After having read the introduction and first chapter of Nettl's "Heartland Excursions", what can you say about the ability of an ethnographer to assume the role of both the 'insider' and 'outsider'? Write two to three pages weighing the pros and cons of writing an ethnography as both the 'insider' and 'outsider'. Can this ever truly be a polyphonic discourse, or is this type of self-dialogue inherently limited?
In Titon's "Knowing Fieldwork" (Chapter 2 in Barz and Cooley), he asks the question, "What is the future of fieldwork?" on page 36. He then outlines three charges against the field of ethnomusicology:
1) an asymmetry of power and authority between the researcher and researched
2) the fieldworkers' enactment of a 'heroic quest' to conquer cultural boundaries
3) the poststructuralist notion that denies the existence of an autonomous self, and that an encounter between self and other is though to be a delusion.
Reread this paragraph and attempt to answer his initial question - "what is the future of fieldwork?"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment