to Ten Articles Main Page
Abrahams, Roger D. 1981. “Ordinary and Extraordinary
Experience.” In The Anthropology of Experience, Victor
Turner,
ed. Chicago: University of Illinois Press, pp. 45-72.
“Ordinary and Extraordinary Experience”
Roger D. Abrahams
[beginning of page 45]
With the explicit opening up of the discussion on the
anthropology of
experience, we acknowledge that we are moving out of the discourse on
social
institutions and into the realm of cultural performance and
display.
I take this to mean that we are no longer looking for the chartering
legislation
that puts a social group into business and keeps it there through the
exercise
of authority; rather, we seek the techniques by which the individuals
in
some sort of collectivity develop ways of acting that will authenticate
both the actors and the group simultaneously.
As teachers and scribes we share in the crisis of
legitimation.
When words become only the basis of establishing meaningful
relationships
and other such egalitarian fictions, then the voices of authority are
no
longer given value or trust, and all of those who wear robes and speak
from the pulpit or the dais can no longer expect to be listened to
simply
because of the authority given us by our filling such roles. When
holy offices no longer automatically carry the power to irreversibly
transform
peoples’ status through simply performing acts vested in the roles,
then
who will listen to teachers who simply seek to inform and reveal the
ways
of the world?
As true modernists we respond by seeking to find new and
more powerful
ways of describing the ways such things work, so that our abilities to
examine and perceive more deeply will be accorded some respect and
admiration.
Modishly, we replace the vocabulary and the practices of vested
authority
with terms and procedures proclaiming equality of humankind and the
need
to make a place in our systematic analyses for the achievement of [beginning
of page 46] authenticity by the individual, as each person becomes
part of a community and a society.
Surely that is what is going on here, is it not? We
gather to
mark the demotion of the key terms of authoritative rhetoric --
“tradition,”
“custom,” even “institution” -- as we make one further effort at
finding
in everyday speech a vocabulary that will assist us in celebrating the
project of self-possession, self-fashioning, self-expression; a project
that sees all life as a constant achievement and all agreed-upon
practices
as techniques for simultaneously amplifying and questioning what it is
we have agreed to in our own little groups. Thus “experience” and
its associated vocabulary is elevated to the realm of the new holy
word.
In this social dispensation, individuals may find a new redemption --
or
at least a validation -- in the world of the here and now, even if it
is
no longer attached to a divinely sanctioned plan.
By building on this word, which embodies that segment of
life carved
out by each of us, we follow in the great line of secular theologians,
the clerisy, who make holy words of those which are otherwise most
mundane
and who seek in the process to raise the place of the examining self to
one of such dignity that the older and more wrathful gods, if not
appeased,
can at least be ignored. This has been the holy practice of
secular
humanism: the ritualizing of the construction of one’s self.
Going
one further step in this reflexive development, we now acknowledge that
all life involves the construction of agreed-upon fictions and that the
least harmful, the least hegemonic, are those that assert self
worth.
All terms connected with institutional practice become a little suspect
because of the power distribution and systems of control they have
carried
with them -- at least in past ethnographic analyses. Culture now
achieves a new meaning, the achieved agreements of social practices, an
agreement given reinforced value and meaning in each act of
sociability.
And such practices, when they are writ large in cultural displays and
performances,
have added power because they achieve their force through the
coordination
of the energies of the group involved in the celebration.
Erving Goffman, who spent many years in service to this
humane discipline,
left us with this litany: “Many gods have been done away with, but the
individual himself stubbornly remains a deity of great
importance.
He walks with some dignity and is the recipient of many little
offerings.
He is jealous of the worship due [beginning of page 47] him,
yet,
approached in the right spirit, he is ready to forgive those who may
have
offended him” (1967:95). As a human, and therefore a social
animal,
the individual operates on the principle of goodwill, assuming until
proven
otherwise that unmannerly actions and breaches in the ritual of common
courtesy arise from ignorance or ineptness, this too a part of the
human
condition. And so let this essay, even this book, be one of those
offerings to the individual.
***
Under such radically secular conditions, the problem facing
the humanist
is not so much one of replacing the gods but finding a language to
effectively
replace the Word with new sacred words that will allow us to celebrate
the survival of the human spirit. For many years “civilization,”
“progress,” and “culture” bore this burden, gracefully submitting
themselves
to elevation. Of these, only the last has retained its haloed
effect,
through the efforts of those who recognize in the word’s capacities the
possibility of linking together the way the peoples live, throughout
the
world.
But can any such “god term,” to use Donoghue’s (1976:123)
designation,
remain holy in the relentlessly self-examining environment in which we
live? Words in this world are hallowed only so long as they
retain
their novelty as a sign of their vitality. And so the members of
the clerisy continue to search through our everyday speech for these
god
terms knowing that they are not going to come from on high. As
was
done by Arnold, and more recently by Lionel Trilling, Erving Goffman,
Raymond
Williams, and Victor Turner, can new ones be recovered from the passing
talk of the streets and parlors and reconstituted, like frozen orange
juice,
simply by adding water when needed? (1) Such key words, or root
metaphors
(to use some names by which such god terms have been discussed in the
past),
must contain such integrity and value that they can be employed,
defended
in their use, redeemed and re-redeemed for the spirit that resides
within
them. If we have such a term, “experience” is surely it.
But
let Donoghue’s (1976:123) warning be one that we keep in mind: “There
is
always a temptation to assume that because a god term is holy to its
celebrant[s]
it must be holy to everyone; a writer may make the mistake of thinking
that he does not need to establish the sanctity of the word, that he
has
only to invoke it.”
Such a caution is especially appropriate in the present cir-
[beginning
of page 48] circumstances, where, as ethnographers of the behavior,
performance, display, and celebration of diverse peoples, we must worry
ourselves over the two kinds of errors into which enthusiasts
fall.
The first and most dreadful is that we so love our new holy words that
we turn them into cliches and commonplaces, forgetting for the moment
that
we must maintain their spirit as well as their meaning. The
second
is that in our pursuit of insight we forget that the moral lesson of
the
new creed is that communication of deep meanings is difficult under any
circumstance, and we find correspondences between cultures especially
filled
with obstacles to understanding.
This second area for potential error is especially perilous
for the
ethnographers who quite naturally pride themselves on being sensitive
to
cultural differences. It is therefore important to remind
ourselves
in our pursuit of an anthropology of experience that “experience”
itself
is a deeply coded word in our own culture; that is, the very conditions
of modernity, especially as pursued in the United States, value
experience
for its own sake. Not only do we hunger and thirst for
significant
doings, but when we find them, simply by recognizing them as
significant,
by thinking and writing about them, we may elevate such occurrences to
a status that makes considered examination difficult. Trilling
(1979:82)
points to just such a tendency in the works of those critically
examining
cultural texts: “When we yield to our contemporary impulse to enlarge
all
experience...we are in danger of making experience merely typical,
formal
and representative and thus losing one term in the dialectic
that
goes on between spirit and the conditioned.” This enlargement
occurs
simply in reporting the experience, isolating it from the course of
everyday
happenings, providing it with significant form after the fact.
