Cefkin formatted with page numbers v. 2 


	
  

	
  
	
  

	
  

	
  
Afterword:	
  Questions	
  of	
  an	
  Anthropology	
  of	
  and	
  
Anthropology	
  for	
  Business	
  

Melissa	
  Cefkin	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
Concerns	
  about	
  positioning	
  sit	
  at	
  the	
  very	
  heart	
  of	
  anthropology.	
  While	
  a	
  
matter	
  of	
  seemingly	
  heightened	
  concern	
  recently,	
  the	
  significance	
  of	
  
positioning	
  dates	
  back	
  to	
  the	
  very	
  origins	
  of	
  the	
  discipline.	
  Malinowski’s	
  
time	
  in	
  the	
  Trobriand	
  Islands	
  and	
  Boas’	
  travels	
  to	
  the	
  Baffin	
  Islands	
  
solidified	
  the	
  shift	
  from	
  the	
  arm-­‐chair	
  analysis	
  of	
  the	
  late	
  1800’s	
  to	
  active	
  
empirical	
  investigation	
  in	
  the	
  field.	
  It	
  is	
  worth	
  pausing	
  to	
  note	
  that	
  these	
  
developments	
  happened	
  almost	
  accidently,	
  as	
  if	
  each	
  man	
  tripped	
  over	
  
experiences	
  and	
  observations	
  that	
  encouraged	
  them	
  to	
  see	
  things	
  
differently,	
  with	
  Malinowski’s	
  long	
  stay	
  in	
  the	
  Trobriands	
  as	
  an	
  exile	
  from	
  
war	
  and	
  Boas’	
  travels	
  as	
  a	
  physicist	
  and	
  geographer.	
  Boas’	
  case	
  also	
  
reminds	
  us,	
  lest	
  we	
  forget,	
  that	
  other	
  sciences	
  go	
  into	
  the	
  field	
  for	
  
research	
  as	
  well.	
  He	
  went	
  as	
  a	
  scientist	
  to	
  analyze	
  the	
  colors	
  of	
  seawater.	
  
His	
  investigation	
  turned	
  specifically	
  anthropological	
  when	
  he	
  found	
  that	
  
local	
  people	
  described	
  numerous	
  and	
  varied	
  colors	
  from	
  what	
  he	
  saw.	
  It	
  
was	
  not	
  just	
  being	
  there,	
  but	
  being	
  there	
  and	
  seeing	
  things	
  differently	
  (or	
  
really,	
  listening	
  to	
  things	
  differently)	
  that	
  matters	
  to	
  anthropology.	
  	
  

Where	
  we	
  stand	
  and	
  from	
  where	
  we	
  listen	
  and	
  speak	
  matters.	
  
There	
  are	
  at	
  least	
  three	
  things	
  at	
  stake	
  in	
  these	
  questionings	
  of	
  
positioning.	
  One	
  is	
  the	
  positioning	
  of	
  the	
  anthropologist	
  herself.	
  Where	
  is	
  
she,	
  how	
  did	
  she	
  get	
  there	
  and	
  why	
  is	
  she	
  there?	
  A	
  second	
  is	
  the	
  
positioning	
  of	
  the	
  actions	
  the	
  anthropologist	
  takes	
  to	
  produce	
  knowledge	
  

	
  
	
  
Page	
  1	
  of	
  3	
  
	
  
JBA	
  6(1):	
  121-­‐123	
  
Spring	
  2017	
  
	
  
©	
  The	
  Author(s)	
  2017	
  
ISSN	
  2245-­‐4217	
  

www.cbs.dk/jba	
  

	
  



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

	
  122	
  

about	
  the	
  subject	
  at	
  hand.	
  Is	
  the	
  looking	
  honest	
  looking?	
  Is	
  it	
  in	
  the	
  right	
  
places	
  and	
  at	
  the	
  right	
  things?	
  Is	
  it	
  enough	
  and	
  does	
  it	
  build	
  on	
  others’	
  
prior	
  thoughts?	
  (Or,	
  put	
  another	
  way,	
  is	
  the	
  data	
  valid	
  and	
  the	
  analysis	
  
theoretically	
  informed?)	
  And	
  a	
  third	
  is	
  the	
  positioning	
  of	
  the	
  discipline	
  of	
  
anthropology	
  vis-­‐à-­‐vis	
  other	
  domains	
  of	
  knowledge	
  and	
  practice.	
  If	
  we	
  
aren’t	
  a	
  professional	
  occupation	
  dealing	
  in	
  practical	
  effects,	
  on	
  the	
  one	
  
hand,	
  and	
  we	
  don’t	
  drive	
  towards	
  universal	
  laws	
  on	
  the	
  other,	
  what	
  do	
  we	
  
deal	
  in?	
  	
