![]() ![]() 10): throughout much of the 20 th century, anthropological ethnography had arguably come with a sense that the ‘the field’ should be a single place to which the ethnographer went and from which they returned. Proponents of multi-sitedness were correct, however, in identifying the single site as a key element of the discipline’s ‘research imaginary’ (Marcus, 1999a, p. Evans Pritchard’s The Nuer (1940), another incontrovertible classic, makes clear from the outset the multiple and indeed patchy nature of the author’s ethnographic encounters with Nuer in different locations.Īt the level of practice, then, the picture of ‘traditional’ anthropology as unthinkingly single-sited is a rather facile retrospective projection. ![]() Even Malinowski’s foundational Argonauts of the Western Pacific (1992) is written partly as a narrative of voyage and movement, following a complex economic practice from location to location, with asides on different cultural and social arrangements encountered ‘along the way’ (The Amphletts, Dobu, etc…). The practice of ethnographic work in more than one place long pre-existed Marcus’s intervention. The second is the complex – and ongoing – methodological discussion which has coalesced around George Marcus’ coinage of the phrase in 1995. The first is the practice of pursuing ethnographic fieldwork in more than one geographical location. Multi-sited ethnography is commonly used to designate (and amalgamate) two things which we will here attempt to distinguish: Below is the pre-print text of my entry on Multi-Sited Ethnography, in Barnard and Spencer's Routledge Encyclopaedia of Social and cultural anthropology. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |