This charge is equally unfounded. C

This charge is equally unfounded. Certainly we can find
many examples of particular works that focus on individual
communities or peoples that do not consider any other
groups or outside forces. Sometimes this failure is egregious,
sometimes perfectly reasonable and understandable,
given the aims and perspective of a particular
study. But it is simply incorrect to claim that anthropology
or anthropologists as a whole or in general treated each
culture as an isolated unit.
In 1920, in Primitive Society, Robert H. Lowie stated
his disagreement with "Windelband and his school," to
whom

each manifestation of human history represents unique phenomenon, absolutely indefinable set of values that can merely be experienced through the visionary's intuition and then transmitted infainter tints to his public. Ethnographic
effort conducted in this spirit would result in a gallery of cultural
portraits each complete in itself and not related with the rest . . . whatever else the investigator of a civilization may do,he must be an historian.... The great strength of the diffusionist theory lies in the abundance of evidence that
transmission has played an enormous part in the growth of cultures[.p p.3 , 4, 8]
Franz Boas was studying diffusion in the 1 890s.
Among other things, he pointed to the existence of myths
and stories found throughout the Northwest Coast, distributed
widely but unevenly among the many peoples there
and throughout North America, and even beyond, in
northeastern Asia. He recognized that these tales owed
their distribution to both common inheritance and to transmission
from one group to another, to diffusion. The great
Jesup North Pacific Expedition that he organized in the
1890s (Boas 1902) was concerned with precisely these
sorts of cultural connections, particularly the intercontinental
ones.
Boas further noted that as people borrowed from one
another they absorbed the new elements in distinctive
ways, transforming the borrowed material, naturalizing it,
making it their own in the process. "[T]he phenomena of
acculturation prove that a transfer of customs from one region
into another without concomitant changes due to acculturation,
are very rare." He was deeply concerned
about the processes, the "psychology," he called it, of
transmission,reinterpretation, and reintegration( 1920:
318).
As early as 1910 Paul Radin published a paper on the
processes by which Winnebago developed a peyote cult,
through borrowing, elaboration, and reinterpretation.
Radin was fully cognizant of the influence of other peoples
(how could he fail to be?) and of the agency of individuals.
This approach was common in Boasian anthropology,
as even a glance at the writings of Elsie Clews
Parsons, for example, will show.
The idea of the "culture area," with all its acknowledged
weaknesses, was premised on the understanding
that neighboring peoples influenced each other. Beyond
the individual cultures, it was understood that you could not draw boundaries between areas because there were none.
We grew up as anthropologists reciting Ralph Linton's
short tour de force "100 per cent American" (1936:32S
327) that demonstrated vividly the truth that Boas had
showed us, that every culture was composed of elements
from all over, that every people's culture is a composite of
ideas, practices, techniques from many sources, as well as
those they hit upon through their own imagination and the
contingencies of life. This was just part of our basic understanding
of the world in those days.
The study of acculturation became central to American
anthropology by the 1920s. Criticizing Frank Cushing
(who wrote in the 1 880s) for his contention that Zuni culture
could be explained "entirely on the basis of the reaction
of the Zuni mind to its geographical environment,"
Boas wrote that "Dr. [Elsie Clews] Parsons's studies
prove conclusively the deep influence which Spanish
ideas have had upon Zuni culture, and, together with Professor
Kroeber's investigations, give us one of the best examples
of acculturation that have come to our notice"
(1920:317).
Ruth Bunzel went to Chichicastenango in 1930 in order
to study bearers of a living culture who had been deeply influenced
by "400 years of European domination" (pp.
v-vi, her words), and yet had made their own distinctive
adjustment to those new elements. She complains that
"the studies of 'pure' or reconstructed cultures where we
had no historical perspective were too static and gave a
misleading impression of cultural stability" (p. v). (Elsie
Clews Parsons had similar aims when she started work in
Mitla in 1929; Margaret Mead published The Changing
Culture of an Indian Tribe in 1932.)
Studies of change, of acculturation, of the impact of the
horse, money, the gun, or the fur trade on American Indians
were basic to American anthropology from the l930s
on. Take, for instance, the monographs published by the
American Ethnological Society, works by Bernard
Mishkin, Esther Goldfrank, John Ewers, Joseph Jablow,
Oscar Lewis, Jane Richardson Hanks, Frank Secoy, and
John Bennett, or the series of modern Latin American
community studies carried out in the 1930s and 1940s and
published by the Institute of Social Anthropology of the
Smithsonian Institution under the direction of Julian
Steward. These included works by Ralph Beals, George
Foster, Sol Tax, John Gillin, George Kubler, Harry
Tschopik, Donald Pierson, and Donald Brand. Robert
Redfield was publishing his works on change in Yucatan
during the same period, and Melville Herskovits was well
into his research on change and continuity in various
"New World Negro" cultures (see Ebihara 1985; Stocking
1 976: 1 3-49).
As for British anthropology, let's glance at Malinowski's
The Dynamics of Culture Change (1945). This
rarely cited work contains papers written in the late '30s
and this statement, apparently from 1938, is typical of the
tone of the volume:
When the plane descends in Kisumu we are in a small town
largely controlled by the gold-mining interests of the region.
Part of it looks almost European. Some streets remind us of India.
But the whole is a compound product with an existence of
its own, determined by the proximity of several African
tribes, by the activities of the Europeans who live and trade
there,and the fact of Indian immigration. It is an important
center of gold export and trade ; as such, it must be studied by
the sociologist in relation to world markets, overseas industrial centers and banking organizations,as well as to African labor and natural resources[.1 945:1 0,emphasis added]
This, from one of the great villains of the current version
of the history of anthropology, one who supposedly
considered each culture as timeless, unique, cut off from
all others (cf. the introduction Malinowski wrote for Fernando
Ortiz's book Cuban Counterpoint: Tobacco and
Sugar [1 947]).l2 At the time of his death Malinowski was
working on markets and economic change in Mexico
(Malinowski and de la Fuente 1982).
The notes that I took on March 15, 1955, in Robert Manners's
course on applied anthropology, read," Malinowski
says all study of culture now has to be a study of contact
and diffusion, because there no longer is an 'uncontaminated'
native society."
After Malinowski, in addition to his student Raymond
Firth, who has been writing about change in Tikopia since
the early 1 930s, there was the work of his students in Africa:
Monica Hunter (Reaction to Conquest, 1936), Hilda
Kuper, Audrey Richards, Lucy Mair, Phyllis Kaberry,
Isaac Shapera, and Ellen Hellmann (who did a study of an
urban "slum" yard in the 1930s [1948]). And then there
was the Rhodes-Livingstone group, with Max Gluckman,
Elizabeth Colson, A. L. Epstein, William Watson, J. Van
Velsen, J. Clyde Mitchell, and many others, all concerned
with change and outside influences in Central Africa from
the late 1940s (see Epstein's memoir of fieldwork on the
Copperbelt in the 1 950s in his Scenes from African Urban
Life, 1992; cf. Gluckman 1968:234). And there were
Americans studying change in Africa as well: Hortense
Powder maker, Lloyd Fallers, and the host of students of
Melville Herskovits. (A sample of their work can be seen
in the edited volume, Contznuitya nd Change in African
Cultures [Bascomand Herskovits 1959].)
There was a vast corpus on change in Melanesia by British-
trained and American anthropologists, such as Cyril
Belshaw, Paula Brown, Glynn Cochrane, A. L. and Scarlett
Epstein, Ben Finney, Ian Hogbin, Robert Maher, Phyllis
Kaberry,Margaret Mead, Richard Salisbury, and many
others. What is that vast body of literature on the so-called
cargo cults and other religious responses to colonialism
and contact all about if not change and connections to
other peoples? Given the abundance of this literature, how
could Roger Keesing, or anyone else, make it seem as though anthropologists regularly ignored change in that area? It is, of course, quite possible that today's scholar
may not like the conclusions that were reached, or even the
premises, but surely there is no excuse for pretending that
these questions were not addressed.
In the late 1940s and early 1950s the works of Julian
Steward and his students, including Bob Manners, Eric
Wolf, Sidney Mintz, and Bob Murphy, established the beginnings
of"world systems" theory. There is a straight
line from the People of PuertoRico project (Stewardet al.
1956), via Eric Wolf's writings and teaching, to Andre
Gunder Frank and to Immanuel Wallerstein's "world system."
Bob Manners's courses in the early l950s were
filled with the problem of the impact of capitalism, commodities,
and world markets. In 1965 the Southwestern
Journal of Anthropology featured Manners's paper,
"Remittances and the Units of Analysis in Anthropological
Research," in which he spoke of "the social field" as
"the entire world" and of"global interrelatedness" and
said that" all anthropology" is "world anthropology.

Hasil (Bahasa Indonesia) 1:

This charge is equally unfounded. Certainly we can findmany examples of particular works that focus on individualcommunities or peoples that do not consider any othergroups or outside forces. Sometimes this failure is egregious,sometimes perfectly reasonable and understandable,given the aims and perspective of a particularstudy. But it is simply incorrect to claim that anthropologyor anthropologists as a whole or in general treated eachculture as an isolated unit.In 1920, in Primitive Society, Robert H. Lowie statedhis disagreement with "Windelband and his school," towhom each manifestation of human history represents unique phenomenon, absolutely indefinable set of values that can merely be experienced through the visionary's intuition and then transmitted infainter tints to his public. Ethnographiceffort conducted in this spirit would result in a gallery of culturalportraits each complete in itself and not related with the rest . . . whatever else the investigator of a civilization may do,he must be an historian.... The great strength of the diffusionist theory lies in the abundance of evidence thattransmission has played an enormous part in the growth of cultures[.p p.3 , 4, 8]Franz Boas was studying diffusion in the 1 890s.Among other things, he pointed to the existence of mythsand stories found throughout the Northwest Coast, distributedwidely but unevenly among the many peoples thereand throughout North America, and even beyond, innortheastern Asia. He recognized that these tales owedtheir distribution to both common inheritance and to transmissionfrom one group to another, to diffusion. The greatJesup North Pacific Expedition that he organized in the1890s (Boas 1902) was concerned with precisely thesesorts of cultural connections, particularly the intercontinentalones.Boas further noted that as people borrowed from oneanother they absorbed the new elements in distinctiveways, transforming the borrowed material, naturalizing it,making it their own in the process. "[T]he phenomena ofacculturation prove that a transfer of customs from one regioninto another without concomitant changes due to acculturation,are very rare." He was deeply concernedabout the processes, the "psychology," he called it, oftransmission,reinterpretation, and reintegration( 1920:318).As early as 1910 Paul Radin published a paper on theprocesses by which Winnebago developed a peyote cult,through borrowing, elaboration, and reinterpretation.Radin was fully cognizant of the influence of other peoples(how could he fail to be?) and of the agency of individuals.This approach was common in Boasian anthropology,as even a glance at the writings of Elsie ClewsParsons, for example, will show.The idea of the "culture area," with all its acknowledgedweaknesses, was premised on the understandingthat neighboring peoples influenced each other. Beyondthe individual cultures, it was understood that you could not draw boundaries between areas because there were none.We grew up as anthropologists reciting Ralph Linton'sshort tour de force "100 per cent American" (1936:32S327) that demonstrated vividly the truth that Boas hadshowed us, that every culture was composed of elementsfrom all over, that every people's culture is a composite ofideas, practices, techniques from many sources, as well asthose they hit upon through their own imagination and thecontingencies of life. This was just part of our basic understandingof the world in those days.The study of acculturation became central to Americananthropology by the 1920s. Criticizing Frank Cushing(who wrote in the 1 880s) for his contention that Zuni culturecould be explained "entirely on the basis of the reactionof the Zuni mind to its geographical environment,"Boas wrote that "Dr. [Elsie Clews] Parsons's studiesprove conclusively the deep influence which Spanishideas have had upon Zuni culture, and, together with ProfessorKroeber's investigations, give us one of the best examplesof acculturation that have come to our notice"(1920:317).Ruth Bunzel went to Chichicastenango in 1930 in orderto study bearers of a living culture who had been deeply influencedby "400 years of European domination" (pp.v-vi, her words), and yet had made their own distinctiveadjustment to those new elements. She complains that"studi budaya 'murni' atau direkonstruksi mana kitatelah ada perspektif sejarah yang terlalu statis dan memberikanmenyesatkan kesan stabilitas budaya"(p. v). (ElsieClews Parsons memiliki tujuan yang sama ketika ia mulai bekerja diMitla pada tahun 1929; Margaret Mead diterbitkan mengubah TheBudaya suku India pada tahun 1932.)Studi tentang perubahan, akulturasi, dampakkuda, uang, senjata, atau perdagangan bulu pada Indian Amerikaitu dasar untuk American Antropologi dari l930spada. Ambil, misalnya, monograf yang diterbitkan olehAmerican Society Etnologi, karya-karya BernardMishkin, Ester