Abstract
The article defines a new referential problem of ethnographic description: the verbalization of the “silent” dimension of the social. As a documentary procedure, description has been devalued by more advanced recording techniques that set a naturalistic standard concerning the reification of qualitative “data.” I discuss this standard from the perspective of the sociology of knowledge and replace it by a challenge unknown to all empirical procedures relying on primary verbalizations of informants. Descriptions have to solve the problems of the voiceless, the silent, the unspeakable, the pre-linguistic, and the indescribable. Ethnography puts something into words, which did not exist in language before. To respond to this task, descriptions have to turn away from the logic of recording and develop into a theory-oriented research practice
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Not even in that seminal text which characterized ethnography as “thick description.” There, Clifford Geertz does not discuss the “description” part at all, but only the “thick” part of it. Ethnography, according to him, is less an issue of observation, than of interpretation (1973: 9). Thus, the ethnographer does not act as an author, but immediately as a reader, or rather a “literary critic” trying to “read a manuscript . . . written not in conventionalized graphs of sound but in transient examples of shaped behavior“ (1973: 10). This is a nice metaphor, but how should one read something that has not already been described? The problem of “putting into words” is covered up when cultural reality is assimilated prematurely into the textual universe of cultural studies. Compare Amann’s critique of Geertz’ notion of culture as text (1997).
An obvious alternative to grounding ethnography in participant observation, which can be found in the ethnography of communication, for instance, is to use participation only as a means of gaining access whereby the researcher is able to position himself or herself favorably in order to skim all kinds of data, and especially to get audiovisual recordings (Knoblauch, 2001). The recording situation in that case is not a field situation, with the task of verbalization of experiences, but an arrangement for the efficient production of data. Whether the brief visits in the field of a “quick and dirty ethnography” can still be called ethnography at all, is a terminological question. But if the goal is to follow long-term processes in a field at their own pace and if we are really interested in a reliable reconstruction of the participants’ patterns of relevance, it is indispensable to draw out the generation of data. In terms of terminology, I prefer a narrower notion, which takes the second part of the word “EthnoGraphy” more seriously, since the first part seems so questionable to me, that one might just as well speak of “praxeography” (Mol, 2002). (This cannot be discussed in more detail here).
See also Bergmann (1993). Bergmann’s article is written from a conversation analysis perspective and refers primarily to audio recordings, as the most common practice of almost all forms of qualitative social research. By comparison, the use of the camera is a more specific practice, which is by no means more recent (Petermann, 1991), but which has not yet developed a methodology for visual data that could be compared with the one in conversation analysis. However, see Mohn (2002).
For example, according to the requirements of a good story, where “unimportant parts” have already been sorted out.
Bergmann, too complains that the sociological use of audio-recordings is not sufficiently concerned with the transformative quality of its data (1985: 317).
Linking up with the aspect of selectivity we may note a complementary relationship between recording and description: On the one hand, protocols can and must substitute technical recordings, which are useful auxiliaries and release researchers for observation, thus increasing their opportunities for description. On the necessity to consider selection in research not only as a problem of technical equipment but also as a problem of directing attention see Amann and Hirschauer (1997: 22).
Here we only find the already mentioned soft differentiation of genres: The word for word documentation of the participants’ statements, just like fieldnotes, are of course “rawer” than memos, but even for those Clifford’s formulation regarding the “raw” (1990: 58) holds: “Fieldnotes contain examples of my three kinds of writing: inscription (notes, not raw but slightly cooked or chopped prior to cooking), description (notes sautéed, ready for the later addition of theoretical sauces), and transcription (reheated leftovers?).”
Against any naïve-realistic expectations towards recording Bergmann (1985: 317f.) explicitly calls for epistemological “caution in dealing with audio-visual recordings” and he points to a “constructive aspect.” I will come back to these issues.
Here two kinds of differentiations have to be made, the first one regarding the form of recording: transcripts are primarily relevant for audio recordings, which make up the majority of all recordings. However, occasionally, we can also find recommendations for a “textual taming” of video-recordings through notation systems (Oevermann, 2000: 112ff.). Secondly, we find varying ways of dealing with recordings within empirical social research: Hermeneutical analyses or content-analytical interview studies are usually based on the wording in the transcript, whereas conversation analysis, which is more interested in the process of speaking, makes use of the sound- or video recordings during data analysis. Only by publication does the transcript displace the recording.
