I am Professor of anthropology at the Laboratoire d’Anthropologie des Mondes Contemporains, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Belgium. My research interests include heritage, social memory, and cultural transmission.
Par une description du processus de fondation d'un yiri (maison), l'A. tente de mettre en... more Par une description du processus de fondation d'un yiri (maison), l'A. tente de mettre en avant le rapport du monde ouvert par les rituels du bâtir chez les Moose du Burkina Faso et ce, dans l'idee, reprise prudemment a Heideger, que nous ne parvenons (...) a l'habitation que par le bâtir. En tant que faire habiter, et sans le reduire a des considerations purement materialistes, le bâtir revele la maniere dont les hommes sont-au-monde et, par la, met en scene une representation du monde : rendre une espace habitable recele des enjeux rituels majeurs. Des analyses de Cartry et Liberski, il ressort que la construction d'une nouvelle maison requiert non seulement la participation d'un devin en vue de trouver la bonne assise (le dire oraculaire), mais encore la mise en jeu de pratiques rituelles destinees a recevoir l'assentiment de la terre (Detienne). L'A. fonde son analyse sur une enquete exploratoire realisee en 1997 dans le village de Weotenga, est du plateau mooga, Province du Ganzourgou, district de Zam.
As we enter the 21st century, it becomes increasingly difficult to envisage a world detached from... more As we enter the 21st century, it becomes increasingly difficult to envisage a world detached from religion or an anthropology blind to its study. Yet, how people become religious is still poorly studied. This volume gathers some of the most distinguished scholars in the field to ...
Material Religion: The Journal of Objects, Art and Belief, 2013
Anna Karlström’s text constitutes a stimulating invitation to rethink the scope of what many pres... more Anna Karlström’s text constitutes a stimulating invitation to rethink the scope of what many preservationists consider “heritage.” Drawing on examples from her research in Lao PDR, she claims that experts must involve religious beliefs and practices in their definition of patrimony, and treat them as equal to the “institutionalized heritage discourse.” In a Latourian vein, the author invites us to “take spirits seriously as constitutive elements of heritage.” As a cultural anthropologist, I am sympathetic with Karlström’s stance. I concur that, in various cases, the way that local people understand religious permanence and loss does not correspond to the perspective articulated by international heritage experts. Often, heritage actions appear inappropriate. Nevertheless, in many parts of the world, diverse categories of actors converge around specific heritage sites, despite apparent misunderstandings between multiple parties who do not share a common sense of preservation. Such convergence remains relatively understudied by anthropologists in favor of stories of clashes about heritage, mostly frictions between experts and locals. While I agree with Karlström’s premises, I have important reservations about her “radical approach.” First, what strikes me is her quite vague use of the heritage planners’ discourse. My own research about UNESCO programs demonstrates that, as a matter of fact, these discourses are multiple. Although animated by the same spirit (what I have called an “institutional nostalgia” (Berliner 2012)), experts often hold contrasting perspectives on the modalities of preservation. In my current field site of Luang Prabang (a town of northern Laos and a World Heritage Site since 1995), UNESCO-Paris programs strive to preserve religious and ordinary listed monuments, while the UNESCO office in Bangkok puts emphasis on intangible heritage safeguarding, such as sculpture classes for monks to learn how to restore their temples themselves. Furthermore, within the UNESCO heritage system, discourses have changed considerably. When it started out, UNESCO espoused an evolutionist “anti-superstitions” posture (Stoczkowski 2009). Yet, over time, the scope of what could be grasped under the notion of heritage has been hugely broadened, especially with the adoption of the “Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage” in 2003 (Bortolotto 2011). Ratified by more than 140 countries, this convention has contributed to a global recognition of cultural practices, including specifically religious ones, such as, the “Pilgrimage to the sanctuary of the Lord of Qoyllurit’i” in Peru, the “Traditional knowledge of the jaguar shamans of Yuruparí” in Colombia, and the “Ijele Masquerade” from Nigeria, among others. Today, religion is plainly part of heritage preservation programs, although not all religious elements are considered in the same way. Some are more “heritagizable” than others. What strikes the observer is that many religious items listed by UNESCO very much resemble the colorful and “exotic” traditions and rituals observed by early anthropologists and folklorists. However, even in this field, one should not exaggerate consistency, as heritage selection often operates in an opaque manner (Brumann 2012). The more one studies the UNESCO system, the more one realizes that the decisions made are incoherent, and sometimes contradictory. Thus, instead of considering opposed views of experts and locals, as suggested by Karlström, let us look at heritage planners as part of much broader chains of interconnections. In conservation programs, mediations are as diverse as between nongovernmental organizations, private investors, international experts,
Par une description du processus de fondation d'un yiri (maison), l'A. tente de mettre en... more Par une description du processus de fondation d'un yiri (maison), l'A. tente de mettre en avant le rapport du monde ouvert par les rituels du bâtir chez les Moose du Burkina Faso et ce, dans l'idee, reprise prudemment a Heideger, que nous ne parvenons (...) a l'habitation que par le bâtir. En tant que faire habiter, et sans le reduire a des considerations purement materialistes, le bâtir revele la maniere dont les hommes sont-au-monde et, par la, met en scene une representation du monde : rendre une espace habitable recele des enjeux rituels majeurs. Des analyses de Cartry et Liberski, il ressort que la construction d'une nouvelle maison requiert non seulement la participation d'un devin en vue de trouver la bonne assise (le dire oraculaire), mais encore la mise en jeu de pratiques rituelles destinees a recevoir l'assentiment de la terre (Detienne). L'A. fonde son analyse sur une enquete exploratoire realisee en 1997 dans le village de Weotenga, est du plateau mooga, Province du Ganzourgou, district de Zam.
