[URBANTH-L]
REV: Faier on Yamashita et al, The Making of Anthropology in East
and Southeast Asia
Angela Jancius
acjancius at ysu.edu
Sun Mar 26 15:50:13 EST 2006
[x-posted from CAELIST at LISTSERV.VT.EDU]
Yamashita, Shinji, Joseph Bosco, and J.S. Eades, eds. The Making of
Anthropology in East and Southeast Asia. New York, NY: Bergham Books,
2004. 374 pp. ISBN 1571812598, $27.00
Reviewed for the Anthropology and Education Quarterly by Lieba Faier,
University of California, Los Angeles
Given recent scholarly attention to the politics of producing
anthropological knowledge, surprisingly little consideration has thus far
been given to the connections and inequalities among anthropologies on a
global scale. This edited volume addresses this oversight by inviting us to
think about the discipline in both cross-cultural and transnational terms.
Bringing together eminent anthropologists in and from East and Southeast
Asia, the collection asks several questions: Why have anthropologists in
the West consistently overlooked anthropological traditions in East and
Southeast Asia? How can attention to these projects help us build a better
anthropology? The 14 chapters in the book respond to these questions by
exploring the development and distinctive characteristics of the discipline
in these regions. In doing so, they consider both the diversity and status
of anthropologies in East and Southeast Asia and their historical and
present-day relationships to each other and to traditions in the West.
In a self-conscious sense, the volume is an exploration of the discipline's
margins-and a call to pay attention to them. In an early chapter, Takami
Kuwayama discusses the problem of Western hegemony in the "world system of
anthropology." He challenges scholars in the West, and particularly the
United States, to pay attention to their relationships with their colleagues
abroad, just as he urges scholars within East and Southeast Asia to avoid
the pitfalls of parochialism and nationalism. Yet, the collection also
complicates any easy categorization of anthropologists as insider/outsider
or native/indigenous/exoticist. Whereas previous discussions have primarily
focused on relationships between ethnographers and their interlocutors, the
editors of this volume insightfully argue the importance of paying attention
to questions of audience. Doing so, they instruct, complicates how we can
understand both our locations as ethnographers and our anthropological
projects. As a result, questions of audience have serious implications for
how we understand not only relations of power among us as scholars, but also
anthropology's contributions in an increasingly interconnected world.
While as a whole the book makes an interesting and useful addition to recent
discussions of the politics of institutionalized knowledges and historical
and contemporary global flows, the primary contributions of most chapters
are historical: They offer detailed sketches of the development of
anthropology in various countries in East and Southeast Asia, discussing
these countries one by one. The chapters are sometimes redundant-and some
are more sophisticated and focused on the volume's themes than others-but
overall they are instructive. For example, David Askew and Shinji Yamashita
productively examine the development of anthropology in Japan in the context
of imperialist projects; their chapters will be useful to studies of
comparative colonialisms. Other contributors focus on the relationships
between anthropology and nationalist projects in China, Taiwan, Korea,
Malaysia, and the Philippines, considering what indigenizing anthropology
has meant (and might mean) in these countries.
Although the structure of the book is comparative, it also begins tracing
links between anthropologies in East and Southeast Asia and those in the
United States, Britain, France, and Australia. Xin Liu's exploration of
"Two Moments in the History of Chinese Anthropology" importantly reminds us
that there is considerable variation in regional anthropological traditions
and that anthropologies in China and the West are not easily dichotomized.
Other of the chapters, however, might have more imaginatively traced global
inter-anthropological connections. The introduction maintains that most
anthropologies in the region developed in conversations more with the West
than with each other; yet in some cases even these links might have been
more carefully explored.
The collection as a whole also has a couple gaps. First, it is unbalanced
in its geographic foci, and most countries in Southeast Asia, including
Brunei, Burma, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam,
are omitted completely. Readers will likely wonder why discussions of these
countries are minimalized or altogether excluded. Second, while the volume
draws careful attention to the national, colonial, and racial politics of
anthropologies in both Asia and the West, scant attention is paid to gender,
notably all but one of the 14 contributors are men. Gender, we know, has
played central roles in shaping both nationalist and colonial projects and
anthropology as a discipline. Given the collection's interest in the
politics of knowledge and questions of academic hegemony and elitism, this
oversight, and imbalance, is striking.
More than anything, however, the collection's gaps only suggest the need for
more research along the lines these scholars introduce, and thus the new and
important questions this edited volume opens up. The collection is also
very accessibly written. It will be useful not only for graduate seminars,
but also for undergraduate courses both on East and Southeast Asia and on
themes of nationalisms, colonialisms, or transnationalisms. It also
could-or, rather, should-be used to add cross-cultural perspectives to
classes on anthropological theory and the history of the discipline.
© 2005 American Anthropological Association. This review will appear on the
web site http://www.aaanet.org/cae/aeq.html, will be cited in the December
2005 issue (36.4) of the Anthropology & Education Quarterly, and will be
indexed in the December 2005 issue (36.4).
The Anthropology & Education Quarterly publishes reviews of current books in
the anthropology of education and related fields. The Book Review Editor
identifies the books to be reviewed and solicits each review from an
appropriate scholar. The Book Review Editor may also consider reviews
submitted voluntarily at his or her discretion, but volunteered reviews are
rare. The Book Review Editor makes the decision whether to accept the
review for publication. This policy has applied and continues to apply to
all book reviews, whether published on the AEQ web site or in the paper
journal.
More information about the URBANTH-L
mailing list