Lost
in such a translation, Trilling continues, is “the actuality of the
conditioned,
the literality of matter, the peculiar authenticity and authority of
the
merely denotative.” By elevating our actions to stories and even
more dramatic replayings, we lose some of the spirit that resides in
actions
simply because they are humdrum. Such a loss is hardly
inconsequential,
for we cannot allow ourselves to enter into an unexamined agreement
with
the thrill seekers and the hedonists that we will be interested in the
manifestations of the human spirit only in aroused states; we must [beginning
of page 49] manifest our interest in the quotidian experiences as
well,
and perhaps even in the depressed states of boredom, lassitude, even
dispiritedness.
The problem arising for the observer of the regularities of
human behavior
and conduct is that the simple process of observation and reporting
does,
indeed, alter the significance and perhaps even the meaning of the
activities
themselves. This problem becomes all the more intense when
reports
are committed to paper or some other medium of record. With the
increasing
distance between the act and the apprehension of it by the reader, the
hearer, the viewer, a loss of the spirit is more likely. This
kind
of recording may make the event itself seem more significant, for now
it
has been elevated almost to the status of performance, while at the
same
time making it seem merely typical, inasmuch as it becomes a
“representative
anecdote.”
Do not mistake me: I am not arguing that we should back away
from the
enterprise of discussing culture directly and openly in terms of
personally
registered actions. The word “experience” has such flexibility
and
can serve us so well in tying together the ordinary and the
extraordinary;
so much of life is already there, enshrined in its circle of meaning as
it is used in the vernacular. Experiences happen to individuals
and
are therefore sometimes to be regarded as idiosyncratic; but these very
same occurrences might, under other circumstances, be usefully regarded
as typical. Morris (1970:115) argues in such a direction by
distinguishing
between “private experiences” and “common experiences.”
Experience
is, at one and the same time, illustrative of what individuals do and
of
the conventional patterns of culturally learned and interpreted
behavior
that makes them understandable to others.
Moreover, as a concept, experience underscores the
ongoingness of life
and the open character of ongoing actions, yet it also encourages us to
see actions as units of behavior that can be separated from the rest of
the action and talked about later. It is a term of connections
because
it encourages us to discuss life in terms of how present activities of
even the most threatening sort may be drawn on and replayed in some
form
in the future: “Experience is the best teacher,” “Live and learn,” and
all that. Experience contains ordinary acts, from the casual to
the
most eventful occurrences. It embodies both meanings and feelings,
the [beginning of page 50] flowering of individual response
that
continually gravitates toward typicality, so that afterward we, can
find
words to talk about what happened.
Because our individual experiences are so central to the
ways in which
we put together a sense of our own identity, to underscore the
typicality
is to confront one of our dearest held beliefs: that having been made
individuals,
we should do everything we can to hold on to our sense of
uniqueness.
Yet experience tells us that what happens to us is never so original,
especially
as we must discuss it. This discussion makes us all the more
sensitive
to the ways we ourselves are not so original, especially as we
recognize
ourselves as members of a generation, a network, a community.
Without
the deep investigation on our own part of how our experiences reflect
our
deepest cultural concerns, and the patterns we unwittingly impose on
developing
peoples, we have just another Western ethnocentric model of
analysis.
Further, it seems especially important to develop this
self-consciousness
of our own cultural patterns and limitations, because those involved in
developing experience as a term of art do so in extension of the idea
of
the performance of culture -- that is, by looking at the ways in which
cultural displays, like shows and ceremonies, festivals and rituals,
make
explicit what is regarded by the membership of the culture itself as
the
significant moments of life. However, culture lies not only in
such
singular activities but in the connections between the everyday and
these
more intense, framed and stylized practices.
My worry begins, I suppose, in recognizing that as a nation
of individualists,
Americans have placed ever greater importance on experience, relating
it
to our notions of the person in constant development, always heading
toward
some kind of self-realization. We have been searchers after
experience,
always preparing ourselves for significant actions that may enhance our
lives if we remain open to the new. Our “native theory” of
significant
action reflects this: newness, novelty, and a desire to be in on the
news
has been at the front of the American agenda since the beginnings of
our
history. Apparently the encounter with the new has been tied up
in
our imaginations with the prospect of social, cultural, and personal
renewal.
Indeed, one of the important meanings of the word refers, in shorthand,
to conversion, to being saved. This obsession with novelty,
accompanied
by a fear of boredom, is [beginning of page 51] deeply
implicated
in the almost compulsive need to move on. From the figure of the
pilgrim-stranger to the romanticized hobo, our most admired
protagonists
are the ones who were able to move on...and sometimes move up.
Traveling
on has been almost institutionalized through its connection with the
missionary,
the peddler, or the member of the Peace Corps -- all processes of
Yankee
ingenuity that are not too distantly related to “doing anthropology”
(especially
of the “applied” sort).
All of us have a double consciousness and a sometimes
self-contradictory
value system about the meaning of these new experiences in the creation
of ourselves and the needs and rights of others. Daniel Schorr,
the
former newscaster who was caught up in the Pentagon Papers controversy,
nicely discusses this double consciousness. To him, “reporting”
and
“reality” are deeply connected; he notes (Schorr 1977:vii) that as a
reporter
he was constantly confronted with the need “to discover the ‘real
story’
or to extract it from the mists of vagueness and pretenses.” A
mighty
calling, and one that demanded a certain amount of distance from the
frantic
events to which he and the people he interviewed were witness.
This
man, who could truthfully claim to be engaged directly in “the action,”
nevertheless responded to the experience as more the observer than the
participant:
It made me feel more real not to be involved.
Participants took
positions, got excited, shaped events for woe or zeal, but what a
strange
paradox that seems -- to feel more real not be involved -- to
be
where it is happening but not to be engaged. To keep the action
sufficiently
distanced to be able, still, to call it an event, yet because that very
distance provides the objectivity necessary to sort out important
details
of “the story.” In fact, just being there, seeing the picture
without
being in it, qualifies the activity as an experience precisely because
one is able to report, firsthand, what really happened. I
remained
the untouched observer, seeing the whole picture because I was not
[actually]
in the picture. (Schorr 1977:vii)
Schorr might be describing our work as ethnographers.
Does not
the field experience call for us to become professional naifs,
demanding
that we self-consciously retrack ourselves? A creative
regression,
if you wish, but a regression nonetheless. Placing ourselves in
this
position, we may observe and ask and even imitate, without taking the
social
risks such acts might produce were we [beginning of page 52]
taken
to be adults. This is carried out, moreover, with the knowledge
that
while we seem to our informants to act like children, in some ways
because
we are outsiders who come with devices of a powerful technology (like
cars
and tape recorders), we can hardly be treated as less than adults.
Doing controlled observation reflects an approach to events
as experiences
that provides a kind of spiritual hedge against interpreting
experience-at-a-remove
as simple thrill seeking or voyeurism. With our immense hunger
for
experience, having achieved this psychological distance while we make
our
professional observations, the feeling of noninvolvement -- indeed, of
the inability to involve ourselves fully -- begins to affect the
quality
of our observations. Somehow we find a substitute with sufficient
sustaining power to be able to say we were not actively involved.
Being on the sidelines merely watching the big plays permits us to
replay
them later to those who were not there, on the spot; there is
sufficient
energy in such happenings for all those present to be recharged by the
action. But even so, those who are only looking on and reporting
develop a double consciousness about the activity that always threatens
to undercut any claims for uniqueness.
The problem of this double consciousness is great, far
greater than
I am able to get a handle on here, for it has so much to do with our
notions
of what constitutes learning and to what extent and purpose we really
do
live and learn. Moreover, with the growing emphasis on the
individual’s
control over his or her own identity, the institutional ways of
engineering
personal transformations have lost much of their power. For such
socially sanctioned transformation to occur, we must believe in the
power
of those invested with authority to mark these changes for us.
But
in many ways such authority has been undercut because of our belief
that
we should do such changing on our own. This is authentication
substituted
for authority. If success in life were a given, there would be
little
question, I suppose, that experience could be a useful teacher, if not
always the best one. But a corollary of our American Dream is
what
might be called an American Dread, of finding out that growing means
eliminating
some of our options. Failing in a task will do this, of course,
but
so will succeeding too well and being promoted in some way because of
the
success. Our dread is always that we can’t go back.
In fact, many of the formative thinkers on the subject of
the [beginning
of page 53] relationship between narrated experience and life and
art
have worked their profundities in witnessing failure. Donoghue
(1976:104)
takes note of just this dynamic in discussing how American writers draw
on the experience of personal failure, making it into “aesthetic forms
and ceremonies...to take away some of its ‘stress,’ thus entering into
the all-too-human process of assimilating it.” His response is
that
of the literary critic still adhering in some degree to the “wound and
bow” approach by which great art is forged out of deep personal
hurt.
Donoghue discerns in American letters a pattern by which the genre
“achieves
its vitality by a labour to transform the mere state of failure into
the
artistic success of forms and pageants; it learns a style not from a
despair
but from an apparent failure -- some, like Henry Adams, by making the
worst
of it”; others, like Henry James, “by making the best of it, and the
best
of it is the same thing as the most of it” (1976:104).
The perception is important because it recognizes in such a
dynamic
and often self-contradictory form our attraction to experience for its
own sake and our ambivalence about why we are so drawn to it.
Both
success and failure are useful outcomes, especially as the experience
is
talked about and written about later. While there is little
problem
for the anthropologist to recognize this complex motive in modern life,
just how much does enter into the decision to become an ethnographer,
to
go into the field, thus testing oneself and one’s own cultural moorings
by a people living and identifying with the writings about the
systematics
of those who live according to different cultural ways? We know
of
this problem because doing fieldwork is regarded as a rite de
passage
for the social and cultural anthropologist.
Just how American this double consciousness of experience is
emerges
when looking at the number of our lasting works of literature that draw
on the contrast between the doer and the watcher the Henry James who so
glories in the achievement of the occasional moment of felicity in the
midst of decorous, if frivolous, doings; the Henry Adams who can only
scorn
the present because of its deep duplicities and its failure of
nerve.
There are, of course, many American works of fiction built around a
pair
of characters who dramatize the problem: one deeply involved in the
action,
whether successfully or not, the other a witness to it all and only
sometimes
a judge as well. While one reading of The Adventure of [beginning
of page 54] Huckleberry Finn would make Huck and Jim into
such
a pair, the great example of this type of narrative is, of course, Moby
Dick, with Ishmael being drawn unwittingly to the sea and to the
cruise
-- drawn, as we find out, by a force of life confrontation epitomized
in
Ahab’s obsession. More recent outstanding examples of such
onlookers
and reporters are Nick Carraway in Fitzgerald’s Great Gatsby;
Nick
Adams in Hemingway’s short stories; the more world-weary Jake Barnes
and
his attitudes toward bullfighting and war in Hemingway’s The Sun
Also
Rises; and Stingo in Styron’s Sophie’s Choice.
We identify all of these characters with the
storyteller-author and
his growing up through having experienced the energy and the frenzy of
these more charismatic presences, these larger-than-life figures, the
Ahabs
and Gatsbys who represent a mysterious power resource that guarantees
that
wherever these figures are, significant things will occur. These
quintessential American novels are constructed around the interplay
between
the characters who instigate the action and those who are there to
observe
and record, who are caught up in the swirl of transforming events but
emerge
much wiser, perhaps bruised by events but relatively unscathed, “so the
story can be told.”
We are now informed of the ongoing American concern with
experience,
but what of its potential in developing ethnographic strategies?
With few exceptions, most formal ethnographies tell us little about the
experience of the fieldworker and almost as little about the
experiences
of the people being observed. Rather, we have records of the
system
and institutions that order the lives of people in groups, enlivened
every
once in awhile with a representative anecdote. On the whole,
however,
the reflexive dimension of the ethnographic literature has not been
well
developed. While we have a number of fascinating autobiographical
reports from the field, there is very little address on the part of the
fieldworker as to how cultural norms and professional expectations
entered
into the collection and reporting of materials, much less what was
happening
to the collector that might have made a difference (cf. Bose
1982).
Even behavior on the experiential level is not often in our
monographs.
To be sure, there have been a series of revealing field reports that
focus
on the phenomenological dimensions of the discovery of self and others,
through developing relationships in the field situation (Rabinow 1977
and
Crapanzano 1980 are two [beginning of page 55] that come to
mind),
in addition, to the classic anthropological novels that elaborate on
the
representative anecdote technique. However, as ethnographic
reports
get even closer to the details of recurrent expressive behaviors, there
has arisen a felt need to discover how individuals within a community
learn
cultural performances, how to prepare for them and judge them, and how
to feel about them before, during, and after the actual
occurrence.
With this switch, more ethnographic attention is being paid to native
theories
of emotions and feelings, as well as to the more objective utilitarian
and symbolic orders provided for participants in a culture simply by
having
grown up within a specific milieu (cf. Lutz 1982; Feld 1982; Myers
1979;
in the area of folklore, cf. Glassie 1982).
As I see it, this drawing on experience in anthropology is a
part of
the process of internal monitoring of basic terms and concepts that
must
take place in every professional discipline. In the social
sciences
-- especially sociology and anthropology -- we have unique problems in
taking stock of special terminology as key words are derived from
everyday
talk (see Williams 1979:180 for an indication of the importance of
experience
in his ongoing concern with key words). As native interpretation
becomes more and more important in our ethnographic reports, experience
gives promise of tying together our everyday feelings with those
encountered
during Big Times. Experience addresses the ongoingness of life as
it is registered through the filter of culture -- that is, through acts
we have already learned to interpret as experiences or, in the case of
shock, surprise, embarrassment, or trauma, through acts we reprocess as
experiences after the fact, by talking about them and thus making them
seem less personal, more typical.
