Poole Deborah - An Excess of Description

8/10/2019 Poole Deborah - An Excess of Description

1/26

An Excess of Description:Ethnography, Race, and Visual TechnologiesDeborah PooleDepartment of Anthropology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland 21218;email: [email protected]

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

Copyright c 2005 by Annual Reviews. All rightsreserved

0084-6570/05/1021-0159$20.00

Key Wordsphotography, visual anthropology, temporality, archive,ethnography

Abstract

This essay provides an overview of recent anthropological work onthe relationship between racial thought and the visual technologiesof photography and lm. I argue that anthropologists have movedaway from a concern with representation per se in favor of the morecomplex discursive and political landscapes opened up by the con-cepts ofmedia and the archive. My review of this work focuses on theaffective register of suspicion that has surrounded both visual meth-ods and the idea of race in anthropology. Whereas this suspicionhas led some to dismiss visual technologies as inherently racializ-ing or objectifying, I argue that it is possible to reclaim suspicionas a productive site for rethinking the particular forms of presence,uncertainty, and contingency that characterize both ethnographicand visual accounts of the world. I begin by discussing recent workon the photographic archive, early eldwork photography, and thesubsequent move in the 1960s and 1970s from still photography tolm and video within the emergent subeld of visual anthropology.Finally, I consider how more recent work on the problem of race infavor of descriptive accounts of mediascapes.

159

R

HARDG

OX


2/26


3/26

Rather than dwelling on the ordering ef-fects of visual representations, then, in thisreview I look more closely at the productivepossibilities that visual technologies offer forreclaiming the uncertainty and contingency that characterize anthropological accounts of the world. This potential is unleashed pre-

cisely because of the ambiguous role playedby visual images in the disciplinary strugglerst to identify, and then later to avoid, theidea of race as that which can be seen and de-scribed. I make no attempt to review all the work that has been done on either race or vi-suality in recentyears. In particular, I have not considered the numerous studies that address visual images of others exclusively in termsof their content as representations, stereo-types, or misrepresentations. Rather, my par-

ticular interest is to understand howtheformsof suspicion that surround visual representa-tions and race have shaped anthropologicalunderstandings of evidence, experience, thelimits of ethnographic inquiry, and, as a con-sequence, our own ongoing engagement withethnographic method and description.

I rst consider how anthropologists whoboth collected and made photographs in thenineteenth and early twentieth centuries rec-onciled disciplinary norms of evidence and

evolutionary models of race with the peculiartemporality of the photograph. The experi-ence of these anthropologists is particularly revealing in that it coincides with a periodin which anthropology moved from the en-thusiastic pursuit of racial order to an al-most equally fervent rejection of the very ideaof race. The suspicion with which photogra-phy was greeted by anthropologists thus ranthe gamut from an empiricist concern withdeception (i.e., a concern for the accuracy with which photographs represented a racialfact) to worries about the inability of pho-tography to capture the intangibles of cultureand social organization. I then explore work that falls self-consciously within the subeldof visual anthropology that emerged in the1960s and 1970s in reaction to this concern with the distinctive dangersand promises

of visual technologies. Although early work in visual anthropology was explicitly con-cerned about countering the notion that vi-sualrepresentations necessarily constituted anexploitative and/or racializing expropriationof 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 reec-tions on what these recent histories of visualtechnologies and race can offer for rethink-ing visuality, encounter, and difference inethnography.

THE ARCHIVE Much like their nineteenth-century predeces-

sors, anthropologists who have returned tothe photographic archive have been largely concerned with nding some sort of or-der, or logic, within the sometimes enor-mous and richly diverse collections they en-counter. Institutionalcollections suchas thoseheld by the Smithsonian (Scherer 1973),the Royal Anthropological Institute (Pinney 1992, Poignant 1992), The American Mu-seum of Natural History (Jacknis 1992), orHarvards Peabody Museum (Banta& Hinsley

1986) have been examined in an attempt touncover the theoretical (and political) in-terests of the anthropologists who collectedthem. Other much less studied collectionsfor example, the George Eastman House inRochester, New York, the Royal GeographicSociety in London, or the magnicent hold-ings at Frances National Librarywere put together over longer periods of time, withless academically coherent agendas, and withpersonnel and budgets that were often very much on the margins of the anthropologi-cal academy. Although less revealing of thespecic ways in which early anthropologistslooked at photography, these collections offerinsight into the importance of photography and other visual technologies in the con- versations that took place between anthro-pological, administrative, governmental, and

www.annualreviews.org An Excess of Description 161

R

HARDG

OX


4/26

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 focuson the movement of images through differ-

ent institutional, regional, and cultural sites.In my own work on nineteenth-century An-dean photography (Poole 1997), for example,I looked at the circulation of anthropologi-cal photographs as part of a broader visualeconomy in which images of Andean peoples were produced and circulated internationally.By broadening thesocialelds through whichphotographs circulate and accrue meaningor value, I argued for the privileged roleplayed by photography in the crafting of a

racial common sense which, as in the Grams-cian understanding of the term, unites pop-ular and scientic understandings of em-bodied difference (Poole 1997, 2004).

Whereas my more Foucauldian approachused circulation to argue for an expansion of the anthropological archive, Edwards (2001)argues that a focus on movement breaksdown the archive into smaller, more dif-ferentiated and complex acts of anthropolog-ical intention (2001, p. 29). She concludes

that the informal networks and collectingclubs through which British anthropologistssuchasTylor, Haddon, andBalfourexchangedand shared photographs led to a privileg-ing of content over form in the productionof anthropological interpretations of race. Asa product of the comparative methodologiesand exchange practices (or ows) through which photographs were rendered as datain anthropology, the concept of race emergesas an abstraction produced by the archive asa technological form. Such a move to re-frame the archive as itself a visual technol-ogy takes us a long way from early studiesin which the meaning of particular photo-graphic images was interpreted as being a re-ection, or expression, of racial and colo-nial ideologies formed elsewhere, outside thearchive.

Edwards approach to the photographicarchive as a series of microintentions ratherthan as the reection of a universalizing de-sire (2001, p. 7) also raises important ques-tions concerning where we locate the politicsof colonialism in the study of racial photogra-phy. An initialandmotivatingquestion for

much of this photographic history concernedthe political involvements of anthropologistsin thecolonialproject andtheracial technolo-gies of colonialism. Not surprising, in thesestudies we nd that Victorian anthropologiststended to concentrate their efforts on collect-ing photographs from India and other Britishcolonies(Gordon 1997, Pinney 1992); Frenchethnologists accumulated images of Algeri-ans(Prochaska 1990); and U.S.-based anthro-pologists 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 corre-spondence between the subject matter foundin the anthropological archive and the impe-rial politics of particular nation states owedas much to the contemporary methodolo-gies of anthropological research as it did tothe overtly colonialist sympathies of theseearly practitioners of anthropology. With few

exceptions, nineteenth-century anthropolo-gists practiced an epistolary ethnography(Stocking 1995, p. 16) in which data was ob-tained not through direct observation, but rather through correspondence with the gov-ernment ofcials, missionaries, and sundry agents of commerce and colonialism who hadhad the occasion to acquire rsthand knowl-edge (or at least scattered observations) of na-tives in far-ung places. For these anthro-pologists, photographic technology closedthe space between the site of observationon 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 werenot naively accepting of the much-lauded

162 Poole

R

HARDG

OX


5/26


6/26

by imposing the absurd strictures of nudeanthropometric poses, but even in those in-stances where photographs were taken, theintersubjective space constituted by the act of photographing (p. 145) left its mark onthe images in the form of expression, gaze,and beauty. Such content was read by Hux-

ley and his fellow systematizers as an excessof visual detail. Yet their attempts to purgeit ultimately led to failure in that the tech-nology of photography was, in the nal analysis, not capable of matching the totalizingambitions of the project. As a result, Edwards wryly comments, the colonial ofces archiveof this project about race contains many morephotographs of buildings than of people orraces.

From its beginnings, race was about

revealingor making visiblewhat lay hid-den underneath the untidy surface detailsthe messy visual excessof the human, cul-tural body (Spencer 1992, Wallis 2003). Wellbefore the invention of photography, Cuvier,for example, had instructed the artists whoaccompanied expeditions to eliminate both-ersome details of gesture, expression, culture,or context from their portraits of natives sothat the underlying details of cranial structureand race might be more readily revealed

(Herv e 1910).Whereas photography held out the promise of facilitating this anthropologi-cal quest for order through the elimination of detail or noise, the same machine that hadmade it possible to imagine a utopia of com-plete transparency also introduced the twinmenace of intimacy and contingencyand with them, the possibility (however remote)of acknowledging the coevalness and, thus,the humanity of their racial subjects. It is per-haps for this reason that anthropologists be-gan by 1874 (with the publication of Notes and Queries ) to express an interest in regulating thetypes and amount of visual information they would receive through photographs. By the1890s, although photography continued tobe used in anthropometry, there was a gen-eral decline in interest in the collection anduse of photographs as ethnological evidence

(Edwards 2001, Grifths 2002, Poignant 1992, Pinney 1992).

Contingency An arguably even more important slippagebetween the classicatory or stabilizing am-

bitions of photography and its political ef-fects can be located in the unique temporal-ity of the photograph. Both the evidentiary power and the allure of the photograph aredue to our knowledge that it captures (orfreezes) a particular moment in time. Thistemporal dimension of the photograph intro-duced a whole other layer of distracting detailinto theanthropological science of race. Con- vinced of both the inevitability and desire-ability of evolutionary progress, nineteenth-

century anthropologists (like many of theirtwentieth-century descendants) were con- vinced that the primitives they studied wereon the verge of disappearing. Ethnologicalencounters acquired a corresponding urgency as anthropologists scrambled to collect what they imagined to be the last vestiges of ev-idence available on earlier forms of humanlife.

For at least some of those who held thecamera in their hands, however, the photo-

graph carried a latent threat for anthropol-ogy. The Dutch ethnologist Im Thurm, forexample, famously cautioned anthropologistsagainst thedangers of erasing thehuman, aes-thetic, and individualizing excess of photo-graphic portraiture in favor of a too rigorouspreference for types (Thurm 1893, Tayler1992). Anthropometry, he added, was proba-bly better practiced on dead bodies than onthe human beings he sought to capture in hisportrait photography from Guyana. At thesame time, however, Thurm (1893) himself oftenblocked out the distracting backgroundsand contexts surrounding his photographicsubjects. His focus was on the human, but his anthropological perception of photogra-phy excluded, as did the racial photography he opposed, the visual excess of context andtheoff-frame.Thurms cautiousembrace of

164 Poole

R

HARDG

OX


7/26

photography speaks clearly to its suspect sta-tus at a time when all eldwork was if not di-rectlyanimated by a concern forndingracialtypes, then at the very least carried out underthe shadow of the idea of race.

In other cases, photographersmost fa-mously, Edward Curtismade skillful use of

aesthetic conventions such as soft focus and vignette to transform the inevitability of ex-tinction into the tragic romance of nostal-gia. On one level, Curtiss photographs canbe said to have harnessed the aesthetic of por-traitphotographyas part ofa broader, politicalframing of Native Americans as the sad, in-evitable, 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 tem-

porality of the racializing gaze. AlthoughCurtiss photographs have been criticized asinauthentic for their use of costume and tribalattribution (Gidley 2003, Lyman 1982), theirpower and massive popular appeal had muchtodowiththewaysinwhichhewasabletodis-till contemporary fascination for a technology that allows one to gaze forever on that whichis about to disappear.

Within anthropology, however, this tem-porality of the moment served only to in-

crease anxieties about the utility of the pho-tographic image as an instrument of scienticresearch. For one thing, the sheer number of photographs that became available to the an-thropologist seemed to belie the notion that primitivepeople weresomehow disappearing,asevolutionarytheoryhadledthemtobelieve.Poignant suggests that it was in response to just such a dilemma that anthropologists at the RAI came to favor studio portraits overphotographs taken in the eld because theclear visual displacement found in the studioportrait between the primitive subject and the world allowed the anthropologist to imposeorder on people too numerous to disappear(1992,p. 54). Pinneysuggests that this tensionbetween actuality and disappearance playedout in the case of India through two photo-graphic idioms. The salvage paradigm was

applied to what was perceived to be a frag-ile tribal community, whereas the detectiveparadigm, premised on a faith in the eviden-tiary status of the photographic document,was more commonly manifested when faced with a more vital caste society. He further as-sociates the detective paradigm with a curato-

rial 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 twoidioms on tribal and caste society is, in many ways, peculiar to IndiaandPinney even goesso far as to suggest that uncertainty about vi-sual evidence is somehow peculiar, or at least peculiarly marked, in Indiathe general ten-sion between ideas of racial extinction, thetemporal actuality of photography, and anx-

iety about the nature and truthfulness of theperceptual world was clearly present in othercolonial and postcolonial settings.

When viewed in this way, the understand-ing of race that emerges from a history of an-thropological photography is clearly as muchabout the instability of the photograph as eth-nological evidence and the unshakeable suspi-cion that perhaps things are not what they ap-peartobeasitisaboutxingthenativesubject as a particular racial type. Yet, recent critical

interventions have paid far greater attentionto the xing. What would have to be done,then, if we were to invert the question that is usually asked about stability and xing andinstead ask how it is that photography simul-taneously sediments and fractures the solidity of race as a visual and conceptual fact. Put somewhat differently, how can we recapturethe productive forms of suspicion with whichearly anthropologists greeted photographysunique capacity to reveal the particularities of moments, encounters, and individuals?

PHOTOGRAPHY IN THE FIELDFor an answer to this question, we might want to begin by looking at some early attempts tointegrate photography into the ethnographictoolkit. Recent studies of early eldwork


R

HARDG

OX


8/26

photography stress the extent to which pho-tography offered anthropologists a guilty pleasure. On the one handand to an evengreater extent than with the archival collec-tions just discussedanthropologists wishingto use photography in the eld were faced with the problem of weeding out the extra-

neous contexts and contingent details cap-turedbythecamera.Thisproblemwasatoncetechnicalan artifact of the unforgiving re-alism of the photographic imageand con-ceptual, in that the subjects of anthropology (rst race, then culture and social organiza-tion) were themselves statistical or interpre-tive abstractions. As such, their perceptionand documentationrequired a temporality that was quite different from that of pho-tographs, whose content spoke only of the

mute and singular existence of particular objects, bodies, and events. Indeed, earliest usesof photographyin eldwork made every effort to erase the contingent moment of the pho-tographic act. In his Torres Straits eldwork,Haddon, for example, made wide use of reen-actment and restaging asa means to document rituals andmyths(Edwards2001, pp.15780).Hockings also suggests that W.H.R. Riversused mythical allegories drawn from FrazersThe Golden Bough in his curious photographs

of Todas (Hockings 1992). Whereas Riverssought to place natives in a mythical past,Haddonsoughtto usephotographyto portray what the natives saw when they talked of mythology. Both produced photographs that were concerned to erase evidence of the mo-ment at which the image was taken.

On the other hand, along with contin-gency, photography also brought the trou-bling specter of intimacy. Thus, although vi-sual description was recognized as important for the scienticproject of data collection andinterpretation,photographscould alsobe readas documents of encounter, and encounter, inturn, contained within it the specter of com-munication, exchange, and presenceall fac-tors that challenged the ethnographers claimsto objectivity. The tension between these twoaspects of ethnographic practice is perhaps

best captured in Malinowskis now famousterm participant observation. Whereas ob-servation appeals to the ideal of the distanced,objective onlooker, participation clearly invokes the notion of presence and, with it, acertain openness to the humanity of the (stillracialized) other.

In his own eldwork photography, Mali-nowski seems to signal an awareness of theproblematic status of photography in the ne-gotiation of this contradictory charge of be-ing simultaneously distant and close (Wright 1991, 1994; Young 1999). Among his Britishcontemporaries, Malinowski made the most extensive use of photographs in his published work, averaging one photo for every sevenpages in his published ethnographies (Samain1995). Yet hiscareful selectionof photographs

seems to replicate the strict division of la-bor by which he separated affective and sci-entic description in his diaries and ethno-graphies (Clifford 1988, Malinowski 1967).For example, despite having taken numer-ous, elaborately posed photographs of him-self and other colonial ofcials, he seems tohave carefully edited out the presence of allsuch nonindigenous elements when illustrat-ing his books (Spyer 2001, p. 190). The dis-tancing effect created by such careful editing

was further reinforced by Malinowskis pref-erence for the middle to long shot in his ownphotography (Young 2001, p. 18). Studies of Evans-Pritchards eld photography reveal asimilar preference for long shots, aerial shots,and a careful avoidance of eye contact in what Wolbert (2001) interprets as an effort by theethnographer to erase his own presence inthe eld, thereby establishing the physical orecological distance required to sustain hisown authority as ethnographer.

No matter how distant the shot, how-ever, the very medium of photography con-tained within it an uncanny ability to in-dex the presence of the photographer. Thestrong language of race helped ethnog-raphers to silence this technological regis-ter of encounter, often with great effect. In Argonauts , for example, Malinowski (1922,

166 Poole

R

HARDG

OX


9/26


10/26

carefully guided through a series of relateditems and display cases. Grifths uncoverssimilar worries about the more obvious per-ilsthat theMidway sideshowspresentedto thescienticclaims of ethnology. Whereas othershave pointed toward worlds fairs as sites forthe propagation of nineteenth-century racial-

ist anthropology (Greenhalgh 1988, Maxwell1999, Reed 2000, Rydell 1984), Grifths(2002)emphasis on the professional suspicionsurrounding such displays reveals the extent to which, for contemporary anthropologists,the concern was with the disruptive potentialof distraction (Benjamin 1968, Simmel 1971,Crary 1999) as a form of affect that workedagainst the focused visualism required for theeducation of the museum goer. Such worriesspeak clearly to the general nervousness sur-

rounding the visual technologies of photogra-phy and lm within anthropology and, along with it, the persistentand perhapsutopianbelief that the aesthetic and affective appealof the visual could be somehow brought inline with contemporary scientic ideals of objective observation.

Culture at a Distance The subeld of visual anthropology emerged

in the mid-1960s in response to this concernabout the viability of visual technologies forethnographic work. Ethnography, of course,deploys a language of witnessing and visualobservation as a means to defend its account of the world. Thus, although voice and lan-guage are crucial to ethnography, both thedescriptive task and the authorizing methodof ethnography continue to rely in important ways on the ethnographers physical presencein a particular site and her(normatively)visualobservations and descriptive accounts of thepeople, events, and practices she encountersthere. At the same time, and as recent work on anthropological photography and lm hasmade clear, visual documentation is generally not considered to be a sufcient source of ev-idence unless it is accompanied by the con-textualizing and/or interpretive testimony of

the ethnographer (AAA 2002). Thus, as muchas photographs entered as juridical evidencerequire a human voice to authenticate theirevidentiary status in court (Derrida2002), thehard visual evidence of ethnographic pho-tography or lm is intimately, even inextri-cably, bound up with the soft testimonial

voice (or subjectivity) of the ethnographer(Heider 1976, Hockings 1985, Loizos 1993, MacDougall 1997, Stoller 1992). Like judi-ciary photographs as well, the dilemma inethnographic photography is in large part atemporal one. The ethnographer (like the ju-dicial witness) must speak for the photographas someone who was in the place shown inthe photograph at the time when the photo-graph was takenand this privileged author-ity of the ethnographic witness seems to hold

true no matter what the role assigned to hisnative subjects (Crawford & Turton 1992,Hockings & Omori 1988, Worth & Adair1997). It is this move that affords decisive sta-tus to the photographic image as testimony toan event in a nonrepeatable time. However, it is the photograph not the photographerthat allows for the peculiar conation of past and present that renders the photograph aform of material evidence.

In ethnography, however, as we have seen,

the photographs evocation of an off-framecontext and a particular, passing, moment hasmost often been seen to pose a debilitatinglimit to the task of ethnographic interpreta-tion. Rather than thinking about how voiceand image work together to create the evi-dentiary aura and distinctive temporality of the photograph, ethnographers, as we haveseen, have instead looked to photography as ameansto discipline thevisual process ofobser- vation. Occupying an uneasy place at the ori-gins of thevisualanthropology canon, the759photographs published in Bateson & MeadsBalinese Character (1942) represent one ex-treme solution to taming visual evidence forethnographic ends. Bateson and Mead ini-tially began using photographs to supplement their notetaking and observations and to rec-oncile their disparate writing styles (Jacknis

168 Poole

R

HARDG

OX


11/26

1988, Sullivan 1999). As work progressed onthe photographic index that was to comple-ment their written eldnotes, however, they quickly came to see photographs, rst, as anindependent control on the potential biasesof visual observation (Sullivan 1999, p. 16)and then, somewhat later, as a form of doc-

umentation through which to capture thoseaspects of theculturewhichare least amenableto verbal treatment and which can only beproperly documented by photographic meth-ods (Bateson & Mead 1942, p. 122). In herlater work on child-rearing practices, Meadextended this understanding of the supple-mental character of photography in an at-tempt to replicate precise temporal sequencesof practices (Mead & MacGregor 1951).

What is perhaps most intriguing about

Meads Balinese work is the lengths to whichshe goes to transform photographs into words. As objective traces of the temporalsequences of gestures, poses, expressions, andembraces that together add up to somethinglike character or child-rearing, the pho-tographs construct their meaning as a narra-tive. Photographs thus remain as raw mate-rialorfacts whosemeaning lies not in thedetail they revealof 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 informationlay at the heart of early visions of visual an-thropology is suggested by the fact that thesubelds rst professional organization wasthe Society for the Anthropology of VisualCommunication, founded in 1972. As con-tainers of information indexed through lan-guage, photographs were meant to commu-nicate the broader message lurking behindthe surface rendering of the event, person, orpractice they portrayed.

In Mead & Metrauxs (1953) textbook,TheStudy of Culture at a Distance, photography,lm, and imagery were held up as privilegedsites for communicating a feeling of culturalimmersion, a sort of substitute for the per-sonal experience of eldwork. The study of

imagery, Metraux writes, isan intenselyper-sonal and yet a rigorously formal approach toa culture. Although every cultural analysisis to a greater or lesser extent built upon work with imagery, in the study of culture froma distance, imagery comes to constitute ourmost immediate experience of the culture

(Metraux 1953, p. 343; Mead 1956). The im-age, in this early approach to visualanthropol-ogy, was imagined as both an expression of theperceptual system shared by the members of a society and as a surrogate for the experiencethat would allow one to access, and describe,that perceptual system or culture. As var-ious authors have subsequently argued (e.g.,Banks& Morphy1997,Edwards 1992, Taylor1994), this approach to the visual is racial-ized both in the sense of a subject/object

divide and in the idea that there is an in-ner meaning hidden beneath the surface of both culture and the image. What is lost insuch an approach is the immediacy of sight as a sensory experience that could speak tothe ethnographic intangibles of presence andnewness (Edwards 1997). Instead, imagesphotographs, gestures, lmsare scrutinizedforclues to thecultural conguration they ex-press.

Given what Meads own Balinese work

had done to divorce still photography fromboth affect and the spontaneity of the mo-ment, it is perhaps, then, no surprise that theeld of visual anthropology had, by the late1970s, come to be dominated by the study and production of ethnographiclm, whereasstill photographs had more or less disap-peared from serious ethnographic texts (deHeusch 1962). In explicit contrast to photog-raphy(MacDougall1998, pp.64,68), lmwasseen as a visual technology that could go beyond observation to include explicit, reex-ive references to the sorts of intimate rela-tionships and exchanges that bound the lm-maker to his subjects (MacDougall 1985,Rouch 2003). The affective power of lm, MacDougall notes, is due to both its imme-diacy and its nonverbal character in that (for MacDougall) lmunlike photography and


R

HARDG

OX


12/26

the forms of visual communication put for- ward by Meadis not mediated by analysis or writing (MacDougall 1985, pp. 6162). Film,in other words, was considered to bear withinit an affective transparency that was deniedto photography as a frozen and hence dis-tanced image. Animated by a profound hu-

manism, this view of lmas universalor tran-scultural (MacDougall 1998) seemed likely to transcend theforms of racialobjecticationand theobjectifying conventionsof scienticreason that many considered inherent to thestillness of photography.

This view of lm provided the groundsfrom which visual anthropologists set out tocounter the anticolonial critique of the 1980s. To the surprise (and, perhaps, dismay) of many, anthropology has emerged largely un-

scathed from the charges of objectication,racialism, and colonialism levied against it inthe 1980s. Few anthropologists today wouldbeatall surprised bythe claim that the anthro-pologicalproject hashada troublingcomplic-ity with the racializing discourses and essen-tializing dichotomies that characterized New World slave societies and European colonialrule. In many cases, the resulting disciplinary sensitivity to both history and politics hasalso helped to establish an activist agenda

in which ethnography has come to be seenas simultaneously collaborative, critical, andinterventionist. More specically, within thesubeld 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 na-tive subject (Ginsburg 1992, Turner 1992, Worth & Adair 1997), and a shift in anthro-pological focus from vision itself to the dis-tributive channels and discursive regimes of media and the archive (Ginsburg et al. 2002).

As the new disciplinary paradigm for vi-sual anthropology, work on indigenous me-dia has tended to focus on the social rela-tions of image production and consumption(Ginsburg 1992, Himpele 1996) and the cul-tural idioms through which indigenous pro-ducers and artists appropriate lmic mediums

(Turner 1992, 2002a). What unites work onindigenous media, however, is the concept of the indigenous. As a gloss for a particu-lar form of subaltern identity claim, the no-tion of the indigenous invokes ideals of local-ity, cultural specicity, and authenticity. Forsome it has functioned as an effective form

for critically rethinking (Ginsberg 1992) oreven rejecting (Faris 2003) the possibilitiesof recuperating photography and lm withinanthropology. With respect to the specicproblemofrace,however,thenotionofthein-digenous has functioned primarily as a framefor reinterpreting video contents for insight into how racial categories and representa-tions are perceived and countered from theperspective of the represented (Alexander1998; Ginsburg 1995; Himpele 1996; Jackson

2004; Turner 1992, 2002a,b). In this work, video and other visual media provide anoutlet for the communication, defense, andstrengthening of cultural, national, or eth-nic identities that preexist, and thus tran-scend, the media form itself, as they are si-multaneously shaped by it (Alexander 1998,Ginsburg 1995, Himpele 1996). Underlyingmuchthough not allof this is a mappingof identity through scale such that the massmedia is said to obliterate identity while

the more portable forms of handheld videotends to rediscover identity and consolidateit (Dowmunt 1993, p. 11; Ginsburg 2002).Such claims seem all the more peculiar giventhepremium placedon authenticityandlocal-ism within neoliberal multicultural discourse(Hale 2002, Povinelli 2002, Rose 1999). By ignoring the broader political and discursivelandscape within which categories suchastheindigenous emerge and take hold, much of the literature on indigenous media ends updefending an essentialist or primordial notionof identity that comes perilously close to olderideas of racial essences.

By introducing questions of voice and per-spective, these studies of indigenous videoand lm have effectively (and, I think, in-advertently) destabilized earlier assumptionsaboutthe necessarily objectifyingand hence

170 Poole

R

HARDG

OX


13/26


14/26

and the past in the service of an active inec-tion of the now (Bernasconi 2001, p. 178). This is achieved through both the endlessrecreation 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 tempo-

rality of the gaze as a site of ethical possi-bility offers several important leads for how to rethink the place of visual technologiesand visual perception more generallyin thepractice of ethnography. On the one hand,Fanon insists (in this and other writings)on the extent to which perceptual and vi-sual technologies (cinema, in particular) cre-ate bodily habits of distancing (Alcoff 2001). This emphasis on distanceand on the phys-ical, chemical qualities through which photo-

graphic technologies, like theracial gaze, xracial subjects in their skinsresonates quiteclearly with the emphasis in so much of visualanthropology on the classicatory impulses of racial and anthropological photography. Onthe other hand, however, and along with thisemphasisondistance,Fanon also provides im-portant insight into the workings of the gaze.For Fanon, the gaze is as much about undo-ing the corporeal frame as it is about xing(Bernasconi 2001, Weate 2003). As such, his

sense of the gaze is rooted in equal parts intheembodied, sensory, and future-oriented im-mediacy of encounter and the rapidity with which this opening slips into the exclusion-ary distancing of which he speaks. When ad-dressed in these terms, Fanons insistence onthe visual underpinnings of race offers pro-ductive grounds for rethinking the temporal-ity of the ethnographic encounterand the ways in which photographictechnologiesmay need to be rethoughtin conversationwith that particular understanding of encounter.

As we have seen for much of the twen-tieth century, anthropologists have workedaround a dichotomy in which photographylike seeingwas relegated to the domain of theeeting andthecontingent,whereas inter-pretation (and, with it, description) was con-strued as a process by which the extraneous

detail or noise of vision was to be disciplinedand rendered intelligible. While an interpre-tive move must, perhaps, inevitably bringwithit a reduction of noise, what is perhaps lost inthis transition is the immediacy of encounteras an opening toward both newness and theother. The challenge, of course, is to reclaim

this sense of encounter without abandoningthe possibilities for interpretation and expla-nation.

The relationship of photography to thistask depends on how we think about its pe-culiar temporality. An anthropology focusedon dening horizontally differentiated formsof life through the language of race (orculture) affords conicting evidential (or juridical) weight to the different temporali-ties involved in the eeting immediacy of the

encounter and the stabilizing permanency of the fact. Ethnographers, as a result, tend toregard the surface appearances of theworldand the photographic images that recordthemwith a good deal of suspicion pre-cisely because they are seen as being saturated with the contingencyof chanceencounters. Inthis respect, ethnographys relationship to thephotographic image continues to be hauntedby the specter of race, in that the photographcan only really be imagined as a form of evi-

dence in which xity (in the form of simplic-ity or focus) is favored overexcess (in the formof contingency or confusion) (Edwards1997). As anthropology turns its attention to formsof racial and cultural hybridity, one wondershow anthropologists will address this disci-plinary anxiety about surface appearances andthe visible world, or whether hybriditylikethe native and Indian before itwill come tobe treated as another (racial) fact that must be uncovered or revealed, as if lying under-neaththedeceptivesurfaceofthevisibleworld(Fusco 2003). Perhaps what is needed is a re-thinking of thenotionof difference itself (e.g.,Deleuze 1994, Connolly 2002), a questioningof its stability as an object of inquiry and anew way of thinking about the temporality of encounter as it shapes both ethnography andphotography.

172 Poole

R

HARDG

OX


15/26

Fortunately, the move to reclaim bothethnography and the ethical imperative of de-scription from the Orientalist critique has not meant a simple return to a traditional divi-sion of labor in which ethnography providedthe empirical observations and descriptionsupon which anthropological theory could

draw to uncover the hidden rules, orders, ormeanings of specic cultures and societies.Rather, the theoretical work of ethnography is now more often assumed to be inseparablefrom the specic forms of encounter, tempo-rality, uncertainty, and excess that character-ize ethnography as a form of both social in-quiry 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 knowl-edge as a substantive rethinking of how adescriptive account that is not grounded inthe idea of interpretation or discovery canspeak to such things as experience, uncer-tainty, and newness in the cultural worlds westudy as anthropologists. By explicitly ques-

tioning both the empirical language of pos-itivist sciencein which physical character-istics are cited as the visible, and irrefutable,evidence of racial differenceand the idealist languageofCartesian metaphysiscs, thismovemakes it possible to rethink the troublesome visuality of race. This move also leaves usopen to the sensory and anticipatory aspectsof visual encounter and surprise that animatethe very notion of participant observation.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTSI would like to thank Veena Das, Sameena Mulla, Naveeda Khan, and Gabriela Zamorano fortheir 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 Alvarado M, B aez C, Carre no G. 2002. Fotograf a Mapuche: Construcci on y montaje de un imagi-

nario. Santiago de Chile: Instituto de Est etica, Pont. Univ. Cat olica de Chile Am. Anthropol. Assoc. (AAA). 2002. AAA statement on ethnographic visual media 2001. Am.

Anthropol . 104(1):3056Banks M, Morphy H, eds. 1997. Rethinking Visual Anthropology. New Haven, CT/London: Yale

Univ. PressBanta M, Hinsley CM. 1986. From Site to Sight: Anthropology, Photography and the Power of

Imagery. Cambridge, MA: Peabody Mus. PressBarthes 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


R

HARDG

OX


16/26

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 PressBernardin S, Graulich M, MacFarlane L, Tonkovich N. 2003. Trading Gazes: Euro-

American 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. PressBlackman 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: PrincetonUniv. Press

Cavell S. 1979. The World Viewed: Reections on the Ontology of Film. Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniv. PressClifford J. 1988. The Predicament of Culture: Twentieth Century Ethnography, Literature and Art .

Berkeley: Univ. Calif. PressCliffordJ, Marcus G, eds. 1986.WritingCulture: ThePoeticsandPolitics of Ethnography. Berkeley:

Univ. Calif. PressConnolly WE. 2002. Neuropolitics: Thinking, Culture, Speed . Minneapolis: Univ. Minn. PressCorbey R. 1993. Ethnographic showcases 18701930. Cult. Anthropol . 8(3):33869Crary J. 1990. Techniques of the Observer: On Vision and Modernity in the Nineteenth Century.

Cambridge, MA: MIT PressCrary J. 1999.Suspensions of Perception: Attention, Spectacle and Modern Culture. Cambridge, MA:

MIT PressCrawford PI, Turton D, eds. 1992. Film as Ethnography: Manchester, NY: Manchester Univ.

PressDas V. 1998. Wittgenstein and anthropology. Annu. Rev. Anthropol . 27:17195Das V. 2003. Trauma and testimony: implications for political community. Anthropol. Theory

3(3):293307Debord G. 1987. Society of the Spectacle. Exeter: Rebel, AimDe Heusch. 1962. The Cinema and Social Science: A Survey of Ethnographic and Sociological Fil

Paris: UNESCODeleuze G. 1985. Cinema 2: The Time-Image. Transl. H Tomlinson,R Galeta, 1989.Minneapo-

lis: 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

174 Poole

R

HARDG

OX


17/26

Edwards E. 1992. Anthropology and Photography 18601920. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. PressEdwards E. 1997. Beyond the boundary: a consideration of the expressive in photography and

anthropology. See Banks & Morphy 1997, pp. 5380Edwards E. 2001. Raw Histories: Photographs, Anthropology and Museums . Oxford, NY: BergFabian J. 1983. Time and the Other: How Anthropology Makes its Object . New York: Columbia

Univ. PressFanon 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, NPeterson, pp. 8599. Durham, NC: Duke Univ Press

Ferme M. 2001. The Underneath of Things: Violence, History and the Everyday in Sierra Leone.Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press

Ferguson J, Gupta A. 2002. Spatializing states: toward an ethnography of neoliberal govern-mentality. 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. 30334Foucault 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, racialmarks, racialmetaphors. SeeFusco & Wallis 2003,pp.1350Fusco C, Wallis B, eds. 2003. Only Skin Deep: Changing Visions of the American Self . New York:

Int. Cent. Photogr., AbramsGidley 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 produc-

tion of identity. In Fields of Vision:Essays in Film Studies, VisualAnthropology 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.Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press

Gordon RJ. 1997. Picturing Bushman. Athens: Ohio Univ. PressGraham-Brown S. 1988. Images of Women: The Portrayal of Women in Photography of the Middle

East, 18601950. New York: Columbia Univ. PressGreenhalgh P. 1988. Ephemeral Vistas: The Expositions Universelles, Great Exhibitions and Worlds

Fairs , 18511939. Manchester, NY: Manchester Univ. PressGrifthsA.2002.WondrousDifference:Cinema, Anthropology , Turn-of-the-CenturyVisual Culture.

New York: Columbia Univ. PressGrimshaw A. 2001. The Ethnographers Eye: Ways of Seeing in Modern Anthropology. Cambridge,

UK: Cambridge Univ. PressHale C. 2002. Does multiculturalism menace? Governance, cultural rights and the politics of

identity in Guatemala. J. Lat. Am. Studies 34(3):485524


R

HARDG

OX


18/26


19/26


20/26

Reed CR. 2000. All the World is Here! The Black Presence at the White City. Blooming-ton/Indianapolis: Indiana Univ. Press

Rony FT. 1996. The Third Eye: Race, Cinema and Ethnographic Spectacle. Durham, NC: DukeUniv. Press

Rorty R. 1979. Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. PressRose 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 Cin e-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: PantheonSaid EW. 1993. Culture and Imperialism. New York: Knopf. 380 pp.Samain E. 1995. Bronislaw Malinowski et la photographie anthropologique. LEthnographie

91(2):10730Scherer 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 PressSimmel G. 1971. The metropolis and mental life. In On Individuality and Social Forms , pp.

32439. Chicago: Univ. Chicago PressSinger A. 1992. Anthropology in broadcasting. See Crawford & Turton 1992, pp. 26473Spencer F. 1992. Some notes on the attempt to apply photography to anthropometry during

the second half of the nineteenth century. See Edwards 1992, pp. 99107Sprague S. 1978. Yoruba photography: how the Yoruba see themselves. African Arts 12(1);

reprinted in Pinney & Peterson 2003, pp. 24060Spyer P. 2001. Photographys framings and unframings; a review article. Comp. Stud. Soc. Hist .

43:18192Stocking GW. 1985. Objects and Others: Essayson Museums and Material Culture. Madison: Univ.

Wisc. PressStoller P. 1992. The Cinematic Griot: The Ethnography of Jean Rouch. Chicago: Univ. Chicago

PressSullivan G. 1999. Margaret Mead, Gregory Bateson, and Highland Bali: Fieldwork Photographs o

Bayung Ged e, 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 1990199.

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 Kayap o communities. Vis. Anthropol. Rev. 7(2):6872

Turner T. 1992. Deant images: the Kayap o appropriation of video. Anthropol. Today8(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 Kayap o video.

In Indigenous Movements, Self-Representation, and the State in Latin America, ed. KBWarren, JE Jackson, pp. 22950. Austin: Univ. Tex. Press

178 Poole

R

HARDG

OX


21/26

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 Bernasconi2003, pp. 16983

Weiner JF. 1997. Televisualist anthropology: representation, aesthetics, politics. Curr. Anthro-

pol . 38(2):197235 Wolbert B. 2001.The anthropologist as photographer. The visual constructionof ethnographicauthority. 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 19:11630

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. Hon-

olulu: Univ. Hawaii Press


R

HARDG

OX


22/26


23/26

Linguistics and Communicative Practices

New Directions in Pidgin and Creole Studies Marlyse Baptista 33

Pierre Bourdieu and the Practices of LanguageWilliam F. Hanks 67

Areal Linguistics and Mainland Southeast Asia N.J. Eneld 181

Communicability, Racial Discourse, and DiseaseCharles L. Briggs 269

Will Indigenous Languages Survive? Michael Walsh 293

Linguistic, Cultural, and Biological Diversity Luisa Maf 599

International Anthropology and Regional Studies

Caste and Politics: Identity Over SystemDipankar Gupta 409

Indigenous Movements in Australia Francesca Merlan 473

Indigenous Movements in Latin America, 19922004: Controversies,Ironies, New Directions Jean E. Jackson and Kay B. Warren 549

Sociocultural Anthropology

The Cultural Politics of Body Size Helen Gremillion 13

Too Much for Too Few: Problems of Indigenous Land Rights in Latin America Anthony Stocks 85

Intellectuals and Nationalism: Anthropological EngagementsDominic Boyer and Claudio Lomnitz 105

The Effect of Market Economies on the Well-Being of IndigenousPeoples and on Their Use of Renewable Natural Resources Ricardo Godoy, Victoria Reyes-Garc a, Elizabeth Byron, William R. Leonard,

and Vincent Vadez 121

viii Contents

yRCHARDGFOXon

Fop

on

u

ony


24/26

An Excess of Description: Ethnography, Race, and Visual TechnologiesDeborah Poole 159

Race and Ethnicity in Public Health Research: Models to ExplainHealth DisparitiesWilliam W. Dressler, Kathryn S. Oths, and Clarence C. Gravlee 231

Recent Ethnographic Research on North American Indigenous

Peoples Pauline Turner Strong 253

The Anthropology of the Beginnings and Ends of LifeSharon R. Kaufman and Lynn M. Morgan 317

Immigrant Racialization and the New Savage Slot: Race, Migration,and Immigration in the New Europe Paul A. Silverstein 363

Autochthony: Local or Global? New Modes in the Struggle overCitizenship and Belonging in Africa and EuropeBambi Ceuppens and Peter Geschiere 385

Caste and Politics: Identity Over SystemDipankar Gupta 409

The Evolution of Human Physical AttractivenessSteven W. Gangestad and Glenn J. Scheyd 523

Mapping Indigenous Lands Mac Chapin, Zachary Lamb, and Bill Threlkeld 619

Human Rights, Biomedical Science, and Infectious Diseases AmongSouth American Indigenous Groups A. Magdalena Hurtado, Carol A. Lambourne, Paul James, Kim Hill,

Karen Cheman, and Keely Baca 639

Interrogating Racism: Toward an Antiracist Anthropology Leith Mullings 667

Enhancement Technologies and the Body Linda F. Hogle 695

Social and Cultural Policies Toward Indigenous Peoples: Perspectivesfrom Latin AmericaGuillermo de la Pe na 717

Surfacing the Body Interior Janelle S. Taylor 741

Contents ix

yRCHARDGFOXon

Fop

on

u

ony


25/26

Theme 1: Race and Racism

Race and Ethnicity in Public Health Research: Models to ExplainHealth DisparitiesWilliam W. Dressler, Kathryn S. Oths, and Clarence C. Gravlee 231

Communicability, Racial Discourse, and DiseaseCharles L. Briggs 269

Immigrant Racialization and the New Savage Slot: Race, Migration,and Immigration in the New Europe Paul A. Silverstein 363

The Archaeology of Black Americans in Recent Times Mark P. Leone, Cheryl Janifer LaRoche, and Jennifer J. Babiarz 575

Interrogating Racism: Toward an Antiracist Anthropology Leith Mullings 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-Garc a, Elizabeth Byron, William R. Leonard,

and Vincent Vadez 121

Recent Ethnographic Research on North American IndigenousPeoples Pauline Turner Strong 253

Will Indigenous Languages Survive? Michael Walsh 293

Autochthony: Local or Global? New Modes in the Struggle overCitizenship and Belonging in Africa and EuropeBambi Ceuppens and Peter Geschiere 385

Through Wary Eyes: Indigenous Perspectives on Archaeology Joe Watkins 429

Metabolic Adaptation in Indigenous Siberian Populations

William R. Leonard, J. Josh Snodgrass, and Mark V. Sorensen 451

Indigenous Movements in Australia Francesca Merlan 473

Indigenous Movements in Latin America, 19922004: Controversies,Ironies, New Directions Jean E. Jackson and Kay B. Warren 549

x Contents

yRCHARDGFOXon

Fop

on

u

ony


26/26

Linguistic, Cultural, and Biological Diversity Luisa Maf 599

Human Rights, Biomedical Science, and Infectious Diseases AmongSouth American Indigenous Groups A. Magdalena Hurtado, Carol A. Lambourne, Paul James, Kim Hill,

Karen Cheman, and Keely Baca 639

Social and Cultural Policies Toward Indigenous Peoples: Perspectivesfrom Latin AmericaGuillermo de la Pe na 717

Indexes

Subject Index 757

Cumulative Index of Contributing Authors, Volumes 2634 771

Cumulative Index of Chapter Titles, Volumes 2634 774

Errata

An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Anthropology chaptersmay be found at http://anthro.annualreviews.org/errata.shtml

yRCHARDGFOXon

Fop

on

u

ony

Date post:	02-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	maria-cecilia-picech
View:	216 times
Download:	0 times

Poole Deborah - An Excess of Description

Documents