Hi All
Yes lets not homogenize anthropology or we are in danger of doing to
the anthropologists what they have done to 'other' cultures for
years. And, therefore, reproducing the very practices that we aim to
criticise. The idea of authentic Cultures has been deconstructed by
post-structural/postmodern anthropologists (please note that I am
suspicious of the terms and I am using them in an effort to link
across paradigms) The post-structural / postmodern turn in
anthropology can probably be linked to a text: Marcus, G. E. &
Clifford, J.(1986) (eds)Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics
of ethnography, (Berkeley, Uni of California Press).
Which is heavily critical of 'traditional;' anthropology and moreover,
one chapter by Marcus: Marcus, G. (1986) Contemporary Problems of
Ethnography in a World System. Makes a particularly usefull critique
around issues of political economy. The historical context of which
is substantiated in a particularly useful book: Marcus, G. &
Fisher, M. (1986) Anthropology as a Cultural Critique. (Chicago,
Chicago University Press).
So its seems that Mark's excellent, if simplistic, criticisms are
contemporary in disability studies - but dated in anthropology.
Indeed, not only that, anthropologists like Campbell ( 1996) go
further than that to argue that there is nothing new about
postmodern approaches. So it seems that 'traditional' anthropolgy
was never a homogeneous entity.
Other texts for a more uptodate view of anthropology are outlined
bellow (I've highlighted some chapters in specific books but the
other chapters in the books are definitely worth reading)
Texts like Campbell (1995) include issues around illness and
impairment, not least his own experience of such, but do not show an
awareness of disability studies. However, Campbell does illustrate
the manner in which different people within the amazon encounter,
react against and counter disabling politcal and economoic forces
locally , nationally and globally. This suggests that though
anthropology may not engage with disability studies this does not mean
that anthropological texts donot deal with disability, even if this
has to be read allegorically. Indeed, Campbell's text fullfills the
anti-hegamonic requirements of such writers in disability studies as
Shakespear and Corker and certainly compliments Barnes' assertion that
research should be about , 'the systematic demystification of
structures and processes which create disability' (1992: 122)'.
Indeed their might be lessons to learned from Campbell about how we
here (Scotland, Uk, the west) charchterise issues of impairment,
embodiement and disability within social models, for his is a
wonderfully meaningfull text which illustreates people's life
experiences at the same time as attending to an interconnection of
spiritual, cultural and structural processes.Texts like Campbell (1995) include issues around illness and
impairment, not least his own experience of such, but do not show an
awareness of disability studies. However, Campbell does illustrate
the manner in which different people within the amazon encounter,
react against and counter disabling politcal and economoic forces
locally , nationally and globally. This suggests that though
anthropology may not engage with disability studies this does not mean
that anthropological texts donot deal with disability, even if this
has to be read allegorically. Indeed, Campbell's text fullfills the
anti-hegamonic requirements of such writers in disability studies as
Shakespear and Corker and certainly compliments Barnes' assertion that
research should be about , 'the systematic demystification of
structures and processes which create disability' (1992: 122)'.
Indeed there might be lessons to learned from Campbell about how we
here (Scotland, Uk, the west) charchterise issues of impairment,
embodiement and disability within social models, for his is a
wonderfully meaningfull text which illustreates people's life
experiences at the same time as attending to an interconnection of
spiritual, cultural and structural processes. I would think Campbell
to be supportive of yet also way ahead of Mark's criticisms
concerning anthropology.
Other Refs:
Callaway, H. & OKely, J. (eds) Anthropology and Autobiography,
(London, Routledge)
Campbell, A. T. (1995) Getting to Know Waiwai: An
Amazonian Ethnography. (London, Routledge).
Campbell, A. T. (1996)Tricky tropes: Styles of the poular and the
pompous in MacClancy J and McDonaugh C Popularising Anthropology.
(London, Routledge).
Clifford, J. (1983) On Ethnographic Authority, Representations , 1,
pp. 118-46.
Davis, J. M., Watson, N. & Cunningham-Burley, S. (1999a), Learning the
Lives of Disabled Children: Developing a reflexive approach, in
Christensen, P. & James, A. (eds) Conducting Research With Children,
(London, Falmer)
Denzin, N. (1997) Interpretative Ethnography: Ethnographic Practices
for the 21st Century, (London, Sage).
Okely, J. (1992) Anthropology and Autobiography: Participatory
experience and embodied knowledge, in: Callaway, H. & OKely, J. (eds)
Anthropology and Autobiography, (London, Routledge).
Okely, J (1994) Thinking Through Fieldwork, in: Bryman, A. &
Burgess, R. G. (eds) Analysing Qualitative Data. (London, Routledge).
Okely J (1997) Some political Consequences of Theories of Gypsy
Ethnicity: The place of the intellectual, in James A, Hockey A &
Dawson A (eds) After Writing Culture. Routledge: London
In terms of comparing the research methods of anthropology and
notions of emancipatory research (excuse again the self publicity
here) I have an article coming out next year: Davis, J. M. (2000)
'Disability studies as ethnographic research & text: Research
strategies and roles for promoting social change?' Disability &
Society (forthcoming) which might be of interest.
Hope this helps
Cheers
John
Dr John M Davis
Department of Public Health Sciences/
Research Unit in Health and Behavioural Change
The University of Edinburgh
Medical School
Teviot Place
Edinburgh
EH8 9AG
tele 0131 650 3244/6197
fax 0131 650 6909
email [log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|