UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The ethnographic possibility Michalko, Rod 1980

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1980_A1 M53.pdf [ 10.95MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0095207.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0095207-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0095207-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0095207-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0095207-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0095207-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0095207-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0095207-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0095207.ris

Full Text

THE ETHNOGRAPHIC POSSIBILITY by RODNEY LEONARD MICHALKO B.A., Honours, The U n i v e r s i t y o f Winnipeg, 1976 M.A., The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C olumbia, 1977 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department o f A n t h r o p o l o g y and S o c i o l o g y ) We a c c e p t t h i s t h e s i s as c o n f o r m i n g t o t h e r e q u i r e d s t a n d a r d THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA A p r i l 1980 (c) Rodney Leonard M i c h a l k o , 1980 In present ing th is thes is in p a r t i a l fu l f i lment o f the requirements for an advanced degree at the Un ive rs i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the L ibrary sha l l make i t f r ee ly ava i l ab le for reference and study. I fur ther agree that permission for extensive copying of th is thes is for scho la r ly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by h is representat ives . It is understood that copying or pub l ica t ion o f th is thes is fo r f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my wri t ten permission. bepaftmfeftt of ^ArAhr^jxXQMy.^n^^^slj?^y. The Univers i ty of B r i t i s h GSiumbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 Date A p r i l 1980 ABSTRACT The f o l l o w i n g work i s a f o r m u l a t i o n o f ethnography, and as such, s h o u l d not be c o n c e i v e d o f as a c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n o f , d e s c r i p t i o n o f , o r commentary upon ethnography. T h i s i s t o say t h a t ethnography i s not c o n c e i v e d o f here as s u b j e c t m a t t e r , i . e . , ethnography i s not c o n c e i v e d of here as m a t t e r t o be engaged d e s c r i p t i v e l y . I n s t e a d , ethnography i s c o n c e i v e d o f here as a form o f i n q u i r y and so, our engagement w i t h ethnography can be f o r m u l a t e d as an engagement w i t h i n q u i r y . We u n d e r s t a n d ethnography as a c o n c r e t e i n s t a n c e of i n q u i r y t h a t i s conducted under t h e a u s p i c e s o f an a u t h o r i t a t i v e v e r s i o n o f i n q u i r y . F u r t h e r , we u n d e r s t a n d t h a t any i n q u i r y , i n c l u d i n g ethnography, f o r g e t s , i n the P l a t o n i c sense, t h e a u t h o r i t y under w h i c h i t i s done and from w h i c h i t r e c e i v e s i t s p o s s i b i l i t y . I n t h i s sense, we do not a d d r e s s ethnography c o n c r e t e l y , b u t i n s t e a d we a d d r e s s ethnography a n a l y t i c a l l y . T h i s i s t o say t h a t what we a d d r e s s i s t h e a n a l y t i c p o s s i b i l i t y o f ethnography. Thus, we t r e a t ethnography as a t e x t , as speech, and o u r i n q u i r y seeks t o f o r m u l a t e the a u t h o r i t y , t h e grounds, under w h i c h t h a t speech i s spoken. In t h i s sense, we c o n c e i v e o f any speech, i n c l u d i n g our own speech, as s i m u l t a n e o u s l y c o v e r i n g over i t s a u t h o r i t a t i v e grounds and recommending t h o s e grounds as an a u t h o r i t a t i v e v e r s i o n o f i n q u i r y . So we t r e a t ethnography not c o n c r e t e l y but as an o c c a s i o n f o r us t o d i s p l a y our grounds, our a u t h o r i t a t i v e v e r s i o n o f i n q u i r y . Thus, what c o l l e c t s our work i s a commitment t o f o r m u l a t i n g the grounds o f speech and t h u s a commitment t o d i s p l a y i n g t h a t v e r y commitment. I n C h a p t e r 1 we address t h e n o t i o n o f speech and the e s s e n t i a l d i s t i n c t i o n between speech and language. C h a p t e r s 2 and 3 a r e devoted t o a d i s c u s s i o n o f the t o p i c a l i t y and deep i n t e r e s t o f speech. We t h e n e x e m p l i f y the argument p r e s e n t e d i n C h a p t e r s . 1 , 2 and 3 by a d d r e s s i n g , more d i r e c t l y , t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f ethnography i n C h a p t e r s 4, 5 and 6. F i n a l l y , C h a p t e r 7 i s g i v e n over t o t h e f o r m u l a t i o n o f t h e i d e a o f . . i n q u i r y i t s e l f . - i v -TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT i i TABLE OF CONTENTS i v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS V CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1 2 TOPICS 33 3 INTERESTS 52 4 DISINTEREST 85 5 OFFERINGS 107 6 ETHICS 163 7 INQUIRY 216 BIBLIOGRAPHY 257 - v -ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS T h i s work would not have been p o s s i b l e w i t h o u t t h e c o - o p e r a t i o n and a s s i s t a n c e o f my d i s s e r t a t i o n committee. I would l i k e t o e x t e n d my g r a t i t u d e t o P r o f e s s o r J a y P o w e l l f o r d i s p l a y i n g t h e courage t o j o i n my committee a t a l a t e d a t e and t o engage my d i s s e r t a t i o n r e s p o n s i b l y . I owe a s p e c i a l debt o f g r a t i t u d e t o P r o f e s s o r Ken S t o d d a r t . He d i s p l a y e d a courageous p a t i e n c e i n s u p p o r t i n g me, t h r o u g h what I c o n s i d e r t o be, a r a d i c a l s h i f t o f o r i e n t a t i o n t h a t took p l a c e i n our f o u r - y e a r a s s o c i a t i o n . P r o f e s s o r S t o d d a r t 1 s o u t s t a n d i n g paper "The P r e s e n t a t i o n o f Everyday L i f e : S t r a t e g i e s f o r 'Adequate Ethnography'", p r o v i d e d much of t h e impetus f o r my d i s s e r t a t i o n . No one d e s e r v e s more acknowledge-ment t h a n P r o f e s s o r Roy T u r n e r . I do not t h i n k o f P r o f e s s o r T u r n e r as my a d v i s o r , b u t r a t h e r I t h i n k o f him as my t e a c h e r i n t h e t r u e S o c r a t i c sense. F o l l o w i n g t h e S o c r a t i c t r a d i t i o n , I c o n s i d e r my t h e s i s t o be my c h i l d , and i n the t r u e m a i e u t i c sense, P r o f e s s o r T u r n e r a s s i s t e d me i n b r i n g i n g t h i s c h i l d t o b i r t h and a s s i s t e d me i n t h e u p b r i n g i n g o f t h i s c h i l d . My r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h P r o f e s s o r Turner i s one o f f r i e n d s h i p and c o l l a b o r a t i o n - a r e l a t i o n s h i p t h a t w i l l n ot end w i t h the c o m p l e t i o n o f my d i s s e r t a t i o n . I a l s o w i s h t o thank t h e Canadian N a t i o n a l I n s t i t u t e f o r t h e B l i n d . The N a t i o n a l O f f i c e o f t h e C.N.I.B., as w e l l - v i -as t h e B r i t i s h Columbia-Yukon D i v i s i o n o f the C.N.I.B., have p r o v i d e d me w i t h f i n a n c i a l s u p p o r t over t h e f o u r y e a r s of my g r a d u a t e work. I owe a s p e c i a l debt o f g r a t i t u d e t o t h e S o c i a l S c i e n c e s and H u m a n i t i e s Research C o u n c i l o f Canada f o r t h e i r generous f i n a n c i a l s u p p o r t over t h e c o u r s e of my g r a d u a t e work. F i n a l l y , and most i m p o r t a n t l y , I w i s h t o e x p r e s s my g r a t i t u d e t o my w i f e , Barb. She not o n l y t y p e d t h e f i r s t two d r a f t s o f t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n , b u t a l s o p r o v i d e d i n v a l u a b l e e d i t o r i a l a s s i s t a n c e as w e l l as d e d i c a t e d c o l l a b o r a t i o n . Most i m p o r t a n t l y , Barb was an i n e x h a u s t i b l e s o u r c e o f e m o t i o n a l s u p p o r t t h a t s e r v e d w e l l t o c a r r y me t h r o u g h some o f t h e stormy p e r i o d s o f my c a r e e r as a g r a d u a t e s t u d e n t . I t i s t o Barb t h a t my d i s s e r t a t i o n i s d e d i c a t e d . - 1 -CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION I. Why w r i t e an ethnography and why read an ethnography? These q u e s t i o n s are not meant to evoke a t e l e o l o g i c a l response and thus to have done wi t h them once and f o r a l l although such a response i s indeed tempting. Such a temptation, however, f o r g e t s t h a t these questions a r i s e on each and every o c c a s i o n o f w r i t i n g or reading an ethnography. They a r i s e because the w r i t i n g and readi n g of an ethnography, i n each and every case, i s a d e c i s i o n : To w r i t e or read an ethnography i s to decide t h a t i t i s a worthwhile t h i n g t o do. When we do ethnography, we decide t h a t i t i s worthwhile doing, i . e . , we decide i t s worthwhileness. So to r i d o u r s e l v e s of these q u e s t i o n s by responding t e l e o l o g i c a l l y i s not to get r i d of the questions themselves, s i n c e they are always th e r e , but r a t h e r i t i s to put the questi o n s out of our minds, i . e . , to f o r g e t them. When the q u e s t i o n "Why w r i t e or read an ethnography?" i s conceived o f as a d e c i s i o n t h a t needs to be made on each and every o c c a s i o n o f w r i t i n g or re a d i n g an ethnography, and s i n c e i n t h i s sense, the q u e s t i o n f o r e v e r remains and i s never gotten r i d of, or even abated, we must i n q u i r e i n t o the c o n c e p t i o n o f d e c i s i o n t h a t permits r e - d e c i s i o n and incompleteness r a t h e r than d e c i s i v e n e s s and completion. There - 2 -i s s u r e l y some sense i n whi c h d e c i d i n g t o w r i t e or r e a d an ethnography i s q u i t e a s i m p l e m a t t e r . And when c o n c e i v e d o f as a s i m p l e m a t t e r t h i s d e c i s i o n need not n e c e s s a r i l y be r e - d e c i d e d i n each and e v e r y c a s e . The d e c i s i o n t o w r i t e o r r e a d an ethnography may, f o r example, be made on t h e b a s i s t h a t one i s an ethnographer and t h a t i s what e t h n o g r a p h e r s do, o r ethnography i s an i n t e r e s t i n g t h i n g t o w r i t e and r e a d , o r some such t h i n g . B u t , t h e s e s o r t s o f responses beg the q u e s t i o n . They ar e t he s o r t s o f res p o n s e s t h a t aim a t p r o v i d i n g c o n c r e t e r e a s o n s f o r w r i t i n g and r e a d i n g an ethnography and have as t h e i r impetus the f o r g e t t i n g o f why eth n o g r a p h e r s do what th e y do and why ethnography i s i n t e r e s t i n g . What i s . f o r g o t t e n i s t h e d e c i s i o n t o become an ethnographer i n the f i r s t p l a c e and t h e d e c i s i o n t o f i n d ethnography i n t e r e s t i n g i n the f i r s t p l a c e . I n o t h e r words, what i s f o r g o t t e n i s how ethnography i s c o n c e i v e d o f as a t h i n g - i n - t h e - w o r l d t h a t i s w r i t a b l e and r e a d a b l e and, as such, v a l u a b l e . The i n t e r e s t i n g t h i n g i s t h a t when c o n c r e t e r e a s o n s ar e i n v o k e d as a way t o respond t o t h e q u e s t i o n of "Why w r i t e o r r e ad an ethnography?", t h e s e c o n c r e t e reasons f a i l t o add r e s s t h e v e r y q u e s t i o n t o w h i c h t h e y a r e a re s p o n s e . They f a i l t o a d d r e s s t h e q u e s t i o n ( d e c i s i o n ) i n t h a t they a re a c o n c r e t e p r o d u c t i o n o f t h a t d e c i s i o n . To d e c i d e , i n a c o n c r e t e way, t o w r i t e o r r e a d an ethnography o r t o f i n d ethnography i n t e r e s t i n g o r n o t , i s t o d e c i d e , i n a deeper - 3 -sense, t o c o n c e i v e o f a w o r l d i n which ethnography i s a c o n c r e t e l y d o - a b l e t h i n g and a c o n c r e t e l y i n t e r e s t i n g t h i n g . The d e c i s i o n t o engage i n ethnography, t h e n , i n v o l v e s n o t t h e p r o v i s i o n o f some good c o n c r e t e reasons but i n v o l v e s the d e c i s i o n o f s e e i n g a w o r l d i n a way t h a t s u p p o r t s and makes p o s s i b l e t h a t v e r y engagement. So each and e v e r y o c c a s i o n o f w r i t i n g and r e a d i n g an ethnography, w h i c h i s t o say, t h a t each and e v e r y case o f w r i t i n g o r r e a d i n g e t h n o g r a p h i c a l l y makes r e f e r e n c e t o t h a t d e c i s i o n . Moreover, each and e v e r y i n s t a n c e o f ethnography i s a r e -a f f i r m a t i o n o f t h e commitment t o s e e i n g a w o r l d i n a p a r t i c u l a r way and a r e - a f f i r m a t i o n o f s e e i n g one's p l a c e i n t h a t w o r l d . In t h i s sense, d e c i s i o n i s i n t e n d e d as a way t o speak about t h a t w h i c h makes ethnography p o s s i b l e , i . e . , t h a t w h i c h g i v e s ethnography i t s l i f e . D e c i s i o n i s i n t e n d e d as a way t o speak about t h e a u t h o r i t y o r a u s p i c e s , or grounds of ethnography. I t i s a way t o g e t a t the n o t i o n t h a t ethnography does n o t s t a n d by i t s e l f but i s s t e e p e d i n t r a d i t i o n and commitment i f t r a d i t i o n and commitment a r e u n d e r s t o o d as ways o f s e e i n g , c o n c e i v i n g , and u n d e r s t a n d i n g . F i n a l l y , d e c i s i o n i s i n t e n d e d t o make r e f e r e n c e t o the n o t i o n t h a t ways o f s e e i n g , c o n c e i v i n g and u n d e r s t a n d i n g a r e i n d e e d d e c i s i o n s , and hence, c o u l d be o t h e r w i s e . Thus, th e q u e s t i o n "Why w r i t e o r r e a d an ethnography?", as i t i s asked h e r e , asks not a f t e r some c o n c r e t e r e a s o n , but i n s t e a d asks a f t e r t h a t d e c i s i o n , t h o s e a u s p i c e s , t h o s e grounds - 4 -t h a t a u t h o r i z e s ethnography, i . e . , t h a t makes ethnography p o s s i b l e i n t h e f i r s t p l a c e . I t asks a f t e r t h a t way o f s e e i n g , t h a t way o f u n d e r s t a n d i n g , t h a t way o f c o n c e i v i n g t h a t a l t h o u g h made r e f e r e n c e t o i n each and eve r y case o f ethnography, i s f o r g o t t e n . I t asks a f t e r what our w r i t i n g and r e a d i n g o f an ethnography f o r g e t s . And now our t a s k becomes one o f making more c l e a r ( c o n c r e t i z i n g ) our n o t i o n of " f o r g e t t i n g " . ^ I I . I t s h o u l d be c l e a r by now t h a t when we speak of f o r g e t t i n g why we w r i t e o r r e a d an ethnography we are not s p e a k i n g about t h e f o r g e t t i n g o f some c o n c r e t e r e a s o n f o r d o i n g so, when c o n c r e t e r e a s o n i s c o n c e i v e d o f as d e r i v i n g i t s p o s s i b i l i t y from t h e same commitment t h a t grounds ( p r o v i d e s f o r t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f ) t h e v e r y t h i n g i t seeks t o be a r e a s o n f o r . The p r o v i s i o n o f c o n c r e t e reasons f o r w r i t i n g and r e a d i n g an ethnography, t h e n , i s i t s e l f r e a s o n a b l e o n l y because i t i s a m a n i f e s t a t i o n o f t h e deeper d e c i s i o n t o see t h e w o r l d i n a way t h a t a l l o w s f o r t h e p o s s i b i l i t y of ethnography. Thus, c o n c r e t e r e a s o n s f o r w r i t i n g and r e a d i n g an ethnography a r e as much a r e - a f f i r m a t i o n o f t h a t way of s e e i n g as i s ethnography i t s e l f . And i t i s t h i s d e c i s i o n -the d e c i s i o n t o see t h e w o r l d i n a p a r t i c u l a r way and t o - 5 -p l a c e o n e s e l f i n t h a t w o r l d - t h a t i s f o r g o t t e n . What we f o r g e t , t h e n , i s our o r i g i n . We f o r g e t t h e b e g i n n i n g (the d e c i s i o n ) t h a t makes i t p o s s i b l e f o r us t o w r i t e o r r e a d an ethnography. I t i s i n t h i s way t h a t each and every o c c a s i o n of w r i t i n g o r r e a d i n g an ethnography makes r e f e r e n c e t o , and r e - a f f i r m s , t h e b e g i n n i n g and o r i g i n , and i n t h i s sense t h e p o s s i b i l i t y , o f whosoever chooses t o w r i t e o r re a d e t h n o g r a p h i c a l l y . And i t i s t o t h i s c h o i c e t h a t the n o t i o n o f f o r g e t t i n g p o i n t s . What i s p o i n t e d t o , t h e n , i s our b e g i n n i n g and o r i g i n , and i n t h e case o f ethnography, t h a t b e g i n n i n g and o r i g i n t h a t a u t h o r i z e s our w r i t i n g and r e a d i n g o f an ethnography. I f we t h i n k o f t h e w r i t i n g and r e a d i n g o f an ethnography as speech - as e t h n o g r a p h i c speech - th e n we can f i n d a way, by f o r m u l a t i n g our c o n c e p t i o n o f speech, t o show how our n o t i o n o f f o r g e t t i n g i s p o s s i b l e . And a n t i c i p a t i n g somewhat, t h a t f o r m u l a t i o n o f our n o t i o n o f speech w i l l show how we can f o r m u l a t e ethnography as f o r g e t t i n g i t s b e g i n n i n g and i t s speech and, i n d e e d , f o r g e t t i n g t h a t i t does speak. 2 Heidegger t e l l s us t h a t : Man speaks. We speak when we are awake and we speak i n our dreams. We a r e always s p e a k i n g , even when we do not u t t e r a s i n g l e word a l o u d , but mer e l y l i s t e n o r r e a d , and even when we a r e n o t p a r t i c u l a r l y l i s t e n i n g o r s p e a k i n g b u t a r e a t t e n d i n g t o some work - 6 -or t a k i n g a r e s t . We are c o n t i n u a l l y speaking i n one way or another. We speak because speaking i s n a t u r a l t o us. I t does not f i r s t a r i s e out of some s p e c i a l v o l i t i o n . Man i s s a i d t o have language by nature. I t i s h e l d t h a t man, i n d i s t i n c t i o n from p l a n t and animal, i s the l i v i n g b e i n g capable of speech. T h i s statement does not mean onl y t h a t , along w i t h other f a c u l t i e s , man a l s o possesses the f a c u l t y o f speech. I t means to say t h a t o n l y speech enables man to be the l i v i n g b e i n g he i s as man. I t i s as one who speaks t h a t man i s - man. (Heidegger, 1971:189) What i s Heidegger t e l l i n g us i f not t h a t i n s o f a r as man i s man - he speaks? "Man speaks" i s s u r e l y not intended as some s o r t of a d e s c r i p t i o n or some s o r t of a c h a r a c t e r i -z a t i o n . Speech i s not a f a c u l t y t h a t i s d e r i v a b l e from a l i s t of f a c u l t i e s . Thus, "Man speaks" i s not merely one of the many t h i n g s t h a t man does. In a sense, what Heidegger i s t e l l i n g us i s t h a t what man i s i s speech. I n s o f a r as " I t i s as one who speaks t h a t man i s - man", speech i s " . . . n a t u r a l t o us", i . e . , t h a t "Man speaks" i s n a t u r a l - i s man. I t i s not t h a t speech " . . . a r i s e s out of some s p e c i a l v o l i t i o n " but t h a t "Man speaks". Man does not decide t o speak o r choose to speak because t h a t would be "unnatural" and would not be man. In a sense, then, what Heidegger i s saying i s t h a t t h e r e i s no escape from speech. i t i s not t h a t we t h i n k about (decide) whether or not to speak, f o r t h a t ( t h i n k i n g , d e c i d i n g ) would a l r e a d y be t o speak. Or, i t i s not t h a t when we t h i n k - 7 -about speech, t h i n k about i t s n a t u r e , t h i n k about i t s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , t h i n k about i t s f e a t u r e s , e t c . , t h a t we suspend speech, i . e . , t h a t we put i t a s i d e , as i t were, i n o r d e r t o examine i t , s i n c e the v e r y p u t t i n g a s i d e of speech and e x a m i n i n g i t i s t o speak. Any speech, t h e n , even speech about speech, i s done s p e a k i n g l y , i . e . , we do whatever i t i s we do by v i r t u e o f b e i n g s p e a k e r s . So when we speak about f o r g e t t i n g , we are not s p e a k i n g about f o r g e t t i n g the d e c i s i o n t o speak, s i n c e t h a t i s n o t f o r us t o d e c i d e , r a t h e r we a r e s p e a k i n g about f o r g e t t i n g t h e v e r y f a c t t h a t we do speak. What we d e c i d e , t h e n , i s n o t whether o r not t o speak, but how t o speak. S i n c e we have no c h o i c e b u t t o speak, what remains f o r us t o choose i s a way t o speak and t o remember t h a t we do speak. What remains our c h o i c e , t h e n , i s t h a t w h i c h w i l l a u t h o r i z e o u r speech, t h a t w h i c h makes our speech p o s s i b l e . Our speech r e p r e s e n t s , o r b e t t e r , what i s r e - p r e s e n t e d i n our speech i s i t s grounds, i s a commitment t o a way o f l i f e t h a t grounds, i s t h e a u s p i c e s f o r , and p r o v i d e s f o r t h e p o s s i b i l i t y of our s p e a k i n g the way we do. As i t i s c o n c e i v e d o f h e r e , a l l speech i s a mere s u r f a c e r e f l e c t i o n o f i t s grounds. Understood t h u s , any speech t h a t a t t e m p t s t o speak i t s grounds - f o r m u l a t e i t s grounds - i s n e c e s s a r i l y doomed t o f a i l u r e s i n c e a l l speech i s m e r e l y a r e f l e c t i o n o f i t s grounds and i s not i t s grounds i t s e l f . - 8 -Thus, t o speak i s n e c e s s a r i l y t o f o r g e t and what i s f o r g o t t e n i s t h e grounds o r a u s p i c e s o f speech. T h i s i s what was meant when we s a i d t h a t we f o r g e t why we speak o r , i n t h i s s p e c i f i c c a s e , why we speak e t h n o g r a p h i c a l l y - why we w r i t e o r r e a d an ethnography. I n t h i s sense, speech i s u n d e r s t o o d here as i n -adequate o r i m p e r f e c t s i n c e speech cannot speak i t s own grounds. The inadequacy of speech i s c e r t a i n l y not news f o r s o c i o l o g y . But t h e inadequacy o f speech, as i t i s t y p i c a l l y c o n c e i v e d o f i n s o c i o l o g y , i s c e r t a i n l y d i f f e r e n t from our c o n c e p t i o n . Durkheim, f o r example, w r i t e s t h a t : S i n c e t h e word " s u i c i d e " r e c u r s c o n s t a n t l y i n t h e c o u r s e o f c o n v e r s a t i o n , i t might be thought t h a t i t s sense i s u n i v e r s a l l y known and t h a t d e f i n i t i o n i s s u p e r f l u o u s . A c t u a l l y , t h e words o f everyday language, l i k e t h e c o n c e p t s they e x p r e s s , a r e always s u s c e p t i b l e o f more than one meaning, and the s c h o l a r e m ploying them i n t h e i r a c c e p t e d use w i t h o u t f u r t h e r d e f i n i t i o n w ould r i s k s e r i o u s m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g . (Durkheim, 1951:41) Or, when Z e t t e r b e r g d i s c u s s e s s o c i o l o g i c a l t h e o r y and i t s v e r i f i c a t i o n , he says t h a t : Even h i g h l y educated speech i s sometimes t o o i m p r e c i s e o r cumbersome f o r s o c i o l o g i c a l d i s c o u r s e . As everyone knows, t h e word 'behave' might mean any a c t i v i t y , but sometimes i t means 'to a c t w i t h good manners'; t h e word ' s o c i e t y ' m ight mean the l a r g e s t s o c i a l - 9 -system, but i t might a l s o mean the 'upper c r u s t ' . The s o c i o l o g i s t . needs some words of everyday speech which have such an emotive or a f f e c t v a l u e i n o r d i n a r y speech t h a t they must be r e - i n t r o d u c e d as formal d e f i n i t i o n s i n s o c i o l o g i c a l d i s c o u r s e ; ' c u l t u r e ' and 'bureaucracy' are examples. ( Z e t t e r b e r g , 1965: 32-33). When Berger speaks of s o c i o l o g y ' s o b j e c t of study par e x c e l l e n c e - s o c i e t y - he says t h a t : L i k e most terms used by s o c i o l o g i s t s , t h i s one i s d e r i v e d from common usage, where i t s meaning i s im p r e c i s e . Sometimes i t means a p a r t i c u l a r band of people (as i n " S o c i e t y f o r the P r e v e n t i o n of C r u e l t y to A n imals"), sometimes on l y those people endowed w i t h g r e a t p r e s t i g e or p r i v i l e g e (as i n "Boston s o c i e t y l a d i e s " ) , and on other o c c a s i o n s i t i s simply used t o denote company of any s o r t ( f o r example, "he g r e a t l y s u f f e r e d i n those years f o r l a c k o f s o c i e t y " ) . (Berger, 1963:26). Or f i n a l l y , when Wootton formulates d i s c o u r s e as dilemmic he says t h a t : Hence, i f our aim i s to p r o v i d e an adequate re a d i n g , f o r m u l a t i o n or d e s c r i p t i o n f o r a s t r e t c h of t a l k , the extent t o which t h i s i s a f r u i t f u l a n a l y t i c e x e r c i s e w i l l depend on whether we can e x t r a c t unambiguously one f o r m u l a t i o n r a t h e r than a s e t of a l t e r n a t i v e f o r m u l a t i o n s , and whether t h i s i s p o s s i b l e w i l l depend on whether i t i s f e a s i b l e to. develop g e n e r a l c r i t e r i a f o r d e c i d i n g the meaning of words and g e n e r a l - 10 -c r i t e r i a f o r d e c i d i n g what s o r t o f u t t e r a n c e an u t t e r a n c e i s . (Wootton, 1975: 19). What a r e Durkheira, e t a l . ( S o c i o l o g y ) , s a y i n g when, i n t h e i r v a r i o u s ways, t h e y recommend t h a t speech as i t o c c u r s i n everyday l i f e be d i f f e r e n t i a t e d from speech t h a t o c c u r s i n s o c i o l o g i c a l i n q u i r y . They a r e c l e a r l y s a y i n g t h a t speech i s i n a d e q u a t e by v i r t u e o f the p o s s i b i l i t y of a l t e r n a t i v e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s . T h e i r v e r s i o n o f the i n -adequacy o f speech i s t h a t speech i s u n c l e a r , i m p r e c i s e , m u l t i - i n t e r p r e t a t i o n a l , and t h e l i k e . F o r them, speech i s bad s i n c e t o be good, speech would have t o be c l e a r , p r e c i s e , and u n i - i n t e r p r e t a t i o n a l . C o n c e i v e d t h u s speech becomes f o r s o c i o l o g y , n o t h i n g b u t words, t h i n g s t h a t c o r r e s p o n d t o o t h e r t h i n g s , namely b i t s and p i e c e s o f t h e w o r l d , i . e . , the w o r l d i t s e l f . So t h e i n t e l l i g i b i l i t y o f t h e inadequacy o f speech i s t o be l o c a t e d i n t h e a c t i v i t y o f m a t c h i n g t h i n g w i t h t h i n g , o f matching word w i t h w o r l d . F o r s o c i o l o g y , speech i s i n a d e q u a t e (bad) because i t does not a c c o m p l i s h t h i s match p e r f e c t l y and speech i s i n a d e q u a t e because i t c o u l d , i n d e e d , s h o u l d , be o t h e r w i s e , i . e . , i t s h o u l d be good (adequate, p e r f e c t ) and f u l f i l l i t s d e s t i n y as t h e p e r f e c t match f o r t h e w o r l d . But, a c c o r d i n g t o s o c i o l o g y , speech needs h e l p t o be the p e r f e c t match, t o be t h e good mate. The m a r r i a g e between speech and t h e w o r l d i s c e r t a i n l y i n t r o u b l e , i f t h e y are - 11 -m a r r i e d a t a l l , and l i k e a godsend, s o c i o l o g y appears t o smooth t h e w a t e r s . S o c i o l o g y i s j u s t the h e l p t h i s t r o u b l e d c o u p l e r e q u i r e s . S o c i o l o g y as m a r r i a g e c o u n s e l l o r and match-maker w i l l b r i n g speech and t h e w o r l d t o g e t h e r and r e c o n c i l e t h e i r t r o u b l e s so t h e y may l i v e h a p p i l y e v e r a f t e r as one. F o r s o c i o l o g y , t h e n , t h e inadequacy o f speech becomes i n t e l l i g i b l e as a t e c h n i c a l problem. And, as a problem c o n c e i v e d t e c h n i c a l l y , what i s r e q u i r e d ' i s a s o l u t i o n . The t a s k f o r s o c i o l o g y i s t o p r o v i d e t h e s o l u t i o n and thus t o remedy and r e p a i r the inadequacy o f speech. T h i s i s n e c e s s a r y because s o c i o l o g y can o n l y speak i n t e l l i g i b l y when i t u n d e r s t a n d s i t s speech as c o r r e s p o n d i n g t o t h e w o r l d . And how can i t speak, how can i t i n q u i r e , u n l e s s speech i s f i r s t r e n d e r e d adequate and p e r f e c t , i . e . , u n l e s s speech i s coaxed ( f o r c e d ? ) t o behave i t s e l f (to be good) and be f a i t h f u l t o i t s mate, t h e w o r l d ? The remedying and r e p a i r i n g o f speech i s not i n t e l l i g i b l e t o s o c i o l o g y as i n q u i r y . F o r s o c i o l o g y , i n q u i r y i s a l r e a d y t o be s p e a k i n g a d e q u a t e l y and p e r f e c t l y . So a l l remedy and r e p a i r work i s u n d e r s t o o d as p r e p a r a t i o n f o r i n q u i r y . S i n c e i n q u i r y (speech) f o r s o c i o l o g y , i s t o speak a t one w i t h t h e w o r l d , t h e i n q u e s t i v e t o o l s (speech) must be r e s c u e d from t h i s s t a t e o f d i s r e p a i r so t h a t the j o b ( i n q u i r y ) can g e t a d e q u a t e l y done. - 12 -But how does t h i s remedy and r e p a i r work proceed? R e p a i r work r e q u i r e s t o o l s , and what a r e the t o o l s o f the s o r t o f r e p a i r work t h a t s o c i o l o g y has i n mind? S o c i o l o g y wants t o r e p a i r speech, but how? S i n c e "Man speaks", s o c i o l o g y w i l l have t o speak as a way t o r e p a i r and remedy speech. We f i n d s o c i o l o g y i n t h e b i z a r r e p o s i t i o n o f remedying and r e p a i r i n g i n a d e q u a t e speech w i t h i n a d e q u a t e speech and t h u s o f f e r i n g i n a d e q u a t e speech as the r e m e d i a l r e s u l t o f i t s r e p a i r work. S o c i o l o g y wants t o speak about speech and y e t i t wants t o do t h i s w i t h o u t s p e a k i n g . S o c i o l o g y chooses t o be n i h i l i s t i c , i t chooses not t o speak, and what does i t choose, t o b a b b l e ? Does i t s b e n e v o l e n t d e s i r e t o a c t as m a r r i a g e c o u n s e l l o r and match-maker reduce i t s e l f t o b a b b l i n g ? S o c i o l o g y f o r g e t s why i t speaks t h e way i t does and, i n d e e d , f o r g e t s t h a t i t does speak. I t m i s t a k e s the remedy and r e p a i r work ( i t s s p e e c h ) , which i s a c t u a l l y t h e grammar o f i t s i n q u i r y , f o r p r e p a r a t i o n t o i n q u i r y , f o r non-speech. S o c i o l o g y not o n l y f o r g e t s t h e grounds and a u s p i c e s of i t s speech, w h i c h i s t o choose t o speak r e s p o n s i b l y , but i t f o r g e t s t h a t i t does speak, w h i c h i s n i h i l i s t i c , and t h u s i t chooses t o speak i r r e s p o n s i b l y . We, however, do not f o r g e t t h a t we speak. S i n c e we cannot speak t h e grounds o f our speech, we f o r g e t . What we f o r g e t , i n o r d e r t o speak, i s n o t , l i k e s o c i o l o g y , t h a t we do speak, b u t t h e grounds o f our speech. We do not f o r g e t - 13 -t h a t our speech i s grounded, b u t , i n s p e a k i n g , we do f o r g e t t h o s e grounds t h a t make our speech p o s s i b l e . L i k e s o c i o l o g y , we c o n c e i v e o f speech as i n a d e q u a t e b u t , u n l i k e s o c i o l o g y , we do n o t c o n c e i v e o f t h i s inadequacy as a problem t o be remedied and r e p a i r e d . We u n d e r s t a n d a l l speech, i n c l u d i n g our speech, as a r e f l e c t i o n o f t h e grounds and a u s p i c e s t h a t make i t p o s s i b l e . Thus, t o address t h e grounds o f some speech i s t o produce more speech w h i c h i t s e l f i s n e e d f u l o f g r o u n d i n g . That a l l speech i s n e e d f u l o f g r o u n d i n g i s how we f o r m u l a t e speech as i n a d e q u a t e . Thus, f o r us, speech i s not bad u n l e s s i t r e f u s e s t o ad d r e s s t h e grounds o f speech and d i s p l a y i t s commitment t o grounds. Speech i s good when i t d i s p l a y s a commitment t o t h a t w h i c h i t c o v e r s o v e r , namely g r o u n d s . 3 I I I . C o n c e i v i n g o f speech as a s u r f a c e r e f l e c t i o n o f i t s grounds, w h i c h i s t o say, as a c o n c r e t i z a t i o n o f t h a t w h i c h i t f o r g e t s , i . e . , i t s own p o s s i b i l i t y , has some i m p o r t a n t i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r how i n q u i r y o r t h e o r i z i n g i s u n d e r s t o o d . These i m p l i c a t i o n s do not o n l y make r e f e r e n c e t o the v e r s i o n of i n q u i r y o r t h e o r i z i n g d i s p l a y e d i n t h i s work, but make r e f e r e n c e t o a l l i n q u i r y , a l l t h e o r i z i n g , wheresoever i t i s done. - 14 -Durkheim, e t a l . ( S o c i o l o g y ) f o r example, a r e t h e o r i z i n g . One way o f r e a d i n g t h e i r t h e o r i z i n g i s u n r e f l e x i v e l y . Reading u n r e f l e x i v e l y i s t o j o i n s o c i o l o g y , i n i t s f o r g e t t i n g . S o c i o l o g y , f o r g e t s why i t speaks and i n d e e d , f o r g e t s t h a t i t speaks and we, r e a d i n g u n r e f l e x i v e l y , f o r g e t why we r e a d and f o r g e t t h a t we r e a d . S o c i o l o g y w r i t e s i t s words down and f o r g e t s t h a t the v e r y w r i t i n g down o f i t s words p r o v i d e s a c o v e r f o r t h a t w h i c h makes t h e words p o s s i b l e and our u n r e f l e x i v e r e a d i n g o f i t s words f i n d s the words t o be a l l t h a t t h e r e i s and we f o r g e t t h a t we are r e a d i n g a c o v e r . S o c i o l o g y w r i t e s u n r e f l e x i v e l y i n s o f a r as i t s w r i t i n g does n o t r e - a c h i e v e t h e t e n s i o n between i t s w r i t i n g and i t s p o s s i b i l i t y and we r e a d u n r e f l e x i v e l y i n s o f a r as our r e a d i n g does n ot r e - a c h i e v e t h e t e n s i o n between our r e a d i n g and i t s p o s s i b i l i t y . What t h i s s o r t o f w r i t i n g and r e a d i n g (speech) f a i l s t o r e c o g n i z e i s t h e d i f f e r e n c e between speech and i t s grounds. I t f a i l s t o r e c o g n i z e t h a t i n s p e a k i n g we make t h i s d i f f e r e n c e . Thus, what u n r e f l e x i v e speech aims a t i s n o t making a d i f f e r e n c e . T h i s i s t o t r e a t t h e r e a d i n g o f any t h e o r i z i n g as no t making a d i f f e r e n c e t o t h e t h e o r i z i n g i t s e l f and hence t o t r e a t t h e r e a d i n g n o t as i t s e l f t h e o r i z i n g i n t h e way t h a t what i s r e a d i s t h e o r i z i n g . T h i s v e r s i o n o f r e a d i n g p r o v i d e s f o r r e a d i n g t o be c o n c e i v e d o f as some s o r t o f an 4 » " i n n o c e n t a c t i v i t y " t h a t s e g r e g a t e s the a c t i v i t i e s o f - 15 -w r i t i n g and r e a d i n g . I t i s t o t r e a t r e a d i n g as the mere r e a d i n g o f words. I t i s t o t r e a t r e a d i n g as though what i s b e i n g w r i t t e n , what i s b e i n g s a i d , i s t o be found by l o o k i n g a t t h e words r a t h e r t h a n a d d r e s s i n g what the words c o v e r o v e r , t h e i r p o s s i b i l i t y . The c o n c r e t e s e g r e g a t i o n o f w r i t i n g and r e a d i n g t r e a t s t h e one as t h e i n n o c e n t subsequent o f t h e o t h e r and t h u s r e a d i n g becomes a b a r r e n a c t i v i t y s e p a r a t e d from speech and t h u s s e p a r a t e d from i t s t r a d i t i o n , from i t s b e g i n n i n g , from i t s p o s s i b i l i t y . Where t h e r e was one, t h e r e a r e now many and t h e p a r t s are m i s t a k e n f o r the whole. To a v o i d such s e g r e g a t i o n and t o become a n a l y t i c a l l y open t o t h e grounds of speech, i t i s n e c e s s a r y t o u n d e r s t a n d 5 r e a d i n g , as C u l l e r p u t s i t , as a " . . . ' r e c u p e r a t i o n ' w h i c h one's c r i t i c a l d i s c o u r s e p e r f o r m s . " ( C u l l e r , 1974: 22). " R e c u p e r a t i o n " , w r i t e s C u l l e r , "may be d e f i n e d as the d e s i r e t o l e a v e no c h a f f , t o make e v e r y t h i n g wheat, t o l e t n o t h i n g escape but i n t e g r a t e i t i n a l a r g e r scheme by g i v i n g i t a meaning." ( C u l l e r , 1974: 22). And what i s such " r e c u p e r a t i o n " i f n o t w r i t i n g s ' and r e a d i n g s ' (speeches') r e l i a n c e on i t s grounds. What our speech amounts t o , t h e n , i s a r e -a f f i r m a t i o n o f our grounds f o r s p e a k i n g and any p a r t i c u l a r i n s t a n c e o f w r i t i n g , as w e l l as any p a r t i c u l a r i n s t a n c e o f r e a d i n g , s e r v e s t o r e - a f f i r m our v e r s i o n o f adequate s p e a k i n g . C u l l e r ' s n o t i o n o f " r e c u p e r a t i o n " does not suggest t h a t i n our r e a d i n g o f t h e o r e t i c a l work we w i l l not f i n d - 16 -m a t t e r s t h a t a r e p u z z l i n g , p r o b l e m a t i c , e t c . f o r t h i s s u r e l y happens. F i n d i n g t h e r e t o be p u z z l e s and problems does n ot suggest t h a t we f a i l t o r e c u p e r a t e , i . e . , t h a t we f a i l t o t u r n t h e c h a f f i n t o wheat. R a t h e r , i t i s by v i r t u e o f r e c u p e r a t i o n t h a t we f i n d p u z z l e s and problems. P u z z l e s and p roblems, t h e n , do not r e p r e s e n t t h e l i t t l e b i t s o f c h a f f t h a t a r e l e f t o v e r b u t , l i k e t h e r e s t o f our speech, r e - p r e s e n t t h e grounds t h a t make i t p o s s i b l e f o r us t o f i n d p u z z l e s and problems i n t h e f i r s t p l a c e , i . e . , t h e grounds t h a t make i t p o s s i b l e f o r us t o speak. So a way t o r e a d t h e t h e o r i z i n g t h a t i s s o c i o l o g y , i s u n r e f l e x i v e l y , w h i c h i s t o say, t o r e c u p e r a t e i t s t h e o r i z i n g i n t h e same f o r g e t f u l way t h a t i t was done. I n t h i s sense, when we comment upon, make r e f e r e n c e t o , or c r i t i c i z e t h e t h e o r i z i n g o f s o c i o l o g y , our commenting, r e f e r r i n g , o r c r i t i c i z i n g i s made p o s s i b l e by t h a t w h i c h grounds t h e t h e o r i z i n g o f s o c i o l o g y , and, i n t h i s sense, we do not comment, r e f e r o r c r i t i c i z e a t a l l . What we do i s t o u n r e f l e x i v e l y j o i n s o c i o l o g y , i n i t s f o r g e t t i n g and th u s t o j o i n i t i n i t s r e - a f f i r m a t i o n o f t h e grounds o f i t s speech by p r o d u c i n g y e t one more c o n c r e t e i n s t a n c e ( r e a d i n g ) of t h o s e grounds. One way t o r e a d t h e o r e t i c a l work, t h e n , i s t o c o n c e i v e of i t as a r e p o r t o r an acco u n t o f some s t a t e - o f - a f f a i r s . To do t h i s , we must r e - a f f i r m our deep d e c i s i o n t o s e g r e g a t e speech from t h e w o r l d and t o u n d e r s t a n d speech as s t a n d i n g - 17 i n a c o r r e s p o n d e n c e r e l a t i o n t o t h e w o r l d . Adequate t h e o r i z i n g r e duces t o t h e p r o d u c t i o n o f agreement o r d i s a g r e e m e n t i n t h e w o r s t sense. E i t h e r the t h e o r i z i n g (speech) c o r r e s p o n d s t o t h e w o r l d , and we a g r e e , o r i t does n o t , and we d i s a g r e e . The aim o f t h i s s o r t o f t h e o r i z i n g i s t h u s t o produce agreement; t h e o r i z i n g i s produced under t h e a u s p i c e s o f a community and e v e r y t h e o r e t i c a l p r o d u c t i o n i s a r e - a f f i r m a t i o n of t h a t community. T h e o r i z i n g t h a t aims a t p r o d u c i n g agreement, where agreement i s grounded i n t h e n o t i o n t h a t speech c o r r e s p o n d s t o t h e w o r l d , i s t h e o r i z i n g t h a t aims a t an end of un-e x p l i c a t e d f i n a l i t y and p e r f e c t i o n . T h i s s o r t o f t h e o r i z i n g f o r g e t s i t s e s s e n t i a l r e f l e x i v e n a t u r e i n s o f a r as i t f o r g e t s t h a t w h i c h p r o v i d e s i t w i t h i t s p o s s i b i l i t y . T h i s t h e o r i z i n g i s n o t i n t e r e s t e d i n f o r m u l a t i n g t h e grounds of speech, i n f o r m u l a t i n g t h e grounds o f t h a t which i s t h e o b j e c t of i t s t h e o r i z i n g , b u t i n s t e a d i s i n t e r e s t e d i n t h e o r i z i n g about; i t i s i n t e r e s t e d i n not making a d i f f e r e n c e , and as such, s u b j e c t s i t s e l f t o t h e c o n c r e t e a u t h o r i t y o f some s t a t e - o f -a f f a i r s . A n o t h e r way t o r e a d a t h e o r e t i c a l work o r i n q u i r y , a way w h i c h i s here recommended as t h e b e s t way, i s r e f l e x i v e l y . Any t h e o r e t i c a l work or i n q u i r y i s a r e f l e c t i o n and r e -a f f i r m a t i o n o f t h e a u s p i c e s under which i t i s done. Each and e v e r y o c c a s i o n o f r e a d i n g , t h e n , s h o u l d be an o c c a s i o n - 18 -to r e f l e c t on t h a t which makes the t h e o r i z i n g or inquiry-p o s s i b l e . In t h i s way, each and every o c c a s i o n of r e a d i n g i s taken not only as the o p p o r t u n i t y to formulate the grounds of some other speech, but a l s o as the o p p o r t u n i t y to d i s p l a y the grounds of the r e a d i n g i t s e l f . I t i s to understand t h e o r i z i n g or i n q u i r y as making r e f e r e n c e t o , on each and every o c c a s i o n of i t s p r o d u c t i o n , some v e r s i o n of adequate t h e o r i z i n g or i n q u i r y . T h i s s o r t of r e a d i n g i s t r u l y t h e o r e t i c a l i n t h a t i t understands any t h e o r e t i c a l work or i n q u i r y as the t h e o r i s t ' s d i s p l a y of a recommended way to speak and a recommended way t o l i v e . R e f l e c t i v e t h e o r i z i n g or i n q u i r y , whether i t i s d i s p l a y e d i n w r i t i n g or r e a d i n g , i s t h e o r i z i n g or i n q u i r y t h a t aims at re-minding i t s e l f of i t s deep d e c i s i o n to speak and to speak i n a c e r t a i n way. I t i s an attempt not to f o r g e t but to r e - c o l l e c t ; to r e - c o l l e c t i t s d e c i s i o n , to r e - c o l l e c t the d i f f e r e n c e between i t and i t s p o s s i b i l i t y , and to r e - c o l l e c t i t s p o s s i b i l i t y as i t s o r i g i n . T h i s i s to decide to t h e o r i z e , to l i v e t h e o r e t i c a l l y , as over a g a i n s t the d e c i s i o n to r e p o r t , to l i v e t e c h n i c a l l y . IV. Why w r i t e or read an ethnography? Why speak e t h n o g r a p h i c a l l y ? are then q u e s t i o n s t h a t make r e f e r e n c e to the v e r s i o n of adequate i n q u i r y d i s p l a y e d i n ethnographic - 19 -speech. They r e f e r t o t h e f a c t t h a t ethnography r e c e i v e s i t s s e n s i b i l i t y and r e a s o n a b l e n e s s from t h a t w h i c h a u t h o r i z e s i t . The appearance o f ethnography, e t h n o g r a p h i c speech, i s d i f f e r e n t from i t s grounds and y e t must p a r t a k e i n i t s grounds i n o r d e r t o e x i s t . Any t h e o r i z i n g about ethnography w i l l a t t e m pt t o r e c o v e r the sense o f t h i s t e n s i o n , and a t t h e same t i m e , r e c o v e r i t s own sense o f t e n s i o n between i t s appearance and i t s grounds. In making ethnography our c o n c r e t e t o p i c , we have no d e s i r e , nor i n d e e d do we have a need, t o engage i n such performances as r e v i e w o f t h e l i t e r a t u r e , ^ p r o d u c t i o n of a t y p o l o g y o f e t h n o g r a p h i e s , and t h e l i k e . We have no d e s i r e o r need t o compare and c o n t r a s t e t h n o g r a p h i e s as t h i s i s u n d e r s t o o d i n t h e u s u a l sense o f f i n d i n g c o n c r e t e d i f f e r e n c e s among e t h n o g r a p h i e s and recommending one way o f d o i n g ethnography o v e r and a g a i n s t o t h e r s . F i n a l l y , we have no d e s i r e o r need t o d e s c r i b e and e v a l u a t e e t h n o g r a p h i e s where t h i s i s u n d e r s t o o d as t h e p r o d u c t i o n o f a manual o r handbook f o r t h e d o i n g o f adequate ethnography. Why a r e t h e s e s o r t s o f performances o r a c t i v i t i e s not n e c e s s a r y ? Each and e v e r y ethnography, r e g a r d l e s s o f i t s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , e.g., c o g n i t i v e , c o m p o n e n t i a l , ethno-m e t h o d o l o g i c a l , e t c . , a r e r e - p r e s e n t a t i o n s o f t h e i d e a o f ethnography and each makes r e f e r e n c e t o t h e grounds and good o f ethnography. In t h i s sense, c o n c r e t e i n s t a n c e s - 20 -of ethnography, whatever they might be, a r e appearances o f t h e R e a l i n s o f a r as each and e v e r y case o f ethnography f i n d s i t s p o s s i b i l i t y i n t h e i d e a o f ethnography. A c o n c e r n w i t h appearances o f ethnography, t h e n , i s a s u p e r f i c i a l c o n c e r n i n t h a t such concerns f i n d t h e i r p o s s i b i l i t y and speak under t h e same a u s p i c e s as do t h e appearances o f ethnography w i t h w h i c h t h e y a r e concerned. So the t o p i c o f t h i s work i s not ethnography i f by t h a t i s meant t h a t t h i s work i s about ethnography. I n s t e a d , t h i s work aims a t a d d r e s s i n g t h e grounds o f ethnography, and as such, c o n s i d e r s any e t h n o g r a p h i c speech as usage t h a t makes r e f e r e n c e t o i t s grounds. Usage, i . e . , e t h n o g r a p h i c speech, i s t h e s t a r t i n g p o i n t o f t h i s work s i m p l y because t h e r e i s nowhere e l s e t o s t a r t . But t h i s work c o n c e i v e s of usage as t h e o c c a s i o n t o address t h e grounds t h a t usage c o v e r s ove r . More t h a n a n y t h i n g e l s e , t h e n , t h i s work i s the o c c a s i o n t o d i s p l a y our grounds and commitment t o a v e r s i o n o f adequate t h e o r i z i n g t h a t aims a t g o i n g beyond appearances t o t h a t w h i c h makes a l l appearances p o s s i b l e . I n t h i s sense, t h i s work a d d r e s s e s i t s own p o s s i b i l i t y . What t h i s work r e q u i r e s , t h e n , i s usage. I t r e q u i r e s t h e speech o f an o t h e r . The r e l a t i o n t h a t t h i s work has t o 7 usage i s one o f c o l l a b o r a t i o n . Usage i s l i s t e n e d t o so t h a t what i t says can be f o r m u l a t e d ; What i t says i s not u n d e r s t o o d c o n c r e t e l y i n t h e sense t h a t usage i s s a y i n g something about - 21 -C o r n e r v i l l e l i f e , about d e a t h i n a h o s p i t a l , e t c . What usage i s s a y i n g i s something deeper t h a n t h a t . I t i s s a y i n g t h a t i t speaks under t h e a u s p i c e s of some a u t h o r i t y and i t i s t o t h a t a u t h o r i t y t h a t our i n q u e s t i v e ear i s t u r n e d . I n t h i s work we w i l l make use o f t h e e t h n o g r a p h i c speech of o t h e r s . T h i n k i n g , whether about ethnography o r a n y t h i n g e l s e , amounts t o a c o n v e r s a t i o n i n t h e S o c r a t i c sense. So o ur r e l a t i o n w i t h e t h n o g r a p h i c speech i s t h a t of a c o n v e r s a t i o n t h a t e x e m p l i f i e s our t h i n k i n g . So we c o l l a b o r a t e w i t h o t h e r s , we use e t h n o g r a p h i c speech (usage) and e n t e r i n t o c o n v e r s a t i o n w i t h i t and ad d r e s s t h e grounds o f i t s p r o d u c t i o n . V . F i n a l l y , we f i n d i t our t a s k t o address our d e s i r e and need t o w r i t e an I n t r o d u c t i o n . F o r us, the w r i t i n g o f an I n t r o d u c t i o n cannot be mer e l y an adherence t o c o n v e n t i o n , f o r t h a t would be t o l i v e under t h e a u s p i c e s o f c o n t i n g e n c y and s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e . To w r i t e an I n t r o d u c t i o n m e r e l y because c o n v e n t i o n demands i t , i s t o p l a c e one's l i f e w h o l l y a t t h e whim o f c o n v e n t i o n and c o n t i n g e n c y and thus t o abbro g a t e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r one's own l i f e . - 22 -S e t t i n g a s i d e the u s u a l n o t i o n o f c o n v e n t i o n f o r t h e moment, t h e r e seems t o be a t l e a s t one s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d way t o speak o f I n t r o d u c t i o n s , and t h a t i s , t h a t I n t r o d u c t i o n s i n t r o d u c e . Or p u t d i f f e r e n t l y , what b e l o n g s t o I n t r o d u c t i o n s i s t h e t a s k o f i n t r o d u c i n g . And t h i s means, s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d l y , t h a t I n t r o d u c t i o n s know t h a t which i s t o be i n t r o d u c e d . Embedded i n t h e n o t i o n o f I n t r o d u c t i o n , t h e n , i s knowledge, knowing t h a t t h e r e i s something s t i l l t o come and knowing what t h a t something i s . Thus, t h e t a s k t h a t b e l o n g s t o I n t r o d u c t i o n s ( t h a t which I n t r o d u c t i o n s a c c o m p l i s h ) i s t o l e t someone, i n t h i s case t h e r e a d e r , know t h a t t h e r e i s something s t i l l t o come and t o i n t r o d u c e t h a t something. I f t h e n o t i o n o f I n t r o d u c t i o n i s not t o degenerate i n t o sheer i n t r o d u c t i o n , i . e . , i n t o i n t r o d u c i n g f o r t h e sake o f i n t r o d u c i n g ( c o n v e n t i o n ) t h e n t h e r e must be some sense i n whi c h I n t r o d u c t i o n s f i n d t h e m s e l v e s t o be w o r t h w h i l e . In o t h e r words, I n t r o d u c t i o n s must be grounded i n a sense of w o r t h w h i l e n e s s i f we a r e t o u n d e r s t a n d them as w o r t h d o i n g and, i n t h i s s ense, as n e c e s s a r y . To a p p e a l t o s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e and c o n v e n t i o n as t h e w o r t h w h i l e ground o f I n t r o d u c t i o n s , i s t o c o n c e i v e o f I n t r o d u c t i o n s as w o r t h w h i l e and n e c e s s a r y i n r e l a t i o n t o s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e and c o n v e n t i o n . That i s , t h e c o n c r e t e d o i n g o f an I n t r o d u c t i o n would t h e n aim a t d i s p l a y i n g t h e w o r t h w h i l e n e s s o f c o n v e n t i o n and s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e . I n t r o d u c t i o n would t h e n be an o c c a s i o n t o d i s p l a y - 23 -commitment t o c o n v e n t i o n and s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e . I n t r o d u c t i o n would, t h e n be an e a r t h l y s a c r i f i c e made t o t h e god o f c o n v e n t i o n and s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e . T h i s c o n c e p t i o n o f I n t r o d u c t i o n i s not w i t h o u t i t s i m p l i c a t i o n s and consequences i n r e l a t i o n t o speech. F i r s t o f a l l , I n t r o d u c t i o n s a r e speech. To suggest t h a t one i n t r o d u c e s ( t h a t one speaks) because i t i s c o n v e n t i o n a l t o do so, i s t o suggest t h a t one speaks because of c o n v e n t i o n , i . e . , t h a t one's speech i s c a u s a l l y r e l a t e d t o c o n v e n t i o n . T h i s i s t o say t h a t speech i s caused and, i n t h e case of I n t r o d u c t i o n s , i t i s c o n v e n t i o n t h a t causes t h e speech. The i n t e r e s t i n g i m p l i c a t i o n o f t h i s i s t h a t i f c o n v e n t i o n underwent a metamorphosis, so would speech. Speech would change by v i r t u e o f a change i n c o n v e n t i o n . So, f o r example, i f I n t r o d u c t i o n s were no l o n g e r a c o n v e n t i o n , t h e y would no l o n g e r be spoken. Speech would t a k e on t h e s p i r i t of f a s h i o n , here today and gone tomorrow. Ano t h e r i n t e r e s t i n g t h i n g about t h i s c a u s a l r e l a t i o n between speech and c o n v e n t i o n i s t h e v e r y n o t i o n o f c o n v e n t i o n c h a n g i n g . I t i s t o c o n c e i v e o f c o n v e n t i o n c h a n g i n g , and i n d e e d i t i s t o c o n c e i v e o f c o n v e n t i o n i t s e l f , i n d e p e n d e n t l y of speech. T h i s i s t o c o n c e i v e o f c o n v e n t i o n as e x i s t i n g o u t s i d e speech and, moreover, i t i s t o c o n c e i v e o f c o n v e n t i o n as e x e r c i s i n g c o e r c i o n over speech. Such a c o n c e p t i o n depends f o r i t s i n t e l l i g i b i l i t y on t h e s e g r e g a t i o n o f speech and - 24 -c o n v e n t i o n . There e x i s t s c o n v e n t i o n , and by v i r t u e o f i t s e x i s t e n c e , t h e r e e x i s t s speech. A t b e s t , speech can o n l y c o r r e s p o n d t o c o n v e n t i o n and, i n t h i s sense, speech becomes t h e handmaiden o f c o n v e n t i o n . And a l l o f t h i s , c o n v e n t i o n , c h a n g i n g c o n v e n t i o n s , e t c . , t a k e s p l a c e as though speech c o u l d be s e p a r a t e d from t h e w o r l d . F i n a l l y , t h e n o t i o n t h a t c o n v e n t i o n causes speech has an i n t e r e s t i n g consequence v i s - a - v i s the s p e a k e r . What i s c o n s e q u e n t i a l v i s - a - v i s t h i s n o t i o n i s t h a t t h e speaker need not t a k e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r what i s spoken. There i s no need t o t a k e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y s i n c e , a f t e r a l l , i t i s c o n v e n t i o n t h a t i s c a u s i n g t h e speech. T h i s c o n c e p t i o n h o l d s out no c h o i c e t o t h e speaker. The speaker cannot choose t o speak i n t h i s way o r t h a t because i t i s c o n v e n t i o n t h a t w i l l d e t e r m i n e the way a speaker speaks. T h i s i s what we meant, when we s a i d t h a t t o w r i t e an I n t r o d u c t i o n (to speak) m e r e l y because c o n v e n t i o n demands i t , i s t o p l a c e one's l i f e w h o l l y a t t h e whim o f c o n v e n t i o n and c o n t i n g e n c y and t h u s t o abbrogate r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r one's own l i f e . To c o n c e i v e o f speech as b e i n g caused by c o n v e n t i o n , or b e i n g caused by whatever, i s t o f o r g e t why one speaks and t h a t one speaks. I t i s t o f o r g e t about p o s s i b i l i t i e s , i . e . , i t i s t o f o r g e t t h a t one c o u l d , a f t e r a l l , speak o t h e r w i s e . That c o n v e n t i o n causes speech can o n l y be c o n c e i v e d of when i t i s f o r g o t t e n t h a t one has d e c i d e d t o speak c o n v e n t i o n a l l y . - 25 -So t o l o o k t o c o n v e n t i o n as an answer t o t h e q u e s t i o n "Why w r i t e an I n t r o d u c t i o n ? " , i s , f i r s t o f a l l , t o t r e a t t h i s q u e s t i o n as c o n c r e t e l y a n s w e r a b l e , and s e c o n d l y , t o f o r g e t t h a t one speaks and d e c i d e s t o speak i n a p a r t i c u l a r way. I t i s t o say t h a t one c o n v e n t i o n a l l y w r i t e s an I n t r o d u c t i o n and t h a t i s a l l t h e r e i s t o i t . But as we have seen, t h e r e i s more t o i t th a n t h a t . I t i s t o admit t h a t speech i s c a u s a l l y c o n t i n g e n t upon c o n v e n t i o n and s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e . Perhaps we can f o r m u l a t e t h e i d e a o f I n t r o d u c t i o n more s t r o n g l y i f we examine more c l o s e l y t h e n o t i o n of the w o r t h w h i l e n e s s o f I n t r o d u c t i o n s as w e l l as t h a t w h i c h b e l o n g s t o I n t r o d u c t i o n s , i . e . , t h e i r t a s k . What b e l o n g s t o I n t r o d u c t i o n s , as we have a l r e a d y n o t e d , i s t h e t a s k of i n t r o d u c i n g . T h e i r t a s k i s t o n o t i f y t h e r e a d e r t h a t t h e r e i s something s t i l l t o come and t o i n t r o d u c e t h a t something. I n t h a t I n t r o d u c t i o n s a r e speech whose t a s k i t i s t o i n t r o d u c e speech, t