Sedgwick formatted with page numbers v.2


	
  

	
  
	
  

	
  

	
  
Complicit	
  Positioning:	
  Anthropological	
  Knowledge	
  
and	
  Problems	
  of	
  ‘Studying	
  Up’	
  for	
  Ethnographer-­‐
Employees	
  of	
  Corporations	
  

Mitchell	
  W	
  Sedgwick	
   	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  	
  
	
  
	
  
Abstract	
  

Contemporary	
  work	
  by	
  ‘corporate	
  ethnographers’,	
  as	
  employees	
  of	
  
businesses,	
  offers	
  a	
  refreshing	
  perspective	
  on	
  Anthropology’s	
  ‘crisis	
  of	
  
representation’	
  and	
  its	
  extensions—from	
  neo-­‐colonial	
  concerns	
  and	
  
reflexivity,	
  to	
  para-­‐ethnographic	
  and	
  recursive	
  approaches—that	
  are	
  
increasingly	
  characterized	
  by	
  complicit	
  relations	
  between	
  ethnographers	
  
and	
  their	
  informants/‘collaborators’.	
  This	
  article	
  focusses	
  on	
  the	
  history	
  
and	
  politics	
  of	
  ethnographers’	
  positionality	
  in	
  field	
  research	
  and	
  the	
  
analytic	
  products	
  of,	
  and	
  audiences	
  for,	
  their	
  work.	
  It	
  contrasts	
  the	
  often	
  
confounded	
  labor	
  of	
  ‘anthropologists	
  of	
  business’	
  with	
  that	
  of	
  ‘corporate	
  
ethnographers’,	
  who	
  work	
  for	
  businesses,	
  while	
  highlighting	
  that,	
  for	
  
both,	
  the	
  ‘studying	
  up’	
  (Nader	
  1974	
  [1969])	
  methodology	
  required	
  for	
  
research	
  at	
  business	
  sites	
  disrupts	
  assumptions	
  surrounding	
  the	
  politics	
  
of	
  traditional	
  ethnographic	
  fieldwork.	
  Tracing	
  shifts	
  in	
  core	
  interests	
  
across	
  general	
  Anthropology,	
  it	
  is	
  argued	
  that	
  close	
  attention	
  to	
  new	
  
sitings	
  and	
  circumstances	
  of	
  fieldwork—including	
  studying	
  up	
  in	
  
businesses—could	
  productively	
  drive	
  reconsiderations	
  of	
  methodology,	
  
ethics	
  and,	
  therefore,	
  epistemology	
  in	
  Anthropology.	
  	
  

In	
  this	
  context,	
  corporate	
  ethnographers,	
  who	
  are	
  often	
  formally	
  

	
  
	
  
Page	
  1	
  of	
  31	
  	
  
	
  
JBA	
  6(1):	
  58-­‐88	
  
Spring	
  2017	
  
	
  
©	
  The	
  Author(s)	
  2017	
  
ISSN	
  2245-­‐4217	
  

www.cbs.dk/jba	
  

	
  



	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
   	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  Sedgwick	
  /	
  Complicit	
  Positioning	
  	
  

	
   59	
  

trained	
  in	
  Anthropology,	
  are	
  specifically	
  encouraged	
  to	
  analytically	
  
engage	
  with	
  the	
  problematics	
  of	
  their	
  perhaps-­‐awkward	
  complicities	
  with	
  
their	
  employers.	
  It	
  is	
  suggested	
  that,	
  alongside	
  the	
  work	
  of	
  
anthropologists	
  of	
  business,	
  corporate	
  ethnographers—should	
  they	
  
choose	
  to	
  do	
  so—are	
  well-­‐positioned	
  to	
  assist	
  in	
  exposing	
  the	
  black	
  box	
  of	
  
the	
  culture(s)	
  of	
  secrecy	
  through	
  which	
  the	
  work	
  of	
  corporations	
  
intimately	
  penetrates	
  modern	
  life.	
  

	
  

Keywords	
  	
  

Corporate	
  ethnography,	
  anthropology	
  of	
  business,	
  positionality,	
  ‘studying	
  
up’,	
  ‘culture(s)	
  of	
  secrecy’,	
  crisis	
  of	
  representation,	
  complicity,	
  para-­‐
ethnography	
  

	
  

Introduction	
  

Anthropology	
  of	
  Business	
  takes	
  business	
  seriously,	
  as	
  it	
  does	
  the	
  ethical	
  
conundrums	
  of	
  engaging	
  it	
  ethnographically.	
  Along	
  with	
  providing	
  
detailed,	
  empirically-­‐rich	
  analyses	
  of	
  an	
  arena	
  that	
  drives	
  much	
  of	
  our	
  
contemporary	
  modern	
  condition,	
  Anthropology	
  of	
  Business	
  could	
  also	
  
make	
  foundational	
  contributions	
  to	
  general	
  Anthropology	
  because	
  it	
  is	
  in	
  
the	
  nature—and	
  I	
  use	
  that	
  word	
  specifically—of	
  their	
  subjects	
  that	
  
ethnographic	
  work	
  on	
  businesses	
  pushes	
  to	
  the	
  edges	
  of	
  Anthropology’s	
  
ethical	
  envelopes.	
  In	
  raising	
  ethics,	
  I	
  flag	
  contested	
  terrain,	
  and	
  
ethnography	
  of	
  business	
  generates	
  particular	
  tensions,	
  and	
  suspicions.	
  
Along	
  with	
  other	
  formal	
  organizations,	
  businesses	
  or,	
  more	
  specifically,	
  
corporations	
  are	
  private,	
  legally	
  protected	
  fictions	
  with	
  very	
  real	
  
boundaries,	
  forcefully	
  guarded.	
  From	
  gaining	
  access	
  to	
  such	
  spaces,	
  to	
  the	
  
unpacking	
  of	
  their	
  private/internal	
  activities,	
  to	
  their	
  external	
  
representations	
  as	
  brands,	
  goods	
  and	
  services,	
  and	
  as	
  persons—think	
  
‘Steve	
  Jobs’—businesses	
  are	
  particular,	
  and	
  particularly	
  demanding,	
  
anthropological	
  sites.	
  The	
  ambiguity	
  generated	
  from	
  ethnographic	
  
positioning	
  in	
  such	
  edgy	
  sites	
  should	
  be	
  an	
  asset	
  to	
  our	
  thinking	
  about	
  
anthropological	
  fieldwork,	
  and	
  a	
  source	
  of	
  analytic	
  power.	
  Along	
  with	
  
making	
  significant	
  contributions	
  to	
  general	
  Anthropology,	
  it	
  should	
  
constitute	
  a	
  means	
  of	
  speaking	
  to	
  power	
  and	
  providing	
  commentary	
  on	
  
and	
  critique	
  of	
  the	
  diverse	
  socio-­‐economic	
  conditions	
  constituting,	
  for	
  
lack	
  of	
  a	
  better	
  term,	
  the	
  ‘neo-­‐liberal’	
  regimes	
  that	
  structure	
  most	
  of	
  
humanity’s	
  contemporary	
  circumstances.	
  	
  	
  

Regrettably,	
  however,	
  while	
  generating	
  interesting	
  soundings	
  
regarding	
  ‘another	
  village	
  heard	
  from’,	
  with	
  some	
  outstanding	
  exceptions	
  
the	
  quality	
  of	
  ethnographic	
  research	
  on	
  businesses	
  is	
  uneven.	
  As	
  a	
  result,	
  
given	
  the	
  obviously	
  central	
  position	
  of	
  businesses	
  in	
  the	
  larger	
  picture	
  of	
  
how	
  the	
  world	
  looks	
  today,	
  this	
  work	
  has	
  been	
  less	
  influential	
  than	
  one	
  
might	
  have	
  hoped	
  to	
  general	
  Anthropology,	
  as	
  it	
  has	
  been	
  in	
  providing	
  



Journal	
  of	
  Business	
  Anthropology,	
  6(1),	
  Spring	
  2017	
  
	
  

	
  60	
  

pithy	
  commentary	
  for	
  public	
  discussion.	
  Astride	
  ethical	
  considerations,	
  
there	
  are	
  real	
  concerns	
  regarding	
  methodology,	
  including	
  the	
  duration,	
  
depth	
  and	
  quality	
  of	
  ethnographic	
  research	
  on	
  businesses,	
  which	
  of	
  
course	
  impacts	
  its	
  analytic	
  breadth	
  and	
  interpretive	
  precision.	
  This	
  would	
  
seem	
  to	
  be	
  the	
  case	
  especially	
  among	
  ethnographers	
  employed	
  by	
  
businesses	
  who,	
  as	
  it	
  happens,	
  tend	
  to	
  dominate	
  the	
  field.	
  As	
  I	
  will	
  discuss	
  
at	
  length,	
  what	
  can	
  be	
  claimed	
  with	
  regard	
  to	
  anthropological	
  knowledge	
  
creation	
  is	
  impacted	
  by	
  the	
  form	
  and	
  intentionality	
  of	
  any	
  ethnographic	
  
work.	
  Non-­‐disclosure	
  agreements	
  (NDAs)	
  that	
  are	
  commonly	
  found	
  at	
  the	
  
center	
  of	
  the	
  employment	
  contracts	
  of	
  corporate	
  ethnographers	
  are,	
  of	
  
course,	
  relevant	
  here.	
  But	
  the	
  questions	
  I	
  raise	
  are	
  more	
  far-­‐reaching,	
  and	
  
insidious:	
  the	
  extent	
  to	
  which	
  some	
  ethnographers	
  may,	
  inadvertently	
  
perhaps,	
  perpetuate	
  the	
  culture(s)	
  of	
  secrecy	
  pervasive	
  in	
  business.	
  With	
  
the	
  public	
  psychologically	
  branded	
  by	
  corporations’	
  advertisements,	
  
products,	
  services	
  and,	
  sometimes,	
  their	
  famous	
  leaders,	
  I	
  argue	
  that	
  it	
  is	
  
in	
  illuminating	
  the	
  erstwhile	
  ‘black	
  box’	
  of	
  corporations’	
  inner	
  workings	
  
that	
  anthropological	
  work	
  on	
  business	
  would	
  most	
  productively	
  focus.	
  
And	
  while	
  in	
  this	
  article	
  I	
  critique	
  the	
  work	
  of	
  ethnographers	
  employed	
  
by	
  businesses,	
  I	
  also	
  raise	
  the	
  perhaps	
  counterintuitive	
  prospect	
  that	
  they	
  
may	
  be	
  able	
  to	
  offer	
  particularly	
  cogent	
  insights	
  into	
  those	
  very	
  
corporations	
  with	
  which	
  they	
  are	
  complicitly	
  engaged.	
  	
  	
  

	
   In	
  this	
  article,	
  then,	
  I	
  address	
  the	
  conduct,	
  representation	
  and	
  
ethics	
  engaged	
  in	
  ethnographic	
  fieldwork	
  on	
  businesses,	
  all	
  of	
  which	
  
revolve	
  to	
  a	
  significant	
  degree	
  around	
  questions	
  of	
  positionality	
  between	
  
ethnographers	
  and	
  their	
  subjects	
  in	
  business	
  contexts.	
  As	
  a	
  proxy	
  for	
  
these	
  issues	
  I	
  flag	
  ‘studying	
  up’	
  (Nader	
  1974	
  [1969])	
  as	
  a	
  form	
  of	
  
anthropological	
  knowledge	
  production,	
  emphasizing	
  the	
  problems	
  
entailed	
  in	
  engaging	
  ethnographically	
  with	
  informants	
  of	
  equal	
  or	
  greater	
  
status	
  than	
  the	
  ethnographer.	
  The	
  core	
  thrust	
  of	
  my	
  argument	
  is	
  the	
  
following.	
  If	
  not	
  necessarily	
  generating	
  an	
  inversion	
  of	
  authority,	
  studying	
  
up	
  would	
  seem	
  to	
  confound	
  the	
  supposed	
  politics	
  at	
  the	
  core	
  of	
  classic	
  
ethnographic	
  fieldwork	
  in	
  Anthropology:1	
  the	
  structural	
  dominance	
  of	
  
ethnographers	
  (as	
  representatives	
  or	
  embodiments	
  of	
  their	
  home	
  
community)	
  over	
  informants	
  (as	
  representatives	
  or	
  embodiments	
  of	
  their	
  
local	
  context).	
  Traditional	
  fieldwork	
  relations	
  unfolded,	
  and	
  continue	
  to	
  
unfold,	
  within	
  overarching	
  political	
  frameworks—that	
  were	
  sometimes	
  
colonial,	
  and	
  are	
  now	
  occasionally	
  described	
  as	
  neo-­‐colonial—which	
  have	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
1	
  The	
  model	
  is,	
  of	
  course,	
  Malinowski’s	
  fieldwork	
  among	
  Trobriand	
  Islanders,	
  
beginning	
  in	
  1914	
  (Malinowski	
  1922).	
  Doing	
  extensive,	
  ‘immersion’	
  
ethnographic	
  fieldwork—usually	
  for	
  a	
  minimum	
  of	
  one	
  year:	
  an	
  annual	
  seasonal	
  
cycle—is	
  understood	
  as	
  a	
  rite	
  of	
  passage	
  in	
  Anthropology,	
  and	
  is	
  ordinarily	
  the	
  
basis	
  for	
  writing	
  an	
  ‘ethnography’,	
  which,	
  if	
  successful,	
  allows	
  for	
  a	
  PhD	
  
qualification.	
  There	
  is	
  obviously	
  considerable	
  variation	
  in	
  the	
  fieldwork	
  
experiences	
  of	
  anthropologists	
  who	
  have	
  come	
  after,	
  but	
  whether	
  or	
  not	
  they	
  
have	
  done	
  extensive,	
  immersion	
  fieldwork	
  like	
  Malinowski,	
  all	
  anthropologists	
  
are	
  aware	
  of	
  and	
  must	
  contend	
  with	
  his	
  model	
  as	
  an	
  ideal	
  form.	
  



	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
   	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  Sedgwick	
  /	
  Complicit	
  Positioning	
  	
  

	
   61	
  

allowed	
  anthropologists	
  the	
  extraordinary	
  privilege	
  of	
  going	
  to	
  sites,	
  
often	
  very	
  far	
  away	
  from	
  home,	
  staying	
  there	
  for	
  a	
  considerable	
  length	
  of	
  
time	
  and,	
  often,	
  returning	
  to	
  those,	
  or	
  related,	
  sites	
  in	
  the	
  years	
  to	
  come.	
  If	
  
construed	
  in	
  the	
  negative	
  sense	
  implied	
  by	
  neo-­‐colonialism,	
  the	
  
interpersonal	
  positionality	
  implicated	
  in	
  the	
  structural	
  dominance	
  of	
  
ethnographers	
  over	
  informants	
  allowed	
  anthropologists	
  to	
  impose	
  
themselves	
  on	
  local	
  communities.	
  	
  

I	
  will	
  expand	
  on	
  this	
  over-­‐simplistic	
  rendering	
  below,	
  but	
  it	
  serves	
  
to	
  make	
  the	
  key	
  point	
  that	
  in	
  studying	
  up,	
  the	
  fundamental	
  positionality	
  
of	
  the	
  ethnographer	
  vis-­‐à-­‐vis	
  persons	
  in	
  the	
  host	
  community	
  under	
  study	
  
is	
  unorthodox	
  according	
  to	
  the	
  traditional	
  anthropological	
  norm.	
  If	
  so,	
  
these	
  new	
  forms	
  of	
  relations	
  pose	
  important	
  problems	
  regarding	
  the	
  
particularities	
  of	
  ethnographic	
  research	
  produced	
  through	
  fieldwork	
  in	
  
these	
  unorthodox	
  contexts	
  that,	
  in	
  turn,	
  generate	
  significant	
  
epistemological	
  questions.	
  As	
  the	
  number	
  of	
  ethnographers	
  in	
  such	
  sites,	
  
e.g.,	
  studying	
  up,	
  proliferate,	
  engaging	
  with	
  these	
  new	
  circumstances	
  of	
  
fieldwork	
  is	
  important,	
  in	
  terms	
  of	
  methodology,	
  ethics	
  and,	
  therefore,	
  
epistemology	
  in	
  Anthropology.	
  	
  	
  

	
  

Studying	
  up,	
  the	
  structural	
  politics	
  of	
  positionality,	
  and	
  the	
  day-­‐to-­‐
day	
  work	
  of	
  ethnography	
  

I	
  define	
  studying	
  up	
  as	
  conducting	
  ethnographic	
  research	
  among	
  persons	
  
within,	
  or	
  who	
  are	
  closely	
  affiliated	
  with,	
  organizations.2	
  As	
  I	
  understand	
  
them	
  here	
  organizations	
  are,	
  among	
  other	
  possible	
  criteria,	
  formally	
  
constituted	
  legal	
  entities.	
  They	
  stand	
  within,	
  and	
  are	
  therefore	
  
reproductive	
  of	
  larger	
  institutional	
  contexts	
  that	
  have,	
  or	
  have	
  the	
  
potential	
  for,	
  powerful	
  effects	
  on	
  the	
  larger	
  society	
  in	
  which	
  that	
  
organization,	
  and	
  its	
  institutional	
  context,	
  is	
  found.	
  To	
  unpack	
  this	
  
organizational/institutional	
  nexus,	
  an	
  example	
  of	
  what	
  I	
  mean	
  by	
  an	
  
organization	
  is	
  a	
  hospital,	
  which	
  stands	
  within	
  the	
  institution	
  of	
  the	
  
health	
  care	
  system	
  in	
  such-­‐and-­‐such	
  national	
  context.	
  Another	
  example	
  of	
  
studying	
  up,	
  familiar	
  from	
  my	
  own	
  work,	
  is	
  ethnographic	
  research	
  in	
  
foreign	
  subsidiary	
  factories,	
  affiliated	
  local	
  communities,	
  as	
  well	
  as	
  at	
  
headquarters	
  of	
  multinational	
  corporations.	
  The	
  work	
  of	
  these	
  
corporations	
  generates	
  products	
  and	
  forms	
  of	
  symbolic	
  capital	
  with	
  reach	
  
across	
  globally	
  dispersed	
  sites	
  in	
  the	
  vast	
  institutional	
  context	
  of	
  
contemporary	
  capitalist	
  production	
  and	
  consumption.	
  I	
  might	
  also	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
2	
  While	
  ‘studying	
  up’	
  has	
  become	
  the	
  moniker	
  associated	
  with	
  Nader’s	
  (1974	
  
[1969])	
  proposal	
  that	
  anthropologists	
  should	
  conduct	
  fieldwork	
  within	
  
organizations	
  effectively	
  constituting	
  America’s	
  ‘military-­‐industrial	
  complex’,	
  as	
  
Nader	
  herself	
  points	
  out	
  (1974	
  [1969]:	
  292),	
  methodologically	
  this	
  would	
  
obviously	
  include	
  studying	
  ‘down’	
  and	
  ‘sideways’	
  in	
  those	
  same	
  organizations	
  
and	
  among	
  communities	
  closely	
  associated	
  with	
  them.	
  

	
  



Journal	
  of	
  Business	
  Anthropology,	
  6(1),	
  Spring	
  2017	
  
	
  

	
  62	
  

include	
  in	
  the	
  definition	
  of	
  studying	
  up	
  or,	
  in	
  any	
  case,	
  its	
  use	
  as	
  
methodological	
  technique,	
  conducting	
  ethnographic	
  research	
  focusing	
  on	
  
the	
  condition	
  of	
  persons	
  who	
  are	
  more	
  directly	
  affected	
  by	
  their	
  relations	
  
with	
  particular	
  institutions	
  (and	
  their	
  attendant	
  organizations)	
  than	
  
would,	
  perhaps,	
  be	
  the	
  case	
  of	
  more	
  mainstream	
  citizens.	
  (Of	
  course,	
  it	
  
must	
  be	
  acknowledged	
  that	
  the	
  State	
  is	
  profoundly	
  implicated	
  in	
  the	
  lives	
  
of	
  all	
  modern	
  persons.)	
  For	
  instance,	
  anthropological	
  analysis	
  of	
  the	
  
situation	
  of	
  Afro-­‐American	
  male	
  urban	
  youth	
  in	
  American	
  cities	
  would,	
  
necessarily,	
  require	
  both	
  knowledge	
  of	
  the	
  police	
  at	
  a	
  local	
  organizational	
  
level	
  as	
  well	
  as	
  the	
  larger	
  legal/institutional	
  system	
  in	
  which	
  the	
  work	
  of	
  
the	
  police,	
  which	
  so	
  intimately	
  affects	
  those	
  under	
  primary	
  consideration,	
  
takes	
  place.	
  	
