Critique of Anthropology http://coa.sagepub.

com/

Anthropology as Reality Show and as Co-production : Internal Relations between Theory and Activism
Terry Turner Critique of Anthropology 2006 26: 15 DOI: 10.1177/0308275X06061481 The online version of this article can be found at: http://coa.sagepub.com/content/26/1/15

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Critique of Anthropology can be found at: Email Alerts: http://coa.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://coa.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://coa.sagepub.com/content/26/1/15.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Feb 21, 2006 What is This?

Downloaded from coa.sagepub.com at CAPES on June 2, 2012

Article

Anthropology as Reality Show and as Co-production

Internal Relations between Theory and Activism
Terry Turner
Department of Anthropology, Cornell University
Abstract A conjunction of forces associated with globalization has contributed to changes in the world studied by anthropology as well as changes in anthropology itself. Both critical theoretical analysis and pragmatic activism are called for to address these changes and support the struggles of those with whom anthropologists work for rights, economic progress and social and cultural autonomy. Activism in this context has important contributions to make to theoretical understanding, just as critical theoretical understanding can clarify the sources and relationships of new ideological formations within anthropology with the real world they seek to explain. Keywords activism anthropological theory ethics Kayapo Marx rights

Anthropology has historically developed as a discipline concerned with other peoples realities the more different from our own, the better. It has been less interested, and less successful, in dealing with the ways its own reality its activities, values and ideas is affected by the contemporary world of which it is part. The proposition that not only ethnographic and theoretical understanding of the cultures, political practices and social institutions of free-ranging Others, but also the terms and theories through which that quest is conducted, are ultimately inseparable from the ways anthropologists engage with their world, and historical developments within that world, might seem a truism, but is in fact a ground of bitter contention among anthropologists themselves (I speak specically of those belonging to the American Anthropological Association [AAA], although the same applies in varying degrees elsewhere). The disagreements to which I refer have focused in recent years around anthropological involvement in issues of ethics, human rights and activism in support of research subjects, above all indigenous peoples. Some have maintained that such involvements are incompatible with the mission of anthropology as an objective science. Others, among whom I would include myself, have maintained that it has been precisely through such engagements that anthropologists have managed to achieve a measure of understanding of changes in the nature and meaning of the cultures, social identities and political mobilization of the peoples they have been studying. As our research
Vol 26(1) 1525 [DOI:10.1177/0308275X06061481] Copyright 2006 SAGE Publications (London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi) www.sagepublications.com

Downloaded from coa.sagepub.com at CAPES on June 2, 2012

16 Critique of Anthropology 26(1)

subjects increasingly engage in struggles for rights, economic development and relative social and cultural autonomy, participation in those struggles in some activist capacity becomes both ethically imperative and methodologically the most powerful way of gaining ethnographic access and theoretical understanding of their reality. These issues are as old as the discipline itself, but, as anthropology has grown in size, public inuence and institutional power, and recent historical changes have brought changes in its relations to its research subjects and therefore also to itself, the issues have taken on new forms and urgency. One of the things that has happened is that history has caught up with anthropology once again. The unstated but pervasive assumption was that anthropologists came to the peoples they studied as ambassadors from a world of historical progress, a culture moving from a past to a future, to peoples and cultures who had neither a signicant historical past nor a future as themselves has been overtaken by events, starting in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Many of the indigenous peoples who once comprised the more or less passive subjects of anthropological research and theorizing became self-conscious historical actors, aggressive partisans of their own cultural and social autonomy. Meanwhile, anthropologists found themselves challenged by multiculturalist movements and identity politics within their own societies (Turner, 1993, 1999a, 2002a). Beginning in the late 1960s, then, world-historic events shook the foundations of academia in general and challenged anthropologys relations with those who had served as its prototypical research subjects. Anthropologists should have spent more intellectual energy than they have done seeking to understand what happened and how it affected their discipline and its subjects. The collapse of the world economic system based on the Bretton Woods accords gave rise to an intensied expansion of transnational capital beyond the control of any state. A major purpose of the Bretton Woods system had been to enable nation-states to continue to function as the dominant units of the world economy, able to prevent nance capital from becoming an autonomous global force that could subvert their political and economic control of their own monetary and social policies. When states lost this control they were increasingly obliged to adjust their policies to suit the needs of transnational capital. These needs included non-inationary monetary policies and correspondingly diminished budgets for social expenses. This in turn tended to undermine the political and ideological meaning of popular sovereignty. This meant weakening the identication of governments and citizens, or in so many words, the partial de-hyphenation of nation-states. One result of this was that those who controlled state power tended increasingly to identify themselves and the policies of the regimes they led with the economic requirements of the global system. Accordingly, they tended to look upon the demands of the economically less productive classes of their own populations, and the governmental programs designed to serve them, as the