h e y c a n, i n t h i s s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d sense, be t h o u g h t o f as a b e g i n n i n g . The d e s i r e and need t o w r i t e an I n t r o d u c t i o n , t h e n , can be l o c a t e d i n t h e d e s i r e and need t o b e g i n s p e a k i n g . To b e g i n s p e a k i n g i s no easy m a t t e r . I t i s no easy m a t t e r because we a l l know t h a t our speech w i l l be responded t o , and as such, may be c r i t i c i z e d , q u e s t i o n e d , r e j e c t e d , f o u n d t o be u n i n t e r e s t i n g , found t o be r i d i c u l o u s and wrong, e t c . To b e g i n t o speak, t h e n , i s an a n x i o u s and - 26 -and t e n s e moment. T h i s i s e s p e c i a l l y t r u e when we have something s e r i o u s t o say and t h e s e r i o u s n e s s o f what we have t o say i s t o be e v a l u a t e d o r when we c o n s i d e r t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t our b e g i n n i n g w i l l be judged as a poor f o r e c a s t o f what i s t o come and our audi e n c e w i l l s t o p l i s t e n i n g as a way t o a v o i d t h e p e n d i n g storm. Think o f t h e I n t r o d u c t i o n s t h a t a r e t y p i c a l l y t o be found i n academic works. They t o o r e - a f f i r m the a n x i e t y and t e n s i o n o f t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f p r o d u c i n g w r i t i n g t h a t no one w i l l f i n d i n t e r e s t i n g enough, o r w o r t h w h i l e enough, t o r e a d . I n t r o d u c t i o n s t h u s become p l a c e s t o promise and ask f o r p a t i e n c e . They promise t h e r e a d e r t h a t what i s f o r t h c o m i n g i s w o r t h w h i l e r e a d i n g and ask the r e a d e r t o be p a t i e n t and r e a d on. I n t r o d u c t i o n s t e l l t h e r e a d e r what i s f o r t h c o m i n g and t e l l t h e r e a d e r how what i s f o r t h c o m i n g i s b o t h r e l e v a n t and n e c e s s a r y t o r e a d . I t b e l o n g s t o I n t r o d u c t i o n s t o t e l l t he r e a d e r t h a t u n l e s s what i s f o r t h c o m i n g i s r e a d the r e a d e r w i l l m i s s something t h a t he o r she cannot a f f o r d t o m i s s . The t a s k o f I n t r o d u c t i o n s becomes one o f c a p t i v a t i n g an a u d i e n c e ; I t b e l o n g s t o I n t r o d u c t i o n s t o c a p t u r e the r e a d e r by p e r s u a d i n g t h e r e a d e r t h a t what i s f o r t h c o m i n g i s w o r t h w h i l e , i n t e r e s t i n g and n e c e s s a r y . F o r academics, as w e l l as f o r o t h e r s , the p o s s i b i l i t y o f p r o d u c i n g w r i t i n g t h a t no one w i l l r e a d i s a r e f l e c t i o n o f t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f not p r o d u c i n g communal speech and a r e - a f f i r m a t i o n o f t h e r i s k o f b e g i n n i n g t o speak. - 27 -What I n t r o d u c t i o n s p r o m i s e , t h e n , i s t o speak communally. In t h i s s e n s e , i n t r o d u c t i o n s e x p r e s s the a n x i o u s p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t no one w i l l r e a d what we have t o w r i t e . But more, t h e y a r e an e x p r e s s i o n o f t h e i m p u l s e not t o speak and t h u s t o a v o i d the r i s k o f r e j e c t i o n . Moreover, I n t r o d u c t i o n s r e - p r e s e n t t h e f a c t t h a t we can b e g i n t o speak o n l y w i t h o p i n i o n and r e - a f f i r m t h e c o n c e p t i o n t h a t o p i n i o n s a r e r i s k y m a t t e r s . As s p e a k e r s , we have something t o say, but b e g i n n i n g t o speak i s no easy m a t t e r and we would r a t h e r not b e g i n b u t e n t e r our s p e a k i n g as though i t c o u l d b e g i n w i t h o u t us. F o u c a u l t b e g i n s one of h i s l e c t u r e s i n the f o l l o w i n g way. I would r e a l l y l i k e t o have s l i p p e d i m p e r c e p t i b l y i n t o t h i s l e c t u r e , as i n t o a l l t h e o t h e r s I s h a l l be d e l i v e r i n g , perhaps over t h e y e a r s ahead. I would have p r e f e r r e d t o be enveloped i n words, borne way beyond a l l p o s s i b l e b e g i n n i n g s . A t the moment o f s p e a k i n g , I would l i k e t o have p e r c e i v e d a nameless v o i c e , l o n g p r e c e d i n g me, l e a v i n g me m e r e l y t o enmesh m y s e l f i n i t , t a k i n g up i t s cadence, and t o lod g e m y s e l f , when no one was l o o k i n g , i n i t s i n t e r s t i c e s as i f i t had paused an i n s t a n t , i n suspense, t o beckon t o me. There would have been no b e g i n n i n g s : i n s t e a d , speech would p r o c e e d from me, w h i l e I s t o o d i n i t s p a t h - a s l e n d e r gap - t h e p o i n t o f i t s p o s s i b l e d i s a p p e a r a n c e . ( F o u c a u l t , 1972: 215). - 28 -But, l i k e F o u c a u l t , b e g i n we must; t h e r e i s no one who can s e t t h e s t a g e f o r us, t h e r e i s no one who can l odge us i n t o our speech, t h e r e i s no one who can save us from t h e r i s k o f s p e a k i n g , so we b e g i n . We b e g i n by t a k i n g t h e r i s k . But we can choose t o b e g i n n o t by c o n c e i v i n g o f our I n t r o d u c t i o n as h a v i n g the t a s k o f p r o m i s i n g o r c a p t u r i n g , b u t r a t h e r by c o n c e i v i n g o f our I n t r o d u c t i o n as h a v i n g the t a s k o f t e a c h i n g . What be l o n g s t o our I n t r o d u c t i o n i s t e a c h i n g ; t h i s I n t r o d u c t i o n i s our attempt t o t e a c h our r e a d e r s how t o r e a d what we w r i t e . We a t t e m p t e d , i n t h i s I n t r o d u c t i o n , t o t e a c h the s o r t o f r e a d i n g t h a t would u n d e r s t a n d , not o n l y t h i s i n q u i r y but a l l i n q u i r y , as a d e p i c t i o n o f a v e r s i o n o f good i n q u i r y . Moreover, t h e t a s k o f our I n t r o d u c t i o n i s not o n l y one o f t e a c h i n g b u t i s a l s o one o f l e a r n i n g . I t was the t a s k o f l e a r n i n g how t o w r i t e , i . e . , how t o do an i n q u i r y t h a t would d i s p l a y f o r o t h e r s our v e r s i o n o f good i n q u i r y . The v e r y w r i t i n g o f t h i s I n t r o d u c t i o n was our attempt t o l e a r n about and u n d e r s t a n d th e p a i n and a n x i e t y o f our d e s i r e and need t o w r i t e an I n t r o d u c t i o n . - 29 -FOOTNOTES 1 The i d e a o f " f o r g e t f u l n e s s " i s st e e p e d i n a p h i l o s o p h i c a l t r a d i t i o n t h a t s t r e t c h e s from P l a t o t o Heidegger. F o r g e t f u l n e s s f i n d s i t s contemporary e x p r e s s i o n i n such t h e o r i s t s as McHugh, e t a l . , 1974; Blum, 1974: Blum, 1978; Blum and McHugh, 1979; R a f f e l , 1979. F o r g e t -f u l n e s s r e f e r e n c e s t h e i d e a t h a t speech i s not s e l f - s u f f i c i e n t , n o t p e r f e c t , i n s o f a r as speech i s a s u r f a c e r e f l e c t i o n o f t h a t which a u t h o r i z e s i t , i t s grounds. Grounds a r e not sp e a k a b l e i n s o f a r as speech i s not f i r s t and th u s speech r e - p r e s e n t s t h e f o r g e t f u l n e s s o f i t s grounds, i . e . , o f i t s a u s p i c e s , and f o r g e t f u l n e s s r e f e r e n c e s t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f s p e a k i n g . A g a i n a c c o r d i n g t o our c o n c e p t i o n o f a n a l y s i s , c o l l a b o r a t i o n i s n e c e s s a r y because t o w r i t e i s t o l o s e one's g r a s p o f a u s p i c e s by a t t e m p t i n g t o f o r m u l a t e them: t o w r i t e i s t o f o r g e t why you w r i t e ; t o be caught up i n the a c t i v i t y o f f o r m u l a t i o n i s t o f a c e away from one's own fundamental grounds t h r o u g h which t h o s e f o r m u l a t i o n s come about. (McHugh, e t a l . , 19 74:3) To speak i s t o deny, i . e . , t o f o r g e t , the a u s p i c e s o f speech. Thus t h e n e c e s s i t y o f c o l l a b o r a t i o n ; t h e n e c e s s i t y o f e n t e r i n g i n t o a c o n v e r s a t i o n w i t h speech (usage) i n o r d e r t o f o r m u l a t e t h e grounds o f t h a t usage as a way t o d i s p l a y a commitment t o an a n a l y s i s ( i n q u i r y ) t h a t i s committed t o t h e f o r m u l a t i o n o f grounds. T h i s s o r t o f i n q u i r y i s st e e p e d i n the P l a t o n i c t r a d i t i o n o f " r e c o l l e c t i o n " t h a t i s t o be found i n t h e P l a t o n i c d i a l o g u e s p a r t i c u l a r l y i n t h e Meno. So when we speak about f o r g e t t i n g we a r e s p e a k i n g about f o r g e t t i n g t h a t w h i c h makes our speech p o s s i b l e . I t i s t h i s i d e a of f o r g e t t i n g t h a t i s fundamental t o our e n t i r e work. - 30 -In t h i s sense t h e i d e a o f f o r g e t f u l n e s s can be u n d e r s t o o d o n l y i n r e l a t i o n t o P l a t o ' s n o t i o n o f the Good. (See p.138 o f t h i s work.) The Good does not r e f e r t o some s e t o f assumptions t h a t u n d e r l i e a speech s i n c e a s e t o f assumptions i s s p e a k a b l e and i s t h u s i t s e l f speech. Speech i s v a l u a b l e o n l y i n s o f a r as i t i s a s u r f a c e r e f l e c t i o n o f t h e Good, i . e . , o n l y i n s o f a r as speech i s an appearance o f t h e R e a l . The Good i s not a s p e a k a b l e t h i n g and t h u s any speech, i n c l u d i n g speech t h a t f o r m u l a t e s t h e grounds o f speech, i s i t s e l f speech t h a t i s n e e d f u l o f g r o u n d i n g , i s i t s e l f speech t h a t i s grounded i n t h e Good., The i d e a o f the Good i s f o r m u l a t e d t h r o u g h o u t t h i s work and grounds the d i s t i n c t i o n t h a t i s made i n t h i s work between speech and language. The d i s t i n c t i o n between speech and language t h a t i s f o r m u l a t e d i n t h i s work i s t o be d i f f e r e n t i a t e d ' from o t h e r f o r m u l a t i o n s o f t h e d i s t i n c t i o n between speech and language. F o r example, Chomsky w r i t e s t h a t "We t h u s make a fundamental d i s t i n c t i o n between com-petence (the s p e a k e r - h e a r e r ' s knowledge o f h i s language) and performance (the a c t u a l use o f language i n c o n c r e t e s i t u a t i o n s ) . " (1965:4) Chomsky goes on t o say t h a t a " g e n e r a t i v e grammar... a t t e m p t s t o c h a r a c t e r i z e i n the most n e u t r a l p o s s i b l e terms t h e knowledge o f t h e language t h a t p r o v i d e s the b a s i s f o r a c t u a l use o f language by a s p e a k e r - h e a r e r . " (1965:9) So Chomsky d i s t i n g u i s h e s speech (performance) from language (competence). F o r Chomsky, language i s s p e a k a b l e i n s o f a r as he c o n c r e t e l y recommends a g e n e r a t i v e grammar t h a t w i l l , i n a sense, be the s p e a k i n g o f language. C o n c r e t e speech i s , f o r Chomsky, g e n e r a t e d by language and h i s a n a l y s i s recommends t h a t language can be brought t o speech. T h i s , o f c o u r s e , presupposes t h a t Chomsky's a n a l y s i s i s a l s o grounded i n language and t h a t t h a t language i s i t s e l f s p e a k a b l e . F o r us, on t h e o t h e r hand, language i s not s p e a k a b l e i n s o f a r as we do not c o n c e i v e o f speech as f i r s t and a b s o l u t e . We c o n c e i v e o f speech as i m p e r f e c t , i . e . , as not s e l f - s u f f i c i e n t and so, e v e r y i n s t a n c e o f speech i s grounded i n language, i n language t h a t i s not e f f a b l e . Any a d d r e s s i n g of language i s i t s e l f grounded i n language and i s thus i t s e l f n e e d f u l o f g r o u n d i n g . The fundamental d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n between Chomsky's c o n c e p t i o n o f language and our c o n c e p t i o n o f language i s t h a t whereas f o r Chomsky speech i s f i r s t and n a t u r a l , f o r us, speech i s s h e l t e r e d by language i n c l u d i n g Chomsky's speech. - 31 -2 Heidegger a t t r i b u t e s t h e s e words t o W i l h e l m von Humboldt. D e s p i t e t h i s f a c t , we r e f e r t o t h e s e words as t h e words o f Heidegger. I n t h i s work, we a r e a t t e m p t i n g t o say something t h a t i s i m p o r t a n t and so, we use Heidegger's words, o r Humboldt's words, not as a v e r i f i c a t i o n , o r e v i d e n c e , f o r something we want t o say, but we choose t o use t h e s e words as a way t o say something we want t o say. In t h i s sense, what i s i m p o r t a n t i s t h a t the words have been s a i d and t h u s , the q u e s t i o n as t o the c o n c r e t e speaker o f the words i s a q u e s t i o n o f secondary c o n c e r n . Heidegger d i d not c i t e t h e s e words i n t h e c o n v e n t i o n a l s c h o l a r s h i p n o t i o n o f c i t i n g , t h u s we t a k e i t t h a t Heidegger a l s o wanted t o say t h e s e words (and d i d ) and so, we a t t r i b u t e t h e s e words t o Heidegger. I n any c a s e , we use t h e s e words as exemplary. 3 Blum (1974:64-94) speaks about " t r u e speech" as speech t h a t a d d r e s s e s i t s own p o s s i b i l i t y , i . e . , a d d r e s s e s t h a t w h i c h i t c o v e r s over and " f a l s e speech" as speech t h a t f o r g e t s t h a t i t i s not f i r s t , a b s o l u t e and n e c e s s a r y . 4 I n h i s essay "From ' C a p i t a l ' t o Marx's P h i l o s o p h y " , w hich i n t r o d u c e s Reading C a p i t a l A l t h u s s e r s a y s , "But as t h e r e i s no such t h i n g as an i n n o c e n t r e a d i n g , we must say what r e a d i n g we a r e g u i l t y o f . " ( A l t h u s s e r , 1979:14) Reading i s not i n n o c e n t i n s o f a r as we ( r e a d e r s ) b r i n g a t r a d i t i o n t o our r e a d i n g . T h i s i s n o t t o say t h a t we s h e e r l y i n t e r p r e t but r a t h e r i t i s t o say t h a t our r e a d i n g i s grounded i n a t r a d i t i o n t h a t p r o v i d e s f o r i t s p o s s i b i l i t y . So r e a d i n g i s r e f l e x i v e i n t h a t i t r e f l e c t s , and makes r e f e r e n c e t o , i t s p o s s i b i l i t y . Any r e a d i n g , t h e n , d i s p l a y s i t s v e r s i o n o f good r e a d i n g . 5 C u l l e r (1975:137) employs the n o t i o n " r e c u p e r a t i o n " as a way t o speak about " p o s s i b i l i t i e s o f meaning". C u l l e r speaks o f " r e c u p e r a t i o n " as "ways o f n a t u r a l i z i n g t h e t e x t and g i v i n g i t a p l a c e i n t h e w o r l d which our c u l t u r e d e f i n e s . " "To a s s i m i l a t e o r i n t e r p r e t something", w r i t e s C u l l e r , " i s t o b r i n g i t w i t h i n the modes o f o r d e r w h i c h c u l t u r e makes a v a i l a b l e , and t h i s i s u s u a l l y done by t a l k i n g about i t i n a mode of d i s c o u r s e w h i c h a c u l t u r e t a k e s as n a t u r a l . " I n a sense, t h e n , what C u l l e r i s d o i n g i s r e m i n d i n g us t h a t we t a k e f o r n a t u r a l what i s c o n v e n t i o n a l . I n h i s paper " W i t t g e n s t e i n ' s V o i c e s " , Turner (1979) o c c a s i o n s t h e work o f W i t t g e n s t e i n as a way t o f o r m u l a t e t h e work o f r e c u p e r a t i o n o r n a t u r a l i z a t i o n . - 32 -6 Any c i t a t i o n from t h e e t h n o g r a p h i c l i t e r a t u r e t h a t appears i n t h i s work appears as an example o f ethnography, as usage, and thus the e t h n o g r a p h i c l i t e r a t u r e i s n o t r e v i e w e d but i s c i t e d as an example o f a way o f s p e a k i n g . 7 " C o l l a b o r a t i o n " i s t o p i c a l i z e d and f o r m u l a t e d by McHugh, e t a l . (1974:1-20). What i s i n t e n d e d here i s t h a t t h e i d e a o f c o l l a b o r a t i o n i s not r e s t r i c t e d t o a c o n c r e t e u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f c o n v e r s a t i o n as the c o n v e r s a t i o n between one c o n c r e t e speaker and an o t h e r . In t h i s sense, c o l l a b o r a t i o n can be done w i t h one's s e l f . So our t h i n k i n g about ethnography, our c o n v e r s a t i o n , r e p r e s e n t s s t i l l a n o t h er m a n i f e s t a t i o n o f t h e i d e a o f c o l l a b o r a t i o n i n s o f a r as we c o l l a b o r a t e w i t h o u r s e l v e s as a way t o f o r m u l a t e t h e grounds o f ethnography. - 33 -CHAPTER 2. TOPICS I . We began t h e l a s t c h a p t e r w i t h the q u e s t i o n why-w r i t e and r e a d an ethnography? T h i s q u e s t i o n was not asked i n t h e s p i r i t o f q u e s t i o n / a n s w e r o r p r o b l e m / s o l u t i o n t h i n k i n g when by t h a t i s meant an i n q u e s t i v e f o r m u l a t i o n o f q u e s t i o n s and problems as w e l l as t h e subsequent f o r m u l a t i o n o f answers, s o l u t i o n s , e x p l a n a t i o n s and j u s t i f i c a t i o n s t h a t aim a t p u t t i n g i n q u i r y t o r e s t . I n s t e a d , t h i s q u e s t i o n was posed i n t h e s p i r i t o f an i n q u i r y t h a t seeks t o re-mind and r e - c o l l e c t . T h i s s o r t o f i n q u i r y seeks t o re-mind i t s e l f o f what i t f o r g e t s , namely t h a t i t does speak and t h a t i t does speak i n a c e r t a i n way. I t seeks t o r e - c o l l e c t t h e deep d e c i s i o n t h a t makes i t s c o n c r e t e d o ~ a b i l i t y ( i n q u i r y , speech) p o s s i b l e . So i n q u i r y t h a t seeks t o re-mind and r e - c o l l e c t does not t u r n i t s i n q u e s t i v e eye t o i t s end, but r a t h e r t u r n s i t s i n q u e s t i v e eye t o i t s b e g i n n i n g and s i n c e each t u r n o f t h e eye r e - a f f i r m s i t s o r i g i n ( t h a t w h i c h p e r m i t s the eye t o t u r n ) and i s d e e p l y r e l i a n t upon i t s o r i g i n f o r i t s t u r n i n g , each t u r n marks the occasion"'" f o r r e - m i n d i n g and r e - c o l l e c t i n g t h e deep d e c i s i o n t o t u r n i n t h e f i r s t p l a c e , and as such, th e t u r n i n g , t h e i n q u i r y , i s never e n d i n g . - 34 -Thus, t h i s c h a p t e r t o o can b e g i n w i t h a q u e s t i o n , and t h a t i s Why w r i t e about ethnography? And a g a i n , t h i s q u e s t i o n does n o t ask f o r a t e l e o l o g i c a l r e s p o n s e , f o r t h a t would p u t t h e q u e s t i o n o u t o f mind r a t h e r t h a n b r i n g i n g i t t o mind. I n s t e a d , t h e q u e s t i o n a s k s a f t e r t h e d e s i r e and need t o speak about ethnography. The q u e s t i o n a s k s us t o r e - c o l l e c t our d e c i s i o n t o speak about ethnography, our d e c i s i o n t o make ethnography our t o p i c , o r b e t t e r , o ur d e c i s i o n t o speak about a n y t h i n g o r make a n y t h i n g our t o p i c . The i s s u e thus becomes th e i s s u e o f "speech about", i . e . , the i s s u e o f t o p i c a l i t y . There i s one sense i n wh i c h making ethnography our t o p i c i s l i m i t i n g i n t h e w o r s t sense o f t h a t term. T h i s l i m i t a t i o n goes f a r beyond t h e n a t u r a l l i m i t a t i o n o f the inadequacy o f speech (see Chapter 1) and t h i s n a t u r a l l i m i t a t i o n d e g e n e r a t e s i n t o t h e s e l f - i m p o s e d o p p r e s s i v e r e s t r i c t i o n o f t o p i c . T h i s i s so when i n q u i r y f o r g e t s about, 2 and th u s a c c e p t s , t h e t o p i c a l i t y o f i t s t o p i c . The v e r y p o s s i b i l i t y o f t o p i c never becomes an i n q u e s t i v e c o n c e r n but o n l y r e s t r i c t s t h e i n q u i r y i t s e l f . Thus i n q u i r y , r a t h e r t h a n becoming l i b e r a t e d , becomes r e s t r i c t e d by g i v i n g i t s e l f up t o t h e a u t h o r i t y w h i c h makes i t s t o p i c p o s s i b l e . So i n q u i r y t h a t i s r e s t r i c t e d never s e i z e s i t s t o p i c as an o c c a s i o n t o speak, but i s i n s t e a d s e i z e d by i t s t o p i c . I n q u i r y t h a t i s r e s t r i c t e d by i t s t o p i c i s never l i b e r a t e d because i t i s b u t a n o t h e r i n s t a n c e o f i t s - 35 -t o p i c . The a d o p t i o n o f a t o p i c w i t h o u t i n q u i r i n g i n t o t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f t h a t t o p i c i t s e l f and w i t h o u t i n q u i r i n g i n t o t h e p o s s i b i l i t y and n e c e s s i t y o f a d o p t i n g a t o p i c , i . e . , o f i n q u i r i n g i n t o t o p i c a l i t y i t s e l f , does not p e r m i t the i n q u i r y t o be l i b e r a t e d from t h e c h a i n s o f the v e r y t o p i c i t wants t o f o r m u l a t e . Choosing a t o p i c o f i n q u i r y w h i l e a t t h e same t i m e f o r g e t t i n g t h e grounds o f t h a t t o p i c and f o r g e t t i n g t h e grounds o f c h o o s i n g a t o p i c r e n d e r s i n q u i r y a s l a v e t o c o n c r e t e s t a t e s - o f - a f f a i r s , i . e . , a s l a v e t o c o n c r e t e t o p i c s . What i n q u i r y s a y s , t h e n , i s o r i e n t e d t o , i n a r e s t r i c t i v e way, s p e e c h - a b o u t - t h e - t o p i c and thus the speech o f i n q u i r y i s n o t l i b e r a t e d speech. In t h i s sense, i n q u i r y chooses a t o p i c because i t wants something t o speak about and n o t because i t has something t o say. I I . As was the case i n Chapter 1, t h e r e seems t o be some s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d sense i n wh i c h t h e i s s u e o f t o p i c a l i t y can be a d d r e s s e d . But as was a l s o t h e case i n Chapter 1, the s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d n e s s would n e c e s s a r i l y c o n c r e t i z e t o p i c a l i t y and d e l i v e r i t i n t o t h e r e a l m o f c o n t i n g e n c y . I t would u n d e r s t a n d t o p i c a l i t y as some c o n c r e t e m a t t e r t o be d i s c u s s e d and U n d erstand t h e c h o o s i n g o f a t o p i c as c o n t i n g e n t upon - 36 -such t h i n g s as biography and convention. In t h i s sense, What b r i n g s t o p i c about? i s a concrete q u e s t i o n ; a q u e s t i o n t h a t i s answerable by an examination of circumstance r a t h e r than by an examination of the impulse to t o p i c a l i z e and the p o s s i b i l i t y o f t o p i c i t s e l f . C o n c e i v i n g o f t o p i c as the r a t i o n a l e f o r speaking and c o n c e i v i n g of circumstance as the r a t i o n a l e f o r having a t o p i c to speak about., i s a degenerate way of making r e f e r e n c e to worthwhile speech, i . e . , to having something worthwhile to say. T h i s c o n c e p t i o n i s degenerate because i t makes no attempt t o r e - c o l l e c t the deep d e c i s i o n to speak i n a p a r t i c u l a r way. A r a t i o n a l i s t i c appeal to t o p i c , then, g i v e s t o p i c and circumstance as i t s r a t i o n a l e , i t s reason f o r speaking. T h i s i s to speak i r r e s p o n s i b l y i n s o f a r as t o p i c and circumstance now become r e s p o n s i b l e f o r speech. What we are saying i s t h a t the n o t i o n of t o p i c and circumstance as r e s p o n s i b l e f o r speech understands d i f f e r e n c e as an e s s e n t i a l c o n d i t i o n of speakers. I t understands t h a t there are as many speakers and speeches as there are t o p i c s and circumstances. The d i f f e r e n c e t h a t a speaker makes i s a d i f f e r e n c e t h a t o r i g i n a t e s i n t o p i c s and circumstances. The r e s p o n s e - a b i l i t y of a speaker i s to be l o c a t e d w i t h i n the speaker's t o p i c and circumstances. I t i s t o p i c and circumstance t h a t makes a speaker a b l e - t o ~ r e s p o n d and thus the worthwhileness o f speech i s reduced to the worthwhileness of whatever i s spoken about. - 37 -On t h i s view, t o p i c s become the most c r u c i a l and c e n t r a l p a r t s o f speech. They a r e c r u c i a l because i t i s from t o p i c s t h a t t h e w o r t h w h i l e n e s s o f speech i s g e n e r a t e d and t h e y a r e c e n t r a l because i t i s around the c e n t r a l i t y o f t o p i c t h a t speech i s c o l l e c t e d . So t h e d i f f e r e n c e and t o g e t h e r n e s s o f speech i s u n d e r s t o o d i n t h e most c o n c r e t e way. What makes one speech d i f f e r e n t from a n o t h e r i s t o p i c and i t i s t o p i c t h a t b r i n g s one speech t o g e t h e r w i t h a n o t h e r . T h i s view s u g g e s t s t h a t speech i s owned and what owns speech i s t o p i c . T o p i c i s l i k e a grand f a t h e r t h a t c o l l e c t s a l l o f h i s o f f s p r i n g around him and d i f f e r e n t i a t e s h i s o f f s p r i n g from t h o s e o f o t h e r grand f a t h e r s . T h i s view must h o l d t h a t t h e d i f f e r e n c e and t o g e t h e r n e s s o f speech i s an a c c i d e n t of ; ••• b i r t h . I t h o l d s t h a t what we say i s a c c i d e n t a l because what we speak about i s c o n t i n g e n t upon such c i r c u m s t a n c e s as b i o g r a p h y and c o n v e n t i o n . As a way t o e x e m p l i f y t h i s p o i n t , l e t us t h i n k about some o f t h e c o n c r e t e ways we c o u l d respond t o t h e q u e s t i o n posed a t t h e b e g i n n i n g o f t h i s c h a p t e r , namely Why w r i t e about ethnography? I f we c o n c e i v e o f a n t h r o p o l o g y as i n c l u d i n g ethnography we may f i n d an example of a response t o t h i s q u e s t i o n i n t h e works o f such a n t h r o p o l o g i s t s as Berreman and S c h o l t e . Berreman s a y s , f o r example, "We a r e h a v i n g t h i s s e s s i o n on ' R e t h i n k i n g A n t h r o p o l o g y 1 because many o f us a r e . . . s i c k o f a n t h r o p o l o g y as i t i s e x e m p l i f i e d - 38 -i n most o f our j o u r n a l s , books and c o u r s e s - even t h o s e we have o u r s e l v e s p e r p e t u a t e d . " (1969:83). Or, as S c h o l t e s a y s , " T h i s e s s a y i s m o t i v a t e d by a sense o f m a l a i s e - a vague sense, a d m i t t e d l y , b u t one w h i c h I t h i n k I share w i t h many o t h e r a n t h r o p o l o g i s t s i n t h i s c o u n t r y . " (1969:430). What i s t h e r e a s o n t h a t Berreman and S c h o l t e have f o r s p e a k i n g about ethnography? They a r e s u r e l y s p e a k i n g out of c o n c e r n : Berreman i s " s i c k o f i t " and S c h o l t e "senses a m a l a i s e s u r r o u n d i n g i t ' : . Now t h e s e a re c e r t a i n l y genuine c o n c e r n s and, i n one sense, a r e r e a s o n enough f o r s p e a k i n g about ethnography. I t i s suggested t h a t ethnography i s i n some s o r t o f t r o u b l e and t h a t t h a t t r o u b l e i s w o r t h a d d r e s s i n g . We, t o o , c o u l d l a y c l a i m t o such a c o n c e r n . We c o u l d c l a i m , f o r example, t h a t ethnography i s i n t r o u b l e t h e o r e t i c a l l y , m e t h o d o l o g i c a l l y , h u m a n i s t i c a l l y , o r whatever, and suspend our d o i n g o f ethnography and o p t f o r s p e a k i n g about ethnography. I n so d o i n g , we c o u l d r i d o u r s e l v e s o f t h e q u e s t i o n Why w r i t e about ethnography? G e t t i n g r i d of t h e q u e s t i o n , however, i s not something t h a t i s done by v i r t u e o f me r e l y a n s w e r i n g i t . The f a c t t h a t t h e q u e s t i o n i s posed as an answerable t h i n g i s a l r e a d y t o have g o t t e n r i d o f t h e q u e s t i o n . That i s , t he q u e s t i o n posed c o n c r e t e l y i s a l r e a d y t o have a c c e p t e d t h e n o t i o n o f t o p i c as c r u c i a l and c e n t r a l t o speech. I t i s t o have a c c e p t e d , w i t h o u t c o n s i d e r a t i o n , t h e t o p i c a l i t y o f ethnography as something w o r t h s p e a k i n g about. Ethnography as t o p i c - 39 -s e c u r e l y i n hand , speakers d e l u d e themselves i n t o t h i n k i n g t h a t t h e i r speech o r i g i n a t e s w i t h i t s c o n c r e t e b e g i n n i n g . In t h i s s ense, speech i s c o n c e i v e d o f as o r i g i n a t i n g w i t h 3 a t h m g - t o - s p e a k - a b o u t as a s e c u r e b e g i n n i n g . Speech i s r e s p o n s e - a b l e o n l y i n s o f a r as i t i s t o p i c a l . S p e a k i n g about t h e t r o u b l e o f ethnography, i . e . , s p e a k i n g about ethnography, i s thus u n d e r s t o o d c o n c r e t e l y as i s s u i n g from ethnography i t s e l f . Ethnography i s a t h i n g about w h i c h o t h e r t h i n g s - speeches - can be s a i d . The t r o u b l e s o m e -ness o f ethnography as t o p i c i s something t h a t i s a c c i d e n t a l i n s o f a r as t h a t i s how ethnography i s found t o be, i . e . , i n t r o u b l e . Berreman and S c h o l t e f i n d ethnography t o be t r o u b l e -some and i t i s t h i s t r o u b l e s o m e n e s s - ethnography - t h a t t h e y c o n c e i v e as t h e o r i g i n o f t h e i r speech. Berreman and S c h o l t e do not u n d e r s t a n d t h a t t o see ethnography as troublesome o r as not t r o u b l e s o m e , o r whatever, i s a l r e a d y t o have d e c i d e d t o see e t h n o g r a p h i c a l l y . Berreman and S c h o l t e , t h e n , e x p r e s s an e t h n o g r a p h i c c o n c e r n f o r t h e t r o u b l e s o f ethnography. They a r e n o t s u g g e s t i n g t h a t ethnography i s not a good t h i n g t o do, on t h e c o n t r a r y , t h e y a r e s a y i n g t h a t ethnography i s good and a r e c o n c e i v i n g o f t h i s good as a c o n c r e t e s t a n d a r d by which t o measure e t h n o g r a p h i c p r a c t i c e . What Berreman and S c h o l t e do n o t u n d e r s t a n d i s t h a t t h e i r speech i s not a c c i d e n t a l . I t i s n o t t h a t c i r c u m s t a n c e , t h e t r o u b l e s o f ethnography, p r o v i d e them w i t h something t o speak about, - 40 -r a t h e r i t i s t h e d e c i s i o n t o see e t h n o g r a p h i c a l l y , i . e . , t o see ethnography as a good, t h a t p r o v i d e s them w i t h the o c c a s i o n t o see ethnography as t r o u b l e d . So we cannot f o r m u l a t e our r e a s o n f o r s p e a k i n g about ethnography as a c o n c e r n w i t h t h e t r o u b l e o f ethnography s i n c e t h a t would not uncover t h e grounds o f our speech. T h i s would be t h e case f o r whatever c o n c r e t e r e a s o n we gave f o r s p e a k i n g about ethnography. We c o u l d , f o r example, a p p e a l t o b i o g r a p h y . But t h i s , t o o , would f o r m u l a t e our r e a s o n f o r s p e a k i n g about ethnography as a c c i d e n t . I t would be t o say t h a t we speak about ethnography because of happen-s t a n c e , i . e . , t h a t we happen t o be i n v o l v e d i n ethnography, i n one way o r a n o t h e r , and t h u s i t was a v a i l a b l e t o us as a t o p i c . I t would be as though we wanted t o speak and s i n c e we happened upon a t o p i c , we can now speak. T h i s i s the v e r s i o n o f r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t h a t we r e j e c t . We r e j e c t t h e c o n c e p t i o n t h a t speech i s r e s p o n s i b l e t o i t s t o p i c when t o p i c i s u n d e r s t o o d as a c o n c r e t e t h i n g - t o - s p e a k -about. A commitment t o t o p i c s i s a degenerate way o f under-s t a n d i n g t h e d e s i r e and need t o speak. I t i s t o t r a n s f o r m the i m p u l s e t o speak i n t o t h e degenerate i m p u l s e t o speak on t o p i c . I t i s t o e n s l a v e and r e s t r i c t one's speech t o the a u t h o r i t y o f a c o n c r e t e t o p i c . I t i s t o speak as though speech were f i r s t and t o s e g r e g a t e t h e r e l a t i o n between speech and language. - 41 -T o p i c s , l i k e I n t r o d u c t i o n s , p r o v i d e a s u r r o g a t e b e g i n n i n g f o r speech and p r o v i d e an i n s t a n t r e l i e f f o r t h e s u f f e r i n g o f r e - c o l l e c t i n g our o r i g i n and remembering why we speak as though t h a t s u f f e r i n g was p a i n f u l and not w o r t h e n d u r i n g . To speak on t o p i c i s a deep commitment t o a b b r o g a t i n g one's r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r d e c i d i n g t o speak the way one does. And y e t , we speak about ethnography, we have a t o p i c . So our t a s k becomes one o f a n a l y z i n g the p l a c e of t o p i c i n our work. I I I . I t can be s a i d t h a t S o c r a t e s has t o p i c s ; he speaks o f f r i e n d s h i p , l o v e , c o u r a g e , j u s t i c e , e t c . And i t i s p o s s i b l e , i n t a k i n g up one o f t h e s e t o p i c s as a t o p i c of i n q u i r y , t o c o n s u l t S o c r a t e s and see what he has t o say about them. T h i s would be t o t r e a t S o c r a t e s as a p r e d e c e s s o r who j u s t happened t o speak about some o f t h e t h i n g s t h a t a r e c u r r e n t l y t o p i c a l . But t h i s would be t o t r e a t S o c r a t e s as c u r r e n t by v i r t u e o f s u b m i t t i n g t o t h e a u t h o r i t y o f t o p i c and speech as f i r s t . To make S o c r a t e s c u r r e n t . and t h u s t o j o i n him, by v i r t u e o f c o n c e i v i n g t o p i c as f i r s t , would be t o r e j e c t a S o c r a t i c i n v i t a t i o n t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n c o n v e r s a t i o n . I t would - 42 -be t o r e j e c t t h e S o c r a t i c reminder t o address our b e g i n n i n g from whose a u s p i c e s a l l speech and t o p i c s f l o w . 4 I n Book I o f The R e p u b l i c (352 d) S o c r a t e s reminds Thrasymachus, and reminds us as w e l l , t h a t the q u e s t i o n of j u s t i c e " . . . i s n o t a t r i v i a l one; i t i s our whole way of l i f e t h a t i s a t i s s u e . " F u r t h e r on i n The R e p u b l i c (Books VI and V I I ) S o c r a t e s t e l l s Glaucon and t h e o t h e r s t h a t the t r u e p h i l o s o p h e r i s one who has a good memory. The p h i l o s o p h e r , o r t h e o r i s t , does n o t r e q u i r e a good memory i n o r d e r t o remember t h e c o n c r e t e d e t a i l s t h a t a r e t o p i c s s i n c e t o p i c s , t a k e n i n t h e u s u a l sense o f t h i n g s t h a t a r e c u r r e n t t o speak about, a r e p r e s e n t and a v a i l a b l e and need n o t be remembered. What S o c r a t e s reminds us o f , what a good memory remembers, i s t h a t t o p i c s a r e t r i v i a l : T o p i c s c o v e r up a way o f l i f e t h a t s u p p o r t s them and makes them p o s s i b l e . So when S o c r a t e s speaks o f j u s t i c e , c ourage, e t c . , he i s n o t s u b m i t t i n g h i s i n q u i r y t o t h e a u t h o r i t y o f c o n c r e t e t o p i c a l i t y . When S o c r a t e s speaks o f j u s t i c e , courage, e t c . , he i s not i n t e r e s t e d i n t h e m y r i a d c o n c r e t e i n s t a n c e s of j u s t i c e and courage s i n c e t h e s e a r e t h i n g s t h a t a r e c o n t i n g e n t and change from one ti m e t o a n o t h e r and from one p l a c e t o ano t h e r . What S o c r a t e s i s i n t e r e s t e d i n , what i s t r u l y h i s t o p i c , t h a t t o w h i c h h i s speech t r u l y b e l o n g s , i s the i d e a of j u s t i c e , c ourage, e t c . , t o which a l l o f i t s c o n c r e t e i n s t a n c e s , t o w h i c h a l l c o n c r e t e speech about, b e l o n g s . So - 43 -the true topic, as exemplified i n Socratic dialogue, i s not the concrete topics that are the many, but instead i s the idea of l i f e that i s the One. What we are saying i s that we do not e n l i s t Socrates as a consultant since that would be to treat him concretely as someone who had something to say about what i s currently 5 t o p i c a l . Instead, we treat Socrates as an exemplar that makes possible the remembering of that to which our speech belongs. By r e - c o l l e c t i n g our beginning, we address the o r i g i n of our speech and we do not submit our speech to the authority of contingency and change. When we submit our speech to the authority of concrete topic, say j u s t i c e for example, we are speaking both of What Is and What Is Not. We are speaking about What Is insofar as each concrete speech about j u s t i c e participates and gets i t s l i f e from, the idea of j u s t i c e . We are speaking about What Is Not insofar as any concrete speech about j u s t i c e i s only a surface r e f l e c t i o n of j u s t i c e i t s e l f and thus i s not j u s t i c e i t s e l f . Thus, what we speak about i s l i f e ; we speak about the way of l i f e that i s recommended by, and grounds, each instance of speech. This i s to say that each instance of speech, each concrete topic, covers over a way of l i f e that makes i t s speaking possible and at the same time, recommends that way of l i f e as worth l i v i n g . So our topic i s l i f e but not l i f e as i t i s concretely manifested i n the many and d i f f e r e n t ways of l i v i n g , for that would be to speak about - 44 -l i f e s t y l e s . We do not c o n c e i v e o f l i f e as s t y l i s h s i n c e t h a t would be t o c o n c e i v e o f l i f e as c h a n g i n g and c o n t i n g e n t , as coming and g o i n g . I n s t e a d , we c o n c e i v e o f l i f e as an i d e a t h a t i s unchanging, permanent and n e c e s s a r y . "Man l i v e s " i s our way t o r e f o r m u l a t e H e i d e g g e r ' s "Man speaks". So i t i s n o t c o n c r e t e l y d i f f e r e n t l i v e s we a r e i n t e r e s t e d i n s i n c e t h a t would be an i n t e r e s t i n t h e many and c o n c r e t e . What we a r e i n t e r e s t e d i n , what i s our t o p i c , i s the permanent and s i n g u l a r i d e a o f l i f e t h a t makes t h e c o n c r e t e manyness p o s s i b l e . What i s r e - c o l l e c t e d , t h e n , i s t h e i d e a o f l i f e towards wh i c h a l l t a l k and conduct p o i n t . L i f e and speech a r e not c o n c e i v e d o f as a c c i d e n t s o r i n c i d e n t s t h a t b e l o n g t o g e t h e r by v i r t u e o f t h e f a c t t h a t t h e y can be c o l l e c t e d under some c o n c r e t e t o p i c . I n s t e a d , what c o l l e c t s c o n c r e t e t a l k and conduct i s t h e i d e a o f l i f e t o w h i c h i t p o i n t s . IV. So we j o i n S o c r a t e s n o t t h r o u g h the m e d i a t i o n of c o n s u l t a t i o n t h a t f o r m u l a t e s h i s speech, i n t h e form o f t o p i c s as f i r s t b u t t h r o u g h f o r m u l a t i n g h i s speech as e x e m p l i f i c a t i o n . We f o r m u l a t e the speech o f S o c r a t e s as an example o f a way of l i f e t h a t i s committed t o u n d e r s t a n d i n g a l l i n q u i r y , - 4 5 -i n c l u d i n g h i s own, as an i n s t a n c e of t h e Good toward w h i c h i t aims. T h i s i s t h e S o c r a t i c reminder and i n v i t a t i o n ; t h a t a l l i n q u i r y i s an e x e m p l i f i c a t i o n of a way o f l i f e t h a t aims a t , and i s grounded i n , t h e Good t o whi c h i n q u i r y i t s e l f makes r e f e r e n c e . S o c r a t e s reminds us t h a t our b e g i n n i n g i s not t o be l o c a t e d i n c o n c r e t e t o p i c s but i n t h e Good toward w h i c h our c o n c r e t e t o p i c s p o i n t and i n v i t e s us t o remember our o r i g i n by engaging i n t h e S o c r a t i c c o n v e r s a t i o n t h a t i s i n q u i r y . We a r e now a b l e t o f o r m u l a t e our d e s i r e and need t o w r i t e about ethnography, i . e . , t o f o r m u l a t e our d e s i r e and need f o r a t o p i c . U n d e r s t a n d i n g ethnography, l i k e any o t h e r c o u r s e o f a c t i o n , as p o i n t i n g t o some Good, a l l o w s us t o f o r m u l a t e t h e t o p i c o f our i n q u i r y not c o n c r e t e l y , a s , f o r example, w r i t i n g about ethnography, but r a t h e r as an i n q u i r y t h a t aims a t a d d r e s s i n g t h e Good o f ethnography. T h i s i n q u e s t i v e aim w i l l , o f c o u r s e , degenerate i f t h e Good of ethnography g e t s u n d e r s t o o d as t h e g o a l , o r o b j e c t i v e , o f ethnography. T h i s s o r t o f c o n c r e t i z a t i o n would f o r m u l a t e t h e Good of ethnography as some s o r t o f a g o a l o r v a l u e t o whi c h ethnography a s p i r e s . The Good o f ethnography would t h e n be c o n c r e t e l y f o r m u l a t e d as a v a l u e t o be h e l d up as a s t a n d a r d a g a i n s t w h i c h ethnography can be measured as good o r bad. We a r e n o t i n t e r e s t e d i n d i s c o v e r i n g whether ethnography i s good o r n o t when by t h i s i s meant whether o r not i t measures up t o i t s own c o n c r e t e s t a n d a r d , f o r t h a t - 46 -would mean that inquiry would focus upon the generation of a l i s t of standards that could be applied to a corresponding l i s t of d i f f e r e n t kinds of ethnographies. These differences are i n e s s e n t i a l since any ethnography i s a surface r e f l e c t i o n , or a re-presentation, of the Good toward which ethnography aims. When we say we are interested i n the Good of ethnography we are not saying that we are interested i n whether ethnography i s good, whether i t meets methodological standards, whether i t meets t h e o r e t i c a l standards, whether i t meets humanistic standards, whether i t i s p r a c t i c a l l y useful, etc., instead, we are interested i n addressing that which gives ethnography i t s l i f e . In short, we are not interested in discovering what ethnography i s good for, rather we are interested i n addressing the Good of ethnography. So we understand ethnography as inquiry; an inquiry that exemplifies a l i f e that points to some Good. What i s important to remember i s the Socratic reminder that when we inquire into the Good of a course of action, that course of action i t s e l f , that inquiry, exemplifies a l i f e . Thus, our inquiry points to some Good. Our inquiry, then, should not be understood i n any other way than our attempt to exemplify our version of the good l i f e , of good inquiry. In addressing the Good of ethnography, we exemplify a l i f e that i s committed to addressing i t s own Good. - 47 -V. Speeches a r e c o n c r e t e l y d i f f e r e n t ; t h e r e a r e many d i f f e r e n t k i n d s o f e t h n o g r a p h i e s , t h e r e a r e many d i f f e r e n t ways o f l i v i n g . But t h i s sense o f d i f f e r e n t n e s s i s n e i t h e r c r i t i c a l nor e s s e n t i a l . To f o r m u l a t e t h e c o n c r e t e d i f f e r e n c e s between and among l i v e s as e s s e n t i a l , t o t r e a t l i f e - s t y l e s as e s s e n t i a l , i s t o t r e a t sheer l i v i n g and b r e a t h i n g as e s s e n t i a l and f i r s t . I t i s t o t r e a t l i f e as sheer s u r v i v a l and n o t h i n g o t h e r t h a n t h a t . T h i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g - o f l i f e , t h a t t h e e s s e n t i a l i t y o f l i f e i s t o be l o c a t e d i n t h e d i f f e r e n c e s between and among c o n c r e t e ways o f l i v i n g , i s t h e u n d e r s t a n d i n g e x e m p l i f i e d i n S o c r a t e s ' "man i n t h e cave".^ What t h e "man i n the cave" . sees, and u n d e r s t a n d s as e s s e n t i a l , a r e the d i f f e r e n t shadows. What t h e "man i n t h e cave" does n ot see i s t h e l i g h t t h a t o r i g i n a t e s t h e d i f f e r e n t shadows. The "man i n the cave" does n o t see t h e o r i g i n a l i t y , t h e f i r s t n e s s , the n e c e s s i t y , the e t e r n a l i t y , o f t h e s i n g u l a r l i g h t t h a t c a s t s t h e d i f f e r e n t shadows. The "man i n t h e cave" does not see the one l i g h t t h a t c a s t s the many shadows. When t h e "man i n t h e cave" i s f o r c e d t o see the l i g h t , as i s , f o r example, S c h u t z ' s s t r a n g e r ( S c h u t z , 1971: 91-105), the l i g h t h u r t s h i s eyes. The man i s f o r c e d from the cave, f o r c e d from " t h i n k i n g - a s - u s u a l " , t o borrow S c h u t z ' s p h r a s e , and f i n d s t h i s t o be h u r t f u l . F o r S c h u t z ' s s t r a n g e r , t h i s h u r t d e g e n e r a t e s i n t o p a i n , and as such, d e g e n e r a t e s i n t o a - 48 -d e s i r e f o r r e l i e f and a l l e v i a t i o n . T h i s t h e o r i s t cannot s u s t a i n t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n t h a t makes a d i f f e r e n c e , cannot s u s t a i n t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n t h a t makes the e s s e n t i a l d i f f e r e n c e between t h e many shadows and t h e one l i g h t , and t h u s cannot s u s t a i n t h e e s s e n t i a l d i f f e r e n c e between the o r i g i n a l and i t s r e f l e c t i o n s , between speech and language. The s t r a n g e r does n o t want t o u n d e r s t a n d t h e h u r t as a s u f f e r i n g t h a t i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g , b u t wants t o u n d e r s t a n d t h e h u r t as a p a i n t h a t r e q u i r e s a l l e v i a t i o n and t h u s d e s i r e s t h e cave, d e s i r e s mere shadows, as f i r s t , o r i g i n a l and R e a l . So the d e s i r e and need f o r a t o p i c when f o r m u l a t e d as a d e s i r e and need f o r t h e shadows i n t h e cave, i s a d e s i r e and need t o u n d e r s t a n d c o n c r e t e t o p i c s as f i r s t and o r i g i n a l . I n t h i s sense, t h e d e s i r e and need f o r a t o p i c i s t h e d e g enerate e x p r e s s i o n o f a d e s i r e and need t o speak and t h e d e s i r e and need t o speak what i s good. I t i s t o u n d e r s t a n d t h e many and d i f f e r e n t shadows as e s s e n t i a l and as a l l t h a t i s w o r t h s p e a k i n g . The shadows a r e the t o p i c s and t h e r e i s n o t h i n g o t h e r . The d e s i r e and need f o r a c o n c r e t e t o p i c , i s a metaphor f o r t h e d e s i r e and need t o speak. C o n c e i v i n g o f t o p i c c o n c r e t e l y i s t o u n d e r s t a n d t h a t t h e r e i s n o t h i n g o t h e r t o speak about t h a n c o n c r e t e t o p i c s , t h a n the shadows. So t h e p l a c e o f t o p i c i n our work i s an e x p r e s s i o n o f our d e s i r e and need t o speak and our d e s i r e and need t o a d dress the one i d e a o f l i f e t h a t grounds the p o s s i b i l i t y o f c o n c r e t e l y d i f f e r e n t l i v e s . We do not u n d e r s t a n d t o p i c c o n c r e t e l y , i . e . , as t h e r e b e i n g n o t h i n g o t h e r t h a n t o p i c , - 49 -s i n c e what i s Other t h a n t o p i c i s t h e Good t o w h i c h t o p i c p o i n t s and o f w h i c h t o p i c i s a r e f l e c t i o n . Our i n q u i r y i s an a d d r e s s i n g o f t h a t Other, o f t h a t permanent,, n e c e s s a r y and e t e r n a l One t h a t i s t h e s o u r c e and o r i g i n o f the c o n c r e t e l y many and d i f f e r e n t . T h i s i s not t o say t h a t we do not d e s i r e and need c o n c r e t e t o p i c s , f o r t h i s i s c e r t a i n l y the c a s e . We must s t a r t w i t h c o n c r e t e t o p i c s , s t a r t i n t h e c ave, s i n c e t h e r e i s nowhere e l s e t o s t a r t . But c o n c r e t e t o p i c s (the cave) a r e t h e s t a r t and not t h e b e g i n n i n g s i n c e c o n c r e t e t o p i c s a r e t h e o c c a s i o n s t o a d d ress th e b e g i n n i n g . So c o n c r e t e t o p i c s a r e e s s e n t i a l i n the sense t h a t t h e y are o c c a s i o n s f o r t h e o r i z i n g , f o r r e f l e c t i v e c o n v e r s a t i o n , as a way t o a d d r e s s t h e s i n g u l a r i t y and e t e r n a l i t y o f t h e i d e a o f l i f e t h a t i s recommended by a l l c o n c r e t e c o u r s e s o f a c t i o n . R e f l e c t i v e t h e o r i z i n g , c o n v e r s a t i o n i n t o t h e i d e a o f l i f e , cannot be s u s t a i n e d w i t h o u t an e x a m i n a t i o n o f c o n c r e t e l i v e s as example. So our d e s i r e and need t o speak about ethnography, i . e . , t o have a t o p i c , can be f o r m u l a t e d as our d e s i r e and need t o speak i n tune w i t h language and w i t h what i s e s s e n t i a l . L i k e any o t h e r c o u r s e o f a c t i o n , r e f l e c t i v e t h e o r i z i n g i s n e e d f u l o f t h e permanent and unchanging i d e a o f l i f e . R e f l e c t i v e t h e o r i z i n g r e c o g n i z e s t h a t i t s s o u r c e i s i n the permanent and e t e r n a l and i n t h i s sense i t r e q u i r e s t h a t s o u r c e and r e q u i r e s , f o r i t t o be t h e o r i z i n g , a sense of the e t e r n a l . The e t e r n a l , the e s s e n t i a l , i s d i s p l a y e d t h r o u g h r e f l e c t i v e - 50 -t h e o r i z i n g . To t h e e t e r n a l , r e f l e c t i v e t h e o r i z i n g i s i n e s s e n t i a l , b u t a t t h e same t i m e , i s e s s e n t i a l i n t h e sense t h a t r e f l e c t i v e t h e o r i z i n g d i s p l a y s an u n d e r s t a n d i n g 7 o f t h a t w h i c h i s e t e r n a l . And, i t i s i n t h i s s p i r i t t h a t t o p i c f i n d s i t s p l a c e i n our work. I t i s i n t h i s s p i r i t t h a t we d e s i r e and need a t o p i c . Our d e s i r e and need i s t o t h e o r i z e about t h e Good, and c o n c r e t e l i f e ( t o p i c ) i s t h e e s s e n t i a l o c c a s i o n f o r us t o d i s p l a y our commitment t o our v e r s i o n o f t h e o r i z i n g and t h u s e x e m p l i f y a l i f e . So t h e q u e s t i o n t h a t was r a i s e d a t t h e b e g i n n i n g of t h i s c h a p t e r Why w r i t e about ethnography? was posed as an example o f t h e i d e a o f l i f e . T h i s i s not a q u e s t i o n t h a t a r i s e s out o f a c o u r s e of a c t i o n ( c o n c r e t e l i f e ) t h a t i s ethnography. I n s t e a d , i t i s a q u e s t i o n t h a t a r i s e s out of t h e Good toward w h i c h t h e l i f e t h a t i s ethnography p o i n t s . I t i s a q u e s t i o n t h a t a d d r e s s e s t h e i d e a o f l i f e t h a t makes such a q u e s t i o n p o s s i b l e i n t h e f i r s t p l a c e . So, i n t h i s sense, a q u e s t i o n of t o p i c i s a q u e s t i o n o f l i f e . So our c o n c e r n w i t h t o p i c i s a c o n c e r n o n l y i n s o f a r as i t i s an e x p r e s s i o n o f our d e s i r e and need t o f o r m u l a t e c o n v e r s a t i o n about th e commitment o f which t o p i c s a r e a r e s u l t . - 51 -FOOTNOTES T h i s i s what we meant when we s a i d , i n Chapter 1, t h a t we s t a r t w i t h usage because t h e r e i s nowhere e l s e t o s t a r t . I t i s t h r o u g h t h e i n e s s e n t i a l i t y of usage t h a t t h e e s s e n t i a l can be a d d r e s s e d . In t h i s sense, usage i s i m p o r t a n t i n s o f a r as i t i s an o c c a s i o n f o r a d d r e s s i n g t h e e s s e n t i a l . T h i s would be t o f o r m u l a t e t o p i c as the a u t h o r i t y o f speech. T h i s i s t o c o n c e i v e o f speech as f i r s t and e s s e n t i a l . But, t h i s i s t o f o r g e t t h a t what g e n e r a t e s t o p i c a l speech i s t h a t w h i c h g e n e r a t e s the t o p i c . Here, as w e l l as i n t h e r e s t o f the work, the works of P l a t o w i l l be r e f e r e n c e d by l i n e number ; (Stephanus p a g i n a t i o n ) . Blum (1978) f o r m u l a t e s t h e l i f e o f S o c r a t e s as an example. Blum a l s o f o r m u l a t e s an a n a l y t i c c o n n e c t i o n between t h e o r y and l i f e . (See e s p e c i a l l y pages 1 t o 1 1 ) . The R e p u b l i c , 514-521. 7 See Blum, 1978:1-11. - 52 -CHAPTER 3. INTERESTS I . Speech says i n t e r e s t . I t i s not t h a t some speeches a r e i n t e r e s t i n g w h i l e o t h e r speeches are n o t . I t i s not t h a t some speeches speak o ut o f an i n t e r e s t w h i l e o t h e r speeches m e r e l y speak. I n t e r e s t i s not a m a t t e r o f c h o i c e . I n s o f a r as speech speaks, i t says i n t e r e s t . I n s o f a r as speech i s , i t i s i n t e r e s t . I I . What speech d i s p l a y s i s i t s i n t e r e s t , i t s i n t e r e s t i n s p e a k i n g . In s p e a k i n g , speech shows i t s e l f t o be i n t e r e s t e d , i . e . , t h a t i t i s i n t e r e s t e d i n s p e a k i n g . What speech shows i s t h e i n t e r e s t t h a t a u t h o r i z e s i t s s p e a k i n g . But speech cannot speak i t s i n t e r e s t s i n c e t h a t would b r i n g an end t o i n t e r e s t e d speech and would o f f e r n i h i l i s m as an a l t e r n a t i v e . I f speech c o u l d speak i t s i n t e r e s t t h e r e would no l o n g e r be any i n t e r e s t i n s p e a k i n g . T h i s would be, f i r s t o f a l l , t o equate i n t e r e s t w i t h speech, and t h i s done, i t would be, s e c o n d l y , t o c o n c e i v e o f speech as i t s own a u t h o r . T h i s would be t h e w o r s t k i n d o f a p p r o p r i a t i o n ; i t would mean t h a t speech would have t h e d e s i r e t o a p p r o p r i a t e i t s a u t h o r i t y t o i t s e l f . Speech and i t s a u t h o r would t h e n be i n t e r c h a n g e a b l e . - 53 On t h i s view, speech would no l o n g e r say i t s i n t e r e s t , i t would no l o n g e r d i s p l a y i t s i n t e r e s t , i t would no l o n g e r depend on i t s i n t e r e s t , s i n c e i t would be i t s i n t e r e s t and, i n t h i s sense, speech would then be f i r s t . T h i s would f i n a l l y s o l v e Durkheim, e t a l . ' s problem of the inadequacy o f speech by making speech s e l f - s u f f i c i e n t . Speech would be s e l f - s u f f i c i e n t i n s o f a r as i t would c o r r e s p o n d t o i t s i n t e r e s t and i n s o f a r as i t would be f a i t h f u l t o t h a t i n t e r e s t . Thus, speech t h a t wants t o speak i t s i n t e r e s t , i . e . , speech t h a t wants t o c o r r e s p o n d and be f a i t h f u l , t o i t s i n t e r e s t , u n d e r s t a n d s speech and i n t e r e s t i n the most c o n c r e t e way. I t u n d e r s t a n d s speech as h a v i n g no o t h e r i n t e r e s t t h a n i t s e l f . S i n c e , on t h i s v i e w , speech speaks i t s i n t e r e s t , how c o u l d i t be o t h e r w i s e , how c o u l d speech be i n t e r e s t e d i n a n y t h i n g e l s e b u t i t s e l f ? When speech i s u n d e r s t o o d as f i r s t , t h e r e i s n o t h i n g e l s e t h a t i s o f i n t e r e s t . Of c o u r s e , speech may be i n t e r e s t e d i n what i t c o r r e s p o n d s t o but s i n c e i t equates i t s e l f t o what i t c o r r e s p o n d s t o , an i n t e r e s t i n i t s c o r r e s p o n d e n c e amounts t o an i n t e r e s t i n i t s e l f . So when speech u n d e r s t a n d s i t s e l f as s e l f - s u f f i c i e n t , i t u n d e r s t a n d s i t s e l f as s e l f - i n t e r e s t e d . T h i s i s a n o t h e r way o f s a y i n g t h a t t h i s v e r s i o n o f speech t r e a t s i t s e l f c o n c r e t e l y (as a t h i n g ) t h a t i s c o n c r e t e l y i n t e r e s t e d i n c o r r e s p o n d i n g t o o t h e r t h i n g s ( i n t e r e s t s ) . Thus, i n t e r e s t - 54 -becomes n o t h i n g b u t t h e most c o n c r e t e t h i n g ; i n t e r e s t becomes u n d e r s t o o d s i m u l t a n e o u s l y w i t h such t h i n g s as s u b j e c t m a t t e r and t o p i c s . S e l f - s u f f i c i e n t o r s e l f - i n t e r e s t e d speech f o r m u l a t e s i n t e r e s t as i n t e r e s t i n g t h i n g s t o t a l k about. What i s o f i n t e r e s t i s c o n c r e t e m a t e r i a l , i . e . , usage, and t h u s speech i t s e l f . Speech's i n t e r e s t i s t o be l o c a t e d w i t h i n speech i t s e l f i n s o f a r as speech i s c o n c e i v e d of as a p r e s e n t a t i o n o f i n t e r e s t i n g m a t t e r . What m a t t e r s , t h e n , i s the m a t t e r o f speech. A usage n o t i o n o f i n t e r e s t p r o v i d e s f o r speech t o be i n t e r e s t i n g o r n o t . On t h i s v i e w , whether speech i s i n t e r e s t i n g o r n o t w i l l , o f c o u r s e , depend upon i t s m a t t e r . The m a t t e r o f i n t e r e s t now becomes an i n t e r e s t o f m a t t e r . Speech speaks i n t e r e s t i n g l y when i t s m a t t e r i s i n t e r e s t i n g and speech i s u n i n t e r e s t i n g when i t s m a t t e r i s u n i n t e r e s t i n g . T h i s c o n c r e t i z a t i o n o f i n t e r e s t s p r o v i d e s f o r t h e u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h a t s p e a k e r s must j u s t i f y t h e i r speeches. So, f o r example, Zimmerman and P o l l n e r can say t h a t : I n c o n t a s t t o t h e p e r e n n i a l argument t h a t s o c i o l o g y b e l a b o r s t h e o b v i o u s , we propose t h a t s o c i o l o g y has y e t t o t r e a t t h e o b v i o u s as a phenomenon. We argue t h a t t h e w o r l d of everyday l i f e , w h i l e f u r n i s h i n g s o c i o l o g y w i t h i t s f a v o r e d t o p i c s o f i n q u i r y , i s seldom a t o p i c i n i t s own r i g h t . I n s t e a d , t h e f a m i l i a r , common-sense w o r l d , s h a r e d by t h e s o c i o l o g i s t and h i s s u b j e c t s a l i k e , i s employed as an u n e x p l i c a t e d r e s o u r c e f o r contemporary s o c i o l o g i c a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n s . (Zimmerman and P o l l n e r , 1970: 80-81). 