subjectivity and objectivity in social sciences

8/13/2019 Subjectivity and Objectivity in Social Sciences

1/4

Subjectivity and Objectivity in Anthropological KnowledgeAnthropological Journeys: Reflections on Fieldwork by Meenakshi ThapanReview by: Carol UpadhyaEconomic and Political Weekly, Vol. 34, No. 48 (Nov. 27 - Dec. 3, 1999), pp. 3362-3364Published by: Economic and Political WeeklyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4408654.

Accessed: 13/07/2013 06:05

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Economic and Political Weeklyis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

Economic and Political Weekly.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=epwhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/4408654?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/4408654?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=epw


2/4

Subjectivity and Objectivity inAnthropological KnowledgeCarol Upadhya

Anthropological Journeys: Reflections on Fieldwork, edited by MeenakshiThapan;OrientLongman,New Delhi, 1998; pp 320, Rs 275.THE edited volume under review is con-cerned with thequestionof objectivity andsubjectivity in the constructionof anthro-pological knowledge. As the editor pointsout in her introduction, this problem hasbeen debated ad nauseam since the 1980sas a result of the 'postmodern' turn inanthropology, but without any clear de-nouement. nthiscollection we havemostlyIndian scholars drawing upon their field-work experiences to reflect on this issue.Thevolumerepresents, nThapan's words,a celebration of the intersubjective ele-ment in anthropological research... (p 5).For the uninitiated, the question ofsubjectivity and objectivity in anthropol-ogy refers to theepistemological dilemmacommon to all the social sciences thatstems from the fact that both the subjectsand objects of social research are 'know-ing' human beings whose consciousnessis formed through social interaction. It isnow widely accepted that because know-ledge is constructed 'intersubjectively'there can be no 'objective' knowledge ofsocial processes, i e, knowledge based onsimple observation as in the sciences. Theproblemof subjectivity is complicated inanthropology because traditionally thesubjectandobject of knowledge construc-tion belong to 'different cultures' (para-digmatically, western and the non-west-ern), such that understanding is compli-cated by cultural, linguistic, and socialboundaries. As a partial solution to thisproblem, the anthropological fieldworkmethodknown as participant-observationexplicitly combines 'objective' observa-tion of one's quarry- the outsider's view- with close interaction or participationin their social life, aimed at producing'subjective' understanding from the in-side. Immersion n the cultureof the 'other'is claimed to bring about a mental leap,taking the anthropologist out of her owncultural universe and enabling her to seethe world from the perspective of anotherculture.The advent of 'postmodern' anthropol-ogy in the 1980s brought the question ofsubjectivity into sharpfocus. Much of thediscussion centred on the production ofethnographicknowledge, the role of thefieldworker in constructing this know-

ledge, andrepresentationsf the 'other'in ethnographicwriting.The notion ofintersubjectivitywas promotedby thepostmodernistssanalternativeoethno-graphicpositivism,but the end result nmuch of this literaturewas a rathernar-cissisticobsessionwith heself in the ieldandwith thequestto know theother,asThapanpointsout. Experimentalthno-graphicwritingwhich foregrounds hesubjectivity of the writer tends topersonalisethe process of knowledgeconstruction ndto drawattention wayfrom hewidersocial-politicalontext nwhichsocialunderstandingsre formed.Also, the emphasison intersubjectivitydid noterase heneed ocontextualiseheethnographic xperiencewithin 'objec-tive' knowledgeof some sort in order omakeit intelligible.Thus the oppositionbetweenobjectiveandsubjectiveknow-ledgewasmaintainedvenwhile he ermsof referencewere slightlyrelocated.Mostof the contributorso this volumefail to confront hedichotomyof subjec-tive andobjective,withtheexceptionofAmritSrinivasan's ssayon Malinowskiand Gandhi.Arguingthat the split be-tweenobjectivitynd ubjectivitys rootedin westernscientificepistemology,sheadvocateshedevelopment f an alterna-tive indigenous ocial science basedonGandhi's pproachoexperimentationndhis critique f western ivilisation.How-ever, Srinivasan's quationof Gandhi'spractical xperimentsn living with thefieldwork raditions abitfar-fetched,ndshefails tospellouthowthesemight ormthefoundationf a different indof socialscience. She also ignores the fact thatGandhiwas influencedperhapsas muchbyromanticmovements f thewest asby'eastern' raditions.The writer'snation-alistzeal leadsher intoadditional rrorsstemming from a whole-hearteddemonisation f westernsocial science.Contraryto what her essay suggests,objectivismdoesnotnecessarily xcludeethicalconcerns,nor is the weddingofsocial researchwithactivismamonopolyof some Indiansociologists: even earlyAmericananthropologists tilised theirfledgling science for political activism(Boas' campaign against racism and

