84b34vdjc6o.html

<h1 data-label="718753" class="ltx_title_section"></h1><h1 data-label="718753" class="ltx_title_section"></h1><div>&nbsp;</div><h1 data-label="700741" class="ltx_title_section">INTRODUCTION</h1><div><i>Please add a few sentences here about your section...&nbsp;</i></div><div>The section "Decolonization Through Autoethnography" examines the methods and ideologies of autoethnography. This methodology does not solely focus on decolonizing Canadian anthropology, but through the works selected we see how autoethnography has been deployed in a Canadian setting. Autoethnography, in essence, is a tool that shifts power away from colonizers, and facilitates the indigenization of anthropology and epistemology.&nbsp;    In “   Archaeology and Museums: Deconstruction   and examining the colonial effects on modern Canadian archaeology    ” section, it discusses the legal and reforms that have happened in archaeology and museums. In an age where colonial powers are no more reforms are needed to move anthropology and even archeaology out of the colonial framework. We are now in a post-colonial world where acts of repatriation are being done and ownership of indigenous artefacts are being challenged by both sides, indigenous and government.    &nbsp;</div><h1 data-label="718753" class="ltx_title_section">Decolonizing Methodologies</h1><div>T. Smith's book&nbsp;<i>Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples</i>&nbsp;<cite class="ltx_cite raw v1">\cite{tuhiwai2013}</cite> is a well-known text that is not limited to anthropology, but that identifies different ways that research can be conducted by and with Indigenous peoples in ways that respect Indigenous needs and rights. </div><div>In a Canadian context, UBC anthropologist Charles Menzies has suggested a list of strategies for ethnographic research conducted "with, for, and among Indigenous peoples"&nbsp;<cite class="ltx_cite raw v1">\cite{menzies2001reflections}</cite>. </div><div>Central to both of these works is the premise that research must be truly collaborative from its inception, with research questions and priorities set in association with local communities, instead of operating in an extractive or merely consultative mode. Identifying Indigenous communities as partners and collaborators (e.g.,&nbsp;<cite class="ltx_cite raw v1">\citealt{ridington2013happiness}</cite>) implies a substantially different relationship between anthropologists and collaborators than is suggested for conventional participant observation, in which the ethnographer is a privileged subject whose role is to understand, and report on, "the natives"&nbsp;<cite class="ltx_cite raw v1">\cite{Malinowski1922}</cite>.</div><h1 data-label="502040" class="ltx_title_section">Decolonization Through Autoethnography (Kevin)</h1><div>&nbsp;Anthropology’s origins are deeply rooted in colonialism, a fact that has  shaped discourse within the discipline through generations. While anthropology  has greatly shifted away from its initial colonial ideals, it can be argued  that anthropology is inadvertently still colonial. Unfortunately, Canadian anthropology  is no exception to this pattern. Challenging these colonial values can be a difficult task. Throughout this essay, autoethnography, which is an  individual’s study or account of their own culture, will be examined as a  potential remedy to colonialism in anthropology. This will be done by looking  at how autoethnography challenges conventional anthropology’s physical  presence, how it can give a voice to informants, and how autoethnography intersects with <b>public anthropology</b> to deflect colonial values. To supplement this discussion, the autoethnographic works of Robert  F. Murphy, Julie Cruikshank, and Joel Martineau will be examined. Following  this, several common criticisms of autoethnography will be disputed. Over the  course of this essay it will be argued &nbsp;that autoethnography is an ideal means of  decolonization, physically and epistemologically. While this methodology does  not specifically target Canadian anthropology, some Canadian autoethnographic  works have been selected to show how it has decolonized Canadian anthropology.&nbsp;To understand how to challenge the presence of colonialism in anthropology we must first understand how anthropology has been colonial in the past.                                          &nbsp;</div><div>Central to the discipline of anthropology is fieldwork. &nbsp;Tullio Maranhão goes as far as to say that  fieldwork is the defining feature of the “anthropologist’s métier”&nbsp;<cite class="ltx_cite raw v1">\cite{Maranhao1986}</cite>.  While fieldwork has laid the foundation of modern anthropological theory and  practice, colonial undercurrents can often be found, rendering some methods of fieldwork  problematic. Aleksandar Bošković and Thomas Hylland Eriksen highlight how western  anthropology is often colonial in nature because  it focuses on foreign cultures who are not in a position to resist an unwanted presence&nbsp;<cite class="ltx_cite raw v1">\cite{Boskovic.Erkison2013}</cite>. Essentially, anthropology has been colonial as it has synthesized inimical fieldwork with an interest in foreign cultures, and through this has reinforced colonial  power balances. Epitomizing the colonial themes encapsulated in fieldwork are  Marius Barbeau and Bronislaw Malinowski. A brief examination of the work of these anthropologists will draw attention to how autoethnography can be used  to decolonize anthropological fieldwork and methodology. It is  important to note that these anthropologists were chosen not for their  anachronistic nature, but because their fieldwork, while prolific and greatly  influential, was harmful to the cultures they studied.&nbsp;</div><div>Marius Barbeau, a Canadian salvage ethnographer, reinforces a colonial power balance through his fieldwork. In the early 20th century Barbeau collected and archived Indigenous cultures that he believed were on the brink of extinction. Through his preservation efforts Barbeau assumed the role of a cultural curator, where he arbitrated the (in)authentic. This method of fieldwork is colonial as it polarizes power between the Indigenous people and the anthropologist. Barbeau often disregarded the information locals provided to him, deeming that their cultural insight was inferior to his. Through this Barbeau creates a dichotomous power relationship, where he is the authoritative figure on a culture despite his brief immersion into it, and that because of this he controlled what was genuine. In short, Barbeau distorted and dismissed contemporary culture by deciphering its authenticity through his “intuition”&nbsp;<cite class="ltx_cite raw v1">\cite{Nurse2011}</cite>. Despite his problematic fieldwork, Barbeau made great contributions to archiving culture and championed early anthropology’s strive to salvage culture perceived to be at risk. As mentioned, Barbeau was a Canadian anthropologist, helping provide an example of how Canadian anthropology has been colonial.</div><div>Bronislaw Malinowski’s&nbsp;<i>Argonauts of the Western Pacific</i>&nbsp;<cite class="ltx_cite raw v1">\citep{Malinowski1922}</cite> is another example of the colonial nature of anthropological fieldwork. While not Canadian in any sense, Malinowski's work further shows how anthropological methodology can be interpreted as colonial. Diverging from Barbeau’s power dichotomy, Malinowski’s fieldwork has a colonial undercurrent through the physical presence encouraged by&nbsp;<b>participant observation</b>. Malinowski advocated that anthropologists need to immerse themselves in the cultures they study. While this approach was progressive in contrast to its contemporaries, it reinforced a colonial presence in the cultures being studied. In “The Hermeneutics of Participant Observation”, Maranhão states that Indigenous populations fear anthropologists as they “do not know the powers [t]he[y] can unleash, but who have learned about the impact the colonial authority, the missionary, or the tourist can have over their community”&nbsp;<cite class="ltx_cite raw v1">\cite{Maranhao1986}</cite>. In other words, the presence of an anthropologist can bring discomfort and even fear to a community. This is alluded to by Malinowski himself when he states: “they finished by regarding me as part and parcel of their life, a necessary evil or nuisance, mitigated by donations of tobacco”&nbsp;<cite class="ltx_cite raw v1">\cite{Malinowski1922}</cite>. Despite eventually becoming a part of everyday life, it is clear that Malinowski was an invasive presence. Pertinent to the colonial roots of fieldwork is a quote from David MacDougall, an ethnographic film maker, who writes that “if not in his personal demeanor, then in the significance of his working method, he inevitably reaffirms the colonial origins of anthropology”&nbsp;<cite class="ltx_cite raw v1">\cite{McDougall2003}</cite>. While the works of these anthropologists have contributed greatly to current in anthropology, they reinforced problematic fieldwork methods. </div><div>Autoethnography offers a unique and polymorphous remedy to some of these issues, allowing a possible path for decolonizing anthropology.&nbsp;Central to the discussion of how to decolonize anthropology is the work of Mary Louise Pratt, who establishes a useful definition for the term “autoethnography”. Pratt states that autoethnography is when “colonized subjects undertake to represent themselves in ways that engage with the colonizers own terms”&nbsp;<cite class="ltx_cite raw v1">\cite{Pratt1991}</cite>. This definition provides context for the preceding works and how they can be seen as autoethnographic.</div><div>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;One central way that autoethnography decolonizes anthropology is through its subversive methodologies. One such work  that challenges the concept of the anthropologist as an authoritative third party is the work of Robert F. Murphy. Murphy's work is deeply emotional, tragic, and insightful, but for pertinence his work must be briefly summarized for its methodology. The Body Silent is an autoethnographic work, published in 1987, that charts Murphy’s transition into paralysis, and the social effects it has had on his life as an anthropologist and professor.&nbsp; In&nbsp;<i>The Body Silent</i>&nbsp;there is a merging of personal experience with research and theory, which creates a powerful anthropological work. This work is subversive, as rather than following patterns of western anthropology, focusing on foreign cultures with an etic approach, Murphy takes an introspective approach of his own culture, fusing <b>emic </b>and <b>etic </b>perspectives by using “inner space to explore the structure of selfhood and sentiment”&nbsp;<cite class="ltx_cite raw v1">\cite{Murphy2001}</cite>. Indirectly this approach also removes what might be seen as an intrusive presence from an indigenous community. Murphy shows how the transition of denizen to subject can be fluid and unobtrusive, allowing for the study of physical impairment, or other aspects of ones own culture without the need&nbsp; for a colonial presence. Murphy decolonizes anthropology by showing that it is not solely a tool for learning about the "other".</div>