Problematizing Place And Culture

Anthropology has always been interested in studying the other. When thinking of anthropology, many have the image of the ethnographer travelling to a remote place to study an exotic people, untouched by the outside world the indigenous fantasy (Aug , 2008, p.36). However, Appadurai (1988), Gupta and Ferguson (1992), and Auger (2008) invite us to question the notion of place. They urge us to understand why and how certain ideas and concepts, such as this cultural distinctiveness of places, dominate the anthropological discourse.

Appadurai (1988) observes the genealogy of the idea of hierarchy as outlined in Dumont s Homo Hierarchicus (1970), an analysis of the Indian caste system. Appadurai (1988) critiques the notion of the term native because it infers distance from the West . The native is incarcerated confined to the geographical place which he or she belongs. Moreover, he critiques the tendency of anthropology to essentialize, exoticize, and totalize. Finally, Appadurai critiques the tendency for anthropologists to essentialize certain concepts based on previous works done in different places, the same way Dumont s conception of hierarchy derived from studies done in Africa, ancient Arabia, ancient Rome, and the South Pacific.

Gupta and Ferguson (1992) address issues surrounding space and place which have gained renewed interest in postmodern and feminist theory. The authors urge anthropology to reevaluate its concept of cultural difference (p.6). Thinking of places as disconnected and fragmented from each other leads us to label these places with a specific culture and identity. Gupta and Ferguson (1992) outline the different problems with the traditional notion of space in anthropological theory. First, space does not take into account those who live in between (e.i. those who occupy borders), second, it does not take into account the cultural differences within the same locality ( multiculturalism ), third, it does not take into account the influences of colonial encounters ( hybridity ), and finally, thinking of spaces as autonomous conceals the topography of power. Gupta and Ferguson (1992) propose to analyze cultural differences through connection instead of disconnection. Anthropologists can examine what goes into the construction of space as place (p.8). In other words, anthropology must identify why there is a separation between us and them how are the differences produced?

For Aug (2008), a place with identity, relationships, and history is an anthropological place. It is characterized as a place, rather than a non-place, because it holds significance a place evolves organically around relationships that individuals form through time. Aug (2008) argues that anthropological place is geometric , because it can be observed through lines (e.g. routes), intersections (e.g. crossroads), and points (e.g. town centers) (p.46). Along with the previously mentioned authors, Aug (2008) argues that it is a myth that places are closed and self-sufficient (p.38). The culturalist view ignores influences of the external world and ignores diversity within the same social group: The ideal, for an ethnologist [ ] would be for each ethnic group to have its own island [ ] and for each islander to be an exact replica of his neighbours. (p.41)

Finally, these authors encourage us to rethink space as fluid and ever-changing, rather than static and disconnected. We must think of anthropological subjects as mobile and continuously constructing new identities. My question is: how do virtual worlds, brought by social media and the internet, bring forward a new level of complexity to the notion of space? How are individuals constructing new spaces charged with meaning online, when deprived of physicality? How can anthropologists study these spaces with Aug s (2008) spatial forms (lines, intersections, and points) when the connections are made virtually?

Resources

Appadurai, A. (1988). Putting Hierarchy in Its Place. Cultural Anthropology, 3(1), pp.36-49.

Aug , M. (2008). Non-places: introduction to an Anthropology of Supermodernity. London: Verso.

Gupta, A. and Ferguson, J. (1992). Beyond `Culture`: Space, Identity, and the Politics of Difference. Cultural Anthropology, 7(1), pp.6-23.