Speaking in the Name of the Real. - article ; n°113 ; vol.29, pg 113-125

Paul Stoller

Description

Cahiers d'études africaines - Année 1989 - Volume 29 - Numéro 113 - Pages 113-125
13 pages
Source : Persée ; Ministère de la jeunesse, de l’éducation nationale et de la recherche, Direction de l’enseignement supérieur, Sous-direction des bibliothèques et de la documentation.

Sujets

• Sociologie, société et politique

Informations

• Publié par: CAHIERS_D-ETUDES_AFRICAINES
• Publié le: 01 janvier 1989
• Nombre de lectures: 17
• Langue: English

Extrait

Monsieur Paul Stoller
Speaking in the Name of the Real.
In: Cahiers d'études africaines. Vol. 29 N°113. 1989. pp. 113-125.
Citer ce document / Cite this document :
Stoller Paul. Speaking in the Name of the Real. In: Cahiers d'études africaines. Vol. 29 N°113. 1989. pp. 113-125.
doi : 10.3406/cea.1989.2138
http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/cea_0008-0055_1989_num_29_113_2138DEBATS ET CONTROVERSES
Paul Stoller
Speaking in the Name of the Rea
et dinary Sardan reading like one in learning maintain Songhay severe the reply works ferment Olivier In of qualities Les among disagree demonstrating other own would do underscore the essence je Although The In everyday that intellectual génies minds hope anthropologist last blanket are what readers suggests de misinterpretations the writes phenomenon ethnologique crux of reinforces Songhay assume regions about Shadow am based issue that Second du American the Olivier In follows of dominates that writing condemnation how euve of current context it Africans Olivier upon of utter before language this will consider it some Stoller critique de Niger and the should both point which exotisme sociological journal significant whereas this be Second In contingency Sardan that experimental de shall books of the Shadow why they and both published of about the religion long out elect affords religious has which of it deconstruct co-authored Mali have J.-P more Gibbal will asserts of Olivier the religieux culture is lengthy and response nurtured himself Stoller have misinterpretations the our easy phenomenology me as are Olivier had of negative in people works argument Les present nature his cases being de great moment the ethnographic France for about and Songhay to the et epistemological génies read admiration books for with Olivier opportunity de speak ethnographers nonetheless .1 Gibbal themselves ordinary respect and we Sardan condemnation of the so Olivier is du in Cheryl number like have and racist religion that in Songhay North de to promote own euve the for fieldwork In published or many bolster and invested Stoller de readers stereotypes to do Oikes misunderstandings name misinterpretation Olivier the of reflection and his American to in describe of not banal religion other reasons to scientific read peoples Songhay pernicious contention the his and Olivier of feel can years Jeu which argument de the Shadow same case places that Gibbal the representation on Asserting make J.-M as critique Thé de anthropology real. of living and First de book an two intellectual la Europeans society Olivier exoticism he field choose in Using article that croyance up extraor commit Sardan literary contre- Africa or books Third in itself of First reads work most their time such that any the his de In to is
The notion of speaking in the name of the real is borrowed from CERTEAU
1983 by Ivan BRADY who used this evocative phrase to title his article 1983
Cahiers tudes africaines 111-112 XXVIII-3-4 1988 527-540
Cahiers tudes africaines 113 XXIX-i 1080 pp 113-12 PAUL STOLLER 114
sens of American sociological phenomenology misinterpretation which makes
his argument in his words ideologically perverse and epistemologically
false 528 Third discuss how phenomenological sensitivity has led to the
emergence in North America of experimental one of those being In
Shadow in which authors avoid speaking in the name of the
When Ethnographers Disagree
Olivier de example of critical commentary of works on people the
Songhay about whom he himself has written is nothing new in the anthropological
literature Given the utter contingency of ethnographic fieldwork how could it be
otherwise
The most recent disagreement among ethnographers of the same society fol
lowed the publication in 1983 of Derek now infamous Margaret Mead and
Samoa The Making and the Unmaking of an Anthropological Myth Given
international reknown scathing criticisms of the great lady sparked hot
public as well as anthropological debate Mead found Samoans to be sexually
liberated Freeman found them sexually repressed Mead found Samoans gentle
peaceful people Freeman found them tough and violent Mead was cultural
determinist Freeman is biological determinist Mead believed that the anthropol
ogist needed only utilitarian knowledge of the field language Freeman believes
one should master his or her field language Freeman wrote that methods
were scientifically deficient and tainted her findings Mead who died six years
before the publication of book of course could not defend herself
The Freeman-Mead dispute is the most recent and well known of cases where
ethnographers disagree Heider 1988 reminds us of the Redfield-Lewis contro
versy over village life in Tepoztlan as well as other lesser known disagreements
Mead 1935 versus Fortune 1939 on the bellicosity of the Arapesh Goodenough
1956 versus Fischer 1958 about residence rules in Truk Benedict 1934 versus
Bennett 1946 on Pueblo culture Slater 1976 versus Gantrell 1979 on the ethos
of the Nyika of Tanzania and Reser 1981 Hippler 1981 on Australian
Aboriginals
The result of these anthropological disputations was not so much to determine
who was right or wrong but rather series of penetrating discussions on epistemol-
ogy What are the factors that shape what we see hear feel touch and smell in
the field What are the factors that shape what we write about what we see hear
feel touch and smell How and why do we grant ourselves the authority to speak
in the name of the real see Certeau 1983 Brady 1983
What causes these wars of words Why are they so heated Heider 1988 75-78
proposes the following criteria many of which are germane to Olivier de
disagreements with Stoller and Gibbal
Someone is wrong In his commentary Olivier de Sardan asserts that he is
right which implies that Stoller and Gibbal are wrong Academic combat was not
principal ingredient in or academic stew
They the two ethnographers are looking at different cultures or subcultures
Gibbal worked among Songhay in the inland delta in Mali which presents ethno
graphic circumstances vastly different from those Stoller and Olivier de Sardan
encountered in Niger Stoller has worked extensively on Songhay religion among
specific families of sohanci Songhay magicians) which Olivier de Sardan as far
as know has not Olivier de Sardan has examined the local economy the impact
of slavery on precolonial social structure and ethnohistory nineteenth century and
colonial) which Stoller has not IN THE NAME OF THE REAL 115 SPEAKING
They are referring to the rne culture but during different historical periods
Olivier de Sardan has more of historical focus than does Stoller
They are looking differently at the same culture
What are the personalities of the ethnographers
From his published works Olivier de Sardan seems to be of an intellectualist bent
not tolerant of ambiguity or contradiction he is demystifyer Stoller by con
trast has more aesthetic bent relishing the contradictions and ambiguities of
lived experience he has what Keats called negative
What are the values of the ethnographers
cannot speak for Olivier de Sardan but am certain that our varying sets of
values produce different approaches to fieldwork and to the representation of
Songhay
Are the ethnographers of different cultures
Olivier de Sardan is French and Stoller is American which means there are funda
mentally different cultural underpinnings that condition their gazes Olivier de
Sardan has been influenced deeply or so it seems by the central presence of Marx
in the French social sciences In his work he has been principally concerned with
history and change Stoller has been influenced profoundly by sociological
phenomenology Schutz Berger) the American pragmatism of James and Dewey
and the neo-pragmatism of Richard Rorty He has been principally concerned
with the symbols and meanings of Songhay cultural practices
What are other differing traits of the ethnographers
It is difficult to know whether differences in the traits of Stoller and Olivier de
Sardan has promoted ethnographic disagreements
Do the ethnographers have differing theoretical orientations or research
plans
Olivier de Sardan has conducted extensive ethnohistorical research in Songhay
His theoretical orientation has been that of Marxist His methodology has been
to conduct archival research and to collect wide variety of interviews to reconstruct
the recent past Songhay see Olivier de Sardan 1976 1982 1984 Stoller has
conducted extensive research on Songhay symbolism politics and religion Stol-
theoretical orientation is that of phenomenologist Although he also
conducts interviews the foundation of his methodology has been to participate as
fully as possible in the Songhay activities that he seeks to comprehend
Have the ethnographers changed their views over time
cannot speak for Olivier de Sardan but any reader of In Shadow will
note how views about Songhay and anthropology changed were influenced
by Songhay beliefs and wisdom
Have the ethnographers spent different lengths of time in the field
Both Stoller and Olivier de Sardan have spent long periods of time in the field
Do the have differing linguistic competencies in field languages
Both Olivier de Sardan and Stoller are fluent speakers of Songhay
Do the ethnographers have different degrees of rapport