ABSTRACT This 1article reflects on practice-led research involving a community video project in southern India. The filmmaker also asked four of the women in this project if they would use their cameras to film their everyday lives. In the early 1980s, Barbara Myerhoff mentioned in a conference panel session the concept of a ‘third voice’ created through participatory research, when the ethnographer’s and the subjects’ contributions are edited together in such a way to form a new perspective [Kaminsky, M. 1992. “Myerhoff’s ‘Third Voice’: Ideology and Genre in Ethnographic Narrative.” Social Text 33: 124–144 (127)]. In this article, the filmmaker discusses how she used participatory and observational documentary techniques and ‘video diary interviews’, to produce five different sources of footage ‘blended in such a manner as to make it impossible to discern which voice dominates the work … films where outsider and insider visions coalesce’ [Ruby, J. 1991. “Speaking for, Speaking About, Speaking With, or Speaking Alongside: an Anthropological and Documentary Dilemma.” Visual Anthropology Review 7 (2): 50–67 (62)]. This article examines the challenges of working in this way and considers whether this technique of filmmaking can reveal new knowledge about the everyday lives of four particular women living in rural Andhra Pradesh.

中文翻译：

---

定位“第三种声音”：参与式电影制作与印度农村的日常生活

摘要 这篇文章反映了以实践为主导的研究，涉及印度南部的一个社区视频项目。制片人还询问了该项目中的四名女性，她们是否愿意用相机拍摄她们的日常生活。在 1980 年代初期，Barbara Myerhoff 在一次会议小组会议上提到了通过参与式研究创建的“第三种声音”的概念，当时民族志学者和受试者的贡献以这种方式一起编辑以形成新的视角 [Kaminsky, M . 1992. “迈尔霍夫的‘第三种声音’：民族志叙事中的意识形态和流派。” 社会文本 33: 124–144 (127)]。在这篇文章中，电影制片人讨论了她如何使用参与式和观察性纪录片技术以及“视频日记采访”，制作五种不同来源的镜头，“以这样一种方式混合在一起，以至于无法辨别哪个声音在作品中占主导地位……局外人和内部人士的愿景融合的电影”[Ruby, J. 1991.”Speaking for, Talk About, Talking With ，或边说边说：人类学和纪录片的困境。” 视觉人类学评论 7 (2): 50–67 (62)]。本文探讨了以这种方式工作的挑战，并考虑这种电影制作技术是否可以揭示有关居住在安得拉邦农村的四名特定妇女日常生活的新知识。