The Anthropology of GLOBALIZATION saline mer—_—__ The Anthropology of GLOBALIZATION ee ee Cultural Anthropology Enters the 21st Century TED C. LEWELLEN |ARVEY Westport, Connecticut + LondonLa ges aba een Dn E Lewellen, Ted C., 1940 ontents eum) enn cee cy ISBN 0-89759-73 Preface vii GNZ7LSS 2002 a 306—deat “2001082793 1 Introduction: Who Is Alma? 1 British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data is availabe i Parti: Globalizing Anthropology 5 2 Slouching Toward Globalization 7 3 The Anthropology of Globalization 29 trary of Congress Catalog Card Number: 2001082793 ISBN: 0-89789-738-2 4 Dev 0-89789-740-4 (pbk) rent, Devolution, and Discourse 6 5 Constructing Identity 89 Parti: Globalization and Migration 11 6 — Migration: People on the Move 123 7 Transnationalism: Living Across Borders 147 q i 8 Diaspora: Yearning for Home 159 dards Organization (23948-1984). 9 Refugees: The Anthropology of Forced Migration m 10987654321Part I: Global/Local Globalization from the Ground Up ‘Tribal Cultures: No Longer Victims Peasants: Survivor i a Global World Afterthoughts, by Way of Conclusions Notes Bibliography Index Contents 185 187 203 217 233 241 251 273 Preface Globalization is at the cutting edge of cultural anthropology at the tum of the 2ist century. First, it opens new territory, challenging the bounded ‘world of communities, localities, peasants, tribes, and cultures that has characterized anthropological research in the past. Second, globalization has become the point at which a number of theoretical trends have co- erpretive anthropology, critical anthropology, postmodernist, subject. Anthropologists and nonanthropologists who still equate global- ization with globobabble may find that there is more here than has been widely recognized. Even anthropologists who are involved either directly ‘or marginally in globalization research, or want to incorporate globaliza- tion into their future work, may find value in exploring the many tals al- ready blazed by others.ne Prefuce Aboveall, Lhope this book finds aplace in the classroom. It could be used to structure a course on The Anthropology of Globalization (its thirteen chapters approximate the number of weeks in a full semester), orit could be used as a supplement in courses on anthropological theory, the anthropology ‘of migration, the anthropology of identity, or other applicable subjects. [as- ‘sume some background in anthropology, referring periodically to classical ‘writings and to recent theoretical controversies. There is nothing, however, ‘that should deter the nonanthro student who is willing to look up Franz Boas ‘or Max Gluckman on the Web. The bibliography, hough extensive, is by no ‘means complete; there is an enormous amount of material out there, How- ‘ever, each chapter provides sufficient sources to create a subst ‘While this is an overview, utilizing the ideas and research of many schol- ars, I have self-consciously tried to avoid an Annual Reviews sur- vvey-of-the-literature approach, which might mention several authors in the same paragraph and skim over a multitude of ethnographic examples very rapidly. The goal of such articles is to provide researchers with sources for further reading, and itis very valuable in that regard (in fact, [would like to thanks to Annual Reviews of Anthropology authors this book). However, my goal is to provide a broad, easily digested overview. As a result, I have concentrated on ideas rather than specific writers. Often, of course, particular ideas are closely associ- ‘ated with particular authors, and I have tried to give due attention to Arjun Appadurai, Michael Kearney, Ulf Hannerz, and Jonathan Friedman, ‘many others. Since Iam a believer that the core of anthropology - nography, I devote considerable attention to specific studies, developing {his material in as much depth as space allows. Ihave chosen these examples to represent a variety of cultures and geographical areas, but mainly be- ‘cause eact borates, yet?” Such book. While I have tried to be f ty. All theories are ‘do not hesitate to is book is a sequel to my Dependency and Develop- to the Third World (Lewellen 1995). That work was | | Preface ix decade or so of research and writing, had time to read only enough anthro- pology to keep up with my classes. As aresult, when refocused on anthro- pology, it was witha different knowledge base and theoretical orientation than that of some anthropologists. This shows up, for example, ina skepti- thropology handles the subject of devel- survey of globalization in Chapter? to the anthropology may be tempted 10 tht neoliberal defines the pres ‘es oly made posible by te ., [have tried to provide a back- round