Paper Short Abstract:

The paper ethnographically explores the subject of doing anthropology with the people close-to/in "home" and the shared reservation, reciprocation, and resistance from the researcher and the researched; and how that enables or hinders the composition, comprehension and even compromise of the study.

Paper Abstract:

Fieldwork in Anthropological has been its hallmark and has had the chief role in shaping the discipline. While fieldwork is known to be the method to assess "the other", it has been an effective tool to (un)learn about one's own self. In this paper, I present the ethical and emotional dilemma of disagreeing or saying a "no" in the field. While negotiating disagreements in itself is difficult, what happens when the field is one's homeland and the people are seemingly close? Working in Indo-Bangladesh border of the Sundarbans with members of the Rashriya Sevika Samiti (Samiti henceforth) a right-wing-nationalist-women's organisation in India, I was caught between the polarities of us-them, right-wrong, BJP-TMC, Hindu-Muslim among others, and on occasions, the position of the research, researcher and the researched can no longer be neutral. In highly sensitive moments, how does one continue to (un)do anthropological fieldwork and negotiate means and ways to disagree with key research participants to whom we are undeniably grateful but are hesitant to contradict or correct as the case maybe? Not only on account of the successful completion of the research but also to respect cultural constructs, these conversations are as much challenging as they are critical. In addressing issues of i) fieldwork methodology, positionality, ethics, and power dynamics and ii) the journey from conceptualisation to actualisation of fieldwork, this paper shares personal empirical reflections and emotions experienced during ethnography with/at/close-to home that critically informs and shapes the research and personhood of Early Career Anthropologists.