The Chicago guide to collaborative ethnography.(Book review)

LASSITER, LUKE ERIC. The Chicago guide to collaborative ethnography. xiv, 201 pp., bibliogr. London, Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press, 2005. [pounds sterling]8.50 (paper)

It seems that every generation of anthropologists experiences an ethical crisis that beckons a heated dialogue regarding the nature and mission of the discipline. The most recent of such crises regarding anthropological 'interference' in native affairs came to the forefront with the publication of Patrick Tierney's Darkness in El Dorado (2000), which sparked a spirited, if not fragmented, debate regarding the extent to which anthropologists should engage the publics with whom our research is concerned. In The Chicago guide to collaborative ethnography Lassiter consolidates this dialogue in arguing for an 'approach to ethnography that deliberately and explicitly emphasizes collaboration [with native consultants] at every point in the ethnographic process without veiling it--from project conceptualization, to fieldwork, and especially, through the writing process' (p. 16, emphasis original). Accordingly, Lassiter frames this argument with two propositions: (1) that all ethnography is 'collaborative' to some extent, and (2) that, admittedly, the holistic vision of collaborative ethnography that he proposes here is not always appropriate for all anthropological research endeavours.

The book is divided into two parts, the first more historiographical in tone, and the second more praxis-orientated. In the first two chapters Lassiter explores the concept and implications of collaborative, or 'reciprocal', ethnography, arguing that such an ethnographic practice must challenge the metaphor of 'reading over the shoulders of natives' to embrace native consultants as 'co-intellectuals'. By extension, argues Lassiter, this epistemological shift often forces the ethnographer to assume the role of an activist--a tendency that may always be present, but in this case is redirected to meet community needs rather than prioritizing the pursuit of knowledge for the sake of knowledge.

Chapters 3 and 4 are particularly important from a historiographic standpoint, as Lassiter provides a detailed perspective on the conditions that prompted early anthropologists to scrutinize the pervasive facade of scientism that has often restricted the discipline. Emphasizing the experiences of early American anthropologists (such as Franz Boas, James Mooney, and Alice Fletcher), Lassiter points out that their initial colonial pursuits under the auspices of the Bureau of American Ethnology (BAE) often challenged the consciences of these researchers, who were confronted with the political realities of the American Indian communities they were to study. In chapter 4, Lassiter sets the stage for the historical transformations that accompanied post-Second World War political and intellectual challenges to modernism in anthropology. He notes that feminist and postmodern anthropologists, although seemingly diametrically opposed at times, offered new perspectives on power and ethnographic authority, thereby challenging the credibility of anthropological interpretations rendered by a single non-native author. These emergent approaches to a new critical or experimental ethnography, argues Lassiter, must be considered in unison with earlier Americanist applications based on community agendas to open the anthropological canon to an approach that truly encompasses divergent epistemologies.

Part II, then, is devoted to describing potential models for collaborative ethnography according to the various ethical and practical components ...