The problem of presenting non-Western ethnographic material Essay Example

The problem of presenting non The problem of presenting non-Western ethnographic material Essay The problem of presenting non-Western ethnographic material Essay The problem of presenting non-Western ethnographic material in Western terms is something that both authors had to work with. Abu-Lughod, on introducing her work, says, the unusual form of this ethnography owes much to the remarkable women in the Awlad Ali Bedouin community with whom I lived (Abu-Lughod 1993: 1). This is a progressive step for ethnography, to fit the form of ones work to the content, inspired by the informants. Conversely, Marjorie Shostak describes the problems she encountered when trying to fit the lives of the ! Kung into the categories she had prescribed. Having mentioned some of the topics I hoped to cover (Shostak 1982: 21), she found the informants difficult and unreliable. Shostaks material was gathered mainly through formal interviews (often with informants receiving payment), in contrast to Abu-Lughod who had built up a rapport with her informants and used mostly informal personal and group conversations, which led her eventually to the conclusion that perhaps my wealth, status and foreignness kept the women from trusting me (ibid. : 33). Shostak seems not to recognise the divide she creates and maintains between herself and her informants in her thoughts and actions, while Abu-Lughod is very self-conscious and self-aware. For all her determination to create an ethnography that does not perpetuate a cultural hierarchy, Abu-Lughod can not escape the fact that she remains in ultimate control of her material, and so potentially a superior and authoritative voice. However, she seems conscious of this fact, and is explicit in her methodology, leaving in the questions asked and not pretending conversations did not take place because of her presence. The final chapter centred around Kamla is an example of Abu-Lughods editorial work being governed by the material she is gathering is shown. The content of the chapter is determined according to the information that Kamla included in her essay, Abu-Lughod merely adds relevant points to each section. Shostak, however, is not so open to suggestions as she has set out with a very clear picture of what she wishes to achieve through her ethnography. She says that she explained to her informants, that I wanted to learn what it meant to be a woman in their culture so I could better understand what it meant in my own (Shostak 1982: 21), which is the kind of construction of self through opposition to others that I described earlier in the essay as contributing to the notion of self and other that perpetrates notions of cultural superiority. As shown at one point when she is reminded of the cultural gulf between Nisa and me (ibid. :350), Shostak seems unwilling to attempt to understand her informants on their own terms and not in contrast to herself. Despite describing the ! Kung in the introduction using many generalisations, the fact remains that Shostak has written, as Abu-Lughod would call it, an ethnography of the particular; she has allowed the voice of one woman to be heard. However, it seems that Shostaks intention was not to allow us to see the intricacies of one persons life so that we may see the boundlessness of cultures or the similarity of living life all over the world, but rather that we may get a general picture of the ! Kung culture through one person. In the epilogue, Shostak writes, perhaps [Nisas] story was too idiosyncratic an interpretation of ! Kung life; perhaps it didnt generalise to other women (Shostak 1982: 350), which shows a certain unawareness of the potential of letting informants speak for themselves, and a simple wish to personify culture. Abu-Lughod, on the other hand, uses the opportunity of describing individual lives to great effect. Her wish, she says, was that each chapter might unravel its title, each one being a conventional Western analytical category, to show the boundlessness of life. She is able to show the tensions and contradictions that exist within the community, even within the individual, which would have been flattened out (Abu-Lughod 1993: 221) in generalisations. For example, Kamla describes the importance of traditional values, but if she were to think about how the extensive bonds between kin are to be maintained, she would have to admit the virtues of marriage to paternal cousins, the kind of marriage she wanted desperately to avoid. (ibid. : 234). This internal conflict between tradition and progress is shown in the contradictions of one girl. The question of exploitation in transferring the information gathered to the public is something both authors address. Abu-Lughods intention with this ethnography is clear, but she is uncertain of her authority in executing it: Do the ends of undermining anthropological generalisations, questioning feminist interpretations, and shaking up assumptions about the Middle East justify the means? (ibid. :38) Abu-Lughod was worried that she was exposing things about her informants that were personal and worried that it may be seen that she was using them for her own purpose. Shostak is not so sensitive to the consequences of her work being published. In debating asking Nisa for her permission, she says, it was my work, certainly but it was her story (Shostak 1982: 350). The notion of self and other in her book is shown again. In this case, the issue of exploitation seems more apparent than in Abu-Lughods book because she has constructed an image of herself in contrast to Nisa, and of Nisas world in contrast to her own, which she was using for her own ends in understanding what it was to be a woman. In this essay I have shown some of the main arguments from Said, Asad, Clifford and Abu-Lughod concerning the authority of anthropologists in speaking for their informants. I have shown, using two ethnographies, the potential for success and failure in letting the informants speak. I realise that I was very critical of Shostaks work in comparison to that of Abu-Lughod, and that this followed theoretical suggestions from, amongst others, Abu-Lughod, which may seem biased. However, the arguments put forward by Abu-Lughod for better and more representative ethnography were theoretically supported by other anthropologists and seemed to me to be sensible and appropriate for this discussion. In conclusion, if approached and executed in the right manner, I believe the work anthropologists do in making known the lives of others is not exploitative, but informative and useful. Bibliography Abu-Lughod, L. 1991. Writing Against Culture in (ed. ) Fox Recapturing Anthropology. University of Washington Press, Washington. Abu-Lughod, L. 1993. Writing Womens Worlds. University of California Press, California. Asad, T. 1973. Introduction in (ed. ) Asad, T. Anthropology and the Colonial Encounter. Ithica Press, London. Clifford, J. 1986. Introduction: Partial Truths in (eds. ) Clifford Marcus Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography. University of California Press, California. Said, E. 1995. Orientalism. Penguin Books Ltd, Middlesex. Shostak, M. 1982. Nisa: The Life and Words of a ! Kung Woman. Penguin Books Ltd, London. AN101 Lent Term Assessment Essay Joanna Clarke

The problem of presenting non-Western ethnographic material Essay Example

The problem of presenting non The problem of presenting non-Western ethnographic material Essay The problem of presenting non-Western ethnographic material Essay The problem of presenting non-Western ethnographic material in Western terms is something that both authors had to work with. Abu-Lughod, on introducing her work, says, the unusual form of this ethnography owes much to the remarkable women in the Awlad Ali Bedouin community with whom I lived (Abu-Lughod 1993: 1). This is a progressive step for ethnography, to fit the form of ones work to the content, inspired by the informants. Conversely, Marjorie Shostak describes the problems she encountered when trying to fit the lives of the ! Kung into the categories she had prescribed. Having mentioned some of the topics I hoped to cover (Shostak 1982: 21), she found the informants difficult and unreliable. Shostaks material was gathered mainly through formal interviews (often with informants receiving payment), in contrast to Abu-Lughod who had built up a rapport with her informants and used mostly informal personal and group conversations, which led her eventually to the conclusion that perhaps my wealth, status and foreignness kept the women from trusting me (ibid. : 33). Shostak seems not to recognise the divide she creates and maintains between herself and her informants in her thoughts and actions, while Abu-Lughod is very self-conscious and self-aware. For all her determination to create an ethnography that does not perpetuate a cultural hierarchy, Abu-Lughod can not escape the fact that she remains in ultimate control of her material, and so potentially a superior and authoritative voice. However, she seems conscious of this fact, and is explicit in her methodology, leaving in the questions asked and not pretending conversations did not take place because of her presence. The final chapter centred around Kamla is an example of Abu-Lughods editorial work being governed by the material she is gathering is shown. The content of the chapter is determined according to the information that Kamla included in her essay, Abu-Lughod merely adds relevant points to each section. Shostak, however, is not so open to suggestions as she has set out with a very clear picture of what she wishes to achieve through her ethnography. She says that she explained to her informants, that I wanted to learn what it meant to be a woman in their culture so I could better understand what it meant in my own (Shostak 1982: 21), which is the kind of construction of self through opposition to others that I described earlier in the essay as contributing to the notion of self and other that perpetrates notions of cultural superiority. As shown at one point when she is reminded of the cultural gulf between Nisa and me (ibid. :350), Shostak seems unwilling to attempt to understand her informants on their own terms and not in contrast to herself. Despite describing the ! Kung in the introduction using many generalisations, the fact remains that Shostak has written, as Abu-Lughod would call it, an ethnography of the particular; she has allowed the voice of one woman to