Comments on: Is fieldwork over-rated? http://savageminds.org/2007/02/22/is-fieldwork-over-rated/ Notes and Queries in Anthropology — A Group Blog Sat, 20 Mar 2010 16:28:00 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: peter "the sheriff" yoon http://savageminds.org/2007/02/22/is-fieldwork-over-rated/comment-page-1/#comment-56921 peter "the sheriff" yoon Wed, 14 Mar 2007 19:08:03 +0000 http://savageminds.org/2007/02/22/is-fieldwork-over-rated/#comment-56921 Essentially, the dispute boils down to an age-old debate: Plato vs. Aristotle, or, in other words, metaphysics vs. Empiricism. The field workers produce the evidence, without necessarily putting it in perspective, so that much of it sits waiting for future interpretation. Granted, there have been exceptions, but not a barrel full. Nevertheless, the proponents of Empiricism routinely argue on behalf of procuring the evidence; guesswork doesn't count. But bones don't talk. Ochre doesn't reveal universal truths. Sacramental ornaments refuse to be empirically demystified. Interpretation is required. From an armchair, or the halls of a museum. There's no way around it. And for all the illustrious minds mentioned, Nietzsche's study of the raw instincts, ancient habituation, and evolution of values proves more relevant than a truck load of sample gatherers collecting artifacts. That's not to demean the hard working crews. But gathering samples is merely one component of reaching fuller understanding. Essentially, the dispute boils down to an age-old debate: Plato vs. Aristotle, or, in other words, metaphysics vs. Empiricism. The field workers produce the evidence, without necessarily putting it in perspective, so that much of it sits waiting for future interpretation. Granted, there have been exceptions, but not a barrel full.

Nevertheless, the proponents of Empiricism routinely argue on behalf of procuring the evidence; guesswork doesn’t count. But bones don’t talk. Ochre doesn’t reveal universal truths. Sacramental ornaments refuse to be empirically demystified. Interpretation is required. From an armchair, or the halls of a museum. There’s no way around it.

And for all the illustrious minds mentioned, Nietzsche’s study of the raw instincts, ancient habituation, and evolution of values proves more relevant than a truck load of sample gatherers collecting artifacts. That’s not to demean the hard working crews. But gathering samples is merely one component of reaching fuller understanding.

]]> By: Savage Minds: Notes and Queries in Anthropology — A Group Blog » Ethnography (not) in Translation http://savageminds.org/2007/02/22/is-fieldwork-over-rated/comment-page-1/#comment-54069 Savage Minds: Notes and Queries in Anthropology — A Group Blog » Ethnography (not) in Translation Fri, 23 Feb 2007 17:11:13 +0000 http://savageminds.org/2007/02/22/is-fieldwork-over-rated/#comment-54069 [...] I think there are serious implications for how non-English speakers learn Anthropology, which touch on the theory/ethnography discussion emerging out of Strong’s last post. While teachers often complain that Taiwanese students don’t get “theory” and don’t know how to think critically, it is precisely the grand works of theory and critical thinking which seem to get translated – not the ethnographies which make up the vast bulk of anthropological writing. [...] [...] I think there are serious implications for how non-English speakers learn Anthropology, which touch on the theory/ethnography discussion emerging out of Strong’s last post. While teachers often complain that Taiwanese students don’t get “theory” and don’t know how to think critically, it is precisely the grand works of theory and critical thinking which seem to get translated – not the ethnographies which make up the vast bulk of anthropological writing. [...]

]]> By: John McCreery http://savageminds.org/2007/02/22/is-fieldwork-over-rated/comment-page-1/#comment-54004 John McCreery Fri, 23 Feb 2007 07:33:37 +0000 http://savageminds.org/2007/02/22/is-fieldwork-over-rated/#comment-54004 Could it be (I don't claim to know) that Gluckman was thinking of what Evans-Pritchard would later call "the dead hand of competence," the sort of fieldwork that produces a respectable ethnography but adds little to our understanding of either ethnographic facts or the human condition writ large? Could it be (I don’t claim to know) that Gluckman was thinking of what Evans-Pritchard would later call “the dead hand of competence,” the sort of fieldwork that produces a respectable ethnography but adds little to our understanding of either ethnographic facts or the human condition writ large?

]]> By: comet jo http://savageminds.org/2007/02/22/is-fieldwork-over-rated/comment-page-1/#comment-53976 comet jo Fri, 23 Feb 2007 03:11:16 +0000 http://savageminds.org/2007/02/22/is-fieldwork-over-rated/#comment-53976 I meant Geertz as the refutation of the provocation. I meant Geertz as the refutation of the provocation.

]]> By: ckelty http://savageminds.org/2007/02/22/is-fieldwork-over-rated/comment-page-1/#comment-53973 ckelty Fri, 23 Feb 2007 02:57:33 +0000 http://savageminds.org/2007/02/22/is-fieldwork-over-rated/#comment-53973 isn't the provocation here that there is a bad collaborative hierarchy in anthropology-- i.e. that the choice is between good fieldworkers creating good theory with their own fieldwork, and good benchwarmers creating good theory with other people's fieldwork? Or even worse: an indictment of fieldwork as a "distinctive form of epistemological encounter" (pace Marcus) in which the knot of theory and research can't be untied? Then again, from a certain perspective this is not exactly the series of distinguished thinkers I would allow into my tent :) (Marrett??!) isn’t the provocation here that there is a bad collaborative hierarchy in anthropology– i.e. that the choice is between good fieldworkers creating good theory with their own fieldwork, and good benchwarmers creating good theory with other people’s fieldwork? Or even worse: an indictment of fieldwork as a “distinctive form of epistemological encounter” (pace Marcus) in which the knot of theory and research can’t be untied? Then again, from a certain perspective this is not exactly the series of distinguished thinkers I would allow into my tent :) (Marrett??!)

]]> By: John McCreery http://savageminds.org/2007/02/22/is-fieldwork-over-rated/comment-page-1/#comment-53970 John McCreery Fri, 23 Feb 2007 02:38:49 +0000 http://savageminds.org/2007/02/22/is-fieldwork-over-rated/#comment-53970 It is hardly fair to characterize Geertz as an anthropologist who foresook the savage for the study, given his distinguished career of ethnography in Java, Bali and Morocco. It is hardly fair to characterize Geertz as an anthropologist who foresook the savage for the study, given his distinguished career of ethnography in Java, Bali and Morocco.

]]> By: comet jo http://savageminds.org/2007/02/22/is-fieldwork-over-rated/comment-page-1/#comment-53968 comet jo Fri, 23 Feb 2007 02:18:23 +0000 http://savageminds.org/2007/02/22/is-fieldwork-over-rated/#comment-53968 Geertz. Geertz.

]]>