Poole Deborah - An Excess of Description

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2005.34:159-179. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.
org
by RICHARD G. FOX on 03/18/08. For personal use only.
AR254-AN34-10
ARI
25 August 2005
14:45
An Excess of Description:
Ethnography, Race, and
Visual Technologies
Deborah Poole
Department of Anthropology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland 21218;
email: dpoole@jhu.edu
Annu. Rev. Anthropol.

2005. 34:15979
The Annual Review of
Anthropology is online at
anthro.annualreviews.org
doi: 10.1146/
annurev.anthro.33.070203.144034
c 2005 by
Copyright
Annual Reviews. All rights
reserved
0084-6570/05/10210159$20.00
Key Words
photography, visual anthropology, temporality, archive,
ethnography
Abstract
This essay provides an overview of recent anthropological work on
the relationship between racial thought and the visual technologies
of photography and lm. I argue that anthropologists have moved
away from a concern with representation per se in favor of the more
complex discursive and political landscapes opened up by the concepts of media and the archive. My review of this work focuses on the
affective register of suspicion that has surrounded both visual methods and the idea of race in anthropology. Whereas this suspicion
has led some to dismiss visual technologies as inherently racializing or objectifying, I argue that it is possible to reclaim suspicion
as a productive site for rethinking the particular forms of presence,
uncertainty, and contingency that characterize both ethnographic
and visual accounts of the world. I begin by discussing recent work
on the photographic archive, early eldwork photography, and the
subsequent move in the 1960s and 1970s from still photography to
lm and video within the emergent subeld of visual anthropology.
Finally, I consider how more recent work on the problem of race in
favor of descriptive accounts of mediascapes.
159
AR254-AN34-10
ARI
25 August 2005
14:45
Contents
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2005.34:159-179. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
THE ARCHIVE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
EXCESS AND CONTEXT . . . . . . . .
Contingency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
PHOTOGRAPHY IN THE FIELD .
Culture at a Distance . . . . . . . . . . . . .
NOTICING DIFFERENCE . . . . . . .
160
161
163
164
165
168
171
INTRODUCTION
Anthropological work on race and vision has
proliferated in conversation in recent years
with a yet broader visual turn in the elds
of critical theory and philosophy (Brennan &
Jay 1996; Crary 1990; Debord 1987; Foucault
1973, 1977; Jay 1994; Mitchell 1980, 1986;
Rorty 1979). Theories of language, discourse,
and representation developed in these sister disciplines led many scholars to question traditional anthropological distinctions
between culture and race insofar as both
of these languages for theorizing social difference have led to talk about essentialized
or biologized identities and boundaries (e.g.,
Michaels 1995; Said 1978, 1993). Yet others
from within the discipline itself leveled the
more inclusive charge that the visualism inherent to ethnographic modes of description
and writing led to the reication, racialization,
and temporal distancing of the people whom
anthropologists study (Clifford & Marcus
1986, Fabian 1983). This charge was fueled
by the parallel histories, as well as the presumed homology, between racialism and anthropology as interpretive projects grounded
in Enlightenment ideals of description and
discovery. Thus, it was reasoned, if race is
about nding classicatory order and meaning underneath (or within) the visible surface of the world, then similarly ethnography
was about the discovery of cultural and moral
worlds through the observation of embodied
behaviors and beliefs. In both cases, the observed surface of the worldwhether com160
Poole
posed of skin colors or ritual behaviorswas

presumed to contain, as if concealed within
it, another, more abstract order of meaning,
which was the ethnographers task to reveal.
The native was thus constituted as object
through a perceptual act that both emanated
from and, in so doing, constituted the ethnographer as a reasoned, thinking subject. Although these claims were easily leveled at
many ethnographic endeavors of the past,
what is distressing about at least some of the
post-Orientalist critique, is that, by conning visuality itself within the directional dialectic of a Cartesian metaphysics, they left
little room for thinking about other, alternative scenarios in which vision, technology,
and difference might be differently related
(Benjamin 1999; Buck-Morss 1989; Connolly
2002; Deleuze 1985, 1994; Jay 1988; Levin
1999).
This review takes this dilemma as a starting point for revisiting some recentas well
as some not so recentwork on the relationship between race, vision, photography, and
ethnography. In exploring this literature, I ask
how the idea of race has shaped the affective register of suspicion with which anthropologists have tended to greet photography,
lm, and other visual technologies. By focusing on suspicion, I hope to shift the burden
of criticism away from the usual conclusions
about how race has shaped the way we see the
world, and how visual technologies have, in
turn, shaped the very notion of race. Although
interesting and important, the recent proliferation of anthropological writing on questions
of race, representation, photography, and lm
suggests that these are, by now, familiar arguments. As such, the ostensibly critical account
these studies of anthropology provide would
seem to have run its course in that they duplicate the same sort of descriptive or normative force we have so convincingly assigned to
photography as a technology that is productive of racial ideas and orders. This descriptive
plentitude comes at the expense of silencing
the capacity of both ethnography and photography to unsettle our accounts of the world.

AR254-AN34-10
ARI
25 August 2005
14:45
Rather than dwelling on the ordering effects of visual representations, then, in this
review I look more closely at the productive
possibilities that visual technologies offer for
reclaiming the uncertainty and contingency
that characterize anthropological accounts of
the world. This potential is unleashed precisely because of the ambiguous role played
by visual images in the disciplinary struggle
rst to identify, and then later to avoid, the
idea of race as that which can be seen and described. I make no attempt to review all the
work that has been done on either race or visuality in recent years. In particular, I have not
considered the numerous studies that address
visual images of others exclusively in terms
of their content as representations, stereotypes, or misrepresentations. Rather, my particular interest is to understand how the forms
of suspicion that surround visual representations and race have shaped anthropological
understandings of evidence, experience, the
limits of ethnographic inquiry, and, as a consequence, our own ongoing engagement with
ethnographic method and description.
I rst consider how anthropologists who
both collected and made photographs in the
nineteenth and early twentieth centuries reconciled disciplinary norms of evidence and
evolutionary models of race with the peculiar
temporality of the photograph. The experience of these anthropologists is particularly
revealing in that it coincides with a period
in which anthropology moved from the enthusiastic pursuit of racial order to an almost equally fervent rejection of the very idea
of race. The suspicion with which photography was greeted by anthropologists thus ran
the gamut from an empiricist concern with
deception (i.e., a concern for the accuracy
with which photographs represented a racial
fact) to worries about the inability of photography to capture the intangibles of culture
and social organization. I then explore work
that falls self-consciously within the subeld
of visual anthropology that emerged in the
1960s and 1970s in reaction to this concern
with the distinctive dangersand promises
of visual technologies. Although early work

in visual anthropology was explicitly concerned about countering the notion that visual representations necessarily constituted an
exploitative and/or racializing expropriation
of the indigenous subject, more recent work
on indigenous media displaces discussion of
race with theories of ethnicity and identity
formation. Finally, I close with some reections on what these recent histories of visual
technologies and race can offer for rethinking visuality, encounter, and difference in
ethnography.
THE ARCHIVE
Much like their nineteenth-century predecessors, anthropologists who have returned to
the photographic archive have been largely
concerned with nding some sort of order, or logic, within the sometimes enormous and richly diverse collections they encounter. Institutional collections such as those
held by the Smithsonian (Scherer 1973),
the Royal Anthropological Institute (Pinney
1992, Poignant 1992), The American Museum of Natural History (Jacknis 1992), or
Harvards Peabody Museum (Banta & Hinsley
1986) have been examined in an attempt to
uncover the theoretical (and political) interests of the anthropologists who collected
them. Other much less studied collections
for example, the George Eastman House in
Rochester, New York, the Royal Geographic
Society in London, or the magnicent holdings at Frances National Librarywere put
together over longer periods of time, with
less academically coherent agendas, and with
personnel and budgets that were often very
much on the margins of the anthropological academy. Although less revealing of the
specic ways in which early anthropologists
looked at photography, these collections offer
insight into the importance of photography
and other visual technologies in the conversations that took place between anthropological, administrative, governmental, and
www.annualreviews.org An Excess of Description
161
ARI
25 August 2005
14:45
popular ideas of race (e.g., Alvarado et al.

2002, Graham-Brown 1988).
A focus on the archive and practices of
collecting displaces the analytics of race away
from the search for meanings and the analysis of image content, in favor of a focus
on the movement of images through different institutional, regional, and cultural sites.
In my own work on nineteenth-century Andean photography (Poole 1997), for example,
I looked at the circulation of anthropological photographs as part of a broader visual
economy in which images of Andean peoples
were produced and circulated internationally.
By broadening the social elds through which
photographs circulate and accrue meaning
or value, I argued for the privileged role
played by photography in the crafting of a
racial common sense which, as in the Gramscian understanding of the term, unites popular and scientic understandings of embodied difference (Poole 1997, 2004).
Whereas my more Foucauldian approach
used circulation to argue for an expansion of
the anthropological archive, Edwards (2001)
argues that a focus on movement breaks
down the archive into smaller, more differentiated and complex acts of anthropological intention (2001, p. 29). She concludes
that the informal networks and collecting
clubs through which British anthropologists
such as Tylor, Haddon, and Balfour exchanged
and shared photographs led to a privileging of content over form in the production
of anthropological interpretations of race. As
a product of the comparative methodologies
and exchange practices (or ows) through
which photographs were rendered as data
in anthropology, the concept of race emerges
as an abstraction produced by the archive as
a technological form. Such a move to reframe the archive as itself a visual technology takes us a long way from early studies
in which the meaning of particular photographic images was interpreted as being a reection, or expression, of racial and colonial ideologies formed elsewhere, outside the
archive.

