetheras the disciplinemoves raggedlyon. And this, too, reflectsthe direction,if it can be called a direction,in which the widerworldis moving:towardfragmentation, dispersion,pluralism,disassembly,-multi,multi-,multi-.Anthropologistsare going to have to workunderconditionseven less orderly,shapely,andpredictable, and even less susceptibleof moral and ideological reductionand political quick fixes, than those I have workedunder,which I hope I have shown were irregular enough. A born fox (there is a gene for it, along with restlessness, elusiveness, and a passionatedislike of hedgehogs), this seems to me the naturalhabitatof the cultural... social ... symbolic ... interpretiveanthropologist.Interestingtimes, an inconstantprofession:I envy those aboutto inheritthem. The Annual Reviewof Anthropologyis online at http://anthro.annualreviews.org

CITED LITERATURE Allport GW. 1954. The Nature of Prejudice.

MA:Addison-Wesley Cambridge, AppaduraiA. 1996. Modernityat Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization.Minnea-

polis:Univ.Minn.Press Asad T, ed. 1973. Anthropologyand the Colonial Encounter.New York:Humanities AshforthA. 2000. Madumo:a ManBewitched.

Chicago:Univ.ChicagoPress Barber BR. 1995. Jihad vs. McWorld.New

York:TimesBooks

logical, andSocial Themes.Cambridge,MA:

Harvard Univ.Press Bellah RN. 1957. TokugawaReligion: the Values of Pre-IndustrialJapan. New York:Free

Press Bellah RN, ed. 1965. Religion and Progress in

ModernAsia.NewYork:FreePress Bendix R. 1962. Max Weber:an Intellectual Portrait.GardenCity, NY: Doubleday BenedictRF. 1934.Patternsof Culture.Boston:

HoughtonMifflin

and the BenedictR. 1949. TheChrysanthemum BosPatterns Culture. Sword: MA: Harvard Univ. of Japanese chology. Cambridge,

Bauer R. 1959. The New Man in Soviet Psy-

ton:HoughtonMifflin Press C. 1956.How BestorTC.2000.Whensushiwentglobal.ForBauerR, InkelesA, Kluckhohn the Soviet System Works:Cultural,Psycho-

eign Aff.:Nov.-Dec.

AN INCONSTANTPROFESSION Black C, ed. 1976. ComparativeModernization: a Reader. New York:Free Press Boon JA. 1972. FromSymbolismto Structuralism: Levi-Strauss in a Literary Tradition. Oxford:Blackwells Boon JA. 1982. Other Tribes, Other Scribes: SymbolicAnthropologyin the Comparative Study of Cultures,Histories, Religions, and Text.New York:CambridgeUniv. Press BourdieuP. 1977. Outlineof a Theoryof Practice. New York:CambridgeUniv. Press BrunerJS, KrechD, eds. 1950. Perceptionand Personality.Durham,NC: Duke Univ. Press ChagnonN, Irons W, eds. 1979. Evolutionary Biology and HumanSocial Behavior. North Scituate,MA: Duxbury Clifford J. 1988. The Predicamentof Culture: TwentiethCenturyEthnography,Literature, and Art. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press CliffordJ, MarcusG, eds. 1986. WritingCulture: the Poetics and Politics of Culture. Berkeley:Univ. Calif. Press D'Andrade RG. 1995. The Development of Cognitive Anthropology.New York: CambridgeUniv. Press Daniel EV. 1996. CharredLullabies: Chapters in an Anthropologyof Violence. Princeton, NJ: PrincetonUniv. Press Das V, ed. 2000. Violence and Subjectivity. Berkeley:Univ. Calif. Press Deleuze G, GuattariF. 1977. Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia.New York: Viking Deloria V. 1969. CusterDied for YourSins: an Indian Manifesto.New York:Macmillan DerridaJ. 1976. Of Grammatology.Baltimore, MD: Johns HopkinsUniv. Press Diamond S. 1992. CompromisedCampus:the Collaboration of the Universities with the Intelligence Community,1945-1955. New York:OxfordUniv. Press Douglas M. 1989. How Institutions Think. Syracuse,NY: SyracuseUniv. Press Du Bois C, KardinerA, OberholzerE, et al. 1944. The People of Alor: a Social-Psychological Study of an East Indian Island. Minneapolis:Univ. Minn. Press

15

DumontL. 1970.HomoHierarchicus:an Essay on the Caste System.Chicago:Univ.Chicago Press EisenstadtS, ed. 1968. TheProtestantEthicand Modernization:a Comparative View. New York:Basic Books Eisenstadt SN. 1966. Modernization:Protest and Change.EnglewoodCliffs, NJ:PrenticeHall EriksonEH. 1950. Childhoodand Society.New York:Norton FabianJ. 1983. Timeand the Other:How Anthropology Makes Its Object. New York: ColumbiaUniv. Press FernandezJA. 1986. Persuasions and Performances: the Play of Tropes in Culture. Bloomington:Ind. Univ. Press FonerN. 2000. FromEllis Island to JFK: New York'sTwoGreatWavesoflmmigration.New Haven, CT:Yale Univ. Press Foucault M. 1970. The Order of Things, an Archaeology of the Human Sciences. New York:Pantheon Gadamer H-G. 1975. Truth and Method. London:Sheed & Ward GeertzC. 1956. Religious belief and economic behavior in a central Javanese town: some preliminaryconsiderations.Econ. Dev. Cult. Change 2:134-58 Geertz C. 1963a. AgriculturalInvolution: the Process of Ecological Change in Indonesia. Berkeley:Univ. Calif. Press Geertz C, ed. 1963b. Old Societies and New States. New York:Free Press GeertzC. 1973. TheInterpretationof Cultures, Selected Essays. New York:Basic Books GeertzC. 1983. Local Knowledge:FurtherEssays inInterpretiveAnthropology.New York: Basic Geertz C. 1988. Worksand Lives: the Anthropologist as Author.Stanford,CA: Stanford Univ. Press GeertzC. 1995a.AftertheFact: TwoCountries, Four Decades, One Anthropologist. Cambridge,MA: HarvardUniv. Press Geertz C. 1995b. Reason, religion and Professor Gellner.In TheLimitsof Pluralism:Neoabsolutismand Relativism,ed. HR Hoetink,

16

GEERTZ

n.p. Amsterdam: Praemium Erasmanium Found. Geertz C. 2000. Available Light: Anthropological Reflectionson Philosophical Topics. Princeton,NJ: PrincetonUniv. Press Geertz C. 2001. School building: a retrospective preface.In Schools of Thought:Twentyfive Years of Interpretive Social Science, ed. JW Scott, D Keates,pp. 1-11. Princeton, NJ: PrincetonUniv. Press Geertz C, Geertz H, Rosen L. 1979. Meaning and Order in MoroccanSociety. New York: CambridgeUniv. Press GellnerE. 1983. Nations and Nationalism.Oxford:Basil Blackwell Gellner E. 1992. Postmodernism,Reason, and Religion. New York:Routledge Gluckman M. 1963. Order and Rebellion in TribalAfrica,CollectedEssays. Glencoe,IL: Free Press Goody J. 1977. The Domestication of the Savage Mind. New York:CambridgeUniv. Press GorerG. 1948. TheAmericanPeople: a Study in National Character.New York:Norton Gorer G. 1955. ExploringEnglish Character. London:Cresset GorerG, RickmanJ. 1963. ThePeople of Great Russia, a Psychological Study. London: Cresset GreenblattSJ. 1980. Renaissance Self-Fashioning:FromMoreto Shakespeare.Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press GuhaR, ed. 1982. SubalternStudies: Writings on South Asian History and Society. New York:OxfordUniv. Press GumperzJJ,Hymes D, eds. 1964. TheEthnography of Communication.Washington,DC: Am. Anthropol.Assoc. HabermasJ. 1972. Knowledgeand HumanInterests.Boston: Beacon Hallowell AI. 1955. Cultureand Experience. Phila.: Univ. Penn. Press Harris M. 1979. Cultural Materialism: the Strugglefor a Science of Culture.New York: RandomHouse HarveyD. 1989. The Conditionof Post Modernity. Cambridge,UK: Blackwell

Homans G. 1950. The Human Group. New York:Harcourt-Brace Hymes DH, ed. 1972. ReinventingAnthropology. New York:Pantheon InkelesA. 1950. Public Opinionin SovietRussia: a Studyof Mass Persuasion.Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniv. Press Jakobson R. 1952. Preliminaries to Speech Analysis: the DistinctiveFeaturesand Their Correlates. Cambridge:MIT Acoust. Libr. Tech. Rep. No. 13 Kahin GMcT. 1956. The Asian African Conference, Bandung, Indonesia, April 1958. Ithaca,NY: CornellUniv. Press. KardinerA, Linton R. 1939. The Individual and His Society: the Psychodynamics of Primitive Social Organization.New York: ColumbiaUniv. Press Kelly JD. 1991. The Politics of Virtue:Hinduism, Sexuality, and Counter Colonial Discourse in Fiji. Chicago:Univ. Chicago Press Kemper S. 2001. Buying and Believing: Sri Lankan Advertising and Consumers in a TransnationalWorld. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press KlitgaardR. 1990. Tropical Gangsters. New York:Basic Books KluckhohnC. 1949. Mirrorfor Man: the Relation of Anthropologyto ModernLife. New York:McGraw-Hill KluckhohnC. 1951. Project on the Soviet Social System.Cambridge,MA: HarvardRuss. Res. Cent. Kluckhohn C. 1962. Culture and Behavior: Collected Essays, ed. R Kluckhohn. New York:Free Press Kluckhohn C, Murray HA, Schneider DM. 1949. Personality in Nature, Society, and Culture.New York:Knopf KluckhohnFR, StrodtbeckF. 1961. Variations in ValueOrientations.Evanston,IL: NorthwesternUniv. Press KroeberAL, Kluckhohn C. 1952. Culture: a CriticalReview of ConceptsandDefinitions. Cambridge, MA: Pap. Peabody Mus. Archaeol. Ethnol.,HarvardUniv., 57(1) KuhnTS. 1962. TheStructureof ScientificRevolutions. Chicago:Univ. Chicago Press

AN INCONSTANTPROFESSION Lacan J. 1977. Ecrits, a Selection. New York: Norton LaddJ. 1957. TheStructureofa Moral Code: a Philosophical Analysis of Ethical Discourse as Applied to the Ethics of the Navaho Indians. Cambridge,MA: HarvardUniv. Press LatourB, Woolgar S. 1986. LaboratoryLife: the Constructionof ScientificFacts. Princeton, NJ: PrincetonUniv. Press Leach ER. 1974. Cultureand Communication. New York:CambridgeUniv. Press Leighton DC, Kluckhohn C. 1947. Children of the People: the Navaho Individual and His Development.Cambridge,MA: Harvard Univ. Press Le Roy LadurieE. 1980. Montaillou: Cathars and Catholics in a French Village, 12941324. New York:Penguin L6vi-StraussC. 1963a. StructuralAnthropology. New York:Basic Books L6vi-Strauss C. 1963b. Totemism. Boston: Beacon Ldvi-StraussC. 1964-1967. Mythologiques.4 Vols. Paris:Plon Ldvi-Strauss C. 1966. The Savage Mind. Chicago:Univ. Chicago Press Levy M. 1960. Modernizationand the Structure of Societies: a Settingfor International Relations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press Lewis HS. 1998. The misrepresentationof anthropology and its consequences. Am. Anthropol. 100(3):716-31 LyotardJ-F.1984. ThePost-ModernCondition: a Reporton Knowledge.Minneapolis:Univ. Minn. Press Malkki L. 1995. Purity and Exile: Violence, Memory, and National Cosmology Among the Hutu Refugees of Tanzania. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press Marcus G, Fischer M. 1986. Anthropologyas CulturalCritique:an ExperimentalMoment in the Human Sciences. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press McCormackCP, StrathernM, eds. 1980. Nature, Culture,and Gender. Cambridge,UK: CambridgeUniv. Press Mead M. 1942. AndKeep YourPowderDry: an

17

AnthropologistLooksatAmerica.New York: Norton Mead M, M6trauxR. 1953. The Study of Culture at a Distance. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press Mead M, Rickman J. 1951. Soviet Attitudes TowardAuthority:an InterdisciplinaryApproach to the Study of Soviet Character. NewYork:McGraw-Hill M6trauxR, Mead M. 1954. Themesin French Culture.Stanford,CA: StanfordUniv. Press Millikan M, Blackmer D, eds. 1961. The EmergingNations: TheirGrowthand United States Policy. Boston: Little Brown MurrayHA, ed. 1938. Explorationsin Personality: a Clinical ExploratoryStudy of Fifty Men of College Age. New York: Oxford Univ. Press Needham R. 1972. Belief, Language, and Experience. Oxford:Blackwell NewtonE. 1979. MotherCamp:FemaleImpersonatorsinAmerica.Chicago:Univ.Chicago Press Ortner SB, Whitehead H, eds. 1981. Sexual Meanings:the CulturalConstructionof Sexuality. New York:CambridgeUniv. Press Parsons T. 1937. The Structureof Social Action: a Study in Social Theorywith Special Reference to a Group of Recent European Writers.New York:McGraw-Hill ParsonsT, Shils E, eds. 1951. Towarda General Theoryof Action. Cambridge,MA: Harvard Univ. Press Piers G, Singer MB. 1953. Shame and Guilt, a Psychoanalytical and a Cultural Study. Springfield,IL: Thomas PrattML. 1992. ImperialEyes: TravelWriting and Transculturation.New York:Routledge Rajagopal A. 2001. Politics After Television: HinduNationalismand the Reshapingof the Public in India. Cambridge,UK: Cambridge Univ. Press RappaportRA. 1968. Pigs for the Ancestors: Ritual in the Ecology of a New Guinea People. New Haven, CT:Yale Univ. Press Redfield R. 1953. The Primitive Worldand its Transformations.Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press

18

GEERTZ

RedfieldR. 1956. PeasantSocietyand Culture: anAnthropologicalApproach to Civilization. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press RicoeurP. 1981. Hermeneuticsand the Human Sciences. Cambridge,UK: CambridgeUniv. Press Rosaldo M, LamphereL, eds. 1974. Woman, Culture,and Society.Stanford,CA: Stanford Univ. Press Rosaldo R. 1989. Cultureand Truth:the Reworkingof Social Analysis. Boston: Beacon Rosaldo R. 1997. Culturalcitizenship,inequality, and multiculturalism.In Latino Cultural Citizenship: Claiming Identity, Space, and Right, ed. W Flores, R Benmajor,pp. 27-33. Boston: Beacon Rosen L. 1989. The Anthropologyof Justice: Law as Culturein IslamicSociety.New York: CambridgeUniv. Press Rosen L. 2000. TheJustice oflslam: Comparative PerspectivesofIslamic Law and Society. Oxford,UK: OxfordUniv. Press Sahlins M. 1981. Historical Metaphors and Mythical Realities: Structure in the Early History of the SandwichIslands. Ann Arbor: Univ. Mich. Press Said EW. 1978. Orientalism. New York: Pantheon SapirE. 1949. Culture,Language,and Personality. Berkeley:Univ. Calif. Press Sapir JD, Crocker JC, eds. 1977. The Social Use of Metaphor: Essays on the Anthropology of Rhetoric. Phila.: Univ. Penn. Press Schneider DM. 1968. American Kinship: a Cultural Account. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Service ER. 1971. CulturalEvolutionism:Theory and Practice. New York:Holt, Rinehart & Winston Singer M. 1956. TraditionalIndia, Structure and Change. Phila.:Am. FolkloreSoc. Smith W, RobertsJM. 1954. ZuniLaw: a Field of Values. Cambridge,MA: Pap. Peabody Mus. Archaeol. Ethnol., Harvard Univ., 43(1) StewardJH. 1950. Area Research:Theoryand Practice. New York:Soc. Sci. Res. Counc.

StewardJH. 1957. Theoryof CultureChange: the Methodology of Multilinear Evolution. Urbana:Univ. Ill. Press StewardJH,MannersR, Wolf ER, PadillaSeda E, Mintz SW, et al. 1956. The People of Puerto Rico. Urbana:Univ. Ill Press Stocking GW. n.d. "From the Paleolithic to Palo Alto,""TheBoom Years,""Untyingthe Sacred Bundle," cases 19, 20, 21. http:// anthropology.uchicago.edu/about.html Stouffer SA, ed. 1949. The American Soldier. 4 Vols. Princeton,NJ: PrincetonUniv. Press TambiahSJ. 1986. SriLanka:EthnicFratricide and theDismantlingofDemocracy.Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press Tawney RH. 1947. Religion and the Rise of Capitalism: a Historical Study. New York: Harcourt-Brace Tedlock D. 1983. The Spoken Wordand the Workof Interpretation.Phila.: Univ. Penn. Press Tolman EC. 1958. Essays in Motivation and Learning.Berkeley:Univ. Calif. Press Traweek S. 1988. Beamtimes and Lifetimes. Cambridge:HarvardUniv. Press TurnerVW. 1957. Schism and Continuity in an African Society. Manchester,UK: ManchesterUniv. Press TurnerVW, BrunerE, eds. 1986. The AnthroPress pology ofExperience.Urbana:Univ.MII Tyler SA, ed. 1969. Cognitive Anthropology: Readings. New York:Rinehart& Winston Vogt EZ. 1955. Modern Homesteaders.Cambridge:HarvardUniv. Press VogtEZ, AlbertEM, eds. 1966. People of Rimrock: a Study of Values in Five Cultures. Cambridge,MA: HarvardUniv. Press Wallace AFC. 1970. Cultureand Personality. New York:RandomHouse Weber M. 1947. The Theory of Social and Economic Organization.Glencoe, IL: Free Press WeberM. 1950a. TheProtestantEthic and the Spirit of Capitalism.New York:Scribner WeberM. 1950b. General Economic History. Glencoe, IL: Free Press Weber M. 1965. The Sociology of Religion. Boston: Beacon

AN INCONSTANTPROFESSION

19

Communicationin the Animal and the MaWeiner AB. 1976. Womenof Value, Men of chine. Cambridge,MA: MIT Press Renown: New Perspectives in Trobriand Wolf ER. 1982. Europeand thePeople Without Exchange.Austin:Univ. Tex. Press History. Berkeley:Univ. Calif. Press Whiting BB, Whiting J. 1975. Childrenof Six Cultures:a Psycho-CulturalAnalysis. Cam- WrightR. 1995. The Color Curtain:a Report on the Bandung Conference.Jackson:Univ. bridge,MA: HarvardUniv. Press Press Miss. Wiener N. 1962. Cybernetics;or Controland