Everand Logo

Welcome to Everand!

  • Discover millions of ebooks, audiobooks, and so much more with a free trial

    From $11.99/month after trial. Cancel anytime.

    Chicanery: Senior Academic Appointments in Antipodean Anthropology, 1920–1960
    Chicanery: Senior Academic Appointments in Antipodean Anthropology, 1920–1960
    Chicanery: Senior Academic Appointments in Antipodean Anthropology, 1920–1960
    Ebook410 pages5 hours

    Chicanery: Senior Academic Appointments in Antipodean Anthropology, 1920–1960

    By Geoffrey Gray, Doug Munro and Christine Winter

    ()

    Read preview

    About this ebook

    Academic appointments can bring forth unexpected and unforeseen contests and tensions, cause humiliation and embarrassment for unsuccessful applicants and reveal unexpected allies and enemies. It is also a time when harsh assessments can be made about colleagues’ intellectual abilities and their capacity as a scholar and fieldworker. The assessors’ reports were often disturbingly personal, laying bare their likes and dislikes that could determine the futures of peers and colleagues. Chicanery deals with how the founding Chairs at Sydney, the Australian National University, Auckland and Western Australia dealt with this process, and includes accounts of the appointments of influential anthropologists such as Raymond Firth and Alexander Ratcliffe-Brown.

    LanguageEnglish
    PublisherBerghahn Books
    Release dateMay 12, 2023
    ISBN9781800739710
    Chicanery: Senior Academic Appointments in Antipodean Anthropology, 1920–1960
    Author

    Geoffrey Gray

    Geoffrey Gray is Adjunct Professor at the School of Historical and Philosophical Inquiry, The University of Queensland.

    Related authors

    Related to Chicanery

    Titles in the series (30)

    View More
    View More

    Related ebooks

    Essays, Study, and Teaching For You

    View More
    View More

    Related podcast episodes

    Related articles

    • UNLIMITED

      Morals, Meaning, And Nonsense

      Jun 1, 2022

      In Metaphysical Animals, philosophers Clare Mac Cumhaill and Rachael Wiseman offer a captivating collective biography of four college friends who went on to become formidable figures in 20th-century moral thought: Elizabeth Anscombe, Mary Midgley (né

      3 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      Culture Club

      Jul 8, 2022

      When anthropology first became established, its practitioners kept a fastidious distance from their subjects. The Victorian grandfathers of the discipline, Sir Edward Tyler at Oxford and Sir James Frazer of Cambridge, based their studies on ethnograp

      1 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      Dr Frederick Wainwright

      Feb 28, 2024

      Dr Frederick Wainwright
      8 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      Looking Back, Looking Forward

      Dec 2, 2022

      The Roman god Janus, after whom January is named, looks backward and forward. In the last letter I write as president of the Archaeological Institute of America (AIA), I want to reflect on the past three years and focus on the future. The global pand

      2 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      A Leap Into The Unknown

      Jan 25, 2023

      A Leap Into The Unknown
      5 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      The Pursuit Of Knowledge

      Aug 8, 2021

      In the otherwise excellent article “The meaning of science” (August 7), writer Peter Griffin quotes me as follows: “A huge slug of the science budget is now going to be spent on whatever mātauranga Māori is,” he says. “I’ve got no idea. I’ve spent a

      8 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      History Lesson: Scholars Take Aim At Racist Views Of Middle Ages

      Sep 12, 2018

      From black military leader Saint Maurice to Arab influences in early Spain, the historical record is helping medieval scholars reclaim an era from a false narrative. Multicultural societies, they say, predate not only the civil rights era, but the Re

      3 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      Differing Worldviews

      Jun 15, 2023

      Nicholas Spencer One World 2023 Hb, 528pp, £25, ISBN 9780861544615 Many people today share the view of the distinguished American scientist Stephen Jay Gould that science and religion are two “non-overlapping Magisteria”. In other words, two entirely

      3 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      BOOKS & PODCASTS

      May 12, 2022

      BOOKS & PODCASTS
      2 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      How Eugenics Shaped Statistics

      Oct 28, 2020

      In early 2018, officials at University College London were shocked to learn that meetings organized by “race scientists” and neo-Nazis, called the London Conference on Intelligence, had been held at the college the previous four years. The existence

