Recently I read a statement that noted how we all view the same thing differently.
The previous statement is what Clifford would regard as partial truths. In ethnographic research there is more than one way of interpreting what one is observing. Although as anthropologists we would like to believe that we leave our personal beliefs,
ideologies, and biases outside of our research. Clifford examines theses influential dispositions and the significance of arriving at the truth accounting for bias, human error and the myriad ways to arrive at the “truth.” There is no universal truth in ethnographic research. Clifford examines the literary and historical “fiction” embodying ethnographic research. In his essay "partial Truths" Clifford assesses the historical constraints on the making of ethnographies, as well as areas of textual experiment and emergence. Clifford uses ethnographic research from those acquiring Saramaka narratives as an example of a “partial truth.” Price, the historian trying to uncover Saramaka history through oral folklore, is demonstrativeof what is meant by partial truth. Below will explain the partial truth from the author's perspective. However, the narratives of the group and oral traditions in themselves are based onpartial truths because they are retold story as the teller "recalls" it. Just as every researcher has their own story sturctured in analysis, so does the teller.
What is meant by ethnographic fiction? Clifford claims, "ethnographic writings can properly be called fictions in the sense of 'something made or fashioned" (472). Loaction is importatn to ethnographic research. One must inlude their own preconceived notions, their own location, and the history as relevant to the obervation. psartial truths relates to the ommision of facts and ideas and even the best ethnographies are systems of truths derivitative of history and power. Ethnograhpy is a form of text and literrature. Because of this, ethnographic texts "cannot avoid expressive tropes, figures, and allegories" (Clifford 473). Therefore, what is being described as fiction is merely be denoted as fiction as both a literary component and as an ethic. Clifford analyzed the way[s] writing about culture is problematic and the crises in anthropology.
Clifford believed that ethnographic writing is contigent to one's own subjectivity. Clifford beleived anthropological ethnography "once looked out at clearly defined others, defined as primitive, or tribal, or non-Western" (484) [Malinowski's rhetoric of savages automatically "others" the people he was studying. Therefore we now view ethnography less ethnocentrically and more culturally relative. Although we have transceneded the othering of individuals in ethnography, we have yet to fully take accountability of our own literature; ethnographies are products of how the author views their own world. This is why Clifford believed "the contigencies -of language, rhetoric, power, and history-must now be openly confronted in the process of writing" (485). This makes me consider feminism and how we must examine individuals from the way they view it. Clifford notes how ethnographers are "rediscovering otherness and difference within the cultures of the West" (484). Clifford notably acknowledges that "every version of an 'other,' wherever found, is also the construction of a 'self'" (ibid). Because of this we must evaluate our own story. This means not judging another culture based on the way[s] in which the author understand their own culture to be.
Malinowski once dicussed writing about every aspect of a culture. This is impossible. Thus, when considering partial truths it also acknowledges that when writing an ethnography it is impossible to give the entire story of what was observed. Clifford also recognizes that ethngraphies come in all types of literature, yet not solely in writing. Clifford viewed ethnography as a "hybrid textual activity: it traverses genres and disciplines" (486). Now that there is a better understanding of what Clifford meant by partial truths, what does he mean by ethnography?
Clifford believed "ethnography is actively situated between powerful systems of meaning. It poses its questions at the boundaries of civilizations, cultures, classes, rces, and genders. Ethnography decodes and recodes, telling the grounds of collective order and divesity, inclusion and exclusion. It describes processes of innovation and structuration, and is itself part of these practices" (470). According to Clifford there is no true ethnography for it varies according to authorship. those both observing and being observed, and even in the way the reader interprets it. Social codes and conventions can be restrictive and expressives, structured around signs and symbols. Therefore, it is up to the researcher to decipher the "truth" behind their analysis-constructed and how they interpret its meaning.
The previous statement is what Clifford would regard as partial truths. In ethnographic research there is more than one way of interpreting what one is observing. Although as anthropologists we would like to believe that we leave our personal beliefs,
ideologies, and biases outside of our research. Clifford examines theses influential dispositions and the significance of arriving at the truth accounting for bias, human error and the myriad ways to arrive at the “truth.” There is no universal truth in ethnographic research. Clifford examines the literary and historical “fiction” embodying ethnographic research. In his essay "partial Truths" Clifford assesses the historical constraints on the making of ethnographies, as well as areas of textual experiment and emergence. Clifford uses ethnographic research from those acquiring Saramaka narratives as an example of a “partial truth.” Price, the historian trying to uncover Saramaka history through oral folklore, is demonstrativeof what is meant by partial truth. Below will explain the partial truth from the author's perspective. However, the narratives of the group and oral traditions in themselves are based onpartial truths because they are retold story as the teller "recalls" it. Just as every researcher has their own story sturctured in analysis, so does the teller.
What is meant by ethnographic fiction? Clifford claims, "ethnographic writings can properly be called fictions in the sense of 'something made or fashioned" (472). Loaction is importatn to ethnographic research. One must inlude their own preconceived notions, their own location, and the history as relevant to the obervation. psartial truths relates to the ommision of facts and ideas and even the best ethnographies are systems of truths derivitative of history and power. Ethnograhpy is a form of text and literrature. Because of this, ethnographic texts "cannot avoid expressive tropes, figures, and allegories" (Clifford 473). Therefore, what is being described as fiction is merely be denoted as fiction as both a literary component and as an ethic. Clifford analyzed the way[s] writing about culture is problematic and the crises in anthropology.
Clifford believed that ethnographic writing is contigent to one's own subjectivity. Clifford beleived anthropological ethnography "once looked out at clearly defined others, defined as primitive, or tribal, or non-Western" (484) [Malinowski's rhetoric of savages automatically "others" the people he was studying. Therefore we now view ethnography less ethnocentrically and more culturally relative. Although we have transceneded the othering of individuals in ethnography, we have yet to fully take accountability of our own literature; ethnographies are products of how the author views their own world. This is why Clifford believed "the contigencies -of language, rhetoric, power, and history-must now be openly confronted in the process of writing" (485). This makes me consider feminism and how we must examine individuals from the way they view it. Clifford notes how ethnographers are "rediscovering otherness and difference within the cultures of the West" (484). Clifford notably acknowledges that "every version of an 'other,' wherever found, is also the construction of a 'self'" (ibid). Because of this we must evaluate our own story. This means not judging another culture based on the way[s] in which the author understand their own culture to be.
Malinowski once dicussed writing about every aspect of a culture. This is impossible. Thus, when considering partial truths it also acknowledges that when writing an ethnography it is impossible to give the entire story of what was observed. Clifford also recognizes that ethngraphies come in all types of literature, yet not solely in writing. Clifford viewed ethnography as a "hybrid textual activity: it traverses genres and disciplines" (486). Now that there is a better understanding of what Clifford meant by partial truths, what does he mean by ethnography?
Clifford believed "ethnography is actively situated between powerful systems of meaning. It poses its questions at the boundaries of civilizations, cultures, classes, rces, and genders. Ethnography decodes and recodes, telling the grounds of collective order and divesity, inclusion and exclusion. It describes processes of innovation and structuration, and is itself part of these practices" (470). According to Clifford there is no true ethnography for it varies according to authorship. those both observing and being observed, and even in the way the reader interprets it. Social codes and conventions can be restrictive and expressives, structured around signs and symbols. Therefore, it is up to the researcher to decipher the "truth" behind their analysis-constructed and how they interpret its meaning.