That is why it seems questionable when sequence analysis, (in conversation analysis and objective hermeneutics alike), in its prohibition of retrospection, invokes so strongly the standard of current participant-knowledge. This cannot count as a “gold standard” for a procedure which, by the selectivity of its medium, chronically stays below participants’ knowledge, while at the same time, by the exactness of its registering, leaves this knowledge so far behind.
Of course, this metaphor does not only refer to the everyday notion of “silence” – an interruption of speech – but to a blank in the kind of research that is restricted to verbal data; moreover, it refers to a mute challenge for description to “make something speak” that resists verbalization.
This problem finds written expression in the communicational privatism of fieldnotes: Since their first addressees are those who write them, they are usually illegible for others, incomprehensible and highly indexical; examples for this can be found in Sanjek (1990).
Since the 1990s however, this genre has also been taken up by a number of published “auto-ethnographies” (Ellis & Bochner, 1997).
Méadel and Rabeharisoa (2001) show that the development and selection of hundreds of descriptors is necessary – can orange juice taste “metallic” or “green”? – before it is possible for a “collective body” to have such corresponding experiences.
In ethnography, there are various ways of dealing with protocols that bring them closer to the status of an inviolable “original document” or to that of “literary subject matter,” which can be reworked for presentation purposes, or even rewritten. We could draw the following conceptual distinction: A subject-matter is made up of general literary themes and motifs which are given shape by individual design. Empirical materials, however, already have an idiosyncratic shape, and detailed structures of their own. They can be ordered and rearranged, but not created anew.
It is just this feature which makes description nearly useless for the reconstruction of conversation sequences.
This could also be put in another way: Field and text are not clearly demarcated zones; in many places they jut out in each other’s territory. Clifford (1990: 66) rightly objected to the concept of fieldnote in that it naturalizes a place protected from transformations within the (prospective–retrospective) temporality of the writing process.
Here we are dealing with the “literary” problem of ethnography in a more direct sense. Geertz already was very explicit in valuing its communicative performance over its aesthetic aspects: “A good interpretation of anything – a poem, a person, a history, a ritual, an institution, a society – takes us into the heart of that of which it is the interpretation. When it does not do that, but leads us instead somewhere else – into an admiration of its own elegance, of its author’s cleverness, or of the beauties of Euclidean order – it may have its intrinsic charms; but it is something else than what the task at hand calls for” (1973: 18). To drive this point home: a sociological description which draws the readers’ attention mainly to its aesthetic means of composition has failed.
This can also be formulated from the position of the author: The notion of observation is not only misleading because it implies a too strong separation between the subject and object of research, but also because “observation,” to the extent that it generates disciplinary knowledge only through writing processes, stands for a second membership: namely in the sociological discourse. Fieldnotes are an interface: as a local practice, they belong to the field, as a writing practice, they belong to academic discourse.
This knowing how (Ryle) has been the target of ethnomethodological “studies of work” (Garfinkel, 1986), which explicitly take professional “skills” as their object; for example, the embodied knowledge in human-machine-interaction.
This does not mean it is “lost.” The part of the ethnographic experience which remains “tacit” – a background knowledge of somatic traces and intuitively understood connections – plays a central role in orienting theoretical decisions about topics, hypotheses, and concepts.
It is obvious that there are fields of social practice where such participation competences can be acquired either only rudimentarily or at the cost of leaving the discipline (see the discussion in Lynch, 1993: 273–275). In other fields however, becoming a co-worker, that is, a strong hybridization of roles, can be an indispensible condition for getting access.
It was “non-verbal behavior” that in the history of visual sociology suggested itself as the “natural” object for the use of the camera (Scherer, Banse, & Wallbott, 2001). Like audio recording in regard to ephemerality, the camera cannot be outrun by description. On the other hand, it finds in the obvious its biggest problem. The camera intensifies the problem of visual self-evidence, just because it is an “optical type” oriented to the visual and hence relying on other people seeing “the same thing.” The fact that this doesn’t happen becomes immediately evident as soon as the need arises to speak sociologically about what has been shown. On the testing of strategies of using the camera in an alienating way to “watch people watching,” see Amann and Mohn (1998).
Here the comparison to photography suggests itself: this recording technology too manipulates the temporal structure of social processes. It turns them into stills and through this harsh way of decontextualization it allows for new forms of observation.
This is the serious aspect of the otherwise satirical classic “Body Ritual among the Nacirema,” portraying North-American bathroom habits in terms of religious ritual (Miner, 1956).
Outside the social sciences, language is of course transgressed in almost all the arts, especially in music; literature too has a “zone of the ineffable” (Fuchs, 1989: 163). Within sociology, the possibilities are more limited, but nevertheless, interesting: in “ethnodramatic” performances of research results (Mienczakowski, 2001) or in attempts to use visual media not only for the recording of “data,” but also as a semiotic extension of sociological communication, and as an analytically articulate form of showing (Amann & Mohn, 1998). If such a visual form of sociological communication were to become established, this might have two opposite effects for our topic: It would make the competence in description shrivel even more, and it would, once again, highlight the possibilities that are special to description.
References
Amann, K. (1997). Ethnografie jenseits von Kulturdeutung. Über Geigespielen und Molekularbiologie. In S. Hirschauer, & K. Amann (Eds.), Die Befremdung der eigenen Kultur. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.
Amann, K., & Mohn, E. (1998). Forschung mit der Kamera. Anthropolitain, 98, 4–20.
Amann K, & Hirschauer S. (1997). Die Befremdung der eigenen Kultur. Ein Programm. In S. Hirschauer, & K. Amann (Eds.), Die Befremdung der eigenen Kultur. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.
Atkinson, P. (1990). The ethnographic imagination. London: Routledge.
Berg, E., & Fuchs, M. (1993). Kultur, Soziale Praxis, Text. Die Krise der ethnografischen Repräsentation. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.
Bergmann, J. (1985). Flüchtigkeit und methodische Fixierung sozialer Wirklichkeit. In W. Bonß, & H. Hartmann. (Eds.), Entzauberte Wissenschaft. Göttingen: Schwarz.
Bergmann, J. (1993). Discreet indiscretions. The social organization of gossip. New York: Aldine, de Gruyter.
Bernard, H. R. (1988). Research methods in cultural anthropology. London: Sage.
Callon M. (1986). Some elements of a sociology of translation. In J. Law. (Ed.), Power, action and belief. A new sociology of knowledge? London: Routledge.
Clifford, J. (1986). On ethnographic allegory. In J. Clifford, & G. Marcus (Eds.), Writing culture. The poetics and politics of ethnography. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Clifford, J. (1988). The predicament of culture. Twentieth century ethnography, literature and art. Boston: Harvard University Press.
Clifford J. (1990). Notes on (Field)notes. In R. Sanjek (Ed.), Fieldnotes: The makings of anthropology. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Clifford J., & Marcus G. (Ed.) (1986). Writing culture. The poetics and politics of ethnography. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Ellis, C., & Bochner, A. (1997). Composing ethnography. Lanham: Altamira Press.
Emerson, R., Fretz, R., & Shaw, L. (1995). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Fuchs P. (1989). Vom schweigenden Aufflug ins Abstrakte. Zur Ausdifferenzierung der modernen Lyrik. In P. Fuchs, & N. Luhmann (Eds.), Reden und Schweigen. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.
Garfinkel H. (Ed.) (1986). Ethnomethodological studies of work. London: Routledge.
Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books.
Geertz, C. (1988). Works and lives: The anthropologist as author. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Hall, E. T. (1959). The silent language. New York: Doubleday.
Hirschauer, S. (1991). The manufacture of bodies in surgery. Social Studies of Science, 21, 279–319.
James, A., Hockey, J., & Dawson, A. (1997). After writing culture. Epistemology and practice in contemporary anthropology. London: Routledge.
Knorr Cetina, K. (1981). The manufacture of knowledge. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Knorr Cetina, K. (1989). Spielarten des Konstruktivismus. Soziale Welt, 40, 86–96.
Knoblauch, H. (2000). Das Ende der linguistischen Wende. Soziologie, 2/2000, 46–58.
Knoblauch, H. (2001). Fokussierte Ethnografie. Sozialer Sinn, 2, 123–141.
Kurtz, L. (1982). Robert E. Park’s ‚notes of the origin of the society of social research’. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 18, 332–340.
