I posed this topic a while ago in an LJ community, but I thought it would be worth asking here, too:
I have no real concrete opinion on the subject, but I thought it would be interesting to hear what other people think of 'immersive' anthropology. I know there are examples of past work where the anthropologist would 'go native' and become a part of the culture s/he was studying, above and beyond what could be considered participant observation - think marrying into the culture, adopting children/being adopted, taking on cultural dress, religion, or other behaviors. I'm sorry that I can't recall specific examples off the top of my head, but I'm getting ready for work and my brain is another mode.
I'm also curious, as a tattooed and pierced person, if many other anthropologists have body modifications. I often see this as a minor way of 'going tribal' (not necessarily meaning tribal-style tattoos) in an urban setting, and I was wondering if it happened among the anthropology community like the 'going native' trend.
I have no real concrete opinion on the subject, but I thought it would be interesting to hear what other people think of 'immersive' anthropology. I know there are examples of past work where the anthropologist would 'go native' and become a part of the culture s/he was studying, above and beyond what could be considered participant observation - think marrying into the culture, adopting children/being adopted, taking on cultural dress, religion, or other behaviors. I'm sorry that I can't recall specific examples off the top of my head, but I'm getting ready for work and my brain is another mode.
I'm also curious, as a tattooed and pierced person, if many other anthropologists have body modifications. I often see this as a minor way of 'going tribal' (not necessarily meaning tribal-style tattoos) in an urban setting, and I was wondering if it happened among the anthropology community like the 'going native' trend.
posted by:
|
Sacramento
|
-
Re: Going Native/Tribal
Thu, May 25, 2006 - 1:03 AMConsumer tribalism? I don't see this as a trend among any of the anthropologists I know. -
-
Re: Going Native/Tribal
Thu, May 25, 2006 - 11:12 AMThat's a really good term for it! What part of the world are you in? I have to wonder if it's regional, perhaps.
-
-
Re: Going Native/Tribal
Thu, May 25, 2006 - 7:00 AMCushing amongst the Zuni tribe and Boas with the Inuit eskimos comes to mind as classical examples.
If I were to get a body modification, it would be in a more traditional setting.
Like if I were to try and go native in polynesia/maori,
I could imagine getting my leg mashed with boar teeth dipped in octopus ink.
I'm interested in the traditional culture,
I'm not eager to try and change it.
About marriage, sure, if I fell in love.
I wouldn't marry someone just as a step of trying to go native.
Right now I don't have any tattoos, no body mods at all,
not even pierced ears.
I'm slightly bearded, and my hair is trimmed (but long), and I chew on my nails
besides that there's nothing.
I've tried dreads and dying my hair, but it didn't feel true. :-/ -
-
Re: Going Native/Tribal
Thu, May 25, 2006 - 7:47 AMi plan on having full sleeves by the time i do my fieldwork. i often wonder how they'll affect my interactions with people. -
-
Re: Going Native/Tribal
Thu, May 25, 2006 - 11:11 AMMost of the stories I've heard indicate that people are usually just curious. One fellow I worked a bit with mentioned that he was explaining his full sleeves to someone (I forget where), and they thought it was silly that they hadn't been part of his rite of passage into manhood. I thought that was really nice - a very different reaction than you sometimes get in America. -
-
Re: Going Native/Tribal
Thu, May 25, 2006 - 12:06 PMyeah. in india everyone loved them actually. old women kept comparing theirs with mine.
-
-
-
-
Re: Going Native/Tribal
Thu, May 25, 2006 - 1:56 PMAs a Native or Indigenous person I can't think of any recreational or non-sacramental reasons for scarification or body paint. Most of the traditional scars I bear are from events that held meaning to me and my family as a prayer.
-
Re: Going Native/Tribal
Thu, May 25, 2006 - 6:20 PMmy understanding is that there is (or was) a big schism in the anthro community between the emics and the etics - who hold opposite points of view about whether you can / should understand another culture from the inside or from the outside. I am not an anthropologist, so I suggest you google both words emic etic and you will get a raft of hits about the debate. It is of sufficient status that there is a book called "EMICS AND ETICS: The Insider/Outsider Debate."
Some years ago I read a most entertaining book by Richard De Mille which presents the hypothesis that the real reason UCLA faculty approved Carlos Castaneda's dissertation (without any evidence whatsoever of his research) as a way of sticking their academic thumbs in the eyes of the Etic oriented anthropologists at Harvard (?). In his dissertation and first book(s) - Castaneda presents himself as the ultimate etic idiot - asking Don Juan incredibly dumb questions, repetitively missing the point, effectively demonstrating that Don Juan's world can only be understood from the inside as he persists in trying to apply the etic scientific perspective.
I merely cite this as an example, the question of the validity or invalidity of Castaneda's "research" is another topic for a lengthy session with google.
-
-
Re: Going Native/Tribal
Fri, May 26, 2006 - 2:03 AMI'm always for the emic perspective myself, you should always try and 'go native'.
It would seem most people advocating the etic perspective gets hanged up on the idea of 'objective truth' or 'hard science' or 'falsifiable data'.
Like "what is the 'use' of the research if it is only understood by those invloved".
But IMHO, anthropology isn't about it's applications, that's for other branches in society (politicians and analysts for instance).
The anthropologist should try to 'understand', not 'explain'.
But I guess that's a 'modern vs post-modern' dilemma.
Everything is relative, so how could one do anything useful with an etic perspective.
It would be like telling soccer players they are engaged in a vent for social frustration in a functionalistic view of the society. -
-
Re: Going Native/Tribal
Fri, May 26, 2006 - 3:48 AMobviously both perspectives are valuable and should be integrated.
i have never understood how academics can go on and on with debates that take exactly the same form and not immediately leap to the conclusion that both approaches illuminate different aspects of a highly complex object. -
-
Re: Going Native/Tribal
Fri, May 26, 2006 - 4:14 AMThey aren't integrateble, perspectives are like that.
It's like the saying "You can't see the forest because of all the trees",
you either look at the trees or the forest.
If you were to try and do both emic and etic you'd have to use more then one ethnographical method,
which isn't really practical.
Besides, as far as I can see, ETiC is always etnocentric.
You use terms that didn't originate from within the object of study.
Like calling a shamanistic ritual an exhibition of tricks and power instead of saying it's a person talking to spirits.
It's understandable from a western point of view, but it's cynical and belittling.
As soon as you assume the role of an outsider, you're indirectly saying that your perspective is the more correct one.
But there are no values in cultures, they are all 'right'.
Although, as soon as I say that I am contradicting myself, as it would make it okay to be etnocentric aswell.
Hmm, kind of philosophical.. -
-
Re: Going Native/Tribal
Fri, May 26, 2006 - 4:52 AMperhaps they aren't integrateble in a single researcher but when comparing and assessing the data that researchers create they are.
a shamanistic ritual is an expression of power, a focus of community, a continuation of values etc. and at the same time is an expression of the meaning that it's participants give it. both perspectives are "true" and being aware of both is valuable to us as researchers.
and you cannot help but assume the role of outsider, even someone born and raised in the culture they are studying assumes is looking in from the outside by virtue of their academic training. and you are not indirectly saying that your perspective is more correct if you adopt the view that both perspectives shed light on different aspects of the situation.
-
-
Re: Going Native/Tribal
Sat, May 27, 2006 - 9:32 AMYes
hmm, I wonder if it wouldn't be best if every culture had their own anthropologist,
it would be good both in order to explain other cultures to their own culture
and also to make a more fair hermeneutic explanation of their own culture to other anthropologists. -
-
Re: Going Native/Tribal
Sun, May 28, 2006 - 6:52 AMI think that every culture probaly does have it's own anthropologist. But it's no fun looking at your own ass when you can look at someone elses. I enjoy ( Going native) looking at sub cultures in the Americas, and there are endless oppertunities. I'm going to a Burnning Man fest in NC. in July . Once a year these people pull the plug and go insane. There are , Bikers, Burners, Bums, Belly dancers, Boozers, Barflies, Each of these mini sub cultures if you will, effect and make up the larger culture. In turn that culture effects and make up a larger culturail base. untill finaly we have a global culture, that keep the little green men guessing. So there's a 360 Deg. Platonic look at the subject ! Hmmm, is that Plato, or Pluto ? Ge wiz Micky I'm not sure!
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: Going Native/Tribal
Fri, May 26, 2006 - 1:07 PMThat sounds like a good book to pick up - thanks. And thanks, too, for your interesting reply. Didn't know that.
-
