on through patriarchal formations, ( Visweswaran, p. 79). One of the strategies that Abu-Lughod states is ethnography of the particular, which in part is assumed to upset the culture concept. It is a fact that anthropologists write about what they study and in turn many generalize that what they are observing is quite the same or similar throughout. Generalization, the characteristic mode of operation and style of writing of the social sciences, can no longer be regarded as neutral description, ( Abu-Lughod, p. 149-150). Moreover, writing against culture is to shift from writing in generalized terms. Ethnography of the particular is a way to write in more familiar terms as well as to write about the particulars. And the particulars suggest that other live as we perceive ourselves living, not as robots programmed with cultural rules, but as people going through life agonizing over decisions, making mistakes, trying to make themselves look good, enduring tragedies and personal losses, enjoying others, and finding moments of happiness, (Abu-Lughod, p.158). The second article is written by Kamala Visweswaran, Race and the Culture of Anthropology, which was published in the American Anthropologist Magazine, in March of 1998. She discusses culture, although in a slightly different manner then Abu-Lughod and she elaborates more on the connection with race. Her main argument within the article she states clearly at the beginning, Multiculturalism and culture studies have emerged as counterdisciplinary formations that radically foreground race and racial identity precisely because the modern anthropological notion of culture cannot so do, (Visweswaran, p. 70). She quotes and details a lot of what Franz Boas studied and wrote in his books and incorporates it with her own views on race and culture. Boas himself had more of a race theory, then a theoretical view on culture, although he later fixed that. It was rather the distinct...
