method essay

8/7/2019 method essay

1/9

Goldsmiths Anthropology Department

Cover Sheet

StudentNumber

33145855 Claude Jousselin

College

Email

[email protected]

Degree

Programme

MA in Anthropology of Health

and the body in the 21st

century

Year ofCourse

2008-2010

Course

code and

name

AN71014A Anthropological

Theory and Methodology

Essay

Deadline

6/03/09

SubmissionDate 4/03/09

Are you

dyslexic?

No

Essay or Assignment Title

Compare and contrast Malinowskis description

of fieldwork with George Marcuss


2/9

Imagine yourself suddenly set down surrounded by your electronic

communication gear in a busy but familiar city centre; you start your

ethnographic work without delay but your attempt to establish contact

with your gatekeepers on the other side of the globe is thwarted by the

lack of internet connectivity. Frustrated but with no alternatives youbegin observing the people around you and notice that you speak the

same language and share similar tastes, habits, hopes and imaginations.

However their use of technical jargon, their bureaucratic organisation

renders these familiar surroundings into a foreign milieu. Still unable to

establish contact with New York and Tokyo, you take the underground to

the central library where you start archiving through back issues of

official annual reports searching for connections and links between

various events. Just as you feel despondent with the work at hand, you

receive a text confirming your appointment with the chief executive ofXXX; at last you feel you are making headway.

Whilst describing a present-day situation, this mise-en-scene reaches to a

literary style that aims for a relational affect on the reader, one used by

Frazer (1900) and Malinowski (1922) to great effect in popularising their

ethnography. This persuasive fiction (Strathern 1987: 256) brings the

reader into the field, keeping their interest, but more importantly it

provides the means to bring scenes to life [...] and life to ideas

(Strathern 1987: 257), so that new ideas and perceptions become more

than travel writing. In the second part of this essay I will return to

Malinowskis presentation techniques of fieldwork including his use of

photography. But the opening scenario, putting aside its form, has also in

its content a geography of space and time that sits firmly in the present.

Based on the multi-sited fieldwork model put forward by Marcus (1988)

it provides the greatest of contrast with the thoroughly focused fieldwork

described in the Argonauts(Malinowski 1922) . I will also explore how

the concept of the other has become blurred and more complex since

the literary turn and with Marcus I will question what kind of cultural

translation could be produced from a natives point of view whilst at

home and what method would uncover it.It is important to keep in mind that Malinowskis and Marcuss thoughts

on fieldwork evolved through their lifespan in the context of their

respective changing world and were not static. Malinowski was

associated with salvage anthropology from his early work but later on

in his career he came to reflect and register that the Europeans [have at

times] exterminated whole island peoples; that they expropriated most of

the patrimony of the savages races; that they introduced slavery in a

specially cruel and pernicious form (Malinowski 1945 cited by Scheper-

Hughes and Bourgois 2004: 7)


3/9

Marcus, still publishing today, is developing his thoughts away from

textual concerns into fieldwork and research designs, and thus despite the

century separating them, is moving closer to the core of Malinowskis

claim of fame. But we should not compare the incomparable and keep in

mind the different social contexts which informed the authors respectivereflexivity and beware of reconstructing [heroes] within the frame of our

own sensibilities: ancestors who are also contemporaneous are creatures

of myth (Rapport 1990: 8). It is with these limitations in mind that I

wish to start by setting first Malinowski, then Marcus fieldwork

descriptions in the context of their approach to ethnographic research

designs and aims.

Malinowski made his positivist stance clear throughout his career with

his quest to establish anthropology as a truly scientific discipline widelydocumented (Stocking 1992, Leach 1966). In the introduction of

Argonauts (Malinowski 1922) he provides the reader with principles by

which ethnography can truly be identified as scientific:

only such ethnographic sources are of unquestionable scientific

value, in which we can clearly draw the line between, on the one

hand, the results of direct observation and of native statements and

interpretations, and on the other, the inferences of the author, based

on his common sense and his psychological insight (Malinowski

1922: 3)

Through his reference to ethnographers as prospectors (Malinowski

1989 (1967):155) and links to archaeology ( Malinowski 1922:24) we see

his vision of ethnology as extracting, unearthing culture from under

layers of apparently meaningless behaviours. Malinowski proclaimed

this his mission, a scientific approach that had been so far lacking in his

predecessors. This self promotion as the bringer of change contributed to

his status as the founder of ethnographic fieldwork and while his

influence on ethnographic methods post 1922 is undeniable, others before

him had paved the way (Urry 1972 ).Establishing a scientific

anthropology was for Malinowski a step towards a new humanism(Malinowski 1989(1967):255), one whose undertaking would be to

preserve and explore the cultures of the world before time runs out.