      25 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      Youth Nonfiction

      Aug 7, 2024

      The Ballerina of Auschwitz: Young Adult Edition of The Choice. By Edith Eva Eger. Oct. 2024. 192p. Atheneum, $18.99 (9781665952552). Gr. 8–12. 940.5318. Eger pares down The Choice, her National Jewish Book Award–winning and New York Times best-sellin

      20 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      Failing Black history

      Sep 30, 2021

      LAST APRIL, THE LABOUR MP CLAUDIA WEBBE tweeted a link to a petition demanding that Black British history be made compulsory in schools. The petition has nearly 300,000 signatures. One of the signatories, Kaydeann Young, gave this as his reason for s

      8 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      Necrolog

      Aug 12, 2021

      Marie-Jeanne Koffmann spent four decades in the mountains and forests of the former USSR in search of the Russian wild man known as the almasty. Born in Paris, she spent most of her life in Russia. She obtained an MD at Moscow University in 1941 and

      5 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      Seeing The Big Picture

      May 26, 2022

      IBN KHALDUN (1332-1406) WAS A PIONEERING Arab scholar and one of the most important historians of the Middle Ages. He is best known for his three-volume masterwork the Muqaddimah, written in 1377, which integrated politics, sociology, economics, demo

      7 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      OK Doomer: Why Spengler Matters

      Apr 27, 2023

      PERIODS OF UPHEAVAL ALWAYS bring their own prophets, divining doom or salvation for those around them and for the world at large. We have our fair share today, with various tellers of dire fortune warning of imminent environmental apocalypse, technol

      7 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      The Known Unknowns

      Jun 15, 2023

      TO SEND REVIEW COPIES, CONTACT THE BOOK REVIEWS EDITOR AT [email protected] Peter Burke Yale University Press 2023 Hb, 256pp, £20, ISBN 9780300265958 With Ignorance: A Global History, Peter Burke, professor emeritus at Cambridge University a

      11 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      Palaeoanthropology on Stamps

      Sep 13, 2024

      Palaeoanthropology on Stamps
      8 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      Competing Theories?

      Mar 16, 2023

      Competing Theories?
      3 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      Suspicions Aroused

      Aug 22, 2021

      I tell this story by way of an illustration of the August 14 article “A Nazi mass murderer in our midst?” that New Zealand may have “walked away from the problem of Nazi war crimes”. This memory has always haunted me. When I was growing up in Timaru

      9 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      Hearts And Minds

      Dec 16, 2024

      Hearts And Minds
      2 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      Probing Abductions

      Jun 13, 2024

      In what promises to be the first of its kind in terms of methodology, scope and scale, the Archives of the Impossible based at Rice University has announced it is conducting a two-year meta-data research study in collaboration with the John Mack Inst

      3 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      Learning Together

      Aug 13, 2024

      Learning Together
      2 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      Readings: Seeing The Future

      Oct 6, 2023

      By Michael A. Flower University of California Press, 2008 ISBN: 978-0520252295 A comprehensive study of the position of the seer in ancient Greek society, from itinerant diviners to seers’ role in the ancient Greek military. Flower's discussion cover

      2 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      Nikola Tesla’s legacy

      Oct 23, 2022

      Nikola Tesla (“Beam me up”, October 15) is most remembered for two inventions: the transformer and the three-phase induction motor. These, along with synchronous generators, have formed the backbone of the worldwide AC electric power system that is a

      6 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      Our Shared Cultural Legacy

      Apr 8, 2021

      Our Shared Cultural Legacy
      5 min read

    Related categories

    Reviews for Chicanery

    0 ratings

    0 ratings0 reviews

    What did you think?

    Tap to rate

    Review must be at least 10 words

      Book preview

      Chicanery - Geoffrey Gray

      CHICANERY

      Methodology and History in Anthropology

      Series Editors:

      David Parkin, Fellow of All Souls College, University of Oxford

      David Gellner, Fellow of All Souls College, University of Oxford

      Nayanika Mathur, Fellow of Wolfson College, University of Oxford

      Volume 44

      Chicanery: Senior Academic Appointments in Antipodean Anthropology, 1920–1960

      Geoffrey Gray, Doug Munro and Christine Winter

      Volume 43

      The Social Origins of Thought: Durkheim, Mauss, and the Category Project

      Edited by Johannes F.M. Schick, Mario Schmidt and Martin Zillinger

      Volume 42

      Franz Baermann Steiner: A Stranger in the World

      Jeremy Adler and Richard Fardon

      Volume 41

      Anthropology and Ethnography Are NOT Equivalent: Reorienting Anthropology for the Future

      Edited by Irfan Ahmad

      Volume 40

      Search After Method: Sensing, Moving, and Imagining in Anthropological Fieldwork

      Edited by Julie Laplante, Ari Gandsman and Willow Scobie

      Volume 39

      After Society: Anthropological Trajectories out of Oxford

      Edited by João Pina-Cabral and Glenn Bowman

      Volume 38

      Total Atheism: Secular Activism and the Politics of Difference in South India

      Stefan Binder

      Volume 37

      Crossing Histories and Ethnographies: Following Colonial Historicities in Timor-Leste

      Edited by Ricardo Roque and Elizabeth G. Traube

      Volume 36

      Engaging Evil: A Moral Anthropology

      Edited by William C. Olsen and Thomas J. Csordas

      Volume 35

      Medicinal Rule: A Historical Anthropology of Kingship in East and Central Africa

      Koen Stroeken

      For a full volume listing, please see the series page on our website:

      https://www.berghahnbooks.com/series/methodology-and-history-in-anthropology

      CHICANERY

      Senior Academic Appointments in

      Antipodean Anthropology, 1920–1960

      Geoffrey Gray, Doug Munro and Christine Winter

      First published in 2023 by

      Berghahn Books

      www.berghahnbooks.com

      © 2023 Geoffrey Gray, Doug Munro and Christine Winter

      All rights reserved. Except for the quotation of short passages for the purposes of criticism and review, no part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system now known or to be invented, without written permission of the publisher.

      Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

      Names: Gray, Geoffrey, author. | Munro, Doug, author. | Winter, Christine, author.

      Title: Chicanery : senior academic appointments in antipodean anthropology, 1920-1960 / Geoffrey Gray, Doug Munro and Christine Winter.

      Description: First edition. | New York : Berghahn Books, 2023. | Series: Methodology & history in anthropology ; 44 | Includes bibliographical references and index.

      Identifiers: LCCN 2022054548 (print) | LCCN 2022054549 (ebook) | ISBN 9781800739703 (hardback) | ISBN 9781800739710 (ebook)

      Subjects: LCSH: College teachers--Selection and appointment--Case studies. | Anthropologists--Australia--Scholarships. | Anthropologists--New Zealand--Scholarships. | Anthropology--Study and teaching (Higher)--Australia. | Anthropology--Study and teaching (Higher)--New Zealand.

      Classification: LCC LB2331.7 .G73 2023 (print) | LCC LB2331.7 (ebook) | DDC 378.1/20994--dc23/eng/20230201

      LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2022054548

      LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2022054549

      British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

      A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

      ISBN 978-1-80073-970-3 hardback

      ISBN 978-1-80073-971-0 ebook

      https://doi.org/10.3167/9781800739703

      Where in the anthropology we write do we deal with those high realities of academic actuality: the smear, the careful silences, the well-placed knife, the packing of panels of selectors, and the arts of prearranged judgement?

      —W.E.H. Stanner

      CONTENTS

      Prologue

      Acknowledgements

      List of Abbreviations

      Introduction

      Chapter 1. Establishing Social Anthropology in the Antipodes

      Chapter 2. Anthropology at Sydney: A.R. Radcliffe-Brown and A.P. Elkin

      Chapter 3. Australasian Anthropology during the Second World War

      Chapter 4. ‘A Matter of Reproach to New Zealand’: Auckland University College, 1949

      Chapter 5. ‘The Brightest of His Generation’: Siegfried Frederick Nadel, Foundation Professor of Anthropology, the Australian National University