Länger, C. (2001). Im Spiegel der Blindheit. Eine Kultursoziologie des Sehsinnes. Stuttgart: Lucius.
Latour, B. (1993). We have never been modern. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Lindemann, G. (2005). The analysis of the borders of the social world: A challenge for sociological theory. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 35, 69–98.
Lofland, J. (1971). Analyzing social settings. Belmont: Wadsworth.
Luckmann, T. (1980). Über die Grenzen der Sozialwelt. In Lebenswelt und Gesellschaft. Paderborn: Schöning.
Lynch, M. (1993). Scientific practice and ordinary action. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Maanen, J. van (1988). Tales of the field. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Mead, M. (1977). Letters from the field, 1925–1975. New York: Harper & Row.
Méadel C., & Rabeharisoa V. (2001). Taste as a form of adjustment between food and consumers. In R. Coombs (Ed.), Demand, markets, users, and innovation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Mienczakowski J. (2001). Ethnodrama: Performed research—limitations and potential. In P. Atkinson, A. Coffey, S. Delamont, J. Lofland, & L. Lofland (Eds.), Handbook of ethnography. London: Sage.
Minor, H. (1956). Body ritual among the nacirema. American Anthropologist, 58, 503–507.
Mol, A. (2002). The body multiple. Ontology in medical practice. Durham: Duke University Press.
Mohn, E. (2002). Filming Culture. Spielarten des Dokumentierens nach der Repräsentationskrise. Stuttgart: Lucius.
Oevermann U. (2000). Die Methode der Fallrekonstruktion in der Grundlagenforschung sowie der klinischen und pädagogischen Praxis. In K. Kraimer (Ed.), Die Fallrekonstruktion. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.
Petermann W. (1991). Fotografie- und Filmanalyse. In U. Flick (Ed.), Handbuch Qualitative Sozialforschung. München: Psychologie Verlagsunion.
Preda, A. (2000). Order with things? Humans, artifacts, and the sociological problem of rule-following. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 30, 269–298.
Psathas, G., & Anderson, T. (1990). The “practices” of transcription in conversation analysis. Semiotica, 78, 75–99.
Reichertz, J. (1992). Beschreiben oder Zeigen. Über das Verfassen ethnografischer Berichte. Soziale Welt, 43, 331–350.
Reichertz J., & Schröer N. (1994). Erheben, Auswerten, Darstellen. In N. Schröer (Ed.), Interpretative Sozialforschung. Opladen: Westdeutscher.
Richardson L., & St. Pierre E. A. (2005). Writing. A method of inquiry. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research, 3rd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sanjek, R. (Hg.) (1990). Fieldnotes: The makings of anthropology. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Scherer, K. R., Banse, R., & Wallbott, H. (2001). Emotion inferences from vocal expression correlate across languages and cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32, 76–92.
Schatzman, L., & Strauss, A. (1973). Field research. Strategies for a natural sociology. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Schütz A. (1964) The stranger. In M. Natanson (Ed.), Collected papers, Vol. 2. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
Simmel, G. (1908). Exkurs über den Fremden, In Soziologie. Untersuchungen über die Form der Vergesellschaftung. Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot.
Simo, (1991). Interkulturalität und Intertextualität oder ethnografische Erfahrung und Polyglosie. In H. Böhme, & N. Tiling (Eds.), Leben, um eine Form der Darstellung zu erreichen. Studien zum Werk Hubert Fichtes. Frankfurt: Fischer.
Spradley, J. (1980). Participant observation. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Tilley C. (2001). Ethnography and material culture. In P. Atkinson, A. Coffey, S. Delamont, J. Lofland, & L. Lofland (Eds.), Handbook of ethnography. London: Sage.
Wittgenstein, L. (1974). Tractatus logico-philosophicus. London: Routledge.
Wolff S. (1986). Rapport und Report. Über einige Probleme bei der Erstellung plausibler ethnografischer Texte. In W. von der Ohe (Ed.), Kulturanthropologie. Beiträge zum Neubeginn einer Disziplin. Berlin: Duncker und Humblot.
Wolff, S. (1999). Subjektivität für alle praktischen Zwecke. Österreichische Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 24, 5–24.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hirschauer, S. Puttings things into words. Ethnographic description and the silence of the social. Hum Stud 29, 413–441 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10746-007-9041-1
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10746-007-9041-1