(Malinowski 1922:xvi). This urgent work, that needs to be done for the

sake of humanity, is the detection of civilisation under the savagery

(Strathern 1987:256). Malinowski aimed to demonstrate that there was as

much science and superstitions in the natives as there are in the

Europeans and that humanity is universal if you look close enough. To do

this, the ethnographers goal will be to grasp the native's point of view,

his relation to life, to realise his vision ofhis world. (Malinowski1922:25)


4/9

Malinowskis scientific claim, preservationism and remoteness from the

object of study have all been thoroughly challenged since the 1960s post

colonial introspections and the 1980s critiques led by Marcus amongst

others. The ethnographic gaze shifted from the strange native to the

researchers persona and rapport was no longer to be established with theother but with ones reflexive positioning. In particular Marcus work

in Writing culture (1986) highlighted how ethnographic writing

techniques influence the objective description of the field so as to

persuade the reader of the veracity of the description thus challenging the

authority of the ethnographer. Two decades later this reflexivity has

become common practice within ethnography making the formulation of

a clear ethnographic mission statement impossible, in the way that

Malinowski felt able to do. The attentiveness towards influential links

between ethnographer, informant, academia, funding streams, politicaland historical contexts has fragmented the picture and made previous

certainties redundant; there are no new ideas and none on the horizon, as

well as no indication that its traditional stock of knowledge shows any

sign of revitalization-structuralism, functionalism, the study of kinship,

etc (Marcus 2008:3) Meanwhile Marcuss interest refocused towards

engaging ethnographically with history unfolding in the present, [] to

anticipate what is emerging. (Marcus 2008:3)The aim of fieldwork is no

longer to salvage the others culture from the grasp of time but to

capture new and changing cultural forms that are taking place in the

contemporary. For this purpose, according to Marcus, specific methods

for doing fieldwork developed, paying particular attention to the

geographic and temporal positioning of the ethnographer such as ; muli-

sitedness of fieldwork, collaborative rapport with informants,

juxtaposition of phenomena which would otherwise be worlds apart and

finally an engagement with historical forces. This I will attempt to

illustrate through the work of A. Mol The logic of care (Mol 2008.)

True to Marcus description of anthropologys future as lying within

disciplinary crossovers (Marcus 2008), Mol is a philosopher whoseinterest lay in health and medicine and who uses fieldwork to inform her

arguments; through her encounter in everyday health care Mol builds up

case studies that inspire generalisation and theory. Her recent research

focuses on contrasting patients choice with good care and through the

reality of living with diabetes in the 21st century in the Netherlands she

discusses the significance of her findings within a wider stage. Mol

argues that increasing patients choice transforms patients into

autonomous customers, which interferes with good care, particularly

whilst suffering with chronic illnesses. Citizens owe their ability tomake their own choices to the silence of their organs (cited by Mol


5/9

2008:31). She explores with diabetic patients and clinicians how their

therapeutic encounter is based on need rather than choice and how this is

constantly adjusted, re-evaluated, doctored, defining this as the logic of

care; a slow, messy, collaborative process and one devoid of happy

endings.Her conclusions are the results of research that was conducted in a

number of sites; an outpatient clinic where she observed consultations

between doctors, nurses and patients; meetings and conversations with

diabetes specialists, journalists, colleagues; analysis of the content of

various texts/websites relating to healthcare companies and their

commercial strategies; interviews of patients and relatives in their homes

and doctors in their offices. This allows her to explore connections and

contradictions between the discourses and forces involved with patients

choice on a wide policy stage and on the local body of patients.This use of multi-sited fieldwork is at the core of Marcus description of

fieldwork, a move away from the dualistic and simplistic view of them

and us and translates in more complex ways the cultural expressions that

are to be found through this process. It is a juxtaposition of location in

which the ethnographer establishes some form of literal, physical

presence, with an explicit, posited logic of association or connection

among sites that in fact defines the argument of the ethnography

(Marcus1998:90). Marcus and Holmes develop the concept of para-

ethnography (Marcus and Holmes 2005) to describe the narratives,

translations and meaning-making formulated by non-anthropologist in

regards to their lived experiences. This forms the basis for the

collaboration between the ethnographer and their co-researchers: Instead

of turning professionals and patients into our objects of study, we rather

drew upon their skills as co-researchers. They offered us knowledge:

knowledge about treatment of, and life with, diabetes (Mol 2008:10).

There is a heartening lack of value distinction between the knowledge

produced by specialists and by mere mortals in her vision which contrasts

with Marcus focus in exposing the knowledge production of experts or

counterparts. There are realms in which the traditional informants ofethnography must be rethought as counterparts rather than others- as both

subjects and intellectual partners in inquiry. (Marcus and Holmes

2005:236). Mols positioning clearly advocates for good care and

demonstrates the omnipresent reflexivity that is integral to Marcus vision

of fieldwork. It is good to underline that patient and philosopher are

by no means mutually exclusive categories. I am not immortal or

immune to disease. And your normality, dear reader, is not presupposed

here either. (Mol 2008:11) Finally, the biological process of chronic

illnesses requires an engagement with unfolding time. Mol describes howthe reliance of patients on modern technologies and treatments is defined


6/9

in time blocks, with their daily lives punctuated with medical activities

without which their lives would end, to the extent that the treatment of

and life with diabetes are not two separate things. (Mol 2008:10)

In contrast with the fluidity of fieldworks representation shown above,

Malinowskis research is framed in an atemporal moment we call theethnographic present (Stocking 1992:54). Malinowski aimed to

represent the Trobiand society, in its minute details, so thoroughly that it

would become meaningful within its own context with no need to call on

historical understanding. Whilst this was a departure from the

evolutionist approach of its predecessors it resulted in giving a

representation frozen in time, a petrified relation with the other

(Fabian 1983:143). This is illustrated by looking at specific methods

Malinowski advocated and put in place for his fieldwork; the spatial

positioning of the ethnographer and the principles for collecting,manipulating and fixing his evidence (Malinowski 1922:6). Malinowski

used photography extensively during his fieldwork in the Trobiand,

approximately 1100 images were taken, to fix his evidence and try to

give the local colour and describe the nature of the scenery and mise-en-

scene to the best of [his] ability. (Thornton 1985:8) As described in his

diaries and fieldnotes (Young 1998:8) Malinowski clearly saw

photography as complementary to his other descriptions, providing

propinquity in a way only images can. As a side effect it increased the

sense of distance with the subjects, that was not dispelled when

Malinowski included himself in the frame. As with his writing,

photography was a media that Malinowski could control for the benefits

of his claims, through the mise-en-scene of his subjects and his own self-

promotion with his presence in a number of pictures. He strategically

used the pictures in the Argonauts (Malinowski 1922) to illustrate

elements of the imponderabilia of actual life, which he was gathering

through living in the village with no other business but to follow native

life (Malinowski 1922: p18). This immersion in the field is a crucial

aspect of Malinowskis principles of research; to communicate in the

local language, building rapport, being present to capture events as andwhen they happen and using what could be described as unstructured

interview techniques. Malinowskis diary shows he spent considerable

amount of time sitting with the Trobianders, being there and listening to

conversations and gossips. This presence in the field has become part of

the mystique of the ethnography, the element anthropology is mostly

known for and replicated by generations of researchers until recently, as it

could be argued that this ethnographers magic is missing in the

experience of multi-sited fieldwork presented by Marcus. Is this the result

of decades of reflexivity within the discipline, of intense soul searchingleading to self consciousness in the presence of the


7/9

other/collaborator/counterpart? The publication of Malinowskis diary

certainly helped the demise of this mystique, providing ample

ammunition to his critics who saw him working with enormous industry

in one world, while living with intense passion in another. (Geertz cited

in Malinowski (1989) (1967): xxv). Nevertheless his diarys emotionalvoice is in total contrast to the controlled tone of his scientific

monographs and gave a private view of the chaos of fieldwork. As a

personal journal it could be seen more sympathetically as a safety valve

to the strain of his frustrations and isolations in the field.

