An Excess of Description- Ethnography Race, And Visual Technologies
-
Upload
massimo-branca -
Category
Documents
-
view
102 -
download
7
Transcript of An Excess of Description- Ethnography Race, And Visual Technologies
An Excess of Description: Ethnography, Race, and Visual TechnologiesAuthor(s): Deborah PooleReviewed work(s):Source: Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 34 (2005), pp. 159-179Published by: Annual ReviewsStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25064881 .Accessed: 09/03/2012 12:29
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
Annual Reviews is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Annual Review ofAnthropology.
http://www.jstor.org
An Excess of Description:
Ethnography, Race, and
Visual Technologies Deborah Poole
Department of Anthropology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland 21218; email: [email protected]
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2005. 34:159-79
The Annual Review of
Anthropology is online at
anthro.annualreviews.org
doi: 10.1146/
annurev.anthro. 3 3.070203.144034
Copyright 2005 by Annual Reviews. All rights reserved
0084-6570/05/1021
0159$20.00
Key Words
photography, visual anthropology, temporality, archive,
ethnography
Abstract
This essay provides an overview of recent anthropological work on
the relationship between racial thought and the visual technologies of photography and film. I argue that anthropologists have moved
away from a concern with representation per se in favor of the more
complex discursive and political landscapes opened up by the con
cepts of media and the archive. My review of this work focuses on the
affective register of suspicion that has surrounded both visual meth
ods and the idea of race in anthropology. Whereas this suspicion has led some to dismiss visual technologies
as inherently racializ
ing or objectifying, I argue that it is possible to reclaim suspicion as a
productive site for rethinking the particular forms of presence,
uncertainty, and contingency that characterize both ethnographic and visual accounts of the world. I begin by discussing recent work on the photographic archive, early fieldwork photography, and the
subsequent move in the 1960s and 1970s from still photography to
film and video within the emergent subfield of visual anthropology.
Finally, I consider how more recent work on the problem of race in
favor of descriptive accounts of mediascapes.
159
Contents
INTRODUCTION. 160
THE ARCHIVE. 161
EXCESS AND CONTEXT. 163
Contingency. 164
PHOTOGRAPHY IN THE FIELD. 165
Culture at a Distance. 168
NOTICING DIFFERENCE. 171
INTRODUCTION
Anthropological work on race and vision has
proliferated in conversation in recent years
with a yet broader visual turn in the fields
of critical theory and philosophy (Brennan &
Jay 1996; Crary 1990; Debord 1987; Foucault
1973, 1977; Jay 1994; Mitchell 1980, 1986;
Rorty 1979). Theories of language, discourse,
and representation developed in these sis
ter disciplines led many scholars to ques
tion traditional anthropological distinctions
between culture and race insofar as both
of these languages for theorizing social dif
ference have led to talk about essentialized
or biologized identities and boundaries (e.g.,
Michaels 1995; Said 1978, 1993). Yet others
from within the discipline itself leveled the more inclusive charge that the visualism in
herent to ethnographic modes of description
and writing led to the reification, racialization,
and temporal distancing of the people whom
anthropologists study (Clifford & Marcus
1986, Fabian 1983). This charge was fueled
by the parallel histories, as well as the pre
sumed homology, between racialism and an
thropology as interpretive projects grounded
in Enlightenment ideals of description and
discovery. Thus, it was reasoned, if race is
about finding classificatory order and mean
ing underneath (or within) the visible sur
face of the world, then similarly ethnography
was about the discovery of cultural and moral
worlds through the observation of embodied
behaviors and beliefs. In both cases, the ob
served surface of the world whether com
posed of skin colors or ritual behaviors was
presumed to contain, as if concealed within
it, another, more abstract order of meaning,
which was the ethnographer's task to reveal.
The native was thus constituted as object
through a perceptual act that both emanated
from and, in so doing, constituted the ethno
grapher as a reasoned, thinking subject. Al
though these claims were easily leveled at
many ethnographic endeavors of the past,
what is distressing about at least some of the
post-Orientalist critique, is that, by confin
ing visuality itself within the directional di
alectic of a Cartesian metaphysics, they left
little room for thinking about other, alter
native scenarios in which vision, technology,
and difference might be differently related
(Benjamin 1999; Buck-Morss 1989; Connolly 2002; Deleuze 1985, 1994; Jay 1988; Levin
1999). This review takes this dilemma as a start
ing point for revisiting some recent as well
as some not so recent work on the relation
ship between race, vision, photography, and
ethnography. In exploring this literature, I ask
how the idea of race has shaped the affec
tive register of suspicion with which anthro
pologists have tended to greet photography,
film, and other visual technologies. By focus
ing on suspicion, I hope to shift the burden
of criticism away from the usual conclusions
about how race has shaped the way we see the
world, and how visual technologies have, in
turn, shaped the very notion of race. Although
interesting and important, the recent prolifer
ation of anthropological writing on questions
of race, representation, photography, and film
suggests that these are, by now, familiar argu
ments. As such, the ostensibly critical account
these studies of anthropology provide would
seem to have run its course in that they du
plicate the same sort of descriptive or norma
tive force we have so convincingly assigned to
photography as a
technology that is produc
tive of racial ideas and orders. This descriptive
plentitude comes at the expense of silencing
the capacity of both ethnography and photog
raphy to unsettle our accounts of the world.
16o Poole
Rather than dwelling on the ordering ef
fects of visual representations, then, in this
review I look more closely at the productive
possibilities that visual technologies offer for
reclaiming the uncertainty and contingency
that characterize anthropological accounts of
the world. This potential is unleashed pre
cisely because of the ambiguous role played
by visual images in the disciplinary struggle first to identify, and then later to avoid, the
idea of race as that which can be seen and de
scribed. I make no attempt to review all the
work that has been done on either race or vi
suality in recent years. In particular, I have not
considered the numerous studies that address
visual images of "others" exclusively in terms
of their content as representations, stereo
types, or misrepresentations. Rather, my par
ticular interest is to understand how the forms
of suspicion that surround visual representa
tions and race have shaped anthropological
understandings of evidence, experience, the
limits of ethnographic inquiry, and, as a con
sequence, our own ongoing engagement with
ethnographic method and description. I first consider how anthropologists who
both collected and made photographs in the
nineteenth and early twentieth centuries rec
onciled disciplinary norms of evidence and
evolutionary models of race with the peculiar
temporality of the photograph. The experi ence of these anthropologists is particularly
revealing in that it coincides with a period in which anthropology moved from the en
thusiastic pursuit of racial order to an al
most equally fervent rejection of the very idea
of race. The suspicion with which photogra
phy was
greeted by anthropologists thus ran
the gamut from an empiricist concern with
deception (i.e., a concern for the accuracy
with which photographs represented a "racial
fact") to worries about the inability of pho
tography to capture the intangibles of culture
and social organization. I then explore work
that falls self-consciously within the subfield
of visual anthropology that emerged in the
1960s and 1970s in reaction to this concern
with the distinctive dangers and promises
of visual technologies. Although early work
in visual anthropology was
explicitly con
cerned about countering the notion that vi
sual representations necessarily constituted an
exploitative and/or racializing expropriation
of the indigenous subject, more recent work
on indigenous media displaces discussion of
race with theories of ethnicity and identity formation. Finally, I close with some reflec
tions on what these recent histories of visual
technologies and race can offer for rethink
ing visuality, encounter, and difference in
ethnography.
THE ARCHIVE
Much like their nineteenth-century predeces
sors, anthropologists who have returned to
the photographic archive have been largely concerned with finding
some sort of or
der, or logic, within the sometimes enor
mous and richly diverse collections they en
counter. Institutional collections such as those
held by the Smithsonian (Scherer 1973), the Royal Anthropological Institute (Pinney 1992, Poignant 1992), The American Mu
seum of Natural History (Jacknis 1992), or
Harvard's Peabody Museum (Banta & Hinsley 1986) have been examined in an attempt to
uncover the theoretical (and political) in
terests of the anthropologists who collected
them. Other much less studied collections
for example, the George Eastman House in
Rochester, New York, the Royal Geographic
Society in London, or the magnificent hold
ings at France's National Library were put
together over
longer periods of time, with
less academically coherent agendas, and with
personnel and budgets that were often very
much on the margins of the anthropologi
cal academy. Although less revealing of the
specific ways in which early anthropologists looked at photography, these collections offer
insight into the importance of photography and other visual technologies in the con
versations that took place between anthro
pological, administrative, governmental, and
www.annualreviews.org An Excess of Description 161
"popular" ideas of race (e.g., Alvarado et al.
