Anthropology and Ethnography are Not Equivalent: 41 (Methodology & History in Anthropology) by Irfan Ahmad

Author:Irfan Ahmad [Ahmad, Irfan]
Language: eng
Format: epub
Publisher: Berghahn Books
Published: 2021-01-01T08:00:00+00:00

Figure 4.1. Worker of a local crematorium, presenting offerings to spirits, Thailand. © Patrice Ladwig.

Figure 4.2. Mortician (sappaloe) in front of an open coffin, Thailand. Photo by the author. © Patrice Ladwig.

In order to link my pollution case with the holistic nature of Ingold’s correspondence and attentionality thinking, some aspects deserve closer examination here. Acknowledging that “the notion of correspondence, admittedly, comes with a certain amount of theological baggage,” he mentions the mystic Emmanuel Swedenborg, and his notions of harmony and mutuality (Ingold 2013: 107–8). He obviously does not simply take over these mystical teachings, but the central position of harmony and musical metaphors in Ingold’s writings at least suggests a certain affinity to them. He adds more theological baggage to his conceptual apparatus when he states that “correspondence, whether with people or with other things, is a labor of love, of giving back what we owe to the human and non-human beings with which and with whom we share our world, for our own existence and formation” (Ingold 2018: 5). The links between humans, nonhumans, and their surroundings are outlined when Ingold discusses Lars Spuybroek’s meditations on stones and plants that are arranged in certain patterns. He quotes Spuybroek’s reflection on the spectator’s position in relation to that pattern: “I am with the stones and plant immediately, fitting in with them” (Spuybroek 2011: 152).

Although the absence of (partially obsessive) discussions in anthropology on power from Ingold’s work is also refreshing in my view, it is at the same time one of it greatest flaws. Participant observation for him seems to take place in a space devoid of cracks, differences, and interests of conflict. Or, as Patrick Eisenlor phrases it in his contribution in this volume, Ingold sidelines “the incommensurabilities, disjunctures, and even conflicts that are often necessary parts of field research in anthropology.” Instead, we seem to move in Leibniz system of prestabilized harmony where monads can interact with each other, but only on the basis of an already given, godly plan for the best of all possible worlds (Leibniz 1720: §§80–87). Or, when putting it somewhat ironically, do we find ourselves in a poetic, power-free corner of Habermas’s public sphere, where equality and love enable everyone to participate in communicative action (Habermas 1981)? Things just seem to fall into their place and answer to each other in correspondence. Like in the performance of a string quartet, participant observation as correspondence always seems to work out when things and people connect, fit to each other, and acknowledge each other’s gratitude for existence. My point is not that Ingold’s notions resemble naive idealism, as he certainly has a sense for the difficulties of certain types of fieldwork and topics (see Ingold 2014: 389). But what very much shines through here is an ideal vision of the field that mobilizes great and partially theologically infused terms that, however, on a practical level must remain vague. Andrew Shyrock has also recognized this. When, for example, Ingold is asked in an interview to

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.