AR254-AN34-10
162
Poole
Edwards approach to the photographic

archive as a series of microintentions rather
than as the reection of a universalizing desire (2001, p. 7) also raises important questions concerning where we locate the politics
of colonialism in the study of racial photography. An initialand motivatingquestion for
much of this photographic history concerned
the political involvements of anthropologists
in the colonial project and the racial technologies of colonialism. Not surprising, in these
studies we nd that Victorian anthropologists
tended to concentrate their efforts on collecting photographs from India and other British
colonies (Gordon 1997, Pinney 1992); French
ethnologists accumulated images of Algerians (Prochaska 1990); and U.S.-based anthropologists sought images that could complete
their inventory of Native American types
(Bernardin & Graulich 2003, Blackman 1981,
Bush & Mitchell 1994, Faris 1996, Gidley
2003). What becomes clear is that this correspondence between the subject matter found
in the anthropological archive and the imperial politics of particular nation states owed
as much to the contemporary methodologies of anthropological research as it did to
the overtly colonialist sympathies of these
early practitioners of anthropology. With few
exceptions, nineteenth-century anthropologists practiced an epistolary ethnography
(Stocking 1995, p. 16) in which data was obtained not through direct observation, but
rather through correspondence with the government ofcials, missionaries, and sundry
agents of commerce and colonialism who had
had the occasion to acquire rsthand knowledge (or at least scattered observations) of natives in far-ung places. For these anthropologists, photographic technology closed
the space between the site of observation
on the colonial periphery and the site of
metropolitan interpretation (Edwards 2001,
pp. 3132).
At the same time, as Edwards (2001, pp. 38,
133), Poignant (1992), Pinney (1992, 1997),
and others point out, anthropologists were
not naively accepting of the much-lauded

AR254-AN34-10
ARI
25 August 2005
14:45
transparency or objectivity of photographs. Indeed, the value they assigned to

photographs as scientic evidence was intimately related to the forms of exchange, accumulation, and, above all, comparison, through
which mute photographs could be made to
produce the general laws, statistical regularities and the systemic predictions of evolutionary, and ethnological theory. Of particular importance here was the genre of the
type photograph studied by Edwards (1990,
2001), Pinney (1992, 1997), Poignant (1992),
Poole (1997), and others. The classicatory
conceit of type allowed images of individual bodies to be read not in reference to
the place, time, context, or individual human being portrayed in each photograph, but
rather as self-contained exemplars of idealized racial categories with no single referent in
the world. In other words, photographs were
not read by anthropologists as evidence of
facts that could be independently observed.
Rather, as if in response to an increasing
awareness of the almost innite variety of human behaviors and appearances, photographs
themselves came to constitute the facts
of anthropology (Edwards 2001, Poignant
1992).
EXCESS AND CONTEXT

As almost everyone who has studied the
history of anthropological photography has
been quick to point out, the mid-nineteenthcentury anthropological romance with photography was fueled in important ways by a
desire for coherence, accuracy, and completion. It was also, however, plagued almost
from the beginning by a certain nervousness about both the excessive detail and the
temporal contingencies of the photographic
prints that began to pile up around the anthropologists once comfortably distant armchair.
In her study of the photographic archives
at the Royal Anthropological Institute (RAI),
Poignant charts the subtle faultlines through
which British anthropologists came to temper their initial fascination with the evidential
power of the photographic image as facts in

themselves (Poignant 1992, p. 44). The RAI
archive was founded on the basis of collections from the Anti-Slavery and Aborigines
Protection Societies (Pinney 1992, Poignant
1992). Photographs collected for these early
societies often relied on such common artistic
conventions as the portrait vignette, through
which the native subject could be made
to look, as it were, more human and more
needy. During the 1880s, however, the anthropologists charged with making sense of
the RAIs new endeavor became increasingly
concerned to discipline the sorts of poses,
framings, and settings in which subjects were
photographed. During the 1880s, the even
more rigorous standardization demanded by
Adolphe Bertillons and Arthur Chervins anthropometric methods cemented the distinction between racial and ethnological photographs (Poole 1997, pp. 13240; Sekula
1989). By specifying uniform focal lengths,
poses, and backdrops, anthropologists sought
to edit out the distracting noise of context, culture, and the human countenance
(Edward 2001, Macintyre & MacKenzie
1992, Spencer 1992). In yet other cases, anthropologists worked on the surface of the
photographic print to inscribe interior frames
that would isolate bits of ethnological or racial
data (for example, tattoos) from the rest of
the individuals body (Wright 2003). Whereas
such gestures betray a felt need for some
kind of intervention to make things [like
race and culture] fully visible (Wright 2003,
p. 149), they also betray an underlying suspicion about the frustratingly . . . metonymic
nature of the photograph (Poignant 1992,
p. 42).
Edwards (2001, pp. 13155) study of the
Darwinian biologist, Thomas Huxleys well
considered plan to produce a photographic
inventory of the races of the British Empire,
provides one example of how the intrusion
of humanizing, cultural detail (2001, p. 144)
disrupted the scientic ambitions of anthropology. Not only were colonial ofcials reluctant to jeopardize relations with the natives
RAI: Royal
Anthropological
Institute
163
ARI
25 August 2005
14:45
by imposing the absurd strictures of nude

anthropometric poses, but even in those instances where photographs were taken, the
intersubjective space constituted by the act
of photographing (p. 145) left its mark on
the images in the form of expression, gaze,
and beauty. Such content was read by Huxley and his fellow systematizers as an excess
of visual detail. Yet their attempts to purge
it ultimately led to failure in that the technology of photography was, in the nal analysis, not capable of matching the totalizing
ambitions of the project. As a result, Edwards
wryly comments, the colonial ofces archive
of this project about race contains many more
photographs of buildings than of people or
races.
From its beginnings, race was about
revealingor making visiblewhat lay hidden underneath the untidy surface details
the messy visual excessof the human, cultural body (Spencer 1992, Wallis 2003). Well
before the invention of photography, Cuvier,
for example, had instructed the artists who
accompanied expeditions to eliminate bothersome details of gesture, expression, culture,
or context from their portraits of natives so
that the underlying details of cranial structure
and race might be more readily revealed
(Herve 1910). Whereas photography held out
the promise of facilitating this anthropological quest for order through the elimination of
detail or noise, the same machine that had
made it possible to imagine a utopia of complete transparency also introduced the twin
menace of intimacy and contingencyand
with them, the possibility (however remote)
of acknowledging the coevalness and, thus,
the humanity of their racial subjects. It is perhaps for this reason that anthropologists began by 1874 (with the publication of Notes and
Queries) to express an interest in regulating the
types and amount of visual information they
would receive through photographs. By the
1890s, although photography continued to
be used in anthropometry, there was a general decline in interest in the collection and
use of photographs as ethnological evidence

AR254-AN34-10
164
Poole
(Edwards 2001, Grifths 2002, Poignant

1992, Pinney 1992).
Contingency
An arguably even more important slippage
between the classicatory or stabilizing ambitions of photography and its political effects can be located in the unique temporality of the photograph. Both the evidentiary
power and the allure of the photograph are
due to our knowledge that it captures (or
freezes) a particular moment in time. This
temporal dimension of the photograph introduced a whole other layer of distracting detail
into the anthropological science of race. Convinced of both the inevitability and desireability of evolutionary progress, nineteenthcentury anthropologists (like many of their
twentieth-century descendants) were convinced that the primitives they studied were
on the verge of disappearing. Ethnological
encounters acquired a corresponding urgency
as anthropologists scrambled to collect what
they imagined to be the last vestiges of evidence available on earlier forms of human
life.
For at least some of those who held the
camera in their hands, however, the photograph carried a latent threat for anthropology. The Dutch ethnologist Im Thurm, for
example, famously cautioned anthropologists
against the dangers of erasing the human, aesthetic, and individualizing excess of photographic portraiture in favor of a too rigorous
preference for types (Thurm 1893, Tayler
1992). Anthropometry, he added, was probably better practiced on dead bodies than on
the human beings he sought to capture in his
portrait photography from Guyana. At the
same time, however, Thurm (1893) himself
often blocked out the distracting backgrounds
and contexts surrounding his photographic
subjects. His focus was on the human, but
his anthropological perception of photography excluded, as did the racial photography
he opposed, the visual excess of context and
the off -frame. Thurms cautious embrace of