      Chapter 6. Finding a Successor to A.P. Elkin, 1955

      Chapter 7. Expansion: Anthropology at the University of Western Australia

      Chapter 8. A Successor to S.F. Nadel

      Chapter 9. Sydney Again

      Conclusion

      Epilogue

      References

      Index

      PROLOGUE

      As a professional field of inquiry, social anthropology emerged at the beginning of the twentieth century, though it had many progenitors. It evolved from a field of sister disciplines and developed complex relationships with these. A racially informed psychology and colonial-experienced Christian mission are two to mention. Some of our cohort had an interest in or studied psychology, such as Ralph Piddington, who was awarded a Master of Arts in anthropology and Master of Arts in psychology at the University of Sydney; in 1931 he studied under S.D. Porteus in Hawai`i on how to conduct psychological tests for his fieldwork (Gray 1994b; Anderson 2014). Reo Fortune, studying dreams at Cambridge, completed his doctorate in anthropology at Columbia University. In New Zealand Earnest Beaglehole regarded himself primarily as a psychologist, though his legacy as an anthropologist persists. S.F. Nadel in turn tried to establish anthropology combined with sociology and psychology at the Australian National University (ANU). Others came out of active church service and entered anthropology as a second career. This was more widespread in German-speaking Europe, with the Catholic Father Wilhelm Schmidt occupying a chair in anthropology in Vienna, and Protestant missionary Diedrich Westermann, Professor of African studies in Berlin. Thus, while Anglican priest A.P. Elkin’s double career in his church and in anthropology – he remained active in the New South Wales Anglican church all his life – seems unusual within our cohort, other anthropologists also remained active in their respective religion, such as Camilla Wedgewood’s engagement in Quaker politics.

      Anthropology in the Antipodes, in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, was wide-ranging in its interests, driven by a belief that ‘native’ peoples were doomed to extinction; its focus was on the ‘examination of the intellectual and material progress of man from the earliest ages down to the present’ (J.J. Wild, in Mulvaney 1988: 196). As a separate discipline and as a formal programme of study, social anthropology did not emerge in the Antipodes until after the First World War, although there were resolutions passed by learned societies and associations, especially the British Association for the Advancement of Science, its Australasian counterpart, the Australian and Aotearoa/New Zealand Association for the Advancement of Science, and at various Pan-Pacific Science congresses for the creation of academic appointments in Australia and Aotearoa/New Zealand (Mulvaney 1988; Peterson 1991; Gray 2007a; Anderson 2019). This was driven in part by the perceived needs of colonial administrations in Oceania. Anthropology, it was argued, could assist in uplifting colonized peoples through a better understanding of their cultural, social and political lives. Initially, there were calls for the appointment of government anthropologists in the Australian territory of Papua and the territory of New Guinea, a League of Nations ‘C’ Mandate, as well as the training of field officers in anthropology, suggesting an enlightened and humane colonialism. As the newly founded League of Nations underlined: ‘the preservation, progress and welfare of the native population’ was a ‘sacred duty’ – a clear although problematic role for the new discipline of anthropology (see, for example, Bourmaud et al. 2020; Gordon 2021).

      When Australian governments made these appointments, it was British anthropologists from whom they sought advice.¹ Robert R. Marett at Oxford University recommended Francis Edgar Williams for the position of assistant government anthropologist in Papua; the position of government anthropologist was held by William M. Strong, the chief medical officer, until his retirement in 1928, when Williams took over. In 1924, Cambridge anthropologist Alfred Cort Haddon recommended Ernest W.P. Chinnery as government anthropologist in New Guinea. Both Williams and Chinnery had diplomas of anthropology, from Oxford and Cambridge respectively. Despite various recommendations, the Aotearoa/New Zealand Government rejected such positions for Samoa and the Cook Islands (Ross 1959: 221–33). In Aotearoa/New Zealand, the establishment of the Maori Ethnological Research Fund was enthusiastically supported by the Anthropological and Ethnological Section of the 1923 Pan-Pacific Science Congress, held in Sydney and Melbourne. The participants were gratified in finding support from ‘one of the native races of the Pacific’ (Skinner 1923; McCarthy and Tapsell 2019). Indeed, the Board of Maori Ethnological Research (BMER) sponsored the research of select anthropologists, such as Roger Keesing, with a view to better governing New Zealand’s Pacific colonial dependencies.

      It was during the interwar period that Australian social anthropology became a recognized academic discipline with the accoutrements of professionalization: specialized and specific qualifications and training, specific funding for research problems, a growing body of specialists, a journal devoted to publishing the results of research, and various attempts to ‘control a market for their expertise’ (Larson 1977: xvi; Wright 2005: 4–5). Those years saw the demise of the amateur ethnographer, who was usually associated with museum anthropology. However, the primary journals Mankind and Oceania (in Australia) and The Journal of the Polynesian Society (in Aotearoa/New Zealand) underwent a gradual shift to privilege the writing of professional anthropologists over amateurs.

