Review: Are There Histories of Peoples without Europe?

A Review Article
Author(s): Talal Asad
Source: Comparative Studies in Society and History, Vol. 29, No. 3 (Jul., 1987), pp. 594-607
Published by: Cambridge University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/179040
Accessed: 25/08/2010 15:27

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Cambridge University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Comparative Studies in Society and History.

http://www.jstor.org
Are There Histories of Peoples
Without Europe? A Review Article
TALAL ASAD
The University of Hull

Europe and the People withoutHistory, by Eric Wolf (Berkeley, Los Angeles, and
London:Universityof CaliforniaPress, 1982).

I.
Wolf's book is a stimulatingone from which every readerwill derive some
profit. His project is to demonstratethat the societies typically studied by
anthropologistshave been continuously changed over the past five centuries
by global political-economic forces. The demonstrationtakes the form of a
fascinating story that draws on travel narratives,on economic, political, and
social historiography,and on ethnographicreports. But the story is informed
by Marxistconcepts that serve to give it a coherence and a theoreticalinterest
that it might otherwisehave lacked. Two explicit assumptionsare made in this
work: first, that no society is completely self-containedor unchanging, and,
second, that a properunderstandingof societal linkages and transformations
must startfrom an analysis of the materialprocesses in which all social groups
are necessarily involved-the production, circulation, and consumption of
wealth. Given these two guiding assumptions,the story begins with a survey
of the often tenuous, mediatedconnections between societies in the fifteenth
century, and culminates in an account of the emergence of a more strongly
structured,global capitalistsystem by the end of the nineteenth,in the course
of which we are informedof the transformationof innumerablenon-Western
societies.
After a preliminarychapter surveying the world in 1400, the reader is
invited to consider the changes in early modern Europe that were to make
possible the world we now live in. Alreadyby the fifteenthcentury, European
polities "were competing successfully with their neighborsto the south and
east and were about to launch major adventuresoverseas" (p. 101). Strong,
centralisedkingdoms were beginning to emerge in northwesternEurope;the
patternsof long-distance trade were shifting in its favour; and the military
ambitions of its rulers were combining with the commercial interests of its
merchantsto promoteEuropeanhegemony abroad.Wolf describesthe Iberian

0010-4175/87/3909-9944 $5.00 ? 1987 Society for ComparativeStudy of Society and History

594
 ARE THERE HISTORIES OF PEOPLES WITHOUT EUROPE? 595

conquests in America:the opening of silver mines workedby forced labor, the

establishmentof haciendas, the cultivation of sugar cane, and the runningof
sugar mills worked by slave and wage labour. The demands for labour and
products within the developing political economy of the Spanish and Por-
tuguese empires wroughtan often brutalchange in the life of Indiancommu-
nities. Less familiar, but equally far-reachingfor the reorganizationof indige-
nous "tribes," was the fur trade in North America and Siberia, which Wolf
recounts in detail. This is followed by a sketch of the notoriousAfrican slave
trade, and of the profoundsocial, economic, and militaryconsequences it had
for political units on that continent. A final chapter in this part of the story
about the extension of Europeanpower overseas deals with what an Indian
scholar has called "the Vasco Da Gama epoch of Asian history"': the cre-
ation of the Portuguese, Dutch, and English empires in Asia. From the point
of view of the story of world capitalism, it is fitting that in this chapterWolf
devotes most of his attentionto the English. Their conquest of India and the
radicalrestructuringof the entire subcontinentset the scene for the final part
of Wolf's story. The last quarterof the book-entitled "Capitalism"-tells
of the IndustrialRevolution in England, of crisis and differentiationin cap-
italism as a world system, and of the internationalmovement of commodities
and of wage labour-to the United States, South America, the West Indies,
South Africa, etcetera. This account of the world hegemony of capitalism
concludes with a brief consideration of ethnic identities and working-class
formationsthat is summed up in this final paragraph:
Capitalistaccumulation thus continuesto engendernew workingclasses in widely
dispersedareasof the world.It recruitstheseworkingclassesfroma widevarietyof
socialandculturalbackgrounds, andinsertsthemintovariablepoliticalandeconomic
hierarchies. The new workingclasseschangethesehierarchies by theirpresence,and
are themselveschangedby the forces to which they are exposed. On one level,
therefore,thediffusionof thecapitalistmodecreateseverywhere a widerunitythrough
the constantreconstitution of its characteristic relationship.On another
capital-labor
level, it alsocreatesdiversity,accentuating
socialoppositionandsegmentation evenas
it unifies.Withinan evermoreintegrated world,we witnessthe growthof evermore
diverseproletarian diasporas(p. 383).
The broad outline of this epic story is certainly convincing, and the detail
impressive. Indeed, the merit of this particularversion-unlike the versions
producedby Frankand Wallerstein-is precisely its major concern with the
multitudeof non-Europeansocieties that have been caught up in the various
moments of the West's adventure.And yet, some readersmay be struckby a
sense of uncertainty.Is this essentially a history of the origin and growth of
world capitalism, or of the societies affected by it? Or are these alternatives
themselves based on a misconception, since the latter sory is inevitably part

1 K. M. Panikkar, Asia and Western Dominance (London: Allen and Unwin, 1959).
596 TALAL ASAD

of the former?I shall returnto this question in the final section after I have
discussed some of the ideas that underlie that story.
There is no doubt that Wolf's use of the notion of mode of production
enables him to constructa single narrativein which political-economicforces
and structuresthroughoutthe world, and their systematic interaction,can be
described together. To this end, three basic categories are employed: the
capitalistmode, the tributary,and the kin-ordered."The three modes that we
employ should not be taken as schemes for pigeon-holing societies," we are
warned. "The two concepts-mode of production and society-pertain to
differentlevels of abstraction. The concept of society takes its departurefrom
real or imputed interactionsamong people. The concept of mode of produc-
tion aims, rather,at revealing the political-economicrelationshipsthat under-
lie, orient, and constraininteraction"(p. 76). Strictlyspeaking, of course, the
two concepts do not belong to different levels of abstraction(one of "real
interactions" and the other of "theoretical constructs"), but to the same
level, the level of narrative, which recounts a causal sequence between
events: something happened (did not happen) because something else was
previously the case. All historiography,because it consists of textual repre-
sentations, is based on discursive constructs-some explicit but most im-
plicit-and on attributedcausalities. Abstractions do not constrain social
realities; real discourses and practices construct and change them. Wolf is
aware of the importanceof a carefully constructednarrativein which the idea
of mode of productionis to be deployed as a majortheme. "The use of the
concept enables us, above all," he writes, "to inquire into what happens in
the encountersof differently constituted systems of interaction-societies-
predicatedupon different modes of production" (p. 77).
Marx himself represents in Capital what happened when the expanding
forces of European capitalism encountered societies predicated upon pre-
capitalist modes of production:
The obstaclespresentedby the internalsolidityandorganisation of pre-capitalistic,
nationalmodesof productionto the corrosiveinfluenceof commerceare strikingly
illustratedin the intercourseof the EnglishwithIndiaandChina.Thebroadbasisof
themodeof production hereis formedby theunityof small-scaleagriculture
andhome
industry,to whichin Indiawe shouldaddthe formof villagecommunities builtupon
the common ownership of land. ... In India the English lost no time in exercising
theirdirectpoliticaland economicpower,as rulersand landlords,to disruptthese
smalleconomiccommunities.Englishcommerceexerteda revolutionary influenceon
thesecommunitiesandtorethemapartonly in so far as the low pricesof its goods
servedto destroythe spinningandweavingindustries.2
Thus capitalism subverts, however gradually, the precapitalistmodes of pro-
duction that it encounters-or else it subordinatesthem to its own historical
requirements.
2 K. Marx, Capital (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1971), III, 333-34.
 ARE THERE HISTORIES OF PEOPLES WITHOUT EUROPE? 597

Marx's analysis was the startingpoint of debates among Marxistsaboutthe

way world capitalism (in its political form of imperialism) transformsnon-
Europeansocieties, because how that trajectoryis to be describeddetermines
the kind of politics it is rational for socialist parties to pursue. Far more is
thereforeat stake here than the presentationof an historicalperspectivefor the
study of non-Europeansocieties. It is also a matter of specifying in those
societies the conditions for a "progressive" politics-a politics designed to
hasten their "development" in a "universal" direction. "Precapitalist" so-
cieties are those whose fatal destiny has been writtenby the dramaticnarrative
that culminates in the triumphof world capitalism.

II.
The systematicelaborationof the mode-of-productionconcept and its applica-
tion to the study of non-Europeansocieties was largely initiatedin our time by
French Marxist structuralists,3and althoughWolf's book is indebtedto their
ideas he is by no means their uncriticalfollower. For the former, the concept
of mode of productionarticulatesan integratedtotality containingeconomic,
political, and ideological instances in which the economic is always determi-
nant ("in the last instance") but not always dominant(as it is in capitalism).
Wolf does not adopt this conception in its entirety, but stresses, as all Marx-
ists do, the basic importanceof social labour. Indeed, the very fact thathe has
opted for a trinity of productionmodes ("capitalist," "tribute," and "kin-
ordered"), instead of the extravaganttypologies others have produced, indi-
cates a sensitivity on his part to the dangers of dogmatic historiography.
Wolf's three modes are not simple classifications: The "capitalist" focuses
on a dynamically interactingprocess of production,the "tributary"isolates a
politically sanctioned relation of wealth extraction, and the "kin-ordered"
emphasises a way of organising labour and access to resources. Unlike the
work of many anthropologistswho employ the concept of mode of produc-
tion, Wolf's account explicitly invites the possibility of asking questions that
might lead to different writings of the history of societies that Europe con-
queredand dominated: "No argumentis presentedhere to the effect that this
trinity exhausts all the possibilities. For other problems and issues it may be
useful to construct other modes drawing further distinctions, or to group
together differently the distinctions drawn here" (p. 76). So let us examine
the distinctions drawn for the trinity of concepts presentedhere, for as Wolf
makes it clear they are not only central to the way he tells his story but
theoretically dependent on each other.
The basic distinction between capitalist and precapitalistmodes of produc-
tion tums on the well-known contrastbetween economic and non-economic

3 See J. Copans and D. Seddon, "Marxism and Anthropology:A PreliminarySurvey," in

Relations of Production, D. Seddon, ed. (London: FrankCass, 1978).
598 TALAL ASAD

means of surplus extraction. Political and military pressure is said to be a

preconditionof precapitalistextraction;marketexchange of labour-powerfor
wages the preconditionof capitalist extraction. Wolf accepts this classic dis-
tinction without question. But to what extent is it an ideological offspring of
the Enlightenmentopposition and separationbetween "the state" and "civil
society," between the domain of authorityand repressionon the one hand,
and that of naturalexchange among free men on the other? Of all moder
social theorists, Marx was perhapsthe most awareof the varietiesof coercive
social power, and yet the definitionof the capitalistmode of productionpartly
in terms of economic as opposed to political and militaryforms of extraction
obscures historical complexities that need to be identified.
If one follows carefully the epic story that Wolf tells, it is impossible to
miss the fact that state and other forms of coercive power have been funda-
mental at various points in the operation of profit-makingcapitalist enter-
prises, thatthe historicaldevelopmentof capitalismis inseparablefrom politi-
cal and legal preconditions.The readermay also recall at this point that the
struggle between workers and capitalists over the limits of the working day,
which Marxdescribes in Chapter10 of the first volume of Capital, is integral
to his account of the process by which absolute surplus-valueis generated.
This political struggle is over the enactmentof legislation by which a crucial
condition of surplus extraction is determined-a form of struggle that has
certainlynot declined in importancein the era of the Welfare State (presently
underattackin Britain)and of transnationalcorporationsthatcontinuallyseek
to manipulatepolitical conditions in order to optimise profits. An obvious
implication of industriallegislation is the legal form that can be taken by
labour contracts, whose clauses are themselves objects of bargaining and
pressure (including lockouts, strikes, and strike breaking), because they de-
fine the conditions within which capitalist productionis organised.
The purpose of these remarksis not to launch into an argumentabout the
natureof capitalism. It is to ask what happenswhen we characterisecomplex
historicalstructuresand processes in termsof some permanentcriterion.Thus
if we define the tributarymode of production (which is said to underlie,
orient, and constrainnoncapitalistsocieties) in terms of an extractionmecha-
nism "exerting otherthan economic pressure" (p. 81), we may be at a loss to
explain the existence-the massive, economically vital presence-of taxation
in capitalist states and empires; for taxation is representedin Wolf's scheme
as tribute, and tribute is said to be the method of surplus extractioncharac-
teristic not of capitalist but of noncapitalist modes of production. Yet no
account of capitalist productionwould be adequate if it did not include the
variable effects on it of implementingtaxation policies. And once they are
taken into account, nothing of substanceis gained if we then classify taxation
as "external" to the capitalistmode of productionbut "internal" to the social
formationwithin which that mode operates.
 ARE THERE HISTORIES OF PEOPLES WITHOUT EUROPE? 599

If taxationby the state is a form of tribute, the question may also be asked
whether significant distinctions can be made among varieties of "tribute" in
noncapitalistsocieties. In other words, can we distinguish, as orthodoxMarx-
ist writersdo, between "Asiatic" and "feudal" modes of production?Wolf
argues, persuasively, that the difference between politically centralised and
politically decentralisedpatternsof tributeextractionhas wrongly been used
to set up two fundamentally opposed ideal-types. The patterns are to be
understood,he insists, as unstableoutcomes of the competitionfor power and
wealth among nonproducersat the top, not as "enduring and unchanging
opposites" (p. 81). Most Marxist scholars, however, would not agree with
him.
In a recent paper, Wickham (a Marxist historianof medieval Europe)has
argued in favour of a basic distinction between two forms of tribute-rent-
taking and tax-raising-which he calls, respectively, a feudal and a tributary
mode of production, and which he maintainscan be found in a single state.
His survey of Roman, Chinese, and Islamic state systems deals at length with
the oscillation between central ("state") and local ("landlord") powers, to
which Wolf draws attention. But, unlike Wolf, Wickham insists that the
distinction is crucial for the developmentof the productionprocess, in which
landlords(that is, rent-takers)are often involved and states (tax-raisers)rarely
so: "In one sense, one can say that the difference between the ruling classes
of the feudal and the tributarymodes is between the relative separationof the
former and the near-totalseparationof the latter from the process of produc-
tion (just as, on the other side, the capitalist mode entails total control by
owners over such processes)."4 At first sight this is an attractivesuggestion,
but in the end unconvincing for reasons that have a direct bearing on Wolf's
discussion of precapitalistsocieties. To begin with, notice that the "mode of
production" is here reducedto the "relationof production," which in turnis
representedas wealth claimed by nonproducersfrom producers (a form of
surplus-extraction).Where the state claims that wealth, we are told, we have
tax, and where it is claimed by the landlord, rent. But this raises a question
that is not considered by those who use a simple definition of extraction:
Precisely how are claims to the appropriationof wealth socially and culturally
conditioned?This is a matternot only of the identity of the claimant(state or
landlord, public or private body, corporationaggregateor sole, etcetera)but
of the content of the claim (the types of right-usufruct, alienation, inheri-
tance, etcetera), its object (land, water, implements, labour, etcetera), and its
effectiveness (practical conditions in which the claims can be secured). At
least as importantas who appropriatessurpluses from producersis therefore
the question of how (with what degree of thoroughnessor resistance, in what

4 C. Wickham, "The Uniqueness of the East," The Journal of Peasant Studies, 12:2, 3
(1985), 186-87.
600 TALAL ASAD

forms and quantities,underwhat conditions of continuity, in relationto what

ratesof accumulation,etcetera). It is surely a mistaketo ignore such questions
on the groundsthatpolitics and law are superstructural:"Public vs. private,"
writes Wickham, "is a convenient shorthand,but it derives from the ideologi-
cal superstructuresof a social formation, and cannot define an economic
opposition. . . . The formal constitution of the state, and the legal charac-
terisation of landed property, are equally superstructural. . . . What matters
for the constitution of states . . . is not so much law as power.''5 This way of
putting things seriously misses the point that legal enactments, definitions,
and processes are elements in power struggles. As elements of strategiesthey
are especially crucialin non-Westernsocieties subjectto pressuresfrom Euro-
pean powers, and so must be taken into account in any explanationsof their
continuities and changes.6 The development of political economies is not
adequately explained in terms of typological contrasts between state indif-
ference to, landlord involvement in, and capitalist total control of the produc-
tion process.
The concept of kinship-orderedmode of productionis addressedto a cate-
gory of societies variously labelled in classical anthropologicalliteratureas
"primitive," "acephalous," "tribal," "kin-based," etcetera. The major
problem underlying that category was how to represent homogeneous so-
cieties-that is, how to write about social types that lack externaldetermina-
tions. French Marxist anthropologistsdeveloped their concepts of classless
(thatis, stateless) precapitalistmodes in the course of re-describingin "mate-
rialist" terms the autonomousorder of "segmentary lineage" societies de-
scribed in anglophoneethnography.Wolf's discussion here takes that catego-
ry of classical anthropology for granted, although his historical narrative
suggests that no "primitive society" of which anthropologistshave records
was entirely isolated and unchanging. How should a mode-of-production
historytreatthis category? "Claude Meillassoux," writes Wolf, "has rightly
arguedthatto characterizesuch populationsby an absence of features, calling
them 'classless,' 'acephalous,' or 'stateless,' tells us nothingaboutwhat they
are" (p. 89). What they are must be specified in terms of some essential
criterion or set of criteria by which they can be conceptually isolated and
5 Ibid., 184.
6 For
example, the Ottomanland code, which was promulgatedin 1858 partlyin response to
pressuresfrom the Europeanpowers, created new strategic possibilities by its requirementthat
title to holdings be registered.For contingentlocal reasonsthe occupying owner was often unable
or unwilling to register. The resulting conflict between custom and law, especially in the Man-
datory period after the dismembermentof the Ottomanempire, gave various groups the oppor-
tunity to manipulateclaims to their advantage.For generaldiscussions, see D. Warriner,"Land
Tenure Problems in the Fertile Crescent in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries," in The
Economic History of the Middle East: 1800-1914, C. Issawi, ed. (Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1966); and K. H. Kerpat, "The Land Regime, Social Structure,and Moderniza-
tion in the OttomanEmpire," in The Beginnings of Modernizationin The Middle East, W. R.
Polk and R. L. Chambers, eds. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968).
 ARE THERE HISTORIES OF PEOPLES WITHOUT EUROPE? 60I

analysed as types. That criterionis kinship. This startingpoint leads Wolf to

enquire into the essential nature of kinship and, after a brief review of an-
thropologicaldisagreementson this subject, to offer this definition: "kinship
is a particularway of establishing rights in people and thus laying claim to
shares of social labor" (p. 91).
Wolf points out that kinship works differentlyaccordingto whetheraccess
to resources is open or restricted,and suggests that it is typically in the latter
case that kinship groups largerthanthe domestic family are formed, by which
exclusive claims to social labour can be determined. Ranking, and even a
measureof inequality, may emerge between kin groups, but until outstanding
leaders can make others permanentlydependent on them for their means of
livelihood, the basic order of kin-based societies remains unchanged. Such
institutionalisedinequalitiesoccur for contingentreasons, because the intrin-
sic mechanisms in such societies promote equilibrium:
All theseforcesandfactorsthreatenthecontinuance of thekinshiporder.What,then,
preventsits disintegration?How do kin-ordered unitscohereat all overtime?
Theabilityof thekin-ordered modeto regenerateitselfmaylie in theabsenceof any
mechanismthatcan aggregateor mobilizesociallaborapartfromthe particular rela-
tionsset up by kinship.The oppositionsas theyarenormallyplayedout areparticu-
late,theconjunction of a particular juniorof a particular
elderwitha particular lineage
time andplace, andnot the generaloppositionof elderandjunioras
at a particular
classes.Ineverydaylife thekin-ordered modecontainsits oppositionsby particulariz-
ing tensionsandconflicts(p. 94-95).
But I find this kind of reasoning worrying, not merely because of its cir-
cularity, but because it is kinshipthat is proposedas the defining featureof a
precapitalistmode of productionand its essential mechanisms.I would not, of
course, wish to deny that kinship links are crucial for mobilising labour and
for gaining access to agriculturalland in many noncapitalistsocieties. But that
function is not what kinship is: Kinship links exist prior to their function in
this regard, which is precisely why they can be taken up, emphasised, under-
played, or ignored in different historical situations. As Wolf notes, in
chiefdoms with hereditary aristocracies "the function of kinship changes
from that of ordering similarly organized groups to that of drawing a major
distinctionbetween one stratumand another" (p. 98). But even at the level of
the productionprocess, the fact that labouris recruitedon a kinshipbasis does
not tell us very much. The patrilineal Ibo, Yoruba, and Hausa in Nigeria
before independence had very different political-economic organisations.7
Among nomadic pastoralistsin the Sudan, the Arabic-speakingKababishand
Baggara appear in the nineteenth century not only to have (1) depended on

7 There is now a considerablehistoricalliteratureon these threeethnic groups, but the relevant

volumes of the EthnographicSurveyof Africa, publishedby the InternationalAfrican Institutein
the 1950s, are perhaps still the most useful source for an outline of the very different political-
economic arrangementsfound among the three at the time of the British conquest.
602 TALAL ASAD

kinship claims in organising production, but (2) had comparablepatternsof

herd management and pasture use: And yet these arrangementsdiverged
significantly under British rule in the twentieth century, for a variety of
reasons.8 Again, cultivators in the Sikh kingdom of the Punjab held and
worked their land, and paid their taxes, in accordancewith broadly similar
kinship principles (which the Britishjudicial system in India was to describe
as custom)-and yet after the British conquest Punjabipeasantsrespondedin
diverse ways to changed systems of land revenue, market conditions, and
legal processes.9 All these examples, which might be multipliedindefinitely,
can of course be takenas confirmationof Wolf's own warningthat "the ways
in which [kinship]rightsand claims are establishedvary widely among differ-
ent culture-bearingpopulations" (p. 91). But they suggest a more radical
conclusion: that nothing can be deduced about the structureand development
of local economies from the fact that they employ kinship as the general
principlefor claims to social labour. In anotherarticle0l I have criticised the
attempteddemonstrationby FrenchMarxistanthropologistsof the thesis that
the forces and relations of production, defined in a precise manner, neces-
sarily determinepolitical and ideological structureswithin historicallyevolv-
ing African social formations. Here, I wish merely to question the utility of
defining a precapitalistmode of productionin termsof kinship-especially as
that concept is taken (as Wolf explicitly takes it) as an heuristic device. I
suggest that the history of noncapitalistsocieties can not be understoodby
isolating one a priori principle, that the importantthing always is to try and
identify that combinationof elements (environmental,demographic, social,
cultural,etcetera)in the past of a given populationthat will serve to explain a
particularoutcome-in the narrative(or weak) sense of "explain," not in the
naturalscience (or strong) sense, because the past of human societies cannot
be tested, it can only be made more or less plausible as partof the same story
as the present. If it is objectedthat such an approachwould make a predictive
science of society impossible, I can only agree.
In a sympatheticreview of French Marxist contributionsto the study of
tribal society, an anglophone anthropologistobserves:
... all thewritersagreethatwhilethepropertyrelationbetweenworkerandcapitalist
mayactuallybe the key to uncoveringthe secretof capitalistformations,suchis not
the case for pre-capitalistsocieties in general, and segmentary [lineage] societies in
particular,where there has been no separationof labourerfrom the means of produc-
8 T. Asad, The KababishArabs (London:C. Hurst, 1970); I. Cunnison, The Baggara Arabs
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1966).
9 I have dealt with this subject in "Aspects of Change in the Legal Structureof the Muslim
Family in the Punjabunder British Rule" (B. Litt. thesis, Oxford University, 1961).
10 T. Asad, "Primitive States and the Reproductionof ProductionRelations:Some Problems
in MarxistAnthropology," in On Social Evolution (Proceedingsof the Symposium Held on the
Occasion of the 50th Anniversaryof Wiener Institutfur Volkerkunde,Vienna, 12-16 December
1979), W. Dostal, ed. (reprintedin Critique of Anthropology, 5:2 (1985)).
 ARE THERE HISTORIES OF PEOPLES WITHOUT EUROPE? 603

tion. The key mustthereforelie, theyconclude,elsewhere-in socialties whichare

more directlypersonal.Whetherthese social relationsare taken to be basically
egalitarian(Godelier,Hindess,andHirst)or inegalitarian
(Terray,Rey, Meillassoux)
they mustnonethelessbe personal.11
This, I suggest, expresses very well where the trouble lies. We can surely
accept that noncapitalistsocial relations in production, as in other areas of
life, are more personal, and thatreciprocalobligations across wide bodies and
networks of kin are more common, than they are in capitalist societies. But
there is no key to the secret of noncapitalist societies. It is only when we
assume that such societies are determinedby some single principle, or inte-
grated into a determinatetotality, that we look for the key that will explain
them. But there is no good reason to assume that such is the case, and indeed
the thrustof Wolf's entire narrativethrows doubt on that assumption.Only in
capitalistsocieties, based as they are on productionfor profit, on the drive for
unceasinggrowth, on the penetrationof money-values into various spheresof
life, and on the continuoustransformationof productiveforces, is theresome-
thing approaching "a key" to its understanding.This is not to say that
capitalist societies are integratedtotalities, autonomous and homogeneous,
without contradictionsand without heterogeneous cultural spaces, because
that they clearly are not. It is merely to argue that, if the concept of mode of
productionhas any explanatoryuse, it is in relationto capitalism, and not in
relation to "kin-ordered" societies.12
The concept of "the capitalist mode of production" is a way-the most
powerful way-of writing a particular history of relations, institutions,pro-
cesses, that have hegemonised (but by no means homogenised) the world.
There is not and cannot be any conceptual parallel to it in the form of
"precapitalistmodes of production." Practicesof work and power are central
in any collective life, but there is no a prioriway of determininghow these are
articulated,let alone how they will change.
III.
In his "Afterword" Wolf argues that the story of the formation of world
capitalismis the story of all the societies and culturesin America, Africa, and

11 J. S. Kahn, "Marxist Anthropology and Segmentary Societies: A Review of the Liter-

ature," in The Anthropology of Pre-Capitalist Societies, J. S. Kahn and J. R. Llobera, eds.
(London: Macmillan, 1981), 84.
12 In case some readers mistakenly think this conclusion is similar to that of M. Sahlins,
Cultureand Practical Reason (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1976), it should be made
clear that (1) whereas I maintainthat there is no key to the secret of any noncapitalistsociety,
Sahlins argues that there is, and that the key is always inscribed in "the culturallogic" of each
society, and (2) whereas Sahlins says that the culturalmeanings in each society are generatedby
"symbolic structures," I argue that they are the productof practices, and that the practices of
Westerncapitalist societies renderthe culturalmeanings of non-Westernsocieties vulnerablebut
that the practices of the latter do not underminethe culturalmeanings of the former.
604 TALAL ASAD