55 -Or, Ryave and Schenkein i n t h e i r d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e phenomenon of w a l k i n g can argue t h a t : I n t r e a t i n g t h i s commonplace phenomenon as t h e p r o b l e m a t i c achievement o f members, we hope t o b u i l d towards a g r e a t e r u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f s o c i a l phenomena as on-going s i t u a t e d accomplishments. I t i s , a f t e r a l l , t h e s e methodic p r a c t i c e s t h a t make t h e phenomenon o f d o i n g w a l k i n g so u t t e r l y unnoteworthy a t f i r s t g l a n c e t o b o t h l a y and p r o f e s s i o n a l s o c i a l a n a l y s t s a l i k e ; i n d e e d ; i t i s t h r o u g h t h e s e methodic p r a c t i c e s t h a t t h e commonplace p r e s e n t s i t s e l f t o us as o r d i n a r y , and t h e e x o t i c as e x t r a o r d i n a r y . (Ryave and S c h e n k e i n , 1974: 265). And f i n a l l y , when B e n e d i c t speaks about the i n t e r e s t s of t h e a n t h r o p o l o g i s t , she says t h a t : He i s i n t e r e s t e d i n t h e g r e a t gamut o f custom t h a t i s found i n v a r i o u s c u l t u r e s , and h i s o b j e c t i s t o u n d e r s t a n d t h e way i n w h i c h t h e s e c u l t u r e s change and d i f f e r e n t i a t e , t h e d i f f e r e n t forms t h r o u g h w h i c h they e x p r e s s t h e m s e l v e s , and t h e manner i n wh i c h t h e customs o f any p e o p l e s f u n c t i o n i n t h e l i v e s o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l s who compose them. Now custom has not been commonly r e g a r d e d as a s u b j e c t of any g r e a t moment. The i n n e r w o r k i n g s o f our own b r a i n s we f e e l t o be u n i q u e l y worthy o f i n v e s t i g a t i o n , b u t custom, we have a way o f t h i n k i n g , i s b e h a v i o u r a t i t s most commonplace. As a m a t t e r o f f a c t , i t i s t h e o t h e r way around. T r a d i t i o n a l custom, t a k e n the w o r l d o v e r , i s a mass o f d e t a i l e d b e h a v i o u r more a s t o n i s h i n g t h a n what any one p e r s o n can ever e v o l v e i n i n d i v i d u a l a c t i o n s no m a t t e r how a b e r r a n t . Y e t t h a t i s a r a t h e r t r i v i a l a s p e c t o f t h e m a t t e r . The f a c t o f f i r s t - r a t e i mportance i s t he predominant r o l e t h a t custom p l a y s i n e x p e r i e n c e and i n b e l i e f , and t h e v e r y - 56 -g r e a t v a r i e t i e s i t may m a n i f e s t . ( B e n e d i c t , 1934: 1-2). What t h e s e a u t h o r s a r e s a y i n g i s t h a t the m a t t e r t o w h i c h t h e i r speech w i l l a t t e n d ( p r e s e n t , correspond) i s "everyday l i f e " , "members" methodic p r a c t i c e s " , and "customs", r e s p e c t i v e l y . Each o f t h e a u t h o r s i s a r g u i n g f o r the i n t e r e s t i n g n e s s o f t h e i r speech. ( I n t e r e s t i n g l y enough, each o f t h e s e a u t h o r s i s u s i n g t h e i r speech t o i n t r o d u c e , t o pr o m i s e , t h a t what f o l l o w s w i l l be i n t e r e s t i n g . ) I n t h e i r v a r i o u s ways, each o f t h e a u t h o r s i s t e l l i n g us t h a t the m a t t e r o f t h e i r speech i s commonplace and o r d i n a r y . These a u t h o r s a r e o r i e n t i n g t o us as r e a d e r s t h a t r e a d i n a c e r t a i n way; t h e i r n o t i o n o f r e a d i n g i s t h a t r e a d e r s w i l l o n l y r e a d what m a t t e r s t o them when by t h a t i s meant t h a t r e a d e r s w i l l r e a d o n l y i n t e r e s t i n g m a t t e r . F o r them, r e a d e r s a r e mere r e c e p t a c l e s o f i n t e r e s t i n g m a t t e r . These a u t h o r s are a f r a i d t h a t i f t h e i r speech i s not i n t e r e s t i n g , i . e . , i f t h e m a t t e r t o wh i c h t h e i r speech c o r r e s p o n d s i s not i n t e r e s t i n g , no one w i l l l i s t e n . Each o f t h e s e a u t h o r s say t h a t they w i l l be s p e a k i n g t h e commonplace but they a r e a f r a i d t h a t the commonplace i s so commonplace t h a t i t w i l l n o t be i n t e r e s t i n g . U n l i k e F o u c a u l t , who would have " . . . p r e f e r r e d t o be enveloped i n words, borne way beyond a l l p o s s i b l e b e g i n n i n g s " , Zimmerman and P o l l n e r , e t a l . , dread t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f an - 57 -immediate e n t r e e i n t o t h e i r m a t t e r , i . e . , o f s t a r t i n g w i t h t h e commonplace. They a r e a f r a i d t h a t t h e i r r e a d e r s v / i l l h ear t h e u n i n t e r e s t i n g n e s s o f t h e i r speech ( t h i n k o f t h e i r speech as commonplace) and w i l l s t o p r e a d i n g . As a m a t t e r o f i n t e r e s t i n g f a c t , t h e y must c o n v i n c e t h e i r r e a d e r s t h a t t h e i r speech i s a m a t t e r o f i n t e r e s t i n g f a c t . So Zimmerman and P o l l n e r e t a l . , j u s t i f y t h e i r speech by p o i n t i n g out i t s i n t e r e s t i n g n e s s . And how c o u l d i t be o t h e r w i s e ? Where e l s e c o u l d t h e s e a u t h o r s s t a r t e x c e p t by p r o m i s i n g us, and c o n v i n c i n g u s , t h a t t h e y a r e , f i r s t o f a l l , g o i n g t o speak about some m a t t e r and, s e c o n d l y , t h a t t h i s m a t t e r i s i n t e r e s t i n g . F o r example, Zimmerman and P o l l n e r want t o c o n v i n c e us t h a t s i n c e "... s o c i o l o g y has y e t t o t r e a t t h e o b v i o u s as a phenomenon", t h e o b v i o u s i s i n t e r e s t i n g . Ryave and Schenkein want us t o t h i n k t h a t t h e commonplace i s i n t e r e s t i n g s i n c e i t s u n i n t e r e s t i n g n e s s i s the cause o f our "methodic p r a c t i c e s " . What they a r e s a y i n g i s t h a t t h e " u n n o t e w o r t h i n e s s " ( u n i n t e r e s t i n g n e s s ) o f the commonplace i s our own f a u l t s i n c e we engage i n "methodic p r a c t i c e s " t o make t h e commonplace u n i n t e r e s t i n g . Were we t o l o o k a t our "methodic p r a c t i c e s " , o r suspend our use o f them, o r some such t h i n g , we t o o , l i k e Ryave and S c h e n k e i n , would be c o n v i n c e d o f t h e i n t e r e s t i n g n e s s , and thus o f the n o t e w o r t h i n e s s , o f t h e commonplace. And f i n a l l y , B e n e d i c t t e l l s us t h a t we r e g a r d custom as t h e "...most commonplace". - 58 -But she i s q u i c k t o add t h a t "As a m a t t e r o f f a c t " , she mi g h t have s a i d as a m a t t e r o f i n t e r e s t i n g f a c t , " T r a d i t i o n a l custom, t a k e n t h e w o r l d o v e r , i s a mass o f d e t a i l e d b e h a v i o u r more a s t o n i s h i n g t h a n what any one p e r s o n can ever e v o l v e i n i n d i v i d u a l a c t i o n s no m a t t e r how a b e r r a n t . " So Zimmerman and P o l l n e r , e t a l . , a r e h e s i t a n t t o say ' what t h e y want t o say s i n c e t h e y f o r m u l a t e w o r t h w h i l e speech as something ( m a t e r i a l ) t h a t i s i n t e r e s t i n g . They are h e s i t a n t t o say what t h e y want t o say s i n c e what t h e y want t o say i s commonplace, o r d i n a r y and o b v i o u s , and as such, u n i n t e r e s t i n g and n o t w o r t h s a y i n g . F o r them, i n t e r e s t i s not c o n c e i v e d o f as t h a t t o w h i c h speech p o i n t s , as t h a t t o w h i c h speech makes r e f e r e n c e , and as t h a t t o which speech owes i t s l i f e . I n s t e a d , t h e y u n d e r s t a n d speech and i n t e r e s t c o n c r e t e l y and speech as i n t e r e s t i n g o n l y i n s o f a r as i t i s m a t t e r t h a t i s i n t e r e s t i n g . On t h i s v i e w , a l l b e g i n n i n g s a r e u n d e r s t o o d i n t h e most s u p e r f i c i a l way as s t a r t s and what speech must s t a r t w i t h i s i t s own j u s t i f i c a t i o n , i . e . , w i t h i t s own f o r m u l a t i o n o f i t s e l f as i n t e r e s t i n g . The d e s i r e t o b e g i n i s f o r m u l a t e d by Zimmerman and P o l l n e r , e t aJL. , as a d e s i r e t o j u s t - i f y t h e i r speech, i . e . , i t i s t h e i r d e s i r e t o f o r m u l a t e t h e i r speech as m a t t e r t h a t i s i n t e r e s t i n g . T h i s i s t h e i r v e r s i o n o f j u s t speech, i . e . , o f s p e a k i n g j u s t l y . Speech i s j u s t when i t i s m a t t e r t h a t i s i n t e r e s t i n g and speech i s u n j u s t when i t i s m a t t e r t h a t i s - 5 9 -u n i n t e r e s t i n g . Speech i s j u s t when i t i s f i r s t , a b s o l u t e and e t e r n a l and speech i s u n j u s t when i t i s dependent, l i m i t e d and temporary. The " w o r l d o f everyday l i f e " , t h e "commonplace", t h e " o r d i n a r y " , t h e " o b v i o u s " , i s Zimmerman and P o l l n e r ' s , e t a]L. , f o r m u l a t i o n o f j u s t i c e . So when Zimmerman and P o l l n e r , e t a l . , d i s p l a y a d e s i r e t o speak about i n t e r e s t i n g t h i n g s , t h e y are d i s p l a y i n g a d e s i r e t o speak j u s t l y . Thus, i t i s not t h a t t h e i r speech i s m e r e l y i n t e r e s t i n g and not i n t e r e s t e d , s i n c e the i n t e r e s t o f t h e i r speech i s j u s t i c e . But Zimmerman and P o l l n e r , e t a l . , speak as though t h e i r speech was s e l f - s u f f i c i e n t and n o t i n t e r e s t e d , i . e . , what Zimmerman and P o l l n e r , e t a l . , f o r g e t i s t h e i r i n t e r e s t . J u s t speech thus becomes speech t h a t f o r g e t s i t s i n t e r e s t , t h a t f o r g e t s why i t speaks. So by f o r m u l a t i n g i n t e r e s t c o n c r e t e l y as i n t e r e s t i n g m a t t e r , Zimmerman and P o l l n e r e t ajL_. , f o r g e t t h a t t hey have an i n t e r e s t . They f o r g e t t h a t t h e i r speech aims a t some Good, d i s p l a y s a l i f e , d i s p l a y s an i n t e r e s t . They t a k e c o n c r e t e i n t e r e s t i n g n e s s as e s s e n t i a l , e t e r n a l and s e l f - s u f f i c i e n t . What t h e y f a i l t o understand,' by f a i l i n g t o r e - c o l l e c t what th e y have f o r g o t t e n , i s t h e e s s e n t i a l i n t e r e s t toward w h i c h t h e i r c o n c r e t e l y i n t e r e s t i n g speech p o i n t s . Zimmerman and P o l l n e r , e t a l . , d e c i d e t o see t h e commonplace as i n t e r e s t i n g but f o r g e t t h a t t h e y have d e c i d e d . They have d e c i d e d t o see the commonplace as j u s t but f o r g e t t h a t t h i s was a mor a l - 6 0 -d e c i s i o n - a d e c i s i o n t h a t r e f l e c t s t h e i r v e r s i o n of the good l i f e . Zimmerman and P o l l n e r , e t a l . , a r e engaged i n i n q u i r y and f o r m u l a t e t h e o b j e c t o f t h e i r i n q u i r y v a r i o u s l y as "everyday l i f e " , "the o r d i n a r y " , and "custom". I f we t h i n k of t h e s e i n q u i r i e s as examples o f ethnography, we can t h e n address t h e deep i n t e r e s t t h a t p r o v i d e s f o r ethnography. We a d d r e s s our i n q u e s t i v e a t t e n t i o n t o the f o r m u l a t i o n o f t h e grounds of ethnography and thus d i s p l a y our commitment t o u n d e r s t a n d each and ev e r y i n q u i r y as an e x e m p l i f i c a t i o n and d i s p l a y o f a l i f e . I I I . E thnography says i t has an i n t e r e s t . Ethnography f o r m u l a t e s i t s i n t e r e s t as an i n t e r e s t i n some m a t t e r . What m a t t e r s t o ethnography, what ethnography i s i n t e r e s t e d i n , i s human l i f e . Ethnography f o r m u l a t e s i t s i n t e r e s t i n human l i f e as an i n t e r e s t i n t h e commonplace, i n custom, i n c u l t u r e , i n membership, i n s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e . W h i l e ethnography f o r m u l a t e s i t s i n t e r e s t - s e t s i t s e l f an i n t e r e s t - as an i n t e r e s t i n c u l t u r e , i t does not f o r m u l a t e i t s i n t e r e s t i n f i n d i n g c u l t u r e i n t e r e s t i n g . T h i s i s t o say t h a t ethnography does n ot speak about the s o r t o f i n t e r e s t t h a t an i n t e r e s t i n c u l t u r e i s . I n o t h e r words, ethnography - 61 -does n o t address t h e i n t e r e s t i t d i s p l a y s when i t f i n d s c u l t u r e t o be i n t e r e s t i n g , i . e . , when i t says i t i s i n t e r e s t e d i n c u l t u r e . Ethnography c o n c e i v e s o f c u l t u r e as i t s e s s e n t i a l i n t e r e s t and, i n so d o i n g , does not c o n c e i v e o f i t s i n t e r e s t i n c u l t u r e as c o v e r i n g over the e s s e n t i a l . Ethnography f o r g e t s t h e e s s e n t i a l ( the e s s e n t i a l i n t e r e s t ) by f o r m u l a t i n g i t s i n t e r e s t i n c u l t u r e as e s s e n t i a l . I n t h i s way, ethnography f o r g e t s how i t i s t h a t i t f i n d s c u l t u r e i n t e r e s t i n g , o r i n d e e d , how i t i s t h a t i t f i n d s c u l t u r e i n the f i r s t p l a c e . I n s h o r t , ethnography f o r g e t s i t s own b e g i n n i n g and thus e t h n o g r a p h i c i n q u i r y does not p r o v i d e f o r i t s own p o s s i b i l i t y i n s o f a r as i t c o n c e i v e s o f the i n e s s e n t i a l as e s s e n t i a l , i . e . , i n s o f a r as i t c o n c e i v e s o f i t s i n t e r e s t i n c u l t u r e as e s s e n t i a l r a t h e r t h a n a c o n c r e t e i n t e r e s t t h a t c o v e r s o v e r t h e e s s e n t i a l . Ethnography speaks o f i t s i n t e r e s t , i t s i n t e r e s t as an i n t e r e s t i n c u l t u r e and s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e , as e s s e n t i a l and thus f i r s t . W i t h i n t h i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g , the e s s e n t i a l i t y and f i r s t n e s s o f c u l t u r e and s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e i s t a k e n as t h e ro c k - b o t t o m c e r t a i n t y from which a l l o t h e r e t h n o g r a p h i c c o n c e r n s s p r i n g . E t h n o g r a p h i c c o n c e r n s such as f i n d i n g s , d a t a , e t h i c s , e t c . , t h u s f i n d t h e i r i n t e l l i g i b i l i t y w i t h i n t h e c o n c e p t i o n o f c u l t u r e and s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e as f i r s t . I n a sense, t h e n , concerns such as f i n d i n g s , d a t a , e t h i c s , e t c . , a r e u n d e r s t o o d as s u b o r d i n a t e concerns t h a t a r i s e from an i n t e r e s t i n c u l t u r e c o n c e i v e d of as e s s e n t i a l and f i r s t . So f o r ethnography, i t i s t h e w o r l d c o n c e i v e d o f as c u l t u r e - 62 -and s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e t h a t a l l o w s ethnography t o f o r m u l a t e t h e w o r l d as a problem o f f i n d i n g s , o r e t h i c s , o r d a t a , and so on. The r a t i o n a l e f o r an i n t e r e s t i n f i n d i n g s , e t c . , i s g i v e n o v er t o t h e e s s e n t i a l i t y and f i r s t n e s s o f c u l t u r e and s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e . But what ethnography f o r g e t s i s t h a t t o speak o f the w o r l d as c u l t u r e o r s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e i s i t s s o l u t i o n t o the problem o f what i s f i r s t . C u l t u r e and s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e a r e thus metaphors t o make u n p r o b l e m a t i c t h e problem of what i s f i r s t and e s s e n t i a l . C u l t u r e and s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e , r a t h e r t h a n e s s e n t i a l , a r e i n e s s e n t i a l i n t h a t they make r e f e r e n c e t o ethnography's deep d e c i s i o n t o u n d e r s t a n d human l i f e i n a c e r t a i n way. But ethnography f o r g e t s t h a t i t has d e c i d e d t o un d e r s t a n d the w o r l d as c u l t u r e and s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e and thus c o n c e i v e s o f c u l t u r e and s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e as i n e v i t a b l e , a b s o l u t e and f i r s t . As i n e v i t a b l e , a b s o l u t e and f i r s t , ethnography need n ot be r e s p o n s i b l e f o r c u l t u r e and s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e , b u t t h e i n e v i t a b i l i t y o f c u l t u r e and s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e as ethnography's d e c i s i o n t o s o l v e t h e problem o f what i s f i r s t , c u l t u r e and s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e n e c e s s a r i l y become ethnography's e t h i c a l and mor a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . But ethnography f o r g e t s t h a t i t has d e c i d e d t o c o n c e i v e of c u l t u r e and s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e as f i r s t and i n e v i t a b l e and th u s f o r g e t s t h a t ethnography i t s e l f i s a mora l and e t h i c a l d e c i s i o n t h a t r e s u l t s i n f o r m u l a t i n g t h e w o r l d and mankind as c u l t u r e and s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e . Thus concerns such as f i n d i n g s , - 63 -d a t a , e t h i c s , e t c . , do not a r i s e , as ethnography would l i k e t o t h i n k , from the i n e v i t a b i l i t y o f c u l t u r e and s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e , b u t a r i s e from ethnography's m o r a l and e t h i c a l d e c i s i o n t o f o r m u l a t e c u l t u r e and s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e as i t s Good. Concerns such as f i n d i n g s , d a t a , e t h i c s , e t c . , become, f o r ethnography, a co n c e r n w i t h techne i n s o f a r as t h e s e c o n c e r n s a r e found t o be t e c h n i c a l l y p r o b l e m a t i c f o r an e t h n o g r a p h i c engagement w i t h c u l t u r e and s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e . I t i s n o t t h a t c o n cerns such as f i n d i n g s , d a t a , e t h i c s , e t c . , a r e t e c h n i c a l c o n c e r n s a r i s i n g from, and s u b o r d i n a t e t o , the i n e v i t a b i l i t y , a b s o l u t e n e s s and n e c e s s i t y o f c u l t u r e and s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e , b u t r a t h e r t h a t c u l t u r e and s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e i t s e l f i s a t e c h n i c a l c o n c e r n . T h i s i s t o say t h a t c u l t u r e and s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e a r e not a t t r i b u t e s t h a t b e l o n g t o t h e w o r l d , b u t i n s t e a d a r e ethnography's method f o r g e n e r a t i n g t h e i d e a o f t h a t w o r l d . Thus, c u l t u r e and s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e r e - p r e s e n t ethnography's d e c i s i o n t o g e n e r a t e a w o r l d i n w h i c h c u l t u r e and s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e a re a v a i l a b l e as t h i n g s ( c o n c r e t e i n t e r e s t s ) t h a t can be f o r m u l a t e d as the e t h n o g r a p h i c o b j e c t s o f i n q u i r y . So c u l t u r e and s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e , r a t h e r than b e i n g i n e v i t a b l e , f i r s t , and n e c e s s a r y , a r e s u r f a c e r e f l e c t i o n s o f t h a t which i s i n e v i t a b l e , f i r s t , and n e c e s s a r y . So t h i n g s such as c u l t u r e , s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e , f i n d i n g s , e t c . , and t h e r e s t o f ethnography's p a r a p h e r n a l i a , - 64 -are things that point to ethnography's moral and e t h i c a l decision to generate and display ethnography's version of the good l i f e . Culture and s o c i a l structure are ways of thinking about and understanding the world, are ways of thinking about and understanding mankind that organizes the world and mankind so as to command our attention. And, instead of being inevitable, t h i s way of thinking i s already a moral and e t h i c a l decision. So culture and s o c i a l structure cannot be taken for granted, i n the way ethnography takes i t for granted, since culture and s o c i a l structure, understood as decision, are what compel ethnography to see and understand the world, and persons i n that world, as manifestations of culture and s o c i a l structure. The world as culture and s o c i a l structure i s not inevitable since i t i s a decision, and as such, could be otherwise. I V . Culture and s o c i a l structure i s ethnography's way to make a difference. Ethnography, as an exemplification of an interes t , or as an exemplification of a l i f e , wants to make a difference. Ethnography understands i t s e l f as a worthwhile enterprise, as aiming at some good to which i t aspires, and - 65 -as such i t u n d e r s t a n d s i t s e l f as making a d i f f e r e n c e . And, the d i f f e r e n c e t h a t ethnography makes i s c u l t u r e and s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e . C u l t u r e and s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e a r e a consequent o f t h e d i f f e r e n c e t h a t ethnography makes. What ethnography d i f f e r e n t i a t e s i s human l i f e . Ethnography u n d e r s t a n d s human l i f e as d i s p e r s e d and i n v e n t s c u l t u r e and s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e as a way t o c o l l e c t human l i f e . So, f o r ethnography, l i f e i s c o l l e c t a b l e by v i r t u e o f c u l t u r e and s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e and d i f f e r e n t i a t e d by v i r t u e o f c u l t u r e and s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e . F o r ethnography, l i f e i s t h e same i n t h a t i t i s f o r m u l a t e d as c u l t u r e and s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e and, a t t h e same t i m e , l i f e i s d i f f e r e n t i n t h a t i t i s f o r m u l a t e d as c u l t u r e and s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e . We a l l have c u l t u r e and i t i s by v i r t u e o f t h i s e t h n o g r a p h i c f a c t t h a t we a r e d i f f e r e n t . So ethnography f o r m u l a t e s e s s e n t i a l d i f f e r e n c e as t h e d i f f e r e n c e between one l i f e and another,, i . e . , as the d i f f e r e n c e between one c u l t u r e and a n o t h e r . In t h i s sense, we can o n l y know o u r s e l v e s ; we cannot know our n e i g h b o u r s s i n c e t hey a r e d i f f e r e n t . Our n e i g h b o u r s a r e o t h e r than us i n t h a t ethnography f o r m u l a t e s e s s e n t i a l Otherness as c u l t u r e and s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e . I n t h a t ethnography f o r m u l a t e s e s s e n t i a l d i f f e r e n c e as t h e d i f f e r e n c e between one l i f e and a n o t h e r , i . e . , as the d i f f e r e n c e between one c u l t u r e and a n o t h e r , i t i s e s s e n t i a l t h a t t h e s e d i f f e r e n c e s be preserved."'" Ethnography does not - 66 -u n d e r s t a n d the d i f f e r e n c e between one l i f e and a n o t h e r , the d i f f e r e n c e between one c u l t u r e and a n o t h e r , as i n e s s e n t i a l , and as such, u n d e r s t a n d s t h i s e s s e n t i a l d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n ( c u l t u r e and s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e ) as n a t u r a l . So any attempt a t a r e c o n c i l i a t i o n o f t h e s e d i f f e r e n c e s i s , f o r ethnography, t o p r e f e r t h e u n n a t u r a l o ver t h e n a t u r a l , w h i c h i s t o say, t o p r e f e r t h e bad o v e r t h e good. Any attempt a t r e c o n c i l i a t i o n , t h e n , i s u n d e r s t o o d by ethnography as a d e s t r u c t i v e attempt t o o v e r t h r o w t h e r u l e o f n a t u r a l n e s s and t o i n s t i t u t e the r u l e o f u n n a t u r a l n e s s . Ethnography may be f o r m u l a t e d as the s e l f - a p p o i n t e d 2 p r o t e c t o r o f t h e n a t u r a l . And how c o u l d t h i s p r o t e c t o r s h i p be a n y t h i n g b u t s e l f - a p p o i n t e d ? F o r i t i s ethnography t h a t made t h e d i f f e r e n c e i t now wants t o p r o t e c t . I t was ethnography's deep d e c i s i o n , and deep i n t e r e s t , t o g e n e r a t e the w o r l d as c u l t u r e and s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e t h a t made t h a t w o r l d ( c u l t u r e and s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e ) c o n c r e t e l y v i s i b l e , and c o n c r e t e l y i n t e r e s t i n g , i n t h e f i r s t p l a c e . But ethnography f o r g e t s i t s deep d e c i s i o n , i t s deep i n t e r e s t , and f o r m u l a t e s i t s own i n v e n t i o n ( c u l t u r e and s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e ) as n a t u r a l . So i n p r o t e c t i n g t h e n a t u r a l , what ethnography i s r e a l l y p r o t e c t i n g 3 i s i t s own i n t e r e s t . What each and eve r y case o f ethnography p r o t e c t s , and i n t h i s sense r e - a f f i r m s , i s i t s deep i n t e r e s t i n u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h e w o r l d as c u l t u r e and s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e . So each and e v e r y case o f ethnography i s a r e -a f f i r m a t i o n o f t h e d e c i s i o n t o agree (community) t h a t the s o l u t i o n t o t h e problem o f what i s f i r s t i s c u l t u r e and - 67 -s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e . C u l t u r e and s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e , t h e n , a r e t h e good o f ethnography and make r e f e r e n c e t o , and e x e m p l i f y , a l i f e . Ethnography u n d e r s t a n d s c u l t u r e and s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e as o t h e r than c o n c r e t e l i f e and un d e r s t a n d s c o n c r e t e l i f e as p o i n t i n g t o c u l t u r e and s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e . I n o t h e r words, l i f e r e c e i v e s i t s l i f e from c u l t u r e and s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e . And, s i n c e t h e r e a r e many d i f f e r e n t c u l t u r e s , t h e r e a r e many d i f f e r e n t l i v e s . And t h a t t h e r e a re many d i f f e r e n t c u l t u r e s and many d i f f e r e n t l i v e s i s s u r e l y the case . I t i s t o t h e s e many d i f f e r e n t c u l t u r e s , t o t h e s e many d i f f e r e n t l i v e s , t h a t ethnography t u r n s i t s i n q u e s t i v e a t t e n t i o n . C o n c e i v e d o f an e s s e n t i a l , as f i r s t , as r o c k -bottom and c e r t a i n , t h e s e many d i f f e r e n t c u l t u r e s and l i v e s a r e what ethnography r e s p e c t s and h o l d s i n h i g h esteem as i t s f i r m f o u n d a t i o n a l s t a r t i n g p o i n t . Ethnography f o r m u l a t e s i t s b e g i n n i n g ( i t s d e c i s i o n t o u n d e r s t a n d t h e w o r l d as c u l t u r e and s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e ) as the c o n c r e t e c e r t a i n t y of c u l t u r e and s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e and thus f o r g e t s i t s b e g i n n i n g . Ethnography does n ot address i t s b e g i n n i n g , and as such, does n o t - p r o v i d e f o r i t s own p o s s i b i l i t y . T h i s i s n o t t o say t h a t anyone would argue w i t h ethnography on t h e i s s u e t h a t t h e r e a r e many d i f f e r e n t c u l t u r e s and many d i f f e r e n t l i v e s . Ethnography, i n v a r i o u s ways, f o r m u l a t e s c u l t u r e and s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e as ways o f l i v i n g s i n c e t h e y i n v e n t c u l t u r e as a way t o f o r m u l a t e l i f e . But ethnography cannot u n d e r s t a n d t h a t t h e r e a r e many d i f f e r e n t - 68 -l i v e s u n l e s s t h e y u n d e r s t a n d t h e i d e a o f l i f e . I t i s th e i d e a o f l i f e t h a t i s e s s e n t i a l b u t ethnography chooses t o u n d e r s t a n d c u l t u r e , many and d i f f e r e n t l i v e s , as e s s e n t i a l . Thus, ethnography t a k e s t h e i n e s s e n t i a l - many and d i f f e r e n t l i v e s - f o r t h e e s s e n t i a l - t h e i d e a o f l i f e . I t t a k e s t h e u n n a t u r a l f o r t h e n a t u r a l . I n s t e a d o f u n d e r s t a n d i n g any l i f e , any c u l t u r e , as an example o f t h e i d e a o f l i f e , ethnography u n d e r s t a n d s a c u l t u r e as a s e l f - s u f f i c i e n t and e s s e n t i a l l i f e . The d i f f e r e n c e t h a t ethnography chooses t o make i s i n e s s e n t i a l i n s o f a r as i t c o n c e i v e s o f d i f f e r e n c e as a d i f f e r e n c e between c u l t u r e s . Ethnography does not choose t o make a d i f f e r e n c e i n t h a t i t does n o t address t h e i d e a o f l i f e t h a t i t s n o t i o n o f c u l t u r e e x e m p l i f i e s and so, i t does not ad d r e s s the i d e a of l i f e t h a t i t (ethnography) e x e m p l i f i e s . Ethnography's u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h a t l i v e s ( c u l t u r e s ) a r e c o n c r e t e l y d i f f e r e n t i a t e d from one a n o t h e r p r o v i d e s f o r ethnography's f o r m u l a t i o n o f what i t i s t o know another l i f e , a n o t h e r c u l t u r e o r , i n d e e d , c u l t u r e i t s e l f . What we a r e e n t i t l e d t o know i s o u r s e l v e s and not our n e i g h b o u r s , w h i c h i s t o say, what we a r e e n t i t l e d t o know i s our l i f e , our c u l t u r e , b u t not t h e l i f e and c u l t u r e o f o t h e r s . T h i s i s how ethnography g e n e r a t e s i t s n o t i o n o f i n f o r m a n t . W i t h i n t h i s c o n c e p t i o n , we can know o t h e r l i v e s o n l y i f we a r e in f o r m e d about o t h e r l i v e s . T h i s i s what g e n e r a t e s ethnography's n o t i o n o f f i e l d - w o r k . What i s s t r a n g e about t h i s - i s t h a t we cannot know about l i f e and c u l t u r e by r e f l e c t i o n even though we have l i f e and c u l t u r e . Ethnography cannot - 69 -u n d e r s t a n d i t s l i f e and c u l t u r e as the o c c a s i o n t o r e f l e c t and u n d e r s t a n d t h e i d e a o f l i f e and c u l t u r e . T h i s i s because ethnography f o r g e t s t h a t any c o n c r e t e l i f e o r c u l t u r e p o i n t s t o t h e i d e a o f l i f e . So ethnography must be a c u l t u r e v u l t u r e and chase c u l t u r e s , one a f t e r a n o t h e r , so t h a t i t can u n d e r s t a n d c u l t u r e s i n c e i t c o n c e i v e s o f c u l t u r e as c o n c r e t e l y d i f f e r e n t i a t e d . T h i s i s a l s o ethnography's way t o p r e s e r v e t h e d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n o f c u l t u r e s , i . e . , t o p r e s e r v e i t s i n t e r e s t . Ethnography becomes the r e c o r d keeper o f t h e w o r l d and p r e s e r v e s the c u l t u r e s and t h u s r e - a c h i e v e s i t s agreement (community) t o t a k e what i s i n e s s e n t i a l ( c o n c r e t e l y d i f f e r e n t l i v e s ) as e s s e n t i a l (the i d e a o f l i f e ) . V. Ethnography's d e c i s i o n t o c o n c e i v e o f l i f e as c u l t u r e and t o u n d e r s t a n d t h i s c o n c e p t i o n as f i r s t and i n e v i t a b l e , i s ethnography's way o f d e c i d i n g t h a t t h e r e a r e many r i g h t and good ways t o l i v e . Ethnography a p p e a l s t o c u l t u r e as a way t o u n d e r s t a n d any l i f e as r a t i o n a l . Any sense o f u n r e a s o n a b l e n e s s i s t h u s r a t i o n a l i z e d and e x p l a i n e d by f o r m u l a t i n g the w o r l d , and l i f e , as c u l t u r e and s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e . Ethnography's commitment t o c u l t u r e and s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e i s a commitment t o r a t i o n a l i t y and r e a s o n a b l e n e s s i n s o f a r as t h e r a t i o n a l e and - 70 -re a s o n o f a l i f e i s t o be l o c a t e d w i t h i n the n o t i o n of c u l t u r e . F o r S o c r a t e s , on t h e o t h e r hand, t h e r a t i o n a l i t y and r e a s o n a b l e n e s s o f a l i f e i s t o be l o c a t e d w i t h i n the l i f e i t s e l f i n s o f a r as t h a t l i f e i s h e l d t o be r e s p o n s i b l e f o r what i t t a k e s t o be r a t i o n a l and r e a s o n a b l e . U n l i k e ethnography, w h i c h a p p e a l s t o c u l t u r e f o r r a t i o n a l i t y and r e a s o n , i . e . , f o r t h e Good, S o c r a t e s a d d r e s s e s the Good t h r o u g h c o n v e r s a t i o n w h i c h aims a t s u s t a i n i n g t h e e s s e n t i a l d i f f e r e n c e between language and speech. I n t h e Meno, S o c r a t e s asks t h e T h e s s a l i a n , Meno, t o t e l l him what v i r t u e i s . /Among o t h e r r e s p o n s e s , Meno r e p l i e s t h a t v i r t u e i s the power t o a c q u i r e good and f i n e t h i n g s . S o c r a t e s Meno: S o c r a t e s Meno: S o c r a t e s Meno: Now you have j u s t s a i d t h a t v i r t u e c o n s i s t s i n a w i s h f o r good t h i n g s p l u s the power t o a c q u i r e them. In t h i s d e f i n i t i o n t h e w i s h i s common t o everyone, and i n t h a t r e s p e c t no one i s b e t t e r than h i s n e i g h b o u r . So i t appears. So i f one man i s b e t t e r t h a n a n o t h e r , i t must e v i d e n t l y be i n r e s p e c t o f the power, and v i r t u e , a c c o r d i n g t o your a c c o u n t , i s t h e power o f a c q u i r i n g good t h i n g s . Yes, my o p i n i o n i s e x a c t l y as you now e x p r e s s i t . L e t us see whether you have h i t t h e t r u t h t h i s t i m e . You may w e l l be r i g h t . The power o f a c q u i r i n g good t h i n g s , you say, i s v i r t u e ? Yes. (78b,c) - 71 -Socrates i s not an ethnographer; h i s i n q u i r y i s not committed to f o r m u l a t i n g the world as e x p l a i n a b l e and f o r m u l a t i n g the world as c u l t u r e as a way to do the work of e x p l a i n i n g . For ethnography, Meno 1s responses "Yes, my o p i n i o n i s e x a c t l y as you now express i t . " and "Yes.", would mark the end of i n q u i r y . Ethnography would understand v i r t u e as i n t e r e s t i n g o n l y i n s o f a r as i t i s a c o n c r e t e l y i n t e r e s t i n g 4 c u l t u r a l matter o f f a c t . Meno, as informant, can speak onl y r a t i o n a l l y and reasonably, i . e . , Meno 1s speech can only be n a t u r a l . Ethnography formulates Meno the man as Meno the T h e s s a l i a n , and as T h e s s a l i a n , Meno speaks n a t u r a l l y . What i s n a t u r a l i s T h e s s a l i a n e s s , what i s n a t u r a l i s c u l t u r e . T h i s i s to say t h a t Meno n a t u r a l l y has v i r t u e i n the same way t h a t Meno n a t u r a l l y has k i n s h i p , economics, r e l i g i o n , e t c . e t c . V i r t u e , as the power t o a c q u i r e f i n e t h i n g s , i s as n a t u r a l to a T h e s s a l i a n as the c e l e b r a t i o n of the r i t e s of the E l e u s i n i a n M y s t e r i e s are to an Athenian. What Meno says i s n a t u r a l , reasonable and r a t i o n a l by v i r t u e of Meno being a T h e s s a l i a n . Ethnographic i n q u i r y i n t o what v i r t u e i s amounts to f i n d i n g out what any c u l t u r e says v i r t u e i s . Whatever Meno says v i r t u e i s , i n t h a t he i s a T h e s s a l i a n , i n t h a t he i s c u l t u r e , would be understood by ethnography as the Isness of v i r t u e . So f o r ethnography v i r t u e i s many d i f f e r e n t t h i n g s . There are many d i f f e r e n t c u l t u r e s , t h e r e are many d i f f e r e n t l i v e s , and as such, v i r t u e i s formulated as p l u r a l i t y . - 72 -Ethnography's i n t e r e s t i s an i n t e r e s t i n t h e many. For ethnography, any v i r t u e w i l l do and ethnography d e c i d e s t h a t i t w i l l n o t d e c i d e . Ethnography w i l l n o t i n q u i r e i n t o the t r u t h o r goodness o f Meno's d e f i n i t i o n o f v i r t u e , as S o c r a t e s does, s i n c e t h e t r u t h o r goodness o f Meno's d e f i n i t i o n of v i r t u e has been d e c i d e d by ethnography l o n g b e f o r e Meno has g i v e n h i s d e f i n i t i o n . Thus, t h e r e i s no .reason f o r ethnography t o i n q u i r e i n t o t h e r e a s o n a b l e n e s s o r r a t i o n a l i t y o f Meno's d e f i n i t i o n o f v i r t u e s i n c e by v i r t u e o f c o n c e i v i n g t h e w o r l d as c u l t u r e , ethnography has a l r e a d y d e c i d e d t h a t whatever Meno says about v i r t u e w i l l be r e a s o n a b l e and r a t i o n a l . E t h n o g r a p h i c i n q u i r y ends where S o c r a t i c i n q u i r y b e g i n s . C u l t u r e i s ethnography's way t o end i n q u i r y whereas c u l t u r e i s S o c r a t e s ' way t o b e g i n i n q u i r y . C o n c r e t e d i f f e r e n c e s between l i v e s marks t h e end o f e t h n o g r a p h i c i n q u i r y whereas c o n c r e t e d i f f e r e n c e s between l i v e s marks t h e o c c a s i o n f o r S o c r a t e s t o b e g i n i n q u i r y . F o r ethnography, the many i s t h e p l a c e t o b e g i n and end whereas f o r S o c r a t e s t h e many i s o n l y t h e p l a c e t o b e g i n . Ethnography chooses not t o d e c i d e , t h a t i s t o say, ethnography u n d e r s t a n d s t h a t v i r t u e i s many d i f f e r e n t t h i n g s , because ethnography f o r g e t s i t s own v i r t u e , i . e . , ethnography f o r g e t s i t s i n t e r e s t , i t f o r g e t s i t s d e c i s i o n t o see c u l t u r e and d i f f e r e n t n e s s as f i r s t . What ethnography f o r g e t s i s t h a t i t does d e c i d e . - 73 -S o c r a t e s t e l l s Meno t h a t t h e y w i l l have t o "...see whether you have h i t t h e t r u t h t h i s t i m e " and t e l l s Meno t h a t he "...may w e l l be r i g h t . " S o c r a t e s does not t r e a t Meno as an i n f o r m a n t , but i n s t e a d , t r e a t s Meno as an i n t e r l o c u t o r . S o c r a t e s does n o t f o r m u l a t e Meno 1s speech as t r u e o r r i g h t , as does ethnography, s i n c e Meno 1s speech i s t h e o c c a s i o n t o a d dress t h e t r u e and t h e r i g h t . S o c r a t e s t r e a t s Meno as an i n t e r l o c u t o r i n t h a t i t . i s t h e aim o f h i s i n q u i r y t o address t h e d i f f e r e n c e between t h e One and t h e many and t o s u s t a i n i n c o n v e r s a t i o n t h e d i f f e r e n c e between t h e e s s e n t i a l and t h e i n e s s e n t i a l . The S o c r a t i c d i a l o g u e urges Meno t o t r e a t h i s d e f i n i t i o n o f v i r t u e as a p l a c e t o s t a r t i n q u i r y i n t o t h e good t h a t Meno's d e f i n i t i o n c o v e r s o v e r . S o c r a t e s reminds Meno t o remember what he has f o r g o t t e n , t o r e - c o l l e c t t h e b e g i n n i n g t h a t i s the t r u e g e n e r a t o r o f h i s d e f i n i t i o n o f v i r t u e . F u r t h e r m o r e , S o c r a t e s reminds Meno t h a t i t i s he, Meno, who i s s p e a k i n g and thus i t i s he, Meno, who i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r what he s a y s , i . e . , who i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e r e a s o n a b l e n e s s and r a t i o n a l i t y o f h i s speech. S o c r a t e s urges Meno t o remember t h a t h i s speech i s n o t a c c i d e n t a l i n s o f a r as Meno d e c i d e d t o speak t h a t way and t h a t t h i s d e c i s i o n i s a mora l and e t h i c a l one. S o c r a t e s reminds Meno t h a t h i s speech i s a recommendation o f a way o f l i f e t h a t i s recommended as good and t h a t t h i s goodness i s wo r t h remembering and examin i n g . S o c r a t e s t h u s makes Meno - 74 -account f o r what he says and makes Meno account f o r the x a t i o n a l i t y and r e a s o n a b l e n e s s o f what he s a y s . S o c r a t e s does n ot h o l d Meno's speech as f i r s t and i n e v i t a b l e b u t u n d e r s t a n d s Meno 1s speech as making r e f e r e n c e t o some good and a d d r e s s e s Meno 1s speech as a way t o s u s t a i n the e s s e n t i a l d i f f e r e n c e between speech and language. When S o c r a t e s t r e a t s Meno as an i n t e r l o c u t o r , he t r e a t s t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n as a way t o address t h e l i f e t h a t the c o n v e r s a t i o n e x e m p l i f i e s . Ethnography does not c a r e whether Meno has h i t t h e t r u t h o r n o t and does n ot c a r e whether o r not Meno i s r i g h t . Ethnography does n o t c a r e t o i n q u i r e i n t o t h e t r u t h s i n c e i t a l r e a d y knows what i s t r u e . Ethnography does not c a r e t o i n q u i r e i n t o v i r t u e s i n c e i t a l r e a d y knows what v i r t u e i s . Ethnography does not t a k e c a r e t o hear Meno's speech as p o i n t i n g t o a b e g i n n i n g , i'i.e. , i t does n ot t a k e c a r e t o l i s t e n f o r t h e Good t h a t i s c o v e r e d over by Meno 1s speech, s i n c e ethnography hears Meno's speech i t s e l f as good. The c a r e t h a t ethnography t a k e s i s t o c a r e f u l l y r e c o r d whatever Meno says so as t o have a r e c o r d o f T h e s s a l i a n v i r t u e and thus t o p r e s e r v e t h e c o n c r e t e d i f f e r e n t n e s s between l i v e s t h a t i s t h e i n t e r e s t o f ethnography. The d e c i s i o n t o see e t h n o g r a p h i c a l l y i s the d e c i s i o n t o o r g a n i z e t h e w o r l d c u l t u r a l l y . What ethnography f o r g e t s i s t h a t i t d e c i d e s t o c o n c e i v e o f t h e w o r l d as c u l t u r a l l y o r g a n i z e d , w h i c h i s t o say, t h a t t h e d e c i s i o n t o do - 75 -ethnography i s t h e d e c i s i o n t o r e l a t e t o t h e w o r l d i n an e x p l a n a t o r y way, i . e . , ethnography u n d e r s t a n d s e x p l a n a t i o n as a good way t o r e l a t e t o t h e w o r l d . The l i m i t o f ethnography i s c u l t u r e . C o n c e i v i n g o f c u l t u r e as f i r s t , ethnography l i m i t s i t s e l f t o e x p l a n a t i o n , t o d e s c r i b i n g , t o n o t d e c i d i n g , t o f o r g e t t i n g t h a t i t does d e c i d e . So e t h n o g r a p h i c i n q u i r y i s committed t o monlogue and n o t d i a l o g u e . I t i s committed t o s e e i n g Meno, t o s e e i n g a l l p e r s o n s , as c o n c r e t e members; i t i s committed t o s e e i n g p e r s o n s as members, as some c u l t u r e . Ethnography d e c i d e s t o r e l a t e t o membership c o n c r e t e l y i n t h e l i t e r a l sense o f membership i n some c u l t u r e . So ethnography does not c a r e whether Meno i s a good man or n o t , i n s t e a d what ethnography c a r e s about i s t h a t Meno, t h e T h e s s a l i a n , i s a good member of T h e s s a l i a n c u l t u r e . And, f o r ethnography, what e l s e c o u l d Meno be b u t a good member? Ethnography's i d e a o f membership as c o n c r e t e membership i n some c u l t u r e i s t h e v e r y i d e a t h a t ethnography wants t o p r o t e c t . F o r ethnography, c o n c r e t e membership - ethnography's i n t e r e s t i n c o n c r e t e d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n - i s some t h i n g t h a t ought n ot be d i s t u r b e d . T h i s i s how ethnography commits i t s e l f t o monologue. To ethnography, S o c r a t e s appears as a membership d i s t u r b e r . So ethnography s e t s i t s e l f t h e good o f c u l t u r e , i . e . , what i s good f o r ethnography i s i t s i n s a t i a b l e d e s i r e f o r c u l t u r e , f o r d i f f e r e n t n e s s . Ethnography u n d e r s t a n d s c u l t u r e - 76 -as f i r s t r a t h e r than u n d e r s t a n d i n g c u l t u r e as i t s (ethnography's) own i n v e n t i o n , i . e . , as i t s own way o f r e l a t i n g t o t h e w o r l d . F o r ethnography, the good l i f e i s t h e e t h n o g r a p h i c l i f e - t h e c u l t u r a l l i f e - i n s o f a r as t h e good l i f e i s t o be l o c a t e d w i t h i n an a p p e a l t o c u l t u r e . Ethnography h o l d s no member r e s p o n s i b l e o r a c c o u n t a b l e f o r what i s good. No member i s a c c o u n t a b l e o r r e s p o n s i b l e f o r r a t i o n a l i t y . F o r ethnography, the r a t i o n a l way t o l i v e i s c u l t u r a l l y , o r c u l t u r e i s f o r m u l a t e d as what r a t i o n a l i t y i s , c u l t u r e i s what p r o v i d e s f o r t h e r e t o be such a t h i n g as a r a t i o n a l e . The good o f ethnography i s c u l t u r e , i . e . , ethnography d e c i d e s t h a t what i s good i s c u l t u r e . But ethnography f o r g e t s what i t d e c i d e s , and i n d e e d , f o r g e t s t h a t i t does d e c i d e , and thus f o r m u l a t e s c u l t u r e as n a t u r a l and f i r s t . V I . What, t h e n , i s our i n t e r e s t ? How i s our i n t e r e s t t o be f o r m u l a t e d ? What s o r t o f i n t e r e s t does our t a l k d i s p l a y ? We f i n d t h e n o t i o n o f i n t e r e s t t o be i n t e r e s t i n g s i n c e we w r i t e about i t , and our w r i t i n g can be i n t e r e s t i n g o n l y i n s o f a r as i t i s c o n c e i v e d o f as l e a d i n g back t o our i n t e r e s t . Thus, a d d r e s s i n g our i n t e r e s t - a d d r e s s i n g t h a t i n t e r e s t t h a t - 77 -p e r m i t t e d us t o f o r m u l a t e i n t e r e s t t h e way we d i d - i s not t h e i d l e a s k i n g o f an u n i n t e r e s t i n g q u e s t i o n . We w r i t e about ethnography and so we can b e g i n t o t h i n k about our i n t e r e s t as an i n t e r e s t i n ethnography. Ethnography t e l l s us many i n t e r e s t i n g t h i n g s ; i t t e l l s us t h a t , as human b e i n g s , we a r e d i f f e r e n t i a t e d from one a n o t h e r on t h e b a s i s t h a t we a r e members o f d i f f e r e n t c u l t u r e s ; i t t e l l s us many i n t e r e s t i n g t h i n g s about d i f f e r e n t c u l t u r e s , f o r example, i t t e l l s us t h a t members o f d i f f e r e n t c u l t u r e s have d i f f e r e n t ways o f u n d e r s t a n d i n g j u s t i c e , have d i f f e r e n t ways o f u n d e r s t a n d i n g k i n s h i p , have d i f f e r e n t ways o f p r e p a r i n g t h e i r f o o d and e a t i n g t h e i r f o o d , e t c . , e t c . , i n s h o r t , i t t e l l s us t h a t members o f o t h e r c u l t u r e s l i v e d i f f e r e n t l y from us; i t t e l l s us t h a t we have something i n common w i t h o t h e r c u l t u r e s namely, t h a t we a r e a l l members of some c u l t u r e ; i t t e l l s us t h a t what we l i k e and do not l i k e , what we t h i n k i s good and what we t h i n k i s bad, and so on, i s r a t i o n a l and r e a s o n a b l e because we a r e members o f some c u l t u r e ; i t t e l l s us t h a t we s h o u l d not be q u i c k t o judge t h e a c t i o n s o f members o f o t h e r c u l t u r e s s i n c e , as members o f o t h e r c u l t u r e s , t h e i r a c t i o n s a re r e a s o n a b l e , e t c . , e t c . The q u e s t i o n i s Why do we f i n d t h e s e t h i n g s i n t e r e s t i n g ? Where i s t h e i n t e r e s t i n g n e s s o f t h e s e e t h n o g r a p h i c t h i n g s t o be l o c a t e d ? I s i t t h a t we, members o f our c u l t u r e , do not know t h e s e t h i n g s about members o f o t h e r c u l t u r e s and t h u s - 78 -f i n d them newsworthy and n o v e l ? I f so, a r e we t o t h i n k o f e t h n o g r a p h e r s as news r e p o r t e r s who, a l o n g w i t h t h e news, c o l l e c t some t r i n k e t s and n o v e l t i e s from o t h e r c u l t u r e s and b r i n g them back f o r us t o f o n d l e and admire i n c u l t u r a l amazement? A r e we t o t h i n k o f members o f o t h e r c u l t u r e s as news worthy and n o v e l t i e s ? S u r e l y n o t : No ethnographer would admit t o b e i n g a news r e p o r t e r and a s o u v e n i r h u n t e r . No ethnographer would admit t h a t t h e i n t e r e s t i n g n e s s of ethnography was t o be equated w i t h t h e b i t s and p i e c e s of c u l t u r a l s t u f f b r o u g h t back from a f o r e i g n l a n d . Our i n t e r e s t i n ethnography must t h e n be l o c a t e d e l s e w h e r e . I t must be l o c a t e d i n t h e d i f f e r e n c e t h a t ethnography makes and our i n t e r e s t i s i n t h i s v e r y d i f f e r e n c e . I n o t h e r words, what i s i n t e r e s t i n g about ethnography l i e s n o t i n t h e f a c t t h a t i t d i s c o v e r s news worthy and n o v e l t h i n g s , but i n t h e f a c t t h a t i t d i s c o v e r s d i f f e r e n t n e s s . The d i f f e r e n t n e s s t h a t ethnography d i s c o v e r s i s t h a t human b e i n g s a r e t o f i n d t h e i r e s s e n t i a l i t y i n t h e r e a l i z a t i o n t h a t t h e y a r e c u l t u r e ; i t i s i n s o c i a l i t y t h a t we are t o f i n d our essence. S o c i a l i t y , u n d e r s t o o d as c u l t u r e , i s what i s e s s e n t i a l t o us i n s o f a r as i t i s e s s e n t i a l l y Other and, i n t h i s sense, e t e r n a l and f i r s t . And, t h i s i s what i s i n t e r e s t i n g about ethnography. When a l l t h e e t h n o g r a p h i c b i t s and p i e c e s a r e - 79 -swept away, what remains i s t h e most i n t e r e s t i n g t h i n g ethnography has t o t e l l us. I t t e l l s us t h a t what we a r e i s c u l t u r e and t h a t what i s good about us i s t h a t what we a r e i s c u l t u r e and t h a t what i s good about us i s t h a t we a r e c u l t u r e . So what i s i n t e r e s t i n g about ethnography i s t h a t ethnography recommends a way o f l i f e t h a t i s good. I t recommends t h e l i f e o f c u l t u r e , i . e . , i t recommends the l i f e o f - c o n c r e t e membership i n some c u l t u r e and i t recommends the l i f e o f c o n c r e t e d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n between and among members o f o t h e r c u l t u r e s . F u r t h e r , i t recommends the l i f e t h a t i s r a t i o n a l . T h i s i s not t o say t h a t ethnography recommends t h a t we t h i n k about t h e r a t i o n a l i t y of our l i v e s , i n s t e a d ethnography t e l l s us t h a t we a r e , have been, and always w i l l be, r a t i o n a l by v i r t u e o f b e i n g c u l t u r a l . Ethnography does n o t t e l l us t o a c c o u n t , o r be r e s p o n s i b l e f o r our l i v e s , i n s t e a d ethnography p r o v i d e s us w i t h a f o o l - p r o o f escape from a c c o u n t a b i l i t y o r r e s p o n s i b i l i t y by t e l l i n g us t h a t we can a p p e a l t o c u l t u r e as a way t o e x p l a i n our l i v e s and s i n c e , f o r ethnography, c u l t u r e i s good, r a t i o n a l and n a t u r a l , our l i v e s a r e good, r a t i o n a l and n a t u r a l . What i s i n t e r s t i n g about ethnography i s t h a t i t t e l l s us t h a t t h i n k i n g and t h o u g h t f u l n e s s a r e no l o n g e r n e c e s s a r y . I t t e l l s us t h a t the q u e s t i o n o f n a t u r a l n e s s and f i r s t n e s s i s t o be c o n s i d e r e d as a problem t o w h i c h the - 80 -w o r l d , and t h e p e o p l e i n i t u n d e r s t o o d as c u l t u r e , i s a s o l u t i o n . I t t e l l s us t h a t t h e good toward which our l i f e aims i s no l o n g e r something t o be r e f l e c t e d upon and sought s i n c e t h e s e e k i n g has come t o an end, the good has been found once and f o r a l l , t h e good i s c u l t u r e . I t t e l l s us t o l i v e our l i v e s , as K i e r k e g a a r d might say, i n s i d e t h e p a r e n t h e s e s o f c u l t u r e and t e l l s us not t o t h i n k about the k i n d o f l i f e t h a t chooses t o l i v e p a r e n t h e t i c a l l y . Thus t h e i n t e r e s t i n g t h i n g about ethnography i s t h a t i t i n t e r e s t s each and e v e r y one o f us. I t does t h i s by t e l l i n g each and e v e r y one o f us t h a t i t has d i s c o v e r e d , o r b e t t e r i n v e n t e d , a l i f e t h a t i s good, r a t i o n a l and n a t u r a l . I t t e l l s us about what i s e s s e n t i a l and e t e r n a l and thus t e l l s us t h a t t h e good way t o l i v e i s c u l t u r a l l y . What i s i n t e r e s t i n g about ethnography i s t h a t i t t e l l s us what we a r e and what we s h o u l d be. I n t h i s sense, ethnography i s not m e r e l y a p e r s o n a l i n t e r e s t but an i n t e r e s t o f ev e r y p e r s o n . K i e r k e g a a r d s u g g e s t s t h a t he has "...heard t h a t C h r i s t i a n i t y proposes i t s e l f as a c o n d i t i o n f o r the a c q u i r e -ment o f t h i s good," ( e t e r n a l h a p p i n e s s ) "and now I ask how I may e s t a b l i s h a p r o p e r r e l a t i o n s h i p t o t h i s d o c t r i n e . " ( K i e r k e g a a r d , 1941:19) K i e r k e g a a r d does not t h i n k o f t h i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g as an i r r e l e v a n t i n t e r e s t i n the s e l f . I n s t e a d , he says t h a t : ...my c o n s c i e n c e i s q u i t e c l e a r i n t h i s m a t t e r ; i t i s not I who have become so presumptuous o f my own a c c o r d , but i t i s C h r i s t i a n i t y i t s e l f w h i c h compels me t o ask t h e q u e s t i o n i n t h i s manner. I t p u t s q u i t e an e x t r a o r d i n a r y emphasis upon my own p e t t y s e l f , and upon e v e r y o t h e r s e l f however p e t t y , i n t h a t i t proposes t o endow each s e l f w i t h an e t e r n a l h a p p i n e s s , p r o v i d e d a p r o p e r r e l a t i o n s h i p i s e s t a b l i s h e d . . . . ( K i e r k e g a a r d , 1941:19) T h i s i s n o t u n l i k e ethnography; ethnography proposes i t s e l f as t h e s o l u t i o n t o what i s good, n a t u r a l and f i r s t and, as K i e r k e g a a r d might have i t , proposes i t s e l f as t h e r o a d t o e t e r n a l h a p p i n e s s . I t might be o b j e c t e d t h a t ethnography, u n l i k e C h r i s t i a n i t y , does not o v e r t l y propose i t s e l f as t h e good l i f e . N e v e r t h e l e s s , the i n q u i r y t h a t i s ethnography i s a t t h e same time a recommendation of a way o f l i f e . Ethnography proposes c u l t u r e f o r i t s e l f as i t s good and, by so d o i n g , proposes c u l t u r e as the good f o r each and e v e r y one o f us. U n l i k e ethnography, who t e l l s us what we do n o t know, i . e . , t h a t c u l t u r e i s e s s e n t i a l , e t e r n a l and f i r s t , our i n q u i r y aims a t t e l l i n g ethnography what i t has f o r g o t t e n , namely t h a t i t f o r g e t s t h a t i t i s i n t e r e s t e d . - 82 -FOOTNOTES 1 Ethnography's i m p u l s e t o p r e s e r v e t h e d i f f e r e n c e between one c u l t u r e and a n o t h e r i s ethnography's i m p u l s e t o l i v e n a t u r a l l y . F or ethnography, the u n n a t u r a l l i f e i s m a n i f e s t i n such n o t i o n s as c u l t u r a l s u p e r i o r i t y , i . e . , where one c u l t u r e , u n d e r s t a n d i n g i t s e l f as s u p e r i o r , imposes i t s e l f on a n o t h e r . T h i s u n n a t u r a l l i f e g e n e r a t e s such e t h n o g r a p h i c f o r m u l a t i o n s as " a c c u l t u r a t i o n " and " e t h n o c e n t r i s m . T h i s i s ethnography's way t o remind us t h a t we a r e c u l t u r e and t h a t n o t i o n s such as c u l t u r a l s u p e r i o r i t y and c u l t u r a l i n f e r i o r i t y a r e u n n a t u r a l i n t h a t t h e d i f f e r e n c e between one l i f e and a n o t h e r i s e s s e n t i a l i n s o f a r as t h i s d i f f e r e n c e m a n i f e s t s t h e e s s e n t i a l i t y and n a t u r a l n e s s o f c u l t u r e . In t h i s sense, ethnography i s a m o r a l t e a c h i n g i n t h a t i t t e a c h e s us t o l i v e n a t u r a l l y . 