AO. not division of labor.

  • AO: Like Matsutake group, they explicitly note they are not interested in a division of labor (86)

  • AO: They give an example of collaboration with “Bert” who eventually wrote a book on ethnography for Bert’s own intellectual project. They note: “This clearly and materially represented an appropriation of George and Doug’s thinking about anthropology for the purposes of Bert’s own intellectual projects in his space.” At first glance, I wondered if it meant that to be/have an “epistemic partner”, the partner has to also produce a similar (equal) output - i.e. books. But in the context of my project, I think that this would be for example, multiple different users (and uses) of the ethnographic data generated and collected. I.e. if the other research groups within the soon to be collective (do we need to think of a name to describe what this will be??) were to use the data, would that be the equivalent to what Holmes and Marcus here and the example of Bert publishing a book with their knowledge? I think perhaps even the annotation structure (if the others annotate the data) could also be this kind of (counter) para-ethnographic moves.

  • AO: The analysts in this piece are describing similar (but much more nuanced) ideas about reciprocol benefits from research. The idea that the ethnographer and their work can also be appropriated by the research “subject” What is different/more nuanced about this type of “reciprocol benefit” than some of the other works like Pillay which ring hollow? I think it relates to the “shared conceptual labor” they discuss which makes the benefits more clearly symmetrical (even if not equal per say). This is where the term “found reflexive subjects” is I think key. The idea being not that you can have such a collaborative relationship with everyone and anyone but rather, there are particular individuals/groups with whom this kind of work has the potential to be more reciprocally beneficial.


Analytic (Question)





Creative Commons Licence