Ethnography Unbound: From Theory Shock to Critical Praxis

9. Debating Ecology: Ethnographic Writing that “Makes a Difference”

WHAT IS THE BASIS FOR ethnographic authority? This question draws increasing attention in response to critiques of positivist claims to objectivity. According to Carl Herndl, traditional ethnographers textually construct their authority by declaring their presence at a field site, then by suppressing that presence. This device erroneously suggests that texts can transparently represent cultures and that observers do not impact what they observe. In contrast, recent self-reflexive ethnographies have highlighted that how ethnographers choose to claim authority is contingent and rhetorically constructed. For example, in Translated Woman, Ruth Behar crafts her ethos around a recognition that she has herself changed in consequence of her research, reversing the postcolonial critique that ethnographies assist in transformations of the cultures they represent. Ralph Cintron, in Angels’ Town, also writes self-reflexively , but in his case he reaffirms the distance between himself and the field site he has so assiduously attempted to order in his writing. What these contrastive examples suggest is that questions of authority no longer center only on whether to write self-reflexively, but also on what form of reflexivity to adopt and to what purpose. 157 9 Debating Ecology Ethnographic Writing that “Makes a Difference” SHARON McKENZIE STEVENS My thanks to Tilly Warnock, Tom Miller, and the students of Tom Miller’s Community Literacy Practicum for helpful comments on early drafts of this chapter. Questions of authority and representation are central in my own research because I focus on an issue that has been culturally relegated to the jurisdiction of ecologists or experienced land managers. For the past year I have conducted interviews and observed discussions about whether and how to graze cattle in Arizona. As a rhetorical critic, I consider my field site to be the system of claims that define this public debate. Those interested in the outcome of this debate approach it through several topics—such as by questioning the economic value of ranching or by contrasting ranching with pressures for other land use such as development and recreation. One especially dominant way of debating the value of livestock is through science-based argument. I am consequently confronted by the perceived incongruity of commenting on this conflict from an ethnographic , rather than a scientific, perspective. To the ranchers, activists, and government agents who are key to this debate, the role of a rhetorical critic is anything but self-evident. In this context, self-reflexivity is not just a fashionable way to write, but also a response to the discomfort I routinely feel in my fieldwork as many of my informants challenge the authority of nonscientists to write about a “scientific” issue. For me to write with authority in this context requires that I construct a relationship to the debate that reconfigures its boundaries to include the work of an ethnographic observer trained in rhetorical analysis. My choice of field site is in many ways a form of “studying up.” Measures such as funding allocations and media coverage suggest that both career academics and the public typically grant greater cultural power to scientific rather than to ethnographic knowledge. However, the questions my site raises about authority and knowledge are also pertinent to other contexts. For many in the field of rhetoric and composition, a particularly salient form of ethnography is teacher research, which can be thought of as “studying down.” However, the challenge many teachers experience when adapting theory to practice still raises questions about the nature of knowledge ethnographic study generates. What type of validity does our knowledge have? Is knowledge only knowledge if it provides a complete and practical explanation of the problem it addresses? Questions about the validity of ethnographic knowledge are crucial to ethnographic writers. How writers understand their knowledge impacts how they write. The opposite is also true. How we craft our accounts impacts the validity of our knowledge and the way our work will be useful in practice. Feminist technoscience scholar Donna Haraway, through her concept of “diffraction,” provides one thoughtful response to questions of knowledge and authority. Although Haraway does not use diffraction to describe explicitly ethnographic writing, her juxtaposition of diffraction with reflexivity invites its application by all writers concerned with how to understand and represent their relationship to their area of study. Haraway focuses on the optical metaphors underlying these two terms and voices concern that reflexivity suggests the replication of what already exists, as if our knowledge was the mir158 Sharon McKenzie Stevens ror image...