marcus, g. the uses of cumplicity

7/27/2019 Marcus, g. the Uses of Cumplicity

1/25

The Uses of Complicity in the Changing Mise-en-Scne of Anthropological FieldworkAuthor(s): George E. MarcusSource: Representations, No. 59, Special Issue: The Fate of "Culture": Geertz and Beyond(Summer, 1997), pp. 85-108Published by: University of California PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2928816 .

Accessed: 17/08/2013 18:57

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 forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

University of California Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

Representations.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 206.212.0.156 on Sat, 17 Aug 2013 18:57:10 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucalhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2928816?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://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.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2928816?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucal


2/25

GEORGE E. MARCUS

The Uses ofComplicity ntheChangingMise-en-Sceneof AnthropologicalFieldworkRapport:Report,alk.Reference,elationship;onnexion,orrespondence,conformity.staten whichmesmericction anbeexercisedy neperson nanother.Collaboration:Unitedabour,o-operation;speciallyn literary,rtistic,r cientificwork.Collaborate: To worknconjunctionithnother.Complicity:Thebeingn accomplice;artnershipnan evil ction. tate fbeingcomplexr nvolved.Complice: One associatednany ffair ithnother,he atter eing egardeds theprincipal.'IN WHAT IS PERHAPS HIS MOST BROADLY influentialssay, DeepPlay:Notes on the Balinese Cockfight," liffordGeertz opens with tale offield-work nwhich herapportthat s so muchsought fter y nthropologistsmongthepeoples they tudys achievedthrough circumstance fcomplicity.2n 1958,Geertzand hiswifemoved toa remoteBalinesevillagetotakeup, inthe traditionofBronislawMalinowski, he ort fparticipantbservation hathasgivendistinc-tion to the ethnographicmethod. Unfortunately,heir nitial fforts ofit nwere

metwithmarkedinattention nd studiedindifference:people seemed to lookright hroughus with gaze focused everalyardsbehinduson somemore actualstoneor tree."3However,their tatus hanged dramatically bout tendays aftertheir rrival,whenthey ttended cockfighthatwas raidedbythe police.Geertzand his wiferan from heinvadingpolice along with he restof thevillage,andwhen theywere finally iscoveredbya policeman and questioned about theirpresence, theywere passionatelydefended by the village chief,who said theybelonged inthevillageand did not know nythingboutanycockfight. romthenextmorning n,their ituationnthevillagewascompletely ifferent: heywereno longer invisible, nd theyhad indeed achieved thekind of relationship hat

REPRESENTATIONS 59 * Summer 1997 ? THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 85

This content downloaded from 206.212.0.156 on Sat, 17 Aug 2013 18:57:10 PM

All 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

would allow themto do theirworkand eventually roduce theaccount ofa cul-turalartifact hatfollows hisopeningtale of fieldwork-an accountthatbecamea widelyassimilatedexemplarof a styleof interpretivenalysis n which deepmeanings are derived fromthe close observationof a society'smostquotidianevents.Geertz concludeshisanecdoteby aying,Gettingaught, r almost aught,na viceraid s perhaps ot very eneralizableecipefor chievinghatmysteriousecessityf nthropologicalieldwork, apport,utformeit worked erywell. t led to a sudden nd unusuallyompletecceptancento societyextremelyifficultor utsiders openetrate.tgaveme thekind f mmediate,nside-view rasp fanaspect f"peasantmentality"hat nthropologistsotfortunatenoughtofleeheadlongwith heirubjectsrom rmed uthoritiesormallyonotget.4

In Geertz's necdote I am primarilynterestedn the ronic entanglement fcomplicitywithrapportthathe draws. ndeed, for nthropologists rained fromthe 1950s through he 1980s, rapporthas been thepowerful horthandconceptused to standfor the threshold evelof relationswithfieldwork ubjectsthat snecessaryforthosesubjects oacteffectivelys informants or nthropologists-who, once that rapport is established, re then able to pursue theirscientific,"outsider" nquirieson the "inside."The rangeof definitions iven ntheOED forthe wordrapport-from talk"to "relationship" o "conformity"o the unusual meaningof "a state in whichmesmeric ctioncan be exercisedbyone personon another"-aptly conveys hemix of senses of thiskeyfigurewithin heideologyof anthropologicalpractice.Of course,behind thisfigure re the mmensely omplexstories, ebates,views,and critiques hat urround therelationships hat nthropologicalfieldworkm-poses. Since the 1960s, thisprobingof fieldwork elationshipshas moved frominformal, thos-building rofessional alk-a regulative deal-to a more formalarticulation oundin both reflectionsn fieldwork nd essayson anthropology'sdistinctivemethod, discussionsin which Geertz himself has been a seminal,thoughambivalent, oice.5Untilrecently,muchofthisdiscussionhas assumed the essentialdesirabilityand achievabilityf rapport-it remains thefavored condensed view and disci-plinary mblemof the ideal conditionoffieldwork-evenwhile thepathto rap-portseems alwaysto have been fraughtwithdifficulties,ncertainties, appen-stance, thical mbiguity,ear, nd self-doubt. owever, here re nowsignsof thedisplacement f thisfoundational ommonplaceoffieldwork, iventhechangingmise-en-scenenwhichanthropological esearch s nowfrequently eingconsti-tuted. t isprobably healthy ignthatnoreplacement igure, s such, semergingto takerapport'splace. Rather, deep reassessment f the natureof fieldwork sbeginning ooccuras a result fdefining he different onditions nwhich tmustbe designedand conceptualized.Purely as a means of lending perspectiveto and representingthe set ofchangesthat re affectingnthropological ractice nd thewaythat t sthought

86 REPRESENTATIONS




4/25

about,I have chosen n this ssayto emphasizetheconceptofcomplicity.ndeed,manyfieldwork tories fachievingrapportare in somewayentangledwith ctsof complicity,s inGeertz'sepochal anecdote.But whilecomplicity as a certainkinshipof meaningwithrapport, t is also its"evil twin," o to speak. (In thisregard, I appreciate the OED's definitions f complicity s including both the"stateofbeing complex or involved" nd "partnership n an evil action.") n nowayam I promoting omplicitys a candidatefora new shorthandor common-place of disciplinary ractice nour changed circumstances-its"dark"connota-tionscertainly on't end it to thatuse. Rather, focuson the termwill erve as adevice fortracinga certaincritique,or at least complexation,of the valorizedunderstanding f fieldwork elationships romwithin hereigning igure frap-port toan alternative onceptionof fieldwork elationshipsnwhich hefigure frapporthas lostmuch of tspoweras a regulative deal.In thefollowing ection, hen, want oexploretheways nwhichGeertzdealtwith he ssue ofcomplicity ithin apport, ince hisrepresentationsf fieldworkrepresentfor me the mostsubtleunderstandings f thetraditionaldeologyoffieldwork ractice t itsapogee. Following hat, wantto address two directionsthat ritiques fethnographic uthoritynd rhetoric ook n the 1980s, producingan unprecedentedlyreflexive nd criticalperspectiveon fieldwork elations aperspective hat Geertzunquestionablyhelped to inspireand fromwhichhe in-terestinglyas distancedhimself).6One of thesedirectionsdisplaces rapportwith n ideal of collaborationthat

both preservesthe traditional, nclosed mise-en-scene f fieldworknd avoidspaying explicit ttention o the issue ofcomplicity hat Geertzhimself aw as soentangledwiththevery chievement frapport.The otherdirection, ptlyex-pressedin Renato Rosaldo's notion of"imperialist ostalgia,"7 irectly onfrontscomplicitynfieldworkelationshipswithin hebroaderhistorical ontext f colo-nialism n which the traditionalmise-en-scene f ethnographyhas always beensituated;but it fails togo beyondthe ethical mplications fthatcontext o con-sider thecognitive nes.Finally, want to offer conceptionof complicity hat s largelyfree of theprimary onnotations f rapport. n so doing, want o movebeyondthe predom-inant nd troublesome thical mplicationsssociatedwith omplicitynpast viewsofanthropological ractice o anunderstanding f thefieldwork elationship hatentailsa substantiallyifferent isionofthecontemporarymise-en-scene f an-thropological esearch.Complicity ereretains tsethical ssues,but t does so ina waythatforces rethinkingf thespace and positioning f theanthropologist-informant elationship hat s at the heartoffieldwork s it has been commonlyconceived.The larger takeof the discussion hat wanttodevelop is ndeed the currentlevel of self-conscious wareness nd responseofanthropologists o the changingcircumstancesn whichtheynow work-what I have referred o earlier as theThe Uses of ComplicitynAnthropological ieldwork 87