oda sy-on worl migration at, ose the scene for morespe- Silly anropotogia research, ~ "Tis book y no means exhausts its objet. rly complete overview ot what sala ten one nth tein of balzaton wal et include separate chapters on gender, stem, slab fctory labor, donno celeb : r mentalism, AIDS and medicine in ‘and human rights. Ihave tried trial (gender, for example, receives specific tin the end, [opted fora degree of depth on her than a greater inclusiveness, tence to literally hundreds of scholars, and I yem all. Funding from the Irving May Chair in Human Re- lations of the University of Richmond has been quite significant in making this book possible.Chapter 1 Introduction: Who Is Alma? ‘Alma was born in the small village of Cacahuatepec in the state of Oaxaca, Mexico, While she was still n primary school, her father sacrificed to buy her a sewing machine, in the hopes that asa seamstress she could escape a long heritage of poverty. However, she married young to a subsistence farmer who could barely eke out enough com and beans from the wasted land to feed his family and almost immediately she began to have children, ultimately seven. At age 32, leaving her husband behind to continue to struggle on the paltry plotof land, she took her children and moved to Tijuana to join a sister-in-law ‘who was part of a kin-based network in that border city ‘After a couple of months working as a maid, Alma crossed the legally. In Long Beach, near Los Angeles, she was able to puther at thing factory, run by Cuban jobs allowed her to enroll her ind to send money to her husband who had now moved t0 1g with her eldest son, After many trips back and forth across the border, periodi 1g caught by immigration and deported, she resettled in Tijuana and found work in one of the maguiladoras there.? The maquiladoras ot maquilas are border factories owned by or closely af-2 ‘The Anthropology of Globalization with U.S. businesses and devoted to production for export to the ted States. They mainly employ young single women willing to work for few years at tedious, low-pay assembly jobs. Since the clothing maquilas labor, Alma was able to find jobs that paid enough to support luding an unemployed husband, and to send her children to nwers of the cis one of the greatest challenges that cultural anthro- ology has had to face. In contrastto the tradition-bound, community-based search throughout most of the 20th cent (or in some scholars’ views, postmodern) of plants and animals is considered the first great revolution, ‘ed more than 5,000 years. All great states and > the surpluses provided by intensive agri- f. The industrial revolution, which passed through at least three ‘and is closely associated with the rise of capitalism, shifted the basis al power from agriculture to manufacturing. The modern era may idered the period from about jin Europe and North America, cal, economic, and social structures. As peop! pend not on family-owned or share-cropped farm: to high labor mobility and to working ten- tot days at routinized occupations. Science and technology became primary determinants of social change. that no statement was validated until proved empi ‘treme formulation, that no statement could be meant, ceptible to empirical verification) promised that once-phi objective answers. The social and political worlds were amenable to goal-realization in the same way that the physical sciences were. Democracy, bas the cognitive maps or discourses of le competing ideologies, andthe claim that one particular set of ideas is dominant necessarily rests on a very selective use of sources. Many influ- ential theorists—not the least of which were Karl Marx and Frederick Slouching Toward Globalization a ‘Nietzsche—bemoaned the dehumanization and alienation of these pro- ‘cesses and were contemptuous of the concept of progress. The religious re- action against Darwin's evolutionary theory was profound and continues to this day, and our Founding Fathers were quite distrustful of democracy (a term they seldom employed). It ight also be noted thatthe cloaks of ratio- nalism and scientism were, and are, regularly donned as camouflage for the most egregious irrationalisms: pseudo-scientific IQ studies used to justify draconian immigration laws, Velokovskian “astronomy,” the crackpot eu- genies of the Nazis, and, in Russia, Lysenko’s theories, which justabout: stroyed Russian agriculture for decades, The sci Snopes novels. ‘The high modernism that appeared after World War II was based to a Michigan, assembly plant. But fordist the latter half ofthe 20th century. Most ofthese tends were long in develop- ‘ng, dating into the 19th century: the standardization and obj clock