Philosopher Gilles Deleuze emphasizes the primacy of desire over power and the openness and flux of social fields. In this article, we place our ethnographic projects among the urban poor in Brazil and Bosnia‐Herzegovina in dialogue with Deleuze’s cartographic approach to subjectivity and his reflections on control and the transformative potential of becoming. As people scavenge for resources and care, they must deal with the encroachment of psychiatric diagnostics and treatments in broken public institutions and in altered forms of common sense. By reading our cases in light of Deleuze’s ideas, we uphold the rights of microanalysis, bringing into view the immanent fields that people, in all their ambiguity, invent and live by. Such fields of action and significance—leaking out on all sides—are mediated by power and knowledge, but they are also animated by claims to basic rights and desires. In making public a nuanced understanding of these fields—always at risk of disappearing—anthropologists still allow...

/pdf/deleuze-and-the-anthropology-of-becoming-ieurpn3qth.pdf

Deleuze and the Anthropology of Becoming

This paper addresses an issue that constantly plagues all social science research: How should we adjust our conceptual orientations and methodological priorities to take into account apparently changing human experiences and priorities? I take up this issue in the form of three “muddles,” or confusing situations, that confront me as an ethnographer trying to work in today’s contentious educational research atmosphere. In my case, the three muddles concern the meaning of “culture;” the enthusiasm (or not) for ethnography; and the researcher’s responsibility to those she writes about and hopes to help. First, I describe each muddle. Then I try to “tidy them up,” at least enough to give some direction to my future work. I find that some familiar ideas about culture, ethnography, and researcher responsibility are still very useful, but they should be thought about in new ways in light of present circumstances. [There are images that evoke] connections in the world today that make [those images] useful to thin...

/pdf/educational-ethnography-past-present-and-future-ideas-to-xnaj9xbe6l.pdf

Educational Ethnography Past, Present, and Future: Ideas to Think With

This article seeks to clarify the concept of “historicity” and how it might guide ethnographic research. The argument is developed with particular reference to the eight studies of historicity in diverse societies ranging from the Pacific to North America contained in this special issue. The authors contend that the standard Western concept of “history” is culturally particular and not necessarily the best tool for cross‐cultural investigations. Western history is generally predicated on the principle of historicism: the idea that the “past” is separated from the present. People around the world, including Western historians, recognize, however, that the past, present and future are mutually implicated. The notion of “historicity” is intended to open out the temporal focus to a “past‐present‐future”. Studies of historicity address the diverse modes through which people form their presents in world societies.

Introduction: Ethnographies of Historicity

Since the early 1970s, time has come to the fore as a constitutive element of social analysis in the guise of what I term here 'fluid time'. Anthropologists of multiple theoretical persuasions now take for granted that social life exists in 'time', 'flow', or 'flux', and this temporal ontology is commonly accepted as a universal, if habitually unquestioned, attribute of human experience. Similarly, it underpins today's dominant paradigm of 'processual' analysis, in its many forms. Yet this concept is notably under-theorized, in keeping with a history of uneven study by social scientists of time. In this article I draw on anthropological approaches by Gell and Munn, and philosophical work by Bergson and Deleuze, to put forward a critical theorization. I then discuss its ramifications. Ultimately, I argue that this model points to a rapprochement between the anthropological study of time and history, sociality and temporality, and an enhanced role for temporal analysis in anthropological theory.

/pdf/rethinking-time-s-arrow-bergson-deleuze-and-the-anthropology-2sm8tfo30i.pdf

Rethinking time's arrow Bergson, Deleuze and the anthropology of time

In this introduction, I argue that in spite of recent discussions of global and neoliberal time, the anthropology of modern time remains under-explored. Modern time here is understood to be a complex historical product. At its centre is the abstract time-reckoning of capitalism, which acts as a universal measure of value, but which always comes into conflict with concrete experiences of time. Its social disciplines emerge from Christian practice, but the ethics of these routines are marked as secular and universal. Its politics is founded on representations of the natural connections of communities through a homogeneous historical time. Its science and technology tightly link social, human time to external non-human rhythms. It is important for anthropologists to reflect on modern time because our discipline has been profoundly influenced by the discoveries of its depth, secularity, and relativity. The controversies that emerged in relation to Darwin's and Einstein's insights still provide the framework for many of our theories, especially when we draw on phenomenological philosophy. In this introduction, I suggest that the key resources for overcoming this significant absence in anthropology lie in a rapprochement between Alfred Gell's epistemology of time and the approaches of Marxist political philosophers. This combination, along with an emphasis on the labour in/of time, gives rise to new questions and reveals new aspects of modern time in the present.

Doubt, Conflict, Mediation: The Anthropology of Modern Time

Preface IntroductionPart I 1. Time, Life, and Society 2. Relative Time and the Limits of Law 3. Agency and AuthorityPart II 4. Time and Territory in Ancient China 5. Time and Sovereignty in Aztec Mexico 6. Time, Life, and Law in the United StatesConclusion: Postmodemity This TimeNotes References Index

Carol J. Greenhouse

Papers

A Moment's Notice: Time Politics across Culture