Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Blind JusticeversusMissionaries
PatrickHalston
History480
Dr. Baskerville
November24 I 1999
'Signs of the Times' thereis a statementwhich, upon
Early in RonaldWalters' article
history"(539). This was the oppositeof what I would haveexpected.The creatorof scientific
'prototypical anthropologist' was Franz Boas
anthropologywhose methodsand ideasdefine the
"Historians get their anthropologythrough Clifford Geertz,and referencesto his work have the
appearance[of being usedas window dressing]at times"(340). Walters doesnot stop there,
contact" Walters s4I),while still playing to, and thus not disturbing,the "anti-theoreticalbias
Rotten isn't too harsha word, I think, becausethe reactionof historianswho move beyond
-
discussingGeertz'sethnographicalwork on the Balinesecockfightsat one remove i.e.
discussingvirtuesof thick descriptionas an idea without looking too closelyat the resultsof it as
a method- is that his work might havefoul implications. Foul, andnot misleadingimplications,
so, then perhapsit isn't unreasonableto wonder if we ought to move beyond an analysisof the
good and bad aspectsof particular disciplines' methodstowards an analysisof the motivations of
real and relevantor becausethey thereby avoid the dangerousimplications of other methods?
Before I explore the possibility that it isn't, or at least not primarily, I want to provide some
examplesof how I believe somehistorianstry to contain or limit the influence of Geertz as much
-
through rhetorical style or rhetorical intimidation as through analysis indeed,I believe that in
impressesus with the ubiquity of the political function [and thusJsuch claims are especially
-
vulnerable"(81;emphasismine). In my mind, this is argumentby intimidation to agreewith
Geertzyou will find yourself out of stepwith the majority of scholarsor at least all reasonable
'usoto mean).
scholars(I am guessingthat is who Biersacktakes
Most of Bernard Cohn's article has what he would call a playful (and I think mocking) tone
he turns'serious'withhis
while discussing'anthropologyland'and'historyland'until
This is of coursea theory - but theory disguisedas truth with the help of a changein tone by the
author.
believe that this is the kind of derogatorylabeling (much like psychohistorybeing labeled the
,potty training theory of history'( althoughI admit I like to usethis label myself - I think its
the flux of the world should be enoughthat thesehistoriansneedonly ask their readerto go read
555)we might imagine that "studying societyfrom the bottom up [doesnotf necessarily[lead] to
the study of ruling classesand the natureof control mechanismsand expropriationsof various
kind"(Cohn 218). In fact, it makesyou wonderif it is lessGeertz'svirtue that for him thereis
,,no such thing . . . as disembodiedhistoriesof ideas" as Walters suggests,and more his vice that
'soft' - as lacking the roots to reality as they
to thesehistorianshe exposestheir own truths as 1.
accuseGeertz,or at leasthis followers,as being.
-
Walters recognizesthe ironical propositionthat ethnographycan be a misleading enterprise
-
it is after all the study of peopleclose up: an antidote to armchairtheorists but to him "human
beings are not always the most accuratelufges of their own situationand its patternsof
exploitation and submission"(555). Cir(is Martin, in the introduction to the American Indian
and the problem of History, statesflat out what this statementby Walter;could suggest:
psyche"(7) which hasus " colonizingthe Indian's mind, like a virus commandeeringthe cell's
According to Martin our pride hasus "maintainthatthey [Indians],like us, did tastethe fruit
"of the tree of the knowledgeof good and evil" (Genesis2:17)and that they, too, were expelled
strugglewith
from the Gardeninto a world whereHomo is convincedthat survival is a ceaseless
a mute and indifferent cosmos" (I2). "We make them into a "people of history": assignthem our
terms and conceptionof living in time and space,our commitment to changingreality and
changinghumanityover the ages. We, too, poseand then doctorthe negatives,refusingthem "a
theaterfor tribal eventsin mythic time" (16). "The native is equatedwith the white at the basic
level of human motivation and self-interest"(10) and thereforewe do not recognizethat "Native
rationality"(10).
:- More is the pity, accordingto Martin, becauseuntil we recognize"the truth of Paul Radin's
conviction that until scholarsrid themselves,once and for all, of the curious notion that
my purposeto shift the focus from method choice to the motivations of those scholarswho use
encounteringcultureswith world views different from their own that we be skepticalwhen they
to have his/her opinions groupedinto a world view, one no betterthan others,to a proud person
for takingthemseriouslywerepotentially
ences
but whatwe mustconsideris thatif theconsequ
asterribleasfor not doingso,then thereactionsof the historiansto GeerJzthatI havepreviously
discussedcould not fairly be thoughtof asoverTeactions- but ratherasboth appropriateand
Martin'sview thatwhatis primarilyat issuehere
sensible.If true,it shouldleadusto reconsider
is pride,and,instead,considermeltingthe distinctionsbetweenMartin andthe otherhistorians
with justice:we aredealingwith
I,ve dealtwith andthink of themall assimil{iity concerned
good,not proud,scholars.But if this is true,we mayalsoneedto takeseriouslythe possibility
'truths'thatseemto havedangerous politicalimplications,thatthey
thatwhenscholarsuncover
mightmakesubtleor evendramatictransformations, whetherdoneconsciouslyor
'dangerous'forms. If so,andin referenceto thesegood
of these'truths' into less
unconsciously,
anotherthoughtof Martin's:"thoughhe speaksthe words
scholars,we maywantto contemplate
charity,andsympathy,his philosophy,his metaphysics
of benevolence, and
is mischievous
ultimatelydestructive"(4).
perhapsif Martin'sareaof study(NativeAmericanhistory)- asMartin admits,agreeingwith
thesearticles in responseto Geertz,is often a mixture of Antonio Gramsci and Michel Foucault.
oppressedwhich has a utopic, timelesssenseto it. You sensethis most dramatically in Rosaldo's
article, where it seemsthat an event of this kind is very close. She saysthat:
Rosaldois writing in protestof the comforting effect of Geertz's absurdimage of the discipline
of history being devoured by the anthropological rabbit. Her dramatic responsein demonstrating
structuresof domination" which have silencedpeoplefor too long are vulnerable;and that these
voices are becominglouder and louder and now finally being heard(52). She saysthat "each
field . . . is today a site of theoreticalexcitation where multiple traditions battle for hegemony.
it (83).
I believe that there is sentimentof this kind at work in pretty much every responseI
encounteredto Geertz. I want to usethis point to suggestthat Martin is wrong to think that
reasonsfor not doing so. Martin is correctthat the new philosophicaltrendsput his view of
'backw ater' existence- the parochial 'missionary in a rowboat' view - but
native life into a
'hot'
perhapsincorrect that thesenew approachesdo a disserviceto the peoplesstudied. The old
againsttime and history [seekinga] timelesswisdom of the human species[and who] are not
'history,' as it is conventionallyunderstood:the collection
looking for, nor looking to compose,
and interpretationof facts and data in the serviceof academicknowledge" (16), they all come
'insane'.Yet this is arguablywhat historianswho cite Foucault,Marx, and
acrossas,well,
grew up as part of a humanistic,reformist, and vaguely radical protest. It was the war against
Margaret Mead did, that infanticidal culturesraisedtheir children betterthan we did because
lessprevalent.
from people like Geertzwhich are not as easily characterizedasjust one of many different but
equal ways of doing things. Geerlzdescribeshis own method of analysisas textual, and as I
have noted, it has beenrefutedfor its aestheticproperties;but really, when you read the actual
accountof the cockfight its difficult not to consciouslyor unconsciouslythink that this is a pretty
savageritual, and only perverselyaestheticif at all. It's not simply the aggressivebehaviouror
the waste of animal life which disturbs,there is the whole matter of the exclusion of the women
from the ritual to deal with, and'addme"where feminists and Marxists find oppression"and
"symbolistsfind meaning"(Biersack166).
philosopherslike Foucault and Gramsci provide an out. You can read descriptionsof
cockfights, allow yourself to be disturbedby what you encounter,and not assumethat there is
somethingdeeply wrong with the people. Instead,they are oppressed;not wholly aware of other
that the cockfight should be understood,at least partially, as a kind of resistanceto colonialism
becausethe Balineseregardtheir islandas taking the shapeof "a small proud cock, poised,neck
And, unfortunately,what you also get is very liule extrapolationof exactly how this
introductionto CharlesMackaY's
nonsense.
dangerous
I would do prettymuchanythingto limit the influenceof this pessimistic,
And so,too, I believe,wouldmanyotherdecentmenandwomenpossiblyincludingthe
throughoutthis essay.
historiansI havebeendiscussing
Would I everlie, or mislead?Honestly,I wouldprefernot to, but if aftersomemoralistic
calculusI concludeda lie wouldbe a kind of smallevil put in serviceof defeatinga very big one,
a bad
I think I would. I don't think thatmanyscholarswouldeveradmitto this (not necessarily
thing)but I canstill imaginetr:* placingcluest"ililJfrks meantto dissuadereadersfrom
primarilybechusb
comingto certainconclusions.lDone aredeemeddangerous,
theseconclusions
areenonnous":where Geertzsees,.,#,
[, again,agreewith Martinthatthe "reverberations
lr -.-+e-*-4'" d
I suspect,,avma.
meaning, pry"norogvi.[""[il'ild;,{
in developmental
My readings {*'
',:w\rfi"
tenibl,n"urui56;,?;#or6;til;#tt
whohaverivedthrough
peopre
doubtrhat ,w
repeatinga replica of the original traumatizingexperiencein an effort to control and deflatetheir L*il ,,"/
free floating memories.They havetrouble growing, trouble maturing,andlead lives that not a \J*^[
singlehumanbeingshould.I don't tlink thatmisunderstanding a people stranglestlem, as ",i r[ I
," , # "
Martin believes,but I do believethat it may amountto an abandonmentof them. ..i'
But this dreamingatleist hasa vision of his own timelessutopia;and it is a happyand holy
'weapons',picked up
place: the good 'hegemoners'havedefeatedthe badones,put down their
I t.,t*l"4 ""
their .bibles, (Lloyd deMause'sFo\riditions of Psychohistory?),and asa new generationof
BIBLIOGRAPHY