kopping - engagement and critique in ethnographic praxis. the anthropological messenger as seduced...

8/10/2019 Kopping - Engagement and Critique in Ethnographic Praxis. the Anthropological Messenger as Seduced Seducer

1/25

Engagement and Critique in Ethnographic Praxis. The Anthropological Messenger as SeducedSeducer

Author(s): Klaus-Peter KppingSource: Paideuma, Bd. 45 (1999), pp. 209-232Published by: Frobenius InstituteStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40341771.

Accessed: 15/11/2014 13:12

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Frobenius Instituteis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Paideuma.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=frobinsthttp://www.jstor.org/stable/40341771?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/40341771?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=frobinst


2/25

Paideuma 5:209-232

1999)

ENGAGEMENT

AND

CRITIQUE

IN

ETHNOGRAPHIC

PRAXIS

The

Anthropological essenger

s Seduced Seducer

Klaus-Peter

opping

Experiencing

In

England eople

make

much f

becoming

otallyispassionate

nd

free-thinkers

n

moralmatters:

pencer,

tuart

ill.

But

hey

o

nothing

utformulate moral enti-

ments.

omethingltogether

ifferents

required:

or

nce,

o feel

something

ifferent

(something

ther)

nd obe able

houghtfully

o

nalyse

hisfterwards.hat

means,

ear

moralist,

ew

nner

xperiences

Nietzsche

969:203;

y

ranslation;

mphasis

n

he

rig-

inal).1

One

could

not

asily magine

more

ithy

tatement,

r

passionate lea

n

response

o

the

dilemma

esetting

he

anthropologicalrofession

ince ts

nception

s

empirical

study

with

he until

ecently unspoken greement

f

the

majority

f ts

practition-

ers

about the

canon

of

methodology

s

introduced

y

Malinowski

hrough

he

oxy-

moron

participant

bservation'. ietzsche's

revaluation'

s indeed

turning

pside-

down

of the

greed

modern

ractice

f

doing

cience

y putting

thics s

experience

before pistemology.

What

field s

better

quipped

han

nthropology

o

put

these

recepts

nto

prac-

tice,

where,

s Malinowski

ormulated

t,

fieldworkersim

"to

grasp

henative's

oint

of

view,

his relation

o

life,

o realizehis vision f his

world"

Malinowski 961:25)

through

hat

he abelled

plunges

nto he ife

fnatives"

1961:22).

n

thefirst

uar-

ter

fthis

entury,

he

new science f

mankind' as based on the

methodological

ri-

macy

f

experience

f Otherness ia

the Selfwhich ould be called an 'immersion

therapy'.

n the ast

quarter

f

the

century

hediscussion bout

thnography

eems

o

revolve

round he

problem

f

analysis

not of data but of

writing

about

others,

ot

ofthe method

of

being

with

thers,

ut

merely

f

he

product,

the

process

of

knowledge cquisition ecoming xpendable.

While

he

nstigator

f thick

escription',

lifford

eertz,

as

doubtlessly

one

the

ong-overdue

ob

of

deconstructing

he

process

f

writingthnography,

is

critique

of

ll

attempts

o

bring

he

uthor nto

he ext eems o have

gone

o

the

xtremear-

1

"In

England

meint

man

Wunder,

ie

freisinnig

ie

hochste

iichternheit

n

SachenderMoral

mache:

Spencer,

tuart

Mill. Aber chliefilich

ut

man

nichts

ls seinemoralischen

mpfindungen

u

for-

m u

1 e r e n. Es erforderttwas

anz

nderes:

wirklichnderes inmal

empfinden

zu konnen

und Besonnenheit interher

u

haben,

um dies

zu

analysieren

lso neue nnere

rlebnisse,

meine

wertenMoralisten "

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Sat, 15 Nov 2014 13:12:38 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/25

210

Klaus-Peter

opping

castic

position,

ossibly

orn

from

espair

bout the

mpossibility

f the

task,

f de-

claring

ll such

attempts

o

far s

basically

utile. n theother

and,

he

does

under-

state he mportancef the elf-reflectivetancewhich nly he ncountern thefield

can

generate.

he deconstructionftexts

must emain icarious

s

long

s

the

decon-

struction

r

otherwisefthe

field-work

aradigm

s

not

taken

n

seriously.

If

the

ethnographicnterprise

s

supposed

o

range

rom

articipation

hrough

mediation

o

communication,

r from

nderstanding

o

interpretation,

s

I once

put

it2

whereby

ts

knowledge

s authenticated

y

participation

hile he ommunication

could

potentially

ead to

emancipation

f self

nd

others,

he

atter ot

needing

s to

authenticatehem

,

then

o establish

he tatus

fthat

ind f

knowledge

hich

ar-

ticipatory

esearch

btains

must emain n

urgent

ask,

oming

efore onsideration

of

theform

which hetransmissionf this

knowledge

akes

s entertained

s

a moral

andepistemologicaluestion.

The

anthropologist

ay

ften eel ike

he

mythical

lind

eerTeiresias

ho

after

having

een

granted

he boon of

changing

is

sex,

when

rechanged

nto

man and

askedhow

t felt

o be female

ouldnotrecall he

xperience.

ut

then he

nthropol-

ogist

knows

hat the

ther

stablishesme

n

truth:t s

only

with heother

hat feel

I

am

myself"

Barthes

990:229);

without

retending

o

be the Other'

n the

Dil-

theyan

mode of

empathetice-experiencing'

Nachempfindung),

he

nthropologist

s

morebeholden o the

nsight

hat

he me'

thathe writes bout

s a self stablished

s

a

composite

fter

having

ncountered

he

Other,

as

Self transformed.

t s

this ransformation

rocess

which shall

pursue

n

the

followinghrough

diversity

f

perspectives.

The

Metaphor of Hermes

Over

the

years,

variety

f

different

etaphoric omparisons

as been

applied

by

practitioners

o the

nthropologist's

ield-work

ctivities

n

order

o

convey

he

mpor-

tance s well s the

xistential,

pistemological

nd moral ialecticnherent

n the

figu-

re of

the

tranger

ho as

participant

bserver as to shuttle etween

ontrasting

tti-

tudes o the

Other,

between

earness

nd

distance,

ngagement

nd

detachment,

involvementnd critique, xperience nd analysis. ollowing revious uggestions

(Kopping

985,1989;

Crapanzano

987,

1992),

shallrefer o Hermes

n

his

function

as

messenger'

ho straddles he

worlds f

gods,

humans nd

thedead.

thereby

ake

cognizance

f

two

spects

f

Hermes'

nature,

n theone handofthe

bridge

rom e-

ing

with others to

writing

about

others,

hile

n theother

hrough

he

intimationf

Hermes s seducer refer

gain

to the double

bind,

between

elf nd

other

n

thefield

s well s the

researcher's

elf

n

relation o readers.

