CLASSIFYING INFORMATION: SECRETS, LIES AND OTHER CATEGORIES MANDE
2000; Indiana University Press; Volume: 2; Issue: 1 Linguagem: Inglês
10.2979/mnd.2000.a873322
ISSN2379-5506
Autores Tópico(s)Lexicography and Language Studies
ResumoCLASSIFYING INFORMATION: SECRETS, LIES AND OTHER CATEGORIES IN MANDE Barbara G. Hoffman Thetruthresponsequestionandandfalsehood,thisperhapsarticlesecretnoaddressesfinalandanswer:commonisahowsimpleknowledge,canonewebutdistinguishwhenwithweacomplexbetweenconduct responseandperhapsnofinalanswer:howcanwedistinguishbetween truthandfalsehood,secretandcommonknowledge,whenweconduct researchinculturesotherthanourown?Giventhatallknowledgeanditscommunicationisgroundedinsocialprocesses ,andthatpartofthatprocessisthe socialpersonhoodoftheresearcher,howcanweeverreachreliableunderstandingsofthemostdelicate ,context-sensitivecommunicativecategories?Thoseof uswhostudyMandesocieties,butarenotAfrican,muchlessMande,workin foreignlanguagesamongstpeoplewithculturalbackgroundsverydifferentfrom ourown,andyetafterbriefperiodsoftimespentin"fieldwork"someofusattempttopersuadeourpeersthatweunderstandMandesemanticsystemswell enoughtobeabletoreportknowledgeablyonsuchelusivecategoriesassecrets andlies.Whatistheepistemologythatleadssoquicklytosuchclaimsofprowess ?HereIaddmyvoicetothestill-smallchorusthatquestionssuchclaims demandingfurtherevidenceofsociolinguisticcompetencetosupportthem (Chilungu1976,Owusu1978).Keytothisdiscussionareissuesofmethodology; thisarticlewillfocusonmethodologiesofforeignresearchersonlywiththeunderstandingthatindigenousresearchershaveoverlappingbutdistinctmethod ologicalissuestoconfront . ForthoseofusengagedinstudyingAfrica,fieldworkistherockon whichourworkstands,orsoweliketobelieve.Despitethestormsofcontroversy swirlingthroughourdisciplinesoverthereificationoffieldworkandtheauthorityitgrantsthescholar (e.g.Clifford&Marcus1986),wecontinuetoobtain grantsfor"fieldwork,"tosendgraduatestudents"tothefield"andtosummarily citeourperiodsoffieldworkinourpublicationsasproofofourauthorityinwritingwhatwedo ,asthough"fieldwork"wereamonolithicactivitywhichisautomaticallyaccomplishedbyvisitinglocationsculturally ,andusuallyphysically, distantfromthespaceswehabituallyoccupy,andby"studying"thehistory,practices ,andlifewaysofthepeopleforwhomthoselocationsarehabitual.Itisrare indeedthatthecursoryfootnoteisexpandedintoadetaileddiscussionofthe methodologyandresultingepistemologyoftheworkconductedinthefield.In thispaper,Iarguethat,particularlyforthoseofusstudyingMandesocieties, suchinformationisascrucialtoourpublicationsasthedatathemselves,thatitis infactpartofthedata."Fieldwork"isnotasingularcategoryofactivity:its natureneedstobespecifiedsothattheanalysiswhichproceedsfromitcanbe appropriatelycontextualized.Withoutanaccountofthefieldworkthatrevealsit, theprovenanceoftheinformationclassifiedbythescholarasfactormyth,secret MandeStudies2(2000)pp.81-95 82 Barbara Hoffman or lie cannot be properly understood. To the methods employed and the nature of must be discussed in considerable depth. Some will argue that this is too theoret data and discussion of epistemology and should be done separately. However, if I everything is theoretical: separations of and misleading. Whether we are consciou of ontology and epistemology) largely in tainly shapes our analyses, thus affecting that sometimes we find what we are no never see what we have no means to per perception is enabled. More Than Words One of the greatest challenges researchers face when conducting fieldwork in societies with communicative norms vastly different from their own i learning how to express themselves in culturally appropriate ways and how to understand what people around them are saying as it is intended to be understood . More often than many of us would like to admit, our efforts at commun cation misfire, and our interlocutors' attempts to inform us result in misunder standings. It is unfortunate anytime such communicative detours occur; it is dangerous when they get recorded as data and are later relied upon in our schol arly reports. When detected by the researcher, such miscommunication is mo frequently attributed to lack of linguistic competence and answered with an ur gent drive to "learn the language." Fieldwork guides regularly advise devoting 3-6 months of the initial field period to intensive language study. But merely learning how to duplicate the referential content of one's own thoughts in anoth language (which is about as far as even the most brilliant student can get in 3 months) does not necessarily entail learning how, when, where, and to whom those thoughts can be expressed. To acquire sociolinguistic competence requires much longer periods of immersion in the culture, and heightened levels of sensitivity to the cultural as pects of communication, in particular to the ways that the researcher will be understood depending on the social role allocated to the researcher as a person i the society being studied. Much of what people will say to us depends on who a what they think we are, and this can fluctuate in complex ways. The conditions that lend themselves to acquiring a functional level of sociolinguistic competence vary from culture to culture, and even from one cat egory of person to another within a particular culture. While it may be easy for highly educated Western researcher to carry on an effective form of communic tion with a schooled member of the society being studied, attempting the sam form of communication with a person who has never undeigone formal schooli can backfire miserably. Throw in other relevant parameters such as age, gend Classifying Information 83 or caste, and the communicative mix can quickly get ing out categories of information under these circum you know when an interlocutor is telling you some ously, or when you should understand it as a joke, wh it is a "lie," when it is common knowledge and when sure exactly who your interlocutor thinks you are, w use to convey how information is to be understood an she or he may be willing to impart to a person like usually believe they have a good understanding of th ants or interlocutors, too often they ignore the ways i perceived by these key persons. Apprehending one' eyes of one's interlocutors is central to being able to tion in fieldwork. This is particularly true in cultur knowing the social "place" of the person you are spe deciding what to say, and how to say it. Learning One's Place To illustrate the...
Referência(s)