oneness ([t]he whole world in our hands, to quote the headline to Dr MacGregors Guardian article) precludes any application of such a comparison. Its stance of what we have, we hold remains inviolate. My original criticisms were directed at the British Museums leadership, from whom, if only out of politeness, the reply should have come. For it to appear over the signature of the Acting Keeper of a Department about to be abolished is hardly adequate demonstration of the Museums objectively based response to criticism. ! Peter Gathercole Darwin College, Cambridge p.gathercole@virgin.net Brian Durrans replies: Marilyn Strathern is right that showing objects in definite spaces gives the edge to anthro- pology in museums. But this dictates neither how and where to show objects, nor how to organize the research on which displays depend. Better than a second look, visitors might appreciate an anthropologically informed first look and surely how curators work together is more important than how their territories are defined. As to the kind of anthropology we are developing, that again is for us to determine with the ever welcome help of our peers, colleagues and critics. Although the ethnographic displays at the former Museum of Mankind (MoM) offered a distinctive view, and we were rightly proud of them, they barely engaged with dominant images of Europe and Asia in the main British Museum, let alone with those of Africa (aside from ancient Egypt), Oceania and the Americas, which for decades were almost completely unrepresented there. Most years, the BM had ten times as many visitors as the MoM. We are now encouraged to redress past neglect with increasing reminders of conti- nents, minorities, majorities, and fuller and more dynamic treatments of extant and relict societies. Witness our developing African pro- gramme, although this process will obviously take time to spread through the galleries. The Centre for Anthropology is in effect a Department of Anthropology. Its staff is being increased: John Mack, until recently Keeper of Ethnography and now at the University of East Anglia, will continue to work part-time on projects he initiated here; a senior West Africanist will be appointed shortly; and we have begun the process of recruiting a new Keeper for Africa, Oceania and the Americas. Together with the funding for the return from Burlington Gardens and excellent new accom- modation for staff, library and the enquiries service on the main site, this represents a serious intellectual and financial commitment to anthropology. I wonder if Peter Gathercole ignores this because it does not fit his stereo- type of the BM, whose unethical collections policy he caricatures in terms of a newspaper headline written by someone else, and whose anthropological curators can offer it lessons in (his words) moral integrity only if given a col- lective voice. For his information, we actively contribute to policy-making in this and other areas; we have distinctive views but claim no monopoly on ethics; and, to repeat the point, our collective voice is through the Centre for Anthropology. Comparison between cultures is precisely what we are about. The current reorientation in our work and galleries joins other efforts (such as the RAI’s) to insert a lively, challenging and open anthropology into wider discussion. With the encouragement of our Directorate, it is now up to the BM’s anthropologists them- selves, working with colleagues both inside and outside the museum, to capitalize on the opportunities ahead. That is why it is still appropriate for me, rather than the ever-cour- teous Neil MacGregor, to write to AT on these matters. ! Brian Durrans Acting Keeper, Dept of Africa, Oceania and the Americas, British Museum bdurrans@thebritishmuseum.ac.uk Nepali Maoists We write in response to Stephen O. Murrays letter with regard to our use of labels and photos (AT 20[3]). The Nepali term maobadi which literally translates as Maoists is the label the rebels choose for themselves and refers to the ideology upon which their polit- ical platform is built. We have done no more than follow the anthropological convention of using the preferred ethnonym of those we write about. In accordance with our use of pseudonyms, we intentionally did not include any photo- graphs of local colleagues or unaffiliated civil- ians whose safety might be jeopardized by such representation. All of the photos repro- duced with the article are of self-declared Maoist cadres in Maoist-controlled districts where prior permission to photograph is com- pulsory. According to photographer Dhurba Basnet whose images have already circulated widely in Nepali and international print, film and television media the subjects of these photos explicitly requested that their pictures be taken and distributed as widely as possible, particularly in international forums. If any- thing, our use of these photos is unintention- ally complicit in furthering the media-savvy Maoist public relations agenda. ! Judith Pettigrew Sara Shneiderman Ian Harper Globalization and insecurity Some issues raised in Nancy Lindisfarnes conference report Weasel words and straight talking (AT20[1]) continue to trouble me. Though there was much in the report with which I agree, I do have two problems with certain presuppositions evident in her article. The first is what I take to be criticism of the use of the word globalization. It seems that within Lindisfarnes internal hermeneutics, the word will always be the thin edge of an impe- rialist wedge, ushering in a hideous and rapa- cious right-wing conspiracy that by even using the word, we will inevitably be led towards a neo-conservative ideology, a con- cept which Lindisfarne terms slippage. But is this really the case? Can one not use the term phenomenologically and descriptively as part of a narrative anthropology in its widest sense, without resorting to such an ideological form of political theorizing? My second concern is with Lindisfarnes apparent anxiety over the word insecurity. Again, this seems to be informed by her own hermeneutics, which I feel she has perhaps failed to recognize. Insecurity is a qualitative term, and one which must be used compara- tively for it to have any content. Nevertheless, I would use it as an open concept (and here my own hermeneutics come into play). Insecurity of the state, for example, conjures up for me the clichØd knee-jerk reactions of Bush and Blair, which reflect their own insecurities. For me this use of the term is just as valid as the claim that it may be used to justify imperialist ambition. I can thus validate my own hermeneutics to interpret the term in a way which Lindisfarne seems to deny, failing to allow for the fact that that the term insecurity is a comparative one, and always relational it includes insecurities on the right as much as the rights perception of the insecurities of cer- tain nation states, which is then used to justify asserting control over them. In her final paragraph, Lindisfarne suggests, correctly in my view, that the subject matter of anthropology does not determine the polit- ical dispositions of its practitioners. Whilst the subject matter does not, one wonders whether Lindisfarne feels that the methodolo- gies of anthropology not only do, but should determine any political disposition. This dis- turbs me not a little, for it creates for anthro- pology a sort of metaphysics that I for one could not justify. ! Peter Kalve Birmingham University peterkalve@aol.com Routledge publishing I read with interest Professor Mars guest edi- torial Refocusing with applied anthropology (AT20[1]). However I must correct his misap- prehension that Routledge has ceased pub- lishing anthropology. It is true that cutbacks in library budgets have compelled us to reduce the number of research monographs we publish. However, we continue to publish teaching and learning mate- rials for anthropology, together with higher- level reference works such as Gerald Gaillards Routledge dictionary of anthropologists, which has just appeared. Moreover, under our Routledge, Carfax and Taylor & Francis imprints we also publish eight specialist anthropology journals, as well as many more which are read by, and publish the work of, anthropologists around the world. ! Lesley Riddle Senior Editor, Anthropology and Religion Routledge (Taylor & Francis Group Plc) lesley.riddle@tandf.co.uk ANTHROPOLOGY TODAY VOL 20 NO 5, OCTOBER 2004 21