Clifford, 1988 Critical Review

Clifford, in "On Ethnographic Authority," attempts to explain the "new anthropology," a system he describes by pointing out patterns and trends in recent ethnography and by examining them historically. The breakup of "ethnographic authority" is described as a post-colonial shift towards integrating scientific methods with meaningful interactions with the people being observed. He outlines the difficulty of depicting concretely a society from the perspective of an outsider, even when the observer is also a participant. The most interesting aspects of the "new anthropology" he describes were the language and institutional aspects. Apparently, the observer-participant must be able to "use" the language, but not required to have a mastery over it. To me, this seems like it would be a tremendous block in accurately portraying the people you are interacting with because linguistic nuances seem to figure tremendously in the ways societies organize themselves and their environments. Thematic focus on institutions within the society to understand the society as a whole is another aspect of new anthropology. Although institutions often provide a valuable lens with which to see how social, cultural, and economic structures within a society interact, I would hesitate to say that they are microcosms of the society as a whole. It would be unwise to concentrate focus on a single institution and not attempt to connect it with other institutions and realize its unique place in its society.

I am also a bit troubled by the participatory aspect of new anthropology. Fieldwork is a post-colonial development that I personally feel is one of the most legitimate ways of examining another group of people, but there's a very Schrodinger's cat sort of overtone to the discussion about observer participation. I think Clifford does not touch upon this as much as he should have, since it leaves "new anthropology" vulnerable to criticism.

Does modern ethnography do a good job of the goal of ethnography, which is to accurately portray the "essence" of a people? There seems to be a lot of complications and shortcuts involved with it. Were there any advantages to having "ethnographic authorities?" and is there any merit in trying to be a "pure" observer or "pure participant?