Antrocom Online Journal of Anthropology 2011, vol. 7. n.

E. Dutton Royal Anthrop. n!titute or Royal Aca"emy#

$ultural Anthropology

27 % &0

Royal Anthropological Institute or Royal Academy?

Post-Modern Anthropology as Contemporary Art
E"'ar" Dutton

Abstract t ha! (een 'i"ely argue" that po!tmo"ern an" cultural relativi!m are replacement religion! in Romantic, neo%tri(al tra"ition )e.g. *cruton 2000, +u,nar 1--7. /hi! article attempt! to (etter un"er!tan" the nature of po!tmo"ern anthropology (y loo0ing at it through the pri!m of Art. 1ollo'ing *cruton )2000., it argue! that, !ince the Enlightenment, Art ha! performe" a !imilar function to $hri!tianity in many people2! live! an" i! accor"ingly a form of replacement religion. /he article "emon!trate! that 'hile mo"ern form! of anthropology might (e "eeme" 3religiou!,2 the cultural relativi!t anthropology of 4argaret 4ea" appear! to (e art 'herea! thi! i! le!! clear 'ith po!tmo"ern anthropology. /he article argue! that the (oun"arie! (et'een po!tmo"ern )or 3contemporary2. anthropology an" vi!ual 3$ontemporary Art2 are e!!entially 'ea0 an" that po!tmo"ern anthropology i! u!efully un"er!too" a! e5emplifying contemporary art. Accor"ingly, it ha! no place in !cholarly "i!cour!e. t i! a replacement religion (y virtue of it! arti!tic nature.

Introduction /he po!tmo"ern !tyle in anthropology ha! (een e5amine" in relation to a num(er of conceptual frame'or0!. Roger *cruton )2000, 1&1. ha! compare" it to magical incantation! an" !pell! 'riting that, 6Decon!truction i! neither a metho" nor an argument. t !houl" (e un"er!too" on the mo"el of magical incantation. ncantation! are not argument! an" avoi" complete thought! an" fini!he" !entence!. /heir purpo!e i! not to "e!cri(e 'hat i! there (ut to !ummon 'hat i! there7 1. An"re!0i )1-7&. an" more recently Dutton )1---. have "i!mi!!e" thi! !tyle of 'riting a! (eing 38argon2 'hich i! attempting to ma0e the rea"er feel that they are in the pre!ence of !omeone or !omething profoun". A! Dutton put! it, of a particular !entence (y philo!opher Ju"ith 9utler, 3/o a!0 'hat thi! mean! i! to mi!! the point. /hi! !entence (eat! rea"er! into !u(mi!!ion an" in!truct! them that they are in the
1

*cruton refer! to 'riting of Jac:ue! Derri"a. ;ere i! an e5ample of Derri"a2! !tyle< 3 f the alterity of the other i! posed, that i!, only po!e", "oe! it not amount to the same, for e5ample in the form of the =con!titute" o(8ect= or of the =informe" pro"uct= inve!te" 'ith meaning, etc.# 1rom thi! point of vie', 'oul" even !ay that the alterity of the other inscribes in thi! relation!hip that 'hich in no ca!e can (e =po!e".= n!cription, a! 'oul" "efine it in thi! re!pect, i! not a !imple po!ition< it i! rather that (y mean! of 'hich every po!ition i! of itself confounded )diffrance.< in!cription, mar0, te5t an" not only thesis or theme%in!cription of the thesis )Derri"a 1->1, -?%-@..

27

Antrocom Online Journal of Anthropology 2011, vol. 7. n. 1

E. Dutton Royal Anthrop. n!titute or Royal Aca"emy#

pre!ence of a great an" "eep min". Actual communication ha! nothing to "o 'ith it7 2. 'oul" argue that there i! an arti!tic :uality to the po!tmo"ern an" cultural relativi!t !tyle! (oth in anthropology an" (eyon". n thi! article, 'ill e5plore thi! !ugge!tion an" 'ill argue that !ome cultural relativi!t anthropology !it! in the Romantic tra"ition 'here(y art ha!, for many, come to replace tra"itional 3religion.2 ;o'ever, 'here !ome cultural relativi!t literature i! poor !cholar!hip (ut !ucce!!ful art, po!tmo"ern 'riting i! (oth poor !cholar!hip )it i! illogical an" "oe! not lea" to the truth. A an" poor art. /hough it po!!e!!e! arti!tic :ualitie! it :ue!tion! (oun"arie! to !uch an e5tent that it i! u!efully compare" to 3contemporary art.2 *uch a compari!on provi"e! fertile groun" for further "i!cu!!ion (y "emon!trating that po!tmo"erni!m i! a replacement religion not merely in the i"eological !en!e 'i"ely argue" (ut !pecifically (y virtue of (eing mo!t u!efully categori!e" a! art. Defining Our Terms Bhilo!opher Daniel Dennett )1--?, -?. argue! that !cholar! !houl" "efine their term! (ut 6only up to a point7. One of the pro(lem! 'ith po!tmo"ern Decon!truction, from a !cientific per!pective, i! that it! "econ!truction of term! i! ultimately epi!temologically pe!!imi!tic. Ce might argue that all concept! are e5ample! of e!!entiali!m, even if hopefully 6cautiou! e!!entiali!m7 'here it i! reali!e" that the concept! are merely u!eful con!truct! )!ee Dennett, -?.. 1ace" 'ith a 'orl" 'hich "oe! not ma0e !en!e, they attempt to ma0e !en!e of it (y (rea0ing it "o'n into component part! 'hich are ea!ier to manage. /hey create ta5onomie! an" conceptual "ivi!ion!. 1rom a Blatonic per!pective, the!e are eternally true an" are reflecte" in the Corl" of 1orm!. 1or the 6nominali!t7, the!e categorie! are important (ut only in!ofar a! they a!!i!t in an!'ering "i!crete :ue!tion!. /hu!, the nominali!t may engage in 3cautiou! e!!entiali!m2< he employ! a category (ecau!e it i! u!eful (ut he i! al'ay! min"ful of it! conceptual "ifficultie!. t i! li0ely to, for e5ample, play "o'n nuance an" neglect that 'hich i! (or"erline. 9ut it i! the, though imperfect, only practical mean! 'e have of gaining a foothol" on the mountain of 0no'le"ge. A! 'e !hall !ee, many po!tmo"ern !cholar! in "econ!tructing an" !ugge!ting the re8ection of categorie! !uch a! 3culture2 are only fin"ing "ifficultie! inherent in all categorie! )!ee Ree! 2010a.. All categorie! have a hi!tory, are culturally%(a!e", play%"o'n nuance an" are un"erpinne" (y !ome 0in" of 'orl"vie'. 4oreover, po!tmo"erni!t in!i!tence of categorie! (eing 3conceptuali!e"2 in tremen"ou! leave! in a !ituation 'here there i! no room for analy!i!, thu! !topping analy!i!. n thi! article 'ill "efine 3!cience2 a! (eing characteri!e" (y 3con!ilience2 )Cil!on 1-->.. /hi! mean! that any a!!ertion in a given !cience mu!t (e re"uci(le to the !cience un"erpinning it, !o an anthropological a!!ertion mu!t (e re"uci(le to (iology. *econ"ly, 3!cience2 mu!t involve certain agree" characteri!tic!. Anthropologi!t Da'rence +u,nar )1--7, 22. argue! that the!e are the follo'ing< )1. t mu!t (e !olely empirical. f a "i!cipline i! (a!e" on unprova(le or incon!i!tent "ogma! it i! not !cientific. )2. t mu!t (e !y!tematic an" e5ploratory. )A. t mu!t (e logical. /hi! mean!, in particular, that fallaciou! argument!, !uch a! appeal a" hominem, appeal to motive or any other form of rhetoric mu!t (e avoi"e". t al!o mean! that the re!earch an" argument! mu!t (e con!i!tent.
2

/hi! 'a! 'ith reference to the follo'ing !entence< 6/he move from a !tructurali!t account in 'hich capital i! un"er!too" to !tructure !ocial relation! in relatively homologou! 'ay! to a vie' of hegemony in 'hich po'er relation! are !u(8ect to repetition, convergence, an" rearticulation (rought the :ue!tion of temporality into the thin0ing of !tructure, an" mar0e" a !hift from a form of Althu!!erian theory that ta0e! !tructural totalitie! a! theoretical o(8ect! to one in 'hich the in!ight! into the contingent po!!i(ility of !tructure inaugurate a rene'e" conception of hegemony a! (oun" up 'ith the contingent !ite! an" !trategie! of the rearticulation of po'er7 )9utler 1--7.. A 1or an e5amination of the perceive" nature of !cholarly en:uiry !ee Bopper )1-@A..

28

Antrocom Online Journal of Anthropology 2011, vol. 7. n. 1

E. Dutton Royal Anthrop. n!titute or Royal Aca"emy#

)&. t mu!t (e theoretical, it mu!t attempt to e5plain, to an!'er :ue!tion! an", 'here po!!i(le, pre"ict. )?. t mu!t (e !elf%critical, prepare" to a(an"on long%hel" mo"el! a! ne' information ari!e!. )@. t! propo!ition! mu!t (e open to te!ting an" fal!ification. )7. A! it 'i!he! to (e fal!ifie" an" a! any(o"y can, in theory, "o !oE !cience !houl" (e a pu(lic activity. )>. t !houl" a!!ume that reality a! i! actually real an" can (e un"er!too"E it !houl" (e epi!temologically optimi!tic. A! have alrea"y note", 'e can !pen" a great "eal of time an" !pace "e(ating the merit! of "ifferent "efinition! an", in"ee", of the chec0li!t metho". 'oul" !ugge!t that thi! i! a u!eful "efinition 'ith 'hich to un"erpin our "i!cu!!ion. A! ;urley )2007. note!, a u!eful "efinition involve! e5plaining 'hat the category "enote!, e5plain! ho' it operate! an" it avoi"! metaphor an" emotive language. thin0 thi! "efinition achieve! that. *ome "i!cipline!, !uch a! fiel"'or0%(a!e" anthropology, can never, perhap!, (e fully !cientific an" !o Cil!on )1-->. argue! the more they imitate !cience the more they 'ill parta0e in !cience2! !ucce!! in reaching the truth. ;o' !houl" 'e "efine 3religion2# Again, there i! con!i"era(le "e(ate over thi! )!ee 9oyer 2001, Dutton 200-, $h. 2, 1it,geral" 2000, Feert, 1-@@.. 1or the purpo!e! of thi! article 'ill "efine 3religion2 in t'o "ifferent 'ay!. On the one han", u!e it to refer to the le5ical "efinition of religion< that i! (elief in the !acre" a! foun" in !uch 3religion!2 a! $hri!tianity. On the other han", 'ill employ an operational "efinition of religionE focu!!ing on ho' 3religion2 function!. /hi! i! u!eful in ma0ing cro!!%cultural an" cro!!%hi!torical compari!on! (ecau!e, in !ome culture!, there i! no clear (or"er (et'een the 3!acre"2 an" the 3profane.2 4oreover, it allo'! u! to un"er!tan" more (ecau!e, (y loo!ening thi! (or"er, it e5plain! !ecular movement! 'hich operate li0e religion !uch a! 4ar5i!m or nationali!m. Accor"ingly, 'ill "efine 3religion2 a! a group%(a!e", illogical (ut fervently (elieve" !y!tem of (elief! an" practice! 'hich involve !ome !en!e of agency ranging from go"! to fate. *uch a "efinition helpfully prevent! 3religion2 from (eing !imply !u(!ume" into 3culture2 )!ee Dutton 200-, $h. 2.. /hi! mean! that, a! Bopper )1-@A. argue!, 3religion2 !tan"! in contra!t to !cience on much of the a(ove chec0li!t. t i! note'orthy here that po!tmo"erni!m i! incongruou! 'ith our "efinition of !cience. t ten"! to (e (a!e" on incon!i!tent an" unproven a!!umption!, !uch a! that all culture! are e:ual (ut that Ce!tern culture i! 3imperiali!tic2 an" culture! can only (e un"er!too" through their o'n concept! )!ee Cil!on 1-->.. /hi! 3cultural relativi!m2 i! highly pro(lematic (ecau!e it ultimately lea"! to epi!temological pe!!imi!m 'here 'e can ma0e !en!e of nothing. Bo!tmo"erni!m o(8ect! to o(8ective logic thi! i! :ue!tione" a! Ce!tern an" imperiali!t meaning that 'e cannot get to the truth or "e(ate in any 'ay )+u,nar 1--7.. An" it i! incon!i!tent (ecau!e it attempt! to u!e !uppo!e"ly rea!ona(le argument to un"ermine rea!on )!ee 9ruce 2002, 221. &. n that it involve!, ultimately, (eing !u(!ume" into the voi" of Gothing, it might (e argue", an" *cruton )2000, 1&>. implie! a! much, that it i! congruou! 'ith our "efinition of religion ?. ;o' !houl" 'e "efine 3art2# /here are t'o main metho"!. /he 3conventionali!t!2 argue that 3art2 i! anything in a clear arti!tic tra"ition. n a !en!e, if it i! pro"uce" to an arti!t )'hether a painter, poet or "ramati!t. then it i! art. 'ill hol" to a more operational "efinition of art for !ame rea!on! that have employe" an operational "efinition of religion. 4oreover, thi! "efinition (ecome! pro(lematic (ecau!e it mean! that anything can (e 3art,2 ren"ering the term le!! u!eful a! a !eparate category. An" it !imply leave! u! a!0ing, 3Chat i! an arti!t#2 Accor"ingly, 'ill argue that 3art2 i! "i!tingui!he" (y it!
4 ?

1or a "etaile" criti:ue of po!t%mo"erni!m !ee Fellner )1--2.. *cruton )2000, 1&>. 'rite! that the ultimate purpo!e of Bo!t%4o"erni!m he conclu"e! i! to ta0e u! into a voi" of Gothing 'here there no meaning other than "e!truction of meaning 'here 3a(!ence i! the all%em(racing pre!ence. t i!, in !hort, the 'or0 of the Devil.2 /hi! !en!e of 3pre!ence2 'oul" (e congruou! 'ith the "efinition of religion that have e!pou!e".

29

Antrocom Online Journal of Anthropology 2011, vol. 7. n. 1

E. Dutton Royal Anthrop. n!titute or Royal Aca"emy#

a(ility to create an e5perience of cathar!i! or, at lea!t, a !trong, emotional an" thought%provo0ing e5perience an", a! part of thi!, it !houl" tran!port the au"ience into the realm! of the imagination. n contra!t to !cience, art, therefore, "oe! not have to (e logical, theoretical, !y!tematic, empirical an" !o forth. Art, li0e !cience, !houl" al!o involve certain characteri!tic!, other'i!e it can (e !u(!ume" into another category an" i! un%nece!!ary, an", a! !uch, 'oul" !ugge!t the!e (e the !u(categorie! 'i"ely un"er!too" to (e "enote" (y the 'or" Art< 4u!ic, Diterature an" Repre!entation an" the variou! genre! 'ithin the!e categorie!. Accor"ingly, 3art2 involve! 3!0ill2 in one of the!e !u(genre! )!ee Dutton, D. 200-.. 9a" art 'oul" (e a faile" attempt at thi! i"eal. 'oul" "efine 3cathari!2 a! purging of the emotion! an" the inten!e relieving of emotional ten!ion!, often in a 'ay that i! uplifting, thought% provo0ing an" over'helming. n contra!t to 3religion,2 art "oe! not nece!!arily involve a !en!e of agency or (elief or practice. Art involve! creating a certain 0in" of emotional e5perience in the au"ience 'ithin certain accepte" (oun"arie! an" ta0ing them into the realm! of the imagination @. 1inally, a! 'ill "ra' a "i!tinction in thi! regar", ho' !houl" 'e (e!t "efine contemporary or po!tmo"ern art in the !en!e of repre!entational art# 'oul" argue that, in contra!t to our "efinition of art contemporary art i! motivate" (y a "e!ire to (e avant%gar"e, to pu!h the (oun"arie! an" to (e novel. n thi! regar" in ten"! to :ue!tion an" "eli(erately flout tra"itional arti!tic convention! an" (oun"arie!, a!!ume! the conventionali!t "efinition an" "oe! not nece!!arily involve !0ill or cathar!i!. t mu!t (e avant%gar"e an" accor"ingly it mu!t (e !hoc0ing )!ee *cruton 200-aH(.. /hi! i! perhap! mo!t noticea(ly epitomi!e" (y the 9riti!h !chool 0no'n a! the Ge' Geurotic Reali!t!, many of them "i!playe" in the $harle! *aatchi Fallery in central Don"on. /he!e have inclu"e" Damien ;ir!t 'ho put a co' in a vat full of formal"ehy"e, /racey Emin 'ho pre!ente" a filthy unma"e (e" an" a vi"eo of her!elf tal0ing a(out having a(ortion! 7 an" the $hapman 9rother!, 'ho are mo!t 'ell 0no'n for manne:uin! of chil"ren 'ith their no!e! an" mouth! replace" (y !e5ual organ!. n 1-->, many of the!e arti!t! pre!ente" their 'or0 at a controver!ial e5hi(ition at Don"on2! Royal Aca"emy of Art calle" 3*en!ation2 )!ee 4ulhollan" 200A or Brice 1-->.

