Aditya Thawardas | Peoplesoft: 3804743

Priyadarshini - Tuesday 11 a.m.

Essay Question #1
10/22/2013

When you look at cultures from the exterior you get a very generalized
view of what the culture is really about. Stereotypes and ethnocentrism can
cause an unintentional, or even intentional biased view in what you see that
doesnt accurately let you see the intricate details of a culture. Cultural
anthropologists, when conducting ethnographic fieldwork for their
ethnographies such as Anne Fadiman and Keith Basso for The Spirit Catches
You and You Fall Down and Wisdom Sits in Places, manage to reveal the
details of a culture which were previously hidden by building rapport and
getting information through interviewing as cultural, and then expressing
their findings through thick description.
Ethnographic fieldwork is obviously vital in uncovering the secret,
complex details of a culture. In certain situations, participant observation is
also necessary, but only if it is done correctly. As we discussed in class,
people often act differently than they usually do when they are being
observed by anthropologists. Anthropologists need to find a way to watch a
culture and experience the way they appear naturally as if nothing was
being observed and no additional variables were in place. Building rapport
and appearing as a member of the culture is a great way to accomplish this.

Keith Basso in his fieldwork for Wisdom Sits in Places did a brilliant job with
this. Specifically, he uncovered secrets by asking good, informative
questions. Considering Basso was doing a good thing for the Apaches,
creating a much-needed map that would simplify and streamline navigation
for themselves and others, the Apaches were willing to help out and explain
to Basso what exactly was going on with place names in the Apache culture
when at first the concept probably almost seemed too foreign to even get a
grasp of.
Basso explained in the preface exactly how he was going to get the
information he needed, in three semi-related steps: 1) traveling with Apache
consultants, 2) talking with consultants in the places that they reside in most
about place-names in conversation, and 3) listening with a newly sensitized
ear to how place-names are used in conversation by Apaches (1996: xv).
At first, the Apaches were hesitant to take Basso with them and teach
him the details of their culture. Especially when, during Bassos first trip, he
could not pronounce an Apache term, and in response, Charles snapped at
him for being disrespectful for mispronouncing a name that their ancestors
created (1996:10). Basso managed to overcome this first setback to get the
information he needed, by listening intently and making a point to fix his
pronunciation, as well as any other criticism he received. In a culture that
was foreign to him, in which he was involving himself in participant
observation, he made it a point to blend in and not cause problems, in order
to watch and listen to the Apaches natural behavior. In a sense, he was

building rapport so that the Apaches would open up to him and reveal what
was once hidden.
Another example in which Basso had to reveal a story that was once
hidden was when Talbert Paxton asked for his job back from Dudley and
Charles after embarrassing himself by throwing himself into malicious
activities. The entire conversation consisted of just five lines, through which
Dudley is confusingly grinning, then nervous, and then happy again. Basso
was obviously extremely perplexed. Because culture is intersubjective and is
shared between people, Basso had to work hard to understand what was
happening. Due to his prior knowledge, he had a basic understanding of
place-names and the place they had in Apache culture, but he had never
dealt with such an intricate, yet seemingly simple exchange such as this one.
As he asked Charles and his friends the correct questions, he learned what
each sentence in the exchange meant, which stories and kinds of stories
were being told, and what the overall meaning and resolution of the
conversation was. In a sense, he uncovered the mystery of Talbert, Charles,
and Dudleys exchange.
On the other hand, Anne Fadiman, for her book The Spirit Catches You
and You Fall Down, used less of a hands-on approach in her ethnography.
She used almost no participant observation, but instead depended on
interviewing informants to get information after the fact. In the preface
Fadiman explained that, as she interviewed the Lees and Lias doctors, she
grew fond of them, built a relationship with them, and it hence made her a

different kind of patient and a different kind of mother in her life in

general (1997: ix). Still, the way she handled her ethnographic fieldwork was
effective. She talked to the people directly involved, got both points of views
along the way, and put together what appeared to be an unbiased
ethnography.
Interviewing as cultural was essential for Fadiman when interviewing
the Lees. In the preface, Fadiman explains how sometimes she just wishes
that all of her recorded conversations with the doctors and the Lee family
could blend together into one, unified, understandable tape in which they
were speaking the same language. Fadimans ethnography managed to
accurately portray the struggles of both sides without appearing to have an
antagonist or protagonist. There wasnt really a way to be a participant in a
doctor-patient relationship considering various laws and decencies, so
Fadiman used thick description in describing her conversations. She deeply
studied her interviews and explained in great detail to the reader exactly
what the conversations were, and also what they meant. As an outsider,
Fadiman did a good job interpreting the struggles, and explaining the things
that were foreign to her, and her readers.
By speaking just to one doctor, or one hospital, Fadiman and her
readers would have an incomplete picture of what was going on. In the same
way, just speaking to the Lees, or just speaking to Jeanine Hilt, the social
worker that takes Lia in as one of her own, would also give a biased view of
what was going on. All sides had valid points, but had Fadiman not gone and

talked to all of the people she did, asking so many questions, other views
would have been left invisible. Even now, even with Fadiman haven spoken
to all of the people she did, there are no doubt views left out that could have
changed the whole story and painted a different picture. Fadiman tried her
best to uncover all of the information she could and paint the most complete
picture that she could of the situation, though.
One such example of Fadiman uncovering something that was
previously invisible is when she visited Jeanine Hilts house to interview her,
after talking to the doctors. The doctors had all given Fadiman a less than
sterling opinion of the Lees, and quite understandably, as they thought the
Lees were stubborn, not making an effort to work with them, and confusing.
When Fadiman paid Hilt a visit, however, Hilt had only good things to say
about the Lees, something that Fadiman had never seen before. Hilt talked
about how her own children and the Lee children enjoy each others
company, and how the Lee family in general is just a pleasure.
All due to Fadiman using fieldwork as dialogic, readers managed to
learn that the Lees were in fact good people that were being misunderstood.
Fadiman could have easily not visited Hilt at all, but a good anthropologist
like herself takes in every possible point of view for an ethnography like The
Spirit Catches You and You Fall Down.
Keith Basso did not use as much thick description as Fadiman did. It
seemed like Bassos book was a lot more relaxed and not as much of a strict
anthropological read as Fadimans. While Fadiman talked about her

conversations with intricate details, Basso instead may have paraphrased

conversations to make his writing flow more smoothly. Also, a lot of what was
being said was translated into understandable English in the first place, so
Basso had to make everything flow smoother, and a lot of meaning was
probably lost in translation as a result. Basso also didnt give much as
background information on the community that he was analyzing as he
probably could have to give more context to his readers for better
understanding of the Cibecue culture.
In conclusion, there are many different ways anthropologists can make
visible what might otherwise remain invisible, and it is up to the
anthropologist to decide what the best tactic is. A good anthropologist will
gather the information using the tactics that he or she chooses, and explain
in thick description and great detail what it all means to give a holistic,
accurate, and easy to understand summary in an ethnography. Keith Basso
and Anne Fadiman both did a good job with this in their own way, and
revealed a lot that would have still been invisible without their hard work.

Bibilography:
Basso, Keith H.
1996 Wisdom Sits in Places. Albuquerque, NM: University of Ne w
Mexico Press.
Fadiman, Anne

1998 The Spirit Catches You and You Fall Down. New York, NY: Farrar,
Strauss and Giroux.