Subjectivity and Objectivity in Anthropological Knowledge Anthropological Journeys: Reflections on Fieldwork by Meenakshi Thapan Review by: Carol Upadhya

Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 34, No. 48 (Nov. 27 - Dec. 3, 1999), pp. 3362-3364 Published by: Economic and Political Weekly Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4408654 . Accessed: 13/07/2013 06:05
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Economic and Political Weekly is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Economic and Political Weekly.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 14.139.125.182 on Sat, 13 Jul 2013 06:05:09 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Morgan'sadvocacyof Native American rights,for example). The nexus between knowledge and power- an issue thathas been somewhat neglectedin the debateson subjectivity Carol Upadhya - is explored andethnographic knowledge with great sensitivity by Savyasaachi, Anthropological Journeys: Reflections on Fieldwork, edited by Meenakshi drawing upon his own extensive and intense experienceof fieldworkwith an Thapan;Orient Longman, New Delhi, 1998; pp 320, Rs 275. adivasi Hisdiscussion demonstrates group. of the 'other' that the shibboleth of intersubjectivity THE edited volume under review is con- ledge, and representations cerned with the question of objectivity and in ethnographic thanelucidatesthe politics writing.The notion of masksrather was promotedby the of most social research.He asks: "What subjectivity in the construction of anthro- intersubjectivity to ethno- is the meaningandpurposeof fieldwork as an alternative pological knowledge. As the editor points postmodernists out in her introduction, this problem has graphicpositivism,but the end resultin in a social context wherethere are conbeen debated ad nauseam since the 1980s much of this literature was a rathernar- flicts over differenceswhich arise from as a result of the 'postmodern' turn in cissisticobsessionwiththeself in thefield social and cultural plurality and from anthropology, but without any clear de- and with the questto know the other,as political and economic inequalities?" ethno- (p 81).Conventional nouement.Inthiscollection we have mostly Thapanpoints out. Experimental 'dualistic' fieldwork Indian scholars drawing upon their field- graphic writing which foregroundsthe derivesfrom power, and the knowledge work experiences to reflect on this issue. subjectivity of the writer tends to it createsreinforces structures of inequalThe volume represents,in Thapan's words, personalise the process of knowledge ity anddomination. the aim of Therefore "a celebration of the intersubjective ele- construction and to drawattention away fieldwork, he argues, should not be a contextin process of learningbut of 'unlearning'. ment in anthropological research..."(p 5). fromthe widersocial-political are formed. This unlearningentails the rejectionof For the uninitiated, the question of which social understandings subjectivity and objectivity in anthropol- Also, the emphasis on intersubjectivity exploitativemodes of information gaththe eringas well as of one's presuppositions, ogy refers to the epistemological dilemma did noterasetheneedto contextualise common to all the social sciences that ethnographic timeexperience within 'objec- research agendaandresult-oriented stems from the fact that both the subjects tive' knowledgeof some sort in orderto framein favourof a moreegalitarian and and objects of social research are 'know- make it intelligible.Thus the opposition truly dialogical methodof enquiry.The ing' human beings whose consciousness betweenobjectiveand subjectiveknow- result of this unlearningprocess is the evenwhiletheterms "dissolutionof social boundaries[as a is formed through social interaction. It is ledgewasmaintained now widely accepted that because know- of referencewere slightly relocated. resultof] successfullyquestioningone's to this volume sociallyacquired Mostof the contributors beliefs, modesof thinkledge is constructed 'intersubjectively' the dichotomyof subjec- ing, habits and attitudes.This also inthere can be no 'objective' knowledge of fail to confront social processes, i e, knowledge based on tive and objective,with the exceptionof cludes the questioning of assumptions essay on Malinowski that inform the construction of the simple observation as in the sciences. The AmritSrinivasan's in that the split be- self' (p 111). is of and Gandhi. Arguing problem subjectivity complicated is rooted andsubjectivity The notionof dialogueas an effective anthropology because traditionally the tweenobjectivity method, subjectand object of knowledge construc- in western scientific epistemology,she fieldwork especiallyforresearch of an alterna- onwomen,is alsoputforward the development tion belong to 'different cultures' (para- advocates bySaraswati digmatically, western and the non-west- tive indigenoussocial science based on Haider,who presentsan accountof her toexperimentation and interactions with an informant ern), such that understanding is compli- Gandhi's approach (a female of westerncivilisation.How- slum-dweller) cated by cultural, linguistic, and social his critique in a difficultresearch situboundaries. As a partial solution to this ever, Srinivasan's equationof Gandhi's ation. In the dialogical encounter the in living with the fieldworker resolves to be fully 'honest' problem, the anthropological fieldwork practicalexperiments is a bitfar-fetched, and with the informant method known as participant-observation fieldwork tradition abouther own life as andextenexplicitly combines 'objective' observa- she failsto spellouthowthesemightform a tacticto elicit moreintimate kindof social sive information. of a different tion of one's quarry- the outsider's view thefoundation But it is preciselythis - with close interaction or participation science. She also ignores the fact that notion of the dialogicalthat is ethically as much troubling: in spite of its pretensions in their social life, aimed at producing Gandhiwas influencedperhaps to of the west as by opennessandreciprocity, movements theultimate aim 'subjective' understanding from the in- by romantic The writer'snation- of this 'dialogue'is to wrestconfidences side. Immersionin the cultureof the 'other' 'eastern'traditions. errors from the subject. For example, Haider is claimed to bring about a mental leap, alist zeal leads her into additional in trying taking the anthropologist out of her own stemming from a whole-hearted speaksof her initialfrustration of westernsocial science. to interviewa reluctant'Shanno':"Her cultural universe and enabling her to see demonisation the world from the perspective of another Contraryto what her essay suggests, hostilityandrudeness oftenmademe feel culture. the dialogue.I did lose objectivismdoes not necessarilyexclude like terminating The advent of 'postmodern' anthropol- ethical concerns,nor is the wedding of my patiencewith Shannosometimes..." withactivisma monopoly (p 259).Shefailstoaskherself ogy in the 1980s brought the question of socialresearch whyShanno subjectivity into sharp focus. Much of the of some Indiansociologists: even early was 'rude' and 'hostile', although she utilised their does recognisethe enormousdifferences discussion centred on the production of American anthropologists that structured their ethnographicknowledge, the role of the fledgling science for political activism in caste/class/power fieldworker in constructing this know- (Boas' campaign against racism and relationship. Nor does she questionwhy

Subjectivity and Objectivity in Anthropological Knowledge

3362

Economic and Political Weekly

November 27, 1999

This content downloaded from 14.139.125.182 on Sat, 13 Jul 2013 06:05:09 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

herselfupon sheshould thrusting persistin anunwillingsubject, despitehertheoretiof 'research as violenceand caldiscussion to the 'dualism' Theanswer exploitation'. andviolenceof fieldworkdoes not lie in with'action programmes', lkikngresearch the as Haidersuggests,butin re-thinking researchprocess itself in a much more radicalway, as Savyasaachi argues. was at one time Thissortof re-thinking of feministsocial science,and a hallmark argues that Thapanin her introduction feministtheoryhas madea majorcontributionto the debateon subjectivityand women's exobjectivityby emphasising from periences.But this is not apparent Haider'sessay nor from the other two that look at the issue of contributions of genfromthe perspective subjectivity discusses der. Loes Schenk-Sandbergen issues relatedto women in conventional of the field, highlighting the negotiations gender that are possible in 'other' cultures. Madhu Kishwar's discussion of familiar alsotreads research methodology rather naive: as an and territory appears sheworked activist rather than anacademic in thefield thatare outresearch strategies social science training. partof standard Denzil Saldanha's paper,'Subjectivity in Contexts addresses of Objectification', Marxianquestion- the rea traditional lationbetweenobjectiveclass categories class identity- by looking andsubjective andself-identificaat socialclassification tion in an adivasi community.This reminds the readerof Marx's dialectical of the problemof subjectivity resolution andobjectivity, andraisesthequestionof have looked why so few anthropologists to thatsourcefor a way out of theirdilemma.However,even Saldanha appears to haveneglected thelessonsof Marx:he does not raise the questionof the origin of categoriesof identitysuch as 'garib', nor does he considerthe possibilitythat thesesubjective havebeen categories might objectively constructedthrough supralocal politicalprocesses.In fact, most of the essays in this volume appearto view the subjectiveas an autochthonous doof the recentoutpouring main,neglecting workon the roleof 'objective'social and of politicalcategoriesin the constitution subjectiveidentities. At thispointI wouldlike to suggestthat theproblem of objectivity andsubjectivity does not stem from the in anthropology fieldwork methodandethnographic writing per se, as the postmoderncritique butfrommorebasictheoretical suggested, shortcomings. Perhapsthe most significant failing of pre-postmodemanthropologywasnotits 'naiverealism'(Madan)
Economic and Political Weekly

nor its neglect of the politics of representation (although these were serious enough), but its almost complete disregard for social theory as it had developed in cognate disciplines, especially sociology. Because most anthropologists, even the sophisticated 'postmoderists', were not aware that the debates in which they were engaged had long histories within other disciplines, they had to reinvent the wheel, as it were. It would be safe to say, for example, that positivism lingered on within anthropology much after it was declared dead and buriedwithin European and even American sociology - hence the continuing obsession with the problem of objectivity and its equation with observation and the 'outsider' perspective. As Srinivasan says, "...the problem of the subject in fieldwork needs to be located in the sociology of knowledge and not...in the ethnography of experience" (p 55). This lack of theoretical development and philosophical sophistication can be attributed in part to anthropology's historical alignment with the natural rather than the social sciences. The emergence of fieldwork as social anthropology's research method par excellence was a product of its historical links with 19th century natural history and science, and anthropology derived from the latter an empiricist emphasis on the observation of life forms in theirnaturalsettings [Kuklick 1997]. The modelling of anthropology on the natural sciences was influenced no doubt by the fact that its chosen subjectmatterwas the 'primitive',a form of human defined as outside of history and civilisation and therefore amenable to observation in the same way as were plants and other animals. It was only much later in its history that questions of subjectivity and 'native models' came to the fore. And it was even later that anthropology's subjects began to be perceived as historical agents with theirown agendas, andthat anthropology was recognised as an instrument of colonial domination of those subjects rather than of knowledge about them. Because of their scientific bent of mind, anthropologists were late in recognising the,epistemological problems that are inherent in the 'participant-observation' method, and most anthropologists lacked the training in philosophy or humanities that might have pointed them in the direction of a solution. Thus, for example, mainstreamAnglophone anthropology has not drawn significantly on the work of Weber on the question of subjectivity nor on the debates on ideology and

have turned recentlythatanthropologists to these traditions,and to history and philosophy,to searchfor new answersto T N Madanin his essay theirdilemmas.2 confirmsthis view when he writes that over the yearshe has "...leaned moreand and found moretowardsthe humanities, socialhistoryandliterature richersources of inspiration in my anthropological work thanthe natural or biologicalsciences ... I havealsobecomeincreasingly conscious of the significanceof cultivating a philoin the specificsense sophicalperspective of comparative ethics"(pp 159-60). The problemsthatseem to ariseout of the fieldworktradition,then, have their as suchbut originnot in the methodology in thetheoretical of the poverty discipline, a povertywhichis exemplifiedin anthropology's abidingdevotionto the concept of culture.Althoughthe questionof subjective knowledgehas been tied up with the idea of culturaldifference(the problem of knowing the other),most of the essaysin thisvolumefail to cometo terms withtheproblematic statusof theconcept of cultureitself. Because the conceptof culture hasbeenextensively deconstructed and debatedin recentyears,few anthropologistsnow find it easy to use the term except in invertedcommas;yet most of the contributors to this volume continue to use 'culture'in the conventional sense - as a reified propertyof communities which definesandexplainsgroupdifferences. This usage is implicit in phrases such as 'my culture', 'other cultures', andso on. betweencultures', 'negotiation Here the idea thatcultureis the primary axis of human differentiation is hardly questioned. Yet without this premise, whichis aphilosophical (or,I wouldargue, ideological)positionandnot a 'scientific truth',the majorproblemsdiscussedin this volume - intersubjectivity, the outsider-insider dilemma,or the questionof the self and the 'other' - disintegrate. does raisethe questionof "What Thapan is an 'other' culture and for whom?" on thepoliticsof (p 10),butthe emphasis locationdraws our attentionaway from the problematic statusof the construction of otherness(and selfhood) itself. The basicquestionof 'whatis an other culture-' is addressed in two essays. T N Madan provides an interestingaccountof his love affairwithanthropology over the years,in whichhe discusseshis own strugglewiththe subjectivity-objectivity problemin the contextof his early fieldworkamongruralKashmiri Pandits. The sage advicetendered by severalprothe sociology of knowledgethat devel- fessors- thathe shouldavoid lookingat his oped out of Marx'swritings.lIt is only Indologicaltexts lest he compromise

November 27, 1999

3363

This content downloaded from 14.139.125.182 on Sat, 13 Jul 2013 06:05:09 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

in thefield- revealstheextent objectivity to which positivism and behaviourism dominated theanthropology of the 1950s. withthisapproach Dissatisfaction explains of theDumontian thetrajectory schoolof Indiansociology which, with Madanin the lead,integrated fieldwork(the objective stance)withIndology(thesubjective view). But while Madanchallengesthe insider-outsider dichotomyin fieldwork, he retains the ideaof anthropology as the 'mutual of cultures' interpretation (p 157). KirinNarayan's essay, 'How NativeIs a 'Native' Anthropologist?' (previously confrontsthe insider-outsider question directlywith regardto the debateon the relative objectivity of 'native' versus She arguesthat foreignanthropologists. the idea of the nativeanthropologist is a colonialhangoverthatis no longerrelevant in this fragmentedworld, where identityis always madeup of a complex of cultural strands whichmaybe invoked in differentcontexts. She also suggests that all anthropologists are in essence cultural of theirbackhybridsregardless grounds,because they belong "simultaneouslyto the worldof engagedscholarlife"(p 164). shipandthe worldofeveryday But her argument for replacingthe outsider-insider withtheconcepts dichotomy of 'enacting hybridity' and 'multiplex subjectivity'is premisedupon the same time-wor assumption thathumankind is comprised of a catalogue of discrete cultures, which are then blended and interwovenwithin individual subjectivities throughprocesses of negotiation, and so on. politicisation, Chaudhuri's Maitrayee interesting piece on the construction of Asian American ethnicityamong NRIs in the US foregroundsthe slipperinessof the culture its connection with by illustrating concept of ethnic politics.The formation identity identity involves the objectificationof culture,which is presumedto be shared by membersof the in-group. But this 'sharing'involves acts of inclusionand exclusionin whicheven unwillingrepresentativesof 'Indianculture',who have nothingto do with:these identitypolitics, areropedin as ethnickin.Intheacademic world, anotherkind of culturalpolitics holdssway,as whenintellectuals fromthe worldare forcedto perform non-western as 'othernessmachines'(p 211). Chaudhuri's discussion raises a question of relevance whodefines great todayinIndia: a 'culture' orcommunity andwhodecides who is includedin thatculture(or community,or nation)? 'Indianculture' in theAmerican context is a product of
3364 published in American Anthropologist)

multiculturalistdiscourse which has arisen within a particularpolitical system, rather than something that is brought along as part of immigrants' baggage. Worthy of furtherdiscussion would be the re-export of this 'Made in America' 'Indianculture' back to India and its positive reception among certain classes. Veena Das' essay points to anotherhole in the concept of culture. She argues that anthropology has used culture theory to 'render other societies knowable' by discovering order within chaos (p 42). By emphasisingthe rationalkernelwithineach culturalorder,anthropologicalenquiryhas largely ignored violence, irrationality,the dark side of human nature.She points out that the anthropological quest to understand 'other cultures' contains within it the threat of scepticism because it destabilises one's faith in the rationality of one's own world-view. "Thus an anthropological engagement with other societies comes to meet the unknown or unacknowledged aspects of one's own life precisely at the point when one begins to allow that the scepticism about the other worlds we have encountered need not be met only by objectifying and translating their concepts into an agreed rational language" (p 48). Das goes further than most of the other contributorsin attacking

the problem of subjectivity at its root the idea of culture as an 'objective' and socially definitive reality. And as several others have recognised, this is where we must begin if we want to reconstruct anthropology as a humane and committed social science - not with endless reflections on intersubjectivity in research and writing but with a hard look at theory and its consequences.

Notes
1 The deep institutional split between anthropologyand sociology in the US and the UK is another facet of this problem. The unificationof these disciplinesin India,as well as the reproductionof positivism and lack of theoreticaldevelopment in Indian sociology/ anthropology,are discussed by Srinivasan. 2 But I mustpoint out here thatthe debateabout whether anthropologyis a science still rages within American anthropology, and that the positivist conception of objectivity continues to reign supreme within much of Indian anthropologyas well - a volume such as this being the exception rather than the rule.

Reference
Kuklick, Henrika (1997): 'After Ishmael: The FieldworkTraditionand Its Future'in Akhil Gupta and James Ferguson (eds), Anthropological Locations,Universityof California Press, Berkeley.

REVIEW OF WOMEN STUDIES

October 30, 1999 The Added Years: Elderly in India and Kerala Law and Women of Age: A Short Note Ageing and Women in India Ageing of Women in Post-MenopausalStage: Need for Intervention Three Tales of Ageing On the Fine Edge of Real and Fictional Some Comments on National Policy on Older Persons Ageing Women in a Welfare State: Cracks in the Utopia? - Leela Gulati S lrudaya Rajan - Flavia Agnes - Malini Karkal - Murli Desai - V Geetha - Krishna Sarbadhikary - C P Sujaya - Maithreyi Krishnaraj

The Review of Women Studies appearstwice yearly as a supplementto the last issues of April and October. Earlierissues have focused on: Gender Inequities: Focus on Tamil Nadu (April 1999); Negotiating Gender through Culture (October 1998); Women and Independence:Looking Back (April 1998); Women, Work and Health (October 1997); At the Grass Roots (April 1997); Gender and Development Indices (October 1996); Women and Science (April 1996). For copies write to Circulation Manager Economic and Political Weekly Hitkari House, 284, Shahid Bhagatsingh Road, Mumbai 400 001

Economic and Political Weekly

November 27, 1999

This content downloaded from 14.139.125.182 on Sat, 13 Jul 2013 06:05:09 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions