[I rediscovered this entry dated on 2nd Oct 2011 while revisiting my fieldnotes recently. I find the condescending tones
here amusing, which perhaps reflect the frustration that I was experiencing in
fieldwork then. Since this is unlikely to get to anywhere else, I thought I’d
just share it for people’s amusement. It’s obvious that I felt a bit smug about
coming up with this metaphor at that time; but now I realize it was probably a
metaphor of Geertz's surfacing from my subconscious.]
Intellectually, the game is shallow and boring; and the anthropologist feels this by instinct. But until he has figured out the rules, he is actually the most vulnerable and stupid among them all. The anthropologist knows that the players are also boring and shallow: their laughter, their banters…all quite trifle; but even for the boring and shallow, some rules govern their actions; and until the anthropologist uncovers those rules—they may not be stable but rather dynamic rules that are re-/constructed on the go—he cannot dismiss them. He has to produce an account adequate enough to explain the players’ behaviors; he is an anthropologist of the shallow and boring, but his understanding is neither shallow nor boring.
Well, sounds interesting, but isn't this only one aspect of anthropological research? People are not always aware of the rules behind their daily activities. Or maybe we shouldn't be too obsessed with 'rules'. I don't believe rules alone can explain human behaviour and emotions.
ReplyDeleteI have been wondering for years why researchers can be so pretentious. I guess it is analogous to fashion shows. We don't normally wear those types of clothes in such exaggerated styles. But these designs informs the way fashion goes. In a similar manner, social scientists are trying to direct our value systems and opinions on certain social issues. Researchers are doomed to act and write in such a way so that the very notion of 'research' itself is endowed with value and respect.