Towards an anthropology of London - context and positionality

Building on my preliminary study of how to approach an anthropology of London (see last entry) I am going to continue thinking about how I would approach an anthropological study of the city in which I live, focussing on the idea of multiplex identities, and how context plays a fundamental role in investigation. Although I may be a native of London, and this arguably gives me an ‘insiders’ perspective into the various peculiarities of the city, I do not have authority to speak for the enormous range of people who live here, and at times I may feel like a stranger in the city myself. 

The late Stuart Hall was incredibly influential in the area of cultural identity, arguing against the idea of ‘fixed’ identity in favour of one that is more pluralistic, fluid and in a constant state of flux. If we can take this theory of cultural identity - which completely transforms how we perceive other peoples cultural heritage - and apply it to identity in general, then we must question the rigidity of the labelling of ‘native’ anthropologists. How far does a ‘native’ of London who has grown up in an affluent area with a privileged education remain a ‘native’ when they are in an underprivileged, working class neighbourhood? Similarly, in my daily life I may adopt a number of different identities depending on the situation, such as student, flat mate, son or childhood friend.

The implications of a multi layered, pluralistic understanding of identity challenge the notion of a ‘native’ anthropologist. Growing up in South London, I gained a thorough understanding of the neighbourhoods I inhabited, from the geography of the local areas and the associations of particular places to the slang used by people in my age group. Although this knowledge could potentially give me an insiders perspective into my local area, it’s usefulness would be severely undermined if I were in North London, thus demonstrating the unstable claim of being a ‘native’ anthropologist in London. Additionally, even if my middle-class upbringing and state school education mean I can claim to be a ‘native’ within certain circles, there are others where this would not be the case. Nevertheless, my identity as a Londoner is unquestionable, and therefore I’m arguably in an advantageous position in attempting an anthropology of London. 

One critique of ‘native’ anthropology is that any person who has been brought up in a particular culture or society, and then attempts an analysis of this environment, will potentially overlook elements which have become so engrained into their person, or everyday occurrences which they have grown to take for granted. We can refer to this shortcoming as being ‘blind to the familiar’. Malinowski, the great forefather of the fieldwork method, mentioned the necessity of noting apparently trivial occurrences whilst in the field for exactly this reason - to prevent the inevitability of one becoming blind to the familiar. Interesting, after an extended period of time travelling through Spain and Morocco I returned to the UK, and while on a night out shortly after my return I noticed how regularly  people whispered into each others ears; this was not necessarily done with secret intentions, but nevertheless it was something I was almost certain I hadn’t encountered over three months travelling outside of my home town, demonstrating how certain features of one’s own society can become blind to them through repetition. 

‘Native’ anthropology can be seen as a response to what is commonly called the ‘crisis’ of anthropology, which occurred following decolonisation and a questioning of the ethics and agenda behind the anthropological project. During this time there was a shifting awareness in national consciousness, as many nations won their battle for independence, and the link between anthropology and imperialism / colonialism was brought under sharper focus. ‘Native’ anthropology in the 1970’s involved a focus on ‘non-Western’ thought, in response to the objectivity and subordination shown towards the colonised people by the West which had lasted for centuries. However, as I have shown in my preliminary study towards an anthropology of London, ‘native’ anthropology no longer necessarily implies a focus on ‘non-Western’ thought, and is understood rather as anthropology conducted by an anthropologist in his own cultural and social environment, regardless of where that may be. 

Native Anthropology- Preliminary Sketches: On London Life

I am a born and bred Londoner. My experiences at home have long been dictated by the city in which I live. From an education and teenage years spent predominantly in the South East, I have only recently moved out to the West of London, far more centrally located than my childhood suburb. London is a cauldron of different nationalities, ethnicities, and extremes on both sides of the wealth scale, all spread across an equally diverse geographical area. I am interested in questions such as what makes this city tick, and what are the characteristics of a ‘Londoner’, but am also aware of the risk of generalisation in those statements. 

Undoubtedly my position as a Londoner will influence my interpretation. Perhaps more than anything else my identity has been shaped by the city in which I live and love. My background will inevitably influence my assessment, and although this has limitations, because it’s impossible for me to view phenomenon objectively as a stranger would, it’s also possible for me to use this position to my advantage, because if the aim is to unpick the mental make up of a Londoner then I must consider myself as a subject in the investigation. 

Taking individual cases from London everyday life - whether it be a bread seller in Borough market, a banker in the city, an artist in Hackney or a hairdresser in Bow - is one way to hope to illuminate the objects of interest. Les Back takes a similar approach in The Art of Listening when he proposes making “personal troubles public issues”, with the goal of fostering a climate of listeners, a society where individual stories can be dissected for their significance and the clamour of information does not invade our capacity for reflection. Although this approach could yield results, one limitation would be that in such a diverse city any attempt to reach a diverse range of individuals would inevitably exclude far more than it included. 

Perhaps it would be possible to attempt an assessment of the consciousness of the London population, using theoretical platforms such as Lukacs’ class consciousness as a starting point. There is a clear divide in London between the working class and the minority who have most of the capital, and viewed through a historical materialist perspective this inequality would be our starting point. Or we could take Simmel’s essay On Metropolitan Life and investigate how the constant stimuli in an urban setting can limit the range of free thought - something implicit in Les Back’s study on listening and which has renewed significance as we advance further into the digital age. 

Having grown up in the South East, this is the area I feel most confident in tackling. In typical London fashion, the different neighbourhoods that were my stomping ground have plenty of material for investigation. An investigation into the different diaspora communities - such as the West Indian in Brixton or the African in Peckham - could potentially give an insight into London’s diversity in general. These areas have also in recent history been associated with crime, leading to low house prices and an influx of a new young urban class, currently referred to as the ‘gentrification’ of these neighbourhoods. 

Community projects in South East London - such as the Free Film Festival network, a volunteer run movement in New Cross, Deptford, Peckham and Herne Hill, and the musical cooperative Steez - would be examples of specific case studies used to illuminate the sense of community involved in these enterprises. I would argue that these organisations, particularly the Free Film Festival movement, offer a unique avenue into a refreshingly inclusive group which unites behind the medium of film, but which is more about fostering community sprit in potentially disparate areas.¹ 

Here I have outlined a few potentially areas of study towards an anthropology of London. These are my areas of interest, and using Les Back’s guidelines in The Art of Listening I would attempt to use individual case studies to make the private public, but refraining as much as possible from generalisations. Observing everyday interactions of the every man / woman would also mean that the object of my study remains within the sphere of my London life, thus keeping the process as organic as possible. Using theoretical frameworks as a basis for investigation may also allow for general patterns to emerge, and this would contribute towards giving an answer to the holistic question of what is means to be a Londoner, and how London life is shaped by the city which mediates it. 

---

1 Upon re-reading, I would add that Steez is also a refreshingly inclusive group, which unites around the medium of music, and spoken word.