Abstract
In this edited volume, renowned anthropologist and sociologist Didier Fassin brings together 12 ethnographers to discuss one of the crucial concerns addressed by anthropologists during the last decade, namely, the effects and challenges that come about when ethnography goes public.
Predictably, there is no easy answer to this question. Drawing from ethnographic experiences conducted by these researchers and Fassin himself for diverse purposes, in dissimilar settings, and with different subjects, each of the ethnographers contributing to this volume further pushes this central question, while also focusing on one of the three sub-themes into which this book is organised:
First, the strategies that can be used when interacting with the public – and which most of the time are implemented within ethical, political, economic and all sorts of contextual constraints hardly ever predicted when starting an ethnographic process.
Second, the expected – but mostly surprising and unexpected – forms of engagement sought by the subjects of the study and by the public(s), who can demand different kinds of accountability from the researcher, can appropriate and dismiss different bits and pieces of the research for manifold purposes, some aligned with the interests of the researcher, but some that can be radically opposed to his original planning.
Third, the arising tensions that can emerge once the fieldwork is done, the writing is published, and it encounters its publics. Tensions that can go from an academic dispute to public discreditation and shaming, because in going public there is always the chance of being praised but also the perils of criticism, misrepresentation, and misunderstanding, among others.
Finally, there is an appealing epilogue by Fassin about the afterlife of data (which is also exemplified in the act from which this book originates: inviting ethnographers to reflect and write about their past research) and, more interestingly, about the construction of the public as a distinctive anthropological figure, different from people. The public, as Fassin argues, appears as a critical figure for ethnography, as it holds a ‘potential for critique’ (p. 324) that can reshape ethnography and largely influence the afterlife of the published data.
Interestingly, the book does not just address these topics. Rather, it uses them as an excuse to further discuss a wide array of matters linked to the purpose of conducting ethnography in our current societies. Hence, different questions emerge throughout the chapters. Sadly, but at the same time understandably, not all of them are answered, but merely mentioned. Questions that range from how sensitive contexts influence the potentials of public engagement, to how ethnography can help produce counterevidence that can challenge power, or how different parties can actually work together in the production of an ethnographic process.
One of the key contributions of this book lies in showing how wonderfully intended and carefully planned ethnographies can go awry. And how important reflexivity is in terms of providing a critical stance on these events. I find this to be crucial, as these stories not only allow the reader to see how decisions are made and how research can be put to use to talk ‘truth to power’ but also to see how this process is much more complex, nuanced, and limited than is commonly assumed. Reading through these ethnographies provides a wonderful insight into the complexities and limitations entailed in the publicisation of ethnography. In this sense, the book is a wonderful contribution that further helps to reflect upon the role of ethnography, and the constant challenges it must face when trying to go beyond academia and engage with wider audiences. It is also a great contribution to reflect upon how this process can be conducted the other way around; that is, how public engagement can be driven by actors outside academia, with different consequences. It is a book that illustrates the problems that anyone doing ethnography can face when conducting fieldwork, as it gently highlights how much is not within the researcher’s control; how cornered he or she can be by the different interpellations and demands that can arise from the encounter with different subjects and with the public.