be heard. However, it seems that Shostaks intention was not to allow us to see the intricacies of one persons life so that we may see the boundlessness of cultures or the similarity of living life all over the world, but rather that we may get a general picture of the ! Kung culture through one person. In the epilogue, Shostak writes, perhaps [Nisas] story was too idiosyncratic an interpretation of ! Kung life; perhaps it didnt generalise to other women (Shostak 1982: 350), which shows a certain unawareness of the potential of letting informants speak for themselves, and a simple wish to personify culture. Abu-Lughod, on the other hand, uses the opportunity of describing individual lives to great effect. Her wish, she says, was that each chapter might unravel its title, each one being a conventional Western analytical category, to show the boundlessness of life. She is able to show the tensions and contradictions that exist within the community, even within the individual, which would have been flattened out (Abu-Lughod 1993: 221) in generalisations. For example, Kamla describes the importance of traditional values, but if she were to think about how the extensive bonds between kin are to be maintained, she would have to admit the virtues of marriage to paternal cousins, the kind of marriage she wanted desperately to avoid. (ibid. : 234). This internal conflict between tradition and progress is shown in the contradictions of one girl. The question of exploitation in transferring the information gathered to the public is something both authors address. Abu-Lughods intention with this ethnography is clear, but she is uncertain of her authority in executing it: Do the ends of undermining anthropological generalisations, questioning feminist interpretations, and shaking up assumptions about the Middle East justify the means? (ibid. :38) Abu-Lughod was worried that she was exposing things about her informants that were personal and worried that it may be seen that she was using them for her own purpose. Shostak is not so sensitive to the consequences of her work being published. In debating asking Nisa for her permission, she says, it was my work, certainly but it was her story (Shostak 1982: 350). The notion of self and other in her book is shown again. In this case, the issue of exploitation seems more apparent than in Abu-Lughods book because she has constructed an image of herself in contrast to Nisa, and of Nisas world in contrast to her own, which she was using for her own ends in understanding what it was to be a woman. In this essay I have shown some of the main arguments from Said, Asad, Clifford and Abu-Lughod concerning the authority of anthropologists in speaking for their informants. I have shown, using two ethnographies, the potential for success and failure in letting the informants speak. I realise that I was very critical of Shostaks work in comparison to that of Abu-Lughod, and that this followed theoretical suggestions from, amongst others, Abu-Lughod, which may seem biased. However, the arguments put forward by Abu-Lughod for better and more representative ethnography were theoretically supported by other anthropologists and seemed to me to be sensible and appropriate for this discussion. In conclusion, if approached and executed in the right manner, I believe the work anthropologists do in making known the lives of others is not exploitative, but informative and useful. Bibliography Abu-Lughod, L. 1991. Writing Against Culture in (ed. ) Fox Recapturing Anthropology. University of Washington Press, Washington. Abu-Lughod, L. 1993. Writing Womens Worlds. University of California Press, California. Asad, T. 1973. Introduction in (ed. ) Asad, T. Anthropology and the Colonial Encounter. Ithica Press, London. Clifford, J. 1986. Introduction: Partial Truths in (eds. ) Clifford Marcus Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography. University of California Press, California. Said, E. 1995. Orientalism. Penguin Books Ltd, Middlesex. Shostak, M. 1982. Nisa: The Life and Words of a ! Kung Woman. Penguin Books Ltd, London. AN101 Lent Term Assessment Essay Joanna Clarke

The problem of presenting non-Western ethnographic material Essay Example

The problem of presenting non The problem of presenting non-Western ethnographic material Essay The problem of presenting non-Western ethnographic material Essay The problem of presenting non-Western ethnographic material in Western terms is something that both authors had to work with. Abu-Lughod, on introducing her work, says, the unusual form of this ethnography owes much to the remarkable women in the Awlad Ali Bedouin community with whom I lived (Abu-Lughod 1993: 1). This is a progressive step for ethnography, to fit the form of ones work to the content, inspired by the informants. Conversely, Marjorie Shostak describes the problems she encountered when trying to fit the lives of the ! Kung into the categories she had prescribed. Having mentioned some of the topics I hoped to cover (Shostak 1982: 21), she found the informants difficult and unreliable. Shostaks material was gathered mainly through formal interviews (often with informants receiving payment), in contrast to Abu-Lughod who had built up a rapport with her informants and used mostly