  

As	
  a	
  foundation	
  to	
  further	
  examination	
  of	
  positionality	
  when	
  
studying	
  up,	
  I	
  emphasize	
  the	
  phrase	
  ‘structural	
  dominance’	
  in	
  relating	
  the	
  
uncomfortable	
  perception	
  of	
  neo-­‐colonialism	
  in	
  anthropological	
  practices	
  
that,	
  some	
  claim,	
  informs	
  classic	
  and,	
  indeed,	
  much	
  recent	
  work	
  in	
  
Anthropology	
  (Rosaldo	
  1989a).	
  This	
  is	
  in	
  order	
  to	
  make	
  the	
  point	
  that	
  we	
  
would	
  do	
  well	
  to	
  take	
  a	
  disaggregated	
  approach	
  to	
  this	
  problem.	
  On	
  the	
  
one	
  hand,	
  we	
  should	
  obviously	
  take	
  seriously	
  the	
  overarching	
  geopolitics	
  
that	
  inform	
  the	
  historical	
  circumstances	
  that	
  allowed	
  for	
  anthropological	
  
fieldwork	
  in	
  colonial	
  times,	
  and	
  may	
  continue	
  to	
  structure	
  
anthropological	
  fieldwork	
  in	
  notionally	
  neo-­‐colonial	
  and	
  other	
  sites.	
  On	
  
the	
  other	
  hand,	
  in	
  whatever	
  historical	
  period,	
  we	
  should	
  appreciate	
  the	
  
practical	
  circumstances	
  and	
  the	
  emotional	
  engagements	
  accompanying	
  
the	
  anthropologist’s	
  day-­‐to-­‐day	
  practice	
  of	
  conducting	
  fieldwork	
  on	
  the	
  
ground,	
  as	
  part	
  of	
  a	
  community,	
  in	
  the	
  company	
  of	
  local	
  people,	
  over	
  a	
  
long	
  period	
  of	
  time.	
  The	
  traditional,	
  Western-­‐educated	
  elite	
  
anthropologist	
  studying,	
  say,	
  a	
  tribe	
  in	
  the	
  ‘Global	
  South’	
  may	
  inevitably	
  
be	
  a	
  cog	
  in	
  the	
  wheel	
  of	
  a	
  larger	
  set	
  of	
  unequal	
  geopolitical	
  relations	
  that	
  
may,	
  tangibly,	
  allow	
  him	
  certain	
  freedoms	
  that	
  his	
  informants	
  may	
  not	
  
enjoy:	
  including	
  mobilizing	
  resources	
  that	
  allow	
  him	
  to	
  arrive	
  at,	
  remain	
  
in	
  and	
  leave	
  the	
  field	
  on	
  his	
  own	
  terms.	
  That	
  said,	
  the	
  particular	
  
circumstances	
  allowing	
  field	
  ethnographers	
  to	
  gain	
  access	
  to	
  field	
  sites	
  in	
  
the	
  first	
  place	
  (and	
  remain	
  in	
  them)	
  has	
  never	
  been	
  as	
  simple	
  as	
  this	
  
domination	
  model	
  suggests,	
  nor	
  is	
  life	
  on	
  the	
  ground	
  during	
  fieldwork	
  
unproblematic,	
  including	
  the	
  personal	
  upheaval	
  of	
  anthropologists	
  
uprooting	
  themselves	
  from	
  the	
  relative	
  physical	
  and	
  emotional	
  comforts	
  
of	
  their	
  ‘home’	
  lives.	
  	
  

Along	
  with	
  any	
  overarching	
  politics,	
  it	
  is	
  valuable	
  to	
  be	
  reminded,	
  
then,	
  of	
  what	
  jobbing	
  anthropologists	
  got	
  up	
  to	
  and	
  what	
  they	
  get	
  up	
  to	
  in	
  
the	
  field	
  while	
  conducting	
  ethnographic	
  research.	
  My	
  sense	
  is	
  that	
  across	
  
the	
  discipline’s	
  history,	
  as	
  today,	
  the	
  vast	
  majority	
  of	
  anthropologist	
  
fieldworkers	
  have	
  empathized	
  genuinely	
  with	
  the	
  circumstances	
  of	
  
members	
  of	
  their	
  host	
  communities.	
  If	
  possibly	
  seen	
  here	
  through	
  overly	
  
rose	
  colored	
  glasses,	
  successful	
  ethnographers	
  are	
  inevitably	
  caught	
  up	
  in	
  



	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
   	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  Sedgwick	
  /	
  Complicit	
  Positioning	
  	
  

	
   63	
  

important	
  relationships	
  with	
  persons	
  who	
  we	
  professionally	
  call	
  
informants	
  but	
  who	
  are	
  usually	
  friends	
  who	
  we	
  treat	
  as	
  erstwhile	
  equals,	
  
at	
  the	
  very	
  least	
  when	
  we	
  are	
  sharing	
  ‘coeval	
  time’	
  (Fabian	
  1983).	
  In	
  the	
  
field,	
  as	
  at	
  home,	
  we	
  devote	
  ourselves	
  to	
  personal	
  interactions	
  that,	
  in	
  the	
  
nature	
  of	
  human	
  relations,	
  are	
  complicated	
  and,	
  so,	
  rewarding.	
  Thus	
  it	
  is	
  
my	
  own	
  experience,	
  which	
  I	
  suspect	
  is	
  shared	
  by	
  most	
  anthropologists,	
  
that	
  fieldwork	
  is	
  undergirded	
  by	
  the	
  long	
  term	
  construction	
  of	
  a	
  practical	
  
and	
  emotionally-­‐enriched	
  lifeworld	
  between	
  anthropologist	
  and	
  hosts	
  
that	
  literally	
  makes	
  space	
  for	
  shared	
  community.	
  We	
  might	
  understand	
  
this	
  as	
  a	
  process	
  that	
  allows	
  the	
  strange	
  to	
  become	
  familiar:	
  from	
  the	
  
perspectives	
  of	
  both	
  the	
  anthropologist	
  and	
  members	
  of	
  the	
  host	
  
community,	
  and,	
  so,	
  a	
  two	
  way	
  process.	
  As	
  such,	
  a	
  collaborative	
  
movement	
  across	
  time,	
  feeling	
  and	
  apperception	
  is	
  central	
  to	
  sound	
  
anthropological	
  analysis.	
  (I	
  will	
  revisit	
  this	
  point	
  later	
  in	
  the	
  article.)	
  
Meanwhile,	
  in	
  the	
  field,	
  ethnographers	
  very	
  often	
  find	
  themselves	
  
humbled	
  by	
  the	
  knowledge	
  and	
  practices	
  taking	
  place	
  in	
  the	
  communities	
  
they	
  are	
  allowed	
  to	
  join.	
  (In	
  such	
  circumstances,	
  who	
  is	
  the	
  dominant	
  
party?	
  How	
  and	
  when	
  do	
  dominance	
  and/or	
  questions	
  of	
  inequality	
  
matter?)	
  If	
  knowledge	
  of	
  such	
  practices	
  is	
  what	
  we	
  go	
  to	
  the	
  field	
  to	
  
understand,	
  I	
  would	
  suggest	
  that,	
  along	
  with	
  respect	
  for	
  and	
  
interpersonal	
  commitment	
  to	
  those	
  among	
  whom	
  we	
  study,	
  knowing	
  
little	
  and	
  being	
  willing	
  to	
  learn	
  a	
  lot	
  about	
  the	
  local	
  situation	
  is	
  what	
  
constitutes	
  competent	
  ethnographic	
  practice.	
  	
  	
  

At	
  risk,	
  30	
  years	
  on,	
  of	
  revisiting	
  a	
  hackneyed	
  debate,	
  I	
  raise	
  these	
  
matters	
  as	
  a	
  mild	
  retort	
  to	
  what	
  seems	
  to	
  have	
  been	
  an	
  overemphasis,	
  
especially	
  in	
  (North	
  American)	
  Cultural	
  Anthropology,	
  upon	
  guilt,	
  and	
  
subsequent	
  angst,	
  regarding	
  the	
  circumstances	
  of	
  traditional	
  
anthropological	
  fieldwork.	
  As	
  Rosaldo,	
  as	
  understood	
  by	
  Marcus,	
  would	
  
have	
  it,	
  especially	
  in	
  the	
  morality	
  tale	
  driving	
  his	
  noted	
  piece,	
  ‘Imperialist	
  
nostalgia’	
  (Rosaldo	
  1989b),	
  field	
  anthropology	
  has	
  reached	
  an	
  ‘impasse’:	
  
it	
  is	
  a	
  ‘tragic	
  occupation’,	
  so	
  ‘paralyzed’	
  (Marcus	
  1997:	
  95)	
  and	
  tainted	
  
that	
  it	
  should,	
  effectively,	
  stop,	
  at	
  least	
  in	
  its	
  current	
  form.	
  I	
  suggest,	
  
contra	
  Rosaldo,	
  that	
  rather	
  than	
  tarring	
  every	
  anthropologist	
  with	
  the	
  
brush	
  of	
  neo-­‐colonial	
  operative,	
  wherever	
  ethnographic	
  fieldwork	
  takes	
  
place,	
  including	
  in	
  situations	
  of	
  studying	
  up,	
  we	
  recognize	
  that	
  structural	
  
differences	
  between	
  ethnographers	
  and	
  members	
  of	
  informant	
  
communities	
  are	
  present.	
  And,	
  despite	
  the	
  likely	
  fact	
  of	
  structural	
  
inequalities,	
  we	
  nonetheless	
  work	
  toward	
  an	
  ideal—that,	
  of	
  course,	
  is	
  not	
  
in	
  all	
  cases	
  achieved—of	
  communicative	
  equality	
  with	
  our	
  interlocutors	
  
in	
  the	
  field.	
  	
  	
  

Anthropologists	
  are	
  conscious,	
  or	
  soon	
  become	
  so,	
  of	
  the	
  political	
  
circumstances	
  through	
  which	
  their	
  work	
  is	
  made	
  possible,	
  and	
  they	
  
recognize	
  how	
  the	
  politics	
  accompanying	
  interpersonal	
  relations	
  in	
  the	
  
field,	
  including	
  their	
  capacity	
  to	
  gain	
  local	
  knowledge,	
  affects	
  their	
  
fieldwork	
  experiences.	
  In	
  turn,	
  they	
  should	
  be	
  explicit	
  about	
  how	
  those	
  



Journal	
  of	
  Business	
  Anthropology,	
  6(1),	
  Spring	
  2017	
  
	
  

	
  64	
  

particulars	
  of	
  the	
  field	
  are	
  subsequently	
  represented,	
  or	
  translated,	
  as	
  
they	
  must	
  be,	
  for	
  other	
  audiences.	
  And	
  should	
  it	
  be	
  that	
  ethnographers	
  
are	
  invited	
  to	
  produce	
  knowledge	
  representing	
  their	
  field	
  experience	
  in	
  
particular	
  forms	
  for	
  particular	
  audiences,	
  they	
  should	
  be	
  conscious	
  and	
  
explicit	
  about	
  how	
  and	
  why	
  that	
  field	
  experience	
  is	
  being	
  re-­‐translated,	
  or	
  
translated	
  differently,	
  for	
  that	
  different	
  audience.	
  If	
  all	
  corporate	
  
ethnographers	
  were	
  so	
  engaged,	
  I	
  believe	
  their	
  work	
  would	
  be	
  more	
  
powerfully	
  rendered,	
  more	
  widely	
  read	
  and	
  their	
  very	
  important	
  subject	
  
matter	
  more	
  deeply	
  appreciated	
  in	
  general	
  Anthropology.	
  Without	
  
explicitly	
  representing	
  such	
  engagements	
  in	
  their	
  work,	
  however,	
  the	
  
question	
  is	
  raised	
  to	
  what	
  extent	
  their	
  ethnographic	
  renderings	
  can	
  lay	
  
claim	
  to	
  producing	
  in-­‐depth	
  anthropological	
  knowledge.	
  	
  

	
  

Unorthodox	
  sitings:	
  the	
  production	
  of	
  the	
  current	
  wide-­‐open	
  
ethnographic	
  moment	
  

While	
  it	
  has	
  largely	
  shared	
  the	
  same	
  intellectual	
  trajectory,	
  the	
  fact	
  is	
  that	
  
in	
  the	
  history	
  of	
  Anthropology,	
  the	
  study	
  of	
  businesses—and	
  other	
  
formally	
  organized	
  contexts,	
  such	
  as	
  public	
  bureaucracies—has	
  been	
  
unusual,	
  and	
  sporadic.	
  Thus,	
  although	
  there	
  have	
  been	
  significant	
  studies	
  
of	
  particular	
  organizations,	
  sometimes	
  with	
  anthropologists	
  working	
  in	
  
multidisciplinary	
  teams,	
  the	
  Anthropology	
  of	
  Organizations	
  (including,	
  
therefore,	
  Anthropology	
  of	
  Business)	
  lacks	
  intellectual	
  momentum	
  as	
  a	
  
subject	
  of	
  study.3	
  	
  	
  

Asking	
  why	
  studying	
  businesses	
  has	
  been	
  unorthodox	
  takes	
  us	
  
right	
  back	
  to	
  the	
  beginnings	
  of	
  Anthropology.	
  Briefly,	
  classic	
  sites	
  in	
  
Anthropology	
  were	
  asked	
  to	
  bear	
  the	
  de	
  facto	
  weight	
  of	
  extreme,	
  if	
  
usually	
  implicit,	
  analytic	
  comparisons	
  with	
  anthropologists’	
  own,	
  read,	
  
Western	
  societies.	
  I	
  say	
  ‘implicit’	
  despite	
  some	
  late	
  19th	
  century	
  work	
  that	
  
explicitly	
  distributed	
  the	
  world’s	
  societies	
  in	
  a	
  highly	
  elaborated	
  
hierarchy,	
  with	
  Victorian	
  Britain	
  at	
  its	
  apex	
  (Stocking	
  1987).	
  Historically,	
  
work	
  in	
  such	
  extreme	
  or,	
  from	
  a	
  Western	
  perspective,	
  extremely	
  different	
  
sites,	
  among	
  hunter-­‐gatherers,	
  nomads,	
  slash	
  and	
  burn	
  agriculturalists,	
  
etc.,	
  has	
  been	
  variously,	
  if	
  sometimes-­‐unfortunately	
  and	
  often-­‐tenuously	
  
described	
  as	
  studying	
  among	
  ‘primitive	
  peoples’	
  or	
  ‘savages’	
  living	
  in	
  
‘tribal’	
  or	
  ‘simple	
  societies’	
  or,	
  in	
  more	
  recent	
  articulations,	
  among	
  
‘marginal	
  communities’,	
  say,	
  urban	
  slum	
  communities,	
  in	
  ‘less-­‐developed’	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
3	
  For	
  competent	
  surveys,	
  see	
  Baba’s	
  (1988)	
  discussion	
  of	
  both	
  collaborations	
  and	
  
antagonisms	
  between	
  ‘anthropologists	
  of	
  work’	
  and	
  large	
  American	
  corporations	
  
across	
  the	
  20th	
  century;	
  and	
  Wright’s	
  edited	
  volume,	
  where	
  her	
  opening	
  chapter	
  
(Wright	
  1994:	
  1-­‐31)	
  nicely	
  covers	
  the	
  history	
  of	
  ‘anthropology	
  of	
  organizations’,	
  
some	
  of	
  it	
  overlapping	
  with	
  Baba’s	
  treatment.	
  Sedgwick	
  (2007:	
  9-­‐20)	
  provides	
  a	
  
survey	
  of	
  the	
  very	
  substantial	
  and	
  longitudinally	
  rich	
  anthropological	
  literature	
  
on	
  Japanese	
  businesses,	
  from	
  craft	
  producers	
  to	
  major	
  global	
  corporations.	
  

	
  



	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
   	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  Sedgwick	
  /	
  Complicit	
  Positioning	
  	
  

	
   65	
  

nations.	
  In	
  any	
  case,	
  if	
  under	
  British	
  social	
  anthropology	
  ‘social	
  
organization’	
  was	
  a	
  construct	
  accounting	
  for	
  various	
  forms	
  persons	
  might	
  
take	
  in	
  organizing	
  themselves,	
  i.e.,	
  kinship	
  groups,	
  tribes,	
  markets,	
  etc.,	
  
those	
  studying	
  formal	
  organizations,	
  of	
  which	
  businesses	
  are	
  a	
  
quintessential	
  ‘modern’	
  example,	
  have	
  traditionally	
  been	
  a	
  marginal	
  
community	
  in	
  Anthropology.	
  	
  

In	
  recent	
  years	
  there	
  has	
  been	
  an	
  explosion	
  of	
  ethnographic	
  
fieldwork	
  in	
  locations	
  considerably	
  different	
  from	
  traditional	
  
anthropological	
  sites.	
  This	
  has	
  to	
  do	
  with	
  general	
  changes	
  in	
  our	
  external	
  
environment,	
  including	
  the	
  proliferation	
  of	
  communications	
  technology	
  
and	
  dependence	
  on	
  the	
  internet	
  for	
  all	
  sorts	
  of	
  relations,	
  simplifying,	
  for	
  
instance,	
  the	
  maintenance	
  of	
  communities	
  that	
  are	
  literally	
  globally-­‐
dispersed.	
  Technological	
  developments	
  have	
  also	
  generated	
  prodigious	
  
opportunities	
  for	
  increasing	
  numbers	
  of	
  people,	
  often	
  including	
  our	
  
informants,	
  to	
  experience	
  personal	
  displacements,	
  e.g.,	
  mass	
  travel.	
  These	
  
phenomena	
  collude	
  in	
  complicating—not	
  displacing—our	
  common	
  sense	
  
notions	
  of	
  time,	
  space	
  and	
  place	
  in	
  social	
  relations	
  built	
  up,	
  as	
  they	
  
fundamentally	
  remain,	
  from	
  face-­‐to-­‐face	
  contact	
  and	
  spatial	
  relations	
  
unfolding	
  physically	
  in	
  the	
  present.	
  	
  

The	
  rise	
  of	
  new	
  and	
  more	
  creative	
  sitings	
  for	
  ethnographic	
  
fieldwork	
  also	
  has	
  to	
  do	
  with	
  internal	
  changes	
  in	
  Anthropology,	
  including	
  
severe	
  self-­‐critique	
  regarding	
  the	
  neo-­‐colonial	
  pretenses	
  of	
  traditional	
  
anthropological	
  practices,	
  as	
  outlined	
  above.	
  These	
  matters	
  were	
  
combined	
  in	
  Anthropology’s	
  ‘crisis	
  of	
  representation’:	
  a	
  fully	
  justified	
  
assault	
  on	
  traditional	
  forms	
  of,	
  and	
  concern	
  over	
  the	
  audiences	
  for,	
  
anthropological	
  texts,	
  as	
  the	
  basis	
  for	
  overall	
  critique	
  of	
  the	
  politics	
  of	
  
(representation	
  in)	
  Anthropology.	
  Hence,	
  its	
  foundations	
  shaken,	
  with	
  no	
  
consensus	
  as	
  to	
  what	
  should	
  happen	
  next,	
  theoretical	
  debate	
  in	
  
Anthropology	
  has	
  splintered,	
  as	
  have	
  forms	
  of	
  fieldwork:	
  there	
  is	
  little	
  
agreement	
  as	
  to	
  what	
  now	
  constitutes	
  a	
  proper	
  site	
  for	
  anthropological	
  
research.	
  More	
  recently,	
  meanwhile,	
  albeit	
  a	
  far	
  smaller	
  discipline	
  in	
  
terms	
  of	
  number	
  of	
  staff	
  employed,	
  Anthropology	
  has	
  shared	
  with	
  other	
  
Social	
  Sciences	
  a	
  severe	
  downturn	
  in	
  resources.	
  That	
  said,	
  in	
  my	
  view,	
  
despite	
  multiple,	
  on-­‐going	
  intellectual	
  crises,	
  Anthropology	
  is	
  increasingly	
  
popular	
  with	
  students	
  and,	
  judging	
  by	
  the	
  high	
  quality	
  of	
  talent	
  that	
  it	
  
attracts	
  and	
  its	
  influence	
  across	
  ‘the	
  conversation’	
  between	
  the	
  
Humanities	
  and	
  Social	
  Sciences,	
  e.g.,	
  in	
  the	
  ‘human	
  sciences’,	
  
Anthropology	
  is	
  an	
  extremely	
  successful	
  discipline.	
  	
  	
  

In	
  the	
  discipline’s	
  current	
  wide-­‐open	
  moment,	
  among	
  the	
  
proliferation	
  of	
  new	
  sites,	
  increasing	
  numbers	
  of	
  anthropologists	
  study	
  in	
  
or	
  around	
  formal	
  organizations.	
  Perhaps	
  this	
  is	
  to	
  be	
  expected:	
  after	
  all,	
  
despite	
  postmodern	
  pretentions,4	
  formal	
  organizations—including	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
4	
  In	
  ‘late	
  capitalism’,	
  often	
  understood	
  as	
  coinciding	
  with	
  the	
  turn	
  toward	
  
postmodernity,	
  ‘progress’	
  may	
  seem	
  thoroughly	
  stalled	
  across	
  a	
  decade	
  or	
  more	
  



Journal	
  of	
  Business	
  Anthropology,	
  6(1),	
  Spring	
  2017	
  
	
  

	
  66	
  

businesses,	
  government	
  agencies,	
  voluntary	
  agencies,	
  etc.—are	
  central	
  to	
  
the	
  reproduction	
  of	
  the	
  complex	
  modern	
  societies	
  that	
  dominate	
  the	
  
planet.	
  Furthermore,	
  it	
  is	
  perfectly	
  obvious	
  that	
  the	
  reach	
  of	
  modernity	
  
has	
  touched	
  the	
  supposedly	
  isolated,	
  smaller,	
  ‘simple’	
  communities	
  that	
  
were	
  traditionally	
  sought	
  out	
  for	
  classic	
  anthropological	
  fieldwork.	
  
Happily,	
  many	
  anthropologists	
  continue	
  to	
  work	
  in	
  such	
  communities,	
  but	
  
their	
  porous	
  and	
  often-­‐contested	
  boundaries—the	
  comings	
  and	
  goings	
  of	
  
its	
  members,	
  the	
  interactions	
  of	
  parts	
  of	
  the	
  community	
  with	
  the	
  outside,	
  
etc.—are	
  now	
  essential	
  to	
  contemporary	
  anthropological	
  analyses.5	
  	
  

	
   	
   While	
  current	
  circumstances,	
  including	
  networks	
  of	
  connections	
  
imagined	
  across	
  the	
  internet	
  and	
  individuals	
  and	
  families	
  calling	
  multiple	
  
parts	
  of	
  the	
  world	
  ‘home’,	
  suggest	
  a	
  plethora	
  of	
  new	
  contexts	
  informing	
  
anthropological	
  work,	
  we	
  would	
  want	
  to	
  recall	
  that	
  the	
  world	
  has	
  always	
  
been	
  linked	
  up,	
  if	
  at	
  times	
  more	
  dynamically	
  than	
  others.	
  In	
  collusion	
  with	
  
technological	
  development,	
  networks	
  of	
  trade	
  and,	
  of	
  course,	
  migration,	
  
have	
  reconfigured	
  the	
  globe	
  (Wallerstein	
  1979),	
  sometimes	
  with	
  tragic	
  
results.	
  One	
  thinks	
  here	
  of	
  the	
  devastation	
  of	
  many	
  African	
  tribes	
  through	
  
the	
  marketing	
  of	
  slaves	
  that	
  constituted	
  the	
  middle	
  leg	
  of	
  the	
  16th-­‐19	
  
century	
  Atlantic	
  ‘triangular	
  trade’:	
  an	
  enormously	
  complex	
  example	
  of	
  the	
  
effects	
  of	
  Western	
  colonialism,	
  and	
  with	
  far	
  reaching	
  consequences	
  still	
  
prevalent	
  today.	
  Given	
  this	
  history,	
  as	
  a	
  product	
  of	
  Western	
  academia	
  that	
  
developed	
  in	
  the	
  mid-­‐late	
  19th	
  century,	
  but	
  based	
  in	
  earlier	
  forms	
  of	
  
accumulation—exploration,	
  missionary	
  work,	
  colonial	
  administration,	
  
trade,	
  etc.—Anthropology	
  could	
  not	
  have	
  arisen	
  outside	
  of	
  a	
  colonizing	
  
framework.	
  It	
  is	
  natural	
  that	
  acknowledgement	
  of	
  the	
  historical	
  linkages	
  
between	
  colonialism	
  and	
  Anthropology	
  should	
  be	
  articulated,	
  then.	
  The	
  
question	
  is	
  Anthropology’s	
  intersections	
  with	
  that	
  historical	
  record.	
  	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
of	
  stagnation	
  for	
  Europeans,	
  for	
  the	
  Japanese—over	
  20	
  years	
  of	
  recession	
  here—
and,	
  to	
  a	
  somewhat	
  lesser	
  extent,	
  in	
  North	
  America.	
  But	
  even	
  putting	
  rapid	
  
economic	
  growth	
  in	
  China	
  and	
  India	
  across	
  the	
  last	
  two	
  decades	
  or	
  more	
  to	
  the	
  
side,	
  the	
  progressive	
  project	
  of	
  modernity	
  continues	
  to	
  capture	
  imaginings	
  of	
  ‘the	
  
future’,	
  at	
  a	
  minimum	
  at	
  least	
  as	
  far	
  as	
  the	
  institutional	
  configurations	
  that	
  drive	
  
that	
  very	
  modernity	
  in	
  which	
  our	
  lives	
  are	
  deeply	
  embedded	
  are	
  concerned.	
  As	
  a	
  
thought	
  exercise	
  we	
  might	
  ask,	
  where	
  are	
  ‘no-­‐growth’	
  economic	
  relations—that	
  
might,	
  incidentally,	
  help	
  preserve	
  the	
  planet—being	
  seriously	
  discussed?	
  
Furthermore,	
  the	
  current	
  period	
  of	
  Great	
  Recession	
  is	
  hardly	
  historically	
  
unprecedented.	
  Rather,	
  such	
  dips	
  are	
  anticipated—normalized	
  in	
  capitalism—
and,	
  so,	
  indicative	
  of	
  the	
  project	
  of	
  modernity.	
  It	
  is	
  not	
  for	
  nothing	
  that	
  the	
  
naming	
  itself,	
  Great	
  Recession,	
  refers	
  directly	
  to	
  the	
  Great	
  Depression	
  from	
  which,	
  
in	
  conventional	
  understanding,	
  we	
  ‘recovered’.	
  	
  	
  	
  
5	
  By	
  no	
  means	
  are	
  interactions	
  between	
  communities	
  new	
  to	
  Anthropology.	
  One	
  
thinks	
  immediately	
  of	
  Edmund	
  Leach’s	
  pathbreaking	
  work	
  in	
  Burma	
  here	
  (Leach	
  
1977	
  [1954)).	
  Nonetheless,	
  the	
  dominant	
  trope	
  in	
  Anthropology	
  until	
  the	
  mid-­‐
1990s	
  has	
  been	
  the	
  analytic	
  unpacking	
  of	
  single	
  communities	
  that	
  were	
  
considered	
  bounded,	
  at	
  least	
  as	
  a	
  methodological,	
  ‘scientific’	
  and/or	
  interpretive	
  
convenience.	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  

	
  



	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
   	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  Sedgwick	
  /	
  Complicit	
  Positioning	
  	
  

	
   67	
  

A	
  different,	
  more	
  optimistic	
  alternative	
  to	
  the	
  colonial/neo-­‐
colonial	
  imperatives	
  of	
  Anthropology	
  that	
  Rosaldo	
  raises,	
  then,	
  might	
  
consider	
  the	
  early	
  development	
  of	
  American	
  Anthropology	
  as	
  a	
  reaction	
  
to	
  that	
  very	
  colonialism:	
  for	
  instance,	
  the	
  early	
  20th	
  century	
  American	
  
‘salvage	
  anthropology/ethnography’	
  undertaken	
  by	
  Boas	
  and	
  his	
  
colleagues	
  (Stocking	
  1974),	
  among	
  Native	
  American	
  tribes	
  devastated	
  by	
  
white	
  America’s	
  western	
  expansion.	
  Of	
  course,	
  by	
  this	
  time,	
  across	
  North	
  
America’s	
  vast,	
  verdant	
  stretch—from	
  the	
  Atlantic	
  Coast	
  to	
  the	
  
Mississippi—most	
  Native	
  American	
  tribes	
  had	
  already	
  been	
  decimated	
  
through	
  contact	
  with	
  whites	
  that	
  began	
  in	
  the	
  17th	
  century.	
  (Far	
  earlier,	
  of	
  
course,	
  in	
  Central	
  and	
  South	
  America.)	
  The	
  practical	
  exercise	
  in	
  salvage	
  of	
  
(at	
  least,	
  information	
  about)	
  remaining	
  Native	
  American	
  communities	
  
was	
  based	
  not	
  in	
  a	
  romantic	
  aesthetic,	
  or	
  nostalgia	
  (cf.	
  Rosaldo	
  1989b),	
  
but	
  an	
  effort	
  to	
  provide	
  substance	
  to	
  Boas’	
  forceful	
  theories	
  about	
  cultural	
  
relativism.	
  While	
  subject	
  to	
  possible	
  negative	
  extensions,	
  the	
  cultural	
  
relativist	
  view	
  is	
  that	
  no	
  culture	
  is	
  any	
  better,	
  or	
  any	
  worse,	
  than	
  any	
  
other:	
  each	
  has	
  arisen	
  in	
  human	
  history	
  as	
  an	
  equally-­‐laudable	
  human	
  
accomplishment	
  within	
  its	
  own	
  particular	
  environmental	
  context.	
  These	
  
views,	
  which	
  deeply	
  informed	
  North	
  American	
  Cultural	
  Anthropology	
  
until	
  the	
  1980s,	
  to	
  say	
  nothing	
  of	
  the	
  American	
  civil	
  rights	
  movement,	
  
perhaps	
  arose	
  in	
  Boas	
  both	
  as	
  a	
  reaction	
  to	
  the	
  appalling	
  destruction	
  of	
  
Native	
  American	
  populations	
  and	
  his	
  experience	
  as	
  a	
  Jewish	
  immigrant	
  
from	
  Germany,	
  educated	
  in	
  the	
  German	
  intellectual	
  tradition.	
  In	
  any	
  case,	
  
driven	
  by	
  this	
  uplifting,	
  egalitarian	
  ethos,	
  it	
  is	
  unsurprising	
  that	
  the	
  idea	
  
that	
  anthropologists	
  ‘should	
  do	
  no	
  harm’	
  to	
  their	
  ethnographic	
  
interlocutors	
  should	
  constitute	
  the	
  foundation	
  of	
  anthropological	
  ethics	
  
itself,	
  guiding	
  both	
  ethnographic	
  work	
  in	
  the	
  field	
  and	
  the	
  subsequent	
  
representation	
  of	
  communities	
  studied.6	
  	
  

	
  

Positioned	
  engagements	
  	
  

As	
  suggested	
  above	
  Anthropology’s	
  more	
  recent	
  rethink	
  regarding	
  its	
  
colonial	
  roots	
  has	
  in	
  some	
  quarters	
  been	
  morally	
  debilitating:	
  it	
  has	
  
attempted	
  to	
  hoist	
  responsibility	
  onto	
  the	
  shoulders	
  of	
  Anthropology	
  
as/of	
  the	
  Western/dominant	
  system	
  in	
  which	
  it	
  was	
  first	
  institutionally	
  
constructed.	
  I	
  would	
  suggest	
  that	
  an	
  outcome	
  of	
  the	
  discipline’s	
  recent	
  
concern	
  over	
  its	
  colonial	
  roots,	
  and	
  fears	
  regarding	
  its	
  possibly	
  on-­‐going	
  
neo-­‐colonial	
  disposition,	
  has	
  been	
  an	
  extension	
  of	
  the	
  missive	
  that	
  
anthropologists	
  ‘should	
  do	
  no	
  harm’	
  toward	
  the	
  view	
  that	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
6	
  At	
  a	
  minimum	
  this	
  has	
  been	
  expressed	
  through	
  maintaining	
  the	
  anonymity	
  of	
  
specific	
  persons	
  and	
  communities	
  studied	
  ethnographically.	
  While	
  a	
  comparative	
  
discussion	
  worth	
  pursuing,	
  as	
  it	
  may	
  serve	
  to	
  respectively	
  elucidate	
  both	
  
contexts,	
  note	
  that	
  the	
  anonymity	
  typical	
  of	
  public	
  representations	
  of	
  
anthropologists’	
  field	
  research	
  should	
  not	
  be	
  confounded	
  with	
  the	
  non-­‐disclosure	
  
agreements	
  (NDAs)	
  typical	
  of	
  for-­‐hire	
  ethnographers’	
  work	
  for	
  businesses.	
  	
  	
  

	
  



Journal	
  of	
  Business	
  Anthropology,	
  6(1),	
  Spring	
  2017	
  
	
  

	
  68	
  

anthropologists’	
  work	
  ‘should	
  do	
  some	
  good’.7	
  What	
  might	
  constitute	
  
‘doing	
  good’	
  or	
  being	
  ‘politically	
  engaged’	
  of	
  course	
  varies.	
  For	
  some,	
  the	
  
act	
  of	
  conducting	
  competent	
  research	
  or	
  educating	
  students	
  well—on	
  the	
  
basis	
  of	
  a	
  rich	
  and	
  varied	
  literature	
  in	
  Anthropology	
  to	
  which	
  one’s	
  own	
  
specialist	
  ethnographic	
  knowledge	
  is	
  appended—is	
  sufficient.	
  For	
  others,	
  
meaningful	
  good	
  is	
  only	
  achieved	
  through	
  direct	
  political	
  action.8	
  
Meanwhile,	
  it	
  is	
  worth	
  recalling	
  that,	
  traditionally,	
  as	
  in	
  the	
  present,	
  
anthropologists	
  have	
  variously	
  supported	
  their	
  host	
  communities	
  outside	
  
of	
  the	
  frame	
  of	
  those	
  communities	
  as	
  subjects	
  of	
  the	
  anthropologist’s	
  
enquiries.	
  (Not	
  considered	
  of	
  academic	
  or	
  ‘scientific’	
  merit,	
  such	
  activities	
  
between	
  anthropologists	
  and	
  hosts	
  remained	
  largely	
  private.)	
  Without	
  
intending	
  to	
  suggest	
  a	
  sea	
  change	
  in	
  the	
  left	
  leaning	
  and	
  sometimes	
  
radical	
  politics	
  of	
  anthropologists,	
  however,	
  in	
  its	
  contemporary	
  guise	
  
‘doing	
  some	
  good’	
  seems	
  often	
  to	
  be	
  articulated	
  as	
  an	
  explicit	
  desire	
  that	
  
the	
  anthropologist’s	
  work	
  should	
  engage	
  politically-­‐relevant	
  subject	
  
matter.	
  By	
  this	
  I	
  mean	
  political	
  relevance	
  from	
  the	
  personal	
  viewpoint	
  of	
  
the	
  anthropologist,9	
  as	
  opposed	
  to	
  the	
  discovery,	
  among	
  other	
  things,	
  of	
  
material	
  relevant	
  politically	
  to	
  the	
  community	
  that	
  the	
  erstwhile	
  naïve	
  
anthropologist	
  is	
  studying.10	
  Of	
  further	
  interest	
  is	
  the	
  fact	
  that	
  the	
  many	
  
sites	
  now	
  studied,	
  as	
  communities,	
  are	
  often	
  institutionalized	
  within	
  the	
  
ethnographer’s	
  own	
  society,	
  or	
  familiar	
  national	
  context:	
  in	
  shorthand,	
  
they	
  are	
  conducting	
  ‘anthropology-­‐at-­‐home’.	
  	
  	
  

While	
  possibly	
  worth	
  celebrating,	
  collectively	
  these	
  new	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
7	
  This	
  is	
  further	
  suggested	
  in	
  the	
  cover	
  blurb	
  of	
  the	
  recent	
  edited	
  volume,	
  Writing	
  
culture	
  and	
  the	
  life	
  of	
  anthropology	
  (Starn	
  2015).	
  In	
  his	
  cover	
  blurb	
  for	
  the	
  book,	
  
Arturo	
  Escobar	
  says,	
  ‘To	
  the	
  question	
  posed	
  twenty-­‐five	
  years	
  ago	
  of	
  “Why	
  write,	
  
and	
  how,”	
  some	
  of	
  the	
  essays	
  now	
  pointedly	
  add	
  “Why	
  act,	
  and	
  how	
  do	
  we	
  act?”’	
  
8	
  In	
  my	
  experience,	
  most	
  anthropologists	
  in	
  fact	
  do	
  both,	
  but	
  balance	
  them	
  
differently,	
  i.e,	
  as	
  public	
  or	
  private	
  activities,	
  including	
  in	
  their	
  scholarship.	
  
9	
  For	
  instance,	
  currently	
  there	
  is	
  broadly-­‐shared	
  concern	
  over	
  environmental	
  
decline	
  with	
  increased	
  consciousness	
  of	
  the	
  linkages	
  between	
  local	
  contexts—
that	
  would	
  typically	
  be	
  the	
  sites	
  of	
  anthropological	
  work—and	
  global	
  impacts,	
  
and	
  vice	
  versa.	
  Pertinent	
  questions	
  that	
  arise	
  might	
  include:	
  How	
  can	
  
anthropological	
  knowledge	
  assist	
  in	
  understanding	
  how	
  we	
  got	
  here,	
  what	
  
institutions	
  sustain	
  such	
  damage	
  and,	
  by	
  implication,	
  what	
  forms	
  of	
  engagement	
  
would	
  be	
  relevant	
  in	
  how	
  we	
  are	
  going	
  to	
  get	
  out	
  of	
  our	
  environmental	
  mess?	
  
Corporations,	
  national	
  and	
  local	
  governments,	
  multilateral	
  agencies,	
  universities	
  
and	
  NGOs	
  linked	
  up	
  through	
  technology,	
  finance	
  and	
  the	
  consumption	
  of	
  goods	
  
and	
  depletion	
  of	
  resources	
  collectively	
  engage	
  this	
  ‘environmental	
  problem’.	
  As	
  
its	
  creators,	
  understanding	
  the	
  human	
  dimensions	
  of	
  any	
  one	
  part	
  of	
  this	
  puzzle	
  
and,	
  better	
  yet,	
  generating	
  the	
  capacity	
  to	
  describe	
  the	
  links	
  across	
  its	
  complex	
  
(organizational)	
  contexts	
  is	
  interesting,	
  and	
  important.	
  How	
  can	
  anthropological	
  
knowledge,	
  as	
  means,	
  be	
  deployed	
  here,	
  and	
  to	
  what	
  productive	
  ends?	
  	
  
10	
  The	
  classic	
  example	
  of	
  this	
  sort	
  of	
  serendipitous	
  discovery	
  is	
  Clifford	
  and	
  
Hildred	
  Geertz’	
  sudden,	
  and	
  inadvertent,	
  injection	
  into	
  the	
  politics	
  of	
  the	
  Balinese	
  
village	
  where	
  they	
  were	
  conducting	
  ethnographic	
  fieldwork	
  during	
  a	
  raid	
  by	
  
Indonesian	
  authorities	
  on	
  the	
  village’s	
  illegal	
  cockfight	
  (Geertz	
  1972).	
  	
  

	
  	
  



	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
   	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  Sedgwick	
  /	
  Complicit	
  Positioning	
  	
  

	
   69	
  

commitments	
  among	
  anthropologists	
  also	
  confound	
  the	
  intellectual	
  
premises	
  upon	
  which	
  anthropological	
  fieldwork	
  was	
  established	
  and	
  the	
  
forms	
  through	
  which	
  it	
  was	
  predominantly	
  practiced	
  up	
  until,	
  say,	
  the	
  
1990s.	
  First,	
  anthropology	
  at	
  home	
  may	
  undermine	
  the	
  analytic	
  
advantages	
  of	
  studying	
  others—commonly	
  describe	
  as	
  ‘the	
  Other’—
usually	
  expressed,	
  as	
  discussed	
  above,	
  as	
  an	
  implicit	
  form	
  of	
  comparative	
  
method	
  operationalized	
  through	
  the	
  personal	
  experience	
  of	
  the	
  
ethnographer.	
  Typically	
  this	
  has	
  been	
  articulated	
  as	
  learning	
  about	
  
another	
  society	
  ‘from	
  the	
  bottom	
  up’.	
  While	
  this	
  characterization	
  perhaps	
  
suggests	
  the	
  ethnographer	
  as	
  if	
  innocent	
  child,	
  anthropologists	
  are	
  adults	
  
upon	
  whom	
  interpersonal	
  experience,	
  usually	
  through	
  co-­‐habitation	
  
within	
  a	
  society	
  quite	
  different	
  from	
  their	
  own,	
  makes	
  its	
  mark:	
  
emotionally,	
  intellectually	
  and,	
  often,	
  physically.	
  In	
  practice,	
  despite	
  
preparation—in	
  the	
  form	
  of	
  language	
  study,	
  reading	
  ‘everything	
  you	
  can	
  
get	
  your	
  hands	
  on’,	
  etc.—this	
  rite	
  of	
  passage	
  usually	
  begins	
  with	
  the	
  
ethnographer	
  entering	
  the	
  field,	
  at	
  least	
  for	
  the	
  first	
  time,	
  with	
  extreme	
  
naïveté.	
  If	
  that	
  is	
  the	
  case,	
  among	
  those	
  studying	
  ‘at’	
  or	
  ‘in’	
  their	
  own	
  
society,	
  what	
  is	
  the	
  impact	
  of	
  prior	
  knowledge—the	
  de	
  facto	
  lack	
  of	
  
naïveté—before	
  conducting	
  ethnographic	
  work	
  at/on/with	
  it?	
  I	
  
understand,	
  of	
  course,	
  that	
  modern	
  societies	
  may	
  be	
  defined	
  by	
  the	
  
enormously	
  complex	
  range	
  of	
  social	
  roles	
  and	
  circumstances	
  entailed	
  by	
  
its	
  members,	
  as	
  well	
  as	
  a	
  vast	
  range	
  of	
  ‘sub-­‐cultures’	
  about	
  all	
  of	
  which	
  no	
  
individual	
  could	
  possibly	
  be	
  truly	
  knowledgeable.	
  That	
  condition,	
  
however,	
  does	
  not	
  mean	
  that	
  individuals	
  within	
  a	
  society,	
  in	
  this	
  case	
  an	
  
ethnographer,	
  does	
  not	
  have	
  a	
  viewpoint,	
  however	
  unsophisticated,	
  on	
  
other	
  parts	
  of	
  their	
  own	
  society.	
  Meanwhile,	
  obviously	
  an	
  
anthropologist’s	
  decision	
  to	
  study	
  a	
  particular	
  part	
  of	
  the	
  complex	
  puzzle	
  
of	
  their	
  own	
  modern	
  society	
  would	
  strongly	
  suggest	
  their	
  interest	
  in	
  and	
  
an	
  at	
  least	
  implicit	
  viewpoint	
  upon	
  it.	
  Good	
  or	
  bad,	
  how	
  does	
  that	
  ‘pre-­‐
positioned’	
  aspect	
  affect	
  their	
  access	
  to	
  and	
  their	
  methodological	
  
engagements	
  with	
  their	
  sites,	
  their	
  analyses	
  and	
  their	
  interpretive	
  work?	
  	
  	
  

Second,	
  ethnographic	
  work	
  in	
  such	
  sites	
  may	
  invert	
  or,	
  in	
  any	
  case,	
  
significantly	
  complicates	
  the	
  inequality	
  common	
  to	
  the	
  erstwhile	
  neo-­‐
colonial	
  relationship	
  of	
  anthropologist	
  of	
  the	
  ‘cosmopolitan	
  center’	
  
toward	
  their	
  ‘peripheral	
  subjects’.	
  While	
  I	
  have	
  argued	
  for	
  the	
  ideal	
  of	
  de	
  
facto	
  equality	
  in	
  the	
  day-­‐to-­‐day,	
  coeval	
  relations	
  of	
  informants	
  and	
  
ethnographers	
  across	
  the	
  history	
  of	
  Anthropology,	
  in	
  new,	
  modern	
  sites,	
  
and	
  especially	
  in	
  studying	
  up	
  in	
  formal	
  organizations,	
  ethnographers	
  are	
  
very	
  often	
  structurally	
  subordinate	
  to	
  their	
  informants.	
  This	
  matters.	
  If	
  
overly	
  simplistically	
  rendered,	
  a	
  practical	
  articulation	
  of	
  these	
  changes	
  in	
  
field	
  circumstances	
  is	
  the	
  following.	
  It	
  seems	
  that	
  in	
  traditional	
  sites	
  
anthropologists	
  could	
  remain	
  in	
  situ	
  until	
  they	
  themselves	
  judged	
  it	
  was	
  
time	
  to	
  go.	
  In	
  studying	
  powerful	
  organizations,	
  the	
  head	
  of	
  the	
  
organization	
  under	
  study,	
  if	
  not	
  many	
  other	
  members	
  of	
  that	
  
organization,	
  can	
  show	
  the	
  anthropologist	
  the	
  door	
  at	
  any	
  time.	
  Problems	
  
raised	
  in	
  such	
  new	
  circumstances	
  of	
  fieldwork,	
  now	
  increasingly	
  common	
  



Journal	
  of	
  Business	
  Anthropology,	
  6(1),	
  Spring	
  2017	
  
	
  

	
  70	
  

in	
  Anthropology,	
  have	
  been	
  nicely	
  spelled	
  out	
  by	
  Marcus	
  (1997:	
  100):	
  	
  	
  

The	
  fieldworker	
  often	
  deals	
  with	
  subjects	
  who	
  share	
  his	
  own	
  
broadly	
  middle-­‐class	
  identity	
  and	
  fears,	
  in	
  which	
  case	
  unspoken	
  power	
  
issues	
  in	
  the	
  relationship	
  become	
  far	
  more	
  ambiguous	
  than	
  they	
  would	
  
have	
  been	
  in	
  past	
  anthropological	
  research;	
  alternatively,	
  he	
  may	
  deal	
  
with	
  persons	
  in	
  much	
  stronger	
  power	
  and	
  class	
  positions	
  than	
  his	
  own,	
  in	
  
which	
  case	
  both	
  the	
  terms	
  and	
  limits	
  of	
  the	
  ethnographic	
  engagement	
  are	
  
managed	
  principally	
  by	
  them.	
  Here,	
  where	
  the	
  ethnographer	
  occupies	
  a	
  
marked	
  subordinate	
  relationship	
  to	
  informants,	
  the	
  issues	
  of	
  use	
  and	
  
being	
  used,	
  of	
  ingratiation,	
  and	
  of	
  trading	
  information	
  about	
  others	
  
elsewhere	
  become	
  matters	
  of	
  normal	
  ethical	
  concern,	
  where	
  they	
  were	
  
largely	
  unconsidered	
  in	
  previous	
  discussions.	
  

How	
  would	
  such	
  conditions	
  affect	
  the	
  day-­‐to-­‐day	
  conduct	
  of	
  
ethnographic	
  fieldwork	
  in	
  businesses?	
  What	
  knowledge	
  do	
  we	
  lose,	
  or	
  
gain,	
  by	
  working	
  ethnographically	
  under	
  such	
  conditions?	
  	
  

One	
  may	
  celebrate,	
  as,	
  indeed,	
  I	
  do,	
  shifts	
  in	
  Anthropology	
  as	
  
reflections	
  of	
  new	
  realities	
  in	
  an	
  evolving	
  world,	
  including	
  changes	
  in	
  the	
  
political	
  relations	
  between	
  anthropologists	
  and	
  informant	
  communities.	
  
One	
  may	
  also	
  want	
  to	
  problematize	
  the	
  details	
  of	
  received	
  wisdom	
  in	
  
Anthropology	
  as	
  I	
  have	
  expressed	
  it,	
  including	
  Anthropology’s	
  recent	
  
crises	
  and	
  to	
  what	
  extent	
  they	
  have	
  exercised	
  the	
  discipline.	
  (This	
  may	
  
also	
  look	
  somewhat	
  different	
  in	
  Santa	
  Cruz,	
  CA	
  from	
  how	
  it	
  does	
  in	
  
Cambridge,	
  UK.)	
  Nonetheless,	
  these	
  historical	
  forms	
  remain	
  extremely	
  
well	
  travelled	
  ideas	
  in	
  Anthropology,	
  driving	
  crucial	
  methodological	
  
premises,	
  with	
  foundational	
  theoretical	
  implications.	
  As	
  I	
  have	
  suggested	
  
above,	
  at	
  their	
  heart	
  lie	
  profound	
  questions	
  regarding	
  the	
  positionality	
  of	
  
ethnographers	
  in	
  the	
  production	
  of	
  their	
  work.	
  	
  	
  

And,	
  yet,	
  as	
  fieldwork	
  sites	
  have	
  increasingly	
  diversified,	
  
becoming	
  unorthodox	
  by	
  previous	
  standards—including	
  corporations	
  
and	
  other	
  formal	
  organizations—engagement	
  with	
  fundamental	
  
questions	
  of	
  positionality	
  and	
  their	
  effects	
  on	
  the	
  quality	
  of	
  ethnographic	
  
research	
  have	
  quietened.	
  In	
  the	
  uncharted	
  territory	
  of	
  the	
  expanding	
  
repertoire	
  of	
  sites,	
  are	
  ethnographers	
  just	
  getting	
  on	
  with	
  new	
  studies	
  
with	
  the	
  intention	
  of	
  working	
  out	
  questions	
  regarding	
  positionality	
  later?	
  
Have	
  the	
  throes	
  of	
  self-­‐examination	
  following	
  the	
  crises	
  of	
  the	
  1980s	
  
generated	
  disciplinary	
  exhaustion	
  in	
  Anthropology,	
  discouraging	
  any	
  
hope	
  for	
  agreement?	
  Or,	
  perhaps,	
  is	
  avoiding	
  these	
  questions	
  just	
  as	
  well	
  
because	
  much	
  contemporary	
  ethnographic	
  work	
  rubs	
  uncomfortably	
  
against	
  some	
  of	
  the	
  ethical	
  concerns	
  raised	
  specifically	
  by	
  those	
  
important	
  crises	
  in	
  Anthropology?	
  	
  	
  

	
  

	
  

Cultures	
  of	
  secrecy:	
  exposing	
  power/knowledge	
  in	
  businesses	
  	
  	
  	
  



	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
   	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  Sedgwick	
  /	
  Complicit	
  Positioning	
  	
  

	
   71	
  

As	
  my	
  title	
  suggests,	
  I	
  am	
  concerned	
  that	
  questions	
  of	
  positionality	
  
remain	
  insufficiently	
  explored	
  in	
  the	
  ethnographic	
  study	
  of	
  businesses.	
  
For	
  one	
  thing,	
  a	
  large	
  proportion	
  of	
  the	
  ethnographic	
  work	
  on	
  
businesses—including	
  that	
  available	
  for	
  public/academic	
  consumption—
is	
  based	
  on	
  research	
  conducted	
  on	
  behalf	
  of	
  those	
  firms,	
  e.g.,	
  with	
  
ethnographers	
  working	
  for	
  the	
  corporation.	
  Indeed,	
  as	
  I	
  will	
  further	
  
examine	
  below,	
  in	
  this	
  ‘vendor’	
  context	
  ‘ethnography’	
  has	
  become	
  part	
  of	
  
a	
  saleable	
  methodological	
  toolkit.	
  This	
  has	
  obvious	
  implications	
  for	
  
interpretative	
  and	
  other	
  analytic	
  work	
  produced	
  for	
  
businesses/organizations,	
  and	
  for	
  interpretative	
  and	
  other	
  analytic	
  work	
  
that	
  may,	
  or	
  may	
  not,	
  stem	
  from	
  those	
  ethnographic	
  experiences	
  for	
  an	
  
anthropological	
  audience.	
  This	
  is	
  not	
  about	
  hand	
  wringing	
  regarding	
  the	
  
authenticity	
  of	
  analysis	
  or,	
  necessarily,	
  an	
  argument,	
  per	
  se,	
  that	
  
employment	
  by	
  an	
  ethnographer	
  in	
  a	
  business	
  should	
  rule	
  out	
  that	
  work’s	
  
credibility	
  to	
  the	
  academic	
  Anthropology	
  community.	
  It	
  concerns	
  the	
  
provision	
  of	
  clarity	
  in	
  revealing	
  the	
  context	
  through	
  which	
  
anthropological	
  knowledge	
  is	
  derived.	
  This	
  seems	
  particularly	
  important	
  
to	
  analysis	
  of	
  businesses,	
  which,	
  I	
  suggest,	
  are	
  contexts	
  that	
  are	
  subtly	
  
loaded,	
  especially	
  for	
  the	
  ‘native	
  anthropologist’	
  working	
  ‘at	
  home’.	
  Allow	
  
me	
  to	
  expand	
  on	
  this	
  point.	
  

It	
  is	
  not	
  unusual	
  that,	
  like	
  other	
  normal	
  persons,	
  informants	
  are	
  
unconscious	
  of	
  their	
  own	
  apperceptions.	
  That	
  said,	
  the	
  powerful	
  
interlocutors	
  who	
  ethnographers	
  work	
  with	
  in	
  studying	
  up	
  are	
  often	
  able	
  
to	
  control	
  how	
  their	
  labor	
  is	
  perceived,	
  and	
  in	
  ways	
  that	
  may	
  significantly	
  
affect	
  the	
  pith	
  of	
  ethnographers’	
  analysis	
  of	
  that	
  labor.	
  It	
  is	
  part	
  and	
  parcel	
  
of	
  both	
  the	
  ethos	
  and	
  the	
  explicit	
  knowledge	
  of	
  those	
  with	
  organizational	
  
power	
  that,	
  if	
  provoked,	
  they	
  can	
  draw	
  on	
  the	
  resources	
  of	
  the	
  State,	
  both	
  
physical	
  and	
  otherwise:	
  say,	
  through	
  their	
  capacity	
  to	
  deploy	
  legal	
  
resources	
  to	
  derive	
  favorable	
  outcomes.	
  Notably,	
  however,	
  the	
  day-­‐to-­‐day	
  
work	
  of	
  persons	
  in	
  positions	
  of	
  authority	
  intimately	
  depends	
  on	
  the	
  
‘invisibility’	
  of	
  their	
  means	
  of	
  deploying	
  power	
  (Herzfeld	
  2015).	
  
Meanwhile,	
  of	
  course,	
  it	
  is	
  precisely	
  in	
  uncovering	
  what	
  is	
  below	
  the	
  
surface	
  that	
  anthropological	
  methods	
  thrive.	
  ‘[T]he	
  enduring,	
  lived	
  
consequences	
  of	
  events	
  taking	
  place	
  in	
  the	
  centers	
  of	
  power…’	
  can	
  be	
  
recognized	
  ‘…in	
  the	
  way	
  that	
  [Anthropology]	
  extracts	
  hidden	
  and	
  highly	
  
significant	
  social	
  realities	
  in	
  tiny	
  local	
  details…	
  [and	
  in]	
  keep[ing]	
  both	
  the	
  
detail	
  and	
  the	
  larger	
  picture	
  in	
  focus	
  (Herzfeld	
  2015:	
  18)’.	
  To	
  extend	
  
Herzfeld’s	
  discussion	
  of	
  ‘invisibility’,	
  the	
  non-­‐disclosure	
  agreements	
  
(NDAs)	
  under	
  which	
  much	
  corporate	
  ethnography	
  is	
  conducted	
  is	
  but	
  a	
  
literal	
  articulation	
  of	
  the	
  culture	
  of	
  secrecy	
  typical	
  of	
  the	
  mobilization	
  of	
  
power	
  in	
  formal	
  organizations.	
  But	
  the	
  ‘corporate	
  veil’,	
  if	
  a	
  legal	
  fiction,	
  
may	
  have	
  quite	
  real	
  analytic	
  effects.	
  As	
  I	
  will	
  expand	
  upon	
  in	
  detail	
  below,	
  
it	
  may	
  well	
  be	
  that	
  ethnographers	
  employed	
  by	
  businesses	
  are	
  positioned,	
  
inadvertently	
  or	
  not,	
  to	
  enact	
  the	
  invisibility	
  and	
  secrecy—the	
  
mythmaking—characteristic	
  of	
  managing	
  the	
  tension	
  between	
  the	
  public	
  
and	
  private	
  work	
  of	
  corporations.	
  To	
  what	
  extent	
  are	
  ethnographers	
  of	
  



Journal	
  of	
  Business	
  Anthropology,	
  6(1),	
  Spring	
  2017	
  
	
  

	
  72	
  

business	
  willing	
  to	
  elucidate	
  for	
  anthropological	
  and	
  public	
  audiences	
  
those	
  very	
  black	
  boxes	
  which	
  they	
  themselves	
  may	
  be	
  complicit	
  in	
  
constructing?	
  	
  

	
  

Profligate	
  naming:	
  boundary	
  trouble	
  and	
  the	
  uneven	
  carving	
  of	
  
ethnographic	
  claims	
  

While	
  there	
  are	
  some	
  important	
  anthropological	
  studies,	
  much	
  of	
  the	
  
ethnographic	
  work	
  on	
  business	
  is	
  driven	
  by	
  ‘corporate	
  ethnographers’.	
  
Many	
  corporate	
  ethnographers	
  have	
  formal	
  academic	
  training	
  in	
  
Anthropology	
  but	
  they	
  are	
  clear	
  about	
  their	
  non-­‐academic,	
  professional	
  
position	
  in	
  the	
  workplace.	
  ‘[P]articipant[s]	
  in	
  corporate	
  settings	
  in	
  such	
  
roles	
  as	
  researcher,	
  consultant,	
  manager,	
  and	
  designer,	
  the	
  anthropologist	
  
operates	
  as	
  a	
  mutual	
  corporate	
  actor	
  with	
  other	
  members	
  of	
  the	
  
corporation	
  (Cefkin	
  2012:	
  5)’.	
  In	
  their	
  favor,	
  then,	
  corporate	
  
ethnographers	
  do	
  not	
  pretend	
  to	
  the	
  quasi-­‐objectification	
  of	
  their	
  work	
  
that	
  is	
  typical	
  of	
  academic	
  Anthropology.11	
  Rather,	
  corporate	
  
ethnographers’	
  goal	
  is	
  to	
  produce	
  ethnographically-­‐sensitive	
  
‘deliverables’	
  for	
  the	
  profitability	
  of	
  the	
  corporations	
  they	
  work	
  for.	
  That	
  
said,	
  while	
  clarity	
  is	
  provided,	
  or	
  implicitly	
  understood,	
  regarding	
  the	
  fact	
  
of	
  their	
  employment	
  by,	
  or	
  their	
  erstwhile	
  membership	
  in,	
  corporations,	
  
when	
  it	
  is	
  made	
  publicly-­‐accessible	
  the	
  implications	
  of	
  the	
  de	
  facto	
  lack	
  of	
  
detachment	
  structured	
  into	
  their	
  ethnographic	
  engagements	
  tend	
  to	
  be	
  
distanced.	
  Most	
  simply,	
  the	
  effects	
  of	
  the	
  empirical	
  context	
  of	
  the	
  work	
  go	
  
largely	
  unacknowledged.	
  It	
  seems	
  that	
  in	
  producing	
  ‘deliverables’	
  the	
  
middle-­‐level	
  guts	
  of	
  these	
  ethnographic	
  projects	
  are	
  carved	
  out.	
  As	
  the	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
11As	
  discussed	
  above,	
  the	
  interpersonal	
  linkages	
  of	
  anthropologists	
  and	
  
informants,	
  that	
  is	
  both	
  typical	
  of	
  the	
  experience	
  of	
  fieldwork	
  and	
  emblematic	
  of	
  
Anthropology’s	
  fieldwork	
  model,	
  generates	
  tension	
  in	
  anthropologists’	
  later	
  
representations—the	
  analysis	
  and	
  interpretation	
  elsewhere—of	
  that	
  field	
  
experience.	
  This	
  makes	
  the	
  production	
  of	
  anthropological	
  texts	
  highly	
  
challenging.	
  It	
  is	
  quasi-­‐objective,	
  I	
  claim,	
  because	
  while,	
  on	
  the	
  one	
  hand,	
  
anthropologists	
  attempt	
  to	
  make	
  an	
  accurate	
  portrayal	
  of	
  the	
  world	
  ‘out	
  there’,	
  
on	
  the	
  other	
  hand,	
  our	
  research	
  processes,	
  if	
  radically-­‐empirical,	
  are	
  hardly	
  
scientifically-­‐objective.	
  Rather,	
  the	
  field	
  is	
  so	
  subjectively	
  experienced	
  by	
  the	
  
anthropologist—the	
  subjective-­‐objective	
  gap	
  so	
  artificial—that	
  what	
  we	
  write	
  
are	
  real	
  fictions.	
  As	
  such,	
  given	
  the	
  already	
  fully-­‐loaded	
  condition	
  of	
  reflexivity	
  at	
  
the	
  heart	
  of	
  anthropological	
  practices	
  in/as	
  foundational	
  to	
  interpretive	
  work—
that	
  is	
  to	
  say,	
  at	
  a	
  minimum,	
  deep	
  reflection	
  on	
  one’s	
  position	
  as	
  an	
  
anthropologist	
  in	
  the	
  field—it	
  seems	
  that	
  moves	
  toward	
  even	
  more	
  reflexive	
  
representations	
  are	
  likely	
  to	
  involve	
  more	
  complex	
  objectification	
  work	
  than	
  that	
  
typically	
  undertaken	
  by	
  anthropologists.	
  (What	
  I	
  have	
  in	
  mind	
  here	
  are	
  attempts	
  
to	
  make	
  the	
  explanatory	
  power	
  of	
  anthropological	
  texts	
  more	
  evocative,	
  as,	
  say,	
  
art:	
  for	
  example,	
  as	
  poetry.)	
  As	
  a	
  result,	
  given	
  the	
  representational	
  challenges	
  
anthropologists	
  already	
  experience	
  it	
  is	
  no	
  surprise	
  that	
  the	
  air	
  has	
  rather	
  gone	
  
out	
  of	
  extending	
  ‘reflexivity’	
  beyond	
  it	
  informing	
  a	
  personal	
  ethic	
  surrounding	
  
our	
  translations	
  of	
  fieldwork:	
  it	
  is	
  a	
  nice	
  idea	
  to	
  push	
  things	
  further	
  aesthetically,	
  
but	
  so	
  difficult	
  to	
  do	
  convincingly.	
  

	
  



	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
   	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  Sedgwick	
  /	
  Complicit	
  Positioning	
  	
  

	
   73	
  

ethnographic	
  descriptions	
  often	
  feel	
  hollow,	
  analysis	
  runs	
  thin:	
  it	
  lacks	
  
the	
  intent	
  toward	
  holistic	
  richness	
  driving	
  anthropological	
  ethnographers’	
  
highly	
  contexualized	
  work.	
  The	
  impression	
  of	
  a	
  hollowed	
  out	
  
ethnographic/empirical	
  center,	
  meanwhile,	
  is	
  encouraged	
  by	
  corporate	
  
ethnographers’	
  publicly-­‐available	
  presentations	
  and	
  writing	
  sometimes	
  
being	
  accompanied	
  by	
  a	
  (compensatory?)	
  veneer	
  of	
  high	
  theoretical	
  
abstraction.12	
  	
  	
  

Corporate	
  ethnography	
  takes	
  many	
  forms—as	
  above,	
  ‘researcher,	
  
consultant,	
  manager,	
  and	
  designer’—but	
  ethnographic	
  work	
  for	
  business	
  
has	
  been	
  especially	
  prolific	
  in	
  consumer	
  research.	
  According	
  to	
  Malefyt	
  
(2009),	
  at	
  the	
  intersection	
  of	
  consumption	
  research	
  and	
  ‘ethnography’,	
  a	
  
plethora	
  of	
  interventions	
  by	
  consultants	
  using	
  various	
  forms	
  of	
  
qualitative	
  methods	
  has	
  been	
  established	
  under	
  the	
  ‘brand’	
  of	
  
ethnography.	
  Guided	
  no	
  doubt	
  by	
  the	
  adage	
  ‘time	
  is	
  money’,	
  it	
  appears	
  
that	
  in	
  this	
  sphere	
  there	
  are	
  a	
  number	
  of	
  consulting	
  firms	
  where	
  
‘technomethodologies’,	
  that	
  claim	
  to	
  improve	
  on	
  ethnographic	
  methods,	
  
are	
  deployed	
  as	
  a	
  matter	
  of	
  course	
  (Malefyt	
  2009:	
  204-­‐06).	
  As	
  I	
  
understand	
  it,	
  here	
  erstwhile	
  ‘informants’	
  provide	
  information	
  through	
  
still	
  cameras	
  and/or	
  video	
  that	
  interface	
  with	
  computer-­‐driven	
  
operations	
  or	
  programmes	
  that	
  are	
  perhaps	
  custom-­‐built	
  (‘tweaked’)	
  for	
  
the	
  needs	
  of	
  a	
  particular	
  client.	
  In	
  the	
  analysis	
  of	
  consumption	
  patterns,	
  it	
  
would	
  seem	
  that	
  such	
  ‘ethnographic’	
  interventions	
  may	
  have	
  become	
  an	
  
alternative	
  to	
  the	
  focus	
  group:	
  instead	
  of	
  gathering	
  isolated	
  sets	
  of	
  people	
  
together	
  to	
  discuss	
  their	
  likes	
  and	
  dislikes,	
  e.g.,	
  regarding	
  a	
  product,	
  an	
  
advertisement,	
  etc.,	
  here	
  individual	
  preferences	
  are	
  literally	
  recorded	
  as	
  
they	
  take	
  place.	
  Of	
  course,	
  this	
  data	
  is	
  raw—arguably,	
  therefore,	
  it	
  is	
  
pure—compared	
  with	
  the	
  garnering	
  of	
  group	
  opinion.	
  That	
  is,	
  rather	
  than	
  
analyzing	
  the	
  work	
  of	
  a	
  group	
  of	
  consumers	
  in	
  considering	
  what	
  appeals	
  
to	
  them,	
  it	
  is	
  the	
  analysts	
  or,	
  perhaps	
  initially,	
  their	
  computers,	
  to	
  whom	
  
or	
  which	
  this	
  information	
  is	
  fed,	
  and	
  who/which,	
  in	
  combination,	
  do	
  the	
  
work	
  of	
  interpretation,	
  i.e.,	
  at	
  the	
  other	
  end	
  of	
  a	
  technological	
  tunnel	
  from	
  
the	
  action	
  as	
  it	
  takes	
  place.	
  It	
  seems	
  that	
  consumers	
  are	
  not	
  even	
  invited	
  
to	
  talk	
  about	
  their	
  choices	
  while	
  they	
  make	
  them,	
  which	
  furthers	
  the	
  point	
  
that	
  there	
  is	
  no	
  visceral	
  ethnographical	
  knowledge	
  of	
  the	
  space	
  in	
  which	
  
consumers’	
  actions	
  take	
  place.	
  In	
  short,	
  there	
  is	
  nothing	
  ethnographic	
  
about	
  this.	
  Meanwhile	
  we	
  know	
  nothing	
  of	
  the	
  capacities	
  of	
  those,	
  back	
  in	
  
the	
  ‘ethnographic’	
  consultancy,	
  working	
  through	
  this	
  already	
  highly	
  
abstracted	
  material.	
  Here,	
  technology-­‐driven	
  interfaces	
  have	
  replaced	
  
‘inefficient’	
  face-­‐to-­‐face	
  interactions.	
  	
