Against Ethnography

Author(s): Nicholas Thomas

Source: Cultural Anthropology, Vol. 6, No. 3 (Aug., 1991), pp. 306-322
Published by: Wiley on behalf of the American Anthropological Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/656438
Accessed: 26-07-2015 19:44 UTC

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.

Wiley and American Anthropological Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Cultural Anthropology.

http://www.jstor.org

Against Ethnography
Nicholas Thomas
Australian National University

In March 1803 Lord Valentia was traveling through Awadh, a part of north
India which, as he observed, had not yet been liberated by the East India Company
from Muslim oppression. At Lucknow he was surprised to find in the Nawab's
palace an extensive collection of curiosities, including' 'several thousand English
prints framed and glazed . . . and innumerable other articles of European manufacture. "
The dinner was French, with plenty of wine ... the Mussulmauns drank none, [although] the forbidden liquor was served in abundance on the table, and they had two
glasses of different sizes standing before them. The room was very well lighted up,
and a band of music (which the Nawaub had purchased from Colonel Morris) played
English tunes during the whole time. The scene was so singular, and so contrary to
all my ideas of Asiatic manners, that I could hardly persuade myself that the whole
was not a masquerade. [Valentia 1809 I: 143-144]

This aristocratic colonial traveler's confusion could be taken to be emblematic of one of the predicaments of late 20th-century anthropology. The problem
of interpretation arises not from an ethnocentric expectation that other peoples are
the same, from a failure to predict the local singularity of their manners and customs, but from an assumption that others must be different, that their behavior
will be recognizable on the basis of what is known about another culture. The
visitor encounters not a stable array of "Asiatic manners" but what appears to be
an unintelligible inauthenticity.
This essay is concerned with anthropology's enduring exoticism, and how
processes such as borrowing, creolization, and the reifications of local culture
through colonial contact are to be reckoned with. Can anthropology simply extend
itself to talk about transposition, syncretism, nationalism, and oppositional fabrications of custom, as it may have been extended to cover history and gender, or
is there a sense in which the discipline's underlying concepts need to be mutilated
or distorted, before we can deal satisfactorily with these areas that were once excluded?
The current wave of collective autocritique within anthropology' has a paradoxical character in the sense that while reference is made to crisis, experimentation, and even radical transformation in the discipline, one conclusion of most
efforts seems to be an affirmation of what has always been central. Clifford, for
306

AGAINST ETHNOGRAPHY

307

instance, affirms that "ethnographic fieldwork remains an unusually sensitive

method" for cross-cultural representation (1988:23-24) and Borofsky's relativizing exploration of anthropological constructions of knowledge concludes with
rather bland reflections on the importance of ethnography (1987: 152-156).2 In a
very different genre, a recent guide to method in economic anthropology claims
that the "great future" of the subject arises from its "direct observation method
of ethnographic analysis" (Gregory and Altman 1989:ix). There seems therefore
to be one point about which we are all convinced, one stable term in a highly
eclectic and contested discipline.
The second feature of current debate relevant here is that while' 'writing"
and "writing-up" have been increasingly problematized (in a manner which is
essentially necessary and constructive), distinctions are constantly effaced between fieldwork, ethnographic analysis, and the writing of ethnography. 3 Gregory'
and Altman like many conflate methods of observation and analysis, and assume
presentation in the standard form of the monograph (cf. Marcus and Fisher
1986: 18-19). Of course, if the claims of cultural historians (e.g., Darnton 1984;
Dening 1988) to write "ethnographic history" are recognized, it might need to
be acknowledged that ethnography can be written in the absence of fieldwork (setting aside the metaphorical extension of that term to encompass the archives).
This article, in contrast, sustains a hard distinction between practices of research and the particular kinds of writing that we recognize as "ethnographic."4
The purpose of such an assertion is not, of course, to permit naive empiricist separations between observation and representation, since both research and writing
are clearly political, discursive practices. While methods and research techniques
such as inquiry through conversation and sociological questionnaires
may
strongly influence the form in which information is presented, and the kinds of
questions asked of it, the relationships between practical research technologies
and forms of writing should be evoked in a notion of mutual entanglement, rather
than some kind of determinism: it is obviously possible to generate similar analytic discourses from very different research procedures, and equally to use similar research procedures toward divergent theoretical genres. The survey, for instance, may be mainly associated with positivistic enumeration and claims about
correlations, but Bourdieu' s Distinction (1984) absorbs those styles to a limited
extent in a work of "social critique" that seems closer generically to an 18thcentury philosophical and empirical dissertation than it is to either the theory
books or case studies of postwar sociology. My argument is thus that while ways
of observing and ways of representing are often tangled up, and while methods
admittedly constrain and influence forms of presentation, fieldwork and ethnography are separable, and that at present it helps to situate the enduring problems
of anthropological vision in the constitution of the ethnographic genre, while leaving open the potential for another kind of writing energized by the experience of
the field.
While most comments on what has been variously called reflexive or postmodernist anthropology have been reactive and negative (e.g., Spencer 1989), I
take the overall perspective, if not the specific arguments, of works such as Writ-

