A Need to Know Basis
About fifteen years ago my history professor asked our graduate history class asked a very strange and confusing question: “When we research a moment in history, do we believe we can actually capture some reality that is out there…or are we doing something else?” I was totally baffled by what this professor was getting at. If we didn’t believe that our studies of history informed us about some real reality out there, then what is the point of doing history? This question came about the time Sarah Pink’s first edition of her book Doing Visual Ethnography appeared, suggesting that the issue of what we can really know was topic of debate among many disciplines at this time. However, back then, I was totally oblivious to this major philosophical turning point in research that my professor was hinting at.
It is the philosophical underpinnings of Sarah Pink’s Doing Visual Ethnography (2nd ed.) that I found most challenging and enlightening. And, photography and video provide a perfect format to understand this philosophical change of perspective on research. The book largely focuses on the practice and methods of photography and video as research tools, giving practical and helpful advise throughout. However, her book is a sustained argument against older forms of research where the written word best captures actual reality. She suggests that there has been a “crisis” where “positive arguments and realist approaches to knowledge, truth and objectivity were challenged.” (Kindle ed. 38) This crisis (centered in anthropology) opened up for other disciplines opportunities to explore not only how research is done, but to explore the effects of the researcher on the subjects studied and to question the actual outcome of the research. Pink sets forth a new understanding of the “relationship between scientific realist and what I call ‘reflexive’ approaches to the visual in ethnography.” (Kindle ed. 132) Reflexivity is a central concept for Pink, in that all research in general, but visual ethnology (and anthropology and sociology) specifically required the researcher to enter into the context that is being studied. The presences of the researcher changes attitudes, emotions and self-awareness of the subjects, in the same way that pulling out a camera will change a group’s self-consciousness. The researcher must be aware of these effects on those studied. They should also be aware that the results of their studies will always come from their perspective (their worldviews, culture, training and influences) and can only capture their particular take on that reality they have studied. Pink then concludes: “This means abandoning the possibility of a purely objective social science and rejecting the idea that the written word is essentially a superior medium of ethnographic representation.” (Kindle ed. 139) Through the discussion of various roles of video and photographs as research tools, Pink illustrates that indeed even a single photo can bring multiple meanings and emotions, a wide variety of stories and insights, dependent on who is viewing the photo, without ever fully capturing all of the reality that it represents.
For a younger generation, this way of thinking might not be so earth shattering as they have grown up with the concepts of subjectivity, pluralism and many realities. For those of us of earlier generations, who have grown up in a black and white, solid existence, there is a sense of unease when it suggested that there is no single, solid reality out there. Weaned on Enlightenment thinking, we were taught that knowing – read “facts”– was what was important above all else. This striving to “know it all” has resulted in tremendous innovations, but it has also resulted in a century of human devastation and destruction. The search for facts or what is absolutely certainly didn’t lead us to that promised better world. In fact, it has caused us to miss (as Graham Greene called it) “the human factor”: the knowledge that comes in relationship, negotiation, stories and emotions. Here is what Pink does so brilliantly: to argue that finding the “real” is not all that important. That it is in sharing images, emotions and stories we gain a deeper understanding and maybe even vital insights. But Pink asks us to be content with getting closer to reality without having to be definitive; to recognize that the goals of achieving absolute knowledge has never been and never will be achieved. This acceptance of the failure of objectivity and positivism my come hard for some of us, but in doing real life with real people, it might be a move in the right direction.
It is in Pink’s examples of the actual practice of ethnography that I found her work so compelling. Her sensitivity to the people she researched (her informants) is evident in her instructions of using photography and video in new cultures and situations. Her insights might provide a great primer for missionaries entering into a new culture. Let me share just a few of her suggestions that might inform any cross-cultural work:
- Be aware of your impact on the culture you enter….your very presence will change things (attitudes, emotions, status, etc.)
- Study the culture thoroughly before entering and learn from the experiences of others who have entered into that culture (learn from their mistakes)
- Come with a focus of partnering with the people – to share life, to create give- give relationships (not we are here to bestow our blessing on poor you)
- Be conscious of material possession and social standings – not just of the people you work with but what you bring and how you and your stuff will be viewed
- Seek to learn and understand and be ready to have your assumptions shattered
Sadly, missionaries often practice very negative forms of cultural engagement. Pink’s instructions for ethnographers can be helpful instructions that might provide better involvement, understanding and cooperation among the people missionaries seek to reach.
John W.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.