Newton's article addresses the taboo subject of eroticism and sexual relations in anthropological fieldwork. She argues that early ethnographers like Malinowski separated their personal desires from their scholarly writings, omitting an important dimension. Newton explores her own relationship with an informant, Kay, as one of sexual attraction rather than affair. While pioneering for its time, the article only briefly discusses power dynamics between researcher and subjects. Overall, it makes the case for incorporating personal experiences including eroticism into ethnographic work to provide richer cultural understanding.

1. Mackenzie Terzian
Research Review Article
Spring 2013
Newton, Esther, My Best Informants Dress: The Erotic Equation in Fieldwork. Cultural
Anthropology, Vol. 8, No. 1. pp. 3‐23. American Anthropological Association. 1993.
Eroticizing Ethnography
And if the absence of odor, which played a large part in travel writing, leaves
ethnography at best stale and at worst deodorized, what does the absence of an
erotic dimension do? (pg. 5)
My Best Informant’s Dress addresses the erotic subjectivity that lies within
ethnographic fieldwork and research. Newton, calling attention to this “non‐subject”
or silenced taboo of sexual relations in fieldwork in the early 1990’s, took a leap of
faith with the publication of this article, for not much was published surrounding
the topic at that time. The topical issue of concern within this article is the
importance of incorporating romance and erotic dimensions into ethnographic
fieldwork, rather than placing it on the back burner.
Newton begins her article referencing the history of ethnographers’ involvement
with their informants when in the field. She draws on anthropologists such as
Malinowski, Geertz, Clifford, and Mead to give examples of forming, or reshaping,
one’s sexual identity within ethnography. Malinowski, as Newton explains, had a
somewhat complex and controversial implementation of desires within his
fieldwork. Malinowski battled a strange dilemma within the geographic location of
Trobriand—he kept much of his sexual desires under wrap, and hid his “lewd”
sexual fantasies from the construct of his ethnographic writings. Newton suggests
that this is the problem; Malinowski separated his “person” from his “social
scientist”, which resulted in the absence of erotics in fieldwork. This was common
among many early ethnographers, because there was an unexamined line of desire
with no definitive example of what was getting “too involved.”

2. One theme that becomes present within the article is the idea of the erotic equation
becoming a “non‐subject”, or an underrepresented theme within scholarly
anthropological writing. Newton frames two possible conclusions of this “black
hole” of the “non‐subject” —either desire is stifled, or desire is satisfied. Perhaps
this is partly ignorance, but the spectrum of feasible conclusions should be
recognized on something more than a two‐dimensional map. By simplifying the
“erotic equation” down to “either/or” elementary mathematics, Newton is
disregarding many of the intricacies that we know amass a culture.
As far as Newton’s own rapport with eroticism in ethnographic work, she details her
relationship with Kay, an elderly lesbian housed within the Cherry Grove center for
the elderly in New York City. Newton describes this relationship as one of sexual
attraction, rather than having an affair—for which attraction and recognition was
much more compelling and safe. Kay employed Newton with stories, photographs,
and viable qualitative information for her research, as well as also gifting Newton
creative energy, status, and love.
What Newton only briefly mentions within this article, a probable oversight of the
time period, is the classic dichotomy of “us” and “the native”. Although her
ethnographic research was done within the United States, with elderly women who
would rarely be considered “natives”, Newton fails to dive deep into the power
relation of “researcher” and “subject”. Other anthropologists, such as Fran
Markowitz, have written about this power relation within ethnographic eroticism
being somewhat of a flipped switch, stating that the ethnographer relies on the
informant for necessities such as language, information, and cultural rules;
therefore redefining a “newfound” power relation within the field.
Newton’s piece suggests the importance of implementing one’s personal sexual
desires within their work. She does not stress the need to engage in an erotic
equation, but if love or lust intersects the lines of ethnographic research, there is a
great importance to recognize how we feel about informants. Within the closing

3. page of Newton’s article, she states “whatever motivates [ethnographic texts], their
purpose should be ‘enabling conversation over societal lines—of ethnicity, religion,
class, gender, language, race—that have grown progressively more nuanced’” (pg.
16). She suggests that by looking at who has written about eroticism in the field and
how they have written and portrayed it, we can understand why it has for so long
been silenced.
All in all, for the time it was written, Newton’s article poetically formulates the
importance of calling attention to the erotic equation in fieldwork. Bringing her
article to end with the simple reminder that as anthropologists, we must describe
within our work our “being there”, our sexual desires and relations, and where we,
like all encultured beings, are coming from.