Using long-term research in a Navajo community as an example, this paper examines how the social construction of anthropological research (including theoretical frameworks and writing strategies) shapes the silences and omissions in any particular historical period. Gender, ethnicity, age, and economic/political transformation also play roles unveiling some omissions while creating others as relationships shift and deepen over decades. I outline three major periods: the 1960s, when a social science model that emphasized theoretical problems, data analysis, and objectivist prose held sway; the 1970s, when feminist anthropology reoriented analysis to a focus on women, power, and authority; and the “dialogic turn,” when ethnography began to include women’s voices, the presence of the anthropologist in the text, and attention to the power relationship between the researcher and the interviewee. Each period entails its own omissions and silences, but acknowledging them allows anthropologists to make more provisional conclusions and be forward looking, seeking ways to shift our future theoretical frameworks and reinterpret our observations.

中文翻译：

---

我的纳瓦霍田野调查中的遗漏和沉默：从亲属关系研究到性别生活史

本文以纳瓦霍社区的长期研究为例，考察人类学研究的社会建构（包括理论框架和写作策略）如何塑造任何特定历史时期的沉默和遗漏。随着几十年来关系的转变和加深，性别、种族、年龄和经济/政治转型也起到了揭示一些遗漏的作用，同时也造成了其他遗漏。我概述了三个主要时期：1960 年代，当时强调理论问题、数据分析和客观主义散文的社会科学模型占主导地位；1970 年代，女权主义人类学将分析重新定位为关注女性、权力和权威；以及“对话转向”，当民族志开始包括女性的声音时，人类学家在文本中的出现，并注意研究者与受访者之间的权力关系。每个时期都有自己的遗漏和沉默，但承认它们可以让人类学家做出更临时的结论并具有前瞻性，寻找改变我们未来理论框架和重新解释我们观察的方法。