time (which always moves forward and is the same for everyon« ‘conception of space as something useable, malleable, and capable of domi- nation; the notion of labor as a commodity to be bought and sold in a labor ‘was 40% to 60% per month!). The sheer hugeness of finance and produc: tion and the need for planning years in advance required new forms of state intervention, protection, and control. The commodification of assembly line products gave rise to a commodification of mass culture. All this2 Globalizing Anthropology Worked together asa single more or less unified system—one that could be exported anywhere that an assembly line could be constructed. The radical transformation of this form of industrial modemism, with its rigid hierarchies and linearities, becomes evident in the United St economy. much more fluid than what preceded. While First World in oligopolies (just a few maj ‘xe less rigid. The transnationalization of almost all major businesses has ‘removed some of the centrality ofthe state as protector and regulator. Ac. Cording to Harvey, this era of “flexible accumulation” ‘Eason flexibility with respect to labor processes, labor markes, product, and pat tems of consumption fentirely new sectors ‘new markets, and above and organizational inno- Postfordismis one aspect of whathas come tobe known asthe postmodem Another aspect is the compression of both space and time. Jet munications have made the world it ly iit takes to converse or to travel overlong distances, lemity was period of homogenization of culture and consumer ‘800d, the postmodem era promises a world of differe ‘ccess to goods for the most individual tastes, Three nels have given way to literally hundreds. The work evolving with a rapidity almost inconceivable. every individual canis chat lers. With more and more work being done at the i on the car phone, or on the laptop cubicle environment is giving way for many ‘where the office clock no longer determines Gctable walls of ou lives are dissolving, giving way to heterogeneity, fap, [nentation, and contingency. One of the most radical changes since, 1950s is the degree leisure experience is commercially to Shoppinocvable individual taste. Malls are experiential palaces, not just hopping places; adventure tours can ake the traveler anywhere, even ee ‘opof Mount Everest elaborate arcade games almost erase the distinction be Slouching Toward Globalization 23 ‘ween virtual realty and reality itself; theme parks funnel the lust for excite- ‘ment into zones of commercialized fantasy that are both exciting and safe. ‘The rapidity of these changes seems to be increasing. THIRD WORLD MODERNIZATION ‘What has just been described is largely, so far, a First World phenomenon. However, the subject matter of anthropology has taitionally been the Third ‘World or indigenous groups, such as Native Americans, embedded within in- dustrial societies. The maquiladora world of Alma is more akin to fordism or reforism than to posonsm: because fly industrialized counties ae ex- porting their manufacturing to the Third World, many “underdeveloped! Countries are only now entering early industralization, complete with all the ‘accompanying ili of child labor, environmental devastat ‘Working conditions, and labor-management confit. It posed that thi ‘general developmental stage, similar to United States. ot European stages of development, as was proposed by the modernization theorists of the 1950s and 1960s (Rostow 1960). Each country wall experi- ence industralization uniquely, depending on its pect structure. The point is that the postmodern condition receptivity to indiscriminate media inputs, and cultural hybridity applies Iainly to middle and upper classes, which together comprise no more than 20% of the populations of the more impoverished Third World counties. ‘While everyone experiei m postmodern condition described above is very differentially experienced, all, by many or most Third World peoples. This needs to be emphasized be- ‘cause, to a great degree, postmodern theory dominates the anthropological study of the Third World; when no differentiation is made between theory and empirical conditior subjectively experienced by the world’s undercla evident that different peoples react to global inputs in very While everyon leri vided by soci ‘and economists is based on the Western ex}-Pzyyeqo]3 se paquiasap “A é Z "Table 21 ‘The Loca/Global Continuum Integration. Economic Institutions Cultura, Ideological Hdentity Political Confice Theoretical ego on uns pasay ayes se ons ‘sotnoue 0} waysis auo wioyy HoNEUO}SUEN 40 WoRNJoa> axp pUEYSIapUn OF ABUTULID}Op J9A2U SOULE St IFFO| SIHP—2IQISSOd aq I0U Pjnom uo angus 2[q1ss0d