C HAPTER T WO

Doing Cultural
Anthropology
What are the aims of ethnography and eldwork?
How does an anthropologist do an ethnographic eld study?
How has ethnography changed in the past century?
How do the personalities, social status, and culture of anthropologists affect their ethnographies?
What are the special opportunities and problems in doing anthropology in ones own society?
What are some of the ethical problems raised by ethnography?
How do anthropologists use ethnographic data?

Kojo A. Dei (right), an anthropologist from Ghana, does ethnographic eldwork among

African-American youth in a major city in the United States. The focus of Deis ethnog-

raphy is on how the cultural meanings of substance use and abuse within inner city

communities both support and diverge from those in the larger society. An essential

relationship in deis ethnographic eldwork is with his key informants, among whom

are Prince Afrika.


DOING CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY
In attempting to understand human diversity,
cultural anthropologists have developed par-
ticular methodologies for gathering data and
developing and testing theories. For cultural
anthropology, the existing diversity of human
cultures is the laboratory. The controlled lab-
oratory situation of the physical sciences is,
for both technical and ethical reasons, of little
use in cultural anthropology. Anthropologists
can hardly go out and start a war somewhere
to see the effect of warfare on family life. Nor
can they control in a laboratory all the factors
involved in examining the impact of multina-
tional corporations on villages in the Amazon
rain forest. In place of the articially controlled
laboratory, anthropologists rely on the ethno-
graphic method and cross-cultural comparison.
The ethnographic method is the gather-
ing and interpretation of information based on
intensive, rst-hand study of a particular culture.
The written report of this study is called an
ethnography. In ethnology, or cross-cultural
comparison, the ethnographic data from dif-
ferent societies are analyzed to build and test
hypotheses about social and cultural processes.
Cultural anthropology encompasses a wide
range of activities and specialties: solitary
fieldwork in a remote location, delving into
historical archives, testing hypotheses using sta-
tistical correlations from many different soci-
eties, administering a community health care
clinic, and working with indigenous peoples
to exhibit their art in a museum. But all of these
diverse activities are based on ethnography,
which is not only the major source of anthro-
pological data and theory but also an important
part of most anthropologists experience. We
thus begin this chapter with a discussion of
ethnography and then turn to some of the ways
in which ethnographic data are used in cross-
cultural comparison.
ETHNOGRAPHY AND FIELDWORK
Ethnography is the written description and
analysis of the culture of a group of people
DOING CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY 19
based on fieldwork. Fieldwork is the first-
hand, intensive, systematic exploration of a
culture. Although fieldwork includes many
techniques, such as structured and unstructured
interviewing, mapping space, taking census
data, photographing and lming, using histor-
ical archives, and recording life histories, the
heart of anthropological fieldwork is partici-
pant-observation. Participant-observation
is the technique of gathering data on human
cultures by living among the people, observ-
ing their social interaction on an ongoing daily
basis, and participating as much as possible in
their lives.This intensive eld experience is the
methodological hallmark of cultural anthro-
pology.Typically, the eld experience results in
an ethnography, that is, an in-depth description
and analysis of a particular culture.
DOING FIELDWORK
The goal of fieldwork is to gather as much
information as one can on a particular cultural
system, or on a particular aspect of a culture
that is the focus of the fieldworkers special
interest. The data are written up to present
as authentic and coherent a picture of the
cultural system as possible. The holistic per-
spective of anthropology developed through
fieldwork. Only by living with people and
engaging in their activities over a long period
of time can we see culture as a system of in-
terrelated patterns. Good fieldwork and
ethnography are based both on the field-
workers ability to see things from the other
persons point of view (the emic perspective)
and on the ability to see patterns, relationships,
and meanings that may not be consciously un-
derstood by a person in that culture (the etic
perspective).
Observation, participation, and interviewing
are all necessary in good fieldwork. The an-
thropologist observes, listens, asks questions,
and attempts to nd a way in which to partic-
ipate in the life of the society over an extended
period of time.
Anthropology, like every other scientic dis-
cipline, must be concerned with the accuracy
20 CHAPTER TWO

of its data. Anthropology is unique among the

sciences in that a human being is the major re-
search instrument, and other human beings
supply most of the data. At least in the initial
stages of researchand usually throughout the
fieldworkanthropologists have to rely to a
great extent on informants as well as observa-
tion for their data. Informants are people
through whom the anthropologist learns about
the culture, partly by observation and partly by
asking questions. Many people in a society may
act as informants, but most anthropologists also
have a few key informants with whom they
work. Key informants are people who have
a deep knowledge of their culture and are will-
ing to pass this knowledge on to the anthro-
pologist. Anthropologists often develop deep
rapport with their key informants and even life-
time friendships (Grindal and Salamone 1995). Ruth Benedicts major work, Patterns of Culture, was

These key informants are essential not only for a best-seller in the United States when it was pub-

explaining cultural patterns but also for intro- lished in the 1930s. It is still widely used in college an-

ducing anthropologists to the community and thropology courses. Benedict worked tirelessly with

helping them establish a network of social re- Franz Boas to demonstrate to Americans that ide-

lationships.The establishment of trust and co- ologies of racial superiority had no basis in science.

operation in these relationships is the basis for The work of Ruth Benedict, her mentor Franz Boas,

sound eldwork. and her student, Margaret Mead, had a deep and

In the early stages of eldwork, the anthro- widespread inuence on how Americans think about

pologist may just observe or perform some cultural diversity. Her contributions are recognized

seemingly neutral task such as collecting by her picture on a United States stamp.

genealogies (family trees) or taking a census.

Within a short time, however, he or she will
begin to participate in cultural activities.
Participation is the best way to understand
the difference between what people say they
do, feel, or think and what they actually do. It
is not that informants deliberately lie (although
they may), but rather, when they are asked
about some aspect of their culture, they may
give the cultural ideal, not what actually
happens. This is especially true when the
outsider has higher social status than the in-
formant. For psychological or pragmatic rea-
sons, the informant wants to look good in the
anthropologists eyes. Participation also forces
the researcher to think more deeply about cul-
turally correct behavior and thus sharpens in-
sight into culture beyond that learned by
observation alone.
FIELDWORK AND ETHNOGRAPHY:
A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
Anthropology began in the last quarter of the
nineteenth century as a comparative science;
although its rst practitioners were not eld-
workers, eldwork and ethnography soon be-
came its dening characteristic (Stocking 1992).
For a number of reasons, the earliest ethnogra-
phers concentrated their studies on the small-
scale, technologically simpler societies that had
developed for thousands of years outside the
orbit of European culture. One reason was the
fear that much of the traditional cultures of these
societies were disappearing under the assault of
Western culture, and so their cultures needed to
be recorded as soon as possible. Another reason
 DOING CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY 21

was that these cultures were sufficiently ho-
mogenous that patterns and processes of culture
were more easily perceived than was possible
in the large, technologically complex, heteroge-
neous societies of the West. In addition, it was
necessary to look at societies outside the orbit
of Western society in order to learn about the
very diverse ways of being human.
European interest in cultural differences
was enormously intensified by the fifteenth-
century expansion of European power, which
brought Europeans into contact with cultures
that were very different from their own. This
interest continued to develop and, by the
eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, laid the
foundation for the emergence of anthropology.

E T H N O G R A p h y

States and Europe, attracting many con-

AnEthnographic verts from the counterculture of the
Field Study in 1960s. As part of their commitment to
India their new religion, many of these people

C
harles Brooks is an American an- went to India to help spread Krishna con-
thropologist who carried out Vrindaban sciousness in the land where it originated.
field research on the impact of Brooks was fascinated by this process
foreign Hare Krishnas in India.The fol- and his research was guided by an over-
lowers of Hare Krishna, with their orange arching question: How did a Western
INDIA
robes and shaved heads, their public pro- cultural version of Hare Krishna t itself
cessions and festivals featuring drums and into the religious culture of India? In
cymbals, and their vegetarian food, are order to answer this larger question,
well known in the United States. Brooks Brooks broke it down into smaller ques-
worked not in an isolated, small-scale so- tions, which would actually guide his re-
ciety, but rather in a large town in the search.These questions included In what
very complex society of India. The fol- specic types of situations did foreign and
lowing description of his fieldwork interest formed the background of his re- Indian Krishna followers interact?
shows what anthropologists actually do as search. Brooks was also aware of the most What were the similarities and differ-
they go about understanding cultures. visible representation of Indian religion ences in how foreigners and Indian devo-
Although each eldwork project is dif- in the United States, the International tees understood the symbols, rituals,
ferent, there are certain common steps: Society for Krishna Consciousness meanings, and goals of Krishna worship?
choosing the problem, choosing the site, (ISKCON), also called the Hare Krishna. How did Indians react to foreigners
locating informants, gathering and record- The Hare Krishna movement began in who claimed they were Hindusand
ing the data, and analyzing and writing India as a way of spreading the worship Hindu priests at that? What opinions
up the results. of the Hindu god Krishna. In this religion, did Indians have about Westerners who
devoted worship to Krishna is the main were in India to spread the word about
CHOOSING THE PROBLEM path to religious or spiritual enlighten- a religion that was originally Indian?
Like much contemporary eldwork, ment. Krishna worship was brought to the Because Hindus believe that foreigners
Brookss approach to the culture he was United States in the 1960s by an Indian cannot become Hindus, as ISKCON
studying was holistic, yet focused on a monk, Swami Bhaktivedanta, who aimed members claim they have become, how
number of specic questions.Through his to save Westerners from what he saw as was this paradox resolved? How did
graduate study, Brooks had become inter- their materialism and atheism. His move- ISKCONs presence in India affect both
ested in religion and change in India.This ment was very successful in the United Hindu religious culture and the
22 CHAPTER TWO
An Ethnographic Field Study in India (continued)
Indian and Western Krishna followers who
encountered each other? In sum, Brooks
was interested in the subjective experience
of individuals from two different cultures
who had come together through partici-
pation in the same religion.
PICKING THE RESEARCH SITE
Sometimes anthropologists have a par-
ticular site in mind when they begin their
fieldwork, but in many cases they have
only a general idea about a location that
might suit their research interests.The ul-
timate choice involves some practical
matters, such as the availability of hous-
ing, health care, and transportation, but
the major consideration is whether the
site will allow the researchers to answer
the questions they are interested in.
Because Brooks wanted to study social
interaction between foreign and Indian
devotees to Krishna, his main criterion
was to nd a location where such inter-
action took place.
Anthropologists generally use the rst
month or so of their fieldwork to look
over possible sites (this has changed some-
what today, when thanks to cheaper air-
fares, many graduate students take an initial
trip of several months to pick a research
site, and then return for the longer eld-
trip). Brookss initial choice for his research
was the sacred pilgrimage town of Vrinda-
ban, where Krishna is said to have been
born and lived for part of his life. This
town has many temples and religious sites
dedicated to Krishna worship, and Brooks
knew that ISKCON had also set up a
temple there. He made an initial visit to
discover whether signicant social inter-
action took place among the Indian and
foreign pilgrims and residents in Vrinda-
ban and whether any Indians worshipped
at ISKCONs temple. When he saw that
such interactions did occur, and that the
ISKCON temple attracted many Indian
pilgrims, Brooks decided that this would
be an appropriate site for his eldwork.
Brooks chose as his residence a place
where many foreign and Indian people
stay while they are on pilgrimage at
Vrindaban.As a neutral site, it would not
associate Brooks with any particular reli-
gious faction. This would allow him
greater access to a variety of social situa-
tions than if he had stayed at a place iden-
tified with a particular religious sect or
temple. In addition, this residence was
centrally located in the town and situated
near a principal pilgrimage destination
where Brooks could observe from his
rooftop rooms the constant movement of
pilgrims and the many cultural perfor-
mances that were held in the adjacent
public courtyard. Having found a suitable
place to stay, Brooks turned his attention
to beginning the research project.
COLLECTING AND RECORDING
DATA
In anthropology, as in every science,
method is connected to theory.The way
we collect our data is related to the ques-
tions we hope our research will answer.
Because Charles Brookss main interest
was in the way people create meanings
for their behavior through social inter-
action, participant-observation was his
major method of collecting data. Only
in this way did Brooks feel he could de-
velop the intimate familiarity and sen-
sitivity to the social world he wished to
understand (Brooks 1989:235). In order
to do this, he also had to take account of
his own role as an anthropologist in these
interactions.
Because the initial step of participation
is to nd a role through which to inter-
act with others, Brooks dened his role
as someone looking for personal devel-
opment, and also as a research scholar
who had been certified by the Indian
government to study Vrindabans culture
and history. Both these roles were famil-
iar and valid to pilgrims and town resi-
dents. In order to more effectively par-
ticipate in the religious culture of the
town, without identifying himself with
any particular faction, Brooks wore
Indian clothing and accessories that were
typical of Indians in Vrindaban but were
not specically identied with any par-
ticular religious sect.
Because of the public nature of many of
the religious interactions Brooks wished
to understand, gaining entry to these sit-
uations and observing behavior was not
difficult. And because he had learned
Hindi, the main language used for social
interaction in this part of India, he rarely
needed an interpreter. But recording his
observations presented more of a prob-
lem. Many anthropologists use tape
recorders or take notes at the time of ob-
servation, but in other cases this hinders
interaction. On one occasion early in his
research, when Brooks was recording an
interview in a small notebook, one of his
key informants, a guru told him, When
you are ready to learn, come back with-
out your notebook. From that point he
stopped taking notes on the spot and
waited until an encounter was over be-
fore writing it up.To help him remember
and keep track of the many details of an
interaction and record them in a consis-
tent way, he developed a schematic ow-
chart into which he could fit his daily
observations. A different flowchart was
kept for each separate interaction, and
each chart incorporated information on
the actors, the content of their interac-
tion, the symbols used, the goal of the in-
teraction, and its conclusion. In addition,
he also recorded his experiences in a
more impressionistic way in a journal.
Second to participant-observation in
its importance for collecting data,
Brooks also used unstructured, open-
ended interviews. The goal of these
interviews was to explore a particular
 DOING CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY 23

An Ethnographic Field Study in India (continued)

(left) The Hare Krishna movement has spread throughout Europe and the United States. This procession is in Russia. Charles

Brookss ethnography is aimed at understanding how Western Hare Krishna devotees were integrated into the Indian city of

Vrindaban, a center for Krishna worship. (right) One of Brookss key informants was Govind Kishore Goswami, a Brahmin priest

and the owner of the pilgrims hostel where Brooks lived during his research. Here Goswami is pictured with his wife and son

during Holi, a festival where people sprinkle each other with colored water.

topic in depth, such as the meaning
of a particular symbolic object used
in religious practice. Many of his
interviews were with groups of infor-
mants.These were helpful in comparing
the ways different individuals interpret a
symbolic object or act, whereas in the in-
dividual interviews people could speak
about more private matters.This was the
format he used for collecting life histo-
ries.The individual interviews were taped
and more structured, organized around
preset questions, but Brooks also allowed
the conversations to develop on their
own if an informant showed a particular
interest in or knowledge of a subject.
Twenty-two of these life histories were
collected, and they were particularly valu-
able in giving information about the
background from which informants de-
veloped their interpretations of religious
phenomena.
Brooks also used random verbal surveys
to discover the castes and backgrounds of
the pilgrims and town residents, and to
learn their opinions and attitudes toward
the foreign devotees in Vrindaban. He
initially tried to use a written question-
naire to gather this kind of information
but dropped that as counterproductive.
Not only were written questionnaires
foreign to Vrindaban culture, and thus not
very effective, but, although Brooks as-
sured informants of their condentiality,
many people were nervous at the idea of
writing down private information. In ad-
dition, the use of such formal documents
might be interpreted to conrm the be-
lief of many Indians that all Americans
in India are working for the CIA.
Hardly any anthropologist could be
found today who does not take a camera
to the eld. Brooks used photographs in
several specific ways related to his re-
search project: documenting the physical
24 CHAPTER TWO

An Ethnographic Field Study in India (continued)

aspects of Vrindabans religious complex,
such as the temples and pilgrimage sites;
documenting the different people who
visited and lived in Vrindaban and their
clothing and appearance as a way of pre-
serving a record of cultural diversity; and
photographing the sites and participants
of social interactions as an aid to remem-
bering and interpreting them.
ANALYZING AND INTERPRETING
THE DATA
Brookss data indicated that there is sig-
nicant interaction between Indians and
foreigners in Vrindaban. The ISKCON
temple is accepted as a legitimate place of
worship for Indian devotees of Krishna,
and ISKCON members are accorded le-
gitimacy as Krishna devotees by Indians.
The interaction of people from different
cultures in the religious complex of
Krishna worship has led to changes in the
meanings of the symbols involved in this
worship.
On a more theoretical level, Brookss
research challenges some popularly held
conceptions about Indian culture and so-
ciety, especially concerning the impor-
tance of caste in social interaction.
As the study uncovered some ways that
outsidersthe foreignerscould be ac-
cepted in a Hindu religious and social
universe, it opened up new perceptions
of social organization in India, indicat-
ing that in religious settings, caste iden-
tity, which is normally essential in social
interaction, could be subordinated to
evaluations of the sincerity of a persons
devotion. The acceptance of foreigners
as Hindus and even Brahmins highlights
the complexity of Indian culture and
demonstrates its exibilityits ability to they are forced to rethink traditional cul-
deal with novel and contradictory situa-
tions. Thus caste, which has popularly
been viewed as a rigid hierarchy, can be
deemphasized, superseded by other social
statuses, or held irrelevant for determin-
ing individual social position.
In the case of Vrindaban, as is true
in many other parts of India, religion
is of prime importance in determining
individual social position and social
interaction. This is evidenced by the
importance of religious competence
and extreme devotion, which override
caste as indicators of rank and status.The
fact that foreigners can be considered
Brahmins in India shows that our
understandings of caste may be incom-
plete and even incorrect: that Brahmin
status, for example, may be achieved as
well as acquired by birth.
Like all good ethnography, Brookss
study of one town in India has a wider
application, as it reveals the processes by
which social reality is transformed into a
meaningful universe.As people from dif-
ferent parts of the world increasingly
come into contact with one another and
participate in common social systems,
tural concepts and their own and others
cultural identities.
Critical Thinking Questions
1. How might the social processes
revealed in Brookss study apply
to the multicultural society of
the United States?
2. If you were to study a situation
in the United States like the one
Brooks studied in India, what
groups would you study and why?
From Charles Brooks, The Hare Krishnas in
India. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University
Press, 1989.

Anthropologists attempted to grapple with the
signicance of the cultural differences between
Europeans and other cultures, initially by plac-
ing the cultures they encountered on evolu-
tionary scales of cultural development. In these
scales, characterized by different stages of tech-
nology and social institutions (such as the form
of family or type of religion), European culture
was placed at the pinnacle and these other,
primitive societies were viewed as earlier
forms of its own development.
The earliest observers of the societies later
studied by these nineteenth-century anthro-
pologists were typically amateurstravelers,
explorers, missionaries, and colonial officers
who had recorded their experiences in remote
corners of the world. In the nineteenth and
early twentieth centuries, much of anthropo-
logical theory, including much of cultural evo-
lutionary theory, was developed by armchair
anthropologists who had not done eldwork
themselves and who based their theories on the
often ethnocentric and unsystematic writings
of the amateurs.
By the early twentieth century, eldwork and
ethnography became the hallmarks of cultural
anthropology. Twentieth-century anthropolo-
gists hoped that detailed ethnographies would
 DOING CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY 25

illuminate the richness and human satisfactions criterion of good ethnography that grew out of
in a wide range of cultures and increase respect the work of Malinowski and Boas was that it
among Europeans and North Americans for grasp the native point of view objectively and
peoples whose lives were very different from without bias. This goal was based on the
their own. It was particularly after the devasta- assumptions of positivism, an empirical
tion, demoralization, and disenchantment with scientic approach that dominated the nine-
European civilization following World War I teenth and most of the twentieth centuries.
that academically trained ethnographers began Positivism and empiricism emphasized the
doing intensive eldwork in distant places and possibility and desirability of observing and
among peoples whose cultures were not only recording an objective reality.Anthropology re-
different from but often in striking contrast to, flected this scientific view: The basis of the
Western culture (Tedlock 1991). This empha- ethnographic method was the condence that
sis on eldwork is linked particularly with the trained, neutral investigators could, through
names of Franz Boas in the United States and observation of behavior, comprehend the ob-
Bronislaw Malinowski in Europe. jective reality of a culture.
Franz Boas, the primary inuence in anthro- After World War I, and even more so after
pology in the United States in the rst half of World War II, anthropological eldwork took
the twentieth century, turned away from arm- yet another turn, expanding fieldwork and
chair anthropology and urged anthropologists ethnography to peasant and urban societies,
to do more fieldwork before small non-Western
cultures disappeared. Boas himself produced an Anthropologist Franz Boas was the most inuential
enormous amount of ethnographic data on na- American anthropologist of the rst half of the
tive American cultures, particularly those of the twentieth century. He carried out eldwork among
Pacic Northwest. For Boas, the status of an- the KWakiutl of the Northwest Coast of North
thropology as a science would depend on the America in collaboration with his key informant,
most complete and objective gathering of George Hunt, and was instrumental in establishing
ethnographic data on specic cultural systems. ethnography as the hallmark of anthropology.
He insisted that grasping the whole of a culture
could be achieved only through eldwork.
Malinowski, whose eldwork was carried out
in the Trobriand Islands, saw an essential goal
of the ethnographer as grasp[ing] the natives
point of view, his relation to life, to realize his
vision of his world ([1922] 1961:25). Only an
anthropologist who could learn to think, feel,
and behave as a member of another culture
could enter into another cultural experience.
And this could be done only through field-
work, living among the people, observing their
behavior firsthand, and participating in their
lives. With the publication of Malinowskis
unmatched ethnographies of the Trobriand
Islands, doing fieldwork and writing ethnog-
raphy became the dominant activities identied
with cultural anthropology.
Boas and Malinowski together set the high
standards for fieldwork, the unique method-
ology of cultural anthropology. The major
26 CHAPTER TWO
which were enmeshed in more complex re-
gional and national systems.This required some
changes in the way eldwork was practiced as
the study of these part cultures is not amen-
able to the same holistic perspective derived
from the study of a small-scale, seemingly iso-
lated culture.This shift to the study of smaller
units in complex societies led to new method-
ologies as well as new theories about culture,
in particular about the relationships of small-
scale cultures to larger systems. Indeed, in
todays global community, the connections
between cultures are so central that no society,
no matter how seemingly remote, can be
studied as if it existed in cultural isolation. In the
example of Charles Brookss eldwork on the
Hare Krishna of India, we see very clearly
the diffusion of cultural patterns in our global
society and the importance of the anthro-
pologist having a global perspective.
CHANGING DIRECTIONS
IN ETHNOGRAPHY
Since the 1970s, many of the assumptions of
twentieth-century eldwork and ethnography
and condence in the possibilities of discover-
ing an objective reality have become the sub-
ject of intense debate in anthropology (Lee
1992a). These debates result from the increas-
ing importance of postmodernism in anthro-
pology as well as in other social sciences and
humanities. A basic assumption of postmod-
ernism is that all knowledge is inuenced by
the observers culture and status in society and
that there is no single objective reality, or truth,
but rather many partial truths, depending on
ones perspective. Postmodernism has caused
intense reection on why, how, and with what
goals cultural anthropologists have done, are
doing, and should be doing ethnography.
Current perspectives in anthropology, as in-
fluenced by postmodernism, are more sensi-
tive to issues of history and power. Because
many (if not most) of the ethnographic en-
counters of the twentieth century took place
in colonial or neocolonial situations, where the
ethnographer came from a much more pow-
erful culture than the ethnographic subject, this
is a particularly important factor in under-
standing the ways in which anthropologists
have interpreted and represented other cultures.
Postmodernism has thus challenged the
ethnographer as the sole, or even most author-
itative voice in presenting cultural descriptions.
From a postmodern point of view, ethnogra-
phies are stories, just like other stories about
experienced reality, and there is an increasing
attempt, as a result of postmodernism, to write
more experimental ethnographies that use
multiple voicesof many people in a culture,
among whom the ethnographer is only one
as a more accurate account of cultural reality
(see Brown 1991; Abu-Lughod 1993; Harding
and Myers 1994). It must be kept in mind,
however, that these multiple voices are still
selected and presented by the ethnographer.
The perspective that ethnography is just an-
other story about reality has led to an interest
in the ways in which, consciously and uncon-
sciously, ethnographers give authority to their
stories, that is, how they make them believable
(Geertz 1988). This emphasis on ethnography
as narrative also raises questions about how the
projected audience for an ethnography, as well
as cultural and political biases of the ethnogra-
pher, shape the interpretation and representa-
tion of other cultures.
By the 1990s, the earlier trickle of interest in
raising explicit questions about the methodol-
ogy of participant-observation and the writing
of ethnography had turned into a ood, with a
new emphasis on the process of eldwork it-
selfwhat Barbara Tedlock (1991:69) calls the
observation of participation. Contemporary
anthropologists are, in a more focused and ex-
plicit way, raising questions about subjectivity
and objectivity in eldwork, bias in the inter-
pretation of eld data, the accuracy of traditional
ethnography as a representation of culture, the
relationship of ethnography to anthropological
theory, and the usefulness of denitions of cul-
ture itself (see Chapter Three).These concerns
have been differently viewed as a challenge, a
threat, a crisis, or a fad. In fact, although almost
all contemporary ethnographies now include

some reflection about the conditions under
which the fieldwork was carried out, ethnog-
raphy continues to be dominated by fairly
straightforward cultural descriptions and
analyses.
Traditionally, the dominant requirement in
anthropology, at least in writing ethnography if
not in the eldwork itself, was to write like a
scientist.This often led to omitting the lifeblood
in a culture, describing norms and structures and
patterns but leaving out any mention of specic
events and individuals, including the ethnogra-
pher.With a few notable exceptions, such as E.
E. Evans-Pritchards classic The Nuer ([1940]
1968), only occasionally, in an introduction or
a preface, were explicit accounts of the eld-
work process included in ethnographies. Until
the 1970s, few ethnographies considered, in any
central way, how interactions between ethnog-
rapher and informants affected the gathering,
interpretation, and reporting of data.
This began to change in the 1960s with the
publication of some first-person, experiential
accounts of eldwork (Berreman 1962) and by
the 1970s, more ethnographies began to appear
in which the observation of participation had
as central a place as more standard cultural de-
scriptions; indeed, such concerns have moved
from the margins of anthropology to the cen-
ter (although it is a center that continues to be
shared by other interests and issues).
Participant-observation leads anthropologists
to reect more consciously on how their own
statuses, personalities, and cultures shape their
view of others and how they personally inter-
act with the other to produce cultural data.
Thus, there is a new focus on the interaction
between the self and the otherthe ethnog-
rapher and her or his informantsand the
kinds of communication they engage in as part
of the fieldwork experience and the written
ethnography. Fieldwork and ethnography, from
this perspective, become a dialogue, a copro-
duction between the self and the other, the
ethnographer and the native informant
(Crapanzano 1980).
We can see the effects of these changes in the
ethnography of what Westerners call the
DOING CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY 27
Middle East.Western views of the Middle East,
the Muslim religion, and Arab culture have
been very signicantly biased by historical en-
counters between Islam and Christianity, the
historical colonization of the Middle East by
Western powers, the contemporary politics of
the Middle East, and the recent Gulf War (Said
1978, 1993; Hale 1989).
Anthropology, as well as other disciplines, has
been affected by these encounters, particularly
in the study of gender, which has been shaped
by ethnocentric stereotypes about the domi-
nance of the shame/honor dichotomy, the
domination of men, the total submission of
women (symbolized by veiling), and the sharp
segregation between the two sexes. Signicant
in this ethnocentric view of the Middle East
has been the overemphasis on Islam as the cul-
tural determinant of gender roles and womens
status.As one anthropologist (Waines 1982:652)
noted, too much of the literature assumes a
priori the existence of a universal Islam which
mysteriously moulds behavior from above.
These assumptions and generalizations have,
until quite recently, resulted in neglect of other
factors in studying the Middle East, such as
history, economics, political dynamics and ide-
ologies, the formation of social classes, and the
variety of cultural contexts. Middle Eastern
realities are more complex than they have gen-
erally been portrayed by many anthropologists.
For example, overemphasis on separation and
subordination in gender relations has led to a
neglect of study of the places, such as the family
or the workplace, where men and women meet
and interact.
THE INFLUENCE OF FEMINIST
ANTHROPOLOGY ON
ETHNOGRAPHY
Ethnography of the Middle East raises partic-
ularly important questions about ethnocentrism
and gender bias in cultural anthropology, but
both of these biases extend beyond Middle
Eastern ethnography. The examination of the
degree to which culture and gender are pow-
erful biases in ethnography and cultural theory
28 CHAPTER TWO
is a signicant contribution of feminist anthro-
pology (further discussed in Chapter Ten).
In the past, much eldwork wasand con-
tinues to bedone by men who have limited,
or even no, personal access to womens lives.
This is particularly true in cultures where men
and women lead very separate lives and are
often hostile to each other, as in New Guinea
(Hammar 1989) or in the Middle East, where
cultural notions of honor and shame severely
restrict the interactions of men and women
who are not related (Abu-Lughod 1987).
The description of whole cultures based on
male activities grew out of a (largely uncon-
scious) assumption that the most important cul-
tural activities were dominated by men.A good
example is the work of Malinowski himself. His
descriptions of exchange among the Trobriand
Islanders almost completely excluded womens
gift exchanges, an omission rectied more than
50 years later by a woman whose restudy of the
Trobriand Islands focuses on exchanges among
women (Weiner 1976).
Gender bias had its effect not only on
the accuracy of ethnographies, but also on the
development of theories about culture. When
the culture of a small society is based on infor-
mation from just one segment of the commu-
nitythat is, menthe culture appears to be
much more homogeneous than it really is.
When such inaccurate descriptions accumulate,
anthropologists can conclude that cultural
homogeneity and integration are character-
istic of such societies. This conclusion may be
theoretically misleading; it is also a source of
concern for those who believe that it helps per-
petuate oppression of women by ignoring their
perspectives on their own culture, which are
different from those of men (Keesing 1987;
Hammar 1989). As we see in Chapter Ten, the
recognition of the androcentric bias of an-
thropology has led to a new concern with the
lives, thoughts, and activities of women and also
to a new interest in mens lives, activities, and
the whole subject of gender and sexuality.
These new emphases in ethnography are one
more element of the diversity and dynamism
that have always characterized the history of
anthropology. Discussions and debates over the-
ory and method in contemporary anthropol-
ogy highlight the wide range of approaches
cultural anthropologists bring to the question
of what it means to be human. Anthropolog-
ical studies focus on the other and ourselves;
its goals embrace those of a comparative science
and also a unique, humanistic inquiry. Many
ethnographies continue to emphasize objec-
tive descriptions of a culture, whereas other,
more experimental ethnographies try in differ-
ent ways to incorporate the many voices that
make up a culture. In their eld studies some
anthropologists still try to be the proverbial y
on the wall, observing and reporting from the
position of outsider, but political activism and
advocacy for the people one is studying have
also come to be important goals. In meeting the
challenges of a changing world, anthropologists
are increasingly reecting on the work they do
and its place in contemporary global society.
These reections have raised new issues. One
of these is the particular challenge of doing
ethnography in ones own society.
SPECIAL PROBLEMS IN
CONTEMPORARY ETHNOGRAPHY
STUDYING ONES OWN SOCIETY
The demand for more self-conscious eldwork
means that anthropologists need to be more
aware of their own reactions in the field and
to see themselves not only as the instrument of
observation but also as the subject of observa-
tion. These observations of the self emerge as
part of the interaction with others that is cen-
tral to fieldwork and can be the source of
the special insights that make fieldwork such
an exciting but risky enterprise for cultural
outsiders.The emphasis on more reective eld-
work and ethnography affects all anthropolo-
gists but particularly anthropologists studying
their own societies, or native anthropologists.
When anthropologists study a culture differ-
ent from their own, their main methodological
task is to perceive cultures emically (that is, from
the point of view of its members). Although

training in anthropology is designed to increase
awareness and perhaps ultimately overcome cul-
tural bias, even well-trained anthropologists slip
into projecting their own culturally determined
feelings and perceptions on other peoples. In
studying their own cultures, anthropologists
must try to maintain the social distance of the
outsider because it is all too easy to take for
granted what one knows. In addition, as distin-
guished anthropologist Margaret Mead once
noted, remaining objective, or relativist, may be
easier when confronting problematic patterns
in other cultures, such as cannibalism or infan-
ticide, than when confronting problematic
situations such as child neglect, corporate greed,
or armed conict in ones own society.
Some of the problems and the rewards of
studying ones own culture are found in the
work of Barbara Myerhoff, an American an-
thropologist. Myerhoff contrasted her earlier
work with the Huichol of Northern Mexico
with her work among elderly Jewish people in
an urban ghetto in California (1978). She notes
that in the rst case, doing anthropology was an
act of imagination, a means for discovering what
one is not and will never be. In the second case,
eldwork was a glimpse into her possible future,
as she knew that someday she would be a
little old Jewish lady. Her work was a personal
way to understand that condition. Because in
North American culture the lives of the elderly
poor are often invisible, Myerhoff s ethnogra-
phy of elderly Jewish people who had struggled
to overcome and had triumphed in many small
ways over the disabilities of being old and poor
in North America was, for her, a valuable and
rare experience: that of being able to rehearse
and contemplate her own future.
In other cultures, both similar and different
problems arise for cultural insiders. Although
Middle Eastern ethnography has substantially
improved through the work of native women
anthropologists, their eldwork accounts sug-
gest that the ethnographers insider/outsider
position still poses special difculties in cultures
where womens public activities are limited and
where respectability, honor, and shame are cen-
tral cultural values (Altorki and Fawzi El-Solh
DOING CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY 29
1988). Anthropologist Lila Abu-Lughod started
her fieldwork among the Bedouin accompa-
nied by her father, an event that rst irritated
and embarrassed her. But she later concluded
that her fathers insistence that a young, un-
married woman traveling alone on uncertain
business would be suspect and have a hard
time persuading people of her respectability
was culturally appropriate.This was all the more
true because Abu-Lughod had lived in the West
and was subject to the negative stereotypes the
Arabs have of the morals of Western women.
Abu-Lughod had confidence that she could
overcome this suspicion by her own culturally
sensitive behavior, but she did not realize until
she reflected on her fieldwork that a young
woman alone would be seen to have been
abandoned or alienated from her family.
This would cast doubts on her respectability
(1987:9) and hinder her fieldwork, or even
make it impossible, among the conservative
Egyptian Bedouin whom she was studying.
Another dilemma experienced by many
anthropologists, but particularly poignant for
native anthropologists, is whether one should
be a disinterested researcher or an advocate
for the people one studies and whether it is
possible to be both. Delmos Jones, an African
American anthropologist in the United States,
experienced some of these conicts in study-
ing the role of voluntary organizations in
effecting political and social change in African
American urban communities (1995). An im-
portant nding of his research emphasized the
contradictory demands on organizational lead-
ers, who often had to compromise their mem-
bers expectations in order to remain effective
with local power establishments. Leaders some-
times emphasized the importance of these
connections with powerful outsiders to stifle
dissent within their organizations staff and
membership.
Joness finding on dissension between the
leadership and the membership of these orga-
nizations presented him with a dilemma, one
that rested partly on his being a native anthro-
pologist. On the one hand, Jones acknowledged
that he was given access to the leadership of the
30 CHAPTER TWO
Soo Choi (center) is an anthropologist from Korea who studied in the
United States and returned to do eldwork in a Korean peasant village.
As an insider, Choi had the advantage of knowing the language and
culture of his eldsite. But as an outsider, he also had the advantage of
social distance that allowed him to gain a fuller understanding of
both the ideals and realities of village culture. .
community organizations because he was
African American and also because he shared
their concern about improving the position of
African Americans in the United States. On the
other hand, many of the members and staff of
the organization were more suspicious of Jones
because they identified him with the leaders
(who had given permission for the study) to-
ward whom they were antagonistic. Nor was
his finding of dissension between the groups
leadership and their membership palatable to
the leadership. Jones asked himself whether he
should omit reporting on the socially destruc-
tive aspect of the organizations tension be-
tween its leadership and its members in the
interest of racial unity or whether he should
describe how racial unity could be used as a
slogan by the leadership to silence dissent
among the organization members.
Reflecting on his research experience,
Delmos Jones concluded that although being
a cultural insider offers certain advantages
for an anthropologist, such as access to the
community, it also poses special dilemmas,
particularly when the group being studied has
been oppressed by the larger society. Indeed, he
noted that the very concept of a native an-
thropologist is itself problematic. As he and
other native anthropologists have pointed out,
an individual has many identities, which in-
clude those of race and culture but also of gen-
der and social class. Being a native in one
identity does not make one a native in all ones
identities (Narayan 1993; Cerroni Long 1995).
Furthermore, for all anthropologists who share
Delmos Joness view that the most important
goal of research and ethnography is to demon-
strate the ways in which social systems may
exploit, alienate, and repress human possibili-
ties, both cultural insiders and cultural outsiders
face similar dilemmas.
As exotic cultures disappear, it becomes
much more difficult for Western anthropolo-
gists to limit themselves to studying others,
and many more anthropological studies are
being carried out in North America and
Europe by natives of those cultures. But
whether it is Western or non-Western anthro-
pologists studying their own societies, the
dimensions of native anthropology will become
increasingly important as subjects for reection.
On this subject, M. N. Srinivas, a distinguished
anthropologist from India who has studied his
own society, coined the term thrice born for what
he called the ideal anthropological journey. First,
we are born into our original, particular culture.
Then, our second birth is to move away from
this familiar place to a far place to do our eld-
work. In this experience we are eventually able
to understand the rules and meanings of other
cultures, and the exotic becomes familiar. In
our third birth, we again turn toward our na-
tive land and nd that the familiar has become
exotic. We see it with new eyes. Despite our
deep emotional attachment to its ways, we are
able to see it also with scientific objectivity
(quoted in Myerhoff 1978).
Srinivass ideal anthropological experience is
becoming more real for many anthropologists
today. It is also an experience completely con-
sistent with one of anthropologys original
goals: that of eventually examining our own

cultures in the same objective way that we have
examined other cultures, and of bringing what
we learn back home.
ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS
IN FIELDWORK
Ethical considerations come up in every eld-
work experience and anthropologists are always
required to reflect on the possible effects of
their research on those they study.Three main
ethical principles that must guide the field-
worker are acquiring the informed consent of
the people to be studied, protecting them from
risk, and respecting their privacy and dignity.
The current concern with ethics in participant-
observation is an important, often agonizing
matter, much more so than in the past, and sur-
rounded by both professional codes and federal
regulations (Murphy and Johannsen 1990).
Some serious transgressions of ethical conduct,
such as the past participation of anthropologists
in counterinsurgency work, have caused con-
cern within the profession. Fieldwork is based
on trust, and as anthropologists involve them-
selves in a continually expanding range of re-
search situations, ethical dilemmas will increase.
In trying to address these issues, the American
Anthropological Association adopted a state-
ment of ethics in 1983, which holds that the
anthropologists paramount responsibility is to
those being studied; anthropologists must do
everything within their power to protect the
physical, social, and psychological welfare of the
people and to honor their dignity and privacy.
This includes the obligation to allow infor-
mants to remain anonymous when they wish
to do so and not to exploit them for personal
gain. It also includes the responsibility to com-
municate the results of the research to the in-
dividuals and groups likely to be affected, as
well as to the general public (AAA 1983).
Anthropologists obligations to the public in-
clude a positive responsibility to speak out, both
individually and collectively, in order to con-
tribute to an adequate definition of reality
that may become the basis of public opinion,
public policy, or a resource in the politics of
culture. Thus, anthropologists must not only
DOING CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY 31
carry on eldwork in a manner that appropri-
ately involves working in collaboration with
their informants but also doing ethnography
in a way that most accurately represents both
the culture and the collaborative dialogues
through which cultural description emerges.
ETHNOGRAPHY
AND THE DILEMMAS OF
DANGEROUS SITUATIONS
Increasingly, anthropological studies are con-
ducted in locations where conflicts between
ethics and national law are common.These may
also involve situations physically dangerous to
anthropologists or their informants.These situ-
ations call for greater reection and perhaps ad-
ditional training.
Anthropologist Jeffrey Sluka studied the pop-
ular support for the Irish Republican Army (IRA)
and the Irish National Liberation Army (INLA)
in a Catholic-nationalist ghetto in Belfast, the
scene of a violent and long-standing conflict
between Irish nationalists and the British gov-
ernment (1990). In such tense, ongoing conict
situations in which emotions run high, no
neutrals are allowed, and in any case, as Sluka
points out, people will define the side they
think the anthropologist is on and act accord-
ingly. At the same time, he found that it is not
necessary to become an active partisan. One
can indicate ones feelings through sympath-
izing with grievances and problems; walking
softly around issues that involve illegal activi-
ties, such as the location of guns and explo-
sives and the identication of guerrillas; being
honest about research interests; maintaining a
heightened awareness about dangerous situa-
tions; and being exible enough to redirect the
research in the face of imminent danger.These
are useful techniques for building rapport and
avoiding danger in the eld.
Slukas suggestions for minimizing danger by
using foresight, planning, skillful maneuvering,
and a conscious effort at impression manage-
ment, becoming well acquainted with people
in the community, meeting well-respected
people who will vouch for the researcher,
and avoiding contacts with the police are also
32 CHAPTER TWO
relevant for anthropologists working in the
substance abuse eld in the inner cities of the
United States (Williams et al. 1992). Ethnogra-
phers studying the use and sale of crack co-
caine, for example, are exposed to the irrational
and often violent behavior of crack users, the
routine violence used by drug dealers, the pro-
liferation of guns and random shootings, and
the possibility of being robbed or mugged.
However, there has been little violence in these
ethnographic settings against anthropologists
who follow the rules Sluka suggests.
Because ethnographic situations of these
kinds involve people breaking the law, who
have every reason to hide their identities,
locales, and activities, ethnographers in these
special situations need to be meticulous about
following the rules of professional conduct and
ethics, that guide (or should guide) all eld re-
search and ethnography.
NEW ROLES FOR THE
ETHNOGRAPHER
Another important issue affecting fieldwork
and ethnography is that, contrary to the situa-
tion in the late nineteenth and early twentieth
centuries, anthropology today is well under-
stood in many of the societies which anthro-
pologists study. People from those societies are
attending universities in greater numbers, and
some have become anthropologists themselves.
In some cases, members of the societies studied
resent anthropological representations of them-
selves, but in other cases ethnographic data are
viewed as useful to a society, serving as a basis
for the revitalization of traditional cultural ele-
ments and the creation of cultural identities that
have been nearly effaced by Western impact
(Feinberg 1994).
In societies where different versions of a cul-
ture are competing for validation as authen-
tic in the construction of national identities,
both anthropological data and anthropologists
may be incorporated as important sources of
cultural authority.When Kathleen Adams car-
ried out her fieldwork among the Toraja of
Sulawesi, Indonesia, she found her informants
already quite sophisticated about ethnography.
On her third day there, one of the Toraja told
her, As an anthropologist, you should write a
book about the real Toraja identity and history,
both the good and the bad . . . [the] authentic
and the true . . . the Toraja without make-up
(Adams 1995).
Toraja society was traditionally based on a
ranking of aristocrats, commoners, and slaves. In
the last several decades, however, for a variety
of reasons, including wage labor outside the re-
gion and the income from tourism, lower-
status people had begun to achieve some wealth.
As the aristocrats became more insecure about
the relevance of their own royal genealogies, an-
thropological accounts became an important re-
source, shoring up their claims to noble status,
and elite Toraja competed for anthropological
attention. Indeed, Adams became a featured
event on tourist itineraries in the region and
tour guides led their groups to the home of her
host, not only validating his importance in the
village but also bolstering the tourists experi-
ence of theToraja as a group sufciently remote
to be studied by anthropologists.
The manipulation of anthropologists by the
local politics of culture is another of the
changed conditions of ethnography that rein-
forces our recognition that the concept of a
bounded, isolated tribal or village culture is no
longer a viable basis for ethnography.Whether
working in cities, villages, or with tribal groups,
almost all ethnographies take into account the
interaction of these local units with larger, even
global social structures, economies, and cul-
tures. It may mean following informants from
villages to their workplaces in cities or collect-
ing genealogies that spread over countries or
even continents. This new conceptual frame-
work raises questions about how typical ones
unit of study is within a larger cultural pattern,
or even whether it is a culturally legitimate unit
at all. In addition to expanding the research site,
contemporary ethnography more often uses
techniques other than participant-observation,
such as questionnaires, social surveys, archival
material, government documents, and court
records.
 DOING CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY 33

Five. However, these comparative approaches

CROSS-CULTURAL COMPARISON
AND THE USES OF
ETHNOGRAPHIC DATA
The gathering of good ethnographic data
through participant-observation is the hallmark
of cultural anthropology and the foundation
on which anthropological theories are built.
Under the influence of anthropologists such
as Bronislaw Malinowski and Franz Boas, the
aim of anthropological eldwork was the de-
scription of a total cultural pattern.Today, how-
ever, many anthropologists go into the field
with the aim of focusing on specific theo-
retical problems, much as Charles Brooks did
in his study of the Hare Krishna in India. Some
of these field studies may be comparative,
studying the same cultural pattern or social
institution in several cultures, as in the com-
parative study of preschools in China, Japan,
and the United States described in Chapter
still depend on intensive field studies of par-
ticular societies and are well within the den-
ition of the ethnographic method.
CROSS-CULTURAL SURVEY
An entirely different kind of cross-cultural
comparative method is the cross-cultural
survey, or controlled cross-cultural com-
parison. The goal of the cross-cultural sur-
vey is to test generalizations about culture,
using statistical correlations of culture traits
based on a wide survey of many different cul-
tures.The data base for the cross-cultural sur-
vey method is the Human Relations Area
File (HRAF). The HRAF is an extensive fil-
ing system containing ethnographic data
about hundreds of societies (past and present)
from the main ethnographically distinguished
areas of the world: Africa, Asia, native North

G l o b a l i z a t i o n

Ethnographic Data in the Global Economy

nal cultural borders violates important

I
n todays global economy, ethno-
graphic data have a new commercial
value. Huge multinational pharma-
ceutical companies, for example, contin-
ually search new natural habitats in hopes
of finding new miracle drugs. These
searches sometimes include interviews
with native healers, who are most knowl-
edgeable about medicinally effective
plants in their environments, but much of
the multinationals research relies on dig-
ging out information from ethnographic
publications.
Once ethnographic and ethnobotanical
data are published, they are in the public
domain, and multinational corporations
or governments may use the data with no
legal obligation to get permission from
the societies who are the source of the
information or to remunerate the mem-
bers of those societies financially or in
any other way (Greaves 1995).
Concern over this issue is part of a
larger issue of the cultural rights of
indigenous people to protect their
own cultural knowledge and cultural
products. In many cases these areas of
knowledge and products are associated
with secret societies and practices and
their dissemination beyond their origi-
religious values.
The increasing concerns of indigenous
people over the appropriation of their
cultural knowledge will undoubtedly af-
fect eldwork and ethnography, as these
peoples exercise greater control over
what ethnographers can publish. Recog-
nition of the cultural and intellectual
property rights of indigenous peoples and
efforts to protect those rights are some
of the adaptations ethnography must
make in a changing world character-
ized by a global economy and global
communication.
34 CHAPTER TWO
and South America, and Oceania. Based on
ethnographic information about these soci-
eties from books and articles, hundreds of cul-
tural features are cross-indexed in the HRAF.
Thus it makes accessible information about
specific cultural patterns in a particular soci-
ety, and it also facilitates inquiry about cul-
tural patterns that are found in association
with each other.
Thousands of different kinds of questions can
be answered by the cross-cultural survey
method (Ember and Ember 1996). For
example, in the 1950s, when divorce was
becoming more common in the United States
and the increasing divorce rate was causing
some alarm, anthropologist George Murdock,
one of the important pioneers in this method-
ology, used the HRAF to determine how mar-
riage instability in the United States compared
with that of other cultures ([1950] 1996).
Using a random sample of eight societies
from the five major ethnographic divisions
of the world, Murdock ascertained that
thirty-nine of the forty societies in his sam-
ple made provision for the termination of
marriage through divorce. When Murdock
surveyed his sample for the frequency of
divorce, he found that while fifteen societies
had more stable marriages than the United
States, twenty-four societies (60% of the sam-
ple) had less stable marriages. He also in-
vestigated the grounds for divorce and found
that the great majority of societies recognized
only certain grounds as adequate and few
societies condoned divorce for a mere
whim. The most common bases for divorce
were incompatibility, adultery, barrenness or
sterility, impotence or frigidity, economic
incapacity or nonsupport, cruelty, and quar-
relsomeness.
Murdock concluded from his cross-cultural
survey that the American divorce rate was
well within the limits that human experience
has shown that societies can tolerate with
safety. He also concluded that most societies,
even those with high divorce rates, are not
indifferent to family stability and that societies
with lower divorce rates usually have social
devices, such as marriage payments, arranged
marriages by parents, and prohibitions against
adultery, to support marital stability.
Most often, the cross-cultural survey is used
to test hypotheses about cultural correlations
and causes. For example, anthropologist Donald
Horton used this method to test his theory that
the primary function of drinking alcohol is to
reduce anxiety (Horton 1943). One of the
many hypotheses he tested as part of his larger
theory was that drinking alcohol would be re-
lated to the level of anxiety in a society and that
a major source of anxiety would be economic
insecurity.
To test this hypothesis, Horton first classi-
ed societies in the HRAF for which there was
information on drinking behavior into those
having high, moderate, or low subsistence in-
security. He then classified the same societies
into those having high, low, or moderate rates
of insobriety. Horton found a significant sta-
tistical correlation between high subsistence
insecurity and high rates of insobriety. With
significant statistical correlations found for
many of the other hypotheses that were gen-
erated from his theory, Horton considered his
theory conrmed.
There are both advantages and disadvantages
to the cross-cultural survey. A major advan-
tage of the method is that it encourages for-
mulating hypotheses, which can then be tested
by finding statistically significant correlations
between two or more cultural traits. However,
a problem that arises is whether the correla-
tions found have explanatory power, that is,
whether they indicate causality. For example,
although Hortons study found a statistically
signicant correlation between economic in-
security and high rates of insobriety, his nd-
ings cannot conrm that subsistence insecurity
causes high rates of insobriety. To confirm
causality one needs to test the association of
many different features and to disprove alter-
native hypotheses.
 DOING CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY 35

Another problem with the cross-cultural sur-

vey is that there is often ambiguity about what
constitutes a particular cultural trait and how
to measure it. Because the cross-cultural sur-
vey method uses cultural traits taken out of
context, it is not always clear that a trait has the
same meaning in the different societies in
which it is found. Insobriety, for example,
would be constructed differently in different
cultures, and its measurement may be some-
what arbitrary. Still another problem is that for
many societies, information on the particular
cultural trait the investigator wants to measure
may be missing from the ethnographic source.
Because most of the ethnographic data in the
HRAF were collected without HRAF cate-
gories in mind, not all societies have data on
all of the same cultural patterns. Anthropol-
ogists using the cross-cultural method have
tried in different ways to overcome these prob-
lems, and many continue to nd the method
of substantial advantage. Ethnographic data on drinking behavior can be useful in cross-cultural com-
Carol and Melvin Ember, anthropologists parisons. These comparisons require caution, however, to make sure that the
prominently associated with the cross-cultural behavior being studied has the same meaning in the compared cultures. The
survey method, note that an important func- ritual of drinking kava which occurs in many Pacic Islands, as illustrated
tion of the cross-cultural survey is that it pre- here, is quite different than drinking for social reasons in a neighborhood
vents generalizing about human nature or bar in the United States.
making assumptions about cultural correlations
based on only a few cultures (Ember and
Ember 1996).They note that the thousands of
such cross-cultural surveys carried out have
produced conclusions that support common- cultural perspective, providing new insights into
sense expectations and also hold some surprises. possible solutions.
On the question of violence, for example, cross- Undoubtedly, as more anthropologists learn
cultural comparative studies conrm that soci- to use the HRAF through the annual Summer
eties that have a lot of violence in one aspect Institutes in Comparative Anthropological
of culture tend to have a lot of violence Research, sponsored by the Human Relations
throughout the culture. Societies that more Area Files and the National Science Founda-
often engage in warfare, for example, also tend tion, cross-cultural comparisons will become an
to have a high degree of other forms of vio- increasingly important part of anthropologists
lence, such as homicide, assault, wife beating, work.The use of cross-cultural surveys and the
capital punishment, and male socialization prac- HRAF data base emphasizes the need for good
tices that permit or encourage aggression. Such ethnography. The use of both methods con-
studies, like George Murdocks study on rms anthropologys status as the most human-
divorce noted earlier, are also important in istic of the sciences and the most scientic of
putting contemporary social problems in cross- the humanities.
36 CHAPTER TWO
SUMMARY
1. The main method of cultural anthropology is
ethnography, or the intensive, rst-hand study of
a particular society through eldwork.The major
technique in eldwork is participant-observation.
An ethnography is the written account of a cul-
ture based on eldwork.
2. Charles Brookss field experience in India illus-
trates the steps in doing fieldwork: choosing a
research problem, picking a research site, nding
key informants, collecting and recording data, and
analyzing and interpreting the data.
3. An essential ability in eldwork is to see another
culture from the point of view of members of that
culture. Bronislaw Malinowski and Franz Boas
were two twentieth-century anthropologists
whose meticulous eldwork set a standard for the
profession.
4. With the postmodern emphasis on multiple voices
in ethnography, anthropological accounts of
other cultures increasingly describe the field-
work experience and raise questions about
how anthropologists status and culture inuence
their perceptions and representations of other
cultures.
5. Doing fieldwork in the anthropologists own
culture presents similar and different problems
from doing eldwork in another culture.Although
native anthropologists may have advantages of
access and rapport in some cases, they also experi-
ence special burdens more intensely, such as
whether to expose aspects of the culture that may
be unfavorably received by outsiders.
6. Anthropological ethics require protecting the dig-
nity, privacy, and anonymity of the people one
studies and not putting them at risk in any way.
This may require extra caution when the research
setting is a site of ongoing violent conict.
7. In addition to ethnography, anthropologists
may also use the rich ethnographic data of the
HRAF in cross-cultural surveys in order to test
hypotheses about human behavior and cultural
processes.
8. In the global economy and with the global reach
of information, ethnographic data, particularly
from indigenous cultures, is increasingly being
used for commercial purposes. This has led to
greater activism by anthropologists, working with
indigenous peoples, to nd ways to protect cul-
tural knowledge and products.
KEY TERMS
androcentric bias
controlled cross-cultural comparison
cross-cultural survey
empirical science
ethnographic method
ethnography
ethnology
eldwork
genealogy
Human Relations Area File (HRAF)
informant
key informant
native anthropologist
participant-observation
positivism
postmodernism
random sample
SUGGESTED READINGS
Agar, Michael. 1996. The Professional Stranger: An
Informal Introduction to Ethnography. Second edition.
New York: Academic Press. Agars informal and
often humorous style makes this a good source
of the whys and hows of ethnography for the in-
troductory student.
Allen, Catherine. 1989. The Hold Life Has: Coco and
Cultural Identity in an Andean Community.
Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution. A sen-
sitive and beautifully written account of anthro-
pological fieldwork in a Latin American
agricultural community.
Altorki, Soraya, and Camillia Fawzi El-Solh, eds. 1988.
Arab Women in the Field: Studying Your Own Society.
Syracuse, N.Y.: Syracuse University Press. Six
women anthropologists, each of whom is socially
part Westerner and part Arab, write about the per-
sonal, ethical, practical, and intellectual problems
of doing eldwork as an Arab woman in a range
of Middle Eastern societies.

Bernard, Russell H., and Jesus Salinas Pedraza.
1995. Native Ethnography:A Mexican Indian Describes
His Culture. Walnut Creek, Calif.: Altamira Press
(Sage).An innovative ethnography based on native
researcher collaboration in which Salinass ethnog-
raphy of his own people, written in his own lan-
guage, was guided, translated, and annotated by the
American anthropologist.
DeVita, Philip R., ed. 1991. The Naked Anthropologist:
Tales from Around the World. Belmont, Calif.:
Wadsworth. An anthology of original and often
amusing articles by anthropologists who have been
taught some important lessons by their informants
in the process of doing eldwork.
Gottlieb,Alma, and Philip Graham. 1993. Parallel Worlds:
An Anthropologist and a Writer Encounter Africa. New
York: Crown.A compelling ethnography with al-
ternating chapters by anthropologist Gottlieb and
her ction writer husband, which emerged from
anthropological fieldwork among the Beng of
West Africa.
Narayan, Kirin. 1989. Storytellers, Saints, and Scoundrels:
Folk Narrative in Hindu Religious Teaching.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. A
delightful book whose rich portraits of the an-
thropologist and the swami who is her key infor-
mant become the vehicles for learning about one
important kind of religious experience in India.
Young, Malcolm. 1993. In the Sticks: Cultural Identity in
a Rural Police Force. Oxford, England: Clarendon
Press. A fascinating ethnography by an anthro-
pologist who spent over 30 years on the English
police force, which describes his culture shock as
DOING CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY 37
well as some of the pitfalls of planned change
among the police in England.
INTERNET EXERCISES
Do you want to get a feeling for
what doing a eldwork-based pro-
ject in anthropology is like? Check
out anthropologist Laura Zimmer
Tamakoshis Web site http://www.truman.edu/
academics/ss/faculty/tamakoshil/index.html.
Professor Tamakoshis site covers information on
planning her eldwork, her experiences in
Papua New Guinea, and her experiences after
she returned.The site is well constructed and
full of great color photographs of New Guinea.
Dr.Tamakoshi provides good personal discus-
sions of establishing rapport, culture shock, and
writing eld notes. She also includes many
quotations from other anthropologists.
Another good place to begin to get an idea of
what cultural anthropologists do is at the Center
for Social Anthropology and Computing of the
University of Kent at Canterbury. You can nd
their home page at http://lucy.ukc.ac.uk. There
you will nd a variety of resources for learning
anthropology.These include the texts of numer-
ous ethnographies, stories about anthropologists,
and brief pictorial exhibits that are informative
and fun to look at. One particularly useful part
of the site is the database of basic information on
many different cultures.You can access this at
http://lucy.ukc.ac.uk/EthnoAtlas/societies.html.