Goldfrank, John buatannya, Joseph Jablow,Oscar Lewis, Hanks Jane Richardson, Frank Secoy, danJohn Bennett, atau serangkaian modern Amerika Latinkomunitas studi yang dilakukan di tahun 1930-an dan 1940-an danDiterbitkan oleh Institut Antropologi sosial dariSmithsonian Institution di bawah arahan JulianPelayan. Ini termasuk karya Ralph Beals, GeorgeFoster, Sol pajak, John Gillin, George Kubler, HarryTschopik, Donald Pierson, dan Donald merek. RobertRedfield penerbitan karyanya tentang perubahan di Yucatanselama periode yang sama, dan Melville Herskovits adalah baikdalam penelitiannya pada perubahan dan kesinambungan dalam berbagai"New World Negro" budaya (Lihat Ebihara 1985; Kaus kaki1 976: 1 3-49).Adapun British antropologi, mari kita melirik Malinowski'sDinamika perubahan budaya (1945). Inijarang dikutip kerja berisi karya-karya yang ditulis di akhir 30-anand this statement, apparently from 1938, is typical of thetone of the volume:When the plane descends in Kisumu we are in a small townlargely controlled by the gold-mining interests of the region.Part of it looks almost European. Some streets remind us of India.But the whole is a compound product with an existence ofits own, determined by the proximity of several Africantribes, by the activities of the Europeans who live and tradethere,and the fact of Indian immigration. It is an importantcenter of gold export and trade ; as such, it must be studied bythe sociologist in relation to world markets, overseas industrial centers and banking organizations,as well as to African labor and natural resources[.1 945:1 0,emphasis added]This, from one of the great villains of the current versionof the history of anthropology, one who supposedlyconsidered each culture as timeless, unique, cut off fromall others (cf. the introduction Malinowski wrote for FernandoOrtiz's book Cuban Counterpoint: Tobacco andSugar [1 947]).l2 At the time of his death Malinowski wasworking on markets and economic change in Mexico(Malinowski and de la Fuente 1982).The notes that I took on March 15, 1955, in Robert Manners'scourse on applied anthropology, read," Malinowskisays all study of culture now has to be a study of contactand diffusion, because there no longer is an 'uncontaminated'native society."After Malinowski, in addition to his student RaymondFirth, who has been writing about change in Tikopia sincethe early 1 930s, there was the work of his students in Africa:Monica Hunter (Reaction to Conquest, 1936), HildaKuper, Audrey Richards, Lucy Mair, Phyllis Kaberry,Isaac Shapera, and Ellen Hellmann (who did a study of anurban "slum" yard in the 1930s [1948]). And then therewas the Rhodes-Livingstone group, with Max Gluckman,Elizabeth Colson, A. L. Epstein, William Watson, J. VanVelsen, J. Clyde Mitchell, and many others, all concernedwith change and outside influences in Central Africa fromthe late 1940s (see Epstein's memoir of fieldwork on theCopperbelt in the 1 950s in his Scenes from African UrbanLife, 1992; cf. Gluckman 1968:234). And there wereAmericans studying change in Africa as well: HortensePowder maker, Lloyd Fallers, and the host of students ofMelville Herskovits. (A sample of their work can be seenin the edited volume, Contznuitya nd Change in AfricanCultures [Bascomand Herskovits 1959].)There was a vast corpus on change in Melanesia by British-trained and American anthropologists, such as CyrilBelshaw, Paula Brown, Glynn Cochrane, A. L. and ScarlettEpstein, Ben Finney, Ian Hogbin, Robert Maher, PhyllisKaberry,Margaret Mead, Richard Salisbury, and manyothers. What is that vast body of literature on the so-calledcargo cults and other religious responses to colonialismand contact all about if not change and connections toorang-orang lain? Mengingat banyaknya sastra ini, bagaimanabisa Roger Keesing, atau orang lain, membuatnya tampak seolah-olah antropolog secara teratur mengabaikan perubahan di daerah itu? Itu adalah, tentu saja, sangat mungkin bahwa hari ini adalah sarjanamungkin tidak seperti kesimpulan yang dicapai, atau bahkanlokal, tetapi pasti ada alasan untuk berpura-pura bahwapertanyaan-pertanyaan tidak dibahas.Di akhir 1940-an dan awal 1950-an karya JulianPelayan dan murid-muridnya, termasuk Bob sopan santun, EricSerigala, Sidney Mintz, dan Bob Murphy, didirikan awalteori "sistem-sistem dunia". Ada lurusgaris dari proyek orang PuertoRico (Stewardet al.1956), melalui tulisan Eric Wolf dan pengajaran, AndreGunder Frank dan Immanuel Wallerstein "sistem dunia."Bob Manners kursus di awal l950s yangpenuh dengan masalah dampak dari kapitalisme, komoditas,dan pasar dunia. Pada tahun 1965 barat dayaJurnal antropologi Feature kertas Manners's,"Pengiriman uang dan satuan analisis dalam antropologiPenelitian,"di mana ia berbicara tentang"bidang sosial"sebagai"seluruh dunia" dan "global interrelatedness" danmengatakan bahwa"semua antropologi" adalah "dunia antropologi.