A picture is worth a thousand words or why are there so many emojis?
Like many students that have been assigned one of Sarah Pink’s books, or any like it, my first thought upon opening Doing Visual Ethnography was, ‘What is Visual or any other form of ethnography?’
Pink’s gives this definition of ethnography (34) : a methodology…. an approach to experiencing, interpreting and representing experience, culture, society and material and sensory environments that informs and is informed by sets of different disciplinary agendas and theoretical principles.
This gives us a starting place, although not the clearest one. The dictionary definition of ethnography: the scientific description of the customs of individual peoples and cultures. Misses the detail and depth of Pink’s, but it too helps to build a base of what we are trying to do when we engage in ethnography. The visual aspect of this study is incredibly important, and one of Pink’s main points is that visual ethnography is not simply using the visual (pictures/video/etc.) in the description of people or culture.
Pink states that The visual is therefore inextricably interwoven with our personal identities, narratives, lifestyles, cultures and societies, as well as with definitions of history, time, space, place, reality and truth…….Images are indeed part of how we experience, learn and know as well as how we communicate and represent knowledge. I can’t imagine that there are any among us that would argue with her point – we live in a visual world, images are central both to who we are and to how we understand who we are – or how we understand anything meaningful about any group or people.
Connected to this understanding is the recognition that there can be no such thing as a completely unbiased observer or researcher when undertaking ethnography (or could we say any type of social science?). There are two aspects to the point here. First, in an argument against the tradition of her field(s) and traditionalists in it, she convincingly articulates that there is no possibility of a ‘purely objective social science’ and she also rejects the common notion in academia of the superiority of the written word, making the case that we all know – that a picture is worth a thousand words and that pictures – the visual has a place in ethnographic study. (10)
The second aspect is encapsulated by Pink’s acknowledgement that, as she is in the process of writing the book: As I write this book I am facing the web cam in my laptop, and my camera-phone is next to me…. She makes the point that…. the camera and the digital image, as an increasingly constant presence in our pockets, our hands and our computers is part of our contemporary reality (31).
The nearly universal nature of our webcams, our smartphones and digital cameras means that these things are a part of our reality – some among us might say they are a part or at least a representation of – who we are. That means they are not just tools we use in our research, but rather they are a part of how and what we communicate on a daily basis.
This makes visual ethnography both more accessible to us and harder to define. Because of their ubiquitous presence in and around our lives, we may not have to spent much time learning the ‘tools of the trade’ of visual ethnography. At the same time, how do we know what makes something a piece of ethnographic knowledge?
Pink says that no single thing (experience, artifact, action or representation) is in itself ethnographic, but that these things maybe defined as such through the ethnographer’s interpretation and context. She says that the same is also true of what she calls the sometimes arbitrary nature of our distinctions between personal experience and ethnographic experience, autobiography and anthropology(35).
This is important, I think, and was very helpful for me in getting to understand what ethnography really is – another way of articulating this is, possibly, to ask this question: what is purely personal experience and what of one’s personal experience might be indicative or instructive of the wider culture. That which belongs to or informs the larger culture is ethnographic.
I end with a caution. Pink highlights, in numerous places throughout the book, using several examples the danger in assuming what I would call neutral meaning or understanding to the visual images that we might use in ethnographic study. I maybe able to tell you what the words I say mean, but on some level a picture speaks for itself and pictures may speak to all of us in different ways.
Assumed meaning is a temptation because I think we all, reflexively ‘trust’ what we see – not just to be true, but to mean what we think it means. In highlighting the importance of the visual in understanding culture and people, Pink wonderfully states: human expressiveness is not limited to a smiling or angry face. The whole body is included in how a person expresses him- or herself(16).
This is why visual ethnography is so important – human expressiveness is not limited by the written word any more than it is by a smiling or angry face . To even begin to truly understand any culture – even our own – simply by describing it with words (even really wonderful ones).
But, there is also the danger of reading both too much and too little into what an image can tell you about a particular moment, event or culture. A picture can take the place of a 1000 words, but without the appropriate context to anchor them, the value of those words in terms of gaining meaning or understanding about a culture is limited.
As I read Pink’s words about human expressiveness, I instantly thought about emojis. Why are there so many of them – there are, on my phone at least, almost 200 variations on the smiley face? It is because they are designed to clearly communicate meaning without the ambiguity that is built into so many of the images that we see (Pink’s picture of the ‘Bullfighters braid’ is understood in many different ways, for example). Emojis are trying to, without the use of words, provide the context that is essential for the visuals that we interact with to have discernable meaning and value as we seek to understand each other, a particular people or culture.
Visual ethnography reminds us that we cannot understand our world, other cultures or even ourselves simply with the written word – we need visual perspective, but we also need words to help us anchor those visuals and give them context…. at least until Turabian gives us a way to properly attribute emoji 
About the Author
Chip Stapleton
Follower of Jesus Christ. Husband to Traci. Dad to Charlie, Jack, Ian and Henry. Preacher of Sermons, eater of ice cream, supporter of Arsenal. I love to talk about what God is doing in the world & in and through us & create space and opportunity for others to use their gifts to serve God and God's people.14 responses to “A picture is worth a thousand words or why are there so many emojis?”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
“what is purely personal experience and what of one’s personal experience might be indicative or instructive of the wider culture.”
I think that this is an important statement when it comes to race relations in America. You can find a wide spectrum of political, cultural, and philosophical views from just about any ethnicity. Examples: Atheist Republicans. Pro Life Democrats. African Americans who are against Affirmative Action. Jewish advocates of Syrian Refugees.
Yet, the struggle of ethnographers must be this question: Is my subject normative to their ethnic/cultural group? Or are they an alternative to the norm?
Love the Emojis. I wonder if they can be considered visuals. Now I am thinking about MEMEs.
I too and others went to the dictionary to obtain a clearly explanation of ethnography. What does this say about Pink’s inability to provide a definition receptive to her readers understanding, or does that say we lack the ability to understand?
Lynda, I think the emoji are definitely visuals – probably not the type Pink has in mind….but maybe.
As to your question about Pink, I think some of the issue is that she seems to be writing with a very academic audience in mind. There are a lot of presumptions about what we, as readers, bring to the book in terms of prior knowledge.
A great reminder that words are only 7% of communication and non-verbals like expressions and pictures are needed to back up our words. Liked your emoji’s example too- really brought it home.
Good post – I agree that we expressed some similar thoughts, though you did so more cogently I feel! I also agree with you and Jennifer that we need the full range of verbal and non-verbal means of communication to aid our communication and understanding.
Great post Chip! Your thoughts on the ubiquitous nature of the ability to record events via media, I think are important to the whole conversation. First are we sharing too much? Second, how will the ethnographers of the future analyze it all? Lynda’s comment on the meme is applicable and Pink highlights this as well—one photo of a person simply standing, emotionlessly in front of a neutral background can take on hundreds of meanings. Therefore context is extremely important.
Jim,
As a father who just activated a cell phone for his oldest son this week, the answer is: Yes! we are definitely sharing too much. But as I say that, I think the real issue, as it has always been, is not how much we share – but who we share it with. In healthy relationships and communities there is joy and comfort and acceptance in sharing our lives – but outside of those environments, it often leads to the exact opposite
Well put.
I wonder what all those people did for thousands of years without pictures? I wonder if they had more imagination?
The Bible has not been illustrated until relatively recent history. I think pictures are great but are they really necessary?
Mary, I wonder – did we really go for thousands of years without pictures? After all, what were the cave paintings and the like?
And I might also be tempted to argue that the pictures we create in our own minds, or the ones that are created for us by a great storyteller are no less real, simply because we have no observable record of them.
I don’t know that ‘pictures’ – as in photographs – are necessary – but visuals, I think, absolutely are!
Having said that – there is this line in one of my favorite songs: ‘don’t write it down, remember this in your head, don’t take a picture, remember this in your heart’
I would also argue that the Bible HAS been illustrated for thousands of years– in stained glass windows, mosaics, icons, etc. These were the ways the stories were taught to pre-literate people, the way the stories were remembered and shared.
Yes! I actually meant to say this and then forgot as the song lyric came into my mind (probably more insight into my ‘thought process’ than you needed!)
I think you’ve hit on a key distinction here:
“Pink says that no single thing (experience, artifact, action or representation) is in itself ethnographic, but that these things maybe defined as such through the ethnographer’s interpretation and context. She says that the same is also true of what she calls the sometimes arbitrary nature of our distinctions between personal experience and ethnographic experience, autobiography and anthropology(35).
This is important, I think, and was very helpful for me in getting to understand what ethnography really is…”
It’s easy/tempting for us to potentially view every image as a form of “ethnography”, especially when they are part of something larger, such as biographical anthropology or photojournalism. But your conclusion of that question: “That which belongs to or informs the larger culture is ethnographic” is essential. Does this image of a person/place/event connect us to a larger understanding of that context?
I agree, Chip, that we have to acknowledge the biases we bring to research, especially in ethnography. I think this is why visual ethnography is so cool when the camera is handed to subjects so they can record their perspective. We can only view our subjects through our own lens, so incorporating as many “lenses” as possible is pretty crucial.