  

In	
  noting	
  these	
  cases	
  Malefyt	
  does	
  not	
  directly	
  problematize	
  this	
  
‘shift	
  in	
  the	
  work	
  of	
  ethnography	
  from	
  anthropologist-­‐fieldworker	
  to	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
12	
  Such	
  inclinations	
  are	
  typical	
  of	
  several	
  of	
  the	
  entries	
  in	
  Cefkin’s	
  (2009)	
  edited	
  
volume.	
  See,	
  for	
  instance,	
  the	
  chapter	
  by	
  Nafus	
  and	
  Anderson	
  (2009).	
  

	
  



Journal	
  of	
  Business	
  Anthropology,	
  6(1),	
  Spring	
  2017	
  
	
  

	
  74	
  

technology-­‐enhanced	
  ethnography	
  vendor’	
  (Melefyt	
  2009:	
  206),	
  nor	
  the	
  
attractions	
  their	
  work	
  may	
  hold	
  for	
  clients.13	
  But	
  I	
  believe	
  he	
  is	
  implicitly	
  
policing	
  what	
  is	
  at	
  stake.	
  Such	
  research	
  operations	
  water	
  down	
  the	
  
meaning	
  of	
  ethnographic	
  methods	
  among	
  the	
  larger,	
  if	
  overlapping,	
  
community	
  of	
  corporate	
  ethnographers,	
  many	
  of	
  whom,	
  as	
  mentioned	
  
above,	
  are	
  formally	
  trained	
  in	
  Anthropology.	
  While	
  operating	
  
professionally	
  as	
  employees	
  or	
  consultants	
  for	
  corporations,	
  and	
  
positioned	
  in	
  their	
  use	
  of	
  ethnographic	
  techniques	
  in	
  ways	
  that,	
  I	
  argue,	
  
are	
  variously	
  problematic,	
  most	
  corporate	
  ethnographers	
  respect	
  the	
  
ideas	
  behind	
  proper	
  anthropological	
  inquiry,	
  and	
  are	
  keen	
  to	
  self-­‐identify	
  
as	
  anthropologists.	
  Quick-­‐and-­‐dirty,	
  computer	
  driven	
  ‘ethnography’	
  
represents	
  a	
  commercial	
  threat	
  to	
  this	
  community.	
  It	
  should	
  be	
  noted,	
  
however,	
  that,	
  following	
  Malefyt’s	
  lead,	
  I	
  have	
  purposefully	
  exposed	
  
methods	
  that	
  have	
  so	
  stripped	
  the	
  ‘brand’	
  of	
  ethnography	
  that	
  they	
  risk	
  
denuding	
  it	
  altogether.	
  It	
  is	
  unfortunate	
  that	
  Malefyt,	
  as	
  a	
  corporate	
  
ethnographer	
  himself,	
  does	
  not	
  make	
  the	
  point	
  that	
  these	
  technologically-­‐
enhanced	
  examples	
  of	
  ethnography-­‐emptied-­‐of-­‐content	
  undermine	
  the	
  
idea	
  of	
  ethnographic	
  inquiry	
  as	
  we	
  have,	
  up	
  until	
  now,	
  understood	
  it:	
  that	
  
is,	
  participating	
  in	
  the	
  observation,	
  in	
  shared	
  time	
  and	
  space,	
  of	
  other	
  
persons’	
  actual	
  behavior	
  and,	
  in	
  turn,	
  putting	
  co-­‐experienced	
  events	
  at	
  
the	
  center	
  of	
  analysis.	
  	
  

Taking	
  our	
  discussion	
  of	
  ethnography	
  well	
  beyond	
  the	
  sphere	
  of	
  
corporate	
  ethnographers,	
  as	
  an	
  academic	
  discipline	
  Anthropology	
  may	
  
rightly	
  claim	
  to	
  have	
  invented	
  (field)	
  ethnography	
  or,	
  in	
  any	
  case,	
  the	
  
participant-­‐observation	
  method	
  strongly	
  associated	
  with	
  Malinowski’s	
  
work	
  among	
  Trobriand	
  Islanders.	
  That	
  said	
  as	
  a	
  matter	
  of	
  record,	
  or	
  
anthropological	
  congratulation,	
  it	
  is	
  perfectly	
  clear	
  that	
  ‘ethnography’	
  has	
  
gone	
  its	
  own	
  way,	
  carving	
  out	
  methodological	
  space	
  across	
  the	
  Social	
  
Sciences	
  and,	
  to	
  some	
  extent,	
  in	
  related,	
  practical	
  fields.	
  Indeed,	
  the	
  state	
  
of	
  ethnography	
  is	
  such	
  that	
  in	
  its	
  proliferation	
  across	
  the	
  academy,	
  and	
  in	
  
claims	
  to	
  its	
  use	
  elsewhere,	
  there	
  is	
  by	
  now	
  no	
  general	
  consensus	
  as	
  to	
  
what	
  ethnography	
  is.	
  I	
  have	
  forwarded	
  a	
  most	
  cursory	
  definition	
  above	
  
but,	
  generally,	
  ethnography’s	
  contours	
  have	
  been	
  so	
  intellectually	
  
depleted	
  that	
  it	
  rests,	
  precariously,	
  on	
  negative	
  definitions,	
  i.e.,	
  of	
  what	
  
ethnography	
  is	
  not.	
  In	
  practice,	
  ethnography	
  has	
  become	
  an	
  increasingly	
  
large	
  receptacle	
  for	
  all	
  sorts	
  of	
  qualitative	
  methods:	
  again,	
  ‘ethnography’	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
13	
  	
  Malefyt	
  suggests—rightly,	
  so	
  far	
  as	
  I	
  know—that	
  the	
  (well-­‐known)	
  
advertising	
  firm	
  where	
  he	
  works,	
  or	
  worked,	
  is	
  not	
  a	
  ‘technology-­‐enhanced	
  
ethnography	
  vendor’.	
  That	
  said,	
  along	
  with	
  more	
  traditional,	
  face-­‐to-­‐face	
  
ethnographic,	
  as	
  well	
  as	
  various	
  technologically-­‐enhanced,	
  methods,	
  Malefyt	
  is	
  
frank	
  about	
  the	
  use	
  in	
  this	
  firm	
  of	
  ‘deprivation’	
  techniques	
  in	
  gathering	
  
information	
  on	
  behalf	
  of	
  clients	
  (Malefyt	
  2009:	
  204).	
  These	
  are	
  activities	
  that	
  
academic	
  anthropologists	
  would	
  recognize	
  as	
  manipulations	
  of	
  informants	
  and,	
  
so,	
  entirely	
  unethical.	
  But,	
  then,	
  the	
  intention	
  behind	
  these	
  techniques	
  is	
  not	
  at	
  all	
  
academic:	
  they	
  are	
  directed	
  toward	
  ‘client	
  deliverables’.	
  

	
  



	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
   	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  Sedgwick	
  /	
  Complicit	
  Positioning	
  	
  

	
   75	
  

is	
  not	
  quantitative	
  methods.14	
  Meanwhile,	
  I	
  note	
  with	
  some	
  irony	
  that	
  
Malinowski,	
  in	
  arguably	
  treading	
  a	
  scientific	
  line	
  of	
  enquiry,	
  did	
  plenty	
  of	
  
quantitative	
  work	
  or,	
  at	
  least,	
  counting,	
  as	
  do	
  most	
  anthropologist	
  
fieldworkers	
  today.	
  

Corporate	
  ethnographers,	
  meanwhile,	
  also	
  describe	
  themselves	
  as	
  
‘practicing	
  anthropologists’.	
  (If	
  broadly	
  accepted,	
  this	
  wording	
  confounds	
  
the	
  common	
  sense	
  meaning	
  of	
  practice,	
  i.e.,	
  anyone	
  who	
  practices	
  
anthropology,	
  whether	
  in	
  the	
  academy	
  or	
  elsewhere.)	
  So,	
  although	
  there	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
14	
  I	
  suspect	
  that	
  the	
  rise	
  of	
  ethnography	
  is	
  a	
  consequence	
  of	
  frustration	
  with	
  the	
  
limits	
  of	
  the	
  types	
  of	
  questions	
  that	
  quantitative	
  methods	
  could	
  ask	
  and,	
  so,	
  the	
  
quality	
  of	
  answers	
  that	
  they	
  produce.	
  That	
  is,	
  situations	
  encountered	
  among	
  
highly	
  complex	
  subjects,	
  i.e.,	
  the	
  behavior	
  of	
  human	
  beings,	
  are	
  not	
  easily	
  
parcelled	
  into	
  simple	
  variables	
  that	
  can	
  be	
  meaningfully	
  correlated.	
  (Regular	
  
tooth	
  brushing	
  and	
  reduction	
  of	
  tooth	
  decay	
  are	
  strongly	
  correlated,	
  but	
  this	
  is	
  
not	
  surprising.	
  The	
  interesting	
  problem	
  is	
  why	
  some	
  people	
  brush	
  regularly,	
  
while	
  others	
  do	
  not.)	
  Ethnography	
  has	
  furthermore	
  become	
  attractive	
  among	
  
‘soft’	
  social	
  scientists	
  as	
  they	
  have	
  increasingly	
  recognized	
  that	
  the	
  forced	
  
packaging	
  of	
  their	
  quantitatively-­‐oriented	
  qualitative	
  methods—structured	
  
interviews,	
  postal	
  surveys,	
  and	
  so	
  on—yielded	
  insufficient	
  ‘data’	
  to	
  account	
  for	
  
circumstances	
  that	
  interested	
  or	
  concerned	
  them.	
  Such	
  researchers	
  might	
  have	
  
an	
  intuitive	
  understanding	
  that	
  attracted	
  them	
  to	
  their	
  research	
  problem	
  in	
  the	
  
first	
  place	
  and	
  about	
  which	
  they	
  were	
  observant	
  on	
  their	
  passages	
  through	
  the	
  
production	
  of	
  ‘data’.	
  	
  

Those	
  opinions	
  stated	
  as	
  a	
  matter	
  of	
  conjecture	
  in	
  explaining	
  the	
  rise	
  of	
  
ethnography	
  as	
  method,	
  the	
  fact	
  is	
  that	
  the	
  parcelling	
  of	
  variables	
  into	
  
manageable	
  packages	
  is	
  generally	
  what	
  is	
  sought	
  in	
  the	
  Social	
  Sciences:	
  
quantitative	
  methods	
  remain	
  overwhelmingly	
  dominant.	
  This	
  is	
  especially	
  so	
  in	
  
Economics,	
  in	
  Policy	
  Studies—where	
  interested	
  parties,	
  such	
  as	
  governments,	
  
increasingly	
  demand	
  ‘fact-­‐based	
  evidence’—and	
  in	
  North	
  American	
  Sociology	
  
and	
  Political	
  Science.	
  Perhaps	
  of	
  greater	
  relevance	
  to	
  our	
  interests	
  in	
  the	
  
ethnography	
  of	
  business,	
  is	
  the	
  field	
  of	
  Business/Management	
  Studies,	
  where	
  its	
  
highly	
  complex	
  subject	
  matter	
  seems	
  particularly	
  well-­‐situated	
  to	
  attract	
  analysis	
  
via	
  qualitative	
  methods.	
  Unfortunately,	
  this	
  field	
  also	
  remains	
  America-­‐centric	
  in	
  
terms	
  of	
  scope,	
  with	
  quantitative	
  methods	
  overwhelmingly	
  dominant.	
  	
  

The	
  missive	
  ‘follow	
  the	
  money’	
  provides	
  the	
  necessary	
  evidence	
  of	
  this	
  
overarching	
  phenomenon.	
  In	
  terms	
  of	
  number	
  of	
  staff	
  employed	
  and	
  number	
  of	
  
academic	
  departments,	
  while	
  increasingly	
  popular	
  with	
  students,	
  Anthropology	
  
is	
  a	
  miniscule	
  discipline	
  compared	
  with	
  any	
  of	
  the	
  quantitative-­‐methods-­‐heavy	
  
Social	
  Science	
  disciplines	
  listed	
  above.	
  In	
  the	
  Social	
  Sciences,	
  qualitative	
  methods,	
  
and	
  the	
  turn	
  toward	
  ethnography	
  in	
  particular,	
  provides	
  but	
  an	
  addendum	
  to	
  
core	
  quantitative	
  methods.	
  And,	
  in	
  the	
  supposedly	
  scientific	
  thinking	
  driving	
  
most	
  of	
  these	
  fields,	
  qualititative	
  methods	
  are	
  an	
  easy	
  target,	
  with	
  the	
  vagueness	
  
associated	
  with	
  what	
  it	
  is	
  that	
  constitutes	
  ethnography	
  as	
  method	
  making	
  it	
  
particularly	
  vulnerable	
  to	
  critique.	
  Rightly	
  so.	
  Ethnographers	
  do	
  not	
  do	
  
themselves	
  any	
  favors	
  here.	
  At	
  one	
  extreme	
  an	
  ‘ethnographic	
  observation’	
  might	
  
include	
  a	
  social	
  scientist	
  noting,	
  on	
  the	
  way	
  to	
  conducting	
  a	
  structured	
  interview,	
  
that	
  in	
  the	
  cafeteria	
  workers	
  wear	
  different	
  clothes	
  from	
  managers.	
  At	
  the	
  other	
  
extreme	
  is	
  the	
  (traditional)	
  anthropological	
  ethnographic	
  experience:	
  
participant-­‐observation	
  for	
  at	
  least	
  one	
  year,	
  ordinarily	
  in	
  a	
  foreign,	
  unfamiliar	
  
location,	
  far	
  away	
  from	
  home:	
  a	
  de	
  facto	
  rite	
  of	
  passage	
  both	
  personally	
  and	
  
professionally	
  for	
  the	
  anthropologist	
  and,	
  no	
  doubt,	
  for	
  some	
  members	
  of	
  the	
  
host	
  community.	
  	
  

	
  



Journal	
  of	
  Business	
  Anthropology,	
  6(1),	
  Spring	
  2017	
  
	
  

	
  76	
  

seems	
  to	
  be	
  some	
  formal	
  disagreement	
  and,	
  certainly,	
  confusion,	
  we	
  can	
  
define	
  ‘practicing	
  anthropologists’	
  as	
  a	
  community	
  using	
  ethnographic	
  
techniques	
  who	
  are	
  employed	
  at	
  or	
  working	
  on	
  behalf	
  of,	
  e.g.,	
  as	
  
consultants	
  to,	
  private	
  enterprises,	
  as	
  well	
  as	
  other	
  formal	
  
organizations.15	
  (Albeit	
  less	
  visible,	
  the	
  ‘practicing	
  anthropologist’	
  
community	
  also	
  includes	
  anthropologists	
  working	
  in	
  ‘development’:	
  in	
  
public	
  and	
  private	
  sector	
  agencies,	
  consulting	
  firms	
  and	
  NGOs.	
  The	
  
community	
  of	
  anthropology-­‐oriented	
  ‘development	
  practitioners’,	
  
however,	
  is	
  more	
  closely	
  associated	
  with	
  the	
  terms	
  ‘applied	
  
anthropologist’	
  or,	
  more	
  specifically,	
  ‘development	
  anthropologist’.16,	
  17)	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
15	
  The	
  community	
  of	
  ‘practicing	
  anthropologists’	
  who	
  work	
  in	
  business	
  settings	
  
is	
  most	
  parsimoniously	
  represented	
  in	
  two	
  formal	
  groupings.	
  Founded	
  in	
  1983,	
  
the	
  National	
  Association	
  of	
  Practicing	
  Anthropologists	
  (NAPA)	
  is	
  a	
  formal	
  section	
  
of	
  the	
  American	
  Anthropological	
  Association	
  (AAA)	
  and	
  has	
  the	
  remit:	
  
‘promoting	
  the	
  practice	
  of	
  anthropology,	
  both	
  within	
  the	
  discipline	
  and	
  among	
  
private,	
  public,	
  and	
  nonprofit	
  organizations’	
  
(http://practicinganthropology.org/about).	
  I	
  think,	
  however,	
  that	
  NAPA	
  is	
  
understood	
  as	
  representing	
  the	
  interests	
  of	
  non-­‐academic	
  anthropological	
  work.	
  
In	
  furthering	
  that	
  point	
  the	
  Society	
  for	
  the	
  Anthropology	
  of	
  Work	
  (SAW)	
  is	
  also	
  a	
  
section	
  of	
  the	
  AAA,	
  but	
  with	
  an	
  explicitly	
  academic	
  focus.	
  (With	
  most	
  other	
  
sections	
  of	
  the	
  AAA	
  focussing	
  on	
  subject	
  or	
  regional	
  subfields	
  within	
  academic	
  
Anthropology,	
  it	
  is	
  extremely	
  valuable	
  to	
  have	
  sections	
  representing	
  particular	
  
interest	
  groups,	
  in	
  this	
  case,	
  the	
  professional	
  concerns	
  of	
  non-­‐academic	
  
practicing	
  anthropologists.)	
  Meanwhile,	
  the	
  Ethnographic	
  Praxis	
  in	
  Industry	
  
Conference	
  (EPIC),	
  as	
  the	
  name	
  suggests,	
  is	
  a	
  group	
  specifically	
  oriented	
  to	
  
ethnography	
  for	
  industry.	
  It	
  started	
  its	
  annual	
  conferences	
  in	
  2005	
  and	
  has	
  an	
  
active	
  web-­‐based	
  forum	
  for	
  those	
  pursuing	
  careers	
  in	
  this	
  area,	
  especially	
  
‘corporate	
  ethnographers’.	
  
16	
  Again	
  as	
  a	
  matter	
  of	
  common	
  sense	
  one	
  would	
  assume	
  that	
  those	
  with	
  
anthropological	
  training	
  (or	
  other	
  training	
  that	
  includes	
  in-­‐depth	
  ethnographic	
  
techniques)	
  who	
  are	
  employed	
  by	
  private	
  consulting	
  firms	
  servicing	
  
development	
  agencies,	
  or	
  who	
  are	
  employees	
  at	
  (State-­‐run)	
  development	
  
agencies	
  or	
  NGOs,	
  would	
  also	
  describe	
  themselves	
  as	
  ‘practicing	
  anthropologists’.	
  
When	
  articulated	
  in	
  contrast	
  with	
  academic	
  Anthropology,	
  some	
  of	
  them	
  might	
  
agree	
  to	
  that	
  nomenclature,	
  but	
  their	
  more	
  common,	
  specialist	
  self-­‐description	
  is	
  
‘development	
  anthropologist’.	
  (Meanwhile,	
  at	
  the	
  UK’s	
  Department	
  for	
  
International	
  Development	
  (DfID),	
  anthropologists	
  and	
  other	
  qualitative	
  
methods-­‐inclined	
  social	
  scientists,	
  i.e.,	
  non-­‐economists,	
  are	
  called	
  ‘social	
  
development	
  officers’.)	
  In	
  terms	
  of	
  formal	
  representation,	
  this	
  group	
  is	
  most	
  
closely	
  associated	
  with	
  the	
  Society	
  for	
  Applied	
  Anthropology	
  (SfAA),	
  which	
  is	
  not	
  
part	
  of	
  the	
  AAA	
  and	
  runs	
  its	
  own	
  annual	
  conferences.	
  (It	
  publishes	
  the	
  journal	
  
‘Human	
  Organization’	
  and,	
  just	
  to	
  confuse	
  my	
  argument	
  regarding	
  development	
  
anthropology,	
  has	
  ‘a	
  career-­‐oriented	
  publication’	
  called	
  ‘Practicing	
  
Anthropology’.)	
  Founded	
  in	
  1941,	
  SfAA’s	
  remit	
  is	
  extremely	
  large,	
  describing	
  
itself	
  as	
  ‘a	
  worldwide	
  organization	
  for	
  the	
  applied	
  social	
  sciences’.	
  	
  It	
  
‘…promote[s]	
  the	
  investigation	
  of	
  the	
  principles	
  of	
  human	
  behavior	
  and	
  the	
  
application	
  of	
  these	
  principles	
  to	
  contemporary	
  issues	
  and	
  problems.	
  The	
  Society	
  
is	
  unique	
  among	
  professional	
  associations	
  in	
  membership	
  and	
  purpose,	
  
representing	
  the	
  interests	
  of	
  professionals	
  in	
  a	
  wide	
  range	
  of	
  settings	
  -­‐	
  academia,	
  
business,	
  law,	
  health	
  and	
  medicine,	
  government,	
  etc.	
  The	
  unifying	
  factor	
  is	
  a	
  
commitment	
  to	
  making	
  an	
  impact	
  on	
  the	
  quality	
  of	
  life	
  in	
  the	
  world.’	
  
(http://www.sfaa.net)	
  

	
  



	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
   	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  Sedgwick	
  /	
  Complicit	
  Positioning	
  	
  

	
   77	
  

I	
  am	
  purposeful	
  in	
  supplying	
  a	
  range	
  of	
  overlapping	
  nomenclature	
  
for	
  those	
  laying	
  claim	
  to	
  ethnographic	
  methods	
  in	
  the	
  service	
  of	
  their	
  
(non-­‐academic)	
  employers.	
  Meanwhile,	
  in	
  addition	
  to	
  those	
  sited	
  above,	
  I	
  
have	
  also	
  found	
  the	
  following	
  representations	
  of	
  ethnographic	
  and/or	
  
anthropological	
  work	
  for	
  business:	
  ‘corporate	
  anthropology’	
  (Cefkin	
  2012:	
  
2)	
  and	
  ‘corporate	
  anthropologist’	
  (Malefyt	
  2009:	
  202);	
  ‘consumer	
  
ethnography’	
  and	
  ‘branded	
  ethnographic	
  practices	
  in	
  consumer	
  research’	
  
(Malefyt	
  2009:	
  201);	
  and	
  ‘professional	
  cultural	
  anthropologist’	
  and	
  
‘professional	
  ethnography’	
  (Powell	
  2015).	
  No	
  doubt	
  there	
  are	
  other	
  
names,	
  or	
  soon	
  will	
  be.	
  Meanwhile,	
  among	
  trained	
  anthropologists	
  who,	
  
due	
  to	
  their	
  work	
  on	
  business	
  contexts	
  I	
  would	
  describe	
  as	
  studying	
  up,	
  
the	
  contrast	
  between	
  those	
  who	
  ‘study	
  businesses	
  as	
  sites	
  for	
  
Anthropology’	
  (as	
  a	
  discipline)	
  versus	
  those	
  who	
  ‘work	
  for	
  business’	
  is	
  
most	
  parsimoniously	
  defined	
  by	
  the	
  respective	
  labels	
  ‘anthropologist	
  of	
  
business’	
  versus	
  ‘business	
  anthropologist’.	
  Meanwhile,	
  although	
  authors	
  
of	
  articles	
  for	
  the	
  Journal	
  of	
  Business	
  Anthropology	
  come	
  from	
  both	
  
communities,	
  it	
  generally	
  publishes	
  articles	
  by	
  academic	
  anthropologists	
  
on	
  business-­‐related	
  topics,	
  i.e.,	
  written	
  by	
  anthropologists	
  of	
  business.	
  	
  	
  

My	
  point	
  is	
  to	
  highlight	
  the	
  boundary	
  trouble	
  in	
  this	
  profusion	
  of	
  
naming:	
  between	
  what	
  I	
  call	
  ‘anthropology	
  of	
  business’	
  and	
  those	
  
working	
  for	
  businesses,	
  in	
  ‘business	
  anthropology’,	
  ‘corporate	
  
anthropology’,	
  ‘professional	
  anthropology’,	
  ‘corporate	
  ethnography’,	
  
‘professional	
  ethnography’,	
  etc.	
  I	
  condense	
  what	
  I	
  have	
  suggested	
  above	
  
in	
  noting	
  that	
  there	
  are	
  significant	
  differences	
  between	
  these	
  respective	
  
communities’	
  approaches	
  where	
  it	
  comes	
  to,	
  a)	
  intent	
  regarding	
  the	
  
gathering	
  of	
  knowledge,	
  b)	
  the	
  position	
  of	
  the	
  ethnographer	
  in	
  gaining	
  
knowledge	
  and,	
  c)	
  the	
  dissemination	
  and	
  core	
  audience(s)	
  for	
  that	
  
knowledge.	
  And	
  I	
  would	
  suggest	
  that	
  if	
  there	
  is	
  confusion	
  among	
  
specialists	
  about	
  the	
  meanings	
  of	
  different	
  names	
  for	
  the	
  application	
  of	
  
ethnographic	
  methods	
  in	
  business	
  contexts—when	
  the	
  fundamental	
  
intent	
  of	
  work	
  among	
  those	
  who	
  do	
  ethnography	
  for	
  business,	
  and	
  those	
  
who	
  study	
  businesses	
  ethnographically	
  as	
  sites	
  (for	
  academia)	
  is	
  so	
  
different—this	
  important	
  distinction	
  is	
  even	
  more	
  confusing	
  for	
  general	
  
Anthropology.	
  The	
  result,	
  I	
  believe,	
  is	
  that	
  in	
  general	
  Anthropology	
  it	
  is	
  
thought	
  that	
  most	
  studies	
  of	
  businesses	
  by	
  anthropologists	
  are	
  not	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
17	
  There	
  is	
  a	
  notable	
  literature	
  in	
  Anthropology	
  animated	
  by	
  the	
  tensions	
  
between	
  anthropologists	
  who	
  critique	
  the	
  politics	
  and	
  practices	
  of	
  
‘development’—as,	
  for	
  example,	
  a	
  neo-­‐colonial	
  exercise—and	
  anthropologists	
  
who	
  use	
  anthropological	
  techniques	
  and/or	
  claim	
  anthropological	
  sensitivities	
  as	
  
analytical	
  assets	
  in	
  providing	
  ‘assistance’	
  in	
  the	
  developing	
  world.	
  While	
  I	
  do	
  not	
  
consider	
  that	
  literature	
  here,	
  the	
  discourse	
  between	
  ‘anthropologists	
  of	
  
development’	
  and	
  ‘development	
  anthropologists’	
  should	
  be	
  pursued	
  
comparatively	
  in	
  unpacking	
  the	
  similarly-­‐structured	
  tensions	
  between	
  
anthropologists	
  who	
  study	
  businesses	
  academically,	
  as	
  research	
  sites,	
  and	
  those	
  
using	
  ethnographic	
  methods	
  as	
  employees	
  of	
  businesses.	
  	
  

	
  



Journal	
  of	
  Business	
  Anthropology,	
  6(1),	
  Spring	
  2017	
  
	
  

	
  78	
  

academic	
  projects,	
  but	
  the	
  exercises	
  of	
  consultants	
  or	
  in-­‐house	
  
employee/ethnographers.	
  This	
  is	
  suggested	
  by	
  academic	
  work	
  on	
  sites	
  
that	
  are	
  perfectly	
  obviously	
  businesses,	
  but	
  use	
  different	
  nomenclature	
  
from	
  Anthropology	
  of	
  Business.	
  For	
  instance,	
  there	
  is	
  robust	
  academic	
  
work	
  in	
  Anthropology	
  of	
  Finance,	
  and	
  a	
  whole	
  plethora	
  of	
  research	
  at	
  
sites	
  affiliated	
  with	
  businesses	
  under	
  the	
  rubric	
  of	
  Science	
  and	
  
Technological	
  Studies	
  (STS).	
  Projects	
  in	
  Economic	
  Anthropology,	
  as	
  an	
  
overarching	
  subfield	
  of	
  the	
  discipline,	
  meanwhile,	
  are	
  often	
  based	
  in	
  work	
  
that	
  could	
  easily	
  be	
  called	
  Anthropology	
  of	
  Business.	
  	
  

The	
  ambivalence,	
  at	
  best,	
  toward	
  studies	
  of	
  business	
  by	
  the	
  
discipline	
  of	
  Anthropology	
  is	
  driven	
  both	
  by	
  the	
  confused	
  naming	
  I	
  have	
  
highlighted	
  above	
  and	
  by	
  the	
  dynamism	
  of	
  the	
  ‘practice’	
  communities	
  
working	
  for	
  businesses	
  which	
  are,	
  perfectly-­‐justifiably,	
  formally	
  
represented	
  within	
  the	
  American	
  Anthropology	
  Association	
  (AAA),	
  to	
  a	
  
somewhat	
  lesser	
  extent	
  in	
  the	
  (British	
  Commonwealth-­‐based)	
  
Association	
  of	
  Social	
  Anthropologists	
  (ASA),	
  and	
  elsewhere,	
  i.e.,	
  the	
  
Society	
  for	
  Applied	
  Anthropology	
  (SfAA),	
  etc.	
  Meanwhile,	
  in	
  the	
  larger	
  
move	
  toward	
  ‘relevance’	
  in	
  the	
  context,	
  it	
  must	
  be	
  said,	
  of	
  significant	
  
declines	
  in	
  academic	
  employment,	
  the	
  management	
  of	
  the	
  AAA	
  constantly	
  
advocates	
  a	
  larger	
  public	
  voice	
  for	
  anthropological	
  knowledge	
  as	
  well	
  as	
  
the	
  role	
  of	
  anthropologists	
  in	
  non-­‐academic	
  work.	
  Some	
  university	
  
Anthropology	
  departments	
  of	
  course	
  explicitly	
  emphasize	
  applied	
  work.	
  
(Development	
  Anthropology	
  is	
  particularly	
  strong	
  in	
  the	
  UK,	
  for	
  instance,	
  
with	
  its	
  intellectual	
  training	
  set	
  in	
  relation	
  to	
  the	
  Anthropology	
  of	
  
Development,	
  as	
  outlined	
  in	
  Note	
  17.)	
  Implicitly,	
  among	
  those	
  working	
  in	
  
the	
  discipline,	
  and	
  perhaps	
  occasioned	
  with	
  some	
  regret,	
  the	
  decline	
  in	
  
opportunities	
  for	
  careers	
  in	
  academic	
  Anthropology	
  encourages	
  
awareness	
  and	
  concern	
  regarding	
  the	
  practical,	
  non-­‐academic	
  use	
  of	
  
anthropology.	
  These	
  are	
  all	
  perfectly	
  rational,	
  and	
  reasonable,	
  reactions	
  
to	
  a	
  changing	
  environment.	
  However	
  the	
  scepticism	
  that	
  accompanies	
  
perceptions	
  of	
  the	
  role	
  of	
  anthropology	
  with	
  regard	
  to	
  business	
  is	
  
different	
  from	
  perceptions	
  of	
  Development	
  Anthropology	
  versus	
  
Anthropology	
  of	
  Development.	
  In	
  my	
  view	
  this	
  comes	
  down	
  both	
  to	
  a	
  
normalized,	
  if	
  thoroughly	
  myopic,	
  hostility	
  toward	
  ‘business’	
  among	
  left-­‐
leaning	
  anthropologists—that	
  tends	
  to	
  make	
  corporations	
  unpalatable	
  
research	
  sites—and	
  to	
  problems	
  of	
  positionality	
  in	
  ethnographic	
  work	
  on	
  
businesses.	
  The	
  former	
  may	
  take	
  care	
  of	
  itself	
  as	
  Anthropology	
  becomes	
  
increasingly	
  engaged	
  with	
  analysis	
  of	
  corporations	
  and	
  other	
  formal	
  
organizational	
  forms,	
  i.e.,	
  as	
  core	
  drivers	
  of	
  modern	
  capitalism	
  and,	
  so,	
  of	
  
foundational	
  relevance	
  to	
  anthropologists’	
  political	
  concerns,	
  whatever	
  
they	
  may	
  be.	
  The	
  latter,	
  however,	
  requires	
  a	
  serious	
  and	
  self-­‐conscious	
  
engagement	
  with	
  method	
  as	
  epistemology	
  in	
  the	
  ethnography	
  of	
  business.	
  	
  	
  

	
  

‘Complicit’	
  attractions:	
  corporate	
  ethnography	
  and	
  the	
  potential	
  
diversions	
  of	
  contemporary	
  theories	
  of	
  method	
  in	
  Anthropology	
  	
  



	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
   	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  Sedgwick	
  /	
  Complicit	
  Positioning	
  	
  

	
   79	
  

It	
  seems	
  to	
  me	
  that	
  in	
  much	
  of	
  what	
  I	
  call	
  corporate	
  ethnography,	
  as	
  a	
  
catch-­‐all	
  for	
  ‘ethnography/anthropology	
  for	
  business’,	
  there	
  is	
  a	
  
fundamental	
  lack	
  of	
  engagement	
  with	
  the	
  ethnographer’s	
  positionality	
  in	
  
relation	
  to	
  the	
  conditions	
  under	
  which	
  the	
  work	
  is	
  being	
  conducted.	
  This	
  
has	
  crucial	
  implications	
  for	
  its	
  production	
  of	
  anthropological	
  knowledge.	
  
While	
  laying	
  claim	
  to	
  responsibility	
  for	
  ‘the	
  emergence	
  of	
  a	
  nascent	
  canon	
  
of	
  corporate	
  ethnography’	
  (italics	
  mine)	
  (Cefkin	
  2009:	
  2),	
  I	
  am	
  concerned	
  
that	
  these	
  ethnographers	
  do	
  not	
  acknowledge,	
  a)	
  their	
  de	
  facto	
  lack	
  of	
  
structural	
  control	
  over	
  the	
  direction	
  of	
  their	
  work	
  and,	
  b)	
  their	
  lack	
  of	
  
control	
  over	
  the	
  use	
  of	
  that	
  work,	
  i.e.	
  as	
  the	
  commissioned	
  property	
  of	
  the	
  
firm.	
  These	
  structural	
  conditions	
  of	
  work	
  impact	
  basic	
  problems	
  of	
  
positionality	
  and	
  often	
  lead	
  corporate	
  ethnographers	
  to	
  c)	
  thin	
  out	
  critical	
  
detachment	
  in	
  their	
  interpretation	
  of	
  the	
  ethnographic	
  work	
  they	
  
conduct.18	
  As	
  I	
  have	
  also	
  suggested,	
  such	
  problems	
  in	
  anthropological	
  
relations	
  with	
  informants/	
  communities	
  are	
  sometimes	
  disguised	
  
through	
  an	
  insinuation	
  of	
  anthropological	
  credibility	
  slipped	
  in	
  via	
  
engagement	
  with	
  sophisticated	
  anthropological	
  theory.	
  	
  	
  

The	
  parsimonious,	
  if	
  simplistic,	
  approach	
  among	
  corporate	
  
ethnographers	
  in	
  addressing	
  these	
  concerns	
  is	
  to	
  state	
  frankly	
  the	
  limits	
  
of	
  their	
  fieldwork:	
  the	
  audience	
  should	
  consider	
  the	
  work	
  for	
  what	
  it	
  is,	
  
within	
  its	
  own	
  framework	
  of	
  production.	
  If	
  insufficient	
  for	
  some	
  purposes,	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
18	
  In	
  his	
  concluding	
  chapter	
  of	
  Cefkin’s	
  impressive	
  edited	
  volume,	
  Ethnography	
  
and	
  the	
  corporate	
  encounter	
  (Cefkin	
  2009),	
  Michael	
  M.J.	
  Fischer	
  discusses	
  the	
  
work	
  of	
  corporate	
  ethnographers	
  comprising	
  the	
  rest	
  of	
  the	
  volume.	
  He	
  asks,	
  	
  

Could	
  corporate	
  anthropologists	
  ever	
  be	
  allowed	
  to	
  produce	
  the	
  
equivalent	
  of	
  such	
  studies	
  of	
  the	
  biotech	
  industry	
  as	
  those	
  by	
  Barry	
  Werth,	
  Paul	
  
Rabinow,	
  Kaushik	
  Sunder	
  Rajan,	
  or	
  Melinda	
  Cooper;	
  of	
  the	
  IT	
  world	
  such	
  as	
  those	
  
of	
  Gabriella	
  Coleman,	
  Chris	
  Kelty,	
  or	
  Hal	
  Abelson,	
  Ken	
  Ledeen,	
  and	
  Harry	
  Lewis;	
  
or	
  (from	
  the	
  legal	
  world)	
  Lawrence	
  Lessig	
  [sic];	
  or	
  of	
  the	
  financial	
  world	
  as	
  those	
  
of	
  Donald	
  MacKenzie?	
  Or	
  is	
  that	
  request	
  less	
  in	
  conflict	
  just	
  with	
  NDAs	
  [non-­‐
disclosure	
  agreements],	
  and	
  rather	
  more	
  in	
  conflict	
  with	
  the	
  new	
  ethnographic	
  
products	
  being	
  developed…?	
  (Fischer	
  2009:	
  236-­‐37)	
  	
  	
  

Two	
  points	
  here.	
  	
  First,	
  the	
  serious	
  and	
  highly	
  respected	
  anthropological	
  
work	
  of	
  the	
  scholars	
  listed	
  by	
  Fischer	
  is	
  ‘Anthropology	
  of	
  Business’.	
  Although	
  
studying	
  business	
  contexts	
  as	
  academics,	
  i.e.,	
  not	
  as	
  employees	
  of	
  those	
  
businesses,	
  they	
  are	
  also	
  ‘corporate	
  ethnographers’,	
  at	
  least	
  in	
  the	
  common	
  sense	
  
meaning	
  of	
  the	
  term.	
  They	
  just	
  do	
  not	
  wish	
  their	
  work	
  to	
  be	
  described	
  under	
  
either	
  identifying	
  rubric.	
  As	
  I	
  have	
  explained	
  above,	
  ‘corporate	
  ethnography’	
  is	
  
now	
  for-­‐profit	
  terrain,	
  a	
  problem	
  that,	
  I	
  maintain,	
  bleeds	
  into	
  the	
  comparatively	
  
negative	
  perceptions	
  of	
  ‘Anthropology	
  of	
  Business’	
  in	
  the	
  academy.	
  Second,	
  
elsewhere	
  in	
  his	
  chapter	
  Fischer	
  (2009:	
  232-­‐33)	
  misconstrues	
  non-­‐disclosure	
  
agreements	
  (NDAs)	
  in	
  corporations	
  as	
  having	
  equivalent	
  effects	
  on	
  corporate	
  
ethnographers’	
  work	
  as	
  North	
  American	
  universities’	
  Institutional	
  Review	
  
Boards	
  (IRBs)—Ethics	
  Review	
  Boards	
  (ERBs)	
  in	
  the	
  UK—do	
  on	
  academics’	
  
research	
  plans	
  and	
  results.	
  However,	
  he	
  is	
  correct	
  in	
  highlighting,	
  as	
  I	
  do,	
  the	
  
centrality	
  of	
  corporate	
  control	
  over	
  the	
  output	
  of	
  corporate	
  ethnographers’	
  
research	
  and	
  what	
  might	
  be	
  construed	
  as	
  the	
  resulting	
  limited	
  impact	
  it	
  enjoys	
  in	
  
academic	
  Anthropology	
  at	
  present.	
  

	
  



Journal	
  of	
  Business	
  Anthropology,	
  6(1),	
  Spring	
  2017	
  
	
  

	
  80	
  

‘what	
  it	
  is’	
  is,	
  nonetheless,	
  a	
  plentiful	
  resource.	
  The	
  personal	
  and	
  
intellectual	
  effects	
  (and	
  affects)	
  of	
  working	
  under	
  conditions	
  in	
  which,	
  for	
  
example,	
  proprietary	
  control	
  over	
  information	
  allows	
  supposed-­‐
ethnographic	
  work	
  to	
  reproduce	
  the	
  ‘black	
  box’	
  of	
  business	
  contexts,	
  are	
  a	
  
potentially	
  productive	
  route	
  to	
  unpacking	
  the	
  tensions	
  inherent	
  in	
  the	
  
lifeworld	
  of	
  business.19	
  Auto-­‐ethnography	
  comes	
  with	
  its	
  own	
  package	
  of	
  
analytic	
  difficulties—that	
  I	
  will	
  address	
  only	
  tangentially	
  here—but	
  there	
  
is	
  no	
  reason	
  why	
  any	
  number	
  of	
  corporate	
  ethnographers,	
  perhaps	
  during	
  
a	
  sabbatical	
  from	
  the	
  workplace,	
  or	
  between	
  jobs,	
  could	
  not	
  engage	
  in	
  
what,	
  in	
  practice,	
  would	
  be	
  reflections	
  on	
  their	
  work	
  in	
  businesses	
  as	
  
‘anthropology	
  at	
  home’.	
  	
  

More	
  substantively	
  I	
  would	
  suggest	
  a	
  collective,	
  two-­‐pronged	
  
analytical	
  tack	
  that	
  acknowledges	
  and	
  examines	
  businesses	
  as	
  familiar	
  
organizational	
  forms	
  that	
  are,	
  on	
  the	
  one	
  hand,	
  closed,	
  bounded	
  or	
  ‘black	
  
boxed’:	
  operations	
  that	
  serve	
  to	
  make	
  them	
  ‘foreign’	
  or	
  estranged	
  from	
  
day-­‐to-­‐day	
  public	
  life,	
  except	
  for	
  their	
  appropriately-­‐processed	
  members	
  
and	
  properly-­‐vetted	
  visitors.	
  These	
  would	
  be	
  combined	
  with	
  analyses	
  
that,	
  on	
  the	
  other	
  hand,	
  unpack	
  both	
  the	
  penetration	
  of	
  many	
  businesses’	
  
products	
  and	
  brands	
  into	
  day-­‐to-­‐day	
  public	
  experience	
  and	
  
consciousness,	
  while	
  the	
  work	
  of	
  other	
  businesses—perhaps	
  most	
  
businesses—goes	
  nearly	
  entirely	
  unnoticed	
  in	
  the	
  public	
  realm	
  but,	
  
nonetheless,	
  is	
  likely	
  to	
  affect	
  us	
  all.	
  	