AR254-AN34-10
ARI
25 August 2005
14:45
photography speaks clearly to its suspect status at a time when all eldwork was if not directly animated by a concern for nding racial
types, then at the very least carried out under
the shadow of the idea of race.
In other cases, photographersmost famously, Edward Curtismade skillful use of
aesthetic conventions such as soft focus and
vignette to transform the inevitability of extinction into the tragic romance of nostalgia. On one level, Curtiss photographs can
be said to have harnessed the aesthetic of portrait photography as part of a broader, political
framing of Native Americans as the sad, inevitable, and unresisting victims of a divinely
manifest destiny. On another level, however,
Curtiss photographs are also of interest for
what they reveal about the distinctive temporality of the racializing gaze. Although
Curtiss photographs have been criticized as
inauthentic for their use of costume and tribal
attribution (Gidley 2003, Lyman 1982), their
power and massive popular appeal had much
to do with the ways in which he was able to distill contemporary fascination for a technology
that allows one to gaze forever on that which
is about to disappear.
Within anthropology, however, this temporality of the moment served only to increase anxieties about the utility of the photographic image as an instrument of scientic
research. For one thing, the sheer number of
photographs that became available to the anthropologist seemed to belie the notion that
primitive people were somehow disappearing,
as evolutionary theory had led them to believe.
Poignant suggests that it was in response to
just such a dilemma that anthropologists at
the RAI came to favor studio portraits over
photographs taken in the eld because the
clear visual displacement found in the studio
portrait between the primitive subject and the
world allowed the anthropologist to impose
order on people too numerous to disappear
(1992, p. 54). Pinney suggests that this tension
between actuality and disappearance played
out in the case of India through two photographic idioms. The salvage paradigm was
applied to what was perceived to be a fragile tribal community, whereas the detective
paradigm, premised on a faith in the evidentiary status of the photographic document,
was more commonly manifested when faced
with a more vital caste society. He further associates the detective paradigm with a curatorial imperative of inventory and preservation,
and the salvage paradigm with a language of
urgency and capture (Pinney 1997, p. 45).
Although the particular mapping of the two
idioms on tribal and caste society is, in many
ways, peculiar to Indiaand Pinney even goes
so far as to suggest that uncertainty about visual evidence is somehow peculiar, or at least
peculiarly marked, in Indiathe general tension between ideas of racial extinction, the
temporal actuality of photography, and anxiety about the nature and truthfulness of the
perceptual world was clearly present in other
colonial and postcolonial settings.
When viewed in this way, the understanding of race that emerges from a history of anthropological photography is clearly as much
about the instability of the photograph as ethnological evidence and the unshakeable suspicion that perhaps things are not what they appear to be as it is about xing the native subject
as a particular racial type. Yet, recent critical
interventions have paid far greater attention
to the xing. What would have to be done,
then, if we were to invert the question that
is usually asked about stability and xing and
instead ask how it is that photography simultaneously sediments and fractures the solidity
of race as a visual and conceptual fact. Put
somewhat differently, how can we recapture
the productive forms of suspicion with which
early anthropologists greeted photographys
unique capacity to reveal the particularities of
moments, encounters, and individuals?
PHOTOGRAPHY IN THE FIELD

For an answer to this question, we might want
to begin by looking at some early attempts to
integrate photography into the ethnographic
toolkit. Recent studies of early eldwork
165
ARI
25 August 2005
14:45
photography stress the extent to which photography offered anthropologists a guilty

pleasure. On the one handand to an even
greater extent than with the archival collections just discussedanthropologists wishing
to use photography in the eld were faced
with the problem of weeding out the extraneous contexts and contingent details captured by the camera. This problem was at once
technicalan artifact of the unforgiving realism of the photographic imageand conceptual, in that the subjects of anthropology
(rst race, then culture and social organization) were themselves statistical or interpretive abstractions. As such, their perception
and documentationrequired a temporality
that was quite different from that of photographs, whose content spoke only of the
mute and singular existence of particular objects, bodies, and events. Indeed, earliest uses
of photography in eldwork made every effort
to erase the contingent moment of the photographic act. In his Torres Straits eldwork,
Haddon, for example, made wide use of reenactment and restaging as a means to document
rituals and myths (Edwards 2001, pp. 15780).
Hockings also suggests that W.H.R. Rivers
used mythical allegories drawn from Frazers
The Golden Bough in his curious photographs
of Todas (Hockings 1992). Whereas Rivers
sought to place natives in a mythical past,
Haddon sought to use photography to portray
what the natives saw when they talked of
mythology. Both produced photographs that
were concerned to erase evidence of the moment at which the image was taken.
On the other hand, along with contingency, photography also brought the troubling specter of intimacy. Thus, although visual description was recognized as important
for the scientic project of data collection and
interpretation, photographs could also be read
as documents of encounter, and encounter, in
turn, contained within it the specter of communication, exchange, and presenceall factors that challenged the ethnographers claims
to objectivity. The tension between these two
aspects of ethnographic practice is perhaps

AR254-AN34-10
166
Poole
best captured in Malinowskis now famous

term participant observation. Whereas observation appeals to the ideal of the distanced,
objective onlooker, participation clearly invokes the notion of presence and, with it, a
certain openness to the humanity of the (still
racialized) other.
In his own eldwork photography, Malinowski seems to signal an awareness of the
problematic status of photography in the negotiation of this contradictory charge of being simultaneously distant and close (Wright
1991, 1994; Young 1999). Among his British
contemporaries, Malinowski made the most
extensive use of photographs in his published
work, averaging one photo for every seven
pages in his published ethnographies (Samain
1995). Yet his careful selection of photographs
seems to replicate the strict division of labor by which he separated affective and scientic description in his diaries and ethnographies (Clifford 1988, Malinowski 1967).
For example, despite having taken numerous, elaborately posed photographs of himself and other colonial ofcials, he seems to
have carefully edited out the presence of all
such nonindigenous elements when illustrating his books (Spyer 2001, p. 190). The distancing effect created by such careful editing
was further reinforced by Malinowskis preference for the middle to long shot in his own
photography (Young 2001, p. 18). Studies of
Evans-Pritchards eld photography reveal a
similar preference for long shots, aerial shots,
and a careful avoidance of eye contact in what
Wolbert (2001) interprets as an effort by the
ethnographer to erase his own presence in
the eld, thereby establishing the physical or
ecological distance required to sustain his
own authority as ethnographer.
No matter how distant the shot, however, the very medium of photography contained within it an uncanny ability to index the presence of the photographer. The
strong language of race helped ethnographers to silence this technological register of encounter, often with great effect. In
Argonauts, for example, Malinowski (1922,

AR254-AN34-10
ARI
25 August 2005
14:45
pp. 5253) comments on the great variety in

the physical appearance of the Trobrianders.
There are men and women of tall stature,
ne bearing and delicate features . . . with an
open and intelligent expression . . . [and] others with prognatic, Negroid faces, broad, thick
lipped mouths, narrow foreheads, and a coarse
expression. Through such language, it might
be argued, Malinowski avoided physical description of individualssomething that remains rare in ethnographic writingin favor
of the distancing language of race. Similarly,
to support the more personal observation that
the women have a genial, pleasant approach
(1922, p. 53), he again relies not on language
but on two photographs: One (taken by his
friend Hancock) he captions a coarse but
ne looking unmarried woman (plate XI in
Malinowski 1922), and the other (his own) is
a medium-long shot of a group of Boyowan
girls (plate XII).
Although such a division of labor between
text and photo may well speak to the afnity
of photography for the sorts of racial typing to which Malinowski gestures in his text,
in fact, very few of Malinowskis photographs
conform to the standard racial photograph
(Young 2001, pp. 1012). Instead what seems
to be at stake in Malinowskis use of photography is his inability to engageor make sense
ofthat moment in which he rst perceived
some aspect of the people he met. Repeatedly in his opening descriptions of both natives and landscapes, Malinowski speaks of the
insights that seem to evade him in the form
of eeting impressions or glimpses. Horizons are scanned for glimpses of natives
(1961, p. 33); natives are scanned for the
general impression they create (1961, p. 52);
and the entire Southern Massim is experienced as if the visions of a primeval, happy,
savage life were suddenly realized, even if
only in a eeting impression (1961, p. 35).
Malinowski is intrigued by such impressions,
however, not for what they tell of the moment
in which they occur, but rather because they
hold the promise that they may someday become legible as symptoms of deeper, socio-
logical facts (1961, p. 51). One suspects, he

writes, that there are many hidden and mysterious ethnographic phenomena behind the
commonplace aspect of things (p. 51).
On the one hand, then, the reservations
expressed by Malinowski and others (Jacknis
1984, 1992; Wright 2004; Young 2001) about
the use of photography in eldwork speak to
the unsuitability of a visual medium that is
about surface, contingency, and the moment
for a discipline whose interpretive task was
to describe the hidden regularities, systemic
workings, and structural regularities that constituted society and culture (Grimshaw
2001). On the other hand, however, as a realist mode of documentation, the photograph
also contained within it the possibility of authenticating the presence that constituted the
basis of the ethnographers scientic method.
The other visual technologiessuch as
museum displays (Edwards 2001, Haraway
1989, Karp & Levine 1990, Stocking 1985),
live exhibitions (Corbey 1993; Grifths 2002,
pp. 4684; Poignant 2003, Reed 2000, Rydell 1984), and lm (Grimshaw 2001, Oksiloff
2001, Rony 1996)with which turn-of-thecentury anthropologists experimented offered
even fewer opportunities to control for the
sorts of visual excess and detail that threatened
to undermine the distance required for scientic observation. One particularly instructive
set of debates discussed by Grifths (2002,
pp. 345) concerned the visual and even
moral effects of overly realistic habitat and
life groups at the American Museum of Natural History. Although some curators sought
to attract museum goers through the hyperrealism of wax life group displays that blended
the uncanny presence of the human double
with the authority of the scientic artifact
(Grifths 2002, p. 20), othersincluding
Franz Boas (Jacknis 1985)expressed concern that these hyperrealist technologies
would distract the gaze of museum goers. As a
remedy, Boas sought to create exhibits whose
human gures were intentionally antirealist,
and to which the spectators gaze would rst
be drawn by a central focal artifact and then
167
ARI
25 August 2005
14:45
carefully guided through a series of related

items and display cases. Grifths uncovers
similar worries about the more obvious perils that the Midway sideshows presented to the
scientic claims of ethnology. Whereas others
have pointed toward worlds fairs as sites for
the propagation of nineteenth-century racialist anthropology (Greenhalgh 1988, Maxwell
1999, Reed 2000, Rydell 1984), Grifths
(2002) emphasis on the professional suspicion
surrounding such displays reveals the extent
to which, for contemporary anthropologists,
the concern was with the disruptive potential
of distraction (Benjamin 1968, Simmel 1971,
Crary 1999) as a form of affect that worked
against the focused visualism required for the
education of the museum goer. Such worries
speak clearly to the general nervousness surrounding the visual technologies of photography and lm within anthropology and, along
with it, the persistentand perhaps utopian
belief that the aesthetic and affective appeal
of the visual could be somehow brought in
line with contemporary scientic ideals of
objective observation.

