To what extent are all ethnographies autobiographical?

Using the readings of Rebecca Cassidy (2002) ‘The sport of kings: kinship, class and thoroughbred breeding in Newmarket’ and Shahram Khosravi (2011) ‘illegal traveller: an auto-ethnography of borders’, will help form the basis of this essay in explaining why ethnographies are becoming more autobiographical rather than all ethnographies being autobiographical. The selection of these two books have been made as they illustrate how the writing culture surrounding ethnographies can be altered, keeping their ‘objectivity’ whilst having a subjective foundation. Relevant readings throughout the essay will be used to support this claim.

The first half of the essay will briefly delve into why anthropologist have decided to make their ethnography’s autobiographical; with debates such as ‘is anthropology a science’,  the outcomes of debates as such creates a knock on effect, affecting matters such as ethnographies becoming autobiographical. The readings from James Clifford and George E. Marcus (1986) ‘writing culture: The poetics and politics of ethnography’ will be used to demonstrate how this knock on effect has had on the way we produce ethnographies as they discuss how anthropology has shifted (a paradigm shift in some sense) from the drive of producing scientific explanations on subject matters to a more literacy based methodology.
The second half of the essay will outline how the contemporization of anthropology, as the discipline gives way to ethnographies becoming more autobiographical through the means of being reflexive. Using relevant text, ‘anthropology and the politics of representation’ by Gabriela Vargas-Cetina (2013) gives a breakdown of what the need for ethnographies are as the discipline matures, and whether we anthropologist are holding onto the last colonial behaviours by writing ethnographies on cultures and seeing these ethnographies we produce to be absolute.

Why the favouring of autobiographical text as the discipline matures?

We are used to thinking of ethnography through the parameters of realism. A conventional text where the ethnographer is removed from the text and a narration supporting, describing and explaining (used as the ‘voice of god’ as quoted by Robert Gardner in his documentary ‘Dead Birds’ 1963). However, as the discipline of anthropology matures, ethnographies now shift becoming autobiographical.  ‘illegal’ traveller’ (2011) by Khosravi, an auto-ethnography on borders, guides you on a journey with the author along a series of events. The main theme is to shed light on issues that are present at borders, which highlight larger political, socioeconomic impacts that these borders have on today's society and the surrounding governance. All this is done through the eyes of Shahram Khosravi. The participant observation performed does not adhere to the ‘traditional sense’ but rather demonstrates how your life is the methodology. You are the anthropologist at every point observing and soaking in your surroundings.
This is shown by how Khosravi has a long history with borders and immigration, he quotes ‘autoethnography let's migrants contextualize their accounts of the experience of migrant illegality.’ (S. Khosravi 2011: 5). Khosravi demonstrates through his auto-ethnography how the author manages to present a reality to readers, and the means in translating that reality for readers to understand or relate to. All this is done through the means of autobiographical text, or for Khosravi, auto-ethnography.
Similarly, Rebecca Cassidy explores the concept of ‘Nature and Culture’ by looking into thoroughbred horses in Newmarket in her book ‘Sport of Kings (2002). Her findings are summarised perfectly as she states ‘meaning of “nature” in Newmarket are imbued with class, and offer a mechanism by which people and animals may be categorised according to ideas whereby some are innately superior to others by virtue of their breeding.’ (R. Cassidy 2002: 171). Similar to Khosravi, Rebecca has a history with horse racing, her ethnography is somewhat of a gateway into her experience, her being the author of her events, translating them for the reader to understand.

Autobiographical text has risen the ranks of being a popular methodology as the discipline matures, the critiquing of anthropology's attempts to reduce cultures observed to scientific quantifiable results seemed to have a backlash on the disciplines growing ethos.
Anthropology took a theoretical shift in its discipline, the turn to a more literary based study.  Through the works of J. Clifford and G. Marcus ‘Writing Culture’ (1986) they concluded that the anthropologist is seen to be the author of events that they have observed, rather than individuals who are capable of summarising cultures and cultural events using the basis of science.  As stated, ‘literary approaches have recently enjoyed some popularity in the human science’ (J. Clifford & G. Marcus 1986: 3) in addition, ‘literary texts were deemed to be metaphorical and allegorical, composed of inventions rather than observed facts; they allowed a wide latitude to the emotions, speculations, and subjective “genius” of their authors’  (J. Clifford & G. Marcus 1986: 5). Through quoting ideas from De Certeau (1983) in their book, they bring up the idea of how ‘ fiction and science are not opposed but complementary terms.’ (De Certeau quoted in ‘writing culture’ page 243) this gives way to seeing subjectivity in a new light, holding subjective truth accountable and worth believing, with autobiographical text being a methodology that holds subjectivity over objective facts, this allows its repertoire to start anew.

Introducing the thoughts of Geertz (1973) on interpretive anthropology is important to the questioning of why ethnographies are becoming more autobiographical. With ongoing discussions around the philosophy and approaches of the discipline, seeing how one approach can have a favouring effect helps see a perspective on this matter.
Anthropology can be seen to be an interpretive science, it implies that culture is no different from text as they both can be interpreted in multiple ways therefore making it near impossible for one's work to be objective on matters on culture. Geertz goes further with this idea and states that  ‘What we call our data are really our own constructions of other people’s constructions of what they and their compatriots are up to’ (C. Geertz 1973: 9). To sum up, anthropology does not offer scientific explanations through objective facts, but rather the interpretation of events and atmosphere. Autobiographical ethnographies are the tools used to give the best means of translating these events for readers to interpret.

Contemporization of anthropology

Anthropology is a discipline now known to be reflexive, having an ethos that is in a state of continual flux. When answering this question, it's necessary to look into what anthropology is.  As stated by Vargas-Cetina, ‘anthropology is a representational discipline…’ (G. Vargas-Cetina 2013: 5) The ethnographies we produce, the events we translate to be interpreted by others gives us the responsibility of representing those we have selected to observe. With reference to the literary shift in the discipline, the literary shift addressed the lack of reflexivity in anthropology and its ethnographies.
Vargas-Cetina noted that local people represented in anthropological text felt betrayed when it came to representation (G. Vargas-Cetina 2013: 1), Erikson (1995: 14) points out how, with the social sciences, anthropology manages to place emphasis on participating within fieldwork and it being the most important method of gaining knowledge. This participation with the field is still a working practice, playing with polyvocality (the voice of the ‘author’ and the voice of the selected subject) is a hard task. The ‘fiction’ of autobiographical text allows the polyvocality to be reflected well. With reference to Khosravi, the ‘biographical vignette’ (2013: 40+) allows the voices of migrants facing issues at borders to voice and represent themselves on issues the anthropologist wants to tackle.

However, there still seems to be tension against the notion of autobiographical text, especially within british anthropology. Judith Okely (1992) highlights how the gaze of  the anthropologists see autobiographical text as being a form of ‘narcissism’ (J. Okely 1992: 2). This conception of the author, ethnographer, anthropologist being removed from the data gather to make findings credible is a long-standing issue, ‘the autobiography of fieldwork is about the lived interactions, participatory experience and embodied knowledge…’ (J. Okely 1992: 3). The stigmatization of the individuals presences is something that is slowly being removed with autobiographical text.

Concluding thoughts

To answer this question, one must first mention and discuss arguments such as ‘is anthropology a science’ and ideas such as anthropology being an ‘interpretive discipline’ to gain an understanding of why anthropologist gravitate to autobiographical text as the discipline matures.
Ethnographies are more than an encounter, it is the product of an encounter and that there are always cultural discourses that underlay our interpretation of culture. Autobiographical text allows for us to present, what you bring to the table (your biases) and how the cultural discourses influence your biases and your interpretation of the culture that you've chosen to study. This adds to the reflexive element that autobiographical text brings forth. Your reflexive ability of your selected atmosphere is what makes you an anthropologist. This is seen through the works of S. Khosravi (2013) and R. Cassidy (2002) in their autobiographical ethnographies and is contested in the works of James Clifford and George E. Marcus (1986).

Bibliography:

• Clifford Geertz (1973) The Interpretation of Cultures, New York: Basic Books.
  

• Gabriela Vargas-Cetina (2013) Anthropology and the Politics of Representation , 2nd edn., Alabama : University of Alabama Press.
  

• James Clifford, George E. Marcus (1986) Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography, Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press.
  

• Judith Okely & Helen Callaway (1992) Anthropology & Autobiography, London: Routledge.
  

• Rebecca Cassidy (2002) The sport of kings: kinship, class and thorougbred breeding in Newmarket, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  

• Robert Gardner (1963) ‘Dead Birds’
  

• Shahram Khosravi (2011) ‘illegal’ traveller: an auto-ethnography of borders, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan
  

• Thomas Hylland Eriksen (1995) Small places, large issues, 2nd edn., London: Pluto Press.