M
ulti-disciplinarity is a conduit nowadays for socio-cultural discourse. The discourse on history, orchestrated by social scientists and literary theorists, offers profound insights. These interactions not only expand the horizons of historical understanding but also imbue it with theoretical richness.
Anthropologists heavily rely on history. However, the type of history they focus on is often dynamic and involves local people actively shaping their own narratives. This perspective emphasises that people are not just passive recipients of history but are actively involved in “making their own history,” challenging it, borrowing meanings from other influences and reconstructing their cultural identity. This approach rejects fixed ideas about a “world system” or a “dependent structure” and questions concepts like “authenticity,” “a different people,” “a unitary culture” and “tradition.”
Many influential individuals today support this view of history. However, there are reasons to be sceptical about it. The scepticism arises from a lack of conviction and alternative perspectives that resist this notion of history.
Marshall Sahlins, in his Radcliffe-Brown lecture, expressed his disagreement with the idea that the global expansion of Western capitalism has made colonised peoples passive objects of their own history. He criticised anthropologist of power and peasant studies, Eric Wolf, for reducing the histories of non-European peoples to the history of global capitalism, attributing this reduction to Wolf’s attachment to economistic Marxism. Sahlins suggested that a more sophisticated Marxist understanding, considering production as a cultural process, would reveal the falsity of assuming that capitalism ends all other cultural history.
Sahlins explores historical encounters, such as the British presence in imperial China, European trade activities in Hawaii and the Kwakiutl tribe’s utilisation of European goods. His aim is to illustrate how the dynamics of local cultures played a pivotal role in shaping these interactions.
Of particular relevance is the mention of the Kwakiutl tribe, renowned for their ceremonial feasts called potlatches. During these events, the hosts bestow valuable gifts upon their guests. Potlatches were organised to commemorate significant milestones like marriages or births, or to reconcile for transgressions against a tribe.
While Sahlins provides compelling narratives, it is essential to highlight his focus on the early stages of European expansion. This emphasis makes it more convenient to associate capitalism with trade and consumption rather than delve into changes in production and power dynamics.
The “anthropological chorus” argues that local people are not just passive recipients of history but Sahlins’ claim that they are not “passive objects” doesn’t necessarily mean that they are the “authors”of their history. The term “author” is ambiguous; it could refer to someone creating a narrative or someone with the authority to produce specific narratives. While the two concepts are connected, the author of a biography is distinct from the subject of that biography, even if the individual is not entirely the author of their own life.
Sahlins notes that Western capitalism has unleashed significant forces globally, affecting production, coercion and destruction. Despite these forces being hard to resist, the larger system’s relations and goods still hold meaning in local contexts. This perspective suggests that local people are somewhat passive in their history, adjusting consciously to external forces and attributing meaning to those adjustments. However, this is not unique to non-Western societies, as even in Western societies, people integrate larger system elements into their local perspectives.
In extreme cases, like a concentration camp, individuals may live by their own cultural logic, adjusting consciously to their circumstances. However, one might question whether this adaptation constitutes “making their own history” in a meaningful way.
Sahlins suggests that when the larger system, like global capitalism, sets the conditions for how things are perceived, everyone becomes more of a passive observer of their own history rather than its creator. In other words, he sometimes seems to say that while we shouldn’t ignore the influence of modern global forces, we should view their historical impact as a cultural process.
The primary narrative is shaped by the global capitalist force and local people contribute their own interpretations in their unique contexts. However, even in this perspective, world capitalism is seen as the main driver, with local communities having a secondary role at best.
In a widely read article discussing anthropological theories, Sherry Ortner criticises this viewpoint. She argues against the idea that either an invisible structural force or the overpowering influence of capitalism is the true agent in society and history.
Ortner suggests that the concept of Western capitalism is an abstraction, a kind of fiction and does not genuinely control the lives of real people doing real things. She questions the assumption that everything encountered by anthropologists in the field has been influenced by the capitalist world system or that every phenomenon can be best explained as a response to it.
Ortner’s concerns also touch on the theoretical idea of world capitalism, pointing out that it’s essential for recognising historical consequences. She raises questions about how world capitalism should be identified; whether it precedes or includes its local effects. Her unease with the capitalism-centred worldview extends to its impact on the field of anthropology within the academic setting, suggesting that a theoretical understanding of world capitalism is crucial for acknowledging its historical effects, especially in anthropology.
The writer is Professor in the faculty of Liberal Arts at the Beaconhouse National University, Lahore
Anthropologists talking about history — I
16
0
14.01.2024
ulti-disciplinarity is a conduit nowadays for socio-cultural discourse. The discourse on history, orchestrated by social scientists and literary theorists, offers profound insights. These interactions not only expand the horizons of historical understanding but also imbue it with theoretical richness.
Anthropologists heavily rely on history. However, the type of history they focus on is often dynamic and involves local people actively shaping their own narratives. This perspective emphasises that people are not just passive recipients of history but are actively involved in “making their own history,” challenging it, borrowing meanings from other influences and reconstructing their cultural identity. This approach rejects fixed ideas about a “world system” or a “dependent structure” and questions concepts like “authenticity,” “a different people,” “a unitary culture” and “tradition.”
Many influential individuals today support this view of history. However, there are reasons to be sceptical about it. The scepticism arises from a lack of conviction and alternative perspectives that resist this notion of history.
Marshall Sahlins, in his Radcliffe-Brown lecture, expressed his disagreement with the idea that the global expansion of Western capitalism has made colonised peoples passive objects of their own history. He criticised anthropologist of power and peasant studies, Eric Wolf, for reducing the histories of non-European peoples to the history of global........
© The News on Sunday
visit website
login
who are we?
contact us
qosheapp
Toi Staff
Gideon Levy
Belen Fernandez
Andrew Mitrovica
Mort Laitner
Rami G Khouri
Ali Fathollah-Nejad
Nikkei Editorial
