Representation:

Partiality & anthro-performance

Crisis of representation

The crisis of representation is a movement in the social sciences that has shaped anthropology into the discipline it now is. In the coming section, different aspects of this movement will be explored.

Break with the past

In the middle of the 20th-century anthropologists, and other social scientists began to question the means of describing social reality. Especially following social justice movements, anthropology, which white -male- scholars had always dominated, started to experience the crisis of representation. Marginalised people began to speak up, and scholars from underrepresented backgrounds started to write their own ethnographies. At the same time, the relationship between researcher and interlocutor also changed.

Who? When? Where?...

The relationship between the researcher and the interlocutor was seen as being problematic. Power imbalances were created and reinforced by studying other cultures from one's vantage point. These imbalances have always existed in anthropology, since colonial ties created the discipline. In search of an equal relationship, scholars began to write ethnographies with certain questions in mind. They began to ask themselves: 'Who speaks? Who writes? When and where? With or to whom? Under what historical and institutional constraints (Clifford, 1986, p.461)?' These questions made the anthropologist more aware of their relationship with their informants. In turn, they began to write ethnographies that were conscious of this; the self-reflexive turn.

The self-reflexive turn

Ethnographies started to change, and the power imbalance that had always existed began to wither. Scholars gained awareness of their role in imposing power differences. As a result, they started to account for this in the ethnography. Instead of finding objective truths, it was accepted that the researcher's positionality -such as gender, class, history- affected their fieldwork, resulting in subjective approaches. This meant that it became common to write in the first person and specify how the researcher's positionality influenced their research. The self-reflexive approach led to new ways of doing and creating ethnography. James Clifford coined the term 'partial truths' in his co-written book 'Writing Culture' (Clifford et al., 1986) and advocated for using literary techniques in ethnography. Modern scholars took it further and implemented performative arts in their ethnographies, such as Faye V. Harrison.

James Clifford: Partial truths

Click on the image to view the page

Faye V. Harrison: Anthro-performance

Click on the image to view the page

From modernist to postmodernist

Modernism

Modernism refers to the trend in social sciences and society that began around the 1600s and had a firm grip over society until the middle of the 20th century. The emergence of modernism coincided with advances in science and is characterised by the search and claim to knowledge. This approach led to dominant paradigms deemed accurate by most researchers in the social sciences (Modernism, Modernity and Modernization (Anthropology), n.d.).

Postmodernism

Postmodernism is a trend in anthropology that began around 1960-1970. Proponents of this movement reject objective truths and instead focus on individual interpretations. Every person has a different background/positionality that affects how they interpret reality. Therefore, postmodernists avoid an authoritative position while searching for subjective truths. In anthropology this shift caused researchers to alter their methods, and led to self-reflexive approaches to account for the researcher's positionality. Especially since the 1980s, postmodernist methods have gained popularity in anthropology. They brought new ways of presenting and thinking about culture, as James Clifford and Faye V. Harrison demonstrated with their works (Modernism, Modernity and Modernization (Anthropology), n.d.).

The canon of anthropology

The postmodernist period influences the methods used in anthropology while also impacting the core of the discipline; its canon.

The canon is, and has always been, time and context-sensitive; it is subject to changes in other aspects of anthropology and society.

This sensitivity is exemplary for the crisis of representation: where only white males determined what was read in the past, people from all backgrounds can now influence anthropology's canon. In the examples below, we have included literature that was once part of the anthropological canon and works that are now part of it. Besides written works, in the future, we may want to consider placing ethnographies in this category that are created with other media, as Faye V. Harrison suggests with anthro-performance.

Literature that has disappeared from the canon or whose status has changed.

Literature that has been added to the canon.

The future of anthropology

The information presented on this website paints a picture of a discipline that is not controlled by the 'lucky few' but is constantly reimagined by people who decide to take action. Anthropology is becoming more transparent and fair than ever, with no sight of this transformation coming to a halt soon.

When we decide to contribute to this movement collectively, we first need to look at the individual.

Those who dare to think differently are the ones who will make a change. Individuals can make a difference by a never-ending debate about ideas, criticising the canon, and challenging the status quo.

In this new anthropology, it should become more common to disagree than to comply with the rules.

Subsequently, anthropology will become more accessible by adopting new, digital methods; the collective rather than the individual can then pursue knowledge. As a result, the boundaries between researcher and participant fade, paving the way for anthropology devoted to changing the world towards equality.

Page updated

Google Sites

Report abuse