Send message to Contributor

Contribution short abstract:

Responses to the category of indigeneity in Nepal include critical para-anthropological writings on their own culture by indigenous authors in hegemonic and subaltern idioms. These instance genealogies of intellectualism meriting scrutiny as they intersect with non-indigenous anthropology.

Contribution long abstract:

The rapid proliferation of concepts for indigeneity in Nepal at the turn of the last century coincided with the re-emergence of democracy, with programs of liberalisation, and consequently with a multiplication of counter-publics. Many researchers have recognised the conceptual force of indigeneity as deployed by ethnic activists for making political claims to rights and recognition. Yet, despite the numerous languages between which these concepts travel, and the different discursive modes by which they are deployed, there remains a tendency to dismiss the social scientific lexicon of indigenous intellectuals as a scholarly conceptual vocabulary "gone native" following growth in Nepal's international relations. By examining self-published writings on culture in one indigenous language (Nepal Bhasa, language of the Newar community), at the advent of Nepalese democracy (1951), its revival (1990), and through the ongoing post-constitution phase (2015-), another genealogy for indigenous para-anthropological writing will be proposed. This takes into consideration sequential developments in Newar indigenous intellectualism – as much where it builds upon previous norms of knowledge and authority as where it departs from them. The aim is to move beyond the overtly political instrumentalization of indigeneity; and instead, to consider attempts by indigenous authors to write culture, religion, civilisation, and heritage in their own terms, where language, concepts, and ways of knowing are constantly revised. Lastly, it will be asked how the non-indigenous anthropologist should approach the study of these texts, ethically and methodologically, thus revealing crucial differences between disciplinary projects, and clarifying the proper aims of a non-confessional anthropology.