Morgan'sadvocacyof Native Americanrights,for example).The nexus between knowledge andpower anissue thathas been somewhatneglected n the debateson subjectivityandethnographicnowledge isexploredwith great sensitivity by Savyasaachi,drawing upon his own extensive andintenseexperienceof fieldworkwith anadivasi roup.Hisdiscussion emonstratesthat the shibbolethof intersubjectivitymasks rather han elucidates he politicsof mostsocial research.He asks: Whatis themeaningandpurposeof fieldworkin a social contextwhere there arecon-flicts over differenceswhich arise fromsocial and culturalpluralityand frompolitical and economic inequalities?(p 81).Conventionaldualistic' ieldworkderives frompower,and the knowledgeit creates einforces tructures f inequal-ity and domination.Thereforehe aimoffieldwork,he argues, should not be aprocessof learningbut of 'unlearning'.This unlearning ntails the rejectionofexploitativemodesof information ath-eringas well as of one's presuppositions,research gendaandresult-orientedime-frame n favourof a moreegalitarian ndtruly dialogicalmethodof enquiry.Theresultof this unlearningprocess is thedissolutionof social boundaries as aresultof] successfullyquestioningone'ssociallyacquired eliefs,modesof think-ing, habits and attitudes.This also in-cludes the questioningof assumptionsthat inform the construction of theself' (p 111).The notion of dialogueas an effectivefieldworkmethod, specially or researchonwomen,salsoput orwardySaraswatiHaider,who presentsan accountof herinteractionswithan informanta femaleslum-dweller)n a difficultresearch itu-ation. In the dialogical encounter thefieldworker esolvesto be fully 'honest'withthe informant bouther own life asa tactic o elicit more ntimate ndexten-sive information.But it is preciselythisnotion of the dialogicalthat is ethicallytroubling: in spite of its pretensionsoopennessandreciprocity,heultimate imof this 'dialogue' s to wrestconfidencesfrom the subject.For example,Haiderspeaksof herinitial frustrationn tryingto interviewa reluctant Shanno': Herhostilityandrudeness ftenmademe feellike terminatinghe dialogue.I did losemy patiencewith Shanno sometimes...(p259).She ails o askherselfwhyShannowas 'rude' and 'hostile', althoughshedoesrecognise he enormousdifferencesin caste/class/powerhat structuredheirrelationship.Nor does she questionwhy

3362 Economic and Political Weekly November 27, 1999

This content downloaded from 14.139.125.182 on Sat, 13 Jul 2013 06:05:09 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/4

sheshouldpersistinhrustingerselfuponanunwilling ubject,despiteher heoreti-cal discussion f 'researchs violenceandexploitation'. heanswero the 'dualism'andviolenceof fieldworkdoes not lie inlkikngresearch ith action rogrammes',as Haider uggests,but n re-thinkingheresearchprocessitself in a much moreradicalway, as Savyasaachi rgues.

This sortof re-thinking asatonetimea hallmarkf feminist ocialscience,andThapan n her introduction rguesthatfeminist heoryhasmadea major ontri-butionto thedebateon subjectivityandobjectivityby emphasisingwomen's ex-periences.But this is not apparentromHaider'sessay nor from the other twocontributionshat look at the issue ofsubjectivityrom heperspective f gen-der.Loes Schenk-Sandbergeniscussesconventionalssuesrelated o womeninthefield,highlightinghenegotiations fgenderthat are possible in 'other'cul-tures. MadhuKishwar'sdiscussion ofresearchmethodologylso treadsamiliarterritory ndappears athernaive: as anactivist atherhan nacademicheworkedoutresearchtrategiesnthefieldthatarepartof standard ocial science training.Denzil Saldanha's aper, SubjectivityinContexts f Objectification',ddressesa traditionalMarxianquestion the re-lationbetweenobjectiveclasscategoriesandsubjective lassidentity bylookingat socialclassification ndself-identifica-tion in an adivasicommunity.This re-minds the reader of Marx's dialecticalresolution f theproblemof subjectivityandobjectivity, ndraises hequestionofwhyso few anthropologistsave lookedto that sourcefor a way out of their di-lemma.However, ven Saldanha ppearsto haveneglectedhe essonsof Marx:hedoes not raise the questionof the originof categoriesof identitysuchas 'garib',nor does he consider he possibilitythatthese ubjectiveategoriesmighthavebeenobjectivelyconstructed hroughsupra-localpoliticalprocesses.In fact,most oftheessaysin this volumeappear o viewthe subjectiveas an autochthonous o-main,neglectinghe recentoutpouringfworkon theroleof 'objective'social andpoliticalcategoriesn theconstitution fsubjective dentities.Atthispoint would ike tosuggest hattheproblemfobjectivity nd ubjectivityin anthropology oes not stem from thefieldworkmethod ndethnographic rit-ing per se, as the postmoderncritiquesuggested, ut rommorebasic heoreticalshortcomings. erhaps he most signifi-cant failing of pre-postmodemanthro-pologywasnot ts 'naive ealism'Madan)

nor its neglect of the politics of represen-tation (although these were seriousenough), butits almostcompletedisregardfor social theory as it had developed incognate disciplines, especially sociology.Because most anthropologists, eventhe sophisticated 'postmoderists', werenot aware that the debates in which theywere engaged had long histories withinother disciplines, they had to reinvent thewheel, as it were. It would be safe to say,for example, that positivism lingered onwithin anthropology much after it wasdeclareddead and buriedwithin Europeanandeven American sociology - hence thecontinuing obsession with the problem ofobjectivity and its equation with observa-tion and the 'outsider' perspective. AsSrinivasan says, ...the problem of thesubject in fieldwork needs to be locatedin thesociology of knowledge and not...inthe ethnography of experience (p 55).This lack of theoretical developmentand philosophical sophistication can beattributed in part to anthropology's his-torical alignment with the natural ratherthan the social sciences. The emergenceof fieldwork as social anthropology'sresearch method par excellence was aproduct of its historical links with 19thcentury natural history and science, andanthropology derived from the latter anempiricistemphasis on the observation oflife formsintheirnatural ettings [Kuklick1997]. The modelling of anthropology onthe natural sciences was influenced nodoubt by the fact that its chosen subject-matterwas the 'primitive',aform of humandefined as outside of history and civili-sation and therefore amenable to obser-vation in the same way as were plants andother animals. It was only much later inits history that questions of subjectivityand 'native models' came to the fore. Andit was even later that anthropology'ssubjects began to be perceived as histori-cal agents withtheir own agendas, and thatanthropology was recognised as an instru-ment of colonial domination of thosesubjects ratherthan of knowledge aboutthem. Because of their scientific bent ofmind, anthropologists were late inrecognising the,epistemological problemsthat are inherent n the 'participant-obser-vation' method, andmost anthropologistslacked the training in philosophy or hu-manities that might have pointed them inthe direction of a solution. Thus, forexample, mainstreamAnglophone anthro-pology has not drawnsignificantly on thework of Weber on the question of subjec-tivity nor on the debates on ideology andthe sociology of knowledgethatdevel-opedout of Marx'swritings.lIt is only

recently hatanthropologistsave turnedto these traditions,and to historyandphilosophy,o search or newanswers otheirdilemmas.2T N Madann hisessayconfirmsthis view when he writes thatover theyearshe has ...leanedmoreandmoretowards he humanities, nd foundsocialhistoryand iteratureicher ourcesof inspirationnmy anthropological orkthan henatural rbiologicalsciences...Ihavealsobecome ncreasinglyonsciousof thesignificanceof cultivating philo-sophicalperspectiventhespecificsenseof comparative thics (pp 159-60).Theproblemshatseem to ariseoutofthe fieldwork radition, hen,have theiroriginnotinthemethodology s suchbutin thetheoretical overty fthediscipline,apovertywhich s exemplifiedn anthro-pology'sabidingdevotion o theconceptof culture.Although hequestionof sub-jective knowledgehas been tiedup withthe ideaof culturaldifference theprob-lem of knowingthe other),most of theessays nthisvolume ailto cometotermswiththeproblematictatusof theconceptof culture tself. Because theconceptofculture asbeenextensively econstructedanddebated n recentyears,few anthro-pologistsnow find it easyto use the termexceptin invertedcommas;yet most ofthe contributorso this volumecontinueto use 'culture' n the conventional ense- as a reifiedpropertyof communitieswhichdefines andexplainsgroupdiffer-ences. This usage is implicitin phrasessuch as 'my culture', 'othercultures','negotiation etween ultures', ndso on.Herethe ideathat culture s the primaryaxis of humandifferentiations hardlyquestioned.Yet without this premise,whichsaphilosophicalor, wouldargue,ideological)positionandnota 'scientifictruth',the majorproblemsdiscussed nthis volume- intersubjectivity,he out-sider-insiderilemma,orthequestionofthe self and the 'other'- disintegrate.Thapandoesraise thequestionof Whatis an 'other' culture and for whom?(p 10),buttheemphasis nthepoliticsoflocation drawsour attentionawayfromtheproblematictatusof theconstructionof otherness andselfhood) tself.The basicquestionof 'what s an otherculture-' s addressed in two essays.T N Madanprovidesan interestingac-countof hislove affairwithanthropologyover theyears, n whichhe discusseshisownstrugglewith thesubjectivity-objec-tivityproblemn the contextof his earlyfieldwork mongruralKashmiri andits.Thesageadvicetendered y severalpro-fessors- thathe shouldavoidlookingatIndological exts lest he compromise is

Economicand Political Weekly November 27, 1999 . 3363



4/4

objectivityn thefield- reveals heextentto which positivismand behaviourismdominatedheanthropologyf the1950s.Dissatisfactionith hisapproachxplainsthetrajectoryf theDumontianchool ofIndiansociologywhich,with Madan nthelead, ntegratedieldwork theobjec-tivestance)withIndology thesubjectiveview). But while Madanchallengestheinsider-outsiderdichotomy n fieldwork,heretains heidea of anthropologys the'mutualnterpretationfcultures'p157).KirinNarayan's ssay, 'HowNativeIsa 'Native'Anthropologist?'previouslypublished in American Anthropologist)confrontsthe insider-outsiderquestiondirectlywithregard o thedebateon therelative objectivity of 'native' versusforeignanthropologists.he arguesthatthe ideaof thenativeanthropologists acolonialhangover hat s no longerrele-vant in this fragmentedworld, whereidentitys alwaysmadeupof a complexof culturaltrandswhichmaybeinvokedin differentcontexts. She also suggeststhat all anthropologists re in essenceculturalhybrids egardless f theirback-grounds,becausethey belong simulta-neously o the worldof engagedscholar-shipandtheworldofeverydayife p 164).But herargumentor replacing he out-sider-insiderichotomywith heconceptsof 'enactinghybridity'and 'multiplexsubjectivity's premiseduponthe sametime-wor assumptionhathumankindscomprisedof a catalogue of discretecultures,which are then blended andinterwovenwithin individualsubjecti-vitiesthroughprocessesof negotiation,politicisation, ndso on.Maitrayee haudhuri'snteresting ieceon the construction f Asian Americanethnicity amongNRIs in the US fore-grounds he slipperinessof the cultureconceptbyillustratingtsconnectionwithidentitypolitics.Theformation f ethnicidentityinvolves the objectificationofculture,which is presumedo be sharedby membersof the in-group.But this'sharing' nvolvesacts of inclusionandexclusion n whichevenunwilling epre-sentativesof 'Indianculture',who havenothingo do with:thesedentitypolitics,areropednasethnickin.In theacademicworld,anotherkind of culturalpoliticsholds way,aswhen ntellectualsrom henon-westernworldareforced o performas 'othernessmachines'(p 211). Chau-dhuri'sdiscussion raises a questionofgreat elevanceodaynIndia:whodefinesa 'culture' rcommunity ndwhodecideswho is included n thatculture or com-munity,or nation)? 'Indianculture'intheAmerican context is a productof

multiculturalistdiscourse whichhas arisenwithin a particularpolitical system, ratherthan something that is brought along aspart of immigrants' baggage. Worthy offurtherdiscussion would be the re-exportof this 'Made in America' 'Indianculture'back to India and its positive receptionamong certain classes.Veena Das' essay points to anotherholein the concept of culture. She argues thatanthropology has used culture theory to'renderother societies knowable' by dis-covering order within chaos (p 42). Byemphasisingthe rationalkernelwithineachculturalorder,anthropologicalenquiryhaslargely ignoredviolence, irrationality, hedark side of humannature.She pointsoutthat the anthropological quest to under-stand 'other cultures' contains withinit the threat of scepticism because itdestabilises one's faith in the rationalityof one's own world-view. Thus an an-thropological engagement with other so-cieties comes to meet the unknown orunacknowledged aspectsof one's own lifeprecisely at the point when one begins toallow that the scepticism about the otherworlds we have encountered need not bemet only by objectifying and translatingtheir concepts into an agreed rationallanguage (p 48). Das goes further thanmost of the other contributors n attacking

the problem of subjectivity at its root -the idea of culture as an 'objective' andsocially definitive reality. And as severalothers have recognised, this is where wemust begin if we want to reconstruct an-thropology as a humane and committedsocial science - not with endless reflec-tions on intersubjectivity in research andwriting but with a hardlook at theoryandits consequences.

Notes1 The deep institutional split betweenanthropologyandsociology in theUS andtheUK is another facet of this problem. Theunificationof thesedisciplines nIndia,as wellas the reproduction f positivism and lack oftheoreticaldevelopmentin Indiansociology/anthropology,are discussed by Srinivasan.2 ButI mustpointout here thatthe debateaboutwhetheranthropology s a science still rageswithin Americananthropology,and that thepositivistconceptionof objectivitycontinuesto reign supreme within much of Indiananthropologyas well - a volume such as thisbeing the exception ratherthan the rule.

ReferenceKuklick, Henrika(1997): 'After Ishmael: TheFieldworkTraditionand Its Future' n Akhil

Gupta and James Ferguson(eds), Anthro-pological Locations,Universityof CaliforniaPress, Berkeley.

REVIEW OF WOMEN STUDIESOctober 30, 1999

The Added Years: Elderlyin India and Kerala - Leela GulatiS lrudaya RajanLaw and Women of Age: A Short Note - Flavia AgnesAgeing and Women in India - Malini KarkalAgeing of Women in Post-MenopausalStage:Need for Intervention - Murli DesaiThree Tales of Ageing - V GeethaOn the Fine Edge of Real and Fictional - Krishna SarbadhikarySome Comments on National Policy on Older Persons - C P SujayaAgeing Women in a Welfare State: Cracks inthe Utopia? - Maithreyi KrishnarajThe Review of Women Studies appears wice yearly as a supplement o the lastissues of April and October. Earlier ssues have focused on: Gender Inequities:Focus on Tamil Nadu (April 1999); Negotiating Gender through Culture(October 1998);WomenandIndependence:Looking Back(April 1998); Women,Work and Health (October 1997); At the Grass Roots (April 1997); Genderand Development Indices (October 1996); Women and Science (April 1996).

For copies write toCirculation ManagerEconomic and Political WeeklyHitkari House, 284, Shahid Bhagatsingh Road,Mumbai 400 001

3364 Economic and Political Weekly November 27, 1999


subjectivity and objectivity in social sciences

Documents