Ethnographic Authority: A comparative analysis of Mead, Turner and Geertz
Ethnographic Authority:
A Comparative Analysis of Mead, Turner and Geertz
Paula J. Suter
Anthropological Thought and Praxis I - Dr. Christina Wasson
Midterm - October 14, 2013
Introduction Ethnographic authority is a useful concept. Examining the structure and authority of ethnographic theory and practice helps one to gaze, with a critical eye, upon the field of knowledge that is being handed down. Before assimilating new knowledge, it is important to question the premises of that knowledge to gauge its validity. In the case of anthropology, we have clearly seen that ideas commonly held and thought to be valid at one time don’t always stand the test of time. For the purpose of this essay, I examine the work of Margaret Mead, Clifford Geertz and Victor Turner in order to compare the construction of their respective ethnographic authorities. I have chosen these three anthropologists, in particular, for two reasons. First, out of all the texts we have read so far, I have found theirs to be the most persuasive. The most compelling aspect of their ethnographic authority, which I believe all three authors possess to a convincing degree, is innovation. There are other anthropologists represented in our readings who have pushed the boundaries of anthropological thought and practice, but Mead, Geertz and Turner were the strongest for me. Secondly, they represent a timeline of thought that takes us through four distinct, albeit overlapping, movements and modes of authority: “experiential, interpretive, dialogic, and polyphonic.” (Clifford 1983: 142) These modes of authority, and a few other complementary modes to be introduced, will be attributed to our three anthropologists and analyzed to illuminate how they were constructed.
Margaret Mead Mead’s ethnographic authority was constructed as a consequence of her persona as a popular anthropologist and an outspoken, educated woman. She was someone who sparked
A Comparative Analysis of Mead, Turner and Geertz
Paula J. Suter
Anthropological Thought and Praxis I - Dr. Christina Wasson
Midterm - October 14, 2013
Introduction Ethnographic authority is a useful concept. Examining the structure and authority of ethnographic theory and practice helps one to gaze, with a critical eye, upon the field of knowledge that is being handed down. Before assimilating new knowledge, it is important to question the premises of that knowledge to gauge its validity. In the case of anthropology, we have clearly seen that ideas commonly held and thought to be valid at one time don’t always stand the test of time. For the purpose of this essay, I examine the work of Margaret Mead, Clifford Geertz and Victor Turner in order to compare the construction of their respective ethnographic authorities. I have chosen these three anthropologists, in particular, for two reasons. First, out of all the texts we have read so far, I have found theirs to be the most persuasive. The most compelling aspect of their ethnographic authority, which I believe all three authors possess to a convincing degree, is innovation. There are other anthropologists represented in our readings who have pushed the boundaries of anthropological thought and practice, but Mead, Geertz and Turner were the strongest for me. Secondly, they represent a timeline of thought that takes us through four distinct, albeit overlapping, movements and modes of authority: “experiential, interpretive, dialogic, and polyphonic.” (Clifford 1983: 142) These modes of authority, and a few other complementary modes to be introduced, will be attributed to our three anthropologists and analyzed to illuminate how they were constructed.
Margaret Mead Mead’s ethnographic authority was constructed as a consequence of her persona as a popular anthropologist and an outspoken, educated woman. She was someone who sparked