  

My	
  earlier	
  examples	
  of	
  the	
  unfortunate	
  mobilization	
  of	
  the	
  ‘brand’	
  
of	
  ethnography	
  through	
  ‘technomediation’	
  are	
  not	
  representative	
  of	
  the	
  
broader	
  community	
  of	
  corporate	
  ethnographers.	
  Many	
  are	
  trained	
  
anthropologists,	
  fully	
  sensitive	
  to	
  the	
  emotional	
  and	
  intellectual	
  rigors	
  of	
  
their	
  face-­‐	
  to-­‐	
  face	
  work	
  as	
  ethnographers.	
  Tracking,	
  as	
  suggested	
  above,	
  
between	
  corporate	
  settings	
  and	
  within	
  an	
  active	
  self-­‐representing	
  
community	
  with	
  a	
  particular	
  (ethnographic)	
  skill	
  set—e.g.,	
  their	
  formal	
  
Ethnographic	
  Praxis	
  in	
  Industry	
  Conference	
  (EPIC)	
  group—they	
  are	
  
sophisticated	
  operators,	
  positioned	
  to	
  intelligently	
  unpack	
  the	
  conditions	
  
of	
  their	
  ethnographic	
  work	
  and	
  the	
  corporate	
  elaborations	
  that	
  surround	
  
it.	
  	
  

That	
  stated	
  as	
  a	
  matter	
  of	
  encouragement	
  to	
  this	
  community,	
  
given	
  the	
  intellectual	
  open-­‐endedness,	
  if	
  not	
  splintering,	
  across	
  the	
  last	
  30	
  
years	
  of	
  Anthropology,	
  perhaps	
  it	
  is	
  perfectly	
  reasonable	
  that	
  such	
  work	
  
is	
  not	
  undertaken	
  by	
  corporate	
  ethnographers.	
  As	
  discussed	
  above,	
  
anxiety	
  among	
  anthropologists	
  regarding	
  the	
  colonial	
  roots	
  and	
  neo-­‐
colonial	
  implications	
  of	
  research	
  among	
  non-­‐Western/‘less	
  developed’	
  
peoples	
  provoked,	
  along	
  with	
  an	
  often	
  guilty	
  political	
  consciousness,	
  a	
  
crisis	
  of	
  representation	
  regarding	
  the	
  content,	
  style,	
  production	
  and	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
19	
  Brun-­‐Cotton	
  (2009)	
  sensitively	
  outlines	
  the	
  ethical	
  problems	
  and,	
  thus,	
  the	
  
interpersonal	
  tensions	
  entailed	
  in	
  her	
  consulting	
  work	
  for	
  corporations.	
   	
  

	
  



	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
   	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  Sedgwick	
  /	
  Complicit	
  Positioning	
  	
  

	
   81	
  

reception	
  of	
  anthropological	
  texts	
  themselves.	
  In	
  such	
  an	
  already-­‐highly-­‐
contested	
  representational	
  environment,	
  it	
  is	
  easy	
  enough	
  to	
  leave	
  the	
  
stone	
  of	
  the	
  black	
  box	
  of	
  business	
  unturned,	
  leave	
  businesses’	
  culture(s)	
  
of	
  secrecy,	
  secret.	
  At	
  least,	
  that	
  has	
  been	
  the	
  prevalent	
  approach	
  in	
  
corporate	
  ethnography	
  to	
  date.	
  	
  	
  

In	
  addition,	
  my	
  criticism	
  of	
  corporate	
  ethnographers	
  for	
  
insufficiently	
  unpacking,	
  and	
  so	
  insufficiently	
  exposing	
  to	
  anthropological	
  
scrutiny	
  the	
  corporate	
  contexts	
  in	
  which	
  they	
  work,	
  is	
  not	
  assisted	
  by	
  
highly	
  theorized	
  discussion	
  in	
  Anthropology	
  that	
  explicitly	
  challenges	
  
traditional	
  understandings	
  of	
  anthropologists’	
  ethnographic	
  work	
  with	
  
informants.	
  In	
  an	
  important	
  intervention	
  that	
  specifically	
  deals	
  with	
  
contemporary	
  modern	
  contexts	
  and,	
  so,	
  may	
  be	
  especially	
  relevant	
  to	
  
those	
  working	
  in	
  or	
  on	
  businesses,	
  ‘complicity’	
  is	
  preferred	
  over	
  what	
  has	
  
been	
  previously	
  understood	
  as	
  rapport	
  with	
  informants	
  (Marcus:	
  1997).	
  
With	
  his	
  work	
  already	
  positioned	
  to	
  dislodge	
  previous	
  assumptions	
  
regarding	
  anthropologists’	
  work,	
  i.e.,	
  the	
  influential	
  Writing	
  Culture	
  
volume	
  (Clifford	
  and	
  Marcus	
  1986)	
  and	
  the	
  de	
  facto	
  movement	
  that	
  
followed	
  it,	
  especially	
  in	
  North	
  American	
  Cultural	
  Anthropology,	
  Marcus’	
  
deployment	
  of	
  ‘complicity’	
  is	
  surely	
  a	
  rhetorical	
  strategy,	
  a	
  provocation:	
  
the	
  common	
  sense	
  understanding	
  of	
  complicity	
  clearly	
  generates	
  
suspicion	
  and,	
  therefore,	
  a	
  discomforting	
  response,	
  perhaps	
  especially	
  
among	
  anthropologists	
  who,	
  whatever	
  their	
  faults,	
  attempt	
  to	
  maintain	
  a	
  
high	
  ethical	
  threshold.	
  	
  

‘Complicity’	
  is	
  analyzed	
  by	
  Marcus	
  both	
  through	
  an	
  offering	
  for	
  
the	
  reader’s	
  consideration	
  of	
  its	
  Oxford	
  English	
  Dictionary	
  definitions	
  and	
  
in	
  reference	
  to	
  Geertz’	
  and	
  Rosaldo’s	
  canonical	
  work.	
  He	
  proposes	
  new	
  
ethnographic	
  configurations	
  through	
  which	
  anthropologists	
  reposition	
  
their	
  relations	
  with	
  informants	
  toward	
  one	
  of	
  collaboration	
  in	
  knowledge	
  
production.	
  (Thus,	
  on	
  the	
  surface	
  of	
  it,	
  Marcus’	
  idea	
  would	
  seem	
  to	
  map	
  
easily	
  onto	
  the	
  consultative	
  work	
  of	
  corporate	
  ethnographers.)	
  The	
  goal,	
  
therefore,	
  is	
  not	
  the	
  erstwhile	
  one-­‐way	
  ‘sharing’	
  of	
  the	
  informant’s	
  
knowledge	
  (of	
  his	
  or	
  her	
  own	
  society)	
  with	
  the	
  (visiting)	
  ethnographer,	
  
however	
  collaborative	
  that	
  ‘coeval’	
  (Fabian	
  1983)	
  experience	
  might	
  be	
  for	
  
anthropologist	
  and	
  informant	
  alike	
  (Rabinow	
  1977).	
  Rather,	
  for	
  Marcus,	
  
informants	
  are	
  understood	
  as	
  persons	
  operating	
  in	
  lifeworlds	
  similarly	
  
complex	
  to	
  that	
  of	
  highly	
  trained,	
  cosmopolitan	
  anthropologists	
  or,	
  
perhaps,	
  depending	
  on	
  how	
  broadly	
  it	
  is	
  construed,	
  within	
  the	
  same	
  
overarching	
  lifeworld,	
  e.g.,	
  long	
  term,	
  elite,	
  Western	
  educational	
  
backgrounds,	
  etc.	
  Marcus	
  claims	
  that	
  the	
  anthropologist	
  and	
  his	
  
informant,	
  as	
  two	
  de	
  facto	
  experts,	
  ‘complicitly’	
  align	
  themselves	
  as	
  an	
  
insider	
  pair	
  together	
  confronting	
  the	
  outside	
  world,	
  articulated	
  as	
  a	
  ‘third’	
  
(Marcus	
  1997).	
  The	
  external	
  ‘third’	
  world,	
  amorphous	
  and	
  shifting,	
  
generates	
  anxiety	
  and	
  is	
  possibly	
  threatening:	
  it	
  seems	
  to	
  be	
  experienced	
  
as	
  a	
  form	
  of	
  postmodern	
  anomie.	
  In	
  any	
  case,	
  the	
  core	
  point	
  is	
  that	
  
knowledge	
  of	
  the	
  ‘third’	
  is	
  an	
  outcome,	
  or	
  a	
  fabrication,	
  of	
  the	
  relations	
  of	
  



Journal	
  of	
  Business	
  Anthropology,	
  6(1),	
  Spring	
  2017	
  
	
  

	
  82	
  

the	
  pair.	
  As	
  such,	
  the	
  complicit	
  co-­‐production	
  of	
  the	
  outside,	
  ‘third’	
  world,	
  
or	
  parts	
  of	
  it,	
  seems	
  suggestively	
  therapeutic—the	
  external	
  ‘third’	
  could	
  
certainly	
  be	
  a	
  fantasy—if,	
  unlike	
  therapy’s	
  typical	
  professional	
  form	
  (as	
  a	
  
quasi-­‐confessional	
  space),	
  it	
  generates	
  knowledge	
  through	
  the	
  relations	
  
of	
  two	
  parties	
  coming	
  to	
  this	
  process	
  as	
  presumed	
  equals.	
  (I	
  believe	
  the	
  
point	
  is	
  that	
  the	
  privacy,	
  and	
  so	
  the	
  intimacy,	
  of	
  the	
  pair’s	
  joint	
  work	
  in	
  
confronting	
  or	
  producing	
  the	
  ‘third’	
  encourages	
  the	
  complicity	
  of	
  the	
  
relationship.20)	
  	
  

Perhaps	
  Marcus’	
  exploration	
  of	
  complicity	
  is	
  an	
  early	
  move	
  
seeking	
  to	
  socialize,	
  through	
  externalization,	
  the	
  erstwhile	
  internal	
  world	
  
of	
  the	
  reflexive,	
  highly	
  self-­‐conscious,	
  anthropologist	
  into,	
  e.g.,	
  recursive	
  
relations	
  with	
  informants.	
  That	
  is,	
  a	
  revival	
  as	
  well	
  as	
  an	
  extension	
  of	
  
anthropologists’	
  traditional,	
  deep-­‐seated	
  social	
  relations	
  with	
  informants.	
  
In	
  this,	
  my	
  own	
  conceptualization	
  of	
  the	
  precursors	
  to	
  this	
  extension,	
  the	
  
‘traditional’	
  anthropologist,	
  through	
  fieldwork	
  in	
  faraway	
  climes,	
  i.e.,	
  
extreme	
  commitment	
  to	
  personal	
  displacement,	
  was	
  preoccupied	
  with	
  
the	
  ‘Other’,	
  and	
  perhaps	
  at	
  risk	
  of	
  losing	
  himself	
  in	
  his	
  social	
  relations	
  
with	
  his	
  interlocutors’	
  lifeworld.	
  (Thus	
  the	
  warning	
  to	
  never	
  ‘go	
  native’.)	
  
In	
  some	
  quarters,	
  i.e.,	
  Cultural	
  Anthropology,	
  this	
  self-­‐other	
  boundary	
  
was,	
  perhaps	
  inadvertently,	
  made	
  more	
  explicit	
  in	
  the	
  work	
  of	
  the	
  
‘reflexive’	
  anthropologist.	
  Here	
  the	
  anthropologist	
  would	
  indulge,	
  rather	
  
than	
  repress,	
  the	
  personal,	
  private	
  emotional	
  labor	
  of	
  field	
  experience,	
  
indeed,	
  in	
  its	
  more	
  narcissistic	
  forms,	
  becoming	
  self-­‐obsessed,	
  while	
  
also—more	
  helpfully—remaining	
  aware	
  of	
  the	
  political	
  positionality	
  of	
  
his	
  work	
  across	
  its	
  entire	
  trajectory:	
  from	
  access	
  to,	
  work	
  in	
  and	
  later	
  
representations	
  of	
  ‘the	
  field’.	
  	
  

Now	
  the	
  extension.	
  Unlike	
  the	
  traditional	
  anthropologist,	
  who	
  is	
  
apparently	
  obsessed	
  by	
  the	
  ‘Other’,	
  the	
  ‘complicit’	
  anthropologist	
  need	
  
not	
  lose	
  himself,	
  nor	
  adopt	
  the	
  self-­‐engrossed	
  attributes	
  of	
  the	
  reflexive	
  
anthropologist,	
  but	
  should	
  resist	
  the	
  ‘Other’,	
  conjoining	
  himself	
  with	
  the	
  
reflexivity	
  of	
  his	
  similarly-­‐positioned	
  informant	
  vis-­‐à-­‐vis	
  an	
  othered	
  
‘third’.	
  In	
  a	
  later	
  articulation	
  along	
  these	
  lines,	
  informant-­‐collaborators	
  
complicit	
  with	
  anthropologists	
  are	
  themselves	
  granted	
  the	
  status	
  of	
  
quasi-­‐	
  or	
  ‘para-­‐’	
  ethnographers	
  (Marcus	
  2000).	
  (Or,	
  more	
  simply,	
  
particular	
  artifacts	
  become	
  ‘para-­‐ethnographic’	
  and,	
  so,	
  worthy	
  of	
  our	
  
attentions—for	
  example,	
  ‘anecdotal’	
  comments,	
  in	
  this	
  case	
  in	
  the	
  
minutes	
  of	
  formal	
  meetings	
  of	
  bank	
  officials—as	
  they	
  suggest	
  the	
  
‘intuitive’	
  ‘structures	
  of	
  feeling’	
  typical	
  of	
  anthropologists’	
  sensitivities	
  
(Holmes	
  and	
  Marcus	
  2006).)	
  Positioned	
  in	
  broadly	
  overlapping	
  worlds	
  to	
  
anthropologists,	
  para-­‐ethnographers	
  are	
  serious,	
  sensitive	
  and	
  thinking	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
20	
  If	
  so,	
  albeit	
  moving	
  away	
  from	
  our	
  common	
  understanding	
  of	
  expertise,	
  
perhaps	
  the	
  less	
  this	
  joint	
  work	
  is	
  able	
  to	
  identify	
  reality	
  in	
  the	
  outside	
  world,	
  or	
  
have	
  it	
  confirmed	
  elsewhere,	
  the	
  more	
  the	
  complicit	
  relationship	
  would	
  be	
  
reinforced?	
  

	
  



	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
   	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  Sedgwick	
  /	
  Complicit	
  Positioning	
  	
  

	
   83	
  

people	
  who	
  are,	
  similarly,	
  coping	
  with	
  the	
  ‘outside’	
  over	
  the	
  long	
  term.	
  It	
  
seems	
  that	
  in	
  their	
  relations	
  with	
  anthropologists	
  they	
  are	
  effectively	
  
ethnographers	
  in	
  the	
  making,	
  just	
  waiting	
  to	
  break	
  out	
  of	
  their	
  shells.	
  (Or,	
  
perhaps,	
  given	
  the	
  proliferation	
  of	
  ethnographic	
  methods	
  generally,	
  the	
  
anthropologist	
  is	
  no	
  longer	
  required	
  at	
  all.)	
  	
  	
  

In	
  any	
  case,	
  so	
  far,	
  the	
  several	
  ethnographic	
  projects	
  so	
  
operationalized	
  indeed	
  do	
  unfold	
  with	
  collaborators	
  positioned	
  similarly	
  
to	
  that	
  of	
  anthropologists	
  vis-­‐à-­‐vis	
  their	
  own	
  societies:	
  nearly	
  all	
  
Westerners,	
  they	
  are	
  bankers,	
  scions	
  of	
  wealthy	
  American	
  families,	
  
European	
  politicians,	
  scientists,	
  artists,	
  architects	
  and	
  civil	
  servants.	
  
Marcus	
  acknowledges	
  these	
  persons	
  as	
  ‘experts	
  with	
  shared,	
  discovered,	
  
and	
  negotiated	
  critical	
  sensibilities’	
  (Marcus	
  2000)	
  similar	
  to	
  
anthropologists.	
  Although	
  he	
  makes	
  little	
  of	
  it—perhaps	
  because	
  he	
  is	
  
aware	
  that	
  many	
  anthropologists	
  would	
  be	
  embarrassed	
  to	
  admit	
  to	
  such	
  
a	
  status—moving	
  through	
  the	
  world	
  as	
  highly	
  educated,	
  
cosmopolitan/metropolitan	
  types	
  (albeit,	
  no	
  doubt,	
  far	
  better	
  paid	
  than	
  
anthropologists),	
  para-­‐ethnographers	
  enjoy	
  positions	
  of	
  significant	
  
authority	
  in	
  their	
  own	
  society:	
  they	
  are,	
  like	
  us,	
  elites.	
  Pushing	
  this	
  thread	
  
even	
  further,	
  Riles	
  articulates	
  her	
  work	
  with	
  financial	
  regulators	
  as	
  
‘…suggest[ing]	
  ways	
  of	
  thinking	
  about	
  problems	
  of	
  concern	
  to	
  them	
  and	
  
ways	
  of	
  engaging	
  their	
  various	
  publics,	
  produced	
  recursively	
  and	
  
relationally,	
  that	
  at	
  once	
  strike	
  at	
  the	
  heart	
  of	
  what	
  matters	
  to	
  them	
  and	
  
yet	
  would	
  not	
  have	
  been	
  thinkable	
  outside	
  the	
  ethnographic	
  
conversation….	
  [A]n	
  ethnographic	
  sensitivity	
  can	
  provide	
  venues	
  for	
  
market	
  governance	
  and	
  a	
  professional	
  life	
  worth	
  living,	
  to	
  making	
  
proposals	
  for	
  how	
  financial	
  markets	
  might	
  be	
  governed	
  (Riles	
  2011:	
  6-­‐7)’.	
  
Such	
  configurations	
  of	
  relations	
  between	
  anthropologists	
  and	
  complicit	
  
collaborators,	
  as	
  erstwhile	
  ‘informants’,	
  sound	
  remarkably	
  like	
  the	
  sort	
  of	
  
private	
  interactions	
  that,	
  as	
  ordinary,	
  if	
  elite,	
  modern	
  persons,	
  we	
  seek	
  
out,	
  and	
  pay	
  for,	
  from	
  any	
  number	
  of	
  knowledgeable	
  persons	
  from	
  whom	
  
we	
  require	
  professional	
  advice:	
  physicians,	
  tax	
  accountants,	
  therapists,	
  
business	
  advisors,	
  dentists,	
  etc.	
  ‘Ethnographer’	
  as	
  specialist	
  consultant	
  
with	
  a	
  broad	
  remit.	
  

	
  

The	
  risks	
  of	
  the	
  para-­‐ethnographic	
  to	
  corporate	
  ethnography	
  

While	
  I	
  have	
  discussed	
  some	
  of	
  Marcus’	
  interesting	
  provocations	
  across	
  
the	
  last	
  couple	
  of	
  decades,	
  by	
  no	
  means	
  is	
  my	
  elaboration	
  of	
  ‘new	
  
ethnography’	
  exhaustive:	
  that	
  is	
  for	
  another	
  context.	
  After	
  all,	
  here	
  we	
  are	
  
unpacking	
  the	
  problems	
  of	
  positionality	
  among	
  corporate	
  ethnographers.	
  
The	
  point,	
  rather,	
  is	
  that	
  the	
  problematics	
  of	
  corporate	
  ethnography,	
  and	
  
the	
  positionality	
  of	
  corporate	
  ethnographers,	
  run	
  parallel	
  with	
  techniques	
  
some	
  anthropologists	
  are	
  suggesting	
  regarding	
  ethnographic	
  complicity	
  
with	
  elite	
  informants	
  in	
  positions	
  of	
  authority.	
  Indeed,	
  in	
  my	
  reading	
  
through	
  the	
  work	
  of	
  corporate	
  ethnographers,	
  as	
  well	
  as	
  listening	
  to	
  their	
  



Journal	
  of	
  Business	
  Anthropology,	
  6(1),	
  Spring	
  2017	
  
	
  

	
  84	
  

(academic)	
  talks	
  and,	
  indeed,	
  getting	
  to	
  know	
  them,	
  I	
  have	
  been	
  surprised	
  
that	
  they	
  seem	
  not	
  to	
  have	
  acknowledged,	
  evoked	
  or,	
  possibly,	
  embraced	
  
the	
  move	
  to	
  collaborative/‘complicit’	
  ethnography	
  advocated	
  in	
  some	
  
corners	
  of	
  Anthropology.	
  	
