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.
No comments:
Post a Comment