  

The	
  anthropologist	
  often	
  finds	
  herself	
  needing	
  to	
  manage	
  her	
  
positionality	
  across	
  all	
  three	
  of	
  these	
  stances	
  at	
  the	
  same	
  time,	
  tacking	
  
back	
  and	
  forth	
  between	
  the	
  role	
  she	
  is	
  playing	
  and	
  the	
  validity	
  of	
  the	
  
knowledge	
  she	
  produces,	
  between	
  the	
  techniques	
  she	
  engages	
  and	
  their	
  
status	
  in	
  the	
  worlds	
  of	
  both	
  practice	
  and	
  science.	
  And	
  often	
  she	
  must	
  
grapple	
  with	
  simultaneous	
  but	
  nearly	
  opposing	
  gazes	
  from	
  two	
  
directions,	
  from	
  her	
  interlocutors	
  and	
  co-­‐participants	
  in	
  the	
  field	
  and	
  
from	
  her	
  fellow	
  anthropologists	
  ‘back	
  home’	
  in	
  the	
  disciplinary	
  halls	
  of	
  
power.	
  	
  	
  

Our	
  practices	
  do	
  not	
  always	
  look	
  that	
  different	
  from	
  others	
  we	
  
find	
  inside,	
  from	
  others	
  we	
  encounter	
  in	
  the	
  field.	
  Anthropologists	
  who	
  
work	
  with	
  marketing	
  and	
  brand	
  professionals,	
  for	
  instance,	
  may	
  find	
  
themselves	
  engaged	
  in	
  something	
  of	
  a	
  semiotics	
  smack-­‐down,	
  vying	
  for	
  
who	
  can	
  render	
  more	
  insightful,	
  more	
  incisive	
  or	
  more	
  useful	
  meanings.	
  
Or	
  we	
  may	
  have	
  to	
  contend	
  with	
  the	
  fact	
  that	
  there	
  is	
  often	
  little	
  interest	
  
from	
  our	
  colleagues	
  in	
  the	
  field,	
  in	
  the	
  end,	
  in	
  how	
  we	
  do	
  what	
  we	
  do,	
  in	
  
our	
  processes	
  and	
  approach,	
  but	
  only	
  to	
  the	
  potential	
  of	
  the	
  
instrumentality	
  of	
  its	
  effects.	
  	
  

For	
  many	
  of	
  us	
  who	
  work	
  "in",	
  "with"	
  and	
  particularly	
  "for"	
  
contemporary	
  institutions	
  of	
  power	
  such	
  as	
  business,	
  worries	
  about	
  
where	
  we	
  stand	
  and	
  from	
  where	
  we	
  speak	
  seem	
  especially	
  fraught.	
  The	
  
interests	
  and	
  concerns	
  we	
  invest	
  in	
  when	
  facing	
  our	
  fellow	
  
anthropologists	
  and	
  broader	
  communities	
  of	
  scholars,	
  and	
  our	
  interests	
  
and	
  worries	
  when	
  facing	
  those	
  in	
  the	
  institutions	
  and	
  markets	
  we	
  hope	
  to	
  
affect,	
  are	
  both	
  profound	
  and	
  not	
  necessarily	
  the	
  same.	
  Today's	
  
anthropological	
  work	
  involves	
  a	
  double	
  move:	
  we	
  consider	
  not	
  just	
  the	
  
subject	
  or	
  site	
  or	
  problem	
  at	
  hand,	
  whether	
  it	
  involves	
  meat	
  packing	
  
plants,	
  sanitation	
  workers,	
  technical	
  support	
  or	
  corporate	
  strategists	
  and	
  
change	
  management	
  leaders	
  but	
  also	
  our	
  own	
  relationship	
  to	
  it.	
  We	
  
project	
  both	
  forward	
  and	
  back	
  to	
  evaluate	
  what	
  we	
  know,	
  how	
  we	
  know	
  
what	
  we	
  know,	
  and	
  where	
  it	
  fits	
  in	
  the	
  scheme	
  of	
  broader	
  scholarly	
  
interests,	
  knowledge	
  and	
  debates.	
  

So	
  perhaps	
  it	
  is	
  no	
  wonder	
  that	
  we	
  repeatedly	
  ask	
  these	
  questions	
  
about	
  the	
  positionality	
  of	
  our	
  work,	
  our	
  knowledge,	
  and	
  our	
  discipline.	
  
But	
  who	
  actually	
  cares	
  about	
  the	
  answer	
  to	
  this	
  question?	
  What	
  kind	
  of	
  a	
  
question	
  is	
  it,	
  really?	
  In	
  my	
  experience,	
  having	
  spent	
  decades,	
  now,	
  



	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
   	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
   	
   	
   	
  	
  	
  	
  Cefkin	
  /	
  Afterword	
  

	
   123	
  

amongst	
  scientists,	
  strategists,	
  managers	
  and	
  workers,	
  the	
  kind	
  of	
  self-­‐
reflexivity	
  engendered	
  by	
  this	
  set	
  of	
  questions	
  is	
  simply	
  not	
  typical	
  of	
  
those	
  who	
  occupy	
  the	
  realms	
  we	
  work	
  and	
  reside	
  in.	
  It	
  is	
  by	
  no	
  means	
  
wholly	
  absent—I’ve	
  come	
  to	
  appreciate	
  that	
  people	
  in	
  the	
  worlds	
  we	
  
intersect	
  in	
  are	
  certainly	
  smart	
  enough	
  and	
  thoughtful	
  enough	
  to	
  ask	
  
them—but	
  it’s	
  not	
  a	
  typical	
  part	
  of	
  their	
  professional	
  practice,	
  so	
  why	
  is	
  it	
  
ours?	
  	
  

We	
  have	
  counted	
  on	
  both	
  ‘being	
  there’	
  and	
  seeing	
  and	
  listening	
  
differently	
  for	
  our	
  anthropological	
  endeavor.	
  The	
  combining	
  of	
  
ethnographic	
  observation	
  with	
  questions	
  of	
  meaning	
  and	
  social	
  and	
  
cultural	
  forms	
  are	
  what	
  make	
  the	
  discipline	
  of	
  anthropology.	
  And	
  yet	
  we	
  
have	
  also	
  come	
  to	
  expect	
  more.	
  Embodied	
  in	
  the	
  many	
  and	
  sustained	
  
inquiries	
  into	
  questions	
  of	
  positioning	
  and	
  the	
  calls	
  both	
  for	
  and	
  against	
  
studying	
  up,	
  sideways,	
  adjacent,	
  with,	
  in,	
  for,	
  and	
  against	
  are	
  pushes	
  for	
  
an	
  accounting	
  of	
  ourselves	
  and	
  of	
  our	
  work,	
  accountings	
  of	
  both	
  our	
  being	
  
there	
  and	
  of	
  our	
  ways	
  of	
  seeing.	
  We	
  are	
  faced	
  with	
  questions	
  not	
  only	
  of	
  
why	
  we	
  are	
  there	
  and	
  what	
  we	
  are	
  doing,	
  but	
  also	
  (though	
  often	
  only	
  
subtlety	
  and	
  tangentially),	
  is	
  it	
  enough	
  and	
  is	
  it	
  right?	
  These	
  questions	
  are	
  
in	
  part	
  questions	
  of	
  epistemology,	
  to	
  be	
  sure,	
  and	
  here	
  we	
  share	
  with	
  
other	
  sciences,	
  both	
  human	
  and	
  natural,	
  in	
  asking	
  after	
  the	
  basis	
  of	
  our	
  
knowledge	
  claims	
  and	
  the	
  methods	
  we	
  use	
  to	
  arrive	
  at	
  them.	
  But	
  they	
  are	
  
also	
  questions	
  of	
  politics.	
  Whose	
  interests	
  do	
  we	
  serve?	
  	
  

This	
  reality	
  should	
  give	
  pause	
  to	
  anyone	
  continuing	
  to	
  imagine	
  
anthropology	
  to	
  be	
  the	
  swashbuckling	
  discipline	
  of	
  adventure.	
  These	
  
many	
  entanglements	
  suggest	
  instead,	
  for	
  better	
  or	
  worse,	
  a	
  rather	
  
treacherous	
  walk	
  down	
  an	
  infinite	
  hall	
  of	
  mirrors.	
  	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  

Melissa	
  Cefkin	
  (PhD	
  Anthropology,	
  Rice)	
  leads	
  a	
  social	
  science	
  research	
  
team	
  at	
  the	
  Nissan	
  Research	
  Center-­‐Silicon	
  Valley.	
  She	
  explores	
  the	
  
potential	
  of	
  having	
  autonomous	
  vehicles	
  as	
  interactive	
  agents	
  in	
  the	
  
world	
  and	
  works	
  with	
  technologists	
  and	
  designers	
  to	
  build	
  socially	
  
acceptable	
  and	
  meaningful	
  autonomous	
  vehicles.	
  Prior	
  to	
  Nissan,	
  she	
  was	
  
at	
  IBM	
  Research	
  where	
  her	
  research	
  focused	
  on	
  studies	
  of	
  work	
  and	
  
organization.	
  She	
  also	
  has	
  experience	
  in	
  design	
  and	
  consulting,	
  and	
  was	
  
previously	
  a	
  Director	
  of	
  Advance	
  Research	
  and	
  User	
  Experience	
  at	
  Sapient	
  
Corporation,	
  and	
  a	
  senior	
  research	
  scientist	
  at	
  the	
  Institute	
  for	
  Research	
  
on	
  Learning.	
  Melissa	
  served	
  on	
  the	
  Board	
  of	
  Directors	
  for	
  the	
  
Ethnographic	
  Praxis	
  in	
  Industry	
  Conference	
  (EPIC),	
  as	
  well	
  as	
  conference	
  
co-­‐organizer.	
  She	
  is	
  the	
  editor	
  of	
  Ethnography	
  and	
  the	
  Corporate	
  
Encounter	
  (Berghahn	
  Books	
  2009)	
  and	
  numerous	
  other	
  publications.	
  A	
  
Fulbright	
  award	
  grantee,	
  she	
  enjoys	
  frequent	
  presentations	
  at	
  
conferences,	
  serves	
  regularly	
  on	
  editorial	
  and	
  review	
  boards,	
  and	
  has	
  
served	
  a	
  committee	
  for	
  the	
  National	
  Academies	
  of	
  Science	
  and	
  on	
  a	
  
number	
  of	
  editorial	
  boards.