Eager Visitor, Reluctant Host The Anthropologist As Stranger

Canadian Anthropology Society
Eager Visitor, Reluctant Host: The Anthropologist as Stranger

Author(s): Joseph R. Manyoni
Source: Anthropologica, New Series, Vol. 25, No. 2 (1983), pp. 221-249
Published by: Canadian Anthropology Society
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25605126
Accessed: 17-09-2015 17:13 UTC
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/25605126?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Canadian Anthropology Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Anthropologica.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 193.60.198.37 on Thu, 17 Sep 2015 17:13:48 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
EAGER
HOST:
RELUCTANT
VISITOR,
THE
ANTHROPOLOGIST
AS STRANGER
R. Manyoni
Joseph
Carleton
Dans
le
de
domaine
la
recherche
est ambigu
l'anthropologue
notre
de
culture,
l'analyse
non
sous-culture
d'une
etrangere,
au
tant
culturel.
contact
des
tenu
compte
avancee
article
de
sur
l'enquete,
avec
les
autres
fait
qui
des
et
acquises
l'illustrer
done
procede
croissante
de
la
des
un
chercheurs,
sur
les
donnees
Comme
interpretation.
la
le
leurs
community
the
fieldwork
that
transient
notion
the
relationships
constitute
for
implications
As
data.
presented
situation
largely
situation
in alien
ethnographers
ethnographer's
Simmel's
seminal
interpersonal
masse
la
de
en
s'appliquant
conclusions
sur
recherche.
reevaluates
argues
fait
L'article
of the
in field
research
anthropologist
we
an alien
whether
ambiguous,
study
an unfamiliar
own
subculture
in our
society.
the anthropologist
is a stranger
culture,
par
an outsider
in both
the physical
and
cultural
initiate
face.
facteurs
role
paper
des
fait
is by
culture
nature
by
the
relations
resultant
ethnographes.
l'analyse
reflete
les
l'etranger
ces
de
ethnographiques,
la valeur
de
peuvent
au
situation
terrain
psychosociaux,
tendances
cognitives
rapports
et
la validite
plan
fois
ethnographiques,
sur
les
de
en
"d'etranger"
a montrer
consiste
l'equipe
serieuses
methodiquement
des
a. mesurer
situation
l'experience
les facteurs
et
excellence,
vue
de
et etranger,
hote
souleve
par
probleme
relations
interpersonnelles
d'adaptation
auxquels
ses
la consideration
limites,
dans
les
des
rapports
Malgre
surface
The
de
celle
culture
etrangere,
de
passage,
fondamentale
ses
de
rapports
interpersonnelles
le
leur
de
l'experience
culture
Ici
consequences
sur
leur
considerablement
problemes
de
plan
membres
de
la
notion
le
les
niveau
avec
point
de
dans
la
par
l'etranger
l'argument
a la
lui-meme,
donnee
du
cruciale
l'anthropologue
une
represente
la
Simmel.
par
Face
physique
qu'au
a reevaluer
cherche
ethnologues
sur
le plan
particulier
que
est
role
qu'il
s'agisse,
ou
culture
familiere.
l'anthropologue
vue
de
point
Cet
le
appliquee,
par nature,
autre
d'une
University
the
of
"the
crucial
reflects
the
analyzes
terms
The
of
datum
and
acquisition
in ethnographic
encountered
in
stranger."
analysis
accounts,
influence
of
or
alien
excellence,
sense.
This
and
position
anthropologist's
with
members
a
as
cultures,
an
In
its
of
paper
stranger/host
the
research
with
of
serious
research
the
field
psychosocial
N.S.
222
ANTHROPOLOGICA
factors,
to
due
However,
these
factors
this
ethnographic
reports
some
research
of
reliability
to
reports.
volume
with
. .
bias
cognitive
a
stranger.
being
has
question
conclusions.
that
stranger
sojourneth
the homeborn
among
you.
as
of
problems
consideration
ethnographic
the
growing
utilizes
paper
The
in
and
relationships,
interpersonal
the
adaptive
insufficient
taken
been
of
Methodologically,
of ex post
the
validity
facto
unto
you
shall
you
1983
25(2)
be
(Leviticus
and
19:3)
INTRODUCTION
From
the
antiquity,
of
position
field-workers
ambiguous
anthropological
relationship
stranger's
The
remoteness."
and
a particular
within
"fixed
is
group
belonged
determined,
to it from
which
do not
Simmel
further
essentially,
the
This
paper
of
aspects
encountered
other
It
the
stranger,"
anthropologist
anthropologist
the
of
group"
paper
in
in
field
the
was
to
reports
of
role
of
is
field
The
once
at
to
the
host
strangerhood
most
crucial
as
situation
alien
concept
the
position
to
notion
the
fieldwork
an
in
ethnographer
seminal
well-known
further
paper
with
and
the
focused.
one
the
initiate
members
argues
paper
and
"the
stranger
the
ultimate
apparent
the
anthropologist
society
is liable
the
culture.
"the
of
of
that
an
the
the
element
relations
interpersonal
are
under
investigation
to significantly
about
conclusions
difficulty
(ethnographies)
that
suggests
of
in their own right a datum that
drawn
is
are
field:
of
the
and
that
is
she
concept
studying;
social
of
the
factor
ethnographer's
integral
for
research
its
for
serious
implications
analysis
merits
data
of
it,
402).
the
relation
not
an
field-workers
field
in
constellation
this
'nto
which
reevaluate
or
he
as
The
qualities
elements
important
as
in
strangers
this
this
in
has
(1951
research:
applies
field.
the
the
fact
is nevertheless
position
that
he
itself"
discussion
to
Simmel's
from
Starting
"his
imports
involvement
is
present
attempts
anthropological
the
by
he
who
yet
the
had
have
the
portrayed
one
of "nearness
he
as
stem from the group
on
touches
the
by
that
beginning,
(1950:404-405).
on which
the
community
relations
results.
group";
anthropologists
and
detachment,
objectivity,
of
spatial
on
writing
well
might
when
the
been
always
(1950),
community
outsider
an
is
of
characteristic
"stranger"
situation
host
stranger
cannot
and
stranger,
in mind
the
with
Simmel
Georg
the
to have
appears
stranger
treatment.
of special
object
society.
of making
objective
concurrent
without
as
stranger
in
the
influence
Attention
evaluations
consideration
community
studied.
is
of
of
that
THE ANTHROPOLOGIST
Manyoni
In
the
to
researcher
to provide
and
people
core
of
is because
fieldwork
is
an
constitutes
to
its
basic
the
of field data
part
about
the culture
report
more
needs
attention
in
that
of
One
psychological
orientation
to
"has
social
the
earliest
research
he
group
on
essays
the
of
is
he
that
to
about
lacks
join,
par
that ultimately
of
the
"The
any
is
and
the
the
and
stranger
is to maintain
if he
the
social
social
the
relations
action
This
environment
with
in
progress"
is
precisely
and
his
stalls
of
the
coactors,
cast,
and
he
hosts.
stage
enters
in
notes,
of the
to
to which
As
group.
to the
of
get
is
Schuetz
situation
with
from
such
this
cultural
unable
his
is
on the
a member
therefore
interaction
meaningful
moves
the
stranger
of adaptation,
process
to "acting
host
within"
group
the
from
it,
puts
"Jumping
a member
becomes
onlooker
find their
of
problem
Schuetz
stranger,"
as
status
the
excellence,
stranger
However,
(1944:504).
starting point to take his bearings"
mindful of the ineluctable
link between
the psychological
of
the
study
field.
the
focuses
(1944) which
and
strangerhood
outsider.
an
the
of
anthropological
The
role
of
stranger
concept
is that of Schuetz
aspects
faced
by
face
the
fact
of
It
investigated.
being
the
research
methodology
fieldwork.
sociological
into their
insight
element,
situation.
relations
outsider,
integral
the
into
to
anthropologists
critical
a human
essentially
as
the
anthropologist
some
further
considered.
reduced
when
by
223
role"
"stranger
The
relationship
are
who
the
of ethnographic
subject
the
in
enterprise
anthropological
the
the
constitutes
way
role
efforts
belated
the
ethnographies,
is still
inadequately
published
field-worker
This
but
welcome
their field methods
explain
AS STRANGER
must
adapt
In this
the
about"
"thinking
Schuetz
graphically
. . . , the
former
as
participates
into
partner
henceforth
in
(1944:503).
the
situation
that
in the
any
ethnographer
in which
transformation
the observed
a
from
matter
of
his
passes
community
being
only
"subject
a
to being
of the world
(a theoretical
model)
thoughts"
"segment
to be
which
has
dominated
his
actions"
social
(a
situation)
by
moment
The
the
leaves
the
stalls
of
(ibid.).
very
ethnographer
as a
enters
observation
and
the
observer,
passive
stage
participant
or
a datum
he
she
becomes
in the
of data
collected
about
corpus
or "her"
"his"
the adaptive
of strangerhood
Thus,
people.
problems
more
to
have
do
with
the
environment
than
with
psychosocial
so many
as
field-workers
claim.
existence,
physical
field
confronts,
The
role
specifically
and
Nash
to
has
been
(1963)
the
ethnographer's
ethnologist
of
it
is
the
analyzed
commented
this
anthropologist
by Nash
upon
pays
particular
sociocultural
field.
in
the
field
as
and Nash
has
stranger
and Wintrob
by Richardson
to the
attention
gist
of
stranger,
been
(1972),
others.
(1975),
among
of adaptation
problems
which
constitutes
the
environment
The
is
(1963)
Nash's
that
argument
he
faces
is
the
that
problem
"the
of
224
ANTHROPOLOGICA
to this
and
role,
adapting
the
mechanisms
will,
through
the nature
of his
adaptation"
that
the
of
N.S.
perception
and
see
(1963:150;
his
of
objectivity
field
report
reflect
cognition,
and
Nash
also
1983
25(2)
Wintrob
1972:532).
This
paper
the
about
sociophysical
material
factors
of
result
the
the
of
both
own
the
of most
evidence
and
discussion
to
tend
on
interpersonal
are
the
informants"
are
accounts,
discussed
be
the
largely
reflect
and
factors,
and
"trusted
ethnographic
will
point
privacy,
psychosocial
relations.
reports
ethnographer
on
focus
of
lack
shock,
rather
than
stress,
This
culture.
culture
ethnographic
all
these
of
current
of
researchers
forth
bias,
in
influence
view
subjective
who,
by
in
their
as
so
deal
great
field
of
problems"
such
and
discomfort,
as
such
cognitive
situations
presented
Field
that
argues
"adaptive
factors
later
marginal
in the
paper.
we
Before
at
essential
obviate
any
denunciation
a
nor
of
fieldwork
is
this
the
the
reason,
to
happen
manner
principal
critique
thrust
in
the
of
evaluation
it
might
the
about
reflective
anthropological
to make
able
as
fieldwork
these
reports
and
to
the
the
in
entailed
problems
data
field
results.
either
or
those
social
or
this
not
of
of
experience
data
field
be
that
out
pointed
to report
on
methodological
as
stranger-host
the
objective
self-evident
because
pertinent
subsequently
experiences,
have
scientists
evaluation
the
and
Lately,
included
have
For
does
field,
the
Consequently,
was
not
always
experiences
of
their
the
been
endeavors
1970;
1967; Middleton
1976; Malinowski
ed. 1970; see also the highly
Spindler,
articles
reflective
of
the
As
will
report.
for anthropologists
attendant
the
and
reported
have
field
their
in
of
aspect
other
community
informed,
retrospective
collection
instructive
at
directed
in which
stranger
reacts
research
the
1968, 1974; Hicks

(Chagnon
Rabinow
1973;
1977; Siskind
eds.
is
manner
research;
scientists.
social
of ethnographic
acquisition
cultural
information
gathered.
that
either
what
happens
field-workers
published
as
anthropologists
the
paper
is not
paper
ethnography,
the
ethnographic
seem
from
anthropological
information
it is
paper,
to
in order
the
points
aim.
This
paper's
as
anthropology
method
of ethnographic
an
ethnographic
ultimately
shape
traditional
not
been
it has
below,
itself
fieldwork
the
experience
are
which
inevitably
problems
in
cultures."
"other
relationship
as
of
of
number
the
anthropologist
a
major
constitutes
fieldwork,
of
of
argues
paper
the
anthropologist
which
a
of
and
qua
problems,
both
influence
the
of
quality
problems,
or
affect
and
discussion
main
clarify
about
discipline
as
paper
the
main
the
to
stage
misconceptions
of
the
nor
Rather,
into
delve
this
in Lawless
and
Vinton,
1983).
The
concomitantly
changing
resulted
nature
in
of
refinement
anthropological
of research
research
methodology
has
in
order
to
now
is
obtrusive
factors
cardinal
to
conform
attention
awareness
the
(1)
locales
about
anthropological
While
this
of
quality
field-workers,
uncritical
it allows
on
of
discipline
themselves.
Until
be
not
the
their
subjects,
with
the
cultures
devouring
feast
of
has
data
that
of
of
problem
anthropologist
informants
to
been
of
that
bridging
as
a
we
an
and
uneasy
by
and
visitor
reluctant
some
or
reluctant
mentioned
in
acceptance
of
We
society.
the
cultural
about
often
artificial
recalcitrant
are
relationships
to
order
the
a
of
spate
fieldwork
by
have
ex
been
exerts
on
his
of
his
as
the
post
facto
hosts.
Given
be
the
humans
by
for
anthropological
with
difficulties
their
even
disenchantment
the
Rather,
were
an
"integrated
perennial
between
the
or
his
her
stress
native
produced
an
eager
insight
subjects.
incidental
on
about
into
friendly
stress
formats
field-workers
in
the
psychological
the personal
the
In many
or are
to,
touted
reports
in various
of
for
adopted
the
much
techniques
social
and
a
of
of
"natives."
published
the tribulations
growing
that
humanity
provides
or her
the
to provide
into
insight
to
and
research
methodology
of these
works
on
dwell
the
stranger
heightens
between
relationship
a negative
comment
dismissed
emphasize,
researcher
the
and
stranger
the
psychological
some
with
the
boundaries
Occasionally,
informant
often
of
anthropological
atonement
would
to present
more
about
conceptual
the
preparation
reexamination
ethnographies.
which
know
know
hosts.
vogue
and
the
something
humankind
and
strategies
researcher
the
relations
anthropologist's
difficult
cases,
in
the
enabled
than
Recently,
in
stress
of
study
failures,
disillusionments,
studied
in
their
of
procedure
shown
by
ensuing
reaffirmation
is
focus
the
from
traditional
out
Pointing
the
enduring
denounce
as
and
increasing
societies.
more
methodology,
field
anthropological
is
(2)
results.
this
rather,
rectification
research
literate
evaluation
field
primary
heightened
is twofold:
"complex"
detraction
of
generations
realistic
The
is
this
and
of
segments
a
categorical
published
does
fieldwork.
more
enterprise;
as
well
traditional
become
not
it has
been
recently,
to include
their
frustrations
field-workers
if any
that
the
have
as
fieldwork
in
research
it
instead,
whose
of
of
problems
situation
Closer
research.
ethnographer
in
catalyst
225
intrusive
hazard
the
in
lacking
to construe
Thus,
an
unfilial
symbolic
ritual
cannibalistic
ago.
as
in
erroneous;
field
anthropological
painfully
ancestors
that
major
earlier
for a more
discipline
its
pioneers;
the
need
for
of
generation
such
works
attempt
as guides
of
work
of
literature
intrinsic
is
to
intended
acceptance
a
in
awareness
response
an
of
more
much
anthropological
interest
in
the
the
problems
contribution
eliciting
structure"
to
the
not
is
canons
standardized
paid
are
nature
the
changing
as
"native"
societies
reflective
tendency
the
being
which
of this
paper
point
in
A
this
process.
of the methodological
factor
was
AS STRANGER
THE ANTHROPOLOGIST
Manyoni
field.
and
in an
and
Few,
impact
nature
of
226ANTHROPOLOGICA
anthropological
the highly
touted
of
was
even
to
not
does
tribes
interest
extent
what
is
as
the
an
fact
that
apparent
live
and
work
unfamiliar
among
in a venture
from
cooperation
no
or
derive
material
benefits,
their
and
constitute
1983
25(2)
"fully
accepted
in
verifiable
or
reliable
to
permitted
receive
To
were
The
information?
no
have
they
otherwise,
to ask:
is legitimate
field-workers
their
corroborative
anthropologist
and
people
which
that
of
kinsmen"
adopted
absence
it
fieldwork,
claim
N.S.
evidence
that
the
concerned
people
did not harbor serious misgivings

about the disturbance
of their life
in their midst
1978:26;
by the intrusion of the stranger
(Briggs
Barnes
1967:198).
STRANGER-HOST FIELD RELATIONS

role
The
of
ambiguous,
subculture
the
anthropologists
and
accepted
The
ethnographer
of
"his
people"
an
In
par
sense.
informants
to
subcultural
are
answers
as
a
kin.
fictive
basis
his
for
that
to
these
1979).
(Spradley
knowing
ask
they
convinced
be
the
to
enigmas
behavior
may
business
the
culture,
an outsider
alien
excellence,
Within
know
is always
unfamiliar
an
"I was
For
claim
"I
was
tribe."
among
example,
to Palauan
kinship.
In
fact,
my
entree
my
convinced
intimate
into
me
that
a Palauan.
Being
me
He
treated
brother.
other
The
last
relationship
makeshift
difficult
This
other
sentence
arrangement?
to verify
the
neither
societies
the
absence
nor
as
the
difficult
provided,
something
elder
his
by
accepted
question
it be
shown
about,
feeling
evaluation
own
of
and
family,
epistemological
can
extent
and
own
ethnographer's
false
so
I was
of,
hosts'
perception
his
with
because
as
me
of
interesting
what
To
fieldwork.
In
write
should
(1970:30)
an
raises
in
coincide
was
as
it
which
spoke
such
and
of Ngara.
residents
subjectivity
the
researcher's
community
and
could
Kai
this
with
acquaintance
the
like
that
or
anthropologists
social
whose
strangers
adopting
as
custom
local
invokes
about
research
culture
to claim
tended
that
have
anthropologists
or
a
as
the
kinsman
initiated
tribe,"
by
a member
as
one
as
of the
of them,
treated
custom
to some
traditional
refer
then
will
Traditionally,
and
(fictive)
field
alien
society.
the
stranger
cultural
ought
no
have
or
naturally,
in
an
society,
about
subsection
Furthermore,
either
questions.
questions
study
and
physical
own
their
of
Barnett
own
is naturally
of
segment
members
anthropologist
we
our
in
anthropologist
in
both
the
adopted
the
whether
a Palauan
assessment
as
establishment
this
of
it might
of
be
the
it is
viewpoint,
that:
in
fictive
be
should
in question;
As
prestigious
By
that
be
natives
...
I regard
that
he
how
occurs
in
their
was
the
social
enculturate
they
assumption
is a key
truth
(see
ethnographer
ethnographer's
the
overriding
of
students
into
fieldwork
being
"primitive
thought
as
"adopted
success.
Nothing
about
claims
of fictive kinship:
Firth
1968:4-5).
Chagnon
sentimental
gap
relations
that
to
the
the
is
sincerity
between
the
stress
often
in
or
on the basis
strangerhood
in fieldwork,
from the
exaggerated
ethnographer's
to bridge
how
actually
anthropologists
idiom
further
against
is
kinship
the
the
that
subjectivity
implication,
to
the
lead
by
a
me
in
gave
place
one
the
I inevitably
outsider,
(ibid.)
It
stake
what
227
to
addition
emphasized
is at
what
teachers,
of the
patterns
kinsman"
could
and
this,
with
hosts.
importance
societies."
warns
in
and
objectivity
perceives
relations
custom.
Palauan
system
as
assigned
It
is
kinship
social
not
AS STRANGER
THE ANTHROPOLOGIST
Manyoni
overcoming
the claim
of any
European
skepticism
as one
"been
the natives
by
accepted
. . such
a claim
is usually
of themselves.
founded
upon
a
or of a momentary
of native
misapprehension
politeness
a
emotional
verbal
identification
with
of
themselves
. . . as
who
shares
their
in dancing
person
sympathies
with
them
and
the
of
observing
etiquette
(pseudo-)
. . . (1957:11)
kinship
writer
with
has
" .
Similarly, Hart (1970:151-152)

