anno XVI (2013), n. 15 (2) Archivio ISSN 2038-3215 Antropologico Mediterraneo ARCHIVIO ANTROPOLOGICO MEDITERRANEO on line

anno XVI (2013), n. 15 (2)

Semestrale di Scienze Umane ISSN 2038-3215

Università degli Studi di Palermo Dipartimento di Beni Culturali - Studi Culturali Sezione di Scienze umane, sociali e politiche Direttore responsabile Gabriella D’Agostino Comitato di redazione Sergio Bonanzinga, Ignazio E. Buttitta, Gabriella D’Agostino, Ferdinando Fava, Vincenzo Matera, Matteo Meschiari Segreteria di redazione Daniela Bonanno, Alessandro Mancuso, Rosario Perricone, Davide Porporato (website) Impaginazione Alberto Musco Comitato scientifico Marlène Albert-Llorca Département de sociologie-ethnologie, Université de Toulouse 2-Le Mirail, France Antonio Ariño Villarroya Department of Sociology and Social Anthropology, University of Valencia, Spain Antonino Buttitta Università degli Studi di Palermo, Italy Iain Chambers Dipartimento di Studi Umani e Sociali, Università degli Studi di Napoli «L’Orientale», Italy Alberto M. Cirese (†) Università degli Studi di Roma “La Sapienza”, Italy Jeffrey E. Cole Department of Anthropology, Connecticut College, USA João de Pina-Cabral Institute of Social Sciences, University of Lisbon, Portugal Alessandro Duranti UCLA, Los Angeles, USA Kevin Dwyer Columbia University, New York, USA David D. Gilmore Department of Anthropology, Stony Brook University, NY, USA José Antonio González Alcantud University of Granada, Spain Ulf Hannerz Department of Social Anthropology, Stockholm University, Sweden Mohamed Kerrou Département des Sciences Politiques, Université de Tunis El Manar, Tunisia Mondher Kilani Laboratoire d’Anthropologie Culturelle et Sociale, Université de Lausanne, Suisse Peter Loizos London School of Economics & Political Science, UK Abderrahmane Moussaoui Université de Provence, IDEMEC-CNRS, France Hassan Rachik University of Hassan II, Casablanca, Morocco Jane Schneider Ph. D. Program in Anthropology, Graduate Center, City University of New York, USA Peter Schneider Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Fordham University, USA Paul Stoller West Chester University, USA

Università degli studi di Palermo Dipartimento di Beni Culturali - Studi Culturali Sezione di Scienze umane, sociali e politiche 5 Gabriella D’Agostino, Costruire o de-costruire il campo/Constructing or de-constructing the field Indice De-constructing the field

9 Vincenzo Matera, Ethnography: experiences, representations, practices for studying cultural diversity. Introductory notes

19 Thomas Fillitz, Spatialising the field: Conceptualising fields and interconnections in the context of contemporary art of Africa

29 Michela Fusaschi, Le silence se fait parole : ethnographie, genre et superstes dans le post-génocide rwandais

41 Ferdinando Fava, “Chi sono per i miei interlocutori?”. L’antropologo, il campo e i legami emergenti

59 Nigel Rapport, The informant as anthropologist. Taking seriously “native” individuals’ constructions of social identity and status

69 Paolo Favero, Picturing Life-Worlds in the City. Notes for a Slow, Aimless and Playful Visual Ethnography

87 Francesco Pompeo, «We don’t do politics». Rhetorics of Identity and Immigrant Representation in Rome City Council

Documentare

99 Mariano Fresta, Proprietà intellettuale, marchio e cultura popolare. Riflessioni sul caso dei bottari di Macerata Campania e Portico di Caserta

107 Leggere - Vedere - Ascoltare

109 Abstracts In copertina: Photographing the Taj (© Paolo Favero) for studyingculturaldiversity.Introductorynotes Ethnography: experiences,representations,practices Vincenzo Matera the anthropologicaltradition. question regardingthearchetype ofthe“field”in distant fromthatideal. that ethnographershaveoftheirfieldsappearvery ethnographic researchpractice,theconceptions discipline’s tradition».However, inmorerecent passed intothenon-debated“archetype”of «Malinowski’s conceptof fieldworkhasforlong concept of“field”hasbeendrawn. of meaningstermed“culture”whencetheclassic organization, andoneofthoseorganizedpackages territory, a language, an identity, a form of political of anorganicrelationshipamongapopulation, ings, we have also to deal critically with the idea in theproductionandcirculationofculturalmean- accept theideaofcreolizationasmajorfactor clear incontemporaryanthropologyisthat,ifwe thropological community. Stillnotyetcompletely Culture anditsgrowingcirculationwithinthean- not emergefullyuntilthepublicationofWriting ethnographic awarenessofmanyscholars,did linowski’s (often innon-officialethnographicnoteslikeMa- though theywereevidentinethnographicreports on ethnography. Inpart,suchconsequences,al- turn had(andstillhas)importantconsequences ing thecreolenatureofculturalprocesses.This entity, werereplacedwithanewawarenessregard- and integratedentity, andespeciallyasalocalized signalled thatoldernotionsofcultureasaholistic the maindimensionofculturalanalysis.Thisturn nents atthemomentoftheircreolization–became traditions withhistoricalrootsindifferentconti- ence ofseparate and differenttraditions – thatis, making ofhybrid(orcreole)cultures,theconflu- social traits. Hence, at the turn of the century, the tion, seeHannerz1996),ofdifferentculturaland general terms,themerging(or, better, thecreoliza- of conflict,cultural and socialchange and, inmore anthropologists increasinglyaddressedtheissues During thesecondhalfoftwentiethcentury, Località geografica, Ferdinando Favatoo,inhis paper, asksacrucial As ThomasFillitzwritesinhispaper, indeed, Diary, forexample)oratleastinthe

dove l’antropologo, creden- edition ofSoundandSentiment(1990). ago byStevenFeld,inthefirstlinesofsecond the encounter withafullymulti-sensorial rangeof son thecoreofethnographic experienceliesin write ethnographywasevident. AccordingtoBate- which theefforttofind a morearticulatedwayto other. quences of words that can be read one after the of awrittentextmadeuplinearsentences,se- enced onthespot,sotospeak,intorigidform against constrainingculturalcomplexity experi- his famousbook,Naven (1936); Batesonwarned ory Bateson,severalyearsago,inthefirstpagesof rudi e,piùditutto,conforme gua differentedallapropria,incondizionitalvolta dosi ancoraeroesolitario,sicimentaconunalin- nostalgica dimondi solo dalleriletturedichicercainessol’illusione ne hannogovernatalascrittura,rianimatoinfine piuttosto deicodiciedispositiviretoriciche oggetto A similarquestionistheoneposedsomeyears This pointrecallstheoneunderlinedbyGreg- and honestdepiction(Feld,1990:X). people andthatplace,toneedforincisive preoccupations of scholarly readers, but to that cifically accountablenotjusttotheinterpretive and place.Theworkthewriterarethusspe- plicated inencounteringanddepictingapeople rience. Itisaboutthedialogueofsensibilitiesim- es. Anethnographyisareportofuniqueexpe- conventions, intellectualfads,andtacitprejudic- something morethanaRorschachtestofwriting […], butitisalsotruethatanethnography arguments areundoubtedlytrueinageneralway biases, ourtimeandhistoricalpositions.These tions andself-deceptions,ourgenderclass modes ofconstructing“otherness”,ouridealiza- to tellussignificantthingsaboutourselves,our formidable senseofallegory. Thegenreissaid have arguedthatethnographictextsinvolveda Recent commentariesonanthropologicalwriting Naven isananomalousethnographic textin

testuale, costruttonarrativorivelatore

sempre alui

altre

lontani?

di vita;oppure 9

De-constructing the field Archivio Antropologico Mediterraneo on line, anno XVI (2013), n. 15 (2) human interconnections (see Finnegan 2002). It litical, epistemological and ethical self-awareness. has to do with complex rituals, material objects, This means that the central question at the turn of with all sorts of indexical links between space and the century was no longer only that of Representa- time. This gives a dense sense to this peculiar expe- tion. Another “R” had been added to ethnography, riential dimension of human life. All these multiple that is, Reflexivity. The latter entail an exploration communicative processes are mediated through not of the lived experience of the knowing subject, publicly-shared enactments, not through publica- but of the effects and limits of the (political and tion in written texts. Something similar has been engaged) act of representations (see, for example, claimed by Dennis Tedlock (1983) with regards to Bourdieu 2002; Clark 2004; Kempny 2012; Naza- the dialogical emergence of culture. Tedlock (and ruk 2011; Burawoy 2003; Salzman 2002). Bruce Mannaheim 1995) assign a status of priority Indeed, political and epistemological conscious- to dialogue with respect to monologue. The latter ness – reflexivity – entails a critical view of culture, is the real core of any ethnographic experience – no longer something that we observe as social sci- especially in storytelling and oral narrative studies entists and talk about and describe by writing, by – even though it will sooner or later be transformed a more or less plain (more or less unproblematic) into a monological written text following the norms use of writing. Rather, it is a position that we speak of the ethnographic genre. Of course, the issue of from (our position). In other words (see Hastrup dialogue in ethnographic research is a very com- 1995), culture is what we see with, not what we see plex one (see, for example, Vincent Crapanzano’s (or observe). criticisms of Tedlock, in Crapanzano 1990). It con- Hence the crucial questions for ethnography are cerns more in general the value of experience as a these: what is a good ethnographic text, that is, a cognitive tool (see Tropp 2003) and the status of good Representation of our fieldwork experience? life-histories as epistemologically valid ethnograph- And what is the field where we acquire our relevant ic sources. What is at stake here is the difference ethnographical Reflexive experience? between “dialogue” – as a narrative fiction – and Of course, cultures and societies are not ‘out conversation – as a concrete exchange among indi- there’ with all their diversities, ready for the eth- viduals within a concrete social and political con- nographer’s eye and for the ethnographer’s writing. text. This dualism is, from a different point of view, Certainly, anthropology – as Clifford Geertz clearly another version of the opposition between experi- stated –- cannot be made out of real events on the ence and representation in ethnography. hill or in the centre of the village; rather, it exists in However deeply we delve into the culture that texts, books, conferences, academic contexts – that we are studying, our experience – and the knowl- is, in representations of real events. However, as Ulf edge that we derive from it – will remain a pic- Hannerz stated: ture-postcard experience unless we transform it into a good text. In other words, the endeavour to […] culture is not only in books; it makes also hu- make a field experience understandable is a condi- man beings. So, out there, on the spot, we just can tion sine qua non for anthropology. find human beings to talk with and to observe in Two of the main outcomes of the deconstruc- their agency. Indeed, cultures are not themselves tionist debate are, as is well known, the achieve- living beings; they are shaped and carried by peo- ment of ethnographic texts as fiction – in the sense ple in varying social constellations, pursuing dif- of things made up, of things not actually real that ferent aims (Hannerz 1996: 69). have been invented – and the question regarding the empirical foundations of ethnography as field- Today ethnography is extremely fragmented. work. In his well-known Introduction to Writing What was once its core – the “field” – has been Culture James Clifford expressed the ambivalence progressively dismantled. Very few anthropolo- of ethnographic texts in the formula “true fictions”. gists today would start their research having in The oxymoron postulates that ethnography is al- mind the localized notions of field and fieldwork ways partial, committed and incomplete. Yet, it is that characterized the first half of the last century. also real, in the sense that it is rooted in an eth- There is today at least some awareness of the wider nographic experience. While these ideas were de- networks in which every single community is em- veloped in 1986, this debate stayed alive until the bedded. Clifford Geertz’s African proverb-inspired millennium shift. At that point of time we believed claiming that “Wisdom comes out of an ant heap” that ethnography does indeed tell us something fits well here. Anthropology has, in fact, the “ar- certain about other people, or about ourselves, tisan task of seeing broad principles in parochial provided that the ethnographer – who is also the facts” (Geertz 1983: 167). This sentence underlines author and the writer – has a very high level of po- that if anthropologists have historically opted for

10 in widertemporalandspatial frames. they arechangingandhybrid “objects”embedded writing ofanthropological textshavepointedout cultures arenotfixed.As recentcriticismsofthe ed, infact,andfragmented. And,ofcourse,local world beyondthelocal.Fieldperiodsarelimit- our localinsightslackconnectionswiththewider our knowledge of Culture. This is because most of phenomena, thisisoflittleornouseinimproving (small) portionsoflocalcultureandcultural complete and detailed understanding of some prolonged andengagedethnographyan(almost) gaze. But even if we laboriously achieve, by intense, that worldlessopaqueandmoretransparenttoour sense oflivinginthatplace.Andwemustalsomake produce inacertainenvironment,tograspthe specific websofmeaningswhichacertain people and interpretthecontentofspecificcultures,those course ofcapitalimportance.We needtodecode ited, and specific social and cultural contexts is of Rapport’s paperinthisspecialissue). points forlocalpeopleunderstudying(seeNigel her/his “nomadic” path to discoverthe relevant Ferdinando Fava’s paperinthisspecialissue)and rapher fortakingher/his“conceptual”time(see quires alsoanepistemologicalmoodoftheethnog- Favero’s paper)oftheclassicalfield.Serendipity re- temporal integration(seeinthisspecialissuePaolo this specialissueThomasFillitz’s paper)andthe de-construction of boththespatialunity(seein and “space”,inthesenseofanepistemological Rivoal, Salazar2013).Serendipityrequires“time” ological valueinactualethnographicpractice(see in ethnography, acquiresprobablyanewmethod- key notion not only in scientific practice but also serendipity, alreadywidelyrecognizedasanother for them” (Hannerz 1992: 203). In this perspective, ability to“findthingswithoutspecificallylooking implies morethaneverthatsortofopennessand Reflexivity, inglobalcontemporarysocialcontext, an enlargementofitsepistemologicalhorizons. flexivity, leadscontemporaryethnographytoward longer processwithapast,present,andfuture). (fieldwork is nothing but a short step in a much our fieldstakeuselsewhere?),andintermsoftime be able to look outwardly in terms of space (how do capacity tolookoutwardly. Ethnographersneedto artisan, fieldwork isnowprogressively entailing a ly situated,localized,intensive,deepand,indeed, i.e. the“widerworld”surroundingit.Oncestrict- ing theirawarenessaboutwhatisbeyondthefield, ed socialandculturalsystems,todaytheyarerais- usages andcustoms“pure”uncontaminat- conducting work on “traditional” and “authentic” Ethnographic researchfocusedonlocal,delim- So, thekeyofethnographicapproach,re- Vincenzo Matera,Ethnography:experiences,representations,practicesforstudyingculturaldiversity... change alwaysleadfarfrom theplaceandtimein apparently confined. stratifications condensed in a cultural phenomenon broad panoramathatproves usefulingraspingthe it is the researcher’s obliquegaze moving across a that had long characterized anthropology. Indeed, cidedly distant from the close focus on the “local” gy ledhimtoadoptanethnographicpracticede- context. Mitchell’s choice of thesamemethodolo- then connectingeachofthemtothewidersocial tral elements of thebridge-opening ceremony and method of analysis consisted in isolating the cen- on theKalelaDance(Mitchell1956).Gluckman’s – andalsobyJamesClydeMitchellinhisstudy study onabridge-openingceremonyinZululand for example by Max Gluckman – see his celebrated ployed bythemembersofManchesterSchool: was already at the basis ofthe methodology em- to theflexibleoneofactionandrelationalnetworks shift from the rigid dimension of the social system image ofitsreference. adjectives “social”and/or“cultural”givesawrong in a functional, integrated unit – qualified by the “system” –acomplexsetofelementscoordinated and disorderedones.Today itislikelythatthenoun are probablysystems,butiftheyare,open Fillitz recallsinhispaper, underlinedthatsocieties an epistemologicalshortcircuit.FredrikBarth,as ings, locally-rootedempiricalpracticewillprovoke idea ofculturalflux,cultureasafluxmean- view ofcultureasaclosedsystemtoembracean concept of culture and society. If we go beyond the nographic field are closely linked with arevisited tural alterity. Obviously, theseinsightsontheeth- place wheretheethnographerwillfinallymeetcul- space far from the notion of the “field” as a distant evanescent entity, a sort of relational or discursive in the following papers, the “field” emerges as an what ismeanttodaybydoingethnography. Thus, analyses basedonempiricalresearchregarding centred”, sotospeak,andtheyareallimportant cal openness. ities without consistent epistemological and politi- ginal pluralityofethnographicdetailsandpeculiar of becomingafragmented,inconclusive,andmar of meaning.Otherwise,anthropologyrunstherisk an anthropologicalknowledgewithallitsfullness cesses. Theseframesandprocessesaredecisivefor indexes ofwiderframes,andmoregeneralpro- themselves» (1958:xi).Culturalphenomenaare na havetheirmeanings,buttheyneverspeakfor many yearsago,«arenotenough.Allphenome- In fact, the phenomena of social and cultural Thomas Fillitz’s essaydemonstratesthatthe All theessayspresented here are “field de- «Facts», asAdamsonE.Hoebel(1958)wrote 11 - -

