Has any critiqued Luhrmann’s fieldwork methodology itself?  Aside from the Suster anecdote, all I’ve heard so far are a widespread feeling of betrayal among her consultants.  I don’t want to minimize that, but that sort of emotion is common among consultants in many different settings, especially in modern times when the chance substantially increases that the people studied will actually read the ethnographer’s work.  Whether that emotion is justified or not, or whether it derives from the state of anthropology itself, or academia, or (where I intuitively place it) the act of writing about someone else while attempting to maintain some distance, is quite another topic. 

 

Thus, can anyone answer that first question?