" But the problem remains: how the ethnographer can get out of the contradiction from the circumstances of his choice? He has under his eyes, he is available to a society: his own, why he decided to disdain and reserve for other companies - selected from more distant and more different - Patience and devotion that his determination denies its citizens? It is no coincidence that the ethnographer is rarely vis-à-vis his own group with a neutral attitude. If missionary or administrator, one can infer that it has agreed to identify with an order from the point of focus to its spread, and when he practices his profession on the scientific and academic ago Chances could be traced in his past objective factors that show little or not adapted to the society where he was born. In assuming the role, he sought to be a practical way to reconcile membership in a group and the subject he feels in his regard or simply how to build a state of detachment that gives an advantage to move closer to different companies, mid-way which it is already. "
" We can not escape the dilemma: either the ethnographer adheres to standards of his group and others can inspire him a passing curiosity whose disapproval is never absent, or he is able to engage fully with them, and objectivity is flawed because that willingly or not, to give all companies he refused at least one. "
" The contrast between two attitudes of the ethnographer: criticism at home and conformist on the outside, recover is another to which it is even more difficult to escape. If he wants to contribute to an improvement of its social system, it must condemn, wherever they exist, conditions similar to those that fight and he loses his objectivity and impartiality. In return, the detachment imposed on it by moral scruples and scientific rigor warns criticizing his own society, since he does not want any judge to know them all. To act at home, we deprive ourselves to understand the rest, but want to understand everything we renounce to change anything. "
" It is sometimes said that Western society was the only one that produces ethnographers, that's where his greatness and in default of other superiority that they challenged him, the only forcing them to bow before it because without it they would not exist. You might as well claim the opposite: if the West has produced ethnographers is a very powerful remorse was tormenting him, forcing him to confront his image with that of different companies in the hope they will think the same defects or help explain how hers have grown in her womb. "
0 comments:
Post a Comment