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
Experiences of Power among the Sekani
moral or ethical terms that, in effect, depoliticized the encounter with
the other. The reminder that “they” were every bit as sophisticated
as us, despite appearances, created a vicious circle: the more disgust-
ing bits of our encounters with the other (see, for example, Turnbull’s
famous description of the Ik, 1972 ) were automatically attributed
to cultural contamination or interference by other cultures. Cultural
relativism was therefore a tacit admonition to seek out “uncontami-
nated” societies (witness the debates in the 1970 s and 1980 s over the
Kalahari San, “Bushmen”), which, in the end, reinforced the idea that
each society had more or less impermeable boundaries.
Then came Foucault. Suddenly, everything was politicized, every-
thing was evidence of identity wars between a colonializing Us and a
resentful Them. There was more, of course. Foucauldian politiciza-
tion of the anthropological encounter gave a voice to the other, and
therefore fundamentally changed the relationship between anthropol-
ogists and their hosts. If, before, we had been (or tried to be) sensitive
to them, it was nonetheless still in the anthropologists’ power to de-
cide the how to be sensitive, which parts of their culture were to be
trotted out in evidence of “their” relative accomplishments. Perhaps
the most famous example, still perpetuated in a host of contemporary
textbooks, is the Nuer kinship system that allegedly functioned “like”
a political system, which meant, of course, like a Western political sys-
tem was supposed to function (see Geertz 1983 ). Afterward, anthro-
pologists were no longer so sure that it was in their power to decide.
Not only was fieldwork to be carried out under more or less contrac-
tually explicit terms, but knowledge was no longer ours to produce.
It was to be a collaborative effort, a dialogic relationship.
Naturally, this was not the end of fieldwork or of anthropology. It
was merely another step in the complex evolution of a discipline that
almost from its inception has struggled with its colonial demons. Field-
work, always the cornerstone of the discipline, has, however, been
strongly affected by these debates of the last three decades. One ef-
fect is seen here, in the theme of this collection. As fieldwork becomes
more collaborative, it becomes more pressing to identify the moments
of epiphany that are properly the anthropologist’s, and this I under-
stand to be the aim of this volume.
