Eric Wolf Envisions Power: The Babri Masjid-ramjanambhoomi Controversy

Eric Wolf Envisions Power: the Babri Masjid-Ramjanambhoomi Controversy

Kevin Champion

10 March 2006 1321 Laramie St. Manhattan KS 66502 (913) 908-2467 [email protected]

1

Eric Wolf Envisions Power: the Babri Masjid-Ramjanambhoomi Controversy

Abstract Eric R. Wolf is one of the most seminal figures in the field of anthropology by his personal and professional influence. Throughout his career he developed a unique perspective in anthropology as he created a way of viewing large scale and dynamic systems that make up the current world. Eric Wolf was a true pioneer who gave anthropology direction by way of synthesis in a time of conflict and crisis. Wolf´s anthropological work was not just driven to use or create theory, but rather attempted to utilize multiple theories in order to come up with a better, more holistic explanation of world processes. Through the method of perspective that he created, or medium, his message is revealed. This message is the very medium itself. He is certainly not an overlooked anthropologist as few fail to recognize his importance in the “song lines” of anthropology, however he is overlooked in the sense that most fail to recognize his importance as a guide for understanding the contemporary world. One such example in which Wolf is remarkably useful is in the Babri Masjid-Ramjanambhoomi controversy in India. By employing Wolfian analysis, or perspective, it is possible to ascertain a necessary focus in order to grasp such a complex problem as Hindu-Muslim conflict in India represented by this controversy. Most important of all is that Wolf offers us direction. The emphasis he puts on education gives us an answer of how to be an activist without having to be an activist anthropologist. It is this that we must focus on if we are to learn from what this brilliant man had to give the world.

2

Eric R. Wolf is a seminal figure in the history of anthropological theory. His contributions to anthropology are evident in his body of written work, his innovative theoretical emphasis, and his personal influence on students and fellow scholars. Wolf wrote several books, including his most acclaimed “Europe and the People without History”, many journal articles covering a vast range of concepts and topics, several collaborative works, and several reviews and critiques of his peers´ work. His most constant theoretical approach and emphasis in all of his work is the importance on doing anthropological analysis through the lens of history. Wolf viewed this historical, or processual, method as essential to explain various social forms (Friedman 1987a: 111). As Wolf developed his major theoretical constructs he increasingly utilized Marxian concepts as a form of analysis. This was either the cause of or caused by his characteristic focus on complex systems. Wolf was not satisfied to contain his analysis in a specifically defined area. Rather, he increasingly felt this approach was imprudent in an entirely interconnected world, both geographically and historically. This recognition of change as a fundamental concept operating at a foundational level in the actualization of such terms as “culture” or “society” reflects one major area of Marxian influence. In attempting to apply anthropology to complex systems, Wolf increasingly turned to the ideas of “power”, “ideology”, and “hegemony” as tools to examine the relationships and moving forces in said complex systems. Hence, his more contemporary work largely focused on the analysis of complex systems of structural power relations. Such analysis dealt with significant and previously untouched concepts and for this reason, Wolf was a true pioneer. If a label is necessary, Wolf can be characterized as a critical anthropologist. Wolf is commonly attributed with “render[ing] anthropology relevant to contemporary history,” (Schneider 1999: 395) advocating “cultural anthropology as a link between the humanities and the social sciences,” (Yengoyan 2001: vii) and “bringing Marxism to anthropology” (Marcus 2003: 113). Wolf´s theoretical influence can be noted in the collaborative book titled “Articulating

3

Hidden Histories: Exploring the influence of Eric R. Wolf” (Schneider and Rapp 1995) in which several anthropologists, both students of his and scholars influenced by him, pay tribute to the then still living Wolf. Carol Smith notes in a review of this work that very few living anthropologists are ever paid tribute by such prominent scholars, putting Wolf in league with the likes of Claude LéviStrauss (1997: 387), and echoing Smith, Claudio Lomnitz states that this collection, “show[s] the extent, fertility, and intensity of Eric Wolf´s influence on a number of scholars” (1996: 148). Wolf’s contribution to anthropology manifests itself most directly through his influence on students and fellow scholars, evident in the very writing of this paper. Eric Wolf was the professor and advisor of Harald E. L. Prins and Prins is my professor. Consequently, there is a direct influence of Wolf on the writing of this paper that shows itself in the examination of the song lines of anthropological theory. Not only am I connected closely to Wolf, but I am also then connected to Wolf’s teachers and their teachers all the way back to the origins of this ever evolving discipline. Just as the Australian aborigines sing their song of the dreamtime to guide them through the land and at the same time create the land, I am singing the song of anthropology in the writing of this paper which guides me through the world of anthropology and at the same time creates the very anthropology that I am guided through. Wolf’s anthropological approach is a major motivational force for this paper. I chose Wolf as my subject of writing because I share an interest in large scale complex systems. The world gets smaller every day to such an extent that it is no longer appropriate to study any entity as isolated. Not only is this true today, but it has been true for much longer than is ordinarily assumed. My motivation is to obtain an understanding of the world. I see tremendous amounts of pain, hardship, and inequality in the world as evidenced by ghastly wealth disparities, sweatshops, war, and religious conflict. My hope is that a better understanding of the complex system that is the world will aid in eradicating this pain, hardship, and inequality. Wolf certainly does not offer to provide an

4

understanding of the world; however he does offer a more functional perspective for attempting such understanding. His historical and Marxian approaches and the stress he places on systems of power and ideology seem to be ever more important strategies for approximating reality in the current world system. Thus, it seems a comprehensive understanding of Eric Wolf is a necessary and inevitable step in both my interests and in the development of Anthropology. The Life Eric Robert Wolf was born in Vienna in 1923 to an Austrian father and a Russian mother. His mother and father met during World War I in Siberia where his father was a prisoner of war and his mother was living with her family who had been exiled there after the 1905 revolution. Both parents came from highly secularized Jewish families and thus anti-Semitism was an increasingly difficult aspect of Wolf´s early years in Vienna. Not only did Wolf witness this type of conflict, but he was also exposed to stories about cultures all over the world very early in life by his parents and grandparents who told him of Latin Americans, Russians, Japanese, Chinese, Koreans, and Siberian Tungus. In his household, “the virtues of the Enlightenment… were extolled,” (Wolf 2001: 1) and at his elementary school, Wolf benefited from a fine education that was created by the controlling Socialists. He describes the “crossroads” nature of Vienna in those years as, “full of traveling merchants, carrying rugs and wearing strange shoes and hats from the Balkans” (Friedman 1987a: 107). He also remembers constant conflict in Vienna in those years as he recalls ideologically opposed student groups literally beating each other to death while he was playing in a nearby park (Ghani 1987: 346). Wolf thus described these early years as, “caught… ´between the Enlightenment and hysteria´” (Schneider 1999: 395). In 1933 at age 10, Wolf´s father moved the family to Tannwald in the Sudetenland where he was sent to work as the manager of a textile factory. Wolf´s father increased production by making greater demands in labor, which caused Wolf to confront issues of class struggle because his father

5

was the manager of many of his friends´ parents. He was also exposed to more clashes of ethnicity as this area was the epicenter of the Czech-German inter-ethnic conflict that was exacerbated by Nazi rule. During these early years Wolf spent much vacation time with his family in the Italian Tyrol where he was exposed to peasants dressed in traditional clothing and speaking native tongues. In 1938, shortly after the German army occupied Austria, Wolf´s father managed to get him and his family out of Sudetenland and to England where they settled near Manchester. Wolf was immediately sent to the Forest School in Essex. In 1940, he was put in an internment camp at Huyton, near Liverpool because he was considered an “enemy alien”. Here he was greatly influenced by his fellow inmates, either Jewish or socialist, as they set up formal lectures and discussions on a variety of subjects. In June of 1940, Wolf and his family were allowed to leave England to start a new life in America because they had family in New York. They settled in Queens, and Wolf was admitted to Queens College in that fall. The following summer Wolf was exposed to the “impoverished underbelly of the South” (Wolf 2001: 3) while volunteering for rural reforestation at the Highlander Folk School. In 1942, he enlisted in the Tenth Mountain Division that fought in the Alps. Due to his knowledge of the area from his vacation time spent in the Alps, Wolf won a Silver Star for bravery in combat (Prins 1999b). Fighting in the army exposed him to the horrors of war and also allowed him access to government funds so that he could continue his studies. After he returned, he finished his Bachelor of Arts degree in 1946, and moved on to do graduate work at Columbia University. He completed his doctorate work under Julian Steward in anthropology in 1951. After completing doctorate work in Puerto Rico, Wolf set out to start his own project in Mexico. The outcomes of this project were several papers, many connections with Mexican anthropologists, and a distinct knowledge of various peasant communities in Mexico. In 1952, Wolf joined Steward at the University of Illinois as a research associate. In 1955, Wolf accepted a

6

teaching position at the University of Virginia where he was able to do much writing. During this time he published a book on his studies of peasants, “The Sons of Shaking Earth” (1959). After short stints at Yale University and the University of Chicago, Wolf started a new research project in 1960 studying the peasants that so interested him in early life in the Italian Tyrol. In 1961 he returned to accept a position at the University of Michigan where he was to stay for ten years. Here he wrote an important book entitled “Anthropology” (1964), increased his understanding of peasants which led to the works “Peasants” (1966) and “Peasant Wars of the Twentieth Century” (1973), and spearheaded opposition to the Vietnam War with organized “teach-ins”. At Michigan he was involved with the American Anthropological Association in helping create the Committee on Ethics. In 1971, Wolf moved to New York where he taught graduates at the City University of New York while teaching undergraduates at the Herbert H. Lehman College in the Bronx. Although prompted by his relationship with Sydel Silverman, who he married in 1972, this move allowed him the opportunity to teach working class students and continue his position as a “lifetime champion of free public education” (Wolf 2001: 8). In 1982, Wolf published his seminal work “Europe and the People without History”, which marked a shift toward a study of the forces at work in the larger world-system. In 1990, he received the MacArthur “genius” award which was followed by honorary doctorates from the Universities of Vienna and Amsterdam. After being diagnosed with cancer in the late 1990s, Wolf managed to find the energy to finish the book, “Envisioning Power: Ideologies of Dominance and Crisis” (1999) and the collection of works “Pathways of Power: Building an Anthropology of the Modern World” (2001). Eric Robert Wolf died on March 6, 1999. Education Wolf´s education played a pivotal role in his development. As previously noted, he was blessed with an excellent elementary school in Vienna. In the Sudetenland he attended a German “gymnasium” but says that his real education during that period “came from hiking and bicycle trips through the

7

Central European countryside with my friend Kurt Loffler” (Wolf 2001: 2). These trips were important because they exposed him to the Nazi machine and the various forms of “acceptable” art. Wolf remarks that in retrospect his next stage of education at the Forest School in England was a very important two year period (Ghani 1987: 349-350). It was in England that he found himself in a whole new cultural setting, learned English, and discovered natural science and evolution. According to Robert Rotenburg, it was in the detention camp at Huyton that he was exposed to the “single most influential theorist in [his] thinking about social labor,” (2000) who was not Marx, but Norbert Elias. The German sociologist Elias introduced Wolf to the social sciences and taught him the principle that would permeate throughout his future work; “differences of power are present in every social relationship” (Rotenburg 2000). Wolf states that Elias´ idea which fascinated him the most at the time was the concept that an individual is a social phenomenon which is born into an already established network of people (Friedman 1987: 108). At Queens College, Wolf refined his interests through the medium of selecting majors. He started his studies in biochemistry, but was quickly persuaded in a different direction trying political science, economics, and finally sociology before stumbling into a class on the anthropology of Asia taught by Joseph Bram (Wolf 2001: 3). It was in anthropology that he found a discipline that dealt with the things that really interested him. After finishing his Bachelors degree in Anthropology, and upon the recommendation of Hortense Powdermaker, he applied and was accepted to Columbia University, the center of Boasian anthropology and the “culture and personality” approach. Wolf describes Columbia as “in shambles” at the time because Franz Boas had just died and Ralph Linton had recently left (Friedman 1987a: 108). Nonetheless he stayed and studied under Ruth Benedict, George Herzog, and eventually Julian Steward. He felt he had much to learn from Benedict, but was ultimately frustrated with her lack of interest in history or in the materialist foundations of cultural configurations (Wolf 2001: 4). This frustration was alleviated to some extent by the arrival of

8

Steward, in many ways an antithesis to Benedict. However, Wolf´s biggest influence during these years was his fellow students who formed a study group that they called the Mundial Upheaval Society. Among its members were Sidney Mintz, Morton Fried, Elman Service, Stanley Diamond, Daniel McCall, Robert Manners, Rufus Mathewson, and occasionally John Murra, who were all veterans and all “shared sympathies on the political left and interests in expanding materialist approaches in anthropology” (Wolf 2001: 4). Rather than listen to Benedict, Steward, and their other professors, the society largely taught and learned from themselves. In his final act as an official student, Wolf went with several others to Puerto Rico to do research for Steward´s Puerto Rico Project. Out of this came his thesis and ultimately his doctoral degree. Although he finished his formal education at Columbia, Wolf never stopped learning. He placed great emphasis on what others could teach him and in this vein was, “prepared to learn from students as well as peers, laypersons as well as professionals, the humble as well as the grand” (Schneider and Rapp 1995: 30). He was a lover of facts and felt that all learning was important no matter how obtuse the material seems. He believed strongly in learning through “reciprocal, democratic exchanges,” (Schneider 1999: 399) which is evident in his meticulous attention to detail in citation. He viewed his teaching as an alternative and ever productive way of learning. Due to this he was known to keep in touch with many of the thousands of students he had, reading manuscripts and attempting to counsel and learn. Wolf´s views of learning and teaching were strikingly evident in his personality. During a lecture about Wolf and his influence, his former student Harald Prins characterized him as “an extraordinarily wonderful, kind human being.” I argue that his personality contributed greatly to and is evidenced by his magnificently large influence on anthropology. His views of learning allowed him to be a dedicated teacher and a truly compassionate individual. Few people, anthropologists alike, have had such an effect on the people they shared the world with as Eric Wolf. Prins echoed

9

these sentiments a week after Wolf´s death, “[he] was much more than a productive intellectual or remarkable teacher—he was a truly inspiring human being” (1999a). Major Influences The context of Eric Wolf´s life was characterized by, above all else, conflict. He was profoundly affected by WWI, WWII, the Cold War, and the Vietnam War. He would not have been born into this world if his father did not fight in WWI, because it enabled him to meet his mother. WWII had a profound effect on Wolf as he coexisted with the rising National Socialist powers in his early years. Not only did he see the forces that caused the war first hand, but as a Jew, he was forced out of his home country and even continent. Wolf was interned in England as France fell to the Nazis for his status as a foreigner. He then escaped Europe because of the dangers WWII created for him and his family. On top of this, he voluntarily returned to fight with the United States Army in the Alps. Consequently, Wolf experienced one of the most comprehensive and unique perspectives of the great conflict that is WWII. Furthermore, he lived through the entire Cold War, and the Draconian world it created, in the United States (minus brief stints spent researching in various countries). The major product of the Cold War, the Vietnam War, was a pivotal point of influence for Wolf. As he led and became the central figure, along with his friend and colleague Marshall Sahlins, in the first Teach-In against the War in Vietnam in 1965, Wolf began formulating a new focus for his work. At this time, conflict had even infiltrated anthropology as it lost its innocence as a “church of marginals” (Ghani 1987: 353) and was forced to ask and answer new questions in a new world, also known as the Crisis in anthropology. The shift of focus manifested itself in a broader view of conflict that would help in understanding such major rifts as the numerous wars he personally witnessed. The shift is shown in his last two major works “Europe and the People without History” and “Envisioning Power: Ideologies of Dominance and Crisis” in which he attempts to grapple with the status of the current

10

world system, capitalism, and the various moving forces at work in creating the great conflicts he lived through. Within the field of anthropology, Wolf had many influences. His major personal influences in anthropology were Powdermaker, Benedict, Steward, and his fellow members of the Mundial Upheaval Society (MUS). Of these, Steward played an important role in liberating Wolf and the others at Columbia from the “culture and personality” approach, but did not stimulate his desire to think ideologically and to apply a variety of theoretical approaches. Wolf felt that Steward “didn’t read anything” and stated that he was “strictly oral and auditory;” (Friedman 1987: 110) both comments lending to the idea that Steward was not able to advance Wolf´s interest in the realms of ideology. Wolf and his fellow graduate students in the MUS read and discussed Marxist theory and various important texts such as: Karl Wittfogel´s “Oriental Despotism”, Paul Sweezy´s “Theory of Capitalist Development”, and C.L.R. James´s “The Black Jacobins” (Schneider 1999: 396, Wolf 2001: 4). These discussions provided Wolf the intellectual outlet that was lacking in the Steward school and influenced his theoretical framework. The fact that Wolf was bored by certain theoretical approaches was as much a product of his extensive knowledge of a variety of fields as it was of the deficiencies of his personal influences. Wolf was a remarkably well read scholar with an intimate knowledge of not only anthropological theory, but the theory of other disciplines that he viewed as largely interconnected such as history, sociology, and political science. Theory and Work Wolf´s early theoretical work focused on peasants and their role in the modern world. Influenced by his initial fieldwork in Puerto Rico and Mexico, his interest was sparked in the idea of peasants. He set out to define “peasants” and determine what role they play in a larger system. After spending many years examining peasants, including writing several papers and books, Wolf shifted his focus during the Crisis in anthropology and the crisis of the Vietnam War to questions of the larger world

11

system and the approaches that must be taken to study it. Wolf was interested in viewing the world holistically, in the true sense of holism. Thus he was very critical of borders and boundaries, demonstrated in “The Hidden Frontier” (Cole and Wolf 1974), and felt that they “can never be drawn statically through time, because they have little meaning in capturing the kinds of differences that have persisted historically” (Yengoyan 2001: viii). All his previous theoretical work came to the fore with his most acclaimed and seminal work “Europe and the People without History”. In this book, Wolf set out to show that, “the world of humankind constitutes a manifold, a totality of interconnected processes, and inquiries that disassemble this totality into bits and then fail to reassemble it falsify reality” (1982: 3). Therefore, he tries to show that concepts which have borders and boundaries such as “culture,” “society,” and “nation” refer incorrectly to “things” rather than correctly to “bundles of relationships”. These concepts become “things” by being taken out of their context, both physical and historical. He then posits that in every field the world is studied in bounded units, even though the same fields admit that the world is really one interconnected whole. Even anthropology, says Wolf, “divides its subject matter into distinctive cases,” settling for the idealized view of “primitives” without history and isolated from the world (1982: 4). Wolf wants to know why the world is studied in static disconnected units rather than as its true nature, dynamic interconnected phenomena. He also denies that the world must be studied as integrated totalities contributing to an “organized, autonomous, and enduring whole” (1982: 390). Wolf concludes that the world must be studied in a structural way, a very Marxian way, by analyzing the deployment of social labor, mobilized to engage the world of nature (1982: 391). Advancing many ideas laid out in “Peasant Wars of the Twentieth Century,” critics agree that “Europe and the People without History” is Wolf´s landmark work. Due to the difficulties of writing a history of capitalism throughout the world, reviewers comment that individual scholars will likely

12

“find many bones to pick with his treatment of their own areas of specialization” (Ludden 1984: 197). Nonetheless, they largely compliment the work as providing a new perspective with which to approach the study of the world. One critic, Jonathan Friedman, questions Wolf´s classic notion of modes of production. He claims that in order to provide an accurate global perspective, a different notion of modes of production must be adopted, one which recognizes the influence from a more dominant capitalist structure (1987b: 84). This criticism may be a “bone to pick”. In 1985, Wolf explains his Marxian position in a debate with Maurice Goldelier by stating that the capitalist mode of production increasingly governs, by means of economics and politics, people’s involvement in the world; “however, this process takes place without people´s intentions; or the intentions of people are carried along by the forces that move them” (Verrips 6). Therefore, although Wolf recognizes and agrees with the “more dominant capitalist structure” that Friedman refers to, he feels that from the perspective of the individual this structure is of no consequence because it is just that, structural. Consequently, he does have a response to Friedman´s critique that was either a “bone to pick” or a misinterpretation. Although “Europe and the People without History” is commonly viewed as his most important and enlightening book, his final work, “Envisioning Power: Ideologies of Dominance and Crisis,” is Wolf´s most intriguing. I view the work of Eric Wolf as a gradual progression, each major work furthering the previous in an ideological, if not direct, way. Just as Wolf viewed the study of history, I view all his publications as important contributions to the larger body that is the theory of Eric Wolf even if they seem obtuse. As a product of these two viewpoints, Wolf´s final book is absolutely intriguing because it is important to his overall body of work and is arguably his most advanced piece of writing. Several contextual factors make his final work his most intriguing. First and foremost is the fact that Wolf died shortly after the book was distributed to fellow anthropologists and scholars, which largely silenced immediate attempts to make sense of what he had written. His death confused

13

the initial reviews and reactions with obituaries as scholars focused less on the work itself and more on the man and his life. When reviews finally began to be published in journals, Wolf was not around to answer questions about what is described as “not an easy work” (Prins 2001: 264). The other factor is that this book was in progress for thirteen years and was the first major work he had produced for seventeen years, since his epic “Europe and the People without History.” This created frenzy as people anticipated the book would have the same sort of impact as his previous book. A final factor is that it is possible that it is too soon (only seven years) to determine the impact that this final book has and will have on anthropology and the impact it will have on perceptions of Wolf himself. Despite the contextual difficulties, and in many ways caused by these difficulties, “Envisioning Power” received multiple and varied reviews: David Nugent calls it “a remarkable book,” (2002: 193) Harald Prins dubbed it “a profound meditation on the human condition,” (2001: 264) Marcus Anthony suggests it “was a disappointing last effort,” (2003: 135) Richard Adams describes it as “a thought-provoking synthesis of cultural anthropology and some central concerns of cultural history,” (1999: 736) Alan Macfarlane feels it “has a certain aimless feel,” (1999: 736) and Michael Mann criticizes it as “an uneven book… ultimately falling short of its ambition” (2000: 536). All the reviewers however agree that “Envisioning Power” is a great scholarly effort and a very difficult work to properly read and digest. There seems to be a stark divide between those who do not have enough review space to properly praise the work and those who think it is a good scholarly work, but ultimately a failure. I can echo both sets of responses to the book. While reading it I felt the “aimless” sensation Macfarlane notes, but upon reflection it was entirely a success rather than a failure. “Envisioning Power” was a success because it does what Wolf set out to do. Wolf set out in this book, and as an anthropologist, to explain rather than to interpret, describe, or solve. This goal is

