Exposing yourself: Reflexivity, anthropology, and film (1)
Semiotica 30-1/2 (1980), pages. 153-179. (Note - original pagination has been preserved for citations purposes.)
Self-consciousness about modes of representation (not to speak of experiments with them) has been very lacking in anthropology.
In our profession there is a lack of awareness even today that, in searching for truth, the student, like all human beings whatever they try to accomplish, is influenced by tradition, by his environment, and by his personality. Further, there is an irrational taboo against discussing this lack of awareness. It is astonishing that this taboo is commonly respected leaving the social scientist in naiveté about what he is doing.
This paper is an attempt to explore the relationship between reflexivity, anthropology, and film.(2) To be more precise, I am interested in the implications of regarding these three terms in a particular way. I make no claim that the conceptualizations proposed are the only, or even the best, ones. Rather, I wish to argue that if one examines anthropology in terms of reflexivity, then film assumes a particular role in the communication of anthropology. To be reflexive, in terms of a work of anthropology, is to insist that anthropologists systematically and rigorously reveal their methodology and themselves as the instrument of data generation. Since it is possible to argue that narrative is the logical way to report ethnography, film as an inherently narrative medium (at least in our culture) has great potential as a mode of anthropological communication. Finally, to be logically consistent with the position that I espouse in this paper, I should reveal myself as producer and the process I employed in the construction of this work; that is, I should be reflexive about my ideas of reflexivity.
My interest in these ideas stems from what began as an elitist fascination with 'backstage' (Goffman 1959). I was convinced that if I could understand how someone made something and who they were, that that knowledge would cause me to become an 'insider'. In time, the interest broadened and became more sophisticated. It caused me to
admire the novels of Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. and Tom Robbins, the music of Frank Zappa, the photography of Lee Friedlander and Duane Michaels, the films of Jean-Luc Godard and Woody Allen, the paintings of Rene Magritte, and the comedy of the Firesign Theatre and Monty Python. Whatever else these people may be doing, they are trying to raise the critical consciousness of their audiences by being publicly, explicitly, and openly self-aware or reflexive.
There are two other factors which figured in the development of my interest. For the past ten years I have been engaged in exploring the theoretical possibility of an anthropological cinema (Ruby 1971, 1975). During this process I discovered an apparent conflict between the scientific necessity for the anthropologist to reveal his methodology and the conventions of documentary film, which until recently have virtually prohibited such a revelation. In seeking a solution to this dilemma, I was drawn to the literature on reflexivity. In 1974, during the Conference on Visual Anthropology at Temple University in Philadelphia, I organized a series of film screenings and discussions on autobiographical, personal, and self-referential films. (3) In doing so, I began in a more formal and systematic way to explore the relationship between what I am now calling reflexive film and reflexive anthropology.
Finally, like many anthropologists, I have felt a progressively widening ethical, political, and conceptual gap between the anthropology that I learned in graduate school and the world as I have come to know it. Among the wedges, I would note the publication of Malinowski's diary (1969) and the public disclosure of the clandestine use of social scientists in Latin America and Southeast Asia. These revelations produced a crisis of conscience and loss of innocence for many of us which placed our personal dilemma about the role of the researcher in research into moral and political perspective (Hymes 1969). It should be difficult if not impossible now for us to continue to defend our naive assumptions about our responsibilities toward the people we study and toward the intended audiences for our work. We should stop being 'shamans of objectivity'. After Viet Nam, it is an obscene and dishonest position.
It should be obvious by now that I am partisan. I strongly believe that all serious filmmakers and anthropologists have ethical, aesthetic, and scientific obligations to be reflexive and self-critical about their work. I would, in fact, expand that mandate to include anyone who uses a symbolic system for any reason.
Lest the reader be led to believe that what follows is some hackneyed political and moralizing sermon on the sins of objectivity and value-free science, I wish to reassure them that, having exposed myself sufficiently to make everyone aware of the motivation for this paper, I will now attempt
a more reasoned argument for a reflexive anthropology as the basis for an anthropological cinema.
One final point should be made in these introductory remarks-the ideas espoused in this paper are clearly not idiosyncratic to me, nor for that matter to film or anthropology. Being reflexive or publicly self-aware is becoming almost commonplace in every communicative form (4) in our society, from so-called high art to television commercials. While this is not the time or the place to attempt a survey of the various manifestations of reflexivity within our society, a brief mention of some of the more obvious might be in order.
I believe they are to be found in the growing realization that the world is not what it appears to be, and that on a very serious and commonsense level what you don't know will, and often does, hurt you. People now want to know who made it and what the ingredients are before they will buy anything-aspirin, cars, television news, or education. We no longer trust the producers to be people of good will. Ralph Nader, the consumer protection movement, financial disclosures by political figures, and the truth in lending and truth in advertising laws are all part of this felt need. The naive empiricism which pervaded our society and dominated nineteenth-century social science is being eroded. We seem to be moving away from the positivist notion that meaning resides in the world and that human beings should strive to discover the inherent, immutable, and objectively true reality (Stent 1975). We are beginning to assume that human beings construct and impose meaning on the world. We create order. We don't discover it. Reflexivity is becoming an almost taken-for-granted concept.
Anyone who recognizes that self-reflection, as mediated linguistically, is integral to the characterization of human social conduct, must acknowledge that such holds also for his own activities as a social 'analyst', 'researcher', etc. (Giddens 1976:8)
Before it is possible to discuss potential relationships between reflexivity and anthropology and cinema, it is essential that my usage of the term be precisely stated, particularly since the term is used in a variety of contexts to mean different things. To begin, let us use terms borrowed from Fabian's article, 'Language, anthropology and history'(1971)-producer, process, and product. By producer I simply mean the sender of a message: the creator of the sign. By process, I mean the means, methods, channel, etc., whereby the message is shaped, encoded, and sent. The product is, of
course, the text-what the receiver gains. I am deliberately using general terms because it serves as a reminder that the issues raised are not confined to the cinema or social sciences, even though the paper may be.
To be reflexive is to conceive of the production of communicative statements thusly:
(Author's 1997 comment - What is missing in this diagram and in the entire article is a concern with the audience. While I cannot rewrite the entire article, I can point out the rather embarrassing oversight.)
and to suggest that knowledge of all three components is essential for a critical and sophisticated understanding.
It is further necessary to distinguish between reflexivity and several other terms which are sometimes used as synonyms-autobiography, self-reference, and self-consciousness.
In an autobiographical work, while the producer-the self-is the center of the work, he can be unselfconscious in the presentation of the autobiography. The author clearly has had to be self-conscious in the process of making the product (i.e., the autobiography), but it is possible for him to keep that knowledge private and simply follow the established conventions of that genre. To be reflexive is not only to be self-conscious, but to be aufficiently self-conscious to know what aspects of self it is necessary to reveal to an audience so that they are able to understand the process employed, as well as the resultant product, and to know that the revelation itself is purposive, intentional, and not merely narcissistic or accidentally revealing.
Self-reference, on the other hand, is not autobiographical or reflexive. It is the allegorical or metaphorical use of self. For example, let us think of Francois Truffaut's films, 400 Blows and Day for Night, or Janis Ian's song, Stars. The maker's life in these works becomes symbolic of some sort of collective-all filmmakers, all pop stars, and sometimes- everyman. It is popularly assumed that self-reference occurs in virtually all art forms-as the clich_ goes, an artist uses his personal experience as the basis of his art. The devotees of an art form or particular artist try to ferret out biographical tidbits so that they can discover the 'hidden meaning' behind the artist's work. Again, there is the cultural fact that we believe it is quite common for producers to be self-referential. What I wish to stress is that this self-reference is distinct from reflexivity-one does not necessarily lead to the other.