5/25

mise-en-scene f fieldwork. f coursetherehaverecently een manytheoreticaland directconceptual discussionsof these changingcircumstances-the talkoftranscultural rocesses,global-localrelations, nd deterritorialized ultures8-but it is not clear what, f anything, hesediscussionshave meant forthedeeplyingrained and reassuring deologies of fieldworkpractice.Until these macro-changes are understood at the heart of anthropology'sdistinctivemethod,interms fthe commonplacesand powerful igures ywhich nthropologists aveconceivedfieldwork s an ideologyof professional ulture, t is quite likely hatthetraditional onception nuse ofthe mise-en-scenend the central elationshipof anthropologist o informantwillremain mmunefrom he moreradical mpli-cationsof the new theoretical isions nd discussions f anthropology's hangingobjectsof study.A consideration f these changes within nthropology's acreddomain, so to speak,is preciselywhat intend to initiate y tracing omplicitysat firstn integralbut underplayeddimensionof rapportthathas eventually e-come an independentmeans of understandinghow certaindeep assumptionsand commonplacesabout fieldworkmight inally e modified n line withother-wiseclear perceptions mong anthropologists bout how their objectsand con-texts fstudy re changing.

Geertzand ComplicityBut whats,tome nyway, ostnterestingbout .. these ttemptsoproduce ighly"author-saturated,"upersaturatedven,nthropologicalextsnwhichheelfhe extcreatesnd heelfhat reateshe extrerepresentedsbeing eryear o dentical,isthetrongotef isquiethatuffuseshem.heresveryittleonfidenceere ndafair mountf utrightalaise.hemagerysnot f cientificope,ompensatinginner eakness,laMalinowski,r f ear-hugntimacyispellingelf-rejection,a laRead,neitherfwhichsvery uch elievedn. t sof strangement,ypocrisy,helplessness,omination,isillusion.eingThere snotustpracticallyifficult.There ssomethingisruptivebout t ltogether.9As wehave seen inthe cockfightnecdote,forGeertz a certainkind f

complicity eneratesrapport. n a mannercharacteristic f hissignature tyle sa writer nd thinker,n thispassage Geertzseems to make lightof a figureorcommonplaceof hisdiscipline-rapport-while remainingpassionately ommit-tedto hisversion f t-a version hat ctually trengthenshefiguren theshadowof his playful, renchant ritiqueof it. He maydisdainhisdiscipline's oo-easilyassimilated hoptalk-about, forexample,thefigureof rapport-but finally eimprovesupon thattalkand, in a committedway,preserves he traditional enseof thecraft hat thefigureof rapportstandsfor. n "Deep Play," heethnogra-pher's powerful nd exemplary nalyticmagicthatfollows he taleofcomplicitybreaking ntorapport s a testament o this.

88 REPRESENTATIONS




6/25

In the cockfightnecdote, complicitymakesthe outsiderthe desired anthro-pological nsider. t is a circumstantial,ortuitous omplicityhat, yprecipitatinga momentary ond ofsolidarity, ainsGeertz admissionto the nsideofBalineserelations themeans to ethnographic uthority)nd converts he Balinese villageinto a propermise-en-scene ffieldwork-a physicallynd symbolicallynclosedworld, culturefor heethnographer o ivewithin nd figure ut.Verypragmat-ically,Geertzrealizes thathe can benefit rom his omplicitynly by presentinghimself s a naif, personsubject o events nd looked out forbyothers and thisvulnerabilityffindinghimself n the side ofthevillageagainstthe state and itsagents,rather hanrepresenting imself s someone officiallyherethrough heauspices of thestate, uggestsbotha shrewd nd an ambiguous nnocenceaboutthehistoric ra inwhich nthropological ieldworkwas thenbeingdone). 10So complicityn thisparticularfamous tale of fieldwork s ratherneat andsimple; it is an uncomplicatedcomplicityhat "breaks the ice" and providestheanthropologist he covetedfictional cceptancethatwill allowhimto create thecounter-"mesmerism"frapportwhereby e is no longer nvisible, s before,butwill be indulged as a person.But in a lesser-known aper on fieldwork,Geertztells nothermorecomplex,yet omplementary,tory rom he field nwhichheconsidershow complicity,nternalto the developmentof relations with nfor-mantsonce he has gotten inside," sdeeplyentangledwith he motivated ictionofsustaining apport tself. This papertellshowa kindofcomplicitysnecessaryfor ustaining heworking elationships ffieldwork, ithoutwhich tsverymise-en-scene-let alone rapport-would notbe possible ntheanthropologist'smagi-nary.This paper,"Thinking s a MoralAct:EthicalDimensionsofAnthropologi-cal Fieldwork n theNew States," evealsGeertz's stuteforesightf thepossibledevelopmentofa hyperreflexivitypon the conditions fanthropologicalknowl-edge-a subject that, fter complicatedtreatmentn thispaper,he turns wayfrom nfavor faccepting he fictions f fieldwork elations o that thnographicinterpretationnd the historic nthropologicalproject towhichhe is committedcan continue that s,theprojectofU.S. cultural nthropologyn the ine of, forexample, Johann Herder, Franz Boas, Margaret Mead, and Ruth Benedict,amongmanyothers).In "Thinking s a MoralAct,"Geertzdescribes complicity f mutual nterestbetweenanthropologist nd informant, ubtlybut clearlyunderstood by each,thatmakesrapport possible-indeed thatconstitutes,venconstructs,t. Geertzcalls thiskeyrapport-definingct ofcomplicityn "anthropological rony" f fic-tionsthateach side accepts:One isplaced, n this ort fwork, mongnecessitous enhoping or adical mprove-mentsn their onditionsf ife hat o not eem xactlymminent; oreover,ne s a typebenefactorfustthe ort f mprovementsheyre ooking or,lsoobliged o ask themfor harity-andwhat s almostworse, avinghem ive t.Thisought o be a humbling,thus levating,xperience;utmost ften t ssimply disorientingne.Allthefamiliar

The Uses ofComplicitynAnthropological ieldwork 89




7/25

rationalizationshaving to do withscience, progress, philanthropy, nlightenment, ndselfless urity f dedication ringfalse, nd one is left, thically isarmed, to grapple witha human relationshipwhich mustbe ustified ver and over again in the most mmediateof terms.'2What I am pointing o .. . is an enormouspressure on both the investigatornd hissubjectsto regard these goals as near when they re in fact far, ssured when they remerelywishedfor, nd achieved when they re at best pproximated.This pressure pringsfrom he nherentmoralasymmetryf the fieldworkituation.'3To recognize the moral tension,the ethical ambiguity,mplicit n the encounterofanthropologist nd informant,nd to still e able to dissipate t throughone's actions andone's attitudes,s whatencounterdemands ofboth parties f t s to be authentic, f t s toactuallyhappen. And to discover hat s to discover lso somethingvery omplicatedandnot altogether learabout the natureofsincerity nd insincerity,enuinenessand hypoc-risy, onesty nd self-deception.'4Here again, as in the cockfight necdote, the broader context of implication-thatof colonialism and neocolonialism-that has so exercised the subsequent crit-ics of ethnography is submerged in Geertz's account, implied but not explicitlynoted. The anthropology of the 1950s and 1960s was part of the great mission ofdevelopment in the new states-in the midst of which Geertz was a very Americanas well as an anthropological writer, ccepting this mission with a certain resigna-tion that did not particularly define a politics of fieldwork. That politics insteademerged in terms of the always slightly bsurd but veryhuman predicaments ofa well-meaning outsider thrust among people with very different life chances.

According to the presumptions of the development mission, themselves based onWestern notions of liberal decency, the outsider was in some sense the model of adesired future.'5In Geertz's writings on his fieldwork of the 1960s and 1970s, we see first avirtual outline and summary of the major moves of later critique-built on thereflexivestudyof the conditions of anthropologial knowledge not only in terms ofits traditional mise-en-scene of fieldwork but also in termsof the broader historiccontexts that Geertz tended to elide-and then a hesitation and a pulling backfor the sake of sustaining a distanced practice of interpretation. Finally,as Geertzargues in his paper, "Thinking as a Moral Act,"I don't knowmuch aboutwhatgoes on in laboratories;but in anthropologicalfieldwork,detachment s neither naturalgiftnor a manufactured alent. t is a partialachievementlaboriously arnedand precariouslymaintained.What ittle isinterestednessne managestoattain omesnot from ailing o haveemotions rneglecting operceivethem nothers,noryetfrom ealingoneself nto a moral vacuum. It comes from personal subjectiontoa vocationalethic .. to combine two fundamentalorientations owardreality-the en-gaged and theanalytic-intoa single ttitude. t is this ttitude, otmoralblankness,whichwe call detachment r disinterestedness. nd whatever malldegree of itone manages toattaincomes notby adoptingan I-am-a-camera deologyor by enfolding neself n layersof methodological rmor,but simplyby trying o do, in such an equivocal situation, hescientific orkone has come to do.'6

90 REPRESENTATIONS




8/25

Indeed, theBalinese cockfight ssay tself nacts Geertz'spositionon criticalself-knowledgen anthropologicalpractice.Once the incidentdescribedin theopening reflexive ieldwork necdote has authoritativelyecured the standardand idealized conditionofrapport,or "mesmeric" ossibility,he workof inter-pretationproceeds bytheparticipantwho is still detached observer, amouslyable toread Balinese culture likea text."Geertz's hrewdperceptionof thecom-plicitheartof theotherwise oporific,oo-easy rofessionalnvocation f rapport,followedbyhispullingback fromfurther eflexive xamination nd its mplica-tions,probablyhas disturbedhis criticsmore than fhe had not botheredtomakethismove nto reflexivityt all.The fact hathe did and thathe thenpulled back from ookingtoo closely ttheconditionsof theproductionofanthropologicalknowledge-a topicthathebrilliantlyntroduced ta time f maximumpositivistopes and confidencenthesocial sciences-is nota signof the ambivalence r hesitation hat re otherwise omuch a part ofGeertz'sexpository tyle f delivering nsight.Rather t s a signof his commitment o the frame of reference n which anthropology ould bedone: the framethat thefigureof rapportguaranteed and that Geertz playedwith, ould see the critique f,but wouldnotgo beyondforthe sake of a historicanthropologicalprojectthat he had done so much to renewin the 1960s and1970s and thatdefinedforhima "vocational thic."His concern-expressed inthepassage withwhichthissectionopens and which first ppeared in his 1988book Worksnd Lives s a sideways ommentaryn thatdecade's seminalcritiqueofanthropologicalknowledge-was over themalaise that n unfettered eflexiv-ity, ollowing isownopening,might ead to.And has it?

The Collaborative IdealThis ossibilityuggestsn alternateextualtrategy,utopiaf luraluthorshiphataccordso ollaboratorsotmerelyhe tatusfndependentnunciatorsut hat fwriters.s formf uthoritytmusttill e onsideredtopianor wo easons.irst,theew ecentxperimentsith ultiple-authororksppearo equire,s aninstigatingorce,he esearchnterestf he thnographerhonthe nd ssumesnexecutive,ditorialosition.he uthoritativetancef givingoice" o he thersnotullyranscended.econd,he erydea f luraluthorshiphallengesdeepWesterndentificationf ny ext'srder ithhe ntentionf singleuthor...Nonetheless,herere ignsfmovementnthis omain.nthropologistsillincreasinglyave o hare heirexts,nd ometimesheiritleages,withhoseindigenousollaborators,or heermnformantssno ongerdequate,f t verwas.'7One strong irection f thecritique fanthropological hetoric, epre-

sentation, nd authority hat occurredduringthe 1980s reconceivedthe figureofrapport nterms fcollaboration.Associatedwith hewritingfJamesCliffordThe Uses ofComplicitynAnthropological ieldwork 91




9/25

and loosely derivedfromMikhailBakhtin'snotionsof polyphony nd dialogismas an alternative o themonologic uthority f modes of voicing n thenovel, thevisionof a collaborativerelationshipbetween anthropologist nd informant sauthors of ethnography n the field has provideda strong reimaginingof theregulative deal of rapport n the ideology of anthropologicalpractice.As pre-sentedbyCliffordna scholarly tyle f historical iterary riticism,hecollabora-tive deal is ess a methodological rescriptionrfigure rfieldworkna changingmise-en-scene han a rereading, n excavation, fcertain verlooked dimensionsofpastethnography.ts power, hen, s in its suggestiveness f a more pleasing,post- 960spractice fthoroughly articipatory ieldwork-and it s developed ina waythat uggests hat nthropologists eed onlyconsciously ctivatewhat wasalways here, n obscureddimensionofclassicfieldwork hatwaspreviously on-cealed bythemonologicauthority fthe conventions fethnographicwriting.Collaboration "co-operation" n dialogue) thusreplaces rapport "relation-ship"or "connexion,"with ts connotation f a meansor instrumentalityor ful-filling heends primarilyfone of the partners-the initiating ne-of the rela-tionship).Theoretically, ollaboration reatesa figurefor muchmorecomplexunderstandingof fieldwork, ut in Clifford'swriting,which looks back at theethnographictraditionthrough ts classics and classics-in-the-making,his re-placementfigure s also verymuch forged n the traditionalmise-en-sceneoffieldwork-and in factreinforces hattraditional etting, iving ta needed newface, o tospeak.The scene of fieldwork nd theobjectofstudy re still ssentiallycoterminous, ogether stablishing culture situated n place and tobe learnedaboutbyone's presenceinside t n sustained nteraction. he collaborative dealentails he notions hatknowledge reation nfieldworklways nvolvesnegotiat-inga boundarybetweencultures nd that heresult sneverreducibleto a formofknowledgethatcan be packaged in themonologicvoice of theethnographeralone. But still, hepolyphonymplied n the dea of collaborationpreservestheidea of therepresentation f a bounded culture,howevernonreductive, s theobjectofstudy nd reinforces he same habits f work hat apportvalorized.Theindependentvoices ncollaboration till mergewithin distinctivelyther formof life.Perhaps because of thewaythis deal was developed in the critiqueofanthropology-byexcavating romwithinhe tradition fethnography-it inher-ited the imits f the mise-en-scenehathad preceded it.Ofcourse,neither ollaborationnor the dea ofdialogismon which t s basednecessarily mplies heharmony f "united abour" na scientific,iterary,rartis-ticendeavor,as theOED definitionuggests, nd Clifford oes notdevelop theidea with thisconnotation.The positiveOED sense remainsa potentiality,utmoreoftenthannot,collaboration s conflicted, ased on misrecognitions,oer-cions,and precisely he sortof ironies/complicitieshat Geertzcataloged so wellinhiswriting n fieldwork. lifford iffers romGeertzonly nfinally otbeing

92 REPRESENTATIONS




10/25

personally iedto the scientific ocationofanthropology; hus,he can indulge areflexivityhattransformshecommonplace deal of the fieldwork elation. n-deed, torecognize nd legitimate s partners ne's subjects f study nd togener-ate only polyphonictextswould indeed make somethingradicallydifferent fethnography;but itwouldn't ignificantlyhange thetraditional rameof study.Collaborationdoes evoke the reflexive pace and suggestsnew conventionsforthe normalizeddiscussionof the complexities,mbiguities, nd nuances ofthe anthropologist-subjectelationship entral ofieldwork. et Clifford's rticu-lationof the ambiguities f this relationship tillremains rathermuteas to thedifferent ensesofcomplicityhat urround,motivate,nd make thisrelationshippossible. n particular,hebroadercolonial context s itoperates ncollaboration,while a partof Clifford's iscussion, s notstrongly eveloped.'8In relationtothe particular enseofcomplicityhat want to developbelow,which corresponds to a break with the traditionalmise-en-scene f fieldwork,Clifford's iscussion fcollaboration an evenbe seen as evasive. tgoessomewhatfurther han Geertz's nrecognizing owthebroader context f the anthropologi-cal project sregisterednfieldwork,ut trecognizes his ontext nly nterms fthe ong-standing uestionofanthropology's elationship o colonialism.What smissing n the evocationof the ideal of collaboration s themuch more compli-catedand contemporaryense of the broader context fanthropology peratingina so-calledpostmodernworldof discontinuous ulturalformations nd multi-ple sites f culturalproduction.This contextscertainly haped inpartby historyof colonialism,but it cannotbe fully epresentedbythat venerablebete noire,whichhas longserved as the broadercontextncommonplaceprofessional deol-ogy, mbivalentlyradlingthe traditionalmise-en-scene f fieldwork.'9In the magining f collaboration s fieldwork,hen, omplicity as not beena very mportant omponent, ither n ts thical ense orinits ognitive otentialforreconfiguringhe fieldwork cene tself. utbyfully peninga reflexivepacethatwentbeyondGeertz'sownself-limitedxplorations ftheregulative dea ofrapport,thefigure f collaboration reatedthe necessarygroundfor goingfur-ther. The explicitdimension of complicity emained to be powerfully rticu-lated-and again,withregardto colonialism s thebroadercontext-as part ofthe 1980scritiqueofanthropology yRenatoRosaldo, perhaps the spoilerof allof fieldwork's ther fictions.

ImperialistNostalgia and ComplicityProcessesf rastichangeftenre henablingonditionf thnographicieldresearch,ndhereinesidesheomplicityfmissionary,onstabulary,fficer,ndethnographer.ustsJoneseceivedisitsrommericanonstabularyfficersuringhis ield esearch,ichelle osaldo nd oftensed hemissionaryirplaneor





11/25

transportationn the longot egion. ones id not olice ndwedid not vangelize,butwe ll borewitness,nd weparticipated,s relatively inor layers,nthetransformationaking lacebeforeureyes.20Moving n anotherdirection rom hepossibilities oreseenby Geertz,Renato Rosaldo takes the critique fthetraditionalmise-en-scene o its imit ndfinallymakes explicit he broadercontext f anthropologyn the scene of field-work.This is where complicity otentially as itsgreatestpoweras a figure.Ro-saldo'sworkhas developedverymuch within he specific ompassof nterpretiveanthropology hat Geertzestablished n the 1960s and 1970s. As such,his essay"ImperialistNostalgia"constitutesn appropriateexpressionof the evolutionofGeertz's thinking n fieldwork, owin its mostpoliticizedform.Among the cri-tiquesof the 1980s,thisessay s the mostrecognizable uccessorto Geertz'sown

writing.The trenchantnsight f this ssay-indeed, anotherexamplarofanthropo-logial irony, s Geertzcalled complicityn fieldwork-is thatthe key deologicalsentiment hathas allowed anthropologists o distance themselvesfrom otherforeignagents in the field s precisely he sentiment hatbothdenies and con-structs heirown agencyin thatvery ame transformativerocess.As Rosaldosays, Myconcernresides with particularkind ofnostalgia, ftenfoundunderimperialism,where people mourn thepassingofwhat hey hemselves ave trans-formed.... When the so-calledcivilizing rocess destabilizesformsof life,theagents of change experiencetransformationsf other culturesas if theywerepersonal losses."'2'Here, Rosaldo capturesand indicts hecharacteristic hetoricof ethicsthatpervades ethnography, t the same timepinpointing heprimaryrelationof complicityn fieldwork-notwith the informant r the people, butwiththeagentsofchange. This is thepoliticizingomplicity romwhichGeertzbacked off, nd aboutwhichthealternative iew of collaborationwas notbluntenough.This politicizationt the imits f thefigure frapport s achievedby placinga primary mphasison whatwas the playof complicityn Geertz. Ratherthansimplybeing the ironic means to a rapportthat cementstheworkingbond be-tweenfieldworkernd informant, omplicity ecomes the defining lementofthe relationshipbetween the anthropologist nd the broader colonial context.In so doing, the problemof the broader outsidecontext-again, thoughtof ascolonialism-is finally roughtsquarelyto the inside of the fieldwork elation,something hatthe collaborative deal achievedonly ntermittentlyr indirectly.So wherehas Rosaldo's argument bout"imperialist ostalgia"broughtus inour tracing ftheentanglementsfcomplicity ith hepowerful egulativedealofrapport?To thevergeoftalking rimarilyboutcomplicityather hanrapportas constructing heprimary ieldwork elation, nd as such,to thebrinkof re-conceiving hestubbornly eldmise-en-sceneffieldworko better ccommodate

94 REPRESENTATIONS




12/25

different ind of ethnographicprojectthat s now emergingand being profes-sionallynormalized n anthropology.In Geertz'swriting, apportrequiresthat heanthropologist ecomplicitwiththe nsideof a communityrgroupof subjects.Whilenoteffacing he"insideness"essential o the fieldworkmise-en-scene, osaldo understands very pparentin-side movethe fieldworkermakes as primarilyomplicitwith hebroader externalcontextof colonialism. But, like Geertz's earlier politicallymuted critique offieldworknd Clifford's ontemporaneous ritique fmonologic uthoritynan-thropologicalpractice,Rosaldo'sessay s still ocatedwithin apportand itsmise-en-scene, hough t ts uter imit.Assuch, herecognition f the ort fcomplicitythatbringsthe outside into the scene of fieldworkwiththeveryarrival of theanthropologist-who can no longer protectherselfwith thenostalgiathatpre-servesherdifference rom theragentsofchange-remains for Rosaldo a morallesson,one for which there s little urther esponsefromwithin he traditionalideologyof rapport.For Rosaldo, anthropology f the old sort either s over, sparalyzed bymoralizing nsight, r continuesto be practiced s a tragicoccupa-tion,done in the full awarenessof the pitfalls f itspowerfulrhetorics f self-justification.WithRosaldo, then,we cometo an impasse.The kind ofsustainedreflexivitythatGeertzfeared,turnedawayfrom, nd hasmore ately onfirmed orhimselfas leading tomalaise has now been taken to ts imitwithin hetraditional rojectofanthropology, evealing he mplication fcomplicityhathasalways hadowedthepositivefigure frapport.But isthisreally he end?

Complicityand the MultisitedSpacesofContemporaryEthnographyTherexistsverytrong,ut ne-sidednd hus ntrustworthydea hatnorderobetternderstandforeignulture,nemustnterntot, orgettingne's wn, ndviewheworldhroughhe yes f hisoreignulture.... f ourse,he ossibilityfseeingheworldhroughts yessa necessaryart f he rocessf nderstandingt;butf his ere he nlyspecttwouldmerelyeduplicationndwould ot ntailanythingnriching.reativenderstandingoes ot enouncetself,ts wn lace ndtime,ts wnulture;nd t orgetsothing.norderounderstand,t s mmenselyimportantor he erson ho nderstandsobe ocatedutsidehe bjectfhis rhercreativenderstanding-inime,n pace,nculture.nthe ealm f ulture,outsidednesssa mostowerfulfactornunderstanding.e aise ew uestionsorforeignulture,nes hattdidnot aiseor tself; e eek nswerso ur wnquestionsn t; nd heoreignultureespondsousby evealingous ts ew spectsandnewemanticepths.22The transformationfcomplicityhat want to trace,from tsplace in

the shadowsofthemorepositive nd lessethically mbiguousnotion of rapportThe Uses ofComplicitynAnthropological ieldwork 95




13/25

to tsemergenceas a primary igurenthe deologyoffieldwork,s occasionedbythechanging onditions ffieldworktselfnd of ts bjectsofstudy. hese chang-ing conditionsare effectivelytimulating he traditionalmise-en-scene f field-workto be turned nside out within he professionaldeology, nd it s the figureof complicityhatfocusesthis hange.Discontinuityn culturalformations-theirmultiple nd heterogeneoussitesofproduction-has begun to forcechangesin the assumptions nd notionsthathave constructed hetraditionalmise-en-scene f fieldwork. nthropologists,fcourse,continueto work ntensivelynd locallywithparticular ubjects-the sub-stance of ethnographic nalysisrequiresthis-but theyno longer do so with hesensethat heculturalobjectofstudy s fully ccessiblewithin particular ite, rwithout he sense that a site of fieldwork nywhere s integrally nd intimatelytied to sites of possiblefieldwork lsewhere.The intellectual nvironment ur-roundingcontemporary thnographic tudymakes tseem incomplete nd eventrivialf tdoes notencompasswithin tsown researchdesigna fullmappingof aculturalformation,he contours f which annotbe presumedbut are themselvesa keydiscovery f ethnographic nquiry.The sense ofthe objectof studybeing"here and there"has begun towreakproductivehavoc on the "being there"ofclassic ethnographic uthority.23Howevercomplicity asimplicatedntheachievement frapport nthe criti-cal versionsofGeertz,Clifford,nd Rosaldo, all three sustain the sense that thesymbolicnd literal omainof fieldworkxists nside notherform f ife-entail-ingcrossing boundary nto tand exploring cultural ogicof enclosed differ-ence (howeverfraughtwithdifficultyhe translation rocess s).Once releasedfrom hismise-en-scene,omplicityooksquitedifferent. hefocuson a particular ite of fieldwork emains,but now one is after distinctlydifferentortofknowledge, ne forwhichmetaphorsof nsidenessor thecross-ingof culturalbondariesare no longerappropriate.In any particular ocation certainpractices, nxieties, nd ambivalences arepresent s specific esponsestothe ntimate unctioningf nonlocalagenciesandcauses-and forwhich here reno convincing ommon-sense nderstandings.24The basic condition thatdefinesthe altered mise-en-scene or whichcomplicityratherthan rapport s a more appropriatefigure s an awareness of existentialdoublenesson thepartofbothnthropologistnd subject; hisderivesfromhavinga sense ofbeingherewheremajortransformationsre underwaythat re tiedtothingshappening simultaneously lsewhere,utnothaving certaintyr authori-tativerepresentation f whatthoseconnections re. Indeed, there are so manyplausibleexplanationsfor thechanges,no singleone of which nspiresmoreau-thorityhananother, hatthe ndividual ubject s left o accountfor the connec-tions-the behind-the-scenestructure-and to read intohis or herown narrativethe ocallyfelt gencyand effects fgreatand little ventshappening elsewhere.

Social actorsare confrontedwiththe same kindof impassesthatacademics96 REPRESENTATIONS




14/25

uncomfortably xperience thesedays,and thisaffinityuggeststhe particularsalience of the figureof complicity. ut for the subjectsof ethnography, heseimpassesare pragmaticproblems hat, oreverydayifetoproceedatall,requireresponsesrangingfromevasionsand displacements o halfhearted nvestmentsin old theoriesor exoticconstructions nd idiosyncratic isionsof thewaytheworldworks. n terms f the traditionalmise-en-sceneffieldwork,most nthro-pologistshave alwaysunderstoodthemselves s beingboth nsideand outsidethesites nwhich theyhave been participant bservers.That is,theyhave neverna-ively houghtthatthey ould simply go native" nd in factare critical f thoseamong themwho are so naive. Rather,theyunderstandwell thattheyalwaysremainmarginal,fictive ativesat best. Still,theyhave alwaysoperated on thefaith,necessaryfor thekind ofknowledgethattheyproduce,thatthey ould berelativelymore nsiders hanoutsidersfonlybymasteringheskills ftranslation,sensitivity,nd learned cultural ompetencies-in short, hatthey ould achieverapport.In contrast,while t beginsfrom hesame inside-outside oundaryposition-ing, nvestmentn thefigure fcomplicity oes notpositthe same faith nbeingable to probe the "inside"of a culture nor does itpresuppose thatthe subjectherself s evenon the"inside"ofa culture,giventhat ontemporaryocal knowl-edge is neveronly boutbeing ocal).The idea ofcomplicityorces herecognitionofethnographers s ever-presentmarkers f "outsideness."Never stirring romtheboundary, heirpresencemakespossiblecertainkinds ofaccessthat he deaof rapport and the faith n being able to get inside (byfiction a la Geertz, byutopiancollaboration a a Clifford,rby elf-deceptiona a Rosaldo) does not. Itis only nan anthropologist-informantituationn which he outsideness sneverelided and is indeed thebasis of an affinityetweenethnographer nd subjectthat hereigning raditionaldeology f fieldworkan shift o reflect he changingconditionsofresearch.Whatethnographersnthis hangedmise-en-scenewant from ubjects s notsomuch ocalknowledge s an articulation f the forms f anxiety hat re gener-ated bythe awarenessof being affectedbywhatis elsewhere withoutknowingwhat the particular onnections o that elsewhere mightbe. The ethnographeron the scene in this ensemakesthatelsewhere resent.25t is not thatthiseffectof fieldworkscurrentlynrecognized nanthropology,ut t s always eferencedin termsof an ethical discourse,and thisframedoes not get at whatthemoregenerative enseof the dea ofcomplicityeeks to document.This versionof complicity ries to get at a formof local knowledgethat sabout thekind of difference hat s notaccessiblebyworking ut internal ulturallogics. It is about difference hatarises fromtheanxietiesof knowing hatoneis somehow tiedinto what s happeningelsewhere,but,as noted,without hoseconnections eingclearorpreciselyrticulated hrough vailable nternal ulturalmodels. In effect, ubjects re participatingndiscoursesthat re thoroughlyo-





15/25

calized but thatare not theirown. Douglas Holmes,whose research s discussedlater, ses theterin illicit iscourse"to describethisphenomenon, n whichfrag-mentsof ocal discourseshave their rigins lsewherewithout he relationship othatelsewherebeing clear.This uncertainty reatesanxiety,wonder, nd insecu-rity,n different egisters, oth n the ethnographer nd in her subjects.This recognitionof a common predicament s the primarymotivationforthinking bout the changed conceptionof fieldwork elationships n terms ofcomplicity.t would be possible to understand our emphasis on the figure ofcomplicity s the achievement f a different ind of rapport,but it would be amistake o dentifytwith hepreciseconstruction f thatfigure n thetraditionalmode. The investmentn thefigure fcomplicity estson highlightinghiscon-temporary xternaldeterminationflocal discourses,marked and set offby thefieldworker's resencebut free of thefigures f rapportand collaborationthathave traditionallyharacterizedfieldwork. ree of these,complicity etween anethnographerwhose outsideness s alwaysprominent nd a subjectwho is sensi-tive o theoutsidehelpsto materialize therdimensions hat he dialogue of tradi-tional fieldwork, onceivedas takingplace inside rapport,cannotget at as well.Onlythuswe do weescape thetendency o see changeas a disruption f whatwastherebefore-a disruptionof a worldin whichthe anthropologistmighthavebeen more comfortable nd on the"prior-ness" f which he or she can stillrelyin exercising he assumptions f thetraditionalmise-en-scene f fieldwork, venin a siteundergoingmassive nd long-termhanges. In suchcases,the formativeexpressionsofanxiety hat onstruct ultures nchangeand boundariesbetweenculturesare likely o be either missedor rationalized n termsof priorculturallogics. Onlywhen an outsiderbeginsto relate to a subjectalso concerned withoutsideness n everyday ifecan theseexpressionsbe givenfocal mportance n alocalized fieldwork hat, n turn, nevitably ushes the entire researchprogramof thesingle thnographic roject ntothechallenges nd promises fa multisitedspace and trajectory-a trajectoryhatencourages theethnographer iterally omove to othersites that are powerfully egistered n the local knowledgeof anoriginatingocus offieldwork. his iswhat the notionofcomplicitys an aid intherethinking f fieldwork otentially ffers.Accordingto tsOED definitions,omplicity,omparedtorapportnd collabora-tion, arries heavier oad of ethicalmeaningand implication.However, his thi-cal sense is verydifferentwhen complicitys evoked as a criticalprobe of thetraditionalfigureof rapportin thewriting f Geertz, Clifford, nd Rosaldo-amongothers-than when tbecomes the central igure sed toexplorethemise-en-sceneof fieldworkn newcircumstances. he usual ethicalquestioningofthefieldwork elationshipreliesheavilyon exploringthedynamicsof the assumedunequal power relationsbetweenethnographerand subject,always weightedstructurallyn thesideoftheethnographer,who s mplicatedn Western olonial-ism which, s I notedearlier,has stereotypicallyefined the broader contextof

