Speak, Friend, and Enter? Fieldwork Access and Anthropological Knowledge Production on the Copperbelt
Speak, Friend, and Enter? Fieldwork Access and Anthropological Knowledge Production on the Copperbelt
复制标题
说话，朋友，然后输入？
DOI：
10.1080/03057070.2020.1770512
复制
发表时间：
2020
影响因子：
0.5
通讯作者：
C. Straube
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
C. Straube
在人种学田野调查中，“门”一直是进入和拒绝的时刻的反复比喻。然而，田野工作中的准入挑战不仅代表着科学机会的打开或排除；相反，它们告诉我们关于田野工作的一些东西，作为科学实践的集合，更准确地说，权力实践如何标志着人类学知识生产和人类学作为一门社会科学的过程。基于2015年至2016年在Luanshya的田野调查、对赞比亚铜矿民族志元文本的研究、档案研究以及与铜带学者的个人交流，我认为，民族志田野工作已经能够挑战殖民和后殖民赞比亚持续存在的权力结构和社会等级制度。同样，正如我将解释的那样，人种学田野工作使人类学家成为一名社会科学家，他或她的主要工作场所--也就是田野--被权力的实践所‘追逐’。我以社会人类学历史学家的身份出发，追溯了从1937年成立的罗兹-利文斯通研究所(RLI)的研究到我自己的人种学研究项目到2017年，铜带上的人类学家是如何获得或被拒绝进入他们的田野遗址的。在这一地区，实地考察进入和拒绝的时刻以一种特别明显的形式发生。我寻求对作为人类学田野遗址的铜带的历史学以及对人类学作为一门社会科学的理解做出贡献。这是一门能够通过获得实地考察机会、持续谈判以保持访问权限、以及长期努力而最终被拒绝的瞬间来说明权力等级的科学。这些例子不仅仅是对学术生涯的介绍、附录和附言，也不是学术生涯的回顾评估。在对人类学知识的产生和人类学作为一门社会科学的性质的每一次思考中，田野调查都应该是核心。
The ‘gate’ has been a recurring metaphor for moments of access and denial in ethnographic fieldwork. However, access challenges during fieldwork represent not only ‘gates’ opening up or foreclosing scientific opportunity: rather, they tell us something about fieldwork as a collection of scientific practices, and, more precisely, how practices of power mark the process of anthropological knowledge production and anthropology as a social science. Based on fieldwork in Luanshya from 2015 to 2016, the study of metatexts from ethnographies on Zambia’s copper mines, archival research and personal communication with Copperbelt scholars, I argue that ethnographic fieldwork has been able to challenge persisting power structures and social hierarchies in colonial and post-colonial Zambia. Similarly, as I will explain, ethnographic fieldwork made the anthropologist a social scientist who was being ‘chased’ by the practices of power that structured his or her prime work place – that is, the field. I set out as a historian of social anthropology, retracing how anthropologists on the Copperbelt gained or were denied access to their field sites from the studies of the Rhodes–Livingstone Institute (RLI), founded in 1937, to my own ethnographic research project up to 2017. Moments of fieldwork access and denial have occurred in this region in an especially clear form. I seek to contribute to the historiography of the Copperbelt as an anthropological field site and the understanding of anthropology as a social science. It is a science that is capable of illustrating power hierarchies through passing moments of gaining fieldwork access, continuous negotiations to maintain it, and prolonged efforts, ending in denial. These instances are not mere embellishments to be relegated to the introductions, appendices and postscripts of ethnographies or retrospective assessments of academic careers. Fieldwork access should be central within every reflection on the production of anthropological knowledge and the nature of anthropology as a social science.
相同但不同：中国贸易商对非洲劳动力的看法
DOI：
10.1086/668841
发表时间：
2013
期刊：
The China Journal
影响因子：
--
作者：
Karsten
通讯作者：
Karsten