      At the London School of Economics (LSE), Bronisław Malinowski supervised and encouraged a generation of anthropologists. He did what he could to support some of his students, such as Raymond Firth, for the few academic appointments of the period. This did not stop him from interfering in placements such as a replacement for A.R. Radcliffe-Brown at the University of Sydney. Radcliffe-Brown, a key theorist of the time, likewise was rarely consulted by either the academy or the government. Haddon, a generation earlier, possibly had greater influence: he recommended Malinowski for work at the LSE, and he was consulted over both the Cape Town (1920) and the Sydney (1925) chairs and supported Radcliffe-Brown for both positions (Hammond-Tooke 1997; Young 2004: 168; Gray 2007a: 1–29; Mills 2008: 29–48). He supported Henry D. Skinner for the Otago University position (1919). This is not to say, however, that within the limitations of a fledgling discipline, Malinowski and Radcliffe-Brown did not support their students in obtaining positions. Cambridge and Oxford were marginal to the expansion of social anthropology – Oxford less so than Cambridge.² However, with the appointment of Radcliffe-Brown (and E.E. Evans-Pritchard in 1935 as research lecturer in African sociology), postwar Oxford became a centre of influence in the development of British anthropology.³

      The paucity of academic positions – both teaching and research – meant a career in anthropology was largely dependent on the goodwill and patronage of senior scholars.⁴ Without the support of the Laura Spelman Rockefeller Memorial’s funding of research, the expansion of anthropology would have been severely limited. The University of Sydney was initially the primary recipient of funds for anthropological research. As a result, Sydney became ‘a center from or through which field research was carried on, not only in Australia, but throughout’ Oceania (Stocking 1995: 340; see also Gray 2007a, 2010). Once Malinowski engineered Rockefeller funding for the LSE’s International Institute of African Language and Culture (IIALC), the emphasis was on Africa, especially the British colonies. Rockefeller funding in Australia ceased in 1935.

      British-trained anthropologists who had established themselves before the Second World War are referred to as ‘pioneers’.⁵ Anthropologist and historian of British social anthropology Adam Kuper regards this small group of anthropology professors as dispensers of patronage: they held ‘key positions on government grant-giving committees’ and ‘the decisive voice in the appointment of staff and often in the choice of … graduate students’. They could ‘effectively withhold or grant promotions, leaves and other privileges, and [their] recommendation was crucial in any application for a research grant or for a position elsewhere. [They were] generally the only effective channel of communication with the university authorities and grant-giving bodies’ (Kuper 1983: 125). Of those, Evans-Pritchard, Raymond Firth and Daryll Forde stand out in postwar anthropology. Firth seems to have exercised the greatest influence and his recommendations for senior appointments were most likely to be accepted. He, above all others, was most entangled, but he claimed he was able to – and it was generally accepted that he could – stand apart from personal friendships and make a decision that reflected the needs of the university. Firth’s influence and advice extended from Australasia to South Africa and Canada (Gray and Winter 2021). Evans-Pritchard and Forde were consulted over senior positions within the United Kingdom as well as the Commonwealth of Nations (the renamed British Empire), but Evans-Pritchard seemed somewhat uninterested at times, such as the appointments to the ANU and the University of Sydney (see Goody 1995: 81–83).⁶ The expansion in teaching and research and the establishment of new positions and institutions across the dominions enabled Firth to become the most influential anthropologist of the postwar period.

      Notes

      1. The University of New Zealand sent examination papers for assessment to UK scholars.

      2. Edmund Leach is scathing in his assessment of Cambridge anthropology before the Second World War. In his view, despite the history propagated at Cambridge that the field started in 1901 with the appointment of Haddon and Rivers, ‘[t]he most remarkable feature of Cambridge anthropology during this period was that Haddon and Rivers failed to establish anything at all’ (Leach 1984: 4). Haddon’s successors were former Indian public servants. Anthropology was revived by the appointment of Meyer Fortes to the William Wyse Chair in 1951.

      3. ‘The electors were inclined toward Malinowski, who excluded himself in favour of Radcliffe-Brown’ (Stocking 1995: 360–66; see also David Mills, in Riviere 2007: 85–87). Mills, however, seems to ignore Radcliffe-Brown’s experiences in establishing anthropology at Cape Town, Sydney and Chicago; rather, he emphasizes Malinowski’s experiences at the LSE as the template for Oxford. See also James (2007).

