Sitting Culture

IntroductionKirsten Hastrup and Karen Fog Olwig

The idea that cultures and, consequently, people are naturally rooted inparticular places has long been questioned in theoretical anthropology. Yetthe methodological and analytical implications of this insight are still beingworked out. This book seeks to contribute to this critical process byexamining the role of place in the conceptualization and practice of culture.The idea that cultures can be conceptualized as separate and unique entitiescorresponding to particular localities has not just been a means of bringingorder into an otherwise disorderly world, it has also been a means of erectingframeworks within which anthropologists might perceive and understandcultural difference. The erection of cultural distinctions and borders is thusclosely related to the anthropological practice of understanding culture froman internal, local point of view, followed by a more external, generalizedanalysis. This approach to culture has been basic at all levels ofanthropological thinking. The anthropologist conducting field workendeavours to understand the way in which local people themselvesexperience and interpret their lives by participating in and thus becomingpart of local life. At the same time, anthropologists also remove themselves,at least intellectually, from the local context of life in order to subject thedata gathered in this way to more external, social scientific considerations.The field data that are obtained through participant observation are similarlyanalyzed with a view to both the inner workings of a culture, and a moregeneral, transcendent, interpretation within the larger theoretical context ofthe discipline. The ethnographer will often highlight conclusions concerningcertain cultural phenomena among the people under study through cross-cultural comparison, which will allow for even more general conclusions tobe drawn than is possible on the basis of the study of a single culture.

If anthropologists (and their social science) and the people under study(and their cultural knowledge) do not belong to two distinct socio-culturalwholes, but are part of one global ecumene of interconnections as Hannerz(1992) has termed it, how is it possible for anthropologists to maintain the

JoanaResendeHighlight





external-internal distinction? Is it largely the creation of European ideologyand the need to make sense of, and to control, an otherwise messy world ofinterrelations? If so, the whole anthropological project is called into question.Instead of cultures located in a particular landscape we face a transnationalculture of sounds and images, such as the ra music discussed here by MarcSchade-Poulsen, or the videos made by Tamils across the distance of theirflight examined by Ann-Belinda Steen Preis.

A companion concept to that of culture is that of the culture area. Cultureareas are aggregates of cultures which are believed to display some similaritydespite their individual unique character, and they usually coincide withgeographical regions. Much cross-cultural comparison has taken place withinculture areas where it is believed to be possible to do controlledcomparisons between somewhat similar cultures (Eggan 1954). Throughsuch comparative studies a general consensus seems to have been reachedconcerning certain cultural themes which are thought to be of particularsalience in specific culture areas, and this in turn has influenced furtherresearch in the area. India, as Appadurai (1988) has argued, has thus come tosignify hierarchical societies. An inadvertent effect of this is that forms ofsocial organization or thinking which are not hierarchical have tended to beignored, or been regarded as uncharacteristic of the area. Again it seems as ifthe desire to establish clear-cut categories and to create an orderly field ofstudy has led anthropologists to downplay cultural diversity or to brand it asabnormal. Furthermore, as was the case in the study of local cultures, theculture-area approach has had difficulty in dealing with relations that extendbeyond the defined area. At this level, too, the localizing strategy ofanthropology, and the accompanying regionalization of ethnographicaccounts, to which Richard Fardon (1990) drew our attention, crumplesunder the weight of manifest global relationships.

Many anthropologists would probably agree with much of this criticism.Yet most would probably also be quick to point out that critics have offeredfew alternatives to the traditional anthropological methods which have, afterall, succeeded in making anthropology a recognized and constructive field ofstudy. The notion of separate and distinct cultures has enabled the carving ofthe world into smaller units, which could be studied in the laboratories ofthe anthropological field sites. It has offered the analytical perspective ofcultural holism which has helped anthropologists to avoid imposing Westernframe-works of analysis upon studies of other ways of life. And it hasallowed for comparative analysis of different cultures and hence theestablishment of a field devoted to human culture and society in general.

We suggest that a fruitful response to the critique of traditionalapproaches to culture in anthropology is a re-examining of key concepts in

2 KIRSTEN HASTRUP AND KAREN FOG OLWIG






anthropology through careful ethnographic case studies. By maintaining anawareness of the problems inherent in anthropological theory and method, itmay be possible to see them as productive foci for further ethnographicresearch. In this vein, the following chapters examine, explicitly orimplicitly, the cultural importance of place and space in variousethnographic contexts. Through analyses of concrete cases, they pointtoward renewed understanding of the relation between place and culture.

Despite the fact that we are living in an era of apparent globalization, theconcept of cultural wholes is still very much with us. It seems to be on theagenda, all over the world, as some kind of totalizing reference point(Strathern 1993). At the same moment that the anthropological professionexperiences a loss of faith in this concept of culture, it has become embracedby a wide range of culture builders world wide. The paradoxical result isthat anthropological works are increasingly being consulted by peopledesiring to construct cultural identities of a totalizing sort which theanthropologist finds deeply problematic. Even though anthropologists mayfear that the desired cultural identity derives from an earlier anthropologicaldiscourse that has become naturalized in various local contexts, this identitycannot be discarded as irrelevant. It has become irrevocably part ofethnography. We suggest, therefore, that rather than discarding the notionof culture, it should be reinvented, as it were, through an exploration of theplace of culture in both the experiential and discursive spaces that peopleinhabit or invent. Thus, instead of taking local cultural entities for granted,we want to explore the siting of culture as a dynamic process of self-understanding among the people we study (Olwig, Chapter 1 of thisvolume). We will do this through a number of empirical case studies whichallow for an examination of the methodological and theoretical implicationsof such a repositioning of the anthropological object.

SPACE AND PLACE

Until recently, space or place operated as fixed coordinates of theethnographic world map. Anthropologists went places, and their implicitclaim to fame was related to the fact that these places were far away, exotic,and potentially perilous. In the heart of darkness everything was possible,including the return to the enlightened West. As discussed here by JamesFerguson, the idea of the field as a place to which one went and from whichone came back, cemented the idea of separate worlds; worlds, moreover, thatwere firmly placed on the world map. People, including anthropologists,moved in space. The idea of a solid spatial context is reflected also in the

INTRODUCTION 3





anthropological propensity towards spatial metaphors in the theoreticallandscape (Salmond 1982).

Of late we have realized that space may in fact be contested. As Michel deCerteau has it: space is a practiced place (de Certeau 1986:117). Practicesoverlap, intersect and blur the boundaries of place to the extent that we mayspeak of a continuous global place in the analysis of certain practices. Just ashistories are intertwined so territories are overlapping, if not always on equalterms (cf. Said 1993). This represents an acceptance of the theoreticalimportance of the manifest and terrible conflicts over so-called nationalboundaries that we are witnessing today. It is a painful acknowledgement ofthe fact that realities are defined in practice, rather than by preestablished socialstructures or the fixed coordinates of a semantic space. This recognition thatcultural places are constructed within an equally constructed spatial matrixdoes not abnegate their importance, quite the opposite. The role of spaceand place in social life has become a topic of renewed interest withinanthropology.

The place-focused concept of culture has been seen by severalanthropologists to be the consequence of a conceptual bias closely related tothe strong influence of nationalist thinking in the Western countries whereanthropology developed as a scholarly discipline. An aspect of thedisciplining of the fields practitioners was an implicit internalization of theidea of culture, reflecting the romanticist idea of the nation, as a set of beliefsand customs shared by a people living in a well-defined area and speaking aparticular language. Thus, in the anthropological rethinking of receivedwisdom, culture has been viewed as an outgrowth of nationalist ideas ofnations as naturally rooted in the native soil of their people (Handler 1985;Kahn 1989; Malkki 1992; Gupta and Ferguson 1992). The fact that thisremains not solely an analytical construct but also very much a popularimage is vividly testified to by the Norwegian case discussed by ThomasHylland Eriksen. Nationalism has led to a notion of culture as somethingwhich is possessed by all of humankind, but in separate, bounded and uniquecultural wholes which correspond to distinct and localized social groups.This has given rise to the idea that each of these socio-cultural wholesshould be described and analyzed on their own terms in order to documentthe cultural variety and particularities of humankind. One of the importantprojects within anthropology has therefore been that of mapping out theentire world in separate cultures which, with few exceptions, could belocated in their own contiguous places, as discussed by Jonathan Schwartzfor Macedonia. If it is true that the nation state is unraveling, this should notonly fuel a critique of the nation, but also of the idea that cultures can beneatly localized. The classic monograph documenting unique and









