Ethnography Is Not a Method
No. 44 (2021-07-01)Author(s)
-
Mariza Peirano
Abstract
This is the translation of a paper resulting from the lecture given by Mariza Peirano, professor emeritus at Universidade de Brasilia. The lecture was given at the commemoration of the 40th anniversary of the Social Anthropology Postgraduate Program run by Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, in 2014. Based on a personal story, which draws the reader into the universe of the anthropology of politics, the author maintains that anthropology is the result of theoretical/ethnographic formulations recorded in monographs, in which estrangement, empiricism, and reflexivity are fundamental tools for the creation of lived theory that updates questions and of anthropology as theoretical storytelling. As it is intended to problematize the separation and hierarchy between theory, method and field work in the production of knowledge, this translation is essential for the training of new generations of anthropologists at undergraduate and graduate levels, as well as for wider audiences involved in the human and social sciences. Questioning the assumption of ethnography as just one method, widely spread in scientific and technical production, beyond anthropology, Peirano calls on the reader to think and cultivate an ethnographic attitude that values surprise (which puts the researcher into perspective) and makes it possible to open up and reformulate hypotheses based on field work experience. Thus, the “ethnographic method” implies that a rejection of a previously defined orientation, a theoretical strengthening based on the experience of the ethnographer, and a confrontation with new field data, creating ethnographic facts, which point to a permanent recombination and intellectual creation.
References
Elias, Norbert. 1971. “Sociology of Knowledge: New Perspectives. Part Two”. Sociology 5 (3): 355-370. https://doi.org/10.1177/003803857100500304
Evans-Pritchard, E. E. 1962. Social Anthropology and Other Essays: Combining Social Anthropology and Essays in Social Anthropology. Nueva York: The Free Press.
Fernandes, Florestan. 1961. “A unidade das ciências sociais e a antropologia”. Anhembi 44 (132): 453-470.
Firth, Raymond. 1966. “Twins, Birds and Vegetables: Problems of Identification in Primitive Religious Thought”. Man New Series 1 (1): 1-17. https://doi.org/10.2307/2795897
Fraenkel, Béatrice. 1992. La signature: genèse d’un signe. París: Gallimard.
Groebner, Valentin. 2007. Who Are You? Identification, Deception, and Surveillance in Early Modern Europe. Nueva York: Zone Books.
Leach, Edmund. 1966. “Virgin Birth”. Proceedings of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland. (1966): 39-49. https://doi.org/10.2307/3031713
Leach, Edmund. 1954. Political Systems of Highland Burma: A Study of Kachin Social Structure. Londres: The Athlone Press.
Lévi-Strauss, Claude. 1976. “The Scope of Anthropology”. En Structural Anthropology II, ClaudeLévi-Strauss, 3-32. Nueva York: Basic Books.
Lévi-Strauss, Claude. 1962. “A crise moderna da antropologia”. Revista de Antropologia 10 (1-2): 19-26.
Madan, T. N. 1994. Pathways: Approaches to the Study of Society in India. Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Peirano, Mariza. 2011. “Identifique-se! O caso Henry Gates versus James Crowley como exercício antropológico”. Revista Brasileira de Ciências Sociais 26 (77): 63-77. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0102-69092011000300008
Peirano, Mariza. 2009. “O paradoxo dos documentos de identidade: relato de uma experiência nos Estados Unidos”. Horizontes Antropológicos 15 (32): 53-80. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0104-71832009000200003
Peirano, Mariza. 2004. “Pecados e virtudes da antropologia. Uma reação ao problema do nacionalismo metodológico”. Novos Estudos Cebrap 69: 49-56. http://www.marizapeirano.com.br/artigos/pecados_e_virtudes_da_antropologia.htm
Peirano, Mariza. 1998. “When Anthropology Is at Home. The Different Contexts of a Single Discipline”. Annual Review of Anthropology 27: 105-129. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.27.1.105
Peirano, Mariza. 1986. “‘Sem lenço, sem documento’: reflexões sobre cidadania no Brasil”. Sociedade e Estado 1 (1): 49-64. http://www.marizapeirano.com.br/artigos/sem_lenco_sem_documento.html
Peirano, Mariza. 1978. “Entrevista a Florestan Fernandes”. 1 de diciembre de 1978. http://www.marizapeirano.com.br/entrevistas/florestan_fernandes.pdf
Sanabria, Guillermo Vega. 2005. O ensino da antropologia no Brasil: um estudo sobre as formas institucionalizadas de transmissão da cultura. Disertación (maestría), Centro de Filosofia e Ciências Humanas, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Florianópolis. https://repositorio.ufsc.br/bitstream/handle/123456789/102383/229516.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Schneider, David. M. (1965) 2011. “Some Muddles in the Models: Or, How the System Really Works”. HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory 1 (1): 451-492. https://doi.org/10.14318/hau1.1.018
StockingJr.Geoge W. 2010. Glimpses into my Own Black Box: An Exercise in Self-Deconstruction. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press.