2 F o r example, S t o d d a r t says,. . . . i t has been i n d i c a t e d t h a t f o r e t h n o g r a p h e r s — as f o r a l l i n q u i r e r s -- t h e " n a t u r a l s t a t e " o f any domain i s any domain's paramount f e a t u r e : e t h n o g r a p h e r s b o t h i n t h e f o r m u l a t i o n o f t h e i r t a s k and i n t h e i r l o c a t i o n o f problems - a t t e n d a n t t o t h a t t a s k presume i t and i n the c a r r y i n g out and r e p o r t i n g o f t h e i r r e s e a r c h a c t i v i t i e s seek t o p r e s e r v e i t . ( S t o d d a r t , n.d.: 14-15) 3 Or, what e t h n o g r a p h i c speech r e a l l y r e - a f f i r m s and r e - a c h i e v e s , and what e t h n o g r a p h i c speech r e f l e c t s , i s i t s S e l f . 4 P i t k i n (1972: 169-192) f o r m u l a t e s the c o n v e r s a t i o n between S o c r a t e s and Thrasymachus i n Book I o f The R e p u b l i c as a problem i n t h e f o r m u l a t i o n o f the meaning o f j u s t i c e . She f o r m u l a t e s S o c r a t e s ' a d d r e s s i n g o f t h e problem of j u s t i c e as a problem of meaning and f o r m u l a t e s Thrasymachus' a d d r e s s i n g of t h e problem o f j u s t i c e as a problem of s o c i o l o g i c a l o b s e r v a t i o n . - 83 -S o c r a t e s answers th e q u e s t i o n as i f i t were about th e meaning of the word " j u s t i c e " ; o r a t l e a s t , we can r e c o g n i z e h i s answer as a p l a u s i b l e d e f i n i t i o n . T h i s i s not t r u e o f Thrasymachus 1 answer. He i s not f o r m u l a t i n g a p hrase more o r l e s s synonymous w i t h the word " j u s t i c e " , but making a k i n d o f s o c i o l o g i c a l o b s e r v a t i o n about th e t h i n g s w h i c h p e o p l e c a l l " j u s t " o r " u n j u s t " . The word " j u s t i c e " does not mean " i n t h e i n t e r e s t o f t h e s t r o n g e r , " and Thrasymachus i s n o t s u g g e s t i n g t h a t i t might. Thrasymachus i s t r y i n g t o t e l l us something about t h e t h i n g s o r s i t u a t i o n s p e o p l e say a r e " j u s t " . ( P i t k i n , 1972:170) In t h i s sense, Thrasymachus becomes a s o c i o l o g i s t whose i n t e r e s t i s f i n d i n g out from the members of a s o c i e t y what j u s t i c e i s . For P i t k i n , whether or not Thrasymachus agrees w i t h the members of s o c i e t y i s a n o t h e r i s s u e . What i s i m p o r t a n t , f o r P i t k i n , i s t h a t Thrasymachus, f o r m u l a t e d as a s o c i o l o g i s t , can c o n t r i b u t e t o our u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f j u s t i c e i n s o f a r as he can p r o v i d e e t h n o g r a p h i c d a t a about j u s t i c e . S o c r a t e s , on t h e o t h e r hand i s s e a r c h i n g a f t e r a d e f i n i t i o n o f j u s t i c e and, i n t h i s sense, i s u n d e r s t o o d by P i t k i n as a t t e m p t i n g t o f o r m u l a t e the i d e a l j u s t i c e (pp.191-192), i . e . , what j u s t i c e ought t o be. But P i t k i n does not u n d e r s t a n d t h a t S o c r a t e s i s n o t s e e k i n g a f t e r a d e f i n i t i o n o r a f t e r a c o n c r e t e l y i d e a l u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f j u s t i c e . What S o c r a t e s i s d o i n g i s a t t e m p t i n g t o f o r m u l a t e usage ( c o n c r e t e speech about j u s t i c e ) and, as such, i s a t t e m p t i n g t o o c c a s i o n t h e i n e s s e n t i a l ( c o n c r e t e speech about j u s t i c e ) as a way t o a d d r e s s t h e e s s e n t i a l , t h e Good. Thus, f o r S o c r a t e s t o p r o v i d e a d e f i n i t i o n o f j u s t i c e would be f o r S o c r a t e s t o c o n c e i v e o f t h e Good, the e s s e n t i a l and the e t e r n a l , as an e f f a b l e t h i n g and thus as a t h i n g not n e e d f u l o f g r o u n d i n g . But S o c r a t e s u n d e r s t a n d s e v e r y speech, i n c l u d i n g h i s own, as n e e d f u l o f g r o u n d i n g and thus S o c r a t e s does not u n d e r s t a n d speech as speech t h a t speaks i t s own grounds. A l l speech i s r e s p o n s i b l e and S o c r a t e s a t t e m p t s t o r e - c o l l e c t the r e s p o n s e s - a b i l i t y o f speech. So i n s t e a d o f f o r m u l a t i n g S o c r a t e s ' speech, P i t k i n c o n c r e t i z e s i t as a way t o c o n c r e t e l y - 84 -e x p l a i n and e x p l i c a t e t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n between Thrasymachus and S o c r a t e s n ot as c o n v e r s a t i o n t h a t i s an attempt t o f o r m u l a t e the t e n s i o n between the e s s e n t i a l and t h e i n e s s e n t i a l , but as a c o n v e r s a t i o n t h a t a t t e m p t s t o c u l m i n a t e i n a c o n c r e t e r e s u l t . So P i t k i n does not f o r m u l a t e Thrasymachus 1 speech as an example o f s o c i o l o g i c a l o b s e r v a t i o n as a way t o address Thrasymachus' v e r s i o n o f good i n q u i r y and as a way t o address S o c r a t e s ' v e r s i o n o f good i n q u i r y , b u t u n d e r s t a n d s the speech o f Thrasymachus and S o c r a t e s c o n c r e t e l y as i t s e l f i n q u i r y t h a t aims a t a c o n c r e t e r e s u l t . - 85 -CHAPTER 4. DISINTEREST I . I seem t o be i n l u c k . I wanted one v i r t u e and I f i n d t h a t you have a whole swarm of v i r t u e s t o o f f e r . (Meno, 72) Even i f they a r e many and v a r i o u s , y e t a t l e a s t t h e y a l l have some common c h a r a c t e r w h i c h makes them v i r t u e s . That i s what ought t o be k e p t i n v i e w by anyone who answers t h e q u e s t i o n : "What i s v i r t u e . 1 Do you f o l l o w me? (Meno, 7 2c, d) T h i s p u t s us back where we were. I n a d i f f e r e n t way we have d i s c o v e r e d a number of v i r t u e s when we were l o o k i n g f o r one o n l y . T h i s s i n g l e v i r t u e , w h i c h permeates each o f them, we cannot f i n d . (Meno, 74) However, now i t i s your t u r n t o do as you p r o m i s e d , and t r y t o t e l l me t h e •;• • g e n e r a l n a t u r e of v i r t u e . Stop making many out o f one, as t h e h u m o u r i s t s say when somebody b r e a k s a p l a t e . J u s t l e a v e v i r t u e whole and sound and t e l l me what i t i s , as i n t h e examples I have g i v e n you. (Meno, 77b) W h i l e t h e n a t u r e o f v i r t u e as a whole i s s t i l l under q u e s t i o n , don't suppose t h a t you can e x p l a i n i t t o anyone i n terms of i t s p a r t s , o r by any s i m i l a r , t y p e of e x p l a n a t i o n . . 'Understand r a t h e r t h a t the same q u e s t i o n remains t o be answered; you say t h i s and t h a t about v i r t u e , b u t what i s i t ? Does t h i s seem nonsense t o you? (Meno, 7 9d, e) - 86 -These a r e S o c r a t e s ' words t o Meno. These a r e not words o f a d v i c e nor a r e they words o f c l a r i f i c a t i o n . S o c r a t e s i s n o t a d v i s i n g Meno on how t o speak on v i r t u e i n f r o n t o f l a r g e a u d i e n c e s w i t h o u t l o o k i n g t h e f o o l s i n c e Meno i s e p t a t t h e s e s o r t s o f performances and, not engaging i n t h e s e performances h i m s e l f , S o c r a t e s has no a d v i c e . Nor i s c l a r i f i c a t i o n S o c r a t e s ' aim i n s o f a r as Meno u n d e r s t a n d s c l a r i t y as the p r o v i s i o n o f a f o r - a l l -p r a c t i c a l - p u r p o s e s c l e a r d e f i n i t i o n o f v i r t u e . R a t h e r t h a n words o f a d v i c e and c l a r i f i c a t i o n , S o c r a t e s ' words a r e a reminder t o Meno. S o c r a t e s reminds Meno t h a t when he speaks about v i r t u e he speaks about p a r t s o f v i r t u e and examples o f v i r t u e and not about v i r t u e i t s e l f . He reminds Meno t h a t he has s a i d " t h i s and t h a t about v i r t u e " and reminds Meno t h a t he has t a k e n t h i s and t h a t f o r v i r t u e when what i s i n q u e s t i o n i s not t h i s and t h a t but v i r t u e i t s e l f . T h i s i s not t o say t h a t Meno m e r e l y f o r g o t t h a t when he spoke o f t h i s and t h a t he was not s p e a k i n g o f v i r t u e and S o c r a t e s needed merely t o remind Meno as one would remind someone o f an appointment he has f o r g o t t e n o r something o f t h a t s o r t . Meno d i d not mer e l y f o r g e t , i n the c o n c r e t e sense of poor memory, t h a t he was s p e a k i n g about t h i s and t h a t when he s h o u l d have been s p e a k i n g about v i r t u e , i n s t e a d Meno un d e r s t o o d t h i s and t h a t as v i r t u e . Thus, when S o c r a t e s reminds Meno t h a t he i s s p e a k i n g about t h i s and t h a t and not about v i r t u e he i s r e m i n d i n g Meno t h a t he has d e c i d e d t o - 87 -speak about t h i s and t h a t and so S o c r a t e s i s r e m i n d i n g Meno t o r e - c o l l e c t t h a t d e c i s i o n . And d e s p i t e h i s r e j e c t i o n o f Meno's o f f e r i n g s , o f Meno's t h i s e s and t h a t s , S o c r a t e s s t i l l a d d r e s s e s Meno's o f f e r i n g s i n s o f a r as t h e y a r e Meno's o f f e r i n g s o f v i r t u e . S o c r a t e s t e l l s Meno t h a t he does not know what v i r t u e i s , and h e a r i n g t h i s as a p l e a from S o c r a t e s t o t e l l him what he does n o t know, Meno v i r t u o u s l y o f f e r s S o c r a t e s v i r t u e . And i t i s t h i s toward which t h e S o c r a t i c reminder p o i n t s ; t h a t Meno's o f f e r i n g i s not mer e l y an o f f e r i n g o f v i r t u e b u t t h a t h i s o f f e r i n g i s a v i r t u o u s one. S o c r a t e s i s not r e m i n d i n g Meno t h a t he has o f f e r e d him o n l y t h i s e s and t h a t s , i . e . , b i t s and p i e c e s t h a t a r e c o n v e n t i o n , but i s r e m i n d i n g Meno t h a t h i s o f f e r i n g s , however meagre, p o i n t t o a l i f e t h a t g e n e r a t e d not o n l y t h e o f f e r i n g s b u t Meno's d e s i r e t o o f f e r . S o c r a t e s ' words t o Meno a r e a reminder i n t h e sense o f r e m i n d i n g Meno t o ad d r e s s t h a t which he t r u l y o f f e r s when he speaks o f t h i s and t h a t . S o c r a t e s does not c o n c e i v e o f Meno's o f f e r i n g o f t h i s and t h a t as Meno's t r u e o f f e r i n g but c o n c e i v e s o f i t r a t h e r as the meagre re-presentation"*" o f what Meno t r u l y has t o o f f e r . What Meno i s t r u l y o f f e r i n g i s n o t some t h i s o r t h a t o r some b i t s and p i e c e s o f T h e s s a l i a n c u l t u r e , as ethnography would have i t , but i n s t e a d Meno i s o f f e r i n g a l i f e t h a t i s v i r t u o u s . L i k e e v e r y o t h e r - 88 -speaker, Meno i s b o l d , i . e . , h i s speech d i s p l a y s t h e l i f e t h a t has g e n e r a t e d i t and h i s speech o f f e r s t h a t l i f e as v i r t u o u s and good. And, l i k e e v e r y o t h e r s p e a k e r , Meno needs t o be reminded o f h i s b o l d n e s s , i . e . , he needs t o be reminded o f t h a t w h i c h h i s s p e a k i n g f o r g e t s , namely t h a t h i s speech i s an example. Meno o f f e r s t h i s and t h a t about v i r t u e as a c e r t a i n t y on t h e b a s i s o f t h a t w h i c h everyone knows, i . e . , on t h e b a s i s o f common usage. I f t h i s v i e w was t a k e n up as adequate i n q u i r y , t h e o n l y r e c o u r s e S o c r a t e s would have would be t o det e r m i n e whether o r not Meno's usage was c o r r e c t . And t h i s p r o c e d u r e would be i n t e l l i g i b l e as an e v a l u a t i v e problem o n l y i n s o f a r as Meno was c o n c e i v e d o f not as Meno t h e man but as Meno the T h e s s a l i a n . As T h e s s a l i a n , what Meno has t o o f f e r as good i s c u l t u r e and c u l t u r e i s o f f e r e d up i n b i t s and p i e c e s , t h i s e s and t h a t s ; today v i r t u e and tomorrow perhaps k i n s h i p o r even r e l i g i o n . U n d erstood as T h e s s a l i a n , as c u l t u r e , a c o n v e r s a t i o n w i t h Meno would d e g e n e r a t e l y reduce t o a monologue where Meno's i n t e r l o c u t o r would p a t i e n t l y a w a i t t h e b i t s and p i e c e s o f c u l t u r e t h a t a r e thrown t o him and v o r a c i o u s l y g o b b l e them up i n t h e t r u e manner o f a c u l t u r e v u l t u r e . These b i t s and p i e c e s a r e e x a c t l y what the c u l t u r e v u l t u r e has been a w a i t i n g , and n e e d l e s s t o say e x p e c t i n g , so t h a t one more b i t c o u l d be added t o the system t h a t i s c u l t u r e t h a t p a t i e n t l y a w a i t s c o m p l e t i o n . Now i f Meno w i l l o n l y o f f e r up k i n s h i p , o r even perhaps r e l i g i o n , tomorrow. - 89 -But S o c r a t e s reminds us t h a t b i t s and p i e c e s , t h i s e s and t h a t s , a r e n o t t h e p o i n t . B i t s and p i e c e s , i . e . , common usage, a r e not t h e p o i n t i f by t h a t i s meant t h e p o i n t a t w h i c h i n q u i r y aims and t h e p o i n t a t w h i c h i n q u i r y seeks t o come t o an end. Usage i s the p o i n t o n l y when p o i n t i s u n d e r s t o o d as t h e p o i n t o f d e p a r t u r e . We must a l l s t a r t i n t h e cave, i . e . , we must a l l s t a r t by l o o k i n g a t t h e shadows. But t h e p o i n t i s not t o see t h e shadows more c l e a r l y o r t o make the shadows l e s s shadowy s i n c e shadows a r e by n a t u r e shadowy. N e i t h e r i s the p o i n t t o r e p l a c e e x i s t i n g shadows w i t h b e t t e r shadows s i n c e t h a t i s t o p e r p e t u a t e t h e e s s e n t i a l and n a t u r a l as mere shadows and i s t h e d e g e n e r a t e f o r m u l a t i o n o f s o c i a l r e v o l u t i o n . The p o i n t i s r a t h e r t o t u r n from t h e shadows, t o t u r n from the s t a r t , and t o r e - c o l l e c t t h a t which g e n e r a t e s the shadows. I t i s t o a d d r e s s t h e g e n e r a t i o n o f t h e shadows we c a s t . We a r e reminded by S o c r a t e s o f our t e m p t a t i o n and i m p u l s e t o f i n d usage i n t e r e s t i n g , The i m p u l s e t o f i n d usage i n t e r e s t i n g , however, i s t h e i m p u l s e t o . f o r g e t one's o r i g i n , one's p o s s i b i l i t y , and marks an e t h i c a l d e c i s i o n t o be d i s i n t e r e s t e d i n t h a t o r i g i n and p o s s i b i l i t y . T h i s i s t o be d i s i n t e r e s t e d i n t h a t w h i c h i s e s s e n t i a l l y i n t e r e s t i n g and i n t e r e s t e d i n t h a t w h i c h i s i n e s s e n t i a l l y i n t e r e s t i n g . But t h i s i s t o f o r g e t t h a t any i n t e r e s t i n usage i t s e l f c o v e r s over t h e l i f e t h a t g e n e r a t e s usage, - 90 -i . e . , any i n t e r e s t i n i t , and a p r e o c c u p a t i o n w i t h usage marks t h e w o r s t k i n d o f d i s i n t e r e s t , a d i s i n t e r e s t i n what speech s a y s . So S o c r a t e s reminds us where our i n t e r e s t l i e s ; our i n t e r e s t l i e s i n t h a t which our c o n c r e t e l y i n t e r e s t i n g speech c o v e r s o v e r . To be t r u l y d i s i n t e r e s t e d i s t o be d i s i n t e r e s t e d i n c o n c r e t e l y i n t e r e s t i n g speech, i . e . , i n usage. Usage i s i n t e r e s t i n g o n l y i n s o f a r as i t e x e m p l i f i e s an e s s e n t i a l i n t e r e s t , i . e . , t h e i n t e r e s t w h i c h i s t h e l i f e t h a t i s i t s g e n e r a t i o n , i t s b e g i n n i n g . Thus, the t r u l y d i s i n t e r e s t e d i n q u i r y i s not an i n q u i r y t h a t aims a t p r o d u c i n g some r e s u l t , t h a t aims a t g e n e r a t i n g some f i n d i n g , t h a t aims a t a s o l u t i o n t o some problem, o r t h e l i k e , b ut i s i n q u i r y t h a t aims a t p r o d u c i n g an example, i . e . , i t i s i n q u i r y t h a t t r e a t s i t s e l f as exemplary o f the l i f e t h a t makes i t i n t e l l i g i b l e and s e n s i b l e . I n q u i r y t h a t f i n d s i t s e l f t o be i n t e r e s t i n g by v i r t u e o f a p l e a t o the c o n c r e t e i n t e r e s t i n g n e s s o f i t s m a t t e r i s i n q u i r y t h a t f o r g e t s i t s deep i n t e r e s t and i s i n q u i r y t h a t i s d i s i n t e r e s t e d o n l y i n th e w o r s t way, i . e . , i t i s d i s i n t e r e s t e d i n i t s e l f , and as such, e x e m p l i f i e s a v e r s i o n ' o f i n q u i r y t h a t aims a t an i n d i f f e r e n c e t o , and a d i s i n t e r e s t i n , t h a t w h i c h i s e s s e n t i a l . What t h i s s o r t o f i n q u i r y f o r g e t s i s t h a t i t i s m o r a l l y and e t h i c a l l y i n t e r e s t e d and t h a t i t i s t h i s deep i n t e r e s t t h a t i s t h e g e n e r a t o r o f t h e d i s i n t e r e s t . So t h e t r u l y d i s i n t e r e s t e d i n q u i r y u n d e r s t a n d s i t s d i s i n t e r e s t as - 91 -d e r i v a t i v e n o t from t h e i n t e r n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n o f t h e i n q u i r y i t s e l f , b ut from t h e deep i n t e r e s t t h a t g e n e r a t e s t h e i n q u i r y and o f whi c h t h e i n q u i r y i s an example. M a t e r i a l s f o r i n q u i r y i . e . , t o p i c s , s u b j e c t m a t t e r , and t h e l i k e , a r e i n t e r e s t i n g o n l y i n s o f a r as they themselves d i s p l a y an i n t e r e s t and o n l y i n s o f a r as t h e y themselves a r e the o c c a s i o n f o r e x e m p l i f y i n g an i n t e r e s t . I I . I n c o n t r a s t , we can t h i n k about the s o c i a l s c i e n t i f i c , w h i c h i s t o say, e t h n o g r a p h i c , f o r m u l a t i o n o f d i s i n t e r e s t e d n e s s . S i n c e , f o r ethnography, t o speak i s t o speak about, i . e . , t o speak about some i n t e r e s t i n g m a t t e r , speech i s i n t e r e s t i n g and good i n s o f a r as i t r e - p r e s e n t s some m a t t e r . T h i s i s t o say t h a t speech i s good when i t i m i t a t e s , i 3 ; e . , when speech i s u n d e r s t o o d as d e s c r i p t i v e . As such, speech must guard a g a i n s t s p e a k i n g i n t e r e s t when i n t e r e s t i s u n d e r s t o o d as the i d i o s y n c r a t i c i n t e r e s t o f t h e speaker. Thus, when speech f a i l s t o c o r r e s p o n d t o i t s m a t t e r , i<. e. , when speech f a i l s t o be l i m i t e d by i t s m a t t e r , i t i s f o r m u l a t e d as i n t e r e s t e d and bad and speech i s f o r m u l a t e d as good o n l y i n s o f a r as i t does n o t speak i t s i n t e r e s t where i n t e r e s t i s u n d e r s t o o d as t h e i d i o s y n c r a t i c i n t e r e s t o f the speaker. - 92 -On t h i s v i e w , good speech i s impeded by the speaker and t h u s good speech i s u n d e r s t o o d as speech d i s e n g a g e d from t h e speaker. For example-,: Schutz w r i t e s : A l l s c i e n c e presumes a s p e c i a l a t t i t u d e o f t h e p e r s o n c a r r y i n g on s c i e n c e ; i t i s th e a t t i t u d e o f t h e d i s i n t e r e s t e d o b s e r v e r . In t h i s manner i t i s d i s t i n g u i s h e d above a l l from t h e a t t i t u d e o f t h e p e r s o n who l i v e s n a i v e l y i n h i s l i f e - w o r l d and who has an e m i n e n t l y p r a c t i c a l i n t e r e s t i n i t . . . As a d i s i n t e r e s t e d o b s e r v e r , not as a p r i v a t e p e r s o n , w h i c h c e r t a i n l y he a l s o i s , t h e s c i e n t i s t does not p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h e l i f e - w o r l d as an a c t o r , and he i s no l o n g e r c a r r i e d a l o n g by t h e l i v i n g s tream o f i n t e n t i o n a l i t i e s . . . T h e l i f e - w o r l d , as an o b j e c t o f s c i e n t i f i c i n v e s t i g a t i o n , w i l l be f o r t h e i n v e s t i g a t o r qua s c i e n t i s t p r e d o m i n a n t l y t h e l i f e - w o r l d o f O t h e r s , the o b s e r v e d . ( S c h u t z , 1973:137) T h i s a t t i t u d e o f t h e s o c i a l s c i e n t i s t i s t h a t o f a mere d i s i n t e r e s t e d o b s e r v e r o f the s o c i a l w o r l d . He i s not i n v o l v e d i n th e o b s e r v e d s i t u a t i o n , w hich i s t o him not o f p r a c t i c a l but m e r e l y o f c o g n i t i v e i n t e r e s t . I t i s not t h e t h e a t r e o f h i s a c t i v i t i e s b u t m e r e l y t h e o b j e c t o f h i s c o n t e m p l a t i o n . He does not a c t w i t h i n i t , v i t a l l y i n t e r e s t e d i n t h e outcome of h i s a c t i o n s , ' h o p i n g or f e a r i n g what t h e i r con-,, sequences might be but he l o o k s a t i t w i t h t h e same detached e q u a n i m i t y w i t h w h i c h t h e n a t u r a l s c i e n t i s t l o o k s a t the o c c u r r e n c e s i n h i s l a b o r a t o r y . ( S c h u t z , 1973: 36) He (the o b s e r v e r ) i s not i n v o l v e d i n the a c t o r ' s hopes and f e a r s whether or not t h e y w i l l u n d e r s t a n d one a n o t h e r and a c h i e v e t h e i r end by t h e i n t e r l o c k i n g of m o t i v e s . Thus, h i s system o f r e l e v a n c e s d i f f e r s from t h a t o f t h e i n t e r e s t e d p a r t i e s and p e r m i t s him t o see a t t h e same t i m e - 93 -more and l e s s than what i s seen by them... The c o n s t r u c t s o f t h e o b s e r v e r a r e , t h e r e f o r e , d i f f e r e n t ones th a n t h o s e used by the p a r t i c i p a n t s i n t h e i n t e r -a c t i o n , i f f o r no o t h e r r e a s o n than t h e f a c t t h a t t h e purpose o f t h e o b s e r v e r i s d i f f e r e n t from t h a t o f t h e i n t e r a c t o r s and t h e r e w i t h t h e systems o f r e l e v a n c e s a t t a c h e d t o such purposes a r e a l s o d i f f e r e n t . ( S c h u t z , 1973: 26-27) The i n t e r e s t i n g m a t t e r w h i c h i s t h e t o p i c o r s u b j e c t o f speech i s t h e " n a t u r a l a t t i t u d e " o r the " l i f e - w o r l d " . T h i s i s what t h e o b s e r v e r wants t o o b s e r v e , what t h e ' s p e a k e r wants t o speak, and t h i s want i s f o r m u l a t e d as c o n t i n g e n t upon d i s i n t e r e s t e d n e s s . The i n t e r e s t i n g t h i n g , the i n t e r e s t i n g m a t t e r , i s the n a t u r a l a t i t t u d e , i . e . , what speech i s i n t e r e s t e d t o speak i s the n a t u r a l a t t i t u d e . A t f i r s t g l a n c e , t h i s seems t o be a b i z a r r e s i t u a t i o n ; t h e o b s e r v e r i s i n t e r e s t e d i n o b s e r v i n g the n a t u r a l a t t i t u d e , w h i c h i s t o say, t h e speaker i s i n t e r e s t e d i n s p e a k i n g the n a t u r a l a t t i t u d e , but t h e i n t e r e s t i n g n e s s o f the n a t u r a l a t t i t u d e depends upon an a t t i t u d e o f d i s i n t e r e s t e d n e s s toward t h a t n a t u r a l a t t i t u d e . The o b s e r v e r must be d i s i n t e r e s t e d i n t h e v e r y t h i n g he f i n d s most i n t e r e s t i n g , and i n d e e d , i t i s o n l y i n d i s i n t e r e s t t h a t he w i l l f i n d ' t h a t t h i n g t o be i n t e r e s t i n g . But t h i s s i t u a t i o n f i n d s i t s i n t e l l i g i b i l i t y i n the grammar and grounds o f a l i f e t h a t i s d e s c r i p t i v i s t . - 94 -" D i s i n t e r e s t e d o b s e r v e r " f i n d s i t s i n t e l l i g i b i l i t y w i t h i n a w o r l d c o n c e i v e d o f as c o m p e l l i n g o b s e r v a t i o n and d e s c r i p t i o n . The n a t u r a l a t t i t u d e i s c o m p e l l i n g s i n c e i t i s amenable t o o b s e r v a t i o n and d e s c r i p t i o n ; the n a t u r a l a t t i t u d e i s c o m p e l l i n g , t o o , i n t h a t a p e r s o n l i v e s " . . . n a i v e l y i n h i s l i f e - w o r l d and...has an e m i n e n t l y p r a c t i c a l i n t e r e s t i n i t . . . " and f o r t h e p e r s o n l i v i n g n a i v e l y w i t h i n the n a t u r a l a t t i t u d e , t h i s a t t i t u d e i s the " . . . t h e a t e r o f h i s a c t i v i t i e s . . . " . What i s c o m p e l l i n g t o t h e o b s e r v e r , t h e n , i s t h a t t h e n a t u r a l a t t i t u d e i s c o n c e i v e d of as a t h i n g t h a t compels o b s e r v a t i o n and d e s c r i p t i o n , and y e t , the t h i n g n e s s of t h e n a t u r a l a t t i t u d e i s o n l y a c c e s s i b l e t h r o u g h d i s i n t e r e s t , i . e . , t h e o b s e r v e r must p r e s e n c e h i m s e l f i n the w o r l d d i s i n t e r e s t e d l y as a way t o escape the n a t u r a l a t t i t u d e f o r t h e purposes o f making i t a v a i l a b l e as a t h i n g . Making t h e n a t u r a l a t t i t u d e a v a i l a b l e as a t h i n g amounts t o making the n a t u r a l a t t i t u d e d i s c l o s e i t s e l f . I t i s t h i s d i s c l o s u r e , i . e . , a c c e s s i b i l i t y t o t h e eyes and t h e e a r s , a t w h i c h t h e i d e a o f t h e d i s i n t e r e s t e d o b s e r v e r aims. T h i s i s t o say t h a t t h e good a t w h i c h the i d e a o f t h e d i s i n t e r e s t e d o b s e r v e r aims i s t h e o b s e r v a t i o n and d e s c r i p t i o n , a l b e i t a f o r - a l l - p r a c t i c a l - p u r p o s e s o b s e r v a t i o n and d e s c r i p t i o n , o r b e t t e r , a f o r - a l l - p r a c t i c a l - p u r p o s e s s o c i a l s c i e n t i f i c o b s e r v a t i o n and d e s c r i p t i o n , o f t h e n a t u r a l a t t i t u d e . So d i s i n t e r e s t e d n e s s i n t h a t w h i c h i s most i n t e r e s t i n g - t h e - 95 -n a t u r a l a t t i t u d e -- i s n o t , from t h i s view, a b i z a r r e s i t u a t i o n , s i n c e an i n t e r e s t i n t h e n a t u r a l a t t i t u d e i s an i n t e r e s t i n making t h a t a t t i t u d e a c c e s s i b l e t o the eyes and t h e e a r s and d i s i n t e r e s t e d n e s s becomes s e n s i b l e as t h e a t t i t u d e , way t o l i v e , t h a t w i l l f u l f i l l t h i s good, i . e . , t h a t w i l l s e r v e t o f o r m u l a t e t h e n a t u r a l a t t i t u d e as a t h i n g , i . e . , as an i n t e r e s t i n g t h i n g . Thus, t h e i d e a o f the d i s i n t e r e s t e d o b s e r v e r becomes an e m i n e n t l y p r a c t i c a l m a t t e r . D i s i n t e r e s t e d n e s s becomes a m a t t e r o f te c h n e , e.g., a n e c e s s a r y m e t h o d o l o g i c a l s t e p f o r the achievement o f t h e good o f s o c i a l s c i e n c e . Speech, t h e n , becomes f o r m u l a t e d by s o c i a l s c i e n c e as the way t o r e - p r e s e n t , o r p r e s e r v e , t h e d i s c l o s u r e t e c h n i c a l l y i n i t i a t e d by the i d e a of d i s i n t e r e s t e d n e s s . U n l e s s speech can speak t h i s d i s -c l o s u r e , w h i c h i s t o say, u n l e s s speech can c o r r e s p o n d t o t h e n a t u r a l a t t i t u d e , s o c i a l s c i e n c e w i l l have n o t h i n g t o say. In t h i s sense, t h e i d e a o f t h e d i s i n t e r e s t e d o b s e r v e r becomes n o t o n l y t h e way t o make t h e n a t u r a l a t t i t u d e a c c e s s i b l e as a t h i n g , b u t a l s o becomes t h e way t o make speech i n t o a t h i n g , i . e . , good speech i s now f o r m u l a t e d as a t h i n g t h a t i m i t a t e s a n o t h e r t h i n g ; the d i s c l o s u r e o f t h e n a t u r a l a t t i t u d e . Speech i s now se c u r e d w i t h i n the a u t h o r i t a t i v e c e r t a i n t y o f t h e n a t u r a l a t t i d u e - o f everyday l i f e - and t h e i d e a o f l i f e t h a t g e n e r a t e s t h i s c e r t a i n t y and t o w h i c h t h i s c e r t a i n t y p o i n t s , i s f o r g o t t e n . I n s t e a d of u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h e i d e a o f d i s i n t e r e s t e d n e s s as the o b s e r v e r ' s method f o r g e n e r a t i n g a l i f e t h e i d e a o f d i s i n t e r e s t e d n e s s - 96 -i s u n d e r s t o o d as t h e o b s e r v e r ' s method f o r making what i s a l r e a d y t h e r e and c e r t a i n a v a i l a b l e t o t h e eyes and the e a r s . S o c i a l s c i e n c e p a r t i c i p a t e s i n the w o r l d d i s -i n t e r e s t e d l y , w h i c h i s t o say t h a t i t s p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s u n n e c e s s a r y , and i n d e e d , d e t r i m e n t a l t o i t s aim of making t h e w o r l d d i s c l o s e i t s e l f . S o c i a l s c i e n c e ' s d e s i r e f o r monologue r a t h e r than d i a l o g u e now becomes more i n t e l l i g i b l e . R a f f e l w r i t e s t h a t : The o b s e r v e r need not p a r t i c i p a t e o r speak s i n c e t h e event i s , as i t were, d o i n g a l l t h e work f o r him. S i n c e the event i s t h o u g h t t o show i t s e l f , t h e o b s e r v e r ' s j o b becomes t o do, i n e f f e c t , n o t h i n g , so as t o l e t t h e event show i t s e l f . The o b s e r v e r need not speak and so need not expose h i m s e l f t o t h e c o n t i n g e n c y o f o p i n i o n because t h e r e i s n o t h i n g t h a t needs t o be d i s c l o s e d t h r o u g h speech. There i s n o t h i n g t o be d i s c l o s e d because th e r e l e v a n t t h i n g (events) i s d i s c l o s i n g i t s e l f . The m i n i m a l r o l e l e f t f o r speech i s t o remember what has been d i s c l o s e d a f t e r i t d i s a p p e a r s . A g a i n , speech i n t h e form o f r e c o r d s s e r v e s not t o s u s t a i n p a r t i c i p a t i o n b u t t o s u s t a i n non-p a r t i c i p a t i o n 'by a l l o w i n g us t o remain s i l e n t even i n t h e f a c e o f t h e absent by c o n v e r t i n g t h e absent i n t o t h e permanently p r e s e n t ( r e c o r d s ) . The speech may be d i f f e r e n t from the event i n t h a t i t remains b u t , a n a l y t i c a l l y , what remains as l o n g as the speech remains i s t h e event. So a l t h o u g h speech may be d i f f e r e n t , what makes the d i f f e r e n c e i s not t h e speech but t h e event w h i c h makes t h e speech (r e c o r d ) p o s s i b l e . ( R a f f e l , 1979: 58) - 97 -We can now u n d e r s t a n d more c l e a r l y why the ethnographer d i d not want t o ask Meno, i . e . , b e g i n a c o n v e r s a t i o n w i t h Meno, whether o r not h i s d e f i n i t i o n o f v i r t u e was good. To t a k e t h e r i s k o f d i a l o g u e r a t h e r t h a n monologue would be, f o r t h e et h n o g r a p h e r , t o r i s k the event ( v i r t u e ) t h a t was d i s c l o s i n g i t s e l f . T h i s r i s k would be t h e r i s k o f not s p e a k i n g , n o t r e c o r d i n g , not p r e s e r v i n g , the event. Engaging Meno i n c o n v e r s a t i o n would, f o r the et h n o g r a p h e r , be tantamount t o p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n the event and, a t w o r s t , p r e v e n t i n g i t s d i s c l o s u r e and, a t b e s t , c o n t a m i n a t i n g t h a t d i s c l o s u r e . And even i f t h e ethnographer were t o engage Meno i n c o n v e r s a t i o n , what would t h e ethnographer have t o say? What the ethnographer would have t o say i s n o t h i n g , i . e . , the ethnographer would have n o t h i n g t o say. T h i s i s not t o say t h a t the eth n o g r a p h e r would have n o t h i n g c o n c r e t e l y t o say, f o r s u r e l y t h e e t hnographer c o u l d f i n d something t o c h a t about, but i t i s t o say r a t h e r t h a t d i a l o g u e , f o r t h e et h n o g r a p h e r , i s h a v i n g n o t h i n g t o say. That i s , i n a deeper sense, ethno-g r a p h i c speech i s . s p e a k i n g t h e event and when speech i s u n d e r s t o o d t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h e e v e n t , f o r example, when t h e e t h n o g r a p h e r engages Meno i n c o n v e r s a t i o n , speech i s no l o n g e r e t h n o g r a p h i c , and i n t h i s sense, c o n v e r s a t i o n , f o r ethnography, amounts t o s p e e c h l e s s n e s s . - 98 -When p e o p l e speak, ethnography h e a r s c u l t u r e and ethnography can hear c u l t u r e o n l y when i t i s d i s i n t e r e s t e d , w h i c h i s t o say, does not p a r t i c i p a t e , i n what p e o p l e say. So ethnography wants p e o p l e t o r e v e a l t h e m s e l v e s , o r i n e t h n o g r a p h i c terms, t o r e v e a l t h e i r c u l t u r e , but ethnography does n o t want t o r e v e a l i t s e l f f o r f e a r o f s p e a k i n g b a d l y , i . e . , f o r f e a r o f n o t s p e a k i n g p e o p l e ' s c u l t u r e . For ethnography, t h e r e would be n o t h i n g good i n e n t e r i n g i n t o c o n v e r s a t i o n w i t h Meno and t o g e t h e r a d d r e s s i n g the question., of v i r t u e . Ethnography does n ot want t o be t o g e t h e r w i t h Meno i n c o n v e r s a t i o n s i n c e ethnography's i d e a of t o g e t h e r n e s s i s f o r i t t o r e c o r d whatever Meno d i c t a t e s . Ethnography r e q u i r e s no h e l p i n a d d r e s s i n g t h e q u e s t i o n o f v i r t u e and un d e r s t a n d s t h a t Meno r e q u i r e s no h e l p i n t h i s m a t t e r e i t h e r , f o r ethnography knows t h a t v i r t u e i s whatever Meno says. Even w i t h i n t h e i n t e r n a l l o g i c of ethnography, ethnography s h o u l d u n d e r s t a n d , and perhaps i t does, t h a t as t h e speech o f peopl e r e v e a l s t h e i r c u l t u r e , so does t h e speech o f ethnography. Thus, when ethnography speaks i t can hear i t s own c u l t u r e , and i f ethnography l i s t e n s t o i t s e l f a t a l l , i t c o u l d b e g i n t o address t h e l i f e t h a t g e n e r a t e s i t s speech. But i f ethnography were t o l i s t e n t o i t s e l f , i t would l i s t e n e t h n o g r a p h i c a l l y and l i s t e n i n g t o i t s e l f would amount t o t h e p r o d u c t i o n o f an ethnography o f ethnography. And, s u r e l y t h i s c o u l d be o t h e r w i s e ; - 99 -ethnography c o u l d choose t o e n t e r i n t o a c o n v e r s a t i o n w i t h Meno and thus t o g e t h e r f o r m u l a t e the l i f e t h a t g e n e r a t e s t h e i r speech; ethnography c o u l d choose t o e n t e r i n t o a c o n v e r s a t i o n w i t h i t s e l f and t h u s d i a l e c t i c a l l y f o r m u l a t e i t s p o s s i b i l i t y ; ethnography c o u l d choose not t o f o r g e t i t s deep i n t e r e s t and i t s b e g i n n i n g ; ethnography c o u l d choose t o have something t o say. But t h e n , a l a s , i t would no l o n g e r be ethnography.. I I I . When we say t h a t ethnography u n d e r s t a n d s d i s i n t e r e s t as an e m i n e n t l y p r a c t i c a l m a t t e r , we mean t h a t ethnography u n d e r s t a n d s d i s i n t e r e s t m e r e l y as a method f o r making c u l t u r e o b s e r v a b l e . T h i s i s p o s s i b l e o n l y when i n t e r e s t i s c o n c e i v e d o f as t h e c o n c r e t e l i v i n g o f a c o n c r e t e l i f e and where t h i s l i v i n g h i d e s from view t h a t w h i c h o r g a n i z e s t h a t l i f e , namely c u l t u r e . Thus, ethnography wants t o make n o t i c e a b l e t h a t which i s u n n o t i c e a b l e ( c u l t u r e ) and un d e r s t a n d s d i s i n t e r e s t as a method f o r removing t h a t w h i c h h i d e s c u l t u r e from v i e w ( l i f e ) . I n a sense, t h e n , ethnography wants t o remove l i f e so t h a t c u l t u r e w i l l show i t s e l f and be n o t i c e a b l e t o ethnography. - 100 -But i t i s n o t t h e l i f e o f t h o s e ethnography o b s e r v e s t h a t d i s i n t e r e s t i s i n t e n d e d t o remove, f o r i t i s t h e grounds o f d i s i n t e r e s t , and not d i s i n t e r e s t as t e c h n e , t h a t has a l r e a d y removed t h e i r l i v e s by f o r m u l a t i n g them as concrete,, as t h i n g s , as c u l t u r e . F o r g e t t i n g t h i s d e c i s i o n , ethnography can o n l y see l i f e as c o n c r e t e and can o n l y see p e o p l e , i . e . , hear t h e i r t a l k , see t h e i r c o n d u c t , as t h i n g s , as c u l t u r e . So ethnography wants t o see l i f e , b ut o n l y t h e l i f e o f o t h e r s f o r m u l a t e d c o n c r e t e l y as c u l t u r e . F u r t h e r m o r e , ethnography wants t o speak l i f e , b ut o n l y when speech i s f o r m u l a t e d as an i m i t a t i o n o f c o n c r e t e l i f e , i . e . , o n l y when good speech i s f o r m u l a t e d as c o n c r e t e speech. The l i f e t h a t ethnography wants t o remove, t h e n , t h e t a s k t h a t i s t h e p r a c t i c a l t a s k o f d i s i n t e r e s t e d n e s s , i s i t s own l i f e . Thus, what h i d e s c u l t u r e from v i e w i s t h e l i f e o f ethnography f o r m u l a t e d as c o n c r e t e i n t e r e s t . Ethnography wants t o see, but does not want t o be seen and ethnography wants t o speak b u t does not want t o have a n y t h i n g t o say. S e e i n g i t s e l f o r s p e a k i n g i t s e l f i s , f o r ethnography, t o o b l i t e r a t e from v i e w t h a t w h i c h i t wants t o see and speak. I t i s i n t h i s way t h a t d i s i n t e r e s t e d n e s s i s u n d e r s t o o d by ethnography as a m e t h o d o l o g i c a l d e v i c e f o r removing i n t e r e s t where i n t e r e s t i s u n d e r s t o o d as t h e c o n c r e t e i n t e r e s t s of an (any) e t h n o g r a p h e r . T h i s i s why ethnography cannot engage Meno i n a c o n v e r s a t i o n ; c o n v e r s a t i o n would f o r m u l a t e Meno and t h e e t h n o g r a p h e r , as d e c i s i v e s p e a k e r s who a r e - 101 -r e s p o n s i b l e f o r what t h e y say; c o n v e r s a t i o n would j o i n Meno and t h e e t h n ographer as men who would u n d e r s t a n d t h e i r c o n t a c t as c o n c r e t e speech t h a t i s grounded i n language, and t h e i r c o n v e r s a t i o n , t h e i r j o i n i n g , would s u s t a i n the t e n s i o n o f t h e e s s e n t i a l d i f f e r e n c e between t h e i r speech and t h a t w h i c h g e n e r a t e s t h e i r speech. But ethnography does not u n d e r s t a n d speech as c o v e r i n g over t h a t which i s u n s p e a k a b l e , i . e . , t h e grounds o f speech, but r a t h e r u n d e r s t a n d s speech as c o v e r i n g o ver t h a t w h i c h i s s p e a k a b l e , i . e . , c u l t u r e . Thus, t h e v e r s i o n o f adequate knowledge t h a t ethnography 2 recommends i s e x p e r i e n c e . To know i s t o know the knowable, w h i c h i s t o say, t o know i s t o see t h e knowable but t o see what i s knowable (to see c u l t u r e ) i s u n d e r s t o o d c o n c r e t e l y by ethnography as p u t t i n g o n e s e l f c o n c r e t e l y i n a p o s i t i o n such t h a t c u l t u r e w i l l d i s p l a y and d i s c l o s e i t s e l f . T h i s i s t h e n e c e s s i t y o f f i e l d - w o r k ; t h a t b e i n g t h e r e , i . e . , making o n e s e l f p r e s e n t t o c u l t u r e ' s d i s c l o s u r e , i s knowing. T h i s i s t h e n e c e s s i t y o f e t h n o g r a p h i c r e p o r t i n g ; t h a t e t h n o g r a p h i c r e p o r t s (speech) c o p i e s t h e e x p e r i e n c e o f b e i n g t h e r e and p r e s e r v e s i t so t h a t whoever s h a l l r e a d t h e r e p o r t 3 w i l l a l s o know. T h i s v i e w u n d e r s t a n d s knowledge as an i n n o c e n t a c q u i s i t i o n t h a t w i l l come t o one who i s p a t i e n t l y p a s s i v e ( d i s i n t e r e s t e d ) . - 102 -For ethnography, d i s i n t e r e s t thus becomes a step, perhaps the f i r s t step, on the way to the a c q u i s i t i o n of knowledge. Indeed, d i s i n t e r e s t i s a step i n the most concrete sense of the word. I t i s to step from one p o s i t i o n , a p o s i t i o n where co n c r e t e i n t e r e s t s h i d e what i s to be seen, to another p o s i t i o n , i . e . , to a vantage p o i n t , from where the b e s t view can be had. In t h i s way, knowledge i s a t h i n g t h a t i s f o r e s e e a b l e , i n e v i t a b l e , and a p r a c t i c a l r e s u l t , i . e . , one cannot h e l p but a c q u i r e knowledge when one i s present a t i t s d i s c l o s u r e ; he who i s there knows and he who i s t here can do no t h i n g e l s e but know. But understanding knowing as a sheer change of p o s i t i o n s , f o r g e t s t h a t t h i s v e r s i o n o f knowledge f i n d s i t s i n t e l l i g i b i l i t y i n a world understood as d e s c r i p t i v i s t and f o r g e t s t h a t t h i s v e r s i o n of knowledge i s not a t h i n g i n the world to be d i s c o v e r e d by changing p l a c e s , i . e . , knowledge i s not a t h i n g t h a t belongs to the world, but i s a method whereby the very idea of a world i s generated. So the l i f e t h a t i s removed by ethnography, the l i f e t h a t i s c o n s i d e r e d t o be a matter of d i s i n t e r e s t , i s the l i f e of ethnography i t s e l f . Ethnography i s i n d i f f e r e n t to i t s l i f e because i t understands speech c o n c r e t e l y as being authored by concrete c u l t u r e . Thus, l i f e makes no e s s e n t i a l d i f f e r e n c e and ethnography's aim i s not to make a d i f f e r e n c e by f o r m u l a t i n g d i f f e r e n c e c o n c r e t e l y as the d i f f e r e n c e between - 103 -one c u l t u r e and a n o t h e r . What ethnography has t o say, i t s l i f e , i s a m a t t e r o f d i s i n t e r e s t s i n c e to. speak l i v e l y w ould make a d i f f e r e n c e and t h i s l i v e l y c o n v e r s a t i o n would c o n t a m i n a t e t h e c o n c r e t e d i f f e r e n c e s among l i v e s . To speak l i v e l y , t h e n , t o e n t e r i n t o d i a l o g u e r a t h e r t h a n monologue, would make ethnography r e s p o n s i b l e f o r i t s speech and, f o r ethnography, t h i s would be bad s i n c e i t would no l o n g e r be s p e a k i n g knowledge, b u t i n s t e a d would be s p e a k i n g mere o p i n i o n . From t h e e t h n o g r a p h i c p o i n t o f v i e w , s p e a k i n g knowledgeably i s a s p e a k i n g t h a t i s f r e e from r i s k s whereas t o o p i n e i s t o l i v e d a n g e r o u s l y . I t i s dangerous because t o o p i n e i s t o admit a u t h o r s h i p o f speech w h i l e t o speak knowledgeably i s t o submit t h i s a u t h o r i t y t o some c o n c r e t e l y e x i s t i n g s t a t e - o f - a f f a i r s . By r e j e c t i n g any deep sense of community w i t h t h o s e i t o b s e r v e s , by f o r g e t t i n g u n i t y , ethnography chooses t o remain a s t r a n g e r n o t o n l y t o i t s i n t e r l o c u t o r s but a l s o t o i t s e l f . K i e r k e g a a r d w r i t e s : L e t t h e i n q u i r i n g s c h o l a r l a b o r w i t h i n c e s s a n t z e a l , even t o t h e e x t e n t o f s h o r t e n i n g h i s l i f e i n t h e e n t h u s i a s t i c s e r v i c e o f s c i e n c e ; l e t t h e s p e c u l a t i v e p h i l o s o p h e r be s p a r i n g n e i t h e r o f t i m e nor o f d i l i g e n c e ; t h e y a r e none t h e l e s s n o t i n t e r e s t e d i n f i n i t e l y , p e r s o n a l l y and p a s s i o n a t e l y , nor c o u l d t h e y w i s h t o be. On t h e c o n t r a r y , t h e y w i l l seek t o c u l t i v a t e an a t t i t u d e o f o b j e c t i v i t y and d i s i n t e r e s t e d n e s s . - 1 0 4 -And as for the relationship of the subject to the truth when he comes to know i t , the assumption i s that i f only the truth i s brought to l i g h t , i t s appropriation i s a r e l a t i v e l y unimportant matter, something which follows as a matter of course. And in any case, what happens to the ind i v i d u a l i s i n the l a s t analysis a matter of indifference. Herein l i e s the l o f t y equanimity of the scholar, and the comic thoughtlessness of his pa r r o t - l i k e echo. (Kierkegaard, 1 9 4 1 : 2 3 - 2 4 ) What, then, does ethnography do when i t forgets i t s l i f e ? It forgets that i t i s interested. It seeks the passive solitude of o b j e c t i v i t y as i t s way of a l l e v i a t i n g the suffering of having something to say. For ethnography, to be passionately interested i s to suffer the pain of l i v i n g i n ignorance. Ethnography understands i t s passion, i t s interes t , as something painfu l that i s to be a l l e v i a t e d by the p r a c t i c a l application of d i s i n t e r e s t . It does not understand i t s passionate inte r e s t as a suffering that i s the d i a l e c t i c a l engagement with i t s own p o s s i b i l i t y . Rather than having something to say, ethnography would rather produce "parrot-like echoes" which come from an engagement with the shadows i n the cave as f i r s t and Real. In Book X of The Republic (614-621) Socrates t e l l s us of the myth of Er. Er, who was appointed by the gods to deli v e r a message to earth, t e l l s of how souls choose t h e i r - 105 -l i v e s . A f t e r c h o o s i n g t h e i r l i v e s , and b e f o r e b e i n g b o r n as m o r t a l men, t h e s o u l s drank from t h e F o r g e t f u l R i v e r , and t h u s f o r g o t t h a t t h e y had chosen a l i f e . A l t h o u g h each s o u l was c o m p e l l e d t o d r i n k from t h e F o r g e t f u l R i v e r , t h o s e w i t h o u t prudence and wisdom drank more t h a n t h e a p p r o p r i a t e measure. Each o f us f o r g e t s t h a t we have chosen a l i f e when we speak and t h o s e o f us who have drunk more th a n our measure from t h e F o r g e t f u l R i v e r f o r g e t a l s o , t h a t when we speak, our speech p o i n t s t o t h a t l i f e . Ethnography f o r g e t s t h a t i t , t o o , has chosen a l i f e and ethnography has drunk h e a r t i l y from t h e F o r g e t f u l R i v e r and t h u s has f o r g o t t e n t h a t when i t speaks i t makes r e f e r e n c e t o t h i s l i f e , i . e . , ethnography f o r g e t s t h a t i t does speak. Moreover, on each and e v e r y o c c a s i o n o f s p e a k i n g , ethnography f o r g e t s t h a t each and e v e r y o c c a s i o n o f i t s speech marks one more o c c a s i o n t h a t ethnography d r i n k s from t h e F o r g e t f u l R i v e r , the r i v e r t h a t i t names D i s i n t e r e s t e d n e s s . - 106 -FOOTNOTES 1 T h i s i s n o t t o suggest t h a t speech i s meagre o n l y and i n s o f a r as i t i s an o f f e r i n g t h a t c o v e r s over i t s t r u e o f f e r i n g . Speech t h a t o r i e n t s t o speech as a c o v e r i n g o v er o f i t s t r u e o f f e r i n g , i . e . , as a r e - p r e s e n t a t i o n , i s speech t h a t i s not meagre. Speech t h a t o r i e n t s t o speech as a l l t h e r e i s , i . e . , speech t h a t o r i e n t s t o speech as t h e t r u e o f f e r i n g i s , however, meagre. I n s o f a r as Meno o f f e r s d e f i n i t i o n s o f v i r t u e and o f f e r s t h e s e d e f i n i t i o n s i n t h e s p i r i t o f a t r u e o f f e r i n g , Meno's speech i s meagre. But speech o f f e r e d i n the s p i r i t o f an o c c a s i o n t o a d d r e s s t h e t r u e o f f e r i n g i s not meagre. 2 See McHugh, e t a l . , 1974:137-153, e s p e c i a l l y pp. 148-153. 3 R a f f e l , 1979. - 107 -CHAPTER 5 . OFFERINGS I . I n some ways, Meno i s l i k e t h e e t h n o g r a p h e r . H i s o f f e r i n g o f a d e f i n i t i o n ( s ) o f v i r t u e i s a f o r m u l a t i o n t h a t i s i n t e n d e d t o c o l l e c t t h e many and v a r i e d s p e e c h e s a b o u t v i r t u e . Meno r e c o g n i z e s t h a t p e o p l e s a y many d i f f e r e n t t h i n g s a b o u t v i r t u e and Meno a l s o r e c o g n i z e s many d i f f e r e n t t h i n g s t h a t p e o p l e do, as v i r t u o u s . Meno t h e n s e e s h i s t a s k as c o l l e c t i n g t h i s manyness by way o f a d e f i n i t i o n t h a t w i l l encompass t h e manyness. Meno h e a r s S o c r a t e s ' words, f o r example, " . . . t h e y a l l have some common c h a r a c t e r w h i c h makes them v i r t u e s . " , " T h i s s i n g l e v i r t u e , w h i c h p e r m e a t e s e a c h o f them...", " . . . t r y t o t e l l me t h e g e n e r a l n a t u r e o f v i r t u e . " , o r f i n a l l y , " W h i l e t h e n a t u r e o f v i r t u e as a who l e i s s t i l l u n d e r q u e s t i o n , d o n ' t s u p p o s e t h a t y o u c a n e x p l a i n i t t o anyone i n terms o f i t s p a r t s , o r by any s i m i l a r t y p e o f e x p l a n a t i o n . " , a s words t h a t c r i t i c i z e h i s d e f i n i t i o n s o f v i r t u e by c h a r a c t e r i z i n g them as many t h i n g s when a d e f i n i t i o n , p r o p e r l y s p e a k i n g , s h o u l d be o n l y one t h i n g t h a t e a c h o f t h e many t h i n g s have i n common. So Meno h e a r s S o c r a t e s ' words c o n c r e t e l y , i . e . , he h e a r s S o c r a t e s a s a s k i n g f o r a c o n c r e t e t h i n g , i . e . , f o r t h e g e n e r a l n a t u r e o f v i r t u e , t h a t w i l l a c c o u n t f o r , o r e x p l a i n , t h e d i f f e r e n c e s among t h e many and varied."