ABSTRACT

Postmodern anthropology has used the claims of reflexivity, inter-subjectivity and recognition of differences in individual experiences in its attempt to unsettle the authority of traditional anthropology. This has led anthropologists to assert that ethnography is a cultural construct, whereby ‘fieldwork’ is conceptualised as ‘embodied spatial practice’. Drawing on village studies from India, this paper argues that the recognition of different embodied practices of ethnographers from diverse social locations has not necessarily led to the democratisation of the discipline. Conversely, insufficient engagement with hierarchical, overlapping power relations within the ethnographic field, as well as within the disciplinary establishment, has led to the standardisation of disciplinary articulations of research ethics, the terms of which privilege hegemonic groups within the discipline. The articulation of the concerns of scholars from marginalised social groups often remains difficult within such disciplinary frameworks. This paper argues that establishing a critical tradition in ethnography in the true sense requires the postmodern sensibility of recognition of the differences in experiences, supplemented with feminist and subaltern critical interrogations of power and knowledge.

摘要

后现代人类学利用反身性、主体间性和承认个体经验差异的主张，试图动摇传统人类学的权威。这导致人类学家断言民族志是一种文化建构，由此“田野工作”被概念化为“具体化的空间实践”。本文借鉴印度的乡村研究，认为承认来自不同社会地点的民族志学者的不同具体实践并不一定会导致该学​​科的民主化。相反，在人种学领域内以及学科机构内对等级、重叠的权力关系的参与不足，导致了研究伦理的学科表述的标准化，学科内的霸权群体特权的条款。在这样的学科框架内，表达边缘化社会群体的学者的关注点通常仍然很困难。本文认为，在真正意义上建立民族志的批判传统需要后现代感性的认识差异的经验，辅以女权主义和从属的对权力和知识的批判性审问。