The Relationship bet een Religion and Art *cruton )2000. o(!erve! that the Enlightenment involve" a !y!tematic "ou(ting of 3religion,2 of the !acre" i"ea! an" value! 'hich hel" the !ociety togetherE it! !en!e of tri(ali!m. t le" to a ri!e in !cientific thin0ing, follo'ing the "efinition of !cience 'hich 'e have alrea"y outline". /hi! le" to a reaction in the form of the Romantic 4ovement 'hich attempte" re%!anctify the 'orl"E to, in a !en!e, operate in the !ame 'ay a! the $hri!tianity 'hich ha" (een re8ecte". A! *cruton argue!< 39eneath the rational culture of the Enlightenment, the Romantic! !earche" for another, "eeper culture the culture of the people, roote" in my!tery . . .2 )*cruton 2000, &-.. /he e!!ence of *cruton2! )2000. the!i! i! that there i! a "irect lin0 (et'een the fall of religion )an" tri(ali!m. an" the ri!e of the art! an" he provi"e! a per!ua!ive ca!e. n religiou! !ocietie!, 'hat 'e 'oul" no' call 3the art!2 'a! groun"e" in the religion )a! the core of the culture. of that !ociety. ;igh art recycle" the !ociety2! myth! an" thi! can (e o(!erve" from *ophocle! through to *ha0e!peare )17%1>.. *cruton continue!, "ra'ing upon analy!i! of the ancient 'orl", to argue that art an" religion (egin to "iverge 'hen religion i! 3in turmoil or "eclining.2 ;aving argue" thi! point, *cruton !ugge!t! that mo"ern art evi"ence! a clear !eparation (et'een religion an" art. 4o"ern high culture, he argue!, ten"! to reflect an i!olate" in"ivi"ual in a
@

1or a more in%"epth "i!cu!!ion of the "efinition of 3art2 an" the "e(ate! !urroun"ing !uch "efinition! !ee A"a8ian )2007., Danto )1->1., /ilghman )1->&. or Davie! )1--1.. *ee al!o *cruton )2000, 200-aH(.. 7 ;aving (een !hortli!te" for the 3/urner Bri,e,2 Emin2! 34y 9e"2 'a! "i!playe" at the /urner Bri,e E5hi(ition at /ate 9ritain in Don"on in 1---. t inclu"e" con"om! an" a pair of pant! 'ith men!trual !tain! on them. *ee *aatchi Fallery )Acce!!e" >th 1e(ruary 2011..

30

Antrocom Online Journal of Anthropology 2011, vol. 7. n. 1

E. Dutton Royal Anthrop. n!titute or Royal Aca"emy#

:ue!t for a community or lap!ing into !olitu"e an" mental angui!h. t replace! the religion 'hich ha! (een lo!t an" can never truly (e regaine". t i! religion2! !urrogate in a num(er of 'ay!. 1ir!tly, it permit! ritual, e!pecially !o 'ith regar" to mu!ic an" theatre, in 'hich, a! in Dur0heim2! )1--?. analy!i!, a 0in" of efferve!cence can (e e5perience". On a private level, even rea"ing a novel or a poem can permit u! to enter another 'orl" an" e5perience a 0in" of tran!cen"ence of or"inary life. *econ"ly, if a canon of literature i! create", parta0ing in part of that canon i! a mean! of parta0ing in a tran!cen"ent e5perience 'ith an 3imagine" community2 )!ee An"er!on 1->A. of fello' religiou! !ee0er!. /hir"ly, the literature it!elf can (ecome a ne' 'ay of (in"ing !ociety together an" *cruton !ee! it a! no coinci"ence that the "ecline in theology i! parallele" (y a ri!e in the aca"emic appreciation of the art!. 1ourthly, 3high art,2 unli0e popular culture accor"ing to *cruton, operate! rather li0e the myth! that form a part of religiou! "i!cour!e. Iaguely (a!e" on truth, they permit u! to me"itate on the meaning of life. *cruton in!i!t! that popular culture i! merely a !hallo' relation to high culture. t! literature "oe! not permit u! to !eriou!ly contemplate the human con"ition an" nor "oe! it create cathar!i!. An", fifthly, in !ome ca!e! at lea!t, thi! literature tran!port! u! to a 'orl" 'here there i! once again a community an" ritual!, !uch a! in the 'or0! of Cagner. Romantici!m !it! in thi! tra"ition in t'o 0ey 'ay! "epen"ing on the Romantic tra"ition in :ue!tion. t either create! a ne' religion 'hich attempt! "irectly to replace the lo!t religion, !uch a! 'ith Romantic nationali!m, or it achieve! element! of thi! in a more !u(tle 'ay (y ta0ing u! into the "epth! of the imagination, a! in Romantic art. Margaret Mead!s "thnographies as Art 4argaret 4ea" )1-01 1-7>. 'a! perhap! the lea"ing figure in cultural relativi!t anthropology an" !he ha! (een "e!cri(e" (y other! a! fir!t an" foremo!t a 3'riter2, > her !cholar!hip having (een 'i"ely "i!cre"ite" )!ee 1reeman 1->A or Oran! 1->@.. Geverthele!!, !he !it! in the Romantic tra"ition (y virtue of illogical an" fervent (elief! an", mo!t importantly, the pri,ing of tri(al life a! uni:ue, )!he a"vocate" cultural relativi!m., !pecial an", po!!i(ly !uperior to Ce!tern life. 4ea"2! Coming of Age in Samoa )4ea" 1-2>. 'a! not !cientific an" 'a! !ucce!!ful (ut not for !cientific rea!on! )!ee Oran! 1->@.. ;o'ever, 'oul" !ugge!t that part of the !ucce!! of Coming of Age in Samoa lie! in the 'ay in 'hich 4ea" pre!ente" it. t 'a!, in literary term!, a very !ucce!!ful piece of 'or0 (ecau!e it 'a! a(le to tran!port the rea"er to a lo!t, i"eal, perfect 'orl" an" (ring that 'orl" to life. An", putting a!i"e our argument! over other religiou! "imen!ion! to 4ea"2! 'or0, thi! i!, thin0, !ignificant. t i! "ifficult to fin" an e5ample that !ingularly encap!ulate! thi! :uality an" am 'ary of (eing accu!e" of provi"ing in!ufficient evi"ence or engaging in !ome 0in" of appeal to in!tinct. 9ut let me provi"e the follo'ing e5ample of 4ea"2! !tyle. /hi! i! from her !econ" ethnography< 6 n the centre of a long hou!e are gathere" a group of 'omen. /'o of them are coo0ing !ago an" coconut in !hallo', (ro0en piece! of earthen'are pottery, another i! ma0ing (ea"'or0. One ol" 'oman, a 'i"o' (y her rope (elt an" (lac0 ru((er%li0e (rea!t%(an"!, i! !hre""ing leave! an" plaiting them into ne' gra!! !0irt! to a"" to tho!e 'hich hang in a long ro' a(ove her hea". /he thatche" roof i! (lac0 'ith thic0 'oo" !mo0e, ri!ing ince!!antly from the fire! 'hich are never allo'e" to go out. On !'inging !helve! over the fire!, fi!h are !mo0ing. A month ol" (a(y lie! on a leaf mat, !everal other chil"ren play a(out ). . .. t i! "ar0 an" hot in the hou!e ). . .. /he 'omen have lai" a!i"e their long "ra( cotton cloa0!, 'hich they al'ay! 'ear in pu(lic to hi"e their face! from their male relative!%in%la' ). . .. One 'oman !tart! to gather up her (ea"!, 3$ome, Alup'aJ2 !he !ay! to her three year ol" "aughter. 3 "on2t 'ant toJ2 /he fat little girl 'riggle! an" pout!. 3Ke!, comeE father 'ill (e home from the mar0et an" hungry after fi!hing all night7 )4ea" 1-&2, 1-.
>

*ee *an"all )2001..

31

Antrocom Online Journal of Anthropology 2011, vol. 7. n. 1

E. Dutton Royal Anthrop. n!titute or Royal Aca"emy#

Chether they are accurate or not, 4ea" "e!cri(e! the!e 'i!tful little !nippet! of life. ;er !tyle i! thic0 'ith !en!ual "e!cription, it i! active, it i! a pre!ent ten!e !tream%of%con!ciou!ne!! allo'ing you almo!t to ta0e part in it, it !u(tly convey! important piece! of ethnographic information through 'hat i!, in !ome 'ay!, a 0in" of pro!e poem 'hich "rift! off "reamily 'ith no real en"ing 'hen the father return!< 3;i! han" play! affectionately 'ith her hair a! he !co'l! up at hi! 'ife, 'ho i! !ullenly "e!cen"ing the la""er.2 Each of 4ea"2! little !cene! are poetic in thi! 'ay an", in"ee", the particular chapter of Growing Up in New Guinea )4ea" 1-A0. i! !imply a !erie! of the!e 3*cene! from 4anu! Dife2 'ith no clear connection (et'een them. Lltimately they culminate in the follo'ing< 3Chen 'ill 4olung "ie#2 a!0! little tong, an" 3$ome for a !'im,2 !he a""!, "iving off the veran"a 'ithout 'aiting for an an!'er2 )2&.. 4ea"2! !tyle !eem! to me to (e li0e that of a !0ille" noveli!t. /here i! a "egree to 'hich 4ea"2! 'or0 i! fir!t an" foremo!t 3literature2 an", 'oul" argue, a very high !tan"ar" of literature. E:ually, if 'e (riefly loo0 at an e5ample of contemporary !tyle in anthropology, 'e can al!o !ee in a very "ifferent 'ay it! arti!tic "imen!ion!, though it i! not a! !ucce!!ful a! 4ea". 6/hi! article e5plore! continuitie! an" "i!continuitie! in conventional an" changing meaning! an" u!e! of essuf, a term 'hich "enote! appro5imately the 3'il"2, 3!olitu"e2, or 3no!talgia2 in "ialect! of the /ama8a: language !po0en (y /uareg people! in 4ali an" Giger. n thi! analy!i! of creative reinvention! of essuf in (oth local an" 3(or"erlan"!2 !pace! of p!ycho%!ocial cri!e!, oral art performance!, an" 3mo"ern2 literature, the 'i"er goal i! to pro"uce more nuance" anthropological un"er!tan"ing! of localHglo(al an" !tructureHagency connection!. /he "ata illu!trate the connection! (et'een !acre" !pace! literal, imagine", an" remem(ere" in African philo!ophical mo"e! of thought an" !ocio% political po'er an" agency. /he /uareg ca!e open! up per!pective! on ho' cultural !pace! of varying !cale are affecte" (y !elective remem(ering, an" creative re%enacting of 0ey philo!ophical notion!. /he "ata caution anthropologi!t! again!t reification! an" (inarie! of glo(al an" local, an" !tructure an" agency7 )Ra!mu!!en 200>, @0-.. /hi! i! an a(!tract !ummary of an anthropological article (y *u!an Ra!mu!!en. n :uoting it, am not meaning to critici!e the article or !ugge!t it i! of no aca"emic value. /hat i! not the i!!ue. :uote thi! a(!tract (ecau!e of it! !tyle an" 'hat thi! !tyle achieve! emotionally. t focu!e! on an o(!cure tri(e, imme"iately :uoting it! language. /hi! create! a !en!e of my!tery an" ta0e! u! there (ecau!e 'e can, at lea!t partly, hear the tri(e !pea0. Other'i!e, 'oul" !u(mit, it i! very "ifficult to un"er!tan". /he !entence!, "e!pite not :uoting, are lengthy, often going over four line!. t i! !u(!tantially compo!e" of anthropological an" other !ocial !cience 8argon !uch a!< 3continuitie! an" "i!continuitie!2, 3!elective remem(ering,2 3(or"erlan"!2, 3p!ycho%!ocial cri!i!2 an" 3reification!,2 all of 'hich coul" (e e5pre!!e" in more every"ay an" imme"iately un"er!tan"a(le Engli!h. /here i! the peculiar u!e of the (ac0!la!h 'hich create! a 0in" of energy an" imme"iacy. /he 'i"ely un"er!too" term 3mo"ern2 i! place" in :uotation! a! if to in"icate that the 'riter "oe! not accept !uch, one gue!!e!, !impli!tic, common categorie! an", accor"ingly, it !u(vert! 'ithout "emon!trating the intellectual right to "o !o the!e very !ame categorie!. /hi! 0in" of 'riting, in my vie', create! the impre!!ion through an opa:ue !tyle % of profun"ity an" (eing in the pre!ence of a profoun" min". An" it i!, in thi! !en!e, a 0in" of art -. Bhilo!opher of art Deni! Dutton i! 'ell 0no'n for hi! 39a" Criting $onte!t2 'hich he ran (et'een 1--? an" 1-->. A! part of thi!, he highlighte" many e5ample! of 8argon%fille", ver(o!e aca"emic 'riting, arguing that the aim of much of !uch 'riting 'a! merely to create a !en!e of profun"ity an" inflate 'ea0 or unoriginal i"ea! rather than to communicate clearly )!ee Dutton ?th 1e(ruary 1---.. 1or Dutton, the e5ample have cite" from one of the 'orl"2! lea"ing anthropology 8ournal! 'oul" (e a 'orthy conten"er in hi! conte!t, if not actually a 'inner. ;e remar0! )Dutton,
9

1or an intere!ting "i!cu!!ion of ae!thetic! !ee Deni! Dutton )200-. an" for a criti:ue !ee /orre! )2010.. /here are many other e5ample! of thi! anthropological !tyle. *ee al!o ;elmreich )2007, a(!tract..

32

Antrocom Online Journal of Anthropology 2011, vol. 7. n. 1

E. Dutton Royal Anthrop. n!titute or Royal Aca"emy#

Brivate corre!pon"ence 'ith author A0th Octo(er 2010., 3/he 'riting !eem! a'fully pretentiou!. Got meaningle!!, (ut it i! certainly aca"eme!e2 10. But !imply, thi! !tyle of 'riting i! not 3!cience2 (ecau!e it i! unclear an" thu! illogical an" 'here it i! clear it i! arguing !omething !cientifically :ue!tiona(le that anthropologi!t! are engaging in 3reificationE2 that they are po!!i(ly literally (elieving that concept! are real thing!. t i! to clo!er to 3art2 (ecau!e it "oe! involve !ome 0in" of emotional e5perience an" 8ourney into the imagination. t achieve! thi! in a !en!e of ma0ing u! thin0 of 3Africa2 an" 3tri(e!.2 t al!o confu!e! the rea"er an" ma0e! them, po!!i(ly, feel that they are in the pre!ence of !omeone profoun" an", for !ome, thi! might lea" to an inten!e emotional e5perience. 9ut thi! i! more a mar0 of religiou! "i!cour!e than arti!tic "i!cour!e. Accor"ingly, though thi! might (roa"ly (e un"er!too" a! 3art2 it i! not e!pecially in%"epth or !ucce!!ful art. 4oreover, it i! not in a clear genre. 9ut it !eem! clo!er to 3art2 than 3!cience.2 A !econ" e5ample of !uch !tyle, pro"uce" (y Ree! )2010(., i! 'orth a!!e!!ing at !ome length. A! (ac0groun", !houl" point out that in an attempt to provo0e a "etaile" critici!m of the !cientific mo"el of anthropology an" the much critici!e" 3culture2 category )!ee +u,nar 1--7., )Dutton 2010(. 'rote a comment piece for the Journal of the Royal Anthropological nstitute )perhap! the 'orl"2! mo!t pre!tigiou! anthropology 8ournal, cho!en my me for thi! very rea!on. critici!ing Ree! )2010a.. /he preci!e nature of the "e(ate i! not really relevant to our "i!cu!!ion here. Chat fa!cinate" me 'a! the lingui!tic nature of Ree! )2010(. re8oin"er to me. t i! po'erful an" "oe!, po!!i(ly, in"uce an emotional e5perience in !ome rea"er!. On the challenge - and beauty # of $contemporary% anthropology Ree!2 re8oin"er (egin! (y !tating hi! argument< 3/he challenge an" (eauty of )contemporary. && anthropological en:uiry2 )>-?. i! that it e!cape! the conception of !cience a"vocate" (y +arl Bopper. /hi! i! 3critical rationali!m2 % in e!!ence, i! that 3!cience2 mu!t (e !trictly logical, open to fal!ification, epi!temologically optimi!tic, pu(lic an" a num(er of other factor! )!ee a(ove.. Accor"ingly, there i! an o(8ectively accurate un"er!tan"ing of the 'orl" 'hich can (e increa!ingly 0no'n. *o, Ree!2 argument i! that 3)contemporary. anthropology2 i! a 3challenge2 an" 3(eautiful2 (ecau!e it re8ect! critical rationali!m. /here are three "ifficultie! at thi! !tage. 1. Ree!2 e5pre!!ion i! unclear. Chat i! he trying to !ay (y placing 3an" (eauty2 (et'een "a!he! 'hen there "oe! not appear to (e any nee" to# Chy i! 3contemporary2 place" in (rac0et!# ! he tal0ing a(out 3contemporary anthropology2 or 3anthropology2 more (roa"ly# /he punctuation !tructure ren"er! thi! an" thu! hi! e!!ential argument unclear. Accor"ingly, the argument it!elf i! an appeal to am(iguity an" i! not logically !oun". 2. ;e i! not u!ing neutral language. 9y terming 3)contemporary. anthropology2 a 3challenge2 involving 3(eauty2 he i! appealing to the emotion! of the rea"er. mplicitly, a 3challenge2 i! po!itive an" only the 'ea0ling or co'ar" "emur! from it. /hu!, Ree! i! appealing to popularityE the "e!ire to (e regar"e" a! a"venturou! an" (rave enough to accept a 3challenge.2 9y e5ten!ion, it might (e argue" that tho!e 'ho "i!agree 'ith Ree! !uch a! Dutton )2010(. are co'ar"! or reactionarie!.
10

Deni! Dutton i! no relation of mine. ;e !a"ly "ie" on 2>th Decem(er 2010 an" am mo!t grateful that, though pre!uma(ly very un'ell, he too0 the time to corre!pon" 'ith me an" give me hi! a"vice on thi! re!earch. 11 Bopper )1-?7, 1@0. o(!erve! that many hi!torici!t movement! "ra' a clear "ivi"e (et'een them!elve! an" everything that came (efore 'hich they perceive a! inherently out"ate". /hey 3contra!t their 6"ynamic7 thin0ing 'ith the 6!tatic7 thin0ing of all previou! generation!...2 an" "ra' a clear line un"er the pa!t (ecau!e their thin0ing i! 3!o !taggeringly novel.2 /erming your intellectual movement 3contemporary2 implie! that opponent! are 3ol"%fa!hione"2 an appeal to novelty an" !eem! to (e in line 'ith Bopper2! !ummary of 'hat i!, a! 'e !hall !ee, an implicit religion. /he i"ea that 'e are 34o"ern2 li0e'i!e "ra'! !uch a "ivi"e )!ee *cruton 1--@..

33

Antrocom Online Journal of Anthropology 2011, vol. 7. n. 1

E. Dutton Royal Anthrop. n!titute or Royal Aca"emy#

3. /he 'or" 3(eauty2 i! not neutral. t i! flattering the rea"er another appeal to popularity % an" !ugge!ting that agreeing 'ith Ree!2 3anthropology2 involve! creating !omething 3(eautiful.2 t may imply that the anthropology a"vocate" (y Ree!2 opponent! i!, at (e!t, le!! (eautiful than hi! o'n. /he 'or" 3(eauty2 i! vague (ut Ree! "oe! not "efine it ren"ering any argument (a!e" aroun" it inherently 'ea0. /hi! argument i! not e5plicitly pur!ue" in the !u(!e:uent (o"y of the e!!ay 'hich, in!tea", goe! off on variou! "ifferent tangent! to re!pon" to !pecific critici!m! in Dutton2! )2010. comment piece 12. Accor"ingly, the central !tate" argument i! a 3Re" ;erring2 'hich may confu!e the rea"er. Chere there i! attempt at counter argument it i! an appeal to authority an" intuition< 3many of tho!e anthropologi!t! 'ho have con"ucte" re!earch in the ne' "omain! have foun" them!elve! in an open, un"eMne" !pace to 'hich their e!ta(li!he" analytical term! "i" not !pea0 an" 'hich ren"ere" the !ta0e! of their "i!cipline un!ta(le an" even uncertain2 )>-@.. t "oe! not matter ho' many anthropologi!t! feel thi! 'ay, it "oe!n2t ma0e their "eci!ion philo!ophically !u!taina(le an" 'e might a!0, 3Chich anthropologi!t!# Do the!e anthropologi!t! have a reputation for logical thin0ing#2 /hi! i! an appeal to faulty authority an", perhap!, 3the ma8ority2 though Ree! "oe! not attempt to ren"er hi! in"uctive argument more per!ua!ive (y !tating 'hat percentage of anthropologi!t! ta0e thi! vie'. ;e refer! to thi! change a! 3e5traor"inarily e5citing2 )>-@.. Again, thi! i! appeal to popularity. t play! on the emotion!. *econ"ly, Ree!2 "efence u!e! a great "eal of 3appeal to 8argon,2 of unclear or o(!cure language !uch a! 3it create! a no%longer, not%yet !ituation that invite! genuine conceptual innovation2 )>-@. or the a!!ertion that anthropology !houl" (e focu!e" on !tu"ying 3the emergent2 or that it e5i!t! in an 3open, uncertain !pace2 )>-@.. Chat "oe! it mean to con"uct re!earch in 3an open, un"efine" !pace2# An" 'hy !houl" thi! 3!pace2 (e 0ept 3open2# /hi! i!, again, appeal to popularity. Are you 3open2 or2 clo!e"2 to ne' i"ea!# Ree! effectively !tate! that Ce!t(roo0 )200>. 'ho!e (oo0 hi! original article criti:ue" )Ree! 2010a. % i! 3clo!ing2 thi! !pace a! if he i! !topping people from thin0ing. Ce!t(roo02! !ugge!tion! for anthropology are clo!ing%off rather than opening%up 'hich i! pro(lematic (ecau!e the!e 3open !pace!2 3invite genuine conceptual innovation.2 /hir"ly, Ree! engage! in appeal to ver(o!ity a! evi"ence" in very long !entence! 'ith many clau!e!. 1or e5ample, page >-@, par 2 i! compo!e" of t'o !entence!, the fir!t of 'hich involving no :uotation! % i! 7A 'or"! long 1A. /a0en together 'ith the 8argon, thi! ha! the p!ychological effect of intellectually intimi"ating or (eguiling the rea"er, compelling him to accept Ree!2 argument! for invali" rea!on!. Ree! then !ummari!e! Bopper2! vie' of !cience an" !ugge!t! "ifficultie! 'ith it. 1or e5ample, he !tate!< 3One can certainly thin0 through the conceptual pre!uppo!ition! one (ring! to re!earch 'ithout articulating them in the form of a fal!ifia(le theory2 )>-7.. /hi! i! !tate" a! a crucial critici!m an" yet there i! no attempt to (ac0 it up at all. /he fun"amental i!!ue i! 'hether 'e can have un"er!tan"ing 'ithout !ome 0in" of theory. Dutton !ugge!t! 'e cannot (ecau!e !cience involve! (uil"ing on previou! 0no'le"ge an" even language i! ultimately un"erpinne" (y a 'orl"vie' an" thu! theory. Ree! 'oul" re:uire !ome 0in" of conceptual frame'or0 to ma0e !en!e of the!e culture! an" thi! 'oul", to !ome "egree reflect hi! culture (ecau!e it 'oul" (e e5pre!!e" through hi! language an" if he trie" to
12 1A

refer to my!elf in the thir" per!on here a! a 'ay of (etter loo0ing at thi! "e(ate a! an uninve!te" out!i"er. 9utler2! )1--7. 9a" Criting conte!t%'inning !entence 'a! -& 'or"! long. Ree!2 )2010(. competitor i! the follo'ing< 3Fiven that time an" !pace are limite", ho'ever, can merely claim that, o'ing to the variou! "eparture! from the ethnographic pro8ect of cla!!ic mo"ernity that anthropology ha! !een !ince the 1->0!, many of tho!e anthropologi!t! 'ho have con"ucte" re!earch in the ne' "omain! have foun" them!elve! in an open, un"efine" !pace to 'hich their e!ta(li!he" analytical term! "i" not !pea0 an" 'hich ren"ere" the !ta0e! of their "i!ciple un!ta(le an" even uncertain.2

34

Antrocom Online Journal of Anthropology 2011, vol. 7. n. 1

E. Dutton Royal Anthrop. n!titute or Royal Aca"emy#

e5pre!! it through foreign categorie! he 'oul" !till have to e5plain them through hi! language % an" it 'oul" therefore (e (a!e" on certain implicit a!!umption!. !uppo!e he coul" try to avoi" language an" ma0e !en!e of the culture through a(!tract painting. 9ut, a! 2ve !ai", thi! 'oul" not (e !cience. t 'oul" (e a 0in" of art. *o, in e!!ence, Ree!2 philo!ophy lea"! u! into a !ituation 'here 3contemporary anthropology2 can (ecome 3contemporary artE2 'here the conceptual (or"er! are (lurre". . Ree!2 !econ" re!ervation i! that Bopper2! mo"el (a!ically ma0e! re!earch (oring (ecau!e it re"uce! everything to 3ye!Hno logic2 )>-7.. 9ut thi! i! the e!!ence of !cience an" logic. Either an argument i! logical or it i!n2t. Either it can (e (ac0e" up, to a rea!ona(le "egree, 'ith empirical evi"ence or cannot (e. 4oreover, 'e might !u(mit that Ree!2 i! a !tra'man un"er!tan"ing of 3logic.2 n"uctive logic i! not !impli!tic 3ye! !la!h no2 (ut !training over the i!!ue (efore carefully an" he!itantly coming to a conclu!ion. Ree! then argue! that Bopper2! mo"el "enie! the 3theory%le!! (ut epi!temologically not naNve7 )a further appeal to 8argon. effort to move (eyon" 'hat one alrea"y 0no'!2 )>-7.. ;e argue! that thi! vie' of !cience 'oul" lea" to 3impoveri!he" re!earch2 an" 3meagre role2 appeal to in!ult, popularity an", la!tly, a 0in" of threat. /hereafter, e!!entially, Ree! argue! that fiel"'or0 involve! "i!orientation an" a !hattering of preconception!. /hi! may (e true, he note! Dutton arguing, (ut e5pre!!ing them through language involve! !ome 0in" of category !y!tem an", accor"ingly, no matter ho' implicit, !ome form of theory a(out ho' thing! operate (ecau!e a 'orl"%vie', an" thu! theory, un"erpin! language. $learly, Dutton i! "efining 3un"er!tan"ing2 "ifferently from Ree! an" !o Ree!2 argument here i! (a!e" on e:uivocation. Ree! i! no' tal0ing a(out un"er!tan"ing e5 nihilo 'hich i! compara(le to the 3un"er!tan"ing2 one might reach "ue to a my!tical e5perience )!ee Ram(o 1--A.. t may (e the ca!e that fiel"'or0 involve! a (rea0"o'n compara(le to religiou! e5perience !o that one feel! that in!ight! come from no'here an" nothing ma0e! !en!e. 9ut thi! "oe! not mean that they really "o come from no'here thi! i! appeal to intuition. A! part of thi!, Ree! a!!ert! that fiel"'or0 3literally "erail! the !cenario! an" a!!umption! that one ha! lai" out (eforehan" . . .2 )>-7.. /hi! i! a mi!u!e of language po!!i(ly reification fallacy % (ecau!e fiel"'or0 "oe! not literally have rail!. Ree! then argue! that, for Dutton, thi! 3"erailment2 i! mere 3noi!e2 'herea! for him it i! at the heart of fiel"'or0 an" it i! a turning point in ma0ing !en!e of the o(8ect of !tu"y. /hi! involve! emotive language. 4oreover, it a fal!e "ichotomy to !ugge!t that !omething 'hich 3"i!tract! the re!earcher from her actual (u!ine!!2 )>-7. i! inherently u!ele!! to that 3(u!ine!!.2 A "i!traction might, !ometime!, ai" u!eful "evelopment!. Ree! al!o refer! to the hypothetical anthropologi!t a! 3!he2 an" 3her.2 /hi! novel practice u!ually it i! 3he2, 3he or !he2 or 3!Hhe2 i!, thu!, not neutral an" i! ma0ing a political !tatement. Ree! i! conveying him!elf a! pro%femini!t, a! left'ing )!ee Elli! 200&. an" thu!, !u(mit, attempting to engraciate him!elf 'ith the a!!ume" politically left%'ing rea"er!hip of !ocial anthropologi!t! )!ee +u,nar 1--7.. Ge5t, Ree! "efine! 3!cience2 in a very (roa" manner a! 30no'le"ge%pro"ucing practice2 )>-7. an" later a! 3thoughtful, !incere re!earch2 )-00.. 1ir!tly, 'e might a!0, 3Chich i! it#2 (ecau!e a 30no'le"ge% pro"ucing practice2 i! not nece!!arily 3!incere2 or 3thoughtful2 an" 3thoughtful, !incere re!earch2 might not pro"uce 0no'le"ge. *econ"ly, the!e "efinition! are !o (roa" that 3!cience2 coul" (e merge" into 3art2 'hich can (e thoughtful, !incere, involve re!earch an" pro"uce 0no'le"ge an" (ecome meaningle!! a! a !eparate category. /hir"ly, the!e "efinition! are highly novel they are !tipulative % an" are no'here near mo!t le5ical or theoretical "efinition! of 3!cience2 an" to engage in "e(ate 'e mu!t agree on ho' 'e are "efining our term! )!ee ;urley 2007.. Ree! i! 0eeping hi! mo"el a! 3!cience2 (y re"efining 3!cience2 !tipulatively. /hu!, Ree! engage! in the fallacy of e:uivocation (ecau!e it i! :uite o(viou! 'hen he i! "i!cu!!ing 3!cience2 a! e5amine" (y Bopper that it i! "efine" in a very "ifferent 'ay an" thi! i! no'here ma"e e5plicit. Ree! then "i!tingui!he! (et'een anthropologi!t! 'ho "efine 3human!2 an" 'or0 from there a 35

Antrocom Online Journal of Anthropology 2011, vol. 7. n. 1

E. Dutton Royal Anthrop. n!titute or Royal Aca"emy#

!cientific metho" from tho!e intere!te" in fin"ing out if there are other human group! 'ho e!cape our categorie! of apprehen!ion. n "oing !o, he i! engaging in a logical practice of e!!entiali!m. 9ut thi! i! a fal!e "ichotomy. $ritical rationali!t! are, (y "efinition, intere!te" in having all their a!!umption! challenge" an" thi! inclu"e! their categorie!. ;e argue! that hi! form of anthropology ha! 3a !en!e of 'on"er2 another appeal to emotion. Ree! fin"! Dutton2! conception of 3culture2 3"elimiting2 (ecau!e he 'ant! to 3avoi" (eginning 'ith an!'er!2 )>--.. /hi! i! "e"uctively impo!!i(le. n Dogic, you mu!t (egin 'ith !ome truth!, !ome (oun"arie! an" !ome agree" "efinition! ultimately un"erpinne" (y 4athematic! or you cannot go any further. 9ut, Ree! argue!, 3culture2 prevent! him, for e5ample, a!0ing :ue!tion! 'hich 3in!ert movement into our e!ta(li!he" categorie! of 0no'le"geHthin0ing . . . 2. /he!e inclu"e :ue!tion! !uch a! 3Are human! el!e'here conceptuali,e" "ifferently#2 Chere an" in 'hat 'ay! "o 'e !ee humanum in motion, in metamorpho!i!#2 )>--.. Again, thi! appear! to (e at lea!t partly an appeal to 8argon. Chy u!e the 'or" humanum# Chy co"e !'itch# 4oreover, it i! further evi"ence of fal!e "ichotomy. Evolutionary anthropologi!t!, for e5ample, may in"ee" in!ert movement into categorie! (y, for e5ample, :ue!tioning the (or"er! of the 3human2 e!!ence. Ree! !ugge!t! that 3in!i!tence2 on the u!e of thi! 3culture2 category i! limiting (ecau!e everything i! !een a! groun"e" in culture. ;e give! a !erie! of e5ample! of potential human thought inclu"ing that inanimate o(8ect! have 3language2 % an" a!0! rhetorically 3All culture#2)>--.. /hey are 3all culture2 (ecau!e the term 3culture2 mean! the entire 'ay of life of a people an" Ree!2 "enotation! therefore involve variou! "egree! of e5ten!ion 'ithin the 3culture2 category. Ree! ultimately argue! that perceiving other! through our o'n categorie! i! 3!ym(olic violence2 )an appeal to emotion an" to a(u!e an", for the rea"er, popularity.. Ree! !ugge!t! that the con!e:uence of Dutton2! approach i! 3(ore"om2 )>--. 'hich i! another fallaciou! argument an appeal to novelty. /o !ugge!t that Dutton2! mo"el lea"! to an 3eternal repetition2 )>--. i! hyper(ole. Ree! !ummari!e! (y a!!erting that the 3!ignificance2 of hi! 3philo!ophically incline" anthropology of thin0ing2 i! that (y !eeing 3culture2 a! one of many 'ay! of thin0ing a(out human! it! 3open! up a !pace2 (eyon" the a!!umption that anthropology a! a !cience of human! i! a !cience of culture )>--.. /hi! metaphor "oe! not clearly !tate 'hy hi! mo"el i! 3!ignificant2 to anthropology. n e!!ence, he i! arguing that (y not a!!uming anthropology i! a !cience of culture he i! achieving a !ituation 'here, for !ome, anthropology i! not a!!ume" to (e a !cience of culture. /hi! i! a circular argument it (eg! the :ue!tion % an" it "oe! not 8u!tify the 3!ignificance2 of Ree!2 anthropology in any 'ay. Ree! en"! hi! re8oin"er (y referring to 3Dutton2! Dilemma2 )>--%-00.. ;e :uote! Dutton2! concern that re8ecting 3culture2 ha! (ecome illogically popular in anthropology lea"ing, !ometime!, to unfair peer%revie' treatment of tho!e 'ho employ it. Ree! !tate!, 3/he!e line! "ocument ho' Dutton2! hol"ing on to hi! theory%(a!e" conception of !cience ha! !eemingly alienate" him from much of contemporary anthropology2 )-00.. Cith emotive language !uch a! 3alienate2 thi! i! an appeal to threat you 'ill (e alienate" if you accept Dutton2! vie' rather than mine an", regar"ing Dutton, to popularity< re8ect your theory, em(race mine an" you 'ill not (e 3alienate"2. Da!tly, Ree! claim! to 3hope2 that he ha! !ho'n that anthropology i! !cience (ut he !tre!!e! hi! !tipulative "efinition )thi! time 3thoughtful, !incere re!earch2. an" that the 3(eauty2 of 3)contemporary. anthropology2 i! that it occur! 3(eyon" eitherHor oppo!ition!2 )-00.. /hi! coul" (e interprete" a! an appeal to pity. Cho, after all, 'ant! to "a!h !omeone2! hope!, e!pecially if they !tre!! that their re!earch i! 3thoughtful2 an" 3!incere2# Contemporary Anthropology and Contemporary Art Ree! "oe! not prove that hi! ver!ion of anthropology i! 3!cience2 (ecau!e he employ! a !tipulative "efinition an" u!e! a proce!! of e:uivocation. *econ"ly, there i! no engagement 'ith ae!thetic! in thi! e!!ay the 'or" 3(eautiful2 i! no'here "efine" !o 'e mu!t conclu"e that he ha! not proven that 36

Antrocom Online Journal of Anthropology 2011, vol. 7. n. 1

E. Dutton Royal Anthrop. n!titute or Royal Aca"emy#

3)contemporary. anthropology2! occurrence 3(eyon" eitherHor oppo!ition!2 po!!e!!e! 3(eauty.2 /hir"ly, he ha! not proven that hi! form of anthropology occur! 3(eyon" eitherH or oppo!ition!.2 /hi! metaphor i! vague an" un"efine" other than through further metaphor! an" 8argon an" Ree! him!elf e5emplifying !uch an anthropology % employ! !uch oppo!ition! to critici,e Dutton2! logic !uch a! accu!ing Dutton of :uoting him 3out of conte5t2 )>->.. A! !uch, none of Ree!2 argument! are logically vali" an" even if they 'ere they 'oul" !till (e fallaciou!ly argue". 9ut 'e can al!o a!!e!! Ree!2 !tyle in term! of art. t play! on the emotion! of the rea"er!, thu! potentially creating !trong emotional e5perience!. n it! opacity, it confu!e! an" intimi"ate! the rea"er, thu! potentially ma0ing them (elieve they are in the pre!ence of !omething profoun", a po!!i(le roa" to cathar!i!. /he "egree to 'hich it ta0e! u! into the realm! of the imagination i! :ue!tiona(le (ut there i! an e5tent to 'hich it "oe! thi! (y "e!cri(ing 'hat it feel! li0e to (e anthropologi!t an" 'hat fiel"'or0 feel! li0e from a !u(8ective per!pective. Accor"ingly, in a (roa" !en!e, thi! appear! to :ualify a! 3art.2 Chat ren"er! it le!! than !ucce!!ful art i!, thin0, a matter of "egree. Cherea! 4ea" clearly tran!port! u! to another 'orl", thi! i! le!! clear 'ith Ree!. Cherea!, 'oul" argue, 4ea"2! 'riting may, at point!, pro"uce a 0in" of cathar!i! 'oul" !u(mit that Ree! merely provo0e! emotion. /hin0ing a(out it "e!troy! it! po'er 'hich i! not the ca!e 'ith !ucce!!ful art )!ee Da'rence 1-A1. Accor"ingly, it may (e po!!i(le to compare the !tyle of 3contemporary anthropology2 to 'hat i! !ometime! calle" 3contemporary art2, a! in repre!entational art. An in!titutional "efinition of 3art2 ren"er! 3contemporary art2 a! (eing 3art2 (ut it! arti!tic !tatu! i! !ometime! :ue!tione" (ecau!e it i!, often, not intere!te" in ae!thetic! or arti!tic !0ill an" nor "oe! it nece!!arily create cathar!i!. t! purpo!e i!, in e!!ence, to (e innovative an" to create emotion, in particular !hoc0. A 'ell%0no'n e5ample i! the 9riti!h arti!t Damien ;ir!t2! $o' !u!pen"e" in a vat of formal"ehy"e. t might (e argue" that the !tyle of Ree! an" Ra!mu!!en i! compara(le to thi!. /o the e5tent that Ra!mu!!en i! !aying anything, !he i! arguing for (eing ra"ically ne' an" re8ecting tra"itional convention! an" categorie! !uch a! the u!e of 3culture2 or 3mo"ern.2 /he!e tra"itional metho"! are re8ecte" in favour of pre!enting a piece of 'riting 'hich "oe! little more than in!i!t it i! avant%gar"e, in"uce emotion an" through it! opacity the feeling of !omething profoun". t al!o (rea0! 'ith !cholarly convention (ecau!e it e!!entially a"vocate! a !ituation though not nece!!arily con!i!tently 'here there are no 3rule!2 an", a! !uch, anything goe!E art an" !cience can e!!entially (e merge" a! one )!ee Ree! 2010(.. 9oth contemporary anthropology an" contemporary art imply a very (roa" "efinition of their "i!cipline. 1or ;ir!t2! co' to (e 3art2 'e mu!t "efine art a! that engage" in (y an arti!t or anything in an art gallery an" 'e mu!t "o the !ame, a! Ree! !eem! to conce"e, for contemporary anthropology to (e 3!cience.2 A! 'e have !een, Ree!2 "efinition of 3!cience2 30no'le"ge pro"ucing practice2 or 3thoughtful, !incere re!earch2 i! e5tremely (roa" an" really mean! that all re!earch i! (a!ically !cience an", a! !uch, 3!cience2 i! 3!cience2 if it i! engage" in (y a !cienti!t. A! 'e have note", thi! i! a pro(lematic 0in" of "efinition. 9y virtue of categori,ing !uch anthropological 'riting a! 3art2 'e can !ee that (oth cultural relativi!m an" po!tmo"erni!m are replacement religion! in (oth of the !en!e! "i!cu!!e" (y *cruton. Conclusion /hi! article ha! rai!e" a num(er of :ue!tion! a(out the (oun"arie! (et'een categorie!. Ce have e5amine" the central point! of "ifference (et'een !cience, art an" religion an" al!o the point! of cro!!%over (et'een religion an" art. Ce have "one !o in or"er to (etter ma0e !en!e of po!tmo"ern or 3contemporary2 anthropology, ho' 'e !houl" (e!t comprehen" it! !tyle an" ho' 'e !houl" (e!t categori,e it. 'oul" conclu"e that po!tmo"ern anthropology can (e compare" to po!tmo"ern art. /hi! compari!on can (e ma"e not !imply (ecau!e the philo!ophy implicitly a"vocate" (y (oth "i!cipline! i! very !imilar (ut (ecau!e (eing an au"ience to either one involve! the !ame e5perience< an in"uce", manipulate" emotional reaction inclu"ing "ue to the confu!ion of categorie! involve" a 37

Antrocom Online Journal of Anthropology 2011, vol. 7. n. 1

E. Dutton Royal Anthrop. n!titute or Royal Aca"emy#

feeling of the profoun". A! 'e have o(!erve", there i! an e5tent to 'hich 'e might al!o un"er!tan" po!tmo"erni!m in term! of 3religion,2 in the operational !en!e of the 'or", an" 3art2 ha! in many 'ay! (ecome a replacement religion. /he 3religiou!2 "imen!ion! to po!tmo"erni!m have (een e5amine" el!e'here an" cannot (e "ivorce" fully from it! 3arti!tic2 nature. 9ut, in e!!ence, 'herea! 4ea"2! 'riting "oe! appear to (e 3art,2 po!tmo"ern anthropological !tyle i! effectively contemporary art. n"ee", to a certain "egree, Ree! )2010(. implie! that it 'oul" (e accepta(le for aca"emic anthropologi!t! to pre!ent their arti!tic e5pre!!ion a! re!earch. Berhap! !ome contemporary anthropology i! (etter !uite" to the Royal Aca"emy of Art than the page! of the Journal of the Royal Anthropological n!titute. 9ut that a!i"e, thi! article ha! "emon!trate" that po!tmo"erni!m can (e u!efully un"er!too" a! a replacement religion (y virtue of it! arti!tic nature an" thin0 that thi! 'ill (e a fruitful pa!ture for further "i!cu!!ion.

38

Antrocom Online Journal of Anthropology 2011, vol. 7. n. 1

E. Dutton Royal Anthrop. n!titute or Royal Aca"emy#

R"'"R"(C") A"a8ian, /homa!, )2007., 3/he Definition of Art2 in Stanford !ncyclopedia of "hilosophy# http<HHplato.!tanfor".e"uHentrie!Hart%"efinitionH An"er!on, 9ene"ict, )1->A., magined Communities$ Reflections on the %rigin and Spread of Nationalism# Don"on< Ier!on. An"re!0i, *tani!lav, )1-7&., Social Sciences as Sorcery# Don"on< Benguin. 9oyer, Ba!cal, )2001., Religion !&plained$ 'he human instincts that fashion gods# spirits and ancestors# Don"on< Cilliam ;einnemann. 9ruce, *teve, )2002., God is (ead$ Seculari)ation in the *est# O5for"< 9lac0'ell. 9utler, Ju"ith, )1--7., 31urther Reflection! on $onver!ation! of our /ime2 in (iacritics# 27< 1. Danto, Arthur, )1->1., 'he 'ransfiguration of the Commonplace# $am(ri"ge< ;arvar" Lniver!ity Bre!!. Davie!, *tephen, )1--1., (efinitions of Art# thaca< $ornell Lniver!ity Bre!!. Dennett, Daniel, )1--?., (arwins (angerous dea$ !+olution and the ,eaning of -ife# Ge' Kor0< *imon an" *chu!ter. Derri"a, Jac:ue!, )1->1., "ositions# $hicago< Lniver!ity of $hicago Bre!!. Dur0heim, Emile, )1--?., 'he !lementary .orms of Religious -ife# Ge' Kor0< 1ree Bre!!. Dutton, Deni!, )200-., 'he Art nstinct$ /eauty# "leasure and the 0uman /rain# O5for"< O5for" Lniver!ity Bre!!. Dutton, Deni!, )?th 1e(ruary 1---., 3Danguage $rime!< A De!!on in ;o' Got to Crite $ourte!y of the Brofe!!oriate,2 in 'he *all Street Journal1 http<HH"eni!"utton.comHlanguageOcrime!.htm Dutton, E"'ar", )2010., 3/o'ar"! a *cientific Anthropology2 in Journal of the Royal Anthropological nstitute# 1@< &. Dutton, E"'ar", )200-., 'he .innuit$ .innish Culture and the Religion and Uni2ueness# 9u"ape!t< A0a"emiai +ia"o. Elli!, 1ran0, )200&., "olitical Correctness and the 'heoretical Struggle$ .rom -enin and ,ao to ,arcus and .oucault# Auc0lan"< 4a5im n!titute. 1it,geral", /imothy, )2000., 'he deology of Religious Studies# O5for"< O5for" Lniver!ity Bre!!. 1reeman, Dere0, )1->A., ,argaret ,ead and Samoa$ 'he ,a3ing and Unma3ing of an Anthropological ,yth# ;arvar" Lniver!ity Bre!!. Feert,, $liffor", )1-@@., 3Religion a! a $ultural *y!tem,2 in 9anton, 4ichael, )e".., Anthropological Approaches to the Study of Religion# 9ri!tol< /avi!toc0. Fellner, Erne!t, )1--2., "ost4,odernism# Reason and Religion# Don"on< Routle"ge. ;elmreich, *tefan, )2007., 3An Anthropologi!t Ln"er'ater< mmer!ion, *ocial!cape!, *u(marine $y(org! an" /ran!"uctive Ethnography2 in American Anthropologist# A&< &. ;urley, Batric0, )200>., A Concise ntroduction to -ogic# 9elmont, $A< /hom!on Ca"'orth. Jen0in!, /imothy, )200-., 31aith an" the *cientific 4in"H 1aith in the *cientific 4in"< /he mplicit Religion of *cience in $ontemporary 9ritain2 in mplicit Religion# 12<A. +u,nar, Da'rence, )1--7., Reclaiming a Scientific Anthropology# Calnut $ree0< Alta4ira Bre!!.

39

Antrocom Online Journal of Anthropology 2011, vol. 7. n. 1

E. Dutton Royal Anthrop. n!titute or Royal Aca"emy#

Da'rence, D. ;., )1-A1., Apocalypse# $am(ri"ge< $am(ri"ge Lniver!ity Bre!!. 4ea", 4argaret, )1-&2., Growing up in New Guinea# Don"on< Benguin. 4ea", 4argaret, )1-2>., Coming of Age in Samoa$ A "sychological Study of "rimiti+e 5outh for *estern Ci+ili)ation# Don"on< Benguin. 4ullhollan", Geil, )200A., 'he Cultural (e+olution$ Art in /ritain in the -ate 'wentieth Century# Al"er!hot< A!hgate Bu(li!her!. Oran!, 4artin, )1->@., Not !+en *rong$ ,argaret ,ead# (ere3 .reeman and the Samoans# Ge' Kor0< $han"ler an" *harpe. Bopper, +arl, )1-@A., Con6ectures and Refutations$ 'he Growth of Scientific 7nowledge# Don"on< Routle"ge, +egan an" Baul. Bopper, +arl, )1-?7., 'he "o+erty of 0istoricism# Don"on< Routle"ge, +egan an" Baul. Brice, Dic0, )1-->., 'he New Neurotic Realism# Don"on< /he *aatchi Fallery. Ra!mu!!en, *u!an, )200>., 3/he people of !olitu"e< recalling an" reinventing essuf )the 'il". in tra"itional an" emergent /uareg cultural !pace!2 in Journal of the Royal Anthropological nstitute# 1&< A. Ram(o, De'i!, )1--A., Understanding Religious Con+ersion# Ge' ;aven< Kale Lniver!ity Bre!!. Ree!, /o(ia!, )2010a., 3/o open up ne' !pace! of thought< anthropology 9*$ )(eyon" !cience an" culture.2 in Journal of the Royal Anthropological nstitute# 1@< 1. Ree!, /o(ia!, )2010(., 3On the challenge an" the (eauty of )contemporary. anthropological en:uiry< a re!pon!e to E"'ar" Dutton2 in Journal of the Royal Anthropological nstitute 1@< &. *aatchi Fallery, )Acce!!e" >th 1e(ruary 2011.. 34y 9e".2 http<HH'''.!aatchi% gallery.co.u0Harti!t!Hartpage!HtraceyOeminOmyO(e".htm *an"all, Roger, )2001., 'he Culture Cult$ %n (esigner 'ribalism and %ther !ssays# O5for"< Ce!tvie' Bre!!. *cruton, Roger, )200-a., /eauty# O5for"< O5for" Lniver!ity Bre!!. *cruton, Roger, )200-(., 39eauty an" De!ecration2 in City Journal# 1-< 2. http<HH'''.city% 8ournal.orgH200-H1-O2O(eauty.html *cruton, Roger, )2000., ,odern Culture# Don"on< $ontinuum. *cruton, Roger, )1--@., "hilosophy$ "rinciples and "roblems# Don"on< $ontinuum. *i"0y, ;., )200A., A Criti2ue of "ostmodern Anthropology 8 n (efense of (isciplinary %rigins and 'raditions# Dampeter< E"'in 4ellen Bre!!. /orre!, Doui!, )2010., 3Chat ma0e! Art Art# Doe! Deni! Dutton +no'#2 in Aristos# http<HH'''.ari!to!.orgHari!%10H"utton.htmPGO7O Cil!on, E"'ar" O., )1-->., Consilience$ 'owards the Unity of 7nowledge# Ge' Kor0< Alfre" A. +nopf.

40