Herzfeld—Cultural Intimacy

Cultural Intimacy: Social Poetics in the Nation-State

by Michael Herzfeld

[Herzfeld, Michael. 2005. Cultural Intimacy: Social Poetics in the Nation-State. 2 edition. New York: Routledge.]


  • big question = “what advantages [do] social actors find in using, reformulating, and recasting official idioms in the pursuit of often highly unofficial personal goals, and how [do] these actions—so often in direct contra­vention of state authority—actually constitute the state as well as a huge range of national and other identities” (2).
  • “the nation-state’s claims to affixed, eternal identity grounded in universal truth are themselves, like the moves of all social actors, strategic adjustments to the demands of the historical moment” (5).
  • KEY POINT (acc. to Herzfeld) = the idea of the polity­—nation-state, local community, or international body—succeeds to the extent that its formal ideology encapsulates (or incorpo­rates) all the inward flaws and imperfections to which it is offi­cially and ostensibly opposed” (220).


  • Anthropologists should adopt the combination of a “top down” and “bottom up” approach, located at what Herzfeld calls a “militant middle ground.” This ground is not only a space where cultural intimacy and its use/characteristics are taken into consideration as coming equally from the state and the individuals, but also a space wherein the anthropologists takes a stance of cultural relativism, while maintaining their own personal ethical and moral beliefs (taking action if deemed necessary).
  • To shrug off binarism as a structuralist conceit is a mistake. Binarism and other essentialism play important parts of social life, and thus should be embraced by ethnography. It is important to note, however, that these binarisms act as convenient ways of describing the world, and should not be used as or confused with an abstract theoretical position.

cultural intimacy—”the recog­nition of those aspects of a cultural identity that are considered a source of external embarrassment but that nevertheless provide insiders with their assurance of common sociality, the familiarity with the bases of power that may at one moment assure the disenfranchised a degree of creative irreverence and at the next moment reinforce the effectiveness of intimidation” (3)

disemia—”the formal or coded tension between official self-presentation and what goes on in the privacy of collective introspection” (14).

structural nostalgia—”the longing for an age before the state, for the primordial and self­ regulating birthright that the state continually invoke” (22).

Annotation Summary for: Herzfeld-Cultural Intimacy (2004)

Page 7, Highlight (Cyan): Content: “In recent years, anthropological interest in the state and in nation­alismhas belatedly taken onfocus and inteusity.’ Even so, they have often seemed to take official ideologyas an accurate account of what the nation-state is actually about.This is very peculiar, because talking about “the state” in this way, reproduces the essentialism against which most of us rail with such predictable piety.”

Page 7, Highlight (Cyan): Content: “The current challenge for the discipline, one that I articu­ late in this book, is thus to probe behind fa~ades of national nnanimity in order to explore the possibilities and the limits of creative dissent. It is to stop treating both the nation-state and”

Page 8, Highlight (Cyan): Content: “essentialism as distant and unreachable enemies of everyday ex­ perience, and to understand them instead as integral aspects of social life.”

Page 8, Highlight (Cyan): Content: “The approach described here might be presented as exploring the relationship between the view from the bottom and the view fromthe top.”

Page 8, Highlight (Cyan): Content: “Simplistic talk of “elites” and “ordinary people” conceals that common ground (as well as the fact that these terms are often themselves instruments in the negotiation of power) and so inhibits analysis.”

Page 8, Highlight (Cyan): Content: “cultural intimacy~the recog­ nition of those aspects of a cultural identity that are considered a source of external embarrassment but that nevertheless provide insiders with their assurance of common sociality, the familiarity with the bases of power that may at one moment assure the disenfranchised a degree of creative irreverence and at the next InOlnent reinforce the effectiveness of intimidation.”

Page 8, Highlight (Yellow): Content: ” cultural intimac”

Page 8, Highlight (Cyan): Content: “In this book, I ask what advantages social actors find in using, reformulating, and recasting official idioms in the pursuit of often higWy unofficial personal goals, and howthese actions-so often in direct contra­ vention of state authority-actuallyconstitute the state as well as a huge range of national and other identities.”

Page 8, Stamp (Star (Frame, Red))

Page 8, Highlight (Cyan): Content: ” I aln especiallyconcerned with the uses of cultural form as a cover for socialaction. This leads me to attempt to show how the control ofcultural form allows significaut playwithcultural content. In theprocess, I argue that state ideologies and the rhetorics of everydaysocial life are revealingly similar, both in how they make theirclaims and in what they arc used to achieve.”

Page 8, Highlight (Cyan): Content: “Like social actors who use “the law” to legitimize self-interestedactions, the state, conversely, uses a language of kin, family, andbodyto lendimmediacy to its pronouncements. It therebyconvertsrevolution into conformity, represents ethnic cleansing as nationalconsensus and cultural hOlnogeneity, and recasts the sordid terrorsof emergence into a seductive immortality. ”

Page 8, Highlight (Cyan): Content: “Anthropologists are inan unusually good position to know the forms of rueful self­recognition in which people commonly engage. ”

Page 8, Underline (Magenta): Content: “rueful self­ recognition”

Page 9, Highlight (Cyan): Content: “Central to the several themes developed in this book is tbe proposition that the formal operations of national states depend on coexistence-usually inconvenient, always uneasy-with various realizations of cultural intimacy.”

Page 9, Stamp (Star (Frame, Red))

Page 9, Highlight (Cyan): Content: “the nation-state’s claims to affixed, eternal identity groundc.d in universal truth are themselves, like the Inoves of all social actors, strategic adjustments to the demands of the historical moment.”

Page 9, Note (Orange): Similar to boundary work?

Page 9, Underline (Red): Content: “Anderson’s”

Page 10, Highlight (Cyan): Content: “Simulacra ofSociality Embarrassl11ent, rueful self-recognition: these are the key markers of what cultural intimacy is all about.”

Page 10, Note (Orange): Internet

Page 10, Highlight (Cyan): Content: “The less literally face-to-face the society we inhabit, the more obviously cultural idiOl11s become simulacra of social rela­ tions.”

Page 10, Highlight (Cyan): Content: “obviously cultural idiOl11s become simulacra of social rela­ tions. This is less usefully described as a displacement of the real by empty signs, as Baudrillard (1988: 167) has argued,’ than as an attempt to project familiar social experience onto unknown and oftenpotentially threatening contexts.”

Page 10, Underline (Red): Content: “Baudrillard”

Page 12, Highlight (Cyan): Content: “An anthropology of nationalisms and nation-states lnust get inside this ongoing production of static truths. To do so means looking for it among all segments of the population, for all are implicated.”

Page 12, Highlight (Cyan): Content: “except in a narrowly organizational sense, there is neither a discrete “top” nor a discrete “bottom.””

Page 12, Highlight (Cyan): Content: “The focus on cultural intimacy works against this static, elitist, and conflationary reading. Its data are ethnographic and are of a kind often summarily dismissed as mere anecdote. But who sets the boundary between importance and mereness?”

Page 13, Highlight (Cyan): Content: “That such processes often use bodily and kinship metaphors is not evidence of some cultural inability to think beyond imme­ diate social experience but simply shows that members of local communities think about the state through lllany of the same categories as those through which state officials woo local opinion.”

Page 14, Highlight (Cyan): Content: “disemia-the formal or coded tension between official self-presentation and what goes on in the privacy of collective introspection.”

Page 14, Highlight (Yellow): Content: ” disemia”

Page 15, Highlight (Cyan): Content: “pairings of external and internal ethnic names signal an important consequence of conquest and other forms of domina­ tion. Pnt quite simply, it is that the official devalnation of the culture of the conquered may become a source of secret pride.”

Page 15, Note (Orange): Counter public?

Page 15, Highlight (Cyan): Content: “In England, the defeated Anglo-Saxons gave their name to a cultural ideology of blunt common sense and four-letter words, set against the elegance and formality of its imperial Latin precur­ sors and soon-to-be-aristocratic French conquerors: as with the Greek play of Hellenic and Romeic, the SaxonKuh- and Sehwein­ herds who assured their Norman masters a plentiful supply of breufand pore stand metaphorically for ideologically contrasted cultural identities, both of which all social actors internalize and selectively deploy.”

Page 16, Highlight (Cyan): Content: “It is important to note here that while disemia can be treated asa pairing of codes, what matters socially is how these codes_areactually used; and that use is often affected by historical processesof which the actors may be only partially aware. ”

Page 17, Highlight (Cyan): Content: “the oflicial use of gender stereotypes still has quite remark­ able staying power. In the United States, where sensitivity to gender bias in public contexts is at least fornlally well articulated, nation­ wide patterns exhibit an arresting conservatism.”

Page 17, Highlight (Cyan): Content: ” Among the airlinecrews whose conventions I discllssed earlier, the frequent practiceof introducing the cabin crew (usually overwhehningly female) bylirst name and the pilots (usually male) by rank and surnameserves as an additional prop for the commercial charade of domes­ticity in the passenger cabin. Here, official organization uses theintimate side of disemia for public purposes.”

Page 17, Highlight (Cyan): Content: “Social Poetics”

Page 18, Highlight (Cyan): Content: “The nation must always be one and indivisible. National history, like Levi-Straussian myth, retroactively elides (experiential) time in the name of (generic) time. This adherence to a static cultural ideal has a surprising and presumably unintended consequence: not only does it ground certain permissible forms of debate, but also it pennits and perhaps even encourages the day-to-day subversion of nonns.”

Page 18, Underline (Red): Content: “prosaic”

Page 18, Highlight (Cyan): Content: ” structural nostalgia-thelonging for an age before the state, for the primordial aud self­regulating birthright that the state continually invoke”

Page 18, Highlight (Yellow): Content: ” structural nostalgi”

Page 19, Underline (Red): Content: “Victor Turner”

Page 20, Highlight (Cyan): Content: “Social poetics is about the play through which people try to turn transient advantage into a permanent condition in this socially comprehensive sense.”

Page 20, Highlight (Cyan): Content: “It links tbe little poetics of everyday interaction with the grand dramas of official pomp and historiog­ raphy to break down illusions of scale.”

Page 20, Highlight (Cyan): Content: “A social poetics Inakes no assumptions about the structure of human cognition but asks where people find the binary oppositions that they actually deploy and examines how they use them in their negotiations of power.”

Page 20, Highlight (Cyan): Content: “Practical Essentialism: Creating Resemblances”

Page 20, Highlight (Cyan): Content: “One of the most cominon social poetic concerns is the use of stereotypes in social interaction. Most anthropological discus­ sions of stereotypes have addressed them from the perspective of group boundaries and mutual hostility. But these approaches are liable to the charge of static binarismunless they are contextual­ ized as social action. Such questions underscore a key point of this book: social life consists of processes of reification and essentialism as well as challenges to these processes.”

Page 21, Highlight (Cyan): Content: “I wish to move the discussion of stereotypes to the realmof practice, bringing it to bear on the totalizing iconicity­ citizens with a homogeneous national character-of nation-state ideology.”

Page 21, Highlight (Cyan): Content: “The strategies of essentialism all hinge on creating the semi­ otic effect technically known as iconicity, the principle of signifi­ cation by virtue of resemblance”

Page 21, Highlight (Cyan): Content: “An icon signi­ fies something hy virtue of a perceived similarity: a photograph is an icon of its subject, a Vivaldi flute passage of bird song. !conicity seems natural and is therefore an effective way of creating self-evidence.”

Page 21, Highlight (Cyan): Content: “But it is in fact culturally constituted in the sense that the ability to recognize resemblance depends to a large degree on both prior aesthetic criteria and the politics of the situ­ ation:”

Page 21, Highlight (Cyan): Content: “Nationalism is directly predicated on resemblance, whether biogenetic or cultural.”

Page 22, Highlight (Cyan): Content: “The analytic challenge is to see what indexical social ploys lurk behind the seemingly imperturbable icomcities of an officially unified culture.”

Page 22, Highlight (Cyan): Content: “The pragmatic reification of people as representatives of fixed categories is in part what Althusser (1971: 162) has dubbed (‘interpellation,””

Page 22, Highlight (Cyan): Content: “Cretansheep-thieves, delight in treating the investigating policemen to ritualized hospitality, informing themafterward that they have now eaten the evidence”

Page 23, Highlight (Cyan): Content: “OrganizatiDn Df This Book”

Page 24, Highlight (Cyan): Content: “In the second chapter,”

Page 24, Highlight (Cyan): Content: “I attempt a response to some of the elaborations and permuta­ tions that the concept of cultural intimacy has undergone since the original appearance of the book.”

Page 24, Highlight (Cyan): Content: “in the chapter that comes next (“Cultural Intimacy and the Meaning of Europe”), I respond to some nonanthropologists) testy dismissals of anthropological insights as trivial and irrelevant, pointing out that these attacks on the discipline are themselves symptomatic of the key problem: the discourse of foreign affairs rests heavily on the symbolism of stereotypes, and it is a symbolismthat belongs more embarrassingly in the realm of cultural intinlacy than its purveyors would ever want to admit.”

Page 24, Highlight (Cyan): Content: “In chapters 3 and 4 (“Of Definitions and Boundaries” and “Persuasive Resemblances”) I begin to address the uses of formal discourse in informal aspects of social life by offering a critical appraisal of the spatial and representational rhetorics of state nationalism.”

Page 25, Highlight (Cyan): Content: “At thispoint in the book, I layout the technical features of a socialpoetics andl in order to flesh out its practical implications, illus­trate its possibilities from the contrasted cases of Greek andAmerican displays of gendered stereotypes (“Social Poetics inTheory and Practice: Regular Guys and Irregular Practices”).While this chapter is less immediately concerned with thenation-state as such, it may be helpful as a more precise descrip­tion of social poetics and, more specifically, as a closer look athowboth normative and subversive forms become incorporatedinto everyday social repertoires. ”

Page 25, Highlight (Cyan): Content: “The next chapter, “Structural Nostalgia: Time and the Oath in the Mountain Villages of Crete,” works from precisely this parallel between anthropology and its multiple objects. In it, I explore the Cretan villagers’ view of church and state as intrusive and demeaning. In so doing, I suggest that the symbolism of official history as well as that of modernist social theory is drawn from the same sources as their own rebellious inversion of official ideology.”

Page 25, Highlight (Cyan): Content: “That play of images in everyday life is the subject of “The Practice of Stereotypes.” Centrally at stake are the disemic confusions of conflicting self-ascription. Are we “European” or “Third World?” When do we claim which identity?”

Page 25, Highlight (Cyan): Content: “Finally, in “Afterword: Toward a Militant Middle Ground?” I return briefly but practically to the issue of cultural intimacy and its violation.”

Page 112, Highlight (Cyan): Content: “Afterword: Toward a Militant Middle Ground?”

Page 112, Highlight (Cyan): Content: “I havetried to get some critical purchase onthe nation-state by showingthat its apparent fixities are the products of the very things theydeny: action,agency, and use. ”

Page 112, Highlight (Cyan): Content: “Polarities arc a convenience. They are useful for sorting out issues. But, like all classificatory devices, they can also become a substitute for thinking: they get essentialized, turned into fact.”

Page 112, Highlight (Cyan): Content: “The tone of such debates is deeply embedded in the history of cultnral relativismand the ambiguities that it has engendered.”

Page 112, Highlight (Cyan): Content: “the middle of the twentieth century, the nascent concern withanthropological field ethics led to a strongly hands-off attitndethat eonflated respect for local culture with avoidance of anydirect political engagement. cultnral relativismand the ambiguities that it has engendered. By”

Page 113, Highlight (Cyan): Content: “itsil11plications today generally strike us in retrospect as conde­scending: it expresses the tutelary power to safeguard the cultureof exotic peoples because “they” are presumed to be incapable ofdoing so. It also suggests a powerful impulse toward structuralnostalgia in the Eonll of preserving-as in fact ethnologicalmuseums attempted to do-the perfection of societies suppos­ edly still untouched by the corrosive forces of modernity:”

Page 113, Highlight (Cyan): Content: “But there is a corollary to that complaint. Once we agree to dissolve the demeaning category of “natives,” and with it the argument for an intellectual protectorate not unlike the political varieties created by colonialism, we have in effect made space for anthropologists to become cultural critics.”

Page 114, Highlight (Cyan): Content: “Our ethical cbarge, then, is to take responsibility for the prag­ matic judgments we feel able to make, and to follow through when they have unintended consequences.”

Page 116, Highlight (Cyan): Content: “binary choices-official versus intimate, normative versus performative, “real” versus “rhetoricaI”-that shape informants’ daily lives and that an ethnographic account must recognize. This is a position that recognizes the reality and the importance of binarism and other forms of essentialism in social life, particu­ larly (hut not exclusively) in nation-state societies; but it is also one that rejects the classificatory necessity of essentialism to the bl1siness of analysis and description-a difficult balance that is perhaps best described as refusing to essentialize essentialism.”

Page 116, Highlight (Cyan): Content: “This approach records the dissonance between official and social perspectives, but it treats that dissonance as a product of both discourses-two discourses that are in practice a single rhetoric of community, family, even hody, and both of which are therefore intensely entailed in each other.”

Page 116, Highlight (Cyan): Content: “ask why, in the face of clear evidence that binarism is a cultural trait of certain self-consciously Western or Westernizing political regimes, critics still-after all this additional time~insist C?n treating it as though it were only a theoretical tool, a structuralist conceit.”

Page 116, Highlight (Cyan): Content: “We use these binarisms in our everyday speech and writing hecause they are convenient ways of describing aspects, not essences, of the world as we experi,epce it. That is a facet of our Own culture.”

Page 116, Highlight (Cyan): Content: “To confuse tbat observation with an abstractly theoretical binarism”

Page 117, Highlight (Cyan): Content: “is to be thoroughly unreflexive about our own modes of thought.”

Page 117, Highlight (Cyan): Content: “their relationships with the nation-state, but I have also nowtried to expand the range of the argument beyond the nation-state to other collective entities.”

Page 117, Stamp (Star (Frame, Red))

Page 117, Highlight (Cyan): Content: “The key point remains simple, paradox­ ical, and resistant to our gaze. It is that the idea of the polity­ nahon=-sta-te~-io-calcommunity, or international body-succeeds tc;-the extent that its formal ideology encapsulates (or incorpo­ rates) all the inward flaws and imperfections to which it is offi­ cially and ostensibly opposed.”

Page 117, Highlight (Cyan): Content: “In this book, I have largely addressed the uses to which vari­ ously situated actors have put these various binary oppositions in”

Page 118, Underline (Magenta): Content: “It has ever been the fate of anthropologists to use terminology that sounds neither scientific enough to escape this entailment in the real world nor quite ordinary enough to escape the animadversions of egghead-haters.”

Page 127, Underline (Red): Content: “Althusser, Louis 1971 Ideology and Ideologk~alState Apparatuses, Notes Toward an Inves­ tigation. In Lenin and Philosophy and the Other Essays. Trans. Ben Brewster, 121-73. London: New Left Books.”

Page 127, Underline (Red): Content: “Anderson, Benedict 1983 Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso.”

Page 128, Underline (Red): Content: “Bakhtin, .Mikhail The Dialogic imagination. Trans. Carol Emerson and J. Michael 1981 Holmquist, Austin: University of Texas Press.”

Page 128, Underline (Red): Content: “Baudrillard, Jean Selected Writings. Ed. M. Poster. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University 1988 Press.”

Page 128, Underline (Red): Content: “Bauman, Richard 1977 Verbal Art as Performance. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House. Story, Performance, and Event: Contextual Studies of Oral Nq1Ta­ 1986 tive. Cambridge Studies in Oral and Literate Culture, 10. Cambndge: Cambridge University Press. The Role of Performance in the Ethnography of Speaking. In PeT­ 1987 formance, Speech Community, and Ge11r~, Worki~lgPapers andPm­ ceedings of the Center for PsychosocIal Studtes, no. 11, 3-12. Chicago: Center for Psychosocial Studies. Bauman, Richard, and Charles L. Briggs”

Page 128, Underline (Red): Content: “Austin, J. L. [1956-57] 1971. A Plea for Excuses. In Philosophy and Linguistics. Rd. Colin Lyas, 79-101. London: Macmillan. [19621 1975. How to Do Things With Words. Ed.]. O. Urmson and Marina Sbisa, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.”

Page 128, Underline (Red): Content: “Bauman, Richard, and Charles L. Briggs 1990 Poetics and Performance as Critical Perspectives on Language and Social Life. Annual Review ofAnthmpology 19:59-88.”

Page 129, Underline (Red): Content: “Bourdieu, Pierre Outlin~ ofa T.heory of Practice. Trans. Richard Nie~: Cambridge: 1977 CambrIdge Umversity Press. Distinction: Critique ofthe Judgement ofTaste. Trans. Richard Nice. 1984 Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.”

Page 131, Underline (Red): Content: “de Certeau, Michel The Pmctice ofl!.veTyda’)I Life. Trans. Steven F. Rendall. Berkeley: 1984 University of California Press.”

Page 131, Underline (Red): Content: “Douglas, Mary 1966 Purity and Danger: An Analysis ofConcepts ofPollution andTaboo. London: Routledge & Kegan PauL [1970] 1973. Har­ Natu1’d1 Symbols: Explo1’dtions in Cosmology. mondsworth, U.K.: Penguin. Implicit Meanings: Essays in Anthropology. London: Routledge & 1975 Kegan Paul.”

Page 131, Underline (Red): Content: “Evans-Pritchard, E. E. The Nuer: A Description ofthe Modes of Livelihood and Political 1940 Institutions ofa Nilotic People. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Nuer Religion. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1956”

Page 132, Underline (Red): Content: “Geertz, Clifford The Interpretation ofCultuTes. NewYork: Basic Books. 1973 I.ocal Knowledge: Further Essays in Interpretive Anthropology. New 1983 York: Basic Books.”

Page 132, Underline (Red): Content: “Foucault,Michel Les mots et les choses: une archiologie des sciences humaines. Paris: 1966 Gallimard.”

Page 133, Underline (Red): Content: “Giddens, Anthony 1984 The Constitution ofSociety: Introduction to the Theory of Struc­ turatiOl1. Berkeley: University of California Press. The Transformation of Intimacy: Sexuality, Love and Eroticism in 1992 Modern Societies. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.”

Page 133, Underline (Red): Content: “Goffman, Erving The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Garden City, N.Y.: Dou­ 1959 bleday.”

Page 134, Underline (Red): Content: “Hegel, G. W. F. Phenomenology ofthe SIJirit. Trans. by A. V. Miller. Oxford: Claren­ 1977 don Press.”

Page 135, Underline (Red): Content: “Hobsbawffi, Eric Primitive Rebels: Studies in Archaic Forms ofSocial Movement in 1959 the 19th and 20th Centuries. Manchester, u.K.: Manchester Univer­ sity Press. 1969 Bandits. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson. 1983 Introduction: Inventing Traditions. In The lnvention of Tradition. Ed. Eric Hobsbawm and Terence Ranger. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1-14. Nations and Nationalism Since 1780: Programme, Myth, Reality. 1990 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.”

Page 135, Underline (Red): Content: “Jalcobson, Roman Linguistics and Poetics. In Style in [,anguage. Ed. Thomas A. Sebeok 1960 350-77. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.”

Page 136, Underline (Red): Content: “I~uhrrnafU1, ll. M, 1996 The Good Parsi: The Fate of a Colonial Elite in a Postcolonial Suciety. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.”

Page 136, Underline (Red): Content: “Levi-Strauss, Claude La pensee sauvage. Paris: Plan. 1962 Structural Anthropology. Vol. 1. Trans. C. Jacobson and B. G. 1963 Schoepf. NewYork: Basic Books.”

Page 136, Underline (Red): Content: “Malahy, llhomas M. Gambling Life: Dealing in Contingency in a Greek City. Urbana: 2003 University of Illinois Press.”

Page 138, Underline (Red): Content: “Sahlins, Marshall Culture and Practical Reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1976 Rosaldo, Michelle Z. 1982 The Things We DoWith Words: llongot Speech Acts and Speech Act Theory in Philosophy. Language in Society 11:203-37.”

Page 138, Underline (Red): Content: “Peirce, Charles Sanders 1960-66 Collected Papers. Ed. Charles Hartshorne and Paul Weiss. Cam­ bridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.”

Page 140, Underline (Red): Content: “Turner, Victor Dramas, Fields, andMetaphors: Symbolic Action in Human Society. 1974 Ithaca) N.Y.: Cornell University Press.”


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s