98 REPRESENTATIONS




16/25

classic anthropologicalfieldwork).When thepoliticizednature of fieldwork asbeen highlighted n the past,it has been developed bycalling anthropology oaccountfor tscolonial,and now postcolonial, omplicities.26This predictableconstruction f the ethical ssues involved n fieldwork asbecomefartoo limited meansof addressing urrent hangingviews f the mise-en-sc&ne ffieldworkn thebroadercontext f multisitedesearch.With heoreti-cal metanarrativesnd frames fworld-systemsrocessesnow under prominentdebate and reformulation, broader contextualframingfor any location offieldworks ess availabletoethnographers. he shiftingoundaries of the ethno-graphic project, as described above, are moving peculativelyntothisbroaderframe tself, reatingtethnographicallyhrough he multisited rajectory f re-search.This is partlybecause of the noted inadequacy and loss of authority fboth older and new formulationsfmetanarratives-likecolonialism or postco-lonialism),Marxistpoliticaleconomy, nd globalization an as-yetpoorlytheo-rized,but apparentlynecessary,oncept nwidecurrency)-and partly ecause ofthechangingnatureof thekindofmaterial oughtfrom nd offered yfieldworksubjectswho think n termsof their onnectionsbeyondthe local. This need todeal more directlywiththe broader context f focused researchwithout heaidof adequate framescreatedbyotherkinds of scholarship eads to a much lessdetermined nd availablecontext handoes thehistoryfcolonialism, orexam-ple, in consideringthe politicsand ethical mplications f contemporary ield-work.Likewise, s thefigurefrequently voked in pastcritiquesof fieldwork oprobe theethicalproblemsofa too-innocent igure frapport, omplicitypecifi-callyplaystoand constructs different nd morecomplexsense ofthe substanceof theethnographer-subject elationship.The changingcontextualization orassessingtheethical mplication fcom-plicity s the normalcharacterization fcontemporary ieldwork elationshipssreflectedn theshifting owervalences of these relationships, s thefieldworkermovesfrom site to site,and the oftenethically mbiguous managementby thefieldworkerf theaccumulation f thesedevelopingrelationshipsn specific itua-tions. Of course, ethnographershave often been faced with such ethical ssueswithin hevillages nd communitiesnwhichtheyhaveworked,but nmultisitedresearch,the broadercontext s in a senseentirely ftheethnographer's nd hisinformants' wn making,ratherthan attributable o more abstract nd alreadymorally oaded forces uch as capitalism nd colonialism.So, within he bound-ariesof a single project, heethnographermaybe dealing intimatelynd equiva-lentlywithsubjectsofverydifferent lass circumstances-withelitesand subal-terns, or nstance-who maynot even be knowndirectlyoone anotheror havea sense of the often ndirect ffects hattheyhave on each other's ives.The ethical issues in multisited esearch are raised by the ethnographer'smovement mong different inds of affiliations ithin configuration f sitesevolving in a particularresearch project. The inequalityof power relations,





17/25

weighted nfavor f the anthropologist,an no longerbe presumed nthisworldof multisited thnography. he fieldworkerftendeals with ubjectswho sharehis own broadlymiddle-class dentitynd fears, n whichcase unspoken powerissues nthe relationship ecomefarmoreambiguousthantheywouldhave beenin past anthropological esearch;alternatively,emaydeal withpersons n muchstronger owerand class positions han his own, nwhich ase both theterms ndlimits ftheethnographic ngagement re managed principally y them.Here,where the ethnographeroccupies a markedsubordinaterelationshipto infor-mants, he ssuesof use and beingused, ofingratiation,nd of trading nforma-tion about others elsewherebecome matters f normal ethicalconcern,wheretheywere largelyunconsidered npreviousdiscussions.As I haveremarked lsewhere heanthropologist, yvirtue f thesechangingcircumstancesfresearch, salways n thevergeof activism, f negotiating omekind of involvement eyond the distancedrole of ethnographer, ccording topersonalcommitmentshatmayormaynotpredatethe project.27 o whatextentand on what terms an suchactivism e indulgedwithin he activityf ethnogra-phy, nd what re theconsequencesofavoiding tor denying t altogether or hecontinued achievement f the "disinterestedness"hat Geertzargued for n thetraditionalmise-en-scene f research? These are the questionsthatdefinethemuch more complicatedethicalcompass of contemporary ieldwork orwhichthe past understandingof ethnography in the throes of more abstractworldhistorical orces) an no longerserve as an adequate frameofassessment.28

What complicity tands for as a central figureof fieldworkwithin thismultisited ontextofresearch, nd particularlys characterizing hose relation-shipsthatworkeffectivelyo generatethe kindofknowledge engaged withtheoutsidethat evoked earlier, s an affinity, arking quivalence,betweenfield-worker nd informant. his affinityrisesfrom heirmutualcuriositynd anxietyabout theirrelationship o a "third"-not so much the abstract ontextualizingworld systembut the specific iteselsewhere that affect heir nteractions ndmake themcomplicit in relation o the nfluence f that"third") n creating hebond thatmakestheirfieldworkelationship ffective. his specialsense of com-plicity oes not entailthesortofevadingfictions hatGeertzdescribed as anthro-pological rony,nwhich nthropologistnd informant retendtoforgetwho andwherethey therwise re intheworld n orderto createthespecialrelationship ffieldwork apport.Nor is this the covered-upcomplicity f fieldwork etweenthe anthropologist nd imperialism, s is describedin Rosaldo's essay.Rather,complicity ere restsntheacknowledgedfascination etween nthropologistndinformant egardingthe outside "world"thatthe anthropologist s specificallymaterializing hrough he travels nd trajectoryfher multisitedgenda. This istheOED senseofcomplicityhatgoes beyondthe senseof"partnershipnan evilaction"to the sense ofbeing"complexor involved," rimarilyhroughthe com-plexrelationships o a third.100 REPRESENTATIONS




18/25


19/25

encountered for the first imewhat appeared to be a rough antipolitics hatseemed to subvert he formation f an independentpolitical utlookand identity.In subsequent yearsthese marginal ensibilities nd aspirationsnsinuatedthem-selves nto theheartofEuropean political iscourse."31More ecently, olmes hasmade fieldwork itesof theEuropean ParliamentnStrasbourg nd the offices fthe openlyracist nd neofascist ritishNational Partynthe East End ofLondon.From his work nStrasbourg, e has published a 1991 interviewwithBruno Goll-nisch, professorof Japanese law and literature t the University f Lyons, whowas elected to theEuropean Parliament s a member of the TechnicalGroup oftheEuropean Right, he chairman of which s Jean-Marie Le Pen; and fromhisLondon fieldwork e has produced an interviewwithRichardEdmonds, who isthe nationalorganizerof the BritishNational Party.32Holmes's project s to piece together he manifestations,esemblances, ndappeals ofcertain elateddiscourses hathavemade themselves resent n settingslikeFriuli, trasbourg, nd East London, among others.For the mostpart, he isnot guided by a map oftransnational nd transcultural flows" r "scapes"-thecartographicor diagrammatic magery s inaptforthe discontinuous paces inwhichhe works.The lines ofrelationship etweenthe discourses nthesediffer-ent sites are not at all charted,and thisuncertainty r even mystery s to thegenealogies in the spread of right-wing iscourses s in partwhat makes themformidable o bothanalysts nd those who wish to oppose them. What Holmesbrings to theenterprise s an ethnographic ar fortheperversions fdiscoursein different ettings hatmark and definethe changingsocial character of theright.What is challengingabout thesediscoursesfor the ethnographer s thatthey re not alien or markedofffromrespectablerangesofopinion but in facthave deep connectionswiththem.They deserve to be listened to closelybeforebeing exoticizedas a figment f the politically xtreme or being ethically on-demned too precipitously. his calculated and imposed naivete,necessaryforfieldworko be conducted atall, spotentiallyhe source ofgreatest trengthndspecial nsight fethnographic nalysis, eadingto boththe"complexor nvolved"sense of complicity s well as exposure to complicity'sthersense,of "being anaccomplice,partnershipnan evil action."The working onceptualframeforHolmes'smultisited ieldwork-what on-ceptuallydefinesthe affinitiesmong sites whose connections are not other-wise preestablished-lies in his notion of "illicitdiscourse,"whichhe describesas follows:An illicit iscourse ims treestablishingheboundaries, erms,nd idioms fpoliticalstruggle.he resultingolitical ractices deconstructive.tsauthoritys often arasitic,drawing trengthromhe orruption,neptitude,bsolescence,nd ost elevance ftheestablishedolitical ogmas ndagendas.ts ractitionersegotiatendmaphe ointsf ontra-dictionndfatigue fparticularositions.hey scavenge hedetritusfdecaying olitics,

102 REPRESENTATIONS




20/25

probing reasof deceit nddeception. y doing o theynvoke isplacedhistoriesndreveal eformedmoralities.hey trive o ntroduceheunvoiced ndunspeakablentopublic ebate.Establishedolitical orces esisthese illicitudes,"efininghosewho r-ticulatehem s racists, errorists,igots r as someform f essentializedariah italicsmine).33Different ensesofthenotion fcomplicitybound inHolmes'sfieldwork. utthe particular ense that s relevant omy rgumenthere,and to othermultisitedresearchprojects, oncernsnot the heightenedethical question ofdealingwiththe odious fromthenecessarily pen and cordial demeanor of thefieldworkerwantingaccess, but themore subtle ssue of thecognitivelintellectualffinitye-tweenthe ethnographer nd thepurveyor f llicit iscourse ndifferentocations(as keyedby the statement hat have italicized n thequotation n thepreviousparagraph). Despite theirverydifferentalues and commitments,heethnogra-pher and hissubjects nthisproject re nevertheless roadly ngaged in a pursuitof knowledgewith esemblancesn form nd context hat hey anrecognize.Thisconstituteshe mostprovocative nd potentiallyroubling ense ofcomplicitynthe fieldwork elationship.WhatparticularlytruckHolmes in his fieldwork as theagile appropriationby people markedas objectionableof all sortsofregisters f familiardiscourse.He wasbeing neither eguilednor fooledbyhis nformants-hewasnotcomplicitwith hem nthisverydirectnormative ense.Rather,he was simply urprisedbywhatwas available in theirdiscourse-its rangeofoverlapand continuitieswithfamiliar nd otherwiseunobjectionablepositions.When a researcher s dealing

with extremeson eitherend of the political spectrum, he anthropologicalas-sumption soften hat ne isdealingwith hecuitlike,heexotic, nd theenclosed(and, to some degree,anthropologistsmightbe attracted o subjects n newter-rainswhere theycan analogicallyreproduce theirtraditionalgaze). Extremistsare supposed to be like exoticothers,ivingwithin heir wncosmologies nd self-enclosedsensesofthe real. In sucha construction,ieldworkomplicity ith hemis highly rtificial nd not as troubling-it becomes,again, simply omplicity ofacilitate rofessionalrapport.Butwhen Holmes actuallydeals with s sophisti-cated and subtlea speakeras Gollnischor as cunninga one as Edmonds, what sdisrupted nthe classicanthropological iew s thenotionthatthesespeakersare"other"-that theyhave an "inside" that s distinctlyot he fieldworker's.While Holmes does not share his subjects'beliefs-nor does he fear beingseduced in thisway-he is complicit n manyrespectswiththeirdiscourse andcriticalmaginary fwhat hapes political ulturesncontemporary urope. Theyshare a tastefordeconstructiveogicsand for, n short,understanding hangesin termsof the infectious ynamics f illicit iscourse.Howeverdifferentlyheynormatively iew tsoperation,they hare the same speculativewonder about it.Bythefluid, ppropriative apacity fright-wingiscourse,Holmesfindshimself

The Uses ofComplicityn Anthropological ieldwork 103




21/25

beingbroughtcloser to his informants,who are accomplished deologues/theo-rists/storytellers.is informants re as responsiblefor this connection if notmore so) as is Holmes-who, as fieldworker, ould otherwisebe thoughtof astheframe setter-and in thisway, llicit iscourse as experiencedin fieldwork sparticularlynfectious.Complicity ot onlyraises difficult thicalquestionshere, but, n so doing, italso provides n opening tomore general questionsposed in "honest" ntellectualpartnershipwithfascists.Whatmarksdistinctive ifferencen the mise-en-sceneof multisited ieldworkmore generally s this unexpected affinity/complicity-more cognitive hanethical-between thefieldworker nd the in Holmes'scase)vile nformant. ecause they re not the usual subjects, heanthropologist ooksfor other connectionsthattriangulatehim and them,and this s what pushestheethnography lsewhere-in search of otherconnections, ther sites.Finally,Holmes does not fearmoralcomplicitynhis fieldwork elationshipsn any obvi-ous way; rather,he is constantlyn danger of becoming an accomplice in themutual making f llicit iscoursebecauseofthe commonalities f reference, na-lytic maginary, nd curiositythat fieldworker nd subjects so productivelyshare-each fortheirverydifferent urposes.34

A Concluding NoteAfter strong ritical eflectionnthe1980s upon thehistorical roject

ofcultural nthropology s a discipline, rticulated hrough n assessmentofitsrhetorical raditions,we are nowin the midstofa rethinking f theideologyofits distinctivemethodoffieldwork.Much is at stake n this, ince ttouchesuponthe core activityhat continuesto definethe discipline'scollective elf-identitythrough everyanthropologist's efining xperience.The figureof rapporthasalwaysbeen acknowledged s beingtoosimplisticostand for he actualcomplexi-tiesof fieldwork, ut ithas had-and continues to have-great influenceas aregulative deal in professional ulture.As were manyotherissues concerninganthropology's ontemporary ractice, he more troublingfigureof complicityshadowingthatofrapportwas explored in CliffordGeertz's andmarkessaysofthe 1960s and 1970s,writtenwithhis signature urn-of-phrase tyle fdeep in-sight ombined with onsiderable mbivalence.He significantlyurthered hean-thropological raditionwith enewed ntellectual owerwhilepragmaticallyman-aging the doubt thatcomes withanyexertionof an acute critical apacity.Theexerciseundertaken n thispaper,of amplifyinghe implication f this shadowfigure fcomplicityorthechanging ircumstancesfanthropologicalfieldworkwithoutproposing tas a newregulative deal, is offered n thecontinuing piritof Geertz'sown seminalbalancingofethnography's ossibilitiesnd problemsatanother,verydifferentmoment nthehistoryfanthropology.

104 REPRESENTATIONS




22/25

Notes1. OxfordnglishDictionary,971 compact ed., s.v. "rapport," collaboration," collabo-

rate," complicity,"complice."2. The mostcommon sourceof this ssay "Deep Play:Notes on the Balinese Cockfight")is CliffordGeertz, The nterpretationfCulturesNew York, 1973), 412-53, but itwasfirst ublished nDaedalus 101 (Winter1972): 1-37,and as an undergraduateatYale,I first eard Geertz deliver versonof tata colloquium n the mid- 960s.This essaywas remarkableforitselegantcondensation of virtually ll of the major styles ndmoves thatwere to make interpretation ithin hecontextof ethnography uch anattractive esearchprogramthroughout he 1970s and 1980s,notonly n anthropol-ogy but also especially n social history nd in the new historicist rendin literarycriticism,mong othermethods and disciplines.Segmentsof "Deep Play"could beeasily appropriated as models for different asks of culturalanalysisas thesewerebecoming prominent n a variety f fields. For example, the opening anecdote onwhich focusserved as a model of the kind of fieldworktory hatgetsthe writerntothe material.The rhetorical echniqueofopeningwith uch a storywas tobecome amajor (and now perhaps, dully repetitive) trategy f both writing nd analysis nethnographic,historical,nd literarycholarship.3. Geertz, Deep Play," 12.4. Ibid., 416.5. By now,the literature f fieldwork ccountsas well as the critical iterature n field-work tself re both vast nd diverse.For recent ssessmentsn line with heargumenthere, see AkhilGupta and James Ferguson,eds., Culture,ower,lace: ExplorationsnCritical nthropologyDurham, N.C., 1997); AkhilGupta and James Ferguson,eds.,TheConcept f ieldworknAnthropologyBerkeley, 997); GeorgeE. Marcus,ed., CriticalAnthropologyow: Unexpected ontexts,hifting onstituencies,ewAgendas Santa Fe,1997); and GeorgeE. Marcus, Ethnographyn/of he WorldSystem:The Emergenceof Multi-Sited thnography," nnualReview fAnthropology4 (1995): 95-117.6. Standardreferences or hesecritiquesncludeJamesClifford nd George E. Marcus,eds.,Writingulture: hePoeticsndPoliticsfEthnographyBerkeley, 986); George E.Marcus and Michael Fischer,Anthropologys Cultural ritique: nExperimentalomentin theHumanSciencesChicago, 1986); JamesClifford, hePredicamentfCultureCam-bridge,Mass., 1988); and Renato Rosaldo, Culturend Truth:The Remaking f SocialAnalysisBoston, 1989).7. RenatoRosaldo, "ImperialistNostalgia," nCulture ndTruth, 8-87.

