Chapter 32 (Rabinow) discusses the relationships with informants and the information they present to the anthropologist, Rabinow in her field work in Morocco. Rabinow mentions that ben Mohammed was among one of the villagers that were not afraid of him and was his host. His friendship with ben Mohammed deepened, they talked about a lot of things but the most apparent topic was regarding their separate traditions. The author mentions that for ben Mohammed the fundamental principle of Islam is that all believers are equal before Allah. Ben Mohammed believes that a lot of people take a very narrow view as they believe that if they follow the basic requirements then they are Muslim. While, ben Mohammed disagrees, he believes that if equality among
…show more content…
She began her research by studying the words used to explain biological misfortunes and words used in ordinary conversation about death, sterility and illness in animals and humans. Ordinary misfortunes in Bocage, France is accepted as on-off do not call for more then a single comment. On the other hand, an attack by witchcraft provides a pattern to these misfortunes thus when there is a series of misfortunes the country men approach qualified people for a interpretation and a cure. These curators are said to proclaim the causes of the misfortunes, but this seems incomplete for some people as it merely affects the cause and not the origin of the problems. The author states three different interpretations the types priest can choose between (1) he can dismiss the misfortunes as part of the natural order, (2) he can acknowledge that misfortunes pertain to supernatural order but are effect of divine love, (3) or he can interpret the misfortunes as the work of evil. Favret-Saada claims that all she wanted to study the witchcraft practices but all she came across in the field was language. She provides a belief summary of an attack of witchcraft: words spoken during a crisis who later is designated as a witch. Additionally, she mentions that unwitching rituals are conducted through words and through the person who speaks them. In order for ethnography to be possible it is important that the native and the investigator agree that speech conveys information. In addition, Favret-Saada mentions that no one in Bocage speaks about witchcraft to gain knowledge but rather to gain power thus, the ethnographer could not be involved in a case of witchcraft. The author mentions four limitations when studying witchcraft which is not seen as being objective ethnography, (1) you cannot verify any assertions, (2) you cannot hear both parties, (3) you cannot investigate in one’s own
She began her research by studying the words used to explain biological misfortunes and words used in ordinary conversation about death, sterility and illness in animals and humans. Ordinary misfortunes in Bocage, France is accepted as on-off do not call for more then a single comment. On the other hand, an attack by witchcraft provides a pattern to these misfortunes thus when there is a series of misfortunes the country men approach qualified people for a interpretation and a cure. These curators are said to proclaim the causes of the misfortunes, but this seems incomplete for some people as it merely affects the cause and not the origin of the problems. The author states three different interpretations the types priest can choose between (1) he can dismiss the misfortunes as part of the natural order, (2) he can acknowledge that misfortunes pertain to supernatural order but are effect of divine love, (3) or he can interpret the misfortunes as the work of evil. Favret-Saada claims that all she wanted to study the witchcraft practices but all she came across in the field was language. She provides a belief summary of an attack of witchcraft: words spoken during a crisis who later is designated as a witch. Additionally, she mentions that unwitching rituals are conducted through words and through the person who speaks them. In order for ethnography to be possible it is important that the native and the investigator agree that speech conveys information. In addition, Favret-Saada mentions that no one in Bocage speaks about witchcraft to gain knowledge but rather to gain power thus, the ethnographer could not be involved in a case of witchcraft. The author mentions four limitations when studying witchcraft which is not seen as being objective ethnography, (1) you cannot verify any assertions, (2) you cannot hear both parties, (3) you cannot investigate in one’s own