De-constructing the field Archivio Antropologico Mediterraneo on line, anno XVI (2013), n. 15 (2) which they are observed. For example, people who conduct research, no longer exists (if it ever did)? move from one place to another, from a rural area But there nevertheless exist people as social ac- to an urban one, take with them cultural and lin- tors projected into a multiplicity of places real and guistic features which, as new social relations are imaginary. Ethnography concerns itself with this established, reorganize and rearrange themselves. multidimensionality. Michela Fusaschi writes: Apparent to the ethnographer’s gaze – which is necessarily restricted to a brief period and particu- L’ethnographie aujourd’hui ne se contente pas lar places – is a seemingly stable situation which de dépasser le local, mais le local montre à quels conceals its internal and external articulations. niveaux elle se compose des processus transna- One way for overcoming, at least partly, this lim- tionaux qui relient une multitude de sites, et d’ac- itation of the ethnographic gaze, is to focus on the teurs sociaux, à travers le globe dont une autre social actor and on the social networks that radiate investigation devient possible, […] même sous from him/her. As Fillitz again writes, forme de branchements.

For fieldwork this new method allowed to move It therefore becomes « un exercice multi-dimen- away from the “archetype” fieldwork as envisaged sionnelle, une coproduction du fait social et d’im- by Malinowski. There were no more pre-con- agination sociologique ». ceived social boundedness and taken for granted The discourses that surround the post-genocide ideas of locality or society. are manifold. They become “thick” given the mul- tiplicity of actors involved, and given the profundi- For Fillitz, the field is very far from the classic ty of the words – and of the silences: notion of the anthropological tradition, and be- comes a highly articulated notion made up of net- C’est là que trouve son espace la recherche eth- works, spaces of exhibition, and flows of relations: nographique et la réflexion anthropologique, car il est crucial se faufiler dans la densité et la com- While “constructing the field”, using Amit’s char- plexité des récits, faites des mots et des silences acteristic book title (2000), I nevertheless did in qui font, eux-mêmes, partie des mémoires. no way conceive any closed or bounded spatial entity. The field of the biennial of Dakar rather The emergence of anthropological knowledge turned out as a body of complex networks cen- from ethnographic practice through a variety of tred on this global event, but with transnational implications and ongoing linkages is the topic ad- connections into art worlds in Africa, and global dressed by Ferdinando Fava. Implication and the ones into the global art world. emergent linkage – separate but not distinct dimen- sions of the knowledge device in which the opera- In her description of the dramatic character of tionality of the former is tightly connected to the her “field” Michela Fusaschi raises a number of is- constitution of the latter – are proposed as the keys sues of great importance at the level of both episte- with which to disentangle the complexity of ethno- mology and text construction. graphic practice: On recalling Geertz’s well-known recommen- dation that the anthropologist: “n’étudie pas les […] l’implicazione e il legame, come lette alla villages, mais plutôt il enquête dans les villages”, luce di un dispositivo formulato in itinere nella Michela Fusaschi nevertheless points out that mia ricerca al quartiere Zen di Palermo, restituis- cono invece la relazione sul campo al tempo e allo […] avec la mondialisation, il semblerait que ces spazio storici dei rapporti sociali vissuti e la costi- lieux n’existent plus, ou mieux que les natifs n’ex- tuiscono mediazione necessaria per comprenderli istent plus, bien que toute la connaissance dérivée “da dentro” e nel presente del loro accadere. par la proximité avec les acteurs sociaux continue de façonner la vision analytique de l’anthropologie. The ethnographer is thus embedded in the places that s/he must physically traverse and in the Once again we are faced with the problem of times of that passage. These are filled with his/her understanding how to construct ethnography. intentionality – this being a contingent, relative, Thomas Fillitz presents this problem in terms of contextual, and methodologically irrational inten- his personal “ethnographic film”. How can one im- tionality. agine field research, given that the tie between the field as a key notion in anthropology and as a dis- Ogni antropologo quando arriva sul campo, per tinct and empirically identifiable place in which to intenderci, è sempre per questo un po’ James

12 – thatcreate and recreatetheclassmembership. and which relates to a deeper existential dimension ly beyondtherestrictedcontext oftheinstitution, the hospital–anambitwhich extendsindexical- a muchwiderdomainofthe porters’experiencein actions asclassreflecting andimpactingon Rather, it is their linguistic actions, their discursive to speak,whichallocatesthemasocialcategory. the institution, as the last wheels on the wagon, so of Rapport’s essay, itisnot the porters’positionin Hence, andinmyopinionthisisthecentralpoint space within which a class awareness is expressed. ers ofthemselves,sotospeak: is occupiedbypeoplewhoemergealsoasresearch margins, inthebackground,whileforeground acted inalargeScottishhospital». tions, isconceptualisedandspokenabouten- “classiness”, as an aspect of identity and social rela- port describes when examining «the way in which cologica erelazionale». nor asatext, therefore, notdelineatedasageographicalplace fore, awritingtool: his fieldworkintoaknowledgedeviceand,there- used byCliffordGeertztotransformforhisreaders is notenough.Herecallstherhetoricalexpedient tribuzione dipenda pre scelta. rocamente The fielddiscussedandanalysedbyFavais, tonomo, to, agenti sociali li, tura, e metodi sone, ilfrequentare care, […] a ben vedere, However, FerdinandoFavaadds,intentionality Cook In thiscase,thefieldappearsasadiscursive and selfconsciousactors standings, expertsintheirownintelligentlives tise: they are methodologists of their own under My workasananthropologistis The anthropologist’s roleremainsalmostonthe It isperhapsaunitofthiskindthatNigelRap- bi strate the

questa

atti come

sempre un

e cioè

costituite

in cui

quando approda Lono come attivitàmentali

intenzionale elacuiintenzioneè individui è

porters’ own ‘anthropological’ exper

«ma riconosciuta.

lo stabilirecontatti,l’intervistare declinati all’infinito,

la chiavecentraledellamiarilet

senza saperlo, l’antropologo e

Vincenzo Matera,Ethnography:experiences,representations,practicesforstudyingculturaldiversity...

prima ditutto come taledaloro da gestichesonoattisocia

le azioni che declinano cioè

in qualchemodo case,

che agiscono

in socialspaces.

sempre alle

e riconosce

strategiche,

senza che

Hawaii, come un’unitàpsi

here

presentate nei

sono è

in modo

riconosciu da to demon- altri

quest’at

con una sua è sem il invece,

recip

come ricer

per

ver au ------spective: yond theparticulartowardsamuchbroaderper even more efficacious when it leads the reader be- one person,MickHanrahan,makestheanalysis to admithisinitialfearthathewaswastingtime: nies theethnographer, and whichinducesFavero of that pre-understanding which always accompa- other is a cumbersome legacy of academic training, After all, the idea that the field must be something the style,ofpeoplewithwhomoneisdealing. the field)asnothingmorethanrhythmoflife, derstanding thefield(or, perhapsbetter, rejecting from theclassicobservationalapparatus,andun- ry” inwhichtoobserveaculture.Faverowrites: limits oftheconceptionfieldasa“laborato- “being there” which makes evident, in my view, the the fieldofresearch,onbasisanidea ly was perspective. witnessed canbedeemedtogiveontoauniversal or shecanonlywitnesssomuch–andyetwhatis ‘field’ isofnecessitynarrowandparticular–he sense […](Rapport2012).Theanthropologist’s with hisownoriginalandpossiblyuncommon boundedness butwhoanimatesthosediscourses mon discoursesofstatusdifferentiationsand yone’, a For inMickistobeespied‘Everyman’or‘An- In particular, Rapport’s choiceoffocusingon in tion, from location in a(hierarchical) mode ofproduc- cerning relationsofproductionandasderiving […] incontrasttoanassignationofclassascon- ple passing by on the street, less of me with‘material’abletolive uptothestandards time At thebeginning,however, This meansfreeingone’s ethnographicpractice had, infact, order tobeableunderstandmyinterlocutorsI particular duringthefirstmonths ly erent playfulness, I read the newspapers. danced, Iphotographed,drank,watchedTV, In the ‘field’ I hung around, I interviewed, I The essay by Paolo Favero is constructed around

annoying experience. describe myownwayofbeinginthe ‘class acts’. what Iconsideredtobea

sessions ofgossiping,

in fact passing in useless the portersadduceclassor–‘classiness’–

human

to entertheirrhythmoflife.

activities

actor whofindshimselfincom

this

my days

sentence does indeed ful-

Despite its

I felt that

in

thick ethnography commenting

I foundthisafair

that were notproviding in immersed in

of fieldwork). deciding

I

obvious irrev- was

spending

field

at where

end- peo

(in

In .

I - - - 13 -

De-constructing the field Archivio Antropologico Mediterraneo on line, anno XVI (2013), n. 15 (2)