308

CULTURAL

ANTHROPOLOGY

ing Culture (Clifford and Marcus 1986) and The Predicament of Culture (Clifford
1988) for granted. This article however attempts to move beyond the current debate by situating problematic features of anthropology, such as the tendency to
exoticism, in the constitution of ethnographic discourse. One obstacle here is the
commonsense epistemology of the discipline-which
no doubt accords with a
broader cultural model-that
understands knowledge primarily in quantitative
terms. Defects are absences that can be rectified through the addition of further
information, and more can be known about a particular topic by adding other ways
of perceiving it. "Bias" is thus associated with a lack and can be rectified or
balanced out by the addition of further perspectives. My preferred metaphor
would situate the causes of an array of moments of blindness and insight in the
constitution of a discipline's analytic technology: particular kinds of overlooking
arise from research methods, ways of understanding concepts, and genres of representation. This is essentially a model borrowed from feminist anthropology: as
those critiques developed, it became apparent that the essentially imbalanced
character of anthropological accounts of society could not be corrected without
complex scrutiny of methods and analysis, that "academic fields could not be
cured by sexism simply by accretion" (C. Boxer quoted in Moore 1987:2-3). It
is not clear, however, that the problems I discuss are analogous to illnesses; the
fabrication of alterity is not so much a blight or distortion to be excised or exorcised, but a project central to ethnography's rendering of the proper study of man.
Exoticism
Although Edward Said's work has aroused considerable interest in anthropology, the response has often been qualified or critical (e.g., Marcus and Fisher
1986: 1-2~ Clifford 1988:255-276).5 It is sometimes asserted that because anthropologists have engaged in many studies of European or American societies, and
are concerned with universal humanity as well as cultural difference, the charge
of exoticism is only partly justified. Without disputing either that work carried out
under the name of anthropology has been extraordinarily diverse, or that a misleading stereotype of the discipline has wide currency, it must be said that this
overlooks the fact that the presentation of other cultures retains canonical status
within the discipline. That is, despite a plethora of topics and approaches, there
are still strong prescriptions that certain anthropological projects (such as those
dealing with tribal religions) are more anthropological than others. The arguments
here deploy this stereotypic construct, even thought it is partly a misunderstanding
prevalent outside the discipline, and partly something that practitioners continue
to impose upon themselves and most particularly their graduate students. The object of my critique is thus an "analytical fiction" in Marilyn Strathern's sense
(1988: 10),6 and this reified idea of a diverse discipline can only be unfair and
unrepresentati ve of a variety of innovative approaches. But if what is said here
applies only in a partial way to work remote from canonical types, the converse
also applies, and the critique is valid insofar as anthropological texts actually do
take the form of ethnographic depictions of other cultures.

AGAINST ETHNOGRAPHY

309

Anthropology's most enduring rhetorical form uses a rich presentation of one

stable and distant culture to relativize cherished and unexamined notions imputed
to culture at home. Margaret Mead's Samoa destabilized certain ideas about sex
roles, while the Balinese polities of Geertz's Negara (1980) confound and deny
the central tenets of Western political thought. 7 A strand in feminist anthropology
establishes that cultural oppositions elsewhere set up as universals are peculiar to
the West; in contrast Hagen people have "no nature, no culture" (Strathem
1980). More recently, the central theme of Borofsky's Making History was' 'how
Pukapukans and anthropologists come to possess different 'ways of knowing' "
(l987:xvii). And the machine of relativist displacement can work very effectively
upon its own products: while Mead exposed the cultural specificity of certain
American personality types, Gewertz (1984; Errington and Gewertz 1987) has
taken Mead to task for her own unreflective deployment of Western constructions
of the individual.
This operation clearly gives the discipline enormous scope and potential, because it can proceed from topic to topic exposing previously unrecognized cultural
differences: the Samoans have a different concept of the person, the Balinese different concepts of time, the Australian Aborigines different constructions of space
and geography, the Tahitians different ideas of growth and age, while the Japanese presumably have a different conceptual model of a restaurant menu. And no
doubt they do. Without wishing to deprive the discipline of a thousand dissertation
topics, it must be recognized that there is great scope for slippage from the appropriate recognition of difference, and the reasonable reaction against the imposition of European categories upon practices and ideas which, obviously, often
are different, to an idea that other people must be different. Insofar as this is stipulated by this form of anthropological rhetoric, the discipline is a discourse of
alterity that magnifies the distance between "others" and "ourselves" while suppressing mutual entanglement and the perspectival and political fracturing of the
cultures of both observers and observed. As Keesing has recently observed, "because of the reward structures, criteria of publishability, and theoretical principles
of our discipline, papers that might show how un-exotic and un-alien other people's worlds are never getting written or read" (1989:460, cf. 469). Although
gestures are made toward the idea of common humanity and sometimes to cultural
universals, the postulate operates at such an abstract level that it does not override
the radical difference imputed to such people as the Balinese (and those works
that actually are concerned with universals, for instance in cognition and language, are generally very marginal to a discipline dominated by the sensitivity of
the local case study). Accurate ethnographic representation of stable and unitary
cultures thus conveys the radical difference of other peoples' original practices
and beliefs. It does not depict a succession of meanings and transpositions that
make cultures partly derivative and mutually entangled.
For instance, while caste in modem India has clearly been profoundly influenced by British codification and the transformation of warrior kings into bearers
of hollow crowns (Dirks 1987) the most famous anthropological account (Dumont
1980) is concerned above all with the opposition between Indian hierarchy and

310

CULTURAL

ANTHROPOLOGY

the individualism of the West (and ironically also with the alleged superiority of
purity over power). While the power-claims of cultural ethnography have been
based on rigor in cultural translation, in a more faithful, less ethnocentric account
of local belief, that facilitates a professional potlatch of sophisticated interpretations, there is clearly a certain selectivity; it is notable that matter to be translated
must come from somewhere different. For instance, while informants in the societies of the "kula ring" frequently make analogies between the famous shell
valuables (that they sometimes call "Papuan money") and European cash," that
strand of local discourse is not conspicuous in the cultural ethnography of the
Massim. Beliefs and notions that are not different take on the appearance of difference through the process of apparent translation, through a discourse of the
translation of culture. Although there are sceptics within anthropology (Keesing
1989), those in other disciplines appear to have had a more balanced view of the
problems of translation and exoticism. In justifying the use of English categories
such as "class" and "capitalist" in the analysis of Indian history, Bayly recently
suggested that although there are "dangers in glib comparison ... excessive
Orientalist purism has done little except make India seem peculiar to the outside
world" (l988:x).
The claim that anthropology is concerned with difference within as well as
between cultures is excessively charitable. There are, of course, works that deal
with conflict, disagreement about beliefs, and perspectival differences between
men and women, but these themes could hardly be said to have the same centrality
for the discipline as the operation of imputing difference between cultures. This
is in fact more accurately described as contrast, since the most persuasive and
theoretically consequential ethnographic rhetoric represents the other essentially
as an inversion of whatever Western institution, practice, or set of notions is the
real object of interest. Hence Balinese theater and aesthetics stand against the mechanical and narrowly political Western understanding of the state; and, without
endorsing Freeman's style of critique or ethological non sequiturs, it must similarl y be acknowledged that Mead's theoretical orientation and literary flair led her
to render Samoan freedom as the mirror of American constraint. The proposition
that the gift is only intelligible as an inversion of the category of the commodity
hardly requires extended discussion here (but cf. Parry 1986:466---467).
Many works of the relativizing style were or are intended to be critical, at
least in the minimal sense that they aimed to affirm the value of other cultures and
express a certain scepticism about "Western" ideas that were taken to be natural
and eternal. But the cultural critique depended upon the fabrication of alterity,?
upon a showcase approach to other cultures that is now politically unacceptable,
in its homogenization of others and implicit denial of the significance of migrant
cultures within the West. After so many decades of "economic development"
and conflict in tribal and third world societies, it is ludicrous if anthropological
commentary continues primarily to place such peoples in another domain, in a
space that establishes the difference and contingency of our own practice (cf. Fabian 1983). I am not saying that people are all the same, and that cultural differences are inconsequential; the challenge is not to do away with cultural difference,

AGAINST ETHNOGRAPHY

311

and with what is locally distinctive, but to integrate this more effectively with
historical perceptions and a sense of the unstable and politically contested character of culture. Hence, as Moore has noted, "understanding cultural difference
is essential, but the concept itself can no longer stand as the ruling concept of a
modem anthropology, because it addresses only one form of difference among
many" (1987:9).
The tendency to exoticize others could be regarded as a quirk of the individuals who become anthropologists, or an inevitable consequence of the encounter
of fieldwork. The second suggestion might seem compelling, given the pervasive
notion of fieldwork as the experience of an individual from one culture in another.
Though elaborated for the purposes of collective professional self approbation,
this notion of inquiry and interpretation from a liminal perspective clearly cannot
be dismissed. But the point that is profoundly mystified in contemporary anthropological consciousness concerns the forms and diversity of the differences at issue. If one is seeking out contexts in which a sense of "not fitting" or "being
elsewhere" facilitates heightened awareness of the singularity and contingency of
both the culture of the situation and one's own assumptions, then it is clear that
there are many circumstances in which these conditions exist. There are numerous
contexts in "Western" cultures in which alienation or foreignness facilitate cultural critique (a south London black woman in an Ox bridge college), and it is
obvious also that the crucial differences relate to age, sex, class, and various other
criteria, as well as the implicit ethnic categories that separate different "cultures." Or, to express the point differently, the notion of what constitutes cultural
difference seems to be restricted to distinction between an undefined "West" and
another domain of experience and meaning; the separation between these terms
energizes the interpretive project of ethnography, while difference might also be
situated between the sort of self-conscious exposition of local culture that is often
offered by senior men, and the voices of those without authority; between those
who stay in the countryside and those who have left; between those who hold fast
to what is valorized as local identity and those who appear to abandon it to become
Christians, Mormons, or communists. It could also, of course, be situated in difference among anthropologists, given that one of the reasons for engaging in research is to gather material that serves a particular argument.
From this perspective, the notion that fieldwork entails partaking of alterity
and thus requires an account of cultural difference is manifestly insufficient. All
the crucial questions are passed over because a multiplicity of cultural differences
are condensed. The contrastive operation discussed is almost inherent in any text
that explicates, or purports to explicate, the distinctiveness of a "culture." A
monograph is not about "other cultures" but rather another culture, and the fact
that this must at some level be treated as a bounded and stable system makes implicit contrast with a home-point almost inevitable even where there is no explicit
one-to-one juxtaposition. However, the number of cases in which showcase counterpositioning overtly animates analysis is considerable. Insofar as this is what
ethnographic writing is about, exoticism can only be disposed of by disposing of
ethnography, by breaking from one-to-one presentation into modes that disclose

312

CULTURAL

ANTHROPOLOGY

other registers of cultural difference and that replace' 'cultural systems" with less
stable and more derivative discourses and practices. These have a systemic character, but a dialectical account must do justice to the transposition of meanings,
their local incorporation. 10
It might be added that the theme of the difference of the other has been as
overplayed in anthropology as has the body in the library in detective fiction; even
ironic renderings (the body in the video library) seem merely to reproduce an established style that is not just unoriginal but seems rapidly to be becoming sterile.
It might thus be argued merely on literary grounds that it is about time for the
rhetorical form to be disfigured.

The Subsumption of Theory

The status of ethnography might also be problematized from an epistemological perspective. This is to open up a second line of criticism seemingly less
motivated by a political consideration (the objectionable aspect of inventing alterity) than a theoretical one: the view that the ethnographic genre localizes questions and thus refracts rather than generates any wider theoretical resolution or
cultural critique. However, this epistemological argument is also grounded politically: exoticism conveys a false view of historical entanglement and the transposition of meaning, while the particularizing effect of ethnographic discourse is
not merely unproductive theoretically but also associated with professional introversion and a failure to engage in wider discussion.
An enormous amount of anthropology is motivated by questions at a high
level of generality. Anthropological texts legitimize the specificity of their case
materials and the localized and particular character of analysis by their bearing
upon problems that are taken to be theoretically consequential-the
efficacy of
ritual, the nature of gift exchange, the intersection of status and power, the ritual
structures of divine kingship, the basis of gender asymmetries, and so on. But
what operation does the analytic technology of ethnography perform upon these
questions?
The argument here presupposes that our genre is a discourse of ethnography
and not a discourse upon it. I I The question here is of the extent to which writing
is or is not contained by the process of representing its object; the second type
makes strong claims to external authority and supposes an analytic apparatus that
is not subsumed by the matter with which it deals. A discourse of something, on
the other hand, may attempt to depict or analyze something that is external to it,
but constantly creates discursive and analytical effects that can only be understood
in terms of categories that are already internal to the discourse. There is, for instance, an obvious difference between the ostensibly apolitical theoretical discourse upon politics in the academic discipline of political science, and the discourse of politics manifested in the speech of a professional politician or activist.
The authoritative claims of the latter are highly self-referential; there can be no
external validation of statements because the object, interpretative agency, and
theoretical categories are conftated in the very process of revealing and rendering.

AGAINST ETHNOGRAPHY

313

The mode of representation recursively intertwines the moments of transcription,

explication of the terms for transcription, and the explanatory devices that position the products of transcription. Of course, it is clear that these binary categories, like all similar analytic fictions, cannot ultimately be sustained as polar
types, but the distinction can have theoretical effect if it is associated particularly
with the discourse of ethnography. I take Strathern to endorse Runciman's suggestion that the conventional understanding of the relationship between explanation and description be inverted: "Good descriptions in tum have to be grounded
in theory . . . the synthetic aims of adequate description . . . must deploy deliberate fictions to that end" (1988: 10). Strathern's claims about her own methods
may not reflect views about the general condition of ethnographic writing, but the
proposition put forward here is in fact that depiction, theory and analysis are characterized by a high degree of mutual dependence.
This is very obvious in some recent cultural ethnographies. For example, in
The F arne of Gawa (Munn 1986) there is a strong sense that no operation takes
place outside the elaboration of indigenous categories in theoretical terms, or the
reverse-that the elaboration of theoretical vocabulary is merely illustrated by indigenous counterparts. In this case, the analysis is brilliantly effective, but there
are few spaces for adjudicating plausibility or implausibility independently of internal coherence, and there is little scope for rereading ethnographic material that
is separable from the analysis from the perspective of a different kind of inquiry.
Ethnography thus establishes things in an empirically isolated and strictly illustrative manner; cases stand by themselves, and their adequacy depends more on
the effects created through internal analytical narration than either external theoretical validation or an interest in the replicability of findings (setting aside the
naive positivistic claims associated, for instance, with Freeman's' 'falsification"
of Mead). The assessment of a useful ethnographic book depends above all upon
the persuasive fictions of its analysis.
Munn's book might be regarded as an extreme case, but from the perspective
of this argument, it would be incorrect to consider this state of textual self-referentiality as a quantity present in some works to a greater degree than others. Such
an impression instead derives merely from distinct subjective reactions to different theoretical paradigms and devices such as Munn's neologisms. What for one
reader appear as clear tools are highly contrived for another. The view adopted
here, which may be counterintuitive, is that writing ethnography into the premises
of analysis is a basic condition of the genre.
I am not saying that prior assumptions play too substantial a role in the production of accounts of other cultures. The premise here is that any scholarly discourse is an illustrative outcome of a conjuncture of theoretical interests, disciplinary procedures, and case materials; questions of interest do not relate to the
relative proportions of these terms-that
quantitative epistemological metaphor
having been eschewed-but
instead concern the particular ways of seeing permitted or disabled by available disciplinary forms.
The most conspicuous feature of the discourse of ethnography is a disjunction between general questions in social and cultural theory of the kind mentioned

