The (Un)Making of the Anthropological Canon

For our third meeting of the reading group we will be focusing on the history of anthropological theory. We will first start off with a discussion of Sherry Ortner's seminal "Theory in Anthropology since the Sixties," which incidentally is usually required reading in the course History of Anthropological Thought at UVU. Ortner's article will be accompanied by Ward Goodenough's "Anthropology in the 20th Century and Beyond." These two texts will act as primers for the historical overview of anthropological traditions that were central in the 20th century. However, there is a marked criticism of Ortner's, and by extension, Goodenough's articles in how they are utilized within the anthropological community to reify the roles of certain traditions and schools to the detriment of others. Arjun Appadurai's "Anthropology in Theory: Center and Periphery" is the first article to bring some of these criticisms to bare. In addition to Appadurai's text Robert Cardoso de Oliveria's "Peripheral Anthropologies 'Versus' Central Anthropologies" and Eduardo Restrepo and Arturo Escobar's "Other Anthropologies and Anthropology Otherwise" offer an even more impassioned plea to bring anthropology out of the hegemonic influence of the American and British academy.

Although the focus on central traditions is problematic, it isn't the only relevant issue at stake, especially for a reading directed on the "history" of anthropological theory. To reevaluate the content of such traditions it is helpful to review June Nash's "When Isms Become Wasism." Which offers a plea for the consideration of the practicality of anthropological theory as practiced in the field, the academy, and the public. Bruce Knauft's articulates the pragmatics of "middle anthropology" much like the practicality that Nash advocates. Lastly, Jane Guyers "'On Possibility': A Response to "How Is Anthropology Going" is a great article that addresses many of the concerns that David Graeber and others have brought up about "vanguardism" and other problems anthropology has in conveying its subject. Guyer's article, however, do more than just that. It is also a draft for where she argues anthropology is ultimately headed and where it should be headed.


As a little side noted I thought I'd include links to two recent articles from a volume of Michigan Discussions in Anthropology devoted to "grad student socialization." Eli Thorkelson's article on the "systems" course taught to first year grad students in Chicago offers a passionate critique of the project of Chicago pedagogy. Danylin Rutherford, Thorkelson's instructor for the course, offers a response that is also worth considering. I think that these two articles represent a very serious issue that gets to the core of the previous readings. "Why do we read what we do, and why do we read them that way?"


Core Texts on the History of Anthropological Thought During the 20th Century:


Ortner, Sherry (1984). Theory in Anthropology since the Sixties. Comparatives Studies in Society and History. 26.1: 126-166.


Goodenough, Ward H. (2002). Anthropology in the 20th Century and Beyond. American Anthropologist. 104.2: 423-440.


Challenging the Core-Periphery Divide:


Appadurai, Arjun (1986). Anthropology in Theory: Center and Periphery. Comparative Studies in Society and History. 28.2: 356-361.


de Oliveria, Roberto Cardoso (2000). Peripheral Anthropologies "Versus" Central Anthropologies. Journal of Latin American Anthropology. 4.2-5.1: 10-30.


Restrepo, Eduardo & Escobar, Arturo (2005). "Other Anthropologies and Anthropology Otherwise": Steps Toward a World Anthropologies Framework. Critique of Anthropology. 25.2: 99-129.


Reevaluating Theory's Relevance:


Nash, June (1997). When "Isms" Become "Wasms": Structural functionalism, Marxism, feminism, and postmodernism. Critique of Anthropology. 17.1: 11-32.


Knauft, Bruce (2006). Anthropology in the middle. Anthropological Theory. 6.4: 407-430.


Guyer, Jane. (2009) On "Possibility": A Response to "How is Anthropology Going". Anthropological Theory. 9.4: 355–370.


Theory, the Academy and Critical Pedagogy:


Thorkelson, Eli (2010). The Limits of Theory: Idealism, Distinction and Critical Pedagogy in Chicago Anthropology. Michigan Discussions in Anthropology. 18: 324–377


Rutherford, Danilyn (2010). In Defense of Ambivalence. Michigan Discussions in Anthropology. 18: 378-386.