Now I will be discussing another book that I read called ANTHROPOLOGICAL LOCATIONS: Boundaries and Grounds of a Field Science, by Akhil Gupta and James Ferguson.

In the introduction, they say that methods are taken for granted in anthropology. It seems that way, however, as I and this independent study are living proof that there are a lot more studies these days on the subject of anthropological methods.

On page one, what strikes me as interesting and in direct contrast to Michael Agar's book is that they say: "As all graduate students in social/cultural anthropology know, it is fieldwork that makes one a 'real anthropologist', and truly anthropological knowledge is widely understood to be 'based' (as we say) on fieldwork". Agar disagrees with this and I think, as I have said before that I can't imagine doing fieldwork without referring to my field notes as my "bible". I still think that Agar might stand alone in his opinion that field notes shouldn't have too much importance.

Beyond just simply stating that I agree with Gupta and Ferguson on the importance of fieldwork, I really believe in what they say here regarding the difference between anthropology and other social sciences: "Fieldwork thus helps define anthropology as a discipline in both senses of the word, constructing a space of possibilities while at the same time drawing the lines that confine that space".(p.2). So zeroing in on things that I have said previously regarding boundaries and the things that separate anthropology from other disciplines can be simply stated that the boundaries are found in the fieldwork.

The essence of anthropology is "reworking" and "reinventing" tradition. Reinventing method is a way in which we can make anthropological traditions grow and change, and now with increasing studies in methods, this can be accomplished. The authors' view on anthropology is that the field is the central defining concept, therefor method is naturally at the center too.

And here I go with another great quote defining fieldwork: '"The Field' is a clearing whose deceptive transparency obscures the complex processes that go into constructing it. In fact, it is a highly overdetermined setting for the discovery of difference".(p.5). Very true.

In the introduction, Gupta and Ferguson discuss what constitutes the "field". It is similar to what I have talked about before, so I will try not to be redundant. On page 13, they talk about the fact that more often than not, the more unfamiliar and "strange" a field site is, the more it is considered "real fieldwork". What happens here, is that fieldwork at "home" is then not considered very important and seems to be the type of ethnography that will not merit much attention. On the subject of the field being at "home" now for some anthropologists, they warn that we should not scoff at the methodological differences but embrace them rather, because anthropology is based on "difference" and the discipline should embrace different methods as well.(p.29).
On the subject of globalization, they say: "...Do we still think of fieldwork in the archetype of the white-faced ethnographer in a sea of black or brown faces?...Perhaps we should say that, in an interconnected world, we are never really 'out of the field' ".(p.35). If we do in fact stretch the anthropological boundaries for ethnography, we must find ways to defines our methods. We can't say that we are "always in the field", because then we have an all-inclusive situation where there are no boundaries left.
This book gives an historical account to fieldwork which I found fascinating. In the beginning fieldwork was grounded in the discipline of science, motivating scholars to travel to unfamiliar places in order to observe and document exotic specimens, enabling them to give an account of "being there". In chapter 2, Henrika Kuklik talks about the political motivations, spurred by colonialism that inspired much of anthropological fieldwork in the first place. It began with armchair anthropologists sending "unsophisticated workers",(p.54), to do the fieldwork, while taking credit for their findings back at home. Eventually these workers were seen to not be trusted with their interpretations of their findings, and anthropologists began seeing the need to travel themselves for first-hand knowledge.
In chapter 3, Mary Des Chene discusses the need for acceptance of multi-methods and mulit-fieldsites in anthropology. If there isn't going to be just one acceptable field site, then there mustn't be only one way of looking at method.(p.80). She talks about the widening of locales and research practices is a way to see more of not just the world but the interconnectedness between these various worlds in a way not previously seen. By letting the research methods guide us to our knowledge "rather than dictated by disciplinary culture area maps", we can discover many new things about culture.(p.80):
"Altering our research practices, including the ways in which we conceptualize locales for study and understand such connections, is one step on the path to a more coeval treatment of other places and other people".(p.81).
In chapter 4, Liisa Malkki discusses the importance of method straying from concentrating just on the concrete and structural aspects of a culture's life to move across these borders and begin seeing the "formative, consequential events that are accidental, fleeting and anomalous".(p.92). She says that if we begin to try and see more of these aspects of cultures when doing an ethnography, then these aspects can then also be used to explain much more of what we see in the more structural parts as well. The "accidental, fleeting and anomalous can help define what we see in the concretely visual aspects of behaviour in communities, organizations, rituals, etc.
To comment again on objectivity in method, which is a subject that I have covered before with some of the other books, is to again stress honesty in order to separate from the concept of "true objectivity". If the ethnographer is honest in the methods of interpretation, less "true objectivity" is expected or idealized: "It is a principle [objectivity] that I do not respect....To me, total objectivity is a lie....The most important thing is that you are honest....that you play with your cards on the table.(Pedelty 1995:220).".(p.98).
An interesting thing in chapter 8, written by Joanne Passaro, is that method is something that is included in the problem of ethnography covering "the primitive" in ways that uncovered knowledge about them that "we" had already expected. She calls in "accommodation to preexisting social laws" and that "we 'discover' coherent bodies of knowledge that recreate what we already assume, and we reinscribe the politics of the status quo".(p.151). This means that anthropologists and the world that we live in already have their preexisting expectations of the way in which "the primitives" think as well as the way in which they live. Popular method acts a way of reinforcing this way of thinking. If method changes in certain ways, we should begin to see "the other" in new ways that challenge popular thought.
She also makes the point that when people question the amount of "otherness" that an ethnographic project has, what needs to be remembered is that there are many groups "at home" that can make the ethnographer feel even more distant than the typical ethnographic project that is carried out thousands of miles from where they call "home". This tends to be more true, I think, with increasing globalization that brings "the other" closer to us in many ways.
I say that new methodological processes are important, but what Passaro points out is that even with new method the final ethnographic project seems to end up shedding what new interpretations these methods might lead to in order to get back to what funding agencies want to hear and what they expect, resulting in the kind of typical ethnographic project that the ethnographer was trying to avoid.(p.157). In other words, funding agencies want to hear what they expect to hear about "the other" and thus it becomes even harder to introduce the new kinds of interpretations. Kind of frustrating to think about but important as well and maybe something to "fight" the funding agencies on. She says that "theorizations and generalizations-and not the messiness of everyday life-are what is considered fundable, publishable, and indeed-by most of us-valuable, much of what does not fit into received categories or already elaborated theory often winds up on the cutting room floor".(p.157).
Here is what Passaro says about new methods and general ways of thinking in anthropology and I don't know if I could have said it better:
"An anthropology of liberation would seem to require, above all, continual challenges to our own objectifying practices, practices which, intentionally or not, cut down to 'manageable' size the multiple, interconnected, overdetermined, and enormously complex subjectivities of the people we study".(p.161).
I think that what she says about our previous and typical subject choices for ethnography is interesting. We have tended to choose the "primitive" and typically bounded cultures as a way of making sure that we are studying "units". Bounded culture "units" are easier to do research on, fits with the colonial way of thinking, and enables us to escape having to see all the things that join the world together such as: "unstable, hybridized, and nonholistic experiences".(p.161). She thinks that seeing these "unstable, hybridized, and nonholistic experiences are a must for "adequate social analysis"-which I call modern-day social analysis-as well as THE way in which we depart from the typical colonial way of thinking and interpreting.(p.161).
Passaro talks about reflexive writing in the final ethnographic project. It has become a popular way of writing an ethnography,(inserting oneself into the writing), and it seems to be popular thought that it gives the ethnographer more "credibility".(p.171). She says that it does not necessarily, but that "reflexivity has the advantage of calling attention to differences that make a difference".(p.171). I can see how an ethnographer would expect perhaps more trust from their reader with their interpretations. I think that I would like to use reflexive writing in the future as I believe in the most honest way of presenting an ethnography.
In chapter 10, James Clifford discusses the possibility of fieldwork losing its importance as something that every anthropologist should do at least once.(p.195). He thinks that fieldwork is one of the ways that anthropology has always been defined, but that this might change and we might start seeing anthropologists who have never conducted fieldwork because it will be something that loses its importance. I think not. I can't even imagine anthropology without it. Where then would the PROOF come from? Who will believe these anthropologists who have skipped the fieldwork process then?