Iara Cury
Tutorial Essay Week 3
28/10/10
Waves of Reflection: Swirling Anthropologists?
Three decades after the “reflective turn” of the 1980s, the consensus among
anthropologists appears to be that we live in a post-postmodern world—a world of
heightened consciousness about the partiality, diversity and power of
representations, yet a world that has insisted on being anchored to “realities”
outside the text. Literary theory has not come to dominate the discipline.
Reflexivity, on the other hand, has deeply rooted itself in anthropological discourses,
invoking a continuous exploration of the “unacknowledged social consequences”1 of
anthropological practice and production of knowledge.
Historically, ethnographies had been rendered in a style intended to efface the
anthropologist as an attempt to convey the objectivity of the study, what Jonathan
Spencer calls “ethnographic naturalism”2 in his article, “Anthropology as a Kind of
Writing”. Anthropological publications were not to be taken to be opinion or
ethnocentric interpretations, but serious presentations of data and analysis
collected through immersed fieldwork. For postmoderns, though, writing is
essentially a filtering of reality. According to Spencer, ethnography “constructs a
kind of object—a world robbed of its idiosyncrasies and foibles”3. Instead of taking
ethnographic writing as neutral and objective, ethnographers should recognize that
if culture is a constellation of contested codes and representations, then so is the
writing about culture.
Postmoderns made sure to establish that through fieldwork the anthropologist
gathers his informants’ interpretations of their world and then weaves in, through
ethnographic writing, his own interpretations4. Writers and readers, then, must be
aware that the ethnographic product is composed of layers of personal
representations and not a photographic recording of cultural reality. Based on these
subjective sets of experiences and understandings, the anthropologist does not have
any real representational authority—he may not claim for himself the role of
expertise that scientists claim. Insofar as he produces knowledge about an object,
this object is infinitely complex, multi-dimensional and transient; and whatever
glimpse he may get of it is his own, personal glimpse. From the postmodern
perspective, the positivist hope of building “complete” cultural knowledge only
reveals subjective gaps ad infinitum, and energy might be better spent in creating a
strong sense of the diversity and validity of meanings across cultures.
Sangren, Steven. “Anthropology of Anthropology: Further Reflections on Reflexivity”. Anthropology
Today, 23 (2007): 155.
2 Spencer, Jonathan. “Anthropology as a Kind of Writing”. Man 24 (1989): 152.
3 Spencer, “Anthropology as a Kind of Writing”, 153-154.
4 Clifford, James. “Introduction: Partial Truths”. In Writing Culture, J. Clifford and G. Marcus (eds.)
(London: University of California Press, 1986): 17.
1
The challenge for postmoderns, then, is to incorporate the subjectivity of knowledge
into the text, for the benefit of readers. This “experimental ethnography” is built
upon a range of literary devices, styles and forms. Sometimes the aim of the writer is
to evoke the “states of serious confusion…important failures, changes of course”5 of
fieldwork, as well as the “struggles and economic transactions with informants”6.
Other times it might be to lessen the interpretative distance between informants
and reader by including more quotes from locals and less comments by the
anthropologist (a “thin description”)7. A third option is dialogism or polyphony8,
including as many voices as possible in a work as well as giving authorship status to
informants.
Despite the positive effects of a rigorous sense of partiality9, a possible anthropology
of anthropology has much to explore before claiming a wholesome “reflexivity”,
according to the various critics of the postmodern project. Spencer states, “if we
want to effect more significant changes in the writing and reading of ethnography,
then we shall have to reconsider… anthropological practice as a whole”10. Since the
‘reflective turn’ of the 1980s, reactions to the postmodern project have strongly
affected how anthropologists view and purse ethnographic work. To organize a
presentation of continuing, multi-dimensional ‘reflections’ on the subject, it might
be useful to talk about four themes: experimental writing, historical and factual
contextualization, ideology and institutions, and practical application.
Postmodernity questions writing, but for some critics, this movement has turned the
“fieldwork experience a mere point of departure for poems of stories whose aims is
to display literary prowess rather than communicate an understanding”11. In his
article, “The Self-reflective turn in ethnography”, Peter Geschiere argues for
ethnography being seriously taken as craft, and only at high levels of technical
mastery as art, to ensure the quality of content of experimental works. In addition,
he warns of postmodern texts becoming too centered in a flashy narrative of the
anthropologist’s experience, effectively silencing the voices and problems of his
subjects12.
