Stolcke v. 1995. New Boundaries New Rhetorics of Exclusion in Europe. Current Anthropology Vol. 36...

7/27/2019 Stolcke v. 1995. New Boundaries New Rhetorics of Exclusion in Europe. Current Anthropology Vol. 36 No. 1 Pp. 1 24

1/25

Talking Culture: New Boundaries, New Rhetorics of Exclusion in Europe

Author(s): Verena StolckeReviewed work(s):Source: Current Anthropology, Vol. 36, No. 1, Special Issue: Ethnographic Authority andCultural Explanation (Feb., 1995), pp. 1-24Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of Wenner-Gren Foundation for AnthropologicalResearchStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2744220 .

Accessed: 20/01/2012 06:09

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 [email protected].

The University of Chicago Press and Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research are collaborating

with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Current Anthropology.
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpresshttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=wennergrenhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=wennergrenhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2744220?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2744220?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=wennergrenhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=wennergrenhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress


2/25

CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume 36, Number i, February 995? I995 byThe Wenner-Grenoundation orAnthropologicalesearch. llrights eservedOII-3204/95/360i-0003$2.00

SIDNEY W. MINTZ LECTUREFOR I993TalkingCultureNew Boundaries,New RhetoricsofExclusion n Europe'byVerena StolckeInthe contemporaryebate oncerning uropean ntegrationndthe "problem" fThirdWorldmmigrationo less than ndevel-opmentsnanthropologynthepast decade, heboundedness fculturesndcultural ifferenceavegainednewprominence.n-thropologyeedsnotonly oexplore owglobalizationffectsthediscipline's lassical ubjects utalsotopaymore ttentionto the newways n which ultural ifferencesndcleavages reconceptualizedt its source. n effect,hepolitical ightn Eu-ropehasinthepast decadedeveloped political hetoricf xclu-sion n whichThirdWorld mmigrants, ho proceednpartfromts ex-colonies,re construed s posing threat o thena-tionalunity fthe "host"countriesecausethey reculturallydifferent.his rhetoric fexclusion asgenerallyeen dentifiedas a new form fracism. argue, nstead, hat, ather han s-sertingifferentndowments fhuman aces, tpostulates pro-pensitynhumannature oreject trangers.hisassumptionn-derlies radical pposition etween ationals nd mmigrantssforeignersnformedya reified otion fboundednddistinct,localizednational-culturaldentityndheritage hat s employedtorationalize he call for estrictivemmigrationolicies.Follow-ing systematicomparison fthe contrastingonceptual truc-tures fthe twodoctrines,conclude hat hecontemporaryul-tural undamentalismfthepolitical ights,withrespectotraditionalacism, othold and new. t s old nthat t draws oritsargumentativeorce n theunresolved ontradictionnthemodern onception fthe nation-stateetween norganicistnda voluntaristdea ofbelonging.t is new nthat, ecauseracismhasbecomediscreditedolitically,tattributeshe llegedncom-patibilityetween ifferentultureso an incapacityfdifferentcultures o communicatehat s inherentn humannature.VERENA STOLCKE is professorf ocialanthropologyntheDe-partamentoeHistoria e Sociedades recapitalistas Antropo-logiaSocial ofthe Universidad ut6noma e Barcelona. ornnGermanyn I938, she was educated tOxford niversity

(D.Phil., 970). Sheconducted ield ndarchival esearchn Cubain I967-68 and n Sao Paulo,Brazil, etween973 and 979. Sheis theauthor fMarriage, lass,and Colour nNineteenth-Century uba (Cambridge: ambridge niversityress,974, re-printedy the UniversityfMichigan ress n i989), Planters,Workers,nd Wives:Class Conflictnd GenderRelations nSaioPaulo Plantations,850-i980 (Oxford: t.Antony's/Macmil-lan, 988); "Women's abours:The NaturalisationfSocial n-equality nd Women's ubordination,"n Of Marriagend theMarket, dited yK. Young,C. Wolkowitz, ndR. McCullagh(London:RoutledgendKeganPaul, 98i), "New ReproductiveTechnologies-OldFatherhood," eproductivend Genetic ngi-neering (i), and "Is Sex toGender s Race s to Ethnicity?"nGendered nthropology,dited y Teresadel Valle London:Routledge,993). Thepresent aperwas submittednfinal ormI5 VI 94.

Es gibt zwei SortenvonRatten,die hungrigen nd die satten;die Sattenbleiben vergniigtuhaus,die Hungrigenwandernaus . . .Oh weh,sie sind schon n derNdh.HEINRICH HEINEEverywhere,nd fromnow on as much in the soci-ety of origin s in thehost society, the mmigrant]calls for completerethinkingfthe egitimatebases ofcitizenship nd oftherelationshipbetweenthestate and the nation ornationality.An absentpresence,he obligesus to questionnot onlythe reac-tionsof rejectionwhich,takingthe state as an ex-pressionofthenation,are vindicated by claimingtobase citizenship n commonality f anguage andculture ifnot "race") but also the assimilationist"generosity" hat,confident hat thestate,armedwitheducation,will knowhow toreproduce he na-tion,would seek to conceal a universalist hauvin-ism.

PIERRE BOURDIEUThe uniqueness ofEuropeanculture,which emergesfrom hehistory fthediversity fregionaland na-tional cultures, onstitutes hebasic prerequisite orEuropeanunion.COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

As anthropology radually utgrows ostmodernistelf-scrutiny nd cultural elf-examinationnd movesbackintotherealworld,neither heworldnor thedisciplineis any onger hesame.Anthropologistsave leamed tobemore ensitive o the formidable ifficultiesnvolvedin making sense of cultural diversitywithout losingsight f haredhumanity.At the same time, he notionsof culture nd culturaldifference,nthropology'slassi-cal stock-in-trade,ave becomeubiquitous n thepopu-lar andpolitical anguage n which Western eopoliticalconflictsndrealignmentsrebeingphrased.Anthropol-ogists n recentyearshave paid heightened riticalat-tention o themanyways in which Western conomicandculturalhegemony as invaded he restoftheworldand tohow "other"cultureshave resisted nd reworked

T

i. This paperwas delivered,s the 993 SidneyW.MintzLectureto theDepartmentfAnthropologyf he Johns opkinsUniver-sity nNovember 5, I993. It is based on research onductedri99i-92 while wasa JeanMonnet ellow ttheEuropean niversity nstituten Florence. thank speciallymyfellow ellowsMichael Harbsmeier,ric Heilman, nd Sol Picciotto or hemanyfruitfuliscussionswehad on the opics raise ndRam6nVald6&of theUniversidad ut6noma e Barcelona orhis comments ran earlier ersion.


3/25

2 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume36,Number , February 995these nsidious nfluences.How these"others" rebeingpolitically nd culturally ethought y theWest,wherethe idea of culturaldistinctness s beingendowed withnew divisiveforce,has, however, ttracted urprisinglylittle nterest monganthropologists.want to addressone major instance of contemporary ulture-boundedpoliticalrhetoric.SidneyMintz has workedformanyyearstowardun-covering he logic and power of racism in systems ofdomination ndexclusion n the New World. t s surelyappropriateo focusmylecture n his honor on there-surgence fessentialist deologies n the Old World.Onone ofhis trips o Paris he himselfprophesied ome ofthesedevelopmentsmorethan2o years go,noting hat,whereas ssues ofrace wereabsent from rench nthro-pology, n contrastwith the NorthAmericanvariety,because of the differentositions the discipline's sub-jects (internallyrexternally olonial) occupied n rela-tion totherespective ationalcommunities, rancewasbeginning oexperience acism s ever-growingumbersof mmigrants rrived romtsex-colonies Mintz 97 ).The alarming preadofhostility nd violence in Eu-ropeagainst mmigrants rom heThird Worldhas pro-vokedmuch soul-searchingn thepast decade over theresurgence fthe old demonof racism n a newguise.want topropose,however, hat a perceptible hiftn therhetoric f exclusion can now be detected.Fromwhatwere once assertions f thedifferingndowment f hu-man races therehas risensince theseventies rhetoricof nclusionand exclusionthatemphasizesthedistinc-tiveness of cultural identity, raditions, nd heritageamonggroups ndassumes theclosureofculturebyter-ritorySoysal 993). I intendfirst o examine thenatureof this shift in the way in which European anti-immigrant entiment s phrased. Then I will tracethesocial and political roots and the implications of thisnew rhetoric. he formationf iberal tates ndnotionsof belonginghas, of course,been quite differentromone Western uropeancountry o another.Historymayexplain theorigins fthesedifferentoliticaltraditions,but it is not the cause oftheircontinuity; ach periodinterpretshistoryaccording to contemporary eeds.Therefore, will conclude by contrasting he ways inwhich the national political repertoires fBritain ndFrancehave shaped and been employed to legitimatemounting nimosity gainst mmigrants.

The building fEurope s a twofold rocess.As intra-Europeanborders ecomeprogressively orepermeable,external oundaries re ever moretightly losed.2Strin-gent egalcontrols reput nplace to exclude what havecome to be known as extracommunitarianmmigrantsas partiesof theright ppeal for lectoralsupportwith

the slogan "ForeignersOut!" There is a growing ensethatEuropeansneed to develop a feeling fshared cul-ture nd dentity fpurpose n order oprovide he deo-logical support for European economic and politicalunion that will enable it to succeed. But the idea ofasupranational culturally integratedEurope and howmuchspace is to be accorded to national and regionalculturesand identitiesare mattersof intense disputebecause ofthe challengeto national sovereigntiesheyare variously felt to pose (Gallo I989; Cassen I993;Commissionofthe EuropeanCommunities 987, I992).By contrast, mmigrants,n particular hose from hepoorSouth and,morerecently,lso from he East)whoseek shelter n thewealthyNorth,have all overWesternEuropecome to be regarded s undesirable, hreateningstrangers,liens. The extracommunitarianmmigrantsalready in our midst"are thetargets fmounting os-tility ndviolenceas politiciansofthe right ndconser-vativegovernments uel popularfears with a rhetoricDf xclusionthat extolsnational dentity redicated nzultural xclusiveness.The social andpolitical tensionsthatextracommuni-tarianmmigration as provoked n a context fsucces-3ive economic crises have been accompanied by aheightenedoncern vernationalcultural dentities hathas erodedthe cosmopolitanhopes professed n the af-termath fthe deadlyhorrors ftheNazi race policiesfWorldWar II. The demons of race and eugenicsap-?eared o havebeenpolitically fnotscientificallyxor-,isedpartlyby the workdone byUNESCO and other)odies ndefense fhumanequality nculturaldiversityLnheBoasian tradition fter945 (Nye I993:669; Levi-5trauss 978, I985; Haraway 988). Yet cultural dentitymd distinctiveness,deas which until then seemed to)e a peculiar obsession only of anthropologists, aveiowcome tooccupya centralplace in the way nwhichinti-immigrationentiments nd policies are being ra-;ionalized.There s a growing ropensityn thepopularmood inEuropeto blame all the socioeconomic ills resulting:rom the recession and capitalist readjustments-anemployment,housing shortages,mounting delin-luency,deficiencies n social services-on immigrantsxho lack "our" moral and culturalvalues, simplybe-:ause theyare there see Taguieff 99I for a detailedmnalysisnd challengeofthese mputationsn the caseAf rance.)The advocatesof a halt to immigrationnd.ike-minded oliticianshave added to the popularani-nosity oward mmigrants yartificiallyncreasing he5cale of the "problem."Allusions to an "immigrationlood" and an "emigration omb" serveto intensify if-usepopularfears, hereby ivertingpreadingocial dis-,ontent rom he truecauses of theeconomic recession.Dpponents f mmigration ften dd to this the conser-iative demographic rgumentwhich attributes eclin-ng socioeconomic opportunities nd poverty nd the:onsequentdesire rneedtoemigrate othe"population)omb" ticking away in the Third World,which is)lamed on immigrants' own improvidence. They;herebymask the economic-politicalroots of modern

2. One signof the sense of urgency ver mmigrationontrolsthe nformalntergovernmentalodies, uchas theTrevigroup fministers,he Ad Hoc Groupon Immigration,nd the SchengenAccord,etup since hemidseventies.hese organizations,hicharenotaccountable o theEuropean arliament,aveserved,l-most n secrecy, o harmonize olicy amongmember ountries(Bunyan 99I, Ford I99I).


4/25

STOLCKE TalkingCulture 3poverty nd nstead ustify ggressive opulation ontrolprogramswhose targets re women in the poor South.Advocates of a halt to immigration alk of a "thresholdof tolerance," alluding to what ethologistshave calledthe territorialmperative-the alleged factthat popula-tions (note, amonganimals) tend to defend heirterri-tory against "intruders"when these exceed a certainproportion stimatedvariously t 12-25 % because oth-erwise evere ocial tensions re bound to arise Zungaroi992; Erdheim992:i9). The media nd politicians l-lude to the threat fcultural strangement r alienation(Winkler 992, Kallscheuer992). In otherwords, he"problem" s not "us" but "them." "We" are the mea-sure of the good life which "they" are threatening oundermine, nd this s so because "they" are foreignersand culturally different." lthoughrising unemploy-ment, hehousing hortage,nddeficient ocial servicesare obviously not the fault of immigrants, they" areeffectively ade into thescapegoatsfor our" socioeco-nomicproblems.This line ofarguments so persuasivebecause it appeals to the"national habitus," an exclusi-vist notion of belongingand political and economicrights onveyedby the modern dea of the nation-state(Elias I99I) central o which s the assumption hatfor-eigners, trangers romwithout, re not entitled o sharein "national" resources and wealth, especially whenthese areapparently ecoming carce. t is convenientlyforgotten,or xample, hat mmigrants ften o the obsthat nativeswon't. Similarly verlooked re the other-wise much bemoaned consequences of the populationimplosion n the wealthy North, that s, the very owbirth ates n an agingEurope,for he viability f ndus-trialnations and the welfare tate (Below-replacementfertility986, Berquo993). Thequestionwhy,f hereis shortage fwork, ntolerance nd aggression re notdirected gainstone's fellowcitizens s neverraised.The meaningand nature of these rationalizations fanimosity oward mmigrantsnd the need to curbex-tracommunitarianmmigration ave been highlycon-troversial. will hereanalyzetherightist hetoric f ex-clusion rather than examining the logic of popularanti-immigrantesentment. opularreactions nd senti-mentscannot implybe extrapolated rom he discourseofthepoliticalclass.

Immigrants:A Threat to theCulturalIntegrityftheNationIn the early eightiesDummett identified change inBritain n the idiom in which rejectionof immigrantswas being xpressedwhen she drew ttention o the ten-dency o attributeocial tensionsto thepresenceof m-migrantswith alien cultures rather than to racism(DummettndMartin982:ioi, my mphasis;ee alsoDummett 973). As early s in the ate sixties therightin Britainwas exalting"Britishculture" and the "na-tionalcommunity," istancingtself rom acialcatego-ries nddenyingwith nsistence hat tshostility oward

immigrantommunities nd ts call for curbon immi-grationhad anything o do with racism see Asad I990on the dea ofBritishness, onstructed ut of thevaluesand sensibilities f theEnglishdominant lass; see alsoDodd I986). People "bynature"preferredo live amongtheir own kind" rather han n a multicultural ociety,this attitudebeing,"after ll," a "natural," nstinctivereaction o the presenceofpeoplewith a differentul-ture ndorigin.As Alfred herman, irector fthe right-wing InstituteforPolicy Studies and one of the maintheoreticians fthis doctrine, laborated n I978, "Na-tionalconsciousness s the sheet nchor or heuncondi-tional oyalties ndacceptanceofduties andresponsibil-ities,based on personal dentification ith the nationalcommunity,which underliecivic duty nd patriotism"(quotedn Barker98i:2o; see also I979). Immigrantsin largenumberswould destroy he "homogeneity fthe nation."A multiracial sic)societywould inevitablyendanger he"values" and"culture" of he whitemajor-ity andunleash social conflict. hese werenonrational,instinctual earsbuiltaroundfeelings f oyalty ndbe-longing Barker ndBeezer 983: I25).3 As EnochPowellhad argued n I969, "an instinct o preserve n identityanddefend territorys one ofthedeepest ndstrongestimplanted n mankind . . and . . . its beneficial ffectsarenotexhausted"quotednBarker98i:22).Until the late seventies such nationalist laims wereputforwardnlybya few though ociferous)deologuesoftherightwho went out oftheirway to distance hem-selves from he overt acismofthe National Front,mor-allydiscredited y ts associationwithNazi ideology. ythe eighties,with mounting conomic difficultiesndgrowing nimosity gainst mmigrants,n an effort ogainelectoral upport heTory partyhad adopted dis-courseof exclusion which was similarly nfusedby ex-pressions ffear or he ntegrityf henationalcommu-nity,wayof ife, radition,nd oyalty nder hreat romimmigrantsBarker979). One symptomaticxample ofthis ideological alignmentof the Tory partywith itsright s MargaretThatcher'smuch-quoted tatement fI978 that "people are reallyrather fraid hatthiscoun-trymight e swampedbypeoplewith differentulture.And, you know,the British haracter as done so muchfordemocracy, or aw, and done so much throughoutthe world, that if there is a fear that it might beswamped,people are goingto react and be hostile tothose omingn" (quotedn Fitzpatrick987:i2i). Toprotect the nation" from he threat mmigrantswithalien cultures posed for social cohesion, their entryneeded to be curbed.3. Barker ummedup the argument f what he called "the newracism" s follows: Immigrantshreateno swamp'us with heiralien culture: nd if they re allowed n in largenumbers, heywill destroy he homogeneityf the nation.'At the heart f this'new racism' s thenotion fculture nd tradition. communityis its culture, ts way of ife nd ts traditions. o break hese sto shatter he community. hese are non-rationaland ndeed, nthefully ledged ersion,nstinctual),uilt round eelings f oy-alty nd belonging."


5/25


6/25

STOLCKE Talking ulture sence, and exclusiveness. What distinguishesconven-tional racismfrom hissortofculturalfundamentalismis the way in which those who allegedly threaten hesocial peace of the nationare perceived.The differencebetween hese twodoctrines esides, irst,n the way nwhich those who aretheir espective argets re concep-tualized-whether they re conceivedas naturally nfe-riormembers r as strangers, liens, to the polity, e ita state, n empire, r a commonwealth.Culturalfunda-mentalism legitimates the exclusion of foreigners,strangers. acismhas usually provided rationalizationfor lass prerogativesy naturalizing he socioeconomicinferiorityftheunderprivilegedto disarm hempoliti-cally)orclaims ofnational supremacy Blanckaert988).Second,whereas both doctrinesconstitute deologicalthemeswhich"naturalize" and thereby im to neutral-ize specific ociopolitical cleavages whose real roots reeconomic-political, heydo this in conceptuallydiffer-entways. "Equality"and"difference"end o be arrayedagainsteach other n political discourse n both cases,but the "difference" hich is invoked and themeaningwith which it is endowed differ. here may be occa-sional references o "blood" or"race,"butthere s moreto this culturalist discourse than the idea of insur-mountable ssentialculturaldifferencesra kindofbio-logical culturalism Lawrence 982:83), namely, he as-sumptionthat relations betweendifferentultures reby"nature"hostileandmutuallydestructive ecause itis in human nature o beethnocentric; ifferentulturesought, herefore,o be kept apartfor heirown good.HomoxenophobicusA furtherupposition regarding uman naturecan, ineffect,e found n politicalas well as populardiscourseon extracommunitarianmmigration n the eighties.Newspaper headlines,politicians,and scholars invokethe term"xenophobia" along with racismto describemounting nti-immigrantnimosity.n I984, for xam-ple, theEuropeanParliament onvened a committee finquiry o report n the rise of fascismand racisminEurope n a first ttempt o assess the extent nd mean-ingofanti-immigrantostility.n I985 the committeeconcluded hat "a new typeof pectrenow hauntsEuro-pean politics: xenophobophilia."The reportdescribedxenophobia s "a latentresentment r feeling,' n atti-tude thatgoes before ascismor racism and can preparethegroundfor hembut, n itself,does not fall withinthepurviewof the law and legal prevention Evregenisi985:6o). The componentsof this moreor less diffusefeeling nd of ncreasing ensionsbetween the nationaland immigrant ommunities nd their ssociation witha generalsense of social malaise, it was argued,wereadmittedlydifficult o identify, ut one elementwas"the time-honoured istrust fstrangers,earof the fu-turecombinedwith a self-defensiveeflex" p. 92). Oneoutcome of the committee's workwas a DeclarationagainstRacism and Xenophobiamade public in I986(EuropeanParliament 986). In I989 the Parliament et

up yet another ommittee f nquiry, his time nto rac-ism and xenophobia. ts task was to assess the efficacyof the declaration nd to update the informationn ex-tra-Europeanmmigrationn the lightofthe extensionoffreedom fmovementwithinEurope obe introducedin 992-93 (European arliament990). Thenotion fxenophobiawas thus ncorporated, ithout ny furtherattempt o dispel its ambiguities,ntoEuropeanParlia-mentparlance.The media and politicianshave equallypicked up the idea, and it has capturedthe Europeanimaginationn general. twas thisterminologicalnno-vation which firstmade me wonderwhether herewasnot somethingdistinct to the rhetoric of exclusionwhereby nti-immigrantentiment n WesternEuropeis justified.5"Xenophobia" literally means "hostility towardstrangersnd all that s foreign"Le PetitRobert 967).Cashmore, n his I984 Dictionary ofRace and EthnicRelations, still dismissed the term as a "somewhatvague psychological onceptdescribing person'sdispo-sition ofear or bhor) ther ersons rgroups erceivedas outsiders" because of its uncertainmeaning andhence ts limitedanalyticalvalue in that tpresupposesunderlyingauses which it does not analyze; therefore,he thoughtas ithas turned ut,wrongly),it has fallenfrom hecontemporaryace and ethnicrelations ocabu-lary" P. 3I4). Either heroot causes of thisattitude renot specified r t is takenfor ranted hatpeoplehave a"natural"propensityofear nd reject utsiders ecausethey re different.6he right's xplicit ympathynd the5. Scholars avenotedncreasinglyrequenteferenceo xenopho-bia. Becausehostility oward mmigrantss, n practice, elective,Taguieffi987:337, mytranslation),or xample,has argued ortheFrench ase that"in sum, the xenophobicttitude ndicatesonly limit; tnevermanifeststself n a strict ense as therejec-tion f heforeigners such)butresults rom more r ess explicithierarchyf ejected roups.t s not rejection f he other'whichdoesnotchoose among ts others' nd does not presuppose setofvalueswhich uthorize iscrimination.nyxenophobian thissense constitutes latent acism, nascent acism" Enfin'atti-tudex6nophobe 'indique u'une imite, lle ne se manifestea-maisau sens strict rejet e l'6trangerommetel),mais proc6ded'unehierarchielusou moins xplicite esgroupesejet6s.l n'estpasdereject e "l'autre" ui ne s6lectionne armi es "autres," tne sous-entende ne 6chellede valeurs utorisanta discrimina-tion. outex6nophobiesten ce sensun racismeatent, n racismea l'6tatnaissant). aguieffhereforelsodisagreespp.8o-8 ) withLevi-Strauss'selebratedhoughontroversialistinctionetweenethnocentrisms a universal ttitude f cultural elf-preservationandcreativityndracism s a doctrine hat ustifies ppressionandexploitation,hichgainednew prominencentheFrench e-bateover mmigration.thershave also interpretedenophobicclaimsas a second-level acistdiscourse Langmuir978:i82 andDelacampagne i983:42-43, cited by Taguieff 987:79-80, 5og). Fora critique fLevi-Strauss'sultural elativism ee Geertz I986).More recently,Todorov (i989:8i-io9) has taken Levi-Strauss totaskfor adical elativismndextreme ultural eterminism.eealso Levi-Strauss I994:42o-26).6. B6jin i986:306, mytranslation),or xample,has asked n acritique fantiracists,Whyhas thisnatural nd evenhealthyethnocentrismhichhas beengeneratednEuropenrecent earsproduced xpressionsfexasperation?t is the antiracists hem-selveswhoprovide s with n adequate, venobvious nswer othisquestionwhenthey nsist thatallegedlyracist'politicians


7/25

6 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume36,Number , February 995affinityf its argumentwithkey postulatesofhumanethology nd sociobiologyhave been noted repeatedly(Barker98I: chap.5; Duranton-Crabol988:44, 7 -8I).The scientificweaknesses of notionsof humannaturebasedon biologicalprinciples uch as the territorialm-perative nd the tribal nstinct, ccording owhichhu-mans no less than animals have a naturaltendency oformbounded social groupsand forthe sake of theirown survival o differentiatehemselves rom ndtobehostileto outsidershave been reiteratedsee, e.g.,Sah-lins I976, Rose, Lewontin, and Kamin I984, Gouldi98i). The pointhere s, however, o show whya beliefin Homo xenophobicushas so much commonsense p-peal.Strikingn that it suggeststhat this assumption snot restricted o the scientific r political right s, forexample,Cohn-Bendit nd Schmid's I99I:5, my trans-lation)recent rgumenthat the ndignation verxeno-phobia (Fremdenhass),which suggests s an antidotepolicyofopenborders,s somehowfalse anddangerous.For fhistory as taughtus one thing, hen t is this: nno societyhas a civil intercoursewithforeigners eeninbred.Much ndicatesthatthereserve is-a'-vishefor-eignerconstitutesan anthropological onstantof thespecies: and modernitywith its growingmobilityhasmade this problemmore generalthan it was before."7

This claim is as politicallydangerous s it is scientifi-cally debatable,forhistory, y contrast, orexample,with biology, s unable to prove human universals, tleast as faras our contemporary nderstanding f thehuman experience goes. Besides, it is not difficult ocome upwith examples demonstratinghefallacy ftheidea thatxenophobia is partof the human condition.The war nBosnia provides robably hemost tragic on-temporary nstance. Until Serbian radical nationalismtore them apart,Muslims, Serbs, and Croats had livedtogether s neighbors n theiracknowledgedreligiousand other ulturaldifferences.Xenophobia,an attitude supposedly nherent n hu-man nature, onstitutes he deological underpinningfculturalfundamentalism nd accounts forpeople's al-leged tendency o value their wn cultures o the exclu-sion of any other and therefore e incapable of livingside by side. Contemporaryulturalfundamentalismsbased, then,on two conflated ssumptions:that differ-entcultures re ncommensurable ndthat,because hu-mans are inherently thnocentric, elations betweencultures re by "nature"hostile. Xenophobia s to cul-

experience n increase n their udiences nder onditionsnd nregionswhere here s a strong,mportant,nd, n the eventofapathy n thepart f he corps ocial,' rreversiblenflux f mmi-grants f xtra-Europeanrigin. hey hus cknowledge,presumeinvoluntarily,hat his exasperations a reaction f defense y acommunity hich enses hat ts dentitys threatened,reactionwhichpresents nalogieswith he resistance hisor thatoccupa-tionby foreignrmed orces asprovokedn thepast.Thisrejec-tionmight ven, f nternationalensionsntensify,ecomemoreprofounds immigrantsoncentrate, odifyingn a more rrevers-ible way country'sdentityhanwouldoccupation orces, hichdo not intend o settle nd reproduce"Pourquoi et ethnocen-trisme aturel tmemesain s'est-il raduit, u coursdes ann6esr6centesnEurope, ardes manifestations'exasp6ration?e sontles antiracistesux-memes ui nous donnenta r6ponse d6quate,d'ailleurs vidente, cettequestion uand ls soulignent ue lespoliticiens uppos6sracistes' oient eur udience 'accroitre ansles conjoncturest es r6gions ii s'estproduit n brutal,mportantet-en cas d'apathiedu corps ocial-irr6versible fflux 'immi-gr6sd'origine xtra-europeenne.ls reconnaissentinsi, nvolon-tairemente suppose, ue cette xasp6rationst une reaction edefense 'une communaut6 uipercoit on dentit6 ommemen-ac6e, 6actionui pr6senteesanalogiesvec a r6sistanceuetelleou telleoccupation ardes forces rm6es trangerespu susciterdans e pass6. Ce rejet ourraitmeme, ui devaient 'exacerberestensionsnternationales,'averer lus profondans a mesure iides immigr6s ui font ouche modifientlus irr6mediablementl'identit6 'unpaysque desoccupants ui ne cherchentas a s'yenracinert s'y reproduire). Britishwriter efines enophobiaas "a dislike forforeigners r outsiders . . . an old and familiarphenomenon in human societies" (Layton-Henry 99I:I69).7."Die Entrustungber enFremdenhass,ie als GegenmittelinePolitikder schrankenlosffenen renzen mpfiehlt,at etwasscheinheiligesndGefahrliches.enn wenndie Geschichtergendetwas ehrt, ann dies: KeinerGesellschaft ar e der ivile Um-gangmit den Fremdenngeboren. ielesspricht afuir,ass dieReserve hmgegeniuberu denanthropologischenonstanten erGattung ehort; nddieModerne at mit hrerteigenden obili-

tat dieses Problem llgegenwartigeremacht ls zuvor.Werdiesleugnet, rbeitet erAngst ordem Fremden nddenaggressivenPotentialen, ie n hr chlummern,icht ntgegen." ohn-Benditis thehead ofthe DepartmentfMulticulturalffairsfthe cityofFrankfurt,nd Schmid s his assistant. hisarticlewas writtenin support f a shift n immigrationolicyby the Greens owarda system f mmigrationuotas see also Cohn-BenditndSchmidi992 for more carefulargument).Enzensberger I992:I3-I4, mytranslation,mphasis dded)has similarly rgued hat everymi-gration,ndependentf ts causes, ts ims,whethertbevoluntaryor involuntary,nd its magnitude, eads to conflicts.Groupselfishnessnd xenophobia onstitute nthropologicalonstantswhich precede any rationalization. heiruniversalityuggeststhat hey reolder han nyknown orm f ociety. ncient oci-eties nvented aboos ndrituals fhospitalitynorderocontainthem, o prevent ecurrent loodbaths,o allow for modicumof exchange nd communication etweendifferentlans,tribes,ethnicities. hese measures onot,however, liminate he tatusof alien. On the contrary,hey nstitutionalizet. The guest ssacred utmaynot tay" JedeMigrationuhrtu Konflikten,nab-hangig avon,wodurch ie ausgelostwird,welcheAbsichthr u-grunde iegt,ob sie freiwilligderunfreiwillig eschieht ndwelchenUmfang ie annimmt.GruppenegoismusndFremden-hass sind nthropologischeonstanten,ie ederBegriindungor-ausgehen.hreuniverselle erbreitungpricht afiir, asssiealtersind als alle bekanntenGesellschaftsformen.m sie einzudam-men, um dauerndeBlutbader u vermeiden, m uAberhauptinMinimumvon Austauschund Verkehr wischenverschiedenenClans, Stammen, thnien u ermoglichen,aben altertiumlicheGesellschaftenie Tabusund RitualederGastfreundschaftrfun-den.DieseVorkehrungenebendenStatus es Fremdenbernichtauf.Sie schreibenhnganz mGegenteil est. erGast st heilig,aber r darf ichtbleiben.)Another ayofnaturalizinghatcanbeshown o behistoricallyeterminedttitudesyuniversalizingthem onsists n arguinghatracism s universal. hus Todorov(i989:I14, my translation) has argued that racism as a form ofbehavior,s opposed o racialism s a pseudoscientificoctrine,s"an ancient ehavior ndprobably universal ne;racialisms acurrent fopinion ornnWesternuropewhoseheydayxtendsfrom he 8th o themiddle f he othcentury"Leracisme stuncomportementncien, td'extensionrobablementniverselle;eracialisme stun mouvement 'id6esn6 en Europeoccidentale,dont a grande 6riode a du milieu duXVIIIe u milieu duXXesiecle).


