Editorial (Reviews in anthropology)
This is our first editorial for this journal. We come from different parts of the world, India and Chile to be exact and as a consequence are deeply committed to the cause of diversity and inclusiveness in this journal that has been a great institution in itself, devoted as it is to the written word. In this age of digital communication there is an apprehension that the written word may lose its primacy as a mode of communication but those of us who occupy academic niches know for certain that writing as a mode of expression will always be important as poetry and prose are both products of human thoughts and emotions as well as intellect and cannot be replaced by other technologies. We are both conversant with and have grown up speaking languages other than English and even as we are assuming charge of an English language journal, we know for certain that there is an intellectual world outside of the English language that remains to be exposed and brought within the cognition of global academics. There is also by now a wide acceptance of inequalities, not only in ethnic, racial and geographical terms but in ways that these inequalities translate into academics and into the production of recognized knowledge. The use of the term recognized is deliberate as it reflects that there is production of knowledge from many locations but these are not getting the recognition that they deserve. Most academic journals that have worldwide acceptability are mostly written in English/French or other recognized European languages and those who get published in these are representatives of institutions located in the First World. Scholars around the world, speaking and writing in other languages grope around in the dark to get published and rarely get noticed, referred or quoted.
The two papers that constitute this issue are both reflective of inequalities as well as the technologies of reproduction of inequalities. The paper by David H Price deconstructs the myths of greatness surrounding both one of the most highly rated universities of the world as well as a person known as the doyen of sociological theories. It also exposes the clay feet of several other academic idols. The importance of this article lies in its possible impact on those who are located in different parts of the world, where both these names carry enormous weight. Students in India and Chile, for a start, would be awed by the name of Parsons who is taught to them as if he were a god of social sciences and anyone with a degree from Harvard or who is in any manner associated with Harvard enjoys an exalted status, equivalent to having a halo around their heads. Such unfounded myths serve two negative functions, not only do they serve to overrate academics and intellectuals located in such spaces of accumulated power, they also devalue the works of those who may not be so fortunately placed but who are from their own humble spaces producing good work that never gets any exposure. The second paper by Sergei Kan exposes inequalities in projection of certain sociological data or facts that assume the status of being ‘universal’ if they pertain to the dominant population. The population in question, are the white people of America, especially those belonging to locations higher on the economic and social scale. Some practices of the few advantaged, socially weighted and media-favored people get projected as if they belong to the majority or are part of a popular trend. Their very projection by the media and by academics, becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy as more and more people take to them as they come to represent the upper crust of society and get associated with higher social ranks and superior cultural symbols. Anthropologically every practice deserves to be documented and analyzed but only as belonging to the community of its practitioners and not as a universal trend. Kan has pointed to the advantage of having some statistical back up for such kinds of studies and is critical of the tendency to universalize the particular, even if such practices are reflective of some general trend, like the loss of religiosity, as in this case.
Both these studies belong to the USA and are written by American scholars. They are brilliant and make significant contributions but are representative of a selected region. To counter this trend, from this issue onwards we have decided to make some changes in our editorial policy to make the journal embrace a wider range of intellectual thoughts produced from wider global regions. We are now inviting and will accept articles based on the reviews of works in non-English languages, but the reviews have to be written in English with a small abstract to familiarize the reader with the works that are being reviewed. We are also thinking in terms of having special theme based issues, on specific topics and regions/languages. We sincerely wish to make this journal global and of use value to a wide range of scholars.
With warm wishes from the Reviews in Anthropology editors