anthropology in the uk

8/2/2019 Anthropology in the UK

1/25


2/25

Annu. Rev. Anthropol.2000. 29:1-24Copyright 2000 by Annual Reviews. All rightsreserved

BRITISH SOCIALANTHROPOLOGY:A RetrospectiveJonathan SpencerDepartmentof Social Anthropology,Universityof Edinburgh,EdinburghEH8 9LL,Scotland;e-mail:[email protected] Words sociocultural anthropology, history, British social science, seminars,British universities* Abstract This article reviews the history of British social anthropology, con-centratingon the expansion of the discipline in the British university sector since the1960s. Particularemphasis is placed on the relationshipbetween social anthropologyand the main source of its funding, the British government, in particular he Economicand Social Research Council. After a particularlydifficulttime in the 1980s, social an-thropology in the 1990s has grown swiftly. In this period of growth, formerly crucialboundaries-between academic anthropology and practical policy-related research,between "social" and "cultural"anthropology-appear to have withered away. YetBritish social anthropologyretains much of its distinctive identity,not least because ofthe peculiar institutional structures, such as the research seminar, in which the socialanthropological habitus is reproducedin new generations of researchers.

DECLINE AND FALL?Is British social anthropologystill distinctively "British"? Or to rephrasethequestion,is it still distinctively"social"? This is a questionaboutdisciplinesandtheirboundaries,andthe answer offerconcentrates ess on the substanceof what scurrentlybeingwritten, aught,anddebated n Britainand more on the institutionsandpracticesthroughwhich a strongsense of disciplineand boundedness s still,I believe, reproduced.When he publishedthe first edition of his historyof moder British social an-thropology, he young Adam Kuper(1973) had no doubt aboutthe coherence ofhis subjectmatter: "'Britishsocial anthropology' s not merely a term for thework done by British or even British-trained ocial anthropologists.The phraseconnotes a setof names,a limitedrangeof ethnographic egionalspecialities,a listof centralmonographs,a characteristicmode of procedure,and a particular eriesof intellectualproblems. In short, it connotes an intellectualtradition" Kuper1973:227). By the second editionin 1983, Kuper'sconfidencehadbegunto wane.

0084-6570/00/1015-0001$14.00 1


3/25

2 SPENCERReviewingBritishsocial anthropology n the decade since the book's firstpubli-cationhe spokeof "institutional tagnation, ntellectual orpor,andparochialism"while seeking solace in the continuingvitalityof "itsgreatest strength,which isits fineethnographicradition"Kuper1983:192). By theearly1990s, in aFrenchreferencework,he lamented hat t wasnowdifficult o see what was "specificallyBritish" about social anthropology n Britain(Kuper1991:307), and in a latereditionof his book (Kuper1996:176), he declaredthat"as a distinctiveintellec-tualmovement,"Britishsocial anthropologyastedonly forthehalf-century romthe publicationof Malinowski'sArgonauts(1922) in the early 1920s to-oddlyenough-the moment n theearly 1970s when he publishedhis own book (Kuper1973). Thefutureof social anthropology,orKuper, ies notin national raditions,butin an increasinglycosmopolitanEuropeanexchange (Kuper1996:193).Any writeron moder Britishanthropologyworksin the long shadowcast byprevioushistorians.Apart romKuper, hough,most historicalwork has concen-tratedon the periodbetween the turn of the centuryand the late 1940s or early1950s,theperiodwhensocialanthropology onsolidated tspositionwithinBritishacademic ife (Goody 1995;Kuklick1991;Langham1981;Stocking 1984, 1992,1995;Urry1993). AlthoughKuper ook thestoryforward o the late 1960s andhasextended t to the 1990s in a seriesof epiloguesto his originalwork,his emphasisis overwhelminglyon theintellectualhistoryof thediscipline,withrelatively ittleattention o the changingpolitical, social, and institutionalcontextwithinwhichthathistorywas worked out (cf Leach 1984:2-3). In what follows then, I wantas far as possible to discussthemes andissues that have been left relativelyunex-ploredin recenthistoriography;o work,as it were, "afterStocking"-starting atthatpoint in the early 1950s when Stocking'smagisterialwork (Stocking 1995)leaves off-and following a significantlydifferent line of enquiryfrom Kuper's(1983). Since the publicationof the first edition of Kuper's(1973) book, Britishsocial anthropologyhas been heavily dependenton the materialsupportof theBritish state and has been forced, like all other academicdisciplines in Britishuniversities, o adapt ts practicesof teachingand research o anevermore activisteducationalbureaucracy. o thequestionthatdominatesaninstitutionalhistoryofrecentBritishsocialanthropologys this: Hasanthropologyriumphantlyurvivedthe increasinglydirectiveattentionsof its main source of materialsupport,or hasit been irretrievablyompromisedandcorruptedby thisrelationship?The central section of this chapteraddressesthat questionthrougha reviewof the demographyof the discipline, seen through he lens of changing fundingregimes. The closing section attempts o assess the intellectualconsequencesofinstitutional hangeandreturns o thesense of decline so forcefullyarticulated yKuper n his recent versions of disciplinaryhistory. But in partialdisagreementwith Kuper, suggestthat"British ocial anthropology"etains ts distinctivenessas a relativelysmall and coherentgroupof intellectualpractitioners, venthoughtheparticularmarkers f distinction-the thingsthatmake t "British," r"social,"or "anthropological"-havechanged, and continue to change. This means thatwe have-in trueBritishspirit-to replacetheculturalquestionof whatparticular


4/25


5/25

4 SPENCERThe storyof Britishsocial anthropology n the yearsthatfollowed is heavilyshapedby the storyof British universitiesandtheirrelationshipwith the British

state. Although the number of anthropologistsworking in universities had in-creased to more than 50 by 1963, these were all to be found in the same fewdepartments s in the early 1950s (withthe exceptionof a few odd figureswork-ing on theirown in largeinstitutionswithoutdepartments f anthropologyaroundthem). In the early 1960s, the Britishgovernment auncheda majorexpansionofwhatuntilthenhadbeen a small andelitistuniversity ector:Newuniversitieswereopened,anda whole additionalclass of institutions-polytechnics-was createdto supplement he moreconventionaluniversities.In the next decade,anthropol-ogy was established,sometimes in joint departmentswith sociology, at the newUniversitiesof Sussex, Kent,and East Anglia, while new departments truggledinto life at olderuniversities ike Belfast, Hull, andSwansea. By 1973 therewereabout90 anthropologistsn post, and by 1983 the figurehad risen to 120, withtwo more new departments, t GoldsmithsandSt Andrews. By 1993 there weremore than 160anthropologistsworking n Britishuniversities.A check of the ASAAnnals (1999) suggests that the latest figureis around220 (this figureincludesanthropologistsworkingon short-term ontracts, or exampleas replacements orstaff on leave).This is not,however, he straightforwardale of growthandexpansion t mightseem to be. After therapidexpansionof themid-1960s to mid-1970s,universitieswerebadlyhitby government usteritymeasures,andwith the election of MargaretThatcher as Prime Minister in 1979, the social sciences were singled out forespecially harsh treatment.With cutbacks in state supportfor universities,bytheearly 1980sthedisciplinewas felt to be in real crisis as the supplyof academicjobs almostcompletelydriedup. The situationonly started o changeat the endof thatdecade, when the governmentchangedtack and launched a furtherhugeexpansionof universityteaching. This time, however,most of the increase wasaccountedfor by much largerstudentnumberswithin existing departmentsanddegreecourses, rather hanby creatingnew institutions,as had happened n the1960s. The new boom in studentrecruitment oincided with a moment of higherpublic visibility for social anthropology,and demandfor places on anthropologycourses has soared since the late 1980s.Is this, then, a straightforwardale of expansion(apartfrom the Thatcheritehiccup in the 1980s), as it appearsfrom the figures? Or is it a case of tightlylimited expansion (in the context of the growthof universitiesin general, andsocial sciences in particular) ince theearly 1950s? A comparisonwith sociologyis instructivehere,not least because the two disciplineshave been closely linkedthroughout his period. Before the 1960s boom in universities,sociology as anacademicpresence n Britainwas arguably mallerand moredispersed han socialanthropology.But by 1981 (the gloomiest year of Thatcher'srule for the socialsciences), the discipline had expandedto more than 1000 government-fundeduniversitypositions, growingat almost 10 times the rate of social anthropology.What s mostsignificant nthecomparisonwithsociology's expansion s theplaceswhereanthropologywasnot found. Withahandfulof exceptions, t wasnottaught


6/25

BRITISHOCIALANTHROPOLOGYin the polytechnics, or in the innovativeOpen Universityset up by the LabourGovernment f the 1960s.2 Nor wasit establishedaspartof the schoolcurriculum.By the mid-1970s, more than 100,000 18-year-oldshad studiedsociology as anA-level examinationsubject; n 1999, the figurefor anthropology emainedstuckon zero (Abrams 1981).Therearethreepossible explanations or the limits to anthropological xpan-sion. One is a simple problemof demand: The new welfare bureaucraciesofpostwarBritainrequiredsociologists (or thought they did) and not anthropolo-gists, and the universitiesandthe governmentaccommodated hemselves to thisbrutefact.The second is demographic:There were only just enoughanthropologists obuild the departmentshat were built in the 1960s, and not enough to sustainahuge expansion. Yet a numberof leading anthropologists-Peter Worsley,MaxMarwick,and RonaldFrankenberg, mongothers-took up positions in the newsociology departmentsn the 1960s,while others,mostnotablyVictorTurner, ndlaterFGBaileyandStanleyTambiah,eft Britain or theUnitedStates. This revealsanimportantdifference n the modeof expansionof the two disciplinesat the time:Social anthropologydepartmentswere concernedwith staffingthemselves onlywith social anthropologists; ociology departmentswere staffedwith whomeverwas available,and the issue of professionalor disciplinarycoherence was raisedafter-rather thanduring-the periodof expansion. This difference was explicitin the developmentof the relevantprofessional organizations or the two disci-plines. The Association of Social Anthropologists ASA) was foundedin 1946with a strongmodel of professionalizationn mind:Membership equiredahigherdegreein social anthropologyand/orevidenceof publicationsand a teaching po-sitionin anthropology.Up untilthe 1990s, the annualmeetingsof theAssociationwere markedby careful(andfor some distasteful)scrutinyand discussion of thequalificationsof would-be members(cf Tapper1980). The BritishSociologicalAssociation,in contrast,remaineda farmoreopen organization-a broadchurchmuch more like the AAA in the United States-despite occasional attemptstocreatea moreelite professionalstanding or sociologists (Barnes1981).

The third,andperhapsmost compelling, explanation or the limits to anthro-pological expansionis internalto the discipline. Anthropologydid not expandinto othereducationalsettingsbecause anthropologists hemselves did not wantto expand. It was seen as, above all, a subjectfor graduateresearchers,not for2Ruth inneganasbeenalmost heonlyanthropologistmployed ytheOpenUniversity-apioneeringistance-learningnitiativeetupbytheLabourovernmentf the ate1960s-whereasOxford Brookes(formerlyOxfordPolytechnic)was, fora long time,the only oneof theformer olytechnicso teachanthropologys a degree ubject.3British nthropologistsereheavilynvolvednestablishingsocialanthropologyom-ponentntheInternationalaccalaureatexaminationorhigh-schooltudents,ut orallits merits, this programreaches a tiny proportionof studentsin the relevantage group,comparedwith the A-level examinations,which are takenby virtuallyall 18-year-olds ntheschool ystemnEnglandndWales.

5


7/25

6 SPENCERundergraduates,et alone school students. In 1973, for example, Leach arguedforcefullyagainstany attempt o introduceanthropology o school-age students:"Itcould be veryconfusingto learn aboutotherpeople'smoralvalues beforeyouhave confidentunderstandingof your own" (Leach 1973:4). In Oxford in the1970s, social anthropologywas not taught-and not thoughtto be teachable-toundergraduatess adegreesubject.Twentyyears ater, ntheconclusion ohisbriefmemoir of Britishsocial anthropology,JackGoody reiterated he point that thelack of attention oundergraduateeachingwas oneof thegreatstrengthsof Britishsocial anthropologyn whatwas, for him, its golden age (Goody 1995:157-58).Whatever hereason, helimits toexpansionhadsomeobviousconsequences orthediscipline. Theplacesnot visitedby the insightsof anthropological cience-the polytechnics and the Open Universityin particular-became the academichome of a greatdeal of interdisciplinary ndpedagogic innovation,as well as arefugefor thepost-1968 ntellectualLeft. Thesewere theingredientshatcoalescedinto the heady brew now known as "BritishCulturalStudies,"but the work ofleading figuresin this area(fromEP ThompsonandRaymondWilliams to PaulGilroy,StuartHall, and PaulWillis) barelytouchedBritish social anthropologyuntil it was reimported n the 1980s via the work of Americananthropologists(cfNugent& Shore1997). Anthropology, nlikecultural tudiesor evensociology,was almostentirelyconfined o theolder,research-based,liteuniversities,such asOxfordandCambridge, ndthe moreprestigiousLondoncolleges, such astheLSEandUCL. Ontheotherhand,and n contrast o the UnitedStates n theearly1990s(cf Turner1993), in Britainculturalstudies neverlookeda threat o anthropologybecauseit rarelyoccupiedthe sameniche in the academicecosystem.In the 1950s and 1960s, anthropology'splace at the heart of the academic es-tablishmentdid not go entirelyunremarked n. The young PerryAnderson,inhis sweeping polemic againstthe pervasiveempiricismand liberalism of 1960sBritishacademia,specificallyexceptedanthropology rom his strictures.Anthro-pology, however,was allowedto be theoreticalandtotalizing(a "goodthing" orthe 1960s Left) becauseit displacedits attentions o the colonies, and he quoteda prominentsociologist of the time on the social correlatesof Britishanthropol-ogy: "Britishsocial anthropologyhas drawn on the same intellectualcapitalassociology proper,and its success, usefulto colonial administration nddangerousto no domesticprejudice,shows at what a high rateof interest hatcapitalcan bemade to pay....The subject ..unlikesociology, has prestige. It is associated withcolonial administration-traditionallya careerfor a gentleman,and entrance ntotheprofessionandacceptanceby it confershigh status n Britain" see Anderson1969:265,original emphasis).This view of the social centralityof Britishsocial anthropology s partlycor-roboratedby Leach, himself a formidableacademicpolitician, in the contextofa panegyricto the diplomaticskills of his mentor,RaymondFirth:"From the1940s to the 1960s he had a wide varietyof personal,but quite informal,tieswith senior civil servants n key positions. He used these contacts with outstand-ing skill.... Firth went behind the scenes and talked with the people who reallymattered. Consideringthe tiny scale of the whole enterprise n Britain of the


8/25

BRITISHOCIALANTHROPOLOGY1950s, thecentral undingof social anthropological esearchwas quitedispropor-tionately generous. Itwas aphasewhichonly enduredwhile Firthwas at thehelmat the LSE"(Leach 1984:13-14).All this, it could be argued,changedwhen a new breed of professionalacad-emic-survivors from the 1960sexpansionof theuniversitiesand,withtheirallu-sions to "wealthcreation"and"marketorces," luent n the new linguafrancaofthe times-took controlof the central nstitutionsof Britishsocial science in the1980s. Nevertheless, n the 1990s (the decadeof the performancendicator), heinstitutionaldistributionof academicanthropologistshad its advantages.In offi-cial assessmentsandpeer-basedquantifications f teachingqualityandresearchperformance-which now dominateBritishacademiclife-anthropology depart-ments have consistently performedbetterthan other social science disciplines.Althoughoutsidersmight grumbleaboutthe clannishness of a disciplinethatsoovertlyprotectsits own, anthropologistsmerely point to the kinds of institutionsthey are found in and suggest that theirhigh ratingsare no more nor less thanwouldbe foundelsewhere in those institutions.4

PRODUCTION AND REPRODUCTIONTheimpressionof a tightlyboundeddisciplineconfined o a smallnumberof high-status nstitutions s heightened f we shiftourattention o thesocialproductionofsocial anthropologists.Therearetwo ways to assess this: EitherexaminewherethePhDs in socialanthropology rebeingawarded,orlookto see wheresuccessivecohortsof universityteacherswere trained.Whicheverway we look, the pictureis the same, but a new elementis also introduced:the increasedvulnerabilityofthediscipline(likeits sisters n thesocial sciences)to governmentntervention iastatefundingorganizations.Let's startwith the firstquestion:Wheredo the successfulPhDs come from?5In the quartercenturyfrom 1970 to 1994, just under 1000 PhDs were awardedin social anthropology n Britain,of whichjust underhalf came fromjust threedepartments:Oxford, Cambridge,and the LSE (Table 1). Between them theyaccounted or 460 of 964 PhDs granted n thatperiod.If we breakthese figuresdown into 5-yearperiods(Table2), a slightly morenuancedaccountof the distribution merges. In particular,we get a bettersense4Again, a comparisonwith sociology is instructive.Even now, sociology is a marginaldisciplinein OxfordandCambridgewhereassome of the strongestdepartments refoundin relativelyunfashionableuniversitiessuchas LancasterandEssex (Heath& Edmondson1981). For a valuableguide to anthropology'spassage throughthe stormybureaucraticwaters of the 1990s, see Gledhill(in press).5Data on anthropologyPhDs in Britainsince the early 1970s are availablethroughtheIndexto Thesesaccepted orhigherdegreesby theUniversitiesof GreatBritainandIreland(searchableonline atwww.theses.com);some of thismaterials also summarized nWebber(1983), which contains a thoroughdiscussion of the limitationsof the classificationsusedin organizing he information.

7


9/25

8 SPENCERTABLE 1 PhDsin social anthropologybydepartment,1970-1994DepartmentOxfordCambridgeLondon School of EconomicsSchool of OrientalandAfrican StudiesManchesterSussexUniversityCollegeLondonEdinburghBelfastAll otherdepartmentsTotal

No. PhDs187137136825951463731

198964

of the lag between changes in funding and the completion, years later, of PhDsaffected by those changes. So in the early 1970s, although the new departmentsfrom the 1960s were beginning to build up their own pools of researchers, fewof these had yet completed degrees: Much as might be expected, the three keydepartments-Oxford, Cambridge and the LSE-provided 60% of the PhDs. Bythe second half of the decade, however, although the total number rose from 132(about 26 a year) to 214 (45 a year), the Oxford-Cambridge-LSE share droppedto less than 40%, as students in newer departments-notably Sussex-started tocomplete their doctoral studies. The total numbers for all departments briefly rosein the first half of the 1980s, before settling at, or just below, 40 a year. And as the

TABLE 2intervals) PhDs in social anthropologyby department,1970-1994 (5-yearTotal Oxford, Cambridge,Years Oxford Cambridge LSEa (all UK) LSE (%of all PhDs)

1970-1974 33 20 26 132 601975-1979 40 27 17 214 391980-1984 42 40 19 232 441985-1989 41 23 41 204 511990-1994 31 27 33 182 50Total 187 137 136 964 48aLSE,London School of Economics.


10/25

BRITISH SOCIAL ANTHROPOLOGY

TABLE 3 Postgraduate rainingof academicanthropologists mployedinBritishdepartments, 999aDepartment Pre-1989 staff Post-1989 staff Total %age of totalCambridge 23 24 47 24LSE 16 23 39 17Oxford 16 22 38 16SOAS 11 8 19 8UCL 10 6 16 7Manchester 4 7 11 5Sussex 6 3 9 4Edinburgh 3 2 5 2Durham 1 4 5 2Kent 2 1 3 1Belfast 2 0 2 1Hull 1 0 1


11/25

10 SPENCEROxford,Cambridge,or the LSE, as were 68 of the post-1989 generation(52%and 53% of theirrespectivecohorts). Within the threedepartments,Cambridgeis disproportionatelymportant:Althoughit awardedonly 14%of the doctoratesin social anthropologybetween 1970 and 1994, in 1999 its graduatesheld 24%of thejobs in British universities(Oxfordhad 19% of the doctoratesand 16%ofthejobs, andthe LSE had 14% of the doctoratesand 17%of thejobs). In otherwords,although hreedepartmentsontinueto dominate hediscipline,thedepart-ment at Cambridgehas been especially successful in providingnew generationsof academicanthropologists.There are otherpatterns hat are not clear from the aggregated iguresalone.Some departmentsdisplay high levels of endogeny, recruitingheavily from theirown graduates.This has been especially true of OxfordandCambridgeover theyears,but also of SOAS and UCL until recently.Oxford studentshave been un-derrepresentedn recruitmentat the LSE and vice versa. And there are signs ofmore diverserecruitment n recentyears, especially from North America: onlyfive of the pre-1989 generationhold North American PhDs comparedwith 15of the post-1989 cohort(includingfour from Chicago andtwo from Princeton).Unfortunately,data are not easily available on otheraspectsof anthropologists'educationalbackground, uch as their class or ethnicorigins. We can, however,see significantshifts in the genderbalance. In the mid-1980s, Riviere(1985) re-portedto the ASA on the demographic hapeof the discipline,using a sampleofnine departments.His analysisshowed that the ratio of mento womenhadbarelychangedsince theearly 1970s: In 1973 there were 12 women to 67 men;in 1983,there were 15 to 69, a tiny rise from 15%to 18%(Riviere 1985:11). In 1999,in the disciplineas a whole, there were 97 women in teachingpositions, or 41%of the total, and a breakdownby cohort shows how much has changed: In thepre-1989 generation here are23 women (22%)to 82 men (78%),a figurein linewith Riviere'sreport romthe 1980s; in the post-1989 cohort,the figuresare 55men (43%)and 74 women (57%).If we step back from the details and try to look at the largerpicture,a num-ber of patternsare clear. Although British social anthropologyhas remainedarelatively small and tightly knit community, taught in a few universitiesonly,graduateresearch-and the productionof new generationsof anthropologists-has been extraordinarily oncentrated n the same three departments:Oxford,Cambridge,andthe LSE. Viewed in the long run,diversityhas tended to be pe-ripheraland short-lived. The distinctivestrandof workpioneeredby Gluckmanand his followersin Manchesterdid not long surviveGluckman'sown retirementin the early 1970s: The rebirthof thatdepartmentn the 1980s owed everythingto the imaginative appointmentof Marilyn Strather to the chair in 1984 andsignaled the beginningof the second wave of diversification n British anthro-pology. In the 1970s, Sussex emerged as the main producerof new graduateresearchersother han hebig three)-often working n new fieldssuchasEuropeand Latin America-but with the cutbacksof the 1980s, it, like the other new


12/25

BRITISHOCIALANTHROPOLOGY

departmentsof the 1960s, lost access to the funds that would keep its graduateprogramalive.As this might suggest, a great deal of what happenedcan be explainedbythe distributionof support romone centralagency. Until the mid-1960s, Britishsocialanthropologyhad relied on a combinationof sources oritsrelativelymodestresearchneeds: the Colonial Social Science Research Counciland otherBritish

governmentsources,certainAmericanfoundations such as the FordFoundationand the National Science Foundation),and a few British foundations[a moredetailedaccountof pre-1968fundingcan be found n areport o the Social ScienceResearchCouncil(1968:92-99)]. In 1965, the Britishgovernmentestablished tsown Social Science Research Council (SSRC), which providedgrantsfor newresearchprojectsandsupportedgraduate tudentsat mastersanddoctoral evels.In its first decade, the new SSRC presidedover a boom in graduateresearchin the social sciences. Such was its impactthatby 1971, the chair of its socialanthropologycommittee,EdmundLeach,could report hat it provided "virtuallythe only source of financial supportfor field researchin social anthropology"(Leach 1971:11). At the peak of its munificence,in 1973, the SSRC was ableto offer 84 new awardsto graduateresearchers n social anthropology,spreadaround11 departments,but withjust over half directedto the triangleof Oxford,Cambridge,and the LSE.7The SSRC was a 1960s initiative,initially ill-suited to the straitenedcircum-stances of the 1980s. When MargaretThatcherwas elected Prime Ministerin1979, one of her government's irst actions was to slash its budget.An enquiryinto the activities of the SSRCfailed to produce he recommendation or abolitionfavoredby some Conservativepoliticians, but it was the catalyst for a numberof changes. The organizationwas renamed the Economic and Social ResearchCouncil (ESRC)-the Ministerresponsibleapparentlyhad a deep suspicion ofanyclaim to social science-and its internalstructurewas changedso that socialanthropology along with otherdisciplines)lost its own cozy subjectcommittee.Fromthepeaksupportof the mid-1970s, studentshipsell to between20 and30 ayear,wheretheyhaveremainedeversince. After thesereforms, heESRCaggres-sively reinvented tself as the vanguardorganization or the Tories' new culturalcommandeconomy.New ESRCprioritiesnresearch undingat firstexplicitlyem-phasized"wealthcreation"andimplicitlyfocusedalmostentirelyon UK-focusedwork, apparentlydiscouragingthe kind of classic anthropological ield projectsthat had been supported n the past. Toughcontrols on PhD submission ratesmeant that by the late 1980s, most British departments includingat one pointCambridge,UCL,andSOAS)hadbeen blacklisted orESRC students.Theyalsomeantthat theses had to be written more quickly,fieldwork andwriting-up ime7The igures orgraduatetudentupportrom he late 1960sto theearly1980scan betrackedhroughhe issuesof theSSRCNewsletter, hichalso contains nnual eports ftheSocialAnthropologyommittee.