informal personal and group conversations, which led her eventually to the conclusion that perhaps my wealth, status and foreignness kept the women from trusting me (ibid. : 33). Shostak seems not to recognise the divide she creates and maintains between herself and her informants in her thoughts and actions, while Abu-Lughod is very self-conscious and self-aware. For all her determination to create an ethnography that does not perpetuate a cultural hierarchy, Abu-Lughod can not escape the fact that she remains in ultimate control of her material, and so potentially a superior and authoritative voice. However, she seems conscious of this fact, and is explicit in her methodology, leaving in the questions asked and not pretending conversations did not take place because of her presence. The final chapter centred around Kamla is an example of Abu-Lughods editorial work being governed by the material she is gathering is shown. The content of the chapter is determined according to the information that Kamla included in her essay, Abu-Lughod merely adds relevant points to each section. Shostak, however, is not so open to suggestions as she has set out with a very clear picture of what she wishes to achieve through her ethnography. She says that she explained to her informants, that I wanted to learn what it meant to be a woman in their culture so I could better understand what it meant in my own (Shostak 1982: 21), which is the kind of construction of self through opposition to others that I described earlier in the essay as contributing to the notion of self and other that perpetrates notions of cultural superiority. As shown at one point when she is reminded of the cultural gulf between Nisa and me (ibid. :350), Shostak seems unwilling to attempt to understand her informants on their own terms and not in contrast to herself. Despite describing the ! Kung in the introduction using many generalisations, the fact remains that Shostak has written, as Abu-Lughod would call it, an ethnography of the particular; she has allowed the voice of one woman to be heard. However, it seems that Shostaks intention was not to allow us to see the intricacies of one persons life so that we may see the boundlessness of cultures or the similarity of living life all over the world, but rather that we may get a general picture of the ! Kung culture through one person. In the epilogue, Shostak writes, perhaps [Nisas] story was too idiosyncratic an interpretation of ! Kung life; perhaps it didnt generalise to other women (Shostak 1982: 350), which shows a certain unawareness of the potential of letting informants speak for themselves, and a simple wish to personify culture. Abu-Lughod, on the other hand, uses the opportunity of describing individual lives to great effect. Her wish, she says, was that each chapter might unravel its title, each one being a conventional Western analytical category, to show the boundlessness of life. She is able to show the tensions and contradictions that exist within the community, even within the individual, which would have been flattened out (Abu-Lughod 1993: 221) in generalisations. For example, Kamla describes the importance of traditional values, but if she were to think about how the extensive bonds between kin are to be maintained, she would have to admit the virtues of marriage to paternal cousins, the kind of marriage she wanted desperately to avoid. (ibid. : 234). This internal conflict between tradition and progress is shown in the contradictions of one girl. The question of exploitation in transferring the information gathered to the public is something both authors address. Abu-Lughods intention with this ethnography is clear, but she is uncertain of her authority in executing it: Do the ends of undermining anthropological generalisations, questioning feminist interpretations, and shaking up assumptions about the Middle East justify the means? (ibid. :38) Abu-Lughod was worried that she was exposing things about her informants that were personal and worried that it may be seen that she was using them for her own purpose. Shostak is not so sensitive to the consequences of her work being published. In debating asking Nisa for her permission, she says, it was my work, certainly but it was her story (Shostak 1982: 350). The notion of self and other in her book is shown again. In this case, the issue of exploitation seems more apparent than in Abu-Lughods book because she has constructed an image of herself in contrast to Nisa, and of Nisas world in contrast to her own, which she was using for her own ends in understanding what it was to be a woman. In this essay I have shown some of the main arguments from Said, Asad, Clifford and Abu-Lughod concerning the authority of anthropologists in speaking for their informants. I have shown, using two ethnographies, the potential for success and failure in letting the informants speak. I realise that I was very critical of Shostaks work in comparison to that of Abu-Lughod, and that this followed theoretical suggestions from, amongst others, Abu-Lughod, which may seem biased. However, the arguments put forward by Abu-Lughod for better and more representative ethnography were theoretically supported by other anthropologists and seemed to me to be