of these animals. My task was to listen attentively, to ask carefully and to observe attentively in order to generate understanding. In all these events, animals are killed, but I slowly came to understand that what was of cultural significance, and therefore of anthropological interest, was how these deaths are brought about. My work, as an anthropologist, has been to reveal and to interpret the cultural significance of performances with, and killing of, animals in these events. Here, what is important is that, as an anthropologist, I had to enter the worlds of bullfighting and hunting in order to understand them from within rather than to impose meaning on them from outside.
All these events generate considerable criticism from many people who are not part of them; and those people who are part of them are often suspicious of the motives of outsiders who come asking questions. In a crude sense, they are concerned that such outsiders might have a political animal rights/animal welfare agenda and are seeking access and information in order to criticize, to condemn and to discredit the event and its people in various ways. Such concerns caused some difficulties for me when I sought access to conduct ethnographic, participant observation research. The difficulties centred on people querying who I was, what I wanted to find out, what my motives were, what exactly this sort of research would involve and what I would do with the information I gained.
Observing the corrales in Spain. (© Garry Marvin)
At the outset of my research in Spain, I had no contacts and had on one occasion to turn to a supporter or a sponsor. However, a chance meeting with someone whose father was a member of a bullfight aficionado’s social club offered me an initial step forward. I was introduced to the club, where the members were initially suspicious of someone coming from a country where it was thought that people were fiercely critical of bullfighting. However, they seemed to accept my claim that I was not there to gather evidence against a supposedly barbaric practice. Their main concerns then became about testing my seriousness, my commitment, to understanding the bullfight world. Was it worth bothering spending time with me, talking to me and helping me? My genuine interest was accepted, and I spent several hours a day, almost every day of the week, in the club. This generated the conversations I wanted and the contacts I needed to go to bullfights with knowledgeable people, to meet matadors, to spend time on bull ranches. It was my willingness to immerse myself in their world that allowed me to generate the ethnographic material I needed for the project.
Seeking entry into the world of fox-hunting was far more difficult because of the political context and because people opposed to the event had, through deception, been able to gain access in order to obtain information for their political campaigns. Was I such an ‘anti’ in disguise? Could I be trusted? After a complex process of checking and vetting, I was gradually permitted to take part in fox-hunts as a foot follower, to jump into Land Rovers to keep up with hunts, to help with tasks on a hunting day, invited to social events and to ask what I wanted of anybody. This was as fine and as complete an access as I could have hoped for as an anthropologist. I could never prove that I was not an anti in disguise, and I think it is only when I was able to give members of the hunt world my academic publications that they could begin to see what it was that I was interested in accomplishing as an anthropologist.
In all this research I have had the great privilege to enter the worlds of others, and people there have given me the opportunity, and taken the time, to help me with my anthropological interests. My responsibility as an anthropologist has always been to respect the trust and the help of those I have been able to spend time with – without them I would have had no project. This responsibility has also been, in my publications, to reveal, represent and interpret these complex social and cultural practices and worlds in ways that capture the significances they have for those who inhabit them. They have opened their worlds to me, and I, as an anthropologist, must attempt to open these worlds for others.
ACTIVITY
List all the practical, ethical and theoretical issues that Marvin and Morris have encountered in their fieldwork.
How did they gain entry into the cultures they studied?
Digital Anthropology
Digital anthropology is the anthropological study of the relationship between humans and the digital era technology. This field is new in anthropology and has different names – such as digital ethnography, social media ethnography, cyber anthropology or virtual anthropology. (Throughout this book there are references to digital anthropology; for example, see Chapter 11.) Since this is a new area in anthropology, it is necessary to take a different approach to research methods. A number of anthropologists have conducted traditional ethnographies of virtual worlds (see, for example Nardi 2010 and Boellstorff 2015 – see Chapter 11). Anthropologist Daniel Miller has carried out many ethnographies of different social media (see p. 111) and Gabriella Coleman (2014) has done ethnographic studies on anonymous hacktivist networks. Digital anthropologists who study online communities use traditional methods of fieldwork. They participate in online communities in order to learn about their cultural practices as well as conducting interviews and using quantitative data. The case study that follows, and the interviews with Sarah Pink and Crystal Abidin, give us some insight into the implications of the ethnographic approach to the digital world for anthropological research practice.
digital anthropology The anthropological study of relationship between humans and the digital era technology
social media ethnography Ethnography that engages with internet practices and content directly, but not exclusively
Social media and digital technologies are involved in countless aspects of social life for people around the globe, with different apps and platforms associated with different social activities or groups. (© pressureUA / iStock )
The anthropology of smartphones and smart ageing
This multi-sited research project, run by Daniel Miller and based at University College London, is funded primarily by the European Research Council. The project includes a team of eleven anthropologists conducting simultaneous sixteen-month-long studies in Ireland, Italy, Cameroon, Uganda, Brazil, Chile, Al-Quds (East Jerusalem), China and Japan. Launched in October 2017, with fieldwork beginning in February 2018, this collaborative five-year project examines the experience of ageing for people at mid-life – that is, those who consider themselves neither still young nor yet elderly. Its aim is to research their use of smartphones and what that teaches us about the contemporary digital world. The intention is to use these ethnographies to help develop the use of smartphones in a way that will be beneficial to people’s health and welfare so that they can become helpful at a time of life when ill-health often starts to result in a loss of capacities.
At first, the project aimed to facilitate mobile health initiatives, which mainly consist of bespoke smartphone apps aimed at helping people to deal with sickness, disease and frailty. But in the process of carrying out research, the team realized that, for health purposes, people make far more use of everyday apps such as WhatsApp and Google. They therefore switched their focus to learning from the ways in which people had adapted those apps for health purposes and, in turn, to informing health professionals how they could benefit. So a top-down
