Geertz’s assertion that anthropologicalnwritings are fictions; “fictions, in thensense that they are ‘something made,’n’something fashioned,’ not that they arenfiilse, unfectual, or merely ‘as if’ thoughtnexperiments.” Cultural analysis, henclaims, is intrinsically incomplete.nInterpretive anthropology is a sciencenwhose progress is marked less by perfectionnof consensus than by refinement ofndebate: “There are no conclusions to benreported; there is merely a discussion tonsustain.” These notions are more characteristicnof the literary critic than of thenscientist.nThis revised style of discourse in thensocial sciences has important implicationsnfor the humanities. AlthoughnGeertz does not explore those implicationsnvery fer, he su^ests that a criticalnconsciousness will have to develop tonguide social scientists in this newndirection, and the himianists may not benvery well prepared for such a task.nUrgently needed aye the reflections ofnhumanists on the activities of socialnscientists as they employ models andnanalogies fi-om humanist domains. Sincenthe imagery for those activities derivesnfrom the humanities, the humanists arenconnected with the argument not asn”skeptical bystanders” but as “chargeablenaccomplices.” Whether this situationnwill make the social sciences lessnscientific or humanistic study more so,nGeertz does not presume to say, but heninsists that the changing character ofnboth is clear and important.nCjeertz’s insistent concern with localnknowledge—^with diversity, particulars,nand specific cultural context—createsnuneasiness for the Demon of the Absolute,nand that is all to the good. But therenis, after all, a danger of becoming lost innparticulars. Knowing everything innparticular, one might end by knowingnnothing in particular. Geertz dismissesnthis fear of particularism as “a bit ofnacademic neurosis.” He insists that hisnapproach is not an attempt to exaltndiversity but rather to “take it seriouslynas itself an object of analytic descriptionnand interpretive reflection.” All thensame, one wonders in reading his essaysnexactly how diversity and relativity arento be counterbalanced. He speaks of andynamic process of tacking betweennobservation of detail and formiflation ofngeneralities, of hopping back and forthnbetween the whole conceived throughnthe parts and the parts conceivednthrough the whole. But doesn’t evennsuch a fluid process need some kind ofnorienting principles? I suspect, as anmatter of fact, that such principles arenTito ami Afternufps;\ji i.s among llif nu).st cxolicncountrit-N ol’ liuropc. i’hf ilomiiiaiilnnalioiiuliiy. ihi- .Si-rhs, had a rich anilnhi-roji: past with strong links to tlicniiy/anilni- linipiri-. Indi-cd. the la.MnlinipiTor. wliorn (iil’>hon called thi- lastnand licM oflhi- (lai-.sar.s, hail a Srrhiannmother. Mtt-r tlii-ir .subjugation by tlu-nTurks, the Serbs embarked upon a ^00-near career ol’national mytlimakiti};nwliicli (ituls its most ri-ceiil expression inntill- works o(Miloan Djilas, an internationallynlainous political theorist. Hvennunder tJieeommiiiiist regime e.stabli.sliednby .Marshall Tito, the .Serbs did not give upntheir .sense ollhe p;isl (Djilas hiin.seirwasnonce aniong Tito’s elo.sest colleagues).nanil the literature ot’^’ugoslavia hasnbecome one oTihe richest in hasternnl-.uriipe.nThe latest i.ssue oiSurrey ( AutumnnI’JSf) leatures a .symposium on ‘”^ugoslaila:nTitoism & After.” which itickiilesnarticles by such prominent Yugoslavnpolitical writers as .Milovaii Djilas,nDesiniir Tiichitch.mideljko.Micunovie.n’These contributions are particularlynwelcome, since Jugoslavia is a countrynlittle iiiKk’rstooil by Western journalistsnwho tpicall overestimate both itsneconomic successes and its ethnicnfrictions. The late .Marshall Tito hasnconsistently been given credit fornenginei-ring Jugoslavia’s prosperity anilnfor holiling together the .Serbs, (Toat.s.nW. otablesnnntacitly operating in Geertz’s writings—ncertain unarticulated value assumptionsnthat provide equilibrium in his confrontationnwith the “grand actuality.” Henends the book with the statement thatnthe primary question for any culturalninstitution anywhere is whether humannbeings are going to be able to continuen”to imagine principled lives they cannpracticably lead.” If we were to askmorenof Local Knowledge, it might be toninquire about the exact nature andnsource of the principles. DnSlovenians. .Mhanians. and .Macedonian.”nin a fragile teileration. In a remarkablynuseful article. Desiniir ‘Tochitch pointsnout that Jugoslavia was propped up bynIbreign loans from the West and not by anneconomic .self-management system thatnhas never been allowed to functionnwithout governnieni interference am:ncorruption, and that ilespite their frictions,nthe nati(.ins which make up the iVr.n|X-reeni South Slavic majority ilo not havena history of actual warlare(noneof ihi-irn->3rn-7^nTi’n•*. ^Pnmn^JL .*nTtt;-nfefiUn<«r *»*Ln•v^ **’nJ < l’^niri^nmj^lb^SBriinnationalist movements has ever ealleil iiirnoutright Independeni’e). Inolherarticles.n.Milovan Djilas proviiles a memoir olnTitos relations with Stalin, and AleksanDjilas analyzes the role of the (Communistnl”;irty in J’ugixslav history. I iider its editornLajpold ljbed/,.V;/;yv)’continues its lintntradition of providing intelligent commeiitaryn(in T:;istern l;urof)t”in atlairs. |nil7nFebruary 1985n