“明显的不可见”:民族志作为中介

IF 1.5 3区 社会学 Q2 ANTHROPOLOGY Critique of Anthropology Pub Date : 2023-02-23 DOI:10.1177/0308275X231157544
J. Pina-Cabral
{"title":"“明显的不可见”:民族志作为中介","authors":"J. Pina-Cabral","doi":"10.1177/0308275X231157544","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Evident invisibles emerge in the ethnographic encounter which change the whence and the whither of the ethnographic gesture. Long ago, Margaret Mead critiqued anthropologists for ignoring ‘the world in between’ that makes their fieldwork possible – this article takes the argument a step further, proposing that all ethnographic encounters are fundamentally ‘amidst’. Thus, it calls for a shift from translation to intermediation as the guiding trope of ethnography. Although the practice of ethnography requires the objectification of a ‘field’, metaphysical pluralism remains the fundamental condition of ethnographic intermediation. In light of that, the article critiques (a) the practice of describing our main methodological disposition as ‘participant observation’, arguing instead for the older term ‘intensive ethnographic research’; and (b) the implicit use of the trope of ethnography-as-translation. Ethnographic examples are taken from the author’s own fieldwork in the coastal mangroves of southern Bahia (northeast Brazil) in the late 2000s.","PeriodicalId":46784,"journal":{"name":"Critique of Anthropology","volume":"43 1","pages":"106 - 129"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"‘of evident invisibles’: Ethnography as intermediation\",\"authors\":\"J. Pina-Cabral\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/0308275X231157544\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Evident invisibles emerge in the ethnographic encounter which change the whence and the whither of the ethnographic gesture. Long ago, Margaret Mead critiqued anthropologists for ignoring ‘the world in between’ that makes their fieldwork possible – this article takes the argument a step further, proposing that all ethnographic encounters are fundamentally ‘amidst’. Thus, it calls for a shift from translation to intermediation as the guiding trope of ethnography. Although the practice of ethnography requires the objectification of a ‘field’, metaphysical pluralism remains the fundamental condition of ethnographic intermediation. In light of that, the article critiques (a) the practice of describing our main methodological disposition as ‘participant observation’, arguing instead for the older term ‘intensive ethnographic research’; and (b) the implicit use of the trope of ethnography-as-translation. Ethnographic examples are taken from the author’s own fieldwork in the coastal mangroves of southern Bahia (northeast Brazil) in the late 2000s.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46784,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Critique of Anthropology\",\"volume\":\"43 1\",\"pages\":\"106 - 129\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-02-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Critique of Anthropology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/0308275X231157544\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ANTHROPOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critique of Anthropology","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0308275X231157544","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANTHROPOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

在人种学的遭遇中出现了明显的无形现象,它改变了人种学姿态的来源和走向。很久以前,Margaret Mead批评人类学家忽视了“介于两者之间的世界”,这使得他们的田野调查成为可能——这篇文章更进一步,提出所有的民族志遭遇都是从根本上“中间”的。因此,它呼吁从翻译转向中介作为民族志的指导比喻。尽管民族志的实践需要“场”的客体化,但形而上学的多元主义仍然是民族志中介的基本条件。有鉴于此,文章批评了(a)将我们的主要方法论倾向描述为“参与者观察”的做法,而主张使用更古老的术语“密集的民族志研究”;(b)隐含使用民族志的比喻作为翻译。人种志的例子取自作者自己2000年代末在巴伊亚州南部(巴西东北部)沿海红树林的实地调查。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
‘of evident invisibles’: Ethnography as intermediation
Evident invisibles emerge in the ethnographic encounter which change the whence and the whither of the ethnographic gesture. Long ago, Margaret Mead critiqued anthropologists for ignoring ‘the world in between’ that makes their fieldwork possible – this article takes the argument a step further, proposing that all ethnographic encounters are fundamentally ‘amidst’. Thus, it calls for a shift from translation to intermediation as the guiding trope of ethnography. Although the practice of ethnography requires the objectification of a ‘field’, metaphysical pluralism remains the fundamental condition of ethnographic intermediation. In light of that, the article critiques (a) the practice of describing our main methodological disposition as ‘participant observation’, arguing instead for the older term ‘intensive ethnographic research’; and (b) the implicit use of the trope of ethnography-as-translation. Ethnographic examples are taken from the author’s own fieldwork in the coastal mangroves of southern Bahia (northeast Brazil) in the late 2000s.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Critique of Anthropology
Critique of Anthropology ANTHROPOLOGY-
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
8.30%
发文量
21
期刊介绍: Critique of Anthropology is dedicated to the development of anthropology as a discipline that subjects social reality to critical analysis. It publishes academic articles and other materials which contribute to an understanding of the determinants of the human condition, structures of social power, and the construction of ideologies in both contemporary and past human societies from a cross-cultural and socially critical standpoint. Non-sectarian, and embracing a diversity of theoretical and political viewpoints, COA is also committed to the principle that anthropologists cannot and should not seek to avoid taking positions on political and social questions.
期刊最新文献
Introduction: Contesting the moral worlds, scales, and epistemics of energy transitions. Lithium scale-making and extractivist counter-futurities in Bolivia. ‘Occupying’ the womb: Disrupted kinship futures and sovereign logics in sexual violence during wars ‘The Girls are Alright’: Beauty work and neoliberal regimes of responsibility among young women in Urban India Kinship and the politics of responsibility: An introduction
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1