TTIIMMEE & & T THHEE O OTTHHEERR TIME & THE OTHER TTTIIMMIMEEE && & TT THHHEEE OO OTTTHHHEEERRR TIME & THE OTHER TIME & THET IOMTEH &E RTHTIEM OET &H TEHRE OTHER TIME & THE OTHER TIME & THE OTTITHMIEMER E&T & TIM HTHEE E &O OT THTHHEERE ORTHER TIME & THE OTHER TIME & THE OTHER TIME & THE OTHER TIME & THE OTHER TIME &TI TMHEE & O TTHHEE ROTITTMHIMEE RE& & TH THE EO OTHTHERER TIME & THE OTHER TIME &TI TIME & THE OTHER Johannes Fabian TIME & TIMETTI &MIM TEHE &E & TIME THE OTHER TIMETO I&TMH TEEH &RE TIME &TI MTHE How AntHropology MAkes its object TIME TIME & THE OTHER Foreword by Matti Bunzl / With a New Postscript by the Author TIME & THE TOITMHEE &R THE OTHER TIME & THE OTHER TIME & THE OTHER TIME & THE OTHERTIME & THE OTHER TIME & TTHIME EO &T HTHERE TOIMTHEE &R THE OTHER Columbia University Press Publishers Since 1893 New York Chichester, West Sussex cup.columbia.edu Copyright © 2014, 2002, 1983 Columbia University Press Postscript © 2006 Sage Publications All rights reserved Fabian, Johannes. Time and the other : how anthropology makes its object / Johannes Fabian p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-231-16926-4 (cloth : alk. paper) — ISBN 978-0-231-16927-1 (pbk. : alk. paper) — ISBN 978-0-231-53748-3 (e-book) Library of Congress Control Number : 2013953081 Columbia University Press books are printed on permanent and durable acid-free paper. This book is printed on paper with recycled content. Printed in the United States of America c 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 p 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Cover design by Anna Fabian Contents Foreword: Syntheses of a Critical Anthropology, by Matti Bunzl vii Preface to the Reprint Edition xxxiii Preface and Ack now ledg ments xxxvii Chapter 1: Time and the Emerging Other 1 From Sacred to Secular Time: The Philosophical Traveler 2 From History to Evolution: The Naturalization of Time 11 Some Uses of Time in Anthropological Discourse 21 Taking Stock: Anthropological Discourse and Denial of Coevalness 25 Chapter 2: Our Time, Their Time, No Time: Coevalness Denied 37 Circumventing Coevalness: Cultural Relativity 38 Preempting Coevalness: Cultural Taxonomy 52 Chapter 3: Time and Writing About the Other 71 Contradiction: Real or Apparent 72 Temporalization: Means or End? 74 Time and Tense: The Ethnographic Present 80 vi Contents In My Time: Ethnography and the Autobiographic Past 87 Politics of Time: The Temporal Wolf in Taxonomic Sheep’s Clothing 97 Chapter 4: The Other and the Eye: Time and the Rhetoric of Vision 105 Method and Vision 106 Space and Memory 109 Logic as Arrangement: Knowledge Visible 114 Vide et Impera: The Other as Object 118 “The Symbol Belongs to the Orient”: Symbolic Anthropology in Hegel’s Aesthetic 123 The Other as Icon: The Case of “Symbolic Anthropology” 131 Chapter 5: Conclusions 143 Retrospect and Summary 144 Issues for Debate 152 Coevalness: Points of Departure 156 Postscript: The Other Revisited 167 Notes 187 References Cited 203 Index 219 Foreword / Syntheses of a Critical Anthropology FIRST PUBLISHED IN 1983, Johannes Fabian’s Time and the Other ranks among the most widely cited books of a critical anthropology that has, in the course of the past two de cades, gradually moved into the center of the discipline. But like other canonical texts written in this tradition (cf. Clifford and Marcus 1986; Marcus and Fischer 1986; Clifford 1988; Rosaldo 1989), Time and the Other continues to hold theoretical relevance, retaining the radical fl avor of an urgent polemic. Praised by many as a path-b reaking critique of the anthropological project, while met with apprehension by others in light of its uncompromising epistemological stance, it has become a fi xture in the the- oretical landscape of contemporary anthropology. The fol- lowing introduction leads from an exposition of the book’s argument and an analysis of its relation to Fabian’s earlier writings to its contextualization in the critical anthropolo- gy of the 1970s and early 1980s. The piece concludes with a brief overview of anthropological developments in the wake of the initial publication of Time and the Other. The Argument Time and the Other is a historical account of the constitutive function of time in Anglo-A merican and French anthro- pology. In contrast to prominent ethnographic accounts of culturally determined temporal systems (cf. Evans- viii Foreword Pritchard 1940; Bourdieu 