disciplinary work to the bad guys...Whatbothers me most is a
certain kind of political sanctimoniousness, more even than a
kind of anti-scientism.Anthropology’s efforts to protect its boundaries also are mani-
fested in how panelists distinguish the object of anthropology from
that of cultural studies. One anthropologist explains: “I heard several
times anthropology being described as a discipline with really fuzzy
methods, which is a very old misunderstanding of what anthropo-
logical methods are, but which I think adequately describes a cul-
tural studies anthropology, which is kind of like journalism.” This
panelist deplores the blurring of the boundary between anthropol-
ogy and cultural studies, and he is critical of Clifford and Marcus’s
argument, “which seems to me has led to a backing away from any
belief that it’s possible, through immersion or intensive study of a
particular context, to get inside of another cultural form. Once you
give that up, there’s no reason to do intensive, long-term research.”
These views, which prompted “disagreements” with other panel
members, reflect this anthropologist’s understanding of his field’s
most essential boundaries. He says:
Ultimately, I am kind of a traditionalist in that I believe that an-
thropology as a discipline has really only one feature that distin-
guishes it from what, say, journalists do or what anyone might do,
and that is sort of the critical value of face-to-face field work or
gaining people’s trust; of getting at the social world through ac-
tual personal interaction. So whenever I see an anthropological
project that involves more than two locales, or three maybe, it
seems to me impossible that that person will be able to do that.Several panelists involved in cultural studies rejected this “tradi-
tionalist” position as being at odds with the discipline’s recent em-
On Disciplinary Cultures / 91