From: Fieldwork: the Correspondence of Robert Redfield & Sol Tax. Robert A. Rubinstein, editor. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1991 Introduction Reflection and Reflexivity in Anthropology Robert A. Rubinstein The years between 1930 and the early 1940s were especially im­ portant for the development of anthropology in the United States. This was a time of intdlectual fervor and, in relation to the previous decades, unparalleled growth. During this period, the subject matter and methods of anthropology in the United States were reoriented and the discipline was revitalized as a profession. The intellectual outlines of post-World War II anthropology in the United States formed in the concerns and experiences of anthropologists working during this time. Eggan (1968:134) characterizes this as the start of the "modern period" of anthropology in the United States. To some degree, today's anthropo­ logical discussions still reflect these developments. Robert Redfield and Sol Tax played prominent roles in the devel­ opment of anthropology in the United States. Beginning in the 1930s, separately and together, they developed lines of research and theory that at first anticipated and later guided the growth of anthropological work on culture change, ethnic relations, kinship analysis, world view, and economics. For anthropology in general, and especially for the study of Mesoamerican ethnology, their work supplied many of the empirical themes and theoretical questions which ethnographers subsequently explored. Through their publications and their supervision of the train­ ing of younger anthropologists, their work helped define the major outlines of anthropological research. Moreover, their work has a con­ tinuing influence as younger scholars expand upon or criticize it. For helpful comments on earlier drafts of this essay I thank Joan Ablon, Peter M. Ascoli, George Foster, Mary LeCron Foster, Alice B. Kehoe, Sandra D. Lane, Charles Leslie, David Maines, Lisa Peattie, Rik Pinxten, Sol Tax, and Necla Ts<:hirgi. 1 2 Introduction Introduction 3 The correspondence of Robert Redfield and Sol Tax during the Anthropology badly needs straightforward reports of what field years 1934-1941 is historically important. The letters are resources researchers really do during their work. How do the pragmatic exi­ for understanding the development of anthropology as a professional gencies of extended anthropological fieldwork-including difficulties community. Reading them also gives the opportunity to analyze the of housekeeping, personal comfort, funding, and relations with infor­ earlier experiences of our discipline and to better understand the mants-affect the kinds and quality of data we gather? What consid­ nature of anthropological data collection and interpretation. These erations enter into the choice of a field site, or of the unit of analysis letters offer us the opportunity to put our exploration of the history we use? How do the day-to-day activities of fieldwork relate to social of anthropology to an epistemologically revitalizing end. theory construction? What is the nature of anthropological appren­ This introduction sketches the intellectual, personal, and institu­ ticeship, and how does this affect the growth of professional relations tional circumstances in which these letters were written. Beyond their in our discipline? What is the relationship between professional pub­ historically descriptive importance, the material in these letters con­ lications and fieldwork activities? The material in the correspondence tributes directly to current concerns about the nature and status of between Robert Redfield and Sol Tax about their fieldwork in Guatemala anthropological knowledge. The later part of this introduction relates provides an unparalleled opportunity to explore these, and other, the letters to contemporary epistemological discussions in anthropology. questions. It is useful, before taking up specifics, to note four general domains of anthropological interest on which these letters bear. First, ethno­ graphic fieldwork is the major method through which anthropologists Redfield, Tax, and Anthropology before World War II gather data. The "modern" view of what anthropological fieldwork involves crystallized during the years when these letters were written. In 1934, the anthropological community of which Robert Redfield This correspondence presents a very clear picture of how two important and Sol Tax were members was small but growing. 1 Between 1902 anthropologists thought about and conducted their field research. From and 1941 the membership of the American Anthropological Association their letters we see how they made decisions during field research grew slightly more than fourfold, from 172 to 696. The numbers of about which lines of inquiry to pursue, and about how to gather data Ph.D. degrees awarded each year during this period illustrate this to test specific ethnographic hypotheses. growth. Between 1900 and 1940, 228 doctoral degrees in anthropology Second, Redfield and Tax also corresponded about what they were were awarded in the United States; 14 during 1901-1910, 20 during finding during their research. Thus, these letters contain a wealth of 1911-1920, 40 during 1921-1930, and 154 during 1931-1940 (Frantz ethnographic data that is useful for understanding how Redfield and 1985:84-85). Fifteen universities awarded these degrees, though Ill Tax arrived at their descriptive and theoretical conclusions. Some of of the 154 degrees awarded between 1931 and 1940 came from only this material, especially their concern with ideational aspects of social six departments (Ebihara 1985: 102). life, allows a fresh evaluation of their research programs. Before 1930, because of the small size of the anthropological Third, no aspect of professional social scientific life is more difficult community and because most of its members were trained in a few to master than the construction of social theory. By letting us "overhear" institutions, the discipline was characterized by a set of shared intel­ their discussions, reading these letters allows us to follow Redfield's lectual commitments. Eggan (1968: 130) identifies this as the "American and Tax's development of theory. These letters, thus, to some extent, historical school," which derived from the work and teaching of Franz make public the usually private processes underlying the intellectual Boas, centered at Columbia University. Important for understanding give-and-take of social theory construction. the intellectual context of the correspondence between Redfield and Finally, besides giving an opportunity for developing insights into Tax was the Boasian concern with collecting ethnographic information the growth of anthropological knowledge, these letters can help us about Native American groups that were then thought to be disap­ better understand the growth and development of personal relationships pearing. This "salvage ethnography" meant that, especially before the within scientific disciplines. Spanning more than half-a-dozen years, 1930s, in the United States ethnographic fieldwork usually consisted the letters allow us to trace the evolution of the relationship between of brief research trips during which a few, mainly older, informants Redfield and Tax from its student-teacher origin to its mature form were extensively interviewed. The aim of this work was to record their of valued colleagues and trusted friends. cultural knowledge so that this material could be used for historical 4 Introduction Introduction 5 reconstructions of Native American life. Salvage ethnography often Trobriand Islanders, which he had published in Argonauts of the Western focused on a group's material culture, stressing the collection of artifacts Pacific, for which he lived in "as close a contact with the natives as (see Stocking 1968, 1976). The emphasis on historical reconstruction possible." This method was significantly different than that used in led to the development of many anthropological ideas, such as the salvage ethnography in the United States and it provided a conception definition of culture-areas based on the distribution of culture-traits of ethnographic research which American anthropologists sought to which were accounted for by chronologically oriented distributional emulate. Much methodological reflection in American anthropology maps (Eggan 1968: 130). followed from the working out of that model. The letters exchanged One circumstance affecting the growth of anthropology during by Redfield and Tax during their Guatemalan research reflect this the years before World War II was that most professional anthropologists worked outside of academic settings. Not until after World War II did concern with how anthropologists can know other peoples. academic employment become the more general pattern for Ph.D. Secondly, Malinowski and Radcliffe-Brown each brought to the trained anthropologists. Thus, much anthropological research was done United States a more theoretical approach than was current among by those working in museums, government departments (for example American anthropologists. Radcliffe-Brown especially challenged the the Bureau of American Ethnology), or research institutions (like the American historical school by his insistence that "social anthropology" Carnegie Institution of Washington or the National Research Council). could discover natural laws ofhuman society by applying a comparative As Stocking ( 1976:9-10) points out, "the customary linkage of ar­ approach