To be self-conscious has become a full-time preoccupation, particularly among the upper middle class. However, it is possible and indeed common for this kind of awareness to remain as private knowledge for the producer, or at least to be so detached from the product that all but the most devoted are discouraged from exploring the relationship between the
maker and his work; further, the producer often does nothing to encourage that exploration. In other words, one can be reflective without being reflexive. That is, one can become self-conscious without being conscious of that self-consciousness (Babcock 1977). Only if a producer decides to make his awareness of self a public matter and convey that knowledge to his audience is it then possible to regard the product as reflexive.
I have just suggested that it is possible to produce products which are autobiographical, self-referential, or self-conscious without having those products regarded as being reflexive. Let me try to clarify these distinctions. I am simply trying to say that if the work does not contain sufficient indications that the producer intends his product to be regarded as reflexive, the audience will be uncertain as to whether they are reading into the product more or other than what was meant (Worth and Gross 1974).
In sum, to be reflexive is to structure a product in such a way that the audience assumes that the producer, process, and product are a coherent whole. Not only is an audience made aware of these relationships, but they are made to realize the necessity of that knowledge. To be more formal, I would argue that being reflexive means that the producer deliberately, intentionally reveals to his audience the underlying epistemological assumptions which caused him to formulate a set of questions in a particular way, to seek answers to those questions in a particular way, and finally to present his findings in a particular way.
While being reflexive, or at least publicly self-aware, is certainly more frequent, until recently it was more common for most people, filmmakers and anthropologists included, to present a communicative product and to exclude any information about the other two components-producer and process. The revelation of these two was unusual and thought to be nonessential and even inappropriate. To reveal the producer was thought to be narcissistic, overly personal, subjective, and even unscientific. The revelation of process was deemed to be untidy, ugly, and confusing to an audience. To borrow Goffman's concept (1959), audiences are not supposed to see backstage. It destroys the illusion and causes them to break their suspension of disbelief.
Anthropology and reflexivity
The human scientist has had to learn how to relate self-knowledge of him- or herself as a multisensory being with a unique personal history as a member of a specific culture at a specific period to ongoing experience and how to include as far
as possible this disciplined self-awareness in observations on other lives and in other cultures. (Mead 1976:907)
I now wish to both point out and explore an apparent paradox within anthropology which was alluded to in the last section. It can be expressed as follows: Why do most anthropologists identify themselves as scientists and their work as scientific and yet often fail to adequately describe the methods they employ in their research and to account for the possible effects that the researcher might have upon his research? (5) In other words, why isn't anthropology a reflexive science? Why is Malinowski's 50-year old admonition so seldom followed?
The results of scientific research in any branch of learning ought to be presented in a manner absolutely candid and above board. No one would dream of making an experimental contribution to physical or chemical science, without giving a detailed account of all the arrangements of the experiments; an exact description of the apparatus used; of the manner in which the observations were conducted; of their number; of the length of time devoted to them; and of the degree of approximation with which each measurement was made ... in Ethnography, where a candid account of such data is perhaps even more necessary, it has unfortunately in the past not always been supplied with sufficient generosity and many writers do not ply the full searchlight of methodic sincerity, as they move among their facts, but produce them before us out of complete obscurity. (1922:2-3)
An examination of ethnographic literature for the past 75 years reveals a fairly consistent lack of systematic and rigorous methodological statements and discussions of the relationship between the research and the researcher. Only recently has this trend shifted, with the publication of works like Berreman's Behind Many Masks (1962) (6) and Chagnon's Studying the Yanomamo (1974). While these and other books mark an increase, Bellah is unfortunately still accurate when he states that Rarely have anthropologists regarded fieldwork as a serious object of study, it is tacitly accepted as their major activity' (Rabinow 1977:ix).
In an unpublished study of reflexive elements in written ethnography, Ben Miller (1977) has suggested that when methodological and 'personal' statements are made, they are most likely to be found outside of the work: in introductory remarks or prefaces or postscripts. The tradition appears to have begun with Malinowski (1922). In spite of his admonition quoted earlier, Malinowski's own methodological statements were rather perfunctory. (7) Other examples would include Bateson's Naven (1936), where the work is bracketed with reflexive statements in the preface and postscript. Personal reflections are also found in travelogue-like, popularized, or autobiographical accounts of field work which are clearly
separated from the 'serious' and scholarly ethnography. For example, Maybury-Lewis, in his introduction to The Savage and the Innocent, states that 'this book is an account of our experiences ... it is not an essay in anthropology [emphasis mine]. Indeed I have tried to put down many of those things which never get told in technical anthropological writings- our impressions of Central Brazil, our personal reactions to the various situations in which we found ourselves, and above all, our feelings about the day-to-day business which is mysteriously known as "doing fieldwork"' (Maybury-Lewis 1965:9). Other examples of this form of reflexivity would include Levi-Strauss's memoir, Tristes Tropique (1955), Alex Alland's account of his fieldwork in Africa (1975), and Powdermaker's professional autobiography, Stranger and Friend (1966). (8)
Perhaps the most extreme form of separation of the reflexive elements from the ethnography is to be found in the writing of a novel about field work under a pseudonym (Bowden 1954). In short, anthropologists who have wished to be reflexive and still report upon their field work in a scientifically acceptable manner have found it difficult to locate an acceptable form. Jules Henry decided to openly disregard these conventions: 'The Jungle People has a plot because the life of the Kaingang has one. Yet, since behavioral science views life as plotless, The Jungle People violates an underlying premise. Moreover, in the behavioral sciences, to state that life not only has a plot but must be described as if it did is like spitting in Church' (1964:xvii). Hymes has stated the conflict between the reporting of experience in ethnography and the scientifically acceptable communicative forms quite well:
There is an inescapable tension in ethnography between the forms, the rhetorical and literary forms, considered necessary for presentation (and persuasion of colleagues), and the narrative form natural to the experience of the work, and natural to the meaningful report of it in other than monographic contexts. I would even suggest that the scientific styles often imposed on ethnographic writing may produce, not objectivity, but distortion. (Hymes 1973:199-200)
In addition to an antinarrative tradition within the canons of scientific communication, there are two additional strictures which further conflict with any attempt to be reflexive. Scientists are supposed to use the passive voice and the third person-for example to say 'Bows and arrows are made by the Bushman' and not say 'I saw some Bushman make bows and arrows'. Both literary devices cause statements to appear to be authorless, authoritarian, objective, and hence in keeping with the prevailing positivist/empiricist philosophies of science.
The following statements constitute the paradox that I have been
(1) Most anthropologists consider themselves social scientists and their work as being scientific.
(2) To be scientific means that the scientist is obligated to systematically reveal his methods and any other factors which might affect the outcome of his research.
(3) Most ethnographies lack an adequate and integrated methodological statement.
(4) Those methodological statements that do exist are most frequently not attached to the ethnography.
Some social scientists do not see the situation as being paradoxical. They feel that being methodologically reflexive is actually counterproductive to their goals. For example, Honigmann in his 1976 article, which advocates the acceptance of the 'personal' approach in anthropological research, states that:
Critics demanding a high degree of self-awareness of investigators using the personal approach are unrealistic. It is chimerical to expect that a person will be able to report the details of how he learned manifold types of information through various sensory channels and processed it through a brain that can typically bind many more associations far more rapidly than the most advanced, well-stocked computer ... Some of the individual factors operating in description can be brought into awareness and controlled, but a high degree of self-conscious attention to the process of description can only be maintained by scaling down the number and range of events that are to be studied, thereby possibly impoverishing the results while gaining a comparatively explicit account of how information was collected. (1976:243-246)
While I would agree that an excessive concern with either the producer or the process will obviously cause the focus of the product to turn inward and that total attention to the producer creates autobiography rather than ethnography, I would argue that anthropologists have spent most of their history denying the need for reflexivity and ignoring the scientific necessity for revealing their methods. As a consequence, perhaps we need a brief period of 'overcompensation'. We need several extensive attempts to explore the implications of doing reflexive anthropology before we will have established some conventions for 'how much is enough'. Questions of narcissism, of turning oneself into an object of contemplation, of becoming a character in your own ethnography are very fundamental and complex questions. Until we have a tradition, albeit a minor one, of the ethnography of anthropology (Scholte 1972), I think that it is premature to warn us of the dangers and to caution us not to become excessive.
