Comilla University

Assignment On

"Review of Post Structural Critics in anthropology and ten theorist

discussion on it "

Course Title: Contemporary Anthropological Theories

Course Code: Anp - 511

Submitted To:
Hasena Begum
Assistant professor
Department of Anthropology
Comilla University Submitted By:
Aktaruzzaman Pavel
Id : 11910019
MSS 1st semester ( 2022-23)
Department of Anthropology
Comilla University
 Post Structural Critics in anthropology and ten theorist discussion on it.

The Making of Ethnography Text "A Preliminary Report".

Anthropology's journey essentially begins with ethnography, which makes us different from
other disciplines. The method of anthropology, participant observation and ethnography is the
basic term of our anthropology. There were some classic anthropologists who wrote
ethnographies through participatory observation.

In the 1980’s earlier ethnography began to be discussed and criticized. The criticism we see
here was basically criticizing our own work. All previous works are criticized here. But here
criticism basically teaches us to think about limitation, which takes anthropology forward.

The first criticism that started was about the ethnography text. James Clifford and George E.
Marcus try to explain how the earlier ethnography was written and what were the limitations
of ethnography. What was the style of writing ethnography, what was the format of
ethnography text. Earlier ethnography was criticized for having methodological and
presentational problems, which raised many questions in the 1980’s.

Although it is discussed in different countries. In 1984 a seminar was held at the initiative of
School of American Research in the city of Santafi, American New Mexico. The aim was to
develop a specific guideline for ethnography.

The seminar was attended by James Clifford, Jorge Marcus, Talal Asad, Stephen A.Tayler,
Mary Louise Pratt, Robert Thomson, Renato Fosaldo ,Michael M. J. Fischer and many
others.The main objective of the seminar was to examine what ethnography has been written
in the past and what it should actually be.

The topics that dominated their discussion were;

1. Modes of authority and narrative forms.

2. The way oral discourse.
3. Historical context of power and knowledge.
4. Disciplinary constraints.
5. Textual presentation.
6. World system constraints
7. Institutional formation
The seminar brought forward Three issues through a critique of the traditional anthropology
genre.

1. A diverse confessional an analytical literature on fieldwork experience: Here he criticizes

the importance given to participant observation as a method.

2. Neo theoritical paradigm: France and German philosophy was established first, then Neo
Marxists came and criticized it. Neo Marxist then gave direction on various issues and they
changed the theoretical stream.

3. Critic of colonialism: Colonialism is mainly discussed in terms of how it influences

ethnography.

For these reasons the status (historical and ideological) of ethnography is questioned. The
question that arose in the 1960s and 70s was essentially what could be done. Every
ethnography had some purpose, some ideological and some methodological. The problem
then was that research and interpretation could not go beyond the specific context. Since it
was the study of human being it was to be a subject of free thought. This is why this problem
is created.

However, in recent times, with the development of literary theory, the boundary that existed
in the field of ethnography has been asked to be crossed. Clifford Geertz said that it should
not only be an explanation, but an interpretation should be given. It tries to give the previous
boundary with more literary theory. It adds a new dimension to ethnography. Although the
seminar was small in scale, it had a far-reaching impact on the body of knowledge in
anthropology.

Yet the seminar had its limits. It was a mediation and the discussion was predetermined. All
the There was no point of view. Non-western style ethnography is not discussed.

In the end the solution they come up with is “Transcriber rather than interpretation”.
Some of the discussions of those who discussed ethnography in the seminar are briefly
described here,

1. Robert Thomson

His article named Chapter and Verses "Classification as rhetorical trope in ethnography text.

He tried to say in this article, the basic concept of holism that discusses how it can be applied
in the construction of ethnography text. He said that the ethnograpy written in Africa in the
19th century was a new focus on society and culture.

He tried to say that it was very common in the classification of ethnography. eg, Subaltern
Studies. It was then a feature of ethnography. He shows how Holism can be applied. The
image of the entire universe exists mainly in ethnography. Then every institution of the
society must be given importance to highlight a society. The question he then asks is how
true is the depiction of society in anthropology?

Through his question it is basically seen that society is being presented as a bounded subject
from the beginning. He also talks about another point that society is made to understand or
describe through symbols and language.

2. Marry Louise Pratt

His article named “ Field in common place”

He mainly focuses on travel literature and anthropology. Describes and discusses the
relationship between Personal and Indirect description in ethnography. Evan Pritchard
describes the fieldwork accounts of pioneers like Malinowski as arrival stories. The moral
aspect also comes up in his paper. Field work and field notes discuss it. Ethnography then
focused on a limited group and ignored other issues. Readership was the mian focus of the
seminar .

3. Renato Rosaldo

His article named, “From the door of his tent, the fieldworker and the inquisitor”

He mainly discusses two issues, Modes of cultural description and Rhetorics of the authority.
He also said that earlier ethnography, which showed a deep connection with the people
studied, was different in reality. He criticized this matter.
4. James Clifford

His paper is “On Ethnographic Allegory”.

Here he says, we see the earlier ethnographies as stories. Basically, the readers have different
ideas in their minds. As a solution to this, he said there should be a Broad Ideological pattern
in the Ethnography.

He said that all the things to be left out are the rhetorical description and work in the
traditional and primitive society.

5. Vincent Crapanzano

In his article, “Hermes Dilemma: The Masking of Subversion in Ethnographic Description”.

He said, the description of ethnography that we see in the cultural description was full of
pretentiousness. If we want to believe the ethnography text that he has given in dialectics, we
have to take it under theory and discard it. Description must be interpretive . Rhetoric should
be omitted.

6. Stephen A. Tyler

His paper is, “Post modern Ethnography: From Document of the Occult to Occult
Document.”

In his paper, he said there, the image of culture must be a transcriber rather than an
interpretive ethnography. Then it will be possible to bring out the truth of the culture.

7. Michael M. J. Fischer

His article is, “ Ethnicity and the post-modern Arts of Memory.”

The solution he gave is, Bifocal cultural criticism. What he criticizes is that earlier
ethnographies were influenced by researcher biasness, it was their ethnocentric bias.
8.George E. Marcus

In his article “Afterword: Ethnographic Writing and Anthropological Careers.”

He basically said we have to work from Micro level to Macro level. We can work on a large
scale. For example, history, power are asked to work on them. The concept of Holism should
be seen in its broadest form. He basically asked to see from Macro aspect.

9.Talal Asad

His work is, “The concept of Cultural Translation in British Social Anthropology.”

He mainly sheds light on the linguistic problem. Take this into consideration. The native
point of view is no longer what it should have been. That's why he criticize on it.

10. Paul Rabinow

In his article, “Representation are social fact: Modernity and post-Modernity in

Anthropology”

The limitation he has criticized is the Textual approach. He basically needs to consider the
relationship of power between the researcher and the representatives of the research. When
the relationship between the ruler and the ruled is actually actual it may not come. Then it can
highlight the reflexive issue.

These were the main points of the seminar. How was the ethnography text written, what were
the criticisms of the previous texts, what were the limitations of the texts, how can we
overcome them. That was the purpose of the seminar.

References:

1. Clifford, james & Marcus, George E. (1986). writing Culture: The Poetics and
Politics of Ethnography. London, England: University of California Press, Ltd.