NANCY L. NELSONWake Forest University

The Thief and the Anthropologist:A Story of Ethics, Power, andEthnography

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN privilege, power, and ethnography isthe subject of much critical contemporary anthropology. While this focus islong overdue, it remains extremely narrow. The product of anthropology—our texts—receives close scrutiny, but the process of ethnography—ourfieldwork—is rarely examined. Based upon an encounter with a would-bethief, this article makes the case that just as our writing techniques arepoliticized, our research techniques are also politicized. The face-to-faceencounter between the ethnographer and her respondent is politically con-stituted. Research cannot be separated from real life, and to believe that itcan raises many ethical issues.

EARLY IN MY FIELDWORK with street vendors in Bogota, Colombia arather remarkable incident occurred. I did not know many of the tradersyet and had spent the afternoon observing them from a distance whilemapping their locations. As I was hurriedly walking through this crowdeddistrict on my way home I felt a gentle tug on my purse. Without thinkingI looked down, saw a hand around my wallet, and grabbed it. At the otherend of the hand was a slight and raggedly dressed man who stopped andlooked me in the eyes as I screamed, "Que hace? [What are you doing?]"Much to my surprise, he stayed to answer what had been a rhetoricalquestion. "You are a gringa" he retorted.

His simple answer immediately invoked images of all of the extremesof wealth and power that my country represents relative to Colombia, andit conveyed his belief that he and I embodied a similar relationship. But incase I hadn't understood his message, he went on to explain the conditionsof his poverty in terms of the history of "imperialism," "dependency," and"exploitation" between the U.S. and Colombia—including the U.S. de-mand for cocaine that fueled and financed much of the current violence inhis country. The only thing I clearly remember saying to him was that Iunderstood and generally agreed with what he was telling me. However, I

119

120 CITY & SOCIETY

also quickly and very defensively added that I believed the wealthy andpowerful in Colombia, and the wealthy and powerful in the U.S., had farmore in common than I did with either one of them. We continued to talkas a crowd gathered around us and then, again to my surprise, this manended our encounter by apologizing for trying to steal my wallet.

I believe this incident was especially noteworthy because it produced apublic dialogue in a language and about subjects which are familiar in myvery circumscribed academic setting, but which I do not expect to encoun-ter on the street. Moreover, this man created the dialogue by engaging mein my own academic, abstract, and impersonal terms, but he made it veryclear that this issue was not academic, nor abstract, nor impersonal. It wasabout us and it was about privilege and power. Nothing significantchanged as a result of this encounter. Nevertheless, this public contesta-tion and negotiation of power created an undeniable bridge between hisworld and mine.

Product vs Process

Anthropologists have long been reluctant to examine privilege orpower and the ways in which it historically has shaped our enterprise(Asad 1973; Wolf 1969). Recently, however, many anthropologists havebegun to take a serious reflexive and critical look at how power is manifestin one aspect of our work—the ethnographic text. Our textual distancingof Self from Other is said to stand as a legacy of anthropology's colonialheritage and the historical inequities in which the discipline emerged. Ourscientific meta-narratives, buttressed by "objectivity" and "truth," areconsidered a legacy of modernism often silencing other, subaltern interpre-tations. Postmodernism and literary criticism force us to reexamine ourmethods of representation and our authority.

Unfortunately, this focus on the relationship between power, history,and anthropology remains extremely narrow. The product of ethnography—our texts—receives close scrutiny, while the process of ethnography—our fieldwork—is rarely examined. I find this artificial separation of eth-nographic process and product very curious.1 Those ethnographers whohave examined the relationship between power, history, and research arepredominantly feminist writers. In fact, the most influential contemporarywork on changing models of ethnographic research has come from authorssuch as Stanley (1990); Gluck and Patai (1991); Fonow and Cook (1991);Okely and Callaway (1992); and Reinharz (1992), among others. At a timewhen anthropology's gaze is increasingly urban, cosmopolitan, and West-ern, and when that gaze is also increasingly met by the eyes of "our" sub-jects looking back, this focus on the politics of writing seems rather autis-tic.2

THE THIEF 121

So what of politics, power, and the ethnographic process? Politicsnecessarily involve strategies of obtaining or maintaining power. In thissense, I believe that just as our writing techniques are politicized, our re-search techniques are also politicized, only more so. When thinking aboutmethodology, we tend to focus on the form of data collection rather thanthe actual research encounter (Briggs 1986:124). Yet the face-to-face ex-change between the ethnographer and her respondent is politically consti-tuted, if not because of social difference (i.e., class, gender, ethnicity, na-tionality, age, education, etc.), then simply because of the dominant rolethe researcher plays in guiding the exchange.

In his excellent appraisal of the research interview, Charles Briggs ar-ticulates this very clearly:

Interview techniques...are tied to relationships of power and control. Thesame patterns of inequality emerge from the relationship between control-ling and subordinate groups within societies, between "developed" and"underdeveloped" societies, and between interviewers and interviewees.[1986:123]

Briggs goes on to suggest that the reluctance of ethnographers to examinecertain assumptions underlying their research techniques "...is rooted, atleast in part, in the desire to hold on to a rather comfortable position in anumber of unequal relationships" (1968:124).

Anyone who has done fieldwork might take exception to this state-ment. The ethnographer is not always in a comfortable position. Indeed,by the very nature of research, the anthropologist is largely reliant uponthe good will of others to provide the data she or he desires. Stories of re-searchers who have been deceived, lied to, stolen from, raped, and some-times murdered, are not difficult to find. However, to assume that the eth-nographer's vulnerability in the research relationship equalizes otherpower differentials is to falsely isolate the research experience from thelarger historical and social context. More than twenty-five years afterLaura Nader's (1969) well known imperative to "study up," the vast ma-jority of anthropologists continue to study people less powerful than them-selves.

The ethnographic process does not occur in an insular, timeless labora-tory. Nor is data collection an individual and strictly instrumental enter-prise. Ethnography is a contextualized and mediated exchange. Olson andShopes (1991:189) have argued that the "interview methodology, morethan other forms of inquiry, blurs the line between 'research' and 'life'...."I would add that the illusionary separation of "research" from "life" ispossible only because of privilege—as my encounter with the would-be-thief made poignantly clear. Doing ethnography engages one in social in-teraction and negotiation in specific, actually existing, contexts of power.To continue to ignore this dynamic, I believe, is unethical.

122 CITY & SOCIETY

This is not to suggest that there is something intrinsically unethicalwhen differences in power exist. It is how power is used which presentsethical questions (D'Andrade 1995:405). And it is my contention that an-thropologists must begin to examine how power is used in the researchprocess. Nor am I suggesting that there is something inherently unethicalin ethnographic research. The now fashionable Foucauldian references toanthropology's "panopticon" eye often foster moral paralysis and disen-gagement while too easily condemning ethnography. Disengagement isonly possible for those who are in positions of relative power, and itdisempowers those who wish to engage the eye of the ethnographer. I amadvocating political consciousness in the research process, not politicalrighteousness. The distinction, I believe, is important. Political con-sciousness requires interlocution and dialogue; political righteousness doesnot.

The "Public" Domain

An awareness of the politics of ethnography is especially important forthose of us who conduct research in the urban "public domain." Publicdomain may be defined geographically, as in the case of my research withstreet vendors who work in "public" spaces. Or it may be defined moreabstractly, as in the case of Dena Plemmon's work (this volume) withpeople whose lives have been deemed "public." In either case, however,the limits and boundaries of what is considered "public" and "private" arein question. Consequently, although not surprisingly, it is typically in thisarena where contestation and negotiation over power and privilege occur.

For example, street vending in Colombia is considered "private" ap-propriation of "public" space. Yet it is tolerated by the government andthe populous (up to a point) because it is viewed as the only means ofsubsistence for the desperately poor.4 This is an image which is both dis-puted and manipulated by different factions. But, as with the other margi-nalized urban populations discussed in this volume, the limits of tolerancein areas deemed public fluctuate relative to specific political and economicinterests. Under such circumstances, it is particularly important to listencarefully to the dialogues and interactions which occur in or about these"public domains." It is here where power is likely to be exercised andchallenged. And it is here where one has more opportunity to hear voicesthat are rarely heard in other, less contested, arenas.

Recent concerns about the privileged position of anthropologists rela-tive to the people we generally work with have committed many indi-viduals to documenting these frequently silenced voices. Because of theinherent inequality in research, and the possible tension and discomfoitcreated by it, several ethnographers have attempted to "level" these differ-

THE THIEF 123

ences through collaborative work. Collaborative ethnography is difficultto produce, however, because of the constant negotiation which must goon to mediate differences in perspective and power. These differencesmay always remain differences, and a truly collaborative product may bean unobtainable ideal. But the actual process of ethnographic collabora-tion, the process of doing politically conscious ethnography, is part of alarger and necessary process of social repositioning, redefining, and re-working of historical power relationships.

A number of ethical problems arise when considering how one mightdo politically conscious urban research. James Clifford notes that "one in-creasingly common way to manifest the collaborative production of eth-nographic knowledge is to quote regularly and at length from informants"(1983:13). In light of what has been said about power and ethnography, Ibelieve this is a technique that should be examined more closely. Not onlycan the concept of "letting others speak" fundamentally reinforce existingpatterns of domination (Abu-Lughod 1991:143), but our methods ofdocumenting "other" voices often do the same.

My concern is that this quest for "voice" is being taken quite literally.Rather than fully engaging in dialogue between the informant and ethnog-rapher, the ethnographer often disengages from the research encounter it-self to collect "voices" much like an archaeologist collects artifacts. Theethnographer's focus becomes documentation for later dissection, analysis,and reproduction. The mediation of worlds by the experience of the ex-change becomes secondary to the recording of that experience for a distantaudience. The actual ethnographic present is lost in an effort to thor-oughly document a written ethnographic present constructed sometime inthe future by reconstructing the past.

in the urban public domain this focus upon documentation is particu-larly problematic. Video and auditory recording is often done carteblanche in "public" spaces because they are deemed public. For example,the following advice to ethnographers in reference to the need to obtain in-formed consent in order to record data is not unusual:

...consent by those studied seems dubious when that which the researcherseeks to study is either public or is the conduct of persons who are publiclyaccountable. [Wax 1980:276]

This statement assumes the authority of the researcher to determine whatis "public." However, the papers in this volume demonstrate a far morecomplex picture. What is public is clearly related to issues of power andauthority, and it is a source of contention. As ethnographers we simplycan no longer assume that it is our sole authority to decide what is publicwithout also assuming that such decisions may also be publicly contestedin any number of ways.

124 CITY & SOCIETY

One of the more important elements of doing ethical research in theurban public domain is to make our own lives public in exchange for ask-ing the people we work with to publicize their's. In part, making our livespublic requires that we be more fully engaged in a private, personal sense.One of the challenges of doing research in the urban public domain, how-ever, is the fact that many of the people living and working there tend tobe relatively transient, thus making the formation of personal ties anddeeper understandings more difficult. Yet, almost by definition the eth-nographer is also transient. As a result, it is at least as difficult for thepeople we work with to establish ties with us, to go beyond what we mayconstrue as our own public image, and perhaps to begin to trust us, as it isfor us to do the same with them.

This implies a need for commitment; a demonstration of the desire toreduce the distance between ourselves and the people with whom wework. This can be accomplished in a variety of ways. I have found thatwhen I express my sincere interest—an interest that has often gone beyondthe research project itself—people become more open and more receptive.Moreover, when I have shared other dimensions of my life—the personal,private dimensions that may be similar to other people's experiences—thedistance also begins to dissipate and trust grows.

Making our own lives public has other implications as well. Those ofus with dominant class, gender, ethnic, or national identities are actuallybetter understood by those who are not so privileged than vice versa. Ourknowledge of people with less power and social status is in inverse pro-portion to our own power and status (Lugones and Spelman 1983:580). Iwould argue, therefore, that engaging in a public dialogue and making ourlives public requires that we learn to listen more than we speak. If wewant to learn about people's images and understandings of themselves andtheir lives, we must also learn about their images and understandings of usand our lives, for the two are inextricably intertwined. Putting ourselvesin the public domain in this way may challenge our deepest understand-ings of self, of our ethics, and of our worldview. It may undermine ourtheoretical concepts and our comprehension of anthropology. And it willsurely be painful and often alienating.5 However, as the would-be thieftaught me, this is an essential part of dialogue. It is part of the process ofnegotiating power and of creating new relationships and identities.

The traditional model of fieldwork has changed and, consequently, theethics involved must also change. In the early part of this century whenevolutionary theories legitimized social and class barriers built uponWestern geo-politico domination, the ethnographer crossed those barriersand lived among the Kwakuitl, the Trobrianders, or the Samoans to showthe cultural complexity of "simple" societies and the indefensibility ofsuch claims (Cassells and Wax 1980:260). This was a time in which thepredominantly upper-class European and European-American backgroundof ethnographers conveyed a great deal of status and power among the

THE THIEF 125

people they studied. Their access to local knowledge and their ethics inobtaining it were rarely overtly challenged.

As we approach the end of the century, social and class disparitiesbetween the ethnographer, the informant, and their societies still exist butto a lesser degree (Richardson 1990:21). Western geo-political domina-tion has waned while the former subjects of that domination have gainedconsiderable power. Moreover, the ethnographer is now likely to comefrom a more modest background and to study people closer to home andcloser to herself.

As a result of these historical changes in status and power, anthro-pologists will increasingly encounter challenges to their craft and to theirethics. We will be given requisites, we will be refused access, and we willbe dismissed. But I believe that anthropologists are uniquely qualified toaddress these challenges. Our long-term immersion in fieldwork—anhistorically defining characteristic of ethnography—positions us very well.These challenges may also provide the basis for the dialogue we desire.As Paul Roth (1989:561) has noted in his aptly titled article "EthnographyWithout Tears," "Self and Other, even if they do not see eye to eye, relatein any case at eye level."

Notes1 Others have made similar observations but tend to remain focused upon

methods of textual production. For example, in an article titled "Text andFieldwork," Michael Agar (1990:85) states, "The problem I have is the lack ofdiscussion over the research process and how it would change in harmony withthe new product." However, throughout the article his focus remains predomi-nantly upon writing, although he clearly emphasizes the dialectic relationshipbetween data collection and product. Similarly, Roger Sanjek's (1990) editedvolume, Fieldnotes, deliberately shifts the focus away from ethnographies astexts to examine the process that precedes their production. Nevertheless, thesubject of fieldnotes is again a focus on writing, not the research process.

2 Michel-Rolph Trouillot (1991:37) has argued the same point, however, herefers to the emphasis on textuality as a "strategic retreat" and attributes it to theperception of social ruin.

3 For example, in her recent article titled "The Primacy of the Ethical,"Nancy Schepcr-Hughes observes,

Many younger anthropologists today, sensitized by the writings ofMichel Foucault on power/knowledge, have come to think of anthropo-logical fieldwork as a kind of invasive, disciplinary "panopticon" andthe anthropological interview as similar to the medieval inquisitionalconfession through which church examiners extracted '"truth" from theirnative and "heretical" peasant parishioners—Consequently, some post-modern anthropologists have given up the practice of descriptive eth-nography altogether. [ 1995:417]

126 CITY & SOCIETY

4 This is an image that has been manipulated by both the vendors and politi-cians. Colombian popular discourse associating street vending and the use of"public space" with the threat of "public order" problems (violence) clearly il-lustrates my point concerning the locus of debate over power and privilege (seeNelson 1992).

5 In an eloquently written article on feminist theory (Have We Got A TheoryFor You! Feminist Theory, Cultural Imperialism And The Demand For 'TheWomen's Voice'), Maria Lugones and Elizabeth Spelman (1983) address manyof the problems encountered in establishing dialogue among women of differentbackgrounds (ethnicity, class, education, sexual orientation, etc.). The issuesthey raise and the suggestions they put forth are relevant for research in the ur-ban public domain, and their article has greatly influenced this part of my dis-cussion.

References Cited

Abu-Lughod, Lila1991 Writing Against Culture. In Recapturing Anthropology: Working in

the Present. Richard Fox, ed. Pp. 137-162. Santa Fe, NM: Schoolof American Research.

Agar, Michael1990 Text and Fieldwork: Exploring the Excluded Middle. Journal of

Contemporary Ethnography 19(1): 73-88.Asad, Talal, ed.

1973 Anthropology and the Colonial Encounter. New York:Humanities Press.

Briggs, Charles1986 Learning How to Ask: A Sociolinguistic Appraisal of the Interview

in Social Science Research. New York: Cambridge University Press.Cassell, Joan and Murray Wax

1980 Editorial Introduction: Toward a Moral Science of Human Beings.Social Problems 27(3):260-264.

Clifford, James1983 On Ethnographic Authority. Representations 1 (2): 118-146.

D'Andrade, Roy1995 Moral Models in Anthropology. Current Anthropology 36(3):399-

408.Fonow, Mary Margaret and Judith Cook

1991 Beyond Methodology: Feminist Scholarship As Lived Research.Mary Margaret Fonow and Judith Cook, eds. Bloomington: IndianaUniversity Press.

Gluck, Sherna Berger and Daphne Patai, eds.1991 Women's Words: The Feminist Practice of Oral History.

New York: Routledge.

THE THIEF 127

Lugones, Maria and Elizabeth Spelman1983 Have We Got a Theory For You! Feminist Theory, Cultural

Imperialism and The Demand For "The Woman's Voice." Women'sStudies International Forum 6(6): 573-581.

Nader, Laura1969 Up the Anthropologist — Perspectives Gained From Studying Up.

In Reinventing Anthropology, Dell Hymes, ed. Pp. 284-311. New York:Random House.

Nelson, Nancy1992 Public Order and Private Entrepreneurs: The Pocket Economy of

Street Vending in Bogota, Colombia. Unpublished dissertation,University of New Mexico.

Okely, Judith and Hellen Callaway, eds.1992 Anthropology and Autobiography. London: Routledge.

Olson, Karen and Linda Shopes1991 Crossing Boundaries, Building Bridges: Doing Oral History among

Working-Class Women and Men. In Women's Words: The FeministPractice of Oral History. Sherna Berger Gluck and Daphne Patai, eds.Pp. 189-204. New York: Routledge.

Reinharz, Shulamit1992 Feminist Methods in Social Research. New York: Oxford

University Press.Richardson, Miles

1990 The Myth Teller. In Cry Lonesome and Other Accounts of theAnthropologist's Project. Pp. 7-32. Albany: State University of NewYork Press.

Roth, Paul1989 Ethnography without Tears. Current Anthropology 30(5): 555-561.

Sanjek, Roger, ed.1990 Fieldnotes: The Makings of Anthropology. Ithaca, NY: Cornell

University Press.Scheper-Hughes, Nancy

1995 The Primacy of the Ethical. Current Anthropology 36(3):409-420.Stanley, Liz

1990 Feminist Praxis: Research, Theory and Epistemology in FeministSociology. Liz Stanley, ed. London: Routledge.

Trouillot, Michel-Rolph1991 Anthropology and the Savage Slot: The Poetics and Politics of

Otherness. In Recapturing Anthropology: Working in the Present.Richard Fox, ed. Pp. 17-44. Santa Fe, NM: School of AmericanResearch Press.

Wax, Murray1980 Paradoxes of "Consent" to the Practice of Fieldwork. Social

Problems 27(3): 272-283.

Wolf, Eric1969 American Anthropologists and American Society. In Reinventing

Anthropology. Dell Hymes, ed. Pp. 251-263. New York: Random House.