A mm_ Re'l'_ Amhmpo/_ I99fl_ 27:105--28 Copynght t) !998 by Annual Rev!ews. Ali righrs reserw<tl

WHEN ANTHROPOLOGY IS AT HOME: The Different Contexts of a Single Discipline

Mariza G. S. Peirano Departamento de Antropologia. Universidade de Bras i lia, 70.911}.900 Brasília, DF, Brazil; mpeirano@uol.com.br

KEY WORDS: otheme:ss, e~oticism, differencc, antllropology in ~untext

ABSTRACT

For a long time anthropology was ddincd bytht: exoticism ofits subject mal­ter and by lhe distance, conce-ived as both cultural and geographic, that sepa­rated the researcher from the re..~earchcd group. This situation has changed. ln a few years we may assess the twcnticth century as characterized by a long and complex movement, with theoretical and politicai implications, that re­placed lhe ideal ofthc radical encounter with alterity with research at homc. But "home" will, as always, incorporate many meanings, and anthropology will maintain, in its paradigmatíc assumption, a socio-gcnctic aim toward an appreciation for, and an nnderstanding of, diffcrcm.:e. Jn some cases, differ­cncc will be lhe routeto theoretical universalism viacomparison; in others, it will surface as a denunciation of exolicism o r a dcnial ofits appeal. This re­view examines different moments and conte xis in which an attempt at devel­oping anthropology "ar h orne" becamc an uppropriute quesl.

INTRODUCTION

Until recently, the ide a ofan anthropology ai home was a paradox anda contra­dictiun ofterms. Throughout the twentieth century, howcver, the distances be­tween ethnologists and those they observed-----<~nce seen as "'informants"­have constantly decreased: frnm lhe T robrianders to the Azande, from thcsc

groups to the Bororo by way of the K wakiutl, by midcentury the academic

community discovered that the approach, not the subjet.:t matter, had unwit-

105

0084-6570/98/1 o 1 5-01 05$08 .00

106 PEIRAI\'0

tingly alway,; defined the anthropological endeavor. Lévi-Strauss (1962) played a fundamental role in this change ofpcrspcctive hy imprinting a hori­zontal sense to wcial practices and hcliefs in any latitude; Firlh (1956) and Sclmeider(l96S) pruvided the necessary test ofvalidity in therealm ofkinship ,;tudies. The awareness that the search for radical othcrncss cuntained a politi­cai component allowed ''indigenous" anthropologies to enter lhe scene during the 1970s (Fahim 1982); in the 1980s Geertz ( 19g3) could proclaim that "wc are ali natives now." But admonitions from the older generatiun attc~tcd that lhe movement from overseas to across the hall was nol smuoth; stud~,r:ing at home was seen by many as a dlfficult ta<,k and hetter entmsted to researchers who had gained experience dscwhere (Dumont 1986).

From the beginning, anthrupologists who had their origins in former anthro­pological sites wcrc cxcmpted from the search for alterity provided that thcir training had bccn undcrtaken with the proper mentors. Thus Malinowski gavc bis approval to Hsian-T ung Feito publish h is monograph on Chinese peasants, rcmarking that if self-knowledge is lhe most diftícult to gain, thcn ·'an anthro­pology of one's own people is the most arduous, but also thc most valuable achievement of a fieldworker" (Malinowski 1939;xix). The approval that RadcliftC-Brovm and Evans-Pritchard gavc to the study by Srinivas (1952) on the Coorgs oflndia also suggcsls that the canon could bedeveloped independ­ent of shared practices. The ideal of overseas research, however, remained the goal to be reached. Dccadcs later, and as pari of a tradition that had fumly questioned the need for externa I fieldwork (Béteille & Madan 1975; Srinivas 1966, 1979; Uberoi 1968), Saberwal (1982) remarked thatfor many, ficldwork in India could be seen as a soft experience, because it was accomplished mostly within the language, caste, and region of origin of the rcscarcher.

ln the case ofresearchers from metropolitan centers, who rcccntly carne to accept that they too are natives, the drive for bringing anthropology home has various motivations. Some explain 1t as one ofthe inevitable conditiuns ofthe modem world (Jackson I987a); for others, it emerges from thc purpose ro transform anthropology into cultural critique (Marcus & Fischer 1986). ln the United States parlicularly, when anthropology comes home it is recasl as "studies" (cultural, feminis!, science and technology) and seen as part of"anti­disciplinary" arenas (Marcus 1995), thus attesting to an inherent affinity be­tween anthropology and exoticism. Whatcvcr lhe case, a lineage thatjustifies the attempt is always traced, bc it from Raymond Firth and Max Gluckman (Jackson 1987b), or from Margarct Mead and Ruth ilenedict (Marcus & Fischer 1986 for Mead, Geertz 1988 forBenedict).

ln places where anthropology was ratificd lncally via social sciences during the 1940s and 1950s (e.g. Brazil and lndia}. mainly as pari ofrnovements to­ward "modernization," an open dialogue with national politicai agendas be­came inevitablc, thus reproducing canonical European patterns (E Beckcr

ANTHROPOLOGY AT HOME 107

1971). ln these contexts, alterity has rarely been uncommitted and (Weberian) interested aspccts of knowledge are oftentimes explicit. This distinct quality has blinded many observers to a timeless quest for theon:tical excellence, fun­damental in these contexts, which results in a pattern of a thrcefold dialogue: with peer anthropologísts and sociologists, with the metropolitan traditions of knowledge (past and present), aml wilh the subjects ofresearch (Madan 1982b, Pe.inmo 1992, Das 1995).

In this essay llook at some ofthe index i cal components ofthe term h orne in the expression "anthropology at home." First, I examine the moment and the context in which the attempt to devclop anthropology at home became an ap­propriate goal. I tbcus my attention on lhe socially legitimate centers of scho­larly production-that is, as per Gerholm & Hannerz ( 1982b), the sites of ''in­temational anthropology"-where the ideal of a long period offieldwork and overseas research was first established. This endeavor includc!. Europe and the United States. (I assume that nowadays the United States plays a role socially equivalent to that ufEngland during the first half ofthe century o r France in the golden moments ofslructuralism.)

ln a second part, I shift to a different perspective. I take a look at othemess in contemporary anthropology in Brazil. Contrary to lraditional canons ofan­thropology, thc overall panem has been to undertake rescarch at h orne (though the expres~ion "anthropology at home" is notusual). I point to a contiguration of different pmjccts lhat, though not exclusive, may bc distinguished as at­tempts at radical othcmess, at the study of "contact" with othemess, at "nearby" othemess, or as a radicalization of "us."

By indicating variances in the nolion of othemess, I concludc with an agenda tbrthe examination ofanthropology with its dual face: atthe sarne time one and many.

ANTHROPOLOGY AT HOME

ln the context ofa new historical awareness at "intemational" centers ofpro­duction, personal concerns about the future of anthropology in the 1960s gave way in thc 1970s to more sociological analysis, dennuncing politicai relations that had always been a trait of anthropological fieldwnrk. Soon the idea of an anthropology at hnme made its debut in Europe, while in Lhe United States it twirled into "studics," ai the intersection of several experimcnls in the humani­ties.

Antecedents: Worries in the Center

ln the 1960s, two minor papers hy prcstigious anthropo\ogists expressed pam­doxical feelings about the future of anthropology. Exactly at the point intime when the discipline had gathered momentum, its subject maller ran the risk of

108 PEIRANO

disappearing. ln France, Lévi-Strauss (1961) wamed that anthropology might become a scicncc without an object because of the physical disappearance of whole populations following contacl or becausc uf the rejection of anthropol­ogy by newly independent nations. Would it survive? .For Lévi-Strauss, thi~ development was a unique chance for anthropologists to become awarc. ifthey had not been previously, that the discipline had never bccn defined as the study ofprimitives in absolute terms but instead hac.l been conceived as a certain rela­tionship between observer and obscrvcd. Thus, to the extent that lhe world be­came smaller, and Western civilization ever more expansive and complex­rebom everywhere as creole--differences would be closer to the obscrvcr. There should bc no fear: No crisis of anthropology was in sight.

For Goody (1966) the "single-handed community study ofuncomplicated socielies" (1966:574) was no longer pus:;ible as primitives became players in much larger and complex social networks in Third World countries. It wa.s a crossroads for anlhropology, which could either become social archacology, a branch ofhislmical sociology based on "traditional preserve," or accept hlm­inginlo comparative sociology. Suggesting a "decolonizalion ofthe social sci­enccs," Goody stressed tbat the distinction between suciology and social an­thropology in England was basically xenophobic: Sociology was lhe study of complex societies, social anthropology of simplc ones, but in the new nations, lheir "other culture" was "our sociology" (1966:576).

Lévi-Strauss's optimism and Goody's proposal for disciplinary adjustment in the 1960s must be seen in the conlext oflhc undisputed prestige ofthe disci­pline. Latour (1996) bas characlerizc.d the ethnographerofthatperíod as an an­tithetical King Midas, "curscd with the gift of turning everything to dust" (1996:5). But lhat decade also witnessed Leach's (1961) relhinking of anthro­pology, thc lcgitimization ofthe study of complex societics (Banton 1966), Firth (1956) and Schneider (1968) making incursions into studying their own socielie~ via kinship, and lhe publication ofMalinmvski's ficld diaries. The latter alone lcd tu much dispute (Darnell 1974), and in a rcjoinc.lcr first pub­lished in 1968 in the United States, Stocking ( 1974) remiml.ed u..-, lh!!l: anthro­pological ficldwork was a historical phenomenon, thus implying that it could just as well be lransicnt.

Relations of Power and Selj:Rejlection Ofcoursc, in 1965 Hallowell (1974) had already laid lhe foum.lations for look­ing at anthropology as •·an anthropological problcm," and soon after, Hymes (1974) proposed a reinvention of anthmpology. Retrospectively, the idea of centering one's questions on thc conditions that produced anthropology in the West proved lo bc thc hasis for much in the self-reflection projects lhat fol­lowed. Intemational conferences resembling collective rituah of expiation wcre a mark of the 1970s. These conferences led lo books that became well

ANTHROPOLOGY ATHOME 109

known to the profession, and the frequent publication of pro files of different national trends ofthe discipline hecame usual in prominentjoumals. ln some cases., joumals published spccial issues on these topics.

CONFERENCES m THE 1970s Asad ( 1973a) was the classic publication of the period, the result of a conference under the auspices of lhe University ofHull in 1972. lL was direct in its denunciation that British (functional) anthropology had been basedon apowerrelationship between the West and the Third World. Anthropology bad emergcd as a distinctive discipline ai the beginning of lhe colonial era, became a flourishing academic profession toward its close, and throughout this period devotcd itself to description and analyses "carried out by Europeans, for a European audience---of non-European societies domi­nated by European power" (Asad 1973b:l5). Such an inequitable situation could be transcended only by its inner contradictions.

Diamond (19 80a) and F ahim' s ( 1982) papers carne out of conferences spon­sored by the Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research. Openly Marxist, Diamond ( 1980b) alluded to national traditions only to dismiss them; for him, professional anthropology was an instance of diffusion by domination meaning that •·an Jndian or African anthropologist, trained in this Westem technique, does not behave as an Indian or African when he behaves as an an­lhropologist. ... he lives and thinks as an academic European" (l980b: 11-12). [ln this sense, Diamond was in a position different from the positions ofthose who, like Crick (1976), at that moment tried to encourage antluopologists of othcr cultures to develop "traditions oftheir own-scrutinizing themselves in ways which are not just a pai e retlection of our interest in them-but also that they witl make us the object oftheir speculation" ( 1976: 167).]

ln this contexl, when Fahim (1982) brought togethcr a number of anthro­pologists from different non-Westem parts of the world (the organize r was an Egyptian anthropologist), the term indigenous anthropology was proposed as a working concept to refer to thc practice of anthropology in one's native coun­try, society, andlorethnic group. 1 From the organizer's pointofview, the sym­posium accomplished its goal ofreplacing tbe Wcstern versus non-Western polemics with a constructive dialogue, in the sarne process shifting the focus from indigenous "antluopology" to "anthropologists" (Fahim & Helmer 1982). Madan ( 1982a,b) received special credit from tbe editor for h is forceful defense ofthe idea that the crucial discussion should not address where anthro­pology is done or by whom, merely rcplacing one actor with another, but rather should face up to a much-needed change in anthropology's perspective. Be­cause anthropology is a kind of knowledge, ora fonn of consciousness, that

'Mott (1982) expressed his surprise thal in Brazil thc tcrm mdigenoug is used to denote Amerindians; hc also wondcrcd why Bru:.cil had been induded arnong non-Westem counlries.

110 PEIRANO

arises from the encounter of cultures in the mind ofthe researcher, it cnahles us to undcrstand ourselves in relation to others, becoming a projcct ofheightened self-awareness.

ANTHROPOLOGY OF ANTilROPOLOGY A second perspective conceming dif­ferent contexts for anthropology can be discerned in the challenge some an­thropologists felt about looking at the discipline with anthropological eyes, thus following the wise lead given by Hallowell (1974). McGrane (1976) at­tempted to face the paradoxical situation that the discipline sees everythíng ( everything but itself) as culturally bound by tracking the European cosmogrn­phies from the sixteenth lo thc carly twentieth centuries. [See Fabian (1983) for a similar !ater attempt.] Pcirano (1981) contrasted Lévi-Strauss's cla~sical position on the issue of the reversibility of anthropological knowledge with Dwnont's (1978) assertion that there is no symmetry between thc modem pole where anthropology stands and the nonmodem pole (thus frustrating the idea of a multiplicity of anthropologies). The thesis explored the variability of an­thropological questions in different sociocultural contexts, and Rrazil was used as its starting point.

Alsn framed within the concern for an anthropology of anthropology was Gerholm & Hannerz ( 1982a), whose cditors, untroubled by whether traditions were Westem or non-Westem, invited anthropologists from differcnt back­grounds (which included India, Poland, Sudan, Canada, Brazil, and Sweden) to discu.ss the shaping of national anthropologies. Di!;tinguishing between a prosperous mainland of British, US, and Frcnch disciplines (i.e. "intema­tional" anthropology) and "an archipelago of large and small islands" on the periphery (Gerholm & Hannerz 1982b:6), they inquired into d1e structure of center-periphery relations and its inequalities; confronted thc variety of disci­pline boundaries; looked at the backgrounds, training, and careers of anthro­pologists; and asked: Could it be that if anthropo1ogy is an intcrprctation of culture, this intcrpretation itself is shaped by culture? Diamond (1980a) and Bourdieu {1969) were mentioned as stimuli, and, as in Fahim's book, here Saberwal's (I 982} far-reaching implications were given special attention by the editors. Stocking (1982) closed the special issue with ·•a view from the Cl.'Il­

ter" in which, taking the lead from O Velho (1982), he highlighted thc "privi­leges ofunderdevelopment" while distinguishing between anthropologies of "empirc-building" and of"nation-building," alluding to thc question ofthe re­versibility of anthropological knowledgc suggested by Peirano (1981). (See Stocking 1982:178.)

Doing Anthropology at Home

Displayed in the titles oftbe books, doing anthropology at home became ale­gitimate undertaking for Messerschmidt (1981) and Jackson (19S7a). But

ANTHROPOLOGY AT HOME 111

h orne, fOr them, was basically thc United States and Europe. That thc Mediter­ranean area, for instance, remained unstudicd by insiders- ·and, if it had been studied, the literaturc could be ignored-is shown in Gilmorc (1982), where the author reveals bis explicit choice to review only works publisbed in English.

[n Messerschmidt (1981), thc subjects of research were those ncarby the ethnographers in the United States and Canada: kinspeople, elder1y in a large city, a bureaucratic environment, a rnining company. Offering an extensive bibliography, the editor proposed that the tenn "insider anthropology" carri.ed less-ncgative cormotations than, for inslance, "indigenous" or ''native." (The sarne term was also proposed by Madan 1982b.)

Jackson (1987a) went further and brought togcther anthropologists from Britain, Sweden, DL'llmark, Zimbabwe, Israel, and France, underthe sponsor­ship of the Association of Social Anthropologists in England. Once again,. home was I!urope (or, suggcstively enough, Africa), and non-European re­search would be a specific catcgory. Jackson ( 19M7b) asked why thc close rela­tionship between anthropulogy, folklore, and archaeology that cxisted in Eng­land no longer obtained., and Jackson suspected-in a comparison to sociol­ogy-that the differencc between them was a !ove of(by one) anda distaste for (by the other) modem society: Anthropologists were the folklorists ofthe ex­otic (1987b:8). Although research abroad would continue, it was clear that fieldwork at h orne wa~ here to stay. For some ofthe contributors, h orne was al­ways transient, but whcrcver it was (Strathem 1987), there was a need to pro­ceed by a phenomcnology of the idea of remoteness (Ardcner 1987). Okely { 1987) maintained that homc was an increasingly narrow territory in a post­colonial era; Dragadze (1987) commented on the fact that a Soviet anthropolo­gist is a historian, not a sociologist; and Mascarenhas-Keyes (1987) discussed lhe process by which a native anthropologist becomes a '"multiple native."

ll\ THF. UNlTED STATES The project of bringing anthropology home in the United Statcs was cast with an enonnous measun: ofsociallegitimacy and suc­cess as "cultural critique." FollowingGeertz's interprctiveproposal, postmod­ernism caught on as if by powerful magic. ln due time, the affinity with the idea of bringing anthropology home was lost, but it may yct be recalled: "In­deed, we believc thal lhe modem tOrmulation of cultural antluopology de­pends for its fui! rcalizationonjust such a catching up ofits lightly atteoded to criticai function at h orne with lhe presem lively transfonnation of its tradition­ally emphasized descriptivc function abroad" (Marcus & Fischer 1986:4). "Home" and "abroad" continucd to be distinctive sites, but by dcnouncing ex­oticism, there was a sense that a metamorphosis was being advanced and eth­nographers were moving pa:.t anthropology toward experimentatilm and cul­tural studies. The tenn "post anthropology" was hinted in Clifford & Marcus ( 1986), with nove! intellectual lineages drawn or emphasized, whether from

112 PEIRANO

the Chicago school ofurban sociology (Clifford 1986) o r from Margaret Mead in the United States and Raymond Williams in England (Marcus & Fischer 1986). ln this contexl, the term "repatriated anthropology" was suggested.

For Clifford {1986), the new experimentation was bcing developed in works such as Latour & Woolgar (1979) on laboratory biologists, Marcus (1983) on the dynastic ri eh, Crapanzano ( 1980) on new ethnographic portraits, all ofthem opening the way for successors, such as Traweek (1988) on physi­cists, Fischer & Abedi ( 1990) on postmodern dialogues acros)i cultures, and the subsequent questionings of classi.c tlelds and conccpls such as ethnography (Thomas 1991) and cu1ture (Abu-Lughod 1991). For some, repatriated (or at home) anthropology was identified as "Amcrican culture" studies: ''The boundaries between 'tOreign,' 'ovcrscas,' 'exotic,' or even 'primitive' nr 'nonliterate' and 'ai home' or 'in our culture' are disappearing as lhe world culture becomes more uniform atone levei andmore di verse at another" (Spin­dler & Spindler 1983:73; see also Moffatt 1992, Brown 1994, Traube 1996).

Parallel to tbese deve1opments, Stock.ing( 1983a,b) 1aunched tbe successful HOA (Historyof Anthropology) series, cxplaining intheflfstintroductory texl that tbe profound issues ofdiscip1inary identity that tbe discipline was facing in the early l980s had mubilized anthropo1ogists into looking at the history of anthropology. Thc diagnosis was familiar: "With lhe withdrawal ofthe um­brella ofEuropean power that long prolected thcir entry inlo the colonial tleld, anlhropologists found it increasingly difficu1tlu gain access to (as well as ethi­cally more problematic to study) the non-European 'others' who had tradition­ally excited the anthropologica1 imagination" (1983b:4).

Conferences and congresscs conti.nued to produce publications well re­ceived by the profession (c.g. Fox 1991), and the launching ofncw journa1s (e.g. Cultural Anthropology in 1986 and, a few years ]ater, in 1988, Public Culture) sibrnaled new arenas for experimentation and for the remaking ofex­isting disciplines: "One source oftransfonnation is frum the sheer power and influence ofideas frum the margins toward the putative ccnter or mainstream. Anolhcrsimultaneous source is fi"om distaff v o ices situated within the realm of the official" (Marcus 1991:564). [Meanwhi1c, Dialectical Anthropology ( 1985) dedicated part ofan issue to discuss "National Trends, '' which included lhe cases ofFrench, British, Soviet, and German anthropology.j

Of course, Said (1978) had been a main rcference from the moment it was puhlished, and issues aboutcolonialism continued to be ana1yzed ( e.g. Thomas 1994), with close connections lo the literature on gender and feminism (e.g. Dirks et all994, Behar & Gordon 1995, Lamphere et all997).

Post-Exotic Anthropology? A shift from the concerns with writing to attention on sites and audiences has marked the present decade. Strathem (I 995) examines the (sbifting) contexts

ANTHROPOLOGY AT HOME 113

within whicb people make different orders of knowledgc for themselves (in­cluding anthropologists) as a prclude to questioning assumptions about global and local :rx:rspectives. (Meanwhile the European Association of Social An­thropologists was founded in 1990 and two yean~later launched Socta!Anthro­pology.)

Almost simultaneously, two books on locations werc published: Clifford (1997) examines "routes,. as spatial practices of antbropology, noting that fieldwork has been based on a distinction between a home base and an exterior place of discovery. However, notions of "homes and abroads, community in­sides and outsides, fields and metropo)es are increasingly challenged by post­exotic, decolonizing trends,. (1997:53). Fields must be negotiated; and be­cause there is no narra tive form or way ofwriting inherently suited to a politics oflocation, anthropolugical distance sometimes may be "challenged, blurred, relationally reconstructed" (1997:81). Gupta & Ferguson (1997a,b) also rec­ognize tbat antbropology has developed as a body ofknowledge based on re­gional specíalízation. The spatial separation betwccn "the field" and "home" )eads the author& to examine the fieldworker as an anthropological subjcct. Whether "postmodern migrancy" (Ahmad 1992) may be at stake or not, authors feel a need to propose solutions: Clifford (1997) suggests that tradi­tional fieldwork will ccrtainly maintain its prestige, but the discipline may come "to resemble more closely the 'national' antbropologies of many Euro­pean and non-W estem countries, with short, repeated visits lhe norm and fully supported research years rare" (1997:90). Gupta & Ferguson see possible al­temative solutions for fieldwork in strong and long-establishcd "national" tra­ditions as those of Mexico, Brazil, Gennany, Russia, or India ( 1997b:27), and thcy suggest that from "spatial sites" anthropologists move to "politica] loca­tions," following feminist scholarship.

Such alternatives were the guiding inspiration for Moore (1996). who looked allocal practices and discourscs as sets of "situated knowlcdges" (cf Haraway 1988), ali ofwhich are simultaneously local and global. For the edi­tor, the future of anthropological knowledge must be seen as the result of a challenge by Third World, Black, and feminist scholars.

Audiences h ave beco me another topic. Almost two decades afterthe unsuc­cessful attemptby MMJ Fischer (unpublished data) to include an introduction for Iranians different from one for Americans (see Fischer 1980), the concern with readership finally emerged in Europe (Driessen 1993) and in the United States (Brettelll993), in lhe context of queries related to a "politics of ethnog­raphy." An awareness of audiences led Marcus (1993a,b), in bis introduction to the frrst issue of Late Editi.ons, to propose that the diffcrent volwnes of the series had "globally-mindcd U.S. academics"(1993b:3)as their privilegedtar­gets, in an attempt to prompt a meeting of antbropology and cultural studies. The purposewas "to evoke a combined sense offamiliarity and strangeness ln

114 PEIR.<I..NO

U.S.-university educatcd readers," by selecting subjecL<; that share a sort of frame ofrefercncc and experience with them "but thcn differ from them by cul­tural background and situated fin-de-sii:cle prcdicament" (Marcus 1993b:5).

Questions of audience, location, politic~, and theory were present in the special is~uc of PubUc Culture devoted to the discussion of Ahmad ( 1992), but only to reveal thedisparityofinterpretations about what theol)' is ali about and whetherthere could be any agreemcnt on the field of"politics ofthcury" (Ap­padurai et all993, Ahmad 1993). Another attempt at an intemational discus­sion was put forurard by Borofsky ( 1994}, in a collcctive publication that carne out of a scssion organized for the 1989 Amcrican Anthropological Associa­tinn's annual meeting. The book incllldcd individual statements on alllhurs' "intellectual roots." The project was extended in 1996, with anothcr section at lhe sarne meeting, ln which lhe Iiii e "How others see us: American cultural an­thropology as thc observed rather than the observer" indicated an exercise in reversibility (despi te tbe fact tbat "otbers;' with few exccptions, were located in lhe United Statcs or Europe).

Among conternporary etbnographies at home, I singlc nut Rabinow ( 1996), on the invention of lhe polymerase chain reaction, for a number of reasons: flrst, for thc classic anthropo!ogical motivation [''I was often intrigued by, but sh·plical of, the claims ofmiraculous knuwledge made possible by new tcch­nologies supposedly ushering a ncw era in the understanding oflífc and unri­valed prospects for the improvcment ofhealth" (Rabümw 1996:2)). Second, I single out this referencc for its canonical strucrure: The first two chapters pres­ent the ecology ofthe invcntion, lhe (ever noble) third chaptcr fm:uses on the processes that culminatcd in the invention, while the \ast two demonstrate that an idea has little value unless it is put in action. Third, lhe hook is innovative in the process ofmaking both interviewees and readers collaborate in the text; in the style of Late Editions, transcripts of conversatiuns with scienrists, techni­cians, and busines~mcn are presenred. Finally, despite prulcsts ofantidiscipli­narity, the book also reinforccs the idea that even at home, Lhe ethnologist needs to leam another languagc (in this case, molecularbiolugy) during a long period of socialization and, as always, to face the problem of who has the authority and thc rcsponsibility to represent expericncc and knowledge (Rabi­now 1996: 17). The fact that the book is not found on anthropology shelves in US bookstorcs, hut on science shelves, reinforccs by exclusion an enduring ideo\ogical a.~sociation of anthropology with cxoticism.2

2S<:c Pc1rano (1997) for acomparisnn offour rec<:nt books, !WO ofwhich were pul:lli~h~t.l in lhe Uniled StBtes (Cioortz 1995. Rabinow 1996), w.•o ofwhich were pul:llish~d in lndiu (Madan 1994, Das 1995).

ANTHROPOLOGY ATHOME 115

FROM (AN)OTHER POINT OF VIEW

Observing the Greek case from anthropologists' own accounts, Kuper (1994) criticizes \Vhat he calls "na.tivist elhnography"-an extreme caseofanthropol­ogy at h orne. Oftentimes taking a lead from Said and postmodem reflexive di~­course, nativist ethnography assumes that only natives understand natives and that the nativemustbe theproperjudge ofethnography, even its censor. Sensi­bly, the author shares a skeptical view ofthis trend. He spares some native and foreign individual ethnographers, while sanctioning different traditions of eth­nographic study, and proposes a "cosmopo\itan" allemativc for anthropology. For Kuper, cosmopolitan ethnographers should v.Tite only to other anthropolo­gists (and not for curious foreigners and armchair voyeurs; nor should they write for natives or even the native community of experts, i. e. social scientists, planners, intellectuals). For him, sue h a cosmopolitan anthropoiOb'Y is a social scicncc closdy allied to sociology and social hi!'.tory that cannot be bound in the service of any politicai program.

Kupcr's notion of a cosmopolitan anthropology may be contrasted to the multiccntercd projL:ct of Tndian anthropologists (lJberoi 1968, 1983; Madan 1994; Das 1995). Well before the current concerns with anthropology at h orne, India offered lhe acadt:mic world long discussions on thc study of'"onc's own society" (Srinivas 1955, 19fi6, 1979; Ubcroi 1968; Béteille & Madan 1975; Madan 19R2a,b; Das 1995). which directly lead to lhe question of audiences for anthropological writing. India was also the scene ofthe unique rebirth of Contributions to lndian Sociology, afterits founders, Louis Dumont and David Pocock, decided to cease publication ofthe joumal in Europe after I O years of existence (see Madan 1994). The debates carried on in the section '·Fora Soci­ology oflndia," the title ofthe first artic\e published by the editors (Dumont & Pocock 1957) and later a regular feature of the journal, revealed it as a forum fortheoretical, academic, and politicai (even pedagogical) discussion, involv­ing scholars from a variety ofbackgrounds and orientations. If science's life, wannth, and movement may best be perceived in debate (Latour 1989), then this 30-year-old forum has a most thoughtful history to tell.

fndian anthropologisls are aware of their multiple readerships. Madan ( \982b:266) mentions two types oftriangular connections: (a) the relationship betwecn insider and outsider anthropologists and the people being studied and (b) thc rclationship bctwccn lhe anthropologist, the sponsor of research, and thc people. Das (1995) also points to threc kimls of dialogues within sociologi. cal writingon lndia: thedialogue with (a) the Westem traditions ofscholarship in the discipline, (b) with the Indian sociologist and anthropologist and (c) with the "informant," whose voice is present either as information obtained in the field oras lhe written tro:.ts ofthe tradition. ln this sense, anthropology in lndia evaluates and retines, at one and the sarne time, anthropological dis-

116 PEIRANO

course and the scholarship about one's own society. ln this context, it is worth rccalling that out<iider anthropologists who have worked in lndia have also en­gaged in dialogues with insid(:r scholarn; some ofthese exchanges deeply in­fluenced both sides. Good examples are the uncnding debate between Dumont and Srinivas, the reactions by Dumont to the Indian philosopher AK Saran (scc Srinivas 1955, 1966; Dumont 1970, 1980; Saran 1962), and the subaltem his­torians' (Guha & Spivak 1988) dissension with Dumont and their reception and influence in Europe and elsewhere.