selfcontained cultures must then give way to a new genre, taking its point ofdeparture in those nodal points in the networks of interrelations where thereis a mutual construction of identities through cultural encounters.

The basic research tool in the classical study of cultures has been the time-honoured method of field work. This has also been one of the main targetsof criticism in the debate on the place-focused notion of culture withinanthropology (Rosaldo 1988; Clifford 1992; Appadurai 1988). Prolongedfield work among a group of people living in a particular area has allowedanthropologists to develop close relations with the people under study and adetailed knowledge about ways of life which in many ways are radicallydifferent from those of the anthropologist. Indeed, few would question thevalue of the many insightful ethnographic monographs which todayconstitute a major part of the anthropological literature. These monographsprovide rich and unparalleled evidence of the variety of epistemologies andways of communicating them within the shared range of humanity. It is alsobeyond question, however, that these works, and the field work upon whichthey are based, illustrate some of the limitations inherent in the approach tothe study of culture that has been dominant until now.

One of these limitations is the tendency of anthropologists to study thosenatives who stay put in the particular area, where the anthropologists aredoing their field work. Karsten Prregaard began his field work in thePeruvian Andes in a remote rural region, supposedly authentic, anddiscarding the migrants as noise. Only later did he realize that they were partand parcel of local culture, and indeedvice versa. The general problemis that people who are mobile, and therefore not immediately present in theresearch site while the ethnographer is paying his or her fleeting visit, haveoften been ignored, even though they are in fact often of great importanceto the more settled people. As abundantly testified to by Ninna NybergSrensens study of Dominicans at home and in New York, the fact oftravel and migrancy may be a strong parameter in the selfdefinition of peoplein either place.

The difficulty of seeing movement as an aspect of social life in general isrelated to the fact that mobility, in so far as it involved settled people, hasbeen regarded as a special and temporary phenomenon which has beenexamined under headings such as migration, refugee studies, and tourism. AsSchwartz notes, migration has been viewed in terms of unilineal, and finite,movements between a point of origin and a point of destination. As hisstudy of Macedonian migrants shows, however, migration often involves along chain of movements which affect many people in different places overan extended period of time. Refugees, who remain in a state of exile for anextended period of time, have been more difficult to handle within this

INTRODUCTION 5



conceptual framework. They have often, as Liisa Malkki notes (1992, andChapter 10 of this volume), been seen to represent an abnormal, or evenpathological condition.

In anthropology, the image of people as being firmly settled in a homeenvironment has been matched by an equally strong vision of displacement,uprooting, chaos and catastrophe as but temporary instances of unrest anddisorder. Gypsies and nomads were the exceptions who proved this rulenomads, nevertheless, moved within well-defined patterns within fixedterritories. The natural state of the world was conceived of in terms ofstability and social coherence; flight and suffering were out of order (Davis1992; Hastrup 1993). As the end of our millennium comes closer we areforced to take cognizance of the fact that disorder and suffering arebecoming the order of the day in many parts of the world. Malkkisrendition of recent refugee experience in Burundi and Rwanda poses aterrifying example of the matter-of-fact way in which massacres are carriedout and repeated locally. The next-to-inevitability of such atrocities isthereafter discursively cemented in the reportage of the internationalcommunity which emphasizes the general features of pain and flight ratherthan the actual historicity of the refugee camp and the concrete collectiveexperience of the refugees. It is about time that anthropology recognized itsduty to deal with de-stabilization and sufferingalways an integral part ofhuman experience, if largely ignored because it has an unsettling effect upontheory which is predicated upon a more settled way of life.

The anthropological place-fixation can also be seen to be related to atendency in the West to view non-Western people as somehow closer tonature. Thus Appadurai (1988:37) has argued that anthropologists haveincarcerated natives ecologically and intellectually in places, outside theWestern metropolises, where their culture is regarded as closely adapted totheir particular environment. Implicitly, this casting of the relationshipbetween us and them in terms of the opposition between culture and naturetestifies to a dominant view of the relationship as inherently asymmetrical,not unlike the relationship between empire and culture, as investigated bySaid (1993). This suggests that once these categories have been de-essentialized and reconstructed as categories of thought, we may demask thisasymmetry as part of the exoticizing nature of any discourse on theconstructed other.

Due to the tradition of carrying out field work in distinct cultureswhich can be studied and analyzed in their own right, earlier anthropologistspaid little attention to the fact that even the seemingly most remote andexotic people do not exist in isolation from the rest of the world. The verypresence of the anthropologist is evidence to the contrary. As James Clifford




(1992:9) has noted, there has been remarkably little discussion of themissionary airplane which brought the anthropologist to the field, and whichhas long brought the natives in close contact with the Western world.Today, this field of interrelationships could be a main point of departure inanthropological research; the field is, by definition, a contact zone (cf. Pratt1992). Gupta and Ferguson (1992) have argued that the world should beviewed in terms of a global space, which is characterized by hierarchicalrelations and power constellations extending from particular metropoles. Inthis global space of relations, clearly defined places do not exist in and ofthemselves. Rather they are constructed culturally as communities ofrelations constitute and demarcate themselves within hierarchically organizedspace of unequal relationships. The cultural construction of distinct places ina world of interconnectedness is therefore, for them, an important subject ofanthropological study. Appadurai (1991) goes even further and suggests thatthe world consists of deterritorialized ethnoscapes whose culturallyconstructed places of identification often will not coincide with their actualphysical locations. A more relevant framework of study, for him, is theimagined worlds, constructed on the basis of the creative resources, whichare generated by the experience of deterritorialization itself.

With the loss of place as a dominant metaphor for culture goes amethodological redirection from order to non-order, which not only allowsus to capture mobility in the landscape, but also the processes ofdeterritorialization and reterritorialization which this mobility involves. Italso, and more significantly, enables us to understand the fact that peoplesactions alter the conditions of their existence, often in ways they never intendor foresee (Rosaldo 1989:1023). Preiss analysis of Tamil refugees inDenmark who must cope with a lack of ritual experts in times of crises, thusshows how their very coping alters the conditions of their existence. Peopleact relative to their intentions, intentions that are always culturally shapedand historically positioned. Yet, through their acts people make historythemselves; change rather than structure is the condition of culture astestified by most contemporary ethnographies. Only as icon does localculture remain untouched by history, as in the case of Constable Country,analyzed by Judith Okely. On canvas, the English landscape remainsuntouched by trusts, tourists and tea-cups.

ETHNOGRAPHIC RESEARCH

Despite the fact that traditional ethnographic field research has been thesubject of criticism, we believe that it is only through rich ethnographic studiesthat space and placeand what we make of them in human relationscan

INTRODUCTION 7





be examined. This explains the emphasis on empirical analysis in thechapters presented below. The chapters can be seen to represent severaldifferent methodological approaches to the study of such culturalconstructions.

A field of relations

While the field work upon which these articles are based hasof coursetaken place in particular localities, it has not necessarily been confined tostudying those relations that are circumscribed by these localities. If space ispracticed place, the relevant space will often cut across boundaries; inpractice East and West, North and South may be one. Thus, in whatfollows, the field work sites have been defined by the human relations thatwere the subject of study, be they discussed in terms of migrancy, refuge,diffusion or imperialism.

