See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/235525816

Johannes Fabian, Time and the Work of Anthropology: Critical Essays 1971-
1991

Article  in  Anthropos: International Review of Anthropology and Linguistics

CITATIONS READS

0 303

1 author:

Aleksandar Boskovic
Institute of Social Sciences
115 PUBLICATIONS   85 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Gender Equality in a Global Perspective (Routledge) View project

Mesoamerica View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Aleksandar Boskovic on 09 January 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Time and the Work of Anthropology. Critical Essays 1971-1991 by Johannes Fabian
Review by: Aleksandar Bošković
Anthropos, Bd. 88, H. 4./6. (1993), pp. 581-582
Published by: Anthropos Institute
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40463784 .
Accessed: 12/09/2013 12:36

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.

Anthropos Institute is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Anthropos.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.37.16.155 on Thu, 12 Sep 2013 12:36:19 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Rezensionen 581

is nodoubtthattheUpanisadsarenotunacquainted with first

essay,"Language,history andanthropology" (orig-
theideasofKarmanandRebirth, itis equallyclearthat inallypublished in 1971),he writes:"Thethrust ofmy
theydo notwhollybreakaway fromthepositiveand criticism has beendirected towardmoreobviousforms
life-affirmingethosoftheearlierVedictradition" (Pande of scientismin Americananthropology but I realize
1978:3 f.). The cruxof Pande'sview lies in thepoint thata fruitful discussionwillhaveto be mindful of a
thatit is "arguablethattheSramanatradition already muchwidercontext andseekconfrontation withFrench
existedin theVedicperiodas an independent though structuralism and positivist languagephilosophy" (29).
littleknowntradition" (ibid.3) andthat"asceticism can In another place ("Textas terror," from1979): "Prod-
be discerned forthefirst timeonlyinIndianSramanism" uctsofhumanactivity mayassumean autonomous and
(ibid.38). indeedparasitic existence. Therein liesthepossibility, if
The strength oftheworkbyDundaslies in thatfact notnecessity, ofcarrying anthropological interpretation
thatit bases theentirestudyon originalsourcesand beyondrelativist accountsof 'culture,'towardhistori-
oftenon firsthand information fromexpertswithinthe cal critique.It is a difficult projectbecausethesocial
tradition;severalremarks in footnotes acknowledgingsciencesare stilldominated by the scientistic notion
well-known figures fromtheJainatradition add authen- of a difference in kindbetweenlivinga cultureand
ticityto his work.Although one is warnedthatowing understanding a culture" (85).
"to exigenciesbrought aboutby typesetting costs"the The gapthatFabianattempts to closecan be related
Indianist will feelirritated at theexclusionof diacritic to the distinction betweendifferent modesof human
marks.However, thebook'swealthof information will knowledge.In the mid-19thcentury, thesedifferent
certainly be welcomedby thoseinterested in a field modeswerereferred tobytheGerman historian Droysen
thatneedsmoresuchinvestigations and analyses- the as "Erkenntnis" (forphilosophy), "Erklärung" (forthe
readerwillbe struck by the several references to areas naturalsciences), and "Verstehen" (for the social sci-
in Jainism thatstillrequireresearch andstudy. ences).The distinction between"Erklärung" (explana-
Jayandra Soni tion)and"Verstehen" (understanding) has beentackled
by DiltheyandWeberin thesocialsciencesand,more
recently,by Von Wrightin philosophy ("Explanation
Fabian, Johannes:Timeand theWorkof Anthro- and Understanding." Ithaca 1971), but it seemsthat
pology.CriticalEssays 1971-1991.Philadelphia: Har- the anthropological ideal has been a kindof "exact"
wood AcademicPublishers, 1991. xvii + 299pp.,fig., or "positive"science,based on the modelof natural
tab. (Studiesin Anthropology and History,3) Price: sciences.Thisbrought intoanthropology a kindofmeth-
$20.00 odologicalmonism(deriveddirectly frompositivism)
This volumepresents an overviewof thelast two thatinsisted on theideaoftheunity ofscientific method
decades'workof one of themostinteresting contem- within thediversity ofsubjectmatter ofanthropological
poraryanthropologists. All 13 essayshavebeenprevi- investigation. This also led to theconclusionthatthe
ouslypublished(or were in press at the time of the naturalsciences shouldset a methodological ideal or
publication of this book), butthis collection gives a rare standardthat will measure the degree of development
insight in theanthropology at itsbest,trying to under- of all theothersciences,including anthropology. It is
standnotonlythepeopleandcultures studied, butalso quiteobviousthatno social sciencecan everachieve
to understand itself.The essaysare dividedintothree thesestandards, buttheattempts led to a visionof the
parts:"Ethnography, Communication andTexts"which anthropology as a "superscience"(somekindofa social
includesfiveessayspublished between1971and 1979, "Wissenschaftslehre"), thatincludessocial or cultural
of
"AnthropologyReligion and Colonial History" with anthropology, linguistic anthropology, archaeology, and
threeessaysbetween1981and1990,and"HowAnthro- physicalor biologicalanthropology. Of course,propo-
pologyMakesitsObject"withfiveessaysbetween1972 nentsofthisdistinction (the"fourfield"approach)also
and 1991.The articles relatebothto Fabian'sextensive occasionally includeeconomic, psychological, medical,
fieldwork inthesouthern Zaire(beginning withhisstudy symbolic anthropology, as wellas ethnomusicology and
of theJamaamovement in themid-1960s), andhis re- otherdisciplineswithinthis"superscience."Anthro-
searchinthecolonialhistory (including colonialhistory pologistsare supposedto be (or at leastpretend to be)
of theSwahili),as well as in theory andmethodology.the"superscientists" thatwillgivetheultimate answers
In thisreviewI willfocuson thelatteraspectsof this aboutthehumannature.
book.In myopinion, thetheoretical andmethodological In reality, thingstendto be a littlebitmorecom-
aspects make this book a must for anyone interested in plex thanthis.Thedifference between different cultures
contemporary anthropological theory, as well as in the comes intoplay, as well as the communicative processes
criticalapproaches in thesocialsciences. thatenableus to getin contactwithdifferent cultures.
The basicquestionthatFabianaddressesis theone (Wilhelmvon Humboldt, Dell Hymesand theconcept
at thebeginning of thePreface:"Whatanthropologistsofthe"ethnography ofcommunication" areperhapsthe
do"? In approaching anthropology as an "interpretivestrongest influences, at leastin earlierFabian'sessays.)
science"(xi), Fabianclearlyputshimselfagainstthe These processesenableus to examinetheproduction
predominant (especiallywithin theAmerican anthropo- of materialsthatthe researchers use. Or, as put by
logicaltradition) approach.In the Fabian("Ruleandprocess,"1979):"Anthropology
positivist/scientistic is a