suoiseyoq Jo 28ues apts 249 UNODDe “gem Jo wHOJe4 Pur] SB Yons *S9se9 9B KOA jo ads ayp Ul YIMs B se St 2 g Micro Fragmentation Marginalizaton of tribal and peasant ‘economies. Increased labor migration and factory labor in Third World. Local-tevel neighborhood, community, ethnic, feminist, environmental, and hhuman rights organizations. Indigenization, diaspora communities, detribalzation, ethnicity, ost-peasantries, ransnationalism, Increased eth hybridity, nati transnatioalism, Ethnic politics, nationalism. Diminish- ‘ment of state-centrie power leads to in- ‘teased localization of politics. NGOs fill former state Functions End of Cold War and collapse of USSR release nationalisvethnic con- flict. Postmodern focus on micro processes and repudiation of "metanarratives.” Globalization is an Musion. z g : i g i g 4 i ry em Ar9a a 104 pip 40 emp pul AAO! 1oM pyp oys\—aF aUIEU NOK joxa “wist[euoRoury-feamsnNs—sauoot wWoOssey ‘up pue Arooyp [e1oues yuapom Suryaos fjqeotioeds 1oyare=s idoad jo ayouras ysou axp uo 109 TEMP St yquise-and on pe 2. jms nq 'sa4toayp ese wana OU ory INN2-2P400> UI paso ‘24 01 sjapout se you Ayruzapour pur uonRZATRqO|S Mata 01 2q 14H HOR ‘ise pouoyar aq isnus etp pu wwouUosTAMD axp Jo 1red aUI0S 2 2 5 g & 8 zg ; 3 3 é Pl 3 z z & 2 Ez aun Huensnuy»20j ut 9q a ‘suesead weapuy SuouTEs09q20 cueyli © urge ‘odeys sonoreys Jo -alpjay ereqnasuidins ou aq plnoys y{(gapozoype Aaoatp pexata8 Surespndas kq twajqoud atp aajos sisquapounsod aus) paisoiuoo pur “ureuaoun “xapd “rapuods Jo [ny PEOte MHP UAH 4g aN 304 ploy axp OU! OF YOU pIp oy BO -jodonpue jo apmis v uaaq JaAau Kiqeqoud sey axouy, “senor w KUO ‘mou stiurejduaoo st, "(002 4oee Pue punyu) smayn9 [200] 03 (fEpoULIO ‘Azoaqg jaxo|-4G4q) aanexreueyoU Jo uoneondde awudosddeur xp se patsy, yoyo us9q sey sonwapour ajdnynut jo eaplatp uoaa AFojodonypue uIpLA ‘uso exp sind jeqoys area woo t93q sKemfe Sey SuIAE] AppAz0A9 Jo sep sonqeas punosi gyno us Meso Macro Mid-levelintegation Unity Regional common markets: NAFTA, — Global neoliberal capitalism pro European Community. At a lower level, moted/enforced by World Bank, IMP, the nation-state. US. policy, Decentralized MNCs and financial flows, Regional politicalfeconomicfcultural ‘organizations: OPEC, ASEAN, OAS. United Nations, World Trade Organi- Huntington's “civilizations.” Transna- ‘ional religious and ideological integra- tion, suchas Islamie fundamentalism, news, television. Democracy, Gender awareness. ‘Transnational-regional identities: Arab, Caribbean, Afro-American, Islamic Global awareness Democratization adapted to state polt- cal cultures, clas systems. Arabislamic antidemoeratic models, Organizations: NATO, ASEAN. Huntington's “fault-line” wars, Iterna- UN peace-keeping interventions. tional intervention i local wars. _Diminishment in wars between states Spread of western democratic models. Global economic and politcal organizations take ove tions ofthe stat. Globalization as a conti Jong-term processes tington's “civilization” theory Globalization today is diferent from + anything befor; ideology of neoliberal copitalim, ‘ABojodonpuy Surzne2012% Globalizing Anthropology itimately blend into some sort of synthesis; rather, the three gra- ly different aspects of one system and thus form relatively permanent tionships. NAFTA, for example, both derives from and. reinforces the processes of globalization, On the one han reaction against the laissez-faire trade of neoliberal ca us response to regional organizations elsewhere. On the other hand, iten- ‘courages numerous global processes, especially in Mexico where we see the transformation of women’s labor, the transfer of technology and fi- nance, and the internationalization of trade. ‘This said, there are some fairly obvious determinative aspects of the slobal-regional-ocal system. The most blatant are the structural adjust- rents required quite specifically of Third World countries by the IMF and World Bank and de facto by other lending institutions, trade organizations, and First World governments. While these structural adjustments are nego- tiated country by country and are not as rigidly ideological as they are often portrayed, they basically force all countries into a single model of develop- ‘ment, The spread of technology, especially communications and computer While neoliberal ‘global scale, and historical variety of Io- the emergence of new or sumption of transnational and even cision making. his is Why anthropology is so important Justas one cannot predict who, individually, wil be killed in Memorial Day auto accidents based on yearly accident statistics, so itis not possible from the higher level to predict downward, except within very general parame- ters. To understand globalization, we must study ita the evel of real people ‘who imagine new lives, make plans, travel, form networks, assume identi- ties, and socialize their children. Global ethnography is not a contradiction {in terms; it is the only way to understand, the study of globalization. Slouching Toward Globalization a Against Futurism Despite a tendency on the part of globalization theorists to add layer ‘upon layer of ‘may be called for. One wi prophesy the future. What: nn, Trains had crossed the United States since 1869 jtomobiles, suggesting a revolution in transporta- about everything of significance: (wo w. lapse of the colonial system, the emergence and incumbent on the present generation to ces that are going on now, and this will changes—already well along—in the way that anthro- pology does busines.Chapter 3 The Anthropology of Globalization entirely new and doe ogy fone, Angelique Haugerud, and Peter Lite! recessarily demand a ‘As we have seen, the liberal economic ideology, the debt crisis and the resulting power of the ‘World Bank and IMF to impose structural adjustments on Third World coun- ly, the emerging anthropology of global rgence ofa number of interlinked changes inthe anthro- wlaship, especially in subject mater, theory, the conceptual- re, and the ways that data are collected and analyzed. jon represents a significant break with anthropology as trai- ed, patially because te primary empirical technique of ticipant observation fieldwork tended to bring the bounded comm: front and center. The focus of anthropology has inevitably been the “local.” Pretty much defined the amount ofteitory one anthropologist could cover30 Globalizing Anthropology in some depth in a year or two, There have been signifi (1954) compared a number of overlapping systems ina much larger area than was usually studied at the time. ric Wolf's Europe and the People Without 1982) and Peter Worsley’s The Three Worlds (1984) were revolu- lies within anthropology since they were writen at a time when such grand theorizing was already being challenged. Even today, globalization studies seldom, if ever, assume Wolf's or Worsley's global viewpoint, but tend, us on the effects of globalization on specific groups or within areas, such as identity or development. A major difference inthe definition of the groups studied. Whereas traditional that are scattered in many countries, and deterrtor ‘an increasing self-consciousness of the degree to the local were artifacts of the participant observation method, This does not mean that such fieldwork and narrowly circumscribed studies are going to be glance through any Current Anthropol .ggests some ofthe more significant reinventions. Like all this chart neds to be taken witha rather large grain of salt; h -onsiderably are often prefigured long before they actually kick in, and continue for decades afte they have lost their centrality “The Anthropology of Globalization 3 Table 3.1 Anthropological Periods Time Focus of Interest Dominant Para Major Theorists Formative Classic 1900-1945 chiefdoms Moder 1943-1980 Peasants, urban shantytowns, underdeveloped societies ‘world systems Geert, Clifford y. and Marcus, |. Jameson, Foucault ‘Transitional 1980-1990 Anthropology Appaduri, Hannerz, Fried rman, Kearney postmodernism ‘Source: Rovghly based on Kearney 1996; 23-4 Above al, two things need tobe kept in mind. First, unlike the situation in the natural sciences where a single paradigm dominates any given period (Kuhn paradigms atthe same time (apara- ‘broad perspective and: exist), Second, while journal publications require some sort of ideologues of any particular viewpoir the standard within the field is a sort of “no-name anthropology2 Globalizing Anthropology importance of the Cold War to anthropological interests and funding, I be- lonial system and the emergence of a Third World of (Keamey is a Latin Americanist, and there colonialism hhas been a dead issue for overacentury). Ihave added Transitional period, which seems to me, for good or ill, to be one of the most important periods in anthropological history. It was—and continues to be—a period of self-criticism characterized by fierce ie of anthropo- logical representation. Inthe scope and riod echoes the Boasian rev: ‘and the post-World War Il re synchronic structural-fu ature is a direct result ofthis radical rethinking, al- though, as we shall see, in practice the results have been fairly moderate. YES, VIRGINIA, THERE IS AN ANTHROPOLOGY OF GLOBALIZATION ‘Two eatlier global paradigms were extremely influential in anthropol- ogy: dependency theory, which postulated that Third World “underdevel- opment” was not a primal condition but rather the result ofthe historically evolving structure of capitalism, and world system theory, which viewed nations in relation to their placement within a global division of labor be- tween core, periphery, and semiperiphery (see Chapter 4). A major reason that these orientations never really gained a central prominence in anthro- ppology was that the viewpoints were postulated at such an altitude that it was difficult for the ethnographer to apply them tothe on-the-ground reali- ties experienced in the field If dependency theory and world system theory were too stratospheric for anthropological use, then what is the anthropolo- _gist to make of globalization, which is even more comprehensive in scope ly does as I argued in the previous chapter, glo jon comprise. single, unified syster top-down analysi regionalization, and showing how people use and, within the local setting, even alter global forces. With the emergence of identity asa major focus of study for anthro- The Anthropology of Globalization 3 pologists, globalization reaches down even to the psychosocial analysis. Second, while globalization may be conceived as: , and therefore need not determine the theor so forth. Such information may be contextualizing what is happening with individuals and groups. Third, un- like modernization theory, dependency theory, and world systems theory, culture is a key component of globalization discourse; far from being ex: cluded, the anthropological voice is badly needed. Fourth, not only anthro- pologists but also sociologists, political scientists, and some economists have seen the primary problem posed by globalization to be how to connect the macro to the micro and vice versa, This challenge offers an interdisci- plinary bridge that connects anthropology with other academic disciplines. Finally, globalization might be conceived not as a radical departure for anthropology, but asa natural next step. Historically, anthropology has wa- vered between the high-level analysis of, say, di ism, and the intense specificity of community-focused ethnography. The virulent repudiation of structural-functionalism, with its bounded commu- nities and ahistorical approach, opened the way for theories emphasizing process, fluidity, agency, and overlapping and multidimensional networks. For anthropology, globalization is not the radical disjuncture claimed by ‘some postmodemnists, but rather the addition of another level of analysis, a recognition that people and the world they live in are just a bit more com- plex than we have credited. ‘THE SUBJECTS OF A GLOBALIZED ANTHROPOLOGY In terms of subject matter, globalization is already normative in anthro- pology, as the briefest perusal ofthe bibliography of this boo! so far the term does not designate any overarching cons‘ ence. Almost any study can incorporate abit of global analysis, atleast in the sense that no culture or community is completely isolated from transnational influences and world capitalism. However, if we seek out those areas of an- thropology where there has emerged a degree of self-conscious unity that is, ‘where a group of scholars tends to recognize common themes: ‘vocabulary and to build upon each other's work, then only a of subject areas really fit. The fields of development (or antidevelopment) and identity cover both local and transnational effects of globalization. Be- yond these, we ca, too much harm, classify other fields under two iroad categories: those subjects dealing with transnational migration and34 Globalizing Anthropology those dealing with globalization’s effects on people who stay within the boundaries oftheir own countries. Extensive work has already been accom- plished on diasporas, refugee populations, and transnational migrants. The global-local is represented by studies of tribal communities, peasants, and - Thave been acutely aware of the ‘major theme to emerge from glob: ‘Without also discussing identity, migration, gender, and development. What ial separation of these into chapters is that each favors only orientations. The anthropology of development. Ant definitions of development. The first is si lone or two thet ogy recognizes two broad to the way that other social term, that is, as indust gross national product. The term has both a descriptive and prescriptive sense; descript reans almost the same as modernization, a broad process that may be planned or fortuitous and may have negative as positive effects. In the more prescriptive sense, it suggests “progres as better nutrition and health, perhaps the emergence of democrat tions, and some degree of income equality. Few anthropologists have adopted this idealistic meaning; to the