gives an interesting but skeptical
account
of the "fictive kinship
And Freilich
game" in fieldwork.
cautions
that
"the
and
'native'
the
assumes,
of the dubiousness
anthropologist
accepted
Beals
problem
wife's
under
member
community.
nothing
strangers
the
provides
yet
between
stranger
early
unaccustomed
strangers"
came
to
of
of the popular
the
experience
to
strangers
best
is
somewhere
between
of what
role
he
Irrespective
a
man
remains
in
the
marginal
an awareness
Schwab
also
shows
stranger'.
anthropologist
outsider"
(1977:2).
an
community,
role
anthropologists's
'privileged
to fictive
claim
never
circumstances
culture
he
is
another
and
in
and
host
kinship:
becomes
..."
studying
"The
a
fully
(1977:47).
into
the
relationship
his
and
his
describing
where
"Were
villagers
as
would
not
let us
remain
insight
when
Gopalpur,
they
some
After
initial
"we
(1970:45).
adjustment
adaptive
. . . We
feel
at
a part
home
in Gopalpur.
were
of
the
. . ."
The
thus
far suggests
(1970:46).
picture
presented
of
the
feelings
them.
among
one-sided,
although
ethnographies,
and
attitudes
Ethnographic
on
based
and lately "field method
of
the
accounts
dyadic
guides,"
hosts
are
interaction.
provide
about
by
the
nature
Most
insight into
228ANTHROPOLOGICA
the
is
in dealing
tribulations
ethnographer's
concern
about
the
lack
N.S.
of
in the
field?that
they
without
bothered
privacy
being
1940:13-15;
1968:3-6;
Chagnon
Dentan
Yet
1970:104-105,
107).
own
the
of
intrusion
stranger's
resentment
the
and
possible
with
natives
by prying
and
for a
one
into
the
this
might
ethnographers
of quiet
and
(Evans-Pritchard
see
treatment,
about
the effects
perceptive
far
less
hears
There
"natives."
the
by
experienced
a few moments
privacy
cannot
enjoy
1983
25(2)
life
social
the
of
cause
hosts,
the
towards
ethnographer.
fact
The
that
are
to
subject
communities
has
of
data.
research
some
paid
datum
serious
their
were
use
curious
and
in
seem,
to
efforts
innocent
of Nuer
his
might
field
the
by
two
situations
and
I
Because
I
about
whom
What
societies
to
had
Nuer
them
know
account.
am
Azande
live
more
able
in
or
Evans
Nuer,
to
fend
an
weeks,
facts
simplest
off
inquiry
and
they
to
as
it may
(1940:12).
Strange
to
Evans-Pritchard
appears
see
it as an
that
impediment
comes
data
we
of
to
the
from
much
about
conclusion
the
with
the
than
his
compares
antithetical
writes:
contact
close
such
and
He
both.
intimately
a
to write
he
logic,
Nuer,
same
the
Azande,
more
detailed
(1940:15)
were
the
respectively?
Nuer
of
as
us
people
at
the
elicit
practices"
he
were,
reliability
the
of
these
sabotaging
some
for
society,
analysis
does
not
and
this
difficulty
a curious
turn
his
vitiate
data.
By
and
the Azande
among
experiences
validity
of
disapprove.
might
so much
that
they
are
talking
they
. . . (1970:92)
study
over
gloss
the
resided
host
hosts.
thought
intimate
anything
outsider.
adopted
are
expert
with
them
"Nuer
all
stultify
the most
an
tactics
of
they
(mai)
what
celebrated
much
the
ethnographers.
one
has
until
steadfastly
elucidate
as
his
we
conceal
of
presence
in
Similarly,
illustrates
Pritchard
conceal
to
as
hosts
reluctant
thought
people
whatever
us
would
slang
special
in the
the
tell
they
thought
outsiders
distrusted
They
about
and
which
of
analysis
who
have
raise
this,
from
host
problem:
if
would
they
hear
to
wanted
this
that
afraid
"outsiders"
anything
. . .
to
their
with
on
reported
data
gathered
about
problems
attention
and
acquisition
field-workers
those
and
strangers
vis-a-vis
role
the
for
of
are
field
that
relationship
and
research,
methodological
Dentan
directs
We
experiences
to
their
the
of
implications
The
attention
in
in
anthropologists
the
vagaries
all
would
would
not
not
ethnographer's
are
We
told
allow
allow
me
me
with
relations
to
live
to
as
live
one
these
that:
epigrammatically
of
otherwise.
themselves;
Among
two
was
Azande
among
Azande
Nuer
to
compelled
was
compelled
as
me
treated
in
Yet
Evans-Pritchard
subsequent
is
silent
these
conditions
varied
on
an
first
the
role
finished
I suggest
(1928:8).
as
adoption
are
There
tolerate
it,
to
questions
solution
of
get
(Chagnon
1968)
Chagnon's
the
On
another
I was
occasion
stopped
Similarly,
own:
their
"Give
are
by
could
me
away
such
not
Apparently,
backs.
an
axe
or
and
to
this
day
see
I'll
bluffing
studying.
it,
pestilent
the
latter
only
exploitative
trades
deceives
the
can
Yanomamo
the
parties
of
stranger/
played
frankfurters
one
of
me
what
"What
asked,
part
I replied,
"Guess!"
of
of
he
off
him
asked
my
(1968:7)
call
one!"
after
an
acceptance
its
an
Often,
not
Both
then
break
steal
adopt
between
to which
would
often
demands
for a share.
Yanomamo
to
intentionally
When
He
eating?"
the
bear
meal.
full
accede
towards
eating
the
"Beef."
asking
visiting
demands
of
weary
in my
of
they think will get the
"informant"
attitude
of
their
in the field,
are
they
"nuisance"?eliminate
but
into
dream
of
parcel
donations
by
so-called
relationship
native
hosts.
to a fine
degree:
very
growing
for a share
guests
was
I replied
eating,
are
the
animal
you
with
the
anthropologist,
and
He
their
off
game
"bluff-upmanship"
and
culture
form,
"Natives"
back.
which
peculiar
and
the
ethnographer
of
the
with
dealing
in its human
self-revealing
the
epitomizes
limits
of
the
nose
my
not
would
part
the kind of information
anthropologist
in
information
thrust
native
to
his
implications
of
observes
mitigated
in
it, or
it off your
supply
develops
with
the
kinsmen
ways
ignore
and
inquisitive
situation
fictive
many
I would
as
societies,
data
and
ethnographers
in
fieldwork,
Malinowski
me
it.
equal,
collected.
that for all anthropologists
constitutes
observation
or
an
respective
between
the
earliest
among
of
the
stranger
and
the
possible
regarding
or
nuisance,
evil
necessary
these
knew
they
a well-mannered
where
they
tobacco"
this
"...
even
as
relationship
were
data
which
community,
field
relations.
for
community;
of
member
Nuer
of
229
the
a
be
the
under
the
everything,
intruding,
a
life,
on
was
impact
that
Trobrianders
outside
to
accounts
recognize
the
host
Malinowski
explicitly
be
superior,
(ibid.)
impact
such
AS STRANGER
THE ANTHROPOLOGIST
Manyoni
day,
Indian.
bluff
Chagnon's
into
And
hut
your
so I was
month
relationship
on
or
when
respond
you
bombarded
end,
until
(1968:8)
continued
throughout
the
230ANTHROPOLOGICA
fieldwork:
Chagnon's
more
learned
and
"As
N.S.
I became
more
their
political
about
in their
proficient
tactics,
1983
25(2)
became
language
more
in the art of bluffing"

The consequences
(1968:9).
sophisticated
all of this were reflected
in falsified data that were supplied
over a five month period
(1968:10-13).
Chagnon
Defined
in
in
enterprise
may
hinge
the
any
since
social
information
of which
are
which
only
The
with
informants,
by
supplied
is
the
ethnographer
the
cannot
be
deemed
appropriate
clansmen
and
for
to
(Richardson
in such
society
ignored
are
categories
for
strangers,
good
there
First,
are
which
among
data
bias
fieldwork
relationship.
linked
intimately
imposed
by
about
"facts"
of
question
others
and
friends,
close
of
kin.
of
are
These
of
information
Second,
management.
principles
the
in a manipulative
situation
influences
which
In
for
"commodities"
desired
(information
gain).
toward
each
of
attitudes
the
participants
respective
are
of
the
this
by
governed
1957:10-13; Beattie
It
is
all
superb
attention
to
the
Evans-Pritchard
as
much
society"
the
ethnographer,
feel
acquired,
there
to
(1951:79).
to
has
the
their
change
delicate
are
not
to be
have
ethnographer
cultivating
facing
between
of
life
argued
fieldwork
1974:33-35).
is
also
but
as
that
affects
But
part
integral
in the ways
out
has
pointed
trained
changing
the anthropologist"
as
the
and
it,
and
savage
it can be acquired
be
and
of
individuals
community
on a personal
basis:
"The
not
and
himself
anthropologist
to understand
a
field-worker
an
on
vibrant
the
as
way
anthropologist
scant
would
pay
interact
is
if he
alternately
it may
However,
informant
interviewing,"
and
Langness
(Edgerton
interviewing
informants
one
least
in
be
if indeed
of
must
notebooks
easily
eminent
1970:108.)
ethnographer
fieldwork.
Rather,
or
society"
"primitive
for
the
"field"
constitutes
which
as
not
field-worker
obtrusiveness
an
Evans-Pritchard
abstraction
and
the
native
society
in his
merely
to think
and
an
Dentan
1970:47-48;
that
surprising
as
such
(see
relationship
reciprocal
Beals
relationship
interpersonal
lecture
in his methodological
seems
to treat
"native
all of
informants
whom
more
the
contrived
1964:86;
field-worker
and
finding,
the
(cultural
data)
are
considered
parties
Firth
with
all
the
in
this
is most
of
anthropological
Success
cultural
exchange
addition,
are
other
and
veracity
as
task
relationship.
shared
universal
both
of
stranger
The
1975:520-521).
contrived
some
relationship
informant's
this
"teach"
revolves.
community
on
the
nature
of
given
precisely
the
informant-ethnographer
the whole
which
upon
pivot
in terms
the quality
the
terms,
stranger/host
is
relationship
of
to
at all"
(1951:82).
"He
minimized:
a
by
of
of
informants
(Rabinow
in the
and
"native
the
that:
society,"
one
of
it"
"key
community
informant
anthropologist.
"The
problem
is
not
of
on
reliance
changes
informants
The
is
learner
humble
its
capacity
is not
a European
the
1977:92).
for
At
of
most
The
of
role
certain
"trusted
conveyors
is
at
is,
a
of
they
what
must
when
and
the
how
experience
a whole
Chagnon's
apparently
writes:
. another
had
left
the hut
ask
kinsmen
He
would
dead.
He
as
the
others
had
of
that
he
most
that.
against
who
I feel
that
the
dependent
informant;
information
upon
that
(1976:44).
The
development
willing
of
serve
"prestige,
have
is
quasi-professional
a
at
stipulated
fieldwork,
are
on
one
could
would
do
self
not
did
he
we
as
obvious
check
know
things
clandestinely,
of data
the
"is
most
genuine
him
admire
was
informant,
one
few
of
and
for
1974:101-103).
to
attention
field
for
has
become
between
involving
affection,
this
cadre
rate
not
friendship
values.
this
role
of
was
relationship.
evaluation
. he
is the
directed
money,
This
(ibid.).
Reliability
close
kinsman
of
and
ways
also
Chagnon
ramifications
a
he
a
I did
close
warm
until
This
the
very
would
heavily
he
things
were
trust
he
past.
in my
event
a
socialization
it
other
the
on
needed
that
that
relationship
relied
of
implications
role
informant
of
is,
for
to
I can
mutual
in
to wait
of a
opinions
the
ethnographer's
Fabrega
the
of
village.
next
day"
his
and
and
done
there
culture's
see
(1968:16-17;
..."
out
the
to
devoted
the
the
in
that
Manning
informants
point
in
report
and
parents
also
added
later
me
me
explained,
on
the condition
single
evolved
kind
advise
would
someone
Rerebawa,
Yanomamo
this
to help
very
informant-field-worker
ethnographer
informant.
"If
me
giving
checked
in
pitfalls
the
ingratiating
intimately,
out
with
important
meeting
profitable
(1968:13)
The
most
this
a very
and
own
his
were
instructive.
Kaobawa,
the others
and
poor
work
only
about
after
and
genealogies,
It was
to my
aid.
me one day
he
him
the
perhaps
for out
not
have,
is
uncertain
volunteered
who
to me
lie
are
purveyors;
the
stranger
to
Yanomamo
collecting
came
not
ought
transmitted.
the
among
of
visited
and
was
He
genealogies.
machete.
not
year
He
or
ought
will
be
individual
headman....
learn
stranger
information
this
the
are
they
in which
Instead,
to
on
reliance
increasing
informants
exchange
relationship
Since
need
(Barnes
1967:198).
anthropologists
is not
to strangers,
which
accessible
normally
over
control
who
have
"informants"
complete
on
rely
information
After
he
information.
access
limits
stranger
in an
partners
disadvantage
information
certain
encourages
But
trusted
informants."
so-called
altruistic
that
as
the
anthropologist
and
information
of
kinds
231
AS STRANGER
THE ANTHROPOLOGIST
Manyoni
specialized
and
of
pay
and
as
of
ingratiation"
to
lead
informants
of
They
is
and
ethnographer
the
exchange
relationship
of
role
the
research.
who
informants
the
are
on
232
ANTHROPOLOGICA
certain
of
types
includes
problems
by
of avoidance,
strategies
of the investigators
control
in an
experience
the
prevalent
dispels
are
problems
effectively
societies.
simple
from
In Sirkanda,
in the
long
remaining
must
person
be
to
able
Indian
must
strangers
be
acceptance
will
acceptance
fictive
suggest,
a local
to
claim
of
of
With
remained
in
presence
members,"
had
that
or
early
a
reception
of a familiar
or
under
to
that
local
groups
suspicion:
overt
suspicion
. . some
although
innocence
the
others
our
of
remained
states
Berreman
suspicious
this
on
in
that
never
was
he
that
"actively
with
"tolerated
village
he was
Apparently
community
norm that
(1962:7)
alien,
was
information-management
this was
necessary,
thought
we wanted
to
what
learn
in
adoption
discouraged
in order
groups
the
assertion
adjacent
societies.
before
passed
and
stay.
honesty,
an
the
and
(1962:8).
of
constantly
being
months
candid
he
kin
as
"simple"
substantially
dissipated,
had
of
convinced
been
relatively
our
fictive
avoided
local
thing
members
. was
throughout
is very
instructive
the
field-worker's
such
escape
as
a member
with
social
97).
a
a custom
has
particular
community
be
transformed.
To
may
strangership
a norm
that
which
obtains
for
have,
a justification
for ultimate
strangers
fortiori
speaks
people
motives
natives
To
himself
identify
same
as
privilege
customs
social
four
Nearly
. .
the
because
is
the
Berreman
to
which
by
field-workers
community
same
the
misconstrues
vicinity.
not
follow
kinship
as many
by
"are
1970:95,
ties, caste
(Jati) ties and/or
It should
be noted
that the
able
is
gain
solved
strangers
which
and
Pelto
village
that
notion
identify
group
through kinship
affiliation"
(1962:4-5).
of
see also
(ibid.;
1983
25(2)
stance
tactical
information-management,
it
adaptive
adopting
Berreman's
because
N.S.
desired
considerable
was
the
the
his
its
of
indulgence"
with
coupled
indulgence
of the villagers
part
we
not mean
and
"did
in
most
by
whenever
the
learn
of
eyes
to feel
the
made
they
could
therefore
(1962:9).
village"
STRANCERHOOD AND CULTURAL DATA

The
and
never
as
the
eager
for the reliability

The
underestimated.
be
anthropologist
obstacles
been
between
relationship
its implications
stranger,
and
visitor
adaptive
the
aptly
from
jump
and
to
time
and
under
extreme
conditions
of
host
reluctant
data
should
the
of
problems
and
cultural
personal
have
data
reliable
of
the
may
acquisition
impede
He
out
(1963).
points
by Nash
spelled
to
one
to another,
the
need
culture
a
both
data
in
acquire
complete
fairly
that
and
of ethnographic
strangership,
to
the
establish
limited
and
enormous
rapport
amount
of
pressure
on
THE ANTHROPOLOGIST
Manyoni
to
field-workers
on
depended
professional
particularly
revered
to
adaptation
curiosity
me
233
and
field.
in
In
(1974:196).
enjoy"
field-worker,
the
brought
there
me
kept
obligation
careers
their
because
successful
"Scientific
it,
puts
succeed
AS STRANGER
reputations
as
Chagnon
and
village
And
to
this
circumstances
similar
not
did
the
fashion,
his
native
much
described
in
Malinowski,
subjects
saw
terms.
He
life as
devoid
of
their
flattering
"utterly
as
as
remote
interest
the
life
and
from me
something
importance,
was
to "somehow
His
main
interest
of a dog"
document"
(1967:167).
so
that
he
would
have
valuable
all
of
their
aspects
lifestyle
material
for his
project.
less
than
As
of
and
cultures.
useful
This
at
Taiwan
farming
a
had
taken
in
and
training
on
work
the
the
school
the
of
"came
of
and
under
their
key
cultures,
be
treated
the
. .
on
from
small
He
"two
in
wonders
"social
time
(1970:134).
."
such
culture"?
his
attitudes
be
free
of
may
field
be
raised
an
against
field
why
facts"
are
researchers
were
informants
the
about
traditional
being
he
technological
concerned
the
remains:
be
taken
informant
who
technological
native
culture?
the
utilization
from
to
wont
somewhat
information
as
well
question
conditions
against
assistants-cum-informants
key
local
the
ethnographer's
to enhance
towards
bias
another
in
deeply
Could
young
them
had
Moreover,
an
of
part
presumed
the crucial
yet
under
of
as
same
the
be
may
"native
Since
study.
or
trusted
as
at
data;
collected
objection
trained
one
the
in Taipei.
years
Association,
tradition
education"
stronger
reliance
upon,
of
in economics
committee."
temple
in his
attitudes
towards
and
the
"modern
even
should
and
investigator's
data
may
extent
innovations
their
Farmer's
qualifications
informants
or
representative
labelled
that
and
board
modern'
(and)
excellent
of
quality
To
what
culture
one
. trained
another
number
field
principal
"from
in
and
assistants
and
her
a
science
and
political
possessed
was
this
assistant
Furthermore,
sociology."
social
..."
sciences
and
his
"...
academic
a considerable
to do
amount
enabled
him
of
education,
of
preservation
Such
An
while
degree
Association
of
"Literate,
innovations
is
Taiwanese
. .
coast
were
The
others
(1970:132-133).
a
in
and
middle
"One
school";
taught
city
as her major
in college.
Yet
..."
anthropology
was
active
leader
"an
assistant-cum-informant
his
was
field
eastern
the
instructive
Among
of
are
pose
might
field-method
who
a member
as
the
reading
own"
Fishermen's
with
University,"
had
studied
(sic)
in
read
"Widely
field
but
interest
strong
women
on
National
village,
Masters
(1970).
were
assistants-cum-interpreters
modern
ports
fishing
but
revealing
in Taiwan
majority
in their
academically
the
choice
that
possible
pitfalls
assistants-cum-informants
in Diamond's
on her work
report
to
force
greater
The
field
academically-trained
well-illustrated
the
testified,
individuals
eloquently
are
marginal
informants"
even
with
applies
informants.
local
trained,
have
field-workers
many
"trusted
declare
marginal
they
native
of,
the
provide
cultures
to
234ANTHROPOLOGICA
(see
more
Even
use
serious
native
of
itself.
is
responses"
This
may
point
between
drawn
qualitatively
culture.
it
Thus,
in general
community
to
suggest
socioanthropological
at
social
looking
"The
with
field"
or
student
who
of
grain
and
been
would
academic
be
into
enculturated
be
still
tinted
that
themselves,
academic
the
It would
has
is
truth
view
including
1963:159).
The
same
the
of
capable
Nash
As
lenses.
is
own
anthropology.
her
culture
his/
societies,
analogy
their
of
members
lay
a
viewed,
thought-patterns
without
phenomena
is recruited
into and
trained
novice
anthropologist
a
formal
and
informal
which,
ideology
particular
with
him
into
lesser
he
absorbs
and
carries
extent,
most
caveat
instructive
are
who
had
about
become
the
soon
by
of
aptly
by
to a
the
of
possibilities
discovered
that
. the
standard
men
had
for
This
anthropological
on a given
It
culture,
with
but
the
rationality.
is
research
from
to
be
is
the
conveyed
scientist's
Perhaps
far
the
expectations
insidious
cry
from
first-hand
the
which
of
order,
temptation
of
data
"enculturated"
by
principal
acquisition
such
idioms
habit
traditional
distortions
Paradoxically,
are
who
knowledgeable
in
analysis
(1979:53)
potential
provided
that
the
well-known
community.
informants
native
is
his
in college.
the
ignoring
from
information
fieldwork
obtained
is
of
result
inevitably
informants.
social
many
the motives
that
categories
to analyze
tended
[and]
other
but
and
behavior,
analytic
observation
candid
is
encounter
field
in anthropology
was
"excited
Spradley
as
a key
informant,"
to interview
questions
responding
his background
field-workers
that
drinking
reflected
always
of most
use.
scientists
of
student
Initially,
with
Bob
with:
science
of his
graduate
working
was
Bob
use
milieu
uncritical
social
narrative
Spradley's
University
row habitue.
skid
the
against
in
the
enculturated
illustrated
poignantly
a former
with
Harvard
but
native
(1963:149).
informants
who
often
own
any
or
of
without
are
an
if
appreciated
other
members
sociology
(see Nash
that
enculturative
trained
scientifically
perception
that
of
not
is
an
the
social
culture
with
society's
to respond
with
verbal
"analytic
answers
to cultural
questions.
in
in particular
in their
persons
anthropologists
as marginal
greater
trained
analytic
different
from
to
respect
in
the
fortiori
forcefully
scientists
and
not
with
trained
his/her
more
be
social
are
who
scientist's
it,
puts
a group
observe
is liable
and
eyes,"
rather
than
with
factual
"interpretative
naivete
to
bound
raised
is
training
other
words,
In
198^
25(2)
1967:15).
be
may
assistants
or
such
in
society
social
doubts
informants
since
sciences,
experience
assistant
den Hollander
1974:18;
Chagnon
N.S.
aim
of
are
data
about
are
not
of
raw
data
to be
their
consistent
coherence,
to
rely
increasingly
and
THE ANTHROPOLOGIST
Manyoni
"trained
upon
for
passion
is
informants"
The
society.
therefore
things
what
that
den
(read
his
Keiser
recorded,
Because
orientation.
social
trained
of
As
biased
of
problem
research
on
frankly
was
puts
of
my
must
scientific
of
has
Popper
subconscious
the
and
observation,
Our
to
propensity
nature,
laws
look
to
kind
expectations
to
A
effect
dissonance
for
"we
and
order
these
and
Highland
order
not
may
facts
is
to keep
hesitated
be
seriously
Sacrificing
this
in
are
which
do
as
treat
inadequate
to
our
and
we
stick
.(1963:49)
made
any
consonant
is
to
den
Hollander
by
information
that
with
thus
conditioning
to suspect
reasonable
would
make
subconsciously
facts"
and
"social
which
our
are
not
the
creates
imply
warranted
by
long
disturbing
this
reports.
1954:vii),
as
by a practicing
anthropologist,
for
truth"
penchant
"arranged
In a foreword
to Political
Systems
"confession"
of
(Leach
empirical
to
phenomena
phenomena.
anthropological
to tell our
so
they
.
perceived
"functions"
and
irrelevant?that
wrong
from
field
Burma
all
attention
of
we
and
It
(1967:20).
trained
informants
now
to
Turning
find
confirmation
anthropological
when
anything
anthropologically
deductions
priori
"structural"
linkages
some
events
none;
inclined
to
are
noise,"
welcome
social
are
we
is
point
or
reduce
that
we
and
confronts
reorganization
poignant
avoid
structure"
observed
not
dilemma
directed
there
defeat.
the
facts
for
attempts
accept
similar
that
did
as
theoretical
my
record
certain
to
and
regularities,
impose
the psychological
phenomenon
more
or,
generally,
dogmatic
and
attempt
regularities
everywhere
"background
even
ought
saw
to
to
of
dogmatic
thinking
we expect
behaviour;
even
to find
them
where
yield
of
by
