Sam Freedman, In Defense of Story

Hi folks! As an anthropology student, I've been exposed to many anthropological texts, treatises, essays, and dissertations, most of which resemble that of Neil Leach's The Hieroglyphics of Space... ; these passages are filled with thick, dense methodological frameworks and pedantic rhetoric that use a lot of terms like 'spatial images', 'semiological discourse', and 'cognitive mapping'. The phrases  'multiplicity', 'untheorized', 're-presentation',  'cultural production' and 'epistemological method' are also very popular. This "anthropological voice" seems to be very fashionable in the modern era; perhaps it represents an effort to solidify Anthropology's place among (what some claim to be) the "reputable" areas of study- namely the hard sciences- in the artificial hierarchy of academia. Perhaps the over-saturation of theoretical arguments, conjectures, and postulates is meant to reconcile the age-old dilemma of maintaining objectivity while studying the "other". 

In any event, there seem to be- in my mind-  two distinct models of producing anthropological text. The first is represented by Leach's introduction, the second by Benjamin's Hashish in Marseilles. The former is an analytical, method-based approach that describes theories and lenses through which to understand certain phenomena. The latter takes on the form of a story, a flowing narrative that neglects to explicitly articulate the structural lens- the perceiving lens is rather implied through the raconteur's account, leaving the reader to analyze, compare, and dissect (if she so chooses). The 'story' is a lively, vivid account that evokes the reader's senses/emotions, enabling her to truly be there, while, the analytical method is mostly detached and disconnected from the actual physical/psychological essence of place, serving instead as a diagnostic instrument for interpretation. Some argue that without theory, without 'epistemological framework', anthropology would just be fiction, not worthy of genuine, verifiable academic merit. It's an effort to transform story into science. It's an effort to catalog and compartmentalize the richness of the felt experience, thereby reducing it to something finite, something controllable and thus subject to 'understanding'. The objectification of the world is a dehumanizing impossibility, and it assumes that there even exists a reality independent of that which is 'observing'. More likely is the conclusion that there is no such thing as observation, but only the subjective perceptions of various participating entities, both of which are co-creating respective realities. Fiction is all there really is, anyway. 


to be continued...