Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘university essay’

Catherine Lucas: January 2012

Marcel Mauss: The Gift: The Form and Reason for Exchange in Archaic Societies

A Critical Review

Introduction

This essay will critically explore Mauss’ theories and findings relating to gift reciprocation, honour, and the concept of ‘free’ or ‘pure’ gifts without agenda. In the process of doing so I will incorporate the usage of these concepts by a variety of theorists writing on contemporary themes of gift use and exchange in modern societies. Although Mauss’ most acclaimed work in the influence of following anthropologists and sociologists, “The Gift” has encountered many criticisms where certain hypothesises appear to conflict with contemporary practices. Although focused on archaic societies, I will endeavour to show throughout the essay in a balanced manner, how we can use Mauss’ ideas in an enduring way when looking at certain aspects of economical and gift exchange systems in contemporary anthropology.

In order to begin to explore these three areas, we must first understand the ‘Potlatch’, the system through which gifts are exchanged, encompassing the acts of giving, receiving and most importantly in the text, the way they are reciprocated. As Mauss has it:

“The potlatch itself, so typical a phenomenon, and at the same time so characteristic of these tribes, [Melanesian and Polynesian] is none other than the system of gifts exchanged.” (Mauss, edited in 2001, p.45)

Particularly focusing on the Polynesians, Mauss shows us how from the development of this “whole system of gifts and this form of exchange” (ibid, p.26) we can trace societal meanings of generosity and responsibility of wealth. Generosity is the focus of the first part of the essay, and from this we look at concepts of honour. Finally, we can engage with contemporary criticisms to challenge theories surrounding the notions of ‘free’ gifts.

The Obligation to Reciprocate: Generosity and Greed

Mauss explores the obligations on us to give gifts and more importantly to reciprocate that which is given – in either equal or greater value than that which was received. In each given example of the practices and rituals of gift giving in a diverse variety of societies, (Hindu, Germanic, Roman, etc.) although the practice of gift exchange and the reasons behind them may differ, Mauss consistently impresses on us the constant re-encountering of the obligation to reciprocate gifts. The value of the returning gift is essential to maintaining alliances between parties and partial relations; giving too much may incur as much offence to the recipient as returning goods or services with too little value.

Mauss’ method of impressing this upon us through examples and folk tales of social ramifications from these errors serve to put the practical aspects of these theories into context. Mauss also uses the original native word in the subsequent Mother language for these exchanges, which are crucial to understanding the original symbolic meanings of the gift exchange.

If there is one criticism that I must give to his attempts, it is to the lack of consistent translation that Mauss is occasionally guilty of when evaluating words against others from different languages. For example, in exploring Germanic terms alongside Hindu, the un-translated words may be compared for the intricacies in their meanings, without re-evaluation of these given words. The denseness of information requires careful translation references on the part of the reader, in order to glean a full understanding of their symbolic connotations.

However, it should be noted that Mauss attempts simple translation of the root and the inherent symbolic meaning of unfamiliar words wherever necessary to differentiate a classification of ‘gift’.

Out of the obligation to give gifts, one can further explore the symbolic nature of generosity. Looking at wedding gifts in Germanic societies, Mauss gives a keen example of this symbolism by looking at the meaning behind the giving tradition: “In a few places the generosity of these gifts is proof of the fertility of the young couple.” (Mauss, 2001 ed. p.78) Generosity versus greed is an integral theme to the underlying moral intention inherent in gift exchange. A recurring notion is that “the recipient puts himself in a position of dependence vis-à-vis the donor” (ibid p.76) and by this notion Mauss illustrates the intricate moral balance inherent in gift exchange.

If we view the gift exchange as a moral contract there must be moral implications to how much is given and why. Gifts of too great a value, in the wrong context, may denote ill feeling towards the recipient of the object or service rendered. It shows a vulgar display of wealth intended to ‘flatten’ the recipient, and implies a challenge of further reciprocal wealth.

This display is very different to generosity of given wealth. It is a display intended to challenge rivals. Mauss explores the fear of being ‘beaten’ by superior gifts in his initial exploration of the Potlatch and its three main obligations, “to give, to receive, to reciprocate,” by focusing on the element of prestige acquired by giving a gift of high value. It is the issue of being obligated to accept a gift you fear being unable to match in reciprocation that is the focus here.

As Mauss asserts:

“The obligation to accept is no less constraining. One has no right to refuse to attend the potlatch. To act in this way is to show that one is afraid of having to reciprocate, to fear being “flattened” [i.e. losing one’s name]…to admit oneself beaten in advance…”(Ibid p.52)

To be ‘beaten’ by a gift is to show inferior wealth, and also inferior generosity by failure of appropriate reciprocation. Mauss uses direct and firm language when expressing this idea, further cementing its importance in the theory. The physicality of the language – the notion of being ‘flattened,’ implies a physical presence of this shame on the beaten party, and the resultant sore effect on their societal standing.

Honour and Wealth

Gregory cites Mauss’ influence on anthropological interpretation of “competitive gift exchange systems” in his essay on ‘gift exchange …in contemporary Papua’ (Gregory, 1980) in which he explores the symbolic ‘destruction of wealth’ in ritual gift offerings to gods as well as other men, and the idea that wealth that is distributed generously will be revisited on them. He suggests that better than the giving of wealth to other men, the giving of it to gods enforces a faith in the power of the gift exchange and the power of the obligation to reciprocate the gift, even if it is not in a material sense. He looks to wealth gathered by the Church and by charitable organisations, and the faith from the benefactor that these gifts will be used in a manner befitting the sacrifice. In practice, he sees that monetary wealth in particular is used for many other uses by the beneficiary than that which it was intended.

It is interesting to note that this essay looking at a contemporary although to some extent tribal society (village societies in Papua New Guinea) that still carries rituals as a part of its symbolic nature, does no longer fully align with the ideologies surrounding generosity and greed that Mauss perceives in archaic societies, particularly in Melanesia and Polynesia, which are noted influences in how Gregory approaches his subject.

Mauss refers to both Polynesian and Melanesian archaic societies where he addresses these questions of “honour and credit” (Mauss, 2001 ed. p.42) and its importance in the ‘system’ the gift and the reciprocated gifts are generated through. As symbols of social standing, Mauss argues that that which is exchanged serves “to reflect somewhat directly the manner in which the subgroups…feel that they are everything to one another.” (Ibid, pp.42-3.) The notion of honour acquired or maintained through generous giving is the driving force between relations with other groups, just as it is in the contemporary society Gregory explores. Giving wealth is a honourable institution, but further to this what we can take from Gregory’s use of Mauss is that giving without a full sense of how the wealth will be used (here we may read: monetary wealth,) is more honourable still.

Critics of Mauss and Defenders of the ‘Free Gift’

A key contended theme of the text is the rejection of the concept of ‘free gifts’ – donations willingly given without necessity of reciprocation. Mary Douglas explores it immediately in the foreword of the 2001 edition. The rejection of free gifts is contended in Laidlaw’s essay “A Free Gift Makes No Friends” (2000), in which he cites the ‘neglect’ to explore free gifts as a product of Mauss’ theories and their influence on cultural anthropologists since. Laidlaw uses the free or ‘pure’ gift as the main emphasis on the subject of the Gift, rather than Mauss who focuses on the gift exchange and the concept of contracts. Largely focused on religious donations or sacrifices, Laidlaw argues that Mauss’ emphasis on the importance of reciprocation destroys the symbolic nature and pure intent of the donation. He argues that the theory of seeking recognition by giving cheapens the intent of such a gift.

In the course of Laidlaw’s exploration of the ‘free gift’, he refers to Derrida (1992), who sets out the ‘conditions’ of so-called ‘free gifts’ in order to pursue some form of examination. His first condition is that the free gift cannot be reciprocated at all. This immediately forms a rift with Mauss’ strong analysis of the obligation to reciprocate on moral terms. Laidlaw suggests that a reciprocated gift immediately establishes an “‘economic’ cycle…and make[s] is part of an interested exchange…” (Laidlaw 2000, referring to Derrida, 1992), and that to avoid this exchange one must not see the gift “as a gift,” (ibid) but to ignore its occurrence. This he feels is the only way we can prevent the advent of a ‘debt’ that must be paid off.

One must ask whether such a theory is possible in practice, and Laidlaw unfortunately fails to offer any fully non-reciprocal practical example of this idea in action. Even if the gift is not socially acknowledged or physically reciprocated, the gratitude that may be extended towards the giver, even in silence, may not be reliably measured, and is this gratitude in itself not a form of intellectual reciprocation? I shall therefore leave Laidlaw’s critique to the side at this juncture.

Perhaps a better critic of Mauss to explore here is Titmuss, whose 1997 book “The Gift Relationship: From Human Blood to Social Policy” focuses on modern blood donations. Titmuss argues that anonymous blood donations may be “the closest approximation in social reality to the abstract concept of a ‘free human gift.’” (Titmuss 1997, p.140) Although he shows awareness that blood donors have “some expectation and [need] assurance that a return gift may be …received at some future time,” i.e. if they require a blood transfusion in the future they hope that others will have donated, they have no guarantee of this.

Where blood donation passes between strangers, Titmuss argues: “in terms of the free gift of blood to unnamed strangers there is no formal contract …and no explicit guarantee of or wish for a reward or return gift.” (Ibid) In this theory, the gift ‘exchange’ has no place in the context that the gift is given.

I can agree with Titmuss’ criticism to a point. Anonymous donation is without explicit contractual exchange between the donor and recipient, however to underline his argument Titmuss closes that these donations are “acts of free will; of the exercise of choice; of conscience without shame.” (Titmuss 1997, p.140 l.36-7)¨*

Looking at the action with its psychological implications, I cannot agree that any choice with an element of conscience can subscribe to an ‘act of free will.’ Rather, there are free-obligation acts, where the recipient through anonymity is free of obligation to reciprocate the gift. Mauss rarely makes reference to anonymity in gift-exchange in “The Gift,” which may be an oversight and worth exploring further.

Further to this, I would suggest that the donor is tied to the giving of this ‘free’ gift through conscience; he fears that without his own participation in the donation scheme he may not receive blood himself if required. In this manner the donor is tied to this gift, even when it is the closest example of a ‘free’ gift; and this returns us to Mauss’ theories concerning morality as examined above. Mauss in his exploration of Classical Hindu Law in “The Gift” keenly illustrates the theory of belief in that any gifts given even ‘freely’ and in “charity and hospitality” are hoped to be revisited on the giver at some point: “In this world and the next, what is given away is acquired once more.” (Mauss, ed. 2001. p.73, quoting a Hindu text.)

Conclusion

“It is common knowledge that men present themselves publicly by the conspicuous presentation if gifts. Generous contributions to a charity have always been a source of prestige in the United States…especially…when such gestures are made by individuals rather than corporations…” says Schwartz (1967)

The social standing created through gift exchange is a key element of Mauss’ dialogue and as we have explored, the influence of these theories continue to exert their authority on anthropologists and sociologists today. However, few have attempted the feat achieved by Mauss of encompassing so many societies and their rituals into one area of social exchange.

The elements of this discourse discussed in this essay do, I feel, review the key areas inherent in studying concepts of ‘the gift.’ As Mauss himself concludes, this study encompasses “…science of customs [and]…moral conclusions,” where the gift serves as a tool to analyse the use of “wealth amassed and then redistributed,” and how these exchanges can be used to theorise the symbolism of gifts, behind their practical outcomes of “mutual respect and reciprocating generosity.” (Mauss, ed. 2001, pp.106-107.)

Words: 2,525

References

Derrida, J (1992) Force of law: The Mystical Foundation of Authority (M. Quaintance, Trans.) in D. Cornell, M. Rosenfeld, D.G. Carlson (Eds) USA (New York): Routledge.

Godelier, Maurice (1999) The Enigma of the Gift. USA: Polity Press and University of Chicago. First published as L’Énigme du Don (1996) France: Librarie Arthème Fayard.

Gregory, C. A. (1980) Gifts to Men and Gifts to God: Gift Exchange and Capital Accumulation in Contemporary Papua in ‘Man, New Series,’ Vol. 15, No. 4 (Dec., 1980), pp. 626-652 Published by: Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland

Laidlaw, James (2000) A Free Gift Makes No Friends, in ‘The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute,’ Vol. 6, No. 4 (Dec., 2000), pp. 617- 634 Published by: Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland

Mauss, Marcel (1925; 2001 ed.) The Gift: The Form and Reason for Exchange in Archaic Societies. London: Routledge.

Michaels, A. and Pierce, P. (1997) Gift and Return Gift, Greeting and Return Greeting in India. On a Consequential Footnote by Marcel Mauss in ‘Numen,’ Vol. 44, No. 3 (Sep., 1997), pp. 242-269 Published by: BRILL

Schwartz, B. (1967) The Social Psychology of the Gift in ‘The American Journal of Sociology,’ Vol. 73, No. 1 (Jul., 1967), pp. 1-11 Published by: The University of Chicago Press

Strathern, Marilyn (1988) The Gender of the Gift. USA: University of California Press

Titmuss, Richard M. (1997) The Gift Relationship: From Human Blood to Social Policy. UK: LSE Books


 

¨ *Note: Later, in chapter 16 of “The Gift Relationship,” Titmuss acknowledges that when Mauss “was in his seventies, blood transfusion services were in their infancy.” (p.276) We can only speculate on how Mauss would have aligned this form of donation with his theories on gift exchange and obligatory reciprocity.

Please accept apologies for any lack of quotation marks as they did not come straight over from the Word document I wrote the essay in. I have tried to fill them in wherever needed, however I may have missed a couple. Please do not plagarise this essay if you feel the urge, your degree ain’t worth it especially for my scribblings.

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

Is Ethical Fieldwork Possible?

Catherine Lucas: February 2010

 

Introduction

To approach this question, we must focus on certain common dilemmas faced by researchers in the field. For the purposes of this essay, I will investigate the following: how can field researchers obtain information morally when in difficult or dangerous situations? and, what can we do when personal safety or the continuation of our research, is in jeopardy?

I refer to two ethnographies from different times, situations and subjects, both facing the same problems of ethics concerning the use of covert research, questions of power balance, and protection of both the informants and the researcher themselves. These two ethnographies are Tearoom Trade (Laud Humphreys: 1970), and Mumbai Slums and the Search for ‘A Heart’ (Atreyee Sen: 2004)

In order to examine the ethics of the former study in hindsight of the field, I will be analysing the comments made by Punch in 1986, who explored in depth how to identity and overcome problems in fieldwork. His insights, I believe, lend useful understanding to the dilemma faced by Humphreys during his research, and consequently have a bearing on how I will approach and analyse Sen’s ethical issues in Mumbai.

Deception and lies:

The moral predicament of ‘Tearoom Trade’ (Laud Humphreys: 1970)

Through his research tactics Humphreys reinforces an image already prevalent in some circles that social scientists are sly tricksters who are not to be trusted…involving deception and manipulation… (Donald Warwick, in Bulmer: 1982:58)

Tearoom Trade (1970) covered covert research conducted by Humphreys in the late 1960s under the guise of being a homosexual man interested in engaging in casual sex in public toilets. He infiltrated a group using an alias and established himself as their ‘watch-queen’ – the man who would watch for police. During this time he took covert notes using a hidden recorder and was meticulous in his details, which included the license plates of the men involved. He later altered his appearance and used the information to conduct a ‘health survey’ on the men he had tracked from his findings. Although his research was an aid to understanding sexual practices, his methods left a lot to be desired and faced harsh criticisms.

Warwick’s comments lead us to wonder whether Humphrey’s methods of covert research led anthropologists and sociologists following after him to suffer from the legacy of so-called ‘deceit’ he left behind. Punch, in his 1986 examination of ethical fieldwork, questions whether some research subjects ought to be off limits altogether, which is another query raised by the content of Humphreys’ findings on homosexuality. His work was slammed by some critics not only for its methods of undeniably devious covert observation, but also for the immoral sexual nature of its content. Punch refers to Humphreys’ work as “well-known, if not now notorious,” (1986:31) so it is clear that his work has gained some notoriety amongst fellow anthropologists in a manner both humorous and as a subject of controversy. However, in 1980 Galliher notes that a strict ethics system for researchers may serve to protect certain subjects from being exposed, and that this could lead to harm rather than prevent it (cited by Wax, see references).

Covert research could be conducted by an academic in the interest of exposing the nefarious practices; but, even then, for some social scientists, certain areas are simply taboo because association with them is morally repugnant. (Punch: 1986:31)

It is clear here that Punch is referring to Humphreys’ research, however he does go on to admit that what some researchers may consider immoral subjects to explore, others may simply view as new challenges. This is one of the primary issues when determining whether a subject should even be considered morally acceptable to investigate: Humphreys, for example, may have seen no reason not to research ‘cottaging’ (secret meetings for casual homosexual sex in public toilets), indeed today we might not see it as such a shocking subject in comparison to the 1970s.

From this angle, then, perhaps we should consider the merits, if there are any, of covert research in this context, before dismissing it out of hand. Being such a secretive and taboo subject at the time, I do not believe that Humphreys would have encountered many men, particularly those apparently happily married, who would have accepted being interviewed on their casual homosexual encounters. Posing as the ‘watch-queen’ (guard) of the public toilet these encounters took place in may seem underhanded, elusive and immoral; however I do not think Humphreys would have collected such detailed data without securing this position.

The first area of true contention, starts I believe, with the use of a ‘health survey’ by Humphreys to collect further details on his subjects. To find the homes of these subjects, he also used the car plate numbers of men he had observed at the public toilets whilst working as ‘watch-queen,’ and recorded. This I feel is a gross violation of the trust the men bestowed on the ‘watch-queen,’ and damages the ethicality of his study more greatly than any of his former actions.

The problems encountered by Humphreys over the question of how to enter the field to carry out the research at all, is a problem Punch describes as a ‘situational dilemma.’ Referring to Humphreys’ work on Tearoom Trade in particular, however, Punch is quite contemptuous of the conscious use of covert and what he views as immoral methods. His main problem is also the recording of car number plates in order to track the men being observed. The idea of the group under observation being ‘relatively powerless’ (1986:34) highlights the issue of a wildly unbalanced power-play situation. Humphreys’ methods were not only covert, but also relied on not being discovered by the group in question, leaving them powerless to object to or approve the situation. Punch is inflexible in his insistence that some form of ‘informed consent’ should be adhered to, even if the true knowledge of the research is made clear to only one person.

Examining ethics in violent field settings:

‘Mumbai Slums and the Search for ‘A Heart’’ (Atreyee Sen: 2004)

While living and working with these women, I found myself a helpless, often frightened bystander to various forms of factional ‘war.’ Would, should, could I prevent this overt use of violence and threats? …The eerie spectre of ethics continued to haunt my work… (Sen: 2004:1)

Sen’s fieldwork was carried out in the slums of Mumbai and focused on the violent women’s movements that were rallying alongside the Hindu nationalists there, against the men they believed were making working conditions extremely oppressive and dangerous for women and children. Sen’s fieldwork took her close to the dangers of rape and physical harm, which she also witnessed amongst others. Her ethical dilemma became whether it was moral to simply sit on the sidelines, observing the violence being done to her newfound peers, or whether it was ethically unsound from an anthropological viewpoint to make any interjections.

She cites her aim as an anthropologist was to ‘make sense’ of her surroundings and “learn why young and old women in Mumbai slums became Hindu nationalists and engaged in collective, communal violence and urban conflict.” This violence was often in gang form against men in the community and also against other women who opposed their actions. Kondo’s 1990 description of how the fieldwork setting gradually becomes a familiar place you attach your familial emotions to, helps Sen to describe how attached she became to the women she was both researching and living alongside; how attached she became to the people around her: “…the ‘setting’ eventually becomes populated with people you grow to know, sometimes to love…” (Kondo 1990:7) This attachment to the ‘subjects’ of her field research made Sen increasingly unable to remain within the more stringent rules of ethics.

Some of the initial difficulties encountered in conducting her research, arose simply because the ethical manner of keeping all persons informed if they were being observed or recorded made her a target of suspicion. She was accused of being a ‘Bengali researcher rat’ by some of the movement’s leaders, as her data collecting began to arouse distrust in those around her. Given the delicate and dangerous situation of this fieldwork, therefore, we may forgive Sen for adopting what she refers to as “‘covert urban research.’ [Which] …gave rise to several paradoxes and grave ethical dilemmas.” (2004:3) She pretended to be an upper class Hindu woman in order to gain access to people she might otherwise have been unable to interview, and also used this role to protect herself personally.

However, when discussing the ideas raised by the ‘Sena’ women of the movement, she was careful never to offer any of her own opinions, which would not only have hindered her research but may have introduced a moral dilemma for the women being interviewed. Sen’s methods may seem unethical in part due to the by definition immoral practice of covert research, but on the other hand, her choice to do so was motivated not only for her own safety, but to protect others and to keep her findings as untarnished by her own status in the field as possible.

I made every effort to be fair to the Sena women and their circumstances. However in doing so I represented just one side of the on-going arguments concerning justice, revenge, forgiveness and freedom, and my work does not discuss the victims of the Bombay riots or their impotence while watching the Sena women wreak havoc and display their power. (Sen: 2004:4)

Sen readily admits the one-sided nature of her research findings, which was, I assume, a product of keeping herself seemingly ‘on the side’ of the Sena women, rather than putting herself in the middle of the conflict. I cannot see a problem with this, as the fact that she acknowledges this setback is useful enough an explanation. Her experience shows that although the field researcher must present as balanced findings as possible, they may be unable to do so in a situation that puts their own life at risk. For Sen, to fraternise with the other side of the conflict could also harm her allowance to collect information.

Threats on her life were also made, should she misuse the information she had gathered for any other use than that she relayed to the Sena women. She was “tailed by a Sena ‘detective’ for days before [she] …was allowed to live in the slums,” and this highlighted the power struggle between anthropologist and informer: Sen possessed information that gave her power over the Sena women, yet they also possessed the threatened power of violence against her and the ability to cut her off from further information. She constantly felt the push-pull of her work and her own quality of life during the fieldwork period, noting that she “…did not keep that [emotional] distance from the Sena women and whilst this made my ethnography richer it made my life poorer. A researcher who lived partially in fear of her subjects.” (2004:4)

Sen was also unable to conquer her own personal emotional reactions to certain events around her, where violence occurred that she had to witness, or where she watched children being taught to act violently. In the latter case she intervened, which on reading her account I believe she found relieving: “…just for a while, I felt I had suspended notions of cultural relativism and objective ethnography and climbed down from the role of ‘the non-interventionist anthropologist.’” (2004:5)

This admission of freedom in intervening against a violent action shows Sen not as an anthropologist but as a human being first. Unfortunately, there are many arguments we could explore as to the ethicality of this intervention, not least of all that had this action had a unfavourable outcome, it could have not only hindered or halted the research Sen was involved with, but also might have had a more fatal outcome for the researcher herself.

Although Sen did intervene on the actions of her subjects in this one circumstance, her notes suggest that she generally attempted to remain a placid observer to all
situations, even where violence occurred. She is not insensible to the fact that silence is often taken as alliance with a cause, a fact that she addresses at the close of her paper:

Through their construction of me as a friend, a sympathiser and an agent of the bhari duniya, the wider world, did they also construct an image of the duniya that would support their aggression? (2004:6)

The power balance throughout Sen’s fieldwork remained more securely in favour of the Sena women than the anthropologist studying them. Would it have harmed Sen personally to take affront with what was happening in the Mumbai slums? We can only truly focus, after the event, on the information gathered. This information, although somewhat one-sided in content, nonetheless represents a strong insight into the inner-workings of a dangerous political movement, and in this case we might more readily bend the rules of ethics. In addressing whether ethical fieldwork was possible in the case, I cannot say that it was unethical, as Sen clearly acts in a manner she believes safest to both herself and her subjects, whilst diligently attempting to expand her access to greater in-depth research.

Conclusion

Punch notes that in some cases of fieldwork it may be “situationally inappropriate to repeat continually that purpose [of the research] and to identify oneself.” (1986:37) By this he means that the researcher may be unable to constantly introduce themselves as an anthropologist, and should use the rule to do so as a guideline that may be varied under difficult circumstances.

In Sen’s case, it would have been dangerous to continually announce herself as a researcher, although she did ensure that those she interviewed were aware that she was making a study of them. If we look at Humphreys, on the other hand, he makes no attempt to suggest that he is conducting research, and in fact consciously hides this by adopting disguises.

Despite his dubious methods it cannot be denied that Humphreys’ research gave us a far greater understanding of human sexual activities outside of ‘normative’ practices. At the time of Tearoom Trade’s publication, the AIDs epidemic was about to hit, and until that time barely any attention had been given to ‘cottaging’ or the idea that married men might perform homosexual activities in secret. The main issue to contention must be whether or not his records ensured to sufficient degree the confidentiality of his subjects, for as Punch stresses: “What is trivial to us may be of vital concern to the researched.” (1896:48)

Words: 2,432.

Essay produced for Goldsmiths College, London. 2010.

 

 

Bibliography/References

Hunt, Jennifer. C. (1989) Psychoanalytic Aspects of Fieldwork. Sage University Paper.

Laud Humphreys (1970) Tearoom Trade. UK: London. Gerald Duckworth & Co.

MaCall and Simmons (eds.), (1969) Issues in Participant Observation. USA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.

Punch, Maurice. (1986) The Politics and Ethics of Fieldwork. Sage University Press pp.29-48

Sen, Atreyee (2004) ‘Mumbai slums and the search for ‘a heart’: Ethics, ethnography and dilemmas of studying urban violence,’ in: Anthropology Matters Journal 2004, Vol 6. (http://www.anthropologymatters.com)

Wax, Murray. L. ‘Some issues and sources on ethics in anthropology,’ from: Cassell, J. and Jacobs, S.E. Handbook on Ethical Issues in Anthropology. (http://www.aaanet.org/committees/ethics/toc.htm)

Read Full Post »