Bruno Latour in 2017 photo by KOKUYO. Image’s source
Anthropology’s delayed interest in the internet and digital culture, compared to disciplines like sociology and other social sciences, can be attributed to the notion described by Michel-Rolph Trouillot (2003) as the relation between the discipline and the “savage slot.”
According to Trouillot, anthropology traditionally occupies the “savage slot” within the realm of knowledge production. The discipline has been assigned the task of studying societies and cultures outside the dominant centers of power. Consequently, anthropologists have been sent to various locations that were often grouped under the notion of being “uncivilized” or belonging to “savages.”
This categorization has influenced the historical trajectory of anthropology, shaping its focus and priorities. The discipline has predominantly concentrated on studying societies considered different or “other” in comparison to the mainstream centers of power. As a result, anthropology’s exploration of digital cultures and utilization of digital ethnographic methods were somewhat delayed, as these phenomena emerged within the context of technologically advanced societies that were considered part of the mainstream.
Furthermore, digital ethnography is often perceived as a remote research method, which challenges the long-standing tradition in ethnography that emphasizes the immediate co-presence of the researcher with the interlocutors for intersubjective communication. However, as Johannes Fabian (1983) demonstrates, historically, the “others” depicted in ethnographic accounts have never been portrayed as immediate partners in cultural exchange, but rather as spatially and, more significantly, temporally distant groups. Consequently, this has given rise to another tradition that deems ethnographic field research valuable only if the researcher physically leaves their home and travels to the research site.
Regrettably, even today, there seems to exist a tendency among anthropologists to associate the prestige of research with the distance traveled by the researcher from their own culture. This mindset overlooks the value of research conducted within one’s own cultural context. In addition to be a black woman, isn’t the fact that Zora Neale Hurston’s pioneering work was not as highly appreciated–at least until recently–compared to other students of Franz Boas, because she studied “her own culture”?
The traditional focus of anthropology on studying “others” residing in distant locations underwent a transformation when Western anthropologists began to increasingly examine topics within their own cultures. However, this shift, like many historical changes, unfolded at a gradual pace. Bruno Latour (1991, 100) adopts a sarcastic and critical tone when describing this gradual shift, emphasizing its slowness and implications.
When anthropology comes home from the tropics in order to rejoin the anthropology of the modern world that is ready and waiting, it does so at first with caution, not to say with pusillanimity. At first, it thinks it can apply its methods only when Westerners mix up signs and things the way savage thought does. It will therefore look for what most resembles its traditional terrains as defined by the External Great Divide. To be sure, it has to sacrifice exoticism, but not at great cost, since anthropology maintains its critical distance by studying only the margins and fractures of rationality, or the realms beyond rationality. Popular medicine, witchcraft in the Bocage (Favret-Saada, 1980), peasant life in the shadow of nuclear power plants (Zonabend, 1989), the representations ordinary people have of technical risks (Douglas, 1983) – all these can be excellent field study topics, because the question of Nature – that is, of science – is not yet raised.
Another episode in the history of the discipline that shaped the shift away from studying others was the publication of Laura Nader (1972) article titled “Up the Anthropologist: Perspectives Gained from Studying Up.” Nader urged researchers to critically examine power dynamics and hierarchies within their own societies. Nader argues that while anthropology traditionally focuses on studying marginalized or “down” groups, there is a need to “study up” and analyze those in positions of power and privilege.
Finally. the changes in how fieldsite is understood within anthropology have significantly influenced the development of ethnographic studies of digital spaces. Previously, the traditional concept of ethnographic fieldsite referred to a singular location, (often “remote” and “small” in scale). However, in the 1990s, the emergence of multi-sited ethnography (Marcus 1995; Marcus 2011) challenged this traditional notion by advocating for ethnographic research conducted in multiple sites within the same study. Multi-sited ethnography introduced a new perspective on fieldsite, suggesting that ethnographic research could encompass multiple interconnected locations. This shift in understanding provided a foundation for digital ethnographers to argue that alternative conceptions of fieldsite, such as ‘virtual’ or ‘online’ spaces, are valid and essential to explore.
Work Cited
- Douglas, Mary. 1 983. Risk and Culture: An Essay in the Selection of Technical and Environmental Dangers. Berkeley: University of California Press.
- Fabian, Johannes. 1983. Time and the Other: How Anthropology Makes Its Object. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
- Favret-Saada, Jeanne. 1 980. Deadly Words: Witchcraft in the Bocage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Latour, Bruno. 1991. We Have Never Been Modern. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
- Marcus, George. 1995. “Ethnography in/of the World System.” Annual Review of Anthropology, 24, 95–117.
- Marcus, G. (2011). “Multi-sited ethnography: Five or Six Things I know about It Now.” In Coleman, Simon & von Hellerman, Pauline (Eds.). Multi-sited ethnography. London, England: Routledge
- Nader, Laura. 1972. “Up the Anthropologist: Perspectives Gained from Studying Up.” In: Hymes, Dell (ed.) Reinventing Anthropology. New York, NY: Pantheon Books. 284-311.
- Trouillot, Michel-Rolph. 2003. “Anthropology and the Savage Slot: The Poetics and Politics of Otherness.” In: Global Transformations. Palgrave Macmillan, New York.
- Zonabend, Francoise. 1 989. La presqu ‘ile au nucleaire. Paris: Odile Jacob