Rabinow Discurso e poder os limites do textos etnográfico

7/29/2019 Rabinow Discurso e poder os limites do textos etnogrfico

1/13

DISCOURSE AND POWER: ON THE LIMITS OF ETHNOGRAPHIC TEXTS

Paul Rabinow

WRITERS AND AUTHORS

" l anguage i s . . . t he ins t i t u t iona l i za t ion o fsub jec t iv i ty"

A n in t e res t i n the m ak ing o f e thnograp h ict ex t s - t he rhe to r i ca l conve n t ions o f howanth ropo log i s t s convey the i r m a te r i a l andes t abl i sh the i r au tho r i ty - has becom e athr iving cot tage indust ry in cer ta in quar terso f an th ropo logy in r ecen t yea r s [1 ] . T hesea t t em pt s have va r i ed f rom unpre t en t iousand highly successful a t tempts a t in tegra t ingo the r vo ices , pho tographs and a ce r t a ine thnograph ic hum i l i t y in to a bas i ca l ly s t an -da rd e thnograph ic p resen ta t ion [2 ] , t o m oreambi t ious programmat ic ca l l s , heavi ly inf lu-enced by decons t ruc t ive p rac t ices , w h ich seek(or so they procla im) t ru ly radical recas t ingof e thnographic wri t ing. We a l ready havesevera l inf luent ia l overviews of th is mater ia l[3] . What I in ten d to do here , is to beginf rom the g iven ( a lthough ha rd ly w ide lyrecogn ized) tha t e thnograph ic t ex t s a re in -deed t ex t s , and to ques t ion som e o f t hecr i t ica l c la ims made for th is ins ight .

Bar thes asks : Who speaks? Who wri tes?T o answ er th i s ques t ion adequa te ly w e w ouldneed a sociology of language. Bar thes gives usonly a semiot ics . But semiot ics provides usw i t h c o m m o n p l a c e s a n d c o m m o n p l a c e s , asany s tuden t o f rhe to r i c w ho has r ead he rCicerco knows, are necessary to advanceany and a l l a rgum ent s . D ur ing the s ix t een thPaul Rabinow is Professor of Anthropology a t the Univers i tyof California, Berkeley.

t o t he n ine teen th ce n tu ry (B ar thes cal ls t h i sthe "ent i re c lass ica l, capi ta l is t per io d" , dem-onst ra t ing his d is in teres t in sociology) thepe r son w ho w ro te w as the au thor . T he l it e r-ary profess ion (wi th i t s r igid rules of use ,genre and com pos i t ion) sanc t ioned , p ro tec t edand surveil led by s ta te ins t i tu t io ns , was charg-ed w i th the p ro duc t ion o f l anguage.

The wri ter , Bar thes te l l s us , emerged dur ingthe t im e o f t he R evo lu t ion , w hen languagewas se ized ,and.used for pol i t ica l ends . Bar thesshou ld have added tha t t he A cadem ie F ran-caise has always used lan guage f or poli t ica lends [4 ] . P e rhaps B ar thes m eans by po l it -ical th e se l f -conscious use of language in ex-p l i c i t l y ins t rum enta l w ays . T he r ep lacem ento f t he " au tho r" by the " w r i t e r " w as a s lowprocess . A l though the r evo lu t iona r i e s beganthe process of turning language in to a t rans-pa ren t i ns t rum enta l i t y , r evo lu t iona ry o ra to r ss t i l l employed the Class ica l rhetor ica l embel-l i shm ent s and pe ro ra t ions . O n ly w i th theem ergence o f m odern in t e l l ec tua l s , du r ingthe Zola af fa i r , d id th is h is tor ica l t rans i t ionf inal ly es tabl ish a new place and a new usefor language. " The w ri ter . . . i s a t rans i t ivema n, h e posi t s a goal ( to g ive evidence, toexpla in , to ins t ruct ) , o f which language i son ly a m eans ; fo r h im l anguage suppor t s ap raxi s , it does n o t cons t i t u t e one . T hu s l an-guage i s res tored to the nature of an ins t ru-m e nt . o f com m un ica t io n , a veh ic l e o f" tho ugh t . " E ven i f t he w r i t e r pays som e a t-

0304-4092/85/$03.30 9 1985 Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.


2/13

2tent ion to s ty le , th i s conce rn i s neve r onto-logica l [5] . Thi s ch ange in language was onee l e me n t i n t he t r a ns f o r ma t i ons oc c ur r i ngt h r oughou t s oc i e t y . I t i s un l i ke l y t ha t mode r ncapi t a l i sm, democracy or soc ia l s c ience wouldhave been poss ib le wi thout such a t r ans forma-t ion .

No t a l l wri ters are the same. Wri ters , Bar thesadds , produce recognizable d ia lec t s but r a re lys ty les . The reason for th i s ho m og en e i ty ist ha t " wh a t de f i ne s t he wr i t e r is t he f a c tt ha t h i s p r o j e c t o f c omm uni c a t i on i s na ive :he does n ot adm i t tha t h i s message i s r e f l ex-ive , tha t i t c loses over i t se l f , and that we canread in it , d i ac ri t i ca lly , anyth ing e l se but w ha th e m e a n s . . . " [ 6 ] . R h e t o r ic , i n t e rp r e t a ti o n ,me d i a t i ons : t ha t honnete homme, the wr i t e r ,w i ll ha ve none o f the s e i mpe d i me n t a . Mor eprec i se ly , the wr i t e r ' s des i r e i s to have themdisappea r , but th i s obl i t e ra t ion occurs onlyon the l eve l of des i r e ; for have them a l l shesure ly wi l l . Swinging too fa r on the ins t ru-menta l s ide of l anguage ' s see - saw, the wr i t e ra s sures se l f -obfusca t ion but ga ins , a t t imes ,a ce r t a in e f f i cacy and s t r ength .

The a u t h o r i s a bou t n o t h i ng i f no t s ty l eand se l f -r e f l exivity . Language i s i t s ow n end."To wr i t e i s an in t r ans i t ive ve rb . Thus thea u t h or e x i s t e n t ia l l y f o r b i ds h i ms e l f t wo k i ndso f l a n g u a g e . . , f ir st , d o c tr i n e , s in c e h e co n -ve r t s despi t e h imse l f , by h i s ve ry projec t ,eve ry explana t ion in to a spec tac le : he i s a l -w a y s a n i n d u c t o r o f a m b i g u i t y ; s e c o n d ,e v i de nc e s i nc e he ha s c ons i gne d h i ms e l f t ol a ngua ge , t he a u t ho r c a nno t ha ve a na i vec ons c i ous ne s s , c a nno t ' wor k up ' a p r o t e s tw i t h ou t h is me s s a ge f ina l ly be a r i ng mu c hmo r e on t he wor k i ng- up t ha n on t he p r o t e s t :by i de n t i f y i ng wi t h l a ngua ge, the a u t h o r l o se sa ll c l a im to t ru th , for l anguage i s prec i se lytha t s t ruc ture who se ve ry goa l ( a t lea s t h i s tor -i caUy, s ince the Sophi s t s ) , once i t is no longe rr igorous ly t r ans i t ive , i s to neut ra l i ze the t rueand the f a l se" [ 7 ] . But a s Fou cau l t has show n,t h e m y r i a d f o r m s o f e m b e d e d n e s s o f l a n -gua ge in f ie lds o f p ow e r a nd t r u t h w i ll no t goa wa y t h r ough me r e c r a f t .

Ba r t he s ma ke s a s i mil a r po i n t s o me w ha td i f f e re n t l y . T h e w o n d e r f u l p a r a d o x o f th eauthor ' s na rc i s s i s t i c l abor i s tha t , unl ike thewr i t e r , i t ends up in te r roga t ing the wor ld :" . . . i t is p r e c is e l y wh e n t he a u t ho r ' s wo r kbeco mes i t s own end tha t i t r egains a med ia t -ing cha rac te r : the aut ho r conce ives of l i te r -a ture a s an end , the wor ld r e s tores i t t o h imas a means : and i t i s in th i s pe rpe tua l incon-c lus iveness tha t the author r edi scove r s thewor ld , an a l i en wor ld mo reov e r , s ince l i te r -a ture r epresent s i t a s a ques t ion - neve r ,f i nal l y , a s a n a ns we r " [ 8 ] . A l t hou gh t hewr i t e r - f unc t i on a nd t he a u t ho r - f unc t i on a r et wo po l es , t he y a r e no t s y mm e t r i c a l one s f o rBa r the s . I n s t r um e n t a l i t y a s b li nd i f o f t e n e f-f ec t ive ; c ra f t s eeking se l f - enc losure , happi lys tumbles .

We l ive , Roland Bar thes to ld us in 1960,i n a n a ge whe r e we ar e c on de m ne d t o bene i t he r a u t ho r s , dwe l l i ng uns e l f c ons c i ous l yin l anguage , nor wr i t e r s , s aying "a t once ando n e v e ry o c c as i on w h a t [ o n e ] t h i n k s . . . T o -da y , e a c h m e m be r o f t he i n t el l ige n t si a ha r bor sbo t h r o l e s i n h i ms e l f , one o r t he o t he r o fwhich he ' r e t r ac t s ' more or l e s s we l l : authorsoccas iona l ly have the impulses , the impa-t i ences of w r i t e r s; wr i t e r s som et im es ga inaccess to the thea te r of l anguage . We wan tt o wr i t e s ome t h i ng , a nd a t t he s a me t i me wewr i t e ( i n t r a ns i t i ve ly ) " [ 9 ] . W e a n t h r opo l -ogi st s should n ow kn ow tha t we l ive in l an-guage . Ye t in the i r ro le a s wr i t e r s , mos ta n t h r opo l og i s t s c on t i nue t o a c t ma i n l y aswr i t e r s , to t r ea t l anguage a s a t r anspa renttool , and to a t t ack a s subjec t ive those whos e e k t o i nc o r por a t e t he i r a u t ho r i a l f unc t i on .The phi l i s t ine t empta t ion rema ins a l ive : aphob i a o f na ve l ga z i ng , howe ve r , doe s no tma k e l angua ge i n t o a ne u t r a l me d i um .

A m o n g t h o s e c o n c e r n e d w i th t h e pr o -duc t i on o f e t hnogr a ph i c t e x t s we ha ve as pe c t r um o f wr i t e r s a nd a u t ho r s . To me n-t i on t wo o f t he be s t f o r pu r pos e s o f c om-pa r is on : Ke v i n Dwye r s e e ks to ov e r c omel a nguage a nd be c om e t he wr i t e r; J a me sCl i f f o r d , t h r ough wr i t i ng , hope s t o c a p t u r e


3/13

the world. Dwyer, in his Moroccan Dialogues[10], is didactic to a fault, writing as whiteand flat a prose as can be imagined. He ex-horts us to vigilance against the temptationsand sins o f textuality. Yet, his monograph is,quite unwittingly it seems, perhaps themost radical post-structuralist text we have todate. By attempting to achieve absolute trans-parency, eliminating all irony, Dwyer dem-onstrates Barthes' claim about the futility ofsuch gestures. A melange of Beckett-like dia-logues, supplemente d by the kind of homephotos Pierre Bourdieu has analysed for us sowell [ 11 ], replete with stylized 'natural'handwritten captions under them (exactlyreproduced in a recent Ralph Lauren adver-tising campaign for Safari wear), an academicindex, a serious preface functioning, Bourdieuwould remind us, to establish the writer's cre-dentials, could easily have appeared with aslightly different contextualization, as a spe-cial issue of Semiotexte. The zero point oftextuality and style become not transparentbut radically deconstructive.

In contrast, the works of James Cliffordsignal themselves, emphatically and inces-santly, as all author: always nuanced, lan-guage honed and presented for our delecta-tion, almost every declarative statementironised or immediately qualified. Yet, flairand talent aside, Clifford has produced abook and a series of articles whose formis much more academic - and therebywritef ly - than Dwyer's. Ignoring Barthesadmonitions about authors who "work-upprotests," Clifford proclaims the politicalcredentials of his texts as well. Not contentto be an author, Clifford employs a formwhich will enable him to be, at the sametime, a writer. His see-saw goes up and downwith amazing velocity.

I will argue that the proposed relationsbetween style and the political message inboth Dwyer's and Clifford's works are aboutas organic as Huysman's garden. Put anotherway, those of us who produce texts must

face up to the fact that we can never avoidthe author function. There are no transparentethnographies. In different ways, Barthes,Foucault and Bourdieu have made it impos-sible to write naively about the social worldand get away with it. Whether cast in termsof writers and authors, of discourses andpower, or the strategic politics of culturalproduction, the relation of texts and theworld has been put in question. If the workof the recent past has put these questions onour agenda much remains to be discussed,thought through and w ritten about.AUTHORS: ON ETHNOGRAPHIC AUTHOR ITY

If ethnographic writing still awaits its crit-ical theorist (although Steven Webster istrying hard to fill this role) it now has astrong candidate for its critical historian,James Clifford. Following in the steps ofGeorge Stocking, although gazing downFrench avenues and not Anglo-Saxon ones,and with an ironic meta-voice rather than areconstitutive one (e.g., Stocking's importantrehabilitation of a more fully port raye d Boas),Clifford has been engaged in what is in manyways a sophisticated "second-generation"methodological enterprise. Not an anthropol-ogist himself, Clifford is making a claim tooccupy the role of ex-officio scribe of ourscribblings. While Clifford Geertz, amongothers, may pause between monographs tomuse on texts, narrative, description andinterpretation, Clifford takes as his natives,his colonial and post-colonial informants,anthropologists past and present. We arebeing observed and inscribed. What I wantto do in this section is to return the gaze, tolook back at this collector of ethnographicaltropes, sitting at his cafe table, and, follow-ing his own prescriptions, examine his textualproductions.

Clifford's substantive historical work hasconcerned the cultural "place" carved out forFrench anthropology between the older


4/13

4f igures of the t raveler and miss ionary on theone hand, and the avant-garde ar t i s t and ex-pe r im en ta l w r i t e r dur ing the in t e rw ar pe r iodin France on the other . He has descr ibed thesh i ft i ng , u neasy and am biguo us jos t l ing w hichobta ined between sc ience , bel ief , pol i t ics andwri t ing in Maur ice Leenhardt ' s t rans i t ionf rom m iss iona ry to an th ropo log i s t : how them iss iona ry tu rned f i e ldw orke r and then in -s t i t u t iona l ly cam e to succeed M auss in F rencha n t h r o p o l o g y [ 1 2 ] . C o n s t a n t l y ju x t a p o s e d t oL eenhard t , t he m an o f i ns t i t u t ions , how everambivalent ly he re la ted to them, i s MichelLeir is , h is exp er im enta l wr i t ing and sub ject iveobsess ions f loat ing a t th e edge o f Par is ianins t i tu t ions i f a lways a t the cente r of theworld of the ar ts . Lei r i s ' shadow, or i s i t h isaura, is always p resen t, i f always sl ightly of fcenter , o f Cl if ford ' s f rame.

C l i f fo rd has sough t t o dem ons t r a t e t hedev ices th rough w hich an th ropo log i s t s havetex tua l ly cons t ruc ted a l eg i t im a te au thor i a lrole for themselves . He shows us how the con-s t i tu t ion of a speci f ic author ia l legi t imacy wasfo rged ou t o f a num ber o f sepa ra t e e l em ent s .The fabr ica t ion of a sc ient i f ic voice was , no tsu rp ri s ing ly , one o f t he con d i t ions fo r t heen t ry o f t he d i scip line in to the academ y. T h i srequ i red a nu m b er o f s t eps . F i r s t, t he an th ro -pologis t as f le ldworker had to be separa tedf rom and se t i n oppos i t i on to the a rm cha i ran th ropo log i s t . T h i s w as done p r im ar i ly bys t re s sing the exper im en ta l d im ens ion o f t hea n t h r o p o l o g is t ' s w o r k : " T h e p r e d o m i n a n tm ode o f m odern f i e ldw ork au thor i ty i s s ig -naled: You are there , because I was there ."[ " O n E t h n o g r a p h i c A u t h o r i t y , " Representa-tion, #2, Spr ing 1983, page 118. ] Cl i f fordhas shown us severa l of the ways in whichthis was achieved; we will never again be ableto r ead these t ex t s o f the G olden A ge o fan th ropo logy w i thou t see ing these rhe to r i ca ldevices a t w ork.

T he second e l em en t o f th i s s tr a t egy is t hetextual suppress ion of the f i rs t . F rom Mal i -now sk i on , a doub le s t ep o f found ing the

a n t h ro p o l o g ic a l a u t h o r i t y o f t h e a u t h o r o nthe " I w as the re" c reden t i a l i s accom pan iedby a supp ress ion o f the inevi table d ia logiccons t ruc t ion o f an th ropo log ica l know ledge .Cl i f ford has shown us how these two e le-m en t s have func t ioned toge the r . A s he saysabou t C l i f fo rd G eer t z ' s cockf igh t pape r :"The research process i s separa ted f rom thetexts i t genera tes a nd f rom the f ic t ive wor ldthey are made to ca l l up. The actual i ty ofdiscurs ive s i tuat ions and individual in ter -locu to r s i s f i lt e r ed ou t . . . . . T he di a log ica l,s i t ua tiona l a spec ts o f e thnograp h ic in te rp re-t a t ion t end to be ban i shed f rom the f ina lrepresenta t ive text . No t ent i re ly banished,o f cour se ; t he re ex i s t approved topo i fo r t hepor t r aya l o f t he r e sea rch p rocess . " [ " O nE t h n o g r a p h i c A u t h o r i t y " , Representations,#2, Spr ing 1983, page 132] . Geer tz ' s "appeal -ing fable" i s paradigmat ic : the anthropol-ogis t es tabl ishes his unique author i ty byshowing that he was there and then disap-pears f rom the text . The reason the anthro-pologis t can do th is leads us to the sc ient i f icu n d e r p i n n i n g s o f m o d e r n a n t h r o p o l o g y , o r ,mo re accurate ly , th e sc ient i f ic rheto r ic appro-p r i at e d b y m o d e r n a n t h r o p o l o g y .

Referr ing to Mal inowski , C l i f ford arguestha t : " A rgonau t s is a rche typ ica l o f t he gen-e ra t ion o f e thnograph ies tha t success fu l lyes tabl ished par t ic ipant -observat ion ' s sc ient i f icva l id i ty" [13] . T he com plem enta r y d i ff e r-ences be tw een C l i ffo rd 's approach and S tock-ing ' s are n ice ly juxtaposed in th is quote ;S tock ing has show n [14] tha t t he p rac ti ceof f i e ldw ork in B r i t i sh an th ropo logy w as no tinvented by Mal inowski ; C l i f ford has shownthat what Mal inowski ac tual ly achieved wasf i e ldw ork ' s exem pla ry t ex tua l enshr inem entas a cen t r a l e l em ent o f t he " e thnography" a sa new genre .

The th i rd e l em ent in th is s tory i s the r i se ofa theory o f " cu l tu re , " one a s sum ing tha tthere i s a uni f ied Dogon or Bal inese cul tureou t the re an d th at represen t ing i t i s re la tivelyunproblemat ic . C l i f ford Geer tz , once again ,


5/13

seems paradigmatic both in bringing thistradition to its culmination and pushing italmost to its breaking point - and then stop-ping. Certainly a core assumption of theGolden Age of anthropology is that there arediscrete units out there (called either culturesor societies) and that these are knowable andrepresentable. If this is so, then the gigue oferasure described above is consistent andharmless. The erasure is what constitutesthe traditional framing of ethnographies.Pointing it out is a service but puts onlyperipheral matters in question.

The literary devices involved, "free indirectstyle," have been well analysed by Dan Sper-ber and need not be rehearsed here [15].Sperber criticizes the use of these devices be-cause they are not leading us in the directionof a universal science. For many of us this isnot a criticism. Although interesting, oncerecognized, there is nothing inherently crisisprovoking in the insight that anthropologistsunwittingly employ well described literaryconventions. Thus, for example, RichardRorty recognizes and applauds a similiarinsight about the work of Geertz [16]. ForRorty, there are no interesting differencesbetween science and fiction and he urgesus to stop worrying about the problem.Clifford and Geertz continue to worry;Geertz holds on to the science tag, Clifford,following Hayden White [17], seems tobracket the question of truth and attempts toremain on the purely textual level. Thismove turns out to have its problems. Wewill return to this point shortly.

Advances have been made in our aware-ness of the fictional, in the sense of the"made," "fabricated," quality of anthropol-ogical writing and in the integration of itscharacteristic modes of production. Theself-consciousness of style, rhetoric anddialectic in the production of anthropol-ogical texts should lead us to a finer aware-ness of other ways to write. This would in-clude a range of formal experimentation

seeking to inc lude in a self -conscious fashion,in anthropological texts themselves, moreof the elements mentioned above. Thus, forexample, Clifford's claim of the necessarypresence of a dialogic element in the "pro-duction" of anthropological knowledge. Allanthropologists work with informants. An-thropological understanding arises out of thegive and take between them. How to bringthis dialogic dimension into the anthropol-ogical texts is an important problem. Re-cently a number of anthropologists haveattempted to do just that.

Before evaluating Clifford's reading ofthese attempts I think that it would be help-ful to introduce some further distinctions.There seem to be at least four interc onnecte dbut different dimensions at issue: (1) aes-theti c (or formal): what devices could be usedto introduce a more inventive or imaginativedimension into anthropological books andarguments? (2) epistemological: would bring-ing more voices into the text (however rep-resented) produce a truer anthropology?;(3) ethical: is it incumbent on anthropol-ogists to introduce a dialogic element intothe text? Do we want to constitute ourselvesas the kind of subjects who are in dialoguewith other equal subjects? (4) political: willthe field of either world or local power rela-tions be effectively changed if we write dif-ferent texts?

Clifford proclaims the urgency of changeon the epistemological and political levels.He makes his most sustained and convincingcase for the epistemological dimension inhis book on Leenhardt where he argues atlength that Leenhardt's long familiarity withNew Caledonia, his deeply existentially in-volved questioning of the Melanesian's an-swers to the fundamental problems of life,his insistence that their answers must beunderstood as equally valid attempts tocomprehend and hence must be taken seri-ously in their truth claims, produced, amongother things, a deeper understanding of the


6/13

cu l tu re than d id a m ore com placen t an th ro -po logy . B y pu t t ing h im se l f i n ques t ion thean th ropo log i s t l ea rned . B u t t h i s ques t ion ingw as o r a lw ays shou ld have been m ore thanep i s t em olog ica l . A n th ropo logy ' s t ru ths a rosein an em inen t ly po l i t i ca l s i t ua t ion . A l thoughL eenh ard t r i go rous ly pu t t ru th and se lf i nques t ion he neve r r e j ec ted co lon ia l ism and theFre nc h m ission civiliatr ice. Clifford inter-pre ts th is as an i rony.

In his mo re rec ent w ork, Cl i f ford seems tow an t t o pos i t a l i nk be tw een r ep resen ta t ionand pol i t ics . At t imes , he seems to equaterea l i sm as a m ode o f r ep resen ta t ion w i th apol i t ica l af f i rmat ion of colonia l i sm. The c la imfor an e lec t ive af f in i ty between rea l i sm andcolonia l pol i t ics i s fur ther developed in Cl i f -ford ' s ar t icle on Marcel Gr iaule ( typical ly , i ti s both asser ted and denied in the "On Eth-nograph ic A uthor i ty" a r t i c l e ) . G r i au le i sj u x t a p o s e d w i t h a n d o p p o s e d t o M i c he lLei r i s , one of the ear l ies t and most con-s is tent ly vocal cr i t ics o f colonia l i sm and oneof the m os t avan t -ga rde p rac t ione r s o f w r i t -ing: "Griaule ' s en erget ic conf idenc e in cul -tu ra l r ep resen ta t ion cou ld no t be f a r the r f romL eir is ' t o r tu re d , l uc id unce r t a in ty" [ 18 ] . B u t ,again , as L eenh ardt ' s case shows, pol i t ics ,fo rm a l expe r im en ta t ion and ep i s t em ologycan be ind ep en de nt var iables . Whi le Leen-ha rd t r e fused to con dem n co lon ial i sm , hep r o d u c e d i n n o v a t i v e " m u l t i - a u t h o r e d " t e x t s ;co-authored in a complex sense by f i f teenMelanesian t ranscr ipteurs . Converse ly , manyof L e i r i s ' " e thnograph ic" o r " po l i t i ca l "texts are themselves ra the r " rea l i s t . "

T h i s l a s t po in t i nd ica t e s an im por t an tp rob lem . M aking t ex tua l p roduc t ion theg u i d i n g m e t a p h o r o f t h e a n t h r o p o l o g i c a lencoun te r r i sks se r ious d i s to r t ion . T he ove r -w h e l m i n g m a j o r i t y o f f i e l d w o r k e n c o u n t e r sa r e n o t a b o u t t h e m u t u a l p r o d u c t i o n o ft ex t s . A s M ar i lyn S t r a the rn has po in ted ou t[ p er s on a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n ] , th e p r o d u c t i o n o ft ex t s i s based on co m m on under s t and ingsand a sha red t r ad i t i on . A nth ropo log i s t s

rare ly f ind th emselves in th is type of s i tua-t ion . A s C l i f fo rd has show n, t ex t s p roducedfor speci f ic academic audiences have thei rpar t icular coherence bui l t in af terwards .When, in a few limited cases, as with Leen-hard t ' s t ra ined t ranscr ipteurs , there i s a jo in tp roduc t ions o f t ex t s , i n t e res t ing r e su l t s m ayw el l be p roduced bu t t hey can ha rd ly besynechdocical ly genera l ized. These Melan-es ians were co nver te d and t ra ind by Leen-ha rd t . T h i s does no t nega te the i r p roduc t ions ,bu t on ly s i tua t e s them . T hey can ha rd ly bet aken as exem pla ry .

In , " O n E thnograph ic A uthor i ty , " C l i f -fo rd m akes the c l aim tha t : " T he p resen tp red icam ent [o f r ep resen ta t ion] i s l i nked tothe b reakup and r ed i s t r ibu t ion o f co lon ia lpow er in the decades a f t e r 1950 and to theechoes of tha t process in the radical cul tura ltheor i e s o f the 1960s and 1970s . . . . " W h i l eI d on ' t th i nk th is c la im is fa lse , as i t s tands ,too ma ny med ia t ing levels are miss ing. I tcovers over o ther changes , less s igni f icant ona wo r ld scale , but pe rhaps m ore te l l ing ineffect ing th e discurs ive changes in the anthro -pological profess ion in the las t th i r ty years .One of the main jobs to be do ne i s to f i ll inthe soc io log ica l m ed ia t ions th rough w hichthe m acro l eve l even t s o f deco lon i sa t ionresu l t ed in d i f f e ren t m o des o f w r i t ing ine thnography . T he vas t exp los ion in the num -ber o f an th ropo log i s t s , new s t andards fo rpub l i ca t ion , t enure , e t c . , w ou ld have to beexam ined . S uch an inqu i ry m igh t w el l p roveh igh ly r evea l ing . F or the m om ent , l e t m easse r t m y ung roun ded op in io n tha t i f t he rew as a loose connec t ion be tw een r ea l i sm andcolonia l i sm in the pas t , n o such ready equa-t ion of form and pol i t ics i s avai lable to ustoday . T he equa t ion o f avan t -ga rde exper -iments in form wi th progress ive pol i t icsrem ains ques t ionab le .

T o r e tu rn to C l i f fo rd ' s a rgum ent , hav ingcas t real i st and in terp re t ive m od es of e th-nographic author i ty in bas ica l ly negat iveterms (a t th e very leas t the i r t im e has passed,


7/13

t he i r " in t e res t " i s l im i t ed ) , C l i f fo rd m oves onto a m u ch m ore pos i ti ve por t r aya l ( a l thoughhighly e lus ive) of the dia logical and poly-phon ic m o des o f au thor i ty . H e says : " d i a-log ic and cons t ruc t iv i s t pa rad igm s t end tod i spe r se o r sha re ou t e thnograph ic au thor i ty ,whi le narra t ives of in i t ia t ion conf i rm the re-searcher ' s specia l competence . Paradigms ofexper i ence and in t e rp re t a t ion a re y i e ld ingto paradigms of d iscourse , of d ia logue andp o l y p h o n y " [ 1 9 ] . T h e c la im t h a t s u c h m o d e sa re t r i um phing o r t ha t o lde r m odes a re"yie lding" i s empir ica l ly dubious . That asm all g roup i s expe r im en t ing w i th the m i st rue and i t w ou ld be w or th w hi l e t ry ing tolocate them sociological ly . However , in myexper ience , the older canon is being r igor-ous ly de fended in m os t an th ropo logy depa r t -m e n t s. D e f e n d e d , m o r e o f t e n t h a n n o t ,t h r o u g h r e p r o d u c t i o n o f o l d e r p a r a d i g m sst rongly re inforced by a wide var ie ty ofsanctio ns. I wil l argue bel ow t ha t since Clif-ford seeks to remain on the textual levelhe can no t i ncorpora t e the k ind o f socia ls t ructura l and pol i t ica l var iables which di f -f e ren t i a t e be tw een " y ie ld ing" and " t r ium ph-ing . "

N one the les s , t he m o re in t e res t ing ( a l thoughunsuppor t ed ) c l a im i s t ha t a d i a log ic t ex t( fo r t he m om ent a s sum ing the re a re suchtex t s and tha t w e can iden t i fy them ) inhe r -ent ly presents a d ispersa l of autho r i ty andther eby is preferable because (1) i t i s t ruer ,(2) pol i t ica l ly super ior . C l i f ford , a t f i r s tb lush, seems to be us ing the term dia logicin a l i te ra l sense , a text which presents twosubjects in d iscurs ive exchang e. Kevin Dwyer ' s" ra the r l i t e r a l r ecord" o f exchanges w i th aMoroccan farmer i s the f i rs t example c i tedof a " d i a log ic" t ex t . D w yer ' s condem na t ionof t ex tua l i t y is no t co m m en ted on by C li f fo rd .R a the r , he l auds D w yer ' s " cons ide rab lesoph i s t i ca t ion , " a l though a page l a t e r headds " to say tha t an e thno graph y is com -posed o f d i scour ses and tha t i ts d i f f e ren t com -ponents are d ia logical ly re la ted, i s not to say

tha t i ts t ex tua l fo rm shou ld be tha t o f al i te r a l d i a logue" [20] . E xac t ly w ha t t heformal character is tics o f the genre are rema inunclear .

P e rhaps they can no t be speci f ied un ique lyin terms of form. Perhaps they require a d ia-logue in tent or message avai lable to the acutecr i tic . How ever , i f the s upp osed a im and ad-van tage o f e thnogra ph ic d i a logue i s t o deepe nin te rcu l tu ra l under s t and ing and to p roduce am e dium of exchange , C l i f fo rd ow es us m oreon h ow the laconic refusals to engage in suchexchange on the pa r t o f D w yer 's i n fo rm a ntdem on s t r a t e s how " in t e r locu to r s act ive lynegot ia te a shared rea l i ty ." Dwyer ' s recordof h i s exchanges w i th the B erbe r f a rm erdem o ns t r a t e how th in and unrec ip roca l a r el a-t i onsh ip w as e s t ab l i shed be tw een them .D w yer i s being cons i s t en t and courageous inpresen t ing th i s l ack o f m utua l under s t and ing .As Mari lyn S t ra th ern has suggested th is i sp robab ly qu i t e t yp ica l. T he in t e r loca t ion , t heFaqir , i s qu ote d as saying that he was neverinteres ted in a s ingle ques t ion posed to himby D w yer . I t h ink D w yer w as m ak ing a po l i t-ical and e thica l poi nt b y showin g th is. TheF aq i r 's t o l e rance ce r t a in ly dem ons t r a t e s t hes t r eng th o f M oroccan canons o f hosp i t a l i t yr a t h e r t h a n t h e i n h e r e n t m u t u a l in v o l v e m e n to f e t h n o g r a p h e r a n d i n f o r m a n t i n t h e p ro d u c -t ion o f e thnograph ic t ex t s. D w yer ' s B erbe rwas c lear ly not in teres ted in th is project ;ca l ling th is "negat ive dia log ue" [21 ] h ardlyhelps .

But les t we get too involved in these i s-sues , C l i f ford quickly moves on to remindus: "Bu t i f in terpre t ive au tho r i ty i s based onthe exclus ion of d ia logue, the reverse i s a lsot rue: a pure ly dia logical auth or i ty repressesthe inescapab le f ac t o f t ex tua l i za t ion " [22] .T he oppos i t i on o f i n t e rp re tive and d i a logicf rankly escapes me for a var ie ty of reasonsnot the leas t of which i s tha t , severa l pagesla ter , C l i f ford pra ises Gada mer , ce r ta inlythe m o s t r enow ed represen ta t ive o f he r -m eneu t i c s w hose t ex t s ce r t a in ly con ta in no


8/13

di rec t d ia logues , for a spi r ing to " radica ld ia logi sm." T he t e rm seems to be l i t t lemo r e t ha n a ba dge o f a ppr oba t i on . F i na l lyCl i f ford a s se r t s tha t d ia logic t ext s a re , a f t e ra ll , text s , " r ep rese nta t ion s" of d ia logues .C l i f f o r d p l a ys e a c h o f t he s e t e x t ua l mode sin two regi s te r s : the re is un qu es t io nab ly apos i t i ve l y e va l ua t e d p r ogr e s s i on f r om modeo f a u t h o r i t y t o m o d e o f au t h o r i t y ; b u t t h e nt he f i l m i s r un ba c kwa r ds , t he ou t s t r e t c he dha nd d r a wn ba c k . C l i f f o rd i s une a s y he r e,of fe r ing sugges t ions , propos ing a progress ionof mode s , quo t i ng w i t h a ppr ova l t he " r i gh t "s our c e s , t he n t a k i ng t he m a wa y . Re a d ge ne r -ous ly , th i s indica te s an openness and a sa lu-t o r y t e n t a t i ve ne s s ; r e a d mor e s ke p t i c a l l y , apos tured ec lec t i c i sm pr iv i l eging the c r i t i c a sc u l t u r a l he r o . Toda y , i n a c e r t a i n a c a de mi cc u l t u r e i n wh i c h e xpe r i me n t i ng w i t h r e p -re senta t io ns of d ia logue i s va lued, it would b ei mp or t a n t t o a t t e mp t t o s pe c i f y s oc io l og i ca l lywhe r e a nd by wh om t he s e d i sc u rs ive f o r msare carr ied.

I f d ia logic t ext s f al l prey to the evil s oft o t a l i z i ng e t hnogr a ph i c a d j us t me n t t he n pe r -ha ps e ve n mor e r a d i c a l po l yphon i c one sm i g h t n o t : " E t h n o g r a p h y is i n v ad e d b yhe t e r og l os s i a . I f a c c o r de d a n a u t onomoustextu a l space , t r ansc r ibe d a t suf f i c i ent l ength ,i nd i ge nous s t a t e me n t s ma ke s e ns e on t e r msd i f f e r e n t t h a n t hos e o f t he a r ra ng i ng e t hno-graph e r . . . Thi s sugges ts an a l t e rna t ivet e x t ua l s t r a te gy , a u t op i a o f p l u ra l a u t ho r -s h ip t ha t a c c o r ds t o c o l la bor a t o r s, no t me r e l yt he s t a t us o f i nde p e nd e n t e nunc i a t o r s , bu tt ha t o f wr i t e r s " [ 23 ] . The a u t h e n t i c i t y t r a plurks h e re : wh y is i t t ha t a Melanes ian voicei s supe r ior? O nly a v iew of cul ture a s anintegra ted ( epi s t emologica l ly and pol i t i ca l ly)who l e , una mbi guous l y r e p r e s e n t a b l e by as pe a k ing s ub j e c t w ou l d gua r a n t e e a ny h i ghe rt ru th va lue or inna te pol i t i ca l supe r ior i ty tosuch a forma l a t t empt . Af te r a l l , t he inse r -t i on o f e x t e nde d na t i ve t e x t s mi gh t we l lf unc t i on a s a f a l s e " r e a l i s t " o r " i n t e r p r e t i ve "a u t he n t i c a t i on ; t he po t e n t i a l fo r a " m od e

r e t r o " o f s e n t i m e n t a l i t y f o r t h e a u t h e n t i c( in te r pre te d by so me as neo- fa sc i s t) , soc o mm on i n F r a nc e i n t he 1970s , s hou l d begua rd ed aga ins t.

C l i f f o r d i mme di a t e l y t a ke s t h i s op t i ona wa y b y qu i t e c o r r e c t l y r e mi nd i ng us t ha t ," q u o t a t i o n s a re al w a ys s t ag e d b y t h e q u o t e r . . .a mor e r a d i c a l po l yphony wou l d on l y d i s p l a c ee t hnogr a ph i c a u t ho r i t y , s t i l l c on f i r mi ng , t hef ina l, v i r tuoso orch es t r a t io n b y a s inglea u t ho r o f a ll t he d i s cour s e s i n hi s o r he r t e x t "[ Ib id ., page 139 ] . New form s of wr i t ing , newt e x t ua l e xp e r i me n t s wou l d o pe n n e w poss i-b i l it i es - bu t gua ran tee non e . Having op ene dh i s e s s a y w i t h p r omi s e s o f ne w t e x t ua l f r e e -doms , we e nd ha v i ng r e t u r ne d , e n r i c he d , t ono p r omi s e d l a nd . Re a l i s m , pe r ha ps a bou t t omake a comeback, i s no more or l e s s l ibe ra t -i ng t h a n p o l y p h o n y . " T h e m o d e s o f a u t h o r i t yreviewed in th i s e s say - expe r ient i a l , in t e r -pre t ive , d ia logica l , po lyp ho nic - a re ava il ableto a l l wr i t e r s of e thnographic t ext s , Wes te rna nd non- W e s t e r n . None i s obs o l e t e , none i spu r e : t he r e i s r oom f o r i nve n t i on w i t h i n e a c hpa r adig m" [ Ib id . , page 142] . So, despi t e the" r e c e n t que s t i on i ng o f c o l on i a l mod e s o f r e p -r e s e n t a t i o n" o r t he c los ing pe r o r a t i on , " po l i t -i ca l and epi s t emologica l a s sumpt ions a re bui l tin to th i s [ r ea l i st i c [ and o the r s ty le s , a s sump-t i ons t he e t hnogr a ph i c wr i t e r c a n no l onge ra f for d to igno re" [ Ib id ., pages 141/2] we a ref r e e t o us e e a c h o f t he s e mo de s f o r , i n a nd o ft he ms e l ve s , t he y o f f e r u s no gua r a n t e e s , c on -ta in no sec re t powers , a f ford no t extua l pass -words to t ru th or pol i t i c s .

C l i f f o r d i s une a s y a bou t t h i s . No t c on t e n tt o a dvoc a t e a e s t he t i c e xpe r i me n t a t i on f o r i tsown sake , or an e th ica l impera t ive to p laceone se l f in a d ia logic s i tua t ion , he seems tos e e k a g r ound , a f u r t he r r e a s on t o do t he s et h ings . I t s e e ms t he g r ound m us t i n some wa ybe pol i ti ca l , be on the r ight s ide - bu t hec a n ' t f i nd s uc h a g r ound . He move s on . Te m-pora r i ly enthus ia s t i c for d ia logic , rhe tor i ca l lyadroi t , on the ve rge of sway ing us, Cl i f fordimmedia te ly qua l i f i e s h i s pra i se . He l eads us


9/13

on t o t he w i l de r s ho r e s o f po l yph on y : s e -du ced - for a pa ragrap h - unt i l we see tha t ,po l y phon i a i n a t e x t , is , un f o r t u na t e l y , onc ea ga i n , on l y wr i t i ng . The mode r n i s t i mpu l s et owa r ds s e e k i ng a g r ound i n t he s e l f - r e f e r e n -t i al i ty o f f o r m a nd t he o b j e c t i v it y o f cond i -t ions , once aga in , founders in the f r i able soi lo f t he wor l d .

I th ink we would a l l agree tha t we shoulds t ruggle se l f - consc ious ly to avoid por t r ayinga n ab s tr a ct , a h is to r ic a l o t h e r . . . a n d t h a t t h ed e v e l o p m e n t o f a n e t h n o g r a p h i c s c i e n c e c a nno t u l t i ma t e l y be unde r s t ood i n i s o l a t i onf rom mo re gene ra l pol i t i ca l - epi s temologica lde ba t e s a bo u t wr i t ing a nd r e p r e s e n t a t i on o fo t he r ne s s . Bu t I do no t t h i nk i t f o l l ows t ha t" d i f f e r e nc e i s a n e ve n t o f i nve n t i ve s yn -c r e t i s m . " L i t e r a r y c r it ic s a nd a n t h r opo l og i s t sd i d no t i nve n t t he wor l d , o r c u l t u r a l d i f f e r -ence , even i f , for a ce r t a in se gm ent of ou rs oc i e t y , t he y ha ve c ome t o i n t e r p r e t i t . Ia g r e e w i t h S t a n l e y D i a mond t ha t a n t h r o -polo gy a rose out of pol it i ca l and cul tura lc ri si s. I f indeed i t has "bec om e necessa ryt o c onc e i ve o f a wor l d o f gene r a l iz e d e th -no gr a p hy , " t h is i nd i ca t e s a cr is is o f ma m m ot hpr opor t i ons no t a s o l u t i on o r a s a l u t o r yope n i ng .

DISCOURSE AND POWER

The r e c e n t wor k on t he t r ope s a nd r he t -o r i c o f e t hnogr a ph i c wr i t i ng i s unque s t i on -a b l y o f va l ue. W e a r e no w we l l on o u r wa y t oha v i ng a Ke nne t h Bur ke a n Rhe tor i c o fMot ives f o r e t h n o g r a p h y . H o w e v e r , w e h a v ea l so sugges ted some of the dange rs and l imi -t a t i ons i nhe r e n t i n t h i s de ve l opme n t . S t e ve nW e bs t e r ma ke s t he va l i d po i n t t ha t C l i f f o r d ,a nd Ma r c us a nd Cus hma n , s t op j u s t a t t hepo i n t whe r e t he e t h nogr a ph i c ge n r e i t s el fwou l d be pu t i n que s t i on . " S uc h r e s pe c t f o rt he s t r ic t u r e s o f wr i t ing c onv e n t i on is e ve nmo r e pa r a dox i c a l t ha n t he d i s c ove r y t ha t asoc ia l s c ience genre ope ra te s through the

r he t o r i c a l f o r ms o f a l i t e r a ry ge n r e " [ 24 ] .Eth no gra ph y i s al so a se t of soc ia l and hi s -tor i ca l prac t i ces loca ted in ins t i tu t ions .W i t h o u t r e t u r n i n g t o t h e t r a n s p a r e n c y o fl a nguage t he t a s k a he a d w ou l d ha ve to c e n t e ro n a t t e m p t s t o c o n n e c t g e n r e a n d tr o p i cc lus te r s wi th the soc ia l wor ld . The t ens ionbe t w e e n t e x t a nd wor l d c a n on l y be r e t he -ma t i z e d be c a us e i t wa s ne ve r a bs e n t.

I f we be g i n f r om t he p r opos i t i on t ha t t he r ea r e no a p r i o r i homol og i e s be t we e n d i s c our s ea nd pow e r we ope n up a mu c h g r e a t e r w i l der -ness to explore . W ha t have been th e r e la t ionsin spec i f i c ins tances , a t pa r t i cula r h i s tor i ca la nd i n s t i t u t iona l c on j unc t u r e s , o f d i sc our s e sa n d p o w e r ? T h e r e w o u l d s e e m t o b e a n u m b e rof d i f f e rent l eve l s a t which d i scourse and re la -t i ons o f po we r i n t e r s e c t .

To s c he ma t i z e : t he r e a r e mi c r o - r e l a t ions o fpow e r a nd ma c r o - r e l a t i ons a nd t he i r i n t e r c on-nec t ions . On the l eve l of mic ro- re la t ions wec a n d i s ti ngu is h t wo d i f f e r e n t loc a t i ons f o r t hege ne r a t i on a nd p r odu c t i on o f d i s c our se a ndpowe r i n e t hnogr a phy : r e l a t i ons i n t he f i e l dand re la t ions wi th in the d i sc ip l ine or " in te r -p re ti ve c o m m u n i t y " [ 2 5 ] . W e n o w k n o w ac e r ta i n a m o u n t a b o u t r e la t io n s o f p o w e rbe t we e n t he a n t h r opo l og i s t a nd t he pe op l ewi t h wh om s he wor ks . F o r a va r i e t y o f h i s to r -i cal , pol i ti ca l and di sc ip l ina ry r easons th e l eve lo f m i c r o - r e l a t i o n s b e t w e e n i n f o r m a n t s a n de t hnogr a p he r s - a l t hough a bs e n t f r om t hee a r l i e r Go l de n Age e t hnogr a ph i e s onc e t he" I wa s t he r e " a u t h o r i t y wa s e s t ab l i s he d - ha sexp lod ed in the l a st s ix or seven yea r s andthe re i s now a new sub-genre of these books .A l t hough ha r d l y un i ve r s a l l y a c c e p t e d a s va l i dw i t h i n a n t h r o p o l o g y t h e y h a v e b e n e f i t e df r om t he f r a gme n t a t i on o f t he d i s c i p l i ne i nt he l as t de c a de , f r om s om e o f t he bound a r yc r oss i ng wi t h i n t he u n i ve r s i ty s ys t e m a ndf r om po l it i ca l mo ve m e n t s w h i c h ha ve de -m a n d e d s o m e a c c o u n t a b i l i t y b y t h e a n t h ro -pologi s t to the p eoples she desc r ibes . Thec rea t ion of a v i s ib le ( and hence problem-a t i ze d ) e t hnog r a ph i c s ub j e c t - e t h i c a ll y ,


10/13

10politically, epistemologically and aesthet-ically - is at least on the agenda. More ex-perimentation and more analysis of whythis has happened (and the reasons are various)would probably be worth while. Contextualpressures ranging from the impact of the"new journalism," the federal government'spolicy guidelines on treatment of human sub-jects, to explicit formulation of conditionsunder which anthropologists could ent er intoa community by a large variety of peopleshave all played their part.

While actually less extensive than onemight have hoped, there is some analysis ofthe macro-relations of ethnographic discourseand historical macro-conditions. Rangingfrom the almost purely discursive pole ofEdward Said's Orientalism, to Eric WolFsmaterialist Europe and the People withoutHistory and passing through the more medi-ated attempt of Talal Asad's Anthropologyand the Colonial Encounter or Dell Hymes'Reinventing Anthropology, we are devel-oping a more complex understanding ofhow anthropology and other descriptivesciences of the Other arose and flourishedin the world. Michael Taussig's The Deviland Commodity Fetishism in Latin Americaand Kevin Dwyer's Moroccan Dialoguesattempt to bring world conditions and localconditions together, although it is fair to saythat the immense complexity of the taskhas yet to find either a political or textualform adequate to it. It may well be thatformerly subjected peoples will lead theway. Knowing that many cultural issuesare eminently political and that certainpolitical issues are eminently cultural, writersas different as C.L.R. James in his analysisof West Indian cricket, British education,ethical constitution, political context andwriting offers one brilliant example [26]while Breyten Breytenbach, a South AfricanAfrikaner poet, jailed for nine years, hasgiven us a very innovative novel/ethnographyof South African jail life, the fantastically

rich and linguistically diverse survival tech-niques created by the inmates to cope withthe endless brutalization of their jailors, inThe Mouroir [271. Many more examplescould be cited of formal experimentationgrowing out of political sensitivity or struggle.

The work of Pierre Bourdieu can be help-ful in this regard [28]. Bourdieu has taughtus to ask about any author: in what field ofpower, from what position in that field,using what cultural strategies from amongthose historically available, does an authoroperate? Posing these simple question toourselves, we would become aware thatcurrent proclamations of anti-colonialism, forexample, while admirable, must be under-stood as part of a more contemporar y strat-egy as well. We are not writing in the late1950s, after all, and our audiences are nei thercolonial officers nor those working underthe aegis of a colonial power. The politicalfield is more immediate and mundane: theacademy in the 1980s. [Clifford: "I writewith '60s idealism, plus '80s hesitation (orput more positively, ironic historicism").]Hence, situating the crisis of representationwithin the context of the rupture withincolonialism and decolonialism is both trueand false. It is true to the extent that anthro-pology is certainly parasitic on the courseof larger word events. It is false in that,at least without a large number of importantmediations, one can no t convincingly assertthat new ethnographic writing emergeddirectly out of decolonisation or the Viet-nam war. Rather, it makes sense to beginwith the institutional setting in which itemerged: the American Academy of thelate 1970s and early 1980s, fo r reasonsstill to be pinpointed.

If there has been an explosion of literature,debate and action about ethnography andethnographized micro-relations, there hasbeen almost a total silence about power/knowledge relations within the disciplinesin recent years. The micro-relations among


11/13

11the interpretive community have simplynot been explored. Are they important?There is a strange complicity of silence atwork here. The silence indicates that theyprobably are important. One wonders whatis being covered up by this silence. Therepeated refrain that looking at the construc-tion of power relations within the academicworld is "navel gazing" while the micro-relations of, say, an East African missionarycommunity a hundred years ago is not, ishighly suspect. It is even more suspect whensuch charges come from the deconstructivecamp. Edward Said captures this well: "It isin the Age of Ronald Reagan that the poli-tics of interpretation and the politics ofculture are e na c te d. ., an aspect of thepresent cultural moment, in which the socialand historical setting of critical activity is atotality felt to be benign (free, apolitical,serious), uncharacterizable as a whole...andsomehow outside history" [29]. We knowfrom the work of Pierre Bourdieu that oneof the most commo n tactics o f an elite groupis to refuse to discuss - to label as vulgar oruninterest ing - issues that are uncomfort ablefor them. We also know f rom Michel Foucaul tthat truth and its production is very much athing of this world. The insistent refrain thatthe academy is trivial and somehow outsideof the real world when scientific productionis unquestionably central to the growth oflate capitalism leads me to underline Said'squestioning of the rise of textualism inrecent years. Certainly some dimensions ofthe nitty-gritty of academic production aretrivial but obviously all of them can't be.Just as one could write an institutional andmicro-political history of the production ofmaterialist discourse in American anthropol-ogy, (which institutions were colonised andhow), it would be important to do the samefor less unified doctrines which have, none-theless, gained important institutional strong-holds in the recent decade.Another way of posing this problem is to

refer to "corridor talk." For many years,anthropologists discussed fieldwork exper-iences among themselves. In fact, the gossipconcerning a particular anthropologist's fieldexperiences, her control of the language, etc.were important components of that person'sreputation. But such matters were not writtenabout "seriously." They remained in thecorridors and faculty clubs. But what cannot be publicly discussed can be neitheranalysed nor refuted. Those domains whichcan not be analysed or rebutted, and yet aredirectly central to hierarchy and survival,should not be regarded as innocent or irrel-evant. Until very recently it was simply badtaste to discuss the conditions which gavemodem anthropology its own selfdefinition- fieldwork. Corridor talk became discourseand we learned a good deal, none of it aboutnavels.My wager is that looking at the conditionsunder which people are hired, tenured, pub-lished, granted and f~ted within the Americanacademy in Said's Reagan's America wouldrepay our efforts. There is no doubt that oneof the major developments in the AmericanAcademy in the last ten years is the explo-sion of textual analysis, loosely groupedunder the banner of "deconstruction."How has this trend differed socially andpolitically fr om the other major movement ofthe last decade, feminism? Why is it thatfeminism and deconstruction have appearedtogether to an extent in certain literarydepar tment s [30] but almost not at all inanthropology? How are careers made now?How are careers destroyed now? What arethe boundaries of good and bad taste. Let'sturn this corridor talk into discourse. What-ever else we know - whateve r the relationscan be shown to be between late capitalismand decons truct ion or Marxist criticism - wecertainly know that the material conditionsunder which the textual movem ent hasflourished must include the university, itsmicro-politics, its trends. How are these


12/13

12mi c r o - d i s c our se s ma de e f f e ct i ve ? and c on-t ro l l ed? Why i s i t pol i t e to say "yie ld" ands n i de t o s a y " t r e ndy" ? Tr ope s a r e a l wa yspa r t of a pol it i ca l projec t . Le t us no t forge ttha t i t i s s t i l l impol i t e in many places to t a lkabout ins t i tu t iona l r ac i sm, sexi sm, and evenc o l on i a l i s m a nd a n t h r opo l ogy . W ho e n f o r c e sthese c iv i li ti e s and w hy?

Is i t vulga r to a sk: wo uld longe r , d i sper s ivetext s y ie ld t enure? I s i t bad t a s t e to r emarkt ha t , f o r e xa mpl e , a dvoc a t e s o f e xpe r i m e n t a lwr i t i ng t he ms e l ve s p r oduc e t e x t s wh i c h a r er e s o l u t e l y a c a de mi c a nd t r a d i t i ona l i n f o r m.But these ques t ion s a re posed in the cor ri -dor s a l l the t ime . They a re r ea l . Thi s i s some-th ing we a l l f ace in one form or anothe r .These ques t ions a re de f ined a s sma l l andp e t t y ; b u t t h o s e a re t h e d i m e n s i o n s o f p o w e rr e l a t i ons t o wh i c h Ni e t z s c he r i gh t l y e xhor t e dus t o be s c r upu l ous l y a tt e n t i ve . W e kn ow t ha tpower r e la t ions on tha t l eve l exi s t , a f f ec t us ,i n f l ue nc e ou r c ho i c e o f t he me s , f o r ms , c on-tent s , audiences . Less g lor ious than cham-p i on i ng o t he r c a us es , if mo r e i mm e di a t e l yc ons t r a i n i ng , we owe t he m mor e a t t e n t i on .