88.1993
Anthropos

This content downloaded from 195.37.16.155 on Thu, 12 Sep 2013 12:36:19 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 582 Rezensionen

fieldwhichexaminesthevariety (or lackof variety) of in hermeneutics, anthropology, and criticaltheory)is

humanculture andsocietybygivingreasonedaccounts one way to bridgethisgap betweenUs and Them.
of it. As such,it is, like history, basicallya literary Amongthecontemporary anthropologists, Fabiangives
enterprise makinguse of a varietyof rhetoric strate- fullcreditto DennisTedlockand Kevin Dwyerfor
gies .... Anthropology shouldenjoyat leastthesame bringing dialogueintoanthropology (216-218).
freedom of imagination thathas beendemonstrated to The dialoguebroadensthescopeof communicative
be thesourceofprogress in thenatural sciences.In this devices,butit is onlyan auxiliary device.Because(to
I
sense, wholeheartedly subscribe to the 'anarchistic' answer the question with which the Prefacebegins)
position formulated with much gusto and iconoclasm by "writing is really what anthropologists do" (236). This
Paul Feyerabend withhisprinciple of 'anything goes'" emphasis onwriting ortext(whichis a discourse fixedin
(106f.) Of course, "there must be some critical disci- writing)might seem somewhat problematic, Fabian
but
in
pline anthropological praxis, that is, in the production seems to be interested in the production of (anthropo-
ofethnography thatgoes intoanthropological accounts. logical)textmorethanin itsinvention andassembling.
On thatlevelofepistemology I argueagainsta viewof Whatall anthropologists essentially do is totella story.
of
ethnographyliving societies as mere 'observation' or Perhaps the examination of the conceptof narrative
'collection'of 'facts'or 'data,' and fora view which in theethnographic researchcan producesome more
realizesthatethnography, like all humaninteraction,interesting results.
is communicative, historically situated, and productive The book ends withtheexploration of theconse-
interaction" (107). Fabianis quiteclearin hisemphasis quencesofanthropological work("Dilemmasofcritical
on "notexplanation butinterpretation" (204) in anthro- anthropology," 1991),wheretheauthordrawson his
pology.Norms,values, and standards should also be ex- own fieldwork experience. It seemsto be appropriate to
plored, since anthropological standards are not imposed end thisreview by quoting the passage with which Fabi-
uponanthropology fromtheoutsidebutaresubjected to an endsthisfascinating collection of essays:"We need
thepracticeof research justas anthropological theories critique (exposureofimperialist lies,oftheworkings of
aresubjected to thepracticeofresearch. capitalism, of the misguided ideas of scientism, and all
The conceptof anthropology as a "literary enter- therest)to helpourselves. The catchis, ofcourse,that
prise"brings itclosertotheliterary criticism andcritical 'ourselves'oughtto be themas wellas us" (264).
theory, andtogether withthesefieldsit is engagedin a Aleksandar BoSkovié
specific postmodern discourse; postmodern in a sense
thatitreactsagainstthepredominant representationism
anditsnaïverealism, according towhichanthropologists Feeley-Harnik, Gillian:A GreenEstate.Restoring
describe "facts,"or"howthings really are." As a matter Independence in Madagascar. Washington: Smithsonian
of fact,anthropology can neverdescribea "reality," Institution Press,1991. xxvii+ 627pp., fig.,photos,
sinceitis "a scienceofdisappearance" (200).To support maps,tab.Price:$ 77.95 (cloth),$ 29.95 (paper)
thisparadoxical statement, Fabianquotesthefollowing In thisdelightfully written and intricately crafted
passagefromone of thefounders of thisfield,Adolf studyitis evidentthattheethnographer wentthrough a
Bastian:"For us, primitive societies(Naturvölker) are veryprofound experience, no crudecultureshockthis,
ephemeral, thatis, as regardsour knowledgeof, and butrather a single-minded livingintothepeople-culture
ourrelations with,them,in fact,inasmuch as theyexist shechose,in a highlyaesthetic andsensitive, symbolic,
forus at all. At theveryinstancetheybecomeknown metaphoric, and phenomenological way. This enables
to us theyaredoomed"(194). her,at the achievement of the enormousedificeshe
Thissomewhat cynicalbuthighly accuratestatementconstructed out of hersharingin theirlifeexperience
reflects someof thedilemmasthatanthropologists face anddiscourse, to takeoffevenmoredeeplyin a more
whenworkingin the ThirdWorldcountries. It also authoritative, philosophic metaphysical way,whichone
reflects some of thedilemmasaboutthe future(and, mustcertainly and
respect perhaps admire. One cannot
forthatmatter, pastandpresent) ofthefield.In another assertthatit is false,yetit movesveryfarfromSa-
passage,Fabiannotesthatanthropology "is a discipline kalavato Max Black,certainly, and E. M. Forster and
thatshouldstriveforitsownliquidation" (262). Shakespeare more tendentiously. One could spendall
In "Culture,timeand theobjectof anthropology"thespaceavailableon Black'spregnant proposalthata
(1985),Fabianstatesthatthe"anthropology appearsto metaphor might be self-certifying bygenerating thevery
havebeena fieldofknowledge whosediscourse requires realityto whichit seemsto drawattention. However,
thatitsobject- othersocieties, someofthembelonging if indeedtherewas no realitybeforeit was generated
tothepast,butmostofthemexisting contemporaneous-by themetaphor, it is notclearwhatrelationit has to
lyinthepresent - be removed fromitssubjectnotonly the Sakalava.Then we are not dealingherewithan
in spacebutalso in time,"therefore, "to belongto the ethnographic studyoftheSakalava,butwitha pieceof
past,to be notyetwhatWe are,is whatmakesThem " anthropologically informed imaginative writing inspired
theobjectof our 'explanations' and 'generalizations' by livingempathetically amongst them.Butperhapsit
(198). The"interpretive," or"linguistic," or"post-mod- will be claimedthatthe Sakalavaare themselves the
ernturn"(forexample,258; Ricoeur,Geertz,Habermas metaphor, thuscompleting thehermeneutic circle.
are mentioned as thepersonsresponsible forthisturn Participant observation in a make-believe, fantasy
88.1993
Anthropos

This content downloaded from 195.37.16.155 on Thu, 12 Sep 2013 12:36:19 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
View publication stats