to go for coffee or pakoras. And I was spending others. In this regard: the nights watching Western action movies wish- ing that at least the film was a Bollywood block- […] notions of slowness and aimlessness can buster (which would have made the experience be powerful companions to our ethnograph- so much more ethnographic!). The notes that I ic practice. They may allow us to discover new wrote during my first months of fieldwork do tes- things in our fields while bringing us also closer tify to my sense of frustration. to our interlocutors. Such a notion, I believe, is particularly important in the current historical The sensation of not producing material useful moment, one characterized by ever increasing for the research, of wasting enormous amounts of pushes towards faster, more productive, goal-ori- time (valuable time because the ethnographer does ented, market- and policy-friendly research pro- not have a limitless supply of it) smoking, drink- jects and study programs. A “slow and aimless ing coffee, and engaging in pointless conversations ethnography” can function as a fair antidote to is a common experience. To provide an example, such tendencies and bring anthropology in touch Ulf Hannerz speaks of it when recalling the hours again with its own roots. spent watching television – time wasted, he thought – together with his local interlocutors in the black Here returns the notion of randomness, that neighbourhood of Washington (see Hannerz 2010). “of finding something while looking for something For that matter, the anthropological literature is re- else”, the “serendipity” which, according to Ulf plete with annotations of this kind. I myself remem- Hannerz, is an essential ingredient of ethnography ber very well the sense of frustration that constantly and which is what makes it possible to turn experi- accompanied me on my interminable hikes among ence into knowledge. the Toraja hills, often under torrential rain, from one village to another in search of the most tradi- In other words, the serendipitous encounter with tional, most ‘other’, places, at least according to signs and objects inhabiting the space in which my informant. These hikes inevitably ended on the we conduct our research can provide us with pre- platform under a Tongkonan conversing (or trying cious insights into a field that we have other- to converse with the mediation of English), drink- wise explored through interviews, conversa- ing coffee, and smoking dreadful local cigarettes tions, and other type of data. with which I was very well supplied and which my interlocutors greatly appreciated. My sense of use- This perspective well matches the idea put forth lessness culminated when I was invited to the vil- by Francesco Pompeo. In his paper he suggests that lage’s newly-opened videopub: the ethnographic research is a critical theoretical practice. This is, he recalls quoting Lisa Malki, also Dopo l’intensa conversazione antropologica, an ethical practice and a game of improvisation. di cui ingenuamente io mi esalto, il mio nuovo Hence, Pompeo argues, ethnographic research amico mi propone di andare al nuovo “pub” di cannot be enclosed within prefigured schemas as Rantepao, dove c’è il karaoke. Ovviamente non a preselected “field” to observe and from which to vedo l’ora di entrarci. Qui conosco Paola, ragazza collect “ethnographic data”: bionda di Cremona, innamorata di un Toraja (che avrà un futuro come consulente antropologico) […] this ethnography followed a multidimen- e beviamo birra Bintang insieme. Non posso do- sional and multi-temporal approach, gathering a mandarmi, allora come adesso, che senso avesse various typology of sources (declarations, official la mia presenza in quel posto, in mezzo a dei documents, newspapers), concentrating on inten- ragazzotti discendenti di una tribù di indomabili sive participant observation conducted mostly in cacciatore di teste, concentrati sul testo che scor- the two electoral campaigns for the adjunct for- reva sul video di una canzone idiota, a imitazione eign councillor (2004, 2006) and continued over dei loro coetanei giapponesi, malesi e occiden- a time-span of five years on a series of meetings tali, con davanti dei boccali di birra, e con una with the various protagonists (winners and los- ragazza italiana di cui uno di loro s’inorgogliva ers), collecting discussions and repeating inter- palesemente e molto comprensibilmente (Matera views after a lapse of time. 2004: 73-74). The long timing of ethnography must conse- However, it is also true, as Favero writes, that quently also deal with a sort of changing field that ethnography also involves something similar to continuously takes new forms and enlarges or nar- aimless loitering or dawdling, at least until a goal rows its boundaries. emerges from rummaging through the intentions of

14 field sites,writesHannerz,ethnographersfind: atic answerisprovidedbyUlfHannerz.Inclassic heroic ritual of initiation in the “field”? A problem- acterizes someonewhohasundergonethelongand essary tomeetthedemandsofpresent. merous ethnographicpractices.Thisprocessisnec- been challenged,devalued,andre-thoughtinnu- remains that the classic idea of “field” has already because itisnolongeravalidcriterion.Thefact fetish toflourishinclaimingdisciplinaryspecificity, be sure,the“field”cannolongeramythor less” (Spivak1988;alsoGupta,Ferguson1997).To politically andeconomically, marginaland“voice- and storiesthataresociallyculturally, aswell tailed andfirst-hand,onspecific“where”,people, tial for acquiring a certain type of knowledge, de- and simpledestruction.“Fieldwork”isstillessen- anthropology shouldnotbeunderstoodaspure struction oftheconcept“field”soimportantfor identity ofthediscipline. classical meaning isnomoreabletomakeupthe may moveinmanydirections,yetthe“field”its and practicalunderstandingofculturaldiversity stood astheabsoluteofanthropology. Thestudy sought toshow, cannolongerbeobstinatelyunder The field,however, astheforegoingdiscussionhas despite itsepistemologicalstatusisnotreallyclear. have happened in a particular place, in the “field”, nographer hasexperienced;itrecountsthingsthat recounts true things; it recounts things that the eth- ment toreality. Ethnographyisarealistgenre.It But onethinghasremainedconstant:thecommit- decades ofmethodologicalandtheoreticalinquiry. constitutes “thickness”isaquestionthattraverses sic definition,through“thickdescription”.What which isaccomplished,accordingtoGeertz’s clas- pears asapracticeofexperienceandincorporation In sum,doingandwritingethnographyap- Does thismeanthat,inorder tostudyhowcul- tural process(Hannerz1996: 37). yet littlespecificconcernwith thenatureofcul- they taskaccomplished, with muchethnography, workers maywelltaketheirleaveofsuchplaces, the dailyroundofactivityandcommentary. Field deliberate effort, more o less as a by-product of the reproduction of culture occurs without much uted. Ongoinglifeissoredundantthatmuchof be extensivelyshared–thatis,uniformlydistrib- edge andexperiencemayquitenaturallycometo bour. Insuchplacesalargeproportionofknowl- relationships and a very limited division of la- […] little communities of enduring face-to-face What typeoftrainingisacquiredbyandchar That said, it should be specified that the decon- Vincenzo Matera,Ethnography:experiences,representations,practicesforstudyingculturaldiversity... - - ed. Itsuggests,asrecently argued byDavidGellner, epistemology offieldwork, isabitmorecomplicat- point, withregardtothenotion offieldandtothe program (Falzon2009;Hannerz 2003,2010).The ti-site researchmethodologyandaglobal globalizing worldadopting,forexample,amul- methodologically adjust itself to an enlarging and or oftravellingcultures,asifethnographyshould just a matter of local/global scale, or of mobility, “broad principles”maybeverydiverse.Itisnon the “parochial facts” from which artisanly to draw ogy. Buttheworldismuchlargerthanfield,and teraction isstilloneofthemainwaystoanthropol- Work inthefieldbasedon face-to-facepersonalin- This doesnotremovevalidityfromethnography. time-span which has a past, a present, and a future). (fieldwork isonlyabriefphaseinmuchlonger nevertheless leadelsewhere)andintermsoftime minute details,whichemergelocally, inthefield, is broader in termsofspace (parochial facts, even of thebroaderworldbeyondfield.The posite, Ingold2007)doesnotfitwiththeawareness that anthropologyisethnography (see, fortheop- As I have already stated, the Clifford Geertz’s idea thing butmicroanda-historical?(seeGellner2012). of aglobalethnography:canethnographybeany- work inthefield,butitextendsbeyondfield. discipline alsoderivesfromitslongtraditionof 2007; IngoldHannerz2010). cal modeofresearch(atechnique)(Marcus,Okley and conceptuallydefinesitsobjects,notapracti- manner inwhichitformulatesresearchquestions distinguishes anthropology is more concretely the pline, onthecontrarytheyareweakeningit.What they arenotdefendingthespecificityofdisci- is thatthosewhosupportitdonotunderstand is mostsurprisingabouttheorthodoxconception few monthsinthefieldduringhiscareer. Butwhat the mostcelebratedofanthropologists,spentonlya others. ThisideaforgetsthatClaudeLévi-Strauss, ference between“true”anthropologistsandthe The fieldisthecriterionwhichestablishesdif- chetypal and never thoroughly discussed notion. 2010). Allthisconfirmsthepersistenceofar dismiss as“notbeingethnography”(seeHannerz than afew“orthodox”anthropologistsscornfully munities (seeWilson, Peterson2002),whichmore and todaytheethnographicanalysisofonlinecom- trialized areas,ortourismsites(seeAugé1999), posed to“exotic”fieldworkisworkincities,indus- field intotheir“backyards”? ture works,anthropologistsmayalsomaketheir At stancehereistheepistemologicalconsistency Certainly, thespecificintellectualstyleofour On theotherhand,indeed,metaphoricallyop- 15 -