2

"vonder

Teilnahme ber

die

Mitteilung

ur

Vermittlung"



4/25


5/25

212

Klaus-Peter

opping

to

thefourfold

conicity

f

Prometheus/Faust,

f

Hamlet,

fDon

Quixote

nd of

Don

Juan

whichArnold

Hauserhas

previously

hown o be

emanationsf

a narcisstic

on-

sciousnessHauser1964),andI have cometo theconclusionhat ll four lsotypify

European

orms f tricksterhood

Kopping

1985).

try

ere hen o extend

hefour-

folddivision

y

he

figure

fHermes

who shares number

f raits

ith he

ther

our

while

acking

ome

of

theirs.While

Hermes s

critic nd

nterpreteroes

beyond

he

self-referentiality

f theother our

ricksters,

e shares

he nventiveness

nd

cunning

ofPrometheus

who

ackscharmwhile

Hermes acks he

other's

ibido ciendi

s well

as the

rebellious

ttitude,

eing

more

diplomat

han

evolutionary);

he

harm

f

Don

Juan

lacking

is

desparation,

ut

charming

is

way

out

of

desperate

ituations);

he

playednaivety

f

Don

Quixote

lacking

is delusions

nd

showing

ot

muchof the

holy

ool

rait).

imilarities

ith hevacillations

fHamlet

eem east

developed

while

inhisbeguilingmusicalitye resembleshe inger rpheus.Hermes'main raits his

multilingualism,

s

it

were,

is

bility

o

carrymessages

etween ifferent

ealms f he

universe,

eing

ble to cross

boundaries,

rotecting

ravellers,

nd to be

'persuasive'

in

his functions

diplomat, sychopomp

nd

adjudicator.

s master

f

dissimulation,

he couldtake n

strange isguises

nd

play

he

part

f

he

perfect

hief.3

e is also

the

master

nd

guardian

f secret

knowledge'

dduced

ater

o

him

as

a

double

of the

Egyptian od

Thot who invented

ciences,

writing,

umbers nd

books),

and

his

charmwas

apparentlytrong

nough

o attract

phrodite

ut ofwhich nion

heher-

maphrodite

as born

see

also Brown

969).

Seduction

and

Annihilation:

Europe's

Quest

I

here

putmy ptions

n

Hermes s

metaphoricmage

or hefieldwork

ncounter

other

rickstercons

would

certainly

hrow different

ight

n our

understanding

f

the

essence f

ethnographic

ork because

of the seductive

ualities

f

his

dialogic

disposition

nd because

European history

tartswith

he

metaphor

f

a seduction

through

he

tory

f

Europa

and

Zeus,

a seduction hich

according

o Steiner's

es-

simistic

ssessment

f

hemodern

uropean

onsciousness ends

n

a boundless

triv-

ing

for

estructiveness

hich an

only

ind

tsfulfilment

n

utter nnihilation.

hether

anthropology's

earch or hisOther s an

attempt

o overcomehedestructive

mpul-

ses

which

permeate eality

where

reality

vertakes

nthropologyy

throwing

ts

essentialistheoretical

oncept

f cultural ifference

ack at t

through

sing

t to

le-

gitimate

enocide

nd other trocities

,

whetherts ndeavour

an be

perceived

s an

3

In

this

ssay intentionally

bstain

rom

omparing

ermes s

thief ith

nthropologists

s

appro-

priators

f

ndigenous

nowledge.

uch

equation

wouldbe an

oversimplification

hich

owever as

been

madeoff nd

on also

by ndigenousnthropologists.y

ontentionsbout

re-appropriation

ill

become lear

n a

later ection

hrough

ecourse o themusical

mode of recital'.



6/25

ENGAGEMENT

AND

CRITIQUE

IN ETHNOGRAPHIC PRAXIS

213

answer o the

only

isionwhich ould

in Steiner's

hinking

savethe ccidental on-

sciousness

rom nnihilation

y merging

he

Judaeo-Christian

nd the Greco-Roman

worlds,

he unfinished

roject

of the Renaissance o weld Athens nd

Jerusalem

together,

emains

n

open

challenge.

t s the

hallenge

hich

hilosophy

as

begun

o

accept

hrough

he

writings

f

Levinaswho

develops

whathe

himselfalls

an anti-to-

talitarian,

nti-Platonic

nd

anti-Heideggerian

hilosophy

hich ests ot

on

the laim

for

Being

nd

Subject

s

self-fashioned,

ut

n

which he

Other ecomes s much f a

focus s does

desire

nd themessianic

mpulse

f

Judaism

Levinas1961).

Anthropology

as

Redemptive

Process?

The question emains hethernthropologyancontributeo the Salvationistnter-

prise

f

welding

ulturally

ivergent

ntologies ogetherhrough

hemoral tance

f

exposing

heSelf

o them.

orms

f

perceiving

nthropology

s

a

redemptiverocess

were ntertained

y

ome

of

ts

practitioners.

evi-Strauss

ave negative

nswerwith

his notion

f cultural

ntropy.

y

contrast e

may

nfer more

positive

mage

from

Malinowski's

ision

of the aims

of

anthropological

ield-work,

he

metaphorical

suggestiveness

f

which

has

to

my

knowledge

otbeen

perceived

least

of

all,

by any

of the

busy

deconstructionists

ho still

eem to

revel

n

anti-imperial

ounding

f

other

chests).

There

xists

owever

n

original

metaphorical

elation o

redemptiverocesses.

In his ntroductionf 1922to "Argonautsf theWestern acific",Malinowski efers

to the

collecting

f

demographic

nd census nformation

f

kinship

erms nd

genea-

logies

s

"dead

material"

1961:5)

which

ecome,

nevertheless,

he

"firm

keleton

f

the

ribal

ife"

1961:11).

This,

s

may

e

recalled,

e ater

esignates

s the

firm oun-

dation

or he"constructive

rafting

...]

of

he harters

fnative

nstitutions",

here-

by

those

whose

ife

s

largely

etermined

y

them re

not awareof

the values

gov-

erning

he

institutions

r

are unable

to

formulate hese

coherently

Malinowski

1935:137).

The second

feature

o be aimed

for s

the "intimateouches

f

native

ife"

(Malinowski 961:17),

o

acquire

the

feeling"

nd

"being

n touchwith

henatives"

(1961:8).

He

summarizes

hisdouble

requirement

y contrasting

is own

approach

with reviouscientificork: [...] we aregiven n excellentkeleton,

o to

speak,

f

the

ribal

onstitution,

ut t

acksflesh

nd blood"

(1961:17),

nd

repeating

mphat-

ically:

[....]

thefull

ody

nd blood

of actual

native ife ills

ut soon the

keleton

f

abstract

onstructions"

1961:18).

These

are obtained

hrough

ttention

o the

thno-

grapher

s

breaches

f

tiquette

1961:8)

or

those

im

ponder

ab ilia

of actual

life"

(1961:18;

his

emphasis)

uch

as the

routine ctivities

f

body

care,

food

preparation

and

eating,

s

well s

through

knowledge

fthe

meaning

f the

"intimacy"

f

family

life as

opposed

o the deal

concept

as

expressed

n

"the

ffection,

hemutual

nter-

est,

he

ittle

references,

nd

the ittle

ntipathies"

1961:19).



7/25

214

Klaus-Peter

opping

The third im

of scientific

ield-work,

s he calls

t,

s

recording

the

native's

views nd

opinions

nd utterances" hichmake

up

the

spirit"

f

native

ife

s

well s

ethnographicork 1961:22), nd, eekingo "convince hoseHere that ne has been

There",

laimed s an

important

ovelty y

some deconstructionists

nd

textualists,

Malinowski dds a

"third ommandment":o "formulate

heresults

n themost

on-

vincing

manner"

1961:23).

What

hen id Malinowski

nd

up

with:

nthropomorphi-

zation f data or

redemption

ftheresearcher?

A

Personal

Encounter

It has become ustomaryor nthropologistso authenticateheir ataordeliberations

through

eferenceo a

field-incident,

s

exemplified

y

the

ndignant

eply

f Levi-

Strauss o hiscritic urvitch:

They

re

my

witnesses". shall

herefore

ollow uit

nd

relate ne such ncident rom ield-work

n

Japan

n

1966,

because

the ncident

s one

which irstmademe aware f he

precariousness

f he

thnographic

ethod

nd thus

ultimately

ed

to

the

present

meta-discoursen

participation.

When

approached

he founder f one

of the

many ost-war

o-called

New

Religions"

Shinko

hukyo)

n

Japan,

he ate Mrs.

Sayo

Kitamura

f Odoru

hukyo

("DancingReligion")

r Tensho otai

Jtngu yo "Religion

f

the

Heavenly

hining

Goddess

and

the Sacred

Shrine"),

he

got

rather ired f

my

nsistent

uestioning

about her relation o thedeity, hichwas assumed o speakthrough ermouth nd

reside

n

her

belly,

nd of

my

nquiring

bout

he tate f

"non-ego"

muga)

which

ol-

lowers

werebelieved o achieve

hrough articipation

n theritual dance of

oosing

one's

ego" {muga-no-odori)

She

curtly

dvisedme:

"Bakayaro"

"you simpleton"

r

"stupido")

"You

try

o

grasp

with

your

head what

you

can

only

chieve

hrough

your

heart

kokoro).

ou should

participate

n

the dance of

non-ego"

see

Kopping

1967,1968,1994)

The

meaning

f Mrs.

Kitamura's dvice eems lear: he

meantme to abandon

my

uestioning,bserving,

nterviewing

nd all forms

f ratiocination

n

order

o

gain

'understanding'

r

nsight y oining

n

thedance of her

followers,

hich

would

help

me

to reach he tate f

emptiness

hichwouldreveal he

divinity

nd

thereby

nswer

all

my uestions

hroughxperience.

o

put

t

differently,

he

message

eemed o be -

and t

was

startling

orme at

that ime nd has remained

tartling

ntil

oday

that

surrendero the

occasion,

eavingmy cholarly

nterestsnd orientationsnd

my

ra-

tionality

side. For

the sake of the

participatory

equirement,

realized hat he was

right,

ut also realized

hat couldnot

give

n

to the

occasion

for,

s Gouldner

ut

it

once,

had

to

satisfy

oth

requirements

f

myprofessional

ife,

hose f

passion

s

well as of

reason.Because

without

assion

"manwould be a

computer,

ut without

reason

he wouldbe a

naked

pe".



8/25

ENGAGEMENT

AND

CRITIQUE

IN ETHNOGRAPHIC

PRAXIS

215

Mrs. Kitamura

was

right

nsofar s

my

professed

elief

n

gaining nowledge

through

articipation

hould

ntail mmersion

n

the

activities,

ut besides

observing

my

wn elfnthis

rocess

f

participation,

ndthe ctivitiesf

others,

was also com-

mitted

o

conveying

y nsights

o theoutside

world.

The

atter

equired

me to attain

distance

nstead

f

nvolvement,

etachment

nstead

f

engagement,

r

at east

lways

the

pplication

f rational

nalysis

n

order o

gain

horizon f

reflexivity,

nd

reflec-

tionon

what

he

group

was

trying

o

do

in

the

ight

f a wider

ontext,

e

it

that

f

modern

apan

r that

fthe

correlation

fmessianicmovements

o

social,

political

r

economic

ircumstances

n

other

imes nd

other

laces.

My

nitial elf-set

askwas

for

comparative

nalysis,

nformed

y

theories s

well

as

descriptions

lready

vailable

n similar

henomena

utside

apan.

ittlewas

I

prepared

o

encounter

wall

of

non-comprehension

or

my

ask

f

writing

bout*

y

inquiringromoutside' mong hepractitionersf thegroupwho, ike thefounder,

wanted

me

to become

member,

part

f their

ommunity

fbelievers.

Selected

Contexts

of

the Field

Encounter

The

founder

nd the

group

members

largely

he everal

ozen

key

dministrators

nd

missionaries

t

headquarters

n

the

town

f

Tabuse,

s well as several

undred

mem-

bers

coming

n

pilgrimages

r work-duties

or everal

ays,

ometimes

wo

weeks,

o

theheadquarters,nd latermanyndividualmembersll overJapan nd overseas)

were

prepared

o et

me as

foreigner'

hare

n their

xperiences.

hiswas

a relief

nd

surprise

orme

at the

ame

time as

it would

be for

nyone

lse who has

tried o do

participant

esearch

n

Japan

since

foreigners

re

usually category

f

persons

who

are considered

crazy'

r

odd'

{henna

aijin):

f

hey ry

o emulate

apanese

ways

oo

closely,hey

asily

ecome

laughing

tock s well

s a source

f embarrassment.

The

group

encountered

ad no

qualms

bout

my

notion f

participation

hich

often

reates

he

greatest

ifficulties

n

other

esearch

reas:

Anthropologists

ho are

neither

octors

r

nurses,

or

development

gents

with

pecialized

nowledge,

annot

easily

ustify

r

egitimate

heir

resence,

ot

to

speak

of theirwish

o

participate

ike

'oneof hem'.However,hemembersfthis eligiousroup ouldnotunderstandhe

reason

or

writing

bout

them

hrough

hetool

of rational

nquiry:

he

onlyway ny

writing

as

to

be done

was

as

'testimony'

o

conversion

nd to the

experience

f

di-

vine

lessing

n

order

o

spread

he

ruth

f heir

ospel.

,

on the ther

and,

was

will-

ing

o

participate

nd share

n their

xperiences,

appy

o

get way

rom

he ften

nly

vicarious

ay

f

gazing

t otherness'

o common

n

most

ield-work,

ut was not

pre-

pared

o surrender

o the

degree

f

becoming

ne of

hem',

o fake onversion

r even

to

give

up my

nalytic

ask.

The

compromise

eached

n

the

end was for he

group

o

accept

he dea of

my



9/25

216

Klaus-Peter

opping

writing

bout hem

s

approximating

heir otion f

conversion

iterature hile

rant-

ing

the

foreigner

he freedom r

spleen

of a learned

man'

erai

hito)>

s

thosewho

write ooksfor livingnJapanese ocietyreknown y people nthecountryside.

However,

eing

n

close

contactwith

many

dherents

t the

headquarter

f a founder

of

teachings

hichwere

iterally

aken s 'God's

truth' orworld

alvation,

t a

place

whichwas to be the future

aradise' tengoku)

n

earth,

was also

often

hallenged

in

myprivate

elfwhen nvolved

n

questions

f truth

r of

my

beliefs'.

soon

realiz-

ed that could not

bring

ff 'neutral'

tand,

or could

fakebelief

n

their

pecific

truth:he ncountered me

to rethink

y

wnbeliefs

fwhich

my rofessional

nthro-

pological

ursuits

re an

inseparable art.

Authentication

My example

ouches

irectly

n

the

ssue

of the

authenticity

f the

researcher.

hile

it has become

customary

o claimthat written

thnographyains

ts

authenticity

through

eferenceo

field-work,

n

therecent econstructionist

iteraturehe

concept

seems o be devalued o meanthe

persuasiveness

f

fiction' nd

not the

existentially

and

morally

more

challenginguestion

f what

uthenticityruly

ntails,

he

being

true o

oneself.