In terms of writing and research, for Spencer the historical contextualization of
ethnography carried out by a few members of the postmodern cohort had more of
an impact on making other cultures, events and people intelligible to readers13. If
the strength of anthropology is to explain social facts within their social, cultural
and historical context, the same method should be applied to make sense of the
Clifford, “Introduction: Partial Truths”, 13.
Clifford, “Introduction: Partial Truths”, 14.
7 Spencer, “Anthropology as a Kind of Writing”, 157.
8 Clifford, “Introduction: Partial Truths”, 15.
9 Clifford, “Introduction: Partial Truths”, 25.
10 Spencer, “Anthropology as a Kind of Writing”, 146.
11 Jackson, Michel. “Ethnographic Verisimilitude”, Etnofoor 21 (2009): 10.
12 Geschiere, Peter. “The Self-Reflective Turn in Ethnography”, Etnofoor 22 (2010): 138.
13 Spencer, “Anthropology as a Kind of Writing”, 157.
5
6
anthropologist himself, his background and his fieldwork. Geschiere provides a
similar opinion: over and above presenting the “unstructuredness of everyday
realities”, the anthropological strength remains “in contextualizing—in placing
singular events, gestures, images in a broader socio-historical setting”14.
At the end of his article, Spencer mentions the “relationship between institutional
structures and styles of writing”15, a question that Steven Sangren probes in much
more detail. Sangren’s view is that it is necessary to broaden “the enquiry to include
the social processes of anthropological knowledge production, including the
informal or offstage conversations, tactics, career trajectories and etiquette that
comprise academic life”16. According to him, anthropologists work within
institutions founded on the utopic ideology of a “free marketplace of ideas”; the
reality is the presence of inconsistent social practices such as networking, favors,
biases, and issues of rank and narcissism. Instead of focusing on the text as the main
culprits of misrepresentation, Sangren challenges anthropologists to focus on what
happens up to the point of writing, what “systemic and exclusive” effects, in
Clifford’s words (6), shape knowledge production.
Despite all the talk about reflexivity, however, a deep inquiry into these hidden
social forces and processes “risks violating important norms of academic etiquette”
that play a significant role in maintaining a scholarly environment and sociality. To
criticize practices inside one’s own discipline is rather dangerous, both because
‘reflexivity’ can be converted into a weapon of personal ideology and because the
discipline itself presents systemic defenses against this type of project17. With that
in mind, Sangren advises anthropologists to carry forward this endeavor with
“politesse and humility” in an attempt to recuperate the ideals of scholarly pursuit.
Marilyn Strathern, in her article, “Out of Context”, brings to the fore the political
implications of the postmodern conception of the world. As long as anthropologists
hold difference to be “cultural creations and not also the workings of social interests
against one another”18, this leaves ample room for substantial and oppressive social
structures to perpetuate themselves. Geschiere adds, “self-reflexivity…is not always
helpful to address the urgent social problems with which we [and most
fundamentally our informants] are confronted”19. He breaks the postmodern taboo
against positivism stating that “looking for ‘positivist’ facts might remain a useful
complement to take into account notably the material dependencies of livelihood
and power that frame the world”20. Since the “rigorous partiality” revolution, some
anthropologists have taken time to reconsider the implications of working under
Geschiere, “The Self-Reflective Turn in Ethnography”, 143.
Spencer, “Anthropology as a Kind of Writing”, 160.
16 Sangren, “Anthropology of Anthropology”, 13.
17 Sangren, “Anthropology of Anthropology”, 15.
18 Strathern, Marilyn. “Out of context: the persuasive fictions of anthropology”, Current Anthropology
28 (1987): 269.
19 Geschiere, Peter. “The Self-Reflective Turn in Ethnography”, 140.
20 Geschiere, Peter. “The Self-Reflective Turn in Ethnography”, 144.
14
15
perpetual subjectivities in regards to the ethical role of the profession. For those
called to advocacy work or development program consultancy, sides have to be
picked and concrete discourses hashed out.
The most interesting effect of the postmodern project upon anthropology has been
to show that the discipline is as fluid and multifaceted as culture—whenever
anthropologists try to be reflexive about one part, several other parts emerge in
need of reflexivity. Fortunately, instead of floundering around infinite new gaps,
anthropologists can choose to profit from the accumulation of ‘reflexivities’. As the
discipline reaches a careful balance between positivism and relativism,
anthropologists may become better judges of how—or whether—to contribute to
the stubbornly progress-oriented projects of humanity.