1977), Fabian’s critical project operates on a conceptual level, interrogating and prob- lematizing the deployment and uses of time as such. In this sense, Time and the Other functions both as a meta-a nalysis of  the anthropological project at large and as a decon- struction of its enabling temporal formations. Fabian’s argument is motivated by a contradiction inherent to the anthropological discipline: on the one hand,  anthropological knowledge is produced in the course of fi eldwork through the intersubjective communi- cation between anthropologists and interlocutors; on the other hand, traditional forms of ethnographic repres en ta- tion require the constitutive suppression of the dialogical realities generating anthropological insights in the fi rst place. In the objectifying discourses of a scientistic anthro- pology, “Others” thus never appear as immediate partners in a cultural exchange but as spatially and, more impor- tantly, temporally distanced groups. Fabian terms this dis- crepancy between the intersubjective realm of fi eldwork and the diachronic relegation of the Other in anthropo- logical texts the “schizogenic use of Time,” and he expli- cates in the following manner: I believe it can be shown that the anthropologist in the fi eld often employs conceptions of Time quite different from those that inform reports on his fi ndings. Furthermore, I will argue that a criti- cal analysis of the role Time is allowed to play as a condition for producing ethnographic knowledge in the practice of fi eldwork may serve as a starting point for a critique of anthropological discourse in general. (21) In Time and the Other, the interrogation of the schizo- genic use of time represents the beginning of a global cri- tique of the anthropological project. For the discrepancy between intersubjective fi eldwork and the distancing rhet- oric of ethnographic discourse leads Fabian to an under- standing of anthropology as an inherently pol iti cal disci- pline— a discipline that at once constitutes and demotes its objects through their temporal relegation. Fabian refers to this constitutive phenomenon as the “denial of coeval- Foreword ix ness”1— a term that becomes the gloss for a situation where the Other’s hierachically distancing localization suppresses the simultaneity and contemporaneity of the ethnographic encounter. The temporal structures so consituted thus place anthropologists and their readers in a privileged time frame, while banishing the Other to a stage of lesser devel- opment. This situation is ultimately exemplifi ed by the deployment of such essentially temporal categories as “ primitive” to establish and demarcate anthropology’s tra- ditional object. Fabian terms such denial of coevalness the “allochro- nism”  of anthropology (32). At once the product of an entrenched ethnocentrism and the enabling ideology of traditional discourses about the Other, anthropology’s allochronic orientation emerges as the discipline’s central problematic. Fabian’s project in Time and the Other follows from this premise, fusing a critical genealogy of allochron- ic discourse in anthropology with a polemic against its unr efl ected reproduction. Fabian presents his critique of allochronism in the con- text of a comprehensive analysis of the function of tempo- ral systems in Western scientifi c discourses. In the fi rst chap- ter of Time and the Other, he traces the transformation of time from the initial secularization of the Judeo-C hristian notion of history during the Renaissance to its revolution- ary naturalization in the course of the nineteenth century. Anthropology’s establishment as an autonomous discipline in the second half of the nineteenth century was predicat- ed  on this transformation. The discipline’s evolutionary doctrine—c onstituted at the intersection of scientism, Enlightenment belief in progress, and colonially veiled eth- nocentrism—in turn codifi ed anthropology’s allochronic orientation. In this manner, contemporary “scientifi c” cate- gorizations like “savage,” “barbaric,” and “civilized” signi- fi ed stages of historical development. Conceiving global his- tory in terms of universal progress, this allochronic logic identifi ed and constituted late-n ineteenth- century “sav- ages” as “survivals”—i nhabitants of more or less ancient states of cultural development. At the same time, anthro- pology’s allochronism established a “civilized” West as the