Henley, Paul. 2020. Beyond observation: a history of authorship in ethnographic film. Manchester: Manchester University Press. 568 pp. Hb. £85.00. ISBN: 978‐1‐5261‐3134‐8.

2021 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 1107-1108
Author(s):  
Carlo Cubero
Keyword(s):  
2013 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-31
Author(s):  
James Adam Redfield

Abstract This paper proposes a new phenomenological approach to social history by clarifying, critiquing and developing key insights from Husserl’s late work. First, it clarifies how Husserl began to refute phenomenology’s so-called solipsism and ahistoricality by advancing a concept of history that integrates subjective, intersubjective and communal organizations of experience. This concept, his “history of presence”, can be called a “temporal mode of oriented constitution”. Its value is to show how a single recursive series of determinations organizes a diverse set of epistemic norms, personal memories, and intersubjective apperceptions. As we analyze each moment of this series, the history of presence emerges as highly relevant to social inquiry, inasmuch as it highlights the roles of intersubjective awareness and shared “world-time”. Second, however, the paper shows that Husserl grounded his history, not in this self-other-world triad, but in metaphysical foundations. By falling back on an atemporal principle of identity, Husserl’s thirst for Cartesian certainty obscured some of his insights. To develop these, the paper concludes with a new look at Les maîtres fous, a famous and controversial ethnographic film by Jean Rouch. Much of Rouch’s film echoes Husserl’s own problems, but Rouch’s use of montage replaces metaphysics with rhythm, identity with alterity, hegemony with mimicry, harmonious perception with dissonant yet generative apperception. Thus, Rouch dramatizes Husserl’s relevance to the phenomenology of social history. This paper’s internal critique and cross-cultural juxtaposition of Husserl’s late work portrays such relevance more accurately than Derrida’s uncharitable “metaphysics of presence” critique.


Anthropology ◽  
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arjun Shankar

Ethnographic film, given its history as a vestige of colonial visual culture, has been defined by and constrained by the racist and imperial ideologies of those who were the earliest ethnographic filmmakers. Scientistic, distanced, observational film-making techniques continued the colonial quest for totalizing knowledge through the romantic ideal that film was “objective.” At the same time, the earliest ethnographic films relied on the perceived difference between white, Western, “civilized,” “modern” filmmakers and non-white, “primitive,” tribal, backwards peoples rendered mute on-screen. This ethnographic film history was predicated on observing and salvaging the histories of the “primitive,” soon-to-be-extinct peoples through visual documentation and, in so doing, these ethnographic films neatly mapped race onto culture, unabashedly fixing “primitive” practices onto bodies. Such films also differentially imposed sexist stereotypes on both men and women, pre-determining hierarchies of colonial heteronormative masculinity and femininity within which non-white Others were slotted. In the past thirty years, anthropologists realized the fallacy of essentialized biological racial difference and began reckoning with the role that visual technologies played in re-producing “culture-as-race” mythologies. And yet, ethnographic filmmakers have largely neglected the explicit conversation on race and racialization processes that their projects are inevitably a part of despite the fact that the subjects and objects of ethnographic filmmaking continue to be, for the large part, previously colonized peoples whose contemporary practices are still heavily impacted by the racialized values, institutions, and technologies of the colonial period. As a response, this entry provides a history of ethnographic film which focuses on processes of racialization and the production of “primitive” subjects over time. Part of the task in this entry is to begin to “re-read” or “re-see” some traditional and iconic ethnographic films through an attention to how decolonial visual anthropologists have theorized the ways that the film camera (and visual technologies more broadly) has been used to primitivize, facilitate racializing processes, and produce the expectation of radical cultural alterity. The entry will engage with content that has been produced by anthropologists while also engaging with films outside of the anthropological canon that disrupt, disturb, and unsettle anthropological ways of seeing. These disruptions have obviated the fact that anthropological filmmakers cannot revert our gaze, but instead must find new ways of acknowledging the complex and messy histories from which the discipline has emerged while carefully engaging with the emerging global hierarchies that rely on neocolonial ideologies and produce new racist ways of seeing for (still) largely white and white-adjacent audiences. Each section will include texts and films as examples of how various visual techniques have emerged in order to challenge earlier processes of visual primitivizing. Note: Words such as primitive, tribal, and backwards are used here to describe characterizations imposed on anthropological subjects by (neo)colonial ethnographic filmmakers and do not reflect the views of the author.


Anthropology ◽  
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephanie Takaragawa

The Society for Visual Anthropology (SVA) was founded as a section of the American Anthropological Association (AAA) in 1984 to encourage the development and use of visual media in anthropological research and teaching. The adoption of photographic technology, along with film and video, into anthropological practice informed the development of a visual anthropology early on, but visual media were not formally incorporated into anthropological and ethnographic research until the 1970s, through predecessors of SVA to be discussed in depth in this article. SVA was developed largely by North American anthropologists who identified the growing importance of visual media to anthropological studies, and argued for greater critical awareness in the implementation of their use. SVA continues to be an active subsection of the AAA, as well as producing the journal Visual Anthropology Review (VAR). In the journal American Anthropologist (AA), SVA contributed heavily to the ethnographic film section beginning in the 1960s and continues to contribute through the newly renamed Multimodal Anthropology section. In addition to serving as a forum for members interested in visual anthropology, SVA has advocated the use of visual media for satisfying promotion and tenure requirements. In 2001, AAA formally approved guidelines created by SVA for the professional evaluation of ethnographic visual media, to assist in the tenure and promotion processes for anthropologists working with and producing visual materials. Historical documents of the SVA have been archived at the Smithsonian National Anthropological Archives in Suitland, Maryland by SVA Historian Joanna Cohan Scherer. SVA developed from the Society for the Anthropology of Visual Communication (SAVICOM).


2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (86) ◽  
Author(s):  
Oleksandr Lukyanenko ◽  

The article presents an analysis of the use of anthropological methods in the study of the everyday life of teachers in Soviet Ukraine. The author explains the adaptation of certain techniques of the humanities in the development of the image of a social group. The application of methods of visual anthropology is illustrated. Remarks on the adaptation of ethnographic film methods are made. The article illustrates the problem of “reflexive ethnography” in the use of visual sources in the study of the life of a closed group. The research appeals to the methods of visual anthropology as branch methods that help to study visible forms of culture: gestures, ceremonies, rituals, etc. The close connection between history and anthropology dates back to the middle of the twentieth century – from the time of E. Evans-Pritchard’s scientific experiments. In his lecture “Social Anthropology: Past and Present”, delivered in 1950, he drew attention to the fact that social anthropology was to be considered as a kind of historiography. One of the main requirements of anthropologism is the need to “get used” to the environment whose consciousness is being studied, to grow into the environment, to become part of the team. As the historian Mills Hills noted, this is done in order to reveal as little as possible their differences in locality, worldview. Photography can help in the interpretation of the functioning of a closed group of such phenomena as non-verbal communication, social rituals, ceremonies, no less vividly can be reproduced seemingly spatio-temporal arts such as dance and music. However, in the history of awakening, the most important thing for us to see in the visual source (first of all - photographs) is not so much its artistic value as its role in reproduction as a social artifact. Visual anthropology is based on the idea that a scientist is able not only to "see" the manifestations of culture, but also to study their fixation by audiovisual means. In recent history textbooks, there is a tendency to interpret the visual source as unbiased, objective. It is believed that the decoration of theoretical paragraphs on ambiguous or complex topics with photographic material helps to form a neutral point of view on the problem. In the history of everyday life of the Soviet era, the ideological component of the audiovisual component should be constantly kept in mind. Only random photos from family photo archives tend to be "transparent source". The work was carried out within the framework of the research theme of the Department of Culturology of the Poltava National Pedagogical University named after V.G.Korolenko “Polylogue of the global and regional in the formation of the socio-cultural identity of the individual” (state registration number 0120U103840).


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document