shapter Five / Conclusions rife atin wat foe dare bag [esi tat on cds Dat ti, nr at te mnent of rations Ip hoe er eu FORMULATED AS A QUESTION, the topic ofthese c= Re rea acronis ees or orate a oe Ci ee ir an anor bom A is, Giroetige cred tnd calaked Re een Tener at ohermae hc ie irs duo vo ele ho ee ees ae eat cn Ane er ee ewe tinnrec cee Noe ee teats eleren) see ee eka korea cent wae ar rh Sr incige seg occ sce ours Hoe re ec ro huge te meeps Bicone ter eukute cupucets by cope Beate cna ters inl saece tat Soy in ie ss cing Pee eet ees eee eet Be saeeie eae apie tes eters ee areal i hace ontario I ae ae cae ed an ae ee ee ee gates Toate re ok144 Conclusions capital and is colonaliscmperialst expansion into the Se rites which became the target of eu inguis, fo {his o ocur, the expansive, aggresive, and ppreniee ct ets nh we cole and acral the Wee Beedle Space to wecupy. More profounly nd problems cally, they required Time to acomodate the schemes one-way hisory: progress, development, riety ood the gig mig ges, anode ‘ment radon). In short, goles as its eologeal fot dlatons in chronoptacs i Retrspet and Summary eter flict Sper lal Tin str ee eae el Ts we mi Et pet ptt posecie oat sheers sas fe py en rear tne sees fale nara fe Oe gel oe ae Po Sigel See at aaa ee Paice cast eee Peer Tee ey cha kin oye Sache Mea abe ro Pa a io econ ea ge Sereno tenet Sects ky atte peas ae sc Wg Ter hc ts Beemer Spe ese eS Sree See ie eet foie mr ere Conclusions 145 vere to dominate Wester social seience in the decades Tle ee FSC. Northrop was an important figure during that io. As thinker no had aed a ing ‘and synthesis of log, philosophy’ of scence, poli and internasonal law he radiated the optsmism of eo he ll a ey heen ei hie to do jusice to his proie wrtings by quoting a 2. Neveriheles, to recall some-of Northrop's rl help to darly ovr argument sbout polital uses fame and the role anthropology was to playin ths, The ay be set sit were rom his progr “A'Neww Approach te Plies ee et eee rd n ti Eten hee tase eee enc eevee cet aees Bam asap Northrop expected smh from anthropology and tok es (o prod anthropalogsts ino formekaing het onirintions toa new theory’ of iternatinal relations. At Ehtime when he served a the moderator ofa sympostum on Scross Cultural Understanding’ he professed tobe gud by wo premises. One was the anthropological docuine of ral rev which he acepte, wn appropri ilosophical nn factal foundation of iternatonal hie fai he oer vas i erp of th cps Heal consequences of Einsteins space-time postltes. 10 2 formla he lwo nes i olher writings Northrop describes these conequence is "anyone’ knowlege ofthe pubic, ‘Meaningfal smuleneiy of spatally separated ‘event (6110), While the premises of cultural relativism posed the problem (the mulpiesty of cultures as spatial sepa ‘vent, the Enscinian conception of flay tg to Novthvop the sokuson, Puli "Time proved ‘Meaningful simultane, te, Kind of simulaneity thatsredone pauuoyus aunty asnooFyasiany pue po Ssiopdoaucy sy “sapeoidde pu soor>e apie mp ang ye Pu po Eanp paw wiv cet 9 uA "paonpod pu passa >jdino>, feeds eaoddioy aya ses 14 au. pasos soap $8 M4 Wt poston aaass “oqo Ht pu AO150 Conclusions i eatccek eae an ce Ppreintenteririatertnrs itor oorenaairiee en treeepeee Soi gael esl Sete ts ane Soa eee fo Ce te abcd ns ve Wi sand pe reeenitel Mead afanap pepe oath? Pcs an) eee S eset See on cae west Tee ie tere ae et SERRE EI St, rte Te Spooner teens aie ene teem aere eo caatin sen nee ipr tae Ga geeeeemeirectstieres Sec eceeeieans eaters BLES ede cs esti ng aires beet es wc secede Sitar eas tnigiee mater eam ono enmenoas: eee Guten amamecimaes Ste role aoe potted fan. Aone aly pekaa oe dicate utes peed Soe ce etvasnnemccrne al op end Ca Seay aeeeeersnesscn tect objec maybe cation spun crue tha bjt is, after al, “only” semiotic? If the Other is but 2 semiotic Bt pee roe tn be oc nal te tne eet egterenmesne Sener tnoteen ater esos wail Sa gens baat op eat vee eo See eee Peee cen eee Se Guerhe paag chsgaae pea on ese merst Sorter tes it im Spi ee Ba Seve saci cperutemg eal onclusio 151 ana conde ns bien communis prac teria omnes te poli conn ot ‘She sci Time, the tea Tie of home sco Se sitcom, docs se imo te sca ts whch we ‘Shuai epreschaons Sf knowlege. fe may een {etn pa sonora, ep ik par of a ‘com of lta epeal ac Whe preted Sg ven ti at pce flan, he tetonomes ini akc a psn on «temporal slope —uphi oP ream, rom theater of hiss de The slogan tax ng torn of entre inevitably rex on cmpal dang bemeen she deeaing ijt fhe emesis ca bre nc be emanated Sosy such’ prec woul cea gett an hltie rere of serdatony spon rela ‘Phere spite a wih there us burton pscoiogaly What srt theory of knowlege ote Fenuppnt or what nor of theory af kre ean be Inne aie hry of hres bes ae ‘Bropelng’ Chae tate to probe into ce exper at ng elven pommence of mde Su amolgy toa ing Moryasi se pata Sncepon Sf Knoneige. Specialy tated “hol Sevag nau meaty tea nem Gry sf pg The gto th argumet as that symsheores of cult ae theories of represenation, tot aires of exchange or ana of res. thn oP mening, no of pats, Potent, and pests revit ey haves tendeney to enoree te bast pe ofan lighromse dicoure fa hat they conse the Hea Now fe ge he tory he site the meaning wn he Koon athe There and Th 9 the sgn dhe content the fan or een esta SSG) wah the Roo wu tscrencn of ua ‘ful revert fr arate ef the on {Ehret eagle ese ok Sion Aron anthropos tet prima Wavtcen oo Bags aby Spe Loowilge eee Phim hesteehinton selon repress (in term af152 Conclusi models, symbol systems, and so forth) likely wo persist in denying coevalness to its Other. Toke {sue for Dette expect thatthe sweeping character of this account of tem poral distancing might be disturbing to many readers. My fhtent has not been to express summary repuciation of Anthropology. Rather, I wanted to outline & program for dismantling identitible Weological devices and strategies ‘which have been functioning w protect our discipline from Facial epistemological ertique. {do believe that allochron ism consists of more than ovrasional laps. Its expressive ‘of a political cosmology, that, 2 kind of myth, Like odher ‘nths, alochronism has the tendency to exablsh tol grip fn our discourse. It must therefore be met by 2 “total re. Sponse, whichis not to sy that the ertcal work ea be 3 pied in one fell swoop. uch a project must be carried ont as a polemic. How ver, polemie isnot usta matte of syle or uste—bad taste by some canons of academic civility. Polemic belongs tothe substance of arguments if and when it expresses intent on the part of the writer to address opponents oF opposing sews in an antagonistic fasion it way of arguing tht does not dress up what really amounts to dismissal of the ‘other as “respect” for hi position: nor does it reject the other view asdijaaé. The ideal of coevalness must of course ako guide the critique of the many forms in which cocval- ness is denied in anthropological discourse. This perhaps ‘utopian goal I realize that certain ways of summary dee gating ets and approach 29 many ow border dhe term anim (which they tvcated ie ore to separsc psc mentality fom moder aoa) s meat to arena of debate That sort o arguing torn upstream of torical progress is unproductive t merely reproduces l= lochronie scours. In contrast, pole streverence OF Conclusions 158 Bul dneteet einer ciate eet Bee PS es ies note to overcome have een bath Slserving. ne 3 eee eee teen the sce fue an ie wence of man. Da Eee eee Sees alls encapsiated Tone i clue gardens: derived ouch Se eee ee eee ae ieecaand pancreas See tm imo an Scout sory of chron aes fn presen i grated coe Hert be eh Beco oemeremer Pee oa pene ne aS ther exerese of i ludng cue by tide wl oly cas Inilhave to be the result of actual confrontation wth the ee ne no expet ha anropoloy, in staying Time 33 eS eee Peers oped134 Conclusions Pee eatin Papers ee enact ee Seeman ee ts fcc ee ores are icee See aes Seer pian ote errr eae Spee Shanes oer Fen mantpilaton ant contol of Enowledgy auc ie ee ee ener, ree eee eee reer mene ened Beret ieee ee eee (as for imtance, in the idea of oe history of talation 01 eee eres ‘of diectiesall hone wateraddown binary abstractions Conclusions 155 vthich are pased off as oppositions: left vs. right, pasts presen, primitive vs. modern, Tradition ad modernity ae For opposed (except semoially, nor are they in scone fic” A ths ed) meiporscl ak What ate opened in confi, in foc locked in antagonist sug, are bot the same secicties at diferent sages of development, It diferen sociies facing each eer atthe same Tine As Duvignaud, and other are reminding us, the “sage ad the proletarian” aren equivalent posiions vives don tution ee 17h Marx terete ety ma bie excused for not ging enough theoretal recognition to that