Against Ethnography

Nicholas Thomas
Australian National University

In March 1803 Lord Valentia was traveling through Awadh, a part of north India which, as he observed, had not yet been liberated by the ast India !o"pany fro" Musli" oppression# At Luc$now he was surprised to find in the %awab&s palace an e'tensive collection of curiosities, including ( (several thousand nglish prints fra"ed and gla)ed # # # and innu"erable other articles of uropean "anufacture#* +he dinner was ,rench, with plenty of wine # # # the Mussul"auns dran$ none, -although. the forbidden li/uor was served in abundance on the table, and they had two glasses of different si)es standing before the"# +he roo" was very well lighted up, and a band of "usic 0which the %awaub had purchased fro" !olonel Morris1 played nglish tunes during the whole ti"e# +he scene was so singular, and so contrary to all "y ideas of Asiatic "anners, that I could hardly persuade "yself that the whole was not a "as/uerade# -Valentia 1802 131(341((. +his aristocratic colonial traveler&s confusion could be ta$en to be e"ble"4 atic of one of the predica"ents of late 50th4century anthropology# +he proble" of interpretation arises not fro" an ethnocentric e'pectation that other peoples are the sa"e, fro" a failure to predict the local singularity of their "anners and custo"s, but fro" an assu"ption that others "ust be different, that their behavior will be recogni)able on the basis of what is $nown about another culture# +he visitor encounters not a stable array of (&Asiatic "anners* but what appears to be an unintelligible inauthenticity# +his essay is concerned with anthropology&s enduring e'oticis", and how processes such as borrowing, creoli)ation, and the reifications of local culture through colonial contact are to be rec$oned with# !an anthropology si"ply e'tend itself to tal$ about transposition, syncretis", nationalis", and oppositional fabrications of custo", as it "ay have been e'tended to cover history and gender, or is there a sense in which the discipline&s underlying concepts need to be "utilated or distorted, before we can deal satisfactorily with these areas that were once e'cluded6 +he current wave of collective autocriti/ue within anthropology1 has a par4 ado'ical character in the sense that while reference is "ade to crisis, e'peri"en4 tation, and even radical transfor"ation in the discipline, one conclusion of "ost efforts see"s to be an affir"ation of what has always been central# !lifford, for

2 CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY

instance, affir"s that (&ethnographic fieldwor$ re"ains an unusually sensitive "ethod* for cross4cultural representation 0128835345(1 and 7orofs$y&s relativ4 i)ing e'ploration of anthropological constructions of $nowledge concludes with rather bland reflections on the i"portance of ethnography 012883195419:1# 5 In a very different genre, a recent guide to "ethod in econo"ic anthropology clai"s that the (&great future* of the sub;ect arises fro" its (&direct observation "ethod of ethnographic analysis* 0<regory and Alt"an 12823i'1# +here see"s therefore to be one point about which we are all convinced, one stable ter" in a highly eclectic and contested discipline# +he second feature of current debate relevant here is that while *writing* and *writing4up* have been increasingly proble"ati)ed 0in a "anner which is essentially necessary and constructive1, distinctions are constantly effaced be4 tween fieldwor$, ethnographic analysis, and the writing of ethnography# 3 <regory and Alt"an li$e "any conflate "ethods of observation and analysis, and assu"e presentation in the standard for" of the "onograph 0cf# Marcus and ,isher 128:3184121# =f course, if the clai"s of cultural historians 0e#g#, >arn ton 128(? >ening 12881 to write *ethnographic history* are recogni)ed, it "ight need to be ac$nowledged that ethnography can be written in the absence of fieldwor$ 0setting aside the "etaphorical e'tension of that ter" to enco"pass the archives1# +his article, in contrast, sustains a hard distinction between practices of re4 search and the particular $inds of writing that we recogni)e as *ethnographic#* ( +he purpose of such an assertion is not, of course, to per"it naive e"piricist separations between observation and representation, since both research and writing are clearly political, discursive practices# @hile "ethods and research techni/ues such as in/uiry through conversation and sociological /uestionnaires "ay strongly influence the for" in which infor"ation is presented, and the $inds of /uestions as$ed of it, the relationships between practical research technologies and for"s of writing should be evo$ed in a notion of "utual entangle"ent, rather than so"e $ind of deter"inis"3 it is obviously possible to generate si"ilar analytic discourses fro" very different research procedures, and e/ually to use si"ilar research procedures toward divergent theoretical genres# +he survey, for instance, "ay be "ainly associated with positivistic enu"eration and clai"s about correlations, but 7ourdieu&s Distinction 0128(1 absorbs those styles to a li"ited e'tent in a wor$ of *social criti/ue* that see"s closer generically to an 18th4century philosophical and e"pirical dissertation than it is to either the theory boo$s or case studies of postwar sociology# My argu"ent is thus that while ways of observing and ways of representing are often tangled up, and while "ethods ad"ittedly constrain and influence for"s of presentation, fieldwor$ and ethnography are separable, and that at present it helps to situate the enduring proble"s of anthropological vision in the constitution of the ethnographic genre, while leaving open the potential for another $ind of writing energi)ed by the e'perience of the field# @hile "ost co""ents on what has been variously called refle'ive or post4 "odernist anthropology have been reactive and negative 0e#g#, Apencer 12821, I ta$e the overall perspective, if not the specific argu"ents, of wor$s such as Writ

AGAINST ETHNOGRAPHY

ing Culture 0!lifford and Marcus 128:1 and The Predicament of Culture 0!lifford 12881 for granted# +his article however atte"pts to "ove beyond the current debate by situating proble"atic features of anthropology, such as the tendency to e'oticis", in the constitution of ethnographic discourse# =ne obstacle here is the co""onsense episte"ology of the disciplineBwhich no doubt accords with a broader cultural "odelBthat understands $nowledge pri"arily in /uantitative ter"s# >efects are absences that can be rectified through the addition of further infor"ation, and "ore can be $nown about a particular topic by adding other ways of perceiving it# *7ias* is thus associated with a lac$ and can be rectified or balanced out by the addition of further perspectives# My preferred "etaphor would situate the causes of an array of "o"ents of blindness and insight in the constitution of a discipline&s analytic technology3 particular $inds of overlooking arise fro" research "ethods, ways of understanding concepts, and genres of representation# +his is essentially a "odel borrowed fro" fe"inist anthropology3 as those criti/ues developed, it beca"e apparent that the essentially i"balanced character of anthropological accounts of society could not be corrected without co"ple' scrutiny of "ethods and analysis, that *acade"ic fields could not be cured by se'is" si"ply by accretion* 0!# 7o'er /uoted in Moore 128835431# It is not clear, however, that the proble"s I discuss are analogous to illnesses? the fabrication of alterity is not so "uch a blight or distortion to be e'cised or e'orcised, but a pro;ect central to ethnography&s rendering of the proper study of "an#