The

question

whichwe

ought

o

be able to answer

s notwhether

e

are

convincing

o a

readership

ut whether

ur

findings ely

n an

authentic

uman

being'snvolvementith ther uman eings, nd that uestion anonly e assessed

through

ttentiono the

primaryraxis

f

field-work,

ot

by

reference

o

good

or bad

writing

r to rhetoricaldumbrations. hatdoes

being

rue o oneself

ntail,

n

gen-

eral

terms,

or he

anthropologicalrofession?

urely,

he readerwill

say,

no answer

can be

expected

r

given

n

detail s

only

heresearchersould answer

his or

hem-

selves.

recently

rote

onfidently

n this s follows:

The

only

uthenticity

e

may

claim

n

this

nterprise

e derive rom ur

participation

n

other

ways

f

perceiving

reality,

nd not

from

he

casual

voyeurism

f

thetourist r the

persuasiveness

f our

'fictions'n

our world"

Kopping

1994:25).

stillmaintain his

position,

ut with

n

extension r rather

ddition

esulting

rom

variety

f nfluences

hich orcedme to

re-think

yposition,

nfluences

anging

rom

re-creating'

he field-encounter

n

my

memory

o the iteraturef the

writing

ulture'

dherents,

rom

eaching

ield-work

methods o

undergraduateshrough ereading arefully

alinowski'sntroduction

o

"Argonauts"

o

encounteringolleagues

hinking

bout imilar

roblems uring

on-

ferences.

s thereaction o

my

participatory

ttempts

n

thefield howed o me

then,

and

more

pronouncedly

how

now,

my

nformants

id

share o a

degree

my

wn dea

of

true

knowledge

o be

gained hrough

ction

nd

experience,

ut we

parted

t the

point

where

insisted n

holding

o

my

wnbeliefswhich ncluded he im

of

writing

about them

n

an

analytic ay.

Nevertheless,

n

spite

of

disagreements

rue

dialogic



10/25

ENGAGEMENT

AND

CRITIQUE

IN ETHNOGRAPHIC

PRAXIS

217

interactions

id

develop,

because

of the differences

eing

maintained,

would

think,

ecause

we

-

informants

nd

myself

were ndeed

mutually

urious nd

willing

not

only

o

suspend re-

udgements,

utalso to

suspend

isbeliefnthe

possibility

f

a

meeting

f

thought

nd

feeling.

Two Forms

of

Access to Reality:

Knowledge of

the Head and the Heart

Littlewas

I

prepared

o encounter

cultural

etting

here

split

of

two kinds

of

knowledge

was

taken

for

granted,

here

knowledge hrough iving

n and

surren-

dering

o

experience

as considered

he

highest

orm f

realizing

ull

humanity

hile

all ratiocinationas consideredn inferiororm f iving, formwhich hefounder

Mrs.

Kitamura

made

responsible

or he decline

of the world'

using

he Buddhist

term

mappo,

he

third f three

ges

after

he deathof

Shakyamuni,eing

he

age

of

decline

efore he

Apocalypse).

While

was

not

prepared

o

relinquish

my

wn

pursuit

f rational

nalysis,

he

encounter

ith

his

different

oncept

of

knowledge

made me

aware not

only

that

anthropology

as

caught

n the ame

bind whichMrs. Kitamura

as

describing,

ut

that he

close

encounter

f

participation

as

indispensible

s a

praxis

n

order

o be

able

to detect

he

similarity

r

difference

n a more han

ntellectualevel of

game-

playing.

was

challenged

n

my

elief hat could

possibly

eepmy ersonal

elf

epa-

rate rommy rofessionalelf.And nowbecame ware hat heprofessionalrienta-

tion o

write

nd be

involvedwith

nalysis

oes

belong

o

my uthenticity.

Authenticity

hus

ncompasses

he ombination

f

whatGouldner

alled he wo

forms

f

knowledge,

nowledge

s

information

s well as

knowledge

s awareness

(Gouldner 972:493;

or similar

osition

merging

ee

also Kauffmann

990),

where-

by

the

atter

s self-

eflective

ode cannot ome

aboutwithout

articipation

nd en-

gagement

ith

oncrete

thers.

his

engagement

nd

participation

oes involve he

full

elf,

not a

compartmentalized

ection

f

t,

ince,

s

Diamondonce

expressed

t,

when

we talk

bout

generalized

thers

we are

most nauthentic.

oland

Barthes

ut

t

very

ptly

y quoting

Nietzsche:

Supposinghat e xperiencedhe thershe xperiencesimselfwhichchopenhauer

calls

ompassion

ndwhich

might

ore

ccurately

e called union

within

uffering,

unity

f

uffering

we should

ate he

ther hen e

himself,

ike

ascal,

inds imself

hateful

Barthes

990:174).

In hisown

comment

arthes ontinues

his

ine

of

hought:

Now,

whatever

he

power

of

ove,

hisdoes

notoccur:

am

moved,

nguished,

or

t s horrible

o see those ne

loves

suffering,

ut at the

same time remain

ry,watertight. y

identification

s

imperfect"

1990:57).



11/25

218

Klaus-Peter

opping

There s no

guarantee

hatwe can ever

ridge

uccessfully

he

gap

between

xpe-

rience

nd

analysis

r between hetwo

forms f existence

hich evinas

abelled he

differentttitudeso theworld: itherwe aregivingn to it and aretaken verby t

(then

we are

existing

n

themode of

ecstasy),

r we

appropriate

nd assimilate

t to us

(then

we are

n

the mode of

knowledge),

ut

prior

o

both are

forms f

enjoyment

(jouissance)

nd all

enjoyment

s a

way

f

being

Levinas

987:63).

But,

we

might

dd,

our

way

f

being

s

n

differentorlds.

While

we

may

each

n

understanding

hrough

reaching

ut to the

Other,

y magination,

r

by negotiation

f

meaning,

e willnot

be able to

change

laces.

Rosaldo's

xample

f

understanding

he

head-hunter's

age

refers o the flash

f

recognition

f

meaning hrough

ur

own hurt nd

the accom-

panying

natural'

eaction f

rage,

ut

t s his' hurt

nd

rage,

r

n

Laura

Bohannan's

words: The

greater

he xtent o which

ne has

ived nd

participated

n a

genuinely

foreignulture ndunderstoodt, hegreaterhe xtento which ne realizes hat ne

could

not,

without

iolence o one's

personal ntegrity,

e of

t"

Bowen

1964:291).

Appropriations

of Self

and

Other

Rethinking

hefield-encounter

ith

religious

ounder,

would

now state

hat

nly

through

his ncounter

ould become

ware fthe econd

pole

of

my

uthenticity

s

anthropologist

nd

person:

he im o

analyse

nd write

r what

RolandBarthes

ould

have called thepleasure f thetext'.Yet, couldonlygive ntothat yhaving irst

given

n

to the ncounter.

husbothforms f

praxis

elong ertainly

o

the

nthropol-

ogist's uthenticity,

nd no matter ow

many

exts read

previously

r

subsequently,

the

ncounter emains

he

primary

ource

or he

reflexivity

o take

place.

The exam-

ple

of the encounter

lso makes t

clearthatno form

f

text-positivism',

o

laying

open

all

possible

memories

f

influences,

hether

efore,

uring

r after

he

field

encounter,

an

help

to elucidate he ources

f

my nterpretations

f

Japanese

ttitudes

to

knowledge,

hich

while

artial

nspite

f all the bove

given

ontextual

nalysis

are

my

wn

map'

to

make ense

f

plethora

f

ingle

ncidences;

hether

t

provides

a

readerwith he

ame

map

s

open

to debate.

The encounter larified

many

uestions

had about

Japanese

eligiosity

nd

many reviously

ncomprehensible

ehaviouralncidences ell nto

place.

However,

the

meaning

fwhat

Mrs.Kitamura aid also

was nformed

y

previous xperiences

n

Japan,

ncluding

misunderstandings.

oreover,

he

epistemological

nd

existential

impossibility

f

he ask f

nthropology

ecame lear o

my

tartled

e-cognition:

ow

could haveor

pretend

o have similar

articipatory

ccess

to half dozen

messianic

groups?

My

above

given

ranslationsnd

interpretations

f

Japanese oncepts

f know-

ledge

re

certainly

eappropriations

f

my

wn

xperiences

or ther

urposes,

ike he



12/25

ENGAGEMENT

AND

CRITIQUE


219

one

at hand

of

presenting

n

essayisticpproach, eappropriations

n

the

ight

f nfor-

mation

nd

purposes

whichwerenot at ssue at the ime

f

the ncounter

n

thefield

orof tsfirst

nalysis.

The encounter

ltimately

lso made sense

of

my nthropological

ocation

for

the time

being),

but foremost ade me realize

my

difference

hrough

he

alterity

f

the

Other,

throwing

e back

upon my

wn

alterity

nd

forcing

e to

explain

my-

self

o

myself,

uthenticatingyself

ot

only

o

the

Other,

ut also to theSelf

and

n

this ense

of course

lso

legitimating

y

ontinuationf research

s

well as

writing).

The encountertself

s

possibly

esponsible

or

my uoting

f Levinas

n

this

ontext,

but

certainly

s decisive

here and now

-

for

my agreement

ith

or

critique

f

Malinowski

r other

olleagues

who

have ddressed

he

problem

f

otherness

n

field-

work

nd

writing,

r

for

my

uoting

ertain uthors

nd not others

n

the

essay:put

simply,readmy wn culture istoryndmy ntellectualeritagenthe ight f the

field-encounter.

nd that

s,

after

ll,

what

omparativenthropology

s

really

bout,

namely

o re-read

nd

re-interpret

heSelf

s individual

ife-history

s well

s

from he

point

f a collective

memory,

hus

ritically

e-appropriating

t

for

personal

and

pro-

fessional)

urposes.

For

an extension

fthis

dea

by

a researcher ho

readshis field-

work

hrough

orster's

orks nd vice

versa,

ee

Rapport

994.)

Jean

Pouillon

put

the

dilemma

ery ptly

s follows:

The notionwe have

of

others

s a function

fwhat

we are

ourselves",

nd,

o

he

continues,

proper

nthro-

pology

omes bout

through

he

ntegration

f our

"prejudiced"

deas and whatwe

know bout

others.

ut

how,

he

asks,

an

our

"prejudiced"

deas become rue

know-

ledge: Thismeans dmittinghat e the nthropologist)an become onscious f he

traditions

hich rient

is

hought,

hat e

can

udge

hem nd need

no

onger

ubmit

to

them

ven

f

he

still

ccepts

hem"

Pouillon

1980:37-39).

This

does sound

ike

the adviceof

Gadamer hatwhile

we

may

not be able to

overcome

ur

prejudices

he

hance t east

xists to free

urselves

hrough

eflection

from

hat

which therwise

ppresses

s unbeknown

o us".4This still eaves

open

the

question:

ow

do reflection

nd self-reflection

reflexivity)et

et ntomotion? efore

trying

o

prove

hat

elf-referentiality

oes

not

open

the

way

to

this,

take a detour

through

discussion

f another

amiliarorm f

re-appropriation

n

thefield

f

artis-

tic

re-creation

n the

musical

modality.

Original

and Copy:

Citation

and

Re-cital

While

the research

ubjects

partners

f a

dialogue)

provide

he

original

nformation

(possibly

maieutically

nduced),

hey

nd

up

disembodied

n the iteral ense of the

4

"die Reflexion

efreit,

ndem sie durchschaubar

macht,

von

dem,

was einen

undurchschaut

beherrscht"



13/25

220

Klaus-Peter

opping

word,

made over ntonew bodies

n

the

body

of

thetext'

providing

he

pleasure

f

the

text' o distanced

eaderships,

hus

oosing

ontrol nd

power

n

a similar

ay

s

do researchershenwriting,lthoughhe atters disempowerments at eastmitigat-

ed

by

he

ontrol

ver

he uthorial

haping

f exts

s woven

hings'

I

shall

ater

is-

cussthe

power

f eduction

he nformant

etains).

his

problem

elates

o

the

appro-

priation'

f

knowledge

n

the

writtenext o which

shall

urn

ow.

An

ssue

hat elates

irectly

o the

notion

f

appropriation

s that f

the ransla-

tion

from

xperience

o

expression

Dilthey's

on

der

Erfahrung

um

Ausdruck),

he

problem

f citation'.

ome textualists

onvey

he

mpression

hat

we would

be closer

to

the ruth

r would

gain

more ccurate

icture

fthe

Other

or

theOther

nd the

Self f heresearcher

n

their

nteractions)

f

we

only

ad

all the

field-notes

nd

diaries

of

field-workersnd

thus ould

re-construct

heir

path'

a

typical

xample

with hese

aims s thecollection ffield-notesr rather f meta-discussionsn field-notesn

Sanjek

1990).

t should

be

abundantly

lear hat

return

o a

new

textpositivism

s

fu-

tile

s

every

ext s

the

bsorption

nd transformation

f

other exts

for

n

ncisive

ri-

tique along

these

ines,

ee Kauffmann

990).

Since

Schleiermacher,

nterpretation

always

ntails

he

ppropriation

f a

'text',

he

past,

while

ddressing

he

present

nd

the

future.

he

original

s thus

ppropriated

or

he

present

udience's

and

nterpret-

er's)

relevances.

ouillon

ut

t

cogently

ypositing

s

minimum

equirement

o trans-

late

"faithfully

rom

he

language

f

departure'"

nd

"intelligibly

o the

language

f

arrival'"

Pouillon

1980:38).

It is for

hisreason hat

onductors

f Beethoven's

ymphonies

nd

performers

of Schubert's ieder re hailed s creative' ersons,s theyre-create'ndare nsofar

original

nd creative

ecause

while

aking

oth

ides

nto ccount

hey

re

appraised

by

the taste'

f

the

present

s

to how a

symphony

r a

Lied should

ound,

while

he

audience

arely

ares

whether eethoven

r Schubert

ould

have

played

r

sung

t

n

the

ame

way.

t is

notthe

dentity

f the

copy,

he xact

replica,

which s

desired

ut

a

'convincing'

endering

f an

original

n

what s

appropriately

alled

a

're-cital'.

he

very roblem

f

the

ge

ofexactmechanical

r electronic

eproduction

the

xamples

of

Disneyland

r

of

Hearst'scollection

mania are

the serious

xamples,

he

ronic

breaking

f

his ad n theworks f

Roy

Lichtenstein

r

Andy

Warhol

he

playful

om-

ments

n

t)

s that t eaves he

udience ather

istless,

s

a million

aphael

Madonnas

or the

rebuilding

f

Medieval

ownships

reknown o be

exactly

hat

hey

ry

o

hide:

fake

mitations,

ithoutife r

spirit'.