      4. Of the interwar Australians who completed their doctorates in London, only A.P. Elkin and H. Ian Hogbin were employed in Australia. Ralph Piddington (Aberdeen, Edinburgh), Phyllis Kaberry (Yale, University College London), W.E.H. Stanner (Oxford, Makerere) and C.W.M. Hart (who had not completed his doctorate; Toronto, Canada) were employed outside Australia. University of Melbourne anthropologist Donald Thomson received his doctorate from Cambridge. Of the pre-war New Zealanders, only Raymond Firth did anthropology at the LSE; Felix Keesing on the other hand remained in New Zealand, being awarded his D. Litt in 1934. Ernest Beaglehole briefly attended the LSE but not to do anthropology. Reo Fortune went initially to Cambridge, and later to Columbia University, where he completed his PhD. I.L.G. Sutherland obtained his PhD from the University of Glasgow. Peter Buck (Te Rangi Hiroa), although a medical practitioner, developed an interest in anthropology and was appointed director of the Bernice P. Bishop Museum in Hawai`i.

      5. For a detailed account of the interwar students funded by the Rockefeller Foundation at the LSE, see Goody (1995: 26–28, ff.).

      6. Audrey Richards and Phyllis Kaberry never had a chair; Lucy Mair had to wait until 1963.

      ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

      Always in a project like this, which has extended over many years, we hope we have forgotten no-one who provided assistance and support.

      We would like to acknowledge numerous archivists who went out of their way to be of assistance: Julia Mant and Tim Robinson at the University of Sydney Archives; Libby Nicholl, Records Management Programme Manager, Office of the Vice-Chancellor, University of Auckland; Sarah Walpole, Royal Anthropological Institute; staff at the LSE archives; staff at the ANU Library and the Noel Butlin Archives. A blanket thank you goes to the staff in the Manuscripts Section of the National Library of Australia and the archives of the University of Vienna. We also want to thank Jan Borrie for once again doing a splendid copy edit and index and Rachel Evans for her final edit.

      We thank Tim Causer (then at King’s College London) for his inspired research assistance among London archival repositories. At various times, Michael Young, Cyril Belshaw and Jeremy Beckett commented on earlier versions. Andy Pawley, Jack Golson, Steven Webster, Caroline Thomas and the late Anthony Hooper assisted by reading some aspect of our work, simply talking with us or suggesting archival material. We would like to thank Terrence Hays, Lamont Lindstrom and Stephen Foster, who also commented helpfully on earlier material and our interest in writing a book on senior appointments. Michael Young encouraged us to make this material into a book. We would also like to thank the late Raymond Firth and the late John Barnes for discussions on some of these matters; Hugh Firth for quotation rights from his father’s papers; and Rory Barnes for discussing his father and allowing us to repeat what he said. We are grateful for their encouragement, comments and observations, but any shortcomings rest with us.

      We have used material from our jointly and singly authored articles (see References), modifying our earlier perspectives and judgements on the events and drawing them into wider argument on academic appointments which shaped Antipodean anthropology.

      ABBREVIATIONS

      INTRODUCTION

      Academic appointments can bring forth unexpected and unforeseen contests and tensions, cause humiliation and embarrassment for unsuccessful applicants, and reveal unexpected allies and enemies. It is also a time when harsh assessments can be made about colleagues’ intellectual abilities, their body of work, capacity as a scholar and fieldworker, effectiveness as a departmental administrator, qualities of leadership, the extent of their collegiality and so on. Rarely do such events bring to the fore disputation and disagreement over theoretical orientation or empirical approaches. That is left to debates and disputes within the university department or faculty and other academic venues, such as conferences and scholarly journals.

      Judgements by colleagues are typically expressed in more or less private contexts – in personal correspondence and conversation. But in the matter of academic appointment, and under the expectation of confidentiality, assessments are stated with greater deliberation – sometimes with greater caution and at other times with greater candour – which are every so often preserved in the relevant university files.¹ Notwithstanding, at an institutional and disciplinary level, the choice of a new professor is implicitly a judgement about the past, and opens contested visions for the future. Settling on one candidate, moreover, can alter the direction of a department, sometimes renewing or even reinvigorating it, at other times continuing (or even hardening) old cleavages and disputes within a discipline and department. Or, in the case of a new chair, such as those at Auckland and the Australian National University (ANU), they can create different challenges: appointing new staff, establishing a coherent approach, and settling on new directions in anthropological practice and theory.

      In the appointment process, personal attributes such as a readiness to get along with colleagues, temperament, leadership qualities, teaching abilities or, as the Sydney selection committee pithily put it, ‘intellect, character and personality’, are sought – insights that only colleagues and peers close to the candidates can provide. What we found often disconcerted us. The assessors’ reports were often disturbingly personal in nature and lay bare the likes and dislikes, allegiances and enmities, as well as unexpected contests and tensions, in international (largely British-based) anthropology that were used to assist in appointments and hence determined the futures of peers and colleagues. Accessing public and private correspondence enables an insight into what people say about each other – some of it incisive, some bitchy and much of it of value for a historian trying to make sense of events and people.

      Writing disciplinary history can expose anxieties in some practitioners of the discipline. Making the contents of correspondence public has brought forth comment from disciplinary practitioners, some of whom trace their intellectual lineage to figures about whom we are writing. There is a misunderstanding that the decision-making was taken by a body of academic staff broader than simply anthropologists interviewing and assessing other anthropologists. Some of our articles have received reviews that expressed deeply personal opposition, often verging on the abusive. We wonder whether a tendency to emphasize academic lineages brings forth gatekeeping or, rather, a desire to control the way the past is constructed and presented. History as we detail it disrupts personal narratives of origin, and subsequently some rejections relied on claims that the readers knew a different story that was ‘true’.

      We have had comments from some colleagues that we provide an institutional and organizational history of the discipline of anthropology through painstaking and detailed archival research. We have also received criticism from other quarters along the lines that this type of history of anthropology is ‘history for history’s sake’, presenting a ‘sardonic view of the squabbles and jealousies of what was until the 1970s a very small profession’ (see Goody 1995: 25). We have been accused by some of concentrating excessively on personal enmities, alliances and appointment details, of making public the private opinions and evaluations of the work and competence of people now dead but well known to many living anthropologists. These opinions, we are told, were never intended to enter the public domain. One commented despairingly that ‘if this is social science, God help the enterprise’. In contrast, we have been acknowledged as providing ‘a welcome addition to the recent upsurge of interest in the history of universities, the tracing of academic connections and networks across the globe and the development of academic disciplines. Let us hope that further studies of Australasian intellectuals during this period will enrich this emerging historical field’ (Darian-Smith 2015: 129; see also Darian-Smith and Waghorne 2019).

      Many senior anthropologists view writing on academic appointments as trespassing; we are frequently accused of inquiring too insistently in what is considered a private domain, which should be kept under very tight wraps. We have even been informed that our work attacks the reputations of individual anthropologists.² One referee’s report, for instance, kept referring to ‘the author’ (Geoffrey Gray) despite it being clearly stated that the paper was co-authored:

      Some will see in this the continuing attempt by the author to attack the reputation of Professor Berndt, in particular, by making public the low evaluation of his work by some of the people consulted about the applicants for Elkin’s position … The author does not help the situation by interpreting everything to do with Ronald Berndt in the worst light.³

      This criticism reveals an anxiousness, a fear that such research may unearth details best left hidden, or reveal secrets hitherto held closely within the domain of personal memory. Jack Goody, for example, insists that anthropologists’ acrimonious relationships did not affect their professional behaviour. The nearness of the past further complicates this anxiety.⁴ It is much like family history – so many toes waiting to be trodden on. What may appear to be in the past for the historian often remains in the present for colleagues of some of the scholars under discussion. In addition, in some branches of anthropology, the lineage of training and affiliation of an anthropologist is part of a professional and personal identity. This can impact directly on their sense of themselves, their colleagues and their place (reputation) in the present. It seems to us these are calls for a steam-cleaned history of the discipline. Besides, on the matter of confidentiality, these records are in the public domain, as are government records.

      Goody, after initial concerns, had few qualms about using personal papers when writing The Expansive Moment, which traces the development of social anthropology in Britain and Africa through ‘its key practitioners’. He did wonder

      about the propriety of using personal correspondence … since it seemed like a breach of confidence. Some of this is distasteful enough to lead some readers to want to leave it out. But I have used nothing … that does not appear in a public archive … it would be a mistake to bowdlerize their contents by selecting some extracts and deliberately avoiding others … What I have done is to try and place such remarks in a wider context of understanding, the verstehen of the anthropologist … I have not been concerned with aspects of their personal life except in so far as I considered that it affected ‘the history of social anthropology’. By this I mean not only the intellectual history but their relations with organisations and colleagues, as these influenced the course of events. (Goody 1995: 6)

      Closer to our interests is an observation by the Australian anthropologist William Edward Hanley (Bill) Stanner, who revealed the brutal and, in his perception, at times very personal side of the selection process, heightened by his disappointment at missing out on the Sydney chair in 1955 and again in 1958, and the ANU chair in 1957. He was critical of the process and wrote to Raymond Firth, his mentor. It was a time of considerable stress and overwhelming disappointment: ‘Curious, isn’t it: where in the anthropology we write do we deal with those high realities of academic actuality: the smear, the careful silences, the well-placed knife, the packing of panels of selectors, and the arts of prearranged judgement?’⁵

      It is a damning indictment of the selection process but one that reflects some of the, at times, sheer chicanery we have seen revealed in the archival record. Stanner’s comments contain the kernel of the problem we seek to examine and explicate: was the choice based on theoretical knowledge, academic status, a fit for the organizational and institutional needs of the university or even the collegial preferences of fellow professors of sister disciplines? Or a combination of these?

      Based on detailed documentary evidence, we show how senior academic appointments were handled – the vagaries, the quirks and processes, questions of good faith and bad faith – and how filling a chair brought in wider academic networks, as senior figures within the anthropological fraternity became involved as referees for the various candidates, not to mention the lobbying for a preferred candidate or on behalf of oneself. Appointment decisions are also important in terms of their consequences, whether it be to continue a line of descent or theoretical orientations or as the catalyst for change, as well as in terms of relationships within a department. It is, however, more than a matter of personal alliances and enmities, although these are integral. Rather, we are mindful of the interplay of the four ‘is – individuals, ideas, identities and institutions’ (Mills 2008: 3, 11). That is, academic networks and the relationships between individuals are mediated through institutional prisms that, in turn, have a bearing on the directions and orientations of an academic discipline (Gray 2001, 2007a; Stocking 1995). The appointing of senior academics brings these interrelationships into sharp focus. One main (although not surprising) difference between Australia and Aotearoa/New Zealand in these past appointment processes also became apparent to us – namely, the unevenness of the inclusion of Indigenous peoples, as candidates, advisors or selection panel members.⁶

      As well as epistemological and institutional issues, there is a methodological question. The present study, as we stated above, is firmly based on the documentary record, with a leavening of oral testimony, although we recognize that memory fades and transmutes with the passing of time. We are also aware that documentary evidence has its own problems, not least in creating an illusion of fixed evidence. Jack Goody makes a pertinent observation:

      Participants do not make the best historians, nor do practitioners make the best historians of science. But historians too are at a disadvantage. In the first place they are dependent on the written record, or … on recollections about the past … the written record is very partial in a number of ways. Not simply because much is left out, much destroyed. (Goody 1995: 191)

      Importantly, he acknowledges that the written record ‘of an incident covers a greater span than the understanding of any one of the participants, perhaps all of them’ (Goody 1995: 191; cf. Stocking 2010: 111–13). Contrast this with Stocking (1995: xviii) on the transmission of anthropological ‘oral traditions’ of the recent past by ‘certain elder anthropologists [who] used to take fledglings on rural outings, in which they would indoctrinate them in the authorized version of the discipline’s mythistory’. In short, no single set of documents and no single memory concerning a university appointment are likely to yield other than a partial and sometimes misleading version. Even those most closely involved will necessarily have an incomplete (sometimes mistaken, other times nuanced) understanding of events, will repeat a trope generated by stories within a department that are favourable to a failed candidate, or perhaps simply be deceitful, or any combination of these.

      Overall, it is a small group of people who weave in and out of the accounts – some as applicants, others are referees, most connected in some way as students, teachers or colleagues. Internationally, with the exception of the United States, which saw an increase in the number of anthropologists during and after the Second World War, anthropology was a small group, many of whom attended university together, shared teachers and so on (see, for example, Price 2008). As Goody (1995:

      Enjoying the preview?
      Page 1 of 1