8/25

S TO L C KE TalkinkCulture 7tural fundamentalismwhat the bio-moralconcept of"race" is to racism,namely, he naturalist onstant hatendows withtruth alue and legitimates he respectiveideologies.Racism versusCulturalFundamentalismA systematic omparisonofthe conceptual structuresoftraditional acism and this culturalfundamentalismmay render learer hedistinctness f whatare alterna-tive doctrines fexclusion.8They have in common thatthey ddress he contradiction etween hemodern ni-versalistnotionthat all humans are naturally qual andfree ndmultipleforms f sociopoliticaldiscriminationandexclusion,buttheydo so differently.oth doctrinesderive heir rgumentativeorce rom hesame ideologi-cal subterfuge,amely,the presentation fwhat is theoutcome of pecific olitico-economic elationships ndconflicts f nterest s naturaland hence incontestablebecause it, as itwere, "comes naturally."Modern Western racism rationalizes claims of na-tional superiority r sociopoliticaldisqualification ndeconomicexploitation fgroups f ndividualswithinpolitybyattributingo themcertainmoral, ntellectual,or social defects upposedlygroundedn their "racial"endowmentwhich, byvirtueofbeing nnate, re inevi-table. The markers nvoked to identify "race" may bephenotypical rconstructed. acismthusoperateswitha particularisticcriterion of classification, namely,"race," whichchallenges heclaim to equal humannessby dividinghumankind nto inherently istinctgroupsordered ierarchically,ne groupmaking claim to ex-clusivesuperiority.n thissense racistdoctrines re cat-egorical, concealing the sociopolitical relationshipswhichgenerate hehierarchy.Race" is construed s thenecessary nd sufficient atural cause of the unfitnessof"others" andhence oftheir nferiority.ociopoliticalinequality nd domination re thereby ttributed o thecriterionfdifferentiationtself, amely, their" ack ofworth,which is in "their"race. As a doctrine fasym-metric classificationracismprovokescounterconceptsthat demean the "other" as the "other" could not de-mean the "self."Mutual recognitions deniedpreciselybecause the"racial" defect, eing relative, s not sharedbythe "self."And that s thepoint. Byattributingn-equal status and treatment o its victim'sown inherentshortcomings,his doctrine enies the deological char-acter of racism tself.Of course,this raises the important uestion oftheplace of an idea of social status inscribed n nature,rather hanresulting rom ontract,n modern ociety,otherwise onceived of as composedofself-determiningindividualsbornequal and free.Modern racism consti-tutesan ideological sleight-of-handorreconciling heirreconcilable-a liberal meritocraticthos ofequal op-

portunityor ll in themarketplace nd socioeconomicinequality-which, rather han beingan anachronisticsurvivalof past timesofslavery nd/orEuropean colo-nial expansion and the ascriptive rdering f society, spart ndparcelof iberalcapitalism Stolcke 993, Fitz-patrick 987).At different oments nhistory ystems f nequalityandoppressionhave been rationalized n distinctways.Racist doctrines are only one variation of the sametheme, namely,the endeavourto reconcile an idea ofsharedhumanitywith existingformsof domination.Earlymodern olonial encounterswith"primitives" n-tenselyexercisedEuropeanminds. Initially t was nottheir "racial" difference hich haunted the Europeanimagination but their religious-cum-moral iversitywhichwas felt o challenge Christianhegemony.How,ifGod had created"man" in his image, could therebehumanswho were not Christians?Nineteenth-centuryscientific acismwas a new way of ustifying omina-tion and inequality nspired by the search for naturallaws thatwould account for he ordernnature nd soci-ety. Strikingn the igth-century ebateover theplaceof humans n nature s thetensionbetweenman's faithin freewill unencumbered y natural onstraints,nhisendeavour s a free gentto masternature, ndthe ten-dencyto naturalize social man. Social Darwinism,eu-genics,and criminology rovidedthe pseudoscientificlegitimationfor consolidatingclass inequality. Theirtargetswerethedangerous aboring lasses at home see,e.g., Chevalier 984). Iftheself-determiningndividual,through ersistent nferiority,eemed unable to makethemost oftheopportunities ocietypurportedo offer,it had to be because ofsome essential, nherent efect.The person r,better, is or hernatural ndowment-beit called racial, sexual, innate talent,or intelligence-rather han theprevailing ocioeconomic orpoliticalor-derwas to be blamed for his. This rationalefunctionedbothas a powerfulncentivefor ndividual ffortnd todisarmsocial discontent.Physical anthropologyt thesame time lent supportboth to claims of national su-premacy mong Europeannations and to the colonialenterprise y establishing hierarchyfbio-moral aces(Blanckaert988; Brubaker992:98-io2).Culturalfundamentalism, y contrast, ssumes a setof ymmetric ounterconcepts,hatoftheforeigner,hestranger,he alien as opposedto thenational,the citi-zen. Humans bytheirnature re bearers fculture.Buthumanitys composedofa multiplicity f distinct ul-tures which are incommensurable, he relations be-tween theirrespectivemembersbeing inherently on-flictive ecause it is in human nature obe xenophobic.An allegedhumanuniversal-people's naturalpropen-sity oreject trangers-accountsfor ultural articular-ism. The apparent ontradiction,n themodern iberaldemocratic thos,betweenthe invocation of a sharedhumanitywhich involves an idea ofgenerality o thatno humanbeingseems tobe excludedand culturalpar-ticularismtranslated nto national terms s overcomeideologically: cultural"other,"the immigrant s for-eigner. alien. and as such a notentin1 "enemv" who8. I drawhere nKoselleck'si985) importantnalysis fpoliticalcounterconcepts.


9/25

8 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume 36,Number , February995threatens our" national-cum-culturalniqueness andintegrity,s constructed ut of a traitwhich is sharedby the "self." In yetanother deologicaltwist,nationalidentity ndbelongingnterpreteds cultural ingularitybecome an insurmountable arrier o doingwhat comesnaturally ohumans, nprinciple, amely, ommunicat-ing.Instead of ordering ifferentultureshierarchically,cultural undamentalismegregates hem patially, achculture n itsplace. The fact hatnation-states rebynomeansculturally niform s ignored. ocalized politicalcommunities reregarded y definitions culturally o-mogeneous. Presumed inherentxenophobicpropensi-ties-though they challenge the supposed territorialrooting f cultural ommunities, incethey redirectedagainst strangers in our midst"-reterritorialize ul-tures. Their targets re uprootedstrangerswho fail toassimilateculturally.Beingsymmetrical, hese categories re logicallyre-versible-anynational s a foreignero any othernationin a world ofnation-states, or o possess a nationalityis in thenatureofthings.This formal onceptualpolar-ity-nationals as againstforeigners-ischargedwithpo-liticalmeaning.Bymanipulating heambiguous inkbe-tween national belongingand cultural identity, henotionofxenophobia nfuses the relationship etweenthe twocategorieswith a specific ndsubstantive oliti-cal content.Because thepropensityo dislikestrangersis sharedbyforeigners,t also becomes egitimate ofearthat the latter,by theirdisloyalty,mightthreaten henationalcommunity.Whenthe"problem"posedbyex-tracommunitarianmmigration s conceptualized interms fself-evidentulturaldifferencend ncommen-surability,he rootcauses of mmigration, amely, hedeepeningeffectsof North-South nequality,are ex-plainedaway.Culturalfundamentalismnvokes conception f ul-ture ontradictorilynspired othbytheuniversalist n-lightenmentradition nd by theGermanromanticismthatmarked much of the igth-century ationalist de-bate.Bybuilding tscase for heexclusionof mmigrantson a traitsharedby all humans alike rather han onanunfitness llegedly ntrinsic oextracommunitarians,culturalfundamentalism, y contrastwithracist theo-ries,has a certainopennesswhich leaves room forre-quiringmmigrants,ftheywish to live in ourmidst, oassimilate culturally.And because ofthe other mpor-tant dea in modernWesternpolitical culture,namely,that ll humans areequal andfree, nti-immigranthet-oric is polemical and open to challenge,which is whyexisting orms fexclusion, nequality, nd oppressionneed to be rationalized deologically.At the core of this ideologyof collective exclusionpredicated n the idea of the "other" as a foreigner,stranger,o thebody politic s the assumption hatfor-mal politicalequality presupposes ultural dentity ndhence cultural ameness s theessentialprerequisite oraccess to citizenship ights.One should notconfuse heusefulsocial function f immigrants s scapegoats for

prevailing ocioeconomic lls withtheway nwhich m-migrants s foreignersre conceptualized.Ratherthanbeing thematized directly, mmigrants' ocioeconomicexclusionis a consequence of theirpolitical exclusion(Le tempsdes exclusions 993). Opponentsof mmigra-tion on the rightmay objecttograntingmmigrantshesocial and political rights nherentncitizenship n eco-nomic grounds.The "problem" of mmigrations con-strued, owever, s a politicalthreat o national dentityand integrity n account of mmigrants' ulturaldiver-sitybecause the nation-states conceived s founded na boundedand distinctcommunitywhichmobilizes asharedsense ofbelonging nd loyaltypredicatedon acommon anguage,culturaltraditions,nd beliefs. n acontextof economic recession and national retrench-ment, appeals to primordial oyalties fall on fertilegroundbecause of the ordinary aken-for-grantedenseof national belongingthat is the common idiom ofcontemporary olitical self-understandingWeber 976,citedbyBrubaker 992).Immigrants re seen as threatening o bring bout a"crisis ofcitizenship" Leca I992:3I4)9 in both a juridi-cal and a politico-ideologicalense. n the modernworldnationality s theprecondition or itizenship s inher-entlybounded as an instrument nd an objectofsocialclosure Brubaker992).10 In thisrespect,nationalitysnot all that different rom he kinship principles hatoperated n so-called primitive ocieties to define roupmembership.n the modernworld ofnation-states, a-tionality, itizenship, ultural ommunity, nd state areconflateddeologically Beaudand Noiriel 99I:276) andendow immigrants' ulturaldistinctivenesswith sym-bolic andpolitical meaning.Itwill, ofcourse,be objectedthat not all immigrantsor foreignersre treatedwith animosity.This is obvi-ouslytrue.Butthen, qualityand differencere not ab-solute categories.The politico-ideological epertoirenwhich the modernnation-state s builtprovides he rawmaterialsfromwhich cultural fundamentalisms con-structed. pecific owerrelationshipswiththe countriesfrom which extracommunitarianmmigrants roceedand the exploitation heyhave undergone xplain why"they"rather han,forexample,North Americans arethetargetsn Europeof thisrhetoric f exclusion. Hos-tility gainst xtracommunitarianmmigrantsmayhaveracistovertones, ndmetaphors an certainly e mixed.Yet,as somebody emarked o me recently,mmigrantscarry heirforeignnessn theirfaces.Phenotype endsnow to be employed as a markerof immigrant riginrather han"race's" being construed s the ustificationfor nti-immigrantesentment.

9. Leca distinguisheswoways fdefiningationalitys a prerequi-sitefor itizenship, amely,n "biological" nd n "contractual"terms, utregrettablyoes notpursue hepolitico-ideologicalm-plications f hesedistinctmodalities.io. Brubaker ightly emarks n the surprisingbsenceof tudiesofthemodern oncept fcitizenshipnthe social sciences.


10/25

STOLCKE TalkingCultureI9FrenchRepublican Assimilation versusBritish thnic ntegrationFor the sake of clarity have so farneglectedmajor dif-ferences n dealing with the immigration problem"amongEuropean ountrieswhich have beenpointed utrepeatedlyWieviorka993; Rouland 993:I6-I7; La-peyronnie 993). "It is an almost universalactivity fthemodern tatetoregulate he movement f hepeopleacross tsnational boundaries" Evans I983:4), but thiscan be done in diverseways.The Dutch andthe Britishgovernments ere the first o acknowledge hepresencein their ountries fso-called ethnicminorities. y theeighties llWestern uropean tateswere curbing mmi-gration nd attempting o integrate mmigrantslreadyin theirmidst.Dependingontheir olitical cultures ndhistories, ifferentountries esigned heirmmigrationpolicies differently.he Frenchmodel, nformed ythetraditional epublicanformula f ssimilation nd civicincorporation,ontrasted harplywith the Anglo-Saxonone, which eftroom for ulturaldiversity,lthoughbytheeighties confluence ould be detectedbetweenthetwo countries'anti-immigranthetoric nd restrictivepolicies.The entry nd settlementof immigrantsn Europeposes againthequestionofwhatconstitutes he modernnation-state nd what are conceived as theprerequisitesfor ccess to nationality s theprecondition or itizen-ship.Threecriteria-descent (jus sanguinis),birthplace(jus soli), and domicile combined with diverseproce-duresof"naturalization" notetheterm)-have usuallybeenwielded to determine ntitlementonationalitynthe modernnation-states. us sanguinisconstitutes hemost exclusiveprinciple. he priority ivenhistoricallyto one or another riterion as dependednotonly,how-ever, on demographic-economicnd/ormilitarycir-cumstances nd interests ut also on conceptions f thenationalcommunity nd the substantial ies of nation-hood. The classical opposition between the FrenchStaatsnationand the GermanKulturnationMeineckeI919; Guiomar99o:i26-3o) has oftenbscuredhe s-sentialist nationalism present also in i gth-centuryFrench hought nd debate on nationhood nd nationalidentity nd hence the partplayed by the Republicanformula f assimilation n theFrench onception f theRepublic." There has been almost from he start ten-sion between a democratic, oluntarist, nd an organi-cistconception fbelongingn thecontinental uropeanmodel-by contrastwith the British radition-of themodernnation-statewhich, depending nhistorical ir-cumstances,has been drawnon to formulate nd ratio-

nalize a more or ess exclusive dea of thenation andofcitizenship.A comparison fFrench nd British ostwarexperiences nd treatments f the immigration prob-lem" will serve to make this point (see LapeyronnieI993 for differentnterpretation).

The French ebateover mmigration incethe sevent-ies revealsthe ambivalence underlyinghe Republicanassimilationistconceptionof nationalityand citizen-ship. The first enuineFrenchnationality ode was en-acted n I889, at a time whenforeigners,redominantlyof Belgian,Polish, talian, and Portuguese rigin, ad alarge presence in the country, y contrastwith Ger-many, nd drew a sharp ine betweennationalsandfor-eigners.12t consecratedhe us sanguinis,that s, de-scent from Frenchfather sic) and, in the case of anillegitimate hild,from hemother, s the first riterionof access to Frenchnationality, ut simultaneously treinforcedheprincipleof us soli, according o whichchildren fforeignersornon French oilwereautomat-icallyFrenchBrubaker992:94-II3, I38-42; see alsoNoiriel I988:8I-84). The relativeprominencegiventojus soli in the code has been interpreteds a "liberal,"inclusivesolution Noiriel 988:83; Brubaker992). Oncloser nspection his combination fdescent nd birth-place rulescan also be interpreted,owever, s a clevercompromise truckformilitary nd ideologicalreasons(inthe context fthe confrontationverAlsace-Lorrainefollowing he Frenchdefeat n the Franco-GermanWarand the establishment fthe GermanEmpire)betweenan organicist and a voluntarist conception which,though ontradictory,ere intrinsic o the French on-ceptionof the nation-state.The nationalitycode of I889 did not apply to theFrench olonies until Frenchcitizenshipwas extendedto all colonial territories fterWorldWar II (WernerI935). As soon as Algeriagained ts independence, ow-ever,Algeriansbecame foreigners, hile inhabitants fthe French overseas departments nd territories e-mained fullyFrench,with rightof entry nto France.Those Algerianswho were living n France at indepen-dence had to optforFrench rAlgerian itizenship. orobviouspoliticalreasons most ofthemrejectedFrenchnationality, houghtheir French-born hildren ontin-ued tobe defined s French tbirth, s were the French-born children of the largenumbers of immigrants oFrance n thedecadefollowing he war of ndependence(Weil i988). By the midseventies the regulationofFrenchnationality nd citizenshipbecame inseparablefrommmigration olicy.As opinion grewmore hostiletoward mmigrants, speciallyfromNorth Africa, hejus soli came under ncreasing ttack from heright orturning oreignersntoFrenchmen npaperwithout n-

i i. Bydistinguishingetween ethnicmoments" understoodsracist) nd "assimilationist oments"n igth-centuryrench or-mulations fnationalityaw,Brubakeri992:esp.chap.5), nhisotherwisenformativeomparativetudy fcitizenshipn FranceandGermany,isregardshefundamentalistssumptionnwhichthe assimilationistdea rests,namely, hatformal egalequalityamong itizens resupposesultural omogeneity.

I2. The term trangerhad already een ntroduceduringheglori-ous revolutiono designateolitical nemies,raitorso the evolu-tionaryause-the French obility lotting gainst he patriotesand theBritish uspected fconspiringo reimpose oyal ule nParis.This association f he trangerwith isloyaltyo thenationhas beenespecially owerfuln times fwar Wahnich988).


11/25

IO I CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume36,Number , February 995suring hattheywere "French t heart" Brubaker992:I43). A controversial itizenship aw reform ubmittedin I983 and designedto abolish the automatic acquisi-tion of French nationalityby French-born hildrenofimmigrants, equiring n explicit declaration nstead,was nevertheless efeated n I986 because of strong p-position to the traditionalFrench assimilationist on-ception by proimmigrant rganizations nd the left. nI993 the new conservativegovernmentfinally suc-ceeded,however, npassinga reform o the same effect,which restricts he jus soli rule, therebygivingnewprominence o jus sanguinis.13Until the mideighties he antiracistmovement andproimmigrant rganizations n France had advocatedamulticulturalistmodel of integration ased on respectfor mmigrants' ulturaldiversity, esponding hus tothe right's ulturalfundamentalism. he heated debateover immigrants' rightto difference"was typicallyFrench.'4 hereafter rogressive pinion began to swingaround, allingfor a return otheold republican hemeof integration ccording to which membership n thenation is based not on an identitybut on citizenship,which consists n individual dherence o certainmini-mal but precise universal values" (Dossier I99I:47-48).15 he "republicanmodel of ntegration" hich con-ditions citizenship on shared cultural values anddemandsculturalassimilationbecame the progressivepoliticalalternative o theright's ulturalfundamental-ism. 6Britishmmigration ebate and experiencedevelopedquite differently.ccording o the traditional ational-ity aw of England, ater extended o Britain, veryper-son born withinthe domain of its kingwas a Britishsubject. Nineteenth-centuryrench advocates of jussanguinishad already ejected s inappropriateheBrit-ish unconditional us soli rule because for hem citizen-ship reflected n enduring nd substantialrather han

merely ccidental connection to Franceas well as thewill to belong and because of ts expansiveness ndfeu-dal rootsBrubaker992:90). Butthemeaning ndcon-sequencesof uralnormsdependon theirhistorical on-text. The traditional British concept of subjecthoodbased on birth n British oil, which established n indi-vidual verticalbond ofallegiance to the crown and itsparliament, naltereduntil i962, allowed immigrantsfrom he colonies free ntrynto thecountry s Britishsubjectsregardless f their ultural nd/or henotypicaldifference.'7he Home Office quoted by Segal i99i:9)arguedn the 930S as follows:

it is a matter f fundamental mportance oth fortheUnited Kingdom nd for heEmpire s a whole,if there s to be such an organization t all based inthe last resort n a commonsentiment fcohesionwhichexists,but cannot be created, hat all Britishsubjectsshouldbe treated n the same basis in theUnitedKingdom.... It is to theadvantageof theUnitedKingdom hatpersonsfrom ll partsoftheEmpire re attracted o it.

Despite postwar oncerns verfree ndunrestrictedm-migration's oweringthe quality of the Britishpeople(DummettndNicol 990:I74), theBritish ationalityBill of 948 ruledthatBritish ubjecthoodwas acquiredbyvirtue fbeing citizenof country ftheCommon-wealth.Yet,as largenumbers f mmigrantsrrived nddemandsfor ontrol ncreased, he Commonwealth m-migrantsAct of 962 introduced he first pecial immi-gration controls. It did not explicitly discriminateagainstnonwhite mmigrants, ut t left large mountof discretionfor mmigration fficers o select immi-grants t a timewhen twentwithout aying hatCom-monwealth mmigrantswere not white DummettandNicol 1990:183-87; Segal 99i:9). In I98I, finally,heConservative overnment assedthe BritishNationalityAct,whichbrought ationality aw in line with mmi-gration olicyand limited he ancientunconditionalussoli, concludingthe process of "alienation" of NewCommonwealth mmigrants y transforminghem ntoaliens Evans 983:46; DummettndNicol I990:238-5 ). Those who had been hostilized arlier s "black sub-jects" are now excluded as "culturalaliens."''8

I3. It should be noted that CharlesPasqua,theGaullistFrenchminister f he nterior ho draftedhereform, as also a staunchopponent f heMaastrichtgreementndEuropean olitical nte-gration uringhecampaignnFrance or tsapproval y referen-dum. Pasqua explained is opposition y arguing evealingly,InFrance, he right o vote s inseparable rom itizenship nd thisfrom ationality. here re 5 million oreignersere, .5 millionof hem ommunitarians.ur communitarianuests rewelcome,butwe arenotwilling o share urnational overeigntyith hem.France s an exceptional eople ndnot an amalgam f ribes" ElPais, September I4, I992, P. 4). The Euro-sceptics n the BritishConservativeartyre imilarly oncerned ith uropeanntegra-tion's hallenging ritish overeignty.I4. Guillaumin (1i992:89) points to an importantpolitical distinc-tionbetween laiming a right o difference,"hich mplies nappealby mmigrantsor uthorizationythe tate o be differentfrom ationals, y contrastwithpostulating the right f differ-ence,"which ssumes universal,nherent ight.I5. This dossier rovides xtensive overage fthe French ebateon immigrationrom n assimilationist erspective. ee also"Quels discours ur l'immigration?"i988) for n earlier, on-trasting iew whichfocuses ritically n thereformfFrench a-tionalityawintheeighties.i6. In I99I the socialistgovemmentetup a Ministryf SocialAffairsnd of ntegrationnd a StateSecretariator ntegrationopromote mmigrants' ssimilation (Perroti nd Th6paut i99i:io2).

