What Are We Looking For?

Clifford, "On Ethnographic Authority"
Grimshaw, Introduction "The Ethnographer's Eye"
David and Judith McDougall, "Notes on Turkana Marriage"
Mead/Bateson, "Trance and Dance in Bali"


For me, the single most evident difference between the McDougall and Mead/Bateson pieces is the way authority is constructed. Clifford lies out four major “modes” of authority as experiential, interpretive, dialogical, and polyphonic. These different modes correspond to particular moments in the development of visual anthropology, and today’s ethnographers have the opportunity to utilize all four, or combinations thereof. Clifford writes, “none is obsolete, non pure; there is room for invention within each paradigm” (54). I find this exemplified in both the McDougalls’ and Mead/Bateson’s use of authoritative modes.

The mythology around Margaret Mead positions her as prototypical fieldworker-ethnographer who justifies her claims based on her experience and “feel” for the culture in question. However this seems to contrast with Mead’s role in “Trance and Dance in Bali.” Interestingly, the film we do not recognize her as an active participant-observer; instead we hear her voice-over narration and feel her as the omniscient, unseen expert. This disconnect actually lead me to question her authority. I could easily disassociate her voice from the visual footage. Therefore I was able to invest more in my own interpretations of what I saw. Because it was only Mead clarifying the performance, I began to think, “What is she not telling me, what is being omitted, and what is the value of the images Mead has chosen to highlight?” Overall, “Dance and Trance in Bali” lacks a contextual background; it left me feeling that I had not learned much at all.

The McDougall’s excerpt, on the other hand, utilizes more forms of authority, and this I believe constructs a richer and more in-depth understanding of the subject matter. We hear and see the filmmakers’ field notes, giving us insight into their motives. We learn that the filmmakers are living in a certain area because it’s near to the Turkana people that they know. This concept of knowing, or being personally familiar with the subjects of the film, seems to positions the McDougalls as “participant-observers,” or at least gets us closer to defining this slippery concept. They construct a more multi-layered sense of authority, contrasting with Mead’ “Dance and Trance.”

For example, the camera, although sometimes fixed on a talking Turkana person, is also given over to the people being filmed, and we “see” for a few moments “through their eyes.” Clifford, referencing Malinowski’s introduction to Argonauts of the Western Pacific, identifies “the dominant mode of modern fieldwork authority” sigaled as “You are there…because I was there” (22). So even this little camera play is enticing, gives the subjects agency; shortens the distance between those being filmed, and those watching. It says instead, “I, who you are seeing, am here.”


We also get many shots of the physical location and surroundings of the Turkana camp. This helps us contextualize. Many shots in this excerpt go without narration, and this seems to invite a sort of interpretive authority, on our own accord. Without explanation, we are forced to interpret for ourselves. All of the different ways of presenting information gives the viewer a selection of patches, which we are then able to put together and deduce meaning.

The differences between the construction of authority in these excerpts is absolutely linked to the degree of technological development in the moment each film was made. With omni-directional mics, or even just sturdier and more plentiful equipment, “Trance and Dance in Bali” might have taken on a different form. Current filmmakers have the ability to generate content from multiple voices, and multiple authors. I am curious to view more films, to see if multiple authorship does help to make a more satisfying ethnographic film.

As a viewer, I have to ask myself, “What am I looking for?” Why does the McDougall’s style feeling more appealing, more truthful? Grimshaw quotes Herbert Read, noting, “We see what we want to see, and what we want to see is determined, not by the inevitable law of optics or even (as may be the case in wild animals) by an instinct for survival, but by the desire to discover or construct a credible world” (8). I wonder if it’s even possible to see with an innocent eye.