Moore, Jerry D.
2004 Visions of Culture: An Introduction to Anthropological Theories and Theorists (2nd ed.). Walnut Creek, California: AltaMira Press.
Notes: xv, 379 p.; 23 cm. ISBN: 0759104115Reviewed 16 Oct 2004 by:
Matthew Sanger <sanger@amnh.org>
American Museum of Natural History, New York, NY, USAMedium: Written Literature Subject
Keywords:Anthropology - Methodology
Anthropology - Field work
Anthropologists - History
Anthropologists - Biography
ABSTRACT: Twenty-four of the most important anthropologists and their central theories are presented in a clear and accessible manner. An informative, well-written, and thoroughly researched publication on socio-cultural theory, its greatest failing is ignoring theories and theorists from the ôotherö three fields of anthropology û linguistics, archaeology, and biological anthropology.
Designed to be used in an upper-level undergraduate history of anthropology class û Visions of Culture provides a whirlwind tour of anthropological theory over the last one hundred years by introducing twenty-four of the most important anthropologists since the inception of the discipline. In this, the second edition of Visions of Culture, Jerry Moore adds four recent anthropologists (Eric Wolf, Pierre Bourdieu, Sherry Ortner, and James Fernandez) as well as a Postscript that discusses some of the recent controversies in anthropology.ôWhatÆs the Point?ö is the first chapter of MooreÆs book, which he was compelled to write when a frustrated undergraduate student asked him this question. Like many who have pursued their education in the post-modern, post-processual world of anthropology, this student had been taught the downside and shortcomings of their academic and professional ancestors. The studentÆs frustration was caused not only by the belittling of past theories, but also by the anticipation of future denigration of current theorists, and in association û the likely vilification of his own concepts. Moore writes, ôwe fail as teachers to communicate to our students the legacies of anthropologists who are worthy of attention, scrutiny, and respectö (p.xii).
Moore attempts to contextualize twenty-four of the most important anthropological theorists by relating their theories to both their experiences and the world in which they lived. These are not ôstraw men or whipping boysö (p.xiii), but rather important philosophers who shaped - and were likewise fashioned - by the academic, political, and philosophical times in which they lived. Unlike other books of this genre, Moore focuses on the theorists, rather than their theories, which allows him to historicize his subjects and personalize their concepts.
There are four primary reasons why Visions of Culture is beneficial for use in an upper-level undergraduate history of anthropology course. First, he is careful to describe both the faults and the benefits of each of the theories even when they are currently considered obsolete. Second, Moore provides an insightful, yet concise description of each of the theorists including the shortcomings of some of our most revered figures. Third, he is able to present difficult theoretical concepts in a manner that makes them both accessible and interesting to his audience. Finally, Moore re-introduces some of the lesser-known theorists who may have fallen out of vogue, but have had a profound impact on the discipline.
It is in his chapter on Edward Tylor that Moore first displays his ability to provide a balanced, yet critical account of one of his most difficult subjects. Tylor is problematic because he espoused uniformitarianism, as well as the ranking of cultures as either savage, barbarian, or civilized û two aspects of early anthropology that make current members of the discipline cringe in shame. Yet he also provided the first ômodernö definition of culture and is considered the first theorist to analyze societies in a scientific fashion.
By choosing Tylor for his first chapter, Moore immediately confronts the question at hand û what is the point in reading out of-date, discredited, and often embarrassing theorists? By attempting to answer this question, Moore has put himself in an extremely delicate situation in which he is responsible for both faithfully describing the short-comings of the theories and theorists, and yet still showing how they have provided important contributions to the field of anthropology and are worthy of study. He points out that while TylorÆs ideas of uniformitarianism and evolutionary stages are widely accepted as being invalid, he was beneficial to the development of anthropology for two primary reasons. Tylor argued against racial determination at a time when the ethnicity of an individual or group was largely used as a determination of social status and perceived physical evolution. Also, Tylor is largely credited as the first person to accurately define and describe culture in a manner that allowed it to be used as a unit of study. Throughout this chapter, it is obvious that Moore is determined to balance between lauding TylorÆs contributions to anthropology and denigrating theories that are now considered flawed, and even harmful. Moore accomplishes this task by contextualizing TylorÆs work by introducing both his personal and intellectual history as well as the state of academia in which he was working.
Moore continues to use this approach throughout his book, including in his descriptions of Lewis Henry Morgan and Marcel Mauss. While describing Morgan, an anthropologist who is now largely derided, Moore is faithful to his audience by describing his many faults, yet still portraying him as one of the first individuals to link economic modes of production with socio-political structures û a point of view shared with Marx and Engels, and extremely important to the development of economic anthropology.
Moore also does a respectable job in describing Marcel Mauss, known for both the complexity of his ideas and in the way he presents them in an accessible and pertinent manner. Moore makes an important point when he describes MaussÆ concepts of rudimentary classification and total prestations as being generally discredited, but still important, because of their affect on later generations of anthropological theorists, including Claude Levi-Strauss, Clifford Geertz, and Victor Turner.
Moore provides one of his most insightful and fair descriptions when he portrays Franz Boas. Not surprisingly, Boas is described as the Father of American Anthropology and as single-handedly destroying Morgan and TylorÆs dangerous and erroneous theory of uniformitarianism. However, even as Moore points out BoasÆ benefits to anthropology, he does not remain uncritical of Boas and his theory of historical particularianism and how it made anthropological theory largely ôantitheoreticalö as ôresearch began to focus on differences rather than similarities between societiesö (p.43). His decision to problematize Boas by describing his negative effect on anthropology is proof of MooreÆs determination to portray each theorist in a detailed, accurate, and truthful manner.
The chapter on Margaret Mead is another testament to this determination. While Moore gives credit to MeadÆs numerous contributions, he does not shy away from the ongoing controversy surrounding her work in Samoa û a discussion that is important and meaningful to current anthropological theory and ethics.
Moore also provides insights into how the personal experiences of the anthropologistsÆ will often influence their theories. He is especially successful in relating Ruth Benedict, and her study of individual rebellion against societal norms, to her own revolt against the gender-based norms that were being forced upon her.
Perhaps the strongest section is the chapter on Eric Wolf. Moore does a masterful job in relating WolfÆs personal experience as a fieldworker in Puerto Rico, the intellectual climate in post-World War II academia, and their combined effects on WolfÆs theories of culture and power.
Many of the scholars discussed in Visions of Culture are well known for promoting dense, difficult, and challenging theories. The chapter on Emile Durkheim highlights MooreÆs ability to successfully describe difficult theoretical concepts in both a concise and accessible manner. DurkheimÆs theory of ôconscience collectiveö is challenging to even the most theoretically fluent student of anthropology, and is nearly impossible for the rest of us.
Likewise, MooreÆs chapter on Pierre Bourdieu is succinct yet instructive. While he is honest in describing BourdieuÆs theory as being difficult to understand, MooreÆs explanations of Habitus, Doxa, and Practice are clear, yet true to BourdieuÆs original writings.
Numerous anthropological theorists have either faded from popularity, or were never appreciated, but have deeply influenced anthropology through their writings. One of the strongest aspects of Visions of Culture is in how it re-introduces these theorists. For example, it is amazing how few under-graduate, and even graduate students know anything about the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. This theory, that language both reflects and limits the available thought processes of a group, marked the birth of modern linguistics, and an important turning point in anthropology. The inclusion of Edward Sapir in this volume will help to re-introduce him to another generation of anthropology students.
Likewise, we are introduced to Mary Douglas, a theorist that most do not encounter until graduate school. Moore provides a thorough description of the events that shaped Douglas and her theories û especially her concept of group and grid.
While Moore was successful in describing difficult theories and presenting a wide-range of anthropologists, it is debatable whether he ever answered his original question û ôWhat is the point?ö While Moore never explicitly provides an answer, it is implied throughout his book. By highlighting the way in which each generation of theorists both builds upon and resurrects past theories, even those discredited, Moore implies that there is value in studying ôout of dateö concepts because of their influence on anthropology. By showing the continued importance of past theories, Moore also attempts to alleviate the frustration of current students dissuaded from developing new theories.
The one true weakness of Visions of Culture is the exclusion of theories and theorists from the ôotherö three fields of anthropology û linguistics, archaeology, and biological anthropology. Throughout the book, Moore bemoans the lack of inter-field studies, even stating that he is attempting to ôrepresent a broader range of anthropological viewpointsö (p.xii), yet he continues this failing by focusing on socio-cultural anthropology. While Kroeber and Boas performed linguistic studies, only Edward Sapir could really be considered a linguist. Likewise, while Kroeber and Steward performed limited archaeological excavations, there are no archaeological theories and Moore absolutely ignores biological anthropology by not including a single theory or theorist from this field. By ignoring the three other fields of anthropology, Moore is not only cheating his reader of many important anthropologists and their views, but is also promoting the viewpoint that only cultural anthropologists can create and advance meaningful theories. This viewpoint is extremely detrimental to any under-graduate who might be thinking of specializing in an anthropological field outside of cultural anthropology. To be fair, Moore is simply mirroring an academy where socio-cultural studies are often given priority when studying theory. Nonetheless, it is disappointing that Moore, who is an archaeologist, did not break from this tradition.
To cite this review, the American Anthropological Association recommends the following style:
Sanger, Matthew
2004 Review of Visions of Culture: An Introduction to Anthropological Theories and Theorists (2nd ed.). Anthropology Review Database. October 16. Electronic document, http://wings.buffalo.edu/ARD/cgi/showme.cgi?keycode=2402, accessed November 22, 2009.© Anthropology Review Database
(available online: http://wings.buffalo.edu/ARD/)