TEN LIES OF ETHNOGRAPHY
TEN LIES OF ETHNOGRAPHY
复制标题
民族志的十大谎言
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
1993
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
G. Fine
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
G. Fine
正如埃弗雷特休斯所指出的，所有的工作都有一个“底面”。每个工作都包括一些不适合公会外的人知道的事情。幻觉对于维持职业声誉至关重要，但在这个过程中，它们会造成一系列道德困境。民族志工作也是如此。这篇文章描述了民族志工作的阴暗面：人们经常对理想化的道德标准做出妥协。它认为，民族志学者的形象，无论是个人的还是公众的，都是建立在部分真相或自我欺骗的基础上的。重点是三组困境：古典美德（善良的民族志学者、友好的民族志学者和诚实的民族志学者）、技术技能（精确的民族志学者、观察敏锐的民族志学者和不引人注目的民族志学者）和民族志自我（坦率的民族志学者、纯洁的民族志学者、公正的民族志学者和文学民族志学者）。民族志风格和传统的变化改变了这些欺骗的平衡，但并没有消除对方法论幻想的需要。
As Everett Hughes noted, there is an “underside” to all work. Each job includes ways of doing things that would be inappropriate for those outside the guild to know. Illusions are essential for maintaining occupational reputation, but in the process they create a set of moral dilemmas. So it is with ethnographic work. This article describes the underside of ethnographic work: compromises that one frequently makes with idealized ethical standards. It argues that images of ethnographers—personal and public—are based on partial truths or self-deceptions. The focus is on three clusters of dilemmas: the classical virtues (the kindly ethnographer, the friendly ethnographer, and the honest ethnographer), technical skills (the precise ethnographer, the observant ethnographer, and the unobtrusive ethnographer), and the ethnographic self (the candid ethnographer, the chaste ethnographer, the fair ethnographer, and the literary ethnographer). Changes in ethnographic styles and traditions alter the balance of these deceptions but do not eliminate the need for methodological illusions.