8. See, for xample, ArjunAppadurai,ModernitytLarge:Cultural imensionsfGlobaliza-tionMinneapolis, 1996), and Susan Harding and FredMyers, ds., Furthernflections:Toward thnographiesf he uture,heme ssue ofCultural nthropology, no. 3 (1994).9. CliffordGeertz,WorksndLives: TheAnthropologists AuthorStanford,1988), 97.10. We can comparethe relativenattentionf Geertzto broadercomplicities f presence(characteristicf thescholarly eitgeist f thedevelopment raof the 1950sand 1960s)to Renato Rosaldo's explicitreflection n his owncircumstantial omplicitywith thehistoric orces fcolonialism characteristicf a post-i1970seitgeist n whichtales ikethatof thecockfightncident an no longerbe told nnocently).11. CliffordGeertz, "Thinking as a Moral Act: EthicalDimensions of AnthropologicalFieldwork n the NewStates,"Antiocheview 8, no. 2 (1968): 139-58. Again,comparethe roniesof fieldwork ictionsn this ssayof thedevelopment ra, n which cholarlyThe Uses ofComplicity nAnthropological ieldwork 105




23/25

distance notonly remainspossiblebut is consideredthemost desirable outcome, toJamesClifford's eassessment f MarcelGriaule in the field:James Clifford, Powerand Dialogue inEthnography:Marcel Griaule's nitiation,"n Observersbserved:ssayson Ethnographicieldwork,d. George Stocking Madison, 1983), 121-56, one of thekey worksthat placed anthropologicalfieldworkntimatelyn colonial context.Thewayto knowledgeforGriaule sthrough certainhumbling,whichputs thedesirabil-ity f the return otheanthropological vocation" n doubt.12. Geertz, Thinking s a MoralAct," 150-5 1.13. Ibid., 151. 14. Ibid., 154-55.15. In CliffordGeertz'srecently ublished,memoirlikeAfterhe act Cambridge,Mass.,1995),writtenwith hehindsight nowledgeof themurderous turbulence hatwas tosweepthrough ndonesia following isyears ffieldwork,here sthis amematter-of-factnoting f thebroaderhistoric ramasand contexts f moments f anthropologicalfieldwork. hese are conveyedwith wearyresignation,n which trikingnsights reencompassed in turnsofphrasefull of the kindof detachment nd wryness hathasangered hisyounger ritics.

16. Geertz, Thinking s a Moral Act,"156.17. JamesClifford, On EthnographicAuthority,"redicamentfCulture,1.18. Again,Clifford's ssayon Marcel Griaule is probablyhismost explicit nd strongestpiece on the colonial context nd shapingof fieldworkelations. nterestingly,eitherCliffordnor theOED pointsto thevery ommonand darker connotation f the termcollaborationhat rosewith ts pecialuse during WorldWar I (as in collaboratingithNazis in occupied countries). n this ense,the connectionof the termwith omplicityis ofcoursemostprominent.19. This more complicated and contemporarybroader context has begun to be con-structed s a rhetorical, heoretical, nd ethnographic xercise-for example, in the"Public Culture" projectas reflected n the ournal of that name and in the recentvolume,cited above, byAppadurai, ModernitytLarge.Also importantfor thinkingabout the scene of fieldworkn the different roadercontext fglobal political con-omy s the formulation f and debate about the notionof "reflexivemodernization";see Ulrich Beck, AnthonyGiddens, and ScottLash, Reflexive odernization:olitics,Tradition,nd AestheticsntheModern ocial OrderStanford,1994). It should be notedthatClifford'smorerecentwork s a strongmovebeyondhis earlierconcentration nthe historical ontext and conventionsof the ethnographicmise-en-scene;see hisRoutes:Travel ndTranslationn the ate TwentiethenturyCambridge,Mass., 1997).20. Rosaldo, "ImperialistNostalgia," 7.21. Ibid., 69-70.22. From MikhailBakhtin, peechGenres nd Other ssays, uoted in Paul Willeman,Looksand Frictions:ssays nCultural tudies nd FilmTheoryBloomington, nd., 1994), 199.23. In additionto thegeneraldiscussionson theemergenceof multisited thnography,referenced n note 4, see, for a very specific xample, the excellent descriptionbySherryOrtnerofthe materialization fthismultisited pace in her fieldworkmongthenowdispersedmembers f herhigh choolclass," herryB. Ortner, EthnographyAmong the Newark:The Class of 58 ofWeequahic High School,"MichiganQuarterlyReview 2, no. 3 (1993).24. Discussionsabout reflexivemodernizationsee note 19) are forme themost earchingtheoretical iscussions vailableof thismode ofbeing.25. Geertz awthis learly, uthearguedthat he nthropologistnd the nformantjoinedin thecomplicity f"anthropologicalrony," lunted these nsightsn a calculatedway

106 REPRESENTATIONS




24/25

through he chievement frapportbymutual, elf-interested,nd pragmatic ictions.The senseofcomplicityhat evokehere squitedifferent;t sbased precisely n theanthropologist nd hissubjectnot ngaging n the fictions hat chieverapport.26. Under thepowerful timulus fpostcolonial tudiesthathave emergedthroughthewritings f scholars uch as Edward Said, Gayatri pivak,Homi Bhabha, and thoseofthe SubalternStudiesgroup,an important odyof work n anthropologyhas devel-oped reassessingboth colonialism and its legacies. In reflecting ew exchanges be-tween anthropology nd history s well (especiallythose that have come out of theUniversity f Michiganand the University f Chicago), it has made ethnography'straditional roader context f colonialism tself complex objectof study.Whilethiswork overlapssomewhatwith heas-yethalting ttempts oprovide arge,systematicperspectives n what smeantby he term lobalization,tsprogram till emainswithina frame hat believetakes more conservative osition n challenging heregulativeideologyof ethnographicpractice.As such, the ethicalcritiqueof fieldwork n thisbody of scholarship, lthoughimmensely nriched, s stillexpressed restrictivelyntermsof anthropology's omplicitywith olonialism nd its egacies-categories thatdo not encompass thediversity f fieldwork elationships hat have been created inanthropology's ontemporary oraysnto,for xample,sciencestudies,media studies,and political conomy.27. Marcus,"Ethnographyn/of he WorldSystem," 13-14.28. The more complex ethicalcompass of multisited esearch can be read into EmilyMartin's ioneeringFlexible odies:TheRole of mmunitynAmerican ultureromhe aysofPoliototheAgeofAIDS (Boston, 1994). While theexplicit iscussionsofcomplicitiesoperating n this research are not thatdeveloped or rich n Martin'sbook, she doesmap verywell thespecialkind of moraleconomythat mergesfromdoingmultisitedfieldwork.29. Multisited rojects rebeginning oemerge prominentlyn theforays fanthropolog-ical research nto media studies, hestudy f scienceand technology an outgrowth fthediverse nterests ftheprominent ubfield f medicalanthropology), hestudy fenvironmental nd indigenoussocialmovements, hestudy fdevelopmentthroughthe ctivityf NGOs (nongovernmentalrganizations), hestudy fartworlds, nd thestudyofdiasporas. I myselfearned themethodological ssues of multisited esearchthrough my ong-term tudyof dynasticfamilies nd fortunes, nd the worlds thattheymakeforothers;GeorgeE. Marcus,Lives nTrust: heFortunesfDynastic amiliesin Late-Twentieth-Centurymerica Boulder, 1992). While none of these arenas havegeneratedprojectswith thical ssues ofcomplicity uiteas stark s the ones DouglasHolmes has encountered n hisfieldwork mongtheEuropean right, ach does placeanthropologist nd local subject n uncomfortable, ut interesting, elationships fmutualcomplicitynrelation oan imagined worldofoutside sitesof activityn whichtheyhaveverydifferentnterests.30. Douglas R. Holmes, CulturalDisenchantments: orker easantriesn Northeasttaly(Princeton,1989).31. Douglas R. Holmes,"IllicitDiscourse," nGeorgeE. Marcus,ed.,Perilous tates: onver-sations nCulture, olitics,ndNation, ate Editions1 (Chicago, 1993), 255.32. The BrunoGollnisch nterview orms hebodyof Holmes's "IllicitDiscourse," nd theRichard Edmonds interviewppears in "TacticalThuggery: NationalSocialism n theEastEnd ofLondon," nGeorgeE. Marcus, d., TheParanoid tylet Century'snd, LateEditions6 (forthcoming).33. Holmes, "IllicitDiscourse,"258.





25/25

34. As a citizen,experiencingevents argelyfrom distance and throughthe availablemedia of ournalism,one is inoculatedagainst theheterogeneousseductionsof theodious-but not as an ethnographer. or example,an Italianreader ofHolmes's Goll-nisch nterview as not at all mpressedwithGollnisch's iscourse,whichhe foundeasytosee through nd situate.This readerrespondedfrom n activist oliticalposition nthe left,whose own discourse has a long history f being shaped byan embeddeddialecticof distanced relationship o the changing guisesoftheEuropean right.Butclose-up,from henecessary pennessofethnography, ollnisch s seductive, t leastfora moment.This persuasiveness f the momentmakes llicit iscourseeffectivenits own politicalproject ust as it pulls theethnographer n as well,makinghim anaccompliceevenas it does so in the name ofthe atter's wn distinctivecholarly roj-ect,conceived n a tradition fdisinterested ieldwork.

108 REPRESENTATIONS

marcus, g. the uses of cumplicity

Documents