contrary, most ethnographies that todestroy in- pology of development has not been a significant theoretic anthropology. A second form of devel agencies to induce planned change at th of professional anthropology has also been undertheorized, in s ‘came under the influence of the poststructuralist ideas of French philoso- her Michel Foucault. Both field-workers and academic critics of develop- ment employed Fouc: deep-rooted problems pethaps, lier anthropology. Looking back to Ruth Benedict's Pattems of Culture (1989 (1934), which came out of the Culture and Personality school, people are ‘The Anthropology of Globalization 35 seen as locked within the identity ofthe group. A person was Hopi, Kwakiutl, (or Dobu, and that was that. National character studies essentialized identity ‘on a much larger scale. For the British structural-functionalist, who empha- sized the boundedness of cultures, questions of Nuer or Andaman Islander identity would have been met smprehension. Those days are long past. Boundaries were never as solid as once believed, and globalization has Weakened or dissolved many boundaries that did exist. The quest started with—Who is Alma?—is atthe heart of the study of glob: secking the answers to this gueson, sntcpcogas have had to employ explosion of nationalisms demanding their own sovereignty and challenging ‘the whole idea ofthe nation-state. As the subjects of anthropology move back and forth among different life-worlds, take on different roles in different places, and absorb new ways of thinking and imagining through the mass me- dia, identities that might once have appeared simple, obvious, and coherent are now seen to be enormously complex. “Migration. Cross-border migration has many faces. 8 & coyote to take her across the bo ‘turn home as long as Tutsis hold power. Its the thoroughly Americanized ‘woman from Calcutta getting her graduate degree in biology at Princeton bal labor market have brought about a igration that has no real equivalent in the Haitian immigrant to New York no longer need assimilate into some -Anglo-Saxon-Protestant culture when she can regu- larly return to Hai cost and can maintain contacts with family by phone and e-mail as though they were across town. Pakistanis work in the Arab countries ofthe Middle Easton such a routine ba ich trips are ing. Some high-emigrant states are be- ‘ginning to conceive of themselves as deterritorialized, encouraging either36 Globalizing Anthropology ‘permanent or circular migration because of a dependence on remittances. Diasporas form vast multicountry networks held together by the common homeland. jobal forces and structures impinge on societies and ferent ways, depending on 2 multitude of factors: local social structures, local leadership, and the like. There ys that people can respond to the same global i 1¢ global level to the local level cannot be are ‘Thus, analysis from the except within paramet oad as to be either amorphous or obvi ally may be needed in some cases ‘more than one site and to be supplemented with other kinds of inquiry, such as archival research or interviews with official development agents. The ‘very concept of local has become ambiguous; for a traveling Hong Kong ex- cutive with a transnational corporation, the “local” may be offices and ho- workers that extend concept of local. Even the most stay- images and ideas via television and radio, expanding the imaginative local outward indefinitely. Work is transformed by global processes as women who formerly la- ly preferred by have tried to integrate it into sever ‘caught the eye of the anthropol AIDS, the international sale of ‘The Anthropology of Globalization 37 religious movements. While pe to atleast point a direction Stanley Barrett* “The theoretical language and basic assumptions of most anthropological lobalization studies are what I would term pragmatic-postmodern. This ‘controversial than it may appear. ‘better word and be- Jude a range of dis- interpretive and postmodernism anthropology. Each of these theoretical po upon layer of philosophy. Since most anthrop. there has been a tendency to skim off the us work; indeed, most degree of objective reality. The postmodem taboo agai ‘and essentializing often goes hand in hand with pronounce- lized as to make the most traditional ‘outstanding empirical field research. Thus, the cemergedisalargely pragmatic one: Ifit works, use it;ifit does mot, ignoreit.The Anthropology of Globalization 9 Only a few years ago, the battle between the proponents of emics and ‘tis, idealism and materialism, modern and postmodern seemed intracta- ble. The two sides could not have been farther apart. The very basis of postmodernism was a total distrust of scientific objectivism:; the very basis, of the anthropology-as-science crowd Was a tition. Now, like boxers who have ma Culture: The Poeties ana Po. ities of Ethnogrophy the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism Clifford and Marcus, Writing Jameson, Postmodernism, or Cultures, especially, “Deep Play’: Notes on a Balinese scobar, Encountering Development Geertz, The Interp Major Work Cockfight” points; some ofthe best globaliza- ‘neconomic anthropology, are in mode (e.g, Phillips, ed. 1998; Haugerad, Stone, and Little, eds, 2000), By and large, however, the social-scentific point of view—the forming of testable and operational hypotheses, the collection of quantitative data, and the employment of statistical analysis—is Lnderrepresented in globalization studies. Because most globalization studies are so imbued with either conscious or unconscious postmodern as- sumptions, itis essential to take a closer look atthe theories underlying these assumptions. Systems of meaning Crisis ofrepresenta- Situated knowledge igh ratio- Hermeneutics Power/knowledge ‘Thick description Paradigm (cultural) G Text Discontinuity Hybrigity Key Terms Reflexivity Deconstruction Fragmentation Discourse Postmodernism n—by whatever term one jemnism as theory is more ss conflicts. The Departmentof separate departments over imulated considerable debate over the editorshi ‘While a certain empirical postmodern con farvin Harris (19992: ‘ld school, jokes that whereas his standard text The Rise of Anthropological Theory was referred to by two generations of students as RAT, perhaps a tobe called FAT—The Fall of Anthropolos cal Theory. Postmodernists, on the other hand, dismiss Harris's material perspective as an outmoded remnant of a scientism. Postmodernism (or “pomo’ become a suffi ‘was aterm of dismissal from the postm nally embraced the position were now oF critical theorists or were abandoning c studies or for science and technology studies. ‘To what extent was postmodernism in anthropology designed to account for the postmodern condition, so far as it exists in the Third World? The an- Fieldwork: rejects possibilty of scientific objectivity all in- terpretation is situated + Exhnography as literary text science, which has become a privileged narrative + Subjectivity, impressionism emphasized over false objectiv- nals, technology, science) 10 postmodernty *+ Against all “grand theory” and “metanarratives” including nographer than people studied + Lack of reflexivity lead to false sense of objectivity searcher + Anthropological representations reveal more about eth- enced *+ Seeks to express point of view of “others” rather than of r= iy + Rejects distinction of high and low culture + Analyzes symbolic systems fo understand cultures as experi- * Studies discourse of historical time periods and institutions + Metiod of “thick description’ requires intensive empirical + Focus on epistemology und language *+ Contrasts Enlightenment modems (progress throu + “Reality” is socially constructed; knowledge is relative + Rejects Lévi-Strauss strucuraisn's universal claims + Anthropology situated in colonialism, posteolonialism + Emphasis on power as inherent in all discourse Defining Atributes that many who had ori ‘themselves poststructuralists “Postmodernism” in Anthropology as a Convergence of Four Theoretical Trends Catieal Anthropology Table 3.2 Interpretive Anthropology Postmodernism Poststructuraism40 Globalizing Anthropology swer isnot much, Postmodernism started as a school of architecture and spread as an artistic and literary response to postindustrial society, that is, the society ofthe First World, The concept of postfordism, as both an eco- nomic and a sociopolitical phenomenon, is most applicable to the wealthier countries that have passed through the Second Industrial Revolution, that now have only a small (often very small) percentage of their populations ‘working in agriculture and manufacturing, and that have shifted from the processing of materials to the processing of information: education, enter- tainment, law, advertising, computer software devel ‘This does not apply to much ofthe Third World, which is or nonindustrial; agriculture, mining, imported manufactured goods, and street-vendor “commerce” in the informal sector may dominate the econ- ‘omy. Such countries are most de United States. Each country or re namics, which are a unique com! the global. Although postmodernism may criti and the Third World. As a result, there is no particular reason to privilege postmodern theories. On the other hand, many of the subdisciplines that have emerged to deal withthe Third World, such as identity studies and the