Humor as a Teaching Tool: the Innocent Anthropologist - Literature review Example

?Humor as a Teaching Tool: The Innocent Anthropologist Nigel Barley’s book The Innocent Anthropolgist: s from a Mud Hut is a humorous look at thepractice of anthropological fieldwork detailing Barley’s stint living with and studying the Dowayo people of the African nation of Cameroon. Barley begins by detailing the attitudes in the academic world of anthropology towards fieldwork. He describes jokingly the way that anthropologists who have lived with a primitive tribe in a remote location are viewed with glory and respect by the academic community, and explains that those who have not are treated as though they are not ‘real’ anthropologists. Yet Barley doesn’t think that the anthropologists who are so respected for having lived among exotic cultures contribute very much to the body of knowledge of anthropological study. Barley comes off as being against the idea of fieldwork from the start, and paints it as something that is unduly revered and not tremendously useful for modern anthropological study. He then explains that despite these misgivings, he did what was expected of him and went into the field to do his own direct observation of a little known culture. He gives a harrowing and often hilarious account of his trials and tribulations, first of his attempts to get his course of study approved, then his attempts to get into Cameroon and deal with the odd practices of African bureaucracy, and then of his time living with the Dowayo people. This book gives the anthropological account of the Dowayo people that Barley was expected to collect during his stay with them in Cameroon, but it also serves as a cautionary tale about giving undue reverence to anthropological fieldwork. Most importantly, it gives a realistic and funny look at what anthropologists who are just starting out in the field can expect, or rather a warning about all the things that they can never expect. It is especially of interest to anthropology students and working anthropologists, but it is also a great read for practically anyone, whether they are people who are interested in anthropology, people who want to learn about tribal cultures from around the world, or just people who enjoy a good comedy. The best part of The Innocent Anthropologist is the sharp and witty writing style. It serves as both a contribution to academic knowledge and as a biting satire of certain academic practices at the same time. Barley draws the readers in and brings us along for the ride. Through his sharp eyes we see the hilarious absurdities and strange ironies he encounters in his quest to become a ‘real’ anthropologist. The book also paints a fascinating picture of the Dowayo people. Through Barley’s eyes we get to take a look at a unique culture, with very different ideas about the most basic parts of language and life. It practically boggles the mind to see how differently the Dowayo think about things our culture takes for granted, like hypothetical questions. It serves to teach us that our way of thinking is not the only way of thinking, and that even ideas that we think are so simple as to be a given are not necessarily universal. The only weaknesses I could see in the book were that Barley didn’t only joke about not liking fieldwork; he genuinely seemed to detest it, and always seemed somewhat contemptuous of the people he lived with and observed for so long. While the picture he painted of the Dowayo was fascinating, the author’s tone always hinted at condescension and superiority. I was expecting a revelation at some point that he saw redeeming qualities in the people, but that moment never really came to any satisfactory degree. As a reader I was more interested in the Dowayo people than the writer ever seemed to be. He tells of times when hearing their explanations for things like illnesses “annoyed [him] beyond all measure” (Barley 1980:114). The author does his best to paint a picture of a love/hate relationship, and wants to do his best to get into the work the way that he is supposed to, but it is clear that whenever he leaves won’t be soon enough. The writer’s disdain for fieldwork is what largely creates the humor of the book, but it also serves to show readers that fieldwork like this might just be too much of a hardship to be worth it. However, all of this wasn’t so overwhelming as to ruin the book. The narrative is so tightly focused on the Dowayo people that it leaves plenty of room for the readers to make up their own minds about them. There is also strangely little commentary about the lives of women among the Dowayo. Barley takes it as a matter of course that they are treated as property, and does not see fit to offer much more information about them, or their thoughts or feelings. Their existence doesn’t seem to matter much to him. However, it is easy to forgive the flaws in the narrative, because the book is so incredibly funny and well-written that everything else can be overlooked. Central to this book is the notion that fieldwork is not what it’s cracked up to be. To be fair, there was also the possibility to be considered —slight though it might be— that fieldwork would make some great contribution to human knowledge. On the face of it this seemed rather unlikely. Fact-gathering in itself has few charms. Anthropology is not short of facts but simply of anything intelligent to do with them. The notion of ‘butterfly-collecting’ is familiar within the discipline and serves to characterize the endeavours of many ethnographers and failed interpreters, who simply amass neat examples of curious customs arranged by area, or alphabetically, or by evolutionary order, whatever the current style may be. (Barley 1980:3) Barley seems to be correct in his belief that fieldwork is revered. According to Stephen L. Schensul of the University of Connecticut, “fieldwork is a magical word to an anthropologist. It evokes the ‘far away’ and the ‘different’” (Schensul 1980). Schensul dismisses research, the type of work