  	
  

Alas,	
  while	
  fully	
  admitting	
  that	
  I	
  may	
  have	
  missed	
  something	
  
earlier,	
  I	
  have	
  discovered	
  that	
  recently	
  this	
  has	
  begun	
  to	
  be	
  discussed	
  in	
  
the	
  community	
  of	
  corporate	
  ethnographers.	
  Without	
  wanting	
  to	
  make	
  too	
  
much	
  of	
  a	
  project	
  that	
  is	
  clearly	
  in	
  progress,	
  I	
  raise	
  the	
  interesting	
  case	
  of	
  
a	
  PhD-­‐trained	
  anthropologist	
  now	
  ‘…work[ing]	
  for	
  a	
  strategy	
  and	
  design	
  
firm…	
  [as]	
  a	
  professional	
  cultural	
  anthropologist	
  experienced	
  in	
  retail	
  
innovation	
  and	
  branding	
  efforts	
  for	
  major	
  food	
  retailer	
  companies	
  
(Powell	
  2015).’	
  Presumably	
  working	
  pro	
  bono,	
  Powell	
  commendably	
  
‘assembled	
  a	
  team	
  of	
  experienced	
  retail	
  designers	
  with	
  whom	
  [he]	
  had	
  
professional	
  relationships	
  to	
  work	
  alongside	
  community	
  development	
  
experts	
  already	
  at	
  work	
  on	
  a	
  small	
  market	
  makeover	
  project’	
  of	
  a	
  corner	
  
store	
  in	
  a	
  poor,	
  and	
  mainly	
  Hispanic,	
  South	
  Los	
  Angeles	
  neighbourhood.	
  
He,	
  thus,	
  ‘helped	
  facilitate	
  an	
  exchange	
  of	
  ideas	
  between	
  
professional/corporate	
  food	
  retail	
  discourse—which	
  largely	
  lacked	
  an	
  
awareness	
  of	
  how	
  to	
  affect	
  the	
  health	
  of	
  low-­‐income	
  communities—and	
  
food	
  justice	
  discourse’.	
  In	
  addition,	
  in	
  due	
  course,	
  Powell	
  serendipitously	
  
encountered	
  an	
  anthropologist	
  who	
  was	
  working	
  on	
  the	
  food	
  justice	
  
movement	
  in	
  Los	
  Angeles	
  and	
  decided	
  to	
  ‘form	
  [with	
  her]	
  an	
  
ethnographic	
  collaborative	
  team	
  to	
  study	
  the	
  project’.	
  	
  	
  

The	
  project	
  is	
  evidently	
  ‘doing	
  good’	
  and,	
  of	
  course,	
  is	
  
intellectually	
  interesting	
  in	
  its	
  own	
  right.	
  What	
  I	
  want	
  to	
  highlight	
  are	
  the	
  
multiple	
  roles	
  that	
  Powell	
  plays	
  and,	
  indeed,	
  celebrates	
  in	
  this	
  one	
  
context,	
  including	
  his	
  control	
  over	
  the	
  production	
  of	
  that	
  very	
  nexus.	
  That	
  
is,	
  while	
  mobilizing	
  his	
  expertise	
  initially	
  as	
  a	
  food	
  retail	
  discourse	
  
specialist,	
  he	
  states,	
  ‘I	
  also	
  had	
  the	
  ability	
  to	
  create	
  an	
  ethnographic	
  field	
  
site,	
  as	
  well	
  as	
  the	
  ability	
  to	
  ethnographically	
  study	
  it.	
  [Thus]	
  in	
  my	
  
capacity	
  as	
  a	
  key	
  informant	
  (to	
  my	
  own	
  project),	
  I	
  am	
  arguably	
  a	
  para-­‐
ethnographer	
  who	
  is	
  co-­‐creating	
  ethnographic	
  analysis.’	
  Over	
  time	
  Powell	
  
continued	
  his	
  specialist	
  retail	
  consultations,	
  and	
  the	
  redesigned	
  shop	
  is	
  
apparently	
  a	
  success.	
  Meanwhile,	
  as	
  the	
  ethnographic	
  work	
  on	
  the	
  site	
  he	
  
has	
  himself	
  created	
  is	
  still	
  unfolding,	
  we	
  do	
  not	
  yet	
  know	
  about	
  the	
  
entirety	
  of	
  the	
  project,	
  which,	
  after	
  all,	
  is	
  perhaps	
  meant	
  to	
  be	
  
disaggregated.	
  This	
  process	
  further	
  suggests,	
  however,	
  questions	
  
regarding	
  the	
  analytic	
  efficacy	
  claimed	
  for	
  ‘the	
  multiple	
  roles	
  inhabit[ed]	
  
in	
  an	
  ethnography	
  and	
  redesign	
  project’	
  unfolding	
  in	
  the	
  same	
  space.	
  	
  

I	
  return	
  to	
  concerns	
  regarding	
  the	
  possible	
  loss	
  of	
  anthropological	
  
knowledge	
  in	
  the	
  larger	
  move	
  toward	
  complicit,	
  para-­‐ethnographic	
  
collaborations	
  that	
  I	
  raised	
  about	
  Marcus’	
  initiatives.	
  Powell	
  links	
  the	
  
following	
  statement	
  about	
  the	
  rise	
  of	
  para-­‐ethnography	
  to	
  the	
  work	
  of	
  his	
  
corporate	
  ethnographer	
  colleagues	
  who	
  ‘…understand	
  well	
  and	
  engage	
  in	
  
[work],	
  either	
  as	
  consultants	
  to	
  client	
  groups	
  or	
  positioned	
  inside	
  of	
  



	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
   	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  Sedgwick	
  /	
  Complicit	
  Positioning	
  	
  

	
   85	
  

larger	
  organizations	
  and	
  corporations’	
  and	
  who,	
  as	
  discussed	
  above,	
  
organize	
  themselves	
  publicly	
  under	
  the	
  aegis	
  of	
  EPIC,	
  the	
  website	
  on	
  
which	
  Powell’s	
  article	
  appears.	
  He	
  states:	
  ‘[f]rom	
  technology	
  and	
  finance	
  
to	
  consumer-­‐focused	
  industries	
  and	
  the	
  non-­‐profit	
  sector,	
  a	
  general	
  trend	
  
toward	
  diversification	
  and	
  collaboration	
  is	
  prevalent…[with]…	
  these	
  
processes…	
  increasingly	
  including	
  experts	
  with	
  “para-­‐ethnographic”	
  
sensibilities—that	
  is,	
  people	
  who	
  think,	
  act	
  or	
  analyze	
  culture,	
  
community,	
  identity	
  and	
  social	
  behaviors	
  in	
  ways	
  similar	
  to	
  
anthropologists,	
  but	
  who	
  may	
  or	
  may	
  not	
  necessarily	
  have	
  any	
  formal	
  
academic	
  training	
  in	
  anthropology.’	
  I	
  would	
  ask,	
  however,	
  in	
  considering	
  
the	
  prospects	
  for	
  para-­‐ethnography,	
  if	
  authority	
  among	
  anthropologists	
  is	
  
derived	
  from	
  their	
  sensitive	
  deployment	
  of	
  substantive	
  ethnography,	
  do	
  
we	
  want	
  to	
  give	
  up	
  claims	
  on	
  this	
  expertise	
  quite	
  so	
  easily?	
  	
  

	
  

Conclusion:	
  reverse	
  infusing	
  the	
  lifeworld	
  of	
  corporations	
  	
  

Finally,	
  rather	
  than	
  a	
  sideshow,	
  the	
  tensions	
  with	
  Anthropology	
  
generated	
  by	
  the	
  work	
  of	
  corporate	
  ethnographers—in	
  studying	
  up,	
  
down	
  and	
  sideways	
  in	
  businesses—confront	
  in	
  altogether	
  refreshing	
  
ways	
  the	
  problems	
  generated	
  by	
  the	
  ‘crisis	
  of	
  representation’	
  and	
  its	
  
methodological	
  extensions.	
  Where	
  ethnographers	
  are	
  subordinates	
  to	
  
informants,	
  as	
  is	
  typical	
  of	
  research	
  in	
  business	
  settings,	
  neo-­‐colonial	
  
angst	
  might	
  be	
  put	
  entirely	
  to	
  the	
  side.	
  On	
  the	
  other	
  hand,	
  this	
  apparent	
  
inversion	
  of	
  what	
  is	
  thought	
  of	
  as	
  the	
  traditional	
  informant-­‐
anthropologist	
  condition	
  allows	
  for	
  interesting	
  reassessments	
  of	
  
anthropologists’	
  work	
  with	
  interlocutors,	
  and	
  their	
  work	
  with	
  us,	
  past	
  
and	
  present.	
  Thus	
  the	
  potential	
  exists	
  for	
  corporate	
  ethnographers	
  to	
  
speak	
  to	
  new	
  formations	
  in	
  informant-­‐ethnographer	
  relations.	
  	
  

The	
  relevance	
  of	
  unpacking	
  the	
  critical	
  role	
  of	
  businesses	
  to	
  our	
  
contemporary	
  modern	
  condition	
  cannot	
  go	
  underestimated.	
  Rather	
  than	
  
worrying	
  about	
  anthropology-­‐at-­‐home	
  and	
  the	
  suggested	
  loss	
  of	
  the	
  
efficacy	
  through	
  estrangement	
  typical	
  of	
  traditional	
  anthropological	
  
sites—working	
  with	
  ‘others’	
  in	
  foreign	
  spaces	
  and,	
  in	
  the	
  process,	
  
eventually	
  making	
  the	
  strange	
  familiar—I	
  would	
  suggest	
  that	
  the	
  
questions	
  raised	
  by	
  that	
  problem	
  be	
  inverted	
  to	
  deepen	
  our	
  insights.	
  That	
  
is,	
  we	
  engage	
  the	
  really	
  hard	
  task	
  of	
  making	
  our	
  familiar	
  strange.	
  The	
  
work	
  of	
  corporations	
  is	
  entirely	
  infused	
  into	
  our	
  contemporary	
  condition.	
  
Are	
  we	
  not,	
  in	
  fact,	
  estranged	
  from	
  reality	
  in	
  imagining	
  our	
  modern	
  lives	
  
as	
  unfettered	
  by	
  corporations?	
  Indeed	
  the	
  fantasy	
  of	
  our	
  individual	
  
efficacy,	
  and	
  freedom,	
  may	
  be	
  the	
  most	
  important	
  work	
  these	
  
organizations	
  perform.	
  Understanding	
  that	
  our	
  resistance	
  to	
  the	
  effects	
  of	
  
modern	
  corporations	
  is	
  porous	
  at	
  best,	
  better	
  that	
  we	
  get	
  inside	
  this	
  
problem	
  through	
  fieldwork	
  of	
  ourselves	
  in	
  the	
  here	
  and	
  now.	
  And	
  better	
  
still	
  if	
  we	
  do	
  that	
  through	
  conducting	
  substantive	
  ethnographic	
  fieldwork	
  
in	
  corporations	
  and	
  exposing	
  the	
  results	
  of	
  our	
  work.	
  



Journal	
  of	
  Business	
  Anthropology,	
  6(1),	
  Spring	
  2017	
  
	
  

	
  86	
  

	
  

	
  

References	
  	
  

Baba,	
  M.	
  1988	
  ‘The	
  anthropology	
  of	
  work	
  in	
  the	
  Fortune	
  1000:	
  a	
  critical	
  
retrospective.’	
  Anthropology	
  of	
  Work	
  Review	
  18(4):	
  17-­‐28.	
  

Brun-­‐Cotton,	
  F.	
  2009	
  ‘The	
  anthropologist	
  as	
  ontological	
  choreographer.’	
  
In	
  M.	
  Cefkin	
  (ed.)	
  Ethnography	
  and	
  the	
  corporate	
  encounter:	
  reflections	
  on	
  
research	
  in	
  and	
  of	
  corporations,	
  pp.	
  158-­‐81.	
  	
  New	
  York	
  and	
  Oxford:	
  
Berghahn.	
  

Cefkin,	
  M.	
  2009	
  (ed.)	
  Ethnography	
  and	
  the	
  corporate	
  encounter:	
  reflections	
  
on	
  research	
  in	
  and	
  of	
  corporations.	
  New	
  York	
  and	
  Oxford:	
  Berghahn.	
  

Cefkin,	
  M.	
  2012	
  ‘Close	
  encounters:	
  anthropologists	
  in	
  the	
  corporate	
  
arena.’	
  Journal	
  of	
  Business	
  Anthropology.	
  1	
  (1):	
  91-­‐117.	
  

Clifford,	
  J.	
  and	
  G.E.	
  Marcus	
  (eds.)	
  1986	
  Writing	
  culture:	
  the	
  poetics	
  and	
  
politics	
  of	
  ethnography.	
  Berkeley	
  and	
  Los	
  Angeles:	
  University	
  of	
  California	
  
Press.	
  

EPIC	
  https://www.epicpeople.org/.	
  

Fabian,	
  J.	
  1983	
  Time	
  and	
  the	
  other:	
  how	
  anthropology	
  makes	
  its	
  object.	
  
New	
  York:	
  Columbia	
  University	
  Press.	
  

Fischer,	
  M.M.J.	
  2009	
  ‘Emergent	
  forms	
  of	
  life	
  in	
  corporate	
  arenas’.	
  In	
  M.	
  
Cefkin	
  (ed.)	
  Ethnography	
  and	
  the	
  corporate	
  encounter:	
  reflections	
  on	
  
research	
  in	
  and	
  of	
  corporations,	
  pp.	
  227-­‐38.	
  New	
  York	
  and	
  Oxford:	
  
Berghahn.	
  

Geertz,	
  C.	
  	
  1972	
  ‘Deep	
  play:	
  notes	
  on	
  the	
  Balinese	
  cockfight.’	
  Daedalus	
  
101:	
  1-­‐37.	
  	
  

Herzfeld,	
  M.	
  2015	
  ‘Anthropology	
  and	
  the	
  inchoate	
  intimacies	
  of	
  power.’	
  
American	
  Ethnologist.	
  42	
  (1):	
  18-­‐32.	
  

Holmes,	
  D.R.	
  and	
  G.E.	
  Marcus	
  2006	
  ‘Fast	
  capitalism:	
  para-­‐ethnography	
  
and	
  the	
  rise	
  of	
  the	
  symbolic	
  analyst’,	
  in	
  M.S.	
  Fisher	
  and	
  G.	
  Downey	
  (eds.)	
  
Frontiers	
  of	
  capital:	
  ethnographic	
  reflections	
  on	
  the	
  new	
  economy,	
  pp.	
  33-­‐
57.	
  Chapel	
  Hill:	
  Duke	
  University	
  Press.	
  

http://www.sfaa.net	
  	
  

Leach,	
  E.R.	
  1977	
  [1954]	
  Political	
  systems	
  of	
  highland	
  Burma:	
  a	
  study	
  of	
  
Kachin	
  social	
  structure.	
  London	
  and	
  Atlantic	
  Highlands,	
  NJ:	
  Athlone	
  Press.	
  

Malefyt,	
  T.	
  de	
  Waal	
  2009	
  ‘Understanding	
  the	
  rise	
  of	
  consumer	
  
ethnography:	
  branding	
  technomethodologies	
  in	
  the	
  new	
  economy.’	
  
American	
  Anthropologist	
  111	
  (2):	
  201-­‐10.	
  

Malinowski,	
  B.	
  1922	
  Argonauts	
  of	
  the	
  Western	
  Pacific:	
  an	
  account	
  of	
  native	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
enterprise	
  and	
  adventure	
  in	
  the	
  archipelagoes	
  of	
  Melanesian	
  New	
  Guinea.	
  



	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
   	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  Sedgwick	
  /	
  Complicit	
  Positioning	
  	
  

	
   87	
  

London:	
  Routledge	
  and	
  Kegan	
  Paul.	
  

Marcus,	
  G.E.	
  1997	
  ‘The	
  uses	
  of	
  complicity	
  in	
  the	
  changing	
  mise-­‐en-­‐scène	
  
of	
  anthropological	
  fieldwork.’	
  Representations	
  59:	
  85-­‐108.	
  

Marcus,	
  G.E.	
  2000	
  Para-­‐sites:	
  a	
  casebook	
  against	
  cynical	
  reason.	
  Chicago:	
  
University	
  of	
  Chicago	
  Press.	
  

Nader,	
  L.	
  1974	
  [1969]	
  ‘Up	
  the	
  anthropologist—perspectives	
  gained	
  from	
  
studying	
  up.’	
  In	
  D.	
  Hymes	
  (ed.)	
  Reinventing	
  anthropology,	
  pp.	
  284-­‐311.	
  
New	
  York:	
  Random	
  House.	
  

Nafus,	
  D.	
  and	
  K.	
  Anderson	
  2009	
  ‘Writing	
  on	
  walls:	
  the	
  materiality	
  of	
  social	
  
memory	
  in	
  corporate	
  research’.	
  	
  In	
  M.	
  Cefkin	
  (ed.)	
  Ethnography	
  and	
  the	
  
corporate	
  encounter:	
  reflections	
  on	
  research	
  in	
  and	
  of	
  corporations,	
  pp.	
  
137-­‐57.	
  New	
  York	
  and	
  Oxford:	
  Berghahn.	
  

National	
  Association	
  for	
  the	
  Practice	
  of	
  Anthropology	
  
http://practicinganthropology.org.	
  

Powell,	
  M.G.	
  2015	
  ‘The	
  para-­‐ethnographic	
  trajectories	
  of	
  professional	
  
ethnography’	
  Ethnographic	
  Praxis	
  in	
  Industry	
  Conference	
  [EPIC]	
  website	
  
https://www.epicpeople.org/the-­‐para-­‐ethnographic-­‐trajectories-­‐of-­‐
professional-­‐ethnography.	
  	
  

Rabinow,	
  P.	
  1977	
  Reflections	
  on	
  fieldwork	
  in	
  Morocco.	
  Berkeley:	
  
University	
  of	
  California	
  Press.	
  

Riles,	
  A.	
  2011	
  Collateral	
  knowledge:	
  legal	
  reasoning	
  in	
  the	
  financial	
  
markets.	
  Chicago:	
  University	
  of	
  Chicago	
  Press.	
  

Rosaldo,	
  R.	
  1989a	
  Culture	
  and	
  truth:	
  the	
  remaking	
  of	
  social	
  analysis.	
  
Boston:	
  Beacon	
  Press.	
  

Rosaldo,	
  R.	
  1989b	
  ‘Imperialist	
  nostalgia.’	
  In	
  R.	
  Rosaldo	
  Culture	
  and	
  truth:	
  
the	
  remaking	
  of	
  social	
  analysis,	
  pp.	
  68-­‐87.	
  Boston:	
  Beacon	
  Press.	
  

Sedgwick,	
  M.W.	
  2007	
  Globalisation	
  and	
  Japanese	
  organisational	
  culture:	
  
an	
  ethnography	
  of	
  a	
  Japanese	
  corporation	
  in	
  France.	
  London:	
  Routledge.	
  	
  	
  

Society	
  for	
  Applied	
  Anthropology	
  http://www.sfaa.net.	
  

Starn,	
  O.	
  (ed.)	
  2015	
  Writing	
  culture	
  and	
  the	
  life	
  of	
  anthropology.	
  Chapel	
  
Hill:	
  Duke	
  University	
  Press.	
  

Stocking,	
  G.W.	
  (ed.)	
  1974	
  The	
  shaping	
  of	
  American	
  anthropology,	
  1883-­‐
1911:	
  a	
  Franz	
  Boas	
  reader.	
  New	
  York:	
  Basic	
  Books.	
  

	
   Stocking,	
  G.W.	
  1987	
  Victorian	
  anthropology.	
  New	
  York:	
  Free	
  Press.	
  

Wallerstein,	
  I.	
  1979	
  The	
  capitalist	
  world	
  economy.	
  Cambridge:	
  Cambridge	
  
University	
  Press	
  

Wright,	
  S.	
  (ed.)	
  1994	
  Anthropology	
  of	
  organizations.	
  London	
  and	
  New	
  
York:	
  Routledge.	
  

	
  



Journal	
  of	
  Business	
  Anthropology,	
  6(1),	
  Spring	
  2017	
  
	
  

	
  88	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  

Mitchell	
  W	
  Sedgwick	
  has	
  conducted	
  fieldwork	
  among	
  minorities,	
  the	
  
aged,	
  and	
  in	
  rural	
  communities	
  in	
  Japan	
  but,	
  from	
  the	
  early	
  1990s,	
  has	
  
focused	
  ethnographically	
  on	
  Japanese	
  multinational	
  corporations’	
  
headquarters	
  and	
  subsidiaries	
  in	
  Japan	
  and	
  abroad,	
  including	
  long	
  term	
  
projects	
  in	
  Thailand,	
  France,	
  and	
  on	
  the	
  US-­‐Mexican	
  border.	
  Current	
  
fieldwork	
  includes	
  a	
  factory	
  community’s	
  ‘recovery’	
  from	
  Japan’s	
  March	
  
11,	
  2011	
  earthquake	
  and	
  tsunami.	
  More	
  broadly,	
  Mitch	
  engages	
  
anthropological	
  theory	
  and	
  methodology	
  in	
  relation	
  to	
  the	
  study	
  of	
  formal	
  
organizations.	
  He	
  holds	
  a	
  BA	
  and	
  a	
  PhD	
  in	
  Anthropology,	
  respectively,	
  
from	
  UCSC	
  and	
  the	
  University	
  of	
  Cambridge,	
  where	
  he	
  was	
  attached	
  to	
  
King’s	
  College,	
  and	
  has	
  an	
  MALD	
  from	
  The	
  Fletcher	
  School,	
  Tufts.	
  	
  Mitch	
  
has	
  held	
  positions	
  at	
  Harvard,	
  University	
  of	
  Tokyo,	
  Cambridge,	
  and	
  
Oxford	
  Brookes	
  University,	
  and	
  had	
  an	
  earlier	
  career	
  as	
  an	
  organizational	
  
anthropologist	
  at	
  The	
  World	
  Bank.	
  He	
  is	
  currently	
  Senior	
  Fellow	
  in	
  the	
  
Department	
  of	
  Anthropology	
  at	
  the	
  LSE.