11


13/25

12 SPENCERwere squeezed,andcompulsorygeneric social science research rainingate intoprefieldworkpreparation.8

REPRESENTATIONS,INITIATIVES, AND BOUNDARIESIn a broadoverview,the difficult trick is to move back fromthis kind of institu-tional historyto see what intellectualresonance it has. One way to do this is tolook at the discipline'sown self-representations.These mightincludeeverythingfrom the content of undergraduateeading ists, to textbooksand introductions othe subject, through he presence(andnonpresence)of anthropologistsas publicintellectuals in the mass media. In the interests of space, I concentrateon fourdefiningoccasions, the Decennialconferences of the Association of Social An-thropologists,alternatingbetween Cambridgeand Oxford,in 1963, 1973, 1983,and 1993, the occasions when British social anthropologyput on its best partydress anddisplayed tself to the world.The 1963 conference-coorganized by M Gluckmanand F Eggan-broughttogether eadingBritishand American"socialanthropologists"rom the"youngergeneration" Gluckman& Eggan 1965:xii).9 The paperswere publishedin fourdistinctivevolumes [onreligion,politicalsystems,complexsocieties, and the useof models (Banton 1965a-d)], with a common introduction rom the two coor-ganizers. This set out an explicit agendafor the meeting: not so much the cele-brationof the distinctivenessof British social anthropologyas anexplorationof aset of sensitive boundaries.The most obvious of these was between British andAmericananthropology,and the opening shot came with Gluckmanand Egganimplicitly cooptingthe likes of Schneiderand Geertzas "social" ratherhan"cul-tural")anthropologists.Equally mportant, owever,were the boundariesbetweenanthropologyand the other social sciences-economics, political science, soci-ology, psychology-each of which was weighed up as a potential partner n theintroduction.In the differentvolumes, the British contributors-on the whole-concentratedon typologies and formal model building. [Turner 1965), as ever,provideda magnificentexceptionin his classic paperon Ndembu color symbol-ism.] This was anthropologyas generic social science, readyfor the brave newworld of the 1960s expansion,and many of the Britishparticipantsmoved intochairsandreaderships, fteninnewjointanthropology ndsociology departments,in the subsequentdecade.8Itmustberemembered,fcourse,hat heSSRC/ESRCas armoremportanto anthro-pology hananthropology-whichever laimedmore hanatiny ractionf theorganiza-tion's esources-was o its main under.Anthropology'selativelyowprofile lsohad tsuses,asintheearly1980s,when ociologybecamehefocusof attackromdeologues ftheNewRight.9Theoccasionhasattracted fairamount f reminiscencerom heparticipantsseee.g.Frankenberg988;Geertz1991, 1995;Goody1995;Schneider995).Ofcourset onlybecame ecognizeds the"first" ecennialmuch aterntheday.


14/25

BRITISH OCIALANTHROPOLOGYThe 1973 conferencecame at the peak of a decade of growth,and the pub-lications that emergedreflected the kind of intellectualoptimism that academ-

ics usually only manage in a period of apparentlyunlimited expansion. Thegenericeditorial ntroductionwas this timeprovidedby EdwinArdener,whoinhisMalinowski Memorial lecturea few yearsearlierhad detected a spiritof noveltyrunning hrough hediscipline: "[F]orpracticalpurposes ext-bookswhichlookeduseful,no longerare;monographswhich used to appearexhaustivenow seem se-lective;interpretations hich once looked full of insightnow seemmechanicalandlifeless" (Ardener1971:449). In keepingwith Ardener'spassionfor the new,theconference theme was "New Directions."In his introduction,however,Ardenerseemed keen to stressthe "deeproots"of some of thetopicscovered,pointingoutthat the offeringsof the 1963 conference had not become the stuff of controversyin the interveningyears,not least because "new" heoryin the 1960s hadusuallycome from Franceratherhanthe United States(Ardener1975). Ofthetopicscov-eredby panels in the conferenceitself, six eventuallyfound theirway into print:on Marxism(Bloch 1975), symbolism (Willis 1975), "biosocial"anthropology(Fox 1975), texts (Jain 1976), transactionalismKapferer1976), and mathemati-cal techniques(Mitchell 1980). But whereasthe foundingmonographs rom the1963 meetinghad served as canonical texts in the new undergraduate yllabusesof the 1960s, only two or three of the 1973 volumes endured o fill that niche.If the year of the "isms"(as 1973 is now recalled)provideda conference forits time, this was even more true of 1983.10 Only one volume emergedfromthe proceedings, althoughmore were originally planned. The theme was "socialanthropology n the 1980s,"anddespite all the panels on gender(unrepresentedin 1973 but now a majortheme), on family and economy, and on anthropologyandpolicy,anddespitethekeynoteaddresses fromBeteille andTambiah,Goody,Godelier,andMary Douglas), the questionfor manyparticipantswas whether, nThatcheriteBritain,there even would be a social anthropologyafter the 1980s.The only volume to emerge from the conference was on the interface betweenanthropologyanddevelopmentpolicy (Grillo& Rew 1985),reflectingwidespreadheart-searchingbout he futureof thediscipline,and heprospects oremploymentof thegrowingreservearmyofunderemployed hDsinthesubject.Oneparticipantwas quotedin a contemporary eporton the events: "Thisisn't a conference,it'sa psychodrama"Grillo 1983:10).Foronce, the most significantdevelopmentsoccurrednot in the set-piece pre-sentationsby luminaries.(The"youngergeneration"his timemighthave been toomuch of anembarrassmento act as an intellectual ocus.) The most important-and heated-exchanges seem to have taken place in the business meeting, asthe members of the Association arguedabout the best solution to the currentemploymentcrisis in thediscipline.EdmundLeach in particular bjectedstrongly10"[In973a]women'sessionmetamicablyutside heofficial rogramme.ome adicalleafletswerecirculated. he hirdworldnowfigured s a political swell as anacademicsubject.Thehistoricaleriod tleast itmaywell bethoughtn 1983)wasunmistakable"(Ardener 975:ix).

