Boas, Foucault, and the "Native Anthropologist": Notes toward a Neo-Boasian Anthropology

Author(s): Matti Bunzl

Reviewed work(s):
Source: American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 106, No. 3 (Sep., 2004), pp. 435-442
Published by: Wiley on behalf of the American Anthropological Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3567609 .
Accessed: 02/02/2013 22:30
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Wiley and American Anthropological Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to American Anthropologist.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded on Sat, 2 Feb 2013 22:30:24 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

MATTI BUNZL

Boas, Foucault,and the "Native Anthropologist":

Notes toward a Neo-Boasian Anthropology
ofa neo-Boasian
conceived
at theintersection
ofFoucauldian
ABSTRACT Thisarticle
proposesthepossibility
anthropology
genealofthediscipline's
Self/Other
froma perspective
and theepistemic
of posingthe
rethinking
binary.
Shifting
ogy,Boasianhistoricism,
ofthe pastas the principal
siteof inquiry,
thepiecethusadvocatesan
ethnographic
objectas Othertowarda Boasianconception
ofthepresent.
Thisconception,
itis argued,can overcome
severalof thedilemmas
anthropological
projectgroundedinthehistory
of
theawkward
status "nativeanthropology"
foremost
native
Boas,Foucault,
currently
facingthediscipline,
amongthem.[Keywords:
of
the
present]
anthropology,
history

WITHFRANZ
a
O SPEAK
BOAS,thisarticle
attempts
of
three
that
have
their
concerns
unity
triangulation
in the mindof itsauthor:(1) the place of Foucault'swork
desirefora
in contemporary
(2) theaffective
anthropology;
ofa distinctly
Boasianethnology;and (3) the
recuperation
I will tacklethese
dilemmasof the "nativeethnographer."
issuesin reverseto arriveat a preliminary
assessmentofthe
an approach
possibilityfora "neo-Boasiananthropology,"
that would permita Foucauldianperspectivein place of
the epistemological
panopticismof classicalethnography.
Atthe coreofthistheoretical
projectstandsa visionofanof
as
a
the
thropology history
present,a modeofknowledge
that
a
production
represents genuinealternativeto what
has come to be seen as Malinowski'sentrencheddesignof
Selfand
fieldwork
as an encounterbetweenethnographic
nativeOther.
THE "NATIVE ANTHROPOLOGIST" AS SYMPTOM
AND OTHER

haveturnedto critOverthelastfewyears,anthropologists
ical evaluationsof the "field"as the constitutivesite of
anthropologicalknowledgeproduction.AkhilGupta and
in their
JamesFergusonhave arguablybeen mosttrenchant
critique,uncoveringthe hidden logic of what they,following numerousothercriticsof anthropology,
identify
tradition.This logic privias the Malinowskianfieldwork
legesdirectobservationand linksit to a radicalseparation
between"home" and the "field,"which,in turn,creates
a "hierarchyof purityof fieldsites."In this framework,
"real" fieldwork
is conductedin a remotesite,a notion

ofcenthat-along withthe coloniallyveiledconstitution

terand periphery-constructs
the archetypical
fieldworker
as a "Euro-American,
male" (Guptaand
white,middle-class
Ferguson1997:12, 16). Fieldworkthus becomes synonymous witha "heroizedjourneyinto Otherness,"the trope
thatengenderedand cementedMalinowski'smythopoetic
charterofmodernethnography
(Stocking1992; cf.Clifford
1988).
As Guptaand Fergusonnote,thisnormativeconstructionofanthropological
fieldwork
has beenchallengedmost
effectively
bythosemostthreatened
byit.KathWeston,for
the
one, has eloquentlywritten
against abjectconstruction
of the "nativeanthropologist"
whoseworkis always"one
from
removed
'the
real
stuff"'
divested
and, therefore,
step
of ethnographic
(1997:164). EchoingGuptaand
authority
she
identifies
the
Ferguson,
separationbetween"native"
and "ethnographer,"
"field"and "home,"as thesiteofproductionofthe "virtualanthropologist"-the"native"and,
hence,lessercousinofthe"real"anthropologist
(1997:174).
In a similarvein,KirinNarayanhas questionedthe imagined subjectpositionofthenativeanthropologist,
arguing
thatshifting
identifications
(ofrace,class,gender,etc.)renderitinherently
unstable(1993).Narayancallsforattention
to thehybridities
thatseparateall anthropologists
froman
As she putsit,"The verynaimaginednativeauthenticity.
tureofresearching
whatto othersis taken-for-granted
realitycreatesan uneasydistance"(1993:682).
Westonand Narayanhavemadeseminalcontributions
to the critiqueof the concept of the "nativeanthropologist."What strikesme as peculiar,however,is that the

Vol.106,Issue3,pp.435-442,ISSN0002-7294,onlineISSN1548-1433.? 2004bytheAmerican
American
Association.
Anthropologist,
Anthropological
Allrights
reserved.
Sendrequests
forpermission
to reprint
to:Rights
andPermissions,
ofCalifornia
Journals
2000 Center
Press,
Division,
Street,
University
Suite303,Berkeley,
CA94704-1223.

This content downloaded on Sat, 2 Feb 2013 22:30:24 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

436

AmericanAnthropologist* Vol. 106,No. 3 * September2004

the category
programtheyenunciatefailsto deconstruct
of "nativeanthropology"
itself.Havingdiagnosedthe inWeston
jurious effectsof the ethnographer/native-dyad,
seemsresignedto itsreproduction.
In thiscontext,thenative ethnographer
can do littlebut functionas a perpetual reminderof "the power relationsthat fuel the process of nativization,"a servicethat comes at the price
of her continuedabjectionas a "virtualanthropologist"
(Weston1997:179).Narayan'sscenario,foritspart,is more
since her argumentabout anthropolupbeat,particularly
evacuatesthe cateogists' inherenthybridity
effectively
thisseemsto
Pragmatically,
goryof"nativeanthropologist."
is everreallynative-solvetheproblem:No anthropologist
seekminimallybecauseshe operatesas an anthropologist
otherpeople,moregenerallybecause she
ing to represent
inhabitsmultipleidentities
thatconfoundanyessentializationofnativestatus.Settingaside forthemomentwhether
such an argumentwouldbe acceptedby theanthropological profession
(and Weston'sanalysissuggeststhatit might
it
leaves
the conceptof "nativeanthropology"unnot),
as its
thepracticeofethnography
touchedby constructing
of
Other.
The
idea
difference
govalwaysalreadyoperative
is thusroutinized
as constierningnonnativeanthropology
a factthatreinscribes
as
tutiveofall fieldwork,
ethnography
a siteofencounterbetweena Selfand an Other.In Narayan's
a Selfcan neverbe herown anthropologist.
framework,
As Weston'sand Narayan'scontributions
show,even
the mostradicalattemptsto rethinkthe conceptof "nahave fallenshortof deconstructing
the
tiveethnography"
foundational
dividethatorganizesclassicalfieldSelf/Other
workand producesthe nativeanthropologist
as a virtual
ofpostmemberofthediscipline.In thedominanttradition
MalinowskianU.S. culturalanthropology,
theepistemicdiSelfand nativeOtheris simply
visionbetweenethnographic
doxic,articulatedwithparticularclarityby such luminaras Clifford
iesofinterpretive/symbolic
Geertz
anthropology
and RoyWagner.ForGeertz,person,time,and conductin
Bali are worthstudyingbecause "froma Westernperspective,"theyare "odd enoughto bringto lightsome general
relationships..,thatare hiddenfromus" (1973:360-361).
Wagner,forhis part,is even more forceful,
arguingthat
theproductionofall anthropological
whichhe
knowledge,
of
rests
on
glossesas the "Invention Culture,"
experiences
ofradicalOthernessthatcan renderculturevisible(Wagner
1981[1975]).
is the degreeto which such
What is moresurprising
sentimentsare echoed by the criticsof classicalmodes of
To be sure,thesescholarswarnof the dananthropology.
Othersand are thus waryof celebrating
gersof reifying
as an unproblematic
fieldwork
encounterbeethnographic
tweenSelfand Other.In fact,muchofGuptaand Ferguson's
critiqueis motivatedby the factthat "ideas about Othcentralto the fieldwork
ritual"
ernessremainremarkably
for
(1997:16). But when theypresenttheirprescriptions
and revitalizedformsof fieldwork,"
"rethought
theydeem
"self-conscious
shiftingof social and geographicallocavaluable methodology"in the
tion" an "extraordinarily

"discoveryof phenomena that would otherwiseremain

invisible"(1997:36-37). Culturaldifferences
betweenthe
and
her
it
would
seem,are stillcruethnographer
people,
cial to anthropological
evenin this
knowledgeproduction,
and
revitalized
form
of
fieldwork.
rethought
is even moreinsistenton the constituJamesClifford
tiveneed fordisplacementand the consequentexperience
ofalterity
as foundational
to thefieldwork
process.Worried
thatfieldwork
be
might dislodged,therebyleavingthedisciplinewithouta methodologicalcore,he takesseriously
thechallengeposedbythevirtualanthropologist.
His remedyis to remindherthat,she,too, oftendrawsherethnographicleveragefroman experiencewithOtherness.In this
vein,Clifford
suggeststhat"thetitleof 'native'or 'indigenous' anthropologist
mightbe retainedto designatea person whoseresearchtravelleads out and backfroma home
or
base,'travel'understoodas a detourthrougha university
othersitethatprovidesanalyticorcomparative
perspective
on theplace ofdwelling/research"
(Clifford
1997:206).
In lightof the explicithierarchies
critanthropology's
ics have diagnosedin the model of Malinowskianfieldlittleto offsetthe
work,such argumentsdo surprisingly
foundational
the
raised
distinction.
Self/Other
problems
by
on
the
Clifford's
for
Quite
contrary,
conception, example,
of disopens the doorto a second-order
logic,a hierarchy
in
placement, whichthe nativeanthropologist's
qualificationswould be measuredby the educationaldistanceatIn thismanner,
tainedfromherplace ofdwelling/research.
Clifford
notonlyretainsthefigure
ofthenativeanthropolculturalalterity
as the
ogist,buthe does so by reinscribing
of ethnographic
privilegedgenerator
Guptaand
authority.
fieldFergusondo somethingsimilarwhen theyrefigure
workas a "formof motivatedand stylizeddislocation"
of Malinowskian
(1997:37). Whilearticulatedas criticisms
such positionsreaffirm
foundationalaspectsof
fieldwork,
theparadigmtheydeplore,sustaining
hitheethnographic
of
Self
and
Other
at
the
moment
erarchy
very
theyattempt
to transcendit.
A PRESENTIST RECUPERATION OF BOASIAN
FIELDWORK

It remainsa questionwhetherthe historicalMalinowski

"fits"his recent constructionin the criticalliterature.
But even if we accept that constructiononly in its basic contours,it is clear thatthe criticshave not gone far
to whatcriticshave
enough.To offera genuinealternative
come to thinkof as the Malinowskianfield,we need to
look fora conceptionof fieldwork
thatframesthe ethnographicencounterbeyondthe Self/Other
dichotomy.We
such a traditionby the absenceof a native
mightidentify
abjectsymptomproducedat the maranthropologist-the
And this is preciselywhat
gins of classicalanthropology.
we can findin theBoasiantraditionoffieldwork,
in particular in the workof the "earlyBoas," concernedwithhisand culturehistory.
toricalreconstruction
Gupta
Ironically,
and Fergusonnote some of the qualitiesof that Boasian

This content downloaded on Sat, 2 Feb 2013 22:30:24 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Bunzl * Boas,Foucault,and the "NativeAnthropologist" 437

tradition,praisingits eclecticismand skepticismof "encounteringintact,observable'primitivesocieties."'But in
theirhistoricalnarrative,
the Boasian approachis eclipsed
by the time"Americananthropology
outgrewits 'salvage'
And
while
on
to
phase."
theygo
praiseBoas'sstudentPaul
Radinforethnographic
thatis saidto repexperimentation
resentan alternative
to theMalinowskianparadigm,when
it comesto defininga revitalized
formoffieldwork,
neither
Boas noranyofhis studentsare mobilizedas usableancestors(1997:21-24,35-40).
YettheBoasiantradition
offers
morethanexperimental
it
offers
a
methodologies;
radicallydifferent
understanding
of the epistemology
offieldwork.
Thisunderstanding
does
notreston a distinction
betweenethnographic
Selfand nativeOtherbut,instead,drawsitsanalyticleveragefroma rigoroushistoricity
thatrefigures
thequestionofOthernessin
termsof temporalratherthan culturalalterity.
Boas's seminal paper,"The Studyof Geography"(1940[1887]),is the
bestplace to begina discussionof therationaleof Boasian
Boaspublishedthepieceshortly
afterhisemigrafieldwork.
tionto theUnitedStatesat a timewhenhe was makingthe
transitionfromgeographyto ethnology(Stocking1968).
While Boas's famousoppositionbetweenthe physicaland
methodwas thusdevelopedin thecontext
cosmographical
ofanotherdiscipline,it is generallyacceptedthatthepiece
ofBoas'santhropolthefoundationalstatement
represents
ogy (Bunzl 1996; Stocking1968, 1974). Boas includedthe
earlypiece in the collectionof his papers,Race,Language
and Culture(1940), because,he explained,it "indicate[d]
the generalattitudeunderlying
[his]laterwork"(1940:vi).
Mostreadingsof "The StudyofGeography"have concontrastbetweentheaescentratedon theepistemological
theticimpulse,the desireto deduce laws fromphenomena, and the affective
impulseto investigatephenomena
for theirown sake. But implicitin this crucialdistinction was also an ethnographicresearchprogramthatdeas
rivedfromsuch Germancounter-Enlightenment
figures
In
Wilhelm
von
Humboldt.
and
Herder
Gottfried
Johann
the late 18thand early19thcenturies,
theyhad developed
in
of
a Humanitiitsideal
(ideal humanity) oppositionto such
FrenchEnlightenment
figuresas Voltaire.In contrastto
the conceptionof a uniformdevelopmentof civilization,
theyhad arguedforthe uniquenessof values transmitted
throughouthistory.The comparisonof any givennation
or any otherexternalstanor age withthe Enlightenment
dardwas unacceptable.Each humangroupcouldbe understood onlyas a productofitsparticularhistory,
propelled,
in turn,by a unique Volksgeist
(geniusof a people). This
as the prodfoundationalemphasison culturaldifference
was articulatedin a cosmopoliuct of historicalspecificity
thecommon
affirmed
The Humanititsideal
tanframework.
rather
bond of humanitybut saw it expressedin diversity
ofhumanforms.In oppositionto theFrench
thansimilarity
on theessenwhichbased itsuniversalism
Enlightenment,
tial samenessof human beingsas rationalactors,Herder
ofeach
and Humboldtstressedtheindividualcontribution
culturalentityto humanityat large.And since humanity

was the totalityof its multitudinous

entities,each group
neededto be studiedin itsindividuality
(Bunzl1996).
In "The Study of Geography,"this traditionwas
embodied in the cosmographicalapproach to phenomena. FollowingHerderand Humboldt,Boas assertedthat
"cosmography...considerseveryphenomenonas worthy
of being studiedforits own sake. Its mereexistenceentitlesit to a fullshareof our attention;and the knowledge
ofitsexistenceand evolutionin space and timefullysatisfiesthe student"(1940[1887]:642).It is crucialto drawout
someoftheimplicationsofthisremarkable
statement
that
ForBoas,the
capturestheessenceofBoasiananthropology.
reasonto exploreculturalphenomenawas not thatthey
were"Other"butthattheywere"there."This seemslikea
trivialdistinction,
butithasenormousepistemological
ramifications.
Asan heirto theGermancounter-Enlightenment
Boas tookthehistoricalspecificity
ofculturaland
tradition,
ethnicphenomenaforgranted.But ratherthan focuson
theirinherentOtherness(in an actofreification),
he sought
to understandthemas theproductsofparticular
historical
it
was
not
their
difference
that
developments.Ultimately,
made theminteresting,
but the factthattheycontributed
to theplenitudeofhumanity.
Thatfact"entitled[them]to
a fullshareofourattention,"
which,in turn,meanttheatto
understand
their
tempt
history.As Boas put it, "As the
truthof everyphenomenoncauses us to studyit, a true
historyof its evolutionalone can satisfythe investigator's
mind"(1940[1887]:644).
in the
The degreetowhichtheOtherwas notfetishized
becomesevenclearerin Boas'ssemiearlyBoasiantradition
nal lecture"Anthropology,"
deliveredat ColumbiaUniversityin 1907 and publishedin 1908. EchoingHerderand
in terms
Humboldt,Boas definedthe taskof anthropology
oftwohistoricalquestions:"Whyarethetribesand nations
of the worlddifferent,
and how have the presentdifferences developed?"(1974[1908]:269).ForBoas,thesequesto the world's"primitive"peotions were not restricted
on
he arguedthat,in principle,
the
Quite
ples.
contrary,
with
the "investigation
of huis
concerned
anthropology
man typesand human activitiesand thoughtthe world
over" (1974[1908]:269);but in practicethiswas not feasible, especiallysince otherdisciplines-such as history,
economics,and sociology-"have takenup anthropological problems"(1974[1908]:269).In thissituation,the"task
thatis actuallyassignedat'thepresenttimeto the anthroof the primitivetribesof the
pologistis the investigation
world"(1974[1908]:269).But Boas stressedthat"thislimitationof the field"was "moreor less accidental,"a function of the factthat "othersciencesoccupiedpartof the
groundbeforethe developmentof modernanthropology"
(1974[1908]:269).
The implicationof thispositionis, again, quite radiin termsof human
cal in thatBoas definedanthropology
history,conceivedboth in global and particularterms.If
focusedon nonliterate
peoples,itwas only
anthropologists
because otherdisciplineswerealreadyconcernedwiththe
of literategroups.These disciplineshad the
investigation

This content downloaded on Sat, 2 Feb 2013 22:30:24 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

438

AmericanAnthropologist* Vol. 106,No. 3 * September2004

In a Malinowskianframework,
the productionof
advantageof textualmaterialthatallowedthe reconstruction of culturehistoryusingthe philologicalmethodsdewas
function of mere
a
anthropologicalknowledge
in
19th
In
a
universalas
occurred
as
it
observation, long
across-and, thereby,
veloped
centuryGermany. radically
reSelfand
izingmove,Boas soughtto extendsuch philologicalwork
produced-a culturalchasmbetweenethnographic
to all humans,implicitly
nativeOther.Thetwosubjectpositionswereconstructed
arguingthatthedomainofculture
as
in
a
traditional
humanisticsense)was not
(conceived
distinctthroughthe veryepistemological
fairly
clarirreducibly
in the ethnographicenunique to literategroups.Ifotherdisciplinesaccountedfor
ity affordedthe anthropologist
the culturehistoryof the "civilized"world,it was incumcounter.Thisclassicalconceptionofethnography
waspowbent on anthropology
to do the same forthe "primitive"
erfullyarticulatedin the methodologicalintroductionof
partofhumanity(Stocking1992).
Argonauts
oftheWestern
Pacific,
easilythe mostwidelyread
Howevernaiveorproblematic
sucha projectmayseem
and influentialprimeron anthropologicalfieldwork
and
froma contemporary
Boas's impulsein purthe textmostcommonlyused to definetheMalinowskian
perspective,
tradition.There,natives "obey[ed]the forcesand comsuing his researchagenda was guided by an attemptto
overcomeOthernessratherthancementit.Takingthe hismands of the tribalcode" but never "comprehend[ed]"
toricalspecificity
of "primitive"peoples forgranted,he
them(1984[1922]:11).Only the anthropologist
could diswas muchlessinterested
in documenting
theirstrangeness cerntheirculture.The "ethnographer's
Malinowski
magic"
than in showcasingtheirsimilarity,
evokedwas thus a functionof panopticismthat revealed
which,in a counterhe viewed in termsof their
culturalspecificity
framework,
Enlightenment
throughthe prolongedobservationof
to theplenitudeof humanity.These
difference
specificcontributions
(1984[1922]:6). Malinowskiwas sincerein his
contributionscould be located in the "primitive"seeds
that
the productionof ethnographic
optimism
knowledge
of humanisticculture-mythology,
and language
would raiseunderstanding
folklore,
forthe nativeOther.Viewedin
foremost
historicalperspective,
his workarguablydid justthat;but
amongthem(Stocking1968).
It was in this contextthatBoas's fieldwork
consisted
it cameat thepriceofdefiningand fixingtheethnographic
largelyof the collectionof texts.He obtainedthemfrom
objectas "verydistantand foreignto us" (1984[1922]:25).
individualinformants,
This conceptioninvariablygeneratedthe "nativeantreatingthemas expressionsof the
as an abjectfigure
oftheMalinowskianfield.
"geniusofa people."Whethertheyweremyths,folktales,
thropologist"
or othernarratives,
Boas saw thesetextsas a body of priIn thetheoryofMalinowski'soriginalformulation,
thenoof "primition of "nativeanthropology"
marymaterialsthatwould allow the treatment
was simplya contradiction
tive"peopleswiththemethodsofphilologicalscholarship.
in terms.Ifnativesobeyedthetribalcode withoutcompreBoas statedthis logic explicitly,commentingin a letter
excludedfromthesubject
hendingit,theywereinherently
of 1905 thatno one would "advocatethe studyof... the
In suspensionofhisowntheoretpositionofethnographer.
Turksor the Russianswithouta thoroughknowledgeof
ical pronouncements,
Malinowskiactuallytraineda numtheirlanguagesand ofthe literary
documentsin theselanberofnativeanthropologists.
Butin thecontextofa soonto-behegemonicparadigm,suspicionremainedabout the
guages"(1974[1905a]:122).Giventhatin thecaseof"American Indians... no suchliterary
material[was]availablefor
legitimacyof knowledgeproducedat the point in which
nativeand ethnographer
meet.In the absenceof cultural
study,"Boas thoughtit tantamountto "makesuch materialaccessible,...lettingthiskindofworktakeprecedence
as
the
block
ofanthropological
alterity
building
knowledge
overpractically
else"
cf.
the
native
was renderedas the
(1974[1905a]:122-123;
everything
production,
ethnographer
virtualecho of Malinowski'sconstitutive
Stocking1974, 1992).
foreclosure.
NaBoas's ethnographicstylemay have resultedin the
tiveethnography
could neverbe as "real"as "realanthrofetishization
oftexts,collectedwiththenaiveidea thattheir
recourseto its
pology,"because it had no epistemological
would resultin reconfoundationaldifference.
subsequentphilologicaltreatment
Today's"virtualanthropologists"
structions
oftheculturehistories
of"primitive"
continueto beartheoriginary
burden.
peoples.But
in linewithhisgeneralcounter-Enlightenment
orientation,
In Boas'sfieldwork,
a constitutive
epistemological
sepit neverresultedin the fetishization
of nativeOtherness.
arationbetweenethnographer
and nativewas absent.To
Boas took the particularity
of his informants
forgranted.
be sure,Boas exertedvariousformsofpoweroverhis inforIfhe was interested
in themit was not becausetheywere
mants.Butthispowerwas neverfiguredin termsof episofculturalknowledge
Other,butbecausetheywerecarriers
neitherantemologicalprivilege.FromBoas's perspective,
he hoped to preservein the contextof colonialonslaught.
had immediateaccess to the
thropologistnor informant
To putit differently,
Boas drewno particular
In thissituation,anthroleveragefrom
historyhe hoped to reconstruct.
the different
of "anthropologist"
and "inforsubjectivities
wereunitedin a commonepistemic
pologistand informant
mant."The former
was not mobilizedto produceobjective
positionvis-a-visthe real Otherof Boasian anthropology.
of thelatter.
knowledgethroughthepanopticsurveillance
ThatOther,ultimately,
was the historythathad generated
In any case, the ethnographicknowledgeBoas was interthepresentcondition,a historythateludedimmediatedeestedin (i.e., history)was neverso transparent
as to afford
scriptiondue to theabsenceofwrittenrecords.
eitheranthropologist
orinformant
readyaccesstotheissues
In practice,thismeantthatBoas was just as happyif
in question.
NativeAmericans
datathemselves.
generatedethnographic

This content downloaded on Sat, 2 Feb 2013 22:30:24 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Bunzl * Boas,Foucault,and the "NativeAnthropologist" 439

In fact,as the importantresearchby JudithBermanhas
shown,Boas was alwayseagerto recruitliterateinformants
who would producetextson theirown,therebyaddingto
the corpusof recordedNativeAmericanculture(Berman
of Boas's re1996). While Berman'scarefulreconstruction
lationshipwithGeorgeHuntrevealsthecomplexinequalitiesthatstructured
theirassociationof 45 years,she notes
of Hunt'stexts.
Boas's trustin the ethnographic
authority
Thesetexts,in fact,formedthebasisofmuchofBoas'spubrolesof
licationson theKwakiutl;and whiletherespective
Boas and Hunt werenot alwaysclearfromthe published
his informant's
culproduct,Boas saw himselfas rendering
Hunt
to
If
Boas
authentic
voice.
thought
anything,
turally
because
be in an advantageousethnographic
he,at
position
under
of
the
culture
least,had sometacitknowledge
history
question.
Hunt'slack of formaltrainingneverrenderedhim a
Buttherewas at leastone Naanthropologist.
full-fledged
tiveAmericanwho attainedthis statusby way of formal
trainingunderBoas. WilliamJones,part-FoxIndian and
fluentin thelanguage,receivedhis Ph.D. at ColumbiaUniresearchon theFox and other
in 1904,undertaking
versity
Native Americangroupspriorto his prematuredeath in
1909 (Berman1996:225).Andinsiderstatusdidnotprevent
RobertLowie,perhapsthemostfaithful
earlyBoasian,from
two
authoritative
monographson the culture
publishing
he consideredhis own (cf.Stocking1974). His books The
to 1914 (1945) and Toward
GermanPeople:A SocialPortrait
Boasian
(1954) are quintessentially
Understanding
Germany
projectsseekingto disentanglethe domains of language,
race,and culturewithoutany apparentanxietyabout the
to his objectofstudy.
author'sproximity
It would be possibleto rehearseadditionalexamples,
fromElla Deloria to Zora Neale Hurston,but theywould
merelyunderscorewhat followsfromthe basic epistemological premiseof Boasian ethnography.In contrastto
the Malinowskianvariantthat came to be hegemonicin
did not produce"nathediscipline,Boasiananthropology
tive" anthropologyas the virtualOtherof "real" anthropology.More accurately,perhaps,it could be said that
did not producethe nativeanthroBoasian anthropology
As
Berman
all.
puts it, united in a common
pologistat
project,"professionalanthropologist"and "native fieldworker"werenot "mutuallyexclusivecategories"and the
"menand womenwhowere[Boas's]students,
prot~g~s,and
combined"these roles in "variousways"
correspondents
(Berman1996:221).
Thisis notto saythatBoaswasoblivioustothedifferent
Much
locationsof "insider"and "outsider"ethnographers.
ofBoas'sworkwas,in fact,concernedwithsuchproblemsas
conditionedmisundersounds,"theculturally
"alternating
standingsthatoccurredin the attemptto "apperceiveunknownsoundsby the means of the soundsof [one's]own
language"(Boas 1974[1889]:76;cf. Stocking1968). While
this problemrenderedan outsider'srecordingof Native
Boas thoughtthatit
Americantextsexceedinglydifficult,
could be overcomethroughthe kind of traininghe pro-

vided his students.That trainingwould allow ethnographersto grasplanguagesand textsin a "purelyanalytic"

fashion,thatis, withoutrecourseto theirown grammatical and conceptualcategories(Boas 1974[1905b]:178;cf.
Stocking1992).
Whileoutsidersneededto overcometheproblemofalternatingsounds,insidersweresubjectto epistemological
as well.Centralto Boas'spositionin thisregard
limitations
was the concept of "secondaryexplanation,"the "rationalizationsof customary
behaviorwhose originswerelost
in tradition,
but thatwerehighlychargedwithemotional
value" (Stocking1974:6). Boas continuouslyemphasized
the presenceof secondaryexplanationsamongall human
groups,a situationthatrenderedan insider'sinformation
regardingthe historyof any giventextor custominherIn lightofthelargerBoasianprojectof
entlyuntrustworthy.
the historiesofpresentconditions,anthroreconstructing
pologists,be theyinsidersor outsiders,thushad to reach
beyondsecondaryexplanationsin orderto discern"true"
history.
Insidersand outsiderswere thus differentially
positionedattheonsetoftheethnographic
project.Whatis centralin thepresentcontext,however,is thatBoasianethnogbutalso was
raphynotonlydid notreston thatdistinction
efface
it.
to
sounds,
Guardingagainstalternating
designed
data as inoutsiderswouldproducethesameethnographic
siders;at thesametime,thecriticalawarenessofsecondary
explanationswouldguideinsiders(and theanthropologists
fromthem)towardthe acwho derivedtheirinformation
ethnicphenomena.Concepofcontemporary
tualhistories
wouldgenerate
tually,thismeantthatinsidersand outsiders
kindsofhistorthe
same
thesamekindofdataand attempt
To returnto theexampleofLowiefor
ical reconstructions.
a moment,thismeantthatfromhis Boasian perspective,
betweenhis workon
therewas no qualitativedifference
NativeAmericansand Germans.Whetherhe occupiedthe
subjectpositionof insideror outsiderin regardto the culstance.
tureunderstudydid not affecthis epistemological
In both cases,he soughtto recuperatea historythatwas
inacobscuredby secondaryexplanationsand, therefore,
cessibleto theimmediategraspofinsiderand outsider.
NEO-BOASIANANTHROPOLOGYASCFOUCAULDIAN
GENEALOGY
Wheredoes thisleave us in termsof the possibilityfora
Much like its namesake,such
neo-Boasiananthropology?
less by a strictset of
an approachwould be characterized
than a basic orientation.
methodologicalpresuppositions
Centralto that orientationis the Boasian understanding
as thehistoryofthepresent.As I have arofanthropology
gued,onlythisBoasianmovecan overcomea Malinowskian
In place of the generative
of culturalalterity.
fetishization
oppositionbetweenethnographicSelfand native Other,
a neo-Boasiananthropologywould thus posit a tempoas the focal point of analyral dimensionof difference
a hiddenhistoryas the
sis. In doing so, it would identify

This content downloaded on Sat, 2 Feb 2013 22:30:24 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

440

AmericanAnthropologist* Vol. 106,No. 3 * September2004

principalobject of anthropologicalinvestigation,
thereby
uniting"insiders"and "outsiders"in a commonepistemic
theethnographic
positionvis-a-vis
object.Anthropological
knowledgewould thus not emergeas a functionof their
reifieddifference
but on the groundsof theiranalogous
location.
It should be clear by now that the enunciationof a
neo-Boasiananthropology
is not an attemptto legitimize
or privilege"nativeanthropology."
Quite on the contrary,
it seeksto deconstruct
the verycategorythroughrecourse
to a criticalgenealogythat identifiesit as a symptomof
a hegemonicfieldwork
tradition.That traditionnot only
itself
of culturaldifferreproduces
throughthe reification
ence but also policesitsboundariesby rejectingas virtual
thosewhosedifference
is in doubt.
anthropologists
Hereagain,itis important
to notethatsucha stancein
no wayimpliesthedenialofthe existenceand paramount
ofculturaldifference.
Whatitseeksto suspend,
importance
is
the
of culturaldifnaturalization
however,
performative
ferenceas the constitutive
elementof ethnographicfieldwork.To do so, culturaldifference
needs to be dislodged
fromitspositionas the enablingprincipleof ethnography
and turnedintothe veryphenomenonin need of historical explanation.Boas phrasedthe anthropological
project
in justthesetermswhenhe notedthatthediscipline'stask
was to accountforwhythe"tribesand nationsoftheworld
and how these"presentdifferences
devel[were]different"
oped" (1974[1908]:269).
In theory,Boasiananthropologists
may have adhered
to thisentirelycontemporary
antifoundational
project;in
often
tended
to
naturalize
conhowever,
practice,
they
differences
recourse
to
such
transhistemporary
through
toricalnotions as Volksgeistand culturepattern,an apoftheinfluential
secondgeneration
of
proachcharacteristic
Boasians(cf.Benedict1934). Contrary
to a commonlyheld
assumption,Boasiananthropologists
workingin thismode
neverreified
culturalboundariesas impermeable
divides(as
Bashkownotes,thisissue);but some of themdid come to
regardthemas givenratherthan made. Whileculturalalterityneverfiguredas the enablingconditionof Boasian
its realitythus oftenremainedunexamined;it
fieldwork,
is at thispointthatthe contoursof a neo-Boasiananthropologycome into view.In regardto Boas's originalquesa
tionson the originsand historiesof culturaldifferences,
neo-Boasianapproachwouldbe waryoftakingrecourseto
a transhistorical
notionof culture.In its place, the reality
of culturalboundarieswould emergeas the objectof anain place of
lyticscrutiny,
requiringrigoroushistoricization
naturalization.
Rather
than
cultural
ethnographic
"finding"
a neo-Boasiananthropology
wouldthusfollow
differences,
Boas in turningourattentionto theirhistoricalproduction
and ethnographic
reproduction,.
In rendering
theBoasianprojectas an antifoundational
an ally emergesin a surprishistoryof presentdifference,
The
inglykindredanalyticsystem-Foucauldiangenealogy.
joint invocationof Boas and Foucaultmay seem counterintuitive,but in regardto the theoreticalconcernsof this

article,theirsystemsof thoughtconvergein crucialways.

The projectsof the earlyBoas and the late Foucaultcenteredon the historyof the present.Much like Boas, Foucaultdevelopedthisapproachto interrogate
and overcome
the fetishization
of difference.
In place ofnaturalizing
the
"homosexual"as a distinctspecies,to takehismostfamous
example,Foucaultsoughtto accountforthehistoricalconditionof "his" emergence(Foucault1978). This approach
was inherently
nonpanopticin thatit refusedto drawanalyticleveragefromthe reifieddistinctionof sexual oriconditionof
entation,accountinginsteadforitsoriginary
In
a
of
that
possibility. disrupting regime power
abjected
certainbodies in termsof theirreifiedsubjectpositions,
Foucaultwas thus engagedin a projectof epistemological democratization
thatdirectly
paralleledthe BoasianatOthernessof the contemtemptto effacethe constitutive
porary"primitive."Both Foucaultand Boas realizedthat
thiscould onlybe achievedifsuch Othersas "homosexuals" and "primitives"
ceased to be producedas reifiedsites
of difference,
a stancethatnecessitated
theimaginationof
discursivelocationsbeyondthe hegemonicfieldofpower.
and interpellated
to speakas a "homoBeingconstructed
sexual" or "native"alwaysalreadyreproducedthe binary
distinctionoforiginary
abjection.Onlyby suspendingthe
discursivereproduction
of such distinctions
as heterosexand ethnographic
ual/homosexual
Otherwas it
Self/native
to
the
reification
difference
of
whose
interpossible escape
rogationwas thehistoricalobjectofanalysis.
In the hegemonic context of the Malinowskian
to mobilizea Foucauldian
paradigm,it has been difficult
framework
as a constitutive
This
aspect of ethnography.
should not be surprising
Fougiven how uncomfortably
cault'sgenealogicalanalysisof subjectionas the product
of panopticsurveillancemaps onto the foundationaldistinctionbetweenethnographicSelfand nativeOther(cf.
Rosaldo1986). Afterall,in a framework
designedto scrutinize the productionof knowledgeas a formof generative
power,Malinowskianfieldwork
figuresas a quintessential
site of constitutive
of course,sought
Foucault,
Othering.
to put thisveryprocessof reification
underanalyticrelief
fiction.And it is forprecisely
by unmaskingits originary
that reasonthat Foucauldiangenealogycannot easilybe
into an ethnographic
incorporated
projectenabledby the
ofculturalalterity.
operativereification
Foucaultdoesofcoursehavehisfollowers
in anthropolthatthe anthropologists
ogy.Butit is symptomatic
whose
workfollowsthatofFoucaultmostcloselyhave shiedaway
fromthe panoptic site of the Malinowskianfield(Horn
1994; Rabinow1989). In so doing,theyhave tendedto
frametheirprojectsawayfromimmediateethnographic
encounters,producinggenealogiesthataccountforthe historicalconditionsof the presentwhile not focusingon
the presentconditionitself.This mode of analysisreproduces the ethnographic
blind spot of Foucauldiangenealogy,whichis conceivedas a historyof such presentphenomena as the "homosexual"but findsits realizationin
theaccountof"his"historicalinvention.Whatgetslostin