sensible and appropriate for this discussion. In conclusion, if approached and executed in the right manner, I believe the work anthropologists do in making known the lives of others is not exploitative, but informative and useful. Bibliography Abu-Lughod, L. 1991. Writing Against Culture in (ed. ) Fox Recapturing Anthropology. University of Washington Press, Washington. Abu-Lughod, L. 1993. Writing Womens Worlds. University of California Press, California. Asad, T. 1973. Introduction in (ed. ) Asad, T. Anthropology and the Colonial Encounter. Ithica Press, London. Clifford, J. 1986. Introduction: Partial Truths in (eds. ) Clifford Marcus Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography. University of California Press, California. Said, E. 1995. Orientalism. Penguin Books Ltd, Middlesex. Shostak, M. 1982. Nisa: The Life and Words of a ! Kung Woman. Penguin Books Ltd, London. AN101 Lent Term Assessment Essay Joanna Clarke

Cynics and Cynosures

Cynics and Cynosures Cynics and Cynosures Cynics and Cynosures By Maeve Maddox These two â€Å"doggy† words have quite different meanings. The word cynic comes from a Greek word meaning â€Å"dog-like, currish, churlish.† The word became a nickname for a school of Greek philosophers who disdained the luxuries and polite behavior of cultivated Greeks. Cynic is capitalized when it is used to refer to the philosophers. Pronunciation Note cynic [SIN-ik], cynical [Sin-uh-kl], cynicism [SIN-uh-sizm] cynosure Am. [SYNE-uh-SHOOR] Br. [SIN-uh-SHOOR] The most famous Cynicone might even say the cynosure of Cynics–was Diogenes. A most committed curmudgeon, Diogenes is remembered for having chosen to live in a tub instead of a house, and for telling Alexander the Great to move because he was blocking the sun. The word cynosure comes from a Greek word meaning â€Å"dog’s tail.† This was the name given by the Greeks to the northern constellation Ursa Minor, the â€Å"Small Bear† in whose tail is the Pole-star, also known as the North Star. Because the North Star is bright and a means of finding the direction of north, the word cynosure acquired the figurative meaning of â€Å"something that is bright and serves as a guide.† The philosophy of the Cynics had much to recommend it. Their goal was to live life according to Nature, a philosophy similar to that expressed by Thoreau in Walden. Thoreau, however, minded his manners and didn’t despise creature comforts. The Cynics embraced poverty, hardship, and toil. They criticized the emptiness and hypocrisy of social convention and organized religion; as a result they earned the reputation of people-haters and grumps. In modern usage, a cynic is a person disposed to find fault with everything and to rant about it to everyone. A cynic trusts no one’s sincerity or good intentions. The adjective is cynical; the noun is cynicism. Here are a few current applications of these words: Bill Maher is a playful microphone-toting cynic, roaming the landscapes of Christianity, with a few references to Judaism, Islam, and Scientology. Cynical politicians disingenuously mouth slogans of liberty and national security in order to manipulate the uncertain masses. The media framing of political news is implicated in activating, if not creating, cynicism about campaigns, policy, and governance. Social cynicism results from excessively high expectations concerning society, institutions and authorities: unfulfilled expectations lead to disillusionment, which releases feelings of disappointment and  betrayal. A few commenters on cynicism, it appears, are a bit limited in vocabulary: As I got older I found my cynical-ness had mostly gone away. Thats just pure speculation based on my cynicalness that companies always make deals better after Ive already gotten mine to make me feel bad. I think another technique that the author uses is Holden’s cynicalness and over all hypocriticalness. Cynicism is the noun; no â€Å"ness† needed. Hypocrisy is the noun for hypocritical. Unlike cynic, the word cynosure has positive connotations. A cynosure is someone or something that serves for guidance or direction, a â€Å"guiding star.† Not as common as cynic and its related forms, cynosure is nevertheless in current use: One critic wrote that admiration has grown such that Vemeer is now â€Å"displacing Raphael as Europe’s cynosure of artistic perfection. They have been the subject of many sighs and the cynosure of billions of eyes I am talking about the paintings that have defined the world of art. Da Vinci Robotics Exhibitions-conceptualised by  Leonardo da Vinci, Open vibe- the brain-computer interface show how brain activity, PR2 Robot, Eccerobot 2–an anthropomimetic robot acting as a human replica–were the cynosure of all eyes in 2011. Deepika Padukone, who was once a hot favourite with Yuvraj Singh and MS Dhoni, will be  the cynosure  of all eyes this cricket  season. If you decide to use cynosure, be sure to avoid the clichà © â€Å"cynosure of all eyes.† Want to improve your English in five minutes a day? Get a subscription and start receiving our writing tips and exercises daily! Keep learning! Browse the Vocabulary category, check our popular posts, or choose a related post below:100 Idioms About Numbers10 Colloquial Terms and Their MeaningsEnglish Grammar 101: Prepositions