Theory + Anthropology: The Historic Turn

Table of Contents i. Main Points ii. Key Terms iii. Key Figures a. Bernard S. Cohn b. Nicholas Dirks iv. Key Texts v. Critiques

Main Points
The historic turn describes a shift in focus for studying cultures in which specifically, history became understood as a major foundation of social structure and generally, a more holistic, all-encompassing method for investigating cultures was utilized. This shift in focus initially occurred in anthropology in the 1970's, but had been built up after World War II ended in 1945. Anthropologists became interested in studying societies that had been affected by western colonization[1]. This was in contrast to earlier studies in societies which anthropologists, with a western ethnocentric standpoint, had considered 'primitive,' 'non-industrial' or 'exotic,' and untouched by the western, 'advanced' world. These concepts of differentiating cultures based on a linear scale of advancement was based on the theory of cultural evolution and this classic approach has been mostly refuted in contemporary anthropology. It is seen as condescending to non-western societies as well as incomprehensive for not taking a wider array of factors, such as histories into consideration. Colonialism influenced how societies were labeled and the terms 'modern', 'advanced', 'primitive', 'exotic', and 'non-industrial' would not exist if colonialism and colonial powers did not exist. Colonizers were the one's who recorded the differences between them and the colonized, creating labels for societies and their people.
Before the his toric turn, colonial his tories and records in s ocieties that had been occupied by wes tern colonizers tended to be written as wes tern his tory and from the s tandpoint of wes terners , and didn't take in to account the intentions of thos e who recorded the his tories or the s tandpoint of the people being occupied. With the his toric turn anthropologis ts realized the importance of his tories to the contemporary s tructure of s ocieties but als o began realizing the inherent power dynamics between the recorders of the his tories and the people they referred to. Thes e power dynamics exis t becaus e recording a his tory is a way to control how a s ociety is viewed. With infinite interpretations of cultural s tructures , the interpretation that is portrayed in a his tory will caus e outs iders to view it bas ed on that interpretation. (In an article on Britis h colonization in India), Nicholas Dirks s tates , "Culture can neither be removed from his tory nor s eparated from power, and culture (like his tory) is always being produced, cons tructed and deployed."[2]

Key Terms
Colonialis m: A relations hip of domination between an indigenous (or forcibly imported) majority and a minority of foreign invaders [3] Archive: A collection of his torical records and documents Modern: Relating to recently developed Advanced: Farther along in development, phys ically or mentally; ahead of times Primitive: A pers on who belongs to an earlier s tage of civilization; little evolved from an earlier ances tor Exotic: A pers on or s omething that is alien or foreign Non-indus trial: Not having developed economic s tructures

Key Figures

Bernard S. Cohn

Bernard S. Cohn (1928-2003) was an anthropologis t with an interes t in his tory and power during the colonial period. He s tudied anthropology at the Univers ity of Wis cons in-Madis on in 1949 and received his Ph.D in anthropology from Cornell Univers ity in 1954. His work focus ed on Indias cas te s ys tem and the arrangement of it with the arrival of the Britis h. He s pent many years doing fieldwork in India and publis hed many works dis cus s ing the Indian cas te s ys tem s uch as India: The Social Anthropology of a Civilization (1971). Cohn was a leading force in looking at anthropology from a his torical s tandpoint and his key text dis cus s ing this is Anthropology and History in the 1980s. Nicholas Dirks was an influential s tudent of Cohns .

Nicholas Dirks
Nicholas Dirks is a relevant and important figure in Anthropology and particularly the s ubject of The His torical Turn. Dirks is an Anthropology profes s or at Columbia Univers ity. He wrote Cas tes of Mind: Colonialis m and the Making of Modern India where he des cribes the his torical meaning behind the cas tes s ys tem in India. He argues that cas tes are a his torical res ult from Britis h colonialis m in India. Through the His torical Turn, anthropologis ts took a particular interes t to colonialis m and the impact it had on s ocieties in pas t and pres ent. This is the interes t Dirks s hows in this book by res earching the effect of Britis h colonialis m in India. Dirks follows the relations hip between colonialis m and cas tes from Medieval times through the Twentieth Century. He us es the context of cas tes to explain the his tory of modern India while us ing them to als o explain Indian politics as well. While Dirks does not claim that the Britis h invented cas tes , he does imply that becaus e of the Britis h domination in India, cas tes became prevalent in naming India's s ocial organizations and groups through time.

Key Texts
A key text of the his toric turn in Anthropology is Anthropology and History in the 1980s by Bernard Cohn. This text dis cus s es the intricacies of anthropology and his tory as both individual and overlapping fields of academic s tudy. Cohn s tates that both of thes e academic fields run parallel cours es and do overlap throughout certain periods of time. When anthropology began to gain momentum it was clos ely intertwined with his tory. The academic minds et of the time period had an emphas is on the pas t defining the pres ent, thus anthropology could not be practiced without a focus on his tory. Cohn s ugges ts that anthropology began to break away from his torical thought during the next century. Anthropologis ts began s tudying cultures outs ide of European influence, many of which had no written language. Cohn s ugges ts that this lack of his toric documentation from s tudied cultures forced anthropology to break from the his toric lens . Without exact knowledge of what happened how could the pas t help learn about the pres ent? Anthropologis ts decided that it could not and moved away from being intertwined with the field of his tory. Cohn continues to explain that comparative anthropology became the norm in this

time period. Anthropologis ts would often try to explain one culture in terms of another. Around this s ame time period Cohn explains that anthropologis ts began to run into is s ues of European pres ence around the world. This altered the cours e of s ome civilizations by influencing the local people with European culture. Thus , anthropologis ts could not make adequate claims on a culture influenced by Europeans without focus ing back to their his tories . Pos t 1970s anthropologis ts have made the his toric turn and focus ed back on the his tory of the culture being s tudied. Cohn s ugges ts that this is really a full circle for anthropologis ts . This article s ugges ts that the two academic fields s hould be intertwined. Cohns Anthropology and History in the 1980s text illus trates the delicate relations hip of anthropology and his tory.

In The Invention of Caste: Civil Society in Colonial India by Nicholas B. Dirks , he dis cus s es the difficulties that both anthropologis ts have had in learning about pre-colonial India. He talks about how there is very little reliable information to be found on old family lines and the government and how it functioned before the Britis h came into power. The firs t Surveyor General of India, Colin Mackenzie during his time of being s urveyor had Brahmans collecting many traditional documents and recording oral traditions . He als o collected copper and s tone ins criptions . His torians and anthropologis ts when firs t looking at his collections only thought that the ins criptions were the only reliable s ources of information. Later on anthropologis ts have come to be more concerned with the his tories expres s ed in texts . Als o he dis cus s es how when anthropologis ts became more concerned with how colonialis m affects cultures , and how this led to the ris e of colonialis m anthropology. In The Invention of Caste, Dirks weaves together how old texts have become important s ources of information to colonial anthropologis ts and how this has caus ed a whole new dis cours e into whether colonialis m has pos itive or negative effects .

Critiques

"The problem now is to explode the concept of his tory by the anthropological experience of culture" --Mars hall Sahlins [4] The his toric turn is a s olution to a critique of pos tmodernis m that called for an overview of the his torical context of a culture. This is in res pons e to the pos tmodern view that his tories are fictions and s hould be dis credited. In Terrence J. McDonald's book The Historic Turn in the Human Sciences, there is an es s ay by Nicholas Dirks which dis cus s es the relations hip between his tory and anthropology. The relations hip between his tory and anthropology is a two way road, s o it made s ens e during the His torical Turn when anthropology turned back to applying a his toric approach when obs erving a culture. The fact that his tory is s uch a crucial influence on culture today and s hould definitely be taken into cons ideration when examining modern s oceity, it makes finding critiques of this concept difficult. One pos s ible critique of the his toric turn is that his tory and power go hand-in-hand. A very glaring as pect of written his tory, is the idea that whoever is writing the his tory is automatically in a pos ition of power over thos e that the his tory is being written about; it is unavoidable. Becaus e of this power inequality, his torical turn anthropologis ts need to be careful when applying s uch his tories . It is undeniable that his tory needs to be taken into cons ideration while doing anthropological work, however, like pos tmodernis t anthropologis ts , but to a les s er extent, certain dis cretion needs to be exercis ed. Beyond the power relations hips incorporated with his tories , the anthropologis ts applying a his toric turn approach need to be careful to find a middle ground between the pres ent and the pas t. His tory is neces s ary to unders tand the pres ent but too much his tory can run the ris k of impeding the future. True, unders tanding what events and actions res ulted in where we are today is important, but s imply recognizing thes e pas t events does nt automatically trans late into helping forecas t future happenings .

Footnotes

1. 2. 3. 4.

Kottak, Conrad Phillip. Cultural Anthropology. Bos ton: McGraw-Hill, 2009. Print. Dirks , Nicholas B. "The Invention of Cas te: Civil Society in Colonial India." Print. Rpt. in 1989. Print. pg. 43. Os terhammel, Jrgen. Colonialis m: a Theoretical Overview. Princeton: M. Wiener, 1997. Print. Dirks , Nicholas B."Is Vice Vers a? His torical Anthropologies and Anthropological His tories ." The His toric Turn in the Human Sciences . Univers ity of Michigan. 1996. Pg. 17