ALTERITY lN BRAZJL

A characteristic feature of anthropology in India is that social scientists aim at a mode ofsocial reflection that does not merely duplicate Western questions. Yet Tndian social scientists are fully aware that Westem questions predirect their efforts, evcn thcir contestation. ln Brazil, the ímage of an unavoidable dialogue with the centers ofintcllectual production is invariably present, but the undertone is different: Brazilian anthrupologists feel that they are part and pareei ofthe West-even if, in important aspect-., they are not. As one ofthe social sciences, anthropology in Brazil finds its usual intellectual nichc at lhe intersection of different streams: frrst, canonical andlor currcnl trcnds ofWest­em scholarship; second, a sense of social responsibility loward thooe ob­served; and third, the lineage of social thought developed in the country at lcast from the early 1930s onward (which of course includes previous borrowings and earlier politicai commitments).

ln this complex configuration, theory is the noble route to actual or ideal­ized intellectual dialogues, and social commitment is in fact a powerful com­ponent ofsocial scientists' identity (see, c.g., Candido 1958, Peirnno 1981, Romeny et a\1991, Schwartzman 1991, H Becker 1992, Reis 1996). Where thcory has such an ideological power, conununication is made more intricate by the fact that Portuguese is the language of intellectual discussion (oral and writtcn) and English and French are the languages of scholarly leaming. A quick glance into current anthropology in Brazil thus reveals no great surprises in lerms of individual production-provided one knows Portuguese well. Howcver, exactly because a dialogue is always taking place with absent inter­locutors, altemative answers to existing concems such as ethnicity, cultural and social pluralism, racc, national identity, and so on are routine. [lt is in this context that Arantes (1991) has ironically characterizcd Brazilian intcllectual milieu as a "settling tank in the periphery."]

Somewhat of a singularity arises when academic production is depicted collectively. As opposed to the United States or Europe today, the criticai point is neither exoticism nor the guilt generally associated ..-vith it. Cone em o ver ex­oticism took a different path i o Brazil. A (Durkheimian) notion of"difference"

•

ANTHROPOLOGY AT HOME 117

rather than "exoticism" has generally drawn the attention of anthropologists whenever and wherever they encounter "othemess," thus sanctioning the idea that French influence has been stronger than the Gennan heritage. Moreover, because of an overall inclination that is both broadly theoretical and politicai, and therefore congenial to nation-building values and responsibilities, other­ncss is rccurrcntly found wilhin thc limiL'i ofthe country (bul see exceptions in G Velho 1995) and often related to an urge to track down a possible "Brazil­ian" singularity (DaMatta 1984; see Fry 1995 for the explicit question).

In this section I look at different conceptions of othemess in BraziL This en­deavor results from an inquiry into possible equivalent notions of exoticism in thc Bmzilian contcxt (aml may cvcntuatly hclp decipher why anlhropologisls in Brazil do not partake the current sense of crisis as in other contexts). 3J tlis­cem four configurations, presented here for heuristic purposes, which are nei­ther discrete nor mutually exclusive. Cutting across a continuum of concems about the location of othemess, many authors move from one to another or combine them at different moments in their careers; ali of them are socially recognized as legitimate anthropology. I cite publications that I take as repre­senlative, but by no means do 1 touch below the surface of lhe available litera­ture.

Radical Otherness Thc canonical se are h for radical othemesx may bc illuxtratcd in Brazil in lenns ofideological and/or geographical remoteness: frrst, in the study ofindigcnous or so-called tribal peoples; second, in the recent wave ofresearch beyond Bra­zilian's fi:ontiers. ln both cases, radical othemess is not extreme.

ln the first case, as befalls the study of lndian societies, interlocutors for Brazilian specialists are located both inside and out.side the local community of social scientists. This is the area where outside debates are more visible. (Is one's difference another's exoticísm?) Actual fieldwork, however, has been re­stricted to the limit.s ofthe country, even when the larger ethnological areais perceivcd a~ South America. Though fWiding may be one major constraint, there are crucial politicai and ideological implications in this fact.

A distinguished body of literature on South American ethnology is avail­able to infonn contemporaneous specialists, going back to nineteenth-century Gennan expeditions seeking answers in Brazil to European questions about the state of"naturalness" ofthe primitives (Baldus 1954) up to more recent genemlions, such as Nimuendaju's (e.g. 1946) celebrated monographs on tbe social organization ofthe Gê tribes and thc late 1930s rcscarch ofTupi groups

3 A different approach wa.s adopted in Peirano (1981), which e:wmint'::õ the pruce:.~ by which, from thc 1950s on, a common stock ofsociologkal qucstions was progressively dismembered and çouçhed ao :;oçioJugy, anll!ropology, and politiçaloçien~'t:.

llX PEIRANO

(e.g. Baldus 1970, Wagley & Gaivão 1949). Soon after, Ribeiro & Ribeiro (1957) carried out research among the Urubu-Kaapor; during the late 1940s and early 1950s Fernandes (1963, 1970) published bis classic reconstruction of Tupinambá social organization and warfare based on sixteenth-century chroniclers, and Schaden (1954) studied the difterent aspects ofGuarani cul­ture. Having been the best-studied peoples in Brazil, after Nimuendaju the Gê attra{.1ed the attention uf Lévi-Strnuss ( 1956) and, following suit. the Harvard Central-Brazil Project (Maybury-Lewis 1967, 1979). ln due time, the results of tbis large-scale research program emerged as the strongest ethnographical cases supporting structural anthropology, having served as fieldwork experi-ence for a generalion of ethnologisls (among tho~ who dcvclopcd lhcir ca- • reers in Brazil, see DaMatta 1982; Me1arti 1970, 1978).

Today, newcomers to the fie1d can thus discern some antinomies: Tupi or Gê; kinship or cosmology; Amazonian and Central Hrazil or Xingu; externa! historical sociology or internal synchronic analysis; ecology or culture; history or ethnography; politicai economy or descriptive cosmology (see Viveiros de Castro 1995b ). As in every antinomy, reality is a step removed. But in this con­text, Tupi research, having practically disappeared from the ethnological scene during lhe 1960s and early l970s (but see Laraia 1986), has recently ree­mergcd with a driving force buth within and beyond the limits ofthe Portu­guese language (Viveiros de Castro 1992, T Lima 1995, Fausto 1997; see also Muller 1990, Magalhães 1994). Prompted by that body of research, interest in kinship was also rehabilitated (Viveiros de Castro 1995a,b; Villaça 1992; for a recent debate with French ethnographers, see Viveiros de Castro 1993, 1994; Copet-Rougier & Héritier-Augé 1993). Mcanwhile, rcscarch on G~ groups conlinm:d (c.g. Vida! 1977, Carneiro da Cunha 197R, Secgcr 1981, Lopes da Silva 19R6).

The sccond trend of radical othemess is more rcccnt. Wbilc ittakcs thc ub­server away from the geographical limits of the countl)', it still confirms the idea that some relative link to home is essential. ln this context the United Statc~ has bccomc a sort ofparadigmatic othcr for comparativc studies, fTom the classic study on racial prejudice by Nogueira (see 1986) to more recent analyses ofhierarchy and individualism by DaMatta (1973a, 1981, 1991). This trend has unfolded in the works of L Cardoso de Oliveira (1989), R Lima (1991), and, in this issue, Segato (1998). An emergenttopic isthe study ofBra­zilian immigrants (e.g. G Ribeiro 1996}. A recent interest in Portuguese an­thropology, as indicated by congresses and conferences in Brazil and Portugal, anests again to historical and linguistic links.

Contact with Otherness

Considered by many the most successful theoretical innovation produced in Brazil, the idea of interethnic friction made its appearance in anthropology as a

ANTHROPOLOGY ATHOME 119

bricolage of indigenist concems and sociological theoretical inspiration. Coined by R Cardoso de Oliveira (1963), interethnic friction was proposed as a sym.:rclic totality emerging from lhe conta<..1 oflndian popu\ations with thc na­tional society and revealing "a situation in which two groups are dialectically unified through opposing interests" (\ 963:43). Seen from this perspective, concems about the integration of lndians into the national society~which have always been a source of distress for ethnologists and indigenists-were shifted onto theoretical grounds. Contact was seen as a dynamic process, and the notion oftotality did not rest with one agent o r the other (national o r lndian) but in the universe ofthe observed phenomenon. Interethnic fiiction was pro­pnsed in a context in which British and US theories of contact, namely social change (M:alinowski) and acculturation (Redfield, Linton, and Herskovitz), had proved inadequate; Balandier's views and Femandes's (1972) studies on race relations in Bmzil were chosen instead as inspiration.

Contact with lndians had been a major social concern in Brazil since the foundalion ofthe Service fOr the Protection oflndians (SPI) in 1910. ln lhe 1940s and 1950s it proceeded through observations carried out by ethnologists (generally published apart fi"om theirmajor ethnographical work) and set shore in academic anthropology as a legitimate topic in the 1950s, merging academic with public-policy concerns for indigenous populations (see D Ribeiro 1957, 1962). During the 1960s a peculiar academic scene emerged in Brazi1: Sharing the sarne space, and often involving the sarne individual researchers (Laraia & DaMatta 1967, DaMatta 1982, Melatti 1967), studies were being developed that, on the one hand, focused on specific features oflndian social systems { cf Harvard Centrai-Brazil Project) and, on the other hand, focused on contact as intcrcthnic friction.

This thcmatic inspiration survivcs today in studies thatbearthc hallmark of intcrcthnic friction but have become a distinct lineage of concem (though theoretical bonds span from postmodern to historical and sociological con­cerns). Its topics vary from an evaluation ofYanomami ethnography in a con­text of crisis (Ramos 1995) to analyses of indigenism, Indian lands, and fron­tiers (Oliveira 1987, 1988; Ramos 1998, Souza Lima 1995) to social condi­tions ofSouth American lndians (Carneiro da Cunha 1992).

During the 1970s, in due course the concem with contact embraced the theme of frontiers of expa.nsion, making issues related to internal colonialism, peasants, and capitalist development a legilimate anthropological subject (O Velho 1972, 1976 ). At the sarne time, studies on peasants gained their own the­matic status, as extensive studies '>l."ere carried out by both anthropologists and sociologists (amongthe fonner, see Palmeira 1977, Sigaud 1980, Moura 1978, Seyferth 1985, K Woortmann 1990, E W oortmann 1995). This thematic move­ment's location eventually reached the fringes of large cities (Leite Lopes 1976).

120 PEIRANO

Nearby Otherness

As early as the 1970s, anthropologists in Brazil began to do research nearby. Because academic socialization takes place within social science courses, an­thropological approaches have become a counterpart to sociology. ln the un­folding of politicai authoritarianism in the 1970s, anthropology was seen by many as a promising counterpart to Marxist challenges coming from sociol­ogy-a silent dialogue that has persisted ever since. For some, the qualitative aspects of anthropology were appealing; others were attracted by the micro­scopic approach to sociallifc; still others wcrc attractcd by the challenge of un­derstanding certain aspects ofthe "national" ethos. The preferredroute was via theo:ry.

The Chicago school of sociology was one of G Velho's significant inter­locutors (e.g. 1972, 1975, 1981) in bis choice of sensitive urban issues, ranging from middle-class and elite lifestyles to psychic cultural habits, drug consump­tion, and violence. H is studcnl.'-l cnlargcd this uni verse by including popular secton~, aging, gcndcr, prostitution, kinsbip and family, and politics. Onc ma­jor mutivatiun ofthc ovcrall projecl was to uncovcr urban valucs and thc critc­ria for defming social identity and difference. Thcses and books produced by this line ofinqui:ry are numerous and far-reaching (e.g. Duarte 1986, Gaspar 1985, Lins de Barros 1989, Vianna 1995; Salem 1985 for areview on middle­class. family).

ln the horizontality bestowed on each society by structuralism, DaMatta (1984, 1991) found a legitímate avenue for his long-standíng inquiry into the national ethos through the relationship between individualism and holism in Brazil. Of course, Gilberto Freyre's monumental work (see Segato 1998) is a predecessor in any search for Brazilian identity and DaMalla acknowledges thc link. Having participated in the two major lndian research projects in the 1960s (cfabove), since the 1980s the author has shitled to national themes.. Da­Matta (1973a) may be seen as a point oftransition, pulling together a canonical structuralis.t analysis ofan Apinajé myth, a story by Edgar Allan Poe, and an examination of communitas in Brazilian carnival. By means of a dialogue with Dumont's notion ofhierarchy, DaMatta (1991) develops a comparative analy­sis of carnival in Brazil and the United States, discloses hierarchy in popular sayings and songs, and probes. literary works.

ln neither of the two approaches above was tbe relevance or appropriate­ness of developing anthropology at home ever seriously questioned. After a short exchange on the nature offieldwork in general, on the disposition ofeth­nographers toward "anthropological blucs," and on thc idca offamiliarity (Da­Matta 1973b, 19Rl; G Velho 197R), hoth ncarby and farfrom humc, lhe issuc was put to rest. (This debate was contcmponmcous to Indian anthropologist'i' discussion on lhe study of one's own society.)

•

ANTIIROPOLOUY AT 110M !:i 121

Meanwhile, other topics bave emerged since the 1950s, first related to the social integration of different populalions and !ater to minoríty rights. Sucb to pies brought together sociology and anthropology, thereby reaffirming and giving bistorical validation to authors such as Candido (1995), who had never totally distinguished the social sciences from each other. To mention justa few, on immigrants see Azevedo (1994), Cardoso (1995), Seyferth (1990); on racerelations, see Segato (1998), Borges Pereira(l967), Fry (1991); ongender sludics, Bruschini & Sorj (I 994), Gregori (1993); on rcligion, mcssianism, and Afro-Brazilian cults, R Ribeiro (1978), Maggie (1975), O Velho (1995), Sir­mao (1995); and on popular festivities, Magnani (1984), Cavalcanti (1994). More directly focused on politics as a social domain in Brazil are studies in Palmeira (1995) and Palmeira & Goldman (1996).

Radical Us

As ifto confirm that social sciences in Bnu.il have a profound debt to Durk­heim-who proposed that other forms of civilization are sought not for their own sake but lo explain what is near lo u~-from the !980s on anthropologists havc launchcd a wavc of sludics on the social sciences thcmselves, with thc overall purpose of understanding science as a manifestation of modernity. Al­though !opies of study vary from local social scientists to classic authors of so­cial theory, interlocutors are often French: See, for example, Castro Faria (l993), Corrêa (1982, 1987), Miceli (1989), Goldman (1994), and Neiburg (1997). Melatti (1 984) stands as the richest bibliographical account of contem­porary anthropology in Brazil. A comprehensive project to study different styles ofanthropology was launched in Cardoso de Oliveira & Ruben (1995), with proposals to focus on different national experiences. This project was pre­ceded by an independent study by Peirano ( 1981 ), who !ater, having chosen so­cial sciences developed in lndia for interlocution (Peirano 1991), attempted a comparative approach based on the theoretícal enigma put forth by Dumont (1978). For a comparison between Brazilian folklorists and sociologists vis-à­vis nation-building ideology, see Villiena (1997); for a comparisou between Brazilian and Hungarian folk musicians and intellectuals in tbe ftrst half ofthe century, see Travassos (1997). An examination ofthe literature on anthropol­ogy and psychoanalysis in Brazil is found in Duarte (1997).

ln these studies, one sttiking featurc is that the vast majority deal with broad issues related to Westem intellectual traditions but, because they are published in Portuguese, have a limited audience. The question offor whom these works are produced thus steps in; these dialogues with major sources of scholarship :result in local exercises that ( either by design or owing to power relationships) are free from externa! disputes. Nonetheless they fulfill the performative func­tion of ideologically linking Brazilian social scientists to the larger world.

122 PEIRANO

Brazi/ as Site, or Otherness in Context

The fOunding ofthe social sciences ata moment ofthrusts toward nation buitd­ing is a well-known phenomenon (E Becker 1971 for France and the United States; Saberwal 1982 for lndia), as is the paradox of a criticai social science surviving against the vested interests ofthe elites that created them. ln these contcxts, social science is not necessarily specialized; anthropology and soci­ology separate at times and in placcs that crcatc a (politicai and conceptual) need for differentiating approaches, theories, or perspectives.

ln Brazil in the 1930s, social science was adopted to pro vide a scientific ap­proach to designing the new countty's future. 1t was then believed that, in due time, social science would replace the literary social essay, which had been, "more than philosophy or the human sciences, the central phenomenou of spírihmllife" (Candido 1976:156). Thus, from thc 1930~ ln thc 1950s, whilc social science was maturing a sociology "feita-no-Brasil" ( which actually h c­carne hegemonic during the next two decades), canonic anthropological stud­ies oflndian groups were the rule. ln the 1960s, these studics bcgan to sharc lhe stage with the new wave of studies on contactas interethnic friction and, im­mediately afterward, in the 1970s, with peasants and urban srndies. Through· out these decades the blurring of disciplines has gone hand in hand with the quest for social commitment and ambitions for academic standards of exce\­\ence, difference being found nearby or, at most, not far from home.

Some dccades ago, Anderson (1968) suggested that a flourishing British anthropolugy was thc rcsult of lhe expor! of criticai social thought lo subject peoples during thc first half of the century and that lhe sociology England failed to develop at home had given rise to a prosperous anthropolo&'Y ahroad. More recently, Fischer (1988) suggested thatNorth American anthropologists do not seem to play the sarne role enjoyed by Brazilian anthropologists as pub­lic intellectuals, not because ofthe formcrs' Jack of cngagcmcnt, but bccausc of"the \oss ofa serious bifocality, able to be trained simultaneously ai home and abroad on Amcrican culture as ittransforms (and is transformed) by global society" ( 1988: 13). \1y intcntion hcrc has bccn to furtherdiscussions on the in­dexical components of the notions of homc and abroad, by pointing ou I some anthropologica\ difficulties that are inherent in intcllcctual dialogues. Si&'llifi­cantly enough, thejuxtaposition ofan intematiunal c~~:pcriL.'TICC anda Bra.lilian experience-as ifthey were distinct-indicates (and this vcryrcvicw is agood example) that, more often thannot, authors meetonly in our "'Literature Cited'' section.

CONCLUSION

There are many meanings to the expression "anthropology at home," the most obvious ofwhich refers to the kind of inquiry developed in the study ofone's

•

ANTHROPOLOGY AT HOME 123

own society, where "others" are both ourselves and those relatively different from us, whom we se e as part ofthe sarne collectivity. ln this respect, after ban­ning exoticism, anthropology at h orne was a historical shitl for some. For oth­ers it has always becn thc major trend within a long-standing tradition; others still have chosen to develop their anthropological inquiries both at home and abroad. But whencver ob~ervers and observed meet, new hybrid representa­tions arise, which are intensified in comparison to the notiuns from which thcy proceed (Dumont 1994). The more modem civili7.ation sprcads thrnughoul thc world, the more it is itself modified by the incorporation of hybrid prnduct:-~, making it more powerful and, at lhe sarne time, modifying it through thc con-

• stant mix of distinct values. Anthropologists have taken on multiple roles, as members oftransnational

communities sharing codes, expectations, rimais, and a body of classic litera­ture-all of which allow dialogues to ensue-and, at the sarne time, as indi­viduais whose socialization and social identity are tied to a specific collectiv­ity, making their political and social responsibilities context-bound. Their pre­vailing values may vary, be they national, ethnic, o r other. ln some cases, a civilizational identity (as in Soulh Asia) is superimposed on thís configuration; in others it is hegemonic (as in "America," for instance).

Justas in other complex social phenomena, an examination ofthe different contexts of anthropology should be approached from a comparative perspec­tive. For this purpose, some conditions are necessary: First, we must grantthat academic knowledge, however socially produced, is relatively autonomous from its immediate contexts ofproduction and therefore is capable ofattaining desirable leveis of communication. Second, we must accept that rigorous com­pari sou, rathcr than uncontrolled relativism, is the best guarantee against su­perficial hnmogeni:zation acruss national and cultural boundaries. And third, wc must examine conlcmporary currents of anthropology at lhe convergence ofthe many socially recognized theoretical histories, includingthcirncighbor­ing disciplines (either models or rivais) and local traditiom, whcrc thcse broader relationships are embedded.

ACKNOWLBDGMENTS

I would like to thank Roque de Barros Laraia, Eduardo Viveiros de Castro, Monique Djokic, Elisa Reis, and Gilberto Velho for their very welcome sug­gestions and criticisms.

Visit lhe Annuul Reviews home puge :lt http://www.AnnuaiReviews.org

124 PEIRANO

Literature Cited

Ahu-Lughod L. 1991. \Vriting againstcu\ture. SccFox 199\,pp. 137---62

AhmadA. 1992 ln Thoorv· C/mses, Nations. Lirerarures. Londan: Verso

Ahmad A. 1993. A re~pr.mse. Publü: Cult 6: 143-91

Andcrson P. 19{>~. Thc components of a na­tional culture. New Left Rrv. SO:J-57

Appadurai A, Berlant L, Breckenridge C, Ga· onkar D. 1993. Editorial comment: an the­ory's empire. Public Cu/1. 6(l):vii-xi

Arantes P. 1991. Ideologia francesa, opinião brasileira. Novos Estudos CEBRAP 30: 149-61

Ardcner E. 1987. ·'Remate areas": some llleo· rdicu\ c<.Jn~io.lerations. See Jackson 1987a, pp. 39---54

Asad T, ed. 1973a. Anthropofogy and the Co­lunial Encuunler_ London· Ithaca

Asad T. 1973b. Introduction. See Asad 197Ja, pp. 9-19

A..:evedo T. 1994. 0.< Italiana.• ""Rio Grande do Sul. Caxias do Sul: Ed1tora Univ. C'a­xia~ do Sul

Baldus H. 1954. Bi/:1/iografia Comentada da Etnologia Bras•l<'im. Rio de Janeiro: Souza

BaldiiS H. 1970. Tapirapé; Tril:lo Tupl IW Brasil Centml. São Paulo: Cia. Editora Nacional

Banto a M, ed. 1966. The Social Anthropo/ogy o/Cumple.: Socielies. London: Tavistock

Beeker E. 1971, The Los1Science ofMan. Ncw York: Braziller

Bccker II. 1992. Social theory in Brazil. Sa­do/. Theury 10:1-5

Behar R, Gordon D, 005. 1995. Wamen Writ­ingCulrurt:. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Prcss

Béteille A, Madan TN, eds. 1975. Encounler and Experience: Personal Accoums of F1efdwork. Delhi: Vikas

Hinnan P. 1995. Fazer Est1lo Criando Gén­('rQ.<. Rio de Janeim: Relume-Dumará

Bomcny HM, Hirman P, P~lxiio AL, eds. 1991. As As~im Chamadas Ciªncia.< Saci­ais. Rio de Janeiro: Rclume-Dumará

Borge~ Pereira JB. 1967. Cm·, Pro(L•Úia e Ma­bilidade: o 1Yegro e o Rádio de São Pa!llo. S~o Paulo: Pioneira

Borofsky R. t'd. 1994. Assessing Cultural An­thropo/ogy. New Y ork: McG raw-IIill

Bourd1eu P. 1969. Intelleduul iíeld und neu­tive projcct. Soe. Sei. lnf 8(2):89-119

Brcttcll C\;1, cd. 1993. When They Read Wlwt We Wrile: The Polilics of EthtWgrapily. Wesrpon, CT: Bergin & Garvey

Brown BA.I994.Bom in lhe USA: American anlhropologisls come home. Dia/u. An· thropol. 19(4):419-38

Druscbini MC, Sorj B. eds. 1994. Novos Olha-

res: Mulheres e Relações de Gênero no Brasil. S~o Paulo: Fundação Carlos Ch~­gasrMarco Zero

Candido A. 1958. Informaçlo sobre sociolo­gia em S~o Paulo. In Em;lliU$ Pllulistm·, pp. 510-21. S~o Paulo: Anhambi

Candido A. 1976. Literatura e Sociedade. S~o Paulo: Cia. Editora Nacional

Candido A. 1995. On Lileralure and Society (trans. and intro. by Howard Recker)_ Princcton: Princeton Um v. Prcss

Cardoso R_ 1995. li~trotura Fam•liar ,, Mo­bilidade Sociaf: EStudo dos Japoneses no Esloik> de São P<Ju{o. São Paulo: Primus

Cardoso de Oliveira LR. 1989, Faime.ss and ;;ommuniL·a/úm in ;·mu/{ duims cuur/s_ PhD thesis. Harvard Univ.

Cardoso de Oliveira R. 19{>3, AculturaçUo c "frie~ão" inlerétnica. Am. Llll. 6:H -45

Cardoso de Oliveira R, Ruben GR, eds. 1995. Estilos de Amropologia. Campinas: Uni­camp

ClllTleiru da CLUiha M. 1978. Os Mortos e os Out.-os. Uma Aná/Lte da Sistema Funerd­rio e da Noção de Pessoa Entre os indios Krahó. S~o Paulo: Hucitec

Carqmo da <..UnhaM, cd. 1992. HistOria dos Jndios no Brasil. S~oPaulo: C ia. das Letrru;

Castro Faria L. 1993. Antropologia. Espelác­ulo e 6xce/;;ncia Rio de Janeiro: UFRJ/ Tempo Brasileiro

Cavale~nliML.I994. c,lnmva/C<lriom. Dos Bastidores ao Desfile. Rio de Janeiro: Edi­tora UFRJ0.1inC/FWllirte

Clifford J. 1986. Panialtruths. Sce Clifford & Marcusl986, pp, 1-2()

Clifford J. 1997. Ro~les. Trave/ and Transla­tion ln tile La/e Twentielh Century, Cam­bridge, MA: Harvard L"niv. Press

Clifft.>nJ J, Muro;;usGE. e<.b. 1986. Writmg Cu/­tu•-e: The Pnetic.• andPa!i!!cs ojEthnagra­phy. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Pres.\Õ

Copet-Rougier E, Hérilier-Augé F. 1993. Com­mcntaues sur commentaire. Réponsc à J:: Viveiro& de Castro. L 'llomme 33:139-48

Corrêa M. 1982. As ilusões da lil:lerdade. A e.>­calade NinaRadrigue.•. PhD the&is. Univ. de Silo Pnulo

Corrêa M, ed. 1987. História da Antropologia nu Brvsi/. Tes/emunhus.· Emilw Wiflem~ e Donald Pierson. Campinas: Editora da Unicamp

Crapanzano V. 19l30. Tuhami: Portmil of o Moroccan. Chicago: Umv. Chicago Press

Crick M. 1976. Explorations in Lll,.guug<' und Meanfng, London: Malaby

DaMatta R. 1973a. Ensaws de Anlropologw Estrornral. Petrópolis: Vozes

•

•

DaMattB R. !973b. O oficio de etnólogo ou como ter "anthropol(l.gkal blues." Comu­nicações do PPGAS 1. Rio de Janeiro: Mu· seu Nacional

DaMuU~ R. 1981. Relativizando: Uma bltro­dução à Antropnlogia Soôal Petrópolis: Vozes

DaMatta R. 19R2. A Dívided World: Apinaw Social Srrocrure. Transl. A Campbell. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press

DaMatta R. 1984. O Que Faz o Brasil, Brasil? Rio de Janeiro: Guun~bara

DaMatta R. 1991. Carnivals, Rogues, and He­rot"-" AJ'I lml?rpreratian oj the Brazilian Dilemma. Transl. 1 Dmry. Notre Dame, lN: Univ. Notre Dame Prcss

Darnell R, ed. 1974. Readmgs in lhe History of AnlhropQ/ogy. [';ew York: Harper & Row

Das V. 1995. Criticai Evenfs_ An An!hrupu­/ogica/ Perspective on Contemporary ln­dia. Delhi: Oxford Uni v. Prt'SS

Dialec. Anthropof. 1985. Natl. Trends, pp. 165~34S

Diamond S, ed. 1980a. Amhropofogy: Anus­lors and lleirs. Paris: Mouton

Diamond S. 1980b. Anthropological tradi­tion~: the participants observed. See Dia­mond l980a,pp. 2-16

Dirks N, Eley G, Ortner S, eds. 1994. Cul­ture!Power!HI.story: A Reader ln Comem­pnrmy Social Theory. Princeton, KJ: Princcton Univ. Press

Dragadle T. 1987. Fieldwork at home: the USSR. Sce Jackson 1987a, pp. 155--63

Driessen H, ed. 19~3. The Polilics oj Ethnv­graph/c Reading ond Wriling: Conjronra­tivm of Wes/em and Indigenvus Vr-ew.l". SaarbrOcken, GerrnanytFort Lauderdale, FL: Breitenbach

Du!IItl: LFD. 1986. Da Vida Nervosa (nas Claue.i Trabalhadoras Urbanos). Rio de Janeiro: ZallariCNPq

Duarte LFD. 1997. Dois regimes hi:,·tiiri<·w. das relaç{Jes da anrrapologia com a psi­crmálrse no Brm-i/. Presented at Seminário Ciências Sociais, Estado e Sociedade, Rio de Janeiro

Dumont L. 197(1. Religicm, Politico ond His­lvry in India. Puris: Mouton

Dumont L. 1978. La communauté anthro­pologiql!e et l'ideo1ogie. L "Homme 18: 83-110

Dumont L. 1980. Homo Hierarchicus: The Ca<le Sy.<tem ond fts Imp!ica/Wns. Chi­o;agu: Univ. Chiçago Prcs~

Dumont L. 19&6. Essoys on lndi~idualism: Modern ldeology in .Anrhropologic<rf Per­spective. Chkago: Univ. Chicago Pn:~s

Dumont L. 1994. German ldeology: Frorn France to Get-many ond RoC"k. Chi~ago: Uni v. Chi~.<al;O Pre:ss

ANTHROPOLOGY AT HOME 125

Dumont L, Pococl:. D. 1957. For a sociologyof lndia. Conlrib.lndian Sor:iol. 1:7--22

Fabian J. 1983. Time andthe Other. HowAn­lhropvlag,_. Mokes Its Obj~cl. New York: Cotumbia Univ. Press

Fahim H. ed. 1982. Indigeno11s Amhropology in Nort·Westem Co11ntries. Durham, ~C: Carolina Acad. Press

Fahim H, Hclmcr K. 1982. Themes and coun­terthemes: lhe Burg Warknst~in Sympo­sium. s~e Fahim 1982, pp. x.i-xx.x.iii

Fausto C. 1997. A dialérica .:kl predaçllo e jà­míliarização el'ltre o.s Parakanã da Amazônia oriemal. PhD lhcsis. Univ. Fed. Rio de Janeiro

Fernandes F. 1963. A Organização Social dos Tupinambá. São Paulo: Difusão Européia do Livro

Femand~~ F. 1970. A Função Social da Guerra no Sociedade Tupinamhá. São Paulo: Pioneira

Fernandes F. 1972. O Negro no Mundo do.s Rranr.m S~o Paulo: Difus~o Européia do Livro

Firth R, ed. 1956. Two Studies of Kinship in London. Lomlon: Athlone

Fischer MMJ. 1980. Iran: From Religious Dispute to Revolurion. Cambridge, MA: Harv(U"d Uni~·- Pres~

Fischer MMJ. 198B. Sdentific thcory and çritical henneneutiçs. Cult. Anthropo!. 3(1):3--15

FischerMMJ, Ab«hM. 1990.Debatirtg Mus­!ims: Cultural Dialogues inPo.!lmoderníty and Tradilion. Madison: Uuiv. Wis. Press

Fox R, ed. 1991. Recopturing Antbropalogy: Working in the Presenl. S!lllt9 Fe, NM: Sçh. Am. Res. Press

Fry P. 1991. Politkamente correto çm um lugar, incorreto em ontro. EstudGs Afra~ Asiátiçu~· 21 167-77

Fry P. 1995. Why is Brazil different? Times Li/. Supp/., D~~- 8, no. 4836:6-7

Gaspar MO. 1985. GarolWi de Programa: Prostitulçdo em Copacabana e Identidade Soóal. Rio d~ Janeiro: Za.har

Geçrtz C. 1983. Local Knowledge; Further F.s.~ay.1 in lnterprelive A"thropvlagy. New York: Basic Books

Geertz C. 198ll. Worh undLi.-es: TheAnlhro­po/ogist as Author. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press

Geenz C. 1995. After lhe Fact: Two Coun­lries, Four Dec.·adeY. One Anthropologisl. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press

Gerholm T. Hunner..: U, eiliõ. l982a. The shap­ing of national anthropo1ogies. Ethnos 42 (spedal issue). 186pp.

Gerholm T, Ilannerz U. 1982b. Introduction: lhe shaping of national ~nthTOpologies. Sce Gerholm & Hannerz 1982a, pp. 5-35

126 PEIRANO

Gilmore DO. 1982. Anthropolagy of the Mediterranean are a. Annu. Rev. Alllhropol. 11:175-205

Goldman M. 1994. Razão e Diferença: Afetividade, Racionalidade e Re/a/iVIsmu no Penw•mentrJ de Lévy-Bruh!. Rio de Ja­neiro: Grypho/UFRJ

Goody JR 1966. The pmspecls for social an­thropo\ogy. NewSoc., Oct. 13, pp. 574-76

Gregori MF_ 1993. Cenas e Queixas: Mu/hp­re.•, Re/açiiru Violentas e a Prática Fem­inis/a. R10 de Jane1ru; Pu:.:~ T~rra/AN­POCS

Guha R, Spivak GC, cds. 19l::~. Sefecled Sub­ullem 5/udin _ 0'<fo.-d: Oxfo.-d ll n i v. Press

Gupta A, Ferguson J, C<ls, 1997a. Amhrorm­lug"'(" Luculium: Bounda~ws and Grmmd.• a{ a Field Science. Berkeley: Lniv. Calif. Prcss

Gupta A, Fergu~nn J. 1997h. Discipline and practice: "Thc t'icld" as site. mcthod ~nd location in anthropology. See Gupta & Ferguson 1997a, pp. 1-46

Hallowdl AI. 1974. The history ofanthropol­ogy as an anthropological problem. Se" Darnelll974,pp. 304--21

Haraway DJ. 19~8. Situatcd krwwlcdges: lhe so.;it'OC~ ljUt'S(ÍOll ÍO rem.i.llÍSffialld the privi­lege of partia! perspective. Fem, Stud. 14{4):575-99

Hymes n, ed. 1974. Reinventing Anthmpol­ogy. Ncw Y\>rk: Random

Jackson A. ed. l987a. Anthmpofogy at flome. London: Tav1stock

Jackson A_ !98Th. Reflections on ethnography at home and the ASA. See Jackson l987a. pp. l-15

Kuper A. l'l'l4. Culturc, identity and lhe proj­cct of a cosrnupolitan 11nthrupology. Man (NS) 29:517-54

Lamphcrc L, Ragonc H, z~vdla P, e<.l~. 1991. Simated Li•-es: Gender alUI Culfllre in E'-"'rwiay Life. 1\"ew ,York· Routledge

Laraia RB. 1986. T11pi: lndios do Brasil Alua{. São Paulo: FFLCHIUSP

Laraia RB, Da\llatta R. 1967. Índios e Cast,m­heiros. Siio hulo; Dirusão Européia do Livro

Latour B. \9~9. Pusteur d Puu~he!: hétéro­genê!õe de l'hisloin: des sciences. In É!é­mems d'Hisroire des Sciences, erl. M Ser­mo, pp. 423--45. Paris: Bordas

Latour H. 1996. Not the que~!Jon. Anthropol. Newsl. 37(1):1, S

Latour B, Woolgar S. 1979. Laboralory Life: Tlw Social Crm .. trllclion o( Scie.,tific Fac/s. Bcvcrly Hill~. CA: Sage

Leach F.R. 1% 1_ Rethinkin;r; AnthropoloffY. London: Athlonc

Leite Lopes JS. 1976. O Vapor do Diabo. R10 de Janeiro: Paz c Terru

Lévi-Strauss C. 1956. Les organisations dua­lis!Gs, cxistent-elles? Bijdr. To/ Taa/ Land Vo/kenkd 112:99---128

Lévi-Strauss C. 1961. La crise modcmc de l'anthropologie. Le Cuurr (l!NRSCO) 14(11):12-17

Lévi-Strauss C. 1962 La Penscie Sallmge. Paris: Plon

Limu RK. 1991 Ordem pública e pública de­~ordem. Anu. Antropol. 88:21-44

Lima TS. 1995, A parte do cauim. t.'!nografia Junmu. PhD thesis. Univ. Fed. Rio o:\e Ja­neiro

Lins Ue Burros M. 1989_ Aultmdmk e Afi·tv. Awk Filhos e Netos na Família Brasi­leira. Rio d~ Jun~iru: Zahar

Lopes da Silva A 19Rfí_ Nomes e Amigo.t: Da Prárica Xawrme a uma Reflexão Sobre os Ji!. S~o Paulo· FFLCH/USP

Madan TN. 19B2a. Anthropology as lhe mu­IUlll inlerpr~lutioo uf çu\iLue~: Indian per­~pectives. See Fahim 1982. pp. 4--18

Madan TN. 1982b. lodigcnuw; uolhrupo1ugy in non-weMern countries: an overview. Se':' Fnhim 1982. pp. 263 68

Madan TN. 1994. Palhways: Approaches lo the StudyofSum!ty in lndi11. Ddhi; 0"-ford L;11iv. Preso

Magalhães AC. 1994. Os Parakanit espaços Je su<"iulizuçi'iv '-' ~uus urticu{açÕt'S sim­bólicas. PhD thesis. Univ. de São Paulo

Maggil' Y. 1975. Gu,·rra de Orixú. Um E..;tudo de Rima/ e Conflito. Rio de Ja· neiro: Zahur

Magnani J(i. 191l4. F'es/a na Pedaço: Cultura Popular e Lazer na Cidade. Siio Paulo. Braziliem.e

Malinowskl B. 1939. Prcfacc. ln Peasant Life in Chinu. A Field Studv ofCmmtry Li/e in rhe Yanglze Valley. II-'r Fei, pp, xix-xxvi. Ne"' York: nutton

Marcus UE, erl. 19!B. 1:-'fih'.•: Dlmographu· h­sues. Albuquerque: Univ. NM Press

Marcus GE. 19~}) Editorial re(ruspedi;·e. Cult. Alllhrnpnf. 6(4):553-64

Marcus GE, cd. l993a. Perilous Slate.•. Con­w:•rsutim/.5 "" Culture. Politic.<, m.d Na­/Íon. Late Ed1tions, Vol. 1. Ch1cago: Univ. Chicago Press

Marcus GE. 1993b. lmroduction to thc scrics and to volume I. Soo Marcus 1993a, PP­l-16

Marcus GE. 1995. Ethnography in/of th~ world system: llle emergcncc ot' mu1ti­sit~rl ethnugraphy. Annu Rn· Anlhrupof. 24:95-l 17

Man.:u~ GE. Fischer MMJ. 1986. Anthropl.)/­ogy as Cullllra! Crilique: An Experimental _l.fvmcnf in lhe Humur~ Sdnwn_ t"hicago: Univ. Chtcago Pn:ss

Mascarenha:;-Keyes S. 1987. The native an-

•

•

•

thropologist: constraints and strategies in rescarch. Sec Jackson 1987a, pp. 180--95

Maybury-Lewis D. 1967. Akwii-Shat·anle So­á<'fy. Oxford: Oxford Uni v. Press

Maybury-Lewis D, cd. 1979. Dialectical Sa­cielies. lhe G<1and Bororo ofCentraf Bra­zlf. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press

McGrane BD. l 976. Beyond F:urop~-- An ar­chaeofogr• oj amhropc/ogy ji'om lhe 16th to lhe eur/y 20th century. PhD thesis. !>IY Univ. .

Melatti JC. 1967. In,dios e Criadores: Situaçào dos Krohõ "'" Area Paslnril do Tacantins. Rio de Janeiro: lnst. Ciênciw.; S>oc.

Melatti JC. 1970. OsiBtemasocial Krahó. PhD thcsis. Um v. de São Paulo

Melatti JC. 1978. Ritnsde uma Trilm Timhira. São Paulo: Ática

Melatti JC 1984. A antropologia no Brasil: um roteiro. Boi. lnf Bib{io. Ciênc. Soc.­BIB 17:3-52

Messer~chmidt DA,ed. \9SJ. Anthropologüt., at Home in North Ameri<:a. Af<,lfwds um/ !ssues ln the Study oj Une 's Own Society. Cambridge; Cambridge Univ. Press

Micch S, cd. 1989. As Cil!ncias Sociais no Brasil. São Paulo: Vértice

Moffatt M. 1992. Etlmographic writing about American ctdture. A1mu. Rn. Anthropol. 21:205---29

Moore HL. 1996. rlw Fuhm' oj Anthmpalogi­cal Knowledge. London: Routledj'

Mott I .R. 1982. Tndigenous anthmpo ogy and Brazihan Indians. Scc Fahim 1982, pp. 112-17

Moura MM. 1978. Oa Herdeiros da Terra. S!o Paulo· Hucitec

Muller R. 1990. Os Assurini do Xinf:11: História e Arte. Campinas: Uniclilllp

Neiburg F. 1997. 0.< fntelectuai., e a lnvençiia do Peronismo. Sào Paulo: Edu:.-p

Nimuendaju C. 1946. The lias/em Timhira. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Prcss

Nogueim O. 1986. Tanto Preta Quanta Branco. Ensaios de Relações Raciais. S!o Paulo: Queiroz

Okely J. 1987. Fíeldwork up the M1: policy and politicai aspects. See Jackson 1987a, pp. 55-73

Oliveira JP, ed. I 987. Sociedodes lndigenas e lnd/genismo no Brasil. Rio de Janeiro: Marco ZeroiUFRJ

Oliveira JP. 1988. O Nosso Governo: Os Tit:•ma e u Regime Tulelar. S~o Paulo: MCTICNPq1Ma11:o Zero

Palmeim M 1977 Emprego e mudança sócio­económica no nordeste. Anu. Amropol. 76: 201 38

PalmeirB M. cd. 1995. Politica e Relações Pes­soais. Comunicações do PPGAS 5. Rio Ue Janeiro; Mu~euNacional

ANTHROI'OLOGY ATHOME 127

Palmeira M, Goldman M, ed~. 1996. Antro­pologia, Vow e Representação. Rio de h­neiro: Contmcapa

hirano MGS. 19Bl. The anthropo{ogyofan­thropo{ogy: The Braziliun ''u;·e. PhD the­sis. Harvard Univ., Cambridge, MA

Peinmo MGS. 1991. For o sociology oflndia: sorne comments from Brazil. Contrib. In­dian Socio{. (NS) 25:321-27

Peinmo MGS. 1992. Uma Antmpolngia na Plural. BraslilB: Editora Univ. Brasília

Peirnno MGS. 1997. Onde está a antropolo­gia? Mana 3(2):67-102

Rabinow p_ 1996. Mukir~g PCR: " Story oj Biotechno{ogy. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Prcss

Ramos AR. 1995. Sanumá Memories: Yano­nwmi Elhnovap~· "' Times uf Crisü. Madison: Umv. Wos. Press

Ramos AR. 199~. lndigenism: Elhnic Politics ;., Bmzil. Madison: Univ. Wis. Press. ln prcss

Reis FP. l9~fi. Making sense ofhistmy: politi­cai sociology in Bruzil. Cf<rr Soáol. 44: Rl-105

Ribeiro D. 1951. Culturas e lín:e;uus im.lígemls do Rrasil. liduraçâo ~ Ciência.~ Sociai.~ 2:5-100

Ribeiro D. \962. A Politica lndigeni<ta Dra.IÍ­{efra. Rio de Janeiro: MinisWrio da Agri­cultura

Ribeiro U, R1be1ru B. \957. Arte Plumciriados Índia.\ Kaapor. Rio de Janeiro: Seikel

Ribeiro GL. 1996. Brazilians are hur. Amen­('ans are cnld. A rmn--.strncrurali.st ap­prwch ro San Francisco "s carnival. Pre­sented at Annu. Meet. Am. Antluopol. As­soe., 95th, San Francisco

Ribeiro R. 1978. C"/1().)' Afra-Brasih·irm do Recifo. Re.:ife: MEC!Inst. Joaquim Nubu<:o

Saberv..·al S. 19!!2. Uncen8in transplants: an­thropolo_gy and w<:ioiogy in Imlia. Ethnos 42(1-2):16----49

Said E. 197!l. Orienra{i!lm. New York: Pan­thoon

Salcm T. 19l:>5. Famllia cm camadas médias: uma revisão da lilemtura. Rnletim do Ma­seu Naciotu!l (NS) 54. Rio de Janeno: UFRJ

Saran AK. 1962. Rcvicw of contribution~ to lndian oociology, n. rv. Ea.11. Amhmpol. 15:53-68

Schaden E. 1954. Aspecws Fundomentai.1 da Cultura Guarani. S!o Paulo: Difusil.Q Eu­ropéia do Livro

Schneider D. 1968. American K/11sll~: A Cul­tuml Accmml. E.nglewood Cloff:s, "'J: Prentice Hall

Schwurtanun S. 1991 A Sp<"'e for Sciem'e: The Developmem ofthe Sciemific Commu-

128 PEIRANO

nity in Braúl. Univen;ity Park, PA: Penn. State Univ. Press

Seeger A. 1981. Nature and Society in Central Bnml. Cambridge, :MA: H3rvard Univ. Pre~

Seguiu RL. 1998. Tbe color-blimJ ~ubJ~çt of myth; or, where to find Afric.a in the na­tion. Amru. Rev. Anthropol. 27:ln prcss

Seyferth G. 1985. Her~ e estmhJia fumiliar campono:sa. Boletim do Muse~~. Nacional 52. Rio de Janeiro: UFRJ

Seyfenh G. 1990. lmi~:raçiio e Cultura no Brasil. Brasília: Editoru Univ. Bmsí!iu

Sigaud L. 1980. A nação dos homens. An11. An­lrvpo/.18:13-114

Souza Lima AC. 1995. Um Grande Cerco de Paz. Petrópolis: Vozc~

Spindl~r GD, Spindler L. 191!3. Anthropoln­gists vicw Ammcan culturc. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 12:49 78

Srinivas MN. 1952. Reli~ion and Society Among lhe Coorgs ofSouthlmiia, Oxford: C1arendon

Srinivas MN. 1955. Village studtes and their significance. E<1sl. Anlhropvl. 8:215 58

Srinwas MN. 1966. Some thoughts on the study of one's own ooc.iety. ln Soâul ChangeinModernlndia. pp, 147-63.New Delhi: Allied

Srinivas :\fN, ed. 1979. The Fiddwarker and the Field, Oxford: O:dord Univ. Prcss

StockingGW k 1974. Elllpathy arul antipathy m lhe hcart of d~rkncss. Scc Darnclll974, pp. 2R1--ll7

Stocking GW Jr. 1982. Afterword: a view from the center. Elhnos 47(1-2): 172--86

Stocking GW Jr, ed. l983a. 0/mn-ers Ob­:.erved. Essays on Ethnographic Flefd­work. HOA l. Madison: Univ. Wis. Press

Stocking GW Jr. 1983b. History of anthropol­ogy: whencelwhither. See Stocking 1983a, pp. J-12

Strathem M. 1987. The limits of auto-an­thropol()gy. See Jackson1987a,pp. 16-37

Strathem M. ed. 1995. Shif/ing Contexls: Trarujor111<11ion ifl Aflihropologicul Knowledge. London: Rontlcdge

Thomas N. 1991. Against ethnogr~phy. Cult. Amhropo/. 6(3):306-21

Thomas N. 1994. Coloni<lli>·m·~ Cu/tu ... ·: An­tkropology, Tr1111el and Govemment. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press

Traubc EG. 19%. "The popular" in Amcriçan culture. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 25:127-51

Travassos E. 1997. Os Mal!darins Milawosos. Ar/e" Elrwgrafi<~ em MciriQ de AndrudP e Bêla Bartók. Rio de Janeiro: Zahar

Trawcck S. 1988. Beamlimes and Liferimes. 11re World of High Energy Physicisl.r. Cambridge. M.'l.: Han-~rd. Univ. Pre~s

Uberoi JPS. 1968. Science and swaraj. Con-rrib. Jndian Sociol, (NS) 2:119-2~

UberoiJPS.1QRl TheOtherMmdojEurope: Goethe ru Scientist. Delhi: Oxford Univ. Prcss

Velho G. 1972. A U/Qpia Urbww: Um Estudo de An11·opologia Sorial. Rio de Janeiro: Zah~r

Velho G. 197.). Nohres i! anjo.<: um i!Siudo de tóxicos e hierarquia. PhD thesis. Univ. de SAo Paulo

Velho G. 197B. Observando o famili~r. ln A Avenfllra Sociológica. cd.. E Nunes, pp, 36-46. Rio de Janeiro: Zahar

Velho G. l9BI. irtdh'ldualismo e Cultura. Rio de Janeiro: Zahar

Velho G, cd. 1995. Quatro Viagem: An­trapólogas Brmileiros no F.xlerior. Comu­nicações do PPVAS 6. Rio de Janeiro: Mus. Nac.

Velho O. 1972. Frente.s de E.Ypan.>Jo e E.~tru­/ura Agrária. Rlo de Janctro: Zahar

Velho O. 197ci. CapilaiÍ.5mo Auwritárw e Campesina/o. São Paulo: Diíe1

Velho O. 1982. Tluougb.AUhu~s~riun ~peda­cles: recent social anthropology in Brazil. Ethrws 47(1-2): 133--49

Velho O. 1995. Be.sta-Fera. Recriação do Mrmdo. Rio de J•m~iro; Relume-Dwmmi

Vianna II. 1995. O Mi.~têrio do Sam h<~. Rio de Janeiro: Z~har/Editora Ut'RJ

Vida! L. 1917 Monee VIda <k uma Sociedade Indigena Brasileira: Os Kayapo-Xikrin do Rio C<~lele. Silo Paulo: Hucite~

Vilhena LR. 1997. Pro)ew e Mia são: O Movi­mento Folclórico Brasileiro (1947· 1964). Rio de Janeiro: Funarte/Fund~çiio Getúlio Vargas

Villaça A. 1992. Comendo como Geme: For­mas do Canibalismo ltari. Rio de Janeiro: AnpncsfLTFRJ

Viveiros de Castro E. 1992. rrom the Enemy's Poifll "[Vi~w. Humanil}'<lfldDivimrv in an Amazonian Society. Transl. C Howard. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press

Viveiros de Castro E. 1993. St:ruclur~~. r(~ gimes, stratégies. L '/lomme 33:117-37

Viveiros de Castro E. 1994. Une m~uVllise querelle. L 'llomme 34:181-91

Viveiro:; de Castro E, ed. 1995u.Anlropologia do Parentescll: E.<tudo.< Ameri,difls. Rio de Janeiro: Ed1lom UFRJ

Viveiros de Castro E. 1995b. Pensando o pa­rentesco ameríndio. See Viveiros de Cas­tro 199:5a, pp. 7-24

Wagley C, Gaivão E. 1949. The Tenelt•hara lndians o{Brazil: A Culture in 11-an.sitio". New Yort: Columbia Umv. Press

Wonrtmann E. 1995. H~rdeiro.<, Parentes e Compadres. São Paulo/Brasilla: Hu­citecfFdUnR

Woortmann K. 1990. ~com parente não se negoceia"; o campesinato como ordem moral. Anu. A.nrropol. 87:11-76

•

•

•

•