by Keiser
own
in his
subculture
I
(den
collection
discussed
related
on"
reports:
leads
upon
not
data
"a
which
reporting.
Karl
Philosopher
incessant
habit
reported
and
"What
this
knows,
anthropologist
field
anthropological
being
calls
reality
This
is precisely
(1970:233).
important"
terms
that
truth
is,
truth,"
"arranged
to be veracious
As
(1967:25).
organized
look
every
social
urban
it,
directly
orientation,
undoubtedly
so aptly
Hollander
that
an
235
Hollander
den
perception
is pointedly
observers
are
data)
by what
disordered
out
life of the people
the social
thus distorts
Hollander
1967:20).
anthropologically
on
the
basis
fueled
smoothing
neatly
AS STRANGER
Raymond
neat,
reporting
students
in private
it does
not matter
they
facts
can
argue
on
commentary
for
theoretical
the
Firth
"Some
confides
that
of us
anthropology
models,
as
for
of
in
. have
that
ethnographic
so much
if they
theories
logically."
in
facts
the
get
This
science.
equilibrium,
N.S.
236ANTHROPOLOGICA
for
order
and
entrenched
organization,
in
practice
British
as
anthropology
and
for
to
appears
style
1983
25(2)
a
be
well
in
thinking,
particularly
of Evans-Pritchard
anthropological
witness
the works
(1937,
1949a,
1940, 1951, 1956); Fortes
1949b,
(1945,
1969); Gluckman
(1961); Radcliffe-Brown
(1950, 1952);
(1955); Leach (1954); Lienhardt
et
al.
of
has
(1962)
researchers
Barnes
on
influence
the
African
models
lineage
Because
is
field
biases
unfriendly
cast
all,
or
of
are
negative
Edward
Norbeck
man
of
and
disliked
and
rude,
Because
arrogant,
(1970:250).
Norbeck
"relationships
an
as
used
sense
to
such
native
..."
structuralist
not
informant
like
of his
attitude
negative
often
Similarly,
it not
Would
make
was
that
he
He
seemed
.
the
. "
headman,
demands
a Yanomamo
their
never
anthropological
behavior
uncooperative
rather
itself,
in
Takashima,
first
interview
neighbors
the
toward
or
unfriendly
a datum
alleged
as
individuals
at
of
self-centred";
thus
and
he was
strained"
(1974:167).
the
as
shunned
Chagnon
selfish
and
their
if discussed
to meet
enough
only
of
considers
him myself.
contemptuous
him
situation,
reveal
the
some
ethnographer
often
"unpleasant,
cold
and
fairly
were
relations
inadvertently
to
regard
the
did
(ibid.).
considered
treat
terribly
of this
with
"talked
of etiquette.
he
headman
British
or,
by-passed,
the
people
light.
Regarding
time
the
of my
writes:
"At
I had
the
community,
suspected
in
generally
the
human
with
whom
disagreeable
head
essentially
sometimes
reports
researchers
Individuals
the
to
attention
ethnography.
fieldwork
personal
informants.
Japan,
with
African
from
extrapolated
ethnographic
drawn
on lineage/kinship
outside
systems
working
to predicate
context.
He
the
criticizes
tendency
on
New
societies
have
been
Guinea
which
than
of
as
merely
anecdotes?
wont
their
the
Note
a
whom
informants"
"excellent
was
Ali
individuals
those
Again,
to call
societies.
following
learn,
patient,
other
like
several
about
his
Moroccans
Already
community,
flaunting
Information
of
questions
researcher
the
society
I knew.
being
he
his
would
mock
freedom.
provided
Our
was
.
I worked,
He
world.
was
social
far
. Ali
the
from
was
more
place
in
(Rabinow
such
by
discomfiture
was
that
Ali
of
not
citizen
self-reflective
it
most
. .
than
village
life.
segments
social
of
the
control
by
rejected
by
large
the bonds
solid
of
quick
. Ali,
a
was
intelligent,
.
vivacious.
whom
with
own
and
his
. . He had
ostracized
validity.
reveals
and
cooperative,
people
in his
character
marginal
he
the
average
villager,
.
of Serfrou
stereotype
was
He
informant.
first-rate
to
are
researchers
ethnographic
are
members
often
marginal
observation:
1977:73)
channels
is
a
further
provokes
increased
professional
serious
when
information
had
"Ali
purveyor:
saw
the
immune
..."
The
imaginative
with
those
Most
quick,
about
incredibly
and
slander
the
to
The
moral
some
of
on
which
than
know.
To
the
say
the
as
One
extent
respective
cultures
which
in
the
to
the
acted
out
in
rather
of
asks
behavior.
advanced
"patterning,"
the disparate
questions
of
of
more
information
tend
of
It
elements
isolation
from
perceive
is well
is
Bloch
(cf.
cannot
be
societies
informant
to
their
societies
cultural
"interdependence,"
elements
of his
soon
be
comprehension
credence.
the
Similarly,
societies
generally
the anthropological
try out
of undergraduates
will
to
field-workers
such
in
for
I wanted
subjective
the
me
and
manner
was
traditional
preliterate
than
about
philosophized
members
Consequently,
have
most
contemplated
he
informant,
. . . He
in
. He
everything
for
capacities
their
informants'
culture
gossip
Yet
own
charges
true.
But
control.
people
. .
admittedly
data?
example,
"was
character,
impressed
these
basically
an
excellent
community
about
the
ethnographer's
never
all
anthropological
and/or
ethnographer
scheme
of social
relationship"
cares
to
class
that
the
By
was
almost
such
For
(1977:96).
cherished.
valid
and
informants'
that
in technologically
notion
of
the
can
reliable
suspects
their
1971:86).
assumed
talk
reveal
stress
village"
of Rashid's
moral
(1977:98-99)
exaggerate
acknowledged
"lived"
and
of
fringe
and
anthropologist
me
to
tell
happy
what
accepted
things
informants.
the
in
he
"unrationalized"
experiences
researchers
to
character
reasons
the
1977:94-95).
jealousy."
his
foreigner,"
the
so-called
Yet
quality.
into
"an
display
for
Rashid,
with
retrospect,
out
to be
turned
same
the
was
he
would
In
ropes
value-loaded
who
informants,
and
overflowing
sensitive
on
attacks
...
the
fieldwork
Moroccan
"simple
account:
much.
very
more
several
of
everyone
was
warned
anthropologist
it as due
dismissed
this
insights
(Rabinow
of
tendency
their
favored
intelligent,
almost
make
culture
the
good
qualities
favored
Rabinow's
knew
informants
own
lack
accounts
of
supposed
one
of
relatively
with
worked
he
to
liable
one's
culture
in
he
because
partly
he was
had
Serfrou;
is
valuable
ethnographic
similarities
interesting
to
237
1968:13).
favored
to
deemed
may
provide
his
society's
of
when
are
who
idiot
aspects
come
had
Chagnon
stranger/ethnographer
his
when
comparing
to objectify
ability
judgments
village
. .
me
pursued
and
because
partly
social
control.
He
deliberately
of
income
possibility
to
the
community's
who
anthropologists
see
also
(1977:75;
other
AS STRANGER
THE ANTHROPOLOGIST
Manyoni
about
their
role
average
lay person
a vague
has
only
or
"functional
culture.
interview
the
Anyone
method
truth
of
who
on
this
238ANTHROPOLOGICA
N.S.
1983
25(2)
analogy.
some hesitation
It is thus with
accept
as
the
a
"In
following:
for our
sixteen
as
the
uncritically
household
. .
specialist
ritual
knowledge
of widely
details
ritual
special
accurate
invaluable"
serious
informant,
information
should
It
be
information
In
of
society
itself"
being
to him
in
(Buechler
relationship
stranger-host
observations
Berreman's
suggest
some
field-workers
of
claims
entails
community
such
In
and
outsider
is
data
his
his
subjects.
extend
society
never
are
not
may
conditions
of
and
deceit,
the
becomes
doubtful
fabrication
constraint"
be
may
relations.
data
the
immaturity of
the
of
validity
medical
neophyte
advanced
an
and
ability,
an
but
an
is not
informant
society,
or
her.
More
are
additional
the
the
of
"The
importantly,
in
defining
crucial
the
to take
full cognizance
(1962)
appears
data.
for field
and
its implications
a further
to the
idealistic
rebuttal
a
mere
into
research
that
entry
a
ethnographer
otherwise.
by
and
will
an
is
.
an
inevitably
. The
nature
of
seen
as
identity
even
friendship
his
of
signs
with
well
writes:
Berreman
kinsman.
of
courtesies],
encouraging
been
have
of
role
regions
stage
the
be
life
granted
of those
by
do
to
who
(1962:21)
at
relations,
of information
Retrospective
ethnographer.
various
suggest
ethnographers
the
that
be
may
enthnographer's
major
unsullied
and
were
includes
that
relationship
of
and
The
place
position
the channels
determine
studied
acceptance
access
that
mean
back
the
determined
largely
Polite
[these
There
all
of
native
turn
as
acceptance
not
always
confidential
of
girl
trained
. . Her
culture
about
raised
1969:1).
Berreman
retrospect,
this
stranger.
open
information
of
channels
of
structural
a
are
that
her
in
practices
ritual
knowledge,
her
such
a
selected
from the declared

