Eric Wolf Envisions Power: the Babri Masjid-Ramjanambhoomi Controversy

Kevin Champion

10 March 2006

1321 Laramie St.

Manhattan KS 66502

(913) 908-2467

kjc6688@ksu.edu

1

Eric Wolf Envisions Power: the Babri Masjid-Ramjanambhoomi Controversy

Abstract

Eric R. Wolf is one of the most seminal figures in the field of anthropology by his personal

and professional influence. Throughout his career he developed a unique perspective in

anthropology as he created a way of viewing large scale and dynamic systems that make up the

current world. Eric Wolf was a true pioneer who gave anthropology direction by way of synthesis in

a time of conflict and crisis. Wolf´s anthropological work was not just driven to use or create

theory, but rather attempted to utilize multiple theories in order to come up with a better, more

holistic explanation of world processes. Through the method of perspective that he created, or

medium, his message is revealed. This message is the very medium itself. He is certainly not an

overlooked anthropologist as few fail to recognize his importance in the “song lines” of

anthropology, however he is overlooked in the sense that most fail to recognize his importance as a

guide for understanding the contemporary world. One such example in which Wolf is remarkably

useful is in the Babri Masjid-Ramjanambhoomi controversy in India. By employing Wolfian

analysis, or perspective, it is possible to ascertain a necessary focus in order to grasp such a

complex problem as Hindu-Muslim conflict in India represented by this controversy. Most important

of all is that Wolf offers us direction. The emphasis he puts on education gives us an answer of how

to be an activist without having to be an activist anthropologist. It is this that we must focus on if we

are to learn from what this brilliant man had to give the world.

2

Eric R. Wolf is a seminal figure in the history of anthropological theory. His contributions to

anthropology are evident in his body of written work, his innovative theoretical emphasis, and his

personal influence on students and fellow scholars. Wolf wrote several books, including his most

acclaimed “Europe and the People without History”, many journal articles covering a vast range of

concepts and topics, several collaborative works, and several reviews and critiques of his peers´

work. His most constant theoretical approach and emphasis in all of his work is the importance on

doing anthropological analysis through the lens of history.

Wolf viewed this historical, or processual, method as essential to explain various social forms

(Friedman 1987a: 111). As Wolf developed his major theoretical constructs he increasingly utilized

Marxian concepts as a form of analysis. This was either the cause of or caused by his characteristic

focus on complex systems. Wolf was not satisfied to contain his analysis in a specifically defined

area. Rather, he increasingly felt this approach was imprudent in an entirely interconnected world,

both geographically and historically. This recognition of change as a fundamental concept operating

at a foundational level in the actualization of such terms as “culture” or “society” reflects one major

area of Marxian influence. In attempting to apply anthropology to complex systems, Wolf

increasingly turned to the ideas of “power”, “ideology”, and “hegemony” as tools to examine the

relationships and moving forces in said complex systems. Hence, his more contemporary work

largely focused on the analysis of complex systems of structural power relations. Such analysis dealt

with significant and previously untouched concepts and for this reason, Wolf was a true pioneer. If a

label is necessary, Wolf can be characterized as a critical anthropologist.

Wolf is commonly attributed with “render[ing] anthropology relevant to contemporary

history,” (Schneider 1999: 395) advocating “cultural anthropology as a link between the humanities

and the social sciences,” (Yengoyan 2001: vii) and “bringing Marxism to anthropology” (Marcus

2003: 113). Wolf´s theoretical influence can be noted in the collaborative book titled “Articulating

3

Hidden Histories: Exploring the influence of Eric R. Wolf” (Schneider and Rapp 1995) in which

several anthropologists, both students of his and scholars influenced by him, pay tribute to the then

still living Wolf. Carol Smith notes in a review of this work that very few living anthropologists are

ever paid tribute by such prominent scholars, putting Wolf in league with the likes of Claude Lévi-

Strauss (1997: 387), and echoing Smith, Claudio Lomnitz states that this collection, “show[s] the

extent, fertility, and intensity of Eric Wolf´s influence on a number of scholars” (1996: 148).

Wolf’s contribution to anthropology manifests itself most directly through his influence on

students and fellow scholars, evident in the very writing of this paper. Eric Wolf was the professor

and advisor of Harald E. L. Prins and Prins is my professor. Consequently, there is a direct influence

of Wolf on the writing of this paper that shows itself in the examination of the song lines of

anthropological theory. Not only am I connected closely to Wolf, but I am also then connected to

Wolf’s teachers and their teachers all the way back to the origins of this ever evolving discipline.

Just as the Australian aborigines sing their song of the dreamtime to guide them through the land and

at the same time create the land, I am singing the song of anthropology in the writing of this paper

which guides me through the world of anthropology and at the same time creates the very

anthropology that I am guided through.

Wolf’s anthropological approach is a major motivational force for this paper. I chose Wolf

as my subject of writing because I share an interest in large scale complex systems. The world gets

smaller every day to such an extent that it is no longer appropriate to study any entity as isolated.

Not only is this true today, but it has been true for much longer than is ordinarily assumed. My

motivation is to obtain an understanding of the world. I see tremendous amounts of pain, hardship,

and inequality in the world as evidenced by ghastly wealth disparities, sweatshops, war, and religious

conflict. My hope is that a better understanding of the complex system that is the world will aid in

eradicating this pain, hardship, and inequality. Wolf certainly does not offer to provide an

4

understanding of the world; however he does offer a more functional perspective for attempting such

understanding. His historical and Marxian approaches and the stress he places on systems of power

and ideology seem to be ever more important strategies for approximating reality in the current world

system. Thus, it seems a comprehensive understanding of Eric Wolf is a necessary and inevitable

step in both my interests and in the development of Anthropology.

The Life

Eric Robert Wolf was born in Vienna in 1923 to an Austrian father and a Russian mother. His

mother and father met during World War I in Siberia where his father was a prisoner of war and his

mother was living with her family who had been exiled there after the 1905 revolution. Both parents

came from highly secularized Jewish families and thus anti-Semitism was an increasingly difficult

aspect of Wolf´s early years in Vienna. Not only did Wolf witness this type of conflict, but he was

also exposed to stories about cultures all over the world very early in life by his parents and

grandparents who told him of Latin Americans, Russians, Japanese, Chinese, Koreans, and Siberian

Tungus. In his household, “the virtues of the Enlightenment… were extolled,” (Wolf 2001: 1) and at

his elementary school, Wolf benefited from a fine education that was created by the controlling

Socialists. He describes the “crossroads” nature of Vienna in those years as, “full of traveling

merchants, carrying rugs and wearing strange shoes and hats from the Balkans” (Friedman 1987a:

107). He also remembers constant conflict in Vienna in those years as he recalls ideologically

opposed student groups literally beating each other to death while he was playing in a nearby park

(Ghani 1987: 346). Wolf thus described these early years as, “caught… ´between the Enlightenment

and hysteria´” (Schneider 1999: 395).

In 1933 at age 10, Wolf´s father moved the family to Tannwald in the Sudetenland where he

was sent to work as the manager of a textile factory. Wolf´s father increased production by making

greater demands in labor, which caused Wolf to confront issues of class struggle because his father

5

was the manager of many of his friends´ parents. He was also exposed to more clashes of ethnicity

as this area was the epicenter of the Czech-German inter-ethnic conflict that was exacerbated by Nazi

rule. During these early years Wolf spent much vacation time with his family in the Italian Tyrol

where he was exposed to peasants dressed in traditional clothing and speaking native tongues.

