Exploring Recent History of the Insider Outsider Dichotomy within Anthropology
The dichotomy between inside and outside observation by ethnographers within the field of anthropology continues to be destabilized and redefined as the field moves to recognize and reconcile its colonial past. Early important writings on this topic questioned the positionality and challenges faced by “native” anthropologists studying their own communities. Further researchers in recent years have attempted to move beyond racial or ethnic categories in order to assess the power structures inherent within their own participation and observations, regardless of intent. As participants in the field diversify and globalization continues to remake individual identities, discussions of who is an insider, who defines an insider and exactly how it matters for research communities will become increasingly important. Even as these questions remain in contemporary conversation, interesting developments in political ecology further introduce more complications within works that define communities as human and more-than-human.
Here I discuss a personal understanding of the insider outsider dichotomy through explorations of recent writings on the subject beginning with Narayan How Native is a “Native” Anthropologist?, followed by Ethnographic Responsibility and the Anthropological Endeavour by Maria Garcia. I offer a focus on TallBear as a possible culmination of the evolving terminus of these lines of inquiry. Finally, I end with a personal speculation on how the perceived nature culture divide presents contemporary researchers in the with yet another introduction to “the other”, and therefore an inability to be insider, by incorporating non-human participants into social discourse.
The Friction of Etic and Emic
Traditionally the friction between the emic and etic approaches to ethnography has been one of the defining factors that sets the field of anthropology apart from other social sciences. Ethnographers use both emic and etic approaches to produce compelling work. The etic perspective is that of an outsider, while the emic offers a perspective from within. For Anthropologists, emic experiences are later coded through etic discourse. The very quality that is considered valuable for social science researchers is the “detachment” through which one may view patterns of interaction that power within a certain group while still being able to articulate and describe them, (Powdermaker, 1966). This detachment paradoxically coupled with close participant observation is suggested to give the researcher a certain clarity and perspective. Therefore, fieldwork must find a balance between detachment and closeness — between the inside and outside — in order to be productive. However, we must also recognize that researchers themselves are people and are subject to inclinations and expectations that make qualitative research imperfect in interesting ways.
Ethnography is not done out of a place of non-interest afterall and researchers have a plethora of motivations for participating and distancing themselves from their field of study including funding, mental health, physical safety and consideration for the community served. Haraway’s recognition of the realities of objectivity and the perspective of human researchers connects to important discussions about the insider/outsider roles of anthropologists in that observations and observers do not exist within a non-affective bubble, outside a closed system. “Coming to term with the agency of the “objects” studied is the only way to avoid gross error and false knowledge…” (Powdermaker, 1966 pg.592). She then asserts that this point made within the world of social sciences should be applied to the physical, more empirical sciences as well. The philosophical questions regarding the insider and outsider dichotomy began to take the form of lived experience for anthropologists in the modern era who increasingly found themselves in uneasy scenarios due to their own individual positionality.
Qualifying Insider Status
Kirin Narayan grappled with the insider outsider dilemma through her experience as a western-trained researcher of partial Indian descent within India. Narayan describes how the categories she was defined by, both her self-positioned labels and those placed upon her, were of hindrance in both the “inside” world of her fieldwork and “outside” world of her academic knowledge production. Assumptions existed on both ends, the roots of which Narayan cites as distinctly colonial in creation.
Narayan describes how her academic training reframed certain childhood experiences in a new way that made her reflective on the power structures within her own culture. Different ways of knowing allow us to approach the familiar with a newly curious and critical look. Once again, etic methods allow us to make meaning out of emic experiences. I thought it was interesting how Narayan followed this paragraph with what she describes as a difference in methodology between the “native” and non-native anthropologist, “In some ways, the study of one’s own society involves an inverse process from the study of an alien one…those of us who study societies in which we have preexisting experience absorb analytic categories that rename and reframe what is already known.” (Narayan, 1993 pg.678) If the goal of anthropological observation is to reveal larger structures at play within particular human life worlds, then it seems that either approach has the ability to produce similarly engaged results.
Another aspect of Narayan’s work I find interesting was her exploration of “shifting identities” of the researcher. Anthropologists are individuals as well after all and our place of origin may or may not be the defining category with which we describe ourselves, or with which others may place us. This prompts a self-reflexive analysis of identity and representation (Garcia, 2000). To me Narayan uses her experience to highlight the constant tension between emic and etic experience that is essential to anthropological observations and in doing so begins to suggest the importance of questioning our own roles and perspectives.
Political Positionalities Within Ethnography
Maria Garcia’s article on ethnographic responsibility expands on Narayan’s personal experiences and reflections to include further questions of the role politics plays in ethnography. Garcia worked as a social scientist in the Peruvian Andes with both indigenous and non-indigenous groups and positioned herself as a Peruvian-American woman. In the field, Garcia’s positionality was framed in the ways in which she could contribute unique knowledge as a Peruvian researcher in Peru. While her genealogical connection to her subjects was often highlighted by her colleagues, Garcia felt more interested in her political affiliations and role as an US scientist in South America. Given the larger geopolitical context of US intervention in South and Central America, she often encountered instances where the very fact of her presence was charged with political meaning for those around her. She writes, “I find it more relevant to address questions of ethnographic choice and responsibility regardless of ethnographic background.” (Garcia, 2000 pg.90 emphasis added).
Importantly what Garcia’s piece also brings to the larger discussion is the potential of outside participation to be a force for positive change by participating inside the system. Her focus of political meanings of ethnographic research leads to an argument for impactful participation by anthropologists, a recognition of a researcher’s ability to create change and a commitment to doing so positively. What I see in Garcia’s writing is an applied approach that moves past theory and questions and supports an anthropological style of activism. Acknowledgement and self-critique is crucial for social scientists to produce more complete and empathetic research about, with and for their community. She writes, “I argue that by becoming increasingly aware of our involvement and by consciously gauging our impact on communities and among informants we can better understand issues concerning ethic or gender relations, linguistic politics, class structure and other theoretical concerns of the disciple.” (Garcia, 2000 pg.92).
Moving Beyond Inside Outside Dichotomy
Garcia was able to grapple with the insider outsider dichotomy through her focus of reciprocity and mutual understanding. Continuing in this vein, Kim TallBear’s development of a research strategy of “standing with” the subjects of her research is an excellent and hopeful example of a move forward for applied anthropology in that it focuses on long term relationships. Contemporary anthropology has attempted to distance itself from its colonial past by studying the structures of power and through focusing on reciprocal research relationships that “give back” to the community in question. However Tallbear pushes against this idea of giving back as a sort of one-time transaction, for example the exchange of data for observation access. I agree that, while well-intentioned, this somehow still retains whifs of uneven power dynamics in that a transaction is made between the creator of knowledge down to those about whom the knowledge is being created, in her words, “…the goal of “giving back” to research subjects seems to target a key symptom of a major disease in knowledge production, but not the crippling disease itself. That is the binary between researcher and researched — between knowing inquirer and who or what are considered to be the resources or grounds for knowledge production.” (Tallbear, 2014)
Tallbear’s description of her roles as a feminist researcher are more prismatic and participatory. By working within the field of which she is critical she finds more fruitful and direct opportunities to inspire change and, importantly to network and learn herself in ways that encourage further timely pursuits. Importantly, Tallbear’s focus on “living within” the community as a member and collaborator builds longer-term relationships so much so that often her mentees become future colleagues. In these relationships she is also encouraged to care for and become invested in the community. Her belief is that this produces more impassioned and thoughtful work under the hope “…that change will come more quickly and profoundly from inside field(s).” (Tallbear, 2014).
Further “Others”?
From my personal vantage point as one interested in pursuing environmental anthropology, I cannot help but wonder what further tensions inside and outside observation will create at the intersection of the oft-perceived nature culture divide. Once a niche within the field, environmental anthropology is beginning to become more dominant in social science discourse. A focus on “the environment” includes critical discussions of human interaction with landscape, plant and animal life and even inanimate agential objects. The proliferation of this political ecology discourse springs forth from attempts to understand the anthropocene, defined by an era during which human kind is the primary factor for changes in climate and environment, especially in the context of uneven power relations (Bennett, 2010). This recognition of the power of things is greatly inspired by New Materialism and has implications for social scientists whose work centers around communities affected by the slow violence of global climate change. While much of this (still theoretical) work focuses on the power of objects, animals and landscape, little writing exists yet that explores the otherness of these categories in a way that connects to the insider/outsider dichotomy. Work by political ecologists such as Heather Swanson seek to bridge this gap by pursuing multi-disciplinary work.
In her piece entitled Methods for Multispecies Anthropology, Swanson makes the argument that you can interview a salmon. Since wild salmon cannot be observed first-hand constantly as they go about their ocean lives, the life history told on the ridges of an otolith are a form of interview that allows scientists to infer about possible happenings. This is not so different from ethnographic methods, “When studying people, we often want to learn about practices and events that we cannot directly observe.” (Swanson, 2017 pg.87). This way of knowing about a life (human or otherwise) is limited of course, and Swanson doesn’t avoid this in her comment about “broken tools” being what we have to work with. I see this as an example of TallBear’s suggestion which I can apply to my own pursuits; that anthropologists should seek to position themselves to work collaboratively with all the “others”; other fields, other knowledges and perhaps from this even other species.
I appreciate the suggestion that Swanson is providing a practical one in the Anthropocene era with the understanding that we logically need some semblance of a common way of knowing and measuring the world (Harraway, 1988). What I like most about Swanson’s suggestion of a “both-and” approach is that it doesn’t place knowledges in a hierarchy system where one is truer than the other and secondly this approach, while taking humans very much into account, does not focus solely on their actions and agency as shaping the world. As Anthropology continues to grow and evolve as a field, I do not doubt that the nature/culture and inside/outside tensions will continue to be major lines of self-reflective inquiry for many ethnographers. Nor do I think this self-reflection is without value. Indeed as shown by many reflections of “insider” anthropologists, it is these self-critical questions which have the potential to create more ethical, thoughtful and empathetic research.
Works Cited
Direct quotes given page numbers within text
Bennett, Jane. Vibrant matter: A political ecology of things. Duke University Press, 2010.
Garcia, Maria Elena. “Ethnographic responsibility and the anthropological endeavor: Beyond identity discourse.” Anthropological Quarterly (2000): 89–101.
Haraway, Donna. “Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective.” Feminist studies 14, no. 3 (1988): 575–599.
Narayan, Kirin. “How native is a” native” anthropologist?.” American anthropologist 95, no. 3 (1993): 671–686.
Powdermaker, Hortense. Stranger and friend: The way of an anthropologist. №410. WW Norton & Company, 1966.
Swanson, Heather Anne. “Methods for multispecies anthropology: thinking with salmon otoliths and scales.” Social Analysis 61, no. 2 (2017): 81–99.
TallBear, Kim. “Standing with and speaking as faith: A feminist-indigenous approach to inquiry.” Journal of Research Practice 10, no. 2 (2014): N17-N17.
