While reading both of my articles a short fictional story “The Ethnographer” by Jorge Luis Brogues came to my mind. In the story an indecisive college student with nothing singular is motivated by one of his advisors to conduct participant observation with a tribe to decode the secrets of their medicine man. On his return the university promised him to publish his work. He fully emerges on the lifestyle of the tribe and after two years the secret was reveal. On his return he refuses to publish his findings, because he believes the frivolity of the scientific techniques are not worth of the beautiful secret. This fictional story published in 1969 is parallel to 21th century John L. Jackson’s article “On Ethnographic Sincerity” and Andrew Beatty’s
…show more content…
Jackson first recognizes that during an encounter between the observer and the subject, the subject is aware of the ethnographer and confounds the observer with techniques to research the ethnographer and test (Jackson 2010: S284). He also argues that even though the ethnographer through “thick description” helps distinguish a fake wink from a wink, there is “something potentially lost on the humorless ethnographer” (Jackson 2010: S284). What Jackson is arguing is that it is necessary to recognize that the encounter is an ethnographical exchange that transmits knowledge to everyone involved, not only for the observer. To fix this the author recommends a “third eye” approach and a sincerely transparent ethnographical work. In a similar way, but in regards toward the capture of emotions Beatty states that the Geertzian approach does not transmits real emotions due to the ethnographers lack of empathy and common experience (Beatty 2010: 432). This is true on Rosaldo’s ethnographic work, however ethnographic understanding can be reached through various anthropological approaches like becoming other to oneself and seeing the other as another self to active sincere human understanding (Throop, Lecture, 10/8/15). Also, Beatty believes that emotions can be capture in a “proper appraisal of their significance—depends on an attention to narrative context” (Beatty 2010: 433). Both authors present problematical aspects of the Geertzian approach, however they give alternative approaches to gain a sincere understandings and capture of
Jackson first recognizes that during an encounter between the observer and the subject, the subject is aware of the ethnographer and confounds the observer with techniques to research the ethnographer and test (Jackson 2010: S284). He also argues that even though the ethnographer through “thick description” helps distinguish a fake wink from a wink, there is “something potentially lost on the humorless ethnographer” (Jackson 2010: S284). What Jackson is arguing is that it is necessary to recognize that the encounter is an ethnographical exchange that transmits knowledge to everyone involved, not only for the observer. To fix this the author recommends a “third eye” approach and a sincerely transparent ethnographical work. In a similar way, but in regards toward the capture of emotions Beatty states that the Geertzian approach does not transmits real emotions due to the ethnographers lack of empathy and common experience (Beatty 2010: 432). This is true on Rosaldo’s ethnographic work, however ethnographic understanding can be reached through various anthropological approaches like becoming other to oneself and seeing the other as another self to active sincere human understanding (Throop, Lecture, 10/8/15). Also, Beatty believes that emotions can be capture in a “proper appraisal of their significance—depends on an attention to narrative context” (Beatty 2010: 433). Both authors present problematical aspects of the Geertzian approach, however they give alternative approaches to gain a sincere understandings and capture of