Negotiating Rapport and Shades of Participant Observation: Notes from Fieldwork in Jaunsar-Bawar P

J. Indian Anthrop. Soc. NOTES51:117-127(2016) FROM FIELDWORK IN JAUNSAR-BAWAR 117 Negotiating Rapport and Shades of Participant Observation: Notes from Fieldwork in Jaunsar-Bawar P. C. JOSHI Department of Anthropology, Delhi University Abstract: The paper tries to examine fieldwork based research strategy, especially focusing upon intricacies involved in establishment of rapport which involves highly complex negotiative interactions carefully calibrated by the anthropologist. Based on doctoral fieldwork of the author, it examines rapport establishment as systematic exploitation of the opportunities and breakthroughs that keep cropping up before the anthropologist during proactive interactions in the field. It is surmised that there can never be any codified prescription for the rapport establishment which can be seen largely as friendly interactions carefully maneuvered and steered by anthropologists for enhancing the quantity and quality of the data. Key words : Participant observation, fieldwork, rapport, Jaunsar Bawar Anthropological Fieldwork According to Powdermaker, “Anthropological fieldwork has been characterized by the prolonged residence of the investigator, his participation in and observation of the society, and his attempt to understand the inside view of the native people and to achieve the holistic view of a social scientist..” (Powdermaker, 1969:418). While this definition broadly outlines the context of anthropological fieldwork, for any neophyte anthropologist fieldwork entails walking through the labyrinthic pathways negotiating unique situations which will emerge in the field from time to time. The dilemma of a typical anthropologist seeking advice for a good fieldwork was aptly summarized by Evans-Pritchard as follows: I first sought advice from Westermarck. All I got from him was “don’t converse with an informant for more than twenty minutes because if you are not bored by that time he will be”. Very good advice, even if somewhat inadequate. I sought instructions from Haddon, a man fore-most in field-research. He told me that it was really all quite simple; one should always behave as a gentleman. Also very good advice. My teacher Seligman told me to take “ten grains of quinine every night and to keep off women”. The famous Egyptologist, Sir Flinders Petrie just told me not to bother about drinking dirty water as one soon become immune to it. Finally I asked Malinowski and was told just to remember not to be a bloody fool. (Evans- Pritchard, 1973:1) The dilemma of Evans-Pritchard is every anthropologist’s dilemma. You can never predict what situation an anthropologist will be in and what should be the best way to deal with a typical adverse field situation? Besides broad advice such as being given by Haddon that one should be a gentleman there is not much that can go as good advice. Even being a gentleman, at times may 118 P. C. JOSHI not prove to be the right advice as was true with Napoleon Chagnon who would have become a pauper had he remained a gentleman among the Yanomamos. Therefore, anthropological fieldwork as a data collection strategy is inimitable and context driven. As against the linear informant-information-researcher mechanism of data gathering, the experience based anthropological fieldwork involves complex maneuvering by the researcher where data gathering becomes cumulative endeavor something akin to absorption action of a sponge. While maintaining the focus in research, the anthropologist is never oblivion to what is happening around. The holistic framework in field research implies that episodes and events are always integrated and therefore anything happening in the field is important. The ever presence of anthropologist in the field exposes an anthropologist to the ‘imponderabilia of actual life’. Fieldwork thus implies driving amidst the forest of information from outskirts to the deeper and dense areas of ones topic of study. It further involves investment of emotional capital which is necessary in maintaining friendly relations. An anthropologist in the field is like an omnipresent entity. Active fieldwork entails active presence of anthropologist in the field. Fieldwork thus involves intimate, personalized and emotional interaction with the people and at the same time it is a rigorous scientific endeavor. An anthropologist in the fieldwork is constantly struggling to make concerted efforts so that the flow of required information is not hindered. In fact, the major difference between a good and a not so good anthropological fieldwork lies in how the anthropologist was able to handle opportunities and challenges that keep cropping up constantly in the journey of fieldwork based research. The ‘field’ in fieldwork is not merely a place; for an anthropologist, it is no less than a battleground where, the anthropologist is required to steer the flow of information as a master strategist and consciously manage impression in order to conduct a successful fieldwork. The expression ‘immersing in the field’ implies deliberate attempt by the anthropologist in making efforts in ‘going native’. It means the change in attire, etiquettes, habits, mannerism, speech, food habits and sundry other behaviors helping an anthropologist in camouflaging in the local culture. Here the expression camouflaging is not used in the sense of being deceitful and secretive but as an act of mingling and dissolving in the culture. To an outsider, a typical anthropologist, in the context of the ‘other culture’ may look like a specially privileged guest who is friendly to many and enemy of none. The over indulgence on part of anthropologist in meeting and greeting people, in showing extra concern about the well being of the people are deliberate attempts in good rapport building. As a good listener, the anthropologist knows much more than any single individual; becoming storehouse of confidential and the other information of the community. Establishment of good rapport is the most essential part of any anthropological fieldwork. However, rapport is a very complex state of existence NOTES FROM FIELDWORK IN JAUNSAR-BAWAR 119 and it is affected by myriad factors such as the gender, age, social status, purpose of research, reference person, attire, accent and sundry other traits that people identify with the researcher. The rapport is also a function of how the researcher is talked about in the field setting. In a typical ‘other culture’ setting, an anthropologist is not only an outsider living alongside but also a wanted intruder constantly asking for access to the social and cultural milieu with a purpose of making recording of the social interactions. However, the fieldwork based information gathering is not a one-way affair. People are equally interested in knowing intimate details of the anthropologist as well. Thus anthropologist in the field situation is someone who is subjected to critical assessment by the people, who try to understand the purpose and intention of anthropologist out of the activities that an anthropologist is indulging in. For the lay people, it is not so easy to bracket anthropologist into an occupational category as what anthropologist does will not generally fit into a known category, especially if the field has not been visited by an anthropologist before. The Khos Fieldwork My doctoral fieldwork (Joshi, 1985) among the Khos of Jaunsar-Bawar was no less a challenge to me in management of impression and continuous building of the rapport. My choice of Khos as a field site for the doctorate arose because of my prior exposure during undergraduate and M.Phil. fieldwork. However, the earlier fieldworks were for smaller duration and not very intensive. I was reminded of D.N. Majumdar’s expression that a good fieldwork involved being in the field for a longer duration. Majumdar (1962) had stated, “A stay of one or two weeks in Chakrata is not enough to enable any one to understand the intricate social structure of an ancient people, living a quaint life, and practicing a curious mixture of monogamy, polyandry and polygyny” (p. ix). Majumdar had conducted a legendary fieldwork in this area as is clear from many books and articles that came out of his pen. However, Majumdar’s fieldwork was not concentrated in any one area and his ideas and writings were based on fieldwork done in various places across the length and breadth of Jaunsar-Bawar. In fact, Majumdar would pay annual visits to Jaunsar-Bawar during summer vacations exploring different aspects of these polyandrous people. He did it for more than two decades. D.N. Majumdar’s ethnography of the Khasa is therefore a summation of socio-cultural features collected not only at different places but also at different times. For example, in his well known book ‘Himalayan Polyandry’ the data had been collected from three villages from Jaunsar and Bawar. Thus D. N. Majumdar’s ethnography was extensive but not intensive. For example, D. N. Majumdar has not mentioned at any place that he was well versed in the local dialect. Perhaps, he did not know Jaunsari language. This extensive study of Majumdar had almost covered all the villages of Jaunsar-Bawar for twenty two long years and had the total span of four years and eleven months; still if 120 P. C. JOSHI he was not able to converse fluently in the local dialect which keeps on changing from one area to another; his field insight would rather be truncated. Choosing the Field Site Although I had some idea of the field area as I had been to different places in Jaunsar-Bawar, I decided to explore the most appropriate village for my doctoral work as I had to stay there for a longer duration and for intensive fieldwork. Furthermore, I needed to select a village which should have been moderately large, multi caste in composition and had medical pluralistic character. There were five such villages where I tentatively planned to pursue my research. I was very careful in searching for a village where I get full cooperation from the people.

Load more