14

reflective in his general historical approach and his absence of a singular theory. Wolf also held the view that an anthropologist is a reporter, “a more or less passive instrument rather than an activist who would like to intervene” (Abbink and Vermeulen 1992: 16). In “Envisioning Power” he explicitly set out to examine the roles power, cultural configurations, and social relations play on each other and more simply “to explore the connections between ideas and power” (1999: 1). Fueled by his personal relationship with the major conflicts of the twentieth century and specifically by the lasting effect National Socialism had on his development, this work is greatly influenced by his desire to more aptly explain such conflicts. Therefore, he divides this book into six chapters consisting of an introduction, a conceptual chapter, three poignant case studies, and a coda. This organization, in its very format, seems to be a representation of Wolf´s anthropology, balancing theory with empiricism. Critics claim that Wolf failed with “Envisioning Power” because he does not show how “power” and “ideology” are “mobilized through specific networks of communication and specific forms of organization” (Mann 2000:536). Although they may be correct, it is only because they are hoping he will develop a sound theory and apply it to specific cases so as to advance understanding and anthropological theory and provide a model for future examinations of “power” and “ideology”. The truth is that Wolf is trying to explain rather than theorize because he has already theorized in such papers as “Ideas and Power” and “Facing Power- Old Insights, New Questions” (Wolf 2001: 370-397). For him, sound theory is the “explanation”. Wolf was not an orthodox theoretical dogma creator; “as an anthropologist, I believe that theoretical discussions need to be grounded in cases, in observed streams of behavior, and in recorded texts” (1999: 2-3). Thus, he gives three such cases, the Kwakiutl, Aztecs, and National Socialists, that are extreme in the sense that they clearly amplify certain structures and reoccurrences in the processes and relationships which may not reveal themselves so readily among less extreme peoples (1999: 16-17).

15

Wolf´s “theory” appears as we view “Envisioning Power” as a method rather than an entity much in the vein of Marshall McLuhan´s concept, “the medium is the message” (1964). In this sense, he is proposing new theory. Prefacing the three case studies in this book with two chapters, the introduction, examining his experiential history, and the conceptual, examining the history of the theory of ideas and power, and post scripting them with a short succinct coda void of verbosity was not aimless, but teleological. This almost structural analysis of “Envisioning Power” reveals a book that is both dynamic and interconnected; much like the world Wolf wished to explain. Not only is this structure revealing, but his choice of arguably the three most known and referenced case studies in the history of anthropology is tremendously revealing. He chose these three cases to demonstrate and highlight a method, not a new theory. He does not provide the answers the critics are looking for because for Wolf, the “answer” is the dynamic method rather than a static theory that proposes to offer enlightenment. For this reason, Wolf is extremely difficult to pin down, which causes the negative critiques and the “aimless feel”. As Wolf states, “in anthropology we are continually slaying paradigms, only to see them return to life, as if discovered for the first time” (2001: 186). Consequently, he was after a cumulative approach that sought to explain how to view “power” and “ideology” rather than an approach that explicated completely the idiosyncrasies of each of the three case studies and induced a theory for application to other cases. In so doing, he was amazingly successful at creating a method devoid of any “new” theoretical paradigms. With “Envisioning Power”, Wolf was showing the answer rather than saying the answer; his message was the medium. One other remarkable aspect of Wolf´s most epic work, “Envisioning Power” and “Europe and the People without History” is that both were described in reviews as being great books to teach from. Writing of the former, Louise Burkhart states, “the book should be well suited for teaching, since it presents empirical material that can be compared or brought to bear on Wolf´s theoretical formulations,” (2001: 556) and David Ludden, writing of the latter states, “as a teaching tool this

16

book will remain invaluable for years to come” (1984: 197). This is not a surprise in one respect because of the meticulous scholarship exhibited in these books. However, it is telling in another respect. Whether he was aware of it or not, he may have been providing the “answer” that is sought after in his books by creating a teaching tool and thus emphasizing the role of teaching. Could it be that pedagogy is what he valued most in anthropology? Rushworth Kidder in an interview with Wolf notes, “He feels that in the future the field will be shaped less by new theories than by changing social and cultural conditions” (1990: 14). For Wolf, theory was a tool to learn, utilize, and teach. Anthropology for him was not a discipline for the furthering of theory, but rather a discipline for explaining the structural power and relationships in the world. He was not an activist anthropologist in the traditional sense, but it is possible that he was activist in that he valued and promoted education as the key to smoothing social relations worldwide.

Case In Point: Ayodhya, India In examining the influence of Eric Wolf it is important to analyze the utility of his work. I am setting out to do just that by taking a real world example of dominance and crisis, the Hindu-Muslim conflict in India embodied in the Babri Masjid-Ramjanambhoomi controversy, and the ideas of Wolf to try to explain a very complex and dynamic situation. I undertake this task with the caveat that I am not attempting to mimic Wolf or produce an analysis that he might have made, but rather I am trying to employ the numerous perspectives Wolf created to reveal something useful to a real world contemporary issue. By utilizing Wolfian analysis of history and structural power, an illuminating perspective will be attained that can hopefully provide insight where there was little and perhaps even possible solutions to the problems that religious conflict is creating in India.

17

The Babri Masjid-Ramjanambhoomi Controversy is an archaeological argument. However, to limit it to just archaeology is to deny the true magnitude of this controversy. In evaluating any claim about the past the question must be asked: why is this claim important? In many of the claims about the past that one could interpret, the answer to this question is not readily available. In this case, this question is not an issue because people have died and continue to die because of the Babri Masjid controversy. Before beginning the analysis of or even stating the claim it is necessary to provide some background information about the Babri Masjid and the controversy that lies within.

December 6, 1992: The Babri Masjid (a mosque) in the northern Indian town of Ayodhya was destroyed. BBC News (2005) reported, “that the mosque was torn down by supporters of the hardline Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP or World Hindu Council), the Shiv Sena party and then-opposition Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)”. The destruction of the Babri Masjid provoked nation-wide and even region wide rioting during which over 2,000 people died all over India and Muslim-dominated Bangladesh. Immediately after the destruction, the president of India pledged to rebuild the mosque to appease the grievances felt by the Muslim minority, but to this day it has not been rebuilt. December 4-11, 1994: On the two-year anniversary of the attack on the mosque the World Archaeological Congress (WAC) held its quarterly meeting in India. The event was described as, “an uncomfortable experience for most of the participants, because of the political disputes that simmered throughout the conference and on a couple of occasions boiled over into physical and verbal confrontation” (Merriman 1995: 19). The event was experienced as such because of the persisting tension regarding the Babri Masjid destruction and the lingering dispute over what was to be done about it. Archaeologist, retired Director General of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) and local director of the WAC

18

conference, B. B. Lal wanted to use the opportunity to bring international awareness to the Babri Masjid controversy and consequently resolve the issue entirely. This may have been one motive of organizers to hold the conference in India, however, before the congress began the international directors, in fear of violence, requested “´that the politically and communally sensitive Ram Janma Bhoomi – Babri Masjid (Ayodhya) issue would not be raised during the… Congress and its attendant business meetings´” (Merriman 1995: 20). 1998: The BJP formed a coalition government which caused tensions to rise over Babri Masjid due to the BJP´s Hindu Nationalist leanings. February, 2002: 58 Hindu activists were killed on a train returning from Ayodhya. March, 2002: “Between 1,000 and 2,000 people, mostly Muslims, die[d] in riots in Gujarat following the train attack” (BBC News 2005). April, 2002: The high court of India, in response to all the killing, decided it must hold hearings to figure out who owns the site. January, 2003: An archaeological survey was ordered to determine if there was a temple underneath the Babri Masjid. In August of that year, highly disputed reports come back declaring that there was indeed evidence for a temple underneath the mosque. September, 2003: After eleven years, 7 Hindu leaders were ordered to stand trial for their roles in the original destruction of the mosque. Most of the charges ended up being dropped, but these and other cases are ongoing as of July, 2005. July, 2005: Six suspected Islamic militants attacked the site with a Jeep bomb and were all killed by the security forces (BBC News 2005)

The Claim

19

The above overview of the contemporary history of the Babri Masjid-Ramjanambhoomi Controversy shows why this issue is of utmost importance in India and the world. It also leads right into the claim that this controversy creates: In 1528 a Mughal emperor named Babur destroyed a Hindu temple dedicated to the god Rama in Ayodhya and built the Babri Masjid mosque over it. This claim provides an answer to why the Hindu Nationalists destroyed the mosque and thus aids somewhat in understanding the above contemporary history of the site. In order to properly examine this claim it is important to, 1) determine who is making the claim and what their evidence for the claim is, 2) determine who is refuting the claim and what their evidence is, 3) make some conclusions about the claim based on the evidence, and 4) analyze the implications the controversy has for India, archaeology, and the world. One person making the claim is B. B. Lal., an archaeologist and the retired Director General of the ASI, who first worked at the Ayodhya site in 1955-56 doing an exploratory study. Then in 1975, he began a research project on the archaeology of the various sites found in the Ramayana, an ancient Sanskrit text that contains Hindu teachings and literally means the journey of Rama (Ratnagar 2003: 1). Part of this project was to excavate in the city of Ayodhya and specifically at the site of the then standing Babri Masjid. During this excavation, “Lal found a ´massive brick wall´… house floors, rubble collapse, and the typical ring wells of early historic India” (Ratnagar 2003: 2). After this excavation, Lal and his team concluded, “that the medieval period levels were of no special interest and report the finds of little other than brick-and-kankar and lime floors” (Ratnagar 2003: 2). This claim is interested in the “medieval period levels” because the Temple that supposedly existed underneath the mosque would have been constructed and would have stood during the medieval period (specifically 1100-1521 AD). It is important to note that, “the primary objective [of Lal´s work in Ayodhya] was to ascertain the antiquity of this site and compare the same with that of other sites” (Lal 1998) So, in the original reports that Lal made about his findings, there was no reference

20

to the existence of any significant structure underneath the mosque. However, some time around the late 1980s to early 1990s it began to be reported that Lal had found “parallel rows of pillar-bases (foundations), made of brick-bats or of brick-bats with a few stones” (Lal 1998). The suggestion is that these findings were foundations for a very large structure, which would point to the possible existence of a temple underneath the mosque at some time. But, these findings are features that Lal makes no mention of in his original report (Ratnagar 2003: 3). Nonetheless, Lal began claiming that he had found these stone pillars and that they were in fact foundations for a larger structure. This larger structure, Lal (1998) claims, could have been the Ramjanambhoomi Temple that existed on the site before the Babri Masjid. In 1992, before and shortly after the mosque was destroyed, a series of “new” findings were reported. During ground-leveling operations approximately six months before the mosque was destroyed it was reported in a booklet authored by eight different people and entitled “Ramajanma Bhumi: Ayodhya: New Archaeological Discoveries”, that stone carvings, brick walls, and floors were found in many places (Ratnagar 2003: 2-3). Additionally, these groups claimed to have found, “200 specimens… amalaka, sikharas, door-jambs, etc., which must have once constituted the parts of a temple, [and] three inscriptions on stone” (Lal 1998). The inscriptions mentioned here and found after the mosque was destroyed are said to contain multiple references to the Ramjanambhoomi Temple that was destroyed. If true, this evidence strongly supports the claim. Claim Refutation Historian Sushil Srivastava created a comprehensive historical analysis of the various components of this claim and published them in his book, “The Disputed Mosque: A Historical Inquiry” (1991). In taking a historical approach to the claim, he begins by detailing the last hundred and fifty years of direct conflict that the mosque has created. He shows, as mentioned above, that the conflict originated 250 years after the Babri Masjid was built. This is his first bit of disturbing evidence. If

21

the temple was destroyed by a Mughal emperor conquering the land, why would there not be historical evidence? Srivastava mentions that in any conquest, the conqueror usually is careful to document the achievement. As proof, he shows that in other similar situations of mosques being built over destroyed temples in India, the conquering party made sure to boast about their accomplishments in the forms of inscriptions and other historical documents. Immediately, the lack of historical evidence makes the claim seem unlikely. One specific aspect of the claim is the insistence that the Mughal emperor Babur was the destroyer and creator of the temple and mosque. The major piece of evidence that proponents provide is Babur´s personal records. In his records, “the activities of Babur during the period 2 April 1528 to 8 September 1528 are unknown” (Srivastava 1991 71). These pages of the records are missing and thus proponents suggest that during this period the temple was destroyed and the mosque created. Many early British scholars and administrators who originally translated the records used this evidence to promote the myth of the controversy. These scholars claim that Babur was in Ayodhya on 28 March 1528. Srivastava examines the translations made and, quoting others who recognized the same mistakes, shows how the British scholars made simple errors in doing the complex translation across three languages and in being generally unfamiliar with the geography of the area. He goes on to prove that Babur was in fact 72 miles north of Ayodhya on said day and that, “it is therefore doubtful that Babur ever came to Ayodhya” (Srivastava 1991: 75). If Babur never in fact was in Ayodhya, he could not have destroyed the temple, and that part of the claim cannot be true. Some of the British scholars also pointed to the Babri Masjid itself for evidence. After finding “black stone pillars in the mosque,” Martin proclaimed that, “they were un-Islamic and therefore must have been taken from a Hindu temple” (Srivastava 1991: 72) Srivastava recommends that just because the pillars are “un-Islamic” does not at all suggest that they came from a previous

22

Hindu temple at the same site. After showing pictures of the pillars to experts in Ancient Indian temple art and architecture, he comes to the conclusion that although they are un-Islamic, they cannot be attributed to a specific Hindu temple because at the time there was a syncretism of art forms between Buddhist, Jaina, and Hindu that makes distinction impossible. He also points to the fact that many similar pillars are found in the surrounding area in various types of constructions, suggesting that they are not unique to a specifically religious construction (Srivastava 1991: 81-82). Another aspect of the claim that Sushil Srivastava contends is the date. He focuses on the date of construction of the Babri Masjid. In this focus he looks at the construction of the dome. He quotes the Report of the ASI, “by the sixteenth century the art of making a symmetrical dome had been mastered” (Srivastava 1991: 91). However, in the Babri Masjid, a wooden beam was used to support the domes and arches during construction. Hence the Babri Masjid apparently lacks sixteenth century “architectural finesse”. This, among many other factors contributed to Srivastava´s suggestion that the mosque was not actually built in 1528 as claimed, but rather much earlier (Srivastava 1991: 91). However, speaking of Srivastava in a book review, Kunal Chakrabarti (1993: 164) states, “some of his…conclusions, such as the period of the construction of the mosque, are a little speculative”. This shows that not all Srivastava´s conclusions can be accepted without critical examination. Nonetheless, he provides one of the most comprehensive historical analyses available. One final aspect of the claim that Srivastava challenges is the attribution of Lord Rama to Ayodhya. Lord Rama is one of the most popular and important manifestations of God in

Hinduism. If Rama was not actually associated with Ayodhya, then the Hindu pilgrimages would be unfounded and the importance of the site and the city would lessen severely. Hindus claim, “that the site is the spot where Rama, the avatar of Vishnu, took human form” (Srivastava 1991: 97). Through a very long and complicated analysis of Hindu history and mythology Srivastava comes to the conclusion that Rama was actually born in the chamber of his mother in Kaushalya Bhavan, not

23

Ayodhya. His analysis examines the location of the Babri Masjid and suggests reasons for its location. The site of the mosque is a hill that holds a very prominent position in Ayodhya. Therefore, the builders of the mosque logically put the Babri Masjid where it is located because of its position of prominence. This realization also provides insight into the more contemporary archaeological finds noted above. Due to the prominent position, there logically would have been other constructions on this hill inside the city before the mosque. Hence, it is entirely possible that the mosque was built upon something, just not necessarily plausible that it was built upon the Ramjanambhoomi Temple (Srivastava 1991: 91-112). For analysis of the specific archaeological information it is important to turn to another person, Professor D. Mandal, who provides a technical evaluation of the archaeological work done at the Babri Masjid site. In so doing, he is not concerned so much with the overall claim, but rather with the archaeological surveys that have been done and the conclusions that have been drawn from them. After completing his investigation of the evidence available, after the mosque was destroyed, Mandal published his findings in a book called “Ayodhya: Archaeology after Demolition” (1993). Certainly the most important part of Mandal´s work is the analysis of B. B. Lal´s findings; however he also looks at the “new” discoveries for their archaeological merit. Mandal´s analysis of B. B. Lal´s archaeological work is based on a small number of photographs that were taken at the time of excavation, 1975. In fact, this small number of photographs is the only solid piece of evidence that Mandal has to work with because of the very small amount of archaeological work that has ever been done at the site (due largely to its controversial nature). Among the work that has been done, Mandal noted that reports of those investigations are limited and not widely available making it very difficult to ascertain any sort of validity. Before even starting his investigation of the photographs, Mandal notes that, “from none of the finds reported, is a date of the eleventh century even remotely indicated” (Mandal 1993: 27).

24

This runs precisely contrary to those who believe the claim and those who propose that Lal´s excavations provide direct evidence for a temple as they assert that, “´the pillared structure was built at the site in the 11th century A.D.´” (Mandal 1993: 27). The referred to “pillared structure” is the major evidence for the temple as it is believed to be the original foundation. Based on one particularly good photo from Lal, Mandal comes up with eight conclusions all suggesting that the pillars are not actually bases for a previous temple. Here are a selected few of his findings: 1. The various structural remnants claimed to be the vestiges of ´pillar bases´ are not contemporaneous. They belong to at least five different, sequential structural phases (rebuilding episodes). 2. It is highly probable that the so-called pillar bases are actually the remnant portions of walls of different structural phases. 5. Constructed as they are of brickbats laid haphazardly, the so-called pillar bases were certainly not capable of bearing the vertical load of large-sized stone pillars… 6. No structural feature or artefactual find points even in a circumstantial manner to a date approaching the eleventh century. Instead, what is firmly suggested for the poorly built structure unearthed in the trench, is a date between the thirteenth and fifteenth centuries A.D. (Mandal 1993: 39-40) It is important here to note that Mandal has the utmost respect for Lal´s archaeological work, he just questions the conclusions that Lal and others developed from Lal´s original work. Mandal also takes the time to examine the ´new´ and ´fresh´ discoveries that were claimed shortly before and after the mosque was destroyed. The difficulty with these discoveries is the obvious lack of proper science. None of these discoveries were properly investigated by trained archaeologists. All of them are associated with some sort of ground leveling work, thus stratigraphy is impossible to determine. None of the discoveries has been fully disclosed to academic scrutiny because they have all been removed from their original locations before proper archaeological work could be done. Therefore, it does not even seem necessary to investigate these discoveries. Nonetheless, Mandal does look at the evidence and essentially concludes that the new discoveries cannot be used to support the claim; “of all the available archaeological material brought to light so far in connection with the (now demolished) mosque, only those from Lal´s trench near the mosque

25

actually count as primary archaeological evidence” (Mandal 1993: 63). Mandal does not hasten to make an assertion about the origin of the inscriptions, but he does make it clear that without appropriate context, the inscriptions are meaningless. Therefore, it is entirely possible that the inscriptions found in the new discoveries were hoaxes. D. Mandal then summarily concludes that there was never a temple at the site of the Babri Masjid based on the available archaeological evidence. Conclusion Based on the most significant evidence, I have found that the claim is most probably entirely false. The Babri Masjid was probably not built in 1528, it was probably not built by Babur, it is probably not the site of Lord Rama, and it is probably not resting on top of the destroyed Ramjanambhoomi Temple. The arguments Srivastava and Mandal make very solidly refute the claim, but it is still difficult to propose more than probability in my findings because the site was destroyed in 1992. The destruction cast the controversy into just another category of claims we will never find the truth about. Even before the site was destroyed, it was nearly impossible to do proper science or proper archaeological work due to the intensity of the situation and the gravity of the conflict, let alone receive permission to attempt such work. Therefore, this claim, in my opinion, is irrelevant based on its own merits. What is both relevant and important is investigating the cause for the arousal of this claim including the historical processes that contributed to said arousal, the symbolic nature of the claim, and consequently the implications the claim has on India, archaeology, and the larger world system. In this respect, a Wolfian analysis of history, structural power, and hegemony are essential. British influence is one factor that contributes heavily to the arousal of the claim. To understand this influence on the Babri Masjid-Ramjanambhoomi controversy, it is important to first understand the attitude the British had towards India. Based on reports from the earliest British to visit India, early colonial authorities believed that there was a strict divide between Hindus and

26

Muslims that was the direct cause of violent conflict. This belief was then, “disseminated by the Utilitarians and the Evangelists in Britain,” which forced the British to think that they must Christianize and modernize the Indians, solving the great conflict between Hindus and Muslims, and “uplift[ing] the Indians from the morass of backwardness” (Srivastava 1991: 34). This belief based on racist and unfounded judgments ignored the fact that Hindus and Muslims had coexisted relatively peacefully for hundreds of years due to “complete religious tolerance in the general behaviour of the people” (Srivastava 1991: 35). Srivastava´s findings also lend themselves to show that if there was conflict in Ayodhya at this time it was most probably not religious conflict. Not so ironically, shortly after the British began imposing major influence and eventually rule on the Indians did conflict begin to occur between Hindus and Muslims. This conflict was general, but manifested itself specifically and forcefully in Ayodhya. From the mid-nineteenth century until present day, this conflict has grown to the point that a large number of Indians consider the conflict to be originated in the differences between the two religions, rather than a relatively recent development in Hindu-Muslim relations. The first account of a temple existing beneath the mosque made by an outsider, a Jesuit priest and non-Indian, occurred in 1788, 250 years after the Babri Masjid was constructed (Prakasam 1992). From this moment forward, virtually all British references to Ayodhya stated that the claim was true. One possible explanation of this relates how the British, armed with their attitude about the construction of Indian society and history, could have very easily been biased in their reports. They then simply promulgated these ideas through their position of power and influence. Due to the attitude of the British, the previously non-existent conflict was emphasized and such stories as that of the history of the Babri Masjid arose to become assumed truths believed by the majority of the population. One aspect not dealt with until this point is the problem that the main proponent of this claim is not actually a person. The main proponent, not mentioned above, is the majority population all