Downloaded from coa.sagepub.com at CAPES on June 2, 2012

17 Turner: Anthropology as Reality Show

political and ideological enemies of the state regimes they controlled. The ideological result has been that throughout the First World the framework of social and historical consciousness that had prevailed since the 17th century the idea of progress with its vision of history as a linear development from feudal disorganization to the centralized, socially homogeneous nation-state as the culmination of history has been undergoing a paradigm shift (Turner, 2003a). Another concomitant of the globalization process has been that the ideological identication of the centralization of power in the state with the homogenization of social and cultural differences, a fundamental heritage of the democratic revolutions of the 18th century to the modern state, has been undermined by the redistribution of specic powers and aspects of sovereignty from states to an increasing number of international regulatory bodies. This has meant the further attenuation of the formally egalitarian political institutions of popular sovereignty, such as electoral politics, that had served as channels for the identication of national populations, as citizens, with their governments and the collective state identities they represented. These changes, I have suggested, are contributing to a paradigm shift in the forms of of social space-time (or chronotope, to borrow a term from M. Bakhtin) associated with the idea of progress and the hegemony of the modern nation-state. The chronotope associated with the rise of the modern state combined a concept of history in terms of linear diachrony with the nationalist ideal of society as a uniform multitude of citizens united in relation to a unique center, the sovereign state. The changes brought by globalization, I suggest, are re-framing this cultural chronotope as one of synchronic pluralism, in which there is neither a direction of historical time towards the creation of culturally homogeneous national societies nor states identied as unique centers of sovereignty. This is the chronotope associated with the new social movements based on ethnicity, feminism and multiculturalism. Among these new movements, the world-wide surge of indigenous struggles for cultural and social autonomy, political recognition and territorial rights since the end of the 1960s has played a prominent part (Turner, 2002a, 2003a, 2003b, 2004). Anthropology has been directly affected by these global transformations, as well as inuenced by their effects upon the modern nation-states within which it developed and in whose academic establishments it ourished. The dominant theoretical paradigms of pre-1970s anthropology, structural-functionalism, Boasian cultural idealism, cultural evolutionism, early applied anthropology, some forms of psychological anthropology, Lvi-Straussian structuralism and structural Marxism, were among the canonical ideas challenged by the radical ferment that accompanied the paradigm shift in the universities. Many of their successors, such as the various species of post-structuralism, postmodernism, postcolonialism and post-Marxism, have exemplied many of the features of the new chronotope I have called synchronic pluralism. Most of these tendencies have

