a comparative analysis of fieldwork and ethnography in anthropology

6
Explain the difference between ‘fieldwork’ and ‘ethnography’ and why these are considered essential to the discipline of anthropology?

Upload: lauren-gui

Post on 15-Apr-2017

75 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: A Comparative Analysis of Fieldwork and Ethnography in Anthropology

Explain the difference between ‘fieldwork’ and

‘ethnography’ and why these are considered essential to the

discipline of anthropology?

Page 2: A Comparative Analysis of Fieldwork and Ethnography in Anthropology

Anthropology, the study of human diversity on a worldwide scale, distinguishes

itself as an inquisitive discipline with a heavy emphasis on empirical research. To

most cultural and social anthropologists, empirical research epitomizes the essence of

anthropology; that is, an attempt to understand the dynamic interrelationships

established between and within a myriad of cultures and societies of a particular

people. A holistic perspective of one’s chosen field study is acquired through the use

of commonly favoured methodologies of empirical research: fieldwork and

ethnography.

Ethnography is commonly a product of fieldwork as these two methods usually work

well together in achieving a thoroughly well explored enquiry of a specific culture.

Ethnography is a scientific written account detailing the lives of a society in depth

through observation of their customs. Fieldwork, on the other hand, is an attempt to

understand what it means to view the world from another cultural perspective through

immersing oneself in the society in question for a prolonged period of time (Heil,

Macdonald and Nettheim:Forthcoming). This essay will outline and contrast the

following key differences between fieldwork and ethnography: the morality,

reliability and importance of both methodologies.

Fieldwork has often been criticized for not addressing several underlying moral

implications concerning the ethnographer during the course of the field study

(Eriksen, [2001:28]) namely when carrying out certain techniques such as hidden

observation or regarding the level of personal involvement with the locals. It involves

a considerable amount of manipulation which some may go so far as to label deceit on

the ethnographer’s part. This calls into question the boundaries of an ethnographer:

how far would an ethnographer go to obtain field material for an ethnographic text? It

Page 3: A Comparative Analysis of Fieldwork and Ethnography in Anthropology

seems to suggest that the friendships developed are largely created out of necessity

rather than out of sincerity and for the most part, contact with locals cease once the

duration of the field study arrives. This implied that this might evoke a sense of

indignation on the peoples’ part as it creates the impression that they were simply

regarded as objects for the amelioration of science (Eriksen, [2001:28]). Ethnography

on the other hand, may not involve these techniques at all. In later events, a profitable

profession in several Native American tribes in North America has become more

prominent: the cultural specialist (Eriksen, [2001:28]). These local specialists unravel

the complexities of understanding tribal customs to foreign ethnographers. In that

sense, it may be said that ethnography could be deemed as less invasive as it may not

always be necessary to conduct fieldwork utilising techniques involving a higher level

of personal involvement, in order to produce an ethnographic account.

Many questions have been raised about the reliability of fieldwork and ethnography

as to whether they can be counted on to produce unbiased data. There is no doubt as

to their evident benefits: fieldwork produces empirical data rich with a deep insight

into the culture which is in turn translated into a well- rounded ethnographic text.

Unfortunately, this is a double-edged sword: Eriksen states that firstly, significant

shortcomings such as several aspects of society life and of the native culture may not

immediately or actually be evident to the ethnographer. Ethnographers are fond of

acting the part of the ‘clown’ or that of the professional expert whilst conducting a

field study (Eriksen [2001:24]). Whilst choosing the former role usually creates

higher chances of observing unfiltered experiences, the latter creates slimmer

opportunities to observe the culture in its whole self, as locals may be too ashamed to

reveal facets of their culture to a high-ranking foreigner (Eriksen [2001:24]).

Secondly, as Eriksen (2001:27) said, ethnographical accounts may not be wholly

Page 4: A Comparative Analysis of Fieldwork and Ethnography in Anthropology

representative of the culture or society of the peoples under study. The perils of

depending on ethnography in turn exclusively depend on the unadulterated nature of

the empirical data produced and cannot be dismissed. As demonstrated by Gerald

Berreman who depended on a local interpreter throughout his experiences in North

India, a substantial amount of knowledge was unfortunately omitted due to the fact

that his interpreter was a member of a caste considered low in the hierarchy system

(Eriksen [2001:27]). This instance demonstrates that fieldwork though endorsing full

immersion can never be truly reflective of a culture, but strives to be as close an

approximation as possible.

Fieldwork is the crux of anthropology as it utilises techniques that investigate the

differences between cultures through experience and observation, which is the

foundation upon which ethnography is built. The anthropologist Robert Redfield

wrote, “It is by intimate, long-term acquaintance with culture groups that one gains

insight…” (Tamakoshi and Cross:1996). It can be understood from his words that

formal techniques are but another part of fieldwork, and that cultivating friendships as

part of personal immersion, are essential to gaining a proper satisfactory

understanding of culture. Culture is not innate; it is learnt and therefore there must be

personally explored to identify underlying grounds for diversity (Heil, Macdonald and

Nettheim:Forthcoming). Bohannan (1982:81) stated the following remark made by an

elder of the Tiv tribe in West Africa during her stay, illustrating the importance of

personal acquaintance with locals to gain access to their way of thinking:

We, who are elders, will instruct you in their true meaning, so that when you return to your own land your elders will see that

you have not been sitting in the bush, but among those who know things and who have taught you wisdom.

Page 5: A Comparative Analysis of Fieldwork and Ethnography in Anthropology

It is evident that fieldwork and ethnography are both equally important to

anthropology. Fieldwork techniques involving a higher level of personality

investment though occasionally seen as manipulative in some instances is, however,

necessary for the progression of mankind. Without this understanding, intolerance and

an inability to appreciate both the similarities and especially variances that bind all

cultures and societies together are imminent. There would be an inability to

empathise; thereby effectively dispelling the essence of what it is to be human. By

understanding cultural differences, the true wisdom of learning how to utilise it to the

benefit of mankind can be realised.

Page 6: A Comparative Analysis of Fieldwork and Ethnography in Anthropology

Bibliography

Bohannan, L.1982. Shakespeare in the Bush. In J. B. Cole (ed.) Anthropology for the Eighties: Introductory Readings, pp. 72-81. New York: The Free Press.

Eriksen, T. 2001. Fieldwork and Its Interpretation. In Small Places, Large Issues: An

Introduction to Social and Cultural Anthropology, pp. 24-29. 2nd Ed. Sterling,

Va: Pluto Press.

Heil, D., Macdonald, G., and Nettheim, A. Forthcoming. Anthropology: A Student Companion. London: Palgrave.

Tamakoshi, L., and Cross, B. 1996. The Anthropologist in the Field. Accessed April 2, 2013, http://theanthropologistinthefield.com/default.htm