You are here

Home » Content

BU KADAR ETNOGRAFİ YETER!

THAT’S ENOUGH ABOUT ETHNOGRAPHY!

Journal Name:

  • Moment Dergi

Publication Year:

  • 2017
DOI: 
https://doi.org/10.17572/mj2017.1.173188

Key Words:

Keywords (Original Language):

Author NameUniversity of Author
Abstract (2. Language): 
Ethnography has become a term so overused, both in anthropology and in contingent disciplines, that it has lost much of its meaning. I argue that to attribute “ethnographicness” to encounters with those among whom we carry on our research, or more generally to fieldwork, is to undermine both the ontological commitment and the educational purpose of anthropology as a discipline, and of its principal way of working—namely participant observation. It is also to reproduce a pernicious distinction between those with whom we study and learn, respectively within and beyond the academy. Anthropology’s obsession with ethnography, more than anything else, is curtailing its public voice. The way to regain it is through reasserting the value of anthropology as a forward-moving discipline dedicated to healing the rupture between imagination and real life.
Bookmark/Search this post with
Abstract (Original Language): 
Etnografi hem antropolojide hem diğer bağlantılı alanlarda fazlaca kullanılan bir terim haline gelmiş ve anlamını büyük ölçüde yitirmiştir. “Etnografikliği” araştırmamızı yürüttüğümüz kişilerle yapılan görüşmelere veya daha genel olarak alan çalışmasına dayandırmak, antropolojinin bir disiplin olarak, gerek ontolojik taahhüdünü gerekse eğitsel amacını ve temel çalışma prensibini - yani katılımcı gözlemizayıflatmaktadır. Ayrıca, akademinin hem içerisinde hem de ötesinde, birlikte incelediğimiz kişiler ile birlikte öğrendiklerimiz arasında zararlı bir ayrımı yeniden üretmektedir. Antropolojinin etnografiye, her şeyden daha fazla olan takıntısı, onun kamusal sesini kısıtlamaktadır. Bu sesi geri kazanmanın yolu ise, antropolojinin gerçek yaşam ile tahayyül arasındaki kopukluğu sağaltmaya adanmış, ileriye dönük bir bilim olarak yeniden gündeme getirilmesinden geçmektedir.
FULL TEXT (PDF): 
PDF icon arastirmax-bu-kadar-etnografi-yeter.pdf
  • 1
173
188
  • Turkish

REFERENCES

References: 

Alpers, S. (1983). The art of describing: Dutch art in the seventeenth century. London:
Penguin.
Besteman, C. and Angelique, H. (2013). The desire for relevance. Anthropology
Today 29 (6): 1–2.
Burridge, K. (1975). Other people’s religions are absurd. In Explorations in the
anthropology of religion: Essays in honour of Jan Van Baal, edited by Walter E. A. van
Beek and J. H. Scherer, 8–24. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
da Col, G. and Graeber, D. (2011). Foreword: The return of ethnographic theory. Hau:
Journal of Ethnographic Theory 1 (1): vi–xxv.
Duranti, A. (2010). Husserl, intersubjectivity and anthropology. Anthropological Theory
10 (1): 1–20.
Fabian, J. (1983). Time and the other: How anthropology makes its object. New York:
Columbia University Press.
Hockey, J. and Martin F. (2012). Ethnography is not participant observation: Reflections
on the interview as participatory qualitative research. In The interview: An
ethnographic approach, edited by Jonathan Skinner, 69–87. New York: Berg.
Ingold, T. (1992). Editorial. Man, New Series 27 (4): 693–96.
———. (2000). The perception of the environment: Essays on livelihood, dwelling, and skill.
London: Routledge.
(188)
Moment Dergi, 2017, 4(1): 173-188 Tim Ingold
———. (2011). Being alive: Essays on movement, knowledge, and description. Abingdon:
Routledge.
———. (2013). Making: Anthropology, archaeology, art and, architecture. Abingdon:
Routledge.
Ingold, T. and Gisli P., eds. (2013). Biosocial becomings: Integrating social and biological
anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jackson, M. (1989). Paths toward a clearing: Radical empiricism and ethnographic inquiry.
Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
———. (2013). Essays in existential anthropology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Press.
Masschelein, J. (2010a). The idea of critical e-ducational research—e-ducating the gaze
and inviting to go walking. In The possibility/impossibility of a new critical language
of education, edited by Ilan Gur-Ze’ev, 275–91. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
———. (2010b). E-ducating the gaze: the idea of a poor pedagogy. Ethics and Education
5 (1): 43–53.
McLean, S. (2013). All the difference in the world: Liminality, montage, and the
reinvention of comparative anthropology. In Transcultural montage, edited by
Christian Suhr and Rane Willerslev, 58–75. New York: Berghahn.
Mills, C. W. (1959). The sociological imagination. New York: Oxford University Press.
Rorty, R. (1980). Philosophy and the mirror of nature. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.
Sperber, D. (1985). On anthropological knowledge: Three essays. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press; Paris: Maison des Sciences de l’Homme.

Thank you for copying data from http://www.arastirmax.com