Downloaded from coa.sagepub.com at CAPES on June 2, 2012

18 Critique of Anthropology 26(1)

sought to dene themselves by attacking the forms of anthropology associated with the preceding chronotope. Their failure to carry out an adequate critical analysis of the historical conditions of the rejection of the paradigms they replaced, or the emergence of their own principal assumptions, however, has been associated, for many of them, with a tendency to throw out the baby with the bath water, thus failing to build on the strengths of previous work while avoiding its shortcomings, and destroying the sense of cumulative development that is essential to the life of any scientic discipline. As a result, in a number of cases new theoretical work has shown a tendency to dene itself by inverting the terms of previous paradigms, attempting to make virtues of their vices but repeating the same fundamental problems in altered forms. A corollary of the ideological repudiation of the ideal of integral national societies with homogeneous cultural identities in favor of pluralistic arrays of identity groups distinguished by cultural differences has been the widespread tendency to reject the conception of social systems or structures or even that of society tout court in favor of individualistic approaches to social analysis based on rational choice, marginal utility, psychology or genetically inherited behavioral patterns. In this perspective, Neo-Darwinian approaches such as sociobiology or evolutionary psychology betray their essential kinship with the postmodern cultural approaches they purport to despise. Both extremes of this continuum of reactionary ideological expressions stand in need of critical analysis as products of the very systematic political-economic, social and cultural forces they claim to supplant or transcend. The upheaval caused by the paradigm shift, or, in the terms I have used, the transformation of the dominant chronotope of modern social consciousness, has in some ways exacerbated the centrifugal tensions of the discipline, but has also had important positive results for anthropology. The dilution of the ideal of the nation-state as a culturally, and as far as possible ethnically homogeneous whole, and its replacement by synchronic cultural pluralism with multiculturalism and identity politics as its main ideological expressions, meant that culture and cultural difference took on new political meanings for many groups. Rather than a passive, historically inert attribute, as it had been regarded in much received anthropological thinking, culture came to be conceived of and actively manipulated by many groups as a political resource. The ethnic racial and cultural differences that had until recently been stigmata of inequality became transformed, in the new chronotope, into bases for claims of equality. These claims tended increasingly to be couched in universalistic terms of human rights and ethical imperatives rather than the laws of states. Peoples whose cultures anthropologists had objectied and analyzed as their own professional prerogative now asserted their own versions of their cultures, often borrowing the anthropologists terms for a concept they had not previously objectied in analogous terms in their own languages.

Downloaded from coa.sagepub.com at CAPES on June 2, 2012

19 Turner: Anthropology as Reality Show

Anthropologists often reacted ambivalently, noting that culture and cultural difference was now being dened by the new indigenous movements in ways that differed from the traditional forms of the same cultures as recorded by anthropologists. Many anthropologists felt, however, that they and their discipline could not remain on the sidelines, shaking their ngers and muttering Inauthentic! as their erstwhile subjects struggled to exploit the new historical opportunities afforded by culturally pluralistic societies, often making use of concepts and values borrowed from their own discipline. As the struggles of indigenous peoples and other cultural and ethnic minorities for rights, political equality and cultural autonomy assumed the proportions of a major cultural phenomenon in its own right, the line between participant observation and activist participation became increasingly difcult (or perhaps irrelevant) to draw (Turner, 1991b). At the same time, the efforts of the US government to employ anthropologists in clandestine research in aid of its wars against Third World peoples in Southeast Asia and elsewhere led to intense pressure by politically concerned anthropologists to spell out more clearly in general terms the ethical constraints governing what professional anthropologists can and cannot do in the conduct of research. The result of this conjuncture of historical forces in the 1970s and 1980s was that issues of ethics, the anthropological basis of and responsibility for human rights, and activism by anthropologists on behalf of peoples among whom they do research became foci of intense theoretical interest and political debate. Standing committees on ethics and human rights were formed, and ad hoc bodies were appointed to deal with specic issues of rights and ethically fraught questions like that of clandestine research and the activities of researchers among the Yanomami. In the elds of both ethics and rights, however, intense opposition to the application of general principles set out in the AAAs ofcial Code of Ethics or the statement on anthropology and human rights to the actions of individual members has led to periodic conicts and reversals of policy. The question of the compatibility of clandestine research with anthropological professional ethics is one context in which such conicts and reversals have occurred. The Ethics Committee began by formulating a set of Rules of Professional Responsibility and applying them to specic cases of actions by anthropological researchers and teachers, but was forced by concerns over the potential divisiveness of actions on individual cases and fears of legal complications to retreat from this policy to the more anodyne mission of education. Another controversial issue has been the attempt to formulate a specically anthropological basis for human rights, to work out how it might be reconciled with the claims of cultural relativity, and to create an institutional framework for active support of rights in specic cases by the professional association. The long-sputtering scandal over the ethics of anthropological research on the Yanomami, and the reluctant and ambivalent response by the profession and the AAA, has been, and

