" ThE Horror " : The Subject of Desire in Postcolonial Studies

and indeEmite categories of social theory" (p. 151), by considering consumption and exchange as well as production, symbolic capital as well as material capital, and the particular patterns of new social movements and resistance in the symbolic as well as the material world. There is much to argue about in these challenging views. Kearney is weakest at tying gender oppression and feminist movements to the new analytic approaches he suggests here. But signiElcantly, he makes an attempt; he even includes an analysis of beauty and eroticism. The book is a short one, so the analytic moves are mostly suggestive rather than fully worked out. But I expect anthropologists will be hotly discussing and debating these moves for the next decade. I certainly plan to use the book in my graduate seminar on anthropological theory. I would also like to use it in my undergraduate course on peasants, but it may be too theoretically complex for such a course. The two books reviewed here honor Eric Wolf mainly by showing that the arenas in which he pioneered (political economy, identity issues in the context of capitalism, and issues concerning the nationstate) are still alive and well nearly 40 years after he began fashioning them for anthropological treatment. Some of his essays can be and should be critiqued as Kearney does what anthropological essay written 40 years ago cannot be critiqued? but they remain important turning points in anthropology's history and still valuable observations about capitalism, peasants, revolution, and the world system. Kearney's book is an especially important tribute because Kearney takes UWolElan" anthropology into hypermodetnity, which is the next terrain anthropology must explore. t Kearney explains, UWhereas articulated identities are imagined as existing in distinct dual Elelds (e.g., modes of production), polybians are formed within complex reticula that in terms of positions, classification, connections, and flows have more in common with hypertexts than with hierarchical branching structures" (p. 133). While this quote may suggest that Kearney has gone over the postmodern edge, he has not done so, although he takes seriously many insights produced by theorists considered postmodern. But Kearney remains grounded in the material world as well as in historiography and positions himself as well as others in the historical moment that conElgures his and their thought. One of Kearney's most important arguments is that class must remain an issue for postdevelopment and postmarxist anthropologists who want to understand polybian identities. He observes that in the global world there has been an increase in class difference, exacerbating identity conflicts, and that class analysis remains fundamental to any inquiry into identity or alternative forms of consciousness. In his words, This analysis does not, however, lead to a discarding of class as the fundamental dimension for the analysis of subjective identity. To the contraxy, [the] low saliency of class consciousness requires a reconsideration of class as an objective basis of differentiation and of the ways in which this differentiation is not so much reflected as refracted in consciousness, in some cases as alienation and anomie and in others as ethnicity and the motive force of new social movements. [p. 146] Kearney goes on to suggest that we understand class, value, and power, uthe most primary and yet the most