This content downloaded on Sat, 2 Feb 2013 22:30:24 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Bunzl * Boas,Foucault,and the "NativeAnthropologist" 441

theprocess-and theintroductory
volumeofFoucault'sThe
is theparadigmatic
ofSexuality
History
example-is a systematicinvestigation
oftheactualconditionsof "homosexuality"in thepresent.Thereis everyreasonforsuchan ethnoto takeplace,however,providedthat
graphicinvestigation
itsoperativeprinciplesaccordwiththegenealogicalproject
at large.
It is at this point that a neo-Boasiananthropology
mightemergeas the much-neededethnographicdimenshares
sionofa Foucauldianproject.TheBoasianframework
the
reification
of
of
Foucault'sconstitutive
goal suspending
In
with
its
historicization.
the
difference
dealing
through
Foucaultfocuseshis attentionon the
fictionof difference,
and as an ininvention.In contrast,
momentofitshistorical
project,a neo-Boasiananthropology
herently
ethnographic
would turnits analyticgaze muchmoredecisivelyon the
in thepresent.In thissense,thepresent
orderofdifference
butas thevery
would neverappearas a transparent
entity,
site of a criticalinvestigationinto ongoingprocessesof
The seemingrealityof difference
historicalreproduction.
would thus functionnot as the startingpoint but as the
telosofanthropological
inquiry(Bunzl2004).
explanatory
to ethnographic
Centralto sucha movefromhistorical
of
Boasian
be
the
would
concept "secondaryexgenealogy
accountof the
a
Foucauldian
planation."Supplementing
return
to the preinvention-to
"homosexual's"historical
chart
would
vious example-a neo-Boasiananthropology
as an ongosocial and discursivereproduction
the figure's
Reachingbeyondtheorigingact ofculturalmystification.
inarymomentof speciation,the realityof "homosexual"
as the
and culturewouldthusbecomeintelligible
difference
thehistorically
functionofsecondaryexplanations,
specific
fictionsthathavebeen articulated
throughand aroundthe
"homosexual."
Such a neo-Boasianapproachwould neitherdemand
as "homosexual"
thattheexperiencesofthoseconstructed
be discounted,nor would it suggestthe dismissalof the
those
aroundthem.On thecontrary,
discoursescirculating
rewouldbe theveryphenomenain need ofinvestigation,
of
the
processes secondaryexplanation
vealing,as theydo,
thatreproducethe ethnographicrealityof "homosexual"
Otherness.As a historyof the present,a neo-Boasiananthropologyemergesin thisfashionas a genealogyof secondaryexplanation,chartingthe ethnographicrealityof
reificulturalalteritywithoutrecourseto its performative
accation. In practice,much contemporary
ethnography
tuallyaccordswiththeseprinciplesin broad terms.After
has becomea
all, the disruptionof naturalizeddifferences
centralaspectofanthropology's
conceptualwork.Butwhile
theavoidanceof"Othering"has becomea veritableclarion
call as the disciplinehas abandoned such traditionaldisthat most foundational
tinctionsas "primitive/civilized,"
Selfand nativeOther-difference-between
ethnographic
Thatwillnotchangeas longas theohas remainedin effect.
attribute
ristsand practitioners
significance
epistemological
basisof
as a privileged
salienceto alterity
and ethnographic
knowledgeproduction.
anthropological

essentialiAny historydisruptiveof transhistorical

zation-that is, any good Foucauldianhistory-fulfills
the
theoreticalpreceptsoutlinedin this article.Dealing with
theepistemological
dividesbetweenpastand present,
morehistorians
as "too close"to theirsubover,rarelyconstructs
ject of inquiry(a pejorativecategoryof "nativehistorian"
does not exist).The visionoutlinedhereultimately
operates in analogy.Retaininganthropology's
empiricalfocus
on the present,it imaginesscholarswhose workproduces
neithernativenornonnativehistory
butsimplyhistory-in
thiscase thehistoryofa particular
present.
The recuperation
ofa Boasianparadigmforthepresent
Whiletheargumentfor
purposesis in somewaysstrategic.
as a historyof the present
reimagination
anthropology's
could be venturedfroma purelyFoucauldianposition,the
neo-Boasianapproachsketchedin this articlepromisesa
new anthropology
deeplyrootedin one of the discipline's
traditions.
Thattraditionconceptualizedanthrooriginary
pology'staskas a historyof the present:a Foucauldiandesignavantla lettrethatnot onlytranscendsthe reifieddichotomyof ethnographicSelfand nativeOtherbut also
turnsour attentionto the historicalprocessesthat origiin thefirst
nateand sustainsuchdistinctions
place.Thefact
theconceptof"secondary
thatthistraditionalso identifies
masks
explanation"as thephenomenonthatcontinuously
ofculturaldifference
theproductionand reproduction
only
heightensitsrelevanceforthepresentpurposes.Ultimately,
as thehistorical
thisarticleenvisionsculturalanthropology
Rooted
in various
of secondaryexplanations.
ethnography
ofour
genealogicalpastsbut operativein and constitutive
it is theirhistoriesthataccount
lifeworlds,
contemporary
can reforour present.Only a neo-Boasiananthropology
thehistoryofthatpresentbeyondthedifference
construct
Selfand nativeOtherand, in so dobetweenethnographic
ing,allowthedisciplineto surmountone ofitsmostpersistentdilemmas.
of
MATTI BUNZLDepartmentof Anthropology,
University
Illinoisat Urbana-Champaign,
Urbana,IL 61801
NOTES

at
ofthisarticle
werepresented
Initialversions
Acknowledgments.

