84306965 thomas nicholas against ethnography
TRANSCRIPT
-
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
-
8/13/2019 84306965 Thomas Nicholas Against Ethnography
2/21
-
8/13/2019 84306965 Thomas Nicholas Against Ethnography
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$e the for" of ethnographic depictions of
other cultures#
-
8/13/2019 84306965 Thomas Nicholas Against Ethnography
4/21
AGAINST ETHNOGRAPHY "
Anthropology&s "ost enduring rhetorical for" uses a rich presentation of
one stable and distant culture to relativi)e cherished and une'a"ined notions
i"puted to culture at ho"e# Margaret Mead&s a"oa destabili)ed certain ideas
about se' roles, while the 7alinese polities of
-
8/13/2019 84306965 Thomas Nicholas Against Ethnography
5/21
AGAINST ETHNOGRAPHY #
the individualis" of the @est and ironically also with the alleged superiority of
purity over power# @hile the power4clai"s of cultural ethnography have been
based on rigor in cultural translation, in a "ore faithful, less ethnocentric
account of local belief, that facilitates a professional potlatch of sophisticated
interpretations, there is clearly a certain selectivity? it is notable that "atter to be
translated "ust co"e fro" so"ewhere different# or instance, while infor"ants
in the societies of the *$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,
-
8/13/2019 84306965 Thomas Nicholas Against Ethnography
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$ing fro" one4to4one
presentation into "odes that disclose
-
8/13/2019 84306965 Thomas Nicholas Against Ethnography
7/21
AGAINST ETHNOGRAPHY %
other registers of cultural difference and that replace *cultural syste"s* with
less stable and "ore derivative discourses and practices# +hese have a syste"ic
character, but a dialectical account "ust do ;ustice to the transposition of
"eanings, their local incorporation#10
It "ight be added that the the"e of the difference of the other has been as
overplayed in anthropology as has the body in the library in detective fiction?
even ironic renderings the body in the video library see" "erely to reproduce
an established style that is not ;ust unoriginal but see"s rapidly to be beco"ing
sterile# It "ight thus be argued "erely on literary grounds that it is about ti"e
for the rhetorical for" to be disfigured#
Th& S'(s'mption o) Th&ory
+he status of ethnography "ight also be proble"ati)ed fro" an
episte"ological perspective# +his is to open up a second line of criticis"
see"ingly less "otivated by a political consideration the ob;ectionable aspect
of inventing alterity than a theoretical one the view that the ethnographic
genre locali)es /uestions and thus refracts rather than generates any wider
theoretical resolution or cultural criti/ue# Cowever, this episte"ological
argu"ent is also grounded politically e'oticis" conveys a false view of
historical entangle"ent and the transposition of "eaning, while the
particulari)ing effect of ethnographic discourse is not "erely unproductivetheoretically but also associated with professional introversion and a failure to
engage in wider discussion#
An enor"ous a"ount of anthropology is "otivated by /uestions at a high
level of generality# Anthropological te'ts legiti"i)e the specificity of their case
"aterials and the locali)ed and particular character of analysis by their bearing
upon proble"s that are ta$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#
-
8/13/2019 84306965 Thomas Nicholas Against Ethnography
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 *
-
8/13/2019 84306965 Thomas Nicholas Against Ethnography
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 $ender offers no basis for any theory
co"parable to =rtner&s, and it is not surprising at all that the e/ually significant
and generali)ed argu"ents of Hosaldo and !hodorow, which epito"i)ed the
scope and force of Woman% Culture and &ociety Hosaldo and La"phere 12(
have been critici)ed on analogous grounds Moore 1285545(? see also
-
8/13/2019 84306965 Thomas Nicholas Against Ethnography
10/21
AGAINST ETHNOGRAPHY -.
of *pri"ary* research "ight be privileged# +he point here, though, is that while
this is a criti/ue of ethnography&s anthropology, it is not one that supposes that
so"e other scholarly discipline provides a "odel for a relationship between
initial general /uestions and the analytic for" of the genre where the latter
sustains rather than subverts the for"er? if the hege"onic genres of
anthropological writing now present the"selves "ainly as styles to be
disfigured, the positive alternatives are not to be constituted through the old
ga"e of interdisciplinary borrowing, through the clai" to fi' up one line of
in/uiry by adding fro" another#
+he association between e'oticis" and the "ar$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
-
8/13/2019 84306965 Thomas Nicholas Against Ethnography
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
-
8/13/2019 84306965 Thomas Nicholas Against Ethnography
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$e "uch of
what they have
-
8/13/2019 84306965 Thomas Nicholas Against Ethnography
13/21
AGAINST ETHNOGRAPHY -
advanced to be essential to any novel and critical anthropology, "y co"plaint isthat the /uestion of e'oticis" in contem"orary anthro"ology has been passedoverBas though such wor$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 $nowledge, partial in the sense ofbeing both interested and inco"plete, and because of this condition rather thanin spite of it, "ay offer an account of things in the world that is ade/uate for thepurposes of a historically situated co""unity or array of people# Insofar as afiction is seen to be representative, its substantive clai"s are as true as any ofthe other things we believe#
-
8/13/2019 84306965 Thomas Nicholas Against Ethnography
14/21
AGAINST ETHNOGRAPHY -"
My use ofNegara as a "odel of the one4to4one contrast that is funda"ental toethnographic writing is /uite deliberate, since the historical character of thewor$ "a$es it ob
-
8/13/2019 84306965 Thomas Nicholas Against Ethnography
15/21
AGAINST ETHNOGRAPHY -#
vious that ethnography can and "ust be understood at a separate level fro"fieldwor$# 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$s that authorial enco"pass"ent is relocatedcovertly through the refusal to enunciate precise argu"ents and "ethodologicalclai"s cf# Fapferer 1288#
13A co"parative study of e'change, transcultural "ove"ents of "aterial culture,and colonial history in the Dacific +ho"as in press does however atte"pt toe'e"plify the style of co"parative and historical analysis advocated here#
R&)&r&nc&s Cit&/Asad, +alai, ed#
-
8/13/2019 84306965 Thomas Nicholas Against Ethnography
16/21
AGAINST ETHNOGRAPHY -$
12( Anthropology and the !olonial ncounter# London Ithaca#
-
8/13/2019 84306965 Thomas Nicholas Against Ethnography
17/21
-
8/13/2019 84306965 Thomas Nicholas Against Ethnography
18/21
AGAINST ETHNOGRAPHY -*
1282 'otic Headings of !ultural +e'ts# !urrent Anthropology 30(924(2#
-
8/13/2019 84306965 Thomas Nicholas Against Ethnography
19/21
AGAINST ETHNOGRAPHY -+
Leach, d"und129( Dolitical yste"s of Cighland 7ur"a# London
Athlone# Marcus, #
128: +he a"e of
-
8/13/2019 84306965 Thomas Nicholas Against Ethnography
20/21
-
8/13/2019 84306965 Thomas Nicholas Against Ethnography
21/21
AGAINST ETHNOGRAPHY 2-
Valentia, Viscount