he unique contribution of anthropology lies in its ability to understand various societies by getting close to the people being studied. This means taking the perspective of those we are researching, allowing us to learn things we wouldn’t otherwise know, even about our own culture.

Being “on the ground” enables us to see people not just as passive followers of some system but as active participants in their history. While an anthropologist might come from a different system, like a major capitalist country, their job is to observe and describe, without intervening, what people do.

According to Ortner, anthropology’s perspective complements the sciences that study global capitalism, focusing on a different level of understanding. However, if anthropology’s strength lies in its ground-level view, it’s challenging to determine how much and in what ways other levels become relevant.

The problem with this discussion is that it uses two different ideas at the same time. On the one hand, it talks about “real people,” suggesting that systems are not real. On the other hand, it refers to “ground level,” acknowledging other levels but claiming that they depend on the ground level rather than the other way around. These two ideas are then used to define the independence and unique contribution of anthropology based on fieldwork.

All the human sciences, including psychology, deal with real people, even when thoughts or feelings seem unreal. The idea that things are only real when we can see or touch them, and that structures and systems aren’t real, is outdated. There are real features of human groups, like life expectancies, crime rates, voting patterns and productivity, which we can’t see directly but can understand through tables, graphs, and maps on paper or a computer screen.

Social practices, like those of governments or businesses, rely on these representations. Even in places like Papua New Guinea, they can’t do without them. The focus here isn’t on whether a local culture is pure or mixed, unified or contested. Instead, it’s about how systems, including aspects of capitalism, are understood, represented and used in today’s world.

When we gather, analyse and manipulate quantitative data about a population, the results inform specific systematic practices aimed at that population. The representation of this data is crucial in justifying or criticising these practices. The system I am talking about here is a way people act (real people doing real things) that influences others’ lives.

However, its immediate goal is not to control individual behaviours but to change overall human conditions (like property, disease and literacy trends) that are profitable or useful. This system relies on probabilities, not direct causes. It’s a type of systematic power not easily understood through what’s typically known as anthropological fieldwork because, even though it represents people and their activities at the ground level, it doesn’t simply mirror them.

To be fair, it’s important to note that Ortner might not necessarily agree with the idea I mentioned earlier about relying only on what we can see or touch. Despite the language she uses, she might be trying to convey, like Sahlins, that global capitalism hasn’t made the cultures of local people the same.

This claim seems reasonable at the first glance but it doesn’t really answer the question of whether and how local people shape their own history. The term “local peoples,” now preferred by ethnographers instead of older terms like primitive or tribal, can be a bit misleading. Essentially, it just means that everyone is “local” because they can be located somewhere.

Since anthropologists now see their uniqueness in how they study (through fieldwork) rather than what they study (non-European cultures), this term makes sense to them.

However, not everyone who is “local” has the same opportunities for movement or the same practical reach. For example, national politicians in the capital of Sudan have different experiences than nomads and peasants in the provinces. Similarly, corporation directors in an Australian city have a different perspective than mineworkers in the highlands of New Guinea. They are all “locatable,” but not equally so by each other.

When we say people are “local,” it means they are connected to a specific place, grounded and limited. On the other hand, those not considered local are often seen as either displaced or as having a broader, global perspective. For example, Saudi theologians are seen as local because they refer to medieval Islamic texts, while Western writers who draw on modern secular literature claim to be universal. However, both groups exist within defined spaces that have rules about who is included or excluded.

Power plays a significant role in these definitions. Immigrants from South Asia settling in Britain are described as uprooted, but English officials living in British India were not. Modern capitalist enterprises and nation-states are the main powers shaping spaces today, determining what is considered local and what is not. “Local peoples” are those who can be observed, reached and manipulated as needed.

Contrary to what some anthropologists believed, knowledge about local peoples is not limited to a specific locality or universally accessible. Both Sahlins and Ortner argue that recognising agency and creativity in the non-European world requires defending the idea of cultural autonomy.

On the other hand, a different perspective, presented by anthropologist James Clifford, suggests that in our rapidly changing world cultural identity is mixed, relational and inventive. He challenges the notion of a single, privileged narrative of the modern world and rejects the history of global capitalism.

According to this view, everyone is living in a fluid, fractured cultural situation and there’s no fixed concept of authenticity. Borrowing and copying are not signs of a lack but indicate creative human agency. Despite acknowledging unequal power dynamics, this perspective invites us to celebrate the expanded human agency resulting from increased geographical and psychological mobility.

In summary, the collection and analysis of quantitative data about local populations shape systematic practices aimed at influencing overarching human conditions. This system operates through probabilities, challenging traditional anthropological fieldwork.

The debate about the impact of global capitalism on the unique cultures of local peoples persists, with the term “local peoples” favoured by ethnographers, though its use can be misleading. Power dynamics, determined by modern capitalist enterprises and nation-states, influences definitions of what is considered local or global. The recognition of agency and creativity in the non-European world underscores the importance of defending cultural autonomy, as argued by Sahlins and Ortner.

Contrastingly, anthropologist James Clifford challenges the notion of a singular, privileged narrative of the modern world, embracing the fluid, fractured nature of cultural identity. This perspective celebrates human agency despite unequal power dynamics, highlighting the creative potential in increased geographical and psychological mobility.

In essence, the discourse on local peoples and cultural identity presents a complex interplay of perspectives, challenging conventional understandings and exploring human agency in a dynamic world.

The writer is a professor in the Faculty of Liberal Arts at the Beaconhouse National University, Lahore