be
that
structure
in the
ethnographer
information
of
aspects
equivalent
and
health
remembered
as
ethnographer
and
to
inclined
sources
measured?
of the
part
a
new
in
integral
datum
as
may
were
be
data
been
girl had
.
a
informant
key
to give
meaningful
ability
Apart
an
standards
By what
of detail
accuracy
her
of
validity
identified
. . . The
shared
by
science
medical
concerning
society.
and
doubts
rendered
we
assistant
. She
served
(Williams 1967:29).
the
that one would
and
objectivity
Sensuron
increasing
data
field
times
bordering
to
purveyed
of
revelations
that
a hitherto
field
awareness
obtained
on
the
that
under
resistance,
unsuspecting
experiences
unacknowledged
constitutes
status
by
truth
"stranger
and
unfettered
acquiring
acceptance
gaining
of the stranger
Subtle
1970:231).
rejection
(Uchendu
in
field
the
than
rather
order
exception
general
in
and
By
the
acceptance,
kinsman
to
initial
is
There
fully
Usually
and
do not expect
and
is
nature
the
mutual
anthropologists
intracommunal
problems
immediate
concerns,
to members
pertain
instructive
example
between
the
field
Gutkind's
to
the
initial
is
interaction
a
of
of
need
eschew
nor
of
of
the
researcher
its
by
One
patterns.
or
otherwise,
fictive
it
Yet
is
in
to
truism
of
is
that
or
personal
researcher's
the
in problems
officialdom.
vis-a-vis
interests
and
can
people"
encounter
his
of
description
graphic
in a
kinship
which
involved
of
divergence
and
"his
most
adoption
To begin with,
extrinsic
become
they
local
community
(1977:47).
experience,
relationship
behavior
do
the
studying.
culture
supposed
involvement
any
are
which
norms"
their
kinsman,
or conflict.
is
indigenous
field
jural
in
to
tendency
he
the
exaggerate
of
degree
the
culture
in the field.
it
status;
obligations
in cases
support
most
their
tended
reciprocal
implies
attendant
as
outside
de
rites
initiate's
the
acceptance
by,
Schwab
rightly
points
never
circumstances
best
of
as
him
by "their people"
primarily
and
the
member
upon
uneasy
fictive
the
the
of
hence
acceptance;
in
have
"kinsman"
not
function
with,
rapport
on.
However,
under
process
to
analogous
sense,
him to follow their cultural

that
suggest
anthropologists
as
accepted
look
people
becomes
integration
as
presented
adaptation,
through
"as-one-of-them"
(the
uncannily
something
In
its mathematical
process.
adaptation
of
the
exaggerate
degree
native
communities
reported
"The
out,
anthropologist
becomes
. . .
often
of
integration
in
difficulty
are
problems
successful
claim).
in this
passage
successful
to emphasize
tend
reports
with
members
of the
relations
relations
These
from
progression
239
field
anthropological
of their
authors'
large,
aspects
positive
societies
studied.
of
AS STRANGER
THE ANTHROPOLOGIST
Manyoni
that
An
expectations
be
with
gleaned
the
from
urban
an
As
(1969:26-34).
unemployed
city
Nigerian
anthropologist
a
sense
with
of
social
Gutkind
the
justice,
strong
experienced
a segment
dilemma
of being
confronted
of the
that
by
community
as
benefits
for
information
expected
tangible
reciprocity
provided
as an
about
labor
while
strove
to
Gutkind
conditions,
ethnographer,
a posture
maintain
of
scientific
in the
noninvolvement
affairs
of
the
people.
scientific
interest
for which
he might
for
them.
reluctance
breach
The
as
apparently
for
sympathy
to provide
be able
Obviously,
to reciprocate
of the
locals
unemployed
in them
the
native
on
of
part
(Fortes
Gutkind's
economic
that
help;
informant
the
"axiom of amity"
construed
their
is,
condition
to find work
would
consider
"kinsman"
as
1969:Chapter
such
serious
XII).
IMPLICATIONS FOR ETHNOGRAPHIC RESEARCH

The
reevaluation
of
the
main
of
purpose
of
this
has
paper
ethnographic
methodology
as
field-worker
anthropological
been
on
by
focusing
in
stranger
the
critical
the
field.
role
The
N.S.
240
ANTHROPOLOGICA
has
paper
that
as
role
results.
has
been
as
datum
have
may
to
attempted
field-workers
most
in
the
degree
recognize
the
of
wary
ineluctable
cultural
of
fides
these
To
and
do
these
of
they
enterprise.
ethnographic
the
understand
we
investigator
relations:
The
in
turn
of
to
an
the
and
social
the
academic
reliability
own
researcher's
on
in
faith
the
and
In
data
"key
scholarly
authors'
to
the
scientific
order
on
to
the
scientific
individual
sets
two
phenomena
to his
fellow
and
data
according
the
of
whose
which
the
relation
be
from
In
"facts"
account
relation
the
to have
result
and
assessment
of
take
his
second,
investigates;
data
anthropologists
stated
cultural
activities
must
his
first,
are
Nevertheless,
data.
of raw
the validity
for
factual
sufficient
would
need
out:
has
Winch
As
pointed
vouch
cannot
community
so
do
adequately,
as
depends
subject
to rigorous
tests.
scientific
in
point
cannot
field-workers
then
sources
confronts
facts
canons
prevailing
fellow
sure,
data
societies
probably
culture."
presented
the
researcher.
facts"
"social
be
can
To
the
of
of
will
focal
field
reliability,
of their
"disciplinary
field-worker
bona
the
inattention
of ethnographic
sources.
remote
which
their
of
validity
of their
quality
facts"
of
analyses
the
as
treated
the
anthropology,
with
"social
acceptance
informants."
community
been
Yet
distortions
impress
community
on
rests
this
that
for the validity
about
reports
and
of validity
severe
limitations
If anthropological
reasonable
remain
not
has
enterprise.
reliable
than
ethnographic
more
any
reports,
to their
attention
and
enterprise,
own
their
sufficient
on fieldwork
literature
of methodological
spate
two decades,
last
and
have
analytic
techniques
of
relations
the
subject
the
sophisticated,
data
cultural
of
evidence
paid
implications
Although
in
the
by
not
field
deleterious
emerged
must
show,
have
1983
25(2)
of
he
scientists.
(1958:84)
states
Schneider
the
process
ethnographer's
we
When
we
to
chooses
independent
his
check
theory
remotely
have
present
source
facts.
of doubtful
field-workers
removed
kinship
only
to
of
It
for ordering
Deleterious
reports
What
about
read
own
our
more
point
of
"sifting"
this
implications
validity
publish
the
from
However,
certainty.
any
who
communities
"native"
is
empirical
some
in
facts
the
and
us,
knowledge
thus
very
facts.
those
by
facts:
pertinently
society
which
we
against
hard
on
to
foreign
author
the
no
have
usually
which
to
focusing
evaluate
we
can
his
(1968:vi)
on
field
based
anthropology
the scientific
community.
are
who
for colleagues
may
with
to validate
in question
communities
of
case
for members
the
is not
this
raw
and
facts
to verify
able
be
may
for
extend
an
beyond
difficult
be
THE ANTHROPOLOGIST
Manyoni
of
hostile
and
toward
people
scientists
not
are
that
writings
answer
systematically
those
held
by
in
this
such
written
circles
many
advance
they
examined
or
the
"Why
relations
are
the
among
that
"social
is
about
opinions
aJbout"
even
development
Brislin
and
respect:
as human
fields
in
disliked
communication,
The
study?"
they
have
the
research.
ethnographic
241
Gross
to
lead
may
question
timely
have
developed
who
scientists,
culture
data.
culture
raise
(1979)
cultural
of
reactions
Holwill
social
of
interpretations
distortions
question
unintentional
AS STRANGER
(1979:65,
their
emphasis
original).
Brislin
their
Social
which
a corpus
Holwill
have
based
of data
compiled
of the Writings
Views
of Behavioral/
"Indigenous
Toward
Increased
Cross-Cultural
Understanding"
"insiders'
of
standard
sought
opinions"
ethnographic
and
survey
Scientists:
they
Assessments
works.
reporting.
the
yielded
think
the
with
the
because
.
mentioned
. work
is very
Samoa
of
the
accuracy
and
interpretation,
selected
standard
who
(1979:68-69)
(sic)
That
money.
who
People
stranger,
the
is
really
only
to
wrote:
person
I feel that the author

about
to
secrets
give
of their family.
Another
culture
only
accurate.
in
of
wanted
is not
not
should
members
basis
on
opinion
observations:
our
in
person
worked
the
information,
following
anthropologist
the
interpretation
why
know
on
made
location,
native
of
sample
ethnographies
I
were
observation,
ethnographic
on
of
does
not know what

in
author,
which
different
was
from
he
is talking
about
talking
done
in Manua.
Manua
and
Samoa,
Western
American
Samoa.
(1979:69)
For
of
authors
natives,
plausible
assumptions
We
the habitual
about
indirect
response
complain
a
comment
more
insider's
following
provides
and
verifiable
cultural
than
the psychological
explanation
are
often
in the
which
literature:
suggested
(Laotians)
frank
not
we
values,
other
say
A
the
consider
.
Being
have
learned
people
It is
words.
Margaret
Derek
who
the
it
that
case
Mead
Freeman
ethnography
in
it
Westerners
consider
it
polite,
that
kind
of society
with
these
to understand
the message
that
are
without
it being
stated
in
sending
so much
not
what
but
the way
you
say
you
.
counts,
point
in her
in
(ibid.)
is
(1972:70-78).
of native
illustrated
Samoan
data
Freeman
terms
and
by
as
errors
made
revealed
a detailed
gives
translations
in
the
by
late
review
by
of
comparison
provided
by
an
242
ANTHROPOLOGICA
informant
Mea
named
and
translations
with
other
linguistic
ethnographer;
a
which
cultures
has
which
that
implying
research
goes
detachment.
or
of
as
ourselves
subjective
conceptual
the
valued
they
Few
of
attentions
of
dressed
their
stranger
a new
in
European
Portuguese,
to
visits
real
and
alone.
anthropologists
community
ethnographer
the often
such
viewing
comments
caustic
"informants"
Turnbull
in ethnographies
1972).
"superiority"
employs
as
communities
the
who
difficult
of
Several
when
these,
mouthing
aggressively
us
around
crowd
blame:
the
gets
by
The
getting
the
suffer
may
as
see
themselves
order.
and
native.
good
visitor,
it
irritated
being
during
realized
they
our
we
ones,
pseudo-European
1976:14)
would
to
"native"
1977;
(Hicks
tribe,"
and
"my
veiled
to
of
and
above
it
"scientific"
will.
find
But
customs
Tetum
left us
to
hamlets.
of
"primitive,"
"uncivilized,"
simple,"
entail
such
euphemisms
all
questions,
local
snobs
used
the
in
vis-a-vis
guest,"
research
image
un welcomed
progressive
fashion
lie
ethnographer
confessed
may
value
"savage,"
an
to
up
and
anthropologist
answers
to his
unwanted
first
often
live
. the
honest
heralds
not
at
and
may
because
people,"
"honored
an
terms
studied
have
Ethnographers
do
who
not
be
garb
our
conceding
or not
"technologically
societies,
of
the
image
to
objects
manipulative
"my
"nonliterate,"
or "small-scale"
"non-Western,"
same
the
native,
of
visitor,"
Whether
study.
and
pejorative
people
"backward,"
natives
write
"prestigious
without
anthropologist"
we
"gracious
over
the
the
the
the
in
of
of unfamiliar
societies,"
"simple
are
Holistic
they?
the
that
suggest
But
clothed
missed.
evidence
dilemma
as
cultures
to understand."
is
be
may
this
an
for
assertions
to
clue
transformation
to understand
societies
simple
"
ethnocentrism
"no.
Anthropological
the more
is all
dangerous
precisely
or
unchallenged
We
paternalistically
often
terms
context
unwarranted
The
of other
designation
are
"easy
they
attempts
is a resounding
communities
empiricist
answer
in
cultures.
terms
that
pitfalls
culture;
(b)
to delineate
able
with
replete
of members
is
behaviors
resulted
such
about
judgments
our
ethnocentric
symbolic
to
due
undergoes
nonverbal
the
or
of,
same
cross-checking
alien
interpreting
cultural
the
record
anthropological
and
verbal
decoded
aware
be
when
that
(a)
in an
to encounter
likely
not
may
nuances
(c)
term
linguistic
The
mis
and
is
further
1983
25(2)
these
for
explanations
collected
by
exercise
reveals:
were
This
stranger-ethnographer
native
informants
that
subtle
native
with
which
informants.
N.S.
object
action
leveled
honestly
to
being
as
at
(Chagnon
the
concede
threat
intractable
1968;
studied
to his
and
Foster
of
right
without
project.
a
the
Hence,
uncooperative
Rabinow
1979;
THE ANTHROPOLOGIST
Manyoni
In
is
an unsuccessful
only
a noted
anthropologist
and
strange
outwardly
conclusion,
to
compel
likely
as
"this
community
two
whose
catechists
and
Christianity
how
holy
were";
they
of virtually
disposed
other
and
primates,"
reporting,
research
may
illustrative
Needham
of
setting
severest
has
field
and
thus
to
reasonable
an
can
suspect
of
signs
to show
not
could
us
from
find
"one
believe
pointed
subject
...
(Turnbull
case
extreme
that
much
the
of his
to
most
results
of the unsatisfactory
discipline,
to difficulties
in stranger/host
relationships.
anthropological
as
crucial
to
investigator
life"
(1981:29).
the
detriment
from
he
a
at
looking
114,
1972;
of cathartic
like
that
have
"to
imaginative
intelligence,"
in the
"and
out,
test
moral
society,"
not
could
truism
on
demands
recently
it
research
intellectual
of baboons"
represent
of
the
horrid
that
appears
. that differentiate
ethnographer
it was
rather
society;
extreme
"makes
Rodney
The
relationship
a research
indisputable
. carried
rosaries
ethnographer
community
This
234,
236).
but
is
qualities
in whom
the
of humanity."
a human
rather
moreover
society
the
243
stranger-host
to depict
those
. .
, and
, pants
all
well-ordered
singularly
228-229,
wore
"Both
progress
trace
lingering
"was
studying
AS STRANGER
the
It
of
are
fieldwork
is
the
due
EPILOGUE
A
is not
to
reaction
commonplace
a better
offer
mousetrap.
to revolutionize
literature
better
author
the
or
the
development,
tool
principal
contribution
individual
no more
of
in
of
There
is
no
to
ethnographers
that
increases
constituting
are
the
field
extrapolations
all
material
ought
"tests
to
be
of
goodness."
Due
to
by
the
of
diverse
only
some
to
one
substituting
role
of culture
the
as
complementary
on
not
and
can
who
in
shortcomings
in human
the
suggested
and
validate
reliability
and
content
clarification
from
not
here
their
a
the
offer
method
only
also
of
but
The
stuff
of
field
notes,
of these
of
these
of
the
the
need
for
in a manner
proffered
raw
of
analysis
"social
facts"
fieldwork
anthropological
are
and
since
monographs
it is essential
that
records,
otherwise
records
the
from
bases
apart
data
unverifiable
in
the
absence
of
field
imprecise
presentation
reports,
emic
between
normative
statements
distinguish
as
assertions.
Fieldwork
research
explanatory
qualitative
exclusive
of
the
data
mutually
quantitative
aspect;
yet
cannot
that
analysis
as
himself
fieldwork
on
practitioners,
of its adherents
the
of
demand
critical
presentation.
specify
adduced
art
for
to
is
role
anthropological
rests
research
phenomena,
the
base.
data
for
or
the
of
of
panacea
journal
of the
But
true
viability
the
cultural
is
ethnographic
of
its
all
prescriptions
a
than
pointer
and
collection
data
alien
As
artist.
comment
critical
critic
assertions
of
other
we
often
and
etic
is
are
not
often
244ANTHROPOLOGICA
vaguely
state
tribe"
Only
data,
their
of
those
or
agree
conform
can
field-worker
and
basis
who
informants
households
many
the
the
who
to
take
these
disagree
or
deviate
over
"villagers
of the
sample
the
assertions,
or
such
"facts,"
a
from
norm.
stated
substantive
so
do
.";
unity
to
the
as
of
such
supply
care
to
1983
25(2)
the
"sacred
any
constitutes
that
that.
holds
opinion
twines
represent
corroborative
evidence
"native
or
.";
without
population
number
how
as
presented
. .
that.
N.S.
clarificatory
enhance
the
of
reliability
fieldwork.
REFERENCES CITED
Richard
Adams,
Agar,
Press,
H.
The
Professional
1980
1978
Ethical
Barnes,
Waltham,
J. A.
1962
1967
Massachusetts:
Barnett,
1970
Beals,
1970
1964
Berreman,
1962
Rinehart
an
Being
In
1958-1960.
Gopalpur,
in Eleven
Cultures.
Rinehart
Holt,
George
and
Behind
C.
Van
1-31.
New
in
York:
an
Anthropologist:
ed.
Spindler,
Winston.
Cohen
Fieldwork
pp.
32-57.
New
and West.
D.
Masks:
Many
in
Cornell
Anthropology.
and
A.,
Encounter
New
London:
Cultures.
Gerald
Village.
Number
for
University
Vhas
Moral
and
Society
Four.
the
Society
Impression
for
Ithaca,
for
Applied
New
Applied
Madan
Personal
Experience:
Delhi:
and
Ethnography
Himalayan
Monograph
N.
T.
and
Maurice
The
P.
Fieldwork
Anthropologist:
ed.
pp.
Spindler,
Being
D.
John.
Other
York:
Bloch,
1971
and
Jongmans
The
Netherlands:
Assen,
D.
George
Winston.
and
Anthropology
1975
In
.
Management
Beteille,
G.
D.
Field.
pp.193-213.
R.
York:
Beattie,
Press.
University
Company.
Cultures
Holt,
Alan
the
in
Journal.
Palauan
Eleven
Press.
A Casebook.
Inquiry:
Brandeis
eds.
G.
Homer
in Anthropological
Academic
Man 62:5-9.
in the New Guinea Highlands.
In
Modern
Fieldwork.
Problems
in
Models
Ethical
Anthropologists
W.
Gutkind,
Gorcum
and
New York:
Stranger.
, ed.
Dilemmas
African
Some
The
Illinois:
Homewood,
Incorporated.
N.
George
Preiss
Research.
Organization
Dorsey
Michael
Appell,
J.
Jack
and
N.,
Human
1960
Publishing
Tactical
Accounts
of Fieldwork.
House.
Meaning
of
Kinship
Terms.
6(N.S.):79-87.
Man
Jean
Briggs,
1978
G.
N.
W.
In
of
the
Hans
Behavioural/Social
Understanding.
in Transcultural
63-83.
Honolulu,
C.
an
Ethnographer
in Fieldwork.
Frances
Position
Social
and
of
Response
eds.
pp.
Saberwal,
Winston.
New
7-19.
in
the
York:
In
Field.
and
Henry
Rinehart
Holt,
Satish
and
A.
Napoleon
Yanomamo:
Fierce
The
the
Studying
New
People.
Winston.
1974
of
Writings
Cross-Cultural
Increased
Bondage:
Explorations
ed.
Krishna
Kumar,
pp.
Press
of Hawaii.
University
The
Stress
Chagnon,
1968
Massachusetts:
Without
Interactions.
In
Community.
A
Casebook.
Holwill
Toward
Bonds
The
the
Inquiry:
Waltham,
Press.
Views
Hawaii:
Buechler,
1969
Anthropologist
in Anthropological
ed.
26-27.
pp.
University
, and
Fahy
Indigenous
Scientists:
on
the
Appell,
Brandeis
R.
245
L.
of
Imposition
Ethical
Dilemmas
Brislin,
1979
AS STRANGER
THE ANTHROPOLOGIST
Manyoni
Yanomamo.
New
York:
Rinehart
Holt,
York:
and
Rinehart
Holt,
and
Winston.
K.
Robert
Dentan,
The
1968
and
Rinehart
Holt,
1970
A Non-Violent
Semai:
and
Living
Anthropologist:
ed.
Spindler,
Winston.
Den
1967
A.
Hollander,
Social
N.
1970
Norma
Fieldwork
in
Anthropologist:
Spindler,
Winston.
Edgerton,
1974
The
ed.
California:
1940
pp.
and
Styles
E.
1-34.
113-141.
L.
L.
and
Oracles
and
Clarendon
of Reliability
D.
G.
Assen,
Society:
in
Eleven
New
Clarendon
York:
an
Being
D.
George
Rinehart
and
Langness
Sharp
Magic
Press.
Taiwan.
Cultures.
Holt,
of Culture.
Publishers,
Among
Press.
and Validity.
and
Jongmans
The
Netherlands:
York:
in the Study
E.
The
Holt,
the
The Nuer:
A Description
of the Modes
Political
Institutions
of a Nilotic People.
The
1951
1956
Field.
Complex
Chandler
Evans-Pritchard,
1937
Witchcraft,
England:
B.,
and
Cultures.
York:
Problem
the
Fieldwork
Robert
Methods
New
In
Semai.
Eleven
New
J.
in
Anthropologists
W.
eds.
Gutkind,
pp.
Gorcum
and
Company.
Diamond,
the
in
85-112.
pp.
Description:
In
with
Working
Fieldwork
of Malaya.
People
Winston.
In
P.
C.
Van
an
Being
George
Rinehart
D.
and
San Francisco,
Incorporated.
Azande.
Oxford,
of Livelihood
and
Oxford,
England:
Social Anthropology.
London:
Cohen and West.
Nuer Religion.
The Clarendon
Oxford,
England:
Press.
N.S.
246ANTHROPOLOGICA
Firth,
1957
Fortes,
1945
Raymond
the
We,
published
Meyer
The
Oxford
1949a
Foster,
1979
Web
The
of Kinship
the Tallensi.
London:
In Social
Study.
R.
Radcliffe
Oxford,
The
England:
London:
the Tallensi.
Oxford
of Lewis Henry
The Legacy
the Social Order:
Illinois: Aldine Publishing
Company.
and
Kinship
Morgan.
54-84.
pp.
Among
Press.
University
Chicago,
M.
George
Fieldwork
in Tzintzuntzan:
Long-Term
Field
V.
1972
ed.
Fortes,
Meyer
Press.
Foster,
Freeman,
Originally
Time and Social Structure:

An Ashanti Case
to A.
Studies
Presented
Structure:
Brown.
1969
Among
Press.
University
Unwin.
and
Allen
of Clanship
Dynamics
Clarendon
1949b
London:
Tikopia.
in 1936.
1983
25(2)
eds.
Social
Some
of
Journal
the
Robert
Press.
Academic
(1930 and
of Manu'a
Errata.
1969)
by Margaret
81:70
Society
Polynesian
M.
George
and
Colson,
York:
78.
1983
Anthropological
Freilich,
1977
Gluckman,
1955
Press.
University
Morris,
Massachusetts:
Cambridge,
Myth.
and Unmaking
The Making
at
Anthropologists
Schenkman
Publishing
Work.
Cambridge,
Company,
Incorporated.
Max
Judicial
The
Response
eds.
pp.
of
Barotse
Manchester
Northern
Press.
University
in
Researcher
in Fieldwork.
New
20-34.
Context
the
on
Reflections
an
Frances
York:
of
African
In
Encounter.
and
Henry
Rinehart
Holt,
in Fieldwork.
Image-Making
American
National
Stress
Satish
and
J.
W.
1965
the
Among
England:
W.
C.
Social
Development:
Hanna,
Process
Manchester,
Peter
The
of an
irvard
ed.
Natives:
Marginal
Massachusetts:
Rhodesia.
Gutkind,
1969
and Samoa:
Mead
Margaret
In
Years.
Thirty
Anthropology.
New
165-184.
pp.
Organization
Mead:
First
Elizabeth
Scudder,
Thayer
Kemper,
Derek
The
in Social
Research
Behavioral
and
Saberwal,
Winston.
Scientist
8:15-20.
Hart,
1970
M.
W.
C.
Fieldwork
Among
Anthropologist:
Spindler,
Winston.
Henry,
1969
Frances,
Stress
and
the
ed.
pp.
and
Satish
and Response
1928-1929.
Tiwi,
Fieldwork
142-163.
Saberwal,
in
Eleven
New
in Fieldwork.
York:
Cultures.
Holt,
In
Being
George
Rinehart
an
D.
and
eds.
New York:
Holt, Rinehart
Winston.
Hicks,
1976
D.
Fieldwork
in an
and their Kin:
Palo
California:
Alto,
Mayfield
Ghosts
Tetum
Community.
Company.
John
J.
Handbook
of Social
Honigmann,
1973
Illinois:
Current
The
1967
Revolution
D.
Jongmans,
1967
P.
and
G.,
C.
W.
Chicago,
Research.
Anthropological
17:243-261.
London:
and
Routledge
eds.
Gutkind,
in the Field.
Anthropologists
Indonesian
Publishing
Anthropology.
in Anthropology.
Paul.
Kegan
Cultural
in Cultural
Approach
Anthropology
C.
I.
Jarvie,
and
Rand-McNally.
The Personal
1976
247
AS STRANGER
THE ANTHROPOLOGIST
Manyoni
The Netherlands:
Assen,
Van
Gorcum.
B.
Junker,
H.
Fieldwork:
1960
An
Keiser,
1970
of
University
Lincoln
R.
to the Social
Introduction
Illinois:
Fieldwork
Among the Vice

Fieldwork
Anthropologist:
ed.
Spindler,
Winston.
Herbert
Kelman,
1980
Anthropology
Further
Elaboration.
Conference
New
York:
Without
Interactions.
on
Bondage:
Honolulu,
and
Robert,
Fieldwork:
1983
Breach
E.
Leach,
1954
Vinson
The
Human
Science
21:655-661.
in
The
for
Austria,
July
Transcultural
Press
of
Gordon
and
University
eds.
Jr.,
New York:
Burma.
Boston,
The Religion
Massachusetts:
of the Dinka.
Oxford,
Press.
Bronsilaw
Malinowski,
1976
Clarendon
Incorporated.
of Highland
The
England:
Manning,
Sutlive,
Experience.
Publishers,
Systems
Press.
Foundation
Wartenstein,
Explorations
H.
Lienhardt,
Godfrey
1961
Divinity and Experience:
1967
and
International
Wenner-Gren
Burg
Hawaii:
R.
Political
Beacon
1928
an
D.
Countries:
an
Hawaii.
Lawless,
In Being
George
Rinehart
Holt,
Non-Western
Anthropology
ed.
Krishna,
Bonds
the
at
Current
1978.
15-24,
in
Comments
by
Sponsored
Research
Anthropological
1979
Chicago,
C.
Indigenous
Kumar,
of Chicago.
Lords
in Eleven
Cultures.
220-237.
pp.
Sciences.
Press.
Chicago
of the Western
Argonauts
Kegan
Pacific.
London:
Paul.
of
Diary
Harcourt,
Peter
Fieldwork
the
Brace
K.
, and
and
Strict
and
Sense
of
the
and
Routledge
Term.
New
York:
World.
Horacio
Fabrega,
the "New Ethnography."
Jr.
Man
11 (N.S.):39-52.
N.S.
248
ANTHROPOLOGICA
Middleton,
1970
John
The
of
Study
the Lugbara:
Research.
Anthropological
Winston.
Nash,
1963
Dennison
The
1972
Southwestern
The
Current
Needham,
1981
Pelto,
1973
Popper,
1963
Rabinow,
1977
Deliveries
Field
Japan:
Changing
in
Fieldwork
ed.
Pelto,
1970
In
Cultures.
New
York:
Pertti
J.,
Intra-Cultural
and
and
Conjectures
on
Reflections
Refutations:
The
Routledge
and
Spindler,
Winston.
New
Inquiry.
Issues.
American
of
Growth
Kegan
in Morocco.
Fieldwork
Scientific
Paul.
California:
Berkeley,
Press.
California
of
of
Theoretical
Some
London:
Knowledge.
Paul
R.
A.
in Primitive
Function
and
London:
Society.
Cohen
West.
R.
A.
, ed.
of
Systems
Press.
and
Kinship
William
Wiley
A.,
Strangers
A.
The
Journal
and
in
P.
Elliott
Press.
California
Kinship:
Stranger:
of
A Cultural
New York:
Berkeley,
California:
Account.
Prentice-Hall.
Jersey:
Ethnologist
in Fieldwork.
Skinner
Societies.
African
M.
American
American
Spradley
Dilemmas
Oxford
London,
Sons.
and
of
P.
James
and Anthropology:
University
David
Schneider,
New
, and
A.
Michael
Ethics
Marriage.
Teller.
Myth
Anthropologist?The
John
1944
and
Pelto
Diversity:
2:1-18.
Ethnologist
K.
Rynkiewich,
Scheutz,
D.
Publishers.
Row,
Gretel
H.
2:517-533.
1968
an Anthropologist:
George
Structure
The
and
University
Miles
Richardson,
1979
Being
Rinehart
Holt,
Research:
Anthropological
York:
Harper
Radcliffe-Brown,
African
1950
Shack,
of
University
J.
Pertti
and
1976
California:
Berkeley,
Research.
Eleven
238-266.
pp.
University
Radcliffe-Brown,
Structure
1952
1975
in Ethnography.
Edward
Norbeck,
1970
of
19:149
Anthropology
13:527-542.
Press.
California
and
in the Sociology
An Essay
of
in
Paradox
Rinehart
Holt,
Self-Consciousness
Anthropology
Rodney
Circumstantial
York:
Wintrob
of
Emergence
and
Expectation
Journal
Ronald
and
Dennison,
New
as Stranger:
Ethnologist
Knowledge.
167.
Nash,
1983
25(2)
An
Sociology
Essay
in Social
Englewood
Psychology.
Cliffs,
American
49:499-507.
THE ANTHROPOLOGIST
Manyoni
Schwab,
1977
William
Field
Techniques
Georg
The
ed.
Janet
Siskind,
To Hunt
1973
Spindler,
1970
George
Spradley,
1979
in the Morning.
Holt,
P.
James
1970
Sociology
Rinehart
The
Ethnographic
Winston.
Free
39-87.
Company.
Simmel.
Kurt
H.
Press.
in Eleven
Press.
Cultures.
New
Winston.
New
New
People.
Natives:
pp.
Oxford University
Fieldwork
and
York:
York:
Rinehart
Holt,
Simon
and
and
Schuster,
Incorporated.
G.
V.
A Navaho
In Handbook
Community.
Raoul
Naroll
New
City,
and
York:
Williams, Thomas Rhys

in the Study
Field Methods
1967
Rinehart
1958
of Georg
New York:
Interview.
Anthropology.
230-237.
Garden
Winch,
York:
ed.
D.,
Colin M.
Turnbull,
The Mountain
1972
Uchendu,
ed.
Freilich,
Schenkman
Publishing
New
an Anthropologist:
Being
York:
402-408.
pp.
In Marginal
Africa.
Morris
Work.
In The
Strangers.
Wolff,
in Urban
at
Massachusetts:
Cambridge,
1950
249
B.
Anthropologists
Simmel,
AS STRANGER
P.
The
London:
Idea
and
of Method
of Cultural
Ronald
The
eds.
Cohen,
pp.
Natural
Press.
History
of Culture.
New
York:
Winston.
of a Social
Routledge
Science
and
Kegan
and
its Relation
Paul.
Holt,
to Philosophy.

Eager Visitor, Reluctant Host The Anthropologist As Stranger

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Eager Visitor, Reluctant Host The Anthropologist As Stranger

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Canadian Anthropology Society

Eager Visitor, Reluctant Host: The Anthropologist as Stranger

in their own right a datum that

stem from the group

their field methods

1968, 1974; Hicks

did not harbor serious misgivings

STRANGER-HOST FIELD RELATIONS

Similarly, Hart (1970:151-152)

and lately "field method

they think will get the

the kind of information

that for all anthropologists

in the art of bluffing"

STRANCERHOOD AND CULTURAL DATA

for the reliability

life of the people

from the declared

that one would

him to follow their cultural

IMPLICATIONS FOR ETHNOGRAPHIC RESEARCH

for the validity

I feel that the author

not know what

Time and Social Structure:

Among the Vice

the "New Ethnography."

Williams, Thomas Rhys

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi