One thing related to the concept of the "field" as well as the "other" as discussed by Amit is the lack of undiscovered areas of our world. There are no more "exotic and undiscovered" places that once made anthropological fieldwork the desirable focal point for ethnography. We are now looking at an ever-increasing globalized world through which the definitive lines that once separated the different cultures are blurred and the unfamiliar is now incresingly familiar.

"Here is a world no longer divided into a mosaic of cultural-territorial segments but conjoined by a complex flow of people, goods, money and information, including even the most isolated areas in a cosmopolitan framework of interaction. So: what of the practice of anthropological fieldwork in a world in motion? when 'there' is not a place?". (p. 73).
Why not just embrace globalization and include it all?
So, with this being said, we could see the importance of redifining the "field" and expand it to include all cultures, including our own. As I have said before, I know not what this does to the definition of the difference between the disciplines of sociology and anthropology, but the very basis of anthropology can be said to be interpretation so it makes no sense to be so definitive with guidelines and rules. While ethnographers now continue with the trend of turning away form the "exotic", fieldwork should still be a localized project, at least to some extent, in my opinion: "Despite the move out of literal villages, the notion of fieldwork as a special kind of localized dwelling remains".(Clifford, 1992: 98).(p.20). Some argue that with this increased globalization as I have mentioned above, we now see trends toward fieldwork on the computer, for example, but in my opinion, this never should replace time in the "field", for I still strongly believe that physical presence for some time in the "field" is a must. I also find this thought to be very interesting: that is that by narrowly defining ethnographic fieldwork in order to separate it from other disciplines, we leave out cultural knowledge that can be gained, whether about us or the "other", that can be very useful when using anthropology to better understand our world. In other words, by defining fieldwork in strict terms, we are also defining what knowledge will be gained: "...this has implications for the kinds of anthropological knowledge that are produced".(Caputo, p.19). Regarding the issue of whether to call fieldwork on our own culture "real fieldwork", Caputo could not have said anything better:"...once the restrictions of the metaphor of travel are lifted, 'home once interrogated is a place we have never before been'".(p. 29).
The one point to make here is that within our own culture, there are many subcultures that are foreign to the ethnographer, thereby creating the prerequisites required for the "other" or the "strange".