Asia: "The global processes set in motion by Europeanexpansionconstitutes

their historyas well" (p. 385; Wolf's emphasis). But is this so? Is it not really
the history of world capitalism we are talking about in which these societies
have been variouslyinvolved, and which is thereforetheir history too? Or, to
put it more precisely: (1) to what extent is that history equally their history,
and (2) is that history the only one that can be written of them?
In the story of the formationof world capitalism, the societies that Wolf
focusses on in his narrativedo have indispensiblepartsto play, and they are in
that sense its coauthors. But these authorsdo not occupy symmetricalposi-
tions in determiningthat story. It is true that in the innumerableconflicts
throughoutthe world encouragedor initiated by Europe's expansion the re-
sults have not always been what Europeanshave wanted-in fact Europeans
themselves have rarelybeen unitedin theirparticularpolitical economic aims.
But in the formationand growth of industrialcapitalism the main story has
been writtenby Europe, and later also by those who have adopted Europe's
historical project as their own. Of course this story has always involved
struggle. But the strugglehas been an unequalone, and in the end it has been
aboutthe particulardetails of an emergingworld order, a matterof the various
accommodationsto be made to the local conditions of existence of world
capitalism.
The story of world capitalism is the history of the dominant world order
within which diverse societies exist. But there are also histories (some writ-
ten, some yet to be written) of the diverse traditionsand practices that once
shaped people's lives and that cannot be reduced to ways of generatingsur-
plus or of conqueringand rulingothers. "As Marx said, men make their own
history but not underconditions of their own choosing. They do so underthe
constraintsof relationshipsand forces that direct their will and their desires"
(p. 386). Do we not thereforeneed to understandthe traditionsand practices
by which people's desires were once constructedif we are to recountprecisely
how they made (or failed to make) theirown history?The concept of cultureis
crucial in such an anthropologicalenterprise,but what kind of concept should
that be? Wolf is surely right in insisting that culturaldiscourses be relatedto
differentiatedand changing materialconditions, and is consequentlyright in
denying that culturesare necessarily homogeneous, integratedentities. How-
ever, the bifurcatedconception of culturehe adopts from Lowie seems to me
unsuitable:
between"matter-of-fact
Nearlyfifty yearsago RobertLowie distinguished usage"
and "secondary interpretations"or "rationalizations." . . . The distinction is still
useful.Eventhe simplestfood-collectinggroupdeploysan impressivearrayof ob-
jects, customs,andknowledgein its dealingwiththe world,togetherwitha bodyof
level of culturalphe-
instructionsfor theiruse. This constitutesthe matter-of-fact
nomena.Onanotherlevel, suchinstrumental forms-objects, acts,andideas-appear
as elementsin culturalcodes, whichpurportto definetheirplacein the relationsof
 ARE THERE HISTORIES OF PEOPLES WITHOUT EUROPE? 605

humanbeingsto one another,andof humanbeingsto thesurrounding world.Instruc-

tionsaboutthe instrumentaluse of culturalformsaresynchronizedwithcommunica-
tionsaboutthenatureandpraxisof thehumansituation.Thisis thelevelof interpreta-
orideology,of assumptions
tion,rationalization, andperspectives
defininga particular
view of the humanlot (p. 387-88).
In these distinctions we are confronted once again with the old formula of
base and superstructure,which in its least satisfactory version postulates a
systematic connection between "reality" and "(mis)representationsof real-
ity." Many Marxistanthropologistscontinueto employ this formulaalthough
it has long been subjected to damaging criticism. The main epistemological
objection to it derives from the Kantian argumentthat, since "reality" is
accessible only through "categories," the two cannot be distinguished in
terms Of a relationship of determination. There is no privileged access to
"reality" independentof accounts that tell us what it is.
Marxist anthropologists such as Bloch and Godelier use the notion of
ideology first to identify a superstructuralpart of culture (the "representa-
tion/misrepresentationof real conditions"), and then to explain how domina-
tion takes place in noncapitalistsocieties.'3 In effect, they assume that rela-
tions of unequal power are essentially dependenteither on consensus or on
force-or on a combination of the two. One trouble with their consensus
argumentis that it fuses the distinction between deceiver and deceived with
the opposition between dominatorand dominated.There is no a priorireason
to suppose that social categories thatdefine relationsbetween dominatorsand
dominatedmust involve credulityon the partof the latterand cynicism on that
of the former. In any case, such suppositions are irrelevantto the problem.
What is sharedin such situationsis not "belief" as an interiorstate of mind
but cultural discourses that constitute objective social conditions and thus
define forms of behaviour appropriateto them. Such conditions do not rule
out the possibility of conflict-by which I mean not merely that conflicts may
erupt to upset them but that conflicts including the use of force are entirely
compatiblewith them. Therefore "force" is not a logical alternativeto "con-
sensus"-that is, to the sharingof concepts thatdefine common social condi-
tions. Indeed, we can go a step further and say that the effectiveness of
"force" as a means of dominationis itself dependenton a minimal sharingof
concepts-as Hobbes long ago pointed out. At one level, this is simply a

13 Bloch's writingson ideology from a Marxistperspectiveinclude "The Past and the Present
in the Present," Man, 12:2 (1977); Introductionto Political Language and Oratoryin Traditional
Societies (London:Academic Press, 1975); and "Symbols, Song, Dance and Featuresof Artic-
ulation: Is Religion an Extreme Form of TraditionalAuthority?" Archiv. Europ. Sociol., 15
(1974). Godelier's present thinking on the subject is to be found in "Pouvoir et langage,"
Communications, 28 (1978), the main ideas of which are reproducedbriefly in J. Verrips's
account of a debate with Wolf held recently in Amsterdam: "The Worst of the Architects is
Better than the Best of the Bees," Critique of Anthropology, 5:2 (1985).
606 TALAL ASAD

