ABSTRACT
My analysis is set within the framework of the articulation of modes of production — the guiding idea of the present book. However, the inconclusive nature of my argument reflects the fact that recent Marxist studies have not yet made much progress towards a proper understanding of the ideological aspects of modes of production and their articulation.3 As will be argued by Raatgever in her contribution to this book (chapter 8), Godelier's attempts in this respect, dwelling on the applicability of the infrastructure/superstructure metaphor, have not managed to produce much clarity; moreover, his work seldom specifically deals with the process of articulation of modes of production. Yet, among the modern French Marxist authors, Godelier appears to have been the only one to consider explicitly the problem of ethnicity (Godelier 1973: ch. 1.3, pp. 93-131, 'le concept de tribu'). His Marxist inspiration is, however, largely used to arrive at a formal and epistemological critique of the concept of tribe in classic anthropology. Godelier does not yet attempt (as is my intention in the present chapter) to identify the political economic conditions, and the intersubjective dynamics of participant obser-
vation, under which a group of people and a researcher studying them, would adopt or reject the notion of tribe. With regard to other members of the French School, it is only fair to admit that the notion of bounded ethnic groups as more or less self-evident units of analysis was at first uncritically adopted by them; it is the work of Meillassoux and Terray which has made such groups as the Guro and the Dida famous.4
