New Books in Anthropology

[Cross-posted from New Books in Science, Technology, and Society] “By error or by chance, I think I have discovered an angel.” First things first: Hawking Incorporated: Stephen Hawking and the Anthropology of the Knowing Subject (University of Chicago Press, 2012) is a masterful, inspiring book. Rather than producing a biography of Hawking, which this is decidedly not, Hélène Mialet’s book encourages us to question the very possibility of knowing who Hawking is without taking away the agency of the man himself, ultimately helping readers reconsider how we think about individuality, embodiment, and personhood in extremely productive ways. Taking a beautifully cinematic approach, Mialet guides us through a series of chapters that help us understand different aspects of the production of Hawking and HAWKING (the distinction becoming clear in the course of the book and the interview) by looking at the machines, bodies, inscriptions, images, and movements that constitute Stephen Hawking. Together, the chapters explore the productive tensions and co-creations of the collective and the individual. Inspired by Actor-Network Theory but pushing it into new territory, Mialet’s study uses a thick description of Hawking’s “extended body” to allow us a glimpse into the formation, movement, and circulation of identity in general, in the sciences and potentially well beyond. What does it mean to say “he thinks”? What’s the difference between dealing with texts and people? How do we define what is “original” and how does that translate into the archive? Mialet’s work explores these and other questions in a series of ethnographic accounts and stories that are both fascinating to read and extremely helpful to think with. Enjoy!

Franck Salameh achieves his goal of revealing “another” version of the Middle East with his book. Language, Memory, and Identity in the Middle East: The Case for Lebanon (Lexington Books, 2010). This book looks at the use of language and memory as a means of understanding culture. It also asks questions about how assumptions about the use of Arabic inform western beliefs about the Middle East. Salameh presents a fascinating look at the way that culture is delimitated in the Middle East, and the history associated with the many identities persons in the region assign to themselves. This book is as much about history as it is an ethnological report on Lebanon and the uniqueness of this country. There are intriguing glimpses into the vibrant past of the Mediterranean region that help the reader to build a more assorted view of how the Middle East developed to express the diversity it does today. Meticulously researched and intriguingly written, Language, Memory, and Identity in the Middle East: The Case for Lebanon invites the reader voraciously continue to turn the pages in expedition of a world rarely presented to the western audience.

[Cross-posted from New Books in East Asian Studies] Merry (Corky) White’s new book Coffee Life in Japan (University of California Press, 2012) opens with a memory of stripping naked and being painted blue in an underground coffeehouse, and closes with a guide to some of the author’s favorite cafes in Japan. This framing alone is worth the price of admission. In addition to being an extraordinarily spirited, witty, and enjoyable book, however, Coffee Life in Japan is also a thoughtfully argued and exhaustively researched account of the history and ethnography of coffee and cafes in modern Japan. This wide-ranging and trans-disciplinary work explores the spaces of the modern café, be they social, solitary, or occasionally silent and sprinkled with stuffed animals. White introduces readers to chaptersful of fascinating characters, including passionate coffee experts who train like dancers to learn to create the perfect cup. This is a surprising book, a pleasure to read, and a treasure for anyone interested in the history of drink, of global commodities, and of Japan.

[Crossposted from New Books in South Asian Studies] Borneo (Indonesian: Kalimantan) is an island where three very different nation-states meet: Indonesia, Malaysia, and Brunei. The Indonesian province of Kalimantan occupies most of the island; of the rest, all except one percent is taken up by the Malaysian provinces of Sabah and Sarawak. The tiny but wealthy Sultanate of Brunei occupies that one percent. So, people living in the northern parts of the island have lots of borders to cross. It’s almost like having your own mini-continent; and one that the outside world doesn’t really think of in terms of barbed wire and immigration check points- such imagery being reserved for the more famous borders of India and Pakistan, Israel and the Palestinian territories, or even Thailand and Cambodia. Borneo to most of us out here is all about orangutans, long houses, and tropical rainforest. But Noboru Ishikawa’s magnificent, trail-blazing book, Between Frontiers: Nation and Identity in a South East Asian Borderland (NUS Press, 2010) is all about the borders and frontiers that slice up Borneo, the people who have to live around them, and the daily negotiations that take place on them. Noboru conducted extensive fieldwork in the villages on the border demarcating Malaysian Sarawak and Indonesian Kalimantan to see how the people lived the experience of being on a borderland- for the Malaysian village of Telok Melano, for instance, it was 3 kilometres to Indonesia, and an 8 hour walk (tide permitting) to Sematan in Malaysia when the sea was too rough for boats to traverse. The result of his work is a marvelous fusion of historiography and anthropology.

[Crossposted from New Books in History] What should we study? The eighteenth-century luminary and poet Alexander Pope had this to say on the subject: “Know then thyself, presume not God to scan; The proper study of mankind is man ” (An Essay on Man, 1733). He was not alone in this opinion. The philosophers of the Enlightenment–of which we may count Pope–all believed that humans would benefit most from a proper comprehension of temporal things, and most particularly humanity itself. For them, understanding humanity meant, first and foremost, understanding the human body. Naturally, then, the philosophes and their successors paid close attention to the body. They cut it up, took it apart, measured it and attempted to see how it worked. They were most interested in one part in particular–the human head. It was the seat of the human characteristic the Enlightenment scientists admired most: intelligence. If one could get a handle on the human cranium, then one would understand what it meant to be human. Or at least so they thought. In her fascinating new book The Skull Collectors: Race, Science and America’s Unburied Dead (University of Chicago Press, 2010), Ann Fabian introduces us to a group of American philosophes who began to collect and study human crania in the first half of the nineteenth century. Not surprisingly, they took most of their cues from their European counterparts. They did, however, adapt craniology to a peculiar American context. Living in a social order in part built on supposed racial difference, the American skull collectors knew that what they said about Africans mattered. Their work could support the suppositions of slavery, or not. Moreover, living in a social order that was at the very time they were working involved in a quasi-genocidal campaign against indigenous peoples, the American skull collectors knew that what they said about Native Americans mattered as well. Their work might buttress the movement for Indian removal, or it might not. And being people of the “New World,” the American skull collectors knew that they were looked down upon by many of their European colleagues. They needed to collect skulls aggressively in order to establish craniology as an American science. As one might expect, the American skull collectors were, by our lights, a strange bunch. Racists, imperialists, and nationalists to be sure. But also scientists, curators, and founders of physical anthropology. Thanks to Ann for bringing them to us in all their contradictory richness. Please become a fan of “New Books in Anthropology” on Facebook if you haven’t already.

[Crossposted from New Books in History] First, the conventional wisdom. Because Homo sapiens are a young species and haven’t had time to genetically differentiate, we modern humans are all basically genetically identical. Because Homo sapiens figured out ways to use culture to overcome natural selection, human genetic evolution ceased ages ago. Because Homo sapiens are genetically very similar and not subject to natural selection, the differences that we see today among modern human groups are the result of cultural processes, not genes. Not so say Gregory Cochran and Henry Harpending in their challenging and sure-to-be-controversial new book The 10,000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution (Basic Books, 2009).  We are extraordinarily similar genetically, but the minor differences occasionally had very important consequences: a difference of one or two nucleotides–among billions–could mean life or death for entire populations.  These minor differences, where advantageous, were selected for and spread in the ordinary natural selective way: if you developed resistance to malaria in the tropics, you survived and your genes were passed on; if not, then not. Finally, these genetic advantages accumulated: populations that had been put under more “pressure” were more robust than those living in  relaxed environments.The more robust populations prospered; the less robust did not. Interesting for the historian will be the point that most of the enhanced “pressure” was due to historical factors. According to Cochran and Harpending, the transition to agriculture roughly 10,000 years ago in particular forced Homo sapiens to do things that they were not “programmed” (so to say) to do. Those who adapted genetically survived; those who did not, did not. Thus Homo sapiens 1.0 (the hunter-gatherer model) evolved into Homo sapiens 2.0 (the farming model). Cochran and Harpending submit that this process–natural selection due to cultural pressure–has been going on quite recently and may be going on today. For example, they propose that historical factors in the European Middle Ages favored the differential reproduction of brainy Azhkenazi Jews, the results of which can be seen in the differential success of their descendants in brainy occupations. Hackle-raising stuff to be sure. Is any of it true? Listen to the interview, read the book and decide for yourself. Please become a fan of “New Books in Anthropology” on Facebook if you haven’t already.

[Crossposted from New Books in History] Long ago, historians more or less gave up on “theories of history.” They determined that human nature was too unpredictable, cultures too various, and developmental patterns too evanescent for any really scientific theory of history to be possible. Human history, they said, was chaos. The problem is that human history isn’t chaos at all. The “hard” human sciences–evolutionary biology and anthropology in particular–have shown that human nature is quite predictable, cultural variability is strictly constrained, and ongoing patterns of social development have ancient roots. Historians can ignore these facts all they like, but that doesn’t make them any the less true. It does, however, impoverish their discipline by ceding the search for a satisfying theory of history to scientists. Neither Paul Bingham nor Joanne Souza are historians. The former is a molecular biologist and the latter an evolutionary psychologist. But they have formulated an elegant theory of human history in Death From a Distance and the Birth of a Humane Universe (2009). Like any good theory, it explains a lot with a little. To put it briefly, human society has gone from simple/small to massive/complex because humans alone among animals were/are able to suppress intra-group conflicts of interest by means of low-cost coercion. Bingham and Souza point out that the big “jumps” in social size and complexity–the neolithic revolution, the growth of archaic states, the birth of the nation-state, the rise of globalization–have all been associated with the evolution/introduction of new, more powerful coercive abilities. Paradoxically, it was new weapons that created more and better lives over the course of the last several hundred thousand years. This brief summary cannot do justice to the richness of Bingham’s and Souza’s theory. You need to read it for yourself. When you do, I guarantee you will see the past and present in a new way. Please become a fan of “New Books in Anthropology” on Facebook if you haven’t already.