Downloaded from coa.sagepub.com at CAPES on June 2, 2012

20 Critique of Anthropology 26(1)

continues to be, a ash-point of controversy for a relatively small minority of members, and the occasion of massive indifference for the majority (Turner, 2002e, 2005a, 2005b, 2005c). The crisis precipitated by the hotel workers strike at the Hilton hotel that had been reserved as the site of the 2004 Annual Meeting, in which the leadership put off a decision until it was clear that a substantial proportion of the membership would not cross a picket line, and the leadership compromised by convening an ill-attended substitute meeting at another hotel of the same chain with the same antiunion policies (but no strike), may be recognized as another, if more limited case in the same category. All of these cases called upon both leaders and members of the AAA to take positions and participate in decision-making, or at least gave them the opportunity to do so. Analogous developments have occurred in connection with anthropological activism and applied anthropology. Activists have found themselves facing questions of what they are ultimately ghting for and how their activities may affect different groups within the communities in which they act. Many applied anthropologists have shifted the goals of their projects from increasing disposable capital or productive capacity in communities to attempting to increase, or at least to balance, the growth in empowerment of relatively disenfranchised groups within the community, such as women and junior men, rather than simply increasing the wealth and control over resources of the dominant group (e.g. senior men) in the received political system (Turner, 1995a). Speaking for myself, my early attempts to deal with dilemmas of activism such as the recognition that indigenous social systems were oppressive and exploitative towards some of their own members, and that some attempts of national governments to force changes upon them that might alleviate these egregious inequalities were therefore by some standards (which?) justied led me to my rst attempt to adapt Marxian value theory to the analysis of non-capitalist societies (Turner, 1979, 1984, 1999b, 2002a, 2002d). Further developments of an anthropological theory of value along the same lines, building in part on my work, have come from other activists, notably David Graeber (2001). Another theoretical issue that I have addressed by way of activism is that of representation in relatively simple non-Western cultures. Some 15 years ago I became engaged in an effort to provide the Kayapo Indians of Central Brazil with training and equipment to enable them to lm and edit videos of their own cultural and social life, as well as encounters with the ambient Brazilian society. One of the purposes of the Kayapo Video Project was to develop the Kayapos ability to objectify their own culture and their response to coexistence with the alien national culture in terms they could control, employing their own categories of representation and the construction of social reality. This project spawned controversies in the journals about a series of theoretical issues involved in indigenous uses of media, and related questions of social consciousness and representation (Turner, 1990a, 1990b, 1991a, 1992, 1995b, 1997a, 1997b, 2002b, 2002c).

Downloaded from coa.sagepub.com at CAPES on June 2, 2012

21 Turner: Anthropology as Reality Show

These and other contemporary examples of activism and applied projects bring together political and ethical concerns, but they also raise fundamental theoretical issues, associated with anthropologys imbrication in the changing historical situation of the peoples and cultural formations with which it works. They are total social facts in Mausss sense, but even more inclusive in that they include the involvement of anthropology, as discipline, profession, theoretical enterprise and individual researchers in the situations they study or otherwise deal with in their professional capacity. The struggles over ethics and the application, or applicability, of ethical principles have given rise to theoretical reections on the nature of anthropological research as a social activity involving effects upon, responsibilities to and rights of subjects. The anthropological statement on human rights prepared by the AAA Commission on Human Rights in 1993 produced a new formulation of the relevant anthropological meaning of human, and a balancing of the theoretical claims of such universalistic theoretical formulations and cultural relativism. The document rests its denition on the human capacity for self-production, and with it the production of culture, which necessarily entails cultural difference (1997b; Turner and Nagengast, 1997). This formulation, of course, has relevance beyond the sphere of human rights. Theoretically, it represents a move in the direction of praxis, or subjectively meaningful activity that is also materially objective and selfobjectifying. Such activity is the source and content of all social and cultural phenomena studied by anthropology as a scientic and/or humanistic discipline; it is likewise the object of anthropological activists in their efforts to promote the empowerment of the peoples and communities with whom they work. In anthropological terms it is the common ground of social, cultural, psychological and biological aspects of human behavior; as such it comprises the interconnections between the traditional four elds and other specializations that have developed as distinct sub-elds of the discipline. From the perspective of this unifying notion of praxis or activity, in sum, the theoretical questions that arise in relation to ethical and human rights issues, as well as activist and applied anthropological activities, are not specimens of a distinct (and lower) practical domain unconnected to pure theoretical research. On the contrary, the broad anthropological view of praxis gained through theoretical engagement with ethical and human rights issues and activist work offers the opportunity to fulll the promise of practice theory as developed by Bourdieu and Giddens in the 1990s. Practice theory failed to achieve its synthetic goals because its concept of the actor as subject and agent failed to develop beyond Durkheimian limits, and it never incorporated an analysis of value capable of bridging the gap between socially productive activity and subjective motivation. These have been precisely the areas in which the more recent theoretical work associated with activism and rights has made original and valuable theoretical contributions.

Downloaded from coa.sagepub.com at CAPES on June 2, 2012

22 Critique of Anthropology 26(1)

Unlike post-structuralist and postmodernist cultural theories, which have built themselves on the principles of difference, decentering and synchrony in uncritical attempts to embody the new chronotope of synchronic decentered pluralism, recent anthropological activism and work on human rights has proceeded on the basis of a more genuinely critical view of the contemporary historical situation of the peoples with whom they have been chiey concerned. Recognizing that the new chronotope and its social and political-economic conditions have opened up opportunities for cultural minorities to struggle for rights and greater autonomy, recent activist projects have also tacitly recognized that this is to a large degree the result of the fact that the sources of political control of the state, and the associated terms of cultural hegemony, have shifted out of the frame of the internal political-economic, ethnic and cultural system of the nationstate. The dominant class(es) within the state are those that control access to transnational capital in its various forms and institutional avatars. In an ironic but effective parallel, a number of anthropological activists have attempted to support the efforts of many indigenous groups and cultural minorities to escape the frame of the national cultures within which they are situated by carrying their struggles for recognition of their cultural differences and distinctive rights (territorial, political, social and cultural) to the transnational level. The new emphasis on universal rights, often phrased in cultural or ethnic terms, has been an important instrument for transcending the local political and legal systems of nation-states. This has helped to enable and legitimize indigenous groups participation in the United Nations, their collaboration with international NGOs specializing in environmentalist issues and human rights, participation in lm festivals and other media events, and, in general, their reaching out to international public opinion. The payoff has been increased leverage in their home countries in defense of their territorial rights and struggles for social and cultural autonomy. Whether explicitly or only implicitly, this new politics of indigenous and other cultural minority movements embodies a critical sense that the new chronotope of synchronic pluralism that has arisen in the context of transformations in the structure of the nation-state is not to be understood or acted upon in its own cultural terms, but rather by way of manipulation of the transnational forces and relations that have given rise to it. Anthropological activists who have engaged themselves in these movements have played a leading role in developing a critical theoretical understanding of the historical forces and transformations that have underlain the emergence of new cultural and social realities. These achievements have not been won by celebrating the decentering of structures and the irreality of historical narratives, but by centering their activities on the promotion and empowerment of the self-productive activity of those with whom they have worked, and aiding such groups in challenging and transforming the structures which affect their lives.

Downloaded from coa.sagepub.com at CAPES on June 2, 2012

23 Turner: Anthropology as Reality Show

References
Graeber, D. (2001) Toward an Anthropological Theory of Value: The False Coin of Our Own Desires. New York: Palgrave. Turner, T. (1979) Anthropology and the Politics of Indigenous Peoples Struggles, Cambridge Anthropology 5(1): 142. Turner, T. (1984) Dual Opposition, Hierarchy and Value: Moiety Structure and Symbolic Polarity in Central Brazil and Elsewhere, pp. 33570 in Jean-Claude Galey (ed.) Differences, Valeurs, Hierarchie: Textes Offerts Louis Dumont. Paris: ditions de Lcole des Hautes tudes en Sciences Sociales. Turner, T. (1990a) Visual Media, Cultural Politics, and Anthropological Practice: Some Implications of Recent Uses of Film and Video among the Kayapo of Brazil, CVA Review (spring): 813. (CVA = Commission on Visual Anthropology, Montreal). Reprinted in The Independent, Jan.Feb. 1991: 3440; also reprinted in Portuguese translation, Mdia visual, plitica cultural e pratica antropolgica, Cadernos de Antropologia e Imagem (Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro: Ncleo de antropologia e imagem) fall 1996: 17386. Turner, T. (1990b) The Kayapo Video Project: A Progress Report, CVA Review (fall): 710. Turner, T. (1991a) A signicativa politica e cultural de usos recentes de video pelos Kaiapo, pp. 99122 in O Indio Ontem, Hoje e Manha. So Paulo: Memorial da America Latina. Turner, T. (1991b) Representing, Resisting, Rethinking: Historical Transformations of Kayapo Culture and Anthropological Consciousness, pp. 285313 in G. Stocking (ed.) Colonial Situations: Essays on the Contextualization of Ethnographic Knowledge . The History of Anthropology, vol. 7. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Turner, T. (1992) Deant Images: The Kayapo Appropriation of Video, Anthropology Today 8(6): 515. Portuguese translation 1993, Imagens desaantes: a apropriaao Kaiapo do video, Revista de Antropologia (So Paulo) 36: 81122. Spanish translation, El desao de las imgenes: la apropriacin Kayap del video, pp. 397438 in F. Santos Granero (ed.) Globalizacin y cambio en la Amaznia indgena, vol. 1. Quito, Ecuador: FLACSO, Abya Yala. Turner, T. (1993) Anthropology and Multiculturalism: What Is Anthropology that Multiculturalists Should Be Mindful of It?, Cultural Anthropology 8(4). Reprinted 1995 in David Goldberg (ed.) Multiculturalism: A Reader. Oxford: Blackwell (pp. 40625); 1998 in Japanese journal, Gendai Shiso (special issue on Anthropology); 1998 in Hungarian translation in Multiculturalism Reader. Budapest: Osiris Kiad. Turner, T. (1995a) Redeveloping the Anthropology of Development, pp. 8897 in P. Punteney (ed.) Global Ecosystems: Creating Options through Anthropological Perspectives (National Association of Practicing Anthropologists Bulletin no. 15). Washington, DC: American Anthropological Association. Turner, T. (1995b) Representation, Collaboration and Mediation in Contemporary Ethnographic and Indigenous Media, Visual Anthropology Review 11(2): 1026. Turner, T. (1997a) Misrepresenting Indigenous Representation: Comment on Weiner, Current Anthropology 38(2): 2269. Turner, T. (1997b) Human Rights, Human Difference: Anthropologys Contribution to an Emancipatory Cultural Politics, Journal of Anthropological Research 53(3): 27391. Excerpt reprinted in C.W. Gowans (ed.) Moral Disagreements: A Reader. London. Routledge (pp. 11324).