27

over India, Hindu nationalists and extremists included, who believe the claim to be true. The controversy in Ayodhya, before the destruction, was not based on whether there was a temple underneath the mosque and whether it was destroyed by a Mughal emperor to create the Babri Masjid. Rather, the controversy was about who should have access to the Babri Masjid, Muslims who wish to worship in the mosque or Hindus who wish to celebrate the birthplace of lord Rama. Naturally, the argument about who should have access boils down to the truth of the initial claim. However, over the years the focus on the original claim waned and the claim fell into relatively common knowledge. So, the arguments at the site turned into who had the right to worship at the site granted the fact that the mosque was actually built on top of a destroyed temple, instead of whether there ever was a temple. This loss of focus on the original claim was surely caused by several factors, but what seems to be the largest and most important to understand is colonial influence, namely British. The Ayodhya example really encompasses the idea of interpretations of the past being “social undertaking[s]” (Michlovic 1998). This realization draws directly from Eric Wolf’s work on structural power and ideology in “Envisioning Power” and parallels directly to his three accounts of the relationship between structural power and ideology in said work (specifically the Aztec case). In the Ayodhya controversy, the claimant is really not B. B. Lal, the claimant is the hegemony. The hegemony in this case is the Hindu nationalists. After the British came into India and forced the drawing of political lines in the area and expressly forced their preconceived notions on the society, conflict arose. Muslims and Hindus before this period lived relatively peacefully. After British arrival, Muslims and Hindus began to develop a great rift. The great rift appears to be the product of British influence and pressures created by the great amount of change colonialism/imperialism dictated. This rift, or conflict, then became an ingrained perspective of each respective group. The ingrained perspective then naturally manifested itself in the Ayodhya situation as the hegemony

28

created a “mythistory” (Michlovic 1998) to explain the situation that could not be explained otherwise. This concept of mythistory elucidated by Michael Michlovic has the potential to clarify the situation. After reading Michlovic´s work about how mythistory relates to and effects archaeology, I deduced my own definition: mythistory is the history a specific human group creates for itself in the form of a myth that functions to identify, legitimize, and validate said group. It is important to note that myth is neither contingent upon nor necessitated by truth. It is my contention that this controversy in India is a perfect example of mythistory. The mythistory created by the hegemony dictates that rationality and truth in the traditional sense are no longer important. Hence, the archaeologist, or more generally scientist, no longer has control over what is believed because the mythistory combines the rationality of history that legitimizes and the irrationality of myth that explains the unexplainable. Thus from archaeology’s perspective, the reality of the situation does not make sense because it abandons truth; but from the perspective of the Hindu nationalist, the mythistory is not mythistory at all, but rather history and more importantly, truth. The question then becomes: what role does archaeology play? Perhaps the question must be phrased more aptly: what role can archaeology play? This is an open question because when archaeology becomes a “social undertaking”, the rules seem to be thrown out the window as the stakes become life and death. The truth may exist, but what is the point if those with hegemonic power do not or are not able to adopt the truth? When politics take over the claim, truth and academic freedom are no longer factors. In this case it seems that, “archaeology becomes too serious to be left to archaeologists” (Merriman 1995: 20) Furthermore, as Merriman elaborates, it seems that “where archaeology matters most, archaeologists have little influence” (1995:20). This is and was clearly the case in Ayodhya and it seems that proper science dictates that this must be the case in the

29

future. However, must we really sit by idly while people are killed in the name of archaeology? Perhaps a new archaeology (activist) must be developed that can appropriately deal with the identity formation and reformations that seem to be the underlying moving forces for conflict. Perhaps Wolf was indirectly hinting at this type of new archaeology with the emphasis he placed on education. Is it possible that what archaeology should be doing above all else is educating? The Babri Masjid-Ramjanambhoomi controversy has been and has become symbolic for the larger issue of Hindu-Muslim conflict in India. From the moment the world shrank enough for the British to begin large scale influence over India, this conflict has been present. By undertaking a massive scale anthropological analysis of the history of structural power in India, a la Eric Wolf, we might grasp a better understanding of the underlying processes at work in the creation of the present status of the controversy. Here, I will just mention a few: As stated earlier, the British entered India with a preconceived attitude about the relationship between Hindus and Muslims. It is proposed that this attitude altered and promoted a mythistory and possibly even created the claim that is the focus of the Ayodhya controversy. Also mentioned above is the realization that the great rift between Muslims and Hindus did not exist before the British arrived. A direct correlation can thus be drawn between British influence and the overarching conflict. However, although I believe this correlation to be true, I do not think that it is necessarily an overt and deliberate result of British influence. Obviously we can point to the deliberate line drawing or state making that the British either created or supported as a direct cause for the creation of a Hindu-Muslim conflict. Again, this deliberate British action is obviously important in the current stages of the controversy because of the international implications it has for India-Pakistan relations (both nuclear powers). Nonetheless, I recommend that there is a more powerful and more pertinent underlying moving force for conflict presently at work all over the world.

30

It is this underlying force that is of importance because I suggest that it is not only still manifesting itself in India, but is painfully present in almost every corner of the world. This force is a new imperialism that has taken on a politically correct form, globalization. This new imperialism is entirely free form, cannot be attributed to one entity, and is much more difficult to see as deplorable in its own right. However, it still brings with it underlying moving forces that cause conflict such as we see in India. These moving forces rip at the very fabric of culture. When culture is a determinant of identity formation, these forces rip at the very fabric of the individual identity. Here it is necessary to realize that, “popular acceptance of the past as a source of identity remains largely unquestioned” (Bernbeck and Pollack 1996: S138). So, when conceptions of the past are not necessarily dictated by truth but rather created by structures of power, identities based on that past are also created by structures of power. It seems that in the case of Ayodhya, the British hegemony (intentionally or not) reformulated the Indian cultures and consequently the individual Indian identity. Rather than weaken when the British left, the hegemony was simply transferred to the Indian elite and the new identities were only strengthened. This begs the question, if identities were altered to beget conflict, why can they not be altered again to resolve conflict? If identity formation does play the role that I suspect it does in India, then it must be focused on to explain and possibly resolve conflicts all over the world. Education seems to be the key to not only understanding identity formation, but to altering it. However, this is not the education of the “truth” in individual cases, but rather the education of the underlying processes at work that are commonly used to make claims of “truth”. Whereas in the case of the British imperialism, the creation of such lasting conflict can be attributed purely to greed and ignorance; the creation of worldwide conflict, exemplified in India, by the new imperialism will also be attributed to greed and ignorance. It is this conflict, and attribution of unacceptable cause to conflict, that I wish to avoid by attempting to understand the underlying

31

moving forces at work. The case of the Babri Masjid-Ramjanambhoomi controversy provides an excellent opportunity to identify such moving forces. In summation, the Babri MasjidRamjanambhoomi controversy is important because the fate of humanity is at stake. What´s the Point? In reading all of Wolf´s work, specifically his more contemporary pieces, I was initially frustrated by what appeared to be a lack of purpose or “aimless” feel. However, the more I digest his work, the better I grasp it and the more I understand its true implications. In viewing “Envisioning Power” as a method and an explanation (medium) rather than a statement (message), the true brilliance of Wolf has been illuminated. In fact, it is worthwhile to note that this very paper has taken on a similar structure to that of “Envisioning Power”, only the power is that of Wolf´s influence and the crisis is the implication of his contemporary work. The critics of Wolf´s work tried to pin him down and this paper itself is an attempt to pin him down. I have come to the conclusion that the only way to pin down Eric Wolf is to suggest that he is not able to be pinned down in the traditional sense. This conclusion is not a negative one in any respect. This conclusion exposes the true dynamic and eclectic nature of Wolf, a nature that is absolutely essential in the current world and in the current anthropology. The purpose for studying his work at the outset was to obtain a comprehensive understanding of world systems, which is of major concern and interest to me. This interest is motivated by a desire to aid in the eradication of unnecessary pain and inequality that exists so blatantly in the current world. The Babri Masjid-Ramjanambhoomi controversy is a paradigm example of unnecessary pain and inequality, and my analysis of it is at attempt to create a feasible explanation of its cause. Thus, Wolf is inspiring because he, like me, wants to explain the moving forces operating on the world scale, but at the same time frustrating because he shies away from activist anthropology. What this study has enlightened is the idea that Wolf does shy away from activist anthropology, but does not

32

shy away from being an activist (after all, he was the first professor to conduct a “teach-in” to protest the Vietnam War). His belief in education and the education of anthropology is profound in that it provides one answer to those of us searching for direction. To save the world from itself, maybe Wolf is using his hegemonic power to show that education must go to war with fetishism, of the commodity and of theory, so that minds can be opened to multiple dynamic perspectives. Eric Wolf is and will likely remain a seminal figure in anthropology. He brought to the discipline a unique perspective from someone entrenched in worldwide conflict for a large portion of his life, which provided a response to the internal Crisis in anthropology and the external crisis in the world. He gave anthropology a renewed hope in traditional empiricism and a new direction with his emphasis on an all encompassing historical and worldly perspective. He tried to teach anthropology to eliminate the “borders and boundaries” that the discipline had become so accustomed to creating geographically, historically, and semantically. He insisted upon exploring, in Marxian fashion, “the fundamental dynamics of change and phenomena like exploitation, domination and colonialism” (Verrips 1985: 6). Wolf taught anthropology the importance of structural power and structural relationships. He increasingly turned to the concept of “power” and its connection to “social relations and cultural configurations” to elucidate the moving forces in complex systems. Lastly, Wolf showed the role ideology and hegemony plays in the complex world systems of power and dominance. His legacy will prove to be enduring as his students and admirers sing his song line of anthropology through the generations. Eric Wolf was a true pioneer who gave anthropology direction by way of synthesis in a time of conflict and crisis.

33

References Cited Abbink, J. and Hans Vermeulen 1992. History and Culture: Essays on the work of Eric R. Wolf. Amsterdam, Het Spinhuis. Adams, Richard N. 1999. Review of Envisioning Power: Ideologies of Dominance and Crisis. Hispanic American Historical Review 79: 735-6. BBC News 2005. “Timeline: Ayodhya Crisis” Electronic Document, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1844930.stm, accessed October 4, 2005. Bernbeck, Reinhard and Pollock, Susan 1996. Ayodhya, Archaeology, and Identity. Current Anthropology S138-S142. Burkhart, Louise M. 2001. Review of Envisioning Power: Ideologies of Dominance and Crisis. Ethnohistory 48, 3: 555-9. Chakrabarti, Kunal 1993. Review of The Disputed Mosque: A Historical Inquiry. Contributions to Indian Sociology 27, (1): 164. Cole, John and Eric Wolf 1974. The Hidden Frontier. New York, Academic Press. Friedman, Jonathan 1987a. An Interview with Eric Wolf. Current Anthropology 28: 107-18. 1987b. Review of Europe and the People without History. European Sociological Review 3, 1: 83-85. Ghani, Ashraf, Eric Wolf 1987. A conversation with Eric Wolf. American Ethnologist 14: 346-66. Kidder, Rushworth M. 1990. What Makes People Tick? The Christian Science Monitor, March 26: 14. Lal, B. B. 1998. A Note on the Excavations at Ayodhya with Reference to the Mandir-Masjid Issue. Presented paper World Archaeological Congress, Island of Brac, Croatia. Electronic Document, http://www.wac.uct.ac.za/croatia/lal.htm, accessed October 24, 2005. Lomnitz, Claudio 1996. Review of Articulating Hidden Histories: Exploring the Influence of Eric R. Wolf. American Ethnologist 147-148. Ludden, David 1984. Review of Europe and the People without History. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 196-197. Macfarlane, Alan 1999. Review of Envisioning Power: Ideologies of Dominance and Crisis. Journal of Latin American Studies 31: 735-6. Mandal, D. 1993. Ayodhya: Archaeology after Demolition: A Critique of the ´New´ and ´Fresh´ Discoveries. New Delhi: Orient Longman Mann, Michael 2000. Review of Envisioning Power: Ideologies of Dominance and Crisis. Contemporary Sociology 29, 3: 534-536. Marcus, Anthony

34

2003. Imaginary Worlds. The Last Years of Eric Wolf. Social Anthropology 11, 1: 113-127. McLuhan, Marshall 1964. Understanding Media; The Extensions of Man. New York, McGraw-Hill. Merriman, Nick 1995. World Archaeological Congress, New Delhi. Anthropology Today 2, (2): 19-20. Michlovic, Michael 1998. Archaeology, Mythistory, and the Quest for the Ethnic Past. Moorhead, Minnesota State University Moorhead. Nugent, David 2002. Review of Envisioning Power: Ideologies of Dominance and Crisis. American Ethnologist 29: 193-5. Prakasam, K. P. 1992. Ayodhya: Questions of History. Nation and the World, New Delhi. Electronic Document http://www.ummah.muslimsonline.com/babri/babrikpp.htm#arch, accessed October 24, 2005. Prins, Harald E. L. 2001. Review of Envisioning Power. Ideologies of Dominance and Crisis. American Anthropologist 103: 263-4. 1999a. Eric Wolf´s Death. H-SAE, H-Net Discussion Networks, March 13, 1999. Electronic Document, http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list=hworld&month=9903&week=b&msg=rCiNgsW/Jdr363Pl9ugmfQ&user=&pw=, accessed December 3, 2005. 1999b. Eric Wolf. H-SAE, H-Net Discussion Networks, March 16, 1999. Electronic Document, http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list=hworld&month=9903&week=c&msg=hA11Nqn2atPxn/BA0gPneQ&user=&pw=, accessed October 11, 2005. Ratnagar, Shereen. 2003. Introduction and Afterward to Ayodhya: Archaeology after Demolition: A Critique of the ´New´ and ´Fresh´ Discoveries. New Delhi: Orient Longman. Rotenburg, Robert 2000. Review of Eric Wolf, Envisioning Power: Ideologies of Dominance and Crisis. H-SAE, H-Net Reviews, March, 2000. Electronic Document, http://www.hnet.org/reviews/showrev.cgi?path=25836954527191, accessed December 3, 2005. Schneider, Jane 1999. Obituary: Eric Robert Wolf. American Anthropologist 101: 395-9. Schneider, Jane and Rayna Rapp 1995. Articulating Hidden Histories: Exploring the influence of Eric R. Wolf. Berkely, University of California Press. Smith, Carol A. 1996. Reconceptualizing "Wolfian" Anthropology and the Peasantry. American Anthropologist 99, 2: 381-383. Srivastava, Sushil 1991. The Disputed Mosque: A Historical Inquiry. New Delhi: Vistaar Publications Verrips, Jojada 1985. 'The Worst of Architects Is Better than the Best of Bees': A Debate between Eric Wolf and Maurice Godelier. Critique of Anthropology 5, 2: 5-19. Wolf, Eric R.

35

2001. Pathways of Power: Building an Anthropology of the Modern World. Berkely, University of California Press. 1999. Envisioning Power: Ideologies of Dominance and Crisis. Berkely, University of California Press. 1982. Europe and the People without History. Berkely, University of California Press. 1973. Peasant Wars of the Twentieth Century. New York, Harper & Row. 1966. Peasants. Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall. 1964. Anthropology. Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall 1959. Sons of the Shaking Earth. Chicago, University of Chicago Press Yengoyan, Aram A. 2001. Forward to Pathways of Power: Building an Anthropology of the Modern World. Culture and Power in the Writings of Eric R. Wolf. vii-xvii, Berkely, University of California Press.

36