A more important argument can be made for the idea that what
anthropology has to offer is primarily a systematic way of understanding humanity-our own as well as everyone else's. Therefore, the processes that we evolve to accomplish that task may be our most significant contribution-teaching others to see human beings from an anthropological perspective. Anthropology has too long suffered from the popular assumption that it is 'the study of oddments by eccentrics'. As such we are, at best, sources of trivial information and cocktail party conversations like 'Did Castenada really fabricate Don Juan?'. The concept of culture as a means of understanding our humanness is a powerful idea. Too bad we haven't conveyed it to more people in a way that they can apply to their lives. To hide our personas and our procedures from the public clearly lessens our impact. Regardless of whether one is convinced by pro or con arguments of the need for a full reflexive statement in every ethnography, there can be little argument over the fact that anthropologists tend to be remiss in fulfilling their scientific obligations to report on their methods.
I believe that the reason for this apparently self-contradictory behavior -that is, saying that they are scientists and yet not behaving as if they were, is to be found in the implicit, taken-for-granted philosophical position of many American anthropologists which I would characterize as naive empiricism and/or positivism/pragmatism. By naive empiricist, I simply mean someone who 'tends to believe that the world "out there" is isomorphic in every respect with the image the detached observer will form of it' (Nash and Wintrob 1972:529). By positivism, I mean the idea 'that, since experience is the sole source of knowledge, the methods of empirical science are the only means by which the world can be understood' (Stent 1975: 1052). (9) These philosophies of science, which have dominated the development of social science, cause the social scientist to strive to be detached, neutral, unbiased, and objective toward the object of his study; to withhold value judgments; and to disavow political, economic, and even moral positions-in other words, to attempt to negate or lose all traces of his culture so that he can study someone else's culture. As Nash and Wintrob put it, the field-worker becomes 'a self-effacing creature without any reactions other than those of a recording machine' (1972:527).
The problem is that the procedures developed to ensure the neutrality of the observer, and the control necessary for this type of research were evolved in a science of subject/object relations, and not an anthropological science of subject/subject relations.(10) In other words, setting aside any political or ethical considerations, it is simply not the case that one can make another human being into an object of study in the same way that one can control animals or inanimate objects.
Moreover, this conceptualization of science may be possible if one assumes that researchers exclusively use quantitative methods in controlled experimental settings. While anthropologists do employ quantitative methods, although seldom in labs, our chief claim to methodological fame and the primary method for doing ethnography is the most involved, nonstandardized, personal, attached version of qualitative methods-participant observation. We recognized quite early that 'the first means to the proper knowledge of the savages is to become after a fashion like one of them...' (Degerando 1800:70). While anthropologists seldom talk about it publicly, all field-workers know that 'in the field the researcher becomes trapped in the role of power broker, economic agent, status symbol, healer, voyeur, advocate of special interests, manipulator, critic, secret agent, friend or foe' (Konrad 1977:920).
Anthropologists who subscribe to a naive empiricist/positivist view of science and practice participant observation in their field work find themselves in a double bind. Since participant observation causes the researcher to become the primary instrument of data generation, his own behavior, his basic assumptions, the interactional settings where research is conducted, etc., all now become data to be analyzed and reported upon. One is almost forced to the conclusion that '...an ethnography is the reflective product of an individual's extended experience in (usually) an exotic society mediated by other experiences, beliefs, theories, techniques (including objective procedures when they are used), personal ideology, and the historical moment in which the work was done' (Honigmann 1976:259).
The more the ethnographer attempts to fulfill his scientific obligation to articulate his methods, the more he must acknowledge that his own behavior and persona in the field are data. His methodological statements then begin to appear to be more and more personal, subjective, biased, involved, and culture bound-in other words, the more scientific anthropologists try to be by revealing their methods, the less scientific they appear to be.
Given that dilemma, it is not too difficult to see why most anthropologists have been less than candid about their methods. They are justifiably concerned that their audience will realize that, as Sue-Ellen Jacobs has said, 'perhaps the best thing we learn from anthropological writings is how people who call themselves anthropologists see the world of others, whoever the others may be' (Chiungu 1976:469). It is asking anthropologists to reverse their traditional assumption about the ultimate goals of anthropology and to suggest instead that what anthropology has to offer is a chance to see the native through the eyes of the anthropologist. Hence, most anthropologists would rather live with the dilemma than explore the implications of being reflexive.
When faced with this problem, some anthropologists simply retreat behind slogans like 'anthropology is a soft science' or 'anthropology is actually a humanities with scientific pretensions'. Novelist Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. has summed up that position nicely in a recollection of his own graduate student days at the University of Chicago:
I began with physical anthropology. I was taught how to measure the size of the brain of a human being who had been dead a long time, who was all dried out. I bored a hole in his skull, and I filled it with grains of polish rice. Then I emptied the rice into a graduated cylinder. I found this tedious.
I switched to archaeology, and I learned something I already knew; that man had been a maker and smasher of crockery since the dawn of time. And I went to my faculty adviser, and I confessed that science did not charm me, that I longed for poetry instead. I was depressed. I knew my wife and my father would want to kill me, if I went into poetry.
My adviser smiled. 'How would you like to study poetry which pretends to be scientific?' he asked me.
'Is such a thing possible?' I said.
He shook my hand. 'Welcome to the field of social or cultural anthropology,' he said. He told me that Ruth Benedict and Margaret Mead were already in it-and some sensitive gentlemen as well. (1974:176)
However, some anthropologists, particularly in the last 15 years, have begun to seek a solution to the problem (e.g., Honigmann 1976 and Nash and Wintrob 1972 represent two recent attempts to survey the literature). The reasons for this renewed interest (renewed in the sense that Mead and others actually started in the 1930s, but the interest died out) are complex and probably have their origins outside anthropology and in the culture at large. Nash and Wintrob list four factors for the emergence of what they call 'self-consciousness' in anthropology:
( 1 ) an increasing personal involvement of ethnographers with their subjects; (2) the 'democratization' of anthropology (i.e., a polite way of saying that in the 60s some lower-middle class students got Ph.D.'s and they didn't share some of the 'gentlemanly' assumptions of the older anthropologists); (3) multiple field studies of the same culture; and (4) assertions of independence by native peoples. (1972:529)
To that I would add: (1) the influence of other disciplines, particularly the effect of phenomenological and symbolic interactional sociology and ethnomethodology; (2) the development of Marxist criticism of anthropology in the USA-a criticism aimed at an examination of anthropology as an ideology; and (3) the rise of an urban anthropology concerned with doing ethnography in the USA-the complexity of the
subject matter has caused some researchers to question such fundamental ideas as culture.
The problem stated in its simplest form is to find a way to be scientific and reflexive and to do anthropology, or, in other words, to resolve the conflict between what anthropologists say and what they do. A solution can be found within the already existing works of some philosophers of science and anthropology. Since a full explication of these ideas would require a book-length treatment, they will only be superficially described here.
