Professional Documents
Culture Documents
GAJ 5408251099
34S
.1="12-
2002-
Johannes Fabian
WITH A NEW FOREWORD BY MATTI BUNZL
•
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS NEW YORK
For my parents
And for llona
1098765432 1
Contents
The Argument
Foreword xxi
functionalist approach of British social anthropology,
and-with cenain exceptions-the French varieties of 1 . 1 h potheses or as the embodiments of cultural f .
structuralism, was carried out frorn scientific as well as polit- oglca y ti larly questionable form o SCIen-
ical perspectives. Appealing to recen t argumen ts in the his- types) figu:e~ as a p~~ c:anted anthropologists unlimited
tory and philosophy of science, especially Thomas Kuhn 's r d contro 1 over data gained from the
tific imperialism, as 1 g
theses on scientific paradigms (Kuhn 1962), critics like Bob and decontextua.lze ra hic fieldwork. Such a pos-
Scholte argued against the possibility of a neutral and value- intercultural reality of ~thno~ ¡critical reflection on rele-
free anthropology. As a discipline rooted in concrete social itivist approach not o~ ~ eva t~xts but it also denied the
and cultural power structures, anthropology could no more vant
Othercultural andof socla
the status b.c~nwho a~ts and interacts with the
a su ~ec
shut out political influences than any other fields ofinquiry.
In the case of an thropology, however, the situation was par- ethnographer," .. f ethnographic positivism
ticularly precarious given that the relevant political COntext In turn, suc~ cnu~Uee}o~mulation of a new, critical
of its codification was the imperialist expansion of the served as the basis for fthis new anthropology stood
Western world-a reality whose structural Consequences anthropology. At the f·e~1t~~ °relevant, morally responsi?le,
enabled the anthropological production of knowledge, the demand for a P? itica J. tion In place of the objec-
and soci,:,-llyernancipatory dlrecd n~ocolonial oppressions
both in post- and neocolonial situations (Scholte 1970;
1971; 1972). In view of the Continuing repression of anthro- tifying distance that repro vould be a new form of ethno-
pology's traditional "objects," the discipline's distancing of the West's Others, there ~o~in the intersubjective expe-
objectification not only ceased to figure as an unpolitical graphic immane.nce~ gr~~h ethe victims of imperialism
scientific act, but it carne to be seen as pan of an aggressive rience
(Hymes and sohdanty
1972b; Berreman 1972., Scholte 1971, 1972;
colonial project that secured the West's privileges at the 3
costs of its Others, In this sense, the maxims of cultural rel- Weaver 191. ). . 1b . ofsuch a critical anthropolo-
ativism, with its profession of a value-free plurality, were lit- The episternologica aslS. f all as ects of ethno-
gy
tle more than the hypocritical cloaking of a claim to hege- lay in the radical ~elf-reflecSuohnolOte
demtnded not only
. . 1 this sense c . h.
mony that allowed examination of the peoples of the world graphíc praxIS. n. f' thropology's disciphnary IS-
with benevolent condescension while failing to acknowl- the critical reevaluation o oliticall veiled activity, but the
edge or thematize their subjugation by Western powers (cf tory as an always already po 1 ~ ositivist reflexive pro-
Scholte 1971; Diamond 1972; Weaver 1973). formulation of a self-c~msc~~XI:~ ~ produ~tion (Scholte
Alongside criticism of the political dimensions of gram of anthropologIC~k F b·a~ had articulated in
social and cultural anthropology, opposition arose against 1971; 1972). Much 1 e a \ " the core of this pro-
the reigning epistemologies of anthropological knowledge "Language,
g History and AnthroKo ~~dwork as an intersub-
production. Fabian's artide "Language, History and ram was a vision of ethnograP lC le tic praxis Such a
.. h . h ently h ermeneu ..
Anthropology" (an original draft was tellingly entitled jective arrd ence m er f the Western subject,
"Language, History and a New Anthropology") was one of praxis broke the analytic he~emo~y o thropological knowl-
th.e.c.entral texrs of this opposition. Fabian, like Scholte, replacing it ~ith ~ cance~tlOn ~ c~~cretely situated com-
Cntlclzed the positivist focus on anthropological method- edge as the dialogical pro uct od. lectical undertaking, it
ology and the concomitant absence of reflection on the municative understandmg. ~s ':'- la . that not only sus-
discipline's praxis (Fabian 1971b). For both critics, the was thus pan of an íntersubjecríve totality h. Self and a
ready andr seemingly unproblematic objectification of pended the distinction betw~en a ::~~~~Ct~~~scendence.
Others (fo eXample, as experimental objects ofanthropo_ researched Other but sough~ I~ per th ology would fol-
In place of Ob~ectif)rin~drelf~:;n~~~er:t~~d
low an emanClpatory 1 ea and reflected
xxii Foreword
Foreword xxiii
the insights of ethno ra h .
tools (SchoIte 1972; Fatía~ f97f b)rogreSSlVe and polítical The Consequences
In the wake of the theoreti l' .
1970s, several scholars sou h t t ea manifestos of the early The theoretical and practical effects of Time and the Other
effort to advance the pro'e~t fO ~~act the postulates in an can be traced readily in Fabian's own works, for example
designs as Paul Rabino~' o cntIc~l anthropology. Such in two books from the 1990s-Power and Performance
fieldwork in Morocco as sllsystem~tIc reflections on his (l990b) and Remembering the Present (1996). Both texts are
Crapanzano's attemp~s-:~o ~ Ke~n Dwyer's and Vincent characterized by the attempt to overcome the allochronic
al-to develop a dialo ic th ase on Moroccan materi-
od (Rabinow 1977; J =r 1nog~aphy,date from that perí-
cf. Tedlock 1979) Fab':VY, ;!79, 1982; Crapanzano 1980'
dimension of anthropology. In Pouier and Performance,
Fabian attains ethnographic coevalness through the devel-
.. . Ian s 1 zme and th Oth h ' opment of a performative dialectic: anthropological
posiuon dates back to 1978 e er, w ose corn- knowledge is not only the discursive representation of cul-
and it constituted a semi l' emerged a~ the same moment tural facts; it is also, and more importantly, constructed
th e emerging tradition ma Th , even
b k'defimn . g, co~tn iburi utror¡ to from and within the conditions of fieldwork. Concretely,
of allochronism as a co~stit~t" 00 1s WIde-rangmg criticism Fabian investigates the various dimensions of a theater
cal discourse was both rve e em~nt of anthropologi_ production in 1986--a production that, as Fabian's self-
a
based on the principles ~e~-~nalysIs of the discipline reflexive analysis makes clear, could only take place
díalectic attempt at its AuÍ/t ~ntIc~l anthropology and a because of his own presence. The ethnographic and ana-
a reflexive ethnoO"raphI'cp e . ng t rough the demand for lytic result of this situation underscores the central func-
A o raxis,
t the same time, Fabian li k '. '. tion of an thropological coevalness by portraying observed
allochronism to a po ful m e? hIS mvestIgatIon of reality itself as a constitutive moment of fieldwork.
r~etorical figures. This ;:~_bre:7ualYSIS .o~ the discipline's Fabian pursues a similarly path-breaking ontology of
srve construction of the th ng: cntIq~e of the discur- anthropological knowledge production in Remembering the
emancipat~ry claims ot~ri~~~ologIcal obJect ali~ned the Presento Here too the overcoming of allochronism is the
structural mvestigations into th anthropology. wíth post- central focus, and, as in Potuer and Performance, the accor-
Other. For Fabian Mi h 1 F e representatIon of the dance of coevalness results from the mobilization and rep-
tioned as an irn ~r~t e. oucauír', interventions func- resentation of the ethnographic dialogue as a constitutive
Edward Said's con~urrent ;:~fIr:atIoz:_~ clear parallel to element of cultural production. Here, however, it is not
ilarly focused on the di . ySIfis
of Onen talism" that sirn- actors who converse with the anthropologist and his read-
packaged and fixed IScurSIve
the O . ormati ons that i
at lmagined
lAr' rient as . , ers but rather an artist, Tshibumba Kanda Matulu. In the
~ves~er~ texts (Said 1978). Fabian ~ sIgn of the ?0:r in 1970s, Fabian encouraged him to depict the his~o~y of
ties m mtent [and] method" b hImself noted sImIlari- Zaire. The reproduction of the resulting 101 p~mtmgs,
Much l~ke Orientalism, Time an~n;een the two books (xiii), along with the artist's descriptions of them, constItute the
synthesIs of a politicall ro .he Other represented the main part of the book. In its radical extension of ant~ro-
epístemology with a cJtca/:~~~I~~s and radically ~eflexive pological authority, Remembering the Present thus exemphfi~s
ments of textual production' an~ . ~~ ~e rh~toncal ele- a concrete attempt not only to deconstruct allochromc
eth.n.ography, it constituted ~ cruc~~ Ig t ~f rts focus on methods of representation in anthropology but also to
~~~~~;~:~~e, argua~ly the most influ~~~al°~o!eir~~'~r~~
Marcus 1986; ~f.=~~~:nd ~nthhropOlogy (Clifford and
replace them with constructive alternatives.'
Beyond the expected conclusion that Time and the
Other figured as a conceptual signpost for Fabian's later
n us man 1982; Clifford 1983). work, it is quite difficult to prove the book's concrete influ-
XXIV Foreword
Foreword xxv
ences on general tendencies in anthropology. Not only are
the origins of individual ideas notoriously difficult to pin .. ar isolation in the southeast of the
Dayaks, ~ho live In ~~rneo In distinction from conven-
down, but their fragmented history precludes any contin- Indonesian ya.rt of . Tsin does not take the rela-
uous delineation (cf. Stocking 1968:94). Such a project tional de~cnptIons, however'a giv!n but rather analyzes its
would also be a contradiction of the argument, developed tive isolatIon of the glr~up aSomplex' interpretation of the
so prominently in Time and the Other, that anthropology is The resu t IS a c f th
structure. . r . the national context o e
both a collective and context-bound project. In this situa- production of margl~~ ity In the cultural existence of the
tion, the central conception of Time and the Other--anthro_ Indonesian state. In ISway, emnant of "primitive"
pology as praxis-offers an essential aid, as it directs atten- D k pears not as a r .
Meratus aya s ap . f national and transnational
tion to the effective production of ethnographic knowl- ways of life but as alu~ct~n ~ing resolutely protests the
edge, "what its practitioners actually do" (Geertz 1973:5). power str.uctures. ~ ee , the Meratus Dayaks are "any-
In this regard, the question of the influence of Time and the allochronic assumptIon that ,,, (Tsing 1993:x); more-
Other may be posed more meaningfully: Has allochronism ' , orary ancestors
be en transcended in anthropological discourse? body s contemp . trive for the constant trans-
over, her rhetorical strat~gles sh the use of innovative nar-
Even a cursory glance at sorne of the more influential mission of coevalness. T r<?ug biosis of analytical and
ethnographies published in the past fifteen years can elu- rative .approaches) (~cr~~t~vc~eslemdi~~~~ical dimensions of
cidate this question. Overwhelmingly, contemporary reflexive elements '. e . Informants thus become
anthropological work follows Time and the Other in the her fieldwork rernam ~cce~lbl~. and to ensure this mode
deployrnent of pertinent methodological and rhetorical complex and ~rounde su ~e~ ~f grammatical ternporali-
conventions. The consistent refusal of the traditional, of representatIon, the quesuo
objectif)ring ethnographic present, for example, is striking, ty takes center-stage:
as is its replacement by the imperfect as the preferred
it n ethnographic
tense in the narrative representation of ethnographic In what tens~ does one :wr~~:tail has considerable
material. The use of the past tense, moreover, OCcurs in ~ccount? ThlS gra~~~~lc~O"nificance.The use of
direct opposition to the danger of allochronic representa- intellectual and I? ~. ti d to a conceptual-
the "ethnographic present IS le . t
tion, signaling instead to contemporary anthopologists' ization of culture as a coherent and pe:slst~n
widespread desire to historicize and particularize their whole. It creates a timeless scene of ~CtIO~(~f
ethnographic encounters. As a result, anthropological which cultural difference can be e~p ore al ~f
knowledge now appears as the product of specifically situ- Strathern 1990·Hastrup 1990). Thís remov iti
ated, dialogical interactions between anthropologists and ethnographic. time
~ from hiISo. t ry has. beeninto
cn exot-
-
informants, further highlighted by the widespread appear- cized for turning ethnographlc. sU?Jec~ ot the
ance of the authorial "l." The constitutive organ of ethno. ic creatures (Fabi~n 1983); their time IS n are
g:raphic intersubjectivity, it is now typically present, func- time of civilized history, Many ethnogr~p hers h. h
thus turning to a historical time frame In w IC
tlOning as the principal carrier of anthropological coeval-
ness and reflexive praxis. action happens in the past tense. . rib-
Yet here too, there are problems In dese
Anna Tsing's In the Realm 01 the Diamond Queen ,
ing an out-of-the-waypace.1 . . . To many readers,
1
(l993)-one of the most widely hailed and emulated
ethno~raphies of the 1990s-i11ustrates these principIes
J
using the past tense about an out-:of-the-way ace
sUO"ests not that people "have:'history but at
paradlgmatical1y. The book is in many respects a "classic" th~~ are history, in the collogUlalse~s~ .. ~ onl
monograph of a srnall indigenous group, the Meratus 1 cannot escape these dilemmas; ea y
maneuver Wl.thiIn th em . In this book, 1 find uses
xxvi Foreword
__
m Fabian, Time and the Work
207-223. Amsterdarn: H
1990b P,
t ons ~~ based on the reprint
Anthrop~logy: Cntzcal Essays 1971-1991
. arwoo Academic Publishings. '
University of Chicago Press.
Leclerc, Cérard. 1972. Anthropologie ei Colonialisme. Paris: Fayard.
. . ower and Performance' Et} ap hi .
Proverbial Wisdom and Theater i S}
Press.
b morr te Exploratzons Through
In ia a. Madison: University of Wisconsin
Malkki, Liisa. 1995. Purity and Exile: Violence, Memory, and National Cosmology
Among Hutu Refugees in Tanzania. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
MarcuS, George. 1984. Review of Time and the Other. American Anthropologist
--o 1% 1. Time and the Work of A } ..
Amsterdam: Harwood A d . nttrc:P0.logy Critical Essass 1971-199l.
86(4): 1023-1025.
_-o 1996 . ea emlc Pubhshmgs . Marcus, George and Dick Cushman. 1982. "Ethnographies as Texts."
. Remembenng the Present: Painting and Pr>h la . . .
Berkeley: University of Calif . P v/,u r Hzstary In Zaire. A nnual R.eview of A nthropology 11: 25-69.
horma ress. Marcus, George and Michae! Fischer. 1986. Anthropology as Cultural
--o 1998. Moments of Freedom: Anthr olo Critique: An Experimental Moment in the Human Sciences. Chicago:
CharlottesvilIe: University Press of Vi . '!P gy and Popular Culture.
__ 2 Irgmla.
. 000. Out of Our Minds: Reason and M . University of Chicago Press. . .
Morris, Rosalind. 2000. In the Place of Origins: Modernity and Its Medlums In
Central Africa. Berkeley: University of Calif ~n;s In the Exploration of
Ceertz, Clifford. 1973 . The 1nterpretatzon
. of Cult I orrua Nress. Yo Northern Thailand. Durham, .C.: Duke University Press.
1,
Ceorge, Kenneth 1996 Sh . S. 'J ures. ew ork: Basic Books Narayan, Kirin. 1993. "How Native Is a 'Native' Anthropologist?" American
. . oWlng zgns of Vi le . The C .
Twentieth-Century Headhuntin Rit L B ~ nce. . ul~ural Politics of a Anthropologist 95(3): 671-686.
Press. g ua erkeley: University of California povinelli, Elizabeth. 1993. Labor's Lot: The Power, Histary, and Culture of
Aboriginal Action. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. .'
Cough,
19(11):Kathleen.
12-27. 1968 . "Anth ropology and Imperialism." Monthly Reuiew Rabinow, Pau\. 1977. Rejlections on Fieldwork in Morocco. Berke!ey: U niversity