matterof recognising that Roman emperorsfacing Christianmartyrsdo not

dominatethe latterby using force-they merely destroythem. At anotherit is
a matterof appreciatingthat when two armies are engaged in war, the work-
ing out of effective strategies requires that each side take into account the
concepts that constitute their shared social condition, and that each try to
constructthe conditions that both must share. Deception may certainlybe an
element in that agonistic construction,but it is rarely the majorelement and
never the defining condition of domination. Control of informationthat en-
ables autonomousactivity is what mattersto dominantpower, not control of
the way that other minds "perceive reality."
Thus, when Wolf writes that "the ability to bestow meanings-to 'name'
things, acts, and ideas-is a source of power," he is right, but right for the
wrong reasons: "Control of communicationallows the managersof ideology
to lay down the categories throughwhich reality is to be perceived" (p. 388).
I suggested above, in the context of the question of law as power, that the
process of naming and defining relationsis a modalityof power, not because
it confounds people's perceptions of reality but because it constructs the
unequal social conditions within which groups of people are obliged to live
and struggle. Strategiesof resistanceor liberationcannot be effective if they
ignore such sharedconstructs.
The generaldifficulty with assuming that ideology is a superstructuralpart
of culturethat makes dominationpossible is twofold. First, it underestimates
the complex and shifting ways in which discourses relate to historically de-
fined behaviour.There is no way of determiningin advance how people with
given economic interests will behave in relation to each other-either as
individualclass membersor as class-based political movements-in varying
historicalcircumstances.Political discourses do not simply "legitimise" be-
haviour from outside, as it were, or simply mobilise people with given "in-
terests"; they operate in diverse historical circumstancesto construct moti-
vations, to transformcommitments,and to reorganiseexperiencesl4-as well

14 Jones, a Marxisthistorianof nineteenth-centuryEngland, stresses the multidimensionality

of concepts signifying and engaging classes: "because there are differentlanguagesof class, one
should not proceed upon the assumptionthat 'class' as an elementarycounter of official social
description, 'class' as an effect of theoreticaldiscourse aboutdistributionor productionrelations,
'class' as the summaryof a cluster of culturallysignifying practices, or 'class' as a species of
political or ideological self-definition, all share a single reference point in an anteriorsocial
reality" (G. S. Jones, Languages of Class: Studies in English Working-ClassHistory, 1832-
1982 (Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press, 1983), 7-8, Jones's emphasis). Historical lan-
guages of class, although never static, have their distinctive morphologies and functionalities.
The languages of class employed in nineteenth-centuryBritain are not replicated in twentieth-
century Egypt. The assumption is made by many studentsof the Arab world (those writing in
English or Frenchas well as those writingin Arabic)thatin both places we may identify an urban
bourgeoisie, a nascent working class, a Lumpenproletariat,each displaying a recognisableclass
ideology-but such an assumptionis profoundlymistaken.Historicallanguagesconstituteclass-
es, they do not merelyjustify groupsalreadyin place accordingto universaleconomic structures.
 ARE THERE HISTORIES OF PEOPLES WITHOUT EUROPE? 607

as to produceand codify knowledge about social behaviourthat is essential to

all these creative functions. "The managers of ideology" do not command
silent audiences: Political discourses are collaborativeprocesses. The collab-
oration may rarely be equal, but it remains nevertheless a quite different
phenomenonfrom conditioning.
The second majordifficulty with the classic assumptionsabout ideology is
that they exaggerate the importanceof consciousness in explaining historical
patternsof inequality:Historicalconditionschange like landscapescreatedby
glaciers-usually slowly, always contingently-on which old paths that fol-
lowed old inequalitiessimply become irrelevantratherthanbeing consciously
rejected. The classic conception of ideology as the glue of consciousness that
holds political structurestogether(in a "precarious" and "dialectical" man-
ner) obscures the fact thatthe story of industrialcapitalismcan be told notjust
as the collective adventurein which all the world's peoples have combinedto
make their own history, but as the progressof glacial powers that have altered
the conditions, the values, the desires of the peoples in our world. There was
no agent in our past who intendedwhat we have all become. Nor is it the case
that a better perception of the Truth now leads us to reject an oppressive
reality. What makes us see and desire new things is the priorre-formationof
conditions that was only marginallythe result of intent.

IV.

This is an admirablebook-erudite, politically committed, thought provok-

ing. Few anthropologists would have had the courage to write it. Many
readersfrom a variety of disciplines will admireit. But anotherbook remains
to be written by Wolf telling anotherstory, the story of transformationsthat
have reshapedthose conditions which are not of people's choosing but within
which they must make their history. We should not think of those conditions
as though they merely set varying limits to preconstitutedchoices. Historical
conditions constructthose choices, just as distinctive choices constitute his-
torically specific subjectivities. It is when we have anthropologicalaccounts
of what those constructionswere, and how they have changed, that we may
learn what the histories of peoples without Europeonce were, and why they
cannot make those histories any longer. We may then also understandbetter
why and in what ways so many peoples are now tryingto make otherhistories
both within and against the hegemonic powers of moder capitalismthat had
their origins in Western Europe.