Ethnography, like most (all?) scientific methods, must initially proceed on the postulate that there is, over there, some “it” to write about. All critiques of ethnography have succeeded in demonstrating that, for human phenomena at least, this postulate cannot stand. Anthropologists, as Geertz put it, do not study villages, they study “in” villages (1973: 22). The new question that has not been answered: what do they do when they arrive in a village, if they are not going to study “it”? Geertz suggests they might study “colonial domination” but does not quite explain what that might be. I suspect Geertz would say this is an ideal-type (Weber 1949: 89-95). Parsons might say it is a “formal category.” In either case, the anthropologist is just as much as a loss as when Malinowski or Boas told her to record “everything.”
Continue reading On following indexes as ethnographic methodology