Click the star to add/remove an item to/from your individual schedule.
You need to be logged in to avail of this functionality.
Log in
- Convenors:
-
Dario Nardini
(University of Padova)
Paolo Grassi (University of Milano Bicocca)
Send message to Convenors
- Format:
- Panel
Short Abstract:
In establishing relationships with research participants, anthropologists are called to build communicative bridges between distant social worlds. Going beyond the issue of “translation”, this panel wants to question anthropologists' dialogic strategies in the field before the writing process.
Long Abstract:
In establishing meaningful relationships with research participants, anthropologists are called to build communicative bridges between distant social worlds, even working “at home”. The researchers’ social, cultural and linguistic capital may differ from that of their interlocutors, as may be their political/moral stances. This places anthropologists under a double obligation of loyalty, one to the participants and the other to the analytical enterprise. Accordingly, ethnography always implies a betrayal of the anthropologist’s interlocutors. These reflections certainly relate to ‘translation’, a widely debated topic. However, less attention has been paid to how these communicative bridges are established in the field, before the writing stage. How do researchers manage this dynamic through verbal interactions? How do they talk to their interlocutors? What language do they use? How do they inform participants about their role and the aims and methods of their research? This panel wants to question anthropologists' dialogic strategies in the field, before or during the writing process. We are interested in papers where the gap between the language/slang of anthropologists and their interlocutors is particularly pronounced, also due to moral disparities (e.g. ethnographies in deviant contexts, analysis of ‘popular cultures’, consumption choices and practices, or ethnographies with reactionary or non-democratic groups). Our aim is not simply to understand – from an almost colonial perspective – how to "better" approach certain subjects. Rather, we want to question the profound – and ultimately ethical – meaning of this operation, asking how oral language can be used or adapted to create ethnographic bonds.
Accepted papers:
Session 1Paper Short Abstract:
The narrative around the topic of the ethnographer as an insider or outsider has been debated for some time by scholars. The role of the ethnographer always seems to fluctuate. In the present paper, I will demonstrate the different positions of the researcher in the community.
Paper Abstract:
The role of an ethnographer in the community they study involves both connecting deeply with people and observing them carefully. Ethnographers spend time living within a community to learn about its culture, social interactions, and daily life. By doing so, they gain insights into the group’s values, beliefs, and issues. However, being closely involved can lead to challenges, such as the risk of influencing people’s behaviors or developing biases. Ethnographers need to be mindful of how their presence affects the community and work to minimize any disruptions. Building trust is essential, as it allows them to gather honest information while respecting people’s privacy and autonomy. Ethnographers occupy a unique position: they are partly outsiders but also become temporary insiders in the community and vice versa. This dual role helps them understand the community deeply and share those insights with a broader audience. Ultimately, ethnographers are not only observers; they also hold a responsibility to represent the community accurately, sometimes even advocating for its needs, and reflecting on their own role in the research. Through their work, ethnographers aim to produce understanding that respects the complexity and uniqueness of the communities they study.
Paper Short Abstract:
This paper rethinks the dichotomy between loyalty to interlocutors and critical analysis, showing, with Miranda Fricker's support, how recognition of otherness and reflective silence are central to anthropological practice in the field (and afterward). Listening becomes the place where new meanings emerge and ethnography takes shape.
Paper Abstract:
Ethnographic practice is often conceptualized as a delicate balance between two allegiances: on the one hand, commitment to interlocutors in the field; on the other, the need to maintain a critical and detached analysis. This dualistic model assumes that these dimensions can be separated and that the anthropologist must navigate between them as if they were two distinct poles; the symbolic capitals seem to imprison him/hersef. In this presentation, I challenge, without denying it, this dichotomy through Miranda Fricker's work on epistemic recognition and hermeneutic injustice. I propose that anthropological analysis cannot be disconnected from the recognition of the otherness of interlocutors, nor from the dialogue that this implies. Rather than interpreting the relationship with interlocutors as a limitation or tension with respect to the analytic process, I understand it as a necessary condition for the elaboration of knowledge that is ethically and epistemologically grounded. Through ethnographic examples, I will show how interlocutor recognition is not simply a practice of “loyalty,” but a constitutive aspect of analysis itself. Silence, far from being a communicative vacuum, becomes a productive space where the anthropologist suspends judgments and preconceptions in order to listen and allow the voice of the interlocutors to emerge. The time and space of listening become the experience in which the elaboration of the meaning of the collected ethnographic material takes shape, the arena where simultaneously the recognition of the singularity of the interlocutors, the legitimacy of their words and knowledge, and the becoming of the subjectivity of the anthropologist.
Paper Short Abstract:
The paper argues that unwritten challenges in ethnography of COVID in the Baltics and the concomitant Russian armed offensive in Ukraine since 24 February 2022 may reveal new features of the Lithuania’s risk society that will be useful for the global risk society.
Paper Abstract:
The paper argues that unwritten challenges in ethnography of COVID in the Baltics and the concomitant Russian armed offensive in Ukraine since 24 February 2022 may reveal new features of the Lithuania’s risk society that will be useful for the global risk society. The hot question is: how has the closing of borders caused the physical world to shrink and the virtual world to expand immensely in the countries bordering the Baltic Sea? This question is a source of debate in the anthropology. This is the starting point for the argument of the discussion, which aims to show how the war in Ukraine has affected individual coexistence and social communality in fieldwork. Methodologically, we study this crisis from an anthropological and historical perspective as it is perceived today. The research is based on ethnographic fieldwork. The paper discusses the following challenges in the ethnography of COVID and war. How can we help overcome the trauma of being silenced and encourage emic knowledge production “at home”? How can we carry out projects on Lithuanian-Russian border issues without access to ‘normal’ fieldwork methods? What did ethical issues arise in documenting memories and voices of Lithuanian people after the Russian armed offensive in Ukraine?
Paper Short Abstract:
Field researches involving sensitive topics or the most vulnerable groups of people require particularly careful preparation and assessment of possible ethical risks and communication failures already at the planning stage of the interview strategy. The success of communication in the field depends on the researcher’s ability to adapt his communication strategies and method of collecting information to the mental and cultural characteristics of the informant.
Paper Abstract:
Many countries have developed Codes of Research Ethics that require respect for the personal dignity of an informant, his privacy and rights, as well as protection from possible harm. All possible ethical risks and shortcomings should be assessed by the researcher in advance during the planning stage of the interview strategy. Field research involving sensitive topics or the most vulnerable groups of people requires particularly careful preparation.
The presentation examines the ethically complex situations we encountered during fieldwork in Finland, Norway, Georgia and Russia. It is based on our interviews on sensitive topics such as menstruation, abortion, sexual customs, sacred ritual sites of the Sami people, interviews with practicing healers about the “professional requirements” and with former prisoners about prison culture and their prison experience. Each nation has its own mentality, cultural characteristics and historical memory, which should be taken into account when building communication bridges. Trust-building techniques that work in some countries do not necessarily work in others. Our goal is to assess the possible ethical risks that may arise in working with an informant, compare factors that may affect the relationship between researcher and informant in different cultures, identify and adjust communication strategies and methods of collecting material depending on cultural characteristics, and also share our experience in solving ethical problems.
Paper Short Abstract:
Research in ethnically diverse communities, where relationships are often determined by internal conflicts, requires gaining trust. Poorly conducted communication in the field can prevent obtaining reliable research results, because members of local communities take care to select content resulting from the need to maintain good relations within the group. Field research can therefore be an arena of a "battlefield" where conflicting tendencies clash: remembering and forgetting, aimed at establishing a canonical interpretation of the past that allows for the existence of the community. The role of texts transmitted through language here is to organize the imagination, which is the basis of cultural memory. One research issue related to the conference theme ("Unwriting") is: how to gain trust, how to reach the content "forgotten by the community" (Connerton, 2008) and how to remain objective towards different interpretations of the past? The second issue concerns describing “forgotten” narratives about the past in a scholarly book, bearing in mind that certain matters – although they cease to be the subject of public discourse – remain in individual memory and it does not take much to reactivate collective memory and bring forgotten, often very painful content to light. I conduct research in ethnically diverse communities (especially in Polish and Czech Silesia and Serbian Banat), analyzing the connections between language, culture and ethnic/national identity. I draw attention to the role of memory in constructing contemporary identities.
Paper Abstract:
In my research I use a methodological approach called the linguistics of memory, according to which language is treated not only as a code for communication, but in a much broader context - as a "medium", as a system containing the cultural heritage of a given communicative community, and a carrier, transmitter, and set of all the values and norms of conduct of a given community. Studying this medium in the context of memory requires specific research competences, which are acquired through experiences resulting from everyday confrontation with otherness. Such a researcher develops a certain type of being in the world, the basic feature of which I consider to be sociolinguistic competence characterized by permanent self-control of utterances in relations with others, i.e. members of other groups. I call this "communicating using the periscope" - each interethnic relation is burdened with more or less conscious control over the topics discussed or the words used so as not to transgress the rules of social coexistence, to follow the practices accepted in the local community, not to transgress the established social boundaries. Rogers Brubaker illustrated this with the example of Romanians and Hungarians in Transylvania, who avoid uncomfortable topics of the Hungarian minority living in Cluj (Brubaker, 2008). This type of relation, of course, requires knowledge of the boundaries set in the studied community, as well as the willingness to act in accordance with the rules adopted here (I always missed this conversational rule when discussing Paul Grice's conversational implicatures).
Paper Short Abstract:
The paper analyses ethnomusicologist Vinko Žganec's work on collecting folksongs in Međimurje, an intangible asset inscribed on UNESCO's Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity. The focus will be on Žganec's relationship with informants and the way in which his work became the foundation of modern Međimurje identity.
Paper Abstract:
The folksongs from Međimurje are a protected intangible cultural heritage inscribed on UNESCO's Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity. They are an example of oral heritage that preserves the multiple layers of Međimurje heritage through sung verses to this day. Their motifs vary from elements of Slavic mythology to historical events from the 20th century, and in musical terms, from elements of the pentatonic scale to techno music remixes. The person who is most responsible for their transformation from oral to written medium is world-renowned ethnomusicologist Vinko Žganec. During his life, Žganec collected several thousand folksongs and transferred Međimurje folksongs from the real to the meta-context (i.e., scientific discourse), giving them his own stamp and (non-subjective) interpretation. Based on the folksongs as a previously little-appreciated layer of heritage, he created what we now call original folklore. The paper will discuss his influence on informants. The analysis will be based on Žganec's works and notes on informants, on newspaper articles, and on archival materials. We will focus on the personal relationships that Žganec developed with his informants—in which he acted as their equal—and on the way in which his work became generally accepted as the foundation of Međimurje identity. Our intention is to use these examples to reflect on the relationship between established institutions (churches, universities, institutes, museums) and knowledge/skill holders in the field, with the aim of better understanding the process of the creation of regional or national identities.
Paper Short Abstract:
This paper reimagines the ethnographic process by focusing on how researchers use verbal and emotional strategies to build bridges with local communities during fieldwork. Based on experiences with the Konyak Nagas, it highlights the vital role of interpreters, who mediate not only language but also cultural and emotional understanding. The study emphasizes the importance of humility and open dialogue in forming genuine relationships with research participants, advocating for a shift away from extractive and hierarchical models of ethnography. Rather than imposing external frameworks, the researcher engages with the community’s everyday life, participating in activities such as cooking and household chores, which create spaces for shared experiences and mutual learning. This approach fosters deeper connections and challenges the traditional role of the ethnographer as an external observer. By prioritizing respect and empathy, this paper advocates for a more inclusive and ethical way of conducting field research.
Paper Abstract:
This paper reimagines the ethnographic process by focusing on the interpersonal and linguistic strategies anthropologists employ during fieldwork to navigate cultural complexities. Drawing from fieldwork with the Konyak Nagas, it challenges conventional approaches to anthropology that often rely on rigid frameworks and hierarchical observer-subject dynamics. Central to this study is the role of interpreters, who do more than simply translate language; they mediate cultural interpretation, facilitating emotional and intellectual bridges between the researcher and the local community. The research underscores the significance of establishing meaningful relationships with participants by engaging in open, respectful, and nuanced communication. Rather than attempting to "fit in" or extract information, the researcher learns to appreciate the emotional cartographies of the community: its internal rhythms, values, and lived realities. Interpreters play a vital role in curating these spaces, enabling the ethnographer to participate in daily routines and shared experiences, such as food preparation and household chores, which in turn foster a deeper connection. This paper advocates for a decolonized ethnographic approach, emphasizing the importance of humility, adaptability, and a non-extractive dialogue. It calls for a rethinking of traditional fieldwork, where the researcher becomes an active participant in the cultural and emotional life of the community, rather than an outsider merely observing from a distance. By using language as a bridge for collaboration rather than dominance, this paper contributes to more ethical, empathetic, and inclusive ethnographic practices.
Paper Short Abstract:
Journalists and anthropologists are professionally cousins when it comes to the dialogic form of the interview, which is central to both intellectual endeavours. Online since 2021 and on site during 11 months of ethnographic research in South Africa, I conducted fifty-something interviews with (former) broadcast intellectuals, people who had witnessed or practiced the transformation of the South African Broadcasting Corporation from apartheid to democracy. I consider several of the interviews now in retrospective as 'failed' and want to discuss that as a problem of simulation and dissimulation. As a concrete example of 'studying up' or 'studying sideways' the interview recordings may serve as a sounding board for the developement of professional ethics in anthropology.
Paper Abstract:
In a recent book on Adolf Hitler's interviews with foreign correspondents, historian Lutz Hachmeister analyses the dynamics of publicized speech on the basis of contemporary original sources and memoirs of journalists and politicians (2024). In his final chapter he highlights several cases of 'failed interviews' with autocratic rulers in the present which do not stand the test of critical questioning and merely serve the ruler as occasions to demonstrate power. Whereas journalistic interview recordings often times are open to see for the public, ethnographers/anthropologists usually have wider gaps in time and space between the conversation and the publication. The purposes of conducting the interviews may also differ, with journalism neighbouring 'news'. However, in competitive academic environments, 'scoops' or being first with certain publicized ideas is not unknown either.
Online since 2021 and on site for 11 months in South Africa in 2023 I conducted several biographic interviews with (former) broadcast intellectuals who had witnessed or practiced the transformation in the 1980s and 1990s. It was an exercise in simulation/dissimulation for both parties involved.
Before, during and after the conference I want to discuss with the convenors and other panelists the challenges of 'writing ethnography' while 'unwriting' the histories of oppression. The often uncomfortable others I was with during research as much as myself had many strong emotions to process and I want to take off from the difference between the recorded and the un-recorded speech.