The Field as here and now, not there and Then*
The Field as here and now, not there and Then*
复制标题
场域是此时此地，而非彼时*
DOI：
10.1111/j.1931-0846.2001.tb00480.x
复制
发表时间：
2001
影响因子：
2
通讯作者：
J. Hyndman
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
J. Hyndman
*我要强调的是，田野调查的成功与其说取决于查清“事实”的决心，不如说取决于是否愿意留下一些石头不翻找，倾听我的线人认为重要的东西，并通过不打听别人不想要我的地方来证明我的可信度。..。也许正是通过放弃科学侦探想要知道“一切”的冲动，我们才能接触到我们的告密者可能希望或认为要与我们分享的那些非常局部的远景。1995年的田野调查是一项政治的、个人的和专业的事业。它提供了提出知识主张所依据的重要参考点和证据。然而，对于自己对这一领域的假设，尤其是这里和那里之间的边界，需要仔细考虑。我提出了三个相关的论点：作为一名研究人员，一个人总是在这个领域里；一个人在这个领域里改变了它，也被它改变了；实地经验不会自动授权知识，而是允许我们进行分析并讲述特定类型的故事。我强调实地研究作为发展负责任的分析和理论的基础的重要性，但需要注意的是，实地研究与家庭的日常空间是分开的。在这篇文章中，我首先借鉴了女权主义地理学家的工作，考察了受时间和地点限制的领域的基本概念。随着对这一领域如何概念化有了更清楚的理解，我利用我的田野工作来说明政治和实际考虑。最后，我要说明，嚎叫已经成为我要研究的领域的一部分，我认为，作为田野工作者，我们总是在田野里。在审问田野时，吉莉安·罗斯认为田野工作在行动中代表了地理上的男性气概(1993)。尽管地理方法和地理知识生产中的男性主义偏见被很好地暴露出来，但认为田野工作必然是男性主义练习的论点是有问题的(Moss 1993；D.Rose 1993；G.Rose 1993；Nast 1994；Sparke 1996；McDowell 1997)。田野调查的洞察力为建立过程、地点和社会关系的账户提供了基础。田野调查是“对世界上正在发生的事情进行批判、解构和重建一个更负责任的(如果是部分的)叙述”(Hyndman 1995,200)。正如玛格丽特·沃尔顿-罗伯茨在阅读了这篇文章的早期草稿后所评论的那样，“重要的是要考虑在[地理上]过度的文化转向之后回归经验主义，在那里可以说是没有真相的……可以说，从高层发表言论比在实地站稳脚跟并同时对DOING的政治握手更具男权主义倾向”(Personal Communications，2000年9月29日)。田野调查可能会为更负责任的理论提供依据，但它不会自动产生地理知识。毫无疑问，实地考察体现了一种代表政治。它还为权力关系和我们自己以外的政治、经济和文化场所的理论奠定了基础(Nast 1994)。什么构成了“场”是有争议的：它仅仅是一个物理位置，方便地与研究人员的生活隔离开来吗？这一构想是不够的。“‘田野’不是根据‘一个地方’或‘一个民族’来归化的；相反，它是根据跨越时间和空间的具体政治目标来定位和定义的”(Nast 1994，57)。我自己的研究将这一领域重塑为一个权力关系网络，而我是其中的一个小环节。我在这里分析的项目重点是联合国难民事务高级专员办事处(难民署)及其在日内瓦总部的人道主义行动，在内罗毕的一个分支机构，以及在达达布的一个分支机构，该机构管理着肯尼亚东北部的三个难民营。…
********** I would emphasize in all of this, the success of the fieldwork hinged not so much on a determination to ferret out "the facts" as on a willingness to leave some stones unturned, to listen to what my informants deemed important, and to demonstrate my trustworthiness by not prying where I was not wanted. ... It may be precisely by giving up the scientific detective's urge to know "everything" that we gain access to those very partial vistas that our informants may desire or think to share with us. Liisa H. Malkki, 1995 Fieldwork is at once a political, personal, and professional undertaking. It provides crucial reference points and evidence upon which knowledge claims are made. Careful consideration, though, is required of one's own assumptions about the field, especially boundaries between here and there. I make three related arguments: that, as a researcher, one is always in the field; that by being in the field one changes it and is changed by it; and that field experience does not automatically authorize knowledge, but rather allows us to generate analyses and tell specific kinds of stories. I underscore the importance of field research as a basis for developing accountable analyses and theory with the caveat that the field is separate from the everyday spaces of home. In this essay I first examine essentialized notions of the field as bounded by time and place, drawing on the work of feminist geographers. With a clearer understanding of how the field may be conceptualized, I draw on my fieldwork to illustrate political and practical considerations. Finally, I illustrate howl have become part of the fields I purport to study and contend that, as field-workers, we are always in the field. INTERROGATING THE FIELD Gillian Rose has argued that fieldwork represents geographical masculinities in action (1993). Although the masculinist biases in geographical method and the production of geographical knowledge are well exposed, argument that fieldwork is inevitably a masculinist exercise is problematic (Moss 1993; D. Rose 1993; G. Rose 1993; Nast 1994; Sparke 1996; McDowell 1997). Insights from fieldwork provide a basis for constructing accounts of processes, places, and social relations. Fieldwork is a site "to critique, deconstruct, and reconstruct a more responsible, if partial, account of what is happening in the world" (Hyndman 1995, 200). As Margaret Walton-Roberts commented after reading an earlier draft of this essay, "It is important to consider the return to the empirical after the excesses of the cultural turn [in geography] where arguably there was no truth.... It is arguably a more masculinist practice to pontificate from on high than to plant oneself in the field and wring one's hands about the politics of doi ng so at the same time" (personal communication, 29 September 2000). Fieldwork potentially offers grounds for a more accountable theory, but it does not automatically generate geographical knowledge. There is no question that fieldwork embodies a politics of representation. It also serves to ground theory in power relations and political, economic, and cultural locations other than our own (Nast 1994). What constitutes "the field" is contentious: Is it merely a physical location, conveniently cordoned off from the life of the researcher? That conception is insufficient. "The 'field' is not naturalized in terms of 'a place' or 'a people'; it is instead located and defined in terms of specific political objectives that (as such) cut across time and space" (Nast 1994, 57). My own research recasts the field as a network of power relations in which I am a small link. My focus in the project I analyze here is the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and its humanitarian operations at its headquarters in Geneva, one branch office in Nairobi, and one suboffice in Dadaab, which administers three refugee camps in northeastern Kenya. …