I will explore the impact and dynamics of fieldwork in various settings, and seek to illustrate the extent to which the process itself resembles a “colonial encounter”. Before doing so, however, initial foundations must be laid through the clarification of terms, and detailing of context.
Concerning the role and significance of fieldwork within the context of colonialism, there remains considerable debate, as well as subjective interpretation, in light of its ambiguous contribution to the colonial objective, and the motivations behind its implementation.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Case Study: Northern Rhodesia
3. Theoretical Perspectives on Fieldwork and Colonialism
4. Divergent Methods and Perspectives in Fieldwork
5. Case Study: Indirect Rule in Eastern Nigeria
6. Power Dynamics and Constraints in Colonial Fieldwork
7. Conclusion
Objectives and Topics
This essay examines the extent to which anthropological fieldwork during the colonial era can be categorized as a "colonial encounter," exploring the complex relationship between research practices, administrative power, and the ethical positioning of researchers.
- Analysis of fieldwork dynamics in late colonial Northern Rhodesia.
- Evaluation of the "handmaiden of colonialism" framework within anthropology.
- Comparative case study of Indirect Rule in Eastern Nigeria (1920-1940).
- The tension between administrative utility and the moral agency of individual researchers.
- The impact of colonial power structures on the autonomy of the ethnologist.
Excerpt from the Book
To begin this discussion, attention is first drawn to Schumaker’s (1999) case study of Northern Rhodesia from the 1920s to 1960s; the late colonial period.
The specific emphasis in this enquiry relates to the fieldwork styles of both the colonial administrators, and the anthropologists working alongside them. In the 1930s, Schumaker explains, the governor of Northern Rhodesia founded an anthropological institute, the RLI (Rhodes-Livingstone Institute), which originally set out to “create a coordinated program of applied anthropology useful for colonial development” (1999:328). The researchers at this institute were trained to collect comparable data on a variety of different field sites.
The context in which this fieldwork took place was socially and politically challenging: the northern British colonies were undergoing decolonisation, whilst the south experienced segregation and apartheid. Fieldwork, in this case, favours the notion of a colonial encounter, as its objective advances the colonial power. This is reflected by Schumaker when she states, “RLI anthropologists followed the model of the colonial administrator in more than dress, talk, and negotiation… Government patters of work and movement in the field influenced anthropological activity, and Africans sometimes perceived anthropologists to be following those patterns” (1999:336).
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: Defines the core concepts of fieldwork and the colonial encounter, outlining the methodological approach using two primary case studies.
2. Case Study: Northern Rhodesia: Explores the role of the Rhodes-Livingstone Institute and how anthropological research was shaped by the needs of colonial administrators.
3. Theoretical Perspectives on Fieldwork and Colonialism: Discusses scholarly critiques, such as those by Turner and Lewis, regarding the role of anthropologists as agents of colonial supremacy.
4. Divergent Methods and Perspectives in Fieldwork: Examines instances where individual researchers resisted colonial objectives or maintained moral opposition to imperialist practices.
5. Case Study: Indirect Rule in Eastern Nigeria: Analyzes the failure of Indirect Rule and the subsequent reliance on anthropological knowledge to manage colonial social structures.
6. Power Dynamics and Constraints in Colonial Fieldwork: Addresses the systemic pressures and lack of autonomy faced by fieldworkers within the established colonial power structure.
7. Conclusion: Synthesizes the findings to argue that while fieldwork often mirrors colonial encounters, it is not always a result of intentional, full-scale collaboration with colonial power.
Keywords
Fieldwork, Colonialism, Colonial Encounter, Anthropology, Northern Rhodesia, Eastern Nigeria, Indirect Rule, RLI, Power Dynamics, Ethnography, Imperialism, Colonial Administration, Applied Anthropology, Resistance.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core argument of this essay?
The essay argues that while anthropological fieldwork in the colonial period often functioned as a "colonial encounter" by providing useful data to colonial authorities, this was not always a result of a researcher's active or willing compliance with colonial power.
What are the primary case studies used?
The research focuses on the Rhodes-Livingstone Institute (RLI) in Northern Rhodesia and the implementation of Indirect Rule in Eastern Nigeria between 1920 and 1940.
What is the research goal of the work?
The goal is to determine the extent to which the process of fieldwork can be characterized as a colonial encounter by analyzing the interplay between ethnographic research and colonial objectives.
Which scientific methods are applied?
The work employs a qualitative, comparative historical analysis of academic literature, anthropological theory, and specific colonial case studies.
What is covered in the main body?
The main body examines historical fieldwork practices, the theoretical tension regarding anthropologists as "apologists of colonialism," and the systemic constraints placed upon researchers by colonial governments.
Which keywords best describe this research?
Key terms include Colonialism, Fieldwork, Indirect Rule, Anthropology, and Power Dynamics.
How does the "handmaiden of colonialism" term fit into the study?
The author uses this term, popularized by Asad, to illustrate that anthropology served as an aid to colonial governance, though often in a secondary or reluctant manner.
Why was the Rhodes-Livingstone Institute significant?
The RLI is presented as an example of how anthropological research was formally coordinated and institutionalized to serve colonial development goals.
What role did the "Women’s War" play in the Nigerian context?
The Women's War highlighted the failure of the British Indirect Rule system due to ignorance of local social structures, which subsequently led the administration to seek anthropological expertise.
Can fieldwork be performed without being a colonial encounter?
The author concludes that while fieldwork is inextricably linked to the power structures of its time, individual researchers can maintain moral stances that resist or transcend the goals of the colonial establishment.
- Citation du texte
- Timothy McGlinchey (Auteur), 2015, Fieldwork as a "Colonial Encounter"? The Impact and Dynamics of Fieldwork, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/322772