Assothe 1999 AnnualMeetingof the AmericanAnthropological

Workciationin Chicagoandto theSociocultural

Anthropology
ofIllinoisatUrbana-Champaign.
On these
shopattheUniversity
and encourI received
and otheroccasions,
helpfulcomments
IraBashkow,
from
Boon,David
James
agement
NancyAbelmann,
Bill
AlmaGottlieb,
Richard
BrendaFarnell,
Handler,
Dinwoodie,
DanielRosenblatt,
HerbLewis,
Kelleher,
AndyOrta,LarsRodseth,
Dan Segal,MichaelSilverstein,
GeorgeStocking,Adam Sutcliffe,
David Sutton,and BillyVaughn.

REFERENCES CITED

Ruth
Benedict,

ofCulture.Boston:HoughtonMifflin.
1934 Patterns
Berman,Judith
1996 "The Cultureas It Appearsto the IndianHimself":Boas,
In Historyof
GeorgeHunt,and theMethodsofEthnography.

This content downloaded on Sat, 2 Feb 2013 22:30:24 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

442

AmericanAnthropologist* Vol. 106,No. 3 * September2004

vol.8: Volksgeist
as Methodand Ethic:Essayson
Anthropology,
Boasian Ethnography
and the GermanAnthropological
Tradition.G. Stocking,ed. Pp. 215-256. Madison:University
of
WisconsinPress.
Boas,Franz
1940 Race,Languageand Culture.NewYork:Macmillan.
In Race,Languageand Cul1940[1887] TheStudyofGeography.
ture.Pp. 639-647.NewYork:Macmillan.
Sounds. In A FranzBoas Reader:
1974[1889] On Alternating
The Shapingof AmericanAnthropology,
1883-1911.George
Stocking,ed. Pp. 72-77. Chicago: Universityof Chicago
Press.
FunctionoftheText.In A Franz
1974[1905a] The Documentary
Boas Reader:The Shapingof AmericanAnthropology,
18831911. GeorgeStocking,ed. Pp. 122-123. Chicago:University
ofChicagoPress.
1974[1905b] A PurelyAnalytical
StudyofLanguage.In A Franz
Boas Reader:The Shapingof AmericanAnthropology,
18831911. GeorgeStocking,
ed. Pp. 178-179. Chicago:University
ofChicagoPress.
In A FranzBoas Reader:The Shaping
1974[1908] Anthropology.
of AmericanAnthropology,
1883-1911.GeorgeStocking,ed.
ofChicagoPress.
Pp. 267-281. Chicago:University
Bunzl,Matti
1996 FranzBoasandtheHumboldtian
Tradition:
FromVolksgeist
and Nationalcharakter
to an Anthropological
Conceptof Culture.In Historyof Anthropology,
vol. 8: Volksgeist
as Method
and Ethic:Essayson Boasian Ethnography
and the German
Tradition.GeorgeStocking,ed. Pp. 17-78.
Anthropological
Madison:University
ofWisconsinPress.
2004 Symptomsof Modernity:Jews and Queers in LateVienna.Berkeley:
of California
Twentieth-Century
University
Press.
Clifford,
James
1988 The Predicament
of Culture:Twentieth
CenturyEthnogand Art.Cambridge,
MA:HarvardUniversity
raphy,Literature,
Press.
1997 SpatialPractices:Fieldwork,
Travel,and the Disciplining
of Anthropology.
In Anthropological
Locations:Boundaries
and Groundsof a FieldScience.AkhilGuptaand JamesFerof California
guson, eds. Pp. 185-222. Berkeley:University
Press.
Foucault,Michel
1978 TheHistoryofSexuality:
AnIntroduction.
NewYork:VintageBooks.

Geertz,Clifford
?
1973 The Interpretation
ofCultures.NewYork:BasicBooks.
Gupta,Akhil,andJamesFerguson
1997 Discipline and Practice:"The Field" as Site, Method,
and Locationin Anthropology.
In Anthropological
Locations:
Boundariesand Groundsof a Field Science. Akhil Gupta
and JamesFerguson,eds. Pp. 1-46. Berkeley:University
of
CaliforniaPress.
Horn,David
1994 Social Bodies:Science,Reproduction,
and ItalianModerPrincetonUniversity
Press.
nity.Princeton:
Lowie,Robert
1945 The GermanPeople:A SocialPortrait
to 1914. New York:
Farrarand Rinehart.
1954 TowardUnderstanding
of
Germany.Chicago:University
ChicagoPress.
Bronislaw
Malinowski,
oftheWesternPacific.ProspectHeights,
1984[1922] Argonauts
IL: WavelandPress.
Narayan,Kirin
1993 How NativeIs a "Native"Anthropologist?
AmericanAn95(3):671-686.
thropologist
Rabinow,Paul
1989 FrenchModern:Normsand FormsoftheSocial Environment.Cambridge,
MA:MIT Press.
Rosaldo,Renato
1986 Fromthe Door of His Tent:The Fieldworker
and the InInWriting
Culture:ThePoeticsandPoliticsofEthnogquisitor.
and G. Marcus,eds.Pp. 77-97.Berkeley:
Uniraphy.J.Clifford
ofCaliforniaPress.
versity
Stocking,
George
1968 Race,Culture,and Evolution:Essaysin theHistoryofAnofChicagoPress.
thropology.
Chicago:University
1974 A FranzBoasReader:TheShapingofAmerican
AnthropolofChicagoPress.
ogy,1883-1911.Chicago:University
1992 TheEthnographer's
Magicand OtherEssaysin theHistory
ofAnthropology.
Madison:University
ofWisconsinPress.
Wagner,Roy
of
1981[1975] The Inventionof Culture.Chicago: University
ChicagoPress.
Weston,Kath
1997 TheVirtualAnthropologist.
In Anthropological
Locations:
Boundariesand Groundsof a FieldScience.AkhilGuptaand
eds. Pp. 163-184.Berkeley:
ofCalJamesFerguson,
University
iforniaPress.

This content downloaded on Sat, 2 Feb 2013 22:30:24 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions