Abstract
Anthropological participant observation should confront binary oppositions and extreme dichotomies. Western intellectual traditions have illuminated dichotomies in definitions, especially Descartes’ Mind/Body division. The disembodied “I think therefore I am” prioritizes the intellect over other aspects of human experience such as the senses. Nevertheless, another French intellectual, Marcel Mauss, centuries later, published an outstanding essay on Les Techniques du Corps (1936). He explored the multiple ways in which bodily movement differs according to culture. Internal cultural differences are also affected by age and gender, which he did not confront at that pioneering stage. Notwithstanding, Mauss is relevant to the practice of anthropological fieldwork across cultures. The anthropologist learns not only with her/his mind, but crucially, in combination with the body.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The phrase was popularized by Carol Hanisch’s 1969 essay title “The Personal is Political” in Firestone and Koedt (1970), although Hanisch disavows authorship of the phrase. Others have also declined authorship but cite millions of women as the collective authors.
- 2.
At the 2016 AAA conference, a leading anthropologist, of Indian descent, confided how influential my Virago publication had been to her.
- 3.
The author explicates on the histories and politics of designations in Okely and Houtman (2011, pp. 24–25): “Different groups choose different self-ascriptions, and preferred titles change over time as labels become stigmatized. Fredrik Barth (1969) pioneered the emphasis on self-ascription among ethnic groups. “Traveller,” used by the Scottish and Irish, has replaced the once neutral descriptive label “Tinker.” The latter term originally referred to skills in improvised metal work, but hostile use by the dominant society led to its abandonment (Helleiner 2000). “Gypsy” is a shortening of “Egyptian,” long-used from the fifteenth century onwards to denote any so-called foreigners. It was once a capital offense to be a Gypsy. Nevertheless, Gypsies in England and Wales have embraced the title. An alternative is “Romany.” In hegemonic media discourse, “Romany” has been used as a means of constructing “real” Gypsies, as distinct from alleged “half-castes,” or “drop-outs” (see Acton 1974). When engaging with racist outsiders, Gypsies may prefer to neutralize their identity by calling themselves Travellers. Another current term is “Roma.” This label’s increased profile is connected in part to the practice, widespread in the former communist countries of the EU, of appointing state-salaried ethnic “leaders,” who were often in effect professional lobbyists, and frequently considered unrepresentative—and sometimes ritually polluted—by the groups they supposedly stood for (Kaminski 1980). This form of representation stands in contrast to the decentralized experience and political strategies of Gypsies in other countries, especially the UK. It was through such figures that the label “Roma” gained its wide currency. In 2004, the EU, apparently ignorant of these multiple histories and preferred terminologies, deferred to those who saw themselves as representatives of Roma in the ex-communist countries, who lobbied for the banning of the label “Gypsy.” In so doing, the EU showed its apparent ignorance of the existence of the long-established British Gypsy Council (Acton 1974). The label “Roma,” although certainly embraced by many, is not universal in the formerly communist-ruled parts of Europe. Czech anthropologists (Budilová and Jakoubek 2009) confirm that Slovak Gypsies refuse to call themselves Roma, because the high-profile “leaders” who embrace the term do not represent their interests. Furthermore, the use of “Roma” can emphasize a mono Indian origin and an unadulterated Hindu culture, at the expense of recognizing the variegated histories and adaptations that have emerged over centuries. This implicit privileging of a single territory of origin is consistent with the Stalin-era policy of affording greater recognition to minorities with claims to specific territorial connections. The pre-Sanskrit linguistic connections that can be discerned in the many forms of Romanes meant that for many communist-governed Roma, it made sense to designate India as their original territory. The single Indian origin is reiterated by a British-born linguist (Hancock 2002). These issues have been fully debated elsewhere (Willems 1997; Liebich 2007; Jacobs and Ries 2008). My early questioning of the narrative of a single origin for Gypsy culture was generally taken to be anthropologically convincing (Okely 1983, pp. 1–27). Regarding the question of “ethnicity,” for each of these minorities, the principle of descent is crucial. This principle has gradually replaced the problematic notion of biological “race” in political and legal debate. When the Irish Travellers were recognized as an ethnic minority, followed by the Scottish Travellers in 2008, it was people’s shared history and shared ancestry that was felt to be crucial. The question of Indian origin was not deemed relevant. Scottish Traveller Colin Clark and I provided expert witness for the recognition of Scottish Travellers (see also Clark and Greenfields 2006). As recently as the 1990s, only the English Gypsies were legally recognized as an ethnic group in the UK, on the grounds that they had originated in India and were therefore a distinct “race.” All these groups distinguish themselves from nonmembers. Roma and Gypsies call outsiders “gaje.” The Irish Travellers call non-Travellers “country people.” The Scottish Travellers use the label “flatties.”
- 4.
My father lectured in German and French at Royal Air Force Cranwell. My parents first met in Berlin as fellow Anglos. This chapter celebrates that emotional connection.
References
Acton, T. (1974). Gypsy politics and social change. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Barth, F. (Ed.). (1969). Introduction to: Ethnic groups and boundaries. London, Allen and Unwin.
Budilová, L., & Jakoubek, M. (2009). Anthropological fieldwork, site and Roma communities. Roma/Gypsies in the Czech and Slovak Republic. Anthropological Notebooks, 15(3), 5–14.
Clark, C., & Greenfields, M. (2006). Here to stay. Hertford: Hertfordshire Press.
Marcus, G. E., & Clifford, J. (1986). Writing culture: The poetics and politics of ethnography. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Davies, J. (2010). Introduction. Emotions in the field. In J. Davies & D. Spencer (Eds.), Emotions in the field: The psychology and anthropology of fieldwork experience (pp. 1–31). Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.
De Beauvoir, S. (1949). Le deuxieme sexe. Paris: Gallimard.
De Beauvoir, S. (1958). Memoires d’une jeune fille rangée. Paris: Gallimard.
Firestone, S., & Koedt, A. (Eds.). (1970). Notes from the second year. Women’s liberation. New York: Quadrangle Books.
Freud, S. (1954). The interpretation of dreams (J. Strachey, Trans.). London: George Allen Unwin (Original version published in 1900).
Goffman, E. (1968). Asylums. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Hancock, I. (2002). We are the Romany people. Hertford: University of Hertfordshire Press.
Helleiner, J. (2000). Irish travellers: Racism and the politics of culture. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Jacobs, F., & Ries, J. (Eds.). (2008). Roma/Gypsies in new perspectives. Leipzig: Leipziger Universitatsverlag.
Jakoubek, M., & Budilová, L. (2006). Kinship, social organisation and genealogical manipulations in Gypsyosadasin eastern Slovakia. Romani Studies, 16(1), 63–82. https://doi.org/10.3828/rs.2006.4
Kaminski, I. M. (1980). The state of ambiguity: Studies of gypsy refugees. Gothenburg: Anthropological Research.
Khalvati, M. (2001). The chine. Manchester: Carcanet.
Leach, E. (1967). An anthropologist’s reflections on a social survey. In D. Jongmans & P. Gutkind (Eds.), Anthropologists in the field (pp. 75–88). Assen: Van Gorcum.
Lévi-Strauss, C. (1962). Totemism (R. Needham Trans.). Boston: Beacon Press (Original work published in 1958).
Lévi-Strauss, C. (1973). Tristes tropiques (J. Weightman & D. Weightman, Trans.). London: Jonathan Cape (Original work published in 1955).
Liebich, A. (2007). Roma nation? Competing narratives of nationhood. Nationalism and Ethnic Politics, 13.
Mauss, M. (1936). Les techniques du corps. Journal de Psychologie, XXXII(3–4). Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Mauss, M. (1954). The gift (I. Cunnison, Trans.). London: Cohen & West (Original version published in 1925).
M.H.L.G. (Ministry of Housing and Local Government). (1967). Gypsies and other Travellers. London: H.M.S.O.
Oakley, A. (1972). Sex, gender and society. London: Temple Smith.
Okely, J. (1983). The Traveller-Gypsies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Okely, J. (1986). Simone de Beauvoir. A re-reading. London: Virago.
Okely, J. (1987). Fieldwork up the M1. Policy and political aspects. In A. Jackson (Ed.), Anthropology at home (pp. 55–73). London: Tavistock.
Okely, J. (1992). Anthropology and autobiography. Participatory experience and embodied knowledge. In J. Okely & H. Callaway (Eds.), Anthropology and autobiography (pp. 1–28). London: Routledge.
Okely, J. (1996). Own or other culture. London: Routledge.
Okely, J. (1997a). Some political consequences of theories of Gypsy ethnicity. The place of the intellectual. In A. James, J. Hockey, & A. Dawson (Eds.), After writing culture (pp. 224–243). London: Routledge.
Okely, J. (1997b). Non-territorial culture as the rationale for the assimilation of Gypsy children. Childhood, 4(1), 63–80. https://doi.org/10.1177/0907568297004001004
Okely, J. (2003). The filmed return of the natives – To a colonizing territory of terror. Journal of Media Practice, 3(1), 65–74. https://doi.org/10.1386/jmpr.3.2.65
Okely, J. (2005). Gypsy justice versus gorgio law. Interrelations of difference. The Sociological Review, 53(4), 691–709. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.2005.00591.x
Okely, J. (2007). Fieldwork embodied. In C. Shilling (Ed.), Embodying sociology. Retrospect, progress and prospects (pp. 65–79). Oxford: Blackwell.
Okely, J. (2009). Written out and written in: Inishkillane remembered. Irish Journal of Anthropology, 12(2).
Okely, J. (2012a). The Isle of Wight as a site for English-British identity. In J. Matthews & D. Travers (Eds.), Islands and Britishness. A global perspective (pp. 40–52). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Okely, J. (2012b). Anthropological practice. Fieldwork and the ethnographic method. London: Bloomsbury.
Okely, J. (2015). Dialogues with anthropologists. Where interviews become relevant. In K. Smith, J. Staples, & N. Rapport (Eds.), Extraordinary encounters. Authenticity and the interview (pp. 128–156). Oxford: Berghahn.
Okely, J., & Callaway, H. (Eds.). (1992). Anthropology and autobiography. London: Routledge.
Okely, J., & Houtman, G. (2011). The Dale farm eviction: Interview with Judith Okely on Gypsies and travellers. Anthropology Today, 27(6), 24–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8322.2011.00840.x
Proust, M. (1913–1927). A la Recherche du temps perdu. Paris: Gallimard.
Rosaldo, R. (1986). From the door of his tent. The fieldworker and the inquisitor. In G. E. Marcus & J. Clifford (Eds.), Writing culture: The poetics and politics of ethnography (pp. 77–97). Berkeley: University of California Press.
Schaverien, J. (2015). Boarding school syndrome. The psychological trauma of the “privileged” child. London: Routledge.
Turner, V. (1969). The ritual process. London: Penguin.
Whyte, W. F. (1955). Street corner society. The social structure of an Italian slum. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Williams, P. (2003). Gypsy world. The silence of the living and the voices of the dead. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Willems, W. (1997). In search of the true gypsy: From enlightenment to final solution. London: Frank Cass Publishers.
Zulaika, J. (1995). The anthropologist as terrorist. In C. Nordstrom & A. Robben (Eds.), Fieldwork under fire. Studies of violence and survival (pp. 205–222). Berkeley: University of California.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Okely, J. (2019). Fieldwork Emotions: Embedded Across Cultures, Shared, Repressed, or Subconscious. In: Stodulka, T., Dinkelaker, S., Thajib, F. (eds) Affective Dimensions of Fieldwork and Ethnography. Theory and History in the Human and Social Sciences. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20831-8_27
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20831-8_27
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-20830-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-20831-8
eBook Packages: Behavioral Science and PsychologyBehavioral Science and Psychology (R0)