Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 20
   

Ritual and Oratory Revisited:

   

The Semiotics of Effective Action

from www.annualreviews.org

 

Rupert Stasch

use only.

 

Department of Anthropology, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, California 92093-0532; email: rstasch@ucsd.edu

For personal

Downloaded

University on 07/29/12.

by Cornell 2011.40:159-174.

Annu. Rev. Anthropol.

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2011. 40:159–74

First published online as a Review in Advance on June 29, 2011

The Annual Review of Anthropology is online at anthro.annualreviews.org

This article’s doi:

Keywords

indexicality, iconicity, power, semiotic ideologies, poetics

Abstract

Scholars have converged on a theory that ritual involves poetically dense

   

10.1146/annurev-anthro-081309-145623

figuration of macrocosmic order in microcosmic action. I illustrate this

 

Copyright c 2011 by Annual Reviews. All rights reserved

by surveying work on how ritual and oratory involve coordination of action across multiple semiotic media. I review at greater length the “po- etic density” theory’s interest in how ritual and oratory causally shape

   

0084-6570/11/1021-0159$20.00

people’s worlds, and the theory’s interest in the edginess of ritual as a site of articulation between actors with disparate political positionalities. Much scholarship now examines norms of the pragmatics of sign use (not just signification’s semantics, so to speak) as being of a piece with the poetic, figurational organization of ritual and oratorical processes. This turn of attention is important for understanding what it means that ritual seems to be action about the organization of action itself. A final element in ritual and oratory’s poetic density surveyed here is their nesting in culturally variable ideologies of ritual and oratorical genres themselves.

159

from www.annualreviews.org

use only.

For personal

Downloaded

University on 07/29/12.

by Cornell 2011.40:159-174.

Annu. Rev. Anthropol.

Semiotic: having to do with signification, or ways in human experience that the presence of something also makes present something else

160

INTRODUCTION

Amid anthropology’s dramatic reorientations,

ritual has remained a core subject. Since its most recent treatment in the Annual Review of Anthropology (Kelly & Kaplan 1990), several thousand more anthropological journal articles and book chapters have been published on this topic, along with hundreds of monographs (for

a sample, see Kreinath et al. 2007). Roughly

one article is published in each issue of American Ethnologist and the Journal of the Royal Anthropo-

logical Institute alone. By comparison, anthropo- logical work on “oratory” narrowly conceived has been less prodigious. But already when this

smaller topic was last reviewed (Parkin 1984), anthropologists increasingly saw research on oratory as inextricably part of a wider field of inquiry into efficacy and authority in language use generally (surveyed by Brenneis 1988, Gal 1989, and Bauman & Briggs 1990). This wider field has now further burgeoned. Treating oratory and ritual together does, however, suggest a principle of selectivity. As speech to a listening collectivity that is un- derstood to have potentially powerful conse- quences by dint of the speech’s own qualities, oratory is a form of persuasion through repre- sentation. It involves making present via lan- guage of what is otherwise not present, in a manner that might lead people to deepen or al- ter convictions about social goods. On the ritual side, the clearest parallels and overlaps with or- atory scholarship will lie in writing that takes ritual as also fundamentally semiotic and that

is concerned with how rituals’ organization as

representations bears on those rituals’ forma- tive contributions to social life. Given this, I privilege here a single theory of ritual toward which anthropological studies have long converged. The first section outlines the heart of this theory: Ritual involves excep- tionally dense representation of spatiotempo- rally wider categories and principles in an inter- actional here-now. After a brief section tracing how this theory is exemplified in work on co- ordination of ritual and oratorical signs across multiple semiotic media, I then review a va- riety of ways ritual and oratory’s figurational

Stasch

processes have world-making effects and are closely tied to politics and history. Last, I dis- cuss scholarship examining cultural variability in definition and evaluation of ritual and ora- tory as such.

RITUAL AS POETICALLY DENSE FIGURATION OF MACROCOSMIC ORDER IN MICROCOSMIC ACTION

It is probably a feature of human activities at large that they involve assimilation of partic- ulars to generals and vice versa. Action is the linking of specific times, spaces, and situations to more spatiotemporally expansive categorial types and norms, even when these categories are tacit, partial, plural, or unsettled. In this sense, all action is representation, and all ac- tion is tropic figuration: Certain things support and evoke the presence of other things that are different from them, as when a highly particu- lar act makes present an abstract norm. And all action is characterized by tensions of the pres- ence in concrete practice of spatiotemporal lay- ers that are “other” to that concreteness. Anthropological work has converged to- ward a theory that what defines ritual is the unusual density in it of representational rela- tions of the kind just sketched. A ritual event is characterized by the exceptional quantity and vividness of the general types that are felt as present in its concrete particulars. Further, this piling on of links between a microcosmic space- time of ritual action and larger macrocosmic spacetimes requires and implies a great density of links between different elements within the microcosm of concrete ritual actions. Two mutually correlative levels of dense figuration are brought into existence through ritual’s markedly constrained and elaborate forms of action: a level of dense semiotic links between elements internal to the ritual scene, and a level of links between this concrete scene and its multiple “other scenes” of more expansive, ab- stract, or tacit categories and principles. (Here, “macrocosmic” is a placeholder, not meant to constrain what might count as a “cosmological”

from www.annualreviews.org

use only.

For personal

Downloaded

University on 07/29/12.

by Cornell 2011.40:159-174.

Annu. Rev. Anthropol.

element, beyond the premise that it is greater in spatiotemporal reach or in determination of human affairs than are microcosmic elements.) Aspects of this theory have been presented in many vocabularies. Babcock (1978) describes ritual as characterized by a “surplus” of signi- fiers and signifieds. Kapferer (1997) suggests that ritual involves a correspondence between bodily motions and motions of consciousness. Refining an earlier concept of ritual as “ef- ficacious representation,” Valeri (1985) sug- gests that ritual fosters “model experiences” (pp. 345–47) in which participants encounter objects symbolic of implicit presuppositions of action. Rampton (2002, p. 492) posits that ritual helps people get past difficult “changes or problems in the flow of ordinary life” by “draw[ing] on symbolic material that holds spe- cial significance above and beyond the prac- tical requirements of the here-and-now” (also Duranti 1994; Hanks 2000, p. 241; Gaenszle 2002, pp. 112–71). Houseman & Severi (1998) argue that ritual is distinguished by the mul- tiplicity of normally incompatible aspects of everyday life that it unifies. Tambiah (1985) holds that “rites enact and incarnate cosmo- logical conceptions” and that in them “redun- dant patterns fuse into one configurational to- tality” (p. 153). Parmentier (1994) states that “rituals are not just structured; they are ‘hyper- structured’ in that these cultural forms literally call out: behold the structure!” (p. 129). Mines (2005) traces the quality of “density” cultivated by the material organization of Tamil temple festivals (pp. 157–67). This consensus is also discernible in a dominant genre feature of empirical books and articles. Anthropologists’ practice is to draw connections between a ritual form and broader features of its sociocultural context. These fea- tures could be wide conceptual, political, and moral structures such as a sex-gender system or a configuration of conflicting class position- alities, and they could be unfolding historical experiences such as a heritage of colonial dom- ination or an incipient process of economic upheaval. There is much variation in the kinds and directions of causal and conceptual linkage

that authors see between ritual and surrounding conditions, but these linkages are nonetheless ones of making present: Something contains within itself in partial, displaced, refracted form the echo and fate of something else. Scholar- ship that proceeds in this mode is semiotic in actual orientation even when not in name. Within this theory, one step of further en- gagement with ritual’s organization has been recognition of indexicality as a distinctive mode of signification, in which a signifier makes present something else through a felt quality of causal and spatiotemporal contiguity, as when a knocking sound makes present an idea that someone is on the other side of a door and wishes it to be opened. This step invites analysts to appreciate that ritual actions are composed not just of a large quantity of semiotic layers but also composed of a density of different kinds of representational links by which one thing can make another present. Influenced sometimes by Jakobson’s (1960) theory that poetic ef- fects in language use are created through dense juxtaposition in contiguous text of elements standing in relations of likeness-and-difference, or by related lectures and publications of Silverstein (e.g., 2003, p. 41), many authors have analyzed rituals as involving close in- teraction between indexical sign relations and iconic ones (Caton 1986, 1993; Kratz 1994; Keane 1997b; Stasch 2003; Shoaps 2009, p. 460; see also Turner 1991, using a vocabulary of metaphor and metonymy). Ritual is composed of densely crisscrossing indexical and iconic relations between its different internal ele- ments and of densely crisscrossing indexical and iconic relations between the ritual spacetime and larger macrocosmic orders made present in that spacetime. This idea can be illustrated even by a reduced ritual such as a handshake, which involves close relations of iconic and indexical coordination between acts of sight, touch, speech, and facial expression, as well as dense indexical iconicities between the narrow spacetime of the physical handshake and the more expansive definition of participants’ bond at levels of affect, morality, knowledge,

www.annualreviews.org Ritual and Oratory Revisited

Indexicality: mode of signification involving

a felt quality of causal,

spatiotemporal

contiguity between one element and what

it additionally makes

present

Poetics: relations of

patterned similarity and difference between elements in a performed series of semiotic acts, giving the series aesthetic

force

Iconicity: mode of

signification involving

a felt quality of

likeness between one element and what it additionally makes

present

161

from www.annualreviews.org

use only.

For personal

Downloaded

University on 07/29/12.

by Cornell 2011.40:159-174.

Annu. Rev. Anthropol.

obligation, or memory. Another image for getting across the theory would be the type of map containing a “You are here” arrow or dot that is often found at malls, campuses, and airports. Like such a map, a ritual makes

present in a small sensory space a picture of larger, more diffuse spatiotemporal orders. The ritual act and the larger order it projects are not just iconically but indexically in each other. Interpreting a “You are here” sign, a pedestrian is in the plane of the map itself, as the arrow or colored dot labeled “here.” Conversely, the map is in the plane of the macrocosm, by virtue of being mounted in a particular location in that space. The viewer, by linking the cartographic sign’s “you” and “here” to the “here” of where he or she stands, has a model experience of locatedness within a wider world. An actual “You are here” sign is semiotically simple and determinate, but imagine if what is depicted on such a sign consisted not just of buildings but of layers upon layers of other scales and categories of space, time, action, history, personhood, and social morality. Imagine too if within the sign’s plane there are multiple “You are here” arrows, wrought in different media, but each connect- ing the small scene of ritual action indexically and iconically to larger spatiotemporal orders. This understanding of ritual solves a contra- diction between two commonly encountered theoretical intuitions. On the one hand, ritual is widely agreed to be a marked activity set apart from everyday life and not reducible to it (e.g., Babcock 1978; Smith 1987; Handelman 1990; Kapferer 2004, p. 37). On the other, scholars regularly affirm that ritual is not easily distinguishable from daily life but is an aspect or potential of all action, such that a notion of “ritualization” might be preferable to “ritual” itself (e.g., Humphrey & Laidlaw 1994, p. 3; Sax 2010, p. 4). Numerous studies document the pervasive presence of ritual qualities in everyday settings (Csordas 1997, Enfield 2009, Haviland 2009). The theory of ritual as characterized by poetic density of signification likewise understands ritual as a matter of degree: Ritual intensifies features common to human activity at large. But the theory also

signification about the activity of signification

Metasemiosis:

162

Stasch

understands differences of degree in this area to amount to a difference in kind. The more elaborate an act’s poetic density, the more the act stands out from other actions as metasemi- otic (or metacommunicative, after Bateson 1972), a reflexive meditation on semiotic interconnection as a condition of activity.

RELATIONS ACROSS MEDIA AND GENRES

One topic of inquiry through which scholars have converged on the understanding of rit- ual as poetically dense figuration is interaction between semiotic processes in different media. That ritual events unfold in multiple coordi- nated media has been well appreciated since at least the deepening of the quality of accounts of ritual prompted by Victor Turner’s work. However, scholars have recently gone further in examining how ritual and oratorical events involve proliferation of parallel, contrasting, or complementary signifying effects in different media, fostering dense links of iconicity and in- dexicality across an event’s elements and mak- ing the principles signified by those elements all the more vivid and convincing by virtue of being reflected on many different surfaces (e.g., Kratz 1994). Studying male oratory in an Amazonian so- ciety, for example, Graham (1993) examines how spatial and sensory arrangement of partic- ipants’ bodies (including their physical voices) contributes to the quality of the polity made through their talk. Lying on their backs out- doors at night and frequently overlapping their speech, orators do not speak as or toward in- dividual persons. Rather, the polyvocal, de- personalizing physical arrangements of speak- ing are indexical and iconic of messages of balanced consensus between political factions that are also the denoted content of the talk (compare Duranti 1994; Yankah 1995; Basso 2009, p. 266). Bate (2009) examines the mul- tisensory reorganization of urban space that is integral to oratory in Tamil electoral ral- lies. Concerning cassette sermons in Cairo, Hirschkind (2006) underlines the piety felt to inhere in qualities of the human voice as such,

from www.annualreviews.org

use only.

For personal

Downloaded

University on 07/29/12.

by Cornell 2011.40:159-174.

Annu. Rev. Anthropol.

and the ways that sermon listening’s force is relationally dependent on urban space’s sen- sory monotony. Talk’s iconic and indexical co- ordination with other semiotic channels has been particularly fruitfully examined in re- search on ritual speech and on relations of semi- otic complementarity between speech and ma- terial valuables in ritual exchange (Merlan & Rumsey 1991, p. 219; Keane 1997b; Robbins 2001b; Jackson 2003; Demmer 2007). Just as work on oratory has often exam- ined linkages of speech and space, so too a main concern of scholarship on rituals more generally has been their dense relations with buildings, settlement space, and landscape (e.g., Sather 1993, Santos-Granero 1998, Stasch 2003, Mines 2005). Often issues of a ritual’s links to spatial forms lead also to questions of a ritual’s intertemporal links with other events. As Kratz (2009) shows, dense iconic and index- ical “resonance” is not only an internal feature of a ritual but also an aspect of its relation to ritual forms performed at other times. An allied tendency in research on oratory has been increasing attention to formal politi- cal speech’s dense interdependencies with other expressive genres. Authors have examined re- lations of antipathy between oratorical forms and gossip (Brenneis 1984, Besnier 2009), po- litical cartoons ( Jackson 2012), or enraged pub- lic invective (Kulick 1993). But these authors also document links of permeability, appro- priation, and tropic refiguration across genres. Knowing the internal makeup of an oratori- cal form and assessing the form’s cultural con- sequentiality require study of the wider field of semiotic genres within which it is situated (Merlan & Rumsey 1991, Briggs 1992, Duranti 1994, Manning 2007, Shoaps 2009). Many of these researchers show that the dialectics of genre are a main site of the dialectics of social domination along lines of gender or class. Main stratificatory dimensions of oratory are not vis- ible without the comparative genre analysis.

WORLD-MAKING

Kelly & Kaplan (1990) emphasized ritual’s links to politics and history. This family of issues

has further grown in prominence since their review and is probably the most robust area of anthropologists’ current engagement with ritual’s paradoxical framing as both separated from and joined with its surrounding environ- ment: at once an alternative activity tinged by otherness and an activity linked to its wider con- text by lines of causal and conceptual force. The world-making consequentiality of rituals continues to be a core concern. Most exponents of the theoretical consensus in- troduced above do not prejudge the relative priority of microcosmic and macrocosmic orders but expect these to be coconstitutive. By fostering dense patterns of figuration among ritual elements, as well as dense link- ages between a microcosmic spacetime and wider macrocosms, ritual actors often causally bootstrap into existence the very macrocosmic conditions the rituals represent, including forms of political subordination, visions of political community, or economic structures (Wells & McAnany 2008). For semiotically oriented scholars, describing ritual’s world- making effects has been part of a larger project to unwind and dispel the persistent folk idea that a representation is a nonreal portrayal of preexisting real entities. Rather, processes of signification are of the order of causality and materiality, simultaneous to being of the order of ideas. A person or village might be a sign, making present—and made present by—other entities such as a god, a moral principle, or a history (Mines 2005, p. 55). But the person or village is no less real for that, and it may be through the fleshly, dusty sign’s involvement in causal chains that it makes present its meanings. Studies of oratory have been among the richest empirical demonstrations of the material and political constitutiveness of signi- fication. Caton (1987, 1990) shows that artful speaking is the substance of power and political order, rather than secondary to it, in Middle Eastern “segmentary” communities (also Silverstein 2005, Demmer 2007). One way basic political conditions of people’s lives are created through linguistic representation lies in defining the agents of action. Writing about

www.annualreviews.org Ritual and Oratory Revisited

163

from www.annualreviews.org

use only.

For personal

Downloaded

University on 07/29/12.

by Cornell 2011.40:159-174.

Annu. Rev. Anthropol.

Pragmatics: aspects of signification having to do with sign use, such as models of the relations between talk, speakers, and hearers

164

oratorical mediation of political life in highland New Guinea, Merlan & Rumsey (1991) trace how social groups “are at once problematical semiotic constructions and of very real material consequence” (p. 35) by documenting the steadily reflexive, interactive character of the person reference forms used to depict who

is transacting with whom at major exchange

events. Rumsey (1999, pp. 63–64; 2000) further examines implications of speakers’ use of first person singular “I” forms to refer to social groups, following up on Sahlins (1985). Rumsey also explores political implications of the co- occurrence of different construals of a person-

to-collectivity relation within a single stretch

of discourse, or even within single pronominal

tokens. Duranti (1994) and Jackson (2012) dis- cuss oratorical avoidance of syntactic patterns that strongly attribute agency to particular actors, and the force of exceptions indexing a speaker’s unusually high status or a project to introduce a new political dispensation. What this literature is partly addressing is the way the pragmatics of speaking is itself made a figural medium, through and around which macrocosmic sensibilities about power

and polity are projected (Silverstein 2005, Lempert 2012). Efforts to define ritual typi- cally highlight that it is action which is highly conventional, or carried out in adherence to

a rule. To quote Parmentier (1994) again,

“[R]itual actions are not just conventional, they

are so conventionalized that they highlight or call attention to the rules, that is, to the pattern, model, or semiotic type which the ritual action instantiates” (p. 133). This adherence to a received form is often felt to involve distancing of action from the voluntaristic personal intentionality of those who perform it. Ritual participants frequently do not consider them- selves to be authors of the forms they enact, or

of those forms’ efficacy. This is a point empha-

sized by the definition of Rappaport (1999),

and it is a point that leads Bloch (1974 and elsewhere) to characterize ritual as, in effect, an antipolitics. Yet coexisting with the opening of space between act and de novo personal volition

is the strong sense that ritual centrally consists

Stasch

of action and is reflexively about action. The ritual act “becomes its own object” (Turner 2006, p. 236), such that we might even think of ritualists as among the original practice the- orists. Scholars of oratory have given extensive attention to questions of the relation between speakers and their speech, and to ways that the defining of these pragmatic arrangements is a site of figuration of what people are to each other politically. Work on the relation between actor and act in ritual (and on this relation’s political implications) might look to this liter- ature for clues about empirical and theoretical possibilities other than the antipolitics account. Allied with patterns in the pronominal and syntactic representation of personhood, another tendency widely documented by linguistic anthropologists is the widespread occurrence of pragmatic representations of dis- tance between orators and their utterances that may work paradoxically to give these speakers a stronger voice. Declarations of personal inade- quacy or respectful subordination to superiors separate talk from the speaker’s own will or self-regard, but also tacitly invite audiences’ ratification of that speaker as authoritative (Bauman 1992; Basso 2009, pp. 258–59; Jackson 2012). Irvine (1992) looks at how genre formalities of an insult practice allow evasion of responsibility for the slight (compare Shoaps 2009). Agha (1997) traces gaps between orators’ overt portrayals of their manner of spoken interaction and their actual practice, enabling “aggression” to hide in plain sight. Du Bois (1986) and Keane (1997b) explore elaborate gradations of distance between ritual speakers and their speech, including attribution of authorship to ancestors or deities. Often these patterns in social deferral of authorship and mediated voicing of authority are in relations of mutual iconicity and indexicality with use of special registers experienced as obscure, archaic, “deep,” “beautiful,” “good,” or foreign (Duranti 1994, Engelke 2004, Basso 2009, Bate 2009). Rampton (2002) analyzes British adolescents’ use of German fragments in peer conversation as ambivalent meditations on the emotion and political organization of

from www.annualreviews.org

use only.

For personal

Downloaded

University on 07/29/12.

by Cornell 2011.40:159-174.

Annu. Rev. Anthropol.

classroom interaction with their foreign lan- guage teacher. Dialogic presence of multiple agents of speaking in single utterances has been

a core theme of work on oratory and ritual

speech (Duranti & Brenneis 1986; Agha 1997; Gaenszle 2002; Demmer 2007, p. 49). Often participation frameworks of delegation or diffusion of oratorical roles are important to making speech unattributable to a single voice (Graham 1993, Yankah 1995, Keane 1997b). Social networks of transmission and repetition of speech iconically and indexically

support the sense of its divine emanation (Engelke 2004) or other qualities of social and ontological distance between beings involved

in the communication (Keane 1997a,b; Hanks

2000). Tomlinson (2004) underlines how Fijian solicitation of divine aid through prayer not only resolves afflictions but also deepens supplicants’ sense of powerlessness. Across

these diverse cases, power has something of a

Maussian feel: A speaker affiliates to it by giving

it up or by entering into delicate dances of

checking and rechecking the interdependence and boundaries of one’s own personhood vis- a-vis` consociates and divinities. Another overlapping emphasis has been on how speech forms are densely indexical and iconic of understandings of the social and moral relation of speakers and listeners. The listen- ing relation in some settings may itself be a ba- sic model of subordination (Hirschkind 2006), whereas in others it is conceived as a relation of joint responsibility or mutual completion ( Jackson 2012; Kuipers 1998, pp. 74–76). Else- where, orientation to the listener—rather than expression of the speaker—is a template of the social as such (Robbins 2001a). Numerous au- thors (e.g., Bate 2009, Jackson 2012, Lempert 2011) are broadly concerned with ways ora- tory creates its audiences by addressing them in particular modes, a concern overlapping with scholarship on formation of “publics” through specific modes of mass-mediated communica- tive address (Cody 2011, this volume). While demonstrating that the poetics and pragmatics of how orators speak shape people’s notions of polity and their convictions about

specific political decisions, the above-noted lin- guistic anthropological works also empirically underline the partiality and indeterminacy of specific efforts of speech-based world-making. This theme has also been central to the theoret- ical convergence in studies of ritual. Intrinsic to the idea of ritual as hyperelaboration of semiotic relationalities is that there are too many of these links in play, that they conflict with each other (albeit sometimes systematically so), and that as an “other” formation in relation to what lies be- yond it, ritual principles will be pitched against competing macrocosmic understandings not signified by the ritual except by occlusion (Valeri 1985, p. xi; Handelman 1990, p. 9). These are some of the forces leading toward such generalizations as that “a custom does not become ‘a ritual’ until people can disagree about its meaning” (Humphrey & Laidlaw 1994, p. 12). A ritual “You are here” sign coexists and competes with other such signs, only succeeds partially and provisionally in convincing any- one of a macrocosmic order’s existence, and ap- pears to different persons as containing very dif- ferent macrocosmic maps and guiding arrows. One nuanced ethnography of political di- mensions of ritual figuration is Mines’s (2005) study of caste politics in Tamil temple festivals. Issues such as the “village”-defining path of in- clusion and exclusion taken by a procession, or the order and manner in which audiences gain access to a deity’s gifts of ash, are focused sites at which economically rising castes revise the vil- lage’s heritage of Brahmin ascendancy, and at which members of enduringly dominated castes struggle with hierarchy’s indignities (on proces- sions, see also Schnell 1999, Bryan 2000). Many other authors similarly show rituals to be flash points of political conflict, around which people are provoked to articulate new discontent with structures of inequality (e.g., Smith 2004). Like Mines and others, Merlan & Rumsey (1991) draw on categories from Voloshinov or Bakhtin to characterize how conflicting evaluations can adhere to the same acts, as when certain com- munity members label as “insane” (pp. 192, 219) the New Guinea women who successfully inno- vated a previously unknown oratorical practice.

www.annualreviews.org Ritual and Oratory Revisited

165

from www.annualreviews.org

use only.

For personal

Downloaded

University on 07/29/12.

by Cornell 2011.40:159-174.

Annu. Rev. Anthropol.

