Postmodern Quiz

The story of postmodernism. Postmodernism developed in the 60s, when [blank_start]colonialism[blank_end] was over but fieldwork was very much associated with that. There was a bubbling idea that research could not be [blank_start]knowledge for knowledge's sake.[blank_end] It had to bloom forth [blank_start]modernisation and development s[blank_end]talks too. It was with these strains of thinking that anthropologists began to study [blank_start]home and rural western Europe.[blank_end] The postmodernists challenged science's [blank_start]ethics[blank_end] because he was wearing a primark t-shirt and also his [blank_start]epistemology[blank_end] because he always had his nose in a book and was looking up to fidget and question aloud what he was doing. They said to him, how can you read that book about a foreign culture and describe and interpret it to us? What gives you the authority. Then they asked, isn't it a political activity when you go and study the clothes factory in Bangladesh? You are western and represnting the lives of non-westerners, how can it be? You are presenting them as mere [blank_start]scientific objects,[blank_end] like little test tubes you are peering into but no reaching into and getting dirty with.

Challenged authority to [blank_start]describe, interpret and represent[blank_end] lives of others as if they couldn't speak for self. Multiple voices are better than monological method previously used. But there should be more than the native's perspective, Noa from the Amazon should have an [blank_start]equal voice[blank_end] with the white-shirted anthropologist and fieldwork should be a joint venture where [blank_start]meaning and interpretation engage[blank_end] - Noa tells the anthorpologist the meaning of a certain dance she and her family do and interprets it along with the anthropologist. Mr positivism arrived in the 60s of a plane with [blank_start]inadequete[blank_end] clothing shivering in the cold and stealing other's clothing with [blank_start]immoral[blank_end] behaviour. Though he seemed an [blank_start]ordered and consistent[blank_end] fella, postmodernism said they preffered [blank_start]autonomy and variation[blank_end], they decided he represented the [blank_start]dominant ideology instead[blank_end] and powerful with big black boots kicking dust into the mouths of the ones he studies by not letting them speak.

The postmodernists looked around them and suddenly lost sight of people and instead saw a myrad of [blank_start]symbols and signs,[blank_end] they talked to Noa about it and [blank_start]interpreted the symbols together[blank_end]. Hermen [blank_start]Hermenutics[blank_end] swaggered in and furrowed his brow at Noa, trying desperately to [blank_start]understand her understanding[blank_end] of the [blank_start]symbols and culture[blank_end]. He was struggling until Dezmond [blank_start]deconstruction[blank_end] came along and [blank_start]splt the 'essence' of the symbol[blank_end], in this case, faimily. into component parts, showing all the [blank_start]dimensions of ideology and power[blank_end] like a schmourger's board. Then Mr Boas rolled in wearing red and pink, a crown and a feather boa, he insisted that each culture was [blank_start]unique,[blank_end] like his dress, and could only be [blank_start]understood in their cultural context,[blank_end] (he was just at Brazilian carnival). 'You can't compare the brazilian customs to another culture' he said, and [blank_start]certainly not to your own!'[blank_end] The party ended in a heap by the fire, roasting mashmellows and lamenting on how all the [blank_start]metanarratives of the western[blank_end] world were crumbling. Even [blank_start]science! A[blank_end]n indigenous explanation is just as good, as we can see from their knowledge of the amazon. The [blank_start]general and rational[blank_end] burned in the embers and spiralled into the air anew in [blank_start]sentinent[blank_end] fiercness that made the skin prickle and [blank_start]particular[blank_end] forms which dazzled.

James Clifford: 'you do not really know what you think you know' Ethnographies are [blank_start]incomplete but not false![blank_end] They are like [blank_start]fiction[blank_end], we must focus on [blank_start]writing.[blank_end] We should have dialogues and not be monological. George Marcus and Michael Fischer: There is a [blank_start]'crisis of represnetation'[blank_end] going on. Social life, as previously shown is the [blank_start]negotation of meaning.[blank_end] How do [blank_start]literary devices[blank_end] change representation of everything? How is [blank_start]knowledge manufactured?[blank_end] How do we interpret soft issues, (meanings, symbols) with hard ones (politics, economics, historical change)? How can they think anthropologists document the [blank_start]'distinctiveness'[blank_end] among cultures when they say that authentic distinctive culture is an anachronism, [blank_start]'the time is out of joint'[blank_end].

Web of meaning, [blank_start]thick description.[blank_end] Anthropological writings are interpretations and [blank_start]2nd/3rd order[blank_end] ones too as 1st order ones would be a native's. See interpretve anthropology as a science stilll. We think we [blank_start]observe[blank_end] in ethnographies but we actually [blank_start]interpret[blank_end]. Ethnography is thick desciption - it has meaning condensed into it like a protein bar. Understanding culture is like reading a book, a foreign culture = a book in another language. 'Cultural analysis' is [blank_start]intrinsically incomplete[blank_end] - the [blank_start]deeper[blank_end] it goes, the less [blank_start]incomplete[blank_end] it is. This is all against [blank_start]positivist perception.[blank_end] Geertz & Levi Strauss saw anthropology as a [blank_start]social science.[blank_end]

Interpretation can be [blank_start]socially situated[blank_end] itself, as when we are interpret we are always in society some way or another. There are [blank_start]theories[blank_end] and [blank_start]fact i[blank_end]n ethnographies. Theory is a catalyst for [blank_start]vague generalisations[blank_end] that give an intermediate language good for interpretation but rubbish for scientific anthropology. Geertz makes it hard for reader to interpret, he tries to be both [blank_start]interpretir and producer[blank_end] of text. k

Intro: Post-modern ethnography likes [blank_start]discourse[blank_end] and sinking its teeth into complexirt, it likes [blank_start]dialogue and cooperation[blank_end]. There is a [blank_start]'dialectic[blank_end] of thought unfolding through [blank_start]contradiction and stuggle'.[blank_end] Says that the contemporary is not a place where we embrace the new and dismiss the old but where the [blank_start]two interlock.[blank_end] The goal is that we understand who we are [blank_start]anthropologically[blank_end] to better understand [blank_start]the 'other'[blank_end]. 'I was intruding beyond the [blank_start]boundaries[blank_end] which were [blank_start]acceptable and comfortable'[blank_end] Culture is [blank_start]interpretation[blank_end] and facts are [blank_start]'made'.[blank_end] What the anthropologist and interpretor make together is a [blank_start]'construction'[blank_end], it is [blank_start]'painstaking' and 'partial'.[blank_end] Says of Ali that he began to [blank_start]reflect on and objectify[blank_end] his experiences: 'more time n this [blank_start]liminal, self-conscious world[blank_end] between cultures'. One could say it is [blank_start]unnatural[blank_end] and full of [blank_start]ambiguities.[blank_end] However much one tries to participate they will always be an [blank_start]observer and outsider.[blank_end] 'the facts seemed to [blank_start]speak for themselves'.[blank_end] The field needed to reflect on its [blank_start]historical cnotext,[blank_end] [blank_start]genre constraints, existence[blank_end] and [blank_start]worth.[blank_end] Given its [blank_start]colonial[blank_end] past, it needed to [blank_start]reflect on its future.[blank_end]

[blank_start]Feminists[blank_end] say they stole their ideas without crediting. They acknowledge [blank_start]subjectivity, agency and difference[blank_end] too. Say that pms are monological too as they are so [blank_start]self reflexive[blank_end]. Think Hamlet. Pms decide what is in the book so they are still [blank_start]authoriative.[blank_end] [blank_start]'thin description'[blank_end] the refusal of textual mediation between the field encounter and the reader, is as much a barrier to [blank_start]ethnographic representation[blank_end] as is [blank_start]authorial omniscience[blank_end]. - Ethnography and Interpretive anthropolgy. Its [blank_start]anti-theoretical[blank_end] stance is essentially [blank_start]theoretical.[blank_end]