By

contrast,

ach

re-creation'f

a

piece

of music

r a dramatic

ole

by

a

gifted

artists considered

nique, ivetting,

oul-stirring

nd

possibly

cathartic'

n Schiller's

sense,

ecausethe

nterpretergot

t

right'

n

accordance

with he aste

nd

the

magi-

nation

s well s thedesire

the

fantasy)

fthe udience.

his

experience

s

replicated

and

re-experienced

y anybody

ho reads

poem

the

first r the

hundredth

ime

or

private leasure

or

edification),

henthe

pleasure

s

not

derived

rom

he author's

intentionsut from

he

relevances

he

reader,

istener

r viewer

ttaches

o theocca-



14/25

ENGAGEMENT

AND

CRITIQUE


221

sion.Clifford'statement

hat

ethnographers

an

no

onger

laim his

ort

f

originary

or creative

ole,

or

hey

must

lways

eckonwith

redecessors",

ecause "one writes

among, gainst,

hrough,

nd in

spite

of

them",

s utter onsensen the

ight

f an

interpretative

ramework

it

would

barely

hold

in

a

positivistic

nvironment;

ee

Clifford

990:55).

Australian

boriginal eligious ractitioners

nd artists ould

have

taught

Clifford

different

erspective.

borigines

f

the Northwest

f

Western

Australiatouch

up'

the

paintings

n rockswhere he Dreamtime reator

eings

eft

their

imprint':

his

e-painting

ctivity

s enacted

n

periods

f

acred

ime,

uring

ea-

sonal

increase'

eremonies,

n

truly

re-creationaT

ime,

n

ordernot

only

o remem-

ber'

(or

anamnetically

e-collect

he ancestor

reators),

ut

specifically

o

effect he

increase

f all

species,

hus

perceiving

re-creation'

s a

creative

ct

(repeating

he

Dreaming

s the

Creation).

Byre-creationhepresent erformersppropriatendeed hepowers f heorig-

inal

creators,

nd n this ense ach

appropriation

as to

encompass

n

apprehension

or rather

omprehension,

n

understanding

f he reative

riginal rocess.

ach read-

ing

or

writing

r

playing

fmusic

r

conversation)

s

an

original

xperience:

hat s the

true

message

fthe rt f

nterpretation.

his also

empowers

ach reader s last nter-

preter

hile

he

uthor oses control

ver he

production,

s does

themediator.

n

my

present

rame

f

reference,

he nformants well

s the

ranslator/mediator-anthropol-

ogist

must

mpower

he

reader

o make sense of the

product.

As

I

tried o show

through

he

xplication

f a

personal

ield-encounter,

nother eature

ets

hort hrift

if

originality'

n

appropriation

nd

re-casting

n

nterpretation

s denied: he ransfor-

mation f heresearchernvolvedn anencounteras to be takennto ccount,npar-

ticular he

hanging

f

histheoretical

erspective

r

personal

rame

f

nterpreting

is

and other

ultural

rrangements

n

critical

re-appraisal'

r what have called

pre-

viously

he

emancipatory'

ffect

f research

which

may

work lso for he research

partner).

A

Break-Down of Occidental

Confidence?

In regard o the Malinowskianspirit' f gained nformation,eertzspeaks

of an

"ethnographic

entriloquism:

he

laim o

speak

not

ust

bout nother

orm f ife ut

to

speak

from ithin

t"

Geertz

1988:145),

making

Malinowski's

thnography

mean-

ing

his

field-work)

n

"oddly

nward

matter,

question

f

self-testing

nd self-trans-

formation,

nd

making

f ts

writing

form

f self-

evelation",

hich,

o

concludes

Geertz,

ramatized or

Malinowski

his

hopes

of

self-transcendence",

hile

ormost

descendants,

itdramatizes

heir

ears f

elf-deception"

Geertz 988:22-23).

t

s dif-

ficult o

imagine

hat

Geertz

s

advocate

f thick

description'

ere resorts o

such

pessimistic

iews bout

nthropology's

earch

or

what s human

n

us all.

An

unchar-



15/25

222

Klaus-Peter

opping

itable

xplanation

ould

be to

see this emark

ot

s rhetorical

yperbole

ut s based

on theworld-viewf

hermeneuticsf

uspicion

which

may

e the

ogical

utcome

f

an attitude fmisanthropyseeKopping1995).Asoriginallyefined yKant ndfur-

ther

eveloped y

Helmuth

lessner,

he

misanthrope

s

convinced

hat uman

ature

is

governed yegoism

nd

deceit,

esulting

ften rom

feeling

ffailure

see

Plessner

1974:213).

This

s a trait iscernible

ery arly

n

n

the

written

orks fGeertz.

hus

in

1968

he claimed hat the

relationship

etween n

anthropologist

nd

his

nform-

ants

rests n

a set

of

partial

ictions

alf een

through",

aving

irst sserted

hat

he

tearswhich

many nthropologists

ee

in

the

eyes

of

nformants

are not

really

here"

(Geertz

968),

for

which he

unacknowledged

riginal

s

Evans-Pritchard's

ote

"

[...]

an

anthropologist

as failed

nless,

whenhe

says

goodbye

o

the

natives,

here

s on

both ides he orrow

f

parting"

Evans-Pritchard

951:79).

Wemay uibblewith vans-Pritchardhether ll field ncountersreamiable,

as

in

many

ield ituationshere

may

have been

a mixture f

hate and

ove,

of

greed

and

anger,

here

may

havebeen moments

f

uspicion

nd

disgust,

nd there

may

lso

be relief t the

parting

f the

tranger

ho

knows

o

much,

who was such

pestering

nuisance,

nd

on

the

thnographer's

ide

the

xpectation

f

reward,

ame nd

re-union

with

civilised' ife.But therewill

always

e sorrow n

both ides

f

engagement

nd

negotiation

ver

a

long period

have occurred

other

orms f

anthropological

ield

work re

not

under

discussion

ere).

Otherwise,

e

find hat

which vans-Pritchard

labelled

competent'thnographic

ork,

ut

f

twas

only

won

through hysical

rox-

imity

nd

if

field-work

id not

affect

the ntire

ersonality,

hetotal

human

eing",

no"deeperevel fUnderstanding"illhavebeen reachedEvans-Pritchard951:82).

Twenty

ears

ater,

eertz tates

ategorically

hat

modern

nthropology

in

con-

trast o the

founding

athers

nd mothers o whomhe

grants

uperior

hetorical

kills

-

has becomethebusiness f "half-onvincedwriters

rying

o half-convince

eaders

of

their

alf

onvictions"

Geertz

1988:139).

As clue to the

onvictionbout

he

"pre-

valence

of

deceit"

to

use

one

of

Bailey's

recent

itles)

he

ncidentwhich

Geertz

reports

bouthis field-workffers

tself,

hen

he

refused

o end his

typewriter

o

an

indigenous

riter hich ed to a

break-up

f he

relationship.

eertz

uts

his nto

he

following

rameworkf

polite

deceit:

Borrowing

...]

my

nformant

as,

acitly,sserting

is demand

o be taken

eriously

s an

intellectual...], .e. a peer; endingt, was,tacitly,rantinghatdemand ...].Weboth

knew hat hese

greements

ould

be

only artial:

e arenot

really olleagues

...] (Geertz

1968).

As Simmel

ointed

ut at the

beginning

f this

entury

boutthe

emptiness

f social

courtesy,

e

shouldnot

nfer

rom heir bservance

ny

steem r devotion

Simmel

1950:400).

Early nsight

o this

ffect omes

from

ascal's

treatise

Troisdiscourse

ur a

condition es

grands"

f

1560

where e

advised

hat

ne can

require

hat

ne

greets



16/25

ENGAGEMENT

AND

CRITIQUE

IN ETHNOGRAPHIC

PRAXIS

223

duke

but one cannot

require

hat

one holds him

n

esteem.

One

could

argue

with

Geertz

gainst

imself: e

did

not

ee the

winks',

utmistook

ourtesy

n his ide

for

showing

f esteem

the

base reason

may

havebeen

plain

nconvenience)

nd nferred

that he

nformant's

equest

or

ourtesymplied

n

equality

e,Geertz,

id

notbelieve

to be there

n

the

first

lace,

result

if

may peculate possibly

f the ack of the

very

ameconfidence

hichhe

requires

f

present

riters

f

ethnography.

While

chiding

Geertz

for

trying

o wheedlehis

way

out

of

this conundrum

through

ecourse o

a

theory

f cross-cultural

ommunion' or a case which s

a

straightforward

ersonal

miscommunication

r a clash of

personalities,

obert

Jay

admits

n

the ame

breath hat

he

too

mismanaged

ersonal

elations,

s he

could not

remember

singlepersonal

nformant,

nd

that

any

wareness had of

particular

individuals

s

they

elated

ersonally

o

me,

o

others,

nd to their wn

ives,

xcept

s

itboreonmy erceptionf uchpatterning"of ystemsfrice griculturesdynam-

ic

of social

and economic

ower "slipped

by

me, or,

f

registered

ecause

of

some

intimacy

n

my

elation

ith

hem,

ot

et

apart

nto he

eparate

ealm f

my

private

life"

Jay

969:376).

Jay

dmits

n

retrospect

hat he

facile istinction hich

he made

in

his

earlier

ieldworketween

elevance

nd

responsibility,

heformer

eing

related

to the scientific

roject,

he

atter

eingrelegated

o the

private'

r

personal'

evel,

cannot

e

maintained,

ecauserelevance

s

knowledge

nd

responsibility

s action

re

inextricably

ntertwined

n the

relationship

etweenresearcher

nd informant

Jay

1969:377-378).

Humour,

self-irony

and

surrender

to seduction

Jay's

confessions'

re an

example

of

insight

bout

the imitations

f the Selfwon

after

field-work;

ut t s the

very

ttentiono scientific'

nthropology

hich

rings

about

his

ealisation

f he

ack,

dimly

elt

n

the

field,

eading

owto a new self-real-

isation',

ejecting

he

old

'me' and

creating

futureme' with

different

rientations,

thus

eading

o

a

changed

morality

f

being

n

theworld.

This

s

also

the conclusion

o

whichLevi-Strauss

omes

n his

reading

f Rous-

seau's "Confessions":he longreliance fEuropeanthoughtn theself-fashioning

Cartesian

cogito"

annot

stablish he

Self s a

reflexive

bject

of

the

reflecting

ub-

ject.

For

Levi-Strauss,

ousseau's

mportance

ies

n his realisationhat

against

he

attempt

f

Montaigne

the elf

has to

be

established

s a third

erson hrough

he

dia-

logic

nterrogation

nlypossible

hrough

he

presence

f

others,

n

order o arrive t

the

nsight

fRimbaud's

je

est

un autre".

evi-Straussherefore

grees

withRousseau

in

the

pronouncement

hat

when

hear

music,

am

hearing

myselfhrough

t".5

t is

5

See Levi-Strauss'

ddress n Genevafor he

50th

nniversary

f

Rousseau's irth

Levi-Strauss973).



17/25

224

Klaus-Peter

opping

from his

perspectiveurprising

hat

evi-Strauss,

ho had

previously

ndicated

hat

no

particular

iew

of theworld hould

be considered

s

superior

nd

that

nthropol-

ogistshave to followRousseau's dagethat ne has "to refuse neselfn oneselfn

order

o

accept

neself

n

others

(Levi-Strauss

973:242),

oes

not

get

o the

point

f

criticising

is own

society

ut rather eels

himself s a

"manipulated

eing"

Sontag

1966:69-81).

At the same time

hiding

hose

nthropologists

ho

criticise

heir

wn

society

hile

becoming

most onservative

n

supporting

ven

he bstruse

ustoms

s

soon as

they

nter

hefield. ut

f

no

society

as the

prerogative

f he

good

ife',

hen

criticism

t both nds hould

e

possible.

tanding

loof rom

ngagement

s

that

ery

attitude

which came

into

prominence

with

the notion

of

Scheler

and

later of

Mannheim bout

he

"free-floating

lassof

the

ntelligentsia",

nd

t s an

attitude

he

anthropologist

annot fford.

f

anthropology

hooses

to

deny

ts

own

precepts

f

the suspension of disbelief inthe mpossibilityfthe psychic nityf

mankind'

nderlying

he

field-work

ndeavour,

t hould

ndeednot

be

surprised

o be

taken

by

nformants

nd

readers)

s

untrustworthy

s

that

osmopolitanism

hich

Rousseau

regarded

ith

reat

uspicion.

We cannot

etain he

ttitude

f the

imping

Oedipus

f

we want

o do field-work.

he adherents

f

the

writing

ulture'

orm

f

deconstruction

if

taken

s

majorpursuit

f cultural

tudies'

are

feeding

nto

nd

relying

n the

very

notion

of the

untrustworthiness

f all

re-creative

roductions,

maybe

ecause,

s

J.A.

Barnes

uggested,

hey

re

"discouraged

ith

he

partial

nd

philosophical

ifficulties

f

discovering

hat

goes

on

in

thereal

world" nd

therefore

diverting

their

nergies

o

exegesis

o

the

ndustry

nd other

elf-contemplating

ur-

suits" Barnes 979:188).

In

contrast

o Robert

ay's

ttitudetands

hat fLaura

Bohannan

who

during

field-workealizedher

own tricksterhood'

s follows:

I

was

one who

seems

o be

what he is not and who

profess

sic ]

faith

n

what

he does not

believe"

Bowen

1964:290).

he achieved he

upreme

eat f

elf-irony

hen

he

oined

n

the

aughter

of her

nformants

erforming

pantomime

n

her

face about

the

anthropologist

s a

writer,

ut also

perceived

he

unacceptable

ide of

heOtherwhen

hey aughed

bout

a blindman

tumbling

bout,

tating:

In

an environment

n

which

ragedy

s

genuine

an

[sic ]

frequent,

aughter

s essential o

sanity"

Bowen

1964:295),

nd further:

"These

people

know

he

reality

nd

augh

t

t. Such

aughter

as ittle

oncern

with

what

s

funny.

t s often itter

nd

sometimes

little

mad,

for t s the

augh

under

he

maskof

tragedy,

nd also the

aughter

hatmasks ears.

They

rethe same" Bowen

1964:297).

But she could

not share

n

that

aughter,

r as she

put

t:

"It is an error

o

assume

hat o know s to understand

nd to understand

s to ike"

Bowen

1964:291).

Here we

are on different

round, rgued

rom he evelof

experience

ith

therness,

of

being-for

to

use

Heidegger's

nd

Zygmunt

auman's

erminology)

n

togetherness,

not the

distancing

eflection

f one's own

writing.

ohannan hus

voided

he

pitfall

of moral

ndifferencer condescension

hichBauman

haracterized

nce

as the tti-

tude

"you

re

wrong,

am

right,

...]

thefact

hat bearwith

your

therness

oes

not



18/25

ENGAGEMENT

AND

CRITIQUE


225

exonerate

our

rror,

t

only provesmy generosity"

Bauman 1992:XXI).

