SEEING THROUGH PICTURES: THE

ANTHROPOLOGY OF PHOTOGRAPHY.

Jay Ruby
In this essay I will discuss the relationship between the social sciences and
pho~ogr~phy approached from the perspective of the ethnography of visual com-
munlcatlon. In the study, photography is regarded as one of six visual domains
(the others being film, television, arts and crafts, the built environment
and performance) which constitute a culturally conditioned visual communication
sys~em amenable to ehtnographic analysis. I will describe the underlying
~atlonale for studying photography in this manner and suggest an anthropolog-
lcal approach to photography.
In order to-ground the perspective in a concrete situation, I will describe
a research project which is currently in progress in a community I will call
"Jones" County. The community was selected because it is, by any measure,
"middle of the road" middle America. It is the America depicted in the movies
of the 1940's where Mom bakes apple pies, Sis belongs to the Girl Scouts, and
Dad likes to hunt and fish.
As an anthropologist I am interested in learning something about why people
make pictures _ those that are painted, the ones that come out of the camera
ready to use, those that hang on gallery walls, appear in newspapers, photo
albums, and in monographs on Peruvian Indians. My interest in the pictorial
and visual is inclusive, non-judgement~l and cross cultural. I wish to study
everything that people make to be seen - all people, everywhere. I am attem-
pting to construct an anthropology of visual commu~ication. Let me elaborate.
Our search for understanding of the world in which we live has evolved from
studies of the physical world through studies of the biological and social
contexts in which we find ourselves. A fourth major environment is now
apparent _ the symbolic. This environment is composed of the symbolic modes.
codes, media and structures through which we communicate, ~reate cultures and
organize the world. The delineation of the various SymbOllC systems and the
contexts in which they are employed, their relationsh~p to each ,other and
ultimately to the physical, biological and social env1ronments 1S the most
exciting exploration of the 20th century.
One of the most pervasive and least understood symbolic modes i~ the vi~uall
pictorial. Visual mass media are becoming more and more pervas1ve and In-
fluential in the formation and stabilization of culture (Gerbner et al, 1978),
yet our knowledge of the visual domains and the inter-relationsh~ps is sparse
indeed. We literally do not understand what impact the mass-medlated messages,

* Repr; nted w; th perm; 5Sion from Camera Lucida

3
which we consume daily in ever increasi~g quantities, have on the quality of
our lives - from the New Guinea native w:-,osees Sesame Street to the smal;
town American child who sees the NeviGuinc:a native on a PBS documentary.
Research being conducted in other modes (e.g. verbal - cf. Hymes, i964j
causes us to assume that symbolic modes 31'e integrated systems. H8wever,
we don't know how this integration worKS within the visual/pictorial uni-
verse. The purpose of the study discussed here is to artiCulate the syste-
matic relationship which I assume must exist among these visual domains. To
be concrete, it is argued that the kind of house one lives in must be related
in some way to the clothes one buys, the photogra phs one takes, the a rt one
prefers and how one watches televis'on. while these relationships might not
appear to exist on the surface, they must be present even if they remain
outside the awareness of the individual. Other~ise, we must hypothesize a
chaotic world where our activities are unrelatej.
For most of Western history our visual world has been examined from one
vantage point - that of "art" or "high culture". Not only have we concen-
trated on examining the "masterpieces" cf art, but these "masterpiEces"
have been analyzed and interpreted through the eyes of the critic, prof~ssor
and the connoisseur. The visual world in general ha, been the world of the
"elite" artifact studied and admired by elites, and the analysis of the
popular arts of film, photography and television utilizing aesthetic con-
cepts derived from the study of these "masterpieces" (Worth, 1966).
As an anthropo1gist I am less interested in a critical analysis of "im~ortant"
photographs than in the everyday use of photography ~y ordinary people. To
paraphrase a Bertold Brecht poem, ! don't care which Emperor built the Great
Wall of China. I want to know where the bricklayers went the night they
finished the construction.
I propose examini~g photographs and other yi,lJal products in the social con-
text of their production and consumption.' ~his approach contrasts with the
dominant research paradigm. It is founded an th~ ~pplication O' severa]
theoretical tendencies which have been developing in anthropology, linguis-
tics and communication to the study of the visual/pictorial universe. Scho-
lars interested in the systematic investigation of the human condition have
for a long time concentrated on the artifacts of human consciousness - the
material manifestations of humanness. ,he archaeologist looked at pottery
and projectile points. ThE folklorists collected the text of the tale. The
linguist studied transcribed speech. And the visual scholar examined the
picture, the film, the painting and the television programme. These arti-
facts were weighed, measured and counted. Their distribution through time,
space and culture were plotted. Some truly unique human products were ad-
mired as works of ~rt and the genius of thrir ma~~r ~a~ appreciated. Finally,
in recent years. these objects - both unique anG cn- ",onplace - were studies
for the hidden messages or codes contained in t':Pir texts.
While the textual-artifactual approach to stUdying human beings prodUCES re-
markable insights and important understandings, it tends to separate the
artifacts from the stream of human behavior that produces and uses them.
The text needs to be studied as a unified whole. The human process should
be the object of the study. One can trace a movement in this direction
through a number of thinkers and researchers. Two are the most directly
relevant: Dell Hymes - the concept of the ethnography of communication
(1964) and Sol Worth - the study of visual forms as culturally structured
communicative systems (1966).