314

CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY

above and a way of writing that by its nature cannot resolve them. The dominant
process that takes place as issues of theoretical consequence are worked through
ethnographically is subsumption. The illustrative material can be seen in a singular way, but any revelations are ethnographically contained.
This may be briefly illustrated through reference to the ethnographic critiques of Ortner's important argument that universal gender asymmetry could be
explained on the basis of pervasive associations between the male/female and culture/nature contrasts (Ortner 1974). This was transposed to the register of ethnography in an influential collection of critiques (Strathern and MacCormack 1980)
that argued that the nature/culture opposition was a singular form in Western
thought, could not be seen as a cultural universal, and was not necessarily articulated with gender. While similar contrasts sometimes were present, and were
associated with gender in indigenous symbolic systems, the effect of the critique
was to expose a form of difference between these societies and Western thought
that had passed unrecognized in Ortner's analysis. Ethnography thus disposed of
a general argument and affirmed the difference and specificity of other cultures.
The point here is not simply that the particular thesis advanced by Ortner was
ethnographically disfigured, but that there was no way of moving back from these
critiques to any similar argument at the same level of generality. Nature, Culture
and Gender offers no basis for any theory comparable to Ortner's, and it is not
surprising at all that the equally significant and generalized arguments of Rosaldo
and Chodorow, which epitomized the scope and force of Woman, Culture and
Society (Rosaldo and Lamphere 1974) have been criticized on analogous grounds
(Moore 1987:22-24; see also Gewertz 1988 on Bamberger 1974). I am not, of
course, arguing that the various criticisms were not reasonable, but am concerned
with the epistemological point that the discipline is supposed to tack between general questions and ethnography, but appears to be capable of moving only in one
direction, into shallower water.
Departures
At this point I wish to establish a certain distance from the argument that I
have developed, by stressing that analogous propositions could be developed
about any academic discourse that is tightly connected with a particular methodology or form of writing. Insofar as prehistory is a discourse of archaeology, it is
a prisoner of a certain kind of historical, social, and behavioral reconstruction that
is at once partial and inevitably circular. Some similar points might be made about
the inevitability of denying the worth of oral traditions from the perspective of
archive-bound conventional history; such devaluation arises necessarily in a discipline that defines itself around rigorous work on a certain kind of material. Although there is a direct parallel with the dismissal of travelers' reports in anthropology, it should be stressed that the discipline's investment in the .practice of
fieldwork is less disabling than the dominance of a narrow range of ways in which
fieldwork is "written up." Hence the narrative and biographical genres of conventional history were ultimately more important than the fact that certain kinds

AGAINST ETHNOGRAPHY

315

of "primary" research might be privileged. The point here, though, is that while
this is a critique of ethnography's anthropology, it is not one that supposes that
some other scholarly discipline provides a model for a relationship between initial
general questions and the analytic form of the genre where the latter sustains
rather than subverts the former; if the hegemonic genres of anthropological writing now present themselves mainly as styles to be disfigured, the positive alternatives are not to be constituted through the old game of interdisciplinary borrowing, through the claim to fix up one line of inquiry by adding from another.
The association between exoticism and the marked tendency for ethnography
to render theoretical questions internal to local analyses is thus not entirely contingent. Both of these features of contemporary anthropology have a strong association with the dominance of ethnographic writing, which presents cultures as
unitary totalities. A book absorbed by a culture absorbed in a book cannot produce
a discourse upon ethnography, a discourse that uses ethnography to generate a
wider argument. At the same time the one-to-one juxtaposition that this form normally entails can only establish stability at a certain distance from the culture imputed to the reader; the truth of the ethnographic case depends upon its original
and nonderivative relation with the "us" to which it is opposed. It follows from
this, of course, that ethnographies that turn upon local comparison (e. g., Fox
1977; Leach 1954; White 1981) are likely to be less enmeshed in this orientalizing
and particularizing logic to the extent that dimensions of difference disconnected
from the us/them fiction are analytically consequential. The aim of this article is
not to condemn anything like the whole discipline, but to suggest that crucial
flaws are associated with the canonical model, rather than some superficial subjective interest in cultural authenticity. If there was merely a problem of self-deception, this would presumably have been expunged long ago. The persistence of
exoticism arises from the fact that it is precisely what ethnography is directed to
produce.
It is perhaps necessary to reiterate the earlier point that these arguments have
nothing to do with fieldwork, which is obviously a crucial way of learning. The
argument is rather that fieldwork should be drawn into other kinds of writing that
move into the space between the theoretical and universal and the local and ethnographic, and that are energized by forms of difference not contained within the
us/them fiction.
The potential responses are diverse. Montage clearly refracts and displaces
the pursuit of stable cultures through a succession of historical and experiential
contexts (as in Taussig 1987) and offers the most effective and radical assault
upon anthropology's tendency to fix a unitary symbolic system at a distance. 12
Here, however, I argue for an approach that in a sense is more grounded in conventional interests in an interpretative project, in analysis that works upon larger
problems toward a wider generative account of social and cultural phenomena.
From this perspective the reinvigoration of comparative anthropology appears to be crucial. The value of a method not contained by ethnography is apparent from its use from some feminist perspectives (Collier and Rosaldo 1981):
there is still a sense of political urgency about clarifying the broader nature of

316

CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY

sexual asymmetries, which has resisted the tendency for these questions to be
subsumed within a localized ethnography of gender relations. The importance of
comparison emerges also from the fact that some kind of explicit discussion of
regional relationships and histories is necessary if older ethnological categories
and adjudications are not to be implicitly perpetuated. Many areal categories,
such as "Melanesia" and "Polynesia" live on in contemporary anthropological
parlance as though they had linguistic or prehistorical validity, while misleading
typifications of regional social structures and cultural forms provide silent contexts for ethnographic case studies (cf. Thomas 1989b).
At this point it might seem desirable to present an example of the kind of
project envisaged here, but this would partly misrepresent the claims and intentions of the present article. 13 I do not appeal in a messianic manner to a style of
work that is unprecedented, which would be supposed to magically transcend the
orientalizing contrivance and particularism characteristic of the discipline at present. Since this critique is directed at a kind of canonical work, it is obvious that
much anthropological writing is not to be subsumed within that canon, and that
examples of comparative analysis already exist. The interest is thus in altering the
marginal status of that genre, and elaborating upon it in certain directions.
This is not to say, though, that there is an established style of comparison
that should simply be adopted and generalized. To the contrary, it appears that
much comparative work is inadequate because it is set up as a project secondary
to ethnography; one that perhaps operates at a higher level of generality, and with
more theoretical ambitions, but nevertheless one that is essentially parasitic upon
the richness of what can be described as "primary sources" (Strathem 1988: 10).
This is why it seems important to establish an intermediate level of writing
between problematic universalism and ethnographic illustration, a kind of writing
that incorporates ethnography but is not subordinated to it. At a theoretical level
this should be able to displace discourses of alterity by representing difference
within cultures and difference among a plurality (as opposed to one-to-one contrast). It should be able to combine nuanced firsthand knowledge of particular
localities with the interpretation of a broader range of "secondary" ethnographic
or "primary" historical descriptions. This type of grounding thus depends upon
a model of knowledge rather different to that implicit in various academic disciplines, where there is a strong if generally implicit idea that writing ought generally to be based on one's own specialized and original research. Other work is
often consigned to a secondary or residual category, such as that of the' 'literature
review" or textbook; even though it is obvious that many theoretically crucial
works have not derived from work that was primary in an empirical sense. A new
kind of post-ethnographic anthropological writing would presume the sort of local
knowledge that has always been critical for representing circumstances both at
home and abroad, but would refuse the bounds of conveniently sized localities
through venturing to speak about regional relations and histories. If case material
from a range of associated places cannot expose the historical contingency and
particular determination of social and cultural forms that might otherwise be up-

AGAINST ETHNOGRAPHY

317

held as relativizing ethnological exhibits, it is difficult to see any other approach

that could sever anthropology's roots in the colonial imagination.
What I'm suggesting, then, is not the old kind of positivist comparison that
seeks to establish general theories, but a form of analysis that uses a regional
frame to argue about processes of social change and diversity, that is critically
conscious of its own situation in a succession of European representations of such
places, that develops its arguments strategically and provisionally rather than universally. The significance of regional comparison arises from the fact that it is
concerned with a plurality of others, a field in which difference emerges between
one context and the next, and does not take the radical form of alterity in a gulf
between observers and observed. Difference is thus historically constituted, rather
than a fact of cultural stability. The contexts that can be explored are not necessarily fenced around as "other cultures" but include historical processes and
forms of exchange and communication that have permitted cultural appropriation
and transposition. The second strand of this conclusion is thus that while anthropology has dealt effectively with implicit meanings that can be situated in the
coherence of one culture, contemporary global processes of cultural circulation
and reification demand an interest in meanings that are explicit and derivative.
Otherwise the risk is that our expectations about other cultures, like those of Lord
Valentia, will prevent us from seeing anything in local mimicry or copying other
than an inauthentic masquerade. It's not clear that the unitary social system ever
was a good model for anthropological theory, but the shortcomings are now more
conspicuous than ever . We cannot understand cultural borrowings, accretions, or
locally distinctive variants of cosmopolitan movements, while we privilege the
richness of localized conversation and the stable ethnography that captures it. The
nuances of village dialogues are unending, and their plays of tense and person
beguiling, but if we are to recover an intelligible debate beyond the multiplicity
of isolated tongues we must surrender something to the corruptions of pidgins and
creoles, trading others' grammars for our own lexicons. Derivative lingua franca
have always offended those preoccupied with boundaries and authenticity, but
they offer a resonant model for the uncontained transpositions and transcultural
meanings which cultural inquiry must now deal with.
Notes
Acknowledgments. The encouragement and comments of Henrietta Moore, Pascal Boyer,
and Margaret Jolly made it possible for me to write this article; but it should not be presumed that any of these people agree with the positions advanced.
'The discursive entity is obviously diverse, and the reification required by any disciplinary
critique must be inaccurate with respect to a variety of idiosyncratic and innovative works.
My interest here is not in establishing that what is said applies to any single work (which
would prove nothing about the genre) or the statistical extent to which the claims apply to
the range of work.
"Ihe arguments here should not be read to denigrate the work of writers such as Clifford
and Marcus, upon which they obviously depend. While I take much of what they have

318

CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY

advanced to be essential to any novel and critical anthropology, my complaint is that the
question of exoticism in contemporary anthropology has been passed over-as though such
works as Anthropology and the Colonial Encounter (Asad 1974) had expunged the problem.
"This perhaps accounts for the curiously prevalent misconception that the authors of Writing Culture (Clifford and Marcus 1986) were putting reflection, criticism or some kind of
theoretical self-consciousness in the place of primary research; "it seems more than likely
that the book will provoke a trend away from doing anthropology, and towards ever more
barren criticism and meta-criticism" (Spencer 1989: 161). It was quite clear from Anthropology as Cultural Critique (Marcus and Fisher 1986) that at least two of the writers saw
a kind of critical ethnography, rather than any criticism detached from ethnography, as the
central project of the discipline; it might also be pointed out that since Writing Culture was
published some contributors at least have produced other substantive studies (e.g., Rabinow 1989) and not works of "metacriticism."
The notion that the 1986 collection and
associated publications represented an assault on ethnography is thus clearly false; this
article departs from both Writing Culture and its aggrieved detractors by insisting on a
fieldwork/ethnography distinction and using that as a basis for doing what the reflexive
theorists have been unjustifiably accused of doing-arguing
that ethnography's time has
passed.
"This was intended, but not made properly explicit, in Out of Time (Thomas 1989a). The
present article is intended to some extent to be an amendment to that critique, even though
it does not take up the question of ethnography's lack of history, which was central to my
book.
"This form of words may suggest that I do not regard criticisms of Said's project as justified;
I hope to explore the topic of the reception of Said's work in a separate article, but can note
briefly here that I agree with some of the points made by Clifford, but believe that most
anthropological critics have neglected the sense in which Orientalism is a work of specifically literary scholarship and secondly that it is but a part of a series of works that operate
at distinct levels of generality and with distinct purposes (Said 1978, 1979, 1981, 1984,
1986~ Said and Hitchins 1988). Some of these works are referred to by Clifford, but most
authors cite nothing other than Orientalism; I am not, of course, complaining about incomplete bibliographies, but draw attention to the fact that Orientalism has been criticized for
not doing things that Said actually has done elsewhere.
"Srrathern however implies that her propositions are simply intended to generate novel theoretical effects, as if the epistemological status of analytical fictions excludes both substantive claims, and disputation based on the noncorrespondence of a fiction with evidence.
If this is in fact the position of the preface to The Gender of the Gift, it would seem at odds
with what are in fact substantive propositions in the body of the text, and also a stance that
rather disables one's own analysis. My view, which mayor may not diverge from a position that Strathern did not succeed in expressing unambiguously, is that analytical fictions
are, like other forms of knowledge, partial (in the sense of being both interested and incomplete), and because of this condition (rather than in spite of it), may offer an account
of things in the world that is adequate for the purposes of a historically situated community
or array of people. Insofar as a fiction is seen to be representative, its substantive claims
are as true as any of the other things we believe.
7My use of Negara as a model of the one-to-one contrast that is fundamental to ethnographic writing is quite deliberate, since the historical character of the work makes it ob-

AGAINST ETHNOGRAPHY

319

vious that ethnography can and must be understood at a separate level from fieldwork.
However, as Marcus and Fisher have noted with respect to that book, the form of "cultural
criticism [offered] as epistemological critique . . . is also characteristic of many other
such works in anthropology" (1986: 145).
"Martha Macintyre, personal communication.
"This point that these varieties of cultural critique have a dark side is generally passed over
in Marcus and Fisher's discussion of various "techniques of cultural critique in anthropology" (1986:137-164). It is still possible to take arguments proceeding through phrases
such as "By contrast, Balinese conceptions of the state ... " (p. 145) as though they operated only upon the "Western" ideas that are displaced. It should be noted, however, that
they do discuss some of the shortcomings of the" static, us-them juxtaposition" (pp. 160162) and the ways in which consciousness has moved "to locate [an other culture] in a
time and space contemporaneous with our own, and thus to see it as part of our world,
rather than as a mirror or alternative" (p. 134). However, their suggestions that cultural
critique would revolve around anything other than juxtaposition or the repatriation of methods employed to study the exotic are weakly developed. It is notable that what is loosely
called reflexive anthropology has not engaged much with feminism, while the perspective
advanced here takes the feminist critique of perspectival and political difference within
cultures as a model for breaking from a discourse preoccupied with difference between.
10According
to Sahlins, world systems theorists argue "that since the hinterland societies
anthropologists habitually study are open to radical change, externally imposed by Western
capitalist expansion, the assumption that these societies work on some autonomous cultural-logic cannot be entertained. This is a confusion between an open system and a lack
of system" (1985:viii). The question that is not addressed, however, is quite what this
openness generates: in Sahlins' view, events and external intrusions are creatively turned
to the purposes of a local cultural order. This is to save structural anthropology's set of
original meanings from historical transposition, and is an apt approach (irrespective of the
plausibility of realizations) for histories of early contact. The problem arises from the fact
that these hardly exemplify global processes or even later phases of colonial contact; here
the cultural ramifications are analogous to linguistic creolization. I do, however, agree with
Sahlins that global systems theory is not up to the task of accounting for' 'the diversity of
local responses to the world-system-persisting,
moreover, in its wake" (1985:viii).

"This distinction is abducted from the work of Peter De Bolla (1989:34 and passim). It
will be obvious to anyone who consults this book that I have distorted and recontextualized
the contrast for my own purposes.
"There are, however, arguably risks that authorial encompassment is relocated covertly
through the refusal to enunciate precise arguments and methodological claims (cf. Kapferer
1988).
13 A comparative
study of exchange, transcultural movements of material culture, and colonial history in the Pacific (Thomas in press) does however attempt to exemplify the style
of comparative and historical analysis advocated here.

References Cited
Asad, Talal, ed.
1974 Anthropology and the Colonial Encounter. London: Ithaca.

320

CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY

Bayly, C. A.
1988 Indian Society and the Making of the British Empire (New Cambridge History
of India 11.1). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Borofsky, Robert
1987 Making History: Pukapukan and Anthropological Constructions of Knowledge.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre
1984 Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. London: Routledge.
Clifford , James
1988 The Predicament of Culture. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Clifford, James, and George E. Marcus, eds.
1986 Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography. Berkeley: University
of California Press.
Collier, Jane F., and Michelle Z. Rosaldo
1981 Politics and Gender in Simple Societies. In Sexual Meanings: The Cultural Construction of Gender and Sexuality. Sherry B. Ortner and Harriet Whitehead, eds.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Damton, Robert
1984 The Great Cat Massacre and Other Episodes in French Cultural History. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
De Bolla, Peter
1989 The Discourse of the Sublime: Readings in History, Aesthetics and the Subject.
Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Dening, Greg
1988 History's Anthropology: The Death of William Gooch. Lanham, Md.: University Press of America.
Dirks, Nicholas B.
1987 The Hollow Crown: Ethnohistory of an Indian Kingdom. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Dumont, Louis
1980 Homo Hierarchicus. Second edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Fabian, Johannes
1983 Time and the Other: How Anthropology Makes Its Object. New York: Columbia
University Press.
Fox, James J.
1977 Harvest of the Palm. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Geertz, Clifford
1980 Negara: The Theatre State in Nineteenth Century Bali. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
Gewertz, Deborah
1984 The Tchambuli View of Persons: A Critique of Individualism in the Works of
Mead and Chodorow. American Anthropologist 85:615-629.
Gregory, C. A., and J. C. Altman
1989 Observing the Economy. London: Routledge.
Kapferer, Bruce
1988 The Anthropologist as Hero: Three Exponents of Post-Modernist Anthropology.
Critique of Anthropology 8(3):77-104.
Keesing, Roger M.
1989 Exotic Readings of Cultural Texts. Current Anthropology 30:459-479.

AGAINST ETHNOGRAPHY

321

Leach, Edmund
1954 Political Systems of Highland Burma. London: Athlone.
Marcus, George E., and Michael M. J. Fischer
1986 Anthropology as Cultural Critique: An Experimental Moment in the Human Sciences. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Moore, Henrietta L.
1987 Feminism and Anthropology. Oxford: Polity Press.
Munn, Nancy D.
1986 The Fame of Gawa. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ortner, Sherry B.
1974 Is Female to Male as Nature is to Culture? In Woman, Culture and Society.
Michelle Z. Rosaldo and Louise Lamphere, eds. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Parry, Jonathan
1986 The Gift, the Indian Gift, and the "Indian Gift." Man 21 :453-473.
Rabinow, Paul
1989 French Modem: Norms and Forms of the Social Environment. Cambridge,
Mass.: MIT Press.
Rosaldo, Michelle Z., and Louise Lamphere, eds.
1974 Woman, Culture and Society. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Sahlins, Marshall
1985 Islands of History. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Said, Edward
1978 Orientalism. London: Routledge.
1979 The Question of Palestine. New York: Times Books.
1981 Covering Islam: How the Media and the Experts Determine How We See the
Rest of the World. London: Routledge.
1984 The World, the Text and the Critic. London: Faber and Faber.
1986 After the Last Sky: Palestinian Lives. New York: Pantheon.
Said, Edward, and Christopher Hitchins, eds.
1988 Blaming the Victims: Spurious Scholarship and the Palestinian Question. London: Verso.
Spencer, Jonathan
1989 Anthropology as a Kind of Writing. Man 24:145-164.
Strathern, Marilyn
1980 No Nature, No Culture: The Hagen Case. In Nature, Culture and Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
1988 The Gender of the Gift. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Strathern, Marilyn, and Carol P. MacCormack, eds.
1980 Nature, Culture and Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Taussig, Michael
1987 Shamanism, Colonialism and the Wild Man. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Thomas, Nicholas
1989a Out of Time: History and Evolution in Anthropological Discourse. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
1989b The Force of Ethnology: Origins and Significance of the Melanesia/Polynesia
Division. Current Anthropology 30:27-41; 211-213.
in press Entangled Objects: Exchange, Material Culture and Colonialism in the Pacific. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

322

CULTURAL

ANTHROPOLOGY

Valentia, Viscount George

1809 Voyages and Travels to India, Ceylon, the Red Sea, Abyssinia, and Egypt, in
the years 1802 ...
1806. London: William Miller.
White, Caroline
1981 Patrons and Partisans. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.