Identifying myself with literacy

Columbia University Press

Chapter Title: Introduction Chapter Author(s): Melissa Checker and Maggie Fishman

Book Title: Local Actions Book Subtitle: Cultural Activism, Power, and Public Life in America Book Editor(s): Melissa Checker, Maggie Fishman Published by: Columbia University Press. (2004) Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7312/chec12850.5

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide

range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and

facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at

https://about.jstor.org/terms

Columbia University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Local Actions

This content downloaded from 130.65.109.155 on Sat, 18 Sep 2021 21:58:07 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

“Americans for once came together.” Over and over we heard un- dergraduates utter this common refrain as we struggled to help ourselves and our students come to grips with the terrible events of September 11, 2001. Indeed many of those Americans determined to construe something positive from that disastrous day have pointed out that, for the most part,1

it brought Americans together. For most of that autumn Americans took a break from their individual commitments and took collective national action—giving copious amounts of blood and sending countless dona- tions to New York City. Time and again we hear that such unity is all too rare in our society. In particular, we are often told that the absence of unified social action is swiftly diminishing the potential for Americans to effect large-scale changes that will improve their lives. But how can America, the world’s oldest continuous democracy, reconcile this desire for “unity” with the vast diversity for which it is known?

Such questions resonate with a long-told tale decrying American fac- tionalism and atomization. For example, in 1963 sociologist Roland War- ren wrote that community in America was changing drastically, in part be- cause of the “development of differentiated interests among local people who thus associate more often on the basis of specialized interests than on the basis of merely living in the same place” (1963:5). For Warren, these specialized interests translated into a dismal lack of desire and ability to ef- fect communitywide changes. Thirty-seven years later, in his highly popu- lar work Bowling Alone, sociologist Robert Putnam (2000) decried a de- crease in American civic engagement. Putnam updated Warren’s argument

Introduction

Melissa Checker and Maggie Fishman

This content downloaded from 130.65.109.155 on Sat, 18 Sep 2021 21:58:07 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

about specialization by pointing out that “cyberbalkanization” has caused people to confine their communications to those who share precisely the same interests, limiting chances for real-world, place-based, diverse interac- tions. In recent years a number of popular critics have similarly claimed that by separating themselves into categories based on race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, environmental awareness, or religion, special interest groups in the U.S. competitively grab for power, undermine a sense of an American collectivity, and threaten the opportunities of others.2 Manifesta- tions of such complaints can be seen in English Only movements, efforts to repeal affirmative action, and a backlash against various multicultural agen- das, including diversity education in public schools.

In this volume we leave behind arguments about the relative merits of identity politics and American self-interest. Our research reveals that, all too often, the very concept of identity politics obscures the diversity within activist groups, the kinds of change they are hoping to effect, and the degree to which they do not separate themselves. Instead, we exam- ine particular activist projects as they unfold on the ground. We find in- stances of activism across the country, in such seemingly unlikely places as urban areas that have for years been branded as “ghettos,” at backyard barbecues, and at suburban megachurches. We find that people do grap- ple with issues of large-scale social change through channels available to them. Understanding the significance of these efforts means expanding the definition of what we consider political—for some a high school dance performance or filming an autobiography counts as socially trans- forming work.

From this perspective we propose to reframe identity politics as “cul- tural activism” and present ten very different groups of activists who are working to change dominant discourses and to stake their claims in an ever evolving public sphere. Rather than isolating themselves, these groups are reaching out to an American public, and often to each other, as they demand to be recognized, counted, and heard. Although organ- ized around identity, such groups have a public orientation that is by def- inition not separatist. As Fraser argues, “After all, to interact discursively as a member of a public—subaltern or otherwise—is to attempt to dissem- inate one’s discourse into ever-widening arenas” (1992:17). Thus in this volume we contend that identity-based organizing actually offers a mul- titude of possibilities and promises for coalition building and for harness- ing collective power.

2 m e l i s s a c h e c k e r a n d m a g g i e f i s h m a n

This content downloaded from 130.65.109.155 on Sat, 18 Sep 2021 21:58:07 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

The essays in this volume, then, tackle such questions as: Given par- ticular historic circumstances, how do people come together to define a problem and form agendas? What kinds of public routes do they take to criticize those aspects of social life that they find limiting or unjust? On what basis do people reach across boundaries, form coalitions, and in- crease their constituencies? How do they establish group solidarity and also form the alliances and networks necessary to effect social change? How do individuals engage with existing institutions? When do they compromise, and when do they rebel? Finally, given the fact that charac- terizing “Americanness” is an admittedly difficult task, is there anything in these forms of organizing and activism that is peculiar to the American system? We answer these questions through the wide variety of ethno- graphic case studies that make up this volume.

In the midst of such activist-oriented vitality, American academics are rethinking and reshaping their own roles in public life. Thus the chapters in this volume offer not just fine-grained analysis of the ways in which Americans resist, alter, and appropriate public discourse but also an aware- ness of the multiple roles that academics might play in the activist efforts they study. For most of the last century many academics have perceived their job to be one of dispassionate analysis. In the past twenty years, how- ever, the same factors that produced a new multiplicity of activist forms have shifted the terms of academic practice, encouraging the questioning of old stances, posing challenges to former ways of doing business, and rais- ing new possibilities for engaging with public issues through our research. As a result it has become possible for social scientists to explicitly relate our research to political, ethical, and critical concerns.

In this vein we take up our own agenda as editors. Our goal is not to judge the paths taken by cultural activists in terms of prognoses for fu- ture mass actions but rather to gain a better understanding of how diverse groups of people across America conceive of, and take steps toward, so- cial change. To do so, we have gathered together case studies by an- thropologists that use the formidable tools of ethnography to explore vi- tal issues in American society. We believe ethnography is a particularly effective method of doing research and making sense of the actions, mo- tivations, structures, and settings that lead to social change. At a time when instantaneous public surveys update us daily about mass opinion, when the results of focus groups and questionnaires are presented as re- ports on what our nation is thinking and feeling, issues in the public

i n t r o d u c t i o n 3

This content downloaded from 130.65.109.155 on Sat, 18 Sep 2021 21:58:07 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

sphere are often reduced to simplified polarized positions. Long-term, in-depth research projects that seek to understand the complexities of events as they unfold on the ground in real time offer us a crucial, alter- native view. Thus the case studies selected for this volume were not meant as an all-inclusive representation of activist Americans but rather as a compelling sample of the vast and various work being done by ac- tivists and anthropologists today.3 Moreover, we believe that the meth- ods of ethnography not only lend themselves to informing public debates about the issues we research—they demand that we get involved. Thus our contributors comment on their own agendas, and in some cases the various ways they are participating in the struggles for social change they study. By framing these projects as cultural activism, we suggest that ac- tivism is alive and well in America: In fact, for many Americans (includ- ing academics), engaging in political practice is an essential part of their everyday lives.

Cultural Activism and American Culture

Anthropologist Faye Ginsburg first coined the term cultural ac- tivism to interpret the very public efforts of various groups who use music, visual arts, and film to articulate a political agenda (Ginsburg 1997).4 In this work we also use the term to highlight public efforts to challenge and re- configure aspects of our society that people perceive as oppressive. Here we extend Ginsburg’s concept by drawing on the broader anthropological definition of “culture” as the full range of social practices and historical processes that people draw upon to conceive of and constitute their lives (see Mahon 1997:47). Thus cultural activism comprises multiple kinds of public actions, both formal and informal, that people use to alter the cir- cumstances of their lives—such as teaching art to public school children, interpreting Scriptures, staging public protests, and lobbying Congress.

Recent studies of “resistance” have drawn attention to the host of everyday ways that people express their dissatisfaction with the status quo. These studies illustrate how individuals transform basic and undramatic acts of life, such as choosing what to eat or wear, into moments of protest (for instance Comaroff and Comaroff 1991; Ong 1987; Scott 1985; Taus- sig 1980). Similarly, cultural activists often do not work through political channels but develop their activism around cultural forms that are more immediately available to them. The crucial difference, however, in this

4 m e l i s s a c h e c k e r a n d m a g g i e f i s h m a n

This content downloaded from 130.65.109.155 on Sat, 18 Sep 2021 21:58:07 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

volume is that our contributors analyze situations in which people move beyond individual acts of resistance and join with others to engage in public, shared acts of opposition. For we contend that it is only through collective social action that resistance develops the potential for political transformation. As Steven Gregory writes, “The exercise of political pow- er and resistance consists precisely of those social practices that enable or disable people from acting collectively as political subjects” (1998:12).

At the same time, as we mentioned above, not all groups of cultural activists can be considered part of organized movements with specific agendas, goals, and memberships. In addition, cultural activists do not necessarily speak about their projects in conventionally political terms. As scholars Arturo Escobar and Sonia Alvarez argue, contemporary social movements “do not restrict themselves to traditional political activities, such as those linked to parties and state institutions. Rather, they chal- lenge our most entrenched ways of understanding political practice and its relation to culture, economy, society and nature” (1992:7). Thus, the “political” activities in which cultural activists engage encompass a wide range of arenas where people contest the circumstances of their lives and challenge dominant discourses. Moreover, like individual acts of resist- ance, the collective and public acts of cultural activists are often embed- ded in everyday life (see Melucci 1988). Indeed we find these activists in different niches, bearing different relationships to traditional or formal ac- tivism, variously organized and structured according to the diverse cir- cumstances that produced them. In most cases we find that people pursue activism through avenues that are already available, and sometimes these avenues do not lead to large-scale change. In short, we define cultural ac- tivism as the range of collective and public practices and strategies that people use to alter dominant perceptions, ideas, and understandings for the sake of social change.

By looking at such instances of cultural activism together, we can an- alyze the various ways in which Americans draw on the resources avail- able to them to effect social change. For example, Shalini Shankar’s South Asian teenagers create dances for their high school’s Multicultural Day that expand people’s ideas of South Asian culture. These teens do not re- fer to themselves as “activists,” and they organize formally only during the three-month period prior to the performance. However, Shankar argues that if we see Multicultural Day as the one available space for these teens to take an active role in representing themselves, we can view the brief

i n t r o d u c t i o n 5

This content downloaded from 130.65.109.155 on Sat, 18 Sep 2021 21:58:07 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

period in which they seize the stage as a distinctly political moment. On the other end of the organizational spectrum, David Valentine looks at transgender New Yorkers who strongly identify themselves as activists. Like the teens, they struggle to alter dominant ideas about who they are and what they are capable of achieving as a group. Yet, as these activists work to change their public image, they must also rely on and participate in a legal system whose terminology emphasizes their victimhood. While South Asian teens and transgender activists do not share a political lan- guage to define their projects, both groups must find ways to use existing discourses, spaces, and systems to instigate change.

We emphasize that in many cases the activists described are aware of the degree to which their actions sometimes reinforce systemic institu- tions of power. As anthropologist Anthony Giddens has pointed out, so- cial actors think critically about the structures and systems they inhabit and that constrain their actions (see Giddens 1990). Such constraints are particularly prominent for activists who wrestle with the idea that, as black feminist poet and critic Audre Lorde famously noted, “The master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house” (1984:112). In all the cases presented in this book, activists must make painful choices about whether and to what extent they should work within the systems they are trying to change. Each choice to pick up or discard the “master’s tools” is com- plex, historically contingent, and culturally specific. For instance, Melissa Checker looks at recent efforts of African American grassroots environ- mental justice activists in a small neighborhood in Augusta, Georgia to work with professional environmentalists. Traditionally the environmen- tal movement has left out the needs of minority groups and has in some cases even exacerbated the environmental hazards they face. However, partnering with professional environmentalists presented these minority activists with opportunities to increase their power and resources. Thus they faced difficult decisions about how to pursue alliances with a move- ment that in many ways symbolized their historic exclusion from main- stream American life.

Indeed all the cultural activists described here must navigate compli- cated relationships with common public discourses and legal, political, and economic institutions. Although the vast diversity in the U.S. has led many scholars to question the very notion of “American-ness,” we find certain similarities in activists’ goals, methods, and strategies for altering public discourse. In fact, as we see it, a propensity toward cultural activism

6 m e l i s s a c h e c k e r a n d m a g g i e f i s h m a n

This content downloaded from 130.65.109.155 on Sat, 18 Sep 2021 21:58:07 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

in the U.S. derives from a form of organizing first noted as quintessen- tially American by Alexis de Tocqueville. In writing about “voluntary as- sociations,” this early nineteenth-century French observer of American society pointed to the crucial connection between social action and iden- tity formation in America. He argued that Americans were joiners who created a sense of belonging by forming committees and joining volun- tary associations. De Tocqueville writes, “At the head of any new under- taking, where in France you would find some territorial magnate, in the U.S., you are sure to find an association” (1988 [1842]:513). For de Toc- queville it is primarily through group affiliations that the American indi- vidual defines who he or she is.

