Ethnography through Thick and Thin

Rating:
Summary: An enlightening if unnecessarily difficult argument
Review: The field of anthropology, as Professor Marcus sees it, has arrived at a crossroads. It can no longer afford to go on viewing the world as an assembly of distinct communities, each worthy of being viewed in isolation. But anthropological traditions and methods are still very much rooted in the early 20th century when ethnographic studies were conceived. Something must be done, Marcus asserts, to get anthropology back in line with the world it attempts to explain.

The force of this argument stems apparently from the fact that, well, it IS a small world after all. From the sands of the Sahel to the forests of the ..., no one is sheltered from outside cultural, political and economic influences anymore. The inescapable phenomenon known as globalization, says Marcus, necessitates no less than anthropology's reinvention of itself, so as to become capable of analysis that's more "holistic" (this being one of the author's favorite adjectives). One must view peoples and cultures today in "juxtaposition" (his favorite noun) if one is to understand the nature of the connections between them. And the tool Marcus proposes to achieve such holistic juxtapositions is the Multi-Sited Ethnography.

I am with the good doctor 100 percent, that is, when I can understand just what it is he is trying to say. Marcus is the kind of writer who actually prefers words like "exegesis" over more readily accessible ones like "interpretation." His numerous references to thinkers outside anthropology ("Wittgensteinian" is one of his more erudite adjectives) only serve to thicken the fog. Come on, George! You are a tenured professor, a made man, and you needn't go on trying to impress the girls with the size of your vocabulary.

Still, "ETHNOGRAPHY THROUGH THICK AND THIN" makes a valuable contribution to the field of anthropology, and I hope Marcus's message is heard and taken to heart by his colleagues. But next time, Professor, try to cut out the fat and streamline your writing a wee bit, for the benefit of the unwashed non-eggheads like me.

Rating:
Summary: An enlightening if unnecessarily difficult argument
Review: The field of anthropology, as Professor Marcus sees it, has arrived at a crossroads. It can no longer afford to go on viewing the world as an assembly of distinct communities, each worthy of being viewed in isolation. But anthropological traditions and methods are still very much rooted in the early 20th century when ethnographic studies were conceived. Something must be done, Marcus asserts, to get anthropology back in line with the world it attempts to explain.

The force of this argument stems apparently from the fact that, well, it IS a small world after all. From the sands of the Sahel to the forests of the ..., no one is sheltered from outside cultural, political and economic influences anymore. The inescapable phenomenon known as globalization, says Marcus, necessitates no less than anthropology's reinvention of itself, so as to become capable of analysis that's more "holistic" (this being one of the author's favorite adjectives). One must view peoples and cultures today in "juxtaposition" (his favorite noun) if one is to understand the nature of the connections between them. And the tool Marcus proposes to achieve such holistic juxtapositions is the Multi-Sited Ethnography.

I am with the good doctor 100 percent, that is, when I can understand just what it is he is trying to say. Marcus is the kind of writer who actually prefers words like "exegesis" over more readily accessible ones like "interpretation." His numerous references to thinkers outside anthropology ("Wittgensteinian" is one of his more erudite adjectives) only serve to thicken the fog. Come on, George! You are a tenured professor, a made man, and you needn't go on trying to impress the girls with the size of your vocabulary.

Still, "ETHNOGRAPHY THROUGH THICK AND THIN" makes a valuable contribution to the field of anthropology, and I hope Marcus's message is heard and taken to heart by his colleagues. But next time, Professor, try to cut out the fat and streamline your writing a wee bit, for the benefit of the unwashed non-eggheads like me.