13


15/25

14 SPENCERto attemptsto trainanthropologygraduates or nonacademicemployment. Hefollowed this with a heartfelt etterto the committee set up by the ASA to reporton employment n appliedanthropology:"TheASA was startedas a 'professionaltradeunion'inthesense that t soughtto ensure hatwhen socialanthropologywastaught nuniversitiesandelsewhere hepeoplewho wereemployedto do the teach-ing wereproperlyqualified n the subject....As a professionalbodywe need to tellHeads of Departmentshatthey shoulddiscouragestudents romembarkingon acourse of studies eadingto a PhD in socialanthropology. tmustbe emphasised osuchpotentialstudents hattheprospectsof everbeingemployedas a professionalsocial anthropologists sic] areextremelysmall....I wouldpersonallybe horrifiedif it became apparenthat the 'syllabus design' of whatis taught n a UniversityDepartmentof Social Anthropologywas slantedtowards'appliedanthropology.'This would indeed be ironical! .. the originalrole of the ASA was to prevent heUniversities romemployingunqualified efugeesfrom thedisappearingColonialservice to teach 'appliedanthropology'" (see Grillo 1994:309-10).Leach'sangerat the threateneddilution of "pure" nthropologyn Britishuni-versities has deep disciplinaryroots. Inthe late colonialperiod,academic controlof the relevantcommitteesof the Colonial Social Science ResearchCouncilmeantthatBritishanthropologistsnjoyedenoughscientificautonomy oignoredemandsfor more relevantresearch,andKuklick,for example,documentsthe disdain ex-pressed by many leadinganthropologistsn the 1940s (not least EdmundLeachhimself)forpractical,policy-orientedwork n thecolonies(Kuklick1991:190-93).Yet-despite considerableresistance from some quarters-what happened ntheearly1980smaywell havetransformed hediscipline.From he firstcutsinthethenSSRCbudget nthe summerof 1979, someanthropologiststarted oorganizefor thebleaktimes ahead.A succession of workshopsandworking-groups n em-ploymentfor anthropologygraduatesgave birthto a clusterof organizationswithever-changing cronyms GAPP,BASAPP,SASCW)and culminatedn areport otheASA (Grillo 1984). Muchof thisactivityemanated rom thenewdepartmentsof the 1960s, which by now had fallen on hardtimes-Kent, for example, butespecially Sussex. Withhindsight,the activists' efforts have provenremarkablysuccessful. Throughout he 1980s the only significant growthareain academicanthropologywas in more-or-less vocational taughtmastersdegrees. This wasparalleledby a growth n demand oranthropologistso workin nonacademic et-tings, especially-but not exclusively-in the field of social development.In the1990s, thebetterresourced,but often moreconservative,departmentsn London,Oxford,andCambridgehurried o establish similarprograms n suchareas as de-velopmentanthropology-a clear case of innovationat the disciplinaryperipherybeing appropriated ndreincorporatedt the core.Symptomatically, owever, hisparticularransformationn disciplinary rajec-tory was not especially apparent n the most recentcelebrationof British socialanthropology, he 1993 Decennial. In contrast o the 1983 event, the mood wasupbeatandexpansionist. The universitieshad started o grow again-in studentnumbersat least-and enough new posts had been advertised n recentyears to


16/25

BRITISH OCIALANTHROPOLOGYabsorbalmost all the underemployedeftovers fromthe 1980s. Social anthropol-ogy wasin especially good shapebecauseit wasexperiencing ts own boomwithinthe biggerboom; it founditself in unexpecteddemandfroma generationof newstudents. It was still a very small discipline with a relativelylow public profile,but it was beginningto show signs of imminenttransition o being a mass subjecttaught n anunder-fundedmass universitysystem(Gledhill,in press).The overall theme for the conferencepromised o addresssome of the changesthathadovertaken hediscipline nthepreviousdecade-"The Uses of Knowledge:Global and Local Relations." Yet neitherpedagogy nor the dilemmas of practi-cally engagedanthropologywere muchdiscussedin the main sessions.11 Theseinstead focused on a mixtureof classic themes(religiouscertainties)and areasofrecent intellectual excitement(consumptionand modernity). Outside observersnoted the upbeatmood (Stolcke 1993), and the "continuing approchementwithAmericanculturalanthropology,"vincedby thenumberof presentationsroman-thropologists nstitutionallybasedin NorthAmerica(Stocking 1995:438). Someof the most exciting discussion at the conference itself took place in fringe ses-sions on art,on new reproductiveechnologies,and on ethnicviolence, andthesesessions were also more representativeof the new, post-1989 generationof an-thropologists underrepresentedn theplatform n themain conferencesessions).The conferenceorganizer's"traditional"oreword o the eventualpublications-expansiveandcommanding or the 1963volumes,reducedbutstillreasonably ullin 1973-was effectively shrunk o a shortbutchallengingparagraphn 1993, asif thekind of expansiveoverviewoffered with suchconfidenceby GluckmanandEggan30 yearsearlierwere simplyno longerfeasible (Strathern1995a).We can look at the conferences of 1963, 1973, 1983, and 1993 as moments ofcollectiveself-presentation.And we canlookback at whathas andhas notsurvivedintellectuallyfrom the earlierones. But we can also look at these as occasions totake stock, in particular,as occasions to renegotiate he discipline's boundaries:in 1963 with the othersocial sciences; in 1973 with sources of new ideas fromoutside Britainand/oroutside thediscipline; n 1983 withtheeconomic chill of theso-called"realworld";and in 1993 withtheforces of the global (in anthropology,as well as in the world).

SOCIALSTRUCTUREAND CULTURAL ERFORMANCEAt thispointlet's look attwo importanthemes fromrecentworkin the socialhis-toryof science. Reviewingthe exteralism/intemalism debatein science studies,and the linkedissue of boundariesaroundculturalpracticeslike science, Shapin(1992) points out thatfor historiansof science, "boundaryalk"helps us see thenonnecessityof actors' accounts of scientificpractice,especially when we have1The mostnotable xceptionwas thesessionon theuses of socialknowledgeonvenedbyHenriettaMoore cfMoore1996).

15


17/25

16 SPENCERthe cultural distance of the historianlooking at past practice.In his book, WeHave Never Been Modem, Bruno Latour 1993) goes furtherand stresses the fic-tive natureof all attempts o bound off "science"from"society"or "politics,"or"nature" s a discrete realm from "culture,"he place of those who study it. Inpractice,networksof actorstransgress hese boundaries,andourworldis full ofhybrids-part nature,partculture.Todeal with this a greateffort is putinto whatLatourcalls the "workof purification." n a close, but slightlydifferent,neck ofthehistoriographicwoods, attentionhas been drawn o thewaysin which scientific"facts"are made (in laboratoriesand otherhighly structured ettings),not given(in nature).And if "facts"aremade,so are the specialistswho observethem,thecommunityof scientists-to invoke the languageof Shapin& Schaffer's(1985)studyof HobbesandBoyle, a boundedgroupwith special powersof "witness."

These historicalargumentsoffer a new perspectiveon the shifting concernsrevealedin the four ASA Decennial conferences. Each,in differentways, mightbe thoughtof as a return o the questionsI openedwith: Is it still British? Is itstill social? Is it still anthropology? There is a long historyhere. In the early1950s, in a carefully stagedand still celebratedexchange n thepagesof AmericanAnthropologist,GeorgeMurdockandRaymondFirth debatedthese very issues.Concentratingon the then recently publishedAfrican Systems of Kinship andMarriage, Murdock leveled a numberof accusationsat his British colleagues.Surethey'regood at whattheydo, but theirgeographicaland theoretical nterests,theirreading,their ideas are so narrow. Crucially,they shy away from all talkof "culture," fact which revealsthemin their truecolors-they're not anthropo-logists at all, they'reactually sociologists (Murdock1951:471).12Here we face an apparentparadox,for virtuallyall of Murdock'smarks ofBritish distinctionin the 1950s appear o have melted into air in the 1970s and1980s. By the1960s,theearlyconcentration nAfrica,which taxedMurdock,wasalreadygivingway to work n Asia andEurope SSRC 1968, Kappers1983). Theapparent bsessionwithkinshipat the expenseof all otherareasof life (Murdock1951:467) seems also to have declined: the topic was barelymentionedin themain sessions of the 1993 Decennial,and its recentrevivalin Britainowes moreto the influence of that arch culturalist,David Schneider,than to the ghost ofRadcliffe-Brown(cf Carsten2000, Franklin1997, Strathern1992). "Culture"has probablybeen as much discussed in Britain as in the United States in the1990s, whereas a whole host of topics-until recently rigorously policed bythe anthropologicalboundary patrol, for example psychological (Bloch 1998)and psychoanalytic(Heald & Deluz 1994) work-have been quietly admittedto the mainstream. These days more attentionis probablypaid to the workof Americananthropologists n Britain than to the work of British (or Frenchor Norwegianor German)anthropologists n the United States. Even applied,or practical,anthropology-anathemato professionalanthropologists f Leach's12Firth's1951)responseoMurdocks characteristicallyairanddiplomatic,nd n thefollowing ecade ewasespeciallyctivenbuildingridgeswith uchAmericanolleaguesas DavidSchneider.


18/25

BRITISH OCIALANTHROPOLOGY

generation-has, formanyBritishanthropologists,becomethediscipline'sbread-and-butter ince the 1980s.Yet as anyone who has spent time aroundBritish anthropologydepartmentswould admit, boundarytalk remains a vigorous idiom in everyday practice.Inan unjustlyneglectedpaperfrom the early 1980s, Watson(1984) provideda richvein of examples of the social/culturalboundarypatrol, from both sides of theAtlantic. It is probably rue thatexplicitboundary alk is slightly less likely to befoundin printthanin thepast,but the question"Is this anthropology?"s still thestuffof somePhDexaminationsn Britainand"Shedidn't seemtoreallyknowthatmuch anthropology"s not unknown as an explanationof the failure to appointsome brilliant outsiderto a new position.13 How are these judgmentsformedwhen, as we havejust seen, the formal criteriaseem so shiftingand evanescent?

From whence do new Britishanthropologists aintheirtruly anthropologicaldis-positions?One clue can be foundin a recentessay by Kuper(1992). In the context of acomplaintabout he corrosiveeffects of alien American"culturalism,"e providesa brilliantlyvivid evocation of Cambridge n the mid-1960s: "Auniversity ikeCambridges an efficientengineof acculturation.Thedepartmenttself impresseda very specific academicidentityon the new recruit. Within a couple of terms itwould turn out a fledgling FortesianAfricanistor structuralistSouth Asianist,armedwith some ideas but above all with strong loyalties. It is interesting hatthese ideas were inculcated with a minimum of direct instruction.One had topick up a greatdeal on one's own. That also made one less likely, perhaps,torebel. There was little explicitcontrol,thoughit is significant hat when we triedto establish a small seminar of our own, Fortes did his best to nip it in the bud"(Kuper1992:60).This, remember,was the department hatproduceda disproportionate um-ber of today's academicanthropologistsn Britain. It did so, apparently,with a"minimumof direct nstruction." Theoral archivesuggeststhatKuper'saccountis at least as true of Oxford, where the ability to leave studentsto "pickup agreat deal on one's own" was elevated to an artform.) We are in the realm, Isuggest, of "tacitknowledge,"whose importance n scientific practicehas beenwell documented incePolanyi'sPersonalKnowledge 1958). How is thiskind ofknowledge mparted,f notthrough"directnstruction"?Theconventionalansweris throughwhat Lave & Wenger(1991) call "legitimateperipheralparticipation,"the acquisitionof membershipn a "communityof practice."And where is it imparted?Kuper's ast sentencegives one clue: in the semi-nar.Seminars oom largein Britishanthropological eminiscence. Gell startshisposthumously published, autobiographicalaccount of his own anthropologicalformationwith severalpages of reflectionon "seminar ulture" n Britishanthro-pology: "[A]nanthropologydepartmentwithout a weekly seminarseries is like a13Unfortunately,hemost maginativeecentwork nanthropology'soundaryalk Gupta& Ferguson 997)chooses o ignore he Atlanticdivisionand nstead alksof a unitary"Anglo-Americannthropology."

17


19/25

18 SPENCERbody without a heart,"and "seminarculture s whatreally definesmy academicmetier,rather hanmembership f a rathernebulous profession"' Gell 1999:2,3).Gell providesan account of his own anthropological elf-making n termsof suc-cessive seminarshe presentedto, andparticipatedn: as an undergraduatewithMeyerFortes n Cambridge;as a fledglingresearcher o thepostgraduate eminarat the LSE;andthen,to his amazement, o the full departmentaleminarpresidedover by RaymondFirth.Gell concentrateson the pleasuresof performancebutalso remarkson the skills of the listener,as acquired n the audience of Firth'sseminarat the LSE: "[A]ll those in attendancewere assumed to be able to com-ment intelligently,and would be asked to do so if the chairmansaw fit. SinceI never knew when Raymondmight ask 'Well, whatdo you think,Mr Gell?' itwas absolutelynecessaryto pay attentionboth to thepaperand to the subsequentdiscussion,on painof possiblepublichumiliation.I stillretain heabilityto listento an hour'spaperand 50 minutes of discussion,without apses of concentration,as a result of this early, nvaluable, raining" Gell 1999:5).In his own memoir,DavidSchneiderdescribes the impactof RaymondFirth'sseminar at the LSE in very similarterms [andcontrasts t to the ghastly experi-ence of tryingto tell Gluckman'sseminaraboutZulus in Manchester Schneider1995:125-29)]. Goody, reminiscingof the ASA in the 1950s, draws some furtherlinks: "Attendance..was virtuallyobligatory n the fifties. Howeverthe generalatmospherewas one of camaraderie, f solidarity,of communitas, ather han au-thority;the seminars and the drinkingwere done together....Life was in someways like an on-going seminar,with continuingdiscussions of this or thattheme,whatX thought,whatnewempiricalworkhad to sayon thesubject.The closenessof thefraternitywas one way in which thehighlyamorphous ubjectof anthropol-ogy (whichcan be all thingsto all men)was givensomemanageablebounds,andsome continuing ocus wasprovidedfor current nvestigations"Goody 1995:83,my emphasis).AndLeach,like manyothers,describesthe ultimatesourceforthewhole tradition:Malinowski's seminarat theLSEin the 1920s and 1930s (Leach1986:376;cf Firth1975:2-3, Stocking 1995:294-5).14Here the importanceof the continuingdominationof the discipline by a hand-ful of core departmentsbecomes obvious. With over half of the members of thediscipline comingout of three,relativelysmall,departments-even now,the com-bined membershipof the departments oncerned s no more than30 or 40-andotherspassing throughto give paperson a reasonably regularbasis, just a few14Historiansf sciencehave raced he mportancef the seminar s the ocusof scientificbildung, rself-creation,o the scientific eminars f eighteenth-ndnineteenth-centuryGermanyClark1989,Olesko1991). This wouldseem to providea stronginkto theworldof Malinowskiandof courseBoas).Schaffer'swonderfulssay,"FromPhysicsto Anthropology-andBackAgain" 1994), contains he most imaginativereatmentof theplaceof scientific elf-makingn theearlyhistoryof Britishanthropology,ut tconcentrates oreon thelaboratorynd tspracticesndhasrelativelyittle o sayaboutseminars ndseminar ulture.Here s a topic orfuture istorians.


20/25

BRITISHSOCIALANTHROPOLOGY

weekly seminarscan continue to act as a testinggroundfor what is or is not an-thropologicallycorrector theoretically nteresting.They can, moreover,do so ina flexibleway: The seminardoes not necessarilycare if the boundaries hiftoverthe years. It may appear o have some sortof collective memory,but it is not acourt,susceptible o formalappealsto precedent.It is rather he settingfor certainstylizedkinds of performance, nd for thepassingof, oftentacit, udgments.Inso-far as theperformancebecomes secondnature, hejudgmentsthemselvesmaybeallowedto differ.Cambridgen the 1960swas, afterall, adepartmentn whichthedominantfigures-Leach andFortes,Tambiahand Goody-were, intellectuallyat least,perceived o be at war with each other(Gell 1999:4,Kuper1992:60). AndBritishanthropology,n whatmay have been its real golden era-the 1950s and1960s rather han the 1930s-was the scene of endless set-piece public contro-versies. Besides those of Fortes andLeach,there were battles between LeachandGluckman,NeedhamandGellner,NeedhamandBeattie. My point is thatthesewere the productsof a close-knit seminarculturethat,rather haninculcatingasimple and narroworthodoxy,set the termsfor what was deemed worthyof ar-gument. The decline of such bitter academicargumentsince the 1980s may bea symptomof many things-the changingpolitics of academicemployment,theshiftinggenderbalance of the discipline-but it may aboveall heraldthe declineof the kinds of multiplexsocial relations celebratedby Goody in his descriptionof the 1950s.

In itself, the demographicgrowthof the disciplinehas threatened he kinds oftacit structure have ustbeendescribing-the annualASA conferences, or exam-ple, have for yearsbeen too big to reproduce he intellectualcommunitas nvokedby Goody, yet too small to act as all-purposeoccasions of professionalefferves-cence like the AAA meetings(cf Ardener1983). And it is debatablewhether hekindof tight disciplinarityGoodycelebratescan survivebeyonda certainpointofdemographicexpansion,whatever he institutionalenvironment. But the institu-tionalenvironmentn Britisheducation s now especiallyhostile to the enduranceof the implicit and the unstated. In her Cambridge naugural n 1994, MarilynStrather concludedwith a meditationon the recent maniain highereducationfor renderingexplicitwhatoftenworks best by being left implicit:Toputit morecrudely hanshe everwould,thetranslation f Kuper's"educationwithout nstruc-tion" ntoa set of aimsandobjectivesat the head of areading ist, withappropriatecross references to the institutionalmission statement Strathern1995b). A clas-sic examplewould be fieldwork tself, which,in Evans-Pritchard's xford,simplycouldnot betaught, t couldonlybe learnedbydoing-"methods andmethodologywere Americanterms" Gilsenan 1990:225). Now, however,the ESRCdemandsexplicitmethodstraining rom all departmentshatwould receive its funding,andanthropologyhas yieldedto this demand ike the other social sciences.Yet it is worthendingwith one characteristicanthropological esponseto thedemandsof the new educationalcommandeconomy in Britain.If we look at thedisciplinaryguidelines for researchtrainingin differentsubjectsdrawnup forthe ESRC,anthropology's ntrylooks odd (ESRC 1996). Wheresociologists, for

19


21/25

20 SPENCERexample, are given a crisp one-page list of things every new sociologist shouldknow ("theprinciplesof descriptiveand inferentialstatistics and bi- and multi-variableanalysis;thesystematicanalysisof textualandotherqualitativedata .."),social anthropology's ntry s long andhighlydiscursive,yet somehowit managesto omitanylist of requiredechniques,exceptforbroadgestures oward ieldworkand languagelearning. Whatis described n the social anthropologyguidelinesis a set of desiredrelationships(primarilywith the supervisor),a long process(fieldwork)of an otherwiseopen-endedkind,and a certainkind of central socialevent: the research eminar.Describedwithcare,this crucibleof anthropologicaltrainingcould be one of the Cambridgeseminarsof the 1960s, or it could be atthe Institute n Oxford,or in Gluckman'sManchester,or at the LSE with Bloch,Parry,and Gell taking on some puzzled foreign star in the 1980s. Although itmisses out on a certainamountof tellinglocal detail-there is no requirementhatthe seminarbe chairedby an apparentmegalomaniacand no allusion to the highlevels of dysfunctionalbehaviorexhibited n the classic seminarsof Britishsocialanthropology-it links theanthropology f the 1990sback to theprimalscene thatstill haunted he anthropologistswho consolidatedBritish social anthropologynthe 1950s, Malinowski's seminar at the LSE. It seems to me at the very leastarguable hat here-rather than the rite of fieldwork,which is after all, hard tocontrol from a distance-is one key site of continuity,a place wherewe do "thework nvolved n making nterdisciplinary oundariesappear uigeneris" Watson1984:352).Finally,a note of caution. The kindof demographicpictureI presentedearliershould rule out anythingas final as a conclusion. British social anthropologyhasjust passed througha decadeof growthandexpansion, n which its teachingand research nterestshave been transformed.AlthoughI suspectits institutionaloddities will ensureits survival as a distinctive strandof an increasingly globaldiscipline, t is neverthelesspossiblethat uturehistorianswill insteadsee the 1990sas the end of Britishsocialanthropology s we have known t. Inthe endI have toldthe storyas it makes most sense to me, concentrating n institutional acts ratherthan more conventionalintellectualhistory.Even within my pictureof center-peripherydynamics,I can see how some of my interpretive hoices have shapedthe story I have told. For reasons of space I have not, for example, attemptedto develop an argumentabout British anthropology'spresence (or absence) inthe public sphere-from Leach's Reith lectures in the 1960s, throughhis rolein rejuvenating he RAI in the 1970s, andtakingon boardthe important ole ofBritishpublic service broadcastingas a sponsorfor the discipline in the yearsthatfollowed (Leach 1968, 1974). One of the most vital productsof that storyis the RAI's "popular" ublications,RAINand laterAnthropologyToday,whichbetweenthe twoprovideasgooda senseof thechangingconcernsof thedisciplinein Britainas any source (Benthall 1996). I have concentrated, now see, mostheavilyon theyearssince I satin my firstanthropologyecture n theearly1970s.HadI sat in the lecture 10 years earlier,I suspectI would have had more to sayabout the earlieralternative trandsopened up by Gluckmanand his protegesat


22/25


Manchester. Writing from one particular perspective, especially one so close tothe object being described, has its limitations. But, if I have one point to make, it isone anticipated by Leach (1984:3) in his memoir from the 1980s: "The sociologyof the environment of social anthropologists has a bearing on the history of socialanthropology." That, it seems to me, is a very social anthropological way ofapproaching one's own history.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTSI have been especially fortunate in the advice and help I have received from manycolleagues. Pat Caplan and Ralph Grillo generously shared their memories ofthe difficult decades of the 1970s and 1980s. Both helped me locate importantdocuments from the 1980s, as did Alan Barnard and Nigel Rapport. Seminaraudiences in Saint Andrews and in the Department of Sociology atEdinburghraisedimportant questions and supplied further insights. In this respect I must especiallythank Jonathan Hearn, John Holmwood, Steve Sturdy, and Neil Thin. JonathanParry directed my attention to Gell's crucial commentary on seminar culture afterI had completed a first draft of the argument. Given his own mercurial brillianceas a seminar performer, it is only fitting that the paper itself be dedicated to themost original and sorely missed anthropologist of his generation, Alfred Gell.

Visit the Annual Reviews home page at www.AnnualReviews.orgLITERATURE CITEDAbramsP. 1981. Thecollapseof British sociol-ogy? See Abramset al 1981, pp. 53-70AbramsP,Deem R, FinchJ,RockP,eds. 1981.Practice and Progress: British Sociology1950-1980. London:Allen & UnwinAnderson P. 1969. Componentsof a nationalculture. In StudentPower: Problems, Di-

agnosis, Action. ed. A Cockbum,R Black-bur, pp. 214-84. Harmondsworth,UK:PenguinArdenerE. 1971. The newanthropologyand tscritics.Man6(3):449-67ArdenerE. 1975. General editor's note. SeeBloch 1975, pp. vii-xArdenerE. 1983. The ASA and ts critics.RAIN56:11-12Ardener E, Ardener S. 1965. A directorystudyof social anthropologists.Br.J. Sociol.16:295-314Assoc. Soc. Anthropol. 1999. Annals of theAssociationof Social Anthropologistsof the

Commonwealth nd Directory of Members.London: Assoc. Soc. Anthropol.BantonM, ed. 1965a. The Relevanceof Mod-elsfor SocialAnthropology.ASAMonogr.1.London: TavistockBantonM, ed. 1965b.PoliticalSystemsandtheDistributionof Power.ASAMonogr 2. Lon-don: TavistockBanton M, ed. 1965c. AnthropologicalAp-proaches to the Study of Religion. ASAMonogr.3. London:TavistockBantonM, ed. 1965d.TheSocialAnthropologyof ComplexSocieties. ASAMonogr.4. Lon-don: TavistockBarnesJA. 1981.Professionalismn British so-ciology. See Abramset al. 1981, pp. 13-24BenthallJ. 1996. Enlarging he context of an-thropology.Thecase of AnthropologyToday.In PopularizingAnthropology,ed. J Mac-Clancy,CMcDonaugh,pp. 135-41. London:Routledge

21


23/25

22 SPENCER

BlochM,ed. 1975.MarxistAnalyses ndSocialAnthropology.London:MalabyBloch M. 1998. How We ThinkThey Think:Anthropological Approaches to Cognition,Memoryand Literacy.Boulder,CO: West-viewCarstenJ, ed. 2000. Culturesof Relatedness:New Approaches to the Study of Kinship.Cambridge,UK: CambridgeUniv. PressClarkW. 1989.Onthe dialecticaloriginsof theresearchseminar.Hist. Sci. 27:111-54CommonwealthUniversitiesYearbook.1963.London: Assoc. Univ.Br.Commonw.CommonwealthUniversities Yearbook.1973.London:Assoc. Univ.Br.Commonw.CommonwealthUniversities Yearbook.1983.London: Assoc. Univ.Br.Commonw.CommonwealthUniversities Yearbook.1993.London: Assoc. Univ.Br.Commonw.Econ. Soc. Res. Counc. 1996. ESRC Post-

graduate TrainingGuidelines. C18 SocialAnthropology. http://www.esrc.ac.uk/ptd/elns/ptgcl8.htmFirthR. 1951. ContemporaryBritish social an-thropology.Am.Anthropol.53(4.1):474-88Firth R. 1975. An appraisalof modem so-cial anthropology.Annu. Rev. Anthropol.4:1-25FordeD. 1953. GreatBritain and Eire. In In-ternationalDirectoryof Anthropological n-stitutions,ed. WL Thomas,AM Pikelis, pp.163-80. New York:WennerGrenFound.Fox R, ed. 1975.BiosocialAnthropology.Lon-don: MalabyFrankenbergR. 1988.And like a lobsterboil'd,the mor. See Assoc. Soc. Anthropol.1999,pp. 5-10FranklinS. 1997. EmbodiedProgress: A Cul-tural Accountof Assisted Conception.Lon-don: RoutledgeGeertz C. 1991. An interview with CliffordGeertz.Curr.Anthropol.32(5):603-13GeertzC. 1995.Afterthe Fact: TwoCountries,Four Decades, One Anthropologist.Cam-

bridge,MA: HarvardUniv.PressGell A. 1999. Introduction:notes on seminarcultureand some other nfluences.In TheArt

of Anthropology:Essays and Diagrams,ed.E Hirsch,pp. 1-28. London: AthloneGilsenanM. 1990. Verylike a camel: the ap-pearanceof ananthropologist'sMiddle East.In Localizing Strategies: Regional Tradi-tionsofEthnographicWriting, d. R Fardon,pp. 220-39. Edinburgh:Scott.Acad. PressGledhill J. 2000. A small discipline: the em-battledplace of anthropologyn a massifiedBritishhighereducationsector at the end ofthe twentiethcentury. n pressGluckmanM, EgganF. 1965.Introduction. eeBanton1965a,pp. xi-xliiGoody J. 1995. TheExpansiveMoment: TheRise of Social Anthropology n Britain andAfrica 1918-1970. Cambridge,UK: Cam-bridgeUniv.PressGrilloR. 1983.Anthropologyn the 80's. RAIN58:10GrilloR. 1984.Reportof theASA Action Com-mittee for EmploymentandTraining n Ap-plied Anthropology the Grilloreport).ASANewslett. 3:9-22GrilloR. 1994.Theapplicationof anthropologyin Britain,1983-1993. In WhenHistoryAc-celerates, ed. C Hann,pp. 300-16. London:AthloneGrilloR, Rew A, eds. 1985. Social Anthropol-ogyandDevelopmentPolicy.London: Rout-ledgeGuptaA, FergusonJ, eds. 1997. Anthropolog-ical Locations: Boundariesand Groundsofa Field Science.Berkeley:Univ. Calif.PressHealdS, DeluzA, eds. 1994.Anthropology nd

Psychoanalysis:AnEncounter hroughCul-ture. London:RoutledgeHeathA, EdmondsonR. 1981. Oxbridgesoci-ology: the developmentof centresof excel-lence? See Abramset al 1981, pp. 39-52Jain R, ed. 1976. Textand Context: The So-cialAnthropology f Tradition.Philadelphia:ISHIKapferer B. 1976. Transactionand Mean-ing: Directions in the Anthropologyof Ex-

change and Symbolic Behavior. Philadel-phia: ISHIKappersR. 1983. The theoreticalandregional


24/25


interests of British-basedsocial anthropolo-gists: an analysis of the 1981 DirectoryofMembersof the Association of Social An-thropologists.See Kuper1983, pp. 206-10Kuklick H. 1991. TheSavage Within: The So-cial Historyof BritishAnthropology,1885-1945. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ.Press

KuperA. 1973.Anthropologists ndAnthropol-ogy: The British School 1922-1972. Lon-don: Allen LaneKuperA. 1983.Anthropology ndAnthropolo-gists: The Modem British School. London:Routledge& Paul. 2nded.Kuper A. 1991. Grande Bretagne. L'anth-ropologie britannique.In Dictionnaire del'Ethnologie et de l'Anthropologie, ed. PBonte, M Izard, pp. 305-8. Paris: Press.Univ. FranceKuperA. 1992. Post-modernism,Cambridgeand the GreatKalahariDebate. Soc. Anthro-

pol. 1(lA):57-71KuperA. 1996.Anthropology ndAnthropolo-gists: TheModernBritishSchool. London:Routledge.3rd ed.Langham . 1981. TheBuildingofBritishSocialAnthropology:W.H.R.Riversand His Cam-bridgeDisciples in theDevelopmentof Kin-shipStudies.Dordrecht,Netherlands:ReidelLatourB. 1994. WeHave Never Been Modern.Hemel Hempstead,UK: HarvesterWheat-sheafLave J, WengerE. 1991. SituatedLearning:LegitimatePeripheral Participation. Cam-bridge,UK: CambridgeUniv. PressLeach ER. 1968. A RunawayWorld?Oxford,UK: Oxford Univ.PressLeach ER. 1971. Social anthropology.SSRCNewslett. 12:11-12Leach ER. 1973. Keepsocial anthropologyoutof thecurriculum.TimesEduc.Suppl.Feb.2,p. 4LeachER. 1974.Rain-making: he futureof theRAI.RAIN4:3-10

Leach ER. 1984. Glimpses of the unmention-able in the historyof British social anthro-pology.Annu.Rev.Anthropol.13:1-23

Leach ER. 1986. An interview with EdmundLeach. Curr.Anthropol.27(4):375-82MitchellJC,ed. 1980.NumericalTechniquesnSocialAnthropology.Philadelphia: SHIMooreH,ed. 1996. TheFutureofAnthropolog-ical Knowledge.London:RoutledgeMurdockG. 1951. British social anthropology.Am.Anthropol.53(4.1):465-73Nugent S, Shore C. 1997. AnthropologyandCulturalStudies.London:PlutoOleskoKM. 1991.Physicsas a Calling:Disci-plineandPractice in theKonigsbergSeminarfor Physics. Ithaca,NY:Corell Univ.PressPolanyi M. 1958. Personal Knowledge: To-wards a Postcritical Philosophy. London:Routledge& PaulRiviere P. 1985. Changingshapes and direc-tions: the decade ahead.ASA Newslett. 4:9-

19Schaffer S. 1994. From Physics to An-thropology-and Back Again. Prickly PearPamphlets3, CambridgeSchneiderD. 1995. Schneider on Schneider:The Conversionof the Jews and OtherAn-thropological Stories. Durham, NC: DukeUniv.Press

ShapinS. 1992. Discipline and bounding:thehistory and sociology of science as seenthroughthe exteralism-intemalism debate.Hist. Sci. 30(4):333-69ShapinS, Schaffer S. 1985. Leviathanand theAir-Pump:Hobbes, Boyle, and the Experi-mentalLife. Princeton,NJ: PrincetonUniv.PressSoc. Sci. Res. Counc.(SSRC). 1968. Researchin Social Anthropology.London: Heine-mannStockingGW,ed. 1984.FunctionalismHistori-cized: Essays on British Social Anthropol-ogy.Hist.Anthropol.2. Madison:Univ. Wis.PressStockingGW.1992.TheEthnographer'sMagicand OtherEssays in the Historyof Anthro-pology. Madison:Univ. Wis. PressStockingGW.1995.After Tylor:BritishSocialAnthropology1888-1951. London: AthloneStolcke V. 1993. And the locals in the

23


25/25

24 SPENCER

global? An outsider's view. Anthropol.To-day 9(5):16-17StrathernM. 1992.AfterNature:EnglishKin-ship in the Late TwentiethCentury.Cam-bridge,UK: CambridgeUniv.PressStrathemM. 1995a.Preface.In ThePursuitofCertainty:Religiousand CulturalFormula-tions,ed.WJames,p. ix. London:RoutledgeStrather M. 1995b. The Relation: Issues inComplexityand Scale. Prickly Pear Pam-phlets 6, CambridgeTapperN. 1980.ASA-a professionalassocia-tion? RAIN36:6-7

TurnerT. 1993. Anthropologyand multicultur-alism: What is anthropology hat multicul-turalists shouldbe mindful of it? Cult. An-thropol.8(4):411-29

Turner V. 1965. Colour classification inNdembu ritual. See Banton 1965c, pp. 47-84UrryJ. 1993. BeforeSocialAnthropology:Es-says on theHistory of BritishAnthropology.Reading,UK: HarwoodWatson G. 1984. The social construction ofboundariesbetween social and cultural an-

thropology n BritainandNorthAmerica. J.Anthropol.Res. 40(3):351-66Webber J. 1983. Research in Social An-thropology1975-80. Registerof Theses inSocial AnthropologyAccepted for HigherDegrees at British Universities. London:RAI/SSRCWillis R, ed. 1975. TheInterpretation f Sym-bols. London:Malaby

anthropology in the uk

Documents