E!oticism
Although dward Aaid&s wor$ has aroused considerable interest in anthro4 pology, the response has often been /ualified or critical 0e#g#, Marcus and ,isher 128:3145? !lifford 12883599458:1#9 It is so"eti"es asserted that because anthro4 pologists have engaged in "any studies of uropean or A"erican societies, and are concerned with universal hu"anity as well as cultural difference, the charge of e'oticis" is only partly ;ustified# @ithout disputing either that wor$ carried out under the na"e of anthropology has been e'traordinarily diverse, or that a "isleading stereotype of the discipline has wide currency, it "ust be said that this overloo$s the fact that the presentation of other cultures retains canonical status within the discipline# +hat is, despite a plethora of topics and approaches, there are still strong prescriptions that certain anthropological pro;ects 0such as those dealing with tribal religions1 are "ore anthropological than others# +he argu"ents here deploy this stereotypic construct, even thought it is partly a "isunderstanding prevalent outside the discipline, and partly so"ething that practitioners continue to i"pose upon the"selves and "ost particularly their graduate students# +he ob;ect of "y criti/ue is thus an *analytical fiction* in Marilyn Atrathern&s sense 012883101,: and this reified idea of a diverse discipline can only be unfair and unrepresentative of a variety of innovative approaches# 7ut if what is said here applies only in a partial way to wor$ re"ote fro" canonical types, the converse also applies, and the criti/ue is valid insofar as anthropological te'ts actually do ta$e the for" of ethnographic depictions of other cultures#

AGAINST ETHNOGRAPHY "

Anthropology&s "ost enduring rhetorical for" uses a rich presentation of one stable and distant culture to relativi)e cherished and une'a"ined notions i"puted to culture at ho"e# Margaret Mead&s Aa"oa destabili)ed certain ideas about se' roles, while the 7alinese polities of <eert)&s Negara 012801 confound and deny the central tenets of @estern political thought# 8 A strand in fe"inist anthropology establishes that cultural oppositions elsewhere set up as universais are peculiar to the @est? in contrast Cagen people have *no nature, no culture* 0Atrathern 12801# More recently, the central the"e of 7orofs$y&s Making History was *how Du$apu$ans and anthropologists co"e to possess different &ways of $nowing& * 012883'vii1# And the "achine of relativist displace"ent can wor$ very effectively upon its own products3 while Mead e'posed the cultural specificity of certain A"erican personality types, <ewert) 0128(? rrington and <ewert) 12881 has ta$en Mead to tas$ for her own unreflective deploy"ent of @estern constructions of the individual# +his operation clearly gives the discipline enor"ous scope and potential, because it can proceed fro" topic to topic e'posing previously unrecogni)ed cultural differences3 the Aa"oans have a different concept of the person, the 7alinese different concepts of ti"e, the Australian Aborigines different constructions of space and geography, the +ahitians different ideas of growth and age, while the Eapanese presu"ably have a different conceptual "odel of a restaurant "enu# And no doubt they do# @ithout wishing to deprive the discipline of a thousand dissertation topics, it "ust be recogni)ed that there is great scope for slippage fro" the appropriate recognition of difference, and the reasonable reaction against the i"position of uropean categories upon practices and ideas which, obviously, often are different, to an idea that other people must be different# Insofar as this is stipulated by this for" of anthropological rhetoric, the discipline is a discourse of alterity that "agnifies the distance between *others* and *ourselves* while suppressing "utual entangle"ent and the perspectivai and political fracturing of the cultures of both observers and observed# As Feesing has recently observed, *because of the reward structures, criteria of punishability, and theoretical principles of our discipline, papers that "ight show how un4e'otic and un4alien other people&s worlds are never getting written or read* 012823(:0, cf# (:21# Although gestures are "ade toward the idea of co""on hu"anity and so"eti"es to cultural universais, the postulate operates at such an abstract level that it does not override the radical difference i"puted to such people as the 7alinese 0and those wor$s that actually are concerned with universais, for instance in cognition and language, are generally very "arginal to a discipline do"inated by the sensitivity of the local case study1# Accurate ethnographic representation of stable and unitary cultures thus conveys the radical difference of other peoples& original practices and beliefs# It does not depict a succession of "eanings and transpositions that "a$e cultures partly derivative and "utually entangled# ,or instance, while caste in "odern India has clearly been profoundly influenced by 7ritish codification and the transfor"ation of warrior $ings into bearers of hollow crowns 0>ir$s 12881 the "ost fa"ous anthropological account 0>u"ont 12801 is concerned above all with the opposition between Indian hierarchy and

AGAINST ETHNOGRAPHY #

the individualis" of the @est 0and ironically also with the alleged superiority of purity over power1# @hile the power4clai"s of cultural ethnography have been based on rigor in cultural translation, in a "ore faithful, less ethnocentric account of local belief, that facilitates a professional potlatch of sophisticated interpretations, there is clearly a certain selectivity? it is notable that "atter to be translated "ust co"e fro" so"ewhere different# ,or instance, while infor"ants in the societies of the *$ula ring* fre/uently "a$e analogies between the fa"ous shell valuables 0that they so"eti"es call *Dapuan "oney*1 and uropean cash, 8 that strand of local discourse is not conspicuous in the cultural ethnography of the Massi"# 7eliefs and notions that are not different ta$e on the appearance of difference through the process of apparent translation, through a discourse of the translation of culture# Although there are sceptics within anthropology 0Feesing 12821, those in other disciplines appear to have had a "ore balanced view of the proble"s of translation and e'oticis"# In ;ustifying the use of nglish categories such as *class* and *capitalist* in the analysis of Indian history, 7ayly recently suggested that although there are *dangers in glib co"parison # # # e'cessive =rientalist puris" has done little e'cept "a$e India see" peculiar to the outside world* 012883'1# +he clai" that anthropology is concerned with difference within as well as between cultures is e'cessively charitable# +here are, of course, wor$s that deal with conflict, disagree"ent about beliefs, and perspectivai differences between "en and wo"en, but these the"es could hardly be said to have the sa"e centrality for the discipline as the operation of i"puting difference bet een cultures# +his is in fact "ore accurately described as contrast, since the "ost persuasive and theoretically conse/uential ethnographic rhetoric represents the other essentially as an inversion of whatever @estern institution, practice, or set of notions is the real ob;ect of interest# Cence 7alinese theater and aesthetics stand against the "echanical and narrowly political @estern understanding of the state? and, without endorsing ,ree"an&s style of criti/ue or ethological non se/uiturs, it "ust si"ilarly be ac$nowledged that Mead&s theoretical orientation and literary flair led her to render Aa"oan freedo" as the "irror of A"erican constraint# +he proposition that the gift is only intelligible as an inversion of the category of the co""odity hardly re/uires e'tended discussion here 0but cf# Darry 128:3(::4(:81# Many wor$s of the relativi)ing style were or are intended to be critical, at least in the "ini"al sense that they ai"ed to affir" the value of other cultures and e'press a certain scepticis" about *@estern* ideas that were ta$en to be natural and eternal# 7ut the cultural criti/ue depended upon the fabrication of alterity,2 upon a showcase approach to other cultures that is now politically unacceptable, in its ho"ogeni)ation of others and i"plicit denial of the significance of "igrant cultures within the @est# After so "any decades of *econo"ic develop"ent* and conflict in tribal and third world societies, it is ludicrous if anthropological co""entary continues pri"arily to place such peoples in another do"ain, in a space that establishes the difference and contingency of our own practice 0cf# ,abian 12831# I a" not saying that people are all the sa"e, and that cultural differences are inconse/uential? the challenge is not to do away with cultural difference,

$ CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY

and with what is locally distinctive, but to integrate this "ore effectively with historical perceptions and a sense of the unstable and politically contested char4 acter of culture# Cence, as Moore has noted, *understanding cultural difference is essential, but the concept itself can no longer stand as the ruling concept of a "odern anthropology, because it addresses only one for" of difference a"ong "any* 01288321# +he tendency to e'otici)e others could be regarded as a /uir$ of the individuals who beco"e anthropologists, or an inevitable conse/uence of the encounter of fieldwor$# +he second suggestion "ight see" co"pelling, given the pervasive notion of fieldwor$ as the e'perience of an individual fro" one culture in aGiother# +hough elaborated for the purposes of collective professional self approbation, this notion of in/uiry and interpretation fro" a li"inal perspective clearly cannot be dis"issed# 7ut the point that is profoundly "ystified in conte"porary anthropological consciousness concerns the for"s and diversity of the differences at issue# If one is see$ing out conte'ts in which a sense of *not fitting* or *being elsewhere* facilitates heightened awareness of the singularity and contingency of both the culture of the situation and one&s own assu"ptions, then it is clear that there are "any circu"stances in which these conditions e'ist# +here are nu"erous conte'ts in *@estern* cultures in which alienation or foreignness facilitate cultural criti/ue 0a south London blac$ wo"an in an ='bridge college1, and it is obvious also that the crucial differences relate to age, se', class, and various other criteria, as well as the i"plicit ethnic categories that separate different *cultures#* =r, to e'press the point differently, the notion of what constitutes cultural difference see"s to be restricted to distinction between an undefined *@est* and another do"ain of e'perience and "eaning? the separation between these ter"s energi)es the interpretive pro;ect of ethnography, while difference "ight also be situated between the sort of self4conscious e'position of local culture that is often offered by senior "en, and the voices of those without authority? between those who stay in the countryside and those who have left? between those who hold fast to what is valori)ed as local identity and those who appear to abandon it to beco"e !hristians, Mor"ons, or co""unists# It could also, of course, be situated in difference a"ong anthropologists, given that one of the reasons for engaging in research is to gather "aterial that serves a particular argu"ent# ,ro" this perspective, the notion that fieldwor$ entails parta$ing of alterity and thus re/uires an account of cultural difference is "anifestly insufficient# All the crucial /uestions are passed over because a "ultiplicity of cultural differences are condensed# +he contrastive operation discussed is al"ost inherent in any te!t that e'plicates, or purports to e'plicate, the distinctiveness of a *culture#* A "onograph is not about *other cultures* but rather another culture, and the fact that this "ust at so"e level be treated as a bounded and stable syste" "a$es i"plicit contrast with a ho"e4point al"ost inevitable even where there is no e'plicit one4to4one ;u'taposition# Cowever, the nu"ber of cases in which showcase coun4terpositioning overtly ani"ates analysis is considerable# Insofar as this is what ethnographic writing is about, e'oticis" can only be disposed of by disposing of ethnography, by brea$ing fro" one4to4one presentation into "odes that disclose

AGAINST ETHNOGRAPHY %

other registers of cultural difference and that replace *cultural syste"s* with less stable and "ore derivative discourses and practices# +hese have a syste"ic character, but a dialectical account "ust do ;ustice to the transposition of "eanings, their local incorporation#10 It "ight be added that the the"e of the difference of the other has been as overplayed in anthropology as has the body in the library in detective fiction? even ironic renderings 0the body in the video library1 see" "erely to reproduce an established style that is not ;ust unoriginal but see"s rapidly to be beco"ing sterile# It "ight thus be argued "erely on literary grounds that it is about ti"e for the rhetorical for" to be disfigured#

Th& S'(s'mption o) Th&ory

+he status of ethnography "ight also be proble"ati)ed fro" an episte"ological perspective# +his is to open up a second line of criticis" see"ingly less "otivated by a political consideration 0the ob;ectionable aspect of inventing alterity1 than a theoretical one3 the view that the ethnographic genre locali)es /uestions and thus refracts rather than generates any wider theoretical resolution or cultural criti/ue# Cowever, this episte"ological argu"ent is also grounded politically3 e'oticis" conveys a false view of historical entangle"ent and the transposition of "eaning, while the particulari)ing effect of ethnographic discourse is not "erely unproductive theoretically but also associated with professional introversion and a failure to engage in wider discussion# An enor"ous a"ount of anthropology is "otivated by /uestions at a high level of generality# Anthropological te'ts legiti"i)e the specificity of their case "aterials and the locali)ed and particular character of analysis by their bearing upon proble"s that are ta$en to be theoretically conse/uentialBthe efficacy of ritual, the nature of gift e'change, the intersection of status and power, the ritual structures of divine $ingship, the basis of gender asy""etries, and so on# 7ut what operation does the analytic technology of ethnography perfor" upon these /uestions6 +he argu"ent here presupposes that our genre is a discourse of ethnography and not a discourse u"on it#* +he /uestion here is of the e'tent to which writing is or is not contained by the process of representing its ob;ect? the second type "a$es strong clai"s to e'ternal authority and supposes an analytic apparatus that is not subsu"ed by the "atter with which it deals# A discourse of so"ething, on the other hand, "ay atte"pt to depict or analy)e so"ething that is e'ternal to it, but constantly creates discursive and analytical effects that can only be understood in ter"s of categories that are already internal to the discourse# +here is, for instance, an obvious difference between the ostensibly apolitical theoretical discourse u"on politics in the acade"ic discipline of political science, and the discourse of politics "anifested in the speech of a professional politician or activist# +he authoritative clai"s of the latter are highly self4referential? there can be no e'ternal validation of state"ents because the ob;ect, interpretative agency, and theoretical categories are conflated in the very process of revealing and rendering#

AGAINST ETHNOGRAPHY *

+he "ode of representation recursively intertwines the "o"ents of transcription, e'plication of the ter"s for transcription, and the e'planatory devices that position the products of transcription# =f course, it is clear that these binary categories, li$e all si"ilar analytic fictions, cannot ulti"ately be sustained as polar types, but the distinction can have theoretical effect if it is associated particularly with the discourse of ethnography# I ta$e Atrathern to endorse Hunci"an&s suggestion that the conventional understanding of the relationship between e'planation and description be inverted3 *<ood descriptions in turn have to be grounded in theory # # # the synthetic ai"s of ade/uate description # # # "ust deploy deliberate fictions to that end* 012883101# Atrathern&s clai"s about her own "ethods "ay not reflect views about the general condition of ethnographic writing, but the proposition put forward here is in fact that depiction, theory and analysis are characteri)ed by a high degree of "utual dependence# +his is very obvious in so"e recent cultural ethnographies# ,or e'a"ple, in The #ame of $a a 0Munn 128:1 there is a strong sense that no operation ta$es place outside the elaboration of indigenous categories in theoretical ter"s, or the reverseBthat the elaboration of theoretical vocabulary is "erely illustrated by indigenous counterparts# In this case, the analysis is brilliantly effective, but there are few spaces for ad;udicating plausibility or i"plausibility independently of internal coherence, and there is little scope for rereading ethnographic "aterial that is separable fro" the analysis fro" the perspective of a different $ind of in/uiry# thnography thus establishes things in an e"pirically isolated and strictly illustrative "anner? cases stand by the"selves, and their ade/uacy depends "ore on the effects created through internal analytical narration than either e'ternal theoretical validation or an interest in the replicability of findings 0setting aside the naive positivistic clai"s associated, for instance, with ,ree"an&s *falsification* of Mead1# +he assess"ent of a useful ethnographic boo$ depends above all upon the persuasive fictions of its analysis# Munn&s boo$ "ight be regarded as an e'tre"e case, but fro" the perspective of this argu"ent, it would be incorrect to consider this state of te'tual self4refer4entiality as a /uantity present in so"e wor$s to a greater degree than others# Auch an i"pression instead derives "erely fro" distinct sub;ective reactions to different theoretical paradig"s and devices such as Munn&s neologis"s# @hat for one reader appear as clear tools are highly contrived for another# +he view adopted here, which "ay be counterintuitive, is that writing ethnography into the pre"ises of analysis is a basic condition of the genre# I a" not saying that prior assu"ptions play too substantial a role in the pro4 duction of accounts of other cultures# +he pre"ise here is that any scholarly dis4 course is an illustrative outco"e of a con;uncture of theoretical interests, disci4 plinary procedures, and case "aterials? /uestions of interest do not relate to the relative proportions of these ter"sBthat /uantitative episte"ological "etaphor having been eschewedBbut instead concern the particular ways of seeing per4 "itted or disabled by available disciplinary for"s# +he "ost conspicuous feature of the discourse of ethnography is a dis;unc4 tion between general /uestions in social and cultural theory of the $ind "entioned

AGAINST ETHNOGRAPHY +

above and a way of writing that by its nature cannot resolve the"# +he do"inant process that ta$es place as issues of theoretical conse/uence are wor$ed through ethnographically is subsu"ption# +he illustrative "aterial can be seen in a singular way, but any revelations are ethnographically contained# +his "ay be briefly illustrated through reference to the ethnographic cri4 ti/ues of =rtner&s i"portant argu"ent that universal gender asy""etry could be e'plained on the basis of pervasive associations between the "aleGfe"ale and cultureGnature contrasts 0=rtner 128(1# +his was transposed to the register of ethnography in an influential collection of criti/ues 0Atrathern and Mac!or"ac$ 12801 that argued that the natureGculture opposition was a singular for" in @estern thought, could not be seen as a cultural universal, and was not necessarily articulated with gender# @hile si"ilar contrasts so"eti"es were present, and were associated with gender in indigenous sy"bolic syste"s, the effect of the criti/ue was to e'pose a for" of difference between these societies and @estern thought that had passed unrecogni)ed in =rtner&s analysis# thnography thus disposed of a general argu"ent and affir"ed the difference and specificity of other cultures# +he point here is not si"ply that the particular thesis advanced by =rtner was ethnographically disfigured, but that there was no way of "oving bac$ fro" these criti/ues to any si"ilar argu"ent at the sa"e level of generality# Nature% Culture and $ender offers no basis for any theory co"parable to =rtner&s, and it is not surprising at all that the e/ually significant and generali)ed argu"ents of Hosaldo and !hodorow, which epito"i)ed the scope and force of Woman% Culture and &ociety 0Hosaldo and La"phere 128(1 have been critici)ed on analogous grounds 0Moore 128835545(? see also <ewert) 1288 on 7a"berger 128(1# I a" not, of course, arguing that the various criticis"s were not reasonable, but a" concerned with the episte"ological point that the discipline is supposed to tac$ between general /uestions and ethnography, but appears to be capable of "oving only in one direction, into shallower water#

,&part'r&s
At this point I wish to establish a certain distance fro" the argu"ent that I have developed, by stressing that analogous propositions could be developed about any acade"ic discourse that is tightly connected with a particular "ethod4 ology or for" of writing# Insofar as prehistory is a discourse of archaeology, it is a prisoner of a certain $ind of historical, social, and behavioral reconstruction that is at once partial and inevitably circular# Ao"e si"ilar points "ight be "ade about the inevitability of denying the worth of oral traditions fro" the perspective of archive4bound conventional history? such devaluation arises necessarily in a discipline that defines itself around rigorous wor$ on a certain $ind of "aterial# Although there is a direct parallel with the dis"issal of travelers& reports in anthropology, it should be stressed that the discipline&s invest"ent in the practice of fieldwor$ is less disabling than the do"inance of a narrow range of ways in which fieldwor$ is *written up#* Cence the narrative and biographical genres of conventional history were ulti"ately "ore i"portant than the fact that certain $inds

AGAINST ETHNOGRAPHY -.

of *pri"ary* research "ight be privileged# +he point here, though, is that while this is a criti/ue of ethnography&s anthropology, it is not one that supposes that so"e other scholarly discipline provides a "odel for a relationship between initial general /uestions and the analytic for" of the genre where the latter sustains rather than subverts the for"er? if the hege"onic genres of anthropological writing now present the"selves "ainly as styles to be disfigured, the positive alternatives are not to be constituted through the old ga"e of interdisciplinary borrowing, through the clai" to fi' up one line of in/uiry by adding fro" another# +he association between e'oticis" and the "ar$ed tendency for ethnography to render theoretical /uestions internal to local analyses is thus not entirely contingent# 7oth of these features of conte"porary anthropology have a strong association with the do"inance of ethnographic writing, which presents cultures as unitary totalities# A boo$ absorbed by a culture absorbed in a boo$ cannot produce a discourse upon ethnography, a discourse that uses ethnography to generate a wider argu"ent# At the sa"e ti"e the one4to4one ;u'taposition that this for" nor"ally entails can only establish stability at a certain distance fro" the culture i"puted to the reader? the truth of the ethnographic case depends upon its original and nonderivative relation with the *us* to which it is opposed# It follows fro" this, of course, that ethnographies that turn upon local co"parison 0e#g#, ,o' 1288? Leach 129(? @hite 12811 are li$ely to be less en"eshed in this orientali)ing and particulari)ing logic to the e'tent that di"ensions of difference disconnected fro" the usGthe" fiction are analytically conse/uential# +he ai" of this article is not to conde"n anything li$e the whole discipline, but to suggest that crucial flaws are associated with the canonical "odel, rather than so"e superficial sub;ective interest in cultural authenticity# If there was "erely a proble" of self4deception, this would presu"ably have been e'punged long ago# +he persistence of e'oticis" arises fro" the fact that it is precisely what ethnography is directed to produce# It is perhaps necessary to reiterate the earlier point that these argu"ents have nothing to do with fieldwor$, which is obviously a crucial way of learning# +he argu"ent is rather that fieldwor$ should be drawn into other $inds of writing that "ove into the space between the theoretical and universal and the local and ethnographic, and that are energi)ed by for"s of difference not contained within the usGthe" fiction# +he potential responses are diverse# Montage clearly refracts and displaces the pursuit of stable cultures through a succession of historical and e'periential conte'ts 0as in +aussig 12881 and offers the "ost effective and radical assault upon anthropology&s tendency to fi' a unitary sy"bolic syste" at a distance# 15 Cere, however, I argue for an approach that in a sense is "ore grounded in con4 ventional interests in an interpretative pro;ect, in analysis that wor$s upon larger proble"s toward a wider generative account of social and cultural pheno"ena# ,ro" this perspective the reinvigoration of co"parative anthropology ap4 pears to be crucial# +he value of a "ethod not contained by ethnography is ap4 parent fro" its use fro" so"e fe"inist perspectives 0!ollier and Hosaldo 128113 there is still a sense of political urgency about clarifying the broader nature of

AGAINST ETHNOGRAPHY --

se'ual asy""etries, which has resisted the tendency for these /uestions to be subsu"ed within a locali)ed ethnography of gender relations# +he i"portance of co"parison e"erges also fro" the fact that so"e $ind of e'plicit discussion of regional relationships and histories is necessary if older ethnological categories and ad;udications are not to be i"plicitly perpetuated# Many areal categories, such as *Melanesia* and *Dolynesia* live on in conte"porary anthropological parlance as though they had linguistic or prehistorical validity, while "isleading typifications of regional social structures and cultural for"s provide silent con4 te'ts for ethnographic case studies 0cf# +ho"as 1282b1# At this point it "ight see" desirable to present an e'a"ple of the $ind of pro;ect envisaged here, but this would partly "isrepresent the clai"s and inten4 tions of the present article#131 do not appeal in a "essianic "anner to a style of wor$ that is unprecedented, which would be supposed to "agically transcend the orientali)ing contrivance and particularis" characteristic of the discipline at present# Aince this criti/ue is directed at a $ind of canonical wor$, it is obvious that "uch anthropological writing is not to be subsu"ed within that canon, and that e'a"ples of co"parative analysis already e'ist# +he interest is thus in altering the "arginal status of that genre, and elaborating upon it in certain directions# +his is not to say, though, that there is an established style of co"parison that should si"ply be adopted and generali)ed# +o the contrary, it appears that "uch co"parative wor$ is inade/uate because it is set up as a pro;ect secondary to ethnography? one that perhaps operates at a higher level of generality, and with "ore theoretical a"bitions, but nevertheless one that is essentially parasitic upon the richness of what can be described as *pri"ary sources* 0Atrathern 12883101# +his is why it see"s i"portant to establish an inter"ediate level of writing between proble"atic universalis" and ethnographic illustration, a $ind of writing that incorporates ethnography but is not subordinated to it# At a theoretical level this should be able to displace discourses of alterity by representing difference within cultures and difference a"ong a plurality 0as opposed to one4to4one contrast1# It should be able to co"bine nuanced firsthand $nowledge of particular localities with the interpretation of a broader range of *secondary* ethnographic or *pri"ary* historical descriptions# +his type of grounding thus depends upon a "odel of $nowledge rather different to that i"plicit in various acade"ic disciplines, where there is a strong if generally i"plicit idea that writing ought generally to be based on one&s own speciali)ed and original research# =ther wor$ is often consigned to a secondary or residual category, such as that of the *literature review* or te'tboo$? even though it is obvious that "any theoretically crucial wor$s have not derived fro" wor$ that was pri"ary in an e"pirical sense# A new $ind of post4ethnographic anthropological writing would presu"e the sort of local $nowledge that has always been critical for representing circu"stances both at ho"e and abroad, but would refuse the bounds of conveniently si)ed localities through venturing to spea$ about regional relations and histories# If case "aterial fro" a range of associated places cannot e'pose the historical contingency and particular deter"ination of social and cultural for"s that "ight otherwise be up

AGAINST ETHNOGRAPHY -2

held as relativi)ing ethnological e'hibits, it is difficult to see any other approach that could sever anthropology&s roots in the colonial i"agination# @hat I&" suggesting, then, is not the old $ind of positivist co"parison that see$s to establish general theories, but a for" of analysis that uses a regional fra"e to argue about processes of social change and diversity, that is critically conscious of its own situation in a succession of uropean representations of such places, that develops its argu"ents strategically and provisionally rather than universally# +he significance of regional co"parison arises fro" the fact that it is concerned with a plurality of others, a field in which difference e"erges between one conte't and the ne't, and does not ta$e the radical for" of alterity in a gulf between observers and observed# >ifference is thus historically constituted, rather than a fact of cultural stability# +he conte'ts that can be e'plored are not necessarily fenced around as *other cultures* but include historical processes and for"s of e'change and co""unication that have per"itted cultural appropriation and transposition# +he second strand of this conclusion is thus that while anthropology has dealt effectively with i"plicit "eanings that can be situated in the coherence of one culture, conte"porary global processes of cultural circulation and reification de"and an interest in "eanings that are e'plicit and derivative# =therwise the ris$ is that our e'pectations about other cultures, li$e those of Lord Valentia, will prevent us fro" seeing anything in local "i"icry or copying other than an inauthentic "as/uerade# It&s not clear that the unitary social syste" ever was a good "odel for anthropological theory, but the shortco"ings are now "ore conspicuous than ever# @e cannot understand cultural borrowings, accretions, or locally distinctive variants of cos"opolitan "ove"ents, while we privilege the richness of locali)ed conversation and the stable ethnography that captures it# +he nuances of village dialogues are unending, and their plays of tense and person beguiling, but if we are to recover an intelligible debate beyond the "ultiplicity of isolated tongues we "ust surrender so"ething to the corruptions of pidgins and creIles, trading others& gra""ars for our own le'icons# >erivative lingua franca have always offended those preoccupied with boundaries and authenticity, but they offer a resonant "odel for the uncontained transpositions and transcultural "eanings which cultural in/uiry "ust now deal with#

Not&s
Ackno ledgments' +he encourage"ent and co""ents of Cenrietta Moore, Dascal 7oyer, and Margaret Eolly "ade it possible for "e to write this article? but it should not be presu"ed that any of these people agree with the positions advanced# &+he discursive entity is obviously diverse, and the reification re/uired by any disciplinary criti/ue "ust be inaccurate with respect to a variety of idiosyncratic and innovative wor$s# My interest here is not in establishing that what is said applies to any single wor$ 0which would prove nothing about the genre1 or the statistical e'tent to which the clai"s apply to the range of wor$#
5

+he argu"ents here should not be read to denigrate the wor$ of writers such as !lifford and Marcus, upon which they obviously depend# @hile I ta$e "uch of what they have

AGAINST ETHNOGRAPHY -

advanced to be essential to any novel and critical anthropology, "y co"plaint is that the /uestion of e'oticis" in contem"orary anthro"ology has been passed overBas though such wor$s as Anthro"ology and the Colonial (ncounter 0Asad 128(1 had e'punged the proble"#
3

+his perhaps accounts for the curiously prevalent "isconception that the authors of Writing Culture 0!lifford and Marcus 128:1 were putting reflection, criticis" or so"e $ind of theoretical self4consciousness in the place of pri"ary research? *it see"s "ore than li$ely that the boo$ will provo$e a trend away fro" doing anthropology, and towards ever "ore barren criticis" and "eta4 criticis"* 0Apencer 128231:11# It was /uite clear fro" Anthro"ology as Cultural Criti)ue 0Marcus and ,isher 128:1 that at least two of the writers saw a $ind of critical ethnography, rather than any criticis" detached fro" ethnography, as the central pro;ect of the discipline? it "ight also be pointed out that since Writing Culture was published so"e contributors at least have produced other substantive studies 0e#g#, Habi4now 12821 and not wor$s of *"etacriticis"#* +he notion that the 128: collection and associated publications represented an assault on ethnography is thus clearly false? this article departs fro" both Writing Culture and its aggrieved detractors by insisting on a fieldwor$Gethnography distinction and using that as a basis for doing what the refle'ive theorists have been un;ustifiably accused of doingBarguing that ethnography&s ti"e has passed#
(

+his was intended, but not "ade properly e'plicit, in *ut of Time 0+ho"as 1282a1# +he present article is intended to so"e e'tent to be an a"end"ent to that criti/ue, even though it does not ta$e up the /uestion of ethnography&s lac$ of history, which was central to "y boo$#
9

+his for" of words "ay suggest that I do not regard criticis"s of Aaid&s pro;ect as ;ustified? I hope to e'plore the topic of the reception of Aaid&s wor$ in a separate article, but can note briefly here that I agree with so"e of the points "ade by !lifford, but believe that "ost anthropological critics have neglected the sense in which *rientalism is a wor$ of specifically literary scholarship and secondly that it is but a part of a series of wor$s that operate at distinct levels of generality and with distinct purposes 0Aaid 1288, 1282, 1281, 128(, 128:? Aaid and Citchins 12881# Ao"e of these wor$s are referred to by !lifford, but "ost authors cite nothing other than *rientalism+ I a" not, of course, co"plaining about inco"plete bibliographies, but draw attention to the fact that *rientalism has been critici)ed for not doing things that Aaid actually has done elsewhere# : Atrathern however i"plies that her propositions are si"ply intended to generate novel theoretical effects, as if the episte"ological status of analytical fictions e'cludes both substantive clai"s, and disputation based on the noncorrespondence of a fiction with evidence# If this is in fact the position of the preface to The $ender of the $ift% it would see" at odds with what are in fact substantive propositions in the body of the te't, and also a stance that rather disables one&s own analysis# My view, which "ay or "ay not diverge fro" a position that Atrathern did not succeed in e'pressing una"biguously, is that analytical fictions are, li$e other for"s of $nowledge, partial 0in the sense of being both interested and inco"plete1, and because of this condition 0rather than in spite of it1, "ay offer an account of things in the world that is ade/uate for the purposes of a historically situated co""unity or array of people# Insofar as a fiction is seen to be representative, its substantive clai"s are as true as any of the other things we believe#

AGAINST ETHNOGRAPHY -"

My use of Negara as a "odel of the one4to4one contrast that is funda"ental to ethnographic writing is /uite deliberate, since the historical character of the wor$ "a$es it ob

AGAINST ETHNOGRAPHY -#

vious that ethnography can and "ust be understood at a separate level fro" fieldwor$# Cowever, as Marcus and ,isher have noted with respect to that boo$, the for" of *cultural criticis" -offered. as episte"ological criti/ue # # # is also characteristic of "any other such wor$s in anthropology* 0128:31(91#
8

Martha Macintyre, personal co""unication#

+his point that these varieties of cultural criti/ue have a dar$ side is generally passed over in Marcus and ,isher&s discussion of various *techni/ues of cultural criti/ue in anthropology* 0128:313841:(1# It is still possible to ta$e argu"ents proceeding through phrases such as *7y contrast, 7alinese conceptions of the state # # #* 0p# 1(91 as though they operated only upon the *@estern* ideas that are displaced# It should be noted, however, that they do discuss so"e of the shortco"ings of the *static, us4the" ;u'taposition* 0pp# 1:01:51 and the ways in which consciousness has "oved *to locate -an other culture. in a ti"e and space conte"poraneous with our own, and thus to see it as part of our world, rather than as a "irror or alternative* 0p# 13(1# Cowever, their suggestions that cultural criti/ue would revolve around anything other than ;u'taposition or the repatriation of "ethods e"ployed to study the e'otic are wea$ly developed# It is notable that what is loosely called refle'ive anthropology has not engaged "uch with fe"inis", while the perspective advanced here ta$es the fe"inist criti/ue of perspectivai and political difference ithin cultures as a "odel for brea$ing fro" a discourse preoccupied with difference bet een' &*According to Aahlins, world syste"s theorists argue *that since the hinterland societies anthropologists habitually study are open to radical change, e'ternally i"posed by @estern capitalist e'pansion, the assu"ption that these societies wor$ on so"e autono"ous cultural4logic cannot be entertained# +his is a confusion between an open syste" and a lac$ of syste"* 012893viii1# +he /uestion that is not addressed, however, is /uite what this openness generates3 in Aahlins& view, events and e'ternal intrusions are creatively turned to the purposes of a local cultural order# +his is to save structural anthropology&s set of original "eanings fro" historical transposition, and is an apt approach 0irrespective of the plausibility of reali)ations1 for histories of early contact# +he proble" arises fro" the fact that these hardly e'e"plify global processes or even later phases of colonial contact? here the cultural ra"ifications are analogous to linguistic creoli)ation# I do, however, agree with Aahlins that global syste"s theory is not up to the tas$ of accounting for *the diversity of local responses to the world4syste"Bpersisting, "oreover, in its wa$e* 012893viii1# *+his distinction is abducted fro" the wor$ of Deter >e 7olla 0128233( and "assim,' It will be obvious to anyone who consults this boo$ that I have distorted and reconte'tuali)ed the contrast for "y own purposes#
,5

+here are, however, arguably ris$s that authorial enco"pass"ent is relocated covertly through the refusal to enunciate precise argu"ents and "ethodological clai"s 0cf# Fapferer 12881#
13

A co"parative study of e'change, transcultural "ove"ents of "aterial culture, and colonial history in the Dacific 0+ho"as in press1 does however atte"pt to e'e"plify the style of co"parative and historical analysis advocated here#

R&)&r&nc&s Cit&/
Asad, +alai, ed#

AGAINST ETHNOGRAPHY -$

128( Anthropology and the !olonial ncounter# London3 Ithaca#

AGAINST ETHNOGRAPHY -%

7ayly, !# A# 1288 Indian Aociety and the Ma$ing of the 7ritish "pire 0%ew !a"bridge Cistory of India II#I1# !a"bridge3 !a"bridge Jniversity Dress# 7orofs$y, Hobert 1288 Ma$ing Cistory3 Du$apu$an and Anthropological !onstructions of Fnowledge# !a"bridge3 !a"bridge Jniversity Dress# 7ourdieu, Dierre 128( >istinction3 A Aocial !riti/ue of the Eudge"ent of +aste# London3 Houtledge# !lifford, Ea"es 1288 +he Dredica"ent of !ulture# !a"bridge, Mass#3 Carvard Jniversity Dress# !lifford, Ea"es, and <eorge # Marcus, eds# 128: @riting !ulture3 +he Doetics and Dolitics of thnography# 7er$eley3 Jniversity of !alifornia Dress# !ollier, Eane ,#, and Michelle K# Hosaldo 1281 Dolitics and <ender in Ai"ple Aocieties# -n Ae'ual Meanings3 +he !ultural !onstruction of <ender and Ae'uality# Aherry 7# =rtner and Carriet @hitehead, eds# !a"bridge3 !a"bridge Jniversity Dress# >arnton, Hobert 128( +he <reat !at Massacre and =ther pisodes in ,rench !ultural Cistory# Car4"ondsworth3 Denguin# >e 7olla, Deter 1282 +he >iscourse of the Aubli"e3 Headings in Cistory, Aesthetics and the Aub;ect# ='ford3 7asil 7lac$well# >ening, <reg 1288 Cistory&s Anthropology3 +he >eath of @illia" <ooch# Lanha", Md#3 Jniver4 sity Dress of A"erica# >ir$s, %icholas 7# 1288 +he Collow !rown3 thnohistory of an Indian Fingdo"# !a"bridge3 !a"bridge Jniversity Dress# >u"ont, Louis 1280 Co"o Cierarchicus# Aecond edition# !hicago3 Jniversity of !hicago Dress# ,abian, Eohannes 1283 +i"e and the =ther3 Cow Anthropology Ma$es Its =b;ect# %ew Lor$3 !olu"bia Jniversity Dress# ,o', Ea"es E# 1288 Carvest of the Dal"# !a"bridge, Mass#3 Carvard Jniversity Dress# <eert), !lifford 1280 %egara3 +he +heatre Atate in %ineteenth !entury 7ali# Drinceton, %#E#3 Drinceton Jniversity Dress# <ewert), >eborah 128( +he +cha"buli View of Dersons3 A !riti/ue of Individualis" in the @or$s of Mead and !hodorow# A"erican Anthropologist 893:194:52# <regory, !# A#, and E# !# Alt"an 1282 =bserving the cono"y# London3 Houtledge# Fapferer, 7ruce 1288 +he Anthropologist as Cero3 +hree 'ponents of Dost4Modernist Anthropology# !riti/ue of Anthropology 8031388410(# Feesing, Hoger M#

AGAINST ETHNOGRAPHY -*

1282 'otic Headings of !ultural +e'ts# !urrent Anthropology 303(924(82#

AGAINST ETHNOGRAPHY -+

Leach, d"und 129( Dolitical Ayste"s of Cighland 7ur"a# London3 Athlone# Marcus, <eorge #, and Michael M# E# ,ischer 128: Anthropology as !ultural !riti/ue3 An 'peri"ental Mo"ent in the Cu"an Aci4 ences# !hicago3 Jniversity of !hicago Dress# Moore, Cenrietta L# 1288 ,e"inis" and Anthropology# ='ford3 Dolity Dress# Munn, %ancy ># 128: +he ,a"e of <awa# !a"bridge3 !a"bridge Jniversity Dress# =rtner, Aherry 7# 128( Is ,e"ale to Male as %ature is to !ulture6 -n @o"an, !ulture and Aociety# Michelle K# Hosaldo and Louise La"phere, eds# Atanford3 Atanford Jniversity Dress# Darry, Eonathan 128: +he <ift, the Indian <ift, and the *Indian <ift#* Man 513(934 (83# Habinow, Daul 1282 ,rench Modern3 %or"s and ,or"s of the Aocial nviron"ent# !a"bridge, Mass#3 MI+ Dress# Hosaldo, Michelle K#, and Louise La"phere, eds# 128( @o"an, !ulture and Aociety# Atanford3 Atanford Jniversity Dress# Aahlins, Marshall 1289 Islands of Cistory# !hicago3 Jniversity of !hicago Dress# Aaid, dward 1288 =rientalis"# London3 Houtledge# 1282 +he Muestion of Dalestine# %ew Lor$3 +i"es 7oo$s# 1281 !overing Isla"3 Cow the Media and the 'perts >eter"ine Cow @e Aee the Hest of the @orld# London3 Houtledge# 128( +he @orld, the +e't and the !ritic# London3 ,aber and ,aber# 128: After the Last A$y3 Dalestinian Lives# %ew Lor$3 Dantheon# Aaid, dward, and !hristopher Citchins, eds# 1288 7la"ing the Victi"s3 Apurious Acholarship and the Dalestinian Muestion# Lon4 don3 Verso# Apencer, Eonathan 1282 Anthropology as a Find of @riting# Man 5(31(94 1:(# Atrathern, Marilyn 1280 %o %ature, %o !ulture3 +he Cagen !ase# -n %ature, !ulture and <ender# !a"4 bridge3 !a"bridge Jniversity Dress# 1288 +he <ender of the <ift# 7er$eley3 Jniversity of !alifornia Dress# Atrathern, Marilyn, and !arol D# Mac!or"ac$, eds# 1280 %ature, !ulture and <ender# !a"bridge3 !a"bridge Jniversity Dress# +aussig, Michael 1288 Aha"anis", !olonialis" and the @ild Man# !hicago3 Jniversity of !hicago Dress# +ho"as, %icholas 1282a =ut of +i"e3 Cistory and volution in Anthropological >iscourse# !a"bridge3 !a"bridge Jniversity Dress#

AGAINST ETHNOGRAPHY 2.

1282b +he ,orce of thnology3 =rigins and Aignificance of the MelanesiaGDolynesia >ivision# !urrent Anthropology 303584(1? 5114513# in press ntangled =b;ects3 'change, Material !ulture and !olonialis" in the Dacific# !a"bridge, Mass#3 Carvard Jniversity Dress#

AGAINST ETHNOGRAPHY 2-

Valentia, Viscount <eorge 1802 Voyages and +ravels to India, !eylon, the Hed Aea, Abyssinia, and gypt, in the years 1805 # # # 180:# London3 @illia" Miller# @hite, !aroline 1281 Datrons and Dartisans# !a"bridge3 !a"bridge Jniversity Dress#