Anthropological Methodology
How one uses the “Prime Directive” in the Field.
Anthropology is the study of Culture.
The word “study” does not mean social engineering,
societal organisation, political activism. It is
the study of a Culture.
As the Prime Directive was canon on Star Trek, so
to in the field of Anthropology.
It is difficult to sit quietly and watch a group
participate in what is clearly detrimental activities,
but imagine being in a hard drinking bar in your home
town and trying to stop the patrons from consumption.
When you are a “guest” in a culture, be very
careful not to “touch” anything.
I often give the analogy of being a guest in a home,
and finding only one ash tray and using it, only to
be attacked for using Great Grandfather’s heirloom
and ejected.
You had no way of knowing that Ash Tray was precious
to the hosts. You might have missed signs that the
hosts didn’t approve of smoking.
Yes, one can lamely advocate that they ought have
told you, but with a louder voice it is clear that
as a guest you should not have touched anything or
done anything without express permission.
When one is in the field as an anthropologist, the
very same rule applies. You touch nothing. Not an
item, not a practice, not even an attitude.
You study, and when you have reached a point in which
you need to organise your notes, you withdraw.
Making one visit of two weeks will not gain more than
a skim of the culture. You must return after a break
when you have gotten some rudimentary comprehension.
Sometimes your return is met with annoyance, sometimes
with welcome. If it is the first, find out what you
did that upset the group. It may be something minor
or a cultural norm you were totally unaware of.
You might have been expected to leave things behind,
or receive a blessing before departure, or need to
bring a gift when you return.
These kinds of mistakes often happen when a researcher
does not gain a modicum of trust and is only being told
or shown a thin veneer of the culture.
Another feature is to keep an open mind.
Many local “cures” actually do work. Yes, they may
be shrouded in rites and compounded with unnecessary
ingredients, but do have scientific basis.
Many local practices work in the cultural setting.
The understanding of incest, for example, will often
lead to complicated rituals in the selections of brides.
Surviving cultures “make sense” in their context.
By avoiding interfering in a culture one will be able
to see it in an objective and honest fashion.
Liked it













User Comments
Caitlin Jean
On October 23, 2008 at 9:06 pm
I agree with most of this article. It is very interesting. But as a student of anthropology, let me ask you this: With the ways of anthropological studies changing, do you agree or disagree that a person (while still being careful) who is studying a culture should actively engage themselves in the culture they are studying? How can a person truly understand another group of people unless they have experienced the culture themselves? It’s sympathy versus empathy: you can comfort a person who has lost a loved one, or you can really understand what a person is going through and help them through experience. I personally believe that you can only understand a culture by incorporating yourself in the culture itself. By observation only, you still have a much stronger bias against the people you are studying.
a fool
On October 23, 2008 at 9:50 pm
That’s always been the conundrum. If you are studying a people,
you do need to share the experience; i.e. what they eat, how they
get it, how they prepare it, etc. So in one sense you become
a participant, but you have to pull out and get back to your grundnorm to effectively see what is going on.
You can’t be ‘part of it’ and study it; for it would be like
you going to your school and studying it…you’d miss everything
because it is ‘normal’ for you. But were you to go to a University in Ghana you would instantly see the differences.
It is not a bias as if you are evaluating and/or judging ‘better’
it is ‘different’.
If you get too ‘deep’ into a culture you can no longer view it objectively.
Caitlin Jean
On October 31, 2008 at 4:55 pm
Very good points! If you haven’t, read Renato Rosaldo’s essay “The Politics of Headhunting,” and “Grief and a Headhunter’s Rage.” These are good essay that somehow deal with these questions.
a fool
On October 31, 2008 at 8:21 pm
It is very important that the Anthropologist keeps his/her
feelings in check, and tries not to interfere in the culture.
Many cultures have unpleasant aspects, if not headhunting then
child rearing, or what they eat. One must simply accept.
Post Comment