Send message to Contributor

Contribution short abstract:

How do we write in a way that is theoretically sophisticated, critically engaged, and yet compassionate to our interlocutors and to ourselves? Both compassion and critique are essential to good ethnographic writing, but involve different epistemic commitments. How do we do both?

Contribution long abstract:

How do we write in a way that is theoretically sophisticated, critically engaged, and yet compassionate to our interlocutors and to ourselves? As anthropologists we are trained to become experts in de(con)struction. We learn to break ideas down, tear them apart, and find the holes and gaps so that we can position ourselves as contributing constructively to existing knowledge. We learn that interlocutors are data sources, and the "best" ethnographies dismantle institutions and practices from a place of profound suspicion. It can be challenging, then, to pivot from this place of critique to write in a way that is more compassionate. Why strive for compassion? Compassion involves a different kind of knowledge-making than critique. Critique is an outside-in approach that privileges the perspective of the researcher. Compassion, instead, builds knowledge from the inside out. It requires developing a deep understanding and appreciation of how and why people experience the world the way that they do, and how they understand their places within it. This does not mean uncritically endorsing everything our interlocutors say or do--we can be compassionate with someone whom we don't especially like or who is doing something that we find problematic. Rather, compassion is an epistemic stance that configures the anthropologist as learner (tell me how the world is for you) rather than expert (I can tell you how the world really is). Both compassion and critique are essential to good ethnographic writing. Learning how to effectively balance them requires careful practice.