that Barley prefers to do, as “armchair anthropology” (Schensul 1980). Barley was not enthusiastic about doing fieldwork in the first place, but felt he had to as some sort of a rite of passage as an anthropologist. He had no particular culture he was interested in, and no place that he wanted to go. He details the method by which he came up with the place he would go to do his fieldwork. He writes: Rapid consultations with contacts in the trade suggested that I would do better to return to Africa where permission for research was less difficult and conditions more stable… At this point another of my colleagues helped by pointing my attention to a strangely neglected group of mountain pagans in North Cameroon. Thus I was introduced to the Dowayos who were to become ‘my’ people in love and hate from then on. Feeling a little like a ball in a pinball machine, I set off in quest of the Dowayos. (Barley 1983:3) This same type of neglect of education in practical matters such as how to select a place and culture for fieldwork is detailed by Gupta and Ferguson (1997): It is … true that most anthropological training programs provide little guidance in, and almost no critical reflection on, the selection of fieldwork sites and the considerations that deem some places but not others suitable for the role of “the field.” It is as if the mystique of fieldwork were too great in anthropology for the profession even to permit such obvious and practical issues to be discussed, let alone to allow the idea of “the field” itself to be subjected to scrutiny and reflection. (p. 2) It would seem that Barley’s claims as to the near-mystical reverence for fieldwork in academic circles is not quite the humorous exaggeration that his breezy and sarcastic writing style might lead the reader to believe. The absurdity is that much funnier because it appears to be entirely true. The importance placed on fieldwork in anthropology is so great as to be a defining characteristic. “The only difference between and anthropologist and a historian is that the anthropologist’s data are produced from direct fieldwork experience, while the historian relies on the written record” (Moore 2004:170). In other words, Barley would not have been considered to be a proper anthropologist by his peers until he went out to do the fieldwork he viewed as overrated. Barley’s view of fieldwork may not be entirely justified. When one looks past the mystique, the actual practical uses for direct observation of cultures can be seen. Harvey Russell Bernard points out an example of one anthropologist, Nancy Scheper-Hughes, who discovered through direct observation one of the reasons for the high infant mortality rate in northeastern Brazil. She discovered that many of the deaths were directly caused by the mothers (Bernard 2006). This kind of cultural detective work can only be conducted directly at the source, and not in a library. I both agree and disagree with Barley’s ideas about fieldwork. The study through participation in and direct observation of cultures unfamiliar to the West can be very valuable. However, the extreme reverence and nearly mystical regard for anthropological fieldwork can be impractical and just plain silly at times. A more practical and balanced view of the different types of anthropological and ethnographical study is needed in order to get a complete picture of the cultures of the world. It is good to have irreverent people like Nigel Barley to point out the absurdities and poke holes in flawed logic in any field of study, in order to keep academia from taking itself too seriously. The Innocent Anthropologist is both an important scholarly work and an entertaining read. Ironically, Barley’s contributions make up almost the entire bulk of the knowledge about the Dowayo culture, making his fieldwork groundbreaking on that topic. Little has been written about the Dowayos by any author other than Barley. This book simultaneously contributes to the academic knowledge of little-known cultures and challenges assumptions about the value of that type of study. The best part of the book, however, is the humor and the way that it engages the audience and makes us want to read more. Barley is a very skilled writer, and he brings interest to an academic subject that can sometimes be dry and even boring. This book may make anthropological fieldwork sound horrifying, but it makes learning about anthropology fun. This work is a valuable contribution to the study of anthropology, and may even reach out to people new to the study of human cultures, people who could become the next generation of anthropologists. Tales of the antics of village goats and roads that disappear to nowhere make for an entertaining read. Barley takes the readers with him on his trip to Cameroon, bringing us into the lush landscape and immersing us in the intricacies of village life. It’s easy to understand how he feels about the new and strange situations he encounters. Barley speaks openly and honestly of his western bias at times, like when he recounts an incident of being horrified at the native delicacy of whole cow’s feet, or of the horrifying conditions found within a Central African hospital. Barley’s portrayal of the Dowayo people and his experiences among them is unsentimental and real. I greatly enjoyed reading this wonderful book. References Barley, N. (1983). The innocent anthropologist: Notes from a mud hut. Prospect Heights, IL: Wave Press. Bernard, H. R. (2006). Research methods in anthropology: qualitative and quantitative approaches. Oxford: AltaMira. Gupta, A. & Ferguson, J. (1997). Anthropological locations: Boundaries and grounds of a field science. London: University of California Press Moore, J. D. (2004). Visions of culture: An introduction to anthropological theories and theorists. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira. Schensul, S. L. (1980). Anthropological Fieldwork and Sociopolitical Change. Social Problems Vol. 27, (No. 3). Retreived from http://www.jstor.org/stable/800249 Read More