Arbitrary locations: in defence of the bounded field‐site
Arbitrary locations: in defence of the bounded field‐site
复制标题
任意地点：保卫有界的场地
DOI：
10.1111/j.1467-9655.2007.00419.x
复制
发表时间：
2007
影响因子：
1.2
通讯作者：
Matei Candea
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Matei Candea
本文对多地方/多地点民族志的原始提法提出了同情的批评。“多点想象”重视无界性，促进了方法论的自由，但它也意味着整体论（在更大的尺度上）的有问题的重新配置。尽管这些表述在克服某些方法论的僵化方面非常富有成效，但它们在打破“界限”方面的成功却给民族志的写作带来了新的问题。从一个最近的博士的角度写的。研究生和第一次实地工作者，文章建议我们重新考虑自我强加的限制的价值，作为一种方法论工具的有界性。在社会/文化人类学中，有界的场域对所谓的“传统”实践者起到了什么样的作用？对于那些接受了多地点观念的人类学家来说，它能起到什么作用呢？基于我自己在科西嘉的实地考察的一个案例研究，我认为我们可以把有界性（自相矛盾地）看作是挑战整体论和推迟封闭的一种富有成效的方式。有界场点被重新认为是一个“任意的位置”，成为一个明确的“部分”和不完整的复杂性窗口。
The article offers a sympathetic critique of the original formulations of multi-local/multi-sited ethnography. The ‘multi-sited imaginary’ values unboundedness and promotes methodological freedom, but it also implies a problematic reconfiguration of holism (on a grander scale). Whereas these formulations were extremely productive in straining against certain methodological rigidities, their very success in breaking down ‘boundaries’ has given rise to new problems in the doing and writing of ethnography. Written from the perspective of a recent Ph.D. graduate and first-time fieldworker, the article suggests we reconsider the value of self-imposed limitations, of boundedness as a methodological tool. What role did the bounded field-site play for its so-called ‘traditional’ practitioners in social/cultural anthropology? What role could it play for anthropologists who have taken on board the precepts of multi-sitedness? Based on a case study from my own fieldwork in Corsica, I argue that we could think of boundedness (paradoxically) as a productive way of challenging holisms and deferring closure. The bounded field-site, rethought as an ‘arbitrary location’, becomes an explicitly ‘partial’ and incomplete window onto complexity.