Anthropologist Personal Background and Ethnographic Writing - Book Report/Review Example

In what ways does an anthropologist's personal background and ive experience in fieldwork influence his or her ethnographic writing Before understanding the influence of an anthropologist's personal background and subjective experience in fieldwork on his/her ethnographic writing, let us discuss the meaning of ethnography and its technique. The research method of studying intensively a small social collectivity over a period of time by joining it and participating in its activities is known as ethnography or field research. It is typically used in the study of small communities, gangs, total institutions, informal groups and other small scale settings. The research techniques employed include informal interviewing of participants and of informants (selected individuals who provide detailed interpretations of the setting being observed), participation of the researcher in the activities being studied, and observation of key events in the life of the collectivity. Researcher uses scientific method in anthropological studies, that is, one requires taking a detached, impersonal and dispassionate view towards the phenomena being studied. Objectivity exists when an observation is uninfluenced by one's personal biases, prejudices, beliefs or values. Social scientists are committed to investigating, analyzing, and describing what is, not what they think should be. However, when one begins to consider oneself, one's friends, one's entire style of life etc. objectivity becomes increasingly difficult to achieve. Studies have indicated that there is a definite tendency of people to see what they want to see or what they expect to see, or what they have been conditioned to see within their cultural context. Here we should be clear that value-judgement and value-interpretation are two different perspectives. As social scientists, anthropologists should avoid making ad hoc, personal value-judgments on social phenomena. The point of value-interpretation is to establish the values towards which an activity is directed; it is not to judge such activities as either good or bad. While research topics, approaches and perspectives are selected according to the criterion of value-relevance, anthropology is not in a privileged position to pronounce on social values, because there is a logical gap between empirical evidence and moral actions. In anthropology, value-freedom has a variety of meanings: (1) anthropologists can successfully exclude ideological or non-scientific assumptions from research; (2) anthropologists should not make evaluative judgments about empirical evidence; (3) value-judgments should be restricted to the anthropologist's area of technical competence; (4) anthropologists are indifferent to the moral implications of their research; (5) anthropologists should make their own values open and clear; (6) anthropologists should refrain from advocating particular values. The philosophical treatment of values is part of ethics, political philosophy and aesthetics. The problems raised have reached no agreed solution and the answers offered range from the timeless metaphysical status awarded value by Platonism to the dismissal of questions of value as meaningless and indiscussable. This is not to dismiss philosophical analysis. Nihilism and relativism about values are de facto untenable. At the least philosophy has disposed of many plausible and slippier errors and value. Perhaps a philosophy which engaged itself directly with the data of anthropology, sociology and psychology can do more. In all these disciplines philosophical as well as factual questions about values are found to be inescapable and fundamental. It is also contended that those who plead on behalf of value-free anthropology are not sure that anything fruitful could be achieved by it. True, the loftiest motives might produce the most sterile research, while idle curiosity might result in challenging findings. But this does not confirm that value-free research is great since the other way round can also be true. What one can say with conviction is that anthropologists should not engage in any kind of politically motivated research. They should always conduct research as per the rules laid down by the scientific procedure, that is, accepting science in the broader sense rather than in the narrower sense. To conclude, however well-argued might be the plea on behalf of value-free anthropology, it has to be conceded that no science can be free of value, and most of all social sciences. Prof. Schwab made a study of 4,000 scientific papers produced over a span of five centuries mainly biology, psychology and the behavioral sciences. He concludes that the choice made by the scientists in pursuing their research was based on personal preferences as determined by personality factors and the ephemerals of circumstances. To borrow his phraseology: 'There indeed are many ways of achieving knowledge and no one of them can claim moral superiority over the other and each of them is capable of illuminating the world of things in a way not precisely duplicated by the others'. The above discussion shows that no ethnographic writings can be truly value-free from personal background and subjective experience in fieldwork. But their influence is in limited degree, a researcher chooses his/her topic of research according to one's propensity, which is mostly conditioned by culture or personal background. On the other hand, research is carried out on the basis of 'research technique', that is, anthropologist although participating with the members of his/her study group, keeps his/her self detached, impersonal and dispassionate. Best example can be extracted from the studies of two prominent ethnographers, Evans-Pritchard and Raymond Kelly. Evans-Pritchard Evans-Pritchard born in England, studied history at Exeter College in Oxford and completed his post-graduation from London School of Economics. Here he came under the influence of B. Malinowski and C.G. Seligman, an eminent ethnographer of the Sudanese culture. He completed his doctorate with the fieldwork on Azande people of the upper Nile. With his appointment in University of Cairo, he got an opportunity to do new research on the Nuer of southern Sudan. This was turning point of his career and during this period he met A.R. Radcliffe Brown and Meyer Fortes. He helped Radcliffe to develop program of structural-functionalism in his studies of the Nuer. This resulted into an in-depth study of Nuer culture (The Nuer, Nuer Religon, and Kinship and Marriage Among the Nuer); a classic work of British social anthropology. Evans-Pritchard had served in Libya, Ethiopia, Syria, and Sudan during World War II. He raised guerilla troops in Sudan to harass the Italians. In 1942, he was sent to Cyrenaica in North Africa as a British Officer. On the basis of these subjective experience in fieldwork he wrote "the Sansusi of Cyrenaica", and documented about 'tarika's' role in resistance to Italian conquest. Some scholars believe 'tarika' are forerunner of today's radical 'Islamist cults'. His Work His early day's work, particularly research on the culture of African tribes like the Azande and Nuer made him an acclaimed anthropologist. Nevertheless, his later day's writings made him renowned internationally, outside the circles of anthropologists. Several of the principles he adopted in his writings were absorbed from his subjective experiences in fieldwork. For example, in 1950 he impressively rejected the normally held opinion that anthropology comes under the category of natural science, instead, according to him it should be grouped within the humanities, particularly history. He thought that observing a culture in strictly scientific conditions dehumanizes it - he describes that other people involvements are more than a measurement; it needs to understand their reasoning and inner desires as well as their external activities. Furthermore, Evans-Pritchard debated that the prominent problem confronting anthropologists are of translation - discovering a way to interpret one's own thinkings into the universe of another culture and thus handle oneself to understand it, and then again interpret and explain these understandings to people of one's own culture. He argued that anthropologists seldom succeed in getting into the minds of the people of his/her studies, and so attributed to them motivations which nearly match to their own culture, instead of those people whom he/she was studying. Thus, anthropologists' hypotheses or theories regarding other cultures and peoples risk being misrepresented by personal background or bias. Evans-Pritchard published his creative work "Theories of Primitive Religion" in 1965, in this he has debated on the existing dominant theories in anthropological literatures about primitive religious practices. According to his argument, believers and non-believers' way of analyzing religion is very different from each other. He noted that non-believers are fast to find psychological, sociological, or biological theories to make understand that religious experience is an illusion; on the other hand, believers are more probable to devise theories explaining religion as a technique of conceptualizing and associated to reality. For believers or supporter of religious faith, religion is a particular aspect of reality. Evans-Pritchard argued that those who recognize the validity of religious observations in their own culture can better understand religious aspects of other's culture. Sir Edward Evan Evans-Pritchard did not only play an important role in the growth of social anthropology in Britain, but he also gave a new dimension to twentieth century's anthropology in general and religion in particular. He brought a revolutionary shift in the view of anthropologists by denouncing anthropology as a natural science (Radcliffe-Brown), and bringing it into the group of humanities, particularly history. His writings brought drastic changes in the field of anthropology. Now, anthropologists desired to study cultures of the universe of their study "from within", getting into the minds of the group of their study, trying to comprehend the reason and background of people about their particular behavior and beliefs. Subsequently, the route towards ethnography and modern anthropology was opened. Raymond C. Kelly Raymond C. Kelly was born in Bridgeport, CT, in America. His childhood was full of movements; the reason was his father's occupation. He resided at different parts of U.S. such as Louisville, Dayton, Rosemont, etc., these transfer from one location to other made growing up Kelly wonder why people interact differently at different places. For him, customs were intellectual objects to be explained. His anthropological inquisitiveness remained unquenched in the childhood due to limited social studies curricula in high school. This inclined him towards other scientific studies, like chemistry and later psychiatry. He developed interest in dreams and their interpretations. Later, in 1960 he joined the University of Chicago to buildup his career as psychoanalyst. Here, an introductory anthropology course recharged his interest towards anthropology; the reason was study of different culture and personality. His Work Professor Lewis Binford boosted Kelly to attend graduate school for anthropology and advised him to apply for the University of Michigan, which had substantial program in cultural adaptation and cultural ecology. He completed his master's degree from the University and was awarded a 5-year fellowship from the National Institute of Mental Health (Bethesda, MD) to pursue his Ph.D. in anthropology. He pursued his coursework with great sincerity and even published a course paper on the 'structural consequence of demographic pressure in the New Guinea Highlands', this provided a framework for his Ph.D. research. In 1968, Kelly obtained approval to go through his research on the Etoro, a remote tribe in New Guinea. His initial phase of 'participant observation' experience was full of difficulties due to unpleasant way of introduction by the local official. He had to face lot of difficulty due to communication gap between him and the foreign community. No knowledge of Etoro language aggravated the situation; he was totally devoid of local friends which were necessary for securing cooperation for his research. But, after an incident (fire in his hut) situation changed and the last 9 months of the 15-month project were productive. After his return to the University of Michigan, he was appointed as a Lecturer. In 1977, his first book 'Etoro Social Structure' was published; it provides a general ethnology on the principles of relationships, concentrating on kin relations between individuals and social groups. Kelly has dealt in detail about the life of Etoro, and their internal and external relationships. His second book 'Constructing Inequality' was published in 1993; it was based on social theories, especially gender inequality among Etoros. According to Kelly, the gap between these two books on the Etoro was to get rid of boredom due to specialization. The New Guinea research had very less information about the cultural variants. One theoretical issue that intrigued Kelly the most was that how and why certain tribes expand over a given area. To understand these intricacies he chose to study about the Nuer of Sudan, the tribe which have be extensively studied by other anthropologists, particularly by Evans-Pritchard. He focused his study to the Nuer conquest on the Dinka in southern Sudan between 1820 and 1890. The two tribes had nearly the same language, had emerged from common stock, and shared the same basic economy. But, within a span of 70 years the Nuer expanded their territory fourfold and contrarily Dinka's area decreased. The previous 'population pressure' theory of Kelly did not fit the situation because the data available showed that Nuer population density had decreased noticeably as they expanded. To solve his theoretical problem he traveled from London to Khartoum, Sudan and plunged himself in several archives, especially documents of colonial British intelligence officials which provided information of Nuer attacks on the Dinka in the 1900s. Kelly has elaborately dealt the nature of the Nuer-Dinka conflict in his book 'The Nuer Conquest' (1985). In his case study he found social norms, values and customs responsible for the Nuer expansion. The Nuer had developed a culture where cattle yield was increased for exchange rather than livelihood. The custom of bridewealth payments among Nuer compelled them to maintain larger herds, because those cattle which were required for subsistence could not be gifted. On the other hand, the Dinka's bridewealth needed minimum expenditures, thus they were able to maintain a balance between their small herds and the grazing lands. But for the Nuer the existing grazing land became gradually smaller and the size of their herds increased drastically. Such a situation arose due to their social values in which culling of surplus cattle were never envisioned. This was because of requirement for anticipated bridewealth payments. More or less every family endeavored to meet or even overstep the standard payment of 40 cattle. Kelly concludes that special values entrusted on the cattle among the Nuer tribe compelled them to maintain their prestige and thus prompted to raid Dinka pastures and expansion took place. Conclusion The ethnography discussed above clearly depicts the way an anthropologist's personal background and subjective experience in fieldwork influences his/her ethnographic writings. Evans-Pritchard is considered one of the founding father of anthropological studies. He had graduated in history from Exeter College in Oxford, other to it, had worked as an officer for colonial British government, and participated in World War II. His personal background and field experience can be gauged in his work. He gives special importance to history in his anthropological studies and while studying the Nuer he has analyzed the social structure on the basis of political institutions. In the same way, Kelly's case study on the Nuer (the Nuer conquest) and Etoro reflect his inclination towards psychoanalysis. Works Cited Bernard, H. R. (1999). Research Methods in Anthropology: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches, Altamira Press . Jackson, M. (1989). Paths Toward a Clearing: Radical Empiricism and Ethnographic inquiry, Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Evans-Pritchard, E. E. (1974). The Nuer: a description of the modes of livelihood and political institutions of a Nilotic people, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Whyte, W. (1970). Street Corner Society, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Rabinow, P. (1977). Reflections on Fieldwork in Morocco, Berkeley: University of California Press. Hutchinson, S (1996). Nuer Dilemmas: Coping with Money, War and the State, Berkeley: University of California Press. Kelly, Raymond C. (1985). The Nuer conquest: the structure and development of an expansionist system. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Kelly, R. C. (1977) Etoro Social Structure: A Study in Structural Contradiction. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Kelly, R. C. (1993) Constructing Inequality: The Fabrication of a Hierarchy of Virtue Among the Etoro. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Kelly, R. C. (2000) Warless Societies and the Origin of War. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Eriksen, T. (1995). Small places, large issues: an introduction to social and cultural anthropology. London & Chicago: Pluto Press. Zagorski, Nick. "Profile of Raymond C. Kelly" 25 April, 2008 Read More