*" F o r Meno, t h e n , - 108 -d i f f e r e n c e i s e s s e n t i a l i n s o f a r as d i f f e r e n c e i s f o r m u l a t e d as d i s c o v e r a b l e d i f f e r e n c e s between and among many v a r i o u s t h i n g s . That i s , t h e s e c o n c r e t e d i f f e r e n c e s a r e e s s e n t i a l i n s o f a r as d i f f e r e n c e i s not c o n c e i v e d o f as a n y t h i n g o t h e r t h a n t h e c o n c r e t e d i f f e r e n c e s between and among t h i n g s . I n s o f a r as t h e s e c o n c r e t e d i f f e r e n c e s a r e u n d e r s t o o d as e s s e n t i a l and f i r s t r a t h e r t h a n as an achievement o f the com-mitment t o a way o f l i f e , t h e y a r e u n d e r s t o o d as " n a t u r a l e f f e c t s " o f t h e ''natural cause" ( t h i n g ) t h a t u n i t e s them and p r o v i d e s f o r t h e i r commonality. I t i s Meno's commitment t o t h e many and v a r i e d t h a t p e r m i t s him t o u n d e r s t a n d S o c r a t e s ' words as a s k i n g f o r t h e c o n c r e t e t h i n g t h a t p r o v i d e s f o r the n a t u r a l n e s s o f t h e many and v a r i e d . I n t h i s way, Meno i s l i k e t h e ethnographer because the e t h n o g r a p h e r , t o o , c o n c e i v e s o f d i f f e r e n c e c o n c r e t e l y and c o n c e i v e s o f h i s t a s k as c o l l e c t i n g t h e s e d i f f e r e n c e s where c o l l e c t i n g i s u n d e r s t o o d as f o r m u l a t i n g the one t h i n g t h a t t h e many t h i n g s have i n common. The eth n o g r a p h e r ' s common t h i n g i s c u l t u r e (or membership), and i t i s common i n s o f a r as i t i s a t h i n g t h a t u n i t e s , i . e . , makes s e n s i b l e and r e a s o n a b l e , a l l t h e many t h i n g s . S e n s i b i l i t y and r e a s o n a b l e n e s s a r e good, f o r ethnography, inasmuch as they a r e u n d e r s t o o d as the c o n c r e t e good toward w h i c h ethnography s t r i v e s . T h i s i s t o say t h a t c o n c r e t e d i f f e r e n c e s - d i f f e r e n c e s between and among c u l t u r e s - a r e good because t h e y a r e t h i n g s t h a t a r e caused by, o r a r e r e s u l t a n t s o f , t h e b e s t t h i n g o f a l l , namely - 109 -c u l t u r e o r membership. U n l i k e members who see some of the 2 d i f f e r e n c e s among c u l t u r e s as bad, ethnography has d i s c o v e r e d (invented) c u l t u r e or membership as a way to see these d i f f e r e n c e s as s e n s i b l e and reasonable and as a way to see s e n s i b i l i t y and reasonableness as good because i t i s c u l t u r a l . Thus, ethnography stands above membership i n s o f a r as i t • c o l l e c t s d i f f e r e n c e under the u n i f y i n g r u b r i c of c u l t u r e or membership. In t h i s sense, ethnography uses c u l t u r e or membership as i t s method of f o r m u l a t i n g the world, and the people i n i t , as a c o l l e c t i o n o f d i f f e r e n c e s . But i n t h i s way, the ethnographer i s no d i f f e r e n t from the member. Members understand d i f f e r e n c e c o n c r e t e l y i n t h a t they conceive of themselves as d i f f e r e n t from other members i n s o f a r as other members l i v e d i f f e r e n t l y . T h i s i s sheer d i f f e r e n c e and whether t h i s d i f f e r e n c e gets understood as good or bad i s no longer r e l e v a n t . What i s r e l e v a n t both f o r members and ethnographers i s t h a t t h i s sheer concrete d i f f e r e n c e i t s e l f be preserved. Both the member and the ethnographer are i n t e r e s t e d i n p r e s e r v i n g t h i s d i f f e r e n c e and t h i s p r e s e r v a t i o n i s grounded i n the deep i n t e r e s t and commitment to the many and v a r i o u s ways of l i v i n g r a t h e r than to the id e a o f l i f e t h a t i s the o r i g i n a t o r o f these many and v a r i o u s ways of l i v i n g and toward which t h i s manyness p o i n t s . Thus, ethnography and membership are the same because they 110 -conceive of concrete difference - differences among ways 3 of l i v i n g - as ess e n t i a l , f i r s t and natural. Ethnography, however, conceives of i t s e l f as d i f f e r e n t from membership. Ethnography conceives of i t s "looking and seeing" as d i f f e r e n t from the "looking and seeing" of members. Members see only difference i n that the way they l i v e i s d i f f e r e n t from how others l i v e . On the other hand, ethnography sees not only t h i s difference but also sees what these differences have i n common, namely culture or membership. Thus, whereas members see only difference, ethnography sees that members' seeing i s a representation of what i s common to the differences. So members see difference while ethnographers see sameness. Sameness i s formulated by ethnography as culture and membership and thus whereas members see only difference, ethnography sees the absolute - culture and membership. But t h i s looking and seeing i s no d i f f e r e n t from the looking and seeing of members because i t i s to formulate culture and membership as a thing that can c o l l e c t a l l the other things that are differences. So, from this point of view, a l l membership and culture amounts to i s another thing, another difference; i t i s another thing among the many other things. Insofar as ethnography formulates culture and membership as another thing, as an other common thing, i t does not see absolute culture since to see absolute culture means to address the idea of culture that grounds a l l the many - I l l -t h i n g s , speeches about c u l t u r e , i n c l u d i n g the common t h i n g t h a t ethnography f o r m u l a t e s as c u l t u r e . F o r ethnography, however, t h e i d e a o f c u l t u r e i s c o n c e i v e d o f as a c o n c r e t e i d e a , o r c o n c e p t i o n , and r a t h e r t h a n g r o u n d i n g members' t a l k and co n d u c t , i t i s i t s e l f n e e d f u l o f g r o u n d i n g . F o r ethnography, c u l t u r e and membership a r e c o n c r e t e i d e a s or c o n c e p t i o n s t h a t a r e u s e a b l e i n t h e sense o f e x p l a i n i n g , o r a c c o u n t i n g f o r , t h e w o r l d , and ethnography thus does not u n d e r s t a n d the i d e a of c u l t u r e as i t s method, i t s way, o f c r e a t i n g t h e i d e a o f a w o r l d . Ethnography c o n c e i v e s o f c u l t u r e and membership as e f f a b l e t h i n g s and t h u s does n o t u n d e r s t a n d t h a t t h a t t h i n g i t c a l l s c u l t u r e o r membership i s not a b s o l u t e , f i r s t and n e c e s s a r y s i n c e , l i k e any o t h e r t h i n g , i t i s s u b j e c t t o d i f f e r e n t f o r m u l a t i o n s . But, l i k e 'any o t h e r t h i n g , c u l t u r e and membership p o i n t t o a l i f e t h a t g e n e r a t e s them and i t i s t h i s i d e a o f l i f e , n o t a t h i n g and not e f f a b l e , t h a t i s e s s e n t i a l , f i r s t , n e c e s s a r y and a b s o l u t e . Things can be f o r m u l a t e d i n many d i f f e r e n t ways (Meno's d e f i n i t i o n s of v i r t u e a t t e s t t o t h i s ) because t h e y a r e t e m p o r a l and i n e s s e n t i a l . Thus, c u l t u r e and membership c o n c e i v e d of as t h i n g s can be f o r m u l a t e d d i f f e r e n t l y b ut t h e i d e a o f c u l t u r e t h a t grounds t h e many d i f f e r e n t t h i n g s t h a t a r e c u l t u r e i s e s s e n t i a l and e t e r n a l and thus not o n l y cannot be f o r m u l a t e d i n many d i f f e r e n t ways, but in d e e d cannot be f o r m u l a t e d - 112 -(completed) a t a l l . I n q u i r y t h a t seeks t o address t h e i d e a o f c u l t u r e i s i n q u i r y t h a t seeks t o address the -. e s s e n t i a l and e t e r n a l and i s thus i n q u i r y t h a t u n d e r s t a n d s i t s e l f not as ground and f o u n d a t i o n , n o t as complete i n s o f a r as t h e e t e r n a l i s s p e a k a b l e , n o t as the e t e r n a l word, but as i n q u i r y t h a t i s i t s e l f n e e d f u l o f g r o u n d i n g and as i n q u i r y t h a t i s i t s e l f n e e d f u l o f f o r m u l a t i o n . So i n q u i r y t h a t a d d r e s s e s the e t e r n a l and e s s e n t i a l i s not i n q u i r y t h a t a d d r e s s e s some t h i n g , but i n s t e a d i s i n q u i r y t h a t seeks t o address and a c h i e v e t h e e s s e n t i a l . d i f f e r e n c e between speech and language. I t i s i n t h i s way, i . e . , by h e a r i n g S o c r a t e s ' words as a s k i n g f o r a g e n e r a l or common t h i n g , t h a t Meno c o n t i n u e s t o g i v e S o c r a t e s d e f i n i t i o n s o f v i r t u e . That i s , i n s t e a d o f h e a r i n g S o c r a t e s ' words as an i n v i t a t i o n t o j o i n him i n the c o n v e r s a t i o n t h a t r e - p r e s e n t s and a d d r e s s e s the i d e a o f l i f e t h a t makes speech p o s s i b l e , i . e . , t o ad d r e s s the q u e s t i o n o f speech and language i n s o f a r as a s k i n g a f t e r how what i s s a i d can be s a i d , Meno h e a r s S o c r a t e s ' words as a r e q u e s t f o r complete speech as though t h e m a t t e r (the m a t t e r o f l i f e ) c o u l d be once and f o r a l l completed. In a l l the t h i n g s t h a t Meno r e c o g n i z e s as v i r t u e - i n speech about v i r t u e and v i r t u o u s a c t s - Meno t h e n h e a r s t h e v o i c e o f the common t h i n g and u n d e r s t a n d s h i s t a s k as t h a t o f r e p r o d u c i n g t h a t v o i c e . Meno does n o t a c c e p t S o c r a t e s ' i n v i t a t i o n t o l i s t e n t o the - 113 -e t e r n a l and e s s e n t i a l t h a t i s v o i c e d i n each and e v e r y speech because Meno f o r m u l a t e s t h e e t e r n a l and e s s e n t i a l v o i c e c o n c r e t e l y as t h e v o i c e o f t h e common t h i n g and hence Meno's l i s t e n i n g i s o r i e n t e d t o a h e a r i n g of the most c o n c r e t e t h i n g . F o r m u l a t e d as a c o n c r e t e v o i c e , Meno does not c o n c e i v e o f t h e e t e r n a l and e s s e n t i a l as i n e f f a b l e , but i n s t e a d c o n c e i v e s o f t h e e t e r n a l and e s s e n t i a l as a common t h i n g and thus as s p e a k a b l e , i . e . , as r e p r o d u c i b l e i n speech u n d e r s t o o d as a t h i n g t h a t i s complete. Ethnography, t o o , o r i e n t s i t s l i s t e n i n g t o the most c o n c r e t e o f v o i c e s . I t f o r m u l a t e s c u l t u r e and membership as e t e r n a l and e s s e n t i a l and thus when ethnography l i s t e n s t o members i t he a r s t h e e t e r n a l and e s s e n t i a l . And, f o r m u l a t e d as a t h i n g , as c u l t u r e and membership, ethnography c o n c e i v e s of t h e e t e r n a l and e s s e n t i a l as a t h i n g t h a t i s r e p r o d u c i b l e i n speech. The good o f ethnography, t h e n , i s t o produce the complete speech where completeness i s u n d e r s t o o d as t h e r e p r o d u c t i o n o f t h e e t e r n a l and e s s e n t i a l . The t h i n g t h a t ethnography does n ot u n d e r s t a n d , however, i s t h a t i t s speech i s y e t a n o t h e r t h i n g t h a t i s i t s e l f n e e d f u l o f g r o u n d i n g . As such, ethnography does not address i t s own p o s s i b i l i t y and does n o t address how i t can say what i t s a y s . - 114 -I I . B ut, l i k e Meno's d e f i n i t i o n s o f v i r t u e , ethnography's n o t i o n s o f c u l t u r e and membership a r e not me r e l y c o n c r e t e c o l l e c t o r s o f b i t s and p i e c e s o f c o n c r e t e speech. They are n o t m e r e l y e t h n o g r a p h i c c o n v e n i e n c e s . I f t h i s were so, i . e . , i f c u l t u r e and membership were m e r e l y sense-makers, i f th e y were o n l y m e t h o d o l o g i c a l d e v i c e s f o r the g e n e r a t i o n of s e n s i b i l i t y , i f they were me r e l y i d e a s i n t h e u s u a l and c o n c r e t e sense o f t h i s word, i f t h e y were m e r e l y n o t i o n s , i f t h i s were so, then ethnography would have t o admit t h a t c u l t u r e and membership were mere phantoms. That i s , ethnography would have t o admit t h a t c u l t u r e and membership were mere appearances and t h a t t h e e t h n o g r a p h i c e n t e r p r i s e was an e n t e r p r i s e t h a t d e a l t w i t h appearances (the t e m p o r a l , t h e f l e e t i n g , the i n e s s e n t i a l ) and l i k e a l l o t h e r appearances, c u l t u r e and membership may be here today and gone tomorrow. On t h e c o n t r a r y , as we s a i d i n Chapter 3, ethnography c o n c e i v e s o f c u l t u r e and membership as " t h e " s o l u t i o n t o the problem o f what i s f i r s t , a b s o l u t e and n e c e s a r y . F o r ethnography, c u l t u r e and membership a r e not mere phantoms o r n o t i o n s , i . e . , t h e y a r e not mere appearances, but a r e the R e a l i n s o f a r as they g e n e r a t e c o n c r e t e speech. I n f a c t , from t h e e t h n o g r a p h i c p o i n t o f view, i t i s c o n c r e t e speech t h a t i s r e l e g a t e d t o t h e r e a l m o f appearances i n s o f a r as i t i s c o n c r e t e - 115 -speech t h a t i s not o n l y g e n e r a t e d by t h e R e a l i t y o f c u l t u r e and membership, b u t i t i s a l s o c o n c r e t e speech (appearances) t h a t c o v e r s over and h i d e s from view c u l t u r e and membership (the R e a l ) . So i t i s i n t h i s sense t h a t ethnography u n d e r s t a n d s c u l t u r e and membership not mer e l y as sense-makers where t h i s i s c o n c e i v e d o f as a m e t h o d o l o g i c a l d e v i c e f o r making sense, b u t ethnography c o n c e i v e s o f c u l t u r e and membership as t h e s o u r c e o f sense i t s e l f , i . e . , i t i s by v i r t u e o f t h e R e a l n e s s o f c u l t u r e and membership t h a t t h e r e i s sense i n t h e f i r s t p l a c e . So, f o r ethnography, c u l t u r e and membership i s a s e r i o u s b u s i n e s s . I t i s a s e r i o u s b u s i n e s s because i t marks the b e g i n n i n g ; c u l t u r e and membership mark the b e g i n n i n g of humanity qua c u l t u r e . I t i s a s e r i o u s b u s i n e s s because t h e b u s i n e s s o f humanity i s s e r i o u s and i t i s e t h n o g r a p h i c v i s i o n t h a t has seen t h e f o r g o t t e n mystery o f humanity and i t i s ethnography t h a t s e r i o u s l y o f f e r s us the answer t o t h i s m y s t e r y . Ethnography has seen t h e answer t o the myst e r y i n our s p r e a d i n g o f our words and aims now a t o f f e r i n g us de-•/ m y s t i f i c a t i o n by i t s e l f s p r e a d i n g t h e word. What i s m y s t e r i o u s , however, i s t h a t ethnography has f o r g o t t e n t h a t i t i s i t s words t h a t i t i s s p r e a d i n g . So ethnography d e m y s t i f i e s the mystery o f humanity by m y s t i f y i n g i t s e l f i n t o t h i n k i n g t h a t the word i t spreads has been spoken by some t h i n g o t h e r ( c u l t u r e and membership) t h a n i t s e l f and hence m y s t e r i o u s l y o f f e r s us d e m y s t i f i c a t i o n . - 116 -I I I . We may c o n c e i v e o f e t h n o g r a p h y now as work, i . e . , as a t a s k . E t h n o g r a p h y ' s t a s k , what b e l o n g s t o e t h n o g r a p h y , i s t h e work o f d e m y s t i f i c a t i o n where d e m y s t i f i c a t i o n i s u n d e r s t o o d as f o r m u l a t i n g c o n c r e t e s p e e c h as an a p p e a r a n c e o f t h e R e a l and f o r m u l a t i n g t h e R e a l as a c o n c r e t e o f f e r i n g t h a t r e c o n c i l e s t h e m y s t i f i c a t i o n o f a p p e a r a n c e s . What b e l o n g s t o e t h n o g r a p h y , t h e n , i s t o r e c o n c i l e t h e c o n c r e t e d i f f e r e n c e between one l i f e and a n o t h e r by f o r m u l a t i n g t h i s d i f f e r e n c e a s t h e e s s e n t i a l d i f f e r e n c e between one c u l t u r e and a n o t h e r . So e t h n o g r a p h y o f f e r s us d e m y s t i f i c a t i o n i n s o f a r as i t o f f e r s us a way t o r e c o n c i l e , i n t h e f o r m o f a c o n c r e t e e x p l a n a t i o n o r a c c o u n t , t h e c o n c r e t e d i f f e r e n c e between one l i f e and a n o t h e r a s t h e c o n c r e t e m a n i f e s t a t i o n ( a p p e a r a n c e ) o f t h e e s s e n t i a l i t y and f i r s t n e s s o f c u l t u r e and membership ( t h e R e a l ) . Thus M a l i n o w s k i c a n w r i t e : The t r a d e t a k e s p l a c e between t h e v i s i t o r s and l o c a l n a t i v e s , who a r e n o t t h e i r p a r t n e r s , b u t who must b e l o n g t o t h e community w i t h whom t h e K u l a i s made. Thus, Numanuma, T u ' u t a u n a and Bwayowa a r e t h e t h r e e c o m m u n i t i e s w h i c h f o r m what we have c a l l e d t h e ' K u l a community' o r ' K u l a u n i t ' , w i t h whom t h e S i n a k e t a n s s t a n d i n t h e r e l a t i o n o f p a r t n e r s h i p . And a S i n a k e t a man w i l l g i m w a l i ( t r a d e ) o n l y w i t h a man f r o m one o f t h e s e v i l l a g e s who i s n o t h i s p e r s o n a l p a r t n e r . To u s e a n a t i v e s t a t e m e n t : - 117 -"Some o f our goods we g i v e i n p a r i ; some we keep back; l a t e r on, we g i m w a l i i t . They b r i n g t h e i r a r e c a n u t , t h e i r sago, t h e y p u t i t down. They want some a r t i c l e o f o u r s , t h e y say: 'I want t h i s s t o n e b l a d e ' . We g i v e i t , we put t h e b e t e l - n u t , t h e sago i n t o our canoe. I f t h e y g i v e us, however, a not s u f f i c i e n t q u a n t i t y , we r a t e them. Then t h e y b r i n g more." T h i s i s a c l e a r d e f i n i t i o n o f t h e g i m w a l i , w i t h h a g g l i n g and adj u s t m e n t o f e q u i v a l e n c e i n t h e a c t . ( M a l i n o w s k i , 1961:362). Or, a g a i n , Whyte: A l t h o u g h i t i s n e c e s s a r y t o pay o f f t h e p o l i c e , t h e i r t o l e r a t i o n o f t h e r a c k e t s does n ot depend e x c l u s i v e l y upon b r i b e r y . Even so s i n g l e - m i n d e d an o f f i c e r as C l a n c y i s i n f l u e n c e d by h i s p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s , and t h o s e who e s t a b l i s h c l o s e r t i e s f i n d t h e i r a c t i o n s s t i l l more i n f l u e n c e d by s o c i a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s . A C o r n e r v i l l e b a r b e r commented t o me: Sergeant C l a n c y i s a l l r i g h t i f you t a l k t o him n i c e , but i f you answer him back, he's always out t o g e t you. My boss ( i n t h e numbers and h o r s e - r a c e b e t s ) always answers him back, and he's made my boss move h i s horse room a few t i m e s A n o t h e r C o r n e r v i l l e a r e l a t e d a s p e c t o f t h i s way: man d i s c u s s e d w i t h me p o l i c e p r o t e c t i o n i n You and me, we c o u l d buy a p a t r o l m a n and maybe a s e r g e a n t , but we c o u l d n ' t buy a l i e u t e n a n t o r c a p t a i n , n o t even i f we had t h e money t o do i t . Suppose some punk p a i d money t o t h e c a p t a i n . He might go around b o a s t i n g about i t , t e l l i n g everybody, " I bought t h e c a p t a i n . " That would sound bad. They c a n ' t a l l o w t h a t . They o n l y want t o - 118 d e a l w i t h p e o p l e t h a t t h e y can depend on t o do t h i n g s i n the r i g h t way. In d e a l i n g e f f e c t i v e l y w i t h the p o l i c e , money i s i m p o r t a n t , b u t so a r e p o s i t i o n and p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s . N e i t h e r i s e f f e c t i v e w i t h o u t t h e o t h e r . (Whyte, 1955: 135-136). Or, f i n a l l y , Sudnow: When a c h i l d i s u n e x p e c t e d l y d e l i v e r e d , as o c c a s i o n a l l y happens, o b s t e t r i c i a n s have been heard t o t e l e p h o n e t h e f a t h e r and break t h e news i n t h e c o n t e x t o f a j o k e , as i n t h e f o l l o w i n g t a p e - r e c o r d e d example: D o c t o r : ...Say, t h i s i s Dr.M. a t Cohen. Are you Mr. X? Husband: Yes I am. D o c t o r : W e l l I have something t o t e l l you. I t seems your w i f e came i n here t h i s a f t e r n o o n and complained o f a tummy ache and i t seems t h a t t h e r e was t h i s baby - c o n g r a t u l a t i o n s Mr. X. You have a n i c e new l i t t l e boy. (Sudnow, 1967: 124) What b e l o n g s t o ethnography, t h e t a s k t h a t M a l i n o w s k i , Whyte and Sudnow s e t t h e m s e l v e s , i s t h e t a s k of f o r m u l a t i n g members' t a l k as mere c o n c r e t e speech and t r a n s f o r m i n g t h a t t a l k i n t o c u l t u r e and membership. So when M a l i n o w s k i ' s n a t i v e speaks, when Whyte's b a r b e r speaks, when Sudnow's d o c t o r speaks, t h e speeches a r e not heard as the speeches of sages o r - 119 -w i s e men, b u t on t h e c o n t r a r y , a r e o c c a s i o n s f o r M a l i n o w s k i , Whyte and Sudnow t o d i s p l a y , t h r o u g h t h e i r e t h n o g r a p h i c v i s i o n , t h e s o c i e t y , t h e c u l t u r e , membership, i . e . , t o d i s p l a y t h e v e r y t h i n g t h a t g e n e r a t e s the c o n c r e t e speech. For ethnography, t h i s d i s p l a y i n g i s beyond th e c a p a b i l i t i e s o f t h e n a t i v e , t h e b a r b e r , t h e d o c t o r , i t i s beyond members, s i n c e i t i s t h e v e r y beyond ( c u l t u r e and membership) t h a t e t h n o g r a p h i c v i s i o n , and not members' v i s i o n , s e e s. In t h i s sense, t h e e t h n o g r a p h i c t a s k i s deeper, and more complex, th a n sheer r e p o r t a g e . I t i s not t h a t ethnography me r e l y r e p o r t s t o us what t h e n a t i v e , t h e b a r b e r and the d o c t o r s a i d , i t i s n o t t h a t t h e y m e r e l y speak t o us, i n s t e a d ethnography t e l l s us t h a t i n t h e c o n c r e t e speech o f t h e n a t i v e , the b a r b e r and t h e d o c t o r ( i n t h e appearances) i s t o be l o c a t e d c u l t u r e and membership (the Real) and t h i s , t h e o f f e r i n g o f t h e R e a l , i s t h e r e a l work o f ethnography. But i t i s not i n what members' c o n c r e t e speech s a y s , n o t i n what the n a t i v e , t h e b a r b e r , o r t h e d o c t o r say t o us, t h a t c u l t u r e and membership i s t o be found. I n s t e a d , i t i s i n what ethnography makes of c o n c r e t e speech t h a t c u l t u r e and membership a r e t o be found. I t i s t h i s sense of making, t h i s sense o f work, t h a t p r o v i d e s f o r ethnography t o be f o r m u l a t e d as t h e t a s k o f t r a n s f o r m i n g members' c o n c r e t e speech i n t o c u l t u r e and membership. I t i s i n t h i s sense t h a t M a l i n o w s k i , e t a l . (ethnography) t r e a t members' c o n c r e t e speech as an appearance of t h e R e a l . - 120 -That w h i c h b e l o n g s t o ethnography, the t a s k t h a t ethnography a s s i g n s t o i t s e l f , namely s e e i n g R e a l i t y where o t h e r s see m e r e l y appearances, a l l o w s f o r v a r i o u s c o n c r e t e c o n c e p t i o n s o f ethnography. That i s , e t h n o g r a p h e r s do not n e c e s s a r i l y and s i m p l y agree w i t h one a n o t h e r . Thus, Zimmerman and P o l l n e r can w r i t e : When et h n o g r a p h e r s assemble t h e i r d e s c r i p t i o n s of s e t t i n g s , by r e f e r e n c e t o i n f o r m a n t s ' f o r m u l a t i o n s , t h e members' d e s c r i p t i o n and t h e e t h n o g r a p h e r ' s d e s c r i p t i o n have an i d e n t i c a l s t a t u s i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e e v e n t s r e p o r t e d on. The member's f o r m u l a t i o n , l i k e t h a t o f t h e ethnographer i s a p o s s i b l e r e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f t h e s e t t i n g , t h a t i s , a v e r s i o n o f t h e s e t t i n g ' s r e i g n i n g norms and r e s i d e n t - a t t i t u d e s , and i t i s often,.the case t h a t t h e ethnographer must r e l y on the member's f o r m u l a t i o n as the d e f i n i t i v e c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n o f t h e s e t t i n g . As i n s u r v e y r e s e a r c h , t h e f a c t t h a t members a r e a b l e t o do f o r m u l a t i o n s - t o d e s c r i b e i n r e c o g n i z a b l y o r d e r l y ways - i s an u n i n v e s t i g a t e d r e s o u r c e . Even i f we i g n o r e t h e s t r a n g e c a t e c h i s t i c a l r e l a t i o n t h a t o b t a i n s between r e s e a r c h e r and t h o s e he seeks t o s t u d y , a p l e t h o r a of unexamined, but n o n e t h e l e s s r e l i e d upon, p r o c e d u r e s remain. The methods t h r o u g h w h i c h t h e p r o d u c t i o n o f r e c o g n i z a b l y r e a s o n a b l e t a l k i s a c h i e v e d , t h e methods t h r o u g h which r e s p o n s e s a r e p r o v i d e d and a p p r e c i a t e d as answers t o t h e i n t e n d e d sense o f q u e s t i o n s , the methods t h r o u g h w h i c h u n d e r s t a n d i n g i s d i s p l a y e d and d e t e c t e d as the o c c a s i o n i t i s i n t e n d e d t o be, t h e methods t h r o u g h w h i c h the o c c a s i o n w i l l l a t e r be demonstrated t o have met t h e i d e a l s o f i n t e r r o g a t i o n and d e s c r i p t i o n , a r e b u t a few t a c i t r e s o u r c e s of s o c i a l s c i e n t i f i c i n v e s t i g a t i o n . (Zimmerman and P o l l n e r 1970: 90-91). - 1 2 1 -So, f o r example, when Whyte s t u d i e s C o r n e r v i l l e - does an ethnography - i t i s not t h e case t h a t a l l e t h n o g r a p h e r s agree t h a t t h e work has been completed. F or ethnography, t h e c o m p l e t i o n o f t h e work - the c o m p l e t i o n o f t h e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n o f t h e appearances i n t o the R e a l -depends upon t h e c o n c e p t i o n o f how t h e R e a l i s t o be r e v e a l e d . Whether o r not t h e e t h n o g r a p h i c t a s k i s completed on any o c c a s i o n i s n o t a q u e s t i o n t o w h i c h a l l e t h n o g r a p h e r s w i l l r e s p o nd i n t h e same way s i n c e t h e r e are a l t e r n a t i v e c o n c e p t i o n s of how t h e appearances a r e t o r e v e a l t h e R e a l . F o r Zimmerman and P o l l n e r , f o r example, t h e R e a l i s not r e v e a l e d u n t i l the " u n i n v e s t i g a t e d r e s o u r c e s " o f t h e ethnographer a r e i n v e s t i g a t e d . But what does t h i s m a t t e r ? I s i t not t h e case t h a t any e t h n o g r a p h i c c o n c e p t i o n o f how t h e R e a l i s t o be r e v e a l e d -how appearances a r e t o be t r a n s f o r m e d i n t o t h e R e a l - d e r i v e s i t s i n t e l l i g i b i l i t y from t h e f a c t t h a t a l l (any) ethnography u n d e r s t a n d s c o n c r e t e speech as t h e s u r f a c e m a n i f e s t a t i o n of c u l t u r e and membership and u n d e r s t a n d s c u l t u r e and membership, un d e r s t a n d s t h e R e a l , as a c o n c r e t e s p e a k a b l e t h i n g ? So t h e work o f ethnography amounts t o a s e a r c h , a s e a r c h f o r t h e R e a l t h a t l i e s beneath t h e appearances. F o r ethnography, appearances t a k e t h e form o f c o n c r e t e members' speech and what g e n e r a t e s t h e c o n c r e t e speech i s the R e a l , i s c u l t u r e , i s membership. I t i s i n t h e work o f ethnography, the s e a r c h f o r and e x p l i c a t i o n o f , t h e R e a l , t h a t members' - 122 -c o n c r e t e speech comes t o have a p l a c e . I t i s not the c o n c r e t e speech o f members t h a t i s a n a l y t i c a l l y c e n t r a l f o r ethnography, i n s t e a d t h e cogency o f c o n c r e t e members' speech i s p r o v i d e d f o r by t h e a n a l y t i c c e n t r a l i t y o f the e t h n o g r a p h i c t a s k o f d i s p l a y i n g t h e R e a l . But t h i s ethnography does not u n d e r s t a n d ; Ethnography does n ot u n d e r s t a n d t h a t the R e a l i s not a t h i n g , t h a t t h e R e a l i s not s p e a k a b l e , t h a t i t s (ethnography's) t a s k o n l y p o i n t s t o t h e R e a l i n t h e same way t h a t any member's c o n c r e t e speech p o i n t s t o t h e R e a l and t h u s e t h n o g r a p h i c speech i s as much an appearance as i s t h e c o n c r e t e speech o f members t h a t ethnography c a l l s appearances. Ethnography does not u n d e r s t a n d t h a t t h e R e a l i s n o t a t h i n g t h a t can be c a p t u r e d i n speech and t h u s does n ot u n d e r s t a n d t h a t i t s own speech ( c u l t u r e and membership) o n l y makes r e f e r e n c e t o t h e R e a l and i s not i t s e l f t h e R e a l . So ethnography does not u n d e r s t a n d t h a t i t cannot speak i t s own grounds - speak i t s own o r i g i n - and thus does not u n d e r s t a n d t h a t i t can address i t s o r i g i n o n l y by r e -a c h i e v i n g i t i n i t s s p e a k i n g . C o n c r e t e speech, speech t h a t i s c u l t u r e and membership, i s , f o r ethnography, the R e a l and what ethnography hears i n t h e speeches o f members ( t h i n g s ) , i s y e t one o t h e r t h i n g , namely c u l t u r e . So ethnography c o l l e c t s t h e many t h i n g s under t h e one common t h i n g of c u l t u r e . - 1 2 3 T h i s i s why S o c r a t e s urges Meno a g a i n and a g a i n t o a d d ress v i r t u e i t s e l f . S o c r a t e s u n d e r s t a n d s t h a t Meno's o f f e r i n g o f a c o n c r e t e d e f i n i t i o n o f v i r t u e , an o t h e r t h i n g , an o t h e r common t h i n g , i s a c o n c r e t e o f f e r i n g and so, S o c r a t e s urges Meno t o r e - a c h i e v e , i n t h e S o c r a t i c work t h a t i s c o n v e r s a t i o n , h i s t r u e o f f e r i n g t h a t i s the l i f e t h a t grounds h i s c o n c r e t e speech about v i r t u e . I n c o n t r a s t t o ethnography, w h i c h o f f e r s us t h e c o n c r e t e d e m y s t i f i c a t i o n of t h e myst e r y o f humanity f o r m u l a t e d c o n c r e t e l y , S o c r a t e s o f f e r s us an i n v i t a t i o n t o d i a l e c t i c a l l y r e - a c h i e v e our l i v e s i n s o f a r as S o c r a t e s i n v i t e s us t o r e - a c h i e v e i n c o n v e r s a t i o n t h e e s s e n t i a l d i f f e r e n c e between speech and language and thus t h e e s s e n t i a l d i f f e r e n c e between our c o n c r e t e l i v e s and t h e i d e a o f l i f e t h a t makes them p o s s i b l e and t o w h i c h t h e y make r e f e r e n c e . So S o c r a t e s ' i n v i t a t i o n t o ethnography i s t o i n v i t e ethnography t o t h e o r i z e , t o i n v i t e i n i t s own s p e a k i n g the r e - f o r m u l a t i o n o f i t s own s p e a k i n g . S o c r a t e s i n v i t e s us t o t h i n k . S o c r a t e s t e l l s T h e a e t e t u s t h a t he ( S o c r a t e s ) c o n c e i v e s o f t h i n k i n g : As a d i s c o u r s e t h a t t h e mind c a r r i e s on w i t h i t s e l f about any s u b j e c t i t i s c o n s i d e r i n g . You must t a k e t h i s e x p l a n a t i o n as coming from an ignoramus, but I have a n o t i o n t h a t , when t h e mind i s t h i n k i n g i t i s s i m p l y t a l k i n g t o i t s e l f , a s k i n g q u e s t i o n s and answering them, and s a y i n g yes o r no. When i t - 124 -r e a c h e s a d e c i s i o n - w h i c h may come s l o w l y o r i n a sudden r u s h - when doubt i s o ver and t h e two v o i c e s a f f i r m t h e same t h i n g , then we c a l l t h a t i t s 'judgment 1. So I s h o u l d d e s c r i b e t h i n k i n g as d i s c o u r s e , and judgment as a s tatement pronounced, n o t a l o u d t o someone e l s e , but s i l e n t l y t o o n e s e l f . ( T h e a e t e t u s , 190). I f t h i n k i n g i s t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n t h a t t h e mind has w i t h i t s e l f , t h e n t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n t h a t i s t h i n k i n g i s the d i a l e c t i c a l work of r e - a c h i e v i n g S e l f . Speech t h a t i s t r u e t o S e l f , t h e n , i s speech t h a t a t t e m p t s t o e x e m p l i f y t h i s c o n v e r s a t i o n . On the o t h e r hand, speech t h a t a t t e m p t s t o be t r u e t o i t s s u b j e c t m a t t e r , speech t h a t a t t e m p t s t o be t r u e t o i t s e l f r a t h e r t h a n t r u e t o S e l f , u n d e r s t a n d s i t s e l f not as an e x e m p l i f i c a t i o n o f t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n w i t h i n t h e mind t h a t i s t h i n k i n g , but as t h e unexamined f i r s t n e s s and f i n a l i t y t h a t i s a p r o d u c t whose o r i g i n i s f o r g o t t e n . So, f o r S o c r a t e s , t h e o r i z i n g i s not the t h o u g h t l e s s p r e o c c u p a t i o n w i t h t h e p r o d u c t i o n o f p r o d u c t s t h a t can be g r a s p e d f i r m l y i n hand, but i s t h e t h o u g h t f u l d i a l e c t i c a l engagement w i t h S e l f . F o r S o c r a t e s , t h e n , p r o d u c t s (usage) i s the p l a c e t o s t a r t r e - c o l l e c t i n g t h e b e g i n n i n g and thus r e - a c h i e v i n g t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n i n t h e mind t h a t i s t h i n k i n g and t h i s i s the S o c r a t i c i n v i t a t i o n t o l i v e r e f l e c t i v e l y o r t h e o r e t i c a l l y . So S o c r a t e s i n v i t e s ethnography t o r e - f o r m u l a t e and r e - a c h i e v e , t h r o u g h c o n v e r s a t i o n , t h e e t h n o g r a p h i c work t h a t t r a n s f o r m s members' c o n c r e t e speech i n t o c u l t u r e and membership and t h u s - 1 2 5 -t o r e f l e c t i v e l y r e - c o l l e c t t h e l i f e t h a t makes t h i s e t h n o g r a p h i c work p o s s i b l e . But i f ethnography were t o t a k e up t h e S o c r a t i c i n v i t a t i o n i t would have t o s t o p l i v i n g e t h n o g r a p h i c a l l y and s t a r t l i v i n g t h i n k i n g l y ; i t would have t o choose t o have something t o say; i t would have t o speak d e c i s i v e l y and t a k e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r what i t does have t o say; i t would have t o t a k e t h e r i s k of s p e a k i n g ; i t would have t o r e - a c h i e v e t h e l i f e t h a t generates i t s speech; i t would have t o l i v e r e f l e c t i v e l y . But i f t h i s were so, i f ethnography were t o t a k e up t h e S o c r a t i c i n v i t a t i o n , we would a l a s no l o n g e r have ethnography. IV. A l t h u s s e r t e l l s us t h a t : F o r t h e Young Marx, t o know the essence o f t h i n g s , t h e essence o f t h e h i s t o r i c a l human w o r l d , o f i t s economic, p o l i t i c a l , a e s t h e t i c and r e l i g i o u s p r o d u c t i o n s , was s i m p l y t o r e a d ( l e s e n , h e r a u s l e s e n ) i n b l a c k and w h i t e t h e p r e s e n c e o f t h e ' a b s t r a c t ' essence i n the t r a n s p a r e n c y o f i t s ' c o n c r e t e ' e x i s t e n c e . T h i s immediate r e a d i n g o f essence i n e x i s t e n c e e x p r e s s e s t h e r e l i g i o u s model o f Hegel's A b s o l u t e Knowledge, t h a t End o f H i s t o r y i n w h i c h t h e concept a t l a s t becomes f u l l y v i s i b l e , p r e s e n t among us i n p e r s o n , t a n g i b l e i n i t s s e n s o r y e x i s t e n c e - i n w h i c h t h i s b r e a d , t h i s body, t h i s f a c e and t h i s man a r e t h e S p i r i t i t s e l f . T h i s s e t s us on t h e r o a d t o u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h a t t h e y e a r n i n g f o r a r e a d i n g a t s i g h t , f o r G a l i l e o ' s 'Great Book o f t h e World' i t s e l f , i s o l d e r - 126 -t h a n a l l science,, t h a t i t i s s t i l l s i l e n t l y -p o n d e r i n g t h e r e l i g i o u s f a n t a s i e s o f epiphany and p a r o u s i a , and t h e f a s c i n a t i n g myth o f t h e S c r i p t u r e s , i n w h i c h the body of t r u t h , d r e s s e d i n i t s words, i s the Book: t h e B i b l e . T h i s makes us s u s p e c t t h a t t o t r e a t n a t u r e o r r e a l i t y as a Book, i n w h i c h , a c c o r d i n g t o G a l i l e o , i s spoken the s i l e n t d i s c o u r s e o f a language whose ' c h a r a c t e r s a r e t r i a n g l e s , c i r c l e s and o t h e r g e o m e t r i c a l f i g u r e s ' , i t was n e c e s s a r y t o have a c e r t a i n i d e a o f r e a d i n g which makes a w r i t t e n d i s c o u r s e t h e immediate t r a n s p a r e n c y o f t h e t r u e and t h e r e a l t h e d i s c o u r s e o f a v o i c e . ( A l t h u s s e r , 1970:16). Does not ethnography t r e a t " n a t u r e o r r e a l i t y as a Book"? Does not ethnography t r e a t n a t u r e o r r e a l i t y as the "Great Book o f t h e World" and does not ethnography c o n c e i v e o f i t s e l f as h a v i n g t h e t a s k , i . . e . , what b e l o n g s t o ethnography, o f r e a d i n g t h e G r e a t Book o f t h e World? I s i t not the case t h a t , f o r ethnography, t h e c h a r a c t e r s o f t h e Great Book of the World a r e s o c i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n , i . e . , k i n s h i p , r e l i g i o n , economics, e t c . , e t c . ? And, f i n a l l y , i s i t not the case t h a t , f o r ethnography, t h e Great Book o f t h e World has a l r e a d y been w r i t t e n and i t i s t h e work o f ethnography t o r e a d the Great Book o f the World? We now f o r m u l a t e ethnography as a t a s k i n the sense t h a t t h e work o f ethnography i s r e a d i n g , i . e . , ethnography reads t h e G r e a t Book o f t h e World. And t h i s i s what ethnography c l a i m s ; ethnography c l a i m s t h a t i t has the v i s i o n t h a t i s r e q u i r e d t o r e a d the w r i t i n g o f t h e G r e a t Book o f the - 127 -World. So, f o r example, when Whyte 1s C o r n e r v i l l e b a r b e r speaks, o r when Sudnow's d o c t o r speaks, ethnography can now p l a c e t h a t s p e a k i n g , can f i n d t h a t s p e a k i n g ' s p l a c e , i n s o f a r as t h a t s p e a k i n g i s t r a n s l a t e d i n t o the w r i t i n g t h a t appears i n t h e Gr e a t Book o f t h e World and thus the s p e a k i n g o f t h e b a r b e r and the d o c t o r (members' speech) now f i n d s i t s p l a c e i n some mosaic, o r i n some l a r g e scheme, i n the Great Book. What comes from r e a d i n g the Great Book, what ethnography o f f e r s t o us, i s i l l u m i n a t i o n , e x p l a n a t i o n and u n d e r s t a n d i n g . So i t i s by v i r t u e o f r e a d i n g t h e Gr e a t Book t h a t ethnography o f f e r s us i l l u m i n a t i o n and u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f our speech, ethnography o f f e r s us R e n a i s s a n c e . The c o n c r e t e speech of t h e b a r b e r and t h e d o c t o r , our c o n c r e t e speech, would no l o n g e r be mer e l y c h a t o r t r i v i a i . e . , i t would no l o n g e r be me r e l y members' speech; i n s t e a d i t would be ethnography's way o f making t h e machinery o f the w o r l d v i s i b l e . On t h i s view, i t would be the ethnographer who would be the one who came t o u n d e r s t a n d t h e machinery of the w o r l d , who came t o u n d e r s t a n d the machinery o f the w o r l d as c u l t u r e , and who came t o u n d e r s t a n d c u l t u r e as the e s s e n t i a l and t h e R e a l and thus t h e a u t h o r o f t h e Great Book of the World. Whereas we (members) c o u l d hear t h e speech o f the b a r b e r and t h e d o c t o r as b o r i n g , as t r i v i a l , as not i m p o r t a n t , i . e . , whereas we c o u l d d i s a t t e n d t h a t speech i n some way, the ethnographer i s a b l e t o see i n t h e speech o f the b a r b e r and t h e - 128 -d o c t o r t h a t , once more, c u l t u r e was w o r k i n g , t h a t the machinery was t u r n i n g , and t h e ethnographer can now s e t h i m s e l f t h e t a s k o f t h e t e c h n i c i a n who knows the w o r k i n g of t h e machinery and c o u l d t h u s t e l l us about how the machine ( c u l t u r e ) works. A p r o d u c t o f t h i s e t h n o g r a p h i c t a s k i s a s o r t o f s a t i s f a c t i o n . T h i s i s t o say, t h a t we (members) e x p e r i e n c e an i r r e c o n c i l a b l e d i f f e r e n c e between and among our speeches and ethnography p r o v i d e s us w i t h a way t o r e c o n c i l e t h e s e d i f f e r e n c e s . As ethnography o f f e r s us t h e u n f o l d i n g o f the commonplace, i t o f f e r s us u n i t y , i t o f f e r s us the u n i t y of c u l t u r e . Ethnography says t h a t we (members) can f e e l a t one w i t h c u l t u r e because when we speak, and when we hear o t h e r s speak, we can, thanks t o ethnography, u n d e r s t a n d t h a t t h e s e speeches a r e g e n e r a t e d by c u l t u r e and u n d e r s t a n d t h a t o ur speech i s merely an appearance t h a t h i d e s the R e a l , t h a t h i d e s c u l t u r e . So when ethnography speaks, i t does not hear i t s speech as i d i o s y n c r a t i c , i t does n ot hear i t s speech as an e x e m p l i f i c a t i o n o f a l i f e . Ethnography f o r g e t s t h a t i t i s s p e a k i n g and thus i t c o n c e i v e s o f i t s e l f as not r e s p o n s i b l e f o r what i t has t o say. And how c o u l d i t be o t h e r w i s e ? F o r , ethnography u n d e r s t a n d s i t s e l f , u n d e r s t a n d s i t s t a s k , i t s speech, as t h e r e a d i n g o f t h e Great Book of t h e World and und e r s t a n d s t h e n a t u r a l , t h e e s s e n t i a l , c u l t u r e and membership, as the a u t h o r o f t h a t book. So when ethnography speaks, i t - 129 -und e r s t a n d s i t s speech as a r e a d i n g , i t u n d e r s t a n d s i t s t a s k as r e a d i n g t o us from t h e Gr e a t Book o f the World. Thus, f o r g e t t i n g t h a t i t speaks, f o r g e t t i n g t h a t i t has w r i t t e n t h e G r e a t Book o f t h e World, ethnography c o n c e i v e s of i t s t a s k as t h e t a s k o f r e a d i n g . I t o f f e r s us (members) the G r e a t Book o f t h e World s i n c e , as members, we do not pos s e s s e t h n o g r a p h i c v i s i o n and thus cannot r e a d the book f o r o u r s e l v e s , and, i n d e e d , we do not even know t h a t t h e r e i s a book s i n c e , u n l i k e ethnography, we m i s t a k e appearances f o r t h e R e a l . So e t h n o g r a p h i c work amounts t o b e i n g l i t e r a t e ; i t amounts t o b e i n g a b l e t o read t h e Gr e a t Book o f the World i n s o f a r as e t h n o g r a p h i c v i s i o n i s f o r m u l a t e d as a v i s i o n t h a t sees beyond appearances t o t h e R e a l . E t h n o g r a p h i c v i s i o n p e n e t r a t e s members' c o n c r e t e speech and uncovers the cause o f t h a t speech, namely c u l t u r e and membership. F or ethnography, members - members' t a l k and conduct - are m e r e l y the m a n i f e s t a t i o n o f t h e Great Book o f t h e World, m e r e l y t h e m a n i f e s t a t i o n o f c u l t u r e and i t i s ethnography t h a t can u n d e r s t a n d t h e s e m a n i f e s t a t i o n s as m a n i f e s t a t i o n and as m a n i f e s t a t i o n s o f c u l t u r e . Moreover, f o r ethnography, c u l t u r e i s not an i n v e n t i o n , i . e . , i t i s not a human c r e a t i o n , b u t i i s i n s t e a d t h a t p a r t - o f n a t u r e t h a t i s m a n i f e s t e d i n c o n c r e t e speech. As such, ethnography does not g i v e anyone c r e d i t f o r what t h e y s a y, ethnography does not f i n d f a u l t w i t h any one speech, ethnography does not h o l d anyone - 130 -r e s p o n s i b l e f o r what he or she s a y s , s i n c e i t i s c u l t u r e t h a t i s n a t u r a l l y w o r k i n g i t s e l f out t h r o u g h us. T h i s i s why t h e ethnographer would not e n t e r i n t o a c o n v e r s a t i o n w i t h Meno. Ethnography i s not i n t e r e s t e d i n what Meno has t o say i n s o f a r as ethnography i s not i n t e r e s t e d i n whether o r not what Meno has t o say i s good o r bad, s i n c e Meno, f o r m u l a t e d as c u l t u r e , can o n l y speak good. Meno can o n l y speak good and n a t u r a l l y s i n c e , t h r o u g h Meno, what, i s s p e a k i n g i s n a t u r e - c u l t u r e . Ethnography does not u n d e r s t a n d why S o c r a t e s e n t e r s i n t o c o n v e r s a t i o n w i t h Meno. Such S o c r a t i c c o n v e r s a t i o n can o n l y be u n d e r s t o o d by ethnography as a d e t a i l e d and t r i v i a l way o f a t t e n d i n g t o Meno's speech. S o c r a t e s a t t e n d s t o Meno 1s speech ( a t t e n d s t o usage) as an e x e m p l i f i c a t i o n and r e -p r e s e n t a t i o n o f a l i f e t h a t i s recommended as good. S o c r a t e s ' aim, t h e n , i s t o address t h e Good a t w h i c h speech aims. F o r ethnography, on t h e o t h e r hand, Meno's speech recommends n o t h i n g . Meno's speech i s m e r e l y t h e c o n c r e t e m a n i f e s t a t i o n o f t h e c o n c r e t e r e a l i t y o f c u l t u r e and membership. T h i s i s why Meno's speech i s , f o r ethnography, good and the good w h i c h i s Meno's speech i s a c o n c r e t e good i n s o f a r as Meno's speech i s c o n c e i v e d o f , and f o r m u l a t e d , as e v i d e n c e o f , as a s i g n o f , as a p o i n t i n g t o , i n t h e most c o n c r e t e sense of t h i s word, t h e R e a l - t h e s e e a b l e , s p e a k a b l e r e a l i t y o f c u l t u r e . - 131 -S e e i n g t h e w o r k i n g o f t h e c u l t u r a l a p p a r a t u s , r e a d i n g t h e G r e a t Book o f t h e World, i s t h e t a s k o f ethnography. But t h i s c o n c e p t i o n o f t a s k i s t h e most c o n c r e t e and degenerate c o n c e p t i o n . Ethnography f o r g e t s t h a t i t speaks, f o r g e t s t h a t i t w r i t e s t h e G r e a t Book o f t h e World, and un d e r s t a n d s the G r e a t Book of t h e World as c u l t u r e and hence, as e s s e n t i a l and n a t u r a l and thus u n d e r s t a n d s n a t u r e t o be the a u t h o r o f t h e G r e a t Book o f t h e World. The e t h n o g r a p h i c u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h a t t h e Great Book o f t h e World i s a u t h o r e d by n a t u r e - by God - p r o v i d e s f o r ethnography t o c o n c e i v e o f c u l t u r e as t h e b e g i n n i n g and so, ethnography c o n c e i v e s of c u l t u r e as t h e Book o f G e n e s i s . So w h i l e we (members) s u p e r f i c i a l l y u n d e r s t a n d Sudnow's d o c t o r ' s speech as a d o c t o r t e l l i n g a man t h a t he i s now a f a t h e r , ethnography u n d e r s t a n d s Sudnow's d o c t o r ' s speech as s o c i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n , as c u l t u r e , as membership. T h i s i s what we meant when we s a i d t h a t ethnography was l i t e r a t e - ethnography i s l i t e r a t e because i t can r e a d the G r e a t Book o f t h e World, whereas we (members) ar e i l l i t e r a t e because we cannot r e a d t h a t book, and i n d e e d , do n o t even know t h a t such a book e x i s t s . So i n a deep sense, e t h n o g r a p h i c work presupposes t h a t a l l (any) s o c i e t y i s i l l i t e r a t e and t h a t i t (ethnography) has e v o l v e d i n t o l i t e r a c y and t h u s o f f e r s us l i t e r a c y as a way t o r i d us o f i g n o r a n c e . Ethnography u n d e r s t a n d s i g n o r a n c e i n t h e sense t h a t when we (members) speak we do not know what we say and - 132 -do not know the s o u r c e o f our speech. U n l i k e S o c r a t e s , ethnography does not i n v i t e us t o engage i n the c o n v e r s a t i o n t h a t i s the work o f a d d r e s s i n g our b e g i n n i n g - our g e n e s i s - but i n s t e a d , ethnography c l a i m s t h a t i t does t h a t work f o r us i n s o f a r as i t has a l r e a d y f o r m u l a t e d and e x p l i c a t e d our b e g i n n i n g and now p r e s e n t s i t t o us (members) i n the c o n c r e t e form o f t h e Book o f G e n e s i s - c u l t u r e and membership. So t h e work o f ethnography, what b e l o n g s t o ethnography, i s t h e s e a r c h f o r , and t h e f i n d i n g o f , c u l t u r e and membership i n t h e c o n c r e t e speech o f members. Thus, what ethnography g i v e s us, what ethnography o f f e r s us, i s c u l t u r e and member-s h i p . Ethnography - t h e l i t e r a t e one - o f f e r s us - the .i. .• i l l i t e r a t e ones - a r e a d i n g o f what we cannot r e a d f o r o u r s e l v e s , i t o f f e r s us c u l t u r e as our g e n e s i s . Whereas o t h e r s may o f f e r us i g n o r a n c e , s i n , f a l s e c o n s c i o u s n e s s , e t c . , ethnography o f f e r s us t r u t h , R e a l i t y , c u l t u r e and membership. In t h i s sense, t h e e t h n o g r a p h i c o f f e r i n g i s an o f f e r i n g o f r e a s o n i n s o f a r as ethnography o f f e r s c u l t u r e and membership as our r e a s o n f o r b e i n g , as our mode of b e i n g . Thus, ethnography o f f e r s us our essence and f o r m u l a t e s t h a t essence as c u l t u r e and membership and o f f e r s us an e x p l i c a t i o n of c u l t u r e and membership.. But i n a f o r g e t f u l way, ethnography does not i n q u i r e as t o how t h i s essence (membership) essences (memberships). - 1 3 3 -And, i n t h i s sense, when ethnography o f f e r s us (members) c u l t u r e and membership, i t o f f e r s us a v e r s i o n o f . . . 4 n i h i l i s m , i . e . , c u l t u r e and membership i s a v e r s i o n of i.\ n i h i l i s m i n s o f a r as i t does n ot address i t s own p o s s i b i l i t y and thus does n o t ad d r e s s t h e Good t o wh i c h i t p o i n t s . I t i s i n r e f u s i n g t o a d d r e s s t h e Good by m e r e l y p o i n t i n g t o c u l t u r e and membership, t h a t ethnography o f f e r s us n i h i l i s m . Ethnography speaks about c u l t u r e and membership but does not i n q u i r e i n t o t h e w o r t h w h i l e n e s s o f t h i s speech - i n t o the w o r t h w h i l e n e s s o f c u l t u r e and membership. Ethnography i s l i k e Meno who mer e l y speaks o f t h i s e s and t h a t s , m e r e l y speaks o f examples o f v i r t u e r a t h e r t h a n o f v i r t u e i t s e l f . Ethnography, t o o , speaks o f t h i s e s and t h a t s : i n s o f a r as i t mere l y speaks c o n c r e t e l y about membership r a t h e r t h a n s p e a k i n g about t h e i d e a o f membership, the i d e a o f l i f e , , t h a t grounds any c o n c r e t e speech about membership. So, f o r ethnography, c o n c r e t e c u l t u r e and membership a r e t h e r o c k - b o t t o m , a r e t h e f i n a l a r b i t e r , a r e the R e a l . For ethnography, i t i s t h i s R e a l n e s s t h a t r e n d e r s a l l e l s e i n t e l l i g i b l e . And, i f t h i s were not enough, o r perhaps i t i s enough, ethnography c o n c e i v e s o f c u l t u r e and membership as the c o m p l e t i o n o f t h e t a s k i t has s e t i t s e l f o f s o l v i n g the myste r y o f humanity. Even though ethnography would admit t h a t t h e d e t a i l s have not y e t been worked out the t a s k of u n d e r s t a n d i n g l i f e has been completed by f o r m u l a t i n g l i f e as - 134 -c u l t u r e and membership. I n a sense, ethnography i s l i k e K i e r k e g a a r d ' s man (1941:147) whose t a s k i t i s t o e n t e r t a i n h i m s e l f f o r t h e e n t i r e day. But, K i e r k e g a a r d ' s man f i n i s h e s h i s t a s k by noon and i n t h i s sense i s not f i n i s h e d the t a s k a t a l l . "So a l s o " , w r i t e s K i e r k e g a a r d , "when l i f e c o n s t i t u t e s t h e t a s k . To be f i n i s h e d w i t h l i f e b e f o r e l i f e has f i n i s h e d w i t h one, i s p r e c i s e l y not t o have f i n i s h e d the t a s k . " (1941:147) Ethnography has s e t i t s e l f t h e t a s k o f i n q u i r i n g i n t o l i f e and has i n v e n t e d c u l t u r e and membership and so, has ended i t s i n q u i r y . F o r ethnography, adequate i n q u i r y amounts t o b e i n g a b l e t o produce t h e complete and s e l f - s u f f i c i e n t speech t h a t i s R e a l t i y . And, i n s o f a r as ethnography has d i s c o v e r e d ( i n v e n t e d ) c u l t u r e and membership, i t has completed i t s t a s k . But, ethnography does not u n d e r s t a n d t h a t on each and e v e r y o c c a s i o n o f i t s s p e a k i n g i t r e - p r o d u c e s i t s t a s k i n s o f a r as i t once more f i n d s c u l t u r e and membership i n the speech o f members. Ethnography does n o t u n d e r s t a n d t h a t i t c o n t i n u e s t o l i v e e t h n o g r a p h i c a l l y and thus a t each moment o f i t s l i f e (of i t s speech) i t makes r e f e r e n c e t o t h a t i d e a of l i f e t h a t g e n e r a t e s i t and p r o v i d e s f o r i t s p o s s i b i l i t y . So ethnography has done w i t h l i f e b e f o r e l i f e has done w i t h i t . And i t i s t h i s , t o have done w i t h l i f e , t h a t ethnography b r i n g s f o r t h , as i t s o f f e r i n g . - 135 -V. In Book V I I of The R e p u b l i c (514-521b), S o c r a t e s c r e a t e s the metaphor of the cave. 11 want you t o go on t o p i c t u r e t h e e n l i g h t e n m e n t or i g n o r a n c e o f our human c o n d i t i o n somewhat as f o l l o w s . Imagine an underground chamber l i k e a cave, w i t h a l o n g e n t r a n c e open t o the d a y l i g h t and as wide as t h e cave. In t h i s chamber ar e men who have been p r i s o n e r s t h e r e s i n c e t h e y were c h i l d r e n , t h e i r l e g s and necks b e i n g so f a s t e n e d t h a t t h e y can o n l y l o o k s t r a i g h t ahead o f them and cannot t u r n t h e i r heads. Some way o f f , b e h i n d and h i g h e r up, a f i r e i s b u r n i n g , and between t h e f i r e and t h e p r i s o n e r s and above them run s a r o a d , i n f r o n t o f which a c u r t a i n -w a l l has been b u i l t , l i k e t h e s c r e e n a t puppet shows between t h e o p e r a t o r s and t h e i r a u d i e n c e , above wh i c h t h e y show t h e i r p u p p e t s . 1 11 s e e . 1 1 Imagine f u r t h e r t h a t t h e r e a r e men c a r r y i n g a l l s o r t s o f gear a l o n g b e h i n d the c u r t a i n - w a l l , p r o j e c t i n g above i t and i n c l u d i n g f i g u r e s o f men and a n i m a l s made o f wood and s t o n e and a l l s o r t s o f o t h e r m a t e r i a l s , and t h a t some o f t h e s e men, as you would e x p e c t , are t a l k i n g and some n o t . 1 'An odd p i c t u r e and an odd s o r t o f p r i s o n e r . ' 'They a r e drawn from l i f e , 1 I r e p l i e d . 'For, t e l l me, do you t h i n k our p r i s o n e r s c o u l d see a n y t h i n g o f themselves o r t h e i r f e l l o w s e x c e p t t h e shadows thrown by t h e f i r e on t h e w a l l o f t h e cave o p p o s i t e them?' 'How-could t h e y see a n y t h i n g e l s e i f they were p r e v e n t e d from moving t h e i r heads a l l t h e i r l i v e s ? ' 'And would they see a n y t h i n g more of the o b j e c t s c a r r i e d a l o n g t h e r o a d ? ' 'Of c o u r s e n o t . ' 'Then i f they were a b l e t o t a l k t o each o t h e r , would they n o t assume t h a t t h e shadows they saw were th e r e a l t h i n g s ? ' ' I n e v i t a b l y . ' - 136 -'And i f t h e w a l l o f t h e i r p r i s o n o p p o s i t e them r e f l e c t e d sound, don't you t h i n k t h a t t hey would suppose, whenever one o f the p a s s e r s - b y on t h e r o a d spoke, t h a t t h e v o i c e b e l o n ged t o the shadow p a s s i n g b e f o r e them?' 'They would be bound t o t h i n k so'.' 'And so i n e v e r y way t h e y would b e l i e v e t h a t t h e shadows o f t h e o b j e c t s we mentioned were t h e whole t r u t h . ' 'Yes, i n e v i t a b l y . ' 'Then t h i n k what would n a t u r a l l y happen t o them i f t h e y were r e l e a s e d from t h e i r bonds and c u r e d o f t h e i r d e l u s i o n s . Suppose one of them were l e t l o o s e , and suddenly c o m p e l l e d t o s t a n d up and t u r n h i s head and l o o k and walk towards t h e f i r e ; a l l t h e s e a c t i o n s would be p a i n f u l and he would be t o o d a z z l e d t o see p r o p e r l y the o b j e c t s o f which he used t o see t h e shadows. What do y'you t h i n k he would say i f he was t o l d t h a t what he used t o see was so much empty nonsense and t h a t he was now n e a r e r r e a l i t y and s e e i n g more c o r r e c t l y , because he was t u r n e d towards o b j e c t s t h a t were more r e a l , and i f on top of t h a t he were c o m p e l l e d t o say what each o f t h e p a s s i n g o b j e c t s was when i t was p o i n t e d out t o him? Don't you t h i n k he would be a t a l o s s , and t h i n k t h a t what he used t o see was f a r t r u e r t h a n t h e o b j e c t s now b e i n g p o i n t e d o ut t o him?' 'Yes, f a r t r u e r . ' 'And i f he were made t o l o o k d i r e c t l y a t the l i g h t o f t h e f i r e , i t would h u r t h i s eyes and he would t u r n back and r e t r e a t t o t h e t h i n g s w h i c h he c o u l d see p r o p e r l y , w h i c h he would t h i n k r e a l l y c l e a r e r t h a n .the"-things b e i n g shown him. ' 'Yes.' 'And i f , 1 I went on, 'he were f o r c i b l y dragged up the s t e e p and rugged a s c e n t and not l e t go t i l l he had been dragged out i n t o t h e s u n l i g h t , t h e p r o c e s s would be a p a i n f u l one, t o w h i c h he would much o b j e c t , and when he emerged i n t o t h e l i g h t h i s eyes would be so d a z z l e d by t h e g l a r e o f i t t h a t he wouldn't be a b l e t o see a s i n g l e one o f t h e t h i n g s he was now t o l d were r e a l . ' (The R e p u b l i c 514-516). - 137 -S o c r a t e s uses the metaphor o f t h e cave as an o c c a s i o n t o address and r e - a c h i e v e t h e d i f f e r e n c e between t h e e s s e n t i a l and t h e i n e s s e n t i a l . S o c r a t e s uses t h e metaphor of t h e cave as a way t o c r e a t e i n speech t h i s e s s e n t i a l d i f f e r e n c e . T h i s i s not t o say t h a t S o c r a t e s c o n c e v i e s of c r e a t i o n i n t h e sense t h a t c r e a t i o n ought t o aim a t c o m p l e t i o n or f i n a l i t y . Speech i s grounded i n language and speech (the i n e s s e n t i a l ) r e q u i r e s language (the e s s e n t i a l ) . So when S o c r a t e s c r e a t e s i n speech the e s s e n t i a l d i f f e r e n c e t h a t i s th e d i f f e r e n c e between t h e e s s e n t i a l and the i n e s s e n t i a l , h i s c r e a t i o n ( h i s speech) i s i t s e l f grounded i n t h e e s s e n t i a l i t y of language. I f a n y t h i n g e s s e n t i a l i s t o be done w i t h S o c r a t e s ' speech a t a l l , i . e . , i f t h e S o c r a t i c i n v i t a t i o n i s t o be a c c e p t e d , t h e n what needs t o be done i s t o r e f o r m u l a t e S o c r a t e s ' speech as an o c c a s i o n f o r a d d r e s s i n g what i s e s s e n t i a l . 'Now, my dear Glaucon,' I went on, ' t h i s s i m i l e must be connected t h r o u g h o u t w i t h what preceeded i t . The r e a l m r e v e a l e d by s i g h t c o r r e s p o n d s t o t h e p r i s o n , and t h e l i g h t o f t h e f i r e i n t h e p r i s o n t o t h e power of t h e sun. And you won't go wrong i f you connect t h e a s c e n t i n t o t h e upper w o r l d and t h e s i g h t o f t h e o b j e c t s t h e r e w i t h t h e upward p r o g r e s s o f t h e mind i n t o t h e i n t e l l i g i b l e r e g i o n . That a t any r a t e i s my i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , w h i c h i s what you ar e a n x i o u s t o h e a r ; t h e t r u t h o f the m a t t e r i s , a f t e r a l l , known o n l y t o god. - 138 -But i n my o p i n i o n , f o r what i t i s w o r t h , t h e f i n a l t h i n g t o be p e r c e i v e d i n t h e i n t e l l i g i b l e r e g i o n , and p e r c e i v e d o n l y w i t h d i f f i c u l t y , i s t h e form of t h e good; once seen, i t i s i n f e r r e d t o be r e s p o n s i b l e f o r whatever i s r i g h t and v a l u a b l e i n a n y t h i n g , p r o d u c i n g i n t h e v i s i b l e r e g i o n l i g h t and t h e s o u r c e o f l i g h t , and b e i n g i n the i n t e l l i g i b l e r e g i o n i t s e l f c o n t r o l l i n g s o u r c e o f t r u t h and i n t e l l i g e n c e . And anyone who i s g o i n g t o a c t r a t i o n a l l y e i t h e r i n p u b l i c o r p r i v a t e l i f e must have s i g h t o f i t . ' (The R e p u b l i c , 517a-517c) What i s e s s e n t i a l , what i s f i r s t , n e c e s s a r y and a b s o l u t e , i s spoken o f m e t a p h o r i c a l l y by S o c r a t e s as t h e Good. S i n c e a l l speech i s grounded i n t h e e s s e n t i a l , the c r e a t i o n o f the e s s e n t i a l i n speech c o u l d o n l y be c o n c e i v e d o f as the u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f what i s e s s e n t i a l , i . e . , as a c o n v e r s a t i o n t h a t s u s t a i n s and t h u s makes t h e e s s e n t i a l d i f f e r e n c e between what i s e s s e n t i a l and i n e s s e n t i a l . T h i s i s the b e s t k i n d o f speech because i t u n d e r s t a n d s t h a t i t i s not s e l f - s u f f i c i e n t , i t u n d e r s t a n d s i t s own n a t u r a l l i m i t a t i o n o f inadequacy, and y e t , i t u n d e r s t a n d s i t s p l a c e as t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n ( i n q u i r y ) t h a t s p e a k i n g l y c r e a t e s and r e - a c h i e v e s the d i f f e r e n c e between what i s i n e s s e n t i a l and e s s e n t i a l , i . e . , between speech and language. So when S o c r a t e s c r e a t e s i n speech the d i f f e r e n c e between the e s s e n t i a l and t h e i n e s s e n t i a l , he must speak m e t a p h o r i c a l l y s i n c e t o speak o t h e r w i s e would be t o have a v e r s i o n o f speech as c o m p l e t e a b l e and p e r f e c t i b l e and t h u s as e s s e n t i a l , f i r s t and n a t u r a l . I n o t h e r words,.the metaphor - 139 -of the cave, the shadows, e t c . , are not the f i n a l word. A n o t i o n of the f i n a l word i s onl y p o s s i b l e v/hen speech i t s e l f i s conceived of as e s s e n t i a l , s u f f i c i e n t , p e r f e c t and adequate. To a s p i r e t o the day when speech i s e s s e n t i a l i s to a s p i r e to the day when groundlessness r u l e s the day. Thus, when the S o c r a t i c task i s understood as the c r e a t i o n of the e s s e n t i a l i n speech, we must understand * c r e a t i o n as the c o n v e r s a t i o n t h a t e x e m p l i f i e s the " . . . d i s c o u r s e t h a t the mind c a r r i e s on w i t h i t s e l f . . . " . In t h i s sense, c r e a t i o n i s not conceived of as the o f f e r i n g of a concret e t h i n g such as a d e s c r i p t i o n , a c o n c l u s i o n , a s o l u t i o n , an answer, e t c . So when the attempt i s made to c r e a t e the e s s e n t i a l i n speech, t h i s does not mean t h a t the e s s e n t i a l i s o f f e r e d up c o n c r e t e l y f o r a l l t o see. I f t h i s was so, i f the e s s e n t i a l could be c o n c r e t i z e d i n speech, t h i s would mean t h a t what was e s s e n t i a l was speech. T h i s would mean t h a t speech would r e f e r to nothing, would p o i n t to nothing, would be s u f f i c i e n t unto i t s e l f and any sense of something other than speech would amount onl y to other speeches. T h i s would l e a d to the l u d i c r o u s n o t i o n t h a t knowledge o f , f o r example, j u s t i c e , c o u l d o n l y be a t t a i n e d by examining concr e t e speeches about j u s t i c e and t h a t t h i s c o u l d be done without p r i o r knowledge of the idea o f j u s t i c e o r the Good of j u s t i c e . So the S o c r a t i c task o f c r e a t i n g the e s s e n t i a l i n speech i s a metaphor f o r the d e s i r e and need to address and r e - a c h i e v e - 140 -the e s s e n t i a l d i f f e r e n c e between speech and language. C r e a t i o n c o n c e i v e d o f as t h e attempt t o b r i n g t h i s e s s e n t i a l i t y t o speech p l a c e s the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r s p e a k i n g on t h e speaker and thus any c r e a t i v e speech i s a r e c r e a t i o n o f S e l f . T h i s i s c e r t a i n l y i n c o n t r a s t w i t h the e t h n o g r a p h i c c o n c e p t i o n o f c r e a t i n g the e s s e n t i a l i n speech. For ethnography, c r e a t i n g t h e e s s e n t i a l i n speech i s a c o n c r e t e t a s k i n s o f a r as i t amounts t o a d e f i n i t i v e d e s c r i p t i o n , c o n c l u s i o n , s o l u t i o n , answer, e t c . Ethnography c o n c e i v e s o f t h e e s s e n t i a l as c u l t u r e and membership and c o n c e i v e s of c u l t u r e and membership as a t h i n g t h a t i s s p e a k a b l e and so, c o n c e i v e s o f t h e e s s e n t i a l as speech. Ethnography u n d e r s t a n d s c u l t u r e and membership as e s s e n t i a l and thus as ground and f o u n d a t i o n . So c u l t u r e and membership a r e n o t , f o r ethnography, c o n c r e t e speeches t h a t r e q u i r e g r o u n d i n g s i n c e they a r e the ground. Ethnography does not speak m e t a p h o r i c a l l y . C u l t u r e and membership a r e n o t , f o r ethnography, e t h n o g r a p h i c metaphors s i n c e , f o r ethnography, t o speak i s t o o f f e r t h e e s s e n t i a l . C u l t u r e and membership a r e n o t , f o r ethnography, o c c a s i o n s t o a d d r e s s and r e - a c h i e v e the i d e a o f l i f e t h a t makes such speeches p o s s i b l e . Ethnography i s n o t i n t e r e s t e d i n i t s own l i f e s i n c e i t c o n c e i v e s o f i t s own l i f e as h a v i n g n o t h i n g t o do w i t h what i s e s s e n t i a l , namely c u l t u r e and membership. - 141 -For ethnography, c u l t u r e and membership i s t h e c o n c r e t e o b j e c t t h a t c a s t s t h e l i g h t i n t o the cave. Whereas we (members) see mer e l y shadows, ethnography sees the o b j e c t ( c u l t u r e and membership) t h a t c a s t s t h e shadows. The o b j e c t o f c u l t u r e and membership i s o b j e c t i v e i n the w o r s t sense o f t h a t term. I t i s a c o n c r e t e t h i n g , c o n c r e t e speech, and i n s t e a d o f u n d e r s t a n d i n g c u l t u r e and membership as i t s e l f t h e shadow o f some l i g h t ethnography u n d e r s t a n d s c u l t u r e and membership as t h e o b j e c t t h a t c a s t s the shadows. 'There was p r o b a b l y a c e r t a i n amount o f honour and g l o r y t o be won among t h e p r i s o n e r s , and p r i z e s f o r k e e n - s i g h t e d n e s s f o r t h o s e b e s t a b l e t o remember t h e o r d e r of sequence among t h e p a s s i n g shadows and so be b e s t a b l e t o d i v i n e t h e i r f u t u r e appearances.' (The R e p u b l i c , 516c-516d) Among t h e p r i s o n e r s i n t h e cave, ethnography i s s u r e l y t o be found among tho s e who a r e most k e e n - s i g h t e d . Ethnography's k e e n - s i g h t does i t w e l l , and i t knows the o r d e r o f the p a s s i n g shadows. Ethnography's s i g h t i s so keen t h a t , on o c c a s i o n , i t can even p r e d i c t t h e f u t u r e o r d e r o f t h e s e p a s s i n g shadows. As a k e e n - s i g h t e d one, ethnography can o f f e r t h e r e s t o f t h e p r i s o n e r s t h e e t h n o g r a p h i c f a c t t h a t t h ey a r e l o o k i n g a t shadows and o f f e r t h e e t h n o g r a p h i c f a c t t h a t t h e s e shadows a r e c a s t by t h e o b j e c t c u l t u r e and membership. - 142 -So ethnography u n d e r s t a n d s i t s t a s k as t h a t of u n c o v e r i n g and making v i s i b l e the l i g h t t h a t c a s t s the shadows, i . e . , ethnography u n d e r s t a n d s i t s t a s k as u n c o v e r i n g and making v i s i b l e t h e s o u r c e ( c u l t u r e and membership) of c o n c r e t e speech. Moreover, ethnography u n d e r s t a n d s t h i s t a s k as an o b j e c t i v e one i n s o f a r as the s o u r c e t h a t i t uncovers i s y e t a n o t h e r o b j e c t , an o b j e c t i n t h a t as the grounds o f c o n c r e t e speech, t h i s s o u r c e can be spoken. T h i s source o f c o n c r e t e speech, which i s t o say, c u l t u r e and membership, i s c o n c e i v e d o f by ethnography as not r e q u i r i n g g r o u n d i n g i n s o f a r as c u l t u r e and membership i s c o n c e i v e d of as t h e ground, as e s s e n t i a l and n a t u r a l , and thus t h e r e i s n o t h i n g o t h e r than c u l t u r e and membership. S i n c e c u l t u r e and membership a r e c o n c e i v e d o f . b y ethnography as t h e l i g h t t h a t c a s t s a l l o f t h e shadows, ethnography f i n d s i t i n c o n -c e i v a b l e t h a t c u l t u r e and membership a r e themselves shadows c a s t by some l i g h t . So ethnography's s e a r c h f o r the l i g h t i s o v e r , i t s s e a r c h ends w i t h the f i n d i n g o f c u l t u r e and membership. An i n t e r e s t i n g consequence o f such a n o t i o n i s t h a t ethnography must c o n c e i v e o f i t s e l f (of i t s speech) as the r e a d i n g o f t h e G r e a t Book of t h e World. Ethnography's speech i s not i t s own s i n c e i t m e r e l y r e a d s what i s t h e r e . Ethnography m e r e l y r e a d s what n a t u r e has w r i t t e n . The o n l y c a r e ethnography must t a k e i s t o t a k e c a r e t h a t i t (ethnography) does not speak. Ethnography must t a k e c a r e t h a t i t s speech i s an i n n o c e n t r e a d i n g o f t h e G r e a t Book o f the World and so, must t a k e c a r e so as not t o v i o l a t e t h i s i n n o c e n c e . - 143 -Ethnography can d e s i r e i n n o c e n c e o n l y when i t f o r g e t s t h a t i t does speak, o n l y when i t f o r g e t s t h a t i t has w r i t t e n the book t h a t i t r e a d s , and o n l y when i t f o r g e t s t h a t i t has chosen 5 a l i f e t h a t makes such innocence i n t e l l i g i b l e . V I . Perhaps a t t h e r i s k o f b e i n g s a c r i l e g i o u s , we can f o l l o w t h e example o f S o c r a t e s 1 myth o f Er and c o n s t r u c t t h e myth o f ethnography. We have been a d d r e s s i n g t h e grounds o f ethnography and t h e c r e a t i o n o f a myth w i l l s e r v e t o animate t h i s d i s c u s s i o n . V I I . There was a t i m e when p e o p l e i n the w o r l d l i v e d i n s m a l l groups and t h e s e groups were i s o l a t e d from one a n o t h e r . W i t h i n each group, l i f e was harmonious t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t each o f t h e members o f t h e group spoke the same language, a t e the same f o o d , p r o c u r e d t h e i r f o o d i n t h e same way, had the same r e l i g i o u s b e l i e f s , and so on. There were o c c a s i o n a l l y , of c o u r s e , some d i s a g r e e m e n t s among some o f the group members. But t h e s e d i s a g r e e m e n t s were minor i n t h a t t h e y never r e a c h e d p r o p o r t i o n s t h a t would endanger t h e v e r y l i f e of the group. In s h o r t , everyday l i f e c o n t i n u e d u n p r o b l e m a t i c a l l y . - 1 4 4 -But t h e r e came a day when some o f the s e i n d i v i d u a l groups happened upon some o f t h e o t h e r groups. A l t h o u g h i t was d i s c o v e r e d t h a t some groups l i v e d s i m i l a r l y t o o t h e r s , i t was a l s o d i s c o v e r e d t h a t t h e r e were v a s t d i f f e r e n c e s among the g roups. F i r s t of a l l , some groups c o u l d not speak t o o t h e r s s i n c e t h e y spoke d i f f e r e n t languages. Some of the groups had d i f f e r e n t r e l i g i o u s b e l i e f s from o t h e r s . Some of t h e groups a t e d i f f e r e n t foods from o t h e r s , and so on. Sim p l y p u t , i t was d i s c o v e r e d t h a t some groups c o u l d not speak to o t h e r groups. T h i s d i s c o v e r y , t h e d i s c o v e r y t h a t some groups were d i f f e r e n t from o t h e r s , brought about s e v e r e problems. These d i f f e r e n c e s were overwhelming and brought about n ot o n l y c o n f u s i o n and bewil d e r m e n t but a l s o f e a r . Some of t h e groups c o u l d not u n d e r s t a n d why o t h e r groups l i v e d t h e way t h e y d i d and found t h e s e ways o f l i v i n g t o be b i z a r r e , outrageous and even bad. There were s t i l l o t h e r s who found t h e s e d i f f e r e n c e s t o be c u r i o u s and l o o k e d upon o t h e r s as c u r i o s i t i e s . O thers u n d e r s t o o d t h e d i f f e r e n c e s t h e y saw i n o t h e r groups as advantageous and sought t o emulate them. And s t i l l o t h e r s found t h e d i f f e r e n c e s t o be i n f e r i o r and sought e i t h e r t o d e s t r o y them o r t o h e l p t h e s e i n f e r i o r groups l i v e t he r i g h t way, w h i c h i s t o say, t h e i r way. A l l i n a l l , t h e groups found t h a t i n a c r u c i a l way, t h e s e d i f f e r e n c e s were i r r e c o n c i l a b l e . - 145 -Whereas each of the groups thought they had the n a t u r a l way to l i v e , they now d i s c o v e r e d other groups who a l s o claimed n a t u r a l n e s s . And thus, f e a r , c o n f u s i o n and bewilderment r e i g n e d . But i t a l s o happened t h a t l i v i n g i n one of these groups was someone whose name was Eth. U n l i k e the others i n h i s group, Eth d i d not c o n s i d e r the d i f f e r e n c e s between h i s group and other groups as something to be f e a r e d , or as something to be envied, or as something to be laughed a t , but i n s t e a d , Eth pondered the source of these d i f f e r e n c e s . Eth saw t h a t even though the groups were d i f f e r e n t , a l l the groups were made up of people, and even though they spoke d i f f e r e n t languages, a l l the groups d i d speak some language. In short, whereas a l l the others i n the group saw on l y d i f f e r e n c e , Eth saw, a l b e i t not c l e a r l y , some s i m i l a r i t y and r e f l e c t e d upon t h i s s i m i l a r i t y . The Mighty Creator of a l l of these groups saw t h a t among a l l the confused and f e a r f u l people t h a t Eth was not a f r a i d and t h a t he r e f l e c t e d upon the f e a r of o t h e r s . To reward Eth f o r h i s prudence, the Mighty C r e a t o r l i f t e d Eth i n t o the heavens and bestowed upon him the v i s i o n t h a t allowed him to see the source of these d i f f e r e n c e s . With h i s new v i s i o n , Eth saw t h a t a l l the s o u l s , as they were on t h e i r way to being born as m o r t a l s , were commanded to form a l i n e i n f r o n t of the Mighty C r e a t o r . - 146 -The M i g h t y C r e a t o r a d d r e s s e d the s o u l s and t o l d them t h a t each and e v e r y one o f them would r e c e i v e a l l t h a t was n e c e s s a r y f o r them t o l i v e as m o r t a l s . The s o u l s were t o l d by t h e M i g h t y C r e a t o r t h a t each and ev e r y one o f them would be g i v e n g i f t s t h a t would enable them t o l i v e as m o r t a l s and t h a t a l t h o u g h t h e s e g i f t s took d i f f e r e n t forms, t h e y were o f t h e same v a l u e and one g i f t was no b e t t e r , o r no worse, than t h e n e x t . R e a l i z i n g t h a t the M i g h t y C r e a t o r would hand a l l o f them g i f t s o f e q u a l v a l u e , the s o u l s were calmed and no one s o u l r u s hed t o r e c e i v e h i s g i f t f i r s t s i n c e a l l t h e g i f t s were t h e same. The s o u l s formed t h e l i n e i n a q u i e t , o r d e r e d way and p a t i e n t l y a w a i t e d t h e M i g h t y C r e a t o r t o hand out t h e g i f t s . Now E t h saw t h a t t o the r i g h t o f t h e M i g h t y C r e a t o r was a l a r g e c o n t a i n e r i n w h i c h a l l t h e g i f t s were c o n t a i n e d . He saw, t o o , t h a t as t h e M i g h t y C r e a t o r r eached i n t o the c o n t a i n e r , he l o o k e d away so as not t o see what g i f t he was s e l e c t i n g and t h u s t h e g i f t s were handed out randomly. And E t h saw t h a t t h i s was good. S i n c e each g i f t was of t h e same v a l u e i t was b e s t t o hand them out randomly. J u s t b e f o r e t h e M i g h t y C r e a t o r handed out the g i f t s , he a d d r e s s e d the s o u l s once more. The M i g h t y C r e a t o r t o l d t h e s o u l s t h a t he was C u l t u r e and t h a t each o f t h e g i f t s t h ey were t o r e c e i v e were a form, a • m a n i f e s t a t i o n o f , C u l t u r e . So - 147 -whereas some o f t h e s o u l s were handed magic, and o t h e r s s c i e n c e , each was handed C u l t u r e i n t h a t they were handed i t s m a n i f e s t a t i o n . C u l t u r e , t h e M i g h t y C r e a t o r , t h e n t o l d t h e s o u l s t h a t t h e y were t o t a k e t h e i r g i f t s o f C u l t u r e and when they were b o r n , t h e y would l i v e i n groups t h a t would appear d i f f e r e n t from one an o t h e r s i n c e t h e i r g i f t s o f C u l t u r e came i n d i f f e r e n t forms. He then t o l d them t h a t w h i l e a l l t h e groups would be d i f f e r e n t from one a n o t h e r , i n s m a l l e r o r l a r g e r d e g r e e s , t h e y would a l l be u n i f i e d i n t h a t t h e y had a l l r e c e i v e d t h e g i f t of C u l t u r e . The s o u l s saw t h a t t h i s was good and, each i n t u r n , r e c e i v e d h i s g i f t and thanked C u l t u r e , t h e M i g h t y C r e a t o r , f o r the g i f t o f u n i t y . As t h e s o u l s r e c e i v e d t h e i r g i f t s , t h ey proceeded t o t h e l e f t where one o f t h e M i g h t y C r e a t o r ' s a s s i s t a n t s l e d them t o a r i v e r and commanded them t o d r i n k . As the s o u l s drank from t h e w a t e r s o f t h e r i v e r , w h i c h was named the F o r g e t f u l R i v e r , t h e y f o r g o t a l l t h a t the M i g h t y C r e a t o r t o l d them and f o r g o t t h a t when t h e y had r e c e i v e d g i f t s such as magic o r s c i e n c e , t h a t t h e y had r e c e i v e d C u l t u r e . Thus, when t h e y were b o r n , h a v i n g f o r g o t t e n t h a t t h e y had r e c e i v e d C u l t u r e , t h e s o u l s thought t h a t t h e i r g i f t s , w h i c h were a c t u a l l y the m a n i f e s t a t i o n s o f C u l t u r e , were the r e a l and n a t u r a l t h i n g s . The s o u l s t h a t r e c e i v e d magic th o u g h t t h a t magic was the n a t u r a l and b e s t way t o l i v e , whereas the - 148 -s o u l s t h a t r e c e i v e d s c i e n c e thought t h a t s c i e n c e was the n a t u r a l and b e s t way t o l i v e and on i t went w i t h the o t h e r g i f t s . But b e f o r e the M i g h t y C r e a t o r , C u l t u r e , r e t u r n e d E t h t o h i s group on e a r t h , he s a t and spoke w i t h E t h . Seeing t h a t h i s p e o p l e l i v e d i n f e a r and c o n f u s i o n on e a r t h , the M i g h t y C r e a t o r commanded E t h t o r e t u r n t o e a r t h , and as payment f o r t h e reward o f b e i n g g i v e n t h e v i s i o n of g e n e s i s , t h e M i g h t y C r e a t o r bestowed upon E t h t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o f s p e a k i n g t h e t r u t h t o h i s p e o p l e and thus d e l i v e r i n g them out o f i g n o r a n c e by r e m i n d i n g them o f what they had f o r g o t t e n when th e y drank from t h e F o r g e t f u l R i v e r . C u l t u r e i n s t r u c t e d E t h t o go back t o e a r t h and t r a v e l among t h e many and v a r i o u s groups. E t h was f u r t h e r i n s t r u c t e d t h a t h i s t a s k , now t h a t he had r e c e i v e d d i v i n e v i s i o n , would be t o see u n i t y where a l l o t h e r s saw d i f f e r e n c e . E t h was g i v e n t h e t a s k o f s e a r c h i n g o u t t h e d i f f e r e n c e s among the groups and s e e i n g how each o f t h e s e d i f f e r e n c e s was a m a n i f e s t a t i o n o f C u l t u r e ' s g i f t o f H i m s e l f . But then C u l t u r e , t h e M i g h t y C r e a t o r , bestowed upon E t h t h e most d i v i n e t a s k o f a l l . C u l t u r e i n s t r u c t e d E t h t o : speak o n l y t h e t r u t h , t o speak o n l y C u l t u r e . But C u l t u r e warned E t h t h a t because t h i s was t h e most d i v i n e t a s k of a l l , i t was a l s o t h e most d i f f i c u l t t a s k o f a l l . C u l t u r e t o l d E t h t h a t because he, E t h , was a mere m o r t a l , he c o n t i n u a l l y f a c e d - 149 -the danger of s p e a k i n g from h i s own mouth r a t h e r t h a n from the mouth o f C u l t u r e . And t h i s , t h e danger of s p e a k i n g from h i s own mouth, C u l t u r e s a i d , was the t h i n g t h a t E t h ought t o f e a r t h e most. F o r , i f E t h was t o submit t o t h e d e s i r e s of h i s own mind, he would not speak the t r u t h and would d i s a p p o i n t t h e M i g h t y C r e a t o r who bestowed upon E t h t h i s most d i f f i c u l t t a s k o f a l l . • And f i n a l l y , C u l t u r e gave E t h the t a s k of c r u s a d e r . C u l t u r e i n s t r u c t e d E t h t h a t , i n h i s t r a v e l s , he would speak t h e t r u t h and would remind o t h e r s o f t h e t r u t h t h a t t h e y had f o r g o t t e n . E t h was i n s t r u c t e d t o t e l l a l l t h e groups t h a t t h e i r g i f t s , whether t h e y were magic o r s c i e n c e or a n y t h i n g e l s e , were n e i t h e r b e t t e r nor worse t h a n t h e g i f t s r e c e i v e d by any o t h e r group. F u r t h e r m o r e , E t h was i n s t r u c t e d t o t e l l t h e groups t h a t t h e i r g i f t s were d i v i n e i n t h a t they were m a n i f e s t a t i o n s o f t h e d i v i n e and t h a t t h e y s h o u l d not be d e s t r o y e d . C u l t u r e commanded E t h t o t e l l t h e groups t h a t they s h o u l d honour n o t o n l y t h e i r own g i f t s b u t t h e g i f t s of o t h e r s . Thus, E t h was g i v e n t h e most d i f f i c u l t t a s k of a l l , t h e t a s k o f s p e a k i n g d i v i n e l y and s p r e a d i n g t h e d i v i n e word. The M i g h t y C r e a t o r , C u l t u r e , r a i s e d E t h i n t o the r e a l m of the d i v i n e and bestowed upon E t h t h e t a s k o f d e l i v e r i n g t h e p e o p l e o f e a r t h o u t o f f o r g e t f u l n e s s by o f f e r i n g them the g i f t remembrance. E t h ' s t a s k became the t a s k o f o f f e r i n g the d i v i n e . - 150 -V I I I . What i s b e i n g s a i d i n the Myth o f Eth? The Myth i s a f o r m u l a t i o n o f ethnography t h a t i s p r o v i d e d f o r by c o n c e i v i n g o f ethnography as an i n s t a n c e o f t h e o r i z i n g . In o t h e r words, t h e Myth f i n d s i t s p o s s i b i l i t y i n our d e s i r e t o f o r m u l a t e ethnography. So we can now go on t o f o r m u l a t e t h e Myth. In o t h e r words, we can now go on t o see what t h e Myth has t o say v i s - a - v i s ethnography, i . e . , how t h e Myth c o l l e c t s ethnography. Ethnography f o r m u l a t e s d i f f e r e n c e as a d i f f e r e n c e between one l i f e and a n o t h e r . Ethnography f o r m u l a t e s t h i s d i f f e r e n c e as c ogent i n s o f a r as i t i s i m p o s s i b l e f o r one l i f e t o r e a s o n w i t h a n o t h e r l i f e on t h e b a s i s o f common-sense and everyday l i f e . Thus, d i f f e r e n c e , f o r ethnography, r e c e i v e s i t s i n t e l l i g i b i l i t y and cogency from a c o n c r e t e u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f speech as i n a d e q u a t e . For ethnography, t h e inadequacy o f speech i s c o n c e i v e d o f as a problem, and as such, as a problem t h a t r e q u i r e s a s o l u t i o n . The problem o f speech i s posed by ethnography c o n c r e t e l y as t h e problem of one l i f e n o t b e i n g a b l e t o speak w i t h a n o t h e r . C u l t u r e and membership become, f o r ethnography, d i s c o v e r i e s , i . e . , t h e y a r e t h e e t h n o g r a p h i c d i s c o v e r y , w h i c h i s t o say t h e e t h n o g r a p h i c c r e a t i o n , o f a s o l u t i o n t o the - 151 -problem o f speech. Common-sense and everyday l i f e become, f o r ethnography, r e f l e c t i o n s o f , m a n i f e s t a t i o n s of o r appearances o f t h e R e a l i t y o f c u l t u r e . So when speech ( c o n c r e t e l i f e ) speaks, i t speaks c u l t u r e and membership. For ethnography, r e a s o n becomes p e r s o n i f i e d i n c u l t u r e and membership and t h u s c u l t u r e and membership become ethnography's s o l u t i o n t o t h e problem of speech i n s o f a r as e v e r y l i f e speaks c u l t u r e and membership and l i v e s , h a v i n g c u l t u r e and membership i n common, can now speak w i t h one a n o t h e r . From t h e e t h n o g r a p h i c p o i n t o f v i e w , a l l l i v e s do t h e same, i . e . , t h e y speak from t h e i r c u l t u r e and membership and t h u s a l l l i v e s can speak c u l t u r e and membership t o one a n o t h e r . So ethnography o f f e r s us a s o l u t i o n t o t h e problem o f speech by g e t t i n g us beyond t h e impasse o f not b e i n g a b l e t o speak w i t h one a n o t h e r . What ethnography o f f e r s , t h e n , i s a r e c o n c i l a t i o n o f t h e d i f f e r e n c e between one l i f e and a n o t h e r . So i n a c o n c r e t e sense, what ethnography says i s t h a t whereas one c u l t u r e may have s c i e n c e and a n o t h e r magic, i t i s by v i r t u e of h a v i n g s c i e n c e o r magic t h a t we (members) have c u l t u r e and membership and i t i s by v i r t u e o f h a v i n g t h i s t h i n g ( c u l t u r e and membership) i n common t h a t d i f f e r e n t c u l t u r e s can speak w i t h one a n o t h e r . But what ethnography does n o t say, i s why what i t (ethnography) has t o say i s w o r t h s a y i n g , i . e . , ethnography does not a d d r e s s t h e Good toward w h i c h i t s speech aims. And how c o u l d i t , s i n c e ethnography says t h e r e i s n o t h i n g Other t o say, i . e . , i n - 152 -s p e a k i n g c u l t u r e and membership, ethnography has spoken the f i n a l word and so, how can ethnography have a n y t h i n g Other t o say? Ethnography, t h e n , proposes t o say something ( e x p l a i n and a c c o u n t f o r ) about how a l l men speak. That i s , a l l men speak d i f f e r e n t l y and ethnography f o r m u l a t e s how a l l men speak ( c u l t u r a l l y ) as a way o f s p e a k i n g t h a t goes beyond t h e d i f f e r e n c e s . So ethnography c o n c e i v e s o f one l i f e s p e a k i n g d i f f e r e n t l y from a n o t h e r b u t , n e v e r t h e l e s s , each l i f e speaks from c u l t u r e so ethnography o f f e r s t h e many and v a r i o u s l i v e s u n i t y . And, f o r ethnography, u n i t y i s t h e speakable t h i n g t h a t i s c u l t u r e and membership. In t h i s sense, c u l t u r e and membership i s ethnography's o f f e r i n g of a t e c h n i c a l s o l u t i o n t o t h e problem o f speech as d i f f e r e n c e . So ethnography o f f e r s c u l t u r e and membership as a way t o r e c o n c i l e men t o one a n o t h e r . On t h i s v i e w , we (members) no l o n g e r have r e a s o n t o f e e l angry, contemptuous, e n v i o u s , f e a r f u l , e t c . , about one a n o t h e r s i n c e any man c a n see t h a t j u s t as he has c u l t u r e and membership, so does an o t h e r . Ethnography becomes a c r u s a d e , i t comes t o t h e w o r l d t o save i t from the n e g a t i v e e f f e c t s o f d i f f e r e n c e by o f f e r i n g the s o u r c e o f the d i f f e r e n c e , the s o u r c e t h a t u n i f i e s . Ethnography c r u s a d e s so t h a t i t can d i s p e l t h a t e v a l u a t i o n o f d i f f e r e n c e . - 153 -So ethnography i s t h e c r u s a d e t h a t reminds. Ethnography reminds us t h a t whereas we may l i v e d i f f e r e n t l y from o t h e r s , t h e s e d i f f e r e n c e s a r e not t o be e v a l u a t e d as good o r bad s i n c e i n t h e d i f f e r e n c e i s t o be found u n i t y . Ethnography seeks t o remind us t h a t i n the d i f f e r e n c e i s t o be found sameness i n s o f a r as d i f f e r e n c e i s d i f f e r e n c e o n l y i n s o f a r as i t i s a m a n i f e s t a t i o n o f c u l t u r e and memberhip. So ethnography reminds us t o be humble; i t reminds us t h a t t h e d i f f e r e n c e between t h e way we l i v e and the way o t h e r s l i v e a r e n o t t o be e v a l u a t e d s i n c e we (we and t h e o t h e r s ) have c u l t u r e and membership. That one man has magic w h i l e t h e o t h e r has s c i e n c e i s n o t t o be e v a l u a t e d s i n c e t h a t i s happenstance. In h a v i n g magic o r s c i e n c e b o t h men have c u l t u r e and membership and t h u s magic and s c i e n c e become me r e l y c o n t i n g e n t . So ethnography t e l l s us t h a t we a r e not r e s p o n s i b l e , we a r e n o t t o be blamed, f o r t h e f a c t t h a t we have magic o r s c i e n c e , e t c . , one man i s no b e t t e r o r worse than a n o t h e r , s i n c e what we have, our c u l t u r a l t h i n g s , a r e what we were handed. So members a r e not r e s p o n s i b l e f o r c u l t u r a l t h i n g s s i n c e c u l t u r a l t h i n g s a r e p r o v i d e d and a r e n o t a m a t t e r o f c h o i c e . Ethnography c r u s a d e s because we (members) are not aware t h a t we have c u l t u r e and membership s i n c e we see o n l y d i f f e r e n c e and n o t u n i t y . So ethnography c r u s a d e s as a way - 154 -t o make us (members) aware o f our e s s e n t i a l i t y ( c u l t u r e and membership) and c r u s a d e s t o remind us o f t h a t w h i c h we have f o r g o t t e n . Ethnography seeks t o d e - t r i b a l i z e the t r i b e . Ethnography seeks t o wake us from our s l e e p o f f o r g e t f u l n e s s and seeks t o remind us, i . e . , t o make us r e a l i z e , t h a t t h e d i f f e r e n c e between one l i f e and a n o t h e r ought n ot t o be e v a l u a t d s i n c e t h a t d i f f e r e n c e i s a mere. 1 appearance o f a R e a l ( c u l t u r e and membership). By r e m i n d i n g us t h a t a l l d i f f e r e n c e i s t r i v i a l , by t r i v i a l i z i n g d i f f e r e n c e , ethnography o f f e r s t h e s e r v i c e o f r e c o n c i l i n g a l l men t o d i f f e r e n c e . So what ethnography seeks t o do i s t o make us (members) r e a l i z e c u l t u r e and membership. That i s , ethnography seeks t o R e a l - i z e c u l t u r e and membership, i . e . , t o f o r m u l a t e c u l t u r e and membership as the R e a l . F o r ethnography, t h e r e i s no need t o go beyond c u l t u r e and membership. So what ethnography o f f e r s i s c u l t u r a l r e l a t i v i s m , o r b e t t e r c u l t u r a l R e a l a t i v i s m . Ethnography need n o t go beyond c u l t u r e and membership s i n c e ethnography u n d e r s t a n d s i t s e l f as d i s c o v e r i n g t h e R e a l ; ethnography i s c u l t u r a l R e a l a t i v i t y . ., And t h e o f f e r i n g t h a t ethnography o f f e r s so f r e e l y i s an o f f e r i n g t h a t ethnography does not c o n s i d e r i t s own. Ethnography i s f r e e w i t h i t s reminder b u t not f r e e enough t o t u r n i t s r e m i n d e r upon i t s e l f . But t h i s s o r t of t u r n i n g would be i n c o n c e i v a b l e t o ethnography. F o r , ethnography cannot - 155 -c o n c e i v e o f a n y t h i n g i t has f o r g o t t e n . F o r ethnography, t h e r e i s n o t h i n g Other than c u l t u r e and membership and so, ethnography cannot c o n c e i v e o f i t s own f o r g e t f u l n e s s s i n c e t h e r e i s n o t h i n g Other t o f o r g e t . S i n c e , f o r ethnography, c u l t u r e and membership i s n a t u r a l , e s s e n t i a l , f i r s t and thus p e r f e c t , and s i n c e ethnography c o n c e i v e s of c u l t u r e and membership as a t h i n g t h a t can be spoken, ethnography c o n c e i v e s o f i t s own t a s k as s p e a k i n g p e r f e c t l y , i . e . , as s p e a k i n g c u l t u r e and membership. So when ethnography speaks, i t does n o t c o n c e i v e o f i t s own speech as r e q u i r i n g g r o u n d i n g , s i n c e i t s speech i s e s s e n t i a l and n a t u r a l and thus i s ground. So what ethnography speaks i s not i t s own i n t h a t ethnography speaks c u l t u r e and membership ( p e r f e c t i o n ) and thus ethnography has no d e s i r e t o ground what i t c o n c e i v e s o f as the ground. Ethnography can do a l l o f t h i s o n l y when i t f o r g e t s t h a t i t speaks, when i t f o r g e t s t h a t i t d e c i d e s , when i t f o r g e t s t h a t i t recommends a l i f e , when i t f o r g e t s t h a t i t i s e t h i c a l , and ethnography does a l l o f t h i s f o r g e t t i n g i n t h e name o f r e m i n d i n g . IX. What, t h e n , i s our o f f e r i n g ? What do we o f f e r ? We speak o f ethnography as an o f f e r i n g , w h i c h i s t o say we speak - 156 -o f speech as an o f f e r i n g , and so, we must speak o f our speech as an o f f e r i n g . Perhaps t h e b e s t way t o b e g i n t h i s d i s c u s s i o n i s t o e x p l i c a t e o ur f o r m u l a t i o n o f speech as an o f f e r i n g . In C h apter 4, we f o r m u l a t e d Meno's d e f i n i t i o n ( s ) of v i r t u e as an o f f e r i n g . C o n c e i v e d c o n c r e t e l y , what Meno spoke, i . e . , h i s words, h i s sounds, would be u n d e r s t o o d as Meno's o f f e r i n g i n s o f a r as what would be examined would be t h e c o r r e c t n e s s , o r t h e adequacy, o r t h e a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s , o r some such t h i n g , o f what Meno spoke. I n o t h e r words, Meno's speech would have t o be t r e a t e d as a l l t h e r e i s t o he a r , as a l l t h e r e i s i s what Meno speaks, as a l l t h e r e i s i s speech. When speech i s thus e l e v a t e d t o t h e r e a l m o f e s s e n t i a l i t y , and when o f f e r i n g i s u n d e r s t o o d c o n c r e t e l y , speech must be s e g r e g a t e d from t h e speaker so t h a t the w o r t h w h i l e n e s s o f t h e o f f e r i n g can be e v a l u a t e d . T h i s i s t o say t h a t a c o n c r e t e c o n c e p t i o n o f o f f e r i n g as a l l t h e r e i s t o hear i s speech, makes r e f e r e n c e t o an engagement w i t h the aboutness o f speech. T h i s v i e w makes i t n e c e s s a r y t o hear speech as about some t h i n g . T h i s c o n c r e t e c o n c e p t i o n o f speech u n d e r s t a n d s speech as w o r t h w h i l e when speech can be s e g r e g a t e d from t h e speaker. T h i s i s so because i f speech cannot be s e g r e g a t e d from t h e speaker then t h e t h i n g w h i c h t h e speech i s about, e.g., v i r t u e , i s u n d e r s t o o d as t h e i d i o s y n c r a t i c - 157 -c r e a t i o n o f t h e speaker (bad speech) and not t h e c r e a t i o n of t h e t h i n g t h a t t h e speech i s heard t o be about (good s p e e c h ) . So, i n t h i s sense, t h e o f f e r i n g t h a t a c o n c r e t e t r e a t m e n t o f speech g e n e r a t e s i s t h e o f f e r i n g o f speech as a t h i n g t h a t i s f i r s t and e s s e n t i a l and thus the o f f e r i n g o f s e g r e g a t i o n o f speech from speaker. T h i s c o n c r e t e c o n c e p t i o n o f speech g e n e r a t e s a n o t i o n of o f f e r i n g t h a t i s c o n c r e t e because when speech i s t r e a t e d as a l l t h e r e i s t o hear, what i s o f f e r e d i s d e f i n i t u d e , f i n a l i t y , and p e r f e c t i o n . The r e l a t i o n t h a t c o n c r e t e speech demands i s one o f e v a l u a t i o n . As an o f f e r i n g of a p e r f e c t t h i n g , speech must be heard e v a l u a t i v e l y and c o n v e r s a t i o n becomes d e g e n e r a t e l y f o r m u l a t e d as improvement and c o r r e c t i o n . Speech c o n c e i v e d o f c o n c r e t e l y , as t h e o f f e r i n g o f a p e r f e c t t h i n g , must f i r s t be e v a l u a t e d where e v a l u a t i o n i s c o n c e i v e d of as d e t e r m i n i n g whether o r not i t i s p e r f e c t (a g l a n c e a t any s o c i a l s c i e n c e r e s e a r c h t e x t b o o k w i l l p r o v i d e many f o r m u l a t i o n s o f t h i s a c t i v i t y ) , a f t e r w h i c h c o n v e r s a t i o n t a k e s t h e form o f h u m i l i t y t o p e r f e c t i o n o r t h e form o f i m p r o v i n g or c o r r e c t i n g t h e speech under t h e a u s p i c e s of p e r f e c t i o n as a m o t i v a t i o n and aim. So what i s i t t h a t our speech o f f e r s ? We o f f e r a f o r m u l a t i o n o f ethnography, and y e t , we do not o f f e r t h i s f o r m u l a t i o n i n t h e s p i r i t o f d e f i n i t u d e , c o m p l e t i o n o r f i n a l i t y . T h i s i s t o say, t h a t we do not o f f e r our speech, - 158 -our f o r m u l a t i o n o f ethnography, as a t h i n g t h a t i s now t o be e v a l u a t e d . I n o t h e r words, f o r m u l a t i o n i s not i n t e n d e d c o n c r e t e l y i n t h e sense o f a d e s c r i p t i o n . So whether our speech i s good o r n o t cannot be d e c i d e d on t h e b a s i s o f whether o r n o t i t i s a t h i n g t h a t c o r r e s p o n d s t o some o t h e r t h i n g , namely ethnography. F o r , t h a t would be t o c o n s i d e r ethnography as a t h i n g i n t h e w o r l d r a t h e r than as a method f o r g e n e r a t i n g ethnography as a t h i n g i n the w o r l d and as a method f o r g e n e r a t i n g t h e i d e a o f a w o r l d . Our c o n c e p t i o n o f speech does n ot make i t p o s s i b l e t o t r e a t ethnography as a t h i n g i n the w o r l d about w h i c h o t h e r speech can be g e n e r a t e d and where t h i s aboutness i s c o n s t i t u t e d as our o f f e r i n g . We c o n c e i v e o f speech as a concealment i n t h e sense t h a t speech c o n c e a l s language. Thus, we do not l i s t e n t o what speech speaks s i n c e t h a t would be t o c o n c e i v e o f speech as e s s e n t i a l , r a t h e r we l i s t e n t o what speech s a y s , we l i s t e n t o what speech c o v e r s o v e r , we l i s t e n t o language. I n s o f a r as we l i s t e n t o what speech s a y s , i n s o f a r as we l i s t e n t o language, our speech, our f o r m u l a t i o n o f ethnography, i s our attempt t o f o r m u l a t e t h e language of ethnography. Language p r o v i d e s f o r t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f speech and i s , a t t h e same t i m e , c o n c e a l e d by speech and as t h a t w h i c h g e n e r a t e s speech, language cannot be spoken. F o r , when we speak, when we o f f e r our f o r m u l a t i o n of ethnography, we, t o o , c o n c e a l what we say, c o n c e a l language. - 159 -So even as speech r e v e a l s language, even as • ethnography i s f o r m u l a t e d , t h a t v e r y f o r m u l a t i o n i s not language i n s o f a r as i t i s n o t an o f f e r i n g o f t h e t h i n g language s i n c e .': language i s n o t a t h i n g . We l i s t e n t o what speech s a y s , i . e . , we l i s t e n t o what ethnography s a y s . And, our f o r m u l a t i o n o f ethnography, our speech, i s an o f f e r i n g o f what we hear i n s o f a r as when we speak, we o f f e r language. We speak, we f o r m u l a t e ethnography, as an o c c a s i o n t o d i s p l a y , and make r e f e r e n c e t o , our commitment. We a r e committed t o l i s t e n i n g t o what speech s a y s , t o language, and our f o r m u l a t i o n of ethnography i s our o c c a s i o n t o e x e m p l i f y t h a t commitment. We do not c o n c e i v e o f ethnography, o r , f o r t h a t m a t t e r , we do n o t c o n c e i v e o f any speech, i n c l u d i n g our own, as the o f f e r i n g o f words and sounds s i n c e t h a t i s a meagre o f f e r i n g t h a t f o r g e t s what i t t r u l y o f f e r s . We f o r m u l a t e d H e idegger's "Man speaks." as "Man l i v e s . " , and as such, what speech t r u l y o f f e r s i s a l i f e t h a t i t recommends as v i r t u o u s and good. Speech, t h e n , i s a s u r f a c e r e f l e c t i o n of t h a t l i f e and speech r e - a c h i e v e s t h a t l i f e on each and e v e r y o c c a s i o n . There a r e many d i f f e r e n t l i v e s , but t h e r e i s o n l y one i d e a o f l i f e and i t i s t o t h i s i d e a t h a t our speech p o i n t s and makes r e f e r e n c e . So what speech says i s l i f e and, as such, what speech o f f e r s i s l i f e . - 160 -So what our speech o f f e r s i s l i f e . Our speech i n v i t e s f o r m u l a t i o n i n s o f a r as i t o f f e r s l i f e and i n s o f a r as i t o f f e r s i t s e l f as an example of l i f e . As examplary, our speech can onl y be t r e a t e d as an o c c a s i o n to address and r e - a c h i e v e a commitment to the e s s e n t i a l i t y of the one idea o f l i f e . So we use ethnography as an o c c a s i o n to d i s p l a y , and make r e f e r e n c e t o , our commitment, i . e . , as an o c c a s i o n t o r e - a c h i e v e S e l f and we o f f e r our speech f o r o c c a s i o n i n g as a way to re - a c h i e v e and c o l l e c t S e l f . FOOTNOTES Is t h i s not P i t k i n ' s (1972) f o r m u l a t i o n of S o c r a t e s ' speech on j u s t i c e ? (see f o o t n o t e 4, Chapter 3) T h i s i s t o say t h a t members c o n c e i v e o f some o f the c o n c r e t e d i f f e r e n c e s between c u l t u r e s , i . e . , some o t h e r way of l i f e , as u n n a t u r a l . Ethnography, t h e n , s e r v e s t o remind us t h a t whereas we may c o n c e i v e o f some way o f l i v i n g as u n n a t u r a l , t h a t way o f l i v i n g i s , n e v e r t h e l e s s , n a t u r a l because i t i s c u l t u r e . So ethnography reminds us o f our n a t u r a l n e s s and thus c h i d e s us f o r our f o r m u l a t i o n o f any p a r t i c u l a r l i f e as bad. M u l l i n (1979:47) i n h i s f o r m u l a t i o n o f phenomenology, says t h a t "To know one l i v e s i n a f i n i t e p r o v i n c e i s t o know i t i s i m p o s s i b l e t o e x p e r i e n c e what i s s t r a n g e ; and t h i s i s good because f a m i l i a r i t y i n s u r e s i d e n t i t y . . . F o r the mundane w o r l d i s t h a t t o wh i c h and w i t h i n w h i c h no man i s s t r a n g e . Thus t o o r i e n t t o t h a t w o r l d i s t o overcome t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f meeting s t r a n g e r s , s i n c e everyone can be seen t o b e l o n g t o i t . " So by f o r m u l a t i n g t h e c o n c r e t e d i f f e r e n c e between one l i f e and a n o t h e r as e s s e n t i a l , i . e . , by f o r m u l a t i n g c u l t u r e as e s s e n t i a l , ethnography g e n e r a t e s f a m i l i a r i t y between one l i f e and a n o t h e r . Ethnography u n d e r s t a n d s s t r a n g e n e s s as t h r e a t e n i n g - as t h r e a t e n i n g t o t h e c o n c e p t i o n o f c u l t u r e as e s s e n t i a l - and, t h e r e f o r e , u n d e r s t a n d s s t r a n g e n e s s as p o t e n t i a l l y d e s t r u c t i v e t o the t r u e u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f man's i d e n t i t y as c u l t u r e . F o r ethnography, s t r a n g e n e s s f o r m u l a t e d c o n c r e t e l y as the d i f f e r e n c e between one c u l t u r e and a n o t h e r , i s l a c k o f u n d e r s t a n d i n g . To see a c u l t u r e as s t r a n g e , t h e n , i s n o t t o see c u l t u r e a t a l l and i s t h u s n ot t o see the c o l l e c t i b i l i t y , t o g e t h e r n e s s , o f men i d e n t i f i a b l e as c u l t u r e . So ethnography reminds us o f our t o g e t h e r n e s s , o f our c u l t u r e , and says t h a t t h e r e i s no p o s s i b i l i t y o f s t r a n g e n e s s and so, says t h e r e i s no p o s s i b i l i t y o f a n y t h i n g e l s e o t h e r t h a n c u l t u r e i n s o f a r a s , f o r ethnography, c u l t u r e i s f i r s t , a b s o l u t e and n a t u r a l . - 162 -3 Members conceive of the concrete d i f f e r e n c e between l i v e s as n a t u r a l i n th a t members conceive of t h e i r concrete l i f e as n a t u r a l . Ethnography conceives of the d i f f e r e n c e between concrete l i v e s as n a t u r a l because concrete l i v e s are l i v e s formulated as c u l t u r e . In t h i s sense, ethnography and membership , are the same and where they d i f f e r i s that ethnography w i l l remind membership that one concrete l i f e i s as n a t u r a l as another. 4 This i s to say th a t ethnography o f f e r s us speechless-ness by reminding us that i t i s not we who speak, but i n s t e a d , i t i s c u l t u r e who speaks. 5 In other words, ethnography can conceive of i t s e l f as an innocent reading only when i t f o r g e t s i t s g u i l t . CHAPTER 6. ETHICS I . E v e r y a r t o r a p p l i e d s c i e n c e and e v e r y s y s t e m a t i c i n v e s t i g a t i o n , and s i m i l a r l y e v e r y a c t i o n and c h o i c e , seem t o aim a t some good; t h e good, t h e r e f o r e , has been w e l l d e f i n e d as t h a t a t w h i c h a l l t h i n g s aim. But i t i s c l e a r t h a t t h e r e i s a d i f f e r e n c e i n t h e ends a t w h i c h they aim: i n some ca s e s th e a c t i v i t y i s the end, i n o t h e r s the end i s some p r o d u c t beyond the a c t i v i t y . In c a s e s where t h e end l i e s beyond the a c t i o n t h e p r o d u c t i s n a t u r a l l y s u p e r i o r t o the a c t i v i t y . ( A r i s t o t l e , 1094a) T h i s i s what A r i s t o t l e has t o t e l l us; t h a t t h e good i s " . . . t h a t a t w h i c h a l l t h i n g s aim.", and " S i n c e t h e r e a r e many a c t i v i t i e s , a r t s , and s c i e n c e s , t h e number of ends i s c o r r e s p o n d i n g l y l a r g e . . . " . ( i b i d . ) So what A r i s t o t l e wants t o t e l l us i s t h a t a l l t h i n g s (speeches) f i n d t h e i r a u s p i c e s i n t h e good toward w h i c h they aim. And s u r e l y t h i s i s something i m p o r t a n t f o r A r i s t o t l e t o t e l l us b u t t h e i mportance o f t h i s remark' d i m i n i s h e s when, w i t h Blum (1978:1), we see t h a t A r i s t o t l e proceeds " . . . t o c o n c r e t i z e t h e v e r y u n d e r s t a n d i n g from w h i c h th e remark i s s u e s . . . " . How can we b e g i n t o t h i n k o f A r i s t o t l e ' s remark t h a t the good i s " t h a t a t w h i c h a l l t h i n g s aim" and Blum's remark . t h a t A r i s t o t l e proceeds " t o c o n c r e t i z e t h e v e r y u n d e r s t a n d i n g - 164 -from w h i c h t h e remark i s s u e s " ? How i s i t t h a t A r i s t o t l e c an say something w o n d e r f u l and t h e n proceed t o remove t h a t wonder? How i s i t t h a t A r i s t o t l e does not wonder about t h e v e r y wonder o f what he says? S o c r a t e s says t h a t t h e good i s " . . . r e s p o n s i b l e f o r whatever i s r i g h t and v a l u a b l e i n a n y t h i n g . . . " . (The R e p u b l i c , 517c) So t h e good f o r S o c r a t e s , i s t h a t a t w h i c h what i s r i g h t and v a l u a b l e i n a t h i n g aims. T h i s i s t o say t h a t a t h i n g i s r i g h t and v a l u a b l e i n s o f a r as i t aims a t t h e good t h a t endows i t w i t h r i g h t n e s s and v a l u e . What i s t r u l y r i g h t and v a l u a b l e , t h e n , i s t o be a d d r e s s e d when t h i n g s (speeches) are u n d e r s t o o d as usage t h a t c o v e r over what i s t r u l y r i g h t and v a l u a b l e . The remark t h a t a l l t h i n g s aim a t the good i s s u e s from t h e S o c r a t i c u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h a t a l l t h i n g s ( a l l speeches) a r e r e f l e c t i o n s o f t h e grounds t h a t make them p o s s i b l e . Thus, t h e speech t h a t i s r i g h t and v a l u a b l e i s t h e speech t h a t r e c o g n i z e s and r e - c o l l e c t s t h e s o u r c e o f i t s r i g h t n e s s and v a l u e , namely t h e Good. I n t h i s sense, t o see the r i g h t . a n d v a l u e i n a speech i s t o r e - c o l l e c t the grounds o f t h e speech, i . e . , i s t o r e - c o l l e c t t h e s t a n d a r d o f good speech a t w h i c h any speech aims. And t h i s i s t h e S o c r a t i c r e m i n d e r ; S o c r a t e s reminds us t h a t our speech makes r e f e r e n c e t o the Good ,•  and t h a t r i g h t and v a l u a b l e speech i s speech t h a t r e - c o l l e c t s t h a t w h i c h i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r i t s r i g h t n e s s and v a l u e by a d d r e s s i n g t h e r i g h t and v a l u e , i . e . , p o s s i b i l i t y , of any speech. - 165 -And, A r i s t o t l e takes up th i s Socratic reminder when he says that the good i s "that at which a l l things aim." A r i s t o t l e surely speaks i n the Socratic s p i r i t when he says t h i s and surely speaks i n the Socratic s p i r i t when he recommends, as a philosophical task, the recovery of the good at which a l l things aim. A r i s t o t l e recognizes that what i s r i g h t and valuable i n a speech i s to be recovered in the good toward which i t aims. 0. A r i s t o t l e then goes on to say: Let us return again to our investigation into the nature of the good which we are seeking. I t i s evidently something d i f f e r e n t i n d i f f e r e n t actions and in each ar t : i t i s one thing in medicine, another i n strategy, and another again i n each of the other a r t s . What, then, i s the good of each? Is i t not that for the sake of which everything else i s done? That means i t i s health i n the case of medicine, v i c t o r y i n the case of strategy, a house i n the case of building, a d i f f e r e n t thing in the case of d i f f e r e n t arts, and i n a l l actions and. choices i t i s the end. For i t is for the sake of the end that a l l else i s done. Thus, i f there i s some one end for a l l that we do, t h i s would be the good attainable by action; i f there are several ends, they w i l l be the goods attainable by action. ( A r i s t o t l e , 1097a) Now we can see, w i t h Blum, how A r i s t o t l e proceeds t o c o n c r e t i z e t h e v e r y u n d e r s t a n d i n g from w h i c h h i s remark, the good i s " t h a t a t which a l l t h i n g s aim", i s s u e s . A r i s t o t l e - 166 -f o r m u l a t e s t h e good a t whi c h a l l t h i n g s (speech) aim as i t s e l f a t h i n g ; t h e good i s some t h i n g d i f f e r e n t i n d i f f e r e n t a c t i o n s and the t h i n g t h a t i s the good o f any a c t i o n i s o b s e r v a b l e . So A r i s t o t l e proceeds t o f o r m u l a t e the good as p r e d i c a t i o n and as o b s e r v a b l e and hence a v a i l a b l e f o r taxonomic c o n s i d e r a t i o n . A r i s t o t l e t h e n f o r m u l a t e s h i s n o t i o n of aim as end. So t h e good i s now u n d e r s t o o d by A r i s t o t l e as an end toward w h i c h a l l t h i n g s aim i n s o f a r as a l l t h i n g s a s p i r e t o r e a c h the end t h a t i s good. F o r m u l a t e d c o n c r e t e l y , t h e good now becomes an a t t a i n a b l e (speakable) t h i n g . S i n c e t h e r e a r e many a c t i o n s , i t f o l l o w s t h a t t h e r e a r e many goods and A r i s t o t l e can b e g i n t o c o l l e c t t h e m u l t i p l i c i t y o f goods, i . e . , t he m u l t i p l i c i t y o f ends, under t h e one end t h a t i s common t o a l l t h e p a r t i c u l a r ends. F o r A r i s t o t l e , t h e one common end, i . e . , t h e one common t h i n g t h a t c o l l e c t s p a r t i c u l a r i t y i s Happiness."'' So A r i s t o t l e c o n c r e t i z e s t h e n o t i o n of t h e good by f o r m u l a t i n g i t as a t h i n g t h a t i s a t t a i n a b l e (speakable) and, f o r A r i s t o t l e , t he r i g h t and v a l u a b l e speech i s a Happy speech. I n t h i s sense, A r i s t o t l e ' has w r e s t e d speech from i t s bonds i n s o f a r as Happy speech i s A r i s t o t l e ' s way t o f o r m u l a t e speech as s e l f - s u f f i c i e n t . The good no l o n g e r p o s s e s s e s speech, speech now p o s s e s s e s t h e good. So f o r A r i s t o t l e t h e good i s a c o n c r e t e end a t w h i c h speech aims where end i s - 167 -c o n c e i v e d o f c o n c r e t e l y as t h e p o i n t o f s e l f - s u f f i c i e n c y . The good a t w h i c h A r i s t o t e l i a n speech aims i s t o p o s s e s s (speak) t h a t v e r y good and, i n t h i s sense, A r i s t o t e l i a n speech aims a t f i n a l i t y and s e l f - s u f f i c i e n c y t h a t i s t o be l o c a t e d i n t h e f o r m u l a t i o n o f t h e good as an a t t a i n a b l e (speakable) end. Thus, when A r i s t o t l e speaks about r e c o v e r i n g the good o f speech, he speaks about speech as a c o u r s e o f a c t i o n t h a t aims a t a t t a i n i n g t h a t w h i c h r i g h t l y b e l o n g s t o i t , namely the good. The good, from w h i c h A r i s t o t l e ' s speech i s s u e s , i s c o n c r e t i z e d by A r i s t o t l e as a t h i n g and, as a t h i n g , i s spoken of by A r i s t o t l e as a t h i n g t h a t speech ought t o p o s s e s s . For A r i s t o t l e , t h e n o t i o n o f aim i s n o t h i n g more than sheer p h i l o s o p h i c a l p r o g r e s s i o n t o some end p o i n t o f s p e a k i n g p e r f e c t l y o r , as A r i s t o t l e would have i t , s p e a k i n g H a p p i l y . The S o c r a t i c remark t h a t speech aims a t some good c o n c e i v e s o f aim as t h a t w h i c h speech p o i n t s a t or t o w h i c h i t makes r e f e r e n c e . S o c r a t e s says t h a t i t i s t h e good t h a t i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r what i s r i g h t and v a l u a b l e i n a n y t h i n g and i n s o f a r as we speak, our speech aims a t , p o i n t s t o , o r makes v : r e f e r e n c e t o t h a t w h i c h i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r a l l t h i n g s . R e s p o n s i b l e speech, t h e n , i s speech t h a t aims a t making r e f e r e n c e t o t h e Good by f o r m u l a t i n g speech as an o c c a s i o n t o a d d r e s s t h a t w h i c h i s t r u l y r i g h t and v a l u a b l e . R e s p o n s i b l e - 168 -s p e e c h i s s p e e c h t h a t s p e a k s i n t u n e w i t h w h a t i s t r u l y r i g h t a n d v a l u a b l e b y r e - c o l l e c t i n g t h e r i g h t a n d v a l u a b l e i n a n y s p e e c h . R e s p o n s i b l e s p e e c h i s s p e e c h t h a t r e m e m b e r s i t s g r o u n d s a n d r e m e m b e r s i t s p o s s i b i l i t y b y r e - a c h i e v i n g t h e E t h i c , i . e . , t h e v e r y u n d e r s t a n d i n g f r o m w h i c h i t i s s u e s . A r i s t o t l e c a n p r o c e e d t o c o n c r e t i z e t h e v e r y u n d e r s t a n d i n g f r o m w h i c h h i s s p e e c h i s s u e s b y f o r g e t t i n g t h e E t h i c u n d e r whose a u s p i c e s he s p e a k s . So A r i s t o t l e ' s E t h i c s i s A r i s t o t l e ' s way t o d i v e s t s p e e c h o f i t s t r u e r i g h t n e s s a n d v a l u e . E t h i c s becomes t h e A r i s t o t e l i a n m e t h o d f o r s p e e c h n o t t o c o n c e r n i t s e l f w i t h ' r i g h t n e s s a n d v a l u e s i n c e i t c a n now p o s s e s s r i g h t n e s s a n d v a l u e a n d c o n t r o l v a l u e - j u d g e m e n t s . F o r A r i s t o t l e , e t h i c s becomes s u b j e c t - m a t t e r , t o p i c , a c o n c r e t e t h i n g , a n d A r i s t o t l e c a n s p e a k ' a b o u t e t h i c s o n l y when he f o r g e t s t h e E t h i c t h a t g r o u n d s h i s v e r y s p e a k i n g a b o u t . A r i s t o t e l i a n e t h i c s t h u s becomes a way t o f o r m u l a t e t h e f o r g e t f u l n e s s o f s p e e c h b y e n d o w i n g t h e n o t i o n o f e t h i c s w i t h p r e d i c a t i o n . E t h i c s becomes a c o n c r e t e c o n c e r n o n l y i n s o f a r as s p e e c h f o r g e t s t h e E t h i c t h a t makes i t p o s s i b l e . I I . E t h n o g r a p h y f o r m u l a t e s e t h i c s a s a c o n c e r n and a s a c o n c e r n t h a t a r i s e s f r o m i t s w o r k w h e r e w o r k i s c o n c e i v e d o f a s t h e c o n c r e t e p r o d u c t i o n o f e t h n o g r a p h i c r e s e a r c h a n d r e p o r t s . - 169. -Ethnography i s co n c e r n e d , and so i t w r i t e s about i t s c o n c e r n and f o r m u l a t e s i t s c o n c e r n as an e t h i c a l one, f o r example,, R y n k i e w i c h and S p r a d l e y , 1976; Weaver, 1973 : 1-61; F i l s t e a d , 1970:235-280. What i s ethnography's concern? What s o r t of a c o n c e r n does ethnography f o r m u l a t e f o r i t s e l f as an e t h i c a l concern? How i s i t p o s s i b l e t h a t e t h i c s can be a c o n c e r n f o r ethnography? What v e r s i o n o f e t h i c s does ethnography's f o r m u l a t i o n o f i t s e l f p r o v i d e ? One way t h a t ethnography e x p r e s s e s i t s c o n c e r n and i n t e r e s t i n e t h i c s i s t o s t r u c t u r a l l y s e g r e g a t e e t h i c s from the r e s t o f t h e e t h n o g r a p h i c r e p o r t , f o r example, Whyte, 1955:" 279-358; Humphreys, 1970:167-232; D a v i s , 1970:271-274; L o f l a n d , 1970:275-277. In t h i s sense, e t h i c s becomes, f o r ethnography, an appendage t o i t s work. In o t h e r words, ethnography f i n d s e t h i c s t o be r e l e v a n t (as a problem, as a c o n s t r a i n t , as a r e s t r i c t i o n , e t c . ) o n l y a f t e r i t has f o r m u l a t e d i t s work c o n c r e t e l y as g a t h e r i n g d a t a , p r o d u c i n g d e s c r i p t i o n s , e t c . So ethnography f o r m u l a t e s e t h i c s as c o n t i n g e n t o r c o n v e n t i o n . Ethnography f o r m u l a t e s e t h i c s c o n c r e t e l y i n s o f a r as i t c o n c e i v e s o f e t h i c s as c o n t i n g e n t and c o n v e n t i o n and f o r m u l a t e s e t h i c s t e c h n i c a l l y i n s o f a r as i t c o n c e i v e s o f e t h i c s as a t r o u b l e , o r a problem, r e q u i r i n g s o l u t i o n . - 170 -But ethnography f o r g e t s t h e grounds.df i t s speech i . e . , i t f o r g e t s i t s deep d e c i s i o n t o see and l o o k ethno-g r a p h i c a l l y . Ethnography does not c o n c e i v e o f i t s speech ( i n c l u d i n g i t s speech on e t h i c s ) as a s u r f a c e r e f l e c t i o n t h a t makes r e f e r e n c e t o t h a t w h i c h p r o v i d e s f o r i t s p o s s i b i l i t y , and so ethnography does not u n d e r s t a n d i t s speech about e t h i c s as y e t one more c o n c r e t e i n s t a n c e o f the. Good toward w h i c h i t s speech p o i n t s and t o wh i c h i t owes i t s p o s s i b i l i t y . Ethnography f o r g e t s t h a t i t d e c i d e s t o c r e a t e a w o r l d i n wh i c h ethnography i s a p o s s i b i l i t y and th u s f o r g e t s t h a t t h e deep d e c i s i o n t o speak e t h n o g r a p h i c a l l y i s a l r e a d y e t h i c a l . Ethnography's f o r g e t t i n g o f the E t h i c t h a t makes i t p o s s i b l e p r o v i d e s f o r ethnography's c o n c r e t e u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f e t h i c s as a problem, o r t r o u b l e , t h a t a r i s e s from i t s c o n c r e t e f o r m u l a t i o n o f i t s e l f . Ethnography does not f o r m u l a t e i t s speech as making r e f e r e n c e t o t h a t w h i c h makes i t p o s s i b l e and thus how e l s e c o u l d ethnography f o r m u l a t e e t h i c s e x c e p t as a c o n c r e t e t h i n g t h a t p r e s e n t s t r o u b l e s , problems and c o n s t r a i n t s ? Ethnography f o r m u l a t e s e t h i c s c o n c r e t e l y and f o r g e t s t h a t e t h i c s (speech) i s one more c o n c r e t e i n s t a n c e o f e t h n o g r a p n y 1 s b e g i n n i n g , i . e . , i s one more c o n c r e t e i n s t a n c e o f ethnography's deep d e c i s i o n t o c o n c e i v e o f l i f e i n a p a r t i c u l a r way, namely as c u l t u r e and s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e . And i t i s t h i s b e g i n n i n g t h a t - 171 -i s t r u l y E t h i c a l and, i n t h i s sense, the p o s s i b i l i t y o f ethnography i s a l r e a d y e t h i c a l . So ethnography's t r e a t m e n t of e t h i c s as t e c h n i c a l and c o n c r e t e i s o n l y s u p e r f i c i a l and t h u s r e l i e s upon, and makes r e f e r e n c e t o , t h e f i r s t n e s s o f E t h i c s - t h e d e c i s i o n t o l o o k and see e t h n o g r a p h i c a l l y i n the f i r s t p l a c e . Thus, ethnography f o r g e t s t h a t i t i s e t h i c a l i n t h a t i t makes an e t h i c a l d e c i s i o n t o be ethnography. Ethnography t h e n t r e a t s e t h i c s as though i t c o u l d be s e g r e g a t e d from i t s work ( f o r m u l a t e d c o n c r e t e l y ) and thus e t h i c s d e g e n e r a t e s t o an o b j e c t o f c o n c r e t e e t h n o g r a p h i c work. Ethnography t r e a t s e t h i c s as though i t a r i s e s from a c o n c r e t e f o r m u l a t i o n of e t h n o g r a p h i c work, i . e . , ethnography does not un d e r s t a n d , i t s e l f as e t h i c a l i n s o f a r as i t f o r m u l a t e s membership c o n c r e t e l y as an o b j e c t o f s t u d y , i n s o f a r as i t g a t h e r s d a t a , i n s o f a r as i t produces r e p o r t s , e t c . So ethnography f o r m u l a t e s .. c o n c r e t e e t h i c s ( c o n c r e t e speech) as f i r s t and f o r g e t s t h a t such a f o r m u l a t i o n i s a l r e a d y e t h i c a l i n s o f a r as i t r e -p r e s e n t s the deep d e c i s i o n t o c o n c e i v e o f a l i f e i n wh i c h ethnography i s p o s s i b l e . I n t h i s sense, e t h i c s may be f o r m u l a t e d as an e t e r n a l f e a t u r e o f any c o n c r e t e f o r m u l a t i o n o f e t h n o g r a p h i c work and i t i s t h i s e t e r n a l i t y t h a t ethnography f o r g e t s . What ethnography f o r g e t s i s t h a t i t s c o n c r e t e f o r m u l a t i o n o f e t h i c s ( i t s speech) makes r e f e r e n c e t o ethnography's n o t i o n - 172 -of t h e good l i f e , namely c u l t u r e and s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e . Because ethnography u n d e r s t a n d s t h e good as c o n v e n t i o n , i t f o r m u l a t e s e t h i c s c o n c r e t e l y as c o n v e n t i o n . Thus, the c o n c r e t e problems and t r o u b l e s t h a t ethnography u n d e r s t a n d s as e t h i c a l would d i s a p p e a r i f c u l t u r e s d e c i d e d t h a t t h e y d i d not mind b e i n g s t u d i e d , o r t h a t t h e y d i d not mind b e i n g o p p r e s s e d , e t c . , e t c . Co n c e i v e d o f as c o n v e n t i o n , ethnography can o n l y u n d e r s t a n d e t h i c s as an i m p o s i t i o n . C o n v e n t i o n , as t h e e t h n o g r a p h i c good, has the r i g h t t o impose i t s e l f s i n c e , a f t e r a l l , c o n v e n t i o n i s , f o r ethnography, f i r s t , n a t u r a l and a b s o l u t e . E t h i c s i s thus ethnography's way t o r e s p e c t t h e f i r s t and n a t u r a l and i s ethnography's way t o come t o terms w i t h t h e f i r s t n e s s and n a t u r a l n e s s o f c o n v e n t i o n . I n t h i s 2 sense, ethnography can o n l y hope; i t can o n l y hope t h a t i t can come t o terms w i t h t h e t r o u b l e s and problems t h a t i t f o r m u l a t e s as e t h i c s , or i t can o n l y hope t h a t the p a r t i c u l a r i t y of c o n v e n t i o n w i l l change and t h u s r i d t h e w o r l d o f the troublesome and p r o b l e m a t i c t h i n g t h a t i s e t h i c s . I I I . F i r s t , t h e r e was t h e q u e s t i o n o f j u s t who my i n f o r m a n t s were. Bars a r e p u b l i c p l a c e s , f r e q u e n t e d by l a r g e numbers of p e o p l e , many o f whom a r e t r a n s i e n t . A l t h o u g h my r o l e as w a i t r e s s a l l o w e d me t o i n t e r a c t w i t h and t o observe everyone i n t h e b a r , i t was o b v i o u s t h a t i t would not o n l y be i m p o s s i b l e , but inc o n g r u o u s i n terms o f b a r c u l t u r e and my r o l e i n i t , t o a t t e m p t t o i n f o r m e v e r y i n d i v i d u a l who - 173 -came i n t o Brady's o f my s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t i n them and t h e i r a c t i v i t i e s . T h i s same problem f a c e s the a n t h r o p o l o g i s t who does f i e l d w o r k i n a more t r a d i t i o n a l s e t t i n g . Does she attempt t o o f f e r an e x p l a n a t i o n t o everyone i n t h e v i l l a g e and t o g a i n everyone's p e r m i s s i o n ? Or j u s t her p r i m a r y i n f o r m a n t s ? I n my c a s e , d i d t h i s mean I s h o u l d t e l l a l l t h e customers? J u s t the employees? Or, because I was s t u d y i n g t h e p e r s p e c t i v e s . o f c o c k t a i l w a i t r e s s e s , need I g a i n o n l y t h e i r p e r m i s s i o n ? Or, f u r t h e r m o r e , s h o u l d I keep t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n e n t i r e l y t o m y s e l f ? (Mann, 1976:99) A l l r e s e a r c h i s s e c r e t i n some ways and t o some degree - we never t e l l the s u b j e c t s " e v e r y t h i n g . " We can escape s e c r e c y more o r l e s s c o m p l e t e l y ^ o n l y by making t h e . s u b j e c t s p a r t i c i p a n t s i n th e r e s e a r c h e f f o r t , and t h i s p r o c e s s , i f c a r r i e d f a r enough, means t h a t t h e r e would be no more " s u b j e c t s " . So l o n g as t h e r e e x i s t s a s e p a r a t i o n o f r o l e between the r e s e a r c h e r s and t h o s e r e s e a r c h e d upon, the g a t h e r i n g o f i n f o r m a t i o n w i l l i n e v i t a b l y have some hi d d e n a s p e c t s even i f one i s an o p e n l y d e c l a r e d o b s e r v e r . (Roth, 1970:278) How i s i t t h a t Mann and Roth can say what t h e y say? What p r o v i d e s f o r t h e i n t e l l i g i b i l i t y of t h e i r speech? They b o t h e x p r e s s some s o r t o f a concern- Mann i s concerned w i t h t h e i s s u e o f how a l l o f ethnography's . i n f o r m a n t s a r e t o be in f o r m e d about t h e r e s e a r c h (informed consent) and Roth i s concerned w i t h the i s s u e o f how an ethnographer can i n f o r m - 1 7 4 -a l l o f h i s " s u b j e c t s " about t h e r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t . Both Mann and Roth d i s p l a y a sense o f h o p e l e s s n e s s and s u b m i s s i o n . T h e i r speech d e p i c t s t h e G a r f i n k e l i a n w o r l d o f " f o r - a l l -3 p r a c t i c a l - p u r p o s e s " . I n t h i s sense, what e x i s t s f o r Mann and Roth i s t h e human c o n d i t i o n o f e s s e n t i a l i n c o m p l e t e n e s s and t h i s i s f o r m u l a t e d c o n c r e t e l y as the e s s e n t i a l l y i n c o m p l e t e s o l u t i o n t o e t h i c s c o n c e i v e d c o n c r e t e l y as a t r o u b l e and a problem. The speech o f Mann and Roth p o i n t s t o an u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e w o r l d t h a t c o n c e i v e s o f e t h i c s as a t h i n g i n t h e w o r l d . F o r Mann and Roth, e t h i c s amounts t o a c o u r s e o f a c t i o n where a c t i o n i s u n d e r s t o o d as e s s e n t i a l l y i n c o m p l e t e and t h e r e f o r e t h e i r sense o f e t h i c s i s e t h i c s f o r - a l l - p r a c t i c a l - p u r p o s e s and not e t h i c s f o r - a l l - e t h i c a l - , p u r p o s e s . Mann s e c u r e s a j o b , as a c o c k t a i l w a i t r e s s i n Brady's bar f o r t h e purpose o f c o n d u c t i n g e t h n o g r a p h i c r e s e a r c h . I n t h i s sense, she i s n o t s e e k i n g membership i n the way S c h u t z ' s s t r a n g e r o r i e n t s h i s a c t i v i t i e s t o t h e g o a l o f u n r e f l e x i v e t h i n k i n g - a s - u s u a l . I n s t e a d , Mann o r i e n t s t o her a c t i v i t i e s as a c o c k t a i l w a i t r e s s , and o r i e n t s t o t h e a c t i v i t i e s o f the o t h e r c o c k t a i l w a i t r e s s e s , as a c t i v i t i e s t h a t a r e amenable t o e t h n o g r a p h i c r e s e a r c h . So, f o r Mann, c o c k t a i l w a i t r e s s i s o r i e n t e d t o f i r s t as a methodic a c t i v i t y , and second, an a c t i v i t y worthy o f e t h n o g r a p h i c a t t e n t i o n . - 175 -A l t h o u g h Mann i s not s e e k i n g membership i n the sense o f becoming a c o c k t a i l w a i t r e s s qua c o c k t a i l w a i t r e s s , t h e r e i s one sense i n wh i c h Mann seeks membership. That i s , w o r k i n g as a c o c k t a i l w a i t r e s s , f o r Mann, i s f o r m u l a t e d as th e e t h n o g r a p h i c way t o a t t a i n p r e s e nce t o membership so t h a t i t (membership) w i l l r e v e a l i t s e l f . And t h i s d e s i r e (to have membership r e v e a l i t s e l f ) g e n e r a t e s the e t h n o g r a p h i c problem o f s i m u l t a n e o u s presence and absence. I t i s t h i s sense of work t h a t g e n e r a t e s t h e sense o f such e t h n o g r a p h i c n o t i o n s as d i s i n t e r e s t e d n e s s , detachment, o b j e c t i v i t y , e t c . Mann's n o t i o n o f e t h i c s as an e s s e n t i a l l y i n c o m p l e t e accomplishment i s p o i n t e d t o i n her (ethnography's) d e s i r e t o be e t h i c a l . Mann f i n d s , however, t h a t b e i n g e t h i c a l i s n o t an easy m a t t e r and, i n d e e d , i s a p e r p l e x i n g one. T h i s p e r p l e x i t y m a n i f e s t s i t s e l f i n t h e form o f d e c i s i o n . E t h n o g r a p h i c e t h i c s t e l l s Mann t h a t a t l e a s t one v e r s i o n of e t h i c a l ethnography, and hence one way o f b e i n g e t h i c a l , i s t o communicate her r e s e a r c h i n t e r e s t s t o t h o s e she s t u d i e s . Presumably, t h i s communication o f r e s e a r c h i n t e r e s t s w i l l i n t e r a c t i o n a l l y engage t h o s e , t o whom th e s e i n t e r e s t s a r e communicated, i n d e c i s i o n making. Having had t h e r e s e a r c h i n t e r e s t s communicated t o them, t h o s e who a r e b e i n g s t u d i e d must now d e c i d e whether o r not t h e y w i l l c o n s e n t t o b e i n g s t u d i e d . P u t d i f f e r e n t l y , Mann's problem o f d e c i d i n g who t o - 176 -communicate her r e s e a r c h i n t e r e s t s t o i s a problem of (1) d e c i d i n g who she i s s t u d y i n g and (2) o b t a i n i n g i n f o r m e d c o n s e n t , i . e . , f o r m u l a t i n g a v e r s i o n o f f r e e c o n s c i e n c e , or i n n o c e n c e , as a v e r s i o n o f good r e s e a r c h . The p r a c t i c a l problem t h a t Mann f a c e s , the problem t h a t p o i n t s t o t h e n o t i o n o f e s s e n t i a l i n c o m p l e t e n e s s , i s th e p r a c t i c a l problem o f how t o d e l i m i t membership f o r the p r a c t i c a l purposes o f p r o d u c i n g an ethnography. Mann f o r m u l a t e s t h i s problem as a p r a c t i c a l , i . e . , t e c h n i c a l , problem i n s o f a r as Mann aims a t s t u d y i n g the a c t i v i t i e s o f c o c k t a i l w a i t r e s s e s and i n s o f a r as c o c k t a i l w a i t r e s s e s i n t e r a c t and o r i e n t t o everyone i n t h e b a r , Mann i s s t u d y i n g everyone i n t h e b a r . T h i s i n c l u d e s t h o s e members of t h e b a r t h a t Mann c a l l s " t r a n s i e n t " , f o r , when t r a n s i e n t s a re i n the b a r when Mann i s i n t h e bar ( e t h n o g r a p h i c a l l y o b s e r v i n g ) then Mann i s o r i e n t i n g t o t h e s e t r a n s i e n t s e t h n o g r a p h i c a l l y and, as such, Mann f a c e s t h e p r a c t i c a l problem o f whether o r not 4 t o communicate her r e s e a r c h i n t e r e s t s t o t h e s e t r a n s i e n t s as w e l l . And, o f c o u r s e , t h i s s o r t o f r e a s o n s i n g c o u l d be extended t o i n c l u d e many o t h e r s . But, t h i s i s not p r a c t i c a l . So f o r ethnography e t h i c s i s a p r a c t i c a l m a t t e r . And a r e not t h e same n o t i o n s o f e s s e n t i a l i n c o m p l e t e n e s s o p e r a t i v e when Roth says "We never t e l l t h e s u b j e c t s e v e r y t h i n g " , o r , "We can escape s e c r e c y more o r l e s s c o m p l e t e l y . . . " ? The s o r t o f d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g t h a t Roth i s r e f e r r i n g t o , t h e n , i s - 177 n o t o n l y t h e d e c i s i o n o f who t o c o m m u n i c a t e r e s e a r c h i n t e r e s t s t o , b u t a l s o t h e d e c i s i o n o f what s h o u l d b e c o m m u n i c a t e d . A n d so f o r e t h n o g r a p h y , d e c i s i o n i s f o r m u l a t e d c o n c r e t e l y i n s o f a r a s d e c i s i o n i s c o n c e i v e d o f a s a p r a c t i c a l c o n c e r n o f what s h o u l d be s a i d t o who v i s - a - v i s r e s e a r c h i n t e r e s t s . B u t t h i s c o n c r e t e n o t i o n o f d e c i s i o n makes r e f e r e n c e t o , a n d f i n d s i t s i n t e l l i g i b i l i t y , i n t h e d e e p d e c i s i o n t o s p e a k e t h n o g r a p h i c a l l y i n t h e f i r s t p l a c e . F o r m u l a t e d c o n c r e t e l y , d e c i s i o n g e n e r a t e s e t h n o g r a p h i c a r g u m e n t s a g a i n s t c o v e r t r e s e a r c h w h e r e t h e i m p l i c i t c l a i m i s t h a t e t h n o g r a p h e r s s h o u l d t e l l t h o s e t h e y s t u d y e v e r y t h i n g . B u t , R o t h i s s u g g e s t i n g t h a t t h i s t e l l i n g o f e v e r y t h i n g i s a n e s s e n t i a l l y i n c o m p l e t e a c c o m p l i s h m e n t . What R o t h i s s a y i n g , t h e n , i s t h a t a l t h o u g h one way o f b e i n g a n e t h i c a l e t h n o g r a p h e r i s t o t e l l t h o s e s t u d i e d e v e r y t h i n g , k e e p i n g n o t h i n g s e c r e t , t h e t e l l i n g c a n n e v e r be c o m p l e t e l y a c c o m p l i s h e d . T h a t i s , R o t h i s s u g g e s t i n g t h a t f o r t h e p r a c t i c a l p u r p o s e s o f p r o d u c i n g a n e t h n o g r a p h y , some t h i n g s w i l l b e r e v e a l e d ( c o n c r e t e l y s p o k e n ) t o t h o s e s t u d i e d w h i l e o t h e r t h i n g s w i l l n o t ( w i l l be k e p t s e c r e t ) . A g a i n , a s was e x e m p l i f i e d i n M a n n ' s s p e e c h , R o t h ' s s p e e c h s u g g e s t s , t h a t f o r e t h n o g r a p h y , e t h i c s i s a p r a c t i c a l m a t t e r . I n s a y i n g t h a t e t h i c s i s a p r a c t i c a l m a t t e r , a p r o b l e m , e t h n o g r a p h y i s s a y i n g t h a t e t h i c s i s a c o n s t r a i n t . E t h n o g r a p h y f o r g e t s t h a t i t s d e e p d e c i s i o n t o s p e a k - 178 -e t h n o g r a p h i c a l l y i s a t r u l y E t h i c a l d e c i s i o n and so, i t f o r m u l a t e s e t h i c s n o t as a c o n c r e t e m a n i f e s t a t i o n of i t s E t h i c , i . e . , a n o t h e r i n s t a n c e o f e t h n o g r a p h i c speech, but as a c o n s t r a i n t t o e t h n o g r a p h i c speech. E t h i c s becomes, f o r ethnography, a c o n s t r a i n t , a problem, t h a t r e q u i r e s r e p a i r and r e s o l u t i o n so t h a t ethnography can c o n t i n u e t o speak e t h n o g r a p h i c a l l y . So ethnography wants t o f i n d a s o l u t i o n t o e t h i c s , f o r m u l a t e d as a problem, so t h a t i t can c o n t i n u e s p e a k i n g . I n a sense, t h e n , e t h i c s i s a t h o r n i n the s i d e o f ethnography t h a t r e q u i r e s removal so t h a t ethnography can be f r e e t o speak. And t h i s i s t h e e t h n o g r a p h i c u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f freedom; t h a t good speech i s p o s s i b l e o n l y when S e l f i s s e g r e g a t e d from S e l f . IV. T h i s sense o f urgency was uppermost i n my mind as I sur v e y e d t h e v i l l a g e r s who w a i t e d f o r me t o t r e a t them t h a t morning i n 1962. I had come t o I n d i a f o r one purpose; t o conduct a st u d y of a c c u l t u r a t i o n among t h e B h i l s o f s o u t h e r n R a j a s t h a n . "I'm n o t here t o become a d o c t o r o r s t a r t a m e d i c a l p r a c t i c e , " I had s a i d t o m y s e l f a g a i n and a g a i n d u r i n g t h e f i r s t months o f r e s e a r c h . I chose t o work i n R a t a k o t e , a B h i l v i l l a g e i n the A r a v a l l i H i l l s , because a r o a d had r e c e n t l y opened i t up t o o u t s i d e c o n t a c t , not because i t s p e o p l e were s i c k l y o r needed m e d i c a l a t t e n t i o n . - 179 -But now I f a c e d t h e dilemma more c l e a r l y t h a n ever b e f o r e . One man w a i t e d t o be i n t e r v i e w e d , a s t r a t e g i c a l l y i m p o r t a n t i n f o r m a n t . T w e n t y - f i v e o t h e r s w a i t e d t o be t r e a t e d , p e o p l e p l a g u e d by i l l n e s s and d i s e a s e . I n t h e back o f my mind a l a r g e r q u e s t i o n kept s u r f a c i n g : "What was I g o i n g t o be f o r the nex t y e a r , be an a n t h r o p o l o g i s t o r a paramedic?"... A n t h r o p o l o g i c a l f i e l d w o r k i s unique i n a t l e a s t one r e s p e c t . I t c r e a t e s a c l o s e s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p between a n t h r o p o l o g i s t and i n f o r m a n t . I t h i n k t h a t f o r many o f us t h i s i n t i m a c y and i n v o l v e m e n t w i t h p e o p l e was an i m p o r t a n t d r awing c a r d i n t o a n t h r o p o l o g y . I had not come t o I n d i a t o d e f i n e p e o p l e l i k e so many l a b o r a t o r y specimens o r s u b j e c t s f o r o b s e r v a t i o n . F u r t h e r m o r e , t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p s t h a t had dev e l o p e d even d u r i n g t h e s e e a r l y months had f a c i l i t a t e d my r e s e a r c h . They i n v o l v e d o b l i g a t i o n s , r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s , mutual r e s p e c t , and a w i l l i n g n e s s t o a s s i s t . And I g l a d l y a c c e p t e d t h e f a c t t h a t i t was not a one-way s t r e e t . But now something was happening i n t h e way p e o p l e d e f i n e d my r o l e i n t h e v i l l a g e . I had u n w i t t i n g l y a c q u i r e d an o b l i g a t i o n t o t r e a t i l l n e s s i n t h i s community. I had become a l o c a l h e a l e r w i t h o u t knowing i t ! (McCurdy, 197 6:7-8) What McCurdy does i s pose a problem, a problem t h a t McCurdy t r e a t s c o n c r e t e l y i n t h a t he does not ad d r e s s t h a t w h i c h g e n e r a t e s t h e problem. McCurdy went t o I n d i a under the a u s p i c e s o f some purpose, namely " . . . t o conduct a s t u d y of 5 a c c u l t u r a t i o n . . . " . B u t , s i n c e he p o s s e s s e d some m e d i c a l s k i l l s and s i n c e some o f t h e v i l l a g e r s r e q u i r e d m e d i c a l - 180 -a t t e n t i o n , McCurdy found h i m s e l f i n a p o s i t i o n t o t r e a t some o f t h e m e d i c a l problems the v i l l a g e r s had. Now, on th e s u r f a c e , i t becomes d i f f i c u l t t o c o n c e i v e of t h i s s i t u a t i o n as a problem. One way t o c o n c e i v e o f t h i s s i t u a t i o n i s t h a t McCurdy w i l l be spending the nex t year i n a v i l l a g e i n I n d i a . He d i s c o v e r s t h a t some o f the v i l l a g e r s a r e i n need o f some m e d i c a l a t t e n t i o n and t h a t , by v i r t u e o f the f a c t t h a t he p o s s e s s e s some m e d i c a l s k i l l s , he can accommodate the v i l l a g e r s . I n o t h e r words, t h e r e a r e some persons who are s i c k and McCurdy can h e l p . Presumably, the o n l y problem t h a t most would see i n t h i s s i t u a t i o n i s the v i l l a g e r s r e q u i r i n g m e d i c a l a t t e n t i o n . Not t o p r o v i d e such a t t e n t i o n , e s p e c i a l l y when one has t h e s k i l l s , would t y p i c a l l y be u n d e r s t o o d i n a n e g a t i v e sense, a sense t h a t i s c a p t u r e d i n such c u r r e n t speech as "He does not want t o g e t i n v o l v e d " . T h i s s i t u a t i o n c o u l d be u n d e r s t o o d i n some h u m a n i s t i c sense i n t h a t i t c o u l d g e t c o n c e i v e d o f as an o t h e r i n d i c a t i o n of rampant i n h u m a n i t y where one does not c a r e about h i s f e l l o w man. That i s , i t i s some c o n d i t i o n o f i n h u m a n i t y t h a t would m o t i v a t e one t o n e g l e c t t h e s i c k , when, i n f a c t , he c o u l d h e l p . And, i n f a c t , R y n k i e w i c h and S p r a d l e y (1976:1) suggest t h a t w i t h i n t h i s frame o f u n d e r s t a n d i n g "Few peopl e would say 'NoI' " when asked t o h e l p . Even though t h e s i t u a t i o n McCurdy d e s c r i b e s c o u l d be u n d e r s t o o d as un-- 181 -p r o b l e m a t i c , McCurdy n e v e r t h e l e s s c o n c e i v e s o f the s i t u a t i o n as a problem. "What was I g o i n g t o be f o r t h e n e x t y e a r , be an a n t h r o p o l o g i s t o r a paramedic?" Posed t h u s , McCurdy's q u e s t i o n f o r m u l a t e s the problem. The problem i s not t h a t McCurdy does not want t o h e l p the v i l l a g e r s by p r o v i d i n g m e d i c a l a t t e n t i o n , and as such t h a t McCurdy i s a t e r r i b l e p e r s o n . Rather.,, McCurdy's problem i s d e c i d i n g "what t o be", namely whether t o be an a n t h r o p o l o g i s t o r a paramedic. T h i s d e c i s i o n , however, i s n o t m e r e l y d e c i d i n g t o be e i t h e r an a n t h r o p o l o g i s t o r a paramedic, b u t i n v o l v e s much more. What i s i n v o l v e d i n such a d e c i s i o n i s a c o n c e p t i o n o f one's, as McCurdy p u t s i t , p urpose. The problem i s a problem o f McCurdy's r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i t h , and among, t h e v i l l a g e r s , but not o f r e l a t i o n s h i p s as i t i s t y p i c a l l y and c o n c r e t e l y f o r m u l a t e d by such g l o s s e s as i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s , i n s t e a d , i t i s the problem o f r e - a c h i e v i n g one's r e l a t i o n t o , and i n , the w o r l d v i s - a - v i s one's purpose i n t h e form o f h i s t o r y and t r a d i t i o n . For the a n t h r o p o l o g i s t , t h e n , t h e problem, as e x p r e s s e d i n t h e c o n c r e t e case o f McCurdy's problem i s t h e problem o f membership. The a n t h r o p o l o g i s t r e - a c h i e v e s h i s purpose, h i s h i s t o r y , h i s t r a d i t i o n , w h i c h i s t o say h i s p l a c e i n t h e w o r l d , by f o r m u l a t i n g t h e problems o f members ( s i c k v i l l a g e r s ) as an o c c a s i o n t o d e c i d e and r e - a c h i e v e , i n some c o n c r e t e way, a commitment t o ethnography. And, a commitment t o ethnography - 182 -i s f o r m u l a t e d by ethnography as d i s i n t e r e s t e d n e s s , detachment, o b j e c t i v i t y , e t c . , e t c . The paramedic, t h e one who h e a l s , t h e one who h e l p s , becomes u n d e r s t o o d as one who i s i n t e r e s t e d , and as such, as one who must account f o r h i s i n t e r e s t . McCurdy poses t h e problem of h a v i n g t o g i v e up ethnography i n o r d e r t o g i v e m e d i c a l h e l p . And t h i s problem i s posed as an e t h i c a l i s s u e . But, how i s t h i s an e t h i c a l i s s u e ? How i s d e c i d i n g whether o r not t o g i v e m e d i c a l h e l p f o r m u l a b l e as an e t h i c a l i s s u e ? When does McCurdy need t o d e c i d e who w i l l r e c e i v e h i s m e d i c a l h e l p ? F o r example, does t h i s d e c i s i o n f a c e McCurdy when he i s back home w i t h f r i e n d s and f a m i l y ? Does h e l p i n g a f r i e n d o r f a m i l y member i n need o f m e d i c a l a t t e n t i o n become, f o r McCurdy, an e t h i c a l i s s u e ? These q u e s t i o n s a l l o w us t o see t h a t i t i s a g a i n s t t h e background o f t h a t a t w h i c h ethnography aims t h a t t h e f o r m u l a t i o n o f h e l p i n g o t h e r s i s g e n e r a t e d and made i n t e l l i g i b l e as an e t h i c a l i s s u e . Ethnography f o r m u l a t e s the good l i f e as c u l t u r e and membership and e t h n o g r a p h i c speech aims a t p r e s e r v i n g t h e good l i f e . I n o t h e r words, ethnography does not want, l i k e S o c r a t e s , t o be a membership d i s t u r b e r . Ethnography wants t o speak membership and t o g i v e m e d i c a l a t t e n t i o n i s t o speak o t h e r w i s e . McCurdy must th e n account f o r h i s speech - h i s speech w h i c h i s not membership - by f o r m u l a t i n g i t as an e t h i c a l i s s u e . 183 -McCurdy says t h a t he " . . . u n w i t t i n g l y a c q u i r e d an o b l i g a t i o n t o t r e a t i l l n e s s i n t h i s community." and as such became "...a l o c a l h e a l e r w i t h o u t knowing i t ! " . Now, t h i s o b l i g a t i o n p r e s e n t e d McCurdy w i t h problems i n t h a t t r e a t i n g p e o p l e m e d i c a l l y t o o k time and energy away from h i s o b l i g a t i o n as an a n t h r o p o l o g i s t . T h i s problem ( f o r m u l a t e d as an e t h i c a l i s s u e ) was something t o be r e s o l v e d and overcome i f McCurdy was t o c a r r y out h i s r e s e a r c h . C l e a r l y , one s o l u t i o n t h a t was a v a i l a b l e f o r McCurdy was t o s i m p l y not p r o v i d e any m e d i c a l a t t e n t i o n . But, not o n l y would t h i s s o l u t i o n p o t e n t i a l l y endanger McCurdy's e t h n o g r a p h i c t a s k o f c o l l e c t i n g d a t a i n t h a t McCurdy would f i n d h i s i n f o r m a n t s n o t i n f o r m i n g , b u t a l s o t h i s s o l u t i o n would not r e s o l v e McCurdy's dilemma o f h a v i n g something, m e d i c a l s k i l l s , t h a t o t h e r s , by v i r t u e o f not h a v i n g them, needed. N e v e r t h e l e s s , t i m e s p e n t a t t r e a t i n g t h e v i l l a g e r s m e d i c a l l y was time wasted a t f u l f i l l i n g t h e a n t h r o p o l o g i c a l purpose. McCurdy then f o r m u l a t e s h i s i n t e r e s t i n , and d e s i r e t o , h e l p p e o p l e as a p r a c t i c a l m a t t e r , w h i c h i s t o say, as a m a t t e r o f e t h n o g r a p h i c e t h i c s . And as a p r a c t i c a l problem, e t h i c s cannot be t o l e r a t e d e t h n o g r a p h i c a l l y and thus r e q u i r e s r e s o l u t i o n . L i k e any good e t h n o g r a p h e r , McCurdy l o o k s f o r , and f i n d s , t h e r e s o l u t i o n . - 184 -But I came t o f i n d t ime spent t r e a t i n g p e o p l e was not c o m p l e t e l y wasted i n the c o n t e x t o f f i e l d w o r k . C u r i n g c o u l d g e n e r a t e f i e l d d a t a as w e l l . Through m e d i c a l a c t i v i t y I l e a r n e d f o l k c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s o f d i s e a s e and t r e a t m e n t . (McCurdy, 1976:16) McCurdy's problem, t h e n , was r e s o l v e d i n perhaps t h e b e s t e t h n o g r a p h i c way. What McCurdy came t o c o l l e c t were d a t a and what t h e problem g e n e r a t e d were d a t a . What McCurdy came t o ob s e r v e was membership and what the problem d i s c l o s e d was membership. What McCurdy r e q u i r e d was a r e s o l u t i o n t o h i s problem and what the problem g e n e r a t e d was t h i s r e s o l u t i o n . So t h e problem was not McCurdy's p e r s o n a l problem b u t was a n t h r o p o l o g y ' s problem. And as any good s c i e n c e w i l l do, a n t h r o p o l o g y p r o v i d e d , t h r o u g h such n o t i o n s as taxonomy and d a t a , t h e r e s o l u t i o n . McCurdy gave up ethnography i n o r d e r t o g i v e t h e v i l l a g e r s m e d i c a l h e l p , i . e . , McCurdy gave up ethnography i n o r d e r t o do the r i g h t t h i n g , i n o r d e r t o be a good guy. But t h e r e i s a l e s s o n t o be l e a r n e d , t h e r e i s a m o r a l t o t h i s s t o r y , namely t h a t goodness w i l l be rewarded. McCurdy g i v e s up ethnography i n o r d e r t o g i v e m e d i c a l h e l p and h i s v i r t u e i s rewarded by ethnography coming back t o him. So McCurdy's d e c i s i o n was not a d e c i s i o n between ethnography and m e d i c a l h e l p , i . e . , McCurdy's d e c i s i o n was not c h o o s i n g between the two. McCurdy's d e c i s i o n was more an i s s u e o f how t o accommodate the f a c t - 185 -t h a t v i l l a g e r s needed m e d i c a l h e l p and t h e f a c t t h a t he c o u l d g i v e t h i s h e l p i n t o h i s ethnography. McCurdy 1s d e c i s i o n d e g e n e r a t e s i n t o a t e c h n i c a l d e c i s i o n , i n t o d e c i d i n g how many hours t o spend a t g i v i n g m e d i c a l a t t e n t i o n and how many hours t o spend a t ethnography. So i n t h i s sense, McCurdy gave up n o t h i n g ; i t was McCurdy's commitment t o speak e t h n o g r a p h i c a l l y t h a t g e n e r a t e d h i s problem, and g e n e r a t e d i t as an e t h i c a l problem, i n . t h e f i r s t p l a c e , and i t was McCurdy's commitment t o speak e t h n o g r a p h i c a l l y t h a t r e s o l v e d t h i s problem. In o t h e r words, McCurdy f o r m u l a t e d h i s problem t e c h n i c a l l y and p r a c t i c a l l y as a problem i n e t h i c s which was, a t t h e same t i m e , t h e g e n e r a t i o n of a s o l u t i o n . V. So ethnography e x e m p l i f i e s a v e r s i o n of t h e o r i z i n g t h a t p r o v i d e s f o r e t h i c s as a p r a c t i c a l m a t t e r where e t h i c s amounts t o an o c c a s i o n f o r t h e o r i z i n g as t h e f o r m u l a t i o n o f a p r a c t i c a l p roblem t h a t sends t h e o r i z i n g on t h e s e a r c h f o r a r e s o l u t i o n . Ethnography, t h e n , e x e m p l i f i e s a deg e n e r a t e form o f t h e o r i z i n g i n s o f a r as t h e o r i z i n g amounts t o a c o n c e r n w i t h t h e t e c h n i c a l and w i t h programmatics and i n s o f a r as t h i s t h e o r i z i n g does n ot p r o v i d e f o r i t s own p o s s i b i l i t y and, i n t h i s sense, i s not t h e o r i z i n g a t a l l . - 186 -I t i s t h i s f o r m u l a t i o n o f e t h i c s t h a t i s p e r v a s i v e t h r o u g h o u t t h e e t h n o g r a p h i c l i t e r a t u r e . For example, i n h i s d i s c u s s i o n o f e t h i c s Barnes (1970:235-251), a d i s c u s s i o n t h a t i s a p p r o p r i a t e l y - a p p r o p r i a t e f o r ethnography's u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f e t h i c s - e n t i t l e d "Some E t h i c a l Problems i n Modern F i e l d w o r k " , s t a t e s t h a t : As p r o f e s s i o n a l s o c i o l o g i s t s and a n t h r o p o l o g i s t s we have an a b i d i n g i n t e r e s t i n s e e i n g t h a t we a r e r e g a r d e d as r e s p o n s i b l e p r o f e s s i o n a l s by a l l t h o s e we work w i t h , and t h e i n t e r e s t s o f th e p r o f e s s i o n o u t l a s t t h o s e o f t h e s p e c i f i c i n v e s t i g a t i o n o r i n v e s t i g a t o r . A p r o f e s s i o n a l code o f e t h i c s would not make any e a s i e r t h e s o l u t i o n o f t h e many problems d i s c u s s e d h e r e , but i t m i g h t a t l e a s t remind e t h n o g r a p h e r s t h a t t h e s e problems do have t o be s o l v e d and cannot be i g n o r e d . The "wide uncontaminated open s t r e t c h o f n a t u r e , " p o s t u l a t e d by M a l i n o w s k i , no l o n g e r s e p a r a t e s our i n f o r m a n t s from t h e wide w o r l d o r from us, and we have t o a l l o w f o r t h i s . (Barnes, 1970:249) A n o t h e r example i s E r i k s o n ' s (197 0:252-260) d i s c u s s i o n on e t h i c s where he argues a g a i n s t t h e e t h n o g r a p h i c t e c h n i q u e o f what he c a l l s " d i s g u i s e d o b s e r v a t i o n " . Not o n l y does E r i k s o n argue t h a t " d i s g u i s e d o b s e r v a t i o n " i s an " u n e t h i c a l p r a c t i c e " , but a l s o t h a t d i s g u i s e d o b s e r v a t i o n i n t r o d u c e s an e f f e c t upon t h e s e t t i n g s t u d i e d t h a t cannot be d e t e r m i n e d . T h i s m e t h o d o l o g i c a l argument, o f c o u r s e , t r a d e s f o r i t s s e n s i b i l i t y upon t h e e t h n o g r a p h i c n o t i o n t h a t i f ethnography can p u t i t s e l f i n t o t h e p r o p e r o b s e r v a t i o n a l p o s i t i o n , - 187 -membership w i l l r e v e a l i t s e l f . P l a c i n g o n e s e l f i n the p r o p e r o b s e r v a t i o n a l p o s i t i o n amounts t o e t h n o g r a p h i c a l l y removing t h e e x t r a n e o u s - i n E r i k s o n ' s case t h e e f f e c t s of t h e d i s g u i s e d o b s e r v e r , w h i c h i s t o say t h e o b s e r v e r - so t h a t membership can be obser v e d and r e v e a l i t s e l f ( p u r e l y ? ) as what i t i s . I n i n t r o d u c i n g h i s d i s c u s s i o n on e t h i c s E r i k s o n s t a t e s t h a t : I n t a k i n g t h e p o s i t i o n t h a t t h i s k i n d of masquerading i s u n e t h i c a l , I am n a t u r a l l y g o i n g t o say many t h i n g s t h a t a r e o n l y m a t t e r s o f p e r s o n a l o p i n i o n ; and t h u s the f o l l o w i n g remarks a r e a p t t o have a more e d i t o r i a l f l a v o r than i s u s u a l f o r papers r e a d a t p r o f e s s i o n a l m e e t i n g s . But a good d e a l more i s a t s t a k e here t h a n the s e n s i t i v i t i e s o f any p a r t i c u l a r p e r s o n , and my excuse f o r d e a l i n g w i t h an i s s u e t h a t seems t o have so many s u b j e c t i v e o v e r t o n e s i s t h a t t h e use o f d i s g u i s e s i n s o c i a l r e s e a r c h a f f e c t s t h e p r o f e s s i o n a l c l i m a t e i n w h i c h a l l o f us work and r a i s e s a number o f m e t h o d o l o g i c a l q u e s t i o n s t h a t s h o u l d be d i s c u s s e d more w i d e l y . ( E r i k s o n , 1970:252-253) E r i k s o n s u g g e s t s t h a t "...we w i l l have t o seek f u r t h e r f o r a r e l e v a n t e t h i c . . . " and proposes " . . . a t l e a s t as a b e g i n n i n g " t h a t : . . . f i r s t , t h a t i t i s u n e t h i c a l f o r a s o c i o l o g i s t t o d e l i b e r a t e l y m i s r e p r e s e n t h i s i d e n t i t y f o r th e purpose o f e n t e r i n g a p r i v a t e domain t o wh i c h he i s not o t h e r w i s e e l i g i b l e ; and second, t h a t i t i s u n e t h i c a l f o r a s o c i o l o g i s t t o d e l i b e r a t e l y m i s r e p r e s e n t the c h a r a c t e r o f the r e s e a r c h i n which he i s engaged. (1970:259) - 188 -J o r g e n s e n f o r m u l a t e s t h e a n t h r o p o l o g i c a l c o n c e r n w i t h e t h i c s i n the f o l l o w i n g way: There i s a need f o r d i s c u s s i o n o f e t h i c a l problems i n a n t h r o p o l o g i c a l r e s e a r c h and f o r t h e d r a f t i n g o f a v o l u n t a r y code o f p r o f e s s i o n a l e t h i c a l conduct t o a r t i c u l a t e t h e v a l u e s a n t h r o p o l o g i s t s s h o u l d share. F u r t h e r m o r e , though a v o l u n t a r y code would be an e x c e l l e n t b e g i n n i n g , I do not b e l i e v e i t w i l l be s u f f i c i e n t ; c o n s e q u e n t l y , I t h i n k t h a t e t h i c s committees s h o u l d be e s t a b l i s h e d by t h e v a r i o u s l o c a l and n a t i o n a l a n t h r o p o l o g i c a l a s s o c i a t i o n s . Agreement upon, and enforcement o f , e t h i c a l s t a n d a r d s f o r t h e p r o f e s s i o n would p e r m i t e t h i c a l s c h o l a r s t o conduct r e s e a r c h w i t h o u t c a u s i n g s u s p i c i o n or f e a r among t h e i r h o s t s and h e l p a r e s e a r c h e r d e c i d e whether he s h o u l d t a c k l e r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t s i n w h i c h , f o r i n s t a n c e , f r e e and v o l u n t a r y c o n s e n t cannot be accommodated w i t h the i n t e g r i t y o f t h e r e s e a r c h . ( J o r g e n s e n , 1973:19) A l l t h r e e o f t h e s e a u t h o r s , i n t h e i r v a r i o u s ways, f o r m u l a t e e t h i c s as a problem f o r t h e s o c i a l s c i e n c e s ( e t h n o g r a p h y ) . And, s i n c e t h e n o t i o n o f problem f o r m u l a t e d c o n c r e t e l y i s not i n t e l l i g i b l e w i t h o u t t h e n o t i o n of s o l u t i o n , each o f t h e a u t h o r s proposes t h a t a s o l u t i o n s h o u l d be sought and each o f t h e a u t h o r s goes on t o propose t h a t a code of e t h i c s be adopted by t h e s o c i a l s c i e n c e s as a s o l u t i o n t o the problem o f e t h i c s . These a u t h o r s a r e q u i c k t o p o i n t o u t , however, t h a t codes o f e t h i c s a r e not f i n a l s o l u t i o n s "...but i t m i g h t a t l e a s t remind e t h n o g r a p h e r s t h a t t h e s e problems do have t o be s o l v e d and cannot be i g n o r e d . " (Barnes) Or, - 189 -E r i k s o n d e s c r i b e s h i s p r o p o s a l as " . . . a t l e a s t as a b e g i n n i n g . . . " t o t h e s o l u t i o n of the problem o f e t h i c s , o r , a l t h o u g h J o r g e n s e n p r o p o s e s , as a s o l u t i o n t o the problem o f e t h i c s , a " v o l u n t a r y code" he adds t h a t he does n o t " . . . b e l i e v e t h a t i t w i l l be s u f f i c i e n t . . . " but t h a t i t . " . . . w o u l d be an e x c e l l e n t b e g i n n i n g . . . " . In t h a t Barnes, E r i k s o n and J o r g e n s e n suggest t h a t proposed s o l u t i o n s t o the problem o f e t h i c s r e p r e s e n t e t h n o g r a p h i c a t t e n t i o n t o e t h i c s as a problem o r r e p r e s e n t o n l y a b e g i n n i n g t o i t s s o l u t i o n , t h e i r speech s u g g e s t s e i t h e r t h a t (1) ethnography s h o u l d a t t e n d t o e t h i c s as a problem o r (2) ethnography s h o u l d b e g i n t o s y s t e m a t i c a l l y r e s o l v e t h e problem. I n any c a s e , what t h e s e t h r e e a u t h o r s a r e s a y i n g i s t h a t t h e problem o f e t h i c s s h o u l d not be i g n o r e d and t h a t i t must be r e s o l v e d . In o t h e r words, l i k e most o t h e r p r a c t i c a l problems, t h e e t h n o g r a p h i c problem o f e t h i c s must be r e s o l v e d so t h a t t h e " b u s i n e s s o f ethnography" can c a r r y on. There r e s o n a t e s i n t h i s t a l k a sense o f urgency. The e t h n o g r a p h i c problem of e t h i c s i s n o t a problem t h a t can be d i s c u s s e d and t h e n s e t a s i d e f o r f u r t h e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n . The mere r a i s i n g o f e t h i c s as a problem i s r a i s e d by ethnography i n t h e s p i r i t o f a t h r e a t . I t i s a t h r e a t t o the e n t e r p r i s e o f ethnography i t s e l f . ' When something t h r e a t e n s a c o u r s e of a c t i o n , i t r e q u i r e s n o t m e r e l y t o be a d d r e s s e d and a t t e n d e d - 190 -t o , but t h i s a d d r e s s i n g and a t t e n d i n g t o i s u r g e n t f o r t h e p r e s e r v a t i o n of t h e e n t e r p r i s e i t t h r e a t e n s . To p r e s e r v e r e q u i r e s an u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h a t what i s b e i n g p r e s e r v e d i s w o r t h p r e s e r v i n g . But i n s t e a d o f f o r m u l a t i n g i t s speech about e t h i c s as an example, i . e . , as making r e f e r e n c e t o t h e good o f ethnography and thus o c c a s i o n i n g e t h i c s as an o p p o r t u n i t y t o address t h e Good, ethnography f o r m u l a t e s e t h i c s as n o t h i n g b u t a p r a c t i c a l problem. And, t h i s sense o f e t h i c s , as a t h r e a t t o ethnography and t h u s r e q u i r i n g u r g e n t a t t e n t i o n , i s i m p l i c i t i n t h e w r i t i n g s o f ethnography g e n e r a l l y and t h e w r i t i n g s o f Barnes, E r i k s o n and J o r g e n s e n s p e c i f i c a l l y . F i c h t e r and K o l b s t a t e the urgency o f t h e e t h n o g r a p h i c problem o f e t h i c s more e x p l i c i t l y when t h e y w r i t e , "An e x p l i c i t code o f e t h i c s w h i c h w i l l g overn t h e s o c i a l s c i e n t i s t i n r e p o r t i n g such d a t a " ( e t h n o g r a p h i c ) "seems u r g e n t l y needed." (1970:262) Even though Barnes, E r i k s o n and J o r g e n s e n do not e x p l i c i t l y s t a t e t h a t a r e s o l u t i o n t o t h e e t h n o g r a p h i c problem o f e t h i c s i s u r g e n t l y needed, t h e y do, i n a more e x p l i c i t way, speak o f the t h r e a t t h a t e t h i c s p r e s e n t s t o ethnography. F or example, Barnes p o i n t s o u t t h a t an a b i d i n g c o n c e r n o f p r o f e s s i o n a l s o c i o l o g i s t s and a n t h r o p o l o g i s t s i s t h a t the " . . . i n t e r e s t s o f t h e p r o f e s s i o n o u t l a s t t h o s e o f the s p e c i f i c i n v e s t i g a t i o n o r i n v e s t i g a t o r . " And, E r i k s o n s u g g e s t s t h a t "...a good d e a l more i s a t s t a k e here t h a n t h e s e n s i t i v i t i e s - 191 -o f any p a r t i c u l a r p e r s o n . . . " . He says t h a t t h e use of c o v e r t ( d i s g u i s e d ) o b s e r v a t i o n " . . . a f f e c t s t h e p r o f e s s i o n a l c l i m a t e i n w h i c h a l l o f us work...". And, f i n a l l y J o r g e n s e n says t h a t an enforcement o f " . . . e t h i c a l s t a n d a r d s f o r the p r o f e s s i o n would p e r m i t e t h i c a l s c h o l a r s t o conduct r e s e a r c h . . . " w i t h o u t " . . . c a u s i n g s u s p i c i o n o r f e a r . . . " among t h o s e t h e y s t u d y and t h u s w i l l e n a b l e i n v e s t i g a t o r s t o m a i n t a i n " . . . t h e i n t e g r i t y o f t h e r e s e a r c h " . C l e a r l y , t h e n , what Barnes, E r i k s o n and J o r g e n s e n a r e e x p r e s s i n g i s a c o n c e r n : t h e y a r e e x p r e s s i n g a c o n c e r n f o r t h e w e l l - b e i n g and w o r t h w h i l e n e s s o f ethnography. But t h i s i s not so u n u s u a l , t h i s i s not u n u s u a l l y g a l l a n t , t h i s i s n o t u n u s u a l l y p r o t e c t i v e , f o r each and e v e r y i n s t a n c e o f e t h n o g r a p h i c speech i s an e x p r e s s i o n o f t h e w o r t h w h i l e n e s s of ethnography i n s o f a r as each and e v e r y e t h n o g r a p h i c speech p o i n t s t o , makes r e f e r e n c e t o , and r e l i e s upon, a v e r s i o n of t h e good l i f e . ' T h i s i s t o say t h a t any e t h n o g r a p h i c speech i s grounded i n i t s deep i n t e r e s t and so, any e t h n o g r a p h i c speech r e f l e c t s t h i s i n t e r e s t . When ethnography speaks about e t h i c s i t f o r m u l a t e s i t s speech as t o p i c a l i z i n g the c o n c r e t e work o f ethnography, i . e . , i t s c o n c r e t e work o f g a t h e r i n g d a t a , r e p o r t i n g f i n d i n g s , e t c . And t h e t o p i c i s whether o r not t h i s work i s w o r t h w h i l e where w o r t h w h i l e n e s s i s c o n c e i v e d o f s u p e r f i c i a l l y as f o r example, whether o r n o t i n f o r m e d c o n s e n t has been o b t a i n e d , whether o r not m e d i c a l h e l p i s g i v e n , e t c . - 1 9 2 -But what i s not t o p i c a l i z e d i s t h a t w h i c h p r o v i d e s f o r any e t h n o g r a p h i c t o p i c , any e t h n o g r a p h i c speech, i n c l u d i n g e t h i c s . Ethnography does not a d d r e s s t h e E t h i c , the deep d e c i s i o n , t h e commitment, t h a t g e n e r a t e s i t s c o n c r e t e speech. To address t h e good o f ethnography i s not t o e n t e r i n t o debate about whether o r not ethnography i s e t h i c a l , f o r i t n e c e s s a r i l y i s so, but i s t o r e - a c h i e v e i t s E t h i c , i t s b e g i n n i n g i n speech. And t h i s i s t h e s t r o n g sense o f e t h i c a l i n q u i r y t h a t f i n d s i t s degenerate e x p r e s s i o n i n e t h n o g r a p h i c speech about e t h i c s . E t h i c s a r i s e s as a c o n c e r n f o r ethnography out of i t s c o n c e p t i o n o f detachment and d i s i n t e r e s t e d n e s s . Detachment and d i s i n t e r e s t e d n e s s a r e ethnography's ways of p o s i n g and r e s o l v i n g t h e problem o f s i m u l t a n e o u s p r e s e n c e and absence. T h i s c o n c e p t i o n f i n d s i t s sense i n t h e e t h n o g r a p h i c f o r m u l a t i o n of a w o r l d t h a t i s a v a i l a b l e , i . e . , o b s e r v a b l e , and d i s -i n t e r e s t e d n e s s i s c o n c e i v e d o f as a c o n d i t i o n f o r the a v a i l a b i l i t y o f t h a t w o r l d . And i t i s t h i s s o r t o f d i s -i n t e r e s t e d n e s s , d i s i n t e r e s t embodied i n t h e n o t i o n of d i s i n t e r e s t e d o b s e r v e r , t h a t ethnography f o r m u l a t e s as p r o b l e m a t i c . I t i s p r o b l e m a t i c , f o r ethnography, i n t h a t i t g e n e r a t e s t h e problem o f whether o r not d i s i n t e r e s t e d n e s s i s a r i g h t and v a l u a b l e t h i n g where t h i s problem i s c o n c r e t e l y m a n i f e s t e d f o r ethnography i n such s i t u a t i o n s as whether or n o t t o g i v e m e d i c a l a t t e n t i o n t o v i l l a g e r s . - 193 -Ethnography, t h e n , comes t o terms w i t h the problem o f r i g h t and v a l u a b l e conduct by a p p e a l i n g t o e t h i c s . The c o n c e r n f o r t h e r i g h t and v a l u a b l e way t o l i v e becomes r e f o r m u l a t e d by ethnography as a c o n c e r n w i t h e t h i c s . So t h e m e t h o d o l o g i c a l f o r m u l a t i o n o f d i s i n t e r e s t e d n e s s i s u n d e r s t o o d , by ethnography, as t h e g e n e r a t o r o f v a r i o u s p r a c t i c a l problems o f l i v i n g t h a t a r e f o r m u l a t e d c o n c r e t e l y by an a p p e a l t o e t h i c s as a t e c h n i q u e f o r coming t o terms w i t h t h e s e problems. E t h i c s i s ethnography's c o n c r e t e e x p r e s s i o n of i t s d e s i r e t o be good and o f i t s d e s i r e t o w o r s h i p and d i s p l a y d e f e r e n c e t o t h a t w h i c h i s n a t u r a l and a b s o l u t e , namely c u l t u r e and s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e . But ethnography e x e m p l i f i e s f o r g e t f u l speech i n t h a t i t f o r g e t s t h a t i t i s d e e p l y i n t e r e s t e d and i n t h a t i t f o r g e t s t h a t i t s speech recommends a v e r s i o n o f l i f e t h a t i t d e p i c t s as good. Moreover, e t h n o g r a p h i c speech i s the w o r s t k i n d o f f o r g e t f u l speech i n s o f a r as i t f o r g e t s t h a t i t does speak and f o r g e t s t h a t i t s speech i s an e x p r e s s i o n o f S e l f i n t h a t i t s speech r e f l e c t s t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f S e l f . Ethnography's c o n c e r n w i t h d i s i n t e r e s t e d n e s s , a c o n c e r n t h a t i s grounded i n t h e t r a d i t i o n c a l l e d s c i e n c e , i s ethnography's d i s i n t e r e s t i n i t s deep i n t e r e s t , i . e . , i s ethnography's d i s i n t e r e s t i n i t s S e l f . What i s e t h i c a l about an i n q u i r y i s i t s commitment t o r e - c o l l e c t t h e E t h i c t h a t p r o v i d e s f o r i t s p o s s i b i l i t y . - 194 -What i s e t h i c a l about an i n q u i r y i s i t s commitment t o r e - c o l l e c t t h e r i g h t and v a l u a b l e by c o n c e i v i n g o f i t s speech as a c o n c r e t e e x p r e s s i o n o f t h a t which i s r i g h t and v a l u a b l e . What i s e t h i c a l about an i n q u i r y i s i t s commitment t o m a n i f e s t i n speech t h a t E t h i c t h a t i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r i t s r i g h t n e s s and v a l u e . What i s t r u l y r i g h t and v a l u a b l e f o r ethnography i s what i t f o r m u l a t e s as n a t u r a l and a b s o l u t e , i . e . , c u l t u r e , membership, s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e . I t i s not s u r p r i s i n g , t h e n , t h a t ethnography would d i s p l a y a sense o f l o y a l t y and p r o t e c t i o n toward membership. I t i s not s u r p r i s i n g t h a t the e t h n o g r a p h i c u n d e r s t a n d i n g of e t h i c s i s e x p r e s s e d as a c o n c e r n f o r t h e f i r s t n e s s and v a l u e o f membership. And what e l s e c o u l d ethnography be e x c e p t l o y a l and p r o t e c t i v e toward t h a t w h i c h n a t u r a l l y d e s e r v e s l o y a l t y and p r o t e c t i o n ? But n o t i o n s such as l o y a l t y and p r o t e c t i o n are s u p e r f i c i a l ways o f f o r m u l a t i n g ethnography's c o n c e r n about members as i t i s e x p r e s s e d i n t h e e t h n o g r a p h i c n o t i o n of e t h i c s . So as e t h i c s appears and s u r f a c e s c o n c r e t e l y f o r ethnography, ethnography speaks of e t h i c s i n terms o f l o y a l t y t o members, p r o t e c t i o n o f members' r i g h t s , e t c . More d e e p l y , however, e t h i c s makes r e f e r e n c e t o t h e f i r s t d e c i s i o n , t o the deep i n t e r e s t , t o t h e good o f ethnography. When un d e r s t o o d as an example o f t h e good l i f e , n o t i o n s such as l o y a l t y and p r o t e c t i o n t o members become s u r f a c e r e f l e c t i o n s o f ethnography as an example o f t h e l i f e t h a t i s good, of the - 195 -l i f e t h a t i s j u s t , o f the l i f e t h a t i s v i r t u o u s . So when ethnography says t h a t i t i s l o y a l and p r o t e c t i v e toward membership, i t i s s a y i n g t h a t i t has an o b l i g a t i o n to formulate the l i f e i t recommends as good, j u s t and v i r t u o u s . T h i s i s to say t h a t ethnography's l o y a l t y and p r o t e c t i o n toward membership i s ethnography's l o y a l t y and p r o t e c t i o n toward i t s S e l f i n s o f a r as ethnography i s deeply E t h i c a l and the r i g h t n e s s and value of i t s speech (data, f i n d i n g s , e t h i c s , etc.) i s to be formulated by r e - c o l l e c t i n g the E t h i c t h a t i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r i t s speech. But ethnography speaks; i t c o l l e c t s data, i t r e p o r t s f i n d i n g s , i t speaks about e t h i c s , and i n so speaking i t d i v e s t s i t s speech of what i s t r u l y r i g h t and v a l u a b l e . Ethnography/ f o r g e t s i t s E t h i c and conceives of i t s speech as the sheer r e p r o d u c t i o n o f what i s f i r s t and n a t u r a l , and as such, does not understand i t s speech as exemplary of a good l i f e t h a t r e q u i r e s f o r m u l a t i o n . Ethnography's d e s i r e to be good, i t s d e s i r e t o be l i v e l y , i t s d e s i r e t o be r i g h t and v a l u a b l e , submits to the ethnographic impulse to speak p e r f e c t l y r a t h e r than to speak r e s p o n s i b l y . Rather than r a i s i n g e t h i c s as a deep concern, r a t h e r than b r i n g i n g e t h i c s to l i f e , ethnography b u r i e s e t h i c s i n a deluge of s e l f - s u f f i c i e n t speech. - 196 -V I . In Book I o f The R e p u b l i c , S o c r a t e s has a c o n v e r s a t i o n w i t h an o l d man, Ce p h a l u s , and C e p h a l u s 1 speech e x e m p l i f i e s t h e k i n d o f p r a g m a t i c a l l y m o t i v a t e d t h e o r i z i n g t h a t i s a l s o e x e m p l i f i e d i n ethnography's c o n c e r n w i t h e t h i c s . Cephalus welcomes S o c r a t e s t o h i s home by s a y i n g : "As i t i s , you ought t o come here more f r e q u e n t l y : f o r I m y s e l f f i n d t h a t as age b l u n t s one's enjoyment o f p h y s i c a l p l e a s u r e s , one's d e s i r e f o r r a t i o n a l c o n v e r s a t i o n and one's enjoyment o f i t i n c r e a s e c o r r e s p o n d i n g l y . " (32 8d) D u r i n g t h e i r c o n v e r s a t i o n , Cephalus t e l l s S o c r a t e s t h a t ; F o r you know, S o c r a t e s , when a man f a c e s t h e t h o u g h t o f de a t h t h e r e come i n t o h i s mind a n x i e t i e s t h a t d i d not t r o u b l e him b e f o r e . The s t o r i e s about a n o t h e r w o r l d , and about punishment i n a f u t u r e l i f e f o r wrongs done i n t h i s , a t wh i c h he once used t o l a u g h , b e g i n t o torment h i s mind w i t h t h e f e a r t h a t t h e y may be t r u e . And e i t h e r because o f t h e weakness o f o l d age o r because, as he approaches t h e o t h e r w o r l d , he has some c l e a r e r p e r c e p t i o n o f i t , he i s f i l l e d w i t h doubts and f e a r s and b e g i n s t o r e c k o n up and see i f t h e r e i s anyone he has wronged. (330d-e) O l d age and d e a t h a r e o c c a s i o n s f o r Cephalus t o t h e o r i z e about l i f e . And t h i s i s s u r e l y a d m i r a b l e , f o r o l d age and de a t h a r e c e r t a i n l y o c c a s i o n s f o r e x e m p l i f y i n g the c o n v e r s a t i o n i n t h e s o u l t h a t S o c r a t e s c a l l s t h i n k i n g and o l d age and de a t h a r e c e r t a i n l y o c c a s i o n s f o r a d d r e s s i n g - 197 -t h e i d e a o f l i f e t h a t p r o v i d e s f o r t h e i r i n t e l l i g i b i l i t y . So Cephalus i s eager t o c o n v e r s e w i t h S o c r a t e s , Cephalus i s eager t o have S o c r a t e s as a c o l l a b o r a t o r . But Cephalus was not always eager t o t h e o r i z e , i . e . , Cephalus was not always eager f o r c o n v e r s a t i o n . Now t h a t he i s o l d and t h e p h y s i c a l p l e a s u r e s o f y o u t h have waned, Cephalus i s eager f o r t h e p l e a s u r e o f c o n v e r s a t i o n . Moreover, Cephalus i s o l d and death i s i m i n e n t . The s t o r i e s about a n o t h e r w o r l d and t h e s t o r i e s about punishment i n a f u t u r e l i f e f o r wrongs done i n t h i s l i f e , s t o r i e s a t which Cephalus once used t o l a u g h , now torment him and he f e a r s t h a t t h e s e s t o r i e s may be t r u e . C o n v e r s a t i o n t h a t once took a back s e a t t o t h e p u r s u i t o f p h y s i c a l p l e a s u r e s i s now u s e f u l t o Cephalus i n s o f a r as Cephalus hopes t h a t c o n v e r s a t i o n w i l l ease t h e torment o f h i s mind Ethnography f i n d s t h a t i t i s c o n f r o n t e d w i t h problems; s h o u l d t i m e be t a k e n away from ethnography i n o r d e r t o g i v e m e d i c a l a s s i s t a n c e ? I s i t r i g h t and j u s t t o d i s g u i s e the f a c t t h a t one i s an o b s e r v e r ? I s i t r i g h t and j u s t f o r ethnography t o produce r e p o r t s t h a t w i l l get i n t o the hands of e v i l - d o e r s ? I s i t r i g h t t o g e t so much from i n f o r m a n t s w h i l e g i v i n g so l i t t l e i n r e t u r n ? e t c . , e t c . L i k e C e p h a l u s , ethnography i s tormented w i t h i t s wrongdoings. L i k e C e p h a l u s , ethnography seeks an end t o t h i s torment. L i k e C e p halus, ethnography t u r n s t o t h e o r i z i n g about i t s l i f e as a way t o end t h e torment o f i t s s o u l . Cephalus t u r n s t o c o n v e r s a t i o n w i t h S o c r a t e s as a way t o p r e s e r v e h i s s o u l and ethnography - 198 -t u r n s t o e t h i c s as a way t o p r e s e r v e i t s s o u l . But Cephalus and ethnography have l i v e d f o r a l o n g t i m e . And not u n t i l t h e y were c o n f r o n t e d w i t h problems d i d t h e y r e f l e c t upon t h e i r l i f e . And even now, f a c e d w i t h problems, t h e i r r e f l e c t i o n amounts t o a s e a r c h f o r a t e c h n i q u e t h a t w i l l r i d them o f t h e m a t t e r o f t h e i r l i f e and r e s t o r e them t o t h e s e c u r i t y o f u n r e f l e c t i v e l i v i n g . Cephalus and ethnography do not u n d e r s t a n d what c o n v e r s a t i o n i s and do n o t u n d e r s t a n d t h a t c o n v e r s a t i o n i s a l i f e - l o n g f o r m u l a t i o n o f l i f e . Cephalus and ethnography b e g i n t o t h e o r i z e w i t h a g o a l o f e n d i n g t h e i r t h e o r i z i n g as q u i c k l y as p o s s i b l e and so, Cephalus and ethnography do not t h e o r i z e a t a l l . D u r i n g h i s c o n v e r s a t i o n w i t h S o c r a t e s , Cephalus' son, Polemarchus, i n t e r r u p t s . Cephalus then s a y s : " I bequeath the argument t o the two o f you, f o r I must go and see about the s a c r i f i c e . " (331d) And what e l s e c o u l d Cephalus do but bequeath th e c o n v e r s a t i o n t o h i s son and S o c r a t e s , what e l s e c o u l d Cephalus do b u t withdraw from t h e o r i z i n g ? C o n v e r s a t i o n i s not a t e c h n i c a l t h i n g t h a t can be t a k e n up o c c a s i o n a l l y as a d e v i c e f o r e a s i n g t h e torment i n t h e s o u l . C o n v e r s a t i o n b r i n g s t o speech t h a t v e r y torment i n s o f a r as c o n v e r s a t i o n seeks t o e x e m p l i f y t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n i n t h e s o u l t h a t i s t h i n k i n g . C o n v e r s a t i o n i s demanding., i t demands t h a t Cephalus c o n c e i v e of h i s speech as an example o f a l i f e w o r t h l i v i n g and i t - 199 -demands t h a t Cephalus t a k e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h a t l i f e . C o n v e r s a t i o n would e x e m p l i f y t h a t l i f e and t o c o n t i n u e i n c o n v e r s a t i o n w i t h S o c r a t e s f o r t h e purpose o f e a s i n g the torment i n t h e mind, would l e a d Cephalus t o the k i n d o f torment e x e m p l i f i e d i n t h e p e r s o n o f A l c i b i a d e s i n The  Symposium.