RESPONSE/ ETHNOGRAPHIES AS TEXTS AND THE THIRD EYE/ WEEK 2

The shift in experimental enthnographic writings from us-them to me-them is interesting to consider in regard to the relationship that can be established between the readers of these texts and their subjects. Marcus and Cushman also emphasize the importance of this trend in writing as legitimizing or at least acknowledging the "dialogical mode embodied in the discourse between ethnographer and informant".
As Chris referred to in his post, this new framework allows for multiple world views and also attempts to allow the subjects of the field work to speak for themselves.

"Realistic ethnographic account has long been almost dogmatically dedicated to presenting material as if it were , or faithfully represented, the point of view of its cultural subjects rather than its own culture of reference"(34)

Marcus and Cushman write that this movement toward ethnographer as the "translator" of a culture is more honest and actually works more effectively to establish authority than the previous fundamental model where the ethnographer wrote in a more absolute and scientific matter, essentially removing himself from the final text.

"Ricoeur provides the theoretical stimulus for accomplishing the textualization of fieldwork discourse so that data can be framed in a way that compliments the conception of the ethnographer as translator or reader of texts...these generalized texts, set up for interpretation by the ethnographic writer, are presumably authored by the culture."(43)

This new experiemental model works to reposition the reader of ethnographic writings by taking analysis of the field work itself out of its more traditional framework and allowing the reader the room to synthesize his own conclusions. Though this theory has its own flaws, the idea of making ethnographic writing more honest in its representation of its subjects moves us closer to bridging the gaps inherent between ethnographer, subject, and reader.