Kuipers (2009) shows how in certain interethnic social events, multiple and shifting ritual codes are brought to bear on the definition of what is going on, such that explaining a sequence of events requires laying bare the specific macro- cosmic implications that different actors under- stood as immanent in their particular actions of the here-and-now (compare also George 1996, Schrauwers 2000, Hatfield 2010). Keane (1997b) shows that among an east- ern Indonesian people, a main focus of ora- torical as well as extralinguistic ritual signs is the difficulty and uncertainty of ritual signifi- cation itself. This difficulty is due in part to the otherness of the parties who relate to each other via ritual acts, including their differences of political positionality and the uncertainties of whether and how they have a common po- litical community. Keane’s turn of analysis of- fers a fruitful path by which to grasp the thor- oughly semiotic character of ritual politics and to make use of the rich semiotic evidence avail- able for spelling out the shape of that politics in a given case. One aspect of Keane’s study is its demonstration of how much ritual is cen- trally composed of participants’ awareness and representation of possibilities of ritual acts fail- ing, being misperformed, or leading to harm (also Schieffelin 1996, Howe 2000, Stasch 2003, H usken¨ 2007). This is one aspect of the larger pattern of ritual being pervasively metasemiotic in character, and one illustration of the point that ritual is action about action. Sign use it- self is a central site and object of ritual’s dense figurativeness, such that the tropes of ritual are pragmatic, not (just) semantic. Often the main way a ritual unfolds is through representation about how to perform a correct, successful rit- ual. So too it is well established that a central feature of oratorical discourse and its politi- cal efficacy is meta-oratorical discourse about oratory’s appropriate conduct and definition (Merlan & Rumsey 1991; Duranti 1994; Manning 2007; Jackson 2012, updating Ochs

1973).

Ritual’s siting at the intersection of differ- ences of social and political positionality, and capacity to provoke or mediate such differences,

166

Stasch

has also been addressed through continued work on classic issues of suspension or trans- gression of everyday norms, as a signature form of ritual’s figural density. Studies examine the association of rituals with boundary zones foundational to the distribution of social power (Aggarwal 2001) and single rituals’ promotion

of heterogeneous or contradictory overarching

principles (Waldman 2003; Sanders 2008, pp. 139–59). In many cases, analysts emphasize the systematic character of the contradictions themselves, finding in the ritual form an

expression of some condition of dialectical interrelation and mutual irreducibility between incompatible and yet conjoined alternatives (Handelman 1990, p. 30; Hammoudi 1993; Kratz 1994, p. 231; Houseman & Severi 1998; Brightman 1999; Werbner 2001). Ongoing attention to ritual’s consequential- ity in shaping material and political worlds has been matched by inquiry into ritual’s efficacy in making cognitive and emotional worlds as well. Another feature of the theoretical consensus about ritual is that it does not prejudge that dense signification (including the macrocosmic conditions iconically and indexically signified by ritual forms) is of a separate order from personal subjectivity. Many empirical studies have contradicted early statements by Tam- biah (1985), that ritual’s formulaicness fosters emotional distance, or by Bloch (1975), that formulaicness occludes thought and agency. An attitudinal imperative to “pay attention”

is regularly noted to be a basic aspect of ritual

(e.g., MacAloon 1984, Handelman 1990),

a subjective correlative of ritual’s semiotic

density. And even when participants are not

exactly understood as a ritual form’s authors, ritual is often characterized by experiences

of lack of distance between personal volition

and the skillful act (Schieffelin 2006), as well

as aesthetic and bodily pleasure. Concerning

Islamic women’s daily prayer in Egypt and Iran,

respectively, Mahmood (2001) and Haeri (n.d.) explore how repetitive, disciplinary perfor- mance of formulaic actions can foster deepened rather than reduced senses of self-expression and emotional involvement with an addressed

from www.annualreviews.org

use only.

For personal

Downloaded

University on 07/29/12.

by Cornell 2011.40:159-174.

Annu. Rev. Anthropol.

other. Many further studies similarly trace paths of reciprocal uptake and transformation between subjective experience and collective or impersonal levels of ritual form (Dussart 2000, Cole 2004, Mines 2005, Du Bois 2009). Issues of ritual’s causal efficacy and po- litical loadedness are difficult to separate from numerous facets of the intimate relation between ritual and history. Many works tell histories of social upheaval through the lens of transformations in a specific ritual or show how rituals represent practitioners’ historical con- sciousness (Hoskins 1993, George 1996, Bucko 1998, Schnell 1999, Spyer 2000, Smith 2004). These and other studies look at the shifting sig- nificance of ritual complexes as points through which people define themselves relative to pow- erful regional or extraregional others (Williams 2003, Wibbelsman 2009). There is growing work on ritual as a site of intercultural artic- ulation between regional neighbors through reciprocities of participation across differences of form ( Jackson 2003); through individual and collective schismogenesis concerning the value, conduct, or appropriate exegesis of specific ritual practices (Nourse 1999); and through interethnic exchange of ritual forms or careful exclusion of ethnic others from ritual access (Harrison 1992, Poirier 1992, Wiessner & Tumu 1998, De Jong 2007). Studies also document the opening of fissures between rit- ual practices and their social contexts (Snyder 1997, Waldman 2003), leading even to radical disavowal of a ritual system (e.g., Tuzin 1997). There is also a large literature on ritual revi- talization or genesis in relation to new political and economic structures projecting definitions of what rituals are and who should have them or offering new kinds of resources to support earlier ritual projects (e.g., Adams 1997, Saez´ 2004, Rudolph 2008). Addressing a common theme, Munn (1995) interprets a ritual’s dense orchestration of historical memory and forget- ting, here on the scale of personal remembrance of shared lives with kin. Vast numbers of studies document the innovation or recontextualiza- tion of ritual forms in sociocultural modernity, not only under conditions of postcolonial

economic or political distress but also in bourgeois, industrialized, or settler-colonist- dominated social locations (e.g., Comaroff & Comaroff 1993, Shaw 2003, Kendall 2008, Hellweg 2009, Roberts 2010). Many authors address articulations between rituals and state formation (Bowie 1997), in some cases tracing patterns of divergence or only partial appropriation between ritual activities and the formal political sphere (e.g., Lomnitz 1995, Malarney 1996, Kandiyoti & Azimova 2004, Paulson 2006). One important feature of the consequen- tial ritual figuration of historical temporality, and a basic locus of rituals’ semiotic density, is the frequent nesting in rituals of multiple scales of time and scales of a temporalized so- cial field. This includes the common experience that ritual events have an evenemential quality of intense singularity, as well as of typicality. Venbrux (1995, p. 71) details how a specific 1988 performance of a mourning ritual by Tiwi islanders, while centrally linking the temporal- ity of survivors’ mourning for one man to ritual forms of the longer run, also included a song and exchange of objects alluding to a famous ambush of the early 1900s. This ambush was in turn intertextual with land-focused narratives of a mythological timescale, but was also brought up as an oblique warning to a specific partic- ipant in the 1988 performance who was be- ing excessively willful in marriage politics. This man was murdered by an unknown assailant two weeks after the performance. Although it is a well-established practice to link ritual to political economy and history, studies vary a great deal in whether they give an account of ritual as having an “internal” relation to temporality and to power: in other words, whether they provide a nonreductionist account of ritual operations, in their formal details, as being reflexively about the defining of temporal succession, temporal now-ness, and intertemporal relations and about the constitution of social authority. The elaborate figurational makeup of ritual practices is proba- bly best understood to be not in time and power as its external containers, but of time and power

www.annualreviews.org Ritual and Oratory Revisited

167

from www.annualreviews.org

use only.

For personal

Downloaded

University on 07/29/12.

by Cornell 2011.40:159-174.

Annu. Rev. Anthropol.

in the sense of being consubstantial with them. From the side of semiotic approaches to ritual, giving explicit accounts of how this works will probably mean even further increasing the focus on spatiotemporally situated sign use as itself not external to signification but a main site and object of ritual’s figurational density.

Linguistic ideologies: language users’ tacit or overt reflexive sensibilities about language, and their sensibilities about specific modes of its use

Semiotic ideologies:

sign users’ reflexive sensibilities about the definition, value, and effects of different semiotic systems they use

One important feature of recent research on ritual’s relation to history and politics has been deepened concern with cross-cultural and

cross-historical variability in people’s ideolo- gies of ritual, following the lead of literature on linguistic ideologies in particular or semi- otic ideologies generally (Keane 2006). Here “ritual” is understood to be not universal or constant, but dependent for its definition and flourishing on reflexive models about ritual. A similar insight has been a central area of inno- vation in recent work on oratory. Indeed, ad- vances in scholarship on ritual and oratory alike in these areas have often been led by work on ritual speech or work that examines interplay in single societies between ideologies of nonverbal ritual and ideologies of language. Robbins (2001a,b; 2007) explores one New Guinea people’s ideological distrust of language as a medium for knowing personal intentions or social states and their high esteem for ritual exchange of tangible objects as reliable measures of truth (see also Merlan & Rumsey 1991). Contrasting this configuration with Protestantism’s valuing of sincere spoken expression of subjective interiority and distrust of ritual, Robbins suggest that these variations in semiotic ideology are a main site of cultural and moral struggle in processes of religious conversion (also Keane 2006, Schieffelin 2007, Seligman et al. 2008, Bate 2010). Kohn (2002) describes a situation in which incomers enact- ing ritual emblems of belonging are tolerated but are not received as insiders unless they en- gage in appropriate everyday social interaction.

IDEOLOGICAL VARIATION IN THE DEFINITION AND VALUE OF RITUAL OR ORATORY

168

Stasch

Such cases illustrate that ritual efficacy is medi- ated by culturally particular sensibilities about what ritual should look like, whether it should be practiced, what it can do, and what else it should be combined with. Other work has sought to historicize the category “ritual” itself to particular political conditions (Asad 1993, Pemberton 1994) or has attempted to typolo- gize kinds of rituals associated with fundamen- tally different institutional formations (Han- delman 1990, Humphrey & Laidlaw 1994). Research on oratory has similarly explored oratorical forms’ cross-cultural embeddedness in language ideologies different from the indi- vidualistic and reference-focused models dom- inating European theory. In her already- mentioned account of political speech in an Amazonian society, Graham (1993) argues that Xavante assumptions that relations between persons are the locus of political agency contrast with a Habermasian ideology of political pro- cess as emerging out of communication of in- dividual intentions. This case underscores that different oratorical forms consist of culturally and contextually particular clusters of commu- nicative norms (also Basso 2009; Besnier 2009, pp. 120–83; Manning 2007, pp. 192–93) and that the folk model of oratory as necessarily a matter of “a single apical figure addressing some multitude” (Bate 2009, p. 50) is only one pos- sibility among others. In his own study, Bate (2009) charts how Tamil campaign oratory is oriented by a model of the desirability of de- votional proximity to superiors, with audiences or cospeakers signifying through subordination their own participation in the power of the praised. He examines the related paradox of the postcolonial democratic turn toward a cre- ated register of “beautiful,” archaicism-marked Tamil not controlled by the very audiences who are persuasively moved by it. In work on the Malagasy oratorical practice of kabary classically discussed by Ochs (1973), Jackson (2008, 2009) explores how this genre is embedded in notions that a speaker’s role is not to deliver an ultimate message but to share a path of thought that audiences can

from www.annualreviews.org

use only.

For personal

Downloaded

University on 07/29/12.

by Cornell 2011.40:159-174.

Annu. Rev. Anthropol.

themselves take in and engage with. She quotes one kabary teacher’s statement on the craft of indirectness: “Metaphor is a must. That is how

Malagasy people prefer to hear what one has to tell them. They prefer it this way, in a curvy

which is a way that calls for some

thinking and reflection, and not too direct, too direct” ( Jackson 2012). This contradicts Bloch’s (1975) oft-criticized thesis, emerging out of his own Malagasy fieldwork, that oratori- cal form is a tool of mystification and social con- trol. Here instead subtle speech is a provoca-

tion to reasoning, indexical and iconic of subtle thought and of a subtle and considerate speaker- to-audience social relation (also Caton 1990). Jackson further examines, though, how during the 2002 presidential campaign and initial in- cumbency of Marc Ravalomanana the ideology of kabary as communal meaning-making was temporarily eclipsed by a competing model that oratory should index a speaker’s internal moral nature.Working with professional electoral ad- visors from the United States, this politician emphasized referential directness, and he stig- matized poetic properties of kabary as tied to corruption, deception, and lack of real politi- cal results. The newness of a form of gover- nance was iconically indexed by the difference and newness of a speech style. Linguistic anthropologists have also in- creasingly studied oratory in the U.S. formal political sphere and its constitutive ideologies (Duranti 2006, Lempert 2009). Discussing the first President Bush, Hill (2000) traces how U.S. campaign politics is informed by a linguistic ideology of “personalism”:

Speech mainly expresses the moral character of the would-be leader [in a fashion quite

manner

opposite to Samoan oratorical avoidance of the figure of the willful actor reported by Duranti (1994)]. Hill also documents a strong ideological concern with “message”: What counts is not political speech’s propositional information about a candidate’s doctrines, but the brand-like type of personhood indexed by how a candidate speaks. (This is the same explicit ideology of “message” as the crux of effective political speech that Ravalomanana’s U.S. advisors encouraged him to adopt in his successful national campaign in Madagascar.) Silverstein (2003) traces “message” through to the second President Bush’s cultivation of a character image of “trying hard.” He contrasts this with Lincoln’s incarnation at Gettysburg of a message of Christian rebirth via sacrifice, conveyed iconically and indexically through a

fabric of artful metrical echoes and reversals in

a brief dedicatory address.

CONCLUSION

Ritual and oratory are interesting cases of basic anthropological topics that have been around for a long time, but about which genuinely new theoretical and empirical insights are very much possible to achieve. Even the model of ritual as poetically dense figuration of macrocosmic or- ders in microcosmic acts, which I claim to be

a well-established paradigm, is perhaps still in

need of its benchmark full-length theoretical statement and empirical demonstration. The language-learning and evidence-gathering in- vestments demanded by serious work on both these topics are often exceptionally daunting. I hope to have provided some reminders, though, that the effort yields valuable rewards.

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

The author is not aware of any affiliations, memberships, funding, or financial holdings that might be perceived as affecting the objectivity of this review.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am grateful to Joel Robbins, Alan Rumsey, and Francis Cody for eleventh-hour support.

www.annualreviews.org Ritual and Oratory Revisited

169

from www.annualreviews.org

use only.

For personal

Downloaded

University on 07/29/12.

by Cornell 2011.40:159-174.

Annu. Rev. Anthropol.

LITERATURE CITED

Adams KM. 1997. Ethnic tourism and the renegotiation of tradition in Tana Toraja (Sulawesi, Indonesia). Ethnology 36(4):309–20 Aggarwal R. 2001. At the margins of death: ritual space and the politics of location in an Indo-Himalayan border village. Am. Ethnol. 28(3):549–73 Agha A. 1997. Tropic aggression in the Clinton-Dole presidential debate. Pragmatics 7(4):461–97 Asad T. 1993. Toward a genealogy of the concept of ritual. In Genealogies of Religion: Discipline and Reasons of Power in Christianity and Islam , pp. 55–79. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press Babcock B. 1978. Too many, too few: ritual modes of signification. Semiotica 23:291–302 Basso E. 2009. Civility and deception in two Kalapalo ritual forms. See Senft & Basso 2009, pp. 243–70 Bate B. 2009. Tamil Oratory and the Dravidian Aesthetic: Democratic Practice in South India. New York: Columbia Univ. Press Bate B. 2010. The ethics of textuality: the Protestant sermon and the Tamil public sphere. In Ethical Life in South Asia, ed. A Pandian, D Ali, pp. 101–15. Bloomington: Indiana Univ. Press Bateson G. 1972. A theory of play and fantasy. In Steps to an Ecology of Mind, pp. 177–93. New York: Ballantine Bauman R. 1992. Disclaimers of performance. See Hill & Irvine 1992, pp. 182–96 Bauman R, Briggs CL. 1990. Poetics and performance as critical perspectives on language and social life. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 19:59–88 Besnier N. 2009. Gossip and the Everyday Production of Politics. Honolulu: Univ. Hawai’i Press Bloch M. 1974. Symbols, song, dance and features of articulation: Is religion an extreme form of traditional authority? Arch. Eur. Sociol./Eur. J. Sociol. 15(1):55–81 Bloch M. 1975. Introduction. In Political Language and Oratory in Traditional Society , ed. M Bloch, pp. 1–28. New York: Academic Bowie KA. 1997. Rituals of National Loyalty: An Anthropology of the State and the Village Scout Movement in Thailand. New York: Columbia Univ. Press Brenneis D. 1984. Grog and gossip in Bhatgaon: style and substance in Fiji Indian conversation. Am. Ethnol.

