Situating the Social
As intimated in the title of a 1981 article by Sol Worth, "Toward an Anthropological Politics of Symbolic Forms," Worth advocated studying the social, political, and economic value of visual forms. Though he lacked a social theory to fully explore these issues, he did touch upon an issue which has yet to be fully realized by the field of visual anthropology. This paper argues that social theory is especially poignant to visual anthropology's continued maturation as well as its overall relevancy with cultural anthropology. This argument is bolstered with the examination of the recent 50th birthday celebration of Gaj Singh II, Maharaja of Jodhpur, India.
As I intimated briefly in my introduction, Sol Worth's oeuvre
pivoted on the intersection of culture and communication. In
his aforementioned article, Worth lays out a dictum which represents
a challenge for all who rally around the flag of visual anthropology
and is the source of inspiration for this paper. It states:
Just as anthropologists in the field must learn the verbal language
of the people they study, so now must they begin to learn the
visual "language" of the people they study (p. 96).
Accordingly, central to his perspective of visual communication is the notion that all individuals are involved in creating, maintaining, and altering the "visualization of their inner and outer world" (p. 85). As this production of symbolic forms, or images, materializes in a cultural context, Worth sees images as being imbued with social, economic, and political value. This is why I would couch his previously quoted passage in the following assertion: not only must anthropologists become fluent in the visual language of the culture they study, but they must also incorporate a mode of analysis which can be applied to the visual language. In doing so, we gain an even deeper understanding of the respective visual codes when we can explain how often, for what purpose, and to what effect an individual is utilizing certain visual codes.
Unlike numerous theorists who examine visual signs in a cultural vacuum, Worth never studied visual signs as separate from the material world. Quite simply, his approach is one which views the two as inextricably entwined, where only through contemplation of this interplay can a full understanding be realized. The mode of analysis which enabled Worth to examine this interplay is the ethnography of communication. Two of the greatest strengths of this approach is its adherence to ethnographic methodology and its adaptability. That is, the ethnography of communication has been successful even when applied to studying different modes of communication; such as, speech, written language, and literacy. While Worth championed the efficacy of this approach in studying symbolic forms, he believed it lacked the theoretical tools necessary to understand the politicization of these symbolic forms.
I believe this can be accomplished with social theory today.
The social theory with which I propose to imbue the ethnography
of communication can be credited to the work of Pierre Bourdieu.
Bourdieu is a French sociologist who is regarded as a reproduction
theorist as he is interested in how cultural knowledge is transmitted
and focuses on language's role as the primary medium of knowledge
transmission.
It is his approach to studying language which is of vital interest
to visual anthropologists. By situating language against a backdrop
of cultural, historical, and political processes, one can see
that Bourdieu's approach is in concert with anthropology's indispensability
for contextual grounding. In doing so, Bourdieu argues that when
one analyzes language in relation to social experience, language
is not only a means of communication, it is also a means of exchange,
a commodity. If language is viewed as a commodity, then there
must also be an arena within which it can be exchanged. This arena
is his conception of a linguistic market, where social interaction
centers on the exchange of linguistic commodities. Clearly, Bourdieu
is employing economic metaphors to draw our attention to the economic
value of language. Bourdieu describes language as a form of symbolic
capital, and like commodities traded today, vary in value. For
example, only the legitimate language- the language supported
by the state's social institutions- is conferred the highest symbolic
capital. Therefore, speakers enter the linguistic market with
different commodities and exchange languages in the course of
social interaction. Those who profit the greatest are those who
possess the legitimate language- the linguistic commodity with
the highest symbolic capital. Therefore, Bourdieu enables us
to understand the value of a symbolic form of communication- language-
in the relations of production and relations of power, precisely
the theoretical tool Sol Worth was speaking of.
Now that I have briefly explicated the underpinnings of this
theoretical approach, I will focus on the events which occurred
in India. Last December, I was a member of a team of visual anthropologists
from Temple University, led by Dr. Jayasinhji Jhala, which traveled
to Jodhpur, India. One of the many objectives of our trip was
to video document the birthday celebration of Maharaja Gaj Singh
II, on December 31, 1997. The birthday celebration begins with
a procession that leaves from his current residence- Umaid Bhavan
Palace- and progresses throughout the city as the Maharaja addresses
the various constituencies that endow him with his position.
The progression moves from deity to populous. He begins this litany
of ritual first by honoring Ganesh, then honors the deity associated
with his clan's- the Rathores- rise to power. This occurs at
Chamunda Temple, located within the walls of the Mehrangarh Fort-
his clan's residence for approximately four centuries. From this
point, he honors his clan's deities, clan members- historical
and living- before he in turn is greeted and honored by clan members
at a durbar, or public meeting. After this, he attends a ceremony
in which he is gifted a horse by his mother's brother's kin (Dr.
Jhala's family). The procession then takes to the streets of
Jodhpur where he visits a multitude of local deities and meets
with the various people of the city. The procession ends at Girdikot,
or the Sardar Market square, with a public reception attended
by local leaders of the business and religious communities.
In order to articulate how visual codes are altered to elicit
different impressions, I must briefly describe one other event.
This concerns the Maharaja's tour of his good works programs,
which occurred during the week following the procession. The good
works programs refer to social welfare organizations which benefit
from the Maharaja's philanthropic contributions. Examples of
such organizations are and not limited to: an orphanage, a Jain
school for disadvantaged youth, a school for the blind, and a
school for the deaf. A stop on this good works tour at the school
for the deaf began with the Maharaja observing classroom instruction
and student performance. The Maharaja then initiated friendly
and informal conversation with students and instructors alike
and shortly thereafter, proceeded to a prescribed setting where
a cadre of students presented him with a memorial of the school's
appreciation. After the Maharaja delivered a curt and gracious
speech commending students, teachers, and administrators on their
achievements, a final photo-op signaled that it was time to move
on to the next destination on the good works tour.
The analysis of the birthday procession and good works tour is
augmented by their comparison to one another. Their juxtaposition
enables one to glean insight from the similarities and differences
of these discrete socially constituted acts. Chief among these
differences is their positioning along different axis of power.
In retrospect, it is apparent that different strategies are initiated
in hope of achieving different results. That is, as the birthday
procession is concerned with reifying the Maharaja's privileged
status, it operates along an axis of power and prestige. In sharp
contrast is the good works tour, where a compassionate image
of the Maharaja is promoted. Thus, this event endeavors to operate
along an axis of solidarity. The approach that I have thus far
been championing enables the anthropologist to literally see this
difference in the visual codes employed in the respective events.
For example, the birthday procession is concerned with invoking
his tie to the past, when a person in his position would be the
absolute ruler of Jodhpur. By not only orchestrating but also
being the chief social actor of the birthday procession, the Maharaja
is challenging his present day status as an ordinary citizen.
On this day, he is actively resurrecting the role and carrying
out the duties historically associated with the previous Maharajas
of Jodhpur. As intimated by Bruner, the purpose of this procession
is to "re-experience, re-live, re-create, re-tell, reconstruct,
and re-fashion culture" (Bruner 1986: 11). It is here that
I point out that an important component in playing the kingly
part is looking the part. So yes, the emperor does indeed need
his clothes. Though the Maharaja normally wears formal Indian
business attire, on this occasion he is cast in the sartorial
splendor of his forebears. As such, he wears a jewel encrusted
turban, and regal Jodhpurian attire with an intricately ornate
sword hanging at his side. His son Shivraj, the prince of Jodhpur,
is similarly attired. They are constantly surrounded by an entourage
whose colorful apparel represent the official colors of Jodhpur.
One of the members of the Maharaja's entourage is perpetually
shading him with the royal parasol that is normally on exhibition
at the Mehrangarh Fort museum. Other visual codes that lend important
contextualization include the motorcade which consists of a 1930's
Rolls-Royce convertible (used to transport the Maharaja and the
prince), preceded and trailed by 2 sport utility vehicles respectively.
One of these sport utility vehicles housed the visual anthropology
team, whose video cameras were most often pointed in the direction
of the Maharaja. It is in this milieu that the Maharaja performed
his kingly rituals, and in doing so, his symbolic power is re-constituted.
Therefore, the visual codes he chooses to employ are those which
possess the highest symbolic capital in this society- those associated
with kingship and which reify his position at the highest layer
of society. These visual codes enacted by the Maharaja contribute
to the aggregation of his symbolic power.
If the former event is characterized by an aspiration to elevates
one's status, the good works tour represents an attempt to move
in the opposite direction. If we look at the visual cues of this
event, we can see that the Maharaja is more concerned with appearing
compassionate than elitist. He evinces the look of a contemporary
Indian businessman in a Nehru-style vest that is devoid of all
of the ornamental qualities of his birthday attire. Whereas his
entourage during the birthday procession were so numerous to necessitate
four additional vehicles, the numbers have been sufficiently reduced
to enable him to travel with his aides in a single medium-sized
sedan. The image being proffered is one of a humble, everyday
individual and not one who is entrenched in the upper echelons
of society. This approach has been termed the strategy of condescension
by Bourdieu, the objective being able to draw symbolic power through
equality and solidarity rather than through status stratification.
One begins to understand that the Maharaja is strategically employing
different visual codes to reinforce different social identities.
If he wishes to reassert his identity as the "holder of
the throne", he actualizes those visual codes associated
with his clan's royal legacy. If, on the other hand, he wishes
to assert his identity as a contemporary provider for the people,
he does so in a manner described in the good works tour. Just
as sociolinguists have come to regard language as embedded in
a web of social and political relations, so too must visual anthropologists
come to view the process of visual communication.
In conclusion, I believe Sol Worth said it best, and I quote:
If we are to study culture, we are inevitably involved in the
study of the power relationships and control over mechanisms,
messages, message-makers, and message-receivers. But such a dialectic
requires an understanding of the politicization of symbolic forms.
It requires an ethnography of communication that has developed
theories about the politics of the cultural changes that will
be brought about by the ability of people to show themselves in
their own way (p. 106).
As such, I believe the time is past due to infuse the ethnography of communication with social theory, thereby bolstering its efficacy in deriving political meaning from visual symbolic forms.