0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
My purpose in this paper is to make some observations about research
that takes seriously the views of reality and the knowledge possessed
by indigenous peoples, not simply as objects of analysis but also as
part of a mode of anthropological understanding and a way to address
larger questions.^1 In so doing, I problematize the interesting discus-
sions to date concerning the topic of ecstatic anthropology by adding
an explicitly political note to the orchestra. Previous work on this is-
sue has focused on epistemologies, meta-models of reality, problems
of interpretation, research methods, empirical tests of strange experi-
ences, the transformations of the researchers themselves, and the na-
ture of culture. Examples appear in the work of Young and Goulet
( 1998 ) and of Mills and Slobodin ( 1994 ). Yet others have considered
the history of anthropological theorizing as it relates to indigenous
epistemology. Faris ( 1994 , 11 – 16 ), for example, described the emer-
gence of research that takes the Navajo “how and why” seriously, fol-
lowing, sequentially, periods emphasizing comparative religious stud-
ies, Jungian archetypes and their application to indigenous thought,
the “sophisticated functionalism” of Kluckhohn (which moved be-
tween economic and psychological determinism), symbolic analysis,
and essentializing linguistic analysis that sought core principles. Val-
entine and Darnell ( 1999 ), however, argue quite differently that Amer-
icanist anthropology has been characterized by the internalization of
indigenous concepts.
My questions are different than those of these predecessors and
are, in brief: What are the responses of indigenous peoples and com-
8. The Politics of Ecstatic Research
bruce granville miller
