Reflexivity in Anthropology
What is reflexivity, and why is it important in the doing of anthropology?
Anthropologists research, observe and write in order to produce ethnographies. Though many travel to foreign locations to examine natives and exotic ethnic groups, others conduct ethnographic research within their own culture. However, is the process of ethnography essentially the same regardless of the diverse cultures anthropologists examine, and the use of a recording device rather than a notebook? Though there are similarities between the processes, ethnographies differ depending on the anthropologist and the culture based on the writing techniques the ethnographer applies, the anthropologist’s life experiences and their self-position (i.e. gender, class, culture). Some anthropologists use reflexivity, a writing tool that personalises ethnography as the anthropologist takes notes about themselves in the field. In reflexive ethnographies, the anthropologist positions themselves in relation to the studied culture and writes about their ethnographic experience in an attempt to fill any gaps between the culture being examined and the anthropologist’s culture. As a result, the outsider status of the anthropologist converts to an insider position. Reflexivity enables the anthropologist to demonstrate how and why it is that they emphasise with a culture, providing the audience with an opportunity to identify a culture unlike their own.
In his academic article, Godelier (2011: 5) declares ‘anthropology has done nothing but produce ethnographic accounts that are no more than the projections of the ideologies of Western observers onto the societies they study’. The use of reflexivity thus assists the anthropologist to not produce ethnographic accounts that are considered narrow-minded and biased. In reflexive ethnographies, anthropologists identify their position in another culture and outline their experiences both within the examined culture and outside it. Marcus (1998) depicts
Anthropologists research, observe and write in order to produce ethnographies. Though many travel to foreign locations to examine natives and exotic ethnic groups, others conduct ethnographic research within their own culture. However, is the process of ethnography essentially the same regardless of the diverse cultures anthropologists examine, and the use of a recording device rather than a notebook? Though there are similarities between the processes, ethnographies differ depending on the anthropologist and the culture based on the writing techniques the ethnographer applies, the anthropologist’s life experiences and their self-position (i.e. gender, class, culture). Some anthropologists use reflexivity, a writing tool that personalises ethnography as the anthropologist takes notes about themselves in the field. In reflexive ethnographies, the anthropologist positions themselves in relation to the studied culture and writes about their ethnographic experience in an attempt to fill any gaps between the culture being examined and the anthropologist’s culture. As a result, the outsider status of the anthropologist converts to an insider position. Reflexivity enables the anthropologist to demonstrate how and why it is that they emphasise with a culture, providing the audience with an opportunity to identify a culture unlike their own.
In his academic article, Godelier (2011: 5) declares ‘anthropology has done nothing but produce ethnographic accounts that are no more than the projections of the ideologies of Western observers onto the societies they study’. The use of reflexivity thus assists the anthropologist to not produce ethnographic accounts that are considered narrow-minded and biased. In reflexive ethnographies, anthropologists identify their position in another culture and outline their experiences both within the examined culture and outside it. Marcus (1998) depicts
References: Behar, R. (1996). The Vulnerable Observer: Anthropology that Breaks Your Heart. Boston: Beacon Press. Godelier, M. (2011). In Today’s World, Anthropology is More Important than Ever. Taiwan Journal of Anthropology. Vol. 9. No. 1. pp. 1-15. Kondo, D. K (1986). Dissolution and Reconstitution of Self: Implications for Anthropological Epistemology. Cultural Anthropology. Vol. 1. No. 1. pp. 74-88. Marcus, G.E. (1998). On ideologies of reflexivity in contemporary efforts to remake the human sciences. Poetics Today. Vol. 15. No. 3. pp. 384-404. Rosaldo, R. (1993). ‘Grief and a Headhunter’s Rage’, in Culture and Truth: The Remaking of Social Analysis. London: Routledge.