11:487–506

Brenneis D. 1988. Language and disputing. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 17:221–37 Briggs CL. 1992. “Since I am a woman, I will chastise my relatives”: gender, reported speech, and the (re)production of social relations in Warao ritual wailing. Am. Ethnol. 19(2):337–61 Brightman R. 1999. Traditions of subversion and the subversion of tradition: cultural criticism in Maidu clown performances. Am. Anthropol. 101(2):272–87 Bryan D. 2000. Orange Parades: The Politics of Ritual, Tradition, and Control. London: Pluto Bucko R. 1998. The Lakota Ritual of the Sweat Lodge: History and Contemporary Practice. Lincoln: Univ. Neb. Press Caton SC. 1986. Salam Tahiyah: greetings from the Highlands of Yemen. Am. Ethnol. 13:290–308 Caton SC. 1987. Power, persuasion, and language: a critique of the segmentary model in the Middle-East. Int. J. Middle East Stud. 19(1):77–102 Caton SC. 1990. “Peaks of Yemen I Summon”: Poetry as Cultural Practice in a North Yemeni Tribe. Berkeley:

Univ. Calif. Press Caton SC. 1993. Icons of the person: Lacan’s “Imago” in the Yemeni male’s tribal wedding. Asian Folk. Stud.

52:359–81

Cole J. 2004. Painful memories: ritual and the transformation of community trauma. Cult. Med. Psychiatry

28(1):87–105

Comaroff J, Comaroff J, eds. 1993. Modernity and its Malcontents: Ritual and Power in Postcolonial Africa. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press Csordas TJ. 1997. Language, Charisma, and Creativity: The Ritual Life of a Religious Movement . Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press De Jong F. 2007. Masquerades of Modernity: Power and Secrecy in Casamance, Senegal. Edinburgh: Edinburgh Univ. Press Demmer U. 2007. The power of rhetoric: dialogue and dynamic persuasion in healing rituals of a South Indian community. In The Power of Discourse in Ritual Performance: Rhetoric, Poetics, Transformations, ed. U Demmer, M Gaenszle, pp. 26–53. Berlin: Lit

170

Stasch

from www.annualreviews.org

use only.

For personal

Downloaded

University on 07/29/12.

by Cornell 2011.40:159-174.

Annu. Rev. Anthropol.

Du Bois JW. 1986. Self-evidence and ritual speech. In Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology, ed. WL Chafe, J Nichols, pp. 313–36. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Du Bois JW. 2009. Interior dialogues: the co-voicing of ritual in solitude. See Senft & Basso 2009, pp. 317–40 Duranti A. 1994. From Grammar to Politics: Linguistic Anthropology in a Western Samoan Village . Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press Duranti A. 2006. Narrating the political self in a campaign for US Congress. Lang. Soc. 35(4):467–97 Duranti A, Brenneis D, eds. 1986. The Audience as Co-Author. Special Issue, Text 6(3):239–347

Dussart F. 2000. The Politics of Ritual in an Aboriginal Settlement: Kinship, Gender, and the Currency of Knowledge. Washington, DC: Smithson. Inst. Press Enfield NJ. 2009. Everyday ritual in the residential world. See Senft & Basso 2009, pp. 51–80 Engelke M. 2004. Text and performance in an African church: the book, “live and direct.” Am. Ethnol.

31(1):76–91

Gaenszle M. 2002. Ancestral Voices: Oral Ritual Texts and Their Social Contexts among the Mewahang Rai of East

Nepal. M unster:¨

Lit

Gal S. 1989. Language and political economy. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 18:345–67 George KM. 1996. Showing Signs of Violence: The Cultural Politics of a Twentieth-Century Headhunting Ritual. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press Graham L. 1993. A public sphere in Amazonia? The depersonalized collaborative construction of discourse in Xavante. Am. Ethnol. 20(4):717–41 Haeri N. n.d. The private performance of Islamic prayers: form, time, and repetition. Hammoudi A. 1993. The Victim and its Masks: An Essay on Sacrifice and Masquerade in the Maghreb. Chicago:

Univ. Chicago Press Handelman D. 1990. Models and Mirrors: Towards an Anthropology of Public Events . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press HanksWF. 2000. Copresence and alterity in Maya ritual practice. In Intertexts: Writings on Language, Utterance, and Context, pp. 249–70. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Harrison S. 1992. Ritual as intellectual property. Man 27(2):225–44 Hatfield DJ. 2010. Taiwanese Pilgrimage to China: Ritual, Complicity, Community. New York: Palgrave Macmillan Haviland JB. 2009. Little rituals. See Senft & Basso 2009, pp. 21–50 Hellweg J. 2009. Hunters, ritual, and freedom: Dozo sacrifice as a technology of the self in the Benkadi movement of Cote d’Ivoire. J. R. Anthropol. Inst. 15(1):36–56 Hill JH, Irvine JT, eds. 1992. Responsibility and Evidence in Oral Discourse. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press Hill JH. 2000. Read my article: language ideology and the overdetermination of promising in American presidential politics. In Regimes of Language , ed. PV Kroskrity, pp. 259–92. Santa Fe, NM: SAR Press Hirschkind C. 2006. The Ethical Soundscape: Cassette Sermons and Islamic Counterpublics. New York: Columbia Univ. Press Hoskins J. 1993. The Play of Time: Kodi Perspectives on Calendars, History, and Exchange . Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press Houseman M, Severi C. 1998. Naven or the Other Self: A Relational Approach to Ritual Action . Boston: Brill Howe L. 2000. Risk, ritual and performance. J. R. Anthropol. Inst. 6(1):63–79 Humphrey C, Laidlaw J. 1994. The Archetypal Actions of Ritual: A Theory of Ritual Illustrated by the Jain Rite of Worship. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press Husken¨ U, ed. 2007. When Rituals Go Wrong: Mistakes, Failure and the Dynamics of Ritual . Leiden: Brill Irvine JT. 1992. Insult and responsibility: verbal abuse in a Wolof village. See Hill & Irvine 1992, pp. 105–34 Jackson JB. 2003. Yuchi Ceremonial Life: Performance, Meaning, and Tradition in a Contemporary American Indian Community. Lincoln: Univ. Neb. Press Jackson JL. 2008. Building publics, shaping public opinion: interanimating registers in Malagasy Kabary oratory and political cartooning. J. Linguist. Anthropol. 18(2):214–35 Jackson JL. 2009. To tell it directly or not: coding transparency and corruption in Malagasy political oratory. Lang. Soc. 38:47–69

www.annualreviews.org Ritual and Oratory Revisited

171

from www.annualreviews.org

use only.

For personal

Downloaded

University on 07/29/12.

by Cornell 2011.40:159-174.

Annu. Rev. Anthropol.

Jackson JL. 2012. Getting an Edge in Wordwise: Political Oratory and Cartooning in Malagasy Democratic Process . Chichester, West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. In press Jakobson R. 1960. Closing statement: linguistics and poetics. In Style in Language , ed. T Sebeok, pp. 350–77. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press Kandiyoti D, Azimova N. 2004. The communal and the sacred: women’s worlds of ritual in Uzbekistan. J. R. Anthropol. Inst. 10(2):327–49 Kapferer B. 1997. The Feast of the Sorcerer: Practices of Consciousness and Power . Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press Kapferer B. 2004. Ritual dynamics and virtual practice: beyond representation and meaning. Soc. Anal. 48:35–

54

Keane W. 1997a. Religious language. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 26:47–71 Keane W. 1997b. Signs of Recognition: Powers and Hazards of Representation in an Indonesian Society. Berkeley:

Univ. Calif. Press Keane W. 2006. Christian Moderns: Freedom and Fetish in the Mission Encounter . Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press Kelly JD, Kaplan M. 1990. History, structure, and ritual. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 19:119–50 Kendall L. 2008. Of hungry ghosts and other matters of consumption in the Republic of Korea: the commodity

becomes a ritual prop. Am. Ethnol. 35(1):154–70 Kohn T. 2002. Becoming an islander through action in the Scottish Hebrides. J. R. Anthropol. Inst. 8(1):143–58 Kratz CA. 1994. Affecting Performance: Meaning, Movement, and Experience in Okiek Women’s Initiation. Washington, DC: Smithson. Inst. Press Kratz CA. 2009. Communicative resonance across settings: marriage arrangement, initiation, and political meetings in Kenya. See Senft & Basso 2009, pp. 171–202 Kreinath J, Snoek J, Stausberg M. 2007. Theorizing Rituals: Annotated Bibliography of Ritual Theory, 1966 2005 . Leiden: Brill Kuipers J. 1998. Language, Identity, and Marginality in Indonesia: The Changing Nature of Ritual Speech on the Island of Sumba. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press Kuipers J. 2009. Unjuk Rasa (“Expression of Feeling”) in Sumba: Bloody Thursday in its cultural and historical context. See Senft & Basso 2009, pp. 223–42 Kulick D. 1993. Speaking as a woman: structure and gender in domestic arguments in a New Guinea village. Cult. Anthropol. 8(4):510–41 Lempert M. 2009. On “flip-flopping”: branded stance-taking in U.S. electoral politics. J. Socioling. 13(2):223–

48

Lempert M. 2011. Avoiding “The Issues” as addressivity in US electoral politics. Anthropol. Q. 84(1):187–208 Lempert M. 2012. Discipline and Debate: The Language of Violence in a Tibetan Buddhist Monastery . Berkeley:

Univ. Calif. Press. In press Lomnitz C. 1995. Ritual, rumor, and corruption in the constitution of polity in modern Mexico. J. Lat. Am. Anthropol. 1(1):20–47 MacAloon J. 1984. Introduction: cultural performance, cultural theory. In Rite, Drama, Festival, Spectacle:

Rehearsals toward a Theory of Cultural Performance , ed. J MacAloon, pp. 1–15. Philadelphia: Inst. Study Hum. Issues Mahmood S. 2001. Rehearsed spontaneity and the conventionality of ritual: disciplines of salat. Am. Ethnol.

28(4):827–53

Malarney SK. 1996. The limits of “state functionalism” and the reconstruction of funerary ritual in contem- porary northern Vietnam. Am. Ethnol. 23(3):540–60 Manning P. 2007. Rose-colored glasses? Color revolutions and cartoon chaos in Postsocialist Georgia. Cult. Anthropol. 22(1):171–213 Merlan F, Rumsey A. 1991. Ku Waru: Language and Segmentary Politics in the Western Nebilyer Valley, Papua New Guinea. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press Mines DP. 2005. Fierce Gods: Inequality, Ritual, and the Politics of Dignity in a South Indian Village. Bloomington:

Indiana Univ. Press Munn ND. 1995. An essay on the symbolic construction of memory in the Kaluli Gisalo. In Cosmos and Society in Oceania , ed. D de Coppet, A Iteanu, pp. 83–104. Oxford: Berg Nourse JW. 1999. Conceiving Spirits: Birth Rituals and Contested Identities among Lauj´e of Indonesia. Washington, DC: Smithson. Inst. Press

172

Stasch

from www.annualreviews.org

use only.

For personal

Downloaded

University on 07/29/12.

by Cornell 2011.40:159-174.

Annu. Rev. Anthropol.

Ochs [Keenan] E. 1973. A sliding sense of obligatoriness: the poly-structure of Malagasy oratory. Lang. Soc.

2:225–43

Parkin D. 1984. Political language. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 13:345–65 Parmentier RJ. 1994. Signs in Society: Studies in Semiotic Anthropology . Bloomington: Indiana Univ. Press Paulson S. 2006. Revolution, neoliberalism, and cosmopolitics: body, nation, and consubstantiation in Bolivian ritual meals. Am. Ethnol. 33(4):650–64 Pemberton J. 1994. On the Subject of “Java”. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press Poirier S. 1992. “Nomadic” rituals: networks of ritual exchange between women of the Australian Western Desert. Man 27(4):757–76 Rampton B. 2002. Ritual and foreign language practices at school. Lang. Soc. 31(4):491–525 Rappaport RA. 1999. Ritual and Religion in the Making of Humanity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press Robbins J. 2001a. God is nothing but talk: modernity, language, and prayer in a Papua New Guinea society. Am. Anthropol. 103(4):901–12 Robbins J. 2001b. Ritual communication and linguistic ideology: a reading and partial reformulation of Rap- paport’s theory of ritual with CA comment. Curr. Anthropol. 42(5):589–612 Robbins J. 2007. You can’t talk behind the Holy Spirit’s back: Christianity and changing language ideologies in a Papua New Guinea society. In Consequences of Contact: Language Ideologies and Sociocultural Transformations in Pacific Societies, ed. M Makihara, B Schieffelin, pp. 125–39. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press Roberts E. 2010. Ritual humility in modern laboratories: or, why Ecuadorian IVF practitioners pray. See Sax et al. 2010, pp. 131–49 Rudolph M. 2008. Ritual Performances as Authenticating Practices: Cultural Representations of Taiwan’s Aborigines in Times of Political Change . Berlin: Lit Rumsey A. 1999. The personification of social totalities in the Pacific. J. Pac. Stud. 23(1):48–70 Rumsey A. 2000. Agency, personhood, and the “I” of discourse in the Pacific and beyond. J. R. Anthropol. Inst.

6:101–15

Saez´ OC. 2004. In search of ritual: tradition, outer world and bad manners in the Amazon. J. R. Anthropol. Inst. 10(1):157–73 Sahlins M. 1985. Islands of History. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press Sanders T. 2008. Beyond Bodies: Rainmaking and Sense Making in Tanzania. Toronto: Univ. Tor. Press Santos-Granero F. 1998. Writing history into the landscape: space, myth, and ritual in contemporary Amazonia. Am. Ethnol. 25(2):128–48 Sather C. 1993. Posts, hearths and thresholds: the Iban longhouse as a ritual structure. In Inside Austronesian Houses: Perspectives on Domestic Designs for Living , ed. JJ Fox, pp. 64–115. Canberra: Dep. Anthropol., Res. Sch. Pac. Stud., Aust. Natl. Univ. Sax WS. 2010. Ritual and the problem of efficacy. See Sax et al. 2010, pp. 3–16 Sax WS, Quack J, Weinhold J, eds. 2010. The Problem of Ritual Efficacy . Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press Schieffelin BB. 2007. Found in translating: reflexive language across time and texts in Bosavi, Papua New Guinea. In Consequences of Contact: Language Ideologies and Sociocultural Transformations in Pacific Societies , ed. M Makihara, BB Schieffelin, pp. 140–65. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press Schieffelin EL. 1996. On failure and performance: throwing the medium out of the seance. In The Performance of Healing , ed. C Laderman, M Roseman, pp. 59–90. New York: Routledge Schieffelin EL. 2006. Participation. In Theorizing Rituals: Issues, Topics, Approaches, Concepts, ed. J Kreinath, J Snoek, M Stausberg, pp. 615–26. Leiden: Brill Schnell S. 1999. The Rousing Drum: Ritual Practice in a Japanese Community. Honolulu: Univ. Hawai’i Press Schrauwers A. 2000. Three weddings and a performance: marriage, households, and development in the highlands of Central Sulawesi, Indonesia. Am. Ethnol. 27(4):855–76 Seligman AB, Weller RP, Puett MJ, Simon B. 2008. Ritual and Its Consequences: An Essay on the Limits of Sincerity. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press Senft G, Basso E, eds. 2009. Ritual Communication . Oxford: Berg Shaw A. 2003. Interpreting images: diagnostic skill in the genetics clinic. J. R. Anthropol. Inst. 9(1):39–55 Shoaps R. 2009. Ritual and (im)moral voices: locating the testament of Judas in Sakapultek communicative ecology. Am. Ethnol. 36(3):459–77

www.annualreviews.org Ritual and Oratory Revisited

173

from www.annualreviews.org

use only.

For personal

Downloaded

University on 07/29/12.

by Cornell 2011.40:159-174.

Annu. Rev. Anthropol.

Silverstein M. 2003. Talking Politics: The Substance of Style from Abe to “W.” Chicago: Prickly Paradigm Silverstein M. 2005. The poetics of politics: “theirs” and “ours”. J. Anthropol. Res. 61(1):1–24 Smith DJ. 2004. Burials and belonging in Nigeria: rural-urban relations and social inequality in a contemporary African ritual. Am. Anthropol. 106(3):569–79 Smith JZ. 1987. To Take Place: Toward Theory in Ritual . Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press Snyder KA. 1997. Elders’ authority and women’s protest: the Masay ritual and social change among the Iraqw of Tanzania. J. R. Anthropol. Inst. 3(3):561–76 Spyer P. 2000. The Memory of Trade: Modernity’s Entanglements on an Eastern Indonesian Island . Durham, NC:

Duke Univ. Press Stasch R. 2003. The semiotics of world-making in Korowai feast longhouses. Lang. Commun. 23(3/4):359–83 Tambiah S. 1985. A performative approach to ritual. In Culture, Thought, and Social Action: An Anthropological Perspective , pp. 123–66. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press Tomlinson M. 2004. Ritual, risk, and danger: chain prayers in Fiji. Am. Anthropol. 106(1):6–16 Turner T. 1991. “We are parrots,” “twins are birds”: play of tropes as operational structure. In Beyond Metaphor: The Theory of Tropes in Anthropology , ed. J Fernandez, pp. 121–58. Stanford: Stanford Univ. Press Turner T. 2006. Structure, process, form. In Theorizing Rituals: Issues, Topics, Approaches, Concepts , ed. J Kreinath, J Snoek, M Stausberg, pp. 207–46. Leiden: Brill Tuzin D. 1997. The Cassowary’s Revenge: The Life and Death of Masculinity in a New Guinea Society. Chicago:

Univ. Chicago Press Valeri V. 1985. Kingship and Sacrifice: Ritual and Society in Ancient Hawaii . Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press Venbrux E. 1995. A Death in the Tiwi Islands: Conflict, Ritual and Social Life in an Australian Aboriginal Community. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press Waldman L. 2003. Houses and the ritual construction of gendered homes in South Africa. J. R. Anthropol. Inst. 9(4):657–79 Wells EC, McAnany PA, eds. 2008. Dimensions of Ritual Economy. Research in Economic Anthropology , Vol. 27. Bingley: JAI Werbner P. 2001. The limits of cultural hybridity: on ritual monsters, poetic licence and contested postcolonial purifications. J. R. Anthropol. Inst. 7(1):133–52 Wibbelsman M. 2009. Ritual Encounters: Otavalan Modern and Mythic Community . Urbana: Univ. Ill. Press Wiessner P, Tumu A. 1998. Historical Vines: Enga Networks of Exchange, Ritual, and Warfare in Papua New Guinea. Washington, DC: Smithson. Inst. Press Williams P. 2003. Gypsy World: The Silence of the Living and the Voices of the Dead . Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press Yankah K. 1995. Speaking for the Chief: Okyeame and the Politics of Akan Royal Oratory. Bloomington: Indiana Univ. Press

174

Stasch

from www.annualreviews.org

use only.

For personal

Downloaded

University on 07/29/12.

by Cornell 2011.40:159-174.

Annu. Rev. Anthropol.

07/29/12. by Cornell 2011.40:159-174. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. Annual Review of Anthropology Volume 40, 2011 Contents

Annual Review of Anthropology

Volume 40, 2011

Contents

Prefatory Chapter

Anthropological Relocations and the Limits of Design Lucy Suchman ♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣ 1

Archaeology

The Archaeology of Consumption Paul R. Mullins ♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣ 133

Migration Concepts in Central Eurasian Archaeology Michael D. Frachetti ♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣ 195

Archaeologists and Indigenous People: A Maturing Relationship? Tim Murray ♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣ 363

Archaeological Ethnography: A Multitemporal Meeting Ground for Archaeology and Anthropology Yannis Hamilakis ♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣ 399

Archaeologies of Sovereignty Adam T. Smith ♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣ 415

A Century of Feasting Studies Brian Hayden and Suzanne Villeneuve ♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣ 433

Biological Anthropology

Menopause, A Biocultural Perspective Melissa K. Melby and Michelle Lampl ♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣ 53

Ethnic Groups as Migrant Groups: Improving Understanding of Links Between Ethnicity/Race and Risk of Type 2 Diabetes and Associated Conditions Tessa M. Pollard ♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣ 145

From Mirror Neurons to Complex Imitation in the Evolution of Language and Tool Use Michael A. Arbib ♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣ 257

vi

from www.annualreviews.org

use only.

For personal

Downloaded

University on 07/29/12.

by Cornell 2011.40:159-174.

Annu. Rev. Anthropol.

From Hominoid to Hominid Mind: What Changed and Why? Brian Hare ♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣ 293

The Human Microbiota as a Marker for Migrations of Individuals and Populations Maria Gloria Dominguez-Bello and Martin J. Blaser ♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣ 451

Linguistics and Communicative Practices

Publics and Politics Francis Cody ♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣ 37

Ritual and Oratory Revisited: The Semiotics of Effective Action Rupert Stasch ♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣ 159

Language and Migration to the United States Hilary Parsons Dick ♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣ 227

The Balkan Languages and Balkan Linguistics Victor A. Friedman ♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣ 275

International Anthropology and Regional Studies

Central Asia in the Post–Cold War World Morgan Y. Liu ♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣ 115

The Ethnographic Arriving of Palestine Khaled Furani and Dan Rabinowitz ♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣ 475

Sociocultural Anthropology

Substance and Relationality: Blood in Contexts Janet Carsten ♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣ 19

Hallucinations and Sensory Overrides T.M. Luhrmann ♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣ 71

Phenomenological Approaches in Anthropology Robert Desjarlais and C. Jason Throop ♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣ 87

Migration, Remittances, and Household Strategies Jeffrey H. Cohen ♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣ 103

Climate and Culture: Anthropology in the Era of Contemporary Climate Change Susan A. Crate ♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣ 175

Policing Borders, Producing Boundaries. The Governmentality of Immigration in Dark Times Didier Fassin ♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣ 213

from www.annualreviews.org

use only.

For personal

Downloaded

University on 07/29/12.

by Cornell 2011.40:159-174.

Annu. Rev. Anthropol.

The Cultural Politics of Nation and Migration Steven Vertovec ♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣ 241

Migrations and Schooling Marcelo M. Su´arez-Orozco, Tasha Darbes, Sandra Isabel Dias, and Matt Sutin ♣♣♣♣♣♣ 311

Tobacco Matthew Kohrman and Peter Benson ♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣ 329

Transnational Migration and Global Health: The Production and Management of Risk, Illness, and Access to Care Carolyn Sargent and St´ephanie Larchanch´e ♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣ 345

Concepts and Folk Theories Susan A. Gelman and Cristine H. Legare ♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣ 379

Migration-Religion Studies in France: Evolving Toward a Religious Anthropology of Movement Sophie Bava ♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣ 493

Theme I: Anthropology of Mind

Hallucinations and Sensory Overrides T.M. Luhrmann ♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣ 71

Phenomenological Approaches in Anthropology Robert Desjarlais and C. Jason Throop ♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣ 87

From Mirror Neurons to Complex Imitation in the Evolution of Language and Tool Use Michael A. Arbib ♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣ 257

From Hominoid to Hominid Mind: What Changed and Why? Brian Hare ♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣ 293

Concepts and Folk Theories Susan A. Gelman and Cristine H. Legare ♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣ 379

Theme II: Migration

Migration, Remittances, and Household Strategies Jeffrey H. Cohen ♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣ 103

Ethnic Groups as Migrant Groups: Improving Understanding of Links Between Ethnicity/Race and Risk of Type 2 Diabetes and Associated Conditions Tessa M. Pollard ♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣ 145

Migration Concepts in Central Eurasian Archaeology Michael D. Frachetti ♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣ 195

viii

Contents

from www.annualreviews.org

use only.

For personal

Downloaded

University on 07/29/12.

by Cornell 2011.40:159-174.

Annu. Rev. Anthropol.

Policing Borders, Producing Boundaries. The Governmentality of Immigration in Dark Times Didier Fassin ♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣ 213

Language and Migration to the United States Hilary Parsons Dick ♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣ 227

The Cultural Politics of Nation and Migration Steven Vertovec ♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣ 241

Migrations and Schooling Marcelo M. Su´arez-Orozco, Tasha Darbes, Sandra Isabel Dias, and Matt Sutin ♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣ 311

Transnational Migration and Global Health: The Production and Management of Risk, Illness, and Access to Care Carolyn Sargent and St´ephanie Larchanch´e ♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣ 345

The Human Microbiota as a Marker for Migrations of Individuals and Populations Maria Gloria Dominguez-Bello and Martin J. Blaser ♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣ 451

Migration-Religion Studies in France: Evolving Toward a Religious Anthropology of Movement Sophie Bava ♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣ 493

Indexes

Cumulative Index of Contributing Authors, Volumes 31–40 ♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣ 509

Cumulative Index of Chapter Titles, Volumes 31–40 ♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣ 512

Errata

An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Anthropology articles may be found at http://anthro.annualreviews.org/errata.shtml