W he r e do we go f r om he r e ? I ha ve no ge n-e ra l pre sc r ip t ions or prosc r ip t ions to of fe r . Iha ve e me r ge d f r om t h is i mm e r s i on in t ex -t ua l i t y f e e l i ng i nc hoa t e l y a n t h r opo l og i c a l .A n t h r o p o l o g y f o r m e h a s m e a n t p u r s u i n gc r i t i c i sm of the ba rba r i sm of c iv i l i s a t ion ,a n ope nne s s t o o t he r ne s s , a nd a c ommi t -me n t t o a n d g r e a t s us p i ci on o f Re a s on . The s eha ve be e n f o r e g r o und e d in e p i s te mol og i c a land e th ica l i s sues for me . Given the con-s t r a i n t s o f t he c on t e mpor a r y h i s t o r i c a ls i t ua t i on , wha t k i nd o f s ub j e c t s do we wa n tt o be ? W ha t k i nd o f re l a t ions do w e wa n t t oha ve wi t h o t he r s ub j e c t s ? How muc h c a n t he ybe f o r ge d? How? How doe s wr i t i ng c onne c twi th these projec t s? Wha t a re the r e la t ions ofe th ic s and pol i t i c s a t d i f f e r ent conjunc tu res?What is the place of reason in these ac t ivi ties?

B e in g t e m p e r a m e n t a l l y m o r e c o m f o r t a b l e i nan oppos i t iona l s t ance , I have chosen to s tudya g r oup o f e l i t e F r e nc h a dmi n i s t r a t o r s , c o l o -

nia l off ic ia ls as wel l as socia l refo rm ers (wi thinone b r a nc h o f F r e nc h s oc ia l is m) all c onc e r ne dwi th urban planning in the 1920s . By "s tud-y i n g u p " I f i nd m y s e l f i n a m o r e c o m f o r t a b l epos i t ion than I wo uld be were I "g iv ing vo ice"t o dom i na t e d o r ma r g ina l i ze d gr oups , o r p l a y -ing the ro le of unive r sa l in te l l ec tua l , spo kesm anof the Truth . I have a l so chosen a group who,whi l e unque s t i ona b l y ho l d i ng pos i t i ons o fpower and pr iv i l ege , were none the le s s h ighlycr i t ica l of rac ism in the colonies and c lassoppr e s s ion a t home . Bu t t he s e me n a r e nohe r oe s ; be t t e r t ha n s ome , wor s e t ha n o t he r s ,t he y i nve n t e d a nd c a r r i ed ou t s ome o f t hein i ti a l program s of the we l fa re s t a te . Th eys e e m t o a f f o r d me a n a n t h r opo l og i c a l d i f f e r -ence ; sepa ra te enough so a s to prevent easyi de n t i f i c a t i on ye t c l os e e nough t o a f f o r d acha r i t able but c r i t i ca l unde r s tanding.

Ma ny o f t he s e r e f o r me r s , i n pa r t i c u l a r ,H u b e r t L y a u t e y , g o v e m o r g e n e ra l o f M o r o c-co, were ski l l fu l and sophi s t i ca ted wr i t e r s ina n u m b e r o f g en re s. L y a u t e y w a s e x t r em e l yluc id and adroi t in h i s use of pol i t ica l ana lys is ,com miss ioned biographies , soc ial s c ience r e -por t s , p ubl i shed l e t t e rs , r e t r i eva l of Morocc ana rchives , r econs t i tu t io n of cul ture in gene ra l .Thi s r a i se s a number of genea logica l ques t ionsa bou t t he p l a ce o f f o r m s o f s oci al de s c r i p t ionand pol i t ica l s t ra tegies . T his poses , I ho pe, ame a ns f o r que s t i on i ng t he p l a c e o f wr i t i ngin con c re te h i s tor i ca l and soc ia l t e rms . I f inthe l a s t f ive yea r s we have seen impor tantwor k s howi ng us s pe c i f i c wa ys be yond t het ransp a renc y o f l anguage , I th ink i t i s no wt i me t o t a ke t hos e a dva nc e s a nd m ove ba c k t ot he wor l d .NOTES

1. I would l ike to tha nk James Clif ford , S tephen Fos te r ,James Faubion , Michae l Rogin , Mar i lyn Stra thern andthe par t ic ipants a t the Santa Fe conference on "Th eMaking of Ethnographic Texts" for the ir cons truc t iveresponses to ear ly versions of this paper .

2. A good exam ple is : June Nash, ICe Eat the Mines andthe Mines Eat Us (New York: Columbia Univers i tyPress, 1979).


13/13

13

3. Marcus and Cushman, "Ethno graphics as Tex ts", An-nual Review of Anthropology, vol. 11 (1982); Clifford,"On Ethnographic Authori ty" , Representations, vol. 2(1983); S. Webster, "Dialogue and Fiction in Ethnog-ra phy" , Dialectical Anthropology, vol. 7 (1982).

4. G. Canguilhem, "Du social au vital ," Le Normal et lepathologique, P.U.F. (1979), p. 181.5. Barthes, "Authors and writers" in S. Sontag (ed.),A Barthes Reader (New York: Hill and Wang, 1982),

p. 189.6 . Ib id ., pp . 189 -90.7. Ibid .,p. 188.8 . Ib id ., pp . 186 -87.9. Ibid., pp. 191 -92 .

10. K. Dwyer, Moroccan Dialogues: Anthropology inQuestion (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 1982).11. e .g.P . Bordieu, La Distinction, critique sociale du ]uge-ment (Paris: Editions de Minuit, 1979).12. Vincent Craponzano has given us a different and il lumi-

nating interpretation of Leenhardt. Compare his intro-duc t ion to Leenhardt 's in Do kamo (Chicago: Univer-sity of Chicago Press, 1979).

13. Ibid., pp. 12 3-2 4.14. G. Stocking, "T he Ethnographer's Magic: Field work inBritish Anthropology from Tylor to Malinowski,"History of Anthropology, vol . 1 (1983) , pp . 70-120.15. D. Sperber, "Ethnog raphic interpretive et anthropologie

theorique ," in Le Savoir des anthropologues (Paris:Hermann, 1982).

16. R. Rorty, "Method and Morality," in Haan (ed.),

Social Science as Moral lnquiry (New York: ColumbiaUniversity, 1983).

17. H. White, "The Value of Narrativity in the Representa-tion of Reality," in W.J.T. Mitchell (ed.), On Narrative(Chicago: Univ ersity of Chicago Press, 1980).

18. Clifford, " 'Power and Dialogue in Ethnogra phy: MarcelGriaule 's initiation ," in G. Stocking (ed.), History ofAnthropology VoL I (Madison: University of WisconsinPress, 1983) p. 153.

19. Cliffo rd, op. cit., 1983, p. 133.20. Ibid., p. 135.21. Clifford, personal commu nication.22. Clifford, op. cit. , 1983, p. 134.23. Ib id . ,p . 140.24. S. Webster, "Realism and Reification in the Ethno-

graphic Genre," unpublished ms., p. 33.25. S. Fish, ls There a Text in this Class? The Authorityof Interpretive Communities (Cambridge: Harvard Uni-

versity Press, 1982 ).26. C.L.R. James, Beyond a Boundary (New York: Pan-theon Books, 1983 (orig. 1963)).27. B. Breytenbach, The Mouroir (Mouroir Mirror notes ofa Novel), (New York: Faber and Faber, 1984).28. e.g., Bord ieu, op. cir., 1979.29. E. Said, " 'Opponents, Audiences, Constituencies, and

Community," in W.S.T. Mitchell (ed.), The Politics ofInterpretation (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,1983).

30. E. Showalter, "Critical Cross-Pressing," Raritan, Fall(1983).

DialecticalAnthropology, 10 (1985) 1-13Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam - Printed in The Netherlands

Rabinow Discurso e poder os limites do textos etnográfico

Documents

Transcript of Rabinow Discurso e poder os limites do textos etnográfico