Field and Life: Reflections of an “Rooted” Anthropologist

Abstract

This essay was penned in the spirit of the "postcolonial turn" and postcolonial frame for studying "other" people and cultures. It analyzes historical practices of "entry into the field," "being in the field," and subsequent publications of "descriptions of the field," in the West and in Russia before and after so-called "reflexive" and "postcolonial turns." It concludes that the scientific groundedness of the ethnographic field research, its novelty, and its scientific importance do not matter in the long run. Historically, there were cases where a well-written diary or travelogue made a more lasting impact on contemporary discourse and posterity than scientifically grounded field research. As examples of Levshin, Valikhanov, and Chekhov from the Russian and Eurasian history - and examples of the classics of anthropology, such as Malinowski and Evans-Prichard - show, the ethnographic quality, documental veracity, and longevity of ethnographic works is not connected with their scientific novelty and theoretical groundedness. The essay also thinks of the current rapprochement between academic life and life in the field, or as Geertz would call it, "Being Here" and "Being There." As a result of this rapprochement, ethnographies are moving closer to arts - non-fiction, investigative journalism, and even literary fiction - while at the same time moving away from the scientific-positivistic beginnings of ethnography in the social sciences.