There are some interesting and seemingly valid points that are discussed in my various readings concerning fieldwork at "home", or rather in the culture that the anthropologist grew up in. In "Constructing the Field", Caputo's opinion on the subject is that fieldwork in one's own culture is much harder than fieldwork in a strange and different culture. She says it calls for a "degree of self-consciousness" that can be extrememely challenging because of the "role conflicts" that appear between the already assumed role in one's own society and the dual role of the now ethnographer. I imagine it is extremely hard to try and do both. I am sure that many anthropologists have considered it much easier to go far away from where you are maybe a mother, daughter, wife, teacher, etc. Does anyone really have the time to be all these and conduct seriously interpretive research, notes and ethnogrpahy? It is an increasing trend now days, however, and more power to them! Yikes. By no means am i saying that fieldwork stretching to include one's own culture should not be definitive of today's anthropological trends, I just agree with her that it has to be extemely difficult and possibly not for me....(besides, I am still obsessed with the idea of the exotic).
When Noel Dyck discusses in chapter 3 his experiences studying kids sports and coaches while already being a parent and coach, he says that it was always difficult to know when to "turn into" the anthropologist and leave his statuses of parent and coach behind while still in the familiar space of the soccer field. In his opinion, it is actually impossible to turn off the "personal" completely and "still retain my integrity as an individual"! Very interesting to think about....He also talks about the fact that fieldwork at "home" can be so alienating, possibly enough to end up moving because it has become such an uncomfortable setting because the ethnographer now sees "home" in a much different light. Just a tidbit that is interesting to also think about....
In chapter 4, Caroline Knowles says that there is in fact "travelling" to and from the field when one conducts fieldwork at "home" , but "the travel that this involves is not about physical distance".(p.55). And for those critics of fieldwork at "home" who say that there is no sense of here to there and back, these people are saying that there is in fact a conscious journey and a challenging one at that because it is not defined by physical travel. This conscious "trip" to and from the field "simultaneously preserv(es) the authenticity of the business of anthropology".(p. 55). I really enjoyed how she put this and it really makes sense. I believe that she probably converted a few people after they read this passage.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
ETHICS
ETHICS
Ethics are a very complicated issue and Agar seems to think that “…the guidelines for the protection of human subjects were not designed with ethnography in mind”.(p.107). Even though “true objectivity” cannot be achieved, it is still desired and sought after and using the guidelines of proper ethics, I do not believe that one can “afford” to be truly ethical. I am so far from reaching any positive solution regarding the subject of ethics that I guess I will try and formulate some sort of opinion or solution when I have gained some experience in the field. What an exasperating subject. Of course I can see how some of the famously unethical projects were regarded with distaste, however, I do not know that anyone has yet to find a logical solution to the problem of ethics without the true nature of ethnography being compromised. However, Agar pledges honesty in all areas of fieldwork methods and I might have to agree with him.
Ethics are a very complicated issue and Agar seems to think that “…the guidelines for the protection of human subjects were not designed with ethnography in mind”.(p.107). Even though “true objectivity” cannot be achieved, it is still desired and sought after and using the guidelines of proper ethics, I do not believe that one can “afford” to be truly ethical. I am so far from reaching any positive solution regarding the subject of ethics that I guess I will try and formulate some sort of opinion or solution when I have gained some experience in the field. What an exasperating subject. Of course I can see how some of the famously unethical projects were regarded with distaste, however, I do not know that anyone has yet to find a logical solution to the problem of ethics without the true nature of ethnography being compromised. However, Agar pledges honesty in all areas of fieldwork methods and I might have to agree with him.
OBJECTIVITY
There is a very important issue regarding anthropological fieldwork and that is the question of OBJECTIVITY. From all of my readings in this course, I have concluded that objectivity was something that was expected, desired and constantly striven for in anthropological fieldwork, from the ethnographer himself. In recent years, however, the trend seems to be a general admittance to the fact that true objectivity in the field is impossible and completely unattainable. More relaxed versions of anthropological fieldwork have appeared as well as an acceptance of the simple fact that we are all humans. Above all, in order to become an anthropologist, you must obviously be a socialized human being. Socialization is something that ingrains us with morals, values, personalities and our own histories and by no means can this be completely dropped. True objectivity remains an ideological impossibility. It's a nice thought though! I still do believe that it is something to strive for or at least get as close as possible to, (says the novice), BUT we can never fully help who we are to some degree. I believe, however, that we have more capabilities to add/drop personality traits, however, to try to do this while in the field would have to be utterly confusing to do while simultaneously studying the "other" in full detail.
This desire for objectivity requires some self-identification in order to differentiate between what is for example truly grotesque and wrong or just by American standards: "Between the ostensibly diverging objectives of self-realization and self-transcendence lies a common prerequisite task of self-identification". (Dyck, p.36). Our experiences and personality traits work as a filter for what we see and how we interpret what we see. If we make ourselves go through some sort of self-identification, maybe even in the ethnography writing itself, what we see and how we have interpreted it might make more sense and give the reader a chance to try and see it another way?
In chapter 4, Knowles makes to very interesting and valid points on this intimidating subject of objectivity: 1) "There is no neutral position in which we can stand in the field". As I have mentioned before, I personally agree but that the current anthropological trend today is ato also agree> 2) " 'Ethnography requires a personal lens' (Okely and Callaway, 1992: xiii) and the ethnographer self...is a resource in making sense of others". (p. 57). This brought me to an interesting realization at the conclusion of my readings that instead of fighting the fact that true objectivity in the field is in fact impossible, it should not only be embraced but perhaps also by reinventing the definition of fieldnote/ethnographic writing to include the process of self-realization and more importantly the use of the ethnographer's mind, (autobiography), in the analytic process. That way the ethnographer can cover his/her bases, but also to give an even clearer definition as to how the conclusions and interpretations were reached with the ethnographer acting as a "lens".
Needless to say, I will be coming back to this subject as it is something that almost all the authors of these readings cover to some degree.
This desire for objectivity requires some self-identification in order to differentiate between what is for example truly grotesque and wrong or just by American standards: "Between the ostensibly diverging objectives of self-realization and self-transcendence lies a common prerequisite task of self-identification". (Dyck, p.36). Our experiences and personality traits work as a filter for what we see and how we interpret what we see. If we make ourselves go through some sort of self-identification, maybe even in the ethnography writing itself, what we see and how we have interpreted it might make more sense and give the reader a chance to try and see it another way?
In chapter 4, Knowles makes to very interesting and valid points on this intimidating subject of objectivity: 1) "There is no neutral position in which we can stand in the field". As I have mentioned before, I personally agree but that the current anthropological trend today is ato also agree> 2) " 'Ethnography requires a personal lens' (Okely and Callaway, 1992: xiii) and the ethnographer self...is a resource in making sense of others". (p. 57). This brought me to an interesting realization at the conclusion of my readings that instead of fighting the fact that true objectivity in the field is in fact impossible, it should not only be embraced but perhaps also by reinventing the definition of fieldnote/ethnographic writing to include the process of self-realization and more importantly the use of the ethnographer's mind, (autobiography), in the analytic process. That way the ethnographer can cover his/her bases, but also to give an even clearer definition as to how the conclusions and interpretations were reached with the ethnographer acting as a "lens".
Needless to say, I will be coming back to this subject as it is something that almost all the authors of these readings cover to some degree.
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".
"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".
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
on comparing anthropology to sociology
I think that the issue of redefining what constitutes the "field" in anthropology when considering "home" and "away" leads us to compare methods and subject matter between the two disciplines of anthropology and sociology. We seem to agree on the fact that the sociological "field" constitutes our own culture at "home" and that subsequently the "field" in anthropology would be in cultures that are not our own. So now, when considering anthropological fieldwork at "home", we seem to have increasingly blurred lines between the two disciplines. So what do we do now? At this point, I am unclear as to how to differentiate between the two when considering fieldwork at "home", however, later in these discussions, I will certainly have a more clear definition of fieldwork and the general conception of the discipline of anthropology.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
At 'home' and 'away': Reconfiguring the field for late twentieth-century anthropology:
Virginia Caputo discusses what constitutes a "field" when an ethnographer attempts to conduct fieldwork at "home". She thinks that if only some of the fieldwork is "deemed 'appropriate' " then we will only learn from and read the ethnographies that are under this umbrella and never broaden our horizons by stretching the umbrella to cover "unorthodox" anthropological arenas. (p.19).
I found it interesting when Caputo discussed how viewing culture as a "discrete self-contained entity" put anthropology as having a "colonial view of the world". When we set the boundaries of fieldwork around the "primitive" cultures that are far away, we thereby enhance the colonial way of thinking that the "other" is "primitive" and these cultures are the ones that are to be studied in order to be under the umbrella of "true fieldwork". She discusses the need for expansion of anthropological boundaries and as a humble student who has much more to study, I agree thus far.
Virginia Caputo discusses what constitutes a "field" when an ethnographer attempts to conduct fieldwork at "home". She thinks that if only some of the fieldwork is "deemed 'appropriate' " then we will only learn from and read the ethnographies that are under this umbrella and never broaden our horizons by stretching the umbrella to cover "unorthodox" anthropological arenas. (p.19).
I found it interesting when Caputo discussed how viewing culture as a "discrete self-contained entity" put anthropology as having a "colonial view of the world". When we set the boundaries of fieldwork around the "primitive" cultures that are far away, we thereby enhance the colonial way of thinking that the "other" is "primitive" and these cultures are the ones that are to be studied in order to be under the umbrella of "true fieldwork". She discusses the need for expansion of anthropological boundaries and as a humble student who has much more to study, I agree thus far.
"To overdetermine fieldwork practices is therefore to undermine the very strength of ethnography, the way in which it deliberately leaves openings for unanticipated discoveries and directions. If in cleaving to a methodological orthodoxy, anthropologists a priori limit rather than leave open the scope of circumstances to be studied, they will be operating at epistemological cross purposes with their own disciplinary objectives. Thus the answer to what happens to anthropology if its practitioners adapt their fieldwork practices to the exigencies of new circumstances is that it wouldn't remain as anthropology if they didn't." (Amit, p.17).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)