Fabian argues there was a shift from a sacred to secular use of time in the enlightenment era. But this new understanding was far from neutral:
"It was Degérando who expressed the temporizing ethos of an emerging anthropology in this concise and programmatic formula: 'The philosophical traveller, sailing to the ends of the earth, is in fact traveling in time; he is exploring the past; every step he makes is the passage of an age.' … travel itself, as witnessed in Degérando's statement, is instituted as a temporalizing practice" (pg. 6-7).
Fabian calls this the 'denial of coevalness', a fantastic rendering of the anthropologist in the present but all subjects in the past. He argues language such as 'savage' and 'kinship' further separate and situate subjects in a distant past.
It seems the classification of countries today is similarly beleaguered by issues of hierarchy and temporality. The terms "third world," and "first world," (was there ever a "second world"?) have been abandoned, to be replaced by "developing" and "developed," or "pre-industrial" and "industrial." Are these neutral expressions or do they exemplify the anthropological use of time Fabian critiques? What are the implications? Are there alternate terms that avoid issues of temporality?
Fabian also critiques anthropologists for using what he calls a 'reflective' rather than 'reflexive' voice, one that hides the presence of the author. He says this can lead to a "epistemological hypocrisy," (page 90) and points to a passage of (the apparently much abused) Lévi-Strauss, who wrote "the American Indian who follows a trail by means of imperceptible clues…"
Clearly the cues were imperceptible to the observer, not the observed. And so subjective interpretations infiltrate texts without being overtly exposed as such. Another example, Fabian suggests, is the assertion "'they are born with rhythm,'" when in fact "we mean 'we never saw them grow, practice, learn.'" (page 91). Fabian goes so far as to suggest all anthropological work is nature "autobiographical."
This is interesting in the context of current debate around documentary film. While often made by liberal filmmakers with good intentions, a common approach is to infiltrate a differing socio-economic group (such as in Hoop Dreams, Boys of Baraka, or Girlhood) and present the filmmaker's interpretation up for popular consumption. (I suspect Fabian would also critique this as a 'commodification' of others' lives.) Is it possible for media requiring an intimate relationship with the subject to attain objectivity? Is it even desirable? Do audiences perceive nonfiction films as self-portraits or objective truth? How does revealing the presence of its maker impact perception and reception of a film?
---
Sequences of Nanook of the North represent past traditions of the Itivimuit tribe, such as the walrus hunt. In Flaherty's defense, some of these scenes were suggested by the participants themselves. And, at least according to Patricia Aufderheide, "generations of Inuit have also watched Nanook with pleasure, regarding it as a gift allowing them to know their traditions." (Documentary Film: A Very Short Introduction) But when shown to audiences, no reference was made to the fact these practices were not contemporary. Can we speculate on the motivation for this? Was it an ethical decision? What are the implications?
- posted by Maureen
' A work of art is a corner of creation seen through a temperament.' Emile Zola.
ReplyDeleteI know is suppose to be science but is very hard to scape our own baggage.
"Through A Glass Darkly"
I was responding to chris post!
ReplyDeleteThere were many important elements discussed in Fabian's article. The one point that I understood the most was how we "imply" words to everyday language and that it indicates a place in Time. For example "developing" and developed" also, first, second and third world countries. Though we did have second world countries we really do not use that term anymore. More often then not we refer to a country as third world.
ReplyDeleteI also enjoyed the discussion as to the meaning of "ethnographic present". Whereas if the ethnographer is writing in the present, 3rd, or 1st person and does that translate to the Time that the writing is available to anyone. My point made was that even in dialect we all speak in the third and first person, or in past and present in the same sentence and sometimes don't even realize it because of it being part of our everyday language, the words come naturally to us.
These two concepts allow deeper thinking but in the end, I still believe that Fabian is more or less over thinking what has already come natural to us as human beings. The use of dialect is what helps us define who we are the person we are all about.
This is in response to Laura's post:
ReplyDelete"[perhaps] ... Fabian is more or less over thinking what has already come natural to us as human beings."
Should we take for granted everything that has become "naturalized" by culture? After all, a few decades ago, certain kinds of everyday racisms were naturalized as "normal" and "unavoidable". Can there be a usefulness to rethinking and breaking down how cultural conventions -- even the ones that don't seem to have explicitly political effects, like linguistic conventions -- become "natural"?