Critical Annotation of Watson Reading and Commentary Reading 5
Question One
Assignment 2 Reading
Watson, C.W. (Ed.). (1999).A diminishment: A death in the field (Kerinci, Indonesia). In Being there: Fieldwork in anthropology (pp. 141-163). London: Pluto Press. In his reading, A Diminishment: A Death in the Field (1999), Watson analysed two critical issues that have preoccupied anthropologists for nearly four decades. These issues include the extent to which personality of the anthropologist should be clearly inserted into any published ethnographic account and how a competent anthropologist should become during identification, description as well as analysis of emotions (Watson, 1999). In essence, the first argument is hinged on whether there are chances of allowing their partisanship to influence whatever they see including how their interpretation of it all. Therefore, people in the society should give up all the pretence that all their account is objective and consider putting the point straight regarding own involvement (Watson, 1999). Watson believes that anthropologists like many other social scientists do very little compared to what their counterparts in the natural science perform especially when describing their equipment alongside the conditions under which their research was conducted (Watson, 1999). It is high time anthropologists became explicit about themselves, the primary tool for gathering vital information and autobiographical features of their
Chapter 8 (Wagley) discusses fieldwork conducted in a small village with Tapirapé Indians in central Brazil. The chapter focused on a man named Champukwi who was a Tapirapé Indian man. Champukwi became a close friend of Wagley and provided him with information regarding Trapirapé culture. Champukwi would frequently visit Wagley’s house and help him with his research. In addition, Wagley and his employee Valentim Gomes took Champukwi on a trip to Furo de Pedra. Champukwi was not accustomed to the culture at Furo de Pedra as it was different in comparison to his. Champukwi became very curious and obtrusive as he would peer into homes of people and sometimes enter uninvited. Additionally, Champukwi told Wagley about village gossip which he would not have told if he was on village grounds. Champukwi’s relationship with Wagley
For Miner, he was writing from his years of personal observation of American homes, but often the anthropologist is not already a member of the community to be studied and must develop a rapport within a community. This relationship must be created without being deceptive and creating a negative impression so that members of the community will act naturally and not suppress their habitual or instinctive reaction to life issues (Kawulich, 2005). This method collects data not only from personal observation but also includes interviews, natural conversations, checklists, and surveys. The effective use of this method includes having a nonjudgmental attitude, being aware of culture shock tendencies, wanting to learn more about others, and practicing good listening skills (Kawulich, 2005). When the anthropologist properly explores the organized routines and ritualistic behaviors of the group, they become becomes a part of the community and reports the information about how the group is operating from a holistic understanding of the viewed events.
Before attempting to submerge oneself into the unknown and trying to understand the customs and behaviors of a foreign culture, an anthropologist first needs to inspect his or her own background and influences. In spite of all the efforts to be objective, a researcher’s personality will inevitably always be a part of the research. Even when he or she “sees” through the eyes
In Patrick Tierney’s article “The Fierce Anthropologist,” he discussed the faults that are, or may be, present in Napoleon Chagnon’s anthropological research of the Yanamamo, or “The Fierce People,” as Chagnon has referred to them in his best-selling book on the people.
The distinction between great and little traditions thus remains valid and vital although relatively few anthropologists have, over the years, been able to achieve the balance of philological, historical and anthropological talents required for their ideal study. As Redfield (1956) understatedly acknowledged when he outlined his vision, ‘It makes anthropology much more difficult and very much more interesting’.
Anthropology Introduction: Scales and Voices in World Historical Archaeology by Roberta Gilchrist How to Evaluate an Author’s or Experimenter’s Scientific Reasoning According to Critical thinking. (n.d.), the following template can be used in analyzing the logic of the scientific article or chapter. 1. What are the main purpose (s) of this article?
2. Fieldwork - What I read from the text about A anthropologists fieldwork is pretty interesting. The fieldwork that is done by an anthropologist is to completely immerse oneself the culter of another. Doing that is the only true way to understand that culters way of life and to truley gane insight about it. A anthropologist will completely forget about there own culter and act as if there culter they are studying is the there own. This is usually done by living with the people that the anthropologist is studing, completely surrounding themself by there culter.
A few option models that recognize, oppose, and deconstruct the force relations and chains of importance regularly characteristic for anthropological examination are presently ascendant in the subject of anthropology. Lassiter (Collaborative Anthropologies) advances a model in which anthropologists work with interlocutors as associates to create ethnographies sensitive to and characterized by the interest of both parties (instead of only those of the anthropologist) (Lassiter 2005). Others advance anthropological engagement as social action, where the anthropologist grasps worries of those whose lives investigation is about. The anthropologist as extremist means, for some, subverting scholastic objectives and results of human sciences and utilizing the favoured position of humanities to advocate for particular goals characterised and wanted by the anthropologist's co-activists (e.g., Malinowski
“The processor doing ethnography does not limit ethnographers to the scholarly tasks of describing and interpreting cultural data” (Chang, 1992, p.189), as they have come up with theories from their actual field experiences. Through this some have identified the weaknesses, for instance, some see themselves playing the spoiler role. George Spindler stated that “fieldwork needs a balance between the ‘significant aspects of field research methods’ and the ‘personal dimension’ of fieldwork” (Change, 1992, p. 189). Change considered her field work as both a blessing in a course. A blessing because she could chart unfamiliar territory, and a curse as she was not able to associate with all the teens. She remained conscientious of her public image, as image was further influenced by association with specific students. Consequently, being friendly she could associate with a wider variety of students in her research.
The ethnographer must engage their subjects in manners that other fields do not; whereas reporters and documentarians might perform interviews, probably centered on one central topic, and leave once they have enough information to pen a good summary, ethnographers go further. Their jobs entail looking at the one central topic, but then connecting it to another element of life for their subjects, and then another, and so on. Ethnographers experience firsthand what their subjects live out on a daily basis, so that they may add their own perspectives and realize their own biases as far as certain aspects and issues go. Whereas people in other fields disperse and find their way back home after one round of discussions with locals, ethnographers stay even longer, subjecting themselves to the natives’ living conditions, engaging in more discussions and discovering more facts and, more importantly, stories.
Bronislaw Malinowski, an anthropologist who studied the Papou- Melanesians of New Guinea, strongly states that a published work within the field of ethnography is not considered valid until the ethnographer has fully immersed him/herself within the culture; this means living in the community and participating in daily activities. (Malinowski 1915: 18) According to Malinowski implanting one’s self within a culture is the only way to properly and completely
In the vast field of anthropology, there are many ways to investigate a particular society. The three readings; Being-in-the-Market versus Being-in-the-Plaza: Material Culture and the Construction of Social Reality in Spanish America, Excluded Spaces: The Figure in the Australian Aboriginal Landscape, and Indexical Speech across Samoan Communities all approach this topic differently. The first uses physical anthropology to examine the landscape, the second uses anthropological taboo to examine how this impacts the culture, and finally the third uses linguistic anthropology to analyze the home life of a tribe. Although all different in nature, each form plays a key role in understanding the world from the view of an anthropologist. As such this paper will examine the similarities and differences of each work. So that they can be compared to one another, to form a concrete view of the material, which enables the reader to fully understand how each work relates to one another.
Since the emergence of anthropology in the late 1800’s, the customs and methods of this academic discipline have been altered in many ways. It is assumed that in the early years of anthropology, theorists relied on travelers in order to articulate their theories (Dahl 2017). This practice is known as armchair anthropology and involves creating theories without any fieldwork. Some examples of famous armchair anthropologists include Edward Burnett Tylor and James Frazer. The work of both theorists involved no travelling or conducting of fieldwork. Early anthropology focused on primitive cultures and how societies transformed from being barbaric to civilized. In modern days, anthropology is discovering new topics to study every day and the information relies a great amount on fieldwork and lab work conducted by anthropologists to support their findings. As some of the early methods of anthropology continue to be used by anthropology, more are being developed in order to produce more efficient research and theories.
In conclusion, if developed under an anthropologist, the observation would have the common theme of factual data evidence incorporated into the critical writing analysis rather than the creative storytelling which was the case for my
Every day, anthropologists perform a vast assortment of activities and have several duties. According to the Chronicle Guidance Publications, anthropologists study, classify, and compare people. They examine social behavior, customs, languages, and traditions. Along with this, anthropologists study and compare whole cultures and societies. With this knowledge, they contribute in law activities, political leadership, and education. In addition to all of these actions, anthropologists also conduct fieldwork, assist in foreign relations, and resolve various conflicts.