To Include or to Exclude? The Problem of the Observer in Cultural and Analytical Anthropology

Cover Page

Full Text

Open Access Open Access
Restricted Access Access granted
Restricted Access Subscription Access

Abstract

The article is dedicated to the study of the role of non-participant observation in the analytical anthropology of Valery Podoroga. Non-participant observation is considered in comparison with the classic method of field anthropology — participant observation. Theoretical objectives and goals of participant observation are formulated, and the general logic of its evolution is identified. The analysis of Malinovsky’s field diaries allows determining significant influence of Western literary tradition on the position of a “participant observer” as well as the fundamental “exclusion” of the anthropologist from the sociocultural context at an early stage of the method development due to the implicit presence of a colonial attitude in the researcher’s outlook. It is emphasized that as the method of participant observation develops, the communicative element increases, which leads to a complete “inclusion” of the researcher in the target sociocultural environment. After that, the role of the method of “participant observation” in Valery Podoroga’s philosophical project is identified, his own opposition between the participant and non-participant types of observation is analyzed, and considerable influence of the phenomenological tradition on the latter is highlighted. The examples provided by Valery Podoroga in his methodological work “Anthropogrammes” (2017) are analyzed. In conclusion, declarative differences as well as similarities of both methods are studied, including the important literary element of both approaches which does not allow considering them as strictly scientific and nomothetic ones but allowing to classify them as ideographic methods. In both cases, the presence of a considerable sociocultural distance between the researcher and the subject of research is identified as a significant characteristic of anthropological experience. Possibilities of a synthesis of both approaches are outlined through separation of the phases of an anthropological study: field study and archive work. The heuristic potential of non-participant observation is identified when determining structural features of the studied commonalities using phenomenological analysis.

About the authors

Andrey Viktorovich Gasilin

Institute of Scientific Information on Social Sciences of the Russian Academy of Sciences

ORCID iD: 0000-0003-2271-0399
51/21, Nakhimovsky prospect, Moscow 117418, Russian Federation

References

  1. Гасилин А.В. Метод Подороги. Окулярная аналитика и мгновение письма // Человек. 2021. Т. 32, № 5. С. 84–102.
  2. Концептуальные структуры // Новая философская энциклопедия. М.: Мысль, 2010 [Электронный ресурс]. URL: https://iphlib.ru/library/collection/newphilenc/document/HASH01e906864d3e116cfed6f1e8 (дата обращения: 01.10.2023).
  3. Кэролл Л. Приключения Алисы в стране чудес. Сквозь зеркало и что там увидела Алиса, или Алиса в Зазеркалье: пер. с англ. М.: Наука, 1990.
  4. Малиновский Б. Научные принципы и методы исследования культурного изменения // Антологии исследований культуры. Интерпретация культуры. СПб.: Центр гуманитарных инициатив, 2008. С. 371–384.
  5. Подорога В.А. Антропограммы. Опыт самокритики: с приложением дискуссии. СПб.: Изд-во Европейского ун-та в Санкт-Петербурге, 2017a.
  6. Подорога В.А. Время чтения. М.: «Канон+» РООИ, «Реабилитация», 2021a.
  7. Подорога В.А. Второй экран. Сергей Эйзенштейн и кинематограф насилия. Т. 1. Зеркальная подпорка. Материалы к психобиографии. М.: BREUS, 2017b.
  8. Подорога В.А. Второй экран. Сергей Эйзенштейн и кинематограф насилия. Т. 2. Прототело. Фрагменты визуальной антропологии. М.: BREUS, 2020a.
  9. Подорога В.А. Метафизика ландшафта. Коммуникативные стратегии в философской культуре XIX–XX веков. М.: «Канон+», РООИ «Реабилитация», 2021b.
  10. Подорога В.А. Мимесис. Материалы по аналитической антропологии литературы. Т. 1. Н. Гоголь, Ф. Достоевский. М.: Культурная революция, Логос, Logos-altera, 2006.
  11. Подорога В.А. Мимесис. Материалы по аналитической антропологии литературы в двух томах. Т. 2. Часть I. Идея произведения. Experimentum crucis в литературе XX века. А. Белый, А. Платонов, группа Обэриу. М.: Культурная революция, 2011.
  12. Подорога В.А. Парабола. Франц Кафка и конструкция сновидения. Аналитическая антропология литературы. М.: Культурная революция, 2020b.
  13. Foucault M. L'Herméneutique du sujet. Paris: Gallimard, 2001.
  14. Malinowski B. A Diary in the Strict Sense of the Term. London: The Athlone Press, 1989.
  15. Thompson Hunter S. Hell`s Angels. : The Strange and Terrible Saga of the Outlaw Motorcycle Gangs. New York: Random House, 1999.
  16. Viveiros De Castro E. Métaphysiques cannibales. Lignes d’anthropologie post-structurale. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 2009.

Copyright (c) 2024 Russian Academy of Sciences

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies