Paper short abstract:

As anthropologists we generally prefer the underdog to the dictator in our choice of informants. If transgressive experiences help us to understand social relations, what prevents us from transgressing loyalty by disclosing unkind details about the elites we study?

Paper long abstract:

As anthropologists we generally prefer the underdog to the dictator in our choice of informants. Nevertheless, studying elites can provide us with valuable experiences of ambivalence.

After mastering the initial hurdle of gatekeepers and successfully trespassing into the field of elites, it is a particular challenge to establish trust and rapport. Elites who treasure and guard privacy and professionally choreograph their public appearance may not generally be considered prime suspects for the post of the key informant.

However having arrived in the field and engaged with the powerful and influential we are as anthropologists met with suspicion amongst our kind upon our return from the field. How could we fraternise with 'the enemy' and now speak so warmly about those who are responsible for all the social misery and absurd inequality in the country? Has participation transformed our perception of the world? Were we brainwashed by those well educated and highly eloquent elites who we now claim to have befriended?

How can we possibly engage and show empathy for people who defend their father's decisions to have political opponents executed. Can we feel pity for an insane ability to ruin businesses and disperse money? And why would I decide to cover up for participants who are ridiculous and unkempt?

If transgressive experiences help us to understand social relations, what exactly prevents me from transgressing loyalty by disclosing those unkind details and endangering participants whose political opponents have taken to the streets in millions fighting for democracy.