by ogrejager » Mon Jun 07, 2010 7:36 am
I'm not an anthropologist, but rather a sociologist. Our training is pretty similar and there's a lot of overlap (which means both groups, with a B.A. can competently clean restrooms). As either, the original poster has a point--you've got to remove yourself from the society and portray things in a "objective" sense--the Nacireman example is a classic one. However, like most things made for high school reading, it goes too far. So does this. The Nacireman example does it, though, with a mind toward the reader's perception. This does not. When you portray any group and then show your writings to society, you have to be aware of two ethical considerations. First, how those that read it, who aren't group members, will view the group. That doesn't necessarily have to be "good," but you shouldn't go out of your way to portray the "bad." Second, you need to be careful how your writing makes the group that took the time to show you inside it feel. Again, this doesn't have to be "touchy-feely," but you shouldn't piss off your group, either. A good example of this middle ground is Rich Mitchell's book on survivalists.

My dog may not be "cute" or "cool"...but he HUNTS!