One hundred and sixty years after de Tocqueville put his observations on paper, we argue that contemporary cultural activism in America emerges from a tradition of collective attempts at self-definition through group affiliation. As Faye Ginsburg notes, Americans continue to con- struct American society and their own identities together:

The [American] cultural system requires that the individual constitute him-

self or herself in order to achieve a social identity, and that the means avail-

able for achieving identity are through voluntary affiliations with others in

a group that offers a comprehensive reframing of the place of the self in the

social world. (1989:221)

This is not to say, however, that cultural activism is merely about find- ing a place to belong or a way to identify oneself; rather, we find that for many Americans becoming part of a collectivity incorporates imper- atives to social action. In addition, the most pressing social issues in the U.S. often present themselves to individuals in the form of identity questions. Thus the cultural activists in this volume are joining together publicly to assert collective identities that reflect their lived experiences more accurately. In so doing, they are redefining themselves as more powerful members of society and they are attempting to reshape main- stream ideas about who they are and what they are capable of. The ac- tivists in this volume, therefore, share a characteristic American desire to join collectivities in order to define themselves and to redefine society at the same time.

Rather than envisioning these groups as atomized and mutually exclu- sive, we emphasize the ways in which they are continually reaching out, forming networks, and associating with one another. Rabab Abdulhadi,

i n t r o d u c t i o n 7

This content downloaded from 130.65.109.155 on Sat, 18 Sep 2021 21:58:07 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

for example, describes the multiple changes that Palestinian American ac- tivism has undergone over the past several decades. Combining ethno- graphic and historical analysis, she demonstrates that since the late 1960s Palestinian Americans have defined the very notion of “Palestinianness” through the processes of identification and coalition building with groups of African Americans, feminists, Latino/a, and Jewish activists.

Through the following ethnographic analyses of communities and col- lectivities that may at first blush seem isolated, self-contained, or unique, we are able to see some of the possibilities in identity-based organizing. We believe that outlining the steps that lead to such organizing, and mak- ing explicit the potential for individual groups to expand their organizing bases, is itself a tool for activism. It is therefore our hope that the essays in this volume exemplify the myriad ways in which a new generation of an- thropologists is developing its commitments to activism and moving to- ward a more active engagement in public life.

Navigating New Directions for Academic Engagement

If you can, please make a statement identifying yourself as a member of society as well as a “social scientist” who undertakes research not just for the sake of the scientific record. —Fishman and Checker, 2002, email to contributors

The creation of Local Actions: Cultural Activism, Power, and Pub- lic Life was motivated by our excitement over new trends in academia (and more specifically, anthropology) that have opened the door for more explicit academic activism. The papers we have chosen for this volume provide excellent examples of how a new generation of anthropologists is using ethnography to better understand and speak about issues in our own society. Although it is possible to identify a legacy of explicitly commit- ted American scholarship that dates back to an earlier period of American intellectual life, only recently has it become imaginable that publicly en- gaging with political issues could be integral to American academic prac- tice in the future. This new openness stems from critiques of the objec- tive research paradigm that have prevailed in academia’s recent history. In this section we will briefly outline some of the factors that have led to this shift in academic practice.

8 m e l i s s a c h e c k e r a n d m a g g i e f i s h m a n

This content downloaded from 130.65.109.155 on Sat, 18 Sep 2021 21:58:07 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

In The American Evasion of Philosophy: A Genealogy of Pragmatism Cornel West calls for American academics to build on the influential tradition of American pragmatism and assume the role of public or “organic” intel- lectuals.5 West argues that American pragmatists conceived of philosophy “as a form of cultural criticism [that] attempts to explain America to itself at particular historical moments” (West 1989:5). Eschewing esoteric ques- tions about the nature of reality that preoccupied post-Kantian European scholars, American pragmatists combined historical consciousness with an emphasis on social and political matters, providing a model for scholars today.6 West argues that by rooting their insights in social movements public intellectuals might create “a new and novel form of indigenous American oppositional thought and action” that combines academic study with an agenda for real-world change (1989:8).7

How did American academics lose touch with their historic commit- ment to public issues? As American academia developed into a profes- sion, the pursuit of intellectual expertise was increasingly promoted as a goal for academics over the sharing of knowledge with the public out- side the academy (Bender 1993). In addition, as a result of growing spe- cialization within the academy, the social sciences were increasingly dis- tinguished from the humanities on the basis of a research paradigm involving the ideals of “objectivity” and “pure science.”8 Professional standards required that research be presented in a scientific style and that researchers present themselves as impartial observers reporting the facts. Scholars increasingly chose to mute ethical or political concerns in order to adhere to such standards. Anthropology—the disciplinary home of ethnography and of most of the contributors to this volume—exempli- fies this trend.

Anthropologists had to negotiate particularly puzzling relationships with ideals of objectivity because ethnographic research depends on de- veloping personal relationships and integrating oneself in particular com- munities. American anthropology evolved as a discipline that specialized in researching the alternative ways of life of Native Americans and other “primitive” small-scale societies around the world. Anthropologists posed different questions and developed different methods than American soci- ologists, for example, who specialized in societies like their own, which they studied with the new technologies and methods of statistics and questionnaires. In order to understand people whose lives were so differ- ent, anthropologists developed and refined an ethnographic methodolo-

i n t r o d u c t i o n 9

This content downloaded from 130.65.109.155 on Sat, 18 Sep 2021 21:58:07 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

gy. Ethnography generally entailed at least twelve months of fieldwork, which began with a long period of “hanging out”—living and working in a community and participating in community events so that daily life became comprehensible. Only after integrating themselves into a partic- ular society could anthropologists communicate with people from a com- mon basis of assumptions and then understand and interpret what those people were doing and how they explained their actions.

Because the distinction between “native” and “researcher” was central to the paradigm of anthropological research, academic anthropologists did not study their own society—at least not directly. However, by present- ing and making comprehensible alternative ways of life, ethnographies have the potential to be subversive. As Marcus and Fischer have con- vincingly demonstrated in their seminal work of the 1980s, Anthropology as Cultural Critique, many anthropologists have historically used the analy- sis of other cultures to highlight problems in their own society:

As they have written detailed descriptions and analyses of other cultures,

ethnographers have simultaneously had a marginal or hidden agenda of cri-

tique of their own culture, namely, the bourgeois, middle-class life of mass

liberal societies, which industrial capitalism has produced. (1986:111)

However, due in large part to the pressures of the academy noted above, anthropologists have historically kept such critiques “hidden” or “marginal.”

For instance, those early anthropologists deeply disturbed by the deci- mation of Native American societies and cultures as a result of U.S. mil- itary, legal, and economic policies often focused their concern on the loss of Native American cultures. They sought to understand and document Native American religions, languages, technologies, histories, and cos- mologies before they were completely transformed or eradicated. In pre- serving material from the past, these committed anthropologists have been helpful to Native Americans, and they have implicitly critiqued the mas- sive destruction of Native American ways of life. However, many recent critics—including Native Americans and social scientists—have pointed out that these early anthropologists were well placed to overtly protest the American governmental policies that were effectively destroying the ways of life they were depicting. Had they been more explicit in explaining the daily struggles of native groups to survive the adverse effects of U.S. pol- icy, they might have influenced the outcomes of those struggles.

10 m e l i s s a c h e c k e r a n d m a g g i e f i s h m a n

This content downloaded from 130.65.109.155 on Sat, 18 Sep 2021 21:58:07 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

As notable exceptions, early dynamic leaders in anthropology such as Franz Boas9 and Margaret Mead did attempt to influence and participate in public debate over social issues through research and writing about their own society as well as through comparison with places elsewhere.10

Mead even wrote a column in the popular woman’s magazine Redbook from 1961 to 1978. In a similar vein, Sol Tax created “Action Anthro- pology” in the 1950s. Tax envisioned anthropology as a clinical science, like psychology, in which anthropologists would work with the commu- nities they study to diagnose problems and propose solutions to them while also building theory (Foley 1999). Unfortunately, such efforts re- mained relegated to the sidelines; as anthropology grew and ethnogra- phers multiplied, usefulness and problem solving were not incorporated into the discipline as a legitimate aim (Eddy and Partridge 1978).

Indeed, as anthropology departments grew almost exponentially in the post–World War II era, anthropologists increasingly geared their writing to speak to other anthropologists rather than to a general public. Eventu- ally, the discipline itself divided: “academic” anthropologists concentrat- ed on developing theory, teaching in universities, and supervising doc- toral students; those who wanted to apply their research to problems in health care, education, ecology, and other fields joined a subdiscipline known as “applied anthropology.” Because they received much of their research funding from governmental and quasi-governmental organiza- tions (to which they are then accountable), applied anthropologists have been accorded less prestige within the academy.

In the last twenty years major changes across academic disciplines have collapsed the scientific paradigm, paving the way for our collection of ethnographies about cultural activism in America. Multiple critiques of colonialism, gender relations, and various academic canons have shaken up academia. Such critiques have also challenged anthropology’s historic separation of science from contemporary political and economic sys- tems.11 These works and the research that ensued began to examine the colonial relationships and histories that enabled ethnographic researchers to travel and study all over the world, making it clear that, historically, the societies labeled “modern” and “primitive” were never isolated.12 An ever globalizing world brought Western and non-Western societies even closer, particularly in terms of higher education and media access. As a result, native peoples were able to increase their monitoring, assessment, and control of anthropological work about them. For instance, works

i n t r o d u c t i o n 11

This content downloaded from 130.65.109.155 on Sat, 18 Sep 2021 21:58:07 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

such as those by Obeyeskere (1992) and Said (1979) argued against the very notion of “native.” These authors, who hailed from the so-called exotic societies that anthropologists traditionally study, addressed their writing to academics as well to the people in the texts themselves.13

The launching of these critiques inspired a number of attempts to de- fine a different model for research and theory that accounts for the moti- vation of researchers, the specific conditions of their research, and the ethical issues at stake. During this postmodern period most anthropolo- gists began to conceive of their projects differently. Instead of seeking to discover the consistent, objective rules and norms that govern societies, they began to study the ways in which individuals explain those rules and act upon them.14 In addition, many anthropologists began to challenge the image of the detached scientist by including descriptions of their per- sonal involvements and ethical challenges in the field. Perhaps most pro- ductively, the radical questioning of distinctions between native and sci- entist and primitive and modern has meant that that many scholars became eager to better understand modern Western societies. Taking in- spiration from the work of Michel Foucault, they spawned a growing body of literature that investigated the institutions, ways of thinking, and power of the West (see Bourdieu 1984; Comaroff and Comaroff 1991; Foucault 1979, 1973, 1978; Haraway 1989; Mitchell 1988).

As part of that trend, more and more academic anthropologists have been turning to the study of American life. In the past ten years American anthropologists have studied such topics as class formation and socialization, right-wing fundamentalism, factory workers, and the construction of pop- ular ideas about culture, natives, and the exotic (see Harding 1984, 2000; Lamphere 1987; Lutz and Collins 1993; Nash 1989; Newman 1988; Ort- ner 1991).15 Most concretely, American feminists of the 1980s were among the first academics to fully part with the ideal of detached research, offer- ing a model of academic work that was both authoritative and engaged. In- fluenced by the global feminist movement and its consciousness-raising groups, feminist anthropologists had highly personal reasons for taking on their particular subjects of study. For example, in the collection Uncertain Terms: Negotiating Gender in American Culture the contributors make it clear that they write

from an unapologetically engaged position. We are studying issues and

conflicts that involve us as both analysts and actors. We are conscious of

12 m e l i s s a c h e c k e r a n d m a g g i e f i s h m a n

This content downloaded from 130.65.109.155 on Sat, 18 Sep 2021 21:58:07 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

the political significance of research on both publicly debated topics . . .

and on ongoing, local tensions. (Ginsburg and Tsing 1990:3)

Because they have a personal stake in the outcome of struggles over the gendered cultural discourses, resources, and rights that they describe, the work of feminist anthropologists exemplifies ethnography that strives to equalize power relations by providing the otherwise unde- scribed, on-the-ground perspectives that should inform public policy and decision making.16

Building on such examples, we offer this volume as a window into possibilities for future research that address issues of public interest in ways that advance social science and are accessible and useful to various audi- ences. Thus we gear this book not just to academics but to activists who may use it as a tool for reflection and to see their work in a broader con- text. We also invite general audiences to read these chapters and discov- er alternative points of view on taken-for-granted notions about Amer- ican life.

In addition, by collecting samples of new work into one volume, and by presenting that work in clear, accessible language, we intend to illu- minate some of the many possible ways in which anthropologists can en- ter public discourse. In reading these papers, the reader can imagine the various ways in which the material could be communicated, or the many venues in which it could be published, with different audiences in mind. In so doing, Local Actions: Cultural Activism, Power, and Public Life also elu- cidates how ethnography, through the personal ties and mutual under- standing forged during long-term fieldwork, can serve as one example for breaking down the boundaries that divide academics from those they re- search. As they develop critiques of American society, the contributors question the power relationships between researcher and subject and of- fer ways that an activist-oriented approach to research can bring balance to those relationships. For example, some of the contributors to this vol- ume chose to repay activists for allowing themselves to be studied by as- sisting with grant writing, tutoring, or organizing local protests. Others took positions in governmental or quasi-governmental agencies in order to assist activists’ efforts to influence the institutions that affect their lives. Thus, we present a wide range of strategies and definitions of engage- ment, from writing jargon-free texts that address multiple audiences to di- rectly joining the groups under study.

i n t r o d u c t i o n 13

This content downloaded from 130.65.109.155 on Sat, 18 Sep 2021 21:58:07 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

While the contributors engage in straightforward observation and analysis of ethnographic data, we have also encouraged each to make clear his or her stance on the issues at hand. Whether or not we share the spe- cific goals of the people we present, the intimacy and in-depth knowl- edge derived from long-term fieldwork gives us firmer ground from which to speak about our own attitudes and commitments toward those goals. Thus, as we examine the various strategies and cultural resources upon which activists draw in their efforts to reconstruct an America that resonates with their own experiences, we also make explicit the strategies and cultural resources that inform our own efforts to reconcile our dual roles as academics and as engaged citizens.

Recognizing our multiple connections to what we research raises sev- eral new challenges. First, we must ask, in a society where “they read what we write”(Brettell 1993), how do we write ethnographies that are responsible to both our subjects and to our readership? Such questions are central not just to anthropological inquiry but to any form of academic study. As the reader will see, throughout the volume we provide answers to this question by example. Second, while many academic anthropolo- gists (following more general academic trends) have begun to promote a focus on “public anthropology” to increase the impact of anthropology on public discourse, questions remain about the degree to which such projects can be integrated into the academic mainstream.17 As anthropol- ogists from senior faculty to graduate students have pointed out in nu- merous academic forums, academic administrations must also incorporate this paradigm shift into the foundations of their institutions. For example, engaged anthropology will not gain academic value until the current bases for tenure in universities attribute more prestige to nonacademic activities and publishing venues.18 Moreover, a call for a more “public anthropol- ogy” has underscored divisions between academic and applied re- searchers, with the latter claiming that this discourse ignores the work they have been doing for years.19

That being said, it is our aim that in presenting new ethnographic work and considering its multiple uses and potential this volume will further open the door for conversations across the divide between academic and applied researchers. First, we contend that, although intellectually stimu- lating, arguments over labels such as applied, public, engaged, or activist an- thropology distract our attention from the larger issues at hand—such as finding different ways to make our work accessible and useful to a public

14 m e l i s s a c h e c k e r a n d m a g g i e f i s h m a n

This content downloaded from 130.65.109.155 on Sat, 18 Sep 2021 21:58:07 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

both within and without the academy and promoting the use of ethno- graphic research to address real-world problems. Second, we propose a perspective that recognizes knowledge is always produced under institu- tional and cultural constraints. Researchers, then, might envision negoti- ating their positions along a continuum. On one end academic institutions and ideologies tend to push scholars towards erudite, overly nuanced dis- tinctions, or “theory for theory’s sake,” which are publicly inaccessible. On the other end, applied researchers face institutional sponsors and timetables that push them toward the overly utilitarian and context-bound production of data.

In this volume we aim to demonstrate why and how Americans form var- ious kinds of collectivities and gather together to improve their lives. We argue that these groups are not separating themselves but are struggling to join their voices to the mainstream and organizing to change public dis- course. Furthermore, we view ourselves as cultural activists who seek to make public engagement part of mainstream academic practice and de- scribe America to itself. It is our hope that through these essays we can reconstruct dominant American concepts, theories, and strategies such as “culture,” “the arts,” “the digital divide,” “ethnicity,” “transgender,” and “academia” itself.

It is also our goal to show how ethnography, our particular mode of inquiry, can uniquely contribute to social problem solving. Our historic role of describing groups outside the mainstream in order to “make the strange familiar and the familiar strange” is only one part of our task as ethnographers. We additionally strive to take important public issues out of the realm of ideology, theory, and rhetoric and examine them in the context of how they are produced in daily life and how they play out in lived experience. The close relationships that we develop with those we study require us to take a stand and position us to make a contribution. We encourage readers to view the ethnographic essays in this volume as presenting one step on the road toward engaged academic practice.

We begin with a chapter that investigates how groups from very different racial and economic backgrounds work toward building productive ac- tivist coalitions. Melissa Checker focuses on a group of African Americans in Augusta, Georgia who are trying to save their neighborhood from tox- ic contamination. Over the years these grassroots activists developed ex-

i n t r o d u c t i o n 15

This content downloaded from 130.65.109.155 on Sat, 18 Sep 2021 21:58:07 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

tensive networks with professional environmentalists. Checker’s field- work methodology emphasized reciprocity, and she volunteered as a full- time staff member for the group she studied. She found that her own identity as a white, middle class activist together with her growing knowl- edge of the community in which she conducted fieldwork positioned her to understand the substantial differences in perspectives that the two groups brought to environmental organizing. Paying particular attention to the different ways computers and religion figured in their social move- ment organizing, Checker finds that race and class differences shaped ac- tivists’ notions of “good” social movement organizing and, ultimately, ac- cess to power in American society.

In the following chapter we explore the less formally organized side of cultural activism and present artist-activists who are using art to promote social change. Here Maggie Fishman examines the struggles of artists to alter the direction of education in New York City public schools. Criti- cal of the product-oriented commercialism of professional art worlds, many artists have turned to schools as a place to realize their ideal of dem- ocratic and transformative art making. Fishman describes how artists taught children and teachers to create an opera based on their own expe- rience and to interpret paintings based on their own observations and in- terpretations. She argues that their work challenges both the current na- tional educational agenda and dominant roles and values associated with artistic careers in fine art worlds. Finally, Fishman, who became an edu- cational evaluator after her fieldwork, points out the affinities between the artists’ efforts to develop an artistic practice that moves beyond spe- cialized professional art worlds and those academics who wish to expand the role for academics in public life.

Next, we move back up the spectrum of organized activism as Kate Spilde examines how American Indian nations are challenging popular ideas about them by investing gaming revenues into cultural production, preservation, and media messages about their history and identity. Spilde finds that Indian nations are not just using gaming revenue to help them- selves but are also working on multiple projects to develop much need- ed services and infrastructures in the communities surrounding their reservations. She argues that Indian nation governmental gaming pro- vides an opportunity for American Indian communities to define their cultural, economic, and political future for themselves. However, as In- dian nations have increasingly garnered political clout as a result of these

16 m e l i s s a c h e c k e r a n d m a g g i e f i s h m a n

This content downloaded from 130.65.109.155 on Sat, 18 Sep 2021 21:58:07 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

good works, they have also experienced a backlash against their gaming work that threatens their achievements. Notably, Spilde spent several years working for the Bureau of Indian Gaming where she used her ethnographic research to redirect gaming policy: her work demonstrates that ethnographic research can bring the much needed voices of com- munities into public policy decision making—an area often dominated by rhetoric.

Moving back east, we now take a closer look at the complex issues at stake in conducting engaged research. We begin with David Valen- tine’s chapter, which addresses head-on problematic issues in both group formation and in activist anthropology. Valentine looks at how transgender-identified activists are coming together to demand that state institutions provide them with better protection from violence. Al- though the choice of “transgender” as an organizing category allows these activists to gain power in legal terms, it is also problematic because it erases the experiences of many of those represented under this cate- gory, especially poor, young people of color. Valentine also brings his research to bear on recent debates about the relationship between eth- nographic research and the ethics of activism. He responds in particular to some recent calls for “barefoot anthropology” that argue that, in cer- tain cases, anthropologists should abandon their pursuit of nuanced anal- yses for the sake of immediate ethical action. Through a critical reading of the category transgender, and based on his work as a cofounder of NYAGRA, a transgender rights organization, Valentine concludes that detailed long-term analysis is essential to anthropologists’ abilities to make the best ethical choices.

At this point in the volume we counteract the assumption that engaged ethnographers always identify with the politics of the groups they study. As a progressive activist who wanted to better understand what was mo- tivating the Christian Right, Tanya Erzen chose to research an ex-gay ministry, where Christian homosexuals come to renounce their gay iden- tities in order to conform to their conservative religious beliefs. Through ethnography Erzen gained a deeper understanding of conflicts between ex-gay activists and right-wing discourse. For example, in their efforts to halt the progress of gay rights, some Christian Right political organiza- tions have promoted ex-gay ministries as proof that homosexuality is not a biological or permanent state. However, Erzen finds that ex-gays dis- agree with this agenda and are disturbed to find their stories used for such

i n t r o d u c t i o n 17

This content downloaded from 130.65.109.155 on Sat, 18 Sep 2021 21:58:07 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

a cause. Erzen’s ethnography thus reveals the diversity of political views within conservative Christianity.

In another study that works to complicate our view of the Christian Right, and of the ways that cultural activists reach beyond the bound- aries that might enclose them, Omri Elisha looks at suburban evangelical Christians in East Tennessee. He explores social ministries where church activists struggle to convince the mainly middle class members of mega- churches to do outreach work in economically disadvantaged places. Elisha finds that these efforts reflect a deep ambivalence about activists’ own middle-class identities—churchgoers realize that the middle-class lifestyles they enjoy take them further and further away from the Chris- tian values that are central to their lives. Not only are these Christians re- solving such ambivalence by reaching out to work with groups that are very different from them, they are also establishing a complex critique of American materialism and consumerism. Like Erzen, Elisha concludes that, contrary to common stereotypes, fundamentalist Christianity is not homogenous and has its progressive voices. Moreover, he demonstrates that evangelical preaching is not merely accusation directed at the sinful, unchurched world “outside” but is rather a medium of moral instruction often directed squarely at the people in the pews.

In order to illustrate the degree to which cross-class, cross-race, and multiethnic organizing is a complicated matter in America, we now pres- ent two case studies demonstrating the ways that some cultural activists are challenging dominant, superficial conceptions of multiculturalism. First, Henry Goldschmidt writes about relationships between African Americans and white Hasidic Jews in the Crown Heights neighborhood of Brooklyn, New York. Following the 1991 riots in Crown Heights, state agencies and other organizations asked blacks and Jews to participate in various forums for dialogue and exchange across the racial divide, in- cluding symbolically charged meals of customary foods. Some neighbor- hood residents, both black and Jewish, welcomed the opportunity to learn about the “cultures” of their neighbors, but many Hasidic Jews ques- tioned the relevance of such activities and refused to participate. Such Ha- sidic resistance is often viewed negatively as an insistence on insularity. However, as Goldschmidt argues, it may also be seen as a form of resist- ance to pressures from state institutions to conform to dominant models of multiculturalism. Goldschmidt concludes by describing a more suc-

18 m e l i s s a c h e c k e r a n d m a g g i e f i s h m a n

This content downloaded from 130.65.109.155 on Sat, 18 Sep 2021 21:58:07 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

cessful model of coalition building that focuses on the concrete problems and concerns these groups share as New York residents.

On the opposite coast Shalini Shankar furthers our understanding of the promise and failures of multiculturalism. As she describes the efforts of Northern California students to participate in their high schools’ multicul- tural day, Shankar demonstrates how multiculturalism’s charge of creating more inclusive and egalitarian environments gets sabotaged through its im- plementation in particular projects. These annual events, which were the only occasions for students to represent their ethnic identities in a public forum, were limited and competitive and ultimately perpetuated existing race and class hierarchies. At the same time, Shankar finds that the South Asian participants viewed these multicultural performances as an important venue in which to express their specific experiences as second-generation immigrants to their school. Thus, by creating a hybrid, fashionable dance, these teens contradicted audiences’ expectations for “traditional” and “au- thentic” performance. In so doing, they reworked popular ideas about what it means to be South Asian in America.

Keeping our focus on the creative side of cultural activism, we next present a group of Korean American adoptees who are also struggling to reconstruct dominant ideas about who they are and their experiences in America. Kim highlights the ways in which a recent spate of cultural ex- pressions of Korean adoptee identity—including web sites, literary work, film, and visual art—register a growing presence and self-conscious build- ing of “community” among Korean-born adoptees in the West. Often seen as “model” minorities and adoption “success” stories, these venues provide important sites where adoptees can share stories of alienation, pain, and loss. Kim concludes that the narratives of Korean adoptees not only articulate an untold collective history but also have the potential to affect the course of transnational adoption in the U.S. and elsewhere.

In the final chapter Rabab Abdulhadi takes up the timely (and ever evolving) subject of the construction of Palestinian American activist identities. Given their ambiguous status in the world, Palestinian Ameri- cans have had a particularly difficult time creating an identity for them- selves as “hyphenated Americans.” Abdulhadi finds that over the years these activists have reconstructed their identities in relation to world events and to other activist movements. For instance, Palestinian Ameri- cans have at times allied and identified themselves with African American,

i n t r o d u c t i o n 19

This content downloaded from 130.65.109.155 on Sat, 18 Sep 2021 21:58:07 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Native American, feminist, and particular Jewish American activists. Thus Abdulhadi demonstrates that, rather than developing an isolated activist identity and focusing on single-issue organizing, Palestinian Americans are continually reaching out to other groups and forming various alliances and coalitions for change.

Notes

1. Unless, in many unfortunate cases, you looked Middle Eastern or South Asian. 2. See for example, Harvey 1990. 3. The absence of Latino/a or feminist activist groups from the roster of chapters

attests to this fact. 4. For some reasons that the recent mobilization of interest groups is linked to an

increased reliance on the arts and media to convey political positions and make cul- tural critiques, see Abu-Lughod 1993; Ginsburg 1991,1997; Mahon 1997; Ross 1989; Wallis 1990.

5. West defines organic intellectuals as “participants in the life of the mind who revel in ideas and relate ideas to action by means of creating, constituting, or consol- idating constituencies for moral aims and political purposes”(1989:6).

6. West traces his genealogy of American scholarship from Ralph Waldo Emerson and John Dewey through the twentieth century, including historian W. E. B. Du Bois; theologian Reinhold Niebuhr; sociologist C. Wright Mills, and literary critic Calvin Trilling.

7. West has since tried such projects working in partnership with other scholars. See West and Hewlett, The War Against Parents (1999), and West and Lerner, Jews and Blacks (1996).

8. For Thomas Kuhn, paradigms are “accepted examples of actual scientific prac- tice—which includes law, theory, application and instrumentation together—which provide models from which spring coherent traditions of scientific research.” Cited in Turner 1974:29.

9. For example, Boas, often referred to as “the father of American anthropology,” at times had a very explicit activist agenda to his research and his publications (e.g., 1940, 1932). In some, such as the well-known study in which he measured the heads of immigrants, he directly disproved the arguments of popular eugenicists about the brain size and intelligence of Jewish and other eastern European immigrants (1898).

10. Henry Schoolcraft, James Mooney, and Hortense Powdermaker also provide notable historic examples of anthropologists who engaged in public issues. For details on their activities see Eddy and Partridge 1978:11–13.

11. See for example: Clifford 1988; Fabian 1983; Marcus and Myers 1995; Martin 1989; Rosaldo 1989; Wolf 1982.

20 m e l i s s a c h e c k e r a n d m a g g i e f i s h m a n

This content downloaded from 130.65.109.155 on Sat, 18 Sep 2021 21:58:07 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

12. See, for example, Mullin 1992, 1993; Stoler 1995. 13. Obeyesekere, for example, draws on his own Sri Lankan background to refute

the well-known anthropological trope about the beginning of imperialism in Hawaii, which portrays eighteenth-century Hawaiian natives as deifying the first white Euro- pean man they had ever encountered. He argues that these anthropological accounts derive less from actual Hawaiian/native culture and far more from European cultur- al desires and ideas about colonialism.

14. Here, we especially refer to work that followed Clifford Geertz’s ground- breaking essay “Thick Description” (1973) in which he calls for actor-oriented ethnography.

15. For examples and more extensive reviews of this exciting literature, see Har- rison 1995; Peirano 1998; Rhodes 2001; Stewart and Harding 1999; Susser 1996; Traube 1996.

16. These feminists could build on a two-decade-long history of feminist revi- sionist scholarship across disciplines.

17. This interest in public anthropology was manifest in the theme of the 2000 American Anthropological Association’s Annual Meeting, “The Public Face of An- thropology.” In addition, the American Anthropological Association’s “Anthropolo- gy Newsletter” recently announced that its 2003–2004 theme will be “Mapping an Engaged Anthropology.”

18. There is exciting progress being made toward this end. In recent years a num- ber of academic institutions, particularly urban institutions, have made explicit com- mitment to valuing engaged scholarship within their universities. These institutions are beginning to revamp tenure requirements to include “outreach” as a tenure re- quirement. While this term is defined in various ways across different institutions, it includes valuing new kinds of academic publications and establishing methods to eval- uate the quality and impact of outreach work that may not translate directly or im- mediately into traditional academic products.

19. This comes from a series of articles by Eric Lassiter in American Anthropology on “theorizing the local.” His most recent essay (2003) specifically addresses public an- thropology and what it means. For additional examples of debates on this issue, see Singer 2000; Young 2001.

Works Cited

Abu-Lughod, Lila. 1993. “Finding a Place for Islam: Egyptian Television Serials and the National Interest.” Public Culture 5(3): 493–513.

Bender, Thomas.1993. Intellect and Public Life: Essays on the Social History of Academ- ic Intellectuals in the United States. Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins Univer- sity Press.

Boas, Franz. 1940. Race, Language, and Culture. New York: Macmillan.

i n t r o d u c t i o n 21

This content downloaded from 130.65.109.155 on Sat, 18 Sep 2021 21:58:07 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

—— 1932. Anthropology and Modern Life. New York: Norton. —— 1898. The Growth of Toronto Children. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing

Office. Bourdieu, Pierre. 1984. Distinction:A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste. Cambridge:

Harvard University Press. Brettell, Caroline B., ed. 1993. When They Read What We Write:The Politics of Ethnog-

raphy. Westport, Conn.: Bergin and Garvey. Clifford, James. 1988. The Predicament of Culture:Twentieth-Century Ethnography, Litera-

ture, and Art. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Comaroff, Jean and John Comaroff. 1991. Of Revelation and Revolution. Chicago: Uni-

versity of Chicago Press. Eddy, Elizabeth M. and William L. Partridge. 1978. “The Development of Applied

Anthropology in America” In Elizabeth M. Eddy and William L. Partridge, eds., Applied Anthropology in America. New York: Columbia University Press.

Escobar, Arturo and Sonia Alvarez. 1992. The Making of Social Movements in Latin America: Identity, Strategy, and Democracy. Boulder, Colo.: Westview.

Fabian, Johannes. 1983. Time and the Other: How Anthropology Makes Its Object. New York: Columbia University Press.

Foley, Douglas E. 1999. “The Fox Project: A Reappraisal.” Current Anthropology 40(2): 171–191.

Foucault, Michel. 1979. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Vintage.

—— 1978. The History of Sexuality. New York: Vintage. —— 1973. Madness and Civilization: A History of Insanity in the Age of Reason. New

York: Vintage. Fraser, Nancy. 1992. “Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique

of Actually Existing Democracy.” In C. Calhoun, ed., Habermas and the Public Sphere, pp. 109–142. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Geertz, Clifford. 1973. “Thick Description.” In The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic.

Giddens, Anthony. 1990. Central Problems in Social Theory: Action, Structure, and Contra- diction in Social Analysis. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Ginsburg, Faye.1997. “From Little Things Big Things Grow: Cultural Activism and Indigenous Media.” In Richard Fox and Orin Starn, eds., Between Resistance and Revolution: Cultural Politics and Social Protest, pp. 118–144. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press.

—— 1991. “Indigenous Media: Faustian Contract or Global Village.” Cultural An- thropology 6(1): 92–112.

—— 1989. Contested Lives: The Abortion Debate in an American Community. Berkeley: University of California Press.

22 m e l i s s a c h e c k e r a n d m a g g i e f i s h m a n

This content downloaded from 130.65.109.155 on Sat, 18 Sep 2021 21:58:07 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Ginsburg, Faye and Anna Lowenhaupt Tsing, eds.1990. Uncertain Terms: Negotiating Gender in American Culture. Boston: Beacon.

Gregory, Steven. 1998. Black Corona: Race and the Politics of Place in an Urban Commu- nity. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Habermas, Jurgen. 1981. “New Social Movements.” Telos 49:33–37. Haraway, Donna. 1989. Primate Visions: Gender, Race, and Nature in the World of Modern

Science. New York: Routledge. Harding, Susan Friend. 2000. The Book of Jerry Falwell: Fundamentalist Language and

Politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press. —— 1984. Statemaking and Social Movements: Essays in History and Theory. Ann Arbor:

University of Michigan Press. Harrison, Faye V. 1995.“The Persistent Power of ‘Race’ in the Cultural and Political

Economy of Racism.” Annual Review of Anthropology 24:47–74. Harvey, David.1990. The Condition of Postmodernity. Cambridge: Blackwell. Lamphere, Louise. 1987. From Working Daughters to Working Mothers: Immigrant Women

in a New England Industrial Community. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Lassiter, Luke Eric. 2003. “‘Theorizing the Local’ Anthropology News.” American

Anthropology 44(5): 13. Lorde, Audre. 1984. Sister Outsider: Essays and Speeches. Trumansburg, N.Y.: Crossing. Lutz, Catherine A. and Jane L. Collins. 1993. Reading National Geographic. Chicago:

University of Chicago Press. Mahon, Maureen. 1997. “The Black Rock Coalition and the Cultural Politics of

Race in the United States.” Ph.D. diss., Department of Anthropology, New York University.

Marcus, George E. and Michael M. J. Fischer. 1986. Anthropology as Cultural Critique:An Experimental Moment in the Human Sciences. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Marcus, George E. and Fred Myers. 1995. The Traffic in Culture: Refiguring Art and An- thropology. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Martin, Emily. 1989. The Woman in the Body: A Cultural Analysis of Reproduction. Boston: Beacon.

Melucci, Alberto. 1988. “Social Movements and the Democratization of Everyday Life.” In John Deane, ed., Civil Society and the State: New European Perspectives. Lon- don: Verso.

Mitchell, Timothy. 1988. Colonising Egypt. New York: Cambridge University Press. Mullin, Molly. 1993. “Consuming the American Southwest: Culture, Art, and Dif-

ference.” Ph.D. diss., Department of Cultural Anthropology, Duke University. —— 1992. “The Patronage of Difference: Making Indian Art ‘Art,’ Not Ethnology.”

Cultural Anthropology 7(4): 395–424. Nash, June. 1989. From Tank Town to High Tech:The Clash of Community and Industrial

Cycles. New York: State University of New York Press.

i n t r o d u c t i o n 23

This content downloaded from 130.65.109.155 on Sat, 18 Sep 2021 21:58:07 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Newman, Katherine. 1988. “Falling from Grace: The Experience of Downward Mo- bility in the American Middle Class.” London: Collier Macmillan.

Obeyesekere, Ganath. 1992. The Apotheosis of Captain Cook: European Mythmaking in the Pacific. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Ong, Aihwa. 1987. Spirits of Resistance and Capitalist Discipline: Factory Women in Malay- sia. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Ortner, Sherry. 1991. “Reading America: Preliminary Notes on Class and Culture.” In Richard Fox, ed., Recapturing Anthropology, pp. 105–189. Santa Fe: SAR.

Peirano, Mariza G. S. 1998. “When Anthropology Is at Home: The Different Con- texts of a Single Discipline.” Annual Review of Anthropology 27:105–128.

Putnam, Robert. 2000. Bowling Alone:The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Rhodes, Lorna A. 2001. Toward an Anthropology of Prisons Annual Review of Anthropol- ogy 30:65–83.

Rosaldo, Renato. 1989. Culture and Truth: The Remaking of Social Analysis. Boston: Beacon.

Ross, Andrew. 1989. No Respect: Intellectuals and Popular Culture. New York: Routledge. Said, Edward. 1979. Orientalism. New York: Vintage. Scott, James. 1985. Weapons of the Weak: Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance. New

Haven: Yale University Press. Singer, Merril. 2000. “Why I Am Not a Public Anthropologist.” Anthropology News,

September 2000, pp. 6–7. Stewart, Kathleen and Susan Harding. 1999. Bad Endings: American Apocalypsis. Annual

Review of Anthropology 28:285–310. Stoler, Ann. 1995. Race and the Education of Desire: Foucault’s History of Sexuality and the

Colonial Order of Things. Durham: Duke University Press. Susser, Ida. 1996. The Construction of Poverty and Homelessness in U.S. Cities. Annual Re-

view of Anthropology 25:411–435. Taussig, Michael T. 1980. The Devil and Commodity Fetishism in South America. Chapel

Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Tocqueville, Alexis de. 1988 [1842]. Democracy in America. New York: Harper and

Row. Traube, Elizabeth G. 1996.“The Popular” in American Culture. Annual Review of Anthro-

pology 25:127–151. Turner, Victor. 1974. Dramas, Fields, and Metaphors: Symbolic Action in Human Society.

Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Wallis, Brian. 1990. “Democracy and Cultural Activism.” In Brian Wallis, ed., Democ-

racy: A Project by Group Material, pp. 4–11. Seattle: Bay. Warren, Roland. 1963. The Community in America. Chicago: Rand McNally. West, Cornel. 1989. The American Evasion of Philosophy: A Genealogy of Pragmatism.

Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

24 m e l i s s a c h e c k e r a n d m a g g i e f i s h m a n

This content downloaded from 130.65.109.155 on Sat, 18 Sep 2021 21:58:07 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

West, Cornel and Michael Lerner. 1996. Jews and Blacks: A Dialogue on Race, Religion, and Culture in America. New York: Plume.

West, Cornel and Sylvia Ann Hewlett. 1999. The War Against Parents:What We Can Do for America’s Beleaguered Moms and Dads. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Wolf, Eric. 1982. Europe and the People Without a History. Berkeley: University of Cal- ifornia Press.

Young, John A. 2001. “Assessing Cooperation and Change: The SfAA and the EPA.” Practicing Anthropology 23(3): 47–49.

i n t r o d u c t i o n 25

This content downloaded from 130.65.109.155 on Sat, 18 Sep 2021 21:58:07 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

This content downloaded from 130.65.109.155 on Sat, 18 Sep 2021 21:58:07 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms