Paper short abstract:

The paper considers how ‘native anthropologists’ may employ their own memories explicitly in their writing. The challenges such a ‘playing of the native card’ poses to the discipline are explored whilst it is argued that this explicitness makes important contributions to ethnographic knowledge.

Paper long abstract:

Some decades have passed since Jackson's volume (1987) but 'anthropology at home' continues to be under scrutiny. Early criticism about the lack of objective distance when considering one's own culture have been challenged. Authors argue that nobody ever fully knows their own culture, and that the ethnographic position creates further distance. However, those working 'at home' might also be perceived as threatening by the wider discipline due to their seemingly privileged access to sites, informants and knowledge. They might even be able to claim the authority of informants on questions of culture. Jacobs-Huey calls this 'playing the native card' (2002).

According to Appadurai, we ascribe a status of authenticity to our informants by virtue of their being indigenous (1988). If now the professional is merged with the informant in the 'native ethnographer', the writing stemming from this symbiosis may appear nearly incontestable to the non-native, professional readership.

The paper will argue that experiences of the anthropologist, including memories that may reach beyond the professional training, can be highly relevant data, which should be included in the ethnography. Moreover, it will argue that such memories ought to be included explicitly in order to open them to analytical scrutiny. It will show how this can be done through two examples from my own experience of working and living in Saxony-Anhalt, eastern Germany. The paper will discuss the implications for ethnography which each example creates.