I 7. Inthe atesixties heformeriberal oryhome ecretary egi-nald Maulding evealinglyrgued hat while one talked lwaysand rightlybout he needto avoid discriminationetween lackand white t is a simple actofhumannature hat or heBritishpeople there s a greatdifferenceetweenAustraliansnd NewZealanders,or xample,whocome ofBritish tock, nd people fAfrica, he Caribbean, nd the IndianSub-Continent ho areequally ubjects ftheQueenand entitled o total quality eforethe aw whenestablished ere,butwhoin appearance, abits,religion nd cultureweretotally ifferentrom s. The problemofbalancing he moralprinciple fnon-discriminationiththepractical acts fhumannaturewas not an easy one, nd thedan-gers hat risefrommistakes fpolicy n thisfieldwerevery ealindeed" quoted y Evans 983:2I, myemphasis).i8. In 969 EnochPowellwasproposingMinistryfRepatriationandreferringoCommonwealthmmigrantss "aliens" nthe ul-tural ense Dummett ndNicol i990:i96).


12/25

STOLCKE TalkingCulture IBritain's ommon law tradition nd the absence of acode of citizenshiprightshad provided pace for mmi-grant ubjects' culturalvalues and needs. Toleranceforculturaldiversity ormed art of the history f Britain,acknowledged s a multicultural olity, ntil n the ate

seventies n English-centric einvention f that historybegan to prevail Kearney 99I; Clark I99Ia, b).ThisdoesnotmeanthatBritain's ostwar mmigrationxpe-rience was not beset with social conflict. Anti-immigrant entimentwas alive and aggressionswerefrequent, ut theywere racist. Until the late seventiesthe controversy ver immigrationwas predominantlyphrased n racist terms.As Dummett and Nicol (I990:2I3)19 have pointed out,Just s the advocates of strict mmigration ontrolwereexclusively oncernedwith non-whitemmigra-tion, o the supporters f iberalisation ttackedra-cial discrimination irst nd foremost nd perceivedimmigration olicy as the driving orcebehindthisdiscrimination.thad become psychologicallympos-sible forboth sides to thinkof "immigration" n anysense,orany context, xcept as a verbal conventionfor eferringo the race situation n Britain.

Legal provisions to combat discrimination ypicallyaimed at ensuring ubjectsfrom he ex-colonies equalopportunitiesndependent f their race."20As longasimmigrants rom he ex-colonies wereBritish ubjectstheywere fellow itizens, lbeit considered s of n infe-riorkind.Anti-immigrantrejudice nd discriminationwererationalized n classical racist terms.Formal egalequality was not deemed incompatiblewith immi-grants' ifferentultural raditionss longas thesetradi-tions did not infringe asic human rights.The right'sdemandfor ultural ssimilationconstituted minorityopinion.Liberals defendedntegration ith due respectforculturaldiversity nd the particularneeds of "eth-nic" minorities.A key nstrument f iberal ntegrationpolicywas multicultural ducation.As I have shownabove,when the Tory government ookup the bannerofcurbing mmigrationtbeganto rationalize t, nvok-ing,bycontrastwith earlier acistarguments, ational-cum-cultural nity ndcallingfor he cultural ssimila-tion of immigrantcommunities "in our midst" tosafeguardheBritish nation" with ts sharedvalues andlifestyle. mmigrant ommunitiesneeded to be brokenup so that theirmembers, nce isolated,would cease topose a cultural ndpoliticalthreat o theBritish ation.

Immigrant hildrenweretoreceive tandard nglish d-ucation, nd uniformegaltreatment as to be accordedthem Parekh99i). Thus as Europe volved nto su-pranationalpolity, continentalnation-state aradoxi-cally emerged ut of the ashes ofthe Britishmulticul-turalthoughracist empire.The Nation within the StateAs I indicated arlier, he debateover mmigrants' rightto difference" nleashed singular passions in France.The character nd reasonsfor hiscontroversyranscendthe polarized political climate over the immigration"problem." They express a historical tension nherentin the French niversalistRepublicanconception f themodern nation-state. n a world of emergingnation-states,the early cosmopolitanrevolutionary piritwassoon erodedbya crucialdilemma,namely,how to builda nation-state ndowedwith a distinct nd bounded iti-zenry.Ethnicgroupdifferences ere, n principle, liento the revolutionary emocraticpoint of view. But, asHobsbawmI990:I9, see also Cranston988:IOI) hasidentifiedheproblem,The equationnation = state = people, and espe-cially sovereign eople, undoubtedlyinkednationto territory,ince structure nd definition f stateswerenow essentially erritorial.t also impliedamultiplicity f nation-states o constituted,nd thiswas indeeda necessary onsequenceofpopularself-determination.... But it said little about what con-stituted thepeople." In particular herewas no logi-cal connectionbetweena bodyof citizens of aterritorialtate,on one hand,and the identificationof a "nation" on ethnic, inguistic r othergroundsor of other haracteristics hichallowed collectiverecognition fgroupmembership.The advocates of an idea of the "nation" based on afreelyntered ontract mong overeign itizensusuallyinvoke Renan's celebratedmetaphor The existenceofa nation s a plebisciteofevery ay."Renan's"Qu'est-cequ'unenation?"i992 [i882])21 is infact ften aken ortheexpression f a conception fthenationparticularlywell suitedto moderndemocratic ndividualism.22hey

tend to overlook,however, hatRenan simultaneouslyuses anotherculturalistargument o resolve the dif-ficultyof how to circumscribethe "population" or

I 9. The voluminous ritishiteraturen "race elations"sanotherindication ftheprominencefracism n relation o mmigrants.2o. To outlawracialdiscriminationn publicplaces,housing,ndemployment,uccessiveBritish overnmentsassed a series ofRace RelationsActs n 965, I968, and 976 (DummettndNicolI990, Layton-Henry99I, Parekh99i). The I976 RaceRelationsAct repealed arlier aws andcreated heCommission orRacialEquality,n administrativeody esponsibleormplementingheequal opportunitiesolicies aid down n the ct Lustgarten980,Jenkinsnd Solomos 987, Walker nd Redman 977).

2i. It s importantonote hatRenanwrote his ssay t the imeof the Franco-Germanonflict verAlsace-Lorraine,laimedbyGermanyn thegroundshat tspopulation as ofGerman ultureandspoke he German anguage.22. It s worth oting ere hatLouis Dumont s among hosewhohaveneglectedheorganicistlementsnRenanwhenhe contraststhat cholar'swritings iththoseof Herder ndFichte ndgoeson to establishnunwarrantedlyharp ppositionetween renchvoluntaristheorynd the German thnic onception DumontI979; also i99i).


13/25

I1 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume36, Number , February 995"people" entitled to partake in this plebiscite i992 ConclusionL-QQQ1 c.

A nation s a soul, a spiritualprinciple.Two thingswhich n realitymake up no more thanone consti-tute that soul, thatspiritual rinciple.One is in thepast,the other n the present.One is the sharedpos-sessionof a rich heritage fmemories;the other sthe present onsent, he desireto live together,hewill to continue to sustain the heritage ne has re-ceived undivided.... The nation,the same as the in-dividual, s therealizationof an extendedpast of en-deavors, f sacrifice nd of devotion.The cult oftheancestors s among all themost legitimate; he an-cestorshave made us what we are....Two contradictoryriteria, ne political (free onsent)and one cultural a sharedpast), are thus constitutiveof he nation"Todorov989:I65-26i; Noiriel9:27-28; see also Gellner 987:6-28 for different,unction-alist interpretationnd, fora wittytake-offn Frenchrepublicanmythology, atty 99 3). Renan's difficultyndefininghe "nation" in purely ontractual, onsensualterms s justone illustration f a fundamental ilemmathathas beset continental uropean tate building.The"principleof nationality,"which identified he state,thepeople,and the law with an ideal vision of societyas culturallyhomogeneousand integrated, ecame thenovel, though unstable,formof legitimation n igth-century truggles or tate formation.Contemporary ultural fundamentalismunequivo-callyroots nationality nd citizenship n a shared cul-turalheritage.Though new with regard o traditionalracism, t is also old,for t drawsfor ts argumentativeforceon this contradictorygth-centuryonceptionofthemodernnation-state. he assumption hatthe terri-torial tateand itspeoplearefounded n a culturalheri-tagethat s bounded, ompact, nd distincts a constitu-tivepartofthis,but there s also, as I have argued, nimportantconceptual difference.Nineteenth-centurynationalismreceived normousreinforcementrom heelaborationof one central concept of social theory,"race." Withheightened nmitybetweennation-states,nationalismwas oftenactivated and ratified hroughclaims to racial superiorityf the nationalcommunity.Becauseracistdoctrines ave becomepolitically iscred-ited in thepostwarperiod,culturalfundamentalismsthe contemporaryhetoric f exclusionthematizes, n-stead, relationsbetween culturesby reifying ulturalboundaries nd difference.

To conclude, et menow return o the tasksand tribula-tions of anthropology.ocial and cultural nthropologyhave had a privileged elationshipwith culture nd cul-tural differences. he critical, elf-reflexiveurn n thepast decade n anthropologyas rightly alled into ques-tion the political and theoretical mplicationsof thetaken-for-grantedoundedness nd isolation of culturesin classical ethnographic ealism.There is no longergenerally ccepted view of culturesas relatively ixedand integratedystemsof sharedvalues and meanings.Enhanced postmodern" warenessofcultural omplex-ities and cultural politics and of the situatednessofknowledge in poststructuralist nthropology ntails,however,a paradox. Despite pronouncements o thecontrary,culture critique,"no less than the culturalconstructionist ode,by necessitypresupposes he sep-arateness of cultures and their boundedness (KahnI989).24 Only because there re "other" waysof makingsense of the world can "we" pretend o relativize ourown" cultural self-understandings.imilarly,when asystematicknowledgeof "others"as much as of "our-selves" is deemed mpossible, his s so because "we" noless than "others" are culture-bound. hus, the presentculturalistmood in anthropologynds up bypostulatinga world of reified ulturaldifferencessee Gupta andFerguson992, Keesing 994, Turner 993). Parallelsbe-tweenthis and culturalfundamentalism,s I have ana-lyzed it above, shouldmake us beware of the dangers,for urtheringnderstanding etweenpeoples,of a newsortofculturalrelativism.Not for momentdo I mean to denydifferent aysoforganizing he business of ife and differentystemsofmeaning.Humanshave, however, lwaysbeen on themove,and cultureshave provedfluidand flexible.Thenew global order,nwhichbothold and newboundaries,farfrom eingdissolved, rebecomingmore activeandexclusive,poses formidable ew questionsalso for n-thropology. crucial issue that should concern us is,then,the circumstances nder which cultureceases tobe somethingwe needfor einghumanto become some-thing hat mpedesus from ommunicating s humanbeings. It is not culturaldiversity er se that shouldinterest anthropologistsbut the political meaningswithwhichspecificpoliticalcontexts nd relationshipsendow cultural difference. eoples become culturallyentrenched nd exclusive in contexts where there isdomination and conflict. It is the configuration fsociopoliticalstructures nd relationships othwithinand between groups that activates differences ndshapes possibilities nd impossibilities fcommunicat-ing. In orderto make sense of contemporaryulturalpolitics in this interconnectednd unequal world,weneed transcend ur sometimesself-servingelativismsand methodologicaluncertainties nd proceed to ex-

23. "Une nation st une ame, un principe pirituel. eux chosesqui, a vraidiren'en font u'un,constituentette me,ceprincipespirituel.'une estdans e pass6, 'autre ans e pr6sent.'une estla possession n commun 'un riche egsdesouvenirs;'autre stle consentementctuel, e d6sir e vivre nsemble,a volont6 econtinuer a faire valoir l'h6ritage qu'on a recu indivis. . . . Lanation, omme 'individu, st l'aboutissant 'unlong pass6d'ef-forts,e sacrificestdedevouements. e cultedesancetresst detous es plus 1egitime;ncetres ous ont faits e que nous som-mes." 24. Kahn,however, ommits he error discussed arlier f nter-preting ultural ssentialisms a form fracism.


14/25

S TO L C KE Talking Culture I 3plore, n a creativedialogue withotherdisciplines, theprocessesofproduction f difference"Guptaand Fergu-son 992:I3-I4).Genuine toleranceforcultural diversity an flourishwithout ntailingdisadvantages nlywhere society ndpolity re democratic nd egalitarian noughto enablepeopleto resistdiscriminationwhether s immigrants,foreigners,omen,blacks)and developdifferences ith-out eopardizing hemselves nd solidaritymongthem.I wonderwhether his s possiblewithin heconfines fthemodernnation-state r,for hatmatter, f any state.

CommentsJONATHAN BENTHALLRoyalAnthropologicalnstitute, o Fitzroy t.,LondonWIP 5HS, England.2I vII 94I am delightedthat Stolcke findsanthropology o begrowing ut of ts estrangementrom eality, or urelythealternativewould have been seclusionin some twi-lighthome. As Alex de Waal has recently ut it, "An-thropology eals with issues of mmediate mportance,and its practitioners ave a greater ole than theymayrealize" deWaal 994:28).Stolckesuggests hatdoctrinal acism,whichpositsahierarchyfmerit, as been neutralized, ut t has prob-ablygoneundergroundo appear nnewforms. he con-ceptofgeneticdistance,whichappears oputthepeopleof Africa n a genealogicalbranchof their wn,has notyet surfaced n political discoursebut could easily bethus bused. The growingendency, oo,of ome anthro-pologists (followingthroughthe intellectual conse-quences ofDarwinism)to blur rather hansharpen hedifferenceetween human beings and otherprimatescould ead politicallynotonlyto more seriousconsider-ation of the "rights"of chimpanzees and gorillasbutalso to an erosionof the conceptof humanrights nd areturn-such as the right s always hankering or-tothemore traditionaloyaltiesofkin,ethnicity,nd reli-gion.Again,an intra-Africanacistdoctrine, heHami-tichypothesis,was disseminated hrough herepublish-ingof old anthropological exts n Britainwell into theI970S and, accordingto de Waal, bears some indirectresponsibilityor hegenocide nRwanda. Constantpro-fessionalvigilance s needed.To go back in history, heconsequencesof nazi race-science are known to all, but is it widelyrememberedthatanthropological nowledge s enshrinedn theMu-nichAgreement f 938 on theSudetenland ssue?Theagreement tipulated hat whereasthe "predominantlyGerman"territoryfCzechoslovakiawas to be occupiedimmediately yGermantroops, commissionofrepre-sentatives fthefourBigPowerswouldarrange or leb-iscites n theregions where theethnographicalharac-ter was in doubt"-a pledge that was never in factcarried ut (Shirer g64:s Ion).

Stolcke's comparative nalysisof the mmigration e-bate n Britain nd nFrance s useful, nd she is originaland, think, ccurate nnoting herecent evival f "xe-nophobia" as an explanatory erm. She is also surelycorrect n declaring hat thas no scientific asis.Minorweaknesses n an otherwise losely argued aper mergein the claim that the "rootcauses" of mmigration rethe deepening effects" f North-South nequality trac-ing the chain of causationback to an abstractionwhichitselfneeds explanation) nd in a somewhat imp con-clusionwhichappears o imaginepolitywithout state.To pressStolcke's argument littlefurther,t wouldappear ikelythat steps taken to tryto reduce North-South nequalities-for instance, hrough ny campaignformorefrugal iving n the North-will havethe effectof ggravatingconomic recession nthe North nd con-sequent protectionism and xenophobia. There willsurely be a dialectical relationshipbetween politicalcampaigns on behalf of the South and revivals of neo-Poujadism.With regardto the nation-state, ppositionto the"cultural fundamentalism" iagnosed by Stolcke leadsnecessarily o a critique fethno-nationalism.ut sinceso fewactual nation-states re monoethnic nd the con-sequences ofbreaking p multiethnic tates nto smallentities appear to be frequently o disastrous, manycommentators oncludethat argenation-states an domore goodthanharm,particularlyn protecting he se-curity f minorities.The last sevenwordsof Stolcke'slecture suggest that she wants all state power to beweakened,whichsoundsutopian.PIETRO CLEMENTEVia Napoli 7,53 OO Siena, taly. 0 vII 94Stolcke's essay is bold and stimulating.t coversmanyofanthropology'srouble potsand examines their ela-tionship to current rends n contemporary hought.While I do not concur with all aspects ofherthesis,admire ts ambition. appreciatethe essay's civil andpolitical passion and its anthropological pproachtomacroscopic analytical objects. I strongly pprove ofboth the use of unusual sources such as the reports fthe European Community nd the political-judicial e-batesonnationality nd citizenship) nd the reconstruc-tion of French nd British endencies n the past decaderegardingational dentity nd ts relationship o immi-gration.The thesesofTaguieffnd theFrenchdebate on "dif-ferential acism" are well known n Italy.WhilemanyshareTaguieff's iewpoint, find tmoreappropriateofocus on the workingsof "excess identity," tolcke's"cultural fundamentalism." do not, however,agreeabout tsalarming olitical mplications. o beginwith,I have some difficulty ith thedepictionof so general-ized a leftand a right. n addition, t seems unfair oattribute efined raditions fthought uch as those ofFranz Boas and Hans-GeorgGadamer to a rightwingwhose statements re generally oughand prosaic. My


15/25

I4 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume 36,Number , February 995own researchhas contributedo the rediscoveryf theirlocal and historical dentity f people who had aban-doned rituals and customs in the confrontation ithadvancing modernization. myselfhave assessed thecultural patrimonyof craftsmen nd country folk,defending heirtutelage n the name of the concept of"culturalheritage." he current ebateraises the ethicalquestionwhether hroughmy work havefostered ul-turalfundamentalism n myself nd in others, n theone hand resisting nomie and the loss of dentity ndhistoricalmemoryto the urbanized worldbut on theother hand contributingo the creation of barriers onew cultural ncounters. believe I can say that every-one needs cultural "roots" of dialect, symbolicform,identity, nd that these are not what produces xeno-phobia.Italy is a nation crisscrossed throughout y inter-nal territorial ifferentiation.ts strengths more pro-nounced on the local than on the national level. Thetheme of a "cultural homeland" was dearto our mostnoted postwar cholar,ErnestoDe Martino,who linkeditwiththenecessary critical thnocentrism" fthe an-thropologistDe Martino 977). The deanof our Africanstudies,Bernardo ernardiI994), reproposes he notionof"ethnocentrism," hich, following othW. G. Sum-ner and De Martino,he considers the basis forunder-standingof the collective workingsof encounter, x-change,and cultural mixing. Stolcke would probablyobject to the use of Italy as a case in point. Here thenationalisticplatform f the right s not very sophis-ticated: it has relaunched liberal modernism, itsReaganismneedsno culturalist inesse, nd the rightisttendencies fthe territorialeagues whichseek to createa Republic ofNorthern taly bypass cultural ssues infavorof financialones. Criticismof the new culturalfundamentalismouldapply o regional r ethnicmove-ments (Occitanists,Sardists,Altoatestins, nd others)and the new localisms which sometimestend to buildmythsof origin nd unmixedpurity, ut these are noton theagenda nthepolitical debatethatStolcke s deal-ing with.Stolcke's critique s also veryusefulforcertain pe-cificfieldsofanthropologicalwork,for xample, mmi-gration esearch n urban areas. n this case it is helpfulto beginwith theunderstandinghatthe immigrantsan individualwho oscillatesbetweentwoworlds nd isstimulatedto change. Contact with the values, rules,andheritage fthis ancient ndoppressiveworldofoursis formanypeopleofunderpriviledgedocietiesa libera-tionand an opportunityo developnew configurations.I have always ikedFrantzFanon'sexpression envisiontheuniverse hrough heparticular." his "particular,"inmy opinion, s a matter fmemory nd traditionndnotnecessarily ne ofnation.Stolcke s essentially on-cernedwith national identity, nd perhaps approachthesubjectfrom differentosition. tmayneverthelessbe interestingo concludewith a model ofan identitythatoscillatesbetweenforeignernd "culturalpatriot"(as De Martinowould putit). Beinga foreigner ay n-volve cosmopolitanism,moving n and out of culturesexchangingnd gaining noughexperience o be able to

use theproverb The whole world s a town." Foreign-ers'main limitation s lack of cultural dentity; implyput, theydo not exist culturally, s in the model ofChristiansainthood: theyare foreignersn thisworldbecause they repartof another ne. Havinga "culturalhomeland" as a place of memories,affection, oots,allows for less abstract enderingf the notion ofhu-mankindand of the individual n society,but there sno tradition, eritage, r memory hat does not admitof ntermixing. y oscillatingbetween these two polesand earning ytrial nderror,ne sees where heworldis going. n a vision ofUtopia the "culturalhomeland"and the universalists' worldof men" mightcoincide,as in the beautiful narchist ong:"Our homeland s theentireworld, ur aw is liberty." ut these are nottimesfordreams.PETER FITZPATRICKDarwin College, University fKentat Canterbury,Canterbury, entCT2 7NY, England. 3 VIII 94Some supplements, ot all ofthemdangerous, o Stol-cke's richand revelatory ccount: For a start, he cul-tural undamentalismfEuropeanrhetorics f xclusionis inherently ntenable. t entails, as Stolcke ndicates,an essential relationbetween being and culture nd anabsolute incommensurability etween cultures. To bevalid n their wnterms, hesenostrums fcultural un-damentalism anonlybe of culture.They cannotbe, asthey ssert, f all cultures.Being boundedby a distinctculture,we cannot know thatwe knowor do not knowothercultures-and, what is particularly elicious, wecannot knowthatpeople ofother ulturesdo notknowus.Then there may be possibilitiesofvirtue n incom-mensurability.Not all notions of incommensurabilityare founded n themutualhostility ndoppression hattypifyulturalfundamentalism. he EuropeanEnlight-enment and its Romantic aftermathwhich Stolckeevokes did have representatives,iderotandHerder, orexample,whoadvanced ncommensurabilitys a benigncounter to colonialism and slavery.And is there nothonorhere n anthropology lso?Stolcke sees culturalfundamentalism s distinct ndperhapseven takingover fromracism. In this,nationbecomesthe ocus ofculture. t seems difficulto me tomake this claim without ayingmore about the historyof racism-about its persistenceand protean forms.There are manyindications n the paperthat culturalfundamentalismn its exclusion and oppression f thestrangermaybe a form fracism, nd there re intima-tions thatracismexceeds Stolcke's subordination f tto a support ornationalism.As Stolcke recognises,not all strangers re equallystrange. ndeed, heproponents fcultural undamental-ism have little or no troubleaccepting he representa-tives of some cultures. Yet in Stolcke's argument, hexenophobia hatfounds ulturalfundamentalisms, un-like racism,uniform nd comprehensiven its opposi-tion to all other ultures. n this scheme cultures elate


16/25


17/25

6 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume 36, Number , February 995late i980s, the discourse ofthe Herald and prominentwhiteAmerican eaders hanged.Rather han uggestingthat Cubans would soon assimilate, white Americanleadersapplauded themulticulturalmixthatpermittedMiami to become thecapitaloftheCaribbean ndevenall of LatinAmerica.Spanish-speakers,n thisnew vi-sion, were central to Miami's prosperity n that theyprovided mooth business inks to theregion'sprimarytrading artners Portes nd Stepick 993). Not all cul-turaldiversity as so championed.BlackHaitian mmi-grantsneverreceived thewelcome accordedwhiteCu-bans. Instead, the U.S. governmentrepeatedlyandrelentlessly ought to deterHaitians' arrivaland per-suade those n Miami to return ome (Stepick 992).Race andpower, o inextricablymelded n the UnitedStates and apparentlyn Europe,determinewhere theboundaries re drawn-who is welcomed as a memberofthe cultural ndpoliticalcommunity ndwho is ex-cluded. Culture plays an independent, ritical role inboth discourseand action. Cubans were conceived asdifferentnd treateddifferentlyecause they spokeSpanish and much of theirpolitical attentionwas di-rectedto theirhomeland. Yet, those differences eretolerated t firstbecause the U.S. federalgovernmentprovided esources o ameliorate he costsofaddressingthem and laterbecause thosewhose economicbase re-mained in South Floridahad no choice but to acceptthem.Those who couldnot do so eitherfledorresistedbyfounding he EnglishOnly movement.Black immi-grants,n contrast, ould neverobtainsufficientowerto effect heir ncorporationnto the local community.Much like the nativeAfricanAmericans, hey remainmarginal, ppealingto theAmerican deologyof equaltreatment egardless frace and succeeding enoughtopermit he formation f a Haitian community ut notenoughto provide t withthe firm, owerful ase thatCubans enjoy.Thus, cultureand powerdetermine he evolutionofcommunity-who is included orexcluded.The shallowhistory f South Florida and of all the United StatescomparedwithEurope precludes a deeplyorganiccon-ceptionofthe nation-state.Culturalmarkersmust beused,and they an easilybe extended rwithdrawnndarealways contested n response o theemerging owerofnewgroups.Yet,raceremains oremost.While racismmaybe discredited olitically nd no longer dmissiblein publicdiscourse, t continues o guide thepolicies ofpeople.MARILYN STRATHERNDepartment fSocial Anthropology, niversity fCambridge,CambridgeCB2 3RF, England.3 vIII 94This is an important aper.Byhercareful istorical xe-gesis,Stolcke makes itverydifficult or heanthropolo-gistto dismiss what she so aptlycalls "culturalfunda-mentalism" s no more than a misguidedmanifestationofracistthinking.On the contrary,he pointsout alltheways in which cultural discrimination as become

a phenomenonnitself. n one sense this s whatanthro-pologistshave always wanted-not theparticular eifi-cations, ofcourse,whichtheyfeeltheyhave outgrown(cultures s bounded, nternally oherentwholes,etc.),but its objectification,hat is, culture as an object ofthought their nderstandingfwhatgives dentity nddistinctiveness o human lives). The openness of theconcept ofculture, s she pointsout,makes it disarm-ingly friendly" o use, appealingto humanuniversalsin apparently on-exclusionaryerms; fter ll, we "all"have culture.This is thebenign ense inwhich anthro-pologistshavepromotedt.The importance fStolcke'shistoricalwork ies inelucidatingtsrole as an idiomofexclusion-the new possibilities t affordsorwhat canbe utterednpublic.Culturehasbecome alltoo utterable.It is interesting hatalongwiththeemphasison thesociallyconstructed atureof oyalties ubsumedunderappeals to culturegoes an emphasison a primordial rnatural tate of affairs. ar from ppearing s contradic-tory ropposed, oth nature" nd"culture" arry eightintheway thenewexclusions reframed.t sthecongru-ence or conflation fthese thatgives cultural undamen-talismsuchpower-a demonstrationhat n turngivespower oStolcke's rgument. his s abrilliantxpositionand, sonewouldexpect rom he uthor,nanthropolog-ical projectdirected owards pressing ocial issue. Itssignificances not tobeunderestimated.The onlycommentto make is that fthe strength fthepaper ies in its social contextualizationStolcke sascribing hese ideas not to some vague "culture" butto specificpolicies and practices)one would not wanttobe carriedreassured?) ythe dea thatcultural unda-mentalism s a right-wing lot. It may be veryusefulforright-wing olitical language,but such politicsalsodrawson usages moregenerally urrent.Although neshould notunderplay he differencesetweenEuropeangovernmentshat she sketches,dogmasofculturaldif-ferenceandshemakes thisapparent) uit a whole spec-trum fpositions.Thus,aswemight xpect o find ntheIg80s/I990s, they uitboth right-wingnd left-wingplatforms.While mmigration oliciesmayofferarticu-lar evidenceofright-wingolitical thinking, heyholdwater recisely ecauseof heir aliency. ndeed, ulturalfundamentalisms too flexible conceptbyfar or om-fort. s she says, t s new and old atthesame time, s itgathers o itself othsocial constructionistheories ndideasaboutnatural onds nduniversalhumantraits ndfacilitates deologies of assimilation and integrationalike. Different oliticalregimes peak in its commonlanguage.Anthropologists ave had theirhand in this:Stolcke'sdemonstrations bothedifyingnddisturbing.rERENCE TURNERDepartment fAnthropology, niversity fChicago,Chicago, ll. 60637,U.S.A. 3 vIII 94Stolcke'sarticlemakes important ointsabout the na-ture fthe culturalnationalism urrentlyeing hampi-:ned bytheEuropean right. think he is right o em-


18/25

S TO LC KE TalkingCulture I 7phasize the differences etween the new "culturalfundamentalism" nd racism while recognizingthatbothreflect,n different ays, the contradictionn ear-lier forms f iberalnationalismbetweenuniversalisticvalues and the need to limit the nationto its territorialboundaries. also agree withher that t is essential foranthropologyo take account of theways in whichthenew politicalmovements nd conditions o which sherefers re changing hemeaning of "culture" and to re-flecton the implications of these changesfor ts owntheoretical onceptofculture. n thisconnection, he iscorrect,nmyview, tostress hatrecent nthropologicalformulations n the postmodernist culture-critique"veinonlyrecast n differenterms nddo not transcendthe reification f culturaldifferenceypicalofolder an-thropological pproaches to cultures as bounded iso-lates.While Stolcke's discussion contains important n-sights nto the new culturalnationalism, he does notclaim topresent n exhaustive ccountofthe phenome-nonor an analysisof tspoliticalandsocial causes. Tak-ingherstimulating reatment s a pointof departure,wouldsuggest hat fuller nalysiswould address ssuessuch as thefollowing:First, ulturalnationalism s notmerely r even pri-marily xclusionaryndxenophobic, ndtheforeignm-migrants nd Gastarbeiter owardswhom it is ostensi-bly directed re not its primary argets. t is a claimfor nclusion and integration n more favorable ocial,political, and economic terms directedat dominantpolitical and technobureaucratic roups by relativelydisenfranchised, ominated elements of the nationalpopulation.This is why the new culturalnationalistmovements annotsimplybe understood s expressionsofthepoliticalright, venthough t is theright hathaseffectivelyo-opted hem.Whatmust also be accountedfor s theirpopulistcharacter s thesocial andpoliticalprotests f subordinate ocial strataagainstthe domi-nantpolitical-economic nd cultural rder hat xcludesthemfrom ullparticipationn the national ife. n thiswider perspectivethe implicit ultimate end of thesemovements s not the"culturalcleansing" ofthe nationthroughheexpulsionofforeignersut their wnfullerintegrationntoandmoreequitableparticipationn thesocial and economic life of the nation. Oppositiontoforeignersnd immigrantss an aptmeans to this endbecauseforeignmigrantsndguest-workersre themostvisible, ccessible,andvulnerable xtension fthehege-monic political and technoeconomicsystemthat theprotesters eeloppresses nd excludesthem.Callingforthe exclusion offoreignlementsonnationalistgroundsis a convenientway of stressing he common groundtheprotestersharewith thedominant lementsofthenational ociety-the bureaucracyndthepolitical ead-ership-and thus gainingmoral leverageover themtocompelthemto take moreaccountoftheprotestersndtheirdemands.Any attempt o understand he new forms f culturaland ethnicnationalismmust account for he fact thatwhilexenophobic ulturalfundamentalisms becoming

a right-wingopulist diomofprotest y ower-class ndmarginal lementsofEuropeannationalsocieties, n of-tenequallyfundamentalistmulticulturalisms becom-ingthe preferreddiom in which minority thnic andracial groups reasserting heir ight o a full and equalrole n the same societies. These groups ndmovementsovertly ssert their cultural, ethnic, and/ornational"identities" s the egitimizing asis of claims to nclu-sion on an equal footingnmultiethnic ationalsociet-ies (or, n extreme ases, claimsto separate xistence sindependent ations)rather hanas calls for he exclu-sion ofculturally ifferentroups.Rightist xclusionistcultural nationalism and left-oriented nclusionistmnulticulturalism,suggest,should be understoodascomplementary efractionsfthe same conjuncture fsocial and political-economic orces.There are two fundamental easonsthat ultural den-tityhas emerged s the idiom ofchoice for xpessionsof ocial discontent y marginalized rdownwardlymo-bile elementsofnationalpopulations. The first s thatit is virtually he only aspect of their relation to thenational societythat theystill own and control-theonly one, bythe same token,beyondthe contro

Date post:	14-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	andrea-alvarez
View:	214 times
Download:	0 times

Stolcke v. 1995. New Boundaries New Rhetorics of Exclusion in Europe. Current Anthropology Vol. 36...

Documents