4
Hymes' work represents a shift in linguistics away from an emphasis on the
text ?f language to a study of the socio-cultural processes of speaking as
a soc1al ~ct. Some linguists became interested not only in the product but
but also ;n the p;,ocess and the producer. In 1964, Hymes saw the possibility
of expand1ng h1S ethnography of speaking" model into a more inclusive "eth-
n?graphy.of communication". It was to include all modes, media and codes in
all poss1b~e contexts 1 - thus allowing for the possibility of exploring the
relat1onsn1p between culture and communication - an Anthropology of Communi-
cat10n (Hymes, 1967).
While Hym~s and.other linguists were dealing with the problem of studying
langu~ge 1n soc1ety, Sol Worth was grappling with the development of a sys-
temat1c means for studying visual forms. Using motion pictures as an example
Worth.examined the adequacy of the two most common approaches - films as art'
and f11m as Janguage. By 1966 he had contextualized the aesthetic model as
one aspect of the communicative process. He suggested that film will be
better understood as a sign system analogous to but different from verbal
language (Woy.th, 1966) - a semiological approach to the study of film as a
culturally structured communicative system (Worth, 1969).
With the Navaho project (Worth & Adair, 1972) in which he and anthropologist
John Adair taught Navaho Indians to make movies and then studied the films
and the social processes which surrounded their production, Worth2 moved
from the textual to the socio-cultural, contextual study of film. Shortly
bef?re.his untimely death, Worth delivered a paper entitled Ethnoqraphic
SemlOt1cs' (1977). suggesting that scholars interested in the study of meaning
through sign systems should turn their attention away from their personal
analysis of cultural texts to the ethnographic study of how people make
meaning in their everyday lives. Ethnographic Semiotics is predicted upon a
particular approach to semitoics - one that advocates a theory of sign less
dependent upon structual linguistic paradigms and more concerned with an
inclusive and general science of sign systems, and upon the assumption that
support for any semiotic analysis lies in the information generated from
field research rather than the elegance of the researcher's argument. The
research discussed here was designed to explore, elaborate and operational-
ize the concept of Ethnographic Semiotics for the study of visual communi-
cation.
Up to the present, studies of the symbolic visual aspects of Western cultures
have used as their units of analysis the content of specific television pro-
grammes, films, graphic arts, urban design, or ~he co~tent ~f specifiC time
segments or taxonomic groupings - Saturday morn1ng ~hlldren s p~ogrammes?
situation comedies, documentary films, etc. The unlt.of analys1s f?r th1S
work is not the product alone but the ~ontext - that 1~, t~e commun1ty and
the community's members' interaction w1th these symbol1c v1sual events.
The approach has been formulated upon a set of general assumpt~on~ c~lled
Culture and Communication. In order to situate the rese~rch ~lth1n 1tS
intellectual tradition, some discussion of these assumptlons 1S necessary.
Culture is seen as an integrated series of symbolic systems: a meta-system
or system of systems which is generated by the sets of rules shar:d by ltS
members. It is assumed that human beings create and sh~re symb~llC cod:s
(that is, culturally defined patterns of s~mbolic beh~v10ur) w~lch perm~t
n1n
them to organize their experiences and ultlmately thelr world 1nto mea g-
ful categories. To share the codes is to share a culture. Because these
codes and the contexts in which they are used are patterned, structured and
often out-of-the-awareness of the user, they lend themselves to SOC10.

5
cultural study.
This approach derives from a theory of communication posited by Worth and
Gross:
Communication shall therefore be defined as a social process, within
a context in which signs are produced and transmitted, perceived and
treated as messages from which meaning can be inferred. (Worth &
Gross, 1974, p.30).
To restate the argument, it is suggested that to study human communication
is to study symbolic codes in their social contexts; or, research problems
in culture and communication are best understood as problems in ethnographic
semiotics.
There are many approaches to the study of comiilunicationand a vast literature
that cannot be critiqued in detail here. This 1iterature differ's sufficiently
in orientation and basic assumptions so as not to be particularly useful.
There is a virtual "famine" of anthropological studies of mass media (Gans,
1974). With the exceptions of Mead and Metraux's (1953) content analysis of
feature films continued by Weakland (1975). and Powdermaker's study of media
among Rhodesians (1962) and her ethnographic account accomplished by scholars
other than anthropologists. Peck (1967) and Chalfen (1978) have offered ex-
planations for this lacuna and argued for the development of a media anthro-
pology in the form of an anthropology of visual communication (Worth, 1980
and Ruby, 1973).
Most studies of mass media, mass communication, mass culture, or popular
culture are based upon a non-anthropological definition of culture which
differs fundamentally from the definition in our research (i.e. culture as
taste - with sophisticated taste equalling high culture and common taste
equalling popular culture. Cf. Gans, 1974). They are characterized by being
either critical evaluations by an elite scholar (MacDonald, 1957), or quan-
titative surveys which aggregate audiences into masses without exploring cul-
tural differences as a possible significant variable. These studies often
concentrate on the effects of mass media on society and employ experimental
methods. As Gerbner et al (1978) has suggested:
The problem of studying televisi0n's 'effects' is compounded by the
fact that today nearly everyone 'lives' to some extent in the world
of television. Without control groups of non-viewers it is diffi-
cult to isolate television's impact. Experiments do not solve the
problem for they are not comparable to people's day-to-day television
viewing.
It is suggested that visual communication be stu(~iE:dutil izing an ethnographic
approach. Since method proceeds from theory, it is necessary to at least
mention the theory of ethnography which informs this work. It should be re-
membered that it is not the method in this work that constitutes any novelty
or innovation, but rather its application to the study of visual communi-
cation which is unique.
Perhaps at this point I should c1arify my use of the term ethnography, since
it is more commonly used to describe what Margaret Mead wrote about South Sea
Island natives. Clifford Geertz has best described the approach:
It is ... the kind of material 9roduced by long term mainly qualitative.
highly participative and almost obsessively fine comb field s.tudy in
confined contexts. (1973, p.23).

6
It is used here to imply both a process and product .. 1 wish to behave like
an ethnographer. I plan to participate and observe within the culture for
extended perl ods ~f tlme in order to produce an ethnographic account of the
re1at:on~hlp of vlsual communication to culture. Ethnography is a thick
descrlptlon (Geertz, 1973). The theory constructs descriptive categories
~nd cannot be separated from the description. Since participant/observation
1S the ~nm~ry f!lethodof data generation, the "instrument" is the researcher.
Once th,S V1ew lS assumed regarding the nature of cultural knowledge, it be-
comes manda tory to ma intain a ref1ex ive stance between the ethnographer as
producer, th~ methods employed in the research as prociss and the ethnography
as pr'oduct w,th,n the presentation of the ethnography Ruby, 1978; 1980).
Mead (1976, p.907) has articulated this approach to ethnography.
The human scientist has had to learn how to relate self-knowledge of
him - or herself as a multisensory being with a unique history as a
~ember of a specific culture at a specifiC period of ongoing exper-
lence and how to include as far as pOSSible this disciplined self-
awareness in observations on other lives and in other cultures.
A reflexive attitude towards ethnographic research is particularly difficult
but essential if the site of research is not an exotic locale where cultural
differences are blatant and where cultural relativism is relatively easy to
maintain, but rather a rural community 150 miles from the researchers' home.
Given the general perspective stated above, let me now discuss how I intend
to study the most ubiquitous visual form - the uses of photography by ord-
inary people. Photography will be examined not as a fine art or even as a
folk art, but, as Stanley Milgram (1977, p.50) suggests, as
A technology that extends two psychological functions: perception
and memory. It can thus teach us a good deal about how we see and
how we remember.
This study proposes examining photographs as artifacts of culture and the
social processes surrounding photography as an "ethnographic" situation re-
vealing of culture. (Cf. Worth, 1976; Chalfen, 1977 and Ruby, 1973b).
Photography is unlike film or television because not only do we consume ~he
products of professionals, but we frequently participate in some product10n.
It is estimated that Americans take over 7 billion photographs per year
(Wolfman, 1974). In "Jones" County, more than 90% of the people own and use
a still camera. Photography is the only visual domain where many people
are producers, users, purchasers and subjects.
There has been an increased interest in photography in rece~t years. Photo-
graphy is now widely regarded as high art and at th: same tl~e the perso~a1
historical importance of the family album is recogn:zed. ThlS general ,r1se
in self-consciousness is exemplified by the popular1ty of Susan Sontag s
book,On Photography (1977).
Scholarly attempts to understand photography have dealt with ~t as: 1) High
art _ Cf. Ward (1970); 2) Vernacular art that generated.a hlgh ar; form
(the snapshot aesthetic as seen in Diane Arbus and Lee Frledlaender s wo(rk -)
Cf. Green (1974); 3) Social science research tool - Bateson and Mead 1941
and Collier (1967); and 4) Culturally relevant personal document - Cf.
Lesey (1973), Musello (1980) and Chalfen (1977).
The last of these approaches deals with family photography as a cu1tural~y
structured communication where not only the photograph as a cultural artlfact

7
is studied, but also the social processes surrounding the production and
subsequent display are recognized as essential elements for analysis. While
this approach comes the closest to resemb1 ing my research, "home mode" photo-
graphy, as Chalfen calls the snapshots and other family uses of photography,
does not include the range of activity encompassed here.
I wish to study £ll aspects of photography - the snapshots produced by the
people themselves; photographs purchased from professionals such as wedding
pictures and high school graduation portraits; photographs in newspapers,
magazines and catalogues and on calendars; the slide shows in schools; and
in displays where other forms of art appear - in short, any and all photo-
graphs which exist in their visual environment whether the people of "Jones"
County produced them or not.
This study is not confined to an analysis of photographs as artifacts (al-
though it will be necessary to locate, describe and analyze theil' content and
form), but rather to a study of them in their socio-cu1tura1 contexts. There-
fore, the social behaviors, settings, etc, surrounding the production and
utilization of these photographs will be examined. My goal is to understand
the cultural role and function of all kinds of photography - not just the
"art" photographs or the snapshots - in the lives of these people.
From a community survey, I will obtain information about the ownership of
photographic equi pment, the uses of family photography - fl"euqency, impor-
tance and display styles (e.g. in albums, on the wall, etc), the number of
people interested in photography as a hobby, the occasions when they employ
a professional photographer, the frequency of social viewing events (i.e.
when do they look at their photographs and with whom?), their attitudes to-
wards towards photographs as news, as an educational tool and as a selling
device. These statistically based descriptions will serve to guide and shape
some of the research questions in this phase as well as during the ethno-
graphic studies of families ..
The study of this domain has been broken down into six components: profes-
sional photography; hobbyists; public exhibition events; historical;
photography in education; and family photography.
Professional Photography
At present, the county's needs for professional photography are being met by
one full-time and several part-time photographers. Weddings and high school
graduation portraits are the occasions when a professional's services are
most often sought. With the exception of Barbara Norfleet's two excellent
exhibitions and books - Weddi~ (1979) and ChamDion Pig (1980), the small
town studio photographer has been ignored bi scholars of photography.
It is my intention to produce at least two life histories (langness, 1965)
and ethnographic accounts of professional photographers in the county. "P.S"
is a 78 year old retired photographer. Until a stroke forced his retirement
he was the only professional photographer in the county. His professional
career began in 1925. However, as early as 1916 he was a serious hobbyist
and did most of the film processing for the county. The historical perspec-
tive P.S. 's life history provides will be invaluable.
The "Jones" Photo Service is owned and operated by "R.L. ,.- the county's only
active full-time professional. His life history and an ethnographic account
of his work will provide the study with a contemporary perspective. I plan
to work with R.L. as assistant and apprentice, thus repaying R.L. with his

8
time and also providing me with a social work role in the setting.
Th~ part-time ~r~fessi~nal photograp~ers will be interviewed and I will ob-
se,ve and partIcIpate 1n some of theIr prOfessional tasks. Since each of
these persons assumes roles relevant to other aspects of the study, the
~nter~l~ws and observati~ns wil: have multiple purposes. For example.
D.S .. 1s.a h1gh school 1ndustrlal arts teacher who has a studio and dark-
roo~ 1n h1S home. On a part-time basis he 'does' portraits and weddings.
He 1S also the advisor to the high school photography club, and has entered
and won competitions with his photographs.
This analysis will concentrate upon production events in professional photo-
graph~ as se~n from the perspective of the photographer. During the ethno-
graph1c stud1es of the families their perspective will be examined - e.g.
the role of the subject in these photographs. the utilizations of the photo-
graphs in the everyday lives of these people, etc.
Hobbyists
In "Jones" County there are people interested in photography as a hobby, an
avocation and as an outlet for artistic expression. In some cases the in-
volvement is primarily an adjunct to other interests. e.g. one may decide
to learn something about photography in order to take pictures while bird-
watching. These people tend to purchase more sophisticated equipment than
the avel'age snapshooter and often have their own darkrooms.
These ho~byists will be interviewed and their activitieo observed. For
example, "C.Q." is a hobbyist who is the head of an art; and crafts organi-
zation that sponsors an annual fair. He is also an instructor in a 4-H Club
class in photography. Knowledge of his involvement with photography will
provide me with insight into a number of relevant areas - e.g. photography
as a serious hobby, the teaching of photography and the public exhibition
of photograpy.
Public Exhibition Events
There are a variety of public places where photographs regularly ~ppear -
e.g. on the walls of public buildings as decoration and as promot10nal or
advertising materials. During the study of the "built environment", an
inventory of the photographs and their distribution will be undertaken to
enable me to see how photographs are part of the public vi~ible environment.
There are also Art Fairs, Arts and Crafts Fairs, County Fall's,etc where
photographs are exhibited. Since these events occur where t~e con~ext sug-
gests that they should be regarded as art, in-depth observatIons w1l1 be
undertaken.
Historical
The historical photographs which constitute a record of "Jones" County's
past have never before been systematically examined,.nor have ~h~y bee~
preserved as part of their historical heritage. Durlng a prellm1nary 1nves.
tigation I located two collections. A local newspaper has glass p1a~~ .
negative~ which date from the late 19th century. The "Jones':County 1StOrT-
cal Society has the negatives of "P.S.", the retired profess1onal photographer
mentioned earlier .
. h d construct a small exhibi-
I 1 ntend to pt'eserve and LOpy these photograp S an .. th
tion of the photographs which will travel to the varIOUS fall'sand 0 er

9
public events in the county. The exhibition will serve a variety of func-
tions. The preservation and establishr,lentof an historical photographic
archive will be a service to the Historical Society. The exhibition will
act as a stimulus which causes people to look for their own old photographs,
which will provide me with a larger sample of both snapshots and profession-
a11y produced photographs from with in the coun ty, thus mak ing poss ib 1e some
longitudinal research of photography.
Photography in Education
Visual aids have long been a part of the educationa~ process in public schools.
The body of research on the effectiveness of these aids in the process of
education is extensive (Dwyer, 1977). It is not the purpose of this project
to evaluate the role of photographs in learning, but rather to observe and
seek an understanding of how people are taught to understand photographs -
that is, the generation of meaning in a photograph (Ruby, 1976b; Sekula,
1975) .

The school system will be examined to discover the various educational con-
texts in which photographs appear - i.e. in textbooks, magazines, wall dis-
plays and class projects. Once their usage is discovered, classes will be
observed. The goal of the observations will be to ascertain the varieties
of formal and informal instructions students receive which cause them to
regard photographs in certain ways. Interviews will be conducted with
teachers and students to gain additional information.
There are photography clubs in both high schools. "P.S.", a part-time pro-
fessional photographer, is the advisor to one of them. The Photography Club
meetings and field trips will be observed. Since the Photography Club mem-
bers constitute the majority of the county's photographic hobbyists, their
activities, both during the formal meetings (,f the club and at other times
when they are practising their hobby, are of some interest to the researchers.
It is, therefore, anticipated that some Photography Club members will be
extensively interviewed.
Family Photography
Once the public aspects of photography are known,I plan to concentrate my
efforts on the family - its involvement with photography and the articulation
of family photos with the other visual domains mer,tioned earlier. Family
photography will be studied as a social process utilizing an approach similar
to that employed in the study of paintings and home movies. The roles of
camera operator, subject, displayer and audience will be examined (Chalfen,
1977). The rules of display will be discerned (i.e. what happens to the
photographs upon their return from the lab). Si~ce ~hotography is a domain
where both production and consumption occur, t~e study of the entire process
and its fit into the lives of the people is cncial. Photography is the
domain that most enables me to compare the products made by local residents
for themselves with products made extra-locally for mass consumption.
This community is a place where people te1d to live for several generations.
It is, therefore, reasonable to expect tWD or three generations of family
albums to be available, providing an opportunity to study the role of photo-
graphy through several generations. r wish to learn about changing conven-
tions of representation; (for Example, the positions assumed by various
fami 1y members in photographs of parents and ch i1dren may have changed in a
patterned way through time and generat ions of a fami ly); whether photographs

10
of.the same family members are exhibited in different rooms in the homes of
ch1l~ren, parent~ and grandparents. I may also learn about changing con-
vent10ns f~r subJects for photographs. What constitutes an event worth
photograph1ng? Ho~ ~re changes in conventions related to changes in tech-
nology and ava1lab1l1ty of equipment?
My goal in this work is to gain an understanding of the function of photo-
graphy in o~r lives. I wish to know something about why so many of us
spend our t1me and mon:y on ~his activity. Why, according to a recent study,
some pe~ple regard the1r fam1ly photographs among their most prized material
possess10ns.
I intend to pursue that understanding by doing an ethnography of visual
communication which causes me to participate in and observe the lives of
people in a small American community. I will examine photography in two
kinds of contexts - as an aspect of these peoples' lives and as one visual
domain in a culturally conditioned communication system. By doing so, I
have the opportunity to see how photography fits into their lives and with
the other visual domains.
The results of the general research project will be important for several
areas. An anthropological study of visual communication will provide our
society with a unique means of understanding the symbolic forms and events
which we create and use. I am convinced that
of a~l the changes in what has come to be called the quality of life,
none has had a larger direct impact on human consciousness and social
behavjour than the rise of communication technology (Gerbner 1972,
p. 111).
Some people regard mass-mediated message technologies as having the signi-
ficance equal to that of the invention of the wheel or the industrial revo-
lution _ a fundamental re-ordering of the world. We seem to vacillate be-
tween seeing mass media as a means to technological salvation (Goldmark,
1972) and as a font of repression and low-mindedness (Marcuse, 1969).
If we, as a nation who controls the "Image Empires", wish to use these de-
vices for our own and the world's betterment, we must understand more about
how these message technologies fit into our lives and how we learn to under-
stand and accomodate them on a day-to-day basis.
George Gerbner (1973, p.3) has called for "cultural !ndicator'.'st~die~ to
determine our social policy toward "the mass productlon and dlstr~butlOn
of the most broadly shared messages of our.culture~. I support h1~ argument
and extend it to include ethnographic studles of vls~al co~un1catlon as
knowledge essential to enable us to instituteany soclal pOlley concerned
with the mass communication industry. We cannot control what.w: do ~ot
understand nor ean we manage the mass media in a way t~at ~xl~lzes ltS h
benefits and minimizes its harm if we do hot know how It fltS 1nto the ot er
symbolic systems we already use.
r have chosen to study the l:ast ~nders~ood andtmo~tAPer~~~i~~i~~~so~i~~::~lY
communication _ the visual/plctor1al - 1n a par 0 mer1 t'c
invisible I have decided to do so and not be obscure or eso er1d.
. h' h is an excellent way to 1scover
because I am convinced that t 1S approac . f eople in their
how things that are "made to be seen" have mean1ng or P
everyday 1ives.
'st1'catedopinions of specialists about
r do not wish to imply that the SOphl

11
significant achievements of professionals are not important. I wish to aug-
ment rather than replace this approach by offering another perspective - an
anthropological one concerned with the cultural and the communicative and
not the evaluative.
I feel that at present we lack sufficient understanding of the role of visual
images in our lives and that it can only be gained through a long-term inten-
sively participatory and comprehensive study of movies, houses, snapshots,
television, etc, as they appear in the everyday lives of people. Our systems
of mass communication literally circle the globe from the New Guinea native
to the New York urban sophisticate. Their pervasiveness and seeming power
cannot be questioned. We need a holistic understanding of their place in our
lives.
I wish to conclude by saying I am not implying that the approach advocated
in this paper is in any way superior to other ways of regarding photography.
Rather, I wish to argue that an ethnography of visual communication would
supplement our current knowledge and provide another perspective. We cur-
rently lack an adequate understanding of the socio/cultural functions of
photography in our society. We have a number of insightful suggestions from
people like Susan Sontag and Roland Barthes about what social uses photo-
graphy may serve. It is now time to field test these ideas by examining
them in the mundane contexts of the everyday world.
References
Bateson, Gregory. 1971: "Col11l1unication"in The Natural Histor of An Inter-
view, edited by Norman Mc uowan. University of
Chicago Library Microfilm.
Bateson, Gregory & Mead, Margaret. 1941: Balinese Character. New York
Academy of Scien~es. New York.
Birdwhistell, Ray. 1970: Kinesics and Context. University of Penn, Phila.
Chalfen, Richard. 1974: Film as Visual Communication: A Sociovidistic
Study of Film-making. Unpublished PhD Dissertation,
Annenberg School of Communication, University of
Penn., Phila, Pa.
Chalfen, Richard. 1q75: Cinema Naviete: A Study in Home Moviemaking as
Visual Communication. Studies in the Anthropoloc;y
of Visual Communication, Vol. 2, No.1.
Chalfen, Richard. 1977: Seven Billion A Year: The Social Construction of
the Snapshot. Unpublished manuscript. Phila, Pa.
Chalfen, Richard. 1978: Which Way Media Anthropology? Journal of Communi-
cation, Vol. 28, No.1: 208-214.
Collier, John Jr. 1967: Visual Anthropology. Holt, Rinehart & Winston, N.Y.
Dwyer, Francis. 1977: Strategies for Improving Visual Learning. Learning
Services, Satate College, Pa.
Gans, Herbert. 1973: The Famine In Mass Communication Research. American
Journal of Sociology, Vol.77, No.4: 697-705.

12
Gans, H. 1974: Popular Cultur~ and High Culture: An Analysis and Evaluation
.of Taste. Bas1c Books, New York
Geertz, C. 1973: The Interpretation of Culture. Basic Books, New York
Gerbner, G. 1972: "C~mmu~i:ation ~nd Environment" in COlll11unication,a
SC1ent1f1c Amer1can Book, Freeman and Co, San Fransisco
pp. 111-120 '
Gerbner, G 1973: "Cultural Indicators: The Third Voice" in COlll11unication
Technology and Social Policy, Wiley and Sons, New York
Gerbner, G., Gross, L et al. 1978: "Cultural Indicators: Violence Profile
No.9". Journal of COlll11unication,
Vol. 28, No.3, pp.176-207
Goldmark, P. 1972: "COlll11unicationand Community" in COlll11unication,
A Scientific
American Book, Freeman, San Fransisco
Green, J. 1974: "The Snapshot" Aperture, Vol. 19, No. i
Hymes, D. 1964: "Introduction: Toward Ethnographies of COlll11unication"
in
Gumperz and Hymes, D.(Eds): The Ethnography of COlll11unication.
Special Issue, American Anthropologist, Vol. 66, No.2
Part 2, pp. 1-34
Hymes, D 1967: "The Anthropology of Communication" in Dance, F.X. (ed):
Human COlll11unicationTheory, Holt, Rinehart and WiAston,
New York, pp. 1-39
Langness, L; 1965: .The Life History in Anthropological Science. Holt, Rine-
hart and Winston, New York
Lesy, M. 1973: Wisconsin Death TraQ. Random House, New York

1957: "A Theory of Mass Culture" in Rosenberg, B. and White, D.

MacDonald, D. (eds): Mass Culture: The Popular Arts in America.
Free Press, Glencoe, pp. 59-93
Marcuse, H. 1969: A Critique of Pure Tolerance. Beacon Press, Boston
Mead, M. 1976: "Towards a Human Science~ Science, Vol. 191, pp. 903-909
Mead, M.and Metraux, R. (eds): The Study of Culture at a Distance. University
of Chicago Press, Chicargo
"Family Photography" in Wagner, J. (ed): Images of
Musello, C. 1979: Information. Sage, Los Angeles, pp. 101-118

Norfleet, B. 1979: Weddin~. Simon and Schuster. New York

Norfleet, B. 1980: ~hampion Pig. Simon and Schuster, New York
Milgram, S. 1977: "The Image Freezing Machine~ PsycholOgy Today, Vol. 10, No.12
Peck, R. 1967: "Anthropology and Mass COlll11unication
Research~ Sociologus,
Vol. 17, No.2
Powdermaker, H. 1950: Hollywood, the Dream Factory. Little, Brwon, Boston
powdermaker, H. 1962: Copper Town: Changing Africa - the Human Situatio~ .
~n the Rhodesian Copperbelt. Greenwood Press, Ill1no1s

13
Ruby, J. 1973a: "Stealing Their Souls: The Anthropological Consequences of
a Wired Planet" Unpublished paper, Philadelphia

RUby, J. 1973b: "Up the Zambezi With Notebook and Camera or Being an Anthro-
pologist Without Doing Anthropology ..• With Pictures"
P.I.E.F. Newsletter, Vol. 4, No.3

Ruby, J. 1976a: "Anthropology and Film: The Social Science Implications of

Regarding Film as Communication" Quarterly Review of Film
Studies, Vol. 1, No.4, pp. 426-445

Ruby, J. 1976b: "In a Pic's Eye: Interpretive Strategies for Deriving Meaning
and Signification from Photographs. Afterimage, Vol. 3, No.9,
pp. 5-7

Ruby, J. 1980: "Exposing Yourself: Reflexivity, Anthropology and Film".

Semiotica (in press)

Sekula, A. 1975: "On the Invention of Meaning of Photographs. Artforum, Vol.

13, No.5, pp. 36-45

Sontag, S. 1977: On Photography. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York

Ward, J.L. 1970: "The Criticism of Photography as Art:' University of Florida

Humanities Monograph, No. 32. Gainsville, Florida

Weakland, J. 1975: "Feature Films as Cultural Documents" in Hockings, P. (ed):

Principles of Visual Anthropology. Mouton, The Hague,
pp. 231-252 .

Wolfman, A. 1974: The 1973-74 Wolfman Re~ort on the Photographic Industry in

the United States. Wo fman, New York .

Worth, S. "Film as Non-Art: An Approach' to the Study of Film". The American

Scholar, Vol. 35, No.2, pp. 322-334

Worth, S. 1969: "The Development of a Semiotic of Film". Semiotica, Vol. 1,

No.3, pp. 282-321

Worth, S. 1977: "Toward an Ethnographic Semiotic". Unpublished paper delivered

at a conference on Film and Ethnology, Paris

Worth, S. 1980: "Margret Mead and the Shift from Visual Anthropology to the
Anthropology of Visual Communi-ation". Studies in Visual
Communication, Vol. 6, No.1, pp. 15-22

Worth, S and Adair, J. 1972: Throuqh Navaho Eyes: An Exploration in Film

Communication and Anthropology. Indiana Univ-
ersity Press, Bloomington

Worth, S and Gross, L. 1974: "Symbolic Strategies". Journal of Communication,

Vol. 24, No.4, pp. 27-29

14