Imagine further that you are a beginner (Malinowski 1922:4).

How relevant is Malinowskis description of fieldwork to the

contemporary student of ethnographic method? It is an integral part of

the academic teaching program in anthropology and in this way it is apoint of reference. Through challenges which have faced anthropology

since Malinowskis Argonauts, ethnography has remained its hallmark,

evolving and adapting to a different level of complexity. Paraphrasing

Frazer (Malinowski 1922: ix) Malinowskis description of fieldwork

seems flat rather than round, one dimensional in its spatial and temporal

positioning. Nevertheless the aura that he created around the physical act

of reaching towards people to gain knowledge has remained true to

generations since. It is why the scene of encounter I referred to in the

introduction, is the strongest link between Malinowskis and Marcus

description of fieldwork; the most enduring trope of ethnography

(Marcus 2007:8). It has taken many textual forms since Malinowski

called on our imagination, but still it provides the stamp of authenticity

marking the formal start of a research, giving the sense of discovery

unfolding. In this way Martin has recently taken the scene of encounter to

a personal space, a scene enacted with herself and her own suffering in

her recent work into mania and depression (Martin 2009). This

challenged her to adapt her methodology and whilst her diagnosis gave

her access to knowledge, the stigma attached to it often stopped her from

recording in situ. She adds to her multi sited fieldwork on the East andWest coast of America, an inner site which contributes to her

understanding of the historical and cultural significance of suffering from

Bipolar Disorder. Whilst both Marcus and Malinowski, a hundred years

apart, expressed pessimistic view as to the future of ethnography (Marcus

2008:3, Malinowski 1922:518.), this last example I will argue illustrates

that the scope for its reinvention are limitless.


8/9

Bibliography

BooksClifford and Marcus (Ed) (1986) writing culture, Berkeley: Universityof California Press.

Fabian, J (1983) Time and the other, New York: Columbia UniversityPress.

Frazer, J (1900) The golden bough London

Malinowski, B - (1922) Argonauts of the western pacificNewYork, George Routledge and Sons.- (1989 (1967)) a diary in the strict sense of the

term, London: The Athlone Press

Martin, E (2009) Bipolar Expeditions Princeton: Princeton University

Press.

Mol, A (2008), the logic of care,New York: Routledge

Marcus, G (1998) Ethnography through thick and thinPrinceton:Princeton University Press

Marcus, G and Holmes (2005) Cultures of expertise and themanagement of globalization in Ong, A and Collier, S (Ed) Global

Assenblages, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Stocking, G (1992), the ethnographers magic, Wisconsin: WisconsinUniversity Press

Strathern and Bourgois (Ed) (2004) introduction in violence in war andpeace, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing

Young, M (1998) Malinowskis Kiriwina Chicago: The University ofChicago Press.


9/9

Journal Articles

Marcus, G - (2002) beyond Malinowski and after writing

culture The Australian Journal of Anthropology, January 2002.- (2007) Ethnography two decades after writing

culture Anthropological Quarterly, October 2007- (2008) the end(s) of ethnography Cultural

anthropology 23(1) 1-14

Leach, E (1966) Frazer and Malinowski, Current Anthropology 7(5)560-576.

Rapport, N surely everything has already been said about Malinowskisdiary. Anthropology today 6(1) 5-9

Strathern, M (1987) out of context: the persuasive fictions ofanthropology, Current Anthropology 28(3) 251-281

Thornton,R ( 1985) Imagine yourself set down, Anthropology today1(5) 7-14

Urry, J (1972) Notes and Queries on anthropology and the development

of field methods in British Anthropology 1870-1920, Proceedings of theroyal anthropological institute of Great Britain and Ireland 1972 45-57.

method essay

Documents

Transcript of method essay