As we enter the 21st century, it becomes increasingly difficult to envisage a world detached from... more As we enter the 21st century, it becomes increasingly difficult to envisage a world detached from religion or an anthropology blind to its study. Yet, how people become religious is still poorly studied. This volume gathers some of the most distinguished scholars in the field to ...
Material Religion: The Journal of Objects, Art and Belief, 2013
Anna Karlström’s text constitutes a stimulating invitation to rethink the scope of what many pres... more Anna Karlström’s text constitutes a stimulating invitation to rethink the scope of what many preservationists consider “heritage.” Drawing on examples from her research in Lao PDR, she claims that experts must involve religious beliefs and practices in their definition of patrimony, and treat them as equal to the “institutionalized heritage discourse.” In a Latourian vein, the author invites us to “take spirits seriously as constitutive elements of heritage.” As a cultural anthropologist, I am sympathetic with Karlström’s stance. I concur that, in various cases, the way that local people understand religious permanence and loss does not correspond to the perspective articulated by international heritage experts. Often, heritage actions appear inappropriate. Nevertheless, in many parts of the world, diverse categories of actors converge around specific heritage sites, despite apparent misunderstandings between multiple parties who do not share a common sense of preservation. Such convergence remains relatively understudied by anthropologists in favor of stories of clashes about heritage, mostly frictions between experts and locals. While I agree with Karlström’s premises, I have important reservations about her “radical approach.” First, what strikes me is her quite vague use of the heritage planners’ discourse. My own research about UNESCO programs demonstrates that, as a matter of fact, these discourses are multiple. Although animated by the same spirit (what I have called an “institutional nostalgia” (Berliner 2012)), experts often hold contrasting perspectives on the modalities of preservation. In my current field site of Luang Prabang (a town of northern Laos and a World Heritage Site since 1995), UNESCO-Paris programs strive to preserve religious and ordinary listed monuments, while the UNESCO office in Bangkok puts emphasis on intangible heritage safeguarding, such as sculpture classes for monks to learn how to restore their temples themselves. Furthermore, within the UNESCO heritage system, discourses have changed considerably. When it started out, UNESCO espoused an evolutionist “anti-superstitions” posture (Stoczkowski 2009). Yet, over time, the scope of what could be grasped under the notion of heritage has been hugely broadened, especially with the adoption of the “Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage” in 2003 (Bortolotto 2011). Ratified by more than 140 countries, this convention has contributed to a global recognition of cultural practices, including specifically religious ones, such as, the “Pilgrimage to the sanctuary of the Lord of Qoyllurit’i” in Peru, the “Traditional knowledge of the jaguar shamans of Yuruparí” in Colombia, and the “Ijele Masquerade” from Nigeria, among others. Today, religion is plainly part of heritage preservation programs, although not all religious elements are considered in the same way. Some are more “heritagizable” than others. What strikes the observer is that many religious items listed by UNESCO very much resemble the colorful and “exotic” traditions and rituals observed by early anthropologists and folklorists. However, even in this field, one should not exaggerate consistency, as heritage selection often operates in an opaque manner (Brumann 2012). The more one studies the UNESCO system, the more one realizes that the decisions made are incoherent, and sometimes contradictory. Thus, instead of considering opposed views of experts and locals, as suggested by Karlström, let us look at heritage planners as part of much broader chains of interconnections. In conservation programs, mediations are as diverse as between nongovernmental organizations, private investors, international experts,
Même si la plupart des humains disposent de la conscience d’avoir un moi unique et stable, ce der... more Même si la plupart des humains disposent de la conscience d’avoir un moi unique et stable, ce dernier est plus fragmenté et plastique qu’on ne tend à le penser. Des sosies de Napoléon à Gary inventeur d’Ajar, de la cosplayeuse fan de Wonder Woman à l’amateur de devenir animal, du rôle d’acteur au jeu grandeur nature, en passant par l’anthropologue qui s’indigénise, David Berliner étudie un répertoire étonnant d’expériences identificatoires. En électrisant nos capacités de prise de perspective, d’empathie et d’imitation, ces formes spectaculaires du devenir autre sont autant de laboratoires de l’exploration du soi qui rendent possible l’émergence de la multiplicité et de la versatilité identitaires. On y est, notamment, amené à se découvrir soi-même comme un autre. Et si être soi, c’était non seulement ressentir l’unité du moi, mais également éprouver son inconstance, le passage incessant entre ses diverses facettes et l’acquisition de nouvelles dimensions ? Si être soi-même, c’était à la fois être un et plusieurs, permanent et oscillant ? Cet essai invite à étudier la gymnastique complexe du soi pour appréhender la nature hétérogène des identités ordinaires. Dans le même mouvement, il pose les bases d’une nécessaire discussion sur l’une des grandes controverses culturelles de notre époque : qui peut jouer à être qui ?
We’re losing our culture… our heritage… our traditions… everything is being swept away.
Such sen... more We’re losing our culture… our heritage… our traditions… everything is being swept away.
Such sentiments get echoed around the world, from aging Trump supporters in West Virginia to young villagers in West Africa. But what is triggering this sense of cultural loss, and to what ends does this rhetoric get deployed?
To answer these questions, anthropologist David Berliner travels around the world, from Guinea-Conakry, where globalization affects the traditional patriarchal structure of cultural transmission, to Laos, where foreign UNESCO experts have become self-appointed saviors of the nation’s cultural heritage. He also embarks on a voyage of critical self-exploration, reflecting on how anthropologists handle their own sense of cultural alienation while becoming deeply embedded in other cultures. This leads into a larger examination of how and why we experience exonostalgia, a longing for vanished cultural heydays we never directly experienced.
Losing Culture provides a nuanced analysis of these phenomena, addressing why intergenerational cultural transmission is vital to humans, yet also considering how efforts to preserve disappearing cultures are sometimes misguided or even reactionary. Blending anthropological theory with vivid case studies, this book teaches us how to appreciate the multitudes of different ways we might understand loss, memory, transmission, and heritage.
« On perd notre culture », « On a abandonné nos coutumes », « Les traditions se perdent », « Tout... more « On perd notre culture », « On a abandonné nos coutumes », « Les traditions se perdent », « Tout fout le camp »… La perte se décline aujourd’hui sous toutes ses formes. Perdre sa culture, son identité ou ses racines, et son corollaire (le besoin de transmission), sont des figures largement mobilisées de par le monde. Cet ouvrage explore les nostalgies patrimoniales contemporaines en révélant les formes diverses que peut prendre le diagnostic de la perte culturelle. L’anthropologie nous enseigne qu’il existe des façons différentes de penser la disparition, la mémoire et le patrimoine, et invite à réfléchir sur la durabilité des groupes humains face aux ruptures de l’histoire.
Nostalgia is intimately connected to the history of the social sciences in general and anthropolo... more Nostalgia is intimately connected to the history of the social sciences in general and anthropology in particular, though finely grained ethnographies of nostalgia and loss are still scarce. Today, anthropologists have realized that nostalgia constitutes a fascinating object of study for exploring contemporary issues of the formation of identity in politics and history. Contributors to this volume consider the fabric of nostalgia in the fields of heritage and tourism, exile and diasporas, postcolonialism and postsocialism, business and economic exchange, social, ecological and religious movements, and nation building. They contribute to a better understanding of how individuals and groups commemorate their pasts, and how nostalgia plays a role in the process of remembering.
Aquí presento —con la autorización del autor— la traducción de un brevísimo texto que, a mi enten... more Aquí presento —con la autorización del autor— la traducción de un brevísimo texto que, a mi entender, supera en relevancia a cualquier cosa que haya leído en los últimos años (incluidos artículos en revistas ISI y demás síntomas de la cuantofrenia académica). El original en inglés puede consultarse aquí: https://www.academia.edu/34347273/How_to_get_rid_of_your_academic_fake-self
Uploads
Et si être soi, c’était non seulement ressentir l’unité du moi, mais également éprouver son inconstance, le passage incessant entre ses diverses facettes et l’acquisition de nouvelles dimensions ? Si être soi-même, c’était à la fois être un et plusieurs, permanent et oscillant ?
Cet essai invite à étudier la gymnastique complexe du soi pour appréhender la nature hétérogène des identités ordinaires. Dans le même mouvement, il pose les bases d’une nécessaire discussion sur l’une des grandes controverses culturelles de notre époque : qui peut jouer à être qui ?
Such sentiments get echoed around the world, from aging Trump supporters in West Virginia to young villagers in West Africa. But what is triggering this sense of cultural loss, and to what ends does this rhetoric get deployed?
To answer these questions, anthropologist David Berliner travels around the world, from Guinea-Conakry, where globalization affects the traditional patriarchal structure of cultural transmission, to Laos, where foreign UNESCO experts have become self-appointed saviors of the nation’s cultural heritage. He also embarks on a voyage of critical self-exploration, reflecting on how anthropologists handle their own sense of cultural alienation while becoming deeply embedded in other cultures. This leads into a larger examination of how and why we experience exonostalgia, a longing for vanished cultural heydays we never directly experienced.
Losing Culture provides a nuanced analysis of these phenomena, addressing why intergenerational cultural transmission is vital to humans, yet also considering how efforts to preserve disappearing cultures are sometimes misguided or even reactionary. Blending anthropological theory with vivid case studies, this book teaches us how to appreciate the multitudes of different ways we might understand loss, memory, transmission, and heritage.
Losing Culture: Nostalgia, Heritage, and Our Accelerated Times
Discussants - Adeline Masquelier & Jonas Tinius