Bauman

thereforealls

for

dialogic cknowledgement

f the

equivalence

f

knowledge-pro-

ducing

discourses,

henwe take this

egitimacy

f the nterestsf others

eriously.

That

would be true

olerance s well as

a

sign

of

solidarity

the

only

value Bauman

wants o save

from

modernity's

roject).

Bohannan chieves

hiskind

f

nsight

hrough

sense

ofthe

narchic

ower

f

humour

which,

s the artof

balancing

etween

elf-enjoyment

nd

sympathy

or

he

suffering,

as

been

perceived

s a

sign

of true

humanity

ince Roman

times;

r

as

Friedrich

chlegel,

he

great

heoretical

ind f the

German

RomanticMovement f

the

1820s

put

t:

"Irony

ontains

omething

f and creates

feeling

or he nsoluble

struggle

etween

he

mpossibility

nd

at

the ametime he

necessity

f

compete

ia-

logue.

With

rony

ne

surpasses

ne's self".

Any ther ttitude,uchas the ndignation"but was a field-worker"r "that

is

beyond

he

bounds

of

scholarly

ivility")

f some members

f the

anthropological

profession,

ho

reacted

iolently

gainst

he

harge ySangren

nd

Jarvie

hat econ-

struction as

the

best excuse for

rmchair-ethnology

ince

Frazer,

would have been

regarded

y

heRomans s

thevice

of

gravitas,

hat heaviness' hich s

the

very

ppo-

site f

the

evity

fthe

poetic

magination

fwhich

chlegel

gain

aid n

unsurpassed

clarity

he

following:

Behind

hecreative

mpulse

tands he

buffoon,

nd

the

nspi-

rational

orce

f

poetry

s thedivine

reath f

rony,

ermeated

y

truly

ranscenden-

tal

buffoonery".

It s this

uffoonery

f

he ricksterho

delights

n his

own

pranks

nd thefaults

orfollyfothers,ras La Rochefoucauldaid:"Ifwe hadnofaults e wouldnotde-

rive

so much

pleasure

discovering

hem

n

others"6

La

Rochefoucauld

959:72),

whichmakes

he

encounter

ith

he other

salutary xperience.

he limitations

s

well s

the

urpassing

fboundaries

nly

ecome

lear o us when

we see ourselves s

third

arties

hrough

ncountering

heOther.But

field-works beset

with he

very

l-

liberality

n whichwe

are

caught,

ollowingchlegel,

hen

we are creative.

herefore,

to be

able to

analyse

we have

to embrace

istance,

or

nly

hendo we

gain

freedom

from ur

undivided

ttention

o a task.

We have

hen,

fter

ll,

o revert

o

writing,

nd

writing

eads

to the

rreverent

reedom

f he

buffoon,

he

rickster,

he

ender fmes-

sages,

o

Hermes

s herald.

There s a very ine xample f reflectiony

an

ethnographer

bout

the

ttempt

to

escape

the

self-referentiality

f the

monologic isposition

nd the

temptation

o

write.

Michel

Leiris

ommentedn

the

Djibouti-Dakar

xpedition

s follows:

Intense

ork,

o

which

give

myself

ith certain

ssiduousness,

utwithoutn ounce

of

passion.

'd rather

e

possessed

han

tudy ossessedeople,

ave arnal

nowledge

f

6

"Si nous

n'avions

oint

de

defauts,

ous ne

prendrions as

tantde

plaisir

en

remarquer

ans es

autres."



19/25

226

Klaus-Peter

opping

Zarina,

atherhan

cientifically

now ll bout er. or

me,

bstract

nowledge

ill ever

be

anything

ut he econd

est

Leiris

934:324).

Leiris was

one of the few

who saw that

dangerous oison

which ies behind

the

demand nd the imto

publish

n

ethnography

f ived

xperience,

hatwhich

usan

Sontag

has called

the

revenge

f

the ntellect

pon

art,

s each

nterpretation

mplies

that he

riginal

s not

good

enough.

uch

hermeneutic

s

not

only ggressive

ut lso

impious:

From he

start,

riting

his

ournal,

have

struggled

gainst

poison:

the

idea of

publication"

Leiris1934:215).

He

adds

also a melancholic

ote:

"In the

year

1933

returned

nd had at east

destroyed

ne

legend:

hat

f

travelling

s the

possi-

bility

r

escaping

neself

...] (1939:202-203).

Whenhe

produced

inally

text,

eiris

says

bout

t:

"I

like

very

muchwhatGenet

oldmewhenwe

met

irst: write

n

order

to be loved'

-

that eems o

me of unconditional

incerity"

1934:209).

Thus,

while

wishing

n vain o embraceheresearch

ubject,

e ends

up

yearning

to embrace

hereader: rom

he

mpossible

o the

potential.

his s

possibly

he

ame

attitude hich

Devereux

uspected

ehind

ll

writing:

he

surpassing

f

anxiety

of

Otherness

n

the

Self?)

hrough

method

i.e.

writing).

Letting

go

Behind

eiris tands

nother

roblem,

hat f

the

onstant

eduction

fthe

Other

nd

bytheOther.AsBurridgence formulatedt, nthropologytands tthecross-roads

of

European

philosophies,

etweenPlatonicEros

and

Christian

ove,

between

he

"faith

n

the

rationally

bjective"

s antidote

o whathe calls:

"[...]

the

nertial

uman

drift oward

viewpoint

ased

wholly

n the

participation

nd interrelatedness"

(Burridge

973:12).

Michael

Jackson

eferred

o t

recently

n similar erms:

My

wn

ield-work

mong

heKurankoad

reflected

profound

ilemma.n

onehand

I

found

myself

triving

or wealth fdata

which could onvert

nto

book,

durable

object

which

might

ake

my

ame. ut n

the ther and

felt

my go

hreatened

y

world

f

opaque anguages,

izarre

ustoms,

nd

oppressive

iving

onditions.

unning

counter

o thiswill o amass

nowledge

as

profound

esire

o

give p

and

et

go,

o

allow

my

onsciousness

obe flooded

y

heAfricanmbience

Jackson

989:163).

Jackson's

onclusions or

nthropology

re

worth

uoting

s well.

Relying

n Gadam-

er's

notion

fthe

ongoing

raditionnd tsreflective

ppropriation,

e states:

An

nthropology

hicho

forthrightly

eflects

pon

he

nterplay

f

biography

nd radi-

tion ndmakes he

ersonality

f he

nthropologistprimary

atum ntails

different

notion

f

ruthhan hat

o

which scientific

nthropology

spires.

t s a notion

f ruth

based ess

pon pistemological

ertainties

han

pon

moral,esthetic,

nd

olitical

alues

(Jackson

989:167).



20/25

ENGAGEMENT

AND

CRITIQUE


227

For

Jackson

meanings

re created

ntersubjectively

s well

as

intertextually,

mbodied

in

gestures

s

well s

in

words:

[...]

quite

imply",

e

says,

people

cannot e reduced

to texts

ny

more han

hey

an be reduced o

objects" Jackson

989:184).

The dilemma

ppearing

ere,

hat etween

giving

n'

to theOther nd

giving

n'

to the

ext,

was

clearly

erceived

y

Kurt

Wolff ho offeredhe

prospect

f urrender

as a methodical

nswer,

erived rom

henomenology

nd

existentialism,

s a

synonym

for total

x

kopping - engagement and critique in ethnographic praxis. the anthropological messenger as seduced...

Documents