At this point it is probably most useful to point out our
commonsensical
distinction between events -- things that happen -- and experiences --
things that happen to us or others. The distinction is important
for a number of reasons, not least of all because notions of who we are
as individuals are often tied up with those unique-if-typical things
that
have happened, especially when those happenings have become stories we
tell ourselves. In this dimension individual experiences enter
into
the.putting together of our “identity kit,” to use Erving Goffman’s
term.
Rose (1982:220) is one of the few social scientists who has addressed
the
notion of experience and has consistently made distinctions between
what
[beginning
of page 56] “experiences we ...recognize as meaningful as they are
occurring”; the semiotic systems by which we are able to order
experiences
as we are having them; and an economy of experiences in which those we
have are to be regarded as personal resources that may be used in
interpersonal
exchanges as a way of authenticating ourselves.
This last, our using experiences as part of our personal
economy, is
perhaps the dimension least easily and readily dealt with by
ethnographers.
Stories about one’s own experiences provide an important resource for
not
only establishing one’s place in the community (because of one’s
special
knowledge) but also for establishing one’s identity, should that be an
important feature of the culture. Such stories are commonly told
to those who will respond in kind, or at least with some other kernel
of
information regarded as equally valuable. Should we bear such
notions
in mind, we would not be so surprised when many of the questions we ask
of our informants are regarded as strange precisely because the answers
call for a giving away of scarce resources.
The experience of being asked to “give yourself away,”
however, is far
from unusual in our own most personal interactions: examine how you
feel
when someone tells one of your stories, one that is about something you
have experienced and told about in the past. Your response is
likely
to be one of feeling mimicked; or worse, your ability to speak for
yourself
is put into question. I am not arguing that this is the feeling
inspired
in all cultures when personal stories are expropriated, only that a
truly
reflexive anthropology would make one aware of the possibility.
This domain of radical individuality, of the need to feel
unique, is
not held by the rest of the world. As Geertz (1976:225) has
cannily
put it: “The Western conception of the person as a bounded, unique
cognitive
universe, a dynamic center of awareness, emotion, judgment and action
organized
into a distinctive whole is, however incorrigible it may seem to us, a
rather peculiar idea within the concept of the world’s cultures.”
Nonetheless, he recognizes the draw that such a conception of
personhood
might have on ethnographic studies that attempt to get at the everyday
experiences of those under observation. His caveat is a
commonsensical
one, even if difficult to abide by: “Rather than attempt to place the
experience
of others within the framework [of “person” or “self”] we must...view
their
experiences within the frame- [beginning of page 57] work of
their
own idea of what selfhood is” (1976:225). This calls for the
collection
of “native exegeses” of the experiences regarded as meaningful; that
is,
discussion not only of the experience itself but its value from the
perspective
of the one to whom it happened and others within the same interpretive
community -- the emic way of describing culture. But more
commonly, in developing perspectives to effectively convey the idea of
experience in any culture, we will draw on our own metaphors -- that
is,
we will use an etic perspective and the anthropological terms
of
art that go along with it -- for getting at the ways in which repeated
actions within a culture are systematized and anticipated.
For some decades, for instance, following the fashion of
couching matters
in evolutionary terms, we discussed not only cultural history but
everyday
practices in specific groups in terms of the “flow” of life. This
draws on the power of hydraulic metaphor that depicts “what happens” in
a culture in terms of the pull of gravity on a growing stream or the
pushing
along of that water by some pumping mechanism. More recently, we
have changed our metaphoric sources somewhat, depicting life in one or
another kind of performance (those calling for “scores” or “scripts” or
“scenarios”), or we have resorted to the closely related image of life
as a game whose rules and plays and moves may be usefully
described.
The present appeal of the terms “experience” and “event” seems to
respond,
at least in part, to a sense that these analogical strategies have
begun
to lose their descriptive power, precisely because the models from
which
the analogies arise are ones that are privileged within our own culture
and may, ethnocentrically, place the units of experience-in-common in
the
culture under observation in a misleading universe of discourse.
The notion of describing cultural activities in our own
vernacular terms
for goings-on -- terms like “action,” “practice,” “occasion,” “event,”
“experience” -- seems, then, to be an attempt to sidestep the
limitations
of the tropes derived from these play activities. We are pulled
toward
a vocabulary drawn from the “real” exchange of energies for serious
purposes
with such terms: a vocabulary deeply implicated in our own very
American
and modern discourse on individuality and selfhood, our native notions
of personhood, as discussed by Geertz.
The American pragmatic tradition of philosophy has brought
this weighting
of the everyday and transitional character of life as [beginning of
page 58] lived into the open (cf. Turner 1982 for another
genealogical
view). As anthropologists we are drawn to the idea for many of
the
same reasons our philosopher forebears were: to escape the imprisonment
of using a priori ideal categories of the significant, such as
the
metaphysical philosophical tradition provided us in such notions as
“sublimity,”
“virtuosity,” “genius.” The pragmatists sought instead to
encourage
a pluralistic cast of mind that would deprivilege the extraordinary
moment
of vision in favor of the more spontaneous chance occasion available to
anyone, not just those who had refined their sensibilities and pursued
their genius.
The philosopher who most fully and poetically developed this
point of
view was William James. “Life is in the transitions as much as in the
terms
connected,” he insisted. “Often, indeed, it seems to be there
more
emphatically, as if our spurts and sallies forward were the real living
line of the battle, were like the thin line of flame advancing across
the
dry autumnal field which the farmer proceeds to burn” (in McDermott
1967:212-13).
The tradition was set in motion by Ralph Waldo Emerson, especially in
his
later essays when he was extending his thought to the importance of the
momentary. Emerson’s (1903-4, III:64) personal battle was with
the
moral life that could overwhelm the possibility of happiness in
quotidian
life: “We must set up the strong present tense against all rumors of
wrath,
past or to come.” The only way to get out of this hold of the
past,
and of its inherited moral precepts, was “to fill the hour and leave no
crevice for a repentance or an approval. We live amid surfaces,
and
the true art of life is to skate well on them” (1903-4, III:59).