AR254-AN34-10
Culture at a Distance
The subeld of visual anthropology emerged
in the mid-1960s in response to this concern
about the viability of visual technologies for
ethnographic work. Ethnography, of course,
deploys a language of witnessing and visual
observation as a means to defend its account
of the world. Thus, although voice and language are crucial to ethnography, both the
descriptive task and the authorizing method
of ethnography continue to rely in important
ways on the ethnographers physical presence
in a particular site and her (normatively) visual
observations and descriptive accounts of the
people, events, and practices she encounters
there. At the same time, and as recent work
on anthropological photography and lm has
made clear, visual documentation is generally
not considered to be a sufcient source of evidence unless it is accompanied by the contextualizing and/or interpretive testimony of
168
Poole
the ethnographer (AAA 2002). Thus, as much

as photographs entered as juridical evidence
require a human voice to authenticate their
evidentiary status in court (Derrida 2002), the
hard visual evidence of ethnographic photography or lm is intimately, even inextricably, bound up with the soft testimonial
voice (or subjectivity) of the ethnographer
(Heider 1976, Hockings 1985, Loizos 1993,
MacDougall 1997, Stoller 1992). Like judiciary photographs as well, the dilemma in
ethnographic photography is in large part a
temporal one. The ethnographer (like the judicial witness) must speak for the photograph
as someone who was in the place shown in
the photograph at the time when the photograph was takenand this privileged authority of the ethnographic witness seems to hold
true no matter what the role assigned to his
native subjects (Crawford & Turton 1992,
Hockings & Omori 1988, Worth & Adair
1997). It is this move that affords decisive status to the photographic image as testimony to
an event in a nonrepeatable time. However, it
is the photographnot the photographer
that allows for the peculiar conation of past
and present that renders the photograph a
form of material evidence.
In ethnography, however, as we have seen,
the photographs evocation of an off-frame
context and a particular, passing, moment has
most often been seen to pose a debilitating
limit to the task of ethnographic interpretation. Rather than thinking about how voice
and image work together to create the evidentiary aura and distinctive temporality of
the photograph, ethnographers, as we have
seen, have instead looked to photography as a
means to discipline the visual process of observation. Occupying an uneasy place at the origins of the visual anthropology canon, the 759
photographs published in Bateson & Meads
Balinese Character (1942) represent one extreme solution to taming visual evidence for
ethnographic ends. Bateson and Mead initially began using photographs to supplement
their notetaking and observations and to reconcile their disparate writing styles (Jacknis

AR254-AN34-10
ARI
25 August 2005
14:45
1988, Sullivan 1999). As work progressed on

the photographic index that was to complement their written eldnotes, however, they
quickly came to see photographs, rst, as an
independent control on the potential biases
of visual observation (Sullivan 1999, p. 16)
and then, somewhat later, as a form of documentation through which to capture those
aspects of the culture which are least amenable
to verbal treatment and which can only be
properly documented by photographic methods (Bateson & Mead 1942, p. 122). In her
later work on child-rearing practices, Mead
extended this understanding of the supplemental character of photography in an attempt to replicate precise temporal sequences
of practices (Mead & MacGregor 1951).
What is perhaps most intriguing about
Meads Balinese work is the lengths to which
she goes to transform photographs into
words. As objective traces of the temporal
sequences of gestures, poses, expressions, and
embraces that together add up to something
like character or child-rearing, the photographs construct their meaning as a narrative. Photographs thus remain as raw material or facts whose meaning lies not in the
detail they reveal of particular encounters, but
rather in the narrative message they convey
about the sequence (and presumed outcome)
of many different events and encounters.
That the ideas of narrative and information
lay at the heart of early visions of visual anthropology is suggested by the fact that the
subelds rst professional organization was
the Society for the Anthropology of Visual
Communication, founded in 1972. As containers of information indexed through language, photographs were meant to communicate the broader message lurking behind
the surface rendering of the event, person, or
practice they portrayed.
In Mead & Metrauxs (1953) textbook, The
Study of Culture at a Distance, photography,
lm, and imagery were held up as privileged
sites for communicating a feeling of cultural
immersion, a sort of substitute for the personal experience of eldwork. The study of
imagery, Metraux writes, is an intensely personal and yet a rigorously formal approach to
a culture. Although every cultural analysis
is to a greater or lesser extent built upon work
with imagery, in the study of culture from
a distance, imagery comes to constitute our
most immediate experience of the culture
(Metraux 1953, p. 343; Mead 1956). The image, in this early approach to visual anthropology, was imagined as both an expression of the
perceptual system shared by the members of
a society and as a surrogate for the experience
that would allow one to access, and describe,
that perceptual system or culture. As various authors have subsequently argued (e.g.,
Banks & Morphy 1997, Edwards 1992, Taylor
1994), this approach to the visual is racialized both in the sense of a subject/object
divide and in the idea that there is an inner meaning hidden beneath the surface of
both culture and the image. What is lost in
such an approach is the immediacy of sight
as a sensory experience that could speak to
the ethnographic intangibles of presence and
newness (Edwards 1997). Instead, images
photographs, gestures, lmsare scrutinized
for clues to the cultural conguration they express.
Given what Meads own Balinese work
had done to divorce still photography from
both affect and the spontaneity of the moment, it is perhaps, then, no surprise that the
eld of visual anthropology had, by the late
1970s, come to be dominated by the study
and production of ethnographic lm, whereas
still photographs had more or less disappeared from serious ethnographic texts (de
Heusch 1962). In explicit contrast to photography (MacDougall 1998, pp. 64, 68), lm was
seen as a visual technology that could go beyond observation to include explicit, reexive references to the sorts of intimate relationships and exchanges that bound the lmmaker to his subjects (MacDougall 1985,
Rouch 2003). The affective power of lm,
MacDougall notes, is due to both its immediacy and its nonverbal character in that (for
MacDougall) lmunlike photography and
169
ARI
25 August 2005
14:45
the forms of visual communication put forward by Meadis not mediated by analysis or
writing (MacDougall 1985, pp. 6162). Film,
in other words, was considered to bear within
it an affective transparency that was denied
to photography as a frozen and hence distanced image. Animated by a profound humanism, this view of lm as universal or transcultural (MacDougall 1998) seemed likely
to transcend the forms of racial objectication
and the objectifying conventions of scientic
reason that many considered inherent to the
stillness of photography.
This view of lm provided the grounds
from which visual anthropologists set out to
counter the anticolonial critique of the 1980s.
To the surprise (and, perhaps, dismay) of
many, anthropology has emerged largely unscathed from the charges of objectication,
racialism, and colonialism levied against it in
the 1980s. Few anthropologists today would
be at all surprised by the claim that the anthropological project has had a troubling complicity with the racializing discourses and essentializing dichotomies that characterized New
World slave societies and European colonial
rule. In many cases, the resulting disciplinary
sensitivity to both history and politics has
also helped to establish an activist agenda
in which ethnography has come to be seen
as simultaneously collaborative, critical, and
interventionist. More specically, within the
subeld of visual anthropology, it led to new
paradigms of collaborative media production
(Rouch 2003), an effective handing-over of
the tools of visual documentation to the native subject (Ginsburg 1992, Turner 1992,
Worth & Adair 1997), and a shift in anthropological focus from vision itself to the distributive channels and discursive regimes of
media and the archive (Ginsburg et al. 2002).
As the new disciplinary paradigm for visual anthropology, work on indigenous media has tended to focus on the social relations of image production and consumption
(Ginsburg 1992, Himpele 1996) and the cultural idioms through which indigenous producers and artists appropriate lmic mediums

AR254-AN34-10
170
Poole
(Turner 1992, 2002a). What unites work on

indigenous media, however, is the concept of
the indigenous. As a gloss for a particular form of subaltern identity claim, the notion of the indigenous invokes ideals of locality, cultural specicity, and authenticity. For
some it has functioned as an effective form
for critically rethinking (Ginsberg 1992) or
even rejecting (Faris 2003) the possibilities
of recuperating photography and lm within
anthropology. With respect to the specic
problem of race, however, the notion of the indigenous has functioned primarily as a frame
for reinterpreting video contents for insight
into how racial categories and representations are perceived and countered from the
perspective of the represented (Alexander
1998; Ginsburg 1995; Himpele 1996; Jackson
2004; Turner 1992, 2002a,b). In this work,
video and other visual media provide an
outlet for the communication, defense, and
strengthening of cultural, national, or ethnic identities that preexist, and thus transcend, the media form itself, as they are simultaneously shaped by it (Alexander 1998,
Ginsburg 1995, Himpele 1996). Underlying
muchthough not allof this is a mapping
of identity through scale such that the mass
media is said to obliterate identity while
the more portable forms of handheld video
tends to rediscover identity and consolidate
it (Dowmunt 1993, p. 11; Ginsburg 2002).
Such claims seem all the more peculiar given
the premium placed on authenticity and localism within neoliberal multicultural discourse
(Hale 2002, Povinelli 2002, Rose 1999). By
ignoring the broader political and discursive
landscape within which categories such as the
indigenous emerge and take hold, much of
the literature on indigenous media ends up
defending an essentialist or primordial notion
of identity that comes perilously close to older
ideas of racial essences.
By introducing questions of voice and perspective, these studies of indigenous video
and lm have effectively (and, I think, inadvertently) destabilized earlier assumptions
about the necessarily objectifyingand hence

AR254-AN34-10
ARI
25 August 2005
14:45
racializingcharacter of still photographic

technologies. Thus, recent work on photography tends to emphasize the slippery
or unstable quality of the racial referent
(Firstenberg 2003, Fusco 2003, Poole 1997),
the highly mobile meanings attached to photographs as they circulate through different
cultural and social contexts (Howell 1998,
Kravitz 2002), the importance of gazes as a potentially destabilizing site of encounter within
the photographic frame (Lutz & Collins
1993), or the creative reworkings of the photographic surface in postcolonial portrait photography (Behrend 2003, Buckley 1999, Jhala
1993, Mirzoeff 2003, Pinney 1997, Sprague
1978). Although emphases in these works
differand I cannot do justice to them all
herethe general trend (with some exceptions; e.g., Faris 1992, 2003) is to reclaim
some sort of agency or, perhaps, autonomy
for the photograph in the form of either resistance, mobility, or the uidity of photographic
meaning. If race still haunts the photograph, it does so in the form of an increasingly
ghostly presence.
Other anthropologists have extended the
paradigm of indigenous media to explore
how national identities are shaped by television, cinema, and the internet (Abu-Lughod
1993, 2002; Mankekar 1999; Rajagopal 2001).
These works effectively expand the scale of
visual anthropology from the local to the national or even the transnational as the focus of
analysis shifts from the image itself to encompass the relationships that inform and constitute the production and distribution of commercial and televisualist media.
One troubling side effect of these developments within the visual anthropology of
both photography and lmas in the discipline more generallyhas been a move away
from what we once thought of as the local.
Yet as the terrain of anthropological inquiry
has expanded beyond the traditional village,
community, or tribe to embrace the study
of such allegedly translocal (Ferguson &
Gupta 2002) sites as the modern state, media, migration, non-governmental organiza-
tions, nancial ows, and discursive regimes,

the burden of evidence collecting in ethnographic work has shifted away from the affective or sensory domain of encounter and
toward a more removed and synthetic mode
of description. As such, the handover of technologies and the shift to the translocal do not
so much address as circumvent the charges
of (racial) essentialization and (visualist) distancing leveled against anthropology by the
Orientalist critique. What has been sacriced
in this move is an attention to the unsettling
forms of intimacy and contingency that constitute the subversive hallmarks (and hence
potential strengths, as well as liabilities) of the
ethnographic encounter.
NOTICING DIFFERENCE
In The Lived Experience of the Black,
Fanon (2001) opens by recounting the effects of an utterance, a labelingLook, a
Negroon his struggle to inhabit the world.
What is extraordinary about Fanons recounting of this very ordinary experience is his emphasis on that particular, and very brief, moment when the onlookers gaze has not yet settled on his body. Hope appears to him in that
moment when the liberating gaze, creeping
over my body . . . gives me back a lightness
that I had thought lost and, by removing me
from the world, gives me back to the world.
But over there, right when I was reaching the
other side, I stumble, and though his movements, attitudes and gaze, the other xes me,
just like a dye is used to x a chemical solution (Fanon 2001, p. 184). This brief moment
before the fragments [of the self ] are put together by another constitutes, for Fanon, the
site of betrayal where a chance encounter is so
quickly rendered into the paralyzing xity
the certain meaningsof race. Various scholars have emphasized what this sense of betrayal reveals about Fanons understanding of
the weight of historyand the colonial past in
particularon the present. In addition to this
gesture toward the past, however, Fanon also
underscores the importance of placing history
171
ARI
25 August 2005
14:45
and the past in the service of an active inection of the now (Bernasconi 2001, p. 178).
This is achieved through both the endless
recreation of himself and a realization that
the universal is the end of struggle, not that
which precedes it (p. 179).
Fanons insistence on the eeting temporality of the gaze as a site of ethical possibility offers several important leads for how
to rethink the place of visual technologies
and visual perception more generallyin the
practice of ethnography. On the one hand,
Fanon insists (in this and other writings)
on the extent to which perceptual and visual technologies (cinema, in particular) create bodily habits of distancing (Alcoff 2001).
This emphasis on distanceand on the physical, chemical qualities through which photographic technologies, like the racial gaze, x
racial subjects in their skinsresonates quite
clearly with the emphasis in so much of visual
anthropology on the classicatory impulses of
racial and anthropological photography. On
the other hand, however, and along with this
emphasis on distance, Fanon also provides important insight into the workings of the gaze.
For Fanon, the gaze is as much about undoing the corporeal frame as it is about xing
(Bernasconi 2001, Weate 2003). As such, his
sense of the gaze is rooted in equal parts in the
embodied, sensory, and future-oriented immediacy of encounter and the rapidity with
which this opening slips into the exclusionary distancing of which he speaks. When addressed in these terms, Fanons insistence on
the visual underpinnings of race offers productive grounds for rethinking the temporality of the ethnographic encounterand the
ways in which photographic technologies may
need to be rethought in conversation with that
particular understanding of encounter.
As we have seen for much of the twentieth century, anthropologists have worked
around a dichotomy in which photography
like seeingwas relegated to the domain of
the eeting and the contingent, whereas interpretation (and, with it, description) was construed as a process by which the extraneous

AR254-AN34-10
172
Poole
detail or noise of vision was to be disciplined

and rendered intelligible. While an interpretive move must, perhaps, inevitably bring with
it a reduction of noise, what is perhaps lost in
this transition is the immediacy of encounter
as an opening toward both newness and the
other. The challenge, of course, is to reclaim
this sense of encounter without abandoning
the possibilities for interpretation and explanation.
The relationship of photography to this
task depends on how we think about its peculiar temporality. An anthropology focused
on dening horizontally differentiated forms
of life through the language of race (or
culture) affords conicting evidential (or
juridical) weight to the different temporalities involved in the eeting immediacy of the
encounter and the stabilizing permanency of
the fact. Ethnographers, as a result, tend to
regard the surface appearances of the world
and the photographic images that record
themwith a good deal of suspicion precisely because they are seen as being saturated
with the contingency of chance encounters. In
this respect, ethnographys relationship to the
photographic image continues to be haunted
by the specter of race, in that the photograph
can only really be imagined as a form of evidence in which xity (in the form of simplicity or focus) is favored over excess (in the form
of contingency or confusion) (Edwards 1997).
As anthropology turns its attention to forms
of racial and cultural hybridity, one wonders
how anthropologists will address this disciplinary anxiety about surface appearances and
the visible world, or whether hybriditylike
the native and Indian before itwill come to
be treated as another (racial) fact that must
be uncovered or revealed, as if lying underneath the deceptive surface of the visible world
(Fusco 2003). Perhaps what is needed is a rethinking of the notion of difference itself (e.g.,
Deleuze 1994, Connolly 2002), a questioning
of its stability as an object of inquiry and a
new way of thinking about the temporality of
encounter as it shapes both ethnography and
photography.

AR254-AN34-10
ARI
25 August 2005
14:45
Fortunately, the move to reclaim both

ethnography and the ethical imperative of description from the Orientalist critique has not
meant a simple return to a traditional division of labor in which ethnography provided
the empirical observations and descriptions
upon which anthropological theory could
draw to uncover the hidden rules, orders, or
meanings of specic cultures and societies.
Rather, the theoretical work of ethnography
is now more often assumed to be inseparable
from the specic forms of encounter, temporality, uncertainty, and excess that characterize ethnography as a form of both social inquiry and writing (e.g., Biehl 2005, Das 2003,
Ferme 2001, Nelson 1999, Pandolfo 1997,
Taussig 1993). At stake here is not so much
a rejection of vision as the basis of knowledge as a substantive rethinking of how a

descriptive account that is not grounded in
the idea of interpretation or discovery can
speak to such things as experience, uncertainty, and newness in the cultural worlds we
study as anthropologists. By explicitly questioning both the empirical language of positivist sciencein which physical characteristics are cited as the visible, and irrefutable,
evidence of racial differenceand the idealist
language of Cartesian metaphysiscs, this move
makes it possible to rethink the troublesome
visuality of race. This move also leaves us
open to the sensory and anticipatory aspects
of visual encounter and surprise that animate
the very notion of participant observation.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank Veena Das, Sameena Mulla, Naveeda Khan, and Gabriela Zamorano for
their comments and criticisms on an earlier version of this article.
LITERATURE CITED
Abu-Lughod L. 1993. Finding a place for Islam: Egyptian television serials and the national
interest. Public Cult. 5(3):493514
Abu-Lughod L. 2002. Egyptian melodrama. Technology of the modern subject? See Ginsburg
et al. 2002, pp. 11533
Aird M. 2003. Growing up with Aborigines. See Pinney & Peterson 2003, pp. 2339
Alcoff LM. 2001. Towards a phenomenology of racial embodiment. See Bernasconi 2001,
pp. 26783
Alexander L. 1998. Palestinians in lm: representing and being represented in the cinematic
struggle for national identity. Vis. Anthropol. 10:(23):31933
G. 2002. Fotografa Mapuche: Construccion y montaje de un imagiAlvarado M, Baez C, Carreno
nario. Santiago de Chile: Instituto de Estetica, Pont. Univ. Catolica

de Chile
Am. Anthropol. Assoc. (AAA). 2002. AAA statement on ethnographic visual media 2001. Am.
Anthropol. 104(1):3056
Banks M, Morphy H, eds. 1997. Rethinking Visual Anthropology. New Haven, CT/London: Yale
Univ. Press
Banta M, Hinsley CM. 1986. From Site to Sight: Anthropology, Photography and the Power of
Imagery. Cambridge, MA: Peabody Mus. Press
Barthes R. 1981. Camera Lucida. Transl. R Howard. New York: Farrar, Strauss, Giroux (From
French)
Bateson G, Mead M. 1942. Balinese Character. New York: NY Acad. Sci.
Behrend H. 2003. Imagined journeys: the Likoni ferry photographers of Mombasa, Kenya.
See Pinney & Peterson 2003, pp. 22160
173
ARI
25 August 2005
14:45
Benjamin W. 1968. On some motifs in Baudelaire. Illuminations. Transl. H Zohn, pp. 155200.
New York: Schocken (From German)
Benjamin W. 1999. The Arcades Project, ed. S Buck-Morss. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
Bernardin S, Graulich M, MacFarlane L, Tonkovich N. 2003. Trading Gazes: EuroAmerican Women Photographers and Native North Americans, 18801940. New Brunswick,
NJ/London: Rutgers Univ. Press
Bernasconi R, ed. 2001. Race. Malden, MA/Oxford: Blackwell
Biehl J. Vita: Life in a Zone of Social Abandonment. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
Blackman MB. 1981. Window on the Past: The Photographic Ethnohistory of the Northern and
Kaigani Haida. Ottawa: Natl. Mus. Can.
Brennan T, Jay M. 1996. Vision in Context: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives on Sight.
New York/London: Routledge
Buck-Morss S. 1989. Dialectics of Seeing: Walter Benjamin and the Arcades Project. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press
Buckley L. 1999. Self and accessory in Gambian studio photography. Vis. Anthropol. Rev.
13(2):6384
Bush A, Mitchell LC. 1994. The Photograph and the American Indian. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
Univ. Press
Cavell S. 1979. The World Viewed: Reections on the Ontology of Film. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Univ. Press
Clifford J. 1988. The Predicament of Culture: Twentieth Century Ethnography, Literature and Art.
Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
Clifford J, Marcus G, eds. 1986. Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography. Berkeley:
Univ. Calif. Press
Connolly WE. 2002. Neuropolitics: Thinking, Culture, Speed. Minneapolis: Univ. Minn. Press
Corbey R. 1993. Ethnographic showcases 18701930. Cult. Anthropol. 8(3):33869
Crary J. 1990. Techniques of the Observer: On Vision and Modernity in the Nineteenth Century.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
Crary J. 1999. Suspensions of Perception: Attention, Spectacle and Modern Culture. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press
Crawford PI, Turton D, eds. 1992. Film as Ethnography: Manchester, NY: Manchester Univ.
Press
Das V. 1998. Wittgenstein and anthropology. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 27:17195
Das V. 2003. Trauma and testimony: implications for political community. Anthropol. Theory
3(3):293307
Debord G. 1987. Society of the Spectacle. Exeter: Rebel, Aim
De Heusch. 1962. The Cinema and Social Science: A Survey of Ethnographic and Sociological Films.
Paris: UNESCO
Deleuze G. 1985. Cinema 2: The Time-Image. Transl. H Tomlinson, R Galeta, 1989. Minneapolis: Univ. Minn. Press (From French)
Deleuze G. 1994. Difference and Repetition. Transl. P Patton, 1968. New York: Columbia Univ.
Press (From French)
Derrida J. 2002. The archive market: truth, testimony, evidence. Transl. J Bajorek, 1996, in
Echographies of Television, ed. J Derrida, B Steigler, pp. 8299. Cambridge, UK: Polity
(From French)
Dowmunt T. 1993. Channels of Resistance: Global Television and Local Empowerment. London:
BFI and Channel Four Television
Edwards E. 1990. Photographic types: in pursuit of method. Visual Anthropol. 4(23):23558

AR254-AN34-10
174
Poole

AR254-AN34-10
ARI
25 August 2005
14:45
Edwards E. 1992. Anthropology and Photography 18601920. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press
Edwards E. 1997. Beyond the boundary: a consideration of the expressive in photography and
anthropology. See Banks & Morphy 1997, pp. 5380
Edwards E. 2001. Raw Histories: Photographs, Anthropology and Museums. Oxford, NY: Berg
Fabian J. 1983. Time and the Other: How Anthropology Makes its Object. New York: Columbia
Univ. Press
Fanon F. 2001. The lived experience of the black. Transl. V Moulard. See Bernasconi 2001,
pp. 184201 (From French)
Faris J. 1992. Anthropological transparency: lm, representation, politics. See Crawford &
Turton 1992, pp. 17182
Faris J. 1996. Navajo and Photography: A Critical History of the Representations of an American
People. Albuquerque: Univ. N.M. Press
Faris J. 2003. Navajo and photography. In Photographys Other Histories, eds. C Pinney, N
Peterson, pp. 8599. Durham, NC: Duke Univ Press
Ferme M. 2001. The Underneath of Things: Violence, History and the Everyday in Sierra Leone.
Ferguson J, Gupta A. 2002. Spatializing states: toward an ethnography of neoliberal governmentality. Am. Ethnol. 29(4):9811002
Firstenberg L. 2003. Autonomy and the archive in America: re-examining the intersection of
photography and stereotype. See Fusco & Wallis 2003, pp. 30334
Foucault M. 1973. The Birth of the Clinic: An Archaeology of Medical Perception. Transl. AMS
Smith. New York: Vintage (From French)
Foucault M. 1977. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Transl. A Sheridan. New York:
Vintage (From French)
Fusco C. 2003. Racial time, racial marks, racial metaphors. See Fusco & Wallis 2003, pp. 1350
Fusco C, Wallis B, eds. 2003. Only Skin Deep: Changing Visions of the American Self. New York:
Int. Cent. Photogr., Abrams
Gidley M. 2003. Edward S. Curtis and the North American Indian Project in the Field. Lincoln:
Univ. Nebr. Press
Ginsburg FD. 1992. Indigenous media: Faustian contract or global village?
Ginsburg FD. 1995. Mediating culture: indigenous media, ethnographic lm and the production of identity. In Fields of Vision: Essays in Film Studies, Visual Anthropology and Photography,
ed. L Devereaux , R Hillman, pp. 25691. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
Ginsburg FD. 1996. Institutionalizing the unruly: charting a future for visual anthropology.
Ethnos 63(2):17396
Ginsburg FD, Abu-Lughod L, Larkin B, eds. 2002. Media Worlds: Anthropology on New Terrain.
Gordon RJ. 1997. Picturing Bushman. Athens: Ohio Univ. Press
Graham-Brown S. 1988. Images of Women: The Portrayal of Women in Photography of the Middle
East, 18601950. New York: Columbia Univ. Press
Greenhalgh P. 1988. Ephemeral Vistas: The Expositions Universelles, Great Exhibitions and Worlds
Fairs, 18511939. Manchester, NY: Manchester Univ. Press
Grifths A. 2002. Wondrous Difference: Cinema, Anthropology , Turn-of-the-Century Visual Culture.
New York: Columbia Univ. Press
Grimshaw A. 2001. The Ethnographers Eye: Ways of Seeing in Modern Anthropology. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
Hale C. 2002. Does multiculturalism menace? Governance, cultural rights and the politics of
identity in Guatemala. J. Lat. Am. Studies 34(3):485524
175
ARI
25 August 2005
14:45
Haraway D. 1989. Primate Visions: Gender, Race and Nature in the World of Modern Science. New
York: Routledge
Harvey P. 1996. Hybrids of Modernity: Anthropology, the Nation State and the Universal Exhibition.
London/New York: Routledge
Heider K. 1976. Ethnographic Film. Austin: Univ. Tex. Press
Herve G. 1910. A la recherche dun manuscript: les instructions anthropologiques de Georges
Cuvier. Rev. Ecole Anthropol. Paris 10:289306
Himpele J. 1996. Film distribution as media: mapping difference in the Bolivian cinemascape.
Vis. Anthropol. Rev. 12(1):4766
Hockings P, ed. 1985. Principles of Visual Anthropology. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter
Hockings P. 1992. The yellow bough: Riverss use of photograph in The Todas. See Edwards,
pp. 17986
Hockings P, Omori Y, eds. 1988. Cinematographic Theory and New Dimensions in Ethnographic
Film. Osaka: Natl. Mus. Ethnol.
Howell S. 1998. Picturing women, class and community in Arab Detroit: the strange case of
Eva Habib. Vis. Anthropol. 10:20925
Jacknis I. 1984. Franz Boas and photography. Stud. Vis. Commun. 10(1):260
Jacknis I. 1985. Franz Boas and exhibits: on the limitations of the museum method of anthropology. See Stocking, pp. 75109
Jacknis I. 1988. Margaret Mead and Gregory Bateson in Bali: their use of photography and
lm. Cult. Anthropol. 3(2):16077
Jacknis I. 1992. In search of the imagemaker: James Mooney as an ethnograpic photographer.
Vis. Anthropol. 3(2):179212
Jackson JL. 2004. An ethnographic lmam: giving gifts, doing research and videotaping the
native subject/object. Am. Anthropol. 106(1):3242
Jay M. 1988. Scopic regimes of modernity. In Force-Fields: Between Intellectual History and
Cultural Critique, pp. 11533. New York/London: Routledge
Jay M. 1994. Downcast Eyes. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
Jhala J. 1993. Power and the portrait: the inuence of the ruling elite on the visual text in
Western India. Vis. Anthropol. 6:17198
Karp I, Levine SD, eds. 1990. Exhibiting Cultures: The Poetics and Politics of Museum Display.
Washington, DC: Smithson. Inst.
Kolko BE, Nakamura L, Rodman GB, eds. 2000. Race in Cyberspace. New York/London: Routledge. 248 pp.
Kravitz C. 2002. The Ones That Are Wanted: Communication and the Politics of Representation in
a Photographic Exhibition. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
Kuehnast K. 1992. Visual imperialism and the export of prejudice: an exploration of ethnographic lm. See Crawford & Turton 1992, pp. 18395
Levin DM. 1999. The Philosophers Gaze: Modernity in the Shadows of Enlightenment. Berkeley:
Univ. Calif. Press
Loizos P. 1993. Innovation in Ethnographic Film: From Innocence to Self-Consciousness, 19551985.
Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
Lutz C, Collins J. 1993. Reading National Geographic. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
Lyman C. 1982. The Vanishing Race and Other Illusions: Photographs of Indians by Edward Curtis.
Washington, DC: Smithson. Inst.
MacDougall D. 1985. Beyond observational cinema. See Hockings 1985, pp. 10924
MacDougall D. 1997. The visual in anthropology. See Banks & Morphy 1997, pp. 25695
MacDougall D. 1998. Transcultural Cinema, ed. L Taylor. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press

AR254-AN34-10
176
Poole

AR254-AN34-10
ARI
25 August 2005
14:45
Macintyre M, MacKenzie M. 1992. Focal length as an analogue of cultural distance. See

Edwards 1992, pp. 15864
Malinowski B. 1961 [1922]. Argonauts of the Western Pacic. New York: Dutton
Malinowski B. 1967. A Diary in the Strict Sense of the Term. New York/London: Routledge
Mankekar P. 1999. Screening Culture, Viewing Politics: An Ethnography of Television, Womanhood
and Nation. Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press
Maxwell A. 1999. Colonial Photography and Exhibition: Representations of the Native People and
the Making of European Identities. London/New York: Leicester Univ. Press
Mead M. 1956. Some uses of still photography in culture and personality studies. In Personal
Character and Cultural Milieu, ed. DG Haring, pp. 79105. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse Univ.
Press
Mead M. 1995. Visual anthropology in a discipline of words. See Hockings, pp. 310
Mead M, Macgregor FC. 1951. Growth and Culture: A Photographic Study of Balinese Childhood.
New York: Putnam
Mead M, Metraux R. 1953. The Study of Culture at a Distance. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
Metraux R. 1953. Resonance in imagery. See Mead & Metraux, pp. 34364
Metz C. 1985. Photography and fetish. October 34:8190
Michaels WB. 1995. Our America: Nativism, Modernism and Pluralism. Durham, NC: Duke
Univ. Press
Mirzoeff N. 2003. The shadow and the substance: race, photography and the index. See Fusco
& Wallis 2003, pp. 11126
Mitchell WJT. 1986. Iconology: Image, Text, Ideology. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
Nelson D. 1999. A Finger in the Wound: Body Politics in Quincentennial Guatemala. Durham, NC:
Duke Univ. Press
Oksiloff A. 2001. Picturing the Primitive: Visual Culture, Ethnography and Early German Cinema.
New York: Palgrave
Pandolfo S. 1997. Impasse of the Angels: Scenes from a Moroccan Space of Memory. Chicago: Univ.
Chicago Press
Peterson N. 2003. The changing photographic contract: aborigines and image ethics. See
Pinney & Peterson 2003, pp. 11944
Pinney C. 1992. The parallel histories of anthropology and photography. See Edwards 1992,
pp. 16573
Pinney C. 1997. Camera Indica: The Social Life of Indian Photographs. Chicago: Univ. Chicago
Press
Pinney C, Peterson N, eds. 2003. Photographys Others Histories. Durham, NC: Duke Univ.
Press
Poignant R. 1992. Surveying the eld of view: the making of the RAI photographic collection.
See Edwards 1992, pp. 4273
Poignant R. 2003. The making of professional savages: from PT Barnum (1883) to the Sunday
Times. See Pinney & Peterson 2003, pp. 5584
Poole D. 1997. Vision, Race and Modernity: A Visual Economy of the Andean Image World. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
Poole D. 2004. An Image of our Indian: type photographs and racial sentiments in Oaxaca,
19201940. Hisp. Am. Hist. Rev. 84(1):3782
Povinelli E. 2002. The Cunning of Recognition: Indigenous Alterities and the Making of Australian
Multiculturalism. Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press
Prochaska D. 1990. The Archive of lAlgiers imaginaire. Hist. Anthropol. IV:373420
Rajagopal A. 2001. Politics After Television: Religious Nationalism and the Reshaping of the Indian
Public. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
177
ARI
25 August 2005
14:45
Reed CR. 2000. All the World is Here! The Black Presence at the White City. Bloomington/Indianapolis: Indiana Univ. Press
Rony FT. 1996. The Third Eye: Race, Cinema and Ethnographic Spectacle. Durham, NC: Duke
Univ. Press
Rorty R. 1979. Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
Rose N. 1999. Powers of Freedom Reframing Political Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ.
Press
Rouch J. 2003. On the vicissitudes of the self: the possessed dancer, the magician, the sorcerer,
the lmmaker, and the ethnographer. Transl. S Feld, in Cine-Ethnography, pp. 87101.
Minneapolis: Minn. Univ. Press (From French)
Rydell RW. 1984. All the Worlds a Fair: Visions of Empire at American International Expositions,
18761916. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
Said EW. 1978. Orientalism. New York: Pantheon
Said EW. 1993. Culture and Imperialism. New York: Knopf. 380 pp.
Samain E. 1995. Bronislaw Malinowski et la photographie anthropologique. LEthnographie
91(2):10730
Scherer J. 1973. Indians: The Great Photographs that Reveal North American Indian Life, 1847
1929, from the unique collection of the Smithsonian Institute. New York: Crown Publ.
Sekula A. 1989. The body and the archive. In The Contest of Meaning: Critical Histoires of
Photography, ed. R Bolton, pp. 34389. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
Simmel G. 1971. The metropolis and mental life. In On Individuality and Social Forms, pp.
32439. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
Singer A. 1992. Anthropology in broadcasting. See Crawford & Turton 1992, pp. 26473
Spencer F. 1992. Some notes on the attempt to apply photography to anthropometry during
the second half of the nineteenth century. See Edwards 1992, pp. 99107
Sprague S. 1978. Yoruba photography: how the Yoruba see themselves. African Arts 12(1);
reprinted in Pinney & Peterson 2003, pp. 24060
Spyer P. 2001. Photographys framings and unframings; a review article. Comp. Stud. Soc. Hist.
43:18192
Stocking GW. 1985. Objects and Others: Essays on Museums and Material Culture. Madison: Univ.
Wisc. Press
Stoller P. 1992. The Cinematic Griot: The Ethnography of Jean Rouch. Chicago: Univ. Chicago
Press
Sullivan G. 1999. Margaret Mead, Gregory Bateson, and Highland Bali: Fieldwork Photographs of
Bayung Gede, 19361939. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
Taussig M. 1993. Mimesis and Alterity: A Particular History of the Senses. New York/London:
Routledge
Taylor L. 1994. Visualizing Theory: Selected Essays from Visual Anthropology Review 19901994.
New York/London: Routledge
Thurm I. 1893. Anthropological uses of the camera. J. R. Anthropol. Inst. 22:184203
Turner T. 1991. The social dynamics of video media in an indigenous society: the cultural
meaning and personal politics of video-making in Kayapo communities. Vis. Anthropol.
Rev. 7(2):6872
Turner T. 1992. Deant images: the Kayapo appropriation of video. Anthropol. Today 8(6):516
Turner T. 2002a. Representation, politics and cultural imagination in indigenous video. See
Ginsburg et al. 2002, pp. 7589
Turner T. 2002b. Representation, polyphony and the construction of power in a Kayapo video.
In Indigenous Movements, Self-Representation, and the State in Latin America, ed. KB Warren,
JE Jackson, pp. 22950. Austin: Univ. Tex. Press

AR254-AN34-10
178
Poole

AR254-AN34-10
ARI
25 August 2005
14:45
Tsinhnahjinnie JH. 2003. When is a photograph worth a thousand words? See Pinney &
Peterson, pp. 4052
Wallis B. 2003. Black bodies, white science: Louis Agassizs slave daguerreotypes. See Fusco &
Wallis 2003, pp. 16382
Weate J. 2003. Fanon, Merleau-Ponty and the difference of phenomenology. See Bernasconi
2003, pp. 16983
Weiner JF. 1997. Televisualist anthropology: representation, aesthetics, politics. Curr. Anthropol. 38(2):197235
Wolbert B. 2001. The anthropologist as photographer. The visual construction of ethnographic
authority. Vis. Anthropol. 13:32143
Worth S, Adair J. 1997. Through Navajo Eyes. Albuquerque: Univ. N.M. Press
Wright C. 2003. Supple bodies: the Papua New Guinea photographs of Captain Francis R
Barton, 18991907. See Pinney & Peterson 2003, pp. 14669
Wright T. 1991. The eldwork photographs of Jenness and Malinowski and the beginning of
modern anthropology. J. Anthropol. Soc. Oxf. 22(1):4158
Wright T. 1994. Anthropologist as artist: Malinowskis Trobriand photographs, European
imagery and colonial history in the Pacic. Nijmegen Stud. Develop. Cult. Change 19:116
30
Young L. 1996. Fear of the Dark: Race, Gender and Sexuality in the Cinema. New York/London:
Routledge
Young MW. 1999. Malinowskis Kiriwina: Fieldwork Photography 19151918. Chicago: Univ.
Chicago Press
Young MW. 2001. An Anthropologist in Papua: The Photography of FE Williams 192239. Honolulu: Univ. Hawaii Press
179
Contents
ARI
12 August 2005
20:29
Annual Review of
Anthropology

Contents
Volume 34, 2005
Frontispiece
Sally Falk Moore p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p xvi
Prefatory Chapter
Comparisons: Possible and Impossible
Sally Falk Moore p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 1
Archaeology
Archaeology, Ecological History, and Conservation
Frances M. Hayashida p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p43
Archaeology of the Body
Rosemary A. Joyce p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 139
Looting and the Worlds Archaeological Heritage: The Inadequate
Response
Neil Brodie and Colin Renfrew p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 343
Through Wary Eyes: Indigenous Perspectives on Archaeology
Joe Watkins p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 429
The Archaeology of Black Americans in Recent Times
Mark P. Leone, Cheryl Janifer LaRoche, and Jennifer J. Babiarz p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 575
Biological Anthropology
Early Modern Humans
Erik Trinkaus p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 207
Metabolic Adaptation in Indigenous Siberian Populations
William R. Leonard, J. Josh Snodgrass, and Mark V. Sorensen p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 451
The Ecologies of Human Immune Function
Thomas W. McDade p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 495
vii
ARI
12 August 2005
20:29
Linguistics and Communicative Practices

New Directions in Pidgin and Creole Studies
Marlyse Baptista p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p33
Pierre Bourdieu and the Practices of Language
William F. Hanks p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p67
Areal Linguistics and Mainland Southeast Asia
N.J. Eneld p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 181
Communicability, Racial Discourse, and Disease
Charles L. Briggs p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 269
Will Indigenous Languages Survive?
Michael Walsh p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 293

Contents
Linguistic, Cultural, and Biological Diversity

Luisa Maf p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 599
International Anthropology and Regional Studies
Caste and Politics: Identity Over System
Dipankar Gupta p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 409
Indigenous Movements in Australia
Francesca Merlan p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 473
Indigenous Movements in Latin America, 19922004: Controversies,
Ironies, New Directions
Jean E. Jackson and Kay B. Warren p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 549
Sociocultural Anthropology
The Cultural Politics of Body Size
Helen Gremillion p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p13
Too Much for Too Few: Problems of Indigenous Land Rights in Latin
America
Anthony Stocks p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p85
Intellectuals and Nationalism: Anthropological Engagements
Dominic Boyer and Claudio Lomnitz p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 105
The Effect of Market Economies on the Well-Being of Indigenous
Peoples and on Their Use of Renewable Natural Resources
Ricardo Godoy, Victoria Reyes-Garca, Elizabeth Byron, William R. Leonard,
and Vincent Vadez p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 121
viii
Contents
Contents
ARI
12 August 2005
20:29
An Excess of Description: Ethnography, Race, and Visual Technologies

Deborah Poole p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 159
Race and Ethnicity in Public Health Research: Models to Explain
Health Disparities
William W. Dressler, Kathryn S. Oths, and Clarence C. Gravlee p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 231
Recent Ethnographic Research on North American Indigenous
Peoples
Pauline Turner Strong p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 253

The Anthropology of the Beginnings and Ends of Life

Sharon R. Kaufman and Lynn M. Morgan p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 317
Immigrant Racialization and the New Savage Slot: Race, Migration,
and Immigration in the New Europe
Paul A. Silverstein p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 363
Autochthony: Local or Global? New Modes in the Struggle over
Citizenship and Belonging in Africa and Europe
Bambi Ceuppens and Peter Geschiere p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 385
Caste and Politics: Identity Over System
Dipankar Gupta p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 409
The Evolution of Human Physical Attractiveness
Steven W. Gangestad and Glenn J. Scheyd p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 523
Mapping Indigenous Lands
Mac Chapin, Zachary Lamb, and Bill Threlkeld p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 619
Human Rights, Biomedical Science, and Infectious Diseases Among
South American Indigenous Groups
A. Magdalena Hurtado, Carol A. Lambourne, Paul James, Kim Hill,
Karen Cheman, and Keely Baca p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 639
Interrogating Racism: Toward an Antiracist Anthropology
Leith Mullings p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 667
Enhancement Technologies and the Body
Linda F. Hogle p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 695
Social and Cultural Policies Toward Indigenous Peoples: Perspectives
from Latin America
Guillermo de la Pena
p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 717
Surfacing the Body Interior
Janelle S. Taylor p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 741
Contents
ix
ARI
12 August 2005
20:29
Theme 1: Race and Racism

Race and Ethnicity in Public Health Research: Models to Explain
Health Disparities
William W. Dressler, Kathryn S. Oths, and Clarence C. Gravlee p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 231
Communicability, Racial Discourse, and Disease
Charles L. Briggs p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 269
Immigrant Racialization and the New Savage Slot: Race, Migration,
and Immigration in the New Europe
Paul A. Silverstein p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 363
The Archaeology of Black Americans in Recent Times
Mark P. Leone, Cheryl Janifer LaRoche, and Jennifer J. Babiarz p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 575

Contents
Interrogating Racism: Toward an Antiracist Anthropology

Leith Mullings p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 667
Theme 2: Indigenous Peoples
The Effect of Market Economies on the Well-Being of Indigenous
Peoples and on Their Use of Renewable Natural Resources
Ricardo Godoy, Victoria Reyes-Garca, Elizabeth Byron, William R. Leonard,
and Vincent Vadez p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 121
Recent Ethnographic Research on North American Indigenous
Peoples
Pauline Turner Strong p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 253
Will Indigenous Languages Survive?
Michael Walsh p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 293
Autochthony: Local or Global? New Modes in the Struggle over
Citizenship and Belonging in Africa and Europe
Bambi Ceuppens and Peter Geschiere p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 385
Through Wary Eyes: Indigenous Perspectives on Archaeology
Joe Watkins p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 429
Metabolic Adaptation in Indigenous Siberian Populations
William R. Leonard, J. Josh Snodgrass, and Mark V. Sorensen p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 451
Indigenous Movements in Australia
Francesca Merlan p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 473
Indigenous Movements in Latin America, 19922004: Controversies,
Ironies, New Directions
Jean E. Jackson and Kay B. Warren p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 549
Contents
Contents
ARI
12 August 2005
20:29
Linguistic, Cultural, and Biological Diversity

Luisa Maf p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 599
Human Rights, Biomedical Science, and Infectious Diseases Among
South American Indigenous Groups
A. Magdalena Hurtado, Carol A. Lambourne, Paul James, Kim Hill,
Karen Cheman, and Keely Baca p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 639

Social and Cultural Policies Toward Indigenous Peoples: Perspectives

from Latin America
Guillermo de la Pena
p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 717
Indexes
Subject Index p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 757
Cumulative Index of Contributing Authors, Volumes 2634 p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 771
Cumulative Index of Chapter Titles, Volumes 2634 p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 774
Errata
An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Anthropology chapters
may be found at http://anthro.annualreviews.org/errata.shtml
Contents
xi

Poole Deborah - An Excess of Description

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Poole Deborah - An Excess of Description

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2005.34:159-179. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.

Annu. Rev. Anthropol.

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2005.34:159-179. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

posed of skin colors or ritual behaviorswas

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2005.34:159-179. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

of visual technologies. Although early work

popular ideas of race (e.g., Alvarado et al.

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2005.34:159-179. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

Edwards approach to the photographic

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2005.34:159-179. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

transparency or objectivity of photographs. Indeed, the value they assigned to

EXCESS AND CONTEXT

power of the photographic image as facts in

by imposing the absurd strictures of nude

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2005.34:159-179. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

(Edwards 2001, Grifths 2002, Poignant

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2005.34:159-179. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

PHOTOGRAPHY IN THE FIELD

photography stress the extent to which photography offered anthropologists a guilty

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2005.34:159-179. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

best captured in Malinowskis now famous

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2005.34:159-179. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

pp. 5253) comments on the great variety in

logical facts (1961, p. 51). One suspects, he

carefully guided through a series of related

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2005.34:159-179. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

the ethnographer (AAA 2002). Thus, as much

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2005.34:159-179. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

1988, Sullivan 1999). As work progressed on

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2005.34:159-179. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

(Turner 1992, 2002a). What unites work on

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2005.34:159-179. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

racializingcharacter of still photographic

tions, nancial ows, and discursive regimes,

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2005.34:159-179. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

detail or noise of vision was to be disciplined

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2005.34:159-179. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

Fortunately, the move to reclaim both

a rejection of vision as the basis of knowledge as a substantive rethinking of how a

nario. Santiago de Chile: Instituto de Estetica, Pont. Univ. Catolica

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2005.34:159-179. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2005.34:159-179. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2005.34:159-179. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2005.34:159-179. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

Macintyre M, MacKenzie M. 1992. Focal length as an analogue of cultural distance. See

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2005.34:159-179. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2005.34:159-179. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

www.annualreviews.org An Excess of Description

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2005.34:159-179. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

Volume 34, 2005

Linguistics and Communicative Practices

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2005.34:159-179. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

Linguistic, Cultural, and Biological Diversity

An Excess of Description: Ethnography, Race, and Visual Technologies

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2005.34:159-179. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

The Anthropology of the Beginnings and Ends of Life

Theme 1: Race and Racism

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2005.34:159-179. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

Interrogating Racism: Toward an Antiracist Anthropology

Linguistic, Cultural, and Biological Diversity

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2005.34:159-179. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

Social and Cultural Policies Toward Indigenous Peoples: Perspectives

You might also like