Comments on: The Omniscient Narrator

By: John McCreery

John McCreery — Mon, 09 Sep 2013 01:55:10 +0000

Allow me to play the devil’s advocate. Perhaps the agonizing moral issues that arise when the anthropologist presents him or herself as the only public voice of a small group whose members are unable to speak up for themselves are irrelevant when writing about a place as big and complex as Mumbai. Why? Only a fool would read Boo as the Truth with a capital T. As Kerim himself points out there are many other authors who have written about Mumbai or fiction set in Mumbai. There is ample opportunity for those concerned with the validity of what Boo has written against other sources. And even if she is the only source on some particular aspect of Mumbai life, there is plenty of other material with which to contextualize and question what she says. Given that all accounts will, of necessity, be only partial accounts, why not accept that fact and advise anyone who distrusts what Boo says to consult other sources?

By: Mateo

Mateo — Sun, 08 Sep 2013 11:41:42 +0000

Maybe Boo is justifying herself to a group with a certain set of expectations about what you are looking for from an interview? Ethnographers tend to be on the lookout for individuals who are particularly knowledgeable (what Russ Bernard calls the shaman effect), whereas journalists tend to be on the lookout for individuals who can provide colorful quotes.

By: Rachel

Rachel — Sun, 08 Sep 2013 11:04:48 +0000

Good post. I’ve thought of using that book in class as yet another journalistic work that is beautifully written and evokes a social milieu in anthropological ways. It’s interesting that she chooses to bring out the most reticent characters’ thoughts rather than focusing on those who are more forthcoming with information. Another element missing from that text is the author herself – an anthropologist would have spent more time establishing her relationship with the characters and how she got her information throughout the text, rather than in an afterword. That had me wondering, too, how she was perceived in that community. But that’s also another big difference between ethnographies and journalism – since Writing Culture, we put ourselves in the texts more (how we got there, what people thought of us, our potential biases, etc), a literary strategy that average readers (non-anthropologists) may not like.

By: A. J. West (@AlWest13)

A. J. West (@AlWest13) — Sun, 08 Sep 2013 10:55:25 +0000

Ooh, that looks good. I’ll have to grab a copy.

In any case, I don’t think you’re compromising your integrity by reporting something second-hand according to the details provided by an informant, whether you happen to be a journalist or an anthropologist. And it seems like a perfectly reasonable device for giving a diversity of views. I’d be interested to see the comments on this.