1. Kathleen Caffrey
4/13/2015
Many “postmodernist” anthropologists have argued that ethnography is not about another culture, but
about an anthropologist who has visited another culture. Is there some merit to this statement—or is it
just two ways of saying the same thing? If it is mainly about anthropologist, is there some other way to
learn about other cultures?
If the early days of anthropology were spent finding the bias of the culture, the later has
been spent addressing the bias of the self. Perception, the key idea that defines how we see the
world and ourselves, is both a personal weakness and a professional requirement in any form of
ethnographic work. One cannot do the work of ethnography without one’s own sense of self.
The first reading is about an anthropologist reflecting on his own experience and how it
affected his work in the field when he was studying the headhunters. Pulling from his personal
experience with loss he finds an easier time find understanding the loss, rage and grief expressed
by the head hunting rituals, and the events they surrounded. Better able to sympathize he was
able to connect on a certain level to the emotions behind the occurrence of this event. In this way
there is seen the positive of this side, that of a personal experience aiding in the ethnographic
experience and connections to hosts. This is something that can be desired, as such connection is
useful in forming relationships which are often the basis for a successful ethnographic study.
The second reading offers a more exhaustive exploration of the subject. Covering a variety
of problems it points out that there are several internal issues in the concept of ethnographic
research. From the bias of the researcher to lacking authority to gain holding in the cultures in
question the from does have imperfections. These are valid points, and worth considering. One
that is seen often is that cultures lie just as people do, and if taking a culture at their word
meaning can be lost.
This is not avoidto offering solutions, as complaints without them are useless. A number are offered, including
the now commonpractice of having a number of ethnographers in anarea. Thisis one ofthe easier ideas as it accounts
both for researcher bias andregional difficultyinreadingthe behaviors presented. There are other ideas, having more the
one personat a site or studying anarea over time. In anycase the goal is the same. A studyis of far greater value if it

2. addressedthe inherit presence of author bias andcultural secrecy, after allthe ethnographer is asking for verypersonal
and power secrets.
Like anyaspect is a project the projectionandexpressioninthe personal in the scientific carries both a gift anda
curse. No connectionto the subject andthere is disinterest andeven dislike, toomuchand the studybecomes a personal
profile. As inall things balance is the issue, and the selectionof both researcher and peoples must be mindfullyconsidered.