eqvalences cenain eoteriprary "Mars anthro pologats have no excuse "Fe question of Marxist andyopoogy is not rewved fn my mind In part this Is 30 berause we have Gin ‘eat az ye ike Marxist prison the level of te pad fiw of edograptic hoow edge As longs sch a practical Fass kn badly developed mone of wht gs y the name of Starxst andhopology amounts to tie more fine torte cece is tne Spe Mae ae Eg “These exercises ave te meris: Ue best among them have helped t confound earlier approaches and aalyses. They ti remanded ya, hoes oa ther authors share wih urges ponte sho ‘eran fundamental sssmpeons coneeing the a {te of etmograpie data and the se of “object meth ods An even more serous problem with Marxist anthropa- ‘ogy appens wen we vie Rin the perspective of this book the contruction of anthropology’ doje In what sense can Marxist antropology be maid to offer counterposton 0 the deep-rooted allochronie tendencies that inform ou di Course! bo alireniepereduations of human history wich Bl ic an porta ke my Mara apa belong 0 the substance of Mars thought oF ate they just a matter ‘of snl net fom the nieteenth century? How he SGuhcronsed inthe anthropological dct peer in wodetes which are not part a ‘complex? Antagonism with the capitalist world. not Standing, shee wcities have built aalogour spheres of co156 Conclusions lonial expansion and, more recently, of foreign ad and de. ‘elopment. Does the routinized world revoltion construe 3 different Other thin the eaptalist world market™™ Coesanes Points of Departure ‘Those who have given the matter some thought developed ‘outlines of a theory of eoevalness through critical canton. tation with Hegel. Here { can offer lide more than a few ‘comments on what I consider significant step inthe devel- ‘opinient of Hegel’ insights. In doing so T want to indicate points of departure, not solutions; appeals to the history of Philosophy a8 such will not save the history of anthropol- ‘gy. There is no need for a “Hegelian” anthropology. What must be developed are the elements of procasual wid ma {eral theory apt to counteract the hegemony of taxonomic and represetatonalspproiches which we Wend the principal sources of santhropology’s allochronic orienta tion.” Affirmation of evevalness will not “make good” for the denial of coevalness. Critique proceeds as the negation ‘of a negation; it ealls for deconstructive labor shove aim fannot be simply. to establish x Marxist “alternative” Western hougeois anthropology, one that wold have to bey for econ as just aosher paradigm or senie cut Fits ing si what are the pins of departure fora theory ot gc Afr wep eve, mast to tuperate the idea of totality. Almost all he approaches we touche on in these ayy affirm sch a note 0 9 Point This explains why the (otalring) concept of culture ful have el shared by so many efron shots Pe tally every agrees that we can take sence of notes society on tothe extent that we grasp as a whole, af ‘Organs, a configuration, «sytem Such hols, however, Ustlly misses its professed sims om atleast wo accounts Fist by insisting that cure a sytem (tos tod, Dueprin, and 30 forth) which “informs” or “rogues: ton hie socal sence Tso prove a theory of pas iC commits ahropology forever to impuring Gn oak Conclusions 157 {ie sce sue rom a perspective outside and stove ee fe eee ee EE eee oer ee ete aie rain wich pat of what wud. Seta Be pene cents fe ee a eee iments have een those that afr the albnchniveness of ee acne Soares Stated "Reason (Very) now asa general interest inthe Se oe ‘4 Se iices oe er eens coerce tarp would argue tht a state of affairs must be accepted because Sees ere eae eae tne) bute the presence ban ac of promt and "thd several oxher things” In the Gear eoogy Marx td Rie ase es158 Conclusions sory" a ald of speculation, an arcaoutsie of pron is tor, Research into the princes of stl orgaication mi tot be relegate a myihea ine of origi nor canbe feduced io the eontruction of stages Fes of soi ie {erentaton mont be sen au"moment wich “trom thee Binning of history, and ever sce human bigs ed Exit ndonenud ae sldecermine history (1958-38 my emphasis see ako 384) Thi the "materast com nation among human beige which i condoned by the needs and themode of preticion an aso a mae Isha $50. Fo bese, tee re poten ml he concept of needs: and Mars dil return to phe, periods tea stages (ven the ex from wich we fs guste oe the point is that a Hegelian view ofthe totity store Tote, including their coerporalty a any ven ne, pr pared ane cnc hon enya pie fae. The sune awareness uneries hs rtique of Pre fe fue of Prout Thera prin rr sd fr Sorrel Focesreerceaes mets as a caer fromthe other earind cee era ones te Frown, won ae wants otahec one of es Beare ae een Salita: sca curmernape eee. Spt Egret pivernyalrg wernsee €4953:496; my emphasis) pee re See een naire te concluded “that t # exw to reverse the onde of re ee eran oe Conclusions 159) tical sca thought has een his radical presents whieh, ip al tetera a heh Mary a ily Engels resorted, conan the theoretical po Fora Region of allochronie dancing What ee i coc aes nt org i aa okey 2 li aspects ofa uma sci are “of the same age” (a di inet romantic idea, inedertally, i we remember Herder find Ratecl Gee chapter 1) This Goes ot meam that, within the toxalty of human bisory, developments didnot occur thigh canbe viewed in chronological succession, T. Adorno, J's rellcton on, Hegel, summarized the diference be- {ween allochronic hiorsm ad daletieal conception of oeraines in one of hit inimitable aphorisns: "No universal fnstory ies (ror te sxrage to human, but there w one that Ieas fron te sings tothe megsbom(1906:312). Figen some of hal enor opened up a glob perspeetne onto questions hich we fared from ihe aruda santage point of anthropniogy. I allochron- to Serene uf ty comenched pla ouology iF hs deep hol root a ato sme of the Tundarend epstemslogeal convictions of” Western cu {ures what can be done about We IF is te tha uate json proviied by certain theory of knowledge, ould follow tht eral work must be directed to eps Thology, noubly to the unbnished project of materia onezption of Knowledge "ss sensishuman act (con ened | pray subecively” Conrete, praca contra diction beqren focal resatch and alochonteimterpret tion consittes the cn of ahropology, the crossroads, 35 itweres from which critque mast tke Off ad to which hunt return. We need to overcome the contemplative stance {in Marx sense) and dismantle the ediees of satiotem- ral distancing that characterize the contemplative vie fs fundamental assumpaon seems to be that the bask act of Inna somehow meuring ori asfyng) clhnograpi dats (ase dat, fundamental, but there are levels of information beyond that) maners ile ‘ether or not one posts an objective realty beneath the enehal world hat acceable to experience. What TOune is that sme Kind of priv, original beparation160 Conclusions production, provide the starting poin. This fateful separ. uence cae eee gether communis of nee. a ee. oo ee ees Soe este eae ee es a ees Seger or og Sane fd t consructnetheoresed phate) the pri sien fee eee se ease ieee aed oer a eae aoe ieee sapere tae ad oe See aaa ae ees peacoat tenant nae Krnower and the known = m eee ie eee See Eee es Conclusions 161 ict oa prong concp oc ame ic ger Wek ect fe Rn Pd nie reas Ree cea gt che Sars ti Sn tice ren Soran nt poze pron cle see a Saf scan cron BPG? da ke Sala an io ner, sin pcg temo at he Rinpal anea agut he deme Sor eer tts ei iopgy ay ook Bre lois ae pay Athos Se a ate A eect ara feelin Sats St try of bo aim a fe adnan mak conc Soe uth vate waning pa, Sa Sein dance tower emis ah Scar eset fa oy sin gre une esl luge be ps not eens ceed sta Hae an ie Seuss ths et wb" Se etn deat tag tnt em ne se ath gs pat i, and Tra, Raat yk aeons feteenes ie gan min m Beutel cctn e's ie xan nar and oes to conceive of that sensuous nature (above the eT ea al nn my ie pee hax: mans he de eg meee ar one Pech aE! ays peal ne un Baa ISR aap been he Sorat abe uti’ ecm On nase SoG RT eee ih emo ren Poe aks Sis ed a hat rate SSPE eas ene smi Tivos Pca ong kon ir162 Conclusions ration. It may come asa surprise but on this account I fn myself in agreement with N. Chomsky when he sats ics rong dink of he human use of language {5 charoternaly informative, n ft or neh ‘on. Human tangtage can be uae to inform or Iisa, to clarify one on thoaghts oo espay ‘ne’ cleverness, amply foe pat ET speak ah to cone for nodying you behave Sr” though, tam oe using agua ay fee than 1 Say exact che sme things sth ch enon If we hope to understand human language sn the Prychologcal apacties on which ire, we muse Arash What els not how or for what purpose is uted (197270) an does ot need guage: an, nthe dnc ton Srecataumimar ie Uleeneum er iictcos oe et a) Senet ed by the fprotucng mexciged sound ssoron, The a fancy Cad ee oper ple tin dicse aeibe etaisepiahsmmclertesanns Tegacro of trie toprescons tartans tres ising tong sons ped ead ws jhe baci Naa eee aba ace ot tire ate ten coup sell ee beng ot ipetalemNgumcpomaieeees peice Ret aah ge ors tender ire ae oy ec, pay eoemoptecr mieseericasige st nae WIas ares oecacbtttea ce Sasa eae ieailotngc ie es tel cs Weng ical Scaeandlg of te tabs bein tee opeiont Eat fag nt reel on man nk he Same ier anes ca em pa ingiage Poca i pal concep of 2 hart anthropology. rate eee at iru ns eet ethene heen ir. Conch fess. Inthe light of what has been argued so far, the ing two passages ned ho comment saeaz ature ne acl reality of sure, and hu St eee ees Be tic wecyeaume eats our anpecs of the fundamental historical relation Boe oe ee Berean eee oe ere a eee ere rann eae Pesaro Searels er A prduction theory of knowlege and language Gin spite of Enyels and Lenin) cannot he baton “abstraction Oe eh ling) ay ter conection at ty fundamental ats of cogation 10 consis of he Feichment of some hind of image or token from perceived shyt Concer pct of Ss merci: hey theamscnes ave of sensuous pare inastucl as thei or tnauon and use inextesbly bound up with guage: One {Snot inst enough ons pont ene #3 the sersous future of language, its being an ty of concrete orgy nissan the enn of enact tnediu-sound hich makes language an eminenty fm. ‘orl phenomenon. Cea, language sh mated hat qrcre to mea possessing properties of ori, spac: volume, pe, color tr even oppouton, ditrburvon, division, et) Tis itera shane narration, on frequencies, ich, tempo. all of whi are realized in the dimension time. Thete cently temporal propetis can be tandated, oF164 Conclusions transcribed, as spatial relations, That isan undsputable facthis sentence proves st: What remains highly espe, able i that visualization sptiaizato of coscsusnese oe especialy historical and clturally contingent spotaie. toms such as certain thetoreal “at of memory can made the measute of devopment of human consiousen The denial of cocvainess which we diagnosed on ondary and tertiary levels of apthropologeal discourse cy be toed oa fundamental epttemologeal nse Chana iC rests on the negation of the tempol materiality of con, inition ep ingge Fo the cmp spesking (other than the temporality of phiheal ove ents, chemical proceses atomic evenay and organ ‘rowth and deca}) emp cotemporaly of produce al ict, speaker aad hstener, Self and Oude Whether Aetemporaize, ideal theory of owl is de res of Certain cultura ideologeal, and polit postions, or tthether ‘it works the other way round i perhaps amet question. That there a connetion between thet which in’need of crieal examination, snot At one cime I maintained thatthe projet of dsman ting anthropology intelectual impeiaisn hus begin nih alternatives to point conceptions of ethnography fabian 1971). 1 advocated « ten to language and s conception eshnographie objectivity as comnuncaine, inerseeive Siyectnay. Perhaps {tied to make tear that | vant language and communication to be undersond asa Lind of Bans in which the Knower cannot ta sendaney over the Known (not for that malter, one Knower aver. at she) As see pow, the anthropologist nd his trl: Suors only “know” when they inet eae ther in oe ad the same cotemporaiy (ace Fabian 1972), I ascendancy Sing to erachicl postions precede rel Sonships must on the sme plane they wil be frontal Antiopology ay the study of ultra tlerence a be Bfducve ony i iterene drawn tothe ae of leccal contradic, Tago om procaming, and believing iat andiropology nonin but a more oF kes suceatel effort to abmrac general knowledge from conte exper Conclusions 165, ce and that, as sch serves wriversal gals and human Gece should be dita i the srgumen advanced fn these cays ate valid. In order to ain that primi set BESS Gr whatever replaces them now as the object of a. thropog) are he Fea and our conception he thay oe ms ep ambos "we can show that our theories of their societies are our Beste way in hich we produce and repr ent Mig ofthe Other for ur sacleties—we ma) (parapran fa al Hege) yu anhvopoogy back on is feet, Ree Mercs“teret'n fe hstry of tar dicing and dct She ing in he soy of confrotatson between a in re -s from ropobgy and ix Other are therefore not escape tly Sey are praca and eas Toy are ways © treet he Gtr te same ground, inthe same Tame