^ (214e-222c) Cephalus wants c o n v e r s a t i o n t o r e s u l t i n a p r o d u c t i n s o f a r as he wants c o n v e r s a t i o n t o produce the word, the answer, t h e s o l u t i o n , t h e t e c h n i q u e , i . e . , Cephalus wants c o n v e r s a t i o n t o produce a way f o r him t o ease h i s torment. But S o c r a t e s , i . e . , c o n v e r s a t i o n , can produce no such p r o d u c t , c o n v e r s a t i o n can produce n o t h i n g new, c o n v e r s a t i o n cannot produce t h e word t h a t w i l l ease t h e torment o f the s o u l . C o n v e r s a t i o n , as t h e attempt t o b r i n g t o speech the movement i n t h e s o u l t h a t i s t h i n k i n g , i s t h e a r t o f m i d w i f e r y t h a t 7 a t t e m p t s t o b r i n g t o b i r t h t h a t w h i c h i s a l r e a d y c o n c e i v e d . ( T h e a e t e t u s , 149-152) So what Cephalus w i l l g a i n i n a c o n v e r s a t i o n w i t h S o c r a t e s i s not t h e word t h a t w i l l ease h i s p a i n , but i n s t e a d Cephalus w i l l g a i n the o p p o r t u n i t y t o examine t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f h i s l i f e and t o examine the r i g h t n e s s and v a l u e o f h i s l i f e . And i t i s t h i s g a i n t h a t i s too c o s t l y f o r Ce p h a l u s , f o r Cephalus would then have t o t a k e h i s l i f e s e r i o u s l y as an example o f t h e good toward w h i c h h i s l i f e p o i n t s . Rather t h a n b e a r i n g t h e r i s k o f t r e a t i n g h i s l i f e as an example o f t h e good l i f e , Cephalus o p t s f o r t h e p a s s i v i t y o f s c r i f i c e as a way, as a t e c h n i q u e , t o ease the torment o f h i s s o u l . - 200 -E t h i c s p r o v i d e s ethnography w i t h the o p p o r t u n i t y t o engage i t s e l f i n c o n v e r s a t i o n . I t p r o v i d e s ethnography w i t h the o p p o r t u n i t y t o b r i n g t o b i r t h t h a t w h i c h i s a l r e a d y c o n c e i v e d . But l i k e C e p h alus, ethnography i s s e a r c h i n g f o r t h e word t h a t w i l l ease t h e torment i n i t s s o u l , t h a t w i l l s o l v e i t s problems t h a t i t f o r m u l a t e s as e t h i c a l problems. So l i k e C e p h a l u s , ethnography withdraws from c o n v e r s a t i o n s i n c e c o n v e r s a t i o n does not l e a d t o t h e p r o d u c t , t o the answer, t o t h e s o l u t i o n , o f i t s e t h i c a l problem. I n s t e a d , c o n v e r s a t i o n l e a d s t o t h e l i f e o f ethnography and g i v e s b i r t h t o t h a t l i f e . C o n v e r s a t i o n would demand t h a t ethnography examine t h e r i g h t n e s s and v a l u e o f i t s l i f e , i . e . , the w o r t h o f i t s o f f s p r i n g , t h e w o r t h o f ethnography. And l i k e C e p h a l u s , ethnography chooses t h e p a s s i v i t y o f s a c r i f i c e , i . e . , ethnography o p t s f o r t h e p r o d u c t i o n o f codes o f e t h i c s . In one sense, ethnography's speech about e t h i c s i s t h e most i n t e r e s t i n g t h i n g ethnography has t o say and i t i s t h i s most i n t e r e s t i n g t h i n g t h a t ethnography b e l i t t l e s , t r i v i a l i z e s , and t e c h n i c a l i z e s . V I I . From t h e e t h n o g r a p h i c p o i n t o f view o f the n a t u r a l as c u l t u r e , i . e . , t h a t whether we have magic o r s c i e n c e , t h a t whether we have c r o s s - c o u s i n m a r r i a g e s o r n o t , e t c . , i t i s no wonder t h a t ethnography chooses monologue over d i a l o g u e . - 2 0 1 -I t i s no wonder t h a t ethnography would not e n t e r i n t o c o n v e r s a t i o n w i t h Meno about the good o f h i s speech on v i r t u e . F o r , whether o r not ethnography u n d e r s t a n d s Meno's speech about v i r t u e as c o n c r e t e l y good o r bad, as a c c e p t a b l e or d i s t a s t e f u l , t h e r e i s n o t h i n g t h a t ethnography can say on t h e s e m a t t e r s s i n c e Meno i s s p e a k i n g c u l t u r a l l y . Moreover, ethnography f o r m u l a t e s i t s t a s k c o n c r e t e l y as t h a t o f d e s c r i b i n g and a n a l y z i n g c u l t u r e s and thus t o have a n y t h i n g t o say on t h e r i g h t n e s s o r wrongness o f Meno's speech about v i r t u e w ould be f o r ethnography t o be s p e a k i n g c u l t u r a l l y and hence t h e t a s k o f d e s c r i b i n g Meno's c u l t u r e would be i n j e o p a r d y . What ethnography s e a r c h e s a f t e r i s the t r u t h , w h i c h , a c c o r d i n g t o i t , i s c u l t u r e and s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e m a n i f e s t e d i n c o n c r e t e ways of l i v i n g , and thus whether t h e t r u t h t u r n s out t o be c o n c r e t e l y good o r bad, o r good o r bad i n any o t h e r way, i s n o t f o r ethnography t o say, i . e . , i s not f o r ethnography t o d e c i d e . T h i s s p i r i t i s c a p t u r e d i n Weber's sense o f s o c i a l s c i e n c e . I t i s commonplace t o ob s e r v e t h a t something may be t r u e a l t h o u g h i t i s not b e a u t i f u l and n o t h o l y and not good. Indeed i t may be t r u e i n p r e c i s e l y t h o s e a s p e c t s . But a l l t h e s e a r e o n l y t h e most el e m e n t a r y c a s e s o f the s t r u g g l e t h a t t h e gods o f t h e v a r i o u s o r d e r s and v a l u e s a r e engaged i n . I do not - 202 -know how one might w i s h t o d e c i d e ' s c i e n t i f i c a l l y ' t h e v a l u e o f F r e n c h and German c u l t u r e ; f o r h e r e , t o o , d i f f e r e n t gods s t r u g g l e w i t h one a n o t h e r , now and f o r a l l t i m e s t o come. (Weber, 1946:148) Fo r Weber, d i f f e r e n c e , as m a n i f e s t e d i n c u l t u r a l o r s o c i a l d i f f e r e n c e s , i s o f i n t e r e s t t o s o c i a l s c i e n c e " s c i e n t i f i c a l l y " , w h i c h i s t o say, i s o f i n t e r e s t i n s o f a r as i t i s t r u e where t r u t h r e f e r e n c e s some n o t i o n o f What I s , i . e . , some n o t i o n o f R e a l i t y . That " v a r i o u s o r d e r s and v a l u e s " a r e r e c o g n i z a b l e by t h e s o c i a l s c i e n t i s t , e.g., v a r i o u s c u l t u r e s , o n l y d e m o n s t r a t e s , f o r Weber, ele m e n t a r y c a s e s of the s t r u g g l e among gods. To r e c o g n i z e t h e s e s t r u g g l e s i s the b u s i n e s s o f s o c i a l s c i e n c e b u t t o choose among them i s , f o r Weber, an i s s u e o f "value-judgement" and, as such, not the b u s i n e s s of s o c i a l s c i e n c e . I n o t h e r words, t h e r e i s no way f o r Weber t o d e c i d e s c i e n t i f i c a l l y among the gods. So f o r Weber, any god w i l l do i n t h a t value-judgement and not s o c i a l s c i e n c e (members and not t h e t h e o r i s t ) i s the o n l y way t o d e c i d e . Or, as S t r a u s s (1950:45) f o r m u l a t e s i t , " F o l l o w the demon, r e g a r d l e s s o f whether he i s a good o r e v i l demon." Or, " ' F o l l o w God o r t h e D e v i l , ' w h i c h means, i n n o n t h e o l o g i c a l language, ' S t r i v e r e s o l u t e l y f o r e x c e l l e n c e o r baseness.' " ( i b i d . ) But i t i s p r e c i s e l y a g a i n s t such f o r m u l a t i o n s t h a t ethnography a r g u e s . Ethnography does not speak o f gods or d e v i l s , ethnography does not speak o f t h e s t r u g g l e s o f v a r i o u s - 203 c u l t u r e s f o r dominance as the s t r u g g l e s among gods.. For ethnography, t h e r e i s o n l y one god and t h a t god i s c u l t u r e . There a r e no c h o i c e s i n v o l v e d f o r ethnography i n the sense t h a t we cannot choose among c u l t u r e s , f o r t h a t i s not our c h o i c e . We cannot choose a n o t h e r c u l t u r e over o u r s s i n c e o u r s was n o t our c h o i c e . And, from t h e e t h n o g r a p h i c p o i n t o f v i e w , what would i t mean t o choose one c u l t u r e o v er a n o t h e r ? To v a l u e one c u l t u r e over a n o t h e r would be s a c r i l e g i o u s . I t would be 'to commit t h e same s a c r i l e g e t h a t Weber committed, i . e . , t o m i s t a k e a p a r t i c u l a r c u l t u r e (demi-god) f o r u n i v e r s a l c u l t u r e (god). For ethnography, any p a r t i c u l a r c u l t u r e i s o n l y the m a n i f e s t a t i o n ( p a r t ) of the u n i v e r s a l l y n a t u r a l c u l t u r e (whole). So w h i l e ethnography agrees w i t h Weber t h a t s c i e n t i f i c a l l y c h o i c e s cannot be made between one c u l t u r e and a n o t h e r , ethnography reminds Weber not t o speak of p a r t i c u l a r c u l t u r e s as gods s i n c e t h e r e i s o n l y one god ( c u l t u r e ) . What we must v i g o r o u s l y oppose i s t h e v iew t h a t one may be " s c i e n t i f i c a l l y " c o n t e n t e d w i t h t h e c o n v e n t i o n a l s e l f - e v i d e n t n e s s o f v e r y w i d e l y a c c e p t e d v a l u e - j u d g e m e n t s . The s p e c i f i c f u n c t i o n o f s c i e n c e , i t seems t o me, i s j u s t t h e o p p o s i t e : namely, t o ask q u e s t i o n s about t h e s e t h i n g s which c o n v e n t i o n makes s e l f - e v i d e n t . As a m a t t e r o f f a c t , S c h m o l l e r and h i s a s s o c i a t e s d i d e x a c t l y t h i s i n t h e i r t i m e . The f a c t t h a t one i n v e s t i g a t e s t h e i n f l u e n c e o f c e r t a i n e t h i c a l o r r e l i g i o u s c o n v i c t i o n s on economic l i f e and e s t i m a t e s i t t o be l a r g e under c e r t a i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s does n o t , f o r i n s t a n c e , i m p l y t h e n e c e s s i t y o f s h a r i n g or even esteeming t h o s e c a s u a l l y v e r y s i g n i f i c a n t c o n v i c t i o n s . L i k e w i s e , t h e i m p u t a t i o n o f a h i g h l y p o s i t i v e - 204 -v a l u e t o an e t h i c a l o r r e l i g i o u s phenomenon t e l l s us n o t h i n g a t a l l about whether i t s consequences a r e a l s o t o be p o s i t i v e l y v a l u e d t o t h e same e x t e n t . F a c t u a l a s s e r t i o n s t e l l us n o t h i n g about t h e s e m a t t e r s , and t h e i n d i v i d u a l w i l l judge them v e r y d i f f e r e n t l y a c c o r d i n g t o h i s own r e l i g i o u s and o t h e r e v a l u a t i o n s . A l l t h i s has n o t h i n g t o do w i t h t h e q u e s t i o n under d i s p u t e . On t h e c o n t r a r y , I am most e m p h a t i c a l l y opposed t o t h e v i e w t h a t a r e a l i s t i c " s c i e n c e o f e t h i c s , " i . e . , t h e a n a l y s i s o f the i n f l u e n c e w h i c h th e e t h i c a l e v a l u a t i o n s o f a group of p e o p l e have on t h e i r o t h e r c o n d i t i o n s o f l i f e and of t h e i n f l u e n c e s w h i c h th e l a t t e r , i n t h e i r t u r n , e x e r t on t h e f o rmer, can produce an " e t h i c s " w hich w i l l be a b l e t o say a n y t h i n g about what s h o u l d happen. (Weber, 1949:13) L i k e ethnography, Weber f o r m u l a t e s s o c i a l s c i e n c e as t h e r e m inder. The f u n c t i o n o f s o c i a l s c i e n c e i s t o "ask q u e s t i o n s " . And t o what a r e t h e s e q u e s t i o n s a d d r e s s e d i f not t o l i f e ? Weber wants t o remind us t h a t we t a k e our l i v e s f o r g r a n t e d , w h i c h i s t o say t h a t we t a k e f o r g r a n t e d the n a t u r a l n e s s o f our l i v e s . We t a k e as " s e l f - e v i d e n t " t h a t t h e way we l i v e i s t h e n a t u r a l way t o l i v e . And t h i s i s how Weber can f o r m u l a t e " v a r i o u s o r d e r s o f v a l u e " as gods i n s t r u g g l e w i t h one a n o t h e r . What Weber wants t o q u e s t i o n i s " . . . t h e s e t h i n g s w h i c h c o n v e n t i o n makes s e l f - e v i d e n t . " So what Weber's q u e s t i o n i n g amounts t o , i s not a q u e s t i o n i n g a t a l l , Weber's q u e s t i o n i s n o t a q u e s t i o n i n g o f l i f e a t a l l , but i n s t e a d , Weber's q u e s t i o n i n g o f l i f e i s a f o r m u l a t i o n o f l i f e . Weber - 205 -f o r m u l a t e s l i f e as " c o n v e n t i o n " and f o r m u l a t e s the s e l f -e v i d e n t n e s s o f t h i s c o n v e n t i o n as based not on " s c i e n t i f i c " (which i s Weber's v e r s i o n o f r a t i o n a l ) grounds, but r a t h e r based on t h e u n s c i e n t i f i c ( i r r a t i o n a l ) grounds o f " v a l u e -judgement". F o r Weber, t h e n , t h e r e i s no r a t i o n a l ( s c i e n t i f i c ) grounds f o r c h o o s i n g from among the v a r i o u s " o r d e r s o f v a l u e s " , i . e . , from c h o o s i n g among the v a r i o u s ways o f l i v i n g , s i n c e r a t i o n a l l y ( s c i e n t i f i c a l l y ) one l i f e i s no b e t t e r o r worse t h a n a n o t h e r . Thus, v a l u e judgements have no p l a c e i n the s o c i a l s c i e n c e s , a c c o r d i n g t o Weber, ex c e p t as o b j e c t s o f s o c i a l s c i e n c e i n v e s t i g a t i o n and i n s o f a r as the o r d e r o f v a l u e o f the s o c i a l s c i e n t i s t f o r m u l a t e s the problems o f s o c i a l s c i e n c e . Weber i s " e m p h a t i c a l l y opposed" t o t h e u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h a t a " r e a l i s t i c s c i e n c e o f e t h i c s " can produce "an e t h i c s w h i c h w i l l be a b l e t o say a n y t h i n g about what s h o u l d happen." And how c o u l d i t be o t h e r w i s e f o r Weber? Q u e s t i o n s such as "What s h a l l we do, and, how s h a l l we arrange our l i v e s ? Which o f t h e w a r r i n g gods s h o u l d we s e r v e ? " (Weber, 1946: 152-153), a r e q u e s t i o n s t h a t a r e grounded i n the i r r a t i o n a l i t y o f value-judgement and a r e t h u s not l e g i t i m a t e q u e s t i o n s of the s o c i a l s c i e n c e s and i f t h e s e a r e q u e s t i o n s t o wh i c h answers a r e p o s s i b l e a t a l l , " . . . o n l y a prophe t o r a s a v i o r can g i v e t h e answers." ( i b i d ) And a t l e a s t one v a l u e t h a t Weber h o l d s e m p h a t i c a l l y i s t h a t t h e s o c i a l s c i e n c e s ought not t o be i n t h e b u s i n e s s o f prophecy o r s a v i n g . - 206 -Weber cannot recommend one l i f e over a g a i n s t a n o t h e r s i n c e he does not know, w h i c h , f o r Weber, amounts t o cannot d e t e r m i n e s c i e n t i f i c a l l y o r . r a t i o n a l l y , what s h o u l d happen, what we s h o u l d do, how we s h o u l d arrange our l i v e s , e t c . T h i s i s Weber's n o t i o n o f an e t h i c a l l y n e u t r a l s o c i a l s c i e n c e ; an e t h i c a l l y n e u t r a l s o c i a l s c i e n c e t h a t S t r a u s s f o r m u l a t e s as " e t h i c a l r e l a t i v i s m " . (1950:44) Thus a s c i e n c e o f e t h i c s , o r what amounts t o t h e same t h i n g , an e t h i c a l l y n e u t r a l s o c i a l s c i e n c e i s , f o r Weber, a s c i e n c e t h a t minds i t s own b u s i n e s s . And from Weber's p o i n t o f v i e w what t h e b u s i n e s s o f s c i e n c e amounts t o i s "...the e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f e m p i r i c a l f a c t s . . . " (Weber, 1949:11) Weber goes on t o say t h a t t h e s o c i a l s c i e n t i s t s h o u l d s e p a r a t e e m p i r i c a l f a c t s ( i n c l u d i n g t h e " v a l u e - o r i e n t e d " conduct o f t h e e m p i r i c a l i n d i v i d u a l whom he i s i n v e s t i g a t i n g ) and h i s own p r a c t i c a l e v a l u a t i o n s , i . e . , h i s e v a l u a t i o n o f t h e s e f a c t s as s a t i s f a c t o r y o r u n s a t i s f a c t o r y ( i n c l u d i n g among t h e s e f a c t s e v a l u a t i o n s made by t h e e m p i r i c a l p e r s o n s who a r e t h e o b j e c t s o f i n v e s t i g a t i o n . ) (Weber, 1949:11) So Weber does not know; he does not know what s h o u l d happen, i . e . , he does not know how we s h o u l d l i v e . What Weber knows, however, i s how we do l i v e f o r m u l a t e d as " e m p i r i c a l f a c t s " . So t h e b u s i n e s s o f t h e s o c i a l s c i e n c e s - 207 -may, from t h i s p o i n t o f view, be f o r m u l a t e d as t h e e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f t h e What I s i n t h e sense o f e m p i r i c a l l y d e t e r m i n i n g how i t i s we do l i v e . But t h e s o c i a l s c i e n t i s t , a c c o r d i n g t o Weber, must keep " . . . h i s own p r a c t i c a l e v a l u a t i o n s , i . e . , h i s e v a l u a t i o n o f t h e s e f a c t s as s a t i s f a c t o r y o r u n s a t i s f a c t o r y . . . " t o h i m s e l f . So whether a l i f e i s s a t i s f a c t o r y o r u n s a t i s -f a c t o r y i s u n d e r s t o o d by Weber as a p r a c t i c a l m a t t e r . I t i s a p r a c t i c a l m a t t e r o f v a l u e judgement and thus t h e r e i s no room f o r t h e s e m a t t e r s i n t h e s o c i a l s c i e n t i f i c domain of t he e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f e m p i r i c a l f a c t s . But, what i s more i m p o r t a n t i s t h a t Weber cannot recommend whether a l i f e i s s a t i s f a c t o r y o r u n s a t i s f a c t o r y because he does not know. Weber does not know because such m a t t e r s a r e p r a c t i c a l m a t t e r s o f value-judgement and i n t h i s sense cannot be s c i e n t i f i c a l l y d e t e r m i n e d . That i n d i v i d u a l s do show a p r e f e r e n c e f o r one l i f e o v e r a n o t h e r i s because o f an o r d e r o f v a l u e s , o r an o r d e r o f e t h i c s , and one o r d e r i s as good o r as bad as a n o t h e r . I n a sense, t h e n , t h e r e i s no r a t i o n a l way o f d e c i d i n g whether one l i f e i s b e t t e r than a n o t h e r s i n c e t h i s s o r t o f d e c i s i o n can o n l y be based on v a l u e judgement. S o c i a l s c i e n c e has n o t h i n g t o say on t h i s m a t t e r because i t s o n l y c o n c e r n i s What I s and not what the I s ought t o be. Weber cannot speak o f what a l i f e ought t o - 208 -s t r i v e f o r i n o r d e r t o be good s i n c e what a l i f e ought t o be i s beyond human u n d e r s t a n d i n g . I n o t h e r words, Weber cannot recommend what he does not know. Weber i s not w i l l i n g t o g i v e h i s p r e f e r e n c e s i n c e t h a t would not c o n s t i t u t e good s o c i a l s c i e n c e . Weber i s , however, w i l l i n g t o compromise. He says t h a t a s o c i a l s c i e n t i s t can a s s e r t h i s own value-judgements but o n l y i f he makes them " . . . a b s o l u t e l y e x p l i c i t t o the s t u d e n t s and.to h i m s e l f . " (Weber, 1949:10) So, presumably, the s o c i a l s c i e n t i s t may a s s e r t h i s value-judgements t o h i s s t u d e n t s , and i t might be added, t o o t h e r s o c i a l s c i e n t i s t s , under t h e p r o v i s o t h a t he make them e x p l i c i t l y c l e a r . In o t h e r words, i f t h e s o c i a l s c i e n t i s t s t a t e s h i s v a l u e -judgements, w h i c h i s t o say, s e g r e g a t e s h i s value-judgements from e m p i r i c a l f a c t s , he w i l l not be s t e p p i n g o u t s i d e the b o u n d a r i e s o f t h e s o c i a l s c i e n c e s . The s o c i a l s c i e n t i s t must s t a t e h i s value-judgements ( d i s p l a y h i s i r r a t i o n a l s e l f ) but s e g r e g a t e them from h i s s o c i a l s c i e n t i f i c e m p i r i c a l f a c t s ( d i s p l a y h i s r a t i o n a l s e l f ) . I s t h i s n o t a n o t h e r way o f a s k i n g f o r p e r f e c t speech, i . e . , i s Weber n o t a s k i n g f o r p e r f e c t speech? Weber says t h a t t h e good s o c i a l s c i e n t i s t (good speech) i s one who s e g r e g a t e s v a l u e s from f a c t , i s one who does not speak value-judgement. F o r Weber, good speech i s speech t h a t i s s e g r e g a t e d from v a l u e i n s o f a r as t h e s o c i a l s c i e n t i s t can e i t h e r (1) speak - 209 -o n l y f a c t , o r (2) add value-judgements by making them e x p l i c i t , w h i c h i s t o say, by s e g r e g a t i n g them from f a c t . On t h e o t h e r hand, bad speech i s , f o r Weber, speech t h a t i m p l i c i t l y c o n t a i n s v a l u e - j u d g e m e n t s . So Weber says t h a t t h e s p e a k i n g of value-judgements i s o p t i o n a l , i . e . , i t can be i n c l u d e d i n t h e speech o f s o c i a l s c i e n c e o n l y i f i t i s e x p l i c i t l y d i f f e r e n t i a t e d from t h e s p e a k i n g t h a t i s s o c i a l s c i e n c e , from f a c t . Weber t r e a t s value-judgements as f u l l y e x p l i c a b l e , as f u l l y s p e a k a b l e and as s e g r e g a t a b l e from f a c t . I t i s i n t h i s sense t h a t Weber asks f o r p e r f e c t speech. But a f t e r a l l o f t h i s , a f t e r a l l o f Weber's d i s t i n c t i o n between f a c t and v a l u e , what s t i l l remains i s t h e v a l u e of Weber's speech, i . e . , what s t i l l remains i s t h e f a c t t h a t Weber's speech about e t h i c a l n e u t r a l i t y i s i t s e l f n o t e t h i c a l l y n e u t r a l . What abounds i s absent-mindedness. Weber's speech has f o r g o t t e n i t s own p o s s i b i l i t y i n s o f a r as Weber has f o r g o t t e n the E t h i c t o wh i c h h i s speech makes r e f e r e n c e and upon wh i c h h i s speech r e l i e s f o r i t s r i g h t n e s s and v a l u e . I t i s no wonder t h a t Weber recommends a s o c i a l s c i e n c e t h a t does n o t speak i t s mind, f o r Weber has f o r g o t t e n the mind o f th e s o c i a l s c i e n c e he recommends. I t i s no wonder t h a t Weber recommends a s o c i a l s c i e n c e t h a t i s e t h i c a l l y n e u t r a l , f o r Weber has f o r g o t t e n t h e E t h i c t h a t h i s s o c i a l s c i e n c e recommends. - 2 1 0 -Weber recommends t h a t s o c i a l s c i e n c e q u e s t i o n t h e " . . . t h i n g s w h i c h c o n v e n t i o n makes s e l f - e v i d e n t . " So Weber wants t o remind us t h a t our value-judgements are j u s t t h a t , v a l u e - j u d g e m e n t s . He wants t o remind us t h a t our value-judgements w i l l v a r y depending on our p l a c e , depending on our c u l t u r e , depending on our c o n v e n t i o n . So l i k e e thnography, Weber wants t o remind us t h a t what i s f i r s t and e s s e n t i a l i s c o n v e n t i o n . And t h i s s o r t o f reminder recommends t h a t S e l f i s a r e f l e c t i o n o f p l a c e , o r o f c u l t u r e . Thus, our l i v e s a r e v a l u a b l e i n s o f a r as our p l a c e i s v a l u a b l e and so, a s e a r c h f o r v a l u e amounts t o a s e a r c h f o r a v a l u a b l e p l a c e . So how can Weber speak o f a s o c i a l s c i e n c e t h a t i s e t h i c a l l y n e u t r a l ? Weber's speech d i s p l a y s the E t h i c t h a t makes i t p o s s i b l e i n s o f a r as Weber recommends sheer p l a c e , s h eer c u l t u r e , as f i r s t , e s s e n t i a l and v a l u a b l e . What Weber f o r g e t s i s n o t t h a t he can g e t r i d o f p l a c e o r c u l t u r e , s i n c e t h a t would be t o g e t r i d o f usage and speech, but Weber f o r g e t s t h a t he has chosen t o c o n c e i v e o f p l a c e and c u l t u r e as e s s e n t i a l and Weber f o r g e t s t h a t t h a t c h o i c e i s an e t h i c a l , m o r a l c h o i c e . When Weber speaks o f the methodology of the s o c i a l s c i e n c e s , he f o r g e t s t h a t he i s not mer e l y recommending s o c i a l s c i e n c e t e c h n i q u e . Weber f o r g e t s t h a t h i s i n t e r l o c u t o r i s s o c i a l s c i e n c e and t h a t h i s methodology i s a recommendation t h a t o r i e n t s t o t h a t i n t e r l o c u t o r and - 211 -recommends t o t h a t i n t e r l o c u t o r a v e r s i o n o f t h e good, i . e . , a v e r s i o n o f the. good s o c i a l s c i e n c e . So Weber o f f e r s h i s S e l f , f o r m u l a t e d as t h e good s o c i a l s c i e n c e , and thus h i s methodology, h i s v e r s i o n o f what s o c i a l s c i e n c e ought t o be, i s a r e f l e c t i o n o f Weber's n o t i o n o f t h e good and hence a r e f l e c t i o n o f Weber him S e l f . What Weber and ethnography f o r g e t i s t h a t t h e i r speech recommends a l i f e w o r t h l i v i n g . T h i s f o r g e t f u l n e s s i s a r e j e c t i o n o f t h e S o c r a t i c reminder and i n v i t a t i o n t o c o l l e c t t h e l i f e i n speech, i . e . , t o r e - c o l l e c t t h a t w h i c h makes the speech p o s s i b l e and t o remember t h a t any speech, i n c l u d i n g t h e speech o f Weber and ethnography, recommends a l i f e t h a t man ought t o l i v e . By r e a l i z i n g t h a t we a r e i g n o r a n t o f t h e most i m p o r t a n t t h i n g s , we r e a l i z e a t the same time t h a t t h e most i m p o r t a n t t h i n g f o r us, or t h e one t h i n g n e e d f u l , i s q u e s t f o r knowledge o f t h e most i m p o r t a n t t h i n g s o r qu e s t f o r wisdom. ( S t r a u s s , 1950:36) And i n what way i s t h e speech o f Weber and ethnography w i s e ? In what way i s t h e speech o f Weber and ethnography a q u e s t f o r wisdom? What wisdom do Weber and ethnography have t o o f f e r ? I s not t h e i r wisdom t h a t c o n v e n t i o n i s w i s e ? I s not t h e i r wisdom t h a t wisdom abounds i n c o n v e n t i o n and t h a t wisdom a w a i t s a l l o f us i n s o f a r as we can u n d e r s t a n d and r e a l i z e t h a t we l i v e c o n v e n t i o n a l l y ? I s t h i s not t h e wisdom t h a t Weber and ethnography have t o o f f e r , t h a t t o l i v e - 212 -w i s e l y we ought to l i v e c o n v e n t i o n a l l y ? But t h e i r wisdom i s stronger than t h i s , t h e i r wisdom t e l l s us t h a t there i s no ought at a l l , t h a t there i s no choice but to l i v e c o n v e n t i o n a l l y . While we may t h i n k otherwise, these wise men know t h a t there i s no otherwise since what there i s , a l l there i s , what i s f i r s t and e s s e n t i a l , i s convention. And i f t h i s were not enough, these wise men a l s o want to be e t h i c a l l y n e u t r a l . - 213 -FOOTNOTES 1 A r i s t o t l e (1097a-1098b). 2 For ethnography, contingency r u l e s and thus l i f e f i n d s i t s e l f c o n t r o l l e d by contingency. Man cannot take charge of h i s l i f e because h i s l i f e i s i n the charge of contingency, and a t bes t , what i s l e f t to man i s to r e c o g n i z e those c o n t i n g e n c i e s which are r e l e v a n t , a task which i s i t s e l f c o n t i n g e n t . I t i s no wonder, then, t h a t ethnography can onl y hope; i t can o n l y hope t h a t the r u l e of contingency w i l l be a benevolent r u l e . 3 The n o t i o n of a " f o r - a l l - p r a c t i c a l - p u r p o s e s " world i s t o be found i n G a r f i n k e l (1967), G a r f i n k e l and Sacks (1970). The world i s an i n t e r a c t i o n a l accomplishment and i n t e r a c t i o n accomplishes the world f o r - a l l - p r a c t i c a l - p u r p o s e s . In t h i s sense, G a r f i n k e l formulates the member as an a r t i s t , as an a r t i s t who, through h i s i n t e r a c t i o n s , can achieve a world. Thus, the o n l y t h i n g t h a t i s necessary i s to be a member, which i s to say, i s to be an a r t i s t . 4 Mann's i n t e r e s t , then, i s not merely t o communicate a r e s e a r c h i n t e r e s t , i n other words, communication i s not, f o r Mann, merely the p a s s i n g on of i n f o r m a t i o n . Instead, communication i s understood by Mann as a way t o formulate her work as e t h i c a l . But what Mann does not understand i s t h a t her communication - her f o r m u l a t i o n of her work as e t h i c a l - i s a l r e a d y a d i s p l a y o f an E t h i c and i s speech t h a t i s generated by the beginning, the deep d e c i s i o n , t h a t generates the p o s s i b i l i t y of ethnography. 5 I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g to note t h a t McCurdy went t o I n d i a to study a c c u l t u r a t i o n . In other words, he went to I n d i a to study " o u t s i d e c o n t a c t " t h a t was caused by a road being b u i l t . What i s i n t e r e s t i n g i s t h a t McCurdy d i d not conceive of h i m s e l f as an i n s t a n c e of a c c u l t u r a t i o n , i . e . , as an i n s t a n c e of o u t s i d e c o n t a c t . In t h i s sense, McCurdy has a l r e a d y formulated a c c u l t u r a t i o n , i . e . , has a l r e a d y s t u d i e d a c c u l t u r a t i o n , b e f o r e going to I n d i a . McCurdy does not s e i z e h i s (ethnography's) c o n c e p t i o n of a c c u l t u r a t i o n as an o c c a s i o n to formulate t h a t t o which ethnography owes i t s l i f e . - 214 -6 The torment t h a t A l c i b i a d e s s u f f e r s i s a torment t h a t s p r i n g s from c o n v e r s a t i o n , i . e . , i t i s a torment t h a t s p r i n g s from A l c i b i a d e s 1 i n q u i r y w i t h S o c r a t e s . A l c i b i a d e s says "He ( S o c r a t e s ) compels me t o r e a l i z e t h a t I am s t i l l a mass of i m p e r f e c t i o n s and y e t p e r s i s t e n t l y n e g l e c t my own t r u e i n t e r e s t s by engaging i n p u b l i c l i f e . " (216a) In o t h e r words, c o n v e r s a t i o n g i v e s b i r t h t o the torment t h a t i s i n the s o u l and demands t h a t t h e l i f e t h a t grounds t h e torment be examined. T h i s e x a m i n a t i o n p r o v i d e s t h e o c c a s i o n f o r A l c i b i a d e s t o l i v e d i f f e r e n t l y , i . e . , t o a l l o w t h e e x a m i n a t i o n t o be c o n s e q u e n t i a l . But i n s t e a d o f f a c i n g t h e p o s s i b i l i t y of consequences, A l c i b i a d e s says t h a t " I s t o p up my e a r s and t a k e - r e f u g e i n f l i g h t . " (216a) So A l c i b i a d e s i s ashamed; he i s ashamed t o f a c e S o c r a t e s , he i s ashamed t o e n t e r i n t o the c o n v e r s a t i o n t h a t i s i n q u i r y , s i n c e t h a t c o n v e r s a t i o n i s c o n s e q u e n t i a l . To a v o i d such shame, C e p h a l u s , t o o , "takes f l i g h t " , i . e . , Cephalus goes t o p r e p a r e h i s s a c r i f i c e . 7 M a i e u t i c s says t h a t what we need i s t h a t f o r which we cannot imagine Other: s i n c e t h a t f o r w h i c h we cannot imagine Other i s l i f e ( t h a t w h i c h cannot be e d i v i d e d ) , t h e whole i s r e c o n c i l e d by s p e a k i n g under the a u s p i c e s of such a need. What we need i s n o t something t h a t we l a c k , b u t t h a t w h i c h we have: our need i s t o s u s t a i n and r e - a c h i e v e what we have. (Blum, 1978:129) When ethnography s e a r c h e s f o r e t h i c s , i . e . , when ethnography seeks the s o l u t i o n t o e t h i c s c o n c e i v e d c o n c r e t e l y as a problem, i t seeks something new i n t h a t i t f o r m u l a t e s t h a t w h i c h i t seeks as something t h a t i t does not have, as something t h a t i t l a c k s . But ethnography a l r e a d y has an E t h i c ; ethnography a l r e a d y has a l i f e and, i n t h i s sense, ethnography l a c k s n o t h i n g . T h i s i s why t h e o r i z i n g ( c o n v e r s a t i o n ) f i n d s n o t h i n g new s i n c e a s e a r c h f o r e t h i c s i s a s e a r c h f o r S e l f i n s o f a r as c o n v e r s a t i o n r e - c o l l e c t s and r e - a c h i e v e s t h e S e l f . - 215 -8 Weber su g g e s t s t h a t t h e " v a l u e s " o f the s o c i a l s c i e n t i s t w i l l i n f l u e n c e h i s c h o i c e of a r e s e a r c h t o p i c and t h a t s o c i a l s c i e n c e has a v a l u e i n s o f a r as i t " . . . s t r i v e s t o a t t a i n ' v a l u a b l e 1 r e s u l t s , meaning t h e r e b y l o g i c a l l y and f a c t u a l l y c o r r e c t r e s u l t s w hich a r e s c i e n t i f i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t ; and t h a t f u r t h e r , the s e l e c t i o n o f t h e s u b j e c t - m a t t e r a l r e a d y i n v o l v e s an ' e v a l u a t i o n ' . " (Weber 1949:11) In t h i s sense, Weber i s not i n t e r e s t e d i n h i s deep i n t e r e s t , i . e . , Weber i s not i n t e r e s t e d i n r e -c o l l e c t i n g t h e R a t i o n a l e o f h i s speech, b u t i n s t e a d Weber i s i n t e r e s t e d i n p r o d u c i n g r a t i o n a l speech. - 216 -CHAPTER 7. INQUIRY I . Dear Reader, To t i t l e y o u r magazine The PLAIN TRUTH i s r e a l l y s t i c k i n g y o u r neck o u t ! But a f t e r 45 y e a r s of p u b l i s h i n g a r t i c l e s t h a t g i v e t h e news b e h i n d the news, show t h e t r e n d s , and even p r e d i c t major e v e n t s , t h e e d i t o r s know t h e magazine's t i t l e speaks f o r i t s e l f . The PLAIN TRUTH i s a 48 page f u l l c o l o u r unique f a m i l y and w o r l d news magazine f i l l e d w i t h f a c t s you need t o know. R e g u l a r a r t i c l e s about s o c i a l t r e n d s — where t h e f a m i l y i s headed, how t o have a happy m a r r i a g e , how t o h o l d down a good j o b . M a t t e r s o f i n t e r n a t i o n a l i m p o r t a n c e — e v e r y t h i n g from t h e R u s s i a n n a v a l p l a n t o dominate the West t o t h e c o n t i n u i n g w o r l d w i d e energy c r i s i s . G e n e r a l i n t e r e s t — i n c l u d i n g e d i t o r - i n - c h i e f H e r b e r t W. Armstrong's meetings w i t h l e a d e r s around t h e w o r l d . A r t i c l e s t h a t d i s c u s s r e l i g i o n from a r e f r e s h i n g v i e w p o i n t , m o r a l i t y , n u t r i t i o n and h e a l t h , s c i e n c e , economics, p o l i t i c s , the many f a c e t s o f our contemporary w o r l d — i t s h i s t o r y and i t s f u t u r e , i t s problems and t h e s o l u t i o n s . A l l are e x p l a i n e d i n a c l e a r , down-to-earth manner. The PLAIN TRUTH i s s e n t out f r e e - o f -charge i n t h e p u b l i c i n t e r e s t . You can have a f r e e copy d e l i v e r e d t o your home r e g u l a r l y — w i t h o u t s t i c k i n g y o u r neck ou t ! J u s t send i n t h e coupon on t h e o p p o s i t e page. No b i l l w i l l f o l l o w — t h a t ' s a p r o m i s e . Yours s i n c e r e l y , S u b s c r i p t i o n Department - 217 -R e s u l t s , r e s u l t s a r e t h e p r o m i s e . T h e p r o m i s e o f no b i l l t o f o l l o w i s e m i n e n t l y i n s i g n i f i c a n t i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e p r o m i s e o f r e s u l t s ; "Where t h e f a m i l y i s h e a d e d , how t o h a v e a h a p p y m a r r i a g e , how t o h o l d down a g o o d j o b , t h e many f a c e t s o f o u r c o n t e m p o r a r y w o r l d , " i n s h o r t , " p r o b l e m s a n d t h e s o l u t i o n s " . F o r s u c h r e s u l t s , f o r s u c h s o l u t i o n s t o t h e p r o b l e m o f l i f e , who c a r e s w h e t h e r o r n o t a b i l l w i l l f o l l o w ? What i s i m p o r t a n t a r e t h e r e s u l t s . A n d , t h e r e s u l t s t a k e on t h i s i m p o r t a n c e when l i f e i s f o r m u l a t e d as p r o b l e m a t i c . L i f e i s a p r o b l e m , o r b e t t e r , a s e r i e s o f p r o b l e m s t h a t m u s t be r e c o g n i z e d , t h a t m u s t be a d d r e s s e d , t h a t m u s t be c o p e d w i t h , t h a t m u s t be d e a l t w i t h , i n a w o r d , l i f e i s a p r o b l e m t h a t m u s t be r e s o l v e d . I n a s e n s e , t h e i d e a o f r e s u l t s f o r m u l a t e s l i f e a s a p r o b l e m t h a t m u s t b e r e s o l v e d , i . e . , t h a t m u s t be b r o u g h t t o an e n d , s o t h a t l i f e c a n c o n t i n u e . T h i s i s i n d e e d a s t r a n g e f o r m u l a t i o n o f l i f e ; l i f e n e e d s t o mee t i t s e n d s o t h a t i t c a n l i v e . T h e a u t h o r s o f t h e P L A I N TRUTH o f f e r n o t o n l y t o s a v e us f r o m p r o b l e m s , i . e . , t o s a v e u s f r o m t r o u b l e s , b u t o f f e r a l s o t o s a v e us f r o m t h e t r o u b l e o f f o r m u l a t i n g o u r own s o l u t i o n s t o t h e p r o b l e m o f l i f e . T h e y o f f e r us r e s u l t s ; t h e y o f f e r us t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e i r i n q u i r y a n d s o , t h e i r i n q u i r y d o e s n o t m a t t e r , t h e i r ' . i n q u i r y d o e s n o t m a t t e r t o u s n o r d o e s i t m a t t e r t o t h e m . What i s i m p o r t a n t i s t h a t t h e y h a v e r e s u l t s . T h e y h a v e i n q u i r e d i n t o t h e p r o b l e m o f l i f e - 218 -and t h i s i n q u i r y has produced s o l u t i o n s , i . e . , has produced r e s u l t s . So what m a t t e r s i s r e s u l t s , what m a t t e r s i s t h a t i n q u i r y produces r e s u l t s . The i n q u i r y i t s e l f does n o t m a t t e r s i n c e i t i s mer e l y t h e t r o u b l e and t h e e f f o r t t h a t needs t o be g o t t e n t h r o u g h on the way t o r e s u l t s . The i d e a of r e s u l t s , t h e n , f o r m u l a t e s i n q u i r y as t r i v i a l and tro u b l e s o m e and hence as something t h a t must be p r o s e c u t e d i n f a v o u r o f r e s u l t s . So The PLAIN TRUTH i s d o i n g us a m a g n i f i c e n t good. I t i s handing u s , f r e e o f charge, r e s u l t s , i . e . , i t i s handing us the s o l u t i o n s t o the problems o f l i f e and, what i s more m a g n i f i c e n t , i s t h a t i t a l l e v i a t e s f o r us t h e burden and t r o u b l e s o m e n e s s o f f i n d i n g t h e s e s o l u t i o n s o u r s e l v e s . What The PLAIN TRUTH i s o f f e r i n g u s , t h e n , i s the end o f l i f e , t h e end o f l i f e f o r m u l a t e d as a problem, and thus i s o f f e r i n g us p r o b l e m - f r e e l i v i n g . The n o t i o n o f i n q u i r y t h a t g e n e r a t e s t h e n o t i o n o f r e s u l t s n e c e s s i t a t e s l i f e f o r m u l a t e d as a problem and as a problem t o w h i c h s o l u t i o n s can be l o c a t e d . L i f e f o r m u l a t e d as a problem t o w h i c h t h e r e e x i s t s s o l u t i o n s , g e n e r a t e s i n q u i r y . I n q u i r y s u r f a c e s as a response t o t h e problems o f l i f e . W i t h o u t problems, t h e r e would be no i n q u i r y . So the end t h a t r e s u l t s p r o m i s e s i s t h e end o f l i f e i n s o f a r as r e s u l t s p r o m i s e s t h e end o f problems and t h u s the end o f i n q u i r y . The i d e a o f r e s u l t s , t h e n , i s a way t o f o r m u l a t e th e end o f i n q u i r y i n s o f a r as i t f o r m u l a t e s t h e good l i f e - 219 -as the l i f e w i t h o u t i n q u i r y . I n s t e a d o f a l i f e o f i n q u i r y , t h e i d e a o f r e s u l t s p r o m i s e s t h e good l i f e - o f a p p l i c a t i o n , i . e . , t h e good l i f e as a c h i e v e d t h r o u g h t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e r e s u l t s . And who b u t t h e one who c o n c e i v e s o f l i f e as r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , would r e f u s e t h e g i f t o f PLAIN TRUTH, i . e . , would r e f u s e t h e g i f t o f a l i f e o f a p p l i c a t i o n o v e r an e v e r -l a s t i n g l i f e o f i n q u i r y ? I n t h e Charmides, S o c r a t e s a d d r e s s e s "temperance". S o c r a t e s f o r m u l a t e s C r i t i a s 1 c o n c e p t i o n o f temperance as wisdom i n t h e f o l l o w i n g way: But then what p r o f i t , C r i t i a s , I s a i d , i s t h e r e any l o n g e r i n wisdom o r temperance whi c h y e t r e m a i n s , i f t h i s i s wisdom? I f , i n d e e d , as we were s u p p o s i n g a t f i r s t , t h e w i s e man were a b l e t o d i s t i n g u i s h what he knew and d i d n o t know, and t h a t he knew the one and d i d n o t know the o t h e r , and t o r e c o g n i z e a s i m i l a r f a c u l t y o f d i s c e r n m e n t i n o t h e r s , t h e r e would c e r t a i n l y be a g r e a t advantage i n b e i n g w i s e , f o r t h e n we s h o u l d n e v e r make a m i s t a k e , b u t s h o u l d pass t h r o u g h l i f e t h e u n e r r i n g g u i d e s o f o u r s e l v e s and o f t h o s e who are under us. We s h o u l d n o t attempt t o do what we d i d n o t know, but we s h o u l d f i n d o u t t h o s e who know, and hand t h e b u s i n e s s over t o them and t r u s t i n them. Nor s h o u l d we a l l o w t h o s e who were under us t o do a n y t h i n g w h i c h they were n o t l i k e l y t o do w e l l , and t h e y would be l i k e l y t o do w e l l j u s t t h a t o f w h i c h t h e y had knowledge. And t h e house o r s t a t e w h i c h was o r d e r e d o r a d m i n i s t e r e d under t h e g u i d a n c e o f wisdom, and e v e r y t h i n g e l s e o f w h i c h wisdom was t h e l o r d , would be s u r e t o be w e l l o r d e r e d , f o r w i t h t r u t h g u i d i n g and e r r o r e l i m i n a t e d , i n a l l t h e i r d o i n g s men must do n o b l y and w e l l , and d o i n g w e l l means h a p p i n e s s . Was n o t t h i s , C r i t i a s , what we spoke of as t h e g r e a t advantage of wisdom - t o know what i s known and what i s unknown t o us? (171d-172). - 220 -What has S o c r a t e s f o r m u l a t e d i f n o t t h e l i f e t h a t i s o f f e r e d t o us by The PLAIN TRUTH? I n o t h e r words, t h e l i f e t h a t i s o f f e r e d us w i t h wisdom c o n c e i v e d as r e s u l t s , i s a l i f e where we do n o t "have t o s t i c k o u r necks o u t " . And, " t h e r e would c e r t a i n l y be a g r e a t advantage i n b e i n g w i s e , f o r then we s h a l l never make a m i s t a k e , b u t s h o u l d pass t h r o u g h l i f e t he u n e r r i n g g u i d e s o f o u r s e l v e s and o f t h o s e who a r e under us." And what would the n o t i o n o f problems come t o mean i n such a l i f e ? The problems o f l i f e have been s o l v e d and our o n l y problem would be t o f i n d t h o s e who have the s o l u t i o n s "and hand the b u s i n e s s over t o them and t r u s t i n them." And, t h e b u s i n e s s i s l i f e . So what r e s u l t s recommends i s t h a t we hand t h e b u s i n e s s o f l i f e (our l i v e s ) o v e r t o o t h e r s s i n c e i t i s t h e i r b u s i n e s s i n s o f a r as t h e y have s o l v e d t h e problem o f l i f e . T h e i r g e n e r o s i t y amounts t o o f f e r i n g us a l i f e t h a t i s unpr6b'l'emat :i rc and so, o f f e r i n g us a l i f e t h a t r e q u i r e s no i n q u i r y and th u s t h e i r o f f e r i n g i s an o f f e r i n g o f p a s s i v e t r a n q u i l i t y i n s o f a r as our r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , o ur b u s i n e s s o f l i f e , need no l o n g e r be an i s s u e f o r us s i n c e t h e b u s i n e s s has been t a k e n c a r e o f . And t o whom does The PLAIN TRUTH speak? Who i s t h e "Dear Reader" t o whom The PLAIN TRUTH speaks? What v e r s i o n of r e a d i n g does The PLAIN TRUTH g e n e r a t e ? I n the Lach e s , Lysimachus and M e l e s i a s ask f o r t h e c o u n s e l o f N i c i a s , Laches and S o c r a t e s w i t h r e g a r d t o t h e q u e s t i o n o f how they s h a l l r a i s e t h e i r sons t o be v i r t u o u s . D u r i n g t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n - 221 -Lysimachus says t h a t : But t h i s i s our p r o p e r b u s i n e s s , and y o u r s as w e l l as o u r s , f o r I r e c k o n you as one o f us. P l e a s e then t o t a k e my p l a c e , and f i n d o u t from N i c i a s and Laches what we want t o know, f o r t h e sake of t h e y o u t h s , and t a l k and c o n s u l t w i t h them, f o r I am o l d , and my memory i s bad, and I do n o t remember t h e q u e s t i o n s w h i c h I i n t e n d t o ask, o r t h e answers t o them, and i f t h e r e i s any d i g r e s s i o n I l o s e t h e t h r e a d . I w i l l t h e r e f o r e beg o f you t o c a r r y on the proposed d i s c u s s i o n by y o u r s e l v e s , and I w i l l l i s t e n , and M e l e s i a s and I w i l l a c t upon your c o n c l u s i o n s . (189c - 189d) What Lysimachus asks f o r i s not i n q u i r y but t h e r e s u l t s o f i n q u i r y . Lysimachus does n o t want t o engage i n c o n v e r s a t i o n ( i n q u i r y ) as a way t o f o r m u l a t e t h e v i r t u o u s way t o r a i s e h i s son. Lysimachus wants t o r a i s e h i s son v i r t u o u s l y but does n o t want t o i n q u i r e i n t o t h i s u p b r i n g i n g and i n s t e a d wants t o a c t upon t h e c o n c l u s i o n s o f o t h e r s , o f o t h e r s who have i n q u i r e d and who have produced t h e c o n c l u s i o n s , t h e r e s u l t s . Lysimachus says t h a t he i s o l d and t h a t he has a bad memory and so, he cannot engage i n i n q u i r y but t h a t he i s o l d and t h a t he does have a bad memory does n o t p r e c l u d e him from l i v i n g a l i f e o f a p p l i c a t i o n , i . e . , from a p p l y i n g r e s u l t s . So Lysimachus wants t o s u b s c r i b e t o The PLAIN TRUTH and, as suc h , Lysimachus s u b s c r i b e s t o a l i f e o f p a s s i v e a p p l i c a t i o n . Lysimachus wants t o be v i r t u o u s ' and wants o t h e r s t o t e l l him how t o be v i r t u o u s . But Lysimachus does n o t u n d e r s t a n d t h a t h i s r e q u e s t f o r v i r t u e , h i s r e q u e s t f o r - 222 -c o n c l u s i o n s , i s h i s way t o f o r m u l a t e t h e v i r t u o u s l i f e and Lysimachus does n o t u n d e r s t a n d t h a t he w i l l c o n t i n u e t o f o r m u l a t e the v i r t u o u s l i f e d e s p i t e h i s o l d age and d e s p i t e h i s bad memory. Lysimachus, t h e n , e x e m p l i f i e s t h e r e a d e r t h a t The PLAIN TRUTH r e q u i r e s and f o r m u l a t e s as t h e good r e a d e r . The PLAIN TRUTH f o r m u l a t e s t h e good r e a d e r as one who does n o t need a memory s i n c e r e s u l t s , i . e . , s o l u t i o n s t o t h e problems of l i f e , a r e a v a i l a b l e c o n c r e t e l y and do n o t need t o be remembered. The PLAIN TRUTH does n o t want a r e a d e r who w i l l engage i n i n q u i r y s i n c e t h e i n q u i r y has a l r e a d y been completed and t h e r e s u l t s a r e i n . Moreover, The PLAIN TRUTH r e c o g n i z e s t h a t i n q u i r y i s a r i s k y b u s i n e s s and so, the r e a d e r i s f o r m u l a t e d as one who would, and s h o u l d , p r e f e r t o a v o i d t h e r i s k and so, The PLAIN TRUTH pr o m i s e s r e s u l t s and t h u s pr o m i s e s t h a t t h e r e a d e r w i l l n o t have t o s t i c k h i s neck o u t , w i l l n o t have t o i n q u i r e . The PLAIN TRUTH g i v e s Lysimachus what he wants; Lysimachus wants t o r a i s e h i s son v i r t u o u s l y and The PLAIN TRUTH w i l l p r o v i d e him w i t h t h e t e c h n i q u e f o r d o i n g so and th u s w i l l p r o v i d e Lysimachus w i t h a l i f e t h a t w i l l n ever r e q u i r e Lysimachus t o t h i n k about, o r t o d e c i d e , whether o r not he i s r a i s i n g h i s son v i r t u o u s l y , i . e . , whether o r not he i s l i v i n g t he good l i f e . - 223 -I I . Meno, t o o , i s concerned w i t h r e s u l t s . Meno e x e m p l i f i e s a v e r s i o n o f i n q u i r y t h a t f o r m u l a t e s i t s good as the p r o d u c t i o n o f r e s u l t s . F o r Meno, the whole p o i n t o f i n q u i r y i s t h a t i t t e r m i n a t e i n r e s u l t s . I n t h i s sense, t h e v e r y a s k i n g of a q u e s t i o n i s asked i n t h e s p i r i t o f o b t a i n i n g r e s u l t s , w h i c h i s t o say, q u e s t i o n s can be asked of t h o s e who a r e c o n c e i v e d o f as h a v i n g the r e s u l t s . Meno asks S o c r a t e s t o t e l l him whether o r not v i r t u e can be t a u g h t . And, f o r Meno, t h i s i s a problem t h a t p r e s s e s i n q u i r y i n t o s e r v i c e as a way t o produce a s o l u t i o n t o t h e problem, as a way t o produce r e s u l t s . T h i n k i n g t h a t S o c r a t e s knows, t h i n k i n g t h a t S o c r a t e s has a s o l u t i o n t o t h e problem, Meno asks S o c r a t e s t o share t h e r e s u l t s . And, even i f S o c r a t e s does n ot know t h e answer, does n o t have t h e r e s u l t s , Meno i s s a t i s f i e d t o s o l i c i t S o c r a t e s ' h e l p i n f i n d i n g t h e answer. So Meno has a problem, whether o r not v i r t u e can be t a u g h t , and Meno engages i n i n q u i r y t o produce t h e s o l u t i o n t o t h i s problem. I n t h i s sense, Meno i s i n q u e s t i v e l y a l l s e t , he has a problem and h i s i n q u i r y has a p o i n t , namely t o produce r e s u l t s . But S o c r a t e s t e l l s Meno t h a t he ( S o c r a t e s ) does n o t know what v i r t u e i s and t e l l s Meno t h a t b e f o r e t h e y can i n q u i r e i n t o t h e problem o f whether o r n o t v i r t u e can be t a u g h t , he - 224 -( S o c r a t e s ) w i l l have t o know what v i r t u e i s . Meno f o r m u l a t e s t h i s r e s ponse w i t h i n h i s n o t i o n o f i n q u i r y . The p o i n t o f Meno's i n q u i r y i s t o f i n d a s o l u t i o n t o t h e problem o f whether o r n o t v i r t u e can be t a u g h t and S o c r a t e s ' response i s f o r m u l a t e d by Meno as a temporary s t a l l i n g o f t h e p o i n t o f h i s i n q u i r y . Meno he a r s S o c r a t e s ' response as S o c r a t e s a s k i n g him (Meno) t o t e l l him ( S o c r a t e s ) what v i r t u e i s so t h a t t h e y can g e t on w i t h t h e i n q u i r y i n t o whether o r n o t v i r t u e can be t a u g h t . B e i n g a c o n f i d e n t young man, and f i l l e d w i t h t h e d e s i r e t o have S o c r a t e s t e l l him whether o r n o t v i r t u e can be t a u g h t , Meno proceeds t o t e l l S o c r a t e s what v i r t u e i s . But S o c r a t e s responds by q u e s t i o n i n g Meno as t o t h e good o f h i s d e f i n i t i o n o f v i r t u e . Meno o f f e r s s t i l l a n o t h e r d e f i n i t i o n , and a n o t h e r , and so on, and S o c r a t e s responds i n each case by q u e s t i o n i n g Meno about t h e good o f h i s d e f i n i t i o n ( s ) . Meno hea r s S o c r a t e s ' q u e s t i o n i n g as a r e f u t a t i o n o f h i s d e f i n i t i o n ( s ) . F i n a l l y , a f t e r s t i l l a n o t h e r r e f u t a t i o n o f s t i l l a n o t h e r one o f Meno's d e f i n i t i o n s o f v i r t u e , S o c r a t e s s a y s , "Then go back t o t h e b e g i n n i n g and answer my q u e s t i o n . What do you and your f