Postmodern Ethnography

Qualitative Research
Through Case Studies

Postmodern Ethnography
Contributors: Max Travers
Print Pub. Date: 2001
Print ISBN: 9780761968054
Online ISBN: 9781849209724
DOI: 10.4135/9781849209724
Print pages: 151-171
This PDF was generated from SAGE Research Methods Online. Please note, the
pagination does not follow the pagination of the print book.
SRMO Beta Tester
Copyright 2010 Sage Publications, Inc.
Page 2 of 28 Qualitative Research Through Case Studies:
Sage Research Methods Online
CONTENTS
The significance of postmodernism
Poststructuralism and method
Archaeology and genealogy
Deconstructionism
Poststructuralism and ethnography
Questioning the authority of classic texts
New forms of ethnographic writing
Beyond ethnography
Four experimental ethnographies
Tuhami: a dialogic ethnography
The Mirror Dance
Final Negotiations
Louisa May: poetry as ethnography
Assessing postmodern ethnography
Chicago School ethnography
Grounded theory
SRMO Beta Tester
Ethnomethodology
The critical tradition
Radical poststructuralism
Further reading
Exercises
The most recent intellectual movements that have had an impact across the human
sciences are those of postmodernism and poststructuralism. Postmodernism is the
belief that we are entering a new era of world history that is significantly different from
the modern era. Poststructuralism is a philosophical movement that makes the rather
more radical claim that the assumptions we have held about truth and knowledge in
the past are mistaken: it is an attempt to disrupt, and reinvigorate, our appreciation
and understanding of reality. The two terms are often used interchangeably, which
is understandable given that poststructuralist thinkers such as Michel Foucault and
Jacques Derrida represent a dramatic break with previous ways of conceptualizing
society.
This chapter begins by trying to explain why some intellectuals believe that we
are entering a new period in human history, and discusses the implications of
poststructuralist ideas for research methods. It then examines how these ideas have
become important in anthropology and symbolic interactionism as researchers have
become more self-conscious about the difficulty of representing reality in ethnographic
texts. The chapter then looks at four experimental studies that have been described as
postmodern ethnographies. It concludes by considering how the other traditions I have
reviewed in this book have responded to postmodernism. They are all extremely critical
of this latest development in social science.
The significance of postmodernism
Although the cultural and intellectual impact of postmodernism may be on the wane,
there is no denying that it has been the most vigorous force in intellectual life in the past
SRMO Beta Tester
twenty years, and has also had some degree of impact on wider culture. There are very
few Marxists around in universities these days, but there are many people, both old
and young, who have embraced postmodernism. Whole fields, such as cultural studies,
have grown up fuelled by theoretical debates and ideas from French poststructuralist
philosophers and cultural critics such as Jean-Jacques Lyotard, Jean Baudrillard, Gilles
Deleuze, Felix Guattari, Jacques Derrida and Michel Foucault. In sociology, Foucault
has replaced Marx as the theorist most taught on the undergraduate curriculum, and
terms like discourse and power/knowledge have replaced capital, class struggle and
the dialectic as the common currency of left-wing intellectuals.
In its most radical forms, postmodernist thought claims that the world has changed so
profoundly that not only is there no chance of a political revolution of the type envisaged
by Marx, but intellectuals have become irrelevant in an affluent society in which no one
can imagine an alternative to capitalism (see, for example, Baudrillard 1988; Bauman
1992). This argument was also advanced by the Frankfurt School during the 1960s,
but the young people who became involved in political protest during that period, partly
as a result of reading books such as Herbert Marcuse's One Dimensional Man (1964),
were fighting for a better world. Today, there is very little radicalism or political idealism
around. The popularity of postmodernism on university campuses in America and
Europe probably has a lot to do with the disillusion experienced by middle-aged, left-
wing intellectuals following the collapse of communism (see Horowitz 1993). My own
view, however, is that it is contemporary youth, the Generation X described in Douglas
Coupland's novels, who are most receptive to postmodernism. It speaks to people who
do not believe in ideologies or grand narratives, and are either happy with the world as it
is, or cynical about the prospects for changing deeply entrenched institutions and ways
of thinking through political action.
Poststructuralism and method
Perhaps the most controversial argument put forward by poststructuralists is that there
is no such thing as absolute truth. This is mainly directed against a central assumption
held by philosophers and political theorists since the eighteenth century: the idea that
human beings, through exercising their free will, guided by reason, can produce a
better society. Enlightenment thinkers such as Montesquieu, Voltaire, Diderot, Comte,
SRMO Beta Tester
Rousseau and Montaigne promoted this idea at a time when the medieval world, based
on religious authority and the dominance of hereditary elites, was in the process of
being transformed by what we have come to call capitalism. It also, however, has
considerable implications for understanding method in the social sciences. I will now
explain some of the implications through discussing the terms archaeology/genealogy
and deconstructionism. These should be understood not as additional methods one
can use in empirical enquiry, but as part of a philosophical assault against the very idea
of method, as it is understood by positivist, realist and interpretive traditions.
Archaeology and genealogy
Although Foucault is sometimes presented to students as a leftist thinker who offered
a similar view of society to Marx, in fact there are profound and irreconcilable political
and philosophical differences between the two thinkers. Marx belongs to the tradition
of critical theory reviewed in Chapter 6: he believed that reason and science can be
used to produce a better world. Foucault, on the other hand, was a critic of this tradition,
which he saw as delusory and dishonest: knowledge, in his view, was always a means
of exercising power. Whereas Marx believed that there would ultimately be a proletarian
revolution, Foucault was far more pessimistic about the prospects of change. Power
was not concentrated into the hands of any one group or class but spread evenly in
institutions and practices such as schooling, medicine, the criminal justice system and
psychiatry. In a similar fashion to Max Weber and members of the Frankfurt School,
he viewed the rise of the state as a sinister development that reduced human freedom.
There was no means of challenging power, since it was everywhere. The only source
of resistance would come from local struggles waged by groups like prisoners or
homosexuals on the margins of society, which would never result in a transformation of
society as a whole.
In advancing these arguments, Foucault employed a method which he describes
in his early work as archaeology but later came to describe as genealogy. Since
these are often recommended as postmodern methods (see, for example, Kendall and
Wickham 1999 and Scheurich 1997), it is important to understand that they cannot
really be separated from his project of critiquing Enlightenment thought. They are best
SRMO Beta Tester
understood as methods of philosophical critique and argument, rather than methods
which produce empirical findings.
An archaeology is an investigation into the dominant cultural and philosophical
assumptions of a particular historical period. Foucault used it to show that ideas and
concepts we take for granted are, in fact, historically situated: there is no such thing as
absolute or transcendental knowledge. A genealogy involves showing how the growth
of any body of knowledge always involves the exercise of power. In historical studies
such as Madness and Civilisation (1967) and Discipline and Punish (1977), Foucault
showed not only that current ways of dealing with the insane or criminals are historically
contingent, but that what appear to be liberal or progressive measures are part of a
broader process in which we have lost our freedom.
Foucault's objective in using these philosophical methods was, therefore, to advance
a controversial and deeply pessimistic critique of the modern world. His later writings
about biopower and governmentality also suggest that social scientific methods,
including the social survey but also the various techniques used by qualitative
researchers, can be viewed as tools used by the state, and professional occupations,
to regulate and control human populations. The methods courses you are taking at
college are, if you like, part of the problem rather than the solution from a Foucauldian
perspective, because they teach an instrumental way of thinking about human beings,
and are intended to give you technical skills which serve the needs of government.
Deconstructionism
The other method which has become associated with poststructuralism is
deconstructionism, which has become part of everyday language in Western societies,
in the sense of a technique used to find different or alternative meanings in literary texts
or films (see Denzin 1994). The originator of the term, Jacques Derrida, was engaged
in a more ambitious project. He set out to challenge the assumption, widely held in
Western thought, that it is possible to represent the world objectively using language.
Derrida regards this view of language as repressive, in the same way as the exercise
of reason results in governments building prisons, or the growth of psychiatry as an
SRMO Beta Tester
occupation. He wants to free intellectuals from the feeling that they have to think in a
logical, rational or coherent way about human activities.
A key principle of conventional literary criticism, but also of how we read texts in any
area of social life, is that it is possible to find a true or objective meaning. One strategy
we often adopt if we are unclear about the meaning of a word, or a passage, is to
consider what the author must have meant. We might consult other documents or texts
relating to that subject, or interview people who knew the author, or even interview the
author if this is possible. Our assumption in doing so is that there is a meaning to be
found, and that it comes from what was in the author's mind. Derrida challenges this
view through suggesting that the meaning does not exist outside the text, but is the
product of how it is interpreted by different audiences (see also Fish 1982).
Deconstructionism as a technique of literary criticism involves going through a text and
identifying inconsistencies. Cuff et al. describe this in the following terms:
The operation of deconstruction works in the opposite way to
conventional attempts to identify a coherently structured text, unified
under its title and the name of the author. The conventional direction
seeks out as much internal consistency as possible, trying to bring all
aspects of the text within the same scheme. Its obverse, deconstruction,
cultivates incongruities and paradoxes, highlighting the ways texts are
internally divided amongst themselves, showing how one part of the
text counteracts the effect ostensibly found in another, and revealing
especially where aspects of the text resist, confound and unravel the
order which seeks to impose itself upon the text. (1998, p. 291)
The objective is to show not only that a text can be interpreted in different ways, but
that one can never establish a final meaning (which is encapsulated in the concept
of diffrance). More fundamentally, Derrida wants to challenge our desire to find
coherence, which stems from exactly the same worship of reason which has reduced
human freedom in other areas of social life.
SRMO Beta Tester
Poststructuralism and ethnography
Although poststructuralism and postmodernism are widely taught as bodies of theory
in the social sciences, it would be fair to say that they have only had a limited impact
on the way in which academics conduct research, or on courses in research methods.
Very few researchers now pursue archaeological or genealogical investigations in the
way Foucault intended. Deconstructionism has enjoyed some success as a specialist
method in literary criticism, but has not taken root in the social sciences. The only
subfield in sociology in which relativism is taken seriously is the sociology of scientific
knowledge, which, despite courting controversy in a sustained attempt to undermine
the authority of science, has only had a limited effect on the rest of the discipline (see,
for example, Woolgar 1988a; and for a critical response Sokal and Bricmont 1997).
One might argue that this is hardly surprising: this way of thinking is antithetical to the
very idea of social science, if this is motivated by a desire to improve the world through
conducting empirical research.
Poststructuralism has received the warmest welcome from researchers in the
interpretive tradition who conceptualize social life in terms of meaningful action, and
are opposed to the positivist view, put forward by Emile Durkheim, that one should
use methods from natural science in studying human beings (see my summary
of this debate in Chapter 1). There are some important exceptions, and I will be
reviewing the arguments of symbolic interactionists in the Chicago School tradition,
and ethnomethodologists, who have an equal hostility towards positivism and
poststructuralism, at the end of this chapter. There are two groups of American
ethnographers who have been most receptive to poststructuralism, and have even
developed new methods to promote the idea that there is no such thing as truth. The
first is a group of anthropologists, and literary critics, associated with James Clifford
and George Marcus in Rice University, who published the influential collection Writing
Culture (1986). The second is a group of sociologists in what might be called the
extreme anti-positivist wing of the symbolic interactionist tradition. These include
ethnographers and cultural analysts associated with the programmes taught by Norman
Denzin of the University of Illinois, Arthur Bochner and Carolyn Ellis of the University
of South Florida, Andrea Fontana of the University of Nevada-Las Vegas, and Laurel
SRMO Beta Tester
Richardson of the Ohio State University. They have questioned the authority of classic
texts, and promoted new forms of ethnographic writing. Some symbolic interactionists
have gone further, and experimented with new ways of presenting data about lived
experience, such as highly reflective autobiographical accounts and performance texts.
Questioning the authority of classic texts
The most usual way of reading an ethnographic text is to see it as reporting factual
information about the world. Anthropologists have always presented their work in
scientific terms: making discoveries about primitive peoples and reporting these to
governments, or general and academic audiences interested in different cultures back
home. Similarly, the ethnographers in the first and second Chicago Schools, whom I
introduced in Chapter 2, also presented their findings as a straightforward naturalistic
representation of what was happening in different social worlds. Herbert Blumer may
have been a vigorous opponent of the inappropriate use of quantitative methods to
study human beings, but he still believed that one could produce objective findings
through ethnographic research.
Once poststructuralist ideas started to become popular in American universities, it was
only a matter of time before this positivist understanding of ethnography came under
attack. The main tactic has been to examine classic studies, and question the way they
represent reality. The contributors in Writing Culture examine particular texts, such as
Bronislaw Malinowski's (1961) Argonauts of the Western Pacific or Edward Evans-
Pritchard's (1940) The Nuer, and show how they represent a biased or partial account
of social reality. James Clifford, in the introduction, argues that they should be viewed
not as contributions to science, but as ethnographic fictions:
To call ethnographies fictions may raise empiricist hackles. But the
world as commonly used in recent textual theory has lost its connotation
of falsehood, of something merely opposed to truth. It suggests the
partiality of cultural and historical truths, the ways they are systematic
and exclusive. Ethnographic writings can properly be called fictions in
the sense of something made up or fashioned, the principal burden
of the word's Latin root, fingere. But it is important to preserve the
SRMO Beta Tester
[additional] meaning not merely of making, but also of making up, of
inventing things not actually real. (Clifford and Marcus 1986, p. 6)
Perhaps the clearest systematic critique of realist ethnography can be found in a
review article by George Marcus and Dick Cushman (1982). They identify a number
of shortcomings in early anthropological studies. One of these is that the existence
of the individual was usually suppressed in professional ethnographic writing (1982,
p. 32). This has some similarities to the critique made by Edward Said (1985) against
Orientalism: the tendency of Western writers and intellectuals during the colonial
period to portray people in Asia, Africa and the Middle East as an undifferentiated mass
sharing cultural defects such as passivity and the inability to engage in rational thought.
Another is that the ethnographer, who produced the account, was usually absent as a
first person presence in the text. Instead, they note the dominance of the scientific
(invisible or omniscient) narrator who is manifest only as a dispassionate, camera-like
observer (1982, pp. 31-2).
Symbolic interactionists, who have taken up poststructuralist ideas, have also
questioned the authority of their own sacred texts. One of the best known studies in
the Chicago School tradition (although it was written by an anthropologist unconnected
with Chicago) is William Foote Whyte's (1943) Street Corner Society. This ethnography
compares the lives and perspectives of two groups of young men, the corner boys and
the college boys, in an Italian American community called Cornerville. One reason for
its enduring appeal lies in the fact that, unlike the early anthropological studies criticized
by Marcus and Cushman, it vividly conveys a sense of the lives and personalities of
particular individuals. A central character in the ethnography is Doc, the gang leader
who befriended Whyte and collaborated with him in writing the study.
Forty years after the publication of Street Corner Society, Whyte's findings and methods
were criticized in a 1992 special issue of the Journal of Contemporary Ethnography.
The centrepiece was an article by W.A. Marianne Boelen, who had grown up in the real
Cornerville, and claimed that he had misrepresented it as a slum run by racketeers. She
also claimed that Doc had been seriously embarrassed by the publication of Whyte's
book, so much so that he lost the position of leader in his gang, and eventually suffered
a nervous breakdown. Her source for this was not Doc himself, who had died in 1967,
but his sons who believed that Street Corner Society had destroyed his life.
SRMO Beta Tester
This was a realist critique in the sense that Boelen claimed that she knew the true facts
about Cornerville which had been distorted by Whyte. However, an article by Laurel
Richardson in the same issue (1992; reprinted in Richardson 1997) went further in using
the dispute between the two accounts to question the authority of all ethnographic texts.
It is now impossible to know which is the real Cornerville, or how Doc's life was affected
by Street Corner Society. Richardson, however, argues that, in a sense, this does not
matter, since all ethnographies necessarily use fiction-writing techniques in portraying
social reality. Two examples are that Whyte gives real people fictional names, and
includes what appear to be verbatim quotes from his characters, even though he tells
us in his appendix that he did not take notes in the field and tape-recordings were not
used (1997, p. 110).
Boelen also claims that Whyte invented the famous episode in the bowling alley in
which Doc always managed to win. This is a potentially damning charge for those who
view ethnography as a scientific pursuit. It is, of course, impossible to prove what really
happened. One can imagine, however, that if Whyte now admitted that he had made up
large parts of Street Corner Society, then this would seriously undermine its authority as
an ethnographic text. By contrast, Richardson, as a poststructuralist, is not concerned
about whether or not ethnography lives up to the standards set in natural science:
Could he have invented scenes such as the bowling alley one, which
Boelen's informants say never happened? Perhaps he could; perhaps
he did. But does it matter if he did? Is scene building much different
from naming characters and quoting them? Do any of these fictional
techniques detract from the general sociological points that Whyte
wishes to make; or is it conversely because of these techniques that he
was able to make his points and generate an abundance of research
projects in his wake? (1997, p. 110)
It will be apparent that Marcus and Cushman in anthropology and Richardson in
symbolic interactionism are not suggesting that we should no longer read classic
texts (see also Clough 1992). Instead, they are questioning the idea that ethnography
should be understood as a science. They want us to read studies more critically, and
to appreciate the different stories that could have been told, and the literary devices
employed to produce what appears to be a factual or objective account. This critique
SRMO Beta Tester
often becomes a political complaint that the voices of native peoples or women or ethnic
minorities are being suppressed. However, underlying this is a poststructuralist concern
with challenging the idea of truth: there are no true accounts, only different ways of
interpreting reality.
New forms of ethnographic writing
In addition to critiquing classic texts, ethnographers influenced by poststructuralism
have tried to move beyond realism as a representational genre either by focusing on the
role of the author in collecting data, or allowing a range of voices to speak through the
text. These two techniques are called dialogic and polyphonic ethnography (Clifford
1988).
Although there is nothing new about first person accounts in either anthropology or
symbolic interactionist ethnography, they are usually published as methodological
appendices or retrospective essays about the research process. What John Van
Maanen (1988) calls confessional texts, such as Malinowski's (1967) fieldwork diaries,
often cause a stir in the same way as allegations that an ethnographer has invented
data; they do not, however, challenge realism. Poststructuralists, on the other hand,
argue that all ethnography should be conceptualized and written as a first person
account (see, for example, Clifford 1988; Marcus and Fischer 1986, Chapter 3). The
first text to do this, which explicitly drew on poststructuralist ideas, was Paul Rabinow's
(1977) retrospective account about his experiences in Morocco. This describes how he
developed a partial and limited understanding of a different culture through developing
a relationship with a particular informant, and how he came to question his own cultural
assumptions during the fieldwork.
Another experimental form of writing ethnography is the polyphonic or multivocal text,
a method which is partly inspired by the writings of Michel Bakhtin, the Russian literary
theorist, now recognized to have been an early poststructuralist. According to Denzin,
Bakhtin anticipates the postmodernist text - a text based on a parralax of discourses
in which nothing is ever stable or capable of firm and certain representation (1997,
p. 36). The central idea is that, instead of imposing his or her authority on a text
as an impersonal narrator, the author should withdraw and let the subjects speak
SRMO Beta Tester
for themselves. This is again not a completely new development in that even a
conventional ethnographer, like Evans-Pritchard, considered publishing a book
composed entirely of quotations (Clifford 1988, p. 47). One can, however, see how
publishing an ethnography, in which there is a dialogic interplay of voices rather than an
objective third person narrator, would appeal to post-structuralists.
Beyond ethnography
Arguably the most radical developments have taken place due to the popularity of
cultural studies programmes in American universities since the 1980s. These celebrate
ethnic and cultural diversity, but also subvert or challenge traditional disciplinary
boundaries between the humanities and social sciences. Norman Denzin in his book
Interpretive Ethnography: Ethnographic Practices for the 21st Century (1997) suggests
that it might be necessary to find new ways of doing ethnography in a postmodern
world.
One of these methods, the performance text, requires students to write poems and
plays which incorporate multiple voices, and perform these as part of their studies
(Becker et al. 1989). This involves collecting qualitative data, using conventional
methods, but fashioning this into a theatrical performance. It will often incorporate
different perspectives or multiple tellings of the same event (in the manner of the
Japanese film Rashomon). The audience can also be brought into the performance
by inviting them to share in the dilemmas faced by the characters, and offer their own
solutions (see Denzin 1997, Chapter 4).
Another increasingly popular way of presenting data is for sociologists to write
autobiographical accounts, particularly ones that focus on key emotional experiences or
epiphanic moments (Denzin 1989b; Ellis and Flaherty 1992). Both devices challenge
the realist view that it is possible to represent the world objectively. In the case of the
performance text, one suspects that the goal is to annoy professional colleagues, still
very much in the majority, who believe that sociology should be a science. This has
much in common with the various attempts of avant-garde artists and novelists to shock
audiences through defying realist conventions.
SRMO Beta Tester
Four experimental ethnographies
A central principle which has informed this introductory text is that one can learn most
about qualitative research from reading actual studies. This is true for all the traditions
which I have reviewed in the sense that a general summary of their epistemological
assumptions, or methodological preferences, cannot do justice to the diversity of
empirical work in that field. You also stand little chance of producing good work without
immersing yourself in the previous literature. This does not mean slavishly trying to
copy particular methods of presenting data or literary techniques, although imitation
and recycling have always been central to artistic work. Instead, it requires becoming
sensitive to the theoretical, aesthetic and political choices made by researchers in
different traditions.
In the case of postmodern ethnography, there are still only a relatively small number
of experimental studies, and some of these are now quite old. The celebratory claim
that we are about to enter a new era in ethnographic writing, what Denzin (1997)
describes as the sixth moment, seems decidedly premature. On the other hand, they
all provoke reflection about both the purpose and practice of ethnography. I have
chosen to examine four studies, which are informed by poststructuralist ideas about
representation. Vincent Crapanzo's (1980) Tuhami is a dialogic ethnography based on
anthropological fieldwork in Morocco. Susan Krieger's (1983) The Mirror Dance is one
of the few examples in symbolic interactionism of a polyphonic ethnography. Carolyn
Ellis's (1995) Final Negotiations is an autobiographical account about the lengthy illness
and death of her partner. Finally, Laura May is a poem by Laurel Richardson, based on
interviewing an unmarried working class mother.
Tuhami: a dialogic ethnography
This study by Vincent Crapanzo (1980) tells the story of an illiterate Moroccan worker
called Tuhami, who is visited by demons and saints in his dreams, and believes that
he is married to a she-devil called A'isha Qandisha. It is not, however, simply a realist
account of the beliefs of someone who belongs to a different culture. Instead, Crapanzo
SRMO Beta Tester
presents his findings in the form of the dialogue which took place between himself and
Tuhami. The ethnography documents their encounter, and focuses on the interpretive
difficulties involved in making sense of a different culture, and the emotional effects of
fieldwork.
Crapanzo met Tuhami, whom he paid for his time, about once a week between March
and November 1968 in the house of his Moroccan research assistant Lhacen. Tuhami
was known locally as someone who knew a lot about magic and healing, the lives of
saints, [and] the ways of demons (1980, p. 12). Crapanzo was originally interested in
learning about how Moroccans viewed religious brotherhoods such as the Hamadsha.
However, it immediately became apparent that Tuhami wanted to tell his life-story,
although in a highly allegorical and fantastical way. Crapanzo became increasingly
affected personally, and believed that Tuhami also changed during their meetings:
As Tuhami's interlocutor, I became an active participant in his life
history, even though I rarely appear directly in his recitations. Not only
did my presence, and my questions, prepare him for the text he was to
produce, but they produced what I read as a change of consciousness
in him. They produced a change of consciousness in me, too. We were
both jostled from our assumptions about the nature of the everyday
world and ourselves and groped for common reference points within this
limbo of exchange. My research on the Hamadsha and my concern with
Tuhami's personal history provided a frame, at least a cover (perhaps
more for me than for Tuhami), for our interchange. (1980, p. 11)
Although there is a section providing background information about Moroccan society
and religious beliefs that become relevant later, we learn about Tuhami through the
stories and recollections he tells Crapanzo. These are presented so that we are put in
the position of the anthropologist faced with several contradictory versions of the same
event (the Rashomon effect), but can also see Crapanzo attempting to make sense of
Tuhami's words through drawing on his knowledge of Moroccan culture and society.
It is also often unclear whether Tuhami is talking about supernatural beings, such as
demons and saints, or real people: they are either equally real to him, or he is talking
about the world allegorically. His greatest complaint about these demons is that they
SRMO Beta Tester
have prevented him from marrying, but he is unable, or perhaps unwilling, to escape
from their influence.
Towards the end of this ethnography, a remarkable and unexpected thing happens.
The reader suddenly starts to realize (although this may just be my own response to
the text) that what Tuhami has been saying is deeply sad. The clues were there at
the beginning in that Crapanzo tells us that people visited by the she-demon were all
peculiar in their way -loners, sexual inadquates, physical misfits, eccentrics, or men
who for one social reason or another were unable to marry (1980, p. 5). We were also
told that Tuhami had been abandoned by his father, which is particularly stigmatizing in
a culture where a son is seen as entirely a product of his father's seed, with the mother
only being its receptacle (1980, p. 38). Nevertheless, it is only through reading the
various chapters that one comes to see Tuhami as a human being; and, at the same
time, to share Crapanzo's growing realization that this has become (or perhaps was
all along) a therapeutic encounter. He has, in effect, become a psychoanalyst, deeply
involved with his patient on an emotional level, rather than a dispassionate scientist
investigating another culture.
Another interesting feature of this ethnography is the way Crapanzo acknowledges
the presence of Lhacen, his Moroccan fieldwork assistant. Lhacen is what might be
described as a background character in that we never hear him speaking, although
Crapanzo tells us that they had lengthy discussions about Tuhami, and he was present
as a silent observer at every meeting. He had a crucial role in the early stages of the
encounter:
In those first meetings, Lhacen mediated my relationship with Tuhami.
I was still new to Morocco. I was caught in a whirl of the unfamiliar. I
was without anchor and did not have the confidence that comes with
knowing the rules of social comportment and cultural evaluation. I was
determined not to succumb to the easy aloofness of the total stranger.
I felt awkward, confused, lonely even in the presence of my wife, and
occasionally afraid. I was terrified of failure and everything that failure
symbolized for me, and I gave expression to this terror most notably in
terms of a loss of rapport with the best of my informants. (1980, p. 146)
SRMO Beta Tester
Most conventional texts do not reveal the extent to which anthropologists rely on
local research assistants, or on the emotions they experience during their fieldwork,
although these are sometimes discussed in confessional accounts. Crapanzo, on the
other hand, believes that this should be a central part of ethnographic writing. In the
concluding chapter, he observes that he made use of ethnographic distance and
various theoretical positions, most notably the psychoanalytic during the fieldwork,
to distance myself and to defend myself from an onslaught of presumably intolerable
emotions (1980, p. 139). He reveals at one point that he had also grown up without a
father, and that there was a kind of mutual therapy taking place during the meetings.
This summary might suggest that, despite acknowledging his difficulties in
understanding a different culture, and the emotional impact of his stay in Morocco,
Crapanzo has still constructed a realist account in that we are left with his interpretation
of Tuhami's illness. The narrative voice may be limited, masked, devoid even of a
constant perceptual and theoretical vantage-point (1980, p. 11), but it is still clearly a
work by a particular author making use of a set of theoretical resources, and literary
devices, in writing about someone who cannot talk back. This is not intended as
a criticism of Crapanzo's study, but illustrates the difficulties that arise in trying to
construct a truly democratic ethnography along poststructuralist principles. As James
Clifford has observed, while ethnographies cast as encounters between two individuals
may successfully dramatize the intersubjective give-and-take of fieldwork and introduce
a counterpoint of authorial voices, they remain representations of dialogue (1988 p.
43; see also Tyler 1987). One can, however, agree that this kind of text does make one
think critically about realism, and the role of the researcher in ethnographic research.
The Mirror Dance
This ethnography by Susan Krieger (1983) is based on research conducted while she
was a visiting professor at an American Midwestern university in the late 1970s. During
her stay there, she became a member of a community of about a hundred lesbian
women who met regularly at each other's houses, visited gay bars, and organized
sporting activities and cultural events. She kept a journal of her own feelings and
experiences, and also conducted seventy-eight interviews with different women at
the end of the year which resulted in four hundred pages of single-typed interview
SRMO Beta Tester
notes (1983, p. ix). The theme she wished to address, and which she had experienced
at first hand, are the pressures on individuals to conform in this social group.
Krieger had already experimented with presenting ethnographic data as a multiple
person stream of consciousness narrative, influenced partly by reading Virginia Wolf's
novel The Years which tells an inter-generational family saga through interweaving a
number of related stories. She had developed this approach while writing a book called
Hip Capitalism (1979), which documents the changes that took place in an underground
radio station at the end of the 1960s, when it was acquired by a corporation and was
eventually forced to become commercial. Instead of trying to explain how this shift
had taken place, she decided to tell the story almost entirely by paraphrasing from
my interview and documentary evidence and determined that I would allow myself no
analytic or theoretical commentary in the body of the text (1983, p. 187).
Her objective in The Mirror Dance was to go even further by completely eliminating her
own presence:
The main difference between this second case and the first was
that, in this new study, I attempted to be even more strict in my method
than I had been before. I paraphrased my data even more closely and
used my interview notes as the only source for writing up my account
I added very little of my own wording to my text beyond crediting
paraphrased passages to different speakers and identifying when
speakers changed. I, therefore, became almost absent as a narrator.
I was painting a picture this time, and a modern abstract one at that,
rather than telling a story as I had done before. My desire was to have
the voices and language of the women I had interviewed provide their
own systematic self-reflection, to have them suggest in their own terms
the form of a pattern that might explain the problems of individuality the
community posed for its members. I could orchestrate these women's
voices, with all the care for a faithful grasp of their situation and its
meanings that I could manage, but my rule was that I should do little
more. (1983, p. 191)
SRMO Beta Tester
Krieger's experiment has received a mixed critical reaction, in that some readers
have complained that there is too little authorial voice (so the study has become flat
and uninteresting), and others have argued that she has imposed her own views on
her respondents by the way she has edited the interviews (1983, pp. 192-3). These
criticisms can be assessed through considering the following extract from the start of
Chapter 4, which is called The Web of Talk. It gives a good idea of how qualitative
data is presented throughout the study, although some of the individual third person
contributions by women run to several paragraphs, or even whole chapters:
There was this hotline that went around all the time, that kept the
community together, felt Shelah. People were always talking about
each other. It was not necessarily malicious, said Chip, but it was what
traditionally was known as gossip Things just went like wildfire, Leah
observed. Gossip just spread really quickly, particularly with some
people. There was a lot of gossip, said Emily. It was not ill-intentioned. It
was Hollywood-style gossip, infatuation - Last night she was seen with
her. She made hopeless attempts to control it sometimes.
Privacy? In this community? There was none, felt Jessica. You came
into this community, said Martha, and at first you didn't want everyone
to know your business. (1983, p. 25)
One problem you might have with this style of writing, from a literary point of view,
is that we never learn that much about particular characters. In the best symbolic
interactionist ethnographies, or even in dialogic experiments such as Tuhami, one
comes to know individuals like Tally or Tuhami quite well. This is also the case in Hip
Capitalism, in that much of the dramatic interest of the story comes from colourful
characters such as the 400 pound Tom Donahue, the Big Daddy of the station, and the
authoritarian programme director Thom O'Hair, the Montana Banana (1983, p. 189).
The seventy women interviewed for this study are, however, presented as a series of
disembodied voices. Krieger is trying to portray a community rather than the narratives
of particular individuals, and is interested in presenting an interplay of voices that echo,
again and again, themes of self and community, sameness and difference, merger and
separation, loss and change (1983, p. xvii).
SRMO Beta Tester
There is, of course, no obligation to make things easy for the reader, or even to be
readable, if you employ an experimental technique, provided that you can justify your
style of presenting data on epistemological grounds. The Mirror Dance is often cited
as an example of a radical polyphonic work which challenges realist ideas about
representation. The difficulty here is that Krieger is still present in an introductory
chapter, in which she explains her theoretical interests in identity and community,
and in the methodological appendix. The data is also still presented under thematic
chapter headings such as parties and gatherings or mothers and children. Even within
particular chapters, the reader is always aware that someone must have organized the
materials, and decided which characters get the chance to speak.
Final Negotiations
This autobiographical account by Carolyn Ellis (1995) tells the story of how she met
her partner Gene Weinstein in 1975, and how the relationship developed as his health
gradually deteriorated and he died nine years later from emphysema, a painful and
debilitating illness which prevents oxygen from reaching the lungs. Most of the book,
some 300 pages, is a straightforward narrative, but there is also a short introduction,
and a forty page methodological appendix, although it is not described as such, about
the process of writing the book, which took her nine years to complete.
These sections describe how she made use of a journal she kept during the last year of
the illness, how she recollected previous events by using memory recovery techniques,
such as method acting, and how she edited the book down from 700 to 300 pages
by focusing on key moments in the relationship. She experimented with different ways
of representing her experience, but, in the end, chose to write a narrative, without
academic citations or an attempt to address the illness in terms of theoretical categories
or themes. This was because she had become dissatisfied with the constraints
of detached social-science prose and the demand to write in an authoritative and
uninvolved voice (1995, p. 6). Instead, she wanted to write a text that would be more
than a dry, scientific account:
How you, as a reader, respond to my story as you read and feel it, is
an important part of this work. Some of you may prefer to feel with me,
SRMO Beta Tester
as in watching a true-to-life movie; some may be reminded of and feel
for the parallels in your own relationships, as in reading an engaging
novel; some may prefer cognitively processing the feelings expressed,
closer to a traditional social science reading. My goal is to engage you
in aspects of relationships that usually are neglected or overlooked in
social-science inquiry. (1995, p. 4)
One American reviewer has reported that several of his students were moved to tears
by the book: most either could not put the book down, or could not finish it because
the descriptions of Gene's dying process were too graphic and emotionally difficult for
them to read (Karp 1996, p. 294). I suspect that most British readers would not respond
in this way; but one can appreciate why someone who has experience of caring for a
dying relative could be moved.
Two critical points seem worth making about this type of autobiographical account. The
first concerns the extent to which autobiography should be seen as a general method
in social science, or whether it is best understood as a form of therapy for people who
have experienced serious traumas. One could not, for example, imagine that if you kept
a journal about day-to-day events at work, or perhaps about relationships with family
and friends, it would produce an interesting narrative. There is a satisfying beginning,
middle and end to Final Negotiations, which stems from the fact that it is about the
course (in symbolic interactionist terms, one might say the career) of an illness and a
relationship, but also the fact that she has worked through her grief by writing the book.
She has started a new relationship with Art Bochner, and together they have developed
new techniques for helping others to talk about their emotions through performing
personal stories about traumatic events (Ellis and Bochner 1992). Where would the
stories come from if you were writing about everyday life?
The same objection I have already raised in relation to Tuhami and The Mirror Dance
also seems relevant to this autobiographical account, in that Ellis is telling a realist
story, and asking us to believe that the events she reports did take place. She does,
however, recognize that, from a post-structuralist point of view, there can never be
one story, or a simple ending: there can only be multiple interpretations of events. In
the end, she decided against ending the book by including a conversation with Art my
current partner, or alternatively, to record a group of social scientists conversing about
SRMO Beta Tester
the meaning of my story. She also Considered but rejected the idea of ending with a
conversation between myself and Gene, who would return from death to talk to me
about what these texts mean, and perhaps give an orthodox social scientific response
to the narrative (1995, pp. 329-30). My own view is that this kind of dialogue would be
most effective, as a means of advancing a poststructuralist critique of conventional
social science, if it resulted in the reader completely reinterpreting the text: but, of
course, that is never really possible since the author always has the last word.
Louisa May: poetry as ethnography
Louisa May's Story of Her Life is a hundred line poem, composed by Laurel
Richardson, based on a tape-recorded interview with an unmarried mother from a
Southern rural background (Richardson 1997, Part 4). It is written as a first person
narrative, interspersed with italicized comments., which reveal that she is being
interviewed. Louisa May's story is that she grew up in the South, got married, had a
miscarriage, got divorced, and is now pregnant by another man who lives a hundred
miles away. She does not want to marry him, since she does not want a split family, and
is happy with her life as a single mother.
The poem is not especially remarkable as literature. It is, in my admittedly unqualified
opinion, neither truly awful nor a brilliant evocation of someone else's life. The first ten
lines are worth supplying, so that you can judge for yourself:
The most important thing
to say is that
I grew up in the South.
Being southern shapes
aspirations shapes
what you think you are
and what you think you're going to be.
(When I hear myself, my Ladybird kind of accent on tape, I think, O
Lord, You're from Tennessee.)
SRMO Beta Tester
(1997, p. 131)
Richardson began her academic career as a feminist, doing empirical research of a
similar kind to the interview studies reviewed in the previous chapter. Over the years,
however, she became increasingly dissatisfied:
I realized there were few substantive (not theoretical or methodological)
sociology texts that I enjoyed reading or could point to as models for
my students . Even when the topic was ostensibly riveting, the writing
style and reporting conventions were deadening. Nearly every time
sociologists broke out into prose, they tried to suppress (their own)
life: passive voice, absent narrator; long, inelegant, repetitive authorial
statements and quotations; cleaned up quotations, each sounding
like the author; hoards of references; sonorous prose rhythms, dead or
dying metaphors; lack of concreteness or overly detailed accounts; tone
deafness; and most disheartening, the suppression of narrativity. (1997,
p. 148)
Richardson also describes writing the Louisa May poem as a personal breakthrough: it
did not simply introduce narrative techniques (such as establishing a plot or character)
into an ethnography, but broke completely with social science by turning her data into
a poem. Inevitably, the response at conferences was mixed, and she subsequently
wrote a short play (1997, pp. 158-63) dramatizing what happened when she carelessly,
or perhaps deliberately, skipped a line in reading out the poem, so there was a
discrepancy with the written text (her parenthetical comments on the proceedings are in
italics).
Most of the male characters complain that her findings must be inaccurate or unreliable,
since she refuses to supply the tape-recording (reliability - validity - cannot accept your
findings - inaccuracy - reliability -validity - cannot accept your findings - cannot accept
your findings). Some women in the audience believe that she must be talking about her
own experience of getting divorced (I'm stunned). The most perceptive people there
recognize that the slip is intended to problematize the issue of representation (Mmm
Would someone have commented about a slip in a prose text? Would anyone at a
SRMO Beta Tester
sociology conference question the difference between an oral and written rendition of an
interview snippet?).
Assessing postmodern ethnography
Postmodern ethnography is the newest of the traditions I have reviewed in this book,
and is still the subject of lively critical assessment, especially in the field of symbolic
interactionism, where enthusiasts such as Norman Denzin and Laurel Richardson have
deliberately set out to provoke a response, through criticizing what they describe as
the boring work of established researchers. In this concluding section, I would like to
review some responses which either have been, or might be, advanced by Chicago
School ethnography, grounded theory, ethnomethodology, the critical tradition, and
what might be called radical poststructuralism. This provides an opportunity to review
some of the epistemological positions that I have discussed in this book, which inform
different ways of doing qualitative research.
Chicago School ethnography
Some symbolic interactionists, who are continuing the tradition of the Chicago School,
have mounted scathing attacks on what they see as the rampant subjectivism of
postmodernists. Herbert Gans has, for example, complained about the new vogue for
autoethnographic work in which researchers write about their own experiences:
Even if it is well meant and well done, this kind of ethnography has
nothing to do with analyzing what people do with and to each other
in their groups and networks, or how institutions and communities
function or malfunction. Abandoned also is the effort to use sociology
and years of intensive field research to report to readers about parts of
society about which they know only stereotypes. At times, it is difficult
not to suspect that some ethnographers are avoiding the hard work
that fieldwork entails, even if not deliberately. Although others are
using ethnography as a synonym for autobiography, a few are simply
engaged in ego trips, whether or not they know it. (1999, p. 542)
SRMO Beta Tester
From this perspective, fieldwork should be a science concerned with addressing lived
experience based on spending long periods of field-work in different social settings (see
Chapter 2). Once ethnographers start writing about themselves, or giving up research
in favour of fiction, then they turn their backs on the world, and lose the capacity to
contribute to public debate about social problems.
Grounded theory
So far as I am aware, researchers in the grounded theory tradition have ignored
postmodern ethnography. As I demonstrated in Chapter 3, Anselm Strauss and Barney
Glaser believed that symbolic interactionism should move in a positivistic direction, by
developing systematic procedures for collecting and analysing data. The two traditions
represent opposite wings of a spectrum within symbolic interactionism between
positivism and interpretivism, with Chicago School ethnography occupying the middle
ground. It is interesting to note that grounded theory has been successful, and is taught
in one form or another on many social science programmes, precisely because of
this strategic accommodation with positivism. Quantitative researchers, incidentally,
continue to dominate departments of social science in America, and have, if anything,
tightened their grip in the computer age. Ethnographers, whether they are new or old,
are most likely to be working in smaller, less prestigious institutions.
Ethnomethodology
There are superficial similarities between ethnomethodology and poststructuralism, in
that many people viewed the former as a kind of radical subjectivism (see, for example,
Meehan and Wood 1975) when it became fashionable for a few years at the end of
the 1960s. It is still often associated with the idea that there is no absolute truth, only
different ways of interpreting or constructing the social world. This, however, is a
considerable misreading, since ethnomethodologists place considerable emphasis on
respecting the character of the everyday world as it is perceived and experienced by its
members. There is nothing subjectivist about Lawrence Wieder's study of the convict
SRMO Beta Tester
code which I summarized in Chapter 4, or ethnographies which address how people in
different occupations understand and accomplish their day-to-day work.
Perhaps the best ethnomethodological critique of postmodern ethnography is a paper
by Egon Bittner (1973), which was written before the term was even invented. He
noted that the critique of positivism at the time seemed to result in studies of a loose,
impressionistic and personal nature which did not address those traits of depth,
stability and necessity that people recognize as actually inherent in the conditions
of their existence (1973, pp. 117, 123). Bittner felt that the reasons for this abortive
phenomenology lay in the fact that fieldworkers dip into different social worlds, which
encourages a relativist viewpoint. He did not, however, predict that this shift from the
object to the subject would be taken a stage further by contemporary researchers who
only want to write about their own experiences and feelings, and contest the whole idea
of objectivity (1973, p. 122).
The critical tradition
Although there is little, if any, political content in the four experimental ethnographies
I have reviewed in this chapter, and I have tended to question the extent to which
poststructuralism is compatible with left-wing politics, there are still close ties between
poststructuralists and critical theorists. Robert Prus has observed, perceptively, that
cynical, relativist and anti-scientific viewpoints appeal to anti-establishment intellectuals:
For those concerned with exploitation, power and empowerment (from a
Marxist, critical or cultural studies perspective) postmodernism offers
a powerful rhetorical weapon that might be used not only to challenge
disfavored situations, practices and people, but also to change (in
activist manners) the prevailing social orders. (1996b, p. 218)
Although I have not given it much emphasis in this chapter, one could argue that most
programmatic statements advocating postmodern ethnography are also sympathetic
towards critical theory, even though they have opposing epistemological assumptions.
To give one example, George Marcus promotes dialogic methods in anthropology, but
also admires Paul Willis's Learning to Labour, and Marxist anthropological studies such
SRMO Beta Tester
as Michael Taussig's (1980) The Devil and Commodity Fetishism in South America or
June Nash's (1979) We Eat the Mines and the Mines Eat Us (see Marcus 1986; Marcus
and Fischer 1986). This feeling may, of course, be reciprocated, but at least some
critical anthropologists have criticized postmodernism for not addressing the economic,
social and political structures which produce Third World poverty (Polier and Rosebery
1989). Feminists have also been highly critical of postmodern ethnography (see Mascia-
Lees et al. 1989; Wolf 1992). The argument here is that insights from postmodernism
about difference should be combined with a realist understanding of the structures
which oppress women.
Radical poststructuralism
The last word on postmodern or poststructuralist ethnography is, perhaps, best
left to the poststructuralists themselves. One cannot imagine Derrida finding much
of interest in this literature, since there is very little philosophical content, and the
critique of representation and meaning is not pushed very far (see Watson 1987).
The four experimental ethnographies I have discussed, which are often cited as the
best and most radical examples of work in this genre, all seem to be informed by
realist epistemological assumptions, despite the fact that the authors are committed
to the poststructuralist position that there is no such thing as truth, and wish to break
completely with positivist social science. This even applies to Richardson, who critiques
the idea of representation in ethnography while presenting a realist account of her
battles with various departmental heads.
Writers in the sociology of science have, arguably, taken poststructuralism more
seriously by writing relentlessly reflexive accounts, questioning the idea of a coherent
text, and deconstructing the author (see, for example, Ashmore 1989; Woolgar 1988b).
Most have either given up or become tired of these experiments, and it may be that
intellectuals are beginning to tire of poststructuralism and postmodernism more
generally. It is, after all, hard mounting a sustained challenge to positivism, given its
deep roots in Western intellectual culture.
SRMO Beta Tester
EXERCISES
2. Critically examine any text that you have produced, or any ethnography that
you admire, from a postmodern perspective.
4. Write a short poem based on conducting a life-history interview with
someone from a different class or ethnic background, and recite it to your
class. Alternatively, write and perform a short play based on a debate in
which you have participated about postmodernism in a research methods
seminar. In each case, you should also write a statement discussing the
implications for conventional ethnography.

Postmodern Ethnography

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Postmodern Ethnography

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Postmodern Ethnography

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Qualitative Research

Through Case Studies

You might also like