{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02947125108350188, 'fraction_numerical': 0.004045073678127709, 'mean_word_length': 4.917948717948718, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Book Review: Transforming the Indonesian uplands, Turbulent times and enduring peoples: mountain minorities in the South-East Asian massif

directors, but these are notoriously tight-lipped. It is unfortunate, however, that this book has been given a misleading title. ‘Anthropologists and development’ would have been more accurate. As it is, expectations are aroused that are not fulfilled. One might have anticipated, for instance, consideration of how development projects had affected local social structures and cultures, and how the discipline of anthropology itself had been influenced by the participation of its practitioners in such activities. Room for this might have been made with advantage by more rigorous selection and greater abbreviation of the reports included in the book. At several points, we are given hints of what might be, but they are not developed. Thus, referring to a resettlement scheme in Sarawak, we are told ‘the sudden introduction of large sums of money . . . gave a number of Iban a brief windfall . . . it sharpened and increased social inequality’ (p. 105). Here it might have been worthwhile following up the insights of Oscar Lewis’s (1958) seminal study of Indian village life, which found that development projects were not, and perhaps could not be, neutral between factions. Change often increases inequality, and it would be interesting to know how some groups win and some lose. The present author could not be expected to conjure up studies that have not been made; their absence remains regrettable. There is no reflection here, for instance, of the work by M.N. Srinivas (1969), also in Indian villages, tending to show that as people become richer, they seek acceptance by superior social groups through aping their manners and customs. Yet it would be difficult to deny that in Southeast Asia there are signs of local variations of this process. Then, it would appear that development is indeed influencing the discipline itself. Anthropology has been noted for the intensity of its study of local societies. Anthropologists have been expected to spend a fairly long period, usually not less than a year, in a relatively small community, before making any pronouncement on it. A leading anthropologist, Raymond Firth, maintained that these intensive methods were the chief distinction between social anthropology and sociology; the latter’s extensive methods of research, using techniques such as surveys and questionnaires, were distrusted. However, the times are a-changing, and the distinction from sociology is blurring. A project on the impact of road construction on communities in Laos recruited an anthropologist to study the position of women. Fieldwork, however, was limited to seven weeks. The methods adopted ‘furnish qualitative results quickly . . . a questionnaire was also used . . .’ (p. 177). As with the urban anthropological studies mentioned above, it is difficult to see much difference between these methods and those used in some branches of sociology. This may be heralding a long overdue fusion of these two closely related disciplines although, given the professional interests involved, it could well be some time before the banns are read. To summarize, this book champions with distinction the cause of development anthropologists, and provides a most fitting basis for the chronicle and analysis of development-related changes in Southeast Asian societies and in anthropology.