Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 2017. xvi, 333 pp. US$65.00, cloth. ISBN 978-0-8248-6594-8.
In Traffic in Hierarchy, Ward Keeler, long-time specialist in the study of Southeast Asian societies, sets out to apply Louis Dumont’s concept of “oppositional” or “value” hierarchies (hierarchical opposition) to ethnographic material collected at intervals in Buddhist Burma between 1987 and 2012. The discussion proceeds in a hermeneutic circle fashion, beginning with more apparent aspects of Burmese life and spiralling to deeper levels of analysis throughout ten chapters. After an introductory first chapter describing phenomena visitors immediately encounter in Mandalay, Keeler continues with a detailed description of Shweigyin Monastery and the social relations between monks and laypeople. He interrupts this deliberation with a well-placed chapter explaining Dumont’s ideas and their implication in the Southeast Asian context. Following this interlude, he proceeds to analyze forms of spiritual practice from nat cult to mediation followed by a chapter-by-chapter analysis of masculinity in relation to laymen and monks, as well as the position of women and nonnormatively gendered individuals. He concludes by considering the general implications of his analysis. The book’s strengths lie in its clear and elegant structure, the ethnography of Buddhist monasteries in Burma and the relationship between monks as well as between the religious order and lay people, and Keeler’s generous treatment of the work of others, which he integrates whenever he needs to complement either his ethnography or analysis. The work’s weaknesses include a likely misinterpretation of Dumont’s framework and the implications of this for engaging with ethnographic material, sloppy editing, and a failure to connect to contemporary events.
Louis Dumont intended to correct what he believed was an error in structuralist conceptions of binary categorical oppositions. Instead of seeing these as equal, as did Lévi-Strauss, Hertz, or Needham, he claimed that these oppositions contained judgements with one pole being assigned superior value (Robert Parkin, Louis Dumont and Hierarchical Opposition, New York: Berghahn Books, 2003). Despite the general usefulness of Dumont’s construct, Keeler’s attempt to apply it to Burmese society is only partially successful. Possibly to emphasize the distinct quality of “loosely structured” social systems of Southeast Asia against those of South India—the topic of Dumont’s analysis, Keeler interprets the value oppositions defining hierarchical positions of superiority and inferiority in Burmese society in terms of interpersonal autonomy versus attachment: those who represent autonomy from social relations (monks/men) are superior, while those who represent attachment (laymen/women) are inferior. In some respects, this interpretation has yielded useful insights. For instance, in suggesting that Burmese women’s autonomy does not necessarily translate to equality with men, Keeler contributes a stimulating argument to discussions of gender and gender equality in Southeast Asia. In other respects, however, this interpretation has proven too narrow.
As Keeler notes, most Burmese Buddhists are intimately familiar with the four noble truths that constitute the guiding principles of Buddhist living. These precepts describe suffering and identify attachment—not only to other people, but to thoughts, expectations, perceptions, emotions, and possessions—as the source of suffering. The goal in Buddhism is to end suffering by understanding impermanence. Thus, it is equally plausible that the fundamental hierarchical opposition in Buddhist society is not so much between interpersonal autonomy/detachment and dependence/attachment, but more between spiritual attainment and being tied to worldly concerns. These include food preparation, earning a living, raising children, or engaging in sexual acts. This broader understanding could clarify issues the author finds puzzling, such as the reliance of high-status, and supposedly autonomous, monks on laypeople for sustenance. Interpreting independence as that of mind and spirit resolves this paradox, because physical sustenance is indeed in a lower value position in the oppositional hierarchy of spiritual versus mundane. As it is, Keeler often tries to force various aspects of Burmese social life into his restricted framework, battling with imaginary Buddhist critics. This evokes uncomfortable echoes of favouring etic over emic meaning and with no good reason, because there can be little doubt that Burmese Buddhists are experts on what they value. Naturally, data often fail to obey, and on these occasions Keeler relies on “truthiness,” a term borrowed from Stephen Colbert, which means that whatever he claims is “so logical” that it has to be true, even in the face of contrary, or absent, evidence.
Though the monograph represents a valuable addition to the literature of Buddhism and gender in Southeast Asia, it would have benefited from discarding baseless musings and utilizing a more careful and critical selection of ethnographic material. Nothing for instance prepares the reader for the poor quality of chapter 1, both in terms of scholarship and editing. This chapter not only reads like an afterthought, but is peppered with stylistic and rhetorical errors, as well as careless repetitions. The last chapter similarly weakens the monograph. General conclusions are commendable, but only if the author has something meaningful to add. In this case, Keeler offers the observation that dimensions of autonomy and attachment are consequential in human relations. Hardly an original point, given that sophisticated models of power and dependence have been around since the 1960s (Richard M. Emerson, “Power-Dependence Relations” American Sociological Review 27 [1962]). Instead, the reader would welcome some consideration of how the analytical framework might reflect on current Burmese social life and politics. Yet, except for a brief, albeit excellent, introduction of the political and historical context of his research, Keeler refrains from commenting on contemporary politics. Despite his proviso that neither he, nor the Burmese, are especially interested in politics, it is hard to accept that his analysis of hierarchical relations, especially in terms of gendered role expectations, has no bearing on either the relationship between the military and nationalist monks or the political standing as well as possibilities and limitations for action available to the country’s nominal leader, Aung San Su Kyi. Thus, while new scholarship is welcome, especially in a field so long closed to research, one leaves the book thinking that an opportunity to offer insights into Burmese society currently many of us find perplexing has been lost.
Csilla Dallos
St. Thomas University, Fredericton, Canada