In 1938, shortly after the German army occupied Austria, Wolf´s father managed to get him

and his family out of Sudetenland and to England where they settled near Manchester. Wolf was

immediately sent to the Forest School in Essex. In 1940, he was put in an internment camp at

Huyton, near Liverpool because he was considered an “enemy alien”. Here he was greatly

influenced by his fellow inmates, either Jewish or socialist, as they set up formal lectures and

discussions on a variety of subjects. In June of 1940, Wolf and his family were allowed to leave

England to start a new life in America because they had family in New York. They settled in

Queens, and Wolf was admitted to Queens College in that fall. The following summer Wolf was

exposed to the “impoverished underbelly of the South” (Wolf 2001: 3) while volunteering for rural

reforestation at the Highlander Folk School. In 1942, he enlisted in the Tenth Mountain Division that

fought in the Alps. Due to his knowledge of the area from his vacation time spent in the Alps, Wolf

won a Silver Star for bravery in combat (Prins 1999b). Fighting in the army exposed him to the

horrors of war and also allowed him access to government funds so that he could continue his

studies. After he returned, he finished his Bachelor of Arts degree in 1946, and moved on to do

graduate work at Columbia University. He completed his doctorate work under Julian Steward in

anthropology in 1951.

After completing doctorate work in Puerto Rico, Wolf set out to start his own project in

Mexico. The outcomes of this project were several papers, many connections with Mexican

anthropologists, and a distinct knowledge of various peasant communities in Mexico. In 1952, Wolf

joined Steward at the University of Illinois as a research associate. In 1955, Wolf accepted a

6

teaching position at the University of Virginia where he was able to do much writing. During this

time he published a book on his studies of peasants, “The Sons of Shaking Earth” (1959). After short

stints at Yale University and the University of Chicago, Wolf started a new research project in 1960

studying the peasants that so interested him in early life in the Italian Tyrol. In 1961 he returned to

accept a position at the University of Michigan where he was to stay for ten years. Here he wrote an

important book entitled “Anthropology” (1964), increased his understanding of peasants which led to

the works “Peasants” (1966) and “Peasant Wars of the Twentieth Century” (1973), and spearheaded

opposition to the Vietnam War with organized “teach-ins”. At Michigan he was involved with the

American Anthropological Association in helping create the Committee on Ethics.

In 1971, Wolf moved to New York where he taught graduates at the City University of New

York while teaching undergraduates at the Herbert H. Lehman College in the Bronx. Although

prompted by his relationship with Sydel Silverman, who he married in 1972, this move allowed him

the opportunity to teach working class students and continue his position as a “lifetime champion of

free public education” (Wolf 2001: 8). In 1982, Wolf published his seminal work “Europe and the

People without History”, which marked a shift toward a study of the forces at work in the larger

world-system. In 1990, he received the MacArthur “genius” award which was followed by honorary

doctorates from the Universities of Vienna and Amsterdam. After being diagnosed with cancer in

the late 1990s, Wolf managed to find the energy to finish the book, “Envisioning Power: Ideologies

of Dominance and Crisis” (1999) and the collection of works “Pathways of Power: Building an

Anthropology of the Modern World” (2001). Eric Robert Wolf died on March 6, 1999.

Education

Wolf´s education played a pivotal role in his development. As previously noted, he was blessed with

an excellent elementary school in Vienna. In the Sudetenland he attended a German “gymnasium”

but says that his real education during that period “came from hiking and bicycle trips through the

7

Central European countryside with my friend Kurt Loffler” (Wolf 2001: 2). These trips were

important because they exposed him to the Nazi machine and the various forms of “acceptable” art.

Wolf remarks that in retrospect his next stage of education at the Forest School in England was a

very important two year period (Ghani 1987: 349-350). It was in England that he found himself in a

whole new cultural setting, learned English, and discovered natural science and evolution.

According to Robert Rotenburg, it was in the detention camp at Huyton that he was exposed to the

“single most influential theorist in [his] thinking about social labor,” (2000) who was not Marx, but

Norbert Elias. The German sociologist Elias introduced Wolf to the social sciences and taught him

the principle that would permeate throughout his future work; “differences of power are present in

every social relationship” (Rotenburg 2000). Wolf states that Elias´ idea which fascinated him the

most at the time was the concept that an individual is a social phenomenon which is born into an

already established network of people (Friedman 1987: 108).

At Queens College, Wolf refined his interests through the medium of selecting majors. He

started his studies in biochemistry, but was quickly persuaded in a different direction trying political

science, economics, and finally sociology before stumbling into a class on the anthropology of Asia

taught by Joseph Bram (Wolf 2001: 3). It was in anthropology that he found a discipline that dealt

with the things that really interested him. After finishing his Bachelors degree in Anthropology, and

upon the recommendation of Hortense Powdermaker, he applied and was accepted to Columbia

University, the center of Boasian anthropology and the “culture and personality” approach. Wolf

describes Columbia as “in shambles” at the time because Franz Boas had just died and Ralph Linton

had recently left (Friedman 1987a: 108). Nonetheless he stayed and studied under Ruth Benedict,

George Herzog, and eventually Julian Steward. He felt he had much to learn from Benedict, but was

ultimately frustrated with her lack of interest in history or in the materialist foundations of cultural

configurations (Wolf 2001: 4). This frustration was alleviated to some extent by the arrival of

8

Steward, in many ways an antithesis to Benedict. However, Wolf´s biggest influence during these

years was his fellow students who formed a study group that they called the Mundial Upheaval

Society. Among its members were Sidney Mintz, Morton Fried, Elman Service, Stanley Diamond,

Daniel McCall, Robert Manners, Rufus Mathewson, and occasionally John Murra, who were all

veterans and all “shared sympathies on the political left and interests in expanding materialist

approaches in anthropology” (Wolf 2001: 4). Rather than listen to Benedict, Steward, and their other

professors, the society largely taught and learned from themselves. In his final act as an official

student, Wolf went with several others to Puerto Rico to do research for Steward´s Puerto Rico

Project. Out of this came his thesis and ultimately his doctoral degree.

Although he finished his formal education at Columbia, Wolf never stopped learning. He

placed great emphasis on what others could teach him and in this vein was, “prepared to learn from

students as well as peers, laypersons as well as professionals, the humble as well as the grand”

(Schneider and Rapp 1995: 30). He was a lover of facts and felt that all learning was important no

matter how obtuse the material seems. He believed strongly in learning through “reciprocal,

democratic exchanges,” (Schneider 1999: 399) which is evident in his meticulous attention to detail

in citation. He viewed his teaching as an alternative and ever productive way of learning. Due to

this he was known to keep in touch with many of the thousands of students he had, reading

manuscripts and attempting to counsel and learn.

Wolf´s views of learning and teaching were strikingly evident in his personality. During a

lecture about Wolf and his influence, his former student Harald Prins characterized him as “an

extraordinarily wonderful, kind human being.” I argue that his personality contributed greatly to and

is evidenced by his magnificently large influence on anthropology. His views of learning allowed

him to be a dedicated teacher and a truly compassionate individual. Few people, anthropologists

alike, have had such an effect on the people they shared the world with as Eric Wolf. Prins echoed

9

these sentiments a week after Wolf´s death, “[he] was much more than a productive intellectual or

remarkable teacher—he was a truly inspiring human being” (1999a).

Major Influences

The context of Eric Wolf´s life was characterized by, above all else, conflict. He was profoundly

affected by WWI, WWII, the Cold War, and the Vietnam War. He would not have been born into

this world if his father did not fight in WWI, because it enabled him to meet his mother. WWII had a

profound effect on Wolf as he coexisted with the rising National Socialist powers in his early years.

Not only did he see the forces that caused the war first hand, but as a Jew, he was forced out of his

home country and even continent. Wolf was interned in England as France fell to the Nazis for his

status as a foreigner. He then escaped Europe because of the dangers WWII created for him and his

family. On top of this, he voluntarily returned to fight with the United States Army in the Alps.

Consequently, Wolf experienced one of the most comprehensive and unique perspectives of the great

conflict that is WWII. Furthermore, he lived through the entire Cold War, and the Draconian world

it created, in the United States (minus brief stints spent researching in various countries). The major

product of the Cold War, the Vietnam War, was a pivotal point of influence for Wolf. As he led and

became the central figure, along with his friend and colleague Marshall Sahlins, in the first Teach-In

against the War in Vietnam in 1965, Wolf began formulating a new focus for his work. At this time,

conflict had even infiltrated anthropology as it lost its innocence as a “church of marginals” (Ghani

1987: 353) and was forced to ask and answer new questions in a new world, also known as the Crisis

in anthropology. The shift of focus manifested itself in a broader view of conflict that would help in

understanding such major rifts as the numerous wars he personally witnessed. The shift is shown in

his last two major works “Europe and the People without History” and “Envisioning Power:

Ideologies of Dominance and Crisis” in which he attempts to grapple with the status of the current

10

world system, capitalism, and the various moving forces at work in creating the great conflicts he

lived through.

Within the field of anthropology, Wolf had many influences. His major personal influences

in anthropology were Powdermaker, Benedict, Steward, and his fellow members of the Mundial

Upheaval Society (MUS). Of these, Steward played an important role in liberating Wolf and the

others at Columbia from the “culture and personality” approach, but did not stimulate his desire to

think ideologically and to apply a variety of theoretical approaches. Wolf felt that Steward “didn’t

read anything” and stated that he was “strictly oral and auditory;” (Friedman 1987: 110) both

comments lending to the idea that Steward was not able to advance Wolf´s interest in the realms of

ideology. Wolf and his fellow graduate students in the MUS read and discussed Marxist theory and

various important texts such as: Karl Wittfogel´s “Oriental Despotism”, Paul Sweezy´s “Theory of

Capitalist Development”, and C.L.R. James´s “The Black Jacobins” (Schneider 1999: 396, Wolf

2001: 4). These discussions provided Wolf the intellectual outlet that was lacking in the Steward

school and influenced his theoretical framework. The fact that Wolf was bored by certain theoretical

approaches was as much a product of his extensive knowledge of a variety of fields as it was of the

deficiencies of his personal influences. Wolf was a remarkably well read scholar with an intimate

knowledge of not only anthropological theory, but the theory of other disciplines that he viewed as

largely interconnected such as history, sociology, and political science.

Theory and Work

Wolf´s early theoretical work focused on peasants and their role in the modern world. Influenced by

his initial fieldwork in Puerto Rico and Mexico, his interest was sparked in the idea of peasants. He

set out to define “peasants” and determine what role they play in a larger system. After spending

many years examining peasants, including writing several papers and books, Wolf shifted his focus

during the Crisis in anthropology and the crisis of the Vietnam War to questions of the larger world

11

system and the approaches that must be taken to study it. Wolf was interested in viewing the world

holistically, in the true sense of holism. Thus he was very critical of borders and boundaries,

demonstrated in “The Hidden Frontier” (Cole and Wolf 1974), and felt that they “can never be drawn

statically through time, because they have little meaning in capturing the kinds of differences that

have persisted historically” (Yengoyan 2001: viii).

All his previous theoretical work came to the fore with his most acclaimed and seminal work

“Europe and the People without History”. In this book, Wolf set out to show that, “the world of

humankind constitutes a manifold, a totality of interconnected processes, and inquiries that

disassemble this totality into bits and then fail to reassemble it falsify reality” (1982: 3). Therefore,

he tries to show that concepts which have borders and boundaries such as “culture,” “society,” and

“nation” refer incorrectly to “things” rather than correctly to “bundles of relationships”. These

concepts become “things” by being taken out of their context, both physical and historical. He then

posits that in every field the world is studied in bounded units, even though the same fields admit that

the world is really one interconnected whole. Even anthropology, says Wolf, “divides its subject

matter into distinctive cases,” settling for the idealized view of “primitives” without history and

isolated from the world (1982: 4). Wolf wants to know why the world is studied in static

disconnected units rather than as its true nature, dynamic interconnected phenomena. He also denies

that the world must be studied as integrated totalities contributing to an “organized, autonomous, and

enduring whole” (1982: 390). Wolf concludes that the world must be studied in a structural way, a

very Marxian way, by analyzing the deployment of social labor, mobilized to engage the world of

nature (1982: 391).

Advancing many ideas laid out in “Peasant Wars of the Twentieth Century,” critics agree that

“Europe and the People without History” is Wolf´s landmark work. Due to the difficulties of writing

a history of capitalism throughout the world, reviewers comment that individual scholars will likely

12

“find many bones to pick with his treatment of their own areas of specialization” (Ludden 1984:

197). Nonetheless, they largely compliment the work as providing a new perspective with which to

approach the study of the world. One critic, Jonathan Friedman, questions Wolf´s classic notion of

modes of production. He claims that in order to provide an accurate global perspective, a different

notion of modes of production must be adopted, one which recognizes the influence from a more

dominant capitalist structure (1987b: 84). This criticism may be a “bone to pick”. In 1985, Wolf

explains his Marxian position in a debate with Maurice Goldelier by stating that the capitalist mode

of production increasingly governs, by means of economics and politics, people’s involvement in the

world; “however, this process takes place without people´s intentions; or the intentions of people are

carried along by the forces that move them” (Verrips 6). Therefore, although Wolf recognizes and

agrees with the “more dominant capitalist structure” that Friedman refers to, he feels that from the

perspective of the individual this structure is of no consequence because it is just that, structural.

Consequently, he does have a response to Friedman´s critique that was either a “bone to pick” or a

misinterpretation. Although “Europe and the People without History” is commonly viewed as his

most important and enlightening book, his final work, “Envisioning Power: Ideologies of Dominance

and Crisis,” is Wolf´s most intriguing.

I view the work of Eric Wolf as a gradual progression, each major work furthering the

previous in an ideological, if not direct, way. Just as Wolf viewed the study of history, I view all his

publications as important contributions to the larger body that is the theory of Eric Wolf even if they

seem obtuse. As a product of these two viewpoints, Wolf´s final book is absolutely intriguing

because it is important to his overall body of work and is arguably his most advanced piece of

writing. Several contextual factors make his final work his most intriguing. First and foremost is the

fact that Wolf died shortly after the book was distributed to fellow anthropologists and scholars,

which largely silenced immediate attempts to make sense of what he had written. His death confused

13

the initial reviews and reactions with obituaries as scholars focused less on the work itself and more

on the man and his life. When reviews finally began to be published in journals, Wolf was not

around to answer questions about what is described as “not an easy work” (Prins 2001: 264). The

other factor is that this book was in progress for thirteen years and was the first major work he had

produced for seventeen years, since his epic “Europe and the People without History.” This created

frenzy as people anticipated the book would have the same sort of impact as his previous book. A

final factor is that it is possible that it is too soon (only seven years) to determine the impact that this

final book has and will have on anthropology and the impact it will have on perceptions of Wolf

himself.

Despite the contextual difficulties, and in many ways caused by these difficulties,

“Envisioning Power” received multiple and varied reviews: David Nugent calls it “a remarkable

book,” (2002: 193) Harald Prins dubbed it “a profound meditation on the human condition,” (2001:

264) Marcus Anthony suggests it “was a disappointing last effort,” (2003: 135) Richard Adams

describes it as “a thought-provoking synthesis of cultural anthropology and some central concerns of

cultural history,” (1999: 736) Alan Macfarlane feels it “has a certain aimless feel,” (1999: 736) and

Michael Mann criticizes it as “an uneven book… ultimately falling short of its ambition” (2000:

536). All the reviewers however agree that “Envisioning Power” is a great scholarly effort and a

very difficult work to properly read and digest. There seems to be a stark divide between those who

do not have enough review space to properly praise the work and those who think it is a good

scholarly work, but ultimately a failure. I can echo both sets of responses to the book. While reading

it I felt the “aimless” sensation Macfarlane notes, but upon reflection it was entirely a success rather

than a failure.

“Envisioning Power” was a success because it does what Wolf set out to do. Wolf set out in

this book, and as an anthropologist, to explain rather than to interpret, describe, or solve. This goal is

14

reflective in his general historical approach and his absence of a singular theory. Wolf also held the

view that an anthropologist is a reporter, “a more or less passive instrument rather than an activist

who would like to intervene” (Abbink and Vermeulen 1992: 16). In “Envisioning Power” he

explicitly set out to examine the roles power, cultural configurations, and social relations play on

each other and more simply “to explore the connections between ideas and power” (1999: 1). Fueled

by his personal relationship with the major conflicts of the twentieth century and specifically by the

lasting effect National Socialism had on his development, this work is greatly influenced by his

desire to more aptly explain such conflicts. Therefore, he divides this book into six chapters

consisting of an introduction, a conceptual chapter, three poignant case studies, and a coda. This

organization, in its very format, seems to be a representation of Wolf´s anthropology, balancing

theory with empiricism.

Critics claim that Wolf failed with “Envisioning Power” because he does not show how

“power” and “ideology” are “mobilized through specific networks of communication and specific

forms of organization” (Mann 2000:536). Although they may be correct, it is only because they are

hoping he will develop a sound theory and apply it to specific cases so as to advance understanding

and anthropological theory and provide a model for future examinations of “power” and “ideology”.

The truth is that Wolf is trying to explain rather than theorize because he has already theorized in

such papers as “Ideas and Power” and “Facing Power- Old Insights, New Questions” (Wolf 2001:

370-397). For him, sound theory is the “explanation”. Wolf was not an orthodox theoretical dogma

creator; “as an anthropologist, I believe that theoretical discussions need to be grounded in cases, in

observed streams of behavior, and in recorded texts” (1999: 2-3). Thus, he gives three such cases,

the Kwakiutl, Aztecs, and National Socialists, that are extreme in the sense that they clearly amplify

certain structures and reoccurrences in the processes and relationships which may not reveal

themselves so readily among less extreme peoples (1999: 16-17).

15

Wolf´s “theory” appears as we view “Envisioning Power” as a method rather than an entity

much in the vein of Marshall McLuhan´s concept, “the medium is the message” (1964). In this

sense, he is proposing new theory. Prefacing the three case studies in this book with two chapters,

the introduction, examining his experiential history, and the conceptual, examining the history of the

theory of ideas and power, and post scripting them with a short succinct coda void of verbosity was

not aimless, but teleological. This almost structural analysis of “Envisioning Power” reveals a book

that is both dynamic and interconnected; much like the world Wolf wished to explain. Not only is

this structure revealing, but his choice of arguably the three most known and referenced case studies

in the history of anthropology is tremendously revealing. He chose these three cases to demonstrate

and highlight a method, not a new theory. He does not provide the answers the critics are looking for

because for Wolf, the “answer” is the dynamic method rather than a static theory that proposes to

offer enlightenment. For this reason, Wolf is extremely difficult to pin down, which causes the

negative critiques and the “aimless feel”. As Wolf states, “in anthropology we are continually

slaying paradigms, only to see them return to life, as if discovered for the first time” (2001: 186).

Consequently, he was after a cumulative approach that sought to explain how to view “power” and

“ideology” rather than an approach that explicated completely the idiosyncrasies of each of the three

case studies and induced a theory for application to other cases. In so doing, he was amazingly

successful at creating a method devoid of any “new” theoretical paradigms. With “Envisioning

Power”, Wolf was showing the answer rather than saying the answer; his message was the medium.

One other remarkable aspect of Wolf´s most epic work, “Envisioning Power” and “Europe

and the People without History” is that both were described in reviews as being great books to teach

from. Writing of the former, Louise Burkhart states, “the book should be well suited for teaching,

since it presents empirical material that can be compared or brought to bear on Wolf´s theoretical

formulations,” (2001: 556) and David Ludden, writing of the latter states, “as a teaching tool this

16

book will remain invaluable for years to come” (1984: 197). This is not a surprise in one respect

because of the meticulous scholarship exhibited in these books. However, it is telling in another

respect. Whether he was aware of it or not, he may have been providing the “answer” that is sought

after in his books by creating a teaching tool and thus emphasizing the role of teaching. Could it be

that pedagogy is what he valued most in anthropology? Rushworth Kidder in an interview with Wolf

notes, “He feels that in the future the field will be shaped less by new theories than by changing

social and cultural conditions” (1990: 14). For Wolf, theory was a tool to learn, utilize, and teach.

Anthropology for him was not a discipline for the furthering of theory, but rather a discipline for

explaining the structural power and relationships in the world. He was not an activist anthropologist

in the traditional sense, but it is possible that he was activist in that he valued and promoted

education as the key to smoothing social relations worldwide.

Case In Point: Ayodhya, India

In examining the influence of Eric Wolf it is important to analyze the utility of his work. I am setting

out to do just that by taking a real world example of dominance and crisis, the Hindu-Muslim conflict

in India embodied in the Babri Masjid-Ramjanambhoomi controversy, and the ideas of Wolf to try to

explain a very complex and dynamic situation. I undertake this task with the caveat that I am not

attempting to mimic Wolf or produce an analysis that he might have made, but rather I am trying to

employ the numerous perspectives Wolf created to reveal something useful to a real world

contemporary issue. By utilizing Wolfian analysis of history and structural power, an illuminating

perspective will be attained that can hopefully provide insight where there was little and perhaps

even possible solutions to the problems that religious conflict is creating in India.

17

The Babri Masjid-Ramjanambhoomi Controversy is an archaeological argument. However,

to limit it to just archaeology is to deny the true magnitude of this controversy. In evaluating any

claim about the past the question must be asked: why is this claim important? In many of the claims

about the past that one could interpret, the answer to this question is not readily available. In this

case, this question is not an issue because people have died and continue to die because of the Babri

Masjid controversy. Before beginning the analysis of or even stating the claim it is necessary to

provide some background information about the Babri Masjid and the controversy that lies within.

December 6, 1992: The Babri Masjid (a mosque) in the northern Indian town of Ayodhya was

destroyed. BBC News (2005) reported, “that the mosque was torn down by supporters of the

hardline Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP or World Hindu Council), the Shiv Sena party and

then-opposition Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)”. The destruction of the

Babri Masjid provoked nation-wide and even region wide rioting during which over 2,000

people died all over India and Muslim-dominated Bangladesh. Immediately after the

destruction, the president of India pledged to rebuild the mosque to appease the grievances

felt by the Muslim minority, but to this day it has not been rebuilt.

December 4-11, 1994: On the two-year anniversary of the attack on the mosque the World

Archaeological Congress (WAC) held its quarterly meeting in India. The event was

described as, “an uncomfortable experience for most of the participants, because of the

political disputes that simmered throughout the conference and on a couple of occasions

boiled over into physical and verbal confrontation” (Merriman 1995: 19). The event was

experienced as such because of the persisting tension regarding the Babri Masjid destruction

and the lingering dispute over what was to be done about it. Archaeologist, retired Director

General of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) and local director of the WAC

18

conference, B. B. Lal wanted to use the opportunity to bring international awareness to the

Babri Masjid controversy and consequently resolve the issue entirely. This may have been

one motive of organizers to hold the conference in India, however, before the congress began

the international directors, in fear of violence, requested “´that the politically and

communally sensitive Ram Janma Bhoomi – Babri Masjid (Ayodhya) issue would not be

raised during the… Congress and its attendant business meetings´” (Merriman 1995: 20).

1998: The BJP formed a coalition government which caused tensions to rise over Babri Masjid due

to the BJP´s Hindu Nationalist leanings.

February, 2002: 58 Hindu activists were killed on a train returning from Ayodhya.

March, 2002: “Between 1,000 and 2,000 people, mostly Muslims, die[d] in riots in Gujarat

following the train attack” (BBC News 2005).

