Review Essay

This article was downloaded by: [University of Toronto Libraries] On: 23 October 2013, At: 22:12 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The Asia Pacific Journal of Anthropology Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rtap20

Review Essay Jacob Nerenberg

a

a

University of Toronto Published online: 22 Oct 2013.

To cite this article: Jacob Nerenberg (2013) Review Essay, The Asia Pacific Journal of Anthropology, 14:5, 486-495, DOI: 10.1080/14442213.2013.806241 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14442213.2013.806241

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions

The Asia Pacific Journal of Anthropology, 2013 Vol. 14, No. 5, 486495

REVIEW ESSAY

Downloaded by [University of Toronto Libraries] at 22:12 23 October 2013

Laughing at Leviathan: Sovereignty and Audience in West Papua DANILYN RUTHERFORD Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 2012 Freedom in Entangled Worlds: West Papua and the Architecture of Global Power EBEN KIRKSEY Durham, NC, Duke University Press, 2012 The year 2012 was a generous one for readers who follow goings-on in West Papua, a contested territory where Indonesia meets (and encompasses) Melanesia.1 Two new books appeared, exploring in different and complementary ways the dynamics of West Papuan politics, specifically the West Papuan independence movement, in relation to broader national and global formations. Examining the points of convergence and divergence of these analytical approaches can shine light on some fundamental questions facing the study of West Papua and the ethics of anthropology, broadly speaking. For people living in West Papua, 2012 was a turbulent year, as mobilisations by a number of pro-independence organisations were met with stiff repression and multiple forms of state terror. The climate of political tension and intimidation is not a new phenomenon: ethnographers working in Papua have long faced the challenge of engaging with this difficult and uncertain context in an ethical manner. Danilyn Rutherford and Eben Kirksey’s latest offerings are shaped by a clear drive to do some kind of justice to the nearly impossible situations faced by their Papuan friends and consultants. Each marshals the ethical challenges of West Papuanist ethnography towards a set of analytical interventions in core theoretical debates. While Rutherford innovatively theorises sovereignty as a sphere of struggle centred on compelling (and being compelled by) audiences near and far, Kirksey’s narrative pushes for recognition of how social movements (can) strategically combine far-reaching imagination and pragmatic collaboration. These theoretical discussions are as important as, and flow on from, the authors’ efforts at building an ethical scholarly approach to writing about places like Papua, where multiple demands*of colonial history, postcolonial critique, and calls for reciprocity amidst diverse local expectations*can produce a stark challenge for anthropologists. In the preface to Freedom in Entangled Worlds, Kirksey recounts his first visit to Papua. Sitting in a waiting room at the airport in Biak on his way from Los Angeles to Jakarta, a group of Papuan dancers and musicians skillfully captured his attention, planting the seed of his long-term commitment to document Papuan experiences of

The Asia Pacific Journal of Anthropology

487

Downloaded by [University of Toronto Libraries] at 22:12 23 October 2013

oppression and dreams of justice (2012, ix). In framing his recruitment as a politics of inciting the care of potential international allies, Kirksey directs the reader’s attention to Rutherford’s prior (2003) exploration of a typically Biak disposition towards investing in the potency of foreign others’ words, ideas, reactions and gazes. In Laughing at Leviathan, Rutherford elaborates on that ealier historical and cultural analysis, drawing on stories of Papuans’ global entanglements to develop a new theory of sovereignty writ large. In speaking to each other’s work, the two authors build on each other’s insights, while pursuing thoroughly distinct analytical projects. Re-thinking Sovereignty Laughing is a collection of essays that weave detailed and throroughly researched episodes from the twisting and complex story of ever-deferred West Papuan decolonisation into a powerful series of arguments about sovereignty and its limits. In order to explain the potency of West Papuan nationalism and the stubbornness of the current conflict, Rutherford insists on the need to understand why the Dutch colonial regime held on to western New Guinea for so long after ceding control of (the rest of) Indonesia. The force of Rutherford’s analysis stems, in part, from her deployment of insights from semiotics, cultural and linguistic anthropology, poststructuralist philosophy and critical affect theory in her reading of colonial archives, and from her use of this analysis to reinterpret the foundations of liberal political theory. In rooting her work in a careful examination of the strategies, anxieties and fantasies of Dutch colonial rule as it encountered Indonesian and Papuan nationalists with their own agendas, Rutherford crafts a powerful political intervention in the world of international West Papua-watchers. Whereas Western pro-Papua advocates commonly date the origins of Papua’s troubles to the imposition of Indonesian sovereignty in the 1960s (for example, Robinson 2012), Rutherford mines the archive to show how the centuries-old pursuit of imperial sovereignty consistently worked both to deny self-determination to supposedly ‘backwards’ Papuans and to produce and entrench intractable conflict between Indonesian and Papuan nationalisms (Rutherford 2012, 186, 287, n. 8). Attention to both the ‘ridiculousness’ and violence of Papua’s colonial history routinely disavowed by Western observers, but key to contemporary Indonesian nationalism’s projects and anxieties around Papua*underpins the ethics of Rutherford’s intervention. Stories of imperial machinations and manoeuvres inform her analysis of the way that the pursuit of sovereignty impels itself onward not through any simple will to power, but through a demand for recognition by others both subjects and other sovereigns*which compels rulers to perform their supremacy. Readers are shown a common thread linking a series of moments where the Dutch were increasingly ‘pulled into the periphery’ (Rutherford 2012, 56) of their East Indies colony: from the nineteenth-century decision to claim western New Guinea (to ward off rival imperial encroachment on the Moluccan ‘Spice Islands’), to

Downloaded by [University of Toronto Libraries] at 22:12 23 October 2013

488 Review

the decision to deploy officers to the southern border with British New Guinea (in response to British complaints about Papuans’ cross-border raids) and through to colonial and postcolonial policies to pacify and ‘modernise’ the inhabitants of the highlands (after international ethnographers and journalists had spread stories and images of ‘primitive’ tribal warfare). Rutherford invites us to see the tireless invasiveness of sovereign authority as an inexorable result of its need to continually renew its performances of supremacy. Building on her earlier Biak-inspired analysis of fetish as an itch that gets worse as you scratch it, Rutherford shows how the pursuit of sovereignty cannot help but undermine itself. In responding to the scrutiny and doubts of global and domestic audiences’, sovereigns implicitly affirm those doubts, while promoting their proliferation. While Laughing is grounded in colonial and postcolonial history, most chapters build on this history to examine how the spectral force of audience shapes contemporary efforts by West Papuans to achieve sovereignty from within an apparently overdetermined situation. In the excellent second-to-last chapter, which analyses a promotional video produced for a major Papuan nationalist organisation, Rutherford dwells on a moment when she was visiting a Papuan leader in exile in the Netherlands. As they sat watching the video, Rutherford recalls turning toward her host to find him videotaping her in the act of watching, explaining that Papuans back home would be excited to see evidence of foreigners’ attention to their cause (2012, 200201). In dramatising what might seem like simply an ironic or idiosyncratic aspect of the Papuan movement, this moment encourages readers to see West Papuan nationalism as an extreme and, thus, vividly instructive case of modern power’s rooting in affectively charged and sometimes humorous ‘plays of perspectives’. As much as (and alongside) scenes of law-founding violence or the contractual rationality of Hobbes, sovereignty here is about relays of gazes and contests for pleasure. Tracing Movement If Rutherford’s study is rooted in archives new and old, Kirksey’s centres his own trajectory as a student of, and advocate for, the Papuan independence movement. Freedom recounts Kirksey’s encounters with a wide range of actors in the broad and diverse West Papuan movement: rebel fighters in jungle hide-outs, members of human rights organisations, outspoken preachers and students who criticise some of the movement’s prominent leaders for collaborating with agents of global capitalism. Kirksey weaves his encounters together with the threads of his arguments in such a way as to explore the idea of merdeka (freedom, independence), as it is nurtured, deployed and debated by actors in the West Papuan movement. As Rutherford draws analytical insight from her consultants’ ways of approaching her, Kirksey analyses his Papuan network’s requests and expectations that he champion their cause. Where Rutherford emphasises unlikely pleasures that can come from enrolling foreign voices and inciting global audiences, Kirksey focuses on the strategic and imaginative vision

Downloaded by [University of Toronto Libraries] at 22:12 23 October 2013

The Asia Pacific Journal of Anthropology

489

that drives West Papuan projects to ally with distant and unlikely others. Freedom takes the reader through a series of moments where Papuan activists seek to enact dreams of political transformation by seizing on temporary alignments of interests across seemingly unbridgeable gaps. While the story of Kirksey’s own enlistment in the Papuan cause is central, the reader is also presented with stories of Papuan activists and rebels acting (or seeking to act) in unlikely and fragile alliances with Indonesian military officers and intelligence agents, multinational resource corporations, British Lords and groups contesting corporate globalisation from Jakarta to Southern California. In documenting these forms of subversion via collaboration, Kirksey engages with a wide range of theorists, from Jacques Derrida to Partha Chatterjee. Deleuze and Guattari’s rhizome appears as a model for connections forged at moments of openings and possibility; Kirksey also points to the limits of this device, proposing the Banyan treeemblem of Indonesia’s powerful Golkar party*as a model for a fuller range of forms of movement. For Kirksey, the Banyan figure models a situation where a will to transform a situation of disempowerment is enacted by inhabiting and progressively ‘growing over’ a structure of power*a model that can clarify the choice of increasing numbers of Papuans to take up positions in the Indonesian bureaucracy, without necessarily leaving behind their aspirations for independence. Freedom traces a recent history of the Papuan movement from the euphoric post-Suharto ‘Papuan Spring’ through the waves of violent repression, collective action, transnational engagements and opaque intrigue that followed. Kirksey figures this succession of moments as shifts between strictly rhizomatic and more broadly Banyan formations, constituting a trajectory where Papuan visionaries struggle to find ways to negotiate and inhabit the tension between the pragmatic tactics of engagement and the ‘messianic spirit of merdeka’ (Kirksey 2012, 79). The distinction between rhizome and Banyan is key to Kirksey’s arguments and to the nature of his participation in advocacy activities. Kirksey pleads for recognition of the situated ethics of an approach to political change that nurtures wideranging hopes, while seeking incremental improvements through careful engagements with institutions of power. In valorising the Banyan approach, even while documenting struggles around its potential for cooptation, Kirksey explores and pays tribute to a politics of ‘collaboration’, which, he argues, is a central orientation of the West Papuan movement. Emphasising the political possibilities of a notion that often carries negative connotations, Kirksey’s intervention helpfully corrects romanticised understandings of indigenous movements that expect nothing but resolute and unqualified opposition to powerful governing projects. Weaving through the narrative is the story of Kirksey’s process of coming to recognise and respond to the Papuan movement’s collaborative ethic: he recounts his efforts to become a good collaborator and act in support of his activist friends’ efforts to access global powerbrokers, seen as potential allies to the Papuan cause.

490 Review

Downloaded by [University of Toronto Libraries] at 22:12 23 October 2013

Interdependence, Affect and Genre Perhaps unsurprisingly for two books that deal with roughly the same topic, the political theories outlined in Freedom and Laughing share some common ground. Both emphasise interdependence in realms of praxis commonly associated with singularity and rupture. In Kirksey’s case, Papuan visionaries assert ever-wider relations of mutual dependence at the very moment of advancing claims to political independence. In Rutherford’s account, the quest to achieve and defend sovereignty implies constant dependence on the reactions and impressions of spectator-others. In shining light on modes of politics that prioritise such relations of mutuality, these studies helpfully speak back to totalising accounts of power, focusing understanding on limits of domination and possibilities for its undermining. For Rutherford, these limits and possibilities stem irrevocably from the very nature of sovereign authority. Meanwhile, Kirksey is interested in the ways in which what appears as submission to power can, in fact, be part of a strategic attempt to subvert it. The emphasis on interdependence is fitting, given the longstanding anthropological concern with exchange and reciprocity in Melanesia, and this resonates with work by scholars such as West (2009), who focuses on New Guineans’ efforts to enact relations of reciprocal exchange through new sorts of entanglements with agents of global governance. Both books also make valuable contributions to efforts to theorise the affective landscapes of emerging political formations. In Freedom’s stories of shifting terrains of struggle, apparently ‘irrational’ hopes*such as that of the ambitious highlander who sought to found a new type of mining company with a mission to distribute wealth (Kirksey 2012, 85)*are never separate from ‘rational’ tactical calculations, which are made so as to negotiate a difficult constellation of forces. Laughing places emotion at the heart of the realm of political calculation and manoeuvre, implicitly contesting the hyper-rationality of some current analyses of governmentality. By considering the fantasies, fears and passions of Dutch colonial rulers alongside the desires and surprising pleasures of subordinated Papuans, Rutherford gestures to a realm of politics where those in power are burdened by the constant task of sustaining their authority in the face of playful subversion from the margins. In thus complicating prevailing assumptions regarding affects of domination and subordination, Rutherford does not discount a focus on the very real patterns of Papuan suffering and marginalisation. Her study also depends on analyses of episodes of brutal state violence and different forms of Papuan advocacy and activism. In dwelling on unexpected moments of humour, such as the joke about the Papuan fugitive tempted by the promise of a smoke to surrender to the colonial police, Laughing suggests that modern rule and its injustices are not separate from*and in some ways depend on*ordinary moments of pleasure. Rutherford attends to unsettling juxtapositions: the closing chapter explores a Youtube video that sets images of beaten and killed Papuans to the sounds of will.i.am’s hopeful ‘Obama Song’, showing how Papuans work to turn ‘horror, sorrow, and anger into a source of

Downloaded by [University of Toronto Libraries] at 22:12 23 October 2013

The Asia Pacific Journal of Anthropology

491

hope’ (Rutherford 2012, 236). In these ways, Rutherford invites readers to question their assumptions about what kinds of feelings are or are not appropriate to, and constitutive of, given political moments. Both authors raise the question of how to approach advocates’ efforts to mobilise evidence of Papuan suffering towards inciting politically potent global sympathy. For Rutherford, such efforts should be seen as part of a history within which differently located actors have pursued sovereignty by engaging the international play of gazes, which promise recognition. The ethics of Kirksey’s approach consists largely of recognising the creative initiative of the Papuans engaging in this politics and tapping into the emancipatory possibilities of unlikely alliances. Kirksey’s narrative frankly describes himself letting his Papuan consultants (re-)orient his research program and political commitments. Freedom’s publication itself serves these overlapping political and analytical purposes: as*to quote Rutherford’s back-cover endorsement*a ‘page-turning blend of cultural analysis, human rights reportage, and ethnography’, it is a testament to Papuan political creativity in attempting to overcome a situation of suffering and disempowerment. The two books thus speak differently to the emerging literature that looks critically at transnational human rights politics (for example, Bishara 2010; Ticktin 2011; Hesford 2011). This difference may be a matter of emphasis. Kirksey registers, but does not centre, the primitivist fantasies that mediate the transnational alliances with which many West Papuan activists engage. For Rutherford, imaginings of alterity are central to the politics of transnational spectatorship and her analysis of the productively tense relationship between sovereignty and audience. Laughing’s emphasis may be read to imply that the historical force of imperial fantasy and manipulation, in forming current relations between sovereigns and audiences, weakens the possibility that transnational advocacy may help bring about justice in West Papua.2 Such a reading contributes to the sense of tragedy that coexists with the comic aspect of Rutherford’s narrative; in this way, Laughing speaks to Scott’s (2004) plea for anthropologists to adapt to the passing of an era in which romantically hopeful narratives of anti- and postcolonial nationalist projects were (still) salient. Kirksey skirts a fine line in negotiating the historical emplotment of Papuan national liberation. Valorising the popular hopes invested in Papuan nationalism, his focus on the wedding of collaboration and imagination can be read as part of a program to construct a new genre of politico-historical narrative. Though attentive to defeat and failure and the way that apparent ruptures can mask deeper continuities, Kirksey’s genre is neither ironic, comic or tragic. Even as he draws on Papuan practices to trouble some assumptions that typically attach themselves to a romantic narrative arc of heroic resistance, Kirksey pleads for recognition of the continuing salience of the promise of national liberation in places like West Papua. Ethics of Eventfulness and Locating the Political If Kirksey and Rutherford’s works seem at once to converge and diverge (thematically, analytically and ethically), this stems, in part, from their differing treatment of a

Downloaded by [University of Toronto Libraries] at 22:12 23 October 2013

492 Review

large-scale incident of state violence that punctuated both of their ethnographic projects: the 1998 killing of Papuan protesters who had gathered to raise the Papuan nationalist Morning Star flag in Biak. Kirksey was present in Biak at the time of the incident; he recounts conversing with protesters shortly before the crackdown by Indonesian state forces and witnessing the unfolding violence from his nearby hotel. He describes the disappointment of some protesters, who greeted him at arrival at the port in Biak: rumours had circulated about the coming of a powerful United Nations official, who would ensure that Papuan aspirations would be conveyed safely (Kirksey 2012, 401). His narrative thus suggests the haunting possibility that his own presence in Papua contributed to the protesters’ confidence to act in defiance of the likelihood of a violent crackdown. For her part, Rutherford arrived for a return visit to Biak shortly after the event, and her chapter, ‘Waiting for the End in Biak’, emphasises historical continuities with earlier colonial-era uprisings against the Dutch colonial order and Japanese occupation forces. Rutherford frames the 1998 incident as an episode that exemplifies what she sees as Papuans’ ‘eschatological’ political imaginary (2012, 108). Drawing on Derrida and Walter Benjamin’s discussions of violence, she suggests a sort of deep commonality between a practice of defiantly and hopefully ‘waiting for the end’, on the one hand, and the performative willingness to suffer that conditions possibilities for challenging or claiming sovereignty, on the other. Rutherford sets the ideology of public action that guided protesters’ actions against that of the Indonesian state’s security apparatus; indeed, her discussion draws out unexpected affinities between a certain ‘local’ praxis and globalising (Western) models of liberal and Christian politics. Kirksey’s and Rutherford’s accounts respond differently to the demands of witnessing the effects of catastrophic violence. This divergence exhibits the ethical challenge of conducting ethnography in places like West Papua, where the visibility of violence can be politically potent in multiple ways, notably through connections to a sphere of transnational politics. Departing from Rutherford’s ‘eschatological’ analysis, Kirksey’s discussion highlights the way that strategic vision and far-reaching hope combine to produce events such as the flag raising, where participants risk harsh reprisal, even while being aware that the visibility of such reprisal might promote their cause. Rutherford’s emphasis on the spectral role of spectators in setting the stage for events and thus shaping the conditions of contests for sovereignty connects with Povinelli’s (2012) questions about how the ‘eventfulness’ of life and death get determined. For Povinelli, pursuing the question of eventfulness can help to grasp what liberal structures of compassion and recognition mean for populations experiencing multiple (and variably visible or dramatisable) forms of suffering. Questioning eventfulness, here, is partly about highlighting the way that more ‘everyday’ forms of violence are made invisible or less dramatic; it is also about questioning the absolute distinction between ‘ordinary’ marginality and singular event. Without necessarily speaking to these questions explicitly, Freedom’s narrative is a rich resource for considering the connections between eventfulness, violence, compassion and global audiences.

Downloaded by [University of Toronto Libraries] at 22:12 23 October 2013

The Asia Pacific Journal of Anthropology

493

The question of eventfulness relates to the question of where the author chooses to locate the ‘political’. While drawing on interpersonal interactions and theories of subjectivity and affect, both Freedom and Laughing are especially concerned with unpacking the operation of higher-order, ‘eventful’ political dynamics. Some readers may find that this focus leaves questions about what Papuans might be concerned with on an ‘ordinary’ day-to-day level wide open. Given the disempowering history through which Papuans have been deemed incapable of participating in high-level politics, there is a clear ethical motivation to the authors’ focus on Papuans’ active engagement and manoeuvres in worlds of modern statecraft and global geopolitics. Still, it may be worth asking what kinds of ethnographic questions are left open in light of this mode of ‘politicisation’ of West Papuanist ethnography. In the powerful wake of Laughing and Freedom, the question of locating the ‘ordinary’ in Papua may inform lines of inquiry seeking to enact ‘mid-range’ theoretical interventions towards a society that is consistently framed (within Indonesia and internationally) through high-level discourses of contests around nationalism and geopolitics.3,4 Conclusion Though other authors have documented various aspects of the West Papuan independence movement (for example, Chauvel 2005; King 2002; Farhadian 2005), Rutherford’s and Kirksey’s latest offerings break new ground. Each articulates sophisticated theoretical and ethical interventions through detailed and nuanced explorations of the Papuan political terrain. While dealing with the same broad topic and raising related questions about hope and the pursuit of sovereignty, Freedom in Entangled Worlds and Laughing at Leviathan are very different books. The former traces the contours and explores the logic of the West Papuan movement’s political praxis, recounting the author’s own enrolment into his consultants’ projects. The latter looks to a longer colonial and postcolonial history to analyse unfolding events in Papua as limit-case instantiations of global contests for sovereignty, complicating the question of how scholars ought to respond to efforts to recruit them into local political projects. In speaking to one another, while responding differently to overlapping demands, Freedom and Laughing together prompt the question regarding what a systematic model of anthropological ethics might look like. At a time when global crises and uprisings have set the stage for renewed calls for ‘engaged anthropology’, some readers will feel drawn to Kirksey’s commitment to allowing himself to be recruited as an advocate for a movement carrying hope for social justice within oppressive and ‘entangled’ contexts. Viewing compassion and enrolment as stakes in historical and global struggles for sovereignty, Laughing, meanwhile, models a critical sensibility that troubles the urgent tenor of many ‘engaged’ responses to faraway marginality and suffering. Read together, these (differently) inspired and inspiring works challenge anthropologists to think carefully and complexly about precisely how, and to whom, their work ought to be accountable. Though I have emphasised divergences, just as

494 Review

Downloaded by [University of Toronto Libraries] at 22:12 23 October 2013

important is the authors’ joint appeal to recognise the political creativity at work in a part of the world that powerful voices have consistently derided as marginal, backwards and unimportant (Banivanua-Mar 2008). Regardless of how their specific theoretical interventions are received by academic and lay audiences, Rutherford’s and Kirksey’s contributions have succeeded in putting political struggles in ‘remote’ West Papua at the centre of the latest debates concerning transnationalism and sovereignty. This success is due to both the authors’ own efforts and the labour of the West Papuans whose politics inspired and incited their attention. Notes [1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

‘West Papua’ here refers to the region including the Indonesian provinces of Papua and Papua Barat. In Indonesia, this region is usually termed ‘Papua’. In this essay these terms are used more or less interchangeably. In a related vein, the ethnographer of the Dani of West Papua, Leslie Butt, suggests (2002) that ‘engaged’ anthropologists’ deployments of stories of global south suffering works to incorporate marginalised people into a disempowering global system, even as they silence their voices. A mid-range ethnographic approach to Papua, grounded in ‘ordinary’ life, while speaking to higher order ‘politics’, is evident in the work of authors such as Butt (2005; 2007) and Munro (2009). Indonesian media routinely frames conflict in Papua as resulting from meddling by foreign powers (for example, Faturahman 2012). Meanwhile, international advocates’ exclusive focus on human rights violations can work to obscure realms of daily life, where indigenous Papuans and Indonesian settlers participate (on unequal terms) in markets, workplaces, government affairs and so on. None of this is to deny that Papuans continue to be represented in much mainstream global and Indonesian media as backwards ‘primitives’, whose lives are unconnected to ‘politics’ (Kirsch 2010; Stasch 2012).

References Banivanua-Mar, T. 2008. ‘‘‘A Thousand Miles of Cannibal Lands’: Imagining Away Genocide in the Recolonization of West Papua.’’ Journal of Genocide Research 10 (4): 583602. Bishara, A. 2010. ‘‘Covering the Barrier in Bethlehem: The Production of Sympathy and the Reproduction of Difference.’’ In The Anthropology of News and Journalism: Global Perspectives, edited by Elizabeth Bird, 5470. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Butt, L. 2002. ‘‘The Suffering Stranger: Medical Anthropology and International Morality.’’ Medical Anthropolgy 21 (1): 124. Butt, L. 2005. ‘‘‘Lipstick Girls’ and ‘Fallen Women’: AIDS and Conspiratorial Thinking in West Papua, Indonesia.’’ Cultural Anthropology 20 (3): 412442. Butt, L. 2007. ‘‘‘Secret Sex’: Youth, Agency, and Changing Sexual Boundaries Among the Dani of Papua, Indonesia.’’ Ethnology 46 (2): 113132. Chauvel, R. 2005. Constructing Papuan Nationalism: History, Ethnicity, and Adaptation. Policy Studies No. 14. Washington, DC: East-West Center. Farhadian, C. 2005. Christianity, Islam, and Nationalism in Indonesia. New York: Routledge. Fathurahman,. 2012. ‘‘Konflik di Papua ada indikasi kepentingan asing.’’ (‘‘Conflict in Papua has Indications of Foreign Interests.’’) Tribun Kalteng, June 18. Accessed November 22, 2012. http://kalteng.tribunnews.com/2012/06/18/konflik-di-papua-ada-indikasi-kepentingan-asing.

Downloaded by [University of Toronto Libraries] at 22:12 23 October 2013

The Asia Pacific Journal of Anthropology

495

Hesford, W. 2011. Spectacular Rhetorics: Human Rights Visions, Recognitions, Feminisms. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. King, P. 2002. ‘‘Morning Star Rising: Indonesia Raya and the New Papuan Nationalism.’’ Indonesia 73 (April): 89127. Kirsch, Stuart. 2010. ‘‘Ethnographic Representation and the Politics of Violence in West Papua.’’ Critique of Anthropology 30 (1): 322. Munro, J. 2009. ‘‘Dreams Made Small: Humiliation and Education in a Dani Modernity.’’ PhD Diss., Department of Anthropology, Australian National University. Accessed at http://www. papuaweb.org. Povinelli, E. 2012. Economies of Abandonment: Social Belonging and Endurance in Late Liberalism. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Robinson, J. 2012. ‘‘Address to the New Guinea Council Conference.’’ Youtube, April 6. Accessed November 5, 2012. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v02hxhqh7Zao. Rutherford, D. 2003. Raiding the Land of the Foreigners: The Limits of the Nation on an Indonesian Frontier. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Scott, D. 2004. Conscripts of Modernity: The Tragedy of Colonial Englightenment. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. 1988. ‘‘Can the Subaltern Speak?’’ In Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture, edited by Cary Nelson and Lawrence Grossberg, 271313. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press. Stasch, Rupert. 2012. ‘‘Fantasy and Interaction in Encounters between Primitivist Tourists and Korowai of West Papua, Indonesia.’’ Paper presented at the University of Toronto Anthropology Colloquium, Toronto, January 27. Ticktin, Miriam. 2011. Casualties of Care: Immigration and the Politics of Humanitarianism in France. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. West, Paige. 2009. Conservation is our Government Now: The Politics of Ecology in Papua New Guinea. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

JACOB NERENBERG University of Toronto # 2013, Jacob Nerenberg http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14442213.2013.806241