Downloaded from coa.sagepub.com at CAPES on June 2, 2012

24 Critique of Anthropology 26(1) Turner, T. (1999a) Indigenous and Culturalist Movements in the Contemporary Global Conjuncture, pp. 5372 in F.F. Del Riego, M.G. Portasany, T. Turner, J.R. Llobera, I. Moreno and J.W. Fernandez, Las identidades y las tensiones culturales de modernidad. Santiago de Compostela: Federacin de Asociaciones de Antropologa del Estado Espaol. Turner, T. (1999b) Activism, Activity Theory, and the New Cultural Politics, pp. 11435 in S. Chaikin, M. Hedegaard and U. Juul Jensen (eds) Activity Theory and Social Practice. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press. Turner, T. (2002a) Shifting the Frame from Nation-state to Global Market: Class and Social Consciousness in the Advanced Capitalist Countries, Social Analysis: The International Journal of Social and Cultural Analysis 46(2): 5680. Turner, T. (2002b) Representation, Polyphony and the Construction of Power in a Kayapo Video, pp. 22950 in K. Warren and J. Jackson (eds) Indigenous Selfrepresentation in South America. Austin: University of Texas Press. Turner, T. (2002c) Representation, Politics, and Cultural Imagination in Indigenous Video: General Points and Kayapo Examples, pp. 7589 in F. Ginsburg, L. Abu-Lughod and B. Larkin (eds) Media Worlds: Anthropology on New Terrain. Berkeley: University of California Press. Turner, T. (2002d) Lo bello y lo comn: desigualdades de valor y jerarquia rotativa entre los kayapo, Revista de Antropologia Social 11(1): 20118. English version (2003), The Beautiful and the Common: Gender and Social Hierarchy among the Kayapo, Tipiti: The Journal of the Society for the Anthropology of Lowland South America 1(1): 1126. Turner, T. (2002e) The Yanomami and the Ethics of Anthropological Practice, Occasional Paper. Latin American Studies Program, Cornell University. Turner, T. (2003a) Clase, cultura y capitalismo. Perspectvas histricas y antropolgicas de la globalizacion, pp. 65110 in J.L. Garca and A. Baraano (eds) Culturas en contacto: encuentros y desencuentros. Madrid: Ministerio de Educacin, Cultura y Deporte, Secretaria General Tcnica, Subdireccin General de Informacin y Publicaciones. Turner, T. (2003b) Class Projects, Social Consciousness, and the Contradictions of Globalization, pp. 3566 in J. Friedman (ed.) Violence, the State and Globalization. New York: Altamira. Turner, T. (2004) Anthropological Activism, Indigenous Peoples and Globalization, pp. 193207 in C. Nagengast and C. Velez-Ibaez (eds) Human Rights, Power and Difference: The Scholar as Activist. Washington, DC: Society for Applied Anthropology. Turner, T. (2005a) Ethics in El Dorado: Patrick Tierneys Darkness in El Dorado and the Ensuing Controversy, pp. 14756 in R. Borofsky (ed.) Yanomami: The Fierce Controversy and What We Can Learn from It. Los Angeles: University of California Press. Available online as R. Borofsky (ed.) Yanomami Roundtable Forum, at website Public Anthropology: Engaging Ideas: http://www.publicanthropology.org Turner, T. (2005b) Anthropological Responsibilities, Scientic Ethics, and the Ideology of Science: What Do We Owe the Yanomami?, pp. 198209 in R. Borofsky (ed.) Yanomami: The Fierce Controversy and What We Can Learn from It. Los Angeles: University of California Press. Turner, T. (2005c) New Light on the Darkness: New Evidence and New Readings in the Tierney/Neel/Chagnon Controversy, pp. 27081 in R. Borofsky (ed.) Yanomami: The Fierce Controversy and What We Can Learn from It. Los Angeles: University of California Press. Turner, T. and C. Nagengast (eds) (1997) Introduction: Universal Human Rights versus Cultural Relativity, Journal of Anthropological Research 53(3[Special Issue on Human Rights]): 26972.

Downloaded from coa.sagepub.com at CAPES on June 2, 2012

25 Turner: Anthropology as Reality Show

Terry Turner taught anthropology for many years at the University of Chicago and Cornell University and has written many essays on topics ranging from social theory to activism. As he is the subject of this special issue of Critique of Anthropology, a fuller discussion of his intellectual biography appears in the introduction and a review of his published works appears in a selected bibliography on pp. 1337. Address: Department of Anthropology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA. [email: tst3@cornell.edu]

Downloaded from coa.sagepub.com at CAPES on June 2, 2012