April, 2002: The high court of India, in response to all the killing, decided it must hold hearings to

figure out who owns the site.

January, 2003: An archaeological survey was ordered to determine if there was a temple underneath

the Babri Masjid. In August of that year, highly disputed reports come back declaring that

there was indeed evidence for a temple underneath the mosque.

September, 2003: After eleven years, 7 Hindu leaders were ordered to stand trial for their roles in the

original destruction of the mosque. Most of the charges ended up being dropped, but these

and other cases are ongoing as of July, 2005.

July, 2005: Six suspected Islamic militants attacked the site with a Jeep bomb and were all killed by

the security forces (BBC News 2005)

The Claim

19

The above overview of the contemporary history of the Babri Masjid-Ramjanambhoomi Controversy

shows why this issue is of utmost importance in India and the world. It also leads right into the claim

that this controversy creates: In 1528 a Mughal emperor named Babur destroyed a Hindu temple

dedicated to the god Rama in Ayodhya and built the Babri Masjid mosque over it. This claim

provides an answer to why the Hindu Nationalists destroyed the mosque and thus aids somewhat in

understanding the above contemporary history of the site. In order to properly examine this claim it

is important to, 1) determine who is making the claim and what their evidence for the claim is, 2)

determine who is refuting the claim and what their evidence is, 3) make some conclusions about the

claim based on the evidence, and 4) analyze the implications the controversy has for India,

archaeology, and the world.

One person making the claim is B. B. Lal., an archaeologist and the retired Director General

of the ASI, who first worked at the Ayodhya site in 1955-56 doing an exploratory study. Then in

1975, he began a research project on the archaeology of the various sites found in the Ramayana, an

ancient Sanskrit text that contains Hindu teachings and literally means the journey of Rama

(Ratnagar 2003: 1). Part of this project was to excavate in the city of Ayodhya and specifically at the

site of the then standing Babri Masjid. During this excavation, “Lal found a ´massive brick wall´…

house floors, rubble collapse, and the typical ring wells of early historic India” (Ratnagar 2003: 2).

After this excavation, Lal and his team concluded, “that the medieval period levels were of no special

interest and report the finds of little other than brick-and-kankar and lime floors” (Ratnagar 2003: 2).

This claim is interested in the “medieval period levels” because the Temple that supposedly existed

underneath the mosque would have been constructed and would have stood during the medieval

period (specifically 1100-1521 AD). It is important to note that, “the primary objective [of Lal´s

work in Ayodhya] was to ascertain the antiquity of this site and compare the same with that of other

sites” (Lal 1998) So, in the original reports that Lal made about his findings, there was no reference

20

to the existence of any significant structure underneath the mosque. However, some time around the

late 1980s to early 1990s it began to be reported that Lal had found “parallel rows of pillar-bases

(foundations), made of brick-bats or of brick-bats with a few stones” (Lal 1998). The suggestion is

that these findings were foundations for a very large structure, which would point to the possible

existence of a temple underneath the mosque at some time. But, these findings are features that Lal

makes no mention of in his original report (Ratnagar 2003: 3). Nonetheless, Lal began claiming that

he had found these stone pillars and that they were in fact foundations for a larger structure. This

larger structure, Lal (1998) claims, could have been the Ramjanambhoomi Temple that existed on the

site before the Babri Masjid.

In 1992, before and shortly after the mosque was destroyed, a series of “new” findings were

reported. During ground-leveling operations approximately six months before the mosque was

destroyed it was reported in a booklet authored by eight different people and entitled “Ramajanma

Bhumi: Ayodhya: New Archaeological Discoveries”, that stone carvings, brick walls, and floors

were found in many places (Ratnagar 2003: 2-3). Additionally, these groups claimed to have found,

“200 specimens… amalaka, sikharas, door-jambs, etc., which must have once constituted the parts of

a temple, [and] three inscriptions on stone” (Lal 1998). The inscriptions mentioned here and found

after the mosque was destroyed are said to contain multiple references to the Ramjanambhoomi

Temple that was destroyed. If true, this evidence strongly supports the claim.

Claim Refutation

Historian Sushil Srivastava created a comprehensive historical analysis of the various components of

this claim and published them in his book, “The Disputed Mosque: A Historical Inquiry” (1991). In

taking a historical approach to the claim, he begins by detailing the last hundred and fifty years of

direct conflict that the mosque has created. He shows, as mentioned above, that the conflict

originated 250 years after the Babri Masjid was built. This is his first bit of disturbing evidence. If

21

the temple was destroyed by a Mughal emperor conquering the land, why would there not be

historical evidence? Srivastava mentions that in any conquest, the conqueror usually is careful to

document the achievement. As proof, he shows that in other similar situations of mosques being

built over destroyed temples in India, the conquering party made sure to boast about their

accomplishments in the forms of inscriptions and other historical documents. Immediately, the lack

of historical evidence makes the claim seem unlikely.

One specific aspect of the claim is the insistence that the Mughal emperor Babur was the

destroyer and creator of the temple and mosque. The major piece of evidence that proponents

provide is Babur´s personal records. In his records, “the activities of Babur during the period 2 April

1528 to 8 September 1528 are unknown” (Srivastava 1991 71). These pages of the records are

missing and thus proponents suggest that during this period the temple was destroyed and the mosque

created. Many early British scholars and administrators who originally translated the records used

this evidence to promote the myth of the controversy. These scholars claim that Babur was in

Ayodhya on 28 March 1528. Srivastava examines the translations made and, quoting others who

recognized the same mistakes, shows how the British scholars made simple errors in doing the

complex translation across three languages and in being generally unfamiliar with the geography of

the area. He goes on to prove that Babur was in fact 72 miles north of Ayodhya on said day and that,

“it is therefore doubtful that Babur ever came to Ayodhya” (Srivastava 1991: 75). If Babur never in

fact was in Ayodhya, he could not have destroyed the temple, and that part of the claim cannot be

true.

Some of the British scholars also pointed to the Babri Masjid itself for evidence. After

finding “black stone pillars in the mosque,” Martin proclaimed that, “they were un-Islamic and

therefore must have been taken from a Hindu temple” (Srivastava 1991: 72) Srivastava recommends

that just because the pillars are “un-Islamic” does not at all suggest that they came from a previous

22

Hindu temple at the same site. After showing pictures of the pillars to experts in Ancient Indian

temple art and architecture, he comes to the conclusion that although they are un-Islamic, they cannot

be attributed to a specific Hindu temple because at the time there was a syncretism of art forms

between Buddhist, Jaina, and Hindu that makes distinction impossible. He also points to the fact that

many similar pillars are found in the surrounding area in various types of constructions, suggesting

that they are not unique to a specifically religious construction (Srivastava 1991: 81-82).

Another aspect of the claim that Sushil Srivastava contends is the date. He focuses on the

date of construction of the Babri Masjid. In this focus he looks at the construction of the dome. He

quotes the Report of the ASI, “by the sixteenth century the art of making a symmetrical dome had

been mastered” (Srivastava 1991: 91). However, in the Babri Masjid, a wooden beam was used to

support the domes and arches during construction. Hence the Babri Masjid apparently lacks

sixteenth century “architectural finesse”. This, among many other factors contributed to Srivastava´s

suggestion that the mosque was not actually built in 1528 as claimed, but rather much earlier

(Srivastava 1991: 91). However, speaking of Srivastava in a book review, Kunal Chakrabarti (1993:

164) states, “some of his…conclusions, such as the period of the construction of the mosque, are a

little speculative”. This shows that not all Srivastava´s conclusions can be accepted without critical

examination. Nonetheless, he provides one of the most comprehensive historical analyses available.

One final aspect of the claim that Srivastava challenges is the attribution of Lord Rama to

Ayodhya. Lord Rama is one of the most popular and important manifestations of God in

Hinduism. If Rama was not actually associated with Ayodhya, then the Hindu pilgrimages would be

unfounded and the importance of the site and the city would lessen severely. Hindus claim, “that the

site is the spot where Rama, the avatar of Vishnu, took human form” (Srivastava 1991: 97). Through

a very long and complicated analysis of Hindu history and mythology Srivastava comes to the

conclusion that Rama was actually born in the chamber of his mother in Kaushalya Bhavan, not

23

Ayodhya. His analysis examines the location of the Babri Masjid and suggests reasons for its

location. The site of the mosque is a hill that holds a very prominent position in Ayodhya.

Therefore, the builders of the mosque logically put the Babri Masjid where it is located because of its

position of prominence. This realization also provides insight into the more contemporary

archaeological finds noted above. Due to the prominent position, there logically would have been

other constructions on this hill inside the city before the mosque. Hence, it is entirely possible that

the mosque was built upon something, just not necessarily plausible that it was built upon the

Ramjanambhoomi Temple (Srivastava 1991: 91-112).

For analysis of the specific archaeological information it is important to turn to another

person, Professor D. Mandal, who provides a technical evaluation of the archaeological work done at

the Babri Masjid site. In so doing, he is not concerned so much with the overall claim, but rather

with the archaeological surveys that have been done and the conclusions that have been drawn from

them. After completing his investigation of the evidence available, after the mosque was destroyed,

Mandal published his findings in a book called “Ayodhya: Archaeology after Demolition” (1993).

Certainly the most important part of Mandal´s work is the analysis of B. B. Lal´s findings; however

he also looks at the “new” discoveries for their archaeological merit.

Mandal´s analysis of B. B. Lal´s archaeological work is based on a small number of

photographs that were taken at the time of excavation, 1975. In fact, this small number of

photographs is the only solid piece of evidence that Mandal has to work with because of the very

small amount of archaeological work that has ever been done at the site (due largely to its

controversial nature). Among the work that has been done, Mandal noted that reports of those

investigations are limited and not widely available making it very difficult to ascertain any sort of

validity. Before even starting his investigation of the photographs, Mandal notes that, “from none of

the finds reported, is a date of the eleventh century even remotely indicated” (Mandal 1993: 27).

24

This runs precisely contrary to those who believe the claim and those who propose that Lal´s

excavations provide direct evidence for a temple as they assert that, “´the pillared structure was built

at the site in the 11th century A.D.´” (Mandal 1993: 27). The referred to “pillared structure” is the

major evidence for the temple as it is believed to be the original foundation. Based on one

particularly good photo from Lal, Mandal comes up with eight conclusions all suggesting that the

pillars are not actually bases for a previous temple. Here are a selected few of his findings:

1. The various structural remnants claimed to be the vestiges of ´pillar bases´ are not contemporaneous. They belong to at least five different, sequential structural phases (rebuilding episodes).

2. It is highly probable that the so-called pillar bases are actually the remnant portions of walls of different structural phases.

5. Constructed as they are of brickbats laid haphazardly, the so-called pillar bases were certainly not capable of bearing the vertical load of large-sized stone pillars…

6. No structural feature or artefactual find points even in a circumstantial manner to a date approaching the eleventh century. Instead, what is firmly suggested for the poorly built structure unearthed in the trench, is a date between the thirteenth and fifteenth centuries A.D. (Mandal 1993: 39-40)

It is important here to note that Mandal has the utmost respect for Lal´s archaeological work, he just

questions the conclusions that Lal and others developed from Lal´s original work.

Mandal also takes the time to examine the ´new´ and ´fresh´ discoveries that were claimed

shortly before and after the mosque was destroyed. The difficulty with these discoveries is the

obvious lack of proper science. None of these discoveries were properly investigated by trained

archaeologists. All of them are associated with some sort of ground leveling work, thus stratigraphy

is impossible to determine. None of the discoveries has been fully disclosed to academic scrutiny

because they have all been removed from their original locations before proper archaeological work

could be done. Therefore, it does not even seem necessary to investigate these discoveries.

Nonetheless, Mandal does look at the evidence and essentially concludes that the new discoveries

cannot be used to support the claim; “of all the available archaeological material brought to light so

far in connection with the (now demolished) mosque, only those from Lal´s trench near the mosque

25

actually count as primary archaeological evidence” (Mandal 1993: 63). Mandal does not hasten to

make an assertion about the origin of the inscriptions, but he does make it clear that without

appropriate context, the inscriptions are meaningless. Therefore, it is entirely possible that the

inscriptions found in the new discoveries were hoaxes. D. Mandal then summarily concludes that

there was never a temple at the site of the Babri Masjid based on the available archaeological

evidence.

Conclusion

Based on the most significant evidence, I have found that the claim is most probably entirely false.

The Babri Masjid was probably not built in 1528, it was probably not built by Babur, it is probably

not the site of Lord Rama, and it is probably not resting on top of the destroyed Ramjanambhoomi

Temple. The arguments Srivastava and Mandal make very solidly refute the claim, but it is still

difficult to propose more than probability in my findings because the site was destroyed in 1992.

The destruction cast the controversy into just another category of claims we will never find the truth

about. Even before the site was destroyed, it was nearly impossible to do proper science or proper

archaeological work due to the intensity of the situation and the gravity of the conflict, let alone

receive permission to attempt such work. Therefore, this claim, in my opinion, is irrelevant based on

its own merits. What is both relevant and important is investigating the cause for the arousal of this

claim including the historical processes that contributed to said arousal, the symbolic nature of the

claim, and consequently the implications the claim has on India, archaeology, and the larger world

system. In this respect, a Wolfian analysis of history, structural power, and hegemony are essential.

British influence is one factor that contributes heavily to the arousal of the claim. To

understand this influence on the Babri Masjid-Ramjanambhoomi controversy, it is important to first

understand the attitude the British had towards India. Based on reports from the earliest British to

visit India, early colonial authorities believed that there was a strict divide between Hindus and

26

Muslims that was the direct cause of violent conflict. This belief was then, “disseminated by the

Utilitarians and the Evangelists in Britain,” which forced the British to think that they must

Christianize and modernize the Indians, solving the great conflict between Hindus and Muslims, and

“uplift[ing] the Indians from the morass of backwardness” (Srivastava 1991: 34). This belief based

on racist and unfounded judgments ignored the fact that Hindus and Muslims had coexisted relatively

peacefully for hundreds of years due to “complete religious tolerance in the general behaviour of the

people” (Srivastava 1991: 35). Srivastava´s findings also lend themselves to show that if there was

conflict in Ayodhya at this time it was most probably not religious conflict. Not so ironically, shortly

after the British began imposing major influence and eventually rule on the Indians did conflict begin

to occur between Hindus and Muslims. This conflict was general, but manifested itself specifically

and forcefully in Ayodhya. From the mid-nineteenth century until present day, this conflict has

grown to the point that a large number of Indians consider the conflict to be originated in the

differences between the two religions, rather than a relatively recent development in Hindu-Muslim

relations. The first account of a temple existing beneath the mosque made by an outsider, a Jesuit

priest and non-Indian, occurred in 1788, 250 years after the Babri Masjid was constructed (Prakasam

1992). From this moment forward, virtually all British references to Ayodhya stated that the claim

was true. One possible explanation of this relates how the British, armed with their attitude about the

construction of Indian society and history, could have very easily been biased in their reports. They

then simply promulgated these ideas through their position of power and influence. Due to the

attitude of the British, the previously non-existent conflict was emphasized and such stories as that of

the history of the Babri Masjid arose to become assumed truths believed by the majority of the

population.

One aspect not dealt with until this point is the problem that the main proponent of this claim

is not actually a person. The main proponent, not mentioned above, is the majority population all

27

over India, Hindu nationalists and extremists included, who believe the claim to be true. The

controversy in Ayodhya, before the destruction, was not based on whether there was a temple

underneath the mosque and whether it was destroyed by a Mughal emperor to create the Babri

Masjid. Rather, the controversy was about who should have access to the Babri Masjid, Muslims

who wish to worship in the mosque or Hindus who wish to celebrate the birthplace of lord Rama.

Naturally, the argument about who should have access boils down to the truth of the initial claim.

However, over the years the focus on the original claim waned and the claim fell into relatively

common knowledge. So, the arguments at the site turned into who had the right to worship at the site

granted the fact that the mosque was actually built on top of a destroyed temple, instead of whether

there ever was a temple. This loss of focus on the original claim was surely caused by several

factors, but what seems to be the largest and most important to understand is colonial influence,

namely British.

The Ayodhya example really encompasses the idea of interpretations of the past being “social

undertaking[s]” (Michlovic 1998). This realization draws directly from Eric Wolf’s work on

structural power and ideology in “Envisioning Power” and parallels directly to his three accounts of

the relationship between structural power and ideology in said work (specifically the Aztec case). In

the Ayodhya controversy, the claimant is really not B. B. Lal, the claimant is the hegemony. The

hegemony in this case is the Hindu nationalists. After the British came into India and forced the

drawing of political lines in the area and expressly forced their preconceived notions on the society,

conflict arose. Muslims and Hindus before this period lived relatively peacefully. After British

arrival, Muslims and Hindus began to develop a great rift. The great rift appears to be the product of

British influence and pressures created by the great amount of change colonialism/imperialism

dictated. This rift, or conflict, then became an ingrained perspective of each respective group. The

ingrained perspective then naturally manifested itself in the Ayodhya situation as the hegemony

28

created a “mythistory” (Michlovic 1998) to explain the situation that could not be explained

otherwise.

This concept of mythistory elucidated by Michael Michlovic has the potential to clarify the

situation. After reading Michlovic´s work about how mythistory relates to and effects archaeology, I

deduced my own definition: mythistory is the history a specific human group creates for itself in the

form of a myth that functions to identify, legitimize, and validate said group. It is important to note

that myth is neither contingent upon nor necessitated by truth. It is my contention that this

controversy in India is a perfect example of mythistory.

The mythistory created by the hegemony dictates that rationality and truth in the traditional

sense are no longer important. Hence, the archaeologist, or more generally scientist, no longer has

control over what is believed because the mythistory combines the rationality of history that

legitimizes and the irrationality of myth that explains the unexplainable. Thus from archaeology’s

perspective, the reality of the situation does not make sense because it abandons truth; but from the

perspective of the Hindu nationalist, the mythistory is not mythistory at all, but rather history and

more importantly, truth.

The question then becomes: what role does archaeology play? Perhaps the question must be

phrased more aptly: what role can archaeology play? This is an open question because when

archaeology becomes a “social undertaking”, the rules seem to be thrown out the window as the

stakes become life and death. The truth may exist, but what is the point if those with hegemonic

power do not or are not able to adopt the truth? When politics take over the claim, truth and

academic freedom are no longer factors. In this case it seems that, “archaeology becomes too serious

to be left to archaeologists” (Merriman 1995: 20) Furthermore, as Merriman elaborates, it seems that

“where archaeology matters most, archaeologists have little influence” (1995:20). This is and was

clearly the case in Ayodhya and it seems that proper science dictates that this must be the case in the

29

future. However, must we really sit by idly while people are killed in the name of archaeology?

Perhaps a new archaeology (activist) must be developed that can appropriately deal with the identity

formation and reformations that seem to be the underlying moving forces for conflict. Perhaps Wolf

was indirectly hinting at this type of new archaeology with the emphasis he placed on education. Is it

possible that what archaeology should be doing above all else is educating?

The Babri Masjid-Ramjanambhoomi controversy has been and has become symbolic for the

larger issue of Hindu-Muslim conflict in India. From the moment the world shrank enough for the

British to begin large scale influence over India, this conflict has been present. By undertaking a

massive scale anthropological analysis of the history of structural power in India, a la Eric Wolf, we

might grasp a better understanding of the underlying processes at work in the creation of the present

status of the controversy. Here, I will just mention a few: As stated earlier, the British entered India

with a preconceived attitude about the relationship between Hindus and Muslims. It is proposed that

this attitude altered and promoted a mythistory and possibly even created the claim that is the focus

of the Ayodhya controversy. Also mentioned above is the realization that the great rift between

Muslims and Hindus did not exist before the British arrived. A direct correlation can thus be drawn

between British influence and the overarching conflict. However, although I believe this correlation

to be true, I do not think that it is necessarily an overt and deliberate result of British influence.

Obviously we can point to the deliberate line drawing or state making that the British either created

or supported as a direct cause for the creation of a Hindu-Muslim conflict. Again, this deliberate

British action is obviously important in the current stages of the controversy because of the

international implications it has for India-Pakistan relations (both nuclear powers). Nonetheless, I

recommend that there is a more powerful and more pertinent underlying moving force for conflict

presently at work all over the world.

30

It is this underlying force that is of importance because I suggest that it is not only still

manifesting itself in India, but is painfully present in almost every corner of the world. This force is

a new imperialism that has taken on a politically correct form, globalization. This new imperialism

is entirely free form, cannot be attributed to one entity, and is much more difficult to see as

deplorable in its own right. However, it still brings with it underlying moving forces that cause

conflict such as we see in India. These moving forces rip at the very fabric of culture. When culture

is a determinant of identity formation, these forces rip at the very fabric of the individual identity.

Here it is necessary to realize that, “popular acceptance of the past as a source of identity remains

largely unquestioned” (Bernbeck and Pollack 1996: S138). So, when conceptions of the past are not

necessarily dictated by truth but rather created by structures of power, identities based on that past

are also created by structures of power. It seems that in the case of Ayodhya, the British hegemony

(intentionally or not) reformulated the Indian cultures and consequently the individual Indian

identity. Rather than weaken when the British left, the hegemony was simply transferred to the

Indian elite and the new identities were only strengthened. This begs the question, if identities were

altered to beget conflict, why can they not be altered again to resolve conflict? If identity formation

does play the role that I suspect it does in India, then it must be focused on to explain and possibly

resolve conflicts all over the world. Education seems to be the key to not only understanding identity

formation, but to altering it. However, this is not the education of the “truth” in individual cases, but

rather the education of the underlying processes at work that are commonly used to make claims of

“truth”.

Whereas in the case of the British imperialism, the creation of such lasting conflict can be

attributed purely to greed and ignorance; the creation of worldwide conflict, exemplified in India, by

the new imperialism will also be attributed to greed and ignorance. It is this conflict, and attribution

of unacceptable cause to conflict, that I wish to avoid by attempting to understand the underlying

31

moving forces at work. The case of the Babri Masjid-Ramjanambhoomi controversy provides an

excellent opportunity to identify such moving forces. In summation, the Babri Masjid-

Ramjanambhoomi controversy is important because the fate of humanity is at stake.

What´s the Point?

In reading all of Wolf´s work, specifically his more contemporary pieces, I was initially frustrated by

what appeared to be a lack of purpose or “aimless” feel. However, the more I digest his work, the

better I grasp it and the more I understand its true implications. In viewing “Envisioning Power” as a

method and an explanation (medium) rather than a statement (message), the true brilliance of Wolf

has been illuminated. In fact, it is worthwhile to note that this very paper has taken on a similar

structure to that of “Envisioning Power”, only the power is that of Wolf´s influence and the crisis is

the implication of his contemporary work. The critics of Wolf´s work tried to pin him down and this

paper itself is an attempt to pin him down. I have come to the conclusion that the only way to pin

down Eric Wolf is to suggest that he is not able to be pinned down in the traditional sense. This

conclusion is not a negative one in any respect. This conclusion exposes the true dynamic and

eclectic nature of Wolf, a nature that is absolutely essential in the current world and in the current

anthropology.

The purpose for studying his work at the outset was to obtain a comprehensive understanding

of world systems, which is of major concern and interest to me. This interest is motivated by a desire

to aid in the eradication of unnecessary pain and inequality that exists so blatantly in the current

world. The Babri Masjid-Ramjanambhoomi controversy is a paradigm example of unnecessary pain

and inequality, and my analysis of it is at attempt to create a feasible explanation of its cause. Thus,

Wolf is inspiring because he, like me, wants to explain the moving forces operating on the world

scale, but at the same time frustrating because he shies away from activist anthropology. What this

study has enlightened is the idea that Wolf does shy away from activist anthropology, but does not

32

shy away from being an activist (after all, he was the first professor to conduct a “teach-in” to protest

the Vietnam War). His belief in education and the education of anthropology is profound in that it

provides one answer to those of us searching for direction. To save the world from itself, maybe

Wolf is using his hegemonic power to show that education must go to war with fetishism, of the

commodity and of theory, so that minds can be opened to multiple dynamic perspectives.

Eric Wolf is and will likely remain a seminal figure in anthropology. He brought to the

discipline a unique perspective from someone entrenched in worldwide conflict for a large portion of

his life, which provided a response to the internal Crisis in anthropology and the external crisis in the

world. He gave anthropology a renewed hope in traditional empiricism and a new direction with his

emphasis on an all encompassing historical and worldly perspective. He tried to teach anthropology

to eliminate the “borders and boundaries” that the discipline had become so accustomed to creating

geographically, historically, and semantically. He insisted upon exploring, in Marxian fashion, “the

fundamental dynamics of change and phenomena like exploitation, domination and colonialism”

(Verrips 1985: 6). Wolf taught anthropology the importance of structural power and structural

relationships. He increasingly turned to the concept of “power” and its connection to “social

relations and cultural configurations” to elucidate the moving forces in complex systems. Lastly,

Wolf showed the role ideology and hegemony plays in the complex world systems of power and

dominance. His legacy will prove to be enduring as his students and admirers sing his song line of

anthropology through the generations. Eric Wolf was a true pioneer who gave anthropology

direction by way of synthesis in a time of conflict and crisis.

33

References Cited

Abbink, J. and Hans Vermeulen1992. History and Culture: Essays on the work of Eric R. Wolf. Amsterdam, Het Spinhuis.

Adams, Richard N.1999. Review of Envisioning Power: Ideologies of Dominance and Crisis. Hispanic American

Historical Review 79: 735-6.BBC News

2005. “Timeline: Ayodhya Crisis” Electronic Document, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1844930.stm, accessed October 4, 2005.

Bernbeck, Reinhard and Pollock, Susan1996. Ayodhya, Archaeology, and Identity. Current Anthropology S138-S142.

Burkhart, Louise M.2001. Review of Envisioning Power: Ideologies of Dominance and Crisis. Ethnohistory 48, 3:

555-9.Chakrabarti, Kunal

1993. Review of The Disputed Mosque: A Historical Inquiry. Contributions to Indian Sociology 27, (1): 164.

Cole, John and Eric Wolf1974. The Hidden Frontier. New York, Academic Press.

Friedman, Jonathan1987a. An Interview with Eric Wolf. Current Anthropology 28: 107-18.1987b. Review of Europe and the People without History. European Sociological Review 3,

1: 83-85.Ghani, Ashraf, Eric Wolf

1987. A conversation with Eric Wolf. American Ethnologist 14: 346-66.Kidder, Rushworth M.

1990. What Makes People Tick? The Christian Science Monitor, March 26: 14.Lal, B. B.

1998. A Note on the Excavations at Ayodhya with Reference to the Mandir-Masjid Issue. Presented paper World Archaeological Congress, Island of Brac, Croatia. Electronic Document, http://www.wac.uct.ac.za/croatia/lal.htm, accessed October 24, 2005.

Lomnitz, Claudio1996. Review of Articulating Hidden Histories: Exploring the Influence of Eric R. Wolf.

American Ethnologist 147-148.Ludden, David

1984. Review of Europe and the People without History. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 196-197.

Macfarlane, Alan1999. Review of Envisioning Power: Ideologies of Dominance and Crisis. Journal of Latin

American Studies 31: 735-6.Mandal, D.

1993. Ayodhya: Archaeology after Demolition: A Critique of the ´New´ and ´Fresh´ Discoveries. New Delhi: Orient Longman

Mann, Michael2000. Review of Envisioning Power: Ideologies of Dominance and Crisis. Contemporary

Sociology 29, 3: 534-536.Marcus, Anthony

34

2003. Imaginary Worlds. The Last Years of Eric Wolf. Social Anthropology 11, 1: 113-127.McLuhan, Marshall

1964. Understanding Media; The Extensions of Man. New York, McGraw-Hill.Merriman, Nick

1995. World Archaeological Congress, New Delhi. Anthropology Today 2, (2): 19-20.Michlovic, Michael

1998. Archaeology, Mythistory, and the Quest for the Ethnic Past. Moorhead, Minnesota State University Moorhead.

Nugent, David2002. Review of Envisioning Power: Ideologies of Dominance and Crisis. American

Ethnologist 29: 193-5.Prakasam, K. P.

1992. Ayodhya: Questions of History. Nation and the World, New Delhi. Electronic Document http://www.ummah.muslimsonline.com/babri/babrikpp.htm#arch, accessed October 24, 2005.

Prins, Harald E. L.2001. Review of Envisioning Power. Ideologies of Dominance and Crisis. American

Anthropologist 103: 263-4.1999a. Eric Wolf´s Death. H-SAE, H-Net Discussion Networks, March 13, 1999. Electronic

Document, http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list=h-world&month=9903&week=b&msg=rCiNgsW/Jdr363Pl9ugmfQ&user=&pw=, accessed December 3, 2005.

1999b. Eric Wolf. H-SAE, H-Net Discussion Networks, March 16, 1999. Electronic Document, http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list=h-world&month=9903&week=c&msg=hA11Nqn2atPxn/BA0gPneQ&user=&pw=, accessed October 11, 2005.

Ratnagar, Shereen.2003. Introduction and Afterward to Ayodhya: Archaeology after Demolition: A Critique of

the ´New´ and ´Fresh´ Discoveries. New Delhi: Orient Longman.Rotenburg, Robert

2000. Review of Eric Wolf, Envisioning Power: Ideologies of Dominance and Crisis. H-SAE, H-Net Reviews, March, 2000. Electronic Document, http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.cgi?path=25836954527191, accessed December 3, 2005.

Schneider, Jane1999. Obituary: Eric Robert Wolf. American Anthropologist 101: 395-9.

Schneider, Jane and Rayna Rapp1995. Articulating Hidden Histories: Exploring the influence of Eric R. Wolf. Berkely,

University of California Press.Smith, Carol A.

1996. Reconceptualizing "Wolfian" Anthropology and the Peasantry. American Anthropologist 99, 2: 381-383.

Srivastava, Sushil1991. The Disputed Mosque: A Historical Inquiry. New Delhi: Vistaar Publications

Verrips, Jojada1985. 'The Worst of Architects Is Better than the Best of Bees': A Debate between Eric Wolf

and Maurice Godelier. Critique of Anthropology 5, 2: 5-19.Wolf, Eric R.

35

2001. Pathways of Power: Building an Anthropology of the Modern World. Berkely, University of California Press.

1999. Envisioning Power: Ideologies of Dominance and Crisis. Berkely, University of California Press.

1982. Europe and the People without History. Berkely, University of California Press.1973. Peasant Wars of the Twentieth Century. New York, Harper & Row.1966. Peasants. Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall.1964. Anthropology. Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall1959. Sons of the Shaking Earth. Chicago, University of Chicago Press

Yengoyan, Aram A.2001. Forward to Pathways of Power: Building an Anthropology of the Modern World.

Culture and Power in the Writings of Eric R. Wolf. vii-xvii, Berkely, University of California Press.

36