84306965 thomas nicholas against ethnography

8/13/2019 84306965 Thomas Nicholas Against Ethnography

1/21

Against Ethnography

Nicholas ThomasAustralian National University

In March 1803 Lord Valentia was traveling through Awadh, a part of northIndia which, as he observed, had not yet been liberated by the ast India

!o"pany fro" Musli" oppression# At Luc$now he was surprised to find in the

%awab&s palace an e'tensive collection of curiosities, including ( (several

thousand nglish prints fra"ed and gla)ed # # # and innu"erable other articles of

uropean "anufacture#*

+he dinner was rench, with plenty of wine # # # the Mussul"auns dran$none, -although. the forbidden li/uor was served in abundance on the table,and they had two glasses of different si)es standing before the"# +he roo"was very well lighted up, and a band of "usic which the %awaub hadpurchased fro" !olonel Morris played nglish tunes during the wholeti"e# +he scene was so singular, and so contrary to all "y ideas of Asiatic

"anners, that I could hardly persuade "yself that the whole was not a"as/uerade# -Valentia 1802 11(341((.

+his aristocratic colonial traveler&s confusion could be ta$en to be e"ble"4

atic of one of the predica"ents of late 50th4century anthropology# +he proble"

of interpretation arises not fro" an ethnocentric e'pectation that other peoples

are the sa"e, fro" a failure to predict the local singularity of their "anners and

custo"s, but fro" an assu"ption that others "ust be different, that their

behavior will be recogni)able on the basis of what is $nown about another

culture# +he visitor encounters not a stable array of(&Asiatic "anners* but what

appears to be an unintelligible inauthenticity#

+his essay is concerned with anthropology&s enduring e'oticis", and how

processes such as borrowing, creoli)ation, and the reifications of local culture

through colonial contact are to be rec$oned with# !an anthropology si"plye'tend itself to tal$ about transposition, syncretis", nationalis", and

oppositional fabrications of custo", as it "ay have been e'tended to cover

history and gender, or is there a sense in which the discipline&s underlying

concepts need to be "utilated or distorted, before we can deal satisfactorily with

these areas that were once e'cluded6

+he current wave of collective autocriti/ue within anthropology1has a par4

ado'ical character in the sense that while reference is "ade to crisis, e'peri"en4

tation, and even radical transfor"ation in the discipline, one conclusion of "ost

efforts see"s to be an affir"ation of what has always been central# !lifford, for

1


2/21


3/21

AGAINST ETHNOGRAPHY

ing Culture !lifford and Marcus 128: and The Predicament of Culture

!lifford 1288 for granted# +his article however atte"pts to "ove beyond the

current debate by situating proble"atic features of anthropology, such as the

tendency to e'oticis", in the constitution of ethnographic discourse# =ne

obstacle here is the co""onsense episte"ology of the disciplineBwhich no

doubt accords with a broader cultural "odelBthat understands $nowledge

pri"arily in /uantitative ter"s# >efects are absences that can be rectified

through the addition of further infor"ation, and "ore can be $nown about a

particular topic by adding other ways of perceiving it# *7ias* is thus associated

with a lac$ and can be rectified or balanced out by the addition of furtherperspectives# My preferred "etaphor would situate the causes of an array of

"o"ents of blindness and insight in the constitution of a discipline&s analytic

technology particular $inds of overlooking arise fro" research "ethods, ways

of understanding concepts, and genres of representation# +his is essentially a

"odel borrowed fro" fe"inist anthropology as those criti/ues developed, it

beca"e apparent that the essentially i"balanced character of anthropological

accounts of society could not be corrected without co"ple' scrutiny of "ethods

and analysis, that *acade"ic fields could not be cured by se'is" si"ply by

accretion* !# 7o'er /uoted in Moore 128543# It is not clear, however, that

the proble"s I discuss are analogous to illnesses? the fabrication of alterity is

not so "uch a blight or distortion to be e'cised or e'orcised, but a pro;ect

central to ethnography&s rendering of the proper study of "an#

E!oticism

Although dward aid&s wor$ has aroused considerable interest in anthro4

pology, the response has often been /ualified or critical e#g#, Marcus and isher

128:145? !lifford 128859945:#9It is so"eti"es asserted that because anthro4

pologists have engaged in "any studies of uropean or A"erican societies, and

are concerned with universal hu"anity as well as cultural difference, the charge

of e'oticis" is only partly ;ustified# @ithout disputing either that wor$ carried

out under the na"e of anthropology has been e'traordinarily diverse, or that a

"isleading stereotype of the discipline has wide currency, it "ust be said that

this overloo$s the fact that the presentation of other cultures retains canonical

status within the discipline# +hat is, despite a plethora of topics and approaches,there are still strong prescriptions that certain anthropological pro;ects such as

those dealing with tribal religions are "ore anthropological than others# +he

argu"ents here deploy this stereotypic construct, even thought it is partly a

"isunderstanding prevalent outside the discipline, and partly so"ething that

practitioners continue to i"pose upon the"selves and "ost particularly their

graduate students# +he ob;ect of "y criti/ue is thus an *analytical fiction* in

Marilyn trathern&s sense 128810,:and this reified idea of a diverse discipline

can only be unfair and unrepresentative of a variety of innovative approaches#

7ut if what is said here applies only in a partial way to wor$ re"ote fro"

canonical types, the converse also applies, and the criti/ue is valid insofar as

anthropological te'ts actually do ta$e the for" of ethnographic depictions of

other cultures#


4/21

AGAINST ETHNOGRAPHY "

Anthropology&s "ost enduring rhetorical for" uses a rich presentation of

one stable and distant culture to relativi)e cherished and une'a"ined notions

i"puted to culture at ho"e# Margaret Mead&s a"oa destabili)ed certain ideas

about se' roles, while the 7alinese polities of


5/21

AGAINST ETHNOGRAPHY #

the individualis" of the @est and ironically also with the alleged superiority of

purity over power# @hile the power4clai"s of cultural ethnography have been

based on rigor in cultural translation, in a "ore faithful, less ethnocentric

account of local belief, that facilitates a professional potlatch of sophisticated

interpretations, there is clearly a certain selectivity? it is notable that "atter to be

translated "ust co"e fro" so"ewhere different# or instance, while infor"ants

in the societies of the *$ula ring* fre/uently "a$e analogies between the fa"ous

shell valuables that they so"eti"es call *Dapuan "oney* and uropean cash, 8

that strand of local discourse is not conspicuous in the cultural ethnography of

the Massi"# 7eliefs and notions that are not different ta$e on the appearance ofdifference through the process of apparent translation, through a discourse of

the translation of culture# Although there are sceptics within anthropology

Feesing 1282, those in other disciplines appear to have had a "ore balanced

view of the proble"s of translation and e'oticis"# In ;ustifying the use of

nglish categories such as *class* and *capitalist* in the analysis of Indian

history, 7ayly recently suggested that although there are *dangers in glib

co"parison # # # e'cessive =rientalist puris" has done little e'cept "a$e India

see" peculiar to the outside world* 1288'#

+he clai" that anthropology is concerned with difference within as well as

between cultures is e'cessively charitable# +here are, of course, wor$s that deal

with conflict, disagree"ent about beliefs, and perspectivai differences between

"en and wo"en, but these the"es could hardly be said to have the sa"e

centrality for the discipline as the operation of i"puting difference beteen

cultures# +his is in fact "ore accurately described as contrast, since the "ost

persuasive and theoretically conse/uential ethnographic rhetoric represents the

other essentially as an inversion of whatever @estern institution, practice, or set

of notions is the real ob;ect of interest# Cence 7alinese theater and aesthetics

stand against the "echanical and narrowly political @estern understanding of

the state? and, without endorsing ree"an&s style of criti/ue or ethological non

se/uiturs, it "ust si"ilarly be ac$nowledged that Mead&s theoretical orientation

and literary flair led her to render a"oan freedo" as the "irror of A"erican

constraint# +he proposition that the gift is only intelligible as an inversion of the

category of the co""odity hardly re/uires e'tended discussion here but cf#

Darry 128:(::4(:#

Many wor$s of the relativi)ing style were or are intended to be critical, atleast in the "ini"al sense that they ai"ed to affir" the value of other cultures

and e'press a certain scepticis" about *@estern* ideas that were ta$en to be

natural and eternal# 7ut the cultural criti/ue depended upon the fabrication of

alterity,2 upon a showcase approach to other cultures that is now politically

unacceptable, in its ho"ogeni)ation of others and i"plicit denial of the

significance of "igrant cultures within the @est# After so "any decades of

*econo"ic develop"ent* and conflict in tribal and third world societies, it is

ludicrous if anthropological co""entary continues pri"arily to place such

peoples in another do"ain, in a space that establishes the difference and

contingency of our own practice cf# abian 1283# I a" not saying that people

are all the sa"e, and that cultural differences are inconse/uential? the challenge

is not to do away with cultural difference,


6/21

$ CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY

and with what is locally distinctive, but to integrate this "ore effectively with

historical perceptions and a sense of the unstable and politically contested char4

acter of culture# Cence, as Moore has noted, *understanding cultural difference

is essential, but the concept itself can no longer stand as the ruling concept of a

"odern anthropology, because it addresses only one for" of difference a"ong

"any* 1282#

+he tendency to e'otici)e others could be regarded as a /uir$ of the

individuals who beco"e anthropologists, or an inevitable conse/uence of the

encounter of fieldwor$# +he second suggestion "ight see" co"pelling, given

the pervasive notion of fieldwor$ as the e'perience of an individual fro" oneculture in aGiother# +hough elaborated for the purposes of collective professional

self approbation, this notion of in/uiry and interpretation fro" a li"inal

perspective clearly cannot be dis"issed# 7ut the point that is profoundly

"ystified in conte"porary anthropological consciousness concerns the for"s

and diversity of the differences at issue# If one is see$ing out conte'ts in which a

sense of *not fitting* or *being elsewhere* facilitates heightened awareness of

the singularity and contingency of both the culture of the situation and one&s own

assu"ptions, then it is clear that there are "any circu"stances in which these

conditions e'ist# +here are nu"erous conte'ts in *@estern* cultures in which

alienation or foreignness facilitate cultural criti/ue a south London blac$

wo"an in an ='bridge college, and it is obvious also that the crucial

differences relate to age, se', class, and various other criteria, as well as the

i"plicit ethnic categories that separate different *cultures#* =r, to e'press the

point differently, the notion of what constitutes cultural difference see"s to be

restricted to distinction between an undefined *@est* and another do"ain of

e'perience and "eaning? the separation between these ter"s energi)es the

interpretive pro;ect of ethnography, while difference "ight also be situated

between the sort of self4conscious e'position of local culture that is often

offered by senior "en, and the voices of those without authority? between those

who stay in the countryside and those who have left? between those who hold

fast to what is valori)ed as local identity and those who appear to abandon it to

beco"e !hristians, Mor"ons, or co""unists# It could also, of course, be

situated in difference a"ong anthropologists, given that one of the reasons for

engaging in research is to gather "aterial that serves a particular argu"ent#

ro" this perspective, the notion that fieldwor$ entails parta$ing of alterityand thus re/uires an account of cultural difference is "anifestly insufficient# All

the crucial /uestions are passed over because a "ultiplicity of cultural

differences are condensed# +he contrastive operation discussed is al"ost

inherent in any te!t that e'plicates, or purports to e'plicate, the distinctiveness

of a *culture#* A "onograph is not about *other cultures* but rather another

culture, and the fact that this "ust at so"e level be treated as a bounded and

stable syste" "a$es i"plicit contrast with a ho"e4point al"ost inevitable even

where there is no e'plicit one4to4one ;u'taposition# Cowever, the nu"ber of

cases in which showcase coun4terpositioning overtly ani"ates analysis is

considerable# Insofar as this is what ethnographic writing is about, e'oticis" can

only be disposed of by disposing of ethnography, by brea$ing fro" one4to4one

presentation into "odes that disclose


7/21

AGAINST ETHNOGRAPHY %

other registers of cultural difference and that replace *cultural syste"s* with

less stable and "ore derivative discourses and practices# +hese have a syste"ic

character, but a dialectical account "ust do ;ustice to the transposition of

"eanings, their local incorporation#10

It "ight be added that the the"e of the difference of the other has been as

overplayed in anthropology as has the body in the library in detective fiction?

even ironic renderings the body in the video library see" "erely to reproduce

an established style that is not ;ust unoriginal but see"s rapidly to be beco"ing

sterile# It "ight thus be argued "erely on literary grounds that it is about ti"e

for the rhetorical for" to be disfigured#

Th& S'(s'mption o) Th&ory

+he status of ethnography "ight also be proble"ati)ed fro" an

episte"ological perspective# +his is to open up a second line of criticis"

see"ingly less "otivated by a political consideration the ob;ectionable aspect

of inventing alterity than a theoretical one the view that the ethnographic

genre locali)es /uestions and thus refracts rather than generates any wider

theoretical resolution or cultural criti/ue# Cowever, this episte"ological

argu"ent is also grounded politically e'oticis" conveys a false view of

historical entangle"ent and the transposition of "eaning, while the

particulari)ing effect of ethnographic discourse is not "erely unproductivetheoretically but also associated with professional introversion and a failure to

engage in wider discussion#

An enor"ous a"ount of anthropology is "otivated by /uestions at a high

level of generality# Anthropological te'ts legiti"i)e the specificity of their case

"aterials and the locali)ed and particular character of analysis by their bearing

upon proble"s that are ta$en to be theoretically conse/uentialBthe efficacy of

ritual, the nature of gift e'change, the intersection of status and power, the ritual

structures of divine $ingship, the basis of gender asy""etries, and so on# 7ut

what operation does the analytic technology of ethnography perfor" upon these

/uestions6

+he argu"ent here presupposes that our genre is a discourse of

ethnography and not a discourse u"on it#* +he /uestion here is of the e'tent to

which writing is or is not contained by the process of representing its ob;ect? thesecond type "a$es strong clai"s to e'ternal authority and supposes an analytic

apparatus that is not subsu"ed by the "atter with which it deals# A discourse of

so"ething, on the other hand, "ay atte"pt to depict or analy)e so"ething that

is e'ternal to it, but constantly creates discursive and analytical effects that can

only be understood in ter"s of categories that are already internal to the

discourse# +here is, for instance, an obvious difference between the ostensibly

apolitical theoretical discourse u"on politics in the acade"ic discipline of

political science, and the discourse of politics "anifested in the speech of a

professional politician or activist# +he authoritative clai"s of the latter are

highly self4referential? there can be no e'ternal validation of state"ents because

the ob;ect, interpretative agency, and theoretical categories are conflated in the

very process of revealing and rendering#


8/21

AGAINST ETHNOGRAPHY *

+he "ode of representation recursively intertwines the "o"ents of

transcription, e'plication of the ter"s for transcription, and the e'planatory

devices that position the products of transcription# =f course, it is clear that

these binary categories, li$e all si"ilar analytic fictions, cannot ulti"ately be

sustained as polar types, but the distinction can have theoretical effect if it is

associated particularly with the discourse of ethnography# I ta$e trathern to

endorse Hunci"an&s suggestion that the conventional understanding of the

relationship between e'planation and description be inverted *


9/21

AGAINST ETHNOGRAPHY +

above and a way of writing that by its nature cannot resolve the"# +he

do"inant process that ta$es place as issues of theoretical conse/uence are

wor$ed through ethnographically is subsu"ption# +he illustrative "aterial can

be seen in a singular way, but any revelations are ethnographically contained#

+his "ay be briefly illustrated through reference to the ethnographic cri4

ti/ues of =rtner&s i"portant argu"ent that universal gender asy""etry could be

e'plained on the basis of pervasive associations between the "aleGfe"ale and

cultureGnature contrasts =rtner 12(# +his was transposed to the register of

ethnography in an influential collection of criti/ues trathern and Mac!or"ac$

1280 that argued that the natureGculture opposition was a singular for" in@estern thought, could not be seen as a cultural universal, and was not

necessarily articulated with gender# @hile si"ilar contrasts so"eti"es were

present, and were associated with gender in indigenous sy"bolic syste"s, the

effect of the criti/ue was to e'pose a for" of difference between these societies

and @estern thought that had passed unrecogni)ed in =rtner&s analysis#

thnography thus disposed of a general argu"ent and affir"ed the difference

and specificity of other cultures# +he point here is not si"ply that the particular

thesis advanced by =rtner was ethnographically disfigured, but that there was

no way of "oving bac$ fro" these criti/ues to any si"ilar argu"ent at the sa"e

level of generality#Nature% Culture and $ender offers no basis for any theory

co"parable to =rtner&s, and it is not surprising at all that the e/ually significant

and generali)ed argu"ents of Hosaldo and !hodorow, which epito"i)ed the

scope and force of Woman% Culture and &ociety Hosaldo and La"phere 12(

have been critici)ed on analogous grounds Moore 1285545(? see also


10/21

AGAINST ETHNOGRAPHY -.

of *pri"ary* research "ight be privileged# +he point here, though, is that while

this is a criti/ue of ethnography&s anthropology, it is not one that supposes that

so"e other scholarly discipline provides a "odel for a relationship between

initial general /uestions and the analytic for" of the genre where the latter

sustains rather than subverts the for"er? if the hege"onic genres of

anthropological writing now present the"selves "ainly as styles to be

disfigured, the positive alternatives are not to be constituted through the old

ga"e of interdisciplinary borrowing, through the clai" to fi' up one line of

in/uiry by adding fro" another#

+he association between e'oticis" and the "ar$ed tendency forethnography to render theoretical /uestions internal to local analyses is thus not

entirely contingent# 7oth of these features of conte"porary anthropology have a

strong association with the do"inance of ethnographic writing, which presents

cultures as unitary totalities# A boo$ absorbed by a culture absorbed in a boo$

cannot produce a discourse upon ethnography, a discourse that uses ethnography

to generate a wider argu"ent# At the sa"e ti"e the one4to4one ;u'taposition that

this for" nor"ally entails can only establish stability at a certain distance fro"

the culture i"puted to the reader? the truth of the ethnographic case depends

upon its original and nonderivative relation with the *us* to which it is opposed#

It follows fro" this, of course, that ethnographies that turn upon local

co"parison e#g#, o' 12? Leach 129(? @hite 1281 are li$ely to be less

en"eshed in this orientali)ing and particulari)ing logic to the e'tent that

di"ensions of difference disconnected fro" the usGthe" fiction are analytically

conse/uential# +he ai" of this article is not to conde"n anything li$e the whole

discipline, but to suggest that crucial flaws are associated with the canonical

"odel, rather than so"e superficial sub;ective interest in cultural authenticity# If

there was "erely a proble" of self4deception, this would presu"ably have been

e'punged long ago# +he persistence of e'oticis" arises fro" the fact that it is

precisely what ethnography is directed to produce#

It is perhaps necessary to reiterate the earlier point that these argu"ents

have nothing to do with fieldwor$, which is obviously a crucial way of learning#

+he argu"ent is rather that fieldwor$ should be drawn into other $inds of

writing that "ove into the space between the theoretical and universal and the

local and ethnographic, and that are energi)ed by for"s of difference not

contained within the usGthe" fiction#+he potential responses are diverse# Montage clearly refracts and displaces

the pursuit of stable cultures through a succession of historical and e'periential

conte'ts as in +aussig 128 and offers the "ost effective and radical assault

upon anthropology&s tendency to fi' a unitary sy"bolic syste" at a distance# 15

Cere, however, I argue for an approach that in a sense is "ore grounded in con4

ventional interests in an interpretative pro;ect, in analysis that wor$s upon larger

proble"s toward a wider generative account of social and cultural pheno"ena#

ro" this perspective the reinvigoration of co"parative anthropology ap4

pears to be crucial# +he value of a "ethod not contained by ethnography is ap4

parent fro" its use fro" so"e fe"inist perspectives !ollier and Hosaldo 1281

there is still a sense of political urgency about clarifying the broader nature of


11/21

AGAINST ETHNOGRAPHY --

se'ual asy""etries, which has resisted the tendency for these /uestions to be

subsu"ed within a locali)ed ethnography of gender relations# +he i"portance of

co"parison e"erges also fro" the fact that so"e $ind of e'plicit discussion of

regional relationships and histories is necessary if older ethnological categories

and ad;udications are not to be i"plicitly perpetuated# Many areal categories,

such as *Melanesia* and *Dolynesia* live on in conte"porary anthropological

parlance as though they had linguistic or prehistorical validity, while "isleading

typifications of regional social structures and cultural for"s provide silent con4

te'ts for ethnographic case studies cf# +ho"as 1282b#

At this point it "ight see" desirable to present an e'a"ple of the $ind of

pro;ect envisaged here, but this would partly "isrepresent the clai"s and inten4

tions of the present article#131 do not appeal in a "essianic "anner to a style of

wor$ that is unprecedented, which would be supposed to "agically transcend

the orientali)ing contrivance and particularis" characteristic of the discipline at

present# ince this criti/ue is directed at a $ind of canonical wor$, it is obvious

that "uch anthropological writing is not to be subsu"ed within that canon, and

that e'a"ples of co"parative analysis already e'ist# +he interest is thus in

altering the "arginal status of that genre, and elaborating upon it in certain

directions#

+his is not to say, though, that there is an established style of co"parison

that should si"ply be adopted and generali)ed# +o the contrary, it appears that

"uch co"parative wor$ is inade/uate because it is set up as a pro;ect secondaryto ethnography? one that perhaps operates at a higher level of generality, and

with "ore theoretical a"bitions, but nevertheless one that is essentially parasitic

upon the richness of what can be described as *pri"ary sources* trathern

128810#

+his is why it see"s i"portant to establish an inter"ediate level of writing

between proble"atic universalis" and ethnographic illustration, a $ind of

writing that incorporates ethnography but is not subordinated to it# At a

theoretical level this should be able to displace discourses of alterity by

representing difference within cultures and difference a"ong a plurality as

opposed to one4to4one contrast# It should be able to co"bine nuanced firsthand

$nowledge of particular localities with the interpretation of a broader range of

*secondary* ethnographic or *pri"ary* historical descriptions# +his type ofgrounding thus depends upon a "odel of $nowledge rather different to that

i"plicit in various acade"ic disciplines, where there is a strong if generally

i"plicit idea that writing ought generally to be based on one&s own speciali)ed

and original research# =ther wor$ is often consigned to a secondary or residual

category, such as that of the *literature review* or te'tboo$? even though it is

obvious that "any theoretically crucial wor$s have not derived fro" wor$ that

was pri"ary in an e"pirical sense# A new $ind of post4ethnographic

anthropological writing would presu"e the sort of local $nowledge that has

always been critical for representing circu"stances both at ho"e and abroad,

but would refuse the bounds of conveniently si)ed localities through venturing

to spea$ about regional relations and histories# If case "aterial fro" a range of

associated places cannot e'pose the historical contingency and particular

deter"ination of social and cultural for"s that "ight otherwise be up


12/21

AGAINST ETHNOGRAPHY -2

held as relativi)ing ethnological e'hibits, it is difficult to see any other approach

that could sever anthropology&s roots in the colonial i"agination#

@hat I&" suggesting, then, is not the old $ind of positivist co"parison that

see$s to establish general theories, but a for" of analysis that uses a regional

fra"e to argue about processes of social change and diversity, that is critically

conscious of its own situation in a succession of uropean representations of

such places, that develops its argu"ents strategically and provisionally rather

than universally# +he significance of regional co"parison arises fro" the fact

that it is concerned with a plurality of others, a field in which difference e"erges

between one conte't and the ne't, and does not ta$e the radical for" of alterityin a gulf between observers and observed# >ifference is thus historically

constituted, rather than a fact of cultural stability# +he conte'ts that can be

e'plored are not necessarily fenced around as *other cultures* but include

historical processes and for"s of e'change and co""unication that have

per"itted cultural appropriation and transposition# +he second strand of this

conclusion is thus that while anthropology has dealt effectively with i"plicit

"eanings that can be situated in the coherence of one culture, conte"porary

global processes of cultural circulation and reification de"and an interest in

"eanings that are e'plicit and derivative# =therwise the ris$ is that our

e'pectations about other cultures, li$e those of Lord Valentia, will prevent us

fro" seeing anything in local "i"icry or copying other than an inauthentic

"as/uerade# It&s not clear that the unitary social syste" ever was a good "odel

for anthropological theory, but the shortco"ings are now "ore conspicuous than

ever# @e cannot understand cultural borrowings, accretions, or locally

distinctive variants of cos"opolitan "ove"ents, while we privilege the richness

of locali)ed conversation and the stable ethnography that captures it# +he

nuances of village dialogues are unending, and their plays of tense and person

beguiling, but if we are to recover an intelligible debate beyond the "ultiplicity

of isolated tongues we "ust surrender so"ething to the corruptions of pidgins

and creles, trading others& gra""ars for our own le'icons# >erivative lingua

franca have always offended those preoccupied with boundaries and

authenticity, but they offer a resonant "odel for the uncontained transpositions

and transcultural "eanings which cultural in/uiry "ust now deal with#

Not&s

Acknoledgments' +he encourage"ent and co""ents of Cenrietta Moore,Dascal 7oyer, and Margaret Eolly "ade it possible for "e to write this article?but it should not be presu"ed that any of these people agree with the positionsadvanced#

&+he discursive entity is obviously diverse, and the reification re/uired by anydisciplinary criti/ue "ust be inaccurate with respect to a variety of idiosyncraticand innovative wor$s# My interest here is not in establishing that what is saidapplies to any single wor$ which would prove nothing about the genre or thestatistical e'tent to which the clai"s apply to the range of wor$#

5+he argu"ents here should not be read to denigrate the wor$ of writers such as!lifford and Marcus, upon which they obviously depend# @hile I ta$e "uch of

what they have


13/21

AGAINST ETHNOGRAPHY -

advanced to be essential to any novel and critical anthropology, "y co"plaint isthat the /uestion of e'oticis" in contem"orary anthro"ology has been passedoverBas though such wor$s asAnthro"ology and the Colonial (ncounter Asad12( had e'punged the proble"#

3+his perhaps accounts for the curiously prevalent "isconception that theauthors of Writing Culture !lifford and Marcus 128: were putting reflection,criticis" or so"e $ind of theoretical self4consciousness in the place of pri"aryresearch? *it see"s "ore than li$ely that the boo$ will provo$e a trend awayfro" doing anthropology, and towards ever "ore barren criticis" and "eta4

criticis"* pencer 12821:1# It was /uite clear fro"Anthro"ology as CulturalCriti)ue Marcus and isher 128: that at least two of the writers saw a $ind ofcritical ethnography, rather than any criticis" detached fro" ethnography, as thecentral pro;ect of the discipline? it "ight also be pointed out that since WritingCulture was published so"e contributors at least have produced othersubstantive studies e#g#, Habi4now 1282 and not wor$s of *"etacriticis"#* +henotion that the 128: collection and associated publications represented anassault on ethnography is thus clearly false? this article departs fro" bothWriting Culture and its aggrieved detractors by insisting on afieldwor$Gethnography distinction and using that as a basis for doing what therefle'ive theorists have been un;ustifiably accused of doingBarguing thatethnography&s ti"e has passed#

(+his was intended, but not "ade properly e'plicit, in *ut of Time +ho"as1282a# +he present article is intended to so"e e'tent to be an a"end"ent to

that criti/ue, even though it does not ta$e up the /uestion of ethnography&s lac$of history, which was central to "y boo$#

9+his for" of words "ay suggest that I do not regard criticis"s of aid&s pro;ectas ;ustified? I hope to e'plore the topic of the reception of aid&s wor$ in aseparate article, but can note briefly here that I agree with so"e of the points"ade by !lifford, but believe that "ost anthropological critics have neglectedthe sense in which *rientalism is a wor$ of specifically literary scholarship andsecondly that it is but a part of a series of wor$s that operate at distinct levels ofgenerality and with distinct purposes aid 128, 122, 1281, 128(, 128:? aidand Citchins 1288# o"e of these wor$s are referred to by !lifford, but "ostauthors cite nothing other than *rientalism+ I a" not, of course, co"plainingabout inco"plete bibliographies, but draw attention to the fact that *rientalismhas been critici)ed for not doing things that aid actually has done elsewhere#

:trathern however i"plies that her propositions are si"ply intended to generatenovel theoretical effects, as if the episte"ological status of analytical fictionse'cludes both substantive clai"s, and disputation based on thenoncorrespondence of a fiction with evidence# If this is in fact the position of thepreface to The $ender of the $ift% it would see" at odds with what are in factsubstantive propositions in the body of the te't, and also a stance that ratherdisables one&s own analysis# My view, which "ay or "ay not diverge fro" aposition that trathern did not succeed in e'pressing una"biguously, is thatanalytical fictions are, li$e other for"s of $nowledge, partial in the sense ofbeing both interested and inco"plete, and because of this condition rather thanin spite of it, "ay offer an account of things in the world that is ade/uate for thepurposes of a historically situated co""unity or array of people# Insofar as afiction is seen to be representative, its substantive clai"s are as true as any ofthe other things we believe#


14/21

AGAINST ETHNOGRAPHY -"

My use ofNegara as a "odel of the one4to4one contrast that is funda"ental toethnographic writing is /uite deliberate, since the historical character of thewor$ "a$es it ob


15/21

AGAINST ETHNOGRAPHY -#

vious that ethnography can and "ust be understood at a separate level fro"fieldwor$# Cowever, as Marcus and isher have noted with respect to that boo$,the for" of *cultural criticis" -offered. as episte"ological criti/ue # # # is alsocharacteristic of "any other such wor$s in anthropology* 128:1(9#

8Martha Macintyre, personal co""unication#

+his point that these varieties of cultural criti/ue have a dar$ side is generallypassed over in Marcus and isher&s discussion of various *techni/ues of culturalcriti/ue in anthropology* 128:1341:(# It is still possible to ta$e argu"ents

proceeding through phrases such as *7y contrast, 7alinese conceptions of thestate # # #* p# 1(9 as though they operated only upon the *@estern* ideas thatare displaced# It should be noted, however, that they do discuss so"e of theshortco"ings of the *static, us4the" ;u'taposition* pp# 1:01:5 and the ways inwhich consciousness has "oved *to locate -an other culture. in a ti"e and spaceconte"poraneous with our own, and thus to see it as part of our world, ratherthan as a "irror or alternative* p# 13(# Cowever, their suggestions that culturalcriti/ue would revolve around anything other than ;u'taposition or therepatriation of "ethods e"ployed to study the e'otic are wea$ly developed# It isnotable that what is loosely called refle'ive anthropology has not engaged "uchwith fe"inis", while the perspective advanced here ta$es the fe"inist criti/ueof perspectivai and political difference ithin cultures as a "odel for brea$ingfro" a discourse preoccupied with difference beteen'

&*According to ahlins, world syste"s theorists argue *that since the hinterlandsocieties anthropologists habitually study are open to radical change, e'ternallyi"posed by @estern capitalist e'pansion, the assu"ption that these societieswor$ on so"e autono"ous cultural4logic cannot be entertained# +his is aconfusion between an open syste" and a lac$ of syste"* 1289viii# +he/uestion that is not addressed, however, is /uite what this openness generates inahlins& view, events and e'ternal intrusions are creatively turned to thepurposes of a local cultural order# +his is to save structural anthropology&s set oforiginal "eanings fro" historical transposition, and is an apt approachirrespective of the plausibility of reali)ations for histories of early contact# +heproble" arises fro" the fact that these hardly e'e"plify global processes oreven later phases of colonial contact? here the cultural ra"ifications areanalogous to linguistic creoli)ation# I do, however, agree with ahlins thatglobal syste"s theory is not up to the tas$ of accounting for *the diversity of

local responses to the world4syste"Bpersisting, "oreover, in its wa$e*1289viii#

*+his distinction is abducted fro" the wor$ of Deter >e 7olla 12823( and"assim,' It will be obvious to anyone who consults this boo$ that I havedistorted and reconte'tuali)ed the contrast for "y own purposes#

,5+here are, however, arguably ris$s that authorial enco"pass"ent is relocatedcovertly through the refusal to enunciate precise argu"ents and "ethodologicalclai"s cf# Fapferer 1288#

13A co"parative study of e'change, transcultural "ove"ents of "aterial culture,and colonial history in the Dacific +ho"as in press does however atte"pt toe'e"plify the style of co"parative and historical analysis advocated here#

R&)&r&nc&s Cit&/Asad, +alai, ed#


16/21

AGAINST ETHNOGRAPHY -$

12( Anthropology and the !olonial ncounter# London Ithaca#


17/21


18/21

AGAINST ETHNOGRAPHY -*

1282 'otic Headings of !ultural +e'ts# !urrent Anthropology 30(924(2#


19/21

AGAINST ETHNOGRAPHY -+

Leach, d"und129( Dolitical yste"s of Cighland 7ur"a# London

Athlone# Marcus, #

128: +he a"e of


20/21


21/21

AGAINST ETHNOGRAPHY 2-

Valentia, Viscount

84306965 thomas nicholas against ethnography

Documents