 |
 |
Thanks Jane, Steve and everyone for a thought provoking question at the start of term! Although I agree with Steve that there are perhaps few cases of anthropologists intentionally seeking to further the aims of empire - indeed, colonial governments often found that anthropological knowledge was not always conducive to legitimising their objectives. However, as Eric Wolf (1999) has argued in a recent paper (Social Anthropology 7(2)), anthropology often took place in 'pacified areas', therefore, good intentions do not necessarily absolve us from the implications of our fieldwork and, particularly, sensitivity to the context within which it occurs. Thus to Jane's original question I would argue that despite the prospect of remuneration to the hosts, like any emergent relationship based upon a monetary exchange there asymmetries of power will begin to emerge between researchers and hosts as well as within the 'community'. Second, the relationship is structured by a wider political economy which still enables a disproportionate amount of white/northern researchers to enter the social world of periphery, whether in aboriginal Australia or the East End of London. So there needs to be some consideration of the the purpose of this knowledge gathering exercise (presumably the company concerned is merely interested in profits? This then raises another issue: what is the anthropological value of knowledge that is constituted in the context of an overwhelmingly monetary encounter? Does this mean that locals will have a vested interest in concealing information in order to perpetuate the exchange and increase their monetary gain? If they are happy with that, perhaps it is okay, but is arguably dubious in terms of its anthropological value. Just some emerging ideas. Raoul - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dr. Raoul Bianchi Centre for Leisure & Tourism Studies Stapleton House University of North London 277-281 Holloway Road London N7 8HN ################### [log in to unmask] ################### Tel: +44 (0)20 7607 2789 Ext.3308 Fax: +44 (0)20 7753 5051 On Tue, 26 Sep 2000 10:35:40 +0100 Steve Butts <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Jane, > > To hone in on your interest regarding the implications for anthropology > and for anthropologists of the commodification of the research > relationship, you say we as anthropologists, and I presume tourism > researchers, ought to "take responsibility." What is it you are asking > us to take responsibility for? For the fact that we live in a world > market economy which has penetrated and commodified virtually every > tourist destination in the world. Or what appears more likely, that we > should all somehow detach ourselves from the commodification of the > research relationship. I would suggest that this is impossible. How can > we disengage ourselves from a market-based economy when our informants > are fully involved in it? This is a not a throw our hands up in the air > and give up position. It is simply suggesting that we must recognize the > relatively new chreod we find ourselves in and work within its confines. > Which from where I stand is what people are doing. If you sit at the > table, you've got to play the game being dealt. > > Also, there is a heavy relativistic element here which is answerable > only by individuals. Some people in the group no doubt have little > problem with the commodification of culture or with it being an element > of the research relationship. After all, what better way to understand > it than to participate in it? As food for thought. > > Interested to see what you and anyone else thinks. > > Cheers, > > Steve Butts > Faculty of Leisure and Tourism > Buckinghamshire Chilterns University College ------------------- %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%