2002, Graham-Brown 1988). A focus on the archive and practices of
collecting displaces the analytics of race away
from the search for "meanings" and the anal
ysis of image content, in favor of a focus
on the movement of images through differ
ent institutional, regional, and cultural sites.
In my own work on nineteenth-century An
dean photography (Poole 1997), for example, I looked at the circulation of anthropologi cal photographs as part of a broader visual
economy in which images of Andean peoples were produced and circulated internationally.
By broadening the social fields through which
photographs circulate and accrue "meaning"
or value, I argued for the privileged role
played by photography in the crafting of a
racial common sense which, as in the Grams
cian understanding of the term, unites "pop
ular" and "scientific" understandings of em
bodied difference (Poole 1997, 2004). Whereas my more Foucauldian approach
used circulation to argue for an expansion of
the anthropological archive, Edwards (2001)
argues that a focus on movement "breaks
down" the archive "into smaller, more dif
ferentiated and complex acts of anthropolog
ical intention" (2001, p. 29). She concludes
that the informal networks and "collecting
clubs" through which British anthropologists such as
Tylor, Haddon, and Balfour exchanged
and shared photographs led to a "privileg
ing of content over form" in the production
of anthropological interpretations of race. As
a product of the comparative methodologies
and exchange practices (or "flows") through which photographs
were rendered as "data"
in anthropology, the concept of race emerges
as an abstraction produced by the archive as
a technological form. Such a move to re
frame the archive as itself a visual technol
ogy takes us a long way from early studies
in which the "meaning" of particular photo
graphic images was interpreted
as being
a re
flection, or "expression," of racial and colo
nial ideologies formed elsewhere, outside the
archive.
Edwards' approach to the photographic archive as a series of "microintentions" rather
than as the reflection of a "universalizing de
sire" (2001, p. 7) also raises important ques
tions concerning where we locate the politics
of colonialism in the study of racial photogra
phy. An initial and motivating question for
much of this photographic history concerned
the political involvements of anthropologists in the colonial project and the racial technolo
gies of colonialism. Not surprising, in these
studies we find that Victorian anthropologists tended to concentrate their efforts on collect
ing photographs from India and other British
colonies (Gordon 1997, Pinney 1992); French
ethnologists accumulated images of Algeri ans (Prochaska 1990); and U.S.-based anthro
pologists sought images that could complete their inventory of Native American "types" (Bernardin & Graulich 2003, Blackman 1981,
Bush & Mitchell 1994, Faris 1996, Gidley 2003). What becomes clear is that this corre
spondence between the subject matter found
in the anthropological archive and the impe rial politics of particular nation states owed
as much to the contemporary methodolo
gies of anthropological research as it did to
the overtly colonialist sympathies of these
early practitioners of anthropology. With few
exceptions, nineteenth-century anthropolo
gists practiced an
"epistolary ethnography"
(Stocking 1995, p. 16) in which data was ob
tained not through direct observation, but
rather through correspondence with the gov
ernment officials, missionaries, and sundry
agents of commerce and colonialism who had
had the occasion to acquire firsthand knowl
edge (or at least scattered observations) of na
tives in far-flung places. For these anthro
pologists, photographic technology "closed
the space between the site of observation
on the colonial periphery and the site of
metropolitan interpretation" (Edwards 2001,
pp. 31-32). At the same time, as Edwards (2 001, pp. 3 8,
133), Poignant (1992), Pinney (1992, 1997), and others point out, anthropologists
were
not naively accepting of the much-lauded
I 2 Poole
"transparency" or
"objectivity" of pho
tographs. Indeed, the value they assigned to
photographs as scientific evidence was inti
mately related to the forms of exchange, accu
mulation, and, above all, comparison, through
which mute photographs could be made to
produce the general laws, statistical regular
ities and the systemic predictions of evolu
tionary, and ethnological "theory." Of par
ticular importance here was the genre of the
"type" photograph studied by Edwards (1990,
2001), Pinney (1992, 1997), Poignant (1992), Poole (1997), and others. The classificatory conceit of type allowed images of individ
ual bodies to be read not in reference to
the place, time, context, or individual hu
man being portrayed in each photograph, but
rather as self-contained exemplars of ideal
ized racial categories with no single referent in
the world. In other words, photographs were
not read by anthropologists as evidence of
facts that could be independently observed.
Rather, as if in response to an increasing
awareness of the almost infinite variety of hu
man behaviors and appearances, photographs
themselves came to constitute the facts
of anthropology (Edwards 2001, Poignant 1992).
EXCESS AND CONTEXT
As almost everyone who has studied the
history of anthropological photography has
been quick to point out, the mid-nineteenth
century anthropological romance with pho
tography was fueled in important ways by a
desire for coherence, accuracy, and comple
tion. It was also, however, plagued almost
from the beginning by a certain nervous
ness about both the excessive detail and the
temporal contingencies of the photographic
prints that began to pile up around the anthro
pologist's once
comfortably distant armchair.
In her study of the photographic archives at the Royal Anthropological Institute (RAI),
Poignant charts the subtle faultlines through which British anthropologists came to tem
per their initial fascination with the evidential
power of the photographic image as "facts in
themselves" (Poignant 1992, p. 44). The RAI
archive was founded on the basis of collec
tions from the Anti-Slavery and Aborigines' Protection Societies (Pinney 1992, Poignant 1992). Photographs collected for these early societies often relied on such common artistic
conventions as the portrait vignette, through
which the "native" subject could be made to look, as it were, more human and more
needy. During the 1880s, however, the an
thropologists charged with making sense of
the RAI's new endeavor became increasingly
concerned to discipline the sorts of poses,
framings, and settings in which subjects were
photographed. During the 1880s, the even
more rigorous standardization demanded by
Adolphe Bertillon's and Arthur Chervin's an
thropom trie methods cemented the distinc
tion between "racial" and "ethnological" pho
tographs (Poole 1997, pp. 132-40; Sekula
1989). By specifying uniform focal lengths, poses, and backdrops, anthropologists sought to edit out the distracting "noise" of con
text, culture, and the human countenance
(Edward 2001, Macintyre & MacKenzie
1992, Spencer 1992). In yet other cases, an
thropologists worked on the surface of the
photographic print to inscribe interior frames
that would isolate bits of ethnological or racial data (for example, tattoos) from the rest of
the individual's body (Wright 2003). Whereas such gestures betray
a felt "need for some
kind of intervention to make things [like race and culture] fully visible" (Wright 2003,
p. 149), they also betray an
underlying suspi
cion about "the frustratingly ... m
tonymie nature of the photograph" (Poignant 1992,
p. 42). Edwards' (2001, pp. 131-55) study of the
Darwinian biologist, Thomas Huxley's "well
considered plan" to produce a photographic
inventory of the races of the British Empire,
provides one
example of how "the intrusion
of humanizing, cultural detail" (2001, p. 144)
disrupted the scientific ambitions of anthro
pology. Not only were colonial officials reluc tant to jeopardize relations with the natives
RAI: Royal
Anthropological Institute
www.annualreviews.org An Excess of Description i6$
by imposing the absurd strictures of nude
anthropom trie poses, but even in those in
stances where photographs were taken, the
"intersubjective space constituted by the act
of photographing" (p. 145) left its mark on
the images in the form of expression, gaze,
and beauty. Such content was read by Hux
ley and his fellow systematizers as an "excess"
of visual detail. Yet their attempts to purge
it ultimately led to failure in that the tech
nology of photography was, in the final anal
ysis, not capable of matching the totalizing ambitions of the project. As a result, Edwards
wryly comments, the colonial office's archive
of this project about race contains many more
photographs of buildings than of people or
races.
From its beginnings, race was about
revealing or
making visible what lay hid
den underneath the untidy surface details
the messy visual excess of the human, cul
tural body (Spencer 1992, Wallis 2003). Well
before the invention of photography, Cuvier, for example, had instructed the artists who
accompanied expeditions to eliminate both
ersome details of gesture, expression, culture,
or context from their portraits of natives so
that the underlying details of cranial structure
and "race" might be more readily revealed
(Herv 1910). Whereas photography held out
the promise of facilitating this anthropologi
cal quest for order through the elimination of
detail or "noise," the same machine that had
made it possible to imagine
a utopia of com
plete transparency also introduced the twin
menace of intimacy and contingency and
with them, the possibility (however remote) of acknowledging the coevalness and, thus,
the humanity of their racial subjects. It is per
haps for this reason that anthropologists be
gan by 1874 (with the publication o Notes and
Queries) to express an interest in regulating the
types and amount of visual information they would receive through photographs. By the
1890s, although photography continued to
be used in anthropometry, there was a gen
eral decline in interest in the collection and use of photographs as ethnological evidence
(Edwards 2001, Griffiths 2002, Poignant 1992, Pinney 1992).
Contingency
An arguably even more important slippage
between the classificatory or
stabilizing am
bitions of photography and its political ef
fects can be located in the unique temporal
ity of the photograph. Both the evidentiary power and the allure of the photograph are
due to our knowledge that it captures (or
freezes) a particular moment in time. This
temporal dimension of the photograph intro
duced a whole other layer of distracting detail
into the anthropological science of race. Con
vinced of both the inevitability and desire
ability of evolutionary progress, nineteenth
century anthropologists (like many of their
twentieth-century descendants) were con
vinced that the primitives they studied were
on the verge of disappearing. Ethnological encounters acquired a corresponding urgency
as anthropologists scrambled to collect what
they imagined to be the last vestiges of ev
idence available on earlier forms of human
life.
For at least some of those who held the
camera in their hands, however, the photo
graph carried a latent threat for anthropol
ogy. The Dutch ethnologist Im Thurm, for
example, famously cautioned anthropologists
against the dangers of erasing the human, aes
thetic, and individualizing excess of photo
graphic portraiture in favor of a too rigorous
preference for "types" (Thurm 1893, Tayler 1992). Anthropometry, he added, was proba
bly better practiced on dead bodies than on
the human beings he sought to capture in his
portrait photography from Guyana. At the
same time, however, Thurm (1893) himself
often blocked out the distracting backgrounds and contexts surrounding his photographic
subjects. His focus was on the "human," but
his anthropological perception of photogra
phy excluded, as did the racial photography he opposed, the "visual excess" of context and
the "off-frame." Thurm's cautious embrace of
164 Poole
photography speaks clearly to its suspect sta
tus at a time when all fieldwork was if not di
rectly animated by a concern for finding racial
types, then at the very least carried out under
the shadow of the idea of race.
In other cases, photographers most fa
mously, Edward Curtis made skillful use of
aesthetic conventions such as soft focus and
vignette to transform the inevitability of ex
tinction into the tragic romance of nostal
gia. On one level, Curtis's photographs can
be said to have harnessed the aesthetic of por trait photography as part of a broader, political
framing of Native Americans as the sad, in
evitable, and unresisting victims of a divinely manifest destiny. On another level, however,
Curtis's photographs are also of interest for
what they reveal about the distinctive tem
porality of the "racializing gaze." Although Curtis's photographs have been criticized as
inauthentic for their use of costume and tribal
attribution (Gidley 2003, Lyman 1982), their
power and massive popular appeal had much
to do with the ways in which he was able to dis
till contemporary fascination for a technology that allows one to gaze forever on that which
is about to disappear.
Within anthropology, however, this "tem
porality of the moment" served only to in crease anxieties about the utility of the pho
tographic image as an instrument of scientific
research. For one thing, the sheer number of
photographs that became available to the an
thropologist seemed to belie the notion that
primitive people were somehow disappearing, as evolutionary theory had led them to believe.
Poignant suggests that it was in response to
just such a dilemma that anthropologists at
the RAI came to favor studio portraits over
photographs taken in the field because the
clear visual displacement found in the studio
portrait between the primitive subject and the
world allowed the anthropologist "to impose order on
people too numerous to disappear"
(1992, p. 54). Pinney suggests that this tension between actuality and disappearance played out in the case of India through
two photo
graphic idioms. The "salvage paradigm" was
applied to "what was perceived to be a
frag
ile tribal community," whereas the "detective
paradigm," premised on a faith in the eviden
tiary status of the photographic document, "was more
commonly manifested when faced
with a more vital caste society." He further as
sociates the detective paradigm with a curato
rial imperative of inventory and preservation,
and the salvage paradigm with a language of
urgency and "capture" (Pinney 1997, p. 45).
Although the particular mapping of the two
idioms on tribal and caste society is, in many
ways, peculiar to India and Pinney even goes
so far as to suggest that uncertainty about vi
sual evidence is somehow peculiar, or at least
peculiarly marked, in India the general ten
sion between ideas of racial extinction, the
temporal actuality of photography, and anx
iety about the nature and truthfulness of the
perceptual world was clearly present in other
colonial and postcolonial settings.
When viewed in this way, the understand
ing of race that emerges from a history of an
thropological photography is clearly as much
about the instability of the photograph as eth
nological evidence and the unshakeable suspi
cion that perhaps things are not what they ap
pear to be as it is about fixing the native subject as a
particular racial type. Yet, recent critical
interventions have paid far greater attention
to the fixing. What would have to be done, then, if we were to invert the question that
is usually asked about stability and fixing and
instead ask how it is that photography simul
taneously sediments and fractures the solidity of "race" as a visual and conceptual fact. Put
somewhat differently, how can we recapture
the productive forms of suspicion with which
early anthropologists greeted photography's
unique capacity to reveal the particularities of
moments, encounters, and individuals?
PHOTOGRAPHY IN THE FIELD
For an answer to this question, we might want
to begin by looking
at some early attempts to
integrate photography into the ethnographic toolkit. Recent studies of early fieldwork
www.annualreviews.org An Excess of Description 165
photography stress the extent to which pho
tography offered anthropologists a guilty
pleasure. On the one hand and to an even
greater extent than with the archival collec
tions just discussed anthropologists wishing to use photography in the field were faced
with the problem of weeding out the extra
neous contexts and contingent details cap
tured by the camera. This problem was at once
technical an artifact of the unforgiving "re
alism" of the photographic image and con
ceptual, in that the subjects of anthropology (first race, then culture and social organiza
tion) were themselves statistical or interpre
tive abstractions. As such, their perception
and documentation required a
temporality
that was quite different from that of pho
tographs, whose content spoke only of the
mute and singular existence of particular ob
jects, bodies, and events. Indeed, earliest uses
of photography in fieldwork made every effort to erase the contingent moment of the pho
tographic act. In his Torres Straits fieldwork,
Haddon, for example, made wide use of reen
actment and restaging as a means to document
rituals and myths (Edwards 2 001, pp. 15 7-80).
Hockings also suggests that W.H.R. Rivers
used mythical allegories drawn from Frazer's
The Golden Bough in his curious photographs of Todas (Hockings 1992). Whereas Rivers
sought to place natives in a mythical past,
Haddon sought to use photography to portray
what the natives "saw" when they talked of
mythology. Both produced photographs that were concerned to erase evidence of the mo
ment at which the image was taken.
On the other hand, along with contin
gency, photography also brought the trou
bling specter of intimacy. Thus, although vi
sual description was
recognized as important
for the scientific project of data collection and
interpretation, photographs could also be read
as documents of encounter, and encounter, in
turn, contained within it the specter of com
munication, exchange, and presence all fac
tors that challenged the ethnographer's claims
to objectivity. The tension between these two
aspects of ethnographic practice is perhaps
best captured in Malinowski's now famous
term "participant observation." Whereas ob
servation appeals to the ideal of the distanced,
objective onlooker, participation clearly in
vokes the notion of presence and, with it, a
certain openness to the humanity of the (still
racialized) other.
In his own fieldwork photography, Mali
nowski seems to signal
an awareness of the
problematic status of photography in the ne
gotiation of this contradictory charge of be
ing simultaneously distant and close (Wright 1991, 1994; Young 1999). Among his British
contemporaries, Malinowski made the most
extensive use of photographs in his published work, averaging one
photo for every seven
pages in his published ethnographies (Samain
1995). Yet his careful selection of photographs seems to replicate the strict division of la
bor by which he separated affective and sci
entific description in his diaries and ethno
graphies (Clifford 1988, Malinowski 1967). For example, despite having taken numer
ous, elaborately posed photographs of him
self and other colonial officials, he seems to
have carefully edited out the presence of all such nonindigenous elements when illustrat
ing his books (Spyer 2001, p. 190). The dis
tancing effect created by such careful editing was further reinforced by Malinowski's pref erence for the middle to long shot in his own
photography (Young 2001, p. 18). Studies of
Evans-Pritchards' field photography reveal a
similar preference for long shots, aerial shots,
and a careful avoidance of eye contact in what
Wolbert (2001) interprets as an effort by the
ethnographer to erase his own presence in
the field, thereby establishing the physical or
"ecological distance" required to sustain his
own authority
as ethnographer.
No matter how distant the shot, how
ever, the very medium of photography con
tained within it an uncanny ability to in
dex the presence of the photographer. The
"strong language" of race helped ethnog
raphers to silence this technological regis
ter of encounter, often with great effect. In
Argonauts, for example, Malinowski (1922,
166 Poole
pp. 52-53) comments on the "great variety in
the physical appearance" of the Trobrianders.
"There are men and women of tall stature,
fine bearing and delicate features ... with an
open and intelligent expression ...
[and] oth
ers with prognatic, Negroid faces, broad, thick
lipped mouths, narrow foreheads, and a coarse
expression." Through such language, it might be argued, Malinowski avoided physical de
scription of individuals something that re
mains rare in ethnographic writing in favor
of the distancing language of race. Similarly, to support the more personal observation that
the women "have a genial, pleasant approach"
(1922, p. 53), he again relies not on language but on two photographs: One (taken by his
friend Hancock) he captions "a coarse but
fine looking unmarried woman" (plate XI in
Malinowski 1922), and the other (his own) is
a medium-long shot of a group of Boyowan
girls (plate XII).
Although such a division of labor between
text and photo may well speak to the affinity of photography for the sorts of racial "typ
ing" to which Malinowski gestures in his text, in fact, very few of Malinowski's photographs conform to the standard racial photograph
(Young 2001, pp. 101-2). Instead what seems
to be at stake in Malinowski's use of photogra
phy is his inability to engage or make sense
of that moment in which he first perceived
some aspect of the people he met. Repeat
edly in his opening descriptions of both na
tives and landscapes, Malinowski speaks of the
insights that seem to evade him in the form
of fleeting impressions or glimpses. Hori
zons are "scanned for glimpses of natives"
(1961, p. 33); natives are "scanned for the
general impression" they create (1961, p. 52); and the entire Southern Massim is experi enced "as if the visions of a primeval, happy,
savage life were suddenly realized, even if
only in a fleeting impression" (1961, p. 35). Malinowski is intrigued by such impressions,
however, not for what they tell of the moment
in which they occur, but rather because they
hold the promise that they may someday be come
legible as
"symptoms of deeper, socio
logical facts" (1961, p. 51). "One suspects," he
writes, that there are "many hidden and mys
terious ethnographic phenomena behind the
commonplace aspect of things" (p. 51).
On the one hand, then, the reservations
expressed by Malinowski and others (Jacknis
1984,1992; Wright 2004; Young 2001) about
the use of photography in fieldwork speak to
the unsuitability of a visual medium that is
about surface, contingency, and the moment
for a discipline whose interpretive task was
to describe the hidden regularities, systemic
workings, and structural regularities that con
stituted "society" and "culture" (Grimshaw
2001). On the other hand, however, as a re
alist mode of documentation, the photograph
also contained within it the possibility of au
thenticating the presence that constituted the
basis of the ethnographer's scientific method.
The other visual technologies such as
museum displays (Edwards 2001, Haraway 1989, Karp & Levine 1990, Stocking 1985), live exhibitions (Corbey 1993; Griffiths 2002,
pp. 46-84; Poignant 2003, Reed 2000, Ry dell 1984), and film (Grimshaw 2001, Oksiloff
2001, Rony 1996) with which turn-of-the
century anthropologists experimented offered
even fewer opportunities to control for the
sorts of visual excess and detail that threatened
to undermine the distance required for scien
tific observation. One particularly instructive
set of debates discussed by Griffiths (2002,
pp. 3 45) concerned the visual and even
moral effects of overly realistic habitat and
life groups at the American Museum of Nat
ural History. Although some curators sought
to attract museum goers through the hyperre
alism of wax life group displays that "blended
the uncanny presence of the human double
with the authority of the scientific artifact"
(Griffiths 2002, p. 20), others including Franz Boas (Jacknis 1985)- expressed con
cern that these hyperrealist technologies would distract the gaze of museum goers. As a
remedy, Boas sought to create exhibits whose
human figures were
intentionally antirealist,
and to which the spectator's gaze would first
be drawn by a central focal artifact and then
www.annualreviews.org An Excess of Description 167
carefully guided through a series of related
items and display cases. Griffiths uncovers
similar worries about the more obvious per
ils that the Midway sideshows presented to the
scientific claims of ethnology. Whereas others
have pointed toward world's fairs as sites for
the propagation of nineteenth-century racial
ist anthropology (Greenhalgh 1988, Maxwell
1999, Reed 2000, Rydell 1984), Griffiths'
(2002) emphasis on the professional suspicion
surrounding such displays reveals the extent
to which, for contemporary anthropologists, the concern was with the disruptive potential
of distraction (Benjamin 1968, Simmel 1971,
Crary 1999) as a form of affect that worked
against the focused visualism required for the
education of the museum goer. Such worries
speak clearly to the general nervousness sur
rounding the visual technologies of photogra
phy and film within anthropology and, along with it, the persistent and perhaps Utopian
belief that the aesthetic and affective appeal of the visual could be somehow brought in
line with contemporary scientific ideals of
objective "observation."
Culture at a Distance
The subfield of visual anthropology emerged in the mid-1960s in response to this concern
about the viability of visual technologies for
ethnographic work. Ethnography, of course,
deploys a
language of witnessing and visual
observation as a means to defend its account
of the world. Thus, although voice and lan
guage are crucial to ethnography, both the
descriptive task and the authorizing method
of ethnography continue to rely in important
ways on the ethnographer's physical presence
in a particular site and her (normatively) visual
observations and descriptive accounts of the
people, events, and practices she encounters
there. At the same time, and as recent work
on anthropological photography and film has
made clear, visual documentation is generally not considered to be a sufficient source of ev
idence unless it is accompanied by the con
textualizing and/or interpretive testimony of
the ethnographer (AAA 2002). Thus, as much as photographs entered as juridical evidence
require a human voice to authenticate their
evidentiary status in court (Derrida 2002), the
"hard" visual evidence of ethnographic pho
tography or film is intimately, even inextri
cably, bound up with the "soft" testimonial
voice (or "subjectivity") of the ethnographer (Heider 1976, Hockings 1985, Loizos 1993,
MacDougall 1997, Stoller 1992). Like judi
ciary photographs as well, the dilemma in
ethnographic photography is in large part a
temporal one. The ethnographer (like the ju dicial witness) must speak for the photograph as someone who was in the place shown in
the photograph at the time when the photo
graph was taken and this privileged author
ity of the ethnographic witness seems to hold
true no matter what the role assigned to his
"native" subjects (Crawford & Turton 1992,
Hockings & Omori 1988, Worth & Adair
1997). It is this move that affords decisive sta
tus to the photographic image as testimony to
an event in a nonrepeatable time. However, it
is the photograph not the photographer
that allows for the peculiar conflation of past and present that renders the photograph
a
form of material evidence.
In ethnography, however, as we have seen,
the photograph's evocation of an off-frame
context and a particular, passing, moment has
most often been seen to pose a debilitating
limit to the task of ethnographic interpreta
tion. Rather than thinking about how voice
and image work together to create the evi
dentiary aura and distinctive temporality of
the photograph, ethnographers, as we have
seen, have instead looked to photography as a
means to discipline the visual process of obser
vation. Occupying an uneasy place
at the ori
gins of the visual anthropology canon, the 759
photographs published in Bateson & Mead's
Balinese Character (1942) represent one ex
treme solution to taming visual evidence for
ethnographic ends. Bateson and Mead ini
tially began using photographs to supplement their notetaking and observations and to rec
oncile their disparate writing styles (Jacknis
i68 Poole
1988, Sullivan 1999). As work progressed on
the photographie index that was to comple
ment their written fieldnotes, however, they
quickly came to see
photographs, first, as an
independent control on the potential biases
of visual observation (Sullivan 1999, p. 16) and then, somewhat later, as a form of doc
umentation through which to capture "those
aspects of the culture which are least amenable
to verbal treatment and which can only be
properly documented by photographic meth
ods" (Bateson & Mead 1942, p. 122). In her
later work on child-rearing practices, Mead
extended this understanding of the supple mental character of photography in an at
tempt to replicate precise temporal sequences
of practices (Mead & MacGregor 1951). Wliat is perhaps most
intriguing about
Mead's Balinese work is the lengths to which
she goes to transform photographs into
words. As "objective" traces of the temporal
sequences of gestures, poses, expressions, and
embraces that together add up to something
like "character" or "child-rearing," the pho
tographs construct their meaning as a narra
tive. Photographs thus remain as "raw mate
rial" or "facts" whose "meaning" lies not in the
detail they reveal of particular encounters, but
rather in the narrative message they convey
about the sequence (and presumed outcome)
of many different events and encounters.
That the ideas of narrative and information
lay at the heart of early visions of visual an
thropology is suggested by the fact that the
subfield's first professional organization was
the Society for the Anthropology of Visual
Communication, founded in 1972. As con
tainers of information indexed through lan
guage, photographs were meant to commu
nicate the broader message lurking behind
the surface rendering of the event, person, or
practice they portrayed.
In Mead & Metraux's (1953) textbook, The
Study of Culture at a Distance, photography, film, and imagery were held up as privileged sites for communicating a feeling of cultural
immersion, a sort of substitute for the per
sonal experience of fieldwork. "The study of
imagery," Metraux writes, "is an intensely per
sonal and yet a rigorously formal approach to
a culture." Although "every cultural analysis
is to a greater or lesser extent built upon work
with imagery," in the study of culture from a distance, imagery
comes to constitute "our
most immediate experience of the culture"
(Metraux 1953, p. 343; Mead 1956). The im
age, in this early approach to visual anthropol
ogy, was imagined as both an expression of the
perceptual system shared by the members of a society and as a surrogate for the experience
that would allow one to access, and describe,
that perceptual system or "culture." As var
ious authors have subsequently argued (e.g.,
Banks & Morphy 1997, Edwards 1992, Taylor 1994), this approach
to the visual is "racial
ized" both in the sense of a subject/object divide and in the idea that there is an in ner
"meaning" hidden beneath the surface of
both culture and the image. What is lost in
such an approach is the immediacy of sight as a sensory experience that could speak to
the ethnographic intangibles of presence and newness (Edwards 1997). Instead, images
photographs, gestures, films are scrutinized
for clues to the cultural configuration they ex
press.
Given what Mead's own Balinese work
had done to divorce still photography from both affect and the spontaneity of the mo
ment, it is perhaps, then, no surprise that the
field of visual anthropology had, by the late
1970s, come to be dominated by the study and production of ethnographic film, whereas
still photographs had more or less disap
peared from "serious" ethnographic texts (de Heusch 1962). In explicit contrast to photog
raphy (MacDougall 1998, pp. 64,68), film was
seen as a visual technology that could go be
yond "observation" to include explicit, reflex
ive references to the sorts of intimate rela
tionships and exchanges that bound the film
maker to his "subjects" (MacDougall 1985, Rouch 2003). The affective power of film,
MacDougall notes, is due to both its imme
diacy and its nonverbal character in that (for
MacDougall) film unlike photography and
www.annualreviews.org An Excess of Description 169
the forms of "visual communication" put for
ward by Mead is not mediated by analysis or
writing (MacDougall 1985, pp. 61-62). Film, in other words, was considered to bear within
it an affective transparency that was denied
to photography as a "frozen" and hence dis
tanced image. Animated by a profound hu
manism, this view of film as universal or "tran
scultural" (MacDougall 1998) seemed likely to transcend the forms of racial objectification and the objectifying "conventions of scientific
reason" that many considered inherent to the
stillness of photography. This view of film provided the grounds
from which visual anthropologists set out to
counter the anticolonial critique of the 1980s.
To the surprise (and, perhaps, dismay) of
many, anthropology has emerged largely un
scathed from the charges of objectification, racialism, and colonialism levied against it in
the 1980s. Few anthropologists today would
be at all surprised by the claim that the anthro
pological project has had a troubling complic
ity with the racializing discourses and essen
tializing dichotomies that characterized New
World slave societies and European colonial rule. In many cases, the resulting disciplinary
sensitivity to both history and politics has
also helped to establish an activist agenda
in which ethnography has come to be seen
as simultaneously collaborative, critical, and
interventionist. More specifically, within the
subfield of visual anthropology, it led to new
paradigms of collaborative media production
(Rouch 2003), an effective handing-over of
the tools of visual documentation to the "na
tive" subject (Ginsburg 1992, Turner 1992, Worth & Adair 1997), and a shift in anthro
pological focus from vision itself to the dis
tributive channels and discursive regimes of
media and the archive (Ginsburg et al. 2002). As the new disciplinary paradigm for vi
sual anthropology, work on indigenous
me
dia has tended to focus on the social rela
tions of image production and consumption
(Ginsburg 1992, Himpele 1996) and the cul
tural idioms through which indigenous pro ducers and artists appropriate filmic mediums
(Turner 1992, 2002 a). What unites work on
indigenous media, however, is the concept of
the "indigenous." As a gloss for a particu
lar form of subaltern identity claim, the no
tion of the indigenous invokes ideals of local
ity, cultural specificity, and authenticity. For
some it has functioned as an effective form
for critically rethinking (Ginsberg 1992) or
even rejecting (Faris 2003) the possibilities of recuperating photography and film within
anthropology. With respect to the specific
problem of race, however, the notion of the in
digenous has functioned primarily as a frame
for reinterpreting video contents for insight
into how racial categories and representa
tions are perceived and countered from the
perspective of "the represented" (Alexander
1998; Ginsburg 1995; Himpele 1996; Jackson
2004; Turner 1992, 2002a,b). In this work, video and other visual media provide
an
outlet for the communication, defense, and
strengthening of cultural, national, or eth
nic identities that preexist, and thus tran
scend, the media form itself, as they are si
multaneously shaped by it (Alexander 1998,
Ginsburg 1995, Himpele 1996). Underlying much though
not all of this is a mapping
of identity through scale such that "the mass
media" is said to "obliterate identity" while
the more portable forms of handheld "video
tends to rediscover identity and consolidate
it" (Dowmunt 1993, p. 11; Ginsburg 2002). Such claims seem all the more
peculiar given
the premium placed on authenticity and local
ism within neoliberal multicultural discourse
(Hale 2002, Povinelli 2002, Rose 1999). By
ignoring the broader political and discursive
landscape within which categories such as "the
indigenous" emerge and take hold, much of
the literature on indigenous media ends up
defending an essentialist or primordial notion
of identity that comes perilously close to older
ideas of racial essences.
By introducing questions of voice and per
spective, these studies of indigenous video
and film have effectively (and, I think, in
advertently) destabilized earlier assumptions about the necessarily objectifying and hence
i jo Poole
racializing character of still photographic
technologies. Thus, recent work on pho
tography tends to emphasize the "slippery" or unstable quality of the racial referent
(Firstenberg 2003, Fusco 2003, Poole 1997), the highly mobile meanings attached to pho
tographs as they circulate through different
cultural and social contexts (Howell 1998, Kravitz 2002), the importance of gazes as a po
tentially destabilizing site of encounter within
the photographic frame (Lutz & Collins
1993), or the creative reworkings of the pho
tographic surface in postcolonial portrait pho
tography (Behrend 2003, Buckley 1999, Jhala
1993, Mirzoeff 2003, Pinney 1997, Sprague 1978). Although emphases in these works
differ and I cannot do justice to them all
here the general trend (with some excep
tions; e.g., Faris 1992, 2003) is to reclaim some sort of agency or, perhaps, autonomy
for the photograph in the form of either resis
tance, mobility, or the fluidity of photographic
"meaning." If "race" still haunts the photo
graph, it does so in the form of an increasingly
ghostly presence.
Other anthropologists have extended the
paradigm of indigenous media to explore how national identities are shaped by televi
sion, cinema, and the internet (Abu-Lughod 1993,2002; Mankekar 1999; Rajagopal 2001).
These works effectively expand the scale of
visual anthropology from the local to the na
tional or even the transnational as the focus of
analysis shifts from the image itself to encom
pass the relationships that inform and consti
tute the production and distribution of com
mercial and televisualist media.
One troubling side effect of these devel
opments within the visual anthropology of
both photography and film as in the disci
pline more generally has been a move away
from what we once thought of as "the local."
Yet as the terrain of anthropological inquiry has expanded beyond the traditional village, community, or tribe to embrace the study of such allegedly "translocal" (Ferguson &
Gupta 2002) sites as the modern state, me
dia, migration, non-governmental organiza
tions, financial flows, and discursive regimes,
the burden of evidence collecting in ethno
graphic work has shifted away from the af
fective or sensory domain of encounter and
toward a more removed and synthetic mode
of description. As such, the handover of tech
nologies and the shift to the translocal do not so much address as circumvent the charges
of (racial) essentialization and (visualist) dis
tancing leveled against anthropology by the Orientalist critique. What has been sacrificed
in this move is an attention to the unsettling
forms of intimacy and contingency that con
stitute the subversive hallmarks (and hence
potential strengths, as well as liabilities) of the
ethnographic encounter.
NOTICING DIFFERENCE
In "The Lived Experience of the Black," Fanon (2001) opens by recounting the ef
fects of an utterance, a labeling "Look, a
Negro" on his struggle
to inhabit the world.
What is extraordinary about Fanon's recount
ing of this very ordinary experience is his em
phasis on that particular, and very brief, mo
ment when the onlooker's gaze has not yet set
tled on his body. Hope appears to him in that moment when the "liberating gaze, creeping over my body
... gives me back a lightness
that I had thought lost and, by removing me
from the world, gives me back to the world.
But over there, right when I was reaching the
other side, I stumble, and though his move
ments, attitudes and gaze, the other fixes me,
just like a dye is used to fix a chemical solu tion" (Fanon 2001, p. 184). This brief moment
before "the fragments [of the self] are put to
gether by another" constitutes, for Fanon, the
site of betrayal where a chance encounter is so
quickly rendered into the paralyzing fixity the certain meanings of race. Various schol
ars have emphasized what this sense of be
trayal reveals about Fanon's understanding of
the weight of history and the colonial past in
particular on the present. In addition to this
gesture toward the past, however, Fanon also
underscores the importance of placing history
www.annualreviews.org An Excess of Description iji
and the past in the service of an "active inflec
tion of the now" (Bernasconi 2001, p. 178). This is achieved through both "the endless
recreation of himself and a realization that
"the universal is the end of struggle, not that
which precedes it" (p. 179). Fanon's insistence on the fleeting tempo
rality of the gaze as a site of ethical possi
bility offers several important leads for how
to rethink the place of visual technologies and visual perception
more generally in the
practice of ethnography. On the one hand, Fanon insists (in this and other writings) on the extent to which perceptual and vi
sual technologies (cinema, in particular) cre
ate bodily habits of distancing (Alcoff 2001). This emphasis
on distance and on the phys
ical, chemical qualities through which photo
graphic technologies, like the racial gaze, "fix"
racial subjects in their skins resonates quite
clearly with the emphasis in so much of visual
anthropology on the classificatory impulses of
racial and anthropological photography. On
the other hand, however, and along with this
emphasis on distance, Fanon also provides im
portant insight into the workings of the gaze. For Fanon, the gaze is as much about undo
ing the corporeal frame as it is about fixing (Bernasconi 2001, Weate 2003). As such, his sense of the gaze is rooted in equal parts in the
embodied, sensory, and future-oriented im
mediacy of encounter and the rapidity with
which this opening slips into the exclusion
ary distancing of which he speaks. When ad
dressed in these terms, Fanon's insistence on
the visual underpinnings of race offers pro
ductive grounds for rethinking the temporal
ity of the ethnographic encounter and the
ways in which photographic technologies may need to be rethought in conversation with that
particular understanding of encounter.
As we have seen for much of the twen
tieth century, anthropologists have worked
around a dichotomy in which photography like seeing
was relegated
to the domain of
the fleeting and the contingent, whereas inter
pretation (and, with it, description) was con
strued as a process by which the extraneous
detail or noise of vision was to be disciplined and rendered intelligible. While an interpre tive move must, perhaps, inevitably bring with
it a reduction of noise, what is perhaps lost in
this transition is the immediacy of encounter
as an opening toward both newness and "the
other." The challenge, of course, is to reclaim
this sense of encounter without abandoning
the possibilities for interpretation and expla nation.
The relationship of photography to this
task depends on how we think about its pe culiar temporality. An anthropology focused
on defining horizontally differentiated forms
of life through the language of "race" (or
"culture") affords conflicting evidential (or
juridical) weight to the different temporali ties involved in the fleeting immediacy of the
encounter and the stabilizing permanency of
the fact. Ethnographers, as a result, tend to
regard the surface appearances of the world
and the photographic images that record
them with a good deal of suspicion pre
cisely because they are seen as
being saturated
with the contingency of chance encounters. In
this respect, ethnography's relationship to the
photographic image continues to be haunted
by the specter of race, in that the photograph can only really be imagined
as a form of evi
dence in which fixity (in the form of simplic
ity or focus) is favored over excess (in the form
of contingency or confusion) (Edwards 1997). As anthropology turns its attention to forms
of racial and cultural hybridity, one wonders
how anthropologists will address this disci
plinary anxiety about surface appearances and
the visible world, or whether hybridity like
the native and Indian before it will come to
be treated as another (racial) "fact" that must
be uncovered or revealed, as if lying under
neath the deceptive surface of the visible world
(Fusco 2003). Perhaps what is needed is a re
thinking of the notion of difference itself (e.g., Deleuze 1994, Connolly 2002), a questioning of its stability as an object of inquiry and a
new way of thinking about the temporality of
encounter as it shapes both ethnography and
photography.
172 Poole
Fortunately, the move to reclaim both
ethnography and the ethical imperative of de
scription from the Orientalist critique has not
meant a simple return to a "traditional" divi
sion of labor in which ethnography provided the empirical observations and descriptions
upon which anthropological theory could
draw to uncover the hidden rules, orders, or
meanings of specific cultures and societies.
Rather, the theoretical work of ethnography is now more often assumed to be inseparable
from the specific forms of encounter, tempo
rality, uncertainty, and excess that character
ize ethnography as a form of both social in
quiry and writing (e.g., Biehl 2005, Das 2003, Ferme 2001, Nelson 1999, Pandolfo 1997,
Taussig 1993). At stake here is not so much
a rejection of vision as the basis of knowl
edge as a substantive rethinking of how a
descriptive account that is not grounded in
the idea of interpretation or discovery
can
speak to such things as experience, uncer
tainty, and newness in the cultural worlds we
study as
anthropologists. By explicitly ques
tioning both the empirical language of pos itivist science in which physical character
istics are cited as the visible, and irrefutable,
evidence of racial difference and the idealist
language of Cartesian metaphysiscs, this move
makes it possible to rethink the troublesome
visuality of "race." This move also leaves us
open to the sensory and anticipatory aspects
of visual encounter and surprise that animate
the very notion of participant observation.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank Veena Das, Sameena Mulla, Naveeda Khan, and Gabriela Zamorano for
their comments and criticisms on an earlier version of this article.
LITERATURE CITED
Abu-Lughod L. 1993. Finding a place for Islam: Egyptian television serials and the national interest. Public Cult. 5(3):493-514
Abu-Lughod L. 2002. Egyptian melodrama. Technology of the modern subject? See Ginsburg et al. 2002, pp. 115-33
Aird M. 2003. Growing up with Aborigines. See Pinney & Peterson 2003, pp. 23-39
Alcoff LM. 2001. Towards a phenomenology of racial embodiment. See Bernasconi 2001,
pp. 267-83
Alexander L. 1998. Palestinians in film: representing and being represented in the cinematic
struggle for national identity. Vis. Anthropol. 10:(2-3):319-33 Alvarado M, B ez C, Carre o G. 2002. Fotograf
a Mapuche: Construcci n y montaje de un
imagi
nario. Santiago de Chile: Instituto de Est tica, Pont. Univ. Cat lica de Chile Am. Anthropol. Assoc. (AAA). 2002. AAA statement on
ethnographic visual media 2001. Am.
Anthropol. 104(l):305-6 Banks M, Morphy H, eds. 1997. Rethinking Visual Anthropology. New Haven, CT/London: Yale
Univ. Press
Banta M, Hinsley CM. 1986. From Site to Sight: Anthropology, Photography and the Power of
Imagery. Cambridge, MA: Peabody Mus. Press
Bardies R. 1981. Camera Lucida. Transi. R Howard. New York: Farrar, Strauss, Giroux (From
French) Bateson G, Mead M. 1942. Balinese Character. New York: NY Acad. Sei.
Behrend H. 2003. Imagined journeys: the Likoni ferry photographers of Mombasa, Kenya. See Pinney & Peterson 2003, pp. 221-60
www.annualreviews.org An Excess of Description 175
Benjamin W. 1968. On some motifs in Baudelaire. Illuminations. Transi. H Zohn, pp. 155-200.
New York: Schocken (From German)
Benjamin W. 1999. The Arcades Project, ed. S Buck-Morss. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
Bernardin S, Graulich M, MacFarlane L, Tbnkovich N. 2003. Trading Gazes: Euro
American Women Photographers and Native North Americans, 1880-1940. New Brunswick,
NJ/London: Rutgers Univ. Press
Bernasconi R, ed. 2001. Race. Maiden, MA/Oxford: Blackwell
Biehl J. Vita: Life in a Zone of Social Abandonment. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
Blackman MB. 1981. Window on the Past: The Photographic Ethnohistory of the Northern and
Kaigani Haida. Ottawa: Nati. Mus. Can.
Brennan T, Jay M. 1996. Vision in Context: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives on Sight. New York/London: Routledge
Buck-Morss S. 1989. Dialectics of Seeing: Walter Benjamin and the Arcades Project. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
Buckley L. 1999. Self and accessory in Gambian studio photography. Vis. Anthropol. Rev.
13(2):63-84 Bush A, Mitchell LC. 1994. The Photograph and the American Indian. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
Univ. Press
Cavell S. 1979. The World Viewed: Reflections on the Ontology of Film. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Univ. Press
Clifford J. 1988. The Predicament of Culture: Twentieth Century Ethnography, Literature and Art.
Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
Clifford J, Marcus G, eds. 1986. Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
Connolly WE. 2002. Neuropolitics: Thinking, Culture, Speed. Minneapolis: Univ. Minn. Press
Corbey R. 1993. Ethnographic showcases 1870-1930. Cult. Anthropol. 8(3):338-69
CraryJ. 1990. Techniques of the Observer: On Vision and Modernity in the Nineteenth Century.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
CraryJ. 1999. Suspensions of Perception: Attention, Spectacle and Modern Culture. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press
Crawford PI, Turton D, eds. 1992. Film as Ethnography. Manchester, NY: Manchester Univ.
Press
Das V. 1998. Wittgenstein and anthropology. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 27:171-95
Das V. 2003. Trauma and testimony: implications for political community. Anthropol. Theory 3(3):293-307
Debord G. 1987. Society of the Spectacle. Exeter: Rebel, Aim
De Heusch. 1962. The Cinema and Social Science: A Survey of Ethnographic and Sociological Films.
Paris: UNESCO
Deleuze G. 1985. Cinema 2: The Time-Image. Transi. H TLmlinson, R Galeta, 1989. Minneapo lis: Univ. Minn. Press (From French)
Deleuze G. 1994. Difference and Repetition. Transi. P Patton, 1968. New York: Columbia Univ.
Press (From French) Derrida J. 2002. The archive market: truth, testimony, evidence. Transi. J Bajorek, 1996, in
Echographies of Television, ed. J Derrida, B Steigler, pp. 82-99. Cambridge, UK: Polity (From French)
Dowmunt T. 1993. Channels of Resistance: Global Television and Local Empowerment. London:
BFI and Channel Four Television
Edwards E. 1990. Photographic types: in pursuit of method. Visual Anthropol. 4(2 3):235 58
174 P le
Edwards E. 1992. Anthropology and Photography 1860-1920. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press
Edwards E. 1997. Beyond the boundary: a consideration of the expressive in photography and
anthropology. See Banks & Morphy 1997, pp. 53-80
Edwards E. 2001. Raw Histories: Photographs, Anthropology and Museums. Oxford, NY: Berg Fabian J. 1983. Time and the Other: How Anthropology Makes its Object. New York: Columbia
Univ. Press
Fanon F. 2001. The lived experience of the black. Transi. VMoulard. See Bernasconi 2001,
pp. 184-201 (From French) Faris J. 1992. Anthropological transparency: film, representation, politics. See Crawford &
Turton 1992, pp. 171-82
Faris J. 1996. Navajo and Photography: A Critical History of the Representations of an American
People. Albuquerque: Univ. N.M. Press
Faris J. 2003. Navajo and photography. In Photographys Other Histories, eds. C Pinney, N
Peterson, pp. 85-99. Durham, NC: Duke Univ Press
Ferme M. 2001. The Underneath of Things: Violence, History and the Everyday in Sierra Leone.
Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
Ferguson J, Gupta A. 2002. Spatializing states: toward an ethnography of neoliberal govern
mentality.^Tw. Ethnol. 29(4):981-1002
Firstenberg L. 2003. Autonomy and the archive in America: re-examining the intersection of
photography and stereotype. See Fusco & Wallis 2003, pp. 303-34
Foucault M. 1973. The Birth of the Clinic: An Archaeology of Medical Perception. Transi. AMS
Smith. New York: Vintage (From French) Foucault M. 1977. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Transi. A Sheridan. New York:
Vintage (From French) Fusco C. 2003. Racial time, racial marks, racial metaphors. See Fusco & Wallis 2003, pp. 13-50
Fusco C, Wallis B, eds. 2003. Only Skin Deep: Changing Visions of the American Self. New York:
Int. Cent. Photogr., Abrams
Gidley M. 2003. Edward S. Curtis and the North American Indian Project in the Field. Lincoln:
Univ. Nebr. Press
Ginsburg FD. 1992. Indigenous media: Faustian contract or global village?
Ginsburg FD. 1995. Mediating culture: indigenous media, ethnographic film and the produc tion of identity. In Fields of Vision: Essays in Film Studies, Visual Anthropology and Photography, ed. L Devereaux, R Hillman, pp. 256-91. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
Ginsburg FD. 1996. Institutionalizing the unruly: charting a future for visual anthropology. Ethnos 63(2): 173-96
Ginsburg FD, Abu-Lughod L, Larkin B, eds. 2002. Media Worlds: Anthropology on New Terrain.
Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
Gordon RJ. 1997. Picturing Bushman. Athens: Ohio Univ. Press
Graham-Brown S. 1988. Images of Women: The Portrayal of Women in Photography of the Middle
East, 1860-1950. New York: Columbia Univ. Press
Greenhalgh P. 1988. Ephemeral Vistas: The Expositions Universelles, Great Exhibitions and Worlds
Fairs, 1851-1939. Manchester, NY: Manchester Univ. Press
Griffiths A. 2002. Wondrous Difference: Cinema, Anthropology, Turn-ofthe-Century Visual Culture. New York: Columbia Univ. Press
Grimshaw A. 2001. The Ethnographers Eye: Ways of Seeing in Modern Anthropology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
Hale C. 2002. Does multiculturalism menace? Governance, cultural rights and the politics of
identity in Guatemala. J. Lat.Am. Studies 34(3):485-524
www.annualreviews.org An Excess of Description 175
Haraway D. 1989. Primate Visions: Gender, Race and Nature in the World of Modern Science. New
York: Roudedge
Harvey P. \996. Hybrids of Modernity: Anthropology, the Nation State and the Universal Exhibition.
London/New York: Roudedge Heider K. 1976. Ethnographic Film. Austin: Univ. Tex. Press
Herv G. 1910. A la recherch d'un manuscript: les instructions anthropologiques de Georges Cuvier. Rev. Ecole Anthropol. Paris 10:289-306
Himpele J. 1996. Film distribution as media: mapping difference in the Bolivian cinemascape. Vis. Anthropol. Rev. 12(l):47-66
Hockings P, ed. 1985. Principles of Visual Anthropology. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter
Hockings P. 1992. The yellow bough: Rivers's use of photograph in The Todas. See Edwards,
pp.179-86
Hockings P, Omori Y, eds. 1988. Cinematographic Theory and New Dimensions in Ethnographic Film. Osaka: Nad. Mus. Ethnol.
Howell S. 1998. Picturing women, class and community in Arab Detroit: the strange case of
Eva Habib. Vis. Anthropol. 10:209-25
Jacknis I. 1984. Franz Boas and photography. Stud. Vis. Commun. 10(l):2-60
Jacknis I. 1985. Franz Boas and exhibits: on the limitations of the museum method of anthro
pology. See Stocking, pp. 75-109
Jacknis I. 1988. Margaret Mead and Gregory Bateson in Bali: their use of photography and
film. Cult. Anthropol. 3(2): 160-77
Jacknis I. 1992. In search of the imagemaker: James Mooney as an
ethnograpic photographer.
Vis. Anthropol. 3(2):179-212
Jackson JL. 2004. An ethnographic filmflam: giving gifts, doing research and videotaping the
native subject/object. Am. Anthropol. 106(l):32-42
Jay M. 1988. Scopic regimes of modernity. In Force-Fields: Between Intellectual History and
Cultural Critique, pp. 115-33. New York/London: Roudedge
JayM. 1994. Downcast Eyes. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
Jhala J. 1993. Power and the portrait: the influence of the ruling elite on the visual text in
Western India. Vis. Anthropol. 6:171-98
Karp I, Levine SD, eds. 1990. Exhibiting Cultures: The Poetics and Politics of Museum Display.
Washington, DC: Smithson. Inst.
Kolko BE, Nakamura L, Rodman GB, eds. 2000. Race in Cyberspace. New York/London: Rout
ledge. 248 pp. Kravitz C. 2002. The Ones That Are Wanted: Communication and the Politics of Representation in
a Photographic Exhibition. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
Kuehnast K. 1992. Visual imperialism and the export of prejudice: an exploration of ethno
graphic film. See Crawford & Turton 1992, pp. 183-95
Levin DM. 1999. The Philosophers Gaze: Modernity in the Shadows of Enlightenment. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
Loizos P. 1993. Innovation in Ethnographic Film: From Innocence to Self-Consciousness, 1955-1985.
Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
Lutz C, Collins J. 1993. Reading National Geographic. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
Lyman C. 1982. The Vanishing Race and Other Illusions: Photographs of Indians by Edward Curtis.
Washington, DC: Smithson. Inst.
MacDougall D. 1985. Beyond observational cinema. See Hockings 1985, pp. 109-24
MacDougall D. 1997. The visual in anthropology. See Banks & Morphy 1997, pp. 256-95
MacDougall D. 1998. Transcultural Cinema, ed. L Taylor. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
ij6 Poole
Macintyre M, MacKenzie M. 1992. Focal length as an
analogue of cultural distance. See
Edwards 1992, pp. 158-64
Malinowski B. 1961 [1922]. Argonauts of the Western Pacific. New York: Dutton
Malinowski B. 1967. A Diary in the Strict Sense of the Term. New York/London: Routledge Mankekar P. 1999. Screening Culture, Viewing Politics: An Ethnography of Television, Womanhood
and Nation. Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press
Maxwell A. 1999. Colonial Photography and Exhibition: Representations of the 'Native' People and
the Making of European Identities. London/New York: Leicester Univ. Press
Mead M. 1956. Some uses of still photography in culture and personality studies. In Personal
Character and Cultural Milieu, ed. DG Haring, pp. 79-105. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse Univ.
Press
Mead M. 1995. Visual anthropology in a discipline of words. See Hockings, pp. 3-10 Mead M, Macgregor FC. 1951. Growth and Culture: A Photographic Study ofBalinese Childhood.
New York: Putnam
Mead M, M traux R. 1953. The Study of Culture at a Distance. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press Metraux R. 1953. Resonance in imagery. See Mead & Metraux, pp. 343-64
Metz C. 1985. Photography and fetish. October 34:81-90
Michaels WB. 1995. Our America: Nativism, Modernism and Pluralism. Durham, NC: Duke
Univ. Press
Mirzoeff N. 2003. The shadow and the substance: race, photography and the index. See Fusco & Wallis 2003, pp. 111-26
Mitchell WJT. 1986. Iconology: Image, Text, Ideology. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press Nelson D. 1999. A Finger in the Wound: Body Politics in Quincentennial Guatemala. Durham, NC:
Duke Univ. Press
Oksiloff A. 2001. Picturing the Primitive: Visual Culture, Ethnography and Early German Cinema.
New York: Palgrave Pandolfo S. 1997. Impasse of the Angels: Scenes from a Moroccan Space of Memory. Chicago: Univ.
Chicago Press
Peterson N. 2003. The changing photographic contract: aborigines and image ethics. See
Pinney & Peterson 2003, pp. 119-44
Pinney C. 1992. The parallel histories of anthropology and photography. See Edwards 1992,
pp. 165-73
Pinney C. 1997. Camera Indica: The Social Life of Indian Photographs. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
Pinney C, Peterson N, eds. 2003. Photography's Others Histories. Durham, NC: Duke Univ.
Press
Poignant R. 1992. Surveying the field of view: the making of the RAI photographic collection. See Edwards 1992, pp. 42-73
Poignant R. 2003. The making of professional Ravages': from PT Barnum (1883) to the Sunday Times. See Pinney & Peterson 2003, pp. 55-84
Poole D. 1997. Vision, Race and Modernity: A Visual Economy of the Andean Image World. Prince
ton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
Poole D. 2004. An Image of 'our Indian': type photographs and racial sentiments in Oaxaca,
1920-1940. Hisp. Am. Hist. Rev. 84(l):37-82 Povinelli E. 2002. The Cunning of Recognition: Indigenous Alterities and the Making of Australian
Multiculturalism. Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press
Prochaska D. 1990. The Archive of PAlgiers imaginaire. Hist. Anthropol. IV:373-420
Rajagopal A. 2001. Politics After Television: Religious Nationalism and the Reshaping of the Indian
Public. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
www.annualreviews.org An Excess of Description 177
Reed CR. 2000. All the World is Here! The Black Presence at the White City. Blooming
ton/Indianapolis: Indiana Univ. Press
Rony FT. 1996. The Third Eye: Race, Cinema and Ethnographic Spectacle. Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press
Rorty R. 1979. Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press Rose N. 1999. Powers of Freedom Reframing Political Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ.
Press
Rouch J. 2003. On the vicissitudes of the self: the possessed dancer, the magician, the sorcerer,
the filmmaker, and the ethnographer. Transi. S Feld, in Cin -Ethnography, pp. 87-101.
Minneapolis: Minn. Univ. Press (From French)
Rydell RW. 1984. All the Worlds a Fair: Visions of Empire at American International Expositions, 1876-1916. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
Said EW. 1978. Orientalism. New York: Pantheon
Said EW. 1993. Culture and Imperialism. New York: Knopf. 380 pp. Samain E. 1995. Bronislaw Malinowski et la photographie anthropologique. VEthnographie
91(2):107-30 Scherer J. 1973. Indians: The Great Photographs that Reveal North American Indian Life, 1847
1929, from the unique collection of the Smithsonian Institute. New York: Crown Publ.
Sekula A. 1989. The body and the archive. In The Contest of Meaning: Critical Histoires of
Photography, ed. R Bolton, pp. 343-89. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
Sirnmel G. 1971. The metropolis and mental Ufe. In On Individuality and Social Forms, pp. 324-39. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
Singer A. 1992. Anthropology in broadcasting. See Crawford & Turton 1992, pp. 264 73
Spencer F. 1992. Some notes on the attempt to apply photography to anthropometry during the second half of the nineteenth century. See Edwards 1992, pp. 99-107
Sprague S. 1978. Yoruba photography: how the Yoruba see themselves. African Arts 12(1);
reprinted in Pinney & Peterson 2003, pp. 240-60
Spyer P. 2001. Photography's framings and unframings; a review article. Comp. Stud. Soc. Hist.
43:181-92
Stocking GW. 1985. Objects and Others: Essays on Museums and Material Culture. Madison: Univ.
Wise. Press
Stoller P. 1992. The Cinematic Griot: The Ethnography of Jean Rouch. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
Sullivan G. 1999. Margaret Mead, Gregory Bateson, and Highland Bali: Fieldwork Photographs of
Bayung Ged , 1936-1939. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
Taussig M. 1993. Mimesis and Alterity: A Particular History of the Senses. New York/London:
Routledge Taylor L. 1994. Visualizing Theory: Selected Essays from Visual Anthropology Review 1990-1994.
New York/London: Routledge Thurm I. 1893. Anthropological uses of the camera. J. R. Anthropol. Inst. 22:184 203
Turner T. 1991. The social dynamics of video media in an indigenous society: the cultural
meaning and personal politics of video-making in Kayap communities. Vis. Anthropol. Rev. 7(2):68-72
Turner T. 1992. Defiant images: the Kayap appropriation of video. Anthropol. Today 8(6): 5-16
Turner T. 2002 a. Representation, politics and cultural imagination in indigenous video. See
Ginsburg et al. 2002, pp. 75-89
Turner T. 2002b. Representation, polyphony and the construction of power in a Kayap video.
In Indigenous Movements, Self-Representation, and the State in Latin America, ed. KB Warren,
JE Jackson, pp. 229-50. Austin: Univ. Tex. Press
ij8 Poole
Tsinhnahjinnie JH. 2003. When is a photograph worth a thousand words? See Pinney &
Peterson, pp. 40-52
Wallis B. 2003. Black bodies, white science: Louis Agassiz's slave daguerreotypes. See Fusco &
Wallis 2003, pp. 163-82
Weate J. 2003. Fanon, Merleau-Ponty and the difference of phenomenology. See Bernasconi
2003, pp.169-83 Weiner JF. 1997. Televisualist anthropology: representation, aesthetics, politics. Curr. Anthro
pol. 38(2):197-235 Wolbert B. 2001. The anthropologist as photographer. The visual construction of ethnographic
authority. Vis. Anthropol. 13:321-43
Worth S, Adair J. 1997. Through Navajo Eyes. Albuquerque: Univ. N.M. Press
Wright C. 2003. Supple bodies: the Papua New Guinea photographs of Captain Francis R
Barton, 1899-1907. See Pinney & Peterson 2003, pp. 146-69
Wright T. 1991. The fieldwork photographs of Jenness and Malinowski and the beginning of
modern anthropology. J. Anthropol. Soc. Oxf. 22(1):41-58
Wright T. 1994. Anthropologist as artist: Malinowski's Trobriand photographs, European
imagery and colonial history in the Pacific. Nijmegen Stud. Develop. Cult. Change 19:116
30
Young L. 1996. Fear of the Dark: Race, Gender and Sexuality in the Cinema. New York/London:
Roudedge
Young MW. 1999. Malinowskis Kiriwina: Fieldwork Photography 1915-1918. Chicago: Univ.
Chicago Press
Young MW. 2001. An Anthropologist in Papua: The Photography ofFE Williams 1922-39. Hon
olulu: Univ. Hawaii Press
www.annualreviews.org An Excess of Description 17p