Putting Hierarchy in Its Place

Abstract

On the face of it, an exploration of the idea of the in anthropological discourse may not appear to have much to do with the genealogy of the idea of hierarchy. But I wish to argue that hierarchy is one of an anthology of images in and through which anthropologists have frozen the contribution of specific cultures to our understanding of the human condition. Such metonymic freezing has its roots in a deeper assumption of anthropological thought regarding the boundedness of cultural units and the confinement of the varieties of human consciousness within these boundaries. The idea of the is the principal expression of this assumption, and thus the genealogy of hierarchy needs to be seen as one local instance of the dynamics of the construction of natives. Although the term has a respectable antiquity in Western thought and has often been used in positive and self-referential ways, it has gradually become the technical preserve of anthropologists. Although some other words taken from the vocabulary of missionaries, explorers, and colonial administrators have been expunged from anthropological usage, the term has retained its currency, serving as a respectable substitute for terms like primitive, about which we now feel some embarrassment. Yet the term native, whether we speak of native categories, or native belief-systems or native agriculture, conceals certain ambiguities. We sense this ambiguity, for example, in the restricted use of the adjective nativistic, which is typically used not only for one sort of revivalism, but for revivalism among certain kinds of population. Who is a (henceforth without quotation marks) in the anthropological usage? The quick answer to this question is that the is a person who is born in (and thus belongs to) the place the anthropologist is observing or writing about. This sense of the word is fairly narrowly, and neutrally, tied to its Latin etymology. But do we use the term uniformly to refer to people who are born in certain places and, thus, belong to them? We do not. We have tended