Generally, we may define the field, not primarily in terms of a locality, butas the field of relations which are of significance to the people involved in thestudy (cf. Earth 1992). This makes it possible to examine both the nature ofthe non-local relations and the way in which they molded and in turn weremolded by the different localities where they touched ground. Thefollowing studies reflect, to a great extent, a processual approach to fieldwork, where new locations are incorporated into the research, as theresearchers become aware of their relevance to the topic under study.Prregaard, as noted, decided to extend his study of an Andean village toinclude migrants in Lima and other urban areas; Schwartzs research onMacedonians took place in Canada, Sweden and Denmark as well asMacedonia; Olwigs research on a West Indian community brought her toNorth America and Great Britain as well as the Caribbean.

Focusing on relations, rather than on locations, will not necessarily mean,however, that our studies must encompass an ever-widening circle of ties. Outof the seemingly infinite range of relations, which span the globe today, onlya few are, in fact, activated and imbued with meaning by particular people.Furthermore, many relations, which are geographically and socially close athand, are studiously ignored. This is brought out in the concept ofendosociality discussed by Jonathan Friedman in his analysis of a Hawaiianfishing village.

A process through time

The ethnographic case studies have not just been processual in terms of thelocations involved, but also with regard to the temporal dimension covered.


If cultural constructions, rather than cultural entities, are our object of study,studying the historical context within which they have been generated willhelp us understand their significance today. Nyberg Srensens and Olwigsstudies thus came to involve extensive historical research, as it becameapparent that contemporary perceptions of place are very much a reflectionof historical developments in the Caribbean area. Likewise, Hasagers studyof homesteading in Hawaii entailed careful study of the historicaldevelopment of ownership and usage of land in Hawaii.

Uneven encounters

As these case studies have extended the boundaries of their field sites torelevant geographically and historically removed contexts of life, it hasbecome apparent how different places have become demarcated in space anddefined through time. In most cases this has occurred in close relation to, inseveral cases even in opposition to, centers of power, particularly those ofthe Western metropoles. As Ferguson notes, that which we in ethnographicresearch have regarded as local culture is often constituted out of unevenencounters. Such local culture may be Creole national culture developedby Dominicans in the face of colonial and neocolonial forces (NybergSrensen); it may be the fierce maintenance of village culture in a Hawaiilong dominated by economic interests from the outside (Friedman), or theestablishment of strong local identities among both villagers and settlers in agovernmental resettlement scheme in Sri Lanka (Refslund Srensen).

Not all local culture is denned primarily by the locals, however, nordoes it necessarily serve local interests. The village in East Anglia painted byConstable, argues Okely, has been preserved according to ideas ofConstable Country, which reflect educated white upper-class perceptionsof the rural English countryside. This not only leaves little room for therural workers who have created the village and its surrounding countrysidethrough their labor, it also detracts attention from the destruction of thatEnglish countryside which has not been designated as being of particularlocal value. In his study of Lesotho, Ferguson shows how designating thispart of Southern Africa as an independent nation-state has depoliticized thepoverty and powerlessness which its citizens have suffered.

Reflexivity

By making interrelationships (as they unfold in time and space) a primaryfocus of research, it is possible to take a point of departure in the reflexivityof the people under study toward the social and economic processes

INTRODUCTION 9

resulting from these relations. We thereby, as Prregaard argues, avoidoperating with an absolute distinction between internal (implicit) andexternal (explicit) points of view. Instead we may take our point ofdeparture in the various ways in which people represent what they perceiveas their culture. These representations need not be in agreement, but willoften reflect contested ideas of local culture. This is also apparent inRefslund Srensens study of oral testimony by villagers and settlersconcerning a Sri Lankan resettlement scheme. She views it as representingtwo forms of narratives which reflect the different processes of displacementin which the two groups have been involved.

Today we need not confine ourselves to data that we generate ourselvesin the field through participant observation and interviews. We can also drawon the many written and visual forms of expression created by the peoplewe study. Preis, for example, has used video productions made by Tamils asan important window to under-standing their perception of their position asrefugees from Sri Lanka. Schade-Poulsen has studied Algerian ra musicproductions and press articles on this to supplement his field research of thetransformation of a local music form into the global music genre of worldmusic. Malkki finds newspaper articles and UN documents as well asstatements by officials involved in refugee work and by refugees themselvesto be important sources of information in her study of the way in whichrefugees are representedand misrepresentedin the West. By includingand focusing upon the ways people perceive and define the cultural spacewithin which they exist and their own place in it, these studies thereforeview distinctions between external and internal points of view as processesof life that are contingent upon the particular contexts in which they aremade.

By drawing upon a wider array of data than that which is producedthrough face-to-face field research it becomes possible to move beyond thesmaller, inter-personal communities that anthropologists typically havestudied through field work. The chapters by Ferguson and Eriksen thusfocus on the geographically contiguous, but much larger unit of the nation-state. This has not been subject to a significant amount of anthropologicalresearch (exceptions include Handler 1988, and Kapferer 1988), probablybecause it does not lend itself to the localized field work in smallercommunities based on face-to-face relations. By examining nations as placeswhich are created within specific historic contexts it is possible, however, toview them as cultural constructions on a par with other places. As such theybecome part of the anthropological project.


SITING CULTURE

Several of the studies show that while anthropologists are preoccupied withde-essentializing the concept of culture and deconstructing the notion ofbounded, localized cultural wholes, many of the very people we study aredeeply involved in constructing cultural contexts which bear manyresemblances to such cultural entities. Homelands and fishing villages areimportant points of cultural identification among the K naka Maoli inHawaii (Hasager, Friedman); Macedonian people from all over the worldfind their roots in mountain villages with fruit orchards (Schwartz); familylands in the Caribbean constitute important cultural sites for an African-Caribbean population that has developed through a long diasporic history(Olwig). It is not our point to dismiss such places of cultural identification asa figment of the imagination. On the contrary, we wish to examine thehistorical and social significance of these cultural sites as focal points ofidentification for people who, in their daily lives, are involved in a complexof relations of global as well as local dimension.

Hasagers study of the way in which K naka Maoli homesteaders turnedseemingly barren and inhospitable homestead lots into a homeland imbuedwith cultural significance provides a poignant example of the way in whichculture is established on site. From a somewhat different perspective,Preis shows how Tamils seek place in the space they occupy as refugees,thereby creating cultural difference, and hence a Tamil identity, in exile.These examples demonstrate the central importance of place as a source oflife and a reference point which people may identify with from theirparticular position in the more global network of human relations. Byviewing place as a cultural construction that is part of the process of humanlife, and not as a fixed entity, we will be able to examine critically thehistorical context within which such constructions take place. This alsomeans that it is possible to examine the hierarchies of power within whichthese cultural constructions occur and become recognized. This is importantat a time, when, as Hasager points out, human rights based on culturalgrounds constitute an important means whereby indigenous people are ableto demand improvements in their condition of life.

Behind the anthropological world view of a mosaic of unique and distinctcultures ready to be studied and documented by diligent field workers, onecan now see the contours of a more complex field of social and economicinterrelations, cultural reflexivity and culturally constructed places. This doesnot mean, however, that people necessarily experience their lives as beingentangled in complicated social, cultural and economic processes of globaldimension. Many people can be seen to lead fairly simple everyday lives, as

INTRODUCTION 11

Friedman argues, despite the complexities of the larger world system. Thestudy of the way in which people create meaningful and manageablecontexts of life in the modern world is an important topic foranthropological investigation. The simplicity of such everyday life shouldnot, however, lead anthropologists to construct simple models of thecomplex cultural processes involved in this life. The siting of culture is animportant element in this complexity, which must be reflected in a newdemarcation of the anthropological object.

In the present volume, the first part, Finding a place for culture,explores new approaches to the study of culture outside the traditionallocalized field sites. Important cultural sites in such research are found innodal points in the diffuse networks of global and local relations thatconstitute the context of life of many people today. Such nodal points aregrounded in cultural constructions associated with particular localities, bethey collective forms of land ownership, individual images of natalcommunities, or pictures and sounds celebrating local spheres of life.

The second part, The culture and politics of place, critically examinesthe implications of viewing people as associated with particular places,whether nation-states, regions or homesteading areas. It is demonstrated thatsuch places may be perceived as a means of liberation or as a means ofoppression, depending on the conditions under which they were created andsustained and the particular vantage point of the persons involved. Closescrutiny of the historical context and the wider political and economicsystem of relations within which place is constructed therefore constitutes animportant research agenda in anthropology.

The third part, Topical metaphors in anthropological thinking,investigates some of the ways in which key concepts in anthropology, andother social sciences, are related to specific ways of thinking about localitiesand the people who are associated with them. It is demonstrated that suchconceptualization may not only present an obstacle to in-depth ethnographicresearch and understanding, but may also pose ethical problems with seriousconsequences for the people involved.

AKNOWLEDGMENTS

This chapter has benefited from the discussion generated at the workshopFinding a Place and Space for Culture, held outside Copenhagen on 35December 1993, where the chapters in this volume were first presented.


REFERENCES

Appadurai, Arjun (1988) Putting Hierarchy in its Place, Cultural Anthropology3:3649.

(1991) Global Ethnoscapes. Notes and Queries for a TransnationalAnthropology, in Richard G.Fox (ed.) Recapturing Anthropology. Working inthe Present, Santa Fe: School of American Research Press.

Barth, Fredrik (1992) Towards Greater Naturalism in ConceptualizingSocieties, in A.Kuper (ed.) Conceptualizing Societies, London: Routledge.

Clifford, James (1992) Travelling Cultures, in Lawrence Grossberg et al. (eds)Cultural Studies, New York: Routledge.

Davis, John (1992) The Anthropology of Suffering, Journal of Refugee Studies 5:14961.

de Certeau, Michel (1986) The Practice of Everyday Life, Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press.

Eggan, Fred (1954) Social Anthropology and the Method of ControlledComparison, American Anthropologist 56:74360.

Fardon, Richard (ed.) (1990) Localizing Strategies. Regional Traditions ofEthnographic Writing, Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press, and Washington:The Smithsonian Institution.

Gupta, Akhil and James Ferguson (1992) Beyond Culture: Space, Identity, andthe Politics of Difference, Cultural Anthropology 7:623.

Handler, Richard (1985) On Dialogue and Destructive Analysis: Problems inNarrating Nationalism and Ethnicity, Journal of Anthropological Research 41:17182.

(1988) Nationalism and the Politics of Culture in Quebec, Madison: Universityof Wisconsin Press.

Hannerz, Ulf (1992) Cultural Complexity. Studies in the Social Organization ofMeaning, New York: Columbia University Press.

Hastrup, Kirsten (1993) Hunger and the Hardness of Facts, Man 28:727 39.Kahn, Joel S. (1989) Culture. Demise or Resurrection? Critique of Anthropology,

9, 2:525.Kapferer, Bruce (1988) Legends of People, Myths of State, Washington:

Smithsonian Institution Press.Malkki, Liisa (1992) National Geographic: The Rooting of Peoples and the

Territorialization of National Identity Among Scholars and Refugees,Cultural Anthropology 7:2444.

Pratt, Marie-Louise (1992) Imperial Eyes. Travel Writing and Transculturation,London: Routledge.

Rosaldo, Renato (1988) Ideology, Place, and People without Culture, CulturalAnthropology 3:7787.

(1989) Culture and Truth. The Remaking of Social Analysis, Boston: BeaconPress.

Said, Edward (1993) Culture and Imperialism, London: Vintage.

INTRODUCTION 13

Salmond, Anne (1982) Theoretical Landscapes, in David Parkin (ed.) SemanticAnthropology, London: Academic Press.

Strathern, Marilyn (1993) Introduction to ASA Decentennial Conference.


Documents

Sitting Culture