De-constructing the field Archivio Antropologico Mediterraneo on line, anno XVI (2013), n. 15 (2)

[…] that anthropologists must learn to live n. 2, Special Issue: Future Fields (http://www.an- with uncomfortable but necessary antino- thropologymatters.com). mies (in the Kantian sense) between their face-to-face methods and the global issues Crapanzano V. they wish to address, and between their com- 1990 «On Dialogue», in Maranãho T. (ed.), The Inter- mitment to holism (with its associated dan- pretation of Dialogue, Chicago, The University of gers of methodological nationalism and/or Chicago Press. ethnic groupism) on the one side, and the ne- cessity of encompassing within their purview D’Agostino G. (ed.) flux, movement, and change, on the other. 2002 Il discorso antropologico. Descrizione, narrazione, Whether anthropologists couch their re- sapere, Palermo, Sellerio. sponse to globalisation in terms of multi-sit- ed ethnography (a methodological stance), Fabietti U., Matera V. global ethnography (a research programme), 1997 Etnografia. Scritture e rappresentazioni dell’antropo- or in some other way, these antinomies can- logia, Roma, Carocci. not be avoided and should be embraced (Gellner 2012: 1). Falzon M. A. 2009 Multi-Sited Ethnography. Theory, Praxis and Local- And, in more general terms, that the classical ity in Contemporary Research, Farnham, Ashgate “field-work” is not (any more) the only method of Publishing. research. Even less is it the absolute of anthropol- ogy. Feld S. 1990 Sound and Sentiment. Birds, Weeping, Poetics and Song in Kaluli Expression, Philadelphia, Universi- ty of Pennsylvania Press.

References Ferguson J., Gupta A. 1997 Anthropological Locations. Boundaries and Grounds of a Field Science, Berkeley, University of Califor- Asad T. (ed.) nia Press. 1973 Anthropology and the Colonial Encounter, Amh- erst-New York, Prometheus Books. Finnegan R. 2002 Communicating. The Multiple modes of Human Augé M. Interconnection, London, Routledge (trad. it. Co- 1999 Disneyland e altri non luoghi, Torino, Bollati Bor- municare. Le molteplici modalità dell’interconnes- inghieri. sione umana, a cura di A. Biscaldi, Novara, Utet Università, 2009). Bateson G. 1936 Naven: A Survey of the Problems suggested by a Geertz C. Composite Picture of the Culture of a New Guinea 1983 Local Knowledge. Further essays in Interpretive Tribe drawn from Three Points of View, Stanford, Anthropology, New York, Basic Books (trad. it. Stanford University Press (trad. it., Naven. Un Antropologia interpretativa, Bologna, Il Mulino, rituale di travestimento in Nuova Guinea, Torino, 1988). Einaudi, 1988). Gellner D. N. Bourdieu P. 2012 «Unconfortable Antinomies: Going Beyond Meth- 2003 «Participant Objectivation», in Journal of the Royal odological Nationalism in Social and Cultural Anthropological Institute, vol. 9 (2): 281-294. Anthropology», in AAS - Working Papers in So- cial Anthropology / ÖAW Arbeitspapiere zur So- Burawoy M. zialanthropologie, vol. 24: 1-18. 2003 «Revisits: An Outline of a Theory of Reflexive Eth- nography», in American Sociological Review, vol. Ginsburg F. D., Abu-Lughod L., Larkin B. (eds) 68: 645-679. 2002 Media Worlds. Anthropology on New Terrain, Berkeley, University of California Press. Clark D. 2004 «The field as “habitus”: reflections on inner and Hannerz U. outer dialogue», in Anthropology Matters, vol. 6, 1996 Transnational Connections: Culture, People, Places,

16 2011 «Reflexivity inanthropologicaldiscourse analysis», Nazaruk N. 1969 «Up the Anthropologist – Perspectives Gained Nader L. 2002 «Bourdieuandphenomenology. Acriticalassess- Murphy K.M.,ThroopC.J. 2004 Lascritturaetnografica,Roma,Meltemi. 1996 Matera V. 2007 «Howshortcanfieldworkbe?»,inSocialAnthro- Marcus G.,OkleyJ. 1998 Marcus G. 2012 «RethinkingNativeAnthropology:Migrationand Kempny M. 2007 Ingold T. 1958 Hoebel E.A. 2004 «Gettingitright.Knowledgeandevidenceinan- 1995 Hastrup K. 2010 Anthropology isnotEthnography,Radcliffe-Brown Man intheprimitiveworld.AnIntroductiontoan- A PassagetoAnthropology,London&NewYork, Anthropology’s World.LifeinaTwenty-FirstCen- Raccontare gliAltri.Losguardoelascritturanei Ethnography throughThick&Thin,Princeton, Princeton UniversityPress. Bompiani, 1974). 284-311 (trad.it.Antropologiaradicale , Milano, ing Anthropology,NewYork, Pantheon,1969: from StudyingUp»,inHymesD.(ed.),Reinvent- 185–207. ment», inAnthropologicalTheory,vol.2(2): ce, Argo. libri diviaggioenellaletteraturaetnografica,Lec- pology, vol.15,3:353-368. Lecture totheBritishAcademy, London. vol. 2(2):39-52. rope», inInternationalReviewofSocialResearch, Auto-Ethnography inthePost-AccessionEu- pany. thropology, NewYork, McGraw-HillBookCom- (4): 455-472. thropology», inAnthropologicalTheory,vol.4 Routledge. dell’antropologia, Bologna,IlMulino,2012). a curadiG.D’AgostinoeV. Matera,Ilmondo tury Discipline,NewYork, PlutoPress(trad.it. ale, Bologna,IlMulino,2001). London, Routledge(trad.it.Ladiversitàcultur- Vincenzo Matera,Ethnography:experiences,representations,practicesforstudyingculturaldiversity... 1986 «Dewey, Dilthey and Drama: An Essay in the An- Turner V. 2009 «IntermediaryVarieties ofExperience»,inEthnos, 2003b «MindingExperience:AnExplorationofthe 2003a «Articulating experience», in Anthropological Throop J.C. 1995 Tedlock D.,MannaheimB.(eds) 1983 Tedlock D. 1999 1990 ThePost-ColonialCritic,NewYork, Routledge. 1988 «CanTheSubalternSpeak?»inNelsonC.,Gross- Spivak G.C. 2002 «OnReflexivity»,inAmericanAnthropologist,vol. Salzman P. C. 2013 [Young Scholar Forum] «Contemporary ethno- Rivoal I.,SalazarN.(eds) 1986 «Representations are Social Facts: Modernity and Rabinow P. Dialogic EmergenceCulture,Urbana,Universityof The SpokenWordand the WorkofInterpretation, Critique ofPost-Colonial Reason, Harvard,Har bana, UniversityofIllinoisPress. E. M. (eds) The Anthropology of Experience . Ur thropology ofExperience», in Turner V., Bruner 74: 4,535-558. ioral Sciences,vol.39(4),365-382. vi-Strauss», inJournaloftheHistoryBehav- Anthropology of Durkheim, Lévy-Bruhl, and Lé- Concept of“Experience”intheearlyFrench Theory, vol3(2):219-241. Illinois Press. del Mediterraneo,Napoli,2002). lato, a cura di A. Biscaldi e V. Matera, L’Ancora (trad. it. Verba manent. L’interpretazione del par - Philadelphia, UniversityofPennsylvaniaPress vard UniversityPress. ture, Urbana,UniversityofIllinoisPress. berg L.(eds),MarxismandInterpretationofCul- 104, 3:805-813. Social Anthropology,21(2):178-229. graphic practiceandthevalueofserendipity»,in emi, Roma,1997) culture. Poeticheepoliticheinetnografia,Melt- of CaliforniaPress:234-261(trad.it.Scriverele and PoliticsofEthnography,Berkeley, University G. Marcus(eds),WritingCulture.ThePoetics Postmodernity inAnthropology»,J.Clifford, in AnthropologicalNotebooks,17(1):73-83. 17 - -

De-constructing the field Archivio Antropologico Mediterraneo on line, anno XVI (2013), n. 15 (2)

Turner V., Turner L. B. (eds) 1985 On the Edge of the Bush: Anthropology as Experi- ence, Tucson, University of Arizona Press.

Wilson S., Peterson L. 2002 «The Anthropology of Online Communities», in Annual Review of Anthropology, vol. 31: 449-467.

Wikan U. 1991 «Toward an Experience-Near Anthropology», in Cultural Anthropology 6: 285-305. 1992 «Beyond the Words: The Power of Resonance», in American Ethnologist, 19: 460-482.

18