James went one further step, giving moral weight to everyday
experience
as a way of putting such rumors to flight. He asserted that we
must
find means for a “reinstatement of the vague and the inarticulated in
its
proper place” (in McDermott 1967:212), and pursued this line to
underscore
the importance of “openness” in achieving meaning and purpose in our
interpretive
scheme. Repeatedly he asked us to contemplate the power of
achieved
relationships between things as well as people. However, what
this
perspective loses in the translation from Emerson and other
transcendentalists
to the pragmatic point of view is the importance of risk in the
recognition
of the moral weightedness taken on by our personal actions. Bloom
(1984:20) evokes the problem as a gloss [beginning of page 59]
on
Emerson’s argument in “Self Reliance”: “American restlessness...puts
all
stable relationships at a relatively [low] estimate, because they lack
the element of risk.” Neither those who employ the various play
analogies,
such as Goffman or even Victor Turner, nor James and Dewey, who drew on
tropes from fire and other natural (and sometimes unpredictable)
processes,
have reinstated this Emersonian concern with the risk involved in
valorizing
the transitional, the vague and inarticulated.
In the translation from the Emersonian to the Jamesian
perspective,
personal moral probation is neglected in favor of emphasizing everyday
life as the baseline against which other kinds of experiences are
recognized
and interpreted. We become more concerned with the human
condition
than we do with the questions posed by the morally tentative person in
everyday dealings with others. Perhaps this is because James’s
vision
encourages the equation of time and space in the experienced moments or
transition. It is at such moments in which past time and present
life most vibrantly come together, those moments when connections may
be
perceived and relationships established, that “enable us to live
prospectively
as well as retrospectively. [Experience] is ‘of’ the past,
inasmuch
as it comes expressly as the past’s continuation; it is ‘of’ the future
insofar as the future, when it comes, will have continued it” (James,
in
McDermott 1967:213). (2)
While James opened this subject up to philosophical
speculation from
the pragmatic perspective -- that is, without tying it to metaphysical
concerns -- Dewey placed “experience” in everyday life at the center of
his philosophical concerns. He noted, for instance, that “like
its
congeners, life and history, experience includes what men do and
suffer,
what they strive for, love, believe and endure, and also how men act
and
are acted upon, the ways in which they do and suffer, desire and enjoy,
see, believe, imagine” (Dewey 1929:10). He encouraged us to link
two notions of clear importance for anthropology: life is best
conceived
as being carried on by individuals who have a capacity to remember and
thus to build a future patterned on the doings of the present; and
existence
is thus describable on a commonsense level, as an active and unfolding
process. By understanding the individual’s role in the process,
we
secure a place in the description of culture patterns for both
invention
and idiosyncrasy. Thus, experience as [beginning of page 60]
both a personal and a social construct looks on life as being made up
of
rules of thumb rather than of formal and regulated patterns of
behavior.
It is this very notion of personal negotiation and play that
undergirds
a pluralistic approach to the contrapuntal operations of the individual
mind, on the one hand, and to the many interwoven voices and styles of
society and culture, on the other. In the situation involving the
coming together of peoples of different cultures and historical
conditions,
this multiplicity of voices becomes the problematic facing any attempt
to adequately describe experiences. Putting forth a theory of
adequate
description based on experiences under conditions of high mobility,
especially
in frontier situations, asks not for a full-out rejection of such
notions
as “tradition,” “custom,” even “rituals.” Rather, it asks for a
transvaluation
out of the realm of authoritative practices and into the domain of
socially
devised units of activity, which are valued because they are agreed on
by all of those participating and because they embody patterns of
expectation
that can be learned and rehearsed and practiced together.
Emphasizing
the common features of experience calls for a redefinition of culture
itself,
away from the officiated practices, the regulated and obligatory
behaviors
of our shared lives, and toward something more like the relative
“typicality”
of what happens again and again to individuals finding themselves in
similar
situations.
When an experience can be designated as typical, then the
doings of
the individual and the community become shared, not only with regard to
what actually happens under those circumstances, but also how one feels
about the happenings. Simply stated, it is not just experiences
that
are shared but the sentiments arising from them as well: the doings and
the feelings reinforce each other. Moreover, this system of
typicality
of event and sentiment provides us with a linkage between past and
future,
for the very recognition of typicality rests on others having gone
through
that experience (or something like it) before.
Then there enters the existence of the experience of
experience, that
is, the recognition even while something is taking place in one’s own
life
that it is a replaying, in some dimension, of things that have happened
to others. This self-perception is especially important when the
experience is not only typical but intense and potentially
disruptive.
At that point, being able to re- [beginning of page 61] cognize
typicality becomes a means of recognizing how to feel and interpret
what
is going on. Through such reflexive activity we can recognize the
difference between the more and the less ordinary, the everyday and the
special event, as it is becoming an experience. This is a
distinction
Dewey (1934:35) pointed out: “Experience occurs continuously, because
the
interaction of live creatures and environing conditions is involved in
the very process of living .... Oftentimes [this means that] the
experience
had is inchoate. Things are experienced but not in any way that
they
are composed into an experience.”
The distinction between levels of self-conscious
apprehension achieved
a place of such importance in Dewey’s scheme because he wished to
reveal
the continuities between art and life. Therefore, he underscored
those happenings in everyday life that are most like our ways of
encountering
works of art within the Western tradition: by the disjunction that
occurs
in the flow of experience that calls for a consideration of the event
as
a “thing apart.” “Life,” Dewey (1934:36-37) argued, “is no
uniform
uninterrupted march or flow. It is a thing of histories, each
with
its own plot, its own inception and movement toward its close, each
having
its own particular movement.” His interests were in excerpted
actions
that have a sense of beginning, development, and end, like a
wellcrafted
piece of the storytelling art. Perhaps he was guided by his own
underlying
feeling that an experience not only involves an intensity of
feeling
that takes it out of the flow of the everyday but also a framing
operation
by which the ongoing activity is translated into a reportable
story.
Histories, in this sense, must be sufficiently interesting as well as
unusual
for others to agree to classify them as an experience. But who
will
thereby listen to the recounting of the happening?
Even at the level of typicality by which experience becomes
an experience,
the term’s semantic field is far from fully described. Indeed,
there
is an even higher and more general level of typicality that enters into
our discussions of how individuals enter into happenings and feelings
that
are so characteristic of the larger developmental patterns we call
Experience
-- the American Experience, the Jewish Experience, the Sixties
Experience,
even the Growing-Up and Growing-Old Experience. In a similar
acknowledgment
of differences of intensity and significance, we make a distinction
between
events and something that become the Event, [beginning of page 62]
even the Big Event, referring usually to being involved in a rite of
passage
or something close to it.
Although it is difficult, of course, to hold this range of
meanings
in mind while constructing an anthropology of experience, it is
necessary
to do so. For while “experience” is usefully employed to discuss
meaningful actions from the most ordinary to the extraordinary, we
expect
the more intense occasions to have a point, even to carry a
message.
This is true of rites of passage themselves; inasmuch as other big
experiences
share in this sense of the momentous, our native theory of action
carries
the expectation that we will be transformed in some way, simply because
of the intensity of the experience itself. To regard all
activities
making up an experience or part of a significant event as
necessarily
having such potential would severely undercut the usefulness of the
idea
of experience as a way of connecting the everyday with the special, and
the ordinary person with the representative human.
Yet just as surely there is a difference between the way we
interpret
everyday experiences and those that jump out at us as being
significant.
This difference is carried, in part, by the interpretive apparatus we
use
to discuss any experience. Somehow and somewhere between
experience
and the Big Experience we impose a frame on the activity by calling
attention
to its extraordinary character. This attention commonly is
elicited
by the self-conscious stylization of the activity and through
developing
some kind of preparation for it, through rehearsal, warming up, or
simply
through special kinds of anticipatory behavior.
The kind of framework I am referring to is as simply
accomplished as
saying “Not it!” to instigate a game of tag. But it may also be
as
complicated as the various ways a family anticipates Christmas or a
community
prepares for a pageant, picnic, or parade. Such are those times
out
of time when an agreement goes into effect that everything that takes
place
within the confines of that set-aside time and space will be judged by
its own criteria of the permissible. This is such a commonsense
kind
of cultural device that it can be evoked by the reminders of the
subjunctive
character of the practice, as Victor Turner named it, the hedging that
occurs whenever we say, “We’re just playing,” or “It’s only
make-believe.”
Any time we can agree among ourselves to enter these realms, we achieve
a particular relief from responsibility for our actions. We are
able
to say that we are not ourselves in one way or another when we are in
such
a state.
[beginning of page 63] This suspension of the rules
may be brought
into play precisely because when we are within such frames we are
involved
not so much in experiencing things directly but in replaying
them.
The elements of preparation and rehearsal and recapitulation introduce
a kind of distance from the actions as they might be enacted in the
“real”
world. Once having said this, however, we must also recognize
that
any kind of replay involves the risk that the original will be so
adequately
represented that the frame itself may dissolve. Will any
subjunctive
activity operate effectively if the “as if” quality does not threaten
to
dissolve at any time, the players jumping squarely into the spectators
to slash at them with their bats, or the firewalker pulling someone
from
the audience onto the coals with him?
To cast experience in the terms I have been employing, there
seems to
be two kinds of an experience: those arising directly out of
the
flow of life, with little or no explicit preparation; and those for
which
we plan and to which we look forward, where the parts are precast and
each
role has its set of lines. The two share a scenic wholeness and a
heightening of awareness, as well as the possibility of being repeated
in form or reported on in substance. The greater the degree of
self-conscious
preparation and stylization, the more the experience may be shared, but
also the higher the risk that the prepared quality of the event will be
regarded as restricting rather than liberating. This becomes
problematic
more in those areas left to us in which the experience is ceremonial,
for
here the frame placed around the event calls for us not to take on
alternative
selves, as in play, but to be our best selves, to present ourselves in
the best possible light...only more so, to be on our best
behavior.
On such formal occasions there is no relief from being judged for what
we do and how we act; on the contrary, such experiences are ones in
which
individual status enhancement is the raison d’etre for the
activity.
Having thus pointed out the disjunction between everyday
experience
and these larger and more openly fictive displays, it seems equally
important
to remind ourselves once again of the various ways in which we have
guaranteed
the sense of continuity between these various realms. The point
is
that in spite of the differences of feeling and apprehension between
everyday
experiences and those arising from the Big Times of our lives, American
culture wishes to optimize the ease of passage between the two
states.
In nearly all things we value openness and apparent spon- [beginning
of page 64] taneity, even while we depreciate most expressions for
following form and convention. In our desire to optimize
authenticating
acts at the expense of authoritative ones, we seem to appreciate most
those
moments we can say afterward were big but which stole up on us and took
us unawares. To encourage such moments, however, we must expend a
good part of our energies secretly preparing for these breakthroughs,
for
these spontaneous times in which we are overcome by the fulfillment of
the expectations we hardly could admit to having -- like those
“first-time
experiences” which, when successful, are so surprising because we hear
about them and even talk about them but they seem to sneak up on us
anyhow.
We are surprised only by the fulfillment of expectations.
Perhaps only the demystifyers in our midst, the poets and
the sociologists,
discuss such secret subjects openly. Such are the moments Paul
Valery
refers to as “the active presence of absent things,” when the
accumulation
of the already discussed and the anticipated come together with those
experiences
that occurred so early and were repeated so often that they became an
unacknowledged
part of our repertoire. This active forgetting, then, becomes an
exercise in what we used to call “custom,” or even “habit”: “The social
world seems to us as natural as Nature, although it is only held
together
by magic. Is it not, in truth, an enchanted structure, a system
found...
obedience to words, the keeping of promises, the power of images, the
observance
of customs and conventions -- all of them pure fictions?” (Valery
1962:508-9).
Because of their fictional character, perhaps, we have allowed
ourselves
to actively forget that they are part of our cultural
character-in-common.
Yet we have a number of ways of reminding ourselves of these
cherished
fictions: by explicitly talking about what they mean and how they have
come to mean what they do. I refer here, of course, to events of
celebration. Either the discussion can be waged formally, when a
ceremony is built into the event, or informally, when the occasion
seems
to successfully come off with some degree of spontaneity. In the
case of the latter, discussion occurs after the fact and usually turns
on the intensity of the “good time” and what it takes to have such
satisfying
experiences. In spite of our distrust of the formal practices of
the past because of their being attached to a power system that seems
to
many to eliminate mobility and choice -- and by extension,
self-determination
-- we still [beginning of page 65] enter, smiling and gracious,
into such times when we ornament life by planning ahead, by getting
dressed
up and bringing out the best china and silverware. But also
consider
how much we value those times when a casual “drop-in” becomes a
“get-together,”
and soon gravitates into a “party,” a “blast,” a “really great time.”
There are many such events that heighten our sense of life
without our
having to go through extensive formalities. As I noted above, we
make our preparations for these in secret, for so much of our sense of
self is predicated on maintaining the ability to appear spontaneous
that
we seem to cling to the idea that parties are best when they happen on
the spur of the moment -- about as true as the idea that lovemaking is
best when unplanned. Somehow, the appearance of spontaneity has
been
identified by us with our notions of the authentic self. But the
value we place so strongly on authenticity in turn places a very heavy
burden on us: in our heart of hearts, for how many of our acts can we
really
claim true spontaneity? Moreover, such questions of authenticity affect
our perceptions of others, both as participants in a culture that
privileges
self and originality, and as ethnographers constantly testing the
behavior
of our informants so as to judge whether or not we are being
fooled.
We must understand our own predisposition with regard to judging the
acts
of others if we are to more effectively stitch together an anthropology
of experience.
***
To some degree, all observers of human behavior seek a
corner on the
market of reality, for that is our profession, our way
of
managing our own identities. The project of all of the humanistic
disciplines has been to discriminate between the real and the unreal,
the
genuine and the fake, the realistic and the sentimental or fantastic,
the
verifiable truth (all those things we call “the facts”) and illusions,
the misleading, the mystified, and the mythical. Humanists seek
insight
into life as a means of living more fully themselves, of experiencing
more
knowledgeably and more deeply, and thus being able to impart these
techniques
and this accrued knowledge and wisdom to others.
This is, of course, precisely how Goethe presents the
Faustian dilemma
to the reader. But the problem and the search is hardly reserved
for professional seekers of truth. The drive to distinguish the
real
from the ersatz is part of Western common culture, used, [beginning
of page 66] among other things, as a source of the criteria by
which
we judge the behavior of others and ourselves, and also as a way in
which
the relative success of our encounters and our relationships may be
assessed.
Repeatedly, we find ourselves reacting to the behavior of others by how
“real” they seem and, in response, how much we can “be ourselves” with
them -- how unguarded we can be in interactions with them and still be
comfortable.
Obviously, regarding someone as sincere or a fake, as an
original or
a show-off, far from exhausts the repertoire of ways by which we judge
others. In fact, using the relative “naturalness” of someone as
the
basic criterion of what is real and what isn’t would almost guarantee
that
we would be bored by all encounters and relationships. Indeed,
there
are many circumstances in which the ability to pull off a role with
spirit,
and in a manner to which we may respond in kind, appears more important
than whether the other is being sincere or even authentic. Our
continuing
fascination with those who openly perform, especially if they are
willing
to take on the role of the eccentric or the vagrant spirit -- from
Hell’s
Angels and punkers to hoboes and spielers at carnivals -- reminds us
that
those who appear to speak and act on the basis of extreme experience
often
seem more real to us than those involved in more mundane
pursuits.
In fact, in many situations we seem to judge what “the real thing” is
by
how fully such others are able to make us recognize the range of
experiential
possibilities, whether or not we go through such experiences
ourselves.
Again, our double consciousness is brought into play: the value we
place
on centered action, and those who seem to engage in life to its
fullest,
calls forth our admiration and even adulation as well as our fears of
involving
ourselves in risks.
Under such circumstances, reality is only understandable
when we are
able to contrast it with other kinds of experience, perception, and
judgment.
To William James’s classic formulation of the problem (“Under what
circumstances
do we think things are real?”) must be added, “What do we contrast with
what in developing our notions of the ’real’?” In some situations
we distinguish between fanciful (or poetic) and real without judging
one
better than the other; in another range of situations we distinguish
between
“real” life and “just playing,” again not valuing the former more
highly
unless the occasion calls for high seriousness or a focus on
work.
Indeed, play may not only be appropriate to [beginning of page 67]
the occasion but may actually heighten reality by quickening our
senses.
To be sure, ludic activities call for a self-conscious attention to
stylistic
expression, and therefore depart from “real” life with regard to both
preparation
(as in practice or rehearsal) and actual play. But any activity
that
calls for us to act and react together at a high pitch can become a Big
Time for us, valued for itself and used in some cases as a baseline
against
which everyday activity is judged -- in which case the verdict is that
life is boring for the most part.
Whether in the form of planned play activities or
spontaneous celebrations
(or even riots), some among us place increasing value on “the action,”
on experience for its own sake. In so doing, the breaks in the
routine
order of the everyday world come to provide the measure of whether life
is being lived to the fullest. Ever greater importance is placed,
then, on those experiential departures into the higher and deeper
registers
of feeling that emerge in rehearsed events and that break our routines
by encouraging us to get “deep.” The latter is not only part of
the
experience of getting serious at the performance of a work of “high
art”
but also in having Big Times.
These two varieties of serious experience underscore the
problems as
well as the strengths of the pragmatist’s approach to activity, a
limitation
shared by the sociological phenomenologists, such as Alfred Schutz and
Peter Berger. Both schools use the quotidian as a representation
of the “real” world from which all other states of experience
depart.
Schutz (1970:225), for instance, set up the world of experience in
terms
of a contrast between “the world of paramount reality” and all others:
“the world of dreams and phantasms, especially the world of art, the
world
of religious experience, the world of scientific contemplation, the
play
world of the child, and the world of the insane,” all of which he
regarded
as “finite provinces” of significance. Yet, while noting the ease
with which we may travel between these discrete worlds, he argued:
“Within
a single day, even within a single hour our consciousness may run
through
most different tensions and adopt most different intensional attitudes
to life... Furthermore [there are] regions belonging to one province of
meaning [that are] enclosed by another” (Schutz 1970:256).
We operate both within and between these various worlds and
their realities.
Clearly, one is no more real than another; rather, [beginning of
page
68] they differ in what is brought into them in common by the
participants,
how focused and intense and stylized the activities become, and how
important
such factors are in affecting the experience itself and the
understanding
of it. No concept of “a world of paramount reality,” whether it
comes
from the pragmatists’ idea of experiential flow or the
phenomenologists’
characterization of the quotidian, allows us to understand fully enough
the role of play, of having fun and making fun; nor can we comprehend
the
process of celebration with sufficient fullness and clarity.
On the one hand, there is a flow of activity, and on the
other, distinctive
marked-out acts and events, all going under the name of
experience.
Moreover, the very flow of the everyday assures the continuity between
routine activities and the more extraordinary ones. We have
become
aware of the continuities between the ordinary and the “deeper” or
“higher”
events through performed mimetic experiences, which openly imitate (and
stylize) everyday acts and interactions. Far from exhausting the
relationship between the ordinary and the otherwise, such imitational
play
only begins the discussion. Indeed, how the disruption of
the patterns of expectation in ordinary interactions are remedied, even
transformed and used in play events, may prove to be the most important
point of connection between the different states of apprehension and
understanding.
Each subjunctive event is more than simply a rendering,
direct or inverted,
of a social practice, it is an experience itself. Each draws on a
community’s concern with disruption, clumsiness, embarrassment,
confusion,
and conflict in the everyday. But in forming and stylizing the
reported
events, each develops a life of its own. Each performance, for
instance,
draws on energies and patterns of expectation brought to the occasion
not
only because it embodies some life situation but because it departs
from
the everyday to the degree that it is self-consciously and artfully
imitated,
replayed, performed.
Consider, then, the complexity of the relationship between
activity
as it is practiced and the rendering of it as it is reported,
reenacted,
and intensified. Must life precede art for art to be
understood?
Can we not comprehend a feast without knowing everyday eating
habits?
Too often the line of actual experience goes the other way -- someone
goes
through some hard times, yet to the extent that they are able to see
the
situation as typical, [beginning of page 69] they maintain a
sense
of control over the individual upset. Is it not useful, then, to
avoid drawing a hard-and-fast line between the finite representations
of
repeated events and any conception of paramount reality? In
different
kinds of scenes and interactions there are various relational features
that past practice enables us to understand and appreciate: levels of
formality,
of scenic wholeness, of intensity of frame, of calls on our attention,
of reaction and judgment.
My argument may seem somewhat self-contradictory. On
the one hand,
we have a sense of disjuncture between the flow of everyday experience;
an experience; a typical experience that is reportable about ourselves
as a means of playing out our having entered, individually, into life’s
recurrent problem situations; and a large-scale experience in which we
recognize that over a period of time the progress and pattern of our
activities
are part of a much larger story, one that began long before we were
born
and will continue after our death. On the other hand, the
placement
of the openness of experience within the American ideology of
self-determination
makes us conscious that the distinctions between the ordinary and the
extraordinary
commonly do not arise from either formal demands emerging from the
ceremonializing
of life, nor from any hard-and-fast distinction between the serious and
the playful. Rather, we see life as organized around times,
places,
and occasions to encourage the participation of a greater or lesser
number
of people in a common activity. This approach sees both the
larger
and the smaller experiences as creative achievements; each experience,
whether planned for in some manner (practiced, run through, rehearsed)
or not, is interesting only insofar as it is able to enlist
participation;
that is, if the planning produces some sense of discovery, some
appearance
of spontaneous exchange of energies (as well as information) with
others.
For Erving Goffman the experience of even the smallest understandings
(much
less our larger mutual celebrations) seemed like a new rendering of an
archaic holy act, one that acknowledges the existence of others and
signifies
a willingness to be involved in the flow of vital cultural information
and, on occasion, to be exuberant in passing on this knowledge as a way
of tying together self, others, and the larger worlds.
By turning to one of our new holy terms, ”experience,“ and
developing
it into a moving “term of art,” what might we reasonably expect from
anthropologists
propelled by the desire to get [beginning of page 70] down on
paper
what has been experienced in the field? First and foremost, such
ethnographers will carry into participant observation a recognition of
their own culture’s notions of significant actions and their related
emotions
and sentiments. From this will arise a willing suspension of
disbelief
in the “poetics” of the new culture -- the things that are regarded as
being in the same category, the things that may be compared and those
that
suggest other things in spite of not being in the same category.
An anthropology of experience might well begin by noting the range of
expressive
means and affects, techniques and sentiments -- that is, the most
common
and ordinary activities in the flow of life of the group under
observation.
And it might then provide a calendar for the events that are already
set
aside as extraordinary. Finally, an anthropology of experience
might
look for the ways in which the ordinary and the extraordinary coexist;
how convention permits the framing and stylizing of activities, calls
to
attention the participants, and encourages a spelling out of the
meanings
and feelings carried within these activities. Because any
anthropology
of experience is going to be initially attracted to the display events
of the group, the preparations for these activities will be as
significant
as the means and messages carried within the event itself.
As anthropologists, then, our objectives remain what they
have been
for some time: to demonstrate the diversity of human behavior in groups
and to reveal the patterns of action and feeling that underlie this
heterogeneity.
Now that we have begun to move the idea of experience to the center of
our concerns, however, we make it possible to elevate the
representative
anecdote to the same place of importance as the rite of passage.
Our great discovery is not that everyone has experiences that are both
unique and typical, but that everyone does seem to have a way of
organizing
these doings so they may be shared.
Notes
Thanks are due to a number of people who assisted in
thinking through
and writing this argument: Anthony Hilfer, early on, and Ralph Ross,
most
recently, helped me read the pragmatists; Fred Myers and Donald
Brenneis
were helpful in many ways, especially in considering the relationship
between
feelings and reports of feelings as they have been considered by
ethnographers
dealing with the other cultures; David Stanley discussed the double
consciousness
argument [beginning of page 71] with me on a number of
occasions;
Vic and Edie Turner first brought me into the engagement on the
subject;
Ed Bruner sustained my enthusiasm and interest throughout the writing;
and Janet Anderson was, as always, the best and most commonsensical
commentator
on my prose and my argumentt.
1. The most important dimension of this literature for
the social
sciences has to do with the words “culture,” “society,” and
“community.”
I include James and Dewey on my list of the high priests of this
literature
because they not only brought to their writings a strong interest in
the
relationship between key words and social theory but they also infused
their discussions of key words with a concern for dignity and the human
spirit.
2. Just how deeply this concept is an invention
of James’s
generation becomes clear in the writings of the commentators on the
American
language. Mencken (1919:168), the most trenchant among them,
noted
that the verb form of “experience” was a recent American abomination,
attributing
the neologism to Henry James’s friend, William Dean Howells.
Bibliography
Bloom, Harold. l984. “Mr.America,” New York
Review of
Books, Nov. 22, pp. 19-24.
Crapanzano, Vincent. 1980. Tuhami: Portrait
of a Moroccan.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Dewey, John. l929. Experience and Nature.
Chicago:
Open Court Publishing Co.
______. 1934. Art as Experience.
New York:
Capricorn Hooks.
Donoghue, Dennis. 1976. The Sovereign Ghost.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Emerson, Ralph Waldo. 1903-4. The Complete
Works of Ralph
Waldo Emerson, Edward W. Emerson, ed. Boston: Houghton,
Mifflin.
Feld, Steven. 1982. Sound and Sentiment:
Birds Weeping,
Poetics, and Song in Kaluli Expression. Philadelphia:
University
of Pennsylvania Press.
Ceertz, Clifford. 1976. “From the Natives’ Point
of View:
On the Nature of Anthropological Understanding.” In Meaning
in
Anthropology, K. Basso and H. Selby, eds. Albuquerque:
University
of New Mexico Press, pp. 221-38.
Glassie, Henry. 1982. Passing the Time in
Ballymenone.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Goffman, Erving. l967. Interaction Ritual.
Carden City, N.Y.: Doubleday Anchor.
Lutz, Catherine. 1987. “The Domain of Emotion
Words on Ifaluk,”
American
Ethnologist 9:113-28.
McDermott, John, ed. 1967. The Writings of
William James:
A Comprehensive Edition. New York: Random House.
Mencken, H. L. 1919. The American Language.
New York: Knopf.
Morris, Charles. 1970. The Pragmatic
Movement in American
Philosophy. New York: George Braziller.
Myers, Fred. 1979. “Emotions and the Self,” Ethos
7:343-70.
Rabinow, Paul. 1977. Reflections on
Fieldwork in Morocco.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
[beginning of page 72]
Rose, Dan. 1982. “Occasions and Forms of
Anthropological
Experience.” In A Crack in the Mirror: Reflexive Perspectives
in Anthropology, Jay Ruby, ed. Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania
Press, pp. 218-30.
Schutz, Alfred. 1970. On Phenomenology and
Social Relations,
Herbert R. Wagner, ed. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Shorr, Daniel. 1977. Clearing the Air.
Boston:
Houghton Mifflin.
Trilling, Lionel. 1979. The Opposing Self.
New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Turner, Victor W. 1982. From Ritual to
Theater.
New York: Performing Arts Journal Press.
Valery, Paul. 1962. “Oeuvres: I, Paris.”
In Albert
William Levi.
______. 1977. “Culture: A Guess at a Riddle,” Cultural
Inquiry
4:308-9.
Williams, Raymond. 1979. Politics and
Letters.
London: New Left Books.