We begin with Kuhn's idea (1962) of the role of the paradigm in science, that is, with the recognition that scientific knowledge is the product of the particular paradigm of the moment and that science changes through the process of discovery of the inadequacy of the old paradigm and the subsequent creation of a new one. The argument presented here and elsewhere (e.g., Fabian 1971) has suggested that the old paradigm of positivism and empiricism is now insufficient as a means of dealing with some of the questions being asked in contemporary anthropology. We are in need of a new paradigm.
While the sources for this new paradigm are many and varied, I will mention only two of the most obvious-Geertz and Mead. From Geertz (1973) comes the notion of anthropology as an interpretative science, where ethnography is 'thick description' or an analytic description in which data and theory cannot be separated, but rather the theory is regarded as the origin of data generation. In other words, one regards data not as a property of entities but rather as an artifact of the questions one is researching. (11) From Margaret Mead, in her 1976 presidential address to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, we obtain a resolution of the old science versus humanities apparent conflict through the development of a human science capable of justifying within science both quantitative and qualitative knowledge: (12)
Both the methods of science and the conflict of views about their more general applicability were developed within Euro-American culture and it is never easy to break out of such deeply felt but culturally bound conceptions. Because of the clarity which has been achieved I believe we can move from conflict toward a new kind of integration.
As a first step in this direction I suggest that it is necessary to recognize that our knowledge of ourselves and of the universe within which we live comes not from a single source but, instead from two sources-from our capacity to explore human resources to events in which we and others participate through introspection and empathy, as well as from our capacity to make objective observations on physical and animate nature. (1976:905)
Looked at together, these ideas form themselves into a definition of science (13) in general and, more specifically, of anthropology as a science which can account for and accommodate what anthropologists actually do-that is, a humanistic and interpretative science of humankind that acknowledges the necessity of quantitative and qualitative methods; a science which can accept the inherently reflexive relationship between the producer, process, and product; a science founded upon the idea that facts do not organize themselves into concepts and theories just by being looked at; indeed, except within the framework of concepts and theories, there are not scientific facts but only chaos. There is an inescapable a priori element in all scientific work. Questions must be asked before answers can be given. The questions are all expressions of our interest in the world; they are at bottom valuations. Valuations are thus necessarily involved already at the stage when we observe facts and carry on theoretical analysis, and not only at the stage when we draw political inferences from facts and valuations. (Myrdal 1953:ix-xvi)
Logically this point of view causes one to regard anthropology as 'not only a general set of general statements about mankind, it is also the product of a particular culture with its history of ideas proper to itself; its formulations are culturally committed and in major part determined' (Krader 1968:885). Once it is recognized that anthropologists ask research questions about the cultural world based upon their overt theoretical positions and less conscious cultural assumptions, and that once the questions are asked in a particular way, there is a logical way to generate data and an equally logical way to present the 'analytic descriptions' called ethnographies, then the necessity of publicly disclosing the entire process outlined above becomes inescapable. (14) Being reflexive is virtually synonymous with being scientific.
Reflexivity and anthropological film
I will now explore the implications of reflexivity for anthropological cinema. It is particularly important for the discussion that follows to remember that in this paper, anthropology is viewed as an ideological system and film as a medium for communication, as opposed to the idea that film is simply an art (cf. Worth 1966).
I wish to discuss two separable activities which involve both film and anthropology-the use of the camera to generate researchable data and the production of films intended to communicate anthropological concepts. They are separable in the sense that one can generate data with a camera, study it, and write up the results without ever screening the
footage for anyone else. Likewise, one can shoot footage for a film without ever using it for research purposes. Since both activities reflect the anthropologist's point of view about the scientific potential of image-producing technologies, they can be discussed together.
Cinema and anthropology have a parallel history and development. They came from the same nineteenth-century Euro-American intellectual and cultural foundations. The cinema has four conceptual origins: (1) it is a device to tell stories (i.e., a narrative function), as seen in the early films of Thomas Edison and Edwin S. Porter (such as A Day In The Life of An American Fireman); (2) it is a device of fantasy, as seen in the works of the conjurer, George Méliés (for example, A Trip to the Moon); (3) it is a device to capture everyday events in the lives of people-some ordinary and some exotic-as seen in the works of the Lumiéré Brothers; and (4) it is a device to study movement through space and time, as seen in the works of Eadweard Muybridge and the first anthropological filmmaker, Felix-Louis Regnault. It is from categories 3 and 4 that we find the documentary, the travelogue, and ethnographic film emerging. There, film genres and written ethnography are culturally related. All were founded upon the western middle class need to explore, document, explain, understand, and hence symbolically control the world, or at least that part of the world the middle class regards as being exotic. Ethnography and the documentary film are what 'we' do to 'them'. The 'them' in this case are frequently the poor, the powerless, the disadvantaged, and the politically suppressed. An anthropology of the rich and the powerful or even the middle class is as sparse as documentary films which deal with this subject.
Not only are ethnography and documentary films similar in their origins and subject matter, but they have similar goals and methodologies. Robert Flaherty, the American founder of the documentary, and Bronislaw Malinowski, the father of modern anthropological field methods, started using participant observation in their field work at the same time and without any apparent knowledge of each others' work. (15) Moreover, they both expressed a concern that their work should somehow allow the lives of the people they studied to shine through. Malinowski's Argonauts of the Western Pacific (1922) and Flaherty's Nanook of the North (1923) began a half-century of parallel development.
It is, therefore, not surprising that reflexive elements begin to appear in documentary film about the same time as they do in written anthropology. Berreman's Behind Many Masks, a work already mentioned as the first systematic attempt to deal reflexively with fieldwork, appeared in 1962. Jean Rouch and Edgar Morin's film, Chronicle of a Summer, an early reflexive documentary, and perhaps the first reflexive social science film, was released in the same year. In fact, the parallel is even closer. Bateson
and Mead's work in the 1930s (Bateson 1936 and Bateson and Mead 1942) is actually the first methodologically self-aware anthropology. By and large, it failed to have the influence that it should have had. It is paralleled in documentary film by the work of Dziga Vertov. His films of the 1920s and 1930s also failed to affect other documentarians.
Examining the history of cinema in general, we discover that reflexivity is more common and has a longer history in fiction than in documentary film and that more documentarians than anthropological filmmakers have evinced an interest in reflexivity (Ruby 1977) (16) The earliest attempts within documentary cinema are found with Dziga Vertov, artist and founder of the Russian documentary, and Jean Rouch, French anthropologist/filmmaker.
I am excluding from consideration the thousands of adventurer/ travelogue films which have been produced from the beginning of the cinema to the present day. The makers of these films frequently employ first-person narrations to describe themselves as authors and the process they used to make the film. In many cases, these films are primarily about the making of the film, and thereby cause the films themselves to become the object of the audience's attention. However, like fiction films about movies and moviemakers (such as Truffaut's Day For Night), the apparent reflexiveness of these films is present to perpetuate the myths of the genre. That is, the audience's interest in these films is partially based upon the assumed difficulties of production and the heroic acts performed by the makers in the process of getting the footage. These films do not lead an audience to a sophisticated understanding of film as communication, but rather cause them to continue to marvel at the autobiographical exploits of the intrepid adventurer-filmmakers as 'cinema stars'.
In the 1920s Vertov developed a theory of film in opposition to that of Sergi Eisenstein and the other proponents of fiction film. Vertov argued that the role of film in a revolutionary society should be to raise the consciousness of the audience by creating a film style which caused them to see the world in Marxist ways. The 'King Eye' (the camera eye) would produce 'King Pravda' (sine Truth). For Vertov the artifices of fiction only produced entertainment-escape and fantasies. True revolutionary filmmakers should take pictures of actuality-the everyday events of ordinary people. This raw stuff of life could then be transformed into meaningful statements. While Vertov was not intentionally doing social science, his interests and procedures sound strikingly like that of ethnography.
In his film, A Man with a Movie Camera, Vertov attempted to explicate his theory (Vertov 1972). He was more concerned with revealing process than with revealing the producer. Vertov wished the audience to under-
stand how film works-in a mechanical, technical, methodological, as well as conceptual way, thereby demystifying the creative process. He also wanted audiences to know that filmmaking is work and the filmmaker a worker - a very important justification for film and filmmakers in Leninist Russia. We see the filmmaker in the film, but he is more a part of the process than anything else. One of Vertov's major goals was to aid the audience in their understanding of the process of construction in film so that they could develop a sophisticated and critical attitude. Vertov saw this raising of the visual consciousness of audiences as the way to bring Marxist truth to the masses. Like the French filmmaker, Jean-Luc Godard (who at one point in his career formed a Dziga Vertov film collective), Vertov wished to make revolutionary films which intentionally taught audiences how to see the world in a different way. To locate it in modern terminology (after Worth and Gross 1974), Vertov is suggesting that in order to be able to make the assumption of intention and then to make inferences, viewers must have structural competence-that is, have knowledge of the sociocultural conventions related to making inferences of meaning in filmic sign events. In other words, Vertov was being reflexive. (17)
Rouch (1974) is one of the few visual anthropologists who is overtly concerned with creating a cinematic form which is peculiarly suited for anthropological expression. His film, Chronicle of a Summer, done in collaboration with Morin, a sociologist, and several professional filmmakers, like A Man with a Movie Camera, represents an attempt to give shape to an idea. Rouch was concerned primarily with the personal and the philosophical problems of doing research and the possible effects of filming research. He is also interested in form. But questions about the formal aspects of structure come from his concern with the self more than from Vertov's concern with process.
Both of these films were ahead of their time. Vertov had to wait for Rouch to come along almost a quarter of a century later before someone would pursue the questions raised by A Man with a Movie Camera. Rouch has said that he sees his own films as being an attempt to combine the personal and participatory concerns of Robert Flaherty with an interest in process derived from Vertov (Rouch 1974). Morin, Rouch's collaborator, once described Chronicle of a Summer as being Cinema Vérité in emulation of Vertov's 'King Pravda'.
Rouch's influence in France has been extensive. In the USA, his films have not been shown often and his work is frequently confused with such American Direct Cinema people as Donn Pennybaker, Richard Leacock, and the Maysles Brothers (18) It is interesting to note that some American anthropologists who have seen Rouch's work seem to distrust it, because
he employs an overtly narrative form and disregards some of the conventions of documentary film and, undoubtedly, because urban anthropology was too exotic for most people in the early sixties-Chronicle of a Summer is about Paris, not some unclothed native exotics. (19)
Since Rouch's experiment, few ethnographic filmmakers have pursued the questions raised in Chronicle of a Summer. (20) Until very recently, the development of a reflexive cinema has been solely the work of fiction and documentary filmmakers (Ruby 1977), even though Rouch, an anthropologist, pioneered the movement and even though anthropological filmmakers had no means within this film to describe their methods.
An examination of the research footage and publicly released films made by or in association with anthropologists reveals a consistent lack of methodological statements within the films or footage. It would appear that the paradox noted earlier for written anthropology is also to be found in visual anthropology. In fact, the analogy is a very precise one. The reflexive/methodological statements which do exist are to be found outside the films in written articles (such as Balikci and Brown's description of the Netsilik Eskimo film project ) or in study guides which are supposed to be used in conjunction with the film (e.g., Heider's study guide for the film, Dead Birds ).
I wish to argue that anthropological filmmakers have experienced this paradox for the same reasons that their print-oriented brethren did and, moreover, that their taken-for-granted assumptions about imageproducing technologies (which are a consequence of their positivist/ empiricist views) help to reinforce the paradox. Or to put it another way, the prevailing notions about the role of image-producing technologies serve to extend the scientific dilemmas created by positivist/empiricist frameworks in anthropology.
Based on an examination of the films and written literature available, it would appear that, with the exception of Rouch, most anthropological filmmakers are naive empiricists and positivists. They, like journalists and documentary filmmakers, are concerned with discovering ways of objectively recording data or 'whet happens', free from the distortions of personal bias, subjectivity, or theory. They believe that the camera, properly handled, is the best means of accomplishing this task. They subscribe to the unsubstantiated folk belief that cameras, when 'unmanipulated', can't lie.
Finally, the oft-repeated argument that all recording and filming is selective, that none of it is objective, has to be dealt with summarily. If tape recorder, camera, or video is set up and left in the same place, large batches of material can be collected without the intervention of the filmmaker or ethnographer and without the
continuous self-consciousness of those who are being observed. The camera or tape recorder that stays in one spot, that is not tuned, wound, refocused, or visibly loaded, does become part of the background scene, and what it records did happen. (Mead 1975:10)
Mead and other anthropologists and filmmakers operate with the assumption that image-producing technologies, when handled in a certain manner, produce inherently more reliable, measurably superior, and more objective data than other techniques. In fact, Mead has stated that these technologies are the best means of establishing the human sciences as a science containing verifiable data (Mead 1976). A static camera mounted on a tripod that does not tilt, pan, zoom or in any way move is assumed to be the most 'scientific' technique and one that is less distorting and more 'truthful' in the recording of 'natural' behavior than other camera techniques. Moreover, the camera must be allowed to run as long as possible and used in as unobtrusive a manner as possible so that it records unaffected streams of culturally significant behavior. (21)
These assumptions about the use of the camera in scientific research may be valid from the positivist/empiricist viewpoint. If one assumes that there is an objectively meaningful world which can be empirically verified and that meaning inherently resides in phenomena, then the scientist's role is to discover it, not impose his interpretation on it, or if he does, to clearly separate his interpretation from the data. Given those assumptions, the camera can record reality through truthful and meaningful images of the world.
However, this method of camera-use produces the same dilemma as its print equivalent. It leaves no room for the producer or the process. To introduce either into the frame would detract from the purpose of using a camera in the first place-that is, to record reality unobtrusively. So, the anthropological filmmaker has not been able to explicate his methodology. To do so would 'disrupt' the 'natural' flow of cultural events that are supposed to be recorded. It would introduce the apparently 'subjective' presence of the researcher into the 'objective' recording of data.
The problem of being a scientist and a filmmaker at the same time is further complicated when we examine what happens to the footage once it is shot. Most people in our culture, anthropologists included, regard film as basically an art form-all film genres, whether fictional or documentary. Heider (1976:7) has expressed this sentiment: 'Cinema has developed primarily as a medium for imaginative statements in which questions of scientific-type accuracy are often irrelevant. Much of what is taught in film schools is how to translate or distort reality for aesthetic effect'. It is commonly believed that the 'art' of the filmmaker occurs when he
'manipulates' reality to serve his own particular expressive ends. This 'manipulation' or distortion, as Heider calls it, can happen in three places in the process of making a film: (1) in front of the camera through the intrusion of the maker-either with scripts and actors, as in a fiction film, or through the participation of the maker in the cultural scene being recorded; (2) in the use of camera style and techniques to express the filmmaker's view and not to simply record; and (3) in the use of editing to further distort and subjectively and aesthetically express the view of the maker.
Since few American anthropologists have ever seriously contemplated making fiction anthropological films, we need not concern ourselves here with the question of manipulation. (22) We have also already discussed the idea that 'static' camera style, or as Feld and Williams (1975) call it, 'locked-on-camera', is a solution to the problem of aesthetic manipulation while recording. And there is an editing style which logically fits with this approach to cinematography and is assumed to safeguard the scientific authenticity of the footage. If one does almost no editing except to splice rolls of film together in chronological order, then there is apparently little danger of introducing further distortion. To summarize this position; a positivist/ empiricist scientific cinematic style consists of a camera on a tripod which is touched as infrequently as is technically possible and which produces as long takes as possible. These long sequences are spliced together in chronological order. Although stated here in a somewhat 'purist' way, I believe that this viewpoint dominates among American anthropologists today.
While it may be possible that one could produce research footage in this manner, I have never seen a film made in this fashion, even by those researchers who advocate the approach. Moreover, if one is interested in producing an anthropological film (as opposed to research footage), cultural and scientific conflicts arise. Footage shot in the way stated above is virtually uneditable within the conventions of documentary film.
A quick glance at the films most commonly known as ethnographic clearly reveals that their makers have followed the conventions of the documentary in their shooting and editing. With regard to the position stated earlier, the 'art' of the film has dominated most anthropological films. As a result, many anthropologists regard film as an adjunct or marginal activity to mainstream anthropology. Heider expresses this viewpoint: 'What is ' ethnographic film?" The term itself seems to embody an inherent tension or conflict between two ways of seeing and understanding, two strategies for bringing order to (or imposing on) experience: the scientific and the aesthetic" (1976:ix).
While anthropology was the first human science to use camera for
research and films as a device for communicating science, anthropological film has never been regarded as a significant occupation for an academic anthropologist. (23) If film is thought to be solely an art form, then logically filmmakers must be artists and not scientists. The anthropological filmmaker has been forced to the margins of anthropology and the production of anthropological films assumed to be the job of the professional filmmaker and not the academic anthropologist. The reason usually given for this choice is that the filmmaker has a competence that the anthropologist lacks. To my knowledge, no anthropologist has ever hired a writer because the anthropologist couldn't write well.
I have presented a clearly biased description of what I consider to be the dominant view of film in anthropology. I have argued that its marginal role is a direct consequence of the most common philosophy of science among anthropologists and their folk attitudes toward image-producing technologies. Since these folk models are derived from a positivist/ empiricist view of the world, as long as that paradigm is prevalent in anthropology, film will remain a minor activity. I have also suggested that reflexive or methodological statements are lacking in anthropological film for the same reasons that they are absent from written anthropology: there is a conflict between what anthropologists do and the philosophy of science they espouse.
A position counter to this one is possible. An anthropological cinema could be developed. To do so would require that anthropology become the reflexive and interpretive science that I outlined earlier. If this paradigmatic shift is actually occurring within anthropology, as I have suggested that it is, then the emergence of a new paradigm will bring with it a corresponding shift in the role of image-producing technologies.
I am suggesting that there is a complex but causal set of relationships between our culture's ideological system, the paradigms used in science, and our attitudes, both general and scientific, about the various forms of visual communication. I am arguing that our general cultural values, as well as our scientific conceptualizations about these forms, will have to be altered before a significant visual anthropology or anthropological cinema can emerge. In addition to those concepts discussed earlier that dealt directly with science and anthropology, it will be necessary to examine the adequacy of our notions of art and science, particularly as they affect our understanding of pictorial communication. (24) I have argued elsewhere (Ruby 1976) that we popularly conceive of art as an interpretation of reality and science as a mirror for reality, and as a consequence there have developed only two major schools of pictorial communication theories- the formalist and the realist. Neither of these theories is useful for a visual anthropology.
It is necessary then to construct a new theory of pictorial communication which would suit the particular needs of anthropology. To do so requires a greater understanding of the process of communication in the pictorial mode than we have now. In other words, once we begin to reflect upon the development of a visual anthropology, we begin to see a set of general questions which ultimately involve the entirety of how human beings make meaning out of the world.
During the past 140 years we have invented devices which can freeze time and memory and allow us to see things in a way that the unaided eye will never see, devices which allow us to tell each other stories about our world. Increasingly, we are coming to know the world through the symbolically mediated versions of it we make for each other. Our society is currently constructing the technology necessary to project our image of the world everywhere to everyone. Where will anthropology fit into this scheme?
...disciplined introspection and empathy are essential to the study of the unique characteristics of humankind. (Mead 1976:905)
1. This paper was delivered in a preliminary form at the Department of Sociology, University of California, La Jolla; The Center for the Humanities, University of Southern California; The Department of Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles; and The Department of Anthropology, Wesleyan University. Each time I benefited from the comments of the audiences and more intensive and informal discussions with Friends and colleagues at each institution. I wish to acknowledge those institutions for that opportunity. I also received helpful criticisms and suggestions from Sol Worth, Hubert Smith, Howard Becker, Janis Essner, Ron Gottesman, and Denise O'Brien.
2. In this paper, film will be used to mean the physical strip alone. Cinema will represent the whole of the social processes around the making and viewing of films.
3. The session was entitled, 'Exposing Yourself. The panelists included Bob Scholte, Richard Chalfen, Gerry O'Grady, and Sol Worth. For a discussion of the films and of reflexivity and the documentary film, see Ruby 1977.
4. 1 am using the word communication in this paper to mean, 'A social process, within a context, in which signs are produced and transmitted, perceived, and treated as messages from which meaning can be inferred' (Worth and Gross 1974:30).
5. Without getting sidetracked into a lengthy discussion of the nature of science and its relationship to anthropology, I will assume that most anthropologists would agree with Mead that 'I am here concerned with the form of knowing that we call science-that is, with knowledge that can be arrived at and communicated in such a way that it can be shared with other human beings, is subject to their independent verification, and is open to further exploration by investigation in accordance with agreed-upon rules' ( 1976:905-906).
Further, I am assuming that most anthropologists would agree that the following should be contained in their presentations: (1) an explicit statement of the researcher's theoretical assumptions; (2) an exposition of the methods employed for generating data and the logic of the fit between the theory, data generation, and analysis; and (3) a description of the shape and nature of the data.
6. This monograph is, however, the only attempt known to me to present within an analytical framework the subtleties of what the author calls "the human experience" of field work' (Robert Smith in Berreman 1962:3).
7. How perfunctory his remarks were only became clear when Malinowski's diary was published in 1969.
8. Dell Hymes' comment on Robert Jay's article, 'Personal and extrapersonal vision in anthropology' (1969), is quite apt: 'still, these books are separate from the "official" professional account of the work ... what is considered known and how it came to be known are still compartmentalized. We are not yet able, or willing, to explain the conditions of our knowledge, as is, say an experimenter in a laboratory. It is as if field work were two unrelated things-reportable knowledge and personal adventure- and to join the two consciously, let alone publicly, would damage both' (in Jay 1 969: 380).
This problem appears to plague ethnography whether accomplished by an anthropologist or a sociologist, as this quote from William Whyte points out: 'There are now many good published studies of communities and organizations, but generally the published report gives little attention to the actual process whereby the research was carried out. There have also been some useful statements on methods of research, but, with few exceptions they place the discussion entirely on a logical-intellectual basis. They fail to note that the researcher, like his informant, is a social animal. He has a role to play, and he has his own personality needs that must be met in some degree if he is to function successfully' (1964:3).
9. Or, as Fabian has put it, 'By positivist-pragmatist philosophy I mean a view of the social-scientific activity which acknowledges there are two criteria: a. Whatever truth may be found is equated with the logical flawlessness of theories generating testable propositions; b. The meaning of such knowledge is its success in "accounting for", `'predicting", and generally giving evidence of the manipulability of data. What this orientation does not imply (at least not in any radical way) is a critique of the working of reason and of the factuality of facts. It is an approach in which methodology (the rules of correct and successful procedure) has taken the place of epistemology (reflection on the constitution of communicable knowledge)' (1971:20).
10. I happen to believe that a positivist philosophy of science is a false one, but that is another matter which cannot be properly explored in this paper. However, it should be stated that implicit in my position is that, at least for the social sciences, any philosophy of science which generates an objective/subjective dichotomy and which insists that scientists strive to be objective is producing a socially and scientifically dangerous false consciousness. 'At this point of the argument it should be stated most emphatically that the fault in most contemporary as well as earlier social science research is not in its lack of "objectivity" in the conventional sense of independence from all valuations. On the contrary, every study of a social problem, however limited in scope, is and must be determined by valuations. A "disinterested" social science has never existed and, for logical reasons, can never exist. However, the value premises that actually and of necessity determine social science research are generally hidden. The student can even remain unaware of them. They are then left implicit and vague, leaving the door open to biases' (Myrdal 1969:55). This point of view, when attached to a naive empiricism and
applied to pictorial representations, becomes perhaps the most powerful and dangerous political weapon of the twentieth century (Gross 1977).
11. 'Anthropologists have not always been as aware as they might be of this fact: that although culture exists in the trading post, the hill fort, or the sheep run, anthropology exists in the book, the article, the lecture, the museum display, or sometimes nowadays, the film. To become aware of it is to realize that the line between mode of representation and substantive content is as undrawable in cultural analysis as it is in painting; and that fact in turn seems to threaten the objective status of anthropological knowledge by suggesting that its source is not social reality but scholarly artifice.
It does threaten it, but the threat is hollow. The claim to attention of an ethnographic account does not rest on its author's ability to capture primitive facts in faraway places and carry them home like a mask or a carving, but on the degree to which he is able to clarify what goes on in such places, to reduce the puzzlement-what manner of men are these?-to which unfamiliar acts emerging out of unknown backgrounds naturally give rise. This raises some serious problems of verification, all right - or if "verification" is too strong a word for so soft a science (1, myself, would prefer "appraisal"), of how you can tell a better account from a worse one. But that is precisely the virtue of it. If ethnography is thick description and ethnographers those who are doing the describing, then the determining question for any given example of it, whether a field journal squib or a Malinowski-sized monograph, is whether it sorts winks from twitches and real winks from mimicked ones. It is not against a body of uninterpreted data, radically thinned descriptions, that we must measure the cogency of our explications, but against the power of the scientific imagination to bring us into touch with the lives of strangers. It is not worth it, as Thoreau said, to go round the world to count the cats in Zanzibar' (Geertz 1973:16).
12. 'It is in the sciences of living things that we find the greatest confusion but also the clearest demonstrations of the ways in which the two kinds of observation-the observation of human beings by human beings and of physical nature by human beings -meet. One group of students of living beings have attempted to adopt as far as possible the methods of the physical sciences through the use of controlled experiments, the deliberate limitation of the number of variables to be considered, and the construction of theories based on the findings arrived at by these means. The other group, taking their cues from our human capacity to understand through the observation of natural situations, have developed their methods from a natural history approach in which the principal reliance is on the integrative powers of the observer of a complex, nonreplicable event and on the experiments that are provided by history and by animals living in a particular ecological setting ... I would argue that it is not by rejecting one or the other but by appropriately combining the several methods evolved from these different types of search for knowledge that we are most likely in the long run to achieve a kind of scientific activity that is dominated neither by the arrogance of physical scientists nor by the arrogance of humanists who claim that the activities which concerned them cannot meaningfully be subjected to scientific inquiry' (Mead 1976:908).
13. Science is reflexive in the sense that the facts it explains refer back to the system in which they are explained. 'Science is not static. Its development is determined to a great extent by the body of science as it stands at any given moment. This determinism is not one of a natural progression to a greater and greater number of known facts built on those previously discovered. It is rather one in which the fundamental principles, the structures in a broad sense, determine the nature of search for the facts and finally, to some extent, the facts themselves. So science, which describes the world, also determined the world which it described' (Labrot 1977:7).
14. 'If there is one point I have consistently tried to make throughout this book it is that psychology, anthropology and the social sciences in general. have repeatedly falsified their observations by unrecognized epistemological and ideological closures imposed on the system under study' (Wilder 1972:389).
15. What is interesting is that Edward Curtis, a man who devoted most of his life to photographing native Americans, also appears to have 'discovered' participant observation at about the same time as Flaherty and Malinowski. In his diary, Curtis wrote 'Any account of another people, their daily lives, beliefs and troubles is bound to some extent to be subjective, especially when one has shared that way of life. The value of my work, in great measure, will lie in the breadth of its treatment ... While primarily a photographer, I do not see or think photographically; instead I have sought to bring art and science together in an effort to reach beneath the surface of what appears to be ... What are these people? How shall I manage the portraits and the handling of life? Conditions cannot be changed. I must fit myself to them. It became clear to me that I couldn't make my pictures unless I entered into their inner life, and understood it from their standpoint, not merely as an outside spectator ... Without the knowledge of their political and religious life, however, one cannot do the picture work well ... (excerpt from the film script, The Shadow Catcher Edward S. Curtis and the North American Indian, written by T. C. McLuhan and Dennis Wheeler, copyright T. C. McLuhan, used with permission of the author).
16. Apart from Chronicle of a Summer and some of the Bateson-Mead Balinese films, the only other reflexive anthropological film that I know about is Timothy Asch's The A Y Fight. While it is a very useful film for a variety of teaching purposes, its reflexivity is post hoc. That is, Asch decided to be reflexive upon looking at the footage he shot. The film was not planned in advance as an exercise in filmic reflexivity. Because the decision was not made until the editing stage, many omissions are present-for example, behind camera conversations between the soundperson, cameraperson, and anthropologist, which are crucial to the reflexivity, are difficult to understand because they were not intentionally recorded.
17. Anthropological filmmakers ought to become more familiar with Marxist film theorists like Eisenstein, Pudovkin, Vertov, and Godard, because of the parallel between the development of a Marxist cinema and the development of an anthropological cinema. Marxist thinkers have been the leaders in the study and uses of ideology in communicative form. For example, Eisenstein tried to transform the Hegelian dialectic into a film form called the montage.
If one regards anthropology as an ideology that causes one to perceive the human condition in a particular way, then Godard's statement that he wishes to make revolutionary films, not films about revolution, can be easily transformed into a dictum for anthropological filmmakers. I have argued elsewhere (Ruby 1975) that too often anthropological filmmakers make films about anthropology, and not anthropological films.
18. The distinction between American Direct Cinema films like the Maysles' Grey Gardens and Cinema Verite films like Chronicle of a Summer is the difference between observational and participatory style or to use the outmoded terms, objective versus subjective style.
19. The confusion over what might be called the 'ethnographic-ness' of Chronicle of a Summer has continued to the present and can be found even among people who know ethnographic film well. For example, Heider, in comparing Chronicle to Rouch's other films, doubts its anthropological appropriateness: 'Rouch himself made some dozen other more obviously ethnographic films' (1976:40); and yet Heider praises the film in
another place in his book: 'Chronicle o/ a Summer is a richly provocative film in the extent to which it reveals the methodological mystery of ethnography. but as yet no other ethnographic films have risen to its challenge' (1976:60).
20. An outstanding exception are the Gregory Bateson and Margaret Mead photographic and film studies of Bali in the 1930s. Structured in the form of a scientific research report with a bibliography at the end, these films represent the beginning of reflexive visual anthropology. Unfortunately, few American anthropologists saw the implications of this work and consequently few pursued it.
21. It would appear that the majority of the authors in Paul Hockings' Principles of Visual Anthropology (1975) agree with Mead's position. I will give only a few examples from that work. Collier stated that 'Camera observations offer accuracy of identification and objective detail upon which to base judgments' (1975:221). Joseph Schaeffer (1975:279) felt that 'Although extensive audiovisual records are subject to scientific fashion their appropriate production can alleviate its effect. If such records include sufficient data, they can be analyzed by researchers with varied interests either at the same time or at different points in time'. Peterson believes that 'The less interference on the part of the filming team the more natural is the process on film' (1975:197). And, Mark McCarty (1975:50), in describing an unobtrusive camera style which he was advocating, said, 'But after a time, the rewards are gratifying-you begin to get material that is simple, natural, and unaffected by the camera's presence'.
22. Jean Rouch has explored the idea of 'ethnographic fiction' in several films such as Jaguar and Petit a Petit.
23. For example, of the three most widely known anthropological filmmakers-Robert Gardner, John Marshall, and Timothy Asch, only Asch has an academic appointment in an anthropology department and none of them have Ph.D.'s in anthropology.
24. For a delightful discussion of film as art and science, see 'For God's sake, Margaret: Conversations with Margaret Mead and Gregory Bateson' (Brand 1976).
Alland, Alexander (1975). When the Spider Danced: Notes From an African Village. New York: Doubleday.
Babcock, Barbara (1977). Reflexivity: Definitions and discriminations. A paper given at the American Anthropological Association Meetings, Washington, D.C.
Balikci, Asen and Brown, Quentin (1966). Ethnographic filming and the Netsilik Eskimos. ESI Reports, 19-33.
Bateson, Gregory (1936). Naven. Palo Alto, Cal: Stanford University Press.
Bateson, Gregory and Mead, Margaret (1942). Balinese Character. Special Publications of the New York Academy of Sciences, Vol. 11.
Berreman, Gerald D. (1962). Behind Many Masks. Society for Applied Anthropology, Monograph No. 4.
Bowen, Elenore (1954). Return to Laughter. New York: Doubleday.
Brand, Steward (1976). For God's sake, Margaret: Conversations with Margaret Mead and Gregory Bateson. Co-Evolutionary Quarterly 10, 21.
Chagnon, Napoleon (1974). Studying the Yanomamo. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Chinngu, Simeon W. (1976). Issues in the ethics of research methods: An interpretation of the Anglo-American perspective. Current Anthropology 17(3).
Degerando, Joseph-Marie (1969 ). The Observation of Savage People, trans. by F. C. T. Moore. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Fabian, Johannes (1971). Language, history, and anthropology. Journal of the Philosophy of the Social Sciences 1, 19-47.
Feld, Steve and Williams, Carroll (1975). Toward a researchable film language. Studies in the Anthropology of Visual Communication 2(1), 25-32.
Geertz, Clifford (1973). Interpretation of Culture. New York: Basic Books.
Giddens, Anthony (1976). Ned Rules of Sociological Method. New York: Basic Books.
Goffman, Erving (1959). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Doubleday.
Gross, Larry (1977). Television as a Trojan Horse. School Media Quarterly, Spring, 175-180.
Heider, Karl (1972). The Dani of West Iran. An Ethnographic Companion to the film Dead Birds. New York: MSS Modular Publication.
(1976). Ethnographic Film. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Henry, Jules (1964). The Jung/e People. New York: Vintage, Random House.
Hockings, Paul (ed.) (1975). Principles of Visual Anthropology. The Hague: Mouton.
Honigmann, John J. (1976). The personal approach in cultural anthropological research. Current Anthropology 17(2), 243-261.
Hymes, Dell (1969). Reinventing Anthropology. New York: Random House.
1973). An ethnographic perspective. New Literary History 5(1), 187-201.
Jay, Robert (1969). Personal and extrapersonal vision in anthropology. In Reinvention Anthropology, Dell Hymes (ed.), 367-381. New York: Random House.
Konrad, Herman (1977). Review of Ethics and Anthropology by Rynkiewich and Spradley. American Anthropologist 79(4), 920.
Krader, Lawrence (1968). Person and collectivity: A problem in the dialectic of anthropology. Transactions of the New York Academy of Sciences, Series 11, 30(6), 856-862.
Kuhn, Thomas S. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Levi-Strauss, Claude (1955). Tristes Tropiques Paris: Plon.
Labrot, Sharon (1977). Two types of self-reflexiveness. Unpublished paper. Center for the Humanities, University of Southern California.
Malinowski, Bronislaw (1922). The Argonauts of the Western Pacific. New York: E. P. Dutton.
(1969). A Diary in the Strict Sense of the Term, trans. by N Guterman. New York Harcourt, Brace and World.
Maybury-Lewis, David (1965). The Savage and the Innocent. Boston: Beacon Press.
Mead, Margaret (1975). Visual anthropology in a discipline of words. In Principles of Visual Anthropology, Paul Hockings (ed.). The Hague: Mouton.
(1976). Towards a human science. Science 191, 903-909.
Miller, Ben (1977). Reflexivity in ethnography: An annotated bibliography. Unpublished paper. Temple University, Philadelphia, Pa.
Myrdal, Gunnar (1953). The Political Element in the Development of Economic Theory, trans. by Paul Streeten. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, Ltd.
(1969). Objectivity in Social Research. New York: Pantheon.
Nash, Dennison and Wintrob, Ronald (1972). The emergence of self-consciousness in ethnography. Current Anthropology 13(5), 527-542.
Powdermaker, Hortense (1966). Stranger and Friend. New York: Norton.
Rabinow, Paul (1977). Reflections on Fieldwork in Morocco. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Rouch, Jean (1974). The camera and man. Studies in the Anthropology of Visual Communication 1(1), 37-44.
Ruby, Jay (1971). Towards an anthropological cinema. Film Comment 7(1), 35-40.
(1975).Is an ethnographic film a filmic ethnography? Studies in the Anthropology of Visual Communication 2(2).
(1976). In a pie's eye: Interpretive strategies for deriving significance and meaning from photographs. After Image 3(9), 5-7.
(1977). The image mirrored: Reflexivity and the documentary film. Journal/of the University Film Association.
Scholte, Bob (1972). On defining anthropological traditions: An exercise in the ethnology of ethnology. In The Nature and Function of Anthropological Traditions, Stanley Diamond (ed.). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Stent, Gunther (1975). Limits to the scientific understanding of man. Science 187:1052-1057.
Vertov, Dziga (1972). The Vertov papers, trans. by Marco Carynnyk. Film Comment 8,46-51.
Vonnegut, Kurt, Jr. (1974). Wampeters Foma and GranJalloons. New York: Delta Books.
Wilden, Anthony (1972). System and Exchange: Essays in Communication and Exchange. London: Tavistock.
Whyte, William (1964). The Slum: On the Evolution of Street Corner Society. New York: Wiley.
Worth, Sol (1966). Film as non-art: An approach to the study of film. The American Scholar 35(2), 322-334.
Worth, Sol and Gross, Larry (1974). Symbolic strategies. Journal of Communication 24(4), 22-29.
Jay Ruby (b. 1935) is associate professor of anthropology at Temple University.
His principal research interests are communication, visual communication,
visual anthropology, film, photography, television, art, and ethnography.
His publications include 'Visual anthropology' (1969), 'Towards an anthropological
cinema' (1971), 'Is an ethnographic film a filmic ethnography?' (1975),
'In a pie